Pay careful attention to the debate and votes that
take place at the Massachusetts Statehouse in the coming weeks. It will
tell you whether your governor, your state senator and your state
representative are really interested in keeping your property taxes
under control.
Because the fact is the only way municipal spending -- and the taxes
that support it -- can be kept in check is by getting a handle on the
salaries and benefits that account for the lion's share of every city
and town's budget. And addressing those budget-busters requires a
willingness to take on the public employee unions that have always
counted on Democrats at the Statehouse to do their bidding....
The unions won't willingly give up the sweet deals they've wrested from
the local powers that be over the years. Of if they do, it will come at
a cost that negates any savings that might be obtained by joining the
lower-cost health insurance system.
But the fact is that the status quo cannot be sustained. Virtually every
penny in additional revenue raised by cities and towns goes to pay for
salaries and benefits. In many cases services have to be sacrificed,
fees raised and personnel let go, simply to keep up with those costs.
As the gap between public- and private-sector benefits continues to
widen, taxpayer resentment is showing up at the ballot box....
Legislators need to pass a municipal relief act with real teeth....
After all, if they don't like it they can always try their luck in the
"dreaded" private sector.
A Salem News editorial
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Real tax relief requires show of legislative courage
Some Wrentham officials are crying foul after learning that
the King Philip Regional School District is still paying part of the health
insurance costs for retired high school principal Michael Levine, even though
Levine has taken a new job.
Levine retired from King Philip in 2004 but now works as principal of East
Greenwich High School in Rhode Island. Under his contract with King Philip, the
district was required to pay 75 percent of his health insurance premiums after
his retirement. If he dies, the benefit transfers to his wife.
"Anybody would be upset by this," said Town Moderator Keith Billian, who
estimated it's costing the district at least $7,500 a year. "I think it's bad
management." ...
King Philip Superintendent Richard Robbat said the district pays the same amount
for health insurance for retired teachers.
"This is not an unusual situation at all," Robbat said.
Francis "Chip" Faulkner, a Wrentham resident and associate director of a
statewide group, Citizens for Limited Taxation, takes a different view.
"It's outrageous," Faulkner said. "For him to blow into town for five years and
sail out with this sweetheart deal . . . . It must be naïve hicks on the School
Committee that gave him this.
"They're always whining and complaining they don't have enough money for
education," Faulkner continued. "Money is tight and all this baloney, and yet
they give away thousands of dollars to this guy."
The Boston Globe - West edition
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Benefits for past principal criticized
Wrentham officials to review health coverage
Two petitions have hit Georgetown Town Hall in regard to a
recount of this year’s town election ballots.
The Georgetown Record
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Ballot recount slated for next Wednesday
Petitioners for the recount filed on the grounds that
the number of blank ballots represented more than 2.5 percent of the
people who voted, which they said raises a question of its accuracy,
according to their petition.
Petitioners to oversee the recount, according to their legal counsel,
Steven Epstein of West Street, want to ensure the “no” voters are
included in the proceedings....
Though anyone from the public is allowed to attend and watch the recount
proceedings, the We Also Believe group was formed in order to be a
recognized part of the proceedings.
“A recount is an adversarial proceeding and the ‘no’ voters deserved
representation,” said Epstein.
A Georgetown Record editorial
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Time to meet in the middle
The Community Preservation Act (G.L. c. 44B) authorizes
municipalities to collect a surcharge of up to 3 percent on the annual real
estate tax levy and spend it on projects specified in the act — community
housing, historic resources and open space....
In its six years of operation, many questionable municipal projects received CPA
funding without much public attention.
That is no more, however, as taxpayers and some public officials in various
municipalities have become vocal over the spending of CPA cash to finance ever
more grandiose capital improvement and maintenance projects under the guise of
preservation.
No less than two lawsuits involving Newton and Wayland are pending in the
courts....
Lawmakers are about to undertake in Senate Bill No. 137 of 2007 a sweeping
amendment to the act. Specifically, the bill amends the definition of
"recreational use" to provide CPA money for building restrooms, structures,
parking facilities, refreshment stands and storage and for lighting (lines
4-9)....
The overall impression that one gets from the proposed changes is the act will
legitimize what many had suspected for some time: cities and towns using the CPA
as a supplement to their capital improvement and operating budgets and, based on
some outlandish interpretation of the law supplied by pliant municipal law
departments, they have been spending CPA money without regard to the letter and
spirit of the act.
The bill changes, in fact, the nature of the Community Preservation Fund from
being a special fund to a general revenue account, arguably in violation and
evasion of limits that Proposition 2½ imposes on municipal levy.
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
May 14, 2007
Community Preservation Act:
sweeping changes in the works
Faced with the choice of higher taxes or deep cuts in jobs
and core services — the proverbial rock and hard place — [Worcester] city
councilors this week properly focused budget deliberations on cutting the cost
of health insurance for retirees while maintaining at least the same level of
coverage. This is the kind of structural change needed to put the city’s
foundering finances on an even keel....
Neither of those changes involves layoffs, tax hikes or cuts in core city
services. Combined, the result is expected to be savings in the neighborhood of
$3 million — more than half of the amount needed to eliminate the $5.65 million
property tax increase in the budget proposal currently before the council.
Such changes are seldom politically popular. But they certainly are far, far
less onerous than the alternatives: significant hikes in taxes and deep cuts in
core municipal services.
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Friday, June 1, 2007
The proper approach
Council right to scrutinize retiree insurance
Acceptance of one of the more appealing provisions of the
Patrick administration’s Municipal Partnership Act got a boost last week when
the Newton Retirement Board voted to place its $265 million retirement fund in
the hands of state pension managers. In the current fiscal climate, no
municipality can afford to ignore the potential improvement in pension-fund
performance.
Massachusetts has 106 pension funds for public employees. The state Pension
Reserves Investment Management (PRIM) board supervises the $48 billion Pension
Reserve Investment Trust (PRIT)....
Mandated or not, most of the 100-plus independent pension systems would benefit
from joining financial forces with the PRIT core fund....
As we have said before, turning pension fund management over to the PRIM board
is not the answer for all communities. But it is a major money-saving
opportunity all municipal, county, authority and district pension systems should
consider seriously — and most should seize.
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Wise investment
State system would boost most local pension funds
In town after town, we are witnessing Proposition 2½
overrides go down to defeat like Republicans last November. Why are so many of
these ballot questions failing in a state that continues to elect liberals?
Is it that voters no longer trust their local officials when they plead for the
necessity of tax hikes? Or is that voters have simply had enough of paying taxes
generally? The answer is yes on both counts.
Trust is gone. After years of municipal leaders crying that the sky is falling,
voters have had enough.
Do you remember when the world was going to end 27 years ago with the passage of
Prop 2½? ...
These services, however, have become a weapon in the arsenal of public officials
wanting to raid your wallet. But voters have wised up to scare tactics.
How many times have teachers been sent pink slips at the time of an override
question only to be withdrawn later? Can anyone remember a school administrator
being given a pink slip? ...
Another tactic is cutting funding for the most publicly used services....
Chip Faulkner of Citizens for Limited Taxation has another theory
about why a majority of overrides are failing. He believes it’s because most
people know they’re not getting the same generous benefit package given to
municipal employees. Most private sector workers, for example, pay far more than
20 percent of their health insurance....
Last year, Patrick promised property tax breaks, saying they were more important
than honoring the income tax rollback. Right now residents have neither.
Thankfully for taxpayers, at least failure is an option for overrides.
The Boston Herald
Monday, June 4, 2007
Voters realizing how overrides overreach
By Holly Robichaud
Over the next four weeks, four communities south of Boston
will decide if they are willing to permanently increase real estate taxes to
support town budgets. If the votes follow the pattern of those taken in the
region up until June 1, more will fail than pass. The success rate for overrides
has been running at about 40 percent....
To date, overrides in the area have prevailed in Sharon, Westwood, Marshfield,
and Scituate, and failed in Canton, Randolph, Walpole, East Bridgewater, and
Rockland. The results from Middleborough's override yesterday were not available
by press time.
The Boston Globe - South edition
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Override votes loom in four towns
Only 40 percent of similar requests
around the region have been approved
Voters rejected all five options on a $2.5 million override
by more than 2-1, joining taxpayers across the region who are saying no to tax
hikes.
The School Department took the worst beating and failed by 1,495 votes, sending
a message to limit spending.
The Brockton Enterprise
Monday, June 4, 2007
Middleboro voters soundly reject override
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
More and more, the acute problem is being recognized
for the escalating municipal (and state) costs, the reason for rising
property taxes year after year, the sole purpose of local overrides.
It is the demands by, and roll-over acquiescence by elected officials
for, ceaselessly increasing public employee union benefits. Those
demands are bankrupting taxpayers the state over, in every community.
Simply put, this must end. The public employees' greed has
exceeded our tolerance -- and even that of many former tax-and-spenders.
This has taken a lot of time to be finally recognized by some, years of
hammering away on our part to raise it to the surface for public
inspection, recognition, acceptance.
We have government -- on all levels -- run amuck
taking care of itself. And now it's pricing us out of existence
and everybody has begun to feel its effect, fiscal conservatives and
moderate-liberals alike. When your home and family is at risk,
it's funny how things come into focus suddenly.
We've seen how the hard-core liberals respond when
they can fund their "causes" by themselves with their own money -- like
our voluntary tax check-off on income tax returns provides them, or
voluntary contributions to local override defeats for their favored
causes. They dry up, and shut up -- they cease to exist,
disappear. They only want to tax you and me. They really
don't "care" otherwise, unless they can drag us down en mass, make us
pay more to the level of government spending they selfishly crave.
We lowly mere taxpayers have been learning much
during this overheated override year about how to deal with proposed
overrides. With likely a record-breaking number of proposed
overrides in a given year, most are failing: by a ratio of 60-40
percent according to the
Boston Globe, which is doing a great job of tracking them.
Taxpayers have learned how to say "No!" They should have learned
this long ago -- before we reached this crisis -- but better late than
never.
One of the new lessons was taught by CLT member and
attorney Steve Epstein of Georgetown. He read his town's override
language and challenged it -- forcing the town to reprint all its
ballots. Now he's formed a committee to monitor his town's
recount. Don't underestimate, don't take for granted, and don't
let up your guard.
By the way -- what ever happened to candidate for
governor Deval Patrick's pledge to reduce property taxes, in exchange
for clinging onto the higher "temporary" income tax rate at any cost?
Gov. Patrick hasn't provided any property tax relief whatsoever, and
really doesn't have a clue how to -- just as we predicted. Don't
hold your breath waiting for any in the next three years and seven
months either: Vegas would give you lousy odds.
The Community Preservation Act -- ah, the CPA.
Such a nice, comfortable reason to override Proposition 2½
hasn't it been? Now we learn the CPA has been transformed into
just another scurrilous means to circumvent local tax increases -- gosh.
It only took time, and not much.
But the scoundrels have been
exposed -- so now they want to "just tweak the law," let them spend that
dubiously dedicated money any way they see fit! That expansion of
the legal definition is now a bill before "The Best Legislature Money
Can Buy." What do you think your "full-time" legislator will do
when confronted by his or her constituent local officials who detest
Prop 2½ to begin with; how will your
"representatives" House and Senate in the State House, vote?
If this travesty should pass --
it well might as it is discrete and convoluted enough -- CPA overrides
should be voted down always regardless of the promises, simply on
principle. Otherwise it will then become just an established
end-run around Proposition 2½ -- and boy are
they ever looking for that.
We're finally reaching the end
of taxpayers' wallets and patience. Many more now recognize the
problem -- public employee unions' insatiable greed -- and we fiscal
conservatives are no longer alone in this cognizance. The tide is
turning, if slowly -- but it is turning surely. It's taken a long
time, but we've reached the high-water mark. If we remain
steadfast, the tide will recede and we will be left on shaky, eroded
ground but standing. From there, perhaps we can rebuild.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Salem News
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
A Salem News editorial
Real tax relief requires show of legislative courage
Pay careful attention to the debate and votes that take place at the
Massachusetts Statehouse in the coming weeks. It will tell you whether
your governor, your state senator and your state representative are
really interested in keeping your property taxes under control.
Because the fact is the only way municipal spending -- and the taxes
that support it -- can be kept in check is by getting a handle on the
salaries and benefits that account for the lion's share of every city
and town's budget. And addressing those budget-busters requires a
willingness to take on the public employee unions that have always
counted on Democrats at the Statehouse to do their bidding.
The focus of the upcoming debate is a bill filed by Gov. Deval Patrick
that would allow cities and towns to join the state-run Group Insurance
Commission. The GIC obtains health insurance for state employees and
determines how much they pay for it.
Currently those state employees pay a slightly greater share of the
premiums than do many of their counterparts in local government, and the
overall cost of those plans has been increasing at only half the rate of
those offered by the cities and towns. Statewide it's been estimated
those cities and towns could save hundreds of millions of dollars
annually by joining the GIC.
Sounds like a no-brainer. There's only one catch: The bill filed by the
governor would allow unions to veto an effort by mayors or selectmen to
make their community part of the GIC. And if that provision is allowed
to stand, the promised savings will never be realized.
The unions won't willingly give up the sweet deals they've wrested from
the local powers that be over the years. Of if they do, it will come at
a cost that negates any savings that might be obtained by joining the
lower-cost health insurance system.
But the fact is that the status quo cannot be sustained. Virtually every
penny in additional revenue raised by cities and towns goes to pay for
salaries and benefits. In many cases services have to be sacrificed,
fees raised and personnel let go, simply to keep up with those costs.
As the gap between public- and private-sector benefits continues to
widen, taxpayer resentment is showing up at the ballot box. In recent
weeks, efforts to raise more money through Proposition 2½ overrides were
defeated by substantial margins in Gloucester and Newburyport.
Earlier this spring, voters in Saugus turned down a $5-million override,
knowing it would mean the town would have to close all but one fire
station along with the library and senior center. And the final tally
wasn't even close.
Legislators need to pass a municipal relief act with real teeth. Merging
both health insurance and local pension plans into the more
cost-effective state systems should not be a matter of employee option.
After all, if they don't like it they can always try their luck in the
"dreaded" private sector.
The Boston Globe - West edition
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Benefits for past principal criticized
Wrentham officials to review health coverage
By Calvin Hennick
Some Wrentham officials are crying foul after learning that the King
Philip Regional School District is still paying part of the health
insurance costs for retired high school principal Michael Levine, even
though Levine has taken a new job.
Levine retired from King Philip in 2004 but now works as principal of
East Greenwich High School in Rhode Island. Under his contract with King
Philip, the district was required to pay 75 percent of his health
insurance premiums after his retirement. If he dies, the benefit
transfers to his wife.
"Anybody would be upset by this," said Town Moderator Keith Billian, who
estimated it's costing the district at least $7,500 a year. "I think
it's bad management."
Levine had no comment when reached at his office last week.
Billian submitted a citizen's petition at the May 14 Town Meeting asking
the School Committee to investigate whether the agreement to pay the
insurance costs is legally binding. Voters backed Billian, and School
Committee chairwoman Claire Sullivan said her panel would give a report
on the issue when Town Meeting resumes on June 18.
Billian said the contract called for Levine to receive the benefit when
he retired. He questioned how Levine can be considered retired when he
is working full time.
"Obviously, the man is not retired," Billian said.
Billian acknowledged it's probably too late to do anything about
Levine's contract, but he said he wants to prevent a similar situation
in the future.
Massachusetts educators who retire and are receiving a pension are
restricted in the amount of hours they can work and the amount of money
they can earn in schools within the state. But their pension payments
are not affected if they get jobs in the private sector or in schools in
other states.
"I think it's a loophole in the law that he can go work out of state
doing the same job and still collect his full retirement from the state
of Massachusetts," Billian said.
Pensions are paid by the Massachusetts Teachers' Retirement System out
of funds collected from payroll deductions and state appropriations. But
healthcare costs for retirees are handled by individual school
districts.
Sullivan said the School Committee had not discussed Town Meeting's
request for a report on the issue. But she said Levine's contract wasn't
out of the ordinary.
"If you look at any Massachusetts teacher's retirement, that's not an
uncommon thing that teachers and educators can participate in health
insurance," she said.
King Philip Superintendent Richard Robbat said the district pays the
same amount for health insurance for retired teachers.
"This is not an unusual situation at all," Robbat said.
Francis "Chip" Faulkner, a Wrentham resident and associate
director of a statewide group, Citizens for Limited Taxation,
takes a different view.
"It's outrageous," Faulkner said. "For him to blow into town for five
years and sail out with this sweetheart deal . . . . It must be naïve
hicks on the School Committee that gave him this.
"They're always whining and complaining they don't have enough money for
education," Faulkner continued. "Money is tight and all this baloney,
and yet they give away thousands of dollars to this guy."
The grade 7-12 regional school system draws its students from Norfolk,
Plainville, and Wrentham.
Wrentham Town Administrator Jack McFeeley, who is also a former Norfolk
selectman, said he wasn't aware of the insurance agreement until Billian
submitted his citizen's petition. "It's a misuse of money, I think. I've
never seen something like that before. I think we need to find out what
the underlying issue was that forced the school to do that."
The Georgetown Record
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Ballot recount slated for next Wednesday
By M. Renee Seymour
Two petitions have hit Georgetown Town Hall in regard to a recount of
this year’s town election ballots.
The first, filed by Linda Witz and Elaine Cacciola on behalf of those
who were in favor of the Proposition 2½ override question, requests a
recount.
The other — filed by Phil Cannon of the newly formed “We Also Believe in
Georgetown” committee — seeks to oversee the recount on behalf of those
who voted “no” on the override ballot question.
The recount will be held Wednesday, June 6 at 8:30 a.m. at Town Hall in
the third floor meeting room. The public is welcome to attend.
The Georgetown Record
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
A Georgetown Record editorial
Time to meet in the middle
Petitioners for the recount filed on the grounds that the number of
blank ballots represented more than 2.5 percent of the people who voted,
which they said raises a question of its accuracy, according to their
petition.
Petitioners to oversee the recount, according to their legal counsel,
Steven Epstein of West Street, want to ensure the “no” voters are
included in the proceedings.
The We Also Believe in Georgetown group was formed “specifically for the
recount requested by proponents of the override,” according to a letter
to Town Clerk Janice McGrane from Epstein.
The group will dissolve following the recount, he said.
Though anyone from the public is allowed to attend and watch the recount
proceedings, the We Also Believe group was formed in order to be a
recognized part of the proceedings.
“A recount is an adversarial proceeding and the ‘no’ voters deserved
representation,” said Epstein.
One representative from each petitioning group is allowed to watch over
each set of counters, said McGrane.
“Both are allowed to have a representative who can stand and watch what
[the counters] are doing to make sure that when they say ‘this is a yes’
that they’re putting the mark in the yes spot. They’re the people who
can object,” McGrane explained.
Asked if Epstein’s group felt there was a need to worry about the
results of the recount, Epstein said no.
“I’ve been involved in a manual recount of an optical scanner election,”
said Epstein. “These machines are exceedingly accurate. The percentage
of blanks is not extraordinary. The odds of the outcome being reversed
after manual recount make it an exercise in … political theater. The
petitioners should drop their petition.”
The recount will be done during regular town clerk office hours, with
three registrars from the town-appointed Board of Registrars, as well as
10 additional staff working, plus one detail police officer and town
counsel, said McGrane.
When asked if the recount is costing the town extra money, she said,
“Absolutely,” but couldn’t say how much until the hours of work are
tallied after that day.
Counters work in pairs of two. One person reads the ballot while the
other tallies and watches. Every ballot is counted by hand, with the
process likely to take at least several hours or more depending on the
number of “challenges” that are made regarding reading the ballots.
There are 2,618 ballots to count.
No one but the reader is allowed to touch anything, and nothing can be
marked or changed, she said.
The $1,061,822 Proposition 2½ override request lost by 17 votes in the
May 14 town elections. In order for the override decision to be
overturned, 18 more ballots would have to prove to have been “yes” votes
during the recount.
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
May 14, 2007
Community Preservation Act:
sweeping changes in the works
By Guive Mirfendereski
The Community Preservation Act (G.L. c. 44B) authorizes municipalities
to collect a surcharge of up to 3 percent on the annual real estate tax
levy and spend it on projects specified in the act — community housing,
historic resources and open space.
A year ago, I wrote to call attention to abuse of CPA funds by
cash-strapped municipalities that fund projects in contravention of the
provisions and purposes of the act ("Time to get control over community
preservation," April 10, 2006).
In its six years of operation, many questionable municipal projects
received CPA funding without much public attention.
That is no more, however, as taxpayers and some public officials in
various municipalities have become vocal over the spending of CPA cash
to finance ever more grandiose capital improvement and maintenance
projects under the guise of preservation.
No less than two lawsuits involving Newton and Wayland are pending in
the courts.
In Concord, a group of citizens has organized to question the proposed
demolition of acres of the historic Walden Woods for artificial turf
fields.
In Easton, the use of CPA money for a questionable project was thwarted
finally when the city's bond counsel at Edwards, Angell, Palmer & Dodge
advised against it.
In Wellesley, a group of determined citizens rose up against all odds
and beat back a proposal that was going to install two artificial turf
fields near an elementary school, using CPA money.
In Newton, an enlightened group of aldermen decided to hold back on CPA
appropriation for a project that would convert five acres of existing
natural grass playing fields in a wetland area into artificial turf made
of plastic and toxic granulates of used tires.
Lawmakers are about to undertake in Senate Bill No. 137 of 2007 a
sweeping amendment to the act. Specifically, the bill amends the
definition of "recreational use" to provide CPA money for building
restrooms, structures, parking facilities, refreshment stands and
storage and for lighting (lines 4-9).
Under the proposed definition of "rehabilitation," CPA money will be
allowed for installation of artificial turf, replacement of playground
equipment and other capital improvements to land and the facilities
(lines12-23).
None of these items is presently a permissible use of the CPA funds and
each is inconsistent with legislative intent that brought about the
original act. The bill will render many of the questionable past
practices as legitimate in the future.
Further, the bill, if enacted into law, will legitimize expressly all
prior CPA appropriations by the cities and towns, retroactively (lines
261-263).
The proposed legislation also alters the manner by which cities and
towns can raise even more money under the act by allowing the
municipality to add to its Community Preservation Fund the revenues that
it may collect from other sources.
In turn, this would increase the dollar amount of the matching funds
that the municipality gets from the state's Community Preservation Trust
Fund.
Presently, in most cases, to get more state dollars a municipality would
have to raise its surcharge rate to the maximum allowable 3 percent, but
that requires citizen approval of the change and most cities and towns
fear that a re-balloting of the act may well do away with it altogether.
The overall impression that one gets from the proposed changes is the
act will legitimize what many had suspected for some time: cities and
towns using the CPA as a supplement to their capital improvement and
operating budgets and, based on some outlandish interpretation of the
law supplied by pliant municipal law departments, they have been
spending CPA money without regard to the letter and spirit of the act.
The bill changes, in fact, the nature of the Community Preservation Fund
from being a special fund to a general revenue account, arguably in
violation and evasion of limits that Proposition 2½ imposes on municipal
levy.
The bill so alters the language, scope and intent of the act that, in
all fairness, it should be required that municipalities re-vote the
adoption of the amended act by popular ballot, just as the original act.
Guive Mirfendereski practices in Newton.
The Telegram & Gazette
Friday, June 1, 2007
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
The proper approach
Council right to scrutinize retiree insurance
Faced with the choice of higher taxes or deep cuts in jobs and core
services — the proverbial rock and hard place — [Worcester] city
councilors this week properly focused budget deliberations on cutting
the cost of health insurance for retirees while maintaining at least the
same level of coverage. This is the kind of structural change needed to
put the city’s foundering finances on an even keel.
City councilors placed several potential changes on the table on
Tuesday.
One that should prompt little hesitation is the city administration’s
proposal to move retirees from private health plans to federal Medicare
programs that provide comparable coverage but are far less costly to the
city.
Endorsing this plan should be a no-brainer. Of roughly 2,700 Worcester
retirees, about 2,200 already have Medicare plans. About 500 municipal
retirees are on the more costly conventional health insurance plans.
To make the change, the city has to adopt Section 18 of Chapter 32B of
the General Laws of Massachusetts. While some retirees are resistant to
making the change, the state law protects their interests, specifying
that the employee’s benefits must be “of comparable actuarial value to
those under the retiree’s existing coverage.”
Councilors need not take the soundness of the city administration’s
proposal on faith.
Adopting Section 18 for Worcester was the first of nine recommendations
in the Research Bureau’s May 24 report, “Cutting to the Core: Rethinking
Municipal Services in FY08 and Beyond.” The organization estimated that
the potential savings from the switch would be at least $1.35 million in
the upcoming fiscal 2008 city budget year.
Also on the table are proposals to raise the contribution of retirees
and nonunion employees from the current 20 percent of their insurance
premiums to 25 percent. That shift would be in keeping with the
transition to a 25 percent share negotiated with unionized municipal
employees.
Neither of those changes involves layoffs, tax hikes or cuts in core
city services. Combined, the result is expected to be savings in the
neighborhood of $3 million — more than half of the amount needed to
eliminate the $5.65 million property tax increase in the budget proposal
currently before the council.
Such changes are seldom politically popular. But they certainly are far,
far less onerous than the alternatives: significant hikes in taxes and
deep cuts in core municipal services.
The Telegram & Gazette
Sunday, May 27, 2007
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Wise investment
State system would boost most local pension funds
Acceptance of one of the more appealing provisions of the Patrick
administration’s Municipal Partnership Act got a boost last week when
the Newton Retirement Board voted to place its $265 million retirement
fund in the hands of state pension managers. In the current fiscal
climate, no municipality can afford to ignore the potential improvement
in pension-fund performance.
Massachusetts has 106 pension funds for public employees. The state
Pension Reserves Investment Management (PRIM) board supervises the $48
billion Pension Reserve Investment Trust (PRIT).
The governor’s proposal, now in legislative committee, would require
seriously underperforming municipal, county and other independent public
pension funds to transfer their assets to the PRIT fund.
Mandated or not, most of the 100-plus independent pension systems would
benefit from joining financial forces with the PRIT core fund.
The PRIT fund managers have achieved a return of 10.51 percent over the
past 10 years, according to the state Public Employee Retirement
Administration Commission, and more than 11 percent over the past 21
years. PRIT’s 2006 return of 16.72 percent was matched by only a few
independent systems — including Gardner (16.66 percent) and Northbridge
(16.76 percent) — and some had returns of barely half that rate.
More than 70 local systems now invest a substantial portion of their
assets with the PRIT fund, including 26 that invest predominantly or
entirely with PRIT.
While many independent pension systems perform quite well, they simply
cannot match the buying power enjoyed by the state system. Even if the
rate of return from an independent fund is only a point or two lower
than that of the PRIT fund, the bottom-line loss to taxpayers and public
employees who contribute to the system can be millions of dollars a year
— an issue that should be of concern to public employees who contribute
to the system and taxpayers alike.
The Boston Herald
Monday, June 4, 2007
Voters realizing how overrides overreach
By Holly Robichaud
In town after town, we are witnessing Proposition 2½ overrides go down to defeat
like Republicans last November. Why are so many of these ballot questions
failing in a state that continues to elect liberals?
Is it that voters no longer trust their local officials when they plead for the
necessity of tax hikes? Or is that voters have simply had enough of paying taxes
generally? The answer is yes on both counts.
Trust is gone. After years of municipal leaders crying that the sky is falling,
voters have had enough.
Do you remember when the world was going to end 27 years ago with the passage of
Prop 2½?
No one likes paying taxes, but taxation at the local level is where your money
is supposedly best spent. You can see how tax dollars are being used for street
cleaning, traffic lights, park maintenance and schools.
These services, however, have become a weapon in the arsenal of public officials
wanting to raid your wallet. But voters have wised up to scare tactics.
How many times have teachers been sent pink slips at the time of an override
question only to be withdrawn later? Can anyone remember a school administrator
being given a pink slip?
Recently Worcester attempted to engage in the teacher layoff tactic so that it
could raise property taxes by about $150 per household. With residents up in
arms, city councilors -- who voted to double their own pay earlier this year and
then suspend it until after the upcoming local elections -- are finding ways to
avoid the tax increase. Wonder why?
Another tactic is cutting funding for the most publicly used services. Wareham,
for example, didn’t put trash barrels on its beaches over Memorial Day weekend.
Are trash barrels that much of a budget buster?
Then there’s the gamesmanship of hours. Municipalities limit library hours,
close dumps on Sundays, make beach and burning permits only available at weird
hours and close town halls to the public on Fridays all for the sake of budget
savings.
Chip Faulkner of Citizens for Limited Taxation has another theory about why a
majority of overrides are failing. He believes it’s because most people know
they’re not getting the same generous benefit package given to municipal
employees. Most private sector workers, for example, pay far more than 20
percent of their health insurance.
The main reason for the override failures has to come down to the simple fact
that voters don’t want to pay any more in taxes, period. In 2000 voters approved
the income tax rollback.
Even with the election of liberal Gov. Deval Patrick, they reaffirmed their
aversion to taxes.
Last year, Patrick promised property tax breaks, saying they were more important
than honoring the income tax rollback. Right now residents have neither.
Thankfully for taxpayers, at least failure is an option for overrides.
Holly Robichaud is a Republican political consultant.
The Boston Globe - South edition
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Override votes loom in four towns
Only 40 percent of similar requests
around the region have been approved
By Christine Wallgren
Over the next four weeks, four communities south of Boston will
decide if they are willing to permanently increase real estate taxes to
support town budgets. If the votes follow the pattern of those taken in
the region up until June 1, more will fail than pass. The success rate
for overrides has been running at about 40 percent.
This month's schedule is as follows: Kingston leads off, with its vote
on a menu of five requests totaling $1.6 million on Saturday.
Bridgewater follows, with a single $2.8 million proposal on June 16.
Next comes Norton, where voters will act on a $1.07 million override for
the schools and a $1.9 million debt exclusion for capital projects on
June 26 . And Raynham will consider an $874,351 package for schools on
June 30 -- just one day before the new fiscal year begins.
Override proponents in Bridgewater, Raynham, and Norton have uphill
battles before them. None of those towns has passed an override since
the Proposition 2½ tax cap was enacted in the early 1980s, and Norton's
last rejection was last June.
Kingston, however, has a better record of supporting overrides. The town
passed one just a few years ago to fund its assessment to the Silver
Lake school district.
Kingston voters on Saturday will consider a menu of individual tax
increases to fund the Silver Lake regional assessment, elementary
school, Police and Fire departments, and DPW operations. There is also a
combined proposal to fund the library, Recreation Department, and
Council on Aging.
Kingston Town Administrator Brian Donovan said officials opted to
present a menu-type ballot -- in which each of several items gets its
own separate vote -- because "everybody felt strongly it's the people's
money, and they felt the people should have the broadest options
possible on how it's spent." They also believe individual questions have
a better chance of succeeding, Donovan said.
If Kingston votes down the override, officials say the Police Department
will lose three officers and the Fire Department will have to eliminate
its call force. The Council on Aging will cut back on transportation to
medical appointments, and the library will reduce hours and probably
lose its state certification. Failure of the override for the elementary
school will mean the loss of teachers and support staff, an assistant
principal, and supplies.
If the $529,700 override for the town's share of the Silver Lake budget
fails, it will affect several town budgets because the town's assessment
would still have to be paid in full, Donovan said. Halifax and Plympton,
the other two member towns, have already approved their portions, so
Kingston is required to do the same.
If all five override questions are approved, the tax bill on a
median-priced Kingston home of $407,000 will go up about $325 annually ,
Donovan said.
Bridgewater and Raynham's votes, although two weeks apart, are linked.
Each town will be asked to approve amounts to fully fund its share of
the $55 million Bridgewater-Raynham Regional school budget.
Failure in either town would prevent the budget from being fully funded.
Therefore, if the override fails in Bridgewater on June 16, Raynham
officials could simply decide to cancel their town's vote for June 30.
"But if the people speak loudly that they still want to go forward with
the election, I would be in support of that," said Raynham selectmen
chairman John Donahue. The override money could always be given as a
gift to the school district, earmarked for use at Raynham's elementary
and middle schools, Donahue said.
Bridgewater's single override request for about $2.9 million includes
$1.5 million for the school budget, along with amounts for public
safety, public works, health insurance, and library and recreation
services. Bridgewater selectmen chairman Herbert Lemon said officials
opted for a single question so departments would not battle each other
for money.
"If the override is to fix things, it should be a total fix," Lemon
said. The annual impact of the tax increase on a median-priced home of
$393,000 would be $411. Lemon said he does not support the override ,
but said, "It's up to the collective wisdom of the town."
A group called Citizens for a Better Bridgewater is actively promoting
the tax increase. According to member Lisa Johnson , the organization is
committed to fully funding all town services, not just a single
department. The group has established a pro-override website at
betterbridgewater.org. Cost figures and override impacts are also on the
town's website at bridgewaterma.org.
In Norton, Town Manager James Purcell said the $1.9 million temporary
debt exclusion would provide money for a number of much-needed capital
projects. The $1.07 million permanent override will go to next year's
school budget.
Purcell said it has been relatively quiet in town, but he expects some
"vigorous campaigning" both for and against the tax increases as June 26
gets closer.
"They're not as visible as they were for last year's vote, but don't
mistake the low profile for a lack of interest," Purcell said. The
override would increase taxes on a $350,000 median-priced home by about
$158 annually, Purcell said.
To date, overrides in the area have prevailed in Sharon, Westwood,
Marshfield, and Scituate, and failed in Canton, Randolph, Walpole, East
Bridgewater, and Rockland. The results from Middleborough's override
yesterday were not available by press time.
Wealthier communities are more likely to pass overrides, according to
John Robertson, Massachusetts Muncipal Association deputy legislative
director , while poorer communities generally defeat them.
Robertson said the area's rate of passing overrides is a little higher
than the state's record to date, which is running at about 36 percent .
In most of the 54 communities with overrides, the preference has been
for single, large amounts, Robertson said. "There have only been a
handful that have gone the menu route," he said.
Another trend Robertson has noticed this spring is the large amounts
being requested. "I've seen a good number at $4 million or $5 million
proposals," he said.
The Brockton Enterprise
Monday, June 4, 2007
Middleboro voters soundly reject override
By Alice C. Elwell
Voters rejected all five options on a $2.5 million override by more than
2-1, joining taxpayers across the region who are saying no to tax hikes.
The School Department took the worst beating and failed by 1,495 votes,
sending a message to limit spending.
A total of 23 percent of the register voters turned out, with 3,349
votes cast.
Department heads who lobbied for the override predicted 33 teachers and
two school administrators will be laid off, two firefighter's positions
will not be filled, the library will lose certification, services at the
Council on Aging will be axed, and the park department will barely run.
Middleboro residents vetoed:
$195,000 for the Library by 2,185 to 1,137 votes
$107,000 for the Park Department by 2,354 to 948 votes
$180,000 for the Council on Aging by 2,323 to 995 votes
$102,000 for the Fire Department by 2,340 to 970 votes
$2 million for schools by 2,405 to 910 votes
School Superintendent Robert M. Sullivan said a dozen teachers were laid
off this past week as the first of 35 he anticipated if the override
failed and town meeting passes the Finance Committee's recommended
budget of $23.3 million.
Last month the School Committee rejected that figure and set their l
budget at $24.3 million. Finance Committee Chairman Richard J. Pavadore
said the $1 million increase will throw the budget into chaos.
School Supt. Robert M. Sullivan said the school needs $1.3 million more
than what the state has determined to be the minimum the town can spend
on the schools.
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
