The primary focus of the meeting was the deliberation over the town’s tax classification system, particularly the residential factor and its impact on fiscal year 2026. The board engaged in a nuanced debate about whether to adjust the split tax rate, which influences how the tax burden is distributed between residential and commercial properties. One board member emphasized fairness in the distribution. This proposal was met with varying opinions, as some members urged for a gradual approach to avoid overwhelming small businesses, which already face financial pressures.

Another board member cautioned against significant tax increases for commercial properties, noting that Reading has a limited number of such properties, many of which are small businesses valued under two million dollars. The member argued that even minor increases could impose substantial financial burdens on these businesses, particularly in comparison to neighboring towns with larger commercial tax bases. The conversation revealed a divide among board members, with some advocating for incremental changes to reach a longer-term goal of a 1.2 tax split, while others proposed maintaining a more moderate increase to balance the needs of both residents and businesses.

Concerns were also raised about the potential impact of debt exclusions related to upcoming school and recreational center projects, which would soon be reflected in tax bills. The board acknowledged the importance of supporting local businesses, particularly sole proprietors, who contribute to the community but may not directly benefit from municipal services.

Equally pressing was the ongoing issue with the MBTA turnback track project. The board discussed the need to submit a letter to Secretary Ang, urging the MBTA to reconsider alternative sites for the project. Concerns were raised about the environmental implications of allowing diesel trains to idle in Reading, with members advocating for more sustainable options. The conversation underscored the necessity of a collaborative relationship with the MBTA to ensure that transportation developments align with the community’s health and wellbeing.

Public comments echoed these concerns, with residents emphasizing the importance of fostering a collective conversation about the project’s impact. One resident proposed changing language in the letter to reflect a broader discussion of alternative sites, while another highlighted the need for swift action to rescind the Notice of Intent concerning the project. The board agreed to incorporate changes that would reflect the community’s collective stance and concerns.

Beyond these major topics, the meeting also touched on the future of the Pleasant Street Center, with discussions about whether to sell or lease the property. The board acknowledged the need for further analysis and community engagement to determine the best course of action, considering both financial and community-centric uses for the property. Plans for a community survey were outlined, with findings expected to be reported in early next year.

The Select Board also addressed procedural matters, such as brunch hours and alcohol service regulations, emphasizing the importance of aligning local policies with state laws. Additionally, the meeting featured updates from various community events and initiatives.