Attached are the 6 instructional motions currently filed for April Town Meeting. Instructional motions are typically held for the final night of Town Meeting which potentially could be this evening, depending on how long the continued pickleball debate goes. Instructional motions are non binding.
Instructional Motion Number: 25-01
Instruction to: Bylaw Committee
By Nancy Docktor of Precinct 1
Do hereby move that; as per section 2.12.2 of the Reading Town Charter that the Bylaw Committee study, review, and submit their findings to Reading Town Meeting regarding changing Board of Health positions from appointments made by VASC, a subcommittee of the Reading Select Board, to elected positions. This would be similiar to elections for Select Board, RMLD, School Committee, Library Board, and Moderator.
Electing, rather than appointing, Board of Health members would ensure both accountability to the population they serve and independence from interference by other elected officials.
Instructional Motion Number: 25-02
Instruction to: Town Manager
By Eric Gaffen of Precinct 4
Do hereby move that; Request that the town manager and staff (inclusive of schools) identify and create a sustainable funding mechanism for expanding adaptive programming using existing town funds & future donations from the Burbank Ice Authority. Separately, please investigate how existing funds currently with the town can be allocated for additional recreational programming and facilities which may include additional adaptive programming.
Instructional Motion Number: 25-03
Instruction to: Select Board
By John Sasso of Precinct 2
Do hereby move that; In the event the Town approves (by vote of Town Meeting and then its citizens) to fund the Reading Center for Active Living (ReCAL), that t he Select Board initiate the process to market and sell the Pleasant Street Center (PSC) upon completion of the ReCAL construction and use the funds from that sale to pay down the remaining debt exclusion cost. The parking lot associated with the PSC should remain/become a municipal lot.
Instructional Motion Number: 25-04
Instruction to: Select Board, Town Accountant and Finance Committee
By John Sasso of Precinct 2
The above named boards, committees and town staff identify and allocate $500,000 annually from within the levy budget to apply toward the cost of either the Killam School or the Reading Center for Active Living projects (depending on whether one or both projects are approved by the voters) to pay down the excluded debt cost thereby reducing the length and interest cost of these project fundings.
Instructional Motion Number: 25-05
Instruction to: Office of Town Manager, Select Board
By Angela Binda of Precinct 5
Do hereby move that; the Town Manager report to the body of Town Meeting at the November / Subsequent Town Meeting, 2025, the actual costs (including all associated costs, estimate of staff costs) of the traffic kiosks no longer in use, and the total of any monies collected.
Town Meeting, after having discussed the matter for an hour and twenty minutes, approved $110K for parking kiosk, at Select Board request, with the understanding that the cost would be recouped after a couple of years of use. The Select Board discontinued their use after a short trial period, as they were able to do. I am requesting only an account of money spent for machines and any collected.
Instructional Motion Number: 25-06
Instruction to: Select Board
By Steven Cool of Precinct 6
Subject: Report on Seized Property and Excess Proceeds from Property Dispositions, and
Reimbursement to Affected Parties
- Within 60 days the Town of Reading shall determine and publicly report all instances, dating back 20 years, in which the Town has seized property for unpaid taxes or for any other reason, disposed of it in any manner (whether by sale or otherwise), and received funds or any other form of good value exceeding the taxes and/or other monies owed.
- The report shall detail any instances where the Town has retained such property or otherwise benefited in any manner exceeding the amounts owed, such as by utilizing it for Town purposes or redistributing it in any other form.
- The Town shall make appropriate restitution within 90 days of identifying any such case and identifying any excess, ensure that all individuals who have suffered from such practices are fairly compensated, and ensure that the practice of retaining such excess monies or value is stopped and does not occur in the future.
- In two particular outstanding cases, the Town shall drop its appeal in Mr. Peter Davenport’s case and make restitution to Mr. Davenport and Mr. Mark Milley by May 31, 2025.
Background:
Recent reports have suggested that the Town of Reading has engaged in a practice known as “equity theft.” Equity theft is most often when a governmental entity, often municipal, like Reading, seizes a property for unpaid taxes or other obligations, sells it, and retains the proceeds exceeding the amount owed, rather than returning the surplus funds to the original property owner. It may also be when the government somehow disposes or makes other use of the property without paying the former owner the difference between the property’s fair market value and the amount owed.
Recent cases of this include a house seized from the estate of the father of Reading resident Mark Milley and sold for more than $300,000 in excess of the amount of taxes owed. The Town kept the excess, and when Mark became aware of the seizure and sale, the Town refused to turn over the excess money to him.
Similarly, the case of Peter Davenport, a disabled individual who was evicted and homeless, living in his van for months, illustrates the devastating consequences of such actions. Peter’s property was sold following the sudden death of his wife, having been “taken” for taxes years ago, which is the process by which a town forecloses.
The problem is not that the Town sold Mark’s and Peter’s properties to pay taxes, which it is entitled to do, but the problem is that it kept the excess, in violation of the US Constitution.
Further, in addition to the Town refusing to return the excess monies to each man, the Town says it is entitled to charge them rent for the period in which they occupied the houses, which would reduce the amount of any excess due to each and add to the unfairness and pain of the whole ordeal for both.
It isn’t clear what notice Mark received (his father’s estate was never probated until after the house was sold), and Peter’s disability makes it difficult for him to read and understand such a notice. In any case, neither man had the ability to come up with the well over $100,000 in taxes that would have been necessary to stop each sale.
Mark and Peter are entitled to receive the excess proceeds withheld by the Town. In Peter’s case the Federal Court ruled that the Town must repay him $219,453.52, but the Town has appealed and the arguments in the US Court of Appeals are scheduled for May 8th. In Mark’s case, the amount is estimated at over $300,000, but both parties have agreed to stay the case until the Appeals Court decides the Davenport appeal.
The judge in Peter’s case said that he won based on a recent similar case before the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision. The Supreme Court applied the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to the Minnesota case and found that it guarantees due process of law before a person can be deprived of their property, and mandates “just compensation” when private property is taken for public use. The fifth amendment to the US Constitution requires due process before a person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, and includes a “just compensation” clause requiring the government to pay for private property taken for public use.
