Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2005-12-20 Board of Selectmen Handout
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT Tuesday, December 20, 2005 • Arbor Day proclamation - required as part of the Tree City program. • We now have a new snow dump, thanks to our colleagues at Camp Curtis Guild. We appreciate their working with us on this matter. • The Wood End School audit is complete and reimbursement will be made in early January in time to avoid us re-issuing the BAN for the school. • 1 have included in your packet information on a proposed street light at Hunt Park for playground security. If the Board has no objections we will go ahead with the installation. • I would like to confirm my understanding of the Board's agreed upon process with regard to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. I would like to have the existing committee dissolved, ane to set up an ad hoc working group to work with staff on the bid for trash collection and recycling, and to make recommendations on how to improve our recycling program. The ad hoc group could include the remaining members of the SWAC, as well as a representative of the FINCOM, and hopefully a resident expert in marketing. • Health Insurance bids are "on the street" with bids due back on January 3. The bids will then be evaluated by the consultant, and with the Task Force. We will be transitioning from a March 1 renewal date, to a June 1 renewal date. • The 2 storms this year have been challenging. We are working with the principal at Wood End School to make sure we are doing the appropriate sidewalk plowing and other work. We are also revising our policy regarding sanding of sidewalks, so that in particularly icy situations like last week we will be sanding or salting in the immediate areas of the schools where we can do this from a truck. Snow plowing and ice. control • The RMLD has informed us of the potential for rolling blackouts due to shortages of natural gas. Town staff has put together a process to use in the event that we experience such a situation. We will not have enough notice to allow us to notify residents directly. The duration would be no more than 30 minutes per "zone", • Lighting process - Walkers Brook Crossing. We have received a proposal form the developer to replace certain lights in the Jordan's parking lot with shoe-box fixtures, and to place shields on others. Out lighting consultant has reviewed the proposal and wants to conduct some field work prior to giving his opinion as to the effect of the changes. That will be arranged within the next couple of weeks. Additionally, we have received the materials from Jordan's regarding their fagade and it's illumination, and have sent that to our code review company for them to make a determination on whether the existing situation meets code. • If the Board of Selectmen has questions on for the DEP re Water supply, it would be helpful to get those questions soon so we can get the necessary agencies together to review the situation. ~.J Sun Mon Tue Wed 4 -.3 1 2 HOLIDAY Board of Selectmen 8 9 -10 -11 Continued Board of Verizon Hearing Selectmen 7 15 16 18 HOLIDAY = Joint CPDC re Addison Wesley 22 23 -14 .25 Board of Selectmen 29 30 31 D Thu Fri Sat 5 ~6 7 Substance Abuse Forum 12 1 13 1V AIA 4 1V MA 1 AM 9 2 21 Board of Selectmen re BUDGET 2% 6 27 28 Board of Selectmen re BUDGET e Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Feudo, John Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 4:34 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Additional lighting for Hunt Playground Peter, Just following up a conversation we had about a month ago regarding vandalism at the Hunt Playground. I spoke with Vinny Cameron and he is willing to install a light over the playground. The folks from the Friends of Hunt Park (Peter Coumoundoros) have offered to take care of the monthly $7 fee for usage through the Adopt a Street light program. Is there any process to make this happen? Please let me know what else I need to do if anything. John John Feudo Recreation Administrator Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 (781)942-9075 D READING NEIGHBORHOOD MAP , Qr N n 1 t i icy •.Yt,~9 ~ I j { f 235- Jf 'ti.•. AN cV ~lf L • 51 'z' 3 9 1 t 'a ``,1 ~A t 1 4~p~P 1~0 \ c t ~ pry , 1 • rt~f< 5 l is `7WycJ d~ j ~ R:' r...,rt~ ~F. rg5:7os' ".•c^L~.. <'9'u~ ^ / ~ Legend Map by: Town of Reading Parcels Trail Map date: ouece Data are for planning tr x x Fence Town Boundary Buildings purposes only. i i Railroad Sidewalks o e e Hedge i i Roads ' Driveway C~3 Trees I I Bridge - Streams " Retaining Wall ~ I Paved oono4 Wall 1.> Open water 0 60 120 240 r I '.I Unpaved U E L' G U U path Wetlands R Page 1 of 2 _a ~ : tn+ ~ t t : "+yy F i 17 Olt r 61 S ))1 a 1 .SL Y'~` - I A r Cf 'J P M r _ F S t. t 4 t ,rte,: w,.....; file.//C:\Documents and Settings\dmcgrath\Local Settings\Temp\iMG_0004.JPG 12/19/2005 (UP I ~ l I~ 11 ' ~ 4 a~ C i t f AEI y1~ ~r~' ~ ~f ~ I r I! 4. h I S 1 1 d 4 i r ,f ti~ .;lac' V9 ~wY •:i~, ~1~, _I~~~ 0 Page 1 of 2 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: LaPointe, Gail Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 11:44 AM To: Heffernan, Nancy; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Schettini, Pat; Delai, Mary; LeLacheur, Bob; Chuck Robinson (chuck.robinson@hrh.com) Subject: Wood End Audit Hello all, The Wood End School Building Construction Audit has been completed. The end result is that we will be receiving the maximum allowable amount that the MSBA could possibly reimburse us for this project. While we are given the opportunity to dispute some of the ineligible costs, our efforts would not produce a higher payment from the MSBA. There were more than enough eligible costs for the MSBA to determine that they should give us the maximum reimbursement allowed for a project of this size. Most of the ineligible costs related to bid protests and accelerated construction incentive costs because of the delays in this project. The MSBA intends to give us our final payment on this project on January 3, 2006 so that we can use the money to pay off short term construction loans that are due on January 5, 2006. I should receive the final copy of the audit on Tuesday, December 20, 2005. The following signatures are required: Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Treasurer Superintendent of Schools School Business Manager Town Accountant Audit Committee Chair As soon as I get the signatures, I will fax a copy to the MSBA and mail the original. They will then give a copy of the audit to each member of the MSBA board. The MSBA board members must sign off on the audit before we can receive the funds. Because the eligible costs exceeded the reimbursable amount, this is a clean audit and no problems are anticipated. It is expected that all MSBA board members will return their signatures during the holiday week. I will coordinate getting the towns signatures on Wednesday, December 21, 2005. If you are going to be near the town hall and can come to my office to sign the document, that would be great. Otherwise, we will need to coordinate a time and place on Wednesday or Thursday when I take the document to you for signing. 12/19/2005 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE COMMONWEALTH SEWER RATE RELIEF FUND WHEREAS: The Commonwealth Sewer Rate Relief Fund is a statewide program providing over $60 million to 140 communities throughout the Commonwealth at its peak in 2002 and funded at $12.5 million in FY06; and WHEREAS: The MWRA has spent over $6.4 billion to date on capital projects and intends to spend an additional $1.3 billion over the next ten years; and WHEREAS: 62% of the MWRA's annual operating budget goes directly to pay outstanding debt; and WHEREAS: A recent study found that public investment in Boston Harbor has resulted in a radical transformation of the Boston waterfront that is providing economic benefit throughout the Great Boston Area, as well as a renewed recreational interest in the harbor islands and the return of marine life; and WHEREAS: A 2004 affordability analysis found rates in the MWRA service area, which includes 60 communities and over 2.5 million Massachusetts residents, are presenting a substantial social and economic burden to homeowners, and we are threatening the economic viability of the region; and WHEREAS: Water and sewer rate assessments to communities are expected to increase $208 million over the next five years; and WHEREAS: Homeowners in the MWRA system already pay some of the highest rates in the nation; and WHEREAS: The Commonwealth Sewer Rate Relief Fund is a formula-driven program providing State funding up to 20% of the cost of a wastewater project thereby directly offsetting debt service costs and providing an immediate benefit to communities and residents. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Reading supports funding the Commonwealth Sewer Rate Relief Fund based on the established formula, minimally including $25 million in Fiscal Year 2007; !o RESOLVED, that the Town of Reading supports fully funding the Commonwealth Sewer Rate Relief Fund based on the formula by Fiscal Year 2011. Adopted this 20t" day of December 2005. BOARD OF SELECTMEN Camille W. Anthony, Chairman Richard W. Schubert, Vice Chairman Joseph G. Duffy, Secretary James E. Bonazoli Ben Tafoya 0 Dec, 20. 2005 3:52PM No.3~ld V. 1 1[yf+ Lf-7HiC'itwRYO: is ~ . w .'r4 i ,I Eau A. it, Timothy P. Cahill Chairman, State 71reasur^er• Katheritie P. Craven Executive Director FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET To, Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Prom: Katherine Craven Company/Organization: Town of Reacting Date: December 19, 2005 Phone Number: Total no. of pages including cover: Fax Number: 781.942.9070 © As Requested ✓ For your information CI Please approve and Call me ✓ Deliver Inunediately Notes/Comments: Th ik you, Xafkerino Crayon ANY QUBSTION'S OR PROBLEMS, PLRASE CALL MARIE L E$T AUR1FRS AT THE BELOW R11VURENC:ED NUMBER. THANK YOU. e 3 Centres Playa, Suite 430, Boston, Na 02108 * Phone: 617-720-4466 Pax. 617720•-5260 ~ G~ Dec, 20. 2005 3.52PM December 19, 2005 Via Faesindle (181.942.90 70) Bind Regular Mall Mr. Peter 1.1-Techenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Re; Project #4415 - Reading High School Dear Mr. Hoclrenbleikner: Igo, 3~ 18 F. 2 This lever will serve as notice to the Town of Reading (Reading) of a grant payment from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) for a portion of the total grant for project #4415, the Reading High School. This initial grant, which will be made on January 3, 2006, totals $4,810,605 and recognizes that Reading (i) has already expended approximately $33,385,000 for the project, (ii) has already permanently financed $35,000,000 of the cost of the project, (iii) has a $650,000 BAN maturing on January 5, 2006, and (iv) continues to need approximately $21,750,000 to complete the project. The $35,000,000 represenAs approximately the entirety of Reading's share of the project and an estimated $11,000,000. of the MSBA's share of the project. The precise amount of the MSBA's share of approved, eligible project costs will be determined by an audit done by the MSBA after the project is complete. The $650,000 BAN is estimated to be a portion of the MSBA's share of the project. Accordingly, Reading is eligible to be reimbursed for the $450,000 and the $25,606 of interest related to the mattering BAN. This initial reimbursement of $4,810,605 includes $675,606 to cover the cost of the maturing BAN, but these amounts will be subject to audit by the MSBA after the project is complete. The approximately $21,750,000 that Reading estimates is needed to complete the project represents another portion of the project costs projected to be funded by the MSBA pursuant to a Project Funding Agreement (PFA). This initial grant of $4,810,605 also includes $4,135,000 of funding on a project funding agreement basis to avoid any need by Reading to incur additional short-term borrowing costs. Any short-term borrowing costs incurred by Reading after receiving this initial grant from the MSBA will not be eligible for reimbursement by the MSBA. To ensure that Reading receives timely payments going forward, a PFA shall be executed on or before January 20, 2006. After execution of the PFA, Reading can expect to receive a monthly reimbursement pursuant to the terms and conditions of the .PFA. After the project is completed and audited, Reading will also be eligible to receive annual payments to cover the MSBA's portion of the $35,000,000 bond issue. i3 3 Cenrer Plaza, SLdte 430 - Boston, MA 02108 - Phone: 617-720-4466 - Faye: 617-720-5260 Timothy P Cahill Katherine P. Craven Chairman, State Treasurer, Executive Director Dec, 20. 2005 3:52PM NO, J710 r. ~ Congratulations on the progress you have, made on your project. We look forward to executing the PFA and remitting the balance of the grant due to Reading. Please do not hesitate to contact ine if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Katherine P. Craven ]Executive Director Massachusetts School Building Authority cc: Senator Richard R. Tisei (State House, Room 313C) Representative Bradley H. Jones, Jr. (State House, Room 136) Representative Patrick Natale (State House, Room 167) Jim Johnson, Department of Revenue Deter Frazier, Hirst Southwest Dec.20, 2005 3:52PM No.3~18 N. 4 MSA. GRANTS WIRE INSTRUCTIONS Frown: Torun of Reading (Recipient) Grant Atnount: $4,510,605 Wire Date: January 3, 2Q06 Please provide us with the following information. You may fax or email instructions back to Mr. Kenneth Wissman, MSBA, kwissman(a msbastate.ma.us, (617) 720-5260 (fax). Name of Bank.: Account Number: Bank Routing Ntimber: Additional Instructions: Name, Title and Contact Infoiniation of person providing instructions: Thank you. 6P Memorandum Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2684 Website: www.ei.reading.ma.us To: Lillian Mariano Cc: Peter Hechenbleikner From: Jane Fiore Health Date: December 19, 2005 RE: Liquor license application Fuddruckers Fuddruckers Restaurant Liquor License Application: The Board of Health has concerns with the following are issues: Reading Health Division Phone: 781 942-6618 Fax: 781 942-9071 • Fuddrucker's is a family restaurant with a • Self Serve menu • Rest rooms are located next to a direct exit to parking lot • Customer identification procedure and delivery of alcohol beverage - what is the system and how frequently is the procedure reviewed with alcohol service staff. Note: Federal Food Code Compliance has been met. Permit application and inspections by Health Division completed and license has been issued with expiration date of June 30, 2006. James W Cormier Caief of Police December 13, 2005 Darcy Hildreth 20 Pierce St. Reading, MA 01867 Dear Darcy: READING POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE CHIEF 15 Union Street, Reading, Massachusetts 01867 Emergency Only: 911 All Other Calls: 781-944-1212 Fax: 781-944-2893 E-Mail: JCormier@ci.reading.ma.us r~ C-11 ra cu I received your letter dated December 4, 2005. I understand your dilemma regarding the one way restrictions and the heavy traffic flow on Salem St. Unfortunately it is not logistically feasible to grant permission for one individual to ignore the restrictions. I understand this is an ongoing question regarding the one way restrictions off Salem St. I will forward your concern in this area to the Parking Traffic Transportation Task Force for review. If the Board of Selectmen chose to review the restrictions at a future date, the PTTTF would, I'm sure, have input for their consideration. Thank you for your correspondence. I'm sorry I can't accommodate your request. Have a good holiday season. Sincerely, James . Cormier Chief of Police Gv 11 December 19, 2005 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2684 Website: www.ci.reading.ma.us Camille Anthony Reading Board of Selectmen Dear Ms. Anthony, Reading Health Division Phone: 781 942-6618 Fag: 781 942-9071 C96 On behalf of the Reading Substance Abuse Advisory Council I am extending to you an invitation to the Council's January 19, 2006 monthly meeting. We have also invited Mr. Arnold Rubin of Atlantic Food Mart to this meeting. The purpose of this invitation is to try to work cooperatively with Mr. Berger regarding the marketing approach his business has taken since the issuance and renewal of his liquor license. The Council has received multiple calls from citizens regarding his "Health Newsletters" posted at alcohol product sale points. The newsletters boast the value of drinking and the rejuvenation of brain cells. The council is totally aware of Mr. Berger's first amendment rights, although our hope is since this has been one full year he will be more willing to join in the community's effort long standing prevention approach against the misuse and abuse of alcohol. The council looks forward to your attendance as our Board of Selectmen Liaison on January 19, 2006 at 7 pm, Town Hall Conference Room. Please call me, Jane Fiore (781-942-6653) or the chairperson Karyn Storti (781-942- 9663) if you have are any questions. Thank you in advance for participating in this meeting. Sincerely, ane M. Fiore, RN, CHO Health Services Administrator Liaison for Substance Abuse Prevention Advisory Council CC: Karyn Storti, Chair SAPAC Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager 9 December 19, 2005 Arnold Rubin Atlantic Food Mart 30 Haven Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Rubin, Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2684 Website: www.ci.reading.ma.us Reading Health Division Phone: 781 942-6618 Fax: 781 942-9071 Thank you for participating in the Sticker Shock Campaign on December 11, 2005. As you are aware the Reading Substance Abuse Prevention Advisory Council and the Reading School Department work closely together to send a message to the entire community regarding the use and abuse of alcohol, particularly around the issue of under age drinking. According to the recent Youth Risk Behavior Survey alcohol remains the drug of choice. With this knowledge, council would like you to come to a meeting on January 19, 2006 at 7:30 pm, Town Hall conference room. At this meeting the council and our Board of Selectman liaison would like to discuss your marketing of alcohol at Atlantic Food Mart. The council recognizes your license and desire to sell alcohol products responsibly. Our concern is the community awareness and education program we offer and the marketing approach used to sell the product. We would like to work in a cooperative approach to send the positive prevention message to the community regarding the regarding the use of alcohol by under age people. Please join us for this discussion at Reading Town Hall Conference Room on January 19, 2006 at 7:30 pm. Sincerely, J e M. Fiore, RN, CHO ealth Services Administrator Liaison for Substance Abuse Prevention Advisory Council CC: Karyn Storti, Chair SAPAC Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Camille Anthony, Chair Board of Selectmen and Liaison SAPAC ucN- TOWN OF READING 16 LOWELL STREET READING, MA 01867-2693 FAX: 781-942-9037 BOARD OF ASSESSORS 781-942-9027 December 20, 2005 Mr. Peter I. Hechenbleikner Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Peter, Pursuant to your request dated 12/12/2005, please be advised the Assessors, at their 12/13/2005 meeting, released as surplus from the overlay accounts a total amount of $261,706.86. This sum total has been released from each of the respective overlay accounts as follows: FY1999 Released$ 207.93 - remaining unpaid committed bills/exposure$ 0 FY2002 Released$ 73,611.98 - remaining unpaid committed bills/exposure$ 4,664.14 FY2003 Released$ 43,243.74 -remaining unpaid committed bills/exposure $ 14,368.75 FY2004 Released $144,643.21 -remaining unpaid committed bills/exposure $ 50,115.82 TOTAL $261,706.86 Sincerely, avYd7 Billard, Appraiser Cc : Reading Board of Assessors Cc: Gail LaPointe, Town Accountant Cc: Robert LeLasheur, Assistant Town Manager/ finance Director (OW Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Phone (781) 942-6616 Fax (781) 942-9071 ffmk&i.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM To: Board of Selectmen From: Fran Fink, Conservation Commission Iiii,~ Re: 1481 Main Street Date: December 20, 2005 The Town Manager asked for information and a map about the property at 1481 Main Street for your meeting this evening. I.have visited the property twice this fall with the owners, the Recreation Director, and Town Manager. The Conservation Commission also visited in October. The site consists of two separate lots with two houses and a total of just over 93,000 square feet. Both lots have a combined frontage on Main Street of 333 feet. They share a back lot line with the Town-owned Bare Meadow Conservation Area. They are near the Lobs Pound Mill/Marion Woods Conservation Area on the other side of Main Street, and also near land belonging to Reading Open Land Trust to the north. There are residential properties directly abutting the site to the north. and south, as well as across Main Street. The site is primarily wooded with a mature white pine forest. The land slopes down considerably from south to north. There are looped driveways and parking areas within the site, and a number of interesting hand-crafted stone walls, seats, and other features that give it charm. One of the two houses is a log cabin in very good condition that would lend itself to group gatherings. I have not seen the inside of the second house. Both the Conservation Commission and the Recreation Division see a number of potential uses for the site, both for its intrinsic features and for its proximity to the Bare Meadow trail networks and the Ipswich River sites. It could be used as a base for school field trips, after school programs, summer day camps, winter cross-country skiing, and similar activities. The owners have received one estimate of the value of the property as $1,200,000, although this was not a formal appraisal. The land is in the S-20 Zoning District, where lots must contain 20,000 square feet and have 120 feet of frontage. It only.has enough frontage for two lots on Main Street, but if a short subdivision road were constructed into the site, it might be possible to lay out three lots and a roadway parcel. The site is beyond the present public sewer system, and development would be constrained by the suitability of soils for septic system use. If the Town were to purchase the land for active and passive recreational use, the most obvious potential grant source would be the Urban Self-Help Fund, administered by the MA Division of Conservation Services. The. deadline for application is typically June 1, and they require two appraisals by the Town's appraisers, Town Meeting authorization, and a number of other supporting materials. The grant would pay between 50% and 70% of the total cost. 1ro1~ Ihil,.q~ats a P z° iI!`~ ~ •d1Y~'.~lr:' .1rK. 1 ` ~ ~sa$'s`~' 3 ~ o 1r r..~ ~ ~ re"~ ~j it ~ Ff= Q'' ~ ;t~ y,~•"•+a,t'6'~' 1 ~ s 1 r t'?r y. t$E { t' y ~ S k 1 ~ f~;~l ~ ~~y1 . ~h`~i V_ ...r.........•,, 44}4}~ `pia ..i ~ .3 I ~ C 4 L% 'i~ . ~/t 1 at `F~~7 h I It I 1 ~ i~t3 a r,. J j~~! 1 ~c\„ a~ yy 1 Bra: r"r 13§I1' .ayp\ S pSj ^wiG.. 1 ~ f i>`J F ! Hit rili) ♦ ~i' '1"~4ti.y1L}'L .S%K'lV._.._.._..... _ I:~!'\ 4 _ t /r C_ 1 ~,r~ll~ I ~~,fut. a,.~nrr~,ufc,~:5~ rn { {/may d~~ 1~ I,,.. r ,•y31f7~ r~ IX~~,'{~' ' ~A,~ ~7'y.~+'`~ ~ ~ ~ ^^aa ! h ii A l'1:~""^a a7' 'C' • 3~ 1 r ~ ~ t ? + u'~ Y^ 11~il Vt~ ~a t 7 ~ D Jill r M1`` • \ s ~~(htt _ I 000.✓ €y~:'vry "`''~J~`"IS'LF~", nixes "•."•„•.w.. \ ~i~.,i ( ~ _.__...:..I"_ \ .,..tom. ` ,f.2e moll lol Fill _a_ "~n~i'i4 i~;,!1ii~!k ~t' y ! F ~ ` ~ ~ ~ 1 i 1 , ( ~ tI ~ / 1 su;i!! I { Vol Wj: Fi:'rf i. .x,11 ~:i~t 1 i I` iwl!r. 8 F, _y_ , u:.i . i (fP V; sV~-.!j! I ~.p j { Fi / 1 t 1 4 ~r I1,i4'Mii"!,',i : ~R S i r 'r r YW, 00 r.,,:m.ua; 1 / .•:~!:~fill~:~~~i~~..~~~r. a~ r J,? j t t C,g64 r I% Y ~c~~lp ~'de1 ita Alan LeBovidge Commissioner Gerard D. Perry Deputy Commissioner I Ok A Publication of the Department of Revenue's Division of Local Services Health Insurance for Municipal Employees Through most of the past decade, em- ployers offering health insurance plans for their employees - both private and public employers - have been confronted with major cost increases, often reaching double digits on an an- nual basis. Cities, towns and districts have been part of this national trend. The cost of funding the coverage for employees and their dependents has become a major factor in constructing a balanced budget each year. The problem is com- pounded by state law governing collec- tive bargaining with public employee unions, which generally requires agree- ment with all of the multiple unions on insurance benefits in contracts with the employer. The city, town or district may provide the coverage under several models. Most employers offer several plans, for exam- ple, full indemnity, HMO, PPO and oth- ers. For decades, the employer sought bids from private insurance companies for the coverage. More recently, public employers sought to operate self-insur- ance plans authorized under M.G.L. Ch. 32B Sec. 3A. Data collected by the Bureau of Accounts as part of the re- view of municipal balance sheets indi- cates that over 65 cities and towns use this option. The income of such funds are the mu- nicipal appropriation, the payroll de- ductions from employees, and recov- eries under "stop loss" policies bought by the municipality to reinsure the plan for catastrophic losses exceeding a deductible amount. The deductibles range from about $50,000 for a small town to perhaps $300,000 for a city with substantial fiscal strength and a larger number of employees. Expenses are payment of claims (often performed by a hired administrator), the premium on the "stop loss" policy, and administra- tive costs. Severe fiscal issues have arisen for over 15 years because of underfunding of appropriations for such plans, or claims losses exceeding estimates. Claims losses often reflect not only the rapid es- calation of both costs and services, but also the lag of up to 18 months between development of the municipal budget and the end of the fiscal year. The fiscal issues have been of the mag- nitude that two cities and one town that operated self-insurance plans have be- come subject to special legislation im- posing a state-dominated control board or other sanctions. An additional issue has been the prac- tice of some municipalities to record as expenses cash payments only, and not "incurred but not reported" (IBNR) claims. An IBNR claim arises when the medical services are provided during a fiscal period, say in May or June, but is not paid until the next fiscal period, say in July or August. The liability clearly ex- ists as of the fiscal year end on June 30, and such liabilities should be recorded on the balance sheet. During 2005, Chapter 61 of the Acts of 2005 was enacted effective on Au- gust 3. The Act amends the statute au- thorizing cities, towns and districts to operate such plans to require an audit, which can be a part of the regular mu- nicipal audit. The Act requires the rec- ording of claims that have been incurred by James R. Johnson but not paid as of the conclusion of the fiscal year. The Act also provides that any deficit in operations of the plan must be provided in the next annual tax levy of a city or town, or in the next year's budget for any other political subdivision. Section 2 of the Act provides for an ex- ception to the funding of deficits for those entities where a deficit results from recognition of the incurred but not reported claims for the first time as the end of FY05. In this one case, the deficit may be capitalized and funded over the three fiscal years 2007, 2008 and 2009. Recognition of this requirement should be part of the FY07 budget process for any city or town involved. The Division of Local Services issued Informational Guideline Release (IGR) 05-101 in Sep- tember 2005 relative to this legislation. continued on page six Inside This Issue From the Deputy Commissioner 2 Legal Sheriff's Records Open to Public Inspection... 2 Focus A Report from the Municipal Finance Task Force .................................3 DLS Update Colleary Appointed PTB Chief 7 DLS Offers Budget Workshops 7 CPA Matching Funds Distributed.......... 7 CPA Matching Funds Table 8 Chesterfield-Goshen Finance Board Established ..9 Volunteer Firefighters Now Covered in Event of Tragedy 9 New Senior Tax Relief Bill Signed .10 State Auditor Issues Report on Senior Property Tax Relief .10 DLS Profile .11 Law Seminar Materials Online .............11 Volume 18, No.10 November/December 2005 City & Town November/December 2005 From the Deputy ¢ Commissioner Soaring health care costs have caused some communities, sr such as the City of Springfield, to ac- cept Section 18 of M.G.L. Chapter 32B in order to save money on retiree health insurance. Section 18 allows a community to shift a significant portion of its retiree health care costs to the federal Medicare program. For Springfield, these cost savings are projected to total almost $19 million over the next three years. Once adopted, Section 18 requires all eligible retirees to enroll in Medicare Part B. Though not all will be eligible, retirees may be eligible if they paid into the Medicare system for at least 10 years during their local govern- ment employment, during prior em- ployment, or if a spouse contributed to Medicare. Those that are eligible likely have been automatically enrolled in Medicare Part A. Municipal cost savings arise when retirees enroll in Medicare as this fed- eral insurance program covers a sub- stantial portion of their health costs. For example, Medicare Part A covers inpatient care in hospitals including critical access hospitals or skilled nursing facilities when medically nec- essary. Medicare Part B covers up to 80 percent of doctors' services and outpatient care. Together, the two Medicare plans provide a significant level of health coverage. For more information on Section 18, please refer to the article entitled "Saving Money on Retiree Health Insurance," located in the Financial Management Assistance section of the Division of Local Services' website (www.mass.gov/dls). Gerard D. Perry Deputy Commissioner by James Crowley In a decision interpreting the Common- wealth's public records law, the Su- preme Judicial Court held that the Barn- stable County Sheriff must disclose to a local newspaper the names and ad- dresses of reserve deputy sheriffs. The requested information was not exempt from disclosure. The decision is Cape Cod Times v. Sheriff of Barnstable County, 443 Mass. 587 (2005). When James Cummings took office as Barnstable County Sheriff in January 1999, he began the practice of ap- pointing reserve deputy sheriffs. He appointed more than 100 reserve dep- uty sheriffs who possess all the pow- ers and duties of a deputy sheriff when called upon by the sheriff. Successful applicants take an oath, receive a pho- tographic identification card, and are allowed to carry badges. When the Cape Cod Times requested to inspect records in the sheriff's possession per- taining to the reserve deputy sheriffs, Cummings refused access to the rec- ords. The newspaper then brought suit in Superior Court. Sheriff Cummings contended the rec- ords were not public since they were created in a "personal" as opposed to an official capacity. Secondly, the re- quested records belonged to a private organization, the Barnstable County Deputy Sheriffs Association. Third, he said release of the names and ad- dresses of reserve deputy sheriffs would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy. In his view, the reserve deputy sheriffs were merely volunteers who helped raise money for charitable en- deavors including a "youth ranch," which operated on land leased by the Division of Local Services 2 in Our Opinion sheriff from the Town of Barnstable. The Superior Court ruled in favor of the sheriff and the newspaper appealed, The Supreme Judicial Court agreed to hear the case. The Supreme Judicial Court stated that the Massachusetts public records law (M.G.L. Ch. 66 Sec. 10) was enacted to ensure access to materials made or received by any officer or employee of any political subdivision of the Com- monwealth unless otherwise exempt. Courts in Massachusetts have held that a presumption exists that a record, re- gardless of physical form or character- istics, is public, and the burden of proof is on the custodian of the record to demonstrate that the record is exempt from disclosure. The Legislature has broadly defined public records in M.G.L. Ch. 4 Sec. 7 Cl. 26 and then listed 15 exemption provisions. At issue for the Supreme Judicial Court was whether the names and addresses of reserve deputy sheriffs were personal records exempt from disclosure. The court observed that the appoint- ment of reserve deputy sheriffs is an of- ficial act. Sheriff Cummings made these appointments by virtue of the public of- fice he holds since the power to appoint "inheres in the office of the Barnstable County Sheriff." In the court's view, Sher- iff Cummings acted as a public official and not as a private citizen when he made these appointments. Furthermore, the records of the appointments in the sheriff's office were made by Cummings as a consequence of his official status and must be disclosed unless some ex- emption provision applied. In its review of the various statutory ex- emption provisions, the court began with M.G.L. Ch. 4 Sec. 7 Cl. 26 (e), which exempts records that were "per- sonal to him and not maintained as part of the files of the governmental unit." As continued on page six (V,0001) City & Town November/December 2005 FOCUS A Report from the Municipal Finance Task Force by John Hamill Massachusetts cities and towns are facing a long-term financial crunch caused by increasingly restricted and unpredictable local aid levels, con- straints on ways to raise local revenue, and specific costs that are growing at rates far higher than the growth in mu- nicipal revenues. Municipal managers and elected offi- cials across the state - regardless of whether they live in cities, towns, resort communities and rural hamlets - un- derstand that municipal government is nearing a crisis point. Citizens are feel- ing increasingly sour toward local gov- ernment because their family's property tax bill has increased dramatically, they are now paying fees for many services that used to be covered by general rev- enue, and, still, core local government services are being cut. For the past nine months, I have chaired the Municipal Finance Task Force, a group of statewide experts and leaders from the business sector, the non-profit community, unions, municipal govern- ment, state government and academia that was charged with providing an analysis of municipal revenues, munici- pal expenditures and local aid focused on the period of 1981-2005. Our work was facilitated by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. The task force's mission was to under- stand long-term trends in municipal finances and their impact on local bud- gets and services, to enable municipal- ities to develop strategies and policies Division of Local Services 3 on Municipal Finance to better navigate these trends, and to provide recommendations for our politi- cal leaders at the local and state levels. This fall, we released a comprehensive report, Communities At Risk, which tries to distill what we learned. After nine months of in-depth discus- sions and financial analysis, it is clear that our system for financing local gov- ernment in Massachusetts is.fundamen- tally broken. We are hopeful that the task force's work will shine a light on the facts we uncov- ered through our research and prompt a public debate about the state of local government finances in Massachusetts. Municipal Budget Growth Despite stereotypes to the contrary, mu- nicipal budgets have seen only modest real increases over the past 25 years. continued on page four Locally Generated Revenue vs. Net Local Aid Annual percent change Constant dollar, per capita Fiscal 1981-2004 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% 6 -10% !0 -15% -20% 1982 1984 1986 1988 Figure 1 ® Local source 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 ® Net local aid 2000 2002 2004 Q~11 City & Town November/December 2005 A Report from the Municipal Finance Task Force 80% 70% 60% 50% Major Sources of Local Aid Percentage of total net local aid Constant dollar, aggregate Fiscal 1981-2004 40% 30% 20% °p - 10% 0% 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 Division of Local Services 4 continued from page three Chapter 70* Lottery Additional assistance 1997 1999 2001 2003 Equal Education Opportunity Grants, Regional School Distdct Aid and Per Pupil Aid were consolidated Into the Chapter 70 amount for FY89 through FY93. School Choice & Charter Tuition Receipts first appeared on the FY04 Cherry Sheets. Figure 2 Since 1981, per capita annual growth for municipal budgets has averaged only 1.1 percent after adjusting for inflation. The anecdotal stories about municipal- ities being prolifigate with tax dollars might be true in specific incidents, but the facts simply do not support the ar- gument that municipal budgets are out of control. Likewise, we often read media reports about particularly generous union con- tracts. However, the long-term trend un- covered by the task force is that munic- ipal wages are only growing at .7 percent in inflation-adjusted terms be- tween 1994 and 2003, compared to 1.8 percent for the private sector and 1.0 percent for state employees over the same period. Beyond that, municipal governments in Massachusetts have been shedding employees more steeply than any other state in the nation. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation reported last year that Massachusetts cities and towns cut 14,200 jobs, or 5.2 percent of mu- nicipal employees, between February 2002 and August 2004. Municipal Health Insurance Crisis Obviously, every employer is struggling with soaring health care costs. Munici- palities are particularly hard-hit, and there is a quiet crisis at the local level. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Founda- tion recently surveyed a representative sample of Massachusetts municipali- ties and found that local health insur- ance costs have skyrocketed more than 60 percent since 2001, a rate of growth that is simply not sustainable. Many cities and towns are now spend- ing more than 10 percent of their total municipal budgets on health insurance premiums. The foundation's report also found that 80 percent of property tax growth allowed under Proposition 2'/2 is being used on that one line item. Unlike private employers or the state government, complicated laws leave cities and towns little flexibility in mitigat- ing rising health care costs. As a result, the rate of growth in health insurance premiums for municipalities is double the level of growth for state government. Support for Core Government Services There are those who argue that cities and towns have benefited from enor- mous increases in local aid from state government through the 1990s. It is true that there has been a significant and worthwhile increase in education aid to cities and towns (although the dis- tribution of that aid has varied greatly by community), but municipalities are limited to spending those resources only on schools. A broad analysis of all major categories of local aid clearly shows that non- school aid has been stagnant or declin- ing for more than 15 years. Most dramat- continued on page five l./ City & Town November/December 2005 A Report from the Municipal Finance Task Force 100% 80% 60% Areas of Expenditure Pressure Cumulative annual percentage change Constant dollars, per capita Fiscal 1987-2004 Division of Local Services 5 continued from page four Health, Pensions & Debt Education o% All other -20% 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Figure 3 ically, one category of non-school aid known as "Additional Assistance," which used to go to all Massachusetts cities and towns, now only serves fewer than half of our municipalities, has diminished by more than $430 million, and has lost its moorings from a formula that people can understand. The Role of Local Aid Massachusetts cities and towns are partners with the Commonwealth in de- livering public services, such as local and state police protection, educational services from pre-school to graduate school, and a transportation system that runs from neighborhood cul-de-sacs to interstate highways. However, despite the best intentions and sustained efforts of state policymakers, the partnership between the state and municipalities is threatened and needs to be reinvigorated. One striking fact: state expenditures for local aid peaked in fiscal 1988 at 20 percent of total state expenditures, then dropped to 13.4 per- cent in 1993, and stood at 16.4 percent in 2004. Increasing Property Taxes In part because of the cuts to local aid that have occurred in recent years, as well as other factors like stagnant com- mercial property values, property taxes in Massachusetts are increasing, and family budgets are being impacted in significant ways. Property taxes accounted for 52.9 per- cent of all municipal revenues in fiscal 2004, up from 46.1 percent in 1988, and residential property taxes now represent 72 percent of all property taxes paid, up from 68 percent in 2000. This has real significance to families living in Massachusetts. Excluding 11 communities with residential tax exemp- tions, the Department of Revenue re- ports that the average family tax bill in- creased $910 from FY00 to FY05. Diminishing Core Government Services All of these trends combined put enor- mous pressure on core municipal bud- gets. Possibly the most remarkable sta- tistic in the report is that since 1987, per capita expenditures by cities and towns for core municipal services (ex- cluding health care insurance, schools, and some fixed costs) have declined by an average of -0.3 percent growth in real terms. As an example of what this means, the task force highlighted that spending on public works declined from 15 percent of municipal expenditures in fiscal 1987 to 9 percent in 2004. Ultimately, these long-term trends mean that we have fewer employees filling potholes, pick- ing up trash, or plowing snow - basic quality-of-life services that citizens ex- pect and rely on to be provided by their communities. continued on page six Zvi City & Town November/December 2005 A Report from the Municipal Finance Task Force The impact is not limited to public works. We see the results of these long-term trends in municipal finances in short- ened library hours, fewer health and human services offered to residents, closed fire houses or fewer police pa- trols in neighborhoods. A Blueprint for Reform The Municipal Finance Task Force ha's proposed a comprehensive set of recommendations to stabilize municipal finances and revisit the partnership be- tween the Commonwealth and its com- munities. There are no easy answers to the current situation, but it is clear that ensuring the viability of local govern- ment must be a central concern for our state's policymakers and will require sustained commitment to a reinvigo- rated partnership. The recommendations center around the Commonwealth's need to pursue strategies and policies that will ensure state assistance is sufficient and pre- dictable, provide communities with ad- ditional ability to control non-property tax local revenues, and give communities the tools to better control costs. Without action on these kinds of re- forms, we face a future of diminished public services and higher local prop- insurance continued from page one Sheriff's Records Other cities, towns and districts are members of a joint purchase group authorized by section 12 of Chapter 328. Such groups serve entities on the Cape and Islands, the west suburban area, the central Middlesex area, and parts of Berkshire County. The Bureau of Accounts is compiling participation data on these entities as part of the checklist submitted with city and town balance sheets this year. Still other cities, towns and districts purchase insurance through the Mass- achusetts Interlocal Insurance Associ- ation, operated by the Massachusetts Municipal Association. Continual attention to this volatile cost is needed to prevent budget deficits and insure sound operation of any funds established. the court noted, the "personal" exemp- tion provision would not apply to the appointment of reserve deputies since this is an official action by the sheriff. Secondly, the court disposed of the ar- gument that releasing the names and addresses of reserve deputies would "constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy," which is a basis for exemption found in paragraph (c) of M.G.L. Ch. 4 Sec. 7 Cl. 26. Citing prior decisions that interpreted this provision, the court held that the names and addresses of adults were not considered to be "intimate de- tails" of a "highly personal nature." Third, the court rejected the sheriffs argument that release of the requested informa- tion could subject him to liability under M.G.L, Ch. 214 Sec. 1 B for an invasion of privacy. According to the court, al- though M.G.L. Ch. 214 Sec. 1B estab- lishes "a right against unreasonable, Division of Local Services 6 continued from page five erty taxes that will create an increasingly sour political culture at the local level. That is not a future we want. Fortunately, we can shape our state's future through positive actions that recognize the strug- gle of cities and towns to provide the kinds of public services we deserve. M John Hamill is the Chairman of Sovereign Bank New England and served as Chairman of the Municipal Finance Task Force. A full copy of the report and its recommendations can be downloaded at www.mpp_gjgW. Editor's note: This article represents the opinions and conclusions of the author and not those of the Department of Revenue. continued from page two substantial or serious interference" with privacy, this statute did not estab- lish an alternative basis for nondisclo- sure of records. In fact, M.G.L. Ch. 4 Sec. 7 Cl. 26 (c) provides a broader protection against disclosure of rec- ords than M.G.L. Ch. 214 Sec. 1 B. Fi- nally, the court rejected the sheriffs ar- gument that the release of the names and addresses could violate a constitu- tional right to privacy. In the court's view, a right to privacy would not keep from public scrutiny the names and ad- dresses of those who applied for a pub- lic appointment. Consequently, under the facts pre- sented, the Supreme Judicial Court found that the names and addresses of the reserve deputies were public in- formation because a public official ap- pointed these individuals. 13 6) City & Town November/December 2005 D L - SCoiieary Appointed PTD Chief Deputy Commis- sioner Gerard D. f,. Perry has an- fj A nounced that Kath- leen Colleary, Esq. has been ap- pointed Chief of the Division's Property Tax Bureau (PTB). The attorneys of the Property Tax Bureau are specialists in municipal law, particularly in property taxation and finance. During her 25-year tenure at the Depart- ment of Revenue, Kathleen has been a valuable resource for state and local of- ficials, as she possesses a wide range of expertise in laws relating to munici- pal finance. She is regarded as a sub- ject matter expert in such key areas as assessment administration, Proposition 2Y2, special funds, the Community Pres- ervation Act and town meeting proce- dures relating to budgets. In addition, Kathleen participates as an instructor in most of the Division of Local Services' training programs, including Course 101, the basic course for as- sessors, and the annual New Officials Finance Forum. She also participates in the Division's "What's New in Municipal Law" seminars and is an instructor in educational programs sponsored by the various statewide, professional as- sociations of municipal finance officers. Kathleen began working for the Divi- sion in 1980 as an attorney in the Bu- reau of Local Assessment and eventu- ally joined the Division's legal staff in 1986, She holds a bachelor's degree in political science from Arizona State Uni- versity and a law degree from Boston College Law School. In 1996, she was an individual recipient of the Common- wealth of Massachusetts' Citation for Outstanding Performance, and was a group recipient of this award in 2003 and in 2005. Perry said that "Kathleen's qualifications - including her vast legal knowledge and ability to communicate complicated issues clearly and concisely - will be of great benefit to local officials as well as staff within the Division." D!S Offers Budget Workshops The Division of Local Services (DLS) will offer budget workshops for Massachu- setts communities, to be held during the months of February through June 2006. These workshops offer participating communities an opportunity to develop preliminary budget estimates for the coming fiscal year. The workshops include a general dis- cussion of the factors that generate changes in revenues, as well as the fac- tors governing changes in expenditures. The computation of the tax rate will also be reviewed. Best results have occurred where the town officials and DOR employees dis- cuss the factors in an interactive way. Participants should include representa- tives of the selectmen, assessors, fi- nance committee as well as the ac- countant, treasurer and collector. In this way, all groups involved in setting the tax rate gain a common knowledge base. Due to resource constraints, the Divi- sion will offer approximately 10 of these workshops. Preference will be given to smaller communities that have not yet participated in a budget workshop and/or have experienced a significant turnover in municipal finance staff. The Division of Local Services 7 Division will provide all participants with workshop materials. If the town would like to arrange a bud- get workshop, the Board of Selectmen should contact Tom Guilfoyle, DLS Re- gional manager, at 617-626-2351. CPA Matching Funds Distributed Deputy Commissioner Gerard D. Perry has announced that the matching funds under the Community Preserva- tion Act (M.G.L. Ch. 44B) reflecting sur- charges on property taxes during FY05 were distributed on October 15, 2005. The state matching funds this year were calculated at 100 percent of the amounts committed by the assessors, based on the surcharge rate adopted. While Chapter 44B provided for a multi-tier formula for computation of the matching funds, the fund balance at June 30, 2005, was sufficient to award 100 percent of the commitment in the first tier, which is the maximum allowed under the statute. Chapter 44B contains requirements for minimum appropriations or reserva- tions for each of the three purposes of the Act. Local officials should consult Informational Guideline Release 00-209 (as amended by IGR 01-207 and IGR 02-208). These IGRs are available on the Division of Local Services' website at www.mass.gov/dis under "IGRs" in the Quick Links Box. The table on page 8 lists the 82 com- munities that received CPA matching funds in FY06, based on their FY05 surcharges. 01~ City & Town November/December 2005 COLS LIP^a--e CPA Matching Funds Division of Local Services 8 Surcharge Surcharge Fiscal year CPA pct. adopted Fiscal year CPA pct, adopted Municipality adopted reimbursement (3% max.) Municipality adopted reimbursement (3% max.) Acton 2003 568,164 1.50 Mashpee 2006 851,270 3.00 Acushnet 2004 93,233 1.50 Medway 2002 457,682 3.00 Agawam 2003 341,504 1.00 Mendon 2004 163,634 3.00 Amherst 2002 183,797 1.00 Middleton 2005 109,686 1.00 Aquinnah 2002 51,867 3.00 Nahant 2005 129,606 3.00 Ashland 2003 568,794 3.00 Nantucket 2002 1,198,320 3.00 Ayer 2002 93,534 1.00 Newburyport 2004 480,381 2.00 Barnstable 2005 2,278,621 3.00 Newton 2002 1,899,326 1.00 Bedford 2002 918,041 3.00 Norfolk 2002 337,143 3.00 Bourne 2006 784,861 3.00 North Andover 2002 1,051,237 3.00 Boxford 2002 425,503 3.00 Norwell 2003 559,835 3.00 Braintree 2003 436,040 1.00 Orleans 2006 434,981 3.00 Brewster 2006 571,315 3.00 Peabody 2002 518,116 1.00 Cambridge 2002 5,905,823 3.00 Plymouth 2003 1,095,674 1.50 Carlisle 2002 270,723 2.00 Provincetown 2005 281,309 3.00 Chatham 2003 539,516 3.00 Rockport 2003 330,388 3.00 Chelmsford 2002 205,310 0.50 Rowley 2002 238,895 3.00 Chilmark 2002 135,130 3.00 Sandwich 2006 1,042,173 3.00 Cohasset 2002 278,306 1.50 Scituate 2003 721,362 3.00 Concord 2005 652,084 1.50 Southampton 2002 99,960 3.00 Conway 2005 43,520 1.50 Southborough 2004 202,990 1.00 Dartmouth 2003 381,760 1.50 Southwick 2004 155,493 3.00 Dennis 2006 758,958 3.00 Stockbridge 2003 101,571 3.00 Dracut 2002 527,457 2.00 Stow 2002 331,284 3.00 Duxbury 2002 967,965 3.00 Sturbridge 2002 271,839 3.00 Eastham 2006 383,978 3.00 Sudbury 2003 1,105,972 3.00 Easthampton 2003 206,753 3.00 Truro 2006 246,726 3.00 Easton 2002 625,268 3.00 Tyngsborough 2002 328,691 3.00 Falmouth 2006 1,767,448 3.00 Upton 2004 223,744 100 Georgetown 2002 223,686 3.00 Wareham 2003 436,112 3.00 Grafton 2003 198,449 1.50 Wayland 2002 465,413 1.50 Groveland 2005 172,706 3.00 Wellesley 2003 586,852 1.00 Hadley 2005 151,427 3.00 Wellfleet 2006 290,133 3.00 Hampden 2002 38,372 1.00 Westfield 2004 241,365 1.00 Harvard 2002 127,763 1.10 Westford 2002 1,078,627 3.00 Harwich 2006 840,098 3.00 Weston 2002 1,189,090 3.00 Hingham 2002 530,396 1.50 Westport 2003 310,535 2.00 Holliston 2002 284,723 1.50 Wilbraham 2005 192,240 1.50 Hopkinton 2002 532,714 2.00 Williamstown 2003 140,391 2.00 Leverett 2003 56,315 3.00 Yarmouth 2006 1,076,698 3.00 Lincoln 2003 461,436 3.00 Total 46,337,391 Marshfield 2002 777,289 3.00 9 City & Town November/December 2005 DDS UDtattt; Chesterfield-Goshen Finance Board Established On September 23, 2005, Governor Romney signed House Bill 2603, an act which established a state controlled "fi- nance advisory board" (FAB) to regu- late the finances of the Chesterfield- Goshen Regional School District. The district is comprised of the towns of Chesterfield and Goshen. It oper- ates under a regional agreement dated in 1996, and operates an elementary school for students in kindergarten through grade six. The form of govern- ment is an elected six-member school committee, who are responsible for ap- pointing a superintendent, who is the chief operating official for the district. In FY05, the district's operating budget was approximately $2 million. James R. Johnson, Director of Ac- counts, said that the board was estab- lished to remedy the district's "recur- rent financial problems, including a deficit of $180,000, as disclosed in the district's most. recent audit." Johnson also said that the district "was unable to pay principle and interest on bonds issued in 1999." According to Johnson, the district's fail- ure to make bond payments triggered the implementation of M.G.L. Ch. 44 Sec, 19A, a law that empowers the state treasurer to pay the overdue principle and interest to prevent the district from defaulting on the loan. The Chesterfield-Goshen FAB is crafted after the legislation that estab- lished the FAB for the Nashoba Re- gional School District in the fall of 2002. At that time, the Nashoba Regional School district was experiencing finan- cial problems, which reached near cri- sis proportions. That board dissolved in June 2005, with the district success- fully overcoming its fiscal problems. The five-member Chesterfield-Goshen FAB is comprised of staff from the Divi- sion of Local Services (Thomas Guil- foyle, control board chairperson and designee of the Commissioner of Rev- enue; Melinda Ordway, designee of the Deputy Commissioner; and Dennis Mountain, designee of the Director of Accounts) as well as a designee of the Commissioner of Education and the Chair of the Chesterfield-Goshen Re- gional School District. The legislation authorizes deficit bor- rowing for the district and creates a strong financial oversight role for the FAB. For example, "no appropriation, borrowing authorization or transfer shall take effect until approved by the board. In addition, the board shall have the authority to: • amend any appropriation, borrowing authority, transfer, or other municipal spending authority; • set, raise or lower fees or charges; • encumber or impound any unex- pended or unencumbered appropria- tion or spending authority; • review the annual budget prepared by the superintendent and issue a report of its findings; and • establish a special reserve fund for extraordinary and unforeseen expenditures. The board shall continue in existence until at least June 30, 2008. Volunteer Firefighters Now Covered in Event of Tragedy On November 8, 2005, Governor Rom- ney signed legislation that provides a $650,000 annuity to the family of fallen call firefighter Martin H. McNamara V, and requires cities and towns to pro- vide death benefits to the families of vol- Division of Local Services 9 unteer or part-time public safety officers who lose their lives in the line of duty. Martin McNamara died while fighting an apartment fire in Lancaster in 2003. His status as a call firefighter prevented his wife and three children from receiving survivors' benefits. Earlier this year, with the support of the local legislative delegation, the gover- nor proposed a $650,000 transfer to the state pension fund to pay for the cost of an annuity for the McNamara family. At the same time, the governor also proposed making death benefits avail- able to the families of volunteer and part-time first responders who die on the job. About half of the Common- wealth's 20,000 firefighters operate on a call or part-time basis. Since 1980, seven such firefighters have died in the line of duty. Communities may choose one of three options to provide benefits to survivors: they may purchase an annuity; pay for an insurance policy that provides a one-time benefit of $500,000; or pur- chase an insurance policy that would cover the cost of an annuity to benefit the family of the deceased. "I remember vividly the night that I re- sponded to the tragic Lancaster fire that claimed the life of Marty McNamara," said State Fire Marshall Stephen D. Coan. "While there can never be a silver lining when a life of a firefighter is lost in the line of duty, it is comforting to the families of call and volunteer firefight- ers across the state to know that from this day forward, if a similar tragedy oc- curs, the community will protect the fire- fighter's family." City & Town November/December 2005 BLS U ~~d~ire Now Senior Tax Relief Rill Signed On November 20, 2005, Governor Rom- ney signed legislation, Chapter 136 of the Acts of 2005, to provide property tax relief for Massachusetts senior citizens, which he said will help more seniors stay in their homes. The act makes it easier for seniors to qualify for the refundable credit against their state income taxes known as the "circuit breaker tax credit." This credit has been available for tax years begin- ning on or after January 1, 2001, to homeowners and renters who are 65 or older at the close of the taxable year. See M.G.L. Ch. 62 Sec. 6 (k). To qualify, taxpayers must meet certain income limits and pay more than 10 percent of their income in real estate taxes on their domiciles. For taxpayers who own their homes, the assessed valuation of the home must also be within a certain limit. The law provides for the statutory base income and assessed valuation thresholds and the maximum credit to be adjusted annually based on the in- flation rate. As house values have risen, however, fewer seniors have become eligible for credits. This new bill raises the base property. value threshold making more seniors eligible for tax relief. As a result, for tax year 2005, the assessed valua- tion, before the residential exemption but after the abatements, of the home- owner's principal residence may now not exceed $600,000. Previously, the house had to be valued at $452,000 or less. In addition, in future years, this new base amount will be adjusted by changes in assessed values so that it more accurately reflects the current real estate market, The income thresholds and maximum credit will continue to be adjusted by the inflation rate. For homeowners and renters, the max- imum credit available in 2005 is $840 based on the actual real estate taxes or rent paid. To qualify, the taxpayer's "total income" cannot exceed $45,000 for a single individual who is not the head of household; $56,000 for a head of household; and $67,000 for a husband and wife filing a joint re- turn. For more information on the 2005 circuit breaker credit, refer to Technical Information Release (TIR) 05-17 (as revised). The direct link to this TIR is www.mass.cov/dor/rul reo/ fir/fir 05 17.11m. The law also gives cities and town the option of charging seniors a lower rate of interest on property tax bills they have deferred. People 65 or older who meet certain income limits can defer property tax payments, but they must pay 8 per- cent annual interest on the amount de- ferred. Deferred taxes are then paid to the municipality on the owner's demise or property transfer, together with the in- terest. Eligible seniors must have gross receipts of no more than $20,000, unless the city or town has adopted a higher limit which cannot exceed $40,000. Now, cities and towns will also have the option of lowering the interest rate to as low as zero percent. The law requires the lower rate to be voted by the legisla- tive body before the July 1 beginning of the fiscal year. Therefore, fiscal year 2007 is the first year cities and towns can implement a lower rate. State Auditor Issues Report on Senior Property Tax Relief State Auditor A. Joseph DeNucci is- sued a report in September 2005 call- ing for the consolidation of senior prop- erty tax relief programs into a single, state-funded program that provides uniform and increased benefits to se- nior citizens. Division of Local Services 10 The report, conducted by his Division of Local Mandates, cited a complex sys- tem of local options that has resulted in major inconsistencies in property tax re- lief from community to community. For example, a senior who does not qualify for relief in one town could move to a neighboring town and qualify for a 60 percent tax break - as much as $1,750 off the average property tax bill. Moreover, the report found that state reimbursements to cities and towns for senior exemptions have declined to 76 percent of total exemption payments, providing only $12.1 million in state aid for the $16 million in local property tax exemptions currently granted. The re- port also said the exemptions have not kept pace with inflation and rising prop- erty values. As a result, the number of eligible seniors receiving benefits has declined from 50,000 in 1995 to 36,000 in 2004. According to the auditor's report, the av- erage local tax exemption for eligible se- nior citizens is $500, which now relieves about 17 percent of the average prop- erty tax bill. In 1982, the same tax break represented an average 48 percent of the tax bill. To keep pace with the origi- nal legislative intent to offset 50 percent of the average statewide tax bill, the av- erage exemption would have to be in- creased to $1,446. The report also noted that outdated re- imbursement formulas have led to un- intended and uneven results. To address these inequities, the report recommended these improvements. • Replace the existing menu of local options with a single, standardized, state-funded exemption program that is indexed to inflation. This could be done through the existing statewide Circuit continued on page eleven (3.; City & Town November/December 2005 AS Profile RLA Certification Advisor In December 2004, Deborah Stuart began working for the Bureau of Local Assessment (BLA). She brings valuable experience in assessment and real estate, as well as computer technology, to the Divi- sion of Local Services. According to George Martin, finance director and town accountant in Hanover, "Deb's technical understanding of the whole valua- tion process is superb." Deb began her career in assessment in the late 1980s as a consultant for an appraisal company. In 1991 she began working for the Town of Marshfield as an assistant assessor. A few years later, she was Hanover's assessor/appraiser. Eventually, Deb left her position in Hanover to begin a new career in the technology field. She attended Boston University where she earned a certificate in software development and web design, and this launched her career in the private sector working for Internet start-up companies. However, as the "dotcom" industry began experiencing some difficult financial times, Deb pursued and received a real estate broker's license, and became a realtor in 2003. Currently, Deb is the certification advisor for 34 communities located in Bristol, Dukes, Plymouth and Norfolk counties. She says she likes working for BLA be- cause she enjoys working with local officials as well as performing the statistical analysis and data quality studies that her duties entail. She holds a bachelor's de- gree from the University of Massachusetts in management. Originally from Hanson, Deb lives in the Green Harbor section of Marshfield. Outside the Division, she has coached youth soccer and finds time to row for the Duxbury Maritime School. State Auditor continued from page ten Breaker Program that currently provides up to $840 in property tax relief for eligible seniors through state tax credits. • Increase the amount of state-funded tax relief to the original 50 percent goal, which would cost the Commonwealth an additional $16 million. This would include a hold-harmless provision to ensure that no senior would receive less relief than he or she presently receives. • Give communities the flexibility to charge a reasonable but limited interest rate in the existing property tax deferral program, which is currently underutilized by seniors because of the high fixed interest rate set by state law. DeNucci said these reforms would free up about $4 million in local revenue and re- duce administrative costs attributable to the current program. M Division of Local Services 11 Law Seminar Materiels Online The Division of Local Services has posted online the materials that were disseminated at this year's "What's New in Municipal Law" seminars. These sem- inars, offered by the attorneys of the Di- vision's Property Tax Bureau, were held in late September in West Springfield and Randolph. Presentations included discussions on new legislation and re- cent court decision pertaining to local government. To link to these materials, click on www.mass.aov/dls/r)ublics.htm. The attorneys of the Property Tax Bureau are specialists in municipal law, partic- ularly in property taxation and finance. They interpret new laws and respond to the legal concerns of local officials. Be sure to mark your calendars for next year's seminars, which will be held on Friday, September 29, 2006, in West Springfield and Friday, October 6, 2006, in Randolph. City&Town City&Town Is published by the Massachusetts Depart- ment of Revenue's Division of Local Services (DLS) and is designed to address matters of interest to local officials. Joan E. Grourke, Editor To obtain information or publications, contact the Division of Local Services via: • website: www.mass.gov/dls • telephone: (617) 626-2300 • mail: PO Box 9569, Boston, MA 02114-9569 Deborah Stuart SIGN-IN SHEET FOR THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: f;. - a.6 g b 0,5 NAME ADDRESS (Please print) ~r r `G(n t v. S c /?,z- ~~m ~OL fi~~7 3 z .Svv 351 j