Cities and towns across Massachusetts won't lose a dime in local aid with the defeat, for now, of casino gambling by the Legislature. But according to mayors across the Merrimack Valley and the North Shore, legislators have banished cities and towns to the wilderness.
"It just means that we're on our own," Gloucester Mayor Carolyn Kirk told reporter Edward Mason. "The state Legislature is not stepping up to the plate when it comes to revenue options."
That's not the case at all. Gov. Deval Patrick had hoped that casino gambling would provide $124 million to offset an expected decline in Lottery revenues that go to cities and towns. That money, from casino licensing fees, is now gone. But legislators had already guaranteed they would cover the $124 million from the general fund. The result: no net difference in local aid to cities and towns whether the casino bill had passed or not.
Local communities can't keep looking to the state for more and more money — at least not if their own spending rises unchecked. The best thing the Legislature can do is to provide more ways for cities and towns to save on expenses that are hitting them the hardest — health care and pensions.
The Legislature has kept the local aid pipeline open and flowing freely.
In his $28.2 billion budget, Patrick proposed a 5 percent increase in local aid. Of that, $223 million would be an increase in Chapter 70 education funds sent to cities and towns. While the money is distributed according to a complex formula that gives some cities and towns more than others, all communities would see an increase in aid.
The budget is now in the hands of the House, where Speaker Salvatore DiMasi has unveiled his own blueprint for budget writers. DiMasi's plan also includes the $223 million increase in education aid.
So cities and towns are still getting plenty from the state. What they've lost with the defeat of the casino plan is the chance to lobby for even more.
Estimates of how much revenue casinos would generate for the state were a matter of vigorous dispute among supporters and opponents. Patrick had estimated that casinos would generate $400 million in new revenue annually. That's a big chunk of money, and municipal leaders hoped to claim a piece of it.
Local mayors in February joined the Coalition for Jobs and Growth, a group of municipal and union leaders lobbying in support of casinos. Mayors of Amesbury, Beverly, Haverhill, Lawrence, Methuen and Salem signed on. They see casino revenue as a more stable source of aid in the long run than the Lottery.
Haverhill Mayor James Fiorentini says, now that casinos are off the table, the Legislature has to do something else to help local communities.
"There has to be long-term, sustainable revenue for cities and towns," Fiorentini told Mason.
The mayors want the legislators to pass Patrick's Municipal Partnership Act, which would allow them the option of increasing local meals and rooms taxes. But new taxes may simply be counterproductive to the effort to attract new businesses to communities.
The Legislature last year passed a bill allowing municipalities cut their health care costs by transferring their employees to the state Group Insurance Commission. But any such move can be vetoed by local unions. Legislators could remove that "poison pill" from the law and help communities save.
That, along with some needed public pension reform, would do much to help communities balance their budgets, without the added burden of new taxation.
