The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-01-20 Finance Committee PacketFq Town of Reading 4 3 Meeting Posting with Agenda 2 aaa rar Board - Committee - commission - Council: Finance Committee Date: 2016 -01 -20 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Pleasant Street Senior Center Location: Great Room Address: 49 Pleasant Street Purpose: Financial Forum Meeting Called By: Caitlin Saunders on behalf of Chairman Mark Dockser RECEIVEO TOWN CLERK READING. MASS. 'i:;6 JAN I4 A 8: 42 1 Notices and agendas are to be posted 48 hours in advance of the meetings excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Legal Holidays. Please keep in mind the Town Clerk's hours of operation and make necessary arrangements to be sure your posting is made in an adequate amount of time. A listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting must be on the agenda. All Meeting Postings must be submitted In typed format) handwritten notices will not be accepted. Topics of Discussion: 1) Review FY'17 budget proposals - Town and Schools 2) Discuss options for supporting Town operating budget 3) Discuss creating a fact sheet on our budget status and brainstorm how to best communicate with taxpayers This Agenda has been prepared In advance and represents a listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed v at the meeting. However the agenda does not necessarily Include all matters which may be taken up at this meeting. Page I 1 January 13, 2016 To: Reading Boards, Committees and Other Volunteers From: Mark Dockser, Chair, Reading Finance Committee Subject: January 20, 2016 Financial Forum Following up from the discussions at our last Financial Forum held in October 2015, both the Selectmen and FinComm have started discussions about anticipated shortfalls in the town's operating budget starting with FY'l7. We highlighted needs on both the town and school sides and our inability to offer even level services going forward without new sources of revenue, and specifically looking at an operating override. It has been and continues to be our belief that the only long term viable option to provide the level of services that Reading is demanding is an operating override in the near term and that the taxpayers need to be presented with this option soon. FinComm has sponsored a series of meetings focusing on services that the town desires /requires as well as new sources of revenue. Many of these have been implemented and have benefited the town already. But as we look at budgeting for FY'17, an activity that is already in full swing for both Town and Schools, and as we look beyond FY'17, FinComm needs to offer budget guidance to Town Meeting based on available revenues and its impact on the financial status of the Town. In order to frame the discussions for these activities going forward, FinComm suggests that in early 2016, we develop information for the taxpayers of the town to understand the budget situation, to discuss what level of services they will be desiring going forward, and to start a discussion of the options that are available and the recommendations of the town's elected and appointed officials. We have started to think about a "presentation" based on roughly 10 -12 key points that can provide context to taxpayers, present options, and let taxpayers ask questions and make comments about both our needs and our means to pay for those needs. Below is a first pass at the list of items that we think could help present the situation and options. The next financial forum is scheduled for Wednesday January 20, 2016 at 7:30 pm at the Pleasant Street Center. We are asking that each of the members of the various boards and committees as well as all interested taxpayers, review these in advance of our meeting so that we can have a very productive discussion at the forum and beyond as we reach out to the enfire town. Thank Youl H Discussion Topics: 1. What challenges do our current pay scales present to the Schools and the Town? How have the Schools and Town been able to attract and /or retain employees? In what ways have the Schools and Town not been able to do so? What has caused certain positions to go unfilled? 2. Understanding use of Free Cash and its impact on the operating budget. FinComm believes it is important to share with and explain to residents our financial situation in terms of the annual operating budget, our capital needs and plans, as well as the reserves that we maintain. Reserves are held to fund specific projects as well as to be available for unanticipated events like heavy snow or litigation and related fees for example. We intend to include a few paragraphs that explain this, highlighting both the need and the prudence to use some free cash to support the operating budget as we have done in the last several years, but that this is not a long term fix for the shortfalls we face in the operating budget. 3. Average tax bill by community chart— taxes vs. assessed value of median home Reading currently is slightly below the trend line for taxes paid for a single family home when compared to peer communities. Taxes Paid vs. Single Family Home Assessed Value rvu M u Aq Tee L9nror8 902 M3 2890 - Wun9bn UA.068 13.191 14.000 a.MVrt 8.7.929 19.938 13 O -- ■ W,4CM4W 672.118 lose 17'M a MOwx 377.689 8848 Sl'� a■ Ba4b4 u8.699 8807 r+e88009 493,70 8M2 14.440 - - -- Llr~` 89.557 8.01 9'M wwcm 4w u2 7.w 9ma„LU 4".M 2,21 N biOmx 476,092 6.65, TM ""m-25 4P 261 6.934 6.= WiaEld 416013 5.8W a 000 - -. 9yyl,yn 42488 5411 TM 33i.45 S.M 4.000 300,400 400A0o 500.000 600.400 700.400 (00,000 900.000 1.000.000 u+c m,w M1M3 5030 O Data: Use DOR data from peer Communities north & west of Boston, as defined by independent: consultants in the town's last two pay & Class studies; exclude aurlington, Danvers, Wilmington and Westborough because they have larger commercial tax bases fault 3M+ versus <1M in Reading) Assumption Assessed values of single family homes (SF) serve as a proxy for services provided by town & schools SF property, taxes represent the cast of receiving those services Conclusion: Using 2015 data, Reading remained slightly below the trendllne in taxes levied for the seines provided Using 2016 data fa Reading, values increased by 535,249 or +7.6% Using estimated 2016 pre Tax Classification data fa Reading, taxes increased by 5424 or +61% the reason for this large tax increase was the impact of the Ubrary project debt exclusion It appears that even with the Impact of the debt exclusion, Reading will remain below trendllne Study the communities above for those most often cited by residents when ducussms, what qualM and quantity, ofsemices they demand 4. Expectation ofservices in the community. Over the last 4 years, FinComm has sponsored a series of Financial Forums for residents, elected and appointed officials, and town department heads to discuss both the services that they desire as well as to look for opportunities to cut costs as well as enhance revenue. Many of these suggestions have been implemented by town officials resulting in higher efficiency as well as improved revenues. This has offered a start, but one that must be expanded. Reading is at a crossroads regarding the services the community expects and their cost. We are a community recognized for excellent schools, strong community services and for being well managed. We are enjoying higher property values and residents that are and want to age in place. We are also facing challenges in our operating budget that require either higher revenues to support the services that we offer or cuts in those services. FinComm believes that it will be critical and helpful to speak with residents to better understand their needs and desires for services in the future as well as their willingness to pay for those services. 5. Prop 2 1/2— Over the years since its enactment, Proposition 2 % has constrained the growth in spending at the local level as was the original intent. Unfortunately, many changes have occurred since it was originally approved by voters in 1980. • On the revenue side, constraints have come from the limitation on increases in property tax rates, coupled with the decrease in state aid to local cities and towns. In addition, Reading has a very limited amount of commercial and industrial property which makes us more reliant on residential property taxes than many of our peer communities. O • On the spending side, costs that are outside the control of the town -- predominately healthcare, the need to fund pensions, the growing liability for OPEB - other post employment retirement benefits, as well as funding for Chapter 766 [out -of- district special education placements] and other state and federally mandated programs -- continue to rise at a higher rate than revenue. The result is a squeeze on Reading's operating budget, making it more and more difficult to provide existing services, let alone fund additional services demanded by an aging population 6. What budget would be required for FY'17 to achieve level services for Town and Schools? What percentage increase over the FY'16 budget would be necessary? 7. Details of a potential override Building from the earlier questions above, if we are to maintain services at a level similar to what is currently offered or if we are to offer a higher level of services, the Town needs additional revenue to pay for these services. At 2014 and 2105 Town Meetings, recent meetings of the Selectmen, meetings of the Finance Committee, and at recent Financial Forums, discussion of a proposed operating override has been an important topic of discussion. FinComm believes it is critical to review both short term and long terms needs if the town is to propose an override. Questions of how large of an override, when it should be proposed, how long of a period should it cover our anticipated needs for, and are there any specific capital needs that should be included in the proposal all need to be discussed thoroughly and in a timely manner. 8. Other options for raising sustainable revenue to support operating budgets In earlier Financial Forums, the attendees looked for other ways to fill the revenue gap and many ideas were put forth such as increases in user fees. But even if they were all able to be implemented, they would do little to offset the increases in expenditures and additional services that are being demanded of the town. The additional revenue demands are of a magnitude such that the small stopgap solutions will not be able to make up the shortfall. 9. Absent an Influx of new revenue to support level services, what budget cuts can and will be proposed in the budgets for the Schools and the Town? The School and Town budgets are being presented to the School Committee and Board of Selectman now for comment, review and then voting. 10. Long term town plans— economic development, capital, other Town and school officials and volunteers have been very actively translating their long term vision for the Town of Reading into a long term plan for our town. These plans require support O of townspeople in the form of time and as tax revenue. What are the operating as well as capital budget implications to support the long term plan? 11. Importance of good schools to sustain and grow property values There is a direct correlation between school performance and maintaining growth in property values. In a 2013 Realtor.com survey of 1,000 home buyers, they found that found that half of the home- buying population is willing to pay more than their intended budget to get into the right school district, and more than half would give up other amenities. One out of five of those surveyed said they would pay between six and ten percent more for a home — and one out of ten people surveyed said they'd go even higher, paying up to 20 percent more for a home with access to good schools. _ 12. What is the best way to get more people In the community aware and involved in this discussion of the need for additional funds to support the operating budget vs. cuts in services that will be required. This document/presentation is one of the ways we discussed. How do we get this out to the community? In order to raise community awareness, we need to reach the community groups affected by our services — schools, elder services, fire and safety, library, and maintenance of town roads and facilities among others. Need to brainstorm on how to share the information and proposals. Ob Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA Town Manager January 2016 oCD 5� 05 Overview Background Revenues Spending vs. Peer Communities Town Operating Budgets Requests Level Service Town Manager Other Budgets Town Total Budgets Shared Costs Enterprise Funds BACKGROUND FY13 -2.1% +3.60% $1.0 mil. +1.8% FY14 +1.5% +3.75% $1.05 mil. +2.8% FY15 +0.4% +3.50% $1.7 mil. +1.6% FY16 +4.4% +2.75% $1.5 mil. +2.9% FY17 ** +2.1% +3.39 °' $2.0 mil. +3.1% FY18* +6% -+1.0% $2.0 mil. +2.8% FY19* +6% -+0.5% $1.75 mil. +2.9% *estimates ** reduction in School out of district SPED: accom down 0.2 %; oper +0.2% BACKGROUND Constrained Revenue growth *FY15 statewide municipal revenue growth of 3.8% is the seventh consecutive year where growth lagged the historical Prop 21/2 era (1982 to 2009 average +5.29/q/year).' State: MA Proposition 21/2; State Aid lags Local: limited real estate to develop for New Growth: <10% CIP Expense growth beyond local control Unfunded state & federal mandates National Health Insurance markets Energy costs, snow & ice, out of district Special Education ... auurce: *Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation December 2015 CONSTRAINED REVENUES - TRICKLE DOWN Education Environ & Recr Health Care Human Service Infrastructure Law /Pub Safety LOCAL AID Other $8,881 355 11,810 4,409 2,389 3,056 2,090 5,513 3f�_.�i01 $7,740 -12.8% 212 -40.1% TOTAI S 4,109 -6.8% $8,881 355 11,810 4,409 2,389 3,056 2,090 5,513 3f�_.�i01 $7,740 -12.8% 212 -40.1% 19,401 +64.3% 4,109 -6.8% 2,323 -2.8% 2,655 -13.1% 1,022 -51.1% 5,012 -9.1% 42.47 -1 +10.3% Source: Massachusetts Budget & Policy Center - data adjusted for inflation CONSTRAINED REVENUES - PROP 21/2 Date $(mil.)Purpose Voters Yes Yes% 2014 57.11/ 25% 2,429 Y,p I112013 l.i.s Llwar) 18% 2,096 66.1:, April 2003 4.5 Override 48% 4,249 57.11/ Feb 2003 0.3 Sidewalks 50% 2,742 36.0% Feb 2003 54.7 Schools 50% 4,802 62.4% Feb 2003 2.5 Schools 50% 3,968 51.9% April 2002 0.8 Schools 39% 3,857 63.2% April 2002 ' 1% * *CPA 39% 2,931 49.3% April 2001 1.2 Override 43% 3,092 April 2001 9.1 *Schools 4,597 57 -4% March 2000 2.5 Override 55% 3,234 March 1993 2.4 Override 50% 3,900 52.4% March 1990 1.6 Override 3,025 39.2% ** Community Preservation Act: add 1% to tax levy °Affirmation of Town Meeting vote for Wood End inside the tax levy State: 2013 - present Prop 21/2 overrides & capital exclusions: 67% passed (only 56% for over $1 million) Source: MA Department of Revenue CONSTRAINED REVENUE GROWTH - LOCAL Comparative Lack of New Growth despite all -star Planning efforts Neighbors* +1.8% vs. Reading +1.2% ($300k average annual difference) 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 20032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016 *Wilmington +2.3 %; Lynnfield +2.0 %; Wakefield 1.9 %; North Reading 1.8 %; Stoneham 1.0% MA Department of Revenue J� Andover Natick Bedford North Andover Belmont North Reading Burlington Canton Shrewsbury Concord Stoneham Danvers Tewksbury Dedham Wakefield Lexington Walpole Lynnfield Westborough Mansfield Westford Marshfield Wilmington Milton Winchester 25 PEER COMMUNITIES emimte .�I l DO WE LOOK LIKE OUR PEERS? Population 25,327 24,836 Land Area 9.9 sq mi 16.9 sq mi Road miles 99.9 128.0 Budget $97.2 mil. $107.0 mil. Assessed Val. $4.0 bil. $4.6 bil. *EQV /capita $157k $187k Form of Gov't BOS/ BOS/72% Tn Mgr Tn Mgr & 28% Tn Adm *Equalized Valuations represent the full and fair cash value of all taxable property for each municipality DIFFERENCES IN OUR REVENUE BASE Tax Levy 60.5% 66.6 *less* Residential 91.4% 76.9% Residential $53.8 mil. $54.8 mil. on trendline CIP 8.6% 23.1% CIP $5.0 mil. $173 mil. $12.3 mil.1yr State Aid 13.7% 11.0% *more* Local Receipts 21.6% 17.5% *more* Other 4.2% 4.9% Peer Communities $14.60 SF home tax rate; $21.23 CIP tax rate Reading $14.70 SF home tax rate and $14.70 CIP tax rate DO WE SPEND MONEY DIFFERENTLY? Public Safety 9.2% 8.7% +0.5% Culture & 2.1% 1.7% +0.4% Recreation Education 39.3% 39.1'70. +0.2% DPW 5.1% 4.9% +0.2'/, Human Service 0.6% 0.7% -0.1% Fixed Costs & 17.7% 17.8 % -0.1% Debt Other (Ent Funds) 22.4% 22.8% —0.4% Gen'I Gov't 3.6% 4.3% -0.7% 4 No obvious sionificant differences - let's look more closely though PUBLIC SAFETY SPENDING % OF BUDGET VERSUS PER CAPITA INCOME 12.096 Public Safety 11.U°% 10.0% 9.096 8.0% 7.096 6.0% 5.0% 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 Reading on regression line - no real difference; 9.2% is above 8.7% Peer average without ALS costs &revenues; 11 of 25 Peers offer ALS level service CULTURE & RECREATIONAL SPENDING % OF BUDGET VERSUS PER CAPITA INCOME - - - -- - 4.0% Culture & Recreation 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 0.5% 0.096 35,000 45,000 55,000 65,000 75,000 85,000 95,000 105,000 Reading spends more (DLS: Library, Recreation, Parks, Museums & Historical) EDUCATION SPENDING % OF BUDGET VERSUS PER CAPITA INCOME 55.0% - - - Education 50.0% 45.0% • ♦ —� 40.0% • _ — 35.0% • •♦ 30.0% -� 35,000 45,000 55,000 65,000 75,000 85,000 95,000 105,000 Reading on regression line - no real difference; 39.3% is slightly above 39.1% Peer average EDUCATION SPENDING RECONCILE AVERAGE SPENDING LEVELS WITH LOW PER PUPIL SPENDING? Peer Communities have average 15.8% enrollment 4 Reading has an above average amount of enrollments Pop. Enroll % Enroll % Budget Pop. Enroll % Enroll % Budget Westford 23,265 5,139 22.1% 45.0% North Andover 29,217 4,795 16.4% 41.0% Lexington 32,650 6,785 20.8% 36.0% Walpole 24,818 3,946 15.9% 41.9% Winchester 22,079 4,505 20.4% 36.8% Natick 35,214 5,368 15.2% 34.2% Westborough 18,630 3,624 19.5% 44.4% Canton 22,221 3,326 15.0% 35.8% Bedford 13,975 2,522 18.0% 39.7% Wilmington 23,147 3,448 14.9% 44.0% Lynnfield 12,395 2,205 17.8% 43.9% Milton 27,270 4,011 14.7% 38.3% Andover 34,477 6,076 17.6% 42.3% Burlington 25,463 3,499 13.7% 39.7% Mansfield 23,566 4,144 17.6% 44.9% Wakefield 26,080 3,439 13.2% 31.7% Reading 25,327 4,407 17.4% 39.3% Danvers 27,483 3,588 13.1% 31.9% Belmont 25,332 4,283 16.9% 34.2% Tewksbury 30,107 3,658 12.1% 36.3% Marshfield 25,509 4,267 16.7% 44.4% Dedham 25,299 2,776 11.0% 31.5% North Reading 15,377 2,556 16.6% 38.8% Concord 19,285 2,114 11.0% 50.2% Shrewsbury 36,309 6,016 16.6% 43.4% Stoneham 21,734 2,317 10.7% 35.2% Peer Communities have average 15.8% enrollment 4 Reading has an above average amount of enrollments PUBLIC WORKS SPENDING % OF BUDGET VERSUS PER CAPITA INCOME ♦ Public Works- 8.00/0 7.0% 6.090 5.U% 4.0.t I_n% 35,000 45,000 55,000 65,000 75,000 85,000 95,000 105,000 Reading on regression line - no real difference; 5.1% is slightly above 4.9% Peer average HUMAN SERVICES SPENDING % OF BUDGET VERSUS PER CAPITA INCOME 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% 0.81yo 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% T Human Services ♦ ♦ N ♦ ♦ 0.0% , i i 35,000 45,000 55,000 65,000 75,000 55,000 95,000 105,000 Reading spends less (DLS: Health, Medical, COA, Youth, Veterans, Public Assistance) -> does not include RCASA DEBT SERVICE & FIXED COST SPENDING % OF BUDGET VERSUS PER CAPITA INCOME 26.0% Debt & Fixed Costs 24.0% - _ - 22.0% - 20.0% ♦ - ± - — 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% -__ - -- 12.0% - ♦ ♦ -- 10.0% * - -♦ .� -- 8.0% , -- -T -. -, 35,000 45,000 55,000 65,000 75,000 85,000 95,000 105,000 Reading spends more; 17.8% is above 17.7% Peer average GENERAL GOVT SPENDING % OF BUDGET VERSUS PER CAPITA INCOME Reading spends less; below 4.3% Peer average General Gov't 7.0% 6.0% 5-0% -.- ._ `/ 4.096 . ♦� �• 3-6 ♦ t 2.0% 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 Reading spends less; below 4.3% Peer average DO WE HAVE ENOUGH RESERVES? FREE CASH & STABILIZATION FUNDS VERSUS PER CAPITA INCOME 18.0% -- Free Cash & Stabilization 16.0% 14.0% 12.0 %. 10.0% - �J - -- - 8.0% - 6.0'/ ♦ ♦ 2.0% 0.096 35,000 45,000 55,000 65,000 75,000 85,000 95,000 105,000 DLS: Reading at 8.8% which is on trendline Town Operating Budgets Other Budgets Town Total Budgets FY17 TOWN OPERATING BUDGET REQUESTS ARE $1.6 MILLION ABOVE FUNDING LEVELS Admin Svcs pay & class Public Svcs Finance Police Dispatch Fi re Public Works Facilities Public Library TOTAL $2,211,171 0 1,403,844 784,222 4,757,882 555,664 4,623,785 2,980,102 1,594,919 1,486,775 $20,398,367 $2,484,848 260,000 1,493,019 792,150 5,034,100 618,750 4,841,055 3,016,676 1,792,515 1,620,335 $21,953,448 $273,677 260,000 89,175 7,928 276,218 63,086 217,270 36,574 197,596 133,560 —$1.6 mil. *School SPED change adds $19,200 to Target budget that is not shown FY17 TOWN OPERATING BUDGET LEVEL SERVICE IS $0.7 MILLION ABOVE FUNDING LEVELS Admin Svcs pay & class Public Svcs Finance Police Dispatch Fire Public Works Facilities $2,211,171 0 1,403,844 784,222 4,757,882 555,664 4,623,785 2,980,102 1,594,919 75 67 $2,298,475 260,000 1,458,125 788,300 4,875,000 565,150 4,654,950 2,978,455 1,666,955 1,543,500 $21,088,910 $87,304 260,000 54,281 4,078 117,118 9,486 31,165 (1,647) 72,036 56,725 $ 0.7 mil. HOW TO BALANCE THE BUDGET? Town Manager's Considerations 1. Do not add staff even for level service if staff reductions are needed 2. Staff Retention /Compensation COLA 2% slight help to all non - unions, three year now comparable to town unions Fund additional pay & class improvements Equalize 40hr work weeks as needed (Public Works & Public Safety) Not yet done - Personnel Policies coming to BOS summer 2016 3. Maintain Services -for "one last time" Any reductions of staff should be designed to have minimal service impact 4. Reduce Expenses Realistic but not'cushioned' Some one time expenses funded mid -year (except elections which are fully funded) FY17 TOWN MGR'S TOWN OPERATING BUDGET 'CUT' $0.7 MILLION FROM LEVEL SERVICE Admin Svcs $2,211,171 $2,213,775 pay & class 0 75,000 Public Svcs 1,403,844 1,385,125 Finance 784,222 781,300 Police 4,757,882 4,796,250 Dispatch 555,664 565,150 Fire 4,623,785 4,591,950 Public Works 2,980,102 2,869,255 Facilities 1,594,919 1,626,955 Public Library 1,486,775 1,483,500 TOTAL $20,398,367 $20,388,260 Coordinator; Eliminate ACO (regional); Do ($84,700) Defer needed technology hardware; Do not hire Software Coordinator (185,000) Fund about 1/3 of pay required to achieve average Peer levels (73,000) Eliminate Planning Intern; Eliminate Health Restaurant Plan Inspector (regional); Do not hire 3rd Planner (7,000) Continue to share clerical (78,750) Eliminate open spare Crossing Guard position; Eliminate RCASA Youth Coordinator; Eliminate ACO (regional); Do not add Officer 0 (63,000) Do not add Firefighter (109,200) Eliminate Engineer; Eliminate Eng. Intern; Do not add Hwy Laborer (40,000) Fund none of the $165,000 painting requests - should fund over four years (60,000) Do not add Digital Services Librarian ($700,650) FY17 TOWN MGR'S TOWN OPERATING BUDGET DEPARTMENT REQUESTS ABOVE (` +') LEVEL SERVICE NOT FUNDED Admin Svcs $2,213,775 $186,373 Less COLA for all non -union staff (for all depts); Defer new technology; no TLT legal funding; no new HR initiatives or training pay & class 75,000 Public Svcs 1,385,125 34.894 Use more offsets; less Code Enforcement Finance 781,300 3,850 Police 4,796,250 159,100 Do not add second SRO; less OT/ Training; no promotional costs (midyear) Dispatch 565,150 53,600 Do not add Dispatcher; less OT /Training Fire 4,591,950 186,105 Do not add two additional firefighters Public Works 2,869,255 38,221 Do not add second Co-op student TOWN OPERATING BUDG TOWN MANAGER'S BUDGET Do Nothing: recent historic revenue growth Eliminate Services Reduce quantity of Services Reduce quality of Services Reduce staff 'depth' (Public Works, Public Safety, Public Go Forward: additional revenues $700,000 /year for level services; $1.6 million /year for services the community may well desire; $TBA for community desires not qualifying for Dept. requested budgets FY17 TOWN TOTAL BUDGETS OPERATING + ACCOMMODATED Admin Svcs pay & class Public Svcs Finance Police Dispatch Fire Public Works *Facilities Public Library TOTAL $2,737,117 0 1,606,500 845,775 4,597,425 536,925 4,473,105 3,281,662 2,977,012 1,436,634 $22,492,155 $2,658,775 75,000 1,621,125 781,300 4,796,250 565,150 4,591,950 3,349,665 3,140,680 1,483,500 $23,063,395 *excludes School Buildings - see next slide -2.9% +100% +0.9% -7.6% +4.3% +5.3% +2.7% +2.1% +5.5% +3.3% +2.5% FY17 FACILITIES BUDGET Facilities CORE *Operating Accommodated Town Buildings (Operating) School Buildings (Operating) $4,195,666 $4,332,190 +3.3% 2,684,178 2,853,790 +6.3% 1,252,626 1,340,065 +7.0% 1,435,044 1,513,725 +5.4% 292,835 286,890 -2.0% 1,218,653 1,191,510 -1.9% * note the Town absorbed $45k in additional costs above FINCOM guidance (in part due to adding Mattera Cabin & the Cemetery Garage) �� a o� ,` o° L 5y _ � FY17 TOWN & SCHOOL SHARED COSTS A PORTION OF THE ACCOMMODATED COSTS Benefits $14,965,743 $15,988,500 +6.8% Pension & OPEB 4,037,154 4,198,000 +3.8% Health /Life Ins. 9,761,089 10,560,500 +8.2% Other 1,167,500 1,230,000 +5.4% Capital & Debt 7,400,791 6,970,000 -5.8% Vocational Education 490,350 518,350 +5.7% FINCOM Reserves 150,000 150,000 0% State Assessments* 628,284 644,000 +2.5% TOTAL $23,635,168 $24,270,850 +2.7% *estimate - netted out from State Aid FY17 ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGETS Water (net) $5,500,300 $5,907,662 +7.4% Sewer (net) 5,871,731 6,021,693 +2.6% Combined $11,372,031 11,929,355 +4.9% Storm Water (net) $350,800 $382,411 +9.0% Assumes use of $325k water reserves and $115k storm water reserves in FY17; Water /Sewer budgets /rates up about 5% combined; $40 /household charge for storm water holds FY1S - FY20 ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGETS Water (net) +6.4% +6.6% +4.3% $1.1million Sewer (net) +6.3% +6.3% +8.7% $875k Combined +6.3% +6.5% +6.5% $2 million Storm Water $80 /household $80 /household $80 /household $1101k (net) FY18 $6.5 million of Capital Projects financed as debt: Water: $1.2 million water tank; $0.6 million Grove St. repairs Sewer: $3.0 million sewer station repairs (Charles St. and Sturges) Storm Water: $1.7 million drainage (Main St; Minot St, Sturges Park, Grove St *Projected remaining Reserves for FY21: Water $1.8 million; Sewer $1.9 million; Storm Water $0.