 |
Post Office Box 1147
▪
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
46 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Saturday, July 11, 2020
AGAIN — Another end-run around Prop 2½
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
Most Relevant News Excerpts
(Full news reports follow
Commentary)
|
The Senate will
not take up a House-approved, half billion-dollar package of
transportation tax and fee increases this lawmaking session,
instead focusing attention on an omnibus borrowing bill that
the Senate's Transportation Committee chairman believes can
be fully funded without new revenues.
Sen. Joe
Boncore, who like House Speaker Robert DeLeo lives in
Winthrop, told the News Service that the $16.9 billion
transportation bond bill that will hit the Senate floor
next week will be the only major legislation his branch
considers on that topic before the July 31 end of formal
sessions for 2020.
The borrowing
bill addresses the Senate's main policy and capital
spending goals for transportation, Boncore said, adding
that the multibillion-dollar budget shortfalls created
by the COVID-19 pandemic pushed any tax hikes this year
off the table.
"This COVID
crisis has created a really unpredictable revenue
situation for the commonwealth, and it's shifted, I
think, the conversation from a discussion that was
isolated to transportation improvement to a broader
debate on what the state needs as a whole for revenue
going forward," Boncore said.
"When the
long-term economic outlook becomes clear and we can
better assess what the state needs as a whole, post-COVID,
then we can begin the conversation again about what
revenues we'll need," he added.
The Senate's
decision effectively kills any chances of final action
in the 2019-2020 session toward generating new funding
from transportation sources -- which would have included
the first state gas tax increases since 2013 -- and
directing it toward an aging transit system, suffocating
congestion and crumbling infrastructure.
If they still
wish to pursue more transportation revenue, an area that
had been one of the most high-profile topics on Beacon
Hill until the virus hit, lawmakers must start the
process again from scratch next year....
After the
Senate's proposed borrowing bill (S 2813) cleared its
Ways and Means Committee on Friday, lawmakers scheduled
it for a July 16 formal session.
The
legislation would authorize $16.9 billion in borrowing
to be directed to a range of road, bridge and public
transit investments, though Boncore said the bottom line
could grow via amendments on the floor....
Asked if the
state could afford a minimum of $16.9 billion in
borrowing over the next several years without additional
revenue as the Senate suggested, Boncore answered,
"absolutely."
"The
conversation on revenue -- it's just not applicable to
capital budgets," he said. "We did a very similar bond
bill five years ago at $14 billion, and since then,
revenues generally have grown over 20 percent. That more
than compensates for the needs of this transportation
bond bill." ...
The Senate's
bond bill also includes a number of policy changes, some
of which had been previously supported by the House and
governor and some of which would be new steps for the
Legislature....
In addition,
cities and towns would gain authorization to embrace
regional ballot initiatives under the Senate bill,
effectively opening the gates for communities to propose
and adopt their own taxes and fees aimed at funding
transportation needs....
Lawmakers face
a tight timeline to finalize a transportation borrowing
bill. After July 31, they cannot take any recorded roll
call votes, which renders almost all major legislation
that may draw opposition impossible.
State House
News Service
Friday, July 10, 2020
Senate to Tackle Transportation
With Borrowing, Not Taxes
Boncore: COVID-19 Has Shifted Debate on Revenues
The
Massachusetts Senate closed the door on an increase in
the gas tax this year, citing the economic wreckage from
the coronavirus for departing from counterparts in the
House, who want a higher level to finance a package of
transportation improvements.
The House of
Representatives had previously voted to raise the gas
tax by 5 cents, among other revenue measures, and the
Senate also seemed likely to raise revenues for a
transportation bill. But that was four months ago,
before the onslaught of the pandemic that has put
hundreds of thousands of people out of work and slowed
economic growth to a near halt.
For weeks, the
Senate hinted it may eschew what once seemed an
inevitable vote to raise the gas tax. And on Friday,
Senator Joseph Boncore, the chamber’s transportation
chairman, seemed to rule out any kind of revenue
increase for now.
“You’re not
going to see anything like that out of the Senate this
session,” the Winthrop Democrat said in an interview.
“You won’t see a gas tax [increase] when unemployment is
16 percent across the Commonwealth.”
The
declaration came as the Senate unveiled a $17 billion
bill to authorize borrowing on transportation projects
across the state, including money for mega-projects such
as the expansion of commuter rail service to
Southeastern Massachusetts, and the rebuildng of the
Massachusetts Turnpike through Allston....
The House
argued that new revenue was required to fund such
large-scale improvements. Boncore disagrees.
“We can
absolutely afford this bill, even at $18 billion,
without any new revenue,” he said.
The House and
Senate now seem fated for a debate about who’s right. If
the Senate does not consider a revenue increase, the
House may balk at adding to the state’s debt levels at a
time when existing tax revenues have also plummeted.
“If you’re
going to spend more than a certain amount than the
revenue permits these days, then it seems to me you have
to find a way to pay for it,” said William Straus, the
House’s transportation chairman. “I don’t see where the
ability to spend at that level comes from.” ...
Boncore noted
that Senate’s borrowing bill, which the chamber expects
to vote on next week, could still eventually lead to new
revenue as well. For example, it includes provisions
that would allow local governments to band together and
create regional ballot questions, asking local voters
whether to raise taxes to fund targeted transportation
projects.
The Boston
Globe
Friday, July 10, 2020
Gas tax increase looks doubtful for
this year
The Massachusetts Senate said it is not planning to
approve a tax increase
to finance a package of ambitious transportation
improvements.
. . . Also
Friday, the Senate passed a bill to allow restaurants to
offer to-go cocktails as a business boost in the
coronavirus era. A $16.9 billion transportation bond
bill was teed up for debate next Thursday with
amendments due on Monday afternoon. . . .
State House
News Service
Friday, July 10, 2020
Senate Session Summary
[Excerpt]
Speaking of
differences of opinion, Sen. Joseph Boncore said out
loud on Friday what had been becoming clearer for
several weeks -- the Senate will not be taking up a
transportation revenue bill this session.
The Senate is
finally moving forward with a $17 billion, multi-year
borrowing bill for infrastructure improvements, but new
taxes and fees approved by the House in March have been
put on ice in the upper chamber.
State House
News Service
Friday, July 10, 2020
Weekly Roundup - A Bridge Too Far
The Democrats
who run the Legislature and are prone to procrastination
are again looking at another chaotic few weeks before
formal sessions come to an end on July 31....
On top of all
that, there's just one week on the 2020 calendar before
Democrats cede some of their power to Republican Gov.
Charlie Baker and the small GOP minority in the General
Court. Baker has not often played hardball with
Democrats, but could gain leverage over major bills if
lawmakers fail to get those bills to his desk by July
20. To guarantee that they will be able to deal with any
amendments or vetoes from the governor by July 31,
lawmakers need to give themselves a 10-day cushion since
Baker has ten days to act on any bill.
State House
News Service
Friday, July 10, 2020
Advances - Week of July 12, 2020
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
After investing every day
all week searching for, reading, and aggregating all the
Beacon Hill news relevant to taxpayers
— late yesterday a
bombshell exploded in my face and negated all that news
and work which preceded.
The Senate Ways and Means Committee's
released its report on a Senate transportation bond bill
(S-2813), entirely replacing the House's version (H-4547) — which revealed a major new
assault on our Proposition 2½.
Section 5 of the
Senate's transportation bond bill is titled "Local and Regional
Transportation Initiatives." Its twelve pages of the 61-page bill
creates a new means of circumventing Prop 2½
by providing cities and towns a method of funding municipal
transportation costs through — basically — another form of
override/debt exclusion, outside and beyond the restrictions of
Proposition 2½.
It's a way of
moving municipal roadway funding and maintenance, snow-plowing and
potholes "off-budget," freeing up property tax and excise tax
revenue to be spent on other things. In part it states:
Section 2(c):
"Notwithstanding chapters 59, 60A, 62 or 64H or any other
general or special law to the contrary, the governing body of a
city or town may vote to accept this chapter authorizing a
surcharge on a single subject of taxation. A governing body that
intends to accept this chapter 23 of 61 shall determine a single
subject of taxation to be levied and the amount and rate of
surcharge on the single subject of taxation prior to approval by
the voters. If the identified single subject of taxation is a
real or personal property excise, the amount of the surcharge
shall not be included in a calculation of total taxes assessed
for purposes of section 21C of chapter 59."
Note the
cited chapters that are "notwithstanding" (translation: can
be ignored). The final one, above, is the most
obvious:
". . . If the
identified single subject of taxation is a real or personal
property excise, the amount of the surcharge shall not be
included in a calculation of total taxes assessed for purposes
of section 21C of chapter 59."
Section
21C of Chapter 59 is the heart of
Proposition 2½:
Section 21C: Limitations on total taxes assessed;
determination by voters.
The opening chapters cited —
"Notwithstanding chapters 59, 60A, 62 or 64H or any other
general or special law to the contrary" refer to:
Chapter 59:
ASSESSMENT OF LOCAL TAXES
Chapter 60A: EXCISE
TAX ON REGISTERED MOTOR VEHICLES IN LIEU OF LOCAL TAX
Chapter 62:
TAXATION OF INCOMES
Chapter 64H:
TAX ON RETAIL SALES OF CERTAIN TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
The first two of those are
directly tied to Prop 2½.
Your property tax
or your auto excise are target-rich environments for increase,
"notwithstanding" Proposition 2½.
Under S-2813 any one of the following
classes of taxation can be unilaterally increased by a city or town,
or jointly if two or more form together as a "district," upon
approval of the voters: “'Single subject of taxation', sales,
real or personal property, room occupancy or vehicle excise."
A qualifying “transportation project”
is defined as "a project or program for the planning, design or
construction of public or mass transportation transit systems,
transit-oriented development, roads, bridges, bikeways, pedestrian
pathways or other transportation-related projects."
Any new municipal tax adopted will be
in addition to the limits imposed by Proposition 2½.
You can find and read or download a
copy of S-2813 with my highlights of the most relevant parts
(starting on Page 21 through 33)
HERE.
The full text of Section 5 can also be
found at below, at the bottom of the full news
reports.
If the Legislature can move "roads and
bridges" funds off-budget for municipalities (much like
enterprise funds), how long before there's a separate tax for,
say "education" or fire and police public safety"
— all the traditional things expected from
municipal government's role? You want schools, police,
a fire department, then vote to pay more —
while your city or town officials spend its usual budget on
pay raises and benefits for its public employees or other
boondoggles.
The bill was released yesterday.
Senators have until Monday afternoon to file any amendments.
The Senate is expected to vote on S-2813 on Thursday in a formal
session.
CLT will send out a memo to every
senator, and as a news release statewide, I expect tomorrow.
Please contact your own senator and
tell him or her that you oppose Section 5 "Local and Regional
Transportation Ballot Initiatives" —
ask them to remove it from the bill.
I expect the argument we will hear is:
"Proposition 2½ already has provisions for
overrides and debt exclusions, so what's the problem?"
The answer is:
"Proposition 2½ already has provisions
for overrides and debt exclusions, so what's the need?"
FIND YOUR STATE SENATOR HERE
The good news is
that the Senate is butting heads again with the House, rejecting any
tax increase whatsoever in its transportation bill. That is a
complete upending of the usual dynamic with the House (if either
chamber) as the bulwark against tax hikes. Nobody seems to
know what this means for any transportation bill being agreed to
before the clock runs out for the Legislature on July 31 — if in
fact it does recess as required, and doesn't return until January.
Senate
Transportation Committee Chairman Joe Boncore, when asked if the
state could afford a minimum of $16.9 billion in borrowing over the
next several years without additional revenue as the Senate
asserted, replied, "absolutely."
"The conversation
on revenue — it's just not applicable to capital budgets," Boncore
said. "We did a very similar bond bill five years ago at $14
billion, and since then, revenues generally have grown over 20
percent. That more than compensates for the needs of this
transportation bond bill."
The world truly
has been turned upside-down.
The House on
March 4 voted to raise the
gas tax by 5 cents, among other revenue grabs, which was
expected to generate $600 million annually toward its $18 billion
transportation borrowing bill, so I see little if any room for
compromise among the two acrimonious chambers and the time's running
out.
There is so much
I can add, but I want to get this to you ASAP.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
Full News Reports Follow
(excerpted above)
|
State House
News Service
Friday, July 10, 2020
Senate to Tackle Transportation With Borrowing, Not Taxes
Boncore: COVID-19 Has Shifted Debate on Revenues
By Chris Lisinski
The Senate will not take up a House-approved, half
billion-dollar package of transportation tax and fee
increases this lawmaking session, instead focusing attention
on an omnibus borrowing bill that the Senate's
Transportation Committee chairman believes can be fully
funded without new revenues.
Sen. Joe Boncore, who like House Speaker Robert DeLeo lives
in Winthrop, told the News Service that the $16.9 billion
transportation bond bill that will hit the Senate floor next
week will be the only major legislation his branch considers
on that topic before the July 31 end of formal sessions for
2020.
The borrowing bill addresses the Senate's main policy and
capital spending goals for transportation, Boncore said,
adding that the multibillion-dollar budget shortfalls
created by the COVID-19 pandemic pushed any tax hikes this
year off the table.
"This COVID crisis has created a really unpredictable
revenue situation for the commonwealth, and it's shifted, I
think, the conversation from a discussion that was isolated
to transportation improvement to a broader debate on what
the state needs as a whole for revenue going forward,"
Boncore said.
"When the long-term economic outlook becomes clear and we
can better assess what the state needs as a whole, post-COVID,
then we can begin the conversation again about what revenues
we'll need," he added.
The Senate's decision effectively kills any chances of final
action in the 2019-2020 session toward generating new
funding from transportation sources -- which would have
included the first state gas tax increases since 2013 -- and
directing it toward an aging transit system, suffocating
congestion and crumbling infrastructure.
If they still wish to pursue more transportation revenue, an
area that had been one of the most high-profile topics on
Beacon Hill until the virus hit, lawmakers must start the
process again from scratch next year.
One day before it approved its own version of an $18 billion
borrowing bill in March, the House passed a bill authorizing
hikes to the state's gasoline and diesel taxes, corporate
minimum excise tax and ride-hailing fees as well as applying
the sales tax to purchase of rental cars.
Democratic leaders at the time projected the increases would
generate $522 million to $612 million per year in revenue ,
though their bill did not prescribe how to spend all of that
additional money.
The legislation had been developed behind closed doors for
months and ultimately passed 113-40.
While criticizing the Senate's unsuccessful attempts to
increase road and bridge repair funding without a parallel
revenue boost, House Speaker Robert DeLeo said last month he
does not believe the tax and fee hikes can wait.
"I don't think we can take a year off in terms of paying
attention to this issue," DeLeo said. "Most importantly, as
part of the House bill, we had a mechanism, we took the
tough vote, in terms of making sure there was financing to
back up exactly what we did."
After the Senate's proposed borrowing bill (S 2813) cleared
its Ways and Means Committee on Friday, lawmakers scheduled
it for a July 16 formal session.
The legislation would authorize $16.9 billion in borrowing
to be directed to a range of road, bridge and public transit
investments, though Boncore said the bottom line could grow
via amendments on the floor.
Many of the largest figures mirror what the House approved,
including $5.6 billion for federal highway system projects
and $695 million for the Green Line Extension project. The
Senate version increased funding for non-federally aided
highways $250 million over the House version to $2 billion
and added another $25 million to the South Coast Rail
expansion, bringing the project's total funding in the bill
to $850 million.
The MBTA would receive $3.26 billion, plus a $300 million
direct capital transfer under the Senate's bill.
In March, the House Ways and Means Committee prepared a
$14.5 billion version of a transportation bond bill that
increased to about $18 billion through amendments. Gov.
Charlie Baker also proposed a roughly $18 billion version of
a multi-year transportation borrowing bill with similar
levels of capital investment.
House leaders argued in the spring that the governor's
suggestion called for too much borrowing and spending and
that the money "isn't fully there" to support it without
more revenue.
Asked if the state could afford a minimum of $16.9 billion
in borrowing over the next several years without additional
revenue as the Senate suggested, Boncore answered,
"absolutely."
"The conversation on revenue -- it's just not applicable to
capital budgets," he said. "We did a very similar bond bill
five years ago at $14 billion, and since then, revenues
generally have grown over 20 percent. That more than
compensates for the needs of this transportation bond bill."
Debt service payments on long-term capital spending are made
out of the state's operating budget, and the dynamics around
that budget have been shaken by the pandemic, the economic
shutdowns it forced, and estimates that state tax
collections will fall by billions of dollars, making big
investments a lot more unlikely.
The Senate's bond bill also includes a number of policy
changes, some of which had been previously supported by the
House and governor and some of which would be new steps for
the Legislature.
Under the bill, the MBTA would be able to pay capital worker
salaries from bond sources instead of from operating funds,
a change T officials have been pushing for to free up
resources and lessen pressure on the budget.
The Senate included language imposing new data-collection
requirements on ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft
and decriminalizing fare evasion on the MBTA, both of which
Baker proposed in separate pieces of legislation.
Boncore said the Senate and governor "see eye to eye" on the
importance of reducing punishments for failure to pay a
public transit fare.
The new bond bill also orders the state Department of
Transportation to implement a means-tested fare option on
both regional transit authorities and the MBTA by 2022.
Transportation leaders have been exploring a similar idea,
but the Senate proposal sets a firm statutory deadline for
low-income fares to become a reality.
MassDOT would also need to study deploying a mileage-based
revenue system, where drivers pay based on how much distance
they drive rather than based on the use of specifically
tolled roads. A separate commission would study and make
recommendations about the adoption of "regionally equitable
roadway pricing and congestion pricing mechanisms."
Senate President Karen Spilka, an Ashland Democrat whose
region relies on the tolled Massachusetts Turnpike, has
pushed for more highways that currently are not tolled to
impose charges on drivers as a way of fairly distributing
costs.
In addition, cities and towns would gain authorization to
embrace regional ballot initiatives under the Senate bill,
effectively opening the gates for communities to propose and
adopt their own taxes and fees aimed at funding
transportation needs.
Boncore said that the Senate's bond bill and many other
pieces of legislation have been refracted "through a special
lens dealing with racial justice" following widespread
protests against police brutality and systemic racism. The
bill highlights equity issues by decriminalizing fare
evasion and prioritizing low-income fares, he said.
"With the ridership being so depleted in the COVID crisis,
how people are going to return to work, who the customers
are -- we're going to be dealing with, not just on the core
system of the MBTA but on the commuter rail system, that
could look very different post-COVID," Boncore said. "We
want to address and ensure that all people have access in an
equitable way to public transportation."
Lawmakers face a tight timeline to finalize a transportation
borrowing bill. After July 31, they cannot take any recorded
roll call votes, which renders almost all major legislation
that may draw opposition impossible.
Baker has pushed for billions in borrowing to fund
transportation capital projects, but his views on proposals
such as mandatory low-income fares or congestion pricing are
less clear.
If Democratic leaders that hold supermajorities in both
branches want to guarantee passage of any of those pieces,
they would need to get the bill to Baker with at least 10
days before the end of sessions so they could have a chance
to override a potential gubernatorial veto.
That veto-proof deadline falls around July 20, which would
leave the House and Senate only a few days to complete
private negotiations on a final version once the Senate
approves its bill.
"We have no choice but to reach a compromise on a bond bill
because it funds our major transportation infrastructure for
the next five years," Boncore said. "We know what that state
of disrepair number is, and it's growing every day we don't
we don't do something."
The Boston
Globe
Friday, July 10, 2020
Gas tax increase looks doubtful for this year
The Massachusetts Senate said it is not planning to approve a
tax increase
to finance a package of ambitious transportation improvements.
By Adam Vaccaro
The Massachusetts Senate closed the door on an increase in the
gas tax this year, citing the economic wreckage from the
coronavirus for departing from counterparts in the House, who
want a higher level to finance a package of transportation
improvements.
The House of Representatives had previously voted to raise the
gas tax by 5 cents, among other revenue measures, and the Senate
also seemed likely to raise revenues for a transportation bill.
But that was four months ago, before the onslaught of the
pandemic that has put hundreds of thousands of people out of
work and slowed economic growth to a near halt.
For weeks, the Senate hinted it may eschew what once seemed an
inevitable vote to raise the gas tax. And on Friday, Senator
Joseph Boncore, the chamber’s transportation chairman, seemed to
rule out any kind of revenue increase for now.
“You’re not going to see anything like that out of the Senate
this session,” the Winthrop Democrat said in an interview. “You
won’t see a gas tax [increase] when unemployment is 16 percent
across the Commonwealth.”
The declaration came as the Senate unveiled a $17 billion bill
to authorize borrowing on transportation projects across the
state, including money for mega-projects such as the expansion
of commuter rail service to Southeastern Massachusetts, and the
rebuildng of the Massachusetts Turnpike through Allston.
A transportation bill passed by the House of Representatives in
March would have raised more than $600 million from the gas tax
increase, new fees on Uber and Lyft rides, changes to the
state’s corporate tax system, and other sources. The House also
passed a sizable borrowing bill of its own.
The House argued that new revenue was required to fund such
large-scale improvements. Boncore disagrees.
“We can absolutely afford this bill, even at $18 billion,
without any new revenue,” he said.
The House and Senate now seem fated for a debate about who’s
right. If the Senate does not consider a revenue increase, the
House may balk at adding to the state’s debt levels at a time
when existing tax revenues have also plummeted.
“If you’re going to spend more than a certain amount than the
revenue permits these days, then it seems to me you have to find
a way to pay for it,” said William Straus, the House’s
transportation chairman. “I don’t see where the ability to spend
at that level comes from.”
A smaller-scale version of this debate played out recently, when
the House and Senate each separately voted to allow $300 million
in borrowing to fund fixes to local roads, but settled on only
$200 million later because of the budgetary impacts of the virus
and uncertainty about transportation revenue.
Transit advocates have in recent weeks lobbied the Senate at
public events and online campaigns to take up the House bill,
and were unhappy with Boncore’s position Friday.
“The House stepped up in the pre-COVID era with ideas it put on
the table, and it’s disappointing that, at least for now, the
Senate isn’t doing its part,” said Chris Dempsey, director of
the advocacy group Transportation for Massachusetts. “What we’ve
heard from the Senate for months now, pre-COVID and even during
COVID, is that the transportation status quo is not working.
More investments and resources for transportation have to be
part of the broader solution.”
Two other potential transportation revenue sources still linger
outside the Legislature. The Baker administration is working
with several other state governments on a regional policy that
would establish a cap-and-trade system on fuel distributors to
invest in transit, electric vehicles, and other green
transportation initiatives. Although Governor Charlie Baker has
said he opposes a gas tax increase, this initiative would result
in higher prices at the pump for motorists.
Meanwhile, progressive activists continue to push for a 2022
ballot question that would raise the income tax on earnings over
$1 million and funnel the money toward transportation and
education.
Boncore noted that Senate’s borrowing bill, which the chamber
expects to vote on next week, could still eventually lead to new
revenue as well. For example, it includes provisions that would
allow local governments to band together and create regional
ballot questions, asking local voters whether to raise taxes to
fund targeted transportation projects. The bill would also
establish a commission that the House included in its bill to
study new ways to use tolls, such as a congestion pricing system
that puts a price on entering crowded urban areas.
The Senate bill also includes provisions meant to help needy
travelers, such as requiring the MBTA to work with health and
human service officials to establish a low-income fare. The T
has long said it plans to launch such an initiative, but recent
debates at the agency have centered on how to pay for it.
State House News
Service
Friday, July 10, 2020
Weekly Roundup - A Bridge Too Far
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Matt Murphy
Rebuilding the two bridges over the Cape Cod canal? Sure.
Rebuilding the foundation of policing in Massachusetts? Not as
easy.
The Baker administration and the Army Corps of Engineers reached
an agreement this week that will see the federal agency assume
the responsibility of replacing the two aging bridges that
connect Cape Cod with the rest of Massachusetts.
After the years-long construction project at a cost of $1.4
billion to $1.6 billion to the Corps is complete, the state will
assume ownership and control of the Bourne and Sagamore spans,
hoping they'll last another 85 years.
"It's a new chapter in Cape Cod's history," U.S. Rep. William
Keating said, giving his enthusiastic endorsement of the
arrangement.
Writing the new script for how police should behave and be held
accountable for that behavior proved to be a more daunting task.
The week began with high hopes for supporters anxious to
solidify a response to the police violence that led to weeks of
street demonstrations, but it ended in frustration.
Senate President Karen Spilka, Sen. Sonia-Chang Diaz and Sen.
William Brownsberger on Monday rolled out an expansive effort
that would license law enforcement officers at all levels of
government and ban the use of tactics like chokeholds that have
come under scrutiny since the killing of George Floyd.
But the 73-page bill also would do much more. So much more. And
the wide-ranging set of ideas for how to improve policing in
Massachusetts, including new limits on qualified immunity from
civil suits, didn't stop senators from filing 145 amendments
before the debate was supposed to start on Thursday.
For Sen. Ryan Fattman, enough was enough. The Sutton Republican
laid the bill on the table Thursday afternoon, and put a hold on
it again Friday, setting up a rare Saturday session when he may
simply elect to delay again.
"We all want to get to yes. We're just not there yet. It's not
ready for prime time. Hopefully we get there," Fattman said. And
he wasn't alone.
Sen. John Keenan, a Quincy Democrat, came to Fattman's defense,
demonstrating that it wasn't just the Republicans suggesting
senators deserved more time to review such a consequential bill.
This type of holdup seemed to be exactly what Rep. Carlos
Gonzalez had in mind when he wrote to Spilka, House Speaker
Robert DeLeo and Gov. Charlie Baker earlier in the week and
asked them not to let the pressure to bulk up the police bill
jeopardize the five or six core reforms sought by the
Massachusetts Black and Latino Legislative Caucus.
Gov. Baker agreed with Gonzalez, who chairs the MBLLC, writing
back that he thought this was a "rare opportunity to act quickly
and concisely" to create a structure to license police across
Massachusetts and hold them to a set of standards.
While that still may be possible, the chance to do it quickly
and concisely may be gone. And with the House yet to write its
own bill, the July 31 deadline to get Baker something he can
sign seems awfully close.
Secretary of State William Galvin, however, demonstrated this
week how even after the Legislature passes a bill and the
governor signs it into law, there can still be holdups.
Baker signed a major expansion of voting-by-mail for the late
summer and fall elections, but now there's a question about
whether Galvin, the state's chief elections officer, will be
able to comply with the new law.
Galvin said he doesn't have the money to mail the applications
for mail-in ballots to the more than 4.5 million registered
voters, and the Legislature hasn't authorized any money for him
to spend. The applications are supposed to be in the mail by
next Wednesday, but the secretary disagrees with voting rights
advocates who believe the $8.2 million in CARES Act funding
received by the state for voting expenses can be used to mail
the applications.
Galvin believes there's a difference between mailing actual
ballots, and mailing an application for a ballot. Enter U.S.
Rep. Joseph Kennedy III, who jumped in with an "urgent request"
seeking clarity from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission
over whether CARES Act funds can be used for the postage on
ballot applications.
In the meantime, Galvin has made the application available for
download on his website.
Speaking of differences of opinion, Sen. Joseph Boncore said out
loud on Friday what had been becoming clearer for several weeks
-- the Senate will not be taking up a transportation revenue
bill this session.
The Senate is finally moving forward with a $17 billion,
multi-year borrowing bill for infrastructure improvements, but
new taxes and fees approved by the House in March have been put
on ice in the upper chamber.
The relationship between the House and Senate is probably colder
than that between Gov. Baker and Gov. Janet Mills of Maine, but
those two are also at odds over whether Massachusetts has
contained the coronavirus, or is merely keeping its head above
water.
After Mills kept Massachusetts residents on her list of
vacationers who must still quarantine if they travel north to
her waterfront state, Baker said he had a little chat with the
governor: "I basically said, 'I'll put my data in Massachusetts
up against your data any day.'"
In the wonkish world where Baker thrives, those sound like
fighting words.
But does Mills have reason to worry about a second wave?
Massachusetts is now the only New England state with a COVID-19
transmission rate that indicates rapid spread of the coronavirus
is possible, according to the website Rt.live, which has been
tracking state-level transmission trends.
And hotspots persist.
Baker this week launched a new testing initiative that will open
standalone and mobile testing sites in eight communities where
the numbers of new cases, positive testing rates, and volume of
testing worryingly trail the statewide averages.
Resident of Chelsea, Everett, Fall River, Lawrence, Lowell,
Lynn, Marlborough, and New Bedford are being encouraged to take
advantage of the free testing, even if they are asymptomatic.
Baker concluded that Massachusetts residents don't need Maine
anyway. There are plenty of nice spots in the Bay State to
vacation for the summer, he said. That is if it's safe to go
outside at all.
Between the sharks circling the waters off the Cape and the
coronavirus in the air, people certainly did need another reason
to worry about leaving the house. But they got one.
Eastern equine encephalitis and West Nile virus are both back
and public health officials are cautioning people - in the
middle of a streak of oppressive humidity - to keep their skin
covered after dusk.
"The key to our message is about taking personal protective
measures," Public Health Commissioner Monica Bharel said.
She was talking about protection against mosquito bites, but
it's applicable to all present circumstances.
STORY OF THE WEEK: Justice reform delayed, but not yet denied.
State House News
Service
Friday, July 10, 2020
Advances - Week of July 12, 2020
By Michael P. Norton
The next phase of Boston's economic reopening on Monday will
enable Massachusetts to eventually ramp up economic and public
activity to as close to full strength as possible, given the
limitations that will remain in place to control the spread of
COVID-19 until a treatment or vaccine is secured.
Massachusetts courtrooms will reopen with restrictions on
Monday. And Wednesday marks both the annual state and federal
tax return filing deadline, and the deadline for Secretary of
State William Galvin to get Sept. 1 primary ballot applications
in the mail to all voters.
The Democrats who run the Legislature and are prone to
procrastination are again looking at another chaotic few weeks
before formal sessions come to an end on July 31.
● Senate Republicans have
prevented a policing reform bill from even being debated in that
branch and a House proposal has yet to emerge, raising questions
about the odds of that bill passing this month.
● The Senate has yet to take
up a multi-year transportation bond bill that the House approved
in March, but plans to do so Thursday.
● A fiscal 2021 budget
proposal has yet to materialize more than a week into the new
fiscal year.
● A $1.1 billion COVID-19
spending bill seems to have stalled out after passing both
branches in differing forms.
● Neither branch has taken up
an economic development bill.
● Ditto for sports betting.
● No one can say with any
certainty whether Democrats can agree on a climate change bill
this month, a goal that seemed a sure thing earlier this year.
● Similarly, new taxes and
fees to power transportation investments once seemed likely but
the Senate hasn't shown any appetite for a House-approved bill
and it's starting to appear unlikely that Democrats will want to
push a pandemic-era tax-raising bill -- and a potential fight
with the governor on that topic -- over the next few weeks.
● Democrats have also so far
held off on moving a housing production bill, despite constant
prodding from Baker and years of evidence that housing costs are
unaffordable to broad swaths of the population in Massachusetts.
On top of all that, there's just one week on the 2020 calendar
before Democrats cede some of their power to Republican Gov.
Charlie Baker and the small GOP minority in the General Court.
Baker has not often played hardball with Democrats, but could
gain leverage over major bills if lawmakers fail to get those
bills to his desk by July 20. To guarantee that they will be
able to deal with any amendments or vetoes from the governor by
July 31, lawmakers need to give themselves a 10-day cushion
since Baker has ten days to act on any bill.
S.2813
SECTION 5.
The General Laws are hereby amended by inserting after
chapter 64N the following chapter:-
CHAPTER 64O.
LOCAL AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION BALLOT INITIATIVES.
Section 1. As used in this chapter, the following words
shall have the following meanings unless the context
clearly requires otherwise:
“District agreement”, a document specifying the terms
and conditions of the powers and duties of at least 2
municipalities forming a district under section 4
pursuant to the laws governing any such municipalities,
this chapter and such procedural regulations as the
commissioner of revenue may promulgate.
“Governing body”, the city manager and city council in a
city having a Plan D or Plan E charter, the mayor and
city council in any other city, the select board or
equivalent body in towns.
“Single subject of taxation”, sales, real or personal
property, room occupancy or vehicle excise.
“Transportation project”, a project or program for the
planning, design or construction of public or mass
transportation transit systems, transit-oriented
development, roads, bridges, bikeways, pedestrian
pathways or other transportation-related projects.
Section 2. (a) This chapter shall take effect in a city
or town upon the approval of its governing body and its
acceptance by the voters of such city or town by a
ballot question as set forth in section 3.
(b) A city or town may impose a tax surcharge on a
single subject of taxation within the city or town;
provided, however, that except as provided in section 4,
no tax surcharge shall be imposed within the city or
town unless it has first been approved by the governing
body of the city or town and accepted by a majority of
the voters of the city or town through a ballot question
as set forth in section 3.
(c) Notwithstanding chapters 59, 60A, 62 or 64H or any
other general or special law to the contrary, the
governing body of a city or town may vote to accept this
chapter authorizing a surcharge on a single subject of
taxation. A governing body that intends to accept this
chapter shall determine a single subject of taxation to
be levied and the amount and rate of surcharge on the
single subject of taxation prior to approval by the
voters. If the identified single subject of taxation is
a real or personal property excise, the amount of the
surcharge shall not be included in a calculation of
total taxes assessed for purposes of section 21C of
chapter 59.
(d) A taxpayer shall be eligible for all exemptions and
abatements of any single subject of taxation for which a
taxpayer qualifies. A taxpayer receiving an exemption
for any single subject of taxation shall be exempt from
any tax surcharge on any single subject of taxation
established under this section. The tax surcharge to be
paid by a taxpayer receiving an abatement of any single
subject of taxation shall be reduced in proportion to
the amount of such abatement.
(e) Any amount of the tax surcharge not paid by the due
date shall bear interest at the rate per annum as
authorized by the law for any single subject of
taxation.
(f) Revenues raised through the tax surcharge shall be
separately accounted for and used by the city or town
for transportation projects.
Section 3. (a) Upon approval of the single subject of
taxation to be levied and the amount and rate of
surcharge on the single subject of taxation by the
governing body, the following question shall be placed
on the official ballot by the city or town clerk or the
state secretary for acceptance by the voters of the city
or town at the next regularly scheduled municipal or
state election in the following form:--
“Shall the (city or town) of _______ accept sections 2
to 5, inclusive, of chapter 64O of the General Laws, as
approved by its (governing body), a summary of which
appears below
(Set forth here a fair, concise summary and purpose of
the law to be acted upon, as determined by the city
solicitor or town counsel, including the specific single
subject of taxation to be levied and the percentage of
the surcharge to be imposed.)”
In the ballot question, the city or town may include a
list of specific transportation projects for which the
tax surcharge funds may be used or a general description
of the types of transportation projects for which the
tax surcharge may be used. The city or town may also
include a sunset provision in the ballot question, but
the authorization for the tax surcharge shall not exceed
30 years.
If a majority of the votes cast in answer to the
question vote is in the affirmative, this chapter shall
take effect in the city or town, or district as set
forth in section 4, but not otherwise.
(b) The final date for notifying or filing a petition
with the city or town clerk or the state secretary to
place this question on the ballot shall be 60 days
before the city or town election or 100 days before the
state election. For those petitions that will appear on
the ballot for the state election, notice shall be
provided by filing with the state secretary a certified
copy of the governing body’s approval and a copy of the
summary as provided in subsection (a).
Section 4. (a) Two or more municipalities may, with the
approval of the governing body of each such
municipality, form a district for the purposes of
implementing this chapter.
(b) For the purposes of subsection (a), if a majority of
the votes cast in the district on the question in the
affirmative, this chapter shall take effect in the
district, but not otherwise.
(c) Two or more municipalities that choose to form a
district under this chapter shall apply a tax surcharge
to their preferred single subject of taxation. The
amount and percentage of the tax surcharge may vary for
each municipality that comprises the district.
(d) Two or more municipalities forming a district under
this chapter shall adopt a district agreement with the
approval of the applicable governing bodies prior to
presentment to the voters of the 2 or more
municipalities by a ballot question pursuant to section
3. The district agreement shall specify: (i) the purpose
and nature of the agreement; (ii) the single
municipality to serve as the treasurer of the
transportation fund or the regional planning agency to
serve as the fiscal agent of the transportation fund
under section 7 and that said municipality or regional
planning agency shall also serve as the treasurer or
fiscal agent for purposes of section 9; (iii) how the
transportation fund will be used and for what purposes
and how the municipalities will decide on details of
use, plan changes or urgent circumstances; (iv) the work
to be performed and the division or sharing of
responsibility among the municipalities; (v) the
estimated costs and the methods of financing the
transportation projects; (vi) the method of
administration of the transportation fund and the
transportation projects to be paid for through the fund;
(vii) the composition of the district’s transportation
committee, the length of its term and the criteria and
method of selecting its members; (viii) the duration of
the proposed agreement; and (ix) the amount, type and
percentage of the tax surcharge for each municipality
that comprises the district.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to: (i)
amend, repeal or otherwise alter the authority or
jurisdiction of, or establish, a municipality; or (ii)
confer any management authority over transportation
projects beyond the authority exercised by participating
municipalities in the district agreement pursuant to
this chapter.
Section 5. (a) Upon acceptance of this chapter, the
satisfaction of the requirements of this chapter and the
assessors’ warrant to the tax collector, the accepted
tax surcharge shall be imposed in the city or town. The
city, town or district shall notify the commissioner of
revenue of the date and terms on which the voters
accepted this chapter.
(b) For a tax surcharge levied on either the property
tax or excise, after receipt of the warrant, the tax
collector shall collect the tax surcharge in the amount
and according to the computation specified in the
warrant and shall pay the amounts so collected,
quarterly or semi-annually, according to the schedule
for collection of the single subject of taxation, to the
treasurer of the city, town or district. The tax
collector shall maintain appropriate books and accounts
with respect to the tax surcharge, which shall be
subject to public examination upon reasonable request.
(c) Two or more municipalities forming a district shall
select 1 of the municipalities or the regional planning
agency to serve as the district’s treasurer for the
purposes of this chapter. The district agreement shall
establish the method of selecting the district
treasurer. The municipality or regional planning agency
selected to serve as the district treasurer shall
perform the duties thereof in accordance with section 5
and in accordance with chapter 41. Two or more
municipalities forming a district shall also select that
same municipality or regional planning agency to receive
funds and provide certification for all municipalities
within the district for the purposes of section 9 and in
accordance with section 4.
Section 6. (a) A city or town that accepts this chapter,
either on its own or as part of a district, shall,
within 90 days after such acceptance, establish by
ordinance or by-law and, in the case of a district, the
ordinance or by-law shall be established by all member
municipalities, a transportation committee. The
committee shall consist of not less than 5 members. The
ordinance or by-law shall determine the composition of
the committee, the length of the term of appointment of
the members and the criteria and method of selecting the
members. The committee shall include, but not be limited
to, at least: (i) 1 representative from the
municipality; (ii) 1 member of each regional transit
authority to which the city or town is a member
community, if any; (iii) 1 member of the regional
planning agency to which the city or town is a member
community; and (vi) any other such persons, as
determined by the ordinance or by-law.
(b) Each transportation committee shall study the
transportation-related needs, possibilities and
resources of the city, town or district. The committee
shall consult with existing transportation agencies
including, but not limited to, regional planning
agencies, to develop transportation projects in
accordance with the ballot initiative. If a list of
transportation projects for which the tax surcharge
funds may be used was included in a ballot question, the
committee shall include those projects in its study;
provided, however, that the committee shall not be
required to recommend those projects unless otherwise
required by the ballot initiative.
(c) Each transportation committee shall be subject to
subsection (a) of section 19 of chapter 30A. Each
transportation committee shall keep a full and accurate
account of all of its actions, including its
recommendations and the actions taken on them and
records of all appropriations or expenditures made from
the Local and Regional Transportation Fund as set forth
in section 7. The records and accounts of the committee
shall be public records.
(d) Each city, town or district, as applicable, shall
consult with the entity proposed to own and maintain the
transportation project prior to listing any
transportation project on the ballot as set forth in
this chapter. If any such city, town or district
includes no specific transportation projects in the
ballot question, the transportation committee shall
receive the approval of the regional planning agency
prior to submitting the local transportation committee’s
recommendations to a governing body unless the
transportation-related project or activity is solely
under local jurisdiction. The city, town or district
shall study projects that promote access to public
transportation, biking and walking.
(e) At least once every 2 fiscal years, each
transportation committee shall make recommendations to
the governing body of the applicable city, town or
district regarding efficient and effective ways to
improve and enhance local transportation systems in the
city, town or district. Recommendations to the governing
body of the city, town or district shall include
anticipated costs over the life cycle of the
transportation project. The committee may include in its
recommendation to the governing body a recommendation to
set aside for the later spending of funds for specific
purposes that are consistent with transportation-related
purposes but for which sufficient revenues are not
currently available in the Local and Regional
Transportation Fund to accomplish those specific
purposes, to satisfy debt payments incurred from
transportation-related projects or to set aside for
later spending funds for general purposes that are
consistent with transportation improvements and in
accordance with the ballot initiative.
(f) After receiving such recommendations from the
transportation committee, the governing body of a city,
town or district shall take such action and approve such
appropriations from the Local and Regional
Transportation Fund as may be necessary and appropriate
for the recommendations of the transportation committee
and such additional appropriations as the governing body
deems appropriate to carry out the recommendations of
the transportation committee and in accordance with the
ballot initiative.
Section 7. (a) Notwithstanding section 53 of chapter 44
or any other general or special law to the contrary, a
city, town or district that accepts this chapter shall
establish a Local and Regional Transportation Fund, of
which the municipal treasurer or fiscal agent shall be
the custodian. The authority to approve expenditures
from the fund shall be limited to the governing body of
any city or town, or the designated municipal treasurer
or regional planning agency of the district, as
applicable, and the municipal treasurer or fiscal agent
shall pay such expenditures in accordance with chapter
41.
(b) Two or more municipalities forming a district shall
select 1 of the municipalities or a regional planning
agency to establish a Local and Regional Transportation
Fund. The municipality or regional planning agency
selected to establish the fund shall only use the funds
for the district as a whole through the designated
fiscal agent and based solely upon the recommendations
and approvals of the transportation committee as set
forth in this chapter. Administration of the fund by the
fiscal agent may, at the option of the governing body of
any member city or town, be subject to the further
approval of the governing body.
(c) The following funds shall be deposited in the Local
and Regional Transportation Fund: (i) all funds
collected from the tax surcharge on any single subject
of taxation pursuant to section 3; provided, however,
that if the single subject of taxation is a tax
collected at the state level, such funds shall be
deposited with the department of revenue in accordance
with sections 8 and 9; and (ii) all funds received from
the commonwealth or any other source for such purposes.
The treasurer or fiscal agent may: (i) deposit or invest
the proceeds of the fund in savings banks, trust
companies incorporated under the laws of the
commonwealth, banking companies incorporated under the
laws of the commonwealth that are members of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation or national banks; or (ii)
invest the proceeds in paid-up shares and accounts of
and in co-operative banks, in shares of savings and loan
associations or in shares of federal savings and loan
associations doing business in the commonwealth or in
the manner authorized by section 54 of chapter 44;
provided, however, that any income derived there from
shall be credited to the fund.
The expenditure of revenues from the fund shall be
limited to implementing the recommendations of the
transportation committees, to providing administrative
and operating expenses to the committees and in
accordance with the ballot initiative. The city or town,
or the municipal treasurer or regional planning agency
of the district as set forth in section 4, shall not
divert revenues derived from the tax surcharge into any
other fund created by law or ordinance.
(d) Only those cities, towns and districts that adopt
the tax surcharge allowed by this chapter shall be
eligible to receive funds through the Local and Regional
Transportation Fund.
Section 8. (a) There shall be a Massachusetts Local and
Regional Transportation Trust Fund, for the benefit of
cities, towns and districts that have accepted this
chapter and imposed a surcharge on a tax collected by
the commonwealth, subject to any exemptions adopted by
the city, town or district. The fund shall consist of
all of the following revenues received by the
commonwealth from: (i) the tax surcharge pursuant to
section 3; (ii) public and private sources as gifts,
grants and donations to further local or regional
transportation projects; and (iii) any other fund or
source credited or transferred to it pursuant to law.
(b) The state treasurer shall deposit revenues received
by any such tax surcharge into the fund in accordance
with section 9 in such manner as will secure the highest
interest rate available consistent with the safety of
the fund and with the requirement that all amounts on
deposit be available for withdrawal without penalty for
such withdrawal at any time. All interest accrued and
earnings thereon shall be deposited into the fund. The
fund shall be administered in a manner to separately
account for revenues raised by each city, town or
district and held for the benefit of such city, town or
district. The fund shall be expended solely for the
administration and implementation of this chapter. Any
unexpended balances shall be redeposited for future use
by the city, town or district consistent with this
chapter.
(c) The state treasurer shall make all disbursements and
expenditures from the fund without further
appropriation, as directed by the commissioner of
revenue in accordance with section 9. The department of
revenue shall report by source all amounts credited to
said fund and all expenditures from said fund. The
commissioner of revenue shall assign personnel of the
department as it may need to administer and manage the
fund disbursements and any expense incurred by the
department shall be deemed an operating and
administrative expense of the program. The operating and
administrative expenses shall not exceed 3 per cent of
the annual total revenue deposited into the fund.
Section 9. (a) Upon certification of the commissioner of
revenue, all funds received by the commissioner under
this chapter shall, not less than quarterly, be
distributed, credited and paid by the state treasurer to
each city or town, or to the municipal treasurer or
regional planning agency of a district. The city or town
or the municipal treasurer or regional planning agency
of a district shall notify the commissioner of its
acceptance of the funds.
(b) The state treasurer, upon certification of the
commissioner, shall distribute the funds to the city or
town or to the municipal treasurer or regional planning
agency of the district based on the proportional amount
the city, town or district has raised by imposing the
tax surcharge. The total distribution of funds shall
include all sources of revenue raised in the previous
year as set forth in subsection (a) of section 8, less
not more than 3 per cent of the annual total revenue of
the fund, as set forth in subsection (c) of said section
8. Any city, town or district seeking to dispute the
commissioner's calculation of its distribution under
this subsection shall notify the commissioner, in
writing, not later than 1 year from the date the funds
were distributed by the commissioner to the city, town
or district.
(c) The commissioner shall not divert revenues derived
from the tax surcharge into any other fund created by
law.
(d) Notwithstanding any general or special law to the
contrary, the commissioner may make available to cities,
towns and districts any information necessary for the
administration of the tax surcharge authorized by this
chapter including, but not limited to, a report of the
amount of the surcharge on tax collected in the
aggregate by each city, town or district in the
preceding fiscal year and the identification of each
individual vendor collecting the surcharge on sales tax
collected under this chapter.
Section 10. (a) At any time after imposition of the tax
surcharge, the governing body of each city or town may
approve and the voters may accept an amendment to the
amount and computation of the tax surcharge in the same
manner and subject to the same requirements as set forth
in this chapter.
(b) At any time after imposition of the tax surcharge, a
district under section 4, with the approval of the
majority of voters in the district may accept an
amendment to the amount and computation of the tax
surcharge in the same manner and subject to the same
requirements as set forth in this chapter so that the
surcharge becomes uniform in all municipalities of the
district.
Section 11. The commissioner of revenue may promulgate
rules and regulations to implement this chapter.
|
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
▪ (781) 639-9709
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|
