The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-02-01 Board of Selectmen PacketDATE: February 1, 2011 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Senior Center 49 Pleasant Street, Reading, Massachusetts James E. Bonazoli, Chairman Camille W. Anthony, Vice Chairman Richard W. Schubert, Secretary Stephen A. GDldy Ben Tafoya BOARD OF SELECTMEN (781) 942-9043 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Website: www.ci.reading.ma.us NOTICE OF MEETING - BOARD OF SELECTMEN 1) 2) Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01667 OFFICE HOURS Camille Anthony Discussion/Action Items a. Budget and Capital Improvements Program Executive Session a. Litigation /'A,.~ cv2 l~ 6:30 7:00 .rte iE5 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 0186.7-2683 MEMORANDUM To: Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager From: Jean Delios; Community Services Director/Town Planner Date: January 25, 2011 Re: Regulations Summary - Conservation State and Local JEAN DEMOS Community Services Director / Town Planner Phone: (781) 942-6612 Fax: (781) 942-9071 jOelios@ci.reading.ma.us This will follow up the on-going discussion pertaining to streamlining regulations. Community Services Division Heads with regulatory roles, including the Conservation Administrator, have been asked for recommendations on measures to simplify, streamline, and refine the way regulations are administered to make them more user friendly. The wetlands regulations being administered by the Reading Conservation Commission and the Conservation Administrator are summarized on the attached and provided in table form for easy comparison. This includes both the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act - M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40 (WPA) and the Town of Reading General By-Law- Section 5.7 (GBL Section 5.7), and their accompanying regulations. I have obtained input from both the Conservation Administrator and the Town Engineer. The Conservation Commission has expressed opposition to the recent proposal to revoke the Bylaw at April Town Meeting. The Conservation Administrator has responded to the request for streamlining by posting FAQ's on the Conservation page of the website, including links to application forms, other supporting materials, checklists, and detailed descriptions of permitting processes., The Administrator has indicated that the Conservation Commission has expressed interest in revising the 40 page Reading Wetlands Protection Regulations to make them more user friendly. This requires a public hearing process set forth in Section 4.11 of the General Bylaws. In addition to the detailed information on the attached, the following summarizes the major areas that the General By-Law exceeds or differs from what is required by the State Wetlands Protection Act: In Summary: The basic procedures for Conservation permitting under-the WPA are mandated by the State law, and therefore can only be changed at the State level. Conversely, changes to GBL Section 5.7 can be made by Town Meeting. In terms of application procedures, it is important to note that applicants file under both the State and Local regulations using one application as is required under GBL Section 5.7. One hearing is held and one permit. is issued. Appeals are treated differently. • The Town's General Wetlands By-Law provides the Conservation Commission with added control over the protection of Wetlands. The scope of the General By-Law has been expanded to include added regulation in terms of the definition of a wetland, setbacks and wetland replication requirements, fees, fines, variances, and appeals. The website includes a document of more than 40 pages of administrative regulations that accompany GBL Section 5.7. Changes to-the General By-law require Town Meeting approval; changes to the regulations can be voted on by the Conservation Commission in a public hearing. The definition of what constitutes a wetland is, stricter in the General Wetlands By-Law and includes intermittent ponds (ponds that dry up in the warmer months), isolated freshwater wetlands, canals, and a larger habitat area around vernal pools. • The WPA defines a wetland as saturated soils that support 50% or more of wetland indicator plants. The GBL Section 5.7 stipulates land where the water table is at or near the surface that also has at least one of the following: r At least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytic vegetation; ➢ Predominantly undrained hydric soils; A . Saturated or covered with water at some time during the growing season of each year' NOTE - The soils, vegetation, and hydrology criteria are the same under WPA and RGB. "Wetland indicator plant" = "Hydrophytic vegetation". "Saturated soils" _ "undrained hydric soils". The WPA defines a wetland as an area of isolated land subject to flooding as generating a minimum of % acre feet of runoff. There is no threshold requirement under the GBL Section 5.7; anything that floods is a wetland. The Conservation Administrator stresses that in practice the' Commission tries to work with applicants to maintain flood storage capacity where needed to protect existing structures; especially where abutters attend hearings.and provide credible documentation of surface flooding during major storms. The Conservation Administrator further points out that the definition of a wetland could be modified by the Conservation Commission to establish a reasonable minimum size as this is contained in the regulations, not the bylaw. • Applicants are required to pay for fees related to both regulations; the fees under the GBL' Section 5.7 were significantly higher averaging 81% of total revenue from 2001 to 2010. Fees collected under GBL Section' 5.7 go into the General Fund. Also, under the GBL Section 5.7 the cost of a peer review may be an added fee, monetary fines may be issued to violators, and bonds may be required of applicants - not so under the WPA. • The WPA does not have a setback requirement within a buffer zone; the GBL Section 5.7 requires a 25 foot setback for clearing of vegetation within a buffer zone and a 35 foot setback for structures. • The appeal process under the WPA is a filing with the State DEP Regional Office. The appeal process under GLB Section 5.7 is to Superior Court. The Conservation Administrator has provided the following examples of appeals to illustrate how the appeal process has worked in Reading. 2 Examples of appeals - Wood End School - Cons Com issued OOC permitting construction. Abutter appealed to DEP Regional Office and to Superior Court. Both upheld Cons Com decision. Abutter then appealed to Adjudicatory Hearing and to Appeals Court. Both again ' upheld Cons Com decision, allowing work to commence. Cons Administrator played active role in supporting Town Counsel with defense. Lot on Azalea Circle - Cons Com denied OOC for house construction due to proximity to wetland. Applicant appealed.. DEP and Court reversed decision. Abutter then appealed those decisions, but did not succeed in stopping project. Cons Com learned from process and amended local regulations to provide better setback standards. Applicant never built house. Lot on Sanborn Lane - Cons Corn denied OOC due to unavoidable wetlands impacts in endangered species habitat, setback issues, and other concerns. Applicant appealed to DEP Regional Office. DEP upheld Cons Com decision. Applicant did not appeal further. 10 Torre Street - Site is near Walkers Brook. Applicant could not meet State standards for work in Riverfront Area and did not want to reduce size of proposed daycare center. Applicant found exemption in Riverfront Area regulations for "Canals". Applicant filed Request for Determination only under WPA, and claimed Walkers Brook is a canal. Cons Com issued Determination that brook is a river and site contains Riverfront Area. Applicant appealed to DEP. Regional office upheld Cons Com, decision. Applicant appealed for Adjudicatory Decision.. Cons Cam and DEP Regional Office defended decisions, but DEP Commissioner ultimately ruled that Walkers Brook is a river and a canal. Commissioner also noted serious, flaws in drafting of state regulations and asked DEP to amend regulations. They have not yet done so. Cons Com amended Town regulations so that "canals" are protected by Riverfront Area standards. Lot on Longfellow Road - Cons Com denied OOC to build house in the wetlands because most of the lot was a swamp. Applicant appealed to DEP and Superior Court. DEP upheld Cons Corn decision, and applicant withdrew court appeal. 3 :p Comparison of Wetlands Regulations Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Reading General By-Laws, Section 5.7 Description of Regulation M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40 Wetlands Protection Definition of Wetland • Any bank, freshwater wetland, marsh, or In addition to all of the wetlands swamp that borders on .a river, stream, pond protected by the WPA, the Bylaw or lake. protects: • Land under a river, stream, pond, or lake. (Includes intermittent streams. Includes Intermittent ponds ponds and lakes that meet minimum size standard and stay wet year-round. Includes • Isolated freshwater wetlands certified vernal pools, and protects any floodplain or bordering freshwater wetland • All land within 100 feet of vernal around such pools as venal pool habitat.) pools as wildlife habitat, whether is- Land subject to flooding, both bordering on wetland or upland. (The water bodies and in isolated depressions that amphibians that breed in vernal meet a minimum size standard. pools depend on the surrounding ® Riverfront area (land within 200' of .a river or forest for survival.) stream that flows year-round) • Jurisdiction for permitting purposes also • Riverfront area associated with includes the 100-foot buffer zone adjacent to any portion of a stream or river freshwater wetlands, and water banks deemed to be a "canal" because of , bodies. Floodplains and riverfront areas do human alteration in the past. not have buffer zones. • If work outside the 100-foot buffer zone alters If work outside the 100-foot buffer a wetland, the Commission has authority to zone is likely to alter a wetland, the order corrections after the fact. Commission has authority to • Coastal resources (dune, beach, tidal flat, require a permit application. ocean, estuary, etc.) are also protected by the WPA, but there are none in Reading. No Build Requirements and Minimum Setback Requirements. No minimum setback in buffer zone 100 Foot setback in riverfront area. If alteration of wetlands or floodplains can be avoided, must create new wetlands or floodplains on site to replace the lost resource areas, at a 1:1 ratio. Activities that Trigger a Permit. Any work in a wetland resource area or the buffer. Same zone that will alter soils; vegetation, topography, stormwater runoff characteristics; or structures. 01 Types of Permits File Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) and receive Determination of Applicability (DA) - for smaller projects in buffer zone. Also to confirm that there are no wetlands on a site. • File Notice of Resource Area Delineation (NRAD) and receive Order of Resource Area Delineation (GRAD) - for confirming wetlands boundaries for large projects where applicant wants to pin down boundaries before engineers do final designs. File Notice of Intent (NOI) and receive Order of Conditions (OOC) - for larger projects in buffer zone and in wetlands. • Issue Extension Permit for OOC if more time is needed to complete work. Issue Certificate of Compliance for OOC when work is finished. ® Issue Amended OOC for major plan revision, but accept minor revisions under existing OOC without Amendment. zone. • Same riverfront area setback. • Same requirement for floodplain replacement. Requires 2:1 ratio for freshwater wetlands replacement because mitigation is not always 100% successful. ' Same, plus Minor Project Permit (MP) - for very small projects. that meet size and setback. standards (e.g.., sheds, decks, fences, above- ground pools, tree removal, walkways, porches, patios). Also for soils tests, groundwater tests, and surveying during initial site assessment for design work. • Minimum 25 foot setback in buffer zone for alteration of soils, not vegetation, or topography. • Minimum 35' setback between wetlands and structures in buffer rn Administrative Requirements • DA requires Cons Com review at public • Same processes for •DA, ORAD, (Legal Ad, Public Hearing, meeting. Must be issued within 21 days of and OOC. Abutter Notification) and if they filing. Usually issued within 14---days. MP is issued by Administrator after can be combined for efficiency ORAD, and OOC require public hearing to a site inspection.. No hearing or open within 21 days. Usually opened within abutter. notice required. 14 days, and OOC usually issued within 14 Commission accepts MP after it is days of close of hearing. issued. Usually flakes 1-3 days. • All three require abutter notice, legal ad in -Applicants file only one form for papers. both state and town applications, ® Commission and Administrator inspect site have one hearing. Commission and review plans before meeting/hearing. issues one permit. No duplication • NOI and RDA can include boundary of work. delineation, so the ORAD is not needed. • Use boilerplate to draft permits, notices, etc. for efficiency. Appeal Process • Appeal to DEP Regional Office for • Appeal to Superior Court. Superseding DA, GRAD, or OOC. Appeal of Superior Court decision • Superseding DA, ORAD, or OOC appeal to to Appeals Court. Adjudicatory Hearing administrative level in DEP. Filing Fees • Fees only for NRAD -and NO[. • MP fee $50. • Town receives slightly more than half of fee, • DA fee $75. rest goes to State. • Extension fee $25 (residential), • Fees increase with complexity of work. and $50 (other projects). • Fees go to Town revolving fund. • Minor plan revision fee $25. . Commission uses to administer WPA, (residential), and $50 (other primarily to help pay Administrator salary. projects). ® Average annual revenues 2001-2010 were • Amended OOC fee $25 $4,921, or 19% of total revenues. (See (residential), and $100 (other chart.) projects). • NRAD and NOI fees based on complexity of project. ® Fees go to General Fund for allocation by Town Meeting. ® Average annual revenues 2.001- 2010 were $20,649, or 81 % of.total revenues. (See chart.) K~ _ Other No provisions for peer review, fines, or bonds. ® Variances from'state standards are only available from DEP and are very difficult to get and thus rare. ® May charge fee for peer review. ® May issue monetary fines to. violators. May require bond to assure work is completed properly. ® May grant variances from Town standards that are more strict than state standards. v C~ Conservation Permitting Activity 00 Year MP's Issued DA's Issued OOC's Issued ORAD's Issued EXTs Issued AM OOC's Issued WPA FEES RGB FEES Total. FEES % of total under WPA % of total under RGB 2001 33 15 18 4 8 0 $9,690 $16,398 $26,088 37%0 63% 2002 31 19 15 5 3 1 3,079 14,479 17,558 17% 83% 2003 31 23 33 2 0 1 4,016 45,408 49,424 8%- 92% 2004 43 21 16 3 3 2 4,756 21,836 •26,592 17% 83% 2005 38 16 31 4 0 1 6,398 29,317 35,715 17% 83% 2006 39 20 24 3 2 0 6,978 25,817 32,795 21 % 79% 2007 26 13 25 3 1 0 5,086 177188 22,274 23% 77%0 2008 32 22 24 2 2 1 5,539 17,644 23,183 24% . 76% 2009 20 17 21 1 4 1 3,263 13,583 16,846 19% 81% 2010 30 21 8 0 1 0 408 4,817 5,225 8%. 92% TOTAL 49,213 206,487 255,700 19% 81% Annual Average 4,921 20,649 25,570 19% 81% NOTES: The State raised WPA fees in 2005. The State has no fee for Minor Projects, Determinations, Extensions, or Amended Orders. Town fees were raised in 2002 and 2006. The Town charges $50 for Minor Projects, $75 for Determinations, $25-$50 for Extensions, and. $25-$100 for Amended Orders. Public agencies are exempt from all fees. No fees have been received for School, RMLD, DPW, MassHighway, RHA, MBCR, Camp Curtis Guild, or other public projects. KEY MP = Minor Project Permit EXT = Extension Permit for OOC DA = Determination of Applicability AM OOC = Amended OOC OOC = Orders of Conditions ORAD = Order of Resource Area Delineation WPA FEES = Fees collected under the State Wetlands Protection Act, and put in the Wetlands Fee Fund. RGB FEES = Fees collected under Reading. General Bylaws, Section 5.7, and put in the General Fund. i Town of Reading CONSERVATION COMMISSION Phone (781) 942-6616 16 Lowell Street Fax (781) 942-9071 Reading, MA 01867-2683 ffink@d.reading.ma.us Memorandum To: Board of Selectmen From: Conservation Commission Date: January-27,2011 Subject: . Reading Wetlands Protection Bylaw, Section 5.7 of the General Bylaws The Conservation Commission opposes the proposal to revoke the Reading Wetlands Protection Bylaw. We disagree with the reasons given to the,Selectmen on January 11, 2011, for this proposal, which were: State law provides environmental protection, and administering the state law and the local law is time consuming, redundant, and confusing to customers. A separate local bylaw also inhibits efforts to regionalize the service. The purpose of this memorandum is to present the facts about the Bylaw and how it is administered. We are providing information about the basic differences between the state law and the town bylaw, which include levels of environmental protection, financial factors, and administrative options. Permitting ~Processes 1. Sections 5.7.4.and 5.7.5 of the Bylaw require the Commission to accept one application form, one site plan, and one set of supporting documents under both the Bylaw and the State law, as well as to hold one simultaneous public hearing for both. Only one hearing notice is sent to abutters and published in the paper. The Commission issues one permit'under both laws. Thus, the application process is not redundant. Revoking the Bylaw will lengthen the process for Minor Projects, and will not shorten any other process. 2. Section 5.7.5 of the Bylaw also requires all time periods for actions to be the same as the time periods under State law. 3. The Minor Project Permit is only available under the Bylaw. This process is used for decks, sheds, fences, and other small projects that meet minimum size and setback standards. The Administrator is authorized to issue these permits without a hearing by the Commission. This saves time and money for the applicant, and reduces staff and Commission workload. Under the State Act, the applicant must go through a hearing for a Determination of Applicability if there is a question whether a project is "minor". Revoking the Bylaw will eliminate this streamlined procedure. 4. Typical time periods for issuing permits after receiving an application are: • Minor Projects - 2-3 days ® Determinations - 2 weeks Orders - 4 weeks. (If the application is not complete or if the plans require revisions to meet wetlands standards, then the public hearing is continued. Timing will depend on how quickly the applicant is able to provide the necessary materials.) 9 5. Our responsibilities continue under both laws after permits are issued. We make site inspections, consider plan revisions, and issue extensions and final certifications for each project. Revoking the Bylaw will not reduce this workload. 6.. We use boilerplate findings and conditions to save time when drafting permits, adding or subtracting items as needed to address any unique project characteristics. Revoking the Bylaw will not shorten the time required to draft or issue permits. 7. We have taken measures to minimize customer confusion and make the application, process as smooth as possible. We provide a full application packet at the service counter and on the website, including forms, checklists, maps, and other information. We send these materials by email or fax upon request. The Administrator often meets with customers to help them complete applications, and to understand the parts of the regulations that will apply to their projects. 8. We, are willing to review the Reading Wetlands Protection Regulations and revise them if necessary. This would require 'a public hearing and vote by the Commission; but not Town Meeting action. Revenues l.Please see the attached chart that documents the actual numbers of permits issued in the last ten calendar years, and the filing fees collected under State and Town laws. 2.On average, State fees provide 19% of revenues ( $4,921 annually By State law, these go to a revolving fund to be used only to administer the Wetlands Protection Act. Most of these revenues are transferred to the annual operating budget to help pay the Administrator's salary. 3.On average, Town fees provide 81% of revenues ($20,649 annually By State law, these go to the General Fund for future allocation by Town Meeting. The Commission has -no control over use of these funds. If the bylaw is revoked, the Town will lose this income. 4.The Bylaw also authorizes the Commission to charge fees for peer review, to issue fines for violations, and to require bonding of work. Although we use these provisions rarely, they are very helpful in certain situations. The State law does not provide these types of financial support. Environmental Protection l.The Bylaw was proposed to and adopted by Town Meeting because there were, and still are, gaps in the protection offered by the State law for protecting wetlands, floodplains, water supplies, fisheries, and wildlife habitat, as well as for controlling erosion and preventing storm damage. 2.The Bylaw provides substantial additional protection against flooding because it protects more wetlands than the state law. About 40% of the land in Reading is wetlands.. - 3.The Bylaw provides significantly better protection than State law for isolated wetlands, vernal pools,. and streams that have been altered in the past for human convenience. These types of wetlands are common in Reading. 4.The Bylaw requires minimum setbacks between wetlands and development that protect vegetation, soils, wildlife, and water quality. The setbacks also protect against flooding and other storm damage. The State does not require setbacks, except near rivers. 5.The Bylaw includes a variance procedure that gives applicants and the Commission flexibility in project design when a strict application of standards is difficult due to site limitations or for redevelopment of previously developed sites. 6.In sum, the Bylaw provides better protection than State. law for public health and. safety, natural resources, property values, and community character in Reading. Public survey results for the Open Space and Recreation Plan show that citizens place high value on these attributes. Thank you for your review and consideration of these comments. We look forward to discussing this matter- further with the Board during the meeting on February 1, 2011. We would be happy to answer any, questions that the Board might have. r 10 G Conservation Permitting Activity Year MP's Issued DA's Issued. OOC's Issued ORAD's Issued EXT's Issued AM OOC's Issued WPA FEES RGB FEES Total FEES % of total under WPA % of total under RGB 2001 33 15 18 4 8 0 $9,690 $16,398 $26,088' 37% 63% 2002 31 19 15 5 3 1 3,079 14,479 17,558 17% 83% 2003 31 23 33 2 0 1 4,016 45,408 49,424_ 8% 92% 2004 43 '21 16 3 3 2 4,756 21,836 26,592 17% 83%" 2005. 38 16 31 4 0. 1 6,398 29,317 35,715 17% 83% 2006 39 20 24 3 2 0 6,978 25,817 32,795 21% 79% 2007 26 13 25 3 1 0 5,086 17,188 22,274 23% 77% 2008 32 22 24 2 2 1 5,539 17,644 23,183 24% 76% 2009 20 17 21 1 4 1 3,263 13,583 16,846 19% 81% 2010 30 21• 8 0 1 0 408 4,817 5,225 8% 92% TOTAL 49,213 206,487 255,700 19% 81% Annual 'Average 4,921 20,649 25,570 19% 81% NOTES: The State raised WPA fees in 2005. The State has no fee for Minor Projects, Determinations, Extensions, or Amended Orders. Town fees were raised in 2002 and 2006. The Town charges $50 for Minor Projects, $75 for Determinations, $25-$50 for Extensions, and $25-$100 for Amended Orders. - Public agencies are exempt from all fees. No fees have been received for School, RMLD, DPW, MassHighway, RHA, MBCR, Camp Curtis Guild, or other public projects. KEY MP = Minor Project Permit EXT = Extension Permit for OOC DA = Determination of Applicability AM OOC = Amended OOC OOC = Orders of Conditions ORAD = ,Order of Resource Area Delineation ~i WPA FEES = Fees collected under the State Wetlands Protection Act, and put in the Wetlands Fee Fund. RGB FEES = Fees collected under Reading General Bylaws, Section 5.7, and put in the General Fund. Page 1 of 2 Schena, Paula . From: ' Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:07 PM To: Schena, Paula Subject: FW: No More Cuts for Senior Services in Reading C to Board of Selectmen in their material on 2-1 and put a copy in my binder 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.readingrna_goy email townmanager@ci.reading.,ma.us Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service. survey at, http://readingma- surv .yirtualto)K all.net/surve /sid/8&7434dd9e2130b7/ From: Stephen A. Goldy [mailto:ggoldy@sgoldy.com] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 201111:45 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: FW: No More Cuts for Senior Services in Reading As I mentioned Tuesday night this is one of the emails I received from Council on Aging members. Steve super a. qd4 42 Berkeley Street, Reading 781-775-5805 (mobile) 781-779-1773 (home) stevegoldy.com From: Stephen A. Goldy [mailto:sgoidy@sgoldy.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 20114:36 PM To: 'Bertocchi, Stacey' Subject: RE: No More Cuts for Senior Services in Reading Stacey; Thank you for the email. I will convey your message to the entire Board tonight. 12 1/20/2011 Page 2 of 2 Please understand that this is a very difficult budget year and some difficult decisions have to be made. What the Town Manager proposed is a reduction to half time for the Elder Services Administrator along . with some other positions and he will pursue an effort to partner with one of our neighboring communities to regionalize the'services. This is a practice that is done throughout the Commonwealth and is an initiative of the Governor's. The goal of partnering is to provide at least the same level of service that we as a community are providing now and hopefully increasing the level of service. Again, tonight I will convey your message along with others that I received. Thanks, Steve stephm a. qd4 42 Berkeley Street, Reading 781-775-5805 (mobile) 781-779-1773 (home) stevegoldy.com From: Bertocchi, Stacey [ma i Ito: Stacey. Bertocchi@ssa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 20119:53 AM To: 'sgoldy@ci, reading. ma. us' Cc: 'sbert04@rhsn.com' Subject: No More Cuts for Senior Services in Reading Hi Steve, I was hoping because you are the liaison for Seniors in Reading you might be able to convey for the Selectman just how devastating the proposed cut of the Administrator position will be to those requiring services in the town of Reading. We have already lost one position the Coordinator of Volunteers and even though town members voted for the position to remain, it was not filled. We can't afford to reduce the hours of our Administrator-the department will truly fall apart. Please represent our Seniors and all residents who require services from our Elder/Human Services Department and say "NO" to this cut!! Thank you for your time and REPRESENTATION!! Stacey Bertocchi Council of Aging Board Member 1/20/2011 13 -~-dS January 24, 2011 Board of Selectmen Town of Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, Massachusetts 01867 Dear Selectmen, Making Reading Better would like to express its' support for the Town Manager's proposed 2012 Town Budget. The budget proposal currently before the Board of Selectmen appropriately focuses the Town's resources on maintaining the high quality, professional police and fire services which are essential to the safety and quality of life in Reading. MRB would also like to applaud the move toward the regionalization of services such as public health and conservation administration. While staff cuts are always difficult, and the. move to shared services can raise false concerns about loss of local control, if well managed and combined with efforts to stream line the regulatory and permitting process, they will pay additional dividends to the Town when prosperity returns. As you work through the remainder of the budget process, we would encourage the. Board-to look for additional ways to maintain as much support for the Reading Public Library as possible. It is a widely accepted fact that libraries actually increase their importance during economic downturn. Our library is the perfect example of a resource that delivers real, tangible value to every strata of the community and is much a part of Reading's commitment to lifetime education as its' schools. If additional cuts are required to preserve the quality of service at the library.they should be fully considered. Thank you all for your continued dedication to the Town and your stalwart efforts to make the hard decisions that are required to maintain a responsible budget that protects the key interests of the community. Sincerely, Cc: Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Ms. Jean Delios, Town Planner i au 'f 14 Schena, Paula From, Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:06 PM To: Schena, Paula Subject: FW: Support for Elder Services Administrator C to Board of Selectmen in their material on 2-1 and put a copy in my binder Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading MA 01867 Please note new Town Hall Hours Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 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 effective June 7, 2010: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m. us Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at http://readingna-survey.virtualtownhall.net/survey/sid/887434dd9e2l30b7/ -----Original Message----- From: Stephen A. Goldy [mailto:sgoldy@sgoldy.com] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:46 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: FW: Support for Elder Services Administrator Email number two and my response. Steve Stephen A. Goldy 42 Berkeley Street Reading 781-775-5805 (mobile) 781-779-1773 (home) stevegoldy.com -----Original Message----- From: Stephen A. Goldy [mailto:sgoldy@sgoldy.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:36 PM- To: 'Steve Oston' Subject: RE: Support for Elder Services Administrator Steve, Thank you for the email. I will convey your inessage,to the entire Board tonight. Please understand that this is a very difficult budget year and some difficult decisions have to be made. What the Town Manager proposed is a reduction to half time for the Elder Services Administrator along with some other positions and he will-pursue an effort to partner with one of our neighboring communities to regionalize the services. This is a practice that is done throughout the Commonwealth and is an initiative of the.Governor's. The goal of partnering is to provide at least the same level of service that we as a community are Drovidinq now and hopefully increasing the level of service.. 15 Again, tonight I will convey your message along with others that I received. Enjoy the rest of your vacation! Thanks, Steve Stephen A. Goldy 42 Berkeley Street, Reading 781-775-5805 (mobile) 781-779-1773 (home) stevegoldy.com -----Original Message----- From: Steve.Oston [mailto:steven oston@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:17 PM To:'sgoldy@ci.reading.ma.us Cc: Carol Oniskey Subject: Support for Elder Services Administrator Hi Steve, I'm emailing you from out of town to ask your support to retain the position of Elder Services Administrator as it currently exists. Elder Services has.already lost one half- time position as you know, the Coordinator of Volunteers..To lose another half-time position would be devastating not only to well-being of our seniors, but also to the morale of that department. If this cut goes through; I can foresee that Reading will be relatively helpless the make life better for our elderly, many, many of whom are in need of assistance programs and beneficial activities. Dawn is making good things happen for our seniors, and I hope I'm preaching to the choir on this one. Please see what you can do tonight and in future budget meetings. I'll get in touch with you after I return from vacation. Thanks! Steve Oston Chair, COA Sent from my iPad ~~el~ 16