Category Archives: Uncategorized

Sign up with Selectmen as Swap Monitor

Those who are interested in being swap area monitors should advise BoS. We will start making appointments 8/2/11.

Residents’ Suggestions for Uses of the Medfield State Hospital Site

Ideas for reuse of State Hospital site submitted on Medfield.Patch:
1.    State Park
2.    Conservation and nature center
3.    Anything but the H-Street Projects
4.    Nature Center
5.    Housing and Community Treatment & Support for those disabled by mental illness
6.    Bulldoze it and put in government subsidized housing
7.    Develop as a hugely haunted destinations
8.    A park
9.    Music school
10.    Concert venue
11.    Conservation land for the Trustees of Reservations
12.    Huge Park and conservation area with place for kids to play, bike/hike trails, etc.
13.    Cultural Arts Center: Artists studios and galleries, outdoor sculpture park, theatre space, dance studios and performance space, all mixed with some lovely shops, restaurants and nature trails.
14.    A family fun place, like Kimball Farms, with pitch & putt, mini-golf, driving range, ice cream, function areas, etc.
15.    Movie set for horror films
16.    Would make a great college or corporate campus –  bring some jobs and tax revenue into the town without overly stressing town services (two other people on Facebook liked this idea)
17.    Short answer is a little of everything: Housing, seniors, recreation and a lot of open space.
18.    Medfield College (two other people on Facebook liked this idea)
19.    Medfield College. Kids can go right from MHS to MC and never leave.
20.    Country Club –  a very nice one with golf, swimming and tennis.
21.    A working farm
22.    Small agricultural college
23.    Small agricultural college affiliated with the UMass System. Similar to UMass Medical in Worcester but the Agi in Medfield. The town would get state revenues to make it happen ad it would mean more jobs for the town.
24.    Umass-Medfield
25.    Medfield State College (just like Disney)
26.    It’s too bad they couldn’t use it for a small college campus or something of that nature. Although I think many people in town would prefer it was a convent or something where the residents are quiet and don’t demand services or create traffic ;
27.    Nancy Coakley, 10:57am on Friday, July 8, 2011 – I would like to see considered a mini mall, similar to Cobbs corner or a smaller version of Legacy Place. Business, Retail, some apartments and condos. It would bring tax revenue and jobs at the same time be less on sewer and water usage. The design could be an Old New England Town style. Traffic might be a small issue but the jobs it would create (including summer jobs for students) and tax revenue to the town seems like a good option.
28.    Colleen M. Sullivan, 11:24am on Saturday, July 9, 2011 – I would love to see that area restored and used for either a college campus or some sort of golf/recreation area….The history of those buildings is unique and they should not be bulldozed to be replaced with housing!
29.    Wayland Commons idea – affordable housing, 55+ housing, small business condos, restaurants, neighborhood shopping. Also like the idea of going to our roots: providing housing for the mentally ill, with agricultural facilities available so that they can work on the land. Also like idea of seeing if a portion of the land could be restricted for conservation/recreation with Trustees of Reservation oversight – Also provide for a youth/community center. – Posted 12:39pm on Friday, July 8, 2011 by Rachel Brown
30.    Open space. There is no tax revenue generating use that would not burden the town with demand for additional services. – Posted 7:44am on Saturday, July 9, 2011 by Steve Buckley
31.    I think that a private elementary school or college would be a great use of the grounds. I was up there in April. The buildings, while in a horrendous state of disrepair, are for the most part, architecturally stunning. The property itself is incredible.  The space would be great for a sporting facility as well. The town could use an indoor facility for swimming, baseball, basketball, track, and hockey. And the golf course idea had some merits as well.  I would rather face the potential runoff of fertilizer than the 2,000 plus residents that would occupy the current plan. We can always use “green” fertilizer. 😀  Definitively, not a facility that will increase the burden on our town services. And if it ends DCAM forces through the current development idea, then the state should be mandated to pony up for police/fire and school problems that arise from the inundation of people on our town. – Posted 7:55am on Wednesday, June 8, 2011 by Errin Chapin

Ideas for reuse of State Hospital site submitted directly to Osler L. Peterson

John Harney
Dear Pete,
Happened on your blog while searching about for any sound data on Oleana
Foundation.  You ask therein for readers’ positions re. the hospital
redevelopment.  You probably believe that you have a sense of mine but I  will,
nonetheless, suggest that priority should be given to The Commonwealth’s
obvious responsibility for a thorough clean-up of the entire former  hospital
site.  I would not accept a pass off of that responsibility  to a developer and
certainly not, in any part, to the Town.  We have  an obligation to see
that the environmental damages wrought and the threats  to health and safety
are fully assessed and professionally certified  remediation is effected.  I
include the buildings and infrastructure –  heating, water and waste lines –
to be among The Commonwealth’s obligatory  undertakings.

There is little doubt that the area, so abused over the century plus of
state ownership, would be best spared further heavy development.  Its very
location on the banks of a river and an aquifer, proximate to a residential
neighborhood and schools as well as a recreation area, argues for a  largely
“open space” resolution.  Failing that outcome, a  non-intensive development
with some tax benefit to the Town would be  reasonable.  The vague
suggestion of a college sounds attractive but gives  rise to many, many questions
over a range of concerns beginning with capital  assets of any proponent.  One
of the great concerns a number  of citizens have had over the past several
years if the failure of The  Town’s officials to propose a plan for the
property.  The state, with local  authorities cooperating, filled a vacuum with
unacceptable legislation  which now appears ripe for rescinding.

Your open approach to full and open discussion of Town issues is very much
appreciated – at least in some quarters,  Thank you.

Peace,
John
*********************************
Wally Hersee
Sturbridgecommon.com
Hersee@gmail.com
198.228.196.102
Submitted on 2011/07/07 at 6:16 pm

A portion of the land could be divided into agricultural packets to encourage farming. So many acres offered to those willing to work the land. Criteria could be set. A house, and “barn” to be built on the land. A particular type of farm would have to be established, such as dairy, orchard, vegetable, flower. Benefits are many. Folks would have to qualify, but land would eventually be at no cost if the person stayed on land that was productive for x amount of years. Taxes would be paid. This would be like a “development” from the 1960?s, but for farming.
***********************************
Jill Vollmuth
jvollmuth@gmail.com
71.174.126.242
Submitted on 2011/07/07 at 3:18 pm

I believe every attempt should be made to preserve the land and historic buildings at the State Hospital. It should NOT be a golf course, or a sports complex, both of which would consume enormous amounts of energy and water to run (and, in the case of a golf course, would no doubt add huge quantities of toxic fertilizers and herbicides to the soil.) It should NOT be a developed community, again putting a strain on our energy sources, school system, and town resources. Both of these ideas would completely change the landscape and greatly upset the natural environment and wildlife habitats. This land is one of the most beautiful, undeveloped open spaces in our area, and yet many people seem to want to “build” something on it in order to “improve” it. I don’t know enough about the buildings to make an informed recommendation about renovating them. I know it would be costly; but it seems that it would have a far greater environmental impact, not to mention the historical impact, to tear them all down and put up new buildings. I would love to see the hospital become an arts institute, or a small technical or agricultural/environmental studies college. It would seem that the elevation at the highest point of the property would be a perfect location for a few wind turbines, which would provide energy for the school, and the focus of work at the school could be conducted using sound, ecological practices. Where might we find someone to take on such a project? Large universities who it might interest as an extension school? Some environmental engineering schools or companies? I wouldn’t know where to start, but if this is a direction others wish to consider, I would be willing to participate in a search for prospective buyers. But, again, PLEASE!!!! NO HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, SPORTS COMPLEX, OR GOLF COURSE!! Thanks.
************************************
Karen Veit Scotti commented on your link.
Karen wrote: “What about a senior living community with step down options (independent apartments, assisted living, nursing home)? Affordable houseing units could also be located there to make the 10% we need as a town.”
************************************
Rosemary O’Brien Pete, the housing use is being revisited? Should agriculture (other than hay fields) be in the mix?
************************************
Hi Mr Osler,
I am just retrurning from vacation and got an email from Bill Masarro re your meeting tomorrow with the state.
He suggested we could email you with our thoughts re reuse of MSH.
One possibility mentioned was the town buying the land for its use. I think it would be prudent and essential that before that would be given any serious consideration that the full scope of any hazardous waste/toxins and the clean up and cost for doing so be completed so our town would not be left with that burden which could be a horrendous cost. Also any need for ongoing monitoring costs be identified.

The Oleana foundation sounds interesting but I only see a VERY basic web page that looks like this project is early in development/concept. Having just finished putting two children thru college I LOVE their mission statement!
Not much else avail to look at on the internet when plug in this org. It is not clear what their funding is or their present ability to operationalize their ideas. The idea of a place of higher learning is appealing but would also want to know what costs it would bring to the town. IE how much would services be-cost of water; sewer etc. Also assume this would be a tax free org; but the senior retirement village that is part of their proposal to help offset the burden to the town is interesting. Maybe when you meet you will learn that things are further along than their web site looks.

I think the housing idea proposed in past gives a very large number of units and would be concerned about the towns ability to support it.

I am not sure what else is being proposed. It is too bad a way to keep the majority of the land and its beautiful trees intact can’t be found.

I think the town needs to be open to any ideas that are brought up but wary of the potential costs to town. I feel we need to be very critical of cost projections both in terms of benefits to the town and impacts on the town.

Above all I want the clean up of the site to be thorough; complete and well done!! I don’t want to have to worry about the water I drink or the air I breathe.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. Am looking forward to learning about what is brought up.

Sincerely
Donna Quinn
************************************

Bill Massaro
Pete,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment in advance of your meeting with the Secretary on Monday.

As you know my main concern with the existing plan was the size of the development and the accuracy of the DCAM- provided cost/benefit analyses which made this shotgun wedding look like a made-in-heaven union. As I started challenging almost 3 years ago: underestimated costs–overestimated benefits.

I recognize the element of “it’s inevitable, so let’s enjoy it ” inherent in the acceptance of the Legislation, but I have never been one to accept anything as inevitable.  (I expect death is going to come as shock to me!)  At the very least I felt the Town ought to find some way to get the real costs in order to be fairly compensated for the unholy union.

I had previously raised issues  about  marketability of 200 senior housing units and the risk of all 440 units reverting to non-age-restricted and the subsequent increase in an already underestimated student impact.  I raised environmental issues.  I pointed out the high number of DMH units imposed on Medfield and the uncertainty of how their clients would be supported. I raised  the issue of free water forever.  I challenged DCAM’s wisdom in risking damage to the water tower by installation of antennas.  All of these were part of my concerns to identify and hopefully minimize  cost to the town and harm to residents.  The likelihood of a developer’s need to build more or different types of units to recover costs of unforeseen hazardous material remediation and building renovation was as significant a concern as changing real estate markets..

So, in broad terms, any acceptable  Alternative Use  proposal should :

1.) Be Town Cost/Revenue Neutral (at worst) and cover
-New sewers/utilities
-Highway improvements
– Sidewalks
-Water Tower
-Clarke Building demolition

2.) Indemnify the Town from existing known/unknown environmental hazards on site.
3.) Not risk new/greater exposure to environmental hazards
4.) Address the current condition of the buildings
5.) Not significantly alter the existing viewscape.
6.) Not significantly add to sound, light or other environmental pollution,
6.) Be Viable in its original design/form over the long term

Ideally, I would like to see the buildings re-surveyed to realistically determine their re-use potential, and demolition of everything that doesn’t make the cut. Buildings found structurally sound but sealed under the Administrative Consent Order  would be remediated by the State or demolished.   I would like the Town to then be able to purchase the property with indemnification from the State for environmental issues.  A significantly reduced number of buildings, more open space, lowered security costs….

Again, thank you for this opportunity.

Hope you have a great weekend and i wishh you ( and the Town) good luck on Monday,

Bill

I just linked the A&F/DCAM meeting handouts with the blog http://ping.fm/t4mBc

Notes, Agenda, and Fact Sheet from yesterday’s meeting with state re fresh look at MSH possibilities posted http://wp.me/pwOp1-9N

DEP contacted Ken Feeney to “suggest” Medfield issue voluntary water ban since stream flows are low. Signs will begin appearing around town.

My thoughts on issues of possible uses for Medfield State Hospital site, as I get ready to meet with the state – http://wp.me/pwOp1-9y

CHOICES FOR THE MEDFIELD STATE HOSPITAL SITE ARE A WONDERFUL DILEMMA FOR THE TOWN

The state, by way of the new DCAM Commissioner, Carole Cornelison, is telling Medfield that the door is wide open to potential uses of the former Medfield State Hospital site.  As the residents now rethink the housing that had already been worked out and consider potential other uses, I think that as we, as a town, now decide what would be the best use of the site in the town’s eyes, we need to evaluate the options in terms of the how the major variables will effect the town.

The first, and most important variable the residents needs to consider is the cost to the town to provide municipal services to what gets developed at the site.  Under that municipal services rubric, housing would probably be the most expensive of any possible uses I can imagine, due the associated educational costs.  Business and education uses might draw on town water, sewer, police and fire services, but little effect the educational services part of the town budget, and hence have a lesser budget cost impact on the town.

The second biggest variable for residents to consider would be the property taxes to be derived by the town from the potential use.  Of the most commonly suggested uses, a business use would probably generate the greatest return to the town in the property taxes charged over and above the costs of town services provided.  Housing can generate a positive return to the town if the units are configured as condominiums and/or apartments in attached structures with limited numbers of bedrooms and age restrictions.  Educational uses are typically tax exempt, so the town would get no property tax revenue at all.

The rest of the variables the residents should consider, other than the big two of the municipal services to be provided and the property taxes to be received, I put together in a catch all amorphous area of what are the benefits and/or costs to the quality of life in Medfield.  Under this category I would list such things as noise, traffic, congestion, the visual environment, opportunities for residents to share the use at the site, and meeting certain thresholds.

My thoughts on some of the generally proposed ideas:

College:  I think that we all tend to think of the Medfield State Hospital as a possible site for a college, just because of the way that the building already look so much like a typical New England college.  Whether that would be the best use of the site in the town’s eyes needs to be evaluated in terms of the variables that effect the town.
•    Campuses look beautiful
•    Students tend to keep later hours than other residents
•    Students tend to be noisier than other residents
•    Colleges usually have interesting things happening
•    Colleges pay no property taxes

Business:  
•    Jobs
•    Property taxes to the town
•    Probably few synergies for residents to use the site

Housing:
•    Medfield needs more housing opportunities for older citizens
•    Medfield needs more affordable housing
•    Having 10% affordable housing prevents 40B projects where we do not want them

Sports/Fitness Complex:
•    Jobs
•    Property taxes for town
•    Use of the facility by town residents
•    Town needs a swimming pool
•    Could look nice
•    Could add to interest and quality of life in town

Golf course:
•    Beautiful looking
•    Municipal golf courses generally make no money
•    Private country clubs are not available to most residents

The different potential uses of the Medfield State Hospital site all involve a balancing of competing costs and benefits.  It is a wonderful dilemma for the town residents to have, to revisit the choices and to take part in deciding what will happen to this significant and most beautiful part of our town.  I look forward to working with you to get it done.

Tell me your ideas what Medfield State Hospital site should become, for Monday meeting I have with state officials. http://wp.me/pwOp1-9s

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

Friday, July 1, 2011

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

URGENT REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The legislation that the House and Senate budget conferees, Speaker and Senate President have all agreed on, saves taxpayers money, preserves essential local services, protects municipal union jobs, guarantees equity with state employee health benefits, and provides municipal unions with more bargaining power than state unions. This is a balanced and fair reform that would allow cities and towns to save $100 million in avoided health insurance costs, while guaranteeing a strong and meaningful voice and role for municipal unions at every step in the process.

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

It is important to recognize the leadership of Speaker Robert DeLeo, Chairman Brian Dempsey, Vice Chairman Stephen Kulik, President Therese Murray, Chairman Stephen Brewer, Vice Chairman Steven Baddour, budget conferees Rep. Vinny deMacedo and Sen. Michael Knapik, Public Service Committee Chairs Rep. John Scibak and Sen. Katherine Clark, and all of the members of the House of Representatives and Senate who have advocated for reform this session. We look forward to working with all legislators, the Administration and stakeholders to ensure that this reform plan delivers the relief and savings that every community needs.

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

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

 

  • The process is streamlined and clear: In cities, City Councils vote once to accept the statute, and in towns, Boards of Selectmen also vote once to accept the new law.
  • After local acceptance, the appropriate municipal authority (generally the executive) can make health insurance plan design changes or transfer communities into the GIC following a structured process.
  • The executive develops the proposed plan design changes (no plan could have higher co-pays, deductibles, tiered network co-payments or other plan features that exceed the dollar amounts in the most subscribed plan in the GIC), or a proposal to transfer subscribers into the GIC, and estimates the first-year savings that would result.
  • The executive then notifies the Insurance Advisory Board of the estimated one-year savings resulting from the plan design changes or transfer to the GIC, and provides documentation to the IAC.
  • After discussion with the IAC as to the estimated savings, the executive convenes a meeting of a new public employee committee (PEC) which is composed of a representative of every union (bargaining unit) and a retiree representative. Each participant has an equal vote, except the retiree representative, who shall have a 10% vote.
  • The executive provides notice to the PEC detailing the proposed changes, the analysis and estimate of its anticipated savings, and a proposal to mitigate, moderate or cap the impact of the changes on subscribers, including retirees, low-income subscribers and subscribers with high out-of-pocket costs who would otherwise be disproportionately impacted.
  • The executive and the PEC would have 30 days from the date of notice to negotiate over the proposed plan design changes and the executive’s plan on how to share a portion of the first-year savings with employees, especially with retirees and those most impacted by the changes. A majority vote of the PEC would be required to reach an agreement.
  • If there is a written agreement by the end of the 30-day period, the community would proceed to implement the plan as agreed.
  • If there is no agreement after 30 days, the matter would be referred to a “municipal health insurance review panel” composed of a municipal and labor representative and an impartial third member chosen from a list of individuals with professional experience in dispute mediation and municipal finance or municipal health benefits provided by A&F. If there is no agreement on the third member after 3 business days, the A&F secretary would choose the third member.
  • If the proposed plan design changes do not exceed the GIC benchmark, the panel must approve the community’s immediate implementation of the changes. If the community is seeking to join the GIC, the panel must approve the transfer.
  • The panel would have 10 days to: 1) confirm the estimated monetary savings, to be substantiated by documentation provided by the executive; 2) review the proposal to mitigate, moderate or cap the impact of the changes on subscribers, including retirees, low-income subscribers and subscribers with high out-of-pocket costs who would otherwise be disproportionately impacted; and 3) concur with the community that the proposed mitigation plan is sufficient.
  • The review panel may determine the mitigation proposal to be insufficient, and may require additional savings to be shared with subscribers, however, the total cost of any mitigation plan developed by the panel (such as establishing an HRA or other similar steps) could not exceed 25% of the first-year savings, even if the mitigation plan is in place more than one year. The panel would be prohibited from imposing any change to contribution ratios.
  • Once the mitigation funds are expended, all mitigation plan obligations on the part of the community would expire.
  • The decisions of the municipal health insurance review panel would be binding.
  • Regional and joint purchasing groups would clearly be allowed to establish a common plan design structure, although participating communities would each go through the steps above to notify unions and retirees of the estimated savings, and follow the 30-day negotiation process and 10-day review panel process regarding the plan design changes and structuring the mitigation plan.
  • The Secretary of Administration and Finance will promulgate rules and regulations regarding the administrative procedures for the 30-day negotiation period and the municipal health insurance review panel, and issue guidelines in evaluating which subscribers would be disproportionately affected by plan design changes or transfer to the GIC.
  • The plan design changes or enrollment in the GIC could be implemented immediately, following the above-described process, except in communities that have collective bargaining agreements or Section 19 agreements in place that set specific co-pays and deductibles that are different from the new plan. In those cases, communities must wait until the initial term of the CBA or Section 19 agreement has expired.
  • For fiscal 2012, the reform plan would give cities and towns three opportunities to transfer subscribers to the GIC during the year (on January 1, April 1 and July 1), after a 4-month notification to the Commission. After that, enrollment in the GIC would occur each July 1, with notification by the previous December 1. The contribution ratios for employees entering the GIC will remain the same, but any future changes in the contribution ratios would have to be approved through full collective bargaining.
  • Importantly, the Conference Committee deleted a section that would have forced dozens of communities to increase contribution ratios for retirees, and instead replaced it with a reasonable provision that delays any change in the contribution ratios paid by retirees for a two-year period after a community implements its first plan design changes under the new law.
  • As previously announced in both the House and Senate plans, the new law would require all eligible retirees to be enrolled in a Medicare health plan (governmental units shall pay any federal penalties associated with a transfer to Medicare Part B).SUMMARY OF THE REFORM PLAN AS PROVIDED BY THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE

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

    FY12 Conference Report on Municipal Health Reform

    Overview

     

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

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

     

  • As expected, the final legislative budget funds Chapter 70 school aid at $3.99 billion and Unrestricted General Government Aid (UGGA) at $834 million. The school aid number reflects an increase of $139 million in the state appropriation over fiscal 2011, although $82 million lower than combined state and federal support for Chapter 70. The general government aid account reflects a cut of $65 million, about 7 percent.
  • The Special Education Circuit Breaker is funded at $213 million, an $80 million increase over fiscal 2011 levels.
  • The Regional School Transportation reimbursement account is funded at $43.5 million, a $3 million increase over fiscal 2011 levels.
  • The Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOT) account is funded at $27.3 million, a $1 million increase over fiscal 2011 levels.
  • The conference committee budget eliminates funding for the Police Incentive Pay [Quinn] Program that would require approximately $60 million to fully fund the state’s fifty percent share. The state appropriated $5 million for this account in fiscal 2011. The budget includes $5.5 million for anti-gang grants.
  • The budget includes $71.6 million for reimbursements to cities and towns to offset a portion of school aid losses paid as tuition to charter schools. It is not clear if this amount is sufficient to fund the state’s statutory reimbursement levels.
  • The budget bill also includes a provision that could restore all or a portion of the $65 million cut to the Unrestricted General Government Aid account if the state ends fiscal 2011 with a surplus. With state tax collections running ahead of forecast through the end of June, there is a chance that there may be some state funds available for a supplemental municipal aid distribution later this year, but that will not be known until September or October, when the state finally closes it books for the year. The amendment would require that 50 percent of any “aggregate balance of appropriations,” not to exceed $65 million, be distributed to cities and towns not later than October 31, 2011. The MMA will be monitoring the status and prospects of any action under this provision very closely.


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

State Budget Vote – my email to Senator Timilty

Email just sent to Senator Timilty to ask that he vote this morning to support the Conference Committee’s budget recommendations, which include the needed municipal health insurance reforms that will save towns money.  Previously, the Senate version of the municipal health insurance reform required towns to raise benefits for retirees, so that towns had to pay more than under the House version of the bill.

7/01/2011 11:00AM
please support the Conference Committee’s budget recommendation / esp. health insurance reform
Timilty, James
===========================================================
Jim,

I am writing to ask that you vote for the Conference Committee’s budget recommendation, and most especially the municipal health insurance plan it contains.  Unfortunately, the Senate’s version of the health insurance reform will not save the Town of Medfield the same monies (and  may well cost us more) than we will see under the House version, because the Senate version requires us to bring our retirees’ benefits up to the same levels of benefits as we provide to current employees.  That will cost the Town of Medfield money to make it happen, as currently we provide lower benefits to retirees.

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

Best,
Pete
Osler L. Peterson, Attorney at Law