At an informational public meeting, held on Tuesday, March 27, 2018, a Templeton resident  made reference to a possible contract with the state concerning Templeton ambulance service. I decided to try to find if such a document exists and what it may say.

Following is my inquiry and response from a state agency.

Cameron, Silva (DPH) <silva.cameron@state.ma.us>

 

|

Today, 2:17 PM

You

Inbox

You replied on 3/30/2018 2:55 PM.

Hi Mr. Bennett,

There is no such contract. The Mass. Department of Public Health does not enter into any such contracts with municipalities about how they provide their ambulance service. We are a state agency, and have promulgated regulations, 105 CMR 170.000, that  pertain to the standards statewide for ambulance service licensure, the standards for EMS delivery and the training and certification of EMTs. We also have a requirement that all local jurisdictions be covered by a Department-approved EMS service zone plan, and our regulations have standards for minimum elements to be included in such plans and their update and approval.  These plans are written by the towns, reviewed by Regional EMS Councils and then the Mass. Department of Public Health (Department). The town of Templeton has a Department-approved service zone plan, which is almost 10 years old at this point. But that service zone plan, also, contains nothing that requires the town, should it cease the paid ambulance service, to have a private ambulance service housed in Templeton.

Sincerely,

Silva Cameron

Silva Cameron, JD

Manager, Policy and Regulatory Development

MA Department of Public Health

Office of Emergency Medical Services

99 Chauncy Street, 11^th Floor

Boston, MA 02111

617-753-7319

silva.cameron@mass.gov

website: www.mass.gov/dph  
blog: http://publichealth.blog.state.ma.us

Follow us on  www.Twitter.com/MassDPH

    

From: jeff bennett [mailto:j_bennett506@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 2:00 PM
To: Cameron, Silva (DPH)
Subject: Ambulance contract

To: Silva Cameron;

My name is Jeff Bennett, a resident of the Town of Templeton, MA and a member of the Town's Advisory Committee. I am trying to find out if there is a "contract" between the Town and the state regarding municipal ambulance service. This "contract" involves the issue of Templeton converting to a paid ambulance service years ago and a requirement that if the Town ceased this service, there is a requirement for a private ambulance service to be housed in Templeton. The Town seems unable to locate this document, so I am trying to see if the state department of health/OEMS has this document. Is there a data base where I could possibly search for it? Not even sure if you are the person to deal with this issue, but yours is the name I have. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

respectfully;

Jeff Bennett

from the Athol Daily news:

PHILLIPSTON — State 911 Department Executive Director Frank Pozniak has urged Phillipston and Templeton to work together to update their agreement for dispatch services.

At a meeting held earlier this week in the fire safety complex, Pozniak also tried to get at the crux of the matter of a letter signed by the Phillipston Selectmen March 26 and sent to the Templeton Selectmen, giving notice that Phillipston would be exploring all of its options for dispatch services over the next year. The joint meeting to discuss dispatch was scheduled by Selectboard Chairman Thomas Brouillet before the letter was sent.

The letter stated in part, “The town is looking at its options of whether to continue its 20-plus-year relationship with Templeton, or relocate to another dispatch center over the next year.”

That got the attention of State 911, which is in charge of emergency services across the state.

Pozniak said, “There are 239 PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point) departments and we run regionalization programs across the Commonwealth.”

He acknowledged there was some talk about Phillipston moving away from Templeton, and talking with Athol about dispatch services.

“We’re trying to close PSAPs,” said Pozniak. “This wouldn’t be doing that.”

Selectman John Telepciak said the letter stemmed from frustration in delay of the town’s multiple requests to get a complete breakdown of dispatch costs, which Templeton Police Chief Bennett said he worked on himself and sent to both town administrators.

Telepciak said, “We’re in regionalization with Templeton. The first step is to find out where we are, where the money’s going and what our share will be.”

The Fiscal Year 2019 assessment for dispatch services shows an increase of $2,500, bringing it to $62,500.

Phillipston Fire Chief Richard Stevens said he reached out to State 911 to get information on the assessments, grant programs and other options for the town.

Stevens said, “We’re a small town. We have a seasonal influx of population at the campground and during large functions at the Red Apple Farm. We’re always looking at costs in relation to the level of service. The pricing started to move up.”

The cost for the current year is $60,000. The assessment in 2017 was $54,000. The agreement automatically renews every four years. It spells out a dispute resolution, but no committee structure or oversight is in place.

Stevens said the last time Phillipston had a “voice” in dispatch matters was 1997.

“We’re trying to see what model will work,” he said. “Police talk police. Fire talk fire. They don’t get in the same box.”

Pozniak said small towns’ dispatch is typically run out of the police department, with oversight by the chief. He said that they could add a requirement to the updated agreement to include committee oversight, if agreed upon.

Stevens alluded to a “change in service,” but would not elaborate when pressed, saying it was something “I won’t discuss in this venue.”

Pozniak said the two towns should “look over the agreement and have meetings to hammer out what the assessment should look like. Then contact 911 and we’ll see what we can do to help.”

Templeton Police Chief Michael Bennett said there are two options in the FY19 agreement: $61,000 without Connect TY and $62,500 with Connect TY. Bennett said Templeton dispatch currently uses Code Red, which allows only six emergency messages per year at a cost of $6,200 a year. He found Connect TY, and for an additional $1,800 per year, will provide unlimited public service messages. Code Red and Connect TY are the Reverse 911 calls to residents.

Bennett said in 2016 that Templeton sent a notification to Phillipston there would be an increase.

He noted, “The cost of a single full-time dispatcher is $67,000 a year with benefits.”  

Pozniak referred to a copy of the 4-year agreement, dated 2010, that showed an assessment of $54,000. It stated Phillipston would assume the cost of a full-time dispatcher at $25,000. No one at the meeting could produce a more recent copy of a contract, which automatically renews every four years.

TO:             Board of Selectmen
FROM:       Carter Terenzini, Town Administrator
RE:             Administrator’s Weekly Report
DATE:        March 29, 2018
CC:             All Departments


Conservation Commission:
Adm. Asst. filed a “determination of applicability” for Lot 66, Rainbow Drive; assisted resident with information with regard to a “cease and desist” notice received from ConCom. Adm. Asst. tasked with researching the role of ConCom Chair in the absence of a Conservation Agent. Adm. Asst. continues to prepare documentation for a ConCom “manual”. Prepared agenda and paperwork for ConCom meeting of 04/16/18

from the Massachusetts conservation commission web site;

Commissions' Legislative Authority

In Massachusetts, conservation commissions' authority comes from several sources: the Conservation Commission Act (MGL Chapter 40 section 8C) for open space protection; the Wetlands Protection Act (MGL Chapter 131 section 40) for protecting wetlands and waterways (commissions have real power - they issue the permits); and the home rule provisions of the state constitution for non-zoning wetlands bylaws.

All state statutes can be found in the Massachusetts General Laws at https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws

State law sets no age, citizenship, residency, knowledge, or experience requirements for conservation commission members, although there may be local requirements. The tasks of a commission require a great deal of study, learning, and thought by its members, who become expert by patience and work. Appointments to a conservation commission should not be made or taken lightly.

The overriding factors governing appointments should be a candidate's interest in doing the conservation job needed by the town: open space and wetlands protection. Since this goal requires a continual, firm commitment to conservation, persons who have no conflict of interest and who relate well to others should be selected. The commission should represent a variety of interests, skills, and backgrounds.

An engineer, a biologist, a naturalist and a lawyer may prove especially helpful. Knowledge of soils is useful. For purposes of coordination of efforts, well-qualified individuals who are members of other boards may be appointed to serve a term.

More than 100 conservation commissions have permanent full-time employees, many of whom are conservation professionals providing invaluable support to volunteer Commissioners. More than half of the commissions have some level of staffing.

Gov. Charlie Baker signed a bill yesterday that will enable nearly 1,000 retired school teachers to avoid a health insurance premium increase next year that was estimated at between 30 and 80 percent.
 
The retired teachers are members of the Group Insurance Commission’s Retired Municipal Teachers and Elderly Governmental Employees risk pool, known as Pool 2. (Municipalities and school districts may opt into Pool 2 for health insurance for retired teachers, though none has done so since 1996.)
 
By statute, Pool 2, with roughly 10,000 members, was separate from Pool 1, which includes both active state and municipal employees and retirees and has about 440,000 members. As a result of the small size of Pool 2, however, only one carrier, UniCare, bid on the risk pool. This meant that 955 of its members would have had to change plans, at an exorbitant increase.
 
With the GIC’s support, the governor filed a bill on March 16 to merge the two pools in order to avoid the price spike for retired teachers – and for municipalities that pay a portion of their premiums.
 
The MMA testified in support of the legislation at a hearing before the Joint Committee on Public Service on March 20.
 
The Legislature had to act quickly on the bill in order to have the changes in place for the beginning of open enrollment on April 4.
 

Written by 

MMA Senior Legislative Analyst Lisa C. Adams

Why one cannot always take responses from state legislators at face value.

What good is a dead line it is not followed?

(from the website of MMA)

March 26, 2018

A one-year, $200 million bond bill for the Chapter 90 local road and bridge program, filed by Gov. Charlie Baker on Feb. 13, is moving through the legislative process.
 
The Joint Committee on Transportation reported out the legislation in mid-March, after hearings on the bill (H. 4237) had to be cancelled due to weather.
 
In a letter to the Transportation Committee, the MMA urged legislators to pass a multi-year, $300 million Chapter 90 bond bill, and to do so “as soon as possible, so that the measure can be signed into law by the April 1 deadline, and cities and towns can begin the construction season on time.”
 
The MMA presented similar testimony at a March 22 hearing before the House Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets.
 
The Bonding Committee gave the $200 million bill a favorable report, and the full House was expected to take up the bill in the first week of April. The bill will then be sent to the Senate, which will have to pass it before it goes to the governor’s desk.
 
The MMA has long supported and advocated for a substantial increase in the Chapter 90 program, which helps cities and towns fund qualifying road and bridge maintenance projects that are key to economic development and quality of life.
 
Local officials argue that a multi-year Chapter 90 bill would allow communities to plan more effectively at the local level by bringing predictability and certainty regarding funding authorizations and timing. Communities are able to design multi-year projects and implement pavement management plans more effectively when they know what their Chapter 90 authorizations will be in future years.
 
A statewide survey conducted by the MMA in 2014 shows that cities and towns need at least $639 million per year in order to maintain roads in a state of good repair. Cities and towns are responsible for maintaining 30,000 miles of local roads.
 
Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito discussed the filing of the legislation at the Feb. 14 meeting of the Local Government Advisory Commission, saying that the request would bring the total amount of Chapter 90 funds released by the administration since January 2015 to $900 million.

On Jan. 22, President Donald Trump signed a short-term federal spending bill that included another two-year delay of the “Cadillac tax” on employer-sponsored health plans.
 
The excise tax, created as part of the Affordable Care Act, was originally due to take effect in 2018, but has been delayed twice, now until 2022.
 
Despite a further delay of its implementation and talk of possibly repealing the tax, municipal employers are advised to continue to factor the tax into health plan design decisions.
 
The tax was intended as a health cost-control mechanism that would discourage employers from offering high-cost health plans. The Cadillac tax will assess a 40 percent annual excise on individual health plans that cost more than $10,200 per year and family plans that cost more than $27,500.
 
Massachusetts municipal employers are likely to reach these thresholds in greater numbers than employers in other regions of the country, due to the higher cost of health care here, the use of benefit plans to attract and retain top-notch employees, and the plans that municipal labor unions have negotiated through collective bargaining. The tax thresholds will rise more slowly than health care inflation, meaning that more plans will be subject to the tax over time.
 
In an effort to manage health insurance costs and avoid the Cadillac tax, municipal employers may pursue higher copays and deductibles, the initiation of co-insurance, the elimination of high-cost plans, a phase-out of flexible spending accounts, health savings accounts and health reimbursement accounts, and the adoption of lower-cost limited network plans.
 
There is bipartisan support in Congress for repealing the Cadillac tax, but there is no consensus yet on how to replace the revenue that would be lost from a repeal.

The following was prepared by a Templeton Town resident, took much time and effort to complete. His report as well as a letter to the editor was accomplished by looking at town reports, town meeting results and financial paperwork from the school district as well as information from DESE (department of elementary and secondary education)

Perhaps M. Hughes was not aware of this information as she spoke of Templeton being under effort in it's support of schools. Remember, it is Templeton who stood alone and put up the 47 million dollars so the district can have a new building for some elementary kids.

There are two towns in the school district, one said no and the other said yes, that again, would be Templeton.

Perhaps this posting will make for an awkward moment or two at a school committee meeting, I do not know, nor do I care. I care about the residents of Templeton being told they do not support something or they have been under effort, when that is simply not true.

Perhaps that under effort statement can be corrected at the next meeting of the school committee?

Subject:        TEMPLETON’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO ITS SCHOOLS

On April 2^nd The Gardner News published an article titled “Assessment Challenge Withdrawn” which contained a number of statements by Superintendent Miller regarding Templeton’s Local Contributions to school expenses.

She was quoted as saying that Templeton was “under effort” for education funding last year by nearly $ 800,000, when in fact we were nearly $ 800,000 over the “effort” level.  She was also quoted as saying, “The reason that Templeton’s increase is higher … is that they’ve  been under effort for a few years,” when, in fact, the last five years the town of Templeton has funded education not only above the Minimum Required Local Contribution level but, above the Target (effort) level by an average of 10 percent.

 

Each year the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) calculates a number of values for towns to follow while supporting their school systems.  These calculations can be very complicated and confusing to the general public.  When discussing these numbers it is important that you understand which value you are talking about.   Each year DESE calculates a town’s - Maximum Local Contribution (MLC), Target LC, Preliminary LC, and Required LC.   Two of these values are important; these are the Target LC and Required LC.   To simplify this issue you need to know that the Target LC is sometimes referred to as the Effort Level and the Required LC is often called the Minimum Required Contribution.   A more complete and technical definition of these terms may be found under: 

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter70/Section2

 

The Minimum Required LC is that number that a town should never fund below.  It is the absolute minimum local contribution that can be budgeted by a town for its school system.  In this case, the Required LC includes two numbers, Templeton’s share of Narragansett Regional School District (NRSD) costs and our share of Montachusett Regional Vocational Technical School (MRVTS) costs.

 

The much higher, Target LC is that number that DESE encourages towns to contribute.

The first comment made in the April 2^nd article was that Templeton’s required contributions increased recently because “… the town has been chronically ‘under effort” according to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education…”   This statement is not true.  The TGN article went on to quote Ms. Miller as saying, “the town was under effort by about $800,000 in the last fiscal year.”   The last fiscal year was FY14.

 

                                                                                                                        page 1 of 2

April 5, 2015                                                                                                   page 2 of 2

Templeton’s Education Contributions,  Rev 2   (continued)

 

Revision 2 changes are bolded in red.

I believe Ms. Miller may have been misquoted, because this is not true.  Actually, the 800,000 difference had nothing to do with the town actually being “under effort” or below Target.  It was simply the difference between DESE’s Target figure and Required Contribution figure on a calculation sheet for FY14 that was “about $800,000”.   

( FY14’s Target [effort] 4,963,418 minus FY14’s Required 4,170,850 = 792,568 )

 

Again, the above “$800,000” difference had nothing to do with Templeton’s actual contribution for FY14.  In fact, the town was not only well above the Minimum Required LC but,  was significantly higher  than the Target LC.   Templeton’s  actual contribution (as related to the DESE requirements) was $5,582,130.    (ATM Art 27, voted $4,430,615 plus an override Oct STM Art 1 of $550,459 plus ATM Art 20 for Monty Tech of $601,056 = $5,582,130).   

 

With a Target LC of 4,963,418 and actual payments of 5,582,130 Templeton was actually over the Target (effort) Local Contribution amount by 618,712.   (12.5%)

Also, for this year (FY15) we will be $ 720,880 over Target Local Contribution.   (14.4%)

All of the data supporting these conclusions are a matter of public record and may be found on the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s website and on the Town of Templeton’s website.

 

I have spoken with DESE’s and Narragansett school officials and been assured that my “numbers are all good.”  However, because the preceding figures can be confusing to some, I have been asked to emphasis, in this letter, the following:  Although Templeton has contributed a five year average of 10.0 percent over Target and 34percent over Minimum Required LC, a good part of this support is due to three overrides during FY 12, 13 & 14.    If you take override support out of the picture, then these percentages drop to an average of 3.8 percent over Target and 26.7 percent over Minimum Required Contributions. 

 It is understood that this letter was submitted to The Gardner News in early April and

so far, the letter has not been published