{"resource":"money_gaps","about":"The `money_gaps` table, published whole. See /api/schema for its grain.","count":39,"caveats":[],"provenance":{"documents":[],"count":0},"rows":[{"side":"money_in","what":"Bus fees","why":"charged by published policy \u00b7 no destination found in any ledger"},{"side":"money_in","what":"Trust fund income","why":"scholarships, cemetery, stabilisation \u00b7 extract is check-failed"},{"side":"money_in","what":"Student activity accounts","why":"held by the school under its own authority \u00b7 not in the town\u2019s books at all"},{"side":"money_in","what":"Grants received in earlier years","why":"spent now, booked then \u00b7 nine funds, no FY26 revenue"},{"side":"money_out","what":"School share of the pension","why":"inside WRRS \u00b7 town and school staff together, no published split"},{"side":"money_out","what":"Debt service by project","why":"two accounts for ALL town borrowing \u00b7 school buildings cannot be separated"},{"side":"money_out","what":"What the capital transfers bought","why":"two transfer lines \u00b7 no project detail"},{"side":"money_out","what":"What any special revenue fund bought","why":"no expense report exists for these funds \u00b7 purpose is presumed, never observed"},{"side":"document_wanted","what":"`glytdbud-expense` for the special revenue funds","why":"The identical report the town already runs for the general fund and for each of the four enterprise funds, pointed at funds 13xx/22xx/26xx\u201329xx instead. \u2014 closes: Turns **every restricted edge** above from presumption into traced fact \u2014 athletics, lunch, circuit breaker, extended day, and every grant."},{"side":"document_wanted","what":"WRRS annual actuarial valuation, by member unit","why":"Published by the retirement system. \u2014 closes: Sizes the school share of the $2.39M pension assessment."},{"side":"document_wanted","what":"The Town Manager\u2019s revenue apportionment worksheet","why":"Seen once; we do not hold it. \u2014 closes: Documents the convention by which general-fund revenue is presented as split across departments. It cannot make the edge traceable \u2014 nothing can \u2014 but it makes the convention citable."},{"side":"document_wanted","what":"DESE End of Year Financial Report","why":"Published by the state. \u2014 closes: Separates district spending by FUND, which is the one thing the town\u2019s budget documents never show."},{"side":"document_wanted","what":"Where bus fee receipts are booked","why":"A revenue account, a fund, or a statement that they are netted before booking. \u2014 closes: The fee schedule is published and verified; `STUDENTBUS` shows zero. **A charged fee with no observable destination** is the clearest single gap in this model."},{"side":"document_wanted","what":"The period 13 ledger","why":"The year-end close. \u2014 closes: Reconciles FY2026 properly; period 12 is used for now."},{"side":"people","what":"How many people the schools actually employ","why":"The town publishes per-school staff ROSTERS in every annual report, FY2011 to FY2025 \u2014 a list of names. A roster carries **no FTE**, so a 0.4 music teacher and a full-timer are one row each, and it is a point in time, undated within the year. A count of names the town printed is a real quantity and it is **not a staffing level**. \u2014 closes: a staffing report stating FTE by position and year."},{"side":"people","what":"Which fund pays which post","why":"This is the load-bearing one. The rosters name people and the budget names dollars, and **nothing published joins them to a funding source**. So a paraprofessional line rising cannot be distinguished from a grant that was paying for those posts ending \u2014 which is exactly what the special education escalator rests on. \u2014 closes: DESE's End of Year Financial Report, which separates spending by fund."},{"side":"people","what":"Whether a budgeted position was filled","why":"A budget line is money the town has to raise, not a person in a chair. A line funded all year for a post vacant half of it looks identical on the page to one that was filled. **Bounded, not settled**: the rosters show who was printed, which narrows the question without answering it. \u2014 closes: a filled-position list, or payroll by position rather than by name."},{"side":"money_out","what":"School share of the town\u2019s health insurance before FY2026","why":"The town\u2019s insurance department prints one undivided `Health Insurance CH 32B` line in fifteen of the sixteen annual reports \u00b7 a school share is named only in the FY2023 report and in the FY2026 ledger, so no year between them can be split. \u2014 closes: The town\u2019s Chapter 32B enrolment schedule, which counts insured employees and retirees by department and would split every year rather than the two that happened to be printed."},{"side":"money_out","what":"School share of Medicare, active health insurance and the insurance reserves","why":"Five of the seven FY2026 insurance accounts \u2014 active health insurance, Medicare, life insurance, insurance cost control and Public Employee Committee expenses \u2014 carry nothing in their names that says which side of the town they are for, so the school portion of them is not separable in any year. \u2014 closes: The town\u2019s Chapter 32B enrolment schedule, which counts insured employees and retirees by department."},{"side":"document_wanted","what":"The town\u2019s Chapter 32B enrolment schedule","why":"Not published anywhere in this archive; the town must hold one to administer the plan and set premium shares. \u2014 closes: Splits every insurance account between the town and the schools, in every year, instead of in the two years the split happens to be printed."},{"side":"money_out","what":"What the four `ADJ EXP` journal entries moved, and from where","why":"$254,121.18 \u2014 65% of everything that reached the athletics revolving fund in FY2025 \u2014 arrived on four general-journal entries whose entire description is an expense adjustment made per a memo. An entry raising cash in a fund and labelled as an expense adjustment fits at least three readings: expenses charged here and later moved elsewhere, a transfer in from another fund, or a correction of charges posted to the wrong account. Those are different facts about the world and identical facts on the page, and the same shape of entry could be adjusting any fund in the town without either budget document showing a trace. \u2014 closes: the five memos the ledger names, dated 08/12/24, 01/30/25, 05/02/25, 07/02/25 and 08/20/2025."},{"side":"money_out","what":"Whether a general fund athletics line is net of the revolving fund","why":"In FY2024 the town\u2019s comparable athletics lines came to $124,301 against $351,643 the district\u2019s own sport-by-sport workbook totals for the same categories \u2014 so the appropriation covered 35% of the cost. That is measurable for FY2024 and FY2025 only, because those are the only years anybody published both halves. For every other year, and every other programme, a line that rose because the cost rose looks exactly like a line that rose because a fund stopped paying part of it. \u2014 closes: the MUNIS `Account_Detail` export for the general fund athletics orgs S3066672 and S3066671, all object codes."},{"side":"people","what":"How many children play sports","why":"Two town documents give 593 and 649 for the same year and count different things: one counts fee categories, the other counts participations by sport, and a participation is not a child \u2014 one student playing three seasons is three of them. Some workbook rows are negative, subtracting out-of-district athletes back out, so a season total is a net figure rather than a headcount of bodies. Nothing published is an unduplicated count. \u2014 closes: an unduplicated athlete roster, or a participation report that states whether it counts students or participations."},{"side":"held","what":"What the $87,293.86 is that the FY2023 annual report states twice and differently","why":"Two tables printed in the same FY2023 annual town report state the money held in special revenue and enterprise funds, and they disagree. The combined balance sheet on printed page 24 gives TOTAL FUND EQUITY of $6,131,303.68 for SPECIAL REVENUE and $3,812,502.24 for ENTERPRISE, $9,943,805.92 together. The special revenue schedule in the same report prints a GRAND TOTAL carried forward of $10,031,099.78. The difference is $87,293.86, where FY2011, FY2013, FY2019 and FY2022 agree to the cent. It is not a misreading: the FY2023 page was transcribed and every column foots to its own printed TOTAL ASSETS, TOTAL LIABILITIES and TOTAL FUND EQUITY, the accounting identity holds in all six columns, and the long-term debt mirror agrees. So FY2023 is transcribed and deliberately NOT written into the dataset, which is why the combined balance sheet here stops at FY2022 while the special revenue schedule runs to FY2023. One explanation has been tested and RULED OUT: the fund 'Sale of Cemetery Lots' carried $87,308.09 in FY2023, within $14.23 of the gap, which suggested a fund counted in one statement and classified elsewhere in the other. It is not that \u2014 the same fund appears in the schedule in all thirteen years including the four where the two documents agree to the cent, so it is counted consistently and the near-match is a coincidence. What the difference IS remains unestablished; nothing here says which document is right, nor whether it is connected to the $17,861.24 of grant funds the town restated between the FY2022 and FY2023 reports. Those are two different amounts and nothing joins them. \u2014 closes: the Town's FY2023 trial balance or general ledger fund balances as of 30 June 2023, which would say which of its own two published tables the accounting system agrees with."},{"side":"document_wanted","what":"The Cherry Sheet itself \u2014 what the state told Lunenburg to expect, receipt by receipt","why":"This archive holds no Cherry Sheet for any year. The Cherry Sheet is the state\u2019s own statement of estimated aid and assessments to a Massachusetts town, and it is what a tax rate is set on. Without it the only measurement of aid estimate error this project can make is one net line on the Division of Local Services free cash proof \u2014 `Excess/Shortfall Cherry Sheet Receipts (CL#8)` \u2014 which lumps Chapter 70, Unrestricted General Government Aid, the abatement reimbursements and every other receipt into a single figure. So a year that came in $390,814 short can be reported as short and cannot be reported as short in anything. \u2014 closes: DLS Cherry Sheet CS 1-ER (estimated receipts) and CS 1-EB (estimated charges) for Lunenburg, FY2021 to FY2027."},{"side":"money_in","what":"Whether a shortfall in state aid falls on the schools or on the rest of the town","why":"Chapter 70 is 35% of the school appropriation and the town has no vote on it, so which side of the budget absorbs a miss is the question a resident actually has. Nothing published answers it. The free cash proof states one net cherry sheet figure for the whole town; the general ledger\u2019s state aid accounts share no organisation code with any expense account, 0 of 222, so no aid dollar can be followed to anything it paid for; and the appropriation is voted before the final aid number is known. A year where aid rose and the appropriation rose with it and a year where aid was flat and the town covered the difference are different facts about the world and identical facts on the page. \u2014 closes: the Town\u2019s FY-end recap (Form A-1) beside the Cherry Sheet for the same year, which states estimated and actual receipts on one page."},{"side":"people","what":"How many children Chapter 70 is actually paid for","why":"The aid is calculated on a `Foundation enrollment` of 1,599 in DESE\u2019s FY27 Chapter 70 summary. DESE publishes three other counts for the same district \u2014 Student Headcount, In-District FTE Pupils and Total FTE Pupils \u2014 and in the latest year published they are 1,563, 1,568.9 and 1,665.9. Four numbers, one agency, none of them equal, measured on different dates and counting different things. So every per-pupil figure on this project, including aid per pupil, is a division by a count whose definition has to be stated with it, and no published document reconciles the foundation count to the children in the buildings. \u2014 closes: DESE\u2019s FY27 foundation enrollment worksheet for Lunenburg, which states the October 1 count by grade and category the formula was run on."},{"side":"money_in","what":"Why DLS certifies a different amount from the free cash its own proof identifies","why":"The Division of Local Services\u2019 free cash proof cross-foots exactly: in all 45 town-years of the nine-town set the eleven component lines sum, to the cent, to the workbook\u2019s own `Identified Free Cash July 1,`. But that is **not the figure DLS certifies**. `Current Year Calculation` \u2014 the number the Town quotes, the number the Finance Director announced, and the number that carries into the next year \u2014 differs from it in all 45, by $361,912 for Lunenburg in 2025 and by 69% for Uxbridge in 2024. The workbook prints no reconciling line, and nothing in this archive states what the adjustment is. \u2014 closes: DLS\u2019s free cash certification letter to the Town, which states the adjustments made between the balance sheet the Town submitted and the amount certified."},{"side":"money_in","what":"Which departments\u2019 unspent appropriations produced the free cash","why":"Money appropriated and not spent is the largest single component of Lunenburg\u2019s free cash \u2014 47% of five years of it, and 66% of the record 2025 certification. It is published as **one town-wide figure** across 67 departments. Prudence, a post left vacant, a project that slipped into the next year and a line that was over-budgeted from the start are four different facts about the world and one number on the page. \u2014 closes: the period 13 general ledger, showing budget, expended and turnback for each department at the year-end close."},{"side":"money_in","what":"How much of free cash is the schools\u2019","why":"Free cash is certified for the town as a whole. Neither the DLS proof nor the Town\u2019s own undesignated fund balance roll-forward attributes any component to any department, so **nothing published says how much of it the school department\u2019s unspent appropriation produced** \u2014 nor how much of any appropriation of it reaches the schools. The projection on this site is built from budget columns and free cash is derived from actuals; they are subtracted once, side by side, and never joined. \u2014 closes: a departmental turnback schedule for the year-end close, which would split the unexpended appropriations line by department."},{"side":"money_in","what":"Whether Lunenburg\u2019s free cash is unusual for a town its size","why":"The DLS proof carries **no denominator** \u2014 no population, budget, revenue or levy for any of the nine towns, Lunenburg included. So Littleton\u2019s $11.3M against Shirley\u2019s $272K says nothing about which is closer to its own target, and free cash as a share of the operating budget cannot be computed for a peer at all. Composition and volatility are ratios and do compare; the level does not, and is not shown. \u2014 closes: the Tax Rate Recapitulation (Schedule A) for each town, which prints the operating budget the ratio needs."},{"side":"money_in","what":"Why the Town\u2019s undesignated fund balance and DLS\u2019s free cash differ","why":"Two publishers describe the same 30 June balance sheet and print three different figures. The Town\u2019s annual report roll-forward gives an undesignated fund balance of $4,236,488.24 at 30 June 2025; DLS identifies $3,716,282 of free cash on the same date and certifies $3,354,370. **Each worksheet cross-foots exactly to its own printed total**, and the FY2024 report\u2019s closing balance is the FY2025 report\u2019s opening one to the cent \u2014 so neither is in error, and no document in this archive prints a line between any pair of the three. \u2014 closes: the Town\u2019s free cash submission to DLS (the balance sheet and the reconciliation of receivables and deferred revenue that accompanies it)."},{"side":"held","what":"What the $102,000.00 is that the FY2024 enterprise balance sheet classifies two ways at once","why":"The Combining Balance Sheet - Enterprise Funds in the FY2024 annual town report \u2014 printed twice, on printed pages 21 and 28, identically \u2014 prints 'Reserved for expenditures' as 400,000.00 in the Sewer column and 502,000.00 in the Totals (Memorandum Only) column, and prints 'Unreserved retained earnings' as 2,973,842.15 in the memorandum column where the four fund columns (1,813,817.53 Sewer, 51,333.93 Water, 181,853.82 Solid Waste, 1,028,836.87 PEG Access) add to 3,075,842.15. The memorandum column is $102,000.00 high on the first line and $102,000.00 low on the second, so the two cancel and Total Fund Equity (3,483,633.65), Total Assets, the identity and the sheet's own printed PROOF row all still tie in every column \u2014 compensating errors, invisible to any check that reads only totals. WHAT IS NOT ESTABLISHED: which presentation is right, or what the $102,000.00 is. A reservation sitting in a fund column that prints blank, a memorandum column keyed to a different worksheet row, and a reclassification made only in the total column all fit the same signature, and nothing on the page distinguishes them. These are ratepayer funds; nothing here is general-fund money. \u2014 closes: the Town Accountant's FY2024 trial balance for the enterprise funds, which would state the reserved and unreserved balance of each fund separately."},{"side":"held","what":"What the town held town-wide at 30 June 2024 and 30 June 2025","why":"The FY2024 and FY2025 annual town reports print NO combined balance sheet across all fund types and account groups \u2014 the schedule the reports carried every year from FY2011 to FY2023. In both editions the table of contents lists 'Balance Sheet for FY Ending June 30, 2024' at Page 21 and 'Balance Sheet for FY Ending June 30, 2025' at Page 21 respectively, and printed page 21 of each holds the Combining Balance Sheet - Enterprise Funds instead; FY2024 prints that enterprise sheet a second time on page 28, which is where its contents page says it should be. So for two consecutive years the only balance sheet the town published covers four ratepayer enterprise funds and says nothing about the general fund, special revenue, capital projects, trust and agency, or long-term debt. The consequence is that the general fund's cash, receivables, reserves and undesignated fund balance \u2014 the figures free cash is built out of \u2014 cannot be read for either year, and the balance_sheet dataset stops at FY2023 for that reason rather than by choice. WHAT IS NOT ESTABLISHED: whether the town-wide sheet was produced and dropped in layout or never produced; nothing in either report says. \u2014 closes: the Town Accountant's year-end balance sheet submitted to the Division of Local Services for FY2024 and FY2025, or the town's audited financial statements for those years."},{"side":"held","what":"What the PEG Access enterprise fund actually held at 30 June 2025","why":"Three figures for the same fund on the same date appear in the same FY2025 annual town report and no document in this archive prints a line between any two of them. The PAC report's FY25 REVENUE vs EXPENSES table (printed page 60, pdf 64) gives an Ending Balance of $30,632, computed on its own face as Beginning Balance $208,772 less Expenses $178,140 -- and the prose beside it says the $208,772 was \"the budget starting balance\", so the ending balance is unspent spending authority rather than money. The Treasurer's Cash schedule in the same report prints `Bartholomew- PEG Access Enterprise Fund 782,591.31$`. The Combining Balance Sheet - Enterprise Funds (printed page 21, pdf 25) prints PEG Access Total Fund Equity of $1,072,661.74, against $1,028,836.87 the year before -- a rise of $43,824.87, where the statement's own revenue less expenses is $262,565 - $178,140 = $84,425. The two do not reconcile and nothing on either page relates them. WHAT IS NOT ESTABLISHED: which quantity any of the three is; a budget balance, a bank balance and a fund equity are three different things and the report labels none of them as such. -- closes: the Town Accountant's FY2025 year-end statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance for the PEG Access and Cable Related Enterprise Fund, which the annual report does not contain."},{"side":"money_out","what":"What the PEG Access fund spent in FY2020 and in FY2024","why":"In both years the annual town report prints two totals for the same year's PEG expenses and they differ. FY2020, both tables on printed page 75: `FY20 Line Item Expenses by Percentage` foots to Total $116,933.22 and `FY20 REVENUE vs EXPENSES` prints Expenses $116,933.54 -- 32 cents apart. FY2024: the statement on printed page 63 prints Expenses $174,150 and the line-item table on printed page 64 foots to Total $174,151.16, and since that statement is printed in whole dollars throughout, rounding 174,151.16 gives 174,151 rather than 174,150. Each table foots to its own printed total exactly, so neither is internally wrong; they disagree with each other. FY2017 is a third case of the same shape: its ten printed expense lines add to $74,665.74 against a printed TOTAL of $74,215.73, a difference of $450.01, of which $450.00 is the `Vendor Expenses` line that the facing pie chart also omits. WHAT IS NOT ESTABLISHED: which figure is the year's expenditure in any of the three years. -- closes: the MUNIS year-to-date expense report (glytdbud) for the PEG Access and Cable Related Enterprise Fund for FY2017, FY2020 and FY2024, the same report the town already runs for the general fund."},{"side":"money_in","what":"Where the PEG Access balance went between FY2019 and FY2021","why":"The fund's carried balance is continuous in the report from FY2015 to FY2019 -- each edition's Starting Balance is the previous edition's Ending Balance to the cent -- and then stops being a series. FY2019 prints a Total of $573,837.37 (starting balance, plus revenue, less expenses, plus the Comcast Tech Fund of $124,796.01); FY2020 opens at $447,813.36, $126,024.01 lower; FY2021 opens at $272,000.00, which the same page's prose states is the budget rather than a balance. One document explains part of it: Article 16 of the FY2019 Annual Town Meeting established a PEG Access Enterprise Fund under MGL c.44 s53F1/2 and transferred into it the balances of the PEG Access and Cable Related Receipts Reserved For Appropriation Fund and the Comcast Tech Capital Grant Fund as of 30 June 2019. So the fund changed legal form at exactly this point, which is why the statement changes shape. WHAT IS NOT ESTABLISHED: the amounts transferred, and therefore whether the $126,024.01 step is the transfer, a closing entry, a restatement, or something else. There is also a smaller unexplained step earlier, FY2017's Ending Balance $303,909.77 against FY2018's Starting Balance $303,551.54, $358.23 apart, with no fund change to account for it. -- closes: the Town Accountant's opening and closing trial balances for the PEG Access and Cable Related funds for FY2018, FY2019 and FY2020, showing the transfers in and out."},{"side":"money_in","what":"What quantity the Town\u2019s own published state-aid growth rates of 5.3% and 1.4% measure","why":"The FY2027 Town Meeting booklet states that \"From FY13-FY23 state aid increased at an annual rate of 5.3%, but in the last four years, it has slowed to approximately 1.4%\" (3765-town-meeting-booklet-including-warrant, line 338), and does not say which figure it grew. Rebuilding the Town\u2019s own `Subtotal State Aid` line from its own revenue/expenditure worksheets \u2014 23 consecutive budget years, FY2005 to FY2027, notes/findings/state-aid-budget-series.csv \u2014 gives 4.5660% for FY2013\u2192FY2023 and 1.9144% for FY2023\u2192FY2027. Neither published rate is reproducible from the Town\u2019s own published series, so a rate quoted to Town Meeting cannot be checked against anything. \u2014 closes: the Cherry Sheets themselves (DLS form CS 1-ER for Lunenburg, one per year), or the Town Manager\u2019s working file behind the FY2027 booklet\u2019s revenue narrative."},{"side":"money_in","what":"How much of the FY2027 enacted state-aid increase is receipts and how much is offsetting assessments","why":"model/finance.py grows a FY2027 base of $11,404,917 + $471,121. The first is the Governor\u2019s GROSS cherry sheet Total Receipts, printed by the FY2027 Town Meeting booklet. The second is recorded in fy27-and-the-override.md as NET \u2014 \"+$471,121 net (Ch.70, charter/choice receiving tuition, Smart Growth, UGGA, vets/elderly exemptions; offset by higher charter assessments)\". A gross figure and a net figure are being added, so the gross FY2027 receipt estimate the projection actually grows is not established, and neither is how much of the increase the Town keeps. This archive holds no Cherry Sheet for any year, which is the only document that prints receipts and assessments side by side. \u2014 closes: the FY2027 Cherry Sheet for Lunenburg on the enacted budget (DLS form CS 1-ER), which states each receipt and each assessment separately."}],"columns":["side","what","why"],"source":"https://lunenburgbudgetproject.org/docs/data/money-gaps.csv"}