Why a public hearing for engine brake use?

Because you (town meeting) passed this:

On a motion duly made and seconded the town voted to amend the General By-laws by inserting a new Article LVIII, Engine Braking, as follows: No operator of a diesel truck shall use engine braking (also known as exhaust braking or Jake braking) while operating a vehicle on a public way, where such use is prohibited by the issuance of a Traffic Order by the Board of Selectmen after the holding of a noticed public hearing, in the Town of Templeton except in an emergency. Whoever violates this bylaw shall be punished by a fine of One Hundred Dollars ($100) for the first offense and Three Hundred Dollars ($300) for the second and subsequent offenses. The owner of the vehicle may be cited in lieu of the operator.

Passed by hand count of 50 yes and 47 no on May 15, 2019.

 Town governance; there is a thing called the weekly warrant and it involves invoices, bills, etc., that need to be signed off on by selectmen before they can be passed on to the town treasurer so they can be paid, with taxpayer money. This week, there is one such item, in a stand alone warrant; it states school district and it is for an item of the new elementary school, specifically the repair of the caulking on the sidewalk between concrete and granite curb. It is a little more than $25,000.00 and it is to redo work previously done. So, was the previous work done correctly? Is it a water / drainage issue (poor design), is the issue improper preparation, lack of inspection and oversight? The question remains, should you have to pay for the work twice? You paid tens of thousands of dollars for an Owners Project Manager (required for public projects one million dollars or more) with a clerk of the works, that is suppose to look out for you and your property (the school building project). Some thing was not done right and someone was apparently not watching, so, as a selectmen, responsible for signing those weekly warrants, I have no intention of signing off on this item. Yes, three other selectmen can sign it and it will move on down the line and be paid. I just think it should not be paid by you, it should be the responsibility of the OPM and the company that originally did the work. As a point of interest, both parties are now working on a new project; they are both on the same job site. The construction cost total for the new school is a bit over 32 million dollars with a little over 800 thousand dollars in change orders.

Note: The total warrant item for new school is $25,730.00, my bad, old man moment, but still BS, warrant reads - ATC reprogramming at $5,980.00 and cut out and recaulk sidewalk to curb at $19,750.00, and I still refuse to sign off on this; you should not have to pay twice for bad work.

Community Preservation Trust:

The Department of Revenue is now projecting a 17.7% first round trust fund distribution in November of 2020.

It is important to note, however, that the agency's projection is based solely on revenue that was collected in the CPA Trust Fund as of July 31st, 2020 - it does not take into consideration the additional revenue that will come in between August and November of this year. This effectively means that if the state match distribution occurred today, all communities would receive a base match of 17.7%.

What Could the Final November 15th Match Look Like?

Available reports show that monthly CPA collections from the state's Registries of Deeds have not been significantly impacted by the pandemic. Because of the new CPA revenue legislation that went into effect in January, collections each month have averaged out to be approximately 2.5x higher compared to last year. Assuming the collections hold strong for the rest of the year, the Coalition feels it is likely that the base match for November could fall into the range of 25-30% of what communities raise at the local level.

That being said, CPA communities are advised to use DOR's official projection before making any updates to their FY21 budgets.

FY2021 Community Preservation State Match - Update on State Match

As of July 31, 2020 collections from the Registry of Deeds indicates that the Community Preservation State Trust Fund balance would allow for a 17.7% base state match for FY2021. Now that communities are beginning to submit local surcharge reports (CP-1 form) we will update the state match estimate in September based on those reports and state collections as of the end of August.

We will provide updated guidance on the state match percentage as additional data becomes available.

What is CPA? The Community Preservation Act (CPA) is a smart growth tool that helps communities preserve open space and historic sites, create affordable housing, and develop outdoor recreational facilities. CPA also helps strengthen the state and local economies by expanding housing opportunities and construction jobs for the Commonwealth's workforce, and by supporting the tourism industry through preservation of the Commonwealth’s historic and natural resources.

Read this carefully, as it is probably going to mirror how Templeton budget situation will go.

By GREG VINE

For The Athol Daily News

Published: 8/25/2020 4:44:59 PM

Modified: 8/25/2020 4:44:57 PM

ATHOL — Town Manager Shaun Suhoski last week presented his proposed FY21 town budget to Athol’s Selectboard. The spending package, to be considered at the September Annual Town Meeting, is just slightly more than $21 million.

“The state aid figures became known just a couple of weeks ago,” Suhoski told the board, “and it allows us now to go into our deferred town meeting in September at least with some sense of confidence we can put forward a budget that we can live within.

“In summary, we have a $21 million proposed operating budget. In concert with the finance team — the Selectboard and the Finance Committee — this proposal will require a contribution from free cash of $160,000. The last year we had to use our free cash was in FY17, following several years of down economies, but we were eventually able to phase that out.

“Notwithstanding we are looking for that subsidy from free cash this year, we are not in a dire predicament. In fact, this budget, in my opinion, is sound; it’s sound from a fiscal standpoint, it’s sound from a programmatic standpoint. We won’t lose the progress the town has made over the last five to seven years.”

Suhoski stressed the new spending package will maintain current levels of staffing and service.

“It does fund the capital program as recommended by the Capital Program Committee,” he continued. “It will address a systemic issue in the Fire Department that’s been recurring the last couple of years related to IOD (injury on duty) and other items. The budget is short, but we’re able to address that.”

The town manager further stated that, in adherence to the town’s fiscal policies, money will be used to strengthen Athol’s stabilization fund.

“We’re not drawing on those reserves, but rather we are contributing $150,000 to the stabilization fund,” he said. “And we would reserve another half-million dollars-plus in free cash. This year, free cash was higher than most, at $1.5 million, which gave us this flexibility.

“This would preserve over a half-million dollars, unappropriated, and that would roll to the calculation for the ensuing fiscal year which, in my view, will be difficult unless the federal stimulus package provides monies for state and local government. I don’t see how the Commonwealth, with predictions of revenue shortfalls, will be able to level fund again; and level funding doesn’t keep up with inflation — let’s keep that in mind.”

The Finance and Warrant Advisory Committee was scheduled to begin its review of Suhoski’s proposed budget on Tuesday of this week.

“So,” Suhoski told the board, “inclusive of general government spending of about $15.8 million, net of voter approved debt service, the budget does grow by about 3.7 percent. So, the bottom line is just over $21 million, and that includes the school assessment.

“This does include the certified fund balance (just over $1.5 million) — we’re counting that as a revenue. It includes wage concessions I negotiated with the SEIU of about $24,000, and all of our non-union staff of about $15,000. So, there’s about $40,000 in wage concessions included in the proposal.”

The Annual Town Meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. on Sept. 14 at Town Hall.

Greg Vine can be reached at gvineadn@gmail.com.

Selectmen retreat coming up; some goals for the next one year to three years:

Ask Town Meeting to amend their vote and create ambulance revolving fund so the town can fully fund the service and follow MGL.

Create special stabilization fund for roads / infrastructure.

Clean up / get money from the many special town meeting articles straight. (Been there for 5 or 10 years, work to get off the books and into a good use.

More funding and a real plan to address town trees rather than letting the weather to do it for us.

Re-do or get out of intermunicipal agreements that do not benefit Templeton.

What is Free Cash?

IT IS NOT FREE and IT IS NOT CASH

• Free Cash is the surplus from a previous fiscal year

 Revenue over forecast – Unexpended appropriations

• Defined by state statute

• Certified by the State each year

• Must create Free Cash each year 

Overestimate appropriations to generate enough “free cash” to have to spend / fund things.

Templeton Board of Selectmen

c/o Carter Terenzini

Town Administrator

160 Patriots Road, P.O. Box 620

East Templeton, MA 01438

By e-mail only: cterenzini@templetonma.gov

RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint

Dear Mr. Terenzini:

This office received a complaint from Robert May on July 1, 2020, alleging that the

Templeton Board of Selectmen (the “Board”) violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, §§

18-25, as modified by Governor Charles Baker’s March 12 order temporarily suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law. 1 The complaint was originally filed with the Board on June 1, and you responded, on behalf of the Board, by letter dated June 24. 2020 The complaint alleges that the Board violated the Open Meeting Law when it held a meeting on May 27 and did not provide the public with real-time access.

Following our review, we find that the Board violated the Open Meeting Law as alleged.

In reaching this determination, we reviewed the original complaint, the Board’s response to the

complaint, and the request for further review filed with our office. In addition, we reviewed the

notice and open session minutes of the May 27 meeting, as well as a video recording of that

meeting.

1 All dates in this letter refer to the year 2020.

2 We take this opportunity to remind the Board that the Open Meeting Law requires that within 14 business days of receipt of a complaint, a public body must meet to review the complaint’s allegations; take remedial action, if appropriate; send to the complainant a response and a description of any remedial action taken; and send to the Attorney General a copy of the complaint and a description of a any remedial action taken. G.L. c. 30A, § 23(b); 940 CMR 29.05(5).

See OML Declination 8-7-2019 (Pepperell Board of Selectmen). Here, the Board did not respond to the complaint until June 24, although its response was due June 19. We remind the Board of its obligations under the Law.

(working on posting the complaint / response in its entirety)