HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-27 RMLD Board of Commissioners MinutesReading Municipal Light Board of Commissioners
Regular Session RECEIVED
230 Ash street TOWN CLERK
Reading, MA 01967 RE:, "iNG, MASS.
`y„ February 27, 2013
Start Time of Regular Session: 7:35 p.m. Z013 APR - I A 9: 04
End Time of Regular Session: 8:50 p.m.
Commissioners
Philip B. Pacino, Chairman Gina Snyder, Vice Chair
Marsie West, Secretary - Absent Robert Soli, Commissioner
John Stempeck, Commissioner
Staff:
Vinnie Cameron, General Manager - Absent Beth Ellen Antonio, Human Resources Manager
Jared Carpenter, Energy Efficiency Engineer Jeanne Foci, Executive Assistant
Robert Fournier, Accounting/Business Manager David Poison, Facilities Manager
Kevin Sullivan, Interim General Manager
Citizens' Advisory Board:
Tony Capobianco, Member
Opening Remarks
Chairman Pacino called the meeting to order and stated that the meeting was being videotaped.
Introductions
Chairman Pacino acknowledged Citimns' Advisory Board member Tony Capobianco's attendance at the meeting.
® Public
TheComment
There were no members of the public present.
Approval of Board Minutes
Mr. Stempeck made a motion seconded by Mr. Soli that the BUILD Board of Commissioners approve the Regular
Session meeting minutes of January 30, 2013 with the changes presented by Ms. Snyder.
Motion carried 4:0:0.
Mr. Capobianco asked why the board is hesitant to start new initiatives without a new General Manager in place.
Chairman Pacino responded that his concern is that if we start a new initiative at this point, the permanent General
Manager may inherit something that they are not in agreement with. Mr. Capobianco asked does the General
Manager always have to agree with the Board of Commissioners. Mr. Stempeck responded that it could be an open
debate in terms of discussion back and forth. Mr. Stempeck stated that Ms. West pointed out that the Bound is here
to set policy, not to make operational decisions. Ms. Snyder clarified that discussion at the January meeting was that
the Board makes decisions regarding capital expenditures but the Board declined to proceed at the last meeting.
General Manager's Report - Mr. Sullivan Interim General Manager (Attachment 1)
Mr. Sullivan reported the following community events:
Wilmington School/Business Partnership - Wednesday March 20.2013
Priscilla Gottwald, RMLD Community Relations Manager will participate in the Wilmington School/Business
Partnership informational event on Wednesday, March 20. The RMLD is a member of this partnership.
Reading Senior Center Workshop - Thursday March 21, 2013
Maureen Ilanifan, Customer Service Manager, will participate at this event. She will provide information on
appliance rebates, time -of -use rates, budget billing and other customer programs.
Mr. Sullivan reported that he reached agreement with Mr. Cameron m consult to the RMLD. Mr. Sullivan said that
the agreement is at Mr. Cameron's previous wage structure on an as needed basis. Mr. Stempeck clarified that the
compensation is based upon hours and rate structure. Mr. Sullivan replied that is correct how for how.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
February 27, 2013
General Manager's Report — Mr. Sullivan — Interim General Manager (Attachment 1) •
Mr. Sullivan reported that based on the Chairman's request at the January 30, Board meeting, he spoke with Mr.
Cameron regarding the solar garden concept project. Mr. Sullivan reported that Mr. Cameron has requested
additional detail surrounding the overall economics of the project as well as more substance on the cost benefit
analysis. Additional detail is required on the project on its impact in reduce and avoid the peak demand charges
related to capacity and transmission.
Mr. Sullivan said that at the January 30 and February 20, Board meetings, the residential energy audits for RMLD's
residential customers were discussed. Currently, there were approximately 400 outstanding audits. The Department
allocated an additional $30,000 to continue to provide residential audits. In addition, the RMLD will review thew
internal procedures to determine which customers would best benefit from an energy audit, with some customers
having m wait until fiscal year 2014 to receive that audit. Since last week, the RMLD has done the following: a
press release has been sent out that the RMLD has temporarily stepped back on the process of providing energy
audits to reassess our procedures, reviewed its outstanding audits in which there are 194 outstanding requests (down
from the original 400). The RMLD bas communicated directly with customers who have inquired about the audits.
In the future, all requesting customers will be called by the Customer Service Department regarding their
applicability for an energy audit Future requests can be made by phone to the RMLD or by using RMLD's website.
The Energy Auditor should not be contacted directly. The RMLD will be meeting with the Energy Auditor in March
to discuss how to streamline this process.
Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Melanson Heath & Company, PC
Letter of Recommendation and Rubin and Rudman's Legal Opinion
Mr. Sullivan reported that he was not going into the level of detail that he did at the January 30, Board meeting.
However, Mr. Fournier, the Town Accountant and he were in agreement on the possibility of combining funds with
the town into the state retirees' health care fund. Mr. Sullivan stated that at that time, he asked the Board to table the
vote pending further review and evaluation. Mr. Sullivan stated that Mr. Fournier, the Town Accountant, he and
legal counsel have found out that no formal instrument is required. However, it would be advantageous to create the
formal instrument document, in move forward aligning with the town, and reducing the liability to the financial
statements. This view is also supported by Mr. Cameron in the creation of the formal cost instrument.
Mr. Stempeck inquired if the RMLD is aligning with the town, are there certain cost advantages to the retirees. Mr.
Sullivan responded that there is a larger pool of money with a distinct possibility of reduction in costs. Mr.
Stempeck asked if there is a cost to implement this. Mr. Sullivan responded that the trust document has to be drawn
up by legal counsel. Mr. Stempeck questioned that it states that the commissioners could be subject to a remote
possibility of litigation. He does not quite understand this, why they would. Mr. Sullivan responded that neither
does legal counsel, however, anyone can be named in a suit. Mr. Sullivan referenced a memo in 2010, in which the
Board has protection from suits due to the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, which provides sovereign immunity to
the Board. Chairman Parma pointed out that the Board has indemnification agreements as well as D &O Insurance.
Mr. Sullivan said that by aligning with the town it reduces the liability in the financial statements.
Mr. Fournier explained that the funds would be equal, however, separate. Mr. Fournier stated that In discount the
auditor's opinion is disconcerting. Mr. Fournier pointed out that Mr. Biron, President of Melanson Heath provided
an opinion on January 4, and strongly recommends that RMLD move forward with the irrevocable trust. Mr. Soli
asked what our legal counsel suggested. Mr. Founder said that they said you do not have go with the trust, you can
if you want. One other aspect is that previous commissioners were afraid of liability issues. In the same legal
opinion it would be difficult for anything to come against the Board, it would be against the custodian who is the
Town Treasurer per Board policy. Everything will be tied in with the town, equal, but separate.
Mr. Sullivan pointed out that there is one more advantage in creating another custodian other than the Town
Treasurer. This instrument would be in place for that. Without the instrument the only custodian is the Town
Treasurer. Mr. Stempeck clarified that we could withdraw some of the funds and reinvest the funds in a different
way. Mr. Sullivan commented that the trust document provides the RMLD with an open ended opportunity. •
Mr. Stempeck asked if there would be comingling of the funds with the town. Mr. Fournier replied that them would
be separate funds by both and be capitalized at a higher discount invested in the state's fund. The them will
receive its own monthly statements.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
February 27, 2013
41' Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Melanson Heath & Company, PC
Letter of Recommendation and Rubin and Rudman's Legal Opinion
Mr. Fournier pointed out that Melanson Heath states that by going to the trust that would result in reducing (or
eliminating) the OPEB liability as currently reflected on RMLD's financial statements and conform more closely to
the intent of GASH 45. This presentation would be more consistent with the Town's comment and may also be
viewed favorably by bond rating agencies.
Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. Soli what is the downside of not going forward. Mr. Soli responded that he sees a
disconnect in that the opinion 2:1, maybe the auditor is wrong. Mr. Sullivan pointed out that the Massachusetts
Department of Revenue only weighed in on GASH 45, not on aligning with the Town of Reading, or reducing the
liability on financial statements, because they have no jurisdiction in that arena. Mr. Soli asked if Mr. Biron is the
GASH expert. Mr. Sullivan added that legal counsel has no issue with creating a trust document.
Ms. Snyder suggested to replicate the town's document, replace Reading Light, where the town's name appears,
there would be no need to engage hours of legal counsel. Chairman Pacino was in agreement that the RMLD should
use the town's document.
Mr. Stempeck made a motion seconded by Ms. Snyder that the RMLD Board of Commissioners votes to create an
OPEB trust instrument in alignment with the Town of Reading on the recommendation of the Interim General
Manager.
Motion carried 3:0:1. Mr. Soli abstained.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order 719
Mr. Sullivan explained FERC Order 719 is a Commission order that has to do with Aggregators of Retail Customers
(ABCs). The RMLD has commercial and industrial customers that work with ARCS to broker demand response
which in its simplest format is the curtailment of load or deployment of generation upon a short notice phone call.
cdThis is compensatory in nature between the customers and the ABCs; therefore there is a value to this.
Mr. Sullivan said that this is why the curtailment is done. This is a motion for a continuum of service by the
aggregators. The outgoing General Manager is a proponent of this motion continuing to allow the aggregators of
retail customers to provide their service to RMLD customers.
Mr. Stempeck clarified what is the service. Mr. Sullivan responded that the service is demand response in its
simplest form, a load curtailment in which there is a cut back in load. From the customers' standpoint they are
compensated for that by the aggregators of retail customers such as ENERNOC.
Ms. Snyder asked if there is any disadvantage to the RMLD of an entity offering the service if we could offer the
service ourselves providing we had the metering capabilities. Mr. Sullivan responded that there is substantial
infrastructure required not only with metering, but within house for individuals to perform this work. The ARC
firms do this all day every day. Mr. Sullivan has spoken to other utilities to see if they would like to get involved
with this and the question is, why. All the large utilities such as NSTAR, permit aggregators in their territory.
Currently, there are approximately thirty municipalities that have demand response customers in their territory. To
date, eleven have committed to allow aggregators to work in their territory.
Mr. Soli asked if in five years from now there is a new Board and new General Manager who are in agreement that
this is a wonderful way to make money, let's rescind that Is the vote rescindable? Mr. Sullivan responded, yes, it is
currently an annual vote. Ms. Snyder added that there is one year notice that needs to be made if you want to pull
out.
Mr. Soli made a motion seconded by Ms. Snyder that the Commissioners vote to continue to allow aggregation of
retail customers for purposes of bidding demand response as a resource into one or more ISO -NE markets on the
recommendation of the Interim General Manager.
Motion carried 4:0:0.
Power Supply Report — January 2013 — Mr. Seldom (Attachment 2)
Chairman Pacino stated that Ms. Parenteau is on vacation therefore cannot make the report. The Board expressed
thew condolence to Mr. Seldon on the passing of his mother. There will be no report this month.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes 4
February 27, 2013
Engineering and Operations Report — January 2013 — Mr. Sullivan (Attachment 3) •
Mr. Sullivan presented the report included in the Commissioner packet covering the monthly capital projects, an
update on the metering project, and reliability reporting.
Mr. Sullivan reported that for the month it was a high Customer Average Interruption Duration Index ( CAIDI) of
76.62 with a twelve month system average outage duration of 62.31 minutes.
Mr. Sullivan stated that the Department continues to we CAIDI avemges hovering around a sixty minute plus
minute mark for restoration and expects that this will continue through 2013. With additional tree trimming
measures and distribution automation, restoration times will diminish and will be at the sub sixty minute mark.
Mr. Sullivan then discussed the February 8 and February 9 weekend blizzard. The Department was staffed along
with four contract crews as well as four tree crews. The RMLD was fully staffed and able to provide service in
whatever form of outage could potentially occur. The system held up well. There were two windstorms in January
that cleaned things up in the trees and any loose connections. Fortunately, there was only one outage during the
blizzard which says a lot about the Department in terms of maintenance and the engineering staff.
Mr. Sullivan reported that the System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) value is very low. In January,
the SAIFI four year average was reduced from 0.82 frequency of outage incidents to 0.62 frequency of outage
incidents. Mr. Sullivan said that he chose to drop the SAIFI and start measuring the Department more closely in
SAIFI. In the month of January, there were twelve outage incidents, nine were tree related of which two were related
w the two wind storms with only two hundred twenty six customers affected for the month which is remarkable.
Mr. Stempeck added that as he looks at the numbers, it appears that the number of outages is dropping which
reflects the reliability of the Department. Mr. Stempeck said that it is taking longer to restore power, is that correct.
Mr. Sullivan agreed. Mr. Stempeck clarified what is the rationale. Mr. Sullivan responded that there are six factors •
that drive CAIDI, cause of the outage, time of the outage, the weather, the nature of the work, crew availability, and
number of daylight hours. Anytime you see CAIDI above the four year average it is because those variables are
unfavorable. Mr. Sullivan said that the CAIDI twelve month average is 0.31 frequency of incidents which translates
to an outage every thirty nine months.
Mr. Stempeck said that when you look at the data it looks differently. Mr. Sullivan added that in January, the
number was dropped from 0.82 to 0.62. It is a one year char with a few year average. Mr. Stempeck added that if
this was over four years, it would look different.
Mr. Sullivan said that as reported in January, there we approximately one thousand residential meters to be installed.
Due to the difficulty moving in the snow, the meter department commercial upgrade process is being done now then
the transition in the spring will return to the residential meter upgrade project. Mr. Soli asked about the status of the
fixed network Mr. Sullivan responded that there are two collectors to install and the department is currently using
the system for billing purposes.
M.G.L. Chapter 30B Bid — Mr. Polson (Attachment 4)
2013 -05 CCTV and Access System
Mr. Pelson reported that eight bids were sent with three respondents. Mr. Polson explained that the close circuit
television is the outside security cameras and access control system which, is the FOB system for the building. This
bid is for a three yew contract for maintenance of the system. In July 2012, the RMLD had a lightning strike which
damaged six cameras beyond repair as well as one DVR. The security system is eighteen years old, is outdated, has
its limitations and has experienced some failures. The project involves replacing the damaged cameras, DVR, and
will also bring the RMLD to NERC compliance for Station 4.
Mr. Stempeck asked the incumbent did not submit a bid. Mr. Poison responded that GS Security did not bid. Mr.
Stempeck commented that Tyco came in at approximately half of Stanley, but failed on the bid security or evidence
of insurance, is that unusual. •
Mr. Poison said that they have seen this, but now have very detailed discussions in pre bid meetings with vendors
that they need to submit the required documentation. Mr. Soli suggested using day glow colored paper to make it
stand out within the bid packet because they see it so many times. Mr. Poison said that they will try this.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes 5
L February 27, 2013
�Ir M.G.L. Chapter 30B Bid -Mr. Poison (Attachment 4)
2013 -05 CCTV and Access System
Chairman Pacino asked what the Department gets for the maintenance aspect of the contract. Mr. Pelson responded
that the cost is $4,809.91. Mr. Poison said that the maintenance includes that the cameras are adjusted and cleaned
as well as work on the security system if needed. Any repair work will be conducted on an hourly basis. Chairman
Pacino expressed his concern on the theft of copper that occurred and was due to the misalignment of a camera.
Chairman Pacino said that there is a security program in place and hopes this aligns with that. Mr. Sullivan
commented that this effort does that. Mr. Stempeck asked if there is a way to protect these cameras from further
lighming strikes. Mr. Poison responded that lightning suppression is a component of this bid.
Ms. Snyder made a motion seconded by Mr. Stempeck that Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) and Access System
be awarded to Stanley Convergent Security Solutions for $37,181.85 as the lowest qualified and responsive bidder
on the recommendation of the Interim General Manager.
Motion carried 4:0:0.
General Discussion
There was none.
Account Payable Rotation
March - Chairman Pacino
BOARD MATERIAL. AVAILABLE BUT NOT DISCUSSED
Rate Comparisons, February 2013
E -Mail responses to Account Payable/Payroll Questions
RMLD Board Meetines
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 and Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Citizens' Advisory Board Meeting
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Citizens' Advise" Board Meeting - Budget Committee Merlins
Wednesday, April 3, 2013 and Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Executive Session
At 8:29 p.m. Mr. Stempeck made a motion seconded by Ms. Snyder that the Board go into Executive Session to
approve the Executive Session meeting minutes of January 30, 2013, to discuss strategy with respect to collective
bargaining and arbitration and return to Regular Session for the sole purpose of adjournment.
Motion carried by a polling of the Board:
Ms. Snyder, Aye; Mr. Stempeck Aye; Chairman Pacino, Aye; and Mr. Soli, Aye.
Motion carried 4:0:0.
Adjournment
At 8:53 p.m. Ms. Snyder made a motion seconded by Mr. Stempeck to adjourn the Regular Session.
A true copy of the RMLD Board of Commissioner: minutes
as approved by a majority of the Commission.
Robert Soli, Secretary Pro Tem
® RMLD Board of Com nissionerS
® READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
To: RMLD Board of Commissioners Date: February 22, 2013
From: Kevin Sullivan
Subject: Other Post Employment Benefits Update
MEMORANDUM
In January, the RMLD Board of Commissioners (RMLB) was advised by its
auditors, Melanson Heath & Company, P.C., to create an irrevocable trust
instrument for the OPEB fund. This provision would remove the liability on
RMLD's financial statements, conform more closely with GASB 45 and align with
the Town of Reading's future OPEB trust fund.
A legal opinion was requested from Rubin and Rudman. Their legal opinion
states that upon adoption of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 32B Section
20, the RMLD Board of Commissioners are not required to create a trust
document for investment of funds regardless of where these funds are invested,
unless at such time, a custodian other than the Town Treasurer will be appointed
for investment purposes. While it remains, that the liability of the financial
statements would diminish if the current fund reserve is converted to a trust
instrument,
the Massachusetts
Department of Revenue
did not
express an
opinion to
legal counsel on
whether creating a trust
satisfies
the GASB
requirements.
If the Commissioners of the Board were to create a trust instrument, they would
be the trustees of the fund subjecting the Commissioners to the remote possibility
of litigation. However, per legal counsel, the responsibility of the funds and any
such actions thereof, lies against the custodian of the fund, i.e., the Town
Treasurer, and not the Board members, since the Board would not be directing
the investment decisions.
ATTACHMENT
11
January 4, 2013
Mr. Vincent Cameron
General Manager
Reading Municipal Light Department
230 Ash Street
Reading, Massachusetts 01867 -0250
Dear Mr. Cameron,
MF I��Co
MELANSON HEATH & COMPANY, PC
L.BR I IEIEE, PI: BLK Au RI]I'. \. i
MAN aueniESr ADFI',IRI
10 N. E,gLmJ Uv...... Len,n D,h, Sinn- 107
A, L&",. MA 01810
Id (978) 7494YV5 . Pn. (978) 744.E \V6
u nv. melnn.0 mhauth. nnn
This letter is in response to our phone conversation earlier today regarding the
Department's treatment of the GASB 45 Other Post - Employment Benefits (OPEB)
liability.
In May 2010 the Light Board of Commissioners accepted Section 20 of MGL
Chapter 32B dealing with OPEB. Subsequently, the Commissioners approved
setting cash aside to fund the OPEB liability, however, the Department's attorney
[ opined that these funds were not considered 'irrevocable" (as required by
♦/ GASB 45) because no formal trust document was established. As a result, the
OPEB cash was not reported in a separate fiduciary fund in the Department's
financial statements, nor was the OPEB liability reduced to reflect the funding.
We understand the Town of Reading recently approved Section 20 of MGL
Chapter 32B, and is in process of establishing an irrevocable trust document. We
recommend the Department also consider establishing a formal irrevocable trust
document for its OPEB. This will result in reducing (or eliminating) the OPEB
liability that is currently reflected in the Department's financial statements, and
would conform more closely to the intent of GASB 45. This presentation would be
more consistent with the Town's treatment and may also be viewed favorably by
bond rating agencies.
I will be happy to discuss this subject further with you and /or the Board of
Commissioners if requested.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Biron, CPA
President
101
E
®RUBINAND
RUDMANun
Allorneys al Law
T. 617.330.7000 F: 617.330.7550
50 Rowe$ Wharf, Boston, MA 02110
Diedre T. Lawrence
Direct Dial: 617a30-7056
E -mail: DtewmnmGruainrudman. cem
MEMORANDUM
BY EMAIL
'ro: Kevin Sullivan, Acting General Manager
Reading Municipal Light Department
From: Diedre T. Lawrence, Karla Doukas
Re: Creation of an Irrevocable OPEB Trust
Date: January 24, 2013
We have reviewed the January 4, 2013 letter from Frank Biron, President of Melanson
Heath & Company, PC recommending that the Reading Municipal Light Department ( "RMI,D')
establish an irrevocable trust instrument governing its Other Post - Employment Benefits
("OPEB") funds. Mr. Biron states that while in 2010 RMLD accepted the OPEB statute (G.L. c.
32B, § 20), because RMLD did not establish a formal trust instrument, RMLD's OPEB cash was
not reported in a separate fiduciary fund in RMLD's financial statements. As a result, RMLD's
OPF.B liability was not reduced to reflect any such OPEB funding.
Based on our research, we conclude that G.L. c. 32B, § 20 does not require municipal
light plants to establish a formal trust document to place funds in an OPEB Trust once that
statute is accepted by the RMLD Board. Once accepted, an OPEB Trust arises by operation of
law, which cannot be rescinded or revoked. Accordingly, a formal trust instrument is not legally
necessary to report RMLD's OPEB cash on its financial statements or to reduce RMLD's OPEB
liabilities as long as the funds are appropriated and transferred to RMLD's OPEB Trust Fund.
I memorandum is being provided to you pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 56.
DISCUSSION
As you are aware, G.L. c. 32B, § 20 (as amended in 2011) authorizes cities, towns, and
municipal light plants to establish an OPEB Liability Trust Fund and to appropriate amounts to
be credited to the fund. For RMLD to establish an OPEB Liability Trust Fund, the statute
® merely requires the RMLD Board of Commissioners to vote to accept the provisions of the
13451181
11
Kevin Sullivan, Acting General Manager
January 24, 2013
Page 2
statute. G.L. c. 32B, § 20 (c). By law, the OPEB funds must be held in a segregated fund, which
shall be protected from claims of any of RMLD's general creditors.
There is no statutory requirement that RMLD execute any formal documents to create the
OPF.B Liability Trust Fund. It arises by operation of law. Once RMLD accepts G.L. c. 32B, §
20, its acceptance cannot be rescinded or revoked. See G.L. c. 32B, § 10 ( "[nlotwilhstanding the
provisions of any general law to the contrary, neither the acceptance of this chapter nor the
acceptance of any individual section thereof by a governmental unit shall be revoked or
rescinded "). Accordingly, although RMMLD is not required to appropriate funds (or any
particular amount) to its OPEB Trust Liability Fund, once it does so, such funds only may be
used for its OPEB liabilities.
Tax Counsel for the Massachusetts Department of Revenue ( "DOR "), Division of Local
Services ( "DLS ") has confirmed that a "trust document" is not necessary to place funds in an
OPEB Trust under G.L. c. 32B, § 20 as long as that statute has been accepted by the appropriate
governing body. (See attached email correspondence from Gary Blau, Tax Counsel, on behalf of
DOR DLS Law, dated May 18, 2011). Although DOR Tax Counsel also has confirmed that an
OPEB Trust cannot be rescinded, Tax Counsel, however, has not expressed an opinion on •
whether the creation of the OPEB Trust under G.L. c. 323, § 20 satisfies GASB requirements.
(See attached email correspondence from Christopher Hinchey, Tax Counsel, of DOR DLS Law,
dated October 5, 2009). From our research, it does not appear that GASB 45 requires a formal
written trust document.)
In many situations, a formal trust instrument will not be necessary given that OPEB
Funds typically are managed and invested by the Town Treasurer. To the extent that RMLD
appoints an outside custodian as permitted by G.L. c. 32B, § 20(b), then a trust instrument or
custodial agreement may be advisable. Nonetheless, because RMLD is operated independently
from the Town of Reading ( "Town "), RMLD does not have to follow the same approach as the
Town.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.
As we understand, GASB 45 requires the following: (1) the employer contributions to the trust must be
irrevocable; (2) the assets must be dedicated to providing benefiu to retirees and their beneficiaries; and (3) the
assets must be legally protected from the employer's creditors, See Gmernm erral Accuunling Standard, Boar&
Other Paveempinymenr Benefits: A Plain - Language Summury of GASB Sanemems No. 43 and No 45, at pp. 4 -5.
These requirements are satisfied through G.L. c. 32B, § 20, which provides for the creation ofan OPEB Liability
Trust Fund upon acceptance of the statute by the municipal light board, which cannot be revoked or rescinded. the
statute also protects the OPEB Trust Funds from creditor claims, specifying that ^[alll monies heid in the fund shall
be segregated from other funds and shall not be subject to the claims of any general creditor ofthe city, town,
district, county or municipal lighting plant." Thus, the contributions are irrevocable, dedicated to providing bene0ts •
and protected from creditors.
1345118 '.
L
Employment Benefits Liability Trust Fond at their meeting on April 12, 2011. The
balance in this trust is currently $2,118,111.19. I have attached a copy of the law, which
states they have the ability to do appoint a new custodian. I am currently the custodian of
the fund. My question is how I transfer the funds to the new custodian, tivu the warrant
process? If or when 1 transfer the funds, how are the funds recorded on the books of the
Town if I no longer have custody? Should 1 require that they show me a bond for the
new custodian? I do not believe this law is in the best interest of municipalities. The
general manager of the Gas and Electric wants to invest in U.S. Treasuries and I do not
agree with him so he has convinced the Gas and Electric Commissioners to appoint him
as the custodian.
Currently I do the all banking and borrowing for the Gas and Electric department. Are the
Gas and Electric commissioners ( they may appoint themselves) or the appointed
custodian now allow the have bank accounts with the Towns tax ID number? If you could
give me guidance on how to handle this situation I would greatly apprecite it. Thank you
in advance for you help.
Judy M. Mac Donald
Treasurer /Collector
Town of Middleborough
20 Centre St.
Middleborough, MA 02346
(PH) 508- 946 -2421
Fax 508- 947 -5447
imcdnld @middleboroueh.=
Email Response 2011 -589 — Sudbury — OPEB Trust Document
From: Blau, Gary on behalf of DOR DLS Law
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 20112:17 PM
To: 'Chisholm, Barbara'
Subject: 2011.589 - Sudbury - OPEB Trust Document
Barbara
As we discussed, d do not believe it necessary for the town to draft a "trust document" to
place money in an OPEB Trust under M.G.L. c. 32B, §20, if that provision has been
accepted by the town. But as we also discussed, it appears that Sudbury did not accept
that provision but sought a special act to establish a Post Employment Health Insurance
Liability Fund, which was enacted in 2006 as Chapter 72 of that yew. That act may be
found at http• / /www malegislature.aov/ Laws/ SessionLaws /Acts/2006 /Chapter72. You
may wish to consult with town counsel and the town manager about the scope of the fund
and how the fund may be used in future years to cover the town's legal responsibility to
pay for its share of retiree health insurance. For example, both the Chapter 32B, §20
OPEB trust and Sudbury's special act require an actuarial study, which will provide a
reasoned estimate of the amounts needed to be appropriated to the fund over a reasonable
period of time in order to meet the town's future retiree health insurance obligations, and
® 71
E
at least in Sudbury's case limit the appropriations that may be made to the amount of the
total actuarial liability. Periodic updates to that study will also need to be made to ccount
for actual experience and variances in the factors assumed in conducting the study.
1 hope this addresses your concerns.
Gary A. Blau, Tax Counsel
Bureau of Municipal Finance Law
PO Box 9569
Boston, MA 02114 -9569
617- 626 -2400
blau ®dor.state.ma.us
This e-mail response is intended to provide general information about the application of
municipal tax and finance laws and Department of Revenue policies and procedures. It is
not a public written statement, as defined in 830 CMR 62C.3.1, and time not state the
official position of the Department on the interpretation of the laws pertaining to local
taxes and finance. It should be considered informational only.
From: Chisholm, Barbers [maiho:ChisbolmB @sudbury.ms.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:00 PM
To: DOR DLS Law •
Subject: RE: OPEB Trust Document
Hello,
At our ATM this yew an article was passed to transfer over a million dollars into OPEB
Trust. Do we need trust documents or will the language in 32B s.12 satisfy the trust
requirement?
Thank you,
Barbara
Barbara Chisholm
Town Accountant
Town of Sudbury
278 Old Sudbury Road
Sudbury, MA 01776
978 -639 -3319 phone
978 - 443- 8450fax
chisholmb@rudbury , ma. us
72
•
Email Response 2009 - 1278 — Retiree Health Insurance Fund
From: Hinchey, Christopher Mon behalf of DOR DLS Law
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 8:50 AM
To: 'GinstiAingstonCoQsol.com'
Subject: 2009 -1278 RE: Retiree Health Insurance Fund
GL C.3213 §20 (a local acceptance provisions added by C.479 of the Acts of 2008)
authorizes the creation by municipalities of tout funds for their OPEB liabilities. Once
the provision has been accepted by a municipality, the acceptance cannot be rescinded
(see the last sentence of C.3213 810). See also the brief note on C.479 in our Bulletin
2009 -8B "2008 Legislation."
I don't know whether the creation of an OPEB fund under C.32B §20 would satisfy the
GASS criteria or not.
Chris Hinchey Tax Counsel
Bureau of Municipal Finance Law
PO Box 9569
Boston, MA 021 14 -9569
617- 626 -2400
dlslaw(Wocstate.ma.us
This e-mail response is intended to provide general information about the application of
IQ municipal tax and finance laws and Department of Revenue policies and procedures. It is
not a public written statement, as defined in 830 CMR 62C.3.1, and does not state the
official position of the Department on the interpretation of the laws pertaining to local
taxes and finance. It should be considered informational only.
From: Giustil ingstonCo@aol.00m [mailto:GiustiHingstonCo@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 9:10 AM
To: DOR DLS Law
Subject: Retiree Health Insurance Fund
Hi Chris,
I hope all is well with you. l have a quick question regarding legislation pertaining to an
investment vehicle for retiree health insurance funds. Has anything been passed on that
(i.e. irrevocable trust). Is anything pending. I have a lot of Towns that want to do some
funding. Some are putting it in a separate stabilization fond, but since it is not irrevocable
and subject to the Town's creditors it is not considered truly funded by the GASH. Our
notes to the financial statements will still show zero funding related to the unfunded
liability.
As usual, thanks Chris.
Take ewe, Dick
40 73
Email Response 2009 -1278— Retiree Health Insurance Fund
From: Hinchey, Christopher M on behalf of DOR DLS Law
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 8:50 AM
To: 'GiustiHingstonCo@aol.com'
Subject: 2009 -1278 RE: Retiree Health Insurance Fund
GL C.32B §20 (a local acceptance provisions added by C.479 of the Acts of 2008)
authorizes the creation by municipalities of trust funds for their OPEB liabilities. Once
the provision has been accepted by a municipality, the acceptance cannot be rescinded
(see the last sentence of C.32B 10 . See also the brief note on C.479 in our bulletin
2009 -8B, "2008 Legislation."
I don't know whether the creation of an OPEB fund under C.32B §20 would satisfy the
GASB criteria or not.
Chris Hinchey Tax Counsel
Bureau of Municipal Finance Law
PO Box 9569
Boston, MA 02114 -9569
617 - 626.2400
dlslaw(Wor.state.ma.us
This e-mail response is intended to provide general information about the application of
municipal tax and finance laws and Department of Revenue policies and procedures. It is
not a public written statement, as defined in 830 CMR 62C.3.1, and does not state the
official position of the Department on the interpretation of the laws pertaining to local
taxes and finance. It should be considered informational only.
From: GiustiHingstonCo@aol.com [madto:t3iustiOngstonCo®aol.wm]
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 9:10 AM
To: DOR DLS Law
Subject: Retiree Health Insurance Fund
Hi Chris,
I hope all is well with you. I have a quick question regarding legislation pertaining to an
investment vehicle for retiree health insurance funds. Has anything been passed on that
(i.e. irrevocable trust). Is anything pending. I have a lot of Towns that want to do some
funding. Some are putting it in a separate stabilization fund, but since it is not irrevocable
and subject to the Town's creditors it is not considered truly funded by the GASB. Our
notes to the financial statements will still show zero funding related to the unfunded
liability.
As usual, thanks Chris.
Take care, Dick
73 •
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
® To: RMLD Board of Commissioners Date: February 22, 2013
From: Kevin Sullivan
Subject: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order 719
MEMORANDUM
The RMLD has commercial and industrial customers that participate in a Demand
Response program. In its simplest form, the concept of Demand Response is an
agreement with an aggregator of retail customers (ARC) that acts as a broker
between the customer and the Independent System Operator (ISO) or Regional
Transmission Operator (RTO) for load curtailment.
The contractual agreement is based upon a customer either interrupting a
manufacturing or business process on short notice or deploying generation,
thereby reducing the customer's load. The load reduction can be based on a
variety of measures (decreasing use of HVAC, lighting, etc.). The customer
receives compensation for providing this service.
The Demand Response could involve a deficiency in capacity or some other
system emergency during periods where the available generating capacity does
not meet the requirements of the load to be served in the locale or region. It is also
a mechanism that RMLD can utilize to manage peak demand which is directly
correlated to capacity and transmission costs.
• FERC Order 719 underscores May 31, 2013 as the final day a decision can
be rendered to allow aggregators of retail customers to continue to do
business within the RMLD's territory.
• As a municipality, the Relevant Electric Retail Regulatory Authority
(RERRA), or the Board of Commissioners, is the authority required to vote
on allowing the ARC's to provide Demand Response to RMLD customers.
• The supporting legal opinion provides a detailed explanation of the FERC
Order 719 Demand Response issue.
Duncan
& Allen
February 21, 2013
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kevin Sullivan, Acting General Manager, RMLD
FROM: John P. Coyle
RE: Aggregation of Retail Customers for Demand Response Bidding
This memorandum summarizes the background and current FERC and
ISO New England, Inc. CISO -NE ") rules concerning aggregation of retail
customers for demand response bidding. ISO -NE Market Rule 1, Section
111. 13.1.4.9.1 requires an affirmative statement of consent by the RMLD Board
by May 31, 2013, to allow continuation of aggregation of RMLD retail customers
for purposes of demand bidding into ISO -NE's markets. In the absence of such a
statement, aggregators of retail customers ("ARCS ") currently contracting with
RMLD retail customers will be required by ISO -NE to "retire" the demand
® resource that includes those customers.
I. BACKGROUND
In October 2008, the FERC issued a rulemaking (Order No. 719).11
Although Order No. 719 covered many topics involving regional transmission
organization -run markets, two elements of it are relevant to this discussion:
1. Order No. 719 required independent system operators ( "ISOs") and
regional transmission organizations ( "RTOs ") to allow ARCS to bid "demand
resources" into their markets for energy, ancillary services and capacity. Stated
simply, a "demand resource" is a customer or group of customers capable of
reducing electricity consumption in a pre - agreed amount when called upon by
the ISO or RTO administering the relevant market to do so.
The formal citation for Order No. 719 is Wholesale Competition in Regions with
Organized Markets (Order No. 719), FERC State. & Regs. 131,281 (2008), order
on reh'g, Order 719 -A, FERC State. & Regs. 9 31,292 (2009), denying reh g and
providing clarification, Order 719 -B, 129 FERC 161,252 (2009)
L
Duncan
& Allen
2-
2. In order to avoid imposing unreasonable burdens on smaller
utilities,21 Order No. 719 also required that state regulators and municipal
utility governing bodies (called Relevant Electric Retail Regulatory Authorities
or "RERRAs" in Order No. 719) were presumed not to have consented to the
aggregation of retail customers unless the RERRA affirmatively consented.
As the FERC's mandate from Order 719 developed further, through
rehearing and compliance filings, FERC clarified that the requirement of
RERRA consent did not mean that RERRAs could discriminate in consenting to
demand resource aggregation -- i.e., municipal RERRAs could not clear the field
of all competition and then occupy the field. Thus, with particular reference to
ISO -NE, the FERC held that "If the Retail Regulator does not prohibit
aggregation of demand response, an entity, whether a load - serving entity or
ARC, cannot be precluded from participation in the markets. RTOs and ISOs
may not prohibit participation by one type of aggregator but allow participation
by another." ISO New England, Inc., 131 FERC 161,194 at P 28 (2010). ISO -
NE currently designates Reading as (1) being a distribution territory that does
not permit demand response registration and (2) having demand response
customers currently registered.v
ISO -NE's final market rule on aggregation of retail customers for is
demand bidding provides (Market Rule 1, Section 1I1.13.1.4.9):
A Market Participant may not register and, if previously
registered, must retire in accordance with Section
I1I.13.1.4.9.1, a Real -Time Demand Response Asset, Real -
Time Emergency Generation Asset or asset associated
with an On -Peak Demand Resource or Seasonal Peak
Demand Resource that is comprised of:
FERC generally defines a small utility as one that sells fewer than four million
megawatt hours of energy in a year, and applies this definition in Order No. 719.
See "Distribution Territories That Restrict DR Registration" at http://www.iso-
ne.com/supportlasset_info/index.html
•
Duncan
& Allen
4W -3-
(b) the customers of Host Utilities that distributed 4
million AM or less in the previous fiscal year, unless the
relevant electric retail regulatory authority permits such
customers' demand response to be bid into the ISO -
administered markets or programs.
The ISO -NE market rule further provides (Market Rule 1, Section
III.13.1.4.9.1):
A Market Participant must retire a previously registered
Real -Time Demand Response Asset, Real -Time
Emergency Generation Asset or asset associated with an
On -Peak Demand Resource or Seasonal Peak Demand
Resource that is comprised of customers specified in
subsections (a) or (b) of Section 111. 13.1.4.9 no later than
12 months from the date that the ISO receives notice that
the relevant electric retail regulatory authority prohibits
such customer's demand response to be bid into the ISO -
administered markets or programs or May 31, 2013,
whichever is later.
® Translating from ISO -NE -speak into reasonably plain English, the
market rule (i) requires RERRA consent to demand response aggregation, and
(ii) sets two deadlines for termination of existing demand response aggregation
arrangements where such consent has not been obtained. The first deadline is
May 31, 2013. If RERRA consent has not been obtained by May 31, 2013, an
existing aggregation arrangement must be terminated ( "retired "). The second
deadline is 12 months from the date on which the RERRA notifies ISO -NE that
the RERRA no longer permits aggregation of retail customers.
II. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Demand response aggregation for bidding requires some fairly
sophisticated metering and other information infrastructure to ensure that
multiple smaller retail loads aggregated to 100 kW or more can and actually do
deliver the reduction in consumption that they have contracted to provide? We
y Verification is a fairly big deal. Predecessor programs, such as ISO -NE's Day
Ahead Load Response Program ( "DALRP") were beset by fraudulent claims for
compensation, which were paid with ISO -NE customer funds, because
® footnote cont'd on next page
Duncan
& Allen
-4-
understand that some RMLD commercial and industrial customers are currently
under contract with EnerNoc or other aggregators of retail customers. Causing
the termination of these arrangements may disturb RMLD customers involved
in, and profiting from, currently ongoing aggregation arrangements.
Under the relevant ISO -NE market rule (quoted above), the RMLD Board
can consent to the continuation of these arrangements for the present, and cause
their termination on one - year's notice to ISO -NE if it later decides that it has a
more beneficial use for contractual demand reduction by the customers involved
(and others). In the meantime, RMLD would need to make some substantial
investments in infrastructure to support its own demand response aggregation
program. Of course, whatever RMLD determines to do with demand response in
the future would need to be done on a non - discriminatory basis. On this last
point, it should be emphasized that the FERC's non - discrimination requirement
extends only to ISO -NE and not to RMLD. Neither ISO -NE nor the FERC has
the authority or the jurisdiction to investigate or to challenge whatever criteria
the RMLD Board may choose to impose to establish eligibility to be a demand
response aggregator with respect to RMLD's retail loads.
•
III. RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION •
For these reasons, the Board may wish to consider affirmatively
authorizing the continuation of existing arrangements for aggregation of
demand response within the RMLD service area, subject to a reservation of its
right under ISO -NE's current market rules to require the termination of those
arrangements on one - year's notice. A form of resolution adopting that course
and directing the Interim General Manager to communicate the Board's position
to ISO -NE accompanies this memorandum.
insufficient thought had been given to verification of load reduction before the
programs were implemented. See Competitive Energy Services, LLC, 140 FERC
¶ 61,032 (2012).
•
® RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in its Order No. 719,
authorized the aggregation of retail customers for purposes of bidding demand response as a
resource into markets operated by Regional Transmission Organizations; and
WHEREAS, Under FERC's aggregation -of- retail- customer ( "ARC ") regulations (18
C.F.R. § 35.28(g)(1)(i)(A) and (g)(1)(iii)) and the implementing provisions of ISO New England,
Inc. ( "ISO -NE ") Market Rule 1 (Market Rule 1, § III. 13.1.4.9(a) and (b)), ISO -NE cannot accept
demand response bids from ARCS unless the relevant electric retail regulatory authority
( "RERRA') for RMLD's service area affirmatively permits such bids; and
WHEREAS, ISO -NE's Market Rule 1, § Ill. 13.1.4.9.1 requires the retirement of demand
resources consisting of aggregated retail customers within the service areas of utilities
distributing fewer than four million megawatt hours per year by May 31, 2013, unless the
RERRA consents to the continuation of such arrangements;
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the RMLD Board of Commissioners as follows:
1. The Reading Municipal Light Department authorizes the aggregation of retail
customers for purposes of bidding their demand resource into electricity markets administered by
ISO -NE.
2. The Reading Municipal Light Department reserves its right to: (a) aggregate its
own customers for purposes of demand bidding into electricity markets administered by ISO -NE;
and (b) to require the termination of the aggregation of retail customers within the RMLD
service area on twelve month's written notice to ISO -NE.
3. The Interim General Manager is authorized and directed to communicate this
resolution to ISO -NE.
11
Ll
To: Vincent Cameron
From: Energy Services
Date: February 21, 2013
Subject: Purchase Power Summary — January, 2013
Energy Services Division (ESD) has completed the Purchase Power Summary for the
month of January, 2013 with estimated values for the MMWEC projects and NYPA
billing.
ENERGY
The RMLD's total metered load for the month was 60,727,318 kWh, which is a 2.1%
increase from the January, 2012 figures.
Table 1 is a breakdown by source of the energy purchases.
TABLE 1
ATTACHMENT
Amount of
Cost of
% of Total
Total $
$ as a
Resource
Energy
Energy
Energy
Costs
%
(kWh)
($/Mwh)
Millstone M3
3,713,529
$6.99
6.10%
$25,958
0.88%
Seabrook
5,897,342
$8.32
9.69%
$49,066
1.66%
Stonybrook Intermediate
3,503,233
$67.00
5.76%
$234,717
7.93%
JP Morgan
9.354,800
$58.55
15.37%
$547,677
18.50%
NestEra
9,502,000
$69.51
15.61%
$660,453
22.31%
NYPA
1,940,647
$4.92
3.19%
$9,548
0.32%
ISO Interchange
3,541,386
$59.95
5.82%
$212,291
7.17%
NEMA Congestion
0
$000
0.00%
- $77,791
.2.63%
Coop Resales
122,685
$110.90
0.20%
$13,606
0.46%
MacOuane
9,200,000
$38.41
15.11%
$353,349
11.94%
Summit Hydro
994,950
$55.61
1.63%
$55,332
1,87%
Braintree Watson Unit
481,029
$129.32
0.79%
$62,208
2.10%
Swift River Projects
1,529,467
$99.78
2.51%
$152,613
5.16%
Constellation Energy
11,048,400
$59.21
18.15%
$654,143
22.10%
Stonybrook Peaking
37,314
$175.00
0.06%
$6,530
0.22%
Monthly Total
60,866,782
$48.63
100.00%
$2,959,699
100.00%
ATTACHMENT
Table 2 breaks down the ISO interchange between the DA LMP Settlement and the RT •
Net Energy for the month of January, 2013.
Table 2
Amount Cost % of Total
Resource of Energy of Energy Energy
(kWh) ($ /Mwh)
ISO DA LMP 6,320,346 85.31 10.38%
Settlement
RT Net Energy •• - 2,778,961 74.34 4.57%
Settlement
ISO Interchange 3,541,386 59.95 5.82%
(subtotal)
independent System Operator Day -Ahead Locational Marginal Price
^ Reel Time Net Energy
CAPACITY
The RMLD hit a demand of 108,799 kW, which occurred on January 23, at 7 pm. The
RMLD's monthly UCAP requirement for January, 2013 was 211,827 kWs.
Table 3 shows the sources of capacity that the RMLD utilized to meet its requirements. is
Table 3
Source
Amount (kWa)
Cost ($IkW- month)
Total Cost $
%of Total Cost
Millstone #3
4,991
51.67
$257,885
16.92%
Seabrook
7,742
51.02
$394,997
25,91%
Stonybrook Peaking
24,981
1.79
$44,628
2.93%
Stonybrook CC
42,925
3.69
$158,202
10.38%
NYPA
4,019
3.57
$14,348
0.94%
Hydra Quebec
4,584
4.70
$21,550
1.41%
Nexlera
60,000
5.50
$330,000
21.65%
Braintree Watson Unit
10,520
11.01
$115,836
7.60%
ISO -NE Supply Auction
52,065
3.59
$186,771
12.25%
Total
211,827
$7.20
$1,524,216
100.00%
El
Table 4 shows the dollar amounts for energy and capacity per source.
Table
Cost of
%of
Amt of Energy
Power
Resource
Energy
Capacity Total cost Total Cost
(kWh)
(SAM)
Millstone #3
$25,958
$257,885 $283,643 6.33%
3,713,529
0.0764
Seabrook
549.066
$394,997 $444,063 9.90%
5,897,342
0.0753
Stonybrook Intermediate
$234,717
$158,202 $392,919 8.76%
3,503,233
0.1122
Hydro Quebec
$0
$21,550 $21,550 0.48%
-
0.0000
JP Morgan
$547,677
50 $647,677 12.21%
9,354,800
0.0585
NestEm
$660,453
$330,000 $990,453 22.09%
9,502,000
0.1042
NYPA
$9,548
$14,348 $23,896 0.53%
1.940.647
0.0123
ISO Interchange
$212,291
$186,771 $399,062 8.90%
3,541,386
01127
Name Congestion
- $77,791
$0 - $77,791 -1.73%
-
0.0000
MacOuarie
$353,349
$0 $353,349 7.88%
9,200,000
0.0384
"Summit Hydro
$55,332
$0 $55,332 1.23%
994,950
0.0556
Braintree Watson Unit
$62,208
$115,836 $178,044 3.97%
481,029
0.3701
Swill River Projects
$152,613
$0 $152,613 3.40%
1,529,467
0.0998
Coop Resales
$13,606
$0 $13,606 0.30%
122,685
0.1109
Constellation Energy
5654,143
$0 5654,143 14.59%
11,048,400
0.0592
Stonybrook Peaking
$6,530
$44,628 $51,158 1.14%
37,314
1.3710
Monthly Total
$2,959,699
$1,524,216 $4,483,915 100.00%
60,866,782
0.0737
e Renewable Resources
7.34%
®
RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES (RECs)
The RMLD sold 12,613
2012 RECs
(Quarter 1 and Quarter
2) for $582,097.75 in
January, 2013. 750 Quarter 1 and 2 RECs remain banked for retirement.
Table 5 shows the amount of banked and projected RECs for the Swift River
Hydro
Projects through January, 2013,
as well as their estimated market value.
Table 5
Swift River RECs Summary
Period - January 2012 - January 2013
Banked
Projected Total
Est.
RECs
REO RErs
Dollars
Woronoco
394
1,465 1,859
$67,390
Pepperell
364
0 384
$10,351
Indian River
92
737 829
$39,061
Turners Falls
751
0 751
50
Grand Total
1,621
2,202 3,823
$126,803
TRANSMISSION •
The RMLD's total transmission costs for the month of January were $754,966. This is an
increase of 2.2% from the December transmission cost of $738,628. In January, 2012 the
transmission costs were $638,899.
•
r
Table 6
Current Month
Lest Month
Last Year
Peak Demand (kw)
108,799
108,921
106,558
Energy (kWh)
60,866,782
59,364,911
59,550,250
Energy ($)
$2,959,699
$2,868,713
$3,338,331
capacity ($)
$1,524,216
$1,528,363
$1,337,348
Transmission ($)
$754,966
$738,628
$638,899
Total
$5,238,881
$5,135,703
$5,314,578
•
r
2/22/2013
8:09 AM
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
FY 13 CAPITAL BUDGET VARIANCE REPORT
FOR PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 31, 2013
N PROJECT DESCRIPTION
E &O Construclion4tystem Projects
1 Essex Street - Reconductorrig
2 4W13 OH Reconductoring - West Street
3 Upgrading of Old Lynn0eld Center URDs (Partial CARRYOVER)
5 Shady Lane Area - Reconductoring
6 Federal Street - Recunductoring
Station Upgrades
SNOW k4
8 Relay Replacement Project - (Partial CARRYOVER)
9 Station 4 Getaway Replacement -4W13
Total System Projects
R
R
Total Station Projects
ACTUAL
YTD ACTUAL
ANNUAL
Station 5 RTU (Remote Terminal Unit) Replacement
W
COST
COST
BUDGET
REMAINING
TOWN
JANUARY
THRU 1131113
AMOUNT
BALANCE
LC
Service Installations- Commercial /Industrial Customers
200
197,855
197,655
W
1,594
14,289
168,193
173,904
LC
133
121,288
492,143
370,855
W
31,192
64,724
199,042
134,318
W
56,657
57,520
175,565
118,045
Total System Projects
R
R
Total Station Projects
Total Construction Projects
Other Proiects
15 GIS
16 Transfarmers /Capacitors Annual Purchases
17A Meter Annual Purchases
17B Meter Upgrade Project - (Partial CARRYOVER)
17C Meter Upgrade Project - Commercials
18 Purchase Vehicles
19 Purchase Line Department Vehicles
20 Purchase New Pole Dolly
21 Automated Building Systems
22 Engineering Analysis software& data conversion - (CARRYOVER)
23 Gaw Station Generator
24 Capital Repairs - Station One
25 New Carpeting
26 Water Heater Demand Response Technology
27 Hardware Upgrades
28 Software and Licensing
Total Other Projects
TOTAL FY 13 CAPITAL PROJECT UPENDITURES
119,309 119,309
4,430 161,779 157,349
56,163 56,163
30,155 148,888 80,653 (68,235)
6,574 63,074 56,500
26,769 135,404 207,923 72,519
102,507
SCADA Protects
1,131,723
10
Station 5 RTU (Remote Terminal Unit) Replacement
W
4
Station 4 RTU (Remote Terminal Unit) Replacement (Partial CARRYOVER)
R
3,732,480
Total SCADA Projects
2,690,936
1,686,041
New Customer Service Connections
1,241,870
12
Service Installations- Commercial /Industrial Customers
ALL
13
Service Installations- Residential Customers
ALL
Total Service Connections
97,495
14
Routine Construction
246,334
Various Routine Contruction
ALL
Total Construction Projects
Other Proiects
15 GIS
16 Transfarmers /Capacitors Annual Purchases
17A Meter Annual Purchases
17B Meter Upgrade Project - (Partial CARRYOVER)
17C Meter Upgrade Project - Commercials
18 Purchase Vehicles
19 Purchase Line Department Vehicles
20 Purchase New Pole Dolly
21 Automated Building Systems
22 Engineering Analysis software& data conversion - (CARRYOVER)
23 Gaw Station Generator
24 Capital Repairs - Station One
25 New Carpeting
26 Water Heater Demand Response Technology
27 Hardware Upgrades
28 Software and Licensing
Total Other Projects
TOTAL FY 13 CAPITAL PROJECT UPENDITURES
119,309 119,309
4,430 161,779 157,349
56,163 56,163
30,155 148,888 80,653 (68,235)
6,574 63,074 56,500
26,769 135,404 207,923 72,519
102,507
2,047,439
1,131,723
988,211
(143,512)
718,890
3,732,480
249,007
2,690,936
1,686,041
2,929,910
1,241,870
10,610
56,821
97,495
40.674
103,410
246,334
284,000
37,666
54,141
49,710
(4,431)
30,845
463,927
564,416
100,486
298,198
417,069
551,853
134,784
65,000
65,000
474,861
570,000
95,139
12,000
12,000
150,000
150,000
76,789
76,789
55,000
55,000
400,000
400,000
35,000
35,000
190,614
336,611
145,997
12,308
64,357
126,629
62,272
14.512
79.315
119.002
39.687
469,883
2,047,439
3,493,606
1,446,066
718,890
3,732,480
6,423,416
2,690,936
A71FACHMENT3
Reading Municipal Light Department
Engineering and Operations
r" Monthly Report
January 2013
`J
FY 2013 Capital Plan
E &O Construction - System Proiects
1 Reconductoring of Essex Street, Lynnfield Center - No Activity.
2 4W13 Off Reconductoring Project, West Street, Wilmington - Engineering Labor.
3 Upgrading of Old Lynnfield Center URDs - (Phase 1 Completed). Engineering Labor:
work on specifications for Phase 2.
5 Shady Lane Drive Area, Wilmington - Reconductoring - Line Department:
Continued make -ready work. Installed poles, and primary and secondary cable.
Energized new secondaries.
6 Federal Street, Wilmington - Reconductoring - Line Department: Pole framing and
wiring for reconductoring. Engineering Labor.
Station Upgrades
8 Station 4 Relay Replacement Project - Reading - No Activity.
9 Station 4 Getaway Replacement - 4W13 -No Activity.
SCADA Proiects
10 Station 5 RTU Replacement, Wilmington - No Activity.
4 Station 4 RTU Replacement - Engineering and Senior Tech labor.
New Customer Service Connections
12 Service Installations - Commercial/Industrial Customers - This item includes new
service connections, upgrades, and service replacements for the commercial and
industrial customers. This represents the time and materials associated with the
replacement of an existing or installation of a new overhead service, the connection of
an underground service, etc. This does not include the time and materials associated
with pole replacements/installations, transformer replacements /installations, primary or
secondary cable replacements/installations, etc. This portion of the project comes
under routine construction. No Activity.
February 22, 2013
{, 13 Service Installations — Residential Customers — This item includes new or
iir upgraded overhead and underground services, temporary overhead services, and
large underground development.
u
Routine Construction:
14 Routine Construction —The drivers of the Routine Construction budget category
YTD are listed. This is not an inclusive list of all items within this category.
Pole Setting/Transters
$242,937
Maintenance OverheadNnderground
$232,254
Projects Assigned as Required
$206,426
Pole Damage (includes knockdowns) some reimbursable
$64,446
Station Group
$14,199
Ha2mat/Ofl Spills
$0
Porcelain Cutout Replacement Program
$0
Lighting (Street Light Connections)
$17,292
Storm Trouble
$132,037
Underground Subdivisions
$43,848
Animal Guard Installation
$31,440
Miscellaneous Capital Costs
$146,843
TOTAL
$1,131,723
*in the month of January, zero (0) cutouts were charged under this program.
Approximately 17 cutouts were installed new or replaced because of damage making a
total of 17 cutouts replaced this month.
February 22, 2013
U
101
Reliability Report
Two key industry standard metrics have been identified to enable the RMLD to measure and track
system reliability. A rolling 12 -month view is being used for the purposes of this report.
Customer Average Interruption Duration Index ( CAIDI) measures how quickly the RMLD
restores power to customers when their power goes out.
CAIDI = Total of Customer Interruption Duration for the Month in Minutes s Total Number
of Customers Interrupted.
RMLD 12 -month system average outage duration: 62.31 minutes
RMLD four -year average outage (2006- 2009): 50.98 minutes per outage
On average, RMLD customers that experience an outage are restored in 62.31 minutes
February 22, 2013 3
H
System Average Interruption Frequency (SAIFI) — Measures how many outages each
customer experiences per year on average.
SAIFI = Total Number of Customers Interrupted + Total Number of Customers
RMLD 12 -month system average: 0.31 outages per year
RMLD four -year average outage frequency: 0.62
The graph below tracks the month -by -month SAIFI performance.
Months Between Interruptions (MBTI)
Another view of the SAIFI data is the number of months RMLD customers have no interruptions.
At this time, the average RMLD customer experiences an outage approximately every 38.7
months.
February 22, 2013 4
RM LD CoRdi— Man, ipd Light Depxrtmcnr
•eiuux rbv roa eea unnoes
270 Ash 30
P.O. Box 1 1 re
Reading, MAO 1867-0230
Tel:(781)944 -1340
In: (791) 942 -2409
Web: ..dd. m
February 14, 2013
Town of Reading Municipal Light Board
Subject Closed Circuit television (CCTV) and Access System
On January 2, 2013 a bid invitation was placed as a legal notice in the Reading Chronicle, Lynnfield Villager,
North Reading Transcript and Wilmington Town Crier requesting proposals for Closed Circuit Television
(CCTV) and Access System for the Reading Municipal Light Department
An invitation to bid was sent to the following 8 companies:
CGL Electronic Security First Alarm LLC GS Security Systems
Redhawk Siemens Building Stanley Convergent Security
Technologies Solutions
Surveillance Specialties, Ltd. Team AVS, Inc.
® Bids were received from 3 companies; Mercier Electric & Communications, Inc., Stanley Convergent Security
Solutions and Tyco.
The bids were publicly opened and read aloud at 11:00 a.m. February 7, 2013 in the Town of Reading
Municipal Light Department's Audio Visual Spurr Room, 230 Ash Street, Reading, Massachusetts.
The bids were reviewed, analyzed and evaluated by the Interim General Manager and the staff. Move that
bid 2013 -05 for: Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) and Access System be awarded to: Stanley Convergent
Security Solutions for $37,181.85 as the lowest qualified and responsive bidder on the recommendation of the
Interim General Manager.
The equipment and installation costs will be charged as follows: The Capital Budget Account for
Miscellaneous Equipment $22,752.12 for Fiscal Year 2013. The Operating Budget Accounts for Security
Cameras Maintenance and Card Key System /Security System $4,809.91 for Fiscal Years 2013, 2014 and 2015.
(This is a 3 -Year contract.)
r
K a SS an
David Poison
f -'
•Paula O'[xary,
ATTACHMENT
a
!| 7 ¥ a
/| ■ J }
\kk § | 6 \
) ,
! ! \§ \
! ) ! !!
)k \ #
} \ fk §
,
72 \ {! )a ))2 / \
UP
=,4: ,,•
|�|
IN - --
|�i |;� |•!! ;•|•!| -
|
-
�(
,
§ %� \§ \§ \�
§ \§ \§ \§ \
§ )�§
�§ (
�
/�
• -,
� | ||
V7
Jeanne Foti
3m:
Jeanne Foti
sent:
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:05 AM
To:
Accounting Group
Cc.
Kevin Sullivan; Patricia Melling
Subject:
Payroll - Monday, January 28
Tracking: Recipient
Accounting Group
Kevin Sullivan
Patricia Mellino
bfournier @RMLD.com
skazanjian @RMLD.com
wmarkiewirz @RMLD.com
Wendy Markiewicz
Good morning.
There were no Payroll questions for Monday, January 28.
Thanks.
Jeanne Foti
Reading Municipal Light Department
Executive Assistant
230 Ash Street
Reading, MA 01867
781- 942 -6434 Phone
781- 942 -2409 Fax
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
NA
Delivery Read
Delivered: 1/29 /2013 7.05 AM
Delivered: 1/39 /2013 7.05 AM
Delivered: 1/29 /2013 7:05 AM
Delivered: 1/2912013 7:05 AM
Delivered: 1/2912013 7:05 AM
Read: 1/29/2013 7'28 AM
Read: 1/29/2013 7:46 AM
Jeanne Foti
From:
Kevin Sullivan
Sent:
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:57 AM
To:
RMLD Board Members Group
Cc:
Accounting Group; Jeanne Foti; Patricia Mellino
Subject:
FW: Account Payable Questions - January 25
Below are the answers to the AIP questions for last week.
'?(Fran Su[fivan
Engineering and Operations Manager
Reading Municipal Light Department
781 942 -6407 office
From: Jeanne Foti
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 8:32 AM
To: Kevin Sullivan
Subject: Account Payable Questions - January 25
Snyder
1. Cushing lamallo - Why is Invoice so late? The invoice was received on 1/10/13. It's dated 12/7/12.
What was the outcome of the testing? The outcome of the testing was non -PCB oil. Would it be cost effective
to screen transformers for PCB so as to know which have PCB's + replace + save much of this cost? The RMLD
believes all PCB filled transformers have been removed from the distribution system. To test a
distribution transformer for PCB content would require: taking an outage and having a Haz -Mat
representative present to perform the test.
Mass Communications- How many customers receive this+ how many are on a -pay- Do the a -pay customers
receive some sort of notice? What's the "return" on this? Is it cost effective?
(e.g., much greater than $1,160?) Mass Communications (MCI) is RMLD's bulk
mailer for all its monthly bills except for the 2,600 paperless customers to date. As discussed at
the 4125/12 meeting RMLD will realize cost savings between $5,000 to S 10,000 annually
conservatively. MCI is not involved with a -pay customers.
3. SJ Services -Why invoice paid so late? From November 2012?
The 3 invoices were originally received by RMLD on 12/17 after we made
several requests. The invoices were review on 12/18 and some errors were identified, the vendor
was contacted on 12/18, 12/19, 12/20 and 1/8. The revised invoices were resubmitted on 1/11 by SJ
Services. The delay was with SJ Services not RMLD.
The outside door to GM conference room has a gap the bottom +cold air is whistling in - please at a minimum get
something to block that air leak. We will install some type of door sweep or weather stripping to reduce •
air infiltration.
Thank you.
`kanne Foci
Reading Municipal Light Department
Executive Assistant
230 Ash Street
Reading, MA 01867
781 -942 -6434 Phone
781- 942 -2409 Fax
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
A
Jeanne Foti
From: Kevin Sullivan •
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:26 PM
To: Gina Snyder
Cc: RMLD Board Members Group; Accounting Group; Jeanne Foti; Patricia Mellino
Subject: RE: FW: Account Payable Questions - January 25
Gina;
As per the last email, please see below.
&-Nn Ju7ran
Engineering and Operations Manager
Reading Municipal Light Department
781 942 -6407 office
From: Boor Gina fmailto: bocina03aearthlink net)
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 1:10 PM
To: Kevin Sullivan
Cc: RMLD Board Members Group; Accounting Group; Jeanne Foti; Patricia Mellino
Subject: Re: FW: Account Payable Questions - January 25
Hi Kevin,
A couple follow up clarification questions:
On the PCB transformers, I'm a little confused, if they don't have PCBs why were they testing for PCBs and
spending hours reviewing TSCA regulations?
Conferring with the RMLD's LSP, I have been told it is standard practice to test for PCBs as an assurance in the
matter. The reporting aspect to MADEP is directly influenced by a PCB /Non -PCB situation. However, the LSP
does not spend hours reviewing TSCA regulations.
On the Mass Communications, it looked like we were paying for printing the good neighbor energy fund envelopes to
be included in the bills .... if that's not what the charge was, I suppose I would still have a question as to whether we pay
to print those envelops and if the return is cost effective; and how do the a -pay customers get the solicitation (and if so,
it would be good to know how they would donate if they don't get an envelop - through the RMLD pay site ?)
MCI stuffs the GNEF envelopes with the bills and there is a charge for that as specified in the contract. GNEF is an
activity that the RMLD supports. In February, RMLD will include an extra paragraph on the a -bill notice paperless
customers receive to inform them of the GNEF and how they can contribute towards it.
Thank you,
Gina
On 1/29/2013 10:56 AM, Kevin Sullivan wrote:
Below are the answers to the A/P questions for last week
ke, rrr .l of r urr
Engineering and Operations Manager
Reading Municipal Light Department
781 942 -6407 office
Jeanne Foti
Irom:
Kevin Sullivan
went:
Friday, February 01, 2013 2:52 PM
To:
Gina Snyder
Cc:
RMLD Board Members Group; Accounting Group; Jeanne Foti; Patricia Mellino
Subject:
RE: FW: Account Payable Questions - January 25
Gina;
Per our discussion prior to Wednesday night's board meeting, mea culpa. The LSP had spent hours reviewing TSCA
regs. I made the LSP aware of the situation yesterday. This afternoon, I spoke to the LSP relative to the time spent (7
hrs.) reviewing the TSCA regulations. Two things came out of this conversation:
1. The LSP responded that the TSCA regulations are quite comprehensive requiring considerable review. In addition he
reminded me that initially, the thought was PCB oil had spilled from the transformers due to the age of the transformers
and the on site false positive received from the test kit. Upon further review (lab tests), we now know the oil was straight
mineral oil. Before the lab lest, the LSP was preparing for a filing to MADEP and EPA consisting of TSCA regulations.
2. In addition, the LSP reviewed the invoice and determined there had been a billing error. While we had been billed for 7
hours, the discussion between the two principals was that the RMLD should be billed for 2 hours. Hence, a billing error
exists on the invoice.
The LSP offered a credit of 5 hours and I agreed.
Thank you for providing thoughtful input into the situation.
enin,tiu�rwn
gineering and Operations Manager
Reading Municipal Light Department
781 942 -6407 office
From: Kevin Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:26 PM
To: Gina Snyder
Cc: RMLD Board Members Group; Accounting Group; Jeanne Foti; Patricia Mellino
Subject: RE: FW: Account Payable Questions - January 25
Gina;
As per the last email, please see below .
kel in Sun run
Engineering and Operations Manager
Reading Municipal Light Department
781 942 -6407 office
From: Boor Gina [mailto:bogina03 @earthlink.netj
gc: rit: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 1:10 PM
Kevin Sullivan
RMLD Board Members Group; Accounting Group; Jeanne Foti; Patricia Mellino
Subject: Re: FW: Account Payable Questions - January 25
Hi Kevin,
A couple follow up clarification questions:
On the PCB transformers, I'm a little confused, if they don't have PCBs why were they testing for PCBs and
spending hours reviewing TSCA regulations?
Conferring with the RMLO's LSP, I have been told it is standard practice to test for PCBs as an assurance in the
matter. The reporting aspect to MADEP is directly influenced by a PCB /Non -PCB situation. However, the LSP
does not spend hours reviewing TSCA regulations.
On the Mass Communications, it looked like we were paying for printing the good neighbor energy fund envelopes to
be included in the bills .... if that's not what the charge was, I suppose I would still have a question as to whether we pay
to print those envelops and if the return is cost effective; and how do the a -pay customers get the solicitation land if so,
it would be good to know how they would donate if they don't get an envelop - through the RMLD pay site ?)
MCI stuffs the GNEF envelopes with the bills and there is a charge for that as specified in the contract. GNEF is an
activity that the RMLD supports. In February, RMLD will include an extra paragraph on the a -bill notice paperless
customers receive to inform them of the GNEF and how they can contribute towards it.
Thank you,
Gina
On 1/29/2013 10:56 AM, Kevin Sullivan wrote:
Below are the answers to the A/P questions for last week.
1(min-Sumcaa
Engineering and Operations Manager
Reading Municipal Light Department
781 942 -6407 office
•
From: Jeanne Foti - -- - -
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 8:32 AM
To: Kevin Sullivan
Subject: Account Payable Questions - January 25
Snyder
1. Cushing lamallo -Why is invoice so late? The invoice was received on 1/10/13. It's
dated 12/7/12. What was the outcome of the testing? The outCOrlle of the testing Was non -
PCB Oil. Would it be cost effective to screen transformers for PCB so as to know which have PCB's
+ replace+ save much of this cost? The RMLD believes all PCB filled transformers have
been removed from the distribution system. To test a distribution transformer for PCB
content would require: taking an outage and having a Haz -Mat representative present to
perform the test.
Mass Communications - How many customers receive this + how many are on a -pay- Do the e-
pay customers receive some sort of notice? What's the "return" on this? Is it cost effective?
(e.g., much greater than 51,160 ?) Mass ('onununicalilms (\I( 1)
is R \ILD . bulk inane, lit, all its monlhlJ hills except tin the ".600 p:gtcrlcss •
eustanlers w dale. \s discussed at tic 4 ?i 12 meeting- R %11 1) x% ill re.diie eusl
sa% invs hcle Coil )i,l110Io ti 10.000 annualh. con,cl' %llh \ely. MCI is not in, ol \ell
%%till c -p;n Cu5a111101.
3. SJ Services— Why invoice paid so late? From November 2012?
The 3 invoices were originally received by RMLD on 12/17 after we made
several requests. The invoices were review on 12/18 and some errors were identified,
the vendor was contacted on 12/18, 12/19, 12/20 and 1/8. The revised invoices were
resubmitted on 1111 by SJ Services. The delay was with SJ Services not RMLD.
The outside door to GM conference room has a gap the bottom + cold air is whistling in — please at a
minimum get something to block that air leak. We will install some type of door sweep
or weather stripping to reduce air infiltration.
Thank you.
Jeanne Foti
Reading Municipal Light Department
Executive Assistant
230 Ash Street
Reading, MA 01867
781 -942 -6434 Phone
781 - 942 -2409 Fax
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
E
Jeanne Foti
From
Kevin Sullivan •
Sent:
Monday, February 04, 2013 2:29 PM
To:
Accounting Group; RMLD Board Members Group
Cc:
Jeanne Foti; Patricia Mellino
Subject:
FW: Account Payable Warrant - February 1, 2013
Gina,
Please see my responses below.
Kmn Sua'van
Engineering and Operations Manager
Reading Municipal Light Department
781 942 -8407 office
From: Jeanne Fold
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 8:10 AM
To: Kevin Sullivan
Subject: Account Payable Warrant - February 1, 2013
Snyder
1. APPA, Barbas, BSE, LLi, MBCR, NEPPA, PURMA, Secretary of State — Please remind all that P.O.'s should be
entered prior to work/invoice.
The Department will become better at producing the PO ahead of receiving the associated invoice. The only
invoice received that this scenario could not be accomplished for, is the snow removal invoice from the Barbas rental
property
2. MBCR - What is the discrepancy on this one?
Payment and invoicing process crossing in the mail.
3. National Grid- Are the dates (February 2012 +2/15/2012) typos?
Yes. Typos with the annual change.
Jeanne Foti
Reading Municipal Light Department
Executive Assistant
230 Ash Street
Reading, MA 01867
781 - 942 -6434 Phone
Aft
781 - 942 -2409 Fax
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Jeanne Foti
om: Jeanne Foti
Sent Monday, February 11, 2013 8:38 AM
To: Accounting Group
Cr Kevin Sullivan; Patricia Mellino
Subject: Account Payable Warrant - February 8, 2013
Good morning,
There were no Account Payable Warrant - February 8, 2013.
Thanks.
Jeanne Foti
Reading Municipal Light Department
Executive Assistant
230 Ash Street
Reading, MA 01867
781- 942 -6434 Phone
1- 942 -2409 Fax
ease consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
C
Jeanne Foti
From Kevin Sullivan •
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 5:11 PM
To: John Stempeck
Cc: Jeanne Foil
Subject: RE: Overtime Analysis - Explanation Sheet
John;
It is typical. Actually, depending upon how the storm falls (same or different work week), the overtime amount will be
more. Case in point is Hurricane Sandy 2012 and October Snowstorm 2011. Each had over three days restoration,
whereas the Blivard was really a 24 hour storm +.
'"2in,Sumrun
Engineering and Operations Manager
Reading Municipal Light Department
781 942 -6407 office
From: John Stempeck rmailto•John(davalonassoaates com]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 5:05 PM
To: Jeanne Fob
Cc: Kevin Sullivan
Subject: RE: Overtime Analysis - Explanation Sheet
Thank you Jeanne. I was going to ask Kevin about this, as 1 assumed that there would be significant •
overtime due to the storm. It seemed a little higher than usual (25% vs 15 %).
Kevin, is this typical of previous major storms, Sandy, Irene, etc.?
John Stempeck
From: Jeanne Foti [mailto:ifoti(&RMLD.com]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:40 PM
To: John Stempeck
Cc: Kevin Sullivan
Subject: Overtime Analysis - Explanation Sheet
Good afternoon John.
Thanks for coming in to sign the Payroll. Attached is the Overtime Explanation Sheet that was not on the table when
you came in. This has been reviewed by Kevin Sullivan.
Jeanne Foti
Reading Municipal Light Department
Executive Assistant
230 Ash Street
Reading, MA 01867
Jeanne Foti
From:
Jeanne Foti
;ent:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:14 AM
To:
Accounting Group
Cc:
Kevin Sullivan; Patricia Mellino
Subject:
Account Payable Warrant - February 15
Good morning.
There were no questions for the Account Payable Warrant — February 15.
Thanks,
Jeanne Foti
Reading Municipal Light Department
Executive Assistant
230 Ash Street
Reading, MA 01867
781- 942 -6434 Phone
781- 942 -2409 Fax
`ease consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
G