I would be willing to try, but . . . Trust??

One way to fund road work:

Lastly, amendments in 2003 to Ch. 40, Sec 5b allow a municipality to establish special purpose stabilization funds and to build balances in them through a type of override, which also has characteristics of a debt exclusion. Through initial approval, by twothirds vote, of town meeting (and the selectmen), a city council or a town council, a referendum can be placed before the voters asking whether to raise tax revenue, by majority vote, above Proposition 2½ limits for the purpose of the stabilization fund. In succeeding years, solely through an annual vote of the selectmen, city council or town council, the override can be continued, lowered or deferred entirely and resumed, or not, in a later year. Like an override, the additional tax can continue year-after-year without town-wide or city-wide referendum votes beyond the year of inception and, each year, the amount available to be raised increases by 2½ percent. However, like an exclusion under Proposition 2½, the levy limit increase need not be permanent. It can be discontinued in any year.

Combine this with chapter 90 money and possible CDBG grants and free cash, the town could make progress on paving / road infrastructure improvements that directly affect taxpayers / residents. A choice has to be made by town meeting and selectmen if we are going to continue piece meal or really do something for town residents. Good roads often equals to better condition and less dollars regarding snow / ice removal. Your choice, all I can do is try to get a consensus from select board to put this before voters. Simple overrides have been presented in the past and failed, I want to try something different.

I also want roads / infrastructure on capital plan, including water and sewer, drains, etc. as they are things that belong to the town, whether light & water commissioners agree or not.

One more time - Begin process of accepting private roads that do not currently meet accepted standards ; create schedule and process to bring them to standard as a service to taxpayers/residents. This has been to town meeting once and I would propose to bring it one more time. The purpose is simple, one of the things in the chapter 90 program used to determine how much chapter 90 money Templeton receives in the grant program is road miles. No, we have not kept or gotten existing town accepted roads in good condition yet, but it does not mean we should not offer same service to all taxpayers/residents. It also does not mean any "head of line" status, it means we begin planning for all roads in Town. If town meeting votes no again, well, those on private roads will remain second class residents and why should they pay taxes if they do not receive same service or expect same opportunity as rest of town residents.

The Massachusetts Chapter 90 program often serves as the main or sole source of funding for road construction/repair for most cities and towns. The program authorizes funding to every municipality in the state based on a formula consisting of road miles, population, and employment. The current formula places an emphasis on three areas with the following percentages:

Road Mileage — 58.33 percent

Population — 20.83 percent

Employment — 20.83 percent

In Pignatelli's bill, the proposed new funding formula aims to take 5.5 percent of funds from the population and employment categories and applies an additional 11 percent to the road mileage category, allowing smaller communities to gain 17-18 percent in funding:

Road Mileage — 69.334 percent

Population — 15.333 percent

Employment — 15.333 percent.

The Chapter 90 program funding formula was created almost 50 years ago in 1972 and has not been upgraded since. The formula itself has no legislative history, and is overseen entirely by the Department of Transportation. Pignatelli was inspired to file a bill updating the new formula as a direct result of the critical infrastructure challenges facing small communities.

This is important and I feel it deserves one more try, for the residents.

from the MSBA website:

Templeton Center School - building complete.

MSBA paid to date - $21,137,638.00

MSBA remaining - $1,623,141.00

Total project budget - $45,058,033.00

These figures show the Town cost of project is $22,297,254.00 + borrowing / bonding costs.

Looks more like a 50% rate from MSBA rather than the ole 63.11% and you may confirm these numbers at MSBA web page.

WINCHENDON — The school district, under the umbrella of a Barr Foundation grant through Mount Wachusett Community College, is helping gather data on student success and readiness for career and college. They join other districts in a search for ways to make the high school experience productive and better for everyone.

Lauren Mountain, current director of United Way Youth Venture at MWCC, recently told members of the School Committee that the college and Murdock High School have partnered with the Youth Venture program since 2002. Three years ago the college began introducing Changemaker Communities, essentially a professional development program working with educators to help them learn skills of teamwork, empathy, leadership and problem-solving.

She said Changemaker paired really well with Youth Venture because students were learning the same skills by experiencing them as social entrepreneurs — responding to something within their community and addressing it.

“It was a natural transition for us to go from Youth Venture to Changemaking, and from Changemaking now to this new opportunity for the 2020 calendar year through the Barr Foundation.”

MWCC was selected as a recipient of the Barr Foundation’s new “Portrait of a Graduate” grant program, described as a collective vision of what all high school students will know and be able to do by graduation. To create the portrait, educators, parents, students and community members work to determine the definition of student success in school and beyond.

Mountain said that MWCC was one of 14 awarded communities in New England for the Portrait of a Graduate Grant.

“It is essentially a planning grant for us to look at the gaps in high school readiness, their ability to be successful in college, career and community,” Mountain said.

Mountain explained that she conducted interviews of leaders at participating school districts, including Fitchburg, Leominster, Gardner and Winchendon. Also included in the grant are MWCC’s Early College Dual Enrollment and Pathways Early College Innovation School.

As a partnership, leadership from the different schools are trying to determine what success looks like. They are also reaching out to alumni to ask them to define their success, including the factors that caused their success and what helped to make them the person they are today.

The grant allows the group time to study the data received in depth. To find the data, Mountain explained there will be a lot of interviews with stakeholders, including educators, staff, students, parents, employers, family members, the community as a whole, and service providers including health, and other external support services that help make a student successful.

Mountain told the School Committee that the grant team is helping to bring many voices to the table. Their focus is to answer the question about students’ readiness for college. Mountain noted that currently when taking in the remediation rates, the answer is no, students are not ready. Data reveals that students are taking basic English and math courses, and are basically not ready.

“If you look at the workforce there would be a percentage of people not exhibiting the skills needed. Is it the school’s fault or do we all need to come to the table and work together?” she said.

The administrators are working with Mountain as a team to find the reason why students share gaps in readiness. The working team is looking at models of learning that might help change the data. They will help bring other district voices to the table to spend time looking at the national frameworks. They will go on site visits to different schools, even nationally, to see how things are done outside of New England.

When the data is gathered at midyear, the team will pull it all together to try and make sense of it. Mountain said the goal is to align what they learn with what is in process for the district’s turnaround plan and other education initiatives, and then find ways to incorporate what is working and cut waste.

Mountain added that what is introduced will change what the high school experience looks like because students and teachers will have helped in its creation.

Change is difficult, but administrators came to an understanding that they must be open to doing something totally different. Mountain added that the project will not work without community support. She suggested that the School Committee could help get the word out to people who don’t necessarily buy into the school district, as well as those who attend every PTO meeting, telling them all voices are needed to change what is currently not working.

According to the Barr Foundation site, the grant was awarded to MWCC on Dec. 4 in the amount of $250,000. The term of the grant is 12 months.

Gardner, Fitchburg, Leominster and Winchendon have also recently partnered in the planning process under a separate Barr Foundation grant to find out what would ensure high quality principals in the schools.

In a press release that announced the Portrait of a Graduate grant, Fagan Forhan, assistant dean at MWCC, stated, “The rate of change in the world today is exponentially faster than it has ever been, and it is essential for us to look at what students should know, and be able to do, at the point of high school graduation as they prepare to enter higher education and/or the workforce in a world that is very different than the one most of us grew up in. The school districts in our region have been working deeply together for a number of years, and are poised to truly move the needle on the educational experience — and outcomes — for youth in North Central Massachusetts.”

 The link below should take you to DESE website where you can look up Narragansett school district projected funding. Keep in mind, the numbers will probably change but you will be able to get an idea of where we will be starting and can compare DESE numbers to any numbers the district puts out and develop questions.




http://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/chapter70. 

y Doneen Durling
Reporter

Posted at 6:00 AM

ASHBURNHAM — There have been concerns expressed after a recent discussion on voting whether to allow School Choice within the Ashburnham-Westminster Regional School District. Though many community members have said that they wish to cut back and even stop accepting School Choice, others have expressed their concerns over impact.

School Committee Chairman William Ewing sought to clarify information from a previous discussion concerning accepting students from out of district. The state must know by May if the committee intends to allow School Choice. If the committee votes not to accept School Choice for the 2020-21 school year, all those currently attending in-district will be grandfathered and will be allowed to stay until they decide to leave or they graduate. No new students would be accepted.

In previous years, students accepted under School Choice from other districts sometimes helped to fill budget gaps. When the district accepted 200 students, it could count on another $1,000,000 every year, and as long as those students filled empty seats in a classroom, it all worked out.

When there were too many students in one room to balance the teacher-student ratio, the district would have to hire another teacher, eating away at the $5,000 per student received from the state.

Many people in the two member towns looked at the per-pupil cost and noted that the $5,000 did not cover what it was costing them to educate the children in their own towns, and expressed those concerns to the superintendent.

The School Committee and superintendent saw that community members had a point, and thus decided to whittle down the incoming School Choice students. The number dropped from more than 200 to approximately 140 last year, and this year 117, giving the district $585,000 without expanding the classrooms.

Ewing said he has received a couple of emails and phone calls from concerned residents that prompted him to provide clarification.

“When it comes time to vote on School Choice, which happens in May, I believe, or has to by that time, it’s either yes or no,” he told the committee on Jan. 21. “There was confusion as to whether we could set limits. The School Committee does not vote on the numbers, however, the numbers are based on a variety of factors.”

Ewing explained that students from out-of-district are accepted while factoring in class size.

“We do indicate some preference there,” he said. “We also have a policy, which is based on homes in the district. We have asked the administration to try and gradually reduce the numbers as time goes along.”

As the two communities grow, it becomes even more imperative to decide whether there will be room enough in certain schools. In the last few months the district has grown by 29 students. With the current building going on in both communities, the number is sure to grow.

Ewing noted that if the committee votes no, there is a requirement that the district hold public hearings, and as part of the no vote there would be a resolution that indicates the reasons for voting no.

“Other than that, everything is very straightforward,” said Ewing.

Currently, out of the 117 School Choice students in the district, 28 of them seniors.

Students shared concerns about School Choice with committee member Jennifer Storm, saying that if it was closed it would be a detriment to arts, academic and athletic programs.

Ewing told the committee that if they vote School Choice down this year, it is possible to vote it in at any time in the coming years.

The committee is waiting on an impact report from the business manager before making a decision.

from MGL chapter 164:

Section 56. The mayor of a city, or the selectmen or municipal light board, if any, of a town acquiring a gas or electric plant shall appoint a manager of municipal lighting who shall, under the direction and control of the mayor, selectmen or municipal light board, if any, and subject to this chapter, have full charge of the operation and management of the plant, the manufacture and distribution of gas or electricity, the purchase of supplies, the employment of attorneys and of agents and servants, the method, time, price, quantity and quality of the supply, the collection of bills, and the keeping of accounts. His compensation and term of office shall be fixed in cities by the city council and in towns by the selectmen or municipal light board, if any; and, before entering upon the performance of his official duties, he shall give bond to the city or town for the faithful performance thereof in a sum and form and with sureties to the satisfaction of the mayor, selectmen or municipal light board, if any, and shall, at the end of each municipal year, render to them such detailed statement of his doings and of the business and financial matters in his charge as the department may prescribe. All moneys payable to or received by the city, town, manager or municipal light board in connection with the operation of the plant, for the sale of gas or electricity or otherwise, shall be paid to the city or town treasurer. All accounts rendered to or kept in the gas or electric plant of any city shall be subject to the inspection of the city auditor or officer having similar duties, and in towns they shall be subject to the inspection of the selectmen. The auditor or officer having similar duties, or the selectmen, may require any person presenting for settlement an account or claim against such plant to make oath before him or them, in such form as he or they may prescribe, as to the accuracy of such account or claim. The wilful making of a false oath shall be punishable as perjury. The auditor or officer having similar duties in cities, and the selectmen in towns, shall approve the payment of all bills or payrolls of such plants before they are paid by the treasurer, and may disallow and refuse to approve for payment, in whole or in part, any claim as fraudulent, unlawful or excessive; and in that case the auditor or officer having similar duties, or the selectmen, shall file with the city or town treasurer a written statement of the reasons for the refusal; and the treasurer shall not pay any claim or bill so disallowed. This section shall not abridge the powers conferred on town accountants by sections fifty-five to sixty-one, inclusive, of chapter forty-one. The manager shall at any time, when required by the mayor, selectmen, municipal light board, if any, or department, make a statement to such officers of his doings, business, receipts, disbursements, balances, and of the indebtedness of the town in his department.

So, are there salaries for L&W commissioner's? If so, how much and who set them?