Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Just finished VADAR training, which involved learning how the financial software used by the Assessors, Treasurer, Collector and Accountant works. It is really an easy system to use, once you learn it. It is so easy and quick to generate detailed financial reports, such as a budget to actual that actually shows detail such as Board of Selectmen - assistant salary, office expense, etc rather than the unnamed, general dollar figure explanation that Advisory Committee and others are now receiving. Taxpayers are paying for this system and it should be used to it's full potential - generating detailed reports that account for the spending of tax dollars. Apparently, the selectmen do not wish that to be, question is, why not?
funny item from twitter;
Jon Snow@therealjLash4
I think Hellen Keller plowed Hubbardston road @Templeton
Jon Snow@therealjLash4
I think Hellen Keller plowed Hubbardston road @Templeton
When you're so upset that you tweet at some random guy across the world about your town's roads not being plowed 
Perhaps that tweet is frustration and the last resort, in hopes something will change. I mean Templeton highway was out and about on Sunday.
Monday, January 8, 2018
More information or less information for taxpayers?
Carter;
From: "townadministrator" <townadministrator@templeton1.org>Subject: RE: FY'19 TAC budget submissionDate: January 2, 2018 at 11:41:14 AM ESTTo: "'Paul Grubb'" <grubbp@comcast.net>Good Day:Follow-up InquiryGiven we have produced the Voters Information In-House previously and given this seemed to go fairly well at the ’17 Fall Town meetingWhat is the rationale and breakdown for producing booklets? Given the census mails to 3,300 households, there are 5,100 registered voters and there are probably some 3,000+/- households with voters I’m struggling to understand how you could produce some unknown number of pages and then mail it to some unknown to me number of households within the budget request.Many ThanksCarter TerenziniTown AdministratorTown of Templeton160 Patriots RoadEast Templeton, MA 014381.978.894.2753
Carter;
Advisory has discussed this approach in the past; rather than a simple yes or no recommendation with the summaries (which have been shown to be confusing) and motions, Advisory feels an explanation /reasons for a yes recommendation accompanied by a "minority report"; if any members of Advisory vote against an article, they can explain their reasons. Advisory feels this approach gives voters/taxpayers more information rather than less. Advisory feels with the changes made to the expense ledger report (budget versus actual) which now shows less information along with the lack of line item budget presentation to Town Meeting, voters should have adequate information to base votes on and to have debate if they wish. Advisory feels that is one of the main reasons to having a Town Meeting. As to whether Advisory Committee budget requests are granted is now up to you and the board of selectmen. It will come down to the selectmen to decide to give taxpayers more or less information.
As for determining a base line for mailing Town Meeting information, Advisory can use already available public information; the voter sign in sheets to see who has actually attended Town Meeting using records from 2015 to present, ATM and STM. From there, Advisory has a few other options, to be determined by Advisory. Again, this is a new approach for Templeton Advisory Committee. It is an attempt to provide the voters/Taxpayers with more rather than less information and the committee feels this is something selectmen would support, given these are the same people who may elect or re-elect them to office. The amount of information (number of pages) will be determined by Advisory. Since in one of your memos, there was mention of other arrangements having to be made due to security concerns, with regards to the copier in the Treasurer/Collector office, a taxpayer asset belonging to the Town, no longer available to Advisory, our presented budget is the means by which Advisory is attempting to do things differently. Again, this is an attempt by the Advisory Committee to provide more information to Town Meeting so they may make better decisions concerning their money. Advisory looks at this as something else selectmen and the committee would share common ground and agreement on. If that is not the case, then you and the selectmen will probably deny the budget requests as presented and will be the selectmen who will have to explain that to Town Meeting.
In closing, I would say the operating budget presented to you would allow Advisory Committee to operate in a responsible manner and do the job as outlined in Templeton Town by-laws. Whether Advisory is able to do this or not is up to you and the selectmen. Ultimately, the selectmen will have to explain this to Town Meeting and Advisory would rather show Town Meeting that we are on the same page with regards to good governance, transparency with a clear inclusive accounting of their money - taxpayer money.
regards;
Jeff Bennett
Chairman, Advisory Committee
Sunday, January 7, 2018
from the MMA website (an organization that usually promote beneficial things for cities and towns.
October 23, 2017
The Honorable James T. Welch, Chair
Senate Committee on Health Care Cost Containment and Reform
State House, Boston
Dear Senator Welch and Distinguished Members of the Committee,
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association wishes to offer testimony on An Act relative to health empowerment and affordability by leveraging transformative health care (The HEALTH Act). Continually increasing health care costs pose a constant threat to municipal and state budgets, crowding out funding for other worthwhile programs and necessary services. The rising cost of health care also exacerbates long-term problems such as the multi-billion-dollar unfunded OPEB liability that will burden taxpayers for years to come. We applaud your Committee for the monumental task you and your Senate colleagues have undertaken in recent months, and for the work that you have put into generating this first draft of cost containment legislation.
While many of the proposals included in The HEALTH Act are designed to bend the overall cost curve down and benefit our cities and towns, we do have significant concerns regarding the proposed changes to the process for setting rates for Emergency Medical Services (EMS), found in Sections 98 and 109. Cities and towns set fees and charges for a wide variety of municipal services, and are required by state law to match fees to the cost of providing the service. These local officials know the various unique circumstances that result in the rates they set for EMS, including geography, services offered, and the most common types of calls received in their communities. Applying a statewide rate of not more than 160% of the Medicare rate would not take into account these different circumstances.
Given the variations in geography, labor rates, level of service, intensity of service, and other important factors, setting a one-size-fits-all cap would essentially misfit all. This is the reason why local rate setting is so important to ensure adequate funding and resources for life-saving EMS services. While the aforementioned sections would allow municipalities to apply for a waiver from this rate, the vast majority of municipalities would need to seek waivers, creating an unnecessary and burdensome administrative process. Further, there is always the prospect that waivers might not be granted, which would then create dramatic revenue problems for these cities and towns. This would then either force significant cuts to emergency services, or force communities to cut funding for other valuable municipal services. A waiver process is not feasible if most municipalities would need to seek relief in this manner. Our initial assessment is that the proposed rate would result in the loss of up to 40 percent of the fees collected for EMS in municipalities across the Commonwealth.
The MMA does support the proposed change found in these sections that would eliminate the practice of “pay the patient” by insurance companies. This practice undermines the ability of cities and towns to fund and operate responsive and efficient ambulance services that are at the core of emergency medical services in Massachusetts. “Pay the patient” would force communities to pursue their own residents to recoup thousands of dollars in ambulance expenses. Turning cities and towns into bill collectors is an inefficient use of municipal resources. Further, the “pay the patient” construct creates incentives for abuse and unnecessary requests for transport.
Thank you again for holding this public hearing and soliciting input and testimony from all stakeholders. Local officials across the state applaud your efforts to advance impactful legislation to reduce the cost of health care, and we look forward to working with you to ensure that the framework works for cities and towns. If you have any questions regarding the EMS reimbursement provisions or “pay the patient,” or would like additional comment on other aspects of the legislation, please do not hesitate to have your office contact MMA Legislative Director John Robertson at (617) 426-7272 at any time.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director & CEO
Senate Committee on Health Care Cost Containment and Reform
State House, Boston
Dear Senator Welch and Distinguished Members of the Committee,
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association wishes to offer testimony on An Act relative to health empowerment and affordability by leveraging transformative health care (The HEALTH Act). Continually increasing health care costs pose a constant threat to municipal and state budgets, crowding out funding for other worthwhile programs and necessary services. The rising cost of health care also exacerbates long-term problems such as the multi-billion-dollar unfunded OPEB liability that will burden taxpayers for years to come. We applaud your Committee for the monumental task you and your Senate colleagues have undertaken in recent months, and for the work that you have put into generating this first draft of cost containment legislation.
While many of the proposals included in The HEALTH Act are designed to bend the overall cost curve down and benefit our cities and towns, we do have significant concerns regarding the proposed changes to the process for setting rates for Emergency Medical Services (EMS), found in Sections 98 and 109. Cities and towns set fees and charges for a wide variety of municipal services, and are required by state law to match fees to the cost of providing the service. These local officials know the various unique circumstances that result in the rates they set for EMS, including geography, services offered, and the most common types of calls received in their communities. Applying a statewide rate of not more than 160% of the Medicare rate would not take into account these different circumstances.
Given the variations in geography, labor rates, level of service, intensity of service, and other important factors, setting a one-size-fits-all cap would essentially misfit all. This is the reason why local rate setting is so important to ensure adequate funding and resources for life-saving EMS services. While the aforementioned sections would allow municipalities to apply for a waiver from this rate, the vast majority of municipalities would need to seek waivers, creating an unnecessary and burdensome administrative process. Further, there is always the prospect that waivers might not be granted, which would then create dramatic revenue problems for these cities and towns. This would then either force significant cuts to emergency services, or force communities to cut funding for other valuable municipal services. A waiver process is not feasible if most municipalities would need to seek relief in this manner. Our initial assessment is that the proposed rate would result in the loss of up to 40 percent of the fees collected for EMS in municipalities across the Commonwealth.
The MMA does support the proposed change found in these sections that would eliminate the practice of “pay the patient” by insurance companies. This practice undermines the ability of cities and towns to fund and operate responsive and efficient ambulance services that are at the core of emergency medical services in Massachusetts. “Pay the patient” would force communities to pursue their own residents to recoup thousands of dollars in ambulance expenses. Turning cities and towns into bill collectors is an inefficient use of municipal resources. Further, the “pay the patient” construct creates incentives for abuse and unnecessary requests for transport.
Thank you again for holding this public hearing and soliciting input and testimony from all stakeholders. Local officials across the state applaud your efforts to advance impactful legislation to reduce the cost of health care, and we look forward to working with you to ensure that the framework works for cities and towns. If you have any questions regarding the EMS reimbursement provisions or “pay the patient,” or would like additional comment on other aspects of the legislation, please do not hesitate to have your office contact MMA Legislative Director John Robertson at (617) 426-7272 at any time.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director & CEO
Seems like there could be a problem with relying on theory.
Another thing I noticed at the last special Town Meeting of Tempeton; the new fire chief did not speak with a great deal of knowledge concerning the fire department/EMS budget; when you hear "as I understand it" or "according to the town administrator", etc. When a position is characterized as a "strong chief" I would think (and hope) the individual would know how the process works, what is involved and what exactly the numbers are; perhaps because of the way the document budget versus actual or expense ledger is now presented with very little, if any, clarity with regards to dollar amounts and transparency, this is what happens. People who attend Town Meeting should have al the information needed to make good decisions concerning their money. That means clear, easy to find and understand numbers; not just one large dollar figure, but a good break down of a departmental budget. How much for fuel - gasoline and diesel, vehicle maintenance, salaries, building expense and supplies, to name a few. You get that with a good line item expense plan. You do not get good information with unnamed, just a number and one or two large dollar figures; example: we need one million dollars to operate the Templeton DPW department, a good business, especially a fortune 500 company knows what it is spending and on what. That is how they know or explain cuts in man power, equipment or moving service or production overseas or sub-contracting things out; they have to have an explanation to stockholders. If they fail to do this, they lose investment money, and that is the biggest reason companies go public with stock openings, to gain investment money, which translates into capital and/or assets, which is then used as leverage for things like borrowing and a good rate of interest on said borrowing payback.
Advisory Committee submits it's request budget for fiscal year 2019.
$80,000.00 is requested for the Town's reserve fund; response/question from Carter Terenzini, part time Town Administrator:
Carter;
$80,000.00 is requested for the Town's reserve fund; response/question from Carter Terenzini, part time Town Administrator:
Answer from Advisory Committee via Chairman;Good Day:A few questions:What is MMAQ listed in employee support?What is the rationale for a .0098% reserve fund; that is an odd ratio I don’t think I’ve seen before.Further given draws out of the Reserve Fund over the past few years FY ’12 through ’16 came from an email from a W. Spring email; FY ’17 & ’18 came from our records here
Carter;
A few of the reasons for the desire of the Advisory Committee to establish a reserve fund in the amount of $80,000.00 is a multi faceted approach; The committee looked at the recommendations/guidelines from MA DOR/DLS. The committee did scale back some, otherwise the requested number would have been too much of a one time increase. The committee feels that slowly increasing the town's reserve fund demonstrates that the Town is heading towards a much better financial position than in the past. The Town is moving forward rather than backwards. (as in reducing the reserve fund, which in our opinion, shows the Town is spending more and does not have a sufficient financial cushion) Since there was no movement towards putting any of the recent certified free cash towards any of the Town's stabilization funds, which the committee feels would have been a positive move with regards to the Town establishing a bond rating. So with no apparent will on the part of the selectmen to increase or establish a savings plan, Advisory Committee feels there is justification for an increase to the Town reserve fund. Rather than a backwards move,, as was done last time around ( drop from $50,000.00 to $35,000.00) Advisory discussed and voted that the town should move towards an increase in reserve funding. It is the opinion of Advisory that this demonstrates the Town has sufficient revenue sources and numbers to not only operate the Town from a financially sustainable position, it also has the financial ability to set aside an adequate amount for emergencies without multiple financial transfers that can jeopardize things from a budgetary viewpoint. ( remember the fire department pump issue)
Again, Advisory fees this move can and will aid the Town as it moves forward towards a bond rating. Since the selectmen left an amount of certified free cash on the table, Advisory hopes this year the selectmen will use some of that money to increase the Town's stabilization funds. Again, the committee this would be financially prudent, smart and demonstrate Templeton is on the move towards financial stability. The Advisory Committee understands you may recommend something else and the selectmen will vote on what to present to Town Meeting, the committee hopes we demonstrate strong agreement on the financial path for the Town as we move forward. Whatever the number turns out to be, I believe Advisory will make known it's recommendation (s) to Town Meeting by way of it's written report to the Town per Templeton by-laws. We hope this is one area where we agree on common ground.
regards;
Jeff Bennett
Chairman - Advisory Committee
Saturday, January 6, 2018
A Templeton selectmen recently commented that the investment banking system is a good system and works well when managed properly, or words to that effect.
So, how much of Templeton's "working Capital was "invested" and how much was put aside, as in saved or "invested" in Templeton's long range financial planning, strategy and health? I did not see a single dime earmarked for investment into Templeton's savings or stabilization funds. I believe the assets of Tempeton are not only buildings and equipment but also how much reserve cash is on hand, which can be used for leverage in loans, emergencies and to demonstrate financial health when attempting to negotiate borrowed funds with regards to loan rates. You know, that pesky bond rating that has been avoiding Templeton for so long, despite what has been stated by Templeton selectmen, Administrators and reported in the newspaper.
Seems to this simple guy from Templeton that a fortune 500 company employee (even perhaps the mail room clerk) would understand the importance of savings and cash on hand. Perhaps I am assuming to much. I do know that the Templeton board of selectmen have been real boisterous on creating and having all kinds of policies on hand, but they seem to have a problem following them, never mind the Town's by-laws. It will be interesting to see how these selectmen pick apart the recently submitted budget request of the Templeton Advisory Committee. I guess we will see if the selectmen just talk the talk or if they can walk the walk as well.
From the January 4, 2018 Town Administrator's report.
TO: Board of Selectmen
FROM: Carter Terenzini, Town Administrator
RE: Administrator's Weekly Report
DATE: January 4, 2018
CC: All Departments
Weekly Report:
Chief Dickey and I reviewed the ambulance revenues since going to ALS. While we are hitting our target goal for FY '18, we do not see it growing to our hoped goals in the coming year. As you will learn, this is because we are getting fewer billable runs than we projected and the mix of runs is tipping more toward the lower paying Medicare rates.
Gee, so glad the selectmen adopted higher rates for ambulance service, now we have enough money to pay for the required full time employees to run the ambulance. Remember the $100,000.00 shortfall in the fire/EMS department budget? That was the required amount of money to cover two full time EMS (ambulance workers) and two more are required this year, where will the money come from if the ambulance receipts will not cover those expenses? Remember, as the fortune 500 company employee and selectmen stated, in theory, the system works well.
Perhaps this is the time another thought should be considered; put ambulance service out to bid and see what the results are; this could lead to positive cash flow into Templeton, rather than growing the size and cost of Templeton Town government. Just a thought. Another thought is, since there is money from taxpayers, through already collected state taxes, available in the form of grants, (which generally do not have to be paid back) Templeton should revisit regionalization of of dispatch as well as lock up facilities. Remember, if you have a jail, you have to have people to watch it and if needed, transport any "prisoners" to medical facilities, which means if you only have two police officers on duty at night and one has to transport a prisoner to the ER, the Town now only has one police officer available to patrol the town. What if there is a bar fight? Oh my!
Since there are financial imitations with regards to prop 2 1/2 and considering the financial burden on taxpayers with every employee added to the taxpayer funded payroll, I believe everything should be "on the table". Consider this; the Town of Phillipston has a police department but they have no dispatch employees, no building with associated maintenance costs, no employees for dispatch, no benefits package, no labor contracts, none of the associated costs that Templeton taxpayers have to pay for, but Phiipston receives the exact same dispatch service that Templeton gets with less than a third of the costs; with no future financial obligation for retirement or medical (OPEB) costs.
Why is that good for Phiipston and not good for Templeton? Perhaps selectmen Diane Haley Brooks can refresh everyone on the "it only costs Templeton taxpayers $37,000.00 per year for dispatch" That is what the then Templeton police chief told the board of selectmen (and everyone else) I stil have the paper work from that police chief showing that. I also have the paper work showing the real costs of dispatch service for Templeton.
Perhaps the proposed meal tax will save us, except that dollar figure is based on the same principle as the ambulance receipts, a theory and speculation.
For the record, when i was a selectmen, I tried and was in favor of Templeton regionalizing dispatch service with Gardner and for contracting out ambulance service to private contractor as a way to reduce the increased costs to taxpayers with regards to these services. The increase in costs for the essential services are already placing a burden on Templeton taxpayers as well as becoming a financial balancing act due in part to prop 2 1/2, labor contracts, public pensions and health care, prevailing wages, etc. The current board of selectmen now wish to tax you more, by way of a meals tax. When you are limited in property tax increases, you simply come up with other taxes. Since the town already contracts for legal services, perhaps contracting accounting service should be next; this again would save tax payer dollars from being spent on among things such as retirement and health insurance. These should a be looked at via a business decision - providing service while trying save taxpayer dollars.
So, how much of Templeton's "working Capital was "invested" and how much was put aside, as in saved or "invested" in Templeton's long range financial planning, strategy and health? I did not see a single dime earmarked for investment into Templeton's savings or stabilization funds. I believe the assets of Tempeton are not only buildings and equipment but also how much reserve cash is on hand, which can be used for leverage in loans, emergencies and to demonstrate financial health when attempting to negotiate borrowed funds with regards to loan rates. You know, that pesky bond rating that has been avoiding Templeton for so long, despite what has been stated by Templeton selectmen, Administrators and reported in the newspaper.
Seems to this simple guy from Templeton that a fortune 500 company employee (even perhaps the mail room clerk) would understand the importance of savings and cash on hand. Perhaps I am assuming to much. I do know that the Templeton board of selectmen have been real boisterous on creating and having all kinds of policies on hand, but they seem to have a problem following them, never mind the Town's by-laws. It will be interesting to see how these selectmen pick apart the recently submitted budget request of the Templeton Advisory Committee. I guess we will see if the selectmen just talk the talk or if they can walk the walk as well.
From the January 4, 2018 Town Administrator's report.
TO: Board of Selectmen
FROM: Carter Terenzini, Town Administrator
RE: Administrator's Weekly Report
DATE: January 4, 2018
CC: All Departments
Weekly Report:
Chief Dickey and I reviewed the ambulance revenues since going to ALS. While we are hitting our target goal for FY '18, we do not see it growing to our hoped goals in the coming year. As you will learn, this is because we are getting fewer billable runs than we projected and the mix of runs is tipping more toward the lower paying Medicare rates.
Gee, so glad the selectmen adopted higher rates for ambulance service, now we have enough money to pay for the required full time employees to run the ambulance. Remember the $100,000.00 shortfall in the fire/EMS department budget? That was the required amount of money to cover two full time EMS (ambulance workers) and two more are required this year, where will the money come from if the ambulance receipts will not cover those expenses? Remember, as the fortune 500 company employee and selectmen stated, in theory, the system works well.
Perhaps this is the time another thought should be considered; put ambulance service out to bid and see what the results are; this could lead to positive cash flow into Templeton, rather than growing the size and cost of Templeton Town government. Just a thought. Another thought is, since there is money from taxpayers, through already collected state taxes, available in the form of grants, (which generally do not have to be paid back) Templeton should revisit regionalization of of dispatch as well as lock up facilities. Remember, if you have a jail, you have to have people to watch it and if needed, transport any "prisoners" to medical facilities, which means if you only have two police officers on duty at night and one has to transport a prisoner to the ER, the Town now only has one police officer available to patrol the town. What if there is a bar fight? Oh my!
Since there are financial imitations with regards to prop 2 1/2 and considering the financial burden on taxpayers with every employee added to the taxpayer funded payroll, I believe everything should be "on the table". Consider this; the Town of Phillipston has a police department but they have no dispatch employees, no building with associated maintenance costs, no employees for dispatch, no benefits package, no labor contracts, none of the associated costs that Templeton taxpayers have to pay for, but Phiipston receives the exact same dispatch service that Templeton gets with less than a third of the costs; with no future financial obligation for retirement or medical (OPEB) costs.
Why is that good for Phiipston and not good for Templeton? Perhaps selectmen Diane Haley Brooks can refresh everyone on the "it only costs Templeton taxpayers $37,000.00 per year for dispatch" That is what the then Templeton police chief told the board of selectmen (and everyone else) I stil have the paper work from that police chief showing that. I also have the paper work showing the real costs of dispatch service for Templeton.
Perhaps the proposed meal tax will save us, except that dollar figure is based on the same principle as the ambulance receipts, a theory and speculation.
For the record, when i was a selectmen, I tried and was in favor of Templeton regionalizing dispatch service with Gardner and for contracting out ambulance service to private contractor as a way to reduce the increased costs to taxpayers with regards to these services. The increase in costs for the essential services are already placing a burden on Templeton taxpayers as well as becoming a financial balancing act due in part to prop 2 1/2, labor contracts, public pensions and health care, prevailing wages, etc. The current board of selectmen now wish to tax you more, by way of a meals tax. When you are limited in property tax increases, you simply come up with other taxes. Since the town already contracts for legal services, perhaps contracting accounting service should be next; this again would save tax payer dollars from being spent on among things such as retirement and health insurance. These should a be looked at via a business decision - providing service while trying save taxpayer dollars.
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)