City and town officials received bad news from the state earlier this week.
It seems that Governor Patrick unilaterally cut Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (“PILOT”) distributions by about 40 percent as a way to trim the state budget.
PILOT payments are the state’s way of compensating cities and towns for the tax revenue they miss out on because they can’t tax property owned by the state. State officials look at everything from state parks right down to salt sheds, and they apportion a designated pot of money to municipalities based on the amount of tax-exempt state-owned property in each community. The payments do not necessarily make up for the whole amount the municipality could collect in taxes if the property were owned privately, but they’re certainly better than nothing.
More to the point, cities and towns have come to depend on PILOT money as an important component of local aid. That’s why the Governor’s $10 million cut to this account is so painful. It’s made even worse by the fact that it’s coming mid-fiscal year, at a time when municipal budgets already have been long since approved.
In my district, Shrewsbury received about $45,000 less PILOT money than it was expecting, and Westborough’s cut was about $55,000. It’s important to remember that these communities, like many others across the state, already have been trimming their municipal budgets to the core (or beyond) to deal with challenging fiscal times. This deeper reduction in state aid will have real consequences for municipal services, whether it means eliminating an important position or scaling back a program that helps people. And it’s also worth noting that this cut comes on the heels of other local aid reductions earlier this year that forced municipal officials to come up with new ways of dealing with challenging fiscal issues on their own.
I think the Patrick Administration is doing a great disservice to people across the Bay State by cutting local aid. Citizens depend on municipal government to provide some of the most important public services that government delivers, including education, public safety, road maintenance, health safety, environmental conservation and libraries. Even if those services are supplemented by other levels of government, municipal government often delivers them more directly and efficiently, thereby improving quality of service and reducing taxpayer cost. Cutting local aid that cities and towns depend on to deliver these services is simply the wrong approach to dealing with our state’s fiscal problems, especially when our state has failed to enact cost-saving reforms and efficiencies within its own administrative operations.
I hope the Legislature will find a way to supplement these payments when we return to legislative sessions in January. Cities and towns are depending upon us to do so.
