Category Archives: Legislature

MMA on reform of land use laws

Posted on May 16, 2016 | 2 comments

MMA

The State Senate is now actively considering changes and reforms to the state land  use statutes that have been under consideration for years, and it appears that action may happen soon.  At the moment, the MMA ask the Senate to let us know what they intend to do, before they actually do it.  However, last week, this was the MMA letter to the Senate that itemizes what the MMA suggests is needed.

MMA letter to Senate Ways and Means Committee on comprehensive zoning and land-use bill

Print Email

May 11, 2016

The Honorable Karen Spilka, Chair
Senate Committee on Ways and Means
State House, Boston

Dear Senator Spilka and Distinguished Members of the Committee,

On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association appreciates the opportunity to offer comments on S. 2144, An Act Promoting the Planning and Development of Sustainable Communities. The MMA’s Municipal and Regional Policy Committee completed a careful and extensive evaluation of the bill as written in its previous form (S. 122), with a focus on the impact that the proposed zoning and land use law changes would have on our cities and towns. We have also had a chance to review the issues raised by the Home Builders & Remodelers of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Association of Realtors, NAIOP and others, and must express our grave concerns with their proposed changes to S. 2144.

Any amendments to existing zoning and land use law in Massachusetts will have profound and long-lasting effects on our communities and residents, and will impact the quality of life in cities and towns for generations to come. For this reason, any and all proposed changes demand very careful consideration.

The MMA’s comments and suggested language changes, presented below by topic, would strengthen and improve the bill by preserving local authority, grandfathering existing local practices, and, in the case of local options, employing an opt-in rather than an opt-out model. The MMA would have very serious reservations regarding S. 2144 if these comments and recommended improvements are not incorporated into the bill.

A. MMA COMMENTS ON S. 2144 AND RESPONSES TO THE DEVELOPER AND REAL ESTATE LOBBYISTS

Vested Rights
Sections 6 through 12
The MMA supports the conceptual changes made in the sections pertaining to vested rights. The language should be clarified to indicate that the date of the first notice of a public hearing on proposed changes to zoning ordinances and bylaws is the time at which a property shall be subject to subsequently enacted zoning amendments. In practical terms, this language is necessary to prevent a flood of applications intended to avoid new zoning requirements and bylaws.

Special Permit Vote and Length
Sections 15 and 16
The MMA requests a language change in Section 15, pertaining to the vote required for issuance of a special permit, to make it a local-option decision (by a supermajority vote) as to whether the required vote is changed from a supermajority to a simple majority. As written, a municipality’s special permit granting authority would require only a simple majority vote to issue a special permit, unless a greater threshold is specified in a local ordinance or bylaw. The MMA does not support a state-mandated change in the threshold without express acceptance of that change at the local level, because many communities do not have specific language regarding the necessary vote in their local ordinances or bylaws, and thus they would have no voice in changing the vote threshold to a simple majority. The MMA requests a change the language in Section 16, regarding the term of special permits, to allow a special permit to be issued for a term of up to three years, not the three-year minimum currently written in the bill. Additionally, any extension of the permit should require notice and a public hearing. If the permit granting authority does not approve an extension within 65 days, the new permit should require a new application, notice, and public hearing.

Site Plan Review
Section 19
The MMA can support this section, regarding site plan review, if modifications are made to avoid onerous evidentiary requirements and eliminate language triggering constructive approval of applications if time thresholds are not met. Constructive approval is a highly controversial process, especially when time periods are not adequate, such as the 95-day provision in S. 2144, as this may be too short for an appropriate and thorough review process. The language in this section should be clarified to indicate that an application will not be approved if submission requirements are not met. Mitigation for adverse impacts directly attributable to projects should extend to nearby properties, and not only those that are adjacent to the developments.

Development Impact Fees
Section 20
The MMA supports the statutory authorization of development impact fees. We ask that the language be clarified to clearly authorize communities to use the impact fees to conduct mitigation impact studies on a project-by-project basis, including the use of consultants as needed and financed by the project applicant under section 53G of chapter 44. The language proposed in the bill appears to allow a project-responsive fee, but the language should be carefully reviewed to ensure that it does so.

Inclusionary Zoning
Section 21
The MMA strongly supports inclusionary zoning. It is critically important that the bill include language expressly allowing inclusionary zoning provisions in local ordinances and by-laws. Inclusionary zoning is a vital and powerful tool that will actually result in the construction of affordable housing. Zoning reform without inclusionary zoning will do nothing to address issues of profitability and availability of affordable housing. We know the for-profit development community does not support inclusionary zoning, but this is the only tangible way that cities and towns can ensure that housing remains or becomes more affordable at the local level. Inclusionary zoning will actually benefit developers because future projects will become more attractive if cities and towns can be assured that affordable units will result.

Variances
Section 23
The MMA opposes the proposed language in section 23 regarding variances. Our members are deeply concerned that this section offers too much latitude in granting variances, specifically the language stipulating that “substantial hardship … financial or otherwise” would be an acceptable standard for a variance. This is not the case, as this overly broad, liberal and loose language would invite costly litigation and appeals, an undesirable result, to say the least. The MMA asks that this wording be removed.

Consolidated Permitting
Section 25
The MMA supports language authorizing consolidated permitting, but the section must not be a mandate and should instead be a local option. Further, there should be no “constructive approval” provisions, and we strongly oppose the last sentence in Section 3 of the new Chapter 40X (in lines 684-686), as this would strip many local boards of their lawful review authority in the event of a scheduling conflict or last-minute absence from the consolidated hearing. The threshold for an “eligible project” must be appropriate for all municipalities, and the MMA supports a higher threshold or providing cities and towns with the ability to choose their own thresholds, as we believe the current language would trigger consolidated permitting on a routine basis, which would be impractical given the scheduling demands and conflict that would arise. In addition, consolidated permitting provisions should require that applications be fully complete in advance of the process. Further, the 45-day time period as written is too short to accommodate the difficulties involved in coordinating scheduling among multiple boards, almost all of which are served by volunteers. Thus the timeframe should be changed to 90 days (a timeframe that is shorter than the combined timeframes it would take to apply for each permit serially).

Planning Ahead for Growth
Section 26
As drafted, the Planning Ahead for Growth section is a local option, but we believe that the programmatic objectives would be more broadly advanced by opening up some or all of the planning tools presented as incentives to those municipalities that adopt this section, to all municipalities statewide. Otherwise, municipalities that do not have the capacity to meet the requirements enumerated in this section would fall behind their neighbors in the areas of planning and economic development. The language should include a provision to fund local planning to promote the success of the objectives of this section.

Master Plans
Section 27
This section would restructure local master plans, and should be carefully reviewed to ensure that the newly required master plan components would be realistic for municipalities to complete, otherwise the provisions would impose an undue burden on communities. The language in section 27 should be amended to indicate that any master plan in effect at the passage of this act shall remain in effect and would not be subject to this Act for up to 15 years. Adoption of a master plan, or extension or revision, should be by a two-thirds vote of the legislative body of the municipality. However, municipalities should have the option to change that threshold (via a two-thirds vote) to a range anywhere between a simple majority and a two-thirds majority, with any change taking effect 6 months after the vote is taken.

Approval Not Required (ANR)
Section 31
The language of this section, as written, includes a presumption that requirements for travel lane widths in excess of 22 feet in a residential minor subdivision serve no valid purpose. The MMA opposes this restriction. That language should be removed from the bill, so that municipalities can continue to set travel lane width standards consistent with contextual design and local needs. These needs may vary from municipality to municipality and cannot be met by a width specified in state statute.

Subdivision Roadway Standards
Section 32
This section, pertaining to subdivision roadway standards, includes language establishing a presumption that design and dimensional requirements for total travel lane widths no greater than 24 feet shall be presumed to be not excessive. The MMA requests that this language be removed from the bill because, as previously noted, municipalities must be able to set travel lane width standards based on local needs, and the section 32 language implies that widths greater than 24 feet could be considered excessive.

Parks and Playgrounds
Section 33
The MMA supports the language regarding parks and playgrounds in subdivisions, as written. This section would allow municipalities to require the designation of up to 5 percent of the land in new subdivisions for park or playground use.

Appeals
Sections 40 through 42
We do not understand the intent or impacts of sections 40, 41 and 42. These sections, which pertain to appeals of an approved subdivision plan, jurisdiction over appeals relating to the development of real property, and the transference of qualified cases to the permit session of the land court, should be clarified, and the impacts on municipalities should be explained before adoption of the language.

Master Planning Incentive/Presumption
Section 43
The MMA strongly opposes language that would remove or alter the current legal presumption that existing zoning ordinances and bylaws are valid and “serve a public purpose.” Section 43 would allow courts to invalidate municipal ordinances or bylaws that are inconsistent with new master plans, even though these master plans could be adopted by a majority vote, and amendments to zoning ordinances and bylaws would require a two-thirds vote. Thus, it will be difficult for many communities to bring their master plan and their ordinances and bylaws into harmony, which would lead to significant confusion and uncertainty regarding the legal status of their local zoning provisions, and invite litigation and delays at the local level. As municipalities already have absolute presumption, section 43 would actually create a disincentive to adopt new, updated master plans. Section 43 should be amended to strike language that would allow courts to invalidate ordinances and bylaws that do not comply with master plans.

B. MMA COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO H. 4140

In addition to reviewing S. 2144, the MMA has had a chance the closely examine H. 4140, An Act to Expedite Multifamily Housing Construction and Cluster Development. The MMA strongly opposes allowing “by-right” development, as local zoning decisions should be carefully reviewed and made by local legislative bodies and the appropriate legal authorities and boards in municipalities. As many of these provisions would simply grant additional rights to developers without addressing many of the factors that have led to the scarcity of affordable housing in the Commonwealth, the MMA strongly opposes incorporating H. 4140 or any of its provisions into S. 2144. We have detailed some of our concerns below.

“By-Right” Language
The MMA is gravely concerned by the “by-right” language in the bill. Eastern Massachusetts is one of the most densely populated areas in the United States, whose citizens care deeply about sustainable, environmentally friendly communities and land use, and this language is antithetical to many of those goals. Currently, zoning is controlled by the citizens of the municipality, not state-level bureaucrats or other officials. H. 4140 would take these decisions out of the hands of those who know their communities best. Additionally, “by-right” legislation does nothing to address actual affordable housing or the profit motivations that drive developers to build multi-million dollar condominiums and luxury apartments rather than increase the affordable housing stock. The MMA opposes zoning reform legislation that features “by-right” language. The negative impact on neighborhoods would be significant, and there are no provisions that would require or increase the amount of affordable housing in municipalities. Rather, we predict that H. 4140 would actually raise the overall cost of housing, as developers, incentivized by understandable profit motivations, would focus on high-end housing – this is exactly what we have been seeing in Massachusetts over the past several years.

Additional Bureaucracy
The MMA believes local zoning decisions are best made by local officials, not state or federal agencies. H. 4140 would give the Department of Housing and Community Development approval authority over local multi-family zoning districts, and allow the agency to develop and impose further bureaucratic and programmatic requirements on cities and towns. This is highly inadvisable, as state agency control has the potential to politicize zoning policy and impose one-size-fits-all standards on communities, ignoring the diverse nature of localities across the Commonwealth.

Inclusionary Zoning is a Much Better Tool for Affordable Housing
The goal of increasing the supply of affordable housing in the Commonwealth is a laudable one, but we are forced to conclude that very little in H. 4140 would actually lead to affordable housing. The bill gives developers and land owners the ability to develop more land and at greater density, but does nothing to address the profit motives that lead to the development of multi-million dollar condos and luxury apartments over affordable multi-family housing. In our comments above, we strongly advocate for inclusionary zoning authority at the local level, as this would be a much more effective tool to address local housing needs.

C. ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

Following up on our discussion with Senate staff on May 10, we are also offering further input on the question of accessory apartments.

The MMA opposes a state mandate allowing accessory apartments “as of right,” as this would create significant building code and enforcement issues at the local level. Communities already have the authority to adopt accessory apartment provisions in their local zoning ordinances and bylaws, making these decisions based on local needs and conditions. Because of limited resources at the local level, there are likely thousands of unapproved accessory apartments throughout the state. There is no way that the Commonwealth could have enough information to know whether the legalization of these dwellings would be safe, advisable, or consistent with health, safety and building codes. We are very interested in working with you in the future to explore and advance possible frameworks or incentives that could lead to an increase in the number of legally acceptable accessory apartments. In the meantime, though, accessory apartments should continue to be a local option, not a mandate.

SUMMARY

Once again, on behalf of cities and towns across the state, we thank you for your consideration of our comments and recommendations.

S. 2144 is far-reaching and complex, and proposes enormous changes that would have dramatic and widespread impacts on municipalities and local residents and businesses for generations to come. We strongly urge you to adopt the language changes identified above in order to preserve the local control of land use that must remain in place, and ensure that this legislation is balanced enough to protect the nature and quality of neighborhoods and communities throughout the state.

Local officials and the citizens of Massachusetts rightly expect all legislation to honor these important principles. We look forward to continuing to work with you throughout this important process. Thank you very much for devoting your time and energy to these vitally important policy matters. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to have your staff contact me, John Robertson or David Lakeman at (617) 426-7272 at any time.

Again, thank you.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey C. Beckwith
MMA Executive Director & CEO

CC: The Honorable Daniel Wolf, State Senator
Mr. David Sullivan, Office of the Senate President

2 Comments

Posted in Legislature, Massachusetts Municipal Association, Uncategorized

Warning -wonky material

Posted on May 12, 2016 | Comments Off on Warning -wonky material

The alert below from the MMA – I just called Senator Timilty’s office, and also thanked him for sponsoring the pending legislation to make work spaces handicap accessible.

MMA

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

URGENT: YOUR LEGISLATOR WILL VOTE NEXT WEEK ON IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION FILED BY GOV. BAKER

  1. 4254 WOULD ALLOW THE STATE TO OVERSEE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS – INCLUDING MS4 STORMWATER PERMITS

THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURE EXPECTED TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON H. 4254 NEXT WEEK…

…AND YOUR LEGISLATOR IS ON THE COMMITTEE THAT WILL DECIDE WHETHER THE BILL MOVES FORWARD

PLEASE CALL TODAY AND ASK YOUR LEGISLATOR TO SUPPORT AND VOTE IN FAVOR OF H. 4254 IN COMMITTEE

The Legislation is Necessary to Allow MassDEP to have “Delegated Authority” over Federal Water Quality Regulatory Programs

 

Over the past year, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has been examining the possibility of obtaining authority from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over the National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Governor Baker recently filed H. 4254, An Act to Enable the Commonwealth’s Administration of the Massachusetts Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Please click here to see Governor Baker’s press release and a link to the bill text.

The bill is expected to have a hearing before the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture early next week. MMA is urging local officials in the districts of committee members to contact your legislators right away and ask them to support this important legislation. Please see the contact information for your legislators at the end of this alert.

NPDES is the federal regulatory program, currently administered by the EPA, that includes permits, compliance, inspection, and enforcement activities for facilities that discharge effluent into surface waters (such as municipal wastewater treatment plants), as well as stormwater systems managed by over 250 cities and towns.

The MMA has been very involved in this discussion over the past few months, through participation in MassDEP’s NPDES advisory group and conversations with the Administration. The MMA will testify in support of this legislation at the public hearing, but it is very important that legislators on the committee hear from their local officials on this issue.

The Governor’s legislation is an essential step in MassDEP’s obtaining delegation over this program. The bill would make technical changes to the state’s Clean Waters Act to make it consistent with federal law. The bill also specifically authorizes MassDEP to begin to process of applying to the EPA for delegation.

There are many advantages to having MassDEP manage and oversee the NPDES and MS4 stormwater permit process, including:

  • DEP has a much stronger relationship with cities and towns than the EPA;
  • DEP has much more experience working with local officials, and has a much better understanding of our cities and towns than the EPA;
  • Permitting decisions would be based on local conditions and more thorough up-to-date data;
  • Having DEP oversee the MS4 stormwater and NPDES programs would provide many more opportunities for integrated water management;
  • DEP would offer enhanced technical assistance – they are already planning on coordinating technical assistance and information sharing on stormwater issues; and
  • Delegated authority would allow DEP to provide better information on water quality conditions across the Commonwealth.

This bill will not change the new MS4 stormwater regulations recently released by the EPA, but MMA believes that MassDEP’s greater understanding of our cities and towns would lead to greater flexibility and responsiveness as the permits are implemented. And MassDEP would have a greater role in shaping future permit requirements. If DEP does not have delegated authority over NPDES programs, a more removed federal agency (U.S. EPA) will continue to develop and enforce the regulations for Massachusetts.

If you are receiving this action alert, your community is in the district of one or more members of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture. Please look for your legislator’s name and phone number below and contact them right away to ask them to support H. 4254. It is very important that your legislators hear from local officials BEFORE the public hearing, which is expected to be early next week, which is why we are asking you to call today.

Senate Committee Members:

Anne M. Gobi, Senate Chair, 617-722-1540

Michael F. Rush, Senate Vice Chair, 617-722-1348

James B. Eldridge, 617-722-1120

James E. Timilty, 617 722-1222

Thomas M. McGee, 617-722-1350

Ryan C. Fattman, 617-722-1420

 

House Committee Members:

Paul A. Schmid, House Chair, 617-722-2210

Brian R. Mannal, House Vice Chair, 617-722-2210

Robert M. Koczera, 617-722-2582

Carolyn C. Dykema, 617-722-2680

Mary S. Keefe, 617-722-2210

Christine P. Barber, 617-722-2430

James M. Kelcourse, 617-722-2130

James M. Cantwell, 617-722-2140

Josh S. Cutler, 617-722-2210

Jay D. Livingstone, 617-722-2396

Donald R. Berthiaume, 617-722-2090

 

Please Contact your Legislators Today and Ask Them to Support H. 4254 at the Public Hearing Next Week

Thank You Very Much!

 

Comments Off on Warning -wonky material

Posted in Environmental, Legislature, Uncategorized

Medfield state budget earmarks out

Posted on April 28, 2016 | Comments Off on Medfield state budget earmarks out

State-House-smaller_1 (1)

I spoke with Representative Shawn Dooley at the ribbon cutting this morning for the Waste Water Treatment Plant’s solar PV installation, about the two earmarks he included in the House version of the state budget for Medfield

  • $15,000 to the Medfield Fire Department for the purchase of an automatic chest compression device,and
  • $1m. towards repair of West Street bridge over the Charles River

and learned that both had effectively been defeated.  They are still there, just without any money assigned to them.  It is possible the Senate could fund them, but not likely.

This email today from Medfield’s man at the legislature, John Nunnari, with the excruciating details about how the legislature does things –

 

An update on the proposed amendments noted below.

 

For consideration, the amendments were respectively wrapped into Consolidated Amendments “H” and “I”.

 

In order to speed up the process of considering amendments, leadership bundled most of the 1307 amendments into nine categories; Education and Local Aid; Constitutional Officers, State Administration, and Transportation; Energy and Environmental Affairs; Social Services and Veterans; Housing, Mental Health and Disability Services; Public Health; Health and Human Services and Elder Affairs; Public Safety and Judiciary; Labor and Economic Development

 

Amendment 306 was bundled into Consolidated Amendments “H” – Public Safety and Judiciary and Amendment 310 was bundled into Consolidated Amendments “I” – Labor and Economic Development.

 

While both consolidated amendments did pass today, through a parliamentary procedure designed to shield members votes, Amendments 306 (and 166 other amendments included in “H”) and 310 (and 178 other amendment included in “I”) did not pass.

 

I’m sorry to say that the money proposed via these amendment will not be forthcoming.

 

John

 

From: John Nunnari
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 4:46 PM
Subject: State Budget – Medfield Amendments

 

Two amendments filed to the House budget and up for consideration during next weeks debate.

john

 

AmdID Amd# Sponsor Sponsor Title Amending DEP Description InstaTrac Summary Amount Requested Increase Earmark HFY16 Comment
2017H0306 306 Shawn Dooley Medfield Fire Department Purchase 8324-0000 DFS Department of Fire Services Administration Earmarks $15,000 to the Medfield Fire Department for the purchase of an automatic chest compression device and/or associated materials, and increases the item by the same amount. $20,799,781 $20,814,781 $15,000 $15,000 2016H0486 Amendment #486 in FY16, this item was excluded from a bundle in last year’s budget.
2017H0310 310 Shawn Dooley Maintenance of the West Street Bridge in the towns of Medfield and Millis 1599-0026 ANF Municipal Regionalization and Efficiencies Incentive Reserve Earmarks $1,000,000 for the maintenance of the West Street Bridge in the towns of Medfield and Millis, and increases the item by the same amount. $5,240,000 $6,240,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000

 

 

Comments Off on Medfield state budget earmarks out

Posted in Budgets, Legislature, State, Uncategorized

House budget #s

Posted on April 14, 2016 | Comments Off on House budget #s

The House released its proposed budget numbers, and we do about $200,000 better than last year with their proposal.  The Governor gave us about $100,000 more than last year.  Usually our numbers do not go down, and the Senate which weighs in last often increases our total state aid.   The Governor did revenue sharing by increasing part of our state aid by the same 4.3% that the state’s revenues increased, and the House extends that 4.3% increase to more state aid items. I am not sure why our Charter Tuition Reimbursement has gone up so much on a percentage basis.

20160414-house budget

Below is the report and instant analysis from the MMA yesterday afternoon on the state budget as it affects municipalities.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE OFFERS $39.5B FY 2017 STATE BUDGET THAT MAKES KEY INVESTMENTS IN MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL AID
• INCLUDES THE FULL $42M INCREASE IN UNRESTRICTED MUNICIPAL AID (UGGA)
• INCREASES CHAPTER 70 BY $24M TO FUND MINIMUM AID AT $55 PER STUDENT
•ADDS A $10M RESERVE TO AID COMMUNITIES WITH LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
• ADDS $5M TO FUND 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 and Means Committee reported out a lean $39.5 billion fiscal 2017 state budget plan to increase overall state expenditures by 3.3 percent. The House Ways and Means budget is $76 million smaller than the budget filed by the Governor in March, yet it also increases Chapter 70 aid by $24 million above the Governor’s recommendation by increasing minimum aid from $20 per student to $55 per student, and also includes a new $10 million reserve to aid communities impacted by changes in the calculations used to account for low-income students. The full House will debate the fiscal 2017 state budget during the week of April 25.

H. 4200, the House Ways and Means budget, provides strong progress on many important local aid priorities, including the full $42 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 several major aid programs, by adding $5 million to the Special Education Circuit Breaker, adding $1 million to Regional School Transportation, and increasing Chapter 70 minimum aid to $55 per student.

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO SEE YOUR COMMUNITY’S LOCAL AID AND PRELIMINARY CHERRY SHEET NUMBERS IN THE HOUSE WAYS & MEANS BUDGET, AS ESTIMATED BY THE DIVISION OF LOCAL SERVICES

$42 MILLION INCREASE IN UNRESTRICTED MUNICIPAL AID
In a major victory for cities and towns, H. 4200 (the HW&M fiscal 2017 budget plan) would provide $1.021 billion for UGGA, a $42 million increase over current funding – the same increase proposed by Governor Baker. The $42 million would increase UGGA funding by 4.3 percent, which matches the growth in state tax collections next year. This would be the largest increase in discretionary municipal aid in nearly a decade. Every city and town would see their UGGA funding increase by 4.3 percent.

CHAPTER 70 MINIMUM AID WOULD INCREASE TO $55 PER STUDENT
The House budget committee is proposing a $95.8 million increase in Chapter 70 education aid, with a provision providing every city, town and school district an increase of at least $55 per student. This is $24 million more than the recommendation in the Governor’s budget submission. The budget would continue to implement the target share provisions enacted in 2007. Because most cities and towns only receive minimum aid, this increase would benefit the vast majority of communities.

FUNDS A $10M RESERVE TO AID COMMUNITIES WITH LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
The House Ways & Means budget also includes a new $10 million reserve to aid communities impacted by changes in the calculations used to account for low-income students. This would supplement Chapter 70 distributions to address shortfalls in aid levels due to the new methodology used to count low-income students. DESE would administer this program, and make funding decisions by October 2016.

$5 MILLION INCREASE INTENDED TO FULLY FUND SPECIAL EDUCATION CIRCUIT BREAKER
In another victory for cities and towns, House leaders have announced that they support full funding for the Special Education Circuit Breaker program. Their budget plan would provide $276.7 million, a $5 million increase above fiscal 2016, with the intention of fully funding the account. This is a vital program that every city, town and school district relies on to fund state-mandated services.

ADDS $1 MILLION TO REGIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION
House Ways and Means Committee budget would add $1 million to bring regional transportation reimbursements up to $60 million. The MMA will work to continue building on this welcome increase.

FUNDING FOR CHARTER SCHOOL REIMBURSEMENTS INCREASED BY $5 MILLION, BUT STILL UNDERFUNDED
Under state law, cities and towns that host or send students to charter schools are entitled to be reimbursed for a portion of their lost Chapter 70 aid. The state fully funded the reimbursement program in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, but is underfunding reimbursements by approximately $46.5 million this year. The House Ways and Means budget would increase funding for charter school reimbursements to $85.5 million, a $5 million boost, although this is $15 million less than the amount recommended by Gov. Baker. The program is underfunded in both budget proposals, and increasing this account will be a top 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, continue to fund library grant programs at $18.83 million, level-fund METCO $20.1 million, and level-fund McKinney-Vento reimbursements at $8.35 million. All four of these accounts are funded the same in both the Governor’s and House Ways and Means Committee’s budgets. However, the HW&M budget would reduce Shannon Anti-Gang Grants to $5 million, a $2 million reduction.

Please Call Your Representatives Today to Thank Them for the Strong Local Aid Investments in the House Ways and Means Committee Budget – Including the $42 Million Increase in Unrestricted Local Aid, Providing Chapter 70 Minimum Aid at $55 Per Student, Funding the Special Education Circuit Breaker, and Adding Funds to 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 House budget #s

Posted in Budgets, Financial, Legislature, State, Uncategorized

House budget

Posted on March 16, 2016 | Comments Off on House budget

This analysis from the Mass. Municipal Assoc. this afternoon of the budget we can expect soon out of the House, and what we should want it to contain.  The $100/children education funding versus the $20/student the Governor proposes is the biggest one for me.

MMA-2

 
Wednesday, March 16, 2016

HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE PREPARING FISCAL 2017 STATE BUDGET

UGGA, CHAPTER 70, AND KEY MUNI & ED ACCOUNTS AT STAKE

PLEASE CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TODAY AND SECURE THEIR PLEDGE TO SUPPORT THE $42 MILLION INCREASE IN UNRESTRICTED MUNICIPAL AID, HIGHER CH. 70 MINIMUM AID, AND FULL FUNDING FOR KEY EDUCATION AND MUNICIPAL REIMBURSEMENTS AND GRANTS

The House and Senate budget committees have wrapped up public hearings on the fiscal 2017 state budget and are now drafting detailed spending plans that reflect the priorities of each branch. We know from our meetings with legislators that many of you have met with your legislators on local priorities for the many municipal and school aid accounts in the state budget.

With the House Ways & Means Committee’s version of the budget scheduled for release on April 13, it is imperative that you call your legislative delegation to highlight the importance of key local aid accounts before final decisions are made.

On February 29, MMA officers and other local officials testified on the many municipal and school aid accounts that the MMA tracks and supports. Please click here to see MMA’s detailed testimony. Please ask your Representatives to talk to the House Ways & Means Committee and ask that they support the main statewide priority accounts and your own local priorities.

UNRESTRICTED GENERAL GOVERNMENT AID (UGGA)
This is a top priority. Ask your legislators to support the $42 million increase in the Unrestricted General Government Aid (UGGA) account included in H. 2, the fiscal budget recommendation submitted by the Governor in January. The UGGA account is currently funded at $979.8 million, and the 4.3 percent increase in H. 2 would simply track the growth in state tax revenues forecast for next year.

CHAPTER 70 SCHOOL AID
The Governor’s budget recommendation provides a far-too-small 1.6% increase in Chapter 70 school aid, which is much to low. Please ask your legislators to support funding increases for two key aspects of the Chapter 70 calculation for fiscal 2017. The first increase is to ensure adequate funding for the current basic school aid framework. The second is to begin implementation of the Foundation Budget Review Commission’s recommendations to correct outdated and obsolete aspects of the foundation budget framework.

MINIMUM AID SHOULD BE $100 PER STUDENT. Please support an increase in the “minimum aid” amount to $100 per student, instead of the $20-per-student amount in the Governor’s budget. This is an important way to offset the low inflation factor used to adjust foundation budget components for fiscal 2017 and to help correct the impact of the change in how low-income students are counted. We are also asking legislators to review how low-income students should be counted and added into the formula.

FLAWS IN THE CHAPTER 70 FORMULA SHOULD BE FIXED. Second, please ask your legislators to support the implementation of the Foundation Budget Review Commission’s recommendations to update the Chapter 70 “foundation budget” minimum spending standards for special education and health insurance costs for school employees, and to add to the spending standard a measure of recognition for the cost of services for low-income, English Language Learner (ELL) and other students who would benefit from more intensive services. The Chapter 70 framework is clearly outdated and inadequate, and the Commission’s recommendations would address the major shortcomings in the formula.

REIMBURSEMENTS FOR SCHOOL AID LOSSES RELATED TO CHARTER SCHOOLS
Please ask your Representatives to support full funding of the state’s legal commitment to reimburse school districts for the loss of a portion of their Chapter 70 aid that is redirected to fund charter schools. This is a growing financial burden on cities and towns that is becoming more acute as the state grants more charters and existing charter schools expand. The shortfall in charter school reimbursements is crippling funding for schools in scores of cities, towns and school districts.

SPECIAL EDUCATION “CIRCUIT BREAKER”
Please ask your Representatives to support full funding of the Special Education “Circuit Breaker” Program, through which the state provides a measure of support for services provided to high-cost special education students. H. 2 would level-fund the Special Education Circuit Breaker program at $272 million. This means that the Governor’s budget likely underfunds reimbursements by approximately $10 million.
PLEASE CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TODAY TO SUPPORT THESE FOUR MAJOR MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL AID ACCOUNTS, AND DISCUSS OTHER LOCAL PRIORITIES

THANK YOU!

 
Massachusetts Municipal Association
One Winthrop Square, Boston, MA 02110
(617) 426-7272
All contents copyright 2015, Massachusetts Municipal Association

Unsubscribe from MMA Legislative Alerts.

Comments Off on House budget

Posted in Budgets, Legislature, State, Uncategorized

Municipal Modernization Bill status

Posted on February 17, 2016 | Comments Off on Municipal Modernization Bill status

State-House-smaller_1 (1)

Here is an email exchange that gives you the current status of the Municipal Modernization Bill from our State Representatives -interesting that it has been broken into five parts for hearing purposes –

 

Denise and Shawn,

I hope you will support the Municipal Modernization Bill – the Massachusetts Municipal Association was asking us today to contact you about it.  Thanks in advance.

Best, Pete

denise-garlick-state-representative-headshot

Dear Pete,

It has been broken into 5 parts and is being heard in 5 different committees. I believe this is with the intention to expedite  the components.

I will follow the pieces carefully.

Hope all is well with your family and Medfield!

Denise

 

Shawn Dooley

Hey Pete.

Already voted to accept the sections that were sent to Revenue so hopefully the rest of committees will follow as well.

Met with Chairman of ways and means earlier today and asked for the bills to be reconsolidated into one big bill again.  Non committal but expressed that the Lt gov asked for the same thing.

Thanks so much for the note.

Shawn

Shawn Dooley

State Representative, 9th Norfolk

Medfield, Millis, Norfolk, Plainville, Walpole, & Wrentham.

 

 

Comments Off on Municipal Modernization Bill status

Posted in Legislature, State, Uncategorized

Municipal Modernization Bill

Posted on February 16, 2016 | Comments Off on Municipal Modernization Bill

This today from the MMA on the Municipal Modernization Bill –

 

MMA-2

February 16, 2016

GOV’S MUNICIPAL MODERNIZATION BILL CONTAINS NECESSARY REFORMS AND IMPORTANT UPDATES FOR CITIES AND TOWNS

Please Call Your Legislators Today and Ask Them to Pass the Municipal Modernization Act Now

Legislative hearings have been completed on the sweeping Municipal Modernization Bill that Gov. Baker and Lt. Gov. Polito filed in December. Five different committees heard testimony from scores of local officials and stakeholders during the past five weeks, and the next step will be for the legislation to be reassembled into one strong package for votes in the House and Senate.

Because several of the important reform measures in the Municipal Modernization Act are opposed by special interest groups, your legislators will need to hear from you.

The Governor’s Municipal Modernization Act (H. 3905) features dozens of welcome reforms related to procurement, municipal finance, human resources, economic development and the general administration of local government. The bill was based on a wide range of input from local leaders, and is built around four major actions: 1) updating and repealing obsolete state laws; 2) promoting independence at the local level; 3) streamlining state oversight; and 4) providing municipalities with greater flexibility and day-to-day decision-making powers.

KEY REFORMS IN THE BILL INCLUDE:

  • Giving cities and towns control over the number of liquor licenses that can be issued to restaurants and bars in the community;
    • Enacting unemployment insurance reforms to prevent school crossing guards, school bus drivers, and others from collecting unemployment payments during school vacations;
    • Allowing cities and towns to decide whether to exempt positions from Civil Service;
    • Increasing procurement thresholds to eliminate unnecessary red tape and delays for simple purchases;
    • Certifying the full and fair value of property values every 5 years, instead of every 3 years;
    • Replacing many of the mandatory paid classified ads for zoning and other notices with electronic posting as used in the Open Meeting Law; and
    • Giving municipalities the ability to levy fines to enforce the requirement that utilities remove double poles within 90 days.

The bill includes over 200 provisions that would update and reform a wide swath of state laws governing everything from basic municipal finance and administration to allowing cities and towns a first option to purchase tax-exempt property, and was written based on suggestions made by local officials on ways to make running local government more efficient and less costly, and to return “home rule” authority to cities and towns where it makes sense. The bill includes a number of proposals from the MMA’s legislative package.

Information about the municipal modernization bill can be found on the MMA website by clicking here.

ASK YOUR LEGISLATORS TO PASS ONE STRONG MUNICIPAL MODERNIZATION BILL:

Earlier this year, legislators divided the Municipal Modernization Act into five smaller bills, and sent them to different committees for public hearings.

With public hearings concluded, it is now time to bring the parts back together into a single consolidated bill and make plans for debate and passage in the House and Senate.

With the end of formal legislative sessions only 5½ months away, there is no time to waste. Please call your legislators today and ask them to reassemble the Municipal Modernization Act into one strong bill, and ask them for a commitment to pass the bill early this spring.

When you speak with your legislators, please ask them to talk to the leaders in their branches (the Speaker of the House, the Senate President and the Chairs of the House and Senate Ways & Means Committee) and seek a commitment to take up and enact a consolidated bill before the session ends.

The Municipal Modernization Act Will Help Every City and Town

Please Ask Your Legislators to Make the Bill a Top Priority this Session

Comments Off on Municipal Modernization Bill

Posted in Legislature, Massachusetts Municipal Association, State, Uncategorized

Denise Garlick annual r3port

Posted on January 28, 2016 | Comments Off on Denise Garlick annual r3port

Demise Garlick is holding her annual report to the town this evening at the Town House. She is now the Chair of the Committee on Elder Affairs, so she now has a substantial staff – about six people, several of whom are here this evening. As an attorney I was glad to hear she has legal council, as well as a legislative aid.

Comments Off on Denise Garlick annual r3port

Posted in Legislature, Uncategorized

Our state aid + 1%

Posted on January 27, 2016 | Comments Off on Our state aid + 1%

State-House-smaller_1 (1)

From John Nunnari –

Although I’m sure both the MMA and the Department of Local Services has already provided previews of these numbers, I’m passing this along in case you hadn’t seen the numbers released today by the Governor.

The Governor is proposing an additional $107K over last year, which is approximately a 1% increase.

john

 

 

Municipality/Regional District 7061-0008 Chapter 70 Unrestricted General Government Aid Annual Formula Local Aide
FY ’15 Actual Appropriation $5,862,409.00 $1,289,875.00 $0.00
FY ’16 Actual Appropriation $5,925,859.00 $1,336,310.00
Governors FY ’17 Proposal $5,975,759.00 $1,393,771.00 $0.00
Medfield (House FY ’17 Proposed Numbers) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Medfield (Senate FY 17 Proposed Numbers) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
FY ’17 Conference Committee Report           July +/- $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

 

 

John Nunnari, Assoc AIA
Executive Director, AIA MA

Comments Off on Our state aid + 1%

Posted in Budgets, Legislature, State

CPA match at 29.7% – none for us

Posted on November 17, 2015 | Comments Off on CPA match at 29.7% – none for us

The state announced its matching money for Community Preservation Act towns – 29.7% on average, but Medway which is in for 3% CPA surcharges got over 40% matching money.

Medfield residents continue to pay our money in so it can go to other towns, and leave our potential state matching money on the table.

Statewide CPA Trust Fund Distribution Announced

State-House-smaller_1 (1)

November 17, 2015:  The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) has released the Community Preservation Trust Fund distribution for each CPA municipality. The revenue from this year’s trust fund distribution comes from two sources: document recording fees collected over the past 12 months at the state’s Registries of Deeds, and a transfer of $10 million from the state’s FY2015 budget surplus. In total, more than $36 million will be distributed to the 156 communities eligible for a distribution this year.

All CPA communities will receive a 29.7% match on round one of the trust fund distribution this year.  Communities that adopted CPA with a full 3% local property tax surcharge will receive a higher percentage.  Click on the link below for details on this year’s distribution and a way to view the specific amounts for each community.

> SPREADSHEET: Click here for the CPA Trust Fund distribution amount for each municipality <

PLEASE NOTE:  According to a statement from DOR, this year’s CPA Trust Fund distribution amount for most communities was adjusted due to an update to FY2015 data after last year’s distribution was made. The adjustment was necessary because the surcharge percentage was incorrectly calculated in one community and another community did not notify DOR that they had adopted CPA and were therefore not included in last year’s distribution.

Comments Off on CPA match at 29.7% – none for us

Posted in Budgets, Legislature, State