CLT
UPDATE
Friday, May 13, 2005
Anyone buying another "temporary"
tax hike?
State Sen. Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge, is sounding
an alarm on the skyrocketing cost of new schools, suggesting yesterday
that the state may have to consider a "temporary" sales tax increase to
overcome cost overruns totaling $1.3 billion for 420 local school
projects across the state.
Mr. Moore said the estimated cost for schools on the waiting list of
approved projects has risen from an initial $4.2 billion to $5.5
billion, prompting the state school building assistance bureau to
consider extending a moratorium on new approvals beyond the current date
of July 2007....
Raising the sales tax temporarily, he said, is one way the state could
reduce the funding backlog, so the current 40 percent to 80 percent
state share of new school costs could be extended more quickly to school
districts that need new facilities....
In a comment directed at Gov. Mitt Romney’s call for a tax rollback
funded by increasing state revenues, Mr. Moore wrote in his letter to
the Senate budget leader, "Clearly the discovery of an additional
obligation of $1.3 billion for school buildings and the need to increase
local aid to avoid further property taxes makes any discussion of using
a 'surplus' for income tax reduction moot at this time."
The Telegram & Gazette
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Sales tax hike is idea to hasten school building
Moratorium extension is opposed
The suggestion from state Sen. Richard T. Moore,
D-Uxbridge, that the sales tax may have to be jacked up to cover $1.3
billion in cost overruns for local school projects was all too
predictable.
The $4.2 billion price tag for 420 backlogged projects, it seems, now
has grown to $5.5 billion.
So much for the Legislature’s plan, enacted with much fanfare last year,
to earmark one-fifth of the 5 percent sales tax to wipe out the backlog.
Now, Mr. Moore hints, the existing tax isn’t enough, so a "temporary" 6
percent rate may be needed.
The suggestion might not be so ominous if legislators knew the meaning
of the word temporary. However, for nearly 16 years, Massachusetts
taxpayers have been paying a "temporary" increase in the state income
tax. Even after a 2000 referendum calling for the rollback was approved
overwhelmingly, the Legislature has yet to make good on its pledge.
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Thursday, May 12, 2005
No sale, Sen. Moore
Suggested tax hike no solution to school problem
State officials have discovered that it will cost them $1.3
billion more than expected to complete some 420 school construction projects
underway in Massachusetts....
The state now believes that the cost of the 420 school construction projects in
Massachusetts will reach $5.5 billion, higher than the nearly $4.2 billion that
state officials had initially anticipated....
State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, chairman of the authority's board, said
Friday he was surprised when analysts told him about the $5.5 billion estimate.
"We knew that the problem was much bigger than it was reported," Cahill said.
"We didn't know it was this big." ...
Newton, for instance, has not yet begun construction of a new Newton North High
School, but the price tag has already soared from $39 million to $104.5 million,
after local officials changed their plan from a simple renovation project into a
plan for a new high school....
Mayor David Cohen of Newton declined to be interviewed for this story. But Cohen
issued a statement saying that the city had decided it was more cost-effective
to build a new school ...
Despite the $5.5 billion figure, Michael Widmer -- president of the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a fiscal watchdog organization -- expressed
relief that the state had come up with a firm estimate of school building costs.
He said that costs would probably not spiral out of control in future.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, May 8, 2005
School building projects to cost an extra $1.3b
New proposals may face delay
Parents and teachers can march on the Statehouse demanding
more money for their schools, while other special-interest groups will tell you
they can find plenty of ways to spend the record $2 billion the state collected
in tax revenues last month....
The last time voters were actually asked, in 2000, 56 percent voted in favor of
rolling the rate back to 5 percent. (In Essex County, the figure was even higher
— more than 60 percent wanted the rate reduced.)
But their will was ignored by legislative leaders who felt they knew better. And
the new leadership team in the House and Senate, along with a majority of the
North of Boston delegation, continue to insist the state can't afford to lower
the rate from its current 5.3 percent....
But the stirrings of another possible tax revolt were heard just last week in
tiny Topsfield where voters, by overwhelming margins in all but one case,
replaced an incumbent selectman with an ardent tax foe, rejected a Community
Preservation Act surcharge that would have added 3 percent to their property tax
bills, and shot down three overrides.
The fact is that many people struggling with fiscal limitations of their own are
still not convinced government is doing its best to wring waste out of the
system. And when school officials threaten to close schools, as they have in
Beverly, or lay off teachers, as has been the case in North Andover, the
reaction is more often one of skepticism than alarm.
Some may say there's no more fat to cut. But taxpayers, who see state and local
spending continue to increase despite multiple warnings of impending doom, just
don't believe it.
A Salem News editorial
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Tax advocates have credibility problem
Editorial cartoon by David
Hitch
May 12, 2005
Worcester Telegram
& Gazette
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
Either Sen. Richard Moore (D-Uxbridge) is daft,
joking in very poor taste, or "temporary tax hike" is a generational
thing.
He can't possibly be serious, so he's just blown it
as a comedian.
Or he calculates that another generation has come of
age which hasn't yet been personally burned by political lies; one that
is still gullible enough to believe that "temporary" means the same
thing to conniving politicians as it means to everyone else.
We're expected to never mind that the Legislature --
in its infinite political generosity with our money -- has dug itself
another bottomless well for taxpayers to bail out: the School Building
Assistance boondoggle. "We knew that the problem was much bigger than it
was reported," state Treasurer Tim Cahill admitted, sounding much like
an "embattled" spokesman for the disastrous Big Dig.
Another program generously provided by the
Legislature with our tax surplus during the roaring 90s that climbs from
$4.2 to 5.5 billion surely is a problem, but is anyone really shocked?
After construction of the Newton North High School
escalated from $39 million to $104.5 million, that city's tax-and-spend
mayor, David Cohen, declared it "more cost-effective to build a new
school." Remember that the next time your home needs a new roof! (Of
course, if you have to pay for the roof, but the state will pay you for a
new house, he's right.)
And count on Michael Widmer, president of the
so-called Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, to run interference as usual for
the tax-and-spend crowd. Again providing cover at the expense of
credibility, he's now assured us "that costs would probably not spiral
out of control in future."
"Probably" isn't very reassuring. The SBA boondoggle
is sounding more like another Big Dig every day.
What the Salem News calls "the stirrings of another
possible tax revolt" is long overdue.
Sen. Moore surely must recognize that another
"temporary" tax hike has no wings, especially while at the very same
time he's called for keeping the last promise of "temporary" broken.
Before promising a new one with a straight face, he and his cabal at the
very least must first make that last one "temporary" by ending it
-- even if it's almost a generation late.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The CLT
"Where Would You
Cut?" cash register just went ka-ching again this morning when we
learned that our state
police were just given a $5/hour raise for "paid details," bringing
their total hourly salary for minding construction holes from $32 to $37
an hour. Got any holes you need watching and can afford? The running
total of wasted taxpayers' money we've discovered and accumulated now
stands at $1.734 Billion -- and that doesn't include the SBA boondoggle.
The Telegram & Gazette
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Sales tax hike is idea to hasten school building
Moratorium extension is opposed
By John J. Monahan, Staff Writer
State Sen. Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge, is sounding an alarm on the
skyrocketing cost of new schools, suggesting yesterday that the state
may have to consider a "temporary" sales tax increase to overcome cost
overruns totaling $1.3 billion for 420 local school projects across the
state.
Mr. Moore said the estimated cost for schools on the waiting list of
approved projects has risen from an initial $4.2 billion to $5.5
billion, prompting the state school building assistance bureau to
consider extending a moratorium on new approvals beyond the current date
of July 2007.
Extension of the moratorium, he said, may force many communities in his
district that are ready to build new schools, such as Milford, Uxbridge,
Northbridge and Southbridge, to wait even longer to apply for state
funding.
In a letter to Senate Ways and Means Chairman Therese Murray,
D-Plymouth, Mr. Moore said he opposed any extension of the moratorium,
which the school building assistance bureau is considering to deal with
the $1.3 billion in additional costs it is facing. He said a temporary
sales tax hike may be an unpopular option, but so, too, will be other
options such as funding the cost increases through direct
appropriations, which would reduce funding for other state programs.
"What I’ve suggested is looking at the options to solve this problem,"
Mr. Moore said yesterday, and a temporary sales tax hike from 5 percent
to 6 percent, he said, "shouldn’t be off the table."
Extending the moratorium, he said, would only result in higher
construction costs being passed on to taxpayers when new projects are
finally approved. Moreover, he said, the rising costs of the projects
"should not become a penalty for those school districts that face urgent
need for new or renovated school facilities" now waiting for the
moratorium to end.
Mr. Moore said an "obvious lack of oversight by the Department of
Education" of construction, and the failure of many school districts to
protect taxpayers through professional construction management, created
the growing funding backlog. The multiyear delays faced by new school
projects, he said, come as the pressure for new schools or school
renovations is growing "exponentially" across the state. He said he
believes better student grades are linked to building new schools and
renovating old ones.
Raising the sales tax temporarily, he said, is one way the state could
reduce the funding backlog, so the current 40 percent to 80 percent
state share of new school costs could be extended more quickly to school
districts that need new facilities.
Mr. Moore outlined several alternatives to extending the moratorium, in
addition to the sales tax hike proposal, which he described as a
"limited duration surcharge." The other options include accelerating the
timetable for the state to begin dedicating one-fifth of the state sales
tax revenues to new schools, now set to go into effect in 2010; covering
the $1.3 billion in cost overruns by direct appropriation over the next
four years; or immediately increasing the share of the state sales tax
dedicated to school construction beyond 20 percent on a temporary basis.
In a comment directed at Gov. Mitt Romney’s call for a tax rollback
funded by increasing state revenues, Mr. Moore wrote in his letter to
the Senate budget leader, "Clearly the discovery of an additional
obligation of $1.3 billion for school buildings and the need to increase
local aid to avoid further property taxes makes any discussion of using
a 'surplus' for income tax reduction moot at this time."
"We need to be looking at a way out of this besides extending the
moratorium," Mr. Moore said, adding that the option of reducing the
level of state reimbursement for new schools would only make it harder
for communities to get local approval for new school buildings.
Return to top
The Telegram & Gazette
Thursday, May 12, 2005
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
No sale, Sen. Moore
Suggested tax hike no solution to school problem
The suggestion from state Sen. Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge, that the
sales tax may have to be jacked up to cover $1.3 billion in cost
overruns for local school projects was all too predictable.
The $4.2 billion price tag for 420 backlogged projects, it seems, now
has grown to $5.5 billion.
So much for the Legislature’s plan, enacted with much fanfare last year,
to earmark one-fifth of the 5 percent sales tax to wipe out the backlog.
Now, Mr. Moore hints, the existing tax isn’t enough, so a "temporary" 6
percent rate may be needed.
The suggestion might not be so ominous if legislators knew the meaning
of the word temporary. However, for nearly 16 years, Massachusetts
taxpayers have been paying a "temporary" increase in the state income
tax. Even after a 2000 referendum calling for the rollback was approved
overwhelmingly, the Legislature has yet to make good on its pledge.
All too often when a fiscal snafu arises in the commonwealth, lawmakers’
solution is to pounce on their constituents’ wallets.
The shortcomings of the sales-tax earmark were clear from the start.
"The 20 percent reduction in available sales-tax revenue would have an
insidious ripple effect," we wrote last July, "pitting government
agencies against each other and setting the stage for a
counterproductive increase in the sales tax rate."
It would be self-defeating to shovel more money into the school-funding
program without addressing its underlying problems.
One problem is that current aid policy often makes it less expensive for
a community to build a new school than to maintain, modernize and
upgrade an existing building. That is both a waste of tax money and a
perverse incentive to abandon serviceable schools.
Also needed is more stringent oversight. In the past, aid has been
disbursed largely on the honor system. A September 2004 state auditor’s
report estimated the state overpaid cities and towns by $20.5 million
for school construction and renovation.
Better project planning also could yield savings. A pre-construction
review of Worcester’s $89.9 million vocational school was credited with
shaving millions of dollars from the cost.
Mr. Moore is right to sound the alarm about looming overruns on school
construction projects. He’s wrong to suggest the solution is another
"temporary" tax.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Sunday, May 8, 2005
School building projects to cost an extra $1.3b
New proposals may face delay
By Maria Sacchetti, Globe Staff
State officials have discovered that it will cost them $1.3 billion more
than expected to complete some 420 school construction projects underway
in Massachusetts. The discovery, state officials say, means that dozens
more cities and towns hoping to start school building projects might
have to wait beyond 2007, so that the state can pay off the growing
bill.
The state now believes that the cost of the 420 school construction
projects in Massachusetts will reach $5.5 billion, higher than the
nearly $4.2 billion that state officials had initially anticipated. The
higher cost estimate comes from an analysis conducted by the
Massachusetts School Building Authority, an agency created by the
Legislature last year to tackle the growing cost of school construction
projects.
State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, chairman of the authority's board,
said Friday he was surprised when analysts told him about the $5.5
billion estimate. "We knew that the problem was much bigger than it was
reported," Cahill said. "We didn't know it was this big."
In 2003, the state declared a moratorium on new school construction
projects, to allow current projects to be paid for and completed.
State officials had planned to lift the moratorium in 2007. But
Katherine P. Craven, executive director of the authority, said the
latest financial analysis means that when the moratorium is lifted, some
cities and towns may have to wait longer to start school building
projects.
"Our office has been besieged by cities and towns across the state who
are anxious to get an application in to us," Craven said. "The authority
cannot fund projects that it doesn't have the money to fund."
Local officials reacted with dismay to the possibility of further
delays.
Arlington has at least two 1950s-era elementary schools that it would
like to rebuild as soon as possible, said Paul Schlichtman, a member of
the School Committee. The heating systems are worn out, and the
electrical system is outdated, he said.
"They're a big concern," Schlichtman said. "We've got the plans all
drawn. We're ready to submit at a moment's notice."
Pittsfield is also hoping to begin school building projects. The town
has expanded six schools, but has five more schools that need fixing,
city officials said. Because of the delay caused by the moratorium, six
of the city's schools have fast, new Internet cables, security systems,
and new cafeterias or gymnasiums, while five others are making do with
slower Internet lines and doors that stay unlocked during the day.
Craven said school construction costs rose for a variety of reasons. The
price of steel and other building materials increased, as did the cost
of manual labor. Some projects became vastly more expensive when work
crews stumbled upon unexpected costs, such as structural damage.
Newton, for instance, has not yet begun construction of a new Newton
North High School, but the price tag has already soared from $39 million
to $104.5 million, after local officials changed their plan from a
simple renovation project into a plan for a new high school.
Newton officials say the change was necessary because the contractor
could not ensure the safety of students while renovations went on.
Mayor David Cohen of Newton declined to be interviewed for this story.
But Cohen issued a statement saying that the city had decided it was
more cost-effective to build a new school and that the state Department
of Education agreed.
"Renovating Newton North would be throwing good state and city money
after bad," Cohen's statement said. "The current building hasn't worked
right since the day it opened, over 30 years ago."
Some say the state must work harder to rein in school construction
costs. The Newton Taxpayers Association is pushing to get voters to
force the city to renovate the current Newton North High School at a
cost of $65 million, instead of paying for a new school.
"The state's job is not to be Santa Claus," said Jeff Seideman,
president of the association.
Stephen J. Adams -- president of the Pioneer Institute, a think tank in
Boston -- said the state should pay a lower share of the costs of school
construction. On average, the state shoulders 70 percent of school
building costs, Adams said.
"The program is far more expensive than the state can afford," he said.
Cahill said he would try to finance as many school projects as possible,
within the authority's budget. Over the next several years, the state
will finance the authority with revenue generated by the sales tax,
authority officials said.
The authority plans to sell bonds to raise money for school construction
projects and use the sales tax to pay the debt.
Before it could sell bonds, the authority had to disclose its debts,
which is why it conducted the analysis that produced the $5.5 billion
estimate.
The authority also wants to complete a series of audits within 18 months
to determine the exact cost of the school building projects it inherited
from the Department of Education, Craven said.
For decades, the Department of Education oversaw school building
projects in Massachusetts. But a construction boom in the 1990s
overwhelmed the department; it took years to audit projects, and the
department was criticized for lax oversight.
Despite the $5.5 billion figure, Michael Widmer -- president of the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a fiscal watchdog organization --
expressed relief that the state had come up with a firm estimate of
school building costs. He said that costs would probably not spiral out
of control in future.
State Auditor A. Joseph DeNucci, a member of the authority's advisory
board, said he would try to maintain strict oversight of school building
costs. DeNucci had often been critical of the Department of Education's
handling of the school building program.
"We have to keep closer tabs on these projects," DeNucci said. "We have
to make sure that they're well managed."
Globe correspondent Michael Levenson contributed to this report.
Return to top
The Salem News
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
A Salem News editorial
Tax advocates have credibility problem
Parents and teachers can march on the Statehouse demanding more money
for their schools, while other special-interest groups will tell you
they can find plenty of ways to spend the record $2 billion the state
collected in tax revenues last month.
But the tax-and-spend crowd shouldn't get too giddy over the fact Bay
State Republicans actually lost seats in the Legislature last year and
their leader, Mitt Romney, appears to be losing popularity. For there is
still considerable dismay among voters over the excesses of state and
local government, particularly in the area of public employee salaries
and benefits; and we suspect that if put to an up-or-down vote, many
would support the governor's demand that lawmakers repeal the
"temporary" income tax implemented in the darkest days of the Dukakis
administration prior to 1990.
The last time voters were actually asked, in 2000, 56 percent voted in
favor of rolling the rate back to 5 percent. (In Essex County, the
figure was even higher — more than 60 percent wanted the rate reduced.)
But their will was ignored by legislative leaders who felt they knew
better. And the new leadership team in the House and Senate, along with
a majority of the North of Boston delegation, continue to insist the
state can't afford to lower the rate from its current 5.3 percent. This
despite the fact revenues are being generated at a record pace — April's
take of $2 billion was the highest for any month or record and a
whopping 11.2 percent more than what was collected the previous April.
Yes, there have been a number of successful Proposition 2˝
override efforts this spring, and most of those who ignored the 2000
vote in favor of lowering taxes were returned to office.
But the stirrings of another possible tax revolt were heard just last
week in tiny Topsfield where voters, by overwhelming margins in all but
one case, replaced an incumbent selectman with an ardent tax foe,
rejected a Community Preservation Act surcharge that would have added 3
percent to their property tax bills, and shot down three overrides.
The fact is that many people struggling with fiscal limitations of their
own are still not convinced government is doing its best to wring waste
out of the system. And when school officials threaten to close schools,
as they have in Beverly, or lay off teachers, as has been the case in
North Andover, the reaction is more often one of skepticism than alarm.
Some may say there's no more fat to cut. But taxpayers, who see state
and local spending continue to increase despite multiple warnings of
impending doom, just don't believe it.
Return to top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|