Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
Historic snowfall amounts required Massachusetts cities and towns to spend at least $50 million more for snow removal this past winter than they did the previous year, according to a statewide survey conducted by the MMA.
As of March 1, the 217 communities that responded to the survey (61 percent of all cities and towns) reported that they had incurred $185 million in snow and ice costs, compared to the $140 million they spent for all of last winter. Since the winter weather continued beyond March 1, however, many communities have likely exceeded the amount reported on their surveys.
When data is extrapolated for all 351 communities, the MMA estimates that cities and towns spent a total of $251 million on snow and ice costs in fiscal 2015 (as of March 1). By comparison, data from the Division of Local Services, covering all but a handful of communities, indicate that cities and towns spent $204 million on snow and ice removal for the winter of 2013-14.
According to DLS data, the average total snow and ice expenditures for cities and towns from fiscal 2004 through fiscal 2014 was $143 million. Cities and towns this year experienced a 23 percent increase compared to fiscal 2014 and a 75 percent increase compared to the 10-year average. Once cities and towns tabulate their costs for March, the increase over last year may well be closer to 25 percent.
Many communities were forced to spend more than double what they had budgeted. Statewide, the deficit in local snow removal budgets is estimated at $142 million, according to DLS data and the MMA survey.
Boston experienced its snowiest winter on record – 108 inches as of March 20 – as did many other cities and towns, including Beverly, Bridgewater, Brockton, Hingham, Lowell and Taunton, to name a few.
Gov. Charlie Baker today formally submitted a request for a major disaster declaration and federal assistance to the president.
The governor requested a major disaster declaration for all but the state’s four most western counties, which were not hit as hard this past winter. The 10 counties – Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Essex, Middlesex, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk and Worcester – have verified public assistance costs that exceed their countywide per capita indicators. The administration determined that the four western counties did not reach disaster eligibility thresholds.
The governor’s request defines the incident period for the disaster declaration as Jan. 26 through Feb. 22. Typically, the Federal Emergency Management Agency will only reimburse for a 48-hour period for a specific snowstorm, not a series of storms, but the governor is asking FEMA to take into account the extreme snowfall and cold temperatures of an historic, prolonged weather pattern.
Lastly, the proposal asks to include as eligible costs all FEMA PA Category B “emergency protective measures,” including, but not limited to, costs of snow removal operations conducted throughout the incident period.
The federal government is expected to respond to the governor’s request in the next several weeks. In the event of a disaster declaration, FEMA’s Public Assistance Program could reimburse state and local governments in the declared counties for 75 percent of their eligible costs.
On March 3, the MMA and local officials sent a letter to the Massachusetts congressional delegation thanking them for their support of the state’s request for a presidential disaster declaration. The letter, signed by the members of the MMA Board of Directors as well as the state’s mayors, applauds the delegation for “requesting a declaration and financial relief not just for the Jan. 27 blizzard, but also for the unprecedented series of major storms as a collective event.”
The MMA also sent letters to the governor and state legislative leaders requesting “special one-time financial assistance” from the state to erase municipal snow-removal deficits. State law allows communities to incur deficits in snow-removal accounts, but the full deficit must be paid in the next year, either through a property tax increase or by reducing funding for other municipal services.
“The multitude and severity of the storms this winter could not have been anticipated, and no city or town could have projected or fully budgeted for the enormous snow and ice removal expense,” the letter stated. “Snow and ice removal is a service that cannot be downsized, reduced or eliminated. No matter what the cost, we must keep the plows and sanders operating.”