HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-27 Finance Committee Minutes OFRFq�'�
Town of Reading
W : o
16 Lowell Street
moo,. o- Reading, MA 01867-2685
639°INCOR40�P
ASSISTANT TOWN MANAGER/FINANCE DIRECTOR
(781)942-6636
FAX: (781)942-9037 Email:finance @ci.reading.ma.us
To: Finance Committee
Date: June 27, 2012
Re: Assessors update
At your meeting on June 27th I will review the following areas listed below. The Board of
Assessors and staff will attend and may also have material or topics to cover.
➢ RFP update—needed to be split into two components
➢ RFP from March 2012 — contract signed with Patriot today. Final cost not to exceed
$92,000 at a rate of$26.30/parcel. Previous transfer request allowed for a slightly higher
cost of$27/parcel and a total of$97,200 based on 3,600 parcels
➢ Second RFP issued as quickly as possible in conformance with procurement laws. Due
date is 9:00am on Monday July 2"d. At least four interested parties have asked for the
RFP, and it has also been posted online at the MAAO website. On Monday the non-price
proposals of each submittal will be reviewed to determine if minimum qualifications are
met. A formal evaluation of each bid will be made as stipulated in the RFP. For those
proposals that meet the minimum requirements the price proposal will be opened. The
price and formal evaluation will be combined and a winning bidder will be identified.
Contract negotiations will begin and conclude as soon as possible so the work may
commence immediately. The remaining budget of $64,400 should easily cover the
expected cost of the inspecting 7,172 parcels in a drive-by field review. Any surplus will
be retained until both projects are compete, which is expected to be April 2013.
➢ Steve Maio (Wakefield Town Administrator), Peter Hechenbleikner and I met on May
18th. I subsequently drafted and agreement between the two Towns to share the services
of the Wakefield Director of Assessing (Victor Santaniello). Town Counsels for both
communities have reviewed and made suggested changes. Wakefield reports that the
draft agreement will be ready to review in detail early next week. The next steps would
be approval by the Boards of Selectmen in Reading on July 10th and in Wakefield on July
16th, with the agreement to begin shortly after that.
➢ The software conversion has seen good progress. Assessing staff reports that sketches did
not translate well but the rest of the data is generally in good shape. The Town and Patriot
Properties are working together to clean up the converted data.
Finance Committee Meeting
June 27, 2012
The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. in the Town Hall Conference Room, 16 Lowell Street,
Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman David Greenfield, Vice Chairman Barry
Berman, FINCOM members Jeanne Borawski, Marie Ferrari, Paula Perry, and Hal Torman,
Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur, Fire Chief Greg Burns and Tom
Ryan. At 7:50pm the board of Assessors and staff joined the meeting, including Chair Fred
McGrane, Vice Chair Ralph Colorusso, member Robert Quinn, Bob Nordstrand and Interim
Appraiser Pat Sullivan. Karen Herrick joined the meeting at 8:45pm.
Mr. Greenfield called the meeting to order.
Reserve Fund Transfer Requests
Mr. LeLacheur reviewed three FINCOM Reserve Fund transfer requests. The fund has a balance
of $116,000 and that will be reduced to $74,000 if all requests are approved:
1.Police OT $25,000
2.Police expenses $2,000
3.Fire OT $15,000
On June 11, 2012 Police Chief Cormier and Town Manager Hechenbleikner reviewed the first
two items which were supported by the committee, though the vote was tabled until this meeting.
Mr. Greenfield stated that this Police OT was necessary, unlike some of the Police details in his
view.
Fire Chief Burns described that in FY11 the department at this time of year was at $406,000 of
OT and finished the year at $421,000. This year in FY12 the current cost has been $367,000 and
he is projecting a final figure of $393,000. He described the significant and serious injuries that
the department had seen in FY12, and mentioned that four were incurred on the job and three
were incurred off the job.
Ms. Perry asked if the firefighter had a workout program, and if there were any financial
incentives in place? Chief Burns said that a group of firefighters did work out regularly in front
of the Main Street station early in the morning, but there was no direct financial incentive to do
so. Ms. Perry asked if the local YMCA facilities would be available, and Chief Burns mentioned
that they had received some core-strengthening equipment from the YMCA in the past. Ms.
Ferrari noted that shoulder injuries were a long recovery, and Chief Burns agreed because
firefighters needed to be at full strength in order to work. Mr. Berman asked if the handout
showed hours of work missed, or of OT caused. Chief Burns said it was hours of work missed
and that an exact calculation of OT would be difficult. He described how the second injury in a
group of eleven firefighters causes OT. He described the new Microsystems software that will
produce more in depth financial reports as part of the time management function. He will be able
th
to more accurately track OT expenses going forward. He reminded FINCOM that his 45
firefighter is a floater assigned to the first long-term absence in a group of eleven. He said that
aside from the Chief and the Administrative Assistant everyone else is counted as shift strength
th
in the department. Mr. LeLacheur reminded FINCOM of the analysis that showed a 45
firefighter paid for the cost by reducing OT, but that additional firefighters could not guarantee
that result.
Mr. Berman asked if there were a sort of minor leagues for firefighters, to be used in the event of
long-term illness or injury. Is there an ability to borrow firefighters from other Towns? Chief
Burns said that would require a partner and he thought that would be difficult to accomplish. Mr.
Berman said that maybe Reading should start such a program. Mr. Greenfield said that would be
a good topic for a future FINCOM meeting. Ms. Borawski asked what the process was for an
injured firefighter. Chief Burns said that first the employee fills out a form and the immediate
supervisor is in charge of the process – including sending the employee to a local hospital for
evaluation if needed. If the employee misses more than three consecutive shifts (eg day-night-
day) then a Doctor’s note is required.
On a motion by Ms. Perry seconded by Ms. Borawski to approve the three transfer
requests as presented in the total amount of $42,000 to the three accounts shown, FINCOM
voted 6-0-0.
OPEB
Mr. LeLacheur noted that he drafted a possible FINCOM policy about OPEB based on the FY13
budget process and comments he heard from FINCOM members. He also attached existing
FINCOM policies on cash reserves and debt/capital and asked that those be reviewed. Mr.
Greenfield suggested that the existing policies and potential new policies be reviewed at a
meeting this summer.
Assessors Update
th
Mr. LeLacheur reviewed a handout that described activity since the June 5 meeting with the
Board of Selectmen. The RFP for inspections needed to be divided into two pieces and a new
one issued for the Field Review that was needed for the software conversion. Mr. McGrane
reminded FINCOM that the DOR required a 100% sample. Mr. LeLacheur said the conversion
was going well with some data quality issues that were being corrected by Patriot Properties. Ms.
Sullivan said the sketches had not translated well in all cases, but the raw property data was in
good shape. Mr. Colorusso said that the DOR had a mandated timeline they must adhere to. He
said the key relationship was the DOR field agent and the Reading Senior Appraiser. He said that
recent valuation trends in Reading did not easily fir into the DOR model which had slowed down
the relationship.
Mr. McGrane said that the previous Senior Appraiser was strong technically but not a good fit
especially because of his lack of MA experience. Mr. Greenfield asked if a step was missed in
the hiring process that the MA experience was important. He asked why there wasn’t better
communication with the DOR on this software conversion situation. Mr. McGrane agreed that a
step was missed. Mr. Greenfield asked if the Board of Assessors should have done things
differently, and Mr. McGrane said that in retrospect it should have instead of relying on staff so
heavily. Ms. Perry asked if the Board met with other vendors. Mr. Colorusso said that they had
met with other vendors but there was a delay in signing the software contract with Patriot. Mr.
Nordstrand said that staff knew of the DOR inspection requirements all along. Mr. LeLacheur
disagreed because notes from the Board in May 2012 indicate that staff believed a 2-5% sample
was required instead of a full field review. He indicated that he had extensive recent
conversations with Patriot Properties and had evidence that showed that staff disagreed that the
full field review was needed. Mr. Colorusso cited the Board’s inexperience with software
conversions.
Mr. Berman asked if the Senior Appraiser was hired by the Board, and Mr. McGrane said yes.
Mr. Berman wondered if there was a better approach to this that would include more overview to
the situation, since the Town Manager had no authority over this staff. Mr. McGrane indicated
that the Board recognized this problem and that is why they agreed to reach out to Wakefield to
share the services of their Senior Appraiser Victor Santaniello. Mr. Greenfield asked if this
person had sufficient MA experience and other qualifications. Mr. McGrane indicated that he
did, and also had a strong relationship with the DOR and Patriot Properties. Mr. Greenfield asked
the Board how they would keep track of the proper pace of work and the progress needed for the
upcoming 6-18 months. Mr. McGrane indicated that Pat Sullivan is very helpful to the Board in
that role. Ms. Sullivan mentioned that she would continue to attend MA DOR workshops. Mr.
McGrane pointed out that the Board had educational requirements, and Mr. Colorusso added that
they had to pass exams. Mr. Greenfield asked how to prevent the problems that had arisen the
next time a material event or change (such as a software conversion) faced the Board. He asked
if the Board planned to make any process changes, especially to keep current. He indicated his
unhappiness with the fact the Senior Appraiser was a single point of failure with no adequate
alternative in place when things went wrong. Mr. McGrane agreed that they had experienced a
significant failure with recent senior staff and that the Board took responsibility for that fact. He
said that the notion of regionalization as a sort of ‘Plan B’ grew in importance as the magnitude
of these recent problems had come to light. Mr. Greenfield said it was the job of the Board to
keep track of the work being done by their staff since they were hired independently. He spoke to
the public and stated that while there has been process and communication flaws that the current
valuations were accurate and there were no indications of any problems in that area. Mr.
Colorusso agreed that recent staff turnover was troubling and that if better wages had been paid
then this turnover could have been avoided. Mr. Nordstrand reminded FINCOM about cutting
the data collection position and harming the morale of the staff. Mr. Colorusso said longer term
that staffing had never been an issue before.
Mr. Berman said that converting to the Patriot system should be a better recruiting tool and the
Board agreed. Mr. McGrane said that he was pleased that the Town emphasized regionalization
was not only meant to save money but to better share resources. Mr. LeLacheur gave an example
of a few communities getting together to hire and share a commercial expert that no one
community could afford, and Mr. Nordstrand agreed that would be a very good benefit. Mr.
LeLacheur reminded FINCOM that the two RFPs for property inspections replaced the need for
that staff work and therefore the reduction in FTEs by sharing a Senior Appraiser should not be a
problem in the next eighteen months. He said this was a good time for all parties involved to
review the arrangement with Wakefield in order to improve it or abandon it if it doesn’t work
out. He said that it is imperative for all involved to give feedback in order to give the
arrangement the best chance of succeeding.
Ms. Perry asked what the cycles of work are in the Assessor’s office. Ms. Sullivan handed out
several pages that went through a typical fiscal year and spelled out the responsibilities. Mr.
Colorusso added the fact that every three years there was a revaluation, and every nine years
there was a re-inspection requirement. Ms. Sullivan said that the annual tasks were very similar,
but the DOR provided more scrutiny in those years mentioned above. She stated that Reading
has until recently been on a 6-year re-inspection pace in order to better capture value. She said
that staff turnover had hampered that progress. Mr. Colorusso said that the 9-year cycle was
designed to capture improvements made inside a home, but that in the meanwhile staff visited
every home sold in a given year, visited homes that had pulled permits, and visited homes that
filed for abatements as allowed by the homeowner. Ms. Perry said that in the past FINCOM has
requested better data to back up these claims. Mr. Colorusso reminded FINCOM about staffing
cuts and turnover, and Mr. LeLacheur stated that as of last January the Board had agreed at the
budget meetings that they were only 300-400 parcels behind in the 9-year cycle.
Mr. Greenfield thanked the Board of Assessors and their staff for a good presentation, and said
that FINCOM is now better tuned in to their work and process. He said the liaison Ms. Perry
would be attending their meetings on a regular basis, about once per month.
Mr. LeLacheur suggested the following dates for future meetings after a discussion by FINCOM:
ththth
August 8; September 12; October 10 (Financial Forum). Mr. Greenfield said that in August
FINCOM would re-organize and change liaison assignments as needed. He introduced Karen
Herrick who would begin a term on FINCOM on July 1, 2012. He asked that staff put on the
next agenda how FY12 closed out financially and an update on the State’s FY13 budget.
On a motion by Mr. Greenfield seconded by Ms. Perry, FINCOM approved the minutes of
st
March 21 by a vote of 6-0-0.
On a motion by Ms. Perry seconded by Mr. Torman, FINCOM approved the minutes of
th
April 11 by a vote of 6-0-0.
th
FINCOM and Mr. LeLacheur discussed the June 11 minutes, which consisted of a session in
the Superintendent’s office and then one as part of the School Committee meeting. It was agreed
to use the portion of the School Committee minutes that covered the Space study only.
On a motion by Ms. Perry seconded by Mr. Greenfield, FINCOM approved the minutes of
th
June 11 as amended by a vote of 6-0-0.
Mr. Greenfield indicated a desire to revisit the Revenue and Expense cutting spreadsheets and
asked that they be update for the August FINCOM meeting.
On motion by Ms. Perry seconded by Ms. Ferrari the Finance Committee voted to adjourn
it’s meeting at 10:10 p.m. by a vote of 6-0-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary