Category Archives: Budgets

$31m. in the Bank

Posted on August 17, 2011 | Comments Off on $31m. in the Bank

At the end of the fiscal year, 6/30/11, the Town of Medfield had $31,103,640.09 in cash.  About $13m. was School Building Assistance reimbursement monies being held to pay off the debt on the school building borrowing, $9m. was various trust funds the town holds for things like pensions and health insurance, and the rest was mainly the float on the town’s operating monies.

Comments Off on $31m. in the Bank

Posted in Budgets

Building Committee – Draft Minutes from 8/4/11 meeting

Posted on August 15, 2011 | Comments Off on Building Committee – Draft Minutes from 8/4/11 meeting

draft

 Permanent  Building Committee Minutes

August 4, 2011 6:30 p.m.  Chenery Meeting Room, Medfield Town Hall

Present: Thomas Erb, Timothy Bonfatti, John Nunnari. Also present were Selectmen Peterson and Thompson, DPW Supt Feeney, Council on Aging Chairman Fellini and Town Administrator Sullivan.

Chairman Erb called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. He took up item A. Do we recommend Yes/No to the Selectman that the public works department proceed with design, bidding and construction of the Salt Shed, stating that he supports proceeding with the salt shed.  The type of construction i.e. design-build, modular, etc, was reviewed. It was concluded that a contractor should build the salt shed, and do the electrical work, and the highway department should do the paving. An architect’s stamp on the building plans should be obtained.  The salt shed would be made of wood, with a concrete knee wall.  Bonfatti acknowledged that a replacement salt shed was needed. Committee members agreed that there was no other site in the Town suitable for locating the salt shed. Bonfatti asked whether the salt shed could be built without interfering with operation of the existing town garage. Feeney said that it could and that depending on the condition of the old salt shed, it might be kept for additional storage. Feeney said that he would proceed with obtaining Planning Board site plan approval and a Zoning Board special permit.  It was requested that copies of the RFP be sent to committee members prior to advertizing for bid, so that they could review it and make changes , if necessary. Bonfatti asked whether Town Counsel Cerel approved proceeding with the salt shed. He also asked whether HNTB, the town garage architects/engineers would prepare a performance spec and bid documents for the salt shed. Feeney will review the procedures and documents with Cerel. Bonfatti moved, seconded by Nunnari, and it was voted, unanimously, to proceed with construction of the salt shed, subject to approval of the RFP by the committee.

The next item on discussed was the development of a Capital Plan and process.  Bonfatti felt that it was necessary to develop a Master Plan of future capital projects, and present this, along with existing debt schedules, future debt projections and a financing plan, including tax rate and fee impacts. He observed that the Public Works Department had no natural constituency, unlike the schools, police and fire, which could call upon residents to actively support their capital projects. He thought that it was important to point out to residents the necessity of building a new town garage and that it was a priority that needed to be done, before other capital projects could proceed. He also felt that it should be pointed out that the proposed town garage would provide space for school department maintenance vehicles and equipment, which had had been eliminated in the school renovations, to provide additional classroom space.

Bonfatti then proceeded to outline his concept of a new campus, centered on the section of Dale Street, between North Street and Adams Street. He felt that it could become a magnet for the Town, attracting new residents and addressing many of the capital needs of the Town, in a joint development concept. He noted that the Police-Fire expansion/renovation was projected for this location, as well as future renovation and/or expansion of the Dale Street School and the renovation and/or relocation of the Park and Recreation facilities. Sullivan pointed out that the area was already heavily utilized for employee and other parking needs and that the abutting residential neighborhoods would need to be considered, prior to such a proposal. Bonfatti agreed and said that extensive work would need to be done on such a proposal. He felt that the Master Plan was an important part of this and that extensive neighborhood, parental, Selectmen, Warrant Committee, School Committee involvement would be critical to its success. Fellini asked to be recognized and said that this proposal was a rehash of what was done ten years ago with Barry Colt’s Committee He said that the problem at that time was that these projects, town garage, police/fire stations and park and recreation building, came up at the same time as the School renovations and so were never done, except for the senior center.  Bonfatti felt that the campus plan could be viewed as a strategic master plan for financing future capital projects. He also felt that it could work as a political problem solver to sell the Town on the need for the capital projects and to build a constituency for the Town Garage project. However, he felt that the questions of the size and type of construction needed to be more fully addressed, if the project is to be sold to the Town. He thought that a peer review wasn’t exactly what was needed, but a feasibility study addressing the issues raised by Peterson. He questioned where we should go with HNTB. Feeney pointed out that the Town owned the plans and specs for the town garage, as Town Counsel Cerel was careful to insert language about the Town’s rights to use them.  Bonfatti noted that the new building code would not take effect until 2015, but the energy code would take effect next year.  Sullivan felt that the first order of business was to convince the Board of Selectmen of the need for a replacement town garage, as the Selectmen had taken three different positions at the Town Meeting.  It was agreed that the Committee should meet with the Selectmen in September to discuss the town garage replacement with them. Sullivan will schedule an appointment with the Selectmen for their September 20th meeting. Peterson felt that some discussion should take place on the quality of construction of public buildings in Medfield, noting that the police and fire station, which was of brick construction was also in need of renovation. He also told the Committee about a Harvard/MIT professor, whom he had heard speak as a recent meeting he attended, about building consensus on political issues and thought such an approach might work with the town garage project. Bonfatti felt that the Town could make better use of social media to inform and build support for capital projects.  He said that the School Department had been successful in building support for its overrides, although he recognized that the School Department had a natural consistency to support its efforts, and could rely on private groups to get out information to residents on school issues, while the Public Works Department had no such constituency.

In addition to scheduling a meeting with the Board of Selectmen, it was agreed that the original feasibility study on the town garage should be circulated among Committee members. The Committee also decided to meet with the Police and Fire Chiefs, the Superintendent of School s and the Park and Recreation Commission to explore the idea of developing a master plan for the various departmental plans, focused on the concept of a Dale Street campus. The Committee agreed that a meeting for this purpose should be scheduled for Thursday, September 8th at 6:30 p.m. at the town hall.

On a motion by Bonfatti, seconded by Nunnari, it was voted, unanimously, to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael Sullivan

 

 

 

Comments Off on Building Committee – Draft Minutes from 8/4/11 meeting

Posted in Budgets, Buildings

Who Pays & Who Gets Town Services for Free

Posted on August 2, 2011 | 1 comment

Who should pay for special services they get from the town and who should get them for free?  This is the question raised by MEMO’s pending application to permit Medfield Day.  This is the issue because the town provides to MEMO the services of the Medfield police and DPW employees that in turn both allow Medfield Day to occur and get cleaned up.  The town does not charge for those services, even though MEMO makes enough money from Medfield Day to pay.

The questions I have raised are ones about essential fairness, first, what groups should pay the town for the cost of loaned town employees, and second, whether the town does this for all groups.  If the town does not give free town services to all groups who ask, as I suspect, then is it fair to provide free services for one group and not for another?  And how does the town decide which groups get the town employees to work for them for free and which groups have to pay?

I estimate the cost to the town of the overtime for the town employees who work to make Medfield Day happen at about $3-5,000.  MEMO does not pay for those town services, so the town is effectively subsidizing MEMO’s Medfield Day by that amount.  The amount is not large, but the principle is.

MEMO is not a charity, it is an association of businesses, akin to a chamber of commerce, whose stated purpose is to promote its member businesses.  There is no question that MEMO is a great organization and that it runs great events for the town, at little or no cost.  It was those great services to the town that caused me to become a MEMO member – that and the fact that getting eight dinners a year for the $100 membership fee was a bargain.

The issue is whether any group, including MEMO, should pay its fair share of the costs when it costs the town money for the group to put on its events.  The last year I ran Medfield Day, about six years ago, MEMO made a profit of $18,000 from the event, and at the time MEMO members suggested using those profits to promote their member businesses.  I have questioned whether the Medfield Day profits, that are only as large as they are because the town pays to provide MEMO with free labor, should be allowed to get plowed back into the MEMO member businesses or the subsidized dinners, or would it just be fairer to the town for MEMO to pay for whatever town services it uses.

At the last the Board of Selectmen meeting, we voted 2-1 to permit Medfield Day without charging MEMO for town services.  I voted against it because I feel Medfield Day should be revenue neutral for the town – the town should continue to provide the services and MEMO should reimburse the town for the cost of those services.  I am told prior that the vote can not stand because of conflict of interest issues, so that we will vote again tonight.

Tonight I am looking to learn how our town departments determine which groups may get free services, which do not, and how is that determination made.  What follows is the email I sent this morning to the Chief of Police about his list from yesterday of all the groups for which the police provide special services.
*********************************************
Chief,
Mike Sullivan had Evelyn forward to the Board of Selectmen your list of town events for which the police provide special services (copy attached). Thank you for putting that together. I still have a few questions.

For me the whole issue over MEMO’s payment or non-payment for the town’s costs of the services provided by town employees (police and highway) related to Medfield Day is really one of essential fairness, namely is MEMO asking for and getting special treatment that other groups in town do not get or do we treat all groups as we treat MEMO. From my own experience in putting on town events, I know that MEMO was not charged for town services in the past for town services provided at Medfield Day or its other events, whereas the Medfield Park & Recreation Commission was charged for police services at the Medfield Night Fireworks.

To determine the answer to the question posed above, the Selectmen need to know which events and which groups get charged and which do not get charged for town provided services.  So to answer that question, we need to know of those events you provided on your list, what groups do pay for the additional police services you provided and what groups do not pay for police services for special events, and how that determination is made.

Therefore, to assist the Board of Selectmen in that evaluation, can you please indicate for us:

1 – What groups and/or events on your list pay for police services, and which do not?

2 – Which events are covered by police working their regular shifts, versus which require extra additional paid police shifts?

3 – How you make the determination of whom to charge and whom to not charge?

Thank you for your courtesies and assistance with this matter. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,
Pete
*******************************************

1 Comment

Posted in Budgets

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

Posted on July 12, 2011 | Comments Off on 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.

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

Posted in Budgets

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

Posted on July 12, 2011 | Comments Off on 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.

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

Posted in Budgets, Information

Massachusetts Municipal Association’s summary of Conference Committee’s Recommendations on State Budget

Posted on July 1, 2011 | Comments Off on Massachusetts Municipal Association’s summary of Conference Committee’s Recommendations on State Budget

Friday, July 1, 2011

HOUSE AND SENATE LEADERS AGREE ON STRONG AND EFFECTIVE MUNICIPAL HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM PLAN

URGENT REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION:

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SENATOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE THIS MORNING AND ASK FOR THEIR COMMITMENT TO VOTE FOR THE MUNI HEALTH PLAN AND THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE BUDGET

BUDGET CONFERENCE COMMITTEE PLAN TO BE VOTED ON AS PART OF THE FISCAL 2012 STATE BUDGET BY HOUSE AND SENATE MEMBERS ON FRIDAY, JULY 1

GOVERNOR WILL HAVE 10 DAYS TO SIGN THE REFORM ACT; HIS SUPPORT IS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE SAVINGS AND RELIEF FOR CITIES, TOWNS AND TAXPAYERS

At 8:00 p.m. last night, House and Senate leaders filed their agreement on a compromise plan to address the skyrocketing costs of municipal employee health insurance, as a key part of the fiscal 2012 state budget report issued by the budget Conference Committee. The measure will be voted on and enacted by the Legislature when the fiscal 2012 state budget is adopted by legislators on Friday, July 1st.

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SENATORS IMMEDIATELY TO CALL ON THEM TO SUPPORT THE MUNICIPAL HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN AND THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE BUDGET. IT IS VITAL THAT THEY HEAR FROM YOU THIS MORNING!

On behalf of local officials in every corner of the state, the Massachusetts Municipal Association applauds the Legislature’s outstanding work in creating a meaningful, fair, and effective reform plan that balances the needs of cities and towns, taxpayers, and municipal employees.

The legislation that the House and Senate budget conferees, Speaker and Senate President have all agreed on, 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. This is a balanced and fair reform that would allow cities and towns to save $100 million in avoided health insurance costs, while guaranteeing a strong and meaningful voice and role for municipal unions at every step in the process.

Local officials look forward to Governor Deval Patrick’s full support in signing the measure into law in the coming days. Communities are in fiscal distress, and the Legislature’s municipal health insurance reform act offers the relief that taxpayers deserve. Soaring health insurance costs are forcing cuts in essential municipal and school services, and forcing the elimination of teachers, firefighters, police officers and other key employees from local budgets. Cities and towns will use this reform to provide relief for local taxpayers, protect essential services, and preserve thousands of municipal jobs.

It is important to recognize the leadership of Speaker Robert DeLeo, Chairman Brian Dempsey, Vice Chairman Stephen Kulik, 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. We look forward to working with all legislators, the Administration and stakeholders to ensure that this reform plan delivers the relief and savings that every community needs.

MMA’S OVERVIEW OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE’S MUNICIPAL HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM PLAN

Overall, the Conference Committee plan is strong, fair and balanced for all parties. It provides real reform and savings for communities, while giving municipal unions a real and meaningful voice and role in the process.

 

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • The executive develops the proposed plan design changes (no plan could have higher co-pays, deductibles, tiered network co-payments or other 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 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.
  • 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 would be required to reach an agreement.
  • If there is a written agreement by the end of the 30-day period, the community would proceed to implement the plan as agreed.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 first-year savings, even if the mitigation plan is in place more than one year. The panel would be prohibited from imposing any change to contribution ratios.
  • Once the mitigation funds are expended, all mitigation plan obligations on the part of the community would 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.
  • 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 Conference Committee deleted a section that would have forced dozens of communities to increase contribution ratios for retirees, and instead replaced it with a reasonable provision that delays any change in the contribution ratios paid by retirees for a two-year period after a community implements its first plan design changes under the new law.
  • As previously announced in both the House and Senate plans, 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).SUMMARY OF THE REFORM PLAN AS PROVIDED BY THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE

    The following summary of the municipal health insurance reform plan was developed by the Fiscal 2012 Budget Conference Committee. The MMA will be analyzing the actual language of the proposed legislation, and will send out further details or clarifications as they become available.

    FY12 Conference Report on Municipal Health Reform

    Overview

     

  • Requires all eligible retirees to enroll in a Medicare health plan.
  • Creates 9 new sections in chapter 32B that permit plan design and enrollment in the GIC.
  • These sections will not alter the collective bargaining rights associated with premium splits.
  • It is at the option of the city or town, district or joint purchasing group to vote to accept the provisions of the new sections in order to implement plan design changes or transfer employees to the GIC.Negotiations
  • The governmental unit shall present its proposal to implement plan design changes or transfer to the GIC to the public employee committee which is composed of one member from each collective bargaining unit and a retiree representative.
  • After the proposal has been received by the committee, the governmental unit and the committee shall negotiate over the application of the estimated savings and plan design features for a period of 30 days.
  • The public employee committee shall accept any agreement by majority vote; provided, however, that the retiree representative shall have 10% of the vote.
  • If an accord cannot be reached between the governmental unit and the committee, the proposal will be submitted to a 3-person panel that shall immediately implement the plan design changes or approve the transfer to the GIC, but shall have 10 days to revise the proposed mitigation plan and may increase the percentage of savings to employees up to 25% of the initial estimate.Plan Design
  • For active employees, a governmental unit may alter co-payments, deductibles and other plan design features in its non-Medicare health plans provided that such features are no greater in dollar amount than those in the largest non-Medicare subscriber plan offered by the GIC.
  • For Medicare-eligible employees, a governmental unit may alter co-payments, deductibles and other plan design features in its Medicare health plans provided that such features are no greater in dollar amount than those in the largest Medicare subscriber plan offered by the GIC.
  • A governmental unit may increase copayments, deductibles and other plan design features provided that the dollar amounts never exceed those in the largest subscriber plan offered by the GIC; provided, however, that the governmental unit must negotiate with the public employee committee each time it implements such changes.
  • The decision to change copayments, deductibles and other plan design features will not be subject to coalition or collective bargaining; provided, however that any increases beyond the GIC are subject to bargaining.
  • A governmental unit that makes changes under this section shall be prohibited from increasing retiree contribution ratios for a period of 2 years, but only after the initial implementation of such changes.GIC
  • A governmental unit may elect to provide health care coverage to its subscribers by transferring them into the GIC.
  • The governmental unit must submit the proposal to the public employee committee for the same negotiation period as a governmental unit making plan design changes.Outside Sections
  • The provisions of sections 22 and 23 shall not be inconsistent with specific provisions of collective bargaining agreements, or section 19 agreements, in effect as of July 1, 2011.
  • Contracts that were approved by the legislature by Home Rule shall not be affected by these provisions.
  • For the next fiscal year, governmental units shall have three opportunities to transfer employees to the GIC upon giving four months notice to the commission.
  • Employees that are transferred to the GIC shall maintain their current contribution ratios for the transfer; provided, however, that contribution ratios after the transfer shall be bargained for in accordance with chapter 150E or section 19 of the General Laws.CONFERENCE COMMITTEE SUPPORTS KEY LOCAL AID ITEMS IN FISCAL 2012 BUDGET

    In the main appropriations items in the Fiscal 2012 state budget, House and Senate negotiators have agreed to fund key local aid accounts as follows:

     

  • As expected, the final legislative budget funds Chapter 70 school aid at $3.99 billion and Unrestricted General Government Aid (UGGA) at $834 million. The school aid number reflects an increase of $139 million in the state appropriation over fiscal 2011, although $82 million lower than combined state and federal support for Chapter 70. The general government aid account reflects a cut of $65 million, about 7 percent.
  • The Special Education Circuit Breaker is funded at $213 million, an $80 million increase over fiscal 2011 levels.
  • 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.
  • The conference committee budget eliminates funding for the Police Incentive Pay [Quinn] Program that would require approximately $60 million to fully fund the state’s fifty percent share. The state appropriated $5 million for this account in fiscal 2011. The budget includes $5.5 million for anti-gang grants.
  • The budget includes $71.6 million for reimbursements to cities and towns to offset a portion of school aid losses paid as tuition to charter schools. It is not clear if this amount is sufficient to fund the state’s statutory reimbursement levels.
  • The budget bill also includes a provision that could restore all or a portion of the $65 million cut to the Unrestricted General Government Aid account if the state ends fiscal 2011 with a surplus. With state tax collections running ahead of forecast through the end of June, there is a chance that there may be some state funds available for a supplemental municipal aid distribution later this year, but that will not be known until September or October, when the state finally closes it books for the year. The amendment would require that 50 percent of any “aggregate balance of appropriations,” not to exceed $65 million, be distributed to cities and towns not later than October 31, 2011. The MMA will be monitoring the status and prospects of any action under this provision very closely.
    If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, feel free to contact us.
    You can also always find additional information on our website at:
    http://www.mma.org

Comments Off on Massachusetts Municipal Association’s summary of Conference Committee’s Recommendations on State Budget

Posted in Budgets, Uncategorized

Weekly Political Report – Week Ending May 27, 2011

Posted on May 31, 2011 | Comments Off on Weekly Political Report – Week Ending May 27, 2011

Senate Passes $30.5 Billion Budget

This week the Senate voted to approve its version of the $30.51 billion FY2012 budget bill after a condensed two days of debate on the 599 amendments filed. The budget does not include any new taxes and dramatically reduces the use of non-recurring revenues. In contrast to previous budgets (the FY2011 budget relied on $1.75 billion in onetime revenues) the budget passed by the Senate last night reduces the use of one time revenue to $440 million. According to Senate Ways and Means Chairman Stephen Brewer (D-Barre), the Senate budget represents the smallest year-over-year increase in state spending in 10 years. The House and Senate versions of the FY12 budget will now move to conference committee, where the differences between the two bills will be reconciled. Conference Committee members are expected to named next week.

 

Municipal Health Reform Goes to Conference Committee

Because both the House and Senate budgets included different approaches to municipal health reform, the specifics of that reform will be worked out in conference committee negotiations before the budget is finalized. Both branches claim their versions will save municipalities $100 million in health care costs. Public employee unions issued a more measured response to the Senate’s version of the budget, in contrast to the House plan which enraged public employee unions.  Both the House and Senate versions would give municipalities more autonomy in designing health insurance plans, including the setting of co-payments and deductibles, and limit collective bargaining.

Potential Democratic Challenger to Scott Brown Approached

US Senator Patty Murray of Washington State, director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, confirmed this week that the Democratic Party was in talks with a number of potential candidates to unseat US Senator Scott Brown for the 2012 election. The New York Times reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid approached Harvard law professor and consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren about her candidacy.  Most recent polls have shown Brown with a significant lead over potential Democratic opponents for the 2012 election. In a Suffolk/7NEWS poll from April, 55% of voters believe Brown deserves to be re-elected. Brown presently has $8.3 million in his campaign account. The Democratic primary is scheduled for September 18, 2012.

 

Consumer Confidence Index Down

Consumer confidence fell for the first time since July 2010, dropping significantly in the 2nd quarter of the year. The Massachusetts consumer confidence index is currently at 67, down from 74 in the first quarter. Any score below 100 indicates that consumers are more negative than positive. According to Mass Insight President William Guenther, high unemployment and concerns over housing continue to undermine consumer confidence in the state. For the past two years, the consumer confidence index in Massachusetts has been above nationwide consumer confidence measures.

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

Comments Off on Weekly Political Report – Week Ending May 27, 2011

Posted in Budgets, Information, Uncategorized, Weekly Mass Political Summaries

Massachusetts Municipal Association Alert – re municipal health insurance

Posted on May 27, 2011 | Comments Off on Massachusetts Municipal Association Alert – re municipal health insurance

May 27, 2011

SENATE PASSES ITS MUNICIPAL HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM PLAN

SEVERAL LAST-MINUTE CHANGES SPEED PASSAGE BY SENATORS

SENATE ADOPTS $30.5 BILLION STATE BUDGET, ADDS TO SEVERAL LOCAL ACCOUNTS

The Senate completed deliberations on its $30.5 billion version of the fiscal 2012 state budget at 11:58 p.m. on Thursday, May 26, including passage of a municipal health insurance plan that remained mostly intact even after days of heavy union lobbying against the measure, although several last-minute changes were made. The House of Representatives adopted a stronger version of reform in April as part of their state budget proposal.

The House and Senate versions of the state budget and municipal health insurance reform now head to a joint House-Senate conference committee that will agree on a final bill by late June. The MMA will be advocating for passage of the strongest possible reform plan, and we encourage all municipal leaders to call on their legislators to publicly support strong, meaningful and powerful reform that discards all impediments and hurdles to achieving real savings for taxpayers.

This Senate reform proposal is somewhat similar to the House-passed measure in allowing for plan design changes and joining the GIC, yet it sets up a process that provides unions and retirees with a more structured framework. Some elements of that framework may be impractical or costly, so close examination will be necessary. At the end of the day, the Senate proposal gives unions a voice but not a veto over changes in plan co-pays and deductibles, or joining the state GIC, and requires that no more than 33% of the first-year savings be shared with employees, compared to the House’s 20% level.

As we reported last week, the process established by the Senate plan differs somewhat from the House, yet the bottom line is closer than expected – cities and towns would be able to implement plan design changes or join the GIC in order to achieve savings that would be used to protect services and preserve municipal jobs, all while giving municipal employee unions more collective bargaining power over health insurance than state employees. The reform proposal would also require all municipalities to enroll all eligible retirees into Medicare.

SENATE AMENDMENT MAKES LATE CHANGES

Senators adopted an amendment that included a significant number of changes to the original language offered by the Senate Ways and Means Committee. The MMA will be carefully analyzing all of the amendments to determine their full impact to ensure that they do not impede or interfere with reform. Upon initial examination, these changes include:

1) Changing the local acceptance of the statute from a one-time vote of the Board of Selectmen in a town, or a one-time approval of the Mayor (or Manager) and Council in a city, to a vote to accept each time the community seeks to use the new law to change health insurance benefits.

2) Requiring that communities using this new local-option law must adjust, if necessary, the percentage contribution paid by retirees, surviving spouses and dependents to the average percentage contributed by active employees to their plans. This is the same requirement that exists in current law for any community wishing to enroll in the GIC. For some communities, this may not be an issue, but for a very large number, this new requirement could be extremely expensive and prohibitive, devouring most or even all savings from plan design changes. Many communities do not offer coverage for surviving spouses. For example, if a community has an average 80-20 contribution ratio for active employees and an average 70-30 or even 50-50 contribution ratio for retirees, the community would need to shift to an average 80-20 ratio for retirees in order to implement plan design changes under the new law. This could be a major issue in the conference committee, as the House has no such language.

3) Clarifying that the plan design changes that municipalities can initiate under the legislation include increasing co-pays, deductibles and tiered provider network co-payments up to the median amounts in the GIC plans. It appears that this would exclude communities from using the new law to introduce new plans with different provider networks. This section needs additional review to determine whether it would prevent other desired changes as well.

4) Allowing cities and towns to use the new law to transfer its employees and retirees into the state GIC, however, communities would be required to document that the savings realized by entering the GIC would be at least ten percent greater than the amount that would be saved by increasing co-pays, deductibles and tiered network provider co-pays to the maximum allowable level in the community’s existing plans. The MMA supports allowing communities to make the decision to join the GIC regardless of the savings level, and will be analyzing this new threshold requirement to determine whether it would impose a costly barrier.

5) Clarifying that cities and towns may adopt health reimbursement arrangements to mitigate the impact of any plan design change or decision to join the GIC (currently the GIC does not allow HRAs for new entrants). This provision does not mandate HRAs, but does allow them.

6) For all communities that have adopted Section 19 or have enrolled in the GIC, the proposed law would allow communities and public employee committees to request all claims data from the state group insurance commission and all insurers, third party purchasing groups or administrators.

7) Clarifying that for those communities in regional purchasing groups, the participating cities or towns must ensure that their proposed plan design changes presented to the PEC are consistent with the standards set by the joint purchasing group, intended to facilitate the challenging process of making group-wide plan design changes under the proposed law.

8) Addressing the constitutional standard that prevents any new law from interfering with any existing public or private contract, the Senate adopted language as follows: “Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, changes made to health insurance benefits (under this new law) inconsistent with specific dollar amount limits on co-payments, deductibles or other health care plan design features that are included in a collective bargaining agreement in effect on July 1, 2011 or an agreement under section 19 of said chapter 32B between an appropriate public authority and a public employee committee in effect on July 1, 2011 shall not take effect until the expiration of the initial term of such agreement.” While this may be necessary language for those few communities that identify specific co-pay and deductible amounts in current contracts, this language could be highly problematic for any community that has adopted Section 19.


THE SENATE’S GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR REFORM

  • Each time a community wishes to increase co-pays, deductibles or tiered provider network co-pays or enroll in the GIC, the Board of Selectmen or Mayor/Manager and Council would vote to use the new law.
  • The municipal executive would then propose a plan to modernize the design of their employee health plans or join the state GIC, with a guarantee that all municipal and school employees would still have health plans with co-pays, deductibles and tiered provider network co-payments that are at or lower than the median co-pays and deductibles offered by the GIC.
  • Communities attempting to make plan design changes with the new law would be required, if necessary, to reduce the amount that retirees, surviving spouses and dependents contribute to their premiums, as outlined above. This would be a very costly (and potentially too costly) burden for many cities and towns.
  • The municipal executive’s plan would include 1) the desired plan design changes or entrance into the GIC; 2) the projected 1-year savings (or avoided costs) that the plan would generate; and 3) a plan to mitigate or moderate the impact on retirees, low-income employees and those with very high out-of-pocket costs (such as through a health reimbursement account, through a temporary subsidy of rates, or other proposals).
  • Communities would then convene a Public Employee Committee (PEC) identical to the make-up of the PEC in Section 19 of Chapter 32B. If a community already has adopted Section 19, then that would be the PEC. If a community has not adopted Section 19, then a temporary PEC would be established just for the purpose of negotiating on the proposal offered by the municipal executive.
  • The community and the PEC would have 30 days to reach agreement on the municipality’s proposal.
  • If no agreement is reached, the impasse would be referred to a three-member “municipal health insurance review panel” that includes a municipal representative, a labor representative, and an “impartial” third party from a list of experts in dispute mediation, municipal finance or municipal health benefits that is provided by the Secretary of Administration and Finance. If the community and labor representative cannot decide on the third member, the Secretary shall make the choice.
  • This review panel would have ten days to review and decide four matters: 1) whether the plan design changes for co-pays and deductibles proposed by the community are at or lower than the median level offered by the GIC; 2) what the one-year savings amount would be; 3) for those communities seeking to transfer into the GIC, the panel would certify that the savings would be 10% greater than the savings the community could achieve by implementing plan design changes in its existing plans; and 4) whether the proposal to mitigate or moderate the impact of the changes on retirees, low-income workers and subscribers with high out-of-pocket costs is sufficient.
  • If the municipality’s proposed changes do not exceed the GIC median, the panel is required to approve the immediate implementation of the plan design changes. If the community documents that it would save an additional 10% by joining the GIC, the panel is required to approve the transfer into the GIC.
  • The panel would also confirm the projected savings amount, and would determine whether the mitigation proposal is sufficient. The panel could require additional savings to be dedicated to health reimbursement accounts, premium reductions, or other arrangements, but in no case can the panel designate more than 33% of one-year’s savings to the mitigation plan.
  • Cities and towns would still negotiate any change in the employee-employer premium share, giving municipal unions more bargaining authority over health insurance than state employee unions. Any new co-pays or deductibles higher than the GIC median would have to be approved in collective bargaining.


While the House of Representative’s municipal health insurance reform plan is stronger than the Senate plan, it is important to note that the Senate passed a version that is a huge improvement over previous years. That progress was made possible by the dedicated work of Senate Ways and Means Chairman Stephen Brewer, Vice Chairman Steven Baddour, Vice Chair Jennifer Flanagan, Public Service Chair Katherine Clark, and was facilitated by the support of Senate President Therese Murray. Their efforts are deeply appreciated.

IN BUDGET NEWS, THE SENATE INCREASES SEVERAL LOCAL ACCOUNTS

During the Senate budget debate, Senators voted to increase several local line items as follows:

  • Added $8.5 million to the Special Education Circuit Breaker;
  • Added $3 million to Regional School Transportation;
  • Added $2 million to Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes
  • Added $1 million to the Shannon Grant Program


Comments Off on Massachusetts Municipal Association Alert – re municipal health insurance

Posted in Budgets, Information

DPW Garage Vote

Posted on May 24, 2011 | Comments Off on DPW Garage Vote

Someone kindly reached out to ask me some questions about the vote on the DPW garage, as has the press, so I will take my response and tweak it here to serve both my fellow  residents and the press.

The contrary votes yesterday on the DPW garage and the budget override indicated to me that Medfield voters are making real choices between issues.  It also indicated to me that the planning for the DPW garage needs to continue anew.  There is no question but that we need to build something new for a town garage, we just need to determine what that will be.  So that planning process should start right away.

I believe that making improvements in town governance is more akin to a marathon than a sprint, so based on our recent town meeting I have already put together and shared with the town administrators, my colleagues on the Board of Selectmen, and readers of this blog a list on things that I think the town should be doing differently to make town meeting next year work better, and much of that has to do with getting people better information in advance of town meeting about the issues upon which they are asked to vote.

As regards the DPW garage, first, I see my role as a selectman as being to gather information on behalf of the residents by reading materials and attending those many nightly meetings that residents cannot attend (last night it was about how to reduce Lyme disease in town), synthesizing that information, making evaluations, and then reporting back to the residents what I have learned.  I profess no greater abilities to make decisions, only a willingness to do the work.

Second, as regards my comments on the DPW garage, I had followed my usual procedures, but I did not hear the answers to my concerns before the town meeting, and so I stated those concerns briefly at the town meeting.  After town meeting, because I had spoken against the garage, I was asked by Richard DeSorgher to create a series of bullet points of my concerns about the DPW garage to assist Medfield High School students debate the issue, which I did.  Once that list was drafted, I then decided to share it with the town as a whole, so that my thinking could be better understood, as part of that reporting back function as a selectman.

Third, my position is that I am skeptical about what has been proposed, but I am willing to be convinced that the proposed building, or any other one, is the proper one for the town – I just want to see the case get made.  My understanding is that once we vote the monies, we will get that precise building.  In my experience, it is not a process similar to what Jim Munz posited, were we constructing a building  for ourselves or our businesses, where there could be a tweaking of the design once it is voted.  Medfield cannot do as Google just did, to bond monies now and decide later what to do.  If we could have voted the monies now and decided on the building details later, I would have supported that idea.  That reality was why it was important to me to make sure we were getting the right building details, and we can only be sure it is the right building after the case has been made and all questions answered.  The cost of the garage is a function of its size, so we need to be comfortable with its size, and size is driven by the details I questioned.

Fourth, I agree that it is an opportune time to build municipal buildings for the reasons you cite, low interest and few other construction projects.  Also, I was educated that the cost per square foot was in the ballpark, as Greg Sullivan, an architect on the Warrant Committee, assured me at a meeting a month before town meeting that the then price, I believe of $212/sq. ft., was what town garages really cost.

Fifth, I think that now we need to have this or some other DPW garage building explained to the town, and if that is done, perhaps the town will then vote to build it.  If the driver is taking advantage of the current financing and construction climate, then we can hold a special town meeting sooner that the next annual town meeting.

Comments Off on DPW Garage Vote

Posted in Budgets

Health Insurance Reform, per Massachusetts Municipal Association

Posted on May 19, 2011 | Comments Off on Health Insurance Reform, per Massachusetts Municipal Association

TheMassachusetts Municipal Association sends selectmen alerts on hot political topics – this one came yesterday on the Senate’s proposed budget and the health insurance reform, and explains the issues.

SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE RELEASES FY 2012 BUDGET PROPOSAL

  • MUNICIPAL HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM PLAN INCLUDED
  • MAJOR LOCAL AID ACCOUNTS MATCH HOUSE BUDGET
  • PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS TODAY
    Earlier today, the Senate Ways and Means Committee released their proposed fiscal 2012 state budget, which seeks to close an estimated $1.9 billion shortfall. In a major development for cities and towns, the Senate budget document includes a municipal health insurance reform proposal intended to provide relief for cities and towns.

    Despite the state’s difficult fiscal condition, the Senate Ways and Means budget would fund the Unrestricted General Government Aid, Chapter 70, PILOT, and Regional School Transportation accounts at the same level proposed by Governor Patrick and the House earlier this year.

    Senators are in the process of filing amendments to the budget that must be submitted by noon on Friday, May 20, with debate commencing on Wednesday, May 25. The Senate will finish its budget deliberations by Friday, May 27.

    PLEASE TAKE ACTION TODAY:

    CALL YOUR SENATORS AND ASK FOR THEIR COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT THE SENATE MUNICIPAL HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM PROVISION WITH NO WEAKENING AMENDMENTS

    SENATE LEADERS PROPOSE MUNICIPAL HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM

    As you know, the MMA has strongly endorsed the municipal health insurance reform proposal adopted by the House of Representatives in April, thanks to the leadership of Speaker Robert DeLeo, House Ways and Means Chairman Brian Dempsey, Vice Chairs Stephen Kulik and Marty Walz, and House Public Service Committee Chairman John Scibak. The House plan is a strong, balanced, fair and meaningful bill that would provide powerful relief for cities and towns. After the House adopted their plan by a groundbreaking 113-42 vote, all eyes turned to the Senate.

    The plan proposed today by Senate President Therese Murray, Senate Ways and Means Chairman Stephen Brewer, Vice Chairs Steven Baddour and Jennifer Flanagan, Senate Public Service Chair Katherine Clark and the Senate Ways and Means Committee is a strong plan that offers significant reform for cities, towns and taxpayers.

    The process established by the Senate plan differs from the House framework, yet the bottom line is very close – cities and towns would be able to implement plan design changes or join the GIC in order to achieve real savings that would be used to protect services and preserve municipal jobs, all while giving municipal employee unions more collective bargaining power over health insurance than state employees. The reform proposal would also require all municipalities to enroll all eligible retirees into Medicare.

    The key provisions of the reform proposal (Sections 45-49, 51, 109 and 110 of the SW&M budget) are as follows:

  • As drafted, municipalities would accept the new law by vote of the Board of Selectmen, or by approval by the Mayor and Council.
  • The municipal executive would then propose a plan to modernize the design of their employee health plans or join the state GIC, with a guarantee that all municipal and school employees would still have health plans with co-pays, deductibles and other plan features that are at or lower than the median co-pays, deductibles or plan design features offered by the GIC.
  • The municipal executive’s plan would include 1) the desired plan design changes or entrance into the GIC, 2) the projected 1-year savings (or avoided costs) that the plan would generate, and 3) a plan to mitigate or moderate the impact on retirees, low-income employees and those with very high out-of-pocket costs (such as through a health reimbursement account, through a temporary subsidy of rates, or other proposals).
  • Communities would then convene a Public Employee Committee (PEC) identical to the make-up of the PEC in Section 19 of Chapter 32B. If a community already has adopted Section 19, then that would be the PEC. If a community has not adopted Section 19, then a temporary PEC would be established just for the purpose of negotiating on the proposal offered by the municipal executive.
  • The community and the PEC would have 30 days to reach agreement on the municipality’s proposal.
  • If no agreement is reached, the impasse would be referred to a three-member “municipal health insurance review panel” that includes a municipal representative, a labor representative, and an “impartial” third party from a list of experts in dispute mediation, municipal finance or municipal health benefits that is provided by the Secretary of Administration and Finance. If the community and labor representative cannot decide on the third member, the Secretary shall make the choice.
  • This review panel would have ten days to review and decide three matters: 1) whether the plan design changes for co-pays, deductibles and other features proposed by the community are at or lower than the median level of the features offered by the GIC, 2) what the one-year savings amount would be, and 3) whether the proposal to mitigate or moderate the impact of the changes on retirees, low-income workers and subscribers with high out-of-pocket costs is sufficient.
  • If the municipality’s proposed changes do not exceed the GIC median, the panel is required to approve the immediate implementation of the plan design changes. This means that cities and towns would be able to implement plan design reform or join the GIC. This is a strong and powerful proposal that would benefit every community in Massachusetts.
  • The panel would also confirm the projected savings amount, and would determine whether the mitigation proposal is sufficient. The panel could require additional savings to be dedicated to health reimbursement accounts, premium reductions, or other arrangements, but in no case can the panel designate more than 33% of one-year’s savings to the mitigation plan.
  • Cities and towns would still negotiate any change in the employee-employer premium share, giving municipal unions more bargaining authority over health insurance than state employee unions. Any new co-pays or deductibles higher than the GIC median would have to be approved in collective bargaining.
  • This measure is similar to the House plan in allowing for plan design changes and joining the GIC, yet sets up a process that provides unions with a more structured framework. At the end of the day, the proposal gives unions a voice but not a veto over plan design changes, and requires that no more than 33% of the savings be shared with employees in the first year, compared to the House’s 20% level. Overall, the Senate plan targets the same $100 million reduction in health plan costs that the House embraced.

  • The MMA will be working with Senators and the Ways and Means Committee on the details of the plan over the coming days and through the debate.

    Municipal employees would benefit from the legislation in three ways – union jobs would be protected, employee premiums would be lower, and communities would establish health reimbursement accounts or other savings measures to offset a portion of the costs for those employees who are heavy users of the health care system.

    Please Call Your Senators Today And Ask For Their Commitment to Support the Senate Ways and Means Municipal Health Insurance Reform Proposal With NO Weakening Amendments. Key points to make are:

  • The legislation proposed by the Senate President and the Senate Ways and Means Committee saves taxpayers money, preserves essential local services, protects municipal union jobs, guarantees equity with state employee health benefits, and still leaves municipal unions with more bargaining power than state unions. This is a balanced, meaningful, fair and transparent reform that would allow cities and towns to save $100 million in avoided health insurance costs.
  • Communities are in fiscal crisis, and municipal health insurance reform offers meaningful relief that taxpayers deserve. Skyrocketing health insurance costs are forcing cuts in essential municipal and school services, and forcing the elimination of teachers, firefighters, police officers and other key employees from local budgets. Cities and towns will use this reform to provide relief for local taxpayers, protect essential services, and preserve thousands of municipal jobs.

    KEY LOCAL AID ACCOUNTS IN THE SENATE WAYS AND MEANS BUDGET FOR FISCAL 2012

    The fiscal 2012 state budget recommendation filed by the Senate Ways and Means Committee would generally match the local aid numbers in the Governor’s and House budget from earlier this year. Unrestricted General Government Aid would be cut by $65 million, but the state appropriation for Chapter 70 school aid would increase by $140 million.

    Preliminary Cherry Sheets for fiscal 2012 showing estimated municipal and school aid amounts based on the Governor’s, House, and Senate Ways and Means budget recommendations have been posted on the Division of Local Services Web site.

    CLICK HERE TO SEE YOUR ESTIMATED CHERRY SHEET FROM DLS:

    The proposed cut to the Unrestricted General Government Aid (UGGA) account, formerly Lottery and Additional Assistance, would mark the fourth year of cuts and result in a total drop of $481 million, about 37 percent, since fiscal 2008. The SW&M budget would level fund the Cherry Sheet Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes account at $25 million and fund the Regional School Transportation account at $40.5 million, the same level as the Governor, House and Fiscal 2011. Funding for the Police Career Incentive Pay Program would be $2.5 million. The bill also includes a small $1.7 million reduction to the Charter School Reimbursement Account compared to the House level.

    The most significant difference is that the Senate budget plan would provide $30 million less for the Special Education Circuit Breaker program than the House or Governor – making this a priority issue during the Senate budget debate and conference committee deliberations.

    If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, feel free to contact us.
    You can also always find additional information on our website at:
    http://www.mma.org

Comments Off on Health Insurance Reform, per Massachusetts Municipal Association

Posted in Budgets