Recently, on April 11, 2016, the board of selectmen invoked the rule of necessity. Reason given, two members of the BOS had a conflict of interest because the budget was being discussed. This is a five member board and there was one member not present at the meeting. Four members were present, three members are needed to have a quorum so a meeting can take place. With only two members sitting at the table, chairman of the board John Columbus stated the rule of necessity allowed them to continue. Here is what it says; Advisory 05-05: Rule of Necessity, from state ethics commission:
Example: A five-member elected board has a meeting involving a matter in which the board is legally required to act and four members are present (one member is sick at home). Two of the four present members have conflicts. A quorum is three. The one member who is sick at home does not have a conflict. The rule of necessity may not be used because, even though a quorum of the board which is able to act is not present at that particular meeting, there is a quorum of the board which is able to act. The absence of one member does not permit the use of the rule of necessity.

My thought is someone needs to read that book that someone said Templeton needs to be run by. I am not sure what book was being referred to, either a book of law or a comic book. You can decide on that one.

Jeff Bennett

email from Town Administrator to members of the Advisory Board - read the last couple lines with interest.

All -

1) I used the figure of $80,000 for new growth after conversations with the Deputy Assessor and the Building Inspector.  Our economy continues to grow, and my estimate is based upon building permits this year.  Assessors always give conservative estimates for new growth.  The budget as presented has slack in case our revenue does not hold up.  There is nearly $100,000 in the budget that can cover any shortfall in new growth or revenue.  Also, it looks like the Legislature will provide somewhat more in Local Aid than what we projected in the FY'17 budget.  

2)The Electric Department will decide their contribution in May, according to John Driscoll.  The Town did propose a project - help with renovation of Scout Hall - but it was rejected.  We are still trying to work with Light and Water on a stable, formula based annual contribution.  This week, I was asked to submit a letter with a formal request for funding.

  

3) The $175,000 from the sale of the property at Baldwinville Road must be used to reduce the debt - DOR mandate.   We are using $143,000 to reduce debt service in FY'17.  This will not result in a squeeze next year because the non-excluded debt service will decrease in FY'18 by more than $143,000 due to retiring debt.  

4) I believe that Kelli explained some of the reasons for the mismatch between BvA and FY'16 revised.

  

5) I will bring answers to your most recent questions to our meeting on Wednesday.  Most of the issues you cite with Police and Dispatch budgets are related to the long term use of the E-911 grant to subsidize the Dispatch operating budget.  We are attempting to move away from this practice before we are reprimanded by the state.  

Why would the Town be reprimanded by the state if the E-911 grant money was used correctly and legally? Suddenly, I question even more the statement made by a prior chief of police to the selectmen and really the entire Town that dispatch only costs taxpayers $37,000.00. This is just another reason to be very wary of all these financial transfers that have taken place, not by past selectmen, treasurers, accountants, coordinators, but by the ones who are presently in office.

Jeff Bennett

Something needs to be cleared up! 

     Monday. April 11, 2016, there was a public meeting of the Templeton Board of Selectmen. There was a discussion of $47,000.00 of unallocated funds in the FY17 budgets and then the selectmen began to use that money to potentially fund things from the "new initiatives" from department heads. Now on Thursday, April 14, 2016, page 3 of the Gardner News, article titled 'Gansett sees more students to Monty Tech, 2nd column, 3rd paragraph, "Markel added that all departments are fully funded with $47,000.00 unallocated available revenue." So unless this article was written prior to Monday nights meeting of the selectmen, that information is incorrect and is misleading Templeton residents/taxpayers into thinking there are more funds left over than are actually available and that is a bit disturbing. Perhaps contact the author of the story, tvocino@thegardnernews.com and ask her, then contact a selectmen and compare stories.

Jeff Bennett

32.06: Fees for Copies of Public Records

(1) Except where fees for copies of public records are prescribed by statute, a governmental entity shall charge no more than the following fees for copies of public records: (a) the actual cost of any storage device or material provided to a person in response to a request for public records may be included as part of the fee; (b) the charge for black and white paper copies or printouts of records shall not exceed 5 cents per page, for both single and double-sided black and white copies; (c) for requests for non-computerized public records a prorated fee based on the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee capable of performing the task may be assessed for search time and segregation time expenses, as defined by 950 CMR 32.03. In addition, a per page copying fee under 950 CMR 32.06(1)(b) may be assessed; (d) for a search of computerized records the actual cost incurred from the use of the computer time may be assessed; (e) for copies of public records not susceptible to ordinary means of reproduction, the actual cost incurred in providing a copy may be assessed. (2) Estimates. A custodian shall provide a written, good faith estimate of the applicable copying, search time and segregation time fees to be incurred prior to complying with a public records request where the total costs are estimated to exceed ten dollars. (3) Postage. A custodian may assess the actual cost of postage. (4) Inspection of Public Records. A custodian may not assess a fee for the mere inspection of public records, unless compliance with such request for inspection involves "search time" in which case a fee under 950 CMR 32.06(1)(c) may be assessed. (5) Waiver of Fees. Every custodian, unless otherwise required by law, is encouraged to waive fees where disclosure would benefit the public interest. (6) Street Census Computer Tapes and Mailing Labels - Reproduction Fees for City and Town Committee Chairman. Where "street list" data collected under M.G.L. c. 51, §§ 6 and 7, is compiled on computer tapes: (a) City or town registrars of voters shall provide, or cause their agents to provide, copies of said computer tapes to the chairman of each city or town committee for a fee of no more than $ 0.01 per name, provided that a minimum fee of no more than $ 90.00 may be assessed. No fee assessed under 950 CMR 32.06(6)(a) shall exceed $ 750.00. (b) City or town registrars of voters shall provide, or cause their agents to provide, sets of mailing labels made from said computer tapes to the chairman of each city or town.

The above is from the MMA website and is an emergency regulation, as of February 29, 2016.

posted by Jeff Bennett

Contained in an email to the Advisory Board today from the Town Administrator;

2)The Electric Department will decide their contribution in May, according to John Driscoll.  The Town did propose a project - help with renovation of Scout Hall - but it was rejected.  We are still trying to work with Light and Water on a stable, formula based annual contribution.  This week, I was asked to submit a letter with a formal request for funding.  

It was stated at a prior selectmen meeting that the Light commissioners did not wish to "give money to the Town to be wasted but they would be willing to pay for a town project, apparently they wish to dictate to the Town, which is strange coming from a town department.

Jeff Bennett

Okay, lots of complaining or questions asking on this or that, but how about a plan or at least a hint of a direction to go in;
I believe it is time for the Town to take a look at all of the fees charged to residents or anyone who wishes to do somethings in Templeton. If you remember, or not, there was a few years back, an article in the Gardner News and it was a subject brought up at a couple of public meetings, the fact that in Templeton, the fee schedule for that once upon a time mall in Templeton (exit 19 project) was to come in at an astounding 10 thousand dollars. It was pointed out that in other Towns/cities, those same fees totaled from 25 to around 100 dollars. Those were no secrets, they were and are posted or on record at various departments, such as building and planning board. I think the large fee schedule came about in Templeton back when all the family farms were being sold to developers for houses and the genius plan was to make the developers pay for everything. Of course when it gets to be to expensive here, they go else where. There was also a letter in the Gardner News written by the then Templeton building inspector concerning the limited amount of build-able land in Templeton and how that should be viewed in Town. So I think it is time to look at all fees and ask why? Why do we tell residents/taxpayers that you must pay property taxes to cover the salaries of those individuals whose job it is to do these inspections and then you must pay a fee for that individual to do their job. Now some may say Jeff, that would cut into the Town's revenue source or those funds are used to pay for forms or for this or that. Well, I believe that the cost of those forms, etc. can and should be covered in each departments budget. One job of local government is to provide services at a reasonable cost. The last meeting of the selectmen had the chairman talking about spending money we do not even have, that is the Town (selectmen) could use some of the coming free cash to cover this or that, you know, just a few thousand dollars. well if you have a budget with 100 thousand dollars of slack in it, my thought is you already have a few thousand dollars to pay for this or that. You should not be thinking of spending money you do not even have nor have any guarantee it is coming. First priority is to build a rainy day fund. You know, so when state funding dries up, you have funds to pay the playground bill. Heck, this board of selectmen are going to spend money from the stabilization fund this year. They said as much at their last meeting. It is time for some fiscal restraint, especially when you are spending someone elses money on wants and not needs. Like an assistant town administrator.

Jeff Bennett

Latest email to Advisory Board:

All -

I am sending the most recent update of the budget.  A department head was looking at the budget today via the link, and I realized that she was not seeing the latest version.  The link may not be working for you either,  so I am attaching a copy of the most recent update for your meeting tomorrow night.  This update contains the new assessment from Monty Tech and our health insurance premium for next year.

The budget has been updated for the changes at our recent STM.  The wage and salary accounts are correct, although I will need to explain some accounts at our next meeting next week.  

I have added a line item called "reserve for contingencies."  This will cover the estimated amounts we may be required to pay out for accrued benefits for retiring employees.  Also, I have an indication that the Light and Water Department will again cover the cost of street lights and municipal electricity.  

Frankly, there is about $100,000 slack in this budget, in case something happens and we have a need.  

Bob
Robert T. Markel
Interim Town Administrator
Town of Templeton
160 Patriots Road
East Templeton, MA 01438
(978)894-2753

I am taking "slack" to mean there is an extra $100K in the budget, so there is money to pay for say air tanks for the Fire department. Frankly, I would think the money for those items should be in the Ambulance receipts account.

Jeff Bennett