The Reading Post accepts Letters to the Editor. All letters must be signed. The Reading Post reserves the right to edit or not publish any letters received. Letters do not represent the views or opinions of the Post. editor@thereadingpost.com
Reading Select Board and members of the Community at large:
First, I just wanted to take a minute and thank all the volunteers that donate their time and efforts for the betterment of our town. It can be a thankless job, but it is appreciated. One thing that I endeavor to do when discussing an issue whether at Town Meeting or any other board or committee meeting, is to not only identify shortcomings or problems, but also share potential solutions or at least a process for getting to a solution. I hope this letter meets that objective.
I watched the Reading Select Board Meeting on Tuesday February 4 and read about the subsequent vote (on February 11) to recommend a final budget by the Reading Center for Active Living (ReCal) Permanent Building Committee (PBC). As many of you know, I was a member of the original ReCaL committee and prior to that the author of two instructional motions at Town Meeting advocating for action on meeting the needs of our Seniors. I continue to be an ardent supporter of ReCal. The presentation at the Select Board meeting did a nice job laying out the history and highlighting some of the important points as to why such a center is needed. With that in mind, I feel compelled to share my perspective on where this process has led and why I think the current proposal needs further scrutiny.
First, I want to remind the community (as I have done throughout this process) that Town Meeting authorized $40k to survey the community to better understand Senior needs and assess the community’s appetite for a Senior and/or Community Center. While some may disagree on its validity, I felt one of the more salient pieces of information from that survey was while there was a clear desire for such a center, only 23% of the respondents stated they would support such a project if it resulted in a $200/year or more increase in their taxes. In contrast to 31% that would only support it at no additional cost, 17% if less than $100/year increase, and 24% if less than $200/year. This survey was before the increases in inflation and solicited input without consideration of other competing needs to put it into context (such as the Killam School project). With the community struggling to stay on fiscally sound ground, more residents using the Food Pantry, and the additional cost increases beyond our taxes (tiered water rates, green community charge on our electric bills, pending trash fees, etc.), I believe keeping the ReCal debt exclusion closer to (or even less than) $20M should be our goal.
At the Feb 4 meeting, the Select Board expressed that the objective for overall ReCal project cost remain below $30M. I support this directive. Note this is not in conflict with my statement above, the project cost could be higher than the debt exclusion if the Town provided other funding means to address the difference (more on that later). The Select Board presentation (from the PBC) provided a cost estimate range, varying from $26.8M to $34.4M. At this past week’s ReCal PBC meeting (Feb 11), the group voted to recommend a final budget of $27.9M. This was based on updated cost estimates, decisions on a few specific project items, and included escalation and contingency funds. Even with that vote and information, I am still concerned that the project risks a “no” vote from the town and even if funded, risks cost overruns. I should remind the community that the Town has yet to deliver a capital project under budget. In fact, the experience has been quite the opposite, with projects needing to come back to the voters and/or town meeting for additional funding. While it might be that increases could be covered by free cash, drawing that balance down will only accelerate the need for an operational override (already being talked about by our Town Accountant).
I continue to be a supporter of ReCal and don’t want to see this project derailed. Even with the Killam project, I think the Town can manage multiple projects. The question is how to minimize the financial impact and bring the cost down closer to (if not below) $20M. Here are my recommendations:
- Reduce the size of ReCal: One of the large cost drivers is the physical building itself. When the original ReCal Committee handed the design off to the Recal PBC, we had a proposed design that was focused on meeting eight specific needs focused on our senior community (please see previous select board presentations). What I want to highlight is our initial design provided 10 program rooms (this included the Kitchen and Multipurpose room), with a total square footage of 9,800 sq ft. I recall at the time being challenged by a member of the COA saying what we presented was not enough. On Feb 4, the new center was presented with 9,200 sq ft of program space and a significant increase (from the Aug 2024 design) in office and conference room space for staff both in number (15 office/spaces to 19 office/space) and size. The size of the gym was also increased. To accomplish this, the overall building footprint grew from 26,300 sq ft. to 28,000 sq ft. Although I was unable to make an exact comparison of the overall office space (the presentation did not report those numbers), based on the increase building footprint (1,700 sq ft), the reduction in program space (600 sq ft), the increase in the gym (300 sq ft), and a cursory review of the plans, it appears that PBC ReCal effort grew the office space by somewhere between 1500 and 2000 sq ft. While ReCal wanted to provide the community with resources beyond the current Pleasant Street Center (PSC) to better meet Senior needs, and providing recreation and veterans “access/use” of the space was planned, there was never any intention (the original ReCal proposal did not include allowance for this in the design or our objectives) of trying to solve a Town Hall office problem nor moving Veterans Affairs, Recreation and Community Services staffing/offices to the new Center. My recommendation is to further reduce the overall project cost by reducing the size of ReCal. Reduce the office space components and return to a design aligned with the prior footprint and resource allocations. Many of our neighboring communities have built new centers and paired back their options to address community concerns over funding. We should be no different.
- Fund (part of) ReCal from within the Tax Levy: At least two new projects have been recently discussed that have price tags in the $5M range and were proposed to be funded by within the tax levy debt. I don’t see either of those projects being more important than ReCal, so if ReCal is truly a top community priority, why not contribute $5M of within the levy debt to this project.
- Sell the PSC: Many have discussed using the PSC for other functions. If we are serious about a new ReCal, then we should sell the PSC (keep the parking lot) and use the funds to offset the cost. If not, we are going to have to continue to fund operating costs of that building and potential renovations in the future.
What would the above recommendations result in? Reducing the size of ReCal (recommendation 1) and returning the design to align with the original objective and proposal would result in approximately $1.7M reduction in cost (assuming $1k per sq ft. cost). Coupled with allocating $5M of within the levy debt (recommendation 2) and committing to apply funds from the sale of the PBC (recommendation 3, let’s conservatively estimate $3M) would reduce the debt exclusion ask to $18.2M. This is a much more reasonable number while still satisfying most (if not all) of the critical community needs and further reducing the risk of cost over runs and schedule delays. It also sends a message to the community that the Town is respectful of the community and the current fiscal environment facing its’ residents.
Respectfully Submitted,
John Sasso
Richards Rd.
