Category Archives: Budgets

Gov. cuts budgets & seeks power to reduce local aid

PATRICK CUTS SPENDING BY $225 MILLION, WILL SEEK POWER TO CUT LOCAL AID

By Michael Norton and Matt Murphy
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, DEC. 4, 2012…..As part of a plan to address an estimated $540 million mid-year budget gap, Gov. Deval Patrick on Tuesday slashed spending by $225 million and asked the Legislature to allow him to unilaterally reduce unrestricted local aid to cities and towns by 1 percent.

Unrestricted local aid pays for local services, such as public safety budgets, and is delivered separately from state aid to fund local education spending, which is not targeted for cuts under Patrick’s plan.

“I don’t think this is draconian. Obviously every city and town worries about an impact on their local aid, but as I say this is relatively modest. We are spreading the pain as broadly as possible and sensible and we have a solution for closing that gap in unrestricted local aid if the Lottery continues to help,” Patrick said.

The spending cuts ordered by the governor will hit nursing homes, special education funding, school transportation for the homeless and reimbursement rates for hospitals that treat low-income patients.

Patrick is asking to trim local aid by $9 million, and said if Lottery revenue exceeds expectations the surplus would be used to restore the reduced funding at the end of the year.

Senate budget chief Stephen Brewer told the News Service Monday that he did not sense an appetite within the Legislature to grant the governor local aid-cutting powers. Lawmakers are scheduled to return to Beacon Hill in January, when the governor’s proposal will await their attention.

Patrick used his existing budget management powers to reduce $225 million in spending through so-called 9C cuts, a 1 percent reduction to the total state budget that will result in the defunding of 700 positions in state government and, according to the governor, affect services to the state’s “most vulnerable” residents.

Patrick is also calling for $200 million to be drawn from the state’s $1.65 billion rainy day account to plug holes and prevent deeper spending cuts amid a weak economic recovery.

Patrick called on Congress to address the “fiscal cliff” this year, blaming uncertainty over scheduled tax hikes and spending cuts for private sector angst about expanding and the future of the economy.

“By all accounts that uncertainty and the resulting slowdown in economic growth is the direct cause of our budget challenges. Economists agree that the fiscal cliff is keeping a tremendous amount of capital on the sidelines,” Patrick said.

Patrick said $300 million this fiscal year and $1 billion in the next fiscal year is at risk for state budget writers depending on the outcome of negotiations between President Obama and Congressional leaders. “The cost of inaction is immense,” he said.

The state budget is also facing significant and still unknown costs associated with an evidence tampering debacle that has forced public officials to revisit thousands of drug cases previously thought to be settled.

Spending on Medicaid, the state’s largest program, is a perennial concern and administration officials said they are on track to meet or exceed roughly $500 million anticipated savings in that program and $730 million in overall health care savings associated with Medicaid and other health insurance programs.

Though not as bad as past years during the depths of the recession, Patrick said the state’s budget problems are “serious” and could worsen depending on federal machinations.

After a disappointing month of tax collections in October opened a $256 million budget gap four months into the fiscal year, November revenues rebounded slightly and came in $21 million above projections, but still $235 million short for the year to date.

Under the cuts Patrick announced, no agencies will see budgets reduced below fiscal 2012 levels.

Administration and Finance Secretary Jay Gonzalez said administration officials now believe tax collections this fiscal year will total $515 million less than the administration and legislative budget writers assumed when they compiled this year’s $32.5 billion budget.

Gonzalez officially lowered the state’s expected tax take this year to $21.496 billion, and said he expects the state to collect $381 million more than in fiscal 2012 but $515 million less than estimates made last December and used to build the budget.

Gonzalez expects tax collections to slightly rebound over the final seven months of fiscal 2013.

Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President Michael Widmer, who monitors budget developments on behalf of the business-backed group, said he agreed with Patrick’s revised state revenue estimate.

“The budget-cutting steps, while painful, are certainly necessary,” Widmer said.

Widmer identified the impact of the midyear budget problems on the fiscal 2014 budget as the “larger issue,” estimating about $800 million in onetime revenues in the fiscal 2013 budget won’t be available for fiscal 2014, which begins on July 1, 2013.

“That’s a huge hole the state faces for fiscal ’14,” Widmer said.

Roughly speaking, Widmer said, the state budget has been under pressure through three years associated with the recent recession and the last two years which have featured modest economic growth, with rainy day fund and federal stimulus law funds driven into the budget and coupled with major spending cuts.

“It is the longest period of fiscal pressures of this magnitude,” Widmer said. “The economic recovery has been so weak both nationally and here that we haven’t had much in the way of revenues. That’s the sad reality. This is now the fifth year.”

A $20 million salary reserve to provide raises to human service workers is not being reduced, Gonzalez said. “It is available to disburse to human service workers,” he said.

Patrick is also calling on leaders of the other two branches of government, the legislative and judiciary, to agree to 1 percent cuts to their own budgets for a savings of $25 million.

The current budget problems don’t require additional revenues, Patrick said, while suggesting his upcoming long-term transportation financing plan would feature new revenues.

The governor’s budget plan also defers $20 million in sales tax revenue that would have gone to the Massachusetts School Building Authority to the general fund, and makes cuts to budgeted hospital rate increases, special education and veteran benefit accounts.

Gonzalez said hospital rate increases for providers caring for certain MassHealth patients would be reduced by $52 million, a special education increase would be cut from $28 million to $17 million, and $1.3 million would be trimmed from veterans’ benefits due to decreased caseloads.

Municipal regionalization grants and budgeted increases in nursing home rates will also be decreased.

Gonzalez said the state has realized about $113 million in savings from lower than expected borrowing costs, of which $20 million will be used to offset the revenue gap. The supplemental budget to be filed by Patrick asking for 1 percent cuts in non-executive branches of government and local aid also proposes to spend the remaining $93 million from debt service savings on caseload driven accounts like homelessness.

Geoffrey Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, said cuts to special education reimbursements, school transportation and local aid will impact municipal budgets mid-year and be difficult to address for cities and towns.

Noting cuts to local aid that have built up over several years, Beckwith said, “This is an additional cut of $9 million opening up question marks for every single community’s budget.” He said the MMA will ask the Legislature not to approve the cut in unrestricted local aid.

“They’ll have to take reductions in programs and services. The 1 percent sounds small but it will destabilize current budgets in place and have communities have to take action. They cannot wait,” Beckwith said.

For detailed information about the spending cuts, go to: http://www.mass.gov/anf/budget-taxes-and-procurement/state-budget/fy13-budget-info/fy13-budget-cut-information

END
12/04/2012

Buget season began

Mike Sullivan handed out his initial budget projections last night at the Board of Selectmen’s annual budget meeting, which is held jointly with the Warrant Committee and the department heads.  The basic assumptions contained in this initial budget is that town budgets will increase 2%, except for employee benefits which go up 7% (for health insurance and pensions).

Warrant Committee chair Gus Murby noted that while this is the year to budget for those things that have been deferred in the past several tough budget  years, where the financial pressures are not expected to be as great this year as they have been in recent years, Gus still noted the need to keep budgets lean due to expected town expenditures related to special situations.  He listed the DPW garage, the Gatehouse 40B, and the Medfield State Hospital as the examples.

The budget meeting is the opening of the town’s annual budget season, that next has each department preparing its own individual budget requests, then defending those to both the Board of Selectmen and the Warrant Committee, and culminates with the passage of the budgets at the annual town meeting (ATM) the last Monday in April.

The Building Committee has indicated that it intends to ask the town to vote to build a new DPW garage at the ATM.

Underfunded future obligation

Finance

Finance (Photo credit: Tax Credits)

Article on underfunded municipal pensions from the Lincoln Institute – see the link below.  The article says that the first principle of municipal finance, that you pay now for what you incur now.  Medfield’s pensions are actually pretty well funded, but our obligation for employees’ future health care costs for our retirees is not, to the tune of about $40m.   Mike and I have suggested that the Board of Advisors (former selectmen) explore how to deal with that issue, once the state commission looking at the issue reports back this fall.  This from the article –

Pension Legacy Costs and Local Government Finances

Richard F. Dye and Tracy M. Gordon
Local government pensions are significantly underfunded because many governments have not set aside enough funds each year to cover the liabilities incurred. In effect, they are borrowing to pay for current labor services and shifting the burden to future taxpayers.

Enhanced by Zemanta

State unfunded pension liability up X5 in last 11 years

The Boston Business Journal article on the state’s mushrooming pension liabilities  –

“Jim Lamenzo, the actuary for the state’s Public Employee Retirement Association Commission, said during a presentation Monday that the state’s unfunded pension liability stood at $23.6 billion as of Jan. 1, but has undoubtedly grown in the interim due to the delayed ripple effects of the state’s near 30 percent investment loss in the year following the downturn. Lamenzo said the state’s unfunded pension liability totaled $12.1 billion on Jan. 1, 2008, and was $4.8 billion as of Jan. 1, 2000 — meaning the commonwealth’s unfunded obligation to retired public workers has essentially quintupled over an 11-year span.”

Also, at that webpage they have a link to a searchable pension database where one can search the pension of any retired state official by name, or by all the employees in a particular state department.  Wm Bulger is getting $199K, Sal DiMasi is listed at $66K, but I believe his has been stopped.

Guide to municipal management in MA

The Pioneer Institute has published and distributed to us a Guide to Sound Fiscal Management for Municipalities, on how to operate a town in Massachusetts.  Always good to get help in doing the things that we do to run Medfield.

This guide comes with a downloadable Excel worksheet that allow one to compare us to 14 other towns, which then compares Medfield’s metrics to those of the other 14 towns.  The spreadsheet actually suggested most of the towns to use for the comparison, based on the major similarities.   Interesting to use to compare Medfield to other towns.

BTW, it says we are now down from 1st to 3rd in the state on the percentage of our population in school.  24% of Medfield attends school, versus 15.1% statewide and 19.4% of the 14 towns I selected for comparison.

Medfield’s debt, debt service,  debt and debt service as a % of budget, debt as a % of EQV, and debt at a % of budget were all a lot higher than both the towns the program selected and the ones I added.

In broad general terms, based on the towns in my comparisons, our school and DPW costs were generally higher, while our police and fire costs were generally lower than in the comparison towns.

I highly recommend this tool for anyone who wants to know how what we are doing in Medfield compares to other towns.  It gives you the figures and graphs them out for easy comparisons.

 

 

Income Per Capita (2009)
MEDFIELD $64,433
State Median $28,058
Peer Median $51,034

Local tax base preserved in state energy bill

The Massachusetts Municipal Association issued this alert today –

LEGISLATURE’S FINAL ENERGY BILL PRESERVES LOCAL TAXING AUTHORITY

In a significant victory for cities and towns, the final energy bill developed by a joint House-Senate conference committee, preserves the ability of communities to collect property taxes on solar and renewable energy facilities.

The MMA and local officials across the state have been communicating with legislators all year, expressing grave concerns about provisions in earlier versions of the bill passed by the House and Senate that would have exempted certain renewable energy facilities, including commercial solar facilities, from the property tax.  Instead, communities would have been allowed to collect a much lower PILOT equal to 5 percent of electricity sales. In essence, the previous versions of the legislation would have provided developers with a windfall, and reduced important revenues that communities collect and use to pay for critical local services.

The members of the conference committee (Reps. Keenan, Hogan and Beaton, and Sens. Downing, Brewer and Hedlund) heard the message loud and clear, and removed the tax provisions from the final bill.

The Legislature is expected to enact the compromise energy bill as soon as today, and send it to the Governor.

Please call your legislators today and thank them for protecting local decision-making and taxing authority.

 

On another important municipal issue, the Governor last week signed the “terms bill” for the $200 million fiscal 2013 Chapter 90 local road fund distribution that was authorized by separate legislation signed in June.  With both bills now law, cities and towns can begin signing contracts for local Chapter 90 projects based on the provisional apportionment letters sent by MassDOT to cities and towns on April 1.

CPA benefits strengthened

Recent amendments of the Community Preservation Act (CPA) make it even more appealing to towns to adopt.  The CPA has towns committing to taxing themselves form 1 – 3% more each year in order to gain state matching funds.  Those matching funds were generated by surcharges on recording fees at the registry of deeds, and the % match had dropped from the initial 100% match as fewer transactions were recorded and more towns adopted the CPA, such that the match went down to about 1/3 if I recall right.

The state both better funded the match and amended the uses to which the monies can be put – the following is from the DOR’s Division of Local Services newsletter –

==========================

Governor Patrick Signs Changes to Community Preservation Act

Gov. Deval Patrick has signed into law an expansion of the Community Preservation Act (CPA) and a $25 million transfer from the state’s FY13 budget surplus to the statewide CPA Trust Fund, for distribution to communities in the fall of 2013.

The one-time transfer would supplement the existing source of revenue from the fund which comes from surcharges on fees paid to the record certain documents at the Registry of Deeds. Matching CPA grants paid from the trust to cities and towns adopting the CPA have decreased in recent years due to more participating communities and lower Registry collections reflecting a softened housing market.

The amendments, signed as part of the budget the governor signed on July 8, contains a number of changes relative to allowable CPA expenditures for recreation and housing assistance to individuals. The law also provides more options for paying into a CPA fund. The amendments are found in Chapter 139 of the Acts of 2012, Sections 69-83, 155 and 218. They took effect on July 1, 2012.

Here are highlights of these new provisions.

CPA Fund Uses:

  • Permit rehabilitation of existing recreational land not created or acquired with CPA funds
  • Expand the definition of rehabilitation to allow for capital improvements and replacement of recreational equipment
  • Add definition of capital improvement as reconstructions or alterations that materially add value or prolong the property’s life, are part of the real estate and are intended as permanent or indefinite installationsProhibit use of CPA funds to acquire artificial turf for athletic fields
  • Allow communities to include allowable recreational projects in meeting their annual 10% open space spending requirement
  • Define prohibited maintenance, as incidental repairs that do not add value or prolong the property’s life but keep the property in a condition of fitness, efficiency or readiness
  • Add definition of support of community housing as including grants, loans, rental assistance, security deposits, interest-rate write downs or other forms of assistance provided directly to individuals who qualify for community housing or entities that own or operate community housing
  • Allow communities to use in the first year only some of their CPA administrative and operating expenses to cover costs associated with tax billing software upgrades, but in an amount including other administrative expenses not greater than 5% of the annual revenues in the CPA fund

Other Revenue Sources

  • Allow communities to adopt the CPA at ballot with a minimum 1% property tax surcharge and then dedicate additional municipal revenue sources (such as local option tax revenue) to their CPA fund up to the full 3% of the real estate tax levy against real property
  • Allow communities that have already accepted CPA at a surcharge level above the 1% the option of reducing their CPA surcharge to 1% while committing additional municipal revenues their CPA Preservation Fund

Surcharge Exemptions

  • Add a new optional commercial exemption for the first $100,000 of property value for commercial and industrial properties, mirroring current exemption for residential property

Property Restrictions

  • Clarify that a real property interest acquired (rather than simply purchased) by a city or town by any mechanism using CPA funds must be bound by a separately recorded permanent restriction limiting its use to the CPA purpose for which it was acquired
  • Clarify that CPA funds may be appropriated to non-profit organizations to hold, monitor, and enforce restrictions limiting the use of land to CPA purposes

The above summary was prepared by DLS staff.

Final Cherry Sheets are out

I got notice this afternoon from DOR that the final Cherry Sheets have been issued, these after the Governor’s line item vetos, and so the FY13 state budget is final now.  The bottom line for Medfield  are the same as came out of the legislature’s budget, and we are about $210K better off than last year.

Final local aid

DOR reports that its Division of Local Services has posted updated local aid estimates based on the legislature’s Conference Committee’s budget recommendations.  These are the cherry sheet numbers for Medfield, $7,051,687.   We gained about $210,000 over last year, $197,000 over the Governor’s budget this year, but for some reason lost a buck from the House’s budget numbers.  A lot of that gain may have been the extra $40/pupil that was put into local aid this year.

Ch. 90 $ remains almost level

This email came yesterday from Dan Winslow’s office –

======================

Michael –

Medfield can expect to receive $401,430.00 in c. 90 funding for the 2013 fiscal year.  This is a decrease of $1,034.00 from the 2012 apportionment of               $402,464.00.

Please be in touch with any questions.

Best,

Nina

Nina S. Hong

Legislative Aide and Counsel

Office of State Rep. Dan Winslow

State House, Room 33

Boston, MA 02133-1054

Tel: 617-722-2060

Fax: 617-626-0602