My Name is Paul H Cosentino. I started this Blog in 2011 because of what I believe to be wrongdoings in town government. This Blog is to keep the citizens of Templeton informed. It is also for the citizens of Templeton to post their comments and concerns.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
APPENDIX A CATEGORICALLY INELIGIBLE COSTS:
Categorically ineligible costs include costs that are not core to the educational program, such as:
• Swimming pools, skating rinks, field houses, district administrative office space, and indoor tennis courts. 2.16(5)(m).
• Synthetic turf. Site Cost Allowance Guidelines (“SCAG”).
• Athletic stadiums, or excavation, earthwork, and pedestrian walkways within stadiums. (SCAG)
. • Spectator amenities such as concession stands, press boxes, and toilet facilities for outdoor athletic facilities. (SCAG).
• Transportation of students 2.16(5)(s).
• Water and wastewater treatment and disposal (MSBA will reimburse up to eight percent [8%] of the estimated total building costs) . Categorically ineligible costs further include costs for items that are not part of the permanent building and grounds (with the exception of the per student funding limit for furniture, fixtures and equipment and additional funding limit per student for technology), such as:
• Normal operating and maintenance costs such as textbooks, classroom supplies, custodial supplies, administrative support, or telephone service. 2.16 (5)(1).
• School supplies. 2.16 (5)(u).
• Cell phones. 2.16 (5)(x).
• Utility charges, fees and service bills. 2.16 (5)(w).
• Athletic equipment such as balls, bats, bases, racquets, uniforms, helmets or gloves. 2.16 (5)(p).
• Modular units except with specific written permission writing. 2.16(5)(q).
• Vehicles: cars, trucks, tractors or golf carts. 2.16(5)(t). Categorically ineligible costs also designate costs beyond the project scope, such as:
• All costs associated with site acquisition. 2.16 (5)(g).
• Demolition costs will not be reimbursed unless specifically permitted in writing.
• Special waste and hazardous or contaminated materials remediation, removal and disposal where associated with site work. (SCAG).
• Financing costs, interest, costs of issuance, short or long term bonds, notes, or other certificates of indebtedness. 2.16(5)(b).
• Credit rating services, legal services related to issuance or indebtedness, and financial consulting services. 2.16(5)(c).
• Penalties, processing fees, catalogue fees, sales tax, membership, and subscriptions. 2.16(5)(n).
• Costs of local building permits, inspection fees and similar fees. 2.16(5)(o).
• Legal services. 2.16(5)(d).
• Direct or indirect municipal services except public safety services as required by law. 2.16(5)(e).
• Storage space, storage facilities, storage trailers or storage containers. 2.16(5)(k).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Let's hope the town has someone who is trained on using ProPay for reimbursements to the Town of Templeton.
ReplyDeleteThe Elementary School project is a Town of Templeton project.
There are many capital projects under development by different town entities all of which will increase costs to the tax payer/rate payers.
Our water rates are sky high and the water system needs 40 million dollars of infrastructure upgrade.
Our sewer rates are also increasing due to infrastructure upgrades.
Add in an Elementary school project and it will become extremely expensive to live in Templeton...especially if you have town water and sewer.
So how do you attract businesses to town with burgeoning taxes astronomical water rates and sewer rates increasing?
What is the Town of Tempeton's debt load? When do past bonds retire? How does the town borrow money for any of these projects without a bond rating?
Haven't even addressed the issue of the Town's capital plan which does not include any of the water or sewer projects, even though those projects are "town debt" - the town is on the hook for those bonds as well.
Something to think about. Have a great day!
This should give everyone something to think about. Way back when the Light Department decided to take the Water Department away from the Sewer Department, the Selectmen had made plans to improve the Water System. These plans were scrapped, and from what I can see, nothing has happened to improve the Water System since then. The biggest change was that the Manager of the Light Dept. made a lot more money.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know Bev the Selectmen acted as water commissioners prior to Ch 93 Acts of 2000. According to State officials it appears that Ch 93 Acts of 2000 was done in a fraudulent manner. It also appears true Bev that you are correct and that everyone involved got a big raise. Who wouldn't support this if they were members of the water dept.?
ReplyDelete