The Senate’s $63.3 billion spending plan rolled out last week. It aims to increase local aid to cities and towns. Since 2009 the distribution of unrestricted local aid has remained the same. The Senate proposed a semi-overhaul. State House News Service reporter Ella Adams explains the specific changes lawmakers proposed in order to dole out the additional local aid.
Ella Adams, SHNS: Yeah. So, the Senate is proposing a bump in ‘unrestricted general government aid’ (we call it UGGA for short) for cities and towns, up by $53 million or 4%. That's more UGGA funding than either the governor or the House proposed in their budgets. Part of that is a new formula for that additional allocation, which would be distributed on a per capita basis. So, only the increased amount, that $53 million is the part that would be distributed in the way of the new formula.
Carrie Healy, NEPM: Interesting. So, who's taken notice of this and what are they saying?
Yeah. So, the Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA) which represents municipalities, was supportive of this announcement. Their CEO said that the group thinks the proposal begins to acknowledge how serious the need is among cities and towns. But I think it's worth noting that the MMA requested initially a $351 million bump in UGGA, and no proposal has even scratched that surface.
Yeah, $53 million is nowhere near $351M.
A new report from the Fiscal Alliance Foundation points to stagnant state aid as the primary driver of local budget gaps in communities across the state. The study says if the state funded communities at the national per capita average, it would be like injecting an additional $1.82 billion into municipal budgets, the equivalent of a 9% increase in property tax collections, but without actually raising anyone's taxes. So how does that report justify shifting the burden away from homeowners?
Yeah. So, the report shows the prop two and a half has reduced property tax bills across the state. So, it argues to keep that property tax limitation and says lawmakers actually shouldn't really make changes to that tax policy.
You know, it talks a lot about how property taxes are rising. The state aid has not risen. State aid has increased by less than 0.1% per year in real terms over the last decade, according to this report, which is arguing that proposition two and a half is really the only thing standing in the way of skyrocketing property tax burdens in response to what they call 'anemic growth' of state aid. So, it really puts a focus on increasing state aid as opposed to loosening municipal tax caps.
I will say this foundation is connected to the Mass Fiscal Alliance, which is a conservative-leaning government watchdog group.
Good to note. And the Senate, of course, regarding any kind of local aid, and their budget, will be debating their budget next week?
Yeah. The Senate is set to begin debating its budget on the 19th.
Shifting away from homeowners. Last week, the Supreme Judicial Court began weighing whether a proposed rent control ballot question violates the state constitution by explicitly exempting religious institutions from its price cap. So, can you explain how the justices are tiptoeing around dealing with the secular exemption for nonprofits and the constitutional ban on any initiative petition that even relates to religion?
Yeah, I mean, I would say it's their job to toe that balance. Just to lay it out, the challenging argument was that that ballot question should be disqualified because religion is a factor in the application of the law, and that the religious units named the proposal that would be exempt from this rent control would be benefited under the law that other secular uses wouldn't be in article 48 of the state constitution.
Like you said, it's laid out that no measure that relates to religion, religious practices, or religious institutions can be proposed by any initiative petition. But the Attorney General's attorney argued that the petition is simply a rent control matter, and it's not actually about religious matters or subjects, and she pushed back against the claims that it would benefit religious institutions because, she said it's not really clear how this would impact property owners.
The justices asked questions and pressed either side pretty extensively. There was a lot of talk about what the delegates at the Constitutional Convention were intending when they included this piece about religion.
Mhm. What's next for this?
We can expect a ruling. We're not exactly sure when that's coming.
