HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-16 Finance Committee Minutes
Finance Committee Meeting
July 16, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:15 p.m. in the Conference Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading,
Chairman George Hines, Committee members David
Massachusetts. Present were
Greenfield, Marsie West, Barry Berman, and Tom White. Vice Chairman Andrew
Grimes
arrived at 7:35pm. Also present were Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner and
Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur.
George Hines called the meeting to order at 7:15 PM. He stated that he would like the
FINCOM to drive financial agendas in Town more often, and not simply react to
financial developments. He reviewed the FY09 liaison assignments in the context that it
was important for the FINCOM to reach out to the various people across the Town of
Reading and to report back the discussions to the entire Committee at the beginning of
each meeting, in the form of liaison reports. George spoke out in favor of having a formal
Mission Statement for FINCOM.
Tom White agreed that FINCOM should reach out to others, but asked only to report
when there were specific action items for the Committee to consider. He and Marsie
West spoke in favor of establishing ‘guiding principles’ in a mission statement.
George Hines asked the Committee if anyone knew the background about an article in the
Daily Times Chronicle about action taken by the School Committee regarding the pay
and class study. No member had any additional information. Town Manager Peter
Hechenbleikner explained that there were two portions of the study – and that the one for
the schools was complete, but that of the Town was not, largely owing to the amount of
different non-union specific job titles in each group.
FINCOM reviewed the role of their committee relative to the question of whether they
should be more proactive. Bob LeLacheur read from the Charter and Bylaw sections that
were previously reviewed by the FINCOM at their May meeting. Hines asked
Hechenbleikner to have Town Counsel do a white paper on the role of Finance
Committees relative to the Reading Charter and By-law requirements and State law.
Hechenbleikner mentioned that staff would first review a publication from the DOR and
report back to FINCOM. Hines mentioned that in the past, individuals questioned why
FINCOM was asking certain questions and he wants other Boards and Committees to
understand that the FINCOM is not out of line with their questions.
Tom White spoke out in favor of the two policies on Cash Reserves and Debt/Capital –
and used these as examples of guiding principles. David Greenfield said FINCOM must
respect the line of management’s rights to manage the Town, and FINCOM’s role of
financial oversight at a distance. George Hines used the school wage discussion from
earlier tonight as an example where the Finance Committee should have been informed &
consulted. Andrew Grimes explained that the FINCOM had reached out to the Schools in
the past in attempt to be included in such discussions. Barry Berman wondered what the
role of a FINCOM member was in a non-FINCOM meeting. For example, he attended a
School Committee meeting in the spring and thought he might be out of line to stop and
ask questions and give his opinion as a liaison from the FINCOM. He said the budget
authority of the School Committee to spend approved budget funding was a given, but
that how the funds were spent should certainly be considered by the FINCOM in future
budget discussions & allocations. David Greenfield said it was important to speak out at
such meetings, and possibly influence some votes.
George Hines considered a formal motion then simply requested that the School
Committee provide to the FINCOM material on the pay and class study, and any actions
taken by them on non-union wages. FINCOM agreed to make this informal request.
David Greenfield reminded the FINCOM that is was important to know about
incremental changes like this, regardless of budget authority, as we go into the next
budget cycle. George Hines emphasized the need to implement any changes with respect
to the financial picture of the entire Town of Reading. Tom White asked Peter
Hechenbleikner what his role was in the school wage discussions – if any. Peter
th
explained that for purposes of collective bargaining, he was the 7 member of the School
Committee, and was familiar with those union wage discussions, but had no additional
information on the non-union situation.
George Hines restated his desire to be more proactive as a committee. David Greenfield
asked that aside from a more engaging dialogue with liaison assignments, what did Mr.
Hines have in mind? Hines replied that the pay and class implementation by the schools
should have been discussed with the FINCOM before it was implemented. Peter
Hechenbleikner added that FINCOM as liaisons were most helpful, especially on ad-hoc
committees, in order to add a broad financial angle. Hines stated his desire that the
FINCOM be kept abreast of important financial developments, and to come up with a
formal way to communicate this. Hechenbleikner said at this time, that there were five
items FINCOM should be aware of, including the cost on the municipal government to
implement the as-yet unknown findings of the pay & class study; the current consultant
evaluation of health insurance & the GIC; a possible town-match if a suburban mobility
grant were secured; a possible town-match if grants were obtained to purchase land
parcels related to the Northern Area Greenway; and the as yet unknown cost to
implement the findings of the DPW study. He said staff would devise a method to keep
FINCOM abreast of these types of issues.
Town Accountant Gail LaPointe reported on the status of the MUNIS project. Payroll
went live in early July, and parallel testing in June and July made the launch a very
successful one. An enormous amount of extra staff work was required on the project.
However, most of the OT funding approved by June Town meeting was not used, and
would be returned to free cash. She explained the purchase order system – and how that
was a new aspect for the Town staff, but that the School Department had been using one
for a while. An in depth discussion of the expected benefits and new costs (in both time
and money) ensued. Peter Hechenbleikner explained that a full web-based document
storage solution (for resident access) will require more funding – the current effort was
described as the first step. The amount of information available to staff and FINCOM
from MUNIS will be considerable – however, it will require a few years of history to
build up to really begin to study longer-term trends. While historic budget data is
available, it may not be exactly comparable to how things are done in the new system.
Gail LaPointe emphasized that this was the first year of a three-year project in terms of
MUNIS and other aspects. The next significant phases would include H.R, and then tax
and utility billing.
George Hines moved on to a discussion of the capital planning process. In the past he has
proposed either an ad hoc committee or a sub committee of the Board of Selectmen be
involved in the CIP (Capital Improvement Program) process. David Greenfield inquired
if the mission was merely to prioritize the CIP, since FINCOM already had a funding
policy in place. Hines replied that this was one aspect, but another was the very inclusion
of projects in the CIP. He spoke in support of recent Selectmen discussion to formalize
this process, particularly as it pertains to gifts from residents that hen require Town
funding – either up front or later for maintenance. Peter Hechenbleikner reviewed the
history of past ‘CIP committees’ from the 1990s. Bob LeLacheur reviewed the current
CIP, as well as the revised (increased) FY09 funding available due to some debt
restructuring since the FY09 budget was approved.
A question about the Town meeting motion on the road improvements was raised by
several FINCOM members. Peter Hechenbleikner replied that this was an agenda item on
th
the July 29 Selectmen meeting. Hines said he would attend, or make sure someone from
FINCOM was there if he could not be.
th
On Motion by Tom White seconded by Marsie West the minutes of May 14 were
accepted as presented by a vote of 5-0-1 (West abstaining).
On Motion by Andrew Grimes seconded by David Greenfield the minutes of
th
June25 were accepted as presented by a vote of 5-0-1 (Greenfield abstaining).
George Hines thanked the Committee for some thoughtful discussion.
On Motion by Barry Berman seconded by Marsie West the meeting was adjourned
at 9:10 PM on a vote of 6-0-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary