Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-09-12 Finance Committee Minutes Finance Committee Meeting September 12, 2007 The meeting convened at 7:25 p.m. in the Conference Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Chairman Andrew Grimes, Finance Committee Massachusetts. Present were members David GreenfieldTom White, Hal Torman, Ron Powell and George , Hines. Also present were Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur, Town Accountant Gail LaPointe, DPW Director Ted McIntire, DPW Business Administrator Jane Kinsella, Superintendent of Schools Pat Schettini, HR & Finance Director of the Schools Mary DeLai, and School Committee member Elaine Webb. WSSWMAC Disbanding Peter Hechenbleikner discussed the recent disbanding of the Water, Sewer, Storm Water Management Advisory Committee (WSSWMAC), and some of the new responsibilities that FINCOM would pick up. These included three items that would be deferred until the new MUNIS implementation was completed (monthly billing, tiered rates, and shifting debt service to the general fund). Ted McIntire described the duties of the WSSW over a recent six-year period. FINCOM had no further questions. Fiscal 08 Budget Updates Bob LeLacheur provided an update showing $454,000 in additional operating expenses for the FY08 budget, to be offset by the additional $569,000 in state aid received. Peter Hechenbleikner pointed out that all of the state aid had to be formally used in the revised budget, or the tax levy of the Town would be decreased by the unused portion. The $454,000 figure included $240,000 in benefits costs (almost all is health insurance); $77,500 in vocational education costs, and $136,500 in other operating costs. In addition the School Committee voted to include $60,000 in school building capital costs and $15,000 in town building capital costs for consideration at the November Town Meeting. The Town provided additional funding for voting machines ($22,000) and an additional $20,228 to complete previous DPW capital items from last April. Some changes to the enterprise funds were also discussed, including the use of $200,000 in both water and sewer reserves to support the current FY08 budget, as well as a $6,212 shortfall in Storm Water capital funding. George Hines asked about the status with the GIC as a health insurance option, following up some discussion at a recent School Committee meeting. Peter Hechenbleikner outlined the timing, the possible changes to the GIC plan as it was out for the bid, as well as the process the Town would go through to examine the possible benefits of joining the GIC. Elaine Webb asked a clarifying question, and Peter stated that there was no current multi- year agreement with the current health insurance provider (BCBS through MIIA). David Greenfield asked if the RMHS handicap access request could be handled as part of the overall school project. Elaine Webb replied that it was a specific need for an existing student that went beyond ADA requirements. Pat Schettini agreed, stating that he would pursue both SBA reimbursement and circuit breaker reimbursement, but did not know if either would be available. Hal Torman inquired about location, Pat replied there would be two external and two internal doors, and that this would potentially help other students or members of the public. David Greenfield asked about the $50,000 DPW item – Ted replied that this was the highway equipment maintenance item that has been chronically under funded. Chair Andrew Grimes stated that this was the time to square up the current year’s budget – in light of the increased revenues. This would allow the budget process to roll forward without perpetuating some funding mismatches. School Committee member Chuck Robinson arrived at 7:50pm. Budget Process Discussion Pat Schettini highlighted the ‘budget process views’ of the School Committee by beginning with a very positive and much-improved process that needed some minor adjustments. He mentioned that it was a learning process for everyone in the first year. He requested that there be a clear definition from FINCOM as to what budgets to produce. He asked that there be the chance at the October Financial Forum to describe the different roles of the School Committee and the Board of Selectmen in the budget process. Elaine Webb described how the approach of level service was very helpful to the School Committee in fulfilling their role in the budget process. She explained that there was some confusion last year from the need for such a budget (as requested by the School Committee) coupled with the additional request from the FINCOM to produce a Baseline budget and a larger Recommended budget. Andrew Grimes said that the Baseline budget was helpful as a mechanical device to simply roll forward from the previous year. Once that exercise was complete, an effort to describe how that budget differed from one that would provide the same level of service as the previous year would be helpful. Presumably this would require more funding than was rolled forward. Finally he said a wish list budget was reasonable to produce. George Hines said the School Committee had mostly positive comments about the budget process from their recent meeting. He thought it would be helpful for both the School Committee and the Board of Selectmen to identify level service budgets, and to stockpile a list of unmet needs to describe to the community as a backdrop to future overrides. He said it was not helpful in the process to have unrealistic budgets produced, because it raised the expectations of budget participants and the community at large. Chuck Robinson asked that the concept of Community Priorities be discussed in October. This was not used last year, but it might be a helpful tool in the process next year. David Greenfield said he liked the concept of a mechanical baseline budget as a starting point, with a fixed % increase. George Hines said to the School Committee’s credit they did not abandon their District Improvement Plan when confronted with budget realities last year, but they did as mush as they could. He suggested that the Selectmen take the same approach and produce a Town Improvement Plan. Peter Hechenbleikner reminded the group that a baseline budget was the reality of what the Town could afford. He commented that the set-aside for capital was a good by- product of the process from last year. Mary DeLai asked that in October at the Financial Forum that the ‘rules of engagement’ be made very clear to all participants. Elaine Webb agreed that the School Committee had many positive comments about the process from last year. Bob LeLacheur asked about the differences between the format of budget process, and the format of what was voted and shown to Town meeting. He saw no easy way last year to show Town Meeting the process used, but would try this year if others desired. Hal Torman thought it would be best to have one format the whole way, but agreed that the formal voting might not align perfectly with the process used to allocate funds. Bob LeLacheur stated that Community Priorities was designed to cover large items – such as $50,000 or more. He asked if there should be a mechanism to allow for smaller exceptions to the mechanical baseline budget process. Chuck Robinson again asked that the whole concept be discussed in October. George added that a discussion of declining property values might be helpful to discuss both in October and November. FINCOM reviewed the minutes of the meeting on August 15, 2007. On motion by George Hines to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 15, 2007 seconded by David Greenfield, Fincom voted 6-0-0. The next FINCOM meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. On motion by Hal Torman seconded by George Hines the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. on a vote of 6-0-0. Respectfully submitted, Secretary