Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-14 Finance Committee Minutes Finance Committee Meeting September 14, 2011 Conference Room, Reading Town Hall The meeting convened at 7:30 PM in the Conference Room at Town Hall. FINCOM Members Present : Chair Marsie West, Vice Chair David Greenfield, John Arena, Barry Berman, Mark Dockser, Marie Ferrari, Kevin Leyne and Paula Perry. Members Absent: Hal Torman. Also Present: Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Accountant Gail LaPointe, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur, Fire Chief Greg Burns, Police Chief Jim Cormier, Police Business Manager Andrew Scribner, Public Works Business Manager Jane Kinsella, and resident Bill Brown. There being a quorum the FINCOM meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Public Safety Mr. Hechenbleikner gave a brief introduction to the Public Safety divisions. Fire Chief Burns described the four main functions of Fire/EMS. He pointed out the medical and financial advantages of offering Advanced Life Support service to the community. In reviewing the budget he acknowledged that all discretionary OT training had been eliminated (previously about $6,000/yr), but mandatory paramedic training remains and must usually be done on an OT basis. The requirement is every two years, so about half of the firefighters do this each year. He reviewed a survey of neighboring communities that showed Reading was in the middle on OT spending in FY11. Mr. Arena asked about the possibility of an additional firefighter that could be paid for by OT savings. Chief Burns reviewed a handout showing the analysis that over the previous fiscal year an additional firefighter would have been cheaper than the ensuing OT (not including benefits). He also stated that the previous year had unusually high injury and medical events that he hoped would not be repeated, so he could not guarantee any savings. Ms. Perry asked about ambulance service, and Chief Burns described the level of service and the resulting ambulance revenues. He also reviewed a handout showing that Reading is about average in firefighters/resident. Mr. Greenfield asked if a high percent of OT spending is on Fire department tasks, that is are there many paid details. Chief Burns said there were few details each year for fireworks, blasting and construction torch work. Ms. West asked if there were many grant funds available. Chief Burns explained the recent technology purchase of smart boards and the radio network gear. Hr. Hechenbleikner mentioned that some communities hired staff from federal stimulus grants (such as Melrose), but Reading did not. Mr. Dockser asked that if hiring a few more firefighters would in the long run save money. Mr. Greenfield pointed out that the Fire department does have some flexibility to reassign staff. Mr. Berman asked about hiring a floater to fill in as needed, and Chief Burns pointed out that’s what was done over a year ago. Mr. Brown said that a staffing study done a few years ago suggested 12 firefighters per group, or one more than is currently in the budget. Police Chief Cormier described his department as one that offered a basic police service at a very high level of quality. He reviewed a handout and responded to a few clarifying questions by Mr. Greenfield. In FY11 57% of all OT spending was done to fill shifts, with the remainder spread out among investigation/court time (23%); special projects (15%) and training (4%). As an example of a special project he cited neighborhood meetings to discuss break & entering incidents; the Yankee Brigade ceremony; the Tree-lighting and Friends & Family day; and the RAD program. He said this year all discretionary OT has been eliminated. He reviewed a survey of FY11 OT spending by neighboring communities comparable to those done by the Fire department, and that Reading spends substantially less than the average community. 1 Mr. Greenfield asked if the Police can reassign staff to fill in as they do in the Fire department, and Chief Cormier said that practice is called ‘bouncing’ and was negotiated out of the contract over fifteen years ago as part of a package deal. He said he can move staff for long-term assignments, such as to fill in for a military deployment or a significant injury. Mr. Greenfield said that no bouncing costs OT versus the scheduling inconvenience to the officers. Chief Cormier noted that 38% of time off benefits caused OT, and Mr. Hechenbleikner pointed out that grants pay some OT (liquor compliance checks, click-it-or-ticket). Ms. West said that FINCOM was exploring ways funds are spent and not being critical of management decisions. Ms. Ferrara said that the lack of bouncing is probably saving a good bit of sick and other time off as erratic schedules are tough on employees. Mr. Hechenbleikner said that all employee groups are different, and comparisons are not easy to make. Mr. Greenfield reminded everyone that we are in the midst of very tight budgets and that many areas in Town are more than inconvenienced by having insufficient funds available. Chief Cormier said that as the economy gets tougher the police get busier. He pointed out a few recent changes in collective bargaining that will have a long term impact on reducing OT costs. For example all officers now take 16 hours of annual training for no compensation, which has saved the Town about $35,000 per year. Mr. Hechenbleikner said that the police department also gave up all sick leave buyback (no one was grandfathered) and the fifth week of vacation was eliminated. Chief Cormier concluded the OT discussion by noting that staffing studies suggest 1.75 officers per thousand residents, and that by that metric the department is understaffed by two officers. Mr. Greenfield acknowledged that OT spending centered around the concept of public safety, but disputed that the practice of hiring police details always did, stating that some are not necessary. He said these are expenses that we can avoid if roads are properly marked. He said the savings would extend to RMLD and businesses as well. He argued that the town was making it ‘too safe’, and why not have details at yard sales and churches also. He said the town did not need to eliminate risk from resident’s lives and that they know what to do. Chief Cormier pointed out that Reading is not run like other examples Mr. Greenfield has previously cited where groups of officers on paid details do stand around. He said that the department was in constant communication with RMLD, the DPW (including engineering), and the larger private vendors (such as Verizon and National Grid) in order to determine the appropriate levels of staffing the busier streets. He stated that virtually every group of workers that have a detail have requested one for their own safety. He added that the entire general driving public does not always know what is expected as distracted drivers have a challenge to safely maneuver an empty road. He added that details provide an extra police presence in the community that sometimes leads to arrests unrelated to the traffic detail. Mr. Hechenbleikner said that Verizon and National Grid ask the Town for details, and not the other way around. He said it is not always apparent what the whole story is as he learned once by asking an RMLD crew on a small side street why they needed a detail, and they were travelling around many busy streets that day doing repair work. He concluded by saying the details provided a high level of service and were well-managed by the Police department. Town Meeting Warrant Ms. West reviewed proposed changes to the Charter and Bylaws. One change was to include the idea of FINCOM deliberations as opposed to only FINCOM voted opinions. There were a mix of Charter and Bylaw proposed changes for this purpose. Ms. West stated that FINCOM did not wish to vote No when they in fact did not have enough information to make an informed decision. Mr. Leyne asked who was proposing these changes, and Ms. West clarified that it was FINCOM and she intended to vote in a short while. Mr. Arena discussed the proposed changes, and Mr. Hechenbleikner noted that a Charter change required first a 2/3 vote at Town Meeting and then would be on the April local election ballot as a question. He questioned all the proposals as to what the best logical order was, since a Bylaw cannot be in conflict with the Charter – even for a few moths awaiting a local election. Ms. West asked that Town Counsel make a final determination on the proper path forward. Mr. Brown said that in the background material FINCOM could always explain there was not enough information to say yes, and Ms. Perry wondered if that were a sufficient reason to avoid taking a vote. Mr. Dockser said it is up to the petitioner to provide timely information. Ms. Ferrari asked if the report to Town Meeting was ample opportunity to provide an explanation as to why a 2 ‘no’ vote was cast due to lack of information. Ms. West stated that FINCOM should not generate the optics of a ‘no’ vote on an issue (such as Oaktree) simply because they had a lack of information. Mr. Greenfield said that Town Meeting should be aware of all FINCOM deliberations even when there was not a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote, and then decide the issues on its merits. On a motion by Mr. Greenfield to accept the changes as written, seconded by Ms. Perry, FINCOM voted 7-0-1 (Ms. Ferrari abstaining). Section 2.1.1 of the Bylaws were a second and different proposed change to the Bylaws by FINCOM. This proposed change would add flexibility to election scheduling. This would allow local election to be combined with state/federal elections – which would save money. On a motion by Ms. Perry to accept the changes as written, seconded by Mr. Greenfield, FINCOM voted 7-0-1 (Mr. Berman abstaining). Reserves and Free Cash Ms. LaPointe reviewed a handout showing Reserves and historic regeneration of reserves. Regeneration occurs when revenues exceed estimates, or voted expenditures are not spent. In FY11 $1.13 million in extra reserves were realized, with nearly $500,000 due to excise taxes collected (influenced by the one-time cash- for-clunkers Federal stimulus program) and over $300,000 in one-time miscellaneous revenues; $760,000 of unspent expenditures were returned, with $246,000 from public works, $182,000 from general Town government, and $180,000 from employee benefits. Mr. Arena said the return of funds was a sign that the Town was very well run. Many communities would simply spend the money. Community Services – Regionalization update Mr. Hechenbleikner said the first priority of providing good customer service seems to be on track. If that is not the case he would like to hear of any concerns in the community. He reviewed a memo prepared by Community Services Director/Town Planner Jean Delios which described all the changes made to the st department in light of large budget reductions since July 1. A combination of temporary part-time hires and some progress on regionalization are in place. Mr. Arena asked about the Melrose-Wakefield-Reading Health regionalization initiative as to who pays the employee benefits. Mr. Hechenbleikner said they were shared in the same way the salary is shared – with Reading paying 35% for FY12. He noted one benefits would be a consolidation in the number of flu clinics, with residents also given a wider total choice of times and dates. Revenue Ideas from Instructional Motion Mr. Hechenbleikner reviewed a handout that provided an update to many revenue ideas, including the selling of town-owned land. He described several Town Meeting Warrant articles that will further these revenue efforts. He also discussed completed efforts as well as those discarded as impractical. Town Meeting will get these updates in November. Budget Process Mr. LeLacheur reviewed a handout on the historic budget process, along with several FINCOM policies. Ms. West asked for volunteers to work with Mr. LeLacheur to create an updated member booklet, and Mr. Arena, Mr. Dockser and Mr. Greenfield all indicated they would be interested and available. On a motion by Mr. Berman seconded by Mr. Greenfield, FINCOM voted 8-0-0 to adjourn at 10:55 pm. Respectfully submitted, Recording Secretary 3