Category Archives: Financial

Nancy Irwin & Mary Pat McSharry, 2017 MFi volunteer award nominees

nancy-irwin-mary-pat-mcsharry

Nancy Irwin & Mary Pat McSharry, 2017 MFi volunteer award nominees for “their” SWAP area

Nancy and Mary Pat were jointly nominated by Megan Sullivan, Chair of the town’s Transfer Station and Recycling Committee, for recognition by the Medfield Foundation volunteer awards for their work creating the current SWAP area at the Transfer Station. Nancy has been running the SWAP for eight years, Mary Pat for three and a half years.

This was Megan’s nomination of each:


 

Nancy Irwin should be Volunteer of the Year because of her tireless work at the SWAP area that benefits Medfield in many ways.

Nancy has done a wonderful job taking a dumping ground and turning it into a fully-functional swap/reuse area that is an example for other towns.

Since 2009 (or maybe 2010) Nancy has been working to make the swap area better and better. Before Nancy got involved, the SWAP area was a location where people dumped their cardboard boxes of belongings and people searched through them. At the end of the day, everything left was thrown away. With perseverance Nancy has steadily made improvements each yea r. In the first years volunteers would take things home at night and bring them back the next day so they might have another chance to be adopted by someone. And now we have a wonderful covered swap area where items are well organized for display, making them more likely to be taken home, and they can stay for up to 2 weeks. In addition, now when remaining items are moved out if they have not been adopted, Nancy and her crew of volunteers work very hard to make sure only the “truly trash” ends up on the tip floor and everything else is donated or recycled. Nancy has been the leading force behind these changes.

Nancy has worked hand in hand with the DPW to accomplish the changes at the SWAP. A few years ago Nancy joined the Transfer Station and Recycling Committee so the swap area is represented on this committee. She has been a dedicated member. The new tent and paving are the result of her requests to the DPW.

While Nancy has been a SWAP champion (aka Grand Poobah), there are many folks who volunteer to make the SWAP area run during the operating season. (I appreciate all of them too!) Nancy doesn’t hesitate to ask for help and has a great group of volunteers who make the whole area run. Her enthusiasm for the area is contagious. And now that the SWAP is well organized and well-run, new volunteers have come forward to help.

Keeping the volunteers and customers happy isn’t an easy job. Nancy hasn’t let the difficult conversations get in the way of making the SWAP a nice place for the community to gather and find a treasure and for the town to reduce the waste generated by offering an easy place for reuse.

More often than not from 9am – 4pm Wednesday, Friday and Saturday from May – October you will find Nancy Irwin at the SWAP area. She is a dedicated volunteer who generously donates her time to make the SWAP area a fun, pleasant and important place for Medfield and one that is key to reducing the amount of trash the town disposes of. I’ve heard from many folks that the SWAP is one of their favorite things about Medfield … and Nancy Irwin is to thank for that.

 


 

Mary Pat McSharry is an incredible volunteer for the SWAP area and for this reason I am nominating her for Volunteer of the Year. Mary Pat has been a partner with Nancy Irwin in the management of the SWAP area since September 2013. As Mary Pat explains, one afternoon she came by and dropped some items off and never left. Until that time she hadn’t even heard of the SWAP. And since then she’s been an amazing volunteer!

Mary Pat has been wonderful for the SWAP area. She is very creative and she is responsible for the logistics, the layout of the tent area and keeping things looking fresh. She is pleasant and helpful to people at the SWAP. In addition, her creativity shines through in the creations she makes from and suggests for items in the SWAP area. She’s always creating. The signs that indicate different areas in the SWAP area were made by Mary Pat from repurposed treasures. The new sign made from a headboard that is outside the mattress recycling container is one of Mary Pat’s. She heard of the need and offered to make the sign, repurposing something that was headed toward the trash and at the same time saving the Town the cost of purchasing a new sign.

Mary Pat has also personally donated supplies for the swap area. The tent that has been used for electronics the past 3 years was a personal donation. In addition, she has not (but should have!) asked for reimbursement for the supplies such as tape and lanyards that she has purchased to keep the swap area running smoothly. You can tell her heart is in the volunteer work she does for the SWAP. She would rather things be running properly than worry about who is paying for them.

Mary Pat is a tireless advocate for the SWAP and attends meetings of the Transfer Station and Recycling Committee when she can. She is committed to a well-running swap area and puts in the energy to make that happen.

More often than not from 9am – 4pm Wednesday, Friday and Saturday from May – October you will find Mary Pat McSharry at the SWAP area. Cold and rainy or in the middle of a heat wave, she is there.  She is a dedicated volunteer who generously donates her time to make the SWAP area a fun, pleasant and important place for Medfield and one that is key to reducing the amount of trash the town disposes of. Mary Pat McSharry is one of the dedicated volunteers to thank for that.

State property taxes

This article was circulated with the DOR’s Division of Local Services newsletter I get.  I did not include all its charts, hence the holes you will see.   I thought the two maps were the most interesting.  Medfield is part of the over $10K/year tax belt of red in MetroWest.-

FY2017 Single-Family Residential Tax Bill Andrew Nelson, Supervisor, Bureau of Accounts (BOA) Tony Rassias, Deputy Director, BOA

The State Total single-family residential tax bill for FY2017 is $5,621, an increase of $202 or 3.7 percent from FY2016, according to data captured from 332 of the Commonwealth’s 351 cities and towns in the DLS Muncipal Databank.

In addition, the average value of a single-family residential home was $399,413, the highest value since the FY2008 average value of $403,705, which was set as values were starting to drop in the real estate market.

So far in FY2017, with 345 communities reporting valuation data to the Division of Local Services (DLS), single-family residential parcels statewide represent:

  • 66% of all residential class property assessed values;
  • 54% of all property assessed values;
  • 64% of all residential class parcels; and
  • 56% of all class parcels and articles of personal property

Analysis of data for this article is limited to single-family residential parcels, class code 101, and does not include condominiums, multifamily homes or apartment buildings.

This analysis and all charts and graphs included with the exception of Chart 5 do not include communities for which a residential exemption was adopted in any fiscal year, but later in this article presents the impact on their average bill if the property was eligible for the exemption For FY2017 only, the analysis does not include data for six communities for which no tax rate has yet to be certified by the Bureau of Accounts.

This article begins with a review of the State Total single-family residential property tax bill, a calculation performed by DLS for many years. The article then continues with a review of the statewide median of community averages since FY2008 followed by community averages. The article then reviews how both the State Total and statewide median of community averages have fared over time relative to inflation and finally takes a special look at the residential exemption’s impact on the 13 communities that had it in FY2017.

The State Total

Calculation of the State Total presumes that Massachusetts is one local governmental entity for which such a bill would be determined.  While not a median of all community averages, the State Total is presented and may be measured against itself from a prior fiscal year.

Chart 1 presents the calculation of the State Total from FY2008 to FY2017. Note that the State Total has annually increased over this period of time, yet not by more than 4%.

In addition, Chart 1 presents the average value for all single-family residential properties.  The average value decreased from FY2008 to FY2013 by 12.2%, but from FY2013 to FY2017 increased 12.7%.  Overall for the time period shown, the average value decreased by 1%.

Chart 1

 

 

The Median of Community Averages

Chart 2 shows the median or midpoint of all community averages for each fiscal year since FY2008.  For FY2017, this median tax bill of $4,745 represents an increase over FY2016’s by $202 or 4.4%

 

 

Note: For the six communities without an FY2017 tax rate and not represented in Chart 2, five have historically averaged below and one above the $4,745 median tax bill shown above. If history proves true once again for these communities, the FY2017 median amount shown would drop by less than $50.

The Average by Community

DLS calculates a community’s average single-family residential property tax bill by:

  • dividing the total class code 101 assessed property values in the community by the number of parcels in that community’s class code to establish an average property value for the class; and
  • multiplying that average property value by the community’s residential class tax rate as certified by the Bureau of Accounts for that fiscal year.

The following color-coded maps provide visual representations of the FY2017 community averages around the State as well as their dollar changes from FY2016.

fy17-dor-average-tax-bill-map

 

This map shows how most of the communities in the western and central parts of Massachusetts have average tax bills at or less than the median of community averages, $4,745. The map also shows a cluster of communities with average tax bills over $10,000 just to the west of Boston.

For a larger version of this map, including community names, click here.

 

fy17-DOT-tax change map of Massachusetts.jpg

This map, in conjunction with the previous map, shows that although many communities in the western and central parts of Massachusetts had lesser than median average tax bills, a number of them had greater than median average increases from FY2016. The median for all communities that increased their average tax bill was $174.

Statewide, 311 communities increased their average tax bill from FY2016 ranging from $1 in Hampden to $998 in Winchester.

Also seen is that a number of communities actually decreased their average tax bill from FY2016. Statewide, 21 communities did so, ranging from $2 in Sheffield to $305 in Peru. The median for all communities that decreased their average tax bill was $43.

For a larger version of this map, including community names, click here. 

 

 The Range of Averages

Graph 1 shows that more communities (81) have FY2017 community average single-family property tax bills in the $3,000 to $3,999 range followed by 78 in the $4,000 to $4,999 range category.

 

 

Graph 2 shows the number of communities increasing and decreasing their average tax bills from FY2016 to FY2017 on a percentage basis. For example, seven communities decreased their average bill anywhere from greater than1% to 2%. Also, 84 communities increased their average bill anywhere from greater than3% to 4%.

For the 21 communities that decreased their bill, their median percentage decrease was 1.1%. For the 311 communities that increased their average bill, their median percentage increase was 3.5%.

Communities that decreased their average bill ranged from .05% in Sheffield to 8.4% in Peru.  Communities that increased their average bill ranged from .02% in Hampden to 24.4% in Hancock

 

 

 The Highest and Lowest Averages

Chart 3 shows the communities having the 10 highest and lowest FY2017 average bills in descending order.

 

 

The Statewide Trend in Current and Constant Dollars

Chart 4 shows the State Total and Median of Community Averages in current dollars as presented earlier in this article in relation to a constant dollar, which controls for inflation.

The Chart shows that both the State Total and the Median of Community Averages dollar amounts have outpaced the rate of inflation over the time period shown.

For example, the Median of Community Averages FY2008 current dollar figure of $3,470 adjusted for inflation represents a constant dollar figure of $3,900 in FY2017.  FY2017 in current dollars is $4,745. As of FY2017 then, the current dollar figure has outpaced the constant dollar figure by $845 or 18%.

Note that the State Total is always in excess of the Median. As was stated earlier in this article, these two dollar amounts may be compared to themselves from a prior fiscal year but are not comparable to each other.

 

 

The Residential Exemption Communities

Thirteen communities that adopted a residential exemption are not included in either the State Total or Median Averages as the Bureau of Accounts does not receive sufficient information as to how many class code 101 residential properties are eligible for the exemption in those communities.

For those 13 communities, however, Chart 5 shows the FY2017 dollar impact of the residential exemption on single-family residential properties (1) assessed at the community’s median value and (2) deemed qualified to receive the exemption.  More information on this exemption can be found in the October 16, 2014 edition of City & Town.

 

 

For More Information

For more information on the State Total, Average Bills for Communities and Statewide Rankings, please visit the DLS Databank.

The authors would like to thank Theo Kalivas of DLS’ Technical Assistance Bureau for his assistance in creating the color-coded maps used in this analysis.

Tri-County $ next year

Town’s contribution to Tri-County Regional Vocational Technical School District is based on the number of our students.  Yesterday Mike circulated the list below:

fy18-tri-county

First state local aid

DOR is providing us these local aid figures for Medfield based on the Governor’s budget proposal (NB, the sum appears to be incorrect on the assessments):

fy18-local-aid-medfield

 

fy18-local-aid-assessments-medfield

State budget

The state budget starts with the Governor’s proposal, moves on to the House’s proposal, to the Senate’s proposal, and then finally a House-Senate reconciliation committee to iron out the differences.  The Governor has just filed his proposed budget, and he is keeping to his plan to have municipal aid track the percentage revenue increases.  The analysis of the Governor’s proposed budget that follows was provided to me by the Massachusetts Municipal Association.

MMA-2

 
 
 
 
 
January 25, 2017
GOV. BAKER FILES $40.5 BILLION FY 2018 BUDGET PROPOSAL

• UNRESTRICTED MUNICIPAL AID WOULD INCREASE BY $39.9 MILLION (3.9%)

• CHAPTER 70 AID WOULD INCREASE BY ONLY $91.4 MILLION (2%)

• MOST OTHER MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTS LEVEL-FUNDED

 

Earlier this afternoon, Gov. Charlie Baker submitted a $40.5 billion fiscal 2018 state budget plan with the Legislature, proposing a spending blueprint that would increase overall state expenditures by 4.3 percent, as the new Administration seeks to close an ongoing structural budget deficit by restraining spending across the board and placing an estimated $98 million into the state’s rainy day fund. The budget relies on $95 million in one-time revenues.

As Gov. Baker pledged to local officials on Jan. 21 at the MMA’s Annual Meeting, his budget includes a $39.9 million increase in Unrestricted General Government Aid, and $91.4 million more for Chapter 70 school aid. The Gov.’s proposal for Chapter 70 aid includes a minimum aid increase of $20-per- student, full funding of the foundation budget requirements, and continued implementation of the “target share” equity provisions. The foundation budget calculation would partially implement the Foundation Budget Review Commission’s recommendation to use a more realistic factor for the cost of employee health insurance in school systems.

Most other municipal and education aid accounts in the Governor’s budget proposal would remain at fiscal 2017 levels. This includes the special education circuit breaker, payments-in- lieu of taxes, regional school transportation, Shannon anti-gang grants, McKinney-Vento reimbursements and METCO funding.

The Governor would level-fund charter school reimbursements at $80.5 million, far below the amount necessary to fully fund the statutory formula that is designed to offset a portion of the amount that communities are required to transfer to charter schools. Level-funding this account would lead to the continued and growing diversion of Chapter 70 funds away from municipally operated school districts, and place greater strain on the districts that serve 96% of public school children.

 

Click here to see the UGGA and Chapter 70 Aid amounts listed by community in the

Governor’s budget

 

• Click below to see the Division of Local Services preliminary fiscal 2018 Cherry Sheet

aid amounts for your community, based on the Governor’s proposed budget (you will

need to insert the name of your community in the field):

Municipal Aid

Regional School District Aid

 

Click here to see DESE’s calculation of fiscal 2018 Chapter 70 aid and Net School

Spending requirements for your city, town, or regional school district, based on the

Governor’s proposed budget

 

UNRESTRICTED MUNICIPAL AID INCREASED BY $39.9 MILLION

In a major victory for cities and towns, House One (the Governor’s fiscal 2018 budget submission) would provide $1.062 billion for UGGA, a $39.9 million increase over current funding. This fulfills one of Gov. Baker’s major campaign promises to increase direct municipal aid by the same rate of growth as state tax revenues.

The $39.9 million would increase UGGA funding by 3.9 percent, the same rate of growth projected for state tax revenues. Every city and town would see their UGGA funding increase by this 3.9 percent growth rate.

CHAPTER 70 SCHOOL AID WOULD GO UP JUST 2 PERCENT

The Governor’s budget submission proposes a small 2 percent increase in Chapter 70 education aid of $91.4 million, providing every city, town and school district with a minimum increase of $20 per student. The Governor’s budget would continue to implement the target share provisions enacted in 2007. The overall Chapter 70 increase would be significantly smaller than in recent years. The Governor’s budget includes a partial reflection of one of the Foundation Budget Review Commission’s key recommendations, which is updating the foundation budget to reflect the cost of employee health insurance. But this adjustment in the foundation budget is not enough to increase aid to many districts. 237 cities and towns (74% of all operating districts) would only receive an increase of $20 per student under the Governor’s budget. This below-inflation increase is too low, and would force communities to reduce school programs or further shift funds from the municipal side of the budget.

Please ask your Legislators to support a funding increase for Chapter 70 school aid that ensures that all schools receive a suitable and appropriate increase in fiscal 2018, which the MMA believes should be at least $100 per student. The MMA also strongly supports implementation of all of the recommendations of the Foundation Budget Review Commission to update the Chapter 70 “foundation budget” minimum spending standards for special education and employee health insurance, and to add to the spending standard a measure of recognition for the cost of services for low-income, English Language Learner (ELL) and other students who would benefit from more intensive services. The Commission recommended phasing in the changes over a four-year period, a position the MMA supports as well. Increasing minimum aid and fixing the inadequacies in the foundation formula are essential.

It should also be noted that House One contains language that would continue to allow communities to count retiree health insurance toward their net school spending, but only if they have done so beginning when the school finance law first went into effect in 1994, or if they have previously voted to adopt the local-option provision in section 260 of the fiscal year 2015 general appropriations act to allow a phase-in of retiree health insurance costs in their net school spending calculation.

Further, House One would use the same methodology that was used in this year’s fiscal 2017 budget to estimate the number of low-income students used in the foundation budget calculation.

SPECIAL EDUCATION CIRCUIT BREAKER UNDERFUNDED

The Governor’s budget would level-fund the Special Education Circuit Breaker program at $277 million. Because special education costs are expected to rise in fiscal 2018, this means that the Governor’s budget likely underfunds reimbursements by as much as $10 million. This is a vital account that every city, town and school district relies on to fund state-mandated services. The Legislature has intended to fully fund the program for the past five years, and the MMA will again be asking lawmakers to ensure full funding in fiscal 2018.

CHARTER SCHOOL REIMBURSEMENTS LEVEL FUNDED AT $80.5 MILLION

As noted above, the Governor would level-fund charter school reimbursements at $80.5 million, far below the amount necessary to fully fund the statutory formula that was originally established to offset a portion of the funding that communities are required to transfer to charter schools. The fiscal 2017 funding level is $54 million BELOW what is necessary to fund the reimbursement formula that is written into state law, so it is clear that the shortfall will grow significantly in fiscal 2018. Even though the reimbursement formula is level-funded at $80.5 million, the Governor’s fiscal 2018 budget would INCREASE charter school assessments by $60 million. This would lead to the continued and growing diversion of Chapter 70 funds away from municipally operated school districts, and place greater strain on the districts that serve 96% of public school children. Solving the charter school funding problem must be a major priority during the budget debate.

REGIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION REIMBURSEMENTS LEVEL FUNDED

Gov. Baker’s budget submission would level-fund regional transportation reimbursements at the $61 million amount. This will be a hardship for virtually all communities in regional districts. Reimbursements for transportation of out-of- district vocational students remains significantly underfunded at $250K. Increasing these accounts is a priority for cities and towns.

McKINNEY-VENTO REIMBURSEMENTS LEVEL FUNDED

The Governor’s budget would level-fund reimbursements for the transportation of homeless students at $8.35 million. The impact of this funding level will vary from community-to- community depending on the number of homeless families that remain sheltered in local hotels and motels. The Administration has been successful in reducing the number of homeless students who are dislocated from their original district, but those communities that continue to provide transportation to many students may continue to see shortfalls.

PAYMENTS-IN- LIEU-OF- TAXES (PILOT) AND SHANNON GRANTS LEVEL FUNDED, AND LIBRARY AID UP $189K

The Governor’s budget would level fund PILOT payments at $26.77 million, Shannon anti-gang grants at $6 million, and fund library grant programs at $19.07 million (up $189K).

GOV. PROPOSES APPLYING HOTEL-MOTEL TAX TO AIRBNB AND OTHER SHORT-TERM RENTALS, BUT ONLY IF RENTED FOR 150 DAYS

House One includes an outside section that would subject Airbnb and other short-term rentals to the local room occupancy excise tax. However, this would only apply in cases where the property is rented for 150 days or more. The MMA strongly supports extending the room occupancy excise to ALL short-term rentals. The 150-day threshold would continue to shield almost all seasonal and short-term rentals from taxation, and would not close the loophole that exists now.

GOV. PROPOSES FUNDS TO BEGIN PROCESS OF HAVING DEP TAKE THE LEAD IN OVERSEEING FEDERAL STORMWATER PERMITS

The Governor’s budget proposes $1.4 million to begin the process of having the Department of Environmental Protection assume “delegated authority” from the U.S. EPA to oversee the NPDES Stormwater Permit process (also referred to as MS4 permits). The MMA supports having DEP as the lead agency for stormwater permits. The $1.4 million would fund 12 DEP staff positions to begin the transition to becoming the lead agency. Full funding would take approximately $4.7 million. The Governor will be filing separate legislation to allow DEP to petition the EPA for this authority.

 

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS TODAY AND CALL ON THEM TO PUBLICLY SUPPORT THE GOVERNOR’S PROPOSAL TO INCREASE UNRESTRICTED MUNICIPAL AID BY $39.9 MILLION – THIS  INCREASE IS VITAL TO LOCAL BUDGETS IN EVERY CORNER OF MASSACHUSETTS

 

AND PLEASE ASK YOUR LEGISLATORS TO COMMIT TO INCREASING CHAPTER 70 EDUCATION AID, FIXING THE FLAWS IN CHARTER SCHOOL FUNDING, AND FULLY FUNDING KEY MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL PROGRAMS

 
Massachusetts Municipal Association
One Winthrop Square, Boston, MA 02110
(617) 426-7272
All contents copyright 2015, Massachusetts Municipal Association

Unsubscribe from MMA Legislative Alerts.

 

 

ALS

ambulance

Yesterday afternoon from 6-7 PM before the regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen there was a well attended session that was billed as a working meeting of the Board of Selectmen with Chief Kingsbury and Lieutenant Bennotti of the Medfield Fire Department to discuss the possible solutions for the town to the provision of Advanced Life Support (ALS) services to town residents. The MFD currently only provides intermediate basic life support (EMT) ambulance services to residents, and only one of the current seven full time firefighters is a paramedic.

One firefighter recently resigned, and will be replaced with a paramedic, however, until the whole service is staffed with paramedics, the two paramedics will not be able to provide paramedic services.

The ALS session was not covered by Medfield.TV – I do not know why not, as I was not involved in making that decision.  Personally, I would have put it on TV.

Basically the Chief and the Lieutenant

  • expect that the MFD will have increasing problems in the future staffing a call department,
  • expect the current towns providing the ALS intercept services (Westwood, Walpole, and Norfolk) as tiring of doing so if we are not making efforts to solve our situation,
  • see no likely chance of doing a regional ALS with other towns (Dover and Sherborn are the logical ones),
  • generally see no interest in current EMT’s becoming paramedics,
  • see the cost of using a private ALS provider as similar to the cost to expand the MFD (they have been quoted $600,000 per year, plus $250 per run by private providers), and
  • therefore that the best solution is for the town to hire eight new full time firefighter/paramedics at a cost of about $650,000 per year, plus start up costs.

Whether to hire the paramedics will be a decision for residents to make at at the annual town meeting (ATM).

Below are the Chief’s cost projections:

* lIJ) RAIF'f * ALS Paramedic Budget Proposal (Estimated) Based on hiring 8 Firefighter Paramedics (Step 4) 2184 hrs (42per wk x 52) x $25.62 = $55,954 per $55,954 x 8 = $447,632 Additional annual personnel costs: Medic Stipend - $6000 x 8 = $48,000 Vacation - 96hrs x 8 x $38.50 = $29,568 Sick Time- 72hrs x 8 x $38.50 = $22,176 Holidays -11x8 x 10.5 x $26.62 = $23,673 Personal Time-31.5hrs x 8 x $38.50 = $9702 Clothing - $600 x 8 = $4800 Cleaning - $3 00 x 8 = $2400 Town share health care - $50,000 Town share Medicare - $6500 Annual Estimated costs - $644,451 One time startup costs: Protective Clothing- 8 x $3200 = $25,600 Uniforms: - 8 x $600 - $4800 Medical Equip - $60,000 Estimated startup costs - $90,400 Year one estimate - $734,851 Annual Medical Control Fee $10,000 - Revolving Acct (pay $5000 now)

I suggest that these figures do not reflect the true cost to the town of the additional employees, as these estimates do not include the present value of the future retirement benefits the town will ultimately have to pay.  Those retirement benefits (i.e. pension and health care) are called Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB).  To truly tell us the cost, the estimates should include the present value of the actuarial costs we incur each year to pay future retirement benefits to such employees.

The town was only recently required to figure out the value of its OPEB liability. Currently the unfunded actuarial cost for the town’s OPEB is over $40m. OPEB costs currently cost the town about $1.5m. per year, and the town only just recently (a couple of years ago) started to budget $400,000 a year to pay into a trust fund to partially cover the future OPEB as they come due.  Therefore the town is still adding over $1m. a year to its OPEB liability, which is basically pushing off current town costs to be paid by future residents.

OPEB benefits to retired former town employees were until relatively recently not funded at all while those retirees were working, and even now the town is not fully funding its future OPEB liability.  As we add new town employees, we may want to include the OPEB liabilities in our cost estimates.

Abby Marble and Tim Nugent join WC

Town Moderator, Scott McDermott, today announced that he has appointed both Abby Marble and Tim Nugent to the Warrant Committee – see below.

20161003-smcd-medmod-warrant-committee-appointments-2016-2017_page_1October 3, 2016 Carol Mayer, Town Clerk Town of Medfield Medfield MA 02052 Re: FY 2017 Appointments to the Warrant Committee Dear Ms. Mayer: I am very pleased to confirm the FY 2017 appointments to the Warrant Committee of the Town of Medfield. I am honored to appoint Abby Marble of 16 Pheasant Road and Tim Nugent of 14 Longmeadow Road to the Warrant Committee for terms which shall expire in 2019. Abby and Tim will succeed Gregory Sullivan and Michael T. Marcucci who served with great distinction as members during their respective terms in office. I am also pleased to affirm the re-appointment of Martha Festa of 16 Quail Run for a new term which shall expire in 2019. Finally, I am pleased to report that the following six members of the Committee are continuing in the service of the Town of Medfield: Sharon Kingsley Tatro of 12 West Street [term expires 2017] Robert M. Skloff of 11 Wheelwright Road [term expires 2017] Barbara Gips of 25 Boyden Road [term expires 2017] John E. (Jack) Wolfe of 17 Harding Street [term expires 2018] Nikolaos Athanasiadis of 30 Quarry Road [term expires 2018] Thomas C. Marie of 72 Pine Street [term expires 2018] I will request that each new and re-appointed member contact you to arrange to take the oath of office at your earliest mutual convenience. As always, thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Scott F. McDermott Scott F. McDermott cc: Town Administrator Board of Selectman Warrant Committee TOWN OF MEDFIELD Scott F. McDermott Town Moderator FY 2017 Warrant Committee Barbara Gips of 25 Boyden Road [term expires 2017] Sharon Kingsley Tatro of 12 West Street [term expires 2017] Robert M. Skloff of 11 Wheelwright Road [term expires 2017] John E. (Jack) Wolfe of 17 Harding Street [term expires 2018] Nikolaos Athanasiadis of 30 Quarry Road [term expires 2018] Thomas C. Marie of 72 Pine Street [term expires 2018] Abby Marble of 16 Pheasant Road [term expires 2019] Tim Nugent of 14 Longmeadow Road [term expires 2019] Martha Festa of 16 Quail Run [term expires 2019] Martha Festa shall serve as Chairwoman of the committee. TOWN OF MEDFIELD Scott F. McDermott Town Moderator APPOINTMENTS TO THE MEDFIELD WARRANT COMMITTEE 2003-2016 In accordance with the Medfield Town Charter, the Moderator has the duty and privilege of appointing the members to the Warrant Committee. The Warrant Committee plays an exceptionally important role in the legislative, administrative, and financial activities of the Town of Medfield. The committee reviews, evaluates, and makes recommendations to the town meeting regarding all warrant articles including the annual town operating and capital budgets. The Warrant Committee further fulfills all the duties and responsibilities of a finance committee as stipulated in the Massachusetts General Laws. Medfield’s Warrant Committee has a proud and dedicated heritage of service to Medfield based upon collaborative deliberation, open dialogue, study and attention, and experience and insights. The following is a list of Warrant Committee members I have proudly appointed or re-appointed in my fourteen (14) terms as Medfield’s Moderator. I thank all of them for their special service and commitment. Nikolaos Athanasiadis Joanne Bragg Stephen S. Curran Edward P. Doherty Martha Festa David Fischer Mark Fisher Barbara Gips Richard E. Gordet Diane Hallisey Joanna Hilvert William Johnson Abby Marble Michael T. Marcucci Thomas C. Marie Robert Morrill Debbie Mozer Gustave H. Murby Tim Nugent Stephen Pelosi Randy Rogers Victoria Schepps Thomas J. Schlesinger James O’Shaughnessy James Shannon Robert M. Skloff Caroline Standley Catherine Steever Gregory Sullivan Sharon KinglseyTatro Maryalice Whalen Mary Wilson John (Jack) Wolfe TOWN OF MEDFIELD Scott F. McDermott Town Moderator Respectfully submitted: Scott F. McDermottAPPOINTMENTS TO THE MEDFIELD WARRANT COMMITTEE 2003-2016 In accordance with the Medfield Town Charter, the Moderator has the duty and privilege of appointing the members to the Warrant Committee. The Warrant Committee plays an exceptionally important role in the legislative, administrative, and financial activities of the Town of Medfield. The committee reviews, evaluates, and makes recommendations to the town meeting regarding all warrant articles including the annual town operating and capital budgets. The Warrant Committee further fulfills all the duties and responsibilities of a finance committee as stipulated in the Massachusetts General Laws. Medfield’s Warrant Committee has a proud and dedicated heritage of service to Medfield based upon collaborative deliberation, open dialogue, study and attention, and experience and insights. The following is a list of Warrant Committee members I have proudly appointed or re-appointed in my fourteen (14) terms as Medfield’s Moderator. I thank all of them for their special service and commitment. Nikolaos Athanasiadis Joanne Bragg Stephen S. Curran Edward P. Doherty Martha Festa David Fischer Mark Fisher Barbara Gips Richard E. Gordet Diane Hallisey Joanna Hilvert William Johnson Abby Marble Michael T. Marcucci Thomas C. Marie Robert Morrill Debbie Mozer Gustave H. Murby Tim Nugent Stephen Pelosi Randy Rogers Victoria Schepps Thomas J. Schlesinger James O’Shaughnessy James Shannon Robert M. Skloff Caroline Standley Catherine Steever Gregory Sullivan Sharon KinglseyTatro Maryalice Whalen Mary Wilson John (Jack) Wolfe TOWN OF MEDFIELD Scott F. McDermott Town Moderator Respectfully submitted: Scott F. McDermott