HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-23 ad Hoc School Building Committee Minutes^U
Reading School Building Committee L E i
Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on October 23, 2001, 7:30 p.m.
(In the Superintendents Conference Room, RMHS) - ILI P 4: 4
Committee Members Attending:
Russ Graham, Chair (RG)
Jane Darveaux (JD)
Rich Radville (RR)
Jeff Struble (JS)
Tim Twomey (TT)
Dennis LaCroix (DL)
Alex McRae (AM)
Ray Porter (RP)
Paula Perry (PP)
Michael Scarpitto (MS)
Featured Guests:
Dr. Harry Harutunian (Superintendent - Reading Public Schools)
RG began by recapitulating the need to discuss the RMHS project and its many options
with the state School Building Assistance bureau (SBA) in order to ascertain the
reimbursibility of those options. He stated that the Committee could not realistically go
forward with bringing recommendations to Town Meeting without this knowledge. To
that end, the time between this meeting and the last one (June 26, 2001) was used by
RG and members of the Administration to arrange an on-site meeting with
representatives of the SBA. This meeting occurred in September with the SBA touring
the high school campus with the high school principal and facilities director and meeting
with RG, the Superintendent and the chair of the School Committee afterwards.
The administrator of the SBA, Christine Lynch, was in attendance and produced a letter
to the Superintendent, dated October 1, 2001, summarizing the SBA's reactions to some
of the ideas contained in the options as discussed at the meeting. RG passed out
copies of the letter (copy attached to these minutes) and suggested the Committee go
over those reactions point-by-point. He noted that while the letter did not express the
SBA's rejection of any ideas, it did point out several areas of concern;
• Relocation of "non instructional" activities... It appeared that the SBA could not justify
approving monies for additions to the high school while areas deemed non-
educational such as the Administration offices, REAP, non-school maintenance, etc.
were allowed to remain in the building.
• Expansion of Library: The SBA felt that only if accreditation or access issues had to
be corrected with a space expansion would such an undertaking be considered.
l`'eadltzg tiSchool Building Committee 2
Aleeting A mutes ft•om October 23. 2001
• Expansion of Cafeteria: Citing the fact that most high schools in the Commonwealth
now have three lunch seatings, the SBA did not feel that expansion of the existing
cafeteria for the purpose of allowing only two lunch seatings would be justifiable.
• Relocation of girls' lockers: Apparently in reference to the prospect of enhancing the
field house facilities if girls' lockers are added there to comply with Title IX issues, the
SBA would want to see if those issues could be addressed by reconfiguration of
existing space before contemplating field house enhancements.
• Reconfiguration of the "old gym" into a small auditorium: The letter stated that since
the present RMHS auditorium is rather large and accommodating compared with
most other high schools in the state, the SBA could not justify the cost of producing
additional auditorium space. It would rather review options that used the old gym for
other academic programs.
• Additions to field house: Plans to reconfigure existing space for the athletic programs
should be pursued before the SBA would consider adding field house space.
• Parking: Parking and traffic access were recognized as being limited and plans to
alleviate these problems would be considered by the SBA.
• Security Issues: Although not explicitly discussed at the meeting, the SBA apparently
feels that securing both the main high school building and the field house while
maintaining access should be addressed.
• Additional Information Needed: the letter reiterated the need for several items to be
submitted for formal review by them, such as several state forms, enrollment
projections and the establishment of a school building committee.
• As a final comment, The SBA noted that RMHS currently exceeds square footage
maximums allowed by their regulations. Although in general, structural and
programmatic renovations to such a school could be provided through SBA
assistance, it appeared that such assistance could not be forthcoming to enlarge
existing spaces such as the cafeteria, field house and auditorium that already exceed
the State allowance.
RG said that his thoughts on the SBA's responses were that that agency must
become more conservative in their apportionment of State dollars. This is due, in his
opinion, to reduced state budgets and the trend state-wide for towns to apply for
middle and high school projects, which are more expensive per project than
elementary schools (meaning fewer projects approved for a given level of funding).
As to the level of funding, RG passed out a recent newspaper article forecasting cuts
in the level of state assistance for school projects (copy attached). Further, the SBA
must cope with administering new regulations with a new (and undersized) staff,
perhaps prompting the agency to proceed cautiously as these new reg's are
implemented.
- TT voiced his agreement with RG's assessment of the SBA's response. He said that
he felt the agency gave them a fair hearing and left them with the understanding that
, School Building Committee
Reading
itteeting ?llMutes f •onr October 23. 2001
Reading would have to make its case if it wanted to pursue items that were not on
the SBA's initial approvable list.
- Dr. Harutunian added that potential benefits exist in the form of added
reimbursement percentage points being awarded for past partial school renovation
projects that have gone unfunded. Presumably, these past renovations are
considered a form of maintenance and are considered part of the incentive portion of
the formula by which Towns derive their (new) reimbursement rates.
RR questioned the SBA's reference to expanding the library, noting that none of the
options considered added library space (some do reconfigure it to other
programmatic uses). TT answered that he thought they added that reference due to
the requests for added library facilities that have accompanied so many other
renovations in the State. RR wondered if the language contained in the SBA's letter
didn't "close the door" on certain items (such as the small auditorium). Both TT and
Dr. Harutunian felt that the language was intended to convey the SBA's wish that
Reading satisfy its programmatic needs within the existing building footprint.
Following questions from PP and JS, they gave examples of what might be expected
from SBA in how to approach using existing space to satisfy needs (such as
providing both boys' and girls' locker facilities in one of the present segregated locker
spaces and seeing if that complies with current ed. specs). JD asked if the roofing
over of the present courtyard space near the cafeteria would be acceptable, since it
didn't expand the footprint. Dr. Harutunian answered that while not exactly an
addition, the roofing over of the space for cafeteria use (two lunches instead of three)
could be seen as unjustifiable in light of other high school lunch programs.
- RG thought that the SBA's response was helpful in that it put questions of justifiability
to the Committee that the average citizen would do upon hearing of the options for
the first time. AM concurred, stating that their letter was timely in clarifying the "gray
areas" that the new regulations had created.
Turning to the upcoming request of Town Meeting and the Town to allow $500K to be
raised and spent on a schematic design for the high school, RG asked the Committee to
consider the possibility of including in the instructions to the architect a classification of
individual facets of the project as "must do", "should do" and "optional". He based this
classification scheme on the original (1996) feasibility study that followed this system to
prioritize the various recommendations contained therein.
RP asked how the article for the schematic design fees that appears on the
warrant for the Subsequent Town Meeting in November (Article 7) appeared
without the direct involvement of the Committee as a whole. He further
wondered why there was no specific dollar amount mentioned in the copy of
the article he had seen. RG responded that he had produced the warrant
article in consultation with the Town Manager and Town Counsel in order to
produce the article before the warrant closed. This was done in direct
response to the instructional motion passed at the 2001 Annual Town
Meeting requesting the SBC to come to the fall Town Meeting to request
design fees for a recommended solution to the high school's problems. As to
the dollar amount, RG said that omitting such numbers was a common
Re ailing S"chool Building Committee
IWeeting .ilinuta>sfiorrz C)ctohe> 23, 2011
practice when such numbers were not known at the time the warrant closed.
A number would be put before Town Meeting before the November
appearance of the SBC.
AM commented that the original instructional motion had specified that the
Committee come before the next Town Meeting "or shortly thereafter,"
allowing the SBC some latitude in the time it needed to make its
recommendation. He did not feel that the Committee had met often enough
to adequately cover all the material it needed to cover, especially in light of
the SBA's recent letter. To that point, RG thought that the letter may have
made it impossible for the SBC to identify a single plan without the aid of an
architect to adjust the plan's components to align with the guidelines
articulated by the SBA and present them to the SBC for its review and
recommendations. TT concurred with RG, saying that the instructions to the
architect might be to devise a minimal scheme that produced maximum
programmatic effects, using the SBA's concerns as design criteria.
AM agreed with the rationale of RG and TT, but had reservations that people
removed from this Committee would not be clear enough on the need for an
architect to produce such a scheme and would withhold their votes as a
result. TT responded that the goal of maximum cost-effectiveness through
use of the architect would be a convincing argument.
PP voiced her understanding that the SBC was going to be ready to give the
architect the preferred scheme as a result of its deliberations rather than ask
the architect to help it produce a preferred scheme. RR responded that that
was the original idea in asking for schematic design fees, but the recent
comments from the SBA made it unlikely that the Committee could produce a
well-reasoned scheme (certainly not in two weeks' time). RG added that
previous SBA rulings on Reading school projects were unequivocal, making
the SBC's review of options very clear in terms of which components would
or would not be reimbursable by the state. The present SBA ruling appears
to withhold judgment of reimburability until certain design options have been
thoroughly explored, which requires the work of an architect familiar with the
current SBA's regulations. Hence, producing a preferred scheme prior to an
architect's involvement may not be advisable.
JS expressed reservations about going to Town Meeting to ask for
permission to put a request for design fees before the voters when the SBC's
recommendation for the direction the RMHS project should go is still
somewhat in doubt, particularly in light of the recent SBA letter. He felt the
Committee should take the time to digest the letter's implications with the
options contained in the feasibility studies and clarify it's recommendations as
best it could before appearing before Town Meeting. RR felt that Town
Meeting would not require such clarification since it was only being asked to
allow the voters to make the decision for schematic design fees directly.
However, he did feel that the Committee should endeavor to clarify its
recommendations for the general electorate, meaning that it should do as JS
suggested prior to the election (if authorized) and attempt to define concrete
goals for the RMHS project to give to the architect.
Reading School Building,- Committee
iWeting Minutes f -ont October 23, 2001
- JD spoke about the process that had already taken place wherein the goals
for the high school from the educators' standpoint had been defined during
the production of the feasibility studies and that these goals already formed a
"blueprint" which could be developed further. She felt that the SBA's letter
would require revisiting this blueprint and may very well require the services
of an architect to shape it into a form acceptable to the SBA.
JS remarked that the blueprint was still undefined and it would take more
deliberation by the SBC to define it to the satisfaction of the general public
and Town Meeting. He felt that "specificity" was expected by Town Meeting
and by the voters to point out a direction that the Town should go in and the
Committee should do what it could to provide specifics.
PP said that she felt that the Committee was suppose to establish the
priorities for the high school project in consultation with the high school staff,
keeping in mind the dictates of the SBA as expressed thus far. TT countered
that the high school staff had already established its priorities in the feasibility
studies based on education and the SBC had to re-prioritize those priorities
using another set of guidelines, such as maximizing state reimbursement.
RG wondered that if, for example, the Committee were to remove all the
items mentioned by the SBA as being of concern to them as a way of moving
forward with the project, it would be faced with having to reconfigure the
remaining items to achieve the educational goals of the school. He doubted
that that could be done without the help of a knowledgeable architect. AM
added that he felt that the Committee should be formulating a plan that was
focused on success with its attempts to move the project forward.
RP reiterated his concern over possible failure of the attempt to secure funds
for one solution, recommending that multiple solutions be put forward as a
means of ensuring that one of them would succeed. PP questioned how
multiple options could be formulated in light of the Committee's difficulty in
articulating a single option. RP responded that the high school staff could
prioritize the components of the options produced and the Committee could
produce of menu. RG, however, reminded everyone that the instructional
motion from the last Town Meeting indicated that they did not want multiple
options put before it and that further debate on that point would be
contradictory to its wishes.
Observer Jackie Mandell asked the Committee to check on the high school
project in Peabody to see if there were any parallels with the course of action
planned in Reading. Apparently one architect was hired to produce a
schematic design for the school, but was not asked to continue on with the
job. Another architectural firm was solicited to complete the design, but the
mayor refused to sign a contract with them, effectively halting the progress of
the project. Dr. Harutunian said he would check with the Peabody
superintendent about it.
RR suggested that the Committee proceed with evaluating the components of
the various options and come to a consensus about which of those
components it feels strongly about as being necessary for inclusion in the
h'ew'ing aSehool Building Conunittee
Afeeting .Minutes front October 23. 2001
RMHS project (as it said it would do, at past meetings). He did not feel it was
necessary to finish this process before Town Meeting, saying that being
ready with its specific recommendations for the override election in the spring
was the primary goal of the Committee.
DL voiced his opinion to go forward with the project as the most pressing
need the Committee had at the moment. He felt that hiring an architect to
help develop a plan that would satisfy the SBA made sense, given the
changes to the regulations, and that further delay to dig into the options by
the Committee should be minimized.
PP agreed with RR, stating that she hoped the Committee would have been
better prepared before it went before Town Meeting, but given the timing of
the SBA's response, it should focus on the override election as the target for
finishing its deliberations.
MS expressed his interpretation of the SBA letter that many of the items
expressed as being needed by the high school staff were approvable and that
any items that they had concerns with could be re-thought. He didn't feel that
there was a need to go back to the beginning as far as establishing
educational goals was concerned.
RP expressed continued reservations about not succeeding in going forward
with the project due to recommending a single option that might fail, whereas
he felt multiple options might succeed. He said he could not support going to
Town Meeting in November to ask for $500K for a single option for that
reason.
AM wondered if Strekalovsky & Hoit (architects for the second feasibility
study) could review the SBA's letter and advise the Committee of its
implications to the options it produced. He also felt it would be helpful to
review the original feasibility study and its menu of prioritized items. He
worried that attempting to put forward a solution that was not acceptable
would discredit the Committee and impair its future effectiveness.
JD said that her understanding of the Committee's role was to facilitate
expressing the needs of the high school as determined by the faculty and
staff to Town Meeting and ultimately the town. In that role, she hoped the
Committee would not reject the staff's recommendations. She thought it was
time to put a solution out for consideration as a test in order to not lose any
more time.
RR thought that the Committee should have detailed discussions about the
options and their contents and attempt to come to a consensus about a
solution before it put the $500K question to a general vote. He endorsed
asking Town Meeting for permission to hold an election (without having come
to a consensus).
TT offered the observation that each month of delay in the project could add
as much as $125K to its overall cost (based on current inflation rates),
leading him to advocate not only for going to Town Meeting in November but
Readif g &hool Building Committee
Afeeting Minutes ftom October 23. 2001
also to think about scheduling the override election as soon as possible so as
not to add months (and the corresponding cost increases) to the project.
RG interjected that the Town Treasurer had projected the yearly tax
increases necessary to fund a debt exclusion override (as opposed to a one-
time capital exclusion override) for the amount of $500K. She estimated the
cost as $3.11 per annum for the average property assessment of $320K
(copy of her estimate passed out and attached to these minutes).
Observer Jackie Mandell asked if the cost estimates contained in the first
feasibility study by DRA could be updated (exclusive of the option to include a
centralized kindergarten) to today's dollars. RR said he could do that and RG
directed him to do so.
JS expressed his opinion that the Committee should complete its
deliberations before going to Town Meeting to ask for permission to hold an
override election. He based this opinion on his view of how Town Meeting
viewed the SBC; as a sub-committee whose job it is to digest complex
material ill-suited for a large body's ability to go into detail and report back to
it with a final recommendation. He felt that stating to Town Meeting that the
SBC will finish its work in the near future would meet resistance from TM
members who expect to send the exact same solution that it reviewed to the
voters. He disagreed with RP on the notion of presenting multiple options,
saying that it would be likely that no one would be satisfied with the outcome.
He suggested that the Committee plan to finish its work and come before a
Special Town Meeting sometime in December or January to present its
! recommendation for that body's review. In that way, the Committee could
finish its deliberations and allow Town Meeting to focus exclusively on the
subject of the high school.
RG thought that the best way to deal with the suggestion of postponing the
Committee's presentation for a Special Town Meeting was to entertain a
motion for taking Article 7 to the Subsequent Town Meeting in November
(Article 7 being the SBC's request to raise $500K for schematic design fees
through an override election). TT made the following motion; "Move Article 7
in the draft warrant report of October 15, 2001 (Peter Hechenbleikner, the
Bylaw Committee, etc.) on page 5 (to take to Town Meeting in November)."
DL seconded the motion. RG explained that the vote would be to take Article
7 to the Subsequent Town Meeting in November rather than to another
Special Town Meeting. Copies of this draft were passed out (copy attached
to these meetings). After review of the text, with no further discussion being
offered, a vote was taken with the results being 8 for the motion and 2
against; thus, the motion passed.
The Committee planned for (at least) two meetings before the Subsequent Town
Meeting (beginning November 13th) and tentatively scheduled them for November 1St (in
the library of Parker Middle School) and November 7th (in the Superintendent's office),
both at 7:30 p.m. RG added that members of the SBC were invited to attend an
upcoming Finance Committee meeting (on October 24th) and a Selectmen's meeting (on
October 30th) where Article 7 would be discussed by those bodies. The Committee
Reading
School Building, Committee
Meeting illinutes, f vni October 23, 2001
decided to take up discussion of the components of the feasibility studies vis-a-vis the
recent SBA letter at the November 1St meeting.
Dr. Harutunian requested that any RFQ for schematic design services should include as
a requirement up-to-date familiarity with the new State regulations.
Under new business, RP asked to discuss the operating procedures of the SBC, passing
out copies of a list of items for discussion and a copy of the Operating Procedures for
Boards, Committees, Commissions, and Task Forces - Town of Reading,
Massachusetts as written by Peter Hechenbleikner (Town Manager) on March 16, 1995
(copies attached to these minutes). Recent meeting cancellations prompted him to
explore these procedures and the Committee's original charge from Town Meeting. He
expressed confusion over the Committee's purpose and concern over the Committee's
procedures (see list).
He also had questions about disclosing any conflict of interest he might have. Members
of the Committee recommended that RP attend an upcoming conflict of interest seminar
being held for town board members to educate himself about how to handle that subject.
RG commented that the operating procedures drafted by the Town Manager do not
necessarily apply to the SBC due to its operation under the direct control of Town
Meeting rather than under the Board of Selectmen (such BOS-controlled boards were
the subject of the written procedures).
RP asked who was responsible for canceling meetings, citing the cancellation of the
previous meeting as an example. RG stated that officially the chair alone calls for and
cancels meetings. RP also felt the wording of the original charge for the Committee was
too vague. RG responded that vague or not, that was what Town Meeting said when it
created the SBC and its function over the years has apparently met with that body's
approval. He went on to say that the Committee's purpose was advisory in nature and
any actions it undertook in an administrative role were done at the direction of an elected
body, Town Meeting. RP said he would bring this subject up again at the next meeting.
RG called for a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting held on April 11, 2001 as
submitted, which came from RR with DL seconding. With no additions, deletions or
comments being offered, a vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative.
RG called for a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting held on June 26, 2001 as
submitted, which came from RR with DL seconding. AM requested that on page 2 under
Item 6, paragraph 3, the word "not" be added in the last sentence so that it would read
"In general, the SBA would not support a piecemeal plan that disrupted the educational
program every 3-5 years." Consensus for the amendment was given by all and RG
called for a vote on the minutes as amended. With no further additions, deletions or
comments being offered, a vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative.
With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. DL so moved and
was seconded by PP. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time
10:25 p.m.).
Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary
Reading School Building Committee
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Education
350 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-5023 Telephone: (781) 338-3000
October 1, 2001
Harry Harutunian, Superintendent
Reading Public Schools
82 Oakland Road
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Superintendent Harutunian:
I am writing as a follow-up to our site visit and meeting to discuss renovation plans for Reading
High School. During our visit you provided copies of feasibility studies documenting structural
issues with the existing school building and identified programmatic issues relating to growing
enrollments and Title IX issues. A number of options were presented to remediate the structural
and/or programmatic inefficiencies. Based on the information presented and our site visit, we
recognized the need for structural and programmatic improvements. However, we also
expressed reservation and the need for additional documentation in the following areas.
• Relocation of "non instructional" activities, e.g. administrative office, REEP program, town
maintenance, etc. It is noted that in the options reviewed most if not all of these spaces that
currently are housed in the high school would be relocated. Although, in general programs
of this type could be planned or maintained in a school building paid entirely with local
funds, we could not justify approving an addition to a school building until all existing space
had been analyzed for potential reconfiguration to needed instructional space
• Expansion of Library- We would be interested in any accreditation or access issues that
would justify a library expansion.
• Expansion of Cafeteria - Since most districts in the state maintain three lunch seatings, we
could not justify state support to expand the cafeteria in order to maintain two seatings.
• Relocation of girls lockers - Although we understand that there is a Title IX issue with this
space, we would be interested in evaluating options for reconfigurations of existing space to
satisfy the Title IX issue before we could support new space.
• Reconfiguration of "old gym" into small auditorium - Since you currently have an
auditorium that seats approximately 1100 students, we could not justify state support for an
additional auditorium at this time. We would be interesting in reviewing options to utilize
this space for other academic programs.
• Additions to field house - We would be interested in other reconfigurations to accommodate
the desired athletic program within existing space, before we could support new space.
Parking - Although we have not seen a site plan for the planned project, we recognized the
limitations to the parking and traffic access on the site and would require additional information
to show how these issues might be alleviated.
Harry Harutunian
Page Two
October 1, 2001
• Security Issues - We would be interested in what measures will be taken to secure the
buildings while maintaining access between the separate field house and the rest of the high
school services.
• Additional Information Needed: In order to properly evaluate the need for renovations
and/or additions to Reading High school, we would need the following information
• Rationale for Capital Construction (645-3)
• Inventories of all existing school space (645-4)
• 10 year enrollment projections
• Vote to appoint school building committee
Based on the planned enrollment, the existing high school exceeds the square footage maximums
allowed in the School Building Assistance Regulations. In general state assistance could be
provided to support structural and programmatic renovation of a building that exceeded the state
allowance. However, based on the issues noted above, state assistance could not be provided to
support additions to a building designed to enlarge spaces such as a cafeteria, field house and
auditorium that already exceed the state allowance.
We would like to continue our discussions with you on your plan to renovate the high school in
order to ensure that the project plan will be in keeping with the state school building assistance
law and regulation and will meet the needs of Reading High School students for years to come.
Please contact us at anytime to discuss your project.
Cordially,
C""" --Q1
Christine M. Lynch
Administrator
School Building Assistance
c: Project File
has ~f ~ ~
Funding cuts seen
!l
for school building
ByAnand Vaishnav
GLOSESTAFF
W-th state agencies slashing
budgets to cope with a flounder-
ing economy, the state Depart-
ment of Education is forecasting a
steep drop in the amount of mon-
ey it gives to districts for school
construction.
Despite promises from Beacon
Hill to protect education spend-
ing, the department is considering
cutting the amount it earmarks for
building new schools from $50
million to $20 million, officials
said yesterday. That almost cer-
tainly will slow school construc-
tion.
Education Commissioner Da-
vid P. Driscoll said other cuts are
also under consideration, and the-
state Board of.Education is expect-
ed to discuss the department's
budget at its meeting today. But
even before the 2002-2003 budget
is approved, school districts are
sounding warnings that eagerly
anticipated school projects might
have to wait.
That's. the case in Boston,
where two of the five schools May-
or Thomas M. Menino promised
in 1999 have yet to be financed or
sited - and might not be for a
while, he said. Still, the mayor yes-
terday stood by his pledge to build
the two schools. Three of the five
have been financed and are not afi
ing additional schools," Meninv~
said at Madison Park Technical
Vocational High School in Rox-P
bury, where he helped unveil an'
online MCAS tutorial. `They're oa`
the drawing board, like any other'
city in the state."
Driscoll said the two schools
are not on the department's list of
projects awaiting funding because
the city hasn't applied for financ-
ing yet.
New rules that spell out which
construction projects will receive
priority mean schools built to ease,
overcrowding probably willget
quicker approval than "neighbor-
hood schools" built to help stu-
dents attend classes closer tot
home. Menino had promised the'
five new schools to enable more
students to walls to classes instead
of being bused, as is the case when
their local schools reach capacity
Massachusetts school distdctw
have been in a spending frenzy in,:;
recent years as the state mcrease&-
its annual payments for construe-
lion. Three years ago, for examplem
the state spent $34 million on new
projects, a total that increased toff
about $50 million this year. L
Overall, the Department of_
Education this year spent $365.;
million on construction, includinga
schools approved several years
ago that are being built.
--All
fected by budget slowdowns. Anand vasshnav can
"We're still commiUd to build- by &nwa at vai,*xwI0 *I^h' ~,A
ESTIMATED EFFECT ON REAL ESTATE TAXES WITH DEBT
EXCLUSION OF $ 5009000
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING PROJECTIONS ARE BASED ON THE ESTIMATED FY'02
VALUATION OF $2,568,606,367 AND THE ESTIMATED FY'02 TAX RATE OF $12.25
PER THOUSAND OF VALUATION
• Each $2,568,606 expenditures= $1.00 on the tax rate
• Each $100,000 of additional expenditures= $.0389 on the tax rate
• Since the tax rate is per thousand dollars of valuation, each $100,000 increase of
expenditures will cost taxpayers $3.89 per $100,000 of property valuation
• The average assessment for single family homes is approximately $320,000
Yearly cost of $ 25,000 of Bond Anticipation Note (BAN) interest (estimated at 5 % interest
rate) on $ 500,000 is approximately as follows:
• With a $200,000 value, it would mean an increase of $ 1.95 in yearly taxes
• With a $250,000 value, it would mean an increase of $ 2.43 in yearly taxes
• With a $300,000 value, it would mean an increase of $ 2.91 in yearly taxes
• With a $320,000 value, it would mean an increase of $ 3.11 in yearly taxes
• With a $400,000 value, it would mean an increase of $ 3.89 in yearly taxes
• With a $450,000 value, it would mean an increase of $ 4.38 in yearly taxes
• With a $500,000 value, it would mean an increase of $ 4.86 in yearly taxes
• With a $600,000 value, it would mean an increase of $ 5.83 in yearly taxes
• With a $700,000 value, it would mean an increase of $ 6.81 in yearly taxes
NOTE: BAN interest is carried by the Town for five years or until School Building Assistance
Aid from the State is paid. No principal payments need to be made until the SBA aid starts to be
paid.
Bylaw Committee Report: No report.
ARTICLE 7 To see what sum the Town will raise by borrowing, or transfer
from available funds, or otherwise, and appropriate for the purposes of developing one
or more schematic designs for making extraordinary repairs and/or additions to the
Reading Memorial High School at 62 Oakland Road, including the costs of engineering
and architectural fees, plans, documents, cost estimates, and related expenses
incidental thereto and necessary in connection therewith, said sum to be expended by
and under the direction of the School Building Committee; and to see if the Town will
vote to authorize the School Building Committee, the School Committee, or any other
agency of the Town to file application for a grant or grants to be used to defray the cost
of all or any part of the cost of said schematic designs; and to see if the Town will vote to
authorize the School Building Committee to enter into all contracts and agreements as
may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Article; provided however that any
borrowing authorized by this Article and any appropriation subject to this Article shall be
contingent upon the passage of a debt exclusion referendum question or a capital
exclusion referendum question under General Laws Chapter 59 s 21c no later than
December 31, 2002; or take any other action with respect thereto.
School Building Committee
Background: An instructional motion at the 2001 Annual Town Meeting directed the
School Building Committee to come back to the Subsequent Town Meeting with a
request to fund preliminary design work for the Reading Memorial High School
renovation project. This Article responds to that instruction. The Article is drafted,
consistent with the Capital Improvements Program, to seek either a capital exclusion or
a debt exclusion for the funding of such work so that it will not further burden the already
stressed existing local tax levy.
Finance Committee Report:
Bylaw Committee Report: No report.
School Building Committee Report:
ARTICLE 8 To see if the Town will amend the fees as established in Sections
4.5.3, 4.5.4, 4.5.5, and 4.5.6 of the General Bylaws of the Town of Reading as amended,
or take any other action with respect thereto.
Board of Selectmen
Background: The Town has done a comprehensive review of the fees that it charges
for services. Most such fees are established by the individual Departments or by the
Board of Selectmen. However, the fees charged by the Town Clerk and the fees
charged for Building and Wiring inspections are established by Town Meeting.
5
- P b,/ 1017'.310(
School Build Comnjiittee Operating Procedures
Eleven member independent connnittee appointed by Town Moderator to
"carry out a long range building program and to originally equip the
additional. facilities".
Letters announcing meeting and cancellations from the School Department,
"they" decided to cancel last two meetings @ O ?
Quorum rules
Vice chair
Timely distribution of approved minutes
Scheduling of regular ongoing meetings
Advance draft agendas (with tune for each item)
Disclosure - conflict of interest Laws
Motion: The SBC comply with all operating procedures for Boards,
Committees Cominissions and Task Forces for the Town of Re