Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-12 RMLD Board of Commissioners Minutes OFR F Town of Reading } y e Meeting Minutes C k- I V E TOWN CLIERK rs39p1Hco R E A D I NG, 5'�A. 'K j iBoard - Committee - Commission - Council: 2016 APR 24 AM 9; ! RMLD Board of Commissioners Date: 2018-03-12 Time: 07:30 PM Building: Reading Municipal Light Building Location: Winfred Spurr Audio Visual Room Address: 230 Ash Street Session: Open Session Purpose: General Business Version: Final Attendees: Members - Present: Philip B. Pacino, Chair David Hennessy, Vice Chair Tom O'Rourke, Commissioner John Stem peck,'Commissioner Dave Talbot, Commissioner Members - Not Present: Others Present: RMLD Staff: Coleen O'Brien, General Manager Hamid Jaffari, Director of Engineering and Operations Jane Parenteau, Director of Integrated Resources Wendy Markiewicz, Director of Business, Finance, and Technology Joyce Mulvaney, Communications Manager Tracy Schultz, Executive Assistant Citizens' Advisory Board: George Hooper, Chair Public: Dan Ensminger, Secretary, Reading Board of Selectmen Neil Cohen, Member, Citizens' Advisory Board Chris Pollart, KP Law, PC Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Philip B. Pacino, Secretary Pro Tem Topics of Discussion: Call Meeting to Order Chair Pacino called the meeting to order and announced that there is only one item on the Agenda and stated that all the members had not seen the proposal that was presented earlier in the evening; he had been misinformed. Chair Pacino then opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Discussion of Return on Investment to the Town of Reading Mr. O'Rourke stated that his current assessment is that he is not prepared to vote. While looking at the Town payment, is was discovered a few things along the way. One of these is the Page i 1 i Discussion of Return on Investment to the Town of Reading outcome of the White Paper, which clarifies what RMLD's obligations are. Secondly, when looking at the financials that were prepared in advance of an offer to the Town, there are - several areas of concern. One of these is declining revenues. Mr. O'Rourke stated that he is concerned if RMLD can't afford to pay Reading, giving more to the other Towns isn't going to help matters. Mr. O'Rourke stated he Wants to go on record as saying ;he's not against doing something; he wants to clearly think the matter through. The fundamental issue is the payment to the Town is a significant amount of money. Mr. O'Rourke stated that as a Reading resident he understands Reading's needs but would like to understand the motivation for the money better. Is it for a particular purpose? Want to do what's right for Reading, :but as Commissioners responsible for doing the right thing for the ratepayers, and the ratepayers include three other communities. It's a complicated issue. Mr. O'Rourke stated that he knows some of us feel obligated to push this through because we've been portrayed as being unresponsive. Mr. O'Rourke applauded Chair Pacino and Mr. Stempeck for all the work they've done, but stated this issue needs the input of all the Commissioners. Mr. O'Rourke stated that as a Commissioner, he's concerned that they don't know what the Town is looking for. Are they looking for payment because it's an entitlement or because they feel that we should help them in time of need? That need must be j quantified. The Board Members are commissioned to do the right thing by the ratepayers. The profit and loss for the Light Department is enviable; anything that changes that should"not be'done. Tough times are ahead; revenue is declining, and the Board has an obligation to protect the RMLD. Mr. O'Rourke asked that the Board not vote tonight. Chair Pacino asked if there were other comments. Mr. Stempeck stated that part of the issue is the process. Having the Sub-Committee Meeting and then the Board Meeting has not given enough time for discussion without a potential violation of Open Meeting Laws. Mr. Stempeck stated that he sees this as a narrative process. RMLD came up with trial balloon tonight.The Town will respond, and it will,go back and forth. Mr. Stempeck said that he agrees with Mr. O'Rourke, that they want to understand what the money is for and why those needs are there. The Board commissioned the White Paper-it lays out what a complicated situation was created. RMLD is a very economically conservative organization that services four towns. The White Paper makes it clear that selling the RMLD is not a possibility. There are too many complications because of existing partnerships and the assets are not what you think they are. Vice Chair Hennessy stated that he has a son in the school system and understands the financial pressure that Reading is under. Vice chair Hennessy stated that he would like to see an option that is a function of RMLD's operating profit, rather than the CPI. Mr. Talbot clarified that members of the Sub-Committee introduced a trial balloon as a viable contribution to the discussion. The Sub-Committee hasn't voted. One of RMLD's values is economic development due to its low electricity rates. Wilmington is trying to grow its industrial zone and is responsible for 56 percent of RMLD's electricity sales. Mr. Tdlbot stated that RMLD doesn't want to hurt the region's economic attractiveness with higher;rates. Mr. Talbot then expressed his interest in what Mr. Hooper's views are. Mr. Hooper future growth of Wilmington. The Town has great exposure ,off 93 and having low utility costs helps a lot. Mr. Hooper doesn't want to see anything negatively Impact rate payers. Mr.Talbot asked if Mr. Hooper had any thoughts on the trial balloon? Mr. Hooper responded that the Sub-Committee still needs to do some work. It's a starting point. Chair Pacino stated yes, this is a starting point, but he is committed to moing this forward. What was presented is fair. Hear what the Commissioners are saying; that they Want to think about this. Don't want to drag this on forever. Mr. O'Rourke stated that it would be useful to hear back from the Town before a vote. Page 1 2 • 0. Discussion of Return on Investment to the Town of Reading Chair Pacino stated that a proposal was put forward tonight. At the next meeting, the Board of Selectmen will say whether they agree or disagree, and whether they have any changes. Hopefully, the Sub-Committee will have a meeting of the minds and a final proposal that can go forward. Mr. Ensminger stated that the next scheduled Board of Selectmen meeting is March 27th. The next Sub-Committee meeting will happen before the Selectmen will have had a chance to meet. However, three members attended the Sub-Committee meeting earlier in the evening, and Mr. Ensminger is sure they'll have some thoughts. Mr. O'Rourke expressed concern that the offer will be taken as official; Commission hasn't voted on it. Mr. O'Rourke stated that if you look at RMLD's financials, it gives an idea of what we're up against. Per the White Paper, we're not required by law to give more. What is the specific need for the money? What makes this so compelling? Mr. Ensminger stated that this was due to an Instructional Motion; would have to ask the maker of the motion what he or she had in mind. We're the agent to carry out the Motion. Chair Pacino suggested assembling the Sub-Committee. Mr. Ensminger said that he can't really answer beyond what was said at Town Meeting. Mr. O'Rourke stated he hopes the Board of Selectmen will read the White Paper. There was discussion of forming another sub-committee because Ms. O'Brien's meeting one-on- one with the Commissioners was time consuming and only provided the input of one person. Mr. Talbot stated the Commission should stick with public meetings and that it's better to discuss in open session from this point forward. Mr. Stempeck brought up the idea of a discussion document that is put out before a Commission meeting but is only for deliberation at the meeting. All agreed to continue as a group. Adjournment Mr. O'Rourke made a motion,seconded by Mr.Stempeck, to adjourn the Regular Session. 5:0:0. Motion Carried. J A true c the RMLD Board of Commissioners minutes as a o by a majority of the Commission. P ili B. Pacino, Secretary Pro Tem RM Board of Commissioners Page 1 3 RMLD voluntary below the' line PILOT payment to the Town of Reading March 12, 2018 RMLD - Governing Law w The RMLD is a Municipal Light Plant (MLP) Quasi commercial entity subject to regulation and oversight by the Department of Public Utilities w Rates are governed by MGL Chapter 164 S 58 and must be cost based w Can earn up to a maximum of 8% of net plant. See DPU 85-121 w Special Legislation from 1990 authorized RMLD to move from below the line to above the line, certain voluntary PILOT payments to all four towns at 2% of net plant. Above the line PILOT payments are an expense obligation as a cost of production. The same Special Legislation did not preclude voluntary below the line PILOTS from being made from unappropriated earned surplus. DPU and SJC state that MLPs are not tax collecting devices and they have no legal obligation to make payments of in lieu of taxes (PILOT) The 20 Year ABenefits w The RMLD is a municipal light plant with a multi-town service territory. Ability to capture potential economies of scale through bulk power purchase Ability to capture economies of scope by leveraging a fixed cost operation whose services are spread across multiple towns m- .Load shaping through the blending of customer classes across the service_ territory for cost savings... meaning more usage over a longer period of time from commercial industrial areas blended over residential usage RMLD - Financials and Operation w The RMLD is a financially secure and conservative organization Utility financial standards as supported by the auditor; the RMLD should have approximately operating cash of 2-3 months of operating expenses. The RMLD pays its accounts payable at approximately $7M - $l OM per month. A combination of the operating fund, the rate stabilization fund and the reserve fuel fund, would help support some major catastrophic events such as the loss of the largest customers, and critical system infrastructure failures, with the exception of the loss of a main substation. Capital infrastructure is funded by the annual 3% depreciation expense (regulated by the DPU) in addition to a transfer of operating funds to the construction fund. Long term strategic system planning forms the basis for short, medium and long term capital outlay. Revenue Decline M Sa.les are projected to continue to decline at a rate of l % per year. Decline can be attributed to the installation of energy efficiency measures by the customer, predominately commercial as the greatest impact A 2.5MW natural gas fired unit and a soon-to-be 5MW battery storage unit will help mitigate costs associated with peak energy pricing. New revenue seeking programs such as electrical vehicle charging stations, etc. have been promoted, but penetration has been slow by-the consumer. Heat pump conversions and other avenues are being evaluated. The service territory is considered fairly saturated with only several viable pockets within each service town. FY 2008-2017 kWh Sales 730,000,000 - 720,000,000 - - - -- - - - - - - - 710,000,000 --- - 700.000,000 - ............_......... --- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - a 690,000,000 3 Y . . . . . . .. 680,000,000 - ..... ..........., 670,000,000 -- 660,000,000 - 650,000.000 -- - - - - 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year RMLD - Capital Outlay m In 2013 the RMLD assessed its system and found -significant deficiencies in maintenance and infrastructure. m A formal Reliability Study was performed by Booth and Associates. m The Study called for a GIS system infrastructure collection, an outage management system, a work order and asset management system. m The GIS data collection unveiled failure rates of assets at a magnitude beyond the original projection increasing the capital outlay. w Based on a preliminary study by economist at Jacobs, and based on the GIS data, including age, and condition, and for the size of the RMLD service territory, the RMLD should utilize a $8M capital investment per year plan. The RMLD in its strategic planning increased its rate of return from 5 to .7.75% of net plant for a short term to increase the construction fund to avoid bonding and to target the 6 year capital outlay plan. . Estimated Annual . Ca ital lnv p estment Needs . $20 $ O $16 $14 Average Useful Life -- of Assets=30 years $12 $10 — �n $8 $6 _ Average Useful Life c of Assets=40 E $4 _ — W $2 $0 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Average Age of RMLD Infrastructure 2% of Net Plant, above the line PILOT payments to all four towns 2013-2017 Reading North Lynnfield Wilmington Total 4 Towns Reading. 2013'$_ 287,132.00 �$_ 253,834.00 '$ 88,936.0-6 _ ;$ 767,132.00_ ;$_1,397,034.00 NETPLANT_UTILITY_$-69,851 692.00 _ ��_--2%_DISTRIBUTION_$ 1,397034.00___—__ KWH SALES142,052,21& _ 125,578,270+_ _— — 43,998,847 379,520,541': _ __ _ 691_,149,874 KWH%OF TOTAL SALES, ___ 20.553%. _ __ _ 18.169%; 6.366_%'_ _ _ 54.911%1 _ 100,0.00% { __2__01_4,!,_$ __ 287,368.00 1$ -253,-164.00 $ 91_,112.00 _ $ 765,'863-.00 i$ 097,507.00 . _ _NET PLANT UTILITY;-$6.9,875,363.00 . 2% DISTRIBUTION,$_ 1,397 507.00 I_ _KWH SALES! .__ ._ 143,225,6971_ _ _ 126,177;717± 45,410,596_ 381,708,768, _ 696,522,778 I KWH%OF TOTAL SALES! 20.563%� 18.115%1 6.520%1 54.802%! 100.000% 2015$ 288,256.00 $ 254,610.18 $ 90,330.06 $ 760,752.55 $ 1,393,949.00o____-_� NET PLANT UTILITY$69,697353.00 2%DISTRIBUTION $ 17393,947.00-1 KWH SALE81 141,114,83111 124,643,549,1 44,220,762 372,Z23,01 0,1 682;401,652 KWH%OF TOTAL SALES 20.67.9%( 18.265% 6.480%1 100.00070, 2016`,$ _ 291,901.00 $ 2.56,089.00 ;$ 91,389.00 $ 767,_367.00 $ 1,406,746.00 NET PLANT_UTI LITY'_$70,337,310.00 - 2%DISTRIBUTION,$ .1,406,746.00. KWH SALES-__.. 143,716,794' _ 126,085,135 44,995,350._ _ _ 377,811,691 _ _ __692,608,970• KWH%OF TOTAL SALES'_ _20.7505 18.204%'. _6.497% 54.549%- _ 00%' _ 1.00.0 298,673.00 {———— _ _ _ _ — —---- -- 4 266,071.00 __ :'L$_ NET PLANT_UTILITY;$72,977,009.00 ---2%DIST RIBUTI_ ON'$—.1,_459,_540.00 — --- ----IE — -- ----- ---- —:__----------- ---�— -- —_ _ —_44119,595 _ 369,935,0971 ____,___675 381,822 —-- r------ --- 54.774%! — — -- -- 100._00057j �__KWH%OF TOTAL SALES! ___ _ 20,463%i_— Town Payments of Municipal Electric Utilities . Based on a study performed on annual town PILOT payments from area Mass Municipal Electric Utilities, on a total and unit cost basis, RMLD pays 539 , higher than the average for just the below the line voluntary PILOT for Reading, and more than 856% higher than the average when you combine the below the line with the above the line town payments as a total PILOT. Rowley $30,074 l $0.0007 Groton $32,000 $0.0005 Merrimac 1 $34,122 $0.0013 Sterling $100,000 $0.0017 Town Payments Hudson $142,496 11 $0.0014 Shrewsbury $237,569 $0.0008 o Municipal i Holden � $270,000 1 $0.0008 N. Attleboro $300,000 $0.0014 Electric Uilities Ipswich $326,727 $0.0029 2016 study data - - — Concord $465,000 $0.0028 Hingham .1 $500,000 $0.0025 Westfield $500,000 $0.0013 Belmont $650,000 :; $0.0052 Holyoke $675,000 $0.0030 j Middleboro $702,593 1 $0.0027 Littleton $760,000 $0.0026 Danvers $800,616 1 $0.0028 Wakefield $825,000 $0.0044 Braintree $1,000,000 i $0.0042 Reading - All Town $3,764,394 $0.0055 payments History of voluntary below the line PILOT Payments to the Town of Reading Since 1998 inflated at CPI, which fluctuates Calendar Year CPI % Change Year Paid Payment 1997 167.900 1998 171.100 2.26% FY99 $ 1,560,414 1999 176.000 2.50%. FY00 $ 1,595,680 2000. 183.600 4.32% FY01 $ 1,635,572 . 2001 191.500 4.30% FY02 $ 1,706,229 2002 196.500 2.61% FY03 $ 1,779,597 2003 203.900 3.77% FY04 $ 1,826,062 2004 . 209.500 2.75% FY05 $ 1,894,829 2005 216.400 3.29% FY06 $ 1,946,870 2006 223.100 3.10% FY07 $ 2,010,991 2007 227.409 1.90% FY08 $ 2,073,332 2008 235.370 3.50% FY09 - $ 2,1 12,725 2009 233.778 -0.68% FY10 $ 2,186.670 2010 237.446 1.57% FYI 1 $ 2,171,880 2011 243.881 2.70% FY12 $ 2,205,957 2012 247.733 1.58% FY13 $ _ 2,265,427 2013 251.139 1.38% FY 14 $ 2,301,221 2014 255.185 1.61%- FY15 $ 2,332,863 2015 256.716 0.60% FYI $ 2,370,445 2016 260.496 1.47% FY17 $ 2,384,668 2017 267.003 2.51% FY18 $ 2,419,770 FY 19 $ 2,480,506 Average 2.35%'0 History of voluntary below the line payments to the Town of Reading Since 1998 inflated at a flat 2.50 (approximate averaae) Calendar Year CPI % Change Year Paid Payment 1997 167.900 1998 171.100 2.50% FY99 $ 1,560,414 1999 176.000 2.50% FY00 $ 1,599,424 2000 183.600 2.50% FY01 $ 1,639,410 2001 191.500 2.50% FY02 $ 1,680,395 2002 196.500 2.50% FY03 $ 1,722,405 2003 203.900 2.50% FY04 $ 1,765,465 2004 209.500 2.50% FY05 $ 1;809,602 2005 216.400 2.50% FY06 $ 1,854,842 2006 223.100 2.50% FY07 $ 1,901,213 2007 227.409 2.50% FY08 $ 1,948,743 2008 235.370 2.50% FY09 $ 1,997,462 2009 233.778 -2.50% FY 10 $ 2,047,398 2010 237.446 2.50% FYI 1 $ 2,098,583 2011 243.881 2.50% FY 12 $ 2,151,048 2012 247.733 2.50% FY 13 $ 2,204,824 2013 251.139 2.50% FY14 $ 2,259,945 2014 255.185. 2.50% FY 15 $ 2,316,443 2015 256.716 2.50% FY 16 $ 2,374,354 2016 260.496 2.50% FY 17 $ 2,433,713 2017 267.003 2.50% FY18 $ 2,494,556 FY19 $ 2,556,920 Difference Calendar Year Actual Payment Payment at 2.5% 1998 $ 1,560,414.00 $ 1,560,414.00 $ - 1999 $ 1,595,680.00 $ 1,599,424.00 $ (3,744.00) 2000 $ 1,635,572.00 $ 1,639,410.00 $ (3,838.00) 2001 $ 1,706,229.00 $ 1,680,395.00 $ 25,834.00 2002 $ 1,779,597.00 $ 1,722,405.00 $ 57,192.00 2003 $ 1,826,062.00 $ 1,765,465.00 $ 60,597.00 2004 $ 1,894,829.00 $ 1,809,602.00 $ 85,227.00 2005 $ 1,946,870.00 $ 1,854,842.00 $ 92,028.00 2006 $ 2,010,991.00 $ 1,901,213.00 $ 109,778.00 2007 $ 2,073,332.00 $ 1,948,743.00 $ 124,589.00 2008 $ 2,1 12,725.00 . $ 1,997,462.00 $ 1 15,263.00 2009 $ 2,186,670.00 $ 2,047,398.00 $ 139,272.00 2010 $ 2,171,880.00 $ 2,098,583.00 $ 73,297.00 2011 $ 2,205,957.00 $ 2,151,048.00 $ 54,909.00 2012 $ 2,265,427.00 $ 2,204,824.00 $ 60,603.00 2013 $ 2,301,221.00 $ 2,259,945.00 $ 41,276.00 2014 $ 2,332,863.00 $ 2,316,443.00 $ 16,420.00 2015 $ 2,370,445.00 $ 2,374,354.00 $ (3,909.00) 2016 $ 2,384,668.00 $ 2,433,713.00 $ (49,045.00) 2017 $___2,419,770.00 $ 2,494,556.00_ _ _ _$ _ (74,786.00) 2018 $ 2,480,506.00 $ 2,556,920.00 $ (76,414.00) $ 43,261,708.00 $ 42,417,159.00 $ 844,549.00 RMLD Operations Summary m Revenues are declining due to reduced energy usage, energy efficiency measures, adjustable frequency drives, batteries, etc. Expenses are increasing such as labor, electric system equipment, etc. m RMLD operating revenue is quickly converging with PILOT payments. m Plant value is increasing at a fairly steady pace from 2014 to 2024 and then should level off, to bring the system into balance for loading, capacity, safety code construction, and to achieve a proactive cyclic maintenance plan; approximately $8 million per year is earmarked long term for capital outlay. m Voluntary below the line PILOT payments are increasing and represent more than 390 of operating income. Combined with the above the line, the total payments made represent 60.6% of operating income. - The convergence of the below the line payment with the current track for reduction in revenue is an issue in which the RMLD must take action to study and strategize going forward. RMLID Financial Trend - Revenue/Sales Decreasing , Costs Increasing Energy Sales and Inflation- - -- - -- -- - - - - -- - - - --- -- - Adjusted Revenues Decreasing Labor, Component, Reading Payment Costs Increasing -Energy Sales —Inflation-Adjusted Revenue ®Costs FY 2018 FORECASTED kWh SALES 668,775,921 OPERATING REVENUE: _ SALES OF ELEC-BASE $ _ 26,337,621 SALES OF ELEC-BASE CAPACITY _ .24,476,160 - SALES OF ELEC-BASE TRANSMISSION 13,612,815 _ SALES OF ELEC-FUEL 32,491,810 This table is from the preliminary FY 19 NYPA _ _ _ (1,200,000) _ FORFEITED DISCOUNTS 800,000 unapproved budget, illustrating the ENERGY CONSERVATION 675,000 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE $ 97,193,406 RMLD utilizing more than its operating income by OPERATING EXPENSES: _ _ _ _ PURCHASED POWER BASE CAPACITY $ . 24,476,160_ over $1 .57M to cover the below the li.ne PURCFiASED.POWER-BASE TRANSMISSION 13,612,815 PURCHASED POWER FUEL 31,291,810 payment to Reading, pension & OPEB unfunded OPERATING&MAINTENANCE EXPENSE _ 5,941,700 Y GENERAL&ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE 10,361,361 liability gap(in addition to above the line liability DEPRECIATIOTOWN PAYMENTS 1,306,000 OPEB and pension payment obligations)and TOWN PAYMENTS _ _ 1,552,300 ' TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 91,542,146 _ TOTAL OPERATING INCOME $ 5,651,260 the scheduled transfer to the . ADD:OTHER NON-OPERATING REVENUE(EXPENSES) $ 487,500 . construction/capital fund. TOTAL CASH AVAILABLE FROM OPERATIONS $ 6,138,760 LESS:ROI TOWN OF READING PAYMENT (2,419,770) LESS:.5%NET PLANT-4 TOWNS (392,447) _ LESS:PENSION CONTRIBUTION TRANSFER (500,000) LESS:OPEB CONTRIBUTION TRANSFER (500,000) LESS:CAPITAL FUNDS TRANSFER _ _ (3,900,000) TOTAL CASH BENEFIT/(DEFICIT) $ (1,573,457) CASH-OPERATING FUND $ 13,945,858 CASH-DEPRECIATION FUND _ $ 2,448,661 , CASH-CONSTRUCTION FUND 3,900,000 TOTAL CAPITAL FUNDS $ 6,348,661 _ Adjusted Net Income for ROR $ 6,138,760 NET PLANT.at END of FY_ $ 79,119,000 Allowable 8% $ 6,329,520 - RATE OF RETURN 7.76% ' RM L D proposal NOTA BENE: THIS PROPOSAL WAS PART OF A TOWN OF READING PAYMENT-SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DISCUSSION AND WAS NOT VOTED ON BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE. PROPOSALS WOULD NEED TO BE VOTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE,BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO THE SELECTMEN AND RECOMMENDED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND THE CAB TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. ADVANCE THE TOWN OF READING, UP TO ONE YEAR OF A BELOW THE LIN_ E PILOT PAYMENT AT LOW INTEREST FOR 5 YEARS. Subject to discussion, analysis, written contract of terms and payment schedule. THREE YEARS: FLAT PAYMENT OF 2.5% INCREASE PER YEAR, OR CPI, WHICHEVER IS GREATER, A CEILING OF 5%, commencing in FYI THREE YEARS: ADDITIONAL .5% BELOW THE LINE PAYMENT TO ALL 4 TOWNS BASED ON ABOVE THE LINE 2.0% NET PLANT, commencing in. FYI 8 FORMAL STUDY WILL BE PERFORMED IN CY2019 ADDRESSING THE VOLUNTARY PILOT PAYMENTS TO THE TOWN OF READING AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF AN COMPREHENSIVE STUDY THAT EVALUATES THE LONG TERM REVENUE/ FINANCIAL PLAN AND PROJECTIONS OF THE RMLD Projected Impact Reading Above the Line $31 1 ,797 $328,254 $344,045 Payment Reading Below the Line $2,444,285 $2,505,392 $2,568,027 Payment at 2.5% Increase of $24,515 Increase Compounded Increase Compounded Additional Below the Line $77,949 $82,064 $86,011 0.5% Sub-Total Reading $2,834,031 $2,915,710 $2,998,083 Other Towns Above the $1 ,257,992 $1 ,272,986 $1 ,334,225 Line Payment Additional 0.5% $314,498 $318,246 $333,558 Sub-Total Other Towns $1,572,490 $1,591,232 $1,667,783 Total All Payments $4,406,521 $4,506,942 $4,665,866 % of Operating Revenue 4.53% 4.59% 4.83% NOTA BENE: THIS PROPOSAL WAS PART OF A TOWN OF READING PAYMENT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DISCUSSION AND WAS NOT VOTED ON BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE. PROPOSALS WOULD NEED TO BE VOTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE,BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO THE SELECTMEN AND RECOMMENDED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND THE CAB TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.