HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-24 RMLD Board of Commissioners MinutesReading Municipal Light Board of Commissioners
Regular Session C (v
230 Ash Street 1
Reading, MA 01867 _TOWN CLERK
R
July 24, 2014 r."tAUING. Mr,SS.
Start Time of Regular Session: 7:32 p.m. l FEB - 3 A 9: 5 9
End Time of Regular Session: 9:09 P.M.
Commissioners:
David Talbot, Chairman
Robert Soli, Commissioner
Thomas O'Rourke, Secretary
Staff.
Coleen O'Brien, General Manager
Bob Fournier, Accounting/Business Manager
Hamid Jaffari, Director of Engineering & Operations
Citizens' Advisory Board (CAB):
Dave Mancuso, Member
Rubin and Rudman LLP:
Chris Pollart
Public:
Jack Devir
Philip Pacino, Vice Chair
John Stempeck, Commissioner
Jeanne Foti, Executive Assistant
Priscilla Gottwald, Community Relations Manager
William Seldon, Senior Energy Analyst
Call Meeting to Order
(�hairrnan Talbot called the meeting to order and stated that the meeting was being videotaped; it is live in Reading only.
Opening Remarks
Chairman Talbot read the RMLD Board of Commissioners Code of Conduct.
Introductions
Chairman Talbot acknowledged CAB Member, Dave Mancuso and Chris Pollart of Rubin and Rudman. Chairman Talbot
asked if there was anyone else that wanted to be acknowledged, there was no response.
Chairman Talbot reported that Commissioner O'Rourke will be the Secretary for this evening's meeting.
Commissioner Stempeck is participating remotely due to geographic distance.
Report of the Chairman (Attachment 1)
RMLD Surplus Vehicles — Chairman Talbot
Chairman Talbot reported on the matter of the bucket trucks that were sold and questions that were raised which has been in
the public sector for a while. In April, following the RMLD's Policy, a RMLD employee bid and won the bids for three
bucket trucks for a total of $350, triggering questions. The matter was immediately looked into, and found RMLD's Policy
that has been in place for approximately twenty years does not conform with current state law. The most recent update for
this matter is that the trucks have been returned and parked in RMLD's parking lot. We thank the employee for doing this so
promptly. In terms of those three trucks and any financial matters related to them, this issue is muted. However, in terms of
the policy, the structure of how the RMLD handles surplus disposal is being looked at. Chairman Talbot pointed out that
once this happened, the General Manager immediately, among many other actions, froze any other liquidations until the
policies were updated. Chairman Talbot stated that the Policy Committee met and he sat in on that meeting. At that meeting,
the participants were in agreement with the General Manager's recommendation that all the RMLD policies would be sent
out for a thorough legal scrubbing and that process is well underway. Chairman Talbot said that there is a preliminary
revision to the Surplus Disposal, Policy 2, this evening. Since there are recent updates, it would be prudent to not vote on the
(Wppreciated wised policy this evening. There are late breaking comments from the Citizens' Advisory Board (CAB) members that are
and we need time to absorb those and to do this properly.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
July 24, 2014
Report of the Chairman (Attachment 1)
RMLD Surplus Vehicles — Chairman Talbot
Chairman Talbot commented that in addition, the Town of Reading may have their own updating to their policies and can
potentially be in alignment with RMLD to the appropriate extent. Given that liquidations have been paused administratively, vi
this will not cause any issues. Chairman Talbot said that in addition, the General Manager has asked all the parties involved
to sign non - collusion forms, contacted the State Ethics Commission for advice, called for a complete fleet maintenance
practices and assessment study, had a companywide employee meeting, had state ethics training implemented and a state
ethics seminar scheduled for September. Chairman Talbot said that this has been worked on to the fullest extent possible.
Chairman Talbot said that he hopes at the next meeting the policy will be voted upon.
Mr. Pacino commented that Board members have to take the ethics training every two years. New Board members must take
the ethics training within either sixty or ninety days from coming onto the board. It is an online course that the commission
members, CAB members and every town officials should be taking. The online course takes no more than a half hour with a
certificate that needs to be printed out for recordkeeping purposes.
Chairman Talbot asked Ms. O'Brien if there was anything else she had to add. Ms. O;Brien responded that Chairman Talbot
did a good job. Ms. O'Brien stated that however, with the State Ethics Commission there are two mandated training
requirements, one is an annual handout of which Human Resources has sent out to the employees which can be forwarded to
the CAB as well as the commission members. The second mandated requirement is to take the online training every two
years. Currently, the Town Clerk in Reading is the liaison contact. Ms. O'Brien said that Human Resources will promptly
send out the link. Chairman Talbot said that this is his first meeting as Chairman as well as the first meeting after the General
Manager's first anniversary. The scrubbing of the policies is long overdue; it is because of the initiative of this General
Manager that we are doing this. Also, there are new initiatives that have taken place such as the recent LED streetlight grant
for $250,000. The customers of the four towns will see savings. All the citizens of the four towns on an extremely hot day
would be exposed to a communications campaign to encourage them to reduce their consumption which was just designed,
but not implemented. If one percent of the demand can be reduced, by a mass communications campaign, this will save
approximately $80,000 for one hour of activity. There are savings on legal bills and organizational efficiencies which have
been implemented. Chairman Talbot wanted to thank Ms. O'Brien for her hard work. The RMLD is trying to improve
organizational efficiencies at the RMLD for the benefit of its customers.
Chairman Talbot asked if there were any public questions regarding the truck matter, there were none.
Mr. Mancuso stated that he had a few comments on behalf of the CAB. He wanted to congratulate everyone on the grant and
the CAB members are happy as well. Mr. Mancuso said that on the CAB side there was some feedback presented to him by
members relative to the truck. Mr. Mancuso commented that they are happy to hear that the sale has been reversed and the
trucks have been returned. There is some puzzling on the CAB as to how we exactly got where we got. The general
feedback is that they have not convened on this and will do so in August to have more discussion. The biggest concern is not
the sale of the trucks for $350, but the process by which the commission and General Manager shared information with the
CAB. The way the CAB has viewed this is that there were assurances that the RMLD was within policy and discovered
afterwards that may not be the case. It is mostly concerning about us as an organization and the way we approach these types
of things when they come up. The CAB was certainly notified of the initial activities, but did not receive any subsequent
information. We look forward to working very closely with the General Manager and the commission to make sure we have
a good flow of information which serve our role as advisors to the organization and serve our communities by being
advocates for them. It is really to the CAB an issue of process as much as policy. Policy cannot always dictate common
sense. We are looking forward to bringing the communities input.
Chairman Talbot commented that Mr. Mancuso's points are well taken. If there was any delay in the CAB getting
information he will take the hit for that. Initially, he was gathering information and forwarding it immediately to the Town
Accountant to figure out the best way going forward. If there was a need for him to let the CAB know about it, he apologizes
for that. Mr. Mancuso said that it is acceptable and we look forward to working out a process. Chairman Talbot added that
our understanding evolved over the weeks. At first we were reporting to the Town Accountant. The first he has heard from
any CAB members was in the last couple of days. Mr. Mancuso thanked him for holding off on the policy vote. Chairman
Talbot added that CAB member Dave Nelson also mentioned this as well.
Policy Committee Vice Chair Pacino
Draft RMLD Surplus Policy — This has been reviewed by legal counsel.
Mr. Pacino reported that the Policy Committee met on July 1 with the Town Accountant, Sharon Angstrom and the Town of
Reading Board of Selectmen, Chair Arena to specifically to discuss the truck issue and make some suggestions as to what the
policy should be.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
July 24, 2014
Policy Committee Vice Chair Pacino
Draft RMLD Surplus Policy — This has been reviewed by legal counsel.
r`r. Pacino said that the Policy Committee basically all along had been working with the General Manager and followed her
ecommendation that the policy needed to be sent out, scrubbed, cleaned up, modernized and adjustments made. That
meeting took place in short span of time after the truck issue happened. The decision was made at that point to send out the
policies to legal counsel to get them cleaned up, scrubbed with the required changes. That is where it currently stands. The
Policy Committee will meet within the next month once the policies are reviewed by legal counsel. One of items that has
already been addressed is the Surplus Policy. The Policy Committee needs to meet again on this policy to make its
recommendations prior to the Board approval and is requesting that the vote be deferred by the Board this evening, which has
been addressed. Chairman Talbot commented that the RMLD will have one tightest policies in the state.
Mr. Pacino suggested that all comments from the Board and CAB go the General Manager's office.
Update on Charter Committee Vice Chair Pacino
Mr. Pacino stated that in the Board packet there is a legal opinion from Rubin and Rudman. Mr. Pacino stated that he is a
member of the Charter Review Committee that is reviewing and updating the Reading Town Charter. One of the issues
being raised is that he needs guidance from the commission because in the By Laws and Charter there are a couple of items
that are concerning to the General Manager and legal counsel. One is the appointment of the Accounting Manager and Chief
Accountant of the Reading Municipal Light Department which is appointed by the commission and the second is the
adoption of Massachusetts General Law, Section 30B. The legal opinion is that these two items conflict with state law. In
Chapter 164 Section 56, the General Manager is responsible for all the employees of the Department. The only person that
the RMLD Board is responsible for is the General Manager. The Board cannot reach into the Department and tell anyone
what to do; we can go only through the General Manager and have always done this. The Charter in essence tried to change
this. The other concern is MGL 30B in which he understands that the commission never voted on MGL 3013; he is unsure if
it was intentional or unintentional, but he does not think the previous General Manager brought this to the commission for a
vote. If we vote for MGL 30B, power contracts would come under MGL 30B which could be a problematic issue. Power
contracts only stay open for a short period of time to go through the MGL 30B process you will not get the best deals. The
third item is the presentation that the RMLD is to make to the Finance Committee. Mr. Pacino said that in the past, the
,:LD has had to remind the Finance Committee that we should make the presentation. One of things to do is to clean up
language that says we will be making an informational presentation to the Finance Committee.
Mr. Pacino explained that in 2003, a governance committee was set up by the Town of Reading to look into this. At that
point some of the recommendations came into place. One recommendation was that the Board would appoint the Accounting
Manager and MGL 30B would be put in place except for power contracts. There were other items proposed at that time such
as the RMLD Board commission members are appointed which would have wreaked havoc with the three outside towns.
These changes came out at this point. Mr. Pacino is looking for guidance and direction from the Board because the Charter
Review Committee is meeting next Monday evening. Mr. Pacino has provided the Board with all the proposed changes that
include what he presented to the Charter Review Committee, and Bill Brown's comments who is a member of this
committee.
Mr. Stempeck thanked Mr. Pacino. Mr. Stempeck said that each aspect has to be addressed separately. If there is any
conflict with state law, we do not want to be in that area. It needs to be extremely clear from this point going forward that we
are not in conflict with state law. There also has been a recommendation that the General Manager was going to look at
components of MGL30B to see if certain pieces were appropriate and others that were inappropriate to negate conflict.
Regarding the other provisions in terms of appointed versus elected, he is in agreement that this would significantly lessen
the independence of the RMLD Board of Commissioners overall. This would cause significant issues given the fact that the
RMLD services four towns, not only Reading. It could be a major issue as well. We need to be very careful moving forward
and take a bit more time and need to provide guidance. The blanket acceptance of any of these cannot happen immediately.
If there is any guidance, he would suggest to research each issue then come up with a recommendation. Chairman Talbot
added that as part of their top to bottom policy scrubbing they will be doing that.
Ms. O'Brien said that there is nothing that they can find that shows an RMLD Board of Commissioner vote was taken for
MGL 30B. Only the RMLD Board of Commissioners can vote to adopt MGL 30B which cannot be done in pieces it has to
be in its entirety. This would exclude the RMLD from being competitive in power supply completely. RMLD Policy 9,
Procurement that essentially adopts MGL 30B in some fashion which is being sent out to be scrubbed. It is her
commendation to continue to follow MGL 30B because it is good business practice, but would say in the policy where
GL 30B does and does not make sense to protect any competitive process for the RMLD and its enterprise structure. The
RMLD Board Policy 19, Board of Commissioners policy currently states that the Board can appoint the Accountant which is
in violation of the law and that is why that policy is being sent out.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
July 24, 2014
Report of the Chairman (Attachment 1)
Update on Charter Committee Vice Chair Pacino
Ms. O'Brien's overall recommendation is to wait for legal to come back with the recommendations on the revised policies to
make sure they are not in violation of the law. At that point, you will be in a better position to take your comments to back Ij
the Charter Review Committee. Chairman Talbot is agreement with that.
Mr. Pacino added that in 2003, the Town of Reading's attorney disagreed with the memo from Rubin and Rudman.
Reading's Town Clerk has submitted a copy of this current Rubin and Rudman memo to get the town's legal counsel's
opinion on this. Mr. Stempeck commented that by submitting this to town counsel, isn't this a conflict of interest? Mr.
Pacino said that the Rubin and Rudman opinion is being reviewed by the Reading town counsel. Ms. O'Brien explained the
clarification is on who appoints RMLD's Accountant and counsel. Mr. Stempeck said that it is a conflict to submit this to
town counsel for an opinion on this.
Mr. Pollart said that the timing with respect to review relative to the Purchasing policy has been raised. Mr. Pollart said that
a reasonable timeframe would be mid to the end of August. The policies need to be reviewed and the applicable law
researched. Then they would meet with the applicable employees at the RMLD in charge of purchasing and figure what
aspects of MGL 30B make sense for the Department and what aspects do not. Other good purchasing practices should be
included. A draft policy will be put together and reviewed by RMLD staff then a final policy for the Board's review.
Mr. Pollart stated that Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 164 Section 56, specifically state that the General Manager shall
be responsible for hiring employees, agents and counsel. The Golubek decision has looked at aspects of Section 56 and the
public cases have as well opined and further clarified that it is the General Manager exclusively that has the charge of all
employees, agents and counsel at the RMLD. With respect to the Board, it plays an extremely important function of
establishing and setting policy. One of the most important aspects of the Board besides policy is selecting a General
Manager which is the sole authority of the Board. With respect to the Department and the day to day operations of the plant
which includes the hiring of all these people, this is exclusively within the control of the General Manager.
Ms. O'Brien said that the RMLD uses the same auditor as the town, Melanson Heath and is under the impression that this is
in the spirit of cooperation not by law. Mr. Pollart said that is not required by law. The hiring of the auditor for the RMLD
finances is up to the General Manager's discretion. Ij
Mr. Soli said that the stressing of 30B is very important. Apparently the Town Charter says that RMLD should use 30B, but
not for power supply. As it has already been pointed out if you take one bite you have to swallow the whole thing under 30B.
For power supply contracts, typically the offer from the vendor is open for one hour. The RMLD has one hour to look at the
offerings to make a decision and with Chapter 30B this could not happen. Apparently, no other muni has signed up for
Chapter 30B because they have looked at that instance and realize it makes life unworkable. Mr. Soli said that the power
supply issue needs to be addressed to the Charter Review Committee as well as Town Meeting.
Mr. Pacino clarified the direction he should be taking on the charter changes. Based on the Board's input he is getting the
direction that we are requesting that everything stands in place right now while the Department's policies are scrubbed,
cleaned up and made new again then move forward at that point. The Board was in agreement.
Public Comment
There was no public comment.
General Manager's Report — Ms. O'Brien
Ms. O'Brien said that she would like Ms. Gottwald to provide a brief update on recent cable television on the unbundling of
the bill.
RMLD Utilizes local cable television to explain unbundling of its billing
Ms. Gottwald reported that Ms. Parenteau, Ms. O'Brien and herself filmed the unbundling of RMLD's rates. Ms. Gottwald
sent the commission members the YouTube link for this programming. There were no call ins from the public during the
filming, but they had prepared questions. Discussion in the filming addressed a poster that demonstrated the new line items
in the unbundled bill with the explanations RMLD's responsive communication program and paperless billing. RMLD's
customers can sign up in the lobby at the kiosk for RMLD auto payment. The unbundled bill is also found on RMLD's
website.
Ms. O'Brien reported on the responsive communications program and that there was a meeting with a couple of town
managers, police departments as well as fire chiefs this week.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
July 24, 2014
General Manager's Report — Ms. O'Brien
RMLD Utilizes local cable television to explain unbundling of its billing
s. O'Brien stated that discussion involved utilizing the towns reverse 911 System whether it was Everbridge or Code Red.
s. O'Brien said that Mr. Jaffari along with his staff have helped to put together the power watch and voltage reduction
scenarios that could occur and go with those systems.
Ms. O'Brien stated that as the RMLD works forward in its technologic strategic plan, it may come up with using their own
system in the future. In the unlikely event there is an ISO New England grid system operator such as a public appeal for
conservation or voltage reduction due to the shutdown of Salem Harbor, we want everyone to know.
Ms. O'Brien stated that customers can sign up online or at the kiosks at the local police stations throughout the four towns.
Ms. Gottwald added that the superintendents of schools in the four towns each has agreed that when the RMLD sends out an
alert they will send the parents (for whom that have e-mail addresses) the alert.
Chairman Talbot asked what do customers have to do receive such alerts. Ms. O'Brien said that there is a kiosk in RMLD's
lobby to sign up for alerts. Ms. Gottwald explained that customers can go on their respective town's website and opt in to get
the alerts. Chairman Talbot said that customers can get the alerts if they sign up for the public safety alerts on their
respective towns websites. Ms. O'Brien said that the four town local cable televisions are also showing the alerts. Chairman
Talbot said that this was a great initiative.
General Manager's Report — Ms. O'Brien
RMLD Receives $250,000 in LED grant money from Department of Energy Resources
Ms. O'Brien reported that the RMLD is a recipient of a $250,000 grant by the Department of Energy Resources for energy
efficiency programs for customers of municipal light plants. The intent was to expand cost savings and environmental
benefits. The RMLD will receive $75,000 for commercial and industrial LED programs, $50,000 for residential LED
programs and $31,250 for LED streetlight conversions for the four towns. It plays into the six year transparent capital budget
that was calling for the LED conversion program over the next three years. The LED Pilot program now that the rates are
unbundled - has a new LED streetlight rate as well as a new low income rate. The LED Pilot program will commence this
week. Ms. O'Brien said that she will send the commission and CAB members the LED Pilot Program. Ms. O'Brien stated
at she went to visit the four town managers and they are happy with the areas the RMLD will be piloting. Chairman Talbot
aid that this was a great initiative.
RMLD Teams with commercial customers on vehicle charging stations
Ms. O'Brien reported that the RMLD is providing a joint venture partnership for the electric charging stations to businesses
(commercial customers) for their employees to utilize. Any commercial or industrial customer that is interested in this
program should contact the RMLD. The charging stations provide access to employees with electric vehicles. It also reduces
greenhouse gases amongst other environmental benefits. It enhances employee benefits and increases recruitment. Charging
stations are one mechanism that helps RMLD manage its peak demand. RMLD will assist customers to obtain the grants
from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to fund fifty percent of a unit with a cap of $25,000 per project.
Chairman Talbot asked how this helps the peak: will the charging stations be switched off during that timeframe? Ms.
O'Brien responded that the RMLD works with its customers with that partnership to make sure we are staying away from the
peak. Chairman Talbot added that employees are at work during peak hours. The charging scheduling is played into that
partnership so it is a win -win on both sides. Chairman Talbot said that this was a great initiative. Chairman Talbot said that
RMLD is accessible to many major highways and there are more electric cars on the road. Consumers need electric charging
stations that are near the highways, perhaps the RMLD can think of building charging stations which would be a good way to
generate business. Ms. O'Brien cautioned that if anyone is interested in installing charging stations you cannot sell them for
resale which is part of the terms and conditions.
RMLD receives benefit from the retirement of MMWEC debt retirement
Ms. O'Brien reported that for Mix 1, which consists of three megawatts of Millstone Nuclear Plant and 30KW of Seabrook
Nuclear Plant, as of July 1 this debt reduction reduces capacity costs by $982,000 for this fiscal year which was included in
the budget as part of the six year plan. Mixes 3, 4, 5, which are also combinations of Millstone and Seabrook, will be retiring
their debt in 2017 and 2018 at a cost savings of $1.2 million apiece which was included in the budget.
°ower Supply Report — May 2014 — Mr. Seldon (Attachment 2)
Ir. Seldon reported that the RMLD's load for May was approximately 54.47 million kilowatt hour, which is approximately
two million kilowatts less than May 2013. RMLD's energy cost was approximately $1.73 million, equivalent to $.0312 per
kilowatt hour. Mr. Seldon stated that the Fuel Charge adjustment for May and June was $.065 per kilowatt hour.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes °
July 24, 2014
Power Supply Report — May 2014 — Mr. Seldon (Attachment 2)
Mr. Seldon said that the Deferred Fuel Reserve is projected to have a year -end fiscal year balance of approximately $2.175
million. RMLD purchased 6.5% of its energy requirements from the ISO New England Spot Market at an average cost of
$.05 cents per kilowatt hour.
RMLD's peak demand was 101.7 megawatts which occurred on May 12 at 6:00 pm with the temperature at forty nine
degrees - last year the peak was 143.38 megawatts with a temperature of ninety two degrees. The monthly capacity
requirement was 215.57 megawatts with the total capacity cost of $1.37 million which is equivalent to $6.38 a kilowatt
month. Capacity and energy costs were approximately $.056 cents per kilowatt hour with 14.2% of the energy purchased
from hydro generation or green power sources.
The RMLD has received approximately 8,733 RECs with the estimated market value of approximately $376,000 which is
$43 dollars per REC.
Mr. Seldon reported that the RMLD's total transmission costs for the month of May were $628,000 which is approximately
$256,000, 1% lower than April, which is attributed to the lower peak for the month.
Energy efficiency measures dollars spent to date, or $397,657, with an estimated savings in capacity of 1.16 megawatts and a
reduction of 2.7 million kilowatt hours.
Note that the Financial Report and Engineering and Operations Report were taken out of order.
Financial Report — May 2014 — Mr. Fournier (Attachment 3)
Mr. Fournier presented the May Financial Report which represents the first eleven months of fiscal year 2014; the positive
change in Net Assets of $1.3 million, with the year to date Net Income approximately a little over $1 million.
Year to date budgeted Net Income was approximately $3 million with the resulting Net Income being under budget by
approximately $2 million. Actual year to date fuel expenses exceeded fuel revenues by about $322,000.
Year to date base revenues were under budget by $1.3 million. Actual base revenues were $42.4 million compared to the
budgeted amount of $43.8 million.
Year to date purchased power base expenses were under budget by $178,000. Actual purchased power base costs were $26
million compared to the budgeted amount of $26.2 million.
Year to date operating and maintenance (O &M) expenses combined were under budget by $67,000. The actual O &M
expenses were $11.6 million compared to the budgeted amount of $11.7 million. Depreciation expense and voluntary
payments to the Towns were on budget.
Operating Fund was at $11.6 million, Capital Fund $4.3 million, Rate Stabilization Fund $6.7 million, Deferred Fuel Fund
$2.2 million and the Energy Conservation Fund at $452,000.
Year to date kilowatt hour sales were 632 million kilowatt hours sold which is 10 million kilowatt hours or 1.5% behind last
year's actual figures.
Mr. Fournier stated that the June inventory physical count was performed, which went well. The accounts receivable
confirmations were sent out the first full week of July and he encourages our customers to respond. The audit field work is
scheduled for the week of August 18. The auditors will make their full report at the September meeting.
Mr. Fournier reported that cumulatively the five divisions came in under budget by $42,000 or'/ of 1 %.
Chairman Talbot pointed out that sales are down by 1.5 %, sales are drifting down. What does Mr. Fournier attribute this to?
Mr. Fournier replied that it is the conservation efforts and weather. Chairman Talbot clarified that if the weather was
averaged for a year, it would be the same. Chairman Talbot pointed out that the overall business model is flat in spite of the
development continuing and that sales are in decline and something for all of us to keep in mind. There will be less sales and
more pressure on our finances. It suggests new ways to drive the business in different directions with new initiatives and not
what we are doing now.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
July 24, 2014
Financial Report — May 2014 — Mr. Fournier (Attachment 3)
Mr. O'Rourke clarified if we looked at sales month to month, is it a constant decline? Mr. Fournier said that from last May
are down 2 million kilowatt hours. Even last year at this time we were down 2 million kilowatt hour sales. Mr. Fournier
ted that is a combination of the weather and conservation efforts. Chairman Talbot said that in theory the weather related
affects over a year should be averaged. The drifting down in demand and drifting up of fixed costs such as transmission that
will put pressure on us in the long term.
Engineering and Operations Report — May 2014 — Mr. Jaffari (Attachment 4)
Mr. Jaffari stated that he will be reporting on the May System Projects, and Reliability Indices.
FY 2014 Capital Authorization proiects
Mr. Jaffari reported that System Project 101 — 5W9 Reconductoring — Wildwood Street 50% complete, Project 104 —
Upgrading Old Lynnfield Center URDs (Cook's Farm), Project 106 — URD Upgrades — All Towns ongoing, and Project 107
— Stepdown Area Upgrades — All Towns ongoing, Project 111— Station 4 — Gaw Getaway Replacement — 4W 13 ongoing.
Mr. Jaffari reported that in May there were no Customer Service Connections for Commercial/Industrial, but some activity
for service installations. For the routine construction and capital improvements the following occurred in the month of May:
five capital projects were completed that included the towns of North Reading, Reading and Wilmington. The RTU
Replacements at Station 5 is ongoing. For the underground subdivisions (new construction), three are completed (one in
Wilmington and two in Reading). There were miscellaneous capital costs of $57,724 in the month of May with the total
activity in the amount of $156,664.
Maintenance
Mr. Jaffari said that RMLD has established seven preventative maintenance programs to minimize outages and maintain
reliability and that they are all "works in progress ". In the month of May, the following has occurred:
Aged/Overloaded Transformer Replacement Program: Three padmount transformers were replaced in the following towns;
(1) Duane Dr, N. Reading; (2) Amherst Rd, Wilmington; and (3) Blanchard Rd, Wilmington. Additionally, the three phase
nadmount transformer inspection is ongoing.
(b�ole testing: Pole testing RFQ was sent out in which one bidder quoted for sound testing and no electronic testing was
requested by RMLD. RMLD would like to utilize nondestructive electronic test method, the RFQ is being resent with the
hope of seeking more vendors.
Feeder Quarterly inspection Program: The 13.8kV/35k quarterly feeder inspections are being done as planned with four
completed in the month of May /June.
Manhole Inspection program: Mr. Jaffari reported that the manhole inspection program is in development.
Porcelain Cutout Replacement Program: Total of 44 cutouts were replaced in the month of May.
Infrared Scan (Monthly): No scan in the month of May. This program officially started in June 2014, with no significant
problems at the substations..
Substation Maintenance Program: UPG is continuing testing all transformers, breakers, and relays at all substations.
Reliability indices
Mr. Jaffari reported on the three reliability indices that the RMLD tracks. SAIDI (System Interruption Duration Index) year
to date 2014 is at 6.26 and is well below the Regional Average and National Average. SAIFI (System Average Interruption
Frequency) year to date 2014 is at 0.16 and is lower than the Regional Average and National Average. CAIDI (Customer
Average Interruption Duration Index) year to date 2014 is at 38.13and is lower than the Regional Average and the National
Average.
Mr. Jaffari stated that the 2010 -2014 Outage Causes Types chart demonstrates that forty eight percent of failures were due to
equipment failure (i.e. transformers and cutouts) followed by trees and wildlife.
(,,,.r. Soli clarified that for the capital budget is $6.1 million, there is $2.7 million remaining - will these be carried over? Mr.
Jaffari replied: "that is correct ".
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
July 24, 2014
General Discussion
There was none.
BOARD MATERIAL AVAILABLE BUT NOT DISCUSSED
E -Mail responses to Account Payable/Payroll Questions
RMLD Board Meetings
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Executive Session
At 9:00 p.m. Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Soli that the Board go into Executive Session to approve the Executive
Session, discuss mediation and union negotiations update, and return to Regular Session for the sole purpose of adjournment.
Chairman Talbot polled the Board. Motion carried by a polling of the Board:
Mr. Soli; Aye; Mr. Pacino; Aye ;Mr. O'Rourke; Aye; Chairman Talbot, Aye and Mr. Stempeck, Aye.
Motion carried 5:0:0.
Adjournment
At 9:09 p.m. Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Soli to adjourn the Regular Session to adjourn.
A true copy of the RMLD Board of Commissioners minutes
as approved by a majority of the Commission.
Thomas O'Rourke, Secretary Pro Tern
RMLD Board of Commissioners
P]
[ "I
Revision No. 4
General Manager /Date:
I. PURPOSE
RMLD Policy No. 2
SURPLUS MATERIAL
Effective Date:
Chairman /Date:
The purpose of this Policy No. 2 SURPLUS MATERIAL is to provide administrative
controls and procedures for use by the RMLD in disposing of surplus property to
maximize the value of the disposal of such surplus property to RMLD. This policy does
not apply to the disposal of real estate.
II. DETERMINATION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY
Surplus property is personal property in the custody and control of RMLD which is
either:
(a) In excess of RMLD's needs due to change in operations or personnel or other
changes in circumstances;
(b) Replaced by new or substitute property;
(c) Damaged and non - repairable or unecono a tsts of repairs;
(d) In poor or hazardous condition; or
(e) Obsolete and no longer suits RMLD's e
Each RMLD Department shall identif th'` deems to be surplus. The General
Manager or his /her designee shall m the` e ' ation whether any such property constitutes
surplus to RMLD's needs and sha : e desi x to for disposal. Such determination shall be
made in writing identifying the reasons I decl_` ng the property surplus.
III. ASSIGNING VALUE
Upon declaring property as surplus, the estimated value of the property shall be
determined. RMLD will determine the fair market value ( "FMV ") of such property based
on the best available sources. For vehicles, FMV shall be determined based on Kelley
Blue Book, Edmunds, NADA Guides or any other nationally recognized service that
values vehicles for similar vehicles. For other property, including commercial or service
vehicles not listed in Kelley Blue Book, Edmunds, NADA Guides or a similar source,
FMV shall be determined based on quotes, trade -in offers, available sales data,
appraisal or industry sources for similar property or vehicles, as may be adjusted for
specific make and model, year, condition, and special equipment and features, and
other factors deemed relevant. If FMV cannot reasonably be determined for a particular
property then RMLD will estimate the value of such property based on its salvage value,
which shall be based on its original purchase price less depreciation as determined by
the RMLD.
For property having no tangible resale or salvage value, the property shall be
designated as scrap.
The estimated value of the property, including scrap, and the sources consulted shall be
documented and kept on file. The final determination of the property's estimated value
ATTACHMENT 1
shall be subject to review and approval by the General Manager or his /her designee.
IV. CATEGORIZATION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY
Once values are determined pursuant to Article III, property shall be categorized as
follows:
(1) Scrap — property having no tangible or resale value;
(2) Substantial Value — property having a FMV in excess of $10,000;
(3) Moderate Value — property having a FMV in excess of $500 but less than $10,000;
and
(4) Nominal Value — property having a FMV of $500 or less.
If the surplus property will be sold separately as individual units, the property shall be
categorized based on the value of each individual unit. For property to be sold as a set
or collection, the property shall be categorized based on the estimated value of the set
or collection. Items customarily sold as a set shall not be treated as individual units to
evade or bypass applicable disposal procedures. However, RMLD, in its discretion may
determine whether to dispose of property on an individual unit basis or as part of a set or
collection in order to maximize revenue. In such instances, the reasons shall be
documented and kept on file. The final decision whether to utilize a single solicitation or
separate solicitations for multiple items shall be subject to the review and approval of the
General Manager or his /her designee.
V. ELECTRIC UTILITY- SPECIFIC AND COMM
RMLD will identify any property that it co s be electric utility- specific. Electric
utility- specific property is property that ty, c , I ly an electric utility or a company or
person in the electric utility trade is Ii a an interest in acquiring. For electric
utility- specific property of S_ ar V RMLD will determine whether an
established market exists f " r s disposal. An "established market" is one in
which commodities are r larly so in holesale lots and prices are set by open
competition as interpreted s of rwise defined by the Massachusetts Inspector
General or agency of the Comrir` Ith or a court having jurisdiction over the disposal
of property by federal, state, and cal governmental entities. Trade journals and other
trade publications, online advertising sources. and other industry or market resources for
the advertisement and sale of electric utility- specific vehicles and equipment, as well as
other commercial vehicles, regardless of value. shall be identified and documented. The
list shall be reviewed every six (6) months and updated as necessary.
VI. DISPOSAL PROCEDURES.
A. Scrap. Scrap may be destroyed, recycled, or disposed of via a scrap bid or other
method as determined by RMLD in its discretion based on the particular
circumstances and costs of disposal. RMLD will endeavor to recycle, salvage
and /or minimize the cost of disposal of scrap to the extent reasonably possible.
B. Right of First Refusal. With the exception of scrap and electric utility- specific
property, RMLD will offer surplus property to the Towns of Reading, North Reading,
Wilmington, and Lynnfield (collectively "Towns ") at FMV before offering the property
to the general public.
Vehicles. Vehicles will be offered to the Towns at FMV on a rotational basis. The
rotational sequence is Reading, North Reading, Wilmington, and Lynnfield. Should
a town decline an offering, the next town in the sequence will be contacted and
offered the vehicle.When more than one vehicle is available, the town in position to
receive the offering will have first choice of available vehicles. Remaining vehicles
will be offered to the other towns per the established rotation.
Other Propert y. RMLD will offer other surplus property to the Towns at FMV on a
first come, first served basis. RMLD will notify the Towns in writing. The Towns will
have 30 days from the date of RMLD's notice to submit a notice of intent to
purchase the property before RMLD offers the property to the general public. Notice
of intent to purchase shall be made in writing and signed by an officer with authority
to approve the purchase. If more than one town provides RMLD with a notice of
intent to purchase the property at the same time, preference will be given based on
the rotational sequence. If no town has provided RMLD with a written notice of
intent within the 30 -day period, RMLD may proceed to offer the property to the
general public pursuant to applicable procedures.
C. Substantial Value. Property determined to have Substantial Value only shall be
disposed of in compliance with G.L. c. 30B requirements and such supplemental
requirements and procedures set forth in this policy and /or as determined by the
General Manager in his /her discretion. The General Manager shall have authority to
impose additional requirements if he /she determines that it is in the best interests of
RMLD to do so.
Where an established market exists for the property, RMLD may dispose of the
property through the established mar ket o - de -in if RMLD determines that it is
advantageous to do so. The reasons sha mented and the decision shall be
_
subject to the approval of the General Man or er designee.
For all other property, a competitive ic' ocess shall be used. RMLD shall
evaluate whether a written comp d cess or auction, including an online
auction such as Ebay, pres s t os , antageous approach given the property
to be sold. The proc„ , all notices, shall conform to G.L. c. 30B
requirements.
RMLD shall consider whet ZML mpose a minimum bid price or other terms and
conditions of the sale. At am m, RMLD shall reserve the right to reject any and
all bids if it is in RMLD's best interest to do so.
In addition to complying with G.L. c. 30B notice requirements, RMLD shall post a
notice on its website and advertise the solicitation in appropriate print and online
sources intended to reach potentially interested buyers. Commercial and electric
utility- specific vehicles and equipment shall be advertised in at least two sources
identified on the list as set forth in Article V. RMLD also will provide the Towns with
direct written notice.
RMLD shall award the bid to the highest bidder who meets the requirements of the
solicitation, unless RMLD determines that it is in its best interest to reject the bids.
If RMLD rejects the bids, RMLD may resolicit bids or negotiate the sale at a higher
price than the highest bid price as permitted by G.L. c. 30B.
All bidders, including participants in an auction, shall submit a non - collusion
certificate as required by G.L. c. 30B.
The sources of advertising, the specific method of disposal, and the award process,
shall be documented and subject to the approval of the General Manager or his /her
designee.
loll
VIII.
D. Moderate Value. Property of Moderate Value shall be sold through the best
available means in order to obtain the highest price for RMLD. In determining the
specific disposal and advertising methods to be used, the costs of disposal shall be
weighed against the expected yield to RMLD. Among other options, as determined
by RMLD under the circumstances, disposals may be made through a competitive
bid or auction process to the highest bidder as provided in Article VI.0 or sold for
FMV or "best offer" after advertisement. When offering to sell surplus property to
the general public, to the extent practical, RMLD shall advertise the sale in the local
newspaper, on its website and in appropriate print and online sources intended to
reach potentially interested buyers. Commercial and electric utility- specific vehicles
and equipment should be advertised in at least two sources identified on the list as
set forth in Article V. RMLD also may negotiate the sale of the property or dispose
of the property through less formal means after receiving three quotations or as
RMLD deems appropriate under the circumstances. If RMLD solicits quotations,
RMLD shall not be required to sell the property to the person providing the highest
quotation, but the highest quotation shall be used as the benchmark for negotiating
and approving the sale.
The purchaser of property having Moderate Value shall re required to sign and
submit a non - collusion certificate.
The reasons and sources for the method of disposal and the award process shall be
documented and subject to the approval of the General Manager or his /her
designee. _1
E. Nominal Value. Property of Nominal
business practices. The process and sG
ADDITIONAL TERMS AND
A. All property shall be
disposed of using sound
ented and kept on file.
"as is" without any warranties of any kind.
B. The purchaser shall re e R D, in writing, from all liabilities concerning the
property. The Purchaser mu ide for removal, transportation, storage, etc. at no
cost to the RMLD.
C. The purchaser shall have the responsibility to provide for the removal, storage and
transportation of the property at its sole expense. The purchaser shall remove the
property at a time and location designated by RMLD.
PROHIBITION ON SALES TO EMPLOYEES, BOARD OF COMISSIONER MEMBERS
AND BOTH OF THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILIES.
RMLD employees and RMLD Board of Commissioner members and both of their
immediate families shall not be eligible to purchase or otherwise receive RMLD surplus
property regardless of price or method of disposal used. This prohibition also applies to
competitive solicitation processes.
IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND REPORTING.
All disposals shall be subject to the administrative review of the General Manager. The
General Manager shall make such reports as required by the RMLD Board of
Commissioners.
PC
Ic
PRIVILEGED /CONFIDENTIAL/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
RU B I N and
1 RUDMA.N LLP
Attorneys at Law
T: 617.330.7000 F: 617.330.7550
50 Rowes Wharf, Boston, MA 02110
MEMORANDUM
By Electronic Mail
To: Coleen O'Brien, General Manager
Reading Municipal Light Department
From: Christopher Pollart, Kenneth Barna and Karla Doukas
Re: Proposed Town Charter Provisions
Date: June 26, 2014
As the General Manager of the Reading Municipal Light Department ( "RMLD ")
appointed pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 56, you have asked us to review the proposed provisions of
the Town of Reading, Massachusetts Home Rule Charter ( "Town Charter ") as applied to RMLD.
Section 3 -5 of the Town Charter addresses the Municipal Light Board of Commissioners
( "Light Board ") and its role with respect to RMLD. We have reviewed this section in its
entirety, including the specific changes that have been proposed to the existing Section 3.5. We
note that the following key changes to that section have been proposed:
(1) The deletion of language regarding the Light Board's authority over real estate,
facilities, personnel and equipment pertaining to the production and transmission of
electrical power; I and
(2) The addition of language concerning the Light Board's authority and duty to "set the
duties and terms of employment" of the General Manager. Language has been
deleted regarding the Light Board's specific authority to set the compensation of the
Specifically, the following language has been deleted:
The Municipal Light Board of Commissioners shall have charge of all real estate, facilities,
personnel and equipment of the Town pertaining to the production and transmission of electrical
power both within the Town and elsewhere.
We note that this provision is unnecessary given that the Light Board will continue to have control over
those matters that are within its legal jurisdiction, such as real estate that has been transferred by the
Town to the care, custody and control of the Light Board pursuant to G.L. c. 164, G.L. c. 40, § 3. See
also Harris v. Town of Wayland, 342 Mass. 237, 240 (1484).
15069374
General Manager and to terminate the General Manager's employment by majority
vote after notice and a public hearing.2
The proposed Town Charter retains certain provisions that cause us some concern. This includes
the following three provisions: (1) provisions providing the Light Board with authority to hire
certain specified positions; (2) provisions requiring that all contracts be made in accordance with
G.L. c. 30B (the Uniform Procurement Act), with the exception of power supply purchases; and
(3) provisions requiring the Light Board to annually set rates, approve an annual budget and
Capital Improvements Program ( "CIP ") and present the budget and CIP to Finance Committee
and Town Meeting. Importantly, we note that the proposed Town Charter does not subject the
RMLD budget and CIP to Finance Committee or Town Meeting approval.
With respect to the first set of provisions, we note that G.L. c. 164, § 56 comprehensively
deals with the hiring of the General Manager, the respective powers of the General Manager and
the Light Board, and the General Manager's accountability to the Light Board. That statute
states in relevant part:
The ...municipal light board ... of a town acquiring a gas or electric plant shall
appoint a manager of municipal lighting who shall, under the direction and
control of the... municipal light board ...and subject to this chapter, have full
charge of the operation and management of the plant, the manufacture and
distribution of gas or electricity, the purchase of supplies, the employment of
attorneys and of agents and servants, the method, time, price, quantity and quality
of the supply, the collection of bills, and the keeping of accounts. His
compensation and term of office shall be fixed in cities by the city council and in
towns by the selectmen or municipal light board, if any; and, before entering upon
the performance of his official duties, he shall give bond to the city or town for
the faithful performance thereof in a sum and form and with sureties to the
satisfaction of the mayor, selectmen or municipal light board, if any, and shall, at
the end of each municipal year, render to them such detailed statement of his
doings and of the business and financial matters in his charge as the department
may prescribe.
G.L. c. 164, § 56 (emphasis added). While the Town of Reading has broad powers of self -
governance, town charters adopted or amended in accordance with G.L. c. 43B only have the
effect of law so long as they present no conflict with laws enacted by the Legislature. 3See, e.g.,
Kowalczyk v. Town of Blackstone, 48 Mass.App.Ct. 58, 59 (1999); and City Council of Boston v.
2 We think these changes are fine as the Light Board has this authority pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 56.
3The Home Rule Amendment does not render ineffective all those general laws concerning cities and towns which
were enacted prior to its adoption. See, e.g., Bloom v. City of Worcester 363 Mass. 136 (1972). As the court
recognized, language in the Home Rule Procedures Act shows that the Legislature intended that pre -Home Rule
Amendment general laws be fully applicable to municipalities in the exercise of their legislative powers. Id. at 149-
50. In general, local action running directly contrary to the provisions of a state statute are not valid under the
"repugnancy" test. See id. at 154. In contrast, a town charter adopted or amended through special legislation may
conflict with or alter general laws with respect to that city or town.
2
Mayor of Boston, 383 Mass. 716, 719 (1981). G.L. c. 43B, § 20 addresses certain potential
conflicts and provides in pertinent part that,
The provisions of any charter or charter amendment adopted pursuant to the
provisions of this chapter [43B] shall be deemed consistent with the provisions of
any law relating to the structure of city and town government, the creation of local
offices, the term of office or mode of selection of local offices, and the
distribution of powers, duties and responsibilities among local offices.
G.L. c. 43B, §20. While G.L. c. 4313, § 20 seemingly allows the transfer of duties among
officers and boards, after the enactment of G.L. c. 43B, § 20, the Appeals Court, in Golubek v.
Westfield Gas & Elec. Light Bd., 32 Mass. App. Ct. 954 (1992), stated that local legislation
cannot alter the comprehensive statutory scheme pertaining to municipal light plants. Golubek
delineates the respective powers of the General Manager and Light Board, specifically finding
that a "charter provision cannot alter the statutory power of the manager to hire employees and
attorneys." Id. at 956 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Golubek decision squarely addresses
the effect of town charter provisions that confer authority to the Light Board to make hiring
decisions which otherwise limit the authority and the duties of the General Manager as set forth
in G.L. c. 164, § 56. Thus, the provisions granting to the Light Board the authority to hire
certain specified positions are inconsistent with G.L. c. 164, § 56 and the Golubek decision and
are not permitted by local Home Rule action.
With respect to the second set of provisions, we address the legality of Town Charter
provisions attempting to require that RMLD follow Chapter 30B procurement procedures for all
RMLD purchases other than power supplies.4 In summary, the Town Charter provisions do not
constitute an acceptance of G.L. c. 30B and legally cannot require RMLD to follow the
provisions of G.L. c. 30B. We do note, however, that the Light Board does have the authority to
implement a purchasing policy that follows some of G.L. c. 30B, which the Light Board has
chosen to do. A more detailed analysis of the Chapter 30B issue is set forth below.
With respect to the third set of provisions, i.e., the Light Board's authority to approve
rates and budgets, such duties are generally consistent with the Light Board's policymaking role
(rates and Terms and Conditions for service are policy- related matters) and case law regarding
budgets and expenditures. See Peabody Municipal Light Commission v. Peabody, 348 Mass.
266, 268, 270 (appropriations for the "expense of the plant" may be made by vote of municipal
light commission on a budget submitted by the manager). Provided that the Light Board's duties
under these provisions are carried out in accordance with G.L. c. 164, we think these provisions
°The relevant Town Charter provision states:
The Municipal Light Board [of Commissioners] shall approve warrants for payments of all bills
and payroll of the Municipal Light Department and shall approve all contracts which are at or
above the competitive sealed bid procedures level as stated in Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 30B Section 5 and, further, all contracts shall be made in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 30B. Contracts for purchasing of power shall not be subject to
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30B but shall be approved by the Municipal Light Board [of
Commissioners].
Proposed changes are identified by brackets. No substantive changes to this provision have been proposed.
3
are legally fine. We note that the presentation of the budget to the Finance Committee and Town
Meeting is fine, provided that such presentation is informational only and there is no further
approval requirement. "The budget of the light department is to be determined in accordance
with c. 164 and not by the procedures of c. 44." See Peabody, supra, at 273. We also note that
the Light Board's approval of a CIP is fine as it pertains to the Light Board's role over plant
acquisition and management under G.L. c. 164, § 55 and provided it does not limit the General
Manager's authority under G.L. c. 164, § 56 to make specific procurement decisions. Further,
we note that the expansion of plant only requires Town Meeting approval when debt will be
incurred and thus, expenditures for capital improvements from RMLD funds, to the extent
permitted by G.L. c. 164, may be made upon vote of the Light Board, as set forth by Peabody,
supra.
The Home Rule Procedures Act presents complicated legal issues particularly respect to
municipal light plants, such as RMLD. Municipal light plants are not typical town departments.5
Municipal light plants are "quasi- commercial" entities created by special act. See, e.g., MacRae
v. Concord, 296 Mass. 394, 396 (1934); Spaulding v. Peabody, 153 Mass. 129, 137 (1891).
They are public service corporations providing public service functions to the same extent as
investor -owned utilities. Planning Bd. of Braintree v. Department of Pub. Utils., 420 Mass. 22,
27 (1995). As the Supreme Judicial Court ruled, each has the same "duty to exercise [their]
franchise for the benefit of the public, with a reasonable regard for the rights of individuals who
desire to be served, and without discrimination between them. " See id. at 27 -28; Bertone v.
Department of Pub. Utils., Mass. 411 Mass. 536, 544 (1992). To fulfill its franchise obligations
to provide reliable service at reasonable rates, the operation of municipal light plants is subject to
a comprehensive statutory scheme under G.L. c. 164 and subject to certain supervision of the
Department of Public Utilities ( "DPU "). To the extent that questions remain concerning the
effectiveness of a charter provision to alter the statutory roles and authority of the General
Manager and the Light Board, RMLD may want to seek a declaratory judgment from the court.
Detailed Analvsis of Chanter 30B Issues
Concerning the legality of the Town Charter provisions that purport to require that
RMLD follow the Chapter 30B process, we note that on February 28, 2003 and April 22, 2003,
we provided RMLD with our legal analysis addressing this issue. For your convenience, we
have attached those two memoranda. There have been no changes (statutory or factual) or any
court decisions that change our analysis in those two memoranda.
By statute, contracts of municipal light boards are exempt from Chapter 30B procedures
and requirements unless expressly adopted by the Light Board. G.L. c. 30B, § 1(14) provides in
relevant part that the Uniform Procurement procedures found at G.L. c. 30B shall not apply to:
... any contracts or agreements entered into by a municipal gas or electric
department governed by a municipal light board, as defined by section fifty -five
of chapter one hundred and sixty-four or by a municipal light commission, as
5Home Rule analysis is generally complex and there is not a lot of case law on the subject. Moreover, the statutory
and regulatory scheme governing municipal light plants and the operation of the electric industry in general are
fairly complex and unique. Accordingly, applying Home Rule principles to municipal light plant operations
presents particularly complex and unique issues.
4
defined by section fifty -six A of said chapter one hundred and sixty-four;
provided, however, that any such board or commission may accept the provisions
of this chapter by a majority vote of its members...
According to Light Board meeting minutes that we have reviewed, at its April 22, 2003
meeting, the Light Board considered a recommendation of the Citizen's Advisory Board to seek
special legislation subjecting RMLD purchases to Chapter 30B with the exception of power
supply contracts. This recommendation was passed on to Annual Town Meeting via vote of the
Light Board. In addition, the Light Board also considered the recommendations of the Ad Hoc
Committee seeking a charter amendment subjecting RMLD purchases to Chapter 30B. At that
meeting, the Light Board was advised that for Chapter 30B to be binding, the Light Board would
need to take a vote to accept Chapter 30B. According to the minutes of the April 22nd meeting,
there was no consensus among the Light Board whether to follow Chapter 30B. Ultimately, the
Light Board voted "to recommend the subject matter of Article 7 before Annual Town
Meeting...".
Moreover, it is clear from the minutes that the Light Board was advised that any Town
Meeting vote would not be effective to bind RMLD. In fact, Board minutes document a
discussion concerning the fact that special legislation would be required to alter RMLD's
authority. Accordingly, we conclude that the Light Board vote forwarding the Ad Hoc
Committee recommendation to Town Meeting did not constitute a vote to accept Chapter 30B.
At the April 28, 2003 Town Meeting, Town Meeting approved a charter provision that,
among other things, required that all RMLD contracts be made in accordance with Chapter 30B,
with the exception of power supply contracts. At its May 28, 2003 meeting, the Light Board
stated that it did not want to challenge the charter provision at that time. Accordingly, the
validity of the charter provision has not been legally tested in court.
Against this historical backdrop, Section 3 -5 of the Town Charter purports to take the
authority away from the Light Board to decide whether Chapter 30B procedures are viable in
light of the specific operational needs of the plant. Towns generally lack such authority. It is
well settled that municipalities were divested, early on, of control over the management of their
light plants and such authority was transferred to the municipal light board. Capron v. Taunton,
196 Mass. 41 (1907); Whiting v. Mayor of Holyoke, 272 Mass. 116 (1930). The municipal light
board is vested with all the powers and duties formerly exercised by the mayor and the selectmen
with respect to light plants and with all of the powers and duties conferred upon municipal light
boards under G.L. c. 164. Adie v. Mayor of Holyoke, 303 Mass. 295 (1939). As the Supreme
Judicial Court repeatedly has acknowledged, "a municipality can exercise no direction or control
over one whose duties have been defined by the legislature." See Municipal Light Commission
of Taunton, 323 Mass. 79, 84 (1948) (internal citations omitted). Moreover, as stated in
Golubel; supra, Town Charter provisions adopted through the local process cannot alter
statutory duties (or authority). As discussed above, our review of certain Light Board meeting
minutes does not reveal a vote taken by the Light Board accepting Chapter 30B. Even if the
Light Board accepted G.L. c. 30B procedures, the Town Charter provision impermissibly would
5
make such a decision irrevocable in that Town Charter changes would be needed to change the
applicability of Chapter 30B.6
Under the principles of the Home Rule Procedures Act, a Town Charter adopted through
local action could not make G.L. c. 30B applicable to RMLD contracts. Currently, there is a
comprehensive legislative scheme governing the powers and duties of municipal light plants,
municipal light commissions and municipal light plant managers under G.L. c. 164. Included in
this comprehensive scheme, as discussed in our February 28, 2003 memorandum, are statutes
that provide that the municipal light plant manager under Section 56 has exclusive authority to
purchase supplies for the light plant. Further certain purchases of supplies and generation and
distribution equipment (over $10,000) are subject to prior public advertising requirements and
submission of sealed proposals under G.L. c. 164, § 56D.
Significantly, G.L. c. 30B represents a uniform scheme for the procurement of goods and
supplies by governmental entities on a statewide basis. It would therefore appear that the
Legislature has precluded local legislation that would impair the operation and effect of G.L. c.
30B. The Town Charter provision directly conflicts and abrogates the Legislature's statute that
specifically excludes municipal light plants from the provisions of G.L. c. 30B unless the Light
Board voted to specifically adopt Chapter 30B. As discussed above, we have found no evidence
that the Light Board took such a vote. The Legislature would not have expressly included a
specific statutory clause in Chapter 30B that explicitly excludes municipal light plants from its
requirements unless the municipal light board explicitly voted to accept its provisions only to
allow a locally adopted town charter to impose such a requirement on a municipal light plant. If
the Legislature wanted locally adopted town charters to be able to impose Chapter 3013's
requirements on municipal light plants, it would have made changes to Chapter 30B and
specified so in Chapter 30B. Further, G.L. c. 43B, § 20 would not "save" the Town Charter
provision applicable to procurements, which only deems consistent (in certain situations) local
action with respect to the structure of town government, the creation of local offices, the term of
any office, or the distribution of powers among local offices. Currently, the Town of Reading
has no authority or role in the purchases of goods and services made by RMLD other than its
ministerial involvement in the payment of warrants.
The applicability of G.L. c. 30B to light plant purchases is not viable. Indeed, We are
aware of no municipal light board which has adopted Chapter 30B. Due to the structure of
power markets, it would not be possible for RMLD to enter into agreements for power supply.
In order for RMLD to provide reasonable rates to its customers consistent with its franchise
obligation (and remove volatility in pricing), RMLD must decide, on a daily basis, the type of
transactions RMLD will enter into- i.e., whether they will rely on the market hourly price or
enter bilateral agreements. Power supply comprises 70% of rates. These power supply decisions
must be made quickly in order to secure the best price for RMLD. The commodity power
market for electricity moves too quickly on an hour -by -hour or daily basis for RMLD's power
contracts to be subjected to such cumbersome, competitive bidding process. There is no
`'We note that acceptance of local option statutes generally can be rescinded by Board vote. See, eg., G.L. c. 4, § 4B
(allowing cities and towns to rescind previously accepted laws).
0
exemption in G.L. c. 30B that excludes power supply transactions entered into by municipal light
plants.
While the Town Charter purports to exclude power supply purchases, Chapter 30B does
not allow municipal light plants to accept its provisions piecemeal. It is a local option statute. It
is either accepted by taking the action specified in the statute or it is not. Towns do not have
authority through local Home Rule procedures to amend statutes as applicable to them, just as
the Town lacks authority to decide which provisions of Chapter 30B it would follow for
purchases by other town departments. Thus, if Chapter 30B applies to municipal light plants,
these light plants could not purchase power in the deregulated power market where purchasing
decisions often have to be made within an hour. Since power costs represent about seventy
(70 %) percent of the total budget for a light plant, light plants could not operate or exist without
the ability to enter into power purchase agreements. This is why no municipal light plant board
has voted to accept Chapter 30B. However, to the extent the Light Board determines that certain
precepts of Chapter 30B are prudent and viable, it may adopt identical or similar procedures
through a procurement policy. Indeed, RMLD adopted a ? rocurement policy under the prior
General Manager that incorporates Chapter 30B precepts.
'The emergency procurement provisions set forth in G.L. c. 30B, § 8 are inapplicable as such exception only applies
when the time required to comply with the competitive bidding procedures "would endanger the health or safety of
the people or their property." The exemptions in G.L. c. 30B, §l(b) (32), (33) likewise are inapplicable as they only
apply to energy aggregation contracts and energy purchases by aggregators. Even then, the contract must be
submitted to the DPU, Department of Energy Resources, and the Office of the inspector General along with a report
describing the process used to execute the contract. Municipal light plants no longer are required to submit power
supply contracts to the DPU under G.L, c. 164, § 56D or any other state agency.
$Pursuant to Section I11B of RMLD Policy No. 9, effective June 27, 2007, RMLD is to follow Chapter 30B
procurement practices with respect to the purchase of goods and service for the general use of RMLD in its normal
operations. While the procurement policy, No. 9, follows Chapter 30B practices and procedures, it does not include
any language indicating that the process is mandated by law. To the contrary, Policy No. 9 uses terms such as
"Guidelines," subjects power contracts to a negotiated process, and adopts more stringent requirements for other
purchases than Chapter 30B, suggesting that the practices reflect Light Board policy rather than a binding
acceptance of Chapter 30B. Moreover, the attachment to RMLD Policy #2 governing surplus material contains
language indicating that RMLD is exempt from Chapter 30B and the Town of Reading Bylaws. Accordingly, it
appears that RMLD has been observing Chapter 30B procedures on a voluntary basis, to the extent feasible, through
the adoption and implementation of policies.
We note that this Light Board policy presents a viable approach because it allows RMLD to purchase necessary
electric equipment and power supplies through other methods (such as G.L. c. 164, § 56D) as the circumstances
warrant. RMLD requires this flexibility for electric system purchases in order to meet its franchise obligations. By
accepting Chapter 30B, in all cases, RMLD would have to follow the cumbersome, time consuming and costly
competitive bidding process to purchase transformers and other electric equipment and facilities. Any deviation,
even if warranted for legitimate business reasons, could subject RMLD to bid protests and invalidation of contracts
for needed facilities. See, e.g., G.L. c. 30B, § 17(b). Under Massachusetts law, any bidder or proposer competing
for a public contract can challenge the award of that contract in court on the grounds that the awarding authority did
not comply with public bid laws. A concerned citizen may also bring a Chapter 30B bid protest to Inspector
General's Office. See The Chapter 30B Manual: Legal Requirements, Recommended Practices, and Sources of
Advice for Procuring Supplies, Services, and Real Property, Office of the Inspector General, at 111 (2011). As the
Inspector General has acknowledged, preparation of the purchase description is often the most difficult — and most
important — step of any procurement under Chapter 30B. Vague purchase descriptions often result in vendor
protests and cancelled procurements. if a public entity awards a contract using a vague purchase description, the
VA
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.
public entity may be required to pay for supplies or services that it does not need, and the public entity likely will
have disputes with the vendor over what the contract does or does not require. See id at 15.
RUBIN AND RUDMAN LLP
COUNSELLORS AT' LAW
50 RoWES WHARF - BoSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110 -3319
(617) 330 -7000 - FACSIMILE: (617) 439 -9556 - FIRM C1)RUBINRUDMAN.COM
Diedre T. Lawrence
Direct Dial: (617) 330 -7056
February 28, 2003
Confidential Attorney /Client Privilege
VIA EMAIL: veameron(a),rmld.com
Vincent Cameron, General Manager
Reading Municipal Light Department
230 Ash Street
Reading, MA 01867
Re: Warrant Article for Special Town Meeting
Dear Vin:
This letter addresses procedural and substantive issues pertaining to Article 4 of the
Warrant for the Special Town Meeting scheduled for Monday, March 3, 2003. Article 4
proposes to amend the Reading Home Rule Charter by adding several provisions to the current
Section 3 -5 concerning the Municipal Light Board. In general, Article 4 proposes to authorize
the Municipal Light Board, as opposed to the General Manager, to appoint certain employees, to
approve warrants for payments, to set electric rates, to approve an annual operating budget and
capital improvements program and to present them to the Finance Committee and Town
Meeting, and to award contracts in accordance with the Uniform Procurement Act, M.G.L.
c. 30B.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As discussed in greater detail below, the "fown is barred by law from putting the subject
matter of Article 4 before the voters at the Town Election currently scheduled for April 8, 2003,
even if Article 4 were to be approved by the necessary two- thirds vote of the Special Town
Meeting on March 3, 2003. Even if Town Meeting so voted, the law provides that the Attorney
General must review the matter over a four -week period and the election could not be held until
at least two months after the Attorney General completed his review.
542688_2
Vincent Cameron, General Manager
February 28, 2003
Page 2
In addition, most of the provisions of Article 4 are inconsistent or conflict with the
comprehensive State -wide legislative scheme pertaining to municipal lighting plants set forth in
M.G.L. c. 164. The courts have held that such inconsistencies and conflict render municipal
legislation invalid and unenforceable. Notwithstanding a section within the home Rule
Procedures Act indicating that certain enumerated charter changes shall be deemed consistent
with general laws pertaining to the structure of town government, the caselaw under that section
indicates that it would not likely apply to comprehensive legislative schemes such as that set
forth in M.G.L. c. 164.
DISCUSSION
I. Procedural Issues.
Section 8 -1 of the Town's Charter provides that, "[t]his Charter may be replaced, revised
or amended in accordance with the procedures made available by Article LXXXIX [Article 89]
of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth and the provisions of General
Laws, C. 4313." (brackets added) Article 89 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts
Constitution, commonly referred to as the "Home Rule Amendment," and M.G.L. c. 43B,
§ §1 -20, commonly referred to as the "Home Rule Procedures Act," set forth the procedures to
adopt and amend a municipal charter. Article 89 and M.G.L. c.43B provide that a charter can
not be amended unless the following three steps are taken:
1. Town Meeting must vote by a two - thirds majority to propose the charter
amendments. Such a vote creates an "order proposing a charter amendment."
2. If Town Meeting approves an order proposing a charter amendment, a copy of the
proposed amendment "shall be immediately submitted" by the Board of Selectmen to the
Attorney General and to the Department of Housing and Community Development. Within four
(4) weeks the Attorney General shall furnish the Board of Selectmen with a "written opinion
setting forth any conflict between the proposed amendment and the constitution and laws of the
commonwealth." If the Attorney General reports such a conflict, the order proposing the charter
amendment shall not take effect. However, if the Attorney General reports no such conflict, the
order proposing the charter amendment shall become effective four weeks after its submission to
the Attorney General,
3. The proposed charter amendment shall be submitted to the voters of the Town for
their approval at the first election held at least two (2) months after the order proposing such
charter amendment becomes effective. In other words, if the Attorney General were to report
that the proposed amendment does not pose a conflict with the Constitution or General Laws, the
542698_2
Vincent Cameron, General Manager
February 28, 2003
Page 3
election can be held no sooner than three (3) months after the proposal was originally submitted
to the Attorney General. See Article 89, §§ 3,4; M.G.L. c. 43B, §§ 10, 11.
In the present case, the schedule to act upon the charter amendment proposed in Article 4
as set forth in the Town Manager's letter dated February 12, 2003, fails to comply with the
requirements of Article 89 and Chapter 43B and, therefore, would constitute a fatal procedural
error. The "Town Manager has indicated that Article 4 would be voted upon at the Special Town
Meeting on March 3, 2003, and, assuming that it would be passed by a two- thirds vote, the
matter would be voted upon at the Annual Town Election scheduled for April 8, 2003. However,
the Town Manager's schedule fails to include the total legally set time requirements for both the
Attorney General's four -week mandatory review of the proposal under M.G.L. c. 43B, §10(c)
and the mandatory two -month period between the Attorney General's review and the earliest
possible date of the election as set forth in M.G.L. c. 4313, §11. Even if the proposal were
approved by a two - thirds vote of Town Meeting on March 3rd, it could not lawfully be voted
upon at the Town Election on April 8, 2003, and any such vote, if conducted, would be null and
void as a matter of law.
In closing, we note that the Town's Special Counsel is in agreement with our analysis of
the procedural requirements under Article 89 and M.G.L. c.43B, §§ 10, 11. See letter from
Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP, to the Town Manager, dated February 10, 2003 (pp. 3-
4).
II. Substantive Issues
1, Legal Standard Regarding Inconsistency and Conflict
Article 89 provides that, "[tjhe provisions of any adopted or revised charter or any charter
amendment shall not be inconsistent with the constitution or any laws enacted by the general
court...." Article 89, §2. Municipal charters duly adopted or amended in accordance with
M.G.L. c. 43B have the effect of law so long as they present no conflict with laws enacted by the
Legislature. Kowalczyk v. Town of Blackstone, 48 Mass.App.Ct. 58, 59 (1999); City Council of
Boston v. Mayor of Boston, 383 Mass. 716, 719 (1981).
Several decisions provide guidance on whether municipal legislation is inconsistent with
or conflicts with the State Constitution or any General Laws. For instance, in Del Duca V. Town
Administrator of Methuen, 368 Mass. 1 (1975), the Supreme Judicial Court struck down an
ordinance adopted pursuant to Methuen's charter purporting to alter the powers and duties of the
local planning board in contravention of the General Laws. In Del Duca, the Court reviewed the
various sections of M.G.L. c. 41 which comprehensively treated the creation and operation of
planning boards, and determined that the Legislature had taken the entire subject of the
542688_2
Vincent Cameron, General Manager
February 28, 2003
Page 4
establishment, powers and duties of local planning boards in hand. Having done so, the
Legislature precluded local legislation which would impair the operation and effect of the
statutes in that field. 368 Mass. at 12 -13. As a result, the Court determined that Methuen was
"powerless to specify the planning board's powers and duties in a manner which deviated in any
respect from the powers and duties established by the legislation on the subject." Id.
The Court also struck down municipal home rule legislation in City Council of Boston v.
Mayor of Boston, 383 Mass, 716 (1981). In that case, the offending legislation purported to limit
the number and to fix the maximurn salaries of employees in the mayor's office. The Court
determined that such local legislation was an invalid and unenforceable encroachment on the
mayor's power under the Boston charter and special legislation pertaining to the mayor's
administrative authority. Under the Boston charter and relevant statutes, the mayor was charged
with the administrative duties of the city government, including the supervision of subordinate
officers, powers of appointment and termination, and the implicit power to set compensation
levels for his staff. '11ie Court determined that the charter and special acts evidenced a legislative
intent to reserve to the mayor the discretion to determine the size and salary level of his own
staff, and that an ordinance purporting to regulate the same was necessarily inconsistent and,
therefore, invalid. 383 Mass. at 721.
In 1984 the Legislature amended M.G.L. c. 43B to add a new Section 20 addressing the
consistency of charters with existing General Laws. Section 20 provides in pertinent part that,
The provisions of any charter or charter amendment adopted pursuant to the provisions of
this chapter [43B] shall be deemed consistent with the provisions of any law relating to
the structure of city and town government, the creation of local offices, the term of office
or mode of selection of local offices, and the distribution of powers, duties and
responsibilities among local otlices. Such provisions may provide:
(b) that any particular local officer or employee shall be appointed by any particular local
officer;
(d) for the term of office to be served by any local elected officer; provided, however,
that no term of office of a local elected officer shall be for more than five years, and the
members of multiple member bodies shall serve for terms which, as nearly as possible,
expire in different years;
542688_2
Vincent Cameron, General Manager
February 28, 2003
Page 5
(f) that the powers, duties and responsibilities of one local office be divided and exercised
by two or more local offices;
M.G.L. c. 43B, §20 (emphasis added).
We are aware of only one reported case interpreting M.G.L. c. 43B, §20, namely, Town
Council of Agawam v. Town Manager of Agawam, 20 Mass, App. Ct. 100 (1985) ("Agawam').
Agawam stands for the narrow proposition that a municipal charter may provide for an employee
appointment process (e.g., in Agawam, the appointment of a town assessor) that does not involve
town council approval, and still be deemed consistent with M.G.L. c. 39, § 1, which provides
that appointments are subject to confirmation by town council. However, the Court in Agawam
also indicated that Section 20 should be interpreted generally to harmonize municipal charter
provisions adopted under Article 89 and Chapter 43B with existing General Laws. The court
stated,
As this court has noted before, when the Home Rule Amendment was adopted in 1966,
the Legislature failed to revise many existing laws to reflect the new balance of power
that the amendment established between municipalities and the Commonwealth...
.[M.G.L. c. 43B, §201 is a significant step taken by the Legislature to remedy this
oversight. The statute makes explicit what was implicit before in the Legislature's
decision to enact the Home Rule Procedures Act. By the Legislature's delegation to
municipalities through G.L. c. 43B of greater power in managing their affairs,
municipalities could, within certain broad limitations, choose for themselves the forms of
local government they found best suited to their own needs, including as part of that
choice the manner of creating and filling local offices.
20 Mass.App.Ct. at 103 (brackets added, internal citations omitted).
Despite the seemingly broad interpretation of M.G.L. c. 43B, §20 set forth in A ag_ wam, it
is critical to note that the Court expressly slated that its holding did not extend to existing
General Laws that consist of'a comprehensive State -wide plan of regulation. The Court in
Agawam referred to the decision in Young v. Mayor of Brockton, 346 Mass. 123 (1963), where
the Supreme Judicial Court held that a city charter provision calling for the appointment of
members of the liquor licensing board without confirmation by the city council would not escape
the provisions of M.G.L. c. 138, § 4, which required such confirmation. Agawam noted that
Young was based on the "special characteristics" of liquor licensing boards which, inter alia,
"operate under a detailed and strict State -wide plan of supervision and control reflecting the
Commonwealth's supervening interest in the uniform re ulgation of the sale and distribution of
alcoholic beverages." 20 Mass. App. Ct. at 105, n. 9 (emphasis added).
542688_2
Vincent Cameron, General Manager
February 28, 2003
Page 6
Further, Agawam noted that, with respect to the work of town assessors at issue therein,
the Legislature "has not established a State -wide plan for their supervision at all comparable to
that mandated for alcoholic liquors," nor did it "single out the town assessor for special
treatment" under the General Laws. 20 Mass. App. Ct, at 105, n. 9. "Unlike the statute relied
upon in Young, [the town assessor statute] is purely general in its operation." Id. (brackets
added). After considering the importance of the comprehensive general legislation at issue in
Youn , the court in Agawam concluded that, "[w]e expressly make no determination, however,
of the effect of [M.G.L. c. 43B, §201 on the sort of appointment discussed in the Young case."
Id. (brackets added)
Based upon the foregoing, M.G.L. c. 4313, §20 and Agawam probably do not authorize
the types of changes proposed in Article 4, which, as discussed below, are not harmonious with
the comprehensive, State -wide plan of legislation under Chapter 164 pertaining to municipal
light plants.
Finally, although Golubek v. Westfield Gas & Elec. Light Bd., 32 Mass. App. Ct. 954
(1992) does not specifically discuss the applicability of M.G.L. c. 43B, §20, the case nonetheless
strongly supports the position that local legislation can not alter the comprehensive statutory
scheme pertaining to municipal light plants. Golubek delineated the respective powers of a
manager and a board of a municipal light plant, with the Court holding that a municipal light
board could not infringe upon the statutory power of a manager to hire employees and attorneys.
In response to the board's contention that a provision of Westfield's charter supported the
board's position, the Court stated that, "[t]his charter provision cannot alter the statutory power
of the manager to hire employees and attorneys." 32 Mass. App. Ct. at 956 (emphasis added).
Golubek is critical in the present analysis because it was issued after the Legislature
adopted M.G.L, c. 43B, §20 (i.e., the "harmonizing" provision of the Home Rule Procedures
Act) and after the same court issued the Agawam decision. Further, the court clearly held that
M.G.L. c. 164 would prevail over an inconsistent local charter. Therefore, Golubek strongly
supports the position that the provisions of Reading's Article 4 that are inconsistent and in
conflict with M.G.L. c. 164 would be deemed invalid and unenforceable.
2. Authority of Municipal Light Boards and Managers
The Legislature has adopted a comprehensive set of statutes governing the field of
municipal lighting plants. General Laws Chapter 164 contains over fifty separate sections
concerning, inter alia, the acquisition, operation, maintenance, financing, supply, transmission,
distribution, governance, contracting, and enforcement pertaining to municipal lighting plants.
The Legislature has clearly adopted a detailed and strict State -wide plan for municipal lighting
plants and departments reflecting the Commonwealth's interest in the uniform regulation of such
542688_2
Vincent Cameron, General Manager
February 28, 2003
Page 7
plants and departments. Based upon this comprehensive legislative scheme, there is a strong
argument that the Legislature intended to occupy the field pertaining to municipal light plants
and preclude the exercise of any local power or function on the same subject because the
legislative purpose of the statue would otherwise be frustrated.
Indeed, the Supreme Judicial Court has held that "[w]here cities and towns are authorized
to enter the field of business enterprises like the manufacture of gas and electricity they do it, not
under the laws relating to private corporations, but under special statutory provisions; that the
offices of the... [light plant officials] having been created and their duties defined by statute, they
must be held to be public officers under legislative mandate, and not agents of the city...."
Hodgman v. Taunton, 323 Mass. 79, 82 (1948). Further, "[i]t is also settled that a municipality
can exercise no direction or control over one whose duties have been defined by the Legislature."
Id. This holding remains unchanged in the post -Home Rule Amendment era. E.g., Del Duca,
supra at 12. Finally, a municipal light plant cannot operate, let alone exist, absent the statutory
scheme that governs it: "It is only by the authority conferred by G.L. c. 164 ... that...[a city or
town] can maintain a gas and electric plant." Adie v. Mayor of Holyoke, 303 Mass, 295, 299
(1939); MacCrae v. Selectmen of the 'Town of Concord, 296 Mass. 394 (1937).
The powers and duties of municipal light boards are stated generally in M.G.L. a 164,
§55, which provides that "[t]he municipal light board shall have authority to construct, purchase
or lease a gas or electric plant in accordance with the vote of the town and to maintain and
operate the same." Section 3 -5 of the Town's Charter provides on its face additional authority to
the Municipal Light Board, including "hav[ing] charge of all the real estate, facilities, personnel
and equipment of the Town pertaining to the production and transmission of electrical power,
both within the Town and elsewhere."
The Legislature has vested the manager with comprehensive powers and duties as set
forth in M.G.L. c.164, §56, which provides in pertinent part that,
"The ... municipal light board ... shall appoint a manager of municipal lighting who
shall, under the direction and control of the ... municipal light board, if any, and subject
to this chapter, have full charge of the operation and management of the plant, the
manufacture and distribution of gas or electricity, the purchase of supplies, the
employment of attorneys and of agents and servants, the method, time, rp ice, quantity
and quality of the supply, the collection of bills, and the keeping of accounts. His
compensation and term of office shall be fixed in cities by the city council and in towns
by the selectmen or municipal light board, if any; ... and shall, at the end of each
municipal year, render to them such detailed statement of his doings and of the business
and financial matters in his charge as the department [of telecommunications and enerayl
may prescribe.... The manager shall at any time, when required by the mayor,
selectmen, municipal light board, if any, or department, make a statement to such officers
542688_2
Vincent Cameron, General Manager
February 28, 2003
Page 8
of his doings, business, receipts, disbursements, balances, and of the indebtedness of the
town in his department.
M.G.L. c. 164,,§56 (emphasis and brackets added).
3. Article 4 of the Warrant
The separate paragraphs of Article 4 are set forth below in italics, followed by our
analysis of each with respect to whether the Courts would likely determine the paragraphs to be
inconsistent or in conflict with the Constitution or General Laws. In general, we believe that
there are strong arguments that the Courts would very likely find most of the proposed changes
to be inconsistent and in conflict with the Constitution and General Laws.
[ 1" paragraph:] The Municipal Light Board shall hire the General Manager of the
Reading Municipal Light Department and set his compensation; the General Manager
shall serve at the pleasure of 'the Board and may be removed by vote of a majority of the
entire Board after notice and hearing.
The first clause of this paragraph does not appear to be problematic because M.G.L. e.
164, §56 (quoted above) clearly authorizes the Light Board to appoint the manager and set his
compensation. The second clause does not necessarily fall within the authority granted under
M.G.L. c. 43B, §20 relating to the "term[s] of office," because the specific authority granted
under Section 20(d) is limited to charter provisions affecting the terms of "local elected officers,"
and not appointed employees such as the manager.
Further, a strong argument can be made that the second clause would be invalid and
unenforceable because it appears to conflict wit], the Board's mandate under M.G.L. c. 164, §56,
which is part of a comprehensive State -wide plan of legislation, to "fix" the manager's "term of
off ce." Instead of fixing such a term, Article 4 would make the manager an "at will" employee.
[2nd paragraph:] The Municipal Light Board shall appoint the Accounting Manager or
Chief Accountant of the Reading Municipal Light Department; and appoint counsel to the
Reading Municipal Light Department.
Both clauses clearly conflict with the manager's plenary authority under M.G.L. c. 164,
§56 concerning the "employment of attorneys and of agents and servants." As mentioned above,
because Chapter 164 is such a comprehensive legislative scheme, there is an extremely strong
argument that it can not be infringed upon, let alone contradicted by, inconsistent local
542685_2
Vincent Cameron, General Manager
February 28, 2003
Page 9
legislation notwithstanding the "harmonizing" intent of M.G.L. c. 43B, §20. Further, the specific
authority to affect powers, duties and responsibilities that is granted under M.G,L, c. 43B, §20(f)
is limited to dividing the powers of one office and exercising them by two or more offices, which
is not the approach taken under this paragraph of Article 4.
Finally, G.L. c. 164, § 56 "expressly allocates to the manager the power to hire all agents,
servants and attorneys required for the operation of the plant... the... [light board's] power under
§ 56 to direct and control the manager does not include the power to hire agents, servants and
attorneys; that power, by statute, is expressly vested in the manager alone." Golubek v.
Westfield Gas & Elcc. Light Bd., 32 Mass.App.Ct 954, 955 -56 (1992). Clearly then, under the
City Council of Boston case, sup ra, this would be an impermissible encroachment on the
General Manager's powers as set by statute.
[3rd paragraph:] The Municipal Light Board may delegate in whole or in part as it may
deem proper, the direct supervision of the Accounting Manager or Chief Accountant as
the case may be, along ivith supervision of other subordinate employees.
The same concerns and analysis under paragraph 2, above, apply to this paragraph.
[4th paragraph:] The Municipal Light Board shall approve warrants for payments of all
bills and payroll 9f the Municipal Light Department; and approve all contracts made in
accordance with M.G.L. c. 30B, except contracts for purchasing vf'power.
The first clause does not appear to conflict with the manager's powers under M.G.L. c.
164.
The second clause is inconsistent with both M.G.L. c. 164 and c. 30B. Section 56 of
M.G.L. c. 164 vests purchasing authority in the manager, as opposed to the Board, and Section
56D contains detailed procedures governing the procurement of equipment, supplies and
materials, which differ from those set forth under the various sections of M.G.L. c. 30B. Further,
Chapter 30B expressly states that it shall not apply to any contracts or agreements entered into by
a municipal light board, although such board may accept the statue by a majority vote of its
members. M.G.L. c. 30B, §1(b)(14). In addition, as noted above, the specific authority to affect
official responsibilities that is granted under M.G.L. c. 43B, §20(f) is limited to dividing the
responsibilities of one office and exercising them by two or more offices, which is not the
approach taken under this paragraph of Article 4.
54268x_2
Vincent Cameron, General Manager
February 28, 2003
Page 10
[5th paragraph:] The Municipal Light Board shall employ the Auditor appointed by the
Town of Reading Audit Committee.
The same concerns and analysis under paragraph 2, above, apply to this paragraph.
[6`h paragraph (brackets added to identify individual sentences) :] [1] The Municipal
Light Board shall annual set electric rates and approve an annual operating budget and
Capital Improvements Program each fiscal year. [2] Such approval will be done by a
majority vote of the Municipal Light Board [3] After the Municipal Light Board has
approved an annual operating budget and Capital Improvements Program, it will present
them to the Reading Finance Committee and Reading Town Meeting. [4] Upon request
of any of the other towns served by the Reading Municipal Light Department, the
Municipal Light Board shall make a presentation to the Finance Committee and/or Town
Meeting of any such town(r).
The First two sentences conflict with the manager's plenary duties and responsibilities
under M.G.L. c. 164, §56 to set pricing and rates and to render business and financial statements
concerning the light department. The same is true for the third and fourth sentences, which also
contain the inconsistent language purporting to require a "presentation" to the Finance
Committee and Town Meeting of Reading and any of the other municipalities served by the
department. To the contrary, Section 56 provides that the financial conditions of the department
are reported by the manager, and not the board, to only the Reading Selectmen and Light Board
and Department of Telecommunications and Energy. Further, it is well- settled that the budget of
a municipal light plant is determined in accordance with the provisions of G.L. c. 164, and not
G.L. c. 44, and what the municipal light plant determines "should be expended for the efficient
operation of the business is not subject to change by other public officers or the legislative
department." Municipal Light Commission of Peabody v. Peabody, 348 Mass. 266, 268 (1964).
Because the various sentences of the sixth paragraph of Article 4 conflict with the
comprehensive legislative scheme set forth in M.G.L. c. 164, §56, it is highly doubtful that the
proposed charter changes would be deemed valid and enforceable.
542688,.2
Vincent Cameron, General Manager
February 28, 2003
Page 11
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any follow -up questions concerning this
letter.
Very truly yours,
� y i
Diedre T. Lawrence
Peter J. Feuerbach
542688_2
m
PRIVILEGEMONFIDENTIAL/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
RUBIN and RUDMAN LLP
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
50 RoweS WHARF • BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110 -3319
(617) 330 -7000 + FACSIMILE; (617) 439 -9556 • FIRM ®RUBINRUDMAN.COM
MEMORANDUM
By Electronic Mail
To: Vincent Cameron, General Manager
Reading Municipal Light Department
From: Kenneth Bama, Diedre Lawrence
Re: Chapter 30B
Date: April 22, 2003
MTRODUCTION
You have asked us, on behalf of the Reading Municipal Light Department ( "RMLD "), to
review several issues related to Chapter 30B regarding the procurement of services and supplies.
Specifically, you have asked us to review Article 7 proposed for Town Meeting regarding
amendments to the Reading Town charter. This article will require the RMLD Board of
Commissioners to "approve wan -ants for payments of all bills and payroll ... and approve all
contracts made in accordance with M.G.L. c.30B, except contracts for purchasing power." This
memorandum is being provided to you pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 56.
BACKGROUND
As we understand, the Town of Reading is seeking to pursue the same charter
amendments as it did at the March 3, 2003, special town meeting. As you will recall, we
provided you with an opinion dated February 28, 2003, that specifically addressed the procedural
and substantive problems with the proposed amendments (then called "Article 4'� to the Town
549565_1
PRIVILEGED /CQNFIDT,1VIMIATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Charter. We have not been informed whether the proposed article, now called "Article 7" has
been submitted to the Attorney General for his review as discussed on pages 2 and 3 of that
opinion. Further, the substantive problems with Article 7 are identical to those that existed with
Article 4, discussed at page 9 of the prior opinion. Nothing was changed from the prior version
of Article 4 regarding Chapter 30B in this new Article 7.
Given the timing of your questions regarding Article 7, we have not had time to review
whether any towns in the Commonwealth have successfully altered the provisions of G.L. c. 30B
as they apply to their towns through home rule charter amendment procedures. Arguably, G.L.
c. 30B represents a comprehensive legislative scheme regarding the uniform procurement of
goods and services by governmental entities on a state -wide basis, and home rule legislation that
directly conflicts with a provision of that statute will be struck down. See pages 3 through 4 of
Rubin and Rudman's February 28, 2003 Opinion. Finally, it should be noted that we do not
know of any municipal light plant that has voted to adopt the provisions of G.L. c. 30B.
DISCUSSION
You have asked us, on behalf of RMLD, to focus our analysis on the language of Article
7 that provides that the RMLD Board of Commissioners "shall... approve all contracts made in
accordance with M.G.L. 00B, except contracts for purchasing power." Specifically, you have
asked us whether, if adopted, this Charter change would make G.L. c. 30B applicable to RMLD.
Second, you have asked us whether the RMLD Board of Commissioners could appoint the
General Manager as the "Procurement Officer" if G.L. c.30B applied to RMLD's contracts.
Third, you have asked us whether contracts for purchasing power could be "exempted" from the
coverage of G.L. c. 30B should that chapter become applicable, through whatever means (i.e.,
PRIVILEGED /CONFIDENTIAL /ATTORNEY WORK PRODUQT
vote of the RMLD Board of Commissioners as provided for in the statute.) We have answered
these questions below.
Article 7, as currently drafted, cannot, via home rule charter amendment, "force"
application of the provisions of G.L. c. 30B upon the RMLD or take the place of
the required vote of the RMLD Board of Commissioners under G.L. c, 30B, §
1(14). Indeed, a careful reading of the provision indicates that by its language it
does not purport to make G.L. c. 30B applicable to RMLD contracts. It simply
states that the RMLD Board of Commissioners "shall approve' contracts "made
in accordance with M.G.L. c. 30B." Article 7 does not state that the Town Charter
shall be amended to make all RMLD contracts, other than power contracts,
subject to G.L. c. 30B.
• G.L. c. 30B, § 1(14) provides in relevant part that the Uniform Procurement
procedures found at G.L. c. 30B shall not apply to:
...any contracts or agreements entered into by a municipal gas or electric
department governed by a municipal light board, as defined by section fifty -five
of chapter one hundred and sixty -four or by a municipal light commission, as
defined by section fifty -six A of said chapter one hundred and sixty-four;
provided, however, that any such board or commission may accept the provisions
of this chapter by a majority vote of its members... [emphasis added].
Thus, G.L. c. 30B specifically provides that its provisions are applicable to
contracts of a municipal light department only if the light department's board
votes by a majority of its members to accept the statute. G.L. c. 30B will not
apply to RMLD contracts unless and until a majority of its Commissioners vote to
accept G.L. c. 30B.
Nor does it appear that the Town Charter could make G.L. c. 30B applicable to
RMLD contracts. Currently, there is a comprehensive legislative scheme
governing the powers and duties of municipal light plants, municipal light
commissions and municipal light plant managers under G.L. c. 164. Included in
this comprehensive scheme, as discussed in our February 28, 2003 opinion, are
statutes that provide that the municipal light plant manager under Section 56 has
exclusive authority to purchase supplies for the light plant. Further certain
purchases of supplies and generation and distribution equipment (over $10,000)
are subject to prior public advertising requirements and submission of sealed
proposals under Section 56D.
Finally, and most significantly, G.L. c. 30B represents a uniform scheme for the
procurement of goods and supplies by governmental entities on a statewide basis.
It would therefore appear that the Legislature has precluded local legislation that
would impair the operation and effect of G.L. c. 30B. Article 7 would directly
Is
PRIVILEGED /CONFIDENTIAVATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
conflict and abrogate the Legislature's intent to specifically exclude municipal
light plants from the provisions of G.L. c. 3013 (if it were read to somehow make
G.L. c. 30B applicable to RMLD.) G.L. c. 3013, § 1(14). Further, G.L. c. 43B, §
20 would not "save" Article 7 because it has nothing to do with the structure of
town government, the creation of local offices, the term of any office, or the
distribution of powers among local offices. Currently, the Town of Reading has
no role in the purchases of goods and services made by RMLD other than its
ministerial involvement in the payment of warrants. As set forth in our February
28, 2003 Opinion, at page 9, nothing in Article 7 purports to divide the
responsibilities of one office among two or more offices.
• If the RMLD Board were to vote by a majority of its members, voluntarily, as
provided for in the statute, to adopt the provisions of G.L. c. 30B, the RMLD
Board would certainly have the authority to appoint its own Procurement Officer.
Under G.L. c. 30B, § 2, the "chief procurement officer" is defined to include "an
individual duly appointed by the governing board of an authority or other
governmental body to procure supplies and services for the authority or
governmental body." A "governmental body" is defined under G.L. c. 30B to
include "board" or "commission." Accordingly, we believe if RMLD's Board
voted to adopt G.L. c. 30B, it would retain its authority to appoint its own
procurement officer, separately from the Town of Reading, consistent with its
separate nature as recognized by G.L. c. 30B and the provisions of G.L. c. 164
governing its operations.
Note however that G.L. c. 30B, § 2 also provides that a chief procurement officer
may be:
...the purchasing agent appointed pursuant to section one hundred and three of
chapter forty -one, or as to any city or town which has not accepted said section,
an individual duly appointed in a city having a city manager, by the city manager,
in a town having a town manager, by the town manager, in any other town, by the
selectmen, or, in any city or town otherwise providing by charter or local by -law
for the appointment of a chief procurement officer, in accordance with such
charter or local by -law, to procure all supplies and services for the city or town
and every governmental body thereof....
G.L. c. 30B recognizes that towns and municipal light plants are financially and
operationally distinct entities, which is why there is a special provision at Section
1(14) that permits municipal light boards to vote to voluntarily accept the
provisions of G.L. c. 30B. See also Middleborough v. Middleborough Gas &
Electric Department, 422 Mass. 583, 588 (1996). RMLD has its own governing
board, separate from the Town of Reading. By statute, the RMLD commissioner
"must be held to be public officers under legislative mandate, and not agents of
the city...." Homed roan v. City of Taunton, 323 Mass, 79, 84 (1948).
4
.. I PRIVILEGED /CONFIDENTIAUATTORNEY WORK PROPXCT
Further, Article 7 does not purport to amend the Reading Town Charter to make
its chief procurement officer also the chief procurement officer for the RMLD
(Le., G.L. c. 30B, §2: "otherwise providing by charter or local by -law for the
appointment of a chief procurement officer.') Only if and when the Town of
Reading attempts to make such a charter change will RMLD have to analyze such
a change, and we believe that as an initial matter, such a change would directly
conflict with and frustrate the light plant manager's authority and duties, and the
financial independence of light plants under G.L. c. 164, and therefore would be
impermissible.
Finally, power supply contracts would be subject to G.L. c.30B if the RMLD
Board of Commissioners voted to adopt the provisions of G.L. c. 30B. There is
no exception for power contracts entered into by a municipal light department
under G.L. c. 30B. The exceptions in the statute for certain types of power
contracts are for those associated with aggregation and with a single city or town
or groups of cities and towns purchasing power for the cities' and towns' (not
residents') use, and these exceptions are not applicable here. G.L. c. 30B, §§
1(32),(33).
• Due to changes in the structure of power markets, it would not be possible for
RMLD to enter into agreements for power supply under the procedures of G.L. c.
30B (requests for proposals and submission of sealed, competitive bids). Power is
now a "commodity" purchased and sold under the newly structured market. In
order for RMLD to provide a competitive price to its customers, and remove
volatility in pricing, employees at RMLD in the power supply department must
decide, on a daily basis, the type of transactions RMLD will enter into- lie., they
decide whether they will rely on the market hourly price or enter bilateral
agreements. These decisions must be made quickly in order to secure the best
price for RMLD.
• There is no possible way for any type of power supply agreement in today's
market to be subject to the procedures of G.L. c. 30B. This is because RMLD
must retain the flexibility to make daily judgments regarding purchases and sales
in the power market.. The commodity power market for electricity moves too
quickly on an hour -by -hour or daily basis for RMLD's power contracts to be
subjected to such a cumbersome process. In fact, there would be no respondents
to a request by RMLD for competitive, sealed bids under.G.L. c. 30B, § 5. The
process is too lengthy and entirely unworkable for power supply in today's
market. If RMLD were required to follow G.L. c. 30B for its power supply, it
would be unable to operate because the market would and could never
accommodate such bidding procedures.
If you have any other questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Reading Municipal Light Board of Commissioners
Regular Session
230 Ash Street
Reading, MA 01867
April 22, 2003
Start Time of Regular Session: 7:37 p.m.
End Time of Regular Session: 9:25 p.m.
Attendees:
Commissioners: Hughes, Pacino, Soli, Herlihy and Ensminger
RMLD Staff: Mr. Cameron, General Manager
Mr. Blomley
CAB: Mr. Stevenin
Guest: Ms. Diedre Lawrence, Rubin and Rudman
Mr. Brown
This meeting of the Reading Municipal Light Department (RMLD) Board of Commissioners April 22, 2003 is being
broadcast live at the RMLD's office at 230 Ash Street, Reading, MA. Live broadcasts are available only in Reading
due to technology constraints.
This meeting is being video taped for distribution to the community television stations in North Reading,
Wilmington and Lynnfield.
Chairman Pacino called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.
Action Item (s)
Mr. Pacino moved Agenda 4A to the beginning of the agenda.
Mr. Cameron stated at the meeting last Thursday night the Board took up the issue whether to accept the
recommendations of the Citizen's Advisory Board. The recommendations the CAB made at its meeting held on
Tuesday, April 1, 2003 approved the following motion relative to Charter Amendments: Move to recommend to the
RIALD Board of Commissioners that the changes proposed under the Town of Reading's Charter Amendments be
pursued by Special Legislation instead. The CAB passed this motion: 4:1:0. They also made a recommendation that
Move that the CAB hereby recommends to the RMLD Board of Commissioners not adopting that portion of the
proposed Charter Amendments regarding adoption of Chapter 30B for the RMLD purchasing procedures. The CAB
passed this motion: 4:1:0.
Mr. Cameron noted the Board tabled these issues until the next meeting so they could get more information especially
the second issue that has to do with 30B purchasing decisions under Massachusetts General Laws. One thing that is
very important to Mr. Cameron and is important to the customers in the service territory for the last eighteen months is
discretionary spending, outside services, legal services and consultants. Mr. Cameron has tried to the best of his ability
to keep that spending in check. Concerning 30B he did not have Chapter 164 counsel consulted because he did not
think it was necessary but after the Board asked questions on this last week he thought counsel should look into this
because there were certain items which were not clear. Mr. Cameron stated last Friday he called Diedre Lawrence from
Rubin and Rudman and explained what issues needed to be looked at. Mr. Cameron noted Ms. Lawrence would go
over the memo, which was distributed to you this evening as it was finished this afternoon. Mr. Cameron further
pointed out there are issues outside of his argument which have to do with "control ". The big issue is who the Chief
Procurement Officer and who has actual charge of procurement if the RMLD went under 30B. Mr. Cameron added he
may have made the mistake by not having counsel look at this but it was done at a later date with the appropriate
information for the Board to make a decision. The decision is not whether the RMLD goes under 30B. The decision is
whether or not to support the recommendation of the CAB.
Ms. Lawrence introduced herself from the law firm of Rubin and Rudman in Boston, Chapter 164 counsel. Ms.
Lawrence stated that late last week the General Manager, Mr. Cameron asked her to look at three specific questions
regarding Article 7 and Chapter 30B as it applies to the Light Department.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes Page Two
April 22, 2003
Action Items)
Ms. Lawrence stated the fast question she looked at, whether if that Article is adopted, could Chapter 30B apply to the
Light Department. The short answer is that question is as currently drafted it cannot. It is because it simply states that
the Board shall approve all contracts made in accordance with Chapter 30B. It does purport to make Chapter 30B apply
to the Light Department, Ms. Lawrence does not think it could specifically apply because Chapter 30B has a specific
exemption for municipal light plants and provides that if you wanted it to apply to you it can be accomplished in one
way only which is by a vote of the Municipal Light Board to accept the provisions of that statute.
Mr. Hughes asked of Ms. Lawrence what percentage of Board vote does this require?
Ms. Lawrence replied a majority vote. Ms. Lawrence continued that the Board would have to take a vote in order for it
to apply. It does not appear that a Town Charter Amendment could make an end run around that statutory provision.
Ms. Lawrence added Rubin and Rudman rendered an opinion on February 28, 2003 in connection with Article 4 for the
March Special Town Meeting. Article 7 is almost identical to the former Article 4. Ms. Lawrence added all of the
problems, which existed with Article 4, still exist in the new version. Ms. Lawrence wanted to make that clear. Ms.
Lawrence noted nothing substantially has been changed in the language therefore all the other issues regarding the way
it interferes with Chapter 164 is still there and it has not been removed. Ms. Lawrence explained the next question they
looked at was: hypothetically, if a majority vote of the Board were to accept 30B, would the Board retain the ability to
appoint a Chief Procurement Officer to act on behalf of the Light Department? Currently, the Town of Reading's
Home Rule Charter designates the Town Manager as the Chief Procurement Officer. There was a question as to
whether or not if the Department had to use the Town's Procurement Officer for the procurement of goods, supplies and
services. The short answer to that is no for a couple of reasons. The statute as it currently exists is a comprehensive
statewide scheme designed to implement a uniform system of procurement for governmental entities. It specifically
recognizes that municipal light plants are separate from cities and towns. Ms. Lawrence noted there is a clear
recognition that you are separate and you have your own governing body. There is a specific provision in the statute
that says a governing body of a governmental entity can appoint by however process it chooses a Chief Procurement
Officer. Ms. Lawrence added this is consistent with appointing for instance the General Manager as the Chief
Procurement Officer. It is consistent with the provisions in Chapter 164 Section 56, which gives the General Manager
the authority over all purchases of supplies and the hiring of consultants and agents. Another thing to point out is
Article 7, as it is currently drafted, does not purport to make the Chief Procurement of the Town, the Chief Procurement
Officer for the RMLD. The final question she looked at is whether or not there could be some kind of exclusion of
power supply contracts of the RMLD from the coverage of Chapter 30B, If the Board voted to accept the provision of
Chapter 30B, it is Counsel's conclusion that the RMLD's power supply would be subject to the sealed, competitive
bidding procedures of Chapter 30B. Basically, the RMLD could no longer acquire power on the market due to the
structuring of the competitive power market today. Decisions have to be made on a daily even hourly basis as to the
purchase and sales of power. You would not get anyone to respond to a request if by the time you have to advertise you
would have already engaged in hundreds of transactions. There are two specific exemptions in Chapter 30B for
different kinds of power contracts but those aren't the kinds of contracts that the RMLD enters into. The exemptions are
for energy aggregation contracts, and for contracts that are put out by cities and towns purchasing electricity for their
own use not to resell to their inhabitants or businesses. The RMLD would be utterly crippled in its power supply by
Chapter 30B as it currently exists.
As an example of this, Mr. Cameron described what the RMLD went through when the Department acquired its last long
term contract which is through 2007. It happened in the summer /fall 2001. Mr. Cameron noted the Department targeted
ten to twelve potential suppliers of power supply. This was for a large amount of power supply for the long term. Mr.
Cameron noted they pared it down based on performance to six suppliers. The Department then negotiated contracts
with each one of those suppliers. It took about two months to negotiate these contracts. It had to do with time periods,
delivery points, risk management and performance. The Department had all five contracts in place but did not have a
price. The Department instructed these companies that, on a day certain, they were to submit a bid -- the Department
gave them a monthly Excel spreadsheet for off peak, on peak and installed capability (ICAP) and they were to fill in and
submit their own prices. Mr. Cameron added they were directed to send their prices electronically at ten o'clock and the
Department would make its decision before twelve o'clock. All parties were in agreement however, one minute passed
twelve and that price is no good. It was a two -hour window for the prices the Department acquired. The Department
took the prices and put them through a net present value calculation and came out with the winner.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes Page Three
April 22, 2003
Action Item(s)
Mr. Cameron added that fax signatures were done to confirm the prices and wet signatures were done via Fedex. Mr.
Cameron pointed out that is the process that has to be used. Mr. Cameron stated there is no way you can do competitive
sealed bids for power supply. If you told a company to hold the price for two months you might as well double the price.
It is a two -hour market at best on the power supply side.
Mr. Ensminger asked Counsel if the language in Article 7 which states that the Municipal Light Board shall approve
warrants for payments of all bills, payroll of the Municipal Light Department; and approve all contracts made in
accordance with M.G.L. c. 30B, except contracts for purchasing of power, gives the kind of protection the General
Manager was talking about by exempting those power contracts in general. Mr. Ensminger further inquired whether
Counsel's opinion means that30B's narrowly drawn meaning of "contracts for purchasing power," could not be
superseded by the language in the Town Meeting article exempting power contracts?
Ms. Lawrence replied correct. This would conflict with what is already at Chapter 30B and that the argument is you do
not have the power to pick and choose what would be covered and what would not be covered by 30B. The whole point
of the statute is to have something that is the same for everyone. Ms. Lawrence added this would directly conflict with
the provisions that exists exempting certain kinds of contracts. They are just attempting to create a new exemption. Ms.
Lawrence is pretty confident that it has to apply and has to apply in its entirety. That exempting certain kinds of
contracts cannot be done by a Home Rule Charter Amendment. Maybe there is a way to do that, as she was not asked to
look into this to see whether or not that could be accomplished through special legislation. Ms. Lawrence doubts that the
A.G. wants cities and towns cherry picking the kinds of things they do not want covered. Ms. Lawrence suggested that
to bring agreements like our computer contracts under 30B would be unworkable.
Mr. Ensminger had a question for the General Manager. Under the procurement table he showed the Department at the
last meeting where sealed bids are reviewed, are any of those ever voted on by the Board of Commissioners as opposed
to the Department?
Mr. Cameron replied every purchase over $25,000 currently and over $10,000 previous prior to February 22, 2001 is
noted by to the Board.
Mr. Pacino added when there is an action item presented to this Board and it contains the detail of who bid, what the bid
was and what the budget amount is for this item.
Mr. Ensminger questioned this is subject to ratification?
Mr. Pacino replied it is subject to majority vote of the Board.
Mr. Pacino asked for clarification from Ms. Lawrence. Basically, it would be this Commission that would need to vote
to go under 30B not whatever happens in Town Meeting or whatever mechanism. It would be this Commission and we
would have to put everything under 30B.
Ms. Lawrence replied yes.
Mr. Pacino reiterated there would be no carving out.
Ms. Lawrence answered no, it does not work that way.
Mr. Pacino stated all - inclusive. Mr. Pacino noted this casts a different light on the whole issue.
Mr. Soli took a look at the motion and wondered if it is what the Commission wants to do. It would be bettered phrased
what the motion said the Board wants to forward the recommendations of the Citizen's Advisory Board to the Town
Meeting. Mr. Soli thinks it would be better served if the Commission added it to the motion and forwarded them to the
Town Meeting.
Mr. Pacino replied what he was thinking in terms of a motion, when it gets made is to make a positive motion.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes Page Four
April 22, 2003
Action Item(s)
Mr. Pacino recommends the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee with the possible exception of 30B so there is a
positive motion on the table. This is the motion to make to go forward. Mr. Pacino added to address the first item the
Charter changes he personally thinks it should be legislation he disagrees with the Town Special Counsel on this.
If the Town wants to make this through a Charter Amendment let them go. Mr. Pacino would like to see a positive
motion to have Town Meeting adopt the changes as recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee with exception of 30B.
Mr. Hughes had a question of legal counsel. He would like Ms. Lawrences' recommendation on the motion that would
be forthcoming.
Ms. Lawrence replied there are two ways of looking at it and two approaches. Ms. Lawrence replied you could do
nothing or take some kind of neutral stance on it and it might have the same result as opposing it or supporting it. That is
because regardless of what this Board says its position on this Article is there are only so many things that Home Rule
Amendment can accomplish. There is a possibility that the Attorney General's office may not accept these amendments
as written for all the reasons, which were stated in Rubin and Rudman's February 28 opinion and the most recent more
narrow opinion on Chapter 30B. Chapter 30B would be a disaster for the RMLD. Ms. Lawrences' advice is to take an
active role in making sure that isn't something attempted to be forced upon the Light Department. The bottom line is
even if it was voted on in the past you couldn't make Chapter 30B apply to the Department. It is going to lead to more
problems and more legal bills down the road. You cannot buy power with 30B. It is something that is going to come to
a head. Ms. Lawrence understands what has been said about the other provisions and a lot of that is politics. As a
lawyer she is going to be conservative and say anything that tends to infringe on your autonomy fiscally, politically and
operationally, under Chapter 164 is to be avoided. Ms. Lawrence understands there are a lot of other considerations.
She suggested taking the advice under the context the Commission is working in as you have a better sense of this.
Mr. Hughes inquired what is the opinion of the Department on this?
Mr. Cameron replied one of the recommendations from the CAB is that Special Legislation should pursue the Charter
Amendments. Mr. Cameron added if you look at the opinion of counsel that this should be done by Special Legislation
and that is a positive thing to say to Town Meeting. Mr. Cameron noted if the Amendment is voted by Town Meeting
and this goes to the Attorney General's office there is a possibility this will not go through for reasons stated in previous
meetings, given the fact that some of the points made in Article 7 now are diametrically opposed to MGL Ch. 164. It is
positive to say you do support the CAB's recommendations because the CAB supports going to Special Legislation. Mr.
Cameron recommended that the Board simply forward them to Town Meeting as Mr. Soli suggested; you can accept the
recommendations as they are and there is no need go farther than that. Mr. Cameron suggested to let the process go
forward if the Town wants to pursue the Charter Amendment Town Meeting.
Mr. Ensminger stated this Board should not get into the specifics of the implementation. They should only be discussing
the subject matter leaving the implementation to those who are making the proposals. It is the best course of action. Mr.
Ensminger noted he tried to pin the CAB members down at last week's meeting as to whether their motion was to be
implied as meaning endorsement of the proposal by Special Legislation and he did not get that answer. What it says
specifically is they recommend that it be pursued. They did not state that they were in support of such Special
Legislation. It is incorrect to state that. The second point Mr. Ensminger made is that when the Ad Hoc Committee was
reviewing 30B there was a strong belief that contracts for purchasing of power should be exempted and could be
exempted. What we are hearing from counsel is that is not possible. If that information had been made available to the
Ad Hoc Committee, he is unsure as to whether or not that would of changed their recommendation. It has given him
something to think about as Commissioner.
Mr. Hughes suggested making a motion.
Mr. Ensminger made a motion seconded by Mr. Herlihy that the Board of Commissioners vote to recommend the subject
matter of Article 7 before Annual Town Meeting, with the condition that the phrase "approval of contracts made in
accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 30B except contracts for purchasing of power " be struck from the motion.
Motion carried 3:2:0. Messrs. Hughes and Soli voted against this motion.
Mr. Pacino polled the Board to see if they wanted to address the Special Legislation.
There was no response.
Mr. Herlihy asked about protocol as the Citizen's Advisory Board is going through the bother of making formal
recommendations to the Board we have not taken any action on these.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes Page Five
April 22, 2003
Action Items)
Mr. Patin added it would be appropriate at this point, as Mr. Soli has recommended forwarding these on to Town
Meeting. It would be an appropriate thing to do and this can be accomplished via formal motion or instruction for the
Chair to forward this.
Mr. Herlihy stated that he would make the motion on the basis that this would allow the CAB's voice to be heard by
Town Meeting.
Mr. Herlihy made a motion seconded by Mr. Hughes to forward the CAB recommendations to Town Meeting.
Motion carried 5:0:0.
Mr. Ensminger added that although they have the right to speak, they might not have the right to be heard at Town
Meeting.
Mr. Pacino added the CAB information should be forwarded to Town Meeting.
General Manager's Report
Mr. Cameron wanted to mention the next meeting dates of May 7. The Financials the Audited Financial Statements and
the DTE Report will be available if they are approved by the Subcommittee on May 5. Mr. Cameron added Chairman
Pacino and Commissioner Soli are on this Sub - committee.
Ms. Lawrence exited the meeting and Mr. Cameron thanked her for her assistance.
Mr. Cameron stated the May 5 Subcommittee meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m.
Mr. Pacino added this might have to be changed if Town Meeting goes into this night. The Board cannot meet the same
night and time as Town Meeting.
The meeting will be changed to 6:00 p.m. in order to accommodate the possibility of Town Meeting lasting until this
date.
Board Discussion
Mr. Hughes stated he would like under Board Discussion that the Sub - committee readdress the General Manager's
working agreement.
Mr. Pacino replied he and Mr. Soli would arrange meetings with the Manager.
Mr. Ensminger questioned is this fait accompli now, i.e., agreed to or still in work?
Mr. Pacino replied they have not come forward with a formal agreement with the Manager at this point. Other pressing
issues came up.
Mr. Ensminger asked if this would come back to the Board for a formal vote?
Mr. Pacino replied it would come before the Board for a formal vote.
Mr. Hughes noted the second item that he is a strict advocate of complying with policies not so much a numbered policy but
an agreed upon policy. Mr. Hughes added any items to be discussed would be brought before the Chairman of the Board
and the General Manager prior to the Board meeting so they can discuss it and so they are not blindsided. Mr. Hughes
requested an item on agenda concerning the conduct at the last Board meeting after the reorganization. Mr. Hughes
received four phone calls from citizens. Mr. Hughes asserted that there was a state of disarray in the manner the Board
meeting was allowed to run amuck and in front of the ratepayers. Mr. Hughes will address this at the next meeting.
Mr. Ensminger replied he did not follow what Mr. Hughes was saying.
Mr. Hughes answered he is simply updating the Board as he will bring this up at the next meeting conduct while at Board
meeting.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes Page Six
April 22, 2003
Board Discussion
Mr. Ensminger inquired conduct on the behalf of Commissioners or participants?
Mr. Hughes replied it is just conduct overall and it encompasses a lot of people.
Mr. Ensminger added when going through the packet with the Pension Trust Agreement and looking at the duties of what
the Trustees were he read in Policy 22 that the Treasurer and RMLD General Manager are generally responsible for the
investments. However, when you passed Policy 19 you turned that responsibility over to the Commissioners. Those two
policies are at odds with each other. Mr. Ensminger is concerned about personal liability on the part of all Commissioners
who may have signed on as Trustees. Mr. Ensminger asked that the Policy Subcommittee re- examine and amend Policy 19
to correct the language in Policy 22 unless there was some overriding reason that directed that to change.
Mr. Pacino replied no there was no reason for this and they will have the Policy Sub - Committee address this.
Mr. Ensminger stated a thorough read could be done but he would like the language to go back to Policy 22.
Mr. Pacino pointed out the use of the projector will have a time limit of ten minutes. if possible, copies of the presentation
should be given out in advance so there are no surprises or that people are blindsided. Mr. Pacino wants this to be the policy
and he will restrict the presentation to ten - minute adherence and one presentation per night.
Next Meeting Dates
Monday, April 28, Annual Town Meeting
Wednesday, May 7
Executive Session
Mr. Herlihy made a motion seconded by Mr. Hughes that the Board go into Executive Session to discuss strategy
with respect to litigation, and to return to Regular Session for the sole purpose of adjournment.
Motion carried by a show of hands 5:0:0.
Mr. Pacino called for a poll of the vote:
Mr. Soli Aye; Mr. Herlihy Aye; Mr. Pacino Aye and Mr. Hughes Aye; and Mr. Ensminger Aye.
Motion to Adjourn
At 9:25 p.m. Mr. Ensminger made a motion seconded by Mr. Soli to adjourn the Regular Session.
Motion carried by show of hands. Motion carried 5:0:0.
A true copy of the RMLD Board of Commissioners minutes as
approved by a majority of the Commission.
Daniel A. Ensminger, Secretary
RMLD Board of Commissioners
P1
Despite our own opinions it is clear to me the that the State Legislature in establishing
Chapter 164 ( Municipal Light Departments ) and the various court rulings they did so for
the benefit of the rate payers and to prevent any unequal influence from any city
council or town meeting or Charters to have any control of the operation of said
departments so I offer the following for consideration .
3 -5 Municipal Light Board of Commissioners
There shall be a Municipal Light Board of Commissioners consisting of five ( 5 )
members elected for three (3 ) year terms so arranged that as near as near an equal
number of terms as possible shall expire each year.
The Municipal Light Board of Commissioners shall have all the powers and duties given
to cites and towns in respect to municipal lighting plants under MGL Chapter 164 and
any other MGL or special acts pertaining thereto .
The Municipal Light Board of Commissioners shall hire the General Manager and
approve warrants for payments of all bills, payroll and approve all power contracts of
the Municipal Light Department
The Municipal Light Board of Commissioners shall employ the Auditor appointed by the
Town of Reading Audit Committee.
In accordance with Chapter 164 section 56 the General Manager shall provide that the
financial condition of the RMLD to the Municipal Light Board of Commissioners the
Town of Reading Board of Selectmen and Department of Telecommunications and
Energy. The General Manager upon request may provide said report to any other elected
or appointed body in the service area.
Bill Brown 7/15/ 14
7
A
M
3 -5
There shall be a Mu icipal Light
three (3) yea ed
year.
T#e_ a! Light Board-
�ewr4-aad-
The al Light Board of Co
towns ct to municipal ligl•
34 et se ther general an
I duties to them
vote.
The Municipal
Municipal Light
ers >
Commissioner` cot f g of flue (5) members elected for
@r an equal nu�_67 er of terms as possible shall expire each
fac+iities:
ors shall have all the powers and duties given to cities and
under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 164 Section
acts pertaining thereto, together with such further powers
or, by Bylaw, or by et#ef Town of Reading Town Meeting
Commissioners shall hire the General Manager of the Reading
set the duties and terms of employment. her, rempe%allien; the
The Municipal Light Board of Commissioners shall appoint. the Accounting Manager or Chief
Accountant of the Reading Municipal Light Department and appoint counsel to the Reading Municipal
Light Department. f
The Accounting Manager or Chief Accountant, as the case may be, and Counsel shall be subject to
the supervision of the General Manager.
13 Reading Home Rule Charter Review — 2013
Town of Reading Home Rule Charter Article 3 - Elected Officers and Boards
The Municipal Light Board of Commissioners shall approve warrants for payments a f all bills and
payroll of the Municipal Light Department aAd eMatt.aP;+r��P .tc w #-
ws
—1 ar.rr —d--- pr shall not be subiect to Massa
The Municipal Light Board of Commissioners shall employ the Auditor appointed by the Town of
Reading Audit Committee.
The Municipal Light Board of Commissioners shall annually set E
operating budget and Capital Improvements Program each fiscal
a majority vote of the Municipal Light Board of Commission
Commissioners has approved an annual operating budget
present them to the Town of Reading Finance Committee <
request of any of the other towns served by the Reading
Light Board of Commissioners shall make a presentation
Meetina of any such town(s).
rates and approve an annual
ch ap ,oval will be done by
ipal Light Board of
ents Program, it /4 ci
ASEW
own Meeting. Upon d
nt, the Municipal
Rce Co and /or Town
To: Coleen O'Brien
From: � ��VMaureen McHugh, Jane Parenteau`
Date: July 10, 2014
Subject: Purchase Power Summary — May, 2014
Energy Services Division (ESD) has completed the Purchase Power Summary for the
month of May, 2014.
ENERGY
The RMLD's total metered load for the month was 54,419,470 kWh, which is an 4.72%
decrease from the May, 2013 figures.
Table 1 is a breakdown by source of the energy purchases.
Table 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Amount of
Cost of
% of Total
Total $
$ as a
Resource
Energy
Energy
Energy
Costs
%
(kWh)
($ /Mwh)
Millstone #3
2,883,193
$7.37
5.29%
$21,239
1.23%
Seabrook
5,895,556
$7.69
10.82%
$45,360
2.62%
Stonybrook Intermediate
1,061,425
$51.94
1.95%
$55,134
3.190%
JP Morgan
7,506,600
$61.62
13.78%
$462,586
26.74%
NextEra
6,292,000
$49.00
11.55%
$308,317
17.82%
NYPA
2,149,054
$4.92
3.95%
$10,573
0.61%
ISO Interchange
3,480,401
$50.44
6.39%
$175,554
10.15%
NEMA Congestion
0
$0.00
0.00%
- $686,293
- 39.67%
Coop Resales
10,617
$142.47
0.02%
$1,513
0.090%
BP Energy
8,442,600
$48.27
15.50%
$407,524
23.56%
Summit Hydro /Collins /Pioneer
3,253,617
$66.53
5.97%
$216,471
12.51%
Braintree Watson Unit
355,379
$97.30
0.65 °0
$34,580
2.00%
Swift River Projects
3,052,738
$101.26
5.60%
$309,110
17.87%
Exelon
10,085,400
$36.40
16.51 9%
$367,069
21.22%
Stonybrook Peaking
5,777
$199.94
0.01%
$1,155
0.07%
Monthly Total
54,474,357
$31.76
100.00%
$1,729,892
100.00%
ATTACHMENT 2
Table 2 breaks down the ISO interchange between the DA LMP Settlement and the RT
Net Energy for the month of May 2014.
Table 2
Amount Cost % of Total
Resource of Energy of Energy Energy
(kWh) ($ /Mwh)
ISO DA LMP ' 9,618,202 40.58 17.93%
Settlement
RT Net Energy" - 6,137,801 34.28 - 11.44%
Settlement
ISO Interchange 3,480,401 50.44 6.49%
(subtotal)
' Independent System Operator Day -Ahead Locational Marginal Price
" Real Time Net Energy
MAY 2014 ENERGY BY RESOURCE
Swift Rater
Proiects, 5.7%
Brain_tee Watsun
0.7Yb
5U11IrTNL Hydt o, 4
Stanybrook rn;n,t,, � �V. s A%
onybrook
ermediate,
2.0%6
• NGI!s:one H3
• Seabrook
T,. Stonybroot; Intermediate
■ JP Morgan
■ NextEra
■ VRA
■ ISO Interchange
■ BP Energy
r- Summit Hydro
■ Braintree Watson Unit
■ Swift Fiver Prcjects
■ Exek:n
Stonybrook Peaking
The RMLD hit a demand of 100,172 kW, which occurred on May 12, at 6 pm. The
RMLD's monthly UCAP requirement for May, 2014 was 215,566 kWs.
Table 3 shows the sources of capacity that the RMLD utilized to meet its requirements.
Table 3
Source
Amount (kWs)
Cost ($ /kW- month)
Total Cost $
% of Total Cost
Millstone #3
4,950
42.94
$212,535
15.46%
Seabrook
7,903
37.89
$299,482
21.78%
Stonybrook Peaking
24,981
2.00
$50,008
3.64%
Stonybrook CC
42,925
3.55
$152,521
11.09%
NYPA
4,019
4.19
$16,834
1.22%
Hydro Quebec
4,683
0.02
$85
0.01%
Nextera
60,000
5.50
$330,000
24.00%
Braintree Watson Unit
10,520
11.50
$120,965
8.80%
ISO -NE Supply Auction
55,585
3.46
$192,433
14.00%
Total
215,566
$6.38
$1,374,862
100.00%
Table 4 shows the dollar amounts for energy and capacity per source.
Table 4
Cost of
% of
Amt of Energy
Power
Resource
Energy
Capacity
Total cost
Total Cost
(kWh)
($ /kWh)
Millstone #3
$21,239
$212,535
$233,774
7.53%
2,883,193
0.0811
Seabrook
$45,360
$299,482
$344,842
11.11%
5,895,556
0.0585
Stonybrook Intermediate
$55,134
$152,521
$207,655
6.69°0
1,061,425
0.1956
Hydro Quebec
$0
$85
$85
0.00%
-
0.0000
JP Morgan
$462,586
$0
$462,586
14.90%
7,506,600
0.0616
NextEra
$308,317
$330,000
$638,317
20.56%
6,292,000
0.1014
* NYPA
$10,573
$16,834
$27,407
0.88%
2,149,054
0.0128
ISO Interchange
$175,554
$192,433
$367,987
11.85%
3,480,401
0.1057
Nema Congestion
- $686,293
$0
- $686,293
- 22.10%
-
0.0000
BP Energy
$407,524
$0
$407,524
13.13%
8,442,600
0.0483
* Summit Hydro /Collins /Pioneer
$216,471
$0
$216,471
6.97%
2,427,209
0.0892
Braintree Watson Unit
$34,580
$120.965
$155,545
5.019/6
355,379
0.4377
* Swift River Projects
$309,110
$0
$309,110
9.96%
3,052,738
0.1013
Coop Resales
$1,513
$0
$1,513
0.05%
10,617
0.1425
Constellation Energy
$367,069
$0
$367,069
11.82%
10,085,400
0.0364
Stonybrook Peaking
$1,155
$50,008
$51,163
1.65%
5,777
8.8563
Monthly Total
$1,729,892
$1,374,862
$3,104,755
100.00%
53,647,949
0.0579
* Renewable Resources
14.22%
RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES (RECs)
Table 5 shows the amount of banked and projected RECs for the Swift River Hydro
Projects through May, 2014, as well as their estimated market value.
TRANSMISSION
The RMLD's total transmission costs for the month of May, 2014 were $628,818. This is
a decrease of 28.89% from the April transmission cost of $884,256. In May, 2013 the
transmission costs were $646,177.
Table 6
Current Month
Table 5
Last Year
Peak Demand (kW)
100,172
Swift River RECs Summary
143,882
Energy (kWh)
53,647,949
Period - January 2014 - May 2014
56,418,457
Energy ($)
Banked
Projected Total
Est.
Capacity ($)
RECs
RECs RECs
Dollars
Woronoco
0
3,290 3,290
$136,535
Pepperell
0
2,733 2,733
$158,514
Indian River
0
1,410 1,410
$81,780
Turners Falls
0
1,300 1,300
$0
RECs Sold
0
$0
Grand Total
0
8,733 8,733
$376,829
TRANSMISSION
The RMLD's total transmission costs for the month of May, 2014 were $628,818. This is
a decrease of 28.89% from the April transmission cost of $884,256. In May, 2013 the
transmission costs were $646,177.
Table 6
Current Month
Last Month
Last Year
Peak Demand (kW)
100,172
89,095
143,882
Energy (kWh)
53,647,949
52,441,173
56,418,457
Energy ($)
$1,729,892
$2,460,081
$2.289,286
Capacity ($)
$1,374,862
$1,324,168
$1,492,008
Transmission($)
$628,818
$884,256
$646,177
Total
$3,733,573
$4,668,506
$4,427,471
r r r
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Table 7 shows the comprehensive results from the Energy Conservation program. The amount of savings is broken down by both demand and energy for the
Commercial and Residential sectors.
Table 7
Total $
Washing Machine
Total
Dishwasher
Total $
Central A/C
Commercial
Year
Capacity Saved (kW)
I Energy Saved (kwh)
Capacity
$ /kW
Energy
$ /kWh
Rebate
Rebate /kWh
Rebate /kW
Cost Benefit
Total to date
FY07 -13
11,3461
46,338,741
$ 1,053,256
Dollars
2592993
Dollars
$ 1,455,819
$ 0.03
$ 128.31
$ 2,190,431
Current
FY14
9481
2,589,109
$ 130,290
$11.45
129455
$ 0.05
$ 259,427
$ 0.10
$ 273.58
$ 319
Residential
Total to date
FY07 -13
1,795
1,593,066
$ 168,790
83,191
$ 568,591
$ 0.36
$ 316.79
$ (316,610)
Current
FY14
216
106,666
$ 29,619
$11.45
5,333
$ 0.05
$ 138,230
$ 1.30
$ 641.24
$ (103,278)
Total
Total to date
I FY07 -13
13,141
47,931,807
$ 1,222,046
$ 175
2,676,184
$ 1,700
$ 2,049,410
$ 0.04
$ 155.96
$ 1,848,820.24
Current
FY14
1,164
2,695,775
$ 159,908
$11.45
134,789
$ 0.05
$ 397,657
$ 0.15
$ 341.68
$ (102,959)
Table 8 shows the breakdown for residential appliance rebates by type and year.
Table 8
Washing Machine
Refrigerator
Dishwasher
Dehumidifier
Central A/C
Window A/C
Thermostat
Audits
Renewable
Air Source Heat Pumf
HP Water Heater
Fan
Year
JOTY
IDollars
QTY
Dollars
QTY
Dollars
QTY
Dollars
QTY
Dollars
QTY
Dollars
QTY
Dollars
QTY
Dollars
QTY
Dollars
QTY
Dollars
QTY
Dollars
QTY
Dollars
20071
1
2008
86
$ 4,300
47
$ 2,350
55
$ 2,750
7
$ 175
17
$ 1,700
10
$ 250
23
$ 230
107
$ 14,940
2009
406
$ 20,300
259
$ 12,950
235
$ 11,750
40
$ 1,000
41
$ 4,100
50
$ 1,250
114
$ 1,140
107
$ 14,940
2010
519
$ 25,950
371
$ 18,550
382
$ 19,100
37
$ 925
64
$ 6,400
49
$ 1,225
127
$ 1,270
1 64
$ 8,960
1 6
$ 20,700
2011
425
$ 21,250
383
$ 19,150
1 313
$ 15,6501
47
$ 1,175
57
$ 5,700
1 65
$ 1,625
118
$ 1,180
180
$ 26,960
4
$ 18,000
2012
339
$ 16,950
354
$ 17,700
289
$ 14,450
38
$ 950
44
$ 4,400
56
$ 1,400
105
$ 1,050
219
$ 32,731
3
$ 14,000
9
$ 2,250
3
$ 30
2013
285
$ 14,250
336
$ 16,800
311
$ 15,550
29
$ 725
24
$ 2,400
54
$ 1,350
57
$ 570
375
$ 75,000
3
$ 15,000
$ 19
$ 1,900
A.
$ 1,000
5
$ 50
2014
287
$ 14,350
279
$ 13,950
249
$ 12,450
24
$ 600
30
$ 3,000
71
$ 1,775
69
$ 1,035
349
$ 69,800
4
$ 17,250
$ 17
$ 1,700
9
$ 2,250
7
$ 70
Total 2347 $ 117,350 2029 $ 101,450 1834 $ 91,700 222 $ 5,550 277 $ 27,700 355 $ 8,875 613 $ 6,475 1401 $ 243,331 20 $ 84,950 36 $ 3,600 22 $ 5,500 15 $ 150
7/11/2014
Service Installations - Commercial /Industrial ALL
49,773
55,549
5,776
13
10:17 AM
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
184,483
200,302
15,819
Total Service Connections
FY 14 CAPITAL BUDGET VARIANCE REPORT
14
Routine Construction
FOR PERIOD ENDING MAY 31, 2014
Various ALL
156,664
1,607,202
1,014,306
(592,896)
Total Construction Projects
ACTUAL
YTD COST
219,382
2,283,036
3,309,414
1,026,378
COST
THRU
ANNUAL
REMAINING
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
TOWN
MAY
MAY 2014
BUDGET
BALANCE
E &O Construction- System Projects
284,000
(57,226)
17A
Meter Purchases
9,000
1
5W9 Reconductoring - Wildwood Street
W
22,830
97,648
169,494
71,846
2
4W4 Reconductoring
W
AMR High- Powered ERT 500 Club Meter Upgrade Project
166,340
166,340
3
Upgrading Old Lynnfield Center URDs (Trog Hawley) (Partial Carryover)
LC
71,284
140,827
69,543
4
Upgrading Old Lynnfield Center URDs (Cook's Farm)
LC
12,594
13,549
410,983
397,434
5
4W5 - 4W6 Tie
R
150,000
9,960
96,596
86,636
6
URD Upgrades -All Towns
ALL
4,504
28,382
210,005
181,623
7
Stepdown Area Upgrades - All Towns
ALL
5,133
55,720
232,817
177,097
100,000
Total System Projects
24
Repairs - 226 Ash Street, Station 1 (Multi -year Project)
520,000
520,000
Station Upgrades
Communication Equipment
9,193
100,000
90,807
8
Relay Replacement Project - Gaw Station (Carryover)
R
104,056
181,000
117,181
117,181
9
Gaw Station 35 kv Potential Transformer (PT) Replacement
R
180,200
92,652
40,288
40,288
10
Station 3 - Replacement of Service Cutouts
NR
150,000
30,126
30,126
11
Station 4 Getaway Replacement - 4W13
R
6,409
165,035
245,147
80,112
15
Station 5 - Getaway Replacements 5W9 and 5W10
W
95,343
95,343
Total Station Projects
TOTAL CAPITAL BUDGET
$ 233,726
3,391,953
6,102,008
SCADA Projects
30
RTU Replacement - Station 3
NR
84,109
84,109
Total SCADA Projects
illliw New Customer Service Connections
12
Service Installations - Commercial /Industrial ALL
49,773
55,549
5,776
13
Service Installations - Residential Customers ALL
11,249
184,483
200,302
15,819
Total Service Connections
14
Routine Construction
Various ALL
156,664
1,607,202
1,014,306
(592,896)
Total Construction Projects
219,382
2,283,036
3,309,414
1,026,378
Other Projects
16
Transformers
341,226
284,000
(57,226)
17A
Meter Purchases
9,000
42,710
138,000
95,290
17C
AMR High- Powered ERT Comm. Meter Upgrade Project (Partial Carryover)
163,433
114,601
(48,832)
17D
AMR High- Powered ERT 500 Club Meter Upgrade Project
92,713
92,713
18
Purchase New Pick -up Trucks
61,062
70,000
8,938
19
Purchase Two New Line Department Vehicles
350
186,604
400,000
213,396
20
Build Covered Storage (Multi -year Project)
150,000
150,000
21
HVAC System Upgrade (Multi -year Project)
275,000
275,000
22
Engineering Analysis Software and Data Conversion (Partial Carryover)
17,850
37,081
19,231
23
New Radio System (Multi -year Project)
95,235
100,000
4,765
24
Repairs - 226 Ash Street, Station 1 (Multi -year Project)
520,000
520,000
26
Communication Equipment
9,193
100,000
90,807
27
Hardware Upgrades
104,056
181,000
76,944
28
Software and Licensing
4,994
87,548
180,200
92,652
29
Master Site Plan and Photovoltaic Generation Installation
150,000
150,000
Total Other Projects
$ 14,344
1,108,917
2,792,594
1,683,677
TOTAL CAPITAL BUDGET
$ 233,726
3,391,953
6,102,008
2,710,056
ATTACHMENT 3
a
Reading Municipal Light Department
Engineering and Operations
Monthly Report
May 2014 Activity
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT SPENDING
Complete Current Fiscal
FY14 -15 Month YTD
Construction Projects: Status
5W9 Reconductoring — Balladvale Area:
101 Completed the reconductoring of Ballardvale Street and 50% $22,830 $97,648
placed 5W9 back into service for the Summer. Project will
restart in the Fall of 2014. (status updated 7117114)
Upgrading of Old Lynnfield Center URDs (Cook's
104 Farm): 5%
Bid is out for advertisement, pre -bid is scheduled for 7 -23- $12,594 $13,549
14 (status updated 7- 14 -14). Materials purchased in May.
URD Upgrades — All Towns:
106 Transformer Replacements: Duane Drive, North On- $4,504 $28,382
Reading, Amherst Road, Wilmington; Blanchard Road, going
Wilmington
Stepdown Area Upgrades — All Towns:
Worked on Bond and Vine Streets, Reading in May. On-
107 $5,133 $55,720
Currently continuing working in the Vine Street area, as going
time allows. (status updated 7117114)
Station Upgrades;
111 Station 4 (Gaw) Getaway Replacement — 4W13: 100% $6,409 $165,035
Contractor charges appear in May.
New Customer Service Connections:
• 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 drop and 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. These aspects of a project are captured under Routine Construction (as outlined below).
There were no new Commercial /Industrial Service connections in May.
• Service Installations — Residential Customers: This item includes new or upgraded
overhead and underground services.
July 15, 2014
Routine Construction/Capital Improvements:
MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
Aged/Overloaded Transformer Replacement
Single -Phase Transformer Replacements (May): Duane Drive, North Reading; Amherst
Road, Wilmington; Blanchard Road, Wilmington.
Three -Phase Transformer Inspection: to date (June through July 15) 52 three -phase
transformers have been inspected.
Pole Testing System -wide (600 -1,000 poles /year)
Out to bid, pending selection of vendor to perform work.
13.8kV/35kV Feeders — Quarterly Inspections
3W8, 3W18, 5W8, 5W9
Manhole Inspections
Pending.
Porcelain Cutout Replacements (with Polymer)
A total of 44 cutouts were changed out in May. Thirty -three were changed as part of the
Porcelain Cutout Replacement Program and an additional 11 were replaced because of
rimmonc
July 15, 2014
Current Month
Fiscal
YTD
Pole Setting/Transfers
18,711
341,276
Overhead /Underground
25,456
377,724
Projects Assigned as Required, including
32,636
363,945
• Haverhill Street, Pole relocations, NR
• Mark Ave area upgrade, R
• Sullivan Road service pole, NR
• West Street (new services, W
• Station 5 RTU replacement (Capital Project 810)
Pole Damage /Knockdowns (some reimbursable)
5,065
68,930
• Work was done to repair or replace seven (7) damaged poles
during May,
Station Group
122
2,189
Hazmat/Oil Spills
0
51,786
Porcelain Cutout Replacement Program (see Maintenance
6,251
9,326
Programs for details
Lighting (Street Light Connections)
953
39,326
Storm Trouble
0
22,403
Underground Subdivisions (new construction)
4,101
18,708
• MacGrane Road, W
• Amherst Road, W
• Johnson Woods, R
Animal Guard Installation
5,645
35,538
Miscellaneous Capital Costs
57,724
276,051
TOTAL: $156,664
1 6 7 2 2
MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
Aged/Overloaded Transformer Replacement
Single -Phase Transformer Replacements (May): Duane Drive, North Reading; Amherst
Road, Wilmington; Blanchard Road, Wilmington.
Three -Phase Transformer Inspection: to date (June through July 15) 52 three -phase
transformers have been inspected.
Pole Testing System -wide (600 -1,000 poles /year)
Out to bid, pending selection of vendor to perform work.
13.8kV/35kV Feeders — Quarterly Inspections
3W8, 3W18, 5W8, 5W9
Manhole Inspections
Pending.
Porcelain Cutout Replacements (with Polymer)
A total of 44 cutouts were changed out in May. Thirty -three were changed as part of the
Porcelain Cutout Replacement Program and an additional 11 were replaced because of
rimmonc
July 15, 2014
IR
Substations:
Infared Scanning (Monthly)
Station 3 Scanning began in June.
Station 4 Scanning began in June.
Station 5 Scanning began in June.
Substation Maintenance Program
• Inspection of all three stations by UPG in progress.
SYSTEM RELIABILITY
Key industry standard metrics have been identified to enable the RMLD to measure and track
system reliability.
SAIDI (System Average Interruption Duration Index) is defined as the average interruption
duration (in minutes) for customers served by the utility system during a specific time period.
SAIDI = the sum of all customer interruption durations within the specified time frame
by the average number of customers served during that period.
July 15, 2014
3
SAIDI 2010 -2014
100.00
-
90.00
_ 85.75
80.00
� 2010
70.00
2011
60.00
50.00
� 2012
40.00
� 2013
30.00
20.00
� 2014 YTD
10.00
Region Average
0.00
—National Average
2010 -2011 -2012 -2013 -2014
Average SAIDI
July 15, 2014
3
SAM (System Average Interruption Frequency) is defined as the average number of
instances a customer on the utility system will experience an interruption during a specific time
period.
SAIFI = the total number of customer interruptions _ average number of customers
served during that period.
CAIDI (Customer Average Interruption Duration Index) is defined as the average duration (in
minutes) of an interruption experienced by customers during a specific time frame.
CAIDI = the sum of all customer interruption durations during that time period _ the
number of customers that experienced one or more interruptions during that time period
inb niduic renects the average customer experience minutes of duration during an outage.
CAIDI 2010 -2014
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
2010 -2011 -2012 -2013 -2014
Average CAIDI
2010
X2011
� 2012
� 2013
� 2014 YTD
Region Average
National Average
Note: Since SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI are sustained interruption indices; only outages lasting
longer than one minute are included in the calculations.
July 15, 2014 4
19
SAM 2010 -2014
0.90
0.80
0.83
0.70
� 2010
0'60
0.55
- � 2011
0.50
® 2012
0.40
0.30
� 2013
0.20
0.16
� 2014 YTD
0.10
Region Average
0.00
_
2010 -2011 -2012 -2013 -2014
National Average
Average SAM
CAIDI (Customer Average Interruption Duration Index) is defined as the average duration (in
minutes) of an interruption experienced by customers during a specific time frame.
CAIDI = the sum of all customer interruption durations during that time period _ the
number of customers that experienced one or more interruptions during that time period
inb niduic renects the average customer experience minutes of duration during an outage.
CAIDI 2010 -2014
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
2010 -2011 -2012 -2013 -2014
Average CAIDI
2010
X2011
� 2012
� 2013
� 2014 YTD
Region Average
National Average
Note: Since SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI are sustained interruption indices; only outages lasting
longer than one minute are included in the calculations.
July 15, 2014 4
19
July 15, 2014
2014 Outage Causes Types
YTD May 31, 2014
Utility Human Errror
2
3i° Natural
Unknown , — 1
3
40
■ Equipment
N Wildl fe
Tree Y Tree
16 ■ Unknown
220°01 O Utility Iluman Errror
H Natural
Wildlife
16
Dt: July 11, 2014
To: RMLB, Coleen O'Brien, Jeanne Foti
Fr: Bob Fournier
Sj: May 31, 2014 Report
The results for the first eleven months ending May 31, 2014, for the fiscal year
2014 will be summarized in the following paragraphs.
1) Change in Net Assets: (Page 3A)
For the month of May, the net income or the positive change in net assets was
$1,375,793, making the year to date net income to $1,019,827. The year to date
budgeted net income was $3,021,782, resulting in net income being under budget
by $2,001,955or 66.25 %. Actual year to date fuel expenses exceeded fuel
revenues by $322,833.
2) Revenues: (Page 11B)
Year to date base revenues were under budget by $1,369,435 or 3.13 %. Actual
base revenues were $42.4 million compared to the budgeted amount of $43.8
million.
3) Expenses: (Page 12A)
*Year to date purchased power base expense was under budget by $178,590 or
.68 %. Actual purchased power base costs were $26.0 million compared to the
budgeted amount of $26.2 million.
*Year to date operating and maintenance (O &M) expenses combined were under
budget by $67,290 or .58 %. Actual O &M expenses were $11.6 million compared
to the budgeted amount of $11.7 million.
*Depreciation expense and voluntary payments to the Towns were on budget.
4) Cash: (Page 9)
*Operating Fund was at $11,654,970.
* Capital Fund balance was at $4,316,189.
* Rate Stabilization Fund was at $6,719,955.
* Deferred Fuel Fund was at $2,286,654.
* Energy Conservation Fund was at $452,849.
5) General Information:
Year to date kwh sales (Page 5) were 632,884,631 which is 10.0 million kwh or
1.56 %, behind last year's actual figure.
6) Budget Variance:
Cumulatively, the five divisions were under budget by $42,879, or .23 %.
ATTACHMENT 4
FINANCIAL REPORT
MAY 31, 2014
�w ISSUE DATE: JULY 11, 2014
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
BUSINESS -TYPE PROPRIETARY FUND
STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS
5/31/14
(1)
PREVIOUS YEAR
CURRENT YEAR
ASSETS
CURRENT
UNRESTRICTED CASH
(SCH A
P.9)
8,725,213.32
11,657,970.39
RESTRICTED CASH
(SCH A
P.9)
19,623,340.21
18,077,779.48
INVESTMENTS
(SCH A
P.9)
0.00
1,250,000.00
RECEIVABLES, NET
(SCH B
P.10)
7,583,306.81
5,570,983.16
PREPAID EXPENSES
(SCH B
P.10)
1,019,620.24
1,101,078.61
INVENTORY
1,575,212.39
1,400,830.71
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
38,526,692.97
39,058,642.35
NONCURRENT
INVESTMENT IN ASSOCIATED CO
(SCH C
P.2)
43,074.63
31,379.32
CAPITAL ASSETS, NET
(SCH C
P.2)
70,528,734.60
70,121,704.61
TOTAL NONCURRENT ASSETS
70,571,809.23
70,153,083.93
TOTAL ASSETS
109,098,502.20
109,211,726.28
LIABILITIES
CURRENT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
4,537,683.71
5,784,186.76
CUSTOMER DEPOSITS
684,326.24
756,207.83
CUSTOMER ADVANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION
383,356.95
395,663.98
ACCRUED LIABILITIES
1,537,278.36
53,294.21
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES
7,142,645.26
6,989,352.78
NONCURRENT
ACCRUED EMPLOYEE COMPENSATED ABSENCES
2,986,360.21
2,885,367.88
TOTAL NONCURRENT LIABILITIES
2,986,360.21
2,885,367.88
TOTAL LIABILITIES
10,129,005.47
9,874,720.66
NET ASSETS
INVESTED IN CAPITAL ASSETS, NET OF
RELATED
DEBT
70,528,734.60
70,121,704.61
RESTRICTED FOR DEPRECIATION FUND
(P.9)
2,783,545.84
4,316,189.56
UNRESTRICTED
25,657,216.29
24,899,111.45
TOTAL NET ASSETS
(P.3)
98,969,496.73
99,337,005.62
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS
109,098,502.20
109,211,726.28
(1)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
NONCURRENT ASSET SCHEDULE
5/31/14
SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS IN ASSOCIATED COMPANIES
NEW ENGLAND HYDRO ELECTRIC
NEW ENGLAND HYDRO TRANSMISSION
TOTAL INVESTMENTS IN ASSOCIATED COMPANIES
SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL ASSETS
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
EQUIPMENT AND FURNISHINGS
INFRASTRUCTURE
TOTAL CAPITAL ASSETS, NET
TOTAL NONCURRENT ASSETS
(2)
SCHEDULE C
PREVIOUS YEAR
CURRENT YEAR
2,975.74
3,261.87
40,098.89
28,117.45
43,074.63
31,379.32
1,265,842.23 1,265,842.23
6,802,833.03 6,430,639.92
13,224,701.80 13,003,686.79
49,235,357.54 49,421,535.67
70,528,734.60 70,121,704.61
70,571,809.23 70,153,083.93
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
BUSINESS -TYPE PROPRIETARY FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS
5/31/14
OPERATING REVSNUBS: (SCH D P.11)
BASS REVENUE
FUEL REVENUE
PURCHASED POWER CAPACITY
FORFEITED DISCOUNTS
ENERGY CONSERVATION REVENUE
GAW REVENUE
NYPA CREDIT
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES
OPERATING EXPENSES: (SCH E P.12)
PURCHASED POWER BASE
PURCHASED POWER FUEL
OPERATING
MAINTENANCE
DEPRECIATION
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
OPERATING INCOME
IPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES)
CONTRIBUTIONS IN AID OF CONST
RETURN ON INVESTMENT TO READING
INTEREST INCOME
INTEREST EXPENSE
OTHER (MDSE AND AMORT)
TOTAL NONOPERATING REV (EXP)
CHANGE IN NET ASSETS
NET ASSETS AT BEGINNING OF YEAR
NET ASSETS AT END OF MAY
MONTH MONTH LAST YEAR CURRENT YEAR YTD %
LAST YEAR CURRENT YEAR TO DATE TO DATE CHANGE
3,286,196.58
3,470,212.67
41,683,125.68
42,443,480.96
1.82%
2,260,618.34
3,152,035.67
32,053,062.75
30,615,412.86
-4.49%
(275,678.84)
258,997.39
1,177,275.76
974,872.10
- 17.19%
57,983.14
62,385.37
879,061.52
868,803.54
-1.17%
49,448.13
47,740.23
632,948.19
622,933.84
-1.58%
50,244.73
0.00
642,726.33
489,669.08
- 23.81%
(1.7,730.28_)
(29,075.65)_
(689,366.10)
(984,474.99)
42.81%
5,411,081.80 6,962,295.68 76,378,834.13 75,030,697.39 -1.77%
2,122,543.60
2,037,585.13
25,609,011.96
26,068,426.32
1.79%
2,289,286.11
1,729,892.46
30,839,806.50
29,953,770.82
-2.87%
805,848.14
904,215.43
8,850,509.16
8,987,593.13
1.55%
248,251.54
290,889.18
2,492,814.51
2,614,512.54
4.88%
305,469.18
314,969.55
3,360,160.98
3,464,665.05
3.11%
114,000.00
116,666.67
1,247,383.00
1,281,850.35
2.76%
5,885,398.57 5,394,218.42 72,399,686.11 72,370,818.21 -0.04%
(474,316.77) 1,568,077.26 3,979,148.02 2,659,879.18 - 33.15%
33,507.40
3,654.12
154,070.50
53,637.02
- 65.19%
(188,785.58)
(212,743.27)
(2,076,641.40)
(2,130,427.45)
2.59%
2,457.09
12,162.91
32,144.58
69,556.14
116.39%
(255.29)
(252.25)
(3,870.79)
(3,944.98)
1.92%
87,759.89
4,893.96
350,585.83
371,126.92
5.86%
(65,316.49)
(192,284.53)
(1,543,711.28)
(1,640,052.35)
6.24%
(539,633.26) 1,375,792.73
(3)
2,435,436.74 1,019,826.83 - 58.13%
96,534,059.99 98,317,178.79 1.85%
98,969,496.73 99,337,005.62 0.37%
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
BUSINESS -TYPE PROPRIETARY FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS
5/31/14
OPERATING REVENUES: (SCH F P. 11B)
BASE REVENUE
FUEL REVENUE
PURCHASED POWER CAPACITY
FORFEITED DISCOUNTS
ENERGY CONSERVATION REVENUE
GAW REVENUE
NYPA CREDIT
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES
OPERATING EXPENSES: (SCH G P.12A)
PURCHASED POWER BASE
PURCHASED POWER FUEL
OPERATING
MAINTENANCE
DEPRECIATION
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
OPERATING INCOME
NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES)
CONTRIBUTIONS IN AID OF CONST
RETURN ON INVESTMENT TO READING
INTEREST INCOME
INTEREST EXPENSE
OTHER (MDSE AND AMORT)
TOTAL NONOPERATING REV (EXP)
CHANGE IN NET ASSETS
NET ASSETS AT BEGINNING OF YEAR
NET ASSETS AT END OF MAY
* ( ) - ACTUAL UNDER BUDGET
ACTUAL BUDGET %
YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE VARIANCE* CHANGE
42,443,480.96
43,812,916.00
(1,369,435.04)
30,615,412.86
30,148,933.00
466,479.86
974,872.10
971,808.00
3,064.10
868,803.54
963,884.00
(95,080.46)
622,933.84
654,067.00
(31,133.16)
489,669.08
654,066.00
(164,396.92)
(_984,47.4.99)_ _
(641,663.00)
(342,811.99)
75,030,697.39 76,564,011.00 (1,533,313.61)
-3.13%
1.55%
0.32%
-9.86%
-4.76%
- 25.13%
53.43%
-2.00%
26,068,426.32
26,247,017.00
(178,590.68)
-0.68%
29,953,770.82
29,235,177.00
718,593.82
2.46%
8,987,593.13
8,723,236.00
264,357.13
3.03%
2,614,512.54
2,946,160.00
(331,647.46)
- 11.26%
3,464,665.05
3,460,600.00
4,065.05
0.12%
1,281,850.35
1,283,326.00
(1,475.65)
-0.11%
72,370,818.21 71,895,516.00 475,302.21 0.66%
2,659,879.18 4,668,495.00 (2,008,615.82) - 43.02%
53,637.02
200,000.00
(146,362.98)
- 73.18%
(2,130,427.45)
(2,109,800.00)
(20,627.45)
0.98%
69,556.14
45,837.00
23,719.14
51.75%
(3,944.98)
(2,750.00)
(1,194.98)
43.45%
371,126.92
220,000.00
151,126.92
68.69%
(1,640,052.35)
(1,646,713.00)
6,660.65
-0.40%
1,019,826.83 3,021,782.00 (2,001,955.17)
98,317,178.79 98,317,178.79 0.00
99,337,005.62 101,338,960.79 (2,001,955.17)
(3A)
- 66.25%
0.00%
-1.98%
A
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
RECONCILIATION OF CAPITAL FUNDS
5/31/14
SOURCE OF CAPITAL FUNDS:
DEPRECIATION FUND BALANCE 7/1/13
CONSTRUCTION FUND BALANCE 7/1/13
INTEREST ON DEPRECIATION FUND FY 14
DEPRECIATION TRANSFER FY 14
TOTAL SOURCE OF CAPITAL FUNDS
USE OF CAPITAL FUNDS:
LESS PAID ADDITIONS TO PLANT THRU MAY
GENERAL LEDGER CAPITAL FUNDS BALANCE 5/31/14
(4)
2,733,146.78
1,500,000.00
10,329.78
3,464,665.05
7,708,141.61
3,391,952.05
4,316,189.56
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
SALES OFSKILOW TT HOURS
(5)
MONTH
MONTH
LAST YEAR
CURRENT YEAR
YTD %
SALES OF ELECTRICITY:
LAST YEAR
CURRENT YEAR
TO DATE
TO DATE
CHANGE
RESIDENTIAL SALES
15,929,164
16,817,508
236,710,546
237,916,978
0.51%
COMM. AND INDUSTRIAL SALES
31,870,592
29,404,994
377,581,825
366,294,306
-2.99%
PRIVATE STREET LIGHTING
73,699
76,499
806,435
828,601
2.75%
TOTAL PRIVATE CONSUMERS
47,873,455
46,299,001
615,098,806
605,039,885
-1.64%
MUNICIPAL SALES:
STREET LIGHTING
239,495
240,064
2,622,837
2,638,606
0.60%
MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS
742,789
690,488
9,100,414
8,869,662
-2.54%
TOTAL MUNICIPAL CONSUMERS
982,284
930,552
11,723,251
11,508,268
-1.83%
SALES FOR RESALE
202,536
194,075
2,971,590
3,023,744
1.76%
SCHOOL
1,146,467
1,083,745
13,152,875
13,312,734
1.22%
TOTAL KILOWATT HOURS SOLD
50,204,742
48,507,373
642,946,522
632,884,631
-1.56%
(5)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
KILOWATT HOURS SOLD BY TOWN
5/31/14
TOTAL
READING
LYNNFIELD
NO.READING
WILMINGTON
MONTH
RESIDENTIAL
16,817,508
5,429,077
2,502,282
3,810,943
5,075,206
COMM & IND
29,404,994
3,470,149
228,943
4,376,490
21,329,412
PVT ST LIGHTS
76,499
12,977
1,470
23,814
38,238
PUB ST LIGHTS
240,064
80,702
32,500
42,175
84,687
MUNI BLDGS
690,488
192,313
137,944
107,920
252,311
SALES /RESALE
194,075
194,075
0
0
0
SCHOOL
1,083,745
368,049
245,307
141,040
329,349
TOTAL
48,507,373
9,747,342
3,148,446
8,502,382
27,109,203
YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL
237,916,978
75,407,937
33,239,047
55,082,720
74,187,274
COMM & IND
366,294,306
46,042,221
2,965,047
57,029,103
260,257,935
PVT ST LIGHTS
828,601
143,963
15,620
252,288
416,730
PUB ST LIGHTS
2,638,606
887,542
357,500
462,107
931,457
MUNI BLDGS
8,869,662
2,504,558
1,751,692
1,521,254
3,092,158
SALES /RESALE
3,023,744
3,023,744
0
0
0
SCHOOL
13,312,734
4,708,594
2,997,395
1,674,400
3,932,345
TOTAL
632,884,631
132,718,559
41,326,301
116,021,872
342,817,899
LAST YEAR
TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL
236,710,546
74,502,948
33,466,441
54,560,238
74,180,919
COMM & IND
377,581,825
47,241,160
2,960,518
58,462,390
268,917,757
PVT ST LIGHTS
806,435
148,979
14,960
235,692
406,804
PUB ST LIGHTS
2,622,837
886,022
357,460
449,058
930,297
MUNI BLDGS
9,100,414
2,393,296
1,684,210
1,697,764
3,325,144
SALES /RESALE
2,971,590
2,971,590
0
0
0
SCHOOL
13,152,875
4,625,284
2,892,723
1,694,880
3,939,988
TOTAL
642,946,522
132,769,279
41,376,312
117,100,022
351,700,909
KILOWATT HOURS SOLD TO TOTAL
TOTAL
READING
LYNNFIELD
NO.READING
WILMINGTON
MONTH
RESIDENTIAL
34.67%
11.19%
5.16%
7.86%
10.46%
COMM & IND
60.62%
7.15%
0.47%
9.02%
43.98%
PVT ST LIGHTS
0.16%
0.03%
0.00%
0.05%
0.08%
PUB ST LIGHTS
0.50%
0.17%
0.07%
0.09%
0.17%
MUNI BLDGS
1.42%
0.40%
0.28%
0.22%
0.52%
SALES /RESALE
0.40%
0.40%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
SCHOOL
2.23%
0.76%
0.51%
0.29%
0.67%
TOTAL
100.00%
20.10%
6.49%
17.53%
55.88%
YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL
37.59%
11.91%
5.25%
8.70%
11.73%
COMM & IND
57.88%
7.27%
0.47%
9.01%
41.13%
PVT ST LIGHTS
0.13%
0.02%
0.00%
0.04%
0.07%
PUB ST LIGHTS
0.42%
0.14%
0.06%
0.07%
0.15%
MUNI BLDGS
1.40%
0.40%
0.28%
0.24%
0.48%
SALES /RESALE
0.48%
0.48%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
SCHOOL
2.10%
0.74%
0.47%
0.26%
0.63%
TOTAL
100.00%
20.96%
6.53%
18.32%
54.19%
LAST YEAR
TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL
36.83%
11.59%
5.21%
8.49%
11.54%
COMM & IND
58.73%
7.35%
0.46%
9.09%
41.83%
PVT ST LIGHTS
0.12%
0.02%
0.00%
0.04%
0.06%
PUB ST LIGHTS
0.41%
0.14%
0.06%
0.07%
0.14%
MUNI BLDGS
SALES /RESALE
1.41%
0.46%
0.37%
0.46%
0.26%
0.00%
0.26%
0.00%
0.52%
0.00%
SCHOOL
2.04%
0.72%
0.45%
0.26%
0.61%
TOTAL
100.00%
20.65%
6.44%
18.21%
54.70%
(6)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
FORMULA INCOME
5/31/14
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES (P.3)
ADD:
LESS:
POLE RENTAL
INTEREST INCOME ON CUSTOMER DEPOSITS
OPERATING EXPENSES (P.3)
CUSTOMER DEPOSIT INTEREST EXPENSE
FORMULA INCOME (LOSS)
(7)
75,030,697.39
77,296.08
2,716.12
(72,370,818.21)
(3,944.98)
2,735,946.40
PI
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
GENERAL � 4ISTICS
(8)
MONTH OF
MONTH OF
46 CHANGE
YEAR
THRU
MAY 2013
MAY 2014
2013
2014
MAY 2013
MAY 2014
SALE OF KWH (P.5)
50,204,742
48,507,373
2.58%
-1.56%
642,946,522
632,884,631
KWH PURCHASED
56,418,457
53,647,949
1.75%
-0.89%
663,974,548
658,050,774
AVE BASE COST PER KWH
0.037621
0.037981
10.83%
2.71%
0.038569
0.039615
AVE BASE SALE PER KWH
0.065456
0.071540
-0.59%
3.44%
0.064831
0.067064
AVE COST PER KWH
0.078198
0.070226
-0.55%
0.14%
0.085017
0.085134
AVE SALE PER KWH
0.110484
0.136520
-2.24%
0.66%
0.114685
0.115438
FUEL CHARGE REVENUE (P.3)
2,242,888.06
3,122,960.02
-1.84%
-5.52%
31,363,696.65
29,630,937.87
LOAD FACTOR
53.71%
73.36%
PEAK LOAD
143,882
100,172
(8)
$0.085
$0.070
$0.055
$0.040
$0.025
i
kwh analysis
$0.010 +- - - — - — - — - - - r - - -,
tilgy I�,II( 1(iGl1pz�Cj Zpy�I�I111�g14/q,�� �IiGI�pI�� �OI���CI��yI3@I3gp jJq 3qy 3•y j3( 3GC, j3'I3CT ONB4;, 4gyI4
--.*.-base cost
-�*-fuel cost
A--fuel revenue
--)* -base revenue
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
SCHEDULE OF CASH AND INVESTMENTS
5/31/14
UNRESTRICTED CASH
CASH - OPERATING FUND
CASH - PETTY CASH
TOTAL UNRESTRICTED CASH
RESTRICTED CASH
CASH - DEPRECIATION FUND
CASH - TOWN PAYMENT
CASH - DEFERRED FUEL RESERVE
CASH - RATE STABILIZATION FUND
CASH - UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCTS RESERVE
CASH - SICK LEAVE BENEFITS
CASH - HAZARD WASTE RESERVE
CASH - CUSTOMER DEPOSITS
CASH - ENERGY CONSERVATION
CASH - OPEB
TOTAL RESTRICTED CASH
INVESTMENTS
SICR LEAVE BUYBACK
TOTAL CASH BALANCE
(9)
SCHEDULE A
PREVIOUS YEAR CURRENT YEAR
8,722,213.32 11,654,970.39
3,000.00 3,000.00
8,725,213.32 11,657,970.39
2,783,545.84
1,513,927.50
2,793,934.63
6,691,258.15
200,000.00
2,988,453.45
150,000.00
684,326.24
322,604.15
1,495,290.25
4,316,189.56
1,542,175.45
2,286,654.43
6,719,955.90
200,000.00
1,653,746.92
150,000.00
756,207.83
452,849.39
0.00
19,623,340.21 18,077,779.48
0.00 1,250,000.00
28,348,553.53 30,985,749.87
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
5/31/14
UNBILLED ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 4,915,936.83
TOTAL ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, NET 7,583,306.81
SCHEDULE OF PREPAYMENTS
PREPAID INSURANCE
PREVIOUS YEAR
SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
65,467.79
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
2,989,990.35
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - OTHER
188,360.06
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - LIENS
28,132.35
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - EMPLOYEE ADVANCES
892.14
SALES DISCOUNT LIABILITY
(262,144.63)
RESERVE FOR UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS
(277,860.29)
TOTAL ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE BILLED
2,667,369.98
UNBILLED ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 4,915,936.83
TOTAL ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, NET 7,583,306.81
SCHEDULE OF PREPAYMENTS
PREPAID INSURANCE
519,624.10
PREPAYMENT PURCHASED POWER
65,467.79
PREPAYMENT NYPA
241,849.32
PREPAYMENT WATSON
178,155.33
PURCHASED POWER WORKING CAPITAL
14,523.70
TOTAL PREPAYMENT 1,019,620.24
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AGING MAY 2014:
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL 1,745,200.01
LESS: SALES DISCOUNT LIABILITY (174,199.37)
GENERAL LEDGER BALANCE 1,571,000.64
CURRENT 1,222,282.82 77.81%
30 DAYS 247,837.40 15.78%
60 DAYS 48,300.41 3.07%
90 DAYS 11,844.24 0.75%
OVER 90 DAYS 40,735.77 2.59%
TOTAL 1,571,000.64 100.00%
(10)
SCHEDULE B
CURRENT YEAR
1,745,200.01
37,477.31
37,169.47
892.14
(174,199.37)
(233,578.90)
1,412,960.66
4,158,022.50
5,570,983.16
516,659.28
59,415.46
242,260.90
268,219.27
14,523.70
1,101,078.61
PC
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
SCHEDULE OF OPERATING REVENUE
5/31/14
(ii)
SCHEDULE D
MONTH
MONTH
LAST YEAR
CURRENT YEAR
YTD %
SALES OF ELECTRICITY:
LAST YEAR
CURRENT YEAR
TO DATE
TO DATE
CHANGE
RESIDENTIAL SALES
1,991,361.32
2,513,884.46
30,280,691.12
30,526,633.42
0.81%
COMM AND INDUSTRIAL SALES
3,291,230.73
3,800,094.69
40,211,909.56
39,266,902.29
-2.35%
PRIVATE STREET LIGHTING
5,615.74
7,410.55
64,927.97
66,135.29
1.86%
TOTAL PRIVATE CONSUMERS
5,288,207.79
6,321,389.70
70,557,528.65
69,859,671.00
-0.99%
MUNICIPAL SALES:
STREET LIGHTING
27,209.24
33,029.17
311,418.87
312,279.25
0.28%
MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS
84,324.29
96,536.08
1,044,819.41
1,037,116.60
-0.74%
TOTAL MUNICIPAL CONSUMERS
111,533.53
129,565.25
1,356,238.28
1,349,395.85
-0.50%
SALES FOR RESALE
23,202.21
26,894.24
352,454.85
359,064.83
1.88%
SCHOOL
123,871.39
144,399.15
1,469,966.65
1,490,762.14
1.41%
SUB -TOTAL
5,546,814.92
6,622,248.34
73,736,188.43
73,058,893.82
-0.92%
FORFEITED DISCOUNTS
57,983.14
62,385.37
879,061.52
868,803.54
-1.17%
PURCHASED POWER CAPACITY
(275,678.84)
258,997.39
1,177,275.76
974,872.10
- 17.19%
ENERGY CONSERVATION - RESIDENTIAL
15,946.05
16,824.22
236,867.89
238,042.52
0.50%
ENERGY CONSERVATION - COMMERCIAL
33,502.08
30,916.01
396,080.30
384,891.32
-2.82%
GAW REVENUE
50,244.73
0.00
642,726.33
489,669.08
- 23.81%
NYPA CREDIT
(17,730.28)
(29,075.65)
(689,366.10)
(984,474.99)
42.81%
TOTAL REVENUE
5,411,081.80
6,962,295.68
75,030,697.39
-1.77%
76,378,834.13
(ii)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
SCHEDULE OF OPERATING REVENUE BY TOWN
5/31/14
TOTAL
READING
LYNNFIELD
NO.READING
WILMINGTON
MONTH
RESIDENTIAL
2,513,884.46
814,740.82
371,492.45
569,263.87
758,387.32
INDUS /MUNI BLDG
3,896,630.77
500,359.66
51,028.58
629,740.88
2,715,501.65
PUB.ST.LIGHTS
33,029.17
10,772.75
4,265.93
5,877.79
12,112.70
PRV.ST.LIGHTS
7,410.55
1,248.92
139.65
2,368.47
3,653.51
CO -OP RESALE
26,894.24
26,894.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
SCHOOL
144,399.15
49,733.99
32,022.28
19,262.79
43,380.09
TOTAL
6,622,248.34
1,403,750.38
458,948.89
1,226,513.80
3,533,035.27
THIS YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL
30,526,633.42
9,719,604.98
4,238,879.07
7,062,850.25
9,505,299.12
INDUS /MUNI BLDG
40,304,018.89
5,565,921.08
548,121.02
6,508,549.42
27,681,427.37
PUB.ST.LIGHTS
312,279.25
101,572.00
40,132.66
55,527.58
115,047.01
PRV.ST.LIGHTS
66,135.29
11,369.62
1,222.76
20,821.76
32,721.15
CO -OP RESALE
359,064.83
359,064.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
SCHOOL
1,490,762.14
530,098.68
329,313.64
193,897.57
437,452.25
TOTAL
73,058,893.82
16,287,631.19
5,157,669.13
13,841,646.59
37,771,946.91
LAST YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL
30,280,691.12
9,566,152.02
4,256,486.80
6,971,778.49
9,486,273.81
INDUS /MUNI BLDG
41,256,728.97
5,648,638.13
526,514.20
6,596,841.45
28,484,735.19
PUB.ST.LIGHTS
311,418.87
101,085.46
40,005.63
56,047.37
114,280.41
PRV.ST.LIGHTS
64,927.97
11,823.39
1,186.15
19,647.44
32,270.99
CO -OP RESALE
352,454.85
352,454.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
SCHOOL
1,469,966.65
521,229.40
318,518.95
194,628.57
435,589.73
TOTAL
73,736,188.43
16,201,383.25
5,142,711.73
13,838,943.32
38,553,150.13
PERCENTAGE OF OPERATING
INCOME TO TOTAL
TOTAL
READING
LYNNFIELD
NO.READING
WILMINGTON
MONTH
RESIDENTIAL
37.96%
12.30%
5.61%
8.60%
11.45%
INDUS /MUNI BLDG
59.06%
7.56%
0.77%
9.51%
41.22%
PUB.ST.LIGHTS
0.51%
0.16%
0.06%
0.09%
0.19%
PRV.ST.LIGHTS
0.11%
0.02%
0.00%
0.04%
0.05%
CO -OP RESALE
0.41%
0.41%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
SCHOOL
2.18%
0.75%
0.48%
0.29%
0.66%
TOTAL
100.22%
21.30%
6.96%
18.52%
53.57%
THIS YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL
41.78%
13.30%
5.80%
9.67%
13.01%
INDUS /MUNI BLDG
55.17%
7.62%
0.75%
8.91%
37.89%
PUB.ST.LIGHTS
0.43%
0.14%
0.05%
0.08%
0.16%
PRV.ST.LIGHTS
0.09%
0.02%
0.00%
0.03%
0.04%
CO -OP RESALE
0.49%
0.49%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
SCHOOL
2.04%
0.73%
0.45%
0.27%
0.59%
TOTAL
100.00%
22.31%
7.05%
18.92%
51.69%
LAST YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL
41.07%
12.97%
5.77%
9.46%
12.87%
INDUS /MUNI BLDG
55.95%
7.66%
0.71%
8.95%
38.63%
PUB.ST.LIGHTS
0.42%
0.14%
0.05%
0.08%
0.15%
PRV.ST.LIGHTS
0.09%
0.02%
0.00%
0.03%
0.04%
CO -OP RESALE
0.48%
0.48%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
SCHOOL
1.99%
0.71%
0.43%
0.26%
0.59%
TOTAL
100.0096
21.98%
6.96%
18.78%
52.28%
(11A)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
BUDGETED REVENUE /31/14 N VARIANCE REPORT
SCHEDULE F
* ( ) . ACTUAL UNDER BUDGET
(11B)
ACTUAL
BUDGET
%
YEAR TO DATE
YEAR TO DATE
VARIANCE *
CHANGE
SALES OF ELECTRICITY:
RESIDENTIAL
19,030,408.43
19,387,706.00
(357,297.57)
-1.84%
COMM AND INDUSTRIAL SALES
PRIVATE STREET LIGHTING
22,172,018.93
23,173,707.00
(1,001,688.07)
-4.32%
MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS
PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING
183,940.05
183,139.00
801.05
0.44%
SALES FOR RESALE
213,481.34
250,459.00
(36,977.66)
- 14.76%
SCHOOL
843,632.21
817,905.00
25,727.21
3.15%
TOTAL BASE SALES
42,443,480.96
43,812,916.00
(1,369,435.04)
-3.13%
TOTAL FUEL SALES
30,615,412.86
30,148,933.00
466,479.86
1.55%
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE
73,058,893.82
73,961,849.00
(902,955.18)
-1.22%
FORFEITED DISCOUNTS
868,803.54
963,884.00
(95,080.46)
-9.86%
PURCHASED POWER CAPACITY
974,872.10
971,808.00
3,064.10
0.32%
ENERGY CONSERVATION - RESIDENTIAL
238,042.52
239,556.00
(1,513.48)
-0.63%
ENERGY CONSERVATION - COMMERCIAL
384,891.32
414,511.00
(29,619.68)
-7.15%
GAW REVENUE
489,669.08
654,066.00
(164,396.92)
- 25.13%
PASNY CREDIT
(984,474.99)
(641,663.00)
(342,811.99)
53.43%
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES
75,030,697.39
76,564,011.00
(1,533,313.61)
-2.00%
* ( ) . ACTUAL UNDER BUDGET
(11B)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
SCHEDULE OF OPERATING EXPENSES
5/31/14
SCHEDULE E
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
PURCHASED POWER FUEL EXPENSE
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
305,469.18
2,289,286.11
314,969.55 3,360,160.98 3,464,665.05 3.11%
1,729,892.46 30,839,806.50 29,953,770.82 -2.87%
114,000.00 116,666.67 1,247,383.00 1,281,850.35 2.76%
5,885,398.57 5,394,218.42 72,399,686.11 72,370,818.21 -0.04%
(12)
PC
MONTH
MONTH
LAST YEAR
CURRENT YEAR
YTD %
OPERATION EXPENSES:
LAST YEAR
CURRENT YEAR
TO DATE
TO DATE
CHANGE
PURCHASED POWER BASE EXPENSE
2,122,543.60
2,037,585.13
25,609,011.96
26,068,426.32
1.79%
OPERATION SUP AND ENGINEERING EXP
47,504.86
48,712.45
465,633.49
468,990.96
0.72%
STATION SUP LABOR AND MISC
6,181.07
13,895.85
68,248.57
110,617.90
62.08%
LINE MISC LABOR AND EXPENSE
86,448.85
89,772.05
643,407.83
750,763.70
16.69%
STATION LABOR AND EXPENSE
35,427.46
45,102.48
447,159.26
447,347.10
0.04%
STREET LIGHTING EXPENSE
5,973.11
7,068.13
71,162.58
67,246.69
-5.50%
METER EXPENSE
17,255.48
21,820.58
171,444.50
202,305.25
18.00%
MISC DISTRIBUTION EXPENSE
31,426.82
35,662.29
317,843.46
341,075.36
7.31%
METER READING LABOR & EXPENSE
3,954.95
654.52
71,613.43
18,857.65
- 73.67%
ACCT & COLL LABOR & EXPENSE
127,123.56
130,138.79
1,367,162.87
1,385,720.42
1.36%
UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS
8,333.33
10,500.00
91,666.63
115,500.00
26.00%
ENERGY AUDIT EXPENSE
61,040.56
35,683.74
497,974.28
340,745.97
- 31.57%
ADMIN & GEN SALARIES
62,842.01
84,349.97
694,024.21
811,412.31
16.91%
OFFICE SUPPLIES & EXPENSE
22,087.34
28,252.18
236,423.72
265,712.78
12.39%
OUTSIDE SERVICES
52,613.11
30,681.25
486,394.01
378,355.94
- 22.21%
PROPERTY INSURANCE
29,926.00
29,863.75
339,947.43
319,169.26
-6.11%
INJURIES AND DAMAGES
3,996.02
3,408.29
41,109.76
38,891.58
-5.40%
EMPLOYEES PENSIONS & BENEFITS
151,201.54
234,018.54
1,886,208.59
2,100,340.11
11.35%
MISC GENERAL EXPENSE
6,328.84
6,790.94
150,404.43
146,837.50
-2.37%
RENT EXPENSE
24,270.45
17,235.30
195,810.04
188,596.54
-3.68%
ENERGY CONSERVATION
21,912.78
30,604.33
606,870.07
489,106.11
- 19.41%
TOTAL OPERATION EXPENSES
805,848.14
904,215.43
8,850,509.16
8,987,593.13
1.55%
MAINTENANCE EXPENSES:
MAINT OF TRANSMISSION PLANT
227.08
227.08
2,497.90
2,497.90
0.00
MAINT OF STRUCT AND EQUIPMT
11,115.03
16,015.67
130,313.24
160,293.59
23.07
MAINT OF LINES - OH
127,354.44
198,055.11
1,385,609.15
1,529,732.12
10.4
MAINT OF LINES - UG
17,881.39
13,483.49
172,707.00
176,523.21
2.21%
MAINT OF LINE TRANSFORMERS
6,728.12
0.00
134,838.40
87,218.31
- 35.32%
MAINT OF ST LT & SIG SYSTEM
(82.59)
(35.22)
(103.33)
(482.88)
367.32%
MAINT OF GARAGE AND STOCKROOM
62,321.19
54,179.10
517,477.28
515,335.39
-0.41%
MAINT OF METERS
8,304.83
0.00
38,991.82
11,645.67
- 70.13%
MAINT OF GEN PLANT
14,402.05
8,963.95
110,483.05
131,749.23
19.25%
TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
248,251.54
290,889.18
2,492,814.51
2,614,512.54
4.88%
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
PURCHASED POWER FUEL EXPENSE
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
305,469.18
2,289,286.11
314,969.55 3,360,160.98 3,464,665.05 3.11%
1,729,892.46 30,839,806.50 29,953,770.82 -2.87%
114,000.00 116,666.67 1,247,383.00 1,281,850.35 2.76%
5,885,398.57 5,394,218.42 72,399,686.11 72,370,818.21 -0.04%
(12)
PC
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
BUDGETED OPERATING EXPENSE VARIANCE REPORT
5/31/14
SCHEDULE G
* ( ) . ACTUAL UNDER BUDGET
(12A)
ACTUAL
BUDGET
%
OPERATION EXPENSES:
YEAR TO DATE
YEAR TO DATE
VARIANCE *
CHANGE
PURCHASED POWER BASE EXPENSE
26,068,426.32
26,247,017.00
(178,590.68)
-0.68%
OPERATION SUP AND ENGINEERING EXP
468,990.96
424,430.00
44,560.96
10.50%
STATION SUP LABOR AND MISC
110,617.90
80,933.00
29,684.90
36.68%
LINE MISC LABOR AND EXPENSE
750,763.70
677,973.00
72,790.70
10.74%
STATION LABOR AND EXPENSE
447,347.10
405,606.00
41,741.10
10.29%
STREET LIGHTING EXPENSE
67,246.69
82,462.00
(15,215.31)
- 18.45%
METER EXPENSE
202,305.25
196,598.00
5,707.25
2.90%
MISC DISTRIBUTION EXPENSE
341,075.36
359,471.00
(18,395.64)
-5.12%
METER READING LABOR & EXPENSE
18,857.65
42,008.00
(23,150.35)
- 55.11%
ACCT & COLL LABOR & EXPENSE
1,385,720.42
1,424,174.00
(38,453.58)
-2.70%
UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS
115,500.00
115,500.00
0.00
0.00%
ENERGY AUDIT EXPENSE
340,745.97
372,988.00
(32,242.03)
-8.64%
ADMIN & GEN SALARIES
811,412.31
717,507.00
93,905.31
13.09%
OFFICE SUPPLIES & EXPENSE
265,712.78
245,850.00
19,862.78
8.08%
OUTSIDE SERVICES
378,355.94
387,949.00
(9,593.06)
-2.47%
PROPERTY INSURANCE
319,169.26
422,125.00
(102,955.74)
- 24.39%
INJURIES AND DAMAGES
38,891.58
53,388.00
(14,496.42)
- 27.15%
EMPLOYEES PENSIONS & BENEFITS
2,100,340.11
1,725,888.00
374,452.11
21.70%
MISC GENERAL EXPENSE
146,837.50
211,261.00
(64,423.50)
- 30.49%
RENT EXPENSE
188,596.54
194,337.00
(5,740.46)
-2.95%
ENERGY CONSERVATION
489,106.11
582,788.00
(93,681.89)
- 16.07%
TOTAL OPERATION EXPENSES
8,987,593.13
8,723,236.00
264,357.13
3.03%
MAINTENANCE EXPENSES:
MAINT OF TRANSMISSION PLANT
2,497.90
2,750.00
(252.10)
-9.17%
MAINT OF STRUCT AND EQUIPMENT
160,293.59
95,369.00
64,924.59
68.08%
MAINT OF LINES - OH
1,529,732.12
1,453,318.00
76,414.12
5.26%
MAINT OF LINES - UG
176,523.21
444,740.00
(268,216.79)
- 60.31%
MAINT OF LINE TRANSFORMERS
87,218.31
151,737.00
(64,518.69)
- 42.52%
MAINT OF ST LT & SIG SYSTEM
(482.88)
9,523.00
(10,005.88)
- 105.07%
MAINT OF GARAGE AND STOCKROOM
515,335.39
616,360.00
(101,024.61)
- 16.39%
MAINT OF METERS
11,645.67
39,251.00
(27,605.33)
- 70.33%
MAINT OF GEN PLANT
131,749.23
133,112.00
(1,362.77)
-1.02%
TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
2,614,512.54
2,946,160.00
(331,647.46)
- 11.26%
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
3,464,665.05
3,460,600.00
4,065.05
0.12%
PURCHASED POWER FUEL EXPENSE
29,953,770.82
29,235,177.00
718,593.82
2.46%
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS
1,281,850.35
1,283,326.00
(1,475.65)
-0.11%
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
72,370,818.21
475,302.21
0.66%
71,895,516.00
* ( ) . ACTUAL UNDER BUDGET
(12A)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
BUDGETED OPERATING EXPENSE VARIANCE REPORT
5/31/14
PI
(12B)
RESPONSIBLE
REMAINING
SENIOR
2014
ACTUAL
BUDGET
REMAINING
OPERATION EXPENSES:
MANAGER
ANNUAL BUDGET
YEAR TO DATE
BALANCE
BUDGET %
PURCHASED POWER BASE EXPENSE
JP
29,123,336.00
26,068,426.32
3,054,909.68
10.49%
OPERATION SUP AND ENGINEERING EXP
HJ
467,978.00
468,990.96
(1,012.96)
-0.22%
STATION SUP LABOR AND MISC
HJ
90,088.00
110,617.90
(20,529.90)
- 22.79%
LINE MISC LABOR AND EXPENSE
HJ
729,521.00
750,763.70
(21,242.70)
-2.91%
STATION LABOR AND EXPENSE
HJ
446,308.00
447,347.10
(1,039.10)
-0.23%
STREET LIGHTING EXPENSE
HJ
90,729.00
67,246.69
23,482.31
25.88%
METER EXPENSE
HJ
218,064.00
202,305.25
15,758.75
7.23%
MISC DISTRIBUTION EXPENSE
HJ
396,379.00
341,075.36
55,303.64
13.95%
METER READING LABOR & EXPENSE
HJ
46,322.00
18,857.65
27,464.35
59.29%
ACCT & COLL LABOR & EXPENSE
RF
1,570,864.00
1,385,720.42
185,143.58
11.79%
UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS
RF
126,000.00
115,500.00
10,500.00
8.33%
ENERGY AUDIT EXPENSE
JP
416,982.00
340,745.97
76,236.03
18.28%
ADMIN & GEN SALARIES
CO
794,002.00
811,412.31
(17,410.31)
-2.19%
OFFICE SUPPLIES & EXPENSE
CO
268,000.00
265,712.78
2,287.22
0.85%
OUTSIDE SERVICES
CO
419,150.00
378,355.94
40,794.06
9.73%
PROPERTY INSURANCE
HJ
460,600.00
319,169.26
141,430.74
30.71%
INJURIES AND DAMAGES
HJ
58,206.00
38,891.58
19,314.42
33.18%
EMPLOYEES PENSIONS & BENEFITS
HJ
1,870,479.00
2,100,340.11
(229,861.11)
- 12.29%
MISC GENERAL EXPENSE
CO
219,695.00
146,837.50
72,857.50
33.16%
RENT EXPENSE
HJ
212,000.00
188,596.54
23,403.46
11.04%
ENERGY CONSERVATION
JP
636,761.00
489,106.11
147,654.89
23.19%
TOTAL OPERATION EXPENSES
9,538,128.00
8,987,593.13
550,534.87
5.77%
MAINTENANCE EXPENSES:
MAINT OF TRANSMISSION PLANT
HJ
3,000.00
2,497.90
502.10
16.7
MAINT OF STRUCT AND EQUIPMT
HJ
105,738.00
160,293.59
(54,555.59)
-51.6
MAINT OF LINES - OH
HJ
1,604,829.00
1,529,732.12
75,096.88
4.68%
MAINT OF LINES - UG
HJ
485,432.00
176,523.21
308,908.79
63.64%
MAINT OF LINE TRANSFORMERS
HJ
160,000.00
87,218.31
72,781.69
45.49%
MAINT OF ST LT & SIG SYSTEM
HJ
10,487.00
(482.88)
10,969.88
104.60%
MAINT OF GARAGE AND STOCKROOM
HJ
668,507.00
515,335.39
153,171.61
22.91%
MAINT OF METERS
HJ
41,160.00
11,645.67
29,514.33
71.71%
MAINT OF GEN PLANT
RF
145,480.00
131,749.23
13,730.77
9.44%
TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
3,224,633.00
2,614,512.54
610,120.46
18.92%
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
RF
3,775,200.00
3,464,665.05
310,534.95
8.23%
PURCHASED POWER FUEL EXPENSE
JP
31,789,470.00
29,953,770.82
1,835,699.18
5.77%
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS
RF
1,400,000.00
1,281,850.35
118,149.65
8.44%
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
78,850,767.00
72,370,818.21
8.22%
6,479,948.79
PI
(12B)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
05/31/2014
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY PROJECT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY VENDOR
ACTUAL
MELANSON HEATH & COMPANY
ITEM
DEPARTMENT
ACTUAL
BUDGET
VARIANCE
1
RMLD AND PENSION TRUST AUDIT FEES
ACCOUNTING
32,500.00
32,250.00
250.00
2
PENSION ACTUARIAL EVALUATION
ACCOUNTING
3,850.00
6,000.00
(2,150.00)
3
LEGAL- FERC /ISO ISSUES
ENERGY SERVICE
17,505.05
16,500.00
11005.05
4
LEGAL- POWER SUPPLY ISSUES
ENERGY SERVICE
103,702.94
41,250.00
62,452.94
5
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ENERGY SERVICE
22,991.19
22,000.00
991.19
6
NERC COMPLIANCE AND AUDIT
E & 0
17,354.50
12,000.00
5,354.50
7
LEGAL
ENGINEERING
0.00
13,750.00
(13,750.00)
8
LEGAL - GENERAL
GM
108,897.91
137,500.00
(28,602.09)
9
LEGAL SERVICES- OTHER
HR
16,748.47
38,500.00
(21,751.53)
10
LEGAL SERVICES- NEGOTIATIONS
HR
21,764.55
7,000.00
14,764.55
11
LEGAL SERVICES - ARBITRATION
HR
8,341.43
21,900.00
(13,558.57)
12
LEGAL GENERAL
BLDG. MAINT.
0.00
1,375.00
(1,375.00)
13
SURVEY RIGHT OF WAY
BLDG. MAINT.
0.00
4,587.00
(4,587.00)
14
ENVIRONMENTAL
BLDG. MAINT.
405.00
4,587.00
(4,182.00)
15
INSURANCE CONSULTANT
GEN. BENEFIT
0.00
9,163.00
(9,163.00)
16
LEGAL
GEN. BENEFIT
64.60
4,587.00
(4,522.40)
17
LEGAL MATS MGMT
GEN. BENEFIT
950.00
15,000.00
(14,050.00)
18
DSA BASIC CLIENT SERVICE
ENGINEERING
1,875.00
0.00
1,875.00
19
ORGANIZATIONAL STUDY
GM
21,405.30
0.00
21,405.30
TOTAL
378,355.94
387,949.00
(9,593.06)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY VENDOR
ACTUAL
MELANSON HEATH & COMPANY
32,500.00
UTILITY SERVICES, INC.
16,002.50
DUNCAN AND ALLEN
34,423.86
RUBIN AND RUDMAN
195,446.72
DOBLE ENGINEERING
1,875.00
CHOATE HALL & STEWART
34,062.80
JAMES COLLINS- ARBITRATOR
600.00
WILLIAM CROWLEY
2,080.00
ENERGY NEW ENGLAND
81900.00
BERRYDUNN
6,445.00
PLM
20,849.00
HUDSON RIVER ENERGY GROUP
2,249.72
KEYSTONE PARTNERS LLC
5,000.00
CUSHING, JAMMALLO & WHEELER
405.00
CMEEC
7,337.19
STONE CONSULTING INC.
3,850.00
COTTE MANAGEMENT CONSULTING LLC
6,329.15
TOTAL
378,355.94
(13)
RMLD
DEFERRED FUEL CASH RESERVE ANALYSIS
5/31/14
GROSS
DATE CHARGES REVENUES NYPA CREDIT
Jun -13
Jul -13
3,464,349.32
2,953,072.91
(53,841.00)
Aug -13
2,767,250.13
3,385,440.39
(33,645.12)
Sep -13
2,168,234.24
3,096,134.62
(61,811.13)
Oct -13
1,994,534.42
2,147,543.67
(23,964.99)
Nov -13
1,738,646.02
2,201,768.18
(53,708.49)
Dec -13
3,666,453.24
2,053,822.16
(45,701.57)
Jan -14
3,161,945.22
2,487,172.37
(88,308.33)
Feb -14
3,381,465.32
2,880,989.98
(176,031.57)
Mar -14
3,420,919.01
3,049,133.54
(321,914.91)
Apr -14
2,460,081.44
3,208,299.37
(96,472.23)
May -14
1,729,892.46
3,152,035.67
(29,075.65)
(14)
MONTHLY
DEFERRED
(565,117.41)
584,545.14
866,089.25
129,044.26
409,413.67
(1,658,332.65)
(763,081.18)
(676,506.91)
(693,700.38)
651,745.70
1,393,067.56
TOTAL
DEFERRED
2,609,487.38
2,044,369.97
2,628,915.11
3,495,004.36
3,624,048.62
4,033,462.29
2,375,129.64
1,612,048.46
935,541.55
241,841.17
893,586.87
2,286,654.43
RMLD
BUDGET VARIANCE REPORT
FOR PERIOD ENDING MAY 31, 2014
DIVISION
ACTUAL
BUDGET
VARIANCE
CHANGE
ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS
4,278,294
4,321,444
(43,150)
-1.00%
ENERGY SERVICES
972,183
1,035,529
(63,346)
-6.12%
GENERAL MANAGER
728,711
794,179
(65,468)
-8.24%
FACILITY MANAGER
3,672,958
3,546,326
126,632
3.57%
BUSINESS DIVISION
8,830,848
8,828,395
2,453
0.03%
SUB -TOTAL
18,482,994
-0.23%
18,525,872
(42,879)
PURCHASED POWER - BASE
PURCHASED POWER - FUEL
TOTAL
26,068,426
29,953,771
26,247,017
29,235,177
(178,591)
718,594
74,505,191 74,008,066 497,125
(15)
-0.68%
2.46%
0.67%
RMLD
STAFFING REPORT
FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE, 2014
(16)
14 BUD
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY -
TOTAL
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
1
GENERAL MANAGER
GENERAL MANAGER
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
HUMAN RESOURCES
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
TOTAL
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
BUSINESS
ACCOUNTING
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
CUSTOMER SERVICE
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
MGMT INFORMATION SYS
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
MISCELLANEOUS
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
TOTAL
16.75
16.75
16.75
16.75
16.75
16.75
16.75
16.75
16.75
16.75
16.75
16.75
ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS
AGM E &O
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
ENGINEERING
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
LINE
22.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
21.00
METER
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
STATION
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
TOTAL
40.00
39.00
39.00
39.00
39.00
39.00
39.00
37.00
38.00
38.00
38.00
38.00
PROJECT
BUILDING
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
GENERAL BENEFITS
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
TRANSPORTATION
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
MATERIALS MGMT
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
TOTAL
8.00
8.00
8.00
6.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
ENERGY SERVICES
ENERGY SERVICES
4.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
TOTAL
4.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
RMLD TOTAL
73.25
71.25
71.25
71.25
71.25
71.25
71.25
70.25
71.25
71.25
71.25
71.25
CONTRACTORS
UG LINE
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2
TOTAL
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 00
2
GRAND TOTAL
75.25
73.25
73.25
73.25
73.25
73.25
73.25
72.25
73.25
73.25
73.25
73.25
(16)
Jeanne FoU
,rom: Jeanne Foti
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 201411:08 AM
To: Bob Soli; David Talbot; John Stempeck; Phil Pacino; Tom O'Rourke
Subject: Account Payable Warrant and Payroll
Good morning.
In an effort to save paper, the following timeframes had no Account Payable and Payroll questions.
Account Payable Warrant — No Questions
June 6, June 13, June 20, June 27, July 4 and July 11.
Payroll — No Questions
June 16, June 30 and July 14.
This e-mail will be printed for the Board Book for the RMLD Board meeting on July 24, 2014.
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.
1