Many missteps owned by the current board of selectmen.
I believe all select boards have probably made a few errors, down right bad choices or acted in a disrespectful way, or at least one or two members have. that being said, I am referencing the Templeton Board of selectmen serving Now:
2015, the BOS voted to have a special town meeting to do end of the year transfers, the date chosen was July 27, 2015. Problem; Selectmen then check with DOR and are told if you do this on July 27, you be in violation of state law.
November 9, 2015: special town meeting transfer from fire/EMS expense to pay for snow & Ice deficit. Said there was a double appropriation and there was enough money in there to cover it.
March 2016, special town meeting, transfer money back into the fire/ems expense account because it is now short. The financial team has it in control, but do the selectmen?
Chairman John Columbus said it was the law that the building & Grounds director for NRHS be appointed to the school building committee. 963 Code of Mass regulations 2.0 says different. It says it is recommended and suggested but not required. Only one member of the school committee is required by law to be on the committee, MGLc71 section 68.
Chairman John Columbus stated just before a vote concerning the purchase of the excavator, "if you vote against the excavator, you are voting against road projects" Really, that sounds like two different issues, an equipment purchase and use of chapter 90 money.
This board, all members, need to read their own policies and procedures, the open meeting law and take conflict of interest training, they have demonstrated on video that their understanding of it is limited.
Jeff Bennett
Friday, April 29, 2016
Cadillac tax strategies from MIIA - Templeton's Health Insurance provider
The two-year delay of the tax may provide a sense of relief, but in actuality it is more important than ever to act now to mitigate the damaging impact that the tax will cause. Strategies that municipal leaders may consider include the following:
• Reduce the richness of plans by increasing out-of-pocket payments such as copays and deductibles and/or implementing co-insurance features
• Limit or eliminate FSA, HSA and/or HRA programs that count toward aggregate cost
• Eliminate high-cost plans
• Adopt lower-cost limited network plans
For Massachusetts municipal employers, any significant steps for reducing aggregate cost typically cannot be taken without collective bargaining – with the exception being changes that can be made pursuant to Chapter 32B, sections 21 and 22, of the General Laws. Under these two sections, municipal employers may include – as part of their health plans – co-payments, deductibles, tiered provider network copayments, and other cost-sharing plan design features that are no greater in dollar amount than those features offered in the Group Insurance Commission’s most popular plan.
Because the GIC’s plan design features have changed in the past two years, the procedure established in state law may prove beneficial even for employers that have used it previously. And if the GIC must make further plan design changes to reduce exposure to the excise tax, municipal employers will be able to replicate those changes pursuant to the procedure laid out in sections 21 and 22.
Jeff Bennett
page 10 of the letter from the auditors:
Time limitation The nature of our services makes it difficult, with the passage of time, to gather and present evidence that fully and fairly establishes the facts underlying any Dispute that may arise between us. The parties agree that, notwithstanding any statute or law of limitations that might otherwise apply to a Dispute, including one arising out of this agreement or the services performed under this agreement, for breach of contract or fiduciary duty, tort, fraud, misrepresentation or any other cause of action or remedy, any action or legal proceeding by you against us must be commenced within twenty-four (24) months (“Limitation Period”) after the date when we deliver our final audit report under this agreement to you, regardless of whether we do other services for you relating to the audit report, or you shall be forever barred from commencing a lawsuit or obtaining any legal or equitable relief or recovery. The Limitation Period applies and begins to run even if you have not suffered any damage or loss, or have not become aware of the existence or possible existence of a Dispute. Fees Assuming the audit includes the audit of one (1) major federal grant, our fee for these services will be $28,500 for fiscal year 2013. If an additional grant(s) is required to be audited under the requirements of OMB Circular A-133, we will issue a change order for $5,500 (per grant) to audit the applicable program(s). Our fee above includes all out-of-pocket costs, such as report reproduction, typing, postage, travel, copies, telephone, etc. If unexpected circumstances require significant additional time, we will advise you before undertaking work that would require a substantial increase in the fee estimate. Our invoices for these fees will be rendered each month as work progresses and are payable on presentation. In accordance with our firm policies, work may be suspended if your account becomes 30 days or more overdue and will not be resumed until your account is paid in full. If we elect to terminate our services for nonpayment, our engagement will be deemed to have been completed even if we have not issued our reports. You will be obligated to compensate us for all time expended and to reimburse us for all out-of-pocket expenditures through the date of termination. Unanticipated services Additional work resulting from unanticipated changes in your organization or accounting records If your organization undergoes significant changes in key personnel, accounting systems, and/or internal control, we are required to update our audit documentation and audit plan. The following are examples of situations that will require additional audit work: Revising documentation of your internal control for changes resulting from your implementation of new information systems Deterioration in the quality of the entity’s accounting records during the current-year engagement in comparison to the prior-year engagement Significant new accounting issues
posted by Jeff Bennett
Time limitation The nature of our services makes it difficult, with the passage of time, to gather and present evidence that fully and fairly establishes the facts underlying any Dispute that may arise between us. The parties agree that, notwithstanding any statute or law of limitations that might otherwise apply to a Dispute, including one arising out of this agreement or the services performed under this agreement, for breach of contract or fiduciary duty, tort, fraud, misrepresentation or any other cause of action or remedy, any action or legal proceeding by you against us must be commenced within twenty-four (24) months (“Limitation Period”) after the date when we deliver our final audit report under this agreement to you, regardless of whether we do other services for you relating to the audit report, or you shall be forever barred from commencing a lawsuit or obtaining any legal or equitable relief or recovery. The Limitation Period applies and begins to run even if you have not suffered any damage or loss, or have not become aware of the existence or possible existence of a Dispute. Fees Assuming the audit includes the audit of one (1) major federal grant, our fee for these services will be $28,500 for fiscal year 2013. If an additional grant(s) is required to be audited under the requirements of OMB Circular A-133, we will issue a change order for $5,500 (per grant) to audit the applicable program(s). Our fee above includes all out-of-pocket costs, such as report reproduction, typing, postage, travel, copies, telephone, etc. If unexpected circumstances require significant additional time, we will advise you before undertaking work that would require a substantial increase in the fee estimate. Our invoices for these fees will be rendered each month as work progresses and are payable on presentation. In accordance with our firm policies, work may be suspended if your account becomes 30 days or more overdue and will not be resumed until your account is paid in full. If we elect to terminate our services for nonpayment, our engagement will be deemed to have been completed even if we have not issued our reports. You will be obligated to compensate us for all time expended and to reimburse us for all out-of-pocket expenditures through the date of termination. Unanticipated services Additional work resulting from unanticipated changes in your organization or accounting records If your organization undergoes significant changes in key personnel, accounting systems, and/or internal control, we are required to update our audit documentation and audit plan. The following are examples of situations that will require additional audit work: Revising documentation of your internal control for changes resulting from your implementation of new information systems Deterioration in the quality of the entity’s accounting records during the current-year engagement in comparison to the prior-year engagement Significant new accounting issues
posted by Jeff Bennett
All -
I received a call from Matt Hunt of CliftonLarsonAllen, our auditing firm, regarding a Single Audit for Fiscal 2013. In the spring of 2014, they gave me a quote for conducting audits for Fiscal 2014 and 2015. Later, we added Fiscal 2013 to the list following a recommendation from bond counsel and the DOR. Neither they nor I knew that the Town had expended CDBG monies exceeding $500,000 in FY'13.
We are required to do a Single Audit for FY'13, and this has added to the cost. I recommend that we pay the additional cost from the $27,000 in surplus funds that is scheduled for transfer into the BoS expenses budget in the FY'16 Financial Transfer article.
Bob
Robert T. Markel
Interim Town Administrator
Town of Templeton
160 Patriots Road
East Templeton, MA 01438
(978)894-2753
Robert T. Markel
Interim Town Administrator
Town of Templeton
160 Patriots Road
East Templeton, MA 01438
(978)894-2753
from the Massachusetts Municipal Association website, this appeared in "The Beacon" that Templeton selectmen receive, I hope they read it.
From The Beacon, November 2015
Buried deep inside the federal Affordable Care Act is an onerous and controversial new tax that is finally beginning to attract public scrutiny and attention: the Cadillac Tax, a massive 40 percent levy on “high-value” health insurance plans.
Because the federal government has developed a rigid one-size-fits-all mandate, and is intent on placing this burden on public employers – cities, towns and states – the law could become one of the costliest unfunded federal mandates in history.
This provision was sold under the false premise that high-cost plans were rare and overly generous or luxurious (thus the term “Cadillac”), but the law actually sets a threshold that is too low and will harm employees and employers in regions of the nation where health costs are naturally higher. New England (and Massachusetts in particular) is one of those regions.
Here’s a brief summary: beginning on Jan. 1, 2018, the ACA will establish a cap on the allowable cost of family and individual health plans that public and private employers can offer to their employees and retirees without triggering a massive tax penalty. The federal government will impose a 40 percent excise tax on employers for the amount that their health insurance plans exceed $27,500 for families and $10,200 for individual coverage. Over time, the tax burden will become heavier and heavier because the threshold will only be adjusted by about 2 percent per year, but health costs are projected to increase at a far higher rate.
As an illustration, if a city or town has a family plan that costs $29,500 a year in 2018 (the total premium including employee and employer contributions), with 200 workers enrolled, the federal government will levy a $160,000 tax bill on the community. The calculation is simple: 200 health plans would be $2,000 over the threshold, for a total overage of $400,000. Forty percent of $400,000 is $160,000.
In five years, that same municipality could be hit with a $380,000 annual tax, using conservative estimates of only a 5 percent annual increase in the cost of health care and prescription drugs. But if health costs rise at a higher rate, say 10 percent, then the federal tax would hit $1 million in the fifth year. Regardless of the scenario, the math is clear: the Cadillac Tax is unaffordable.
Because the Obama administration and many members of Congress were fearful of directly regulating the cost of health care in the U.S. – hospitals, physicians, medical supply companies, and drug manufacturers are exceedingly powerful and influential on Capitol Hill and in virtually every statehouse, and they have blocked every effective idea to regulate what the industry can charge – the ACA’s authors decided that the politically safe way to address skyrocketing costs would be to hand the hot potato to someone else. Their idea was to impose a tax penalty on employers that would be so severe and unaffordable that it would force employers and insurers to clamor for cost controls and reform – even though employers and insurers lack the authority to regulate or force this reform.
In short, the ACA’s sponsors decided to create a crisis instead of addressing the cost control issue in a straightforward manner. This may have been a politically safer strategy for Beltway operatives, but the result will be very harmful to local taxpayers, employees, retirees, and municipal services.
From the MMA’s perspective, this approach is irresponsible and ignores the world in which Massachusetts cities and towns operate. Because the ACA has a “one-size-misfits-all” dollar threshold, the law will have uneven impacts on different regions of the country. Health plans are more expensive in Massachusetts than elsewhere in the nation because the region’s world-class hospitals charge much higher rates, especially in the Greater Boston area. In our state, this means that the cost of even modest health insurance coverage already comes close to or exceeds the threshold for many, many employers, including a number of cities and towns. Thus, the Cadillac Tax will hit Massachusetts employers, including local governments, harder than those in other regions.
Right now, municipal leaders work closely with their employee unions to manage health insurance costs, through collective bargaining and by using the tools provided in the landmark municipal health insurance reform law passed in 2011, which allows cities and towns to adjust their plans to match the copays and deductibles that are set for state employees. But those tools will be insufficient to avoid the Cadillac Tax.
Unless hospitals and drug companies announce that they will be reducing their prices and reforming their costs (this is known as magical thinking), the ACA will force the following options in our communities: a massive shift to high-deductible, low-coverage plans; deep cuts in municipal and school services to pay the new federal tax; widespread layoffs of public workers to balance budgets; large increases in the regressive property tax; or a combination of all of the above.
The MMA has joined with the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the AFL-CIO, and major corporations across the nation in calling for the repeal of the Cadillac Tax. This broad coalition of public and private employers and employees is united in common cause because we know the Cadillac Tax is unfair and would inflict real harm on workers, retirees, taxpayers and businesses across the country.
True cost control is needed, but it will not come through misguided and punishing tariffs on employers and employees. Congress and the president should instead address the issue of cost regulation in a direct and forthright manner. That may be more politically challenging, but it is the only responsible path to take.
posted by Jeff Bennett
From The Beacon, November 2015
Buried deep inside the federal Affordable Care Act is an onerous and controversial new tax that is finally beginning to attract public scrutiny and attention: the Cadillac Tax, a massive 40 percent levy on “high-value” health insurance plans.
Because the federal government has developed a rigid one-size-fits-all mandate, and is intent on placing this burden on public employers – cities, towns and states – the law could become one of the costliest unfunded federal mandates in history.
This provision was sold under the false premise that high-cost plans were rare and overly generous or luxurious (thus the term “Cadillac”), but the law actually sets a threshold that is too low and will harm employees and employers in regions of the nation where health costs are naturally higher. New England (and Massachusetts in particular) is one of those regions.
Here’s a brief summary: beginning on Jan. 1, 2018, the ACA will establish a cap on the allowable cost of family and individual health plans that public and private employers can offer to their employees and retirees without triggering a massive tax penalty. The federal government will impose a 40 percent excise tax on employers for the amount that their health insurance plans exceed $27,500 for families and $10,200 for individual coverage. Over time, the tax burden will become heavier and heavier because the threshold will only be adjusted by about 2 percent per year, but health costs are projected to increase at a far higher rate.
As an illustration, if a city or town has a family plan that costs $29,500 a year in 2018 (the total premium including employee and employer contributions), with 200 workers enrolled, the federal government will levy a $160,000 tax bill on the community. The calculation is simple: 200 health plans would be $2,000 over the threshold, for a total overage of $400,000. Forty percent of $400,000 is $160,000.
In five years, that same municipality could be hit with a $380,000 annual tax, using conservative estimates of only a 5 percent annual increase in the cost of health care and prescription drugs. But if health costs rise at a higher rate, say 10 percent, then the federal tax would hit $1 million in the fifth year. Regardless of the scenario, the math is clear: the Cadillac Tax is unaffordable.
Because the Obama administration and many members of Congress were fearful of directly regulating the cost of health care in the U.S. – hospitals, physicians, medical supply companies, and drug manufacturers are exceedingly powerful and influential on Capitol Hill and in virtually every statehouse, and they have blocked every effective idea to regulate what the industry can charge – the ACA’s authors decided that the politically safe way to address skyrocketing costs would be to hand the hot potato to someone else. Their idea was to impose a tax penalty on employers that would be so severe and unaffordable that it would force employers and insurers to clamor for cost controls and reform – even though employers and insurers lack the authority to regulate or force this reform.
In short, the ACA’s sponsors decided to create a crisis instead of addressing the cost control issue in a straightforward manner. This may have been a politically safer strategy for Beltway operatives, but the result will be very harmful to local taxpayers, employees, retirees, and municipal services.
From the MMA’s perspective, this approach is irresponsible and ignores the world in which Massachusetts cities and towns operate. Because the ACA has a “one-size-misfits-all” dollar threshold, the law will have uneven impacts on different regions of the country. Health plans are more expensive in Massachusetts than elsewhere in the nation because the region’s world-class hospitals charge much higher rates, especially in the Greater Boston area. In our state, this means that the cost of even modest health insurance coverage already comes close to or exceeds the threshold for many, many employers, including a number of cities and towns. Thus, the Cadillac Tax will hit Massachusetts employers, including local governments, harder than those in other regions.
Right now, municipal leaders work closely with their employee unions to manage health insurance costs, through collective bargaining and by using the tools provided in the landmark municipal health insurance reform law passed in 2011, which allows cities and towns to adjust their plans to match the copays and deductibles that are set for state employees. But those tools will be insufficient to avoid the Cadillac Tax.
Unless hospitals and drug companies announce that they will be reducing their prices and reforming their costs (this is known as magical thinking), the ACA will force the following options in our communities: a massive shift to high-deductible, low-coverage plans; deep cuts in municipal and school services to pay the new federal tax; widespread layoffs of public workers to balance budgets; large increases in the regressive property tax; or a combination of all of the above.
The MMA has joined with the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the AFL-CIO, and major corporations across the nation in calling for the repeal of the Cadillac Tax. This broad coalition of public and private employers and employees is united in common cause because we know the Cadillac Tax is unfair and would inflict real harm on workers, retirees, taxpayers and businesses across the country.
True cost control is needed, but it will not come through misguided and punishing tariffs on employers and employees. Congress and the president should instead address the issue of cost regulation in a direct and forthright manner. That may be more politically challenging, but it is the only responsible path to take.
posted by Jeff Bennett
BOSTON -- As President Barack Obama descends on the Bay State to join union bosses and Democratic politicians at the annual Labor Day Breakfast, a key element of Obamacare is poised to hurt most Massachusetts families, including those in union households. Obamacare's "Cadillac Tax" on "high-cost" health insurance plans will take effect in 2018, and will force Massachusetts working families to pay thousands of dollars a year in new taxes: over $50,000 over ten years for the average police officer, for example. MassGOP Chairman Kirsten Hughes released the following statement:
"While Obama and the union bosses applaud each other at today's breakfast, working families - especially union households - face a crippling Obamacare tax that will force them to pay thousands of dollars a year in new taxes. With union leaders and a bipartisan coalition agreeing that the tax needs to go, Massachusetts needs leaders to stand up to Obama to avert this disastrous burden on workers across the Commonwealth. But despite the consistent failure of Obamacare in Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren gave the law a grade of “A++” last week. Our Commonwealth deserves better leadership in Washington, D.C."
This is something to watch and think about because here in Templeton the $78,000.00 increase in health care costs that taxpayers have to deal with in the budget. If you look under the group insurance (health insurance) you will see a dollar figure of $1,124,976.00.
Jeff bennett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)