The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-02-27 Finance Committee PacketI of 1 in��. // w w w. rcaumgma. goviragesiiceaamgiviA _IV1eeTlrig�au au t A4J �... Google Search FINCOM Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 7:30 PM Town Hall Conference Room Printer - Friendly Version 1. Discussion about FINCOM's role and responsibility 2. Appoint member to Library Building Committee 3. Review FY14 Town Manager Budget Overview Revenues Municipal Government Public Works Enterprise Funds Town Administration Accounting Finance 4. Approve Minutes January 22, 2013 (regular session & executive session) C&AWINI C.Ul Town of Reading, Massachusetts 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867 Website Disclaimer Virtual Towns S Schools Website Jeffrey W. Struble Four Tower Road Reading, MA 01867 -2039 (781) 944 -2731 struble@comcast.net Finance Committee — Town of Reading January 30, 2013 Town Hall — 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Attention: David Greenfield, Chair Reference: Finance Committee Review of Reading Public Library Project Dear Mr. Greenfield: I am writing as a Town Meeting Member from Precinct 7 to comment on the Finance Committee's recent review process for the renovation project that has been proposed for the Reading Public Library. I think a bad precedent has been set and I would like to ask that FinCom not follow it in their reviews of future projects that will be coming before them. The precedent I refer to is the demand from sponsoring Boards that alternative project options be presented along with the desired project as a condition for taking a position on that project's value to the Town of Reading. For reasons that I will explain, I think such a practice is not in the Town's best interest. As background for my comments, know that I have been a TMM for 20 years and have seen many building projects come before Town Meeting before this one. Further, I have conferred with FinCom on several school projects seeking their recommendation as a member of the School Building Committee (now disbanded) so I know what the process is like to develop building projects for your Committee's review. I have been following the Library project since 2009 when they began to develop their schemes and it is my observation that the Trustees have followed the same process in creating options and winnowing them down to a single, best choice that the SBC used, as did the ad hoc building committees for the police and fire stations. They took great care in assessing their needs — both present and future — and prioritizing them. They looked hard for State funding and were quite fortunate to find it and moved aggressively to secure it. In short, they developed this project no differently than any other sponsoring Board has done. Yet after taking all the time and care to make an intelligent decision about how best to pursue improving the Library, unlike any previous building project, the Trustees were IN Reading Finance Committee/ David Greenfield, Chair 2 FinCom Review of RPL Renovation Project January 30, 2013 called upon to develop an option that they long ago abandoned as not fulfilling the Library's needs (nor was it cost - effective) simply as an aid for FinCom members to make a judgment on the relative worth of their choice. I find two things wrong with this approach. First and foremost, FinCom engaged in second - guessing the deliberations of an elected board that has spent a great deal of time and effort arriving at the choice they made for the Library's upgrade. It is the Trustees' responsibility to weigh all the requirements and consequences for continuing the Library's service to the Town and evaluate them when making their decision. Financial considerations are certainly among them but there are a host of other facets as well which are not in the purview of the FinCom to evaluate. By calling for a development of an abandoned option as was done, the Trustees would have to re- evaluate all the effects to the Library programs, repairs and space planning as they must, a time - intensive process that has to produce an actual solution for the Library's needs, not just a bottom -line cost estimate. They brought the result of their years of work to you for an up -or -down vote and if it did not satisfy FinCom members sufficiently as the best option to use, then simple "no" votes would have been a fair exercise of the FinCom members' duty to the Town, not a request for another option. This has been the precedent set by past Finance Committees and should continue as such. Second - guessing will always occur in general discussion about capital projects (some Town Meeting Members are habitual practitioners of it, as you found out) but the official process of developing them and reviewing their value should not include it. Projects should be reviewed only as- presented to respect the careful deliberations that went into crafting them and to maintain the separation of duties of the Town's boards. As a constructive suggestion, appointing liaisons from FinCom to all future project building committees would be a good idea to stay informed of how choices among options are made (there was none on the original RPL building committee). Secondly, the reports that were made to TMMs from FinCom prior to last Monday's Town Meeting emphasize dissatisfaction with the process that was followed by the Trustees and lament the unavailability of the data that developing a second option would have produced. If I can distill the tenor of the reports down to a simple statement, it would be that FinCom unanimously recommends the subject matter of Article 6 with regret. This frankly is not the overall impression I got while viewing the FinCom D3 Reading Finance Committee/ David Greenfield, Chair FinCom Review of RPL Renovation Project January 30, 2013 meetings and I certainly don't agree that the process was flawed when compared with other building projects that have come before FinCom. Now, by virtue of the policy adopted by FinCom in December of 2006, all future building projects that cost above 1/4% of any year's net available revenue will require a debt exclusion override. In effect, what this means is that any non - trivial building project proposed will be subject to a community referendum. While FinCom officially reports to Town Meeting, by this policy, it is also reporting to the general electorate who will be reading their reports as a matter of public record and interest. Is it truly in the Town's interest to read about dissatisfaction with a process that was consistent with past practices yet was viewed by some on FinCom as "imperfect "? The process should not be the subject of the referendum; the project should be. Voters who did not watch Town Meeting's deliberations yet read the FinCom report could be understandably confused about what that subject really is. Camille Anthony's question from the floor Monday night about how do we (as TMMs) explain to voters just what FinCom meant by this report points out this problem in a nutshell. I see it as a direct consequence of asking for development of an alternate option from the Trustees and focusing on that process rather than on the project presented. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Library project and despite the concerns raised above, I do believe it will stand on its own merits and has a good chance of passing on April 2 "d. Going forward, however, FinCom should respect the judgment of the Boards sponsoring new capital projects by reviewing them as- presented. It should also be mindful of how the general electorate will view their reports rather than just Town Meeting since its policy of mandating overrides for capital expenditures expands the influence those reports, will have (without the benefit of verbal explanation to a captive audience like Town Meeting). This will be only the second such override for a major Reading project so hopefully we will learn how to deal with them more sure - handedly in the future. Thank you for your consideration. Jeffrey W. Struble Town Meeting Member, Precinct 7 OL, LeLacheur, Bob From: Jeffrey W. Struble Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Greenfield, David C' Cc: LeLacheur, Bob Subject: RE: FinCom Review of RPL Renovation Project David: I will certainly make a point to be at the Feb. 27"' meeting. This is a subject that is worth discussing. For the moment (trite as it sounds), Iefs agree to disagree. See you then and thank you for replying. Jeff Struble From: Greenfield, David C [ mailto :dgreenfield @statestreet.com] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:25 PM To: 'j.struble @comcast.net' Cc: 'blelacheur @ci.reading. ma. us' Subject: Re: FinCom Review of RPL Renovation Project Jeffery, My apology. The FinCom meeting to discuss your letter is our Feb. 27th meeting. From: Greenfield, David C Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 05:11 PM To: j.struble @comcast.net <j.struble @comcast.net> Cc: LeLacheur, Bob (blelacheur @ci.reading. ma. us) <blelacheur @ci. reading. ma. us> Subject: FinCom Review of RPL Renovation Project Jeffrey, Thank you for your letter. It is good to get input (good or bad) since it usually leads us and others to gain a better understanding and hopefully improve. I plan to ask for this to be discussed at our March 27 FinCom meeting. I'll ask for it to be the first topic that night beginning at 7:30. 1 certainly hope you will be able to join us. With that being 2 months away I'll share my thoughts now and we can then discuss in March with the larger group. I need to respectfully disagree with the main premise of your letter and concern. The role of the Finance Committee is to gain an understanding and gather enough information to make a recommendation to Town Meeting. We would be remiss in our responsibility if we did not gain a full understanding of the project, the options for addressing the Town need and the financial implications of each. Details matter if we are going to strive to make credible recommendations. We also would be remiss if we did not put the project in context of other financial challenges facing the Town. In essence, it is our responsibility as an independent body to second -guess the work and financial information provided to us by others. It is also important we understand the values, priorities and benefits as part of our financial assessment; however, I agree with you, it is not our role to second- guess this aspect of decisions made by elected or appointed officials. I do not think FinCom is guilty of crossing that line here. I do know that the lengthy span of time, with some efforts going back years, and then the sudden need to act, clearly contributed to some of the challenges. The Finance Committee has liaison assignments to most boards and committees, including the library. All of the boards, committees and Town managers know this or should. They also know they will eventually need to present to the Finance Committee when there is a request for funding. We do recommend that they notify or include a member of FinCom when and if they feel it would be helpful. I do agree, the Library Trustees would have benefited by a member of FinCom participating throughout. Some groups opt instead to simply come to FinCom meetings periodically to keep us informed. However, even with a liaison actively involved, FinCom would of course still need to hear the full financial justification in order to make a recommendation on an Article. Most, if not all, members of the Finance Committee strongly support this Article and the Library. We opted to request more information from the Library Trustees in a second meeting in order to have a credible basis to support the Article. A No vote by FinCom, simple due to a lack of information, could have been misinterpreted by Town Meeting and by Voters. By gathering additional information we were able to find a firm basis to support the Article. Interestingly, another Town Meeting Member was critical of FinCom for not gathering more information on options. In my Town Meeting report, the comments that were critical of the information provided to FinCom was simply the reality for a project of this magnitude. The comments were also to encourage future sponsors of projects to come better prepared. In the absence of the State award the financial information presented would not have been sufficient to make an informed recommendation. The size of the award, combined with the additional information provided, gave FinCom a basis to credibly make a recommendation to strongly support the Article. In the end I think most feel that was the right thing to do. I too am a strong supporter of the library and hope to see it passed by the voters. I look forward to discussing this further in March. Regards, David C. Greenfield, Vice President State Street Corporation I Enterprise Risk Management 1 2 Avenue De Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111 P +1 617 662 7210 1 F +1 617 946 0051 1 dgreenfield @statestreet.com The information contained in this email, and any attachments, have been classified as limited access and /or privileged State Street information /communication and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee(s). If you are not an intended recipient or a person responsible for delivery to an intended recipient, please notify the author and destroy this email. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure, retention or distribution of the material in this email is strictly forbidden. Go green. Consider the environment before printing this email. b Library Building Committee There is hereby established a Library Building Committee Background & Mission The Reading Library Board of Trustees has applied for and been awarded (in October 2012) an approximately $5.1 million construction grant by the Massachusetts Library Board of Commissioners. This grant award was as a result of an application and extensive planning effort by the Reading Public Library through its Board of Trustees and staff, with its OPM and Architect. The project is to conduct a full renovation /reconstruction of the existing building, plus an addition of approximately 8,000 square feet. The project is intended to develop a building with a useful life of at least 50 years, and a functional life of at least 20 years before any significant programmatic modifications are required. The Library Building Committee shall provide advice to the Facilities Director, who shall be responsible for the management of the building project, and to the Town Manager who pursuant to the Reading Home Rule Charter is responsible for the awarding of contracts and carrying out of improvements to all public buildings except for the buildings of the School Department and the Reading Municipal Light Department. The Library Building Committee shall report periodically to the Library Board of Trustees, Town Meeting, and other bodies as requested on the progress of the Library project. The Library Building Committee shall: (1) To the extent that it does not delay the process, give advice to the Town Manager on the Architect and Owners Project Manager (OPM) selection for the project. (2) Review the detailed options for renovation /reconstruction of existing space and addition of additional space to the existing library building at 64 Middlesex Ave. including a discussion of expected timelines and costs; (3) Develop a recommended proposal for the final design. The Library Building Committee will base its recommendation on the detailed program needs developed as part of the application process for State aid, and approved by the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners. (4) Monitor the bid process and make a recommendation as to the award of construction bids. (5) Provide input into the arrangements for temporary space for the library during the construction project. (6) Monitor the construction process, working with the Facilities Director to determine how the project is tracking with respect to the construction contract, timelines, and cost. (7) Without delaying decisions, review and make a recommendation to the Facilities Director on periodic payments including change orders. Committee Membership The Library Building Committee shall consist of eight (8) members appointed as noted below. ♦ 2 members of the Library Board of Trustees appointed by the Board of Trustees ♦ 2 members of the Library staff, which may include the Library Director, and who shall be appointed by the Library Director ♦ One member of the Finance Committee appointed by the Finance Committee ♦ 3 residents of the community, at least 2 of whom have experience and expertise in construction projects as an architect, structural or civil engineer, contractor, or construction manager, appointed by the Moderator The terms of the members of the Library Building Committee shall be for three years, or until the completion of construction and the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy of the building project, or until the filing of a final report with Town Meeting, whichever comes first. Adopted 2 -26 -13 by the Board of Selectmen and Library Board of Trustees H), l lO Town of Reading Town Manager's FY14 Budget Finance Committee Budget Meetings FINCOM FY14 Budget Meetings Town Hall conference room 7:30pm February 27: • Overview (pages 1 -3) — Hechenbleikner & LeLacheur • Revenues (pages 4 -6) — Angstrom • Municipal Government (pages 30 -32) — LeLacheur • Public Works (pages 73 -84)— Zager • Enterprise Funds (pages 85 -109) — LeLacheur • Town Administration (pages 33 -35) - Hechenbleikner • Accounting (pages 36 -37) — Angstrom • Finance (pages 38 -47) - LeLacheur 1 51 FINCOM FY14 Budget Meetings Town Hall conference room 7:30pm March 6: • Community Services (pages 48 -56) - Delios • Library (pages 57 -62) — Urell • Police & Dispatch (pages 63 -68) - Cormier • Fire & EMS (pages 69 -72) - Burns • Employee Benefits (pages 7 -10) — LeLacheur • Other Costs (pages 7 -8 & 11 -12 & 28 -29) - LeLacheur • Capital & Debt (pages 7 & 13 -27) - LeLacheur • Summary - Hechenbleikner FINCOM FY14 Budget Meetings Town Hall conference room 7:30pm March 13: Review Warrant Articles — Hechenbleikner • 4 —amend FY13 -22 Capital Plan • 5 — appropriate funds to Sick Leave Buyback fund • 6 — amend FY13 Budget • 7 - approve prior year's bills • 8 — approve FY14 -23 Capital Plan • 9 — approve revolving funds • 10 — dispose surplus property • 11 — FY14 Budget • 12 — fund OPEB trust • 13 — authorize settlement of litigation • 14 - authorize Chapter 90 expenses • 15 — authorize debt for sewer repairs 2 FINCOM FY14 Budget Meetings Town Hall conference room 7:30pm March 13 (continued): Review Warrant Articles — Hechenbleikner • 16 - authorize debt for water main repairs • 20 — Approve Affordable Housing Trust Fund Allocation plan March 20: • Schools & Facilities — Doherty & DeLai March 27: • Vote FY14 Budget • Vote FY14 Warrant qW FY14 Budget Meetings Overview FY14 Revenues • realistic projections based on actual revenue & trends • State Aid assumed to be up slightly from FY13 levels FY14 Expenses • Some restoration of positions & one -time expenditures • Maintain current level and quality of services Investment • Capital spending 8% of budget; over $1 million on Roads • OPEB funding but below actuarially determined annual levels 3 FY14 Budget Meetings Overview — Change since October FF • This Year Last Year + $150,000 Revenues + $350,000 Revenues free cash assessor overlay - $645,000 Accom Costs health ins -$410k cap /debt -$120k ood SPED -$52k other - $63k +$0.8 million change - $1,774,000 Accom Costs health ins -$950k ood SPED -$515k energy -$225k Voke Ed. -$84k +$2 million change FY14 Budget Meetings Overview — Resulting changes • This Year +$0.8 mil. $590k split Town /Schools (operating budget change from +2.5% to 3.75 %) $184k fund SC budget $ 31 k Town priorities • Last Year +$2 mil. $500k less free cash used $420k OPEB contribution $500k subst. abuse prev. (schools $333k; *town $172k) $150k School technology $ 11 k Town priorities $600k split Town /Schools ( *Note: part 2 at Nov '12 TM +$115k) 4� FY14 Budget Meetings Reserves Reserves as of February 2013 Free Cash 6/30/12 • Nov & Jan Town Meetings • General Stabilization Fund • FINCOM Reserves • FY14 budget (proposed) TOTAL RESERVES $ 6,537,985 - $ 172,773 + $1,545,414" +$ 143,000 - $1,150,000 $ 6,903,666 is 9.1% of estimated FY14 net available revenue and $3.1 million above F/NCOM minimum 5% level `total excludes funds designated for specific purpose J 3 ON FY14 Budget Meetings Projected Revenues (millions) Prop Taxes F Y14 Change $54.48 $55.73 +$1.25 Local Rev 5.38 5.64 +0.26 State Aid 12.96 13.00 +0.04 Trf & Avail 4.41 4.86 +0.45 Sub Total 77.2 79.22 +2.00 ( +2.6 %) Reserves 0.70 1.15 +0.45 TOTAL $77.92 $80.37 +$2.45 ( +3.2 %) Pages 4 -6 FY14 Budget Meetings Reserves Reserves as of February 2013 Free Cash 6/30/12 • Nov & Jan Town Meetings • General Stabilization Fund • FINCOM Reserves • FY14 budget (proposed) TOTAL RESERVES $ 6,537,985 - $ 172,773 + $1,545,414" +$ 143,000 - $1,150,000 $ 6,903,666 is 9.1% of estimated FY14 net available revenue and $3.1 million above F/NCOM minimum 5% level `total excludes funds designated for specific purpose J 3 tai r� FY14 Budget Meetings Reserves & Regeneration ($000s) Column A — beginning Free Cash level Column B — ending Free Cash level Net - Annual variance A 1101 1464 986 1288 1704 2339 2634 3234 4863 5267 5189 4953 5499 B 1464 986 1288 1704 2339 2634 3234 4863 5267 5189 4953 5499 6535 Net 363 -478 303 415 635 296 599 1629 404 -77 -236 546 1036 lei i� E FY14 Budget Meetings Reserves & Regeneration ($000s) Column A: Represents Free Cash used to support the specific fiscal year's operations. Some of the funds were voted one year in advance as anticipated support, some of the funds were voted mid -year. Some funds were voted into stabilization funds such as 40R, and then used. Column B: Represents the favorable variance from operations in the given year, from a combination of under - spending budgets or receiving more revenues than budgeted NET: The combination of A & B. In FY12, the position variance from operations exceeded the use of Free Cash by almost $2.5 million, however ..... MENEEMENEEMENE A 1383 1614 901 1019 1105 1857 1273 1823 2247 1558 1535 1844 84 B 1140 1017 1227 1098 1483 2114 1827 3054 2700 1539 1314 2028 2571 Net -243 -597 326 79 378 257 555 1231 454 -19 -221 184 2487 6 C Page 3 � 7 � FY14 Budget Meetings FY14 Budget Meetings Operating Budgets Municipal Gov't Operating Budgets Town Admin $378,629 Muni Govt 14,453,129 3.6% 15,423,120 3.75% Additions 322,528 30,810 +0.1% EF support 771,190 2.0% 798,182 3.5% TOTAL $15,636,848 5.7% $16,252,112 3.9% Schools 32,049,069 3.6% 33,764,332 3.75% Additions 494,865 183,661 +2.6% TOTAL $32,543,934 4.5% $33,947,993 4.3% Town Bldgs 439,499 3.6% 455,980 3.75% Additions (45,018) Dispatch TOTAL $439,499 3.6% $410,962 -6.5% READING $48,620,281 4.9% $50,611,067 4.1% Page 3 r� FY14 Budget Meetings Municipal Gov't Operating Budgets Town Admin $378,629 $397,730 +5.0% Accounting 160,809 160,930 +0.1% Finance 1,642,383 1,673,000 +1.9% Comm Services 914,832 1,019,275 +11.4% Library 1,290,579 1,324,442 +2.6% Public Works 2,690,889 2,817,685 +4.7% Police 4,223,080 4,352,472 +3.1% Dispatch 425,940 431,726 +1.4% Fire 3,909,707 4,074,852 +4.2% TOTAL $15,636,848 $16,252,112 +3.9% OPERATING 'excludes one -time items as TM transition, SL buyback, Pres. election Pages 30 -32 r� "recent peak varied by department in - FY09 110 (change from peak shown); $$$ all departments abide by existing negotiated union contracts, non -union employees receive 2% performance step if eligible plus 1 % COLA 8Q FY14 Budget Meetings Municipal Gov't Employment (FTEs) FY14 Budget Meetings Municipal Gov't Total Budgets Town Admin $761,629 $747,730 -1.8% Accounting 160,809 160,930 +0.1% Finance 1,674,383 1,673,000 -0.1% Comm Services 1,164,832 1,269,275 +9.0% Library 1,300,529 1,324,442 +1.8% Public Works 5,452,747 5,611,054 +2.9% Police 4,239,830 4,352,472 +2.7% Dispatch 425,940 431,726 +1.4% Fire 3,909,707 4,074,852 +4.2% TOTAL $19,090,406 $19,645,481 +2.9% "recent peak varied by department in - FY09 110 (change from peak shown); $$$ all departments abide by existing negotiated union contracts, non -union employees receive 2% performance step if eligible plus 1 % COLA 8Q FY14 Budget Meetings Municipal Gov't Employment (FTEs) Town Admin 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 -0.2 Accounting 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 -0.1 Finance 19.6 19.0 18.5 18.5 -1.1 Comm Services 19.2 15.0 15.0 15.0 -4.2 Library 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 unch Public Works 43.5 42.0 42.0 42.5 -1.0 Public Safety 101.8 101.4 104.5 104.5 +2.7 TOTAL 207.5 201.9 204.5 204.9 -2.6 "recent peak varied by department in - FY09 110 (change from peak shown); $$$ all departments abide by existing negotiated union contracts, non -union employees receive 2% performance step if eligible plus 1 % COLA 8Q FY14 Budget Meetings Department of Public Works Total FY14 budget +2.9 %; Wages +4.6% & Expenses +1.5% • Four PT seasonal short-term employees ($30,000) are restored to budget; two each in Parks /Forestry and Highway • One PT clerk ($17,000) is added to the Administration budget to help the busy Engineers office • Some OT lines are shifted to reflect actual work done instead of which employee it involved • Addition of $10,000 for downtown plant watering (EDC) • Addition of $1,000 each for Trails and Town Forest Committees • Snow & Ice moved closer to long -term average (next slide) Pages 73 -84 del �I:� FY14 Budget Meetings Snow & Ice FY14 budget $625k; the 10yr avg net expense is $700k ,.400.000 ,.200.000 1,000 000 900.000 Budget 800,000 — Actual 400,000 —10yr Avg 200,000 0 9� FY14 Budget Meetings Water & Sewer Reserves • Current Reserves well over 10% target • Excess Reserves help manage rate increases • MWRA assessments are 55% of combined W &S budgets • FY12 -17 MWRA assessments projected at an average of +6.1 % /yr • Careful capital planning for needed large scale projects — Sewer Station repairs ($4.2million) FY15 to FY26 — Water Main repairs ($11.6 million highest priority) FY14 to FY23 — Water Main repairs ($24.7 million in FY24 dollars, timing TBA after FY24) • FY12 -17 local costs (the 45 %) projected at an average of +0.8 % /yr • Suggested Reserve usage through FY17 will keep rates +4% to +6% - FY14 Reserves use is minimal: only $75k for Sewer qW FY14 Budget Meetings Water Enterprise Fund • FY14 Wages +2.6 %; non -MWRA FY14 expenses -3.9% • FY14 Capital (next slide) & Debt planned at -4.7% • Total Local costs -2.4% • MWRA assessment preliminary +2.4% • Gross budget -0.8% • Suggested - no Reserves used to offset costs = Net budget +2.0% Pages 85 -87 Pages 88 -98 rNa FY14 Budget Meetings Water Capital Water Main repairs project 125 million" —done over many years — Projects A, B & C identified in consultant report: A has 5 phases — Phases #1 and #2 authorized debt at April Town Meeting: Main Street, Mill Street, Locus Street, Bear Hill Road, Linden Street, Minot Street, Summer Avenue, Libby Avenue, X- Country — Belmont Street to Libby Avenue, Chute Street, Haven Street, Sanborn Street, High Street and Washington Street — Phase #1: $5 million total project funded in FY14 with 10yr debt — Phase #2 $1.1 million project funded in FY16 with 5yr debt — Phases 3 -5 completed by FY23 — Projects B & C are lower priority, and may begin around FY24 Pages 88 -98 FY14 Budget Meetings Sewer Enterprise Fund • FY14 Wages +3.2 %; non -MWRA FY14 expenses -1.1 % • FY14 Capital & Debt planned at +20.4% • Sewer station repairs begin in FYI and could be completed by FY26 • Total Local costs +7.5% • MWRA assessment preliminary +3.1% • Gross budget +4.2% • Suggested —use $75k Reserves to offset costs (less than in FY13) Net budget +5.6% Pages 99 -104 11 3.1 FY14 Budget Meetings Storm Water Enterprise Fund • FY14 Wages +3.5 %; expenses -0.2% • FY14 Capital & Debt planned at unchanged • Large Saugus River and Aberjona River projects pushed out to FY20 • Gross budget +1.4% • Suggested — use $30k Reserves to preserve $40 residential rate = Net budget -0.1 % FY14 Budget Meetings Town Administration Total FY14 budget -1.8 %: Wages -15.1% & Expenses +5.5% • Transition costs removed; no change in staffing levels • Increased OT due to meeting minutes • Centralized lease costs for document storage • Increased postage due to rate increase • First increase to Town Managers fund (from $10k to $15k) • P &C Insurance premiums estimated +5% Pages 105 -109 Pages 33 -35 12 H+ . FY14 Budget Meetings Accounting Total FY14 budget +0.1%; Wages -0.7% & Expenses +109.1% • Reduce Assistant Accountant by 0.1 FTE — now a stipend • Eliminate overlap funds for Town Accountant(s) • Increase professional development for new Town Accountant Pages 36 -37 FY14 Budget Meetings Finance Total FY14 budget -0.1%: Wages +0.6% & Expenses -1.3% • Reduce shared Appraiser position by 0.5 FTE • Restore part -time clerical position to full -time to help cover Assessing office hours and increased Human Resources demands • Reduce Elections wages (less elections) • Reduce HR Town Manager replacement expenses • Centralized Town wireless expenses • Increased postage and professional development for technology training offset by other reductions Pages 38-47 13 ri-D FY14 Budget Meetings Board of Assessors `Regionalization' with Wakefield • June 2012: share Appraiser through December 2013 • Experience thus far has been very successful! ➢ Software conversion and one set of inspections complete ➢ Work begun on FY14 revaluation ➢ Good progress on settling long- standing commercial abatement requests ➢ Clearer planning aspect to cyclical work of Assessors • Reading and Wakefield Boards of Assessors, Town management and staff work towards formal regionalization after December 2013; consider adding additional community(ies) FY14 Budget Meetings Board of Assessors Software conversion nroiect • $75,000 funded in November 2009 • Conversion completed October 2012 • DOR accepts Patriot's AssessPro values December 2012 • Expect budget surplus of about $10,000 ➢ $26,000 AssessPro (complete except GIS module) ➢ $39,000 Hardware & other s/w licenses (complete except tablets) ➢ Surplus to be released (November 2013 TM) if not needed for linkage with Laserfiche document storage or ViewPermit software systems 14 FY14 Budget Meetings Board of Assessors Inspections projects • $157,400 funded from FY12 budget plus June 2012 BOS /FINCOM transfer from Health Insurance surplus • Two RFPs result in Finnegan (field review of entire Town) & Patriot (full review of up to 6,500 parcels) • Field review (for software conversion) completed September 2012, in time for tax rate process - with excellent staff help • Full review is underway — expect completion April 2013 in time for FY14 revaluation • Expect budget surplus as high as $35,000, which will be needed (next slide) FY14 Budget Meetings Board of Assessors Operating budget (9 -vr inspection cvcle: 3 -vr revaluation cvcle • Fund all revaluation expenses a year in advance • Surplus from Inspections project needed for FY14 reval work now • Outsource revaluation work every three years ➢ Cost $65,000: we can use Patriot as a customer for $40,000 and existing staff will complete the remainder of the work • Outsource personal property annually— amount varies within cycle ➢ Annual cost $6,500 for data listing; results pay for themselves in new growth ➢ Revaluation cost is $22,500: we can save $10,000 by combining work by vendor RRC and staff; goal here is new growth plus Revaluation certification 15 fi'O FY14 Budget Meetings Community Services Total FY14 budget +9.0 %; Wages +1.4% & Expenses +22.1 % • No significant change in staffing • Wetlands revolving fund used as offset for a portion of the Conservation Administrator's increased hours (from 23 to 26/wk) • Inspections revolving fund used as offset for a portion of backup building inspector's hours • Continue Regional Health division with Melrose & Wakefield • One -time $75,000 for consulting help to overhaul Zoning Bylaws (other department expenses up 4.5 %) • Mosquito control all outsourced — more expensive since DPW staff should no longer perform some of the tasks. FY14 Budget Meetings Community Services • Regional Veterans District with Melrose, Saugus & Wakefield (details to be determined) • Vet's aid level funded at $250,000; run rate is about $230,000 today $250,000 Veterans Benefits Paid $200,000 - $150.0w $100.000 $50.000 s Pages 48 -56 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 Pages 48 -56 16 AZ FY14 Budget Meetings Library Total FY14 budget +1.8 %: Wa-ges +2.3% & Expenses +0.4% • Budget change is +2.6% when FY13 sick leave buyback is excluded • No change in staffing • Budget does not change with regard to a possible building project • Some technology expenses were moved to the Finance department • Materials budget complies with 15% Municipal Appropriation Requirement FY14 Budget Meetings Police Total FY14 budget +2.7 %: Wa-ges +2.8% & Expenses +0.4% • Budget change is +3.1 % when FY13 sick leave buyback is excluded • No changes in staffing from FY13 levels (as amended at November 2012 Town Meeting) • RCASA wages reflect full costs; $40,794 grant shown as offset • Training budget doubled to $20,250 • OT increased 1.8% • Expenses nearly level funded Pages 57 -62 Pages 63 -66 17 FY14 Budget Meetings Dispatch Total FY14 budget +1.4 %: Wages +1.5% & Expenses unchanged • No changes in staffing from FY13 levels • Grant shown as offset to wages —no change from FY13 Expenses level funded FY14 Budget Meetings Fire /EMS Total FY14 budget +4.2 %: Wages +4.1 % & Expenses +7.2% • No changes in staffing from FY13 levels • OT increased by 2.5% to $364,000 as we try to find proper long -term fully staffed OT level • Ambulance billing services RFP currently underway • Increase needed in ambulance services — medical provider now charging ($6,000) because of extra services required by state Pages 67 -68 Pages 69 -72 18 FY14 Budget Meetings Fire /EMS Flr• R..1we.• 6, r ,�.u�„. ve•k •'.9-1z— EMS Runs 1696 to 2012 2 400 2200 2000 600 -- 1 600 >i 1 400 W 1 200 1 000 ... _ Boo 1968 . 2— 2012 r•.r Pages 69 -72 90 FY14 Budget Meetings Benefits Employee /Retiree Benefits: • Retirement: +4.5% assessment is above long -term target +2.5% rate • OPEB: $450,000 contribution also serves as a cushion against health insurance premium increases above +8% • Health Insurance: v FY13 actual health insurance expenses running $400k below budget Enrollment unchanged (Town -1 %; Schools +1%) Trial opt -out program: 9 participants net Reading savings of $62,806 ➢ Renewal rates due mid February 2013, assume +8% on lower FY13 base ➢ Lower actual health insurance costs will reduce the use of Free Cash • Other: very small changes combined Pages 7 -10 lut r�,) c.� FY14 Budget Meetings Capital & Debt FY14 projected revenues (excluding free cash) $79.22 million excluded debt payments -$1.51 MSBA payments for Coolidge debt 0.82 Net Available Revenue $76.89 FINCOM 5% of NAR = debt +capital $ 3.84 Net Included debt service (NID) 2.04 Target for Capital (min) $ 1.80 FY14 CAPITAL FUNDING $ 2.10 million Sources: General fund $ 1.64 Sale of Real Estate fund $ 0.20 40R Stabilization fund $ 0.26 FY14 Budget Meetings Capital — Ten Year Outlook FINCOM 5% minimum policy • + additional funding to FY15 `from energy savings' to pay for performance contracting debt • + 40R one -time funds General Fund • + sale of real estate funds (ends in FY16) • + 40R funds (ends in FY15) 20 I I-Dl 000 FY14 balanced $0 FY15 ($ 429k) ($ 429k) FY16 ($1,666) ($2,095) FY17 ($808) ($2,903) FYI ($720) ($3,622) FY19 ($386) ($4,008) FY20 $296 ($3,711) FY21 $745 ($2,967) FY22 $1,830 ($1,137) FY23 $2,574 $1,437 10 -yr $27.4 million total capital budget 20 I I-Dl FY14 Budget Meetings Capital - Facilities FY14 Budget Meetings Capital — Public Safety & Technology Fire/EMS $136,000 Firefighter Network $60,000 large scale turnout gear upgrades (every 5 years) $20,000 fire hose GIS $45,000 regional flyover replacement and planimetrics (every 10 years) (last in 2008) Dispatch $30,000 DVR technology Police $25,000 animal control /parking enforcement vehicle 21 DPW Garage $50,000 design Joshua $25,000 carpet/flooring $12,000 windows /doors Eaton $15,000 PA system Police station $10,000 windows /doors Birch- $20,000 carpet/flooring $10,000 carpet/flooring meadow $10,000 lockers & cubbies Town Hall $15,000 office Parker $18,000 cafeteria equip /furniture renovation $10,000 stairwell mason repairs Main St. Fire $15,000 furniture Coolidge $20,000 carpet/flooring Station Josh Eaton/ $12,000 HVAC /energy mgmt Killam exhaust fans FY14 Budget Meetings Capital — Public Safety & Technology Fire/EMS $136,000 Firefighter Network $60,000 large scale turnout gear upgrades (every 5 years) $20,000 fire hose GIS $45,000 regional flyover replacement and planimetrics (every 10 years) (last in 2008) Dispatch $30,000 DVR technology Police $25,000 animal control /parking enforcement vehicle 21 FY14 Budget Meetings Capital — Public Works •: 111 Cumulative Annual Spending Roadway . . -.• 1 111' Washington Park $129,000 tennis courts Snow plow $140,000 also helps clear brush & $124,000 basketball -� pedestrian roadside cuttings courts Dump truck $115,000 also serves as a winter Hunt Park $45,000 annual $50,000 annual 1000 sander, replaces 2001 playground truck Pickup trucks $55,000 cemetery division _. 11 111 - . -. $50,000 highway division ®® •' Other $50,000 Parking lot improvements 2 - 200 ....._____- _______.. (rotate with fence repairs increased bi- annually) FY14 Budget Meetings Capital — Road Improvements 22 IN Cumulative Annual Spending Roadway $455,000 annual repairs $207,000 40Rfunds 1600 Curb /sidewalk $70,000 annual 1400 -� pedestrian $50,000 40Rfunds safety 1200 Skim coat/ $50,000 annual 1000 crack seal 1300, 600 _. 11 111 - . -. ®® •' 00 2 - 200 ....._____- _______.. In FY11 increased from $450k 0 — to $600k FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 tlaal tadw — a—state 22 IN FY14 Budget Meetings Debt FY12 refinancing FY13 -22 saved $500k inside tax levy FY14 saved $125k FY13 -22 saved $3.8 mil. outside levy FY14 saved $499k Possible future debt $1.5 mil. cemetery garage (FY14) $1.5 mil. DPW garage (FY15) $9.8 mil. Library project (excluded) $3.0 mil. Killam repairs (excluded) 23 6 Inside Tax Excluded Levy Debt TOTAL $2.04 $2.33 ($ millions) Principal $1.59 $1.73 Interest $0.45 $0.61 Town $2.04 $1.51 share MSBA None $0.82 share 23 6