HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-03-04 Finance Committee Packet
1 of 8
Office of the Town Manager 781-942-9043
16 Lowell Street townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us
Reading, MA 01867 www.readingma.gov/town-manager
To: FINCOM
From: Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA
Date: February 27, 2020
RE: FY21 Town Manager Budget - changes since December presentations
In December 2019, Town Department Heads presented their requested budgets to the Select Board. Of
note at the time was the fact that these requests were about $200,000 higher in total than the FINCOM
budget guidance would support.
Below please find a summary of changes made to Town Department budgets since December 2019.
While this information does not belong in the FY21 Town Manager budget submitted to FINCOM, this
memo may help those members that recall the December budget presentations.
In most cases reductions were made, but please see the changes made in the Public Services budget,
summarized here and explained in more detail in that department budget section.
Dept RequestsTown Manager
DepartmentFY21FY21 BudgetChangeChange
Administrative Services$ 3,204,318 $ 3,145,750 $ (58,568)-1.8%
Public Services$ 1,876,425 $ 1,844,550 $ (31,875)-1.7%
Finance$ 940,200$ 930,600$ (9,600)-1.0%
Public Safety$ 12,075,110$ 12,093,200$ 18,090 0.1%
Public Works$ 6,310,095 $ 6,292,100 $ (17,995)-0.3%
Library$ 1,814,462 $ 1,814,462 $ -0.0%
Facilities$ 3,544,234 $ 3,441,650 $ (102,584) -2.9%
Town Departments Total$ 29,764,844$ 29,562,312$ (202,532) -0.7%
Highlights
Many small changes were made to most departments, below please find the most significant changes:
Administrative Services (-$58,568)
--$56,843 Reduce technology expenses
-Three largest reductions were to PC hardware (-$30,000), Parts & Supplies (-$15,100), and
Network hardware (-$5,200). However, this is most cutting increased requests, it is only a
$7,500 reduction total for these three categories vs. FY20 budgets
2 of 8
Public Services (-$31,875)
-Restore Community Services Director (+1.0 FTE)
-Decrease support staff (-1.0 FTE)
--0.4 FTE)
-Do not add additional hours requested for Recreation Coordinator
-Decrease wages for Human/Elder Services Administrator (turnover)
-$20,500 net change from these five positions and -0.4 FTE
-$12,000 Increased use of offsets ($4,000 from state; $8,000 from permits revolving fund)
Finance (-$9,600)
--$8,500 Reduce tax title & banking services
Public Safety (+$18,090)
-+$18,000 increased OT in Police & Fire
Public Works (-$17,995)
--$50,000 do not fund new Tree Climber position
-+$30,000 instead fund seasonal help for Parks & Forestry (+0.8 FTE)
Library (0) no changes
Facilities (-$102,584)
--$40,000 do not fund new 30hr/week key card/building access position
--$50,000 do not fund new expense for lock repairs and maintenance agreement some of this
may reappear at November 2020 Town Meeting as a capital request
-- $5,300 architect fees
3 of 8
4 of 8
5 of 8
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
2016-09-22 LAG
Board -Committee -Commission -Council:
Finance Committee
Date: 2020-02-26Time: 7:30PM
Building: School - Memorial HighLocation: School Library
Address: 62 Oakland RoadSession: Open Session
Purpose: Budget MeetingVersion: Draft
Attendees:Members -Present:
Vice Chair Paula Perry, Karen Herrick, Andrew Mclauchlan, Dan Dewar, Ed
Ross, Shawn Brandt, Sean Jacobs, Marc Moll
Members -Not Present:
Chair Eric Burkhart
Others Present:
School Superintendent John Doherty, School CFO Gail Dowd, Assistant
Superintendent Christine Kelley, Director ofStudent Services Jennifer Stys,
School Committee: Chuck Robinson, PatriciaCalley, Tom Wise, Linda Snow
Dockser, John Parks
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By:Jacquelyn LaVerde
Topics of Discussion:
Ms. Perry called the Finance Committee meeting to order at 7:34pm.
FY21 School Committee Budget Review:
Gail Dowd provided a high-level summary of the FY21 School Budgetby cost center. The
School Committee unanimously voted to approve the budget as presented at their January
th
27meeting. Mr. Robinson arrived at 7:38pm and called the School Committee to
order.
The School Committee was able to provide a balanced budget with a 3.5% increase.
The Administration Cost Center increased 10.2% due to an added$60,000 for a 1.0 FTE
HR/Payroll Administrative Assistant. A breakdown of the general fund by category shows
that 69.2% of the General Fund is salary-based. The increase in salaries reflects the cost of
livingadjustment for all represented employees. Drivers for budgetary increases include:
all contractual increases; known out-of-district needs and placeholders for trending items
that are not yet certain to be out-of-district; and funding for curriculum upgrades such as
social studies, foreign language, and algebra. PatriciaCalley arrivedat 7:46pm.
Revolving funds are frequently assessed to look at enrollment and revenues coming
in. Each revolving fund is setup for a specific purpose based on revenues in the programs
being run. Karen Herrick arrived at 7:53pm. For some funds, such as athletics or
theatre, ticket sales support the programs. For other revolving funds, the money received
should equal the money expended. Each fund is very specific by program, and the funds
cannot be comingled.
Ms. Dowd provided some project updates. The turf 2 project is complete and the
th
field will be opening on March 16for spring sports. The project came in $402,000 under
budget and the excess capital money was turned back into free cash.
6 of 8
Page | 1
For modular classrooms at Birch Meadow, the bids went out, site visits with potential
bidders were hosted, and School and Facilities staff met with Town Staff for a Design
th
Review meeting with no issues. Bids are due on March 5.
Mr. Mclauchlan asked where the School Committee expects the budget to be in ten
years. Ms. Dowd stated that is very difficult to predict because the bus contract and all
CBAs expire this year, and ten years is three to four contracts in the future. Additional
factors include special education and out-of-district costs which can fluctuate significantly
year over year. Mr. Wise later calculated based on an average increase of 3.97%, the FY30
budget could be estimated at $68.37 million.
The state is targeting to reimburse Circuit Breaker funds for special education costs
at 75%. It will also start to reimburse transportation. The reimbursements are paid a year
in arrears and RPS is fortunate to have a year in reserve.
Mr. Mclauchlan noted that sped costs have increased while individual education plans
(IEPs) have decreased and asked what efforts are being taken to ensure the budget is
sustainable. Mr. Wise explained that while IEPs have gone down, some costs have gone up,
and some of that is mandated by services and what is required for those students. Ms.
Perry expressed appreciation for everything RPS is doing to control sped costs and noted
that the Finance Committee would support any programs to identify sped concerns in early
education. Ms. Dowd noted that 82% of the sped budget is salary driven. Staffing needs
are assessed and the cohorts are tracked as the students are advancing. Tracking students
from pre-K through grade 12 is looked at when budgeting.
Ms. Herrick asked if there is a way to predict future space issues. Ms. Dowd stated
that in addition to the enrollment study, they track live births, and try to track move-in
rates in districts that have an aging population moving out and a younger population
moving in. The tougher part to predict is the level of student needs. Dr. Doherty noted
three big drivers are special education, pre-school, and all-day kindergarten. 90% of
kindergarteners are in all-day kindergarten. It is something the community needs and
wants and is taking up classroom space. Dr. Stys stated that this year, they began working
closely with early childhood partners, meeting monthly with pre-schools, and conducting
outreach to try and implement prevention measures to avoid the sped process.
Ms. Herrick asked whether they use a classroom utilization matrix and how often
classrooms are available. Ms. Kelley stated that building principals already do that because
programs such as English Language Learning often takes place in available classrooms,
which further emphasizes space constraints.
Ms. Perry asked what the next milestone for the elementary space study is. Dr.
Doherty stated that they will be hosting more community information sessions to present
different options suggested by the consultant and gather community feedback. The next
window for MSBA is not until next January.
Mr. Brandt asked whether the salary line item to replace Ms. Dowd, who will
unfortunately be leaving, could be reduced. Dr. Doherty stated that the position was
originally posted as a business manager with a lower salary, but there were no viable
applications received. The title and salary range were changed, and while a new employee
may come in at a lower salary, the district may still be required to provide a mentor. He
recommended the School Committee keep the salary budgeted as is.
Mr. Brandt asked about the status of Chapter 70 funds. Ms. Dowd explained that
they did not receive great news at a meeting with Senator Jason Lewis. The Chapter 70
formula gets recalculated each year. Those communities that are not at the foundation
need increases to their funding each year to reach the foundation. Reading is above the
foundation and will only receive the hold harmless funds of $30 per student.
Mr. Brandt asked what the priorities are in the three-year plan, and what
investments or budgeting can be done in anticipation of that plan. Dr. Doherty stated that
the best long-term investments to make are in professional development, and continue to
invest in teachers, curriculum, and technology. The better they can prepare teachers, the
better they can address student needs. Other valuable investments would be in counseling,
tutoring, and guidance.
On a motion by Mr. Wise, seconded by Mr. Parks, the School Committee voted 5-0
to adjourn at 8:48pm.
7 of 8
Page | 2
Debt & Capital Policy:
Ms. Perry reviewed the current Finance Committee policy for Debt & Capital, which devotes
5% of revenue each year to fund the Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Brandt explained that
while the policy was established to save money on maintenance every year, and 5% may
have been appropriate when the policy was established in 2004, it now seems to be too
much, as 5% is higher than the average 3.25% annual budget growth rate and the average
2.4% price index growth rate. So much money has been devoted that now the Town is
looking for projects. He proposed to revise the policy to 3.25% with a review every 5 years
to determine if the threshold is still appropriate. The Committee agreed that a review of the
policy may be appropriate but would prefer to address this topic when the Town Manager is
present to provide more advice.
Minutes:
On a motion by Mr. Brandt, seconded by Mr. Moll, the Finance Committee voted to
approve the meeting minutes of November 6, 2019 by a vote of 8-0.
On a motion by Ms. Perry, seconded by Ms. Herrick, the Finance Committee voted
to adjourn by a vote of 8-0 at 9:22pm.
8 of 8
Page | 3