The meeting opened with public comments addressing various concerns, including an exemption request under Massachusetts General Law 268A Section 19 for Mr. Mangelo due to potential conflicts of interest. Tony, a concerned citizen, highlighted issues surrounding Mangelo’s appointment and its implications for a development project on Main Street. He argued that Mangelo’s unique opportunity to meet the board raised questions about process integrity and suggested that the matter be referred to the state ethics commission to avoid potential conflicts that could hinder the town’s obligations under the MBTA Communities Act. Nancy echoed these concerns, questioning why an exception should be made for Mangelo when it is not typically afforded to other volunteers. She urged the board to consider the legal ramifications carefully.

The board further discussed ongoing projects, including the Kilum School Building Committee’s decision to advance with option B1 for the new Kilum School design, involving a three-story building with twelve classrooms. This expansion aims to address classroom shortages at Reading Memorial High School and is projected to cost approximately $135 million. Discussions about specific building features, such as geothermal options, are ongoing.

Ethical considerations also dominated discussions related to the Kilum project. One board member noted their exemption from certain activities due to their role on the committee, raising questions about how elected and appointed officials interact with the building committee framework.

In a update, the board covered the progress of the Reading Center for Active Living. The permanent building committee has been tasked with hiring an owner’s project manager, with three candidates set to be interviewed following a recent RFQ. The aim is to finalize hiring by late September to incorporate the selected project manager’s input moving forward. The board members expressed appreciation for the contributions from various stakeholders over the years, highlighting the significant time and effort invested in planning and executing these community projects.

The board also discussed the recent MMA presentation on the Inflation Reduction Act, which offers municipalities a chance to secure funding for geothermal installations and energy-efficient upgrades. Reading could potentially receive 30% of costs back for buildings designed with significant geothermal energy, along with other incentives that could be leveraged over the next decade.

Another topic of concern was the potential allocation of profits from Burbank for the Recreation Committee. One member supported the idea of using these funds for programming or facility improvements, particularly for adaptive sports, which face funding challenges. This proposal would require revisiting the existing lease or contract related to the ice arena.

The meeting continued with a focus on the implementation of secondary water meters primarily for irrigation purposes and the potential impact on sewer rates. A proposal was presented to introduce secondary meters to measure water usage for outdoor irrigation, allowing residents to avoid sewer charges on that water. However, concerns were raised about the necessity of increasing the sewer rate townwide to compensate for the lost revenue from those not being charged sewer fees for their irrigation usage. The overall amount of sewage leaving the town would remain unchanged, necessitating adjustments elsewhere to cover the financial shortfall.

Waste management and recycling services were also discussed, with a focus on transitioning to automated collection systems. The board examined various proposals from Republic Services, including options for manual and automated collection methods. Concerns were voiced about potential complications arising from the introduction of varying cart sizes, particularly if many individuals requested changes after the new system was implemented. Dan Higgins from Republic Services outlined the company’s rationale for moving away from manual collection methods due to safety concerns, noting that automated systems could alleviate many operational challenges.

The conversation touched on the impact of changing the town meeting date and the implications for voter turnout. Members debated the motivations behind moving the election date, with suggestions ranging from February to May, considering potential conflicts with school vacations and other community activities.

The meeting also included a discussion about the feasibility study conducted by the vendor U bhna, focusing on three potential sites for a new community center. The study evaluated the existing Pleasant Street Center, a property on Oakland Road, and a piece of land adjacent to Range Road in the Simmons Way area. Recal, a committee involved in the project, recommended the Simmons Way site as the preferred option, a decision echoed by the Council on Aging.

Finally, the board discussed the operational budget and staffing needs for the proposed community center, emphasizing the importance of defining operational hours and community engagement moving forward. Concerns about the equity of water usage billing and the potential for a pilot program were also highlighted, with calls for fair treatment of all residents.