We seem to be seeing a stark funding paradox in Massachusetts. The state plans to commit an historic $3 billion to public higher education infrastructure. However, the very communities housing these workers and students are hitting tax exhaustion. They're rejecting overrides and cutting local K-12 schools and libraries. And this comes a week after Hampshire College announced it's closing, which seems to be a sign of the volatile higher ed market. State House News Service reporter Colin Young explained whether or not lawmakers see a contradiction in putting money into state capital investments while municipal services are losing local support.
Colin Young, SHNS: I think...it would depend on where the lawmakers you're asking come from. The conference committee that's going to resolve this issue is stocked with three members from western Mass and specifically from the Knowledge Corridor area.
I talked to Rep. Michael Finn from West Springfield, and he said this is an easy bill for him to support because it will mean a lot of blue collar jobs in Hampden County. So he's looking at it as if the state supports these public higher ed campuses. That's going to create jobs for people who live near them. So, for reps and senators who have some of these campuses in their districts, I think they see this as a perfect fit. But if you're a lawmaker from a part of the state that doesn't have many campuses, you probably are wondering exactly that. Why are these places getting all of this money when my local communities are really starving for it?
Carrie Healy, NEPM: Yeah. So those local workers getting local wages will be able to pay their local taxes. Got it.
The Massachusetts House last week released its version of the spending plan for next fiscal year. At a press conference on the $63 billion budget, House lawmakers pointed to some major unknowns. Those include federal Medicaid changes and economic volatility, plus a possible income tax cut on the November ballot and shifting needs in shelters and education. Colin, what else is on that worry list?
It's a long list, Carrie! You mentioned the one ballot question on the income tax cut. There are a number of other ballot questions they're concerned about. There's another question that deals with state tax revenue. A rent control question that there are concerns on Beacon Hill about and on and on. And really, I think it's just the culmination of all of those things, the accumulation of the unknowns that has them a little bit frozen right now.
No one seems too willing to take big, bold steps at the moment, because it seems like every day there's something new popping up, something that hadn't been on the radar screen. That's going to complicate matters for them. Another huge one is energy costs. These are all intertwined things that the legislature and the governor are trying to deal with. But I think even they don't know whether they're going to have success.
Back when Governor Maura Healey filed her budget proposal, months ago now, lawmakers warned of revenue and expense uncertainty. So, is there more clarity now as this budget process drags on?
There is. There's at least more clarity on the state side of things. The state now has a few more months of revenue collections. Tax revenues are trending positively. They're just ahead of pace. So they do know that at least things haven't collapsed. You know, the bottom hasn't fallen out.
But at the same time, some of the uncertainty at the federal level has changed. Right? Of course, we have a war that wasn't going on when the governor first proposed her budget. So, some of the uncertainty has shifted. But at least on the state side, there is definitely a clearer picture.
That House budget proposal sets aside about $800 million for county sheriffs. That's roughly $50 million more than this year's budget. And Healey's proposal had far less funding budgeted. So what changes are House lawmakers aiming for, and and how would that added spending improve outcomes beyond just closing funding gaps?
Well, the added spending is really about some of these commitments that the state legislature and the governor have put on sheriffs, things like the no cost calls, medication assisted treatment and, of course, salaries, payroll for all of the employees at the county sheriff's offices.
That has been a huge area of growth in their budgets. The big change the House is making is breaking the sheriff's budgets into four different line items. They are giving specific pools of money for operations, for payroll, for the no cost calls, and for that medication assisted treatment. This, I think, is an attempt to get a better idea of where these problems with sheriff's budgets are actually happening.
Lawmakers, I think, want to know, is it that payroll bucket that's causing a lot of the problems? Is it the operations bucket where there's a lot of stress? So this will at least give them a bit of a better picture. But I don't think it's the final answer.
That's to say that for a number of years, sheriffs have had to come back to the legislature to get additional funding because they overspent their budget, and that's [happened] across the state.
It is. All 14 sheriff's offices. And lawmakers haven't singled any out. They have said this is really a systemic problem.
.
