HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-05 BOS HandoutOFRp f
c Town of Reading
Meeting Posting with Agenda
o s39. J�oRpo�R
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Board of Selectmen
Date: 2017 -09 -05 Time: 7:30 PM
Building: Reading Town Hall
Address: 16 Lowell Street
Purpose: General Business
RE CEIVED
TOWN CLERK
LEADING, r ASS
1011 AUG 31 A 100 I
Location: Selectmen Meeting Room
Agenda: Revised
Meeting Called By: Brendan Sweeney on behalf of Chairman John Arena
Notices and agendas are to be posted 48 hours in advance of the meetings excluding
Saturdays, Sundays and Legal Holidays. Please keep in mind the Town Clerk's hours of
operation and make necessary arrangements to be sure your, posting is made in an
adequate amount of time. A listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be
discussed at the meeting must be on the agenda.
All Meeting Postings must be submitted in typed format; handwritten notices will not be accepted.
Topics of Discussion:
1) Reports and Comments
a. Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments
b. Public Comment
C. Town Manager's /Assistant Town Manager's Report
2) Open Session for topics not reasonably anticipated 48
hours in advance of the meeting
3) Proclamations /Certificates of Appreciation
a. Recovery Month Proclamation (RCASA)
4) Personnel & Appointments
5) Discussion /Action Items
a. Volunteer Committee Appointments
b. Approve 186 Summer Avenue Historic District Preservation
Restriction — Joint meeting with HDC & HC
C. Discuss Board of Health
d. Review Train Depot /Compost Shared Sticker
e. Review Demand Fees
6) Approval of Minutes
a.. July 25, 2017
7) Licenses, Permits and Approvals
8) Executive Session
9) Correspondence
7:35
7:45
8:00
8:30
9:30
9:45
This Agenda has been prepared in advance and represents a listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed
at the meeting. However the agenda does not necessarily include all matters which may be taken up at this meeting.
Page 1 1
PROCLAMATION
NATIONAL RECOVERY MONTH
Whereas, behavioral health is an essential part of health and one's overall wellness; and
Whereas, the Board. of Selectman determined that substance use disorders were
profoundly impacting the Town and our residents such that they helped
establish the Reading Coalition Against Substance Abuse in 2006 to improve
community collaboration and reduce substance misuse; and
Whereas,
prevention of mental and substance use disorders works, treatment is
effective, and people recover in our area and around the nation; and
Whereas,
preventing and overcoming mental and substance use disorders is essential to
achieving healthy lifestyles, both physically and emotionally; and
Whereas,
we must encourage relatives and friends of people with mental and /or
substance use disorders to implement preventive measures, recognize the
signs of a problem, and guide those in need to appropriate treatment and
recovery support services; and
Whereas,
to help more people achieve and sustain long -term recovery, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the White House Office
of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), and the Reading Coalition
Against Substance Abuse invite all residents of Reading, Massachusetts
to participate in our local celebration of National Recovery Month; and
Now, therefore, we, The Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading, Massachusetts do hereby
proclaim the month of September, 2017 as National Recovery Month in the Town of Reading and
call upon the people of Reading to observe this month with appropriate programs, activities, and
ceremonies to support this year's Recovery Month theme., "Join the Voices for Recovery:
Strengthen Families and Communities."
THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN
3
Next Steps
Town Counsel updated the Agreement in accordance with MHC's comments and Criterion
is re- submitting the Agreement to MHC.
If the Agreement is acceptable, the Boards should vote as follows:
• HC: Vote to accept the Historic Preservation Restriction substantially as presented
to the Historical Commission, provided that Town Counsel may make minor or non -
substantive changes at the Massachusetts Historical Commission's request prior to
execution.
• HDC: Vote to accept the Historic Preservation Restriction substantially as presented
to the Historic District Commission, provided that Town Counsel may make minor
or non - substantive changes at the Massachusetts Historical Commission's request
prior to execution.
• BOS: Vote to: (1) approve the Historic Preservation Restriction as currently drafted,
provided that Town Counsel may make non - substantive changes at the
Massachusetts Historical Commission's request prior to execution, and (2) approve
the acceptance of the Historical Preservation. Restriction by the Historical
Commission and Historic District Commission.
C16)
incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit B, said Property including the following
buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Buildings ");
WHEREAS, the Buildings, known as "Kemp Place," were built in 1853 for
Robert "Father" Kemp and placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1984, and
are considered to be one of Reading's finest examples of Italianate architecture including
a house and barn described in detail. in Massachusetts Historical Commission inventory
forms attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit C and shown
in a series of thirteen Baseline Photographs dated May 2017 attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit D;
WHEREAS, the Grantor wishes to impose certain restrictions, obligations and
duties upon it as the owner of the Premises and on the successors to its right, title and
interest therein, with respect to maintenance, protection, and preservation of the Premises
in order to protect the architectural and historical integrity thereof; and
WHEREAS, the preservation of the Premises is important to the public for the
enjoyment and appreciation of its architectural and historical heritage and will serve the
public interest in a manner consistent with the purposes of M.G.L. c.184, § §31, 32 and 33,
hereinafter referred to as the Act;
WHEREAS, the Grantor submitted an application to the Historic District
Commission, for preservation and renovation of the Premises, which application resulted in
a Final Decision of the Historic District Commission that incorporated a Final Decision by
the Town of Reading Community Planning and Development Commission (collectively,
the "Decision "). The Decision was filed with the Town of Reading Town Clerk on
February 4, 2016 (a copy of the Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit G and incorporated
herein by reference);
WHEREAS, the Grantee is authorized to accept these preservation restrictions
under the Act; and
a
Grantor may seek financial assistance from any source available to it. Neither the
Historical Commission nor the Historic District Commission assumes any
obligation for maintaining, repairing or administering the Premises.
3. Inspection: The Grantor agrees that the Historical Commission and the Historic
District Commission may inspect the Premises from time to time upon reasonable
notice to determine whether the Grantor is in compliance with the terms of this
Agreement. Any such inspection shall be conducted at a mutually agreeable time
that does not interfere with the Grantor's operations.
4. Alterations: The Grantor agrees that no alterations shall be made to the exterior of
the Buildings by the Grantor unless such alterations are:
(a) clearly of minor nature and do not affect the characteristics which
contribute to the architectural or historical integrity of the Premises;
(b) in case of alterations that are more than minor or do not constitute
ordinary maintenance and repair, determined by the Historic District
Commission, after reviewing plans and specifications submitted by the
Grantor, not to impair such characteristics, which determination shall not be
unreasonably withheld;
(c) expressly allowed by the Decision;
(d) required by casualty or other emergency promptly reported to the
Grantee; or
(e) required for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act or the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Architectural Access Board Rules and
Regulations, provided that the Grantor's plans and specifications for this
purpose are first approved by the Historic District Commission.
5. Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter "ADA ") Compliance: If a
determination made by the Historic District Commission pursuant to Section 4(e) of
this Agreement shall cause the Grantor to be out of compliance with the ADA, 42
U.S.C. §12132, et seq., 28 C.F.R. §36.101, et seq., and should the Grantor
C9
Decision and do not negatively affect the exterior characteristics that contribute to
the architectural or historical integrity of the Premises. For purposes of Sections
4(a), 4(b)' and 6, interpretation of what constitutes alterations of a minor nature or
ordinary maintenance and repair shall be governed by the Restriction Guidelines, as
interpreted by the Historic District Commission, attached to this Agreement as
Exhibit "I"' and hereby incorporated by reference.
8. Notice and Approval. Whenever approval by the Historic District Commission is
required under this restriction, Grantor shall send written notice thereof to the
Historic District Commission, with a copy to the Historical Commission, by
certified mail, return receipt requested, or by Constable, or by some other method
requiring the signature of a representative or employee of the Historic District
Commission, acknowledging receipt, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the
date on which Grantor intends to undertake the activity in question. The notice
shall describe the nature,, scope, design, location, timetable and any other material
aspect of the proposed activity in sufficient detail to permit the Historic District
Commission to make an informed judgment as to its consistency with the
purposes of this Preservation Restriction. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of
Grantor's reasonably sufficient request for said approval, the Historic District
Commission shall, in writing, grant or withhold its approval, and shall provide a
copy, of said written approval or withheld approval to the Historical Commission.
The Historic District Commission's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld,
and shall be granted upon a reasonable showing that the proposed activity shall
not materially impair the purpose of this Preservation Restriction.
9. Assignment: In the event the Historic District Commission should cease to
function or exist, all responsibilities charged to it under this Preservation
Restriction shall be assigned to the Historical Commission upon written notice to
the Grantor; and further, upon written notice to the Grantor, the Town acting by
and through its Board of Selectmen may assign its rights under this Agreement to
another governmental body or to any charitable corporation or trust, qualified
l`
11. Execution of Instruments: The Historical Commission is authorized to record this
Preservation Restriction. The Historical Commission is authorized to record or file
the approval of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, notices of restriction
under M.G.L. c. 184, § 27, or other required documents pursuant thereto for the
exclusive purpose of ensuring the perpetual enforceability of this Preservation
Restriction, and the Grantor and its successors and assigns agree to execute .any
such instrument upon request.
12. Controlling Law: The interpretations and performance of this Preservation
Restriction shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
13. Liberal Construction:. Any general rule of construction to the contrary
notwithstanding, this Preservation Restriction shall be liberally construed in favor
of the grant to affect the purposes of the Preservation Restriction and the policy and
purposes of Grantee. If any provision is found to be ambiguous, an interpretation
consistent with the purpose of this Preservation Restriction that would render the
provision valid shall be favored over any interpretation that renders it invalid.
14. Validity and Severability: The invalidity of M.G.L. c.184 or any part thereof shall
not affect the validity and enforceability of this Agreement according to its terms.
The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not
affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement.
15. Recording: The Grantor agrees to record this Agreement with the Middlesex South
Registry of Deeds and file a copy of such recorded instrument with the Grantee.
16. Restriction Runs with the Land: Except as provided in Paragraphs 21 and 26,
the restrictions, obligations and duties set forth in this Restriction shall run with
the Premises and shall inure to the benefit of the Grantee and all parties claiming
by, through or under the Grantee and shall bind the Grantor and all parties
claiming by, through or under the Grantee and shall bind the Grantor and all
\903
d. no additions and /or outbuildings may be attached to the Buildings without
prior approval of the Grantee; and
e. moving the Buildings to another location shall be forbidden without prior
approval of the Grantee.
18. Grantor's Reserved Rights Not Requiring Further Approval by the Grantee:
Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 17, the following rights, uses, and
activities of or by Grantor on, over, or under the Property are permitted by this
Restriction and by the Grantee without further approval by the Grantee:
a. the right to engage in all those acts and uses that:
(i) are permitted by governmental statute or regulation;
(ii) do not substantially impair the preservation values of the Buildings
and Premises; and
(iii) are not inconsistent with the purpose of this Restriction;
b. pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 2, the right to maintain and repair the
Building strictly according to the Secretary's Standards. As used in this sub-
paragraph, the right to maintain and repair shall mean the use by the Grantor of
in -kind materials and colors, applied with workmanship comparable to that
which was used in the construction or application of those materials being
repaired or maintained, for the purpose of retaining in good condition the
appearance and construction of the exterior of the Buildings. The right to
maintain and repair as used in this sub - paragraph shall not include the right to
make changes in appearance, materials, workmanship from that existing prior to
the maintenance and repair without. the prior approval of the Commission in
accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 8.
19. Standards for Review: In exercising any authority created by this Restriction to
inspect the Buildings; to review any construction, alteration, repair, or
maintenance; or to review casualty damage or to reconstruct or approve
C�)J
will be served by such restoration/reconstruction, Grantor and the Historic
District Commission shall establish a schedule under which Grantor shall
complete the restoration/reconstruction of the Buildings in accordance with
plans and specifications consented to by the parties up to at least the total of the
casualty insurance proceeds available to Grantor.
If, after reviewing the report and assessing the availability of insurance proceeds
after satisfaction of any mortgagee's /lender's claims under paragraph 22, Grantor
and the Historic District Commission agree that restoration/reconstruction of the
Buildings is impractical or impossible, or agree that the Purpose of the
Restriction would not be served by such restoration/reconstruction and Grantor
may, with prior written consent of the Historic District Commission, alter,
demolish, remove or raze the Buildings, and /or construct new improvements on
the Premises, Grantor and Grantee may agree to seek to extinguish this
Restriction in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
and paragraph 21 hereof.
If, after reviewing the report and assessing the availability of insurance proceeds
after satisfaction of any mortgagee's /lender's claims under paragraph 22, Grantor
and the Historic District Commission are unable to agree that the Purpose of the
Restriction will or will not be served by such restoration/reconstruction, the
matter may be referred by either party to binding arbitration and settled in
accordance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts arbitration statute then in
effect, and all other applicable laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances. Arbiter
shall have experience in historic preservation matters.
22. Insurance: Grantor shall keep the Buildings insured by an insurance company
rated "A -1" or better by Best's for the full replacement value against loss from
the perils commonly insured under standard fire and extended coverage policies
and comprehensive general liability insurance against claims for personal injury,
O\/1
24. Written Notice: Any notice which either Grantor or Grantee may desire or be
required to give to the other party shall be in writing;
Grantor: Criterion Child Enrichment
321 Fortune Boulevard #203
Milford, MA 01757
Grantee: Reading Historic District Commission
Reading Town Hall
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
With a copy to:
Reading Historical Commission
Reading Town Hall
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Each party may change its address set forth herein by a notice to such effect to
the other party.
25. Evidence of Compliance: Upon request by Grantor, Grantee shall promptly
furnish Grantor with certification that, to the best of Grantee's knowledge,
Grantor is in compliance with the obligations of Grantor contained herein, or
that otherwise evidence the status of this Restriction to the extent of Grantee's
knowledge thereof.
26. Extinguishment: Grantor and Grantee hereby recognize that an unexpected
change in the conditions surrounding the Property may make impossible the
continued Grantorship or use of the Property for the Purpose of this Restriction
and necessitate extinguishment of the Restriction. Such a change in conditions
may include, but is not limited to, partial or total destruction of the Building
resulting from casualty. Such an extinguishment must meet all the requirements
(Dp�
investigation plan prepared by the Grantor and approved in writing by the
Grantee and the State Archaeologist of the Massachusetts Historical
Commission (M.G.L. C. 9, Sec. 27C, 950 C.M.R. 70.00).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have set their hands under seal on the
days and year set forth below.
GRANTOR: Criterion Child Enrichment, Inc.
By and through its President, Vice - President and Treasurer
Robert F. Littleton, Jr., Ed.D
Criterion Child Enrichment, Inc.
By and through its Clerk
Melvin J. Thompson
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Worcester, ss
On this day of , 2017, before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Robert F. Littleton, Jr., proved to me through satisfactory
evidence of identification, which was , to be the person
whose name is signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to
me that Robert F. Littleton, Jr. signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as
President, Vice - President and Treasurer of Criterion Child Enrichment, Inc.
Notary Public:
My commission Expires:
(seal)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Worcester, ss
On this—day of , 2017, before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Melvin J. Thompson, proved to me through satisfactory
evidence of identification, which was , to be the person
whose name is signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to
`�J
APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF SELECTMAN OF THE TOWN OF READING
On , 2017 the Reading Board of Selectman, by majority vote, voted to approve
the foregoing Preservation Restriction.
GRANTEE: Town of Reading, Massachusetts
Board of Selectmen:
John Arena, Chair
Barry Berman, Vice-Chair
Daniel nsmmger, Secretary
John a sey, Member
Andrew Friedmann, em er
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Middlesex, ss
On this _day of , 2017, before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared John Arena, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, which was , to be the person whose name is
signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that John
Arena signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as Chair, Town of Reading Board of
Selectmen.
Notary Public:
My commission Expires:
(seal)
Middlesex, ss
On this _day of , 2017, before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Andrew Friedmann, proved to me through satisfactory evidence
of identification, which was , to be the person whose name is
signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that
Andrew Friedmann signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as Member, Town of
Reading Board of Selectmen.
Notary Public:
My commission Expires:
(seal)
Middlesex, ss
On this _day of , 2017, before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Sharlene Reynolds Santo, proved to me through satisfactory
evidence of identification, which was , to be the person
whose name is signed on the preceding or' attached document, and acknowledged to
me that Sharlene Reynolds Santo signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as
,Secretary, Reading Historical Commission.
Notary Public:
My commission Expires:
(seal)
Middlesex, ss
On this _day of , 2017, before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Jonathan Barnes, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, which was , to be the person whose name is
signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that
Jonathan Barnes signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as Treasurer, Reading
Historical Commission.
Notary Public:
My commission Expires:
(seal)
Middlesex, ss
On this _day of , 2017, before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Samantha Couture, proved to me through satisfactory evidence
of identification, which was , to be the person whose name is
signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that
Samantha Couture signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as Member, Reading
Historical Commission.
Notary Public:
My commission Expires:
(seal)
T
i
ACCEPTANCE BY READING HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
On , 2017 the Reading Historical Commission, by majority vote, voted to
approve and accept the foregoing Preservation Restriction.
Reading Historical Commission:
Everett Blodgett, Chair
Ilene Bornstein, Vice Chair
Virginia Adams, Member
Priscilla Poehler, Member
Greg Maganzini, Mern er
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Middlesex, ss
On this day of , 2017, before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Everett Blodgett, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, which was , to be the person whose name is
signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that Everett
Blodgett signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as Chair, Reading Historic District
Commission.
Notary Public:
My commission Expires:
(seal)
((D��
Middlesex, ss
On this day of , 2017, before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Greg Maganzini, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, which was , to be the person whose name is
signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that Greg
Maganzini signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as Member, Reading Historic
District Commission.
Notary Public:
My commission Expires:
(seal)
SCHEDULE OF EXHIBITS
A. LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND SITE PLAN
B. RECORDED SITE PLAN
C. MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION INVENTORY FORMS
D. BASELINE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
E. KEY ARCHTIECTURAL FEATURES OF HOUSE AND BARN
F. RESTRICTION GUIDELINES
G. READING HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION CERTIFICATE AND
READING COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION SITE PLAN REVIEW DECISION
RECORDED PLAN
EXHIBIT B
TO PRESERVATION RESTRICTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF
READING AND CRITERION CHILD ENRICHMENT, INC.
3�
BASELINE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
EXHIBIT D
TO PRESERVATION RESTRICTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF
READING AND CRITERION CHILD ENRICHMENT, INC.
KEY ARCHTIECTURAL FEATURES OF HOUSE AND BARN
RESTRICTION GUIDLINES
EXHIBIT F
TO PRESERVATION RESTRICTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF
READING AND CRITERION CHILD ENRICHMENT, INC
The purpose of the Restriction Guidelines is to clarify paragraph three of the terms of the
preservation restriction, which deals with alterations to the Premises. Under this section
permission from the GRANTEE is required for any major alteration. Alterations of a minor
nature, which are part of ordinary maintenance and repair, do not require GRANTEE
review.
In an effort to explain what constitutes a minor alteration and what constitutes a major
change, which must be reviewed by the GRANTEE, the following list has been developed.
By no means is this list comprehensive: it is only a sampling of some of the more common
alterations, which may be contemplated by the Premises owner.
PAINT
Minor - Exterior or interior hand scraping and repainting of non - decorative and
non - significant surfaces as part of periodic maintenance.
Major Painting or fully stripping decorative surfaces or distinctive stylistic
features including murals, stenciling, ornamental woodwork, stone, masonry,
decorative or significant original stucco or plaster.
WINDOWS AND DOORS
Minor - Regular maintenance including caulking, painting and necessary
reglazing. Repair or in -kind replacement of existing individual decayed window
parts.
Major - Wholesale replacement of units; change in fenestration or materials;
alteration of profile or setback of windows. The addition of storm windows is also
considered a major change; however, with notification it is commonly acceptable.
101141107[f7.�
Minor - Spot repair of existing cladding and roofing including in -kind
replacement of clapboards, shingles, slates, etc.
Major - Large -scale repair or replacement of cladding or roofing. Change
involving inappropriate removal or addition of materials or building elements (i.e.
removal of chimneys or cornice detailing; installation of architectural detail which
does not have a historical basis); altering or demolishing building additions; spot
repointing of masonry. Structural stabilization of the Premises is also considered a
major alteration.
0�q
READING HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION CERTIFICATE AND READING
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SITE PLAN
REVIEW DECISION
EXHIBIT G
TO PRESERVATION RESTRICTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF
READING AND CRITERION CHILD ENRICHMENT, INC.
36 0��
We have never tried to establish operating costs for the train depot site because the fee is so low. I'm
certain incorporating enforcement and maintenance (such as snow plowing) we could get to a much
higher figure, but probably not $880. At that rate for 1,000 stickers, we would need $880,000 in costs.
Of course a question for Town Counsel might be is the loss of state aid of about $500,000 annually
because we have a train station = and this is documented fact — an eligible cost to recover?
If tonight the Board is willing to split the stickers and set different prices, we can advertise a public
hearing, and get more background information for the Board in their deliberations on what pricing to
use.
'ru5)
❖ 57 Leased Employee /Merchant ( Yellow Zone) Spaces:
High St. 40 spaces
Harnden Yard Lot 13 spaces
Brande Court Lot 4 spaces
❖ 117 -2 Hour or Employee (Blue Zone) Spaces available in downtown area:
16 Gould St. — 36 Gould St.
9 Chapin Ave. — 29 Chapin Ave.
18 Woburn St. - 24 Woburn St.
56 Woburn St. — 76 Woburn St.
Parker St. Senior Center Lot
Lowell St. in front of Town Hall
253 Haven St. 309 Haven St.
17 Pleasant St.
Brande Ct. Parking Lot
16 spaces
13 spaces
10 spaces
14 spaces
14 spaces
17 spaces
12 spaces
9 spaces
12 spaces
❖ Fee's:
Resident Access Sticker: $25.00/ Senior Citizen $15.00
2nd /3`d Sticker $10.00
Employee All Day Sticker: $240 /Year
Leased Number Space
Annual Revenue Parking Stickers:
Resident Access Stickers
2012 - $79,375.00
2013 - $79,765.00
2014 - $80,795.00
2115 - $81,050.00
2016 - $83,226.00
2017 - $71,530.00
Respectfully,
Chief Mark D. Se g alla
$360 /Year
8 Tandem Harden Yard $ 300/ Year
Parking Space Rentals
2012 - $46,040.00
2013 - $38,400.00
2014 - $42,540.00
2015 - $44,780.00
2016 - $45,880.00
2017 - $48,840.00
J
LeLacheur, Bob
From: Marianne Downing <mariannedowning @comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, September 04,.2017 12:05 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager
Subject: Resend of ideas for increases in parking fees (including peer data)
Dear Town Manager and BOS:
Back in January of 2017, 1 had sent the then BOS members info on a brief study I had done on parking fees in our town
vs neighbors, for both train depot and high school. As the idea of such fees is coming up again, I wanted to resend
this information to you (it was current as of January 2017). 1 am repasting the I had included in my original January
23, 2017 email below, but with the override and FY18 budget comments taken out, as these are no longer
applicable. Hopefully this data will help to inform your discussion, which I will be watching from home.
PARKING FEES — DEPOT AND RMHS:
Finally, as you consider fees and whether or not to raise such fees, I urge the Board of Selectmen, in their purview
as parking commissioners to consider a significant fee increase in resident parking fees for the train depot and for
student parking at the High school. I view these fees as way of supplementing and offsetting town costs of
maintaining these parking spots as well as all the streets around the depot and RMHS that provide safe access year
round to all depot and RMHS users. The fees also can support the costs of paying town employees who do this work,
any dispatchers who plan this work, supplies used for this work, and the like. Below I have listed some interesting
data on what is done in other towns as a justification an example for such increases.
READING'S OWN PARKING STUDY:
Even before comparing with other commuter rail towns, I first refer you to the parking study that Reading itself
commissioned in 2009. This study explicitly recommended that Reading RAISE its commuter rail parking sticker rate
to $480 a year to be comparable to other towns with such fees, to use the annual money to maintain the streets
around the depot. (See parking study here
http•/ /www readingma gov /sites /readingma /files /u281 /parking study recommendations corn, ressed.pdf at p. 7-
24, where it states "If the Town sets a fair rate that is comparable to the cost of parking at other commuter rail
stations in the area (which now charge at least $2 per day, or over $480 per year), it can use the revenues to make
improvements to the station area and especially the residential streets where many commuters park today."
And that is in 2009 dollars! Why is this not being considered further and immediately in these trying fiscal
times? Even if it is not the three million dollar solution this town needs, every $50K here and there provides a
significant benefit.
COMPARATIVE TRAIN PARKING FEES:
Next, consider the following comparison of yearly parking sticker rates to park at commuter rail stations for residents
in various towns — do note that some of these towns have varying sticker levels based on parking location, provide
senior discounts, and /or offer non - resident train parking stickers at even higher rates. But these are the most direct
comparisons I could find:
Reading $25
Sharon $540 (see here: http://www.townofsharon.net/home/pages/railroad-parkin )
Natick $615 (see here: http://www..natickma.gov/166/`"Transportation2_g rking )
South Acton $100 (see here: http://www.acton-ma.gov/127/``South-Acton-Commuter-Lot )
Winchester $500 (see here: See https://www.winchester.us/DocumentCenter/View/`128 ) (rate is $125 per quarter)
Wellesley $480 (see here: http://www.wellesleVma.govZPages/Wellesl eyMA Treasurer /parkrates )
1 ��
Framingham (two tier rate depending on location: $125 for closer lot, $75 for more distant)
As noted above, parking charges for students similarly can help to offset town costs in maintaining, plowing, and
repairing the RMHS parking lot and adjacent roads. In addition, it is simple matter for this Board to enact parking
regulations along the nearby residential roads to limit the parking to residents or non- students, or to provide a 2 hour
limit (e.g., to allow folks to park for the Y, etc.).
Thanks for your consideration on the above ideas and requests
Best Regards
M6!/96INNe / �%USUi1J�
Home Address: 13 Heather Drive — Reading MA
Email: mariannedowning@comcast.net
LeLacheur, Bob
From: LeLacheur, Bob
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 9:46 AM
To: 'GEORGE KACHEN'
Cc: Forwarding Account for John Arena; Forwarding Account for Barry Berman
Subject: RE: Meetings to Discuss the Override
Hi George,
Thanks for your reply & interest. I have included only the Selectmen Chair John Arena and Vice Chair Barry Berman in order to
comply with Open Meeting Law.
On the town's home page there is a schedule of meetings, here is the link for your convenience:
https• / /www readingma gov/ home / news /fyl9- draft - budget- process - timeline
Of note are the December Selectmen meetings, the January School Committee meetings, and finally the February FINCOM
meetings.
Again thanks for your interest, please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Bob
Robert IN. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA
Town Manager, Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867
townmanoaer @ci.readinq.ma. us
(P) 781- 942 -9043;
(F) 781- 942 -9037
www.readingrnna.gov
Town Hall Hours:
Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m.;Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.; Friday: CLOSED
From: GEORGE KACHEN [mailto•gkachenC & icloud.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 8:49 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Cc: George Kachen; George Kachen (GKE)
Subject: Meetings to Discuss the Override
Greetings,
I just completed your survey. I would appreciate receiving a list of upcoming meetings when you will be discussing
the override. I am supportive, but would like to participate in the strategic planning for a win.
Thanks
George
0
LeLacheur, Bob
From: LeLacheur, Bob
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 9:35 AM
To: 'mbmrhodes @verizon.net'
Subject: RE: Oak street construction project
Hi Kevin,
I am not familiar with your discussion with the MWRA about your lawn sprinklers. When did you last speak to them about it?
As to the project and communication as a broad topic, I am aware of two 'meetings' concerning this project:
1) About twenty residents from Oak Street attended a Board of Selectmen meeting 2 or 3 months ago and were
concerned about the sidewalks — were you at this meeting? As you probably know this project is being run by
the state so we have limited influence, but we did put our full $75,000 annual allocation for sidewalks into the
Oak Street project. Especially near Joshua Eaton, things seem to have worked out very well. I'm surprised to
hear your comments about the sidewalks, I have heard back from the majority that went to that meeting
either directly or through staff and they are quite satisfied? Everywhere there was granite curbing it was
replaced, that was the only thing resembling a promise anyone from the state would have made.
2) At some point there was a meeting that our staff helped co- ordinate at one resident's home or garage? I was
not there, but that is the only other meeting that I am aware of. I suppose it is possible that the state may
have done something, but I'm fairly sure I would have been notified.
In terms of ongoing work, by mid - September the foaming & seeding should be complete. As I understand it that leaves some
road repairs to be made where puddling has happened after heavy rain. I will assume these items get wrapped up in the next
few weeks, and at that point we will ask the state for any outstanding items. Certainly if you have any comments I am happy to
put you in touch with the state, or I'm happy to direct your comments to them at any time.
Thanks,
:M
Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA
Town Manager, Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867
town monager @ci.reading.ma. us
(P) 781- 942-9043;
(F) 781- 942 -9037
www.reodinamo.o0v
Town Hall Hours:
Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m.;Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.; Friday: CLOSED
From: mbmrhodes@verizon.net [mailto• mbmrhodes verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 7:33 PM
'SJ
LeLacheur, Bob
From: Ibrahim AI- Qamari <algamari @gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:35 AM
To: LeLacheur, Bob
Subject: Re: [POSSIBLY SPAM] MWRA Construction on Oak Street
Hi Bob,
Thank you for the quick and comprehensive response and for the offer to pass along comments.
As an aside, I was wondering if the Town ever considers speed humps or other traffic calming measures (other than
stops signs and lights)?
Best Regards,
Ibrahim
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:32 PM, LeLacheur, Bob <blelacheura ci.reading ma.us> wrote:
Hi Ibrahim,
I am aware of two 'meetings' concerning this project. About twenty residents from Oak Street attended a Board of Selectmen
meeting 2 or 3 months ago and were concerned about the sidewalks. As you probably know this project is being run by the state
so we have limited influence, but we did put our full $75,000 annual allocation for sidewalks into that part of the Oak Street
project and made sure the results were satisfactory. Especially near Joshua Eaton, things seem to have worked out very well.
At some point there was a meeting that our staff helped co- ordinate at one resident's home or garage? I was not there, but that
is the only other meeting that I am aware of. I suppose it is possible that the state may have done something, but I'm fairly sure I
would have been notified.
By mid- September the foaming & seeding should be complete. As I understand it that leaves some road repairs to be made
where puddling has happened after heavy rain. I will assume these items get wrapped up in the next few weeks, and at that
point we will ask the state for any outstanding items. Certainly if you have any comments I am happy to put you in touch with
the state, or I'm happy to direct your comments to them at any time.
Thanks,
:•.
55
I look forward to your positive reply.
Best Regards,
Ibrahim
630.890.9654
3
• Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 6:34 PM
• To: LeLacheur, Bob
• Subject: Unfinished work
• Hi there,
• I live at 29 Oak Street and I'm curious as to when the backfilling of the trenches left by the town's contractors will commence. I
have contacted the engineering department but have received no reply. As you can see from the attached photos taken from in
front of my property, there has been a significant trip hazard created by the unfilled trenches, and tomorrow there will be
dozens of children walking past my house on their way to school. So I was simply wondering when the town planned on finishing
the work on Oak Street. Any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated.
> Thank you,
> Ted Martin
Mr. Percival,
We are property owners at 51 Oak Street. I am looking for an update on the timeline of tree lawn replacements
on Oak Street. Many neighbors and I have had conversations about the process of the tree lawn
"reconstruction" and several questions have come up regarding the process. Our property is on the odd side of
the street that did not have curbing or sidewalks installed. The installation of the berm widened my tree lawn
by nearly 1 foot.. In addition, the existing tree lawn was damaged by the construction process. How will the tree
lawns on the odd side of the street be restored? What type of loam will be used? When National Grid dug up
my front lawn 2 springs ago, they filled the hole with coarse fill dirt with no thought of growing grass. Will that
also be restored? Any information you can provide would be appreciated.
Regards,
Julie and Dana Spinuzzi
51 Oak Street
Bob we were waiting for Ryan to return form vacation. Upon my return from one week vacation there is now a white
line area painted in front of my driveway as well as a white line in a circle painted near my new BEAUTIFUL VENT
in my front yard.
> The soil around the vent that has yellow dead grass around it became that way because under the surface near the
vent Albanese filled it in with rock, clay and hard construction dirt instead of using soil. There is also a concern about
what are they planning on putting between our new ugly berm and our front yards.
> I am also wondering what is going on with my driveway.
> The problem is gentleman ........ NOBODY ASKS US ? ? ? ??
> They don't tell a sole what is going on so I ask once again. It is time for a meeting with you three as well as all
construction personnel as well as any concerned neighbors to get things cleared up.
> Please advise me of a solution.
> Regards
> Ed
*I
Sincerely
Ed Thomas
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:37 AM, ed thomas <edthomasOl gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Ryan
Thank you for the reply . I was told this information by Alejandro. You did not answer my question about the vent area
in front of my house that was filled with construction waste and you did not mention when our next "promised "
meeting would be ?
Would it be more convenient if I rented a bus and brought the residents of the street to your office or Bobs ?
On Aug 22, 2017, at 8:45 AM, Percival, Ryan <rpercival0aci.reading.ma.us> wrote:
Good morning Ed,
The MWRA and its contractor will loam and seed all disturbed areas as part of their work. This includes the area
located on the edge of the road between the existing lawns and edge of travel way. The loaming and seeding
will occur during the more suitable planting season which begins in a couple weeks. The contractor and the
MWRA are very aware that in some areas gravel fill will have to be scratched out to provide a proper thickness
of loam.
As for the puddling areas, the contractor is surveying the puddles to determine the correct course of action to
mitigate the issues.
Thank you,
Ryan Percival, P.E.
Town Engineer
Town of Reading, Engineering Division
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01844
Phone: 781 - 942 -6690
From: ed thomas [mailto•edthomas0lCaDgmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 8:14 PM
CWE))
LeLacheur, Bob
From: ed thomas <edthomas0l @gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 9:37 AM
To: Percival, Ryan
Cc: LeLacheur, Bob; Zager, Jeff
Subject: Re: MWRA
Hello Ryan
Thank you for the reply. I was told this information by Alejandro. You did not answer my question about the vent area
in front of my house that was filled with construction waste and you did not mention when our next "promised "
meeting would be ?
Would it be more convenient if I rented a bus and brought the residents of the street to your office or Bobs?
Ed
On Aug 22, 2017, at 8:45 AM, Percival, Ryan <rpercivalgci.reading ma.us> wrote:
Good morning Ed,
The MWRA and its contractor will loam and seed all disturbed areas as part of their work. This includes the area
located on the edge of the road between the existing lawns and edge of travel way. The foaming and seeding
will occur during the more suitable planting season which begins in a couple weeks. The contractor and the
MWRA are very aware that in some areas gravel fill will have to be scratched out to provide a proper thickness
of loam.
As for the puddling areas, the contractor is surveying the puddles to determine the correct course of action to
mitigate the issues
Thank you,
Ryan Percival, P.E.
Town Engineer
Town of Reading, Engineering Division
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01844
Phone: 781 - 942 -6690
From: ed thomas [mailto:edthomas0l @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 8:14 PM
To: Percival, Ryan; LeLacheur, Bob; Zager, Jeff
Subject: MWRA
Hello Ryan,
I spoke with Alejandro from the MWRA about all the painted areas around Oak St. As Bob explained to
me some of it refers to the puddling problems that we are having with the new asphalt. Alejandro very
patiently explained the possible fixes of the area. I have mentioned many times about the soil "fill"
situation. As I mentioned to Bob and to Alehandro the fill used to cover the hideous vent in my front
LeLacheur, Bob
From: ed thomas <edthomas0l @gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 7:35 PM
To: LeLacheur, Bob
Cc: Percival, Ryan; Zager, Jeff
Subject: Re: Oak st
Hi Bob
Thanks for the reply . Nobody wants to answer who is going to remove the construction garbage that they buried near my vent
and what are the using to fill and clean up near our yards?
There is lots of puddling but also many neighbors complaining about uneven drive ways ?
No comments a about that ?
Ed
> On Aug 20, 2017, at 7:27 PM, LeLacheur, Bob <blelacheur @ci. read ing.ma.us> wrote:
> Hi Ed,
> Puddling in a few- locations on Oak Street were noticed and marked for repair, I expect that is the lines you see.
> Once that repair is done, we will plan to chat to see what other issues remain.
> Thanks,
> Bob
> From: ed thomas fedthomas0l @gmail.comj
> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 7:05 PM
> To: LeLacheur, Bob; Percival, Ryan; Zager, Jeff
> Subject: Oak st
> Hello Bob, Ryan and Jeff
> We are still having many unanswered questions about the MWRA project on Oak St. Per my last conversation with Bob we
were waiting for Ryan to return form vacation. Upon my return from one week vacation there is now a white line area painted in
front of my driveway as well as a white line in a circle painted near my new BEAUTIFUL VENT in my front yard.
> The soil around the vent that has yellow dead grass around it became that way because under the surface near the vent
Albanese filled it in with rock, clay and hard construction dirt instead of using soil. There is also a concern about what are they
planning on putting between our new ugly berm and our front yards.
• I am also wondering what is going on with my driveway.
• The problem is gentleman ........ NOBODY ASKS US ? ? ? ??
• They don't tell a sole what is going on so I ask once again. It is time for a meeting with you three as well as all construction
personnel as well as any concerned neighbors to get things cleared up.
> Please advise me of a solution.
• Regards
• Ed
q
• From: LeLacheur, Bob
• Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 9:23 PM
• To: ed thomas
• Subject: RE: Oak St
> Hi Ed,
> I am familiar with many of the issues on Oak Street but certainly don't pretend to know every detail. Further conversation will
require our Town Engineer Ryan Percival. I believe he is away for about ten days and I will meet with DPW Director Jeff Zager
tomorrow to verfiy, and then circle back to you with those facts.
> I was at the meeting briefly with neighbors at the Selectmen's office hours a couple of months ago, a meeting led by Ben
Tafoya (from the portion I observed). It would be helpful for my background to understand if you were at that meeting as we
move forward?
• Thanks,
• Bob
• From: ed thomas [edthomas0l @gmail.com]
• Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 9:15 PM
• To: LeLacheur, Bob
> Subject: Oak St
> Hello Bob,
> My name is Ed Thomas, I live at 99 Oak St. My reason for writing you is because of the construction project that has occurred
on my street. I would like to clarify that this is not just my personal thoughts on the project, I have been the neighborhood
contact through the whole project and I speak for us all. This will be a long email so please read it slowly and carefully and please
pay attention to what is on our mind. We are Reading residents and we pay taxes for this town and we pay your salary so we
deserve to be heard.
> Coming home from work tonight seemed to be the icing on the cake for this project. From the beginning of this project, we
were told that during the completion of the project, our neighborhood would be "upgraded" to todays standards. This has not
occurred. As residents, we did not ask for a 36 inch pipe to be put down our street, we did not ask for 2 years of neighborhood
disruption, we did not ask to be insulted by our town by lack of involvement and we did not ask to be insulted by town
employees. To date this is what has occurred.
> This street has been put through hell, to put it mildly, and to date we feel that you and the town have completely let us down.
> I would like to highlight a few things that occurred during this project. We had personal walkways leading to our houses
disrupted which are now out of balance. One of our neighbors' oven broke due to their house shaking. There were wires left
hanging from trees for months, pictures fell off peoples walls, people who work from home could not do that because houses
were shaking. Our children's walk to school was dangerous at times and disruptive to leaving our houses.
LeLacheur, Bob
From: Ed <edthomas0l @gmaii.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 9:53 PM
To: LeLacheur, Bob
Subject: Re: Oak St
Hi Bob,
I have no knowledge of a meeting involving Ben Tafoya?
Our meeting involved Oak St residents, WWRA representatives, Albanese Const management, Ryan Perceval, David Savio
Reading Police. At that time the residents reminded Ryan what the town promised.
Perhaps we should clarify all issues and hold a meeting with the Selectmen, Ben, Jeff, Albanese, MWRA, Officer Savio yourself
and all of the Oak St residents.
I am quite sure we would love to hear all of your thoughts and you will then know where we stand.
Thanks
Ed
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 9:23 PM, LeLacheur, Bob <blelacheur @ci. read ing.ma.us> wrote:
>HiEd,
> I am familiar with many of the issues on Oak Street but certainly don't pretend to know every detail. Further conversation will
require our Town Engineer Ryan Percival. I believe he is away for about ten days and I will meet with DPW Director Jeff Zager
tomorrow to verfiy, and then circle back to you with those facts.
> I was at the meeting briefly with neighbors at the Selectmen's office hours a couple of months ago, a meeting led by Ben
Tafoya (from the portion I observed). It would be helpful for my background to understand if you were at that meeting as we
move forward?
• Thanks,
• Bob
• From: ed thomas [edthomas0l @gmail.comj
• Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 9:15 PM
• To: LeLacheur, Bob
• Subject: Oak St
> Hello Bob,
> My name is Ed Thomas, I live at 99 Oak St. My reason for writing you is because of the construction project that has occurred
on my street. I would like to clarify that this is not just my personal thoughts on the project, I have been the neighborhood
contact through the whole project and I speak for us all. This will be a long email so please read it slowly and carefully and please
pay attention to what is on our mind. We are Reading residents and we pay taxes for this town and we pay your salary so we
deserve to be heard.
> Coming home from work tonight seemed to be the icing on the cake for this project. From the beginning of this project, we
were told that during the completion of the project, our neighborhood would be "upgraded" to todays standards. This has not
A*
SEPTEMBER • READING CLERGY COUNCIL
Prayers for those residents we have lost and for those living in recovery - Old South Methodist and
First Congregational Church crafting 'Project Linus blankets' - Anti - Stigma Promotion
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 • 7pm ® READING TOWN HALL
Board of Selectman ® Recovery Proclamation
SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 10, 2017 ® 12 -5pm ® DOWNTOWN READING
Fall St. Faire ® Visit our RCASA booth
MONDAY SEPTEMBER 18, 2017 ® 1 2pm ® READING PUBLIC SCHOOLS
RCASA Visits Reading Rotary
WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 ® 7:30 -9am ® FUSION RESTAURANT
Substance Abuse and the Workplace
RCASA & Reading /North Reading Chamber of Commerce, $15ea
FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 22 AND SATURDAY 23, 2017 ® FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH
Church Annual Faire & RCASA Blanket- making
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 • 6- 7:30pm ® READING MEMORIAL HIGH MAIN ENTRANCE
Regional Candlelight Vigil & Recovery Celebration by Mystic Valley Public Health Coalition
representing Medford, Malden, Melrose, Reading, Stoneham, Wakefield and Winchester
THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 • 7 -9pm ® READING MEMORIAL HIGH AUDITORIUM
1 1 th Annual RCASA Meeting featuring Middlesex District Attorney Marian Ryan & Dr. Ruth Potee
she was not sure if the Board's schedules were of public interest or controversial. Docktor
stated she was beinq very careful to make sure the BOH follows all of the regulations.
Costigan made a motion to go into executive session to discuss scheduling. Shurland
seconded the motion. Ensminger stated the motion has to stipulate the reason for
executive session; that being the qualifying reason 1 through 10. Docktor stated although
the reason pertains to #1, they were not discussing item #1; they were meeting for the
sole purpose to discuss scheduling. Meeting was adjourned at 5:50 pm for executive session
and Costigan directed the Board would return afterwards to open session.
At 5:57 pm the meeting reconvened to open session. The second issue addressed was
regarding the health agent appointment. According to Jean Delios at the last meeting the
board was told that they were not allowed to appoint the health agent temporarily; the town
does not allow that. Costigan asked if she had the authority to tell ;the board that. Docktor
was unable to find anything in the charter about that. According to suggestion from Sbarra
and in an email received on July 18' from Town Counsel, it basically said the charter
dictates all personnel issues are handled by the town manager-;,,.,'
anager, ' e town manager can hire
or not hire. The Board cannot hire; they can only appoint`and authorize.
It was the suggestion of Sbarra the Board may temporarily appoint the health agent until
which time the Human Resources Department (HR) conciudes its investigation. The
problem with that was according to Donna Pierce, no one from the town, town counsel or
HR had contacted her regarding the letter that was shared with HR and the Town on June
18th. As a Board, they must direct the town to open an investigation into the public health
nurse's allegations and concerns. Shurland asked for,clarification about which letter was
being referred to. it was an email the public health nurse sent to Shurland, which was then
forwarded to board members. Costigan then shared the ernail with Ensminger seeking an
opinion and asking if the town had instituted- any procedures., Shurland questioned that
Pierce had not reached out directly to the town. Docktor stated the town needs to reach out
to Pierce directly. Costigan asked why the town would have an issue if nothing was brought
to them. Docktor could only state from tier experience wo1:rking with battered women, child
abuse and eider abuse, that when you have: allegations, you must investigate. Costigan
asked if she was saying that the letter he sent to the town liaison was sufficient for
investigation. She stated it was and also was according to the Director of Policy and Law;
in fact directs the town and said she assumes that this was being done. Whether it is the
BOH, the manager through Human Resources or someone else, it needs to be followed up.
As a board, they may direct the town to follow upon the concerns of the public health
nurse. Docktor. stated this would be away of clearing a lot up.
Costigan stated he had brought that up with the Town Manager and it was the opinion of
the Town Manager there was nothing, ,in the letter that was of substance to start an
investigation. Docktor replied there as enough substance that two lawyers have weighed
in very differently from the town manager. She stated it would be nice to clear the air and
move forward as this was holding up a lot of what the board would like to do. It would be
good to move forward and -let them do what they do; it was not the purview of the Board,
but they could direct them to follow up on those concerns. Costigan said he would restate
their case.
Shurland asked what the process was for the board to request an investigation and what if
the request was refused. Costigan responded that he thought it had already been decided
that there was no cause for an investigation. Docktor said as a Board they could make a
simple request to the town; the email from Cheryl Sbarra could be shared with town counsel
and the town manager. Sbarra had stated it was an issue for town counsel.
Docktor stated the letter shared by Costigan from Town Counsel was given to a lawyer to
reduce the legalese for her in terms of what it said. It basically said the Board could vote
not to delegate; they did not have to appoint. They could appoint anyone to give them the
health reports temporarily, whether it was Bob Bracey, who technically is still the Health
Agent. If he is not on the town payroll, the town inspector John Fralick could be temporarily
Page 13
Cheryl Sbarra <sbarra(&tuP,law.com>
john P(wvrs
Message body
First, this is really an issue for town counsel. I can only provide legal education. I
briefly reviewed Reading's Town Charter and it looks like most personnel issues
are handled by the Town Manager. I think there are 2 options here. First, the
BOH could vote to go into Executive Session "to consider the discipline or
dismissal of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against a public officer,
employee, staff member, or individual, provided that the individual involved in
the executive session has been notified in writing by the board at least forty -eight
hours prior to the proposed executive session. Notification can be waived by
agreement of the parties. An open meeting must be held if the individual
involved requests that the meeting be open. If an executive session is held,the
individual has the right to be present, to speak on his own behalf and to have
counsel or another representative present for the purpose of advising said
individual by not to actively participate in the executive session." (G.L. ch. 39, sec.
23A et se g.)
Second, the Board could vote to appoint the health agent temporarily until such
time that the HR department concludes it's investigation. You could do both of
these things at the next meeting.
I am assuming that the town has a protocol in place for handling these type of
employee issues and that a system is in place that documents these types of
complaints. Whether it's the Board of Health of the Town Manager through HR,
someone needs to follow up on nurse's complaint I would think; but again, this is
an issue for town counsel.
I hope this helps.
Cheryl
q_
a
a
v
_a _
N
a �{
id y N C
m
w
f�1
a o
'� �'o m o
r
4 g
+.,
� o
Q a m d q
N
N.� € C f0
coOV
m m
CCa°i
Cam. p�NUJ
to
�• E
m
�a,oas�E at
v o
w moo
E
m •o »s »°� o
.00LZE�G S
CL C
+r7 7 C
C: tG
O R O
fy �7 w `.--
m V o
cc
a
� C N �` OOj C
~
aoro
d N
y
mn
fU
+� O Ow
1 O
H•� i`OS� S�
• � 3 a C
C7 ' o �
.q � 'O '= Q O �
m
� ti � ��❑
v a = :5 X, -C
O
�, N .�
e
•a3a ,m
� 0 (D
tU
�. o w • y°
C
O
a d� d
c oe �3
� 'it
O G) p O
r =may NaC G4
N
0
6i r� c D
Oe S 7
Co y h
,-
f�'�?
i. 8 Oi .2 l:. •Qi
n I
unmFO
v>
CO
-� roc
OZ