Templeton end of the year transfers; Again, at a meeting of the Advisory Committee on July 13, 2016, I voted no on all requests for reconsideration. Reason; accountability and consequence. Take the request for an additional $500.00 for certification money for Town Clerk after Town meeting voted for $500.00. When asked, Town Clerk stated she had asked for the $1000.00 allowed by the GL Templeton accepted years before. So someone penciled in $500.00 rather than the amount submitted by the clerk. So Town meeting was presented with $500.00, discussed that amount then voted for and appropriated it. Why override Town meeting vote? Selectmen presented a budget with a different number than was submitted by another elected individual and that number was not challenged at Town meeting, so the accountability lies with selectmen for changing the number and consequence is the individual and selectmen live with it. Advisory Committee was told by way of an outline of sorts listing all of the transfers originally requested, questions on them and the ones that passed or were taken care of in another manner. A notation on one request was that if it was refused, it would be a violation of the law. I called the division of local services, legal section, municipal tax and finance and asked that question; is refusing the transfer a violation of law? Answer: perhaps a violation of the intent or spirit of the law but not something that would end in court. Also, this was not an emergency or extreme unforeseen event. Last, you would be overruling Town meeting vote, on something that was presented to them, discussed and voted on and appropriated by Town meeting vote. Advice was that the next time, Town clerk make a batter case for the whole amount. The transfer passed but I voted against and that is why.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Monday, July 18, 2016
Today I will be booking the final year end encumbrances…as of right now this is the list of what I have. Please review and make sure your FY 2016 bills that are still not received and not paid are on this list. Any other bills for FY 2016 not on this list will have to be appropriated at the fall STM:
Department Vendor Amount Encumbered Account
Fire MedStar 350.00 Selectman Expense
Fire Bound Tree 320.00 Selectman Expense
Fire Airgas 61.55 Selectman Expense
Fire Town of Westminster 655.66 Selectman Expense
Fire Airgas 69.34 Fire Dept Expense
Fire Fire Tech & Safety 19880.00 Fire Dept Expense
Planning Board Staples 175.00 Planning Board Expense
EMD Staples 308.33 Emergency Management Expense
Accountant Abrahams Group 6000.00 Town Account Expense
Accountant 2016 Audit 28000.00 Town Audit Expenses
Selectman Patriots Roast Beef 65.60 Town Building Expense
Selectman Dunkin Donuts 30.11 Town Building Expense
Selectman Ricoh 399.86 Town Building Expense
Selectman Adobe PDF 95.61 Technology
Selectman OPEB 64608.00 Selectman Expense
Sewer Staples 100.00 Sewer Expense
Just to clarify…the above expenses are Bills that have not been received and paid in the final 2 FY 2016 Warrants.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need to add a bill…at this time. I have to know by noon today.
Thanks so much for your help in getting this closed out.
Kelli Pontbriand
Accountant
Town of Templeton
posted by Jeff Bennett
from Templeton MA website:
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 hereunder 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
So if 62.84% of eligible costs are less than 22.7 million, the town will get the smaller amount. Since the stated amount the Town would be responsible for was based off of 22.7 million, that 24 million dollar figure could go up. What all of this means is that no one can really say what the end total will be that the town will have to pay off. It is all a guesstimate. That should have been stated loud and clear.
posted by Jeff Bennett
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 hereunder 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
So if 62.84% of eligible costs are less than 22.7 million, the town will get the smaller amount. Since the stated amount the Town would be responsible for was based off of 22.7 million, that 24 million dollar figure could go up. What all of this means is that no one can really say what the end total will be that the town will have to pay off. It is all a guesstimate. That should have been stated loud and clear.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Sunday, July 17, 2016
from the Massachusetts division of local services;
Typical Chronology
After city council or town meeting grants the authority to raise money through debt, the actual note or bond issuance may occur months or even years later. For this reason, it is good practice for local finance officials to meet periodically to review borrowings that have been authorized but not issued to make sure that the debt position of the community is understood by all. Once the structure of a borrowing has been determined, a preliminary official statement (POS) is developed under direction of the treasurer and disseminated to the bond market community. The POS will also be used by rating agencies in their analyses of credit worthiness. The POS and the final Official Statement (OS) are documents prepared for potential investors containing information about a prospective bond or note issue, as well as financial data about the city or town. The OS is sometimes referred to as an offering circular or prospectus. After all the preliminary work has been done and the various experts (e.g., bond counsel, rating agencies) have weighed in on the sale, the bonds or notes are sold to underwriters or broker syndicates, and ultimately to investors. Once payment on the purchase has been made, the community has the funds for the specified capital improvement or operating expenditures. To minimize interest costs or more efficiently assemble borrowing packages, treasurers should always communicate with the department head who will oversee a project or purchase to better understand when the funds will be needed. By taking a deliberate and thoughtful approach toward debt, cities and towns can optimize their borrowing practices to better maintain capital assets and minimize costs. Having a basic understanding of the process and making use of the knowledge of investment professionals improves the community’s odds of success.
an email from Templeton Town Treasurer:
I hope this bothers others as much as it does me, how can a Town approach a 47 million dollar debt issue when the Town Treasurer states they do not have any paperwork on it?
Typical Chronology
After city council or town meeting grants the authority to raise money through debt, the actual note or bond issuance may occur months or even years later. For this reason, it is good practice for local finance officials to meet periodically to review borrowings that have been authorized but not issued to make sure that the debt position of the community is understood by all. Once the structure of a borrowing has been determined, a preliminary official statement (POS) is developed under direction of the treasurer and disseminated to the bond market community. The POS will also be used by rating agencies in their analyses of credit worthiness. The POS and the final Official Statement (OS) are documents prepared for potential investors containing information about a prospective bond or note issue, as well as financial data about the city or town. The OS is sometimes referred to as an offering circular or prospectus. After all the preliminary work has been done and the various experts (e.g., bond counsel, rating agencies) have weighed in on the sale, the bonds or notes are sold to underwriters or broker syndicates, and ultimately to investors. Once payment on the purchase has been made, the community has the funds for the specified capital improvement or operating expenditures. To minimize interest costs or more efficiently assemble borrowing packages, treasurers should always communicate with the department head who will oversee a project or purchase to better understand when the funds will be needed. By taking a deliberate and thoughtful approach toward debt, cities and towns can optimize their borrowing practices to better maintain capital assets and minimize costs. Having a basic understanding of the process and making use of the knowledge of investment professionals improves the community’s odds of success.
an email from Templeton Town Treasurer:
Hi Jeff,
I don’t not have any paperwork on the new school. Maybe the selectmen’s office or the school. If you are looking for general ledger information that would be Kelli.
Kate Myers
Town of Templeton
Treasurer/Collector
PH 978.894.2764
FAX 978.894.2790
posted by Jeff Bennett
from the Massachusetts Division of Local Servies;
(one entity that John Columbus said we (the selectmen) do not need to talk with because we are doing what is needed)
Bond Counsel Another participant in the issuance phase is the community’s bond counsel. Bond counsel is an attorney or law firm engaged to review and submit an opinion on the legal aspects of a municipal bond or note issue. Bond counsel confirms that a borrowing has met all legal prerequisites before it is put to bid on the open market after examining required documentation (e.g., signed and sealed copies of city council or town meeting votes). If bond counsel determines that a debt issue does not meet legal sufficiency, corrective action must be taken by city or town officials. This may include going back to town meeting or city council for a debt authorization or other cumbersome, not to mention embarrassing, requirements. Therefore, it is helpful to consult bond counsel throughout the authorization phase and up to the point of issuance.
So when the town water department requested a town meeting so they could get town meeting approval to borrow money, was it in the best interest of the town to rely on a bond counsel that the water department said had approved the process? Would it have been wiser and proper for the town to have it's bond counsel look it over first, before it was presented for a vote at town meeting?
Is it wise and in the best interest of the Town to allow the school district, a separate legal entity from the town, to have so much say in Town borrowing, which will affect the Town's financial picture for years to come. Remember, this borrowing does not affect the school district and when the district increases the Town's assessment, will this debt have an impact on the Town's ability to pay? The answer is of course yes, and without some planning and forethought, it will affect the Town's ability to save and to fund capital planning. I hope the selectmen have thought about this as well.
posted by Jeff Bennett
(one entity that John Columbus said we (the selectmen) do not need to talk with because we are doing what is needed)
Bond Counsel Another participant in the issuance phase is the community’s bond counsel. Bond counsel is an attorney or law firm engaged to review and submit an opinion on the legal aspects of a municipal bond or note issue. Bond counsel confirms that a borrowing has met all legal prerequisites before it is put to bid on the open market after examining required documentation (e.g., signed and sealed copies of city council or town meeting votes). If bond counsel determines that a debt issue does not meet legal sufficiency, corrective action must be taken by city or town officials. This may include going back to town meeting or city council for a debt authorization or other cumbersome, not to mention embarrassing, requirements. Therefore, it is helpful to consult bond counsel throughout the authorization phase and up to the point of issuance.
So when the town water department requested a town meeting so they could get town meeting approval to borrow money, was it in the best interest of the town to rely on a bond counsel that the water department said had approved the process? Would it have been wiser and proper for the town to have it's bond counsel look it over first, before it was presented for a vote at town meeting?
Is it wise and in the best interest of the Town to allow the school district, a separate legal entity from the town, to have so much say in Town borrowing, which will affect the Town's financial picture for years to come. Remember, this borrowing does not affect the school district and when the district increases the Town's assessment, will this debt have an impact on the Town's ability to pay? The answer is of course yes, and without some planning and forethought, it will affect the Town's ability to save and to fund capital planning. I hope the selectmen have thought about this as well.
posted by Jeff Bennett
The Gardner News, page 5, weekend issue of July 16, 2016.
Within this article, it is stated that short term borrowing in addition to MSBA pro pay will be used during construction until the school is finished and the 47 million dollar bond is taken out. So, despite what some have said was not so and would not be done, this word now comes out that this is how it will be done. All along, I could not understand how some people refuse to admit or come to terms with this is how it works. This short term borrowing was even referenced on a document dated October 30, 2015 and this same paper was handed out at Town meeting. It has a box that states the annual tax impacts of new debt. That is correct, new debt and this document also has the police station new debt//construction as beginning 2016 and complete in the fall of 2017 with the school beginning 2016 and complete in the fall of 2018.
Also within this box is Bond anticipation note or BAN, utilized for new elementary school construction with a borrowing rate of 3.5% for 28 years.
from division of local services:
Short-term Debt Short-term debt can be classified best as borrowing through the issue of notes in anticipation of either paying them off or permanently financing the debt. Short-term borrowing also allows communities to make interest-only payments. However, such debt usually has a maturity date of no more than two years, though in some cases, statute dictates a shorter time frame. Additionally, a community might choose to reissue short-term debt and/or to make principal payments under certain circumstances. The various types of short-term debt vehicles used in Massachusetts include the following: Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANs) – These notes, issued for a maximum of one year, are used to stabilize cash flow when the treasurer’s cash balances are low or fore casted to go negative (M.G.L. c. 44, §4). These notes are issued to fill a cash need, usually until receipt of quarterly or semiannual tax payments or local aid distributions from the Commonwealth.
Federal and State Aid Anticipation Notes (FAANs and SAANs) – These notes are issued to fund spending in anticipation of grant receipts, with the expectation that the note will be paid off upon receiving federal, state or other funds (e.g., Chapter 90 highway project reimbursements).
Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs) – These notes are issued to provide funding for capital improvements. BANs are usually paid off with the proceeds of long-term financing instruments, such as general obligation bonds. However, state law allows for the reissue of a BAN for up to five years if principle payments are made in accordance with an amortization schedule that would be required if the outstanding balance were financed as long-term debt (M.G.L. c. 44, §17). Since short-term debt normally carries a lower interest rate than permanent, this strategy may make sense under certain circumstances.
Available State Programs
Additional borrowing options for communities offered by the Commonwealth include state qualified bonds and the State House Notes program. State Qualified Bonds – A financing alternative unique to Massachusetts, qualified bonds are for municipalities with marginal credit ratings. The State Treasurer pays the debt service for GO bonds directly from the community’s local aid, thereby reinforcing the security of the bond and improving its marketability, thus reducing the borrowing cost. Qualified bonds are only authorized by the Municipal Finance Oversight Board upon application by a city, town, or regional school district under M.G.L. c. 44A.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Within this article, it is stated that short term borrowing in addition to MSBA pro pay will be used during construction until the school is finished and the 47 million dollar bond is taken out. So, despite what some have said was not so and would not be done, this word now comes out that this is how it will be done. All along, I could not understand how some people refuse to admit or come to terms with this is how it works. This short term borrowing was even referenced on a document dated October 30, 2015 and this same paper was handed out at Town meeting. It has a box that states the annual tax impacts of new debt. That is correct, new debt and this document also has the police station new debt//construction as beginning 2016 and complete in the fall of 2017 with the school beginning 2016 and complete in the fall of 2018.
Also within this box is Bond anticipation note or BAN, utilized for new elementary school construction with a borrowing rate of 3.5% for 28 years.
from division of local services:
Short-term Debt Short-term debt can be classified best as borrowing through the issue of notes in anticipation of either paying them off or permanently financing the debt. Short-term borrowing also allows communities to make interest-only payments. However, such debt usually has a maturity date of no more than two years, though in some cases, statute dictates a shorter time frame. Additionally, a community might choose to reissue short-term debt and/or to make principal payments under certain circumstances. The various types of short-term debt vehicles used in Massachusetts include the following: Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANs) – These notes, issued for a maximum of one year, are used to stabilize cash flow when the treasurer’s cash balances are low or fore casted to go negative (M.G.L. c. 44, §4). These notes are issued to fill a cash need, usually until receipt of quarterly or semiannual tax payments or local aid distributions from the Commonwealth.
Federal and State Aid Anticipation Notes (FAANs and SAANs) – These notes are issued to fund spending in anticipation of grant receipts, with the expectation that the note will be paid off upon receiving federal, state or other funds (e.g., Chapter 90 highway project reimbursements).
Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs) – These notes are issued to provide funding for capital improvements. BANs are usually paid off with the proceeds of long-term financing instruments, such as general obligation bonds. However, state law allows for the reissue of a BAN for up to five years if principle payments are made in accordance with an amortization schedule that would be required if the outstanding balance were financed as long-term debt (M.G.L. c. 44, §17). Since short-term debt normally carries a lower interest rate than permanent, this strategy may make sense under certain circumstances.
Available State Programs
Additional borrowing options for communities offered by the Commonwealth include state qualified bonds and the State House Notes program. State Qualified Bonds – A financing alternative unique to Massachusetts, qualified bonds are for municipalities with marginal credit ratings. The State Treasurer pays the debt service for GO bonds directly from the community’s local aid, thereby reinforcing the security of the bond and improving its marketability, thus reducing the borrowing cost. Qualified bonds are only authorized by the Municipal Finance Oversight Board upon application by a city, town, or regional school district under M.G.L. c. 44A.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Saturday, July 16, 2016
- from MMA - July 11, 2016
The $38.9 billion post-veto spending plan reflects the slack in state tax collections over the last half of fiscal 2016, a situation that is forecast to carry over into this year. Projected spending for fiscal 2017 increases by just 1.3 percent in the governor’s plan.
In his letter to the Legislature upon signing the budget, the governor wrote that preliminary estimates for tax collections in fiscal 2016 fell between $425 million and $475 million below projections, and that the forecast for the year that just began has been scaled back by $650 million to $950 million. While a part of the shortfall was accounted for in the Legislature’s budget bill, approved on June 30, the governor went further in cutting spending across the budget, including nearly 500 earmarked spending accounts.
The governor vetoed almost one-third of the law changes proposed in the budget bill.
In an important win for cities and towns, the vetoes included Section 45, which would have extended for an additional two years the freeze on contributions toward the cost of health insurance for retired local government employees. This rule would have applied to those cities and towns that used the provisions of the 2011 municipal health insurance reform law to reduce costs. The MMA will be asking the House and Senate to sustain the governor’s veto.
The governor approved funding for the main municipal and school aid accounts as appropriated by the Legislature. Unrestricted General Government Aid is funded at $1.02 billion, an increase of $42 million, the same amount recommended by the governor in January and approved by the House and Senate. Chapter 70 education aid is funded at $4.6 billion, an increase of $116 million.
The governor did veto $3.7 million in funding for special education “circuit breaker” reimbursements. The post-veto amount of $274 million falls short of the full funding amount calculated earlier in the year by as much as $10 million.
The governor also vetoed $216,000 in library aid, $8 million from the municipal regionalization grant program, $6.3 million from the state revolving fund contract assistance account, and a variety of smaller municipal and school accounts. The MMA is reviewing the impact on cities and towns.
The Legislature is expected to consider overrides of some vetoes this week.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Time to call state legislators and tell them it is time for them to fully fund these requirements. If the state wants to mandate special education requirements, then pay for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)