Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-20 RMLD Audit Committee Minutes�y P R r Town of Reading Meeting Minutes ..twoaa°�� Board - Committee - Commission - Council: RMLD Board of Commissioners Date: 2016-10-20 Building: Reading Municipal Light Building Address: 230 Ash Street Purpose: General business. Attendees: Members - Present: Messrs. Pacino and Stempeck Members - Not Present: Others Present: Audit Committee Time: 6:30 PM Location: Conference Room Session: Open Session Version: Final Mr. O'Rourke, Mses. O'Brien, Foti, Parenteau and Schultz, Town of Reading Audit Committee Members: Messrs. McNeice, Berman and Herrick Melanson Heath: Messrs. Biron and Fentross Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Philip B. Pacino, RMLD Board Chairman Topics of Discussion: Call Meeting to Order. Chairman Pacino called the meeting to order at 6:40 pm. Mr. McNeice, Town of Reading Audit Committee called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Melanson Heath Audit Findings Frank Biron, President, Melanson Heath, introduced himself and Zachary Fentross, the supervisor who performed the RMLD audit. Mr. Biron explained that he would be going over highlights from the June 30, 2016 audited financial statements. Mr. Biron pointed out that they completed the RMLD audit by June 30, which is the first June 30 audit they have completed this year. This makes a statement as to how well the books are maintained by RMLD. Mr. Biron then addressed the Independent Auditors' Report. Mr. Biron stated that his firm was hired to provide an opinion on RMLD's financial statements and whether they are in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. RMLD was given an unmodified opinion, which is the best opinion that can be received from an outside independent auditor. The following were addressed: Management Discussion and Analysis, which is a brief narrative overview of the results of operations. It provides highlights, trend information, financial information and capital assets. Statements of Net Position, which summarizes the assets, liabilities, and the equity of the Department as of June 30, 2016. RMLD's numbers, as compared between 2015 and 2016, were consistent and strong. The Department is in a very strong financial position. The only thing that is slightly negative, which is beyond RMLD's control, is the Net Pension Liability. The Unrestricted Cash balance of about $13 million in 2016 was the same as the previous year which reflects a strong cash balance. Receivables were $8.2 million, and the prior year was $7.3 million. The RMLD does a very good job in collecting its receivables because there are very few delinquent accounts. Page 1 1 Melanson Heath Audit Findings Noncurrent Restricted Cash and Short Term Investments, $21 million and $1 million consistent with the prior year. These are broken down in the Financial Statements captured under the footnote Restricted Cash and Investments. The RMLD is in a strong position with Sick Leave Benefits and Buybacks because they have money set aside. Mr. McNeice asked on the Hazardous Waste Fund has there been any activity? Mr. Biron replied that there has not been any activity. Mr. Biron then addressed the Capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation in which there was a $2 million increase from 2015. There were fixed asset additions of $6 million (poles, transformers, circuit breakers, street lights) and depreciation of $4 million. Deferred Outflows of Resources, $6.3 million which is directly related to the Pension. A year ago, was the first year when the Net Pension Liability had to be reported due to Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 68 which requires the employer's share of their liability be reported on the balance sheet. Prior to this it was a footnote disclosure. Deferred Inflows and Outflows of Resources is defined as if there any changes in assumptions in the net Pension Liability per GASB 68 which are calculated by actuaries who follow various assumptions to estimate and determine what the net Pension Liability will be. Changes reported in the Deferred Inflows and Outflows are amortized over a five-year period. Mr. Stempeck asked this is based on the fluctuation with the interest rates. Mr. Biron concurred. The earnings goal was 7 3/ percent earnings; however, the actual earnings were only Y4 of a percent. It was brought down to 7.65 percent and salary increases the combination of those two. This represents an impact of $2.9 million after taking one year of the amortization. Mr. McNeice asked if it is due to the change in the number of employees. Mr. Biron responded that was not part of the issue. The $1.5 million will be there annually to reflect what the RMLD paid into the system and will be consistent. The Net Pension Liability is $8,833,549, compared to 2015 when it was about $4.5 million; it almost doubled; which could occur in this year. Mr. Stempeck clarified when does GASB consider the projected return rate of 6.7 percent. Mr. Biron explained that is on a community by community basis, GASB does not speak to what projected rate of return is going to be, it would be the Retirement Board. Mr. Stempeck added that no one has made 7 percent in the marketplace even for businesses in the last five years. Mr. Biron added that most communities are in the same projected range for the rate of return. Mr. Biron said that the Pension Liability has the biggest fluctuation in the financial statements which is out of your control. Mr. Biron continued, pointing out that the RMLD has had a profitable year as it has in the past few years. For the liabilities, they are consistent with happened in prior year. The OPEB and Pension Trust were timing issues. Non -Current Liabilities are accrued employee compensated absences of $2.8 million which is comparable to the prior year. No liability is being reported for OPEB (Other Post -Employment Benefits) because the Department has been setting aside money into a trust fund equal to what the actuaries suggested. According to GASB 45, which applies to OPEB, it states that you have an actuarial valuation performed with a thirty-year funding schedule. The RMLD has set aside the $2.5 million that the actuary found in its valuation that is required. However, there is going to be a change in accounting standards in two years. In 2018, Government Accounting Standard Board (GASB) Statement 75 will replace GASB Statement 45, and will require that the entire actuarially calculated liability of OPEB (health employment benefits for retired employees) be reported, just as the net pension liability is currently reported. If there is no additional funding, the unfunded amount, that does not currently appear on RMLD's financial statements, will be there in two years, and will appear as a $6 million liability. Mr. McNeice asked if it stays funded, will it appear as an asset or liability; or would it net down. Mr. Biron responded it will net down. In theory if you fund the $6 million you would not have anything on this page. Mr. Biron reported that the RMLD does not have any bonds payable. RMLD is in a very strong financial position, it does not have any debt other than the net pension liability and compensated absences sick leave for employees. The additions to the fixed assets have been accomplished through revenues. Page 1 2 Melanson Heath Audit Findings Deferred Inflows of Resources of $883,172 is all pension related. This represents the difference between expected and actual experience. Net Investment in capital assets of $72.2 million which is a direct offset of the fixed assets. Restricted for depreciation fund of $4.4 million is the amount in cash in the restricted cash set aside in the depreciation fund. Unrestricted Net Position is $28.1 million. The bottom line is the Department is in a very strong financial position. Mr. Berman entered the meeting. Mr. Biron then referred to the Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in New Position. Purchase of power in fiscal year 2016 is $63 million versus $61 million in fiscal year 2015. The numbers were consistent with the previous year, revenues up despite the number of kilowatt hours sold going down about two percent. It is not easy to estimate the purchase power costs, but the RMLD has done a very good job of being consistent year to year. The operating expense increased by $1.2 million which is attributable to GASB 68 due to the pension plan. There is not a lot of fluctuation in RMLD's expenses on an annual basis. Depreciation expense is $3.9 million, similar to last year. The RMLD took three percent of its fixed assets which gets put aside into the depreciation cash account which is used for future capital outlays. Operating income is $4.6 million is consistent year to year. The return on investment to the Town of Reading, $2.3 million calculated number which goes back to an original 1998 agreement, it goes up each year based on the Consumer Price Index. Mr. Berman asked if this calculation has been looked at recently, and is it an ongoing agreement. Mr. Biron replied that it is an ongoing agreement. Mr. Pacino explained that this is an ongoing agreement and there is a subcommittee that exists consisting of the following members: two Board of Commissioners, two Town of Reading, Board of Selectmen and one Citizens' Advisory Board. Mr. Pacino said that as far as the calculation is concerned no one has come up with a better idea, and it has been looked at four times. Mr. Berman added that when this calculation was performed, the CPI may have been increasing three to five percent. Chairman O'Rourke asked Mr. Biron to clarify the voluntary payments to the towns. Mr. Biron responded that it is based on kilowatt hours sold. Mr. Pacino added it is called the above -the - line -payment. It is based on the kilowatt sales for each of the towns RMLD serves which was put in place because of the Twenty Year Agreement. Chairman O'Rourke clarified that the Town of Reading receives two payments. Mr. Pacino concurred they do receive two payments because they funded the assets. Chairman O'Rourke said that the $1.4 million is distributed amongst the four towns. The Town of Reading receives $2.3 million plus a percentage of its kilowatt hour sales. Mr. Herrick entered the meeting. Change in Net Position or Net Income, prior year was $3.2 million, $3.4 million this year, showing very strong operating results. Mr. Biron noted that the RMLD can only make eight percent maximum on its fixed assets. One of the biggest components of that calculated number is the return on investment to the Town of Reading for $2.3 million. The RMLD at $3.3 million is almost at the maximum with the room of $300,000 to go higher. Mr. Berman asked if the number were higher would it go back to the ratepayers. Mr. Biron said that it would. Mr. Pacino explained that if the RMLD exceeds the eight percent there are options such as refunding it to the ratepayers, or to help fund such items as the OPER. The Pension Trust $1.5 million is from the Income Statement and Investment Income $123,983 in which $1.464 million was paid from the trust to the town's retirement system. This leaves $5.6 million on hand which is invested in fixed income securities. Chairman O'Rourke asked who has fiduciary authority to change those funds, and is it dictated. Mr. Pacino said that this is on the town's advice. Mr. Biron said the funds are in MMDT's and CD's which earn one half to three quarters percent. Chairman O'Rourke asked if it is a good strategy. Mr. Stempeck added that Mr. O'Rourke is thinking in terms of higher investments. Mr. Pacino cautioned against speculation. Mr. Biron added that PERAC (state) determines what employers pay that is the RMLD's share. The actuaries determine the amount, $8.8 million is RMLD's share of the unfunded net pension liability. Mr. Biron pointed out that the poor investment results cause the liability to go up during a year. It was projected to earn seven and three quarters percent, whereas the investment results were three quarters of a percent, which is why the liability doubled. On a town, wide basis, a year ago the overall system was funded at eighty percent per the actuary's calculation, and a year later was at seventy two percent. Mr. Herrick asked if it is the lack of funding. Mr. Biron responded it has to do with investment results. The OPEB trust contribution $308,975 came in from operations, which is the amount the actuary determined had to be funded, and the RMLD funded the exact amount. The contribution plus $13,928 in investment income leaves a balance of $2,525,843. Page 1 3 Melanson Heath Audit Findings When GASB 75 comes out in two years, there will be an additional liability of $6 million for OPEB which is unfunded at this point. Mr. Stempeck added this will ripple through municipals everywhere. Mr. Biron agreed. Mr. Biron concluded that RMLD's numbers are strong, RMLD is in a strong financial position. Cash balances are good. Money is set aside for future purposes. Receivables are in very good shape, no debt, no bonds payable. The OPEB is funded in accordance with the older standards, GASB 45. The pension liability doubled, but the Town of Reading's retirement system is in much better shape than most municipalities in Massachusetts where it is at high seventies, most are in the sixty to seventy percent rate. Chairman O'Rourke congratulated Ms. O'Brien said that there was a smooth transition from Bob Fournier to Wendy Markiewicz. Also, extending her thanks to Messrs. Biron and Fentross. The transition in accounting is working well, and Ms. Parenteau is known nationwide for her power supply abilities and Mr. Jaffari has been addressing the system and maintenance in cyclic order. Chairman O'Rourke added there has been a lot of work on infrastructure which will pay off over the years. Mr. Pacino asked the RMLD should handle finance leases. Mr. Biron responded that he could not provide a definitive answer on that as there are capital leases that are recorded. Mr. Fentross asked Mr. Pacino for further clarification. Mr. Pacino said that a new standard on capital leases is to come into effect at the end of 2017, and the RMLD has a lease with the Barbas building that will have to be capitalized. If you lease a property and it is large enough you may have to capitalize it. Mr. Biron explained that they have not at this point. Mr. Pacino commented if there is anything they recommend the Department do going forward. Mr. Biron said that he will connect with the Department on that issue. Mr. McNeice commented that it is nice to hear that this is the first audit that Melanson Heath has completed at this early a date. Were there any observations or questions that have not been asked? Mr. Biron responded, no, if there were any serious issues they would be reported in a Management Letter. There are always areas of housekeeping recommendations made to management and are taken very seriously. The transition this year in the Business Management position can be a concern, but in this case because Ms. Markiewicz knows her stuff. The accounting records will be continued to be maintained well as they have been in the past. Mr. Pacino made a motion that the Town of Reading Audit Committee accept the Audit as presented by Melanson and Heath seconded by Mr. Berman. Motion carried 4:0:0. Mr. Pacino made a motion that the RMLD Board of Commissioners Audit Committee accept the Audit as presented by Melanson and Heath seconded by Mr. Stempeck. Motion carried 2:0:0. At 7:30 p.m. Mr. Pacino made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 2:0:0. At 7:30 p.m. Mr. McNeice made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4:0:0. Page 1 4