Monthly Archives: July 2011

Oleana Foundation – College Propsed for Medfield State Hospital Site

I met this afternoon with Vincent Rocchio and Eric Terzuolo of the Oleana Foundation, who are looking to site a new liberal arts college and 100 units of elderly housing at the Medfield State Hospital site.

Their idea =
1.    Liberal arts college for 1,000 students at the Medfield State Hospital site
a.    $10,000 per year tuition, room and board
b.    Professors live at site and contribute to running the place
c.    Few administrators
2.    100 units of housing for the elderly at the site

Looking for collaboration with the Town of Medfield
1.    Use and contribute to the Medfield High School library
2.    Have Medfield Police Department provide security at their college
3.    Share bulk purchasing with the Town of Medfield and its schools

The three selling points of their concept =
4.    Innovative
5.    Access
6.    Green

Financial
7.    They feel there is grant money available for the uses they propose, particularly in the manner in which they propose it
a.    e.g. – green renovation of college buildings

TOWN of MEDFIELD to BEGIN OFFERING MONTHLY ELECTRONICS RECYCLING EVENT

The Town of Medfield and Electronix Redux Corp. of Norfolk, MA will now be offering television and electronic recycling to current Medfield Transfer Station sticker holders.  The town will be discontinuing its bi-annual CRT Collection Day in favor of these monthly events. The collection of electronics will be held on the first Saturday of each month between the hours of 9AM and 2PM at the Medfield Transfer Station beginning August 6th.  Televisions and computer monitors can be recycled for a fee of between $5 and $25, depending on size and type.  All other electronics including: computers, printers, copiers, scanners, cell phones, gaming systems, ink and toner cartridges will be accepted free of charge. For non-residents and residents without a Transfer Station sticker, drop-offs are accepted during normal business hours at Electronix Redux’s recycling facility or by calling them directly to schedule a pick-up. For more information, visit www.electronixredux.com, or call 508-384-1112.

Residents’ Suggestions for Uses of the Medfield State Hospital Site

Ideas for reuse of State Hospital site submitted on Medfield.Patch:
1.    State Park
2.    Conservation and nature center
3.    Anything but the H-Street Projects
4.    Nature Center
5.    Housing and Community Treatment & Support for those disabled by mental illness
6.    Bulldoze it and put in government subsidized housing
7.    Develop as a hugely haunted destinations
8.    A park
9.    Music school
10.    Concert venue
11.    Conservation land for the Trustees of Reservations
12.    Huge Park and conservation area with place for kids to play, bike/hike trails, etc.
13.    Cultural Arts Center: Artists studios and galleries, outdoor sculpture park, theatre space, dance studios and performance space, all mixed with some lovely shops, restaurants and nature trails.
14.    A family fun place, like Kimball Farms, with pitch & putt, mini-golf, driving range, ice cream, function areas, etc.
15.    Movie set for horror films
16.    Would make a great college or corporate campus –  bring some jobs and tax revenue into the town without overly stressing town services (two other people on Facebook liked this idea)
17.    Short answer is a little of everything: Housing, seniors, recreation and a lot of open space.
18.    Medfield College (two other people on Facebook liked this idea)
19.    Medfield College. Kids can go right from MHS to MC and never leave.
20.    Country Club –  a very nice one with golf, swimming and tennis.
21.    A working farm
22.    Small agricultural college
23.    Small agricultural college affiliated with the UMass System. Similar to UMass Medical in Worcester but the Agi in Medfield. The town would get state revenues to make it happen ad it would mean more jobs for the town.
24.    Umass-Medfield
25.    Medfield State College (just like Disney)
26.    It’s too bad they couldn’t use it for a small college campus or something of that nature. Although I think many people in town would prefer it was a convent or something where the residents are quiet and don’t demand services or create traffic ;
27.    Nancy Coakley, 10:57am on Friday, July 8, 2011 – I would like to see considered a mini mall, similar to Cobbs corner or a smaller version of Legacy Place. Business, Retail, some apartments and condos. It would bring tax revenue and jobs at the same time be less on sewer and water usage. The design could be an Old New England Town style. Traffic might be a small issue but the jobs it would create (including summer jobs for students) and tax revenue to the town seems like a good option.
28.    Colleen M. Sullivan, 11:24am on Saturday, July 9, 2011 – I would love to see that area restored and used for either a college campus or some sort of golf/recreation area….The history of those buildings is unique and they should not be bulldozed to be replaced with housing!
29.    Wayland Commons idea – affordable housing, 55+ housing, small business condos, restaurants, neighborhood shopping. Also like the idea of going to our roots: providing housing for the mentally ill, with agricultural facilities available so that they can work on the land. Also like idea of seeing if a portion of the land could be restricted for conservation/recreation with Trustees of Reservation oversight – Also provide for a youth/community center. – Posted 12:39pm on Friday, July 8, 2011 by Rachel Brown
30.    Open space. There is no tax revenue generating use that would not burden the town with demand for additional services. – Posted 7:44am on Saturday, July 9, 2011 by Steve Buckley
31.    I think that a private elementary school or college would be a great use of the grounds. I was up there in April. The buildings, while in a horrendous state of disrepair, are for the most part, architecturally stunning. The property itself is incredible.  The space would be great for a sporting facility as well. The town could use an indoor facility for swimming, baseball, basketball, track, and hockey. And the golf course idea had some merits as well.  I would rather face the potential runoff of fertilizer than the 2,000 plus residents that would occupy the current plan. We can always use “green” fertilizer. 😀  Definitively, not a facility that will increase the burden on our town services. And if it ends DCAM forces through the current development idea, then the state should be mandated to pony up for police/fire and school problems that arise from the inundation of people on our town. – Posted 7:55am on Wednesday, June 8, 2011 by Errin Chapin

Ideas for reuse of State Hospital site submitted directly to Osler L. Peterson

John Harney
Dear Pete,
Happened on your blog while searching about for any sound data on Oleana
Foundation.  You ask therein for readers’ positions re. the hospital
redevelopment.  You probably believe that you have a sense of mine but I  will,
nonetheless, suggest that priority should be given to The Commonwealth’s
obvious responsibility for a thorough clean-up of the entire former  hospital
site.  I would not accept a pass off of that responsibility  to a developer and
certainly not, in any part, to the Town.  We have  an obligation to see
that the environmental damages wrought and the threats  to health and safety
are fully assessed and professionally certified  remediation is effected.  I
include the buildings and infrastructure –  heating, water and waste lines –
to be among The Commonwealth’s obligatory  undertakings.

There is little doubt that the area, so abused over the century plus of
state ownership, would be best spared further heavy development.  Its very
location on the banks of a river and an aquifer, proximate to a residential
neighborhood and schools as well as a recreation area, argues for a  largely
“open space” resolution.  Failing that outcome, a  non-intensive development
with some tax benefit to the Town would be  reasonable.  The vague
suggestion of a college sounds attractive but gives  rise to many, many questions
over a range of concerns beginning with capital  assets of any proponent.  One
of the great concerns a number  of citizens have had over the past several
years if the failure of The  Town’s officials to propose a plan for the
property.  The state, with local  authorities cooperating, filled a vacuum with
unacceptable legislation  which now appears ripe for rescinding.

Your open approach to full and open discussion of Town issues is very much
appreciated – at least in some quarters,  Thank you.

Peace,
John
*********************************
Wally Hersee
Sturbridgecommon.com
Hersee@gmail.com
198.228.196.102
Submitted on 2011/07/07 at 6:16 pm

A portion of the land could be divided into agricultural packets to encourage farming. So many acres offered to those willing to work the land. Criteria could be set. A house, and “barn” to be built on the land. A particular type of farm would have to be established, such as dairy, orchard, vegetable, flower. Benefits are many. Folks would have to qualify, but land would eventually be at no cost if the person stayed on land that was productive for x amount of years. Taxes would be paid. This would be like a “development” from the 1960?s, but for farming.
***********************************
Jill Vollmuth
jvollmuth@gmail.com
71.174.126.242
Submitted on 2011/07/07 at 3:18 pm

I believe every attempt should be made to preserve the land and historic buildings at the State Hospital. It should NOT be a golf course, or a sports complex, both of which would consume enormous amounts of energy and water to run (and, in the case of a golf course, would no doubt add huge quantities of toxic fertilizers and herbicides to the soil.) It should NOT be a developed community, again putting a strain on our energy sources, school system, and town resources. Both of these ideas would completely change the landscape and greatly upset the natural environment and wildlife habitats. This land is one of the most beautiful, undeveloped open spaces in our area, and yet many people seem to want to “build” something on it in order to “improve” it. I don’t know enough about the buildings to make an informed recommendation about renovating them. I know it would be costly; but it seems that it would have a far greater environmental impact, not to mention the historical impact, to tear them all down and put up new buildings. I would love to see the hospital become an arts institute, or a small technical or agricultural/environmental studies college. It would seem that the elevation at the highest point of the property would be a perfect location for a few wind turbines, which would provide energy for the school, and the focus of work at the school could be conducted using sound, ecological practices. Where might we find someone to take on such a project? Large universities who it might interest as an extension school? Some environmental engineering schools or companies? I wouldn’t know where to start, but if this is a direction others wish to consider, I would be willing to participate in a search for prospective buyers. But, again, PLEASE!!!! NO HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, SPORTS COMPLEX, OR GOLF COURSE!! Thanks.
************************************
Karen Veit Scotti commented on your link.
Karen wrote: “What about a senior living community with step down options (independent apartments, assisted living, nursing home)? Affordable houseing units could also be located there to make the 10% we need as a town.”
************************************
Rosemary O’Brien Pete, the housing use is being revisited? Should agriculture (other than hay fields) be in the mix?
************************************
Hi Mr Osler,
I am just retrurning from vacation and got an email from Bill Masarro re your meeting tomorrow with the state.
He suggested we could email you with our thoughts re reuse of MSH.
One possibility mentioned was the town buying the land for its use. I think it would be prudent and essential that before that would be given any serious consideration that the full scope of any hazardous waste/toxins and the clean up and cost for doing so be completed so our town would not be left with that burden which could be a horrendous cost. Also any need for ongoing monitoring costs be identified.

The Oleana foundation sounds interesting but I only see a VERY basic web page that looks like this project is early in development/concept. Having just finished putting two children thru college I LOVE their mission statement!
Not much else avail to look at on the internet when plug in this org. It is not clear what their funding is or their present ability to operationalize their ideas. The idea of a place of higher learning is appealing but would also want to know what costs it would bring to the town. IE how much would services be-cost of water; sewer etc. Also assume this would be a tax free org; but the senior retirement village that is part of their proposal to help offset the burden to the town is interesting. Maybe when you meet you will learn that things are further along than their web site looks.

I think the housing idea proposed in past gives a very large number of units and would be concerned about the towns ability to support it.

I am not sure what else is being proposed. It is too bad a way to keep the majority of the land and its beautiful trees intact can’t be found.

I think the town needs to be open to any ideas that are brought up but wary of the potential costs to town. I feel we need to be very critical of cost projections both in terms of benefits to the town and impacts on the town.

Above all I want the clean up of the site to be thorough; complete and well done!! I don’t want to have to worry about the water I drink or the air I breathe.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. Am looking forward to learning about what is brought up.

Sincerely
Donna Quinn
************************************

Bill Massaro
Pete,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment in advance of your meeting with the Secretary on Monday.

As you know my main concern with the existing plan was the size of the development and the accuracy of the DCAM- provided cost/benefit analyses which made this shotgun wedding look like a made-in-heaven union. As I started challenging almost 3 years ago: underestimated costs–overestimated benefits.

I recognize the element of “it’s inevitable, so let’s enjoy it ” inherent in the acceptance of the Legislation, but I have never been one to accept anything as inevitable.  (I expect death is going to come as shock to me!)  At the very least I felt the Town ought to find some way to get the real costs in order to be fairly compensated for the unholy union.

I had previously raised issues  about  marketability of 200 senior housing units and the risk of all 440 units reverting to non-age-restricted and the subsequent increase in an already underestimated student impact.  I raised environmental issues.  I pointed out the high number of DMH units imposed on Medfield and the uncertainty of how their clients would be supported. I raised  the issue of free water forever.  I challenged DCAM’s wisdom in risking damage to the water tower by installation of antennas.  All of these were part of my concerns to identify and hopefully minimize  cost to the town and harm to residents.  The likelihood of a developer’s need to build more or different types of units to recover costs of unforeseen hazardous material remediation and building renovation was as significant a concern as changing real estate markets..

So, in broad terms, any acceptable  Alternative Use  proposal should :

1.) Be Town Cost/Revenue Neutral (at worst) and cover
-New sewers/utilities
-Highway improvements
– Sidewalks
-Water Tower
-Clarke Building demolition

2.) Indemnify the Town from existing known/unknown environmental hazards on site.
3.) Not risk new/greater exposure to environmental hazards
4.) Address the current condition of the buildings
5.) Not significantly alter the existing viewscape.
6.) Not significantly add to sound, light or other environmental pollution,
6.) Be Viable in its original design/form over the long term

Ideally, I would like to see the buildings re-surveyed to realistically determine their re-use potential, and demolition of everything that doesn’t make the cut. Buildings found structurally sound but sealed under the Administrative Consent Order  would be remediated by the State or demolished.   I would like the Town to then be able to purchase the property with indemnification from the State for environmental issues.  A significantly reduced number of buildings, more open space, lowered security costs….

Again, thank you for this opportunity.

Hope you have a great weekend and i wishh you ( and the Town) good luck on Monday,

Bill

More Thoughts on the Meeting Yesterday with the State’s Secretary of A&F and the DCAM Commissioner about the Medfield State Hospital

The representatives from the  state’s A&F and DCAM had no particular stated use or uses in mind for the Medfield State Hospital site when they met with the Town of Medfield representatives and suggested we all, together, take a fresh look at alternatives.

The only use specifically mentioned by them was a college, and that one only because Secretary Gonzalez seemed to suddenly recall having spoken to the Oleana person but had no real information about him and/or his concept.  Secretary Gonzalez asked if we had spoken with him too, and I shared my limited one contact, and my thoughts that his concept seemed to me to be pie in the sky due to the small sizes of both the proposed college and the adjoining housing component, both of which need efficiencies of scale in my experiences to succeed, after seeing Lasell College from its board of directors for twenty years and watching Lasell Village get built, operate, and grow.  Both Lasell College and Lasell Village purposely got larger to take advantage of those economies of scale that larger entities possess.  Oleana’s proposal strikes me that it has little real financial viability.  In any event, while colleges may look nice, they do not make the greatest of neighbors due to weekend parties that now start on Thursday evenings, and they pay no property taxes.

The state government officials offered up no ideas for specific potential uses.  Secretary Gonzalez suggested that the Town of Medfield should think of the possibilities as an “opportunity.”

I asked why they put the brakes on the housing proposal, and Carole Cornelison said she wanted to take a fresh look at all options.  I understood her to be saying that with a new commissioner comes a new look at what DCAM is and should be doing.

Link to the DCAM Agenda and Fact Sheet from the meeting yesterday –  http://ping.fm/t4mBc

I just linked the A&F/DCAM meeting handouts with the blog http://ping.fm/t4mBc

Alert from Massachusetts Municipal Association Today re Health Care and $65 m More for Towns

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

LEGISLATURE ENACTS MUNICIPAL HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM ACT BY OVERWHELMING VOTE, GOVERNOR TO SIGN INTO LAW TODAY

MAJOR VICTORY FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPS ACTION ON STATE BUDGET

July 12, 2011 — In a tightly coordinated orchestration of events, Governor Deval Patrick and the Legislature are completing final action on municipal health insurance reform.  Acting swiftly during formal sessions yesterday afternoon, the Legislature adopted four consensus amendments submitted by the Governor earlier in the day.  The House voted 149-2 to support the final version, and the Senate followed suit by a 37-0 margin.  The Governor will formally sign the Municipal Health Insurance Reform Act today in a ceremony in his office.

The final legislation is a strong reform act that removes ultimate health insurance plan design decision-making from collective bargaining, saves taxpayers money, preserves essential local services, protects municipal union jobs, guarantees equity with state employee health benefits, and provides municipal unions with more bargaining power than state unions.  It is a balanced and fair reform that would allow cities and towns to save $100 million in avoided health insurance costs, while providing a voice for municipal unions in the process.  Cities and towns will be able to use this reform to provide relief for local taxpayers, protect essential services, and preserve thousands of municipal jobs.

The MMA applauds the leadership of Speaker Robert DeLeo, Chairman Brian Dempsey, Vice Chairman Stephen Kulik, Governor Deval Patrick, Secretary for Administration and Finance Jay Gonzalez, President Therese Murray, Chairman Stephen Brewer, Vice Chairman Steven Baddour, budget conferees Rep. Vinny deMacedo and Sen. Michael Knapik, Public Service Committee Chairs Rep. John Scibak and Sen. Katherine Clark, and all of the members of the House of Representatives and Senate who have advocated for reform this session.

Of course, this victory would not have been possible without the unyielding leadership and advocacy provided by hundreds of municipal and community leaders, and over a dozen civic organizations over the past several years.  The Board of Directors and staff of the MMA extend their deep appreciation to all those who have fought for reform and made this victory possible.

MMA OVERVIEW OF THE FINAL MUNICIPAL HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM LAW

Overall, the municipal health insurance reform act is a strong reform law that is fair and balanced for all parties.  It provides real reform and savings for communities, while giving municipal unions a voice in the process.Â

• The process is streamlined and clear: In cities, City Councils vote once to accept the statute, and in towns, Boards of Selectmen also vote once to accept the new law.Â

• After local acceptance, the appropriate municipal authority (generally the executive) can make health insurance plan design changes or transfer communities into the GIC following a structured process.Â

• The executive develops the proposed plan design changes (no plan could have higher co-pays, deductibles, tiered network co-payments or other cost-sharing plan features that exceed the dollar amounts in the most subscribed plan in the GIC), or a proposal to transfer subscribers into the GIC, and estimates the first-year savings that would result.

• The executive then notifies the Insurance Advisory Board of the total estimated one-year savings resulting from the plan design changes or transfer to the GIC, and provides documentation to the IAC.

• After discussion with the IAC as to the estimated savings, the executive convenes a meeting of a new public employee committee (PEC) which is composed of a representative of every union (bargaining unit) and a retiree representative.  Each participant has an equal vote, except the retiree representative, who shall have a 10% vote.Â

• The executive provides notice to the PEC detailing the proposed changes, the analysis and estimate of its anticipated savings, and a proposal to mitigate, moderate or cap the impact of the changes on subscribers, including retirees, low-income subscribers and subscribers with high out-of-pocket costs who would otherwise be disproportionately impacted.

• The executive and the PEC would have 30 days from the date of notice to negotiate over the proposed plan design changes and the executive’s plan on how to share a portion of the first-year savings with employees, especially with retirees and those most impacted by the changes.  A majority vote of the PEC is required to reach an agreement. Â

• If there is a written agreement by the end of the 30-day period, the community would be able to to implement the plan as agreed.Â

• If there is no agreement after 30 days, the matter would be referred to a “municipal health insurance review panel” composed of a municipal and labor representative and an impartial third member chosen from a list of individuals with professional experience in dispute mediation and municipal finance or municipal health benefits provided by A&F.  If there is no agreement on the third member after 3 business days, the A&F secretary would choose the third member.Â

• If the proposed plan design changes do not exceed the GIC benchmark, the panel must approve the community’s immediate implementation of the changes.  If the community is seeking to join the GIC, the panel must approve the transfer if the community can demonstrate that the savings would 5 percent greater than the savings that could be achieved by implementing plan design changes to current plans.

• The panel would have 10 days to: 1) confirm the estimated monetary savings, to be substantiated by documentation provided by the executive; 2) review the proposal to mitigate, moderate or cap the impact of the changes on subscribers, including retirees, low-income subscribers and subscribers with high out-of-pocket costs who would otherwise be disproportionately impacted; and 3) concur with the community that the proposed mitigation plan is sufficient.

• The review panel may determine the mitigation proposal to be insufficient, and may require additional savings to be shared with subscribers, however, the total cost of any mitigation plan developed by the panel (such as establishing an HRA or other similar steps) could not exceed 25% of the total first-year premium savings (the municipal and employee savings combined), even if the mitigation plan is in place more than one year.  The panel is prohibited from imposing any change to contribution ratios.

• Once the mitigation funds are expended, all mitigation plan obligations on the part of the community will expire.

• The decisions of the municipal health insurance review panel would be binding.

• Regional and joint purchasing groups would clearly be allowed to establish a common plan design structure, although participating communities would each go through the steps above to notify unions and retirees of the estimated savings, and follow the 30-day negotiation process and 10-day review panel process regarding the plan design changes and structuring the mitigation plan.

• The Secretary of Administration and Finance will promulgate rules and regulations regarding the administrative procedures for the 30-day negotiation period and the municipal health insurance review panel, and issue guidelines in evaluating which subscribers would be disproportionately affected by plan design changes or transfer to the GIC.

• The plan design changes or enrollment in the GIC could be implemented immediately, following the above-described process, except in communities that have collective bargaining agreements or Section 19 agreements in place that set specific co-pays and deductibles that are different from the new plan.  In those cases, communities must wait until the initial term of the CBA or Section 19 agreement has expired to implement changes for those bargaining groups that have such agreements in place.

• For fiscal 2012, the reform plan would give cities and towns three opportunities to transfer subscribers to the GIC during the year (on January 1, April 1 and July 1), after a 4-month notification to the Commission.  After that, enrollment in the GIC would occur each July 1, with notification by the previous December 1.  The contribution ratios for employees entering the GIC will remain the same, but any future changes in the contribution ratios would have to be approved through full collective bargaining.

• Importantly, the final bill deleted a Senate-voted section that would have forced dozens of communities to increase the municipal contribution to retiree health plans, and instead replaced it with a reasonable provision that delays any change in the contribution ratios paid by retirees for a three-year period for any community that uses the reform act to implement changes.  Communities making such changes could not increase retiree contribution ratios from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2014, unless the contribution ratio changes were approved prior to July 1, 2011.

• As previously announced the new law would require all eligible retirees to be enrolled in a Medicare health plan (governmental units shall pay any federal penalties associated with a transfer to Medicare Part B).

GOVERNOR SIGNS KEY LOCAL AID ITEMS IN FISCAL 2012 BUDGET, INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL ONE-TIME LOCAL AID PROVISION

Governor Patrick supported a number of the MMA’s major budget priorities when he signed the fiscal 2012 state budget into law earlier this morning:

• The Governor signed a special MMA-backed budget provision that should provide a one-time supplemental local aid appropriation of $65 million to cities and towns by October 2011.  The provision requires that 50 percent of any “aggregate balance of appropriations,” (unused appropriations in state budget accounts) not to exceed $65 million, be distributed to cities and towns not later than October 31, 2011.  The final allocation determinations will be made when the state closes the books on the fiscal 2011 budget, a process that could take two to three months.  At the budget signing ceremony yesterday morning, Secretary for Administration and Finance Jay Gonzalez stated that he expects the final distribution amount to be $65 million.  The MMA will be monitoring the implementation of this provision very closely.

• The Governor approved an $80 million increase in the Special Education Circuit Breaker program, bringing the account up to $213 million.

• The Regional School Transportation reimbursement account is funded at $43.5 million, a $3 million increase over fiscal 2011 levels.

• The Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOT) account is funded at $27.3 million, a $1 million increase over fiscal 2011 levels.

Massachusetts Municipal Association’s Analysis of the Governor’s Municipal Health Care Reform Amendments

7/11/11

GOVERNOR, LEGISLATIVE LEADERS, MMA AND LABOR AGREE ON FINAL AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM ACT

FINAL ACTION EXPECTED TODAY TO ENACT A VERY STRONG REFORM LAW FOR CITIES AND TOWNS – A MAJOR VICTORY FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Late on Friday, July 8, Governor Deval Patrick, Speaker Robert DeLeo, Senate President Therese Murray, the MMA and a statewide coalition of labor unions announced agreement on four refining amendments to the municipal health insurance reform act that is on the Governor’s desk, paving the way for final action and approval today (Monday, July 11).

The Governor had been undecided about whether to sign the reform provisions as presented to him, and this agreement resolved the issue, allowing the Governor, legislative leaders and stakeholders to reach common ground.  Municipal health insurance reform has commanded center stage on Beacon Hill ever since the House of Representatives passed a powerful reform proposal in April.  The final product preserves the strong reform framework that House members embraced by a 113-42 vote.

The municipal health insurance reform provisions are attached as outside sections of the state budget.  The plan is for the Governor to return the municipal health provisions to the Legislature early on Monday recommending adoption of the amendments.  The House and Senate leaders have scheduled formal sessions for Monday afternoon, and have pledged to immediately adopt the amendments and return the reform act to the Governor, who will promptly sign the final version into law.

A description of the four amendments is provided below.

The final legislation that the Speaker, Governor and Senate President have all agreed on is a very strong reform act that removes ultimate health insurance plan design decision-making from collective bargaining, saves taxpayers money, preserves essential local services, protects municipal union jobs, guarantees equity with state employee health benefits, and provides municipal unions with more bargaining power than state unions.  It is a balanced and fair reform that would allow cities and towns to save $100 million in avoided health insurance costs, while providing a voice for municipal unions in the process.  Cities and towns will be able to use this reform to provide relief for local taxpayers, protect essential services, and preserve thousands of municipal jobs.

The MMA applauds the leadership of Speaker Robert DeLeo, Chairman Brian Dempsey, Vice Chairman Stephen Kulik, Governor Deval Patrick, Secretary for Administration and Finance Jay Gonzalez, President Therese Murray, Chairman Stephen Brewer, Vice Chairman Steven Baddour, budget conferees Rep. Vinny deMacedo and Sen. Michael Knapik, Public Service Committee Chairs Rep. John Scibak and Sen. Katherine Clark, and all of the members of the House of Representatives and Senate who have advocated for reform this session.

Summary of Governor’s Final Amendments

The four amendments that the Governor will be filing are intended to refine and clarify several provisions of the reform.  The changes are being supported by the House and Senate leadership, the MMA, the Mass. Taxpayers’ Foundation, and a coalition of statewide and municipal unions.  These are intended to be the final changes, enabling the act to become law on July 11, 2011.

Shared Savings.  Under the reform act, cities and towns will set aside up to 25 percent of the first year’s savings to fund a mitigation plan to offset the impact of plan design changes (or entrance into the GIC) on retirees, heavy health care purchasers, and low-income employees.  The first amendment the Governor will file would calculate the one-time shared savings amount based on total savings achieved in the first year, not just the governmental unit’s share of the savings.  For a community with an 80-20 contribution ratio, this amendment would increase the one-time mitigation amount by 5 percent, adding a one-time cost of $50,000 for every $1 million of savings during the first year).

GIC.  The second amendment the Governor will file would set a threshold for unilateral decisions to transfer subscribers into the GIC.  Under the amendment, communities would demonstrate that transferring into the GIC would save 5 percent more than the savings that could be achieved by making plan design changes (increasing co-payments, deductibles and introducing tiered network plans) to existing insurance plans.  While the MMA prefers no threshold, the association agreed to the amendment recognizing that it is highly unlikely that any city or town would transfer its employees and retirees into the GIC without a savings advantage, as joining the GIC would result in a loss of control, and requires a three-year commitment to the state, plus administrative fees.

Retirees. Importantly, the final bill deleted a Senate-voted section that would have forced dozens of communities to increase the municipal share of contribution ratios for retirees, and instead replaced it with a reasonable provision that would have delayed any increase in the contribution ratio paid by retirees for a two-year period for any community that uses the reform act to implement plan design changes.  The third amendment filed by the Governor would extend that period to three years.  Thus, communities making plan design changes or joining the GIC under the new law could not increase retiree contribution ratios from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2014, unless the contribution ratio changes were approved prior to July 1, 2011.

Plan Design.  Under the act that the Legislature sent to the Governor, cities and towns would be authorized to include co-payments, deductibles, tiered network co-payments and other plan design features no greater in dollar amount than the most subscribed plan in the GIC.  Unions have voiced concern that the “other plan design features” language could be stretched or misinterpreted to allow cities and towns to use this authority to strip employees of basic coverage offered in health plans (such as chiropractic or mental health services).  This is not the intent of the language, and thus the Governor’s amendment will clarify the language to “other cost-sharing plan design features”.  This amendment would refine the law, but would not impact the intended scope.

Notes, Agenda, and Fact Sheet from yesterday’s meeting with state re fresh look at MSH possibilities posted http://wp.me/pwOp1-9N

Weekly Political Report – Week Ending July 8, 2011

Week Ending July 8, 2011

 

Governor Reviewing FY2012 Budget

After the House and Senate passed the FY2012 budget last Friday, it was sent to Governor Patrick’s desk for his consideration. Under the Massachusetts Constitution, the Governor is granted 10 days to review a bill after the Legislature sends it to him for consideration. The Legislature also passed a $1.25 billion ten day budget last week to fulfill state spending starting last Friday. On Wednesday of this week, Governor Patrick met with House Speaker Bob DeLeo (D-Winthrop) to discuss the municipal health care reform plan that was included in the conference committee budget. Although details of the Governor’s meeting with the Speaker were not made public, the Governor earlier in the week voiced his uncertainty over whether he could sign off on the plan. The Governor said he was happy with the savings achieved but not sure if labor’s role was meaningful enough. The Governor has until Monday to sign the budget, file amendments and hand down vetoes.

 

Joint Committee on Health Care Finance Continues to Hold Hearings on Health Reform Legislation

The Committee, which has held hearings across the state on Gov. Patrick’s proposal to reduce health care spending, held another hearing on Friday in Sandwich, MA. Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth) testified at the hearing which was held in her district. She voiced general support for the legislation, calling it a good first step, but said that some of the provisions needed to be examined in more depth and reworked in some cases. Murray also said passing the legislation was an “economic imperative” and she hopes the committee advances the bill soon.

 

Democrats Announce Fundraising Totals for 2nd Quarter

City Year co-founder Alan Khazei raised the most money in the buildup to unseat Republican Senator Scott Brown, according to 2nd quarter fundraising totals announced on Tuesday. Khazei, who lost in the Democratic primary for the United States Senate to Attorney General Martha Coakley last year, raised over $920,000, the single highest total for all announced Democrats. Newton Mayor Setti Warren raised $122,000, former Lt. Governor candidate Robert Massie raised $82,800 and State Representative Thomas Conroy of Wayland raised $61,000. Senator Brown raised $1.8 million in the 2nd quarter, increasing his campaign account to $9.6 million. In a Suffolk/7NEWS poll from April, 55% of voters believe Brown deserves to be re-elected. The Democratic primary is scheduled for September of this year.

 

Business Confidence in Massachusetts Falls

Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) measures business confidence in the state through a survey it sends out to its members. The AIM confidence index is currently at 50, a 1.7% decrease since June. A score of 50 is considered neutral and any rating below 50 signifies generally negative sentiments about business confidence in the state. AIM President Richard Lord attributed the last two months declining conditions to the high unemployment in the state. The index has remained at 50 or above for the previous nine months. The index reached its all-time low in February 2009.

 

 

John Nunnari, Assoc AIA
Executive Director, AIA MA
jnunnari@architects.org
617-951-1433 x263
617-951-0845 (fax)

MA Chapter of American Institute of Architects
The Architects Building
52 Broad Street, Boston MA 02109-4301
www.architects.org

 

 

DCAM’s Meeting agenda

Yesterday I was rushing at the end of the day just to get information posted before I left the office about what had happened when we sat down with the state over the future plans for the Medfield State Hospital, that while I posted DCAM’s “Medfield State Hospital Fact Sheet” we were provide, I failed to scan and post the agenda that had been prepared.  It is now at https://medfield02052.blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/20110711-dcam-meeting-agen