Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-12-19 Finance Committee MinutesOF q O� F c B39r 1NCONPO� Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Finance Committee Date: 2017-12-19 Building: Reading Public Library 2018 JAN 25 A c� 50 i Time: 7:00 PM Location: Conference Room Address: 64 Middlesex Avenue Session: Purpose: Attend Selectmen Budget Meeting Version: Attendees: Members - Present: Chair Peter Lydecker, Mark Dockser, Eric Burkhart, Anne Landry, Vanessa Alvarado Members - Not Present: Paul McNeice, Paula Perry, Marc Moll, David Neshat Others Present: Town Manager Bob LeLacheur, Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Administrative Assistant to the Town Manager Brendan Sweeney, Police Chief Mark Segalla, Director of Facilities Joe Huggins, Assistant Director of Facilities Kevin Cabuzzi, Bob Holmes, Deputy Fire Chief Paul Jackson, Finance Director Sharon Angstrom, Assistant Finance Director Endri Kume, Superintendent of Schools John Doherty, School Director of Finance Gail Dowd, Director of Public Works Jeff Zager, Administrative Services Director Matt Kraunelis, Bill Brown, George Kachen, Elaine Webb, John Andresen, Loran Andresen, Emily Ryan, Carolyn Mertz, Nick Marrangoni, Michele Sanphy, Matt McLeod, Christen Pegoraro, Todd Merkle, Ellen Brogan, Nicole Heffernan, Ashley Quinn, Linda Phillips, Jennifer Kane, John Arena, Barry Berman, Dan Ensminger, John Halsey, Andy Friedmann Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Brendan Sweeney Topics of Discussion: Board of Selectmen Chair John Arena called their meeting to order at 7:00 PM, beginning the budget presentations before a quorum of the Finance Committee was present. After brief introductory remarks from the Selectmen the budget presentations began, with the Facilities department first to present. Facilties Mr. Huggins introduced himself, and explained how the mission of the Facilities Department is to support the education of Reading students as well as the functions of the Reading town government. He then identified the breakdown in department expenditures. As most of his department's concerns revolve around the maintenance of Town and School buildings, Mr. Huggins looked at spending per building and also at a breakdown of the spending per square foot in each of the Town and School buildings. Mr. Huggins then moved into the explanation of recent technological updates in the department, noting how all the modules in their new program are now fully implemented. Going more into depth off of his early square footage breakdown Mr. Huggins began to look at specific water, sewage, electrical, and natural gas usage by each building, using this to highlight recent energy efficiency measures and how they've saved the town money in certain areas. Specifically energy efficiency measures in electricity have the Town buildings combined using 93,439 kw/h less Page I 1 and the School buildings using a 2,241,400 kw/h combined less. Mr. Berman asked Mr. Huggins to monetize these savings. Mr. LeLacheur then spoke, noting that these energy efficiency measures were initially a $5 Million investment that is allocated as a $400 Thousand cost in the capital plan each year (spread out for another seven years or so), however, the yearly savings amount to around $750 Thousand. Mr. LeLacheur additionally added that these savings are magnified as they are savings in the yearly operational budget, and the costs are diminished as they are allocated to the capital plan. Mr. Berman inquired as to whether the town should look to make another energy efficiency investment in the near future, which Mr. LeLacheur responded that it would be worthwhile to look at, but would require a commitment by the town to a somewhat intense process. On the topic of energy efficiency Mark Dockser of 110 Beaver Road chimed in and stated that the LED light efficiency difference is notable and he implored the town to look into making the transition. Additionally a member of the audience asked Mr. LeLacheur about looking into solar panels for the schools, to which Mr. LeLacheur responded that the cost savings is almost non-existent and unfortunately the school roofs cannot sustain solar panels at this time. Mr. LeLacheur did, however, note that RMLD has been testing the waters with solar panels in Wilmington. Mr. Huggins then shifted his presentation towards a focus on work orders processed, noting the FY16 number of 2,381 work orders process that year and the FY17 number of 2,599 work orders processed. Looking beyond these numbers Mr. Huggins identified that the hiring of a new carpenter has been beneficial to the department, as the electrician and plumber are now freed up to move beyond some work orders that they had previously been assigned to and can now focus on their specialized jobs. He concluded by outlining some of the mandated tasks that facilities must complete, such as facility maintenance and fire safety inspections, among others. Mr. Berman asked Mr. Huggins if there was anything his department would love to add if the funds are available, and Mr. Huggins responded by noting that in an ideal world he'd like to add another HVAC mechanic, however current market salaries for the position make it a tough add at this time. Elaine Webb, 309 Pearl Street, questioned some notable increases in the elevator line item of the facilities budget, and Mr. Huggins noted that this was not because of a tangible change but rather a transition in how related cost were accounted for. At this time, 7:35 PM, with a quorum now present, Peter Lydecker called the Finance Committee meeting to order. Capital Plan Mr. LeLacheur, along with Superintendent John Doherty, then shifted the meeting to the discussion of the 10 year Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. LeLacheur noted that we have $1.87M allocated to this plan for FY18 and a projected $1.51 for FY19. He then broke the overview of the capital plan into three categories: inside of the tax levy, outside of the tax levy, and not yet planned. The not yet planned category was only briefly touched upon, however, and contained just the potential community center. Mr. LeLacheur then outlined where upcoming projects fell in that regard as of right now, with the town Infrastructure repairs, the DPW move, and the first stage of building security improvements under the category of "inside the levy", and the Killam School renovations, RMHS Athletic Field improvements, and the remainder of building security improvements under the "outside of the levy" category. Mr. LeLacheur then began outlining details of the projects that are planned to be funded within the levy, noting specifically that the reason that a big project like the DPW move is able to be funded within the levy is due to the fact that the costs of the project are being spread out through 25 or so years and that other towns (at the very least Wakefield) will be participating in the project as well. Mr. LeLacheur then began explaining the projects to be funded outside levy, touching on the RMHS Athletic field improvements. He broke down each specific improvement (turf, track, bleachers, etc.) but noted that although these incremental improvements can be done in any order, it will be tough to try and fund the project overall within the levy. Mr. LeLacheur estimated these repairs to total around $8.7 Million. Page 1 2 Mr. Doherty then took his turn as speaker, honing in on the JW Killam Elementary School portion of the Capital Improvement Plan. He began by noting first off the great work that the Facilities Department has done to keep the schools up and running. He then talked about the need for numerous repairs to the Killam School, initiating that conversation by first talking about the role of the MSBA (Massachusetts School Building Authority) in the process and the potential for available funding from them. The MSBA conducted surveys of all of the schools in the state that were older than 10 years old in 2010 (7 of the 8 Reading Schools were looked at) and graded them on a scale of 1 to 4, 1 being the best 4 being the worst, in various categories. Of the Reading schools Killam received the worst grade, a 3, when being graded on the school building itself. The reasoning for this being that the building is quite old (built in 1969), but also has notable deficiencies including: handicap inaccessibility, traces of lead in the water, aging windows and doors, as well as a few others. The school does not suffer from other factors, however, such as an unsafe environment or overcrowding. After the Killam assessment Mr. Doherty then moved into a broader outlook, noting how the town needs to create an overall plan for improvements, including the most pressing needs of the Killam school, which should be initiated by a feasibility study of the entire Reading School system's capital plan. Mr. Halsey chimed in and noted the importance of outlining each aspect of capital spending while creating the feasibility study so that the taxpayers know specifically where their money is going. Going off of Mr. Doherty's point about the capital improvements feasibility study Mr. Berman inquired where exactly the money would come from, to which Mr. LeLacheur noted that most of this would have to be acted upon by the School Committee. Jennifer Kane, 143 Wakefield Street, spoke on Mr. Doherty's earlier point about the MSBA ratings, noting that 1.2% of MA schools were rated as a 4 and 15% were rated as a 3. Ms. Kane noted that this puts Killam in the bottom 16% of MA schools in this rating system, and as the High School received MSBA funding with a 3 rating Ms. Kane argued that Killam should pursue MSBA funding for repairs and that these repairs should be a higher priority than any athletic field repairs needed. Mr. Doherty did highlight, however, that the standards used when the High School applied for funding as a 3 have changed. Christen Pegoraro, a first -grade teacher at the Killam school, emphasized the need for repairs to the Killam school and noted how specific building conditions have created distractions in the classrom. As the question of what fits inside and outside of the levy was brought up again, Mr. LeLacheur noted that FINCOM has guidelines for what capital expenditures should be covered inside and outside of the levy, but in general he stated that it is extremely tough to try and cover a large-scale building project completely within the tax levy. Further questions were brought up with regards to a potential feasibility study itself, including how much a feasibility study would cost, what external factors would be taken into account, and where the money for such a study would come from. Mr. LeLacheur responded by highlighting that the School Committee and Permanent Building Committee would need to have a joint meeting in which the specifics behind a feasibility study were discussed. Michelle Sanphy, 75 Glenmere Circle, asked for clarification on the difference in timelines between applying for MSBA funding and conducting a full-scale feasibility study, to which Mr. Doherty responded that a feasibility study is a more efficient and concise way to address immediate needs while the MSBA application process may take a few years. Vanessa Alvarado, 5 Grand Street, asked a few general questions about the capital planning process, including why the DPW project could potentially fit inside of the tax levy as well as who determines the prioritization of capital projects. Mr. LeLacheur answered the DPW question by noting that the involvement of multiple towns as well as long-term planning allow the expense to be spread out through a number of years within the levy, and on the prioritization of capital projects Mr. LeLacheur noted that he had highlighted the pressing needs of the next 3-4 years, but that it is up to the community to decide which order they are acted upon. Page 1 3 After discussing the capital projects portion of the presentation Mr. LeLacheur moved on to shared costs with the majority of the focus on OPEB and other insurance related employee benefits. Mr. Friedmann observed that these costs are rising at more than 2.5% (in reference to the Proposition 2 1/2 restrictions) which Mr. LeLacheur affirmed. Mr. LeLacheur continued on this point by noting that 4% growth in these categories, which compared to other communities is a strong and manageable number, is still difficult for the town fiscally and that many communities who have not planned as well for these costs as Reading are facing severe fiscal consequences. Mr. LeLacheur concluded his presentation on shared costs by diving further into depth on the specific drivers of the budget numbers presented, such as the employee -employer split in retirement costs and the number of Reading students enrolled in regional vocational schools. Mr. Arena then gave his concluding remarks, highlighting how the process was created with the intention of garnering public input and fostering public participation in the budget creation process. Mr. Berman noted how much he has gained from this process, and Mr. LeLacheur implored the Selectmen to bring their comments on budget specifics from the presentations as well as comments on the process as a whole to their January 9th meeting. Ms. Landry made a motion to adiourn at 8:56 PM seconded by Ms Alvarado which passed by a vote of 5-0-0. The meeting was adjourned by Mr. Lydecker at 8:56 PM At the time the Board of Selectmen adjourned as well. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Page 1 4