Category Archives: Budgets

Our final state aid

Posted on July 9, 2015 | Comments Off on Our final state aid

The state has passed the budget, albeit a week into the fiscal year.  These are Medfield’s state local aid numbers, netting us a total of $7,358,252, up over $100,000 from $7,255,166 last year –
FY2016 Local Aid Estimates
Medfield
FY2015 Cherry Sheet Estimate
FY2016 Governor’s Budget Proposal
FY2016 House Budget Proposal
FY2016 Senate Budget Proposal
FY2016 Conference Committee
Education:
Chapter 70
5,862,409
5,913,169
5,925,859
5,925,859
5,925,859
School Transportation
0
0
0
0
0
Charter Tuition Reimbursement
12,129
998
1,164
1,212
1,090
Smart Growth School Reimbursement
0
0
0
0
0
Offset Receipts:
School Choice Receiving Tuition
0
0
0
0
0
Sub-total, All Education Items:
5,874,538
5,914,167
5,927,023
5,927,071
5,926,949
General Government:
Unrestricted Gen Gov’t Aid
1,289,875
1,336,310
1,336,310
1,336,310
1,336,310
Local Sh of Racing Taxes
0
0
0
0
0
Regional Public Libraries
0
0
0
0
0
Urban Revitalization
0
0
0
0
0
Veterans Benefits
18,649
21,430
21,430
21,430
21,430
State Owned Land
28,261
28,261
28,261
28,261
28,261
Exemp: VBS and Elderly
27,101
28,947
28,947
28,947
28,947
Offset Receipts:
Public Libraries
16,742
16,096
16,134
16,355
16,355
Sub-Total, All General Government
1,380,628
1,431,044
1,431,082
1,431,303
1,431,303
Total Estimated Receipts
7,255,166
7,345,211
7,358,105
7,358,374
7,358,252
Although the School Lunch program continues to be funded, we have removed the estimate from the cherry sheet as this program is an education offset that has no impact on the tax rate setting process.

Comments Off on Our final state aid

Posted in Budgets, Legislature

MMA on state budget

Posted on July 8, 2015 | Comments Off on MMA on state budget

This alert this AM from the Massachusetts Municipal Association on the state budget agreed upon by the Conference Committee, and scheduled for votes today in the legislature.   The highlights:

  • $34 million increase in state local aid funding over current funding.  This will be the largest increase in discretionary municipal aid in nearly a decade.
  • MBTA reforms get half a loaf, by creating a financial oversight board, but not giving it authority of the binding arbitration awards, which are the biggest cost driver. –

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

LEGISLATURE AGREES ON $38.1B FY 2016 STATE BUDGET THAT INCLUDES FUNDING FOR KEY MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL AID PROGRAMS

STATE BUDGET CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT SCHEDULED FOR VOTES IN HOUSE AND SENATE TODAY, HEADED TO GOVERNOR’S DESK

LEGISLATURE’S BUDGET INCREASES UGGA BY $34M, ADDS $18.1M TO FULLY FUND SPECIAL EDUCATION CIRCUIT BREAKER, RESTORES $7.5M TO REGIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION, FUNDS CH. 70 MINIMUM AID AT $25 PER STUDENT, PROTECTS $18.6M FOR KINDERGARTEN DEVELOPMENT GRANTS, ADDS $3.6M TO CHARTER SCHOOL REIMBURSEMENTS

Eight days into the new fiscal year, House and Senate budget negotiators have reached agreement on a $38.14 billion state budget, a fiscal 2016 budget plan that will be approved later this afternoon by votes in each branch. The Governor will have ten days to review, approve or veto hundreds of line item appropriations and outside sections. In the meantime, the state is maintaining operations through a temporary budget that runs through the end of July.

As proposed by the House-Senate budget conference committee, the Legislature’s fiscal 2016 state budget (H. 3650) would increase overall expenditures by approximately 3.5 percent, as the state seeks to close a projected $1.8 billion structural budget deficit by restraining spending and eliminating up to 5,000 state jobs through a hiring freeze, attrition and an early retirement program.

In terms of local aid, the Legislature’s budget provides strong progress on many important municipal priorities, including the significant victory in embracing the $34 million increase in Unrestricted General Government Aid as proposed by Gov. Baker and requested by the MMA. Beyond that, the Legislature has added more than $50 million to key municipal and education aid accounts and reimbursement programs above the amount recommended by the Governor in his March budget proposal. This is a major victory for cities and towns that was made possible by your strong advocacy.

The budget would expand the earned income tax credit for low-income workers by an estimated $71 million, and fund that expansion by eliminating a corporate tax break on recognized income. The Senate had proposed a freeze on the scheduled decrease in the state income tax rate, but that provision was not included in the budget.

The House and Senate compromised on MBTA reform language. In a win for Gov. Baker, the Legislature’s budget includes a three-year suspension of the Pacheco anti-outsourcing law for the MBTA, and provides for a Fiscal and Management Control Board to oversee the MBTA. The Governor had requested a strong control board with approval over binding arbitration decisions. The Legislature’s version provides for a separate MBTA control board, but does not grant the panel authority over binding arbitration awards.

Here is a summary and status of the key municipal and school funding issues in the Legislature’s fiscal 2016 state budget plan:

SENATE, HOUSE AND GOVERNOR ALL AGREE ON $34 MILLION INCREASE IN UNRESTRICTED MUNICIPAL AID
In a major win for cities and towns, the Senate, House and Governor’s budgets all supported $979.8 million for UGGA, a $34 million increase over current funding.  This will be the largest increase in discretionary municipal aid in nearly a decade.  Every city and town will see their UGGA funding increase by 3.6 percent.

LEGISLATURE EMBRACES $18.3 MILLION INCREASE TO FULLY FUND SPECIAL EDUCATION CIRCUIT BREAKER
In another victory for cities and towns, the Legislature’s budget would fully fund the Special Education Circuit Breaker program.  The House-Senate budget plan would provide $271.7 million, an $18.3 million increase above fiscal 2015.  The Governor’s original budget proposal would have level-funded the program at $253.4 million, but the MMA made full funding a top priority, and the Legislature responded.  This is a vital program that every city, town and school district relies on to fund state-mandated services.

LEGISLATURE’S BUDGET MAINTAINS KINDERGARTEN DEVELOPMENT GRANTS AT $18.6 MILLION
The Legislature’s budget would maintain funding for Kindergarten Development Grants at $18.6 million in fiscal 2016, which is a major victory for the 117 communities and school districts that depend on these funds. The Governor’s budget would have eliminated all funding.  This is an important account, because reducing or eliminating the $18.6 million would jeopardize expanded kindergarten programs all throughout the state.

LEGISLATURE ADDS $7.5 MILLION FOR REGIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION REIMBURSEMENTS
The Legislature’s budget would restore $7.5 million to regional school transportation funding, providing a total of $59 million for the upcoming year.  Last November, former Gov. Patrick used his 9C budget powers to reduce this important program down to $51.5 million, and Gov. Baker’s fiscal 2016 budget proposal would have kept funding at that level.  The Legislature’s final proposal is a major step forward for communities with regional school districts.

LEGISLATURE BACKS CHAPTER 70 MINIMUM AID OF $25 PER STUDENT
The Legislature’s budget is proposing a $111.2 million increase in Chapter 70 education aid, with a provision providing every city, town and school district an increase of at least $25 per student, an improvement over the $20 per student amount originally proposed in March.  The Legislature’s appropriation is $5.9 million more than the recommendation in the Governor’s budget submission, and the increase would be used to ensure the $25 per student minimum aid level and to slightly accelerate the implementation of the target share provisions enacted in 2007

LEGISLATURE WOULD INCREASE CHARTER SCHOOL REIMBURSEMENTS BY $3.64 MILLION, ACCOUNT REMAINS UNDERFUNDED
Under state law, cities and towns that host or send students to charter schools are entitled to be reimbursed for a portion of their lost Chapter 70 aid.  The state fully funded the reimbursement program in fiscal 2013 and 2014, but is underfunding reimbursements by approximately $34 million this year (fiscal 2015).  The Governor’s proposed fiscal 2016 budget would have level-funded charter school reimbursements at $76.8 million, which would guarantee another major shortfall in fiscal 2016, and result in cutbacks for the majority of students who remain in the traditional school setting.  The Legislature is proposing a $3.64 million increase up to $80.5 million.  The lawmakers’ action to increase funding is appreciated, yet it is important to remember that the account is still significantly underfunded.

LEGISLATURE ADDS $1 MILLION TO McKINNEY-VENTO REIMBURSEMENTS
The Legislature’s budget would add $1 million to increase fiscal 2016 reimbursements for the transportation of homeless students to $8.35 million, the same funding level proposed by the Governor.  While the account remains below the full reimbursement called for under the state’s unfunded mandate law, this would be the first increase since fiscal 2013.

PAYMENTS-IN-LIEU-OF-TAXES (PILOT), LIBRARY AID ACCOUNTS, METCO, AND SHANNON ANTI-GANG GRANTS, VOKE ED TRANSPORTATION
PILOT PAYMENTS: The Legislature’s budget would level-fund PILOT payments at $26.77 million.
LIBRARY AID: The Legislature would fund library grant programs at $19 million, a $500 thousand increase above fiscal 2015 post-9C levels.
METCO: The Legislature would fund METCO at $20.14 million, a $2.23 million increase above fiscal 2015 post-9C levels.
SHANNON GRANTS: The Legislature is proposing $7 million, the same amount proposed by Gov. Baker in March.
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION TRANSPORTATION: Last year, Gov. Patrick wiped out all fiscal 2015 funding using his 9C powers, and the Legislature’s budget would restore $1.75 million for fiscal 2016.

LEGISLATURE PROVIDES UP TO $10M FOR COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT FUNDING
During fiscal 2015, 156 cities and towns collected the local Community Preservation Act (CPA) surcharge and are eligible for state matching grants in fiscal 2016.  The Division of Local Services (DLS) estimates that the balance in the state trust fund will be sufficient to provide a first round match of only 18 percent of the surcharge levied by each city and town.  This would be the lowest state match in the program’s history.  Knowing this, the Legislature’s budget would devote up to $10 million of any fiscal 2015 year-end state budget surplus to supplement the fiscal 2016 state match, a significant boost for all CPA communities.  Gov. Baker did not include a matching provision in his proposed budget.

MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES NOT INCLUDED IN BUDGET
Although the House and Senate budgets each included differently worded provisions prohibiting “pay the patient” practices by insurance companies for ambulance services, the Legislature’s final budget does not include any language addressing this problem.  “Pay the patient” undermines the ability of cities and towns to fund and operate effective and efficient ambulance services that are at the core of emergency medical response in Massachusetts and forces communities to pursue their own residents to recoup thousands of dollars in ambulance expenses, a system that is inefficient and subject to abuse.  The House had adopted an amendment to ban “pay the patient” practices, with language stating that municipalities would be authorized to set a fair rate for ambulance services, preventing insurance companies from shifting costs to local property taxpayers through below-cost reimbursements.  The Senate budget would have given ultimate rate-setting authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which the MMA opposed because removal of local control over ambulance rates would have created large budget problems for cities and towns.  The Governor’s budget did not address the issue.  Because this issue has not been resolved, the MMA will continue its efforts to ban “pay the patient” practices by insurance companies.

Please Call Your Legislators Today and Thank Them for a Strong Fiscal 2016 State Budget that Makes Progress on Key Municipal and Education Aid Priorities

Comments Off on MMA on state budget

Posted in Budgets, Legislature

OPEB to BoS 7/7

Posted on July 4, 2015 | Comments Off on OPEB to BoS 7/7

Stone Consulting will be at the Selectmen meeting on July 7 to present its new OPEB valuation report, not July 10 as I mistakenly stated when I posted late in the day yesterday.  Thanks to a well informed and careful reader for the correction!

It takes a village to share correct town information.

Comments Off on OPEB to BoS 7/7

Posted in Budgets, Select Board matters

OPEB – we owe $42m.

Posted on July 3, 2015 | Comments Off on OPEB – we owe $42m.

The town has had Stone Consulting produce an actuarial  valuation, as of 10/11/2013, of the town’s Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB), which was just received and shows that the present value of what the town owes is $42m.

The OPEB are the cost of medical care in the future for current and retired town employees, that has already been earned by them, but mainly has not yet been funded by the town. In other words, the town contractually committed to provide the future medical care for its town employees, but just never set aside or paid any monies to cover those future costs.

The General Standards Accounting Board (GASB) only recently required government entities to both figure and report on OPEB, and as a result we have now learned that the town has a $42m. financial obligation for which it has made little preparation.

The facts:

  • The valuation is figured assuming a 4% discount rate, and other assumptions greatly change the amounts owed.
  • $18.9m. is the present value of the total amount that will be paid in the future to current employees.
  • $23.9m. is the present value of the total amount that will be paid in the future to current retirees.
  • $3.5m. per year would be required to be paid for 26 years to fully fund OPEB.
  • $1.7m. is the cost to pay OPEB benefits incurred in the current year on a pay as we go basis.
  • $400,000 (from memory) is the amount that we funded OPEB in our budget this fiscal year, and we have only funded OPEB for 2-3 years and not at that level.
  • By not fully paying for the current year obligations to OPEB, we are making the total owed even larger, this year adding another $1.3m.

The size of the OPEB problem appears to be so large that to me it appears we would all have to pay double real estate taxes for one year to fully fund it.  The town needs to make some hard choices as to how to deal with this looming financial problem created by the past promises the town made to its town employees.  To me it no longer makes sense to merely mostly ignore the dilemma, as we have been doing.

Stone Consulting will be at the Selectmen meeting on July 7 to present this new valuation report.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE 10-11-13 VALUATION.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE 2011 VALUATION

Comments Off on OPEB – we owe $42m.

Posted in Budgets

Visual budget

Posted on June 30, 2015 | Comments Off on Visual budget

To understand Medfield’s town budget, would it help to have the budget presented in a graphic format such as Mansfield does (http://www.mansfield.visgov.com/) or Arlington (http://www.arlingtonvisualbudget.org/)?

The software to do this is open source software, so we can do this with no cost if our employee IT staff implement it.  When I spoke with the creators, the www.visgov.com people at the Massachusetts Municipal association’s annual meeting in January, they told me that we could also pay them to install it.

Christian Donner has created a demo site for Medfield (http://medfieldbudget.org/), but the actual numbers appear to  not be our actual budget figures – still it gives one a sense and taste of what is possible.

I find it useful, but I would want to be able to drill down even further into the budget number details.

Comments Off on Visual budget

Posted in Budgets

BoS discretionary funds violates TM control

Posted on June 30, 2015 | Comments Off on BoS discretionary funds violates TM control

Town Accountant Joy Ricciuto today queried the DOR legal department about the Warrant Committee’s suggestion that the selectmen have discretionary authority over $25,000 to $50,000 of spending a year, and learned that it is an impermissible delegation of the  authority vested with the town meeting.  Below is Joy’s email and the DOR response.

I sent an email to the Mass DOR Legal Department and received a telephone response.
Don Gorton is the lawyer who responded, and below is a summary of his answer,
The creation of a Discretionary Spending Fund looks problematic, the appropriation has to have parameters, or is an improper appropriation.  This is too broad, and rules against abdicating the role of town meeting.  Appropriating is the role of town meeting, cannot circumscribe the authority of town meeting to appropriate.  This exceeds the bounds of permissible delegation.
Don Gorton said he was happy to talk to anyone if they have further questions.  He can be reached at 617-626-2400, the Bureau of Municipal Finance Law.
Joy

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Joy Ricciuto
Date: Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:24 PM
Subject: Discretionary fund for Selectmen-please advise
To: dlslaw@dor.state.ma.us

Question:
The Town of Medfield Warrant Committee (Finance Committee) and the Board of Selectmen are discussing the creation of a ‘Discretionary Spending Fund’ set up for the Selectmen in the range of $25,000 to $50,000 appropriated for the Selectmen to decide how it would be spent. The intent is to place such value judgments within the purview of an elected body
Please advise as to the permissibility and  legal appropriateness of establishing this type of fund.
Respectfully yours,.
Joy A. Ricciuto, CGA
Town Accountant

Comments Off on BoS discretionary funds violates TM control

Posted in Budgets

Better budgeting next year

Posted on June 27, 2015 | 3 comments

At the last Selectmen meeting, the Warrant Committee came to discuss improving on the town’s budget process.  I suggested we record “action items” related to the budget discussions we held, so things discussed would get accomplished, and Richard DeSorgher turned my idea around on me by asking me to write up the action items. Hence, below are my suggested action items from our discussion. Responsible parties to complete tasks were not always assigned in the discussion, and in my draft I have merely suggested a responsible party.

This is a good start to bringing greater discipline and transparency to the town’s budget process, which is needed.  Ultimately, I would like to see the budgets and as much of the budgeting process as possible be on-line, so residents can have easy access the data, information, and financial decisions by which their town is run.  I suggest that we put the details of the budgets and town checkbook on-line, just as the state now does, so residents can have that easy access to the information.

Future new initiatives, such as the Straw Hat Park, should not be required to overcome a “steep learning curve” about the town budgets to accomplish its task.  To flatten that learning curve, I propose that the town administrator publish a guide for them to use on how the town’s budget process operates.

6/16/15 Financial Planning Meeting

Attending:
Board of Selectmen
Warrant Committee
ACTION ITEMS

  1. New town initiatives
    1. budgets need to be discussed at time new initiatives are recommended
    2. discretionary budget of $25,000 – $50,000 for the Board of Selectmen
      1. RESPONSIBILITY = town administrator
        1. to create discretionary budget;
        2. to make sure the Board of Selectmen and Warrant Committee confer and agree on budgets for new initiatives; and
        3. create a guide to the budgeting process for future new initiatives to follow
  2. Capital budget
    1. require five year projections
    2. creation of a 20 year capital improvement budget
      1. RESPONSIBILITY = town administrator
  3. Operating budget
    1. Uniform format for proposed budgets – (not discussed or resolved)
      1. RESPONSIBILITY = town administrator
    2. Budget calendar – create and share a template to reuse year by year going forward
      1. RESPONSIBILITY = town administrator
    3. early meetings of Warrant Committee and the Board of Selectmen with department to establish budget parameters
      1. RESPONSIBILITY = Warrant Committee and town administrator
  4. September meeting to discuss budgeting issues and planning for the future
    1. RESPONSIBILITY = town administrator

3 Comments

Posted in Budgets, Select Board matters

Budgeting discussions tonight

Posted on June 16, 2015 | 1 comment

The Warrant Committee has sent the BoS the memo below of the budgeting issues it plans to discuss at tonight’s BoS meeting.

I had a list of budgeting issues I had developed this spring for a planned joint meeting of the BoS, Warrant Committee, and Water and Sewer Board in response to the budgeting conflicts W&S had with the Superintendent this year before town meeting (I am told that joint meeting has been postponed to the fall), and i have attached my proposed agenda after the WC memo.

 

MEMORANDUM
To: Medfield Board of Selectmen
From: Michael T. Marcucci
Warrant Committee Chairman
CC: Members of the Warrant Committee
Michael Sullivan, Town Administrator
Scott McDermott, Town Moderator
Date: June 14, 2015
Re: Issues for Discussion at June 16, 2015 Selectmen’s Meeting
______________________________________________________________________________
This Memorandum sets out several issues that members of the Warrant Committee would like to discuss at our June 16 meeting. The goal is to identify ways to improve the Town’s budgeting process and enhance the coordination between the Board of Selectmen and the Warrant Committee. The suggestions expressed here do not represent the views of the entire Warrant Committee and are raised for discussion purposes only.

Discretionary Spending: This year’s debate over Straw Hat Park has prompted discussion about how similar proposals should be addressed in the future. While there is no consensus on how the resolve the issues, several possibilities are identified below.

* Selectmen’s Discretionary Fund- one possible resolution would be to create a fund to be spent at the Selectmen’s discretion. The amount (in the range of $25,000-$50,000) would be appropriated in advance and the Selectmen would then decide how it should be spent. Thus, the Selectmen—and not the Warrant Committee—would be assessing the relative merits of various proposals within budget limits imposed by Town Meeting. If this cannot be done formally, it can be done informally by an agreement from the Warrant Committee to support some amount of discretionary spending recommended by the Selectmen. This would place these sorts of value judgments within the purview of an elected body.

* Advance Budget Guidance—As Gus Murby has noted, we are concerned about abusing volunteers’ time by asking them to undertake a project with no certainty of funding the outcome of that work. One possible resolution would be to provide joint budget guidance in advance. This would always be subject to the risk that other events would squeeze out funds when the budget is finally prepared but would at least provide some guidance about a budget range the Selectmen and Warrant Committee would be comfortable recommending to Town Meeting for the type of project contemplated.

Capital Budget: the capital budget process needs to be reformed. The current approach of fixing a set amount each year for capital spending which is then allocated by the Capital Budget Committee over several meetings at the end of the budget process does not allow for sufficient planning or flexibility. The amount of capital spending each year should be flexible based on the capital needs of the town and available funds each year. One possible approach would be to identify all capital needs over a 5 year period, which will then be prioritized by the Capital Budget Committee and then may be funded as appropriate over that period. The amount funded annually will vary with circumstances, but, over time, the capital projects of the town will be funded as needed.
We should also address within the capital budget process the sort of capital projects, like the Wheelock boilers and the traffic study this past year, which are capital projects but end up in separate warrant articles. Even if, as a matter of law or procedure, certain capital items must be voted on as separate warrant articles, they should still be vetted by the Capital Budget Committee and considered as part of the town’s capital plan.

Medfield State Hospital: As expressed in the past, the Committee is generally of the view that the Town should come to a resolution of the Hospital site sooner, rather than later. Preferably, this will be done some time in 2016. Whatever the Town decides to do with that property will have a significant impact on the Town’s finances for the foreseeable future. Given that, it seems that a simple up or down vote on a proposal to develop the property is insufficient. If the Town chooses not to develop the property, we must address the long term costs of ownership, which likely will require either increased taxes or cuts in other budgets. Otherwise, both expected and unanticipated costs associated with the Hospital property will squeeze out other budget priorities. The most prudent course may be to address this issue alongside any vote on a proposal from the
Medfield State Hospital Master Planning Committee.

Water & Sewer: Pete and I have discussed a joint meeting with the Warrant Committee, Selectmen, Water & Sewer Board, Ken Feeney and Mike Sullivan to sort out the  Water & Sewer budget process. We are happy to participate in such a meeting.

 

This was my suggested set of budget issues that I saw which needed to be addressed:

Financial Planning Meeting

Attending:
Board of Selectmen
Warrant Committee
Water and Sewer Board

AGENDA

1. Operating budget
a. Data – what data do boards need to create their budgets
i. e.g. – W&S tool
ii. dates and/or schedules
b. Responsibilities for generating the data
c. Uniform format for proposed budgets
i. last two years actual
ii. actual spending last prior full year
iii. requested next year – + explanations of changes

2. Capital budget
a. five year projections
b. total budget amount – how set?
i. NB – Arlington uses 5% of operating budget as its expectation

3. Budget calendar
a. create a template to reuse year by year going forward
i. e.g. – week 1 – all town boards meeting (in September)
week 2 – . . .
week 34 – annual town meeting (ATM)
b. meetings to set parameters
i. who is included
ii. selectmen should weigh in on expected increases
c. establish responsibilities and time lines for meeting
i. assign departments to dates
d. compare to timing and process in Amherst, Arlington, and Dedham (see attached)

4. Planning for the future
a. Mike Sullivan to plan for his successor
i. to create and document a written how to do the Medfield budget guide
ii. to document each step as he takes it in the first year, so town has a written budget road map of what needs to be done to create the budget each
iii. to cross train Kris to do all the steps in the budget process next year
b. Transparency
i. implement www.opengov.com and/or www.visgov.com (open source)
ii. implement the state’s system of putting its checkbook online
iii. implement the Willis Peligian tool town wide
iv. implement proper governance over budgets and associated expenditures:
(1) require budgets to include realistic operating and capital expenses; &
(2) include a separate contingency line item in each budget

5. Create a Business Manager for town, similar to business manager for the schools

 

1 Comment

Posted in Budgets, Financial

Senate budget

Posted on May 22, 2015 | Comments Off on Senate budget

This is how we do under the Senate’s budget –

FY2016 Local Aid Estimates
All Municipal
FY2015 Cherry Sheet Estimate
FY2016 Governor’s Budget Proposal
FY2016 House Final Budget Proposal
FY2016 Senate Final Budget Proposal
FY2016 Conference Committee
Education:
Chapter 70
3,730,480,705
3,828,556,906
3,830,886,519
3,833,516,810
School Transportation
154,078
110,488
124,430
130,136
Charter Tuition Reimbursement
76,974,357
74,728,135
74,431,420
81,866,459
Smart Growth School Reimbursement
436,743
436,743
250,000
436,743
Offset Receipts:
School Choice Receiving Tuition
45,494,828
46,648,312
46,648,312
46,648,312
Sub-total, All Education Items:
3,853,540,711
3,950,480,584
3,952,340,681
3,962,598,460
General Government:
Unrestricted Gen Gov’t Aid
945,750,001
979,797,001
979,797,001
979,797,001
Local Sh of Racing Taxes
816,585
710,500
710,500
710,500
Regional Public Libraries
2,501,833
2,521,970
2,601,883
2,601,883
Urban Revitalization
1,286,806
1,286,306
1,286,306
1,286,306
Veterans Benefits
50,344,210
51,516,162
51,516,162
51,516,162
State Owned Land
26,770,000
26,770,000
26,770,000
26,770,000
Exemp: VBS and Elderly
24,416,788
24,673,163
24,673,163
24,673,163
Offset Receipts:
Public Libraries
9,000,000
8,826,300
8,847,300
9,029,000
Sub-Total, All General Government
1,060,886,223
1,096,101,402
1,096,202,315
1,096,384,015
Total Estimated Receipts
4,914,426,934
5,046,581,986
5,048,542,996
5,058,982,475
Although the School Lunch program is funded in both the FY2015 final budget and the FY2016 Governor’s, House Final and Senate Final budget proposals, we have removed the estimate from the cherry sheet as this program is an education offset that has no impact on the tax rate setting process.

Comments Off on Senate budget

Posted in Budgets, Legislature

Does Medfield want open data?

Posted on May 18, 2015 | Comments Off on Does Medfield want open data?

I have suggested that Medfield’s budget data and checkbook should be online so that anyone can easily see what the town spends its monies on and can also easily research the town budget priorities.  There are software apps that make this easy to do.  The state uses one to put its checkbook online, and i have seen two apps that focus more on the department budget side of the data, via http://www.opengov.com and http://www.visgov.com, which would provide their apps for a few thousand dollars a year.  Visgov.com is actually open source software, and we could use it at no cost if we installed it on our own.

The selectmen, the Warrant Committee and the Water and Sewer Board are supposed to meet soon to resolve budgeting issues that arose in the months prior to the annual town meeting,  and I am suggesting that we use that financial summit meeting to both resolve expectations as to our budgeting process going forward, but also to implement online budgeting to make the town finances more transparent.

Therefore, I was especially interested when today I saw the article below that indicates a high percentage of residents want the data available to them and expect that having it available will make their towns operate better.

Study: How Tech Can Improve Citizen Engagement

in Community Development, Innovation, Latest Posts, Technology & IT May 18, 2015

Citizen Perceptions of Data
The Pew Research Center recently conducted a survey to benchmark public sentiment on government initiatives that aim to leverage open data streams to improve services. The survey aimed to gauge:

  • People’s awareness of government efforts to share data
  • Whether these efforts translate into people using data to track government performance
  • If people think government data initiatives have made, or could make, government performance better or improve accountability
  • The more routine kinds of government-citizen online interactions

The survey analyzed citizen perception of government data use in the early stages at the local, state and federal levels. Overall, the public seems optimistic of open data government initiatives – specifically with improving accountability. While most participants use online data portals to find basic government information, the vast majority are not using the information to monitor government performance.

The Findings
The survey revealed:

  • 65 percent of Americans have used the internet to find data or information about government in the last 12 months
  • 19 percent could think of an example of where the local government did a good job providing information to the public about data it collects
  • 19 percent could think of an example of where the local government failed to provide enough information about data and information to the public
  • 56 percent hope open data can help journalists better cover government activities
  • 53 percent hope open data can make government officials more accountable
  • 49 percent expect open data to improve the quality of government services
  • 48 percent want open data to allow citizens to have more impact on government affairs
  • 45 percent predict open data to enable government officials to make better decisions

The majority of respondents are comfortable with the idea of government agencies collecting and sharing public data on a variety of platforms. Yet many remain cautious of providing their own data to the government such as mortgage information.

Driving Engagement
According to a recent IDC Government Insights report governments should invest in 3rd platform technologies – cloud, mobile, social and big data – to effectively drive citizen value and engagement. The study predicts more than 50 percent of government agencies will direct at least 25 percent of their citizen engagement budgets to 3rd platform technologies and the Internet of Things (IoT) solutions by 2020.

New digital channels coupled with a more comprehensive approach to redefining the citizen experience will align the goals of values of local leaders and residents. The research identifies five maturity stages for the citizen experience to help governments better understand the needs and goals of each group and select appropriate technologies to meet these expectations:

  • Ad hoc: Citizens request information across multiple channels
  • Opportunistic: CRM applications enable front-end automation so citizens can access information on their own
  • Repeatable: Digitization of workflows across channels allow citizens to handle services through full automation
  • Managed: Digital self-service allows citizens to show across multiple agencies and enables interactive handling of citizen requests
  • Optimized: Omni-channel citizen experience ensures consistent, convenient experience at very low cost to the government

The research suggests investment in 3rd platform technologies and the Internet of Things will help governments reduce costs while improving overall performance and accessibility. These interactive solutions better deliver new capabilities to public agencies and residents, while optimizing resource allocation and improving the way services are delivered.

Lack of Awareness
One major constraint many public agencies face when considering investment in new technologies and the Internet of Things is a lack of knowledge. A recent survey found only half of American adults are familiar with the term Internet of Things – which refers to the network of physical objects embedded with sensors and technologies to collect data that will guide decision making to improve services.

Because many Americans are unaware of how the Internet of Things works with existing infrastructure and services, 85 percent have concerns about the increased risk to breach of security and privacy. Furthermore, 70 percent fear IoT investment will have a negative impact on daily interactions and 51 percent are concerned about technical issues and the cost of repairing them.  If the public had a better understanding of how IoT and other new technologies are driving efficiency, there may be more support behind these investments.

Related Content
Challenging Tech Community to Solve Civic Problems w/Apps
Community at the Center of Civic Hacking
3 Cities Optimizing Open Data

Comments Off on Does Medfield want open data?

Posted in Budgets, Financial, Information, Select Board matters