Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-09 Finance Committee Minutes OF JR? Finance Committee Meeting " g March 9, 2011 b;os Ewa s.WCO Conference Room, Reading Municipal Light Department The meeting convened at 7:00 PM in the Conference Room at RMLD. FINCOM Members Present: Chair Marsie West, Vice Chair David Greenfield, Hal Torman, Paula Perry, Francis Fardy and Barry Berman. Members Absent: Mark Dockser, Bryan Walsh, and Kevin Leyne. Also Present: Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur, Town Accountant Gail LaPointe, Community Services Director/Town Planner Jean Delios, Library Director Ruth Urell, Police Chief James Cormier, Fire Chief Greg Burns, Board of Selectmen Chair James Bonazoli, Board of Selectmen Steve Goldy, Library Trustees Vicki Yablonsky, Karyn Storti, Richard Curtis, Cherrie Dubois and David Hutchinson, Conservation Committee Chair William Hecht, Council on Aging Chair Steve Osten, Board of Health members Colleen Sefarian and David Singer, CPDC member Paul Bolger, Board of Assessors Chair Bob Nordstrand, Board of Assessors member Fred McGrane, Appraiser Bill Boatwright, Trails Committee member Will Finch, Town Meeting members John Arena and John Carpenter, Making Reading Better members Erin Calvo-Bacci and Mary Ann Quinn, and Matt Casey from Reading Patch. There being a quorum the FINCOM meeting was called to order at 7:10 PM. Mr. Greenfield asked to get a report on the suggested legislative actions in the proposed Town Manager's budget and the cost savings assigned to each of them as is appropriate. Community Services Mr. LeLacheur reviewed the FY12 budget for Community Services, including the proposal to regionalize three administrative functions (Conservation, Elder/Human Services and Health), which would have the effect of making these each 0.5 FTE positions in the budget; eliminating the position of permits coordinator, sharing the Administrative Assistant with the Town Manager's office; reducing the plumbing/gas and wiring inspectors from 20 to 16 hours per week, increasing the Veteran's services Officers hours due to heavy caseloads, and adding a 0.8 FTE clerical position to handle customer service and document storage needs of the department. This latter position may be left unfilled at the beginning of the year to ascertain the impact of these other changes to the level of customer service, as well as the impact on the new License & Permits software system. He pointed to a staffing survey of local communities that showed the following: Conservation average 1.2 FTES, proposed Reading budget 0.7 FTES; Elder/Human Services average 3.9 FTES, proposed Reading budget 4.3 FTES; and Health average 3.0 FTES, proposed Reading budget 3.1 FTES. Mr. Hecht presented a proposal that would add back hours for the three regionalized positions to a 0.6 FTE status (22.5hrs/week) in order to give those positions health insurance, and help retain the current staff. In order to pay for this increase—including benefits, the proposal called for an unspecified further reduction to the planning staff, and the elimination of the new 0.8 FTE clerical position. The net effect of this change would be to further reduce staffing in the department from the 14.7 FTE level in the Town Manager's budget to 14.0 FTES— down from 16.9 FTES in FYI 1. Mr. Hechenbleikner mentioned that no presumed savings in health insurance were made because of these changes, and that in fact the Town expected to pay half of such costs once the positions were shared with another town. Mr. Hecht amended his remarks to allow for less of a reduction than was proposed. Mr. Arena suggested that the choice was between these three positions and less planning staff Mr. LeLacheur pointed out that the cost for health insurance eligibility would be 1 substantially less than the proposed 0.6 FTEs because 20hrs/week was needed, and that in any event the proposal included a new clerical position in addition to the planning staff, so the choices were broad. Mr. Bolger (CPDC) said that the planning staff was essential for the economic development activities in Town, and that there were several large projects (Oaktree, Pulte Homes, MF Charles Building) that required a great deal of staff time. Ms. Delios said the planning staff was busy with in-depth site plan review work as directed by the CPDC on these and other projects. Mr. Carpenter mentioned that planning is a local activity that cannot be shared with other communities and should not be reduced. Mr. Osten said the Board of He Council on Aging_this week voted 7-0-0 in support of the plan put forward by Mr. Hecht. Ms. Sefarian (Board of Health) said that no reductions to that area should be made because of the concern about health risks for the community. She expressed concern that regionalization of the Health function would not work well at this time because the technology may not be compatible with another Town. A member of the Reading/North Reading Chamber of Commerce expressed disappointment that the Permits Coordinator position was being eliminated, and said that the planning function should not be reduced any further so that the Town would be able to enjoy commercial economic growth in the future. Mr. Sanger (Board of Health) also expressed support for the health services function and opposed any reductions in this area. Mr. Goldy said that both he and the Board of Selectman supported the concept of regionalized services, and that the Town has examined many opportunities over the past couple of years. He mentioned that Melrose Mayor Rob Dolan was also very supportive and interested in partnering with Reading as was appropriate. They already have shared Health services with Wakefield and it has been a positive experience to date. Mr. Goldy cited other examples including Amesbury and Newburyport, as well as the Franklin Council of Governments Public Library Mr. LeLacheur reviewed the proposed Library budget for FY12. The budget shows a 0.9% reduction, but when sick-leave buyback funds voted by November 2010 Town Meeting are not included, the reduction is only 0.5%. Before health insurance news came out, this was the average reduction needed of all Town departments. The wage budget is about $15,000 below a `level service' budget, so these reductions were all concentrated into thirteen summer Saturdays, when patron activity is at the lowest. Otherwise the Library will remain open and staffed as they are in FYI 1. Mr. LeLacheur also noted the materials budget was reduced to be about $11,000 below the required State figure of 15%, and the Library indicated that private funds would make up the difference. Finally, the budget as proposed is about $28,000 below a State requirement that funding be 102.5% of the average from the past three years. A waiver from that is available —over one hundred MA communities sought and received the waiver for FYI 1. Ms. Urell reviewed the proposed budget and mentioned the increased demand for services from the community at a time when the economy was faltering. Ms. West asked about the waiver for the 102.5%requirement, and Ms. Urell indicated that Reading would likely be eligible, but she was hesitant to ask because ofthe building project application is pending_hat—was-b,nrg �red, and there is the Possibility of securing $5 million in state funding. Mr. Greenfield asked about the impact of becoming decertified, and Ms. Urell indicated that about 60,000 of the 500,000 in annual circulation were due to inter-library loans. That amount would not be allowed if the library were decertified. Mr. Hechenbleikner noted that the Library was retaining state aid funds for the circulation system that was already in the capital plan, and Ms. Urell indicated that amount had grown to $97,000 and these funds can be used to make up any shortfall in the materials budget. The capital plan for April 2011 Town Meeting will be amended to remove the circulation system because of the proposed building project. Mr. Hechenbleikner noted that if the building project did move forward, there would need to be contingency plans on relocating the Library services on a one-to-two year temporary basis as construction occurred. Funds for relocation are included in the project budget. Ms. West asked why full services had to be offered for every hour the Library was open, and Ms. Urell said that less services was not a desirable option. Mr. Hutchinson said that the Library was already at a minimum level of staffing, and that the proposed staff reductions in FY12 were difficult. Five page positions—usually staffed by school students —would be eliminated for a savings of$5,600, and that 1,500 books/day would need to be shelved by other 2 staff Ms. West asked about volunteer pages, and Mr. Berman asked if the Library had any ideas on new sources of revenues. Mr. Torman asked for a further explanation of the $97,000 in state aid that was not used in recent years. Mr. Berman asked for an update on the Library project. Ms. Urell and Mr. Hechenbleikner mentioned that there was funding for about six projects and that 30 communities had applied. Issues addressed would include ADA requirements-for—shelving, repairs to the infrastructure, as well as expanded square footage and improved foot traffic patterns. Mr. Hutchinson said from here on any further budget cuts would translate into less hours of service to the public. He noted that it is not simply a matter of cutting an hour here and there, that staff wo king hours-work schedules needed to be considered. Mr. Arena asked if the one-year waiver from the State would reset the baseline for future requirements, and suggested user fees for cards. Ms. Yablonsky said that no fees could be charged for cards. Mr. Farnsworth asked about the projections for children and subsequent Library programs, and Ms. Urell responded that the Library uses MAPC data to respond to the demographics of the community. Assessors Mr. LeLacheur quickly reviewed the Assessors budget as part of the Finance department. He mentioned that the seasonal appraiser position was eliminated, and that in the future during a triennial revaluation year that some level of outside consulting services would be required. Board of Assessors member Mr. McGrane noted that 70% of Town revenues come from taxes. Board of Assessors Chair Bob Nordstrand noted that their mission was to find and tax all parcels in Town fairly and equitably. He stated that the major duty of the seasonal appraiser position which is being eliminated was to inspect 1/9 of every-all propertyies per year in keeping with the 9-year re-inspection cycle, with a focus on the 6,500 single family homes. He said the position was similar to that of a data collector, and in the 2004 revaluation they were about 1,000 parcels behind schedule and they hired outside help which resulted in poor quality which even now is just being cleaned up. He warned that there would be less of an overlay surplus that is returned to free cash every year, and that new growth might be missed. Mr. Greenfield asked how the 1/9 work would be re-assigned. Mr. Hechenbleikner said that the Assistant Appraiser position was actually created to do that work, and the seasonal position was added to avoid outsourcing personal property re-collection needed every three years. Despite that, the Assessors have continued to spend about $25,0000 every three years to outsource the personal property data collection. Mr. Farnsworth asked what financial costs there were to the Town for past poor quality data, and Mr. McGrane suggested that a lot of possible revenue was lost. Mr. Greenfield asked how this was possible since the 2.5% levy was assessed every year. On a motion by Mr. Torman seconded by Mr. Greenfield, FINCOM voted 6-0-0 to adiourn at 10:10 PM. Respectfully submitted, Recording Secretary 3