Consolidation efforts slow to take root in Massachusetts

BY MATTHEW KAPLAN FOR THE BU STATE HOUSE PROGRAM

BOSTON – The idea of Hamilton and Wenham combining services was nothing new. After all, the two towns have shared a school district, an emergency dispatch center, library and facilities manager since the 1960s.

But in 2004, town officials had another idea: Why not consolidate the towns? It might save more money and make services more efficient.

The answer, according to a state Department of Revenue study done at the towns’ request, was that the towns could save around $750,000 a year out of combined budgets of $42.2 million.
[more...]

BOSTON – Last June, Gov. Deval Patrick triumphantly announced the bill he had just signed would deliver “real cost savings” and “radically” reduce the state’s transportation bureaucracy. That bill created MassDOT – an ambitious merging of the state’s transportation agencies, authorities and offices into one superagency.

Legislative leaders joined the bandwagon, claiming the merging of the Registry of Motor Vehicles, the Highway Division, MBTA and Aeronautics Division, along with abolishing the Turnpike Authority, would make transportation more efficient and less costly.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo predicted the consolidation would bring “considerable” savings; Senate President Therese Murray predicted those savings could add up to $6.5 billion dollars over the next 20 years.

The optimism continued when MassDOT opened its doors on Nov. 1 with a contemporary look that included a sleek new website and a Twitter account.

But not everyone shares that optimism. Even some members of the Patrick administration are more circumspect about the potential gains.

“I think that number’s a little high,” said Jeff Mullan, Patrick’s recently appointed transportation secretary. “The numbers that we’ve got are largely in aligning health and welfare benefits. From my perspective, any savings is necessary, so we need to take care of the pennies because we spend a lot of them.”

The watchdogs outside state government agree.

“As a general matter, the virtues of consolidation tend to be overstated,” says Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. “It’s a noble effort to try and achieve savings and some things can be achieved depending on the particular area of state government. However, because political leaders don’t want to raise revenues or cut services, they tend to overstate the potential savings.”

The cost-savings from transportation consolidation are supposed to come in two primary ways. The most substantial will be in the scaling back pension plans for MBTA workers and retirees, placing their benefits more in-line with other state workers. The second is the elimination of 300 jobs, mostly in administration to reduce redundancy, said MassDOT spokesman Colin Durrant.

Durrant cites other possibilities for savings. One example: Turnpike Authority snow plows can now clear other roads, adding to the effectiveness of the equipment’s use.

“If you have soloed agencies not talking to each other, that’s not efficient,” Durrant says.

Most eyes, however, are focused on cuts in the MBTA healthcare benefits, which could save up to approximately $750 million over 20 years.

Before consolidation MBTA workers got free healthcare after retirement along with sizeable pensions. They also got the benefits earlier, qualifying for them after working 23 years. Starting Nov. 1, newly hired employees will have to hit the same marks as other state employees who must work 25 years and reach age 55 before qualifying to receive benefits.

The new bill requires that all past and present MBTA employees receive healthcare through the less costly state group health insurance system by July. Retirees older than 65 will have to pay monthly Medicare Part B premiums and up to 15 percent of any Medicare supplement plan. While state plans vary, they generally require workers to pay about quarter of insurance costs.

The benefits would be in line with other state workers.

However, MBTA labor unions are suing to get those benefits back, claiming that the new law illegally undercuts collective bargaining rights because it changes benefits without going to the negotiating table.

Widmer says that if this litigation is successful, the savings from MassDOT will be “zilch.”

David Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute, believes consolidation will provide an opportunity to address issues of state largess such as the pensions issue.

Another possible savings will be the higher costs of maintaining the turnpike.

“[There is] the potential of cutting turnpike maintenance costs that have always been greater than highway maintenance of other Massachusetts roads,” he said.

Widmer also lists an improvement in services.

“It’s not just savings for consolidation, but rather, can the state deliver better services because you don’t have different agencies working across purposes?” he says.

But Tuerck remains pessimistic on the hyperbole of consolidation.

“The disadvantage [of government consolidation] could be that we just get the consolidation, eliminate a few positions and do nothing further,” Tuerck says. “If the consolidation occurs and we don’t make any progress on the big ticket items then it will have been a stop in the wrong direction because it will merely create the illusion of progress rather than the reality of progress.”

BOSTON – In February, the federal government outlined hopes for the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) package: Jobs, economic growth, infrastructure improvements – all under the open public gaze of transparency and accountability.

Massachusetts’ officials had their own hopes for the estimated $12 billion the state was to receive. They spoke of “shovel-ready” projects that could start immediately and infuse the economy with money and jobs, countering an unemployment rate that had risen past 7.8 percent in February and continued to climb with 230,000 Massachusetts residents receiving unemployment benefits.

Ten months later, those officials are taking heat for being slow to spend transportation funds and create jobs, as others argue that the stimulus, while hardly a panacea, will spur longterm economic growth in the state.

State officials, led by Gov. Deval Patrick, say the critics are missing the point. On Oct. 27, Patrick unveiled the Massachusetts Recovery and Reinvestment Office’s economic growth plan, a strategy that echoes past years of governing philosophies that banked on highly skilled industries including biotech, green technology and education to pull the state toward prosperity.

“These are the very sectors that are leading Massachusetts out of the recession faster and stronger than the rest of the United States,” Patrick said in his opening remarks at the state economic summit. He said the plan would encompass investments in life sciences, infrastructure and education, as well as promote small businesses.

So far, the rationale seems to be paying some visible dividends. Last month, unemployment dropped statewide for the first time in more than two years, from 9.3 percent to 8.9 percent; although retail and manufacturing still shed jobs, the loss was offset by gains in education and health care.

But the approach has not been without its critics. Senate hopefuls, including Democrat Alan Khazei and state Rep. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, have spoken out against the stimulus fund, calling it “full of pork.” Recent media reports have cast doubts on the reported 12,374 stimulus-created or stimulus-retained jobs in the state.

Jeffrey Simon, the director of the recovery office, says the numbers in question were put forth by private recipients of funding. Estimates by state agencies have been more conservative.

“We won’t put numbers up for the public to see that we don’t have confidence in,” he said.

Simon says the overriding concern has been creating jobs in all sectors of the economy. He said there have been many projects, such as infrastructure work at Somerville’s Assembly Square, which will add jobs in construction and retail.

“We have a solid, balanced program. You can’t drive anywhere in Massachusetts without seeing road construction orange barrels, and at the same time we’ve used it to capitalize on exciting opportunities like the Race To The Top (federal education) program, smart grids and broadband accessibility,” Simon said.

To be sure, he said, many of the desired industries are highly skilled businesses with longer time frames for job creation. And much of the money has been spent on maintaining existing jobs.

The Department of Education, credited as the highest-performing on-paper agency for stimulus job growth by www.recovery.gov said its numbers were mostly jobs saved from the chopping block.

“It’s faster to save existing jobs than hire new people,” said Jonathan Considine, the education department’s spokesman. “So that’s why it may appear like the department is ahead of the curve.”

The stimulus money is not being spent on job creation alone. Government officials also cite numerous initiatives in infrastructure and transportation.

Transportation spending is a key – and more visible – part of the recovery program. Drivers, especially in Greater Boston, are now familiar with the green “project funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” signs dotting the roadways. According to the state, Massachusetts received authority under the ARRA to spend $437.9 million over two years on road and bridge projects. An additional $319 million will fund urban and regional transit projects.

Yet the state has been criticized for spending transportation funds too slowly. In October, U.S. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, wrote a critical letter to the Patrick administration, noting the state has spent 23 percent of its transportation funds, ranking 49th of all states and Washington, D.C. The governors of Florida and Virginia, the two performers below Massachusetts, also got letters urging them to accelerate their spending.

Patrick argues that the report did “not reflect the fact that Massachusetts has been ranked in the top 10 among states – and recently as high as 5th – for expenditure of all types of ARRA funds including critical health care and education investments.”

The governor also said that the state has chosen to focus on ambitious projects that will lead to lasting, long-term growth, such as the work at Assembly Square.

The multi-phase project, which will get $15 million in ARRA highway transportation funding, will create more than 1.15 million square feet of retail space and a new MBTA Orange Line stop, according to the state. The retail space will include an IKEA store, projected to open in 2011. Such work will take longer than road resurfacing projects.

Marc Draisen, the executive director of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), which consults with the administration about stimulus-related activities, said the hope for the stimulus program was job creation paired with long-term benefits for infrastructure.

“For the most part I think we’ve done a better job than in most states in trying to direct the money to projects that are going to have a long-term beneficial impact,” Draisen said.

Examples of beneficial projects, Draisen said, include intersection improvements along Dorchester Avenue in Boston, and critical roadway improvements on Rte. 37 in Braintree.

The MBTA ranks fifth for top recipients of stimulus money, with just over $164 million. This much-needed money will be used for operations, Draisen said, as well as a parking garage at the end of the Blue Line in Revere. The state also reports that the funds will be used for improvements to stations and tracks.

Projects like road paving, which are quick and create jobs in the short term, should not be a spending focus, Draisen said.

But he is not an unbridled cheerleader for the recovery program. He joined in the media criticism of the plan to spend $9 million in stimulus funds to build a walking bridge in Foxborough to connect parking lots owned by Robert Kraft, the billionaire owner of the Patriots.

Draisen thinks criticism for the slow start to spending is “a little misplaced,” saying that though the state took time to decide what to do with the funds, the money will be spent.

The deadline to advertise projects is February 2010, he said, and “will result in spending between now and the end of spring.”

But Draisen, who favors a second stimulus bill, said the ARRA is likely to fall short of expectations.

“People were expecting the sun, the moon and the stars. It was what it was, it was a substantial but limited amount of spending, it was scattered across a wide variety of categories…it could not and should not have ever been expected to do everything under the sun.”

(link to original article)

BOSTON – In 2008, the Massachusetts Legislature approved the Life Sciences Act, a 10-year, $1 billion initiative that promised to bring biotechnology companies and jobs to the state, building on an industry already at the nucleus of the state’s high-tech economy.

Facing competition from California, Pennsylvania and other states, the Legislature designed the act to make Massachusetts more attractive to companies and investors through tax incentives, loans and grants.

Supporters say the legislation was necessary to prevent biotechnology firms, some of Massachusetts’ most successful economic performers, from being lured away by states with more generous incentives.

“This is a proactive effort,” said Susan Windham-Bannister, president of the Massachusetts Life Science Center, the quasi-public agency that awards funding through the Life Science Act.

Efforts to grow and keep biotech firms has transcended political differences. In 2004, then-Gov. Mitt Romney tried to attract out-of-state biotech companies to Massachusetts. The state, which had already boasted 30,000 jobs in the biopharmaceutical industry, hoped to create 100,000 biotechnology jobs by 2010, according to an industry report.

[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgftL9A39Tg]
In a 2007 Boston Globe editorial, Gov. Deval Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray said a Life Sciences Act would be essential to the Massachusetts economy.

“Every new job created in the life sciences results in two additional jobs in support services for suppliers, vendors and construction,” the two wrote. “What’s good for the life sciences and biotech is good for Massachusetts.”

The state is moving ahead despite the economy. Over the next three years, the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester is scheduled to receive $90 million in capital funding for the construction of the Albert Sherman Center, a medical research facility.

Bristol-Meyers Squibb will open a $1 billion manufacturing plant in Devens in 2011, lured by $67 million in state incentives and $385 million in private investment dollars.

The new facility will create an estimated 600 jobs, according to Tim Sappington, executive director of the Leominster-based North Central Workforce Investment Board.

As of mid-November, the building appeared to be near completion, with a large stone company sign marking the roadside entrance.

“There was a tremendous amount of work done on the part of a lot of different state initiatives or state government agencies that provided support to get Bristol-Myers to locate here,” said Sappington.

But the economy has slowed some of the state’s ambitions. In 2009, the Life Sciences Center was supposed to receive $50 million to administer the initiatives of the Life Sciences Act. Instead it received $15 million from the Legislature, Bannister said. In 2010, the center will receive $10 million as a result of the recession.

Angus McQuilken, vice president for communications at the center, said it will still receive the $1 billion in funding over the course of 10 years but some years the center will receive more than other years based on what projects are in the works.

McQuilken said the center wants to fund “shovel-ready” programs, which are in the position to receive funding and put it to use right away. He estimated that through the funding allocated by the Legislature, 5,500 jobs could be created, many of them in the economy-sustaining building trades.

Other Life Sciences Act grants are expected to create jobs. They include:

$12.9 million in grants for a wastewater system facility to serve Framingham’s Technology Park, which will create 300 new manufacturing jobs at a new Genzyme plant.

$25 million in state grants and private matching funds to renovate the Loeb Lab at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, creating 200 construction jobs and up to 50 permanent jobs.

$9.5 million grant to Tufts University’s Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine to construct the New England Regional Biosafety Laboratory in Grafton. The project is expected to create 56 full-time construction and 29 long-term jobs.

Despite the state’s investment, biotech companies are still seeing lowered expectations because of the recession.

“Our business has been somewhat flat over the past year to 15 months,” said John FitzPatrick, a sales representative for Groton Biosystems, a biotech company in Boxborough. “Particularly with the way the economy has been, companies are more reluctant to spend.”

Steve Poftak, research director at the Pioneer Institute, argued that the state does not have the expertise to identify which technologies to support.

“We really think the state should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in terms of industries,” said Poftak who worked in the Romney administration. “When I used to work for the state we would rely on outsiders’ financial forecasts and we would always say, ‘If I had the ability to financial forecast the stock market, I would be in a different job.”‘

But at New England Peptide in Gardner, Solimar Santiago is glad for the state’s investment in biotech. A Worcester Polytechnic Institute graduate who majored in chemical engineering, Santiago said he was able to get a job with New England Peptide after a three-month search.

Though Santiago said business has slowed recently, the 30-employee company is looking to hire three new workers. Peptides, which are composed of chains of amino acids, are used in a number of medical research applications.

“People are hiring,” said Solimar. “The fact that they’re hiring means it’s a good field to get into.”

(link to original article)

BOSTON — In the darkening recession, Gov. Deval Patrick and the Legislature have dialed back funding for education, social services and local aid. But energy efficiency and renewable energy development – promised as a salvation for economic growth – have been spared.

“We are in very difficult times, as you know, but we cannot afford to slow down or think small, especially in the clean energy field,” Patrick told a conference of 400 energy entrepreneurs and investors in Boston earlier this month.

Over the last decade, Massachusetts has instituted dozens of tax incentives, loans and grant programs to encourage development of renewable energy. But in this withering financial climate, with Massachusetts facing a potential $600 million budget deficit, is the state’s investment still on track to reap a bright, green economy?

The Patrick administration has set a goal of making Massachusetts No. 1 in the nation in producing and consuming renewable energy. The Legislature is on board with the plan, yet there have been pitfalls with the ambitious program.

In 2008, the Legislature showed its commitment to renewable energy with a package of bills that promised jobs and a stronger state economy. The legislation carried a total price tag of $118 million in loans and grants over five years. Supporters said the bills would create an estimated 14,000 to 17,000 jobs.

But timing was not kind to the programs. Nick d’Arbeloff, president of the New England Clean Energy Council, said the estimates of jobs and revenues were made shortly before the credit market collapsed, leading to a drop in private investment in renewable energy.

“In 2008 the whole sector started to just explode in terms of investment and in 2009 there was a pullback,” d’Arbeloff said.

Money promised to some of the programs had to be trimmed. D’Arbeloff said that the Green Jobs Act, originally allocated $68 million, ended up receiving around $20 million.

“No secret here, the economy forced the Legislature to scale back on every allocation possible,” he said.

Now, looking to incentives to prod private investors back into action, the state has announced plans to foster three main categories of renewable energy: wind, solar and efficiency.

The promise

- Wind power: The state plans to make wind power a top priority by building wind generators on state property. The goal is to save the state budget nearly $342 million in energy costs annually, according to the state energy office.

Under the plan, small-scale wind turbines on state land would produce enough electricity to power the equivalent of 6,900 homes. Large-scale projects of 7.5 megawatts or greater would produce enough to power 194,615 homes. Whatever self-generated power the state does not use will be sold to the electrical grid.

- Solar power: The state launched its popular Commonwealth Solar Rebate program in January 2008. By last month, the program had awarded an average of nearly $43,000 in cash rebates to 1,018 commercial, residential and public solar construction projects. The $68 million program has since stopped taking applications because the state has already met its goal of creating 27 megawatts of solar energy by 2012.

- Energy efficiency: The state anticipates $6.5 billion in savings for electric and natural gas customers over the next three years through public utility energy efficiency programs. The programs would also create or save 4,000 jobs while increasing the gross state product by $2.4 billion, the energy office reported this month.

If successful, the state’s energy efficiency programs would lead the nation in energy efficiency. In 2009, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ranked Massachusetts second, behind California, for energy efficiency.

The reality

But there have been some short circuits in the state’s renewable energy plan.

Evergreen Solar, a photovoltaic company based in Marlborough, had been the state’s poster child for renewable energy. In 2008, the company received a $58.6 million state grant to build a solar panel manufacturing plant in Devens, creating 700 full-time and 300 temporary jobs, three times more than the 350 the company had originally announced.

But after the company posted a loss in 2009 it announced plans to begin manufacturing panels in China. The company has not announced if there will be any layoffs at its Devens plant, but it is unlikely the state will see any new jobs at the facility.

State Energy Secretary Ian Bowles maintains the state made a wise choice by supporting the company and contends the energy program remains a “real success story,” with a 15-fold increase in solar installations after four years.

“That creates a lot of jobs and diversifies our energy away from fossil fuels,” he said.

Neither the energy office nor the Clean Energy Council could give estimates for overall green job creation in the near future, but both expressed confidence that job growth will be seen in 2010.

Since the state started its Solar Rebate program, solar manufacturing jobs in the state have doubled, from 1,086 in 2007 to 2,075 in 2008, according to Lisa Capone, an energy office spokeswoman. The energy office expects the industry to add 960 employees this year.

But the Solar Rebate program, which ran through its $68 million of funding in less than a year, was “a victim of its own success,” said d’Arbeloff. “Ultimately to extend that to a long term of time would be too expensive to the state.”

Instead, the state will institute a solar credit market, guaranteeing solar power producers a set energy rate. D’Arbeloff said the program, which will begin in January, is a more logical, free-market mechanism than the Solar Rebate program.

The state still has a way to go in wind power. There are just three wind installations on state properties, including the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, Logan Airport and UMass-Lowell. The total electricity generated by these facilities amounts to 682 kilowatts, .07 percent of the 989 megawatts the state hopes to generate in the future.

Wind power is far from becoming an everyday reality, despite the state’s tax incentives. It would take 15 years for a small business owner who constructs a wind turbine to realize the $40,000 investment for a 10 kilowatt installation, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

With a rebate, savings could come sooner. The state’s rebate for a 10 kilowatt wind turbine runs about $7,800, according to a calculator on the state’s Commonwealth Wind Incentive Web site.

Even with incentives, questions remain about available funding for renewable energy projects in the current economic climate.

Meg McIsaac, senior commercial lending officer for TD Bank USA, which specializes in renewable energy lending, said investors and lenders are looking to support proven technologies like wind and solar before taking a risk on deepwater wind power, tidal power and other new energy sources.

“We tend to be backwards-looking thinkers, so if we can get our arms around something that has been up and running and there is a track record, we can understand that all day long,” McIsaac said.

Despite these uncertainties the Patrick administration has urged investors to remain forward-thinking. Patrick even uses the recession to argue that more investment is needed to ensure that Massachusetts does not lose clean energy jobs to other states.

“We can invent our own clean energy future and have the whole world as our customer,” Patrick said. “That is where I want Massachusetts to be.”

(link to original article)

BOSTON – The idea of Hamilton and Wenham combining services was nothing new. After all, the two towns have shared a school district, an emergency dispatch center, library and facilities manager since the 1960s.

But in 2004, town officials had another idea: Why not consolidate the towns? It might save more money and make services more efficient.

The answer, according to a state Department of Revenue study done at the towns’ request, was that the towns could save around $750,000 a year out of combined budgets of $42.2 million.

Despite the potential savings, the towns didn’t merge. Residents on both sides of the town border worried they would lose out to their neighbors. Others did not want to see six of the combined 25 police officers laid off, as was recommended by the report.

There was also a pride of place.

“Some people just don’t like the idea (that) the places they lived would disappear in name,” said Hamilton Town Administrator Candace Wheeler. “It wasn’t one of those things that you would call a slam dunk.”

The experience hasn’t stopped other towns. Faced with recession, loss of tax revenue and cuts to local aid, towns and cities from Cape Cod to the Pioneer Valley are considering a consolidation to cut costs:

Melrose and Wakefield joined their health departments in July, sharing inspectors and public health nurses. The move saved Melrose $35,000 out of its $70.9 million operating budget, said Ruth Clay, health director for the two towns.

Trash consolidation efforts in Quincy cut about $160,000 from the city’s $226.5 million budget.

Franklin County towns looked into consolidating their eight school districts, which could save up to $2.8 million from the combined school budgets of $133.4 million.

Lt. Gov. Tim Murray recognized the trend at a conference on regionalization in Worcester in September.

“Now, given the budget realities facing communities across the commonwealth, we must move even more swiftly on a range of fronts, including joining forces to provide services on a regional basis that historically have been provided by each community individually,” he said.

Massachusetts has about 333,000 municipal employees statewide, with 516 workers for every 10,000 people. That municipal employee-to-citizen ratio is the 11th lowest ratio nationwide, according to the Census Bureau.

But a low ratio does not decrease budgets. Last year, according to the Department of Revenue, the average municipality had $29.9 million of debt. Massachusetts has the third largest amount of combined state and municipal debt, behind Alaska and New York, according to a Census Bureau report issued in 2005.

The growing debt has put additional pressures on municipal budgets already strained by cuts in local aid.

As a result, consolidation has become especially popular with small towns, which often lack the money for all of their part-time employees, said Phoebe Walker of the Franklin Council of Regional Governments in Greenfield.

For example, Hubbardston recently consolidated its emergency dispatch services with Oakham and Rutland. As a result, the center eliminated three full-time positions, saving the towns between $80,000 and $100,000 a year.

“In a small town budget, I think that number is significant,” said Thomas Ruchala, Rutland’s fire chief.

Ruchala said there are other advantages. Combining dispatch services gives the towns more flexibility to purchase technological upgrades, including a system that allows the center to track the location of cell phone calls.

Earlier this month, Provincetown and Truro discussed possibly combining their jails and dispatch centers as a way to cut costs.

“Frankly, Provincetown needs a new police station,” Town Manager Sharon Lynn said. “We’re down some officers.”

Massachusetts has 264 emergency call centers, about one for every 24,000 people. Maryland has 24 centers – one for every 233,000 people. The difference comes from the fact that most states conduct business at a regional or county level, Massachusetts has a strong parochial tradition, where towns and cities, founded two to three centuries ago, are the epicenters of services.

“People have really gotten used to providing these services at the local level,” Walker said.

Another problem is the perception of winners and losers in consolidation.

When Quincy, Braintree and Weymouth collaborated on trash collection, Quincy saved about $160,000 out of its $226.5 million budget, said John Sullivan, Qunicy’s waste and recycling manager.

Steve Poftak, research director for the Pioneer Institute, a public policy think tank, said Braintree achieved similar savings, which represented a more significant figure out of its $83 million budget.

Municipalities are “so desperate for savings in some of these cases,” Poftak said. “Regionalization isn’t necessarily a cure-all, but it’s important.”

And Sullivan notes that the three-town deal purposefully stopped short of consolidating other municipal services.

“Each town wants to keep their autonomy,” Sullivan said. “I think that’s very important.”

As such, smaller scale consolidation is more politically feasible compared to more contentious wholesale consolidations of police or fire departments.

When Hamilton and Wenham discussed combining police forces, many community members reacted negatively, not wanting to see emergency staff cuts. Arguments for consolidation also were weakened by the fact that savings sometimes take 10 years to materialize, Wheeler said. For example, if Hamilton and Wenham combined police services, the towns would have to initially lose money, paying to repaint squad cars, consolidate information and retrain officers.

“The biggest driver right now is a significant savings over the long term,” Wheeler said.

For now, few towns have taken the steps to formulate a joint services agreement, Poftak said.

The Pioneer Institute posts regionalization agreements on its Web site. So far, the site has 13 agreements written over the past 13 years. The state has 351 cities and towns.

Small-scale, long-term cuts mean towns and cities often do not see significant savings from consolidation, at a time when municipalities need significant short-term budget help.

Wheeler said Hamilton officials would have been more excited about the Department of Revenue’s findings if the report suggested $1 million or more, instead of about $750,000 in combined immediate savings. Combining the town budgets of Hamilton and Wenham totals about $42.2 million.

“In our case, it was not a salvation,” she said.

(link to original article)

BOSTON – There is no mystery why – with Massachusetts facing another multimillion-dollar budget gap – the promise of legalized gambling is enjoying fresh support in the Legislature.

Both Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Robert DeLeo now support resort casinos similar to Connecticut’s Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods. Their positions come less than a year after the House rejected a similar proposal by Gov. Deval Patrick that he said would “result in tens of thousands of construction jobs, over 20,000 permanent jobs and billions of dollars invested in our economy.”

Testimony before a legislative committee in October heard supporters, including municipal officials and race track executives, offer heady estimates of how much casino gambling could pump into state coffers.

The range from $170 million to $500 million in revenues compares to the $395 million Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun paid to Connecticut last year.

The Economic Development Committee also heard estimates that casinos could create between 1,000 and 10,000 jobs, including short-term construction jobs and longer term employment. Gambling establishments in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine and New Hampshire employ 23,600 people; Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun employ the most: 11,700 and 10,300, respectively.

Casino proponents also claimed money going from Bay Staters’ pockets to Connecticut casinos an estimated $709 million in 2008 alone would instead stay in Massachusetts.

Such promises are not limited to Massachusetts. At least two dozen states have considered expanded gambling since the recession gutted state budgets in 2008.

An analysis by the Nelson Rockefeller Institute of Government at the State University of New York found that state income from gambling increased nationwide at a steady 5 percent annual rate – from $15 billion in 1998 to $24 billion in 2008.

In 2008, Connecticut, in the midst of a recession, took in about $184 million in slot machine revenue from Foxwoods down from about $196 million the year before and the state got nearly $211 million from Mohegan Sun, down from about $225 million in 2007.

Other New England states looked to gambling revenue for help. A UMass- Dartmouth study found that in 2008, Rhode Island took in just under $248 million from Twin River and about $43 million from Newport Grand. In the same year, Maine received just under $24 million from Hollywood Slots Hotel and Raceway in Bangor.

Other states offer tantalizing revenue and employment numbers gained from gambling:

* Louisiana: Lake Charles’ L’Auberge du Lac generated revenues of $85.8 million, a 5 percent improvement over $81.8 million from 2008.
* Michigan: Three Detroit casinos employ 8,200 people, an important figure in a city with 29 percent unemployment. Gaming revenue has been off only 2 percent this year, but, according to the Michigan Gaming Control Board, it still provided $122 million to the state.
* Pennsylvania: In fiscal 2008-09, the state saw $786 million in property and wage tax relief funded by slot machine gambling. Philadelphia, whose share was about $86 million, is expected to reduce its wage tax from 4.169 percent to 3.93 percent for residents and from 3.685 percent to 3.5 percent for non-residents.

Such numbers have added incentive to bring gambling to Massachusetts. A UMass-Dartmouth report estimated that Massachusetts residents spent about $709 million gambling at Connecticut’s two casinos in 2008 – down from $846.2 in 2007 and $876.2 million in 2006.

That same report estimated that, over five days in January 2009, around 30 percent of Foxwoods patrons and about 16 percent of Mohegan Sun patrons hailed from Massachusetts.

In Massachusetts, legislators would need to negotiate how much of gambling proceeds they will take. The percentage of revenue that state and local governments take varies as widely as gambling itself.

In Connecticut, where the casinos are on Indian tribal lands, the state has no taxing authority. Connecticut either “shares” 25 percent of the slot revenue at Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods or takes a flat fee of $80 million, whichever is higher. In 2008, the two casinos shared about $396 million with the state. When Patrick introduced casino legislation in 2007, he proposed that Massachusetts take 27 percent of all gross casino revenue or $100 million, whichever was greater.

But there have been warnings that Massachusetts can’t expect to see such big numbers anytime soon.

The Rockefeller report in New York warned “gambling revenue from existing operations tends to grow more slowly than state tax revenues.” The recession has slowed gambling revenue growth even more.

A chastened Patrick has warned recently that casinos would not be a quick fix for the state’s budget woes. And even if Beacon Hill expands gambling in the state, casinos may not open in time to ease the pain of the current financial crisis.

The cost of constructing casinos and the debt load it brings, especially in financially challenging times, could further lessen the bang of a casino’s buck.

Rhode Island’s Twin River video slot parlor spent $700 million to double the size of the complex, boosting the number of slot machines from 3,200 to 4,750. The expansion produced $248 million for Rhode Island last year, making it the state’s third-largest revenue source, behind income and sales taxes.

Despite the promising start, Twin River’s operators cannot meet heavy debt obligations and have defaulted on their loans, something gambling opponents say Massachusetts should consider when weighing the cost of building a casino.

Opponents point to other costs, both tangible and intangible.

Kathleen Norbut, president of United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts, a nonprofit anti-gambling cooperative, concedes that casinos would produce temporary construction jobs. But she said gambling’s longterm effects are another issue.

“We are going headlong into an industry that historically promotes corruption and addiction,” Norbert said. She lists the costs to taxpayers of these ills, including increases in police personnel, improved infrastructure and social welfare programs. All would nibble at the revenue gains from gambling.

Norbut said the development of casinos in Massachusetts would “cannibalize local economies” and result in hundreds of millions of dollars in social costs.

Some of that theory is supported by a June 2009 report ordered by Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell on the impact of casinos. The study estimated that Norwich, the largest municipality in the region of Connecticut’s two casinos, has “casino-related costs anywhere from $1 million to $2.5 million a year, including an increase in police overtime from $85,000 in 1991 to more than $280,000 in 2008.”

The report noted that “for both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, we assume 40 percent of the jobs come from the displacement of other area businesses.”

(link to original article)

BOSTON — Believe it or not, the Sassy Elmo Lunch Bag, the Mattel Secret Saturdays Cryptid Claw, and the Hasbro Fur Real Baby Bird all have something in common.

According to MassPIRG, a public-interest advocacy group, the toys are all unsafe for children.

Yesterday, MassPIRG launched Trouble In Toyland, the group’s 24th annual survey of toy safety, just in time for the holidays. The survey is also available via the Web at www.toysafety.net, and as a mobile application at toysafety.mobi.

“Last year there were over 84,000 emergency room visits in the U.S. for children who had injured themselves with toys,” said Ramon Bullard, field associate for MassPIRG. “Nineteen children died. Kids shouldn’t have to die playing with their toys.”

Among the reasons toys end up on the list are excessive loudness, small parts and toxic chemicals. Even after scares in previous years, lead is still a concern, with three of the 14 toys listed containing lead paint or ink. The report also lists the dangers of overlabeling on toy packages and choking hazards from small parts and broken balloons.

“I can’t speak for the manufacturers,” Bullard said, “but they’re supposed to do their own testing, and clearly that doesn’t always happen.”

This year, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which gives the Consumer Product Safety Commission more power to raise toy-safety standards and makes it easier to recall toys deemed too dangerous for children.

Nonetheless, child-safety advocates encourage parents to be vigilant.

“Currently, toys which fit completely in a choke test cylinder (that is, toys with dimensions under 1.25-inches-by-2.25-inches) are classified as choking hazards and labeled as being inappropriate for children under three,” said Erin Christiansen, coordinator for Safe Kids Boston. “We’d like to see the size limit raised. A kid can still fit a toy bigger than that in their mouth.”

Bullard suggested parents check children’s toys with a cardboard toilet-paper tube. If the toy is smaller than the tube’s opening, it could present a choking hazard.

The following toys are deemed unsafe by MassPIRG:

Bright Lights Phone, by vetch, noise hazard; Laugh & Learn Learning Phone, by Fisher Price, noise hazard; Kota and Pals Stompers Triceratops, by Playskool, noise hazard; Secret Saturdays Cryptid Claw, by Mattel, noise hazard; Creative Wood Stacking Rings, by Zaidy, choking hazard and label violation; Real Wood Shape Sorter Barn, by P&C Enterprise, choking hazard, label violation.

Also, Unnamed Play Food Tray, by World Market, choking hazard label violation; My First Baby Learn, by Zapf Creation, choking hazard label violation; Pizza Planet Gift Pak / Toy Story, by Mattel, choking hazard, label violation.

Also, Fur Real Baby Bird, by Hasbro, choking hazard; label violation; Touch & Feel Cloth Book, by Priddy Books, contains lead; Alligator Cell Phone Charm, by Claire’s, contains lead; Collector’s Series Painted Duck, by Dollar Tree, contains lead.

Also, Knight’s Helmet, by Dollar Tree, contains lead; Pretty Princess Puppy Purse, by Claire’s, phthalates in excess of ban; Elmo Lunch Bag, by Fast Forward New York, phthalates in excess of ban.

(link to original article)

BOSTON – Hunters and outdoor enthusiasts brought their support for lower firearm licensing fees to the State House yesterday, arguing that cutting the $100 fee in half would promote land preservation, help get kids outdoors through hunting trips and help maintain a balanced ecosystem.

“Sportsmen are true environmentalists,” said Sen. Stephen Brewer, D-Barre, sponsor of the bill.

Brewer told the Public Safety Committee that a decline in hunting would be halted if firearm licenses were more affordable.

There were a total of 1.5 million licenses in 1998 but that number has dropped to about 250,000 licenses, a reduction of 85 percent, according to Jimmy Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League.

On the decline in licenses, Wallace asked, “Is it because it costs too much? Is it because people don’t understand the laws?”

Wallace said Massachusetts’ six-year gun licenses are the priciest in New England. Rhode Island comes in at a far-off second place with firearm licenses costing $40. Rhode Island licenses are good for four years.

Last year Gov. Deval Patrick tried to increase the licensing fee from $100 to $200, which angered gun rights advocates. The legislation failed.

Brewer said that it is important to get kids outdoors and to teach them about hunting and fishing. Echoing his own statement from last year’s licensing debate, Brewer said, “If a kid is out hunting and fishing then he is not doing crack cocaine down on Main Street.”

Supporters of Brewer’s bill included Joseph Dembek, a member of the Otter River Sportsmen Club in Templeton, which sponsors youth education on archery, gunning, rifle range practice and other outdoor activities. Dembek said some who go through the program often find that they can’t afford a gun license. The problem is even greater for families with several siblings.

“To get the $100 together is almost impossible,” he said.

Dembek would like to see the license fee reduced to $25 for children or, better still, to exempt youths from paying for a license until they are out of high school.

“I want to give kids a break,” said Dembek.

Also in support of youth outdoorsmanship, state Rep. Anne Gobi, D-Spencer, suggested at the hearing that kids between the ages of 12 and 17 could hunt without a gun license as long as they are under direct supervision of someone with a license.

Aside from a reduced license fee benefiting children, Brewer said more hunters would have the means to help control the wildlife population so that professional hunters would not be needed to reduce animal populations, such as deer, that may get out of hand.

Supporters of the initiative contend that lowering the fee would actually generate more money because more people would want the license.

State Sen. James Timilty, D-Walpole, committee co-chairman, said some of the money from licensing fees goes toward land preservation and probably does more in this area than any other program in place.

No one testified against the bill.

The committee also took up a proposal from state Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, to remove pepper spray from the list of weapons requiring a license.

Brown, who did not attend the hearing, wrote to the committee that he believes obtaining a firearms identification card for pepper spray, “creates an unnecessary obstacle for our residents to protect themselves, and adds an extra layer of bureaucracy.”

Brewer agreed. “Many joggers and many people that can be in areas that, frankly, are scary, I think they ought to have access to responsible use of pepper spray,” he said.

(link to original article)

BOSTON – About five years ago, right after she had her third child, Lowell resident Cindi Hevner took a new job that would allow her to earn money and still have time for her children – she became a server at a Ninety Nine Restaurant.

Within the past year and a half, Hevner said her job leaves her with less and less money every night. A sinking economy means fewer customers. To lure people, the restaurant offered a slew of coupons and deals, which lowered check prices and tips.

On good nights, Hevner said she can still make $135 in tips, but slow nights leave her with $40. Combine that with the tip out she has to pay to the dishwasher and the taxes she pays on her tips, Hevner said she has increasingly relied on her wage, a state minimum $2.63 an hour.

But she has little hope restaurants will willingly raise server wages.

“They’re going to do the minimum of what they have to do,” Hevner said.

With many waiters and waitresses facing a more modest payday, Hevner sought the help of state Sen. Steven Panagiotakos, D-Lowell, asking him to file a bill on her behalf that would increase the minimum wage for service employees by $1 an hour.

At least one Waltham restaurateur is sympathetic to Hevner’s idea.

Carlos Reverendo, co-owner or Solea Restaurant on Moody Street, says that for about half of his 48 employees, “tips are the basis of the majority of what they earn.”

Reverendo said he considers a minimum wage increase inevitable and said that such an increase might better motivate employees and decrease turnover.

“If you want to get better people, you have to motivate them,” Reverendo said.

The bill would immediately increase the server minimum wage to $3.63 an hour and then would increase the wage by the same percent as any subsequent raise in minimum wage. The national minimum wage benchmark for a tipped employee is $2.12 an hour.

Massachusetts last raised the minimum wage for tipped employees about 20 years ago, Hevner said.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, food and drinking establishments employ about 227,000 people in Massachusetts.

Nationwide, the average wait staff makes about $7.14 an hour and the average bartender makes about $7.86 an hour.

Hevner testified before the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development yesterday, presenting a petition in favor of her bill signed by 75 people.

She said she is cautious about the bill’s prospects but argues that a minimum wage increase is “20 years coming.”

“I got to think about myself and my family,” Hevner said.

(link to original article)