On October 20, 2016, people get a second chance to vote for, or not, for a new school. Of particular interest to me is what is the best guess cost to the taxpayer going to be. Consider that now, not in the future, $1.00 per thousand will raise $597,000.00. That is based on recent information from the Assessors office in Templeton. That bears checking out on your part.

Now, what follows is from a letter to editor in the Gardner news around this time last year, 2015:


The Templeton Center site has been approved by architects, engineers and the Massachusetts School Building Authority. A few have said that we need a new school but is too costly. The cost to Templeton resulting from state reimbursement is 24.8 million. The annual residential tax is $1.74 per 1,000 home valuation. 

From information at Town meeting on November 9, 2015 and from other meetings, as well as a debt calculator on the website of MA DLS, 24 million dollars for 28 years at 3.5% would mean a yearly payback of about 1.4 million dollars. 

If we take the information from the Assessors office and compare it to the information given at the Town Meeting, I do not see anyway for $1.74 to work, not close. Consider that back in 2015, I believe the information available was $1.00 per thousand would raise $556,000.00. Again, $1.74 per thousand does not work. So why is that? Is that some new math? Using the information from the Assessors office, $2.00 per thousand would raise almost 1.2 million dollars, but we have to have 1.4 million per year, so again, where did this $1.74 come from? Time to get honest, time to be conservative, time to be real, pick one, just be honest and tell people that it is not going to be $1,74, it will be $2.34 per thousand or $2.50 per thousand. 

By the way, just for informational purposes, on those documents available, the $1.74 per thousand had the words "net increase" next to them, because the plan is for another debt exclusion to not go away after 20 years. Remember the one from back in 1996, that was suppose to be paid off in 2016 but now will not be paid off until 2019, well the plan was/is (appears to be) to just keep that on the tax rolls and add the $1.74 to that and that will make the "new" debt payments for the next 28 years. 

All of this can be verified with some work and time.

posted by Jeff Bennett

To get away from the school "frenzy" try public money for private use.

from today's Gardner News: 

Large potholes and cracks in the pavement is a regular problem along Laurel View Road. There are a many places where the pavement heaves upward and vegetation is growing through breaks. News staff photo by Christine Smith

So in the interest of public knowledge and what is possible, I did a little reading on the tv, ah the internet, the big screen, the land of what google lets you see.

by Mary Mitchell, esquire (retired) Municipal Finance Law Bureau from 2006

So I am sure some things have changed - or not - but it is worth a check because these people who live on these roads do pay property taxes!

Authority to Spend

The authority for cities and towns to spend money arises under Section 5 of MGL c. 40. That section provides that:

“[a] town may at any town meeting appropriate money for the exercise of any of its corporate powers; provided, however, that a town shall not appropriate or expend money for any purpose, on any terms, or under any conditions inconsistent with any applicable provision of any general or special law.(2)”

Cities and towns are free to exercise any power or function, except those denied to them by their own charters or reserved to the State, that the Legislature has the power to confer on them, as long as the exercise of these powers is not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws enacted by the Legislature.(3) In general, the properties and purposes for which cities and towns are authorized to spend are not specified, but rather they include any necessary expenditures arising from the exercise of their powers or functions.

Public Purpose Limitation

Cities and towns can spend only for public purposes. Public funds cannot be used for private purposes. Thus, cities and towns have the right to spend money for any purpose where the public good will be served but not where the expenditure of money is directly for the private benefit of certain individuals. This principle is expressed in the Massachusetts constitution and in numerous cases.(4)

In some situations, however, the expenditure of public funds advances both public and private interests.  In those situations, if the dominant motive for the expenditure is a public one, incidental private benefits will not invalidate the expenditure.(5) If, however, the dominant motive is to promote a private purpose, the expenditure will be invalid even if incidentally some public purpose also is served.(6)

Notations:

5.) See e.g., Opinion of the Justices, 313 Mass. 779 (1943) (“The fact that the owner of a way may profit by expenditures ‘for the removal of snow and ice’…does not invalidate expenditures…where the primary purpose of such removal is the benefit of the public to whose use the way is open.”).

6.) See e.g., Salisbury Land & Improvement, Co. v. Commonwealth, 215 Mass. 371 (1913) (act was unconstitutional where it authorized the condemnation of lands for a public beach and the sale or leasing to private parties of any portion not needed for the public beach)

So that should give anyone a start who is interested in that subject, or if you live on one of those roads.

posted by Jeff Bennett

How projects sometimes go, just as an FYI;
Page 28 of the Templeton 2003 annual town report, there is an item under the Templeton municipal Light & water department. "The commissioners voted to withdraw $400,000.00 from the MMWEC working capital account to make up the increase above the 1.5 million dollars voted at town meeting to pay for the new light building." Oops, a little bit over what was estimated and asked for. Later, there was 1.9 million asked for to build or buy a 12,000 sqf. building for a town hall. The last bid received for that project was in the 3.5 - 4 million dollars range. 1.9 million was approved at town meeting. I believe in Gardner, the new police station was said to cost near the 12 million dollar range and at last count I saw, I believe it was in the 14 million dollar range to finish it. Looking at those items and others, I do not have much confidence in the Templeton school project coming in under budget, I expect it will cost Templeton more than 24 million dollars and more than $1.74 per thousand. I also happen to think these things should have been part of the discussion. If it is wanted and is a good deal, it will and would have still passed. Do not be afraid of a second vote, be confident in 2 yes votes. Don't be afraid, unless you scared that since the real information has come out, the second sell might not pass!


posted by Jeff Bennett

From the DLS website, click gateway then click on cities and towns free cash calculations.
This is information at the bottom of the Free Cash Calculation form that was submitted March 25, 2014 and it shows a deficit of 26 thousand dollars so how again did these selectmen feel good about repeating this 750 thousand dollars in free cash coming and the books are all good?
Feel free to believe what you will, I will choose the data/information available.


                                (26,899)
FREE CASH, JULY 1, 2013
REVIEWED BY:   Deb Wagner          Please see certification letter
DATE:                         03/27/14           FOR DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS APPROVAL

posted by Jeff Bennett

First off, this is not petty, this is me trying to let people know what the school is really going to cost them. I believe people should know and should be told. Why there are people all in a twist over this is quite the puzzle. I sometimes wonder if people care about these things. Forget the police station, that is a 2 year deal. The cost to the taxpayers will be more than $1.74 per thousand, if anyone takes the time to look at the paperwork that was handed out back on November 9, 2015, you will see that. What was printed and talked about was the fact the "new" high school should have been paid off in 2016 but the district reworked their debt so it got extended another 3 years. Now whatever the cost for that over 20 years was/is, 58 cents 60 cents or 85 cents, that will not be going away, as was said back in 1996. The plan is to keep that on and add another $1.74 per thousand, so if you take say 60 cents and add $1.74 together, that is probably the bare least you will be paying, about $2.34 per thousand. That is one of the things that is a bee in my bonnet, tell the truth and give the number what ever it is. Do not low ball just to get a yes vote. If people really want a school, they will pay whatever the cost. Do not forget everything else will be going up at least a little bit each year. Now remember who has been telling you that everything will be fine, everything is good. The town will have 750 thousand dollars in free cash, the audits will be done by January or February 2016 and the town will have a bond rating by June or July 2016. That is all on the record and was in the newspaper. Oh yeah, the FY 2017 budget is all set, balanced and proper with 56 thousand unallocated funds ta boot! So why are the selectmen not using those funds to cover that 87,500.00 boo boo? Why are they going after the little bit of savings the town has to cover that? So far, from the information from the town accountant, the money the town has received from MSBA appears to be around one million one hundred fifty thousand dollars. Now that information could be wrong but that is what I have seen so far covering from 2010 to 2016. That would be about 2.00 per thousand for one year to pay that back, if we are required to do so. Funny how that was not mentioned at the meeting nor the ballot question back in 2015, if you vote this down, we have to pay the money back. The Town did vote one million fifty in money for feasibility and design and some of that was paid from MSBA. Where was the "if this does not pass, we have to pay that money back? Sounds like scare tactics to me. Lastly, back in 1974, before the new addition at gannsett, there were about 900 kids in that building which was about half the size it is now and we seemed to be fine back then so what is the problem now with 800 or 900 kids in there? Just asking a question.

posted by Jeff Bennett

Why you must be ever vigilant.

Since there has now been updated valuations, as in property values are valued higher now in Templeton, $1.00 per thousand will raise $597,000.00. Close enough to say 600 thousand, so $2.00 per thousand will raise 1.2 million dollars. Still, that is above the $1.74 per thousand you were told at town meeting back on November 9, 2015. That has been my biggest concern/complaint with much of Templeton's finances, lack of truth and clarity. For those who were at annual Town meeting back in 2013, the ambulance receipts account does not and will not completely pay for the ambulance service. Things like more full time employees salaries and benefit packages will have to come from taxation, period. Dispatch cost Templeton taxpayers more than 37 thousand dollars per year. Another lie from a past chief of police. With new prisoner cells in the Templeton police station, taxpayers will now be on the hook to house, keep track of, feed and take to hospital anyone locked up for a period of time, especially over say a weekend. There needs to be a meeting, a survey, questionnaire, something, to get feed back from residents on what services they want and what they are willing to pay for them. Do we wish to keep the senior center? There are selectmen who think that may need to go. Do you think Templeton should be in the ambulance business? Would you still be for it if Templeton could get a contract thru a private company and receive 100 thousand per year just for letting them provide that service to Templeton. Would you be in favor of raising Phillipston share of dispatch to at least 90 thousand per year? Would you be in favor of taking on a third town for dispatch service? Some thing (s0 have to give or residents will have to support an override, as a raise in taxes just to cover those costs for services. We need to determine what services residents need and want and what they are willing to pay for them.


posted by Jeff Bennett

from special Town meeting, November 9, 2015, 24 million was NOT voted, 47 million was/is the dollar figure passed. Interest only, according to debt calculator on DLS website for this amount at 3.5% is 14 million dollars. Yup, it costs money to borrow money and "they" do not always wish you to see it, which is why there is an item for the October 20, 2016 STM to separate principle and interest on Templeton long term debt!
 This is not for / against, it is merely information for you to know before you vote!

On a motion duly made and seconded the Town voted to appropriate the amount of Forty-Seven Million, Five Hundred Sixty-Three Thousand, One Hundred Eighty-Four Dollars ($47,563,184) for the purpose of paying the costs of designing, constructing, originally equipping and furnishing a new Templeton Elementary School located at 17 South Road, Templeton MA, including the payment of all costs incidental or related thereto (the “Project"), which school facility shall have an anticipated useful life as an educational facility for the instruction of school children of at least 50 years, and for which the Town, through Narragansett Regional School District, may be eligible for a grant from the Massachusetts School Building Authority ("MSBA"), said amount to be expended under the direction of the Templeton Elementary School Building Committee; and to meet this appropriation, the Treasurer, with the approval of the Selectmen, is authorized to borrow said amount under M.G.L. Chapter 44, or pursuant to any other enabling authority; The Town acknowledges that MSBA's grant program is a non-entitlement, discretionary program based on need, as determined by the MSBA, and any Project costs the Town incurs in excess of any grant approved by and received from the MSBA, through the Narragansett Regional School District, shall be the sole responsibility of the Town; provided further that any grant that the Town, through the Narragansett regional School District, may receive from the MSBA for the Project shall not exceed the lesser of: (1) Sixty-Two and Eighty-Four Hundredths Percent (62.84%) of eligible, approved Project costs, as determined by the MSBA, or (2) the total maximum grant amount determined by the MSBA; provided that any appropriation here under shall be subject to and contingent upon an affirmative vote of the Town to exempt the amounts required for the payment of interest and principal on said borrowing from the limitations on taxes imposed by M.G.L. 59, section 21C “Proposition 2 ½”; and that the amount of borrowing authorized pursuant to this vote shall be reduce by any grant amount set forth in the Project Funding Agreement that may be executed between the Narragansett Regional School District and the MSBA.
Passed by 2/3/November 9th @ 8:14
A motion was duly made and seconded to reconsider Article 1. Defeated/November 9th @ 8:16


posted by Jeff Bennett