Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-07-10 Board of Selectmen Packet2012 DRAFT - BOARD OF SELECTMEN AGENDAS Estimated Staff Responsibility Start time future agendas Policy on use of the AHTF Policy on displaying street numbers Preview licensing and Permitting software. Review license and permit fees Policy on Trust Fund Commissioners Naming of roadway to Brande Court Parking lot Discuss driveway width issues. July 10, 2012 Office Hour James Bonazoli 6:30 Executive Session Real Estate 7:00 Recognition of BCC members who are retiring and who have served 5 years of more. 7:45 Appointment of RMLB member 8:00 Hearing Confirming Causeway Road Betterments 8:15 Presentation of draft report on Saugus and Aberjona Rivers drainage study 8:30 Approval of interlocal Agreement with Wakefield for Tax Assessment services. 9:30 Authorize sale of land 9:45 July 24, 2012 Review Procurement card proposal Review Conservation regulations Review options - water storage Review 2012 Goals Review changes to EDC policy Review draft of Board of Selectmen "Vision" statements August 7, 2012 Office Hour Richard Schubert 6:30 Tentative - liquor license hearing - 622 Main Street Presentation of final report on Saugus and Aberjona Rivers drainage study Follow -up on Green And Ash Street requests from residents Presentation of proposed amendment to Demolition Delay Bylaw August 21 2012 Hearing One Way on Green Street from Ash Street to High Street Follow -up on MAPC Mapping project -with CPDC, ConsCom, EDC, Climate Protection Committee. September 6, 2012 - State Primary Election - no meetings September 11, 2012 Office Hour Stephen Goldy 6:30 CAB member update Town Accountant Quarterly meeting Strout Ave Master Plan Zambourags /Feudo 9:00 / apt IN O ARM' September 25, 2012 Close Special Town Meeting Warrant October 9 2012 Office Hour Ben Tafoya 6:30 Tax Classification preview October 10, 2012 Financial Forum *Senior Center 7:30 October 23, 2012' MAPC member update November 6, 2012 - State Election - No Meetings November 13 2012 - Subsequent Town Meeting November 15 2012 - Subsequent Town Meeting November 19, 2012 - Subsequent Town Meeting November 20, 2012 Office Hour John Arena 6:30 Tax Classification hearing Approve Liquor Licenses Review Goals November 26, 2012 - Subsequent Town Meeting December 4, 2012 Office Hour James Bonazoli 6:30 Approve licenses Approve early openings /24 hour openings Town Accountant Quarterly meeting December 18, 2012 Town Manager Performance Evaluation °FReq�� Town of Reading - 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 -2685 639'INCORQ0 FAX: (781) 942 -9071 Email: townmanager @ci.reading.ma.us TOWN MANAGER Website: www. readingma.gov (781) 942 -9043 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Selectmen FROM: Peter L Hechenbleikner DATE: July 5, 2012 RE: Agenda — July 10, 2012 1 a) Executive Session — I've given the Board a memo on a potential real estate issue for the Board to consider in Executive Session. 4a) There are four retired members of Boards, Committees and Commissions who served more than five years. A certificate will be available at the Selectmen's Meeting for each of them and each has been invited. 5a) The remaining members of the Reading Municipal Light Board will join the Board of Selectmen to interview two candidates for the Light Board and make an appointment beginning immediately and expiring upon the 2013 Town Election. 6a) The Causeway Road betterment project has been completed and the Town Engineer has provided a memo outlining the betterments for each property based on final construction costs. The Finance Director will be recommending an interest rate for this betterment. 6b) The Town Engineer and consultant will be in to present the report on the Saugus Aberjona River Drainage Study to date. No action is required by the Board. 6c) Included in your packet is a draft interlocal agreement with the Town of Wakefield to provide for services of the appraiser for an 18 month period on a trial basis. If this program is successful, then a more formal interlocal agreement on tax assessment services between the two communities would be recommended. This would require approval of Town Meeting in both communities. 6d) Included in your packet is an updated memo on the sale of land. If five members of the Board of Selectmen are present July 10`", then it would be good to move forward with approval of these sales. �.p1N OF RF9d� Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 -2685 639' INCOR4¢P ASSISTANT TOWN MANAGERXINANCE DIRECTOR (781) 942 -6636 FAX: (781) 942 -9037 Email: finance @ci.reading.ma.us To: Finance Committee Date: June 27, 2012 Re: Assessors update At your meeting on June 27th I will review the following areas listed below. The . Board of Assessors and staff will attend and may also have material or topics to cover. ➢ RFP update — needed to be split into two components ➢ RFP from March 2012 — contract signed with Patriot today. Final cost not to exceed $92,000 at a rate of $26.30 /parcel. Previous transfer request allowed for a slightly higher cost of $27 /parcel and a total of $97,200 based on 3,600 parcels ➢ Second RFP issued as quickly as possible in conformance with procurement laws. Due date is 9:00am on Monday July 2 °d. At least four interested parties have asked for the RFP, and it has also been posted online at the MAAO website. On Monday the non -price proposals of each submittal will be reviewed to determine if minimum qualifications are met. A formal evaluation of each bid will be made as stipulated in the RFP. For those proposals that meet the minimum requirements the price proposal will be opened. The price and formal evaluation will be combined and a winning bidder will be identified. Contract negotiations will begin and conclude as soon as possible so the work may commence immediately. The remaining budget of $64,400 should easily cover the expected cost of the inspecting 7,172 parcels in a drive -by field review. Any surplus will be retained until both projects are compete, which is expected to be April 2013. ➢ Steve Maio (Wakefield Town Administrator), Peter Hechenbleikner and I met on May 18th. I subsequently drafted an agreement between the two Towns to share the services of the Wakefield Director of Assessing (Victor Santaniello). Town Counsels for both communities have reviewed and made suggested changes. Wakefield reports that the draft agreement will be ready to review in detail early next week. The next steps would be approval by the Boards of Selectmen in Reading on July IOth and in Wakefield on July 16th, with the agreement to begin shortly after that. ➢ The software conversion has seen good progress. Assessing staff reports that sketches did not translate well but the rest of the data is generally in good shape. The Town and Patriot Properties are working together to clean up the converted data. 2� e__­� r 0' , _ ,t � General Information on the "roll your own provision" in the recently passed federal transportation bill: • Congress passed a transportation bill that the President is expected to sign this week which includes a provision requiring that persons who offer roll - your -own tobacco machines to consumers for their use pay federal taxes as a cigarette manufacturer.' • The bill amends the definition of "Manufacturer of tobacco products" in the IRS code to include persons who make machines capable of making cigarettes cigars or other tobacco products available to consumers.2 This means any retailer who offers roll your own machines to consumers for their use within their stores are now considered tobacco manufacturers and must pay the associated taxes and licensing fees. • Retailers in Massachusetts have previously been made aware of the possibility of regulation of these machines, and those who have opted to continue offering them in their store have done so with the knowledge that they could become unprofitable in the future. What does this mean for retailers with roll your own machines? • Before the passage of this bill, retailers offering such machines for consumer use were not subject to taxes, fees or licensing required of manufacturers under either state or federal law. Under this bill, retailers will now be subject to the same federal licensing and excise tax requirements as big tobacco manufacturers. • The rental fees or purchase price coupled with the new licensing fees and taxes will make maintaining a roll your own machine unprofitable, and most, if not all, retailers will likely opt not to keep them in their stores. • The industry has responded, and the most common commercial cigarette carton producer, RYO Machine LLC, has stated their intent to refuse to reload any machine after June 30, 2012. The company also issued a statement that they would cease to fill any machines going forward until the retailer produces a tobacco manufacturing permit or enter a written declaration that their machine will be used for non - commercial purposes.3 http: / /ryofillingstation.com Why is this important? • Due to the avoidance of these federal and state licensing fees and taxes, retailers with roll your own machines were able to offer a carton of cigarettes at a much lower rate than if the consumer purchased a traditional carton produced by a manufacturer. • High excise taxes have been proven to encourage adult smokers to quit and to deter youth from starting to smoke.4 The availability of cheap cigarettes promotes tobacco use and results in a negative public health impact and increased healthcare costs. • By closing the tax loophole created by roll your own machines and requiring that RYO be regulated the same as other tobacco products, Congress has taken a positive step in protecting the public health. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Act (H.R. 4348), Sec. 100122. z Id. 3 RYO Machine, LLC Letter to Retailers, http: / /ryofillingstation.com/. 4 Kenneth E. Warner, Smoking and Health Implications of a Change in the Federal Cigarette Excise Tax, 255 J. AM. MED. ASS'N 1028 (1986); Frank J. Chaloupka & Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, The Impact of Price on Youth Tobacco Use, in 14 SMOKING AND TOBACCO CONTROL MONOGRAPHS: CHANGING ADOLESCENT SMOKING PREVALENCE 193 (U.S. Dep't Health and Human Services et al. eds., 2001). Z6Z Customer Service Survey January — June 2012 1. What department did you visit? 1Answered: 57 Skipped: 2 • Public Works • Phone call • human resources • Clerks Office • Public Works • Town Hall /Public Works • Police Dept. • Town Clerk • Recreation • Recreation • Water & Sewer & DPW • Public Works • Health • DPW • DPW • Public Works Assessors • School System • DPW • Public Works • Main Police Office and Parking Clerk • Recreation Department • conservation • Public Works • Water • Public Works • Town Clerk • Fia Pakistan • Public Works • Engineering • town clerk • Public Works 2 4:�,3 • Assessors • Assesors and Building • Water & Sewer Public works • DPW • Water Department • Water Department • Police Dept • Public Works/Water • Building Department • Public Works • Collections • Water • Town Cleark • DPW • Electric and Water • Town Clerk • Recreation • Public Works • Vote Signup • Collectors office • Water • Public Works • Public Works Garage • Town Clerk • Police Dept 2. What was the reason for your visit? '.Answered: 56 Skipped: 3 • Water Conservation Rebate • Rebate /Water Conservation • letter • Business Certificate • Pick up a rain barrell • Rain Barrel • News Up -Date • Genelogical Research • To discuss the sign -up waiver • Pick up trail maps • Rebate Information • Washer Rebate • Burial Permit • Rain Barrel • Water Conservation Rebate • Home vist for water conservation rebate for washer • General Information Zcq • Retirement Information • Water Conservation Rebate • Connection To Sewer • Permit Application and need clarity • Reading Friends and Family • he washer rebate • Water Rebate • Refund • Rain Barrel • Many Reasons • water conservation rebate • Culturai exchange programs state deptt • Water Conservation Rebate • Check Utilites • Water Conservation Rebate • Info • Plot Plan Info • engery star rebate • Purchased Rain Barrels • Conservation Rebate • HE Washer Rebate • News of The Dept • Water Conservation Rebate • Building Permits • Appliance Rebate • Locate auto bill • Rebate -New Washer • Absentee Ballot • Water Conservation Rebate • information of rebate • Register • water conservation rebate • To Vote • Pay R.E Tax Bill • Appliance Rebate • Toilet Rebate • recycling question • Birth Certificate • Memories 3. Were you assisted in a timely manner? Answered: 59 Skipped: 0 1 poor (1) 2 fair (0) 3 average (1) ZGS 4 good (2) 5 excellent (55) 5. Did you accomplish what you came for? Answered: 59 Skipped: 0 1 poor (0) 2 fair (0) 3 average (1) 4 good (5) 5 excellent (53) 6. Was the person you spoke with professional /courteous? Answered: 59 Skipped: 0 1 poor (1) 2 fair (0) 3 average (0) 4 good (5) 5 excellent (53) 7. Did you leave with a clearer understanding? Answered: 58 Skipped: 1 1 poor (1) 2 fair (0) 3 average (0) 4 good (6) 5 excellent (5 1) 8. Any comments or suggestions on how we can enhance customer service? Answered: 39 Skipped: 20 • Was pleased with the service • Thank you • Very professional & friendly The person who helped me also took the time to carry the rain barrel to my car - in the rain ! What amazing service ! There seemed to be more information on the bulletin board around conservation and city support. I just didn't have time to read it The survey URL was too difficult to type, try using a URL shortening service or ZG�P enlarge the notice to point them to the town site • A great and friendly experience -- thank you! • We've had a very positive experience in renting the Matera cabin for a kids' birthday party. John Feudo has been extremely helpful in the weeks leading up to the event and even provided trail maps of the Bare Meadow area. These will go in the favor boxes along with other camping /outdoor goodies to enjoy a day in Reading's conservation areas. We're so happy to be showcasing one of Reading's gems to kids who will want to return again with their families and really appreciate all the help John and his staff have provided to make this possible. • Staff was great told me exactly what i needed to do for the rebates. so was the inspector. • Keep it up. Perhaps a nice raise for everyone!! • Please remove old rain barrel order forms from website when no longer valid. • Joanne was very informative and helpful • Carol Roberts was very helpful, courteous, knowledgeable, and very professional • Arthur Markos was a most helpful young man • Recoverd for Joanne Powers Service to a resident • Outstanding Job • Once paper work was completed, follow up was timeley and check issued • No- Everyone was very courteous and some where funny. • Very easy and convenient • Wonderfull • U have very good transparent organised system • Everybody was very helpful and the rebate arrived very quickly. • Very good service. • Extremely helpful, professional, and friendly. • service was professional & on time. • Michael O'Halloran was extremely helpful. He called to inform me when rain barrels were ready for pickup and he brought them to my car. Very pleasant customer service experience. Thank You! • Great program, very efficiently handled. • Very helpful -Very professional • Michael o'halloran was very helpful with the process. • Everyone was nice • The staff in the collections department is unable to help with basic information and downright rude. • Excellent customer service! • Easy Process. • i found the serivice informative and curteous with the electric company and town hall. • Everyone in the recreation department had been consistently wonderful, and Zach loves all the coaches. • Everything was just fine • Upon calculating my "late fee ", it was waived as being under $5. A very nice customer focused policy ! ! • Very Efficient Process Thanks! ZG� • I had a new bathroom installed with permit. i dont know why 2 inspectors had to come out. 1 for the bath + 1 for yhr toilet. seems like dupl. of effort. • The clerk was expectionally caurteous,professional and helpful. 9. What is your name? .Answered: 45 Skipped: 14 10. What is your phone number? JAnswered: 30 Skipped: 29 11. What is your address? (:Answered: 42 Skipped: 17 12. What is your email address? ( Answered: 31 Skipped: 28 13. May we add your information to our electronic mailing list that offers community updates? Answered: 32 Skipped: 27 ti�CL\ Yes (2 8) No (4) SurveyMagik 5.0 ©Copyright, All Rights Reserved SurveyMa ik.conl Volunteers who served five or more years Council on Aging Marguerite Bosnian — 6 years Cultural Council Lorraine Horn — 6 years Vicky Schubert — 6 years Human Relations Advisory Committee Charles McDonald — 9 years 9 CL-- TO: Board of Selectmen Reading Municipal Light Board Cc Vinnie Cameron — GM, RMLD From: Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Pj Date: Thursday, May 31, 2012 Re: Filling a vacancy on the Reading Municipal Light Board Mary Ellen O'Neill has submitted her resignation from the Reading Municipal Light Board, effective immediately. The process for filling a vacancy on an elected Board, Committee, or- Commission other than the Board of Selectmen is: e Post the vacancy for a minimum of 15 days (per Reading Home Rule Charter) e The remaining members of the RMLB, along with the Board of Selectmen sit as a "committee of the whole" to interview all candidates who have submitted their name for consideration ♦ The above "committee of the whole" votes to appoint a member who will serve until the next Town election in April 2013. It will take 5 votes to appoint the member (5 members of the Board of Selectmen plus 4 remaining members of the RMLB = 9 members. By charter any action requires the majority vote of the full authorized membership of the committee) ♦ Since Mary Ellen was just elected, the 2013 Town election ballot will have an RMLB position for the remaining 2 years of the term, plus h_ ow ever other members of the RMLB are up for election. The members of the Board of Selectmen and RMLD may want to recruit applicants for the position, since we do not have any names on file expressing interest in the Reading municipal Light Board. Pave t of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: MaryEllen O'Neill [maryelienoneill @hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:55 AM To: Phil Pacino; Cameron, Vinnie Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter; Gemme, Laura Subject: RMLD Board I am submitting my resignation from the RMLD Board of Commissioners effective immediately. Pressing personal and family matters necessitate my reducing my outside commitments for the time being. Mary Ellen 5/31/2012 oFRegol Town of i 16 Lowell Street �� wq Reading, MA 01867 -2686 l639=1XCOReO�P FAX: (781) 942 -9071 Email: townmanager @ci.reading.ma.us Website: www. readingma.gov VOLUNTEER VACANCY TOWN OF READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT BOARD TOWN MANAGER (781) 942 -9043 One vacancy with a term expiring on April 2, 2013 exists on the Reading Municipal Light Board. The Municipal Light Board has charge of all real estate, facilities, personnel and equipment of the Town pertaining to the production and transmission of electrical power both within the Town and elsewhere. Interested persons may apply at the Town Clerk's office, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts by 5:00 p.m. on June 18 or until the position has been filled. 50 :11 V I E .I:'• II ZIOZ Li 5�,3 MUNICIPAL LIGHT BOARD Term Three years Appointing Authority Elected Number of Members Five Members whose terms are so arranged that as nearly an equal number of terms as possible shall expire each year Meetings Authority Reading Charter —Adopted March 24, 1986 Purpose Shall have charge of all the real estate, facilities, personnel and equipment of the Town pertaining to the production and transmission of electrical power both within the Town and elsewhere; shall have all the powers and duties given to cities and towns in respect to municipal lighting plants under G.L. c. 164, s. 34 et seq., and other general and specific acts pertaining thereto together with such further powers and duties assigned to tem by the Charter, by Bylaw or by other Town Meeting vote. sit VED I OWN' CLERK EAE'H` G. M ASS, APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS /COMMITTEES /COMMISSIONS Name: e J s��a E�1+� r� Date: i4Ar e I, Ze,d 12_ (Last) Address: (First) (Middle) /✓ Z745'e c'.� Av-e , JY-e?c1j-4 Occupation: r-11 -Cc r /"�;Osr g .' Are you a registered voter in Reading? �'-es° Tel. (Home) 7S'>— I4V 9 -oe z 14� Tel. (Work) 75V_ 76?- 7 6 (Is this number listed ?) = , # of years in Readin <a: 2-1 e -mail address:�> Place a number next to \ our preferred position(s) (up to four choices) %N ith tt 1 being N our first priority. (Attach a resume if available) Animal Control Appeals Committee _Aquatics Advisory Board Audit Committee Board of Appeals _Board of CemeterN Trustees Board of Health _Board of Registrars Bylax\ Committee Celebration Committee _Cities for Climate Protection _Commissioner of Trust Funds _Commurnit\ Planning R Development Comm Conservation Commission Constable _Contributor\ Retirement Board Council on Aging _Cultural Council Custodian of Soldiers R Sailors' Graves _Economic Development Committee Finance Committee Historical Commission Housing Authorit\ Human Relations Advisor\ Committee _Land Bank Committee MBTA Advisor\ Committee Metropolitan Area Planning Council Mystic Valle\ Flder Services RCTV Board of Directors _Recreation Committee RMLD Citizens AdvisorN Board Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Committee Town Forest Committee _Trails Committee West Street Historic District Commission Other Am 4,0 goawvA -- f ee, -e �f Please outline relevant experience for the position(s) sought: -e hz, e> f `Ai'7cJ 6� u 2.-1 4-t ' IK- 0a?..">` C,i�C..e ChP_ t i',4 u- esr ;'c-2 t mac+/ A 5'1 .e e tar 4c ,-e ,; -e — 7 r f ;' h el /1) fj- a sr v � * dy- 4--v 1. ss Town of F 11 11: 11 AL)pfication, for Appointment to Name: -gTe�)Iwc,� -,Tc#/Nj Date: G'- 2 2cl (Laso (First) ("Mid(l1c► Addi,ess: j�, A vl4l-oN �bc,4D TO, Olon-10?p-5yY-69/-�7 (Is this number listecil?) Occupation. ofycars it Reacling-2 _�7, —,- Are you a re-'stered voier In Reading? S m c-ail addrcss. JCIHNrO /) V,L O" 414STC,-(,,+7er, MI c. 14 Co, cc-� <-,q s 7. Ive 7- Place a nuniber next tai ymir, prererred (tit) to tour Choices) mJflh "T" beinu vour First pi-iori,v -.1-1-lAnimal Cowroi,,,kpjiiea1s Con,irniflec Audit Coninnittee 'Board ot',,�ppt�a 1.s olCcnieter ' v 'Fru es ste B o a r d o f I I eafl 1 1 �j Board oil Rc(,� st nars -Bylaw Coninm we Committee —Climate Adv C j%ory ommittee (7i- 111'15i` s io tier (Al"rust, Funds planninu- Development Conmr, Conservation Cormms�101 . .... -Contributory Reilreinctif Board Council on A :,ij-w ..-Custodia- of Soldiers' & Saillors' Graves -- Exonoinic Development Committee 1",911 Strel-t Fiirc Committee Finance Commillee Jiisicwical Cojgifn�sswn I furnan Relations Ack 'Isory COrl'I111 MCC M.BTA Advisory Board -me!mpol Itan Ar('mi Plannina- Council Mystic valll,-%, FA-de- services Rc,rV Board c,)1'Djrcct0T-,S Recreation Committee RMLD Cnizen,.-, Advisory Board Toxvil Fbres Cornflullce Tr,,�ils Conin-mice West Sirce" Historic District Con-mliss]0111 Ad Ho- Commitice Please outline relcv.-nt experience for the position(s,) soutlht-, (il-TI free tO attaCh a 1-0-SLInle, or other statenictit of interest/quallificat ions) /VlOA//Cl .. .. .... . ....... . .. — 71,vAn-7 ........ . 4A A.- tge-wZr i 711 7, jZi!*b> G1 C, j2e OVe 7-115IeSr 4,,-p,4t, ,17 C- cl X ? -d 4-111-!, JOHN W. STEMPECK John is the founder of Avalon Associates, Inc. For the past twenty years, he has provided a broad range of professional services, including strategy, business development, and merger and acquisition advisory services, to small to mid -cap private and public companies. • He spent ten years as Director at Braxton Associates (now Deloitte and Touche Consulting Services) and Principal at EDS Management Consulting (now owned by HP). He has traveled extensively and advised clients worldwide on strategies for growth and profitability. • John has both large and small company experience. As Vice President of Business Development at Xerox Corporation, he was the architect for their professional services group culminating in the purchase of a large IT firm. • He also managed a team that created a revolutionary on- demand book manufacturing system that created a 300 page color book in one minute. Coupled with Internet -based order entry and library, this system won the Smithsonian Manufacturing Award, a U.K. Ecology award, and Harvard Business School wrote a case study on this Book -In -Time system which continues to be taught at the Business School. • Prior to Xerox, John had been CEO for VC- funded BigEd in the corporate training field and was a founder of E- Closing in the mortgage recording industry. • At the beginning of his career, John worked in electrical engineering at Polaroid Corporation where he has seven issued patents on circuits used on millions of camera systems. John presently sits on two Board of Directors, Simplifile, Inc. (Private, electronic mortgage delivery service), Provo, Utah, and Bemis Associates, Inc. (Private, provider for specialty adhesive tapes); Shirley, MA. He received his MBA with Honors from Boston University, a BSEE from MIT, his CMAA designation from Loyola University, and has taken addition courses at Harvard Graduate School. In 2010, he was an adjunct professor at Suffolk University teaching a course on private capital markets. John has been a member of the National Technology Transfer Council (Washington, DC), the Small Business Association of New England, Vistage, the Exit Planning Exchange, and the National Association of Corporate Boards. John is married and lives in Reading, MA, with four sons. He is an avid tennis player, occasional skier and golfer, and belongs to Meadowbrook Golf Club. John @avalonassociates.com Avalon Associates LLC Second Floor 580 Main Street Reading, MA 01867 Office: 617 - 273 -8440 Cell: 617- 571 -0369 Fax: 617 - 273 -8001 www.AvalonAssociates.com 51/1 % LEGAL NOTICE V 3 `i ST ' TOWN OF READING TO THE INHA iTANTS 'fHE TOWN OPREADING: .� +Y Please take notice that. the;. Board of Selectmen of the w of,,Reading will hold a. public hearing on Tuesday, July 10, ;2012 in the Selectmerrs`= .M6eting Room, 16 Lowell =Street, Reading, Massachusettc ,yon: 4. � nfir ingCauge ay. ;. R ®.ad Betterments 8:15 P.M. A copy of the proposed doc- ument regarding this topicJ.s available in the Town Manager's office, 16 Lowefl Street, Reading, MA, M -1h' Thurs from 7:30 a.m., - 5:30 p.m.,.Tues from 7:30 a.m 7;40 p rri; and is attachod t'o_the l i arin notice on the: wet�site atk °t w Ww,readmgma gov' k . All interested arties area rL p invited fo attend the hearing, o, -.:- , may submit their comMents 1' n writing' or by em ail „prior;.to 600 p:m on.:July 10, 201-2 to ..;} townmanager @co reading:ma u u By ortler of Peter l: Hechenbleikner Town Manager All 6o- L TOWN OF READING BARTALINI ROCKELL ARNOTT CAMERON 16 LOWELL ST RONALD BARTALINI CARRIE ARNOTT READING, MA 01867 33 CAUSEWAY RD 31 CAUSEWAY RD READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 TOWN OF READING TOWN OF READING BIASELLA ANTONIO TRUSTEE 16 LOWELL ST MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPT. THE ANTONIO BIASELLA TRUST READING, MA 01867 16 LOWELL ST 80 CAUSEWAY RD READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 CULLERS HARRY R CHAPMAN STEPHEN A WALLACE ROBERT I MARCIA W CULLERS CHAPMAN CAROL A JULIE M WALLACE 74 CAUSEWAY RD 66 CAUSEWAY ROAD 60 CAUSEWAY ROAD READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 LIVINGSTONE FREDERICK E ET AL WILKINS WILLIAM J BOYAN JOSEPH J TRS OF FEL & EEL IRREV TRUS WILKINS LINDA J JOYCE M BOYAN 52 CAUSEWAY RD 53 CAUSEWAY RD 61 CAUSEWAY RD READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 JONES JOHN R BALLANTYNE HEATHER CURTO JOSEPH P SHERYL S JONES 73 CAUSEWAY RD JOAN M CURTO 65 CAUSEWAY ROAD READING, MA 01867 81 CAUSEWAY RD READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 TOWN OF READING TOWN OF READING TOWN OF READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPT MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPT. MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPT. 16 LOWELL ST 16 LOWELL STREET 16 LOWELL STREET READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 a z. Memo To: Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager From: George J. Zambouras, Town Engineer Date: July 5, 2012 Re: Causeway Road Acceptance Betterment - Construction Improvements All improvement work necessary to accept the roadway as a public way as voted by the Board of Selectman on October 26, 2010 has been completed. The total cost of improvements for the portion to be accepted as a public way is $129,705.25 which is substantially less than the original estimate of $230,000 authorized by the Board. This reduction was a result of portions of the work performed by Department of Public Works personnel and favorable bituminous concrete pavement prices. Based on lot frontage of the parcels affected within the roadway acceptance, the attached sheet identifies the final betterment to be assessed to each of the properties. • Page 1 6C'3 APROVED ROADWAY LAYOUT Total private road frontage 1930.22 Final construction cost for the private section of roadv $ 129,705.25 cost per linear foot = 6� CAUSEWAY ROAD BETTERMENT ASSESSMENTS July 4, 2012 Taking No. MAP PARCEL ADDRESS FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT NOTES T -15 31 1 RMLD 30.80 $ 2,069.67 frontage based on roadway Acceptance Plan T -12 31 2 31 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 60.64 $ 4,074.83 frontage based on roadway Acceptance Plan T -11 31 3 33 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 60.53 $ 4,067.44 frontage based on roadway Acceptance Plan T -13 251 57 RMLD 221.28 $ 14,869.38 frontage based on roadway Acceptance Plan T -13 31 4 RMLD 179.30 $ 12,048.45 frontage based on roadway Acceptance Plan T -14 31 5 TOWN 169.19 $ 11,369.08 frontage based on roadway Acceptance Plan T -6 25 46 80 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 129.20 $ 8,681.87 frontage based on roadway Acceptance Plan T -7 25 47 74 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 8,063.66 frontage based on roadway Acceptance Plan T -8 251 48 66 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 8,063.66 frontage based on roadway Acceptance Plan T -9 25 49 60 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 8,063.66 frontage based on roadway Acceptance Plan T -10 25 50 52 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 126.47 $ 8,498.42 frontage based on roadway Acceptance Plan T -5 25 51 53 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 8,063.66 frontage based on roadway Acceptance Plan T-4 25 52 61 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 8,063.66 frontage based on roadway Acceptance Plan T -3 251 53 65 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 8,063.66 frontage based on roadway Acceptance Plan T -2 25 54 173 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 8,063.66 frontage based on roadway Acceptance Plan T -1 251 55 181 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 112.81 $ 7,580.51 Ifrontage based on roadway Acceptance Plan $ 129,705.25 Total private road frontage 1930.22 Final construction cost for the private section of roadv $ 129,705.25 cost per linear foot = 6� I CAUSEWAY ROAD ESTIMATED BETTERMENTASSIESSMENTS Octnbef 28, X}117 MAP PARCEL AD-DRESS FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT NOTES 31 1 (RMLD 31 $ 3,G94A-1 frontage shown on Assessors, plan is 31 2 3, Causeway Rd, Rea6ng,NIA M.58 $ 7,219-00 Calculated Fmatage 31 3 33 Causeway Rd, Readin2, MA 00-543 $ 7.2113.62 Calculated Frontage 25 57 (I'MILD), 221-28 $ 26,M8.79 Calculated Frontage 31 4 (RMLD 178M $ 21,326.7S GalculstL-d Frontage 31 5 (TOWN) 1d-9.24 $ 20,16,7.45 Calculated Frontage 25 40 BG Causeway Rd, Reading, Ktk 129.270 $ 15,396,09 25 47 74 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 1120.00 $ 14,299.78! 25 48 69 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120M $ 14,299.79 25 49 60 Causewax Rd, Reading, MA 1210.00 $ 14,209.78, 25 50 52 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 1213.47 $ 15.07077 25 51 53 Causew2X Rd, Reading, MA 120-90 $ 14,2'89.78 25 52 61 Causeway Rd, Reading, NIA I'MOO $ 14,299.78 25 53 65 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 14,2'9£x.78! 251 54 73 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA M.001 $ 14,299.78, 251_ 55 181 Causeway Rd, ReadinQ, NIA 112-8IJ $ 1,3.442.9S Total private mad frontage '191M10 1 $ 2JU,L1JU.uu I Estimate for the construcrion of thL• private 5ecf)on of roadw2l = $ cost per linear foot =I I i Ig.1,0 1 Vated - Appr wed by Board of SeJe-r;Irnan Oct- 26, 2DIO 411 71,555.D9 Page 1 of 2 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: LeLacheur, Bob Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 9:07 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: RE: Interest on betterments On January 22, 2008 the Board of Selectmen voted to charge 5% to two properties on Franklin street Terrace for a sewer betterment. However on May 13, 2008 they voted to change the rate for from 5% to 2% because that is what the Engineering division had relayed in writing to the residents. On May 27, 2008 the Board of Selectmen voted to charge 5% to the six residents involved in the Woodland Street project. In the examples above, 5% was the highest rate under MGL that could be charged at the time. Based on this I would suggest we charge 3.97% as follows: " Move to confirm the betterments for the improvement of Causeway Road at a total cost of $xx with the assessments apportioned as follows among the benefitting property owners: {list plat — parcel — owner — frontage - cost/ft - assessment} and at the rate of interest on unpaid balances of 3.97% per annum for a maximum term of up to twenty years" Thanks, Bob Boblelacheur Assistant Town Manager /Finance Director Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 '9 vJb _.. Ga.ltV Town Hall Hours: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 ami - 5:30 p.rn, Tuesday: 7:30 a.ni. - 7 :00 p.rm. Friday: CLOSED From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 8:29 AM To: LeLacheur, Bob Subject: Interest on betterments What is the minimum interest rate that the Board of Selectmen can charge on the Causeway Road betterments, and what do you recommend as an interest rate? 7/5/2012 X" 6 Page 2 of 2 Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading MA 01867 Please note new Town H,,',30 HOUFS efl,"SGtiVO JUne 7, 201 0V ?'.j €ciiday; Wednesday, .;ai` d !%Turn y: f 6) :.7. @',i 5 :30 p.nn- .fir i d a :i ✓i,_.;f,") .E D pl-ione: 781 4 ac ,,, 7 4 •- i)r.'E2 -9,Ct ( 9 v ernail l'owitril2'�nagel(�r;(,i { J,'tg i,i Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at http:/( re. .a...dingma- survey.virtualtown_ hall. net / survey /sid /7c8844e.b_l decdO9.8_ / 7/5/2012 (06'�7 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, AIA 01867 -2683 Fax: (781) 942 -5441 PUBLIC WORKS Website: www.ci.reading.ma.us (781) 942 -9077 October 14, 2010 Board of Selectmen 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Selectmen, Attached please find the revised construction cost estimate and updated betterment assessments to upgrade Causeway Road to a public right of way. The estimate is based on the preferred alternate expressed by the residents at the October 5, 2010, public hearing. The total cost of improvements is $428,000 of which $97,000 is within the existing public right of way and $331,000 within the private roadway section. Based on the preferred revised pavement alignment there is an increase in the total betterment assessments to the abutting property owners in the amount of $23,000. This is directly attributed to additional costs required to construct the roadway in the wooded area, increased drainage relocation and additional tree removal. The estimate as presented includes all improvement costs and does not exclude any costs for work that may be performed by others or funds that may be received by outside agencies. Sincerely, George J. Zambouras, P.E., Town Engineer Cc: Peter Hechenbleikner Residents RMLD C: \Documents and Settings \gmmbouras \My Documents \Srn t Layouts \Causeway Rd \CAUSEWAY MEETING \Causeway Alt -3 memo- 101410.doc 14 Board of Selectmen Meeting — October 26 2010 — Page 3 Proclamation /Certificates of Appreciation Proclamation — Red Ribbon Week — A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Schubert to approve the Proclamation proclaiming October 23 -31, 2010 as Red Ribbon Campaign Week was approved by a vote of 5 -0 -0. Discussion /Action Items Continuation — Causeway Road — Town Engineer George Zambouras noted that the residents had asked the Town to shift the roadway away from their homes. He also noted that it is 60- 70% more expensive to move the road instead of widening. The revised total cost is $428,000, and $331,000 of that would be assessed betterments. Selectman Richard Schubert noted that the RMLD trucks are heavy, and he asked if the reconstruction will withstand that, and the Town Engineer indicated that it will. Stephen Chapman of, 66 Causeway Road noted that his portion of the roadway floods. He suggested ways of reducing the cost including taking out $3,000 for the removal and setting of telephone fence on the RMLD property, and the $20,000 for the police details. He also noted that the public section of the road is draining into the private section, and the residents are being asked to pay the $55,000 to correct it. Mr. Chapman indicated that curbing is not necessary on Causeway Road because there is no traffic — there are only 12 homes on the street. The Town Engineer noted that if there is equipment in the road, then a police detail is needed unless all of the residents park elsewhere. Joseph Curto of 81 Causeway Road noted that Mr. Fisher purchased the land and deeded it over to Leighton who abandoned the property so it belongs to the Town. After much discussion among the Board about the cost with granite curbing and without, the following motion was made: -A motion by Goldy seconded by Schubert to approve the acceptance of Causeway Road as a public way, and establish the betterments for the improvement of the private portions of the road not to exceed a total of $230,000, which reflects the proposed construction estimates included in the Board of Selectmen packet ($308,000) less the following items: ® Relocate utility poles $30,000 Remove granite curb except the throat stone as needed. With the revised betterment cost to be distributed among the assessed property owners on the same basis as shown on the chart entitled "Causeway Road Estimated Betterment Assessments" dated 10/26/10. All subject to approval of Town Meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 -0 -0. Hearing — Street Acceptances: Benjamin Lane and Kylie Drive — The Secretary read the hearing notice for Benjamin Lane. The Town Manager noted that the work has been completed. 6a,q I E Z) ALTERNATE ROADWAY LAYOUT CAUSEWAY ROAD ESTIMATED BETTERMENT CAUSEWAY ROAD FRONTAGE ON EXISTING PUBLIC WAY September 23, 2010" ASSESSMENTS October 13, 2010 Old Ma /Parcel MAP PARCEL ADDRESS FRONTAGE ASSESSMENT NOTES 9 119/3 31 1 RMLD 31 $ 5,316.30 fronts a shown on Assessors plan is +/- 11915 31 2 31 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 60.58 $ 10,389.09 Calculated Frontage 11916 31 3 33 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 60.56 $ 10,385.66 Calculated Fronts e 119/7 25 57 RMLD 221.28 $ 37,948.13 Calculated Frontage IV, 119110 31 4 RMLD 178.96 $ 30,690.51 Calculated Frontage 119/11 31 5 TOWN 169.24 $ 29,023.59 Calculated Frontage 110/6 25 46 80 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 129.20 $ 22,156.99 11017 25 47 74 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 20,579.24 11018 25 48 66 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 20,579.24 11019 25 49 60 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 20,579.24 110/10 25 50 52 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 126.47 $. 21,688.81 110/11 25 51 53 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00-$ 20,579.24 110112 25 52 61 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 20,579.24 110/13 25 53 65 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 20,579.24 110/14 25 54 73 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 120.00 $ 20,579.24 110/15 25 55 81 Causeway Rd, Reading, MA 112,811 $ 19,346.20 $ 331,000.00 Total private road frontage 1930.10 Estimate for the construction of the private section of roadway $ 331,000.00 cost per linear foot =Fs---1-7-14-9] - CAUSEWAY ROAD FRONTAGE ON EXISTING PUBLIC WAY September 23, 2010" Old Ma /Parcel MAP PARCEL ADDRESS FRONTAGE NOTES 119112 31 6 101 Willow St, Reading, MA 246.64 <. r, Public - frontage is derived from record ions 119113 31 7 TOWN 96.69 L; Public - frontage is derived from record tans 119116A 31 9 (STATE) 374.61 - Public CAUSEWAY ROAD RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK -ALTERNATE #2 PU6UC PRIVATE STATESECTION STATESECTION MIDSECTION -EXTENSION - SECTION mi0/pafrh /overlay Recaim Reclaim mil Wveday ITEM Total Estimated quantity Unit Unit Price Sum of all extended prices Lowell St Gutter (Sla 0 +00 Sfa 3 +00 Sla 3 +00 to End.af Stale Seclien (Ste 4+61 Sla 4+61 to Ste 9 +75 SW 9 +75 to end (Ste 13 +7 Construction Slgnage Excavation Tree Removal >I =17'. Tree Removal < 12" Trim 15" Oak Tree Trim 35" Oak Tree Reme- Basketball Hoop Remove and Reset Mailboxes Relocate Hydrant Relocate Utility Pole (RMLD) Remove and Dispose Bushes Rebuild existing sandstonelbrickwalkway PavementExcavation CutoutlPaleh (includes biL cone.) Granite Curb - Straight Granite Curb - Radius - Granite Curb -Throat Stones Granite Curb -Curb Returns Gravel Borrow Fine Grading and Compacting Sidawalk cut.ut/p.tch Sidewalk overlay (1S ") Adjust Drainage and Utility Structures Rebuild Drainageand UBlity Structures New Catch Basin New Drain Manhole - 12" RCP Abandon RCP Adjust Water Gates - Watergate casting (In place, to grade) Stone bound casting (in place, to grade) Bit Conc. Binder & Top Handwork Bituminous Concrete Base Course (3 ") Bituminous Concrete Leveler Course (1 ") Spray Took Coat Bituminous Concrete Top Course (2 ") Hot Rubberized Sealer Cold Plane Reclaim Base Course Drain Construction Crack Sealing RBR Wood Pole Fence at RMLD Property Removeldispose section of fence at #521RMLD Prep. Line Learn and Seed Traffic Markings Misc supplies..,stakes, paint, foamboard, etc Traffic Central 16,00 SF - $ 20.00 $320.00 320.00 - 168.00 CY $ 25.00 $4200.00 33 3,325.00 2 50.00 7.00 Each S 1,500.00 $10,500.00 9,000.00 1 1,500.00 5,00 Each $ 800.00 $4,000.00 1,800.00 1.00 Each S 200,00 $200.00 rto M 1.00 Each $ 400.00 $400.00 - 400.00 - Each $ 200.00 $0.00 - - 2.00 Each S 125.00 $250.00 250.00 - ' Each $ 800.011 $0.00 - - - 3.00 Each $ 10,000.00 S30 000.00 1 1 10 000.00 21 20,000.00 - LS $ 100.00 50.00 - - - 2.00 Per $ 1,200.00 52,400.00 2 - 2,400.00.1 - 8,00 CY $ 35.00 $280.00 5 210,00 - 2 70.00 233.00 BY $ 166.00 538 445.00 66 14.190.00 - - . 147 24,255.00 1,684.00 LF $ 32.00 $50,2B3,60 430 13 760.00 270 8,640,00 758 24 256.00 426 13,632.00 176.50 LF 5 32,00 $5,712.00 - - - 178.5 5,712.00 30.00 Each $ 235.00 $7,050.00 - 12 2,820.00 18 4,230.00 4200 , Each S 235.00 59,870.00 2 470X0 4 940.00 le 4,230.00 16 4,230.00 166,00, CY S 30.00 $4,980.00 - 33 990.00 133 3,990.00 1,801.00 SY $ 1.50 $2,701.50 - 4301 645.00 1371 2,056.50 - 47.00 SY $ 180.00 58.460.00 - - 47 8,460.00 474.00 SY $ 18.00 58.532.00 - - 101 180.00 464 6,352.00 7,00 EA $ 165.00 $1,155.00 1 165.00 2 330.00 4 660.00 - 4.00 VF 5 165.00 5660.00 - 4 660.00 - 2.00 LS $ 2,500.00 $5,000.00 - 2 5,000X0 - 1.00 LS $ 2.300.00 $2,300.0 - - - 1 2,300.00 18.00 LF $ 50.00 5900,00 - - 18 900.00 30.00 LF $ 40.00 91,200.00 - 30 1,200.00 3.00 EA. $ 125.00 5375.00 1 125.00 - 2 250.00 - 1.00 FA $ 150.00 $150.00 1 150.00 - - 1.00 EA $ 65.00 $85.00 - 1 85.00 - - 42,00 TON S 135.00 . 55,670.00 3 405.00 3 405.00 25 3,375.00 11 1,485.00 282X0 TON 5 75.00 $21,150.00 - 74 5,550.00 2081 15,600.00 99.00 TON 5 75.00 $7,425.00 10 750.00 - I - 69 6,675.00 217.00 GAL $ 3.00 $651.00 51 153.00 23 69.00 681 204.00 75 225.00 451.00 TON S 75.00 $34,275.00 95 7125.00 49 3,675.00 151 11,325.00 162 12,150.00 1,457.00 LF I $ 1.00 $1,457.00 .380 380.00 161 161.00 514 514.00 402 40200 2,330.00 SY S 2,85 $6,640.50 860 2,451.00 - - 1470 4,189.50 1,621.00 SY S Z.75 $4,457.75 - 458 1,25950 1163 3,198.25 1 LS $55,000.00 $55,000.00 - - 1 55,000.00 360.00 Gal $ 8.50 53,060.00 150 1,275.00 - - 210 1,785.00 81.00 LF $ 45.00 53,645.00 - - 81 3.645.00 - 1.00 LS $ 135.00 5135,00 - - 1 135.00 - 1,370,00 SY $ 5.50 37,535.00 200 1,100.00 145 797.50 445 2.447.50 580 3,190,00 1 LS $150.00 5150.00 1 150.00 - 1 LS $ 75.00 575.00 1 75.00 - i LS $ 27,126.95 $27,126,95 1 4,325.40 1 3,fi9720 1 16,099.13 1 1,00523 s evieed Through October 13, 2010 3 tl38,886.67 5 4,757.94 $ 4,066.92 5 19,909.04 $ 10,152.77 $427,753.37 $ 52,337.34 $ 44,736.12 S 218,999.41 $ 111,680.50 TOTAL COST PRIVATE SECTION = S 330,679.91 Say S 331,000.00 qS*,� July 10, 2012 40"C�M • Aberjona River and Saugus River Drainage Study being conducted for Town of Reading DPW • Main objectives: — Evaluate existing conditions — Develop and recommend drainage improvement alternatives — Develop implementation schedule • SOW includes presentation to the Board of Selectmen G3 W a • Comprehensive site walk conducted with Town staff • Resulted in identification of several problem areas • Issues vary: — Deteriorating structures — Abnormally high water levels Studv Area Area 1 i Map Key see Figure 1 -1 1 -1 1 -2 1 -3 — Bank erosion and sedimentation — Street and backyard flooding Location Problem Observed each of the three Track Road vicinity bridges in varying states of dilapidation All of Area 1 west of the Track Road vicinity Drainage channel west of Track Road and downstream of Salem Street Abnormally high water levels in the drainage channels and associated wetlands Some erosion was observed along the drainage channel bank adjacent to a residential property just south of the western Track Road bridge and downstream, of Salem Street A "- 1.0 EZ YNIC- A µs Whittier Road rn �n <. Rx Area ..�..m..°.. x `�' .� ". .... Vie^ "': �d•.: r High School R4tS� xs z g r.^ R.: E �B`aw° "^ li.`a ^`�°`'2 5 8 01 m m Morgan Landy y4 1i 2t VnIa s.+' `B. : 8 Bond Street ^° � s S . H I� La n' ! �6 and High p f p tltl � r The. Street Area ` y f� d <...,arg e� i 5. 25'„ .> dui. .• K Two issues in Area 1 were evaluated separately: — Bridges in Track Road area — Beaver dam in Walkers Brook • Evaluated the three bridges spanning Walkers Brook in the Track Road area • An array of options was identified ranging from closing all three bridges to replacing all three bridges Photo showing typical upstream abutment condition Simulated peak water level with beaver dam removed is 6- inches lower Simulated pre -storm water level with beaver dam = 80.3 feet, which compares well with measured level of 80.32 feet. Simulated pre -storm water level with beaver dam removed is about 1.2 feet lower. C, d Node 24 run2- beaver 24 baseline- 0 -25vr 20 Fri 21 Sat 22 Sun 23 than 24 Tue 25 bled 26 Thu Nov 1992 DateiTime • Possible drainage improvement alternatives were developed following the site walk • Subset of alternatives carried forward for further evaluation following initial hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and direction from the Town • Evaluation included assessment of: — Hydrologic /hydraulic impacts — Wetland resource areas and wildlife impacts — Regulatory/ permitting requirements — Others s- a �Ocom CO I P7ZCOM F i'k-Ittaorn"ativa. A4 2 ElDcc • Meet with Town DPW and agree on recommended alternatives • Conduct field work for recommended alternatives — Subsurface investigation — Sediment samples — Wetland resource areas delineation • Develop conceptual level construction costs • Develop specific recommendations • Identify additional study and design needs • Develop a project implementation schedule N ,Z CoM INTER - MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF READING AND THE TOWN OF WAKEFIELD DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSING DEPARTMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated as of this day of , 2012 ( "Agreement ") by and between the Town of Reading, a Massachusetts municipal corporation having a usual place of business at Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading MA 01867, acting by and through its Board of Selectmen ( "Reading "), and the Town of Wakefield, a Massachusetts municipal corporation having a usual place of business at 1 Lafayette Street, Wakefield, Massachusetts 01880, acting by and through its Board of Selectmen ( "Wakefield "). WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, Reading and Wakefield desire to share the services and costs associated with a Director of the Assessing Department; and WHEREAS, each of the parties has obtained authority to enter into this Agreement pursuant to G.L. c. 40, s 4A; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above and for other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree under seal as follows: 1. Director of Assessing: During the Term of this Agreement, Reading and Wakefield shall assume their respective shares of the costs associated with a shared Director of Assessing. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, Reading and Wakefield shall maintain separate Boards of Assessors which shall be vested with the authority for setting policy within their respective communities. 2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date of execution hereof, and shall expire on January 1, 2014, unless earlier terminated as set forth herein. The parties shall review their contractual relationship every 12 months, the terms of which are set forth herein, to ensure that this Agreement continues to satisfy the needs and objectives of each community. 3. Identity of Director of Assessing. The parties shall share the services and costs of the incumbent Director of the Assessing Department of Wakefield, Victor Santaniello, or a successor hired through, the standard personnel practice of Wakefield in consultation with Reading. 4. Compensation. Wakefield shall pay the salary and benefits . of the Director of Assessing. Reading shall contribute its share of the associated costs for this position by paying to Wakefield a variable sum, as required by the terms and conditions of this Agreement, per fiscal quarter during the Term, each payment to be due and payable within fifteen (15) days after the commencement of such fiscal quarter (i.e., after 7/1, 10 /1, 1/1 and 4/1). Wakefield shall adjust the compensation it pays said position as it may be required to do in accordance with any collective bargaining agreements and standard personnel practices and shall give prompt written notice to Reading of any such adjustment. Reading shall adjust its quarterly payments accordingly. In the event that any collective bargaining agreement requires Wakefield to make a lump sum payment to any of the aforesaid position reflecting a retroactive salary increase during the Term, Wakefield shall promptly give written notice thereof to Reading and Reading shall, within sixty (60) days thereafter, pay Wakefield one -third (1/3) such amount to the extent that the retroactive pay period includes any part of the term hereof. For Fiscal Year 2013, the compensation paid by Reading to Wakefield shall be in accordance with Exhibit A attached hereto. 5. Other Collective-Bargaining Agreement Benefits. Wakefield shall provide the Director with all benefits to which he is entitled under standard personnel practices. Both parties agree to allow the Director to %G-t enjoy such vacation, sick days, personal days and other leave as he may be entitled to receive under such agreement and under standard personnel practices of Wakefield. Neither party shall make any demand on the Director or take any action with respect to the Director that is in violation of his rights under standard personnel practices of Wakefield or under any applicable legislation. 6. Retirement and Workers Compensation Benefits. The Director will remain a member of the Wakefield Contributory Retirement System. Upon retirement, Reading will be assessed a share of the cost of pension plans reflecting any concurrent time the Director spent working for Reading hereunder pursuant to applicable Massachusetts General Laws. At the end of each fiscal year, Reading shall reimburse Wakefield for its workers' compensation costs associated with the employment of the Director, such reimbursement to be equal to the product of Reading's contribution to the Director's salaries during such year multiplied by the rate paid by Wakefield for workers' compensation insurance for the Director for such year. Reading shall also reimburse Wakefield for its health insurance, life insurance, and Medicare costs associated with the Director, said reimbursement to be equal to the proportion of Reading's contribution to the Director's compensation. 7. Duties. The Director shall perform his duties as required by the respective local laws and regulations of Wakefield and Reading. Attached as an appendix to this document is a "Assessing Employee Task List - Date: June 18, 2012; Position: Director of Assessing" to provide guidance as to the expectations of the duties as they pertain to Reading. Also attached as an appendix is the Organizational Chart for Reading which details the administrative structure within which the Assessing Division falls within Reading. This organizational chart may be changed by Reading from time to time. Wakefield and Reading shall provide the Director with office space and office equipment for work within their respective communities. The Director shall work primarily in the office space provided by Wakefield and shall maintain regular, public office hours in Reading, such office hours to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. 8. Car. The Director will be reimbursed for any mileage used during the performance of services hereunder directly by the community in which said services are performed. All mileage reimbursement shall be paid at the rate then governing in the community receiving said services. 9. Indemnification. Wakefield shall hold Reading harmless from any and all claims related to employment or employee benefits, collectively bargained or otherwise, made by the Director prior to the commencement of the term of this Agreement. Reading shall indemnify and hold harmless Wakefield and each and all of its officials, officers, employees, agents, servants and representatives from and against any claim arising from or in connection with the performance by the Director of his duties in or for Reading including, without limitation, any claim of liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses for personal injury or damage to real or personal property by reason of any negligent act or omission or intentional misconduct by the Director while in or performing services for Reading. Similarly, Wakefield shall indemnify and hold harmless Reading and each and all of its officials, officers, employees, agents, servants and representatives from and against any claim arising from or in connection with the performance by the Director of his duties in or for Wakefield, including without limitation, any claim of liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses for personal injury or damage to real or personal property by reason of any negligent act or omission or intentional misconduct by the Director while in or performing services for Wakefield. Such indemnification shall include, without limitation, current payment of all costs of defense (including reasonable attorneys fees, expert witness fees, court costs and related expenses) as and when such costs become due and the amounts of any judgments, awards and/or settlements, provided that (a) Wakefield and Reading shall each have the right to select counsel to defend against such claims, such counsel to be reasonably acceptable to the other party and its insurer, if any, and to approve or reject any settlement with respect to which indemnification is sought; (b) Each party shall cooperate with the other in all reasonable respects in connection with such defense; and (c) neither party shall be responsible to pay any judgment, award or settlement to the extent occasioned by the negligence or intentional misconduct of any employee, agent, official or representative of the other party other than the Director. By entering into this Agreement, neither of the parties have waived any governmental immunity or limitation of damages which may be extended to them by operation of law including, but not limited to, G.L. c. 258 the bG-2- Massachusetts Tort Claims Act. 10. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party for any reason or no reason on thirty (30) days written notice to the other. No such termination shall affect any obligation of indemnification that may have arisen hereunder prior to such termination. The parties shall equitably adjust any payments made or due relating to the unexpired portion of the Term following such termination. 11. Assignment. Neither party shall assign or transfer any of its rights or interests in or to this Agreement, or delegate any of its obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of the other. 12. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, or if any such term is so held when applied to any particular circumstance, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, or affect the application of such provision to any other circumstances, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision were not contained herein. 13. Waiver. The obligations and conditions set forth in this Agreement may be waived only by a writing signed by the party waiving such obligation or condition. Forbearance or indulgence by a party shall not be construed as a waiver, nor limit the remedies that would otherwise be available to that party under this Agreement or applicable law. No waiver of any breach or default shall constitute or be deemed evidence of a waiver of any subsequent breach or default. 14. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by a writing signed by both parties duly authorized thereunto. 15. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, without regard to the conflicts of laws provisions thereof. 16. Headings. The paragraph headings herein are for convenience only, are no part of this Agreement and shall not affect the interpretation of this Agreement. 17. Notices. Any notice permitted or required hereunder to be given or served on either party by the other shall be in writing signed in the name of or on behalf of the party giving or serving the same. Notice shall be deemed to have been received at the time of actual receipt of any hand delivery or three (3) business days after the date of any properly addressed notice sent by mail as set forth below. a. To Reading. Any notice to Reading hereunder shall be delivered by hand or sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to: Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading NINA 01867 or to such other address(es) as Reading may designate in writing to Wakefield. b. To Wakefield. Any notice to Wakefield hereunder shall be delivered by hand or sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, . postage prepaid, to: Steve Maio �G3 Town Administrator Wakefield Town Hall 1 Lafayette Street Wakefield, Massachusetts 01880 or to such other address(es) as Wakefield may designate in writing to Reading. 18. Complete Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof, superseding all prior agreements and understandings. There are no other agreements or understandings between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof. Each party acknowledges that it has not relied on any representations by the other parry or by anyone acting or purporting to act for the other party or for whose actions the other party is responsible, other than the express, written representations set forth herein. 19. Financial Safeguards. Wakefield shall maintain separate, accurate and comprehensive records of all services performed for each of the parties hereto. Wakefield shall maintain accurate and comprehensive records of all costs incurred by or on account of the Assessing Department, and all reimbursements and contributions received from Reading. Periodic financial statements must be issued to each party. On an annual basis, the parties' Financial Officers shall jointly audit the accounts of the Director of the Assessing Department for accounting consistency and reliability. WITNESS OUR HANDS AND SEALS as of the first date written above. 6 6."N TOWN OF WAKEFIELD By its Board of Selectmen Certificate of available appropriation Town Accountant Approval as to legal form Town Counsel TOWN OF READING By its Board of Selectmen Certificate of available appropriation Town Accountant Approval as to legal form Town Counsel 6 6."N TO: Board of Selectmen From: Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Date: Thursday, July 05, 2012 (revised) Re: Sale of Real Estate The Board of Selectmen has received appraisals for 4 parcels of land authorized by Town Meeting for sale. Three of the parcels are for the property at Pearl Street and Audubon Road. As you know, during the Selectmen's public session on this matter, two of the abutters expressed interest in acquiring a portion of the property to add to their lots. I have had ongoing discussions with them and they are interested in acquiring the lands as shown on the layout and adding them to their property (the so called "assemblage" parcels). This still leaves a 17,000 square foot viable building lot for sale. The 4th parcel is the Lothrop Road parcel of land Cumulatively the appraised values are almost $500,000. Proceeds by statute are required to be deposited into the sale of real estate fund to be used for capital, debt service or unfunded pension liability. Procedurally, the Board of Selectmen needs to set a minimum bid price and conditions of sale for each of the parcels. I am recommending the following minimum bid price and conditions of sale for the properties in question. ffi f� e -- -. - �. . a - .. M.-IL C". For the remaining 17,000 square foot parcel at Pearl Street and Audubon Road: (note — the authorization to sell this property failed at the Board of Selectmen meeting on 6 -19 -12 by a vote of 2 -2 -0, with one member of the Board of Selectmen absent.) ♦ Minimum Bid price - $200,000; ♦ Closing — 90 days, subject to extension by the Town of good cause; a pnn� 1 6s( ♦ Offered in "as is" condition; ♦ Use restricted to one single family home and appurtenant structures , with no further subdivision of the parcel; ♦ Use will exclude application of the parcel as a 40B development; ♦ Driveway access only from Audubon Road; ♦ Buyer pays all closing costs and real estate transfer tax, except Town's legal costs. For the Lothrop Road 34,000 square foot parcel: ♦ Minimum Bid price - $250,000; ♦ Closing — 90 days, subject to extension by the Town of good cause; ♦ Offered in "as is" condition; ♦ Use restricted to one single family home and appurtenant structures, with no further subdivision of the parcel; ♦ Use will exclude application of the parcel as a 40B development; ♦ Buyer pays all closing costs and real estate transfer tax, except Town's legal costs. b d -Z LOT Il., I J, 1 =.COr f � - 'E"Nr u � IF l 1 LET ?. E iE `T too\ z PAR r x .0 nr ca. wt zo: L i , iIJh JF' uE +010 T — ' •x cr i TORY OF RfiABIM1(I, A4S &IEH11WAITTS — DEP4RIMEtiT OF':PUBLIC WGIMS PROPOSID AJtix PULL PE4RL,STREET For the Lothrop Road 34,000 square foot parcel: ♦ Minimum Bid price - $250,000; ♦ Closing — 90 days, subject to extension by the Town of good cause; ♦ Offered in "as is" condition; ♦ Use restricted to one single family home and appurtenant structures, with no further subdivision of the parcel; ♦ Use will exclude application of the parcel as a 40B development; ♦ Buyer pays all closing costs and real estate transfer tax, except Town's legal costs. b d -Z Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Judith A. Pickett Dapickett @brackettlucas.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:39 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Cc: Gary Brackett Subject: sale of four vacant lots This is confirm our discussion yesterday. It is my understanding that you have already determined the value of the four lots. Two of the four lots have a value in excess of $25,000 and will be subject to G.L.c. 3013. You asked if you could hire a realtor to assist the Town in generating interest in the sale of the four lots. Use of a real estate professional to promote sale of the property would probably increase the number of bidders on the lots that are subject to c. 30B and would provide a broader base of potential buyers. My suggestion yesterday was to have a realtor taken a lump sum for promotional work. Any terms or conditions must be in the RFP and the P &S. For instance the date of the closing, selling the property 'as is', restrictions as to use or limitations on title should be set out in the RFP and the P &S, and as appropriate, incorporated into the deed. Hiring a licensed site professional undertake a 21E assessment of the lots in advance of the sale would allow for a faster closing. You also told me that the town would be seeking a dimensional variance on one of the lots so that the sale would not be contingent upon the granting of the variance. Please let me know if there are any additional concerns. Attorney Judith Pickett Brackett & Lucas 19 Cedar Street Worcester, MA 01609 (t) (508) 799 -9739 (f) (508) 799 -9799 6/13/2012 l0 �, 3 Board of Selectmen Meeting May 22, 2012 For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these minutes reflects the order in which the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order in which any item was taken up by the Board. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Stephen Goldy, Vice Chairman Ben Tafoya, Selectmen John Arena and James Bonazoli, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Assistant Town Manager Bob LeLacheur, Office Manager Paula Schena and Fire Chief Greg Burns. Reports and Comments Selectmen's Reports and Comments — Ben Tafoya indicated that the Fall Street Faire Committee needs volunteers and he and James Bonazoli have been busy interviewing candidates for Boards, Committees and Commissions. James Bonazoli noted that the Economic Development Committee has 10 applicants for the charette for facades. The Sturges Park Planning Committee met and they need to talk to Conservation — one rink is very deep and has an odor. The Town Manager noted this might have to do with flood control. The Committee should look at this to make it friendlier year round. John Arena noted he wants to see the outcome of the conservation rewrite of regulations before the next Town Meeting. He requested they come back with language that distinguishes from the State Regulations. Ben Tafoya noted that the Conservation Commission adopts the regulations, not Town Meeting. James Bonazoli noted that they kept the language and took out what they wanted. He thought they would start with the State Regulations and add what was necessary. Town Manager /Assistant Town Manager Report — The Assistant Town Manager noted that State aid is approximately $700,000 higher and the circuit breaker is $105,000. Free cash will be adjusted at Town Meeting. The Town Manager read his letter of notice of retirement on June 1, 2013 after 25 plus years working for the Town. He suggests written documentation for his exit and recommends a subcommittee to develop a strategy for filling the position. Stephen Goldy appointed Ben Tafoya and John Arena as coordinators of the exit plan facts and figures. The Town Manager gave the following report: -70-A Board of Selectmen Meeting — May 22 2012 — page 2 Administrative matters ♦ Volunteer Appointment Subcommittee (VASC) process for volunteer Boards, Committees, and Commissions. ♦ New Police Officer hiring process is in motion. ♦ Water use report. ♦ Memorial Day commemoration — Monday May 28 — parade at 9 am — map and program will be available on the Town web site on Thursday. ♦ Flower baskets are being installed this week. ♦ Congressman Tierney will be visiting several businesses on Wednesday. ♦ Joint meeting June 11 at 7:30 pm with the School Committee and Finance Committee to hear the report on enrollment. Community Services ♦ Affordable housing available — 30 Haven Street, and Reading Woods. Finance ♦ State Aid update. ♦ Board of Assessors is meeting with the Wakefield Board of Assessors this evening to discuss the issue of regional cooperative efforts. Public Safety ■ RCASA will be sponsoring an event on June 6 from 7 to 9 PM for 9, 10, and 11 grade students and parents — an outline is attached. Public Works ♦ Compost center - Monday, Friday, & Saturday schedules through June. ♦ Micro -Seal — portions of. Lowell, Washington, Hopkins, and Charles Streets. ♦ Solid Waste collection May 12 — 401 cars; Rigid Plastics - 2.47 tons; Shredded Paper - 2.46 tons; Goodwill /Textiles - 1.40 tons; Styrofoam - filled 1/4 of large storage container. • Street Paving • Pearl Street and Belmont Street (Salem to Chequessett) — base course. • Wilson, Track, Norman, and California Streets reclaim. • Remainder of Belmont Street milled ( Chequessett to Pearl). • Upper Lowell Street and Causeway Road milled (by the state) and will be overlaid. • Haverhill Street Water Main Replacement update: • Installed Temporary Bypass between Rustic Lane and Charles Street including Charles Street up to Dana Road. • Temporary water main was flushed and sampled for bacteria. Samples passed on 5/7/2012. • Began hooking up residents to the temporary water main on 5/8/2012, all houses have been hooked up to bypass. • Continued saw - cutting of the road. Board of Selectmen Meeting — May 22 2012 — page 3 • Prepared 4 holes on Haverhill Street for installation of gate valves. Shut down and installation scheduled for 5/16/2012. • All Residents and businesses affected by the 5/16/12 shut down were notified by hand delivered notification. All Businesses were also called and spoken to directly. • Pipe was delivered and strung along the road for preparations for the upcoming week. Upcoming work (5/16 -5/24) • Install gate valves on Haverhill Street. • Begin installing water main starting at Rustic Lane, working south on Haverhill Street. Proclamations /Certificates of Appreciation Proclamation — EMS Week — Fire Chief Greg Burns was present to receive the proclamation. A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Tafoya to approve the proclamation declaring May 20 to May 26, 2012 as Emergency Medical Services Week in the Town of Reading was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0. Discussion /Action Items Selectmen's Vision/Objective — Stephen Goldy noted that the Mission Statement strives for excellence in all its services. He feels the Town has made significant strides but need to continue and pass the message along to Boards, Committees and Commissions in person. He also noted that old timers need to embrace change. John Arena noted that mission and values are long lasting. Goals are tangible and measurable. We should identify the current goals and add objectives, milestones and identify a way to measure the success. Ben Tafoya noted that we didn't have Walkers Brook Drive 10 years ago. Residential values are increasing faster than commercial. There needs to be an increase in the diversity of choices. The Town Manager noted the Selectmen need to determine the end goal i.e. financial, vibrancy, etc. If the intent is to build more, then you should ask why. Stephen Goldy noted if there is a good commercial base it gives residents some relief. Vibrancy makes a better place to live. John Arena noted the question is how to reach out to folks with $5m - $10m to invest. Bob LeLacheur noted real estate takes 5 — 10 years to develop. If it happens in two years it's a fad and the market is still slow. The Town Manager noted that development in Reading often means redevelopment. -� �3 Board of Selectmen Meeting= May 22 2012 — page 4 Ben Tafoya noted we should concentrate on one or two things at a time. Perhaps put commercial vacancies on our website, but unfortunately we don't get to pick who buys the land. James Bonazoli noted that the zoning has been changed twice to get a mix in density and we created the Economic Development Committee to promote that. Staff and EDC have done their job. Maybe we should give the Economic Development Committee more leverage. Stephen Goldy recommended pushing customer service to make it easier for residents to do business with the Town. He also noted that the Board needs to decide if they want to reach 10% of affordable housing. He indicated he does not want to reach 10 %. He wants to keep control of density and keep a small New England town feel. The Town Manager noted we could either take the big projects i.e. Pulte or end up with 10 small projects of knockdown and build. Ben Tafoya indicated we need an updated Housing Plan. The Town Manager indicated the plan has expired. We have hired a consultant to update it. He also noted that Reading is the only community in Massachusetts where Mass Housing turned down a development because we had a Housing Plan that it didn't fit into. Stephen Goldy summarized that the goals are: 1. Vibrancy of the business district. 2. Customer Service — bring simplicity to residents and business owners. 3. Small town feel. Boards, Committees, Commission Messaging /Training — Stephen Goldy noted that liaisons should visit their committees and be put on the agenda to let them know what the Board of Selectmen want. He also noted that each Selectman should be giving the same message. The Town Manager noted that the value statement is the best guideline. Bob LeLacheur noted that the Town Clerk is in charge of the Open Meeting Law and will hold two sessions this summer. Economic Development Committee Policy Revision — Stephen Goldy noted that the Economic Development Committee presented to the Board that their mission has evolved and the Board needs to give them clear direction as to what we want. James Bonazoli noted that they want to be an advocate to businesses to help guide them through the process but the question is where to draw the line. It has its pros and cons. Ben Tafoya noted the policy is fine. The issue is what projects the Board wants to talk to them about. If there is a problem with staff then that is a Board of Selectmen issue. A lot of the problems have gone away through staff changes. Board of Selectmen Meeting — May 22, 2012 — page 5 The Town Manager noted that Boards, Committees and Commissions need to meet jointly. James Bonazoli asked if there are legal issues with committees meeting together and the Town Manager indicated there is not, in fact the state encourages it. Stephen Goldy directed the Town Manager to invite the Economic Development Committee in to talk about the advocate issue and to give them direction. A motion by Bonazoli, seconded by Tafoya, to adjourn the meetinji at 9:31 p.m. was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0. Respectfully submitted, Secretary gas THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Number: 2012 -47 TOWN OF READING Fee: $50.00 This is to certify that FERAIDOON DADFAR D /B /A COOKIES AND CREAM, 2 HAVEN STREET, READING, MA, seating 18 customers IS HEREBY GRANTED A COMMON VICTUALLER'S LICENSE in said Reading, Massachusetts and at that place only and expires December 31, 2012, unless sooner suspended or revoked for violation of the laws of the Commonwealth respecting the licensing of common victuallers. This license is issued in conformity with the authority granted to the licensing authorities by General Laws, Chapter 140, and amendments thereto. Pursuant to Section 3.6 of the Board of Selectmen's Policies, patrons are not permitted to bring alcoholic beverages on the premises for their own consumption and licensees are not permitted to keep alcoholic beverages on the premises except for a small quantity that is used in preparation of certain specialty cooked foods. All signs shall con_ form with the sign regulations of the Town of Reading. In Testimony Whereof, the undersigned have he signatures. IF AdIr r Date Issued: June 21, 2012 nto affixed their official �r ,a z-/ C 6 nS- Schena, Paula From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:17 PM To: Schena, Paula Subject: FW: ZBA Resignation Post vacancy List /Copy to Board of Selectmen Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading MA 01867 Please note new Town Hall Hours effective June 7, 2010: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Friday: CLOSED phone: 781 - 942 -9043 fax 781 - 942 -9071 web www.readin ma. ov email townmana manager ci.readin ma us Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at http:// readinqma- surveV.virtual.townhall. net /survey /sid /ccc2fO35993bd3cO From: Kristin M. Cataldo Finai Ito: kcataldo @cataldofis her. com1 Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:05 PM To: Town Manager Cc: Knight, Maureen Subject: ZBA Resignation Hi Peter — I am currently an associate member of the ZBA and need to submit my resignation for personal reasons. Tonight will be my last meeting. I have enjoyed working with the board. Regards, Kristin Cataldo Kristin M. Cataldo, Esq. Cataldo & Fisher, LLC 400 TradeCenter, Suite 5900 Woburn, MA 01801 ph. 781.569.5199 fax 781.549.7358 kcataldoCo.cataldofisher.com www.cataidofisher.com qa-� Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Gary S. Brackett [gsbrackett @brackettlucas.com] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 12:53 PM To: Delios, Jean Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Appeals Court Decision - Scholten v Carter and Reading ZBA Attachments: Decision - Appeals Court-6 -15- 2012- 0001.pdf Jean, Page 1 of 1 ( I C, �&( I am providing you with a copy of the June 15, 2012 decision we received today from the Appeals Court in the case of Scholten v Carter and Reading ZBA. Since this originally was the abutter's appeal by Jason Scholten from a decision of the building inspector to issue a building permit to Sandra Carter, we monitored the progress of the case but did not take an active role. However, the responsibility to support the original ZBA decision was to be borne by Sandra Carter as the holder of the building permit in question. As you will note, the Appeals Court ruling affirms the Land Court decision to annul the ZBA action which denied Mr. Scholten's appeal from the issuance of the building permit. At issue was the proper interpretation of §6.3.11.1 of the Reading Zoning Bylaw regarding the expansion of nonconforming structures. Please advise me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Regards, Gary Gary S. Brackett, Esquire BRACKETT & LUCAS 19 Cedar Street Worcester, MA 01609 (tel)508- 799 -9739 (fax)508- 799 -9799 This message is intended only for designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney - client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete this matter. Thank you. 6/18/2012 q, c /CQGs COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT CLERKS OFFICE ichn Adams Courthouse One Pem_'-'erlor Square, Sete 12o-', Boston. lk`,assac",usstts 02108-1705 (617) 725-8100 muss .g0V/C0L1FtS112PPea!SC0Ur1 June IS , 2012 Ellen Callahan Doucette, Esquire Brackett & Lucas 19 Cedar Street Worcester, MA 01,609 `ZE: No. 2011-P-1259 Lower Ct. No�: 09 M�SC 4105859 JASON P. SCHOLTEN vs, SANDRA CARTER NOTICE OF DECISION Please take note --liat- o- '-'_Lr= 11_5, 201'2 t� e c o', _�rt: dssue,_-' --he ;­D �g dec-lsl.^.n in the above-referenced case: Decision: Rule 1:28 (Grasso, Mills, Trainor, JJ.). Judgment affirmed. *Notice. A co'oV c -t he colir i- I s o-c in I on I n thce c_a Se wl 1 '-'- e 1 C5�"'Dl e 'D_1� http://www.massreports.co after 1-1:00 a.m. --oday. If 00 j Cr, 4 S i '-�e n i eu above as a Full or Rescript opinion, go to the Slip _pi,.-ions sectJon of the website, and then choose �L)L), -7, Cpj nior s. J s iAeni_ 4 as a Rule 1 28 decis_­= , c c, -_-o t 11, e 1D ea D e c ons I L I k a _)y . ... . . .... ... e ket_ Lng --he f a copy of the "ieciSicn ---o you. On-1- receive a paper copy by mail. Anv Quest­ , ons regard-ing retrieval of cLecisions should be directed to the Office of the _Ro,,Dcr_te_r of Decisions at 6-17-557­103'01. ALL FURTHER FILINGS IN THIS APPEAL. P,11,7'L -fii_'_ngs in this appeal are re tired to be filed electronically b-, e-T-11,ailling thel dcc-,1xment in _PDF to emotions@appct.state.ma.us l is ul Joseph TC: James F. Seriio­ I' -Ye- R 1"cha-L-d 0 1 !,7e I scu re E e r- Callahan Doucette, Esquire Westlaw Result Term Ilk Page 1 of 2 NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1 :28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT JASON P. SCHOLTEN vs. SANDRA CARTER & another, FFN11 11 -P -1259* MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28 In a judgment issued January 18, 2011, a Land Court judge annulled a decision of the zoning board of appeals of Reading (ZBA) and ordered the revocation of a building permit issued to defendant Sandra Carter by the town's building inspector. The defendant Carter appeals the judgment. We affirm. The project at issue consisted of, inter alia, the replacement of the foundation of the existing single- family structure, the addition of a second story, and an addition to the rear of the structure. Importantly, the existing structure was located on an undersized lot, and also violated at least one of the town's minimum setback requirements. The ZBA affirmed the grant of the building permit based on language in § 63.11.1 of the Reading zoning by -law (the by -law) providing that '[a]n existing nonconforming one- family or two- family dwelling ... which is nonconforming with respect to a minimum setback, may be enlarged or extended in any other direction in compliance with this By -Law, by the issuance of a building permit.' We agree with the judge that the ZBA erred in its interpretation of § 6.3.11.1. That section, by its plain language, does not authorize the expansion of a structure located on an undersized lot simply because the structure also violates minimum setback requirements. As noted by the judge, the defendant's argument, if we accept it, would have the anomalous and undesirable effect of entitling undersized lots that violate setback requirements 'greater protections ... than [an] undersized lot that complies with all setbacks.' Further, although small -scale improvements are exempted from zoning ordinances and by -laws under G. L. c. 40A, § 6, first par., the substantial reconstruction and expansion at issue here is not exempted. See Bjorklund v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Norwell, 450 Mass. 357, 362 - 363 (2008). Such a project may only be performed on a nonconforming lot with the acquisition of a special permit. See G. L. c. 40A, § 6. As is made clear in the notice of docket entry that accompanied the judge's order, the defendant is not foreclosed from seeking such a permit. FFN21 Judgment affirmed. By the Court (Grasso, Mills & Trainor, J1), Entered: June 15, 2012. http: // web' links .westlaw.com /result'default.aspx ?action = Search &cnt= DOC&db= MA ° /"2D... 6/18/2012 q j,3 Westl'aw Result Page 2 of 2 FN1. Zoning Board of Appeals of Reading. FN2. The docket entry provided that the judgment was 'Without Prejudice to Defendant ... Seeking Additional Zoning Relief.' END OF DOCUMENT Term Adobe Reader is required to view PDF images. Gci 4 http: / /weblinks. westlaw. com/result/default. asp x? action =S earch& cnt =D O C &db= MA %2D... 6/18/2012 ,,/ C (3 n-s- Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 INC ASSISTANT TOWN MANAGERYINANCE DIRECTOR (781) 942-6636 FAX: (7 41) 942-9037 Email; blelacbcur(iicixcnding-ma-us June 26, 2012 The Honorable James T. Welch, Senate Chair Joint Committee on Municipalities & Regional Government State House, Room 416A Boston, MA 02133 Dear Senator Welch: The Town of Reading supports House Bill 4170, An Act authorizing the Town o f Reading to grant a utility easement over certain parcels of land within the town. The utility easement is necessary to enable the Town of Reading, acting by and through its board of selectmen, with the approval of the conservation commission, to construct, maintain, repair and operate existing and proposed utilities over, across and upon the land known as Timberneck Swamp held for conservation purposes as open space in the Town of Reading. The proposed utility easement shall support the pre-existing sewer main and the proposed new 8 inch water main which will connect Belmont Strcet to Ivy Lane and the Libby Avenue area which is surrounded by Timbemeck Swamp. The purpose of the proposed new water main is to upgrade the existing water distribution system in accordance with the Town's water system master plan, which entails connecting two ends of the water system at Belmont and Ivy, and thus improving the current deficient fire flows, water quality and pressure loss in such area. Sincerely, Robert LeLacheur Assistant Town Manager cc; Representative Brad Jones. Representative James Dwyer Senator Katherine Clark Board of Selectmen C� tom. Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 L-1 C_ 8o 5 ASSISTANT TOWN MANAGERXINANCE DIRECTOR (781) 942-6636 FAX: (781) 942-9037 Email; bletacheur(f)ci,i-eaditig-ma-us June 26, 2012 Joint Committee on Municipalities & Regional Government State House, Room 540 Boston, MA 02133 Dear Committee Members: The Town of Reading supports House Bill 4170, An Act authorizing the Town of Reading to grant a utility easement over certain parcels of land within the town. The utility easement is necessary to enable the Town of Reading, acting by and through its board of selectmen, with the approval of the conservation commission, to construct, maintain, repair and operate existing and proposed utilities over, across and upon the land known as Timbemeck Swamp held for conservation purposes as open space in the Town of Reading. The proposed utility easement shall support the pre-existing sewer main and the proposed new 8 inch water main which will connect , Belmont Street to Ivy Lane and the Libby Avenue area which is surrounded by Timberrieck Swamp, The purpose of the proposed new water main is to upgrade the existing water distribution system in accordance with the 'Fown's water system master plan, which entails connecting two ends of the water system at Belmont and Ivy, and thus improving the current deficient fire flows, water quality and pressure loss in such area. Sincere y, Robert LeLacheur Assistant Town Manager cc! Representative Brad Jones Representative James Dwyer Senator Katherine Clark Board of Selectmen M10 Page 1 of 3 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Barnes, Lauren (HOU) [Lauren.Barnes @mahouse.gov] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 10:22 AM To: LeLacheur, Bob Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter; Jones, Bradley - Rep. (HOU) Subject: RE: letters Hello Bob, I just wanted to let you know that the Reading utility easement legislation, H, 4170, was released on Thursday with a favorable report from the Joint Cor l lttee on Municipalities and Regional overr "arnent and is continuing its way tl " " ":r "oe,.4 fi the legislative;: process, We will t ontinue to keep you posted on any action taken. Happy Fourth! Regards,, Lauren ;oxen J. Barnes Derjtav C'lairf'of';Siafj- t mouse ..anonty I...eader Bradley H. Jones, Jr. State 11ouse, Room 124 Boston, MA 02133 (617)'722-2100 From: LeLacheur, Bob [ mailto :blelacheur @ci. reading. ma. us] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:27 PM To: Barnes, Lauren (HOU) Subject: RE: letters Hi Lauren — any news on this today? Thanks, Bob Bob LeLacheur Assistant Town Manager /Finance Director Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 (P) 781- 942 -6636 (F) 781 - 942 -9037 Please note ne'o,,; To'v -,; i Hall Hours: 'dondz' y; J1�le:dr3 ,,.:,.a} and Thursday,- 7:3,C) ax, '3,11 ?.r11, Tues ay: :30 ann. 7:00 p, n %/2/2012 ( Page 2 of 3 Friday: CLOSED web www.readingma.gov email finance ci.reading.ma__.u_s__ Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at http : / /read. n_c1ma-. survey._Virtualto...wnhall._ net/. s.... u.. rvev /si.d.... /ccc2f035993bd3c0./ From: Barnes, Lauren (HOU) [maiIto:Lauren Barnes @mahouse goy] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:46 PM To: Schena, Paula Cc: LeLacheur, Bob; Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: RE: letters Paula, Thank you very much. We'll deliver theses letters now, along with Representative Jones` letters of s€ ppor , Regards, Lauren Lauren J. Barites peputj� Chic (f Ott l House Minority ..,eadesr Bradley H, Jr. Mate House., Room 124 Boston, MA 02133 (617) 722.2100 From: Schena, Paula jmailto :pschena@ci.reading.ma.usl Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:45 PM To: Barnes, Lauren (HOU) Cc: LeLacheur, Bob; Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: letters Here are the letters to Senator and Welch and the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government. It is my understanding that you will deliver these to them today. I will put hard copies in the mail. Thanks Lauren. Paula Schena Office Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Phone: 781 - 942 -6643 Fax: 781 - 942 -9071 pschen_a__a7ci _re_a....d...ing . ma_us www readingm.....a..,.aov I own Hours: Pv €€)ndz:,3'y VVeCJriesday and [ r U.r,,,day - 7,130 a,rn. , ,in, 7/2/2012 r Page 3 of 3 Tuesday - 7:30 a,,,T,,,. to TOO p.rn, Friday - CLOSFD Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at surve i.virtualtownhall.r-�Qt/survey/sid/cccZfO35993bd3cO/ 7/2/2012 q&3 Page 1 of 2 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Thomas Briant [info @natocentral.org] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 10:52 AM To: Ruth L. Clay in Melrose Cc: Clay, Ruth; Town Manager; James Bonazoli forwarding account; John Arena at Home; Rick Schubert Multiple Addresses; Steve Goldy forwarding account; Ben Tofoya Subject: NATO: Board of Health Tobacco Ordinance National Association of Tobacco Outlets DATE: June 29, 2012 . ` `O: Ruth Clay, Director of Public I lealth, ']'own ot'Reading CC : R.eading Board of Selectmen; Reading Town MManager FROM: Thomas Briant. Executive Director and Leaal Counsel t / (1�a Ruth, thank you for your reply message. However, your message does not indicate that the Reading Board of Health will suspend enforcement of Section I of the tobacco ordinance until its next meeting in September. Please confirm to me that this section of the ordinance prohibiting the redemption of tobacco product Coupons will not be enforced. It is my sincere hope that the Reading Board of Health does not iniend to enforce the ordinance given the on -going litigation against Providence, Rhode Island on an almost identical coupon. redemption ban ordinance. Your reply vvi l I. be appreciated. On Jul 2, 2012, at 8:31 AM, Clay, Ruth wrote: Mr. Briant, The Board of Health will respond to your e -mail at their next meeting which is scheduled for September. When a specific date is set I would be happy to communicate that to you. Ruth Clay Health Director Town of Reading From: Thomas Briant [info @natocentral.org] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 2:36 PM To: relay @ci.reading.ma.us Cc: townmanager@ci reading.ma.us; j_bonazoli @ci, read in.g._ma.us; la renaPci. reading. ma.us; rschub ert b. read ing.ma us.; sgoldy_ @ci.readi_ng.ma.us; btafoya @cl reading.ma._us Subject: NATO: Board of Health Tobacco Ordinance lizi"' f nm National Association of Tobacco Outlets I)A":I E: June 29, 2012 7/2/2012 - / r t Page 2 of 2 TO: Ruth Clay, Director of Public Ilealtli, ']'own of Reading CC: Reading Board of Selectmen; Reading Town Manager FROM: Thomas Briaut, Executive Director and Legal Counsel As the Executive Director and Legal Counsel for the National Association of Tobacco Outlets, I am writing to the Director of the Reading Board of Health and the Reading Board of Selectmen regarding a tobacco - related ordinance adopted on June 21, 2012 by the Reading Board of Health. One section of the ordinance raises serious questions that concern the association's retail members located in Reading and the other local retail stores as well. Briefly, NATO's concerns about the proposed ordinance are as follows: 1. The ban on free samples of cigarettes, roll - your -own tobacco and smokeless tobacco is already regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration through. the agency's federal tobacco regulations and is therefore unnecessary. 2. The section that bans the redemption of coupons on all cigarettes and tobacco products is seriously flawed and led to the filing of a lawsuit against the City of Providence, RI which recently adopted a similar ordinance. I urge you to review NATO's attached letter and the accompanying documents referred to in the letter. Then, I request that the Reading Board of Health repeal Section I of the ordinance that bans sampling and prohibits coupon redemption or immediately suspend enforcement of this section until the Providence lawsuit is resolved. Since this ordinance goes into effect on July 1 st, I would .request that Ruth Clay contact me on Monday, July 2nd and inform me of what action the Reading Board of Health will take in response to my question. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 1- 866 - 869 -8888. Thank you for your assistance. Please take a moment to help us improve your experience with City services. httl�s://www.sui-veytij-Qnk-ey-.-com/s/MelroseCustomerSul-vey 7/2/2012 q�� NATO June 29, 2012 URGENT Ruth Clay Director of Public Health Reading Board of Health 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Request for Repeal or Suspension of Enforcement of Tobacco Product Coupon Ban Dear Director Clay: I am submitting this letter as the legal counsel for the National Association of Tobacco Outlets, Inc. (NATO), a national retail tobacco trade association, on behalf of the NATO member retail stores located in the Town of Reading as well as all other retailers that sell tobacco products in the town. On June 21, 2012, the Reading Board of Health adopted an ordinance titled "Regulating Restricting the Sale of Tobacco Products and Nicotine Delivery Products ". Section I of the ordinance bans the redemption by retailers of tobacco product coupons presented by adult consumers that would allow an adult consumer to receive a free tobacco product or a product at a reduced price below the state minimum retail price. The actual language of Section I is as follows: "No person shall distribute, or cause to be distributed, any free samples of tobacco products or nicotine delivery products. No means, instruments or devices that allow for the redemption of tobacco products for free or at a reduced price below the minimum retail price determined by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue shall be accepted by any permittee." By this letter, I am requesting that the Reading Board of Health either immediately repeal Section I in its entirety or suspend the enforcement of the section for the following reasons. First, this section is not necessary for cigarettes, roll - your -own tobacco or smokeless tobacco products since federal tobacco regulations implemented by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2009 prohibit a retailer from giving away free samples of cigarettes and roll - your -own tobacco and places strict requirements on retailers that provide a small free sample of smokeless tobacco products to adults. (21 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1140.16). A copy 1;560 Roulder poha e Rwad Aflaasu=<€ iafis., MN' 55347 3- 866 -ts69 -8813 cm ,a,aaba�tac�ras, a�ocr C) F3 of these regulations accompanies this letter and the applicable regulatory section on sampling is highlighted in red. Since this is a federal tobacco regulation, all retailers must abide by the federal rule. Second, the drafting of Section I is seriously flawed. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue is required by state law to set minimum cigarette prices. This state law does not prohibit retailers from accepting coupons from adults for cigarettes. Moreover, there are no minimum price laws in Massachusetts for roll - your -own tobacco, smokeless tobacco, cigars or pipe tobacco. The wording of Section I presumes there is a state law setting minimum prices on all tobacco products when, in fact, that is not the case. As a result, it is impossible for retailers to be prohibited from accepting coupons on these other tobacco products if the net price is below a state minimum price in the absence of a law setting the minimum prices. Third, in February of this year, NATO, the Cigar Association of America and seven tobacco manufacturers sued the City of Providence, Rhode Island in Federal District Court seeking to overturn an ordinance that prohibits retailers from redeeming tobacco product coupons and bans the sale of promotionally priced tobacco products like a buy -one, get -one free offer (U.S. Federal District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Case No. 12- 00096 -ML). A copy of NATO's press release announcing the filing of this federal lawsuit against the City of Providence, Rhode Island accompanies this letter. The case is currently pending. Similarly, the Reading ordinance would be legally actionable due to the prohibition of coupon redemption. To avoid the potential of a lawsuit being filed to overturn Section I, the Reading Board of Health should either repeal Section I or suspend enforcement of the provision until the Providence lawsuit is resolved. The seriousness of Section I cannot be overstated. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations already ban cigarette sampling and place appropriate restrictions on sampling smokeless tobacco products. Also, adult consumers have the right to redeem coupons for legal products and retailers have a right to accept those coupons from customers. Given the faulty drafting of Section I, and the denial of the right of retailers and adult tobacco consumers to accept and redeem coupons, I urge the Reading Board of Health to either repeal Section I or immediately suspend enforcement of the provision. Sincerely, Thomas A. Briant NATO Executive Director and Legal Counsel O: 866 - 869 -8888 E: info cvnatocentrat.org Copy To: Reading, MA Board of Selectmen and Town Manager 15560 Boulder Poinfe Road %fln acstpsiis, NIN 55347 1-866-869-8888 wwwmaafsma =wral.org Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Tafoya, Meghan Young Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:26 PM To: Clarke, Sheila Cc: Maria Higgins; Wilson, Jessie; Delios, Jean Subject: Retail Visioning Kick -Off Hi Shelia, Page 1 of 2 L I e �)�J Happy rainy Tuesday! Just wanted to send you a note to give you a snapshot of the Retail Visioning kick -off meeting: Attendees: Jean Delios, Jessie Wilson, Emmy Hahn, Christine Moynihan, Maria Higgins, and Meghan Young Emmy kicked off the meeting to share the perimeters of the grant: DHCD Grant Amount: $10K (all bills will come to DHCD) Timeframe: They've extended the June timeframe — more than likely based on our discussion we should be completing this grant by the end of October - Emmy encouraged us to report out to the community on the results of the grant (we discussed Town Meeting, papers, Ask the Town Manager, RCTV as outlets) - Christine shared that for this program to be successful we needed to get the community involved up front — to generate interest in the program - A highlight of the program is that this grant really does help already existing businesses, Christine remarked often folks think that Town Hall only helps new folks - We reviewed our proposal and it was agreed that Christine would do one public program workshop ($2500) and have 8 -10 consulting engagements ($750 /ea) - Workshop participants would leave the program with a Retail Visioning checklist that would help them evaluate their own store, and an application for individual engagement - Individual engagements can address: social media strategies, store design, product display - Individual consulting engagements include two different meetings: 1) initial meeting (1 — 1 Y2 hours) 2) Executive Summary (1/2 hour) Scheduled Dates: Workshop — Wednesday, September 12 — 8:00 am to 10:30 am Applications due by: Wednesday, September 19 - Jessie pointed out that the EDC can evaluate the applications and make a decision @ our meeting Notice of Application Award Acceptance - the next day (!) September 20 Individual meetings (Initial): October 1 (Monday) and October 5 (Friday) Individual meeting (Second meeting) — Executive Summary /Review —TBD Workshop Components: Part I — Everything that we can do on our own Part II — Working Together - Loyalty Programs - Creating a Downtown Business Alliance (in cooperation w/ the Chamber) - Example AHA alliance (New Bedford) http:[/www.newbedford360.com/"`articles/­authors/­2 AHAi- Artt_ -. History- %26amp %3B- Architecture 6/20/2012 1 ?Q Page 2 of 2 Christine /Emmy were jazzed about this idea, we thought it sounded good but let them know that we weren't there yet (time /resources /etc) Sidebar: Emmy and Christine were impressed with the Passport to Reading ! And the advances that we'd made with a little bit of funding from the DHCD to spur us That's all the news that is fit to print, for now. Jessie, Maria and Jean please add on if I've missed anything. Meghan 6/20/2012 ��Z Scope of Work Document to fulfill DHCD Downtown Technical Assistance Program for Reading: Retail Program: Strengthening Existing Businesses A first initiative to help the town of Reading improve and strengthen new and existing businesses in the downtown corridor will be undertaken via a grant awarded to Reading from MADI to deliver Christine Moynihan's Best Retail Practices Program to the merchants and small business owners in town. This program has two parts. A community -wide educational component by way of a 2- hour workshop to which all retailers, restaurateurs and other store front service businesses will be invited A consulting component by way of one -on -one store visit /consultations delivered to a group of businesses within the community based on meeting certain selection criteria Following a kick off meeting the scope of work for this project has been agreed as follows: 1) In July, Christine Moynihan will meet with a steering committee for this project to learn more about the value proposition that is "the community of and retail opportunities in downtown Reading." She will also learn about community and planning objectives for the area so as to customize the opening section of her Best Retail Practices Workshop. At this meeting she will provide recommendations for questions that would be helpful to the application proce samples and press relea participation 2) The commit- projector an muffins. as weir as m rall program rogram content information, flier is group market this workshop and recruit will identify and reserve an appropriate space for the workshop with a :reen and, if possible, provide light refreshments such as coffee, tea, 3) On September 12, 2012 Christine will deliver a 2 hour workshop from Sam - 10:OOAM and be available for an additional hour to answer questions and network with individual small business owners. The focus of the workshop will be on how to apply Best Practices to your own small business in the areas of: business positioning; signage, windows and exterior presentation; interior layout, decor and display; in- store, in -print and on -line marketing and customer service. q �3 qC QoS Public Employee retirement Administration Commission Commonwealth of Massachusetts q l 1 State of the Systems 2011 he financial condition of the Massachusetts systems must be put into the context of similar systems nationwide. The chart below is the result of a survey conducted by the Wisconsin Legislative Council in 2010 entitled "2010 tianparative Study of Major Public Employee Retirement Systems." Although the urvey Included nearly 100 pension systems, these are the systems that are stand alone - that is, their members are not covered by Social Security. Because of the (late of the Study we will focus on that timeframe. Subsequent valuations should Confirm the relationship between systems although the numbers may be quite different. For example, in the most recent actuarial valuation of the Massachusetts time Retirement System (MSRS), the funded ratio is lower that that used in this Sludy (73.80% as of 1/1/12). The first observation that should be made is that the MSRS with a funded ratio of 81.00% was one of the better funded of the similarly situated funds surveyed. Out of the 15 funds surveyed, the MSERS placed second in terms of the ratio of assets to liabilities. The Massachusetts Teachers' System did not fare as well, placing ninth with a ratio of 63.00 %. In the previous study, the MSRS hied been ranked fifth and the MTRS was thirteenth. However, that ratio is not dramatically below the average funded ratio for the non - Massachusetts systems o165.90%. In the context of comparisons with other systems it should be noted that the Massachusetts'valuations use the "Entry Age" method which generally results in greater liabilities than the "Projected Unit Credit" method used in the two Louisiana plans, the Kentucky TRS and the Illinois TRS. These plans, in spite of using the less conservative method, are listed with ratios below that of the Massachusetts Teachers. Also, as of 1/1/2011, the Commonwealth's Total Pension Liability was funded at a ratio of 71.1 %, placing it fifth among these non - Social Security funds. STATE NAME METHOD FUNDING RATIO% Texas TRS Entry Age 82.70% Ohio STRS Entry Age 59.10% Ohio PIERS Entry Age 15.30% Nevada PIERS Entry Age 70.50% Missouri PSRS Entry Age 77.70% Maine PERS Entry Age 65.90% Louisiana TRSL Projected Unit Credit 54.40% Louisiana SERS Projected Unit Credit 57.60% Kentucky TRS Projected Unit-Credit 61;00% Illinois TRS Projected Unit Credit 48.40% ConnecticutTRS Entry Age 61.42% Colorado PERA Entry Age 64.70% California TRS Entry Age 78.00% Massachusetts SERS Entry Age 81.00% Massachusetts TRS Entry Age 163.00% 1/1/2011 - Massachusetts fares even better when compared to other New England states in the study, including those who provide Social Security benefits in addition to a defined benefit plan: Connecticut SERS (Social Security) 44.40% (Unit Credit) ConnecticutTRS 61.42% Maine PIERS 65.90% New Hampshire SRS (Social Security) 58.50 % Rhode Island ERS (Social Security) 48.40% Vermont SRS (Social Security) 81.20% Vermont TRS (Social Security) 63.80% Massachusetts SERS 81.00% Massachusetts TRS 63.00% In light of the discussion of assumptions, particularly the investment return assumption, it should be stressed that according.to the study, Connecticut SERS uses 8.25 %; ConnecticutTRS uses 8.50 %, Maine uses 7.75 %; New Hampshire uses 8.50 %; Rhode Island uses 7.50 %; Vermont SRS uses 8.25% and Vermont TRS uses 6.25 - 9.00 %. Massachusetts is certainly not an outlier at 8.25% with a commitment to gradually reduce that assumption as conditions permit. The funded ratios of pension funds in Massachusetts, based on information filed as of 4/1/12, break down as follows: BOARD NAME FUNDED RATIO DATE Adams 81.2% 1/1/2010 Amesbury 51.9% 11112010 Andover 55.1% <1/1/2010 Arlington 54.6% 1/1/2011 Athol 48.7% 1/1/2011- , Attleboro 69.3% 1/11/20110 Barnstable 53.9 % - 1/1/2010° Belmont 51.3% 1/1/2010 Berkshire Regional 83.5% 1/1/2011 Beverly 51.2% 1/1/2010 Blue Hills Reg 62.0% 1/1/2010 Boston 60.2% 1/1/2010 Braintree - 67.6% 1/1/2010 Bristol County 64.8% 1/1/2010 Brockton 72.3% 1/1/2011 - Brookline 61.6% 1/1/2010 Cambridge 818% 1/1/2010 Chelsea 53.3% 1/1/2011 Chicopee 60.1 %; 1/1/2011 Clinton 65.6% 1/1/2011 Commonwealth 71.1% - 1/1/2011 Concord 85.3% 1/1/2010 Danvers 6414% 1/1/2010 q �Z BOARD NAME FUNDED RATIO DATE BOARD NAME FUNDED RATIO DATF Dedham 79.4% 11112010 Newton Dukes County 67.0% 1/1/2011 60.0% Easthampton 59.5% 11112010 1/1/2011 Essex Regional 51.9% 1/1/2011 Northampton Everett 37.8% 1/1/2010 69.5% Fairhaven 61.6% 1/1/2010 11112010 Fall River 46.1% 1/1/2011 Pittsfield Falmouth 61.3% 1/1/2010 54.2% Fitchburg 47.0% 1/1/2010 1/1/2011 Framingham 67.7% 1/1/2010 Reading Franklin Cty 66.6% 1/1/2010 57.6% Gardner 55.3% 1/1/2011 1/1/2010 Gloucester 46.9% 1/1/2010 Shrewsbury Greater Lawrence SD 89.5% 1/1/2011 Greenfield 61.1% 1/1/2011 Hampden County Regional 52.2% 1/1/2010 Hampshire County 57.5% 1/1/2010 Haverhill 51.4% 1/1/2010 Hingham 69.2% 1/1/2010 Holyoke 57.4% 1/1/2010 Hull 42.4% 1/1/2010 Lawrence 39.1% 1/1/2010 Leominster 78.6% 1/1/2011 Lexington 88.8% 1/1/2010 Lowell 60.1% 1/1/2011 Lynn 46.0% 1/1/2011 Malden 72.5% 1/1/2010 Marblehead 78.2% 11112010 Marlborough 68.4% 1/1/2011 Mass Housing Finance 77.4% 1/1/2011 Mass Port 96.8% 1/1/2011 Mass, Teachers 66.3% 1/1/2011 Maynard 71.8% 1/1/2011 Medford 64.4% ..... 1/1/2010 Melrose 54.5% 1/1/2010 Methuen 49.5% 1/1/2010 Middlesex 47.1% 1/1/2010 Milford 62.1% 1/1/2011 Milton 77.3% 1/1/2011 Minuteman Reg. 104.0% 1/1/2011 Montague 80.5% 1/1/2010 MWRA 87.6% 1/1/2011 Natick 64.0% 1/1/2011 Needham 77.9% 1/1/2011 Nv.w liedford 41.6% 1/1/2010 BOARD NAME FUNDED RATIO DATF The first lesson from this data is that Massachusetts has not been reluctant to assess and confront the impact of 2008. All systems have conducted an actuarial valuation that incorporates that experience. In spite of those devastating losses, which for many systems exceeded 30 %, 60 of these funds have a funded ratio above 60 %. In 29 systems that ratio exceeds 70% and two systems are more than 90% funded. Nonetheless, the variance among systems is reflected by the 44 systems with a funded ratio below 60 %, of which 15 have a ratio between 40% and 50% and three of which are faced with a funded ratio below 40 %. ��3 Newburyport 60.9% 1/1/2010 Newton 55.0% 1/1/2011 Norfolk County 60.0% 1/1/2010 North Adams 67.9% 1/1/2011 North Attleboro 73,4% 1/1/2011 Northampton 65.2% 1/1/2010 Northbridge 69.5% 1/1/2010 Norwood 84.0% 11112010 Peabody 53.7% 1/1/2010 Pittsfield 46.4% 1/1/2011 Plymouth 54.2% 1/1/2010 Plymouth County 56.1% 1/1/2011 Quincy 47.6% 1/1/2010 Reading 68.0% 7/1/2011 Revere 57.6% 1/1/2011 Salem 51.7% 1/1/2010 Saugus 67.8% 1/112011 Shrewsbury 70.8% 1/1/2010 Somerville 60.4% 1/1/2011 Southbridge 47.1% 1/1/2010 Springfield 33.6% 1/1/2010 State 81.0% 1/1/2011 Stoneham 70.4% 1/1/2011 Swampscott 46.2% 1/1/2011 Taunton 67.3% 1/1/2010 Wakefield 68.4% 1/1/2010 Waltham 55.8% 1/1/2011 Watertown 57.3% 1/1/2010 Webster 49.3% 1/1/2010 Wellesley 86.7% 1/1/2010 West Springfield 57.9% 1/1/2010 Westfield 68.9% 1/1/2011 Weymouth 58.0% 1/1/2010 - Winchester 84.5% 1/1/2011 Winthrop 73.1% 1/1/2011 Woburn 67.9% 1/112010 Worcester 70.7% 1/1/2011 Worcester Regional 48.0% 1/1/2010 The first lesson from this data is that Massachusetts has not been reluctant to assess and confront the impact of 2008. All systems have conducted an actuarial valuation that incorporates that experience. In spite of those devastating losses, which for many systems exceeded 30 %, 60 of these funds have a funded ratio above 60 %. In 29 systems that ratio exceeds 70% and two systems are more than 90% funded. Nonetheless, the variance among systems is reflected by the 44 systems with a funded ratio below 60 %, of which 15 have a ratio between 40% and 50% and three of which are faced with a funded ratio below 40 %. ��3 More Importantly, all retirement systems have incorporated the losses of 2008 into the funding schedules on which appropriations are based. As a result, in many iitltdhtes, systems will complete addressing that fiscal impact in the next few years ohd Bove forward in dealing with long -term liabilities. For example, under the exist - Ing funding schedule, the Commonwealth will have amortized the losses of 2008 by )013. At that point the flexibility will exist to more aggressively revise assumptions And /or accelerate system funding. this funded ratio record, in the wake of significant losses, is expected. Most Mas- sachusetts systems have for many years employed a "smoothing "technique which Is based on an actuarial rather than a market value of assets. Gains are spread out ovef a certain period and the result is that the funded status is less than it might have been under market value. The same is true of losses which when spread out result in a funded status that is greater than might be the case under °market 4ue. Consequently temporary distortions on the upside or downside are avoided. As a result, until the amortization of the 2008 losses is completed funding levels will retrain stagnant. It is Imperative that we not lose sight of the historical context in which our pension funds have operated. in 1987, 97 of the 106 Massachusetts' public pension funds were less than 500/6 funded. Of the other 9, five were funded at a ratio between 50% and 75% and four had a funded ratio above 75 %. Since that time we have experi- enced the capital markets losses of 1987, 2000, 2002 and particularly 2008, and yet, as the chart below indicates, our pension funds have made substantial, if sometimes unsteady, progress in funding. That progress is underscored by the fact that 18 systems, according to the data on hand as of April 2012, have a funded ratio below 50%— in sharp,contrast to the 97 systems which were similarly funded in 1987. In Massachusetts we have been assessing anu, wnen warranteu, inuuuymy Ln tau assumptions for many years. Although some of these matters are a subject of debate, PERAC has adopted a measured and evolutionary approach to revision of assump- tions in acknowledgement of the long -term nature of pension funding as well as past performance of our systems. For example, much debate exists as to the investment return assumption. As noted elsewhere in this Report, the PRIT Fund's annualized return over the last 27 years has been 9.50%, well above the 8.25% assumption presently used in the actuarial valuation of the Commonwealth's pension obligation. In spite of this record, the Actuary is moving towards a reduction of that assumption in the next several years. This is manifested in the evolution of the investment return assumptions used in calculating assets and liabilities. Long before the more recent controversy relative to this issue PERAC and its actuary began the process of reducing these investment re- turn assumptions. As the chart indicates, in 2003 30 valuations employed an 8.50% assumption and,only three used an assumption between 7.500/0 and 7.90 %. Today, no retirement boards use 8.50% and 15 use an assumption between 7.50% and 7.90 %. In addition, PERAC has begun the process of updating mortality assumptions to better reflect improvements in life expectancy. In many instances, these actions have taken place at the same time that systems were adjusting funding to amortize the 2008 investment losses. Investment Return Assumptions (2003) 7.5%-7.9% 8% 8.251 ri 8.5% Investment Return Assumptions (as of April 30, 2012) 7-5%-7.9% NE 8.1%-8.25% q� Y Along these lines the annualized returns for the systems over varying periods support this evolutionary approach. The chart below breaks out the investment returns for each system over different periods. One aspect of this data that stands out is that the long term rates of return (27 years ending in 2011) find most systems achieving rates of return at or above the investment assumption. For the Commonwealth the return in excess of the assumption is 1.25% (9.50% - 8.25 %). Similar divergence exists in several local systems, particularly those who have invested in PRIT for most of this period: Wakefield 9.62 % - 8.00 %, Needham 9.64 % - 8.00 1/o, Saugus 9.11 % - 8.00 %, Dedham 9.46 % - 8.00 %, Fairhaven 9.22 % - 8.00 %, Hingham 9.21 % - 8.00% Marblehead 9.12% - 8.00 %, Milton 9.30% - 8.00 %, Minuteman 9.46 % - 8.00 %, Montague 9.01 % - 8.00 %, Reading 9.17 % - 7.15 %, Saugus 9.11 % - 8.00 %, Northbridge 9.26 % - 8.00 %, and Gardner 9.33% - 8.00 %). However this record also exists for many non -Prit systems: Cambridge 9.08 % - 8.25 %, Holyoke 9.03 % - 8.25 %, Malden 9.71% - 8.00 %, North Adams 9.53 % - 8.00 %, Northampton 9.32% - 7.75 %, and Winchester 9.13 % - 8.00 %. Other systems in which assets have been invested in PRIT and outside of PRIT during the years also have substantially exceeded the assumption over this period: Framingham 9.19 % - 8.00 %, Lowell 9.00 % - 8.25 %, Wellesley 9.97 % - 8.00 %, and Weymouth 9.81% - 8.00 %. This chart also provides insight on the impact of single year's return on these long- term records, for example, PRIT through the 26 years ending in 2010 had an annualized return of 9.87 %. That long -term rate was reduced by .37% to 9.50% by the 2011 PRIT return of .18 %. Consequently, although in 2011 the PRIT Fund missed the assumption by 8.07% (8.25%- .18 %), in the long term that result lowered the return by only .37 %. The limited impact of one year's performance on long range rOwns is underscored by the example of Lexington. In 2011 Lexington had an investment return of- 05.81 %, a full 13.00% below its assumption of 8.00 %. Its annualized long -term performance for the period ending 2010 was 9.26 %. The 2011 return reduced that long -range result by .59% to 8.67 %. As the data proves, the impact of short -term Investment performance on long -term investment performance is mitigated by the past performance and also, the length of the period. The data related to funding schedules provides further support for the proposition that Massachusetts has met the funding challenge. As of April, 62 systems had adopted schedules that meet full funding by 2030; 20 such schedules do so by 2035 and 23 schedules do so by the statutory deadline of 2040. Consequently, our retirement boards and governmental units have committed to fully fund the systems, including the amor- tization of 2008 losses, within an acceptable, and in many cases aggressive, time frame. As we are reminded almost daily the future is a challenging one for public pension funds nationwide. Massachusetts has acted to place itself in a position to meet that challenge. Investment Return History BOARD NAME 27 yr 2011 26 yr 2010 25 yr 2009 10 yr 2011 10 yr 2010 10 yr 2009 5 yr 2011 5 yr 2010 5 yr 2009 ADAMS 8.01% 8.28% 8.24 % 4.13% 4.44% 4.46% 2.01% 3.41% 2.69% AMESBURY 7.70% 8.00% 7.79% 4.37% 3.83% 2.58% 0.72% 3.52% 2.35% ANDOVER 8.11% 8.42% 8.22% 2.91 % - 2.16% 1.84% -0.07% 2.58% 1.32% ARLINGTON 8.19% 8.47% 8.29% 3.50% 2.73% 1.23% - 1.02% 1.44% 0.05% ATHOL 6.98% 7.25% 7.01% 3.61 % - 3.39% 2,62% 1.05% 3.24% 2.36% ATTLEBORO 8.71% 9.05% 8.77% 6.13% 5.95% 4.64% 2.00% 4.46% 3.32% BARNSTABLE COUNTY 7.08% 7.35% 7.11% 4.51% 3.68% 2.44% 0.59% 3.25% 2.04% BELMONT 9.35% 9.62% 9.46% 7.12% 6.54% 5.56% 4.76% 7.24% 6.10% BERKSHIRE COUNTY 8.88% 9.23% 9.07% 6.20% 5.64% 4.22% 1.22% 4.33% 4.19% BEVERLY 8.34% 8.66% 8.46% 4.65% 4.48% 3.75% 0.68% 2.10% 0.75% BLUE HILLS REG 8.49% 8.81% 8.63% 6.29% 5.59% 4.82% 1.48% 4.45% 4.28% BOSTON 8.97% 9.29% 9.13% 5.95% 5.24% 3.83% 2.77% 5.52% 4.57% BRAINTREE > 8.70% 9.00% 8.91% 6.01% 5.89% 5.02% 2.87% 5.36% 4.37% BRISTOL COUNTY 8.69% 9.11% 8.92% 5.06% 4.96% 3.85% 1.72% 4.88% 3.58% BROCKTON 8.82% 9.17% 9.00% 5.00% 4.84 % 4.28% 1.22% 3.62% 2.60% BROOKLINE 8.68% 9.09% 8.90% 5.26% 5.31% 4.02% 1.25% 4.25% 3.10% CAMBRIDGE 9.08 %, 9.46% 9.25% 5.05% 4.85% 4.10% 1.90% 4.56°% 3.16% CHELSEA 7.64% 7.94% 7.72% 5.37% 4.52% 2.63% 1.22% 4.39% 3.87% CHICOPEE 8.37% 8.67% 8.34% 5.26% 4.75% 3.11% 2.84% 4.86% 3.11% CLINTON 7.37% 7.67% 7.45% 4.81% 4133% 2.99% - 0.68% 2.69% 1.98% COMPOSITE s - 9.116/0 9.46% 9.30% 5.98% 5.42% 4.02% 1.38% 4.39% 3.97% CONCORD 8.44% 8.64% 8.50% 5.42% 5.04% 4.05% 2.34% 4.34% 3.60% DANVERS 7.93% 8.40% 8.12% 4.27% 4.10% 3`.56% 1.59%, 4.64% 3.33% DEDHAM 9.46% 9.84% 9.68% 6.26% 5.66% 4.18% 1.22% 4.39% 4.20% DUKES COUNTY 7.36% 7.54% 7.29% 5.52% 4.58% 3`.06% 2.91% 5,17% 3.90% EASTHAMPTON 8.00% 8.31% 8.11% 6.29% 5.70% 4.36% 1.15% 4.29% 4.15% ESSEX COUNTY 8.54% 8.86% 8.62% 4.38% 4.15% 2.950/6 0.80% 3.69% 2.09% EVERETT 8.19% 8.51% 8.30% 4.70% 4.27% 2.44% 1.19% 4.32% 3.59% Fh f 92o 9.% 9.43% 6.21% . 4.11% z. Investment Return History (continued) BOARD NAME 27 yr 2011 26 yr 2010 25 yr 2009 10 yr 2011 10 yr 2010 10 yr 2009 5 yr 2011 5 yr 2010 5 yr 2009 -' IALL RIVER 8.14% 8.45% 8.26% 3.46% 3.03% 1.74% 0.68% 3.00% 1.85% °FALMOUTH 8.80% 9.10% 8.89% 4.45% 4.52% 3.96% 1.28% 3.69% 2.47% FITCHBURG 7.30% 7.58% 7,41% 3.50% 3.14% 2.32% 0.63% 2.94% 1.92% tfRAMINGHAM 9.19% 9.55% 9.40% 6.00% 5.29% 3.71% 1.16% 4.32% 4.17% FRANKLIN REGIONAL 8.02% 8.31% 18.03% 4.78% 4.94% 3.90% 2.28% 4.69% 3.26% .OARDNER 9.33% 9.70% 9.55% 6.24% 5.65% 4.21% 1.09% 4.22% 4.12% GLOUCESTER 8.70% 9.03% 18.86% 4.75% 4.66% 3.32% 0.70% 3.39% 2.53% GREATER LAWRENCE 7.21% 7.49% 17.30% 4.82% 4.07% 3.63% 4.12% 5.93% 4,26% GREENFIELD 8.24% 8.56% -8.36% 4.69% 4.10 %,' 3.45% 1.19% 3,74% 3.10% HAMPDEN000NTY 8.43% 8.72% 8.56% 4.10% 3.78% 2.93% 0.93% 3.21% 2.12% HAMPSHIRE COUNTY 8.22% 8.52% 8.33% 4.98% 4.37% 3.14% 2.08% 4.86% 3.82% HAVERHILL 10.06% 10.46% 10.29% 6.30% 5.94% 5:76% 2.56% 537 %0 4.16% HINGHAM 9.21% 9.54% 9.38% 6.35% 5.68% 4.21% 1.32% 4.34% 4.19% HOLYOKE 9.03% 9.40% 9.10% 4.26% 4.45% 3.41% 1.54% 3,86% 1.86% HULL 7.58% 7.88% 7.67% 5.53% 5.16% 3.92% 1.14% 4.25% 4.19% LAWRENCE 7.44% 7,73% 7.50% 4.02% 3.15% 1.40% 0.75% 3.11% 1.75% LEOMINSTER 8.15% 8.55% 8.41% 5.27% 5.69% 5.21% 0.99% 4.49% 3.45% LEXINGTON 8.67% ` 9.26% 9.05% 5.07% 5.35% 4.06% 0.60% 4.60% 3.80% LOWELL 9.00% 9.35% 9.20% 5.01% 3.91% 2.73% 0.93% 4.07% 3.84% LYNN 7.70% 7.94% 7.77% 4.22% 3.59% 1.90% 0.33% 2.10% 1.58% MALDEN 9.71% 9.97% 9.86% 5.96% 4.77% 3.76% 4.61% 5.76% 5.48% MARBLEHEAD 9.12% 9,48% 9.32% 6.30% 5.71% 4.20% 1.18% 4.35% 4.18% MARLBOROUGH 8.42% 8.66% 8.52% 5.77% 5.41% 4.58% 2.69% 4.80% 3.81% MHFA 7.43% 7.63% 7.43% 4.74% 4.17% 2.86% 1.96% 3.71% 2.30% MASSPORT 8.99% 9.30% 9.17% 5.71% 5.22% 3.94% 2.12% 4.83% 4.09% MWRA 7.69% 7.94% 7.73% 6.63% 6.05% 4.73% 3.54% 5.93% 5.01% MAYNARD 7.59% 7.83% 7.61% 5.15% 4.88% 4.09% 1.46% 2.67% 1.98% MEDFORD 8.97% 9.30% 9.16% 5.78% 5.92% 5.64% 2.85% 5.29% 4.18% MELROSE 8.22% 8.53% 8.35% 4.85% 4.45% 3.64% 1.09% 3.38% 2.85% METHUEN 7.61% 7.85% 7.57% 3.78% 3.17% 2.19% 0.53% 2.46% 0.59% MIDDLESEX COUNTY 8.21% 8.50% 8.33% 4.42% 4.10% 2.88% 1.43% 3.82% 2.83% MILFORD 7.95% 8.26% 8.08% 4.49% 4.40% 13.86% - 0.31% 1.54% 0.91% MILTON 9.30% 9.67% 9.51% 6.00% 5.42% 4.01% 1.17% 4.09% 3.79% MINUTEMAN REGIONAL 9.46% 9.83% 9.67% 6,32% 5.71% 4.19% 1.17% 4.32% 4.13% MONTAGUE 9.01% 9.36% 9.20% 6.26% 5.66% 4.22% 1.13% 4.27% 4.13% NATICK 7.69% 7.99% 7.75% 3.27% 2.31% 1.17% 0.20% 2.37% 0.76% NEEDHAM 9.64% 10.02% 9.89% 6.19% 5.61% 4.19% 1.13% 4.27% 4.13% NEW BEDFORD 7.74% 8.14% 7.93% 5.80% 5.95% 432% 1.47% 4.62% 4.05% NEWBURYPORT 7.96% 8.27% 8.07% 6.29% 6.08% 4.92% 1.12% 4.24% 4.10% NEWTON 8.42% 8.73% 8.58% 4.51% 3.97% 2.96% 1.04% 3.34% 2.23% NORFOLK COUNTY 8.50% 8.79% 8.60% 4.91% 4.84% 4.05% 1.67% 4.15% 2.81% NORTH ADAMS 9.53% 9.75% 9.62% 6.27% 5.06% 4.15% 4.91% 5.94% 5,74% NORTH ATTLEBORO 8.36% 8.57% 8.35% 5.13% 5.09% 4.06% 2.28% 4.04% 2.210/,, NORTHAMPTON =9.32-/, 9.55% 19.42% 6.08% 5.06% 4.05% 4.96% f�A 6 f�A 6 Investment Return I- istor- cotifinu BOARD NAME 27 yr 2011 26 yr 2010 25 yr 2009 10 yr 2011 10 yr 2010 10 yr 2009 5 yr 2011 5 yr 2010 5 yr 2009 NORTHBRIDGE 9.26% 9.62% 9.46% 6.32% 5.70% 4.22% 1,20% 43146 4.11% NORWOOD 9.07% 9.40% 9.34% 6.08% 6.04% 5,0201a . 3.48% r:7T x,23% PEABODY 8.41% 8.74% 8.55% 3,87% 3.67% 2.76% 0,93% 3,08lyo 1,61% PITTSFIELD 7.93% 8.20% 7.99% 3.64% 3.16% 1:99% 0.50 % 2.59% 137% PLYMOUTH 8.48% 8.84% 8.70% 4.99% 4.67% 3.22% 135% 4,14% 3.35% PLYMOUTH COUNTY 9.10%, 9.45% 9.21% 5.48% 4.42% 3.28% 1.30% 4.16% 2189%a ` PRIM BOARD 9.50% 9.87% 9.73% 6.21% 5.61% 4.15% 1.07% 4.21% 4.05% 4UINCY 8.19% 8.50% 8.34% 5.12% 4.97% 4.02% 1.45% 3.92% 3.04% READING 9.17% 9.53% 9.37% 6.29% 5.69% 4.22% 1.21% 4.37% 4.21% REVERE 8.14% ; 8.46% 8.30% 6.00% 5.44% 4.03% 1.00% 4.06% 3,98% SALEM 7.90% 8.19% 8.02% 3.84% 3.60% 2.74% 0.00% 2.73% 1.53% SAUGUS 9.11% ` 9.46% 9.30% 6.26% 5.66% 4.20% 1.20% 4.33% 4.17% SHREWSBURY 8.85% 9.20% 9.01% 5.30% 4.74% 2.86% 1.77% 4.21% 3.23% SOMERVILLE 8.70% 8.95% 8.75% 6.21% 3.65% 5.10% 3.44% 5.27% 3.93% SOUTHBRIDGE 7.77% 8.08% 7.94% 3.40% 3,18% 3.07% - 1.16% 1.32% 0.22% SPRINGFIELD 8.11% ` 8.41% 8.23% 4.20% 3.51% 2.54% 0.78% 3.80% 2.64% STATE 9.38% 9.75% 9.59% 6.29% 5.69% 4.17% 1.17% 4.34% 4.17% STATETEACHERS 9.39% 9.76 % 9.60 %0 6.29% 5.69% 4.17% 1:17% 4.34% 4.17% STONEHAM 8.63% 8.97% 8.78% 6.28% 5.69% 4.28% 1.21% 4.35% 4.17% SWAMPSCOTT 8.79% ' 9.22% 9.17% 14.49% 4.58% 3.42% 1.05% 3.63 % 3.32% TAUNTON 9.54% 9.91% 9.69% 5.73% 5.70% 4.64% 2.72% 5.14% 3.29% WAKEFIELD 9.62% 9.99% 9.85% 6.27% 5.67% 4.19% 1.19% 4.31 %` 4.14% WALTHAM 8.42% 8.69% 8.49% 4.43% 3.80% 2.41% 0.67% 3.00% 1.71% WATERTOWN 8.08% 8.42% 8.21 %. 4.72% 4.57% 3.31 %. 1.07 % 4.12% 2.62% WEBSTER 7.83% 8.14% 7.88% 5.57% 4.67% 2.91% 2.13% 4.54% 3.24% WELLESLEY 9.97% 10:37% 10.24% 5.36% 4.80% 3,84% 0.55% 3.57% 2.89 0/6 . WESTSPRINGFIELD 7.92% 8.08% 7.91% 4.70% 4.41% 4.18% 2.54% 3.42% 2.39% WESTFIELD 8.360/6 8.68% 8.53% 4.31% 3.96% 3.19% 1.94% ' 4.14% 3.00% WEYMOUTH 9.81% 10.27% 10.11% 5.82% 5.43% 3.89% 1.25% 4.59% 3.50% WINCHESTER 9.13% 9,47% 9.49% 5,73% 5.58% 5,05% 1.30% 4.09% 4.47% WINTHROP 8.50% 8.84% 8.68% 5.14% 4.98% 4.31% 1.23% 4.21% 4.08% WOBURN 9.25% 9.59% 9.42% 15,63% 5.56% 4.38% 2.64% 5.17% WORCESTER 8.85% 9.22% 9.04% 5.45% 5.02% 3.80% 1.57% 14.53% 3.84% WORCESTERCOUNTY 7.91 %, 8.23% 8.98% < 3.42 °l0 2.94 %0 1.53% 0.21% 2.74% 1.47% t 0 1 VU70 06/04/10 Period Covered 01/01/07- 12/31/09 2009 2008 - 2007 Annual Receipts $18.33 M $(23.42 M) $16.92 M Annual Disbursements $7.73 M $7.77 M $7.61 M 80% �,.. 60% 20% 0% 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 Investment Return (2007 -2011, 5 Year and 27 Year Averages) 0_1 I Asset Growth (2002 -2011) (Market Value in Millions) $120 $100 $60 e $40 $20 $0 03 05 07 09 11 Investment Return History 27 years 2011 26 years 2010 25 years 2009 9.17% 9.53% 9.37% 10 Years 2011 10 years 2010 10 years 2009 6.29% 5.69% 4.22% 11 5 ears 2010 5 Years 2009 • Date of Last Valuation • Actuary • Assumed Rate of Return •Funding Schedule -Year fully funded • Unfunded Liability •Total Pension AppropYiation (Fiscal 2012) Board Administrator Colleen Loughlin Board Meeting Fourth Tuesday of each month at 6:00 pm Active • Number of Members 333 • Total Payroll /Benefit $20.9 M • Average Salary /Benefit $62,900 • Average Age 49 • Average Service 15 years 68.0% 07/11 Segal 7.75% 4.5% Increasing 2030 $43.1 M $4.4 M Retired 329 $7.5 M $22,800 NA NA $4,500 $4,000 $3,500 - -°� $3,000 $2,500 - $2,090 $1,500 $11000-- $500 $0 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Date of Last Audit 06/04/10 Period Covered 01/01/07- 12/31/09 2009 2008 - 2007 Annual Receipts $18.33 M $(23.42 M) $16.92 M Annual Disbursements $7.73 M $7.77 M $7.61 M Number of Disability Retirees 42 Number Who Reported Earnings 1 0 Number of Excess Earners 0 Total Amount of Refund Due0 i,luu /-LU i lttenludluxu) ►1985 2011(�nnuMiaed) •