On the Massachusetts Municipal Association website, there is a posting for a sewer clerk for the town of Templeton. There is a posting for a municipal management fellow for the Town of Templeton. There is no posting for a Town Administrator. You think your selectmen are really working for you?

March 18, 2015:

MOULTONBOROUGH — Town Administrator Carter Terenzini yesterday announced he will resign his position effective April 1. His decision followed the failure of a petitioned warrant article to eliminate the position of town administrator — and Terenzini with it — by an overwhelming majority of 180 to 40 at Town Meeting on Saturday.

Terenzini yesterday confirmed reports of his resignation, saying that he had informed the staff of his decision, and noted "the very wide margin" against the warrant article, but politely declined any further comment.

Terenzini, who began his career in public service in 1973, became town administrator in Moultonborough in 2008 after holding the same position in Spenser, Mass. for nine years. He also was city manager in Mt. Morris, Michigan and town administrator in Castleton, Vermont. Before turning to administration he was commissioner of Community of Economic Development in Pittsfield, Massachusetts and later principal planner and economic analyst with the State of Massachusetts. He earned an associate of arts degree at Berkshire Community College in Pittsfield, Massachusetts and Masters of Business Administration at Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh, Scotland.

For much of his tenure in Moultonborough, Terenzini has been the target of suspicion and criticism from a vocal segment of the community who more than once questioned the renewal of his contract. In 2013, 200 petitioners urged the Board of Selectmen not to renew his contract and begin seeking a replacement. This first open effort to oust him began when the Selectboard pursued removal proceedings against two members of the Planning Board — Josh Bartlett and Judy Ryerson — which after much prevarication and dissembling was ultimately revealed to have been initiated by a recommendation from Terenzini.

After dismissing Terenzini's complaint against Bertlett and Ryerson the selectmen discounted the petition and renewed his contract for two years, until March 31, 2016. This year Terenzini's critics took a different tack, seeking to remove him by eliminating his job.

TO: Board of Selectmen
FROM: Carter Terenzini, Town Administrator
RE: Administrator’s Weekly Report
DATE: September 7, 2017
CC: All Departments

Fall Town Meeting Articles desired by 10/01; Please see me ASAP to begin discussions. Business Meeting or Workshop: N/A

Weekly Report: I moderated a staff meeting relative to Cross Road (so-called) off of Caruthers relative to its being shown as a town road on the ANR subdivision. There were two matters; the first being whether or not it is a public way (we do not consider it to be one) and the second being the name of the road as we currently have a separate Cross Road in Templeton off of Dudley Road (Route 101). For purposes of E-911 we cannot have a second Cross Road so we have made some renaming suggestions. A variety of items were bid or quoted for your action and work was undertaken with regard to the litigation we briefed you on. We continue to work with DPW to try to develop a plan to replace the rolling stock on a regular basis. This will form the basis of some request for expenditure for the Fall TM (see memo re: sander on agenda) We have a referral of a potential intern from NRSD. I’ll advise you further on this next week.

From: jeff bennett [mailto:j_bennett506@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 6:34 AM
To: 'Kelli Pontbriand'
Cc: 185wilberdr@gmail.com; Bartolomeo, Bev; buelowmrsbuelow@gmail.com; robertmayt@yahoo.com; j_farrell@hotmail.com; Paul Grubb; advisorycommittee@templeton1.org
Subject: Advisory questions from last meeting

Kelli,

Discussing the budget versus actual, members have questions/concerns about the format change with regards to expenditures. The end of year FY 2017, there are clear indications about what an expense is for. Example; line with group insurance with fund number and amount allocated/expended etc. The new format does not show these individual expenses and names, which makes it harder, if almost impossible to figure out what is expended, on what and what is the amount left. Members questions are, what is the reason for change and can the old format be used for expenditures?

With the new budget format for FY 2018 (please review the chart of accounts pages 7 & 8 in your budget book) these are the new accounts that are being used for FY 2018.

second question about the OPEB funds, money was appropriated at two town meetings to place money in that fund but there is no apparent accounting of it. The committee saw no indication of OPEB in the budget versus actual.

You will not see the OPEB on the budget VS Actual as the $64,608 is being held in an encumbrance account in the Fund Balances (please see the balance sheet previously provided) until the new OPEB trust can be opened.  This should take place in this fiscal year with the new Treasurer/Collector in place.

Next is the E911 grant, the fund balance/allocated amount changed from the previous BvA given to the committee for an end of year transfer. What would be the reason for the difference in balances/allocations?

When the auditors were here in August they asked me to do a detailed tracking on the 911 Grant and the Dispatch expenses in the general fund.   Once this was completed it showed that a significant amount of the 911 grant funds were put into the general fund and the auditors gave me an adjusting entry to correct this.

Last, the air pollution control fund shows overspent with a change of 116% spent. Is that an error or actual overspent by some amount?

This account has no impact on the budget VS Actual.   At the beginning of the year I take the numbers provided by the state and do actual entries each month and this one was over what the numbers were at the beginning of the year.   These numbers are not voted, but on the recap, again want to emphasise this has no inpact on the town’s financials…just how the DOR requires us to track the State offset expenses on paper.

Any assistance on these items would be greatly appreciated.

regards;

Jeff Bennett

First, I would like to see the article on the warrant where Town meeting was asked what budget format they would like to see. I would also like to see the vote count and at what time it passed.

Secondly, there were warrant  articles at two different Town meetings concerning OPEB funding and that means  there is more in question than $64,608.00.

Advisory is still getting stonewalled on financial questions as well as a great lack of transparency with regards to town (taxpayer) finance. A citizen who attended the last Advisory Committee meeting asked where a citizen has standing when the selectmen violate town by-laws as well as Massachusetts General laws.

Well, I have posted it here before and other places but highway and particularly dave smart does not wish to listen and he does not really know what he is talking about. You do not need computerized equipment to drop salt. The amount of salt dropped depends on things such as gate opening and the like. The environment issue is their, and on route 2 and other state roads, much of that damage is driven by the public wanting to be able to drive 80 no matter what. The state has a rate of 240 lbs per lane mile as a base of usage and spread rate, but the higher-ups then come out and tell the pits, "make the roads black and wet" which is driven by calls from state police because of accidents and or calls from people, especially closer to Boston. There are very environmental friendly options out there. The point of the previous post is two fold, sand is not the cheapest option and brand new trucks do not equal good roads nor are they required to obtain desired effect.



The key to salt is how much is used, as in how heavy it is put down. Also, if you put it down and then plow right away, the salt does end up on the side of the road where it does no good.

I see the same old response from dave smart when ever something new is suggested, especially by me. Perhaps it is time for a demonstration of action. If dave wants cost analysis, perhaps it is time to show it, very simple, like dave smart.

First thing to do is contact the three area citis/towns who have begun using straight salt and ask if they also had to buy computerized equipment to put salt down on the roads.

On a different front, while Templeton is meeting with Winchendon DPW, perhaps find out the cost of paying for basin cleaning versus owning the equipment to do it yourself.

I understand a new hire at Templeton highway has quit.

I see the selectmen posted an executive session for litigation at their "retreat". Word around town is a member of the Templeton Conservation committee has been accused of some sort of sexual harassment, and I believe this makes three law suits now facing selectmen. Perhaps there are more, time will tell.

I am still waiting for the AG to come calling and tell me I must resign from the Advisory Committee. Speaking of which, where were you davey? One citizen showed up with some questions and concerns and we had a good discussion.

How they do it else where.

Barnstable, MA DPW;

When Juno clobbered the Cape in 2015, many of the department’s vehicles became disabled in the heavy snow. The snowfighters, which are often used to clear airport runways, were bought used, with few miles, for about $70,000, about one-third the cost of new vehicles. The department also has moved away from using sand to treat the roads and are using salt and a salt and chemical mixture instead, according to Michael Perry, the highway supervisor.

For every $10 spent on sand, it costs about $100 to clean it up, Perry said, adding that it often clogs the drainage systems and is overall less efficient.

One of their best plow trucks is a 1990's vintage Oshkosh truck, bought used.

One of the best places to save taxpayer dollars is by watching the state surplus program, where towns and cities can often get state equipment peanuts. For example, the state gets rid of perfectly good sanders, made of stainless steel. Some times they may have damage such as a missing or bent chute or some carbon steel parts may need replacement. When you consider a new stainless steel sander can cost between 15 and 20 thousand and you can repair or replace the carbon steel parts for a few thousand dollars, which one make more sense, as in dollars and cents. I have tried for a long time to get Templeton highway to look into that but to no avail. The above shows one more town that gets it, sand is not really cheaper to use. 

Massachusetts General Law chapter 71

Section 34: Support of schools; appropriations; recommendations

Every city and town shall annually provide an amount of money sufficient for the support of the public schools as required by this chapter, provided however, that no city or town shall be required to provide more money for the support of the public schools than is appropriated by vote of the legislative body of the city or town. In acting on appropriations for educational costs, the city or town appropriating body shall vote on the total amount of the appropriations requested and shall not allocate appropriations among accounts or place any restriction on such appropriations. The superintendent of schools in any city or town may address the local appropriating authority prior to any action on the school budget as recommended by the school committee notwithstanding his place of residence. The city or town appropriating body may make nonbinding monetary recommendations to increase or decrease certain items allocating such appropriations.

The vote of the legislative body of a city or town shall establish the total appropriation for the support of the public schools, but may not limit the authority of the school committee to determine expenditures within the total appropriation.

41.06: Excess and Deficiency Funds

(1)  Every regional school district shall maintain an excess and deficiency fund on its books of account. At the end of every fiscal year, any surplus or deficit in the district's general fund shall be closed to the excess and deficiency fund.

(2)  On or before October 31 of each year, every regional school district shall submit to the Department of Revenue the forms and schedules as the Department of Revenue requires for the purpose of reviewing and certifying the balance in the regional school district's excess and deficiency fund. At the discretion of the Commissioner, the Department may withhold release of all or some part of the quarterly state school aid for the regional school district if the regional school district has not filed the required forms and schedules by such date.

(3)  A regional school committee may use all or part of the certified balance in the excess and deficiency fund as a revenue source for its proposed budget. If the certified balance exceeds five percent of the proposed budget, the regional school committee shall use the amount in excess of five percent as a revenue source for its proposed budget.

Regulatory Authority:
603 CMR 41.00: M.G.L. c. 69, §1B; c. 71, §14B and §16D; c. 150E, §1.
Most Recently Amended by the Board of Education: May 19, 2009

If anyone wishes to know the balance, they can attend a school committee meeting and ask or they can request the information through the district office. The information can be found on the pages of DLS.  You may also contact DESE.