email from Town Administrator to members of the Advisory Board - read the last couple lines with interest.

All -

1) I used the figure of $80,000 for new growth after conversations with the Deputy Assessor and the Building Inspector.  Our economy continues to grow, and my estimate is based upon building permits this year.  Assessors always give conservative estimates for new growth.  The budget as presented has slack in case our revenue does not hold up.  There is nearly $100,000 in the budget that can cover any shortfall in new growth or revenue.  Also, it looks like the Legislature will provide somewhat more in Local Aid than what we projected in the FY'17 budget.  

2)The Electric Department will decide their contribution in May, according to John Driscoll.  The Town did propose a project - help with renovation of Scout Hall - but it was rejected.  We are still trying to work with Light and Water on a stable, formula based annual contribution.  This week, I was asked to submit a letter with a formal request for funding.

  

3) The $175,000 from the sale of the property at Baldwinville Road must be used to reduce the debt - DOR mandate.   We are using $143,000 to reduce debt service in FY'17.  This will not result in a squeeze next year because the non-excluded debt service will decrease in FY'18 by more than $143,000 due to retiring debt.  

4) I believe that Kelli explained some of the reasons for the mismatch between BvA and FY'16 revised.

  

5) I will bring answers to your most recent questions to our meeting on Wednesday.  Most of the issues you cite with Police and Dispatch budgets are related to the long term use of the E-911 grant to subsidize the Dispatch operating budget.  We are attempting to move away from this practice before we are reprimanded by the state.  

Why would the Town be reprimanded by the state if the E-911 grant money was used correctly and legally? Suddenly, I question even more the statement made by a prior chief of police to the selectmen and really the entire Town that dispatch only costs taxpayers $37,000.00. This is just another reason to be very wary of all these financial transfers that have taken place, not by past selectmen, treasurers, accountants, coordinators, but by the ones who are presently in office.

Jeff Bennett

Something needs to be cleared up! 

     Monday. April 11, 2016, there was a public meeting of the Templeton Board of Selectmen. There was a discussion of $47,000.00 of unallocated funds in the FY17 budgets and then the selectmen began to use that money to potentially fund things from the "new initiatives" from department heads. Now on Thursday, April 14, 2016, page 3 of the Gardner News, article titled 'Gansett sees more students to Monty Tech, 2nd column, 3rd paragraph, "Markel added that all departments are fully funded with $47,000.00 unallocated available revenue." So unless this article was written prior to Monday nights meeting of the selectmen, that information is incorrect and is misleading Templeton residents/taxpayers into thinking there are more funds left over than are actually available and that is a bit disturbing. Perhaps contact the author of the story, tvocino@thegardnernews.com and ask her, then contact a selectmen and compare stories.

Jeff Bennett