Category Archives: Financial

MMA says state budget protected municipalities

Posted on July 8, 2017 | Comments Off on MMA says state budget protected municipalities

This alert came yesterday from the Massachusetts Municipal Association with its analysis of the state budget that passed the legislature this week: “Legislators recognize that cities and towns have already passed their fiscal 2018 budgets, which is why they protected the UGGA and Chapter 70 increases that were announced earlier this year and included in the House and Senate budgets.”

MMA

July 7, 2017
 

LEGISLATURE’S FY 2018 STATE BUDGET FULLY FUNDS 39.9 MILLION UGGA INCREASE

LAWMAKERS VOTE TODAY ON THE BUDGET AFTER LOWERING FY 2018 REVENUE ESTIMATES BY $700M

IN SPITE OF WIDESPREAD CUTS TO STATE ACCOUNTS, LEGISLATORS MAINTAIN KEY INVESTMENTS IN MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL AID
• INCLUDES THE FULL $39.9M INCREASE IN UNRESTRICTED MUNICIPAL AID (UGGA)

• INCREASES CHAPTER 70 TO $4.75B TO FUND MINIMUM AID AT $30 PER STUDENT

• CH. 70 INCLUDES $12.5M TO PROTECT AGAINST LOST FUNDING FOR LOW-INCOME STUDENTS

• ADDS $4M TO SPECIAL EDUCATION CIRCUIT BREAKER

• LEVEL-FUNDS MOST OTHER MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTS

• AIRBNB LODGING TAX REFORMS DEFERRED TO SEPARATE LEGISLATION 

 

Earlier this morning, the Legislature’s budget conference committee reported out a lean $40.2 billion fiscal 2018 state budget plan that is based on a $700 million reduction in expected tax revenues for next year. Very weak tax collections this year have created a $440 million hole in the FY 2017 budget, and forced lawmakers to make a $700 million downward adjustment in their FY 2018 forecast.

The House and Senate have scheduled formal sessions for this afternoon (Friday, July 7th), and it is expected that legislators will vote to approve and send the budget to Governor Baker today. The Governor will then have 10 days to sign, veto or recommend changes to the appropriations and outside sections.

While the Legislature’s budget enacts widespread reductions in state budget accounts, Representatives and Senators are clearly protecting and prioritizing municipal and school aid, as the conference committee budget (H. 3800) makes key investments in local aid priorities, including a $39.9 million increase in unrestricted municipal aid (UGGA), a $119 million increase in Chapter 70 school aid, and a $4 million increase in special education reimbursements. The remaining accounts are generally level funded.

Legislators recognize that cities and towns have already passed their fiscal 2018 budgets, which is why they protected the UGGA and Chapter 70 increases that were announced earlier this year and included in the House and Senate budgets. Any last-minute reductions in UGGA or Chapter 70 would have disrupted local budgets and forced mid-year cuts. Fortunately, lawmakers went to great lengths to prevent this.

Please Click this Link Now to Download H. 3800, the Legislature’s Fiscal 2018 Budget – You Can See Your Community’s UGGA and Chapter 70 Amounts in Section 3 of the Budget, which Starts on Page 226
$39.9 MILLION INCREASE IN UNRESTRICTED MUNICIPAL AID
In a major victory for cities and towns, the Legislature’s fiscal 2018 budget plan provides $1.061 billion for UGGA, a $39.9 million increase over current funding – the same increase proposed by Governor Baker and voted by the House and Senate. Almost all of UGGA funding comes from $985M in expected Lottery proceeds and $65M from the Plainridge gaming facility. The full $39.9 million UGGA increase is a top priority for cities and towns, because municipalities are counting on these funds to balance their budgets and maintain essential services for their residents.

CHAPTER 70 MINIMUM AID WOULD INCREASE TO $30 PER STUDENT
With $4.75 billion for Chapter 70 aid, the Legislature’s budget includes a $119 million increase in Chapter 70 education aid (this is $27.5 million higher than the $91.4 million increase in House One), providing a minimum aid increase of at least $30 per student (compared to the $20-per-student amount in the Governor’s budget). The Legislature’s budget continues to implement the target share provisions enacted in 2007, and builds on the proposal by the Governor to start addressing shortfalls in the foundation budget framework. The Legislature’s budget increases foundation budget funding by adding more weight to the health insurance cost factor.

The Legislature’s budget includes $12.5M in the Chapter 70 appropriation to hold school districts harmless from changes in the method of counting low-income students. This is similar to the Legislature’s handling of the problem in the fiscal 2017 budget. H. 3800 includes language stating that this “transitional” assistance to address the problems in calculating low-income student costs is included in the per-district distribution amounts listed in Section 3 of the budget.

In the context of a very tight budget year, the Legislature’s increase in Chapter 70 funding is certainly welcome progress. The MMA continues to give top priority to full funding for the Foundation Budget Review Commission’s recommendations, and over the long-term will work to build on this increase.

$4 MILLION INCREASE FOR THE SPECIAL EDUCATION CIRCUIT BREAKER
In another budget advancement for cities and towns, the Legislature’s budget would add $4 million to the Special Education Circuit Breaker program, providing $281 million. The Governor’s budget proposed level-funding at $277 million. The $4 million increase is a step forward, although this is still short of full funding for a vital program that every city, town and school district relies on to fund state-mandated services. The MMA will work to continue building on this welcome increase.

FUNDING FOR CHARTER SCHOOL REIMBURSEMENTS REMAINS FLAT
The Legislature’s budget would level-fund charter school reimbursements at $80.5 million, far below the amount necessary to fully fund the statutory formula that was originally established to offset a portion of the funding that communities are required to transfer to charter schools. The fiscal 2017 funding level is $54.6 million below what is necessary to fund the reimbursement formula that is written into state law. If this program is level funded, the shortfall will grow to an estimated $76.4 million in fiscal 2018. This would lead to the continued and growing diversion of Chapter 70 funds away from municipally operated school districts, and place greater strain on the districts that serve 96% of public school children. Solving the charter school funding problem is a major priority for the MMA.

REGIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION, PAYMENTS-IN-LIEU-OF-TAXES (PILOT), LIBRARY AID ACCOUNTS, METCO, McKINNEY-VENTO, AND SHANNON ANTI-GANG GRANTS
Compared to current fiscal 2017 appropriations, the Legislature’s fiscal 2018 budget increases Regional School Transportation Reimbursements by $1 million (up to $61.5 million), a very important account for smaller and rural communities. The budget would level-fund PILOT payments at $26.77 million, add $188K to library grant programs, level-fund METCO, and fund McKinney-Vento reimbursements at $8.1 million, a reduction of $250K. The Legislature’s budget would level-fund Shannon Anti-Gang Grants at $6 million.

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE BUDGET DEFERS IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LOCAL AND STATE LODGING EXCISE TAX TO SEPARATE LEGISLATION
The Legislature’s final budget defers action on important reforms to the room occupancy excise. Progress on this issue will now focus on separate legislation that is being crafted by Rep. Aaron Michlewitz in the House. The Senate budget had included language to close loopholes that allow the increasing variety of transient and other short-term rentals to escape taxation, including rentals through Airbnb and other similar online companies and through on-line re-sellers. These are important steps to bring parity and a level-playing field to the collection of lodging excise payments, and the MMA will continue to work hard to achieve passage this year.

Please Call Your Representatives and Senators Today to Say Thank You for the Local Aid Investments in the Legislature’s Budget – Including the $39.9 Million Increase in Unrestricted Local Aid and the $119 Million Increase in Chapter 70 School Aid

Thank You Very Much!

 

Comments Off on MMA says state budget protected municipalities

Posted in Budgets, Financial, Legislature, Massachusetts Municipal Association, State, Uncategorized

Chip seal

Posted on July 8, 2017 | Comments Off on Chip seal

chip seal

None of prefer the chip seal treatment of our side streets, but given the cost differential, I have come to accept it as a cost effective solution.  Please understand that residents are free to opt at the annual town meeting (ATM) to vote to pave streets with asphalt instead of using chip seal.  All spending decision ultimately belong to us, the residents, at our ATM. –

Since I recently had a resident question me about the use of chip seal on his street and since I have historically heard the same questions, I asked our DPW Director, Maurice Goulet,  if he could quantify the cost savings to share with residents.

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

Pete,

Below is a comparison of Chip Sealing roadways vs. Pavement Overlay and/or Mill and Overlay as requested.

Consider a scenario of 1 mile of roadway that is 20 feet wide at current contractor prices:

5,280 feet long X 20 feet wide / 9 = 11,733 square yards

 

$24,639 – chip seal

$69,922 – pavement overlay

(65% savings)

(pavement overlay does not include raising structures such as catch basins, manholes and gates, and reconstructing driveway aprons affected by raising pavement elevation, pavement elevation changes also creates new drainage issues)

 

Overlaying on a distressed roadway develops reflective cracking through the new surface within a few years affecting longevity of the surface. Milling (grinding) and overlay would then be considered as the preferred method.

 

$24,639 – chip seal

$91,628 – mill and overlay

(73% savings)

 

Please let me know if you have any questions. Hope this is helpful.

—

Maurice G. Goulet

Director of Public Works

Medfield, Massachusetts

 

Department of Public Works

55 North Meadows Road

Medfield, MA 02052

(508) 359-8597 office

(508) 359-4050 fax

mgoulet@medfield.net

www.town.medfield.net

Comments Off on Chip seal

Posted in Budgets, DPW, Financial, Town Services

State budget status – expect less aid

Posted on June 27, 2017 | Comments Off on State budget status – expect less aid

This from the Massachusetts Municipal Association on the status of the state budget –

MMA-2

June 26, 2017
MMA

LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE still working on

FISCAL 2018 STATE BUDGET – LOCAL AID IS AT STAKE
DECLINING STATE TAX COLLECTIONS CLOUD BUDGET PICTURE, LEGISLATURE MAY REVISIT REVENUE ESTIMATE AND REDUCE FY 2018 SPENDING ACROSS THE BOARD
Please Call Today and Ask Your Legislators to:
• PROTECT UNRESTRICTED MUNICIPAL AID AS A TOP PRIORITY
• FUND CHAPTER 70 SCHOOL AID AT HIGHEST LEVEL
• FULLY FUND SPED CIRCUIT BREAKER
• INCREASE FUNDING FOR CHARTER SCHOOL REIMBURSEMENTS
• BRING FAIRNESS TO THE LODGING EXCISE AND SHORT-TERM RENTALS
The House and Senate passed their own versions of next year’s fiscal 2018 state budget earlier this month, and the budget conference committee has been meeting to iron out the differences and present a balanced budget for adoption by the full legislature.

However, declining state tax collections have opened a gaping hole in the current fiscal 2017 budget, and state leaders are revisiting and lowering their revenue assumptions for next year – this could lead lawmakers to make across-the-board budget cuts in next year’s budget, including to unrestricted municipal aid (UGGA), education funding, and many other vital programs. This process is taking longer than expected, which is why lawmakers have passed a temporary one-month budget to keep state government operating through the end of July.

It is imperative that you contact your Representatives and Senators as soon as possible and ask them to protect local aid as a top priority – cities and towns have balanced their budgets based on receiving the full $39.9 million expected increase in Unrestricted General Government Aid, $30 per student in minimum aid for Chapter 70, and full funding of vital accounts, including special education reimbursements. Cuts to these local aid programs would create budget shortfalls for all 351 cities and towns, and force communities to re-open their budgets to impose mid-year program cuts.

Please call your legislators today and ask them to fully protect local aid

Please click here to download a copy of MMA’s letter to House and Senate leaders detailing local aid priorities in the fiscal 2018 state budget

UNRESTRICTED GENERAL GOVERNMENT AID (UGGA)
Please ask your legislators to make it a top priority to protect the full $39.9 million increase in the Unrestricted General Government Aid (UGGA) account that was included in both the House and Senate budgets. It is important to note that the UGGA program is funded almost entirely by Lottery and gaming revenues, including $64 million from the Plainridge Park Casino. Most of the remaining amount would come from Lottery proceeds that the State Treasurer has forecast at $965 million next year. Almost all of the UGGA account is funded by gaming revenues that are supposed to go directly to cities and towns, and should not be diverted for other purposes.

CHAPTER 70 SCHOOL AID
Please ask your legislators to support an increase for Chapter 70 school aid that provides at least $30 per student in minimum aid, starts the implementation of the Foundation Budget Review Commission recommendations to increase the state’s funding commitment, and protects communities with low-income students.

SPECIAL EDUCATION “CIRCUIT BREAKER”
Please ask your legislators to support full funding of the Special Education “Circuit Breaker” Program, which would require $294.4 million, as proposed by the Senate.

CHARTER SCHOOL REIMBURSEMENTS
Both the House and Senate budgets significantly underfund the charter school reimbursements. Fixing this program in an absolute priority, because a record level of Chapter 70 aid is being diverted away from cities and towns to fund charter schools, which only serve about 4% of the students. The Senate budget would increase funding by $3 million, while the House budget level-funds the program at $80.5 million. This $3 million increase is critically important to those communities that are struggling under the deeply flawed system. Please ask your legislators to keep this $3 million increase.

BRINGING FAIRNESS TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND TAX POLICY
The MMA is strongly supporting the Senate language that would modernize and close loopholes in the room occupancy excise, and provide cities and towns with authority to set local rules for the industry. New technologies and business practices have changed how people book and pay for vacations, business trips and other short-term stays away from home. The Senate provision would apply the same rules across all types of occupancy, and is a complete package in that it also closes the internet reseller loophole. Industry leader Airbnb has also endorsed the Senate provision, which demonstrates that this solution offers a strong foundation to fix this issue from both the municipal and business perspective. This is an urgent issue and we ask you to call your legislators to support this proposal to allow the local hotel-motel excise to cover these short-term and seasonal rentals.
PLEASE ASK YOUR LEGISLATORS TODAY TO PROTECT THE $39.9 MILLION INCREASE IN UNRESTRICTED MUNICIPAL AID – THIS INCREASE IS VITAL TO LOCAL BUDGETS IN EVERY CORNER OF MASSACHUSETTS

AND PLEASE ASK YOUR LEGISLATORS TO FULLY FUND ALL KEY MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL PROGRAMS, AND CLOSE LOOPHOLES FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS UNDER THE HOTEL-MOTEL LODGING EXCISE

THANK YOU!!

Comments Off on State budget status – expect less aid

Posted in Budgets, Financial, Legislature, State

Summary of the study measuring the economic impact of the arts and cultural organizations in Medfield

Posted on June 26, 2017 | Comments Off on Summary of the study measuring the economic impact of the arts and cultural organizations in Medfield

~.--Arts&Economic Prosperity®S A Project of Americans for the Arts The Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts and Cultural Organizations and Their Audiences in the Town of Medfield, MA (Fiscal Year 2015) Arts and Cultural Direct Economic Activity ~ Total Industry Expenditures $2,748,727 + Arts and Cultural Audiences $382,700 Economic Impact of Spending by Arts and Cultural Organizations and Their Audiences Total Economic Impact of Expenditures Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Jobs Supported Household Income Paid to Residents Revenue Generated to Local Government Revenue Generated to State Government Economic Impact of ~ 118 $1,944,000 $98,000 $86,000 + Economic Impact of Audiences 7 $143,000 $15,000 $25,000 = = Total Industry Expenditures $3,131,427 Total Economic Impact 125 $2,087,000 $113,000 $111,000 Event-Related Spending by Arts and Cultural Audiences Totaled $382,700 (gcluding the cost of admission) Attendance to Arts and Culture Events Total Attendance to Arts and Culture Events Percentage of Total Attendance Average Event-Related Spending Per Person Total Event-Related Expenditures Resident' Attendees 28,703 92.6% $12.02 $345,010 + Nonresident' Attendees 2,294 7.4% $16.43 $37,690 = All Cultural Audiences 30,997 100.0% $12.35 $382,700 Nonprofit Arts and Cultural Event Attendees Spend an Average of $12.35 Per Person (£!eluding the cost of admission) Category of Event-Related Expenditure Meals and Refreshments Souvenirs and Gifts Ground Transportation Overnight Lodging (one night only) Other/Miscellaneous Average Event-Related Spending Per Person Resident' Attendees $8.07 $2.06 $0.27 $0.01 $1.61 $12.02 Nonresident' Attendees $8.73 $3.41 $0.24 $2.56 $1.49 $16.43 All Cultural Audiences I $8.12 $2.16 $0.27 $0.20 $1.60 $12.35 Source: Arts & Economic Prosperity 5: The Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts and Cultural Organizations and Their Audiences in the Town of Medfield. For more information about this study or about other cultural initiatives in the Town of Medfield, visit the Cultural Alliance of Medfield's web site at www.medfieldculture.org/medfield-cultural-council. Copyright 2017 by Americans for the Arts (www.AmericansForTheArts.org). About This Study This Arts & Economic Prosperity 5 study was conducted by Americans for the Arts to document the economic impact of the nonprofit arts and culture industry in 341 communities and regions (113 cities, 115 counties, 81 multicity or multicounty regions, 10 states, and 12 individual arts districts)-representing all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The diverse communities range in population (1,500 to more than 4 million) and type (small rural to large urban). Project economists from the Georgia Institute of Technology customized an input-output analysis model for each participating region to provide specific and localized data on four measures of economic impact: full-time equivalent jobs, household income, and local and state government revenue. These localized models allow for the uniqueness of each local economy to be reflected in the findings. Americans for the Arts partnered with 250 local, regional, and statewide organizations that represent the 341 study regions (30 partners included multiple study regions as part of their participation). To complete this customized analysis for the Town of Medfield, the Cultural Alliance of Medfield joined the study as one of the 250 partners. Surveys of Nonprofit Arts and Cultural ORGANIZATIONS Each of the 250 partner organizations identified the universe of nonprofit arts and cultural organizations that are located in its region(s) using the Urban Institute's National Taxonomy of Exempt Entity (NTEE) coding system, a definitive classification system for nonprofit organizations recognized as tax exempt by the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the study partners were encouraged to include other types of eligible organizations if they play a substantial role in the cultural life of the community or iftheir primary purpose is to promote participation in, appreciation for, and understanding of the visual, performing, folk, and literary and media arts. These include government-owned or government-operated cultural facilities and institutions; municipal arts agencies and councils; private community arts organizations; unincorporated arts groups; living collections (such as zoos, aquariums, and botanical gardens); university presenters, programs, and facilities; and arts programs that are embedded under the umbrella of a nonarts organization or facility (such as a hospital or church). In short, if it displays the characteristics of a nonprofit arts and cultural organization, it is included. For-profit businesses (e.g., Broadway, motion picture theaters) and individual artists were excluded from this study. Nationally, data was collected from a total of 14,439 organizations for this study. Response rates among all eligible organizations located in the 341 study regions was 54.0 percent, and ranged from 9.5 percent to 100 percent. Responding organizations had budgets ranging from $0 to $785 million (Smithsonian Institution). It is important to note that each study region's results are based solely on the actual survey data collected. There are no estimates made to account for nonresponding organizations. Therefore, the less-than-100 percent response rates suggest an understatement of the economic impact findings in most of the individual study regions. In the Town of Medfield, 17 of the 17 eligible nonprofit arts and cultural organizations participated in this study-an overall participation rate of 100.0 percent. A list of the participating organizations can be obtained from the Cultural Alliance of Medfield. Surveys of Nonprofit Arts and Cultural AUDIENCES Audience-intercept surveying, a common and accepted research method, was completed in all 341 study regions to capture information about spending by audiences at nonprofit arts and culture events. Patrons were selected randomly and asked to complete a short survey while attending an event. A total of212,691 attendees completed the survey. The respondents provided itemized travel party expenditure data on attendance-related activities such as meals, souvenirs, transportation, and lodging. Data was collected throughout the year to guard against seasonal spikes or drop-offs in attendance, and at a broad range of events (because a night at the opera will typically yield more spending than a Saturday children's theater production). Using total attendance data for 2015 (collected from the participating organizations), standard statistical methods were then used to derive a reliable estimate of total arts event-related expenditures by attendees in each study region. In the Town of Medfield, a total of 527 valid audience-intercept surveys were collected from attendees to nonprofit arts and cultural performances, events, and exhibitions during 2016. Studying Economic Impact Using Input-Output Analysis To derive the most reliable economic impact data, input-output analysis was used to measure the impact of expenditures by nonprofit arts and cultural organizations and their audiences. This highly-regarded type of economic analysis has been the basis for two Nobel Prizes in economics. The models are systems of mathematical equations that combine statistical methods and economic theory in an area of study called econometrics. The analysis traces how many times a dollar is respent within the local economy before it leaves the community, and it quantifies the economic impact of each of those rounds of spending. Project economists customized an input-output model for each of the 341 participating study regions based on the local dollar flow among 533 finely detailed industries within its economy. This was accomplished by using detailed data on employment, incomes, and government revenues provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce (County Business Patterns, the Regional Economic Information System, and the Survey of State and Local Finance), state and local tax data (e.g., sales taxes, lodging tax, property taxes, income tax, and miscellaneous local option taxes), and the survey data collected from the responding arts and cultural organizations and their audiences. 1 For the purpose of this study, residents are attendees who live within Norfolk County; nonresidents live elsewhere. A comprehensive description of the methodology used to complete the national study is available at www.AmericansForTheArts.org/Economiclmpact.20170620-Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts_Page_2

Comments Off on Summary of the study measuring the economic impact of the arts and cultural organizations in Medfield

Posted in Art, Cultural, Financial

MMA on Senate’s budget

Posted on May 17, 2017 | Comments Off on MMA on Senate’s budget

This was from the Massachusetts Municipal Association on the Senate’s version of the state budget –

MMA-2

SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE OFFERS $40.3B FY 2018 STATE BUDGET THAT MAKES KEY INVESTMENTS IN MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL AID
 • INCLUDES THE FULL $40M INCREASE IN UNRESTRICTED MUNICIPAL AID (UGGA)

• INCREASES CHAPTER 70 TO $4.63B TO FUND MINIMUM AID AT $30 PER STUDENT

• CH. 70 INCLUDES $10M MORE THAN HOUSE FOR FOUNDATION BUDGET FUNDING

• ADDS $16.5M TO FULLY FUND SPECIAL EDUCATION CIRCUIT BREAKER

• LEVEL-FUNDS MOST OTHER MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTS

 

Earlier today, the Senate Ways & Means Committee reported out a lean $40.3 billion fiscal 2018 state budget plan to increase overall state expenditures by 3.3 percent.  The budget proposal makes key investments in municipal and education aid priorities.

S. 3, the Senate Ways and Means budget, includes the full $40 million increase in Unrestricted General Government Aid that the House and Governor have proposed.  Communities are counting on the full $40 million UGGA increase to balance their budgets and maintain essential services.

The Senate budget plan also increases Chapter 70 aid by $37.4 million above the Governor’s recommendation by increasing minimum aid from $20 per student to $30 per student, going farther in implementing the Foundation Budget Review Commission recommendations, and adding $12 million to hold districts harmless in the new calculation of the number of low-income students.  The House-passed budget also set minimum aid at $30 per student and includes the $12 million for low-income students.  After accounting for those changes, the Senate Ways & Means Committee’s budget provides $10 million more for Chapter 70 than the House, primarily by joining the House in increasing the calculation of employee health insurance costs, and then expanding on that by increasing the calculation of special-education-related costs.

In a major step forward for cities and towns, the Senate W&M Committee would add $16.5 million to fully fund the Special Education Circuit Breaker, an important priority for communities.

The full Senate will begin debating the fiscal 2018 state budget on Tuesday, May 23.

Please Click this Link Now to See the Chapter 70 and Unrestricted Municipal Aid Numbers for Your Community

Click this Link to See Your Community’s Local Aid and Preliminary Cherry Sheet Numbers in the Senate Ways & Means Budget, as Posted by the Division of Local Services

$40 MILLION INCREASE IN UNRESTRICTED MUNICIPAL AID
In a major victory for cities and towns, the SW&M fiscal 2018 budget plan (S. 3) would provide $1.061 billion for UGGA, a $40 million increase over current funding – the same increase proposed by Governor Baker and voted by the House. Almost all of UGGA funding comes from $985M in expected Lottery proceeds and $65M from the Plainridge gaming facility. The full $40 million UGGA increase is a top priority for cities and towns, because municipalities are counting on these funds to balance their budgets and maintain essential services for their residents.

CHAPTER 70 MINIMUM AID WOULD INCREASE TO $30 PER STUDENT
The Senate budget committee is proposing a $128.8 million increase in Chapter 70 education aid (this is $37.4 million higher than the $91.4 million increase in House One), joining the House in supporting a minimum aid increase of at least $30 per student (compared to the $20-per-student amount in the Governor’s budget). The Senate budget would continue to implement the target share provisions enacted in 2007. Further, the Senate Ways & Means Committee proposal would build on the proposals by the House and Governor to start addressing shortfalls in the foundation budget framework. In addition to increasing the cost factors for employee health insurance, the Senate budget committee would increase the cost factors for special education, which accounts for why the Senate W&M Chapter 70 proposal is $10M higher than the House.

Both the Senate and House budgets would provide $12M to hold school districts harmless from changes in the method of counting low-income students. This is similar to the Legislature’s handling of the problem in the current fiscal 2017 budget.

In the context of a very tight budget year, the Senate budget committee’s increase in Chapter 70 funding is certainly welcome progress. The MMA continues to give top priority to full funding for the Foundation Budget Review Commission’s recommendations, and over the long-term will work to build on this increase.

$16.5 MILLION INCREASE INTENDED TO FULLY FUND SPECIAL EDUCATION CIRCUIT BREAKER
In another important budget priority for cities and towns, Senate leaders have announced that they support full funding for the Special Education Circuit Breaker program. The Senate budget plan would provide $293.7 million, a $16.5 million increase above fiscal 2017 budget and the Governor’s recommendation for fiscal 2018 (he proposed level-funding). The House added $4 million during its deliberations, and the SW&M proposal goes all the way to full funding. Every city, town and school district relies on the circuit-breaker program to fund state-mandated special education services.

FUNDING FOR CHARTER SCHOOL REIMBURSEMENTS REMAINS FLAT
The SW&M budget would level-fund charter school reimbursements at $80.5 million, far below the amount necessary to fully fund the statutory formula that was originally established to offset a portion of the funding that communities are required to transfer to charter schools. The fiscal 2017 funding level is $54.6 million below what is necessary to fund the reimbursement formula that is written into state law. If this program is level funded, the shortfall will grow to an estimated $76.4 million in fiscal 2018. This would lead to the continued and growing diversion of Chapter 70 funds away from municipally operated school districts, and place greater strain on the districts that serve 96% of public school children. Solving the charter school funding problem must be a major priority during the budget debate.

REGIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION, PAYMENTS-IN-LIEU-OF-TAXES (PILOT), LIBRARY AID ACCOUNTS, METCO, McKINNEY-VENTO, AND SHANNON ANTI-GANG GRANTS
Compared to current fiscal 2017 appropriations, the Senate budget committee’s proposal would level-fund Regional School Transportation Reimbursements at $60.1M, level-fund PILOT payments at $26.77 million, add $1.25M to library grant programs, add $357K to METCO, and level-fund McKinney-Vento reimbursements at $8.35 million. However, the SW&M budget would reduce Shannon Anti-Gang Grants to $5 million, a $1 million reduction.

SENATE BUDGET PLAN INCLUDES IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LOCAL AND STATE LODGING EXCISE TAX
The SW&M budget would make several long-sought improvements to close loopholes in the collection of the local and state lodging excise tax. First, the Senate budget proposes language to end the “internet reseller” loophole that allows Expedia and other internet resellers to avoid payment of the full hotel-motel tax. Second, the Senate budget closes the loophole for transient accommodations, including short-term seasonal rentals. Third, the Senate plan would begin to close the Airbnb loophole. These are important steps to bring parity and a level-playing field to the collection of lodging excise payments.

Please Call Your Senators Today to Thank Them for the Local Aid Investments in the Senate Ways and Means Committee Budget – Including the $40 Million Increase in Unrestricted Local Aid, Providing Chapter 70 Minimum Aid at $30 Per Student, and Fully Funding to the Special Education Circuit Breaker

Please Explain How the Senate Ways and Means Budget Impacts Your Community, and Ask Your Senators to Build on this Progress During Budget Debate in the Senate

Thank You!

Comments Off on MMA on Senate’s budget

Posted in Budgets, Financial, Legislature, State

Image

State aid for FY18, so far

20170411-state aid

Comments Off on State aid for FY18, so far

Posted on April 11, 2017 in Budgets, Financial, Legislature, State

ATM warrant

Posted on April 11, 2017 | Comments Off on ATM warrant

town meeting

Annual Town Meeting (ATM) Warrant

Kris this morning circulated the warrant for the annual town meeting (ATM).  For those of you who do not want to wait for your mailed copy, it is available in a digital format via this link – 2017 Annual Town Meeting Warrant.  Maybe in the future at the ATM we will all be following along on our tablet versions of the warrant, and voting via buttons on the screens.

For now, mark your calendars and plan to attend the ATM at 7:30PM on Monday, April 24, 2017 at the Medfield High School gym.  This is the annual time and place, open to all, when the voters of the Town of Medfield make all the town’s decisions on how we want our town to work, and how we want to spend our money to make those things happen.

Comments Off on ATM warrant

Posted in Budgets, Financial, Town Meeting

State budget – step 2 (i.e. the House version)

Posted on April 10, 2017 | Comments Off on State budget – step 2 (i.e. the House version)

This notice this afternoon from the Massachusetts Municipal Association about the House version of the proposed state budget. The state budget goes through the following steps each year:

  • The Governor starts the budget process with his budget proposal at the end of January,
  • the House then does its version,
  • the Senate then does its own version,
  • then the House and Senate work out the final version via a reconciliation committee,
  • the Governor can veto items, and
  • the legislature can pass what it wants over those vetos, if it has enough votes.

Our local aid monies seem to have been mainly protected in the House version of the state budget.

MMA-2

 
 
April 10, 2017
HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE OFFERS $40.3B FY 2018 STATE BUDGET THAT MAKES KEY INVESTMENTS IN MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL AID

• INCLUDES THE FULL $40M INCREASE IN UNRESTRICTED MUNICIPAL AID (UGGA)

• INCREASES CHAPTER 70 BY $106M TO FUND MINIMUM AID AT $30 PER STUDENT

• ADDS $4M TO THE SPECIAL EDUCATION CIRCUIT BREAKER

• ADDS $1M MORE FOR REGIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

• LEVEL-FUNDS MOST OTHER MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTS

Earlier this afternoon, the House Ways & Means Committee reported out a lean $40.3 billion fiscal 2018 state budget plan to increase overall state expenditures by 3.8 percent. The House Ways and Means budget is $180 million smaller than the budget filed by the Governor in January, yet it also increases Chapter 70 aid by $15 million above the Governor’s recommendation by increasing minimum aid from $20 per student to $30 per student. The full House will debate the fiscal 2018 state budget during the week of April 24.

H. 3600, the House Ways and Means budget, provides strong progress on many important local aid priorities, including the full $40 million increase in Unrestricted General Government Aid that the Governor proposed and communities are counting on. The House W&M Committee would increase funding for other major aid programs, by adding $4 million to the Special Education Circuit Breaker, adding $1 million to Regional School Transportation, and increasing Chapter 70 minimum aid to $30 per student.

Please Click this Link Now to See the Chapter 70 and Unrestricted Municipal Aid Numbers for Your Community

Later Today or Early Tomorrow – Click on this Link to See Your Community’s Local Aid and Preliminary Cherry Sheet Numbers in the House Ways & Means Budget, as Posted by the Division of Local Services

$40 MILLION INCREASE IN UNRESTRICTED MUNICIPAL AID
In a major victory for cities and towns, the HW&M fiscal 2018 budget plan (H. 3600) would provide $1.061 billion for UGGA, a $40 million increase over current funding – the same increase proposed by Governor Baker. The $40 million would increase UGGA funding by 3.9 percent, which matches the projected growth in state tax collections next year. This would be the second-largest increase in discretionary municipal aid in nearly a decade. Every city and town would see their UGGA funding increase by 3.9 percent.

CHAPTER 70 MINIMUM AID WOULD INCREASE TO $30 PER STUDENT
The House budget committee is proposing a $106.4 million increase in Chapter 70 education aid (this is $15 million higher than the $91.4 million increase in House One), with a provision that every city, town and school district receive an increase of at least $30 per student (compared to the $20-per-student amount in the Governor’s budget). The House budget would continue to implement the target share provisions enacted in 2007. Further, the House Ways & Means Committee proposal would build on the Governor’s initial proposal to start addressing shortfalls in the foundation budget framework, by increasing the cost factors for employee health insurance.

In the context of a very tight budget year, the House budget committee’s increase in Chapter 70 funding is certainly welcome progress over the House One proposal that was filed in January. The MMA continues to give top priority to full funding for the Foundation Budget Review Commission’s recommendations, and over the long-term will work to build on this increase.

$4 MILLION INCREASE INTENDED TO FULLY FUND SPECIAL EDUCATION CIRCUIT BREAKER
In another budget advancement for cities and towns, House leaders have announced that they support increased funding for the Special Education Circuit Breaker program. The House budget plan would provide $281 million, a $4 million increase above fiscal 2017, although this is still short of full funding for a vital program that every city, town and school district relies on to fund state-mandated services. The MMA will work to continue building on this welcome increase.

ADDS $1 MILLION TO REGIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION
House Ways and Means Committee budget would add $1 million to bring regional transportation reimbursements up to $62 million. The MMA will work to continue building on this welcome increase.

FUNDING FOR CHARTER SCHOOL REIMBURSEMENTS REMAINS FLAT
Both budgets filed by the Governor and the House Ways & Means Committee would level-fund charter school reimbursements at $80.5­ million, far below the amount necessary to fully fund the statutory formula that was originally established to offset a portion of the funding that communities are required to transfer to charter schools. The fiscal 2017 funding level is $54 million below what is necessary to fund the reimbursement formula that is written into state law. If this program is level funded, the shortfall will grow to an estimated $67.1 million in fiscal 2018. This would lead to the continued and growing diversion of Chapter 70 funds away from municipally operated school districts, and place greater strain on the districts that serve 96% of public school children. Solving the charter school funding problem must be a major priority during the budget debate.

PAYMENTS-IN-LIEU-OF-TAXES (PILOT), LIBRARY AID ACCOUNTS, METCO, McKINNEY-VENTO, AND SHANNON ANTI-GANG GRANTS
The House budget committee’s proposal would level-fund PILOT payments at $26.77 million, add $600K to library grant programs, add $500K to METCO, and level-fund McKinney-Vento reimbursements at $8.35 million. However, the HW&M budget would reduce Shannon Anti-Gang Grants to $5 million, a $1 million reduction.

Please Call Your Representatives Today to Thank Them for the Local Aid Investments in the House Ways and Means Committee Budget – Including the $40 Million Increase in Unrestricted Local Aid, Providing Chapter 70 Minimum Aid at $30 Per Student, and Adding Funding to the Special Education Circuit Breaker and Regional School Transportation

Please Explain How the House Ways and Means Budget Impacts Your Community, and Ask Your Representatives to Build on this Progress During Budget Debate in the House

Thank You!
 

Comments Off on State budget – step 2 (i.e. the House version)

Posted in Budgets, Financial, Legislature, State, Uncategorized

DIF & TIF for MSH

Posted on April 7, 2017 | 2 comments

The cultural arts center analysis recommends the use of district improvement financing (DIF) and tax increment financing (TIF) as mechanisms for financing the cultural arts center and the needed infrastructure.  A DIF allows one to raise monies by issuing bonds that are paid back only out of property tax monies derived from the lands within the DIF boundaries, so the DIF could be the former Medfield State Hospital campus, and the rest of the town would not have to pay in. A TIF sounds like a straight tax break given to stimulate a particular result.

Interestingly, the DLS newsletter this month had the following article on those –

DLS

Ask DLS: Property Tax Incentive and Financing Program Changes

This month’s Ask DLS features questions relating to changes in economic and housing development property tax incentives and financing programs under the Job Creation and Workforce Development Act, Chapter 219 of the Acts of 2016, and the Municipal Modernization Act, Chapter 218 of the Acts of 2016. A summary of the changes made by the Municipal Modernization Act can be found in the August 18, 2016 issue of City & Town. We have also compiled the questions answered in the Municipal Modernization Act series of Ask DLS for your convenience. Please let us know if you have other areas of interest or send a question to cityandtown@dor.state.ma.us. We would like to hear from you.

What is the District Improvement Financing Program?

Under MGL c. 40Q, cities and towns may create one or more improvement districts within their boundaries to promote increased residential, industrial, and commercial activity. Development districts are created by action of the mayor and council in cities, and town meeting in towns.

The centerpiece of the district improvement financing (DIF) program is the “District Development Program,” which is a statement of means and objectives designed to improve the quality of life, the physical facilities and structures and the quality of pedestrian and vehicular traffic control and transportation within a development district. Development programs may also include means and objectives to increase residential housing, both market rate and affordable. Every development program must include a financial plan, which is a statement of the costs and revenue sources needed to carry out development programs, to include (1) cost estimates for the development program; (2) the amount of indebtedness to be incurred; and (3) sources of anticipated capital. MGL c. 40Q, sec. 2.

How is municipal financing of improvements under the DIF program different than financing of other improvements?

A unique financing option involves setting aside all or a portion of the additional taxes, generated by the public improvements entailed in the development program. Districts that set aside a portion of the rise in property tax revenues (the “increment”) to finance the development program are referred to as “invested revenue districts.” General obligation or revenue bonds can be issued in anticipation of higher property tax revenues spurred by the development program in the district.

The revenue from the retained tax increment is reserved and credited to two accounts. MGL c. 40Q, sec. 3. First in priority is the “development sinking fund account” that is used to cover payment of interest and principal on debt taken out to fund the program. Second priority goes to a “project cost account” to cover separate project costs as outlined in the financial plan for the program. An amendment made by the Municipal Modernization Act provides that the requirement to reserve the increment ends when sufficient monies have been reserved to cover the full, anticipated liabilities of both these accounts. MGL c. 40Q, sec. 3(d).

How is the District Improvement Financing tax increment calculated?

The Municipal Modernization Act amended the calculation of the tax increment reserved for debt service and project costs in cities and towns with invested revenue districts under MGL c. 40Q. It will now equal the actual new growth increase added to the municipality’s levy limit under Proposition 2½ for the development activity and expanded tax base within the district. MGL c. 40Q, sec. 1. The previous formula was based on certain adjusted valuation increases that were difficult to calculate, did not correspond to the new property tax revenue generated by the program and were not fixed until the tax rate for the year was set. The amount will now be known before the rate is set since it is based on Proposition 2½ new growth. Moreover, the assessors can provide a realistic estimate of the increment for budgeting purposes. This will ensure that the revenues generated by the increment are not used to support the budget generally.

The annual increment is based on the increase in the community’s levy limit (“new growth”) attributable to real estate parcels within the district for that year, including the portion attributable to prior years with an assessment date after the base date of the program. The percentage of the increment being reserved for financing the project must be specified as part of the district financing plan.

Example
District is created April 1, 2017
Base date is January 1, 2017 (FY18)
FY19 with January 1, 2018 assessment date is first year for tax increment

$100,000 of FY19 tax base growth is attributable to parcels in district
FY19 increment = $100,000.

$150,000 of FY20 tax base growth is attributable to parcels in district
FY20 increment = $252,500 [$102,500 ($100,000 FY19 increment increased by 2.5%) PLUS $150,000 additional increment]

$100,000 of FY21 tax base growth is attributable to parcels in district
FY21 increment = [$358,813 [$258,813 ($252,500 FY20 increment increased by 2.5%) PLUS $100,000 additional increment]

Where can municipalities enter into TIF Agreements?

The Job Creation and Workforce Development Act, Chapter 219 of the Acts of 2016, made a number of changes in the economic development incentive program (EDIP), which makes state tax credits and local property tax exemptions available for certain economic development projects. MGL c. 23A, secs. 3A–3G. The EDIP program is administered by the state Economic Affairs Coordinating Council (EACC), which approves the tax incentives. The Act streamlined the requirements and procedures for the two local property tax exemptions under the program, which are the tax increment financing (TIF) exemption and the special tax assessment (STA).

Municipalities may now apply to the EACC to declare an area in their city or town, or contiguous areas in neighboring cities or towns, as eligible for TIF agreements. An area can be designated as TIF-eligible if the EACC finds that there is a strong likelihood that any of the following will occur within a specific and proximate period of time: (1) a significant influx or growth in business activity; (2) creation of a significant number of new jobs—not merely replacement or relocation of current jobs within the state; or (3) a private project or investment will contribute significantly to the resiliency of the local economy. It is no longer necessary that a TIF-eligible area be within an Economic Target Area (“ETA”).

Cities and towns can enter into TIF agreements with persons or entities undertaking either (1) certified projects, or (2) real estate or facility expansion projects in a TIF-eligible area. Any project must be consistent with the municipality’s economic development objectives and likely to increase or retain employment opportunities for residents of the municipality. MGL c. 23A, sec. 3E. A certified project is a project run by a business for which the EACC has approved state tax incentives. An eligible real estate project must be construction, rehabilitation or improvement of any building or other structure on a parcel of real property which, when completed, will result in at least a 100% increase in the assessed value of the real property over the assessed value of the real property prior to the project. A facility expansion project requires relocation from one location to another in the state or expansion of an existing facility that results in a net increase in the number of full-time jobs at the relocated or expanded facility. See definitions in MGL c. 23A, sec. 3A.

What happens to a local tax incentive for a certified project when the certification is revoked?

The 2016 Act clarified the impact of an EACC revocation of a certified project for a business that is also receiving a local tax incentive. MGL c. 23A, sec. 3F. The EACC can revoke state tax credits for certified projects that are in material non-compliance with the job creation or other requirements agreed to as a condition of the credits. The local tax incentive will now terminate at the beginning of the tax year in which the material non-compliance occurred, unless the agreement between the municipality and business expressly provides otherwise. If a local tax incentive is terminated, the municipality may amend the agreement to continue it. The amended agreement must be approved by the legislative body and EACC. In addition, the municipality may recapture the previously foregone taxes by making a “special assessment” on the taxpayer in the year after the year of the EACC’s decision to revoke project certification. The recapture could go as far back as the finding of material non-compliance. The procedure for municipalities to assess and collect the recaptured amount as a property tax is also spelled out.

What is the new local option to promote creation of middle income housing? (Republished from March 2, 2017 City & Town)

Under G.L. c. 40, sec. 60B, cities and towns may, through their respective legislative bodies, provide for Workforce Housing Special Tax Assessments (WH-STA’s) as incentive to create middle-income housing. Municipal Modernization Act, Chapter 218, sec. 39 of the Acts of 2016. Unlike other property tax incentives, such as economic development tax increment finance (TIFs) agreements, no state-level approval is required. Local WH-STA plans may allow for exemptions as great as 100% of the fair cash value of the property during the first two years of construction. Over a three-year stabilization phase following construction, the exemptions are available in declining maximum percentages of the fair cash value.

To use this incentive, a city or town must designate one or more areas that present exceptional opportunities for increased development of middle income housing as WH-STA zones. The plan must describe in detail all construction activities and types of residential developments intended for the WH-STA zone. The city or town must also promulgate regulations establishing eligibility requirements for developers to enter into WH-STA agreements. The regulations must address procedures for developers to apply for a WH-STA; the minimum number of new residential units to be constructed to qualify for WH-STA tax incentives; maximum rental prices and other eligibility criteria to facilitate and encourage construction of workforce housing.

The city or town may then enter into tax agreements with property owners in WH-STA zones that will set maximum rental prices that may be charged by the owner to create middle income workforce housing.

2 Comments

Posted in Art, Cultural, Financial, Medfield State Hospital, Uncategorized

Finances

Posted on April 1, 2017 | 2 comments

Mike Sullivan’s current analysis of the financial impacts of the annual town meeting (ATM) budget and warrant articles –

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

TOWN OF MEDFIELD TAX LEVY FY15 – FY18
actual actual est 29-Mar
  all figures are in thousands (000’s) fy15 FISCAL16 FISCAL17 FISCAL18
INCOME:
     TAX REVENUE: (3% inc)
          TAX LEVY $34,026 $35,563 $36,788 $38,144
          DEBT EXCLUSIONS $3,093 $4,795 $4,580 $4,454
          2 1/2 LEVY INCREASE $860 $890 $922 $955
          NEW GROWTH $341 $379 $434 $350
          TAX LEVY OPERATING OVERRIDE $0 $0 $0 $0
         UNEXPENDED TAX LEVY $75
   SUBTOTAL TAX REVENUE $38,320 $41,627 $42,724 $43,978
     NON – TAX REVENUE:
          FEDERAL AID $0 $0 $0 $0
          STATE AID $7,264 $7,358 $7,552 $7,669
          SCHOOL BUILDING ASSISTANCE $327 $0 $0 $0
          LOCAL RECEIPTS $3,954 $4,576 $4,089 $4,300
          REVOLVING FUNDS $0 $249 $564 $358
          OTHER FREE CASH $816 $271 $500 $200
          OTHER AVAILABLE FUNDS ? $2,627 $4,470 $2,753 $2,213
          ENTERPRISE FUND REVENUES ? $3,563 $3,531 $3,885 $3,869
   SUBTOTAL NON TAX REVENUE: $18,551 $20,455 $19,343 $18,609
TOTAL INCOME FROM REVENUE $56,871 $62,082 $62,067 $62,587
EXPENDITURES:
     FIXED:
          FY15 BOND SALE COSTS -HOSP PURCHASE; FY16 COURT JUDGEMENT $174 $622 $0 $0
          SNOW DEFICIT/LAND DAMAGES/TAX TITLE $165 $235 $0 $100
          OVERLAY FOR TAX ABATEMENTS $243 $264 $251 $200
          STATE AID – CHERRY SHEET OFFSETS $25 $16 $15 $16
          STATE CHERRY SHEET ASSESSMENTS $493 $820 $833 $857
                        SUB-TOTAL FIXED EXPENDITURES: $1,100 $1,957 $1,099 $1,173
     APPROPRIATIONS:
          REVOLVING FUNDS $224 $249 $564 $358
          CAPITAL BUDGET/ OTHER ARTICLES $2,556 $4,185 $2,755 $1,690
          EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $6,420 $6,715 $7,067 $7,353
          SCHOOL BUDGET (TOWN) $29,083 $30,363 $31,577 $33,036
          SCHOOL BUDGET (VOCATIONAL) $159 $120 $131 $160
          TOWN BUDGETS $10,341 $10,528 $10,838 $11,190
          WATER & SEWER ENTERPRISE $1,871 $1,854 $1,969 $2,055
                        SUB-TOTAL OPERATING BUDGETS $50,654 $54,014 $54,901 $55,842
` `
           NON-EXCLUDED DEBT $447 $413 $247 $343
           EXCLUDED DEBT (TAX LEVY OVERRIDE) $4,534 $5,167 $5,522 $5,383
           ENTERPRISE FUND DEBT (W&S) $636 $1,159 $1,018 $938
                        SUB-TOTAL DEBT $5,617 $6,739 $6,787 $6,664
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS & REVOLVING FUNDS: $56,271 $60,753 $61,688 $62,506
TOTAL EXPENDITURES: $57,371 $62,710 $62,787 $63,679
              DEFICIT FINANCED FROM FREE CASH ($500) ($628) ($720) ($1,092)
certified free cash – july 1 $2,671 $2,426 $2,621 $2,756

2 Comments

Posted in Budgets, Financial, Town Meeting, Uncategorized