Supporting Municipalities

The legislature and the Governor recently announced a joint commitment to avoid cuts in state aid to municipalities in the current fiscal year despite the state’s own loss of revenues.

While critical information from the federal government is still needed in order to finalize a full fiscal year budget for the Commonwealth, the Baker-Polito Administration and the Legislature are committing to no less than the Fiscal Year 2020 (FY20) level of funding for UGGA and Chapter 70 education aid as a baseline amount for FY21 funding.

The FY21 funding commitment also includes Chapter 70 increases for inflation and enrollment that will keep all school districts at foundation, under the law as it existed for FY20, providing an additional $107 million in aid over FY20. This increase comes in addition to approximately $450 million in new federal supports for K-12 schools to assist with educating students during the pandemic.   

Division of Local Services Alert, July 30, 2020.

This commitment reflects our shared belief that the services municipalities provide are truly essential.  As we struggle through the pandemic, now is not the time to reduce support for police, fire, and schools. 

Since COVID-19 arrived in force in March, three fundamental uncertainties have made it impossible for the state to plan its overall budget for the current fiscal year (Fiscal 2021, which began on July 1).   

First, no one knows what the course of the pandemic will be.  By now it does seem clear that we are in for a long struggle, but no one knows exactly what that means.   

Second, no one knows how the economy will respond to the epidemic itself and to the shutdown orders issued in response to the epidemic.   How many businesses will fail?  Will people find employment in newly needed services? 

The state’s available revenue depends very directly on the health of the economy.  Most of the state’s major revenue sources – income taxes, sales taxes, corporate profit taxes – go up and down as the economy goes up and down.   Economic recession means state revenue loss. 

Even in good times, states depend heavily on aid from the federal government, especially to support the Medicaid program.  With falling revenues for state governments across the country, all eyes are on Washington for relief.  The decision from Washington is the third major unanswered question for budget planners. 

We expected an answer by May or June and congressional Democrats did put forward a strong bill in May.  The House bill would fully protect Massachusetts and its municipalities from service cuts 2021. As of this writing, negotiations between the Democrats and the White House continue.  I hope that as you read this, we will have an interim answer, but the longer-term outlook depends to some extent on the outcome of the fall elections. 

In the absence of a major infusion of federal aid, the total revenue losses for Massachusetts in Fiscal 2021 might approach $6 billion, a big chunk of the $45 billion budget.  There is every reason to believe that Fiscal 2022 may also be grim. 

Like me, many legislators have previously served in local government and know the fundamental value of the services provided by municipalities.  We also know that local governments function within a very tightly defined financial box:  They can only raise the revenues authorized by state law and can only do so within the parameters of Proposition 2.5, the tax limitation law.  Additionally, many town governments have a rigid budget planning cycle built around the annual town meeting – it is hard for them to make mid-year course changes. 

Conscious of these factors, legislators are always eager to make a strong commitment to local aid that communities can rely on early in the spring.  This year we were unable to do that, first due to COVID-19 and then due to the delays in Washington.   

As July came to an end with no answer from Washington and with schools struggling to make plans for the fall, we decided we had to make a commitment to municipalities and resolve to meet that commitment regardless of the unknowns.  We do have a rainy-day fund that now stands at $3.5 billion, although our hope has been not to use it all in the current fiscal year.  Jointly, the House, the Senate, and the Governor concluded that we could, perhaps with other sacrifices, avoid cuts for municipalities and that is the announcement that came forward. 

Budget planners in some communities were surprised.  Indeed, for months, we have been warning that aid could be cut.  Some planners were suspicious that there might be some hidden catch.  

Our budget leaders are acting after great deliberation and with great appreciation for the work that municipalities do.  Local planners should feel safe relying on this commitment for Fiscal 2021. 

Fiscal 2022 is another story.  But our actions this year should signal how much we value the work of the police, the firefighters, the teachers, and other municipal public servants.  That appreciation will continue to guide our actions in 2022. 

Published by Will Brownsberger

Will Brownsberger is State Senator from the Second Suffolk and Middlesex District.

Join the Conversation

5 Comments

  1. Good that some planning is going on. Let’s not forget the custodians, nurse’s aides, kitchen workers and all other low- paid folks working for the State or privately through this pandemic.

  2. This seems the right path to me. And if the rainy day fund is all consumed, well, what would be a rainier day? I don’t need to parrot to you the comparisons of death rates to past wars.

    You don’t mention here taking on new loans at the state level. Again making the analogy to war, when we fight other humans we borrow all kinds of money to go kill them en masse. Then we pay some of it back over the years, but much of it simply becomes part of our liabilities more or less forever, and not such a consequential part as inflation takes its effect (though inflation ain’t what it used to be).

    I suppose taking down a virus, addressing poverty and keeping educational standards up is not as romantic as claiming a hill or obliterating a city’s civilians, but perhaps it’s also something worth taking on debt to do.

    What are the constraints on the state for taking on new debt? At the federal level it’s done casually enough, but it seems like states and provinces are these days quite leery of expanding their debt.

  3. It’s time for a long overdue overhead evaluation analysis. It’s time to put everything under a fiscally conservative microscope. Reduce overhead and dependency. NO NEW TAXES. Government dictatorship created this problem, now fix it.

    1. New taxes please, on the rich. Countercyclical government spending is crucial during an economic downturn to keep people stable and afloat. Cutting budgets and aid means leaving people without jobs and forcing them out into a market where there are no jobs for them, and then giving them no aid. What do we expect those people to do? Just die in the street?

  4. Well, that’s nice. It’s also the easy part. As of this afternoon it would seem that the federal govt will be providing no relief. So where will the $6+ billion come from?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *