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
Sunday, October 9, 2016
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)