No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-22 Board of Selectmen PacketOF R~gor~ G' Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street s39°INCORQO¢~ Reading, MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us Website: www.readingma.gov TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-9043 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Selectmen FROM: Peter 1. Hechenbleikner DATE: June 17, 2010 RE: June 22, 2010 Agenda 3a) The Volunteer Appointment Sub-Committee did not interview candidates for the Economic Development Committee because one of the candidates for reappointment is Meghan Young Tafoya. The two regular members of the EDC - Meghan Young Tafoya and Michelle Williams are interested in being reappointed. There are two candidates for the EDC - Marie Higgins and Ben Yoder. Miss Higgins is not available for an interview, Mr. Yoder will be present. 3b) Advisor Committee on the Cities for Climate Protection - Ron D'Addario has applied to be a member on the Advisory Committee on the Cities for Climate Protection. He will not be present for an interview. The Board of Selectmen members all know Ron well. 3c) Town Forest Committee - Mark Wetzler, former member of the Conservation Commission and a current member of the Trails Committee, has applied for membership on the Town Forest Committee. The Board members are all familiar with Mark and he will not be present. 4a) Reorganization - The Board will need to determine who will be Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary beginning with this meeting and going through FY2011. As customary, I will Chair the meeting for purpose of appointment of the Chair, and that new Chairman will then take over the meeting. 4b) Town Counsel would like to be reappointed. There is a review process by Camille Anthony and Richard Schubert, but that will not be completed in time for the reappointment process. 4c) Sheila Clarke will be in to give an update to the Board on the Fall Street Faire. 4d) Sheila Clarke and members of the Economic Development Committee will be present to present the "Passport" document to the Board of Selectmen. This document is not included in your packet, but will be emailed over the weekend to the Board members by Sheila Clarke. 4f) Joshua Eaton Master Plan - The Master Plan, both the map and the text document are included in your packet. This document is the culmination of efforts by a committee and was previously reviewed by the Board of Selectmen. 4g) Request for Parking Restrictions on Hopkins Street east of Main Street - The abutter to the new Sam's Bistro Cafd has sent a letter which is in your packet suggesting restrictions on parking on Hopkins Street east of Main Street. The Police Department and Engineering Division have determined that Hopkins Street is adequate in width for parking on one side still allowing two lanes of traffic to pass. 4h) Policy Establishing a Town Forest Committee - The policy in your packet has been revised based on discussion by the Town Forest Committee and the joint Town Forest Committee/Board of Selectmen discussion at your last meeting. 4i) I have modified the temporary policy on the Volunteer Appointment process to make it consistent with the Board of Selectmen policy documents. This would make the current process permanent after the trial period over the last year. 4j) Revised LIP Regulations are in your packet. These reflect review and modification by Town Counsel, the Community Services Director and Selectman Camille Anthony. If the Board is comfortable with the document as presented with any changes that you would like to make, we will schedule this for a hearing and adoption during the summer. 4k) The T own Engineer has prepared for your approval the documents on the drainage easements on Howard and West Street, as approved by Town Meeting in April. PIH/ps APPOINTMENTS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010 Economic Development Committee 2 Vacancies 1 Associate Appointing Authority: Board of Selectmen Orig. Term Present Member(s) and Term(s) Date Expires Sheila Clarice, V. Chr. 536 Haverhill St. (06) 2011 Russell T. Graham 68 Maple Ridge Rd. (06) 2011 *Meghan A. Young-Tafoya, Chr. 40 Oak Street (06) 2010 George Rio 11 Estate Lane (08) 2012 *Michele R. Williams 31 Melbourne Ave. (07) 2010 *John Russell (Associate) 91 Spruce Road ~ (06) 2010 Candidates: Ben Yoder Maria Tilaro Higgins - rescheduled for 7/13 *Indicates incumbents seelcing reappointment 3a~ 2010 MAY 28 All It: 58. APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS/COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS Name: VE ooy-- 60-r-3 t-1-AIT-Q/l~ Date: (Last) (First) (Middle) Address: 16 `b DYE i`. Tel. (Home) Tel. ( 03 53 t Z- ~c e 11~ Is this number listed?)_ Occupation: # of years in Reading: Are you a registered voter in Reading?_ I rC~ e-mail address: bevic--yot i- reG9v%fl A t C,OV I Place a number next to your preferred position(s) (up to four choices) with #1 being your first priority. (Attach a resume if available) Animal Control Appeals Committee -Aquatics Advisory Board -Audit Committee -Board of Appeals' -Board of Cemetery Trustees Board of Health -Board of Registrars Bylaw Committee -Celebration Committee -Cities for Climate Protection -Commissioner of Trust Funds -Community Planning & Development Comm. -Conservation Commission -Constable Contributory Retirement Board Council on Aging -Cultural Council Custodian of Soldiers' & Sailors' Graves Economic Development Committee imEG nYIIV-i -Finance Committee Historical Commission -Housing Authority -Human Relations Advisory Committee -Land Bank Committee _MBTA Advisory Committee Metropolitan Area Planning Council Mystic Valley Elder Services RCTV Board of Directors Recreation Committee RMLD Citizens Advisory Board Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Committee -Town Forest Committee -Trails Committee -West Street Historic District Commission Other Please outline relevant experience for the position(s) sought: fKMW fpvi5 " rYWMW,,en Or l~tf~Wi wn~2✓r's + ~aa~rtz"7er~1 it-i Kim 1U&-jVi4f3►' W&00 & c) n sL[~f`3(~"IG~~y'~ r~('c~1Gtt~1'~~ t~1./~~'E-1~i~1`1 QL~°~Jt~i~ ~~'?a1NLr~' Wit GONG€~W ) 87y 1 PO Q. -Al. C'~j~~~' Ni?1 ~t(a6~Vt ~ J We MWPJ ~ aDjf0 f 1 & peSti VfC' ~O 3 BEN CLAYTON YODER 94 Oak Street * heading, MA 01867 703.577.0123 o bencyoder@gmail.com EXPERIENCE DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP Boston, MA Specializing M strategic business solutions for Fortanre 5'00 companies; wide range of experience across life sdencesr biotech, pharma, medical device, and other mdustnes. 2009-Present Manager, Strategy & Operations. ® Led distribution strategy for $4.513 biotech company; targeted improved service levels, cold chain integrity, and organizational alignment between US/European manufacturing and Latin American distribution operations. ® Conducted device tracking assessment for $8.013 manufacturer- of implantable defibrillators and pacemakers; evaluated quality, returns, and recall considerations. 2006-2009 Senior Consultant, Strategy & Operations. ® Delivered HINT pandemic flu vaccine production/delivery plan for $13B international vaccine manufacturer, including scenario analyses coordination across operations, production, clinical trials, regulatory; finance, etc. a Led Program Management Office (PMO) governing $1.8MM supply chain transformation project at $2.06 OTC Pharmaceutical company. Managed workstreams across inventory optimization, sales & operations planning (S&OP), and demand/supply reconciliation. Developed detailed serialization strategy business case model for top global pharma co. ® Performed manufacturing optimization study at $1.113 North American office furniture company; developed recommendations to optimize capacity, reduce operating costs, etc. ® Developed strategic market assessment and go-to-market plan for Cybersecurity and Smart Grid solutions for electric utilities at top aerospace and defense contractor. . ® Developed executional strategy to transform client business model from manufacturing- based to Performance Based Logistics (e.g., service-based) at top aerospace and defense contractor., NEW MARKET INVESTORS (NMI), LLC Vienna, VA Real-estate developmentfirm specializing in arranging debt mil equity, instituting feasibility plans, and managing construction projects. 2004-2005 Director of Development. Managed all aspects of construction and project management for mixed and low-income housing and community development projects in neglected neighbor- hoods of Washington, DC. ® Secured over $8MM in public/private funding for various community revitalization projects. ® Directed redevelopment of 14-acre parcel of public property into 150+ units of for-sale, mixed- income housing; revived ilin community center with $2.51010 grant and redeployed construction resources; developed $11MM,104-unit apartment building for low-income seniors. THE CLARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP Bethesda, MD/Washington, DC 2001-2004 Project Engineer/Estimator/Bid Captain. Coordinated predevelopment, acquisition, and construction of large-scale projects for $2B general contractor. e Managed team of estimators on public and private construction projects exceeding $250MM; including Top Secret US Government clients (Department ofDefense Top Secret Clearance). • Coordinated. building and site layout for, downtown office tower, managed day-to-day operations; earned "2003 Project Team of the Year" Award as a member of a five person management team. EDUCATION THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA Chapel Hill; NC KiENAN-FLAGLER BUSINESS SCHOOL Master of Business Administration Concentrations in Global Supply Chain Management and Real Estate Development Kenan Flagler Merit Fellowship Recipient THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA. Charlottesville, VA Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering Chi Epsilon Civil Engineering Honor Fraternity . , -ADDITIONAL.- __Six Sigma Green Belt. Member of American Society of Civil Engineers, Surfrider Foundation. DATA Interests include cycling, hiking, surfing, and guitar. 30 08 June 2010 Reading Board of Selectmen c/o Pete Heckenbleikner Town Manager 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 RE: Economic Development Committee (EDC) Associate Applicant - Ben Yoder On behalf of the EDC it is my pleasure to recommend Ben Yoder as an associate to the Economic Development Committee. Ben recently attended one of our meetings, and the entire committee was impressed with his background and' the skills that he immediately brought to our discussion. It is our understanding that his application will be reviewed by the full Board on the 22nd of this month. Ben has let us know that due to business conflicts he is not sure if he'll be able to attend this meeting; with that knowledge the EDC immediately recommended that we submit this letter of recommendation with our full support., Thank you fo.r your consideration of -this fine. candidate. With sincere regard, Meghan, Meghan Young-Tafoya Chair, Economic Development Committee mdu~g , (1 20 Reading Fall Street Faire "Patriots Tailgate" Event Proposal and Operating Procedures In light of the tremendous success of the. inaugural Reading Fall Street Faire last year, the committee is proposing to keep the faire fresh with new ideas. Therefore, in place of last, year's Oktoberfest, we are interested in hosting a Patriot's Tailgate Event. Components Location - The BOS passing of the Outdoor Dining Policy has enabled us to request the use of a portion of the municipal parking lot behind Main Street (aka the CVS Parking lot). This is also where the Antique Car Show will be held and we believe the two events will create great synergy: There would be snow fencing/barriers surrounding the entire perimeter of the tailgate event space leaving one entrance/exit for patrons and a police detail. There would be 10 x 10 tents to cover the vendors/participants in case of inclement weather. We are also in the process of speaking with Doyan's to sponsor/provide the large screen televisions to show the game, but still need to confirm a cable feed. The Patriots are playing the Cincinnati Bengals at 1:00 p.m. (Go Patriots!!!). • Music- we have secured the Wood End Elementary School "Parents Band" to perform and there will be tables and chairs for patron seating. • Insurance- the event will have a separate rider for liquor liability and be covered under the policy the committee is taking out for the Faire. Alcohol- The RFSF Event Co-Chairs had a meeting with the Town Manager, Chief of Police, and Director of Reading Coalition Against Substance Abuse. to get feedback on last year Oktoberfest, due to it being the first event allowing alcohol outside in Reading. The feedback from all parties was overwhelmingly positive and everyone agreed the event was executed responsibly. We discussed the two major challenges from last year, which were pricing and not allowing families into the event. As we all realize, ours is a community with many young families and they wanted to be part of the event. Therefore, it was suggested and supported by the group, to allow children under the age of eleven into the area accompanied by their parents. ■ Tickets will be $10.00 which will entitle you to (3) 86z. servings (equivalent to 2 beers.) This is a decrease in our initial pricing last year of $20.00 and the total ounces of beer allowed remain the same. ■ There will be (2) different types of beer served from a completely self-contained truck supplied by the distributor. ■ Patrons will be required to present a valid ID at the entrance and it will be swiped utilizing equipment provided by J.B.S Professional Consulting. A bracelet with (3) tickets attached will be placed on their wrist and children will be stamped. ■ There will be two people at the entrance at all times - 1 checking ID's and 1 taking money ■ Anyone serving alcohol will be Tips, Barcode, or SafeServe certified. The RCASA Director has generously offered to train volunteer staff. ■ Tips certified staff will remove a ticket from the bracelet with each sample disbursed. • Food- We are very excited to have Reading's own Fire Department, "The Red Hot Chili Peppers", selling their famous chili during the event. The tent will be located within the tailgate area. • Safety- the police detail will be from 12:000 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. 0 Trash - There will be recycling and trash barrels within the event. The DPW will do hourly pick-ups. Reading Fall Street Faire 4 ~ `t i L J Y aa Our inaugural Faire was a "spectacular success" with over SO vendors and approximately 4,000 in attendance from many surrounding communities. We expect a 20°6 expansion and want you to be a part of it! We will be advertising in all local and regional print media, local cable television, and many online listings.to draw even bigger crowds. We .have expanded and added events and entertainment to include: -Live Music, Dance & Street Performers -Expanded Children's Area/Kids Zone -Patriots Tailgate Party -Classic Antique Car Show -Best In Show Competition -Chili "Cook-off" Contest and much, much, more Please see our website for online registration and event details www.readingfaIIstreetfaire.com Join us September 12th, 2010 12pm Spm Reading Fall Street Faire Sponsorship Opportunities Our inaugural Faire was a "spectacular success" with over 80 vendors and approximately 4,000 in attendance from many surrounding communities. The Reading Fall Street Faire began as a way to celebrate our beautiful downtown restoration project, promote local businesses, and bring our community together. Your sponsorships help fund the Faire. Any additional proceeds raised go into a fund used solely for downtown improvements. To date, funding has supported the Chamber of Commerce for additional garland for the lightpoles, a Brand/Wayfinding campaign, and a Facade Improvement Program for local businesses. We hope you will consider supporting our event and community while also getting great exposure to thousands of attendees. All sponsorships and donations will be recognized on our website, in press releases, the event brochure, and your banner will be hung on the day of the Faire at your chosen venue. $150 Level Medical Station Kid's Zone Refreshments RFSF Friend $250 Level Children's Area Events Face Painting Basketball Game Small Moon Bounces Alleyway Brick Hula Hoop Contest 1/2 Hour Stage Time Kid's Zone Balloons $500 Level Fun Flush Obstacle Course Freeze Dance Reading's Got Talent Chili Cook-off Competition Large Moon Bounce Climbing Rock Wall $1,000+_ Level Children's Train Stages Antique Car Show Patriots Tailgate 5 K Kick Off Road Race RFSF Friend Please see our website for online registration and event details 11 www.readingfalistreetfaire.com V6 Reading Fall Street Faire Sponsor /Vendor Registration Form All sponsorships are tax deductible Contact: Company: Email: Address: Phone: Website: Please circle which level or event you are interested in sponsoring: $150 Level $250 Level $500 Level $1,000+ Level Medical Station Kid's Zone Refreshments RFSF Friend Children's Area Events Face Painting Basketball Game Small Moon Bounces Alleyway Brick Hula Hoop Contest 1/2 Hour Stage Time Kid's Zone Balloons Fun Flush Obstacle Course Freeze Dance Reading's Got Talent Chili Cook-off Competition Large Moon Bounce Climbing Rock Wall Children's Train Stages Antique Car Show Patriots Tailgate 5 K Road Race RFSF Friend If you are interested in being a vendor, please circle one of the following: Reading Business or Organization - $100 booth fee Outside Reading Business or Organization - $150 booth fee All vendors are required to have a 10 x 10 tent. We do have a package where you can rent a tent, table, and chair for $100. Do you need to rent? Please make all- checks payable and mail to Town of Reading c/o Reading Fall Street Faire, Event Chair, 536 Haverhill Street, Reading, Ma 01867' Please see our website for online registration and all vendor/event details www.read ingfallstreetfairecom (2.,5 LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF READING To the Inhabitants of the Town of Reading: Please take notice that the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading will hold the follow- ing public hearings on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts: Joshua Eaton Master Plan. 8:30 p.m. Policy Establishing the Town. Forest Committee 9:15 p.m. Policy Establishing the Volunteer Appointment Process q:30 p.m. A copy of the proposed doc- dments regarding these topics ii~; available in the Town Manager's Office, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA from 8:30 4-m. - 5:00 p.m., M-F and is ,ittached to the hearing notice on the website at WWW.readingma.gov R All interested parties are i~, vited to attend, or may submit .heir comments in writing or by gmail prior to 4:00 p.m.. on June 2~2, 2010 to townmanag- ~r@ci.reading.ma.us. By order of e Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager 6/15 Page 1 of 1 Schena, Paula From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 3:30 PM To: Schena, Paula Subject: FW: Eaton Plan Attachments: Joshua Eaton School Conceptual forBOS ph.pdf; Eaton Master plan written.pdf Board of Selectmen June 22 Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading MA 01867 Please note new Town Hall Hours effective June 7, 2010: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Friday: CLOSED phone: 781-942-9043 fax 781-942-9071 web www.readingma.gov email townmanaaer@ci.readino.ma.us Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at http://readingma- surv_eY virtualtownhall.net/survey/sid/de8bdaal6db9e6b4% From: Feudo, John Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 11:20 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Eaton Plan Hi Peter, The Recreation Committee voted on May 12th to accept the Joshua Eaton Plan as proposed on the plan by a vote of 5 -0-1. 1 have attached the plan and the written component as well. Please let me know when the public hearing will be set. I would like to invite the committee so they may be recognized by the BOS. RYB is prepared to make significant field renovations once the plan is approved. They would like to begin with renovating Field A at Eaton. Once we have a plan approved we can talk more about that. Hope you enjoyed your vacation. John John A. Feudo . Recreation Administrator Town of Reading Office: 781-942-9075 Fax: 781-942-5441 'fei udo@ci.readina.ma.us Website: www.readinctma.gov/recreation Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey athttp://readingma- surveyvirtuaItownhall.net/survey/sid/de8bdaa16db9e6b4/ 5/28/2010 o. u Q m z 5 w a ~ <`t UW= Z Z s Cl) o~ u w' C\ y 1 z , c I+ ?pyV., -g'yBW ~ r / \ r IZD Z Joshua Eaton Field and Play Area Master Planning Committee The Joshua Eaton Field and Play Area Master Planning Committee included the following membership: Patricia DeGaravilla, Joshua Eaton School Principal,' Frank Driscoll, Commissioner, Reading Youth Softball Charlie Ehl, Commissioner, Reading Youth Baseball Maura Rhodes, PTO President Andrew Grimes, PTO Member John Feudo, Staff Liaison- Recreation Administrator Backizround. Findines and Current Conditions: The Joshua Eaton field and playground are currently used for`rr any activities by a variety of groups of residents. The school uses the park-and playground on a daily basis for P.E., wellness classes, recess and as an area `for students to congregate.before the school opens. Students also play there every day after class and the school holds a picnic there in the fall and a fun run each spring. The playground is also used, informally by residents of the neighborhood throughout.the year: Reading" Youth Baseball :and Reading Youth Softball use the field through the spring and summer months for games and practices. During the fall season, the field sees activities such as after school sports run by the Recreation Division as well as an annual field hockey clinic.,Reading Pop Warner football uses the field for practices in the early part of their season beford~the clocks turn back. Like many of the fields in Reading, Joshua Eaton field is over-scheduled leaving very little restore and recovery time. Therefore, over the years of use, there has been little time for rest and repair. There are many ruts and lips on the ball fields. In general the infield gives more of an appearance of a circle then an actual ball field. The drainage of the field is generally decent; however a heavy rain storm will leave some areas of the field.in an unplayable condition. There are three sets of concrete bleacher steps that are used for both access to the field as well as for spectator seating. There is no current ADA ramp to get to the lower field. This will need to be addressed in the plan. The upper area currently features an old wooden playground that was installed in 1997, a paved basketball area featuring two baskets as well as a small tot swing area on the back side of the school that has become obsolete. There is limited open space on the upper part of the play area which kids use for various activities. There were several major areas the committee focused on; • Parking and Traffic Flow • The backstops need to be taller and have an overhang for fan protection and better ball capture. • There is a drainage issue for both ball fields that will,need to be addressed. • Renovation of infields • Other Site Amenities Parking and Traffic Flow Existing Conditions: The committee found traffic flow and parking to be one of the ,central challenges for the field and play area. The current lot holds between 55 - 60 vehicles. This seems to work well for the school day, but is neither adequate nor ideal for evening or weekend activity. The committee also heard; the concerns onbehalf of the large student "walker" population coming from the Oak Street'side of the building that they must cross a very busy school driveway. The committee asked the Parking, Traffic,, and Transportation Task Force to look at several different options for the redesign of the parking. The PTTTF was also asked to look at the Oak St. crossing issue,., The Parking, Traffic, Transportation Task Force (PTTTF) recommended that the Joshua Eaton School consider changing the use of the front of the school as a one way driveway that would cut across the front of the school. There was no practical solution for the Oak Street issue as the'driveway abuts private property and there are limited ways to correct it. The school will look into painting the driveway to mark a walkway area and continue the current practice of setting up traffic cones in this area during peak hours. Recommendation: Use option as plotted on engineered conceptual design (appendix A) of lot. The lot would expand over the current basketball court area allowing easy flow of foot traffic to the lower field area and playground. The island that allows for the turn-around would be reshaped for more parking. This would afford an extra 16 -18 total parking spaces to the area. ~S' The island closest to the west side of the lot should be raised by 8" curbing to protect the green space as well as prevent vehicles from passing over the landscape and disturbing the trees. The center island shall be paved and flat. This will allow for easier plow access as well as make the lot more functional. The HC spot should be moved to the closer side of the school and connect with the crosswalk and sidewalk for accessibility. After discussion with school principal, the committee decided not to entertain the concept of a drive through loop in the front of the school as it presents many logistical issues inside and outside of the"school. The school will work with the RPD Safety Officer to look at alternatives for crossing guards. Finally the committee recommends installing a swing gate" to restrict'.yehicle access to the paved play area. The gate will only be present off of the„back parking lot. The back entrance of the school off of Summer Ave. should become a one way access for leaving the property and should only be accessed by emergency vehicles in the opposite direction. The Field Existing Conditions: The committee looked at the baseball field~area°as an open canvas. The field currently hosts youth baseball and;softball play as well;as Pop Warner football in the fall. There is a walking path of stone dust that` connects Pennsylvania Ave to the back of the school. The fields themselves ate.in disrepair with many lips and ruts that have been created over time. There is an inherent flooding issue that occurs near the staircase closest to the "B" field bench. There.is also evidence of runoff on field "A" near Indiana Ave. Both backstops-lack height and overhang and do not adequately capture foul balls or protect spectators. There are three sets of stone~steps the serve as bleachers and access for the field. These concrete steps'ate, in decent condition. There is no ADA ramp to gain access to the field. Recommendation:' " After careful consideration, the committee felt it was best to keep the fields as they are currently set. However, the drainage of the field needs to be corrected and should be looked at by qualified engineers. Both backstops will ultimately need to be replaced and are in the current capital improvement plan (FY 17 & FY20). They should be replaced by a standard heavy gauge 12 ft chain link fence with a minimum of a Oft over hang. Benches should be placed behind the chain link fence for player protection. Field A (closest to the school) shall move approximately ten feet. forward to accommodate more space behind the backstop for patrons, maintenance equipment and a for the potential for a batting cage. This should be done in conjunction with the backstop to ensure that the backstop is able to capture the balls. The stone bleachers shall remain intact and repaired as needed. The committee recommended the walking path be.pave.d and formalized though the center of the field. Many students use that path to gain access to the school each day. Although the path is not plowed by Town workers in the winter, students still use the path frequently which keeps them away from the roadway. An ADA path/ramp should be available for access to the playground area as well as the lower.felds. The ball fields themselves need to be reestablished. The infield. should be completely dug out and refilled with a proper base and proper clay levels. Other site amenities Due to the basketball court being moved to create more parking, the coutwould be relocated on'newly paved area. The area would als&allowfor other activities. The playground and swing area will be shifted toward 'tle middle of the top of the hill. The space for the playground should be approximately 65"X 95 and include a swing area. One to two Town standard picnic tables are also desirable .near the"play area for parents and families to congregate. The committee talked about extending the use "of the field by entertaining the concept of a batting cage. With practice times.being at a premium on grass fields, much of the youth baseball and softball'season are 'focused on playing games. Practices opportunity are far and few between due to scarce resources of fields and growth across the all of the youth organ izations.,.This.was probably the most'controversial topic from the public hearing. The final proposed location would be set directly behind the A field backstop, furthest away from neighboring houses. It would be single style cage (20 X 60 ft) with heavy duty black petting on the,interior with`poles and no fencing. The net could come down in the wintertime. With no fencing there is a reduction of noise and less maintenance. The committee felt this would be a practical and long term solution enhancing playing opportunity. Conclusion: In conclusion; the committee worked hard to take a holistic approach to the process. With the three major users of the field at the table, the committee was able to address many of the current concerns to make the Joshua Eaton play area more functional without interrupting or sacrificing the natural beauty of the park. The public hearing was very telling in that the neighbors were interested and excited about the changes. There is a commitment from RYB and RYS to continue to improve the conditions of the ball fields. The Joshua Eaton PTO has appointed a playground 1 committee to begin design and fundraising for.FY12. Currently, Reading Youth Baseball is prepared to begin field renovations as soon as the Master Plan is approved. The Board of Selectmen will hold a second public hearing before final approval of the plan. U April 28, 2010 .2010 MAY -6 AM 10: 45 Mr. peter Heckenbleicker Town Manager Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 .-Dear. Mr. Heckenbleicker: As an abutter to the new restaurant, Sam's Bistro, I am writing to express conceins about potential parking issues prior to the opening of the bistro. As you are aware, the intersection at Hopkins and Main is already one with the potential for danger. Traffic studies have been done, and the town has wanted to put in a traffic light to eliminate congestion at that intersection. With the added traffic that the gas station across 28 and the Dunkin Donuts customers bring, it is quite a safety issue. We are aware of several accidents at that intersection. To alleviate congestion and to ensure safety the intersection was made aright turn only-from the-Sam Bistro's side of Hopkins, ; and had prior to-that.-change been a right tam only.on.the opposite side.. Although that change was made, many tunes travelers:still.turn-left from Hopkins onto Rte. •28--from ' Sam's Bistro. It is currently quite difficult to travel to and from the residential neighborhood on Hopkins currently, and the new bistro will only add to the existing situation. During the construction of Sam's Bistro, police .have responded to the safety issue that was created from worker's parking on Hopkins Street. When making 'a right from Rte. 28 onto Hopkins, cars were forced to make a wider turn because the view was obstructed, and traffic also backed up to make matters worse. As a resident, 1 know that myself, I encountered a few close calls malting that turn to go home. Upon the opening of the restaurant if patrons chose to park on the street, the problem will only grow as added congestion and obstacles will be added to an already existing problem. When I contacted you some time ago regarding a safety issue created by Dunkin Donuts' employees parking on Hopkins, you sent out a letter to the owner, and the problem was rectified. We appreciated your assistance at th6 time, and we are asking for help from you and the town to make Hopkins Street a street where parking is not allowed. As the process involved in getting approval for a new venture seems to include ensuring that the establishment involved follow-the guidelines for building to.accoinmodate- seating vs. parking, we feel.that the owner of Sam'-s•Bistro-should provide adequate;. parking for his patrons within the boundaries of 'his. property., l VI\.C c S t,~.n n Z 1 t~~ fP e r s~ We do not wish to speak for others that reside on Hopkins so we are asking that you possibly inquire as to their view on the issue. But in speaking for my family, we would I° like to request that at least the portion of Hopkins from 28 through our street address of 113 (on both sides) become a no parking area. We would like to request that this issue be - presented to the appropriate town officials as soon as possible. We would like to feel that the neighborhood will not be affected negatively by the opening of Sam's Bistro, and that our family, and guests traveling to and from our home and our neighbors homes arrive safely. In addition, it was discussed at a planning meeting that the neighborhood should not be i npacted negatively whenever possible. Not only would Sam's Bistro patrons parking on Hopkins create a new dynamic to the safety of the intersection and neighborhood, but would impact us negatively by having cars come and go at all hours of the day. In addition, the fact that the premises will be serving alcohol fuels added concern. Thank you in advance for your input and guidance with regard to this important issue. Thanks you for you time. Please contact us the appropriate avenue to air our concerns. Sin r /(atri ia. I'aabneh Ja.-{ 113 Hopkins Street Reading, MA 01867 i++• r Ln ~v U LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF READING To the Inhabitants of the Town of Reading: Please take notice that the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading will hold the follow- ifig public hearings on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 -in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts: Joshua Eaton Master Plan 8:30 p.m. Policy Establishing the Town Forest Committee 9:15 p.m. Policy Establishing the jolunteer. Appointment Process q:30 p.m. e . A copy of the proposed doc- dments regarding these topics it; available in the Town lilanager's Office, 16 Lowell ~treet, Reading, MA from 8:30 4.m. - 5:00 p.m., M-F and is dttached to the hearing notice on the website at www.readingma.gov R All interested parties are ii~ivited to attend, or may submit their comments in writing or by email prior to 4:00 p.m.. on June ~,2, 2010 to townmanag- c r@ci.reading.ma.us. By order of Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager y ! . 15-- - DRAFT Amendment Board of Selectmen Policies 2.2.8 - Town Forest Committee Town Meeting in 1930 established the "Committee on Re-forestation" which we now, refer to as the Town Forest Committee. Article 4-10 of the Reading Home Rule Charter provides for the appointment by the Board of Selectmen of a Town Forest Committee. The purpose of this policy is to establish the structure and purpose of the Town Forest Committee. There is hereby established a 5 member Town Forest committee whose members shall be appointed for three (3) year terms, so appointed that as close as possible to an even number of terms shall expire each year. The Board of Selectmen shall give consideration to applicants with the following credentials when selecting and appointing members of the Town Forest Committee: • Knowledge of the community • Familiarity with and interest in the Town Forest • Experience with open space preservation. and/or land use management • Interest and knowledge in protection of wildlife habitats, forest ecosystems, wetlands, trails, outdoor recreation, and soil and water resources. The Town Forest Committee shall serve as the stewards of the Town owned lands owned as the Town Forest land. As stewards of the Town Forest, the Town Forest Committee shall undertake the following tasks with and in cooperation with appropriate Town staff- • With staff and input by the community, coordinate the development of a Town Forest Stewardship Plan and a Town Forest Master Plan which will act as guides in future decision making. • Maintain ongoing files of information pertaining to the Town Forest, using the most current available technology. • Develop and adopt rules and regulations for the Town Forest. • Coordinate scheduling as appropriate for the use of all or a portion of the Town Forest by various community groups The Town Forest Committee shall administratively fall under the Department of Community Services. Staff as available shall be assigned by the Town Manager to work with the Town Forest Committee. Adopted--l-40 g~ LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF READING To the Inhabitants of the Town of Reading: Please take notice that the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading will hold the follow- ing public hearings on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 .in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading; Massachusetts: Joshua Eaton Master Plan 8:30 p.m. W Policy Establishing the Town Forest Committee 9:15 p.m. Policy Establishing the Volunteer Appointment Process qj:30 p.m. r A copy of the proposed doc- dments regarding these topics it available in the Town Manager's Office, 16 Lowell ~treet, Reading, MA from 8:30 4.m. - 5.:00 p.m., M-F and is dttached to the hearing notice on , the website at www.readingma.gov All interested parties are i6vited to attend, or may submit their comments in writing or by email prior to 4:00 p.m: on June ~12, 2010 to townmanag- Ek@ ci. reading. ma.us. By order of 6 Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager ( . ----Ev15 E--- ( Policy Establishing a Volunteer Appointment Sub-Committee (VASC) 1.1.10 The Board of Selectmen hereby implements the following process in order to address the following 2 issues related to the Board of Selectmen consideration of and appointment to the various Boards, Committees, and Commissions (BCC) of the Town of Reading for which the Board of Selectmen has responsibility to appoint.: 1. The amount of time taken by the Board of Selectmen and volunteers for this process has been extraordinary and not necessarily productive 2. The depth of interviews given time constraints does not allow the Board of Selectmen to do a thorough job of interviewing. The process will be as follows: 1. Incumbents will be asked whether or not they wish to be considered for reappointment 2. Applications for Potential new Board, Committee and Commission (BCC) members will be solicited and received. 3.- The Board of Selectmen shall appoint a 2 member Volunteer Appointment Sub-Committee (VASC) at the time that Board of Selectmen liaison assignments are established. No member will serve on the VASC for 2 consecutive terms. 4. The VASC shall schedule meetings to interview all potential BCC members, including any incumbents that wish an interview, and any incumbents that the Board of Selectmen or the VASC wishes to interview. This process will be used for the "annual" appointment process as well as any appointments that come up during the year. The meetings of the VASC will be posted and open to the public. 5. The VASC will inform all candidates for appointment or' reappointment of the slate of candidates for each BCC that will be recommended to the full Board of Selectmen. 6. The VASC will transmit a slate of candidates for each.BCC to the entire Board of Selectmen along with a list of all candidates who had applied for each BCC. A copy of the application form and/or. resume for any new candidate will also be provided to the entire Board of .Selectmen. 7. For, the annual appointment process the VASC will present the recommended slate of candidates to the Board of Selectmen in early June as a "consent" item on the agenda. Any member of the Board of Selectmen may ask for any BCC recommendation to be removed from the consent item for consideration by the full Board of Selectmen. Any candidate for a position to a BCC may also ask the Board of Selectmen to consider the BCC for which they applied to be removed from the consent item for consideration by the full Board of Selectmen. The consent item with any remaining BCC appointments will then be considered and voted in its entirety. 8. Any BCC appointments pulled from the consent item will then be scheduled for interview during a succeeding Board of Selectmen meeting, and the appointment process to that BCC will be by the full Board of Selectmen. Adopted / /10 O -Page 1 v' ~ AV DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ARTICLE 5 - COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICIES Section 5.2 Local Initiative Program (LIP) Regulations 5:2.1 Purpose The Local Initiative Program ("LIP") is a state housing program that was established to give cities and towns significantly more flexibility in their efforts to provide low and moderate income housing by permitting the town to provide non- financial assistance. Projects undertaken through the LIP must, as part of the application to Department of Housing -and Community. Development ("DHCD"), have the written endorsement of he Board of Selectmen as the "chief elected official" of the Town. Deleted: the Board In a LIP project, the Town becomes a partner and proponent of the project. Therefore the Board of Selectmen needs to be assured that its participation in the project fully meets the Board's expectation for the production of low and moderate income Deleted: e cousin in the Town of Reading and is consistent with the Town's Housing Plan, Master - Deleted: housing ii Plan, and Open Space Plan. It is the intent of the Board of Selectmen to encourage applications for affordable housing under the LIP program and 'in order to give the Board of Selectmen and the Community an opportunity to have early input into affordable housing developments'Deleted: , these these regulations are hereby established to set forth the substantive and procedural requirements for review, of LIP applications submitted to the Board of Selectmen, 5.2.2 Review process Upon notification by an applicant that it would like to propose an affordable housing project under LIP, the Board of Selectmen shall refer the applicant to 1e Town Deleted: the Town Planner who will coordinate review of the project and shall at the completion thereof, bring forward a report for the Board of Selectmen's consideration. This review process is intended as a preliminary review to assist the Board of Selectmen in deciding whether to endorse the project by issuing a letter of support to be filed with the LIP application to DHCD. The review process is not intended to either extend or delay the time frames otherwise, allowed for a LIP or Comprehensive Permit process and will not prejudice the Deleted: and will formal comprehensive permit process. The review process shall begin with the submittal of a 20 copies of the preliminary or concept plan depicting the design of the project to allow for early review thereof while its design is still flexible. To facilitate this preliminary review, the Town Planner shall have the authority to request that the applicant meet at least once with the q i I Town of Reading Development Review Team (DRT), and, if needed, with the following entities, boards and commissions in order to obtain their preliminay comments: a. Community Planning and Development Commission; b. Conservation Commission; C. Board of Health; d. Police and Fire Departments e. Engineering Division f. any other board of department that the Town Planner believes would provide assistance in the preliminary review; and g. abutters to the project. Materials to submit for DRT and Board of Selectmen Review must include owner name, applicant name, certified plot plan, site plan showing the contours of the site and the footprint of all proposed buildings, roads, and parking, wetlands delineation, open space, front and rear elevations for each building, a description of the proposed units, number of units, and proposed rental or sales prices Prior to any DRT meeting, the Town Planner will send a written request to. each such board or commission directly that it review the preliminary design and concept of the project and provide written comments. The scope of review at these meetings is intended to be a review of the preliminary design and concept of the. project and is not intended to be viewed as a final approval of the project by any board or commission. The Town Planner shall compile the comments and work with the applicant to develop a design concept for presentation to the Board of Selectmen which concept shall include a discussion of the following: a. fiscal impact of the project on~Town Sel_vices; _ b. public benefits of the project; c. number of affordable units to be provided and restrictions to be instituted for long term affordability; d. Site design and engineering issues; e. traffic issues; f. the infrastructure necessary to support the project;, g. off-site ~nrprovements; and - h. scale and size ofproposed development At a time or times to be mutually arranged by the Town Manager and the Applicant, a presentation of the LIP conceptual plan shall be made to the Board of Selectmen for review and consideration. The Board of Selectmen may request from the applicant or town board or commission any other information which it deems necessary in order to review and evaluate the project. The Board of Selectmen shall then determine whether to endorse the project and issue a written letter of support. Deleted: d,e Deleted: on- Deleted: and Deleted: improvements Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: . 5.2.3 No Waiver This process in no way relieves the applicant, upon receiving a site eligibility letter, from then having to submit an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") for a comprehensive permit pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40B, §§21-23. This process also does not prohibit the ZBA from soliciting its own comments from other town boards, commissions and committees nor from undertaking its own review process. Owner Occupancy Requirements All units sold under a home ownership LIP program shall be owner-occupied. Affordable Unit Design, Location, Access, Timinu The affordable units shall be indistinguishable from the market-rate units and shall be comparable in initial construction quality and exterior design to the market-rate units. The affordable units must have access to all on-site amenities. Affordable units shall be dispersed throughout the project. All affordable units must be constructed and occupied not later than concurrently with construction and occupation of the market-rate units, and affordable units in phased development projects shall be constructed and occupied in proportion to number of units in each phase of the project. The total number of bedrooms }n the affordable units must be in the same_ proportion to the number of units in each phase of the project. Local Preference - Deleted: s Deleted. (Ellen to provide language on 7D% localpreference)¶ Affordable units created by a LIP will be marketed to potential buyers with Local Preference, including to Reading residents, family of current residents; town and school employees including, ts & children of Reading d paren Lanusi. esidents, employees of Reading esses, and veterans. Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Indent:. Left: 0" Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Font: 12 pt Deleted: ¶ V 1 $:Tech;nical, School ..emlalo~-ees.,c7f Reading busineSSCS; aild-,vcierans;~ Town, of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, NIA 01867-2683 Fax: (781) 942-5441 PUBLIC WORKS Website: www.ci.reading.ma.us (781) 942-9077 June 17; 2010 Board of Selectmen 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Re: Acceptance - Howard Street Drain Easement Dear Selectmen, Attached for your review and acceptance please find copies of the Howard Street Drainage Plan and executed copies of the grants of easement from the following private,property owners: HOWARD STREET DRAINAGE'EASEMENT EASEMENT PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS EASEMENT. NUMBER . AREA LS. F. E-1 MCLAUGHLIN RONALD P. & KATHLEEN M MCLAUGHLIN 115 HOWARD STREET 1,879.4 E-2 PETRIN RONALD L. & GLORIA A PETRIN 119 HOWARD STREET 2,156.5. . E-3 CONNORS ROBERT M. & KAREN A RICHARD 107 HOWARD STREET 1,355.4 E4 LESSARD LEO E. & MARGARET M LESSARD 127 HOWARD STREET 168.6 E-5 BOWE BRIAN & SUSAN BOWE 178 WEST STREET 5,121.7 The existing drainage swale that runs between Howard Street and Keith Road is presently under private ownership and transports roadway runoff from West Street (Countryside Lane to Howard Street),. Wentworth Road and Howard Street, The.proposed drainage. easement will enable the Town to perform drainage improvements, repairs and maintenance of the drainage system thereby insuring proper management of runoff from public roadways.. Warrant Article 25 :of tho Annual Town Meeting held on April 26, 2010 granted' authorization to the Board of Selectmen to accept conveyance of this drainage easement. Since y, eor Z ouras, P.E., Town Engineer Cc: Peter Hechenbleilmer r DRAINAGE EASEMENT si N P4 N a) cn 3 x Ln 4J P4 0 P4 We, Ronald P. McLaughlin and Kathleen M, McLaughlin, husband and wife, as. tenants by the entirety,, both of 115 Howard Street, Reading, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, for full. and valid consideration of-One' Dollar ($1.00):,_grant to the Town of Reading, a municipal. corporation with an address of 16 Lowell Street, Reading,. Massachusetts, an easement'over the area shown as"Area E1", consisting of approximately 1,879.4 square feet, on a plan entitled "Plan of Drainage. Easeme t - Howard Street, Reading Massachusetts" prepared by Town of Reading Massachusetts,. Department of Public Works Engineering Division and dated February 2.1 2010, to enter upon said easement area for the purposes of construction, reconstruction, use, repair, maintenance, inspection,. removal, relocation,, operation and replacement of the drainage channel and systems. Being a portion of property conveyed to Ronald P'. McLaughlin and Kathleen M. McLaughlin by deed of Michael Jon Aalto Jr. and Debra Ann Aalto, dated 29th day of November 2005 and recorded with . the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds, Book 46572, Page 499: . da of , Witness my , hand and seal this 1 y 2010. 411411&4 -()6T LA, Commonwealth of.Massachusetts Middlesex, ss: Then.personally appear ed.the above named Ronald P. McLaughlin ..and Kathleen M: McLaughlin and proved their identification through satisfactory evidence, which were m/~~ and acknowledged that they signed the foregoing instru ent voluntarily for its stated purpose on this '13 day of Q. ,2010. 6 ,,pppgn►Iryp, ar~~~y.PRY . El( J" ua'% 5P -a 6 J, i,AA sJ Notary Public d. My Commission Expires : - a l -f ~1j//IIi1111NN . ~J ~ DRAINAGE EASEMENT b~ a a) a) ~4 4J b N 3 x rn a) w 0 P P4 We, Ronald L. Petrin and Gloria A. Petrin, husband and wife, as equal tenants in common, both of 119 Howard Street, Reading,' Middlesex~County, Massachusetts, for full and valid consideration of one Dollar($1.00), grant to the Town of. Reading, a municipal corporation with an address of.16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts;.an -easement over the area shown as"Area E2", consisting of approximately 2,156.:5 square, feet, on a plan entitled "Plan of Drainage' Easement - Howard' Street, •Reading Massachusetts prepared by Town of Reading Massachusetts, Department of Public Works Engineering Division and dated February 2, 2010, to enter upon said.easement'area for the purposes of construction, reconstruction, use, repair, maintenance, inspection, removal, relocation, operation and replacement of the drainage channel and systems. Being a portion of property conveyed to Ronald L. Petrin and Gloria A.. Petrin by deed of Ronald L. Petrin and Gloria A'. Petrir} dated 9th day of April 2004 and recorded with the MiddlesexSouth" District, Registry of Deeds, Book 42494, Page'191. ff Witness any hand and seal this4 day of /A 2010. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Middlesex, ss. Then personally appeared the above named Ronald L,.y-Petrin and Gloria A. Petrin and proved their identification through satisfactory evidence, which were and acknowledged that they signed the foregoing instrument voluntarily for -its stated purpose on this _ j_ day of _O?Orc.A ,-2'010. 1AD Notary Public My Commission Expires: ~n 3 J DRAINAGE EASEMENT t: ' G ro a) x 4. a) I-I 4J U) 3 x •r 0 1J ~4 a) Pa 0 a' We., Robert M. Connors and Karen A. Richard,. husband and wife, as tenants by the entirety, both of 107 Howard Street, Reading, Middlesex County; Massachusetts, for full and valid consideration of One Dollar($1.00), grant to the Town of Reading, a municipal corporation with an address of 16 Lowell Street,. Reading., Massachusetts, an easement over the area shown as"Area E3", consisting of approximately 1, 355.4 square .feet, . on a plan entitled "Plan of Drainage Easement - Howard Street, Reading Massachusetts" prepared by Town of" Reading Massachusetts, Department of Public Works Engineering. Division and. dated February 2, 2010, to enter upon said easement area for the purposes of construction; reconstruction, use, repair, mainterance, inspection; removal, relocation, operation and•replacement of the drainage channel and systems. Beingg a portion of property conveyed to Robert.M. Connors and Karen A. Richard by deed of J & C.S.G.. Corporation, a. Massachusetts Corporation, dated 18th day of May 1990 and recorded with the Middlesex South District Re.gistry.of Deeds, Book 20551, Page 064. Witness my hand and seal this 6! day of /utG4VG~'! , 2010. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Middlesex,'ss. Then personally appeared the above named Robert M. Connors and Karen A. Richard and...proved their identi zcation through satisfactory evidence, which' were /1# ~Ylllet /I 4p'--, and acknowledged that'they signed the foregoing instrument voluntarily for its stated purpose.. on this day of MA*Th ; 20.10. ~ c V/ 7 Notary. P;~ lic My Commission Expires : /0~' / DRAINAGE EASEMENT We, Leo E.'.Lessard and Margaret M.. Lessard, husband and wife, as.tenants by the entirety,.both of 127 Howard Street, Reading,. Middlesex County, Massachusetts, for full and valid c:)nsideration~ of One -Dollar ($1. 00) , grant to the Town of Reading, a'municipal corporation with an address of 16 Lowell Street', Reading, Massachusetts, an easement over the area shown as"Area E4", consisting of approximately 16.8.1square feet, on a plan entitled "Plan of Drainage Easement - Howard Street, Reading Massachusetts" prepared by Town of Reading Massachusetts, Department of Public Works Engineering Division and dated February 2, 2010, to enter upon said. easement area for the purposes of construction, reconstruction., use, repair; maintenarne,. inspection, removal, relocation, operation and replacement of the drainage channel and systems. Being a portion of property conveyed to Leo E. Lessard and Margaret M. Lessard by deed of Karl A. Stubelis and. Elizabeth Stubelis, dated 14th day of June 1999.and recorded with the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds; Book.30289, Page 581. Witness. my hand and seal this day of h7A'Vl ~ '.701.0' , 2010. a) a) Corrmonwealth,of Massachusetts V Middlesex, ss. Then personally appeared the above named Leo 8. Lessard and Margaret M. Lessard and proved the sr identification through satisfactory evidence, which were(?~ S L.(C, and' acknowledged that they' signed the foregoing instrument voluntarily N. for its stated purpose on this '~6--rtta day of 6&ARC I , 2010. m P4 Notary Public P4 My. Commission pires: GERARD DIFRUSCIA Notary Public 1 i' ► commonwealth of MassachusdIs My Commission Expires November 26, 2010 DRAINAGE EASEMENT We, Brian Bowe and Susan Bowe, husband and wife;. as tenants by the entirety, both of 178 West.Street, Readings Middlesex . County, Massachusetts, for full and valid cDnsideration of one Dollar($1.00), grant to the Town of Reading; a municipal corporation with an address. of 16 Lowell Street,.. Reading, Massachusetts, an easement over the.area shown as"Area E5", consisting of approximately 5,122.2 square feet, on.a.plan entitled "Plan of Drainage Easement- Howard Street, Reding Massachusetts" prepared by Town of Reading Massachusetts, :Department of Public Works Engineering Division and dated February 2, 2010, to enter upon said easement area for the purposes of construction, reconstruction, use, repair, maintenance, inspection, removal, relocation, operation-and replacement of the drainage channel and systems. Being a portion of property conveyed to Brian.Bowe and Susan Bowe by deed of Paul V: Flynn Jr. and Mary G. Flynry dated 26th day of August 1994 and recorded with the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds, Book 24818, Page 088. Witness my hand and seal this Z 'd.ay of ,2.010. U _ U ' n U i o. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. ' Middlesex, ss. Then personally appeared the above named Susan Bowe and proved their identification through satisfactory evidence, which wereZ -mass Ori'ver License-and acknowledged that they signed the u foregoing instrument voluntarily for its stated purpose on this 22"~ day of Apr; 2010. 5 Notary Pub 16 My Commission Expires : Witness my hand and seal' thisy 4day of--V-"., 2010. Commonwealth-of Massachusetts p Middlesex, ss. Then personally appeared the above named8rian.Bowe and x proved their identification through satisfactory evidence, which were. Ip -mass Driver Ute_, se and acknowledged th4t they signed the 4 fo going instrument voluntarily for its stated purpose on this Z day of _ ri 2010. Notary Pub Ii . My Commission Expires: ~4 0 P4 0 P4 It W , e a~ 4Q~v t, [oa ~~2 aW« u~ ~`s5W ~g<b ' ~ ~ ~~a aka=C a 06 G ~ a Ei~ ~ ,~pG cN r W k q3 = k &d~ s SB CE ~ n c u;t z g 4 K.o~ - .G [ W zip A ~nr 6 f~ \ El s . 1 _ m5,[ r a Board of Selectmen Meeting. May 25, 2010 For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these Minutes reflects the order in which the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the. order in which any item was taken up by the Board. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Conference Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Ben Tafoya, Vice Chairman James Bonazoli, Secretary Camille Anthony and Selectman Richard Schubert. Also in attendance were Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur, Town Engineer George Zambouras, DPW Director Jeff Zager, and the following list of interested parties: Mark Warner. Reports and Comments Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments - Selectman Richard Schubert asked about the Aquatics Advisory Board information and correspondence included in the packet. The Town Manager indicated that in accordance with the agreement with the YMCA, the Aquatics Advisory Board will be eliminated within a couple of years anyway and in discussion with the Recreation Administrator, the YMCA, and confirmed by Selectman Camille Anthony, the sense was to eliminate the Aquatics Advisory Board now but have the YMCA aquatics staff meet with the Recreation Committee periodically. Selectman Camille Anthony noted that there were two applicants for the Aquatics Advisory Board and, hopefully, we'will have some other areas of interest that they might volunteer for. She also indicated that the tree boosters program has begun. There are a number of trees in Downtown adopted for watering this summer, and the tree boosters need instructions from Town staff. Vice Chairman James Bonazoli noted that he attended the Economic Development. Committee where they talked about: ♦ sign bylaw enforcement. (This will be discussed later this evening.) ® the Passport to Reading which the Chamber of Commerce is printing, 0 outreach to commercial property owners Mawn, and Lynch, and ♦ South Main Street. Chairman Ben Tafoya noted that he attended the CPDC meeting regarding Oaktree and the sign bylaw. Oaktree has done a shadow study, improved articulation in the back of the building, placed trees in the parking lot, and discussed the need for the alleyway/sidewalk and two way traffic. They will discuss the issue of two way traffic with abutting property owner Hodson. The completion date is unknown but construction will begin in the spring, 2011. They should wrap up their local approval process in July of 2010. Chairman Tafoya recommended asking the Historical Commission about a name for the alleyway, and asked whether we should make it a public street. Vice Board of Selectmen Meeting=May 25, 2010 - Page 2 Chairman James Bonazoli asked whether the process could be improved. Chairman Tafoya also noted that Stop & Shop is proposing to redesign their sign. Members of the Board asked about the Memorial Day Parade, and what time they should be at the American Legion. Selectman Richard Schubert suggested a Border Road site visit, and invited Selectman Camille Anthony to be involved in the process. Town Manager's Report The Town Manager gave the following report: Administrative Matters ♦ Special Election re: Meals Tax - June 23rd ♦ Memorial Day Celebration ♦ MBTA Signs o New Town Hall Hours to serve you better 0 128/I93 Surveying ♦ Board of Selectmen appointment process Community Development ♦ Reading Fall Street Faire ♦ Non-Conforming Signs ♦ Beacon Court 40b ♦ . Walkable Reading is placing "decorated" bicycles at the three Downtown bike rack locations (Town Hall, Simms and Walgreen's) o Cedar Glen - has apparently been sold. Public Works ♦ Restoration of Annual Water Main Flushing Program - June 1 st o Downtown Tree Booster Program - To adopt Downtown tree watering for the Summer of 2010 - 17 of 55 trees are adopted - staff has visited with all of the abutting Downtown property owners or merchants. Construction projects in progress or to.be done this year (between now and June 30, 2010): ♦ Done - School Street, Lincoln Street, Sandra Lane, South Street Main to Hopkins Street, Scotland Road - Landscape Contractor has installed loam and hydro seeded all areas. o Paving in Progress - Bear Hill Road, North Street, Pinevale Avenue and Juniper Circle, binder has been installed, contractor is in progress of raising structures. to accept final wearing course. o Micro-Chip Seal - Mid to late Spring - Hopkins Street (Main to Wakefield Town Line) and two to three other streets. o Skim Coating of Local Streets - Lewis Street. ♦ Memorial Park - Basketball and tennis courts sub-base installed and graded. The Pine tree, to be removed, at the tennis court cannot be removed until August as red tail hawks are nesting. (A migratory bird protected under a federal program.) This will delay the completion of the tennis courts. Skating ponds have been shaped, sub-drains and stone sub-base have been installed. The liner is expected to be installed in approximately three weeks. In process of installing additional Board of Selectmen Meeting - May 25, 2010 - Page 3 site drainage. Will start removing loam for pathways and installing electrical conduit. ♦ Fishing Pier - Lobs Pound Mill'- The contractor for the fishing platform has installed the additional parking spaces, and has poured the concrete pad for the bench near the river. He has not been on site for several weeks - probably waiting for the meadow near the river to. get dry enough to install the walkway and platform and guardrail. He started just after the March floods when the meadow was under water. ♦ Trail Construction - Bare Meadow - Trails Committee installed the first section of the boardwalk in April and liked the concrete piers. We ordered enough for the rest of the boardwalk and a short section near Haverhill Street that is also wet. The route was started out last weekend, and there will be additional world days on May 8th and 15th - hopefully, ending with completion of the boardwalks. Other trail-hardening was done last Fall with application of stone aggregate in soft areas. We also need to install sign boards, blazes and directional information, and plant the meadow where it is eroding - to be done in June. Grant period ends June 30th, and we hope to meet that deadline. ♦ Memorial Park - Basketball and tennis courts demolished. Work underway for new tennis court. One drain line installed from Harrison Street to manhole between the two ponds so ponds can be reconfigured - old drain line is in the way and will be removed. Topsoil has been stripped from the lawn above the ponds where they are to be expanded. Topsoil is being stripped from the floors of the ponds and stockpiled separately. The north pond has been wet for the last few days, which may be limited progress there. I have not seen the south pond since it was stripped so do not know whether water is also present there. ♦ Washington Park Playground - Since the last update, the Friends of Washington Park have had two successful fundraisers = one at Christopher's Restaurant which made $900.00, and another at Fuddruckers which raised approximately $300.00. The playground has been ordered and the target installation range is June 15th - 30th. The construction of Washington Park Playground will take approximately three days, and will be located as advised in the WP Master Plan. The brick campaign continues. Thus far,' we have sold approximately 40 bricks, and the goal is to sell 100. We will continue the initial brick campaign until late Summer, and then establish a patio and walkway using the bricks to lead to the playground. Proceeds of the brick campaign will allow for purchase of picnic tables and benches and other amenities. ♦ Killam School Playground - The Killam Playground has been advertised and we are in the midst of getting playground proposals from capable companies. The PTO has virtually accomplished its goal of raising $15K (about $l K short). The Killam PTO will assist in selecting a final playground structure, and it will be located based on the Killam master plan. I hope to be able to award a contract in June, and have the playground installed around the beginning of August. This installation may be done as a supervised community build so the install date will not be clear until the contract is awarded. ♦ _Master Plan for Joshua Eaton Playground - Completion late May. Board of Selectmen hearing - June 22nd. Board of Selectmen Meeting; - May 25, 2010 - Page 4 ♦ Barrows Site Master Plan - Process will begin in the Summer after Recreation staff have completed the JEMP, and gotten Summer activities started. Dates and Events: ♦ Friends and Family Day (aka Town Day), June 19th ♦ Election - June 23rd ♦ Fall Street Faire - September 12th Public Comment - There was no public comment. Proclamations/Certificates of Appreciation Certificates of Appreciation - Water Emergency - The Town Manager noted that the Town of Reading along with many other communities in the Boston Metropolitan Area have gone through a "boil water" order when a MWRA water main ruptur ed. He commended the collaborative working relationships among all departments of the Town, and the Board of Selectmen awarded Certificates of Appreciation to the following: Health Division Elder Services Larry Ramdin Jean Delios Joan Vitale Marie Ammer Darlene Foley Ruth Boyd Dina McCarron Dawn Folopoulos Casey Mellin Diane Luther DPW Jeff Zager Mike DeBenedetto Paul LaFave Mike DeBrigard Peter Isbell Gary West Peter Tassi Matt Faucette William Lentine Jim Richardson Brian McFadden Jeff Cummings Bob Stark Bob Kennedy Arthur Menezes Fred MacKinnon Dave Chiaradonna Jonathan Reid Ron Laskey Mike Pulson Glen Dakata Thomas Zwicker Tom Doyle Mike Pontone Greg Odin Robert DeMarco Fire Department Chief Greg Burns Captain Kenneth Campbell Firefighter Dana Ballou Captain Philip Boisvert Firefighter David Roy Acting Captain Paul Jackson Firefighter Sean Devlin Lieutenant Richard Nelson Firefighter Brian Ryan Firefighter Stephen Pelrine Firefighter David Gentile Police Department Chief James Cormier Officer Keith Hurley Lt. Richard Robbins Officer Chris Voegelin Lt. David Stamatis Officer Derek Holmes Officer Matthew Edson Officer Anthony Caturello Officer Kevin Brown Dispatcher Victoria Avery Board of Selectmen Meeting=May 25, 2010 - Page 5 Officer James Collins Officer Robert MacHugh School Department John Doherty Mary Delai Joe Huggins Kristin Morrello Dispatcher Debra Haynes Dispatcher Susan Tapley On motion by Schubert seconded by Bonazoli, the Board of Selectmen voted to -nxra Cartifinatac of Annreriatian far the Town emnlovees who narticinated in Certificates of Achievement - Library - The Board of Selectmen presented Certificates of Achievement to Children's Librarian Corinne Fisher and Paraprofessional Allison Sloan. On motion by Anthony seconded by Schubert, the Board of Selectmen voted to approve the Certificate of Achievement for Corinne Fisher. in honor of her being inducted in the Massachusetts Library Association Hall of Fame by a vote of 4-0-0. On motion by Anthony seconded by Schubert,. the Board of Selectmen voted to approve the Certificate of Achievement for Allison Sloan for being named Paraprofessional of the Year by the Library Journal for her advocacy on behalf of Para-librarians working in Massachusetts Libraries by a vote of 4-0-0. Discussion/Action Items Granting of Easement - 767 Main Street - The Town Manager introduced Town Engineer George Zambouras who reviewed the proposal as approved by Town Meeting for granting an easement to Craig M. Brandt and Jean Brandt for sewer easement over Town property at 767 Main Street. On motion by Anthony seconded by Schubert, the Board. of Selectmen voted to approve the sewer easement for Craig M Brandt and Jean Brandt at 767 Main_ Street, as presented, by a vote of 4-0-0. The Selectmen signed the easement. Presentation of Draft Pavement Management Program - Town Engineer George Zambouras presented the draft Pavement Management Program. Members of the Board of Selectmen had questions about whether West Street is included in the program (it is included); Belmont Street improvement. in the Pavement Management Program (it is included even though this work will be done under the water capital project for the new water line); gas main trench.repair on Pleasant Street, Eaton Street, and Smith/Pleasant/ Manning Streets. The resident from 37 Temple Street acted as a spokesperson for Temple Street. The residents on Temple Street feel that there had been a commitment to improve the street Board of Selectmen Meeting May 25, 2010 - Page 6 after the Parker Middle School project was done. This was not done because Town Meeting did not approve the funding. There are a lot of public facilities that use Temple Street as the sole access including Collins Field, Parker Middle School, delivery trucks, basketball, concerts, St. Agnes Church, Unitarian Universalist Church and various construction vehicles. They advocated for reconstruction of the street and placement of curbs and reconstruction of the sidewalk. Mark Warner of 7 Temple Street indicated that with no sidewalk on both sides of Temple Street at the Woburn Street end, families were walking to church down the street. There was discussion about when Temple Street could be improved. The Department of Public Works needs to check and see how many water services need to be replaced to make that determination. The Town Manager noted that this project should be a Summertime project - either the Summer of 2010 or the Summer of 2011. The Board members talked about different options to keep the costs as low as possible but fully accomplish the project. The indication from the majority of the Board was that they wanted to do a complete project. The Town Engineer will put together different options, and get information on the number of water services that need to be replaced. Review Rubbish Collection - Potential Extension of Existing Contracts - DPW Director Jeff Zager reviewed rubbish collection issues with the Board of Selectmen. Currently, the Department is looking at two possible extensions: (1) Along with the Town of Reading, Stoneham and Wakefield, we extend the disposal contract to June 30, 2015 which is a 3'/z year extension for the Town of Reading. The terms appear to be favorable, and there is an advantage to doing this jointly on a regional basis with our neighbors. (2) Additionally, we are looking at a proposal made by our current rubbish collection recycling contractor to extend the current contract which expires June 30, 2011 for another five years. The DPW is reviewing this proposal and pricing yet with other vendors to. see whether it is advantageous. They should have that process completed in two to three weeks. Enforcement of Sign Bylaw - The Board added this item to the Agenda to follow up on the concerns raised by the Economic Development Committee. The Town, Manager reviewed the process that is currently in place with regard to enforcement of the signed portions of the Zoning By-Law. This bylaw requires compliance by all parties by July 1, 2010, and businesses have been given over 15 years to achieve' full compliance recognizing the need for amortization of non-conforming signs. The Town Manager agreed to put together a program and present it to the Board of Selectmen at their next meeting on moving forward with the enforcement process. This Sa~° Board of Selectmen Meeting - May 25, 2010 - Page 7 will include completing inventory, categorizing the inventory of violations by type of violation, clarifying with people who have already got enforcement letters (20 businesses), those situations where the CPDC is considering changes to the bylaw that would create conformity out of existing non-compliance, and ensuring accuracy of the information. Selectman Camille Anthony requested that the Minutes of the ad hoc Municipal Building Committee be distributed to all members of the Board of Selectmen as they are approved. On motion by Anthony seconded by Schubert, the Board of Selectmen voted to adiourn the meeting of May 25, 2010 at 10:45 p.m. by a vote of 4-0-0. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Board of Selectmen Meeting June S, 2010 For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these Minutes reflects the order in which the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order in which any item was taken up by the Board. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Ben. Tafoya, Vice Chairman James Bonazoli, Secretary Camille Anthony and Selectman Richard Schubert, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeL,acheur, Fire Chief Greg Burns, Town Engineer George Zambouras, Office Manager Paula Schena, and the following list of interested parties: Stephen Crook, Angela Binda, Duncan Dietz, Joanne and Mary Ann Sardone, Mark Warner, W. Douglas and Mary Kay Fox, Jan Goriansky, John Williams, Pat Lippitt, Anne Ward, Anne Hynes, Thomas Loughlin, Jim McLaughlin, Todd Petrin, Dianne Kennedy, Anne Coneeney, Mary Sullivan, Anne Hynes, Lt. Rick Nelson, Patrice Todisco, David Singer, Barbara Meade, Colleen Seferian, Al Couillard. Reports and Comments Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments - Vice Chairman James Bonazoli noted that on May 27, 2010, there was an altercation between two teams - soccer and lacrosse - over field usage. The Recreation Committee is looking for guidance regarding whether or not there should be disciplinary action. Selectman Richard Schubert asked if both teams were from Reading, and it was indicated that they were. Vice Chairman James Bonazoli noted that both sides have a point of view. The Recreation Director is the authority and he called the coaches and then called the police. The teams still wouldn't leave. Vice Chairman Bonazoli suggested using a mediator and having the coaches pay for it. Selectman Camille Anthony noted that the coaches get over zealous and forget why they are there. She also noted that if they use a Town field, then they need to follow the Town's rules. Chairman Ben Tafoya noted that the solution is not punishing the children - the coaches should suffer the consequence. Vice Chairman James Bonazoli noted that it was not only the coaches but the heads of the organizations too. Chairman Ben Tafoya asked the Town Manager if we get comments from the public on the performance of our rubbish disposal contractor. The Town Manager indicated that he would check with DPW Director Jeff Zager. Board of Selectmen Meeting - June 8, 2010 - Page 2 Town Manager/Assistant Town Manager's Report The Town Manager gave the following report: ♦ The Memorial Day Parade and cemetery preparation takes a lot of work by a lot of people - Town employees and volunteers. Thanks to all for their efforts. ♦ Special Election re: Meals Tax - June 23rd ♦ Friends and Family Day (aka Town Day) - June 19th ♦ MBTA Signs ♦ New Town Hall Hours - to serve you better. ♦ Church Snow Plowing - process with the Reading Clergy Association. ♦ RMLD 20 Year Agreement (previously approved by the Board of Selectmen) - signature sheet is in the signature folder for signing. Community Development ♦ Reading Fall Street Faire ♦ We now have a draft stewardship plan which has been prepared by the Town Forester Phil Benjamin. In an effort to make sure that all have had the opportunity to review, we have posted the draft plan on the Town Forest Committee's page on the website (under Boards/Committees/Commissions). ♦ Non-Conforming Signs ♦ The grant application to the Harpley Foundation for $8,500 for the' Mattera Cabin renovations was successful. Thanks and congratulations to Conservation Administrator Fran Fink for her excellent efforts. Public Works ♦ Downtown Tree Booster Program - to adopt Downtown tree watering for the Summer of 2010 - 51 of 55 trees are adopted plus the trees in the alleyway. ♦ MWRA water quality Consumer Confidence Report will be out by the end of June. ♦ The DPW Forestry Division has removed.two large maples at the Library which, while they looked healthy, had extensive rot internal to them. ♦ There has been an issue of a serious conflict over recreational field space, and the Recreation Committee is meeting tomorrow evening to consider how to address the conflict. ♦ Train Quiet Zone (no whistle blowing) improvements are needed, and we have hired a consultant to assist us time is short. Construction Projects in progress or to be done this year: ♦ Paving in progress - Bear Hill Road, North Street, Pinevale Avenue and Juniper Circle. Binder has been installed. Contractor is in progress of raising structures to accept final wearing course. ♦ " Micro-Chip Seal - mid to late Spring - Hopkins Street (Main to Wakefield Town Line), and two to three other streets. ♦ Skim Coating of Local Streets - Lewis Street. ♦ Additional Road Improvements - Depending on the Board of Selectmen decision on Temple Street. Board of Selectmen Meeting - June 8, 2010 - Page 3 ♦ Memorial Park - Basketball and tennis courts sub-base installed and graded. The Pine tree, to be removed, at the tennis court cannot be removed until August as red tail hawks are nesting (a migratory bird protected under a federal program). This will delay the completion of the tennis courts. Skating ponds have been shaped, sub-drains and stone sub-base have been installed. The liner is expected to be installed in approximately three weeks. In process of installing additional site drainage. Will start removing loam for pathways and installing electrical conduit. ♦ Fishing Pier - Lobs Pound Mill - The contractor for the fishing platform has installed the additional parking spaces, and has poured the concrete pad for the bench near the river. He has not been on site for several weeks - probably waiting for the meadow near the river to get dry enough to install the walkway and platform and guardrail. He started just after the March floods, when the meadow was under water ♦ Trail Construction - Bare Meadow - Trails Committee ,installed the first section of the boardwalk in April and liked the concrete piers. The route was staked out and work days were conducted on May 8th and 15th and June 5th. Other, trail hardening was done last Fall with application of stone aggregate in soft areas. We also need to install sign boards, blazes and directional information, and plant the meadow where it is eroding - to be done in June. Grant period ends June 30th. ♦ Washington Park Playground - Since the last update, the Friends of Washington Park have had two successful fundraisers - one at Christopher's Restaurant which made $900.00, and another at Fuddruckers which raised approximately $300.00. The playground has been ordered and the target installation range is June 15th - 30th. The construction of the Washington Park Playground will take approximately three days and will be located as advised in the WP Master Plan. The brick campaign continues. Thus far, we have sold approximately 40 bricks, and the goal is to sell 100. We will continue the initial brick campaign until late Summer and then establish a patio and walkway using the bricks to lead to the playground. Proceeds of the brick campaign will allow for purchase of picnic tables and benches and other amenities. ♦ Killam School Playground - The Killam School Playground has been advertised, and we are in the midst of getting playground proposals from capable companies. The PTO has virtually accomplished its goal of raising $15K (about $1K short). The Killam PTO will assist in selecting a final playground structure, and it will be located based on the Killam Master Plan. I hope to be able to award a contract in June, and have the playground installed around the beginning of August. This installation may be done as a supervised community build so the install date will not be clear until the contract is awarded. ♦ Master Plan for Joshua Eaton Playground - Board of Selectmen hearing on June 22nd. ♦ Barrows Site Master Plan - Process will begin in the Summer after recreation staff have completed the JEMP, and gotten Summer activities started. Dates and Events: ♦ Friends and Family Day (aka Town Day) - June 19th ♦ Election - June 23rd ♦ Fall Street Faire - September 12th Board of Selectmen Meeting - June 8, 2010 - Page 4 Proclamations/Certificates of Appreciation - The Town Manager noted that Reverend Kutzmark requested a Certificate of Appreciation for George White. A motion by Schubert seconded by Anthony to approve the Certificate of Appreciation for George White was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Personnel and Appointments Consent Agenda Accepting Volunteer Appointment Subcommittee Recommendations - Chairman Ben Tafoya suggested doing a Press Release for the remaining vacancies and asked how the Board liked the appointment process. The consensus of the Board. was that the process was efficient and works well. Chairman Tafoya noted that the VASC makes the following recommendations: A motion by Schubert seconded by Anthony that the Board of Selectmen approve the recommendation of the Volunteer Appointment Subcommittee for appointments and/or re- appointments to various Boards, Committees and Commissions for terms beginning July 1, 2010 as follows: Position Appointment Term Ending Animal Control Appeals Com. John Miles 6-30-13 Audit Committee Camille Anthony 6-30-13 Board of Appeals John Jarema 6-30-13 Cemetery Board of Trustees Ronald Storz 6-30-13 Elise Cirgena 6-30-13 Board of Health David Singer 6-30-13 Board of Registrars Krissandra Holmes 6-30-13 ACCCP Tony Capobianco 6-30-13 ACCCP (Associates)' David Williams 6-30-11 Ronald Taupier 6-30-11 Michele Benson 6-30-11 Gina Snyder 6-30-11 Commissioners of Trust Funds John Daly 6-30-13 CPDC Nicholas Safma 6-30-13 John Weston 6-30-13 CPDC (Associate) George Katsoufis 6-30-11 Conservation Commission Annika Scanlon 6-30-13 Constable Alan Ulrich 6-30-13 Council on Aging Steve Oston 6-30-13 Sally Hoyt 6-30-13 Carole'Scrima 6-30-13 Cultural Council Lorraine Born 6-30-13 Joan Marshman 6-30-13 Custodian of Soldiers' & Sailors' Francis Driscoll 6-30-13 Graves Historical Commission Mark Cardono 6-30-13 Sharlene Santo 6-30-13 Board of Selectmen Meeting,_ June 8, 2010 - Page 5 Position Appointment Term Ending Historical Commission (Associate) Angela Binda 6-30-11 Housing Authority Karen Flammia 6-30-15 Human Relations Advisory Com. Lori Hodin 6-30-13 James Cormier 6-30-13 Margaret LeLacheur 6-30-13 HRAC (Associates) Randall Jones 6-30-11 North Suburban Planning Council Ben Tafoya 6-30-13 George Katsoufis 640-13 Recreation Committee Michael DiPetro 6-30-13 Francis Driscoll 6-30-13 Catherine Kaminer 6-30-13 Recreation Committee (Associates) Adam Chase 6-30-11 Joseph Rosetti 6-30-11 , Eric Hughes 6-30-11 Town Forest Committee Patrice Todisco 6-30-13 Town Forest Associate Thomas Gardiner 6-30-11 Trails Committee Joan Hoyt 6-30-13 David Williams 6-30-13 Trails Committee (Associate) John Parsons 6-30-11 Volunteer Appointment Camille Anthony 6-30-11 Subcommittee Stephen Goldy 6-30-11 West Street Historic District Everett Blodgett 6-30-13 Stephen O'Shea 6-30-13 West Street Historic District Joan Marshman 6-30-13 (Associate) The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Discussion/Action Items Highlights - Fire - Fire Chief Greg Burns and Lt. Rick Nelson were present. Chief Burns gave the history of the Essex County Technical Rescue Team. Lt. Nelson gave two recent examples of incidents that require such rescues. He noted that the Essex County Technical Rescue Team is trained for rope rescue, confined space and trench rescue. Selectman Camille Anthony asked what happens if Lt. Nelson gets called out while on duty. Chief Burns noted that he would let him go and hire back a replacement. He would send a bill to MAPC. He also noted that the biggest issue is training funding, and Homeland Security is funding it right now. The Town Manager noted that this is one way that regionalization works. Board of Selectmen Meeting - June 8, 2010 - Page 6 Approve Warrant for Special Election - A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Anthony. to approve the Warrant for the Special Election to be held on June 23, 2010 at the Hawkes Field House, 62 Oakland Road, Reading was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Review Draft Policy on Town Forest Committee - The Town Manager noted that the changes in bold are from the Town Forest Committee. Vice Chairman James Bonazoli asked if we are putting regulations up in the Town Forest, who is going to enforce them. Town Forest Committee Member Patrice Todisco noted that the Town Forest Committee does not want to be the enforcer. The Town Manager noted that the Police can enforce the rules if they are posted. Selectman Camille Anthony asked about coordinating scheduling of activities at the Town Forest. The Town Manager noted that a process needs to be established by the Committee. He also noted that we will provide staff for the Master Plan work. He suggests removing the language regarding Associate Members because they are at the discretion of the committee. Hearing - FY 2011 Classification and Compensation Plan - The Secretary read the hearing notice. The Town Manager,noted that the compensation plan is exactly the same as FY 2010. The Classification Plan is exactly the same except for the change in title for the Health. Administrator. A motion by Anthony seconded by Bonazoli to close -the hearing on the FY 2011 Classification and Compensation Plans was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. A motion by Anthony seconded by Bonazoli that the Board of Selectmen approve the FY 2011 Classification and Compensation Plans, as presented, was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Review Outdoor Dining with Board of Health - Board of Health Members David Singer, Barbara Meade and Colleen Seferian were present. The Town Manager noted that the policy on outdoor dining was created due to the increase in outdoor dining at restaurants and sidewalk dining. He asked if the Board of Health allows outdoor dining. Colleen Seferian indicated that outdoor dining is allowed but no smoking is allowed in the outdoor dining area. Selectman Richard Schubert asked about the issue of open windows, and the Town Manager noted that the issue is to keep critters out of the food prep area by having a kitchen wall or an air curtain so the windows can be open as long as there is a screen at the food prep area. Request for Second Driveway Curb Cut - 130 Franklin Street - Town Engineer George Zambouras and Al Couillard, owner of 130 Franklin Street, were present. Board of Selectmen Meeting - June 8, 2010 - Page 7 The Town Engineer noted that the request is to allow for two entrances on Franklin Street that has 110 feet on Franklin Street east of Main Street. He also noted that the original proposal did not meet the requirement of 125 foot separation. The plan for a single driveway was approved. The •request is to eliminate backing out onto Franklin Street which is next to a high use intersection. The Town Engineer noted that he feels that could still be done with one driveway opening. He also noted that having two driveways does not guarantee that cars will turn around on the property. He recommends denying the request. Mr. Couillard noted that the easier he makes it to back up and turn around, the safer the exit. He also noted that zoning allows for two families but not two driveways. He installed infiltration to maintain the 20% impervious area. The Town Engineer noted that the aquifer protection just clips the edge of this property. He also noted that Mr. Couillard could go to the ZBA for a variance of the zoning regulations. Vice Chairman James Bonazoli asked to see the one driveway design. The Town Engineer noted that they did not approve the design, they just approved the curb cut. Tom Laughlin of 24 Oak Street noted that the double driveway is safer. Selectman Richard Schubert noted that there is a lot of activity at that location, and he should go to the ZBA. Mr. Couillard noted that the building has been staked and is ready to go. Selectman Camille Anthony indicated that the single driveway is a terrible plan, and she will vote for a second curb cut. A motion by Anthony seconded by Bonazoli that the Board of Selectmen approve the second curb way cut at 130 Franklin Street, as indicated in the site plan Option #2 for 130 Franklin Street, prepared by Christiansen & Sergi, Inc. dated May 24, 2010, was approved by a vote of 3-1-0, with Schubert opposed. Review/Decision - Temple Street Improvements - Town Engineer George Zambouras reviewed the project options. He noted that it will take three weeks of work spread out. Selectman Camille Anthony asked if we are reusing the granite, and the Town Engineer noted that a lot is not reusable but we will reuse 40% of the curb. He also noted that the difference between concrete and asphalt sidewalks is $20,000 per side. He stated that one tree will need to be removed. Chairman Ben Tafoya suggested the $258,725 option which includes roadway, curb on both sides, sidewalk and tree lawn on the school side only. Selectman Camille Anthony suggested doing everything for $283,000 if we do asphalt sidewalks instead of concrete. 4-171 Board of Selectmen Meeting - June 8, 2010 - Page_8 Vice Chairman James Bonazoli indicated that he would rather stick with concrete and do only the school side. Todd Petrin of 37 Temple Street noted that it has been 50-60 years since any work was done on Temple Street, and this project will benefit anyone who uses Temple Street for church, school, etc. It is a community project. Vice Chairman James Bonazoli noted that he had a problem with using half of the paving budget on one street. He noted that originally only the roadway was to be paved. The Town Manager recommended curb on both sides and concrete sidewalk on one side. Mark Warner of 7 Temple Street.noted that families walk in the street because there are no sidewalks - it is a safety issue. John Williams of 44 Temple Street indicated that he would like curb on both sides of the street because everyone parks on his property because the curbing is so low. Selectman Camille Anthony asked if the sidewalk on the non-school side was taken out, would it change the estimate, and the Town Engineer indicated that it would somewhat. 'A Motion by Schubert seconded by Bonazoli to approve the option of the rehabbing the roadway, curb on both sides, concrete sidewalk and tree lawn on the school side and remove the sidewalk on the opposite side for $280,000 was discussed. A motion by Anthony seconded by Bonazoli to delete the provision to remove the sidewalk was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. The main motion was approved, as amended, in the amount of $258,725 by a vote of 4-0-0. Establish the Town Manager's Salary FY 2011. - Chairman Ben Tafoya noted that he and Selectman Richard Schubert were charged to look at this. There is a disparity with what the. Town Manager is paid and what others are paid. Selectman Richard Schubert noted that when the person leaves the position, then the Town is forced to pay the amount to replace. A motion by Anthony seconded by Bonazoli to set the Town Manager's salary for FY 2011, the same rate as in effect for the last half of FY 2010 at $129,603 was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Approval of Minutes A motion by Anthony seconded by Bonazoli to approve the Minutes of May 11, 2010 was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. A motion by Anthony seconded by Bonazoli to approve the Minutes of May 18, 2010 was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. W. Board of Selectmen Meeting -June 8, 2010 - Page 9 A motion by Anthony seconded by Bonazoli to adjourn the meeting of June 8, 2010 at 11:00 p.m. was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Respectfully submitted, Secretary I'ERAC DOMENIC J., F. RUSSO, Chairman I A. JOSEPH DEN000I, Vice Chairman PAUL V. DOANE I JAMES M. MACHADO I DONALD R. MARQUIS I ROBERT B. McCARTHY I GREGORY R. MENNIS June 4, 2010 z'/ C, 6'D 5 JOSEPH E. CONNARTON, Executive Director The Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission has completed an examination of the Reading Retirement System pursuant to G.L. c. 32, § 21. The examination covered the period from January I, 2007 to December 31, 2009. This audit was conducted in accordance with the accounting and management standards established by the Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission in regulation 840 CMR 25.00. Additionally,. all supplementary regulations approved by PERAC and on file at PERAC are listed in this report. In our opinion, the financial records are being maintained and the management functions are being performed in conformity with the standards established by the Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission. We commend the Reading Retirement Board for the exemplary operation of the system. In closing, I acknowledge the work of examiners James T. Sweeney and Martin J. Feeney who conducted this examination, and express appreciation to the Board of Retirement and staff for their courtesy and cooperation. Sincerely, Joseph E. Connarton Executive Director dal FIVE MIDDLESEX AVENUE, SUITE 304 1 SOMERVILLE^MA 02145 STATEMENT OF LEDGER ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2069 2008 2007 Net Assets Available For Benefits: Cash $57,667 $480,483 $350,765 PRIT Cash Fund 1,420,125 950,255 1,312,910 PRIT Core Fund 79,367,397 68,785,359 99,721,390 Interest Due and Accrued 0 0 0 Accounts Receivable 5,048 35,116 67,691 Accounts Payable (158,683) (158,683) 166.89Z) Total $0,692,166 70.092.529 $101.285 859 Fund Balances: Annuity Savings Fund $20,857,207 $ 19, 155,271 $17,981,868 Annuity Reserve Fund 5,888,580 6,273,629 6,516,354 Pension Fund 0 0 0 Military Service Fund 20,161 20,061 19,941 Expense Fund 0 0 0 Pension Reserve Fund 53,926,218 44,643,568 76.767:696 Total $80.692.166 $70 492 $]X,28 .859 Reading Retirement System Audit Report 2 Hi Peter, c 1 I wanted you to know that Larry Ramdin went out of his way to help us with an event that we call Customer Appreciation Weekend". Glen Redmond saw us preparing for this event and had some question about what we were doing. He stopped in to talk to us about it. I think his biggest concern was with food safety so we got in touch with Larry. Larry worked with us on very short notice to enable us to have the food sampling the we had planned. I have enclosed a copy of a letter I sent to Larry to thank him. Sincerely, oe Calareso Calareso's Farm stand c~ 0 :rte CD To: Larry Ramdin Reading Health Department I just wanted to take a minute to send you a word of thanks for your help in the "Customer Appreciation Weekend" that we had this past April. It has become a community event that many people look forward to each year, as well as a very important weekend for us, kicking off our busy season in a very positive way As you know, the Building Department was surprised to find out about this event and had some last minute concerns. With the food sampling that we have during this weekend, the safe handling of this food was in question. With only a day's notice you were able to meet with as late on a Friday afternoon to address these concerns. J thought the steps you required us to take in order to snake you feel comfortable that the food was handled properly were simple enough to put into place on short notice, yet effective in making sure all of the food was handled in a safe manner. I appreciate your willingness to work with us on such short notice to make "Customer Appreciation Weekend" a success. I hope you were satisfied with our implementation of your requirements. Next year we will be sure to contact the Health Department well in advance of our event. Thank You, Joe Calareso Calareso's Farm Stand 1MASSIHiOUSING 2010 JUN 15 AM 10: 20 Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency One Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108 TEL: 617.854.1000 FAx:617.854.1091 VP: 866.758.1435 I www.masshousing.com June 14, 2010 Ben Tafoya, Chairman Reading Board of Selectmen Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Chairman: The purpose of this letter is to inform you of a decision by the Board of Directors of MassHousing to approve loan commitments for housing developments located in Abington, Falmouth, Maynard, Needham, Norton, Reading, Sturbridge, Sudbury, Wellesley and Winchester. Ten Section 8 housing developments, in a portfolio currently owned by Equity Residential, are currently being sold for the purchase price of $115,500,000. The portfolio contains 931 units, with many of the properties located in communities with an acute shortage of affordable housing. Rhode Island Homes, LLC, has submitted proposals to finance the acquisition and preservation of these ten developments. All ten of the properties are currently financed by MassHousing and subsidized by Section 8 HAP contracts. 0*~ Within MassHousing's portfolio, 71 properties originally financed by the Agency as 30-year mortgages supported by Section 8 HAP contracts will mature between the years 2009 and 2013. These developments are at risk of converting to market-rate use which could in turn mean a significant loss of affordable units. In order to address this issue, MassHousing has developed its Section 8 Proactive Preservation Program. This program allows MassHousing to intervene early, before affordability covenants expire, and offer incentives to owners to preserve the affordable units for the long-term. These ten properties are among 71 developments which are nearing the end of their mortgage term and are eligible to receive financing through this innovative program :,created by MassHousing. Within this particular portfolio of ten developments, it is estimated 'that 362 units could be at risk within the next three years and another 31 units within five years. This financing will guarantee that all 931 units remain affordable for a minimum of 60 years. Moderate rehabilitation will take place to bring the developments up to contemporary standards, T including significant accessibility improvements. Deval L. Patrick, Governor Ronald A. Homer, Chairman I Thomas R. Gleason, Executive Director Timothy P. Murray, Lt. Governor Michael I Dirrane, Vice Chair Robert M. Ruzzo, Deputy Director Ben Tafoya, Chairman Page 2 June 14, 2010 The following chart highlights information relative to each of the developments involved in the transaction: Project Name Location Total Units Units At Risk % of Town Affordable Invento Housing Type Total Loan Amount Cedar Glen Reading 114 0 16.7% Elderly $15,120,000 Chestnut Glen Abington 130 97 28.4% Elderly $14,220,000 Glen Grove Wellesley 125 0 26.0% Elderly $20,365,614 Gosnold Grove Falmouth 33 33 4.2% Family $2,115,000 Heritage Green Sturbridge 130 97 62.8% Elderly/Family $11,123,000 Longfellow Glen Sudbury 120 22 44.8% Elderly/Family $12,942,000 Nehoiden Glen Needham 61 0 12.2% Elderly/Family $10,215,000 Noonan Glen Winchester 18 18 12.2% Elderly $2,208,000 Norton Glen Norton 150 150 25.4% Family $16,320,000 Old Mill Glen Maynard 50 9 14.1% Family $5,995,000 Cedar Glen is a 114-unit elderly apartment community located on Elderberry Lane, off of Main Street, just outside downtown Reading on an approximately 16 acre site. The development consists of 84 one- and 30 two-bedroom rental units contained in four two-story wood frame buildings. Chestnut Glen is an existing elderly Section 8 development on a 10.6-acre parcel at 585 Chestnut Street in Abington. Chestnut Glen comprises two mid-rise elevatored masonry buildings with 65 units in each. There are 92 one-bedroom units, and 3 8 two-bedroom units. The property has 130 parking spaces, management offices, a community room, and communal laundry facilities. Unit amenities include disposals and dishwashers. Glen Grove is an existing elderly Section 8 development on a 3.6-acre parcel at 55 Grove Street in Wellesley. The property contains 125 units comprised of 79 one-bedroom units and 46 two- bedroom units. Gosnold Grove is an existing family Section 8 development on a 2.7-acre parcel at 364 East Falmouth Highway in Falmouth. The property's 33 units are comprised of two one-bedroom units, 20 two-bedroom units, nine three-bedroom units, and two four-bedroom units in three wood frame buildings. Heritage Green is an existing elderly and family Section 8 development on a 24.07-acre parcel located at 629 Main Street in the Fiskdale section of in Sturbridge. The property contains 130 units comprised of 58 one-, 60 two, and 12 three bedroom units. Ben Tafoya, Chairman Page 3 June 14, 2010 Longfellow Glen is a 120 unit elderly and family complex on a 22.6 acre site located at 655 Boston Post Road in Sudbury. The development includes 50 one-bedroom units, 58 two- bedroom units and 12 three-bedroom units. Nehoiden Glen is an existing elderly and family Section 8 development on a 4.3-acre parcel located at 1035 Central Avenue in Needham. The development includes 60 total units, comprised of 42 one-bedroom and 18 two-bedroom units. Noonan Glen is an existing elderly Section 8 development on a 1.7-acre parcel at 75 Hemingway Street in Winchester. The development contains 18 total units comprised of 12 one- bedroom and six two-bedroom units. Norton Glen is an existing Section 8 family development on a 27.90 acre parcel at 4 Norton Glen Road in Norton. Norton Glen comprises 25 two-story residential townhome style buildings that contain a total of 150 units. There are 15 one-bedroom units, 120 two-bedroom units and 15 three-bedroom units. The property has individual septic systems for each building, several of which have failed. One proposed remedy is to tie in to the adjacent town of Mansfield's sewer system. Cost estimates and a written plan that responds to the failed systems and systems throughout the property will be required prior to closing. Old Mill Glen is an existing family Section 8 development on an 8-acre parcel at 438 Dawn Road in Maynard. The 50 unit development is made up of two townhouse and two mid-rise buildings which contain 18 one-, 16 two- and 16 three-bedroom apartments. I hope that this information is helpful to you. Additional information about MassHousing and its programs is available online at www.masshousing.com. If you have any questions, please contact me or Nancy McDonald, MassHousing's Manager of Government Affairs, at (617) 854- 1852. Sincerely, Thomas R. Gleason Executive Director ~,3 ~/c Qas Town of heading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 ]Fax: (781) 942-5441 PUBLIC WORKS Website: wwwxi.reading.ma.us (781) 942-9076 June 14, 2010 Ms. Patricia Leavenworth District Highway Director Massachusetts Department of Transportation Highway Department - District 4 519 Appleton Street Arlington, MA 02174, Subject: Nighttime Heavy Commercial Vehicle Exclusion on Washington Street and Village Street, Reading, MA Dear. Ms. Leavenworth: The Town of Reading respectfully requests that the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) consider nighttime heavy commercial vehicle exclusion (HCVE) on Washington Street and a short section of Village Street located between Walkers Brook Drive and Main Street (Route 28). The report presented below describes the section of roadway in detail and addresses the Warrants required for an HCVE. 1.0 Background Washington Street and it's continuation to Village Street between Walkers Brook Drive and Main Street are residential in nature and provide a connection between Walkers Brook Drive and Main Street. Since the roadway improvements to Walkers Brook Dri ve and the subsequent build out of the commercial area along Walkers Brook Drive, there has been an increase of nighttime commercial vehicle traffic using Washington Street and Village Street as their access to and from the commercial properties. Recently residents have. requested that the Town pursue a nighttime HCVE because of the limited width and residential nature of the street. The limit of the requested exclusion is along Washington Street from Main Street to Village Street and the section of Village Street between Washington Street and Walkers Brook Drive. Following a review of the roadways geometry, heavy vehicle volumes, safety concerns and property uses along this section the Town of Reading believes that this section of roadway meets the Warrants identified below which makes Washington Street and the portion of Village Street eligible for a nighttime HCVE: W~1. - C\DocumentsandSettings\gzambouras\MyDocuments\P tF\WasbingtonStreetHeavyVE_032910.doc Warrant A.- The volume of heavy commercial vehicles, is in the range of five (5) to eight (8) percent, reduces the utilization of the facility and is cause for a substantial reduction in capacity or safety. Warrant C - The land use is primarily residential in nature and the requested exclusion is for the hours of darkness only. The following sections present the required data for your review. 2.0 Traffic Count During the period of October 31, 2009 to November 5, 2009 the Town of Reading Engineering Division performed 24-houf classification study of the roadway using a 7AMAR Technologies, Inc. TRAX-EZ automatic traffic recorder. This study recorded total traffic volumes and vehicle classifications over a six day period. The results of this study indicated that the average daily traffic (ADT) on Washington Street is 8,287 vehicles per day with heavy vehicles contributing to 5.5% of the total volume over the six day period. The highest percentage of heavy vehicles occurred on November 4, 2009 with a maximum day percentage of 6.3%. A summary of the traffic data is included in Appendix A. 3.0 Map of HCVE Area Figure 1 presents a map of the area showing the excluded streets marked in red with the alternate route(s) marked in green. 4.0 Physical Characteristics Washington Street The section of Washington Street between Main Street and Village Street is approximately 1,500 linear feet in length with a pavement width of 24 feet. The Town's pavement management system has established a pavement condition index of 81 for Washington Street and it is scheduled for preventive maintenance in the upcoming fiscal year. Village Street Village Street serves as an extension of Washington Street as it continues to Walkers Brook Drive. This section of Village Street is approximately 440 linear feet in length and has a pavement width 34 feet. The roadway is in good condition having a pavement condition index of 87. The intersection of Washington Street and Village Street is configured as a merge resulting in a bend of approximately 120 degrees having a centerline radius of approximately 120 feet. The combination of the two roadways provides the northwesterly connection from the Walkers Brook Drive commercial area to Main Street. Q\Documents and Settings\gzambouias\My Document9\PI7F\ W ashington Street Heavy VE_032910.doc 5.0 Types of Buildings All buildings along Washington Street ' and Village Street are residential structures consisting of single and two-family homes with the exception of the corner parcels at the Main Street intersection and one mixed use structure at the intersection of Washington Street and Village Street. 6.0 Street Zoning The section of roadways under consideration for the exclusion is zoned Residential 5-15 with minimum lot sizes of 15,000 square feet, with the exception of the last 150 feet of Washington Street at its approach. to Main Street which is in the Business B zone. 7.0 Alternative Route Two alternative routes' are available for the proposed nighttime Heavy Commercial Vehicle Exclusion. One primary route is available for all parcels within the Walkers Brook Drive area and a second alternative is available for only one commercial parcel. The primary alternate route for heavy vehicles is via Main Street to Route 98/128. m Heavy vehicle traffic currently travelling southeast on Washington Street can gain access to Walkers Brook Drive and North Street in Wakefield by continuing east on Main Street, to Route 95/128 north to exit 39 Walkers Brook Drive and North Street. ® Heavy vehicle traffic currently travelling northwest on Washington Street can gain access to Main Street via Route 95/128 south to exit 38B Main Street. ® All of these streets are multi lane roadways in excess of 30 feet in width and designed to carry truck traffic. A secondary alternative route exists for one commercial site known as 128 Marketplace, located off of Walkers Brook Drive. This commercial site accesses Walkers Brook Drive through the private way known One General Way and has access rights to Main Street through a second private way known as Goodall-Sanford Road. ® Heavy vehicle traffic currently travelling southeast on Washington Street to access the 128 Marketplace commercial site off One General Way can gain access by continuing east on Main Street to the private way Goodall-Sanford Road. ® Heavy vehicle traffic currently servicing thel28 Marketplace commercial site and desiring to travel to the west and north can gain access to Main Street through the private way Goodall-Sanford Road. ® Each of these private ways is in excess of 24 feet in width and designed to carry truck traffic. 8.0. Types of Control The Washington Street and Main Street intersection is under the control of a fully actuated signal. Village Street, as it becomes Walkers Brook Drive, is under the control of a fully 3- C\Documents and Settings\gzambouras\My Documents\PITF\Wastdngton Street Heavy VE_032910.doc actuated signal at the Village Street, Walkers Brook Drive and One General Way intersection. No controls exist at the merge (intersection) of Washington Street and Village Street. For the alternative routes, the intersections of Walkers Brook-Drive and One General Way, Washington Street and Main Street; and several major intersections along Main Street and Walkers Brook Drive are under signal control. 9.0 Hours of Exclusion The heavy commercial vehicle exclusion is proposed to be during the hours of 9:00 PM to 6:00 AM. 10.0 Written Statement from Municipality The Town of Reading believes the proposed exclusions are necessary in order to prevent further deterioration of the roadways and provide a greater level of safety to the residents of the roads. We believe that the exclusions are appropriate given the nature of the roads and the availability of superior alternative routes. Thank you for your attention to this matter and. we look forward to hearing from you soon. Si rely: Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager cc: Richard Stinson, Director DPW Wakefield Justin Martell, Safety Officer George Zambouras, Town Engineer Q\ Documents and Settings\ gzambouras\ My Documents\F1TF\Washington Street Heavy VE_032910.doc v°y NIO b URN HAVEN ST GREEN Sf. GREEN S-r N~ Ro °H a N~ VIRGINIA ciR RD• U NE Z W~ 0 ~~rk C O 5T. ST. FIGURE 1 WASHINGTON STREET NON (PROPOSED HCVE ROUTEI CO rn tai IPROPOSED ALTERNATE ROUTEI S~ V I O O O O O f (3) CD M Lo' N t' tii0, N O (3) O H O (D~ O)',O M 1 lU O O _ 6 r p o CON co ti; Cl) t T- r M'CU.N M MU)!r 0 (D'NdO O O r-- t- (O', t-- (O (O`dd' NI N N'r ( N M (D _ O O C, O O ~ ^ . IL C) Cl) 0 C 2 0-0. 0 C) 0 0) • OOO 000E CU Nc}' OO 00 C,) "t-(D(-r'd'am (D CT CD N V' N CYiNa O(3') Or O O O (A co (n r N V' ~ r` u) (D : t co V N (f) Cn t+ O t` 0 O O d 000 0 0 U s - ' 0 O C) C) n N 00 O 00 OC)O • OOOOOOOOf(DVLO LO OddCD 00;00CD CD .mo 0 0 0 Q ~Qa. ' CDD 0 0 - 0 - 0 C D 11 p M O C) O 0) Co N N - ~ U) O O 0 CO 0 (D 0 C) M M 0 CO ~N rt (.0'T- r' o 0-.o O O.O N o 00 (O O (0 i a 0 O ( 0 co Q r=.. 000000000 (D 0.0000 CD 00CD 000No C) 0 'r CR r2 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 r V' M 0 M N O M r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Lr) 0 O 0 rYr (O o C:~ ^ W 0 N 0000 f CD CD M Or O O f NOO O O O O (D OIOp r CD m CD = p ~ O 6 N xx Cl O O O r c-) W r- (n N N' t- O M M V' M (D N N O Cl M_ <-NCO N-NN~-- N N O N O N co N = u) o V N r M ~ C) ' ' • ~ 6 N N O O r.N O O r O O O:O d o O.O 0 0 (D O M V "'n O O r N 0 V O O N O O C( 0 0 O - "a ca `Cv (O (ff h r W ~ ~¢~J N N cr, O O'0 0 ~ r,0 0 (N,N O N (D O C) CD 0 CD'CD (p N OO N W q _N W r o:0 r M N-N CD M M CO CD 'CO V 10 M M C) r N'.O'O (D c 0 O O M m r co Cl N N !V (n O C) C) T N N.N N t- M C ):(D D) r CO ID CO N O N O O O O (EO p O 0 r O r U) 0 0 M Ca 4- 0 : L"' lU v C O (.C)O 'V''r.NNU7O)'NMMt`M0)Co Co t-- (Dr`V-.CD .-.V V (D CD f~.t~ ~D (D M',_M N N - V t` O P.- O h• CV a J ``o C co N O N ptf ` ~ r"Y,t~NM Cn', (D 'n rh- rmNMm u").ti CD Co a)O)V. mr- .O r N (D M t~ f~ V O t` V' rn M' CO CDV r t` I OO) O (O OM 'IT O (D ` N tE N r N M~ T (o (DL ) V V M N N N Cp r r m m Ut~ ti v c a> C7 U) O c:00CD CD Cl N NN DN CO M- Nor - - 'OO V c 1 C:, O Or 0 m fi f (D C o rnO'OOOO0000OO'00O'.O00OOO.OO CUC O O!O O O O O O U '.O U O- 0 0 0 O O O O O O: CD '.O O O . c0 m O cV D Y N Y N f E f ca . M T iD CD t~ N m ' "CV M M O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '.O N N N 'N a 0- _ N Brno m d d N m,tia m; m(opt`.tm.- o(ri'r"tr.,0 'IN~W' o - ' m O 000 ' 0 , (Dm Lo CO )hN(()(O MN r0ro~m;Mm((7 I,M Ci'u N M- (A eD tO.(D (O t(D (O V' M N: r N d d N O d 0 0 0 ( ~ omo C C) C) CD O 0 0 0 0 M ' OOO C 000= C y6 Md' U) O: po;xCD 00'.NO(D(D..c`')cy) M.N c`')t"(n cO r(D:.mOd < M (D CP (D' V (D C7 N m\ N 00 0 0 00 m O O ON d000'S d co U - N o CD 0 C) C) Cl C3 co 0o C) C) (5 0 000v 0 Q, '.j-- 0 0 0O O O. 0 0 0 O. r N 'mot r O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO N 00 N 00 ti c o c c o 0 M ( 000 0) A 05 U) U) m+ OOOOOOOr r0 r D or N'O -rOOOOO I~ 0- c a U.) Q m ( 0 p O p r O 00CD 0 <Y 0 T- N o ~ x'++ O'00000000<-OON.- OO.00CD 0. o 0 0 to 4 : 0 0 N v .i 0 0 O O O O C :),CD O r o C7 V (D r Lo. (:J co 0 0 0 0 0 ~O. Cl~t ) . (C) C) O co 0~ ~ CO p 0 _ r p r ` A . , W a) a) (D 0 0 0 0 0 0'.0 0 00 0 O r Orr--.NO r- r O r 0 CO C) (D N ci O M M ~ 0 a) 00 O.OOO:CD O O co N OtD N0, co N No (D ~ LO(`) `-OO.'O CD OO O (V Om N CD _ N N00~ a) - co O ~,O v O - CO .y Q N 0 ~m~ ON N ' OO O Or OM N rN N (ON N C \I; c c) O O O O O No 000 0 0 J CV c o o o o "o ca (D cu I,, v cn fi CD N N x _ Q c O C) CD r O O r 0,r N r (`7 O V' O ,C) 0 0'O N o O M 00 0 ~ 00 ~Y O M U) W Q) N O(O'.CD Or*-'O (D'4-): r- M hn NCD V C). LC) N'. 0 ED L0 0 Oti Oto ~ 0 p 0 M M1 ~s. N + 'M (1) . O O!O O O O O O O O O r N O CC) (D (D'(1) (D M - (DN r O 0 0 W 0 0 00 y / p O 0 - O] . N (n (O.NO~Y (O cO m N tD U-) O(Dmjr(O 0(Dr NON r M cO Cl) (n (D (n M (D t1) V M N r tio Cl) O O 00 O (O 00 O CO O aj ~ O c N 0 cd ` 'o m N m'. O (D r -,zr.- m (D 0) co N N 'n N m m'. to (O tD d'- co VT l ° 0 (M O (O 0 00 . N N O N! CD M r CO d' - [O m N CD Ct C n'`- rN(O <t"T v' -T 'Q, TV ()N ) N O N ca '(n r m CJ N G a C? ) (n 0 0' O r 0 0' O r - O v off' V- q N rt cO N 'v) r CD 0 r 0 co 0 V 0 ' O sN- O j ~G O c1' m G - m 0 m m' O O O .Q: O O O O 0 8- O O C OO O,0 0 0 0 O'O'O O O O O O O CE D) Oi O O O o O O O O O':O ' 0". m C O. .r Y_ (a 0 1- N j ~ C N E O rNM V L0 cD I-- Oo OTa d Drb m NN N rr r;i--rrr O: 0 O 0 O! O 0 0' Or N~ ` 0 D v E Cl) O CF) O O ONO ~ C)M0 O 0 O 0 0 O 00 O C)C O O O O 00o U) 000(a . C) C) C) O OOa al C, C) C) 0 C) O O O N O C (D O V O E r_ O. U) (f) p® vl Q1 .S W i^ N 00 N 1 U) Q T N 'O co C (D co N T Rj W ~V 0 tD [D' M V'rM W MU)iO Or m ~ 00C M(D'== V' (P (A l D 0 N p . m ~ l!')'N!tn N o M c) M M (D 'd'%In'~ (D!Co [D O O (D U)'M'. N i' L LD O I T M 6 OLt r r:(O"t M,it(Dm: V N M t- MMO O O O C) CD O M.\O N.~ ; O (p U HO m 00000 D'.O u7 rN'rr V (DLO LOIN(D N 0,000 C) , p C co ~ O . ° C A N +r 0 0 CD,() O (D r N N r N N N O r M: N N 0 0 0 0 N t..) C ° C tD 00 C) - r Or00CD CD 0'O O. O.o O O t0 O O 00 Mo C . O O ~ O C (D V N O O'O ~O O O. O (D r L. M LO, LO O (D M' t (D - -,CD O O O INN c (D = 60 O n ~ a) (D O O.0'O O C~CD N Cl < r O O O O:N'' N 'CD O.:N O O'O M o N Q C) C U') O N N i o V 0 N N OO--00CD CD Md' d' "'C) CD (D N'.O(NOr 000.O No 1 cr, jy - M ~l C ° I N(D - 0 0 0 O r r D UJ O N N O N M' O r N' O 0 0 0 O N o M co U) ttooti to a (D N O M tt) T C) CV ti C)O C~l M T N CD N i LO t M O CF) I N O N tV )fit C) (D O )to CD M d' xO 9)0C), O N(D`.(D t-- rm r N'. V Mm Ot-- NO V'CD CD 'C) No OON X~ Td' N (D N:r O ltd c fn c O O O r r''m M (D O r (D CO N CO N'.-D O m Co Co O m II` (D N C) CD m r (D -'VO (D CO r to N!O r m'M LO M;M I(D m XX C r D r Or r r r O co m r(D lO tMr QJ T~ C N O p~ ` O -r : LO O M U): CO r m (D Cl) M'. M N m N CO M (D -N CO (D N ,C). m (Lf rat O N "tN r m; "T- (O 'V (D r (D (D r; r N m o E2 N N V V co :M M~ V V - 't Q) N ? tII t0 (O O mVF~- a~ c (U o (7 NOOCD r O V m0)r N N'NN (D (D (0 Mr Cl NONO c Y_ O O m (D (D Ut 0)o CD 0(7oOCD CD 0D: 000'oDo00o'Oo p o o:o 0 o O o 0 0.0 o D.a c~ o oo 0 o;D o o-.o q o ''C (D N -,N n j- m (D r CO :m O ~.N M d' tf:: (D r cO m N N, ",;Co 2 -cCn•F--r r.-r~rr CL U) t6 ETO' 0 0 0 .0 0 00'.p r - O O T r N O T 0) 1 (D (N It 0 V' to O (D d' \6* W 0 00 o W 0 0 C) C) C) 0 c O O O O N O O CL O O O 0 O O O m ~ C 060 C O O O C O O O t q 000 cu O O O 000a o 00 " 0 0 0 000 m o ~ U) 0 0 000 co2B 6 ib U lz 0 y Q w N - `fno0 Q~ a) CL J CO of h. v+J ~n t0 O A d .o 0 Lf) v a~ a~ N N m N 'Scam m 0 N c aD (J N 0 0 0 O O C) CD 0 O O N(D L) D O O C) C) 0 C) C' 2 c) c) O _ O C) O O O m M , O O O C C 0.00•C 0 C) 0 0 U) C) 0 0 fQ ~ U) O OO 0 0 C) N 0 C) C) ° ~ IOU o C) o ° 0 o ° 0 o N 0 C 0000) U~U~ W Lij i (D V NCO N. Q CQ Cn a O) ~2cV O C ~S Jam S CD f0 t., r W p~ VJ ~p W c ~r 0 I~ ! F711. O) tD 00 ;N (o Ma, 0 co r")V) V O to (D' to ~ N r (D O IM CD miU MiN O (pCA 0 t~ V u7 O V7 M M (D (o en . d' M (o ;Cp to (oI (D t- tC) n: co N , co Cn d'rOCD "rO ON t- I`0)O Co 0) N V ~'O CO LO Mt-V r-Otic OtoOti (nr --V,(nNN V(D(D CD LO I- (DV~ I`•[,- C6 lD - 0 (o U 000 (DO (D V Mme-'-N n (D n0 LO (D M- CD 00 o Mo OO to 00 co N (o ° co A a) x 000000O CO C) Or N.,rN M: M Lo n O..-O 0ONo 0M(D0 r Q.~ O C) co Y'u O O C) "O O CD, CD o cDO O.--o -'n CD, O O O O' O O o'o toe Or 00M (D C5 r tr" (o V N O O O O o 0 Cl) Cl) i-- Cl) (t) V tt) (D t`: r V r" o o O o 'o 0 to 00 f-- O O Lo 0 O ° r A O r D N N O O.(D 0 0 C) U N CV v f'M M c) N N-O 0 0 0--0'.N c 00 co Oo M' N =O O r N ~ r N O O".0 o 0 C) CO M to V t- V V :N co CD N t- M O N O OHO V• p 0 V' O N N N N'M N N N r 0 c O M O co to = M ~ M V O r tin.,, N r r ° N NOOj000 O',O (D M.- V Co CD o 0 0 (D O N O CO O LO Cl) O O C O U') U) N N C):(DL O O O O r- N Lo Co "O M'. M V V "I-'- r O CDO r o'O 0 0 00 O 00 'd• QX C O m M O M U) xNx NO CD ON O M. CO 'CO Cl) CONS-TMOO:'ntliV -CD N..--~00- OMON r~pr It N (o O C)' C) O H CD r C7 CO O: CC) (D r` r M N V N V. O' O.~ N 0 M (D .0 C)r 0 m O r N r- M N (l). V r N <t 0) CD V V V V.O M I` V m co m N a O N O M C r.(D CO CO I-- CO (D CD r- (0 t~(D LO N J IOMOO(p m pry C N tQ o~ N,-Q- (D Lf) N m 0) M"O rn m c-- 'Zr Mi0'u7 o r co O -0 O V O M O r O V V V to V m: V N co co I rn M N o) Co. oo'V' 'd• ° O -It O 0) N O t` N r V V - M M M' V "T "r V M N O (D r O iaUF-- c (D 0 (n O O, O n 0 0' M N O O to r' r n Co (D M'.N ~ CD 0 CD ~ c O M 00 ti Y Ll Co Ln ° O tII N C 41 U` 0)00000000.000, (D CD C)000000.00: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a Cl CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 m j ~ C) (D I- 2 o.. o. E N V ..':N M V U-) CD t'- co M O N M V (n '(D t~ M M N N,.~.O r E O~OOOOL0000 .-r'.- rr - O O O,.o z p N 2 is M h h-~N t` rn O ~6 "t 6 ti C) -,t'f: v ch c') CD `d- O Cj 0 ='d' V" V pd' U) Mi U) r- t` N d' T r- t- M 4l r O h O N O V U O y N U) (D t~ U) Nl (D ;CD (D wl (D h O (7 - N ~ . 000 ) O C )MO G ( O 0) CO O O O OO.O G O O O ,O .(a C) C, 0 N (n N -4- N r O O O'.0,.- C). C) CO (D r- CT) (N CT) v` O :LO N C) _N at o tr) r- Y V co-d N cD tIJ i` tt7' I-- V r a CO O tt O h c O h O . O O O [ 6 CD 0 C) 0 C) C) . Ooo@ cu. O oo p , O 0 0 0 0 Q aid 0 O 'o CD O O O.O U) N O-C7 (D CD 'V' In Co -.C) (C) "T r- CO O O' 0 CD 0 co p c: 0 C: (D ( D O r N N O 0000) ^ N O O O CD O O. N N V C:) C) CO N N O (DLO (n r 0 O CD 0 M M O V- O U') C') Cl) Qx 0100: 000'0 O O O'Or N CD CD OOCD CD O OOU')o Or ON N O Q (p O r N O v ,c D O O O O LO O CO CO U-) tt M LO N O- LO r O O O O O O O 0 (t] O A, Y/ _ (0 0 0 0 N (0 p A 0 0 h 0 Q 0) N CD 00':OOOOM V N f O'.'CD M r r(Z) O OONo 00 d' OO CO ~ o 3 O O O O O O r„ N CO, O ~(D O N: M r m <t. t` CO [O N C) (D: V' ro (f) O'. V r-;O O o N r IN N (V N r N co O d' O N O'U1 h c ON V) 0 CO (1) OD Cj C14 (1) 0 LIZ Q C~ ' N N O O OHO O OI-'Cl) N O (O N CO N.N,~ O N r O O O O N c 00 M O co a) c M - -i - a _ M o o r o 000 (D N1-~ r ~ c a~ 0 0000-N'- N'NCD NNM N•(D O N NC:)' OIM° 00 00 (D r C O p O M W q (D N rO CD,-, (D C")r CO LO COr M (O -t LO:N CO O z-.(D'MM0 C)M r 00 CO r o t4 4 r~ 6 i 0 r p N `V Fl~ y (D OO CD C) V (D n It .-(D: CO 47 MC7 C) (h,0 Oh\ M ~ Oc}' 0 OU) co c . O r ~ N _ r O h. r co 0 a) C O 0..--tt N cD V tt (D (h t- Mn O) :h f~'o7. N O C7 N V' Ott h \ r: u)cd O t~ rn (D Im(Dhrn h oO) u7N (ON O (O 0 O oij r O N N o O0) co p 0 J O L ``®C tt{ N 1°'~ O r,. ptf ` N IUD (D f~ r t`' O) D) O (D n; N tf) O O M O O N <t t-- N N co (D rn V -C-~ cc) . (D O r- D)..- V O V CO N O m O N O U) O c O O I-- r {j1 V V C) Cl) Cl) V' V V 'cY V U) V' N N r (O O h 0 . Lo ~ (n N m UH h M h c a) 0 o':- 0 0 0 T r- U-) V) 17 (f) V: r N in V) co •d- N O d- C),(D 0 (C ) 0 co a) o T (n (D 0 0 0 LO 0 co 0 N N c N 0 p C N CA O O 00 O' 00000000000000000 R) C O,O O O O O.O O O O O O a O O O n 0 0 0 0, (P O N (t') co -q (D(O~cOG) O NcD V'(D(Dr[('iOOrCIA i NN N Y ' lL Y O .C /y N~ ` O J/ n' ~ ' c NE V) F- 100000.0000 N O roc v as Readine Ice Arena Authority Inc 51 Symonds Way Reading, MA 01867 6 -17-M caw A-Q - cam-- c D - ' ,T~-e' L-1 C, 60S Schena, Paula From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: . Attachments f I.- Reading_Memo.pdf (344 KB) Fred Hechenbleikner, Peter Monday, June 07, 2010 7:37 AM Frederick Van Magness; Reading - Selectmen Schena, Paula; Cormier, Jim; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Jean Delios; Justin Martel; Lee, Michael; Zager, Jeff; Zambouras, George RE: Main & Franklin intersection dedicated turn lights Reading_Memo.pdf Here is the report done by the MPO on this intersection. They do not recommend a left turn signal on Main NB at Franklin, but do recommend other improvements including. ultimately 2 lanes on Franklin at the intersection in each direction. They also recommend improving the signal timing. We are working with the State on this, to get their recommendations implemented. 1/c Board of Selectmen Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading MA 01867 Please note new Town Hall Hours effective June 7, 2010: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m.. Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. 7:00 p.m. Friday: CLOSED phone: 781-942-9043 fax 781-942-9071 web www.readingma.gov email town.manager@ci,reading.ma.us Please let us know how we are doing.- fill out our brief customer service survey at http://readingma-survey.virtualtowhhall.net/survey/sid/deBbdaal6db9e6b4/ -----Original Message----- From: Frederick Van Magness [mailto:vanmagness@verizon.net) Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 9:21 PM To: Reading - Selectmen; Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Main & Franklin intersection dedicated turn lights Dear Selectmen, it did not go without my notice that on May 28th and May 30th, there were yet AGAIN two separate accidents at the Main & Franklin intersection. I believe there was also another accident in the week prior. I have been asking for years to have the light sequence fixed with dedicated turn lights. Nothing ever took place. I asked this year for the signal timing to be changed. Nothing took place. I continue to be frustrated by the lack of any action to correct this dangerous intersection. I understand the BOS has met months ago to review recommendations from Mass Highway. Still nothing happens. But the fact remains this intersection is very dangerous and still get NO correction. What does it take to actually get something tangible done Are we just going to continue to keep score and rack up accidents?? I do not want to wait until someone is killed before something is actually done. Please push for faster action by someone or anyone. A Fred Van Magness Sr 243 Franklin St., Reading, MA ; CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STAFF Staff to the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization MEMORANDUM (Draft) . DATE: December 30, 2009 TO: George J. Zambouras, Reading Town Engineer Mike Karas, MassDOT Highway Division District 4 FROM: Chen-Yuan Wang and Ef i PagWas RE: Boston MPO Congested and High-Crash Intersections Study: Main Street (Route 28) at Franklin Street in Reading The Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) has completed preliminary review of the intersection of Main Street (Route 28) at Franklin Street in Reading. This memorandum summarizes the existing conditions analyses and proposes improvement strategies for the intersection. Intersection Layout and Traffic Control This signalized intersection is located in the northern section of Reading. Main Street, a four-lane roadway running in the north-south direction, is the major street of the intersection. It is part of State Route 28 that serves as a principal urban arterial for the region. Franklin Street, a two-lane roadway running in the east-west direction, is the minor street of the intersection. It mainly serves as a major collector for the town and is also.used by cross-town traffic to connect Route . 28 and other destinations. Figure 1 shows the intersection layout and the area nearby. No exclusive right- or left-turn lanes are provided on all the approaches. In both directions of Main Street, the outside lane is shared by the right-turn and through movements and the inside lane is shared by the left-turn and through movements. In both directions of Franklin Street, all movements share a single lane. The traffic signal is currently operated in three traffic phases: (1) southbound all movements (left turns protected), (2) southbound/northbound all movements (left turns permitted), and (3) eastbound/westbound all movements. Right turns on red are allowed on all four approaches. The - signal control also includes an exclusive pedestrian phase that lasts about 25 seconds. When manually activated, the on-call pedestrian phase takes place after the southbound/northbound traffic phase and all traffic movements are prohibited. The land use in the vicinity of the intersection is mainly commercial. Two gas stations are located individually at the northeast and southwest corners of the intersection. There is a poplar ice cream and flower store with parking at the southeast corner. A retailer, Home Goods, and its parking lot occupy the major area northwest of the intersection. The areas beyond the Route 28 corridor are mainly residential. A grade school, Wood End Elementary School, is located about a mile west of this intersection. State Transportation Building .Ten Park Plaza, Suite 2150 Boston, MA 02116-3968 . (617) 973-7100 J ox (617) 973-8855 . TTY (617) 973-7089 . ctps@cips.org a to f. t O C .C 777 t ~ ~ tiS O -Co CL tl) o o m C11 U 14 v ~,jr r:j G f Sn , 1ait~ street _ T G N co :a w Li IL N 'r r ~ 1 t~ I t~ i ~ I ~ t I , T ,y, t 4! iJ x t ~ t1 n r t ~ta ~~III f~ ~ ~ l~:l { +5~+ ~ 7.1 ~ 1 r ,~t~ YT ~ r:.^' ' t ~ s1 ~t ~~l j r o n s ~ l ~ 1 1 ~ ~ o i !5 C 7 ~ 1Y 7 t ~ Ilk 7, k 41 17 . C! t r llli.-.,4Ji.YlYYL:Lr.< -ILL Congested High-Crash Intersections Study Issues and Concerns December 30, 2009 This intersection is busy with traffic but not particularly congested during peals periods. Field observations indicate that most of the approaching traffic was able to pass the intersection within a signal cycle in the AM peak hour. In the PM peals hour, traffic on both approaches of Franklin Street is more congested and backs up at times. Traffic on Route 28 is heavy but not congested during both peak hours. Review of the intersection traffic volumes indicates that the intersection carries a relatively high number of southbound left turns and westbound right turns. A large portion of the traffic may be through-town traffic that uses Franklin Street and Haverhill Street to reach Route 28 in the north and Route 128/1-95 (Interstate 95) in the south. This traffic pattern is not easy to alter as long as the congested conditions at the I-93/1-95 interchange (Reading/Stoneham/Woburn) remain. Safety is the main concern at this intersection. Review of recent crash data at the intersection indicates that the intersection has a high number of crashes and a crash rate much higher than other signalized intersections in the area (see the next section for detailed analyses.) Lacking an exclusive turning lane, the southbound left turns operate in a lead-left protected/permissive mode so that they do not block the through traffic in the same lane. This operation preserves the intersection capacity but it frequently creates the "yellow trap" situation. The situation can happen at this intersection when the left turners use the yellow change interval but fail to pass the intersection before the opposite through traffic arrives or when they are confused with the green ball and fail to yield to the opposite through traffic. The situation can lead to angle (or "T-bone") collisions between the left turns and their opposite through traffic or cause collisions of/with other vehicles when they try to avoid the first conflict. Further discussions of this condition are included in a later section. The available traffic counts indicate that Franklin Street carries high percentage of left turns in both directions and heavy right turns in the westbound direction. Currently traffic operates in a, concurrent eastbound/westbound phase that has higher potential for traffic conflicts than asplit eastbound/westbound phase. The split phase is a safer operation but would consume more of the traffic signal cycle than the concurrent phase. This alternative was examined in a later section of this memorandum. In summary, the issues and concerns for this intersection are: • High number of crashes and high crash rate • "Yellow trap" situation for the southbound left turns • Traffic congestion on Franklin Street during the PM peak hour • High percentage of turning movements on Franklin Street Congested High-Crash Intersections Study 4 December 30, 2009 Crash Data Analysis Based on the 2004 - 2006 Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) crash data, Table 1 shows that on average 14 crashes occurred at the intersection each year. Although most of crashes involved property damage only, nearly 30% of the total crashes resulted in personal injuries. The crash types consist of nearly 70% angle collisions and 30% others. No crashes involved pedestrians or bicycles. About one third of the total crashes occurred during peals periods. TABLE 1 Summary of RMV Crash Date (2004 - 2006) Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading Statistics Period 2004 2005 2006 2004-06 Average Total number of crashes 12 18 13 43 14 Property damage only 9 11 9 29 10 Severity - Personal injury 2 6 4 12 4 Fatality 0 0 0 0 0 Not reported 1 1 0 2 1 Angle 9 10 10 29 10 Collision Type Rear-end 2 1 1 4 1 Sideswipe 0 3 1 4 1 Head-on 0 2 1 3 1 Single vehicle 0 0 0 0 0 Not reported 1 2 0 3 1 Crashes involving pedestrian (s) 0 0 0 0 0 Crashes involving cyclist(s) 0 0 0 0 0 Occurred during weekday peak eriods*, 5 5 4 14 5 Wet or is pavement conditions 1 4 2 7 2 Dark/lighted conditions 2 5 3 10 3 * Peak Periods defined as 7:00 -10:00 AM and 3:30- 6:30 PM Crash rate' is another effective tool to examine the relative safety of a particular location. Based on the above data and the recently collected traffic volume data, the crash rate for this intersection is calculated as 1.68 (see Appendix A for the calculation sheet)..The rate is much higher than the average rate for the signalized locations in MassDOT Highway Division District 4, which is estimated to be 0. 78.2 Crash rates are resulted from the combination of crash frequency (crashes per year) and vehicle exposure (traffic volumes or miles traveled). Crash rates are expressed as "crashes per million entering vehicles" for intersection locations and as "crashes per million miles traveled" for roadway segments. The average crash rates estimated by MassHighway are based upon a database that contains intersection crash rates submitted to MassHighway as part of review process for an Environmental Impact Report or Functional Design Report. The most recent average crash rates, which are updated on a nearly yearly basis, are based on all entries in the database not just those entries made within the past year. 0; Congested High-Crash Intersections Study Intersection Capacity Analysis December 30, 2009 CTPS collected turning movement counts at the intersection on May 27, 2009. The data were recorded in 15-minute intervals for the peak traffic periods in the morning from 7:00 to 9:00 and in the evening from 4:00 to 6:00. The intersection carried about 1,850 vehicles in the morning peak hour from 7:30 to 8:30 and about 2,100 vehicles in the evening peals hour from 5:00 to 6:00 (see Table 2). Two pedestrians and one pedestrian were observed during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. No bicycles were observed to entering the intersection in the AM or PM peak hour. TABLE 2 AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Pedestrian Crossings Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading Street name Main Street (Route 28) Franklin Street Direction Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Turning movement L TH RT LT . TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT M Turning volume 35 334 20 .235 578 83 78 49 50 85 124 167 1838 A peak Approach volume 389 896 177 376 hour pedestrian crossing 0 2 0 0 2 PM Turning volume 24 653 45 203 519 66 130 80 23 57 59 247 2106 peak Approach volume 722 788 233 363 hour pedestrian crossing 0 1 0 0 1 Based on the turning movement counts and the signal timings measured on the site, the intersection capacity was analyzed by using an intersection capacity analysis program, Synchro.3 The intersection is evaluated to operate at level of service (LOS) C in the morning peals hour and at LOS D in the evening peals hour (see Table 3). Due to relatively high left turns, the eastbound approach endures more delays than the other approaches in the evening peak hour. It was evaluated as undesirable LOS F. The level of service criteria are based on Highway Capacity Manua1.2000 a Detailed analysis settings and results for both the AM and PM peals hour are included in Appendix B. Review of the "Yellow Trap" Situation The "yellow trap" for the permitted/permissive left turns (PPLT) has been a difficult issue for traffic engineers due to the complexity of the situation, which is often different from one intersection to another. At this intersection, the southbound left turns operate in a lead-left protected/permissive mode so that they will not frequently block the through traffic due to lacking of an exclusive turning lane. The "trap" can happen when the left turners use the yellow change interval but fail to pass the intersection before the opposite through traffic arrives or ' Synchro is developed and distributed by Trafficware, Ltd. It can perform capacity analysis and traffic simulation (when combined with SimTraffic) for an individual intersection or a series of intersections. 4 Transportation Research Board,.Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Nation Research Council, Washington D. C., 2000 Congested High-Crash Intersections Study 6 December 30, 2009 TABLE 3 Intersection Capacity Analysis, Existing Conditions Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading Street name Main Street (Route 28) Franklin Street Direction Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Overall Turning movement LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT AM LOS B B D D C peak hour Delay (sec/veh) 20 37 47 27 PM LOS tB B F D D peak hour Delay (sec/veh). 20 135 41 36 when they are confused with the green ball and fail to yield to the opposite through traffic. The situation can lead to angle (or "T-bone") collisions between the left turns and their opposite through traffic or cause collisions of/with other vehicles when they try to avoid the first conflict. Two factors that potentially contribute to the "yellow trap" situation at this intersection were examined: (1) if the signal indication for the PPLT operation is appropriate and (2) if the yellow clearance interval for the left turns is sufficient. Currently a typical MUTCD5 5-section cluster signal head is installed over the southbound inside lane, with a regulatory sign indicating "left turn yield on green ball" (see Figure 2). The Figure 2 Traffic Signal Head over the Southbound Left-Turn/Through Lane Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading LEFTTURN YiF s Manuel for Uniform Traffic Control Device, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Chapter 4D. Traffic Control Signal Features, 2003 edition with revision numbers 1 and 2 incorporated, December 2007. Congested High-Crash Intersections Study 7 December 30, 2009 allowable movements on the lane are indicated by three consecutive faces: (1.) a green ball and a green arrow indicating the through and the protected left-turn movements, (2) a green ball and a yellow arrow indicating continuation of through movements and ending of the protected left-turn phase, and (3) a green ball only indicating protected through movements and permissive left-turn movements. The display sequence appears to be appropriate with the available equipments and have no conflicts with the displays on the opposite approach. The typical WTCD 5-section signal head is commonly used but is gradually challenged by practitioners in that left-turners sometimes incorrectly interpret the meaning of a green ball as a protected phase for them. A recent NCHRP study6 found that a flashing yellow arrow PPLT display to be equal or superior to the existing 5- section display based on traffic simulation tests of drivers' responses. Figure 3 shows the flashing yellow arrow indication in 3- or 4-section displays for an exclusive PPLT operation. Figure 3 Exclusive Flashing Yellow Arrow Display Faces . (Source: NCURP Report 493) 2. 3. VV~. 7r, 4. 6 , Indleatas Flashing As the PPLT movements are not operated in an exclusive lane at this intersection, the flashing yellow arrow display has to be used alongside with a typical 3-ball signal head designated for the through traffic. However, we do not recommend this display for this intersection at this moment. The flashing yellow arrow display is still considered experimental by the MUTCD and by the state. Further studies are needed for the state.to evaluate its effectiveness in terms of the overall intersection efficiency and safety and how it will work with the many existing signal controllers. A review of the existing signal timing plan indicates that the yellow clearance time for the southbound left turns may need to be extended. Based on the commonly used ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) formula, the yellow clearance interval consists of reaction time, deceleration time, and time'to clear the intersection.7 Table 4 e National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 493, Evaluation of Traffic signal Displays for Protected/Perinissive Left-Turn Control, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2003 7 Traffic Signal. Clearance Interval, Philip J. Tarnoff, ITE Journal, April 2004 Congested High-Crash Intersections Study December 30, 2009 shows estimation of the desirable yellow clearance time for the left turns under an average approaching speed ranging from 20 MPH (miles per hour) to 50 MPH8 for the southbound left- turn at this intersection. The assumptions for the calculation are: Reaction time = 1 second Average deceleration between 10 feet/sec.2 and 15 feet/sec.2 Distance to clear the intersection = 60 feet (from the southbound stop line, passing a crosswalk and two northbound lanes in a curvature, to Franklin Street) + 20 feet (a vehicle length) The estimation indicates that a total of 4.5 or 5 seconds yellow clearance is desirable for the southbound left turns to safely clear or stop before the intersection. Currently the left turns have 2 seconds of yellow change interval (indicated by a steady yellow arrow) for reaction and deceleration but no time to clear the intersection because the opposite northbound green balls are shown as soon as the yellow arrow ends. We propose to extend the reaction and deceleration time from 2 seconds to 3 seconds and to add a time of 2 seconds to clear the intersection. The yellow arrow can indicate the yellow change interval but the time to clear the intersection can only be achieved by delaying the indication of the opposite northbound green balls for 2 seconds (as the typical 5-section signal head does not have a red arrow). ` Table 4 Estimation of Yellow Clearance Intervals with a Range of Approach Speeds Main Street at Franldin Street, Reading Approach speed (MPH) 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Reaction and deceleration time' 2.5 2.8 3.2 3.6 3.9 4.3 4.7 Reaction and deceleration time 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.2 3.4 Time to clear the intersection 27 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 Total yellow clearance time' 5.2 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.8 Total yellow clearance timez 4.7 4.4 4.3 0 4.3 4.4 4.5 Note: 1. Average Deceleration= 10 feet/sec.2 2. Average Deceleration = 15 feet/sec? Improvement Alternative Analyses This section examines four traffic signal and geometric design strategies to improve the safety and operation of this intersection. The analyses were performed progressively from simple to more involved modifications for the four improvement alternatives. The intersection capacity was evaluated using Synchro optimization and simulation software. Common to all four alternatives is the proposed modification for the southbound left-turn clearance time, extending the yellow change interval from 2 to 3 seconds and adding 2 seconds clearance interval, and maintaining the existing total cycle length. 8 The post speed on Route 28 in the area is 35 MPH. The speed range represents different approaching conditions from "stop and go" to "fly by the intersection". Congested High-Crash Intersections Study 9 December 30, 2009 1. Retime Traffic Signal with Existing Phasing Sequence and Intersection Geometry The unbalanced levels of service for the major street (Main Street: LOS B) and the minor street (Franklin Street: LOS D or F) in the existing conditions indicate that there may be room for improving the intersection operation by shifting some green time from Main Street to Franklin Street. Synchro tests using the existing traffic volumes and intersection geometry indicate that the intersection is able to operate at acceptable levels of service at all approaches by shifting 2(6) seconds green time from the northbound/southbound phase to the eastbound/westbound phase in the AM (PM) peak hour. This simple signal retiming alternative maintains the same overall intersection LOS and average delay in the AM peak hour and improves the overall LOS from D to C with reduced average delay by 6 seconds in the PM peak hour (see Table 5). With the modified yellow change clearance time for the southbound left turns, the "yellow trap" situation is expected to be relieved somewhat. Details of the signal settings and.analysis results for both peak hours are included in Appendix C. 2. Change EB/WB Operation to Split-Phase under Existing Geometry As mentioned, Franklin Street carries high percentage of left turns in both directions. Under such conditions, an eastbound/westbound (EB/WB) split phase is a safer operation but would require an increased share of the overall traffic signal cycle than the existing concurrent phase. Synchro tests of the EB/WB split phase with the existing signal cycle, traffic, and geometric conditions indicate that the intersection would operate at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour (see Table 5). All the approaches under this alternative would endure more delays than Alternative 1 (concurrent EB/WB traffic phase), especially in the PM peak hour. The split phase operation would potentially reduce the through and turning traffic conflicts on Franklin Street. On the other hand, it would increase delays on all the approaches of the intersection. Especially in the PM peak hour, the approaches on Franklin Street would operate at undesirable LOS F and LOS E and both the approaches of. Main Street would endure an increase of 15 to 20 seconds in delay. Details of the signal settings and analysis results for both peal. hours are included in Appendix D. 3. Add a WB Right-Turn Lane and Retime Signal with Existing Phasing Sequence The high percentage of right turns on the westbound approach (about 45% in the AM and 70% in the PM peak hour) indicate that adding an exclusive lane for-that movement would increase significantly the capacity for the intersection. Based on the State Roadway Inventory file, Franklin Street has a right-of-way (ROW) of 40 feet in the intersection vicinity. Currently, the westbound approach pavement is about 23 feet wide; it may be feasible to construct a 10-foot turning lane within the ROW of the westbound approach. V Congested High-Crash Intersections Study 10 December 30, 2009 TABLE 5 Intersection Capacity Analysis of Alternative Improvements Existing Traffic Volumes Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading Street name Main Street (Route 28) Franklin Street Overall Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Existing B/18 B/20 D/37 D/47 C/27 AM Alternative 1 C/22 C/21 C/34 D/42 C/27 peak Alternative 2 C/23 C/30 D/41 E/56 C/35 hour Alternative 3 B/16 B/16 D/48 C/26 C/21 Alternative 4 C/22 C/21 D/47 D/35 C/27 Existing B/19 B/20 F/135 D/41 D/36 Alternative I C/27 C/27 D151 C/29 C/30 PM peak Alternative 2 D/37' D/40 F/87 E/70 D/49 hour Alternative 3 . B/19 B/17 D/47 B/14 C/21 Alternative 4 C/21 B/18 D/50 C/32 C/25 Note Performance measures: Level of Service (A to F)/Average Delay (seconds per vehicle) Alternative 1: Retime Traffic Signal with Existing Phasing Sequence and Intersection Geometry Alternative 2: Change EBM/B Operation to Split-Phase under Existing Geometry Alternative 3: Add a WB Right-Turn Lane and Retime Signal with Existing Phasing Sequence Alternative 4: Add a Lane on Both EBMB Approaches and Change EB/WB Operation to Split-Phase With the addition of an exclusive lane, the existing signal phasing plan can overlap a protected westbound right-turn phase with the southbound only phase. Synchro tests of the proposed modifications indicate that the intersection would operate at LOS C and all approaches would operate at an acceptable LOS with insignificant delays in both the AM and PM peak hours (see Table 5). Details of the signal settings and analysis results for both peak.hours are included in Appendix E. 4. Add a Lane on Both EB/WB Approaches and Change EB/WB Operation to Split-Phase Tests of Alternative 2 show that the EB/WB split phase would operate at LOS E or F on Franklin Street. In order to maintain desirable LOS for all the approaches, the intersection would need to be expanded. Different layouts of the expanded Franklin Street were tested. A amongst theirs, the combination. of an exclusive right-turn lane with a, through/left-turn shared lane for the westbound approach, and an exclusive left-turn lane with a through/right-turn shared lane yielded acceptable results. Synchro tests of the EB/WB split phase with the proposed modifications indicate that the intersection would operate at LOS C and all approaches would operate at an acceptable LOS in both the AM and PM peak hours (see Table 5). Details of the signal settings and analysis results for both peak hours are included in Appendix F. Congested High-Crash Intersections Study 11 December 30, 2009 In addition, a future year scenario of 15% growth over a 20-year planning horizon was tested for each of the four alternatives. The growth assumption is based on a review of the traffic projections at the intersection from the recent Boston MPO transportation planning model. A higher number than the existing conditions of pedestrian calls (five in each peak hour) was assumed in the future year analysis. Results from Synchro tests of the alternatives with the projected traffic growth are summarized in Table 6. As shown, Alterative 1 would operate at acceptable LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS D in PM peak hour. Alternative 2 would operate at an. undesirable LOS F in both the AM and PM peals hour. Alternative 3 would operate at LOS C in both the AM and PM peals hour with insignificant delays. Alternative 4 would operate at LOS C in both the AM and PM peak. hour with insignificant overall delays and noticeable delays on the eastbound approach. Details of the Synchro results for all the alternatives under the projected traffic conditions are included in Appendices G, H, I, and J. TABLE 6 Intersection Capacity Analysis of Alternative Improvements Projected 2030 Traffic Growth Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading Street name Main Street (Route 28) Franklin Street ll O Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound' vera Existing 13/19 C/26 D/49 E/73 D/36 AM Alternative 1 C/23 C/30 D/41 E/56 C/35 peak Alternative 2 C/34 E/67 E/58 F/175 F/81. hour Alternative 3 C/22 C/22 D/50 C/25 C/25 Alternative 4 C/23 C/25 E/61 D/41 C/31 Existing C/21 C/29 F/261 E/60 E/57 PM Alternative I D/37 D/37 E/78 C/33 D/41 peak Alternative 2 E/60 F/82 E/71 F/131 F/82 hour Alternative3 C/25 C/25 D/50 13/14 C/26 Alternative 4 C/22 C/22 E/62 D/38 C/29 Note Performance measures: Level of Service (A to F)/Average Delay (seconds per vehicle) Alternative 1: Retime Traffic Signal with Existing Phasing Sequence and Intersection Geometry Alternative 2: Change EBANB Operation to Split-Phase under Existing Geometry . Alternative 3: Add a WB Right-Turn Lane and Retime Signal with Existing Phasing Sequence Alternative 4: Add a Lane on Both EBMB Approaches and Change EB/WB Operation to Split-Phase Improvement Recommendations and Discussions The above analyses indicate that the operation and safety of the intersection can be improved by signal retiming (Alternative 1). Changing EB/WB operation to split-phase with the existing geometry (Alternative 2) is not effective as the intersection would operate at undesirable LOS F under the projected future traffic conditions. Adding a WB right-turn lane and retiming signal with the existing phasing sequence (Alternative 3) is the most effective option as the intersection Congested High-Crash Intersections Study 12 December 30, 2009 would operate at desirable levels of service with minimal delays even under the projected traffic conditions. Alternative 4, adding a lane on both EB/WB approaches and changing EB/WB operation to split- phase, would assist the intersection to operate at desirable overall LOS but with noticeable . delays on the eastbound approach (projected future traffic conditions). It would also cost more than other alternatives. The crashdata do not indicate a high proportion of crashes involving EB/WB traffic. As such, we do not recommend Alternative 4 at this moment unless unforeseen major traffic growth or pattern changes occur in the future. We propose a two-stage improvement strategy for this intersection. In the short term, we propose to retime the signal with the existing intersection layout as follows: • Extend the southbound yellow change interval from 2 seconds to 3 seconds • Delay the indication of the northbound green balls for 2 seconds • In the AM peak period, shift 2 seconds of green time from the northbound/southbound to the eastbound/westbound phase • In the PM peak period, shift 6 seconds of green time from the northbound/southbound to the eastbound/westbound phase • Retain the existing total cycle length The proposed retiming is expected to relieve the "yellow trap" situation for the southbound left turns and to reduce delays for the eastbound/westbound traffic. As a result, the overall intersection safety and operations would be improved. However, the traffic conditions and crash data at the intersection should be monitored and reviewed after the signal retiming. In the long term, if the intersection operations do not improve and the crash rates remain high, adding a WB right-turn lane and retiming the signal with the existing phasing sequence (Alternative 3) can be considered. The State Roadway Inventory file shows that Franklin Street has a ROW of about 40 feet, which is somewhat tight for an additional lane and sidewalks on both sides. The potential westbound reconfiguration could consist of two 10-foot approaching lanes, one 12-foot receiving lane, and two 4-foot sidewalks. In summary, the improvement alternative includes the following modifications: • Add an exclusive right-turn lane (desirable length: 200 feet) on the westbound approach • Overlap a WB right-turn protected phase to the southbound only phase • Install a MUTCD 5-section signal head containing right-turn green and yellow arrows over the additional westbound lane Based on the projected future traffic conditions, the alternative is expected to improve operations and safety at the intersection. Certainly, the intersection should be reevaluated with the future updated traffic and crash data, when this option is pursued at the functional design stage. 13. Page 1 of 5 41 c ges Schena, Paula From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:14 AM To: Reading.- Selectmen Cc: Schena, Paula Subject: FW: FW: Meeting next week Attachments: AO-00-12.pdf; IB-92-02.pdf;. ocm10398876-IB-91-01.pdf FYI - this was put together to address questions that FINCOM had, and I thought you would be interested. I/c Board of Selectmen Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading MA 01867 Please note new Town Hall Hours effective June 7, 2010: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Friday: CLOSED phone: 781-942-9043 fax 781-942-9071 web www.readingma.gov email townmanager@ci :reading ma us Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at httpWreadingma- survev.virtualtownhall net/survey/sid/de8bdaal6db9e6b From: Ellen Doucette [mailto:ecdoucette@brackettlucas.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 11:59 AM To: LeLacheur, Bob Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Re: FW: Meeting next week Bob, Because of the importance of this ballot question to the Town, in light of the Fincom'.s preparation of informational materials, I-believe that it is also important to briefly discuss and clarify what the Town's public officials can, and cannot do, with respect to taking a position on a ballot question, or advocating for or against a ballot question. Two issues are presented. The first issue relates to those activities that public officials can undertake in support of or in opposition to ballot questions and the second, is whether or not public resources may be used for political purposes. The Office for Campaign Finance has issued two interpretative bulletins that are relevant to these issues. OCPF-IB-91-01 (Revised on January 9, 2007) discusses the use of government resources for political purposes more specifically, the distribution of printed matter. The impetus for this bulletin was the SJC's decision in Anderson v. City of Boston, 376 Mass. 178 (1978) where it was held that public resources cannot be used for political purposes. Specifically, Anderson held that public funds could not be used to set up an office to collect and distribute information on the impact of a ballot question. Public resources include, for instance, staff time, office space, paper or other office supplies, postage and office machinery. Anderson's prohibitions apply whether or not the material arkl= 6/10/2010 Page 2 of 5 prepared and distributed is intended to promote or oppose a matter placed before voters, such as a ballot question, or is objective and factual and only intended to inform if that material is distributed using public resources for instance, an unsolicited mailing of the material to all registered voters or other dissemination that is publicly funded (teachers copying information and sending it home with school children). Anderson does not however, prohibit the distribution of material prepared for town meeting (which is not regulated by the campaign finance law unless the issue concerns a future Prop. 2 1/2 ballot question for instance) or, if public officials prepare information that is related to their official responsibilities, where the primary purpose for preparing the material is to facilitate a meeting. The distribution of that material at a meeting, or through a public records request, does not violate Anderson. The distinction being a situation where material is distributed by unsolicited mailings, and material or information that is provided only upon request by members of the public. OCPF-IB-92-02 (revised on January 9, 2007) discusses those activities that a public official(s) can and cannot do, in support of or in opposition to a ballot question. Though public resources cannot be used to promote or oppose a ballot question, the Anderson decision does not prohibit public officials from discussing a ballot question at an official meeting of a governmental body or from voting a position on a ballot question (as long as distribution of the position taken is limited to a press release or posting of a vote). Anderson also does not prohibit an official from analyzing the impact of a ballot question on their budget though again, that analysis may not be distributed via a mass mailing. The OCPF has also issued an advisory opinion specifically relating to the use of the town's website. AO-00-12, issued on June 13, 2000, equates the posting of factual information on the town's website with a posting on the town's bulletin board. The distinction is that like a bulletin board, the information is only available if people choose to look it up on the website: Therefore, if a public official or board creates a public record that is consistent with the official's scope of responsibility, it can be posted on the website, even if it contains an analysis or a recommendation regarding a ballot question. OCPF-IB-91-01, OCPF-I6-92-02 and AO-00-12 are attached hereto for reference. With respect to the Fincom's material, if the content was prepared as part of their official responsibilities, they may post it on the website but it may not be distributed in any way. However, as the materials are intended to be informational, they should be content nuetral and limited to the facts related to the impact of the local option tax. As such, in my opinion there are still portions of the materials. which appear to be unrelated to providing residents with such information. I suggest deleting the last line on the page about Free Cash, and the page title Reading Meals Tax Background, is completely unnecessary. Please call if you have any questions. Ellen Ellen Callahan Doucette, Esq. Brackett & Lucas 19 Cedar Street Worcester, MA 01609 (508) 799-9739 (508) 799-9799 Facsimile Original Message From: LeLacheur, Bob To: Ellen Doucette Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 5:15 PM Subject: FW: FW. Meeting next week From: marsie.west(c~bnymellon.com [mailto:marsie.west@bnymellon.com] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 4:36 PM 6/10/2010 Page 3 of 5 To: LeLacheur, Bob Cc: Hines, George Subject: Re: FW: Meeting next week I'm passing along the latest version with changes made to the language that hopefully eliminate some of the advocacy and bias concerns. We can talk tomorrow. Marsie West First Vice President, Operations Strategy Group BNY Mellon Asset Servicing 135 Santilli Highway Everett, MA 02149-1950 Phone: 617-382-2865 E-mail: marsie.west@bnymellon.com The information contained in this e-mail is considered Confidential and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee. Access, copying or re-use of the e-mail or any information contained therein by any other person is not authorized. If you are not the. intended recipient please notify us immediately by returning the a=mail to the originator. From "LeLacheur, Bob" <blelacheur@ci.reading. me.us> To: "Marsie K. West" <marsie.west@bnymellon.com>', <gvhines@vedzon.net> Date: 06/07/2010 03:19 PM Subject: FW: Meeting next week FYI - will be here Tuesday to discuss, busy with meetings today Bob From: Ellen Doucette [mai Ito: ecdoucettebrackettlucas.com] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 1:51 PM To: LeLacheur, Bob Subject: Re: Meeting next week I'm not convinced that any information re: the ballot question should be placed on the town website. My position may be somewhat conservative, but I must be where an argument can be made regarding a potential campaign finance violation. If the information is posted, any language which might arguably be advocating for a position should be removed. In addition, the word is "statutes" not "statues". That typo appears throughout the document. After the cover page: p. 2, Local Option Meals Tax,.l suggest removing the last bullet under Logistics. 3 6/10/2010 ' Page 4 of 5 p. 3, should be removed as it is clearly advocacy. p. 4-9 are factual and are fine. p. 10 - should be modified. "Low Impact" is arguable advocating. I have the same comment about the first paragraph referencing benefits to other communities. p. 11 and 12, are ok p. 13 (last) should be removed. Some of it may even be perceived as inflammatory, i.e., petition started at Town Meeting, what some petitioners did or did not know. Ellen Ellen Callahan Doucette, Esq. Brackett & Lucas 19 Cedar Street Worcester, MA 01609 (508) 799-9739 (508) 799-9799 Facsimile Original Message From: LeLacheur. Bob To: Ellen Doucette Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 1:18 PM Subject: RE: Meeting next week Factual information without opinion to post on the Town's website. They will advocate only as individuals. From: Ellen Doucette [maiIto: ecdoucetteftrackettlucas.com] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 11:07 AM To: LeLacheur, Bob .Subject: Re: Meeting next week Bob, What are they planning to do with this information? The campaign finance laws are clear that public officials may not expend public resources *(staff time, use of buildings) to influence a ballot question. Ellen P Q 6/10/2010 Page 5 of 5 Ellen Callahan Doucette, Esq. Brackett & Lucas 19 Cedar Street Worcester, MA 01609 (508) 799-9739 (508) 799-9799 Facsimile The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachment, is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. Access, copying or re-use of the e-mail or any attachment, or any information contained therein, by any other person is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient please return the e-mail to the sender and delete it from your computer. Although we attempt to sweep e- mail and attachments for viruses, we do not guarantee that either are virus-free and accept no liability for any damage sustained as a result of viruses. Please refer to http://disclaimer.biiymellon.com/eu.htm for certain disclosures relating to European legal entities. S' 6/10/2010 OCPF Online www.state.ma.us/ocpf Office of Campaign and Political Finance One Ashburton Place, Room 411 Boston, MA 02108 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Advisory Opinion June 13, 2000 AO-00-12 Peter Johnson-Staub, Management Analyst Town of Andover Finance Department . 36 Bartlet Street Andover, MA 01810 Re: Posting fact sheet regarding ballot question on official Town Web site Dear Mr. Johnson-Staub: This letter is in response to your May 4, 2000 letter to Bob Robertson requesting an advisory opinion regarding use of the Town of Andover's Web site. You have stated that the Town drafted a fact sheet regarding the May 23, 2000 special election on three Proposition 2 '/2 debt exclusion votes. The purpose of the fact sheet appears to be to provide answers to frequently asked questions regarding the Town's view of the effect of a yes or no vote on each question. If this office concluded that posting the fact sheet on the official Town Web site would be consistent with the campaign finance law, the Town planned to post the fact sheet. Because this opinion, given the date of your request and the nature of the issue raised, could not be issued prior to the election, the fact sheet was not posted. You have stated; however, that an advisory opinion will be relevant for future elections, in which the Town might prepare similar fact sheets for posting on the Web site. . . The fact sheet, a copy of which was provided with your request and is attached for reference, is one page long. It gives the date of the election and encourages all eligible voters "to make an informed decision and vote." It also states the effect of "yes" and "no" votes on each of the three questions and summarizes the effect of the debt exclusions on the average single-family homeowner's taxes. The fact sheet does not recommend or urge voters to vote one way or the other and you have stated that the information "is intended to be informational without advocating a position." 6 Peter Johnson-Staub June 13, 2000 Page 2 Question In the future, could the Town put similar information on its Web site? Answer Yes. Discussion 1. The campaign finance law does not limit speech or actions undertaken by a public official to carry out the official's responsibilities. In Anderson v. City of Boston, 376 Mass. 178 (1978), weal dismissed, 439 U.S. 1069 (1979), the Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the City of Boston could not appropriate funds, or use funds previously appropriated for other purposes, to influence .a ballot question submitted to the voters at a State election. The Court stated that the campaign finance law demonstrates a decision by the Legislature that "the State government and its various subdivisions should not use public funds to instruct the people, the ultimate authority, how they should vote. That determination avoids the possibility of a babel of municipal huckstering and reserves the financing of public debate for nongovernmental agencies and individuals." 376 Mass. at 195. In short, the campaign finance law represents an intent "to assure fairness of elections and the appearance of fairness in the electoral process" and that the law should be interpreted as prohibiting the use of public funds "to advocate a position which certain taxpayers oppose." Id. Accordingly, this office has concluded that governmental entities may not expend public - resourcesi or contribute anything of value in support of or opposition to a ballot question. In addition, public resources may not be used to distribute commentary, even if "informational," regarding a ballot question unless expressly authorized by state law. See I13-91-01. The campaign finance law does not, however, prohibit public officials from acting or speaking about a ballot question if in doing so they are acting within the scope of their official responsibilities. See IB-92-02, a copy of which is enclosed, for information. Therefore, for example, a public official may respond to questions from the public about the official's position on a ballot question, which relates to a matter within the official's scope of responsibilities. Officials may also use public resources to study public policy issues and make recommendations, even if the issues relate to a ballot question. Similarly, public officials may discuss ballot questions at meetings, vote (as a board) on a resolution regarding a ballot question and post the resolution on a town hall bulletin board, or respond to inaccurate or misleading statements. See AO-95-33. . In contrast, campaign activity using public resources is not consistent with the scope of an official's responsibilities. 1 Public resources include, but are not limited to: staff time, offi ce space, stationery and office supplies, and office equipment such as telephones, copier and fax machines and computers. Even the occasional, minor use of public resources for a political purpose is inconsistent with state law and should be avoided. Peter Johnson-Staub June 13, 2000 Page 3 2. Posting a fact sheet or other document on the town's Web site, if the document is prepared as part of the official responsibilities of a public official, would comply with the campaign finance law. A municipality has an, obligation to make information, prepared within the scope of the public responsibilities of office holders, available to the public. See M.G.L. c. 66, § 10(a) and M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26); the Public Records Law. The campaign finance law should not be interpreted in a manner that would frustrate the right of voters to have access to such information. Access may be provided in a number of ways. For example, a document may be copied and made available to persons who request it. Alternatively, it may be placed on a bulletin board in town hall or on the town's Web site. IB-92-02 does not discuss the extent to which public officials may use a municipal Web site to address public concerns regarding ballot questions, and when Anderson was decided in 1978, there was no such thing as a Web site. Recently, however, the office has issued several advisory opinions regarding the use of municipal Web sitesz. In particular, in AO-99-06, regarding the use of a municipal Web site to post information regarding ballot questions, the office stated that "in many respects, a town's Web site is similar to a town's bulletin board." The office also stated that posting information on the Web site therefore complies with the campaign finance law if posting the information "is consistent with the official responsibilities of the official posting the information, and is not primarily done to influence an election."3 Municipal Web sites are a valuable resource for citizens interested in contacting government agencies for information. Web sites encourage the free flow of information regarding matters of public concern. Also, there is little or no incremental cost for posting such information on a Web site that already exists. With these factors in mind, a broad prohibition on all official documents mentioning 'a ballot question on official town Web sites should not be imposed absent a clear statutory mandate to do so. Unlike campaign activity such as mailing ballot question information to residents or distributing flyers by hand, if a municipal board or official posts such information on a municipal Web site such action does not in itself result in voters necessarily receiving information regarding a ballot question. Voters and others, if they choose to get information, must seek the information by contacting the Web site. Making information available, either by posting it on the Web or on a bulletin board, is different than distributing the information. Any person can visit town hall to obtain a copy. of an 2 The office has issued several advisory opinions noting that a municipal Web site may provide links or space to candidates. See AO-96-04, AO-99-14, and AO-99-15. In these opinions the office stated that making the links or space equally available to all candidates, unlike e-mailing information to voters regarding candidates, would not involve expenditures of public funds to support candidates. s In AO-99-06 the office also stated that information relating to a ballot question could not be posted on a municipal Web site if it refers to an election. We now believe that conclusion was too limiting. For the reasons discussed in this opinion, a more flexible standard should be applied to determine what information relating to a ballot question may be posted on a municipal Web site. Unlike information made available to voters by more intrusive means, such as distribution of printed information by mail,.official information may be posted on a municipal Web site. a Unlike posting information on a Web site, distribution of information using e-mail paid for with public funds; such as an unsolicited blanket transmission of e-mail to many voters or residents, would involve sending information to influence an Peter Johnson-Staub June 13, 2000 Page 4 official public document that discusses a ballot question. Similarly, that person may access a town Web site and obtain that same document. Therefore, any public record the creation of which is consistent with an official's scope of responsibilities, which can be posted on a bulletin board or given to persons who ask for copies, may also be posted on the municipal Web site. Examples of such documents include a vote or report of a municipal board, even if it contains analysis or a recommendation regarding a ballot question. For the reasons discussed above, a notice such as the proposed notice that was attached to your letter may be posted on the town's Web site and may, unlike information that is mailed or otherwise distributed to voters, mention an election. 'In addition, it may include only the public entity's perspective on an issue it does not have to provide both sides of an argument,5 This opinion is issued on the basis of your letter and solely within the context of the campaign finance law. I encourage you to contact us in the future if you have further questions regarding any aspect of the campaign finance law. Sincerely, f.7 r'r" Michael J. Sullivan Director election and would be inconsistent with the campaign finance law. On the other hand, using e-mail to answer a request for information or documents would not be an improper use of public resources. 5 "Equal access" to the Web site does not have to be provided to groups opposing the municipal employee's official position, unless access to the municipal Web'site is provided to other private groups (e.g., parent-teacher organizations) which use the Web site to state their position regarding a ballot question. OCPF Online www.mass.gov/ocpf r z Office of Campaign and Political Finance One Ashburton Place, Room 411 Boston. MA 02108 Commonwealth of Massachusetts OCPF-IB-92-02 Issued: September 24, 1992 Revised: January 9, 2007 INTERPRETIVE BULLETIN Activities of Public Officials in Support of or Opposition to Ballot Questions This office frequently is asked about the extent to which public officials may act or speak in support of or in opposition to a question submitted to the voters. In general, officials may undertake various official actions that concern ballot questions relating to matters that are within their areas of authority, such as voicing their opinions, holding or attending meetings and making information available to the public. Officials should not, however, use public resources to engage in a campaign to influence voters concerning a ballot question, for example by authorizing a publicly funded mass mailing to voters or using city or town resources to support or oppose a ballot question. In Anderson v. City of Boston, 376 Mass. 178 (1978), appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 1069 (1979), the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that public resources may not belused to influence voters concerning a ballot question. In accordance with the Anderson decision, OCPF has consistently advised that governmental entities may not contribute or expend anything of value in support of or opposition to a ballot question, whether it is on the statewide ballot or placed before voters in a single city or town.' See OCPF Interpretive Bulletin IB-91-01 and advisory opinions cited therein for more specific guidance on activities that fall under this prohibition. In addition, public resources may not be used to distribute even admittedly objective information regarding a ballot question unless expressly authorized by state law. See IB-91-01. Anderson, however, does permit public officials to act and speak regarding ballot questions, subject to certain limitations. As the Anderson court noted with apparent approval: ' ' Anderson generally does not address or restrict activities of officials concerning town meeting. There may be some limitations, however, in the case of a ballot question that is also the subject of a town meeting, such as a Proposition 2'/a override. See IB-91-O1. Page 2 At oral argument, the plaintiffs conceded that the mayor and persons in relevant policy-making positions in government are free to act and speak out in support [of a ballot question]. Id. at 199 (emphasis added). In short, the decision reflected a recognition that if officials were prohibited from stating their positions regarding a ballot question related to their official responsibility, such a prohibition would unnecessarily (and probably unconstitutionally) restrain such officials from carrying out the duties of their offices. .Nevertheless, OCPF always advises caution on the part of officials to avoid the appearance of improperly using public resources to support or oppose a ballot question. In Anderson, the court indicated that the campaign finance law reflects an interest "in assuring the fairness of elections and the appearance of fairness in the electoral process." 376 Mass. at 193. In general, officials should be aware. that some of their actions or comments may be viewed unfavorably by those who oppose their positions, even if those actions are not specifically prohibited by the campaign finance law. On the other hand, members of the public who may question an official's conduct or comments concerning a ballot question should be aware that, as noted by the court in Anderson above, an official has the right to voice -his or her opinion on a public policy issue, including a ballot question. Objections to the speech or actions of officials concerning a ballot question are sometimes based not on the law, but on other considerations that are beyond the scope of OCPF's jurisdiction. This bulletin provides more specific guidance regarding the scope of such permissible activities concerning a ballot question, but it cannot be seen as encompassing all situations that might arise. OCPF is aware that ballot questions, especially those concerning Proposition 2 '/Z overrides and debt exclusions, are often contentious issues. Given the limited treatment of this issue in Anderson, and the absence of relevant statutory provisions, questions and issues not addressed or reflected in this bulletin will continue to be raised regarding the extent to which officials may speak or act regarding ballot questions in a manner consistent with Anderson. Those who have questions not addressed here may contact OCPF for advice. 1. Permissible Official Activity by Public Officials In general, a public official may comment regarding a ballot question. In addition, a public official may take certain actions regarding a ballot. question, if the actions are consistent with his official responsibilities.2 An official may' therefore address an issue or advocate a position regarding a ballot question that may affect the official's agency or which relates to a matter within the scope of his agency's enabling legislation. See AO-02-03. On the other hand, if an official could utilize governmental resources to promote or oppose a ballot question, the fundamental prohibition set forth in Anderson would be meaningless. While voters z It is worth noting, however, that elected officials have considerably more leeway than appointed officials. An elected official may speak about a ballot question at any time, even if the ballot question is not within the official's area of responsibility. In contrast, an appointed off cial may speak regarding a ballot question during work hours only if the question relates to a matter within the scope of the official's area of responsibilities. In addition, an appointed ofcial may not appear at a political committee's campaign function to promote or oppose a ballot question during working hours. The appointed official may, attend the event during non-working hours. An elected official, however, may attend such an event at anytime. Ott Page 3 have the right to know an official's position, they also have the right to expect that their tax dollars will not be used for political purposes, whether to support the election of a candidate or to gain approval of a question put before voters. Therefore, officials may not use public resources in an attempt to promote or oppose a ballot question, e.g., by placing an advertisement in a newspaper urging a "yes" or "no" vote on the question, or by conducting a mass mailing of flyers urging a yes or no vote on a question or by distributing such a flyer through students at a public. school. In addition, the Secretary of the Commonwealth has ruled that a city or town may not distribute printed information to voters regarding the question, unless it has been authorized to do so by the Legislature. (As of this writing, only eight communities have received such authorization through home rule petitions: Burlington, Cambridge, Dedham, Lancaster, Newton, Sudbury, Shrewsbury, and Yarmouth.) In general, officials are prohibited from using any publicly funded publications, including newsletters, to influence voters concerning a ballot question. Such materials may be prepared, but they may not be sent unsolicited to voters. Even. with these restrictions, however, public officials may act or speak regarding ballot questions in a number of ways without violating the campaign finance law. Notwithstanding the Anderson restrictions, a public official may: A. Discuss a ballot question, including at meetings of a governmental entity or at informational meetings of private groups. Officials may discuss a ballot question at any time, including at an official meeting of a governmental body, such as a board of selectmen or school committee, or at informational meetings sponsored by a private group. Although sometimes a person may complain that the, statements made by officials at such meetings are inaccurate or inappropriate, the accuracy or appropriateness of officials' statements is not an issue under the campaign finance law. B. Take a position on a ballot question. Officials may endorse, or vote as a body to endorse; a ballot question, and may issue statements supporting or opposing a ballot question. However, the distribution of such statements should be restricted to such usual methods as posting on a bulletin board or a press release, not in a manner restricted by Anderson as noted below. The fact that a ballot question is discussed or a vote is taken does not make an official meeting a "political event" and therefore does not trigger an equal access requirement for the use of the meeting room or inclusion on the agenda of the meeting. See AO-95-33 (selectmen may discuss ballot question at meetings, respond to inaccurate or misleading statements and post a statement on town hall bulletin board) and AO-00-19 (selectmen may endorse candidate or ballot question). C. Analyze the impact of a ballot question. An official may conduct an analysis of a ballot question's impact on agency operations or assign staff to conduct such an analysis, provided the question would affect the official's area of responsibility or agency. For example, a police chief may prepare an analysis of the effect of a Proposition 2 '/2 override that would fund his department; if the question concerned the school budget only, however, such a use of police department resources would run counter to Anderson. The results of such analysis would be considered a public document and could be made available to the public upon request, but should not be prepared or distributed in a manner inconsistent with the next section. The Page 4 official may not conduct a study primarily to aid the proponents or opponents of a ballot question. D. Provide copies of the agency's analysis of and/or position o Public documents, to persons reauestme copies or to persons a a governmental entity. An official may distribute information containing the official's. position on a ballot question or the agency's analysis to persons requesting such information, and may make a reasonable number of copies available to persons attending an official meeting (such as a public forum) of a governmental entity. However, even if the study is a public record, it may not be mailed or distributed, beyond those who attend such a meeting or request such information, to voters or a class of voters at public expense without express statutory authorization. See IB-91-01. A copy may be made available to an individual or group and may be reproduced with private funds and distributed by individuals or political committees, if such distribution is disclosed in accordance with the campaign finance law. Officials should not provide an excessive number of copies to a private group, political committee, or individual, for mailing or any other type of distribution. E. Hold an informational forum, participate in a forum held by a private group, and distribute a notice of the forum. An official or agency may hold an informational forum concerning a ballot question, or participate in a forum sponsored by a private group. As noted above, the campaign finance law generally does not cover the content of public meetings. If the governmental agency distributes a notice of a forum, however, such a notice may not discuss the substance of the ballot question or contain an argument for or against the question. For example, it may announce the date, time and location of the forum, but it may not contain a discussion of the reasons for supporting or opposing the ballot question. F. Speak to.the press. An official may speak to the press regarding a ballot question that concerns a matter within the official's area of responsibilities. An official may also respond to or direct staff to respond to questions from the press or the public about the official's position on such a ballot question. See AO-92-32. Officials should contact OCPF before a press release is prepared or distributed using public resources. G. Post information on a government bulletin board or Web site. Information or endorsements by governmental entities or other information regarding a ballot question that are public records maybe posted on a town's Web site or bulletin board. See AO-00-12. Further use of the governmental web site or the Internet for a more political purpose, such as unsolicited a-mails to voters asking for their support, should be avoided. H. Allow private groups to use a public building for a meeting concerning a ballot question. In Anderson the court stated that the political use of certain government resources, such as facilities paid for by public funds "would be improper, unless each side were given equal representation and access." Accordingly, ballot question committees, or other groups that support or oppose a ballot question, may use areas within public buildings that are accessible to the public (i.e., not private offices) for meetings if each side is given equal access. See AO-90-02. "Equal access" does not mean that the other side must be invited to attend a meeting. It means that both sides may, upon request, use the same space for separate meetings on the same terms and conditions. It is important to remember, however, that fundraising relating to the ballot question may not take place at such a meeting. See M.G.L. c. 55, § 14 Page 5 (prohibiting any demand, solicitation or receipt of money or other things of value for any political campaign purpose in any building or part thereof "occupied for state, county or municipal purposes"). 1. Appear on cable television: The fact that an official may, as described above, discuss or take a position on a ballot question is not altered if such an action is broadcast on local access cable television. In addition to speaking at public meetings that may be broadcast, an official may appear on a local cable or broadcast television or radio show, during work hours if applicable, to discuss a ballot question that relates to a matter within the scope of the official's area of responsibilities. During the course of the official's appearance on the show, the official may state that he or she supports or opposes the ballot question. See AO-02-03. Questions concerning content of cable television programming and the use of cable television by municipalities should be directed to Cable Television Division of the state Department of Telecommunications and Energy at (617) 305-3580 or (888) MA CBL TV (888-622-2588)). H. Private activity by officials The examples listed above concern an official's actions while using some type of public resource, i.e., staff time or material, to promote or oppose or otherwise influence a ballot question. The Anderson opinion applies to the use of such public resources, but does not extend to the use of privately-funded resources. A person's status as a public official does not preclude him or her from engaging in political activity when not at work, including activity supporting or opposing a ballot question. The campaign finance law does not prohibit officials from acting or speaking in favor of or in opposition to a ballot question on an individual basis on their own time. It is important to keep in mind, however, that appointed, paid public employees may not, be involved at any time in fundraising to support or oppose a ballot question. See M.G.L. c. 55, § 13, which state that public employees may not "directly or indirectly solicit or receive" any contributions of anything of value for any political purpose. For more information regarding restrictions on fundraising, see OCPF's Campaign Finance Guide: Public Employees, Public Resources and Political Activity., Specifically, public officials may, on their own time: A: Serve on a ballot question committee or perform services for such a committee. An official may, on his or her own behalf, perform services or serve as a member of a political committee, or hold any committee positron, aside from treasurer or any other position that involves fundraising (if the official is appointed as opposed to elected, as noted above). In addition, as discussed below, some activities of public officials acting or speaking in favor of or opposition to ballot questions may raise issues relating to the conflict of interest law, M.G.L. c. 268A, which is enforced by the State Ethics Commission. B. Contribute to a ballot question committee or make expenditures to support or oppose a ballot question. An official may use his or her own personal funds to contribute to a ballot question committee or otherwise to support or oppose a ballot question. There is no monetary limit to such contributions or expenditures. 1`~ Page 6 III. Conflict of Interest Issues Some activities of public officials acting or speaking in favor of or opposition to ballot questions may raise issues relating to the conflict of interest law, M.G.L. c. 268A, which is enforced by the State Ethics Commission. The Ethics Commission has. stated that a municipal official may be a member of a ballot, question committee and may speak in favor of or in opposition to a ballot question. The Commission has advised, however, that such an official may not speak "on behalf of and/or as the representative of " a ballot question committee before a municipal board or in a forum sponsored by a municipality. In addition, an official should publicly disclose any relationship "that gives the reasonable basis for the impression that any person or entity can improperly influence" the official in the performance of his duties. See Commission Advisory No. 4 and Conflict of Interest Opinion EC-COI-92-5. If you have questions regarding c. 268A, contact the State Ethics Commission at (617) 727-0060. This bulletin provides general guidance. To ensure compliance with the campaign finance law, OCPF strongly encourages officials to contact this office if they are in doubt regarding the scope of permissible involvement in ballot question campaigns. If you have any questions or need further information regarding this interpretive bulletin or any other campaign finance matter; please call OCPF at (800) 462-OCPF or (617) 727-8352. The office's web site, www.mass.gov/ocpf, provides additional guidance on this and other campaign finance topics. Michael J. Sullivan Director IS. OCPF Online www.mass.gov/ocpf Office of Campaign and Political Finance u - One Ashburton Place, Room 411 Boston, MA 02108 Commonwealth of Massachusetts OCPF-IB-91-01 Issued: October 31, 1991 Revised: January 9, 2007 INTERPRETIVE BULLETIN The Use of Governmental Resources for Political Purposes This office frequently is asked, about the extent to which public resources may be used for political purposes, most often whether public resources may be used to distribute information to voters concerning a municipal ballot question. In addition, questions have been asked regarding whether public facilities, especially buildings and other property,.may be used by groups supporting or opposing a particular ballot question or candidate. In general, the campaign finance law prohibits the use of public resources for political purposes, such as public employees engaging in campaign activity during work hours or using their office facilities for such a purpose. For example; a candidate who also works in a public office may not use the office phones or computer to conduct campaign work. The law prohibits the use of public funds or other public resources to support or oppose a question put to voters, such as the use of public resources to distribute a mailing days before an election. The law does not, however, prohibit the expression of views by public officials concerning ballot questions to the extent such expression is within the scope of their official responsibilities and protected by the First Amendment. 1. Scope of the restriction, in general In Anderson v. City of Boston, 376 Mass. 178, 187, 380 N.E.2nd 628 (1978), appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 1069 (1979), the Supreme Judicial Court indicated that public resources may generally not be used for political purposes. In that case, the court concluded that the City of Boston could not use public fiinds to set up an office "for the purpose of collecting and disseminating information about the impact" of a ballot question. The court stated that the campaign finance law is "comprehensive legislation" which "preempt[s] any right which a municipality might otherwise have to appropriate funds for the purpose of influencing" the outcome of a ballot question. 376 Mass. at 185-186. Page 2 The court pointed to Section 22A of Chapter 55, which states that "[n]othing contained herein shall be construed as authorizing the expenditures of public monies for political purposes." The court also stated that: [T]he Legislature may decide, as it has, that fairness in the election process is best achieved by a direction that political subdivisions of the State maintain a "hands off' policy. It may further decide that the State government and its various subdivisions should not use public funds to instruct the people, the ultimate authority, how they should vote. 376 Mass. at 194-195. The analysis in Anderson applies to the Commonwealth and its "political subdivisions," which use taxpayer or rate payer funds. 376 Mass. at 193. Political subdivisions of the commonwealth include all agencies within the state government, and within county, regional, town and city governments. State authorities, e.g., the Massachusetts Port Authority and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, and state institutions of higher education are subject to the restrictions articulated in the case. See § 179 of ch. 655 of the Acts of 1989.. In addition, the Anderson decision applies to municipal utilities that rely on fees paid by ratepayers. See AO-95-42. Finally, non-profit organizations that are supported by state tax revenues and other public funds may not use such revenues to support or oppose a candidate or a ballot question. See AO-95-41 and AO-96-25. "Governmental resources" include anything that is paid for by taxpayers, e.g., personnel, paper, stationery and other supplies; offices, meeting rooms and other facilities; copiers, computers, telephones, fax machines; automobiles and other equipment purchased or maintained by the government. A bulls mail permit is also considered a governmental resource. Chapter. 55 was enacted to regulate "election financing." Anderson, 376 Mass. at 185 (emphasis added). The prohibition on the use of governmental resources for political purposes therefore applies to all expenditures made to promote or oppose a matter placed before voters at the polls, such as a ballot question. In municipal elections, the Anderson restriction and other provisions of the campaign finance law are generally triggered once the appropriate municipal authority, i.e., the board of selectmen, city or town council or mayor, decides to place the question on the ballot. See IB-90-02. However, there are cases where the law would apply to activity undertaken before a question is officially placed on the ballot. Funds spent prior to a question being "on the ballot" may also be subject to campaign finance law if the funds are spent to influence the outcome of an anticipated ballot question. Id. Although it applies to anticipated ballot questions, the prohibition does not extend to expenditures made to discuss policy issues (e.g., the need to renovate aging school buildings), which currently are not the subject of a scheduled or anticipated ballot question, but may at some undetermined future point become the subject of a ballot question. On the other hand, the prohibition does not apply to expenditures concerning public policy issues that are not, and are not expected to be, the subject of an election. An example would be an issue that is on the warrant for a town meeting only, as noted later in this bulletin. This bulletin deals largely with the publicly funded distribution of information, especially k. Page 3 printed matter, as it relates to the Anderson restriction. Such distribution is the most common source of questions and complaints to OCPF. This bulletin does not, however, concern the speech of public officials concerning a ballot question, such as comments supporting or opposing a question or statements made during public meeting. Such comments are generally unrestricted by the campaign finance law. See Interpretive BulletinIB-92-02, "Activities of Public Officials in Support of or Opposition to Ballot Questions." II. Distribution of information relating to ballot questions Public officials often wish to distribute, or assist others in distributing, information relating to ballot questions at public expense. Such distribution is appropriate only if it is consistent with Anderson. As discussed below, public officials may prepare and make available certain information since such activity is consistent with their official responsibilities. Examples of such allowable actions would be preparing material and giving out copies at official meetings or sending it to voters who have requested more information. This type of activity is limited in scope and, in general, complies with Anderson. In contrast, the use of public resources to make an unsolicited distribution of information relating to the substance of a ballot question, such as a blanket mailing or other publicly funded dissemination of material, outside of an official meeting, would not comply with Anderson. The general rule is that governmental resources may not be used for distribution of voter information commenting on the substance of a ballot question. The prohibition applies whether the material that is distributed advocates for or against a question (it is "advocacy") or simply purports to be objective and factual (it is "informational'). As noted above, Anderson prohibits the distribution of advocacy material. As for informational material, the Secretary of the Commonwealth has concluded that the Home Rule `Amendment of the. Massachusetts Constitution prohibits municipalities from distributing such material in the absence of legislation specifically providing such authority. Only eight municipalities currently have such authority to distribute informational material: Newton (Chaer 274 of the Acts of 1987), Cambridge (Chapter 630 of the Acts of 1989), Sudbury (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1996), Burlington (Chapter 89 of the Acts of 1998), Dedham (Chapter 238 of the Acts of 2002), Lancaster (Sections 285-288 of Chapter 149 of the Acts of 2004), Yarmouth (Chapter 404 of the Acts of 2006), and Shrewsbury (Chapter 427 of the Acts of 2006). In addition, there is at least one other exception that this office is aware of: M.G.L. c. 43B, § 11, which directs the city council or board of selectmen to distribute the final report of a charter commission to voters. Two examples illustrate the circumstances in which the office most often finds that information has been distributed in violation of Anderson. Both concern the preparation and distribution of information that deals with a ballot question, though the method of distribution varies in each example. 1) A board of selectmen uses public funds to prepare and distribute a mailing to all town residents concerning an upcoming Proposition 2'/z override. The mailing either argues for a yes vote or provides arguably "objective" information about the question. If the mailing calls for a particular vote, it is an inappropriate use of public resources and violates Anderson. Even if the mailing simply provides "information" concerning the question, however, and may reflect an effort to be neutral, it is not consistent with the Home Rule Amendment. 1~ Page 4 2) A public school system prepares and distributes to teachers a flyer similar to the one noted in the first example. While there is no town-wide mailing, public resources are still used: school resources to prepare or copy the flyer, and the time of teachers in distributing it to students. Therefore, school officials should not ask children to take literature (including literature prepared *by a parent/teacher organization) regarding the substance of a ballot question home from school to give to parents.' See AO-94-11. Although the scope of the general rule prohibiting distribution of public resources is broad, therefare several exceptions. They are discussed in greater detail below. A. Distribution of information relating to Town Meeting In addition to consideration by voters at the polls, some ballot questions, such as Proposition 2'/z overrides and debt exclusions, also involve review by town meeting or a city or town board in the weeks and months prior to, or shortly after, an election. The campaign finance law does not regulate expenditures of public funds made for the purpose of lobbying town meeting or city or town boards or for other purposes not designed to influence voters at an election. See AO-93-36 and AO-94-37 (stating that the campaign finance law does not regulate expenditures made primarily to affect the deliberations on a warrant article at town meeting). Municipal officials may therefore use public resources to distribute information regarding a warrant article to residents prior to a town meeting, as long as the material is distributed primarily to influence the town meeting. Material distributed using public funds prior to a town meeting may not advocate a position on a ballot question. For example, a report summarizing or supporting a warrant article pending before town meeting may not also urge a vote in a subsequent town election. In addition, because it is not always easy to determine the primary purpose of material distributed before a town meeting and related election, municipal officials should be careful to avoid any discussion regarding an election in such material. Even if-it does not expressly urge a vote in an election, any discussion regarding an election in a flyer or other document distributed using public resources may raise an inference that the document is being distributed to influence the election. There are, however, limited circumstances where the mere mention of an election in a document that is distributed using public resources prior to a town meeting would not violate the campaign finance law. For example, the town meeting warrant may include a reference to a subsequent electron, especially in the context of a town meeting vote that is contingent on an override vote. In addition, a town's finance committee may use governmental resources to distribute a booklet contairiing its report and recommendations on warrant articles, if the recommendations are limited in scope to the warrant articles and the content of the booklet would reasonably be seen as primarily providing information in connection with town meeting, not the election which may take place after This office is sometimes asked about teachers' discussion of a ballot question, such as an override, in the classroom. Such activity often engenders controversy and is seen as an indirect attempt to influence parents, even if it is undertaken for educational or information purposes. Since there is no explicit prohibition of this activity under the campaign finance law, questions or concerns about such activity should be directed to local school officials or the Massachusetts Department of Education. Page 5 the town meeting. In such circumstances, the mention of the election is clearly secondary to the material's primary purpose of providing information relating to town meeting. The above examples deal with situations where town meeting precedes the election. In contrast, where an election, instead of following town meeting, precedes the relevant town meeting, OCPF advises that public resources should generally not be used to distribute information to voters until after the election. Distribution after the election eliminates any inference that taxpayer funds are being inappropriately used to influence or affect the outcome of the election. See AO-04-02 (relating to the distribution of the report and recommendations of a finance committee with the town meeting warrant). . Material that raises legal concerns under Anderson should be distributed with private funds by entities such as a duly organized ballot question committee or an existing association, corporation or other organization, in accordance with M:G.L. c. 55. Officials unsure about the appropriateness of any material planned for distribution should contact OCPF, which will review it and make a recommendation. B. Preparation of material by officials; restrictions on distribution Policy-making officials may act or speak out concerning ballot questions in their official capacity and during work hours if in doing so they are acting within the scope of their official responsibilities. See IB-92-02. Such responsibilities may include preparing a document for use in responding to public inquiries or taking steps to understand the implications of a ballot question that is within their area of responsibility. An official may therefore produce a document that deals with a ballot question, such as a summary of the effects of the question or an agency's position on the question, as long as such preparation is in accordance with his or her official responsibilities and does not expressly advocate a vote on an upcoming election. An example of a document that concerns a ballot question but does not pose an immediate problem under Anderson is a report prepared by a school building committee supporting the need for a new facility that will be the subject of a Proposition 2'/Z debt exclusion. The document would be a public record. It may be provided to those who ask for it, such as a citizen who calls the official seeking more information on the ballot question. Any person or group, at that person or group's expense, in turn may distribute the information to voters without violating the campaign finance law if the person or group complies with the campaign finance law's reporting and disclosure requirements. In addition, information prepared by a governmental entity regarding a ballot question may be posted on a bulletin board at town hall, and it may be made available at a counter or other convenient location for the public. It may also be posted on a governmental website. See AO-01-27, and I13-04-01. While the preparation of the document is allowable, its distribution by a public entity on a larger scale, beyond those who seek out the document or receive it at official meetings as noted below, would raise concerns under Anderson. Because the document is a public record, however, it may be copied and mailed to residents by a private entity using private funds, such as a parent-teacher organization (PTO), a ballot question committee or a corporation. See IB-92-02. The entity would, however, have to report the expenditures in accordance with the campaign finance law's requirements. ' lr Page 6 C. Distribution of information at public meetings or hearings Governmental resources may be used to produce and distribute, or make available, a reasonable quantity of a summary or other document, e.g., an architect's report on a proposed new school building, at a meeting or hearing of the governmental entity, even if the document advocates a particular vote in an anticipated election or otherwise refers to such an election. In meetings or hearings conducted by a public body, materials prepared by or for the body may be distributed to persons in attendance where such materials are designed to facilitate discussion or where the materials otherwise relate to the agenda of the meeting.2 The content of such material is generally not subject to Anderson, even if it references or makes a.recommendation concerning an upcoming ballot question, because its primary purpose is to facilitate the meeting. Such unsolicited distribution of the material to a larger audience after a meeting should be avoided. D. Distribution of-notices of public meetings or municipal elections The campaign finance law does not restrict the distribution of some basic information, such as notice of a public meeting held by a governmental body or a notice regarding an upcoming election. Public resources may be used to prepare and distribute a brief neutral notice to voters announcing the times and dates of meetings such as the type referred to in the previous section, as well as notices of meetings of governmental bodies. For example, a notice of a selectmen's meeting to discuss the municipal budget and an upcoming override may be distributed at public expense. Such notice should be confined to a simple notice of the meeting and avoid any discussion of the substance or merits of the override. A notice that encourages people to attend so they can "learn why an override is needed" would not comply with this standard. In addition, public resources may be used to distribute information that simply advises voters of an upcoming vote, such as a notice of the time, date and place of a municipal election. In addition, such information may urge people to vote, and provide information about how to register to vote. Also, such information may include a brief neutral title describing the ballot question, and the text of the ballot question. Extreme care should be taken to avoid any appearance of advocacy. For example, the title "school expansion project" would be appropriate. On the other hand, titles which would not be appropriate include "ballot question relating to need for school expansion," or "ballot question addressing school overcrowding problem." III. Use of government buildings or other public facilities or resources Notwithstanding the Anderson prohibition, there are limited circumstances in which groups supporting or opposing a ballot question may use public resources. In its decision, the court stated z Generally, such public documents may not be reproduced using public funds if they are to be distributed at a meeting sponsored or organized by a ballot question committee. The documents could, however, be distributed by an official who has been invited to speak at a meeting of other private groups regarding a ballot question within the scope of the official's area of responsibilities. e Page 7 that the city's use of publicly funded facilities "would be improper, at least unless each side were given equal representation and access." 376 Mass. at 200. "Equal access" means that a group supporting or opposing a ballot question, such as a registered ballot question committee, may be allowed to use a room or other space in a public building for a meeting, as a long as a group on the opposing side is given the opportunity, on request, to have a similar meeting, on the same terms and conditions.3 "Equal access," if provided, does not mean that proponents or opponents must be invited to - attend a particular event or be asked or permitted to speak at an event. See AO-90-02. For example, an opponent of a ballot question who demands an opportunity to speak at a meeting of the committee supporting the question is not entitled to such an opportunity under the equal access rule. The content and agenda of the meeting is set and controlled by the group using the space. While apolitical meeting in a public building may be allowable under the campaign finance law, the meeting may not include any fundraising activity. Political fundraising is not allowed in buildings occupied for governmental purposes, such as city and town halls and schools. In addition, as previously noted, public employees who work in those buildings are also prohibited from raising funds for any political purpose. See M.G.L. c. 55, § 13-17 and I13-92-01. "Equal access" does not mean that a private group may use a room or building which has been used for a meeting by a public body, such as a board of selectmen, within the scope of its official responsibilities, even if the public body endorsed or discussed a ballot question at its meeting and the private group opposes the ballot question. The "equal access" requirement also does not provide individuals or groups any right to speak or be placed on the agenda at a public meeting of a governmental body, such as a board of selectmen or school committee. Nor does it mean that an opponent of a ballot question is entitled to such access to distribute information, after the public body has made ballot question information, prepared within the scope of the entity's responsibilities, available to the public in the building or at the meeting. See AO-01-27. The equal access requirement generally is not triggered by the use of public facilities by parent teacher organizations (PTOs) for regularly scheduled PTO meetings, even if a meeting is used in part to discuss the merits of a ballot question. The primary purpose of PTOs is not to promote or oppose ballot questions. In short, "equal access" is triggered by the use of governmental resources by private groups organized to influence a ballot question, or when private groups use public resources primarily for that purpose. In addition to access to buildings or space for meetings, groups may be given the opportunity, if equal access is provided, to distribute non-fundraising flyers regarding a ballot question in public buildings. If each side is provided the same opportunity, proponents and opponents may also be offered access to certain public services, such as mailing labels (AO-88-27), a city council chamber for campaign announcement (AO-89-28), faculty mailboxes in public school to distribute non-fundraising campaign material (AO-04-06), or a public park for a political rally (AO-92-28). In addition, a state or local governmental agency may, as part of a collective bargaining agreement, use public resources to 3 A municipality may choose, however, to not allow any access to meeting space by political committees; such a policy does not violate the campaign finance law as long as it is evenly applied to all groups. In other words, equal access may mean no access by political groups. See AO-04-06. , -19- Page 8 administer a payroll deduction plan for a public employee PAC, since the use of such resources would be for the purpose of fulfilling the governmental entity's contractual obligation, not primarily to provide a benefit to the PAC. See AO-03-04. A municipality or agency, which provides such a resource, must be reimbursed for any additional out-of-pocket expenses incurred in providing the resource. See AO-03-04. The campaign finance law does not regulate the extent to which proponents and opponents of a ballot question may have access to cable television resources. Questions relating to such access should be addressed to the Cable Television Division of the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy at (617) 305-3580. IV. Privately-funded political committees and other permissible activities. Government officials, public employees or anyone else who wishes to oppose or promote a ballot question may undertake such activity using private funds, through a ballot question committee or other existing organization. A separate ballot question committee should first be established with the local election official, in the case of a municipal ballot question, or with OCPF, in the case of a question put to voters on the state-ballot. This committee may then be used to raise and expend funds to promote or oppose the ballot question. Public employees may not solicit or receive any contribution on behalf of the committee, although they may make contributions and participate in activities of the committee that do not involve fundraising. A school newsletter prepared using public resources, or a PTO newsletter, if distributed by teachers, should not be used to help support a ballot question committee. For example, it should not announce the formation of a ballot question committee or provide information on how to contact the committee. See AO-00-06. A group may not solicit or receive contributions to support or oppose a ballot question until it organizes and registers as a ballot question committee. Where two or more persons "pool" their money to support or oppose a question, e.g., to pay for an advertisement, the persons should first register as a ballot question committee. Such groups are subject to all the reporting and disclosure provisions of M.G.L. c. 55. Groups such as parent-teacher organizations and local teachers' unions, which do not raise funds specifically to influence the vote on.a ballot question, may make expenditures from existing funds to support or.oppose a ballot question, and may make contributions to a ballot question committee. See IB-88-01 "The Applicability of the Campaign Finance Law to Organizations Other Than Political Committees." Groups making such contributions or expenditures must, however, file a report (OCPF Form M22 or 22) with either the local election official or OCPF to disclose the contributions or expenditures. See I13-90-02. V. Expenditures of Governmental Resources - Remedies The treasurer of any city, town or other governmental unit, which has made expenditures or used public resources to influence or affect the vote on any question submitted to the voters, must file a report disclosing such activity. See M.G.L. c. 55, §'22A and M-95-06. 3 Page 9 Because of the differing circumstances and severity of instances of the improper use of public resources to influence elections, the final disposition and remedies in such cases may vary. Where the use of public resources is minor or difficult to quantify, or where officials are not aware of the restrictions, OCPF focuses on providing guidance to ensure that the action is not repeated. In other cases, however, restitution of funds adjudicated to have been spent contrary to law may be required. Such restitution may not be paid from public funds. It may, however, be paid by a ballot question committee, association or other private group or individual. Any officer of a governmental unit violating § 22A may be subject to criminal penalties. Finally, any ten persons may file suit to restrain illegal use of public funds at the local level by filing a ten taxpayer suit. See M.G.L. c. 40, § 53. It was such a "ten taxpayer" suit that led to the Anderson decision. At the state level, any 24 taxpayers can file a similar suit. See M.G.L. c. 29, § 63. VI. Other Bulletins and Memoranda . This bulletin provides general guidance. If you are in doubt regarding the scope of the campaign finance law, you should contact OCPF at (800) 462-OCPF or (617) 727-8352. This office's web site, www.mass.gov/ocpf, provides additional guidance on this and other campaign finance topics. In addition, related interpretive bulletins and memoranda which may be of interest and which may downloaded from OCPF's website include: IB-90-02 (Disclosure and Reporting of Contributions and Expenditures Related to Ballot Questions); IB-92-01 (The Application of the Campaign Finance Laws to Public Employees and Political Solicitation); IB-92-02 (Activities of Public Officials in Support of or Opposition to Ballot Questions); IB-95-02 (Political Activity of Ballot Question Committees and Civic Organizations' Involvement in Ballot Question Campaigns); IB-95-03 (Use of Public Resources by Elected Officials to Communicate with Constituents or Respond to Criticism); M-95-06 (Disclosure of expenditures of public resources required under M.G.L. c. 55, § 22A); and IB- 04-01 (Use of the Internet and E-mail for Political Campaign Purposes). Michael J. Sullivan Director . u d~