HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-30 Finance Committee PacketrR
O� r
Town of Reading
a e Meeting Posting with Agenda
orsd.9,Ncollkk
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Finance Committee
Date: 2014 -07 -30 Time: 7:30 PM
Building: Pleasant Street Senior Center Location: Great Room
Address: 49 Pleasant Street
Purpose: Financial Forum
Meeting Called By: Caitlin Saunders on behalf of Chairman Mark Dockser
Notices and agendas are to be posted 48 hours in advance of the meetings excluding
Saturdays, Sundays and Legal Holidays. Please keep in mind the Town Clerk's hours of
operation and make necessary arrangements to be sure your posting is made in an
adequate amount of time. A listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be
discussed at the meeting must be on the agenda.
All Meeting Postings must be submitted in
Topics of Discussion:
A) Financial Forum Overview (Mark Dockser)
July 30`h
September 10`h
October 29`h
January 28`h (if needed)
format; handwritten notices will not be accepted.
B) Introductions (Boards, Committees, Commissions, staff & public)
C) Review 2010 Financial Forum Brainstorming Sessions (Bob LeLacheur)
Cost Cutting Efforts
Revenue Ideas
D) 2014 Brainstorming Session (FINCOM)
Identify and list all ideas
Vote on relative importance of each idea
1. community needs and service that you (participants) think are required and are currently being
met sufficiently
2. community needs and services that you think are required but are not being met (not at all or
not enough)
3. services that are currently being provided but they are nice to have rather than must have
4. services that you think are important but are getting more funding than they should be
This Agenda has been prepared in advance and represents a listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed
at the meeting. However the agenda does not necessarily Include all matters which may be taken up at this meeting.
Page 1 1 '
eq
O'tt r
Town of Reading
b Meeting Posting with Agenda
E) Gathering Community Input (FINCOM)
F) Homework for September 1011h Financial Forum & Closing Remarks (Mark Dockser)
This Agenda has been prepared in advance and represents a listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed
at the meeting. However the agenda does not necessarily include all matters which may be taken up at this meeting.
Page 1 2 'L
Financial Forum
Financial Planning for FY2016 and beyond
0
Financial Forum July 30, 2014 Agenda
Financial Forum Overview (Mark Dockser)
July 30th
September 10th
October 29th
January 28th (if needed)
Introductions (Boards, Committees, Commissions, staff & public)
Review 2010 Financial Forum Brainstorming Sessions (Bob Lelacheur)
Cost Cutting Efforts
Revenue Ideas
2014 Brainstorming Session (FINCOM)
Identify and list all ideas
Vote on relative importance of each idea
1. community needs and service that you (participants) think are required and are currently being met sufficiently
2. community needs and services that you think are required but are not being met (not at all or not enough)
3. services that are currently being provided but they are nice to have rather than must have
4. services that you think are important but are getting more funding than they should be
Gathering Community Input (FINCOM)
Homework for September 10th Financial Forum & Closing Remarks (Mark Dockser)
IN
DRAFT FINCOM FY15 Schedule
(All meetings are Wednesday at 7:30pm in Town Hall, unless noted)
2014
regular- fneeting
ul 30 Financial Forum I (Pleasant St. Center)
August 19 BOS close Warrant for September Special Town Meeting
August 20 regular meeting (September TM Warrant Articles)
�September 10 Financial Forum II (Pleasant St. Center)
V September 16 BOS close Warrant for November Subsequent Town Meeting
September 29(M) Special Town Meeting (at RAIHS)
October 8 regular meeting (November TM Warrant Articles)
ctober 29 Financial Forum III: FY16 budget (Pleasant St. Center)
ovember 10(M)- 13(Th)- 17(M)- 20(Th) Subsequent Town Meeting (at RMKS)
December 10 regular meeting
2015
January
Selectmen Town budget (Tuesday 13`h & 20`h)
January
School Committee budget (Th 8` ; M 12`h; Th 15'h; Th 22nd; M 26`h)
January
Possible Special Town Meeting (TBA)
-Aanuary 28
Financial Forum IV: FY16 budget (at the Pleasant St. Center if needed)
ebruary 24
BOS close Warrant for April Town Meeting
March 4
FY16 Budget Meetings (Town)
March 11
FY16 Budget Meetings (Town)
March 18
FY16 Budget Meetings (Schools)
March 25
Vote FY16 Budget & Town Meeting Articles
April 7 Local elections
April 27(M)- 30(Th) -May 4(M) -7(Th) Annual Town Meeting (at R:VHS)
June 24 Year -end meeting
E
• Community
• Why we all volunteer our time
• Set Priorities
• How to make the Priorities happen.... navigating the best
course
• Great tradition ..... to continue
M
We must, indeed, all hang together or,
most assuredly, we shall all hang
separately.
Benjamin Franklin
N
Fiscal Thinking
Reading Home Prices & Values
$499,500
12.7% 4.5%
ea:hn anatu .vm�e
The median home value in Reading is
$499,500 Reading home values have gone
up 12.7% over the past year and Now
predicts they will nse 4 5% within the next
year The median list price per square foot in
Reading is $271, which is higher than the
Boston hletro average of 5230. The median
price of homes currently listed in Reading is
$499,000 while the median price of homes
that sold is $399,375 The median rent price
in Reading is $2 047, which is lower than the
Boston kietro median of $27300
i
QPopulation in 2010. 24,747. Population change since 2000. +4.4%
Males 11,722 (47.4 %)
Females 13,025 � (52 6 %)
Median resident age 41.6 years
Massachusetts median age 39.2 years
Zip codes: 01867.
Estimated median household income in 2012 $103,630 (0 was $77,059 in
2000)
Reading $103,630
MA , $65,339
Estimated per capita Income In 2012 $46,347
Reading CDP income, earnings, and wages data
wf
O
*on
1
Estimated median house or condo value in 2012. $436,513 (it was $268,000 in 2000)
Reading $436,513
MA $323,800
The hottest housing markets in
Massachusetts, Q2 2014
Click on each record's 'Details' link for a full market
profile.
-!. Search Again
Town
Per capita Median
Median
Population
Numberof
income
HH income
familyincome
households
Lexington
$67,584
$136,610
$158,888
31,129
11,411
Concord
$67,374
$127,951
$156,352
17,523
6,197
Winchester
$65,172
$127,665
$160,706
21,205
7,611
Belmont
$54,361
$99,529
$121,250
24,548
9,465
Acton
$49,603
$109,491
$135,000
21,656
7,924
Natick
$49,012
$90,046
$117,259
32,729
13,440
Bedford
$48,899
$101,886
$128,448
13,192
4,951
Arlington
$47,571
$85,059
$107,862
42,570
19,007
$46,242
$69,017
$94,536
104,322
45,386
,```Cambridge
Q&eading
$44,949
$99,131
$117,477
24,504
9,
V Chelmsford
$42,535
$90,895
$110,967
33,610
13,
North Reading
$42,256
$104,069
$116,729
14,703
5,077
Middlesex County
$41,453
$79,691
$100,267
1,491,762
577,349
Watertown
$41,090
$76,718
$90,521
31,792
14,042
Wakefield
$40,227
$85,379
$112,293
24,794
10,058
Burlington
$40,083
$92,236
$107,339
24,207
9,177
Melrose
$39,873
$84,599
$105,893
26,864
10,963
Stoneham
$37,573
$77,476
$95,490
21,413
8,909
Marlborough
$37,314
$72,853
$94,770
38,087
15,856
Wilmington
$37,084
$100,861
$107,436
22,116
7,200
Tewksbury
$36,509
$86,378
$103,008
28,778
10,670
-� Massachusetts
$35,051
$65,981
$83,371
6,512,227
2,522,409- -
Medford
$34,615
$72,033
$83,078
55,843
22,461
Hudson
$33,734
$68,812
$86,216
14,797
6,129
Woburn
$33,725
$72,540
$87,924
37,831
15,357
Waltham
$33,717
$68,326
$82,233
60,209
23,520
Framingham
$33,665
$66,047
$86,977
67,844
26,167
Somerville
$32,785
$64,480
$71,518
75,566
31,476
Ashby
$32,434
$82,614
$84,655
3,030
1,060
- United States
$27,915
$52,762
$64,293
306,603,772
114,761,359" -
Malden
$26,893
$52,842
$65,763
58,821
23,422
Everett
$24,575
$48,319
$58,045
41,079
15,681
Lowell
$23,600
$51,471
$57,934
105,860
39,399
Source: 2010 Census Data; American Community Survey 2007 -2010
Year
Average
House
Price
Average
Family
Income
Average Salary
(Town and School
Dept combined)
2010
$432.939
$99,006
$41.964
2000
$248,714
$77,059
$29,280
1990
$197,963
$52,783
$26,821
Average House Price:
Average Family Income
Average Salary:
From Assessor's data
From Census data
Total wages divided by total number of Town + school employees
Year
Average
House
Price
Average
Family
Income
Average Salary
(Town and School
Dept combined)
2010
2.19
1.88
1.56
2000
1.26
1.46
1.09
1990
1.00
1.00
1.00
L
1�71
For some questions, the red and green color assignments serve to highlight the response for further consideration
within the context of your jurisdiction's objectives and circumstances. Several questions have no comparison at all.
They tend to be lists of potential incentives, resources, or regulations associated with the municipality and will be
discussed in corresponding sections of the report.
This section highlights Reading's primary strengths and weaknesses in the realm of economic development. EDSAT
does not provide an overall grade for a jurisdiction, but rather assesses a jurisdiction's unique set of strengths,
weaknesses, and economic development objectives.
The Dukakis Center staff creates a list of significant or notable responses for each of the Very Important, Important,
and Less Important location factors, emphasizing strengths and "deal- makers," which are not organized in any
particular order of importance. Dukakis Center staff suggests that your municipality review these lists and use them
to highlight, enhance, and market your city or town's strengths.
Tasks on the weakness and "deal- breaker" lists, however, are prioritized to emphasize the importance of their
mitigation. The Dukakis Center staff arranges the tasks according to feasibility, with consideration of the latitude
and abilities of local, county, or regional levels of government. For example, in a jurisdiction with limited highway
access, building a new highway interchange or connector would likely be cost- prohibitive, time - consuming, and an
inefficient use of local resources. However, other tasks are more feasible with modest investments in time and
resources. For example, streamlining the permitting process and making related development information readily
accessible to both location experts and businesses can be accomplished without significant capital investments.
Although location experts rank both highway access and the timeliness of permitting as Very Important location
factors, in the prioritized list of potential "deal- breakers," the permitting process is given a higher priority due to its
feasibility in implementation.
Reading's Strengths or Potential "Deal- Makers"
The following lists of Reading's strengths are its powerful economic development assets. The town should build
upon these assets and promote them to prospective businesses and developers. Reading should first consider those in
the Very Important group, then the Important, and finally the Less Important group. Please note that strengths are
not listed in any particular order within the three lists.
Strengths among Very Important Location Factors
• Highway Access: Reading has excellent highway access with 75 percent or more of all available sites
within two miles of a limited access major highway.
• Traffic: Traffic in Reading is comparable to the Comparison Group Municipalities (CGM), but unlike the
CGM, the town has regular access to a traffic engineer or transportation planner.
• Infrastructure: Not only does Reading have sufficient capacity for growth and reliable service for all of its
utilities, but the cost for electricity is roughly half the cost of CGM respondents.
• Rents: Reading's mix of office space includes more Class A and Class B space than the CGM, indicating
better overall quality office space.
• Workforce Composition: Reading has a much higher percentage of managerial and professional workers
than the CGM.
• Labor (available): More than half of Reading's available labor has earned at least a bachelor's degree.
\1
Strengths among Important Location Factors
• Public Transit: Reading has a transit- oriented development strategy to attract new firms within a quarter
mile of public bus or rail rapid transit.
• Physical Attractiveness: Reading takes more vigorous measures to maintain the physical attractiveness
than the CGM, has a higher percentage of parks, and involves the arts community in the design of open
space.
• Quality of Office Space: Reading has a lower percentage of contaminated/brownfreld sites than the CGM
and more experience with redevelopment of such sites.
• Sites Available: Reading has a readily - accessible, up -to -date list of sites that am available for
development.
• Predictable Permits: Reading provides a development handbook to prospective developers.
• Citizen Participation in the Review Process: In Reading, organized neighborhood groups slow the
permitting process less than CGMs. In addition, elected officials expedite development by facilitating
community group dialogues and have stepped in to rescue development proposals that were endangered by
community opposition in the past 5 years.
• Cultural and Recreational Amenities: Unlike the CGM, Reading features a professional repertory theater
company and a symphony orchestra.
• Crime: Crime is lower for all categories in Reading than the CGM.
• Housing: The home ownership rate in Reading is higher than the CGM.
• Local Schools: Students in Reading have a higher percentage of English and Mathematics proficiency and
a higher percentage of high school graduates go on to attend a four -year college. The town also uses
assessment/proficiency tests as a measure of performance for teacher assessments and evaluation.
• Local Tax Rates. Reading uses a local meals tax to pay for local services and has a flat tax rate that is four
percent lower than the CGM for commercial and industrial property.
Strengths among Less Important Location Factors
• Airport: Reading features a local airport and is closer to its nearest regional and international airports than
the CGM.
• Rail: Reading has a commuter rail stop within its jurisdiction.
• Proximity to Universities and Research: Four major four -year institutions of higher education are located
within 10 miles of Reading.
• Permitting Ombudsman: Reading's town manager plays a significant role in facilitating the permitting
process, and the town features local licenses for specific businesses.
• Website: Reading's website includes more information related to economic development and municipal
process than the CGM.
Reading's Weaknesses or Potential "Deal- Breakers"
Despite sizable advantages, Reading has a number of apparent weaknesses which can pose a challenge to successful
development. The factors in the Very Important group are the ones that the town should consider addressing first
because they are the most critical potential "deal-breakers." Again, the town should next consider those in the
Important group, and finally the Less Important group.
Unlike the strengths or deal - makers, the list of weaknesses is arranged in order of priority. It is suggested that
Reading review the prioritized lists and the detailed narrative about all location factors, while keeping in mind its
021
economic development objectives and the resources available for addressing "deal - breakers" and other weaknesses.
This report is an opportunity for an informed dialogue among colleagues and for establishing a roadmap to turn
"deal- breakers" into "deal- makers."
Weaknesses among Very Important Location Factors
���•
Timeliness of Approvals: Site plan reviews, zoning variances, and the appeals process take an average of
VA
four weeks longer in Reading than in the CGM.
•
Rents: Rents in Reading for all asset types and classes other than the cost for Class A office space is higher
than the CGM.
•
Parking: A smaller proportion of Reading's available sites for retail and office sites have long -term on -site
parking than do sites in the CGM.
Weaknesses among Important Location Factors
•
Critical Mass Firms: Reading lacks an up -to -date economic development plan or strategy, has targeted no
specific industry sectors, and does not have an industrial attraction policy.
Cross Marketing: Reading does not have a cross - market strategy and, unlike the CGM, does not at present
engage regional planning and development organizations to participate in marketing the town.
•
Quality of Available Space: Reading has a much smaller percentage of vacant/underutilized shopping
centers and open land (greenfield) sites than the CGM, which limits opportunities for large developments.
Land (space): Reading has very little land available for development, including a much lower percentage
of parcels over 5 acres than can be industrial or commercial development.
•
Sites Available: The town of Reading does not own sites that it markets for development.
L • Predictable Permits: Reading does not have a checklist of permitting requirements for prospective
r� developers.
• State Business Incentives. Though the state of Massachusetts offers a variety of special tax incentives, the
town of Reading does little to help firms take advantage of them.
O • Local Business Incentives: Reading does not use Tax Increment Financing or other tax breaks. It does not
tic participate in or offer a brownfield revolving loan fund.
• Housing: Reading's high cost of housing and low vacancy rates indicate housing challenges for the
workers of prospective firms.
• Amenities. Reading has a lower proportion of fast food restaurants, fine dining, day care facilities, and
retail shops than the CGM.
Weaknesses among Less Important Location Factors
• Workforce Training: Reading does not support public - private partnerships or adult education programs to
provide workforce training.
tJrAoc • Website: Reading does not have a designated webmaster or staff person for maintaining its website.
• Prozimities to Universities and Research: The town does not have a vocational/technical school within
its jurisdiction like the CGM.
• Rail: Reading does not have freight rail service available whereas most of the CGM does.
The weaknesses that surfaced in the EDSAT analysis provide guidelines to where Reading could exert more effort to
improve its ability to attract business and build its tax base.
Suggested Planning Process
• Community needs to set priorities on services and decide which it
will afford and how it will fund them
• Accommodated costs including health care rising at a rate much
faster than Prop 2 1/2 allows, pressuring operating budget
• Even if we want to simply maintain services, we will need new
sources of revenue
• Reserve position today is above FinComm recommended minimum
of 5% (closer to 7 -8% today ?) .... but maintaining services cutting
into this each year
• Capital Projects remain an active part of Reading as well....
• Library
• Infrastructure improvements
• School Facilities
• Others....
C-2),
Reviewing Plans and Policies
• FinComm
• Reserves (total)
• Capital spending
• OPEB
• Budget planning cycle— 2 years?
• Reading 2020
• Early Childhood Center Group
• Permanent Building Committee
• Economic Development
• Space Utilization Planning
• Many more....
0
p �9.,YC0R�R
Reserve Status
June 20'14
FREE CASH July 1, 2013 $7,584,868
• November TM +$ 75,000
• February TM -$ 400,000
• April TM - $2,254,800
— Article 5 $4,000
— Article 6 $250,800
— Article 7 $300,000
— Article 14 (FY15 budget) $1,700,000
$ 5,005,068
GENERAL STABILIZATION FUND $ 1,549,505 **
FINCOM Reserves $ 93,000
* *total excludes funds designated for specific purpose
TOTAL $ 6,647,573
Free cash when combined with other reserves represe 8.2 °lo estimated
$80.6 million FYI net available revenue �"
t
Ir
Board of Selectmen
& Department Heads
"Reading 2020"
In 2006 the Town Department Heads held an off -site Retreat to plan for the future, and three significant areas were identified as needing attention.
First, the town's technology systems were older than most dump trucks owned, and Town Meeting readily agreed to a funding request — Reading is
now on or near the cutting edge in use of public sector technology. Second, the buildings needed some improvement, and a strong capital planning
process by the School and Facilities department led to outstanding building results. Now, preventative maintenance and proactive thinking have
replaced reacting to emergencies - most of the Town and School buildings are now the envy of many communities. Finally, communication was also
identified as needing improvements, and while the Town has had much success in this area, the underlying technology changed more quickly and
became more affordable than anyone imagined, so more work is still needed.
The Board of Selectmen joined the Town Department Heads recently and held a Saturday Retreat to discuss the future of Reading and to develop an
action plan. Town government is a Services organization — which is quite different than a business. Looked at through a corporate lens, most Town
departments could be said to be `loss leaders' based strictly on their relative revenues and costs. Compared to many other communities, Reading
offers more services (and a high level of quality) than most do. Yet doing a `better job' than these other communities consumes revenues rather than
produce more.
In terms of how `outsiders' see the community, Standard and Poor's global bond rating organization recently rewarded Reading with the AAA rating
— their highest one available — as a result of the Town's disciplined financial practices of spending money carefully. Coupled with the belief that
Reading provides more and high quality services, it is clear that Town government and the School department, along with their various Boards and
Committees, have done an admirable job producing superior services within these revenue constraints.
All present at the Retreat agreed that the approximate +3% annual revenue growth compared to the expectation of the community to provide many
services at a high level of quality was the most significant issue to be tackled. The key question for the community will soon be "What services
should be cut, and if you can't cut them, would you be willing to pay more ?"
The Retreat formally created four working groups, composed of members of the Board of Selectmen (BOS) as well as the Town Department Heads.
Together these groups might be said to be using perfect hindsight to look ahead five or so years, an effort we call "Reading 2020 ". The four groups
are as follows:
1. Community Partners: Kevin Sexton (BOS), Dan Ensminger (BOS) and Bob LeLacheur (Town Manager). Town government is one of many
organizations that serve the Reading residents and businesses. We regularly work with many other organizations — non- profits, volunteer
groups, and the private sector. This working group for the first time will compile a comprehensive inventory of all such relationships, and
where services overlap we will have discussions as to ways to streamline our mutual efforts and share resources.
2. Services & Performance Measurement: Marsie West (BOS) and Jean Delios (Assistant Town Manager Community Services). This
working group will create an inventory of all of the services that are provided by Town government, and create ways to measure the results
and the quality of the service delivery. This measurement will include significant input from the community. A few years ago the Finance
Committee led a series of Financial Forums, and one session was aimed at a study of services. Community members were asked to list a
service that they currently use that they would be willing to give up — and not a single anonymous response was received. A few years later,
we want to ensure that the services the Town provides are all important ones, and to identify gaps where services may need to be added or
modified.
3. Communication: Sharon Angstrom (Town Accountant) and Jeff Zager (Public Works Director). The field of communication will always
evolve, and in recent years the Town has built significant technology infrastructure, with `future flexibility' being the most important design
consideration. What are the best ways to communicate with the Community and seek their opinions? The World Cafe was very successful and
drew a large number of residents several years ago. Many Volunteer Boards hold public meetings, but usually attendance is sparse unless the
issue directly impacts a homeowner. Every year the Finance Committee meets three or four times in joint session with the School Committee,
Library Trustees and Board of Selectmen to discuss financial planning, and community involvement in these meetings is usually light.
Perhaps there are better ways to conduct community meetings?
4. Strategic Planning: John Arena (BOS), John Halsey (BOS), Jim Cormier (Police Chief), Greg Bums (Fire Chief) and Ruth Urell (Library
Director). There are many short - and long -term specific issues that the Town is currently facing that need attention. For example, efforts are
underway for an overhaul of the Zoning Bylaw, and revisions to the Town Charter. Town and School space needs have been identified, but
resources and locations are not readily apparent. The downtown Post Office is for sale, and is in a vital location as a link between Main Street
and lower Haven Street, both areas of significant economic development in recent years. The town has a deficit in recreational space needed.
The list goes on ...
Reading is a community that has always had significant volunteer interest, and as a result is very open to ideas and suggestions that come from the
public. Your Town government as a service organization is here for you. We can help provide insight and guidance, but we alone do not seek to
decide community values. The next Reading 2020 planning session will be towards the end of October. If you would like to follow any or all of these
working groups and have any opinions to offer or questions to ask, please send an email to townmanager2ci.reading.ma us.
_
2014 Special Town
Monday Septe er 29, 2014
WARRANT OUTLIN VISED 071 14
Art. Mover/ Moderator
# Article Description Sponsor Comment Notes
1
Reports Board of Selectmen
♦ Permanent Building Committee
— Stephen Crook, Bylaw
Committee Chair
♦ Motion to Table — John Arena
2
Instructions Board of Selectmen
♦ Motion to Table —
3
Amend the Capital Board of Selectmen
♦ Motion —
Improvement Program FY
♦ Presentation —Bob LeLacheur
2015 - FY 2024
♦ FINCOM report -
4
Dispose of Surplus Tangible Board of Selectmen
♦ Motion —
Properties
♦ Presentation — Bob LeLacheur
1998 Leebov Pavement
♦ FINCOM report —
Spreader — estimated value
$10.000 will flow to Free Cash
when sold
5
Rescind Debt Authorization Board of Selectmen
♦ Motion —
Amounts not issued & not
♦ Presentation — Bob LeLacheur
needed:
♦ FINCOM report —
2010 STM Article 9
$326,772 Green School Repairs
2011 ATM Article 16
$110,607 Green School Repairs
7/30/2014
7/30/2014
30
2014
Special Town Meeting
Monday
September 29, 2014
WARRANT
OUTLINE REVISED 07/30/2014
6
Debt authorization
Board of Selectmen
•
if needed
Vest Street
ppraisals and
easements 203,800
Engineerinq -,93 300
construction 694,934
pub *_otal 1,092,0?4
Cont 4 ngency 115?1 i l 63, ?0,-
Tota].
ti?TlC'unt 1, _55,'834
($1.3 million authorized
plus Article 7 surplus
of <$100k will be
sufficient)
Water main work:
Details are a work in progress
— unlikely to need more
authorization until April
2015.
7
Transferring Debt
Board of Selectmen
• Motion —
Authorization in the amount
• Presentation —Bob LeLacheur
of $94,685
• FINCOM report —
Barrows $65.71
-Green Repairs $47,193.63
- Downtown Improvements
$7,728.07
- TechnoI S069 59
7/30/2014
30
2014 Special Town Meeting
Monday September 29, 2014
WARRANT OUTLINE REVISED 07/30/2014
8
Amend the FY 2015 Budget
FfNCOM
♦ Motion — Mark Dockser
C99 Capital $23,000
*Presentation — Bob LeLacheur
550,040 Town Hall generator
♦ FfNCOM report — Mark
(estimate);
Dockser
C99 Elder/flurrian Services
Van ($27,000) — grant funded
$46,495 (80%) — keep Town
share $12.000 of 539.000
funded,
E99 Vocational Schools:
$75,000 Essex North Shore
Agricultural-,
F99 FINCOM Reserves:
$10,000 (DPW trade-in)-,
G92 Administrative Svcs
expenses: 5100,000 Legal
expenses --'lT,'l'RMFlS,
K92 Public Works
expenses: $18,000 Eng.
Traffic Controls due to
lightning strike,
From Free Cash (or other
sources if not yet certified)
5216,000
9
Z oning B y l aw Changes
CPDC
♦ Motion -
Medical Marijuana
♦ Presentation —
♦ Bylaw Committee report -
10
Summer Avenue
TBA
♦ Motion -
♦ Presentation —
♦ Bylaw Committee report -
7/30/2014
Goals for tonight
• Start/continue the brainstorming process and get the word out
• 1st Creative Brainstorming ... service priorities
• No judgments... goal is to generate list, not debate merits
M
Categories
1. Service provided today, needs being met
2. Services provided today, needs not being met
3. Services not provided today but should be
4. Services provided today but getting more funding than they
should
5. Services provided today that should not be funded at all
Plan:
Brainstorm List
Vote— Top 3 per category
E
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Finance Committee
Date: 2014 -07 -16
Building: Reading Town Hall
Address: 16 Lowell Street
Purpose: General Business
Attendees: Members - Present:
Time: 7:30 PM
Location: Conference Room
Chairman Mark Dockser, Vice Chair Paula Perry, FINCOM members Marc
Moll, Peter Lydecker, Anne Landry, and Craig Merry.
Members - Not Present:
FINCOM members Karren Herrick and Paul McNeice.
Others Present:
Town Manager Bob LeLacheur and Administrative Secretary Caitlin Saunders
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By:
Topics of Discussion:
Mr. Dockser called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Mr. LeLacheur stated the Massachusetts General Law changed from $5,000 to $10,000
when disposing of a tangible supply. However, the Towns bylaw takes precedence to the
States so Mr. LeLacheur is asking the Bylaw Committee to change the Town to $10,000 as
well.
Mr. LeLacheur asked FINCOM to declare a list of about 10 items as surplus. He stated most
items get traded in for newer ones but they cannot be traded in until they are declared
surplus.
Ms. Perry made a motion to declare the named items as surplus effective July 16th, 2014,
second by Mr. Merry, and approved with a 6 -0 -0 vote.
FINCOM then took a look at the Warrant outline for the September Special Town Meeting.
Article 7 is Transferring debt authorization. The town has about $94,000 that was not used
for projects that are done and that can be transferred to other projects that meet the
requirements of the debt. Articles 8, 9, and 10 are the major reasons for having the
September meeting. Article 8 is a school issue that does not have a lot of information to be
shared at the moment. Article 9 is the Zoning Bylaw changes for the medical marijuana. The
town needs to make a plan and submit it to the state to be approved first. Article 10 is also
a Zoning Bylaw change for Accessory Apartments. This is on the list because it has received
a lot of public attention.
Mr. LeLacheur stated he hopes to amend both zoning issues in September and also made
note that the medical marijuana is not optional and must be done at some point.
FINCOM then took a look at the Warrant outline for the November Subsequent Town
Meeting. Mr. LeLacheur said he would first like to fill FINCOM in on what has been going on
with RMLD. He stated RMLD is under investigation by the Town Accountant for breaking
Page 1 1 0
Finance Committee Minutes - July 16, 2014 - page 2
procurement laws. He noted 3 trucks estimated at a value of $30,000 - $60,000 were sold to
an employee for a total of $350. Mr. LeLacheur said RMLD has a history of doing this
because they have a policy that allows it however, the policy is not legal and they will be
changing it. He noted he got wind of this thru an anonymous letter and after the Town
Accountant found legitimation in the letter she started her investigation. They went public
with this information on Tuesday, July 15th to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. LeLacheur felt
FINCOM needed to know in case they need to step in.
Mr. LeLacheur provided an updated list of Revenue Enhancement ideas. With that list he
explained ' EDSAT'. EDSAT stands for Economic Development Self Assessment Tool and it
rates how the community does on various things compared to about 100 other communities
around us. We were below average when it came to working with businesses
communicating and marketing. We also should have a full time web master whose sole
priority is the website. We ranked high in house and rent prices. We have very low
commercial rates and slightly high residential rates, but our electric rates are low as well.
Mr. Dockser asked the group what they would like to accomplish at the July 30th Financial
Forum. Mr. LeLacheur stated it is too early and we won't have any estimates by then. He
said the best thing to probably do, would be to assume the pattern of the past couple years.
He said we will probably have estimates for the September forum however we won't have
anything on the budgets until the October meeting.
Mr. Dockser said the July meeting is a good time to set the tone /overview for the rest of the
Financial Forums and to work on getting all the boards to work together to help each other.
He also stated this first forum would be a good time to figure out how to set /assess the
priorities of the town. Mr. Dockser said we should also ask the boards what their most
important things to accomplish in their budget are.
Mr. LeLacheur informed the group that our Legislative will be attending the September
forum. Mr. Dockser said the September forum will be more of a working session while the
October forum will be dealing with the budgets.
Ms. Perry said she would like to look at a multi -year budget and thinks that will help people
understand the financial road we are on.
The committee was brainstorming ideas to better communicate with the community and
thought it would be a good idea to use email to try and reach the public about meetings
they can attend and other financial news.
Mr. Dockser wanted the committee to come up with some ways they could help the Library
Building Committee. The group asked if they could get regular updates on the project. Mr.
LeLacheur said that will be possible but the financials are still hard to look at right now until
the bids come back. FINCOM said they will try and brainstorm ways to raise money if
needed besides asking the town for more.
Ms. Perry made a motion to accept the minutes from June 25th as written, second by Mr.
Merry, and approved with a 6 -0 -0 vote.
Mr. Lydecker made a motion to accept the executive session minutes from June 25th as
written, second by Mr. Dockser, the votes were as followed:
Mr. Merry - Yes
Mr. Lydecker - Yes
Mr. Moll - Yes
Ms. Landry - Yes
Ms. Perry - Yes
Mr. Dockser- Yes
Page 1 2 L; \
Finance Committee Minutes - July 16, 2014 -page 3
The Motion carried with a 6 -0 -0 vote.
Ms. Perry made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9pm, second by Mr. Lydecker, the
motion carried with a 6 -0 -0 vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Page 1 3 6