Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable Charles A. Murphy, Chairman
House Committee on Ways and Means
The Honorable Steven C. Panagiotakos, Chairman
Senate Committee on Ways and Means
State House, Boston
Dear Chairman Murphy, Chairman Panagiotakos and Committee Members,
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association appreciates the opportunity to offer testimony on the fiscal 2010 state budget at this joint hearing of the House and Senate Committees on Ways and Means.
This spring, state and local governments are drafting revenue and spending plans for fiscal 2010 in the most difficult economic environment in memory, perhaps since the 1930s. This recession is deeper and more enduring than economists expected and conditions may deteriorate further before a recovery begins.
We are hopeful that the federal economic stimulus law passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama last month, and other actions taken at the national level, will help the nation turn the corner so that we can begin to see the road back to fiscal stability.
As fiscal 2009 draws to a close over the next four months, municipal officials are struggling to keep their budgets in balance due the January loss of $128 million in municipal aid and the tens of millions of dollars in shortfalls in local snow and ice accounts due to the unusually stormy winter. Cities and towns will end fiscal 2009 in severely weakened financial condition. We expect that budget deficits will be widespread, and this fiscal distress will deepen as we enter the new fiscal year.
As is the case for the state, cities and towns foresee large budget gaps for fiscal 2010. There are few available options for closing municipal gaps under current laws and rules, other than imposing significant cuts in core services and personnel. Across the state, service cuts and employee layoffs began this year. Overall, we predict thousands of layoffs of teachers, police officers, firefighters, public works employees, and many other key workers.
City and town officials appreciate the financial challenges facing state government next year as the recession continues to depress state tax collections. At the local level, the recession has cut local aid, evaporated investment income, reduced auto excise collections, and dramatically lowered property tax revenue projections. This is a shared fiscal crisis.
We urge the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees to use the full range of resources and powers available to the state to limit the loss of both municipal and school aid to the greatest extent possible. We ask that the Legislature give cities and towns powerful and meaningful management and revenue tools to balance their budgets and maintain services during this recession. Our economy depends on strong cities and towns and the services that communities provide to citizens and businesses. Simply put, Massachusetts will experience a deeper and longer recession if our cities and towns do not receive the resources they need to withstand and recover from the fiscal crisis.
Municipal Aid
The fiscal 2010 budget recommendation filed by the Governor in January would consolidate the two main municipal aid accounts (Additional Assistance and Lottery distributions) into a new account, “Unrestricted General Government Aid” (item 1233-2350). The total amount distributed to cities and towns on the Cherry Sheet would be $945 million.
This is $369 million (or 28 percent) less than the original fiscal 2009 Cherry Sheet amount and $241 million (or 20 percent) less than fiscal 2009 amount after the Governor’s 9C cut.
To offset a portion of the cuts, the Governor has proposed that the Commonwealth’s sales tax on meals and the state’s room occupancy excise rate be increased by one point to provide a revenue source of $149 million that would reduce the $369 million loss. After the offset, municipal aid distributions in fiscal 2010 would be $1.094 billion, or $220 million less than the original fiscal 2009 Cherry Sheet amount and $92 million less than the post-9C amount.
Even with the Governor’s proposed offset, the two-year loss of municipal aid would have a severe impact on police, fire, schools, and other vital local services. Municipal aid levels would be roughly at the same dollar level – with no adjustment for inflation – as in fiscal 1998. Without the offset, municipal aid would plummet to the level received in fiscal 1989.
We ask that municipal aid be funded at least at the $1.094 billion level proposed by the Governor using state revenues, and that a portion of the state stabilization block grant in the federal economic stimulus law be used to further reduce the level of damaging cuts that cities and towns will receive in fiscal 2010.
Both state and local governments will use one-time and other temporary funds to balance fiscal 2010 budgets and will still face shortfalls for the next several years. It is critically important that laws and rules be modernized to give cities and towns new management authority and revenue options to avoid debilitating cuts to education, public safety and other vital services, and to avoid placing an even greater reliance on the property tax.
Other key municipal aid accounts
In addition to the two main municipal aid accounts, there are a number of others that support important local programs and help balance municipal and school budgets.
We support the Governor’s proposal to increase reimbursements for veteran’s benefits (item 1410-0400) to cover increased caseloads and increased costs.
We also appreciate the level funding of the Cherry Sheet Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOT) account (item 1233-2400) at $30 million in a year when many other accounts are being reduced.
It is a major concern to us that other important municipal accounts are being reduced, particularly accounts related to public safety. The Cherry Sheet Police Incentive Pay program (item 8000-0040) is being reduced by $8 million, far below the state’s statutory 50 percent share of the estimated cost in fiscal 2010. This lack of state funding will have to be covered with scarce municipal revenues next year, forcing deeper cuts in public safety, municipal and school accounts.
School Aid and Funding Provisions
Chapter 70 school aid
The Governor’s budget recommendation would level fund the Chapter 70 school aid account at $3.95 billion next year and provide the same distribution for individual municipal and regional districts as in fiscal 2009. In this economic environment, we appreciate the decision to avoid cuts that would have placed enormous pressure on municipal revenues.
We support the Governor’s plan to use a portion of the state stabilization block grant in the federal economic stimulus law to ensure that all districts are funded at least at the “foundation” level next year. The use of the federal aid will be necessary, as without these funds the Commonwealth will be substantially below full funding of the education finance law.
There is language in Section 3 of the Governor’s recommendation that we strongly oppose and urge you to reject. Section 3 would accelerate the required local contribution to at least the “target share” amount or 95 percent of the actual local contribution in fiscal 2008. This would increase the required local contribution at rates far above growth in local revenues next year. For the town of Hopedale, for example, the required local contribution would grow by 61 percent. Cities and towns use municipal aid and property taxes to meet their local contribution levels. With municipal aid being cut deeply, and property tax collections suffering due to the recession, this language places an unfair burden on municipalities.
Many cities and towns remain unaware of this provision. The language would impose a significant financial burden in many cases. The larger concern is that it would have a major impact on how new Chapter 70 school aid would be allocated going forward. This proposed new local contribution rule could result in higher property tax reliance, greater diversion of municipal aid away from non-school services, and less new school aid from the state than under the rules used in fiscal 2009.
The Section 3 language represents a major policy change and a recalibration of a key component of Chapter 70. We urge that the Legislature reject this provision at this time and ensure a full discussion about the impact that this and other Chapter 70 changes would have on the cities, towns and school districts of Massachusetts.
School aid reductions for charter schools
The Governor has proposed several changes to the laws that govern charter school finances. We support the appropriation in item 7061-9020 for facilities aid and fiscal 2010 tuition increases to be paid directly to charter schools. This is a major step forward toward increased accountability for school spending.
However, even though Chapter 70 aid is level-funded and municipal aid is cut in the Governor’s budget, payments to charter schools increase by $21 million to a total of $295 million.
At the local level, the deduction of Chapter 70 school aid used to make payments to charter schools would decline by $29 million to $245 million. This is more than offset, however, by the drop in reimbursements for a portion of the deductions totaling $50 million. The end result is a net decrease in Chapter 70 school aid of $21 million. This would force even deeper cuts in local school budgets and municipal services, as communities cannot afford to increase their payments to charter schools.
We ask that the Legislature adopt a “no net loss” provision to ensure that the net Chapter 70 school aid available to school districts, after deductions and reimbursements related to charter schools, not drop below the fiscal 2009 level.
Other school aid accounts
Although Chapter 70 school aid was not reduced in the Governor’s budget recommendations, there were important accounts that were cut that will affect municipal and school budgets next year.
The transportation reimbursement for regional school districts (item 7010-0047) was reduced by $5 million and will have a negative impact on regional districts and member towns.
We are also concerned about the consolidation and level funding of the special education “circuit breaker” program (item 7010-0041) and the possibility that there will not be sufficient funding to cover the state’s statutory share.
Management Reform and Revenue Options
Real health insurance reform means giving municipalities plan design authority
The current rules and laws governing health insurance for municipal and school district employees have resulted in uncontrollable and unsustainable cost growth. The law desperately needs to be reformed and modernized to avoid the widespread loss of municipal and school jobs.
We ask the Legislature to include in the budget, or in other legislation, the authority for cities and towns to set plan design features for the health insurance plans provided to municipal employees outside of collective bargaining. This would simply give cities and towns the same authority the state has to determine co-payments, deductibles and other plan features for state employees.
The language in the Governor’s health insurance proposal does not offer a solution or full reform. For many cities and towns, it does not make financial sense to join the state’s GIC system, which would even increase costs for some. The most effective reform is to simply give local officials the same power the state has to update health plans, which would save more money, more quickly and more efficiently than any other option.
We ask you to support legislation filed by the MMA (House Docket 1082) that would extend to cities and towns plan design authority as long as the plans are no less generous than what is offered to state employees through the GIC. The MMA bill does not change the requirement that the employee-employer split be collectively bargained.
This key health insurance reform would save money and jobs and continue to ensure high quality insurance coverage for all municipal and school employees.
New local option tax authority
Cities and towns have very limited authority to levy taxes, mainly the property tax and the much smaller excises on motor vehicles and boats, room occupancy and jet fuel. This has led to an overly high reliance on the property tax and state assistance.
We strongly support legislation filed by the Governor and others that would authorize cities and towns, at local option, to impose a sales tax on meals and to increase the local room occupancy excise. The MMA’s legislation (House Docket 1073) would authorize a local tax on meals of up to 3 percent and an additional room occupancy excise of up to 2 percent.
A local sales tax on meals would be expected to provide about $125 million per percentage point. The room occupancy tax would provide an estimated $24 million per point.
We ask that you include these much-needed revenue measures in the fiscal 2010 budget bill or in other legislation so that cities and towns will be able to preserve vital services, reduce their reliance on the regressive property tax, and balance local budgets using a more diversified municipal tax base.
Closing the telecommunications property tax loopholes
We also ask that the Legislature support reform of the property tax laws governing telecommunications property. We support the provisions in House 101 (sections 21-24) that would clarify that “poles and wires” over public ways are taxable at the local level, consistent with the recent Appellate Tax Board (ATB) decision, and also end the obsolete exemption of telecommunications machinery from the property tax. These outdated statutes have been exploited by the telecommunications companies. Closing these abused loopholes would provide an estimated $45 million to $50 million in new local revenues.
Again, on behalf of the cities and towns of Massachusetts, thank you for your commitment to the financial stability of local government and to the full range of municipal and education services that are provided locally. The only way that Massachusetts can weather the economic storm and fiscal crisis is for all levels of government to work together as partners, and that is the underlying principle guiding the budget priorities outlined above. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact us at any time.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
MMA Executive Director