302 Main Street Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475-1741
BOARD OF FINANCE MINUTES REGULAR MEETING ECEMBER 6, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM TOWN HALL |
|
|
|
|
BOF Attendant Members Absent Members
David LaMay, Chairman
Brad Thorpe, Vice Chairman
Tom Stevenson
Breck Lindley
Barry O’Nell
John O’Brien
Carol Rzasa
In Attendance
Carl Fortuna, First Selectman
Bob Fish, Treasurer
Lee Ann Palladino, Finance Director
Michael Spera, Chief of Police
Call to order
Mr. LaMay called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM
Pledge of Allegiance
Mr. LaMay led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Minutes:
A motion to approve the minutes of November 1, 2016 was made by Mr. O’Nell, seconded by Mr. O’Brien and passed 6-0-1.
A motion to approve the minutes of November 15, 2016 was made by Mr.Thorpe, seconded by Mr. O’Nell and passed 6-0-1
Presentation of Municity Permitting Software
A presentation was made by Mr. Wil Labossier, President of Software Consulting Associates. Information from Selectman Fortuna was discussed as follows from his memorandum to the Board of Finance:
The purpose of this memorandum is to recommend that you consider hiring the firm of Software
Consulting Associates to provide integrated Building Permit and Public Works management
software (“Municity”) for the Old Saybrook Town Hall (“OSTH”).
Bundled pricing for Municity modules, available due to aggressive Capital Region Council of
Governments (“CRCOG”) negotiated pricing, allows for the acquisition of three bundled
modules at the same price as purchasing two modules separately.
The two primary modules selected are the Permitting and Mobile Support modules, with the DPW module included as the bundle “bonus”. FY 2016-2017 implementation cost of the system will be $24,525, broken down as follows:
Municity Software Purchase $17,960
Implementation/Training Services $3,500
Maintenance/Support/Hosting $1,796
CRCOG Implementation/Hosting $1,269
During following fiscal years maintenance/support/hosting fees will be $4,130 which will be
offset by a proposed fee increase in the base building permit fee. Assuming 1,100 permits per
year, and a $5 increase in the fee, the fee income is projected to be $5,500 per year, offsetting the
annual maintenance expense, and leading to cost recovery of the system. The final fee schedule
will be presented by the Building Official for the Board of Selectmen’s consideration.
Municity implementation will start with the Permitting system to support the Building
Department. The Town’s profile will be constructed by importing property description data from
the Assessor’s Vision system, followed by the import of existing AppGEO GIS layers. Once the
Town’s profile has been created, existing building permit data will be imported from the existing
building permit database system at which point the system will go into production use.
The DPW module will be implemented second, initially using the module to track DPW projects
currently listed in the First Selectman’s office. Other DPW module features will analyzed for
applicability and implemented as appropriate.
Background
The Building Department primarily uses a paper recordkeeping system augmented with a Lotus
Approach database developed by a former Town Hall employee. The database contains current
building permit tracking information with historical data going back to 1992. The Lotus
Approach platform utilized for the database has not been updated since 2002.
The Department of Public Works currently uses a manual system for tracking projects with no
supporting data technology. In both of the above examples, “on paper” scheduling is used to manage appointments and detailed reporting which must be referenced when responding to status requests, whether from within the Departments, from permit holders or from the General Public. This places a burden on Department personnel impacting the Department productivity and periodically resulting in delayed response to incoming Public and Contractor inquiries
Software Search
Over the last few years multiple vendor offerings have been reviewed including Municity,
PermitLink, ViewPoint, Accela, SmartGov and others. Up until recently building permit
solutions have been targeted towards cities and large towns and not been financially practical for
a small town implementation.
As the various products have matured costs have become more affordable and offerings
developed which are applicable and useful in the small town environment. Recently CRCOG
conducted a study of the available permitting products which resulted in the recommendation of
Municity. CRCOG additionally negotiated an aggressive pricing schedule based upon volume
implementation.
Municity and ViewPoint Cloud, another feasible contender in this space, were brought in for
multiple demonstrations. The consensus option of the Building and IT Departments was that
Municity included all needed functionality plus additional desirable features not available in the
ViewPoint solution. Further, Municity is also most budget friendly solution.
Benefits of a new software system
• Cloud based system provides for increased availability to information, including public
portal capabilities similar to current Assessor and Tax Collector systems.
• Building inspection status will be reported online and immediately available to permit
holders, including the capability of real-time text and email notification of inspection
results.
• All inspection related information, including various GIS layers such as zoning, wetlands
and coastal flooding will be available to inspectors in the field via mobile devices.
• Photographic capabilities are built in to the mobile inspection, reporting and job tracking
applications, allowing inspectors and workers to easily document observations and
activity in the field.
• Automated voice to text transcription capabilities on mobile devices facilitate inspection
and activity reporting in the field.
• Online document management capability allows for electronic retention of supporting
paper documentation.
• Increased transparency since building permit status and job status can be made available
through the public portal. The amount of data made available through the portal is
completely customizable allowing the Town to present as much (or as little) data as
desired.
• Disaster control improvement provided by cloud based system.
Proposed cost of system
Municity, through CRCOG pricing, offers two licensing alternatives; Purchase or 3 Year Lease.
Purchase Option FY 2017; FY 2018; FY 2019; FY 2020; FY 2021; FY 2022
Municity Purchase $17,960
Implementation/Training $3,500
Annual Maintenance/Hosting $1,796; $3,592; $3,592; $3,592; $3,592; $3,592
CRCOG Fee $1,269; $538; $538; $538; $538; $538
Aggregate Software Cost $24,525; $28,655; $32,785; $36,915; $41,045; $45,175
Additional Permit Fee Revenue (2,750) (5,500) (5,500) (5,500) (5,500) (5,500)
FY System Expense $21,775 (1,370) (1,370) (1,370) (1,370) (1,370)
Aggregate System Cost $21,775; $20,405; $19,035; $17,665; $16,295; $14,925
With a $5 increase on the base cost of Building Permits, an annual increase of $5,500 in building
permit revenue would completely offset the annual $4,130 software maintenance charges plus
provide an estimated $1,370 additional general fund revenue.
3 Year Lease Option FY 2017; FY 2018; FY 2019; FY 2020; FY 2021; FY 2022
Municity Purchase $0
Implementation/Training $3,500
Annual Maintenance/Hosting $3,592; $7,184; $7,184; $7,184; $7,184; $7,184
CRCOG Fee $1,538; $1,076; $1,076; $1,076; $1,076; $1,076
Aggregate Software Cost $8,630; $16,890; $25,150; $33,410; $41,670; $49,930
Additional Permit Fee Revenue (2,750) (5,500) (5,500) (5,500) (5,500) (5,500)
FY System Expense $5,880; 2,760; 2,760; 2,760; 2,760; 2,760
Aggregate System Cost $5,880; $8,640; $11,400; $14,160; $16,920; $19,680
With the lease option annual software maintenance charges would be $7,184, resulting in a
continually increased aggregate system cost.
The Finance and Information Management Departments recommend the Purchase Option.
Conclusion
The Municity system offers a state of the art municipal management platform which will make
Department status information more easily available to staff and customers, increase the
efficiency of Departmental personnel and additionally provide enterprise class document/record
management and archive.
In addition, the upfront costs of purchase will offset by lower annual maintenance fees and the additional building permit fee revenue. Therefore it appears prudent to move to the new system.
Mr. Stevenson inquired about where the funds would come from to which Selectman Fortuna replied it could come from General Fund; CIRMA rebate check; or Capital non-recurring fund. Mr. Fortuna noted that the annual maintenance fee would be in the IT budget.
At this time, there was a motion to add “Treasurer Report” to the agenda by Mr. O’Nell, seconded by Mr. Thorpe and was so VOTED unanimously.
Treasurer Report
Mr. Fish passed out his monthly report. He discussed the general government budget month ending November 30, 2016. He noted that revenues collections are about the same as last year. Mr. Fish also went through the general fund revenues through November 30, 2016 for the board. He called the board’s attention to the last page added; General Fund Revenues including numbers for 2016/2017 Budget; November Receipts; Year’s Receipts; Percent of Budget and Projected Total.
These reports can be seen in the Treasurer’s Office.
Treasurer Fish also reported to the board that Mahoney Sabol will be sending a copy of the audit report.
Mr. LaMay thanked Mr. Fish.
Finance Director Report
Ms. Palladino discussed the budget performance through November 30, 2016 as follows:
Budget Fiscal Year 2017
The general government budget for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2017 presently stands at $ 15,644,049, up $16,341 due to FY appropriations, from the FY17 budget of $15,627,618 approved at the May 2016 budget referendum.
Budget Appropriations
To date in FY17, budgetary appropriations of $16,431 were made to recognize the budget impact of the dispatcher’s collective bargaining agreement.
Municipal Reserve Fund Appropriations
During FY17 appropriations against the municipal reserve fund (“MRF”) total $308,000:
- Account software system, approved at the Town meeting in August 2016 in the amount of $170,000. Of that amount $50,000 has been transferred so far this fiscal year.
- Building repairs, approved at the Town meeting in October 2016, in the amount of $138,000.
The balance of the MRF stands at $973,332 as of November 30, 2016, please note that not all of the expenses associated with approved appropriations have been paid.
Unassigned Surplus Fund Appropriations – There have been no appropriations against the Town’s unassigned surplus funds to date in FY17
FY17 budgeted capital outlays totaled $675,000, of which $605,000 has been transferred to various reserve accounts. The difference, $70,000, was not transferred as the projects earmarked for these funds had been identified and will be expensed at some point during this fiscal year. The balance of the various reserve funds is noted below.
Municipal Reserve Fund – 200 |
FY 2017 Transfers |
Balance 11/30/2016 |
Capital Non- Recurring Budget |
$230,000 |
$558,332 |
Fire Apparatus |
155,000 |
315,000 |
Public Works |
60,000 |
100,000 |
Catastrophic Illness - 830 |
70,000 |
172,591 |
Retirement Payout – 840 |
40,000 |
37,705 |
Revaluation - 290 |
50,000 |
80,665 |
Total |
$605,000 |
$1,264,293 |
Capital Expenditures FY 2017 has used 59% of the budgeted amount as noted below.
Department Amount Budgeted Amount Used
Fire Department $35,000 $0
Police Department $94,000 $0
IT – Town $25,000 $569
Public Works $315,000 $275,824
Total $469,000 $276,393
Authorized Transfers – none
Fiscal Year 17 Budget Performance
Through October 31, 2016, five months or 41.7% of the budget equates to $6,518,354. Actual expenditures, which are running at 45%, are tracking ahead of budget expectations. Actual expenditures through October 31, 2016 for general government equate to $6,965,324 ahead of the five month, straight lined budget figures by $446,970. The major driver of this overage is the full year’s pension contribution of $556 thousand and other expenditures that are made in advance. The budget lines that have expenditures in excess of 46.7% are attached. All budget overages are explained by timing differences or seasonal activities.
Fiscal Year 2016 vs. Fiscal Year 2015
The general government budget for FY16 was $15,258,527, or $385,522 less than FY17. When comparing the first five months of FY 16 to FY17, the current fiscal year’s budget is performing slightly better at 44.5%, versus 45.8% compared to this time last year.
Ms. Palladino then discussed the state mandated Uniform Chart of Accounts as promised at the previous board of finance meeting as follows:
Notable changes in budget process due to software conversion
- New set of account numbers consistent with state mandated Uniform Chart of Accounts (“UCOA”). Mapping example – selectman’s office budget
- Presently we categorize funds as: 1. the General Fund and 2. all other off-budget accounts. The UCOA will separate “all other funds” as follows:
- Special Revenue
- Capital projects
- Debt service funds
- Permanent funds
- Enterprise funds
- Internal Service funds
- Trust funds
- Agency funds
- Significant changes as a result of implementing UCOA
- Employee benefits are charged to each department: FICA, health and dental, life insurance premiums and pension costs.
- Pension committee costs will be withdrawn directly from the pension plan, as a result the pension contribution will go from 7% to 8.25%
- Past budgets expenses have been categorized into three categories: salaries, expenses and contractual. This year’s budget will be categorized into seven categories: salaries, employee benefits, purchased professional services, purchased property services, other purchased services, (the three “purchased” categories will likely replace current contractual expenses) property and supplies. The names of the expense accounts will be the same for all budgets.
Park and Recreation’s 5 budgets will be condensed into two budgets: 1. Parks and 2. Recreation
Public Works budget will go from one budget to four: 1. Administration; 2. Highways and Streets; 3. Snow and Ice Removal and 4. Vehicle/Equipment maintenance.
Transfer Station budget will likewise be divided into two budgets: 1. Station recycling operation and 2. Transportation disposal.
- Costs for custodians now placed in the Town Hall budget will be charged to the department receiving the service (i.e. park and rec/ fire department/ police department)
- For unions with no contract in place a collective bargaining contingency fund will be used to set aside funds toward final resolution of pay increase.
Mr. LaMay thanked Ms. Palladino.
Selectman’s Report:
Selectman Fortuna reported that he was looking at budgets. He suggested that the Board of Finance and the Board of Selectmen have a joint workshop. Mr. Fortuna suggested Saturday, January 21st from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. He also suggested the 5th Tuesday in January. The board also talked about the January 17th meeting devoted to the budget and perhaps start at 6:30 p.m.
Mr. Fortuna discussed briefly, the following:
- North Main Street; Almost done with bidding;
- Facilities Manager; Suggestions for across the street from Town Hall;
- Pension Board; Options; incentive to get away from Defined Benefit plan;
Public Comment:
None
Comments From The Chair:
Chairman LaMay thanked everyone for their attendance and asked for a motion to adjourn.
A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Thorpe, seconded by Ms. Lindley at 8:46 p.m. and so VOTED unanimously.
This meeting in its entirety was video taped and can be viewed on Town Website YouTube.
Submitted, Gerri Lewis, Clerk
| 