Templeton has an open form of Town meeting, meaning that any registered voter may attend and vote and speak on issues. Templeton uses Town Meeting Times as it's parliamentary procedure guide and it is available from the MA moderators association for $25.00 a copy. Soon there will be items from the most recent copy available here for people to read.
MA Moderators Association
c/o Harry A. Pape
70 Merriam Road
Princeton, Ma 01541
You may find a copy at a local library such as the Gardner public library.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Saturday, October 29, 2016
from the pages of "A guide to financial management for town officials" published by the MA division of local services.
11.3 W H AT CAN BE DONE T O MAKE TOWN MEETING AS EFFECTIVE AS POSSIBLE ? Because town meetings convene infrequently and generally have a great deal of business and information to deliberate upon, it is important that issues be identified , data and information assembled , and analysis completed by municipal officers , committees and interested persons in advance of the meeting . Committee meetings , public hearings , cable television programs and news paper articles offer convenient forums for the dissemination of important information on municipal matters . Computer technologies may also help to develop informational reports to assist town meeting . In any event, advance preparation of relevant information and it's presentation to town meeting in a concise and meaningful manner will result in a more effective meeting.
11.4 CAN TOWN MEETING APPROPRIATE MONEY IN A SPECIAL PURPOSE ARTICLE IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT STATED IN THE ARTICLE ?
Special purpose articles often state a specific amount of money for a particular capital or non - recurring purpose (e.g. , police ca r — $20,000) . Sometimes , town meeting wishes to appropriate more money than was identified in the article (often based upon additional information available by the date of town meeting). The answer to the question depends on local practice and the wording of the article . In the case of appropriation articles , town meeting is usually afforded a broad scope of action . The purpose of a warrant article is to just give notice of the subject matter to be acted on at the meeting . Generally, if the subject involve s a matte r that requires an expenditure , the meeting may decide the amount to spend , the financing source and other details . The practice in some communities , however, is that a specific amount stated in a special purpose appropriation article cannot be exceeded unless the article also contains qualifying language such as “other sum ” o r “other amount” . Town officials should consult the moderator and town counsel about the by -laws , procedural rules or practices that apply in their particular town.
I believe at our next town meeting, it should be requested by Town meeting that all articles that require more than a simple majority be determined by a hand count.
posted by Jeff Bennett
11.3 W H AT CAN BE DONE T O MAKE TOWN MEETING AS EFFECTIVE AS POSSIBLE ? Because town meetings convene infrequently and generally have a great deal of business and information to deliberate upon, it is important that issues be identified , data and information assembled , and analysis completed by municipal officers , committees and interested persons in advance of the meeting . Committee meetings , public hearings , cable television programs and news paper articles offer convenient forums for the dissemination of important information on municipal matters . Computer technologies may also help to develop informational reports to assist town meeting . In any event, advance preparation of relevant information and it's presentation to town meeting in a concise and meaningful manner will result in a more effective meeting.
11.4 CAN TOWN MEETING APPROPRIATE MONEY IN A SPECIAL PURPOSE ARTICLE IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT STATED IN THE ARTICLE ?
Special purpose articles often state a specific amount of money for a particular capital or non - recurring purpose (e.g. , police ca r — $20,000) . Sometimes , town meeting wishes to appropriate more money than was identified in the article (often based upon additional information available by the date of town meeting). The answer to the question depends on local practice and the wording of the article . In the case of appropriation articles , town meeting is usually afforded a broad scope of action . The purpose of a warrant article is to just give notice of the subject matter to be acted on at the meeting . Generally, if the subject involve s a matte r that requires an expenditure , the meeting may decide the amount to spend , the financing source and other details . The practice in some communities , however, is that a specific amount stated in a special purpose appropriation article cannot be exceeded unless the article also contains qualifying language such as “other sum ” o r “other amount” . Town officials should consult the moderator and town counsel about the by -laws , procedural rules or practices that apply in their particular town.
I believe at our next town meeting, it should be requested by Town meeting that all articles that require more than a simple majority be determined by a hand count.
posted by Jeff Bennett
from "A guide to financial management for town officials" published by the MA division of local services.
The town accountant should also prepare interim financial reports during the fiscal year. Interim financial reports allow local officials to compare their actual financial status to their projected financial situation (budget vs. actual, year-to-date revenues and expenditures). Interim financial reports are the principal means by which local officials can monitor an annual budget during the fiscal year. They provide information necessary to alert management to potential fiscal problems.
Department heads usually prepare their own budgets. Each departmental budget is created within the framework and guidelines set by the finance committee, selectmen, manager or some combination of the three, and finally by the town meeting. Department heads are usually very active in the budget review process, attempting to persuade those reviewing the budget of the value of their department’s services and the reasonableness of their budget requests. Once the budget is approved, department heads have direct responsibility for ensuring that they spend within the allocated amount
Finally, it is important to provide timely interim financial reports to the other financial officer s i n town . These report s facilitate communication among the various fiscal officer s an d provide a common basis for making policy decisions . A t a minimum, monthly report s that compare revenues receive d an d expenditures mad e against the budge t a r e critical planning an d control tool s for the boa r d o f selectmen, finance committee and department heads . Narrative explanation s accompanying the numbers in a report ca n dramatically increase the report’ s value . To complement the written reports , an accountant might consider making oral presentations several time s a year to the selectmen an d finance committee on the town’ s financial condition.
posted by Jeff Bennett
The town accountant should also prepare interim financial reports during the fiscal year. Interim financial reports allow local officials to compare their actual financial status to their projected financial situation (budget vs. actual, year-to-date revenues and expenditures). Interim financial reports are the principal means by which local officials can monitor an annual budget during the fiscal year. They provide information necessary to alert management to potential fiscal problems.
Department heads usually prepare their own budgets. Each departmental budget is created within the framework and guidelines set by the finance committee, selectmen, manager or some combination of the three, and finally by the town meeting. Department heads are usually very active in the budget review process, attempting to persuade those reviewing the budget of the value of their department’s services and the reasonableness of their budget requests. Once the budget is approved, department heads have direct responsibility for ensuring that they spend within the allocated amount
Finally, it is important to provide timely interim financial reports to the other financial officer s i n town . These report s facilitate communication among the various fiscal officer s an d provide a common basis for making policy decisions . A t a minimum, monthly report s that compare revenues receive d an d expenditures mad e against the budge t a r e critical planning an d control tool s for the boa r d o f selectmen, finance committee and department heads . Narrative explanation s accompanying the numbers in a report ca n dramatically increase the report’ s value . To complement the written reports , an accountant might consider making oral presentations several time s a year to the selectmen an d finance committee on the town’ s financial condition.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Friday, October 28, 2016
Is this a financial merry -go-'round?
Hi,
Wanted to update you on the Budget VS Actual Reports. You will only be receiving them once a month now after the Interim TA has reviewed and approved them to be sent. You should get the one for October on or around the 7th of November.
Kelli Pontbriand
Accountant
Town of Templeton
978-894-2765
from the latest report of the Town Administrator:
"The VADAR system refuses to pay any amount due if it will cause the line item to go over budget. I believe that the Town Administrator - in their role as defacto finance director - should be deciding whether or not to do this override (I need to know when a department heads run over their budget and be looking at how we will address it.)"
My thought is if you have a weekly budget versus actual, you have a better tracking of funds available and therefore how much you have to spend. When you have up to date information, you know, like keeping your checkbook register up to date or keeping track of account balance and how much you pay on a debit card. If department heads are doing their job, they should not be spending more than they were given at town meeting. It seems pretty simple but this is Templeton where we seem to always try to reinvent the rules of finance, in my opinion. Lets see if any selectmen speak out on this or do they continue to smile in public and say everything is alright, you know, just like the 2017 budget, so called.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Thursday, October 27, 2016
School choice, it is the schools choice!
A school district cannot stop students from leaving a district, but they can stop taking in students from other districts. It requires a vote by the school committee and that can stop trying to balance a schools budget by using students as a cash commodity, which in my opinion, is not a very honorable thing to do.
posted by jeff Bennett
A school district cannot stop students from leaving a district, but they can stop taking in students from other districts. It requires a vote by the school committee and that can stop trying to balance a schools budget by using students as a cash commodity, which in my opinion, is not a very honorable thing to do.
posted by jeff Bennett
So we have at least one selectmen stating on this blog they did not know how town meeting was going to go. Selectmen solving issues? Sounds like they are just creating more.
Question: Is there a rogue selectmen making calls by themselves and or with the town administrator?
Seems like the rest of the board went along with it rather than question it, that is one of the
things town meeting is for, to discuss and ask questions.
Question: Is that democracy in action? Is that how this board of selectmen is "functioning"? One selectmen making the rules without input from other board members in a public meeting?
Question: Are other selectmen allowing this to happen without calling for discussion or do they know
about it and are fine with it, privately, then have a public opinion on it to make themselves look better?
Failure to explain all the warrant articles to the legislative body is an affront to democracy, it is an insult to the people who take the time to show up and wish to discuss something. Too bad a majority if not all of the selectmen did not want article 8 to be discussed, which means they put their personal agenda in front of the people that elected them. We are not suppose to agree on everything, as this board of selectmen seem to want, agree in public to paint an all is good picture, when we all know it is not. Seems like that has been tried the past few years, so how is that working out for you?
What we really do not need now is another policy to just use as a puppet to hold up as a statement of "onward and upward." Once again, this is not a pep rally, it is business! Should have honored the three no votes and found another way to deal with it.
So now, what are the real powers of selectmen at town meeting? After the warrant is voted, posted and town meeting is called, what really do the selectmen have to do that we must allow them to do? What are the rights of the legislative body/ They do have and they demonstrated that they have the power to challenge the moderator so they must have the power to challenge the selectmen and they should, in my opinion.
The above is basically my opinion as a registered voter and participant.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Question: Is there a rogue selectmen making calls by themselves and or with the town administrator?
Seems like the rest of the board went along with it rather than question it, that is one of the
things town meeting is for, to discuss and ask questions.
Question: Is that democracy in action? Is that how this board of selectmen is "functioning"? One selectmen making the rules without input from other board members in a public meeting?
Question: Are other selectmen allowing this to happen without calling for discussion or do they know
about it and are fine with it, privately, then have a public opinion on it to make themselves look better?
Failure to explain all the warrant articles to the legislative body is an affront to democracy, it is an insult to the people who take the time to show up and wish to discuss something. Too bad a majority if not all of the selectmen did not want article 8 to be discussed, which means they put their personal agenda in front of the people that elected them. We are not suppose to agree on everything, as this board of selectmen seem to want, agree in public to paint an all is good picture, when we all know it is not. Seems like that has been tried the past few years, so how is that working out for you?
What we really do not need now is another policy to just use as a puppet to hold up as a statement of "onward and upward." Once again, this is not a pep rally, it is business! Should have honored the three no votes and found another way to deal with it.
So now, what are the real powers of selectmen at town meeting? After the warrant is voted, posted and town meeting is called, what really do the selectmen have to do that we must allow them to do? What are the rights of the legislative body/ They do have and they demonstrated that they have the power to challenge the moderator so they must have the power to challenge the selectmen and they should, in my opinion.
The above is basically my opinion as a registered voter and participant.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Sunday, October 23, 2016
As for the lawyer at Town meeting, he or his firm is hired by the Board of selectmen and he acts on things they request. You pay for it but that is how it goes. I believe if asked by the selectmen, Paul would have / could have, put forth proper and legal wording to allow for the motion to be discussed and voted on. The selectmen chose not to do that. I believe you will find a majority of the selectmen did not want further discussion on the school. Further investigation is required to find out what the actual authority of the selectmen is during a town meeting. Perhaps selectmen are not required and perhaps a group of citizens could go front and center and read each article to all who attend town meeting. That way, everyone who attends would hear the entire article read. Remember, the people who attend town meeting and sign in as registered voters are the legislative body, that body votes for or against all town by-laws and appropriations to operate the town. Perhaps a new by-law, properly researched, to force a reading of all articles, rather than "as written" could then happen. It is your government and it really does not need to be changed. It only becomes bad or misaligned when we allow it.
That is my opinion.
If a group of business men and farmers can take on the king of England, certainly the town's people can take on the selectmen.
If a group of business men and farmers can take on the king of England, certainly the town's people can take on the selectmen.
posted by Jeff Bennett
from the face book of John Columbus:
Filibuster by the advisory committee.
Filibuster by the advisory committee.
As a member of the Templeton Advisory Committee, I can say there was no organized filibuster or delay tactic on the part of the Committee as a whole. What individual members do is on them, as they are still a resident of Templeton and a voter. Was selectmen Brooks acting as a selectmen or an individual? She did not come off the stage to speak on the floor, which the moderator informed Advisory Committee that if we wished to speak on recommendations, we could speak from our table but if we wished to act as a citizen, we needed to speak from the floor. The selectmen apparently did not get the same instructions or they ignored them. They have after all declared themselves "the superior board"
posted by Jeff Bennett
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Massachusetts General Law, chapter 39:
Section 15. The moderator shall preside and regulate the proceedings, decide all questions of order, and make public declaration of all votes, and may administer in open meeting the oath of office to any town officer chosen thereat. If a vote so declared is immediately questioned by seven or more voters, he shall verify it by polling the voters or by dividing the meeting unless the town has by a previous order or by-law provided another method. If a two thirds, four fifths or nine tenths vote of a town meeting is required by statute, the count shall be taken, and the vote shall be recorded in the records by the clerk; provided, however, that a town may decide by by-law or vote not to take a count and record the vote if a two-thirds vote of a town meeting is required by statute; and provided, further, that if the vote is unanimous, a count need not be taken, and the clerk shall record the vote as unanimous.
A town may pass by-laws, subject to this section, for the regulation of the proceedings at town meetings. Such by-laws shall be approved and published in the manner prescribed by section thirty-two of chapter forty.
In any town having a representative town meeting form of government the town meeting members shall not use the secret ballot when voting in the exercise of the corporate powers of said town or on any motion unless two thirds of the town meeting members present and voting thereon vote that a secret ballot be used.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Where does it come from?
Actually, I do talk to people and people talk to me. I see town employees, including department heads, other boards and committees, people at town meeting. Then there are the groups such as the friends of the Templeton elders. I speak with some people at MacDonalds in the morning when I stop for a coffee. Surprising the number of "seniors" who gather there to talk. Information is all around us and while it may not all be on paper, so to speak, sometimes it is very interesting and worth tossing out there. I had heard the closing of the senior center before town meeting on October 20, but waited until after the meeting. If the article to take money out of stabilization had passed, there would be no need to close the senior center or anything else. All one has to do is think about it for a minute, unless the selectmen suddenly "find" some more money, how will they come up with $87,500.00?
By the way, I hope people do not fret or spend too much time wondering where somethings come from or begin. The information is all around us, all you have to do is listen.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Actually, I do talk to people and people talk to me. I see town employees, including department heads, other boards and committees, people at town meeting. Then there are the groups such as the friends of the Templeton elders. I speak with some people at MacDonalds in the morning when I stop for a coffee. Surprising the number of "seniors" who gather there to talk. Information is all around us and while it may not all be on paper, so to speak, sometimes it is very interesting and worth tossing out there. I had heard the closing of the senior center before town meeting on October 20, but waited until after the meeting. If the article to take money out of stabilization had passed, there would be no need to close the senior center or anything else. All one has to do is think about it for a minute, unless the selectmen suddenly "find" some more money, how will they come up with $87,500.00?
By the way, I hope people do not fret or spend too much time wondering where somethings come from or begin. The information is all around us, all you have to do is listen.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Some thoughts on a reply to one of my blog entries:
I generally let the any replies on here go, as I let people post comments, but sometimes I find things interesting and decide to comment on the comments, clear as mud, right.
Onward and upward, where we going, to the moon? What part of Templeton is the "selectmen's house?" I always thought the selectmen were elected to watch out for the entire town rather than just some departments. Since the light & water department of Templeton deals with all of the people of Templeton, just check who your light bill comes from. Who has to sign the warrant to pay all the town's bills? Who hires and oversees the people who are suppose to take care of town employees taxes, health insurance, retirement? The selectmen and who do the L&W commissioners turn to when they need to borrow money?, the selectmen, so in my opinion, the Templeton light & water department is in the selectmen's house.
Some selectmen should remember how they came to be elected, a special election and how one selectmen made a speech about democracy and representation. It is on video by the way. Democracy and the democratic process is suppose to be about the free and unfettered sharing of information, not just the part you want to share to favor your opinion. Might be time for people to take back their town meeting and that will take some work.
As for working together, how come when the Advisory Committee asks the selectmen for information, it is not readily forthcoming? Talk all you want about working together, but where were the selectmen at pre-town meeting? Where is the budget to actual for the school project? Where are the contracts involving the town and the school district? Two legal separate entities by the way.
"We don't have free cash to certify and our board has made the promise it will never be use for operating expenses."
I generally let the any replies on here go, as I let people post comments, but sometimes I find things interesting and decide to comment on the comments, clear as mud, right.
Onward and upward, where we going, to the moon? What part of Templeton is the "selectmen's house?" I always thought the selectmen were elected to watch out for the entire town rather than just some departments. Since the light & water department of Templeton deals with all of the people of Templeton, just check who your light bill comes from. Who has to sign the warrant to pay all the town's bills? Who hires and oversees the people who are suppose to take care of town employees taxes, health insurance, retirement? The selectmen and who do the L&W commissioners turn to when they need to borrow money?, the selectmen, so in my opinion, the Templeton light & water department is in the selectmen's house.
Some selectmen should remember how they came to be elected, a special election and how one selectmen made a speech about democracy and representation. It is on video by the way. Democracy and the democratic process is suppose to be about the free and unfettered sharing of information, not just the part you want to share to favor your opinion. Might be time for people to take back their town meeting and that will take some work.
As for working together, how come when the Advisory Committee asks the selectmen for information, it is not readily forthcoming? Talk all you want about working together, but where were the selectmen at pre-town meeting? Where is the budget to actual for the school project? Where are the contracts involving the town and the school district? Two legal separate entities by the way.
"We don't have free cash to certify and our board has made the promise it will never be use for operating expenses."
an email sent to a selectmen by me:
Over and done, two yes votes, however, there seems to be movement on part of BOS to provide as little information as possible. Point 1, not reading articles at town meeting, point 2, I asked the TA for a budget to actual for school project and all I got was partial information with acc'ts payable, encumbrances and pending contractual amounts missing. I know such a document exists because I have a copy from March of 2016. Advisory Committee exists because of MGL and town by-laws. Lastly, if any selectmen wish to know how I vote at advisory meetings, they should attend meetings, especially pre town.
Over and done, two yes votes, however, there seems to be movement on part of BOS to provide as little information as possible. Point 1, not reading articles at town meeting, point 2, I asked the TA for a budget to actual for school project and all I got was partial information with acc'ts payable, encumbrances and pending contractual amounts missing. I know such a document exists because I have a copy from March of 2016. Advisory Committee exists because of MGL and town by-laws. Lastly, if any selectmen wish to know how I vote at advisory meetings, they should attend meetings, especially pre town.
Good day,
Bennett
Bennett
PS, if you are written about or mentioned on my blog by me, it is because you (you as in anyone) are doing something. If you are doing nothing, you may never see your name there, think about that.
One item the selectmen seem ready to do to fix their fu%k up is to close the senior center. How about the selectmen take some heat and make the tough call, use the 40 thousand dollars in un-allocated funds, (from annual town meeting May 14, 2016) stop the raises given and then move some funds around (transfers) and make up their 87,500.00 mistake that way rather than punishing innocent people, the seniors.
By the way, that was the illegal part, I am told, about article 8. by rescinding the entire article, you would be hurting other innocent parties, because money has already been spent, encumbered, on accounts payable or by way of a promissory, as in awarding future work or "promising" and then that contractor turns down other work because they believe they have a job in waiting. For article 8 to be legal, it would have been to reduce the appropriation down to 4 million dollars. Again, the selectmen would need to be asked if they did or would they ask town counsel to "fix" the wording. Since the selectmen control how access to town counsel happens, I think the answer would be a NO. Besides, the selectmen seem implicit in all the children being used as pawns for a town meeting. Right up there with using children as a commodity in fixing a budget, school choice.
Also nice to see all those people up and leave right after the school vote, perhaps they had to get all the children home to bed for school the next day!
posted by Jeff Bennett
The question people should be asking, in my opinion, is this: Did the selectmen send all 8 articles which appeared on the warrant for the October 20 special town meeting, to town counsel before the meeting? Generally, that is what happens. I am betting town counsel did not see those articles, especially number 8, before Thursday evening. Waiting to the last minute, is a trick, in my opinion, you may call it a procedural move, which is why it is important to know the rules of the game. So, ask the selectmen at a meeting if they sent all 8 articles to legal before the meeting.
posted by Jeff Bennett
posted by Jeff Bennett
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Who's on first, I don't know is pitching!
Having spoke with the chairman of the Templeton board of selectmen and having read the face book page of Diane Brooks, Templeton selectmen, the message seems to be that if the school project is halted, Templeton will have to pay some money back to MSBA, which would be at least one million dollars or more. Not so fast says long time school committee member and member of Templeton school building committee. Mr. Mason says that money would come off the "top" if Templeton were to get in the pipeline later down the road. That is, in any future "grant" award, the past payments would be subtracted from any future grants. Example; Templeton would be awarded an MSBA grant of 22 million, then say 2 million already paid out to Templeton, would be subtracted and the future grant would only be 20 million. Seems there is no big debt with associated debt exclusion which would add to the tax rate for stopping the school project. So it would seem both selectmen were speaking out of their hats or were/are trying to scare people into voting a certain way. Seems like it is right up there with the mythical large "free cash" that the selectmen talked about right up until after the yes school vote.
Just remember why we are having a special town meeting to begin with; to fix the numbers document that the selectmen and town administrator told everyone was all fine, proper, balanced and fully funded. While the Advisory Committee raised questions, some still unanswered by way of the selectmen. Advisory Committee pointed out the lack of separation of long term debt principle and interest, lack of separate warrant article for a scholarship fund, lack of a salary number for a library janitor, too high new growth figure, which is reliably available from the Board of Assessors office and the still questionable vehicle excise tax figure. Also was an apparent short fall for unemployment insurance and the ever increasing health insurance costs. The superior board would have none of it, because as selectmen Brooks stated, "we are elected and you are only appointed."
posted by Jeff Bennett
Having spoke with the chairman of the Templeton board of selectmen and having read the face book page of Diane Brooks, Templeton selectmen, the message seems to be that if the school project is halted, Templeton will have to pay some money back to MSBA, which would be at least one million dollars or more. Not so fast says long time school committee member and member of Templeton school building committee. Mr. Mason says that money would come off the "top" if Templeton were to get in the pipeline later down the road. That is, in any future "grant" award, the past payments would be subtracted from any future grants. Example; Templeton would be awarded an MSBA grant of 22 million, then say 2 million already paid out to Templeton, would be subtracted and the future grant would only be 20 million. Seems there is no big debt with associated debt exclusion which would add to the tax rate for stopping the school project. So it would seem both selectmen were speaking out of their hats or were/are trying to scare people into voting a certain way. Seems like it is right up there with the mythical large "free cash" that the selectmen talked about right up until after the yes school vote.
Just remember why we are having a special town meeting to begin with; to fix the numbers document that the selectmen and town administrator told everyone was all fine, proper, balanced and fully funded. While the Advisory Committee raised questions, some still unanswered by way of the selectmen. Advisory Committee pointed out the lack of separation of long term debt principle and interest, lack of separate warrant article for a scholarship fund, lack of a salary number for a library janitor, too high new growth figure, which is reliably available from the Board of Assessors office and the still questionable vehicle excise tax figure. Also was an apparent short fall for unemployment insurance and the ever increasing health insurance costs. The superior board would have none of it, because as selectmen Brooks stated, "we are elected and you are only appointed."
posted by Jeff Bennett
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
from September 18, 2015
WESTFIELD, MA (WGGB/WSHM) - A $36 million construction bid was accepted in Westfield to build a new elementary school. Some neighbors are outraged at the location of the new building and started a petition against the transfer of land that would be used to build the new school. The plan is for the school to be built at the corner of Ashley and Cross St. and for the park that’s there now to move to Ponders Hollow Rd. Many residents say these changes aren'’t good for the community.
Ernest Simmons has lived on Cross St. for most of his life and doesn’t want the congestion of a new school in his neighborhood.
"We already have a lot of traffic and now you're talking about bringing numerous buses and parents do not want their kids walking a mile and a half, there will be cars coming up and down the street," said Simmons.
Right now at the building site of the new school lies an old, gated, rundown playground which is run by the city of Westfield. Residents say the new location for the park is undesirable and started a petition against the park moving to Ponders Hollow Rd. At one point the fire department used this land for training exercises, but agreed to give it back to the city to allow the construction of the new building.
Thomas Smith started the petition and says the size of the building would be overbearing to the neighborhood.
"We were never opposed to a new school, it wasn't until we saw the drastic size of the new building and the six hundred student capacity, and the design of the new school that we started to fight the design of the school," Said Smith.
“It’s massively grotesquely big for this little neighborhood,” said Dan Smith
Residents say the new school site is actually protected by the national park service and therefore the city shouldn’t be able to use the land. Because the $36 million construction bid was accepted it would only cost the town $11 million to build the new school.
City counselor Ralph Figy says closing the schools Abner Gibbs, Franklin Avenue, and Juniper Park would help tax payers.
"Our school budget was 1.5 million out of whack this year, we had a deficit of 1.5 million, if the school would have been built on time we would of had a deficit of about $350,000 versus $1.5 million, so there's a very big impact to the tax payer of Westfield," said Figy
Residents are hoping that with the petition the city will be able to figure out a new location for the elementary school
posted by Jeff Bennett
Your school, your money - if you feel it is worth it, vote No on question 8. If you are worried, concerned that Templeton cannot afford to do this now, vote yes on question 8.
Where was the interest figure when the first vote happened?
Where was the interest figure when the first vote happened?
Now on a document dated 10/30/2015, there is a box titled Tax Impact. This was a presentation on the school project by the elementary school building committee. Within this box is the following:
Cost to Templeton $24,634,287.00
Cost per year @ 3.5% $ 1,406,865.00
Cost per year @ 3.5% $ 1,406,865.00
Less NRSD debt $ 438,073.00
Net new debt $ 968,792.00
annual residential tax $1.74
annual tax increase per $1000.00
home valuation
home valuation
If the $438,073.00 is old debt and will be paid off in 2019, how does that reduce the amount of the new debt?
Looks like the old debt was/is used to show since you are already paying that, the Town will just keep it on for another 28 years and the additional new debt will cost you an additional $1.74, however, what will the total tax rate impact be to you for the new debt? That is the true cost of the debt payment. If the old debt is costing you .60 cents per thousand and it is kept on for another 28 years and the new debt is an additional $1.74 per thousand, I believe you have to add the two together to show the complete cost for the new debt, as $1.74 plus .60 equals $2.34 per thousand. By the way, since there is no free lunch, the interest for 24 million at 3.5% for 28 years is between 12 and 14 million, which means Templeton tax payers will be paying out between 36 and 38 million dollars for the school.
Looks like the old debt was/is used to show since you are already paying that, the Town will just keep it on for another 28 years and the additional new debt will cost you an additional $1.74, however, what will the total tax rate impact be to you for the new debt? That is the true cost of the debt payment. If the old debt is costing you .60 cents per thousand and it is kept on for another 28 years and the new debt is an additional $1.74 per thousand, I believe you have to add the two together to show the complete cost for the new debt, as $1.74 plus .60 equals $2.34 per thousand. By the way, since there is no free lunch, the interest for 24 million at 3.5% for 28 years is between 12 and 14 million, which means Templeton tax payers will be paying out between 36 and 38 million dollars for the school.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
On Saturday, October 15, 2016, Wil Spring, Julie Farrell and Jeff Bennett attended the Association of Town Finance Committees conference. All three members of Templeton Advisory Committee paid their own way, as in the fee to go to the conference, which was between $45.00 and $50.00 per person. No cost to town taxpayers. There was some very good and important information put out and also the sharing of information from the other "volunteers" from other communities who make up finance and advisory committees. One thing that is of importance to taxpayers is with changes through the municipal modernization act, now the chief administrative officer of the town can approve an increase in snow & ice deficit spending without having to go to, or discuss it with the finance or advisory committee. One less "check/balance" gone. One more way to charge it with little to no public warning.
posted by Jeff Bennett
posted by Jeff Bennett
from the Templeton Town Administrator weekly report:
"CLA has released us from our engagement letter and will send us a final close out bill in the next few weeks." CLA is an audit firm that has been doing some work and has asked Templeton for very detailed information from past moves affecting Templeton's finance.So is an in depth detailed analysis of Templeton's town books going to become a watered down version after this move? A very detailed audit would be the foundation of all future audits is now in question. There will be new bids for audit firms, but from what was discussed at the last selectmen meeting, the decision seems to have already been made. The point was made that a new firm would not ask for, nor need all the time consuming and detailed work that CLA had asked for. Makes me wonder about some things.
Also from the town administrator; "The audit project team met and we are on target although the various departments will be under a time crunch to supply us with additions/deletions of fixed assets which has not been maintained on an annual basis as needed. So again, how exactly were these audits going to be completed last January, this past June as the town was informed time and again by the selectmen? One last thing from the town accountant was this; "vendor warrant, of which $970,000.00 were bills for the school project . . .accounts receivable."
Also from the town administrator; "The audit project team met and we are on target although the various departments will be under a time crunch to supply us with additions/deletions of fixed assets which has not been maintained on an annual basis as needed. So again, how exactly were these audits going to be completed last January, this past June as the town was informed time and again by the selectmen? One last thing from the town accountant was this; "vendor warrant, of which $970,000.00 were bills for the school project . . .accounts receivable."
posted by Jeff Bennett
from the Templeton town website, under board of selectmen - town administrator -
town administrator weekly reports:
from Carter Terenzini "I met with NRSD current and former superintendent and Mr. Markel relative to the $1.74 projection and am comfortable that this was a reasonable projection. I will work up something in more detail for you and circulate it by e-mail on Monday."
That would be the same Mr. Markel who made up the current Templeton expense spread sheet, budget so called, that Mr. Markel was making changes to the day before Town meeting back in May 2016.
Now on a document dated 10/30/2015, there is a box titled Tax Impact. This was a presentation on the school project by the elementary school building committee. Within this box is the following:
Cost to Templeton $24,634,287.00
Cost per year @ 3.5% $ 1,406,865.00
Less NRSD debt $ 438,073.00
Net new debt $ 968,792.00
annual residential tax $1.74
annual tax increase per $1000.00
home valuation
Perhaps Carter will explain this in his email to selectmen on Monday. What does the payoff of old debt have to do with the costs of new debt? If you are paying an extra 60 cents per thousand for old debt, that will be paid off in 2019, that debt goes away and so should the old 60 cents per thousand. Now with new debt comes new taxes. If the new debt is or will be one million four hundred thousand dollars, how will $1.74 per thousand pay for that, when that per thousand amount will not now raise the required funds needed to make the new projected debt? Since no one can really tell us what amount will actually need to be borrowed, nor what it will cost, we have to use the numbers we have now, the data we have now.
So, what they have told us so far is the old debt for the NRSD will/should be paid off by 2019 and Templeton will no longer have to come up with that money, but now Templeton will have to come up with new money to pay for a 1.4 million dollar new payment and $1.74 per thousand will cover that.
posted by Jeff Bennett
town administrator weekly reports:
from Carter Terenzini "I met with NRSD current and former superintendent and Mr. Markel relative to the $1.74 projection and am comfortable that this was a reasonable projection. I will work up something in more detail for you and circulate it by e-mail on Monday."
That would be the same Mr. Markel who made up the current Templeton expense spread sheet, budget so called, that Mr. Markel was making changes to the day before Town meeting back in May 2016.
Now on a document dated 10/30/2015, there is a box titled Tax Impact. This was a presentation on the school project by the elementary school building committee. Within this box is the following:
Cost to Templeton $24,634,287.00
Cost per year @ 3.5% $ 1,406,865.00
Less NRSD debt $ 438,073.00
Net new debt $ 968,792.00
annual residential tax $1.74
annual tax increase per $1000.00
home valuation
Perhaps Carter will explain this in his email to selectmen on Monday. What does the payoff of old debt have to do with the costs of new debt? If you are paying an extra 60 cents per thousand for old debt, that will be paid off in 2019, that debt goes away and so should the old 60 cents per thousand. Now with new debt comes new taxes. If the new debt is or will be one million four hundred thousand dollars, how will $1.74 per thousand pay for that, when that per thousand amount will not now raise the required funds needed to make the new projected debt? Since no one can really tell us what amount will actually need to be borrowed, nor what it will cost, we have to use the numbers we have now, the data we have now.
So, what they have told us so far is the old debt for the NRSD will/should be paid off by 2019 and Templeton will no longer have to come up with that money, but now Templeton will have to come up with new money to pay for a 1.4 million dollar new payment and $1.74 per thousand will cover that.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Former selectman and present light & water commissioner rankled??
After reading a letter to the editor authored by Mr. Edwards, I noticed there was lots of "talk" about the past but not much on the future. I noticed there was reference to past administration members of select board and Advisory Committee but no mention of present numbers or issues.
On October 12, 2016, I posted some information on Massachusetts General Law chapter 164; the MGL that Templeton light general manager and commissioners always seem to point to or refer to when anyone questions their actions. So I went to the online site of MGL and looked at chapter 164. I posted section 56c, which among other things, Every municipal light commission or manager thereof, who makes or executes a contract on behalf of a municipal lighting plant, where the amount involved is five thousand dollars or more, shall furnish said contract or a copy thereof to the city or town auditor within one week after its execution.
Also within that section is; An index of the subject matter of the contracts and to the names of the contractors shall be made semi-annually, and shall also be open to public inspection in some convenient form.
The last item within section 56c is A city or town auditor, municipal light commissioner or manager willfully failing to comply with this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars.
I also made mention that since a certain light commissioner was allowed to have his wife pick up his nomination papers, I should be allowed to have my brother pick up my future nomination papers. In fact, there should be no reason to have anyone running for office to have to pick up their nomination papers in person when any family member can do it for them, as the Town has already allowed this one time.
Now back to the point of that letter; I did not see Mr. Edwards make any reference to the actual cost, as in the affect on the tax rate on residents with regards to paying for a bond for the school project. What will become of the skate park? Where will it go? So far, I have not seen, read or heard anyone deny that the cost to taxpayers will be greater than the highly touted rate of $1.74 per thousand. What there is here is an opportunity for two yes votes for the school. The school district, as I recall, had no problem going for a yes vote until they got it, even after three no votes from the Town of Templeton.
So, back to the future, how much will be borrowed for the school project? What will it cost, by way of the tax rate, to pay for the school? Where will the skate park go?
posted by Jeff Bennett
After reading a letter to the editor authored by Mr. Edwards, I noticed there was lots of "talk" about the past but not much on the future. I noticed there was reference to past administration members of select board and Advisory Committee but no mention of present numbers or issues.
On October 12, 2016, I posted some information on Massachusetts General Law chapter 164; the MGL that Templeton light general manager and commissioners always seem to point to or refer to when anyone questions their actions. So I went to the online site of MGL and looked at chapter 164. I posted section 56c, which among other things, Every municipal light commission or manager thereof, who makes or executes a contract on behalf of a municipal lighting plant, where the amount involved is five thousand dollars or more, shall furnish said contract or a copy thereof to the city or town auditor within one week after its execution.
Also within that section is; An index of the subject matter of the contracts and to the names of the contractors shall be made semi-annually, and shall also be open to public inspection in some convenient form.
The last item within section 56c is A city or town auditor, municipal light commissioner or manager willfully failing to comply with this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars.
I also made mention that since a certain light commissioner was allowed to have his wife pick up his nomination papers, I should be allowed to have my brother pick up my future nomination papers. In fact, there should be no reason to have anyone running for office to have to pick up their nomination papers in person when any family member can do it for them, as the Town has already allowed this one time.
Now back to the point of that letter; I did not see Mr. Edwards make any reference to the actual cost, as in the affect on the tax rate on residents with regards to paying for a bond for the school project. What will become of the skate park? Where will it go? So far, I have not seen, read or heard anyone deny that the cost to taxpayers will be greater than the highly touted rate of $1.74 per thousand. What there is here is an opportunity for two yes votes for the school. The school district, as I recall, had no problem going for a yes vote until they got it, even after three no votes from the Town of Templeton.
So, back to the future, how much will be borrowed for the school project? What will it cost, by way of the tax rate, to pay for the school? Where will the skate park go?
posted by Jeff Bennett
Friday, October 14, 2016
from the Boston Business Journal:
In many of the state’s poorer and economically challenged communities, override votes are a nonstarter for residents. That in turn has forced officials in those communities to either cut costs or get creative when faced with budget shortfalls. A common strategy has seen communities maximize their levy capacity with business owners.
For example, the city of Everett, which has never held an override vote and for years has boasted the highest commercial property-tax rate in the state, extracts around $43 in taxes for every $1,000 in assessed property value owned by businesses. That's nearly triple the city’s residential rate.
Meanwhile, the strains on Everett’s budget have steadily worsened, largely due to the rapid expansion in its public-school enrollment numbers.
This year, the state already has seen at least 15 override votes, seven of which passed. Wellesley’s $3.35 million general fund approval was the year’s biggest so far. The commonwealth saw 55 votes, of which 35 passed, last year.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Some information of property tax rates in Massachusetts
Which is not to say Massachusetts tax rates generally are on the rise. In fact, some 127 communities actually will see residential tax rates decline on a year-over-year basis in 2016. At least 131 cities and towns will see declines in commercial rates. If only tax bills followed suit.
Rather, tax rates typically move inversely with property values — meaning if values are on the rise, as they have been for the better part of four years in Massachusetts, rates are likely to fall. That's about the extent of the wiggle room towns and cities have in determining rates on a year-to-year basis, save for the rare tax override or the addition of newly taxable property. Thus are the finer points of the state's longstanding tax code forever known as Proposition 2 1/2.
Among the big takeaways from this year's rate-setting exercise for local cities and towns:
- At $39.86 per $1,000 in assessed value, Holyoke has retained its inglorious distinction as the community with the highest commercial property-tax rate in Massachusetts. Other Gateway cities, such as Springfield and Pittsfield, also topped the list, a sign of how tax-sensitive residents in those communities are ... and how much businesses are squeezed to fund local services. All told, some 28 communities will have commercial rates above the $30 threshold this year.
- At $24.33 per $1,000 in assessed value, the Western Massachusetts community of Longmeadow posted the highest residential rate in the state. It was Longmeadow's third-consecutive No. 1 ranking, making it the poster child for communities with tiny business districts and an over-reliance on residential property owners to fund town services. This year, roughly 25 communities will have residential rates above the $20 threshold, versus 18 last year.
- At $18,762, the town of Weston boasts the highest-average single-family tax bill in the state this year, followed by Sherborn ($15,104) and Lincoln ($15,033). A total of 20 communities will have an average bill above the $10,000 threshold, versus 15 in 2015.
- In Greater Boston, the town of Wellesley has seen the largest increase in its average single-family tax bill over the past decade. Since 2006, Wellesley's average bill has increased 70 percent to $13,971. Second is the town of Scituate (up 69 percent, $7,192 average) and third is Fall River (69 percent, $2,835.)
posted by Jeff Bennett (from the Boston Business Journal)
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
The email policy for Templeton just may have been the result of some dumb moves by a town department head. (my opinion). Now for the Templeton municipal light and water department.
Massachusetts General law - chapter 164 section 56c:
Contracts of the commission; (light & water commissioners) filing with the town or city auditor; preservation; public inspection; penalty.
Section 56C. Every municipal light commission or manager thereof, who makes or executes a contract on behalf of a municipal lighting plant, where the amount involved is five thousand dollars or more, shall furnish said contract or a copy thereof to the city or town auditor within one week after its execution. Said city or town auditor shall keep such contract or copy on file, open to public inspection during business hours. Such contracts or copies shall be kept in a separate book, arranged according to the subject of the contract, or in other convenient form. An index of the subject matter of the contracts and to the names of the contractors shall be made semi-annually, and shall also be open to public inspection in some convenient form. All allowances under and additions to such contracts, or copies thereof, shall be filed with the city or town auditor, together with a sworn statement of the officer making such allowances or additions that the same are correct and in accordance with the contract. A city or town auditor, municipal light commissioner or manager wilfully failing to comply with this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars.
So according to the new Town public records policy, which is no longer on the Town website?? Guess they got tired of my commenting on their improper posting of costs for records, 5 cents per page. Since there is a letter from the Massachusetts DOR stating that the light and water are not a separate legal entity, I am going to ask to look at those contracts, such as the wind turbine one and see what I find, or not. They need to be there or a complaint (s) will follow to the secretary of states office and the Attorney Generals office and see if the Templeton municipal light and water department have to follow the law or not. I think since they have to come to the town meeting to ask to borrow money, that makes them part of the town and answerable for any contracts in place. Remember that even the building they have as headquarters was financed by town meeting approval.
I also believe Templeton has established case law, as in a light commissioner's wife could pick up his nomination papers so my brother should be able to pick up mine. If not, i guess it is off to court.
Templeton light once came to a board of selectmen meeting and said how they did something as an electric cooperative, under MGL chapter 164, section 47 c;
(j) Except as provided for herein, a municipal lighting plant cooperative shall be exempt from paying taxes, including, but not limited to taxes on its income and real and personal property situated within the commonwealth and owned by the municipal light plant cooperative; provided, however, that the cooperative shall agree, in lieu of property taxes, to pay to any governmental body authorized to levy local property taxes the amount which would be assessable as local property taxes on the real and tangible personal property if such property were the property of a domestic corporation; provided, further, that no such municipal lighting plant cooperative shall be allowed to commence any such operations allowed pursuant to this section or exercise any such powers pursuant to subsection (d) until such payment in lieu of taxes is executed. The cooperative shall pay all sales or excise taxes which are properly assessed on its business activities under this section to the extent such taxes are assessed against domestic corporations.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Massachusetts General law - chapter 164 section 56c:
Contracts of the commission; (light & water commissioners) filing with the town or city auditor; preservation; public inspection; penalty.
Section 56C. Every municipal light commission or manager thereof, who makes or executes a contract on behalf of a municipal lighting plant, where the amount involved is five thousand dollars or more, shall furnish said contract or a copy thereof to the city or town auditor within one week after its execution. Said city or town auditor shall keep such contract or copy on file, open to public inspection during business hours. Such contracts or copies shall be kept in a separate book, arranged according to the subject of the contract, or in other convenient form. An index of the subject matter of the contracts and to the names of the contractors shall be made semi-annually, and shall also be open to public inspection in some convenient form. All allowances under and additions to such contracts, or copies thereof, shall be filed with the city or town auditor, together with a sworn statement of the officer making such allowances or additions that the same are correct and in accordance with the contract. A city or town auditor, municipal light commissioner or manager wilfully failing to comply with this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars.
So according to the new Town public records policy, which is no longer on the Town website?? Guess they got tired of my commenting on their improper posting of costs for records, 5 cents per page. Since there is a letter from the Massachusetts DOR stating that the light and water are not a separate legal entity, I am going to ask to look at those contracts, such as the wind turbine one and see what I find, or not. They need to be there or a complaint (s) will follow to the secretary of states office and the Attorney Generals office and see if the Templeton municipal light and water department have to follow the law or not. I think since they have to come to the town meeting to ask to borrow money, that makes them part of the town and answerable for any contracts in place. Remember that even the building they have as headquarters was financed by town meeting approval.
I also believe Templeton has established case law, as in a light commissioner's wife could pick up his nomination papers so my brother should be able to pick up mine. If not, i guess it is off to court.
Templeton light once came to a board of selectmen meeting and said how they did something as an electric cooperative, under MGL chapter 164, section 47 c;
(j) Except as provided for herein, a municipal lighting plant cooperative shall be exempt from paying taxes, including, but not limited to taxes on its income and real and personal property situated within the commonwealth and owned by the municipal light plant cooperative; provided, however, that the cooperative shall agree, in lieu of property taxes, to pay to any governmental body authorized to levy local property taxes the amount which would be assessable as local property taxes on the real and tangible personal property if such property were the property of a domestic corporation; provided, further, that no such municipal lighting plant cooperative shall be allowed to commence any such operations allowed pursuant to this section or exercise any such powers pursuant to subsection (d) until such payment in lieu of taxes is executed. The cooperative shall pay all sales or excise taxes which are properly assessed on its business activities under this section to the extent such taxes are assessed against domestic corporations.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Mr. Winikur explained that Templeton was one of
the first districts selected into the eligibility phase in 2007.
“The existing Center Elementary School was grandfathered because of age (built in 1941),” Mr. Winikur said. “MSBA spent a lot of time there and deemed it unsuitable. All engineering systems are in need of replacement.”
And the existing Baldwinville Elementary School is even older, built in 1925.
“There’s no library in either school,” Mr. Poinelli said. “The acoustics in the gym are outrageously bad. The plumbing system is well beyond its use.
With the existing educational configuration, there are four schools. Prekindergarten attends school in Phillipston; grades kindergarten and 1 go to Templeton Center; grades 2 to 4 are at Baldwinville Elementary School and the 5th grade goes to the middle school.
But if the new educational configuration goes through, it will be consolidated into one pre-K to grade 5 elementary school.
Special education students will also have integrated teaching spaces and special teaching areas. There will be a library and a gym, state-of-the art music and art rooms, an elevator, and handicapped-accessible bathrooms, which the current schools don’t have. There will be LED lighting, wireless access throughout the building and grounds, video surveillance, an intrusion detection system and a cafetorium. There will also be a lobby with a seating area, as well as a physical and occupational therapy room.
“We feel we have an overall good contemporary floor plan to bring the kids together,” Mr. Poinelli said.
To pay for the school, Templeton would require a Proposition 2 1/2 debt exclusion tax override, which would need two approvals, both at the Nov. 9 Town Meeting and the Dec. 8 ballot vote, to pass.
Detail design work would be done from January to October 2016. Construction would last from October to June 2018. It would be a 93,000-square-foot school that would serve 580 students.
Clarification on this one school consolidation configuration please.
posted by Jeff Bennett
“The existing Center Elementary School was grandfathered because of age (built in 1941),” Mr. Winikur said. “MSBA spent a lot of time there and deemed it unsuitable. All engineering systems are in need of replacement.”
And the existing Baldwinville Elementary School is even older, built in 1925.
“There’s no library in either school,” Mr. Poinelli said. “The acoustics in the gym are outrageously bad. The plumbing system is well beyond its use.
With the existing educational configuration, there are four schools. Prekindergarten attends school in Phillipston; grades kindergarten and 1 go to Templeton Center; grades 2 to 4 are at Baldwinville Elementary School and the 5th grade goes to the middle school.
But if the new educational configuration goes through, it will be consolidated into one pre-K to grade 5 elementary school.
Special education students will also have integrated teaching spaces and special teaching areas. There will be a library and a gym, state-of-the art music and art rooms, an elevator, and handicapped-accessible bathrooms, which the current schools don’t have. There will be LED lighting, wireless access throughout the building and grounds, video surveillance, an intrusion detection system and a cafetorium. There will also be a lobby with a seating area, as well as a physical and occupational therapy room.
“We feel we have an overall good contemporary floor plan to bring the kids together,” Mr. Poinelli said.
To pay for the school, Templeton would require a Proposition 2 1/2 debt exclusion tax override, which would need two approvals, both at the Nov. 9 Town Meeting and the Dec. 8 ballot vote, to pass.
Detail design work would be done from January to October 2016. Construction would last from October to June 2018. It would be a 93,000-square-foot school that would serve 580 students.
Clarification on this one school consolidation configuration please.
posted by Jeff Bennett
On October 20, 2016, people get a second chance to vote for, or not, for a new school. Of particular interest to me is what is the best guess cost to the taxpayer going to be. Consider that now, not in the future, $1.00 per thousand will raise $597,000.00. That is based on recent information from the Assessors office in Templeton. That bears checking out on your part.
Now, what follows is from a letter to editor in the Gardner news around this time last year, 2015:
The Templeton Center site has been approved by architects, engineers and the Massachusetts School Building Authority. A few have said that we need a new school but is too costly. The cost to Templeton resulting from state reimbursement is 24.8 million. The annual residential tax is $1.74 per 1,000 home valuation.
From information at Town meeting on November 9, 2015 and from other meetings, as well as a debt calculator on the website of MA DLS, 24 million dollars for 28 years at 3.5% would mean a yearly payback of about 1.4 million dollars.
If we take the information from the Assessors office and compare it to the information given at the Town Meeting, I do not see anyway for $1.74 to work, not close. Consider that back in 2015, I believe the information available was $1.00 per thousand would raise $556,000.00. Again, $1.74 per thousand does not work. So why is that? Is that some new math? Using the information from the Assessors office, $2.00 per thousand would raise almost 1.2 million dollars, but we have to have 1.4 million per year, so again, where did this $1.74 come from? Time to get honest, time to be conservative, time to be real, pick one, just be honest and tell people that it is not going to be $1,74, it will be $2.34 per thousand or $2.50 per thousand.
By the way, just for informational purposes, on those documents available, the $1.74 per thousand had the words "net increase" next to them, because the plan is for another debt exclusion to not go away after 20 years. Remember the one from back in 1996, that was suppose to be paid off in 2016 but now will not be paid off until 2019, well the plan was/is (appears to be) to just keep that on the tax rolls and add the $1.74 to that and that will make the "new" debt payments for the next 28 years.
All of this can be verified with some work and time.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Now, what follows is from a letter to editor in the Gardner news around this time last year, 2015:
The Templeton Center site has been approved by architects, engineers and the Massachusetts School Building Authority. A few have said that we need a new school but is too costly. The cost to Templeton resulting from state reimbursement is 24.8 million. The annual residential tax is $1.74 per 1,000 home valuation.
From information at Town meeting on November 9, 2015 and from other meetings, as well as a debt calculator on the website of MA DLS, 24 million dollars for 28 years at 3.5% would mean a yearly payback of about 1.4 million dollars.
If we take the information from the Assessors office and compare it to the information given at the Town Meeting, I do not see anyway for $1.74 to work, not close. Consider that back in 2015, I believe the information available was $1.00 per thousand would raise $556,000.00. Again, $1.74 per thousand does not work. So why is that? Is that some new math? Using the information from the Assessors office, $2.00 per thousand would raise almost 1.2 million dollars, but we have to have 1.4 million per year, so again, where did this $1.74 come from? Time to get honest, time to be conservative, time to be real, pick one, just be honest and tell people that it is not going to be $1,74, it will be $2.34 per thousand or $2.50 per thousand.
By the way, just for informational purposes, on those documents available, the $1.74 per thousand had the words "net increase" next to them, because the plan is for another debt exclusion to not go away after 20 years. Remember the one from back in 1996, that was suppose to be paid off in 2016 but now will not be paid off until 2019, well the plan was/is (appears to be) to just keep that on the tax rolls and add the $1.74 to that and that will make the "new" debt payments for the next 28 years.
All of this can be verified with some work and time.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Saturday, October 8, 2016
To get away from the school "frenzy" try public money for private use.
from today's Gardner News:
from today's Gardner News:
Large potholes and cracks in the pavement is a regular problem along Laurel View Road. There are a many places where the pavement heaves upward and vegetation is growing through breaks. News staff photo by Christine Smith
So in the interest of public knowledge and what is possible, I did a little reading on the tv, ah the internet, the big screen, the land of what google lets you see.
by Mary Mitchell, esquire (retired) Municipal Finance Law Bureau from 2006
So I am sure some things have changed - or not - but it is worth a check because these people who live on these roads do pay property taxes!
Authority to Spend
The authority for cities and towns to spend money arises under Section 5 of MGL c. 40. That section provides that:
“[a] town may at any town meeting appropriate money for the exercise of any of its corporate powers; provided, however, that a town shall not appropriate or expend money for any purpose, on any terms, or under any conditions inconsistent with any applicable provision of any general or special law.(2)”
Cities and towns are free to exercise any power or function, except those denied to them by their own charters or reserved to the State, that the Legislature has the power to confer on them, as long as the exercise of these powers is not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws enacted by the Legislature.(3) In general, the properties and purposes for which cities and towns are authorized to spend are not specified, but rather they include any necessary expenditures arising from the exercise of their powers or functions.
Public Purpose Limitation
Cities and towns can spend only for public purposes. Public funds cannot be used for private purposes. Thus, cities and towns have the right to spend money for any purpose where the public good will be served but not where the expenditure of money is directly for the private benefit of certain individuals. This principle is expressed in the Massachusetts constitution and in numerous cases.(4)
In some situations, however, the expenditure of public funds advances both public and private interests. In those situations, if the dominant motive for the expenditure is a public one, incidental private benefits will not invalidate the expenditure.(5) If, however, the dominant motive is to promote a private purpose, the expenditure will be invalid even if incidentally some public purpose also is served.(6)
Notations:
5.) See e.g., Opinion of the Justices, 313 Mass. 779 (1943) (“The fact that the owner of a way may profit by expenditures ‘for the removal of snow and ice’…does not invalidate expenditures…where the primary purpose of such removal is the benefit of the public to whose use the way is open.”).
6.) See e.g., Salisbury Land & Improvement, Co. v. Commonwealth, 215 Mass. 371 (1913) (act was unconstitutional where it authorized the condemnation of lands for a public beach and the sale or leasing to private parties of any portion not needed for the public beach)
Notations:
5.) See e.g., Opinion of the Justices, 313 Mass. 779 (1943) (“The fact that the owner of a way may profit by expenditures ‘for the removal of snow and ice’…does not invalidate expenditures…where the primary purpose of such removal is the benefit of the public to whose use the way is open.”).
6.) See e.g., Salisbury Land & Improvement, Co. v. Commonwealth, 215 Mass. 371 (1913) (act was unconstitutional where it authorized the condemnation of lands for a public beach and the sale or leasing to private parties of any portion not needed for the public beach)
So that should give anyone a start who is interested in that subject, or if you live on one of those roads.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Friday, October 7, 2016
How projects sometimes go, just as an FYI;
Page 28 of the Templeton 2003 annual town report, there is an item under the Templeton municipal Light & water department. "The commissioners voted to withdraw $400,000.00 from the MMWEC working capital account to make up the increase above the 1.5 million dollars voted at town meeting to pay for the new light building." Oops, a little bit over what was estimated and asked for. Later, there was 1.9 million asked for to build or buy a 12,000 sqf. building for a town hall. The last bid received for that project was in the 3.5 - 4 million dollars range. 1.9 million was approved at town meeting. I believe in Gardner, the new police station was said to cost near the 12 million dollar range and at last count I saw, I believe it was in the 14 million dollar range to finish it. Looking at those items and others, I do not have much confidence in the Templeton school project coming in under budget, I expect it will cost Templeton more than 24 million dollars and more than $1.74 per thousand. I also happen to think these things should have been part of the discussion. If it is wanted and is a good deal, it will and would have still passed. Do not be afraid of a second vote, be confident in 2 yes votes. Don't be afraid, unless you scared that since the real information has come out, the second sell might not pass!
posted by Jeff Bennett
Page 28 of the Templeton 2003 annual town report, there is an item under the Templeton municipal Light & water department. "The commissioners voted to withdraw $400,000.00 from the MMWEC working capital account to make up the increase above the 1.5 million dollars voted at town meeting to pay for the new light building." Oops, a little bit over what was estimated and asked for. Later, there was 1.9 million asked for to build or buy a 12,000 sqf. building for a town hall. The last bid received for that project was in the 3.5 - 4 million dollars range. 1.9 million was approved at town meeting. I believe in Gardner, the new police station was said to cost near the 12 million dollar range and at last count I saw, I believe it was in the 14 million dollar range to finish it. Looking at those items and others, I do not have much confidence in the Templeton school project coming in under budget, I expect it will cost Templeton more than 24 million dollars and more than $1.74 per thousand. I also happen to think these things should have been part of the discussion. If it is wanted and is a good deal, it will and would have still passed. Do not be afraid of a second vote, be confident in 2 yes votes. Don't be afraid, unless you scared that since the real information has come out, the second sell might not pass!
posted by Jeff Bennett
Thursday, October 6, 2016
From the DLS website, click gateway then click on cities and towns free cash calculations.
This is information at the bottom of the Free Cash Calculation form that was submitted March 25, 2014 and it shows a deficit of 26 thousand dollars so how again did these selectmen feel good about repeating this 750 thousand dollars in free cash coming and the books are all good?
Feel free to believe what you will, I will choose the data/information available.
(26,899)
FREE CASH, JULY 1, 2013
REVIEWED BY: Deb Wagner Please see certification letter
DATE: 03/27/14 FOR DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS APPROVAL
posted by Jeff Bennett
This is information at the bottom of the Free Cash Calculation form that was submitted March 25, 2014 and it shows a deficit of 26 thousand dollars so how again did these selectmen feel good about repeating this 750 thousand dollars in free cash coming and the books are all good?
Feel free to believe what you will, I will choose the data/information available.
(26,899)
FREE CASH, JULY 1, 2013
REVIEWED BY: Deb Wagner Please see certification letter
DATE: 03/27/14 FOR DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS APPROVAL
posted by Jeff Bennett
First off, this is not petty, this is me trying to let people know what the school is really going to cost them. I believe people should know and should be told. Why there are people all in a twist over this is quite the puzzle. I sometimes wonder if people care about these things. Forget the police station, that is a 2 year deal. The cost to the taxpayers will be more than $1.74 per thousand, if anyone takes the time to look at the paperwork that was handed out back on November 9, 2015, you will see that. What was printed and talked about was the fact the "new" high school should have been paid off in 2016 but the district reworked their debt so it got extended another 3 years. Now whatever the cost for that over 20 years was/is, 58 cents 60 cents or 85 cents, that will not be going away, as was said back in 1996. The plan is to keep that on and add another $1.74 per thousand, so if you take say 60 cents and add $1.74 together, that is probably the bare least you will be paying, about $2.34 per thousand. That is one of the things that is a bee in my bonnet, tell the truth and give the number what ever it is. Do not low ball just to get a yes vote. If people really want a school, they will pay whatever the cost. Do not forget everything else will be going up at least a little bit each year. Now remember who has been telling you that everything will be fine, everything is good. The town will have 750 thousand dollars in free cash, the audits will be done by January or February 2016 and the town will have a bond rating by June or July 2016. That is all on the record and was in the newspaper. Oh yeah, the FY 2017 budget is all set, balanced and proper with 56 thousand unallocated funds ta boot! So why are the selectmen not using those funds to cover that 87,500.00 boo boo? Why are they going after the little bit of savings the town has to cover that? So far, from the information from the town accountant, the money the town has received from MSBA appears to be around one million one hundred fifty thousand dollars. Now that information could be wrong but that is what I have seen so far covering from 2010 to 2016. That would be about 2.00 per thousand for one year to pay that back, if we are required to do so. Funny how that was not mentioned at the meeting nor the ballot question back in 2015, if you vote this down, we have to pay the money back. The Town did vote one million fifty in money for feasibility and design and some of that was paid from MSBA. Where was the "if this does not pass, we have to pay that money back? Sounds like scare tactics to me. Lastly, back in 1974, before the new addition at gannsett, there were about 900 kids in that building which was about half the size it is now and we seemed to be fine back then so what is the problem now with 800 or 900 kids in there? Just asking a question.
posted by Jeff Bennett
posted by Jeff Bennett
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Why you must be ever vigilant.
Since there has now been updated valuations, as in property values are valued higher now in Templeton, $1.00 per thousand will raise $597,000.00. Close enough to say 600 thousand, so $2.00 per thousand will raise 1.2 million dollars. Still, that is above the $1.74 per thousand you were told at town meeting back on November 9, 2015. That has been my biggest concern/complaint with much of Templeton's finances, lack of truth and clarity. For those who were at annual Town meeting back in 2013, the ambulance receipts account does not and will not completely pay for the ambulance service. Things like more full time employees salaries and benefit packages will have to come from taxation, period. Dispatch cost Templeton taxpayers more than 37 thousand dollars per year. Another lie from a past chief of police. With new prisoner cells in the Templeton police station, taxpayers will now be on the hook to house, keep track of, feed and take to hospital anyone locked up for a period of time, especially over say a weekend. There needs to be a meeting, a survey, questionnaire, something, to get feed back from residents on what services they want and what they are willing to pay for them. Do we wish to keep the senior center? There are selectmen who think that may need to go. Do you think Templeton should be in the ambulance business? Would you still be for it if Templeton could get a contract thru a private company and receive 100 thousand per year just for letting them provide that service to Templeton. Would you be in favor of raising Phillipston share of dispatch to at least 90 thousand per year? Would you be in favor of taking on a third town for dispatch service? Some thing (s0 have to give or residents will have to support an override, as a raise in taxes just to cover those costs for services. We need to determine what services residents need and want and what they are willing to pay for them.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Since there has now been updated valuations, as in property values are valued higher now in Templeton, $1.00 per thousand will raise $597,000.00. Close enough to say 600 thousand, so $2.00 per thousand will raise 1.2 million dollars. Still, that is above the $1.74 per thousand you were told at town meeting back on November 9, 2015. That has been my biggest concern/complaint with much of Templeton's finances, lack of truth and clarity. For those who were at annual Town meeting back in 2013, the ambulance receipts account does not and will not completely pay for the ambulance service. Things like more full time employees salaries and benefit packages will have to come from taxation, period. Dispatch cost Templeton taxpayers more than 37 thousand dollars per year. Another lie from a past chief of police. With new prisoner cells in the Templeton police station, taxpayers will now be on the hook to house, keep track of, feed and take to hospital anyone locked up for a period of time, especially over say a weekend. There needs to be a meeting, a survey, questionnaire, something, to get feed back from residents on what services they want and what they are willing to pay for them. Do we wish to keep the senior center? There are selectmen who think that may need to go. Do you think Templeton should be in the ambulance business? Would you still be for it if Templeton could get a contract thru a private company and receive 100 thousand per year just for letting them provide that service to Templeton. Would you be in favor of raising Phillipston share of dispatch to at least 90 thousand per year? Would you be in favor of taking on a third town for dispatch service? Some thing (s0 have to give or residents will have to support an override, as a raise in taxes just to cover those costs for services. We need to determine what services residents need and want and what they are willing to pay for them.
posted by Jeff Bennett
from special Town meeting, November 9, 2015, 24 million was NOT voted, 47 million was/is the dollar figure passed. Interest only, according to debt calculator on DLS website for this amount at 3.5% is 14 million dollars. Yup, it costs money to borrow money and "they" do not always wish you to see it, which is why there is an item for the October 20, 2016 STM to separate principle and interest on Templeton long term debt!
This is not for / against, it is merely information for you to know before you vote!
On a motion duly made and seconded the Town voted to appropriate the amount of Forty-Seven Million, Five Hundred Sixty-Three Thousand, One Hundred Eighty-Four Dollars ($47,563,184) for the purpose of paying the costs of designing, constructing, originally equipping and furnishing a new Templeton Elementary School located at 17 South Road, Templeton MA, including the payment of all costs incidental or related thereto (the “Project"), which school facility shall have an anticipated useful life as an educational facility for the instruction of school children of at least 50 years, and for which the Town, through Narragansett Regional School District, may be eligible for a grant from the Massachusetts School Building Authority ("MSBA"), said amount to be expended under the direction of the Templeton Elementary School Building Committee; and to meet this appropriation, the Treasurer, with the approval of the Selectmen, is authorized to borrow said amount under M.G.L. Chapter 44, or pursuant to any other enabling authority; The Town acknowledges that MSBA's grant program is a non-entitlement, discretionary program based on need, as determined by the MSBA, and any Project costs the Town incurs in excess of any grant approved by and received from the MSBA, through the Narragansett Regional School District, shall be the sole responsibility of the Town; provided further that any grant that the Town, through the Narragansett regional School District, may receive from the MSBA for the Project shall not exceed the lesser of: (1) Sixty-Two and Eighty-Four Hundredths Percent (62.84%) of eligible, approved Project costs, as determined by the MSBA, or (2) the total maximum grant amount determined by the MSBA; provided that any appropriation here under shall be subject to and contingent upon an affirmative vote of the Town to exempt the amounts required for the payment of interest and principal on said borrowing from the limitations on taxes imposed by M.G.L. 59, section 21C “Proposition 2 ½”; and that the amount of borrowing authorized pursuant to this vote shall be reduce by any grant amount set forth in the Project Funding Agreement that may be executed between the Narragansett Regional School District and the MSBA.
Passed by 2/3/November 9th @ 8:14
A motion was duly made and seconded to reconsider Article 1. Defeated/November 9th @ 8:16
posted by Jeff Bennett
This is not for / against, it is merely information for you to know before you vote!
On a motion duly made and seconded the Town voted to appropriate the amount of Forty-Seven Million, Five Hundred Sixty-Three Thousand, One Hundred Eighty-Four Dollars ($47,563,184) for the purpose of paying the costs of designing, constructing, originally equipping and furnishing a new Templeton Elementary School located at 17 South Road, Templeton MA, including the payment of all costs incidental or related thereto (the “Project"), which school facility shall have an anticipated useful life as an educational facility for the instruction of school children of at least 50 years, and for which the Town, through Narragansett Regional School District, may be eligible for a grant from the Massachusetts School Building Authority ("MSBA"), said amount to be expended under the direction of the Templeton Elementary School Building Committee; and to meet this appropriation, the Treasurer, with the approval of the Selectmen, is authorized to borrow said amount under M.G.L. Chapter 44, or pursuant to any other enabling authority; The Town acknowledges that MSBA's grant program is a non-entitlement, discretionary program based on need, as determined by the MSBA, and any Project costs the Town incurs in excess of any grant approved by and received from the MSBA, through the Narragansett Regional School District, shall be the sole responsibility of the Town; provided further that any grant that the Town, through the Narragansett regional School District, may receive from the MSBA for the Project shall not exceed the lesser of: (1) Sixty-Two and Eighty-Four Hundredths Percent (62.84%) of eligible, approved Project costs, as determined by the MSBA, or (2) the total maximum grant amount determined by the MSBA; provided that any appropriation here under shall be subject to and contingent upon an affirmative vote of the Town to exempt the amounts required for the payment of interest and principal on said borrowing from the limitations on taxes imposed by M.G.L. 59, section 21C “Proposition 2 ½”; and that the amount of borrowing authorized pursuant to this vote shall be reduce by any grant amount set forth in the Project Funding Agreement that may be executed between the Narragansett Regional School District and the MSBA.
Passed by 2/3/November 9th @ 8:14
A motion was duly made and seconded to reconsider Article 1. Defeated/November 9th @ 8:16
posted by Jeff Bennett
What is EQV? - from the MA department of revenue website:
The determination of an estimate of the full and fair cash value (FFCV) of all property in the Commonwealth as of a certain taxable date. EQVs have historically been used as a variable in distributing some state aid accounts and for determining county assessments and other costs. The Commissioner of Revenue, in accordance with MGL Ch. 58 §10C, is charged with the responsibility of biannually determining an equalized valuation for each city and town in the Commonwealth.
Through a statistical analysis, the levels of assessment were determined for each of the major classes of property and then the estimated full and fair cash value was derived. To this was added a projected new construction value developed through a review of the past four years' new growth and the Urban Redevelopment Corporation numbers (MGL, Ch.121A). The resulting final figures for your municipality appear on the Form LA-19 appearing in the list below.
from the Ma division of local service website, on a document dated July 20, 2016, the proposed equalized valuation for Templeton, Ma is $590,377,600.00. You can find this and past tax recap documents on the website DLS under the gateway icon to the right of the page. You can go back a number of years and see what the estimated then actual new growth and vehicle excise tax for Templeton. You do not have to take my word or the selectmen's word for it, you can go see and print it out if you wish. You can "trust but verify" on your own now. I encourage you to do so.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
posted by Jeff Bennett