Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable Brian S. Dempsey, Chairman
House Committee on Ways and Means
The Honorable Stephen M. Brewer, Chairman
Senate Committee on Ways and Means
State House, Boston
Dear Chairman Dempsey, Chairman Brewer, and Distinguished Committee Members,
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association would like to offer testimony on House 1, the fiscal 2014 state budget recommendation filed by Governor Patrick on January 23, 2013. The Governor has proposed a bold plan to reshape state taxes and make forward-looking investments in education and transportation. The investments are very important to local government, and we continue to review the Governor’s revenue plan to better understand its impact on cities and towns.
We offer comments on the Governor’s budget, recognizing that cities and towns face a fifth year of very serious fiscal challenges and adversity due largely to the lingering impact of the Great Recession and the excruciatingly slow and weak economic recovery.
Local revenues and spending have been growing at historically slow rates, even after accounting for the new local-option sales tax on meals and expanded room occupancy excise enacted by the Legislature in 2009 and the municipal health insurance reform law enacted by the Legislature in 2011. Cities and towns across the state are using and leveraging these new options as best they can to preserve jobs and protect services, and appreciate these important tools. Overall, though, the impact of these welcome measures has been more than offset by cuts to municipal and school aid programs in the state budget since the beginning of fiscal 2009, and by weakness in the property tax and other municipal revenues.
Reductions in state aid to local government, particularly municipal aid, have translated into deepening over-reliance on the property tax and cuts in core services to residents and businesses.
An analysis done by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation in December 2012 found that “municipal revenues and expenditures grew by just 2.7 percent to $22.6 billion in fiscal 2012, the third year of a slowdown that is unprecedented in the Proposition 2½ era.” MTF also reports that property taxes accounted for 57.5 percent of total local revenues last year, the highest share since Prop. 2½ was enacted over three decades ago, and up from 49.4 percent in fiscal 2002. This is a trend that places enormous fiscal stress on cities and towns and undermines their ability to take care of basic obligations, including schools and public safety.
During this time, cities and towns have also shouldered an extra burden supporting school programs, including funding an increasing number of charter schools, adding to pressure on the municipal budget.
Municipal Accounts
Unrestricted General Government Aid (UGGA) and Annual Formula Local Aid (AFLA)
As a result of favorable actions by the Legislature last year, unrestricted municipal aid increased in fiscal 2013 for the first time since the Great Recession began, although because of the severity of cuts to this category of aid, the funding level presently remains $416 million (32 percent) below the fiscal 2008 pre-recession level. For fiscal 2013, the Legislature approved $899 million for the Cherry Sheet Unrestricted General Government Aid (UGGA) account. This consolidated account includes the formerly separate Cherry Sheet accounts for Additional Assistance and Lottery distributions. The accumulation of cuts to municipal aid has unavoidably resulted in reduced police, fire, public works and other municipal services, and in less funding for schools. These cuts were especially challenging when combined with cuts to public safety accounts such as the elimination of $50 million in police incentive pay (Quinn bill) reimbursements and $20 million in community policing grants.
For fiscal 2014, the MMA is seeking an increase in Unrestricted General Government Aid at the same rate that state tax collections grow. This is the basic formula for state revenue sharing with cities and towns and would result in the “consensus” revenue estimate level of increase of 3.9 percent, or a $35 million increase to the UGGA account.
In House 1, the Governor has proposed to level-fund the Cherry Sheet Unrestricted General Government Aid account at $899 million. In addition, the Governor proposed a new municipal aid account called Annual Formula Local Aid (AFLA) that would be funded at $31 million for fiscal 2014 and allocated through a new formula. For fiscal 2015 and years thereafter, it appears that 25 percent of the aid would be subtracted and set aside for a new program of “incentive” aid that would be withheld unless cities and towns make changes in practices under regulations to be established by the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, although it is our understanding that the intent of this provision (Section 9) is for the incentive aid to be funded through a transfer from other available funds and not from the AFLA appropriation.
There are several points that we would like to make on the Governor’s plan:
1. We support the increase in unrestricted municipal aid as a way to help pay for municipal services and avoid over-reliance on the property tax. While some portion of the increase would be funded by growth in state tax collections, a significant share (nearly one-third, or $10 million) would be funded through projected growth in net Lottery revenues consistent with the mission of the State Lottery Commission. We believe that a $35 million increase in unrestricted municipal aid is a fair and balanced target.
2. The Governor has proposed a formula to allocate the new local aid that would be run each year on the full amount of the distribution. While the formula is far more straight-forward than other allocation plans under discussion in recent years, we are still in the process of evaluating it.
3. As we noted above, the Governor’s Section 9 language appears to propose to reduce the annual AFLA appropriation, beginning in fiscal 2015, by 25 percent to fund an incentive program, although we are pleased that the Administration says this is not their intent. We oppose any restrictions or conditions on unrestricted municipal aid, as this would impose an unworkable one-size-fits-all method of evaluating cities and towns, and would make it impossible for cities and towns to include the restricted portion of aid in their annual operating budgets to support ongoing programs and services, as these funds would be speculative and subject to disbursement by a state agency and not the Legislature, based on undefined agency-set rules. If an incentive program is included in the budget, we ask that the Legislature change the language of this provision to clarify that funding for the incentive program would be in an unconnected program and line item in addition to and separate from unrestricted municipal aid, and would be provided by a transfer from the General Fund or another revenue source.
Payment-In-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOT)
We strongly support at least level-funding of the Cherry Sheet Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOT) account [1233-2400]. This program is particularly important to smaller and medium-size communities across the state, and municipal officials know that the members of the Legislature have historically worked with the goal of fully funding the account, although the current appropriation of $26.27 million falls short of that aspiration.
K-12 Education Funding for Cities, Towns and School Districts
Chapter 70 School Aid
The Governor has proposed a $226 million increase in Chapter 70 school aid to $4.4 billion to pay for the state’s basic obligation to ensure that all municipal and regional school districts can reach the foundation level of spending. The plan also expands the foundation budgets for all districts through changes to special education and pre-kindergarten enrollment factors, fully implements the 2007 equity reforms in one year, and provides a minimum of $25 per student in new aid for all districts.
DESE has informed us that $91 million of the $226 million increase is needed to meet the basic obligation to fund the state’s share of the foundation budget to reflect enrollment growth (in the limited number of districts where occurred) and inflation (1.55 percent). An additional $43 million was added to pay for the expansion of the foundation budget related to special education and pre-kindergarten enrollment. Another $92 million was added to pay for the equity provisions, including ensuring that all districts receive school aid covering at least 17.5 percent of the local foundation budget. The minimum aid allocation only required a small amount.
We wish to offer a few comments on the Governor’s Chapter 70 proposal:
1. We support the Legislature’s consistent support for this landmark program, created in 1993, that is vital to the long-term economic success of the Commonwealth. We support the Governor’s recommended level of funding.
2. The MMA supports the expansion of the foundation budget to add $10,000 to the out-of-district special education cost factor and by lifting the cap on pre-kindergarten enrollment. This would bring the foundation budget into greater conformity with actual unavoidable costs (special education) and with growing attention to young student achievement (pre-kindergarten enrollment).
3. The equity provisions honor commitments made in 2007 and increase the fairness of the formula related to property tax contributions to education in districts across the Commonwealth. While many districts reaching the 17.5 percent level of funding would see a significant increase, those districts required to increase local contributions faster than local revenues are growing would face real and painful challenges. We ask that the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees take steps to mitigate excess increases in required local contributions.
4. The $25 per student minimum aid amount ensures that all districts receive at least some increase next year. We note that under the formula changes offered by the Governor, nearly half of the state’s cities, towns and school districts would only receive this $25-per-student increase, which underscores the importance of minimum aid to ensure that all communities share in an increase in Chapter 70.
Special Education “Circuit Breaker”
The MMA asks that the Legislature fully fund the Special Education Circuit Breaker program [7061-0012] by providing at least $242 million. This is the same amount appropriated by the Legislature for fiscal 2013, but would be $11.3 million higher than current funding following the Governor’s Section 9C reduction in December. At the level in House 1, the state would fall short of the 75 percent reimbursement of eligible costs above four-time “foundation” provided in the special education statute, and funding would sag to only 60 to 65 percent instead of the state’s 75 percent obligation. Based on updated estimates, full funding will require an increase of between $11.3 million and $15 million.
The Special Education Circuit Breaker program is a top priority for the MMA because these funds flow directly to every city, town and school district across the state. Although the Governor’s proposed changes in the Chapter 70 formula would add additional weight for out-of-district placements, most communities would not see an increase in their Chapter 70 aid as a result (nearly half the districts would only receive minimum aid). This means that fully funding the circuit breaker program is essential to ensure that all districts (and local taxpayers) receive funds to offset a portion of the cost of this state-mandated program.
Student Transportation Reimbursements
Regional School Transportation Reimbursements: The MMA supports at least level funding for student transportation in regional school districts [7035-0006] at the Legislature’s original $45.5 million level. The Governor imposed a mid-year cut of $1 million using his 9C powers. At $45.5 million, this account would cover about half of the state’s share of local costs. Over time, adequate funding of this account will be vital if the Commonwealth wishes to encourage other school districts to consider whether regionalization offers long-term benefits. Because of increased fuel and operational costs, level funding would actually increase the amount by which this account is underfunded.
McKinney-Vento Funding: Last year, the Legislature appropriated $11.3 million [7035-0005] to cover the cost of state-mandated transportation of certain homeless students by local municipal and regional school districts. The appropriation was a much-appreciated response to the determination by State Auditor Suzanne Bump that the State Plan to implement the federal McKinney-Vento Act has resulted in an unfunded mandate on cities and towns. Last December, the Governor used his 9C authority to reduce the appropriation to $6.1 million and he has recommended this level of funding for fiscal 2014. The MMA strongly supports full funding for this mandated cost, consistent with the Local Mandate Law, and requests level-funding at the pre-9C level.
Reimbursements for Charter School-Related Losses
The MMA supports the proposed $8.8 million increase to $80.3 million in House 1 intended to cover the estimated statutory obligation to cover a portion of Chapter 70 school aid deducted from local public school districts and paid to charter schools. The Governor’s recommendation for this account [7061-9010] is an estimate.
Special Education Private School Placement Cost Cap
The MMA also asks that a section be added to the budget bill that would freeze state-set special education rates charged by private providers for residential and day placements. This is a necessary step, as municipalities and school districts simply cannot afford higher rates at this time.
Reforms to Aid Cities, Towns and Taxpayers
Cities and towns continue to need changes and reforms in state law to address immediate and long-term structural cost factors that are unsustainable and pose a threat to local revenue stability.
We strongly support the following key reforms: 1) updating the state and local room occupancy excise as proposed by the Governor in Section 18 of H. 49, the supplemental budget bill that accompanied House 1, to bring consistency to the law and end the exemption for non-owner-occupied vacation or leisure rentals; 2) reforming the state and local room occupancy excise to end the gaping loophole through which Internet re-sellers of rooms avoid paying the full room occupancy excise that is due to the state and to cities and towns; and 3) closing the telecommunications property tax loophole to end the obsolete “equipment” exemption for telecommunication companies, a proposal that has been filed for many years and is now before the Committee on Revenue. In all three cases, these are straightforward reforms to update the law to account for changes in business practices and technology that have created unanticipated loopholes, so that our tax laws maintain their integrity and original intent.
Fixing the State’s Broken Transportation Finance System
Cities and towns look forward to standing with you and your colleagues as partners in addressing the state’s transportation finance crisis and providing adequate revenues and resources to invest in our crumbling roads and bridges all across the state. We recognize that this issue will be addressed in separate legislation, including the Governor’s impressive 10-year plan, which we applaud for its comprehensive and bold approach. This is such an urgent priority that we wish to underscore its importance at this time. From the municipal perspective, it is imperative that Chapter 90 funding be increased to at least $300 million a year, a need that has been clearly documented by our study released late last year that reveals that the current funding level of $200 million is simply not enough to meet the annual cost of $562 million that cities and towns would need to spend to have their roads maintained in a state of good repair, which is the industry standard. The future of our Massachusetts economy will depend on a solvent and modern transportation system, and this is a major goal that can be achieved with strong state-local collaboration. We look forward to working in partnership with you in the weeks ahead.
A key concern for local government is accessing Chapter 90 funds in a timely manner. By statute and custom, the state is required to release Chapter 90 authorizations to cities and towns by April 1, so that communities can make full use of the construction season and avoid costly project delays. Unfortunately, the state has missed this deadline in each of the past two years, cutting the local construction season nearly in half, adding to project backlogs, and making it extremely difficult for communities to undertake important maintenance and repairs. If passage of the comprehensive transportation package will be delayed beyond April 1, we respectfully and urgently ask you to fast-track Chapter 90 in a stand-alone bill in time to meet the April deadline, and allow cities and towns to make full use of the construction season.
Summary
This is a critical time for our economy, and for cities, towns and local taxpayers. We respectfully ask that you adopt the local aid investments, targeted funding and reforms that are detailed above. After five long years of cuts and cutbacks, of increased reliance on the property tax and diminished local services, Massachusetts is on the verge of a comeback. But that comeback will only happen if cities and towns have the resources to adequately serve the residents and businesses of the Commonwealth.
Please do not hesitate to contact us at any time if you have any questions or need additional information. Your office can contact me or John Robertson, the MMA’s Legislative Director, at (617) 426-7272, ext. 122, or jrobertson@mma.org.
Thank you very much for your support, dedication and commitment to the cities and towns of Massachusetts.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director, MMA