Category Archives: Budgets

BoS on 11/21/17

Here is an updated agenda and the back up materials.  These back up materials contain the Schedule A financial summary the Town of Medfield files annually with the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, that gives a complete summary of the town finances.

20171121-Meeting Materials

MEETING I PPSTED TOWN CLERK·. TOWN OF MEDFIELD t{LCl::.ivtu · l'UWN OF MEDFIELD. MASS NOTICE POSTED IN AccoRDANcE wITH THE PRovisioNs oF M.G.L. cHAPrE28n9r~H,U~3~ WMENDED. Board of Selectmen OFFICE OF THf TOWN 8LERK Board or Committee PLACE OF MEETING DAY, DATE, AND TIME Town House, Chenery Meeting Room, 2"d Floor Tuesday, November 21, 2017 7:00PM Agenda (Subject to Change) 7:00 Call to Order Disclosure of Video Recording Announcement We want to take a moment of appreciation for our Troops serving in the Middle East and around the world. Appointments 7: 15 Medfield State Hospital Building and Grounds Committee Citizen Comment Action Items Selectmen are invited to the Eagle Scout Court of Honor on Saturday, December 2, 2017. Vote to sign the Eagle Scout Certificate of Achievement for: Garrett Theodore Gipson Roberta A. Raine Tyler James Hatch Stephen Daniel Williams Discussion of Board of Selectmen 2018 A TM Warrant Articles Pending Items Town Administrator Evaluation Discussion Town Wide Goals Veterans Service Officer Annual Appointments Lot 3 Discussion MSHMPC issuance ofRFP for Facilitation Services Licenses and Permits (Consent Agenda) Katie Walsh, owner of Capsule, requests a one day Liquor permit for the Holiday Stroll on December 1, 2017 from 5PM to 9PM. (70 North Street) MEMO requests a Parade Permit for the Annual Holiday Parade on Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 1 :OOPM. MEMO also invites the BOS to lead the parade and participate in the Tree Lighting Festivities on December 1, 2017 at Baxter Park. Town Administrator Update Update on 11/17 meeting with the DOT and Legislators regarding West Street/Route 109 Bridge Informational 2017 Schedule A Town House closed at lPM on Nov 22. Closed on 11/23 and 11124 for Thanksgiving Holiday. Cushman House Lottery Application for 67 North Street20171121-agenda-final_Page_2


Mixed grades for state budgeting

Truth and Integrit y in State Budgeti ng: What Is the Realit y? 60 Massac husetts Report Card Tra nspare ncy 2015 2016 2017 Category GRADE Consolidated Budget Website Provides Debt Tables Discloses Deferred Infrastructure Replacement Costs Discloses Tax Expenditures 3-year Avera ge 3-year tre nd — Reserve Funds 2015 2016 2017 Category GRADE Positive Reserve or General Fund Balance Reserve Funds Disbursement Policy Reserve Funds Replenishment Policy Reserves Tied to Revenue Volatility 3-year Avera ge 3-year tre nd — Legacy Costs 2015 2016 2017 Category GRADE Public Employee OPEB Funding Public Employee Pension Funding Public Employee Pension Funded Ratio* 62% 3-year Avera ge 3-year tre nd — Budget Ma neuvers 2015 2016 2017 Category GRADE Deferring Recurring Expenditures Revenue and Cost Shifting Funding Recurring Expenditures with Debt Using Asset Sales and Up-Front Revenues 3-year Avera ge 3-year tre nd — Budget Forecasti ng 2015 2016 2017 Category GRADE Consensus Revenue Forecasts Midyear Budget Adjustments Multiyear Expenditure Forecasts Multiyear Revenue Forecasts Revenue Growth Projections 3-year Avera ge 3-year tre nd Budget Forecasti ng evaluates whether and how states estimated long-term revenue and expenditure trends. Budget Ma neuvers evaluates whether states used one-time revenues, borrowings, asset sales, and other measures to achieve short-term budgetary balance. Legacy Costs evaluates whether states provided adequate funding, as defined by retirement system actuaries, for pensions and other promised retirement benefits for public workers. Reserve Funds evaluates states’ rainy day funds and other fiscal reserves, as well as any policies governing their use and replenishment. Tra nspare ncy evaluates the accessibility to the public of states’ budget practices. * Source Pew Charitable Trusts, 2015 Followed best practice Did not follow best practice key

Municipal Facilities Evaluation and Capital Plan

Meals tax revenue

meals tax

Medfield netted $135,123 for FY 16 (the last year for which we have the complete yearly figures) from our meals tax, which our annual town meeting (ATM) enacted a few years ago.  I think of the meals tax as the town’s chance to tax the residents of our surrounding towns for enjoying our excellent restaurants.   At the Tuesday meeting of the Board of Selectmen Mike Sullivan shared his historic record of our net since the ATM adopted the meals tax.  I especially like the trajectory and the rate of growth.  I also especially like seeing documentation that our restaurants are doing increasingly much more business year over year.

LOCAL MEALS TAX RECEIPTS FY15 - FY17 FISCAL YEAR SEPTEMBER DECEMBER MARCH JUNE TOTAL 15 16 17 $7,916 $33,405 $37,559 $30,743 $31,924 $36,886 $30,672 $29,462 $98,793 $36,886 $32,908 $135,123 $37,589

More on chip seal

I asked Maurice Goulet, the Director of the DPW, a follow up question about chip seal and got more really useful information back from him this morning (a copy of that email appears below – I also inserted Moe’s original information at the end).  The “capital” he references is the town’s annual capital budget, which typically allocates monies to resurface subdivision roads.

chip seal

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Osler L. Peterson <> wrote:


I am sorry to be late in responding to your materials, but yes, that is hugely helpful, and exactly the quantification of the cost differential that assists me to understand the magnitude of savings.  I just had time to post your data on my blog, and I am betting that the residents will be equally as appreciative as I am at your putting that material together for us.

So a big thank you from me for doing that and for doing it so well and so clearly.

I guess I do have one follow up chip seal question as I think about it today, namely how many miles of chip seal do we typically do per year?  Even if the savings percentage is really high, if the actual total spending amount is not too great per year, we might still opt to asphalt – e.g. I bet the town residents might opt for pavement over chip seal if it only cost us $100K more per year.  Thanks in advance.



Osler L. Peterson, Esq.



It would be difficult to give you an estimate in roadway miles as our roadways differ so much in width, however speaking with Bobby Kennedy we average about $150,000 – $200,000 per year on chip seal.

With the calculations I had sent you, it would cost approximately $425,000 – $575,000 for overlay (does not include costs of adjusting castings and repairing driveway aprons) and $555,000 – $750,000 for mill and overlay if we were to resurface the same amount of roadways. This would drastically reduce the number of roadways we could maintain per year. Once our pavement management system is in place, we will have a better understanding of the town’s needs. Even with the pavement management system, it may not consider to utilize chip seal as much, reducing the number of roadways that are resurfaced. (Chapter 90 state funding allotment for Medfield is $395,076 per year plus usually $30,000 – $40,000 from capital) The roadways that are not resurfaced puts added pressure on the Highway Division for maintenance throughout the year.



From: Maurice Goulet []
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:30 AM
To: Osler L. Peterson <>
Cc: Mike Sullivan <>
Subject: Chip Seal and Overlay Comparison


Below is a comparison of Chip Sealing roadways vs. Pavement Overlay and/or Mill and Overlay as requested.

Consider a scenario of 1 mile of roadway that is 20 feet wide at current contractor prices:

5,280 feet long X 20 feet wide / 9 = 11,733 square yards

$24,639 – chip seal

$69,922 – pavement overlay

(65% savings)

(pavement overlay does not include raising structures such as catch basins, manholes and gates, and reconstructing driveway aprons affected by raising pavement elevation, pavement elevation changes also creates new drainage issues)

Overlaying on a distressed roadway develops reflective cracking through the new surface within a few years affecting longevity of the surface. Milling (grinding) and overlay would then be considered as the preferred method.

$24,639 – chip seal

$91,628 – mill and overlay

(73% savings)


Please let me know if you have any questions. Hope this is helpful.

Maurice G. Goulet

Director of Public Works

Medfield, Massachusetts


For the state budget wonks

This came yesterday too, from former resident and legislature watcher, John Nunnari:

State-House-smaller_1 (1)


By Michael P. Norton

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JULY 7, 2017…..Largely discarding spending plans they approved in the spring, the House and Senate on Friday sent Gov. Charlie Baker a $40.2 billion state budget that holds state spending flat, includes higher employer health care assessments, and, according to some Democrats, underscores the need for higher taxes and new revenues.

The bill was rushed through the House on a 140-9 vote and then cleared the Senate 36-2. After the votes, Democratic legislative leaders offered differing points of view on their final product.

“In the midst of a tough fiscal climate we’ve delivered a responsible budget that makes targeted investments and protects our most vulnerable citizens,” House Speaker Robert DeLeo said. “I am particularly proud of the work we’ve done on early education and care – which will have a lasting impact on both the workforce and the Commonwealth’s children – and supporting those battling addiction.”

Senate President Stanley Rosenberg took a more dim view of the budget, calling it “the harshest state budget since the last recession.”

“It would have been somewhat better had it contained the Senate’s modest revenue proposals including those on Airbnb, internet hotel resellers, flavored cigars, film tax, and the Community Preservation Act,” he said. “We can take some measure of pride in what we were able to do for local aid, children, and veterans, but too many were left behind.”

Lawmakers put aside many investments they had planned and settled for a budget with a bottom line that roughly mirrors projected state spending for last fiscal year. They did so because tax revenue growth forced them to mark down available revenues by $733 million.

“This budget is not without pain,” Senate Ways and Means Chairwoman Karen Spilka told reporters. “It’s clear that the state is facing a shortfall in revenue that will have an impact on real people’s lives and there are cuts throughout this budget.”

SHNS Video: Sen. Spilka briefing

Asked to identify some of the cuts she described as painful, Spilka said there were reductions in the Executive Office of Human Services and lawmakers were unable to preserve full funding for an account that helps cities and towns pay special education costs.

Spilka said members of a conference committee also pulled aside $104 million for a new reserve fund to cover spending in county sheriff offices and the Committee for Public Counsel Services, the state’s public defender agency. The revenue gap was primarily covered through $502 million in spending reductions, $205 million in “efficiencies and reversions” and the $83 million in revenue from not meeting a trigger to reduce the income tax rate, Spilka said.

House budget chief Rep. Brian Dempsey said the revenue markdown forced $400 million in changes to line items, but said he would hesitate to describe them as cuts because he said in many cases fiscal 2018 spending levels will be higher than levels in the original fiscal 2017 budget.

“These reductions are never easy,” Dempsey said.

SHNS Video: Rep. Dempsey briefing

The Department of Developmental Services will receive a $57 million increase over last year’s budget, but not the $84 million increase the House had initially proposed, Dempsey said.

The budget, Dempsey said, recognizes the problem of “revenue growth slippage” — Spilka called it a “new fiscal reality” — but still invests $40 million in unrestricted local aid, $119 million more in school aid, and $15 million to address the salaries of early education workers.

“I am very pleased that local aid was maintained,” said House Minority Leader Brad Jones, who took issue with the budget development process, which has been marked by a high level of secrecy. Jones also suggested the budget was balanced only by consciously underfunding accounts.

Rep. James Lyons, an Andover Republican, said the budget is predicated on “hopeful” levels of revenue growth, suggesting a 2.9 percent rate of growth is too optimistic since collections over the past year have grown by about 1.4 percent. “These revenue numbers are not going to meet the expectations,” Lyons said.

Another Republican, Rep. Shaunna O’Connell of Taunton, said the rushed vote on the bill that was released Friday morning made it “impossible” for legislators to know for sure what was in the budget and what had been left out.

Senate Democrats shot down a bid by Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr to give senators more than a few hours to read the budget before voting on it. Noting an interim budget is in place for the month of July, Tarr said the Senate could afford to postpone the vote until next week.

“It is inappropriate for us at this time to consider a document filed just a few hours ago,” the Gloucester Republican said. “It is more than 320 pages and spends more than $40 billion, which members have had a chance to review for only a very short period of time.”

Sen. William Brownsberger said he viewed Friday’s vote as one of “do I want the state to run or do I not want the state to run.” He noted that the Senate could have waited but that the conference committee report could not be amended regardless.

“We could do it later, but it’s not going to change. The deal’s not going to change,” he said. “I have confidence in the Senate Ways and Means team, I think they did the best they could and it is what it is.”

The budget features new assessments on employers designed to generate $200 million to help the state keep up with the rising costs of MassHealth, the public health insurance program that serves about one million people.

One assessment will boost a per-employee assessment paid by employers from $51 to $77 per year, while another will hit employers with up to $750 per employee if their workers choose MassHealth even though they have access to insurance through their employers.

The new assessments are coupled with plans to reduce the size of a scheduled increase in unemployment insurance rates to $500 million, from $850 million, but House and Senate Democrats discarded MassHealth reforms that Baker recommended in June and which employer groups had hoped would be coupled with the new assessments.

“The proposed state budget fails to honor a compromise reached with the business community that promised reforms alongside any assessment to close MassHealth budget gaps,” Christopher Carlozzi, Massachusetts state director of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, said. “The cost of healthcare is a top issue for Massachusetts small business owners and adding an additional assessment without reining in the cost of a bloated MassHealth program is irresponsible and guarantees the promise of greater budget problems in years to come. The legislature needs to understand that ‘shared responsibility’ is not a one-way street that consistently requires funds from the small business community without addressing the underlying cost drivers.”

Democrats in the Legislature said the budget requires Baker to extract $150 million in savings at MassHealth, but took pride in ruling out eligibility and benefit standard changes. Rep. Christine Barber claimed Baker’s plans would have “undermined” the state’s health care coverage goals.

The compromise budget retains a planned $100 million deposit into the state’s “rainy day” fund, a commitment that Dempsey said could prove important to credit rating agencies who have questioned the strength of the state’s reserves. The deposit would bring the total balance in the fund to $1.4 billion by the end of the fiscal year, but about half of it is contingent on capital gains tax revenues meeting projections.

Dempsey also noted that the House’s marijuana regulation bill, which is still tied up in negotiations, includes $50 million for substance abuse treatment from taxes on retail pot sales, which the House proposed to tax at 28 percent, but the Senate has favored a 12 percent tax.

“It’s a tremendous opportunity, I think, to tax an industry that ought to see a higher tax and use that money really for the betterment of the citizens of the commonwealth and treatment,” he said.

The consensus budget sided with the Senate on a reserve for the implementation of the new marijuana law, appropriating $2 million rather than the House’s approved $4 million.

Jim Borghesani, spokesman for the Yes on 4 Coalition and the Marijuana Policy Project, said the $2 million reserve “falls far short of the funding necessary to build an effective regulatory structure in the time set by the Legislature and the governor.”

“The cost of licensing and tracking software alone, which must be in place before applications can be processed, is estimated at $5.5 million,” Borghesani said. “The Treasurer requested $10 million for the year-one budget. We take elected officials at their word that there will be no more delays, and we hope funding is set at the amount necessary to prevent any more of them.”

The final budget keeps the University of Massachusetts system on track for what UMass President Marty Meehan projected will be a 2 percent to 3 percent hike in student charges this year, including the House’s appropriation of roughly $513 million. Higher education advocates and UMass officials had hoped negotiators would stick with the Senate’s higher figure of $534 million, which was about $4 million shy of the university’s request.

The advocacy group Public Higher Education of Massachusetts said the budget “hurts students and families” by underfunding UMass by $30 million, with state universities and community colleges faring “not much better.”

The budget deal does not include a Senate amendment that municipal officials urged the conference committee to preserve in order to rejuvenate the collapsing partnership between the state and communities that have raised property taxes under the Community Preservation Act.

Lawmakers spared from cuts their planned investments in local aid. “It is absolutely clear that the Legislature looked to protect cities and towns from the state’s revenue challenges,” Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Mass. Municipal Association, said.

Spilka said budget conferees left out MassHealth reforms recommended by Baker in June dealing with eligibility and benefit changes because they “rejected the notion that we should accept the governor’s health care proposal without the necessary transparency.”

“At a moment when we are rightly horrified by the lack of transparency in the health care debate on the national level, it’s important that we must stick to our principles and ensure such an important proposal for Massachusetts and its residents goes through the proper process,” she said.

According to House officials, the budget is predicated on tax revenues growing 2.9 percent rather than the originally anticipated 3.9 percent, and the budget’s $40.2 billion bottom line is about $1 billion higher than the budget approved at this time last year.

Projected fiscal 2017 spending is estimated at more than $40 billion despite only a 1.4 percent increase in tax revenues last fiscal year, a growth level that prompted Gov. Charlie Baker to hold down agency spending and raid trust funds for nearly $140 million.

Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Jamaica Plain Democrat who joined Webster Republican Sen. Ryan Fattman in opposing the budget, told the News Service afterward she was “still grappling” with her vote.

“At some point I think you have to be willing to recognize when you are the frog in a boiling pot of water and say, ‘This is not good enough, there are some choices that we could have made without adding a penny to the bottom line that would have done better for the people of Massachusetts,'” she said.

The budget includes “some painful cuts” to elder services programs but does not “appear to materially impair these services overall,” according to Mass. Home Care executive director Al Norman. More than $5.6 million was cut from Executive Office of Elder Affairs line items, according to Norman, who said there should still be sufficient funding to avoid a waiting list for home care services.

Supporters of a proposed surtax on high earners, a proposal marked for a 2018 ballot vote that could generate $2 billion, say low tax revenue growth, rising health care costs and spending demands, and the threat of federal funding cuts are forcing the state to weigh new revenues.

“The projected revenue shortfalls forced the Legislature to abandon some of the modest investments their earlier budgets had sought and led to even greater reliance on temporary measures to balance accounts,” Noah Berger, president of the left-leaning Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, this budget does not even begin to make the kind of major long-term investments that would improve our economy and quality of life by expanding educational opportunity for all of our young people and enhancing our failing infrastructure. Doing that would require fixing flaws in our tax system that allow the highest income residents of the state to pay the smallest share of their income in state and local taxes.”

Given the spending choices lawmakers were forced to make, Dempsey said he and other House leaders might be thinking differently about pursuing additional sources of revenue through taxes or other means if it weren’t likely that voters will decide next year whether to impose a 4 percent surtax on income over $1 million.

“If that were not out there, I think you’d look at it a little bit differently,” Dempsey said.

Newton mayor and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Setti Warren released a statement Friday afternoon expressing concerns with the spending plan.

“By continuing the annual spectacle of using one-time fixes, fiscal sleights of hand and gimmicks to fix the budget, Beacon Hill has decided we are a Commonwealth that will not recognize the truth that state government needs new revenue,” Warren said. “If we don’t fix this broken budget process – if we don’t stand up and demand transparency and admit that we need new revenue – the toll on the Commonwealth will only get worse. The key question facing us is what kind of Commonwealth we want to be. This budget and the way it was developed and passed suggest the Commonwealth we are becoming needs to change.”

Warren also criticized the conference committee’s omission of language directing officials to study the feasibility of building a high-speed rail line between Boston and Springfield. The Senate had unanimously backed the study, an amendment offered by East Longmeadow Democrat Sen. Eric Lesser, saying it train service would allow for a better link between the economies of greater Boston and western Massachusetts. Baker vetoed a similar study from last year’s budget.

[Matt Murphy, Katie Lannan and Colin A. Young contributed reporting.]


Serving the working press since 1894

For assistance with your subscription to the State House News Service, reply to this message or e-mail

MMA says state budget protected municipalities

This alert came yesterday from the Massachusetts Municipal Association with its analysis of the state budget that passed the legislature this week: “Legislators recognize that cities and towns have already passed their fiscal 2018 budgets, which is why they protected the UGGA and Chapter 70 increases that were announced earlier this year and included in the House and Senate budgets.”


July 7, 2017











Earlier this morning, the Legislature’s budget conference committee reported out a lean $40.2 billion fiscal 2018 state budget plan that is based on a $700 million reduction in expected tax revenues for next year. Very weak tax collections this year have created a $440 million hole in the FY 2017 budget, and forced lawmakers to make a $700 million downward adjustment in their FY 2018 forecast.

The House and Senate have scheduled formal sessions for this afternoon (Friday, July 7th), and it is expected that legislators will vote to approve and send the budget to Governor Baker today. The Governor will then have 10 days to sign, veto or recommend changes to the appropriations and outside sections.

While the Legislature’s budget enacts widespread reductions in state budget accounts, Representatives and Senators are clearly protecting and prioritizing municipal and school aid, as the conference committee budget (H. 3800) makes key investments in local aid priorities, including a $39.9 million increase in unrestricted municipal aid (UGGA), a $119 million increase in Chapter 70 school aid, and a $4 million increase in special education reimbursements. The remaining accounts are generally level funded.

Legislators recognize that cities and towns have already passed their fiscal 2018 budgets, which is why they protected the UGGA and Chapter 70 increases that were announced earlier this year and included in the House and Senate budgets. Any last-minute reductions in UGGA or Chapter 70 would have disrupted local budgets and forced mid-year cuts. Fortunately, lawmakers went to great lengths to prevent this.

Please Click this Link Now to Download H. 3800, the Legislature’s Fiscal 2018 Budget – You Can See Your Community’s UGGA and Chapter 70 Amounts in Section 3 of the Budget, which Starts on Page 226
In a major victory for cities and towns, the Legislature’s fiscal 2018 budget plan provides $1.061 billion for UGGA, a $39.9 million increase over current funding – the same increase proposed by Governor Baker and voted by the House and Senate. Almost all of UGGA funding comes from $985M in expected Lottery proceeds and $65M from the Plainridge gaming facility. The full $39.9 million UGGA increase is a top priority for cities and towns, because municipalities are counting on these funds to balance their budgets and maintain essential services for their residents.

With $4.75 billion for Chapter 70 aid, the Legislature’s budget includes a $119 million increase in Chapter 70 education aid (this is $27.5 million higher than the $91.4 million increase in House One), providing a minimum aid increase of at least $30 per student (compared to the $20-per-student amount in the Governor’s budget). The Legislature’s budget continues to implement the target share provisions enacted in 2007, and builds on the proposal by the Governor to start addressing shortfalls in the foundation budget framework. The Legislature’s budget increases foundation budget funding by adding more weight to the health insurance cost factor.

The Legislature’s budget includes $12.5M in the Chapter 70 appropriation to hold school districts harmless from changes in the method of counting low-income students. This is similar to the Legislature’s handling of the problem in the fiscal 2017 budget. H. 3800 includes language stating that this “transitional” assistance to address the problems in calculating low-income student costs is included in the per-district distribution amounts listed in Section 3 of the budget.

In the context of a very tight budget year, the Legislature’s increase in Chapter 70 funding is certainly welcome progress. The MMA continues to give top priority to full funding for the Foundation Budget Review Commission’s recommendations, and over the long-term will work to build on this increase.

In another budget advancement for cities and towns, the Legislature’s budget would add $4 million to the Special Education Circuit Breaker program, providing $281 million. The Governor’s budget proposed level-funding at $277 million. The $4 million increase is a step forward, although this is still short of full funding for a vital program that every city, town and school district relies on to fund state-mandated services. The MMA will work to continue building on this welcome increase.

The Legislature’s budget would level-fund charter school reimbursements at $80.5 million, far below the amount necessary to fully fund the statutory formula that was originally established to offset a portion of the funding that communities are required to transfer to charter schools. The fiscal 2017 funding level is $54.6 million below what is necessary to fund the reimbursement formula that is written into state law. If this program is level funded, the shortfall will grow to an estimated $76.4 million in fiscal 2018. This would lead to the continued and growing diversion of Chapter 70 funds away from municipally operated school districts, and place greater strain on the districts that serve 96% of public school children. Solving the charter school funding problem is a major priority for the MMA.

Compared to current fiscal 2017 appropriations, the Legislature’s fiscal 2018 budget increases Regional School Transportation Reimbursements by $1 million (up to $61.5 million), a very important account for smaller and rural communities. The budget would level-fund PILOT payments at $26.77 million, add $188K to library grant programs, level-fund METCO, and fund McKinney-Vento reimbursements at $8.1 million, a reduction of $250K. The Legislature’s budget would level-fund Shannon Anti-Gang Grants at $6 million.

The Legislature’s final budget defers action on important reforms to the room occupancy excise. Progress on this issue will now focus on separate legislation that is being crafted by Rep. Aaron Michlewitz in the House. The Senate budget had included language to close loopholes that allow the increasing variety of transient and other short-term rentals to escape taxation, including rentals through Airbnb and other similar online companies and through on-line re-sellers. These are important steps to bring parity and a level-playing field to the collection of lodging excise payments, and the MMA will continue to work hard to achieve passage this year.

Please Call Your Representatives and Senators Today to Say Thank You for the Local Aid Investments in the Legislature’s Budget – Including the $39.9 Million Increase in Unrestricted Local Aid and the $119 Million Increase in Chapter 70 School Aid

Thank You Very Much!