The primary focus of the meeting was the fiscal year 2026 tax classification hearing, where the board discussed the minimum residential factor (MRF) and the implications of property tax shifts, particularly in relation to the senior tax relief program. The board explored options such as an open space discount and small commercial exemptions, ultimately emphasizing the importance of balancing tax burdens across different property classes. The senior circuit breaker program was highlighted, revealing that out of 217 applications, 203 seniors qualified for benefits, amounting to just over $416,000 in relief. The program leads to a slight increase in residential tax rates, raising the average tax bill by about $47 to support senior citizens. The board acknowledged the need for accurate property valuations to ensure fairness and discussed potential relief measures for residential taxpayers amid concerns over operational overrides.

The board also considered the commercial property landscape, where the average valuation was just over $2 million. Discussions touched on the potential impact of tax shifts on small businesses, noting that Reading’s commercial tax base comprises only 6.2% of the overall tax base. Members stressed the importance of caution in adjusting the split between residential and commercial rates, given the sensitivity to small business needs. The dialogue illustrated the challenges of tax policy, balancing community support with equitable taxation, and the necessity of gradual adjustments to prevent undue burden on any particular group.

In another significant agenda item, the board examined the feasibility of implementing a valet parking service for local restaurants, specifically for Friday and Saturday nights. This proposal aimed to assist businesses in enhancing customer service while managing parking demands. The board expressed varying opinions on the initiative, with some members supporting the potential revenue generation and service benefits, while others cautioned against the complexities and potential strain on municipal resources. The necessity for input from town staff, including police and fire departments, was emphasized to ensure successful implementation. A motion was made to instruct the town manager to explore the valet parking license agreements further.

Social media policy was another focal point, as the board discussed amendments to their communication policy, particularly regarding cell phone usage and social media engagement. The conversation revealed tensions between maintaining professional conduct and allowing personal expression. Members debated the implications of discussing board matters on social media, concerns over violating open meeting laws, and the balance between personal rights and public responsibilities. The evolving legal landscape regarding social media use added complexity to the discussion, leading to a consensus on the need for further refinement of the policy to protect board members’ rights while ensuring transparency and accountability.

The meeting also featured a detailed review of public comments and the board’s conduct on social media. Board members expressed differing views on engagement with residents online, with some advocating for open communication and others emphasizing caution to avoid potential conflicts. The proposed social media policy aimed to clarify expectations, though it faced criticism for potentially infringing on personal rights. The board acknowledged the need for a comprehensive approach to address these issues, recognizing the challenges of navigating public discourse in the digital age.

Additionally, the board addressed various other topics, including the renewal of senior property tax exemption legislation, the development of a commission on disabilities, and the allocation of unspent funds from capital projects.