The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-05-10 Board of Selectmen PacketJames E. Bonazoli, Chairman Camille W. Anthony, Vice Chairman Town of Reading, Richard W. Schubert, Secretary foya Goldy 16 Lowell Street Stephen A. Ben Tafoya ,g Kadin y ®1867 BOARD O( MEN 942-9043 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Website: www.ci.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Selectmen FROM: Peter Hechenbleikner DATE: May 5, 2011 RE: May 10, 2011 Agenda Your meeting will be starting at 6:30 p.m. in order to accommodate item 5c on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Due to a prior commitment, I will miss the first hour of the meeting and will beat the, meeting at just about 7:30 p.m. 3a) Jeff Zager will be present perhaps with other employees from the DPW, to receive the proclamation recognizing National Public Works Week: I don't believe we've done this in the past, but the DPW is a significant part of our municipal operations and I'm glad that we will be recognizing them. 4a) Appointment - Community Planning and Development Commission (CPDC) - The Town is fortunate to have two very good candidates for one position on the CPDC. The Volunteer Appointment Subcommittee (VASC) met and you see a copy of their minutes of April 28, 2011 in the packet. The VASC is recommending Charles Adams for the full position on CPDC, and after consultation with the Chairman of CPDC is recommending William Keating as an associate. 5a) Firefighter Mark Dwyer will be in to present to the Board of Selectmen and to the community the concept for a September 11 Memorial. Mark's cousin was one of the people who died in the events of September 11 and Mark and his group will be putting together a fundraising program for a memorial at Reading Memorial High School. 5b) Susan Fay from the Cultural Council will be present to review with' the Board of Selectmen the results of the Cultural Council's survey conducted this year. I think you will find the results and particularly the comments very interesting. 5 5c) The Board of Selectmen will convene with the Reading Housing Authority to formally hear the request from Oaktree for use of funds from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. It is not clear whether there will be other proposals submitted at that time. 5d) Water, Sewer and Storm Water Rate Hearing - The Board had previously reviewed this topic and given some general direction. In your packet is a summary of the information reviewed with the Board of Selectmen at your last meeting. The hope would be that the. Board would go ahead and set the rates for FY2012. 5e) Town Clerk Laura Gemme will be in to review the proposed voter precincts for the Town of Reading. These need to be approved by June 1. 5f) We have copied the material on the aquifer protection district to you, and will have a draft motion. The Board heard the presentation on this matter at your last meeting, and wanted to be able to review it prior to providing direction to staff and Town Counsel. PIH/ps 6 i~ o o 4-4 4 a O ^yd~ N 4-4 40, U .O N N 4-4 VI m ~ ~ ~ o O N N V) a~ U o 0 d NH U R3 O cd U o U ~ o a o r4 LQ3 0 o c~ U U 41~ 0 d w° . o 41 v o Cd >l S-, o ~o 00 41 ~v v ~ b 04--4 0 00 4 4 0 4-, N c~t31 d bA Id U Cd ~ p N N cd -75 0 Do '41 1:4 V) 0 (D cj v~ N C3 0 P, Q1 N a 2 U 0n N p 4 N Cd 'd N U 'd Q" N O N ..fl N O U a~ a~ ~ a~ a> ccS bA o o 0 o a~ U a W O P~ a> U U v~ v ~ v v1 U ~ o o ~ P~ W ~ H 3 Volunteer Appointment Subcommittee Meeting April 28, 2011 The Volunteer Appointment Subcommittee (VASC) meeting convened at 6:45 PM on April 28, 2011 in room 237 of Reading memorial High School, 62 Oakland Road, Reading MA. Present were Selectmen Camille Anthony and Steve Goldy, CPDC applicant Charles Adams, and Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner. The VASC interviewed Mt. Adams about his interest and background for membership on the CPDC. The VASC asked about potential conflict of interest since Adams is in the affordable housing financing business. He indicated that he had no business with developers in Reading, but if that did happen he would recuse himself from that case. He indicated that he would be willing to take on a leadership role on the Commission after he learned their procedures. On motion by Goldy seconded by 'Anthony the Volunteer Appointment Subcommittee voted to recommend Charles Adams to a position of the CPDC for a term expiring 6-30-11, by a vote of 2-0-0. The VASC felt that Adams had a very well suited educational background, with a Masters degree in Real Estate Finance and in City Planning, from MIT., The VASC asked the Town Manager to contact the other candidate - William Keating, about other potential volunteer opportunities, including potentially as an Associate member of the CPDC. On motion by Anthony seconded by Goldy, the VASC voted to adjourn at 7:10 PM by a vote of 2-0-0. T ctfully ubmitted, Secretary 8 APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO)3QARDS/COMA1JTTEES/CQjM MISS ION Name: AJeLw,..5 G~a►/~ z a ~5 cti:( tv~~ Date: (Last) (First) (Middle) Address: Tel. (Home) 7 Tel. (Work) 612._- (Is - 2 this number listed?) Occupation: Ze aQ-- Sc' "\-cL~_t (-`R- # of years in Reading: Arc you a registered voter in Reading? I e-mail address: C ~nwv t ' Place a number next to your preferred position(s) (up to four choices) with #I being your first priority. (Attach a resume if available.) -Animal Control Appeals Cornmiltec -Audit Commiltee -Board of Appeals Board of Cemetery Trustees -Board of Health ^Boatd of Registrars -Bylaw Committee Celebration Committee Cities for Climate Protection -Commissioner of Trust Funds Community Planninb & Development Comm. -Conservation Commission Constable Contributory Retirement Board Council on Aging V_Cultural Council -Custodian of Soldiers' & Sailors' Graves Economic Development Committee -Nall Street Faire Committee Finance Committee - Historical Commission - Housing Authority - lluman Relations Advisory Committee MBTA Advisory Commiltee _ -Metropolitan Area Planning Council ,_,Mystic Valley Elder Services Recreation Committee RMLD Citizens Advisory Board Town Forest Coinmittec _ -Trails Committee West Street Historic District Commission -Other -v 77 ?]case outline relevant experience for the position(S) (I sought: 1 iti~w b e e c" i (r k cam', j GC 4~G C t~ P i V ^ fl~1.~i,4 C"Y`i I,cx4- C, r erg D,, a Q 1n,o - - arty" Iy~ o+~ s, . ~ ~.L ti a -{-ct„7c. c.s e c!~~- ~ s t~ ~,:d. ~ c.~k,.-e,,.,... b ~tS~ v►.L ss ."'.1-- ~e•- a_ GQe~ct v~~.. 9 CHARLES L. ADAMS 13 Riverside Drive Reading, MA 01867 Charlie adams9g(o~comcast.net Celt: 978.5D0.8038 Home: 781,572,1142 SUMMARY Residential Real Estate professional with over 14 years experience acquiring, developing, and financing multi-family housing. Significant experience providing development project management services, financial structuring, underwriting, and negotiation. Most recent experience has been In the acquisition, financial analysis, underwriting, and syndication of Low Income Housing Tax Credit developments. Areas of expertise include: • -Ability to manage complex rental and homeownership • Multifamily housing contacts in Massachusetts and throughout transactions with multiple public and private financing sources A he country • Experience managing diverse group of real estate specialists - • Strong negotiation skills/document review to protect investor architects, contractors, consultants, attorneys, accountants interests at managing to a budget and maximizing developer fees • Detailed knowledge of public and private affordable housing • programs • Expertise in financial modeling, Excel PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE MMA FINANCIAL, LLC, Boston, MA 2004 - Current (formerly known as Lend Lease, and before that, Boston Financial Group) s Principal Member of originations team that generated the most business over the past tour years and responsible for overseeing all aspects of a Low income Housing Tax Credit transaction from origination to financial closing. Special emphasis on mixed-finance multi-family property acquisitions throughout the United States. Specific responsibilities include the structuring, modeling, negotiation, underwriting, and closing of these assets. Skilled in all aspects of the acquisition process from term sheet negotiation through closing. Particular expertise in structuring around complex tax issues. Acquired 38 properties in 5 years with a total equity investment of approximately $360 million Closed transactions in 15 states working with 20 different developers Member of Specialized Placements Team which was responsible for closing the mixed-finance transactions for the Company • Assigned some of the most complex transactions in.the Company and within the Specialized Placements Team • Consistently ranked as a top Account Manager for equity placement and deal volume • Managed associate account managers from origination through post closing deal placement with investors Worked with contractors, general partners, property managers and asset managers through development period and initial operations for troubled deals • Promoted from Associate to Vice President to Principal within first 3 years of service with the Company THE COMMUNITY BUILDERS, Boston, MA 2001 - 2004 Development Protect Manager Managed the development of residential real estate transactions and was responsible for all aspects of development from planning through construction completion. Specific responsibilities Included: overseeing site/schematic architectural design; financial modeling; assembling public and private financing; negotiation with all third parties, including contractors, lenders, and investors; closing; and overseeing construction. After completion, worked with property managers and asset management during initial operations. Worked on a variety of new construction and rehabilitation projects with a total development cost in excess of $60 million Specific transactions worked on through the development/consiruction period: Churchill Homes 11- a 50 unit, $10 million, mixed-finance LIHTC new construction and rehabilitation project in • Holyoke, MA, received a NAHRO Award of Merit in Housing and Community Development Dickson Meadows - an 18 unit, $10 million Chapter 40B mixed income single family condominium complex. In Weston, MA + Northampton State Hospital - a 33 unit, $8.2 million, LIHTC renovation of the existing State Hospital dormitories in Northampton, MA Specific transactions worked on during pre-development: Lake Street Terrace - a 47 unit, $9.5 million, LIHTC new construction development in Chatham, MA • Morgan Woods - a 6D unit cluster development on 12 acres, LiHTC new construction in Edgartown on Martha's Vineyard, largest affordable housing development in Island's history. Received an Urban Institute, Workforce Housing Models of Excellence Award. • Promoted from Assistant Project Manger to Development Project Manger within first year of service with organization 10 PAGE TWO CAMBRIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY, Cambridge, MA 1995 - 2001 Development Coordinator Provided wide variety of project management services, for high-performing Pubic Housing Agency specializing in financial modeling and overseeing the acquisition and rehab of multi-family assets for the Housing Authority's non-public housing real estate portfolio. Worked on several "firsts" for the Authority, including its first LIHTC project, its first HOPE VI project, and Its first assisted living facility. • Worked on the John F. Kennedy Elderly HOPE VI Development, which was the Authority's first LIHTC development. Primary responsibilities were overseeing the financing for the project which included creating a LIHTC financial model, assembling state and local financing, including receiving an allocation of 4% Tax Exempt Bonds and the solicitation of, and negotiation with, an equity investor. Acquired 8-10 Lancaster Street, a 65 unit market rate property, for $12 million. Assembled conventional debt and state and local financing Including the first allocation of funds from Harvard University's 2020 funding program sufficient to purchase the building. Structured transaction and financing to hold building for several years and then syndicate, renovate, and re-lease the building as affordable housing. • Created and Managed the Condo Acquisition Program ~ Purchased/rehabbed 26 scattered condominium units in condo buildings throughout Cambridge. 'Assembled financing necessary to acquire units including the creation of a hew program with the Massachusetts Housing Partnership specifically for this initiative that provided a conventional first mortgage and a soft second facility. Set-up lines of credit with the City of Cambridge to close on the units expeditiously. Worked on Neville Manor Assisted Living Facility. Tasks included: responding to initial RFP, working with counsel to draft Development Agreement, preparing applications for financing, and reviewing architectural drawings and zoning regulations Received four promotions in five years from Intern to Development Coordinator EDUCATIDIV MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Boston, MA 1994 - 1996 Master of Science in Real Estate Development (MSRED) Master of City Planning (MCP) Thesis: Beyond Housing or Last Resort: Strategies and Options forr-inancing Public Housing PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, Princeton, NJ 1989 - 1993 B.A., Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Cum Laude Thesis: Charlotte Gardens Housing Development in the South Bronx yap 11 RECEIVED TOWN CLERK READING, MASS. APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS/COMI!'IITTEES/COM OSSIO ) APR - 5 P ` 04 Name:- Date: (Last) (First) (Middle) Address: z -1 Z ~ n t V~ \Q TRCCOL (-f-- Tel. (Home) QiLl. 1' 12 ~1 g Tel. (Work)-21-1 - 611 6- o'6 (Is this number listed?)_ ~y ye3 Occupation: f # of years in Reading: / I Are you a registered voter in Reading?-46_ e-mail address: W Vh m Q. tL.e'aj)iit,at vdC6 0j 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 Please outline relevant -Economic Development Committee -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 Z,rtdut ~`A ~PJ1C21y1 7 f`gniY~a 1 CSU ,C~1~1°}-a~P 1 SSLW-3 QnOk 2-3n U.SGoe "Sook kQ601 V, Yi on i s-%T- - W f- 'muj n - U-ctSe Con SNUr n iL q pplt ccvbbn 12 GZ a s a n~ N► r o : C 61~ n~un~' nn~C c-tk ?7e ett Cow r~ ~ -ee . William G. Keating, Esquire 42 Intervale Terrace Reading, MA 01867 EXPERIENCE: Keating Law Office, Reading, MA Sole Proprietor January 1, 2005 to Present Keating Law Office is 'a Real Estate law office concentrating in residential and commercial real estate conveyancing. We are approved Title Insurance Agents of Ticor/Chicago Title Insurance Company and Old Republic Title Insurance. We represent Buyers and Seller of Real Estate as well as a number of different lending institutions. Law Office of Tiziano Doto, Stoneham, MA Closing Coordinator January 2003 to January 2005 Responsible for examining and reviewing residential title reports, Issuing title commitments to lender clients, Conducted real estate closings, Recorded legal documents with the Registry of Deeds and issued title insurance policies. Cushing & Dolan, P.C., Woburn, MA Closing Agent January 2001 to January 2003 Coordinated and conducted residential real estate transactions, conducted run-down exams at the registry of deeds and recorded legal documents and developed client relationships. Carter & Coleman, P.C., Reading, MA Title Examiner, November 1998 to January 2001 Conducted residential title examinations for title insurance commitments, conducted run-down exams at the registry of deeds and recorded legal documents. EDUCATION: Suffolk University Law School, Boston, MA 2003 Degree: Juris Doctrine Bridgewater State College, Bridgewater, MA 1995 Degree: Bachelor of Arts 13 q a, Reading Cultural Council Survey -2011 Community Survey results Overview The Reading Cultural. Council offered an online survey for one month on the town website seeking feedback from the community. The intent of this survey was to look for input to ensure that the funding priorities of the RCC grants were in support of programs that contribute to the cultural vitality of the Reading community as a whole. The RCC's stated mission is to support an array of programs from the new and diverse to those that involve collaboration with other programs in the community. These survey results are intended to be used as a guide to future grants awarded. The Process The RCC posted information about the web survey on the Reading Patch, RCN, in the Reading Advocate and the Daily Chronicle. (the Chronicle ran a feature article about the survey). The town web manager sent two global emails on the town wide email distribution list and the RCC sent directed emails to past grant recipients, the Communication Connection and Creative Arts. The RCC on-line survey was available to the community for one month and 67 responses were,received and tabulated. The Results There was a general awareness of the arts and cultural programs/services available in the Reading Community. However, numerous respondents requested better communication to increase public awareness of the arts and cultural resources available. There were repeated requests for increased programs for teens, seniors, families and children especially on weekends to "get people out from in front of the TV/and electronic media devices". The following information was received: How do you hear about cultural activities that interest you? Answered: 67 Skipped: 0 Word of mouth (47) Local paper (41) Notices at the Library (31) Town website (22) Cable access channel (12) Local arts newsletter (2) There was a strong interest in increasing the availability of public art and public programs especially in the downtown area where community could gather and feel more connected. Public gallery space, street art and sidewalk venues were listed as a priority in order to share artistic programs and public art face to face. A request was made for public art to be made available to make it fun to be outside. Beautification of the community through music and art was a major theme in responses. There were several requests for more historical education and a few respondents suggested seniors and the Antiquarian Society be utilized to assist in delivering information and experience to the community at large. 14 ~5_6 RCC specific input: The following questions were asked concerning the RCC. Were you aware that artists, schools and community groups can apply for grants from the Reading Cultural Council grants funds? Answered: 67 Skipped: 0 Yes (36) No (31) Do you believe the RCC has made our funding priorities clear in our publicity and our communications to applicants? Answered: 60 Skipped: 7 M y'Pw Yes, quite clear (9) Yes, reasonably clear (19) No, not very clear (22) No, not at all clear (10) What should be the most important priorities that our Council should consider for funding? (prioritized 1-8: answered 359.times-weighted) Community-wide gatherings: festivals, concerts, plays 6.69% Arts enrichment in the schools 5.29% Projects celebrating local history, cultural diversity 1.67% Support for the development of local artists 2.51% Nature, science, environmental education projects 1.11% Restoration or preservation projects 1.39% Field trips for students to museums or performances 0.84% Other 0.28% Summary Actions to consider for the RCC Board With the information listed above the RCC must target clear and strategic communication venues at grant time in September -October to ensure that the Reading community is aware of the grant cycle process , our funding priorities and applicant qualifying requirements. The RCC should also target the top communications channels to deliver this information. (Local papers, Library notices, Town Website, Public Schools website and RCTV.) In addition the RCC should prioritize its future grant requests using the prioritization listed above as a tool when making grant awards. 15 ~ General comments received by Survey participants: What do you consider to be important issues relating to culture in our community? • Art/cultural programs supporting teens, seniors, families, children • 1 consider involving teens with established artists to be crucial. This provides key learning experiences, invigorates the arts and harnesses the imagination and drive of youth. • Preserving the history of the community, historic homes and the stories about them; tree lined streets that people can walk along with places to stop and get some coffee or an ice cream • 1 think we need more public art, to make people feel like walking downtown for example. It would be great to have a gallery for example; places to sit and have a cup of coffee, like the open area near the CVS could have tables with umbrellas. • Programs for children on the weekends and evening _ • 1 think it is very good for the community to have performances and gatherings that bring people out of their TV rooms to meet face to face and see real live people performing. We are growing too attached to our screens and too passive - we view art and music as things other people do/participate in and we just observe. Everyone should be an artist. • Historical Education and programs that the whole town can be involved in, whether it is an Art Festival or.a music festival showcasing musicians from the middle and high schools and adults. that also play music. It would be great to see them all come together! • Family cultural activities are important. More exhibits and performances in town locations are needed supporting seniors and teens. • Preservation of green space and historical architecture. Also, art/cultural programs for children as a way to instill a love of the arts (which is so limited in our schools). What might artists and arts organizations do to make ours a more livable, prosperous community? • Beautification of our community through music and art. Opportunities to see and hear new art/music- expand our experience beyond our immediate environment/comfort zone • We need to make the arts more frequent and more public and easily accessible. Reading Art used to have great attendance at our Spring Show when it was outdoors on the common. It was visible and obvious and easy to walk through. We are now buried in the basement of the church. We need to move more of the arts into the center of town and make them more commonplace and visible. • Establishing a core community and a central physical space for collaboration and exhibition. Such a place would encourage artists to come to Reading and art lovers and buyers to visit Reading. • How about shaded chess/checkers tables with benches around the common, memorial park, etc. fountain, not too big, in the Common? • 1 think recognition by the town and school system is extremely important. The organizations are already out there, trying to encourage people to attend their events... yet we see little supported or encouraged by the Town & school system. Have more places to display artwork throughout the community. This would bring more attention to what is being offered. The Library is a great central, community location for this type of event. • More public art & sculpture displays, adding a performance space downtown (perhaps in the Christian Science Church facility?), recruiting artists who perform at'Memorial Park and the Fall Fair to perform at other times and in other venues in Reading during the year. Publicize these 16 'rb3 performance events outside of town, to invite visitors who might stay and have dinner or discover an interesting store here. Anything that will get their "product" in front of the community - street faires, open mike nights, presence at other town events, i.e. how could we incorporate art at the farmers market? Artisan cheeses? • The outdoor art show on the common of years gone by was wonderful and something to look forward to. A rotation of art at different public buildings - senior center, library, etc. Please list any other comments or suggestions. • As Reading resident, I see the town supporting Arts in the schools (which is wonderful) but they do not encourage participation in the wonderful non-profit organizations in town. Acknowledgment and or acceptance by the public school system and Town would be wonderful. I keep asking around town, what "theme" Reading could adopt that would attract businesses, visitors, events, and investment. I think the cultural and arts organizations in town may have part of the answer. To invite businesses within that theme, we as a Town first have to clear away some of the over-regulation that frustrates homeowners and businesses today. What can we (together) do or offer, that surrounding towns don't, that would give people a good reason to visit downtown Reading? • We have the potential to be a great community. We must make it attractive for those who live here and to those looking for a place to settle. Offering cultural activities is only one step, and an important one. • It is great to have the performance center at the high school, but, it is busy there. Reading needs some additional venue equipped with well designed acoustics and public display space For RCC . • When the survey is done and guidelines are updated, please consider posting a chart someplace on line for grant writers to use as they think about submitting a grant request. • Clearly I'm unaware of the organization and all the benefits it brings to the Town. But I'm very supportive and hope to learn more. • Thank you for doing this survey and for all your good work. Without culture we have no civilization. • 1 have lived in Reading for 36 years. I have been a TMM for over 20. 1 have served on several boards and committees. I have volunteered in other ways. I hardly know you exist. SbN 17 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 a public hearing on Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 8:30 p.m. in the -Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts for setting the FY2012 Water, Sewer and Storm Water Rates. A copies of the relevant doc- uments are available in the Town Manager's Office, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA, from 7:30 am-5:30 pm, M-W- Thurs and Tues 7:30 am-7:00 pm and this document is attached to the hearing notice on the website at www.reading- ma.gov. All interested parties are invited to attend, or may submit their comments in writing or by email prior to 5:00 p.m. on May 10, 2011 to: townmanager@ ci.reading.m ams. By order of Peter I. Hechenbleikner . Town Manager 513 18 ~fh, r QY 8 3.lG~ A I I i~~t~l t R r R i' a tr5 LcFZ r~~ J ~ r r~ J 4 1 ~ Jsy( } t ram t a P° sSs s 1 S.dry vj a HIRE k i yo- a n{ rp ~a a_ . tt~il ~4 yg I~ - tE'' C'S3, (~t t tr ~ tt Imm L KK go 3 y s ' ~ 1 N3 - S5 Y, R t p`ii r i p-_ 19 "x z 1~`FFFFF 55 ~uDG ...I 2, - pg,gy r 01 u ~~L1 tel: ~l C' e tit f~ L ry N a I t r hi k 1~1 l ~1 L_~1 J I WIT b 7 &r • r .3 NOW MINI I ~ q i r.L 4 F,;,, I ~L tj T I. t~i ~'lti't fQ~ l i.~ .lh y.E f~rY~ ~7:1~~kytP~1 ~M XY _ s. ~I lLl - BM 1, 49 I'1 s 1 1 01111 ~Ir ~Lk~.c+c7cj - _ mr'~~~~~.OA4•~(~I 1~ ~M~~93S RON, r p~trPfi ,~4 . ~S~~ry ~w'~~ r ts~7 K Y,: p 51~ ~ @NT S L I INl "t IiY' l~ k~ f Y VA, K` ~ >~s Val ~ 5 V Q(qJ, 1 r f Y y 41x1 +f Y } i. 1 I L l~ 1L i,t~ 311 9F- 4Is,11 (.111 l l ~ A.L~ 3 X11 1 y'` N(5 ' CP31 o c~ L 22 .,M,~.km ,nr `1 f~r'rYSzy.~ s~ f ~t ~ a 1 j9 Fw~)~ r ,u w z+ I ~ 1> Est-',~ Eli ry 1 o f ' J ~z~ ry~ {t y F --,j MIN71 jill- r f ti' Ilk .fir. z rt~+ " c ~„yt = R, l,g 7~a r~ ~ ' Y' m T.~},. hsxtb: A r4 : B a ;1 r.bt t k'a t Qm.~ s J y5,' •w. I. 1 /,,fit s,, F ~ © SS rr a L ~ Mill, mg i§V (OR t o n a ~•{n$ w r c• SIN K r l- 7hr.}=1ryir' tg}1 L,y- .i''.. k. till :lL) ~.lii/I f''Y;. fc .f r i ca r 9 Hi: 10 11 _ 1 ' yt SI': F 23 l: 9L TH, a 'sa, tip ti r3 ~ ` I~k~ a a ry Y~~ 43 rG i " trr%, gg ~i'r.Y~3 fns. t" +r df WIN ra f~f •j _ I"l'e ti'"~ j v y s p 3 a ~li~t~r r ar h~-Ura. 3R I~ ry fti'` t,~ri4Y .,!Tdy;Mr " J FJ. 1 p.1 ..7 3 ff 1l'~ tLeWlyp 5''C~9C9z I 1 Axll 1f 5~ S~i ,t'Sh y J ~ 1 i ~7•I~CE w i t~ ~ a~~` ' -OR h / o- , 54, . 51,14, t Sj r C3) , 1- 24 L } Al, T.aa+ ytrvt,~.• ,1 : r.';,i Sit - t ~ 6 r~a^,.: [ s ' ~ a r rS,. ''YY I t>3 t 5 -y. r As $ s tr ~r l k4 Al. ~~}''yy gy~Fgq (~Tii t~~ ! ~t F7 CN'~{~ , M1~9°t... x " V r, nL~c*f ~1 h,~~ht~'?.,~~+~.,~>`tI p-_ L 1 u. r.~ r 1 I ?x'' IF4 J.w y ( ~ - trs o- 7 u ~ fu' C t, '+f I `Gy to, ttl" I-S tv 1 Q ~ AM ~j-` 1 . LL r ti _ "At l_ 1 f t, i~, _L-~ L vrm~~r (CI^~ rani €yii i ^ ~.!~1~ d°~ ¢hnlS; ) LI~itI2+ll~k ta~va~c 4~ 1 -Tp r y yt i 37g ~ i ' Lz b r!E d 1 rl ~ ~xt a 25 ~x~ PROPOSED 2010 VOTING PRECINCTS n1. z c ~ ~O y R RD DR G F < z r Co0 DANA RU r p RAN ~O WAKEF IELp ' - :S co d r 2•~{~~lv Sr a UTN i ;eL m 5 1 BEC/Igp ORPNGE ~1 " v \ .1 1~j "O 20 y `Sr °"G''S 9P tS. t 71 o~ 1~ ~y4 ,,1 so r , ~a 4 sA EM) S 't NG\(~.?' - r Nom; t iE' Sl~ P`l STATE ~ 6 ~ gip,. y p0A~eo ~~G ,~RNON S, P P Uf ~~J ST rn TQvGR LNST Legend ' of pO~ti Current Precincts PRES ~~o<< r s Proposed Precincts 'N AO oP, n~ 2 R 7~ o S~ a g ~ - T 14 Z' p y ~Erj UUt 'fi w~HF' ` ~o o r3VE a xi ! 5 Y1 N O o IN O O R S O ;~LgLlr ? 7 •p t T ~ ~~r~kawia, J T.. Map by Town of Reading based on draft y precinct boundaries provided by the Secretary of State's office April 2011. Population is r..: NA based on the official U.S. 2010 Census block-level data. Map date: 5/4/2011. 26 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, NIA 01867-2683 MEMORANDUM To: Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager From: Jean Delios, Community Services Director/Town Planner Fran Fink, Conservation Administrator . George Zambouras, Town Engineer Date: April 25, 2011 Re: Staff Report - Aquifer Protection District (APD) On November 18, 1985, the Town of Reading adopted an Aquifer Protection District (APD) bylaw as part of the Zoning Bylaw, detailed in Section 4.8. The text is attached below. In 1996, the boundaries of the District were modified, based on a detailed engineering study conducted by Weston and Sampson, Engineers. In 2001, the text of the APD bylaw was amended to meet new State drinking water requirements set by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In 2005, the Selectmen adopted a policy to set design guidelines for administration of the APD bylaw. The policy is also attached. The purpose of the APD is to preserve and protect existing and potential sources of drinking water supply for present, future, and emergency use. Most of the wording in the APD bylaw comes directly from wording mandated state-wide by DEP in their Drinking Water Supply regulations, 310 CMR 22.00. The Administrative Consent Order issued by DEP to the Town repeats the mandate to the Town to protect the aquifer in accordance with 310 CMR 22.00. Because most of the APD overlies residential zoning districts, many of the prohibitions and limits listed in. Section 4.8.6 of the Zoning Bylaw are not particularly problematic. The most common issue created by the APD for residential lots is the limit set on the percentage of a lot that can be covered with impervious cover. Specifically,. Section 4.8.6.1 of the bylaw includes the following limits on permitted uses: 4.8.6.1.9. impervious cover on property up to 15%; sFI 27 4.8.6. 1.10. impervious cover up to 20% if a system for artificial recharge of precipitation is provided that will not result in the degradation of groundwater quality. Recharge plans shall comply with the DEP Stotmwater Guidelines and shall be submitted to the Town Engineer or the applicable Board, Committee or Commission for review and approval.' The limit set by the APD bylaw differs slightly from the standard set by DEP in 310 CMR 22.21(2)(B)7, which prohibits: Land uses that result in the rendering impervious of more than 15% or 2500 square feet of any lot or parcel, whichever is greater, unless a system for artificial recharge of precipitation is provided that will not result in the degradation of groundwater quality. Most applicants are able to meet the APD standards by adding recharge systems, limiting the size of additions, and/or removing unnecessary pre-existing impervious cover such as a patio or part of an over-sized driveway. Since the APD bylaw was amended in 2001, problems have occasionally arisen with regard to proposed additions to residential properties that are already at or above the 20% limit. Other than the Zoning Bylaw section on nonconforming uses, the Zoning Bylaw is silent on existing homes built before the APD bylaw. The nonconforming use section of the Zoning Bylaw does not state specific requirements for nonconforming APD cases. The 2005 BOS policy was adopted to help clarify such situations, and also to set design standards for infiltration systems. The policy asks owners of nonconforming lots to consider removing existing impervious cover to offset proposed impervious cover, as well as to add infiltration systems to offset the excess cover above 15%. Thus, the policy tries to result in a plan that will improve the existing nonconforming situation, if not meet the full standard. In many cases; owners are able to meet the policy, but in a small number of cases the lot is already too extensively developed or too small to meet the policy. As with any Zoning Bylaw limit, the owner may appeal a denial to the Board of Appeals and seek a variance. Several non-residential projects have also been reviewed under the APD standards. ® The 8-unit condominium at Sumner Cheney place was permitted as a 40B development. The design includes infiltration systems and pervious pavement to minimize impacts on the, Aquifer. The ZBA granted a waiver of the cover limit, which is within their authority when issuing 40B permits. Sailor Tom's Way subdivision is the only subdivision proposed in the APD recently. The subdivision road and sidewalks were included as part of the calculation of impervious area, along with proposed driveways and houses. Even with a reduction in roadway width and sidewalk area from 2 ~2--' 28 CPDC, most of the allowable cover was taken by the roadway, leaving relatively small houses on the three lots. The developer was encouraged to consider a 40B or Planned Residential Development alternative that would have required less paving for roads and parking, but he did not want to pursue these options. ® The commercial site at 1349 Main far exceeded the cover limit before it was redeveloped. Infiltration systems were added, and redevelopment was allowed with essentially the same cover as before. The daycare center across from Wingate added pavement without first seeking permits and was ordered to remove the excess. The owner was not willing to install an infiltration system to mitigate the excess cover. Wood End School was designed and built to comply with the 20% limit, including infiltration systems on site. The 20% ceiling set by the APD bylaw may be a carry-over from the previous limit in the bylaw before the 2001 amendments were made. It appears that the Town would have the alternative of adopting the DEP standard as worded, and eliminating the 20% limit set by Reading, or increasing the maximum percentage allowed. It would be advisable for specific design standards similar to those in the 2005 BOS policy to be adopted as a formal part of the Zoning Bylaw, or else as regulations by the CPDC for administration of the Zoning Bylaw. The authority of the Board of Selectmen in the present arrangement is somewhat unclean The normal 15% and 20% standards and infiltration system design standards could be added to the APD section of the Zoning Bylaw to clarify the restriction. The question about sites with pre-existing nonconforming coverage might be further addressed in the nonconforming use section of the Zoning Bylaw. Attachments sO 29 ZONING BYLAW SECTION 4.8. - AQUIFER PROTECTION DISTRICT 4.8.1. Purpose of District: The purpose of this Aquifer Protection District i s to: 4.8.1.1. promote the health, safety,. and general welfare of the community by ensuring adequate quality and quantity of drinking water for the residents, institutions, and businesses of the Town of Reading; 4.8.1.2. preserve and protect existing and potential sources of drinking water supplies; . 4.8.1:3. conserve the natural resources of the Town of Reading; and 4.8.1.4. prevent temporary and permanent contamination of the environment. 4.8.2. Scope of Authority: The Aquifer Protection District is an overlay district superimposed on the underlying zoning districts which shall apply to all new construction, reconstruction, or expansion of existing buildings and new or expanded uses which fall, wholly or partially, within such Aquifer Protection District. Uses prohibited in the underlying zoning districts shall not be permitted in the Aquifer Protection District. 4.8.3. Definitions: For the purposes of this section, the following terms are defined below: Aquifer: Geologic formation composed of rock, sand or gravel that contains significant amounts of potentially recoverable water. Reading Zoning By-Laws 45 Revised as of Jan. 2011 Aquifer Protection District: The zoning district defined to overlay other zoning districts in the Town of Reading. The aquifer protection district may include specifically designated recharge areas. Impervious Surface: Material or structure on, above, or below the ground that does not allow precipitation or surface water to penetrate directly into the soil. Impervious surfaces shall include all roofs, driveways, parking areas, roadways and walkways, regardless of the proposed surface material. Mining: The removal or relocation.of geologic materials such as topsoil, sand, gravel, metallic ores, or bedrock. Potential Drinking Water Sources 2: Areas which could provide significant. potable water in the future. Recharge Areas: Areas that collect precipitation or surface water and carry it to aquifers. Recharge areas may include areas designated as Zone II and Zone III. Toxic or Hazardous Material: Any substance or mixture of physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics posing a significant, actual, or potential hazard to water supplies or other hazards to human health if such substance or mixture were discharged to land or water. in the Town of Reading. Toxic or hazardous materials include, without limitation; synthetic organic chemicals, petroleum products, heavy metals, radioactive or infectious wastes, acids and alkalis, and all substances defined as Toxic or Hazardous under Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.) Chapter (c.) 21 C and 21 E and 310 CMR 30.00, and also include such products as sFq 30 solvents and thinners in quantities greater than normal household use. 4.8.4. Establishment and Delineation of Aquifer Protection District: The Aquifer Protection District is delineated and established on a map entitled "Figure 2 Town of Reading, Massachusetts Zone II and Zone III Areas" prepared by Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc. resulting from a study for the Town of Reading Entitled 100 Acre Wellfield Zone II Study dated July 1996 which shows certain aquifer protection areas consisting of aquifers or recharge areas. Such map is hereby made a part of the. Town of Reading Zoning By-Law and is on file in the office of the Town Clerk and the Building Inspector's Office. 4.8.5. Boundary Disputes: If the location of the District boundary in relation to a particular parcel is disputed, resolution shall be accomplished by the owner(s) filing a Special Permit application with the Special Permit Granting Authority (SPCA), the Reading Zoning Board of Appeals. Any application for a special permit for.this purpose shall be accompanied by adequate documentation. The burden of proof shall be upon the owner(s) of the land to. show where the boundaries should be located. At the request of the owner(s), the Town may engage a professional engineer, hydrologist, geologist, or soil scientist to determine more accurately the boundaries of the districts with respect to individual parcels of land and review the documentation presented by the owner(s). The SPGA may charge the owner(s) for the cost of such investigation. 4.8.6. Use Regulations: In the Aquifer Protection District, the following regulations shall apply: Reading Zoning By-Laws 46 Revised as of Jan. 2011 4.8.6.1. Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within the Aquifer Protection District, provided that all necessary permits, orders, or approvals required by local, State or Federal. laws are also obtained: 4.8.6.1:1. conservation of soil, water, plants and wildlife; 4.8.6.1.2. outdoor recreation, nature study, boating, fishing, and hunting where otherwise legally permitted; 4.8.6.1.3. foot, bicycle and/or horse paths and bridges; 4.8.6.1.4. normal operation and maintenance of existing water bodies and dams, splash boards, and other water control, supply and.conservation devices; 4.8.6.1.5. maintenance, repair, and enlargement of any existing structure, subject to Section 4.8.6.2.; 4.8.6.1.6. residential development, subject to Section 4.8.6.2.; 4.8.6.1.7. farming, gardening, nursery, conservation, forestry, harvesting and grazing, subject to Section 4.8.6.2.; 4.8.6.1.8. construction, maintenance, repair, and enlargement of drinking water supply related facilities such as, but not limited to, wells, pipelines, aqueducts and tunnels; 4.8.6.1.9. impervious cover on property up to 15%; 31 3 4.8.6. 1.10. impervious cover up to 20% if a system for artificial recharge of precipitation is provided that will not result in the degradation of groundwater quality. Recharge plans shall comply with the DEP Stormwater Guidelines and shall be submitted to the Town Engineer or the applicable Board, Committee or Commission for review and approval. 4.8.6.2. Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited: 4.8.6.2.1. landfills and open dumps as defined in 310 CMR 19.006; 4.8.6.2.2. automobile graveyards and junkyards, as defined in M.G.L. c. 14013, §1; 4.8.6.2.3. landfills receiving only wastewater and/or septage residuals including those approved by the Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to M.G.L. c. 21, §26 through 53; M.G.L. c. 111, §17; M.G.L c. 83, §6 and 7, and regulations promulgated thereunder; 4.8.6.2.4. facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste that are subject to M.G.L. c. 21 C and 310 CMR 30.00, except for the following: 4.8.6.2.4.1. very small quantity generators as defined under 310 CMR 30.000; 4.8.6.2.4.2. household hazardous waste centers and events under 310 CMR 30.390; 4.8.6.2.4.3. waste oil retention facilities required by M.G.L. c. 21, §52A; 4.8.6.2.4.4. water remediation treatment works approved by DEP for the treatment of contaminated ground or surface waters; 4.8.6.2.4.5. petroleum; fuel oils, and heating oil bulk stations and terminals including, but not limited to, those listed under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes, 5171 and 5983;. 4.8.6.2.4.6. storage of liquid hazardous materials, as defined in M.G.L. c. 21 E, and liquid petroleum products, unless such storage is (a) above ground level; and (b) on an impervious surface; and (c) either (i) in container(s) or above ground container(s) within a building; or; (ii) outdoors in covered container(s) or above ground tank(s) in an area that has a containment system designed to hold either 10% of the total possible storage capacity, of all containers, or 110% of the largest container's storage capacity, whichever is greater; 4.8.6.2.4.7. storage of sludge and septage, unless such storage is in compliance with 310 CMR 32.30 and 310 CMR 32.31; 4.8.6.2.4.8. storage of deicing chemicals unless such storage, including loading areas, is within a structure designed to prevent the generation and escape of contaminated runoff or leachate; 4.8.6.2.4.9. storage of animal .manure unless covered or contained in accordance with the specifications of the Natural Resource Conservation Service; 4.8.6.2.4.10. earth removal, consisting of the removal of soil, loam, sand, gravel, or any other earth material (including mining activities) to within 4 feet of historical high groundwater as determined from monitoring wells and historical water table fluctuation data compiled by the United States Geological Survey, except for excavations for building foundations, roads, or utility works; 32 J 4.8.6.2.4.11 discharge to the ground of non-sanitary waste Water including industrial and commercial process waste water, except: (a) the replacement or repair of an existing treatment works that will not result in a design capacity greater than the design capacity of the existing treatment works; (b) treatment works approved by the Department of Environmental Protection designed for the treatment of contaminated ground or surface water and.operating in compliance with 314 CMR 5.05(3) or 5.05(13); (c) publicly owned treatment works. 4.8.6.2.4.12. stockpiling and disposal of snow and ice* containing deicing chemicals if brought in from outside the district; 4.8.6.2.4.13. storage of commercial fertilizers, as defined in MGL Chapter 128,§64, unless such storage is within a structure designated to prevent the generation and escape of contaminated runoff or leachate; 4.8.6.2.4.14. underground storage tanks related to the activities in Section 4.8.6.1. 4.8.7. Violation Notice: Written notice of any violations of this Section shall be given by the Building Inspector to the property owner as soon as possible after detection of a violation or a continuing violation. Such notice shall specify the requirement or restriction violated and the nature of the violation, and may also identify the actions necessary to remove or remedy the violations and preventative measures required for avoiding future violations and a schedule of compliance. A copy of such notice shall be submitted to the Building Inspector, the Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Town Engineer/Department of Public Works, and Water Department. The cost of containment, clean-up, or other action of compliance shall be borne by the owner of the premises. 7 L 33 L~ 4 .16 Policy Establishing Aquifer Protection District Infiltration System Design Guidelines (adopted by Board of Selectmen in 2005) The Zoning Bylaw of the Town of Reading establishes an Aquifer Protection District and. establishes standards' whereby infiltration systems must be installed. The bylaw is silent on the design guidelines for such systems, and the exact situation in which a system must be installed. These design guidelines provide details to assist property owners, Town staff, and designers in implementing these required infiltration systems. 4.16.1 - New Construction Impervious area allowed by right 15 percent Additional impervious area allowed if infiltration is provided 5 percent Total impervious area allowed 20 percent Example: A homeowner wants to build a house (or an addition if the existing house has less than 15 percent impervious cover) that would result in 18 percent impervious cover. A building permit would be issued if an infiltration system were provided that infiltrated an impervious area equivalent to 3 percent of the total lot area. Any impervious area in excess of 20 percent requires a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. 4.16.2 - Pre-Existing Non-Conforming lots having more than 15% and less than 20% impervious cover. Any proposed addition to impervious area that does not exceed 20 percent requires full compliance with the aquifer protection district requirements. That means that any, impervious area between 15 and 20 percent must be infiltrated, including existing impervious area. Example: A homeowner wants to put an addition on a house. that would increase the impervious cover from 17 percent to 19 percent. A building permit would be issued if an infiltration system were provided that infiltrated an impervious area equivalent to 4 percent of the total lot area. Any proposed impervious area in excess of 20 percent requires a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. 4.16.3 - Pre-Existing Non-Conforming Structures in Excess of 20% impervious cover The Building Inspector may permit additions to pre-existing non-conforming structures as long as the total impervious area is not increased and an infiltration system is provided to improve existing conditions. s 34 The goal of providing an infiltration system is to bring the lot into compliance with the aquifer protection district requirements if possible. In designing an infiltration system, the engineer should determine the feasibility of providing full infiltration (i.e., reducing the effective impervious area to 15 percent) given the site constraints such as lot size, depth to groundwater, and suitability of soils. The adequacy of the infiltration system will be reviewed on a case by case basis. If full infiltration is not proposed, the engineer shall submit justification for a reduced level of infiltration in the application to the Town. Example: A homeowner wants to put on an addition where the existing impervious cover is 22 percent. By removing an existing garage and a portion of the driveway, they are able to maintain the total impervious cover at 22 percent. A, building permit would be issued for this lot if an infiltration system were provided that improves the existing condition (with the goal being to reduce the effective impervious area to 15 percent, i.e,, infiltrate an impervious area equivalent to 7 percent of the lot area). Any increase in impervious area over existing conditions requires a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. 4.16.4 - Infiltration System Design Please note: Section 4.8.3 of the Zoning By-law states that impervious surfaces shall include all roofs, driveways, parking areas, roadways and walkways, regardless of the proposed surface material. This means that replacing a paved driveway with gravel or crushed stone does not reduce the calculated impervious area. Decks that are constructed with open joints between the floorboards, and, are not impervious underneath do not have to be included in the impervious calculation. The following are the Town of Reading guidelines for the design of infiltration systems. 1. It is preferable to infiltrate roof runoff wherever possible. 2. If other impervious areas (such as driveways) are proposed to be infiltrated, some type of pre-treatment device should be used (e.g., deep sump catch basin). 3. A licensed soil evaluator must conduct soil tests and a report from the evaluator must be submitted with the design. The soil tests must show the seasonal high groundwater table, depth to bedrock, soil texture, and the percolation rate of the soil. The Town reserves the right to observe the soil tests and must be notified at least 48 hours in advance of the test. 4. Infiltration systems should maintain at least a two-foot separation between the bottom of the system and seasonal high groundwater or bedrock. 5. Systems should be designed using TR-55 or TR-20 and should be sized to infiltrate at least a 2-year, 24 Hour Type III rainfall event (3.1 inches). Other methods may be acceptable if approved by the Town Engineer. An overflow mechanism should be provided to release larger storm flows. 6. The infiltration rate of the soil should be taken into consideration in the design to minimize the size-of the system. Three copies of the design report must be submitted to the Building Inspector for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 35 ~Dy~N OF IR?~Adl~ . o _ ~wa E~9. 1NCOR4~~~ THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Number: 2011-2 Fee: $75.00 TOWN OF REA:DLNG- AGENT' S OR SELLER'S LICENSE CLASS 1 FOR THE SALE OF NEW and SECOND-HAND MOTOR VEHICLES In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 140 of the General Laws with amendments thereto, eCars of New England, Inc. whose principal business is the sale of new motor vehicles as a recognized agent of Wheego Electric Cars, Incorporated, or who has a signed contract as required by Section 5.8, Class 1, is hereby licensed to purchase and sell new motor vehicles, and as incidental or secondary thereto, second-hand motor vehicles at 281 Main Street.in Reading, Massachusetts on premises described as follows: The building will house a customer showroom as well as sales and administrative offices. The lot will contain customer parking and vehicle open storage. This license is granted in conformity with the Statutes and ordinances relating thereto and expires December 31, 2011, unless sooner suspended or revoked. In Te I ony Whe f, the undersigned have hereun~fxed t ii ffio l ign Lures: 00 A,; a ;M Date Issued: May 5, 2011 THIS LICENSE MUST BE POSTED IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE UPON THE PREMISES (OVER) G fc~cf Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading-, MA 0186712685 FAX: (781) 942 - 5441 Virginia Adams 59 Azalea Circle Reading, MA 01867 April 20, 2011 Dear Virginia, Thank you for-taking the time to write and give feedback regarding the Touch of Class Concert Series. I understand your concerns regarding the concerts on the Town Common as it relates to noise, particularly motorists. I wish there was something we could do to change that, but it is beyond our control. We made a careful decision.to keep the concerts on the Town Common based on the feedback we received last year from the'patrons at the concerts. The response to keep the concerts on the common versus going back to Memorial Park was overwhehning. There are several other reasons why I believe the common works best for the concerts; ® Visible location serves as a standing reminder of the concert each week ® More shaded seating areas and better parking options ® Less chance of having to cancel due to wet field conditions Personally, I felt the concerts were better attended last year than any year I can remember. Using the Town Common is standard practice in many communities in the area and can really inject some excitement in the. community and bring life to our downtown. We have a beautiful downtown that is now ,able to easily host . concerts.. Our goal is to draw folks that are driving by to pull over and pull up. a chair. I feel the best way to do that is to have them in a visible location. Again, I truly value your concern, but believe that the common is the right place for our summer concert series at this time. We will reevaluate after the summer as we do each year. Cc: Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager q 6L RECREATION DIVISION: (781) 942 - 9075 37 201.E Reading Recreation Division 16 Lowell St. Reading, MA 01867 April 8, 2011 Re: Touch of Class Family Concerts 2011 I noted with great dismay that the Touch of Class Concerts are listed to perform at the Town Hall Common again this year. We understood the necessity of relocating the concerts last year while Memorial Park was under reconstruction but thought it was only a temporary measure. For years we have enjoyed the serene setting at Memorial Park - a delightful place to spend a summer evening, listening to music, visiting with neighbors and watching children run and play in the open space. Last summer, we found the concerts less enjoyable because of the confined area on the Common. However, it was the traffic noise that really was the major detriment to concerts on the Common. Despite Sunday's lighter traffic volume than on weekdays, there was constant background din (sometimes punctuated by loud motorcycle noise) that interfered with the musical performances. I ask those responsible to re-think their position and return the Touch of Class Concerts to Memorial Park where all can relax and enjoy one of Reading's summertime treasures. Respectfully, r L/' dim T Virgi Adams 59 Azalea Circle Reading, MA 01867 ~jvuj A ,bpae.ie.-0- 38 n 01 Page 1 of 1 Ll<- 19o 5; Schena, Paula From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Thursday, April 28, 20114:40 PM To: Schena, Paula Subject: FW: Safe Routes Attachments: Wash ingtonStreetPetition.pdf; ResponseToSelectmen.pdf 1/c with attachments 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.read ingma,goy email town manager@ci. reading.. Maus Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at httj?://readingma- survey.vir ualtownhall.net/surv_.ev/sid/887434dd9e213Ob7/ From: Zambouras, George Sent: Thursday, April 28, 20119:49 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Safe Routes Peter, Response letter from. state (original being mailed) regarding BOS request to move sidewalk and comment letter from all residents of Washington Street to push sidewalk to property line and create a grass strip. The denied BOS request but are willing to make the change the resident request. My recommendation is to direct state to relocate sidewalk and install grass strip, It will result in a better looking project, not affect the current roadway width and satisfy the residents concerns. Shawn Holland the state's project manager and their consultant are in agreement. Shawn is checking with other MassDOT officials to get their comments,. but is confident that they will approve the change as long as we agree. As soon as we get back to them he will direct the consultant to revise plans. George J. Zambouras, P.E. Town Engineer 781-942-6683 781-942-5441(fax) Email: gzambouras@ci.reading.ma.us 39 C?6' 4/28/2011 ~U t DEVAL L. PATRICK, GOVERNOR :r, t t~ 14 r l TIMOTHY P. MURRAY, L1. GovmNop f ~ JEFFREY B. MULLAN, SECRETARY & CEO fi LUISA PAIEWONSKY, ADMINISiRATOR April 27, 2011 James Bonazoli, Chairman Board of Selectmen Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA. 01867 Mo ving Massachusetts Forward. u ] Highway SUBJECT: Reading-- Parker Middle School: Safe Routes to School Project Project File No. 606222 Dear Mr. Bonazoli: This is in response to your February 15, 2011 letter requesting that the proposed sidewalk on Washington Street be moved westward to the roadway right of way line and the sidewalk be constructed as narrow as possible to provide minor widening of Washington Street. MassDOT does not believe reducing the proposed 5.5 foot wide sidewalk on Washington Street is appropriate, particularly since this is a school walking route and the main purpose of this project is to facilitate children walking safely to school. MassDOT's standard sidewalk width is 5.5 feet which includes the width of the curbing. This sidewalk width allows two-way pedestrian travel including ADA accessibility, the ability of pedestrians to walk side-by-side, provides space for snow that is plowed from streets onto abutting sidewalks, and allows room to install street signage along the edge of the sidewalk, Washington Street has an existing and proposed pavement width of 20 feet, and is approximately 500 feet in length, The proposed Washington Street curb line and resulting street and sidewalk widths preserves the 14" tree on the Washington Street side of 142 Woburn Street and results in no loss of trees as requested by the Town and residents. Moving the sidewalk further west to the roadway layout line and reducing the sidewalk width along that portion of Washington Street south of the 14" tree would result in only a 2 foot widening of Washington for a distance of only 360 feet, The additional 2 foot widening and resulting 22 foot width of Washington Street would not significantly improve traffic operations and safety, and would not be wide enough to allow on-street parking on both sides of the street. MassDOT is eager to move forward with the proposed design as presented at the Public Hearing, If you have any questions to our response or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact Shawn Holland, Project Manager, at (617) 973-7242. Sincerely, Marie J, Rose, P.E. Director of Project Management MJR/s h Cc: Patricia Leavenworth, District 4 Highway Director Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager George Zambouras, Town Engineer Shawn Holland, Project Manager Kevin Dandrade and Mikel Meyers -TEC Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Highway Division • www.mass.gov/massdot TEN PARK PLAZA • BOSTON, MA 02116-3969 • PHONE: 617.973.7000 FAx: 617.973.8031 • TDD: 617.973.7306 40 52 Washington St Reading, MA 01867 j 5 April 20, 2011 In A ► I 4 Thomas F. Broderick, P.E, Acting Chief Engineer MossDOT- Highway Division 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116-3973 Mr. Broderick, Attached you will find a petition signed by every household on Washington Street (West and East side) between Woburn and Prescott Street. We all feel strongly that we would like to see a grassy strip on the sidewalks. We have put together a letter highlighting some of the reasons we believe this is not only possible, but beneficial to the project. Please contact us to let us know how you can revise the current plan to include a grassy strip. You may e-mail Christine Lusk on behalf of the residents of Washington Street at Christine ti hen vati hoo.com. Kindly, Christine Lusk 41 o 6 While we are looking forward to sidewalks on Washington Street we are very disappointed that the current plan does not include a grassy strip between the sidewalks and the road. There are several items we would like to address in regards to this matter. 1) The current plan calls for a 5.5 foot concrete sidewalk plus a 6 inch curb with no grass. 5.5 feet well exceeds code which I believe is either 3 or 3.5 feet. With 6 driveways along Washington Street there is ample room for a wheelchair to pull over or turn about. Therefore; this width seems excessive. 2) Aesthetically this sidewalk will not'match' the other sidewalks on quiet residential streets in Reading, including the recently improved sidewalks just down the street at Washington Street Park, as well as those on Temple Street, which are also part of this same 'safe walk to school' sidewalk project. 3) A six foot stretch of concrete extending from the street that has no greens space will be unattractive, take away neighborhood "curb appeal", and therefore likely hurt property value. 4) The town engineer made a point that the standard in Reading is a 3 foot grassy strip. The rational is that anything less than 3 feet is not maintained. I strongly disagree with this especially given the level of care that the residents of Washington Street display in maintaining their properties, lawns and gardens. S) At the public meeting the Town Engineer made reference when talking about the beautiful sidewalks on Temple Street that they went forward with a narrower grassy strip because they were replacing existing sidewalks on that street. On the west side of Washington Street there are two lots with sidewalks that currently have grassy strips; on*the west side of the street there is only one house with a sidewalk that does not have a grassy strip. On the East side of the street there are three houses with sidewalks that have grassy strips; therefore the precedent on Washington Street is to have a grassy strip. Removing these sidewalks with grassy strips and replacing them with concrete seems to contradict the rational used to design the Temple Street sidewalks. _ 6) The lack of a grassy strip is suggestive of a main road or a commercial area, in Reading you see these on Lowell Street and in the downtown area. The traffic load and the character of Washington Street are much different than those streets. Washington Street is a quiet residential Street where children play ball in the middle of the street, neighbors talk across the street at one another. This is not a commercial area that warrants a 'concrete jungle'. 7) With the wheelchair ramps at each driveway it is a fair assumption that mothers with strollers, young children learning to ride bikes and wheelchairs will continue to walk on the street to avoid the five sets of 'rubble stripped' inclines and declines associated with the wheelchair ramps. 8) The residents on Washington Street (on either side of the street) simply want the sidewalks to incorporate green space. This sidewalk project has the potential to add a significant amount of value to both Washington Street and the Town.of Reading. We urge you to take this opportunity to ensure that we do this project correctly and truly make this an enhancement and not a $350,000 eyesore 42 Name fr. ;~-2NGs I (~iY I~ QGl✓~ V` ~j""pYYlCt,~ Address 2v yJc5-Ar n y ci,45 / `/t/ wD S ; . 4 3-7 r ,3 5- 43 ~~S 1-17 1 t 10,4 t., 1 , 44 r, Dear Katherine, It is imperative that the House version of the Municipal Health Insurance reform bill be passed and enacted into law. What percent of your FYI 1 budget is health insurance? . Februarv 2011 survev by Stoneham Board of Selectmen Peabody 20% Walpole 12% Beverly 17% Canton 12% Wakefield 16% Newburyport 12% Melrose 14.6% (GIC) Wilmington 10.6% Tewksbury 14% Amesbury 10% Stoneham 13.5% (GIC) Belmont 10% Saugus 13.5% (GIC) North Reading 10% Sudbury 13.2% Reading 10.0% North Andover 12.9% Bedford 7.9% Wayland 12% Ipswich 7.9% The average without Reading is 12.6%. If Reading were at the average, we would spend another $1.9 million per year! Today, in order to make any substantive changes to local health insurance plans, communities have to negotiate with their unions. If you look at the chart above, you will see that three communities in our area have recently joined the GIC for example. To do so they needed to make financial concessions in terms of employment and/or health insurance. For example, some of these communities had to increase their % share of the premium costs, giving back a significant part of the savings that was on the table. Further,, the move to the GIC was only cost- effective because. their old plan designs were so expensive that even with this give-back the move still had economic value. In Reading - and other communities that have less expensive plans - if we followed the pattern of these union negotiations, the GIC would end up costing us between $0.5 and $1.0 million more than our current plan does. The house bill strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of labor and management and I would ask for your support to help all of the Commonwealth's struggling communities make their own individual choices with as free a hand as possible. Peter Hechenbleikner Town Manager - Reading 45 q c` U.S. Department of Homeland Security Region I 99 High St, 6tb Floor Boston, MA 02110-2320 2011 t1NY °3 -fig 147 32 James E. Bonazol, Chair Reading Board of Selectman Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Bonazoli: n ofi FEM : r r9ND SF;~~ April 27, 2011 Thank you for the opportunity to review the Town of Reading Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region I has evaluated the plan for compliance with 44 CFR Part 201. The plan satisfactorily meets all of the mandatory requirements set forth by the regulations. Congratulations on this achievement! With this plan approval, the Town is eligible to apply for Mitigation Grants administered by FEMA. Requests for mitigation funding will be evaluated individually according to the specific eligibility and requirements of each of these programs. Furthermore, a specific mitigation activity or project identified in your community's plan may not meet the eligibility requirements for FEMA funding, and even eligible mitigation activities are not automatically approved for FEMA funding under the programs referenced above. The Town's Hazard Mitigation Plan must be reviewed, revised as appropriate, and resubmitted to FEMA for approval within five years of the plan approval date of April 27, 2011 in order to maintain eligibility as an applicant for mitigation grants. Over the next five years, we encourage the Town of Reading to continue updating the plan's assessment of vulnerability, adhere to its maintenance schedule, and begin implementing, when possible, the mitigation actions proposed in the plan. Once again, thank you for your continued dedication to public service demonstrated by preparing and adopting a strategy for reducing future disaster losses. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Marilyn Hilliard at (617) 956-7536. Sincerely, DRB:mh Don R. Boyce Regional Administrator cc: Richard Zingarelli, Massachusetts State Hazard Mitigation Officer Sarah White, Massachusetts Mitigation Planner Martin Pillsbury, MAPC Environmental Division Manager Enclosure 46 www.fema.gov SINGLE JURISDICTION MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST TOWN OF READING HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN / READING, MA DATE OF REVIEW AND VERSION: Februarv 2011 Regulation Location Met Not (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans) m n Met Pla ~Plann~ng l? d Mamt s 1. Does the plan document the planning process used to develop the plan, including Ch III,_ how it was prepared and who was involved in the process? Appendix X 2. Does the plan describe an opportunity for neighboring communities, local and Ch 111, VIII, regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the Appendix authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private X and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process? 3. Did the plan describe the review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, Ch II, 111, V, studies, reports, and technical information? IX, X X 4. Does the plan address the jurisdiction's participation in the NFIP? Ch V X 5. Does the plan describe how the public was given an opportunity to comment on the Ch III, Ian during the p g planning process and prior to plan approval? Appendix X 6. Is there discussion of how the local government(s) will continue public participation in Ch IX the plan maintenance process? X 7. Is there a description of the method and schedule for keeping the plan current, i.e., Ch IX monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle? X 8. Does the plan include a description of the type, location, and extent of all natural Ch IV, V, hazards that can affect the jurisdiction(s)? Appendix X 9.. Does the plan include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on Ch IV, V, the probability of future hazard events? Appendix X 10. Is there a description of the jurisdiction's vulnerability to the hazards identified, Ch IV,V, including an overall summary of each hazard and its im act on the communit p y.? Appendix X 11. Does the plan address NFIP insured structures within the planning area that have Ch V been repetitively damaged by floods? X IVhtr`gafiop Strategy s r r 12. Is there a description of mitigation goals t o reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities Ch VI to the identified hazards? X 13. Does the plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation Ch V, VII actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard? X 14. Does the plan address continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate, Ch V, VIII for the jurisdiction? X 15. Does the plan describe a process by which local governments will incorporate the Ch IX requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms, such as X comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate? 16. Is there an action plan describing how the actions identified will be prioritized Ch VII (including emphasis on cost benefit review) implemented, and administered by each X jurisdiction? ' ' Adc)i t~onal Requirements for Plan Updates" , `."'k4 r s ?'x', 17. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in development? New plan n/a 18. Was the plan revised to reflect progress in local mitigation efforts? New plan n/a 19. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in priorities? New plan n/a FEMA REVIEWER: 0.0 Nan Johnso APPROVABLE? YES X NO 47 .C/c QaS OFRf90ly Town of Reading r~ a 16 Lowell Street ~ ° . Reading, MA 01867-2685 Js. nacoae°¢ FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us Website: www. readingma.gov May 3, 2011 Andrew Dreyfus, CEO Blue Cross Blue Shield Massachusetts 401 Park Drive Boston, MA 02215 Dear Mr. Dreyfus: TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-9043 We are writing on behalf of the management of the Town of Reading, and on behalf of the Town of Reading employee and retiree subscribers to health insurance through the MIIA program, to express our outrage about recent expenditures by BC/BS of Massachusetts that have been publically reported. We are referring to the recent buy-out of the former CEO's contract, and the significant compensation of BC/BS Board members. The Town of Reading employees and retires have been working hard over the years with the Town's management team to do whatever we can to control health care costs for the community, and for its employee's and retirees. These efforts have included reductions to coverage, changes in co-pays and deductibles, migration to a three tiered plan, workforce education, and whatever else we can do to control costs. These efforts are a model of employee/employer cooperation in this regard. Significant sacrifices have been made by our employees and retirees, as well as by the taxpayers of the Town of Reading, but it appears that BC/BS is not matching these sacrifices in order to contain health insurance rates at the lowest level possible. Many of our cost containment efforts have been at the expense of our employees and the community, and we are therefore deeply troubled at the actions by BC/BS to expend money that could have been used to mitigate increases in cost to your subscribers (our employees and retirees) on unnecessary- expenses such as those noted above. What is also troubling is that these are the unreasonable expenses that have been reported pub lically, and it makes one wonder what other inappropriate and unnecessary expenses are being made by BC/BS of Massachusetts that have not been reported. We understand that the subscriber cost of these expenditures is not large in the overall context of our rates, but an inappropriate expenses such as these are not acceptable. We acknowledge and accept that it is important to pay appropriate compensation for employees of BC/BS of Massachusetts, but outrageous "golden handshakes" and paying Board members significant sums for important but modest levels of effort has to stop. 48 OC' Thank you for considering our concerns as BC/BS of Massachusetts moves forward with its new administration. We hope and expect that these excesses are a thing of the past and do not creep back into your culture as the spotlight of the public fades. in erely, Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager cc: MIIA Reading Teachers/Nurses Association - MTA Local #00298 Stanley Quinlan & Alex Ballantyne Reading.Administrative Secretaries Association - MTA - Local #00298 Darlene Porter Reading ParaEducators Association - MTA -'Local #00298 Roberta Guarciariello Reading Cafeteria Employees - AFSCME Local 1703 Custodial/Maintenance Employees - AFSCME - Local 1703 Joseph Coughlin Public Works - AFSCME - Council 93, Local 1703 George Strazzere Engineers - AFSCME - Local 1702 - Sub-Local 038 Arthur Markos International Association of Firefighters - AFL-CIO, Local 1640 Robert Beck & Kenneth Campbell . Reading Police Superior Officer's Association - I.B.P.O Mark Segalla Reading Patrolman's Association - Mass Cop, Local 191 A, AFL-CIO Pasquale Iapicca Reading Public Safety Dispatchers - Mass Cop, Local 191A, AFL-CIO Ryan Mahoney RMLD - Line Meter Station Unit - AFSCME - Council 93, Local 1703 John Flaherty International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers - AFL-CIO, Local 103 William Seldon RMLD Clerical-Technical Unit - AFSCME - Council 93, Local 1703 Evelyn Holt Reading Retirees Arthur Vars q el 121-11 49 L(e\~oc nationalri 2011 MAY -3 AM 10: 32 April 29, 2011 Laura A. Gemme Town Clerk Town of Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Christopher Aronson Senior Counsel C-. 0 Re: Notice of Procedural Conference Concerning the Investigation by the Department of Public Utilities Regarding the Release of Natural Gas at 22 Manning Street, Reading, on January 25, 2010. . Dear Ms. Gemme: Attached is a copy of the Notice of Procedural Conference concerning the regarding the Release of Natural Gas at 22 Manning Street, Reading, on January 25, 2010. Please post a copy of this notice in the Reading City Hall. Very truly yours, 4~-~ ' Christopher S. Aronson Enclosure cc: James E. Bonazoli,'Chairman, Board of Selectmen (w/enclosure) Camille W. Anthony, Board of Selectmen (w/enclosure) Stephen Goldy, Board of Selectmen (w/enclosure) Richard W. Schubert, Board of Selectmen (w/enclosure) Ben Tafoya, Board of Selectmen (w/enclosure) 201 Jones Road, 5th Floor, Waltham, MA 02451 T:781-907-1854 e. F:781-907-1659 ® chdstopher.aronson@us.ngrid.com 0 www.nationalgrid.com 50 ~t 22 Manning Street; Reading Notice of Procedural Conference Page 2. interested persons list (attached), and on all persons who have contacted the Operator regarding this matter. National Grid shall make return of service and publication, including the original clippings of the newspaper publications; to the Department at the time of the procedural conference. 220 C.M.R. § 1.15(2). By Order of the Department, Mark Marini, Secretary Department of Public Utilities 51 ~ jZs e cammontaealtb of nzat DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES April 21, 2011 Investigation by the Department of Public Utilities Regarding the Release of Natural Gas at . 22 Manning Road, Reading, on January 25, 2010. NOTICE OF PROCEDURAL CONFERENCE On January 25, 2010, an incident involving a release of natural gas occurred in Reading, MA, that resulted in significant property damage to 22 Manning Road. National Grid ("National Grid" or "Operator") operates the natural gas distribution system in Reading. The Department of Public Utilities ("Department") is investigating the incident. 49 U.S.C. § 60105; G.L. c. 164, § 105A; and 220 C.M.R. 69.00 et seg. For the purposes of determining the possible causes of the release of natural gas and the possibility of a recurrence, a laboratory analysis of the pipe specimen retrieved from 22. Manning Road, Reading, will be conducted. 49 C.F.R. Part 192, §§,192.605, 192.617. This analysis may include destructive testing. Any person that may be substantially and specifically affected by this testing may retain representation to participate in the determination of a testing protocol, and to witness such tests. The Department will conduct a procedural conference on Tuesday, May 10, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., at Massachusetts Materials Research, Inc., 1500 Century Drive, West Boylston, Massachusetts 01583, solely to establish a testing protocol on the pipe specimens. The recovered pipe specimens will be available for visual inspection. Any person that may be substantially and specifically affected by this investigation who wishes to comment on the testing protocol, and observe the testing must file a written request to Christopher J. Bourne, Director, Pipeline Engineering and Safety Division, Department of Public Utilities, One South Station, 5th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, no later than Friday, May 6, 2011. National Grid is required to give notice of said procedural conference by publication fourteen (14) days prior to May 10, 2011, in the Boston Herald or Boston Globe. National Grid also shall, no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the procedural conference, serve copies of this notice on the Clerk and Board of Selectmen of the town of Reading (with a request that the municipal officer/recipient post a copy of this notice in the Reading Town Hall), the Reading Fire Department, the Office of the State Fire Marshal, the Department's 52 qC3 b ~c g,4 April 19, 2011 James E. Bonazoli Chairman Board of Selectmen Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Bonazoli: 2011 APR 20 AM I1.- 59 I been going to Reading Square for a number of years and never had a problem until Friday April 8t'. On that date, on the spur of the moment, I met a friend of mine in the square. All the parking spaces were taken except for a few facing the street where he had parked. I pulled in next to him and we decided instead of going to another town, we would. have lunch in Reading. We didn't think you would have a parking limitation since we never have had a problem before. Had we seen the signs, we would have. gone to another town for lunch. However, once we returned to our car after 35-40 minutes each of us had a ticket on our windshield for $20.00. We could not believe we were being charged $20.00 for having` lunch at a local restaurant and being late by 10 minutes. Most towns that have a parking limitation will give you at least an hour. Our lunch cost us $16.00' and to- that we have to add a $20.00 ticket for a total of $36.00. For that price, why would we ever consider coming back to your town to go to one of your restaurants? I've been to Reading Square a number of times and never saw these signs before. When I've asked other people who used the square on a regular basis, they could not believe these signs were there. Basically, if it was your intention to drive people away from shopping and dining in Reading than you accomplished your goal. In the future, we will not be utilizing the services of your merchants in Reading Square. Sincerely, Martin A. LaCava l;7 qad,\A Page 1 of I. zIC g os Schena, Paula From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 10:14 AM To: Schena, Paula Subject: FW: Verizon DTC Filing Attachments: Form 200 and 400 4.301 1.pdf; Consolidated Financial Statements Verizon NE2010.pdf List Board of Selectmen - copy the email and the first attachment. 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.rn. - 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 http://readingma- survey.virtualtownhall.net/survey/sid/887434dd9e2130b7/ From: Frere, Mary, Louise [maiIto: mary.l.frere@verizon.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 20112:09 PM To: Frere, Mary Louise Subject: Verizon DTC Filing Dear Municipal Official, Pursuant to M.U.L. c. 166A, § 8, Verizon New England Inc. ("Verizon New England") is required to file with the Department of Telecommunications and Cable Television and Issuing Authorities CTV Form 200 and CT'V Form 400. Please find attached a copy of Verizon New England's statement of ownership (CTV Form 400). Also attached is copy of Verizon New England's Consolidated Financial Statements for 2010, including a Statement of Operations and Balance Sheets for 2010. This document is also found on the Verizon web site at http://investor,verizon,coin/income/otc_financials.aspx 9 r~' 5/3/2011 54 Attachment C Page I of 2 (-"T-N" FORM 200 VINANCIAI_" 1.3ALANC E SHEET Reporting Entity: Vi,rizon New Fng,land Inc Current Prier l'rinchises Se;rveJ: 110 Year Year Year l.:ndinty: Decernber 3 L 201 q 220 11 2010 See slerizon New England Consolidated Financial Statements located at the following web site: : ~ . t. 'Le ,...frt.. _ ; t.F.''ti'-+ • y'. 7:1 2?'3 :•l C;;:):. ASSETS 00 Cash and Equivalents 14) Accounts Receivable. Less Allowances 22) 0 Inventory 230 Prepaid F.xperises 240 Other C.'urrem Assets :50 Total Current Assets l''ixett t e!-ati.tl. t Ssets 216 0 Land ?70 Buildings 280 l leatdend Lcluipaient 290 TrUnk and Distribution Equipment 300 Subscriber Devices 310 Other Fixr:d Operating Assets 320 Construction Work in Progress 330 Total Fixed Operating. Assets M Accumulated Depreciation Net Fixed Operating Assets Othe.r Operating sets 350 pr-d-achise Acquisition Cost's 360 Excess Fair Value 570 Ccc,odNN.il1 380 Other lntmgibic Assets 390 Total Other Assets 400 Accumulated Anionizaition ;filet0'(b r Assets 410 Total Net Assets 55 Attachment Page 2 of 2 CTV FORM 200 FINANCIAL BALANCE SHEET See Verizon New England Consolidatet3. Fibaa vial Statements located at the following web site: Reporting l ntit}-_ Ver'izon Ne\.v 1. ngl~zrarl, Inc Current Prior Fr anchise.s Served: 110 Year Year Year 1 nding: December.i 1. 2009 2011 2(110 LIABILITIES AND 0~1-7`4FR'S EMATY C.:r n-ent Liabilities 420 Accounts Payable 430 `.iubscribor AtIvance Payments and. Deposits 440 Debt Due \'6thin. One Year 4501 On-rt:rit Taxes Payable 460 (:)ther° Current Liabilities 470 "Total Current Liabilities Non Curreut Liabilities 480 1._.oag4'erm Debt 490 Notes Payable '500 Bonds Payable 510 Obligation on Capitalized Lease; 520 1;.7elerred Taxes 530 OtbeT Non (.'U ent I.Jabilities 540 Total Non Current Liabilities Owner's Equio, 550 Net Assets due f'rorn m Parent COMP.111V 560 Capital Stock 570 Retained l::.arni.ngs - Gross - 5SO Acei.rrnulated Dividends -590 C)ther 600 Total Owner's Equity 610 Total Liabilities and Equities .GN3 56 : CTV FORM 400 STATEMENTOF OWNERSHIP Please provide the following, inforinat:ion for each Issuing Authority. Note that communities served by the s tree legal entity may be aggregra.ted. (1) (a) The full legal name of the cable operator's legal entity (corporation or partnership) holding, the cable television license. Name: Verizon New I?rt-land Inc. tb> If applicable, (ti d/bfa or generally used name of the legal entity -,A ithin the Issuing LA11 }ritV's communky. Nurne: INot Applicible i The Full legal ntarne of uhe ultimate parent entityhes which ovonfs) the corporation or partnership holding the cable license. Name- Verizon C.'unttnunicafions Inc. The regional ot3ice(s) numagling the cable license; in Massachusetts: Nance: Franchise Ma:nagelnent Street Address-. 125 Ili& Street Municipality. Boston, MA 02110 Contact. Person- Jill M. Reddish Contact person's Title: Senior Staff Consultant - FiOS,rv C`ontaet Person's "Telephone Number: 617-342-0558 (4) The corporate office of the ultimate parent entity: Name: Street :Address: Municipality, State & Gip Code Contact Person Contact Person's Title: Contact Person's 'I'ele.phone Ntmiber: Verizon € ommunicattions Inc. One Verizon Way Basleing Ridge, NJ, 02920-1097 John S. C°ullina Vice President and Deputy General Counsel Area Operations 703-351-3035 218/01 { 57