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
Sunday, October 16, 2016
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)