The good ole days.
Templeton, Massachusetts
The Templeton landfill was ordered
closed and capped under state orders in
1996 because it was an unlined landfill.
The dump is located on a 12-acre site
between Trout and Crow Hill brooks,
adjacent to the Birch hill damn flood
plain. It is also just behind the regional
high school in a Zone II water protection
area upstream from town wells. The
Templeton Board of Health teamed up
with Casella to propose a new, lined
landfill to transfer the waste from the
old landfill into the new one. The new
landfill would take out of town trash
with an original expansion to 26 acres.
With the original 26 acres unable to
hold the old landfill and twenty years of
importing waste, residents assumed the
town intended to use the clause in the
contract that states that the “town will
support the taking of land by eminent
domain” and that if there is one cell
open at the end of twenty years the
contract will be renewed.
At a special town meeting, the
Templeton Board of Health created an
enterprise and rewrote a bylaw that
restricted outside trash from entering
the town. The Board then signed the
contract before they were granted the
authority by the selectmen. Templeton
Citizens Against the Dump (T-CAD)
charged that the contract was illegal
because it was signed without authority
and the use of town land for this
purpose was not brought to town
meeting for approval. T-CAD started
petitions and collected over 1,500
signatures to force a successful recall of
all three of the elected board of health
members.
Friday, December 13, 2019
Thursday, December 12, 2019
|
Inter-Municipal Agreement – Dispatch
Provider = Town of Templeton, MA; a corporate body
politic, acting through its board of selectmen (the provider)
End User = Phillipston
Whereas there shall be an advisory board, made up of
police chiefs, fire/ems chief and emd director. It shall be chaired by the police
chief of the provider and meet at least quarterly.
The board shall review and comment on:
Uniform operating procedures, policies, rules, and
regulations that govern the development and operations of the TRECC. (Templeton
regional emergency communications center)
Proposed annual and supplemental budgets of trecc.
Proposed application for and uses of potential grants.
If a dispute arises among the members of the advisory
board with respect to the advice it is to render to the provider . . . . . .
so, has this advisory board met as required? Has a report been created and if
so, who has received it, as I have not seen or received one to date. If this
board has not met, why not? Is this going to be another agreement that is not
followed? We must do better.
Inter-Municipal Agreement – Accounting Services to
Town of Hubbardston
Provider = Town of Templeton
End User = Town of Hubbardston
Fee Schedule as voted by Templeton Board of Selectmen
Hubbardston pays Templeton per fiscal year:
FY 2020 - $37,000.00
FY2021 - $41,000.00
FY2022 - $45,000.00
Cost to Templeton taxpayers for this agreement:
Salaries for Accounting Office increase from
$90,000.00 to $127,470.00
(FY2020 budget book page 58 & 58A)
Accountant salary increases by $7,500.00 – from $70,190.00
to $77,690.00
Asst. Accountant salary increases from $20,346.00 to
$49,780.00
Asst. accountant goes from 19.5 hours to 38 hours, now
benefits.
Additional $25,000.00, for a total increase of
$61,934.00, off set by the
$37,000.00 = net cost to Templeton of $24,934.00 so
Hubbardston can have their accounting services done for $37,000.00. Why can’t
Templeton get a “deal” like this? Why can’t Templeton get its accounting
services for $37,000.00?
This is not a reflection on Templeton employees,
rather it is an example of the need for Templeton to look at doing business in
a different way. We enter agreements like this while we go without proper
police protection, highway goes under staffed and fire/EMS is juggling for
service, even after an override for that service. Then we say we cannot afford
to fully fund schools.
A quick check of some "facts"; this budget season may prove to be interesting.
Scout Hall Re-Use Committee
Looked for meeting postings, last meeting posted was
June 12, 2019
Agenda has general discussion and action on painting
quotes.
Minutes on town website (which shows created on
December 10, 2019)
Is just a copy of agenda, also, the agenda for a May
1, 2019 meeting lists general discussion and action: painter bids. Again,
minutes on town website for this meeting is just a copy of agenda, (also
created on December 10, 2019) the minutes do not meet the minimum requirements
of the Open Meeting Law:
Public bodies are required to create and maintain
accurate minutes of all meetings, including executive sessions. The minutes,
which must be created and approved in a timely manner, must include:
• the date, time and place of the meeting;
• the members present or absent;
• the decisions made and actions taken, including a
record of all votes;
• a summary of the discussions on each subject;
• a list of all documents and exhibits used at the
meeting; and
• the name of any member who participated in the
meeting remotely. While the minutes must include a summary of the discussions
on each subject, a transcript is not required.
With $50,000.00 appropriated from CPC funds at the
special Town Meeting in November, 2019, I have to wonder how and when that
figure was arrived at – discussion and vote, who was present.
See CPC minutes for September 12, 2019:
Note: “existing balance of previous CPC funded project
(see latest expenditure report, ATM 2016 balance listed at $11,140.74, so where
/ what is referenced concerning existing $5,000.00 balance? Where or when did
that happen?
This is an example of how easy it is for things not to
be done correctly, for the OML to be violated, unintentional or not and how
important it is to keep track of taxpayer monies and funding. This shows why I
thought the board of selectmen should have oversight of this project, as I
believe TCTV was to be involved in the end result. An important thing as we
move along with Town business.
I believe this deems attention and corrective action
to stay in line with OML, DOR reporting, accounting of CPC funds and just
conducting business in open and transparent fashion.
Monday, December 9, 2019
This "letter" was once posted to Town of Templeton face book page; makes good sense.
Message from Town Administrator Bob Markel
The Department of Revenue has always discouraged the use of free cash to balance the budget. Bond rating agencies do the same, and the low bond rating for the Town reflects, in part, the lavish use of free cash to fund the operating budget. However, this is not illegal; it is simply unsound financial policy.
The amount of free cash available changes yearly, and it is not predictable. Free cash is considered one-time revenue, and the Department of Revenues recommends that it used to augment the Stabilization Fund (reserves) or for one-time purchases like capital items.
Audit firms do not do a thorough job of auditing the books (unfortunately). They come and test various areas of the town’s finances to see if there are problems, but some problems are not caught and can persist for years. They tell you up front that they cannot do a thorough audit for the relatively modest amount they charge. The DOR representative at today’s meeting called the standard municipal audit a “hit and run” audit. Still, some firms are more reputable and more competent than others. I cannot name names in this message, but there are several firms that I would never hire.
Recommendation: The Selectboard should create an Audit Committee of knowledgeable citizens who will have two responsibilities: 1) Bid the audit contract every three years, and hire an independent auditor; and 2) Receive the annual audit and do a public review of the findings and the management letter. Municipal auditors are typically hired by the Town Administrator, Town Accountant or Finance Director. This is an inherent conflict of interest since town officials who do the hiring are the ones whose work is being audited. Hiring and receiving the audit should be an arm’s length transaction from the Town’s financial team.
The Department of Revenue oversees 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth. They accept data provided by the Town Accountant, the Treasurer/Collector and the Assessors. They often question the data, but they are not always able to verify if data submitted on the Tax Recap or Schedule A are accurate. The DOR does not have access to the town’s accounting system. For example, the DOR was in Templeton today to question whether the Town has properly reported debt obligations on the DE-1 section of Schedule A. Some debt is paid from general revenue within the town budget and some debt is paid through debt exclusion. There is a correct way to report these two types of debt on Schedule A. The DOR representatives checked to see if the Town reported the data correctly, but they are limited in their ability to verify the accuracy of the data.
The long term solution to Templeton’s financial problems is to hire a professional Town Administrator who will put in place a competent financial management team – Accountant, Treasurer, Collector and Assessors. The Selectmen and Advisory Board have the responsibly to oversee the T.A. and the financial team on their management of the Town’s finances. To complement the BoS and Advisory Board, the Audit Committee should retain a reputable accounting firm to conduct an annual audit with the results made public.
Bob Markel
Interim Town Administrator
Interim Town Administrator
Sunday, December 8, 2019
TEMPLETON — The state’s Department of Agricultural Resources and Department of Developmental Services are evaluating bids for the lease of 275 acres of agricultural land at the Templeton Developmental Center, with a decision expected early next year.
“They are able to open the property up for bid because they will maintain it for agricultural use,” said DAR representative Krista Selmi. “In other words, it would be a continuation of the historical use — it is not a disposition nor is it a redevelopment.”
Seven proposals have been made for various uses of the areas that encompass the 275 acres at the more than 2,000-acre property.
The areas are Eliot Hill, which includes three barns; the Valley Barn and its milk processing plant; the greenhouse with two glass houses and function space; and an area with three barns, the farm office and another building.
Within the request for proposals, the two state agencies outline the intent for the properties to be continued to be used for agricultural purposes.
“Valley Barn has been an integral part of TDC throughout its history and it is the intent of MDAR and DDS to retain a limited number of employment opportunities for TDC clients and staff in conjunction with the operation of Valley Barn in support of DDS programmatic objectives,” the request states.
The bidders include Karl Heins, Simmons Dairy and LLC Dairy, who all intend to use property for dairy production. Charles Dance and Matt LeClerc are proposing vegetable farming and raising livestock and poultry, while Red Tolman is proposing the relocation of wild mustangs from Montana and Wyoming.
Frank Matheson Jr. of Springbrook Farm is proposing grain production, and Forward Strides Therapeutic Horsemanship submitted two proposals for equine operations.
In 2009, Gov. Deval Patrick mandated the closure of Templeton Developmental Center along with four other similar facilities as part of a shift toward serving those with developmental issues within community settings.
The development center was slated for closure in 2013, but according to the Department of Developmental Services, 41 residents still reside at the site as they await placement in other facilities.
The facility’s full closure is anticipated by 2015.
According to Gov. Patrick’s mandate, any reuse, renovation or redevelopment of the site will be decided by a committee, which will include representation from the town.
Last month, representatives from the state Department of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance indicated that they are now ready to form that committee.
“I think we’re at the point now where the town is near ready to appoint a reuse committee, and we’ll move forward with working on that,” said DCAM representative Rachel Neff.
However, according to Town Administrator Jeffrey Ritter, state officials have not yet contacted the town regarding the developmental center.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)