Tuesday January 5, 2016@ 7:00 PM
AGENDA (SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
7 :00 PM FY17 Budget Review
NEW BUSINESS
Other business that may arise
Comments Off on BoS on 1/5
Posted in Budgets, Select Board matters
This is a good explanation from the DOR’s Division of Local Services’ e-newsletter, instructing we towns on what we can and cannot spend our town money –
The following article, originally published in the February, 2006 edition of City & Town, is being republished(1) due to ongoing interest in the subject.
Increasingly over the past few years, DLS legal and accounting staffs are asked if certain expenditures made by cities and towns are allowable. Many of these issues arise as the municipal accounting officer reviews departmental bills for payment. This article discusses the rules regarding the expenditure of public funds and makes recommendations for ensuring proper payment.
Authority to Spend
The authority for cities and towns to spend money arises under Section 5 of MGL c. 40. That section provides that:
“[a] town may at any town meeting appropriate money for the exercise of any of its corporate powers; provided, however, that a town shall not appropriate or expend money for any purpose, on any terms, or under any conditions inconsistent with any applicable provision of any general or special law.(2)”
Cities and towns are free to exercise any power or function, except those denied to them by their own charters or reserved to the State, that the Legislature has the power to confer on them, as long as the exercise of these powers is not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws enacted by the Legislature.(3) In general, the properties and purposes for which cities and towns are authorized to spend are not specified, but rather they include any necessary expenditures arising from the exercise of their powers or functions.
Public Purpose Limitation
Cities and towns can spend only for public purposes. Public funds cannot be used for private purposes. Thus, cities and towns have the right to spend money for any purpose where the public good will be served but not where the expenditure of money is directly for the private benefit of certain individuals. This principle is expressed in the Massachusetts constitution and in numerous cases.(4)
In some situations, however, the expenditure of public funds advances both public and private interests. In those situations, if the dominant motive for the expenditure is a public one, incidental private benefits will not invalidate the expenditure.(5) If, however, the dominant motive is to promote a private purpose, the expenditure will be invalid even if incidentally some public purpose also is served.(6)
Prohibitions Against Certain Expenditures
In addition to the general prohibitions against spending money for any purpose or under any conditions inconsistent with any general or special law, there are two other prohibitions on municipal spending.
1.) Anti-Aid Amendment
The first is a prohibition against the giving of money or property by a city or town to or in aid of any individual, association or corporation embarking upon any private enterprise. This prohibition is referred to as the Anti-Aid Amendment.(7) It provides in pertinent part:
“No grant, appropriation or use of public money or property or loan of credit shall be made or authorized by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any infirmary, hospital, institution, primary or secondary school, or charitable or religious undertaking which is not publicly owned and under the exclusive control, order and supervision of public officers or public agents authorized by the Commonwealth.”
This amendment prohibits the use of public money or property by cities and towns for the purpose of maintaining or aiding any institution or charitable or religious undertaking that is not publicly owned. The kinds of expenditures barred by the amendment are those that directly and substantially benefit or “aid” private organizations in a way that is unfair, economically or politically.(8)
The prohibition against using public funds for private organizations includes any grants, contributions or donations made by a city or town to an organization for the specific purpose of directly supporting or assisting its operations. However, the Anti-Aid Amendment does not preclude a city or town from purchasing specific services from private organizations in order to carry out a public purpose.(9) Further, as with the public purpose limitation discussed above, if an expenditure is for a public purpose but also incidentally benefits a private organization, the expenditure generally will not violate the Anti-Aid Amendment.(10)
2.) Wines, Liquors, Cigars
In addition to the prohibition against the use of public funds for private organizations, there is also a prohibition against the use of public funds to purchase alcohol and tobacco under Section 58 of MGL c. 44.
What Constitutes a Public Purpose?
The question of what constitutes a permissible “public purpose” has been discussed in many cases.(11) The cases “do not, however, establish any universal test.”(12) Instead, they generally stress the certainty of benefits to the community.(13) Thus, the basic test is whether the expenditure is required for the general good of the inhabitants of the city or town.(14)
Generally speaking, local government spending for the following purposes satisfies the public purpose test:
By contrast, local government spending for these purposes does not satisfy the public purpose test:
Frequently Asked Questions
We are asked frequently whether the following expenditures are for public purposes and may be paid:
The language of MGL c. 44, s. 58 is prohibitive. It reflects an explicit Legislative disapproval of spending municipal resources for alcoholic beverages and cigarettes. We have advised, however, that they can be purchased for the limited purpose of compliance testing for law enforcement or public health purposes. For example, local officials may stage purchases of alcohol or cigarettes by minors from local stores using money for anti-smoking or underage drinking campaigns. We think those expenditures would not be prohibited because they are not for consumption but to ensure compliance with local regulations and state statutes.
Funeral flowers, sympathy cards and other expenses for the customary expression of sentiments that are incidental to the social relationships that employees develop during work are not expenses made for public purposes. Those expenses are not within a municipal department’s budget simply because the relationships developed in conjunction with the conduct of departmental business. Therefore, it is not appropriate to pay for funeral flowers or sympathy cards out of municipal funds. They should be covered from private donations.
Retirement gifts, plaques, merit payments and other similar awards given to retirees or employees may be considered a proper purpose for the expenditure of municipal funds if they are not excessive and are used to (i) encourage continuity of service or to (ii) enhance efficiency and loyalty or to (iii) promote productive performance. Similarly, appreciation gifts to volunteers and unpaid interns may also be considered a proper municipal expenditure if the purpose is to promote volunteerism and they are in token amounts. The expense of holding a retirement party should be covered from private donations because it is mostly an expression of support and appreciation from colleagues. However, paying for the cost of dinner for the retiree would be appropriate. By contrast, paying for the dinners, gifts or party expenses for any attendees other than the retiree would generally be considered a mere gratuity and not for a proper municipal purpose.
Refreshments and meals may be served at legitimate public functions such as ribbon-cutting ceremonies, opening day events, receptions or banquets, presentations, and the like so long as they are modest and served to provide a benefit for the city or town by helping to keep the participants alert and receptive. The public function must be a department sponsored public event for authorized persons and related to the public purpose of the department sponsoring it. If the function is open only to select groups or individuals, or spouses are in attendance, it is more likely to be considered a private celebration of primarily a social character.
Refreshments and meals may be served to officers or employees of the city or town or persons doing business with the municipality at official meetings or official events so long as they are modest and benefit the city or town by helping to keep the participants alert and receptive or by enhancing efficiency by avoiding loss of time and disruption if participants leave the premises. The official meeting or event must be a department or municipal sponsored meeting or event for authorized persons and related to the public purpose of the sponsor.
Employees and officials may be reimbursed for the expenses of attending functions that relate to their public duties. The function must relate to and further the public purpose of the department sponsoring it. If a department head incurs an expense in the performance of official duties in the representation of his or her department, the expense is reimbursable. Thus, the cost of a department head’s attendance at a retirement dinner or department party at which he or she is the official presenter of token gifts or awards, as a representative of his or her department, would be a legitimate municipal expense. If the event is arranged and funded by department employees or others, and attendance is optional, then the event would seem to be social and for private purposes rather than for public ones. In addition, if the event is outside of the municipality and not related to the department or the community, the use of municipal funds would not be appropriate.
Employees who are out of town or working late on business or attending training programs or conferences on behalf of a city or town may be reimbursed for out-of-pocket costs of travel, meals, and other purchases incurred in furtherance of that objective and as a term or condition of employment. These types of expenses are permissible municipal expenses, provided that attendance is authorized by the municipal official or board with the authority to expend department funds. Included within the realm of reimbursable expenses are: (i) registration charges, including late fees; (ii) local surcharges and taxes on car rentals; (iii) taxes and tips on meals, and (iv) taxes on petty cash purchases, so long as these expenses are reasonable and not in conflict with the reimbursement policies of the city or town. Late registration fees are considered to be part of the contract price for the training program or conference. Similarly, surcharges, taxes and tips are a necessary and customary part of legitimate expenses incurred by employees in the course of their employment.
Municipal departments, like the Parks and Recreation Department, the Library, the Historic Commission, or the schools, may want to raise money for a particular departmental project. Generally, solicitations for donations or financial support from private individuals or businesses must be conducted in accordance with MGL c. 268A, the Conflict of Interest law. In that regard, the State Ethics Commission has issued Advisory Opinion EC-COI-12-1, which provides guidance on fundraising by municipal employees. We suggest that you consult with your municipal counsel for advice before proceeding with fundraising.
Fundraising activities that go beyond applying for grants or soliciting contributions and involve expending municipal funds or receiving funds in exchange for goods are more problematic. For example, if the Recreation Department wants to sell T-shirts as a fundraiser, then it would need an appropriation from which to purchase the T-shirts(23) and proceeds from their sale would be general fund revenue, which could not be spent without an appropriation.(24) Arguably, such a transaction is more in the nature of a profit on a business transaction than a donation. We believe the better practice in such a case is to have a private entity, such as a “friends” group, sponsor and conduct the fundraising event and turn over the net proceeds to the municipal department as a grant or gift under MGL c. 40, s. 53A. Under section 53A, the funds are held by the treasurer in a separate gift account and may be spent by the department for the purposes of the gift without appropriation upon the approval of the board of selectmen, or the city manager and city council, or the mayor and city council, as appropriate.
An additional issue arises when municipal resources are used to assist a private group’s fundraising activities even if the activities will benefit the municipality. Pursuant to the Anti-aid Amendment, public funds may not be used to assist a private organization’s fundraising activities, no matter how worthy or related the cause. For example, the school department cannot pay to print and mail a flyer by the Parent-Teachers Organization to promote a car wash it is holding to raise monies for the schools.
Sharing the expenses of a community event co-sponsored by a municipal department and a private organization also raises Anti-Aid Amendment issues because the event is not under the exclusive control of public officers.
Conclusion
DLS strongly recommends that municipalities develop clear, written policies or guidelines, preferably by bylaw or ordinance, about allowable expenditures. For example, to ensure the municipality receives the maximum benefit from its sales tax exemption, there should be clear standards about when department employees can purchase necessary supplies or materials and be reimbursed. Travel expenses are often set out in collective bargaining agreements, but the municipality should also adopt a policy to cover travel expenses for nonunion employees. DLS also recommends that standards be established for merit awards, food or fundraising expenses. Finally, DLS recommends that accounting officers advise managers and employees at the beginning of each fiscal year of the municipality’s policies. This will help to avoid uncertainty or disagreements about whether certain expenditures are permissible and payable.
1.) With appropriate updating.
2.) MGL c. 40, s. 5 applies to cities under MGL c. 40, s. 1.
3.) See art. 2 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, as appearing in art. 89, sec. 6, 7 and 8.
4.) Mass. Const., Art. XI, c. 2, s. 1 and Art. IV, c. 1, s. 1; Lowell v. City of Boston, 111 Mass. 454, (1873);Matthews v. Inhabitants of Westborough, 131 Mass. 521 (1881); Mead v. Acton, 139 Mass. 341 (1885); In re Opinion of Justices, 190 Mass. 611 (1906); Whittaker v. Salem, 216 Mass. 483 (1914); In re Opinion of Justices, 240 Mass. 616 (1922); Jones v. Inhabitants of Town of Natick, 267 Mass. 567 (1929); D.N. Kelley & Son, Inc. v. Selectmen of Fairhaven, 294 Mass. 570 (1936); Quinlan v. City of Cambridge, 320 Mass. 124 (1946); Eisenstadt v. County of Suffolk, 331 Mass. 570 (1954).
5.) See e.g., Opinion of the Justices, 313 Mass. 779 (1943) (“The fact that the owner of a way may profit by expenditures ‘for the removal of snow and ice’…does not invalidate expenditures…where the primary purpose of such removal is the benefit of the public to whose use the way is open.”).
6.) See e.g., Salisbury Land & Improvement, Co. v. Commonwealth, 215 Mass. 371 (1913) (act was unconstitutional where it authorized the condemnation of lands for a public beach and the sale or leasing to private parties of any portion not needed for the public beach).
7.) The Anti-Aid Amendment is contained in Section 2 of Article 46 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution (as amended in 1974 by Art. 103 of the Amendments).
8.) See Commonwealth v. School Committee of Springfield, 382 Mass. 665 (1981); Helmes v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 873 (1990).
9.) See e.g., Commonwealth v. School Committee of Springfield, 382 Mass. 665 (1981)(court held that the purchase of services by the school committee from private schools to meet the needs of special education students did not run counter to the anti-aid amendment because the purpose was to fulfill the obligation of the public school system which had chosen not to provide the services in its own schools).
10.) See e.g., Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, Lodge No. 65 v. Planning Board of Lawrence, 403 Mass. 531 (1988) (the taking of property for urban renewal project did not violate the Anti-Aid Amendment because the taking had a public purpose to eliminate a blighted open area and any benefit to college was incidental to that purpose).
11.) See Eisenstadt v. Suffolk County, 331 Mass. 570, 573 (1954) and cases cited.
12.) Allydonn Realty Corp. v. Holyoke Housing Authority, 304 Mass. 288, 292 (1939).
13.) See e.g., Opinion of the Justices, 313 Mass. 779, 784-85 (1943) (expenditures for snow removal from private ways that were open to public were for the public purpose of accommodating the public as to means of travel and transportation); McLean v. Boston, 327 Mass. 118 (1951) (expenditure of money for the development of housing for residents made homeless by tunnel expansion was for the public purpose of addressing a local emergency caused by a public improvement); Opinion of the Justices, 349 Mass. 794 (1965) (payments by city for retirement of certain alcoholic beverage licenses was for the public purpose of cleaning up of the city).
14.) See Opinion of the Justices, 337 Mass. 777, 781 (1958).
15.) See e.g., M.G.L. c. 40, s. 4 (“A city or town may make contracts for the exercise of its corporate powers…”); Leonard v. Middleborough, 198 Mass. 221 (1908).
16.) See e.g., Curran v. Holliston, 130 Mass. 272 (1881); Attorney General v. Woburn, 317 Mass. 465 (1945).
17.) See e.g., Quinlan v. City of Cambridge, 320 Mass. 124 (1946); Wood v. Haverill, 174 Mass. 578 (1899).
18.) See Matthews v. Westborough, 131 Mass. 521 (1881); Jones v. Natick, 267 Mass. 567 (1929); George A. Fuller Co. v. Commonwealth, 303 Mass. 216 (1939).
19.) See e.g., M.G.L. c. 71, s. 47 (specifically authorizes the expenditure of municipal funds for student prizes).
20.) See e.g., Eisenstadt v. County of Suffolk, 331 Mass. 570 (1954); In re Opinion of Justices, 190 Mass. 611 (1906); see also In re Opinion of Justices, 240 Mass. 616 (1922).
21.) See e.g., Matthews v. Westborough, 131 Mass. 521, 522 (1881); Whittaker v. Salem, 216 Mass. 483(1914); Jones v. Inhabitants of Town of Natick, 267 Mass. 567 (1929).
22.) See e.g., Anderson v. Boston, 376 Mass. 178 (1978), appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 1060, 99 S. Ct. 822 (1979).
23.) MGL c. 44, sec. 31.
24.) MGL c. 44, sec. 53.
This from the newly formed CPA group –
Join us to learn more and take action:
7-8:30 p.m. – Thurs., Dec. 10 – Zullo Gallery
Wine, beer, nibbles
Signed into law in 2000 by Gov. Paul Cellucci and Lt. Gov. Jane Swift, the CPA is a smart-growth tool that helps communities:
A local Community Preservation Fund is fueled by a surcharge of 1%, 2% or 3% of property tax bills (not an increase in the tax rate), with the percentage amount decided by voters. Exclusions, (such as low-income residents, certain types of businesses, etc.) are also decided by voters.
In addition to local funds collected, communities receive annual distributions from the state Community Preservation Trust Fund, administered by the Department of Revenue. It’s like putting that 1-3% surcharge in a savings account that earns high interest.
It was recently announced that for 2015 alone, 156 communities together will receive $36 million from the CPA Trust Fund thanks to a 29.7% state contribution*. Medfield was not among them since we have yet to adopt the CPA. (*Source: www.communitypreservation.org)
Norfolk, Medway, Millis, Holliston and Needham are some of the nearby towns that have benefited from the CPA.
Many of the proposed projects at the Medfield State Hospital site could qualify for CPA funding.
Comments Off on CPA information 12/10 at 7pm
Posted in Affordable housing / 40B, Budgets, History, Open space, Recreation
Natick has apparently saved almost $200,000 a year on its trash over the last 12 years – $3.4m in 12 years – using the one system that the state DEP says is the best way to save money on our trash and to also recycle the most. There are ways for towns to save some money, it is just that no one likes them – especially this one. See article here
The Community Preservation Act is another way to save money, because the state pays you matching money on what you pay in – we voted the CPA down several years ago, losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in state money as a result in the intervening time.
Comments Off on Natick saves $200K/year on its trash
Posted in Budgets, Recycling & Solid Waste, Town Services
The state announced its matching money for Community Preservation Act towns – 29.7% on average, but Medway which is in for 3% CPA surcharges got over 40% matching money.
Medfield residents continue to pay our money in so it can go to other towns, and leave our potential state matching money on the table.
| November 17, 2015: The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) has released the Community Preservation Trust Fund distribution for each CPA municipality. The revenue from this year’s trust fund distribution comes from two sources: document recording fees collected over the past 12 months at the state’s Registries of Deeds, and a transfer of $10 million from the state’s FY2015 budget surplus. In total, more than $36 million will be distributed to the 156 communities eligible for a distribution this year.
All CPA communities will receive a 29.7% match on round one of the trust fund distribution this year. Communities that adopted CPA with a full 3% local property tax surcharge will receive a higher percentage. Click on the link below for details on this year’s distribution and a way to view the specific amounts for each community. > SPREADSHEET: Click here for the CPA Trust Fund distribution amount for each municipality < PLEASE NOTE: According to a statement from DOR, this year’s CPA Trust Fund distribution amount for most communities was adjusted due to an update to FY2015 data after last year’s distribution was made. The adjustment was necessary because the surcharge percentage was incorrectly calculated in one community and another community did not notify DOR that they had adopted CPA and were therefore not included in last year’s distribution. |
Comments Off on CPA match at 29.7% – none for us
Posted in Budgets, Legislature, State
This website offers a half dozen comparison metrics for each town. It is interesting to see how we compare. http://www.cleargov.com/massachusetts/norfolk/town/medfield/
The Pioneer Institute does the same thing too, but with much more robust data and in a more refined means. http://pioneerinstitute.org/better_government/new-municipal-guide-provides-tools-for-local-budgeting/ The Pioneer Institute gives you an Excel spreadsheet that you can use to compare us to similar towns on a large variety of budget costs, and they even suggest the similar towns. This is the one to use to do serious work.
Comments Off on Comparison metrics
Posted in Budgets
The Baker Polito administration initiated the Community Compact to provide state assistance to towns. Medfield has now applied to be a member, and specified the three areas with which Medfield wants state assistance:
This was the state response today to Medfield’s application to join –
Dear Kristine Trierweiler,
Thank you for completing the Community Compact application for Medfield. Your application is now with the Division of Local Services for review.
According to your submission the Best Practices you will commit to are:
Best Practice #1 – Financial Management
Capital Planning // Best Practice: Funding capital needs on a regular basis is critical to maintaining publicly-owned assets and delivering services effectively. The community develops and documents a multi-year capital plan that reflects a community’s needs, is reviewed annually and fits within a financing plan that reflects the community’s ability to pay.
Best Practice #2 (optional) – Information Technology
Transparency // Best Practice: There is a documented open data strategy including timelines for making municipal spending and budget information accessible from the city or town website in a machine readable and graphical format.
Best Practice #3 (optional) – Information Technology
Citizen Engagement // Best Practice: There is a documented citizen engagement strategy for deployment of technology solutions, including a public communication strategy and a professional development strategy to ensure that internal resources can effectively engage with users via technology.
As part of the review process, the Division of Local Services may be contacting Kristine Trierweiler with follow-up questions. Once the review of your application is complete and the best practice area(s) are agreed upon, I will be in touch regarding the signing of the Compact. We are looking forward to working with your community as you continue to strive toward excellence!
Sincerely,
Sean Cronin
Senior Deputy Commissioner of Local Services
Division of Local Services
Comments Off on Community Compact
Posted in Budgets, Information, State
Tuesday September 22, 2015 @ 7:00 PM
AGENDA (SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
7:00 PM Council on Aging, Roberta Lynch Director Discussion regarding FY17 budget
7:30 PM Warrant Committee
Preliminary discussion for FY17 budgets
Comments Off on BoS on 9/22
Posted in Budgets, Council on Aging, Select Board matters
Governor Baker has proposed $25m. of supplemental FY15 monies for snow relief, that would mean $49,474 for Medfield. This is the full alert this afternoon from the Massachusetts Municipal Association:
Friday, July 17, 2015
GOV. BAKER SIGNS $38.1B FY 2016 STATE BUDGET TO FUND KEY MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL AID PROGRAMS
***BREAKING NEWS: GOV. BAKER ALSO PROPOSES $25M IN SNOW AND ICE RELIEF FUNDS IN YEAR-END FY 2015 BUDGET FILING***
NEW STATE BUDGET INCREASES UGGA BY $34M, ADDS $18.1M TO FULLY FUND SPECIAL EDUCATION CIRCUIT BREAKER, RESTORES $7.5M TO REGIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION, FUNDS CH. 70 MINIMUM AID AT $25 PER STUDENT, ADDS $3.6M TO CHARTER SCHOOL REIMBURSEMENTS – HOWEVER, GOVERNOR REDUCES KINDERGARTEN DEVELOPMENT GRANTS DOWN TO $1 MILLION – A $17.6M REDUCTION
GOVERNOR BAKER ALSO FILED A YEAR-END FISCAL 2015 BUDGET WITH $25M TO ASSIST CITIES AND TOWNS WITH SNOW AND ICE DEFICITS, TO BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE CHAPTER 90 FORMULA – LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL IS NEEDED
Seventeen days into the new fiscal year, Governor Charlie Baker signed the first full-year state budget into law, a $38.1 billion spending plan for fiscal 2016 that will increase overall expenditures by approximately 3.5 percent, as the state closes a projected $1.8 billion structural budget deficit by restraining spending and eliminating up to 5,000 state jobs through a hiring freeze, attrition and an early retirement program.
In terms of local aid, the Governor’s signature pen inked into law strong progress on many important municipal priorities, including the significant victory in embracing the $34 million increase in Unrestricted General Government Aid as proposed by Gov. Baker and requested by the MMA. Beyond that, the Governor has approved more than $30 million to key municipal and education aid accounts and reimbursement programs above the amount he initially in his March budget proposal. This is a major victory for cities and towns that was made possible by your strong advocacy.
In a win for Gov. Baker, the Legislature’s budget includes a three-year suspension of the Pacheco anti-outsourcing law for the MBTA, and provides for a Fiscal and Management Control Board to oversee the MBTA.
GOV. PROPOSES $25M IN SNOW AND ICE RELIEF FUNDS FOR CITIES AND TOWNS ACROSS THE STATE:
AT THE SAME TIME THE GOVERNOR SIGNED THE FISCAL 2016 STATE BUDGET INTO LAW, HE ALSO FILED A YEAR-END FISCAL 2015 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET TO CLOSE THE BOOKS ON THE YEAR THAT JUST ENDED. BECAUSE OF THE RECORD-BREAKING WINTER AND RECORD-BREAKING SNOW AND ICE DEFICITS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, GOV. BAKER’S FISCAL 2015 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET INCLUDES $25 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL RELIEF FOR CITIES AND TOWNS, WHICH WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED STATEWIDE THROUGH THE CHAPTER 90 FORMULA.
PLEASE CLICK HERE TO SEE YOUR COMMUNITY’S SHARE OF GOV. BAKER’S PROPOSED $25 MILLION IN SNOW AND ICE RELIEF FUNDING, INCLUDED IN HIS BUDGET SUBMISSION LETTER: http://www.mass.gov/anf/docs/anf/fy15/fy2015-supplemental-filing-letter.pdf
PLEASE CALL YOUR LEGISLATORS AND ASK THEM TO SUPPORT THE GOVERNOR’S PROPOSAL FOR SNOW AND ICE RELIEF FUNDS
FINAL FY 2016 STATE BUDGET FUNDS KEY MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL AID PROGRAMS:
IN TERMS OF THE FISCAL 2016 STATE BUDGET THAT GOV. BAKER SIGNED INTO LAW TODAY, HERE IS A SUMMARY OF THE KEY MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL FUNDING INCLUDED IN THE FINAL BUDGET:
$34 MILLION INCREASE IN UNRESTRICTED MUNICIPAL AID
In a major win for cities and towns, the final budget provides $979.8 million for UGGA, a $34 million increase over current funding. This will be the largest increase in discretionary municipal aid in nearly a decade. Every city and town will see their UGGA funding increase by 3.6 percent.
GOVERNOR EMBRACES $18.3 MILLION INCREASE TO FULLY FUND SPECIAL EDUCATION CIRCUIT BREAKER
In another victory for cities and towns, the final budget would fully fund the Special Education Circuit Breaker program with $271.7 million, an $18.3 million increase above fiscal 2015. This is a vital program that every city, town and school district relies on to fund state-mandated services.
BUDGET ADDS $7.5 MILLION FOR REGIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION REIMBURSEMENTS
The final budget would restore $7.5 million to regional school transportation funding, providing a total of $59 million for the upcoming year. Last November, former Gov. Patrick used his 9C budget powers to reduce this important program down to $51.5 million. The final budget is a major step forward for communities with regional school districts.
GOVERNOR BACKS CHAPTER 70 MINIMUM AID OF $25 PER STUDENT
The final fiscal 2016 budget provides a $111.2 million increase in Chapter 70 education aid, with a provision providing every city, town and school district an increase of at least $25 per student, an improvement over the $20 per student amount originally proposed in March. The appropriation is $5.9 million more than the recommendation in March, and the increase would be used to ensure the $25 per student minimum aid level and to slightly accelerate the implementation of the target share provisions enacted in 2007.
GOVERNOR REDUCES KINDERGARTEN DEVELOPMENT GRANTS DOWN TO $1 MILLION, A CUT OF $17.6 MILLION
This account has faced serious challenges during the fiscal 2016 budget process, with Gov. Baker’s original budget proposal including no funding for the Kindergarten Development Grant program, and the Senate budget funding the program at $1 million. Only the House budget maintained funding at the fiscal 2015 level of $18.6 million. 177 communities and school districts depend on these funds, and the MMA and cities and towns will be calling on their legislators to override this $17.6 million reduction, and restore the funds.
BUDGET INCREASES CHARTER SCHOOL REIMBURSEMENTS BY $3.64 MILLION, ACCOUNT REMAINS UNDERFUNDED
Under state law, cities and towns that host or send students to charter schools are entitled to be reimbursed for a portion of their lost Chapter 70 aid. The state fully funded the reimbursement program in fiscal 2013 and 2014, but is underfunding reimbursements by approximately $34 million this year (fiscal 2015). The final fiscal 2016 budget will provide a $3.64 million increase up to $80.5 million, however this is still $50 million below full funding. The action to increase funding is appreciated, yet it is important to remember that the account is still significantly underfunded.
STATE ADDS $1 MILLION TO McKINNEY-VENTO REIMBURSEMENTS
The final budget would add $1 million to increase fiscal 2016 reimbursements for the transportation of homeless students to $8.35 million. The account remains below the full reimbursement called for under the state’s unfunded mandate law, yet this would be the first increase since fiscal 2013.
PAYMENTS-IN-LIEU-OF-TAXES (PILOT), LIBRARY AID ACCOUNTS, METCO, AND SHANNON ANTI-GANG GRANTS, VOKE ED TRANSPORTATION
PILOT PAYMENTS: The final budget would level-fund PILOT payments at $26.77 million.
LIBRARY AID: The budget funds library grant programs at $18.9 million, a $400 thousand increase above fiscal 2015 post-9C levels.
METCO: The final budget funds METCO at $20.14 million, a $2.23 million increase above fiscal 2015 post-9C levels.
SHANNON GRANTS: The final appropriation is $7 million, the same amount proposed by Gov. Baker in March.
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION TRANSPORTATION: Last year, Gov. Patrick wiped out all fiscal 2015 funding using his 9C powers, and the good news is that the fiscal 2016 budget would restore $1.75 million for fiscal 2016.
STATE MAY PROVIDE UP TO $10M FOR COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT FUNDING
During fiscal 2015, 156 cities and towns collected the local Community Preservation Act (CPA) surcharge and are eligible for state matching grants in fiscal 2016. The Division of Local Services (DLS) estimates that the balance in the state trust fund will be sufficient to provide a first round match of only 18 percent of the surcharge levied by each city and town. This would be the lowest state match in the program’s history. Knowing this, the fiscal 2016 state budget would devote up to $10 million of any fiscal 2015 year-end state budget surplus to supplement the fiscal 2016 state match, a significant boost for all CPA communities. The final amount available will depend on the final fiscal 2015 surplus, which will not be determined until later this autumn.
Please Call Your Legislators and Thank Them for a Strong Fiscal 2016 State Budget that Makes Progress on Key Municipal and Education Aid Priorities, and Ask Them to Support Gov. Baker’s Proposed $25 Million for Snow and Ice Funding in the Fiscal 2015 Year-End Budget
Comments Off on $49K more state $ for last winter
Posted in Budgets, Legislature, State
The state has passed the budget, albeit a week into the fiscal year. These are Medfield’s state local aid numbers, netting us a total of $7,358,252, up over $100,000 from $7,255,166 last year –
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments Off on Our final state aid
Posted in Budgets, Legislature
Medfield Select Board member
I started this blog to share the interesting and useful information that I saw while doing my job as a Medfield select board member. I thought that my fellow Medfield residents would also find that information interesting and useful as well. This blog is my effort to assist in creating a system to push the information out from the Town House to residents. Let me know if you have any thoughts on how it can be done better.
For information on my other job as an attorney (personal injury, civil litigation, estate planning and administration, and real estate), please feel free to contact me at 617-969-1500 or Osler.Peterson@OslerPeterson.com.
 | Lester Cohen on Town’s Buildings Require… |
 | Select Board member… on Black Out at Budget Works… |
| Lester Cohen on Black Out at Budget Works… |
 | The Sullivans on Thank you Linda Thompson! |
 | cherryblossomcasuall… on Roundabouts both safer & b… |
Medfield02052's Blog 