Finance Committee Meeting

Minutes – August 30, 2004

Town Hall – 7:30 P.M.

Members Present: Brian Fitzgerald, Charles Goodman, David Hearne, Jonathan Hitter,

Ira Miller, Paul Pietal, Gloria Rose, Gregory Sydney, David Fixler

(late), Kenneth Goldberg (late), (Hamilton)

Absent: Michael Feldman

1. Don Hillegass, Systems Administrator, and Rob Uyttebroek, Treasurer, reported on the status of MUNIS. They gave a recap on the last two years. On July 1, 2003, started on line. July 1, 2003 went live on financial, purchase orders, and tax bills. Went live on payroll, October 1, 2003, and excise and billing on January 1, 2004. Implemented budget. Ben Puritz trained on it for budgets. Don training department on receivables, general ledger, accounts payable, purchase orders. Also school use. Miscellaneous receipts module will flow into general ledger. Purchased two laser jet 10N printers that fold, seal, and sign checks for payroll and vendor checks. The School Department is integrated into MUNIS. The main problem with the system is that it is very date driven, but most users are doing very well.

2. Regarding Health Insurance online: MUNIS takes each employee and employer’s share in holding bucket.

3. Uyttebroek: Numbers are preliminary. Based on head count and amount taken out. Partial month deduction. Information available in next few weeks.

4. Pietal: Ben coming back September 13. Need this information for Article 1.

5. Discussion was held in great detail on what MUNIS is capable of doing and what reports are available. A list of reports is available and will be supplied.

6. Hearne: Is school completely up to date as to what this system can offer schools? Are you putting school budget on this system as well as town?

7. Hillegass: Helped school out when it first came out. Need State and Federal reporting.

8. Puritz: Moving forward on MUNIS both from accounting and managerial process.

9. Hearne: Who is responsible for implementation? Is this Ben’s responsibility? There is a balance between what the system can do and how it is used. Will implementation be by all users and department managers or will it be defined from administrator down to department level?

10. Puritz: Collaborative and participatory.

11. Rose: Is there training on budgetary system? Have budgets been approved from last Town Meeting? Where are they on this system?

12. Puritz: Meeting on Wednesday. Objective how to prepare on information for budget. Everything entered in on town side. 32 budget categories in terms of budget preparers. Will be concentrating on more complex in-house budget. Selectmen may be inputting data for small departments. Will have more to report. On learning curve.

13. Fitzgerald: We need an executive summary by Ben. The Town is over budget or under budget by x dollars. Need information from using system by management control. Overseer of department. Month to month variance executive summary.

14. Pietal: Probably something standard in system.

15. Puritz: Agree with itemizing. Do not have staff resources. Other priorities. Periodic reporting and discussion and item action of areas not exceeding budget. Do not want to be conscripted to something I cannot fulfill. Agree with merit of having this information. Have copies with parameters of capital and budget. Met with Paul Linehan of Capital Outlay and up to date. Five-year plan is being distributed.

16. Hillegass: Police Station, DPW, Recreation Department, and Town Hall have cable modems that utilize Comcast—time free, must purchase equipment. Need new modems. Huge problem at Recreation Department. Comcast says upgrade modems. Have to upgrade to head-end room. $25,000 for equipment—modems $89. Handle two networks for School and Town. Can handle fluctuation of temperature. Would like to pursue.

17. Pietal: Do you have needs beyond modems?

18. Uyttebroek: Brought in some new equipment in computer room, cash register terminal, point of sale in MUNIS and scanner. Maybe software. Will get prices on this equipment.

19. Pietal: Take into consideration on any capital outlay.

20. DELIBERATIONS: There is leeway to get articles to the printer. A number of articles need some information. The new date for recommendations is September 17.

21. Pietal: ARTICLE 1: Transfer of money from School Department to Stabilization Fund.

22. Puritz: Moving toward definitiveness. Issue is percentage of reimbursement on Special Ed. School is committed to reducing. Potential $714,000. Verbal response from Department of Education to Dr. Jackson. Low point of $431,000 and expectation of $550,000.

23. Pietal: If above $550,000, balance goes where?

24. Puritz: No explicit consideration. That scenario wasn’t under consideration. Received a telephone call from Claire Jackson after $550,000 was bridged. If that level was reached, no commitment to go beyond that. Indicated above $550,000 areas would like to use for the school budget delivered directly to School Department in town.

25. Hearne: Is it unusual to have fluctuations in funding from State? If we have seen fluctuation in previous years and it always stayed within the School Department budget, why treat it differently this year?

26. Pietal: Would like to see history on this. $26,000,000 but nearly $26,500,000 because it comes in from State revenues coming in.

27. Sydney: In excess of $550,000. Strongly favors applying toward tax reduction to taxpayer.

28. Pietal: This is discussion for tonight. What the recommendation will be just that transfer to Stabilization Fund or transfer underride proposed by Selectmen.

29. Fixler: Underride totally separate issue. Can be tax reduction.

30. Puritz: Recommendation was passed on different levels of recouping of Special Ed Fund. Estimating $550,000. First $200,000 to Stabilization Fund, second $200,000 to reduce tax rate. Balance would be split between stabilization fund and tax relief.. Providing for a measure of reserve capability this is about the most opportune and fortuitous. If not done now, won’t be able to do this.

31. Pietal: Has Board of Selectmen had a chance to look at this?

32. Puritz: Item to be revisited in Fall Articles.

33. Hitter: Article 1. $275,000 reduction in tax rate. Article 2. Money to be raised for Community Center. Making and then giving it away.

34. Fitzgerald: Stabilization Fund vs. Reserve Fund. Who manages money and who in town controls that money?

35. Pietal: Reserve Fund is Fin Comm. Stabilization Fund is at the Town Meeting purview: 2/3 to appropriate, 50% to put in. Or you want Stabilization Fund?

36. Fixler: Reserve Fund is for that particular year then goes to free cash. Stabilization Fund is to save and you have it. Stabilization Fund is a real savings fund.

37. Goldberg: The importance of having a safety net—there may be good policy reasons for having a Stabilization Fund. But, if so, it needs to be built in to the budget by the Priorities Committee. It needs to be adopted as part of the budget process. Priorities Committee in past years has budgeted without determining that it should be regularly contributed to. Why hasn’t Priorities Committee done it? I’m concerned that we would put this money into a Stabilization Fund because some extra funds happen to be there. My concern is we would put this money into a Stabilization Fund and check that off as done. Instead, fiscal discipline requires if it is an important objective, a certain amount be put into it as part of the budget process. Putting in some extra found money that happens to be available doesn’t do squat for fiscal discipline. If we want a Stabilization Fund, it needs to be built out of future budget allocations.

38. Puritz: Prescribed what fund is utilized for and planning for contribution. Need input from Finance Committee.

39. Sydney: Should be in budget.

40. Goodman: Priorities Committee never said first $200,000 to Stabilization Fund. Claire said it should be placed in Stabilization Fund at Fall Town Meeting. No discussion how to allocate any money. Brought up in budget by Selectmen when budget is presented for Stabilization Fund the same way Reserve Fund. Discussing a CPA act. Same thing that Stabilization Fund can be used for just about anything. Going to be on ballot in November.

41. Puritz: Never intended to suggest that the Priorities Committee level to be theoretical. The Selectmen hadn’t reached a decision. A personal opinion.

42. Goodman: The Stabilization Fund should have been set up by the Town when it was rolling in dough. Is the Town rolling in dough now and should it be set up sometime in the near future for the budget of ’06? Question for Selectmen and Town Administrator. The Priorities Committee doesn’t decide on this—only take what’s proposed in budget. Using various other revenue sources presented previously. If it wasn’t all priorities, or problem with $550,000, the school budget would have been reduced, no Stabilization Fund. Maybe only part of it should be used to reduce tax rate.

43. Fixler: More money came a few years ago. Discussed where money should go—Stabilization Fund, etc.

44. Fitzgerald: Why doesn’t tax rate go down. Some money would be funneled elsewhere.

45. Fixler: A debate should be held since money was voted to be raised—do we want to raise the money and deposit it in a stabilization fund or not raise it and reduce the tax rate?

46. Hearne: Questions about process. Took money for one reason. Now want to use it for something else. The possibility of Stabilization Fund is not going to be gone. Has to go back to Town Meeting. Simply because we may choose not to fund a stabilization fund now, with this money, does not by definition mean that one will therefore never exist.

47. Pietal: Summarize: Potentially $550,000 or more, School to get balance. $431,000 a pool of money to do something with. Could just throw $431,000 in Stabilization Fund or tax reduction. May have 5% less creating a budget. Use this and put in Stabilization Fund or less than this. Can reduce tax rate. Approved at Town Meeting $550,000 levy plus 2 ½ . Wants 54.5, can have underride.

48. Pietal: Objections down the road. Tax relief sounds better than Stabilization Fund. Talk about when you have actual numbers. Jump start Stabilization Fund.

49. Fitzgerald: If we drop the tax appropriation from 55 to 54.5, would have an underride. The difference reduces base going forward, the tax rate does not.

50. Puritz: Charge of Priorities Committee to bring to town charge what is best interest of town. Go back to Priorities Committee, have it list a range to go to Stabilization Fund. Not achieve objective to Stabilization Fund.

51. ARTICLE 3. Arnold Kublin, Council on Aging. Approved design money for $225,000. Town approved over $200,000. Spring election failed. Is the actual construction coming back for design money?

52. Kublin: Never completed design work. Monies not spent. Architect gave a dollar cost for construction of project.

53. Hearne: Not up to COA. Standing Building Committee is to come up with number And state to Town Meeting “Yes, we can build this structure as it stands for x dollars.” Joel Wolk went through schematic development. Earlier plan then complete design plan. Free standing building, wood frame, apparently a very clear-cut building to come up with number to validate architect’s number. The question that the Standing Building Committee needs to answer is do they have the information they need to verify construction costs at Town Meeting? Is it the same building or is there a change in program? Does that building suit your desires today? How much?

54. Kublin: 90% of what we want. Always talked about room for future expansion. Looked at what other towns have done with sr. center. We’re looking at programs and asking ifwe come back in a few years to enlarge or should we incorporate what we want to do now? Most of building is fine as was done before. What we would look for is a little more space.

55. Hearne: If changing from plans from three years ago, the Standing Building Committee can not come up with cost verification. Have to build the same program or Standing Building Committee cannot validate new plans.

56. Kublin: If this complicates issue and the Standing Building Committee cannot decide, if it materially changes things, we would live with what is proposed. We would prefer to look towards some future needs When you build for today, you may rue the day you did that.

57. Fixler: Is there is going to be a difference in what you proposed three years ago and what you propose now?

58. Kublin: Nothing seems to be significant—make building a little larger.

59. Pietal: Is it a $20,000 or $100,000 design change?

60. Kublin: Whether the town could go back to the architect that did it before? What is today’s cost where it was dropped?

61. Yes, town can go back and pick up where it left off.

62. Pietal: Is $210,000 the design money? Standing Building Committee full cost?

63. Hearne: Go through construction documents to put better estimate for cost in order to fund it more accurately.

64. Fixler: $40,000 design amount? Why are you going to 2001 to come up with total amount from Standing Building Committee?

65. Pietal: Approved design money whatever we get from Town Meeting in spring.

66. Fixler: Only spent $40,000 on design? Is that enough for us to come up with construction figures?

67. Hearne: It depends on what type of program space is added to the existing plan.Meeting room, nurse’s room. Different spaces have different costs per square foot. The Standing Building Committee does not come up with actual cost. Given estimates from architects, etc.

68. Rose: What is it you want more of? Go back to original architect—how much is 20% more footage? Anything left from Wilber design?

69. Puritz: $52,000 would be used from feasibility study to be reallocated to Wilber. Some information could come forward with ability for construction figure for building from Sacred Heart.

70. Pietal: How do we get back to that? Standing Building Committee would have to contact architect. How much to change this?

71. Hearne: Done before spring Town Meeting. May need some money. May be some reallocation of money. Although I support a Senior Center project, I can’t support funding $210,000 for building that may not be built.

72. Kublin: Standing Building Committee said process is to do design work then go forward with firm number. Subject is now in hands of Standing Building Committee. Do design and construction documents so it can be presented at Town Meeting. What does this do to Article for Fall Town Meeting?

73. Fixler: Would vote for design money, but some work must have been done to incur $40,000 of work. If Standing Building Committee was comfortable with final number for construction which would have some design component, everyone would know what cost would be. Talk to Joel Wolk.

74. Pietal: Can this be done under Article 4? Transfer to a single account to be expended by the Board of Selectmen and/or the Standing Building Committee for a feasibility study. Still need numbers from Joel Wolk. Give new schematic. Still keep article 3 for $20,000 and approach in Article 4 money. Supplement Senior Center design.

75. Puritz: Article 4 cannot use money for any other purpose than Wilber.

76. Pietal: Advocate lower amount.

77. Puritz: Fall meeting for exigent circumstances—zoning—get design funds at fall meeting.

78. Pietal: Plans are 90% done. If you had everything you needed?

79. Kublin: We are not looking for everything we want. Seniors need to live within budget.

80. ARTICLE 6. Transfer money to Recreation Department for Teen Center. Present were Bill Kelly, Treasurer of the Board, and Margie Mitlin, President of the Board. Dave Clifton was at last meeting.

81. Pietal: Bridge for getting from one year then Hockomock Y taking over. September 1 new year. A budget recap income and expenses for this coming year ‘04-’05.

82. Kelly: No detailed budget before. Brought in now.

83. Hitter: Money to move a house on Wolomolopoag Street for Teen Center?

84. Mitlin: Moving house to Deborah Sampson Park separate to run program from now to next September.

85. Hitter: Might be giving to help you move and not having money for fund raising. What is Hockomock stance on moving building?

86. Mitlin: If they didn’t approve, they wouldn’t get house.

87. Mitlin presented background of Teen Center and what has been done over past three years.

88. Kelly: The Y gave in first year small amount. $29,000 this year and in September ’06, 100% of cost.

89. Mitlin: No money from town. Supported by use of facilities—high school gym and community center.

90. Kelly: Asking for $25,000. We have enough cash reserves to get to town meeting or will have to close doors. From September ’04 to January ’05 cover all event expenses. November ’05 will cover rent.

91. Pietal: If house didn’t happen?

92. Kelly: Teen Center Corporation would purchase house.

93. Mitlen: Builder said we could have 206 year old house but must be moved. $40,000 to move house, excavate land, cut trees. Put house on little edge of Deborah Sampson Park. Site plans have Sr. Center, pool, Teen Center.

94. Fixler: Where is this to be placed?

95. Kelly: Town hasn’t said where at this point.

96. Pietal: Is Y paying rent somewhere?

97. Kelly: Not wheelchair accessible where they are.

98. Mitlin: Sent out grant proposals. Not good at this present location. Trying to think about what else they could do. Need ground floor—access to park facilities safer.

99. Kelly: Just $25,000 for this year.

100. Hearne: $10,000 fund raising?

101. Clifton got $6,000 to go into operating budget. Some other fund raising for operation that starts in September. This gets through this. Had to pay for additional staffing—Y is paying for staffing.

102. Hearne: Y funding sources?

103. Kelly: Money from United Way, private money, money from various programs. Took over teen center in N. Attleboro. Total population is 150-250 kids served.

104. Hearne: Why not use school room?

105. Kelly: Use for dances but not for using to play pool, video games.

106. Hearne: If you don’t get this money, you are out of a home. You will have to close operation?

107. How do you know Y will take over in one year? If you have to disband, will Y take over in one year? Would do some abbreviated version. Kelly doesn’t believe they could be open only one day a week.

108. Fitzgerald: Incorporated non-profit? Coming to municipal town, can we as a Town be giving them money?

109. Considerable discussion on issues. Public vs. private component. Money from Town to go to Recreation Department. The Recreation Department can buy services for children in Town. What if Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc. came to Town for money?

110. Goldberg: $29,333 Y contributed. Beginning September ’04 the Y takes over staffing of Teen Center. Staffing costs are Director Salary, Other Staff, and Taxes/Benefits. According to the Budget for fiscal year ’05, these add up to $36,802. In January ’05, the Y covers all supplies and event expenses. So shouldn’t the Y’s contribution be greater than $36,800, and more than the $29,333 reflected in the Budget? Also, what is “Current Dept.”?

111. Kelly: Number came from Y. Real cost—do not know what line item. January ’05 all supplies and event expenses. Attendance for 6th, 7th, 8th grade primarily. Consistently reaching 5%-10% of age group.

112. Fitzgerald: Incorporated non-profit isn’t 40% on premise non-profit going to take over. No formal agreement. Money would not have achieved its goal. Why haven’t you got this locked down that Y is definitely going to take over?

113. Puritz: Available capacity for town meeting vote. Within revenue portion there is free cash to fund this through Recreation Department.

114. Pietal: Public-private component. If this is valid issue—challenging.

115. Hearne: We give public support to the private fiefdoms of sybsa and the soccer association, how is this any different?

116. A MOTION was made by Gregory Sydney to appropriate a sum of money in the amount of $24,999.00 to the Recreation Department.

117. VOTED: 3-7-0. Sydney, Hearne, Fixler, for. Fitzgerald, Goldberg, Goodman, Hitter, Miller, Pietal, Rose, against.

118. MOTION FAILED.

119. MOVED and SECONDED to indefinitely postpone.

120. VOTED: 7-3-0. Fitzgerald, Goldberg, Goodman, Hitter, Miller, Pietal, Rose, for. Sydney, Hearne, Fixler, against.

121. MOTION PASSED.

122. ARTICLE 7: Peg Arguimbau, Conservation Commission. No definitive language from Town Counsel. She would like to appear on September 13. Taking away from State—Finance Committee size component.

123. ARTICLE 2: Community Center repair—no numbers.

124. ARTICLE 4: Transfer of money to regenerate Wilber reuse money. Can talk about moving money out of there. Can we retain Article 3, $52,293? Under purview of Standing Building Committee is money available to COA for design money? Word sufficiently broad to allow for feasibility study. Article 4 specific.

125. Puritz: Under Article 3 to get money back to COA. $39,000 and $13,000. Transfer from one or both of these accounts under Article 3. $13,000 under Standing Building Committee. May be no action required. Is $13,000 enough. Ask Joel on 13^th.

126. Pietal: Skim money off Article 3. Less money for Article 4.

127. Hearne: How much available? Leave Article 4 as is for potential lesser amount.

128. Puritz: Problem with $13,000 is specific. Standing Building Committee cannot spend for COA. Merits of Article 4 brought forward for Board of Selectmen to look at Wilber School for other options. Over twenty respondents. Interviews beginning next Tuesday. This committee would use money to engage consultants. May be too little and maybe need more in spring.

129. Fixler: To get people to think about it in different way so that it will be another thing to do with building, we need x dollars. Need to know how much money needed. Could pick random amount of money such as $40,000. Can not change language. The town meeting has a sum of money. Need opinions to know. Article 4 for $40,000, Sr. Center needs $20,000. Recommendation same just amount may be different.

130. Puritz: $43,000 was for design services. $49,194.12 and $3,408.31. Allocate $40,000 for Wilber reuse, $10,000 for COA.

131. Goodman: $65,000 in total.

132. Puritz: Do not know what conditions are on $13,000.

133. A MOTION was made by David Hearne to fund Article 4 for Wilber School for $40,000.

134. SECONDED by Jonathan Hitter.

135. VOTED: 9-1-0. Fitzgerald, Fixler, Goldberg, Goodman, Hearne, Hitter, Miller, Pietal, Rose, for. Sydney, against.

136. MOTION PASSED.

137. ARTICLE 6. Write up indefinite postponement for Teen Center by Kenneth Goldberg.

138. MOVED and SECONDED to adjourn.

139. VOTED: 10-0-0

140. Meeting adjourned at 10:55 P.M.