 |
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 18, 2020
Senate defies, circumvents Proposition 2½
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
Most Relevant News Excerpts
(Full news reports follow
Commentary)
|
Imposing a
percentage-based fee on every ride-hailing trip, studying an
extension of the Green Line's E Branch into Hyde Square, and
scrapping parts of a business-opposed local tax option are
among the changes senators proposed to a major
transportation investment bill set for debate Thursday.
Lawmakers filed
275 amendments to the Senate's $16.9 billion version of a
multi-year transportation bond bill (S 2813), the vast
majority of which seek earmarks for specific transit or
roadway projects in their individual districts.
Several of the
proposed changes tackle larger-scale policy shifts included
in or omitted from the bill....
One of the most
significant proposals in the underlying bill would authorize
regional ballot initiatives for transportation purposes, a
system in which any city or town could approve a surtax
within its borders and direct the additional revenue toward
transportation revenue.
Before the
increase could take effect, a municipality's governing body
would first need to authorize a surtax on the sales, real or
personal property, room occupancy or vehicle excise tax and
then secure approval from a majority of voters through a
ballot question.
Two or more
communities could join together to approve regional surtaxes
as a way of funding transportation projects that impact
multiple areas.
Amendment 239
filed by Sen. Diana DiZoglio, a Methuen Democrat, would make
the sales tax ineligible for a potential surtax, while
amendment 230 sought by DiZoglio and Minority Leader Bruce
Tarr would scrap the regional ballot initiative proposal
altogether.
The Retailers
Association of Massachusetts, one of the state's largest
business groups, circulated a letter to senators on
Wednesday asking them to support the amendments, arguing the
surtaxes could damage small businesses already struggling
under the weight of the COVID pandemic....
Rep. William
Straus, the House's Transportation Committee co-chair, said
in an interview that he also worries about the viability of
regional ballot initiatives, indicating that even if the
measure is approved by the full Senate, it may not survive
the conference committee negotiation process.
"My concern about
regional ballot initiatives has always been that it's
essentially grafting onto transportation policy a type of
Proposition 2½ system where whether you get good roads, safe
roads, or a good transportation system depends on the
variables of local municipal elections," Straus said.
He pointed to
similar systems in other states as unreliable, arguing that
projects funded through ballot initiatives had funding
revoked by later ballots.
Straus said
regional ballot initiatives could also deepen regional
inequities because lower-income communities have less of a
tax base on which to build transportation funding.
"I don't think
it's fair to ask those communities to meet the same
standards that some of the wealthier either counties or
municipalities face," he said. "If anything, I think this
kind of system could separate us more than bring us
together."
State House News
Service
Wednesday, July 15, 2020
Ride Fees, Local Taxes On Table for Senate Debate
Senators Offer 275 Amendments to $16.9 Billion Bill
Amendment 230
Senator Diana DiZoglio, Democrat
— First Essex
[First Essex Senate District
— Consists of the
cities of Haverhill and Newburyport and the
towns of Amesbury, Merrimac, Methuen, North
Andover, precincts 1 to 4, inclusive, and
Salisbury in the county of Essex.]
Senator Bruce E. Tarr, Republican (Senate
Minority Leader) —
First Essex and Middlesex
[First Essex and Middlesex Senate District
— Consists of the
city of Gloucester and the towns of Boxford,
Essex, Georgetown, Groveland, Hamilton, Ipswich,
Manchester-by-the-Sea, Middleton, Newbury, North
Andover, precincts 5 to 8, inclusive, Rockport,
Rowley, Wenham and West Newbury in the county of
Essex; and the towns of North Reading and
Wilmington in the county of Middlesex.]
Amendment 230
Amendment ID: S2813-230
Local option tax surcharge
Ms. DiZoglio and Mr. Tarr move that the proposed
new text be amended by striking out section 5.
New taxes and fees
aimed at expanding the existing pool of resources to fix the
state's ailing transportation systems appear dead for the
2019-2020 lawmaking session after Senate leadership ruled
them off the table, in effect nullifying a House vote to
approve more than half a billion dollars in hikes aimed at
funding responses to worst-in-the-nation traffic and
unreliable public transit.
However, the move
doesn't mean taxes won't be part of forthcoming solutions,
with lawmakers on the lookout for ways to close massive
state budget gaps and a proposal hurtling toward the 2022
statewide ballot that calls on the state's wealthiest to
deliver an estimated $2 billion in new taxes for education
and transportation.
The decision by
Senate leaders to push transportation taxes aside for now
came as refreshing news to critics of higher taxes but
frustrated activists who spent months pressing for action on
Beacon Hill, and it could prompt House lawmakers to walk
back some of the transportation-related borrowing they
previously authorized.
And if finding
consensus on tax-raising legislation had been a laborious
process earlier this year, it will likely prove challenging
again when the next General Court convenes its two-year
session starting in January with economic effects of the
pandemic likely to be lingering and a 2022 income surtax
ballot question looming.
In the short term,
with two weeks remaining before the scheduled end of formal
lawmaking business, House and Senate leaders could face a
difficult negotiation process as they work toward a final
transportation bond bill.
Now that the added
funding the tax bill proposed is out of the running, the
House will likely push to scale back the scope of an $18
billion, multi-year borrowing bill it approved that would
fund a range of major capital and maintenance projects,
according to Transportation Committee Co-chair Rep. William
Straus.
"If revenue's not
provided, then no, you cannot sustain the $18 billion in
spending," Straus said in an interview....
"It's hard to
promise the public that we can be spending $17 or $18
billion on transportation when, two things: we don't have
added revenue that we knew we needed before COVID, and COVID
has reduced revenues," Straus said. "With revenues going in
a downward direction, I don't know how the Senate has the
financial data to sustain increases in transportation
spending." ...
Almost immediately
after the House adopted its two landmark transportation
bills, virtually all attention on Beacon Hill shifted to
pandemic response.
The Senate kept
mostly quiet on how it would address the transportation
issue for nearly four months before making clear last week
that the borrowing bill set for debate Thursday would be it
-- a decision that would leave the tax and fee increases
untouched....
By signaling it
would not support tax or fee hikes this month, the Senate
effectively blocked any new transportation revenues from
securing approval until 2021 or 2022, a step that stung many
organizations and activists who had spent much of the past
session making the case that the system needed more
money....
On Monday, Citizens for Limited Taxation wrote a
memo
to all senators expressing appreciation to the Senate Ways
and Means Committee for "avoiding" new transportation taxes.
CLT also said it was "refreshing to hear" Boncore say the
$16.9 billion bond bill was affordable without the passage
of additional revenue sources.
"Living within our
means is the hallmark of fiscal responsibility, whether
among your constituents in their daily lives or their
expectations from those they elect to represent them,"
CLT wrote. The group urged senators to strike a bond
bill measure that CLT says would allow municipalities and
regions to generate new taxes for transportation projects
outside of Proposition 2½, which limits property tax
increases.
According to
Straus, regional ballot initiatives could deepen inequities
because lower-income communities have less of a tax base on
which to build transportation funding.
"I don't think
it's fair to ask those communities to meet the same
standards that some of the wealthier either counties or
municipalities face," he said. "If anything, I think this
kind of system could separate us more than bring us
together."
Lizzi Weyant,
director of government affairs for the Metropolitan Area
Planning Council, threw her support behind the Senate's
regional ballot initiatives proposal, arguing that the
questions allow communities to fund bike lanes, bus lanes,
regional transit and other projects they otherwise might be
unable to afford without state-level action.
She acknowledged
that there are some equity questions about the system, but
added that "lower-income and rural communities really want
to see this kind of investment because it's the only way
they're seeing significant dollars for transportation in
their communities."
Lawmakers have
until July 31 to finish any business that requires a roll
call vote, which would include resolution of a final bond
bill.
State House News
Service
Thursday, July 16, 2020
House Bill’s Demise Resets Beacon Hill Tax Conversation
Income Surtax Alive as Lawmakers Face Budget Crisis
The Senate turned
back efforts Thursday to remove new municipal taxing powers
from a transportation bond bill, rejecting an amendment from
Democrat Sen. Diana DiZoglio that would have scrapped plans
for binding regional ballot initiatives.
DiZoglio slammed
her party's leadership for including the proposal that would
allow cities and towns to increase local taxes and use the
funding for transportation projects, echoing criticism from
several business groups that the measure would inflict
further economic harm on communities still facing a
precarious outlook due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
"We wait to take
up small business relief," DiZoglio said. "We punt, we make
excuses, and they're crying out to us, saying, 'Our doors
are closing, we might not survive this.' Your community is
shutting down right now as we speak, and instead of passing
things that are going to help us to survive, you think it's
a good opportunity to contribute to the opportunity to raise
taxes on us in a regressive manner that could lead to our
shutdown forever, Madam President."
The Methuen
Democrat's amendment would have eliminated the section --
one of the few revenue-related components of a bill dealing
almost entirely with borrowing and capital spending -- but
the Senate voted 31-8 to preserve the regional ballot
initiative language in the bill.
The four
Republican senators voted in favor of the amendment, as did
DiZoglio and Democratic Sens. Anne Gobi of Spencer, Walt
Timilty of Milton and John Velis of Westfield. The
initiative is part of a bill that was approved 36-4.
The measure
included in the $16.9 billion bond bill (S 2813) would not
mandate any tax increases, but it would allow an individual
community or a group of municipalities working together to
offer local ballot questions that, if approved, would raise
the sales, property, room occupancy or vehicle excise tax
and use the revenue for transportation.
State House News
Service
Thursday, July 16, 2020
Senate Preserves Plan for Local Transportation Tax Questions
Senate 36-4,
approved an estimated $16.9 billion bond bill authorizing
spending on transportation projects and infrastructure.
Provisions include $5.6 billion for federal highway system
projects, $2 billion for the design, construction and repair
of non-federally aided roadway and bridge projects and
another $1.25 billion for construction, resurfacing and
improvements of bridges and approaches. The package is a
bond bill under which the funding would be borrowed by the
state through the sale of bonds.
A controversial
section of the bill allows cities and towns and regions to
raise local taxes to fund transportation projects outside of
Proposition 2½, which limits property tax increases in
cities and towns....
“Section 5 in the
bill sets up regional taxation districts where they could
change the sales or property taxes by region,” said Sen.
Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton). “This is a harmful concept for
local businesses and residents. If their region decides to
increase sales taxes, potential customers may look beyond
these districts to shop for products. We should be working
to give relief to our local small businesses during these
challenging economic and public health times, not creating
an extra barrier to success.” ...
Senate 8-31,
rejected a motion to strike from the bill a section that
allows cities and towns and regions to raise local taxes to
fund transportation projects outside of Proposition 2½,
which limits property tax increases in cities and towns.
“Legislating by
local tax ballot initiatives hampers our ability to serve
our communities in a uniform, progressive, equitable way,”
said Sen. Diane DiZoglio (D-Methuen), who led the charge to
delete the section. “Some of the tax options put forward in
this regional tax increase proposal, including the sales tax
and property tax components, have nothing to do with
transportation but are extremely regressive and would damage
our Main Streets. Now, in the middle of a global pandemic,
it is astounding to me that we think this is the time to be
adding more of a financial burden to our local mom and pop
shops.” ...
“The attacks on
Proposition 2½ under any guise are relentless, always intent
on chipping away at city and town taxpayers’ protection,”
said Chip Ford, Executive Director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation, which created the law overwhelmingly
approved by voters in 1980. “Section 5 of the Senate’s
transportation bond bill created a new exclusion for the
citizens’ referendum law. It especially did not belong
secreted into a massive borrowing bill, slipped in at the
11th hour without public notice never mind hearings,” Ford
added. “Just business as usual on Beacon Hill. Citizens
beware — those are the people you elected to the Senate to
allegedly represent your interests.” ...
“The Senate is not
letting the pandemic slow them down,” said Paul Craney,
executive director of the Mass Fiscal Alliance. “They feel
they are immune from the economic hurt around them. Creating
new taxing authorities is not how we’re going to get our
economy running again. This is just a backdoor attempt to
try to circumvent the will of the voters and undermine Prop
2½. These senators should be thinking about ways to reduce
spending, cut taxes, and help small businesses and workers
get back on their feet. In the past four months, countless
Massachusetts residents lost their jobs and cannot pay their
mortgages. Today’s response by the Senate is tone deaf to
the financial hurt being felt around the state.”
Beacon Hill Roll
Call
July 13-17, 2020
$16.9 Billion in Transportation Projects
(S-2813)
By Bob Katzen
Transportation
Bond
Lawmakers will
need to appoint negotiators to a private conference
committee to search for compromise on major multi-year
legislation to borrow and spend billions of dollars on
transportation.
While both
versions of the bill (H 4506/S 2813) similarly approve $17
billion to $18 billion, House leaders will push to scale
back the amount they support now that their counterparts in
the Senate have left untouched a related package of tax and
fee increases aimed at bringing in roughly $600 million more
per year.
Adding to the
tension, Gov. Baker originally proposed $18 billion in
bonding and criticized lawmakers who felt the state could
not borrow that much without added revenues.
The legislative
packages diverge on key policy questions, and negotiators
must decide if the final legislation they send to Baker
should empower cities and towns to impose their own local
tax hikes for transportation projects or should order public
transit agencies to offer low-income fares in the next few
years, two points the Senate approved and the House did not
touch.
Before the Senate
approved its roughly $17 billion version Thursday, senators
either rejected or withdrew virtually all of the most
significant proposed changes, including amendments that
would have implemented a percent-based fee structure on
ride-hailing trips and would have eliminated authorization
for regional ballot initiatives. —
Chris Lisinski
State House News
Service
Friday, July 17, 2020
Advances - Week of July 19, 2020
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
“The attacks on
Proposition 2½ under any guise are relentless,
always intent on chipping away at city and town
taxpayers’ protection,” said
Chip Ford, Executive Director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation,
which created the law overwhelmingly approved by
voters in 1980. “Section 5 of the Senate’s
transportation bond bill created a new exclusion
for the citizens’ referendum law. It
especially did not belong secreted into a
massive borrowing bill, slipped in at the 11th
hour without public notice never mind hearings,”
Ford added. “Just business as usual on
Beacon Hill. Citizens beware — those are
the people you elected to the Senate to
allegedly represent your interests.”
Beacon Hill Roll Call
$16.9 Billion in Transportation Projects
(S-2813)
July 13-17, 2020
On Wednesday the State House
News Service reported ("Ride Fees, Local Taxes On Table for Senate
Debate"):
Rep. William Straus, the
House's Transportation Committee co-chair, said in
an interview that he also worries about the
viability of regional ballot initiatives, indicating
that even if the measure is approved by the full
Senate, it may not survive the conference committee
negotiation process.
"My concern about regional
ballot initiatives has always been that it's
essentially grafting onto transportation policy a
type of Proposition 2½ system where whether you get
good roads, safe roads, or a good transportation
system depends on the variables of local municipal
elections," Straus said.
Reading
this on Wednesday evening I reached out to Rep. Straus:
CLT memo to Rep. William
Straus
Wed 7/15/2020 8:42 PM
Dear Representative Straus;
The State House News
Service today reported your comments on your
concerns about the Senate’s proposal to
circumvent Proposition 2½ by adding another
mechanism to fund local “transportation
projects” through ballot initiatives (excerpt
below). Your perspective added to Citizens
for Limited Taxation’s concerns as presented in
our
memo to the Senate on Monday morning (copy
further below).
We appreciate your
reluctance to support Section 5 of S-2813 in
conference committee, should it pass in the
Senate tomorrow, and hope it doesn’t get that
far. Amendment 230 filed by Sens. Diana
DiZoglio and Minority Leader Bruce Tarr would
“would scrap the regional ballot initiative
proposal altogether,” the News Service further
reported, so perhaps it won’t survive.
Chip Ford
Executive Director
Citizens for Limited Taxation
On Thursday morning the
State House News Service reported ("House Bill’s Demise
Resets Beacon Hill Tax Conversation"):
. . . On Monday, Citizens
for Limited Taxation wrote a
memo to all senators expressing appreciation to
the Senate Ways and Means Committee for "avoiding"
new transportation taxes. CLT also said it was
"refreshing to hear" Boncore say the $16.9 billion
bond bill was affordable without the passage of
additional revenue sources.
"Living within our means is the
hallmark of fiscal responsibility, whether among
your constituents in their daily lives or their
expectations from those they elect to represent
them," CLT wrote. The group urged
senators to strike a bond bill measure that CLT says
would allow municipalities and regions to generate
new taxes for transportation projects outside of
Proposition 2½, which limits property tax increases.
According to Straus, regional
ballot initiatives could deepen inequities because
lower-income communities have less of a tax base on
which to build transportation funding.
"I don't think it's fair to ask
those communities to meet the same standards that
some of the wealthier either counties or
municipalities face," he said. "If anything, I
think this kind of system could separate us more
than bring us together."
By Thursday
evening the News Service reported the bad news ("Senate
Preserves Plan for Local Transportation Tax Questions"),
but having watched the debate live online I'd already
received it:
The Senate turned back efforts
Thursday to remove new municipal taxing powers from
a transportation bond bill, rejecting an amendment
from Democrat Sen. Diana DiZoglio that would have
scrapped plans for binding regional ballot
initiatives.
The Methuen Democrat's
amendment would have eliminated the section
—
one of the few revenue-related components of a bill
dealing almost entirely with borrowing and capital
spending —
but the Senate voted 31-8 to preserve the regional
ballot initiative language in the bill.
The four Republican senators
voted in favor of the amendment, as did DiZoglio and
Democratic Sens. Anne Gobi of Spencer, Walt Timilty
of Milton and John Velis of Westfield. The
initiative is part of a bill that was approved 36-4.
Did your
state Senator vote for or against higher
property, auto excise, and sales taxes in your city or
town?
Check it out
— here's the
roll call vote on Amendment 230 sponsored by Sens. DiZoglio and Tarr:
AMENDMENT 230 to Strike Out
Section 5
ROLL CALL VOTE
(A “Yes” vote is in favor of deleting the local tax
option and therefore against the option.
A “No” vote is to leave the local tax option in the bill
and therefore is in favor of the option.)
During the
Senate debate on the amendment, the State House News
Service reported ("Senate Preserves Plan for Local
Transportation Tax Questions"):
DiZoglio slammed her party's
leadership for including the proposal that would
allow cities and towns to increase local taxes and
use the funding for transportation projects, echoing
criticism from several business groups that the
measure would inflict further economic harm on
communities still facing a precarious outlook due to
the COVID-19 pandemic.
"We wait to take up small
business relief," DiZoglio said. "We punt, we
make excuses, and they're crying out to us, saying,
'Our doors are closing, we might not survive this.'
Your community is shutting down right now as we
speak, and instead of passing things that are going
to help us to survive, you think it's a good
opportunity to contribute to the opportunity to
raise taxes on us in a regressive manner that could
lead to our shutdown forever, Madam President."
Beacon Hill
Roll Call added:
“Section 5 in the bill
sets up regional taxation districts where they could change the
sales or property taxes by region,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman
(R-Sutton). “This is a harmful concept for local businesses
and residents. If their region decides to increase sales
taxes, potential customers may look beyond these districts to shop
for products. We should be working to give relief to our local
small businesses during these challenging economic and public health
times, not creating an extra barrier to success.”
EXCERPTS FROM THE FULL DEBATE CAN BE
FOUND BELOW
Transcription by the State House News Service
One CLT member contacted me
during the week thanking me for all my effort on this.
I responded:
It was a very, very
long and exhausting weekend – starting Friday morning when I got
word of the Senate document dump. I did nothing else Friday,
Saturday, and Sunday than chase it down, research it, contact others
who might know something more about it, and pore over four
perpetually morphing bills line by line, referenced Mass. General
Law by MGL. I’d hoped to get the memo out to all senators by
late Sunday so they’d have it in time to offer an amendment by the
5:00 PM Monday deadline – but at midnight I was still trying to
decipher the damned thing. I had my first draft of the memo
written by 3:00 AM Monday morning, when I called it quits for the
Sunday and went to bed. I was back up and at it after a
three-and-a-half hour nap (collapse), at 6:30 AM – gave it a second
read over, made a few tweaks, and finally sent it out to the Senate
at 8:30.
By then I had invested
more than 60 hours "on the clock" over those three days and a
morning.
With some questions
still unanswered by midnight Sunday I had to move ahead with what I
had uncovered the best I could. With some input from Atty.
Paul Nicolai (former chairman of the board of CLT who was active
helping to draft Prop 2½) and others, I decided to be more
circumspect about the lack of public hearings, though I believe I
could have justifiably made that charge more strongly. I think
it comes across nonetheless
— they will know that I know, and
now others know as well.
Adding up the rest of my
week, I've clocked in almost 120 hours
— three normal
person's 40-hours weeks within seven days without a cent
of overtime pay! Hearing my schedule, an old
political pro jokingly (I think) told me years ago,
"You're either awfully committed —
or you ought to be!"
Here is the evolution of the Legislature's
transportation bond bill (first House version, then Senate's two, then
Senate Ways & Means Committee's final that just passed). If you
want to try your hand at how I spent all of last weekend, see if you can
follow these bills. Your brain will no doubt become as scrambled
as mine was by midnight last Sunday.
H-4547
Section 4
Supplemental Infrastructure Financing for
Transportation (SIFT)
[additional property tax assessment]
Pages 47-51 [Lines 1038-1120] |
 |
S-2739
SIFT property tax assessment removed |
|
|
S-2746
No tax increases |
|
|
S-2813
Section 5
Local and Regional Transportation Ballot Initiatives
Pages 21-33 [Lines 451-695] |
Next the Senate bill including
the attack on Proposition 2½ will go to a House/Senate conference
committee on which Rep. William Straus will likely co-chair as House
Transportation Committee chairman. The House is reportedly
looking to cut back the spending scope of the Senate's bill, seeing
it's deemed by the House as unaffordable without additional taxes.
I'm hoping Rep. Straus will insist that Section 5 be removed, though
he continues to insist on other tax hikes such as the gas tax.
Even still, the clock is
running out on the Legislature: They have two weeks remaining
before their rules require the Legislature to recess — and this
isn't the only huge bill in the works and hoping for passage.
And there's still the FY 2021 state budget somewhere in the wings, now
more than a month overdue. This transportation bond bill may
not even survive out of conference committee.
According to the State House
News Service, "Should this session end with no new transportation
revenue sources on the books, Straus said the House will likely pick
up the charge again starting in 2021."
I'm closing this update today
on a melancholy note that I think you'll appreciate.
The Attleboro Sun Chronicle
reported on Wednesday:
KP High
School honors memory of alum 'Chip' Faulkner,
a founder of
Citizens for Limited Taxation
By David Linton
A bench and plaque have been
installed in the lobby of King Philip Regional High
School in honor of Francis “Chip” Faulkner, a 1963
graduate who became a political force in state politics.
Faulkner died on May 24, 2019 at age 73 after a 15-month
battle with pancreatic cancer.
The bench was built by Carl Evans, a
Wrentham woodworker, and the plaque was procured from the
International Bronze Plaque Co. in Florida.
Donations from friends and classmates
were organized by Faulkner’s brother Donald and close
friends Susan Skinner, Michael Richardson and Patricia
Brodka.
“We are pleased to see King Philip
alumni come together and commemorate the memory of a close
friend,” Principal Lisa Mobley said in a news release. “This
bench serves as a great reminder of their deep connection to
our school community.”
In addition to the bench, a $1,000
scholarship was awarded in memory of Faulkner to graduating
senior Benjamin Campanella. The scholarship was established
for students with a passion for history, political science
and teaching, school officials said.
Faulkner served as the senior class
president in 1963 and was an active member of the community
through extracurricular activities including sports, prom
committee and dance committee.
Upon graduating, he continued to serve
the King Philip community by organizing class reunions every
five years for 50 years.
Faulkner was passionate about history
and worked as a teacher in New York City, according to the
school officials.
He became a key figure in the group
Citizens for Limited Taxation, which got the landmark
property tax-limiting initiative Proposition 2½ passed in
1980.
The law, which still stands today,
rolled back property taxes in the early 1980s and then
limited future increases to 2.5 percent.
Although CLT has faded as a force in
Massachusetts politics, Faulkner and another key figure in
the group, Barbara Anderson, were outspoken power brokers in
Republican politics in the 1980s and 1990s.
The CLT endorsement was sought after by
Republican politicians throughout that time.
CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE
Chipster was one of a kind
and is sorely missed. Everyone he met quickly became a friend
and fan of his. His easy-going nature and institutional memory
for politics and political trivia was unmatched, and his sense of
humor, his arsenal of jokes was limitless. It's gratifying to
see his brother, Don, and lifelong hometown friends were able to
create such a lasting tribute for Chip Faulkner, so well deserved.
Chip Faulkner and Barbara Anderson were the original CLT team and
Massachusetts taxpayers sure owe them a lot.
Photo courtesy of CLT member Len Mead
CLICK ON ABOVE IMAGES TO ENLARGE
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
Full News Reports Follow
(excerpted above)
|
State House
News Service
Wednesday, July 15, 2020
Ride Fees, Local Taxes On Table for Senate Debate
Senators Offer 275 Amendments to $16.9 Billion Bill
By Chris Lisinski
Imposing a percentage-based fee on every ride-hailing trip,
studying an extension of the Green Line's E Branch into Hyde
Square, and scrapping parts of a business-opposed local tax
option are among the changes senators proposed to a major
transportation investment bill set for debate Thursday.
Lawmakers filed 275 amendments to the Senate's $16.9 billion
version of a multi-year transportation bond bill (S 2813),
the vast majority of which seek earmarks for specific
transit or roadway projects in their individual districts.
Several of the proposed changes tackle larger-scale policy
shifts included in or omitted from the bill.
Amendment 138 from Lynn Democrat Sen. Brendan Crighton would
alter the fees charged to rides on services such as Uber and
Lyft from the current flat per-ride amount to a scaled
structure, calculated at 4.25 percent of the fare for a
shared ride and 6.25 percent for a non-shared ride.
If approved, the amendment would put the Senate on record
this session as supporting a change to the $0.20-per-ride
flat fee for ride-hailing trips.
The Transportation for Massachusetts advocacy coalition
listed Crighton's proposal as one of its six "priority
support" amendments ahead of Thursday's debate.
Somerville Mayor Joe Curtatone, who joined the group and
other activists at a Wednesday event, told the News Service
that the Senate "absolutely" should embrace increased fees
on ride-hailing services.
"That's one of the many creative ways of bringing in more
revenue to fund, to elevate service, to expand service, to
make investments in transit expansion," Curtatone said.
"Given the fact that communities like Somerville and others
are where you generate a lot of these different rideshare
services, it makes all the sense in the world."
Both Gov. Charlie Baker and the House have each supported
updating that structure, but their versions would keep it
flat. Baker proposed an increase to $1 per ride as part of
his fiscal year 2021 budget. The House's massive
transportation tax bill would have kept the fees at $0.20
for shared rides, increased them to $1.20 for
single-passenger rides and bumped them up to $2.20 for
luxury rides.
"We can negotiate and bargain on exactly which of these
approaches is best, but what I can think everyone can agree
on is keeping it at $0.20, which is far below our peers and
not reflective of the impact that these rides are having, is
the worst option," Transportation for Massachusetts Director
Chris Dempsey told the News Service.
Other amendments the group backed include amendment 249,
filed by Worcester Democrat Sen. Harriette Chandler, that
would index the contract assistance the state pays to its 15
regional transit authorities to increase alongside annual
inflation.
Two others would implement short-term pilot programs
altering how Massachusetts charges roadway users.
Amendment 132 filed by Boston Democrat Sen. Nick Collins
would require the Department of Transportation to launch a
pilot program by Feb. 1, 2021 testing the impacts on traffic
and revenue if tolls vary based on time of day, a system
known as congestion pricing. Winchester Democrat Sen. Jason
Lewis proposed amendment 80, which would create a task force
and order a pilot studying the feasibility of imposing a
mileage-based fee on all vehicle owners.
The House previously approved creating a commission to study
congestion pricing, similar to the baseline Senate bond
bill, but Dempsey said it is crucial to go a step further
and ensure the state tests the practice.
"We think it's important that commission be paired with
real-world piloting and testing so the commission is not
just an academic exercise," he said, adding that Greater
Boston is the only one among the country's 10 most populous
regions with no time-of-day variations in roadway tolls.
One of the most significant proposals in the underlying bill
would authorize regional ballot initiatives for
transportation purposes, a system in which any city or town
could approve a surtax within its borders and direct the
additional revenue toward transportation revenue.
Before the increase could take effect, a municipality's
governing body would first need to authorize a surtax on the
sales, real or personal property, room occupancy or vehicle
excise tax and then secure approval from a majority of
voters through a ballot question.
Two or more communities could join together to approve
regional surtaxes as a way of funding transportation
projects that impact multiple areas.
Amendment 239 filed by Sen. Diana DiZoglio, a Methuen
Democrat, would make the sales tax ineligible for a
potential surtax, while amendment 230 sought by DiZoglio and
Minority Leader Bruce Tarr would scrap the regional ballot
initiative proposal altogether.
The Retailers Association of Massachusetts, one of the
state's largest business groups, circulated a letter to
senators on Wednesday asking them to support the amendments,
arguing the surtaxes could damage small businesses already
struggling under the weight of the COVID pandemic.
"The sales tax option ignores the fact our consumers are
virtually all within an hour's drive to New Hampshire, and
the fact that many international Internet sellers -- like
Alibaba -- and even national sellers below tax collection
thresholds, do not collect the state's sales tax," RAM
President Jon Hurst wrote. "And during COVID-19, the facts
are our consumers have gotten all too willing to send their
billions of discretionary spending dollars out of state by
purchasing on their smart phones."
"Higher taxes for shopping local are bad public policy which
will send spending out of state and will undermine the
already tenuous future of our Main Streets," Hurst
continued.
He argued that transportation funding is more appropriately
addressed at the state level "through user fees and taxes
which have a direct connection to transportation."
The Senate does not intend to tackle any such statewide
transportation revenues this session, despite the House
approving more than $500 million in tax and fee hikes for
that purpose in March.
Rep. William Straus, the House's Transportation Committee
co-chair, said in an interview that he also worries about
the viability of regional ballot initiatives, indicating
that even if the measure is approved by the full Senate, it
may not survive the conference committee negotiation
process.
"My concern about regional ballot initiatives has always
been that it's essentially grafting onto transportation
policy a type of Proposition 2½ system where whether you get
good roads, safe roads, or a good transportation system
depends on the variables of local municipal elections,"
Straus said.
He pointed to similar systems in other states as unreliable,
arguing that projects funded through ballot initiatives had
funding revoked by later ballots.
Straus said regional ballot initiatives could also deepen
regional inequities because lower-income communities have
less of a tax base on which to build transportation funding.
"I don't think it's fair to ask those communities to meet
the same standards that some of the wealthier either
counties or municipalities face," he said. "If anything, I
think this kind of system could separate us more than bring
us together."
Depending on which amendments the Senate adopts, the
original multi-year borrowing authorization of $16.9 billion
is likely to swell. Both branches often tackle a large
portion of bond bill amendments by bundling them together to
be considered in a single vote.
In March, the House Ways and Means Committee proposed a
$14.5 billion version of the transportation bond bill, but
the bottom line grew to $18 billion through amendments.
House leaders have expressed skepticism, however, that they
can support all of that borrowing without the additional
revenues they backed that will not emerge in the Senate this
session.
State House
News Service
Thursday, July 16, 2020
House Bill’s Demise Resets Beacon Hill Tax Conversation
Income Surtax Alive as Lawmakers Face Budget Crisis
By Chris Lisinski
New taxes and fees aimed at expanding the existing pool of
resources to fix the state's ailing transportation systems
appear dead for the 2019-2020 lawmaking session after Senate
leadership ruled them off the table, in effect nullifying a
House vote to approve more than half a billion dollars in
hikes aimed at funding responses to worst-in-the-nation
traffic and unreliable public transit.
However, the move doesn't mean taxes won't be part of
forthcoming solutions, with lawmakers on the lookout for
ways to close massive state budget gaps and a proposal
hurtling toward the 2022 statewide ballot that calls on the
state's wealthiest to deliver an estimated $2 billion in new
taxes for education and transportation.
The decision by Senate leaders to push transportation taxes
aside for now came as refreshing news to critics of higher
taxes but frustrated activists who spent months pressing for
action on Beacon Hill, and it could prompt House lawmakers
to walk back some of the transportation-related borrowing
they previously authorized.
And if finding consensus on tax-raising legislation had been
a laborious process earlier this year, it will likely prove
challenging again when the next General Court convenes its
two-year session starting in January with economic effects
of the pandemic likely to be lingering and a 2022 income
surtax ballot question looming.
In the short term, with two weeks remaining before the
scheduled end of formal lawmaking business, House and Senate
leaders could face a difficult negotiation process as they
work toward a final transportation bond bill.
Now that the added funding the tax bill proposed is out of
the running, the House will likely push to scale back the
scope of an $18 billion, multi-year borrowing bill it
approved that would fund a range of major capital and
maintenance projects, according to Transportation Committee
Co-chair Rep. William Straus.
"If revenue's not provided, then no, you cannot sustain the
$18 billion in spending," Straus said in an interview.
A $16.9 billion Senate transportation bond bill is up for
consideration in the Senate Thursday.
Straus stopped short of openly criticizing the Senate for
upending the session-long push toward bringing in and
spending more money on aging and overcrowded transportation
infrastructure, adding that he is confident the two branches
can find a bond bill compromise once they begin the
conference committee negotiation process.
He made clear, though, that the House no longer views the
full borrowing bill it passed in March as viable on its own,
particularly with the pandemic punching a hole in state tax
revenues estimated at anywhere from $2 billion to $8
billion.
In March, one day after approving a tax and fee bill that
Democratic leaders estimated would raise more than $500
million each year, the House added about $3.5 billion
through the amendment process to a $14.5 billion bond bill
that had emerged from its Ways and Means Committee.
Straus declined to put a number on how much he believes
would be affordable without the increased gas tax, corporate
minimum excise tax, ride-hailing fees and sales tax on
rental car purchases that were features of the House revenue
bill.
"It's hard to promise the public that we can be spending $17
or $18 billion on transportation when, two things: we don't
have added revenue that we knew we needed before COVID, and
COVID has reduced revenues," Straus said. "With revenues
going in a downward direction, I don't know how the Senate
has the financial data to sustain increases in
transportation spending."
"Kicking the Can"
Almost immediately after the House adopted its two landmark
transportation bills, virtually all attention on Beacon Hill
shifted to pandemic response.
The Senate kept mostly quiet on how it would address the
transportation issue for nearly four months before making
clear last week that the borrowing bill set for debate
Thursday would be it -- a decision that would leave the tax
and fee increases untouched.
Sen. Joseph Boncore, Straus's co-chair on the Transportation
Committee, linked the pivot away from the search for new
revenues to the major damage inflicted on the state's
financial standing by the outbreak.
"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," Boncore said last week.
By signaling it would not support tax or fee hikes this
month, the Senate effectively blocked any new transportation
revenues from securing approval until 2021 or 2022, a step
that stung many organizations and activists who had spent
much of the past session making the case that the system
needed more money.
Chris Dempsey, director of the Transportation for
Massachusetts coalition, said the Senate bond bill includes
valuable policy suggestions but that he believes it will
extend the "status quo" unless it brings in new money.
"It is hard to see how a bond bill that does not increase
recurring revenue available for transportation is going to
fix our worst-in-the-nation traffic congestion, repair a
dilapidated transit system, or help cities and towns repair
potholes and fix sidewalks statewide," Dempsey said in an
email. "The bond bill is a list of authorizations, not
actual projects. These projects and improvements only get
built when the state has the borrowing capacity to get them
done. Without new recurring revenue to increase that
borrowing capacity, many worthy projects will stay on the
drawing board and never actually have a groundbreaking or
ribbon-cutting."
Dempsey's group and other activists joined Somerville Mayor
Joseph Curtatone on Wednesday to press lawmakers into
adopting amendments that would impose percentage-based
ride-hailing fees -- the House's revenue package would
increase flat fees on the services -- and would direct
funding toward other major projects.
After the event, Curtatone told the News Service that the
Senate's decision to turn away from a 5-cent hike in the
state's 24-cents-per-gallon gas tax and other transportation
revenues stalls momentum on needed changes.
"If we're going to do this, we can't keep kicking the can
down the road and we can't take just baby incremental
steps," Curtatone said. "To not do so will leave it
incomplete and, again, just defer responsibility to take on
this challenge for another generation."
Gov. Charlie Baker criticized House leaders in February for
initially proposing a smaller version of his $18 billion
borrowing bill and argued that his version could make key
investments without increasing taxes.
On Monday, Citizens for Limited Taxation wrote a
memo to all senators expressing appreciation to the
Senate Ways and Means Committee for "avoiding" new
transportation taxes. CLT also said it was
"refreshing to hear" Boncore say the $16.9 billion bond bill
was affordable without the passage of additional revenue
sources.
"Living within our means is the hallmark of fiscal
responsibility, whether among your constituents in their
daily lives or their expectations from those they elect to
represent them," CLT wrote. The group urged senators to
strike a bond bill measure that CLT says would allow
municipalities and regions to generate new taxes for
transportation projects outside of Proposition 2½, which
limits property tax increases.
According to Straus, regional ballot initiatives could
deepen inequities because lower-income communities have less
of a tax base on which to build transportation funding.
"I don't think it's fair to ask those communities to meet
the same standards that some of the wealthier either
counties or municipalities face," he said. "If anything, I
think this kind of system could separate us more than bring
us together."
Lizzi Weyant, director of government affairs for the
Metropolitan Area Planning Council, threw her support behind
the Senate's regional ballot initiatives proposal, arguing
that the questions allow communities to fund bike lanes, bus
lanes, regional transit and other projects they otherwise
might be unable to afford without state-level action.
She acknowledged that there are some equity questions about
the system, but added that "lower-income and rural
communities really want to see this kind of investment
because it's the only way they're seeing significant dollars
for transportation in their communities."
Lawmakers have until July 31 to finish any business that
requires a roll call vote, which would include resolution of
a final bond bill.
Should this session end with no new transportation revenue
sources on the books, Straus said the House will likely pick
up the charge again starting in 2021.
"I can't predict what the House will do, but I can say this:
if new revenue is not provided in this session for
transportation, then the added revenue need will still be
there, and I assume the House would step up again to address
it," Straus said. "The operation of our transportation
system is not an issue that the Legislature can ignore."
Supporters of the constitutional amendment imposing a 4
percent surtax on household income above $1 million, which
needs one more vote from the Legislature to go before voters
for final approval in November 2022, say it could generate
as much as $2 billion per year for education and
transportation.
State House
News Service
Thursday, July 16, 2020
Senate Preserves Plan for Local Transportation Tax Questions
By Chris Lisinski
The Senate turned back efforts Thursday to remove new
municipal taxing powers from a transportation bond bill,
rejecting an amendment from Democrat Sen. Diana DiZoglio
that would have scrapped plans for binding regional ballot
initiatives.
DiZoglio slammed her party's leadership for including the
proposal that would allow cities and towns to increase local
taxes and use the funding for transportation projects,
echoing criticism from several business groups that the
measure would inflict further economic harm on communities
still facing a precarious outlook due to the COVID-19
pandemic.
"We wait to take up small business relief," DiZoglio said.
"We punt, we make excuses, and they're crying out to us,
saying, 'Our doors are closing, we might not survive this.'
Your community is shutting down right now as we speak, and
instead of passing things that are going to help us to
survive, you think it's a good opportunity to contribute to
the opportunity to raise taxes on us in a regressive manner
that could lead to our shutdown forever, Madam President."
The Methuen Democrat's amendment would have eliminated the
section -- one of the few revenue-related components of a
bill dealing almost entirely with borrowing and capital
spending -- but the Senate voted 31-8 to preserve the
regional ballot initiative language in the bill.
The four Republican senators voted in favor of the
amendment, as did DiZoglio and Democratic Sens. Anne Gobi of
Spencer, Walt Timilty of Milton and John Velis of Westfield.
The initiative is part of a bill that was approved 36-4.
The measure included in the $16.9 billion bond bill (S 2813)
would not mandate any tax increases, but it would allow an
individual community or a group of municipalities working
together to offer local ballot questions that, if approved,
would raise the sales, property, room occupancy or vehicle
excise tax and use the revenue for transportation.
Sen. Eric Lesser, a Longmeadow Democrat, said during debate
that many other states have similar policies available and
that the Senate had previously approved regional ballot
initiatives without a matching vote in the House.
"This is about regional empowerment," Lesser said. "This is
about acknowledging that a lot of infrastructure development
in our communities happens by region. It's not all about
top-down from Beacon Hill or top-down from the State House,
and it allows local communities to take some control and
some autonomy over projects that are vital to them."
Beacon Hill
Roll Call
$16.9 Billion in Transportation Projects (S-2813)
Volume 45 - Report No. 29
July 13-17, 2020
By Bob Katzen
$16.9 BILLION IN TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS (S-2813)
Senate 36-4, approved an estimated $16.9 billion bond bill
authorizing spending on transportation projects and
infrastructure. Provisions include $5.6 billion for federal
highway system projects, $2 billion for the design,
construction and repair of non-federally aided roadway and
bridge projects and another $1.25 billion for construction,
resurfacing and improvements of bridges and approaches. The
package is a bond bill under which the funding would be
borrowed by the state through the sale of bonds.
A controversial section of the bill allows cities and towns
and regions to raise local taxes to fund transportation
projects outside of Proposition 2½, which limits property
tax increases in cities and towns.
The package also includes earmarks for hundreds of millions
of dollars for hundreds of projects in legislators’
districts across the state—many of which will never be
funded. The Baker administration is required to adhere to
the state’s annual bond borrowing cap and ultimately decides
which projects are affordable and actually get funded.
Sometimes a legislator will immediately tout the inclusion
of local projects in these types of bond bills, especially
in an election year to show he or she “brought home the
bacon.” But be warned that none of the projects in this
package have yet been funded and most will end up never
being funded because of the borrowing cap and the power of
the governor’s office to pick which projects actually get
the green light.
The House has already approved an $18 billion transportation
package which includes an estimated $522 million to $600
million tax hike to fund improvements to the state’s
transportation system. None of the hikes are included in the
Senate version.
Hikes include a 5 cents-per-gallon increase in the motor
vehicle gas excise tax; a 9 cents-per-gallon increase in the
diesel fuel tax; an increase in the aviation fuel tax from 5
percent of the average price per gallon to 7.5 percent of
the average price per gallon; elimination of the sales tax
exemption on vehicle purchases for traditional rental car
companies; replacing the current flat $456 minimum corporate
excise tax with a nine-tiered sliding scale ranging from
$456 if the corporation’s total sales are less than $1
million to $150,000 if the corporation’s sales total $1
billion; and increasing the 20 cents-per-trip flat fee to
$1.20 for each non-shared Uber and Lyft ride and $2.20 for
every luxury ride. The bill includes language aimed at
preventing Uber and Lyft from passing those hikes directly
onto riders.
Supporters said the bill funds important transportation
projects across the state and unlike the House version, does
not raise taxes.
“In an increasingly hectic end to the fiscal year, I am
pleased the Senate was able to pass this important piece of
legislation to address many of the Commonwealth’s
infrastructure needs," said Sen. Michael Moore (D-Milbury).
“The transportation bond bill is a comprehensive collection
of many necessary improvements to our transportation systems
from road and bridges to various modes of public
transportation. During these increasingly difficult
financial times it is critical that we continue to make
investments in projects such as roads, bridges, sidewalks,
and other various restoration projects throughout the
commonwealth.”
Despite several attempts by Beacon Hill Roll Call, Sen. Joe
Boncore (D-Winthrop), the Senate chair of the Transportation
Committee, did not respond to requests to comment on the
bill.
“Section 5 in the bill sets up regional taxation districts
where they could change the sales or property taxes by
region,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton). “This is a
harmful concept for local businesses and residents. If their
region decides to increase sales taxes, potential customers
may look beyond these districts to shop for products. We
should be working to give relief to our local small
businesses during these challenging economic and public
health times, not creating an extra barrier to success.”
A House-Senate conference committee will attempt to hammer
out a compromise version.
ALLOW CITIES AND TOWNS TO RAISE TAXES FOR TRANSPORTATION
PROJECTS (S 2813)
Senate 8-31, rejected a motion to strike from the bill a
section that allows cities and towns and regions to raise
local taxes to fund transportation projects outside of
Proposition 2½, which limits property tax increases in
cities and towns.
“Legislating by local tax ballot initiatives hampers our
ability to serve our communities in a uniform, progressive,
equitable way,” said Sen. Diane DiZoglio (D-Methuen), who
led the charge to delete the section. “Some of the tax
options put forward in this regional tax increase proposal,
including the sales tax and property tax components, have
nothing to do with transportation but are extremely
regressive and would damage our Main Streets. Now, in the
middle of a global pandemic, it is astounding to me that we
think this is the time to be adding more of a financial
burden to our local mom and pop shops.”
“It’s clear that more and better public transit is needed
across the state, and it is important to give local
communities and regions the ability to raise funds when they
identify particular needs,” said Sen. Cindy Creem
(D-Newton). “Improving access to business districts that are
not currently accessible by public transit is good for
workers, small businesses and the overall economy. We are
giving communities this option if the voters choose to use
it.”
“The attacks on Proposition 2½ under any guise are
relentless, always intent on chipping away at city and town
taxpayers’ protection,” said Chip Ford, Executive
Director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, which
created the law overwhelmingly approved by voters in 1980.
“Section 5 of the Senate’s transportation bond bill created
a new exclusion for the citizens’ referendum law. It
especially did not belong secreted into a massive borrowing
bill, slipped in at the 11th hour without public notice
never mind hearings,” Ford added. “Just business as usual on
Beacon Hill. Citizens beware—those are the people you
elected to the Senate to allegedly represent your
interests.”
“This is about regional empowerment,” said Sen. Eric Lesser
(D-Longmeadow). “This is about acknowledging that a lot of
infrastructure development in our communities happens by
region. It’s not all about top-down from Beacon Hill or
top-down from the Statehouse, and it allows local
communities to take some control and some autonomy over
projects that are vital to them.”
“The Senate is not letting the pandemic slow them down,”
said Paul Craney, executive director of the Mass Fiscal
Alliance. “They feel they are immune from the economic hurt
around them. Creating new taxing authorities is not how
we’re going to get our economy running again. This is just a
backdoor attempt to try to circumvent the will of the voters
and undermine Prop 2½. These senators should be thinking
about ways to reduce spending, cut taxes, and help small
businesses and workers get back on their feet. In the past
four months, countless Massachusetts residents lost their
jobs and cannot pay their mortgages. Today’s response by the
Senate is tone deaf to the financial hurt being felt around
the state.”
(Please read carefully what a “Yes” and “No” vote means. A
“Yes” vote is in favor of deleting the local tax option and
therefore against the option. A “No” vote is to leave the
local tax option in the bill and therefore is in favor of
the option.)
Senate Debate
on S-2813
Transportation Bond Bill
Thursday, July 16, 2020
[Relevant Excerpts]
CONVENES: The Senate convened at 11:08 a.m. . . .
TRANSPORTATION BOND: Question came on ordering to third
reading H 4547 authorizing and accelerating transportation
investment, coming first on a Ways and Means amendment (S
2813) to which several amendments had been filed.
WITHDRAWN: Sen. Friedman announced that Amendments 28, 80,
84, 87, 102, 151.1, 164, 184, 188, 256, 262, 258, 260, 255,
115, 124, 126, 132, 151, 152, and 153 were withdrawn. . . .
RECESS: Sen. Tarr requested a brief recess which was ordered
at 3:01 p.m. The Senate returned to order at 3:03 p.m.
Amendment 230
Sen. DiZoglio said: . . . Legislating by local tax
ballot initiatives hampers our ability to serve our
communities in a uniform, progressive, equitable way. Some
of the tax options put forward in this regional tax increase
proposal have nothing to do with transportation but are
extremely regressive and would damage our Main Streets.
That's especially true of sales tax and property tax
components.
According to the Retailers Association and the Restaurant
Association, which many of us have heard a lot from lately
during the pandemic, as many as 30 percent of their small
business members don't anticipate making it through this
economic crisis. Not at all. Shutting their doors forever,
laying off our neighbors. They're saying they're not going
to make it through. Eighty percent of typical small
businesses - those are our local families - shut down by
government order - are down 25 to 100 percent regarding
revenues, versus the same period last year.
Now, in the middle of a global pandemic, it is astounding to
me that we think this is the time to be adding more of a
financial burden to our local mom and pop shops. When they
are begging us for assistance. The restaurant bill was
already passed by the House. We wait. We wait to take up
small business relief. We punt, we make excuses. They're
crying out to us saying our doors are closing, your
community is shutting down right now, and instead of passing
things to help us survive, you think it's a good idea to
contribute to the opportunity to raise taxes on us in a
regressive manner that could lead to our shutdown forever,
Madam President....
People come to us for asking for mortgage relief, afraid of
losing their houses. They can't pay their rent, Madam
President. And we slip this proposal into the transportation
package. As what, an aside to what we're doing for
transportation? Nothing to see here? I don't think so. This
is unacceptable. Not now....
The state's municipalities with lower incomes are
significantly less likely to adopt optional additional tax
burdens, even when the municipality directly benefits from
additional revenue. The result is a dramatic difference in
local resources. This disparity is the result of more
override approvals and approvals in greater amounts.
Sen. Lesser said: I rise in opposition and urge my
colleagues to vote no....
Sen. Tarr said: Just to clarify something, and I want
to read directly from the bill, I'm citing line 501.
In the ballot question the city or town may include a list
of specific transportation projects for which the tax funds
may be used, or a general description of the type of
transportation project for which the tax surcharge may be
used. A general description. What constitutes a general
description? We're going to use the money to build a road.
Where is it? What's the specification? How much does it
cost? A general description.
Like many people, I greeted with great enthusiasm the
arrival of S-2813 because we knew that a bill was coming
relative to investing in transportation infrastructure. And
I got the bill. And I'm reading all the priorities page by
page, and I'm reading line by line, and today even, I heard
about important priorities and want to congratulate the
gentlelady from the Cape and the Islands for her work for an
important regional project.
And then I come to section 5 and I see we are converting a
bond bill to a tax bill. And you can imagine my
disbelief....
We've done some interesting things with corrective
amendments lately. I looked for the corrective amendment and
said well, clearly, there will be a corrective amendment
because this language must have been on a table somewhere
and fell into the drafting machine. This bill is supposed to
be about bonding for public works projects. There must be a
technical amendment to say, we didn't mean this to be a tax
bill. Why would we make this a tax bill? ...
We as a state postponed tax bill payments until, I believe,
it was yesterday. Why did we do that? Because people have
told us they're under the most significant economic distress
many of them have faced in their lives. We did it because
we're recognizing the pandemic has affected everyone's
economic life and we're in a different time than the other
times we passed this particular initiative. We aren't in
those times now.
So I haven't heard it, as well, haven't gotten the memo,
maybe it was attached to another page that didn't come, from
cities and towns - saying, please help us to raise taxes.
So not only does this bill, this provision in the bill, not
only is it inconsistent with the rest of the bill and
convert a bond bill to a tax bill, it also creates a mystery
novel. LIke many mystery novels it takes an interesting
turn. You go through the bill and say I understand putting
money into all these things, and then comes the turn. The
turn is it converts to a tax proposal.
A lot of things could flow from that. It could be a
whodunit? Who was the one who let these provisions slip into
the drafting machine? But I would focus on, who asked for
it?
What we have collectively been doing over the last several
weeks and months, I have been so proud of the work of the
Senate and House and administration to find so many ways to
respond to the distress people are having. Whether it's
helping people obtain PPE or find resources they need to
keep their business open, or pay for expenses they might not
otherwise be able to pay for. And so many things. So many
people are depending on us, waiting for a note in the mail
saying they have tax forbearance, or an email saying here's
what we've done to help you.
Just think of the response when they get something saying,
here's what you're getting from us next: a tax bill....
Madam President, it's a mystery novel. It also is a piece of
the bill that doesn't connect to the other things we're
typing to do. I won't belabor the point. But one of the
purposes of the bill as I understand it is to be able to
help cities and towns. Help with road and bridge projects.
Be able to recognize the importance of doing things on a
statewide and sometimes a regional basis. Now we have a
provision that says, you're on your own. Figure out a way to
do this. And by the way, you can attach a single subject of
taxation to be a permanent part of your landscape based on a
general description of the nature and type of projects you
would like to fund. For transportation.
What if we have an issue with funding education? Public
safety? We should not convert a very good bond bill to a
very questionable tax bill. I hope this is an error in
drafting. Thank you.
Sen. Creem said: ... I'm rising against this
amendment because I believe in this tool for areas of the
state that cannot get adequate services. We know we are not
funding everything that needs to be done. This is really not
a tax bill.
The federal government has fallen down on the job of
enabling states to update their mass transit we desperately
need. Giving cities and towns an option for new revenue
streams directed to transit is one more tool in the toolbox
to get us to where we need to be....
I urge my colleagues to reject changes that would remove
this option for communities to make their own choices about
new transit options.
By a
ROLL CALL VOTE of 8-31, amendment
REJECTED. Time was 3:45 p.m. . . .
By a ROLL CALL
VOTE of 36-4, bill (S-2813) ENGROSSED at 5:09 p.m. The
four-member minority caucus voted against passage.
State House
News Service
Friday, July 17, 2020
Advances - Week of July 19, 2020
While he hasn't often clashed with the Democrat-controlled
Legislature, the balance of power is shifting slightly
toward Republican Gov. Charlie Baker. The governor, who is
desperate to see the Legislature pass a housing production
bill and is facing calls to extend an eviction moratorium,
will soon be able to hold bills sent to his desk through
July 31 before returning potential amendments or vetoes, a
dynamic that could enhance his leverage in negotiations over
myriad topics.
That shift is occurring as the House readies itself for a
debate starting Wednesday on a policing reform bill expected
to emerge from the House Ways and Means Committee. As that
issue holds center stage, the human and economic toll of
COVID-19 has left Beacon Hill frozen in some ways, with no
evidence available to show that last year's state budget was
balanced and not a single budget proposal offered to help
the state to begin living within its diminished means for
fiscal 2021.
Still, there's a wide variety of key bills still in play
during the final two weeks remaining for formal sessions in
2020, raising the possibility for the biennial grand
bargaining over issues like transportation, health care,
climate change, economic development and more.
Overdue Budget
House leaders have had custody of Gov. Charlie Baker's
pre-pandemic fiscal 2021 budget since January. Citing the
volatile conditions, they bypassed their April reporting
deadline and then ignored their new, self-imposed July 1
deadline to offer a spending plan.
The state is spending through its $5 billion interim budget
which is supposed to cover expenses in July and Baker budget
chief Michael Heffernan has said there could be multiple
interim budgets, so look for the next one to come from the
Corner Office soon.
House leaders still won't say when they plan to deal with a
full budget plan, but the buzz is growing over a potential
fall session, which could blend budgeting with election
season -- the state primaries are Sept. 1 and the general
election is Nov. 3.
Quick and decisive action has been hailed as a hallmark of
budget management, but Baker and the Legislature, hoping to
eventually produce a budget plan that will stick, are taking
the opposite tactic during this crisis for two reasons. They
want to wait to see how tax collections settle out in the
wake of the July 15 filing deadline and they want a better
idea of how much, or how little, federal aid they can expect
to plug gaps estimated to be in the billions.
The fact that the fiscal 2021 revenue gap is estimated at
anywhere from $2 billion to $8 billion is a testament to the
level of uncertainty out there. Congress is returning to
session next week so the picture on federal aid will soon
come into clearer focus.
Legislative Agenda
Meantime, a late-July agenda that earlier this year was
expected to feature health care, climate change and
transportation revenues is instead turning on bills
investing in information technology (in conference
committee), authorizing restaurants to sell to-go cocktails
and warding off the threat of mosquito-borne viruses (S 2812
and S 2757 are both on the governor's desk).
The House is still compiling its response to the public
outrage over police brutality and systemic racism, with a
bill due to pop in time for a debate that will begin on
Wednesday.
Bills authorizing more than $17 billion in borrowing over
many years to cover transportation project spending are
headed to a six-member conference committee.
And with unemployment here above 17 percent, there's a case
to be made for passing an economic development bill, but so
far the anticipated jobs bill hasn't made it out of
committee.
A sports betting bill has also stalled out as the Red Sox
prepare for their 2020 season opener Friday at Fenway Park,
the Celtics and Bruins gear up to complete the remainder of
their seasons in Florida and Canada, respectively, and the
New England Patriots looking to start up pre-season work in
Foxborough. - Michael P. Norton
Transportation Bond
Lawmakers will need to appoint negotiators to a private
conference committee to search for compromise on major
multi-year legislation to borrow and spend billions of
dollars on transportation.
While both versions of the bill (H 4506/S 2813) similarly
approve $17 billion to $18 billion, House leaders will push
to scale back the amount they support now that their
counterparts in the Senate have left untouched a related
package of tax and fee increases aimed at bringing in
roughly $600 million more per year.
Adding to the tension, Gov. Baker originally proposed $18
billion in bonding and criticized lawmakers who felt the
state could not borrow that much without added revenues.
The legislative packages diverge on key policy questions,
and negotiators must decide if the final legislation they
send to Baker should empower cities and towns to impose
their own local tax hikes for transportation projects or
should order public transit agencies to offer low-income
fares in the next few years, two points the Senate approved
and the House did not touch.
Before the Senate approved its roughly $17 billion version
Thursday, senators either rejected or withdrew virtually all
of the most significant proposed changes, including
amendments that would have implemented a percent-based fee
structure on ride-hailing trips and would have eliminated
authorization for regional ballot initiatives. - Chris
Lisinski
Return of the U.S. Senate
The U.S. Senate returns to session after a two-week recess
with all eyes on Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is
reported to be finalizing a Republican plan for a new round
of pandemic relief funding.
McConnell, in a news conference from his home state of
Kentucky, said he thought Congress would pass one more
relief package that he was putting together with the White
House. He plans to present the proposal to Republicans next
week before opening negotiations with Capitol Hill
Democrats, according to Bloomberg News.
The House, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has already passed a
$3.5 trillion relief bill dubbed the HEROES Act, and Ways
and Means Chairman Richard Neal said this week he was
confident a deal could be reached that would include an
extension of enhanced unemployment benefits and a new round
of stimulus checks. "Those checks need to be in the mail
before July 31," Neal said during an interview with WBUR.
The Hill also reported that Republicans are eyeing a
five-year shield liability protection for businesses,
colleges, schools and churches to shield them from lawsuits
related to infections from the coronavirus, as long as
"reasonable efforts" to follow public health guidelines were
made. The measure said to be under review by the White House
would also give the federal court system jurisdiction over
all lawsuits related to personal injuries or medical
liability tied to coronavirus infections.
Massachusetts lawmakers, who are entering the final two-week
stretch of their own lawmaking session, will be watching
Washington, D.C. closely for clues into what they might
expect in terms of relief to plug state and municipal budget
holes blown wide open by the pandemic and the freeze
COVID-19 put on the economy for months. Fiscal analysts have
predicted that revenues could fall by $6 billion to $8
billion below previous estimates, but House and Senate
leaders at the State House have been reluctant to move
forward with budget planning for the fiscal year that began
on July 1 without knowing whether the federal government
will come through with aid. - Matt Murphy |
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
|
