from the Massachusetts Municipal calendar:

AUGUST  1
Accountant:  Notification of Total Receipts of Preceding Year The total actual local receipts (e.g., motor vehicle excise, fines, fees, water/sewer charges) of the previous fiscal year must be included on Schedule A of the Tax Rate Recapitulation Sheet (Recap) which is submitted by the Assessors to DOR. On the Recap, the Accountant certifies the previous fiscal year’s actual revenues, and the Assessors use this information to project the next fiscal year’s revenues. Any estimates of local receipts on the Recap that differ significantly from the previous year’s actual receipts must be accompanied by documentation justifying the change in order to be approved by the Commissioner of Revenue.

Seems like a good guide a good for someone putting together a spending plan showing where the money will come from to pay for it all.


posted by Jeff Bennett

 All -
> 
> The link below is to the first draft of the FY'17 operating budget.    Some
> very
> important information is not yet available, i.e., the Governor's Local Aid
> recommendation; health and general insurance costs; the school assessment;
> Worcester County Retirement assessment, etc.  There is also a strong
> possibility
> that there will be an additional $175,000 in available revenue; we are waiting
> for DOR approval.  
>  
>   Here are a few changes:
>  
>      1. This is an omnibus budget.  I have included spending by non-general
> funds agencies at the bottom of the G.F. budget, i.e., Ambulance/EMS;
> Revolving
> Account Spending; Community Preservation; and Sewer Department.  Numbers from
> prior years are missing and will be updated when financial records are in
> order.
>  
>  
>      2. No new initiatives are funded in the T.A. budget recommendation only
> estimated fixed cost increases.  When we know the amount of new revenue that
> will be available in FY'17, the Selectmen and I will review departmental new
> initiative requests and decide on funding.  
>  
>      3. Actual spending for each line item is included for FY'15.  
>  
>      4. On the Revenue worksheet, there is a deduction to fund OPEB for the
> second year.  We are working on the actuarial update. 
>  
>      5. The FY'16 Revised Budget is included, reflecting changes at the
> Special
> Town Meeting in November.    
>  
>      6. Account numbers from our new chart of accounts are included.  These
> match up with UMAS and will make reporting to the DOR much easier and more
> accurate.  
>  
>      7. The Health and Building Departments are merged into a single budget
> called Inspectional Services.  This reflects that they already share staff and
> an expense budget.
>  
>      8. The former Communications Department is now called Dispatch,
> reflecting
> the recent changes made by the BoS and Chief of Police.
>  
>      9. Individual budgets are hyperlinked.  Clicking on a department at the
> top
> will move the curser to that department's budget.  Clicking the 'index'
> hyperlink to the left of each budget will return the curser to the      top. 
>          
>     10. This budget will be updated when new information becomes available.
>  The
> Selectmen begin their review towards the end of January.  Rather than send
> various versions, I am sending the link below to allow you to review and print
> the latest version. 
> 
>     11.  The list of new initiatives/requests from department heads is
> attached.
> 
> https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=6E2A03A56827D19F!20523&authkey=!AM03yvYg0yNRmtE&ithint=file%2cxlsx


> Bob
> 
> Robert T. Markel
> Interim Town Administrator
> Town of Templeton
> 160 Patriots Road
> East Templeton, MA 01438
> (978)894-2753


posted by Jeff Bennett

Below is an email clarifying how to figure salaries, yet there are now a total of 14 sections for salary amendments released at a recent meeting.
Selectmen salary account
Town Accountant
Assessor  (2 people)
Treasurer/collector  (3 people)
Town Clerk  (2 people)
Planning board
Town building
police department
Inspection services  (3 people)
Highway  (8 people)
Vehicle machinery
Cemetery  (3 people)
Council on the aging
Library

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

From: Kelli Pontbriand <accountant@templeton1.org> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 7:52 AM To: Advisory Board; Alan Mayo; Bob Markel; Brigid Lambert ; Carl ; Charlene VanCott; 'Conservation'; Diane Haley Brooks ; Dianna Morrison; Doug Morrison; Eric Baker; 'Fire Chief'; HighwayDept; J Driscoll; Janice; jbelliveau ; John Caplis; John Columbus ; Josh; Julie Richard ; Kathy Webster; Kenn Robinson ; Kent Songer; 'Kirk Moschetti'; Library; Linda McClure; Luanne Royer ; Lyn Scerra ; Marcia Breen; Mike Pinkpank; Pam Landry; Police Chief Michael R. Bennett; Rich Curtis; Richard Hanks; Selectman Office; Tax Collector; 'Town Clerk'; Treasurer Subject: Clarification on Salary Calculation

Good Morning,

I want to clarify the calculation of the payroll as there seems to be some confusion.  The calculation is based on a percent not days…see the example below:

1 day  over  52 weeks is 20%

2 days over 52 weeks is 40%

3 days over 52 weeks is 60%

4 days over 52 weeks is 80%

5 days over 52 weeks is 100%...which is one full week of pay

So the .2, .4 is the percentage of your weeks pay, not the days.   Please let me know if you need any help in calculating your salary budgets for FY 2017 or if you have any additional questions.

For FY 2017 it is 52.2   52 weeks and one day.

Have a great week!!!!

Kelli Pontbriand

Accountant

Town of Templeton

978-894-2765

posted by Jeff bennett

In case you forgot or did not know:

Seems like the selectmen knew very well what the administrator was doing with the spending plan for Templeton.

--------- Original Message ----------
From: Robert Markel <townadministrator@templeton1.org>
To: "Brooks, Diane" <seldhaleybrooks@templeton1.org>, "Columbus, John" <seljcolumbus@templeton1.org>, John Caplis <selectmen.caplis@templeton1.org>, "Morrison, Doug" <seldmorrison@templeton1.org>, "Richard, Julie" <seljrichard@templeton1.org>
Date: May 12, 2016 at 11:20 AM
Subject: Advisory Committee Recommendations

The proposed operating budget for Fiscal 2017 with Advisory Committee recommendations is attached.  

Their approach is based upon a reduction in expected revenue from New Growth.  For Fiscal 2016, new growth brought in an additional $94,000.  In the prior year, it was $69,000.  

I estimated new growth producing an additional $80,000 in revenue for FY'17.  Thought that this was a conservative estimate, below the current year, in an economy that is doing better.  The Advisory Committee cut the expected new growth revenue to $50,000, and they reduce the Town Administrator salary to $52,000 from $80,000 and they reduce the line item for wage and salary adjustments from $35,000 to $12,000 while giving a raise to the Deputy Assessor, the only Town employee given a raise directly in the budget of the Advisory Committee.  

Assessors are always ultra-conservative about estimating new growth.  Have never encountered Assessors who do it differently.  If our Assessors stand up at Town Meeting and support the lower number, the ATM will likely go along with Advisory Committee recommendations.  Singling out their Deputy Assessor for a raise will likely increase the pressure on the Assessors to support the AC new growth figure.

The BoS and I have supported a higher salary for the Deputy Assessor during the past year.  Her salary in FY'15 was $43K.  She was given two increases in FY'16 that brought her salary to $54K, and she was given an additional $2K in t our FY'17 budget.  Luanne is an excellent employee and she deserves a good salary.  I question why a $12K increase over two fiscal years is inadequate.  Is the AC attempting to influence the Assessors to support for their view of new growth?

I had $25,000 in the Selectmen's budget for raises for non-unionized employees.  It was raised to $35,000 in case we need to increase the Fire Chief's salary during recruitment.  The current Chief is paid $64K.  I put $70K in the FY'17 budget and an additional $10 buried in the BoS budget in case we need it.  

Also, the BoS has said that they want to recruit a permanent T.A. during Fiscal '17.  Why reduce the T.A. salary in the budget when it will have to be raised back to $80K or beyond during recruitment?

Kelli said that Jeff Bennett prevailed upon the AC to raise the budget for Veterans Benefits to $95K.  Not sure why.  AC supports the revolving fund which will use state reimbursements to fund Veterans Benefits.

Rm

There may be a problem with the revolving fund for veterans services, it was presented at $100,000.00 but since each revolving account can be no more than 1% of the tax levy, which right now is about 9 million 0ne hundred twenty thousand, that fund may need to be changed, ah, amended.

posted by Jeff Bennett

Is this an approach that could be used or needed in Templeton?

© The Stoneham Independent

STONEHAM, MA - Citizens last Monday night instituted a new timetable for convening Town Meeting assemblies in order to allow the Board of Selectmen extra time to fully vet articles proposed for the legislative meetings.  During the recent Annual Town Meeting in Town Hall’s auditorium, Article 18, which set new deadlines for opening and closing warrants for all types of Town Meeting assemblies, easily garnered the votes needed to become permanently codified in Stoneham’s bylaws.

The measure was pitched by Selectman Thomas Boussy last Feburary, when he convinced his colleagues to begin reviewing in greater depth any proposed articles that unelected municipal officials sought to place on the Annual Town Meeting warrant without collecting the requisite 10 signatures.   

In order to facilitate that review, the Board of Selectmen will now close the warrant on the first Monday in March, rather than at the end of February.  By doing so, the town officials will have additional time to debate whether to sponsor any petitions from department heads and other local officials.   

In arguing for the changes last winter, Boussy contended in the past, measures with significant financial implications had been quietly slipped into the Annual Town Meeting warrant without input from either the Board of Selectmen or Finance & Advisory Board. 

In a new vetting process that began this year, all warrant articles coming from unelected officials, particularly those that involve spending more than $10,000, had to be submitted in Town Hall by Jan. 21. 

During the pre-approval process, the selectmen didn’t render an opinion on the merits of an article — that debate occurred after the warrant closed —but rather decided whether the board should sponsor each proposal.  

Submissions arriving after that Jan. 21 date were presumed ineligible for sponsorship, though citizens could still circulate a petition of their own and collect 10 signatures of support from registered voters.

“The Board of Selectmen voted that in order for us to sponsor an article it had to be submitted to us by Jan. 21.  If for some reason we decide not to sponsor it, we wanted to allow for more time for anyone to gather the proper signatures [by closing the warrant in March now],” Boussy explained last week.   

By contrast, the deadlines for opening and closing a warrant were narrowed for Special Town Meeting assemblies — with the exception of the regular October Special Town Meeting —by eliminating a requirement that the warrant remain open for at least seven days. 

There is no longer any minimum time frame for the warrant to be open — it could hypothetically be closed the day after a Special Town Meeting is called — but the agenda must be finalized at least two weeks prior to the assembly being held. 

According to proponents of the change, though citizens regularly conduct pivotal town business during October’s Special Town Meeting, when when local officials generally ask voters to decide on how to spend certified free cash and to authorize roadway improvements and other capital repairs, the public pays less scrutiny to other assemblies.

To discourage unelected officials and citizens from sneaking in a major financial proposal for consideration during irregular special town meetings, Article 18 sought to allow for the swift closing of warrants. 

According to Boussy, such scenarios also created an atmosphere where voters are asked to take action on an article without having the benefit of being aware of Stoneham’s larger fiscal picture — the specifics of which are discussed at length during the bi-annual gatherings in May and October.

posted by Jeff Bennett

Considering what was just presented to the Town of Templeton, $54,000.00 in raises, according to information out of town hall, and only $35,000.00 appropriated at town meeting for wage and salary adjustment fund, with 38 changes, ah amendments, as it was put at the meeting. I do not believe I can support this. I believe the selectmen need to live with what they have done. The selectmen propose reducing the Town's reserve fund to cover some of these changes, i mean amendments. Perhaps selectmen should tell employees that since we screwed up, we need to take back those raises so we can correct the screw up. Different people in positions and same things keep happening, so perhaps it is the process or lack there of that is the real problem. When you close down (basically) a town for about 6 weeks, I do not think you just turn around and put all positions back on the books that fast without knowing if you have the funds to do so. In 2013, selectmen put hours back only after we had gotten an override passed to pay for the move. Are you ready for a 2 plus dollar per thousand increase in taxes to pay for the school? Can Templeton really afford this school? Would it be wise to place an article on this expected special town meeting to change or amend the town meeting vote about the new school?

posted by Jeff Bennett