 |
and the
Citizens Economic Research Foundation
Post Office Box 1147 ●
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945 ●
(508)
915-3665
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
44 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
Legislature passes record $41.9
Billion budget, "Community Benefit Districts" law
|
The
$41.88 billion budget deal that was filed Wednesday morning
and quickly approved by the Legislature includes no new
fees, according to the lead House negotiator, and relies on
an unusual eleventh hour revenue projection upgrade to boost
spending to levels higher than either the House or Senate
approved this spring. The budget (H4800), which is on
track to reach Gov. Charlie Baker's desk by the end of the
day, was filed 17 days after the start of the new fiscal
year, and 13 days before the end of formal legislative
sessions, during which recorded votes can be taken....
The fiscal 2019 budget, which was introduced in the House
just after 2 p.m. and quickly won a 143-6 approval vote; the
Senate approved it 36-1.
The $41.88 billion bottom line is nearly $400 million
more than what either branch approved. The budget also
anticipates an additional $271 million deposit to the
state's rainy day fund, Sanchez said, a deposit that will
address some concerns about inadequate reserves.
Sanchez said lawmakers tried to balance an increase in
spending with a building up of the stabilization fund. In a
joint statement, Sanchez and Spilka said the total amount in
the stabilization fund would surpass $2 billion by the end
of fiscal 2019.
The additional spending includes roughly $190 million for
what Sanchez characterized as priorities of both branches,
and about $150 million to address structural deficiencies in
accounts like snow and ice removal and the Committee for
Public Counsel Services....
According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the
budget deal assumes $667.3 million in tax revenue above and
beyond the estimate agreed to earlier this year by
Democratic legislative leaders and the Baker administration.
With the added revenue, which follows a year in which
collections exceeded budget benchmarks by $1.1 billion,
total fiscal 2019 spending rises 3.5 percent over fiscal
2018, according to the foundation....
It does not include a Senate proposal to restrict local
authorities' cooperation with federal immigration
enforcement, despite a vocal push from advocates opposed to
a Trump administration crackdown on illegal immigration.
"In relation to that one piece, there was just no
consensus," Sanchez said....
Unlike the past two years, in which slow revenue growth
forced them to mark down available revenues during their
negotiations, budget conferees this year were able upgrade
their revenue projections.
Doug Howgate, director of policy and research at the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said he was not aware of
an instance in the last 20 years or so in which a conference
committee produced "just kind of an ad hoc increased number
based on higher tax revenues."
"I'm not familiar with anything like this year
happening," he told the News Service....
Sen. Jamie Eldridge voted against the bill because it did
not include a Senate immigration law enforcement proposal.
The House members who voted against the budget were three
Democrats - Reps. Mike Connolly of Cambridge, Juana Matias
of Lawrence and Denise Provost of Somerville - and
Republican Reps. Nicholas Boldyga of Southwick, Kevin Kuros
of Uxbridge and Jim Lyons of Andover.
State House News Service
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
Budget negotiators come "out of the woods" with more money
Under increasing pressure to get a state budget to Gov.
Charlie Baker, House and Senate negotiators unveiled a $41.9
billion compromise spending bill for the fiscal year that
began 18 days ago. After suspending its rules to take up the
conference report mere hours after it was filed, the House
voted 143-6 to enact the budget in the hopes of getting the
bill to Baker by the end of the night and leave a sliver of
time at the end of the month to react to possible vetoes.
The House also passed legislation repealing laws considered
"archaic" that remain on the books banning abortion and
restricting the use of contraception for non-married women.
The legislation, according to House leaders, is a safeguard
against the feared overturning of Roe v. Wade by a Supreme
Court poised to add a new conservative justice to the bench.
A compromise bill informally negotiated with the Senate to
raise the tobacco purchasing age to 21 also advanced through
the House, and the representatives enacted a new $2 rental
car surcharge that would be used to fund municipal police
training. With just one full week of formal sessions
remaining, the House scheduled only an informal session for
Thursday, drawing cheers from the members in the chamber.
State House News Service
HOUSE SESSION - WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2018
FY2019 BUDGET
On a 36 to 1 vote, the Senate approved the
annual budget (H4800) for fiscal 2019 and later enacted it,
sending it to Gov. Charlie Baker 18 days after the start of
the fiscal year. Sen. Jamie Eldridge cast the only vote
against the annual spending bill because it did not include
provisions limiting local law enforcement's inquiries into
immigration status. The Senate also unanimously enacted a $2
fee on rental vehicles to finance police training (H4516),
voted 22-15 to engross a bill (H4546) legalizing community
benefits districts, and found compromise with the House on
legislation (H4486) raising the tobacco purchase age to 21.
Final votes in both branches are still needed to get the
tobacco bill to Baker. Senate President Harriette Chandler
was hoping to send the governor legislation (H4770)
repealing old abortion laws, but by the time the Senate
concurred with the House's amendment the House had already
adjourned for the evening.
State House News Service
SENATE SESSION - WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2018
FY2019 BUDGET
Sen. Crighton said, I rise to speak in
support of H4546 relative to community benefit districts.
Former Sen. Eileen Donoghue and I filed this last session
and it has been thoroughly reviewed and vetted. This body
has three times passed versions of this and it has been to
the governor's desk twice. We hope the third time is a
charm. This is another tool for municipalities and
non-profits throughout the country. Over 1,000 communities
have passed community benefit district legislation.
Municipalities do their best to create environments that
spur economic growth. Community benefit districts can help
by bringing all stakeholders together. These benefits could
include cleaning, lighting, improve walkability, support for
local business or more. First, a group of people must come
together and identify the needs of their neighborhood, then
come up with a detailed plan and a budget. After a vote,
similar to a condo association, the other neighbors would be
paid an assessment to fund the project budget. There are
exemptions for non-profits. The effect of this bill being
passed will be felt almost immediately as there are
communities waiting to launch these districts.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 22 to 15 the bill was ENGROSSED
State House News Service
SENATE SESSION - WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2018
COMMUNITY BENEFIT DISTRICTS (H4546)
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
When the Legislature works late (usually in
the last few cram-days of a legislative session)
― CLT must work even later to
get out what just happened to you.
The House/Senate
conference committee has historically outdone itself in its
Fiscal Year 2019 compromise. In the spring the House
passed its version of the FY2019 budget: $41.065
billion.
A month later the
Senate passed its own version: $41.49 billion.
The compromise between
the two: "Nearly $400 million more
than what either branch approved."
On Bacon Hill that's called "compromise"!
"According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation, the budget deal assumes $667.3 million
in tax revenue above and beyond the estimate agreed
to earlier this year by Democratic legislative
leaders and the Baker administration. With the added
revenue, which follows a year in which collections
exceeded budget benchmarks by $1.1 billion, total
fiscal 2019 spending rises 3.5 percent over fiscal
2018, according to the foundation....
"Doug Howgate, director of policy and research at
the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said he was
not aware of an instance in the last 20 years or so
in which a conference committee produced 'just kind
of an ad hoc increased number based on higher tax
revenues.'
"'I'm not familiar with anything like this year
happening,' he told the News Service."
Both branches suspended their respective
rules requiring sufficient time for legislators to digest
what just got thrown in front of them. Regardless, the
conference committee report was released at 10:00 this
morning ― both the House and
Senate had voted to pass it as-is by 7:00 PM.
In the House, state Rep. Brad Hill
(R-Ipswich) argued: "My concern is the revenue we are
building in relies heavily on capital gains and other
taxes.... For those of us who have been around we have lived
through building budgets on capital gains taxes. When they
get eaten up by a bad economy, if we build our budget on
them I guarantee you that our governor is going to be back
and use 9C powers to cut the very budget we are voting on."
Rep. Hill might have added that when the
wholly unrealistic expectations are not met, the
solution will invariably be the inevitable call for more and
higher taxes to meet the self-inflicted next "fiscal
crisis."
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr
(R-Gloucester) argued:
"It
is wonderful to be here and to see you on this
bright summer afternoon, many days into the fiscal
year. I rise with an inquiry. Pursuant to Rule 11B
in order to facilitate conference reports being read
and understood, my understanding is to be taken up
on the succeeding day it must be filed by 8 p.m. The
report was filed after that time.
"We've
taken all this time. It's taken a couple months to
produce this document. It has roughly $42 billion in
state spending. It was filed at about 10 a.m. It's
now about 3:25. It's difficult to understand the
ramifications in this amount of time. That's why we
suggest it is appropriate not to suspend the rule.
We are saying that we are consciously choosing to
not give ourselves sufficient time to not understand
the contents of the budget, not to derogate the
contents. I do think it is difficult to justify
taking up this document now. It is why the rule was
put into place. We are disadvantaging ourselves and
others. I know we would want to protect
transparency. I hope we vote yes on reconsideration.
We can then discuss what is in the budget."
Regardless of the Senate Rule (in the
Legislature, "rules" are made for appearance, to be
"suspended" [broken] whenever convenient), Rule 11B was
suspended by a vote of 30-7.
Four hours later the Senate had adopted the
$41.88 billion FY2019 state budget ―
and also passed the "Community Benefit Districts"
obscenity, creating an entire new level of government and
taxation.
Apparently a number of state senators had
second thoughts about "Community Benefit Districts."
Fifteen senators voted against it. Nonetheless, it
passed by a vote of 22-15.
HOW DID YOUR SENATOR VOTE
It's been a long day
(and night) so I'll end this now so I can get some sleep.
There will undoubtedly be more analysis in the days ahead ―
once what is included in this spending spree begins to
bubble to the surface and becomes exposed to light.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
Budget negotiators come "out of the woods" with
more money
By Katie Lannan
The $41.88 billion budget deal that was filed
Wednesday morning and quickly approved by the
Legislature includes no new fees, according to
the lead House negotiator, and relies on an
unusual eleventh hour revenue projection upgrade
to boost spending to levels higher than either
the House or Senate approved this spring.
The budget (H 4800), which is on track to reach
Gov. Charlie Baker's desk by the end of the day,
was filed 17 days after the start of the new
fiscal year, and 13 days before the end of
formal legislative sessions, during which
recorded votes can be taken.
House Ways and Means Chairman Jeffrey Sanchez
told reporters Wednesday that he did not think
there was "any one thing" that kept negotiators
from producing an on-time budget, saying he and
his counterpart, Senate Ways and Means
Chairwoman Karen Spilka "kept on going back and
forth."
"They weren't simple policy pieces," Sanchez
told reporters. "At times you have to dive in in
these policy pieces, and you really get stuck in
the woods sometimes. I'm just happy and proud we
got out of the woods and we have a budget before
you that does have significant policy pieces in
it."
The fiscal 2019 budget, which was introduced in
the House just after 2 p.m. and quickly won a
143-6 approval vote; the Senate approved it
36-1.
The $41.88 billion bottom line is nearly $400
million more than what either branch approved.
The budget also anticipates an additional $271
million deposit to the state's rainy day fund,
Sanchez said, a deposit that will address some
concerns about inadequate reserves.
Sanchez said lawmakers tried to balance an
increase in spending with a building up of the
stabilization fund. In a joint statement,
Sanchez and Spilka said the total amount in the
stabilization fund would surpass $2 billion by
the end of fiscal 2019.
The additional spending includes roughly $190
million for what Sanchez characterized as
priorities of both branches, and about $150
million to address structural deficiencies in
accounts like snow and ice removal and the
Committee for Public Counsel Services.
"This offsets the potential need for
supplemental budgets in the future, and makes
sure that we affirm our commitment to fiscal
responsibility," Sanchez said.
According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation, the budget deal assumes $667.3
million in tax revenue above and beyond the
estimate agreed to earlier this year by
Democratic legislative leaders and the Baker
administration. With the added revenue, which
follows a year in which collections exceeded
budget benchmarks by $1.1 billion, total fiscal
2019 spending rises 3.5 percent over fiscal
2018, according to the foundation.
The budget includes House language that would
subject the scandal-plagued State Police to new
oversight in the form of an internal audit unit
and a special legislative commission. It also
does away with a welfare cap under which
families do not receive additional benefits for
a child born after they are already receiving
assistance.
It does not include a Senate proposal to
restrict local authorities' cooperation with
federal immigration enforcement, despite a vocal
push from advocates opposed to a Trump
administration crackdown on illegal immigration.
"In relation to that one piece, there was just
no consensus," Sanchez said.
The budget includes $1,098,945,897 in
unrestricted general government aid and
$4,907,573,321 in Chapter 70 aid to local
schools, along with $5.02 million for state
parks and recreational areas, $7.99 million for
the Cannabis Control Commission, $12.79 million
for youth-at-risk summer jobs, and $161.75
million for emergency assistance family
shelters.
"I think all of us are hopeful and optimistic
that all of the investments and all the work
that we've done this session will lead to
increased growth and increased activity and that
we'll be able to see sustained revenues and
hopefully increased revenues in the future,
especially since our priorities and our wish
list is pretty substantial in terms of how do we
continue to fund the programs that most matter
to the people in the commonwealth," Sanchez
said.
Unlike the past two years, in which slow revenue
growth forced them to mark down available
revenues during their negotiations, budget
conferees this year were able upgrade their
revenue projections.
Doug Howgate, director of policy and research at
the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said he
was not aware of an instance in the last 20
years or so in which a conference committee
produced "just kind of an ad hoc increased
number based on higher tax revenues."
"I'm not familiar with anything like this year
happening," he told the News Service.
Noting that the state was on track to end fiscal
2018 with hundreds of millions more in tax
revenue than originally expected, the foundation
said in a late June report that "a case can be
made for some adjustment" of revenue
projections, provided it resulted in a balance
budget and did not add to the structural deficit
or impact deposits to the stabilization fund.
Once it reaches his desk, Baker will have 10
days to review the budget and issue any vetoes
or amendments. If lawmakers get a spending plan
to the governor this week, they will preserve a
window at the end of the month for them to
override line-item spending vetoes and respond
to any amendments.
"There is a lot in this budget, and I'm excited
to hear what the governor and the administration
say about how we have defined our collective
priorities as a Legislature," Sanchez said.
Baker said Wednesday that he had not had a
chance to review the compromise budget, but
touted the state's performance on education
metrics. "Our school system in Massachusetts is
probably the best in the country," Baker told
reporters after a transportation-related event
in Newton, according to a Masslive.com video.
Sen. Jamie Eldridge voted against the bill
because it did not include a Senate immigration
law enforcement proposal. The House members who
voted against the budget were three Democrats -
Reps. Mike Connolly of Cambridge, Juana Matias
of Lawrence and Denise Provost of Somerville -
and Republican Reps. Nicholas Boldyga of
Southwick, Kevin Kuros of Uxbridge and Jim Lyons
of Andover.
―Michael P.
Norton contributed reporting
State House News Service
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
FISCAL 2019 BUDGET ―
HOUSE
At 2:05 p.m., the House introduced H 4800 the
fiscal 2019 budget conference committee report,
which is based on S 2530 and H 4401.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 107-36, RULES SUSPENDED
Question came on accepting the conference
committee report....
Rep. Hill of Ipswich said he hopes the chair of
Ways and Means can answer a couple of questions.
I see a red flag being waved from yesteryear. My
concern is the additional $340 million added
over what we did in the House. My concern is the
revenue we are building in relies heavily on
capital gains and other taxes. The additional
revenue put into this document, we need to know
what revenues are being used to add that $340
million. For those of us who have been around we
have lived through building budgets on capital
gains taxes. When they get eaten up by a bad
economy, if we build our budget on them I
guarantee you that our governor is going to be
back and use 9C powers to cut the very budget we
are voting on. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
Rep. Donato, in the chair, immediately called to
open the roll call vote on the conference
committee report.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 143-6, FISCAL 2019 BUDGET
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ACCEPTED at 2:36
p.m.
State House News Service
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
FISCAL 2019 BUDGET ―
SENATE
FISCAL 2019 BUDGET: Sen. Rodrigues moved to
suspend the rules so the Senate may consider the
conference committee report.
RECESS: Sen. Tarr asked for a recess and
approached the rostrum. Sen. Timilty joined him.
Time was 3:09 p.m.
Sen. Tarr said, It is wonderful to be here and
to see you on this bright summer afternoon, many
days into the fiscal year. I rise with an
inquiry. Pursuant to Rule 11B in order to
facilitate conference reports being read and
understood, my understanding is to be taken up
on the succeeding day it must be filed by 8 p.m.
The report was filed after that time.
President Chandler said, It was reported this
morning.
Sen. Tarr said, My conclusion therefore is that
this requires suspending Rule 11B. I ask for a
roll call.
President Chandler called a recess. Time was
3:12 p.m.
President Chandler said, As a courtesy to the
House we are taking the bill up now. Suspending
the rules requires a two thirds vote.
There was support for Sen. Tarr's roll call
request.
Sen. Tarr asked for President Chandler's
attention but she had begun the roll call.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 30 to 7 Rule 11B was
SUSPENDED
Sen. Tarr said, I was pre-empted of giving an
explanation and I think that lack of an
explanation led to an unfavorable situation.
We're suspending a rule to give us time to
consider matters before us. This is one of the
most important pieces of legislation. The rule
says if a matter isn't filed by 8 p.m. then it
cannot be considered the following day. That
rule is in place to prevent us from being in the
place we are in, considering the report without
ample opportunity to understand it. We deal with
a report that is the product of tremendous
labor. The House engrossed the budget April 26.
We engrossed ours May 25. It hasn't emerged from
conference until right now. So against all that
work, all the time we waited, and it's regretful
we weren't able to before the beginning of the
fiscal year. We're now asked to consider within
a matter of hours.
Sen. Rodrigues, who had taken over at the
rostrum, asked people to stop talking.
Sen. Tarr said, We've taken all this time. It's
taken a couple months to produce this document.
It has roughly $42 billion in state spending. It
was filed at about 10 a.m. It's now about 3:25.
It's difficult to understand the ramifications
in this amount of time. That's why we suggest it
is appropriate not to suspend the rule. We are
saying that we are consciously choosing to not
give ourselves sufficient time to not understand
the contents of the budget, not to derogate the
contents. I do think it is difficult to justify
taking up this document now. It is why the rule
was put into place. We are disadvantaging
ourselves and others. I know we would want to
protect transparency. I hope we vote yes on
reconsideration. We can then discuss what is in
the budget.
Sen. Spilka said, I thank the passion from the
minority leader and raising some strong points
why we should maybe delay considering this. But
the House did their budget April 26. We all paid
attention. Then the Senate did their budget, and
clearly we were all present during the Senate
budget. We all know what was inn the budget.
There were many days of debate. It concluded and
it went to conference. I'm proud we completed
the conference. Prior years we had to cut over
$800 million. The budget we voted on was
different from what the House and Senate passed.
This bill, thankfully our revenue is doing much
better. We are $1.2 billion over benchmark. We
ended the year $1.2 billion over benchmark.
Basically you combine the House and Senate
budget, and that is what is before you. This is
basically a merger of the two budgets. There are
a few outside sections that were compromised,
but basically the differences are mostly
technical. There are not major differences. I do
want to stress that it is very important that we
get this bill done, and I hope that we can do
this today.
Sen. Tarr said, I appreciate her passion and
work. I also appreciate her simplistic
explanation of what happened in conference,
which defies my understanding. But this is not a
simple merger. There were items from the Senate
budget that I don't think are in the budget
particularly to help police. I understand the
process, and I know how these things work, but
it is not simply a merger of both pieces. There
are good things and concerning things that were
not placed in this budget. This is the product
of a lot of good work. They have spent
incalculable hours on this, and it is in
deference to that that I think we should spend
more time. This Senate has repeatedly voted to
support police training and our leadership on
this should be beyond dispute. I suggest the
gentlelady from Ways and Means has been a strong
advocate. With due respect, it seems appropriate
to take more time to understand this budget
document. I'd love to hear more.
Sen. Tarr moved for a roll call on
reconsideration. There was support.
Sen. Rodrigues said, There are two minutes left
for debate.
Sen. Spilka said, I want to thank the minority
leader and the minority crescent, although I'm
not sure it's a crescent anymore, and the
senators who made municipal police training a
priority. We have passed it before. And I'm
looking forward to passing it in the next bill
we take up after the budget. It will be on the
governor's desk before the week is out I
believe. Our commitment is unwavering. The
police will get tools to protect the public and
their safety.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 8 to 28 the motion for
reconsideration FAILED
President Chandler returned to the rostrum. Time
was 3:43 p.m.
Sen. Tarr said, There seems to be an
ever-changing cast on the rosrtrum, but we like
all of them. We haven't had a chance to read it
ourselves, so I hope the gentlelady from Ashland
can give an explanation of what is in this
document. I'm hoping she can also speak to the
issue of education and what this budget does or
does not do relative to local aid. I'm hoping
she will also touch on other things of
importance. It seems like a long time ago when
we were debating the budget and we tried to
increase resources for local schools. I'm hoping
we will learn the progress was sustained in
conference. And I want to know if there are any
increases in taxes, which many like to overlook
but we like to call attention to. I'd like to
offer my gratitude to the gentlelady from
Ashland and the gentlelady from Salem and the
gentleman from Plymouth. She has been
particularly responsive. We are no longer in a
crescent. We like to call it Minority
Constellation.
President Chandler asked everyone to be seated
and subdue their conversations.
Sen. Spilka said, Thank you to the minority
leader as part of the sparkling constellation
over there. This agreement reflects our strong
ongoing commitment to the people of the
Commonwealth, especially the most vulnerable
among us. This maintains the Senate's
priorities. I'd like to offer thanks to the
conference members. Thanks for your wise
counsel. And the ranking minority member, the
gentleman from Plymouth. This budget provides
$41.88 billion to agencies, residents and
municipalities. While the last two cycles forced
painful cuts, we are very fortunate to see
revenues catch up to the improving economy. We
worked with ANF to better understand how to
forecast the 2019 tax collection so we can base
the budget on realistic revenue. We're poised to
finish with a $1.2 billion surplus. I couldn't
say that last year or the year before. We
thought it was necessary to adjust revenue so we
added $340 million in available tax revenue for
on-budget spending to maintain priorities that
reflect our values. Even with increasing our
budget, it is important to note the fiscal 19 is
only a 1.9 percent increase over spending for
fiscal 18. We were able to keep nearly all
priorities. $4.908 billion for Chapter 70, a 3.4
percent increase over fy18. That starts the FBRC
recommendations. There is $68.9 million for
regional school transportation, which will
provide 80 percent reimbursement. There's $319
million for special education circuit breaker.
That fully funds our obligation. We were unable
to negotiate to the full level for charter
reimbursement, but there is an almost $10M
increase to $90 million. We fund RTAs, getting
cars off the road. We put $5 million to early
education for the preschool partnership, ad $20
million for the early ed salary reserve. We put
record numbers toward housing and homelessness.
We increase opioid addiction funding. We put
funds toward behavioral health where there
hadn't been increases in years. We know we need
to continue to invest. On top of these
investments, we made the choice to better fund
vital accounts. We made $150 million toward CPCS,
emergency shelter, snow and ice removal to
provide stability for the rest of this year,
meaning we hopefully won't need to do a supp for
these items. Our rainy day fund has been too
low. It's not a matter of if, it's when a
recession will happen. We need to build up that
rainy day fund. We did a $290 million deposit
from 2018 capital gains. Based on the current
revenue upgrade, we forecast a net deposit of
$350 million, which will hopefully put it above
$2 billion. We hope we can continue to make more
deposits. We continue our commitment to
residents. I'm proud to note we raised the
earned income tax credit to 30 percent of the
federal credit and we lift the cap on kids
ending an unjust policy that impacts 9,000 kids
across the commonwealth. Continuing to protect
children, we give juvenile courts statutory
authority to protect unaccompanied youth from
deportation. The Trump administration recently
issued a statement that said without a clear
statute, equity jurisdiction was not sufficient.
We seek to strengthen communities with reforms
to State Police, including an annual internal
audit. We look at rewarding sheriffs for
recidivism reduction. We expand access to the
economy to promote state contracts for people
with disabilities. We try to help businesses hit
by EMAC. We take an important step that has been
a priority for the Senate and establish a
permanent tax expenditure unit in DOR. Every
expenditure will be evaluated every five years.
Thank you to my vice chair. To the Senate
president and her staff. I don't know if any of
my staff actually went to sleep last night. I
want to thank the House chair of Ways and Means.
This is a budget I believe we can be proud of.
It's been an honor to craft the budget these
past four years.
Sen. Spilka asked for a roll call. There was
support. Time was 4 p.m. ...
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 36 to 1 the conference
report was ACCEPTED. Time was 4:24 p.m.
[ COMMUNITY BENEFIT DISTRICTS DEBATE
― BELOW
― INSERTED ]
Time was 5:24 p.m.
BUDGET CONFERENCE REPORT -- EP: By a standing
vote of 11-0, the Senate attached an emergency
preamble to H 4800 making appropriations for the
fiscal year 2019 for the maintenance of the
departments, boards, commissions, institutions
and certain activities of the Commonwealth, for
interest, sinking fund and serial bond
requirements and for certain permanent
improvements.
RECESS/RETURN: The Senate recessed at 5:26 p.m.
and returned to order at 5:30 p.m.
FISCAL 2019 BUDGET: The Senate enacted H 4800
making appropriations for the fiscal year 2019
for the maintenance of the departments, boards,
commissions, institutions and certain activities
of the Commonwealth, for interest, sinking fund
and serial bond requirements and for certain
permanent improvements. Time was 6:58 p.m.
State House News Service
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
COMMUNITY BENEFIT DISTRICTS (H4546)
― SENATE
Question came on ordering H 4546 relative to
community benefit districts to a third reading.
Sen. Crighton said, I rise to speak in support
of H 4546 relative to community benefit
districts. Former Sen. Eileen Donoghue and I
filed this last session and it has been
thoroughly reviewed and vetted. This body has
three times passed versions of this and it has
been to the governor's desk twice. We hope the
third time is a charm. This is another tool for
municipalities and non-profits throughout the
country. Over 1,000 communities have passed
community benefit district legislation.
Municipalities do their best to create
environments that spur economic growth.
Community benefit districts can help by bringing
all stakeholders together. These benefits could
include cleaning, lighting, improve walkability,
support for local business or more. First, a
group of people must come together and identify
the needs of their neighborhood, then come up
with a detailed plan and a budget. After a vote,
similar to a condo association, the other
neighbors would be paid an assessment to fund
the project budget. There are exemptions for
non-profits. The effect of this bill being
passed will be felt almost immediately as there
are communities waiting to launch these
districts.
JEHLEN AMENDMENT 1 -- Formation and Renewal
Threshold
Sen. Jehlen said, I am convinced many of our
communities need more revenue, but I don't think
it should be raised in an involuntary
contribution from other members in a particular
district. There are other ways for cities and
towns to raise revenue. You can create a Main
Streets district, they can do the same
activities as one of these districts but they
are voluntary. These are not like a condo
association. If I want to join a condo
association, I buy into it. You can't suddenly
create a condo association in my building.
Business improvement districts are another tool
like community benefit districts but they
require the majority of property owners to
approve, not as in this case people who will pay
a majority of the assessments. The biggest
district is that community benefit district do
not require majority support of the people who
will pay. This disadvantages small property
owners. I find myself in an unusual position of
agreeing with NAIOP. Large property owners have
different interests than the businesses that may
rent from them and those people along with small
owners are disadvantaged. I have seen a lot of
gentrification in my district and that is what
this enables. A large property owner wants
higher value, they may want to improve the
district, to add amenities and then to raise
rents. That disempowers smaller property owners
and business tenants. This amendment would
require a majority support of property owners to
establish a community benefit district. We don't
allow rich people more votes than others. We
have majority rule. A majority of property
owners should decide if there should be an
additional tax.
Sen. Jehlen asked for a roll call vote. There
was sufficient support.
Sen. Crighton said, I rise in opposition of the
amendment. This amendment would essentially
create more challenges to create a community
benefit district. This threshold is an extra
layer that will essentially gut the bill. There
are protections already. I ask you to vote no on
the amendment.
Sen. Eldridge said, I want to join in support of
the amendment to make sure that when we're
talking about even the possibility of creating a
community benefit district, it should be based
on the votes of property owners, not those that
can pay the most. That is a departure from many
votes we have. More big picture, I want to raise
my concern with community benefit districts. I
understand these are well-intentioned but I am
concerned they could create a dynamic where
municipalities are even more influenced than now
by large property owners and large corporations.
I am concerned about a private corporation being
established to provide services to a downtown or
a neighborhood. I want to highlight the language
in the bill about the rights and powers of a
community benefit district -- I ask my
colleagues to think about who will be involved
in these decisions and whether they will benefit
everyone evenly. The large property owners and
developers already have an inordinate amount of
influence and the ability of these entities to
overtake the municipalities is deeply
disturbing. I suggest this is not simply a
progressive issue, this is a concern across
party lines. The language of this bill talks
about property owners, but of course, many small
businesses are not property owners. In
Marlborough, the downtown, many of the
businesses are tenants. The language of the bill
would give those tenants no voice. I think this
is actually an issue of little-d democracy,
concerning working families and small
businesses. It could benefit overwhelmingly
large corporations and large property owners.
Districts would need municipal approval, but my
fear is that property owners and wealthy
developers could further damage our affordable
housing crisis and our downtowns. I wonder what
municipal employees would think about this if
they had more time to read the legislation. I
feel community benefits districts
institutionalize wealth inequality and undermine
the idea of a commonwealth. I urge support of
the amendment.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 15-22, the amendment was
REJECTED. Time was 5:52 p.m.
JEHLEN AMENDMENT 2 -- Board Composition
Sen. Jehlen said, The board of these entities
has enormous power and it only requires that 50
percent of the boards be participants. This adds
business tenants and residents to the boards.
The amendment was REJECTED.
JEHLEN AMENDMENT 3 -- Exempting Small and Local
Businesses
Sen. Jehlen said, The reason I am explaining
these is that I want people to understand the
nature of this bill. These districts are allowed
to exclude non-profits and homeowners. This
amendment would allow them to also exclude
long-term business owners and small business
owners. There is the danger of conflict of
interest between the large developers and the
small long-term business tenants. The big
developers have a different interest than the
small owners and they may want to drive up
rents. That is not to the advantage of the
people who have been in the community for a long
time.
The amendment was REJECTED.
JEHLEN AMENDMENT 4 -- Dissolution
Sen. Jehlen said, This would allow the
municipality to change its mind and rescind the
community benefit district if they found it is
not to their advantage. In the bill, these
districts are immortal and self-perpetuating.
There is no second chance for the municipality.
We can't find future legislators, but these
municipalities will be locked into perpetual,
immortal organizations that can only dissolve
themselves. I want to point out what a pleasure
it is for me to have the gentlemen from Acton
and Webster co-sponsor this amendment. That is a
very bipartisan experience for me.
Sen. Jehlen asked for a roll call vote. There
was sufficient support.
Sen. Crighton said, I rise in opposition. Our
bill includes a very transparent process that
gives local control. As far as the dissolution
goes, there is an extensive process. They do not
live in perpetuity. I ask for a no vote.
Sen. Eldridge said, I agree with the lady from
Somerville. If a community benefit district is
created, how would it be dissolved if the
property owners in it do not like it? It is
important to highlight that the ACLU has very
serious concerns about this entire bill and it
is within the context of creating a private
corporation on public space. What rights are
accorded to people who live there or are passing
by? They might not be a property owner but they
are participating as anyone should in a
community. This, as I said earlier, can be an
issue of small-d democracy. The ACLU has had a
significant impact on a number of bills this
session and I hope all the members take these
concerns seriously. They have issues with
restrictions on free speech and the freedom of
assembly and equal access in public spaces. If
this bill passes, explicitly private
corporations are given the right to own and
manage public facilities. A number of cities
have taken discriminatory actions against people
panhandling or asking for support. Imagine the
power under this bill of a private corporation
hiring a private security guard without the
protections under any form of government.
Imagine private security agents acting on behalf
of this corporation. Will these districts have
to comply with constitutional protections? This
bill is silent on that. I understand that at
first glance this model is maybe a
well-intentioned idea to benefit certain
downtowns. I don't think I have heard any
communication from my communities in favor of
this bill. I urge you to seriously think about
the unintended consequences of passing this
bill, particularly on small businesses and
working families. I urge you to vote for this
amendment to at least make it easier to dissolve
these districts.
Sen. Pacheco said, I too have some concerns
about this bill and I was told we had actually
supported this bill in the past in other forms.
That may be the case, but I have not had any
opposition brought to my attention about the
bill until most recently. I found out about it
earlier today and in checking around, I have
become increasingly concerned about what could
happen not only in the community benefit
districts but also in terms of the municipal
workforce throughout the commonwealth. I know
the labor organization that has the most
interest at the municipal level is AFSCME. I
just got off the phone with them and I am told
they do have some concerns about the language
that we are considering at this time. If the
ACLU has some concerns and AFSCME leadership has
concerns, then I have some concerns about it. I
want to congratulate the gentleman carrying the
bill for his work on this and sometimes
legislation you don't really know until
something comes on the floor where the concerns
happen to be. I am worried about municipal parks
and playgrounds and services in neighborhoods
that should be maintained by a municipal
government in the best way that they can
possibly maintain those services. I would hate
to have a situation sometime in the future when
some sections of a city will have
extraordinarily well-maintained parks and
playground and in other areas of the city, you
wouldn't want to drive through there because
they don't have the supplemental assistance that
should be provided by all the citizens of a
municipality.
Sen. Pacheco stated a point of parliamentary
inquiry. He said, we are at engrossment and I
understand this will go to the House next. They
will need to enact it and it will come back to
us for enactment. If there are any amendments
then the House could simply agree to those and
enact and send it back to us. Is that correct?
President Chandler said, The House would have to
concur in our amendments and it would go back to
the House for enactment. A two-part process.
Sen. Pacheco said, I don't want to hold this
bill up necessarily, but I want to make sure I
have the answers I am trying to get on the bill.
I have made a few phone calls and am waiting to
hear back. I will vote for the bill to move
forward to go back to the House in any version
but I will have some time hopefully to get
questions answered before enactment. Thank you.
Sen. O'Connor Ives said, I am a co-sponsor of
the bill and do support it. I like this
amendment, I think it is a common-sense
safeguard. We can't control how this will pan
out across the state and this amendment would
simply allow the reset button to be pressed when
this district is applied on the ground. This
amendment provides a common sense provision,
even though the intention of the bill itself is
very, very good. I don't see a downside to
having a quicker course to dissolution if the
district is not working. Where they are
successful, this will not come to pass.
Sen. Cyr said, I want to chime in in opposition
of the amendment. This is a good bill and it
merits our support. As chairman of the community
development committee, I got to hear from
stakeholders on this bill and think it equips
communities to address a need we have. Both the
committee and the Senate have done due
diligence, we voted on this bill several times
prior to my tenure. First, in the 2016 economic
development bill and in 2018 we did this in the
budget. Now this has been in the public and the
legislative eye. As the chair of the committee,
these concerns were not brought to me or my
committee and have not been heard. We are on
record supporting this before. By sending back
amendments to the House, we likely kill the bill
for the session. I appreciate helpful policy
suggestions, but this has been well vetted.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 14-23, the amendment was
REJECTED. Time was 6:32 p.m.
ELDRIDGE AMENDMENT 5 -- Exemption Expansion
The amendment was REJECTED.
ELDRIDGE AMENDMENT 6 -- Approval Timeline
Sen. Eldridge said, This amendment would extend
the amount of time for a municipality to
consider a community benefit district from 180
days to one year. That deadline could create
more pressure to approve a community benefit
district. One year would make sure there is
enough time for all stakeholders to weigh in.
The amendment was REJECTED.
ELDRIDGE AMENDMENT 7 -- Tenants' Rights
Sen. Eldridge said, For those uncertain of the
merits of the bill, I ask you to vote yes on
this amendment. This would make sure that when a
downtown or neighborhood is creating a community
benefit district tenants have the same rights.
This would make sure a tenant would have the
same voting power to decide whether it is in the
interest of the community to create a district.
This amendment also requires notice. The
tenants, the small business in that downtown,
does not have to be notified under the bill
unless this amendment passes. The tenants must
be informed and there must be discussion around
the formation of a community benefit district.
Not everyone will not a community benefit
district is proposed. Those that are less
powerful will not know. I feel very strongly
about this amendment. If you have any concerns
about the entire bill, it is critical to make
sure tenants have the same voice and rights as
large corporations.
Sen. Eldridge asked for a roll call vote. There
was sufficient support.
Sen. Crighton said, I rise in opposition. There
is already a transparent process in the bill and
there are public hearing reporting requirements.
More importantly, this bill already allows
tenants to have a key role by being up to 49
percent of the community benefit district board.
I respect the intent, but I ask for a vote in
the negative.
Sen. Eldridge said, The gentleman from Lynn
noted what the bill would allow for tenants. He
is correct that 49 percent may represent
residents and tenants, but my concern is that
the board may or may not include tenants and
small businesses, but 51 percent of the property
owners would have a greater say and the makeup
of the board does not have to include tenants.
My amendment would make sure tenants are
notified of the vote and that they have an equal
vote or say of what is happening in their
communities.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 10-27, the amendment was
REJECTED. Time was 6:44 p.m.
The bill was ordered to a third reading.
Sen. Jehlen asked for the attention of the
chair.
Sen. Jehlen said, I want to say that it is
unusual here that we have divided votes that
people bring their disagreements this far and I
think it's a good thing that we reveal to the
public that we're not in lockstep all the time.
I do think it was not a good thing that it
happened under such a time frame. I became aware
of the bill yesterday. We received information
since debate began about opposition. I began
worrying about small businesses and residents. I
learned about municipal workers. I learned about
concerns about civil liberties, about one person
one vote. I learned about the concern about
unequal services. I have in my district Assembly
Row, which has special services there that are
different from what is available across 93 in
East Somerville. I wish we had a chance to talk
about it in more detail. The gentleman from Lynn
is worried that any amendment will cause its
defeat. That is not the usual process.
Sen. Jehlen asked for a roll call. There was
support.
Sen. Pacheco said, I too am fairly concerned
about this bill, but as I said earlier I will
support it going over to the House. Until I'm
able to get my questions answered. If I find out
my concerns are justified, when the bill comes
back for enactment, I will be voting no. There
are enough provisions that allow me to believe -
and this is from a co-sponsor of the BID
districts, very different. I believe we could be
unleashing the opportunity for outsourcing and
privatization of municipal services across the
state in this bill. And if that's what I find
out what could be done, I will vote no. People
think I'm being a problem here. Any member could
have – throughout this process – taken any of
the amendments and asked for them to be printed
in the calendar. That would mean we have until
tomorrow for us to have an opportunity to read
the amendments and check them out. I could lay
the matter on the table. It comes up at the next
session. Everyone is entitled to do that up
until I believe the 23rd. I'm not going to
invoke those rights. I'm going to allow it to go
forward because the gentleman has done a lot of
work. Some members of labor have told the
gentleman they are OK with it. I've heard from
labor that they have concerns about the bill. I
just don't want to see us go down another road
of privatization that has been what we've seen
at the state level, at the municipal level. I'll
support it on the condition that we don't allow
that.
Sen. Crighton said, While I want my remarks to
be brief, the process has been anything but
brief. It went through the committee process. We
really believe this is a bill all sides can
rally around and support. It's passed this body
three times. It's an example of good government.
While the governor vetoed this in the past,
hopefully we have a product everyone can be
proud of.
President Chandler said, This is listening time.
Sen. Crighton said, About privatization. We have
not heard any concerns about labor that I'm
aware of. It is very clearly defined that these
are supplemental services. There's also an MOU
that could be put into effect. I think we've
come a long way.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 22 to 15 the bill was
ENGROSSED
Sen. Rodrigues took over at the gavel and called
a brief recess. Time was 7:03 p.m. |
| |
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
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|
