Special town meeting of November 9, 2015

Can anyone point out anywhere on either of these documents where it limits the borrowing to only two years? This is why there needs to be questions and answers at town meeting, but people need to show up know and understand what is being asked and ask for explanation. This is why there needs to be more than two residents showing up for a pre town meeting.

Below are the facts and they will be used to justify whatever action is taken, you voted for them, you now deal with them.




What you voted for that is on the record or "on paper"

ARTICLE 2 DEBT AUTHORIZATION: POLICE STATION UPGRADE To see if the Town of Templeton will vote to appropriate, borrow or transfer from available funds, a sum of money to be expended under direction of the Selectmen to pay costs of designing, constructing and equipping a 4,000 square foot addition to and remodeling of the Templeton Police Station, located at 33 South Road, and for the payment of all other costs incidental and related thereto; or take any other action relative thereto.

Submitted by the Board of Selectmen

On a motion duly made and seconded the Town voted to appropriate the sum of Nine Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($975,000) to pay costs of designing, constructing and equipping a 4,000 square foot addition to and remodeling of the Templeton Police Station, located at 33 South Road, and for the payment of all other costs incidental and related thereto; said sum to be expended under the direction of the Selectmen; and to meet this appropriation the Treasurer, with the approval of the Board of Selectmen, is authorized to borrow said sum under M.G.L. 44, Section 7, or pursuant to any other enabling authority; provided, however, that no sum shall be borrowed or expended hereunder unless the Town shall have voted to exempt the amounts required for the payment of interest and principal on said borrowing from the limitations on taxes by M.G.L. 59, Section 21C (also known as Proposition 2 ½).

Passed Unanimously/November 9th @ 8:33

I see no mention of any time limit here, I see no mention of two years! You actually have to read and understand what you are voting on, it does not matter what you heard or what was said by whom, it is what is on paper, on the record that counts. That is what will be seen by bond counsel.


from special town election December 2015:

Question 2.      Shall the Town of Templeton be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one-half, so-called, the amounts required to pay for the bonds issued in order to pay costs of designing, constructing, and equipping a 4,000 square foot addition to and remodeling of the Templeton Police Station, located at 33 South Road, Templeton, Massachusetts, including the payment of all costs incidental or related thereto?

                                                YES___________                  NO____________

TOWN OF TEMPLETON
SPECIAL TOWN ELECTION
December 8, 2015		# Eligible Voters		4,796
		Total Votes Cast		1,405
		Percent		29.3%
QUES. 1 - New Elementary School	A	B	C	TOTAL
Yes	314	290	202	806
No	270	164	163	597
Blanks	1	0	1	2
TOTAL	585	454	366	1,405
QUES. 2 - Addition to Police Station
Yes	396	313	249	958
No	187	139	116	442
Blanks	2	2	1	5
TOTAL	585	454	366	1,405

posted by Jeff Bennett

The MSBA Helps Break Ground for the New Briggs Elementary School

April 27, 2012

Jack McCarthy, Executive Director of the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), joined state and local officials at a groundbreaking ceremony for the new John R. Briggs Elementary School in the Ashburnham-Westminster Regional School District.

“As a result of the successful collaboration between the MSBA and the District, students at Briggs Elementary will get a completely up-to-date learning environment,” said Executive Director McCarthy. “This is a down payment on the academic excellence of the students at Briggs.”

State Senator Stephen Brewer cited the groundbreaking as proof of the District’s commitment to the Briggs project. Senator Brewer said, “When we cut that ribbon, the teachers will be reinvigorated. The students will be reinvigorated. Everyone will be a believer.”

School Committee Chairman David Christianson described the new school as “the right building at the right price, [one] that we think will serve the town for 50, 60, 80 or 100 years to come.”

The $30 million project will replace the existing Briggs Elementary School with a new facility built on the same site. More than $15 million of the total project budget is eligible to be reimbursed by the MSBA. The new school is expected to open in September 2013.

The MSBA partners with Massachusetts communities to support the design and construction of educationally-appropriate, flexible, sustainable, and cost-effective public school facilities. Since its inception, the Authority has made $8.6 billion in reimbursements for school construction projects. These timely payments have saved municipalities over $2.9 billion in avoided local interest costs and have provided much needed cash flow to communities.

posted by Jeff Bennett

 Subject of pre town meeting, what if the town got “banged” with 4% interest rather than 3.5%. The newest member of the board of selectmen stated going from 3.5 to 4% would not being “getting banged”, so the below table shows the various costs from 3.5% to 5%. Clearly, the costs increase with a change in interest rates, but do you consider it “getting banged” for an increase of $82,000.00 (approximate) when going from 3.5% to 4% interest rate? The below numbers are the result of going to the division of local services web page and using the debt calculator. The dollar figure is based off what was presented to a special Town meeting in 2015 with a total voted borrowing of $47 million dollars. Would construction costs go up or down in 3 to 5 years? will borrowing costs go up or down in 3 to 5 years? What is the cost of doing nothing? What is the costs of changing direction, such as a new location?

posted by Jeff Bennett

Amount Borrowed	Years	Interest Rate	Principal & Interest  - Yearly payment	Interest only
$24,000,000.00	28	3.5	$38,036463.00               $1,358,463.00	$14,036,978.00
$24,000,000.00	28	4	$40,328,719.00              $1,440,311.00	$16,328,719.00
$24,000,000.00	28	4.5	$42,685,981.00              $1,524,499.00	$18,685,981.00
$24,000,000.00	28	5	$45,106,340.00              $1,610,941.00	$21,106,340.00

Now I am Anonymous and Do is Stupid, according to little davey. The man is truly delusional, in my opinion. All things posted here have my name attached to them (except the comments) but that cannot be said for dave smart's blog, published under the name of a dead man which delusional smart continues to hide behind, his dead uncle. Pitiful! At least state who posts the subject or articles on your blog davey, because it ain't Paul Cosentino, again, pitiful and delusional. (in my opinion)

Does or did the Advisory Committee have a difference of opinion concerning which revenue number (s) to use/ Yes, but is that a reason to not recommend the town operating budget/spending plan in its entirety? My opinion is no, so I voted to recommend and explain to town meeting, if they wish an explanation. Last Town Meeting, the people did not wish to go line item by line item, they voted to follow the selectmen's budget/spending plan and in the past, the Town indicated they wanted a town run ambulance service and that is the reason for the 100 thousand dollar shortfall built into this budget/spending plan, so again, I voted to recommend for as this is what the people want/wanted, so I think they should get what they want and pay for it. If Town Meeting wishes to do anything with this spending plan, they can make a substitute motion and maybe little davey will do that. Where were all the complainers at the pre-town Meeting?

Just as important is the Town Administrator report of May 4, 2017,
In it,  the T/A serves notice to the selectmen that the NRSD (school district) has  the intent to issue debt in the amount of $490,000.00. What this will be used for is either not known or not stated at this time. Also stated is it seems this new debt will not be a capital or debt exclusion item.

The dollar figure that was used in the "warning" or Town Meeting warrant is not a correct total and that was going to go to Town Counsel to see if the warrant had to be re-posted or not. Again, the dollar amount can be adjusted on Town Meeting floor or Town Meeting can again reject the article in its entirety and go through what the Town did in 2013, their choice.

Again, the general state aid number is not set in stone and can in theory be changed before the state budget is approved by the state legislature, yet the Templeton spending plan is based on that number, which is why most towns have a Town Meeting (special) in the fall to adjust before the tax recap is submitted. The budget process was better this year than the past few years but it still needs change and improvement and that can happen. So, at Town Meeting,, the people (legislative body) can either vote to accept what is presented or they can vote to change it, it is up to them.

posted by Jeff Bennett

Last night, at the Pre Town meeting, the Town Administrator made the point I have been making for a long time, Ambulance service is going to cost the Town (taxpayers) more and more. The point was made by stating that full time people ( fire fighter/EMS-paramedics are needed this year and next and the next until Templeton can cover ALS ambulance service 24/7 and this has/is not going to work with on call people and the T/A further stated he would let the fire chief speak on this at Town Meeting. So, seems I was correct on saying over the years that the Ambulance service was going to cost more and more. Also stated at the meeting was that there are projections that ambulance billing receipts will eventually (in 3 years or more) begin to accumulate in sufficient numbers to cover the costs or most of it. One point was made that medicare/medicaid and insurance companies can have an effect on this if they begin to limit how much of those ambulance fees they will cover. Meaning that whom ever uses an ambulance will be responsible for the not covered costs and if they cannot pay,  those dollars will most likely be written off as uncontrollable and those dollars lost, unless some sort of collection process is followed with associated costs.

what this means is you either vote for government growth or you probably lose town ambulance service completely. The kicker is, there is still a 100 thousand dollar deficit built into the spending plan you will be asked to support. Advisory Committee voted to recommend for with an explanation to Town Meeting and allow voters to decide.

posted by Jeff Bennett

Some Audit tidbits;

Wifred

First of all I would take anything filed with DOR in FY 2013 or FY 2014
with a grain of salt; the DOR only relies on information provided by the
Town which for those years had to be recreated from scratch. Also, FY 15
and 16 was not available until 6 weeks ago and thus why it was not
presented to DOR.

Secondly the DOR analysis only shows levy year collections for the levy
year; so it measures for example fiscal year 2013 collections against
fiscal year 2013 commitment but fails to add in taxes from prior year
levies collected in fiscal 2013 and also tax title collections these are
used to backfill any 2013 taxes that don't get collected until 2014; my
analysis incorporates all of that.

Paul, The attachments are from DOR/DSL data base on receivables for FY 13 & 14. No data for FY 15 &16. The question is why no data for FY 15 &16 ? Next question is why data for FY 13 & 14 different than what auditor sent? Wil On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Paul Grubb <grubbp@comcast.net> wrote:…

--
Tony Roselli, CPA, Partner

Roselli, Clark and Associates, CPAs
500 West Cummings Park, Ste 4900
Woburn, MA 01801

617-750-4604

posted by Jeff Bennett

Health costs are growing municipal concern Insurance premiums are squeezing out other programs; few towns sign on to the state's own program so far
BY NAOKO YOSHIDA FOR THE SUN CHRONICLE Jan 3, 2009
 Lost in the concern over the faltering Massachusetts budget is a painful fact that has confronted governments large and small well before the national recession: The growth of health care costs for municipal workers. Health insurance costs for city and town employees increased 63 percent from 2001 through 2005, according to a 2005 survey by the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. The figure was nearly double the state's annual rate of increase for health costs. "Health insurance costs have been increasing above inflation, which means every year health insurance has taken up a great percentage of local budgets," said Geoffrey Beckwith, executive director of Massachusetts Municipal Association.

That has squeezed out other important programs, such as public safety, public education and public works." In July 2007, Gov. Deval Patrick signed a bill giving municipalities the option of buying health insurance through the Group Insurance Commission - the state's employee health care pool - as a tool save money. The state-run health insurance program provides more diverse health insurance plans for less cost than what local governments pay. The amount of savings differ from town to town, depending on what type of plans the communities are in, how many retirees they have and what those retirees pay. But the savings can be substantial. The town of Holbrook would save an estimated $212,000; the town of Millis would see about $300,000 in savings. But few cities or towns have taken advantage of the state plan. Only 17 municipalities out of 351 cities and towns have joined so far. The list of participants also includes six regional school districts, three planning agencies and one charter school. GIC Executive Director Dolores Mitchell says joining the state plan isn't easy. A town must cancel existing labor contracts that often give workers better deals than the GIC provides. "Given the difficulty and complexity of the decision they have to make, I'm perfectly happy with the number that have decided to participate," she said. "It isn't easy. If the administration of the community has decided that they want to do it, all different unions have to get together and collectively make that decision. It's a complicated and contentious and time-consuming activity
Municipalities need approval of 70 percent of union employees. A major sticking point is that municipal employers must pay from 50 percent to 99 percent of the health premium. The GIC decides other issues, including the type of plans, co-pays and deductibles. The process has been the major obstacle for local governments. "Getting our 13 unions to get concurrences to join can be an expensive undertaking," Norton Town Manager James Purcell said. Plainville Town Administrator Joseph Fernandes said: "If the town could simply say we are going to join the GIC, we could do a quick cost analysis of which is cheaper and just do it. But if we have to get unions to agree, they want something in exchange." Town officials also question the potential of cost savings. "You could save money, but that's a crap shoot too," Seekonk Town Administrator Michael Carroll said. "What is the GIC going to cost next year? They could overhaul the design of the plan." North Attleboro Town Administrator Mark Fisher agrees. "We have no guarantee that what we are looking at today is what's going to be there tomorrow," he said. A new problem surfaced in October, when Gov. Patrick cut $900 million from the state budget, including $32 million from GIC. Along with the budget cuts, the governor filed legislation to increase insurance premiums paid by state employees. Because it is unlikely the Legislature will act quickly on the proposal, GIC might be forced to increase co-pays and deductibles on subscribers, including state and municipal employees and retirees. Another complication is the warning by House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi that local aid could be cut up to 10 percent in the next fiscal year To help local governments manage the loss, DiMasi said he will propose a bill to give municipal officials the authority to join GIC without negotiating with local unions. The contribution ratio will still be negotiated through collective bargaining, he said. Local unions are opposed to DiMasi's proposal, which would allow local governments' to join GIC plans with higher co-pays and deductibles. "If you increase the co-pays and deductibles, you increase it all on the employees and retirees," said Bob McCarthy, president of Professional Fire fighters of Massachusetts. "The ones who need it the most have to pay more. That's why we want to have a voice." McCarthy also said the DiMasi plan would eliminate the basis of union-municipal negotiations that have balanced health care benefits against wage issues. "For years, public sector unions have foregone pay raises to maintain their health insurance benefits," McCarthy said. "So what happens when you take out the collective bargaining?" Another proposal offered by Massachusetts Municipal Association would give local officials the authority to shape health insurance plans outside of collective bargaining. Beckwith said giving cities and towns that power would mean quicker savings.
"If communities can just implement basic changes and update their health plan, they would be able to save a lot of money," he said. The savings could extend to workers. Although employees would face higher co-pays and deductibles, their premium would go down, Beckwith said. "It means much more overall savings than the cost of co-pay," he said. "In addition to that, our analysis shows that if cities and towns are able to change the plans themselves, in many cases, they can do it with less cost shift to employees than joining the GIC." But McCarthy has his doubts. He fears increases in co-pays and deductibles for outpatient surgery, prescription drugs and mental health care could cost employees thousands of dollars if they become sick. "I am concerned about quality, not just having a health insurance plan," he said.

posted by Jeff Bennett