posted by Jeff Bennett
Year End Transfers FY 2016
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
from the MMA website:
We are reviewing all of the amendments that have been filed, and in the meantime would like to highlight the MMA’s position on a number of the amendments that you will be debating this afternoon, and offer a summary below.
Please SUPPORT the following amendments:
Amendment #4 – This amendment filed by Rep. Jones would eliminate requirements that state agencies limit certain grants to cities and towns that are pursuing regionalization projects.
Amendment #15 – This amendment filed by Rep. Jones would close two significant loopholes in the municipal unemployment system, addressing the situation that allows school employees funded in the municipal budget to collect unemployment during summer vacations and holiday breaks, and closing the loophole that allows retirees on a public pension to also collect unemployment benefits once they reach the 960-hour cap on post-retirement work. This is not a new issue – the House has already voted to support these reform provisions in previous legislation.
Amendment #19 – This amendment filed by Rep. Peisch would add a municipal representative on the State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund Board of Directors, a needed step, as an increasing number of cities and towns are investing their OPEB with that agency.
Amendment #28 – This amendment filed by Rep. Dykema would clarify that cities and towns can establish water and sewer banks to help finance needed improvements to critical environmental infrastructure systems.
***Amendment #29 – This amendment filed by Rep. Dykema would establish a commission to study the issue of veterans’ preference within the civil service system.
Number 29 is another attempt to take away another promise made to veterans, please call your state representation and ask to oppose this amendment.
posted by Jeff Bennett
We are reviewing all of the amendments that have been filed, and in the meantime would like to highlight the MMA’s position on a number of the amendments that you will be debating this afternoon, and offer a summary below.
Please SUPPORT the following amendments:
Amendment #4 – This amendment filed by Rep. Jones would eliminate requirements that state agencies limit certain grants to cities and towns that are pursuing regionalization projects.
Amendment #15 – This amendment filed by Rep. Jones would close two significant loopholes in the municipal unemployment system, addressing the situation that allows school employees funded in the municipal budget to collect unemployment during summer vacations and holiday breaks, and closing the loophole that allows retirees on a public pension to also collect unemployment benefits once they reach the 960-hour cap on post-retirement work. This is not a new issue – the House has already voted to support these reform provisions in previous legislation.
Amendment #19 – This amendment filed by Rep. Peisch would add a municipal representative on the State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund Board of Directors, a needed step, as an increasing number of cities and towns are investing their OPEB with that agency.
Amendment #28 – This amendment filed by Rep. Dykema would clarify that cities and towns can establish water and sewer banks to help finance needed improvements to critical environmental infrastructure systems.
***Amendment #29 – This amendment filed by Rep. Dykema would establish a commission to study the issue of veterans’ preference within the civil service system.
Number 29 is another attempt to take away another promise made to veterans, please call your state representation and ask to oppose this amendment.
posted by Jeff Bennett
- June 28, 2016
Gov. Charlie Baker announced yesterday that fiscal 2017 tax revenues are now projected to be $650 million to $950 million lower than the consensus projection that the administration and the House and Senate used when building their budget plans.
The revision is largely due to widespread financial volatility stemming from the Brexit vote, combined with lower-than-expected tax collections as the state closes fiscal 2016. Capital gains taxes are particularly sluggish and vulnerable to economic instability.
A revenue loss of this magnitude will force deep cuts across all areas of the state budget for fiscal 2017. The budgets set by the governor, House and Senate were all based on the original, higher revenue growth projection of $1.1 billion, which means that all of the plans are out of balance.
The governor yesterday signed a one-month, temporary budget to cover state obligations through the end of July and provide some breathing room for legislators while they dramatically scale back their budget bills for fiscal 2017, which begins on July 1.
The grim news comes at a time when cities and towns have already set their budgets based on estimates of local aid and education funding that were contained in the three budget bills. Any cuts to municipal or school accounts would trigger major budget problems in all 351 cities and towns.
“Any local aid reductions at this point would be incredibly disruptive, and would force communities to reopen their already-passed budgets and impose mid-year cuts,” said MMA Executive Director Geoff Beckwith. “Reliance on the property tax to fund municipal and school services is at a 30-year high, and it is too late to pursue tax overrides to replace lost local aid. Any local aid reduction would translate into cuts in essential services and programs that are necessary for our economic growth and stability.”
A gap approaching $1 billion is relatively small portion of a nearly $39.5 billion state budget. But roughly two-thirds of state spending is locked in, for items such as health care, debt service and pensions, leaving little room to maneuver in order to bridge the gap.
State law requires the budget to be balanced, and doing so is the biggest challenge facing the Legislature before the formal session is scheduled to close on July 31.
from the MMA website
posted by Jeff Bennett
from last nights selectmen meeting:
John Caplis submits resignation letter as Templeton Veteran service Officer.
Town Administrator has submitted his resignation effective July 11, 2016.
Fiscal Year 2013 financials are complete and the Town is awaiting the auditors to come to Templeton to begin their work. Maybe this will be the time this actually happens, as this has been put out numerous times by the administrator. The Abrahams group has completed their work and fiscal 2014 work will be completed by the Town Accountant sometime in August.
John Caplis submits resignation letter as Templeton Veteran service Officer.
Town Administrator has submitted his resignation effective July 11, 2016.
Fiscal Year 2013 financials are complete and the Town is awaiting the auditors to come to Templeton to begin their work. Maybe this will be the time this actually happens, as this has been put out numerous times by the administrator. The Abrahams group has completed their work and fiscal 2014 work will be completed by the Town Accountant sometime in August.
There may be more end of year financial transfers by July 15, 2016 to balance out the FY16 budget.
It was stated that 21 applications for fire chief in Templeton have been received at Templeton Town Hall.
Selectmen voted to not release the written legal opinion concerning the election issue with regards to a candidate for the light & water commission.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Friday, June 24, 2016
Templeton Board of Selectmen
Town Hall, 160 Patriots Road, East Templeton
Monday, June 27, 2016, 6:30 p.m.
Agenda
6:30 P.M. Call to Order
Pledge
Town Administrator Report
Minutes~ 6.6.16, and 6.13.16
Appointments
One-Way Street Presentation~Police Chief, Mike Bennett & Peter Glick of Symmes Maini
& McKee Associates
Templeton Elementary School Building Committee Update
Action on TCTV/NRSD Agreement~Steve Castle
Vote & Sign FY17 Building & Liability Insurance Renewals
Discuss dates to meet with Alan Mayo at Pine Grove Cemetery
Action on Disclosures of Appearance of Conflict of Interest
Action on Fire Department Air Packs
Action on Personnel Policy
Friends of COA Vehicle Donation
Board of Selectmen Policy & Procedures
Discuss Response to Dave Smart requesting release of legal opinion
Old Business/Updates
New Business
Selectmen’s Comments
Vote to go into executive session & state whether the Board will reconvene in open session after the executive session has adjourned~ Per M.G.L. c. 30A, Sec. 21.3, to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining or litigating position of the public body and the chair so declares.
Adjourn
The listing of Agenda items is those reasonably anticipated by the Chair which may be discussed at the meeting. Not all items listed may in fact be discussed and other items not listed may also be brought up for discussion to the extent it is permitted by law.
THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE
from the Massachusetts Municipal Association web site:
Please OPPOSE the following amendments:
Amendment #21 – Current law requires cities and towns to purchase very expensive advertisements in newspapers, a mandate that costs local taxpayers millions of dollars every year. Unfortunately, Amendment #21 would impose an even greater burden on cities and towns by requiring communities to use their public websites to publish direct links to the websites owned by private newspapers. In effect, the amendment would mandate that public employees and taxpayer funds be used to increase circulation and internet traffic on profit-making websites owned and operated by the newspaper publishing industry.
Amendment #31 – This amendment would further restrict the ability of cities and towns to use joint powers authority to improve and enhance the quality of local services to veterans.
Amendment #39 – This amendment would require cities and towns to pay for a portion of the health insurance costs of retired regional school district employees. Amendment #39 would partially restore a system that is being repealed in H. 4397 because it has proven to be unworkable and conflict-laden.
Amendment #40 – This amendment would increase the cost of constructing and renovating public buildings.
Municipalities across the Commonwealth eagerly look forward to using the provisions in H. 4397 to update and enhance municipal practices, and we thank you very much for your support and consideration of this key legislation.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
MMA Executive Director & CEO
posted by Jeff Bennett
Please OPPOSE the following amendments:
Amendment #21 – Current law requires cities and towns to purchase very expensive advertisements in newspapers, a mandate that costs local taxpayers millions of dollars every year. Unfortunately, Amendment #21 would impose an even greater burden on cities and towns by requiring communities to use their public websites to publish direct links to the websites owned by private newspapers. In effect, the amendment would mandate that public employees and taxpayer funds be used to increase circulation and internet traffic on profit-making websites owned and operated by the newspaper publishing industry.
Amendment #31 – This amendment would further restrict the ability of cities and towns to use joint powers authority to improve and enhance the quality of local services to veterans.
Amendment #39 – This amendment would require cities and towns to pay for a portion of the health insurance costs of retired regional school district employees. Amendment #39 would partially restore a system that is being repealed in H. 4397 because it has proven to be unworkable and conflict-laden.
Amendment #40 – This amendment would increase the cost of constructing and renovating public buildings.
Municipalities across the Commonwealth eagerly look forward to using the provisions in H. 4397 to update and enhance municipal practices, and we thank you very much for your support and consideration of this key legislation.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
MMA Executive Director & CEO
posted by Jeff Bennett
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Just for the record, when questions, complaints and Templeton department heads spout off, recall this: Fiscal year 2013 began on July 1, 2012 and ended June 30, 2013. Then Templeton Town accountant Scott Sawyer, who was a vendor, not a Town employee, put together the budget for fiscal 2013. He submitted a letter of resignation sometime in April, 2012 which became effective June 30, 2012 and he would not stay on to close out fiscal 2012. If anyone recalls, 2012 was the year of recall, fire Jeff Ritter, fire Town Attorney and rehire K&P, bring back a fired Town Coordinator as interim Town Coordinator. This is also the year when Town meeting stretched out for about a week, because in the middle of Town meeting, it was discovered that money from another year was used to bring this budget forward. There were also changes made to Town meeting warrant after it had been voted on by selectmen and sent off to attorneys. The changes made were not voted on in an open meeting of the selectmen. The special Town meeting later that year in November, 2012 did not really make the usual adjustments to address any of the unknowns used at the spring annual Town meeting. All of this is part of the record of Templeton for that year. August 2012 is the time I left for Afghanistan, so not being present at the special town meeting, I have gone by the record of the meeting on Templeton Town web site and annual report. I believe the biggest concern Templeton now has is how large, if any, is the deficit for fiscal year 2013, is it on expenditure or revenue and how will the deficit be addressed? I damn sure think this would absolutely be the wrong time for selectmen to be thinking of or talking about bringing back pay for elected people, be it selectmen, school committee, etc.
posted by Jeff Bennett
posted by Jeff Bennett
Thursday, June 16, 2016
From Statehouse news:
Tax revenue projections for 2017 are now likely running $450 million to $750 million below 2016 projections. The FY17 budget is currently being negotiated in conference committee and the Senate and the House are working with the Governor to find a solution. One option the Governor has is to file a corrective budget if he determines it necessary. As of this e-mail the Governor has not expressed any intention to file a corrective budget and the ultimate goal of the Legislature and the Administration is to avoid the need for one
posted by Jeff Bennett
Tax revenue projections for 2017 are now likely running $450 million to $750 million below 2016 projections. The FY17 budget is currently being negotiated in conference committee and the Senate and the House are working with the Governor to find a solution. One option the Governor has is to file a corrective budget if he determines it necessary. As of this e-mail the Governor has not expressed any intention to file a corrective budget and the ultimate goal of the Legislature and the Administration is to avoid the need for one
posted by Jeff Bennett
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
All,
We have all been trying to figure out how the town is having the issue regarding the budget and the recap. Jeff Ritter pointed out to me the FY12 budget in relation to revenue. The FY12 budget used $686,628 of Free Cash and $212,126 of Stabilization funds in order to balance the budget. As you probably remember the Accounting Consultant Matt Angel at last Friday's Selectmen meeting mentioned that if the town continues to use one time funds (Free Cash, Stabilization) the town’s money concerns will never be fixed.
After a little research it is quite clear that the use of one time funds Free Cash, Stabilization have been used for a number of years. After examining the tax recaps for FY02 through FY12 with the exception of FY05, Free Cash and Stabilization have been used as a funding source every year through FY12. The recap in the state’s Gateway system only has records back to 2002. The recap in the State's Gateway system has records back to 2002.
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
2005
|
2006
| ||
Free Cash
|
220,403.00
|
377,582.04
|
143,493.00
|
0.00
|
582,421.00
| |
Stabilization
|
39,392.64
|
118,190.45
|
24,468.00
|
0.00
|
27,963.00
|
FY07 Free Cash used 784,151.00 Gen Fund Budget 4,064,358.00
FY08 Free Cash used 403,637.00 Gen Fund Budget 3,686,661.00
FY09 Free Cash used 665,959.00 Gen Fund Budget 4,883,566.00
FY10 Free Cash used 882,486.00 Gen Fund Budget 5,160,573.00
FY11 Free Cash used 380,007.00 Gen Fund Budget 5,101,816.00
FY12 Free Cash used 686,628.00 Gen Fund Budget 5,277,527.00
FY13 Free Cash used 189,081.00 Gen Fund Budget 4,627,447.00…12% reduction from FY12
The Town Clerk’s certified town meeting minutes for ATMs has similar language for authorizing the use of Free Cash. It is generally the last article. As you can see the funds are used to balance the budget and not for other items.
To see if the Town will vote to appropriate from available funds in the Treasury, a sum of money to be used by the Board of Assessors
in fixing the tax rate to meet appropriations made for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007 or take any other action relative thereto.
On a motion duly made and seconded the Town voted to Appropriate from Certified Free Cash the sum of
Seven Hundred Eighty Four Thousand, One Hundred Fifty-One Dollars ($784,151.00) to be used by the Board of Assessors in fixing the tax rateto meet appropriations made for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007.
Obviously knowing why this has happened doesn't fix the current problem but should help for future budget years. The real question is, who made the decision to use Free Cash, former Town Accountant, past administration, past Select Boards? Again, it doesn't fix the problem but should shed some light on the budget process and the fact that more people should be involved and have input.
Thanks
Fred Aponte
posted by Jeff Bennett
remember when. . . . . . . . . . . . . ?
Everyone,
I had the chance to read the Gardner News article regarding Templeton's 500k deficit and I think it is important to correct some misinformation. First, the switch over of software between City & Town and VADAR has absolutely nothing to do with the recap and setting the tax rate. Second, the closing of FY 13 also has absolutely nothing to do with recap and setting the tax rate except the certification of Free Cash which we now know was used to "fix" the tax rate for at least the last 11 years. Third, the Treasurer's Cash Book does not affect the recap.
For years the Town Accountant was in control of preparing the budget (including FY13) and part of the FY13 budget and as you might remember FEMA funds were used and when the FY13 recap was prepared we could not move forward as the FEMA funds were from a prior fiscal year so could not be used. This forced a town meeting to rescind votes and left the town scrambling to set a tax rate.
The "model" (spreadsheet) used for preparing the budget was the Accountant's creation. FY14 was the first time the budget forecast was prepared by someone else using this "model". There were no instructions on how to use the "model" and as a result some information was not included on the budget projection. If all of the information had been included in the forecast this problem would have been discovered early into the process and the appropriate action would have been addressed then, and not when the recap was prepared which is where we are now.
The recap is a collaborative effort between the Assessors, Treasurer, Town Clerk and the Accountant. Everyone involved is responsible for certain parts of the recap however we discovered last year that not everyone is aware of their responsibility. One example is that in FY13 the Town Clerk was not aware that it was her responsibility to prepare Page 4 of the recap with all town meeting appropriations. The reason is that for prior recaps the Accountant prepared Page 4 and either had her sign (his work) or used her log on to sign. For the FY14 recap the Town Clerk has received training and made her first attempt at Page 4. There were some minor adjustments, but it was a good first attempt. Another example.........after a brief conversation with Sue Byrne at Friday's meeting the overlay number was larger than necessary on the FY14 recap as it was on prior recaps. This would create excess overlay which would be used for revaluation per the Accountant's instruction. This also affected the tax levy as those funds need to be raised. These practices may not be illegal but they do have the perception of being deceptive or at the very least "creative" and not something which I am familiar or comfortable with.
The bottom line is that things need to change dramatically in order to avoid these issues in the future. Everyone needs to work together and have input when appropriate.
Thanks
Fred Aponte
Accounting
posted by Jeff Bennett
posted by Jeff Bennett
Massachusetts Laws
Note: There are different laws depending on whether the problem road is a city or town road or a state road. Be sure to select the proper statute for your situation.
City or Town Roads:
Personal injuries or property damage from defective ways (City or Town Roads)
Personal injuries or property damage from defective ways (City or Town Roads)
State Roads: Defects in Highway, Liability (State Roads)
Not from the horse and buggy days.
posted by Jeff Bennett
963 CMR: Massachusetts School Building Authority
963 CMR 2.00: SCHOOL BUILDING GRANT PROGRAM
(3) School Building Committee.
(a) The Eligible Applicant shall formulate a school building committee for the purpose of
generally monitoring the Application process and to advise the Eligible Applicant during the
construction of an Approved Project.
(b) he school building committee shall be formed in accordance with the provisions of the
Eligible Applicant’s local charter and/or by-laws and it is recommended that the city, town,
regional school district, or independent agricultural and technical school make a reasonable
effort to include one or more of the following individuals: the local chief executive officer
of the Eligible Applicant, or, in the case of a town whose local chief executive officer is a
multi-party body, said body may elect one of its members to serve on the school building
committee; the town administrator, town manager, or city manager, where applicable; at least
one member of the school committee, as required by M.G.L. c. 71, § 68; the superintendent
of schools; the local official responsible for building maintenance; a representative of the
office or body authorized by law to construct school buildings in that city, town or regional
school district, or for that independent agricultural and technical school; the school principal
from the subject school; a member who has knowledge of the educational mission and
function of the facility; a local budget official or member of the local finance committee;
members ofthe community with architecture, engineering and/or construction experience to
provide advice relative to the effect of the Proposed Project on the community and to
examine building design and construction in terms of its constructability.
(c) The Authority may hold “best practices” information sessions at varying geographic
locations in the Commonwealth for the purposes of keeping school building committees up
to date on regulatory and policy activities of the Authority.
(d) The Eligible Applicant shall submit to the Authority for its approval, a written statement
describing the composition of the school building committee and the role of the school
building committee in monitoring the Application process and advising the Eligible
Applicant during the construction of the Approved Project. The written statement shall be
in a format prescribed by the Authority.
(e) The Authority shall approve the composition and role of the school building committee
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The Authority’s approval will be based
on several factors, including, but not limited to:
1. past performance of the school building committee, the building committee, whether
temporary or permanent, or any other committee responsible for the oversight,
management, or administration of the construction of public buildings, the composition
of the school building committee and qualifications of its individual members, the
powers and duties of the school building committee; and the school building committee’s
procedures for conducting its meetings; and
2. the extent to which there is representation of the municipal government, school
district personnel with management, educational and maintenance expertise, and
representation of members of the local community with design and construction
experience.
After the approval of the school building committee by the Authority, if any, the Eligible
Applicant shall notify the Authority in writing within 20 calendar days of any changes to the
membership or the duties of said committee. The Eligible Applicant shall make a reasonable
effort to ensure the continuity of membership of the school building committee throughout
the life of an Approved Project.
Again, at a meeting of Templeton selectmen, it was stated that it is the law for a director of building & grounds to be on the school building committee. The above code does not seem to say that.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
According to a source, one month and counting and Templeton Town Administrator will be leaving.
The shortfall in the fiscal year 2013 budget is apparently very large, so do not look for any free cash from any audits. My opinion is it was foolish to even speak of any possible free cash or extra unallocated money before actually having it in hand. I still firmly believe there is either not enough money to run this Town and/or the money is not being applied in a correct smart fashion. When the audit is done, whenever that may be, then the dollar figure will be known. There is always the possibility that the deficit will turn out not to be as large as anticipated but again, that will remain an unknown until things are completed. One thing is for sure, belts better be tightened real soon.
posted by Jeff Bennett
The shortfall in the fiscal year 2013 budget is apparently very large, so do not look for any free cash from any audits. My opinion is it was foolish to even speak of any possible free cash or extra unallocated money before actually having it in hand. I still firmly believe there is either not enough money to run this Town and/or the money is not being applied in a correct smart fashion. When the audit is done, whenever that may be, then the dollar figure will be known. There is always the possibility that the deficit will turn out not to be as large as anticipated but again, that will remain an unknown until things are completed. One thing is for sure, belts better be tightened real soon.
posted by Jeff Bennett
from the most recent copy of the open meeting law guide from Massachusetts Attorney General.
2. To conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with nonunion personnel or to conduct collective bargaining sessions or contract negotiations with nonunion personnel; Generally, a public body must identify the specific non-union personnel or collective bargaining unit with which it is negotiating before entering into executive session under Purpose 2.
A public body may withhold the identity of the non-union personnel or bargaining unit if publicly disclosing that information would compromise the purpose for which the executive session was called. While we generally defer to public bodies’ assessment of whether the inclusion of such details would compromise the purpose for an executive session, a public body must be able to demonstrate a reasonable basis for that claim if challenged. While a public body may agree on terms with individual non-union personnel in executive session, the final vote to execute such agreements must be taken by the public body in open session. In contrast, a public body may approve final terms and execute a collective bargaining agreement in executive session, but should promptly disclose the agreement in open session following its execution.
posted by Jeff Bennett
2. To conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with nonunion personnel or to conduct collective bargaining sessions or contract negotiations with nonunion personnel; Generally, a public body must identify the specific non-union personnel or collective bargaining unit with which it is negotiating before entering into executive session under Purpose 2.
A public body may withhold the identity of the non-union personnel or bargaining unit if publicly disclosing that information would compromise the purpose for which the executive session was called. While we generally defer to public bodies’ assessment of whether the inclusion of such details would compromise the purpose for an executive session, a public body must be able to demonstrate a reasonable basis for that claim if challenged. While a public body may agree on terms with individual non-union personnel in executive session, the final vote to execute such agreements must be taken by the public body in open session. In contrast, a public body may approve final terms and execute a collective bargaining agreement in executive session, but should promptly disclose the agreement in open session following its execution.
posted by Jeff Bennett
An update on air packs for the fire department, there will be some transfer of funds to come up with the almost 20 thousand dollars required to cover the replacement costs. There some discussion on the limit of transfer funds without a town meeting.
A 3 year contract for the chief of police was discussed and which apparently was/is ready for execution on the part of the selectmen.
The tree growing out of the chimney on the Tucker building was brought up with no action again other than sending a letter to Housing authority and state representative and senator.
There will be a firm coming to town on June 28 to discuss looking at and changing/updating Town by-laws.
Personnel policy was given to selectmen and some discussion concerning the removal of a progressive discipline section by the attorney.
A meeting on July 21 at Town hall with firms who will give presentation on searching for a full time Town Administrator.
posted by Jeff Bennett
A 3 year contract for the chief of police was discussed and which apparently was/is ready for execution on the part of the selectmen.
The tree growing out of the chimney on the Tucker building was brought up with no action again other than sending a letter to Housing authority and state representative and senator.
There will be a firm coming to town on June 28 to discuss looking at and changing/updating Town by-laws.
Personnel policy was given to selectmen and some discussion concerning the removal of a progressive discipline section by the attorney.
A meeting on July 21 at Town hall with firms who will give presentation on searching for a full time Town Administrator.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Audit update: Auditors for Templeton's FY2013 financials have not yet begun with auditors physically in Town Hall. The Town Administrator did reveal there is a substantial deficit in FY2013, as in very large but would not say how much in dollars yet. I think it is safe to assume that talk of a substantial amount of so called free cash is going to end up as not so much, if any.
posted by Jeff Bennett
posted by Jeff Bennett
Monday, June 13, 2016
Massachusetts General Law 111C - Emergency Medical Services system
section 25: staffing of class I II or V ambulance
Section 25. When a class I, II or V ambulance transports a patient receiving care at the paramedic level of advanced life support the ambulance shall be staffed in accordance with regulations promulgated by the department, with a minimum of 2 emergency medical technicians, only 1 of whom shall be certified at the EMT?Paramedic level; provided, however, that the service staffing a class I, II or V ambulance may staff the ambulance with more than 1 emergency medical technician certified at the EMT?Paramedic level.
section 1 of 111C, definitions has - ''Service'', an EMS first response service or an ambulance service.
posted by Jeff Bennett
section 25: staffing of class I II or V ambulance
Section 25. When a class I, II or V ambulance transports a patient receiving care at the paramedic level of advanced life support the ambulance shall be staffed in accordance with regulations promulgated by the department, with a minimum of 2 emergency medical technicians, only 1 of whom shall be certified at the EMT?Paramedic level; provided, however, that the service staffing a class I, II or V ambulance may staff the ambulance with more than 1 emergency medical technician certified at the EMT?Paramedic level.
section 1 of 111C, definitions has - ''Service'', an EMS first response service or an ambulance service.
posted by Jeff Bennett
What should people expect from volunteers?
Templeton, like many small Towns, has and relies on volunteers for things such as fire departments and ambulance calls. Now volunteers does not mean free. It does not mean people are getting rich either. What Templeton has budgeted for the fire department for FY2017 probably not even buy one new engine (fire truck). The budget line item sheet shows a "volunteer" deputy fire cheif receives a stipend of $1,010.00 for the year. A deputy chief also receives a salary of $32,500.00 per year. One of the 2 Templeton deputy fire chiefs is also a full time equivalent employee. I believe the payroll records would show that deputy chief made almost as much as the chief in one year. Templeton budget shows a salary figure of a little more than $100,000.00 for FY 2017, which is used to pay all the volunteers for the year, as it was explained at one meeting. There is also shown a maintenance figure for the year of $6,000.00.
So, should Templeton residents expect that this volunteer department will respond to 100 percent of fire calls? Should Templeton residents expect that this volunteer group can and will respond to 100 percent of the ambulance calls? Is a response of 75% or 90% good enough or acceptable? What number below 100%, if any, would be acceptable? In my opinion, there are only two logical things to do, one is for Templeton to move to a full time ambulance service, with the appropriate number of full time paramedics so we have people 24/7 to respond to all calls. The alternative is for Templeton to go out to bid for a private ambulance service to provide this service to Templeton for a fee on a per year amount basis. A resident of Westminster told me that one year, Woods ambulance service offered a per year amount of $175,000.00 for the privilege of providing ambulance service to the Town and residents said no. I think the heart over rid the mind on that one, but that is just me.
In my opinion, to go full time ambulance service, Templeton would require 12 full time paramedics to cover whatever shift cycle you go with, 3 8s, 2 12s etc. I think to go to 24 hour shifts would require much infrastructure spending, to have a place for people, male and female, to stay over, sleep and eat, house two fully equipped als ambulances with all associated items needed. Salaries required to obtain and keep qualified and quality paramedics would require salaries in the 50 thousand dollar a year amount. You do not want the town to be a training and move on town. Figure that one full time employee equals salary plus about 15 to 20 thousand per year in benefits.
I base my above opinion on many things, one thing in particular, is that while the case may be made that we, the fire department, have these things in place already, such as place to stay, eat and house the ambulances, it would only be a matter of time before Templeton would hear about how old, out dated these facilities are, how cramped, small, etc, etc. It happens and then another debate over how much and what is needed and how important and how often and so on. My thought is this will not happen anytime soon. My opinion is that government is not efficient, is not great at providing service and is usually all about me, me, as in what can I get because I work for the Town or the city. Look at any public sector labor agreement or just go to a selectmen meeting. At the last one, in the town administrator comments, it was stated that some employees or selectmen had issues with holidays off and holiday pay and employees having to work certain hours and this group has this off when we have to work. It seems to getting to the point, where in the public sector, regardless of what town or city, the employees seem to be running the show rather than the people who are suppose to be in charge. Perhaps because those in charge are thinking about getting elected again, who knows.
Certainly, this subject requires greater study and thought than what is written here today, but the question remains, what is the accepted expectation on ambulance response? Is it 75%, 80% or 95%? My thought is if you are the one having a heart attack, you expect 100% response.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Templeton, like many small Towns, has and relies on volunteers for things such as fire departments and ambulance calls. Now volunteers does not mean free. It does not mean people are getting rich either. What Templeton has budgeted for the fire department for FY2017 probably not even buy one new engine (fire truck). The budget line item sheet shows a "volunteer" deputy fire cheif receives a stipend of $1,010.00 for the year. A deputy chief also receives a salary of $32,500.00 per year. One of the 2 Templeton deputy fire chiefs is also a full time equivalent employee. I believe the payroll records would show that deputy chief made almost as much as the chief in one year. Templeton budget shows a salary figure of a little more than $100,000.00 for FY 2017, which is used to pay all the volunteers for the year, as it was explained at one meeting. There is also shown a maintenance figure for the year of $6,000.00.
So, should Templeton residents expect that this volunteer department will respond to 100 percent of fire calls? Should Templeton residents expect that this volunteer group can and will respond to 100 percent of the ambulance calls? Is a response of 75% or 90% good enough or acceptable? What number below 100%, if any, would be acceptable? In my opinion, there are only two logical things to do, one is for Templeton to move to a full time ambulance service, with the appropriate number of full time paramedics so we have people 24/7 to respond to all calls. The alternative is for Templeton to go out to bid for a private ambulance service to provide this service to Templeton for a fee on a per year amount basis. A resident of Westminster told me that one year, Woods ambulance service offered a per year amount of $175,000.00 for the privilege of providing ambulance service to the Town and residents said no. I think the heart over rid the mind on that one, but that is just me.
In my opinion, to go full time ambulance service, Templeton would require 12 full time paramedics to cover whatever shift cycle you go with, 3 8s, 2 12s etc. I think to go to 24 hour shifts would require much infrastructure spending, to have a place for people, male and female, to stay over, sleep and eat, house two fully equipped als ambulances with all associated items needed. Salaries required to obtain and keep qualified and quality paramedics would require salaries in the 50 thousand dollar a year amount. You do not want the town to be a training and move on town. Figure that one full time employee equals salary plus about 15 to 20 thousand per year in benefits.
I base my above opinion on many things, one thing in particular, is that while the case may be made that we, the fire department, have these things in place already, such as place to stay, eat and house the ambulances, it would only be a matter of time before Templeton would hear about how old, out dated these facilities are, how cramped, small, etc, etc. It happens and then another debate over how much and what is needed and how important and how often and so on. My thought is this will not happen anytime soon. My opinion is that government is not efficient, is not great at providing service and is usually all about me, me, as in what can I get because I work for the Town or the city. Look at any public sector labor agreement or just go to a selectmen meeting. At the last one, in the town administrator comments, it was stated that some employees or selectmen had issues with holidays off and holiday pay and employees having to work certain hours and this group has this off when we have to work. It seems to getting to the point, where in the public sector, regardless of what town or city, the employees seem to be running the show rather than the people who are suppose to be in charge. Perhaps because those in charge are thinking about getting elected again, who knows.
Certainly, this subject requires greater study and thought than what is written here today, but the question remains, what is the accepted expectation on ambulance response? Is it 75%, 80% or 95%? My thought is if you are the one having a heart attack, you expect 100% response.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Sunday, June 12, 2016
- June 2, 2016
The salary threshold for overtime eligibility increased from $455 per week to $913 per week ($47,476 per year). The rule applies to both private and public sector employees.
Many public sector employees in Massachusetts also have overtime provisions in their collective bargaining agreements.
The effective date is Dec. 1, 2016.
posted by Jeff Bennett
The rest of the zoning article from the MMA website.
Multi-family housing districts
The Senate bill would require every city and town to establish “as-of-right” zoning districts for multi-family housing, removing any special permit or local approval process except for normal site plan review. The bill would prohibit local governments from setting density provisions less than eight units per acre in rural communities and 15 units per acre in all other cities and towns.
Accessory apartments
The Senate bill would require every city and town to approve accessory apartments in all residential districts “as-of-right” as long as the accessory apartment is no larger than half of the entire structure, or 900 square feet, and meets building code standards. Cities and towns could cap accessory apartments at 5 percent of the total non-seasonal housing units in the community.
A 2004 study of accessory apartment zoning in eastern Massachusetts showed that, of the 186 cities and towns surveyed, a significant majority allow accessory apartments, with most allowed through special permits. The Senate bill would override all or parts of these existing bylaws.
Open space residential developments
Every city and town would be required to approve “as-of-right” residential development projects with greater density if those projects are designed to preserve open space in or adjacent to the development. Many cities and towns have already adopted “cluster development” bylaws based on special permits.
Inclusionary zoning
The Senate bill includes specific statutory authority, supported by the MMA, for cities and towns to adopt inclusionary zoning as a way of ensuring the development of affordable housing.
Impact fees
The Senate bill would allow cities and towns to charge development impact fees to be used for studies to review a specific project and for related infrastructure improvements.
Master plan votes
In order to better connect planning and zoning, cities and towns would be required to develop a comprehensive master plan, and local government would be given the option to reduce the two-thirds majority legislative vote required to make zoning changes to a simple majority or a percentage in between.
Site plan review
Site plan review would be codified in statute, with a statutory deadline of 120 days for local review.
ANR/minor subdivisions
The Senate bill would address concerns over the “approval not required” issue by authorizing cities and towns to adopt a minor subdivision zoning bylaw to provide for local review of subdivisions of six units or less. Permitting of minor subdivisions on existing rights-of-way would be required within 65 days, and approval of minor subdivisions on new rights-of-way would be required within 95 days.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Multi-family housing districts
The Senate bill would require every city and town to establish “as-of-right” zoning districts for multi-family housing, removing any special permit or local approval process except for normal site plan review. The bill would prohibit local governments from setting density provisions less than eight units per acre in rural communities and 15 units per acre in all other cities and towns.
Accessory apartments
The Senate bill would require every city and town to approve accessory apartments in all residential districts “as-of-right” as long as the accessory apartment is no larger than half of the entire structure, or 900 square feet, and meets building code standards. Cities and towns could cap accessory apartments at 5 percent of the total non-seasonal housing units in the community.
A 2004 study of accessory apartment zoning in eastern Massachusetts showed that, of the 186 cities and towns surveyed, a significant majority allow accessory apartments, with most allowed through special permits. The Senate bill would override all or parts of these existing bylaws.
Open space residential developments
Every city and town would be required to approve “as-of-right” residential development projects with greater density if those projects are designed to preserve open space in or adjacent to the development. Many cities and towns have already adopted “cluster development” bylaws based on special permits.
Inclusionary zoning
The Senate bill includes specific statutory authority, supported by the MMA, for cities and towns to adopt inclusionary zoning as a way of ensuring the development of affordable housing.
Impact fees
The Senate bill would allow cities and towns to charge development impact fees to be used for studies to review a specific project and for related infrastructure improvements.
Master plan votes
In order to better connect planning and zoning, cities and towns would be required to develop a comprehensive master plan, and local government would be given the option to reduce the two-thirds majority legislative vote required to make zoning changes to a simple majority or a percentage in between.
Site plan review
Site plan review would be codified in statute, with a statutory deadline of 120 days for local review.
ANR/minor subdivisions
The Senate bill would address concerns over the “approval not required” issue by authorizing cities and towns to adopt a minor subdivision zoning bylaw to provide for local review of subdivisions of six units or less. Permitting of minor subdivisions on existing rights-of-way would be required within 65 days, and approval of minor subdivisions on new rights-of-way would be required within 95 days.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Um ya. This. Not gonna apologize as loud equates to passionate and that's who I am.
that is from a face book page and perhaps someone should consider that it is possible for others to be "loud" and passionate and caring and just plain wish to see good open, transparent governance. That should not be considered nit picking, back stabbing or else. That means no privacy setting changes so everything is in the open. That is my opinion on that subject.
posted by Jeff Bennett
Templeton needs to update it's service:
This is what I found today while researching some veteran issues;
This is copied from the Mass.gov/veterans website.
This is what I found today while researching some veteran issues;
This is copied from the Mass.gov/veterans website.
Local Veterans' Service Officers
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Taunton
Veterans' Services Officer
141 Oak Street
Taunton, MA 02780
508-821-1038
Fax: 508-821-1316
Taunton
Veterans' Services Officer
141 Oak Street
Taunton, MA 02780
508-821-1038
Fax: 508-821-1316
Templeton
Veterans' Services Officer
584 Main St.
Athol, MA 01331
978-249-6935
Fax: 978-575-0269
Veterans' Services Officer
584 Main St.
Athol, MA 01331
978-249-6935
Fax: 978-575-0269
Tewksbury
Veterans' Services Officer
Town Hall 1009 Main St.
Tewksbury, MA 01876
978-640-4485
Fax: 978-851-4986
Veterans' Services Officer
Town Hall 1009 Main St.
Tewksbury, MA 01876
978-640-4485
Fax: 978-851-4986
posted by Jeff Bennett
- June 3, 2016
The new rules take effect on Jan. 1, 2017.
The law, passed by the Legislature on May 25 after a year of debate, requires cities and towns to review and update local practices for responding to records requests. The state’s supervisor of records, in the secretary of state’s office, is expected to release regulations to guide implementation of the law by late this year.
Under the reform law, every city and town is required to designate one or more employees as a “records access officer,” likely the city or town clerk and any other employee appointed by the municipal chief executive officer. The local records officer will be responsible for coordinating and facilitating the response to requests for public records, including helping people identify records being sought.
Every city and town will be required to post in the municipal building and on the local website, if any, the name, title and contact information for the municipal records officer(s).
Public records will have to be provided in electronic form if originally available in that form
posted by Jeff Bennett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)