Below is a summarized version of night four of Town Meeting discussing only Instructional Motion number 3, organized by timestamps and speakers, focusing on key points raised during the discussion in Reading, Massachusetts. This summary condenses the discussion into major themes, speaker contributions, and decisions, avoiding excessive detail while retaining the essence of the conversation. Timestamps correspond to the video linked at the bottom.
🗓️ Town Meeting Summary
Date: November 20, 2025
Duration: ~1 hour 10 minutes
Format: In-person (RMHS Performing Arts Center)
Chair: Alan Foulds
Members Present: Town Meeting Members, Finance Committee, Town Manager, Superintendent
Main Topics: Instructional motion on capital project spending transparency
🔹 Opening & Announcements
🕒 8:28–8:48
- Quorum confirmed; pledge of allegiance recited.
- Meeting resumed from prior session to address unfinished business under Article 2.
🔹 Article 2 – Instructional Motion on Capital Project Spending
🕒 9:02–1:09:53
Background:
- Motion by Angela Binda (Precinct 5) instructs Finance Committee and town officials to explore a mechanism requiring additional approval for spending funds above bid cost on capital projects.
- Concern arose after Fieldhouse floor and bleacher project:
- Town Meeting approved $3M; bid came in at $2.683M.
- Remaining funds (~$300K) used for sports equipment (scoreboards, batting cages, dividers, backboards) without returning to Town Meeting.
Presentation Highlights:
- Binda argued that unused appropriated funds should be rescinded or reallocated with Town Meeting approval, not spent on items outside original scope.
- Shared slides from April 2024 warrant presentation showing project described only as “floor and bleachers.”
Discussion Highlights:
- Support for Motion:
- Multiple members cited trust and transparency concerns, especially with major building projects and potential override ahead.
- Examples of past issues (e.g., $200K for Health Department relocation never utilized).
- Calls for clearer warrant language and reporting when bids come in under budget.
- Opposing Views:
- Some argued spending was within project scope and avoided costly delays.
- Warned against “micromanaging” and noted savings from in-house project management (avoiding $400/hour external OPM fees).
- Town Manager & Superintendent Response:
- Acknowledged feedback; committed to more detailed presentations in future.
- Explained rationale: equipment considered part of fieldhouse improvements; bid savings created opportunity.
- Emphasized lessons learned and intent to improve transparency.
- Finance Committee Perspective:
- State law already restricts spending to scope approved by Town Meeting.
- Hard to draft rigid policy without limiting flexibility for unforeseen issues.
- Suggested focusing on clearer warrant language rather than procedural mandates.
Vote:
- Motion to end debate passed (94–9).
- Instructional motion carried by majority vote (non-binding).
🔹 Adjournment
🕒 1:09:59–1:10:06
- Motion to adjourn sine die carried unanimously.
✅ Key Outcomes
- Town Meeting approved instructional motion urging greater transparency in capital project spending when bids come in under budget.
- Town staff committed to clearer presentations and communication for future projects.
- No binding policy adopted; Finance Committee and officials to explore mechanisms for review and reporting.
