Category Archives: Massachusetts Municipal Association

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

MMA Best Practices

Posted on February 19, 2016 | Comments Off on MMA Best Practices

MMA

The Massachusetts Municipal Association published in January a series of “best practices” for towns in Massachusetts, and I thought I would share them as I had time. This process is where we can share the collective knowledge of all the other towns, as we figure out how best to do things.

The first “best practice” is about how much we should have in reserves, and the MMA recommends more than 5% or two months of  your operating funds.  Our budget is about $60m./year, so I make that amount to be about $10m.  I think that is about twice what we have.

MMA Fiscal Policy Committee
Best Practice Recommendation: Municipal Reserves

BEST PRACTICE: Adopt, as a set policy or practice, adequate funding of municipal reserve accounts to mitigate budget risks from extraordinary and unforeseen events and maintain fiscal stability over time. This could include the adoption of reserve funding targets of 5 percent or more, based on the size of the municipal budget and consideration of spending and revenues risks. This could also include the identification of specific year-end fund balances or revenues from other sources
to contribute to reserve accounts. A good policy or practice could also include rules for the use or draw down of reserves and for replenishment of depleted accounts.

It is widely recognized that those state and local governments that have established and funded reserve and stabilization accounts at sufficient levels have been well-served, because reserves allow states and localities to sustain services in times of economic and fiscal distress and limit the risk from extraordinary and unforeseen occurrences. Sound policies and practices, along with adequate levels of reserves, can also have a positive impact on credit ratings and can reduce  the cost of borrowing and capital project spending.

The Division of Local Services advises that a good reserve policy will establish target balances for the local stabilization fund and other reserves and “develop a schedule of annual appropriations … designed to reach and sustain target balances gradually over time.”

A Best Practice adopted by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Executive Board recommends that “governments establish a formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance that should be maintained in the general fund.” The GFOA suggests that the balance be maintained at no less than two months of general operating fund revenues or expenditures, although the amount of the balance and the measurement depend on the specific circumstances of the municipality. The GFOA also recommends that the purpose of various parts of the fund balance be specified, including, for example, “a portion for working capital, one for budgetary stabilization, and one for responding to extreme events.”

References from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA):
www.gfoa.org/appropriate-level-unrestricted-fund-balance-general-fund
www.gfoa.org/adopting-financial-policies-0

Comments Off on MMA Best Practices

Posted in Budgets, Massachusetts Municipal Association, 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

MMA meeting details

Posted on January 7, 2016 | Comments Off on MMA meeting details

MMA-2

Here is the complete schedule for the Massachusetts Municipal Association’s annual meeting that as your selectman I will attend on your behalf on January 22 & 23, to learn how to make Medfield’s town government better.

Let me know if there is anything you especially think I should be sure to get to – I highlighted the concurrent sessions that strike me as especially interesting.

MMA Annual Meeting & Trade Show

All events are held at the Hynes Convention Center and the Sheraton Boston Hotel.

Friday, January 22, 2016
8 a.m.-5 p.m Conference Registration Hynes, Hall C foyer, 2nd floor
9:30-11 a.m. Opening Session
Keynote Speaker: Guy Raz		 Hynes, Ballroom B, 3rd floor
11 a.m.-5 p.m. Municipal Trade Show Hynes, Hall C & Auditorium
Noon-1:30 p.m. WEMO Luncheon (preregistration required)
Speaker: Attorney General Maura Healey		 Hynes, Ballroom C, 3rd floor
2-3:30 p.m. CONCURRENT WORKSHOPS – Friday session
• Developments and Initiatives in Municipal Finance
• Economic Development Opportunities for Small Towns
• Eight Minutes With a Highly Effective Manager
• Employer Rights in a New Era of Workplace Monitoring
• Labor Law Update
• Making the Case for Regional Emergency Dispatch
• Municipal Land Use and Zoning Update
• Municipal Liability: What Every Manager Should Know
• New Technology in Pavement Management and Snow and Ice Operations
• Shaping Age-Friendly Communities for All Generations to Come		 Hynes, 2nd floor meeting rooms
3:45-5:15 p.m. EMERGING ISSUES FORUMS
• From Airbnb to Zipcar: The Impact of the Sharing Economy on Communities
• Future Shock: What’s in Store for Our Electricity Needs?
• Successfully Riding the Data Wave		 Hynes, 3rd floor meeting rooms
6-7 p.m. Opening Reception Sheraton, Constitution Ballroom foyer, 2nd floor
7-9 p.m. Banquet Dinner, MMA President’s Address
Special guest speaker: Don Orsillo
(Preregistration required)		 Sheraton, Grand Ballroom, 2nd floor
Saturday, January 23, 2016
8 a.m.-3:30 p.m Conference Registration Hynes, Hall C foyer, 2nd floor
7:30-8:30 a.m. Member Associations Breakfast Hynes, Ballroom B, 3rd floor
BUSINESS MEETINGS FOR MEMBER ASSOCIATIONS
8:30-10 a.m. • Massachusetts Municipal Councillors’ Association Hynes, room 306
8:30-10 a.m. • Massachusetts Selectmen’s Association Hynes, Ballroom C, 3rd floor
8:30-10 a.m. • Massachusetts Mayors’ Association Hynes, room 300
8:30-10 a.m. • Massachusetts Municipal Management Association Hynes, room 304
10 a.m.-2 p.m. Municipal Trade Show Hynes, Hall C & Auditorium
10:15-11:50 a.m. MMA Annual Business Meeting
(incl. President’s Address)		 Hynes, Ballroom A, 3rd floor
11:50 a.m.-noon MMA Board of Directors Meeting: Election of Officers Hynes, Ballroom A, 3rd floor
noon-1:30 p.m. MIIA Luncheon and Business Meeting (by reservation only) Hynes, Ballroom B, 3rd floor
2-3:30 p.m. CONCURRENT WORKSHOPS – Saturday session
• Capital Planning: Buying the Big Stuff
• Communities at Work: Safety Regulations for Municipal Workers
• Community Impacts of Cable, Broadband and Over-the-Top Content
• Complete Your Streets: Preparing for Policy and Action
• Critical Issues in Modern Municipal Policing
• Getting Ready for a New Public Records Law
• Media Relations Concepts for Municipal Officials
• Municipal and Open Meeting Law Update
• Municipal Leadership in the Opioid Crisis
• Understanding the Cadillac Tax		 Hynes, 2nd floor meeting rooms
3:45-5 p.m. Closing Session Speaker:
John F. Harris		 Hynes, Ballroom A, 3rd floor
6-7:15 p.m. Presentation of Innovation, Municipal Website and Town Report Awards; President’s Reception Sheraton, Constitution Ballroom, 2nd floor
7:15-9:15 p.m. Annual Banquet (preregistration required)
Entertainment: Paula Poundstone		 Sheraton, Grand Ballroom, 2nd floor

Comments Off on MMA meeting details

Posted in Massachusetts Municipal Association, Uncategorized

MMA annual meeting in 2 weeks

Posted on January 7, 2016 | Comments Off on MMA annual meeting in 2 weeks

MMA

Each January I find it useful to attend the MMA’s annual meeting to share ideas with other municipal officials.  This year it takes place in two weeks.  I always skip the dinners and staying at the hotel to save the town money.

January 7, 2016

MMA Annual Meeting News
January 22 & 23, 2016
Hynes Convention Center & Sheraton Boston Hotel

Gov. Baker to speak at Opening Session of MMA’s Annual Meeting on Fri., Jan. 22

U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren & Ed Markey will address members at the MMA’s Annual Business Meeting on Sat., Jan. 23

Click Here to Register Today

Five days before he files his fiscal 2017 state budget, Governor Charlie Baker will appear before nearly 1,000 local officials at the opening session of the MMA’s Annual Meeting. Gov. Baker will deliver his remarks at the beginning of the two-day conference, which starts at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, Jan. 22 at the Hynes Convention Center in Boston.

The Governor is expected to outline his budget proposals for local aid, transportation funding, and other key priorities.  REGISTER TODAY to secure a seat!

Other Major Events and Highlights During the Annual Meeting:
• Keynote address by award-winning NPR journalist Guy Raz
• Up-to-the-minute analysis by Politico’s co-founder and editor-in-chief John Harris
• Women Elected Municipal Officials luncheon with Attorney General Maura Healey
• 20 information-packed workshops on major issues of the day for local officials
• 3 “Emerging Issues” forums on major challenges facing state and local government

We look forward to seeing you at the MMA’s 37th Annual Meeting and Trade Show!

Comments Off on MMA annual meeting in 2 weeks

Posted in Massachusetts Municipal Association, Uncategorized

Selectman education

Posted on October 17, 2015 | Comments Off on Selectman education

This past month I attended two almost day long programs designed to educate municipal officials.  The state and the MMA both seek to assist local officials to learn how to do a better job.

MMA

  • Massachusetts Selectman Association (part of the Massachusetts Municipal Association). There I got an update on legislation issues from the MMA’s executive director, heard from the Lt. Governor about their Community Compact initiative (Medfield will join), and attended workshops on budgeting and communicating.

DLS

  • Massachusetts DOR’s Division of Local Services annual legal update, which DLS describes below –  I opted for the OPEB workshop.

Local Officials Gather to Hear “What’s New in Municipal Law”
Municipal Finance Law Bureau

Over 400 local officials attended the 30th annual “What’s New in Municipal Law” seminars held on October 1, 2015 at The Log Cabin Banquet and Meeting House in Holyoke and October 8th, 2015 at The Lantana in Randolph.

In the morning general sessions, they heard Municipal Finance Law Bureau attorneys Kathleen Colleary, Bureau Chief, Gary Blau, James Crowley, John Gannon, Donald Gorton and Patricia Hunt review new legislation and recent court and Appellate Tax Board cases. In the afternoon session, the attorneys led three workshops on (1) assessing condominiums and time-shares, and collecting personal property taxes, (2) adopting and amending municipal operating and capital budgets; and (3) negotiating and funding retiree post-employment benefits.

If you were not able to attend one of this year’s seminars, the morning presentation materials and afternoon workshop booklets are available on our website.

We look forward to seeing you at the 31st annual “What’s New in Municipal Law” seminar next fall. The dates to save are Thursday, September 29th, 2016 at The Log Cabin Banquet and Meeting House in Holyoke and Thursday, October 6th, 2016 at The Lantana in Randolph.

Comments Off on Selectman education

Posted in Massachusetts Municipal Association, State

MMA’s fall Selectmen conference

Posted on October 2, 2015 | Comments Off on MMA’s fall Selectmen conference

MMA

Tomorrow is the Mass. Municipal Association’s fall selectmen conference, a chance for me to learn the lessons of how other towns are solving municipal problems.  I always bring back new insights on how we can do things differently or better.  Below is the agenda.  My current thinking is to attend the budgeting and public meeting sessions.

Selectmen’s Association Fall Conference

 Download as iCal file
Export Event

Click here to register for this event.

Date & Time: Saturday, October 03, 2015, 08:30am – 02:00pm
Location : Lake Pearl Luciano’s, 299 Creek St., Wrentham

Agenda

8 a.m.
Registration, Networking and Breakfast

8:30 a.m.
Welcome and Introductions
• Ellen Allen, Norwell Selectman and President of the Massachusetts Selectmen’s Association
• David Dunford, Orleans Selectman and President of the Massachusetts Municipal Association

8:45 a.m.
MMA Legislative Update
• Geoff Beckwith, Executive Director, Massachusetts Municipal Association

9:15 a.m.
Keynote Speaker
• Karyn Polito, Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts

10:15 a.m.
Break

10:30 a.m.
Breakout Session A: Budgeting Basics
This session will outline budgeting best practices including stabilization funds, debt rating agencies, and budget management in times of crisis.
• Colleen Corona, former Easton Selectman
Moderator: Joshua Ostroff, Selectman, Natick

Breakout Session B: Collective Bargaining
This session will outline strategies for successful collective bargaining, including developing a negotiation strategy, factual preparation, and anticipating tactics that may be employed.
• Katherine Hesse, Partner, Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP
Moderator: Paul DeRensis, Selectman, Sherborn

11:40 a.m.
Break

11:45 a.m.
Breakout Session C: Open Meeting Law and Public Records Law
This session will explain how to comply with these critically important and evolving open meeting and public records laws using real examples and highlighting common mistakes.
• Robert Galvin, Partner, Galvin & Galvin
Moderator: Ellen Allen, Selectman, Norwell

Breakout Session D: Hold the Tomatoes: Facilitating Public Meetings
This workshop will be a hands-on, experiential opportunity to practice preparing for and designing constructive public meetings. Participants will be given guidelines to address ways to foster engaged citizenship, rather than inviting outrage and rants from “customers.”
• Dave Joseph, Senior Vice President for Program, Public Conversations Project
Moderator: David Dunford, Selectman, Orleans

1 p.m.
Networking and Lunch Buffet

2 p.m.
Adjournment

Comments Off on MMA’s fall Selectmen conference

Posted in Massachusetts Municipal Association, Select Board matters

MMA on Senate version of state budget

Posted on May 18, 2015 | Comments Off on MMA on Senate version of state budget

This alert this morning from the Massachusetts Municipal Association on the Senate deliberations tomorrow on the state budget, highlighting issues important to towns. –

Monday, May 18, 2015

SENATE DEBATE ON FY 2016 STATE BUDGET BEGINS TUESDAY – CALL YOUR SENATORS

Lawmakers Will Decide the Fate of 942 Amendments

Please Call Your Senators Today on the Budget Amendments that Impact Key Municipal and School Priorities

The Massachusetts Senate will begin debating the $38 billion fiscal 2016 state budget on Tuesday, May 19th. The deliberations are expected to take several days, as Senators have filed 942 amendments to make changes to S. 3, the Senate Ways & Means Committee’s budget recommendation that was released last week.

Many of these amendments would directly impact cities and towns, including a number of welcome amendments that would increase funding for municipal and school aid accounts. This Legislative Alert describes the most important amendments that will be debated.

Please Call Your Senators Today

Please call your Senators as soon as possible today to secure their support for those amendments that would help your community.

Lawmakers must hear from you on these issues. Because of the great number of amendments, the summaries here are very brief. Please contact MMA Legislative Director John Robertson at jrobertson@mma.org or 617-426-7272 x122 at any time if you have questions or need more details.

When you call your Senators, please make sure to thank them for the proposals in the Senate budget to increase Unrestricted General Government Aid by $34 million (matching the budgets from the Governor and House), and for the $18.2 million increase to fully fund the Special Education Circuit Breaker.

Please Click Here to Download a Copy of the MMA’s Budget Letter to the Senate

Please Click Here to Visit the Senate Budget Website to See the Amendments: The Senate budget committee recommendation (S. 3) and all proposed amendments are posted on the Legislature’s website at: https://malegislature.gov/Budget/FY2016/Senate/ChamberActions

KEY BUDGET AMENDMENTS ON SCHOOL AND EDUCATION FUNDING

Adequate Chapter 70 Minimum Aid for Municipal and Regional Schools
The MMA is calling for a sufficient funding increase for Chapter 70 school aid to ensure that all municipal and regional school districts are able to reach the “foundation” level of spending, implement the equity provisions adopted in 2006, and provide an adequate amount of minimum aid that ensures that all schools receive an increase in fiscal 2016.

The Governor proposed a fiscal 2016 Chapter 70 increase that sets minimum aid at only $20 per student for 245 cities, towns and school districts, an insufficient amount to maintain current school staffing and services. The Senate budget would increase minimum aid to $25 per student, but in reality this still leaves too many schools unable to maintain quality school programs. Recognizing that the Foundation Budget Review Commission will not file its report until mid-2015, far past the deadline for inclusion in the fiscal 2016 state budget, the MMA is urging the House to adopt a higher minimum aid amount to prevent further erosion in school financing at the local level.

• Please ask your Senators to Support Amendment 94 filed by Sen. Eldridge and Amendment 100 filed by Sen. Hedlund to increase the “minimum aid” amount to $50 per student. This amendment would benefit 245 cities, towns and school districts, and give these communities a better chance of maintaining the quality of their existing education programming.

Reimbursements for Charter School Losses
The diversion of Chapter 70 school aid away from public schools to pay tuition to charter schools has imposed a major and growing financial burden on cities and towns, a problem made more acute as the state grants more charters and existing charter schools expand. Local officials strongly support full funding of the Commonwealth’s commitment under section 89 of Chapter 71 of the General Laws to reimburse school districts for the loss of a portion of their Chapter 70 aid that is redirected to fund charter schools.

In fiscal 2015, it is expected that cities and towns will be forced to divert $444 million to fund charter schools, 10 percent of all Chapter 70 dollars. This illustrates the importance of this issue to local governments, and why it is critical for the state to meet its commitment to this program. The original $80 million appropriation in the fiscal 2015 general appropriations act was $30.5 million below the full funding amount required in the statutory formula, which was signed into law only a few years ago. The problem has deepened with two rounds of 9C cuts to this account ($3.1 million), increasing the fiscal 2015 shortfall to at least $33.6 million.

The funding shortfall means that cities and towns are receiving only a fraction of the reimbursements due according to state law. This is impacting a large number of communities, including some the state’s poorest and most financially distressed cities and towns. Thus, the underfunding of the charter school reimbursement formula is harming the most vulnerable and challenged school districts and communities.

The House and Governor’s fiscal 2016 budget would level fund charter school reimbursements at $76.9 million, even though local payments to charter schools are expected to increase by $56.5 million. Full funding of the statutory formula would require $133.5 million. Without these funds, cities and towns will face another major shortfall next year, and result in cutbacks for the vast majority of students who remain in the traditional public school setting. The SW&M budget would provide $80 million, which is still far below the necessary funding.

• Please ask your Senators to Support Amendment 616 filed by Sen. Chang-Diaz, and Amendment 608 filed by Sens. Hedlund and Moore. These critical amendments would fully fund charter school reimbursements due to cities, towns and regional school districts by providing the full $133.5 million necessary to meet the state’s obligation.

McKinney-Vento Homeless Student Transportation Costs
In fiscal 2013, the state budget provided $11.3 million to fully fund the state-mandated costs that resulted from the Commonwealth’s adoption of the federal McKinney-Vento Act. The State Auditor ruled that the McKinney-Vento program was an unfunded mandate on cities and towns, and the Legislature provided full funding soon after that ruling. Under the program, communities are providing very costly transportation services to bus homeless students to schools outside of the local school district. However, the fiscal 2014 state budget reduced McKinney-Vento reimbursements to $7.4 million, underfunding this state mandate. Full funding for this year is estimated at $19.8 million, but the Commonwealth level-funded the program at $7.35 million, creating a shortfall of $12.5 million in the current fiscal year.

The House and Governor are proposing a $1 million increase for fiscal 2016 to bring funding for McKinney-Vento reimbursements up to $8.4 million, yet the SW&M budget would level-fund the program at $7.4 million. Full funding for this state mandate would require $20.8 million, according to the most recent DESE projection.

• Please ask your Senators to Support Amendment 586 filed by Sens. Eldridge and Lesser, Amendment 569 filed by Sens. Lovely and Barrett, and Amendment 611 filed by Sens. Hedlund and Moore that would fund reimbursements due to municipalities and school districts for the cost of transporting homeless students from temporary shelters to school. In addition, please ask your Senators to Support Amendment 33 filed by Senator Lovely that would protect cities and towns that host homeless families from reduced room occupancy excise revenues as a result of the state’s emergency assistance (EA) program.

Regional School District Student Transportation Reimbursements
Funding for transportation reimbursements to regional school districts is vital to all regional districts and their member cities and towns, particularly in sparsely populated parts of the state. The Legislature appropriated $70.3 million for fiscal 2015, but, unfortunately, Governor Patrick used his 9C powers to cut the amount in November by 27 percent, an unexpected $18.7 million loss, returning the program to fiscal 2014 levels just months after coming closer to full funding. Decades ago, the state promised 100 percent reimbursement as an incentive for towns and cities to regionalize, and the consistent underfunding of this account has presented serious budget challenges for these districts, taking valuable dollars from the classroom. The Governor’s budget proposal would level-fund regional school transportation reimbursements at $51.5 million, dropping the reimbursement percentage down to 64 percent. The Senate Ways and Means Committee would restore $5 million to this key program in fiscal 2016, and bring funding up to $56.5 million, a positive and helpful increase, yet still below the funding needed.

• Please ask your Senators to Support Amendment 545 filed by Senator Gobi and others, Amendment 522 filed by Senator Humason and Amendment 612 filed by Senators Hedlund and Moore that would build on the progress in S. 3, and bring transportation reimbursements to regional school districts closer to the original fiscal 2015 appropriation.

Out-of-District Vocational Education Student Transportation
The fiscal 2015 state budget included $2.25 million item to reimburse communities for a portion of the $3.8 million cost of transporting students to out-of-district placements in vocational schools, as mandated by state law. This account recognizes the significant expense of providing transportation services for out-of-district placements, as these students must travel long distances to participate in vocational programs that are not offered locally. Governor Patrick slashed all funding with his November 9C cuts, a painful mid-year loss. The SW&M budget does not include any funding.

• Please ask your Senators to Support Amendment 574 filed by Sen. Gobi to fully fund the $3.9 million cost of transporting students to out-of-district placements in vocational schools.

Kindergarten Expansion Grants
177 cities, towns and regional school districts in every corner of the Commonwealth use this important grant program to support full-day access to local kindergarten programs – including communities in virtually every Senate district. Funding for the program in the fiscal 2015 general appropriations act was $23.9 million before being reduced through two rounds of 9C cuts to $18.6 million. The Governor’s budget recommendation would eliminate all funding in fiscal 2016, an extremely disruptive step that would force participating communities to immediately decide whether to end or scale back their current kindergarten programs or cut other school and classroom services. Real progress was made in the House budget, with Representatives voting to restore the program to $18.6 million. However, the SW&M budget would reduce the program down to $1 million. We strongly support restoring Kindergarten Development Grants to at least the fiscal 2015 post-9C level of $18.6 million, and are asking Senators to also consider restoring the program to the original $23.9 million level.

• Please ask your Senators to Support Amendment 549 filed by Senator Joyce and Amendment 613 filed by Senator Hedlund and others to level fund this account at the fiscal 2015 appropriation.

Circuit Breaker for English Language Learners
One of the many lessons learned from the six public hearings held by the Foundation Budget Review Commission last year and into this Spring is that cities and towns struggling to meet the educational needs of an increasing number of students with special needs separate from special education programs. This includes low-income and English language learner (ELL) students.

• Please ask your Senators to Support Amendment 550 filed by Senator Fattman that would establish a “circuit breaker” program for English language learners, laying the foundation for future financial assistance from the Commonwealth.


KEY BUDGET AMENDMENTS ON MUNICIPAL AID PROGRAMS AND MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT POLICY

Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOT)
The Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOT) program is a particularly important program for the cities and towns that host and provide municipal services to state facilities that are exempt from the local property tax. This account is underfunded at $26.77 million this year, and is still below fiscal 2008 funding. Many of our state’s smallest communities rely heavily on PILOT payments, and shortfalls in this account have a significant impact on their ability to deliver basic municipal services. House One and S. 3would level fund PILOT at $26.77 million.

• Please ask your Senators to Support Amendment 101 filed by Sen. Hedlund to add $3.5 million to increase PILOT payments to cities and towns, and bring the account up to $30.3 million.

Shannon Anti-Gang Grants
• The Shannon Grant program has been very effective in enabling cities and towns to respond to and suppress gang-related activities. Please ask your Senators to Support Amendment 697 filed by Sen. Donoghue to increase funding for the Shannon anti-gang grant program. This amendment would add $2 million and bring total funding up to $8 million, which is the original fiscal 2015 appropriation.

Safe and Successful Youth Initiative
• Please ask your Senators to Support Amendment 813 , filed by Sen. Chang-Diaz to increase funding of the Safe and Supportive Youth Initiative from $5 million to $7.58 million. The program seeks to reduce youth violence through wrap-around services for those most likely to be victims or perpetrators, and is vital to violence prevention efforts in dozens of communities.

Summer Jobs for At-Risk Youth
• Please ask your Senators to Support Amendment 428 filed by Sen. Wolf to increase funding for youth summer jobs from $11.5 million to $12 million. This funding is critical to providing employment opportunities for at-risk teenagers in our cities and towns, especially with youth unemployment rates climbing.

Protection of Municipal Emergency Medical Services
• Please ask your Senators to Support Amendment 775 filed by Sen. Donnelly that would prevent the practice of “pay the patient,” by insurance companies, which undermines the ability of cities and towns to fund and operate responsive and efficient ambulance services that are at the core of emergency medical services in Massachusetts. “Pay the patient” would force communities to pursue their own residents to recoup thousands of dollars in ambulance expenses, a system that is inefficient and subject to abuse. Amendment 775 would also clarify that municipalities are authorized to set a fair rate for ambulance services. Cities and towns set fees and charges for a wide variety of municipal services very strictly limited by state law to the cost of providing the service. This is the same rule that would apply to rate setting for emergency ambulance services. It would ensure that rates are reasonable and prevent insurance companies from shifting costs to local property taxpayers through below-cost reimbursements.

Funding for the State Rehabilitation Tax Credit
• Please ask your Senators to Support Amendment 17 filed by Senators Moore and Tarr. This amendment would increase the capitalization of the State Historic Tax Credit Fund from $50 million to $75 million, bolstering the adaptive reuse of historic buildings in communities across the state and providing an important piece of project financing for many rehabilitative developments.

Closing the Online Room Reseller Tax Loophole
• Please ask your Senators to Support Amendment 23 filed by Senator Montigny to ensure equitable taxation of hotel rooms purchased through online room resellers. Because of a glaring loophole, when a hotel reservation is made through an online hotel room reseller, the tax that is collected is based on an artificially low room rate, not on the room rate that the consumer actually pays. This amendment would ensure that internet resellers cannot avoid collecting and submitting the full state and local room occupancy excise tax based on the actual room rate charged to the consumer. Eliminating this loophole will ensure a level playing field for all parties.

Closing the Vacation Rental Tax Loophole
• Please ask your Senators to Support Amendment 70 filed by Senator Wolf to modernize the room occupancy tax. This amendment would make the lodging excise applicable to short-term or seasonal lodging rentals in private homes or other similar accommodations. Such short-term rentals have become increasingly popular and common with the expansion of the sharing economy and the advent of online booking sites like Airbnb for such rooms. As with the room reseller issue, eliminating this glaring loophole will provide a level playing field in the lodging industry, and ensure that the existing room occupancy tax is fairly applied in all appropriate instances.

KEY BUDGET AMENDMENTS ON CAPITAL SPENDING PRIORITIES

Community Preservation Act Funding
During fiscal 2015, 156 cities and towns collected the local Community Preservation Act (CPA) surcharge and are eligible for state matching grants in fiscal 2016. The Division of Local Services (DLS) estimates that the balance in the state trust fund will be sufficient to provide a first round match of only 18 percent of the surcharge levied by each city and town. This would be the lowest state match in the program’s history.

• Please ask your Senators to Support Amendment 54 filed by Senator Creem and others and Amendments 1 and 65 filed by Senators Tarr and Hedlund that would dedicate a portion of any fiscal 2015 year-end state budget surplus, up to $25 million, to supplement the fiscal 2016 state match. The fiscal 2014 state match was supplemented by $25 million from the fiscal 2013 year-end surplus, and $11.4 million was made available last year from the fiscal 2014 surplus.

Please Call Your Senators Today on the Budget Amendments that Impact Your Community!

Thank You!

 

Comments Off on MMA on Senate version of state budget

Posted in Budgets, Legislature, Massachusetts Municipal Association

MMA on pothole $

Posted on March 19, 2015 | Comments Off on MMA on pothole $

This alert from the Mass. Municipal Assoc. –

 

Thursday, March 19, 2015

BAKER ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE CITIES AND TOWNS WITH $30 MILLION FOR POTHOLE AND WINTER RECOVERY EFFORTS

$30 MILLION IN ONE-TIME AID TO BE AVAILABLE AND ALLOCATED THROUGH CHAPTER 90 FORMULA

The Baker Administration announced today that it has established a “Winter Recovery Assistance Program” that will provide cities and towns with $30 million in funding this spring to repair potholes and other damage to roads, bridges and signs caused by the punishing winter.

“This winter’s record-setting snowfall has left our cities and towns with a major maintenance deficit that needs to be addressed immediately,” Lt. Governor Polito said in a statement on Thursday. “This program provides municipalities with additional resources to accelerate those repairs and make our roadways safer for everyone.”

The $30 million for cities and towns will be allocated to municipalities using the Chapter 90 formula. The program will allow municipalities to seek reimbursement on expenditures related to potholes, pavement cracking, surface defects, paving projects, guardrails, storm drains, line striping, and repair or replacement of damaged signs.

MassDOT officials have outlined the following details: 1) the program will be implemented this month, with all qualifying work completed by June 30, 2015; 2) the department will issue one-time contracts with municipalities allowing them to draw down their share of the $30 million for the specific purpose of road and facility repairs; 3) these contracts will include a “use it or lose it” clause to ensure that funds are spent and projects are completed by June 30; and 4) all work invoices must be provided to MassDOT by July 31, 2015 and MassDOT will reimburse cities and towns as invoices are received.

Cities and towns will be receiving official notification and information on this program within the next several days.  Click here to view the WRAP apportionment list and rules and regulations, which detail how the $30 million will be apportioned to each city and town.

This year’s harsh winter has damaged local roads, generated countless potholes and placed a huge burden on local taxpayers as municipal leaders work to shore up their crumbling roadways. Communities will put these funds to immediate use rebuilding and repairing roads, equipment and facilities in every corner of Massachusetts, which will save money, help our economy and improve public safety.

This is very good news for cities and towns, and the MMA applauds Governor Baker, Lt. Governor Polito, Secretary Pollack and MassDOT for this important program!

Comments Off on MMA on pothole $

Posted in Budgets, DPW, Massachusetts Municipal Association

MMA on road $

Posted on March 13, 2015 | Comments Off on MMA on road $

March 12, 2015

GOV. BAKER FILES $200M CHAPTER 90 BOND BILL
Combined with the $100M Released in January, this 1-Year Bill Would Provide Cities and Towns with a Total of $300M in Chapter 90 Funds for the 2015 Construction Season

Earlier this afternoon, Gov. Charlie Baker filed a one-year $200 million Chapter 90 bond bill for fiscal 2016, and asked legislators to approve the bill quickly so that cities and towns will have access to the money at the start of the construction season.

If the bond bill passes in the next several weeks, combined with the $100 million in new Chapter 90 authorizations the Governor released in January, cities and towns will have access to a total of $300 million to repair and maintain local roads during the 2015 spring-to-fall construction season.

With the state working to erase a $1 billion mid-year budget deficit in fiscal 2015, and a $1.8 billion structural budget gap for fiscal 2016, the Baker-Polito Administration decided to file a one-year Chapter 90 bond bill. Swift passage of the bond bill will ensure that cities and towns can access a total of $300 million in new Chapter 90 funds without delaying the start of the construction season.

The Chapter 90 program provides cities and towns with vital funding to maintain, repair and rebuild 30,000 miles of local roads in every corner of the state. Adequate and timely funding is essential for the growth of our economy and to ensure safe and passable roadways for residents, businesses and visitors.

Immediately after passage of this one-year bond bill, the MMA and local officials will work in partnership with the Administration and legislators to achieve long-range progress and funding for Chapter 90 that is both adequate for cities and towns and sustainable for the Commonwealth.

SWIFT ACTION ON CHAPTER 90 IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT COSTLY AND UNNECESSARY DELAYS IN THE CONSTRUCTION SEASON

PLEASE CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS TODAY AND ASK THEM TO ENACT THE $200 MILLION CHAPTER 90 BOND BILL BY APRIL 1 AT THE LATEST

Comments Off on MMA on road $

Posted in Budgets, DPW, Massachusetts Municipal Association, State