Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-04 Board of Selectmen Supplemental Material C1)R.4M0NW1 A LTH OF MAS.3ACHU3ETTS THE .GENERAL COURT 4 _ ;fAl F I-I(iUeE, f3U3707N 021'33 1,j[,-1 Selected Materials Regarding the Fiscal Year 2014 State Budget, Local Aid and Municipal Issues Prepared by: Senator Bruce Tarr Senator Kathleen O'Connor Ives Representative James Lyons Representative Diana DiZoglio Joint Meeting of North Andover Board of Selectmen, School Committee and Finance Committee Monday,March 4, 2013 (8-9:30 A.M.) North Andover Town Hall Meeting Room 120 Main Street,North Andover, MA 1 Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Timeline & Process 1. Governor's Budget: Finalized on 1/23/2013 • The annual budget process begins each year when the Governor files recommendations as a bill with the House of Representatives. Under the state Constitution, the Governor must submit a proposal by the 4th Wednesday in January or, in the event of a new term, within five weeks later. This bill is called 'House 1' or `House 2' depending on the year of the two year Legislative Session. 2. House Ways & Means Committee Budget: Mid/Late April • The House Committee on Ways and Means examines the Governor's proposal and releases its own recommendations for the annual budget for deliberation by the House of Representatives. Prior to release of the House Ways and Means Budget, Joint Ways and Means Committee budget hearings are held across the state. 3. House Budget: Mid/Late April • The full House of Representatives considers amendments to the House Ways and Means recommendations and debates their inclusion in the bill. The House of Representatives then approves a final, amended version of the bill which is then sent to the Senate for consideration. 4. Senate Ways & Means Committee Budget: Mid/Late May • The Senate Committee on Ways and Means examines both the Governor's proposal and the House proposal and releases its own recommendations for the annual budget for deliberation by the Senate. 5. Senate Budget: Mid/Late May • The full Senate considers amendments to the Senate Ways and Means Committee recommendations and debates their inclusion in the bill. The Senate then approves a final, amended version of the bill. 6. Conference Committee • The House and Senate appoint three members each to a "conference committee" to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate proposals. One member of the minority party must be appointed by each branch. The conference committee reports a final compromise bill to the House and Senate for a final vote of acceptance in each branch. 7. Governor's Actions • The Governor has 10 days to review the budget and take action to either approve or veto the budget. The Governor may approve or veto the entire budget, veto or reduce specific line items, veto outside sections or submit changes as an amendment to the budget for further consideration by the Legislature. 2 8. Legislative Overrides • The Legislature can override the Governor's vetoes with a two-thirds vote in each branch. The House must vote first to override any vetoes before they may be considered by the Senate. 9. Final Budget: To be finalized by July 1, 2013 • Following any Legislative overrides, the budget is finalized and is commonly referred to as the"General Appropriations Act"for the upcoming fiscal year. 3 DOR Revenue Figures — February 2013 • Mid-month tax collections for February of 2013 are up $9 million, or 2.7%, compared to a year ago, to a total of $354 million collected through February 15. • The collection rate puts the state roughly on track to meet or exceed its revenue expectations for February. • The original FY2013 tax revenue estimate was set at $22.011 billion, but has since been revised downward by $515 million, to $21.496 billion. • Year to date tax collections have totaled $12.692 billion. • February is typically the lowest net tax collection month of the year due to the post-holiday shopping season lull in January, the issuance of tax refunds and no quarterly estimated payments coming due. • In a February 21St letter to the Ways and Means Committees, DOR Commissioner Amy Pitter wrote that "Virtually all of the growth this month is expected to occur on and after February 20 when monthly sales tax payments are due." • Income tax collections through mid-February are up $15 million, or 6.4 percent from the same period last year, to $243 million. 4 • Withholding taxes are also up 6.8 percent, or $29 million, from the same period in February 2012, compared to the benchmark estimate that projects an increase of $25 million for the full month. • Corporate and business tax collections totaled $9 million, down $12 million from the same period in 2012. • Through February 15, sales tax collections totaled $68 million, up $4 million from the same period last February. • Sales tax is projected to total $378 million, an increase of $6 million, or 1.6% actual and 3.0% baseline from February 2012. 5 Governor's FY 2014 Budget • Governor Patrick filed his budget (House 1) on January 2392013 • Governor Patrick's $36.5 billion FY14 budget proposal calls for approximately a 7% increase in state spending • More than half of the total tax revenue is solely attributed to tax increases and new forms of revenue • The elimination of certain personal and corporate tax exemptions would generate the majority of the $1.9 billion in new revenues • Raises the personal income tax rate from 5.25% to 6.25% and doubles the personal exemption • Reduces the sales tax rate from 6.25% to 4.5% • Eliminates 44 personal income tax exemptions and deductions including: o Deduction for employee contributions to Social Security and Public Pension Plans o Deduction for Dependent(s) under 12 o Deduction for business-related childcare expenses o Tuition tax deduction o Exemption of capital gains on Home Sale 6 Local Aid Highlights in Governor's Budget w Aid to cities and towns, or local aid, grows to 14.6 percent of the annual budget, or $5.57 billion in FY 14. • Chapter 70 education aid would increase by $226.2 million over FYI levels. • However, according to the MA Budget & Policy Center, most of this new Chapter 70 funding (about $167 million) will be needed to meet maintenance cost growth, leaving approximately $59 million to pay for expanded educational services. • The Governor's budget: ■ Includes all pre-kindergarten students currently attending public schools in district foundation budgets; ■ Increases the assumed cost of out-of-district special education students in the foundation budget by $10,000 (from $25,848 to $35,848); ■ Fully phases in the formula reforms planned in the 2007 budget; and ■ Provides a minimum $25 per pupil increase over FY 13 aid. • Unrestricted Aid will be funded at $930 million, a $31 million increase over the original FY-13 budget. • The additional $31 million will be allocated through a new distribution formula called "Annual Lottery Formula Local Aid" which essentially modifies the existing Lottery formula by adding a local income measure to the existing property wealth and population factors. • The special education circuit breaker will allocate $230 million directly to municipalities in Fiscal Year 2014; Governor Patrick used his 9C powers to reduce this appropriation by $11.5 million, or 4.75%, in December 2012. Initial payments were made earlier in the fall based on an estimated reimbursement rate of 70%. Because audits are in process and claims for extraordinary relief have not yet been processed, the final reimbursement rate has yet to be established by DESE. • State Owned Land (PILOT) is level funded at $26.3 million; • Library Aid is level funded at the FY 13 estimated spending level of $16 million; • Regional School Transportation is funded at the FY 13 estimated spending level of $44.5 million; Governor Patrick used his 9C powers to reduce this appropriation by $1 million, or 2%, in December 2012. DESE expects this year's reimbursement rate will be between 58% and 60%. • Charter School Reimbursement is increased by $9.8 million to $80 million, from the FY 13 estimated spending level of $70.5 million; 8 • Tax Reimbursements to Veterans, the Blind and Widows is funded at $25 million; • Caseload-driven increases to Veterans' Benefits bring the account to $48.1 million for FY 14; • The Department of Veterans' Services (DVS) will maintain its FY 13 policy of 100 percent reimbursement to cities and town for the costs they incur providing homeless shelter benefits to veterans. In FYI 3, the total reimbursements to cities and towns exceeded $888,000; and • An additional $100 million per year for local roads and bridges (bringing the Chapter 90 program to $300 million annually) and an additional $40 million per year in capital funds for the Regional Transit Authorities. 9 Economic Forecast The Beacon Hill Institute • FY 2013 total tax revenues not expected to exceed $21.115 billion • FY 2013 sales tax revenue expected to grow by 3.6% • FY 2013 personal income tax revenues expected to grow by 0.4% • FY 2014 revenues expected to grow 5.1% over FY 2013 o Personal income tax revenues increase by 5.3% o Sales tax revenues increase by 5.3% o Corporate excise tax revenue decrease by 4.5% o Business excise tax revenue decrease by 8.9% o Motor fuels tax revenue decrease by 0.5% • Total taxes for FY 2014 will increase by $1.08 billion (or$22.194 billion) over FY 2013 Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation • Projects tax collections of$21.53 billion for FY 2013 • FY 2014 tax revenues will grow by$835 million or 3.9% to $22.37 billion 10 Massachusetts Department of Revenue Division of Local Services FY2014 Local Aid Estimates NORTH ANDOVER FY2013 FY2014 Cherry Sheet Governor's Difference Estimate Budget (H1) Education: Chapter 70 6,808,233 7,491,437 683,204 School Transportation 0 0 0 Charter Tuition Reimbursement 4,036 11,091 7,055 Smart Growth School Reimbursement 0 0 0 Offset Receipts: School Lunch 27,239 23,402 -3,837 School Choice Receiving Tuition 0 0 0 Sub-Total, All Education Items 6,839,508 7,525,930 686,422 General Government: Unrestricted Gen Government Aid 1,733,403 1,733,403 0 Annual Formula Local Aid 0 86,557 86,557 Local Share of Racing Taxes 0 0 0 Regional Public Libraries 0 0 0 Urban Renewal Projects 0 0 0 Veterans' Benefits 219,144 215,755 -3,389 State Owned Land 193,101 193,242 141 Exemptions: Vets, Blind, Surviving Spouses & Elderly 65,566 73,484 7,918 Offset Receipts: Public Libraries 23,021 22,696 -325 Sub-Total, All General Government 2,234,235 2,325,137 90,902 Total Estimated Receipts 9,073,743 9,851,067 777,324 11 FY2014 Local Aid Assessments NORTH ANDOVER FY2014 FY2013 Cherry Governor's Sheet Estimate Budget (Hl) Difference County Assessments: County Tax 0 0 0 Suffolk County Retirement 0 0 0 Sub-Total,County Assessments 0 0 0 State Assessments and Charges: Retired Employees Health Insurance 0 0 0 Retired Teachers Health Insurance 1,316,435 1,449,276 132,841 Mosquito Control Projects 90,159 99,534 9,375 Air Pollution Districts 8,819 9,251 432 Metropolitan Area Planning Council 0 0 0 Old Colony Planning Council 0 0 0 RMV Non-Renewal Surcharge 19,800 17,280 -2,520 Sub-Total,State Assessments 1,435,213 1,575,341 140,128 Transportation Authorities: MBTA 70,897 72,417 1,520 Boston Metro.Transit District 0 0 0 Regional Transit 113,408 113,359 - 49 Sub-Total,Transportation Authorities 184,305 185,776 1,471 Annual Charges Against Receipts: Special Education 0 7,236 7,236 STRAP Repayments 0 0 0 Sub-Total,Annual Charges 0 7,236 7,236 Tuition Assessments School Choice Sending Tuition 22,302 14,000 -8,302 Charter School Sending Tuition 49,937 68,176 18,239 Essex County Tech Sending Tuition 74,850 37,659 -37,191 Sub-Total,Tuition Assessments 147,089 119,835 -27,254 Total Estimated Charges 1,766,607 1,888,188 121,581 12 1/23/13 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education FY14 Chapter 70 Preliminary Summary 211NORTH ANDOVER Aid Calculation FY14 Comparison to FY13 FY13 FY14 Change Pct Chg Prior Year Aid Enrollment 4,562 4,658 96 2.10% 1 Chapter 70 FY13 Q Foundation budget 40,712,824 . 42,800,330 2,087,505 5.13% Required district contribution 34,010,095 35,308,893 1,298,798 3.82% Foundation Aid Chapter 70 aid BEENEEMERM 683,204 10.03% 2 Foundation budget FY14 42,800,330 Required net school spending(NSS) 40,818,328 42,800,330 1,982,002 4.86% 3 Required district contribution FY14 35,308,893 4 Foundation aid(2-3) 7,491,437 Target aid share 17.50% 17.50% 5 Increase over FY13(4-1) C70%of foundation 16.72% 17.50% 6 Minimum$25 per pupil increase Required NSS %offoundation 100.26% 100.00% Non-Operating District Reduction to Foundation 7 Reduction to foundation 45 .............-..........................._.........................................-....................-.................................._....._..........-................._.---.--------..................................................................-...., FY14 Chapter 70 Aid o 40 I 8 sum of line 1,5 and 6 minus 7 35 fj 30 r t, 25 20- to- 5 0 105 0 foundation budget required district contribution c70 aid+sfsf+edjobs wFY06 xr FY07 xFY08 'FY09 OFY10 MFY11 �FY12 oFY13 �FY14 13 31112013 pry 13fet xls Enter districts lea Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education cede in the shaded greeobox. t3rIact Chapter 70 Treads I from the Dropdo t Box below, 211 NORTH ANDER E 3•�r tts£ etd Requited Required Actual Dollars Percent Foundation Pct Foundation Pct LocalCon- Chapter 70 Pct Net School Pct NetSchooi Pct OverA.Inder ©vert l:. Enrollment Chg Budget Chg tribution Aid Chg Spending(NSS) Chg Spending Chg Requirement Under FY04 4,166 -01 27205,951 18 26,003,160 3,911,440 -20.0 29 914,600 1.4 34;6952211 4.5 4,780.626 16.0 FY05 4232 1.6 25,441,359 4,5 27,367276 3,911,440 0.0 31,278.816 4.6 35.,680,070 2,8 4,401254 141 FY06 4.366 3.2 30,541.004 7.4 28946,886 4,129,740 5.6 33.076,626 5.7 36,671,592 33 3,795266 11.5 FY07 4;525 3.6 33,516,613 9.7 29,546.221 4,649.,317 '12.6 34;495;533 4:3 38.750+#3174 5.1 4,254,526 12.3 Fy 8 4492 -0.7� 34103316 4.2 30;883,606 5,637,203 94, 35,970,814 4.3 42303,925 92 5,: 2811 17.6 � F)M9 4;516 05 37,117714 6.3 32904,083 4968,107 -2.3 36,572,290 25 44064,505 42 7,192;395 19.5 F11 0 4547 0.7p 38,689,088 4.2 32219,076 5,440,937 9�5 37,660,013 2.1 44,322,533 0.6 6,651,520 57.7 f � FY11 4;514 -0.7 37.506,576 -2.3 32,564460 6,092,035 22.0 38.656,495 2,6 44,913,069 1.4 6261,574 162 x FY12 4,550€ 0.8 33936;234 3.0 33,tr92,191 6.124,740 0.5 391216931 14 46,203;116 2.9 6,985.185 27.3 FYI 4,562 0.3 40712,324 4.6 34.020,095 6,803,233 11.2 40,318;323 4.1 48;441532° 4.8 7,625204 18.7 Dollars Per Foundation Enrolment Percentage of Foundation Chapter 70 Foundation Ch 74 Actual Required Actual Percentof Budget Airs NSS Ch70 NSS NSS Act€aaiNSS FW4 6,530 939 8,328 14.4 120.0 127;5 913 FIM3 6+722 924 3431 13.8 110:0 225 5 11.0 Fes+6 6,995 '246 8445 i35 108.3 1207 11.2 7 7,406 1,027 8,,564 13.9 102.9 125.6 12.0 FY08 7,771 1133 9,418 14.6 103.0 121.2 12.0 F 09 0219 1,100 9757 13.4 99.3 118.7 11.3 FY10 5,509 1197 9;745 14.2 97,3 114:5 12.3 FYI 8,375 1:350 9.951 16.1 102.2 128.0 13.6 FY12 8.557 1346 10;155 15.7 1011.7 118,7 13.3 FY13 824 1,492 10,619 16,7 100.3 219.0 24.2 Budgeted Fomdation enrollmentis reported in October of the ptior fiscal year(e.g.FY13 enroilrnent=Oct 1,2011 headcount), Foundation budget is the state's estimate of the minimum amouttneeded in each district to proAde anadequate educational program. Required Flet School Sperling is the annual minimum that must be spent ooschools,including carrMersfrom prior years. Het SchoolSpending includes municipalindifect spending for schools hit excludes capital exp6ndiws,transportation,grants and rev0virg funds, Federal SFSF grants in FY49,FY10 and FYI 1,and federal Education Jobs grants it FYI are not included in these calculations. Net schools pending is limited to Chapter 70 aid and appropriated local contributions. However,the SFSF and Education Jobs calculations were directly based upon the Chapter 70 formula and helped districts spend atfoundation budget levels. In FY09,this district received an SFSF grant of $583,874 In FY10,thisdistrict's SFSFg rant entitlement was $1,029,475 InFYI l,the combined SFSFandEducJobsentit(ementwas $490,827 14 3/1/2013 profilel3feb.)ds Enter adisrict'slea Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education code in the shaded green box. or select Chapter 70 Trends from the Dropdown Box below. 211 NORTH ANDOVER ((sss- sssFasefou Required Required Actual Dollars (..Y..........._................._......_......... Foundation Pct Foundation Pct Local Con- Chapter70 Pct Net School Pct Net School Pct OverlUnder Enrollment Chg Budget Chg tribution Aid Chg Spending(NSS) Chg Spending Chg Requirement 446 FY93 3,309 17,055,547 14,531,899 1,308,047 15,839,946 15,839,946 0 FY94 3,312 0.1 r 16,943,615 -0.7 15,251,751 1,511,423 15.5Y 16,763,174 5.8 17,269,062 9.0 505,888 FY95 3,408 2.9r 17,915,114 5.7 16,553,334 1,596,623 5.6. 18,149,957 8.3 18,220,810 5.5 70,853 FY96 3,547 4.1 F 18,971,512 5.9 16,918,225 1,862,648 16.7, 18,780,873 3.5 19,388,248 6.4 607,375 FY97 3,716 4.8, 20,383,522 7.4 18,075,459 2,163,587 16.2r 20,239,046 7.8 21,300,869 9.9 1,061,823 FY98 3,826 3.0 21,716,957 6.5 19,437,982 2,450,537 13.3 Y 21,888,519 8.1 22,798,940 7.0 910,421 FY99 3,920 2.5� 22,977,989 5.8 20,373,029 2,842,537 16.0, 23,215,566 6.1 23,862,478 4.7 646,912 FY00 4,046 3.2. 23,865,019 3.9 21,063,851 3,449,437 21.4 r 24,513,288 5.6 25,429,640 6.6 916,352 FY01 4,031 -0.4 24,317,297 1.9 22,684,905 4,154,862 20.5 26,839,767 9.5 27,676,300 8.8 836,533 FYD2 4,135 2.6 26,389,322 8.5 23,210,735 4,687,000 12.8r 27,897,735 3.9 29,877,446 8.0 1,979,711 FY03 4,169 0.8 r 26,738,045 1.3 24,603,754 4,889,300 4.3 29,493,054 5.7 33,193,398 11.1 3,700,344 FY04 4,166 -0.1 27,205,981 1.8 26,003,160 3,911,440 -20.0 r 29,914,600 1.4 34,695,226 4.5 4,780,626 FY05 4,232 1.6� 28,441,359 4.5 27,367,376 3,911,440 0.0, 31,278,816 4.6 35,680,070 2.8 4,401,254 FY06 4,366 3.2r 30,541,004 7.4 28,946,886 4,129,740 5.6w 33,076,626 5.7 36,871,892 3.3 3,795,266 FY07 4,525 3.6 33,510,013 9.7 29,846,221 4,649,317 12.6 r 34,495,538 4.3 38,750,064 5.1 4,254,526 FY08 4,492 -0.7 34,908,316 4.2 30,883,606 5,087,208 9.4 r 35,970,814 4.3 42,303,625 9.2 6,332,811 FY09 4,516 0.5• 37,117,714 6.3 31,904,083 4,968,107 -2.3, 36,872,190 2.5 44,064,505 4.2 7,192,315 FY10 4,547 0.7e 38,689,088 42 32,219,076 5,440,937 9.5� 37,660,013 2.1 44,311,533 0.6 6,651,520 FY11 4,514 -0.7, 37,806,576 -2.3 32,564,460- 6,092,035 12.0 38,656,495 2.6 44,918,069 1.4 6,261,574 FY12 4,550 0.8v 38,936,234 3.0 33,092,191 6,124,740 0.5e 39,216,931 1.4 46,203,116 2.9 6,986,185 FY13 4,562 0.3 40,712,824 4.6 34,010,095 6,808,233 11.2 r 40,818,328 4.1 48,443,532` 4.8 7,625,204 Dollars Per Foundation Enrollment Percentage of Foundation Chapter71) Foundation Ch70 Actual Required Actual Percent of Budget Aid NSS Ch 70 NSS NSS Actual NSS FY93 5,154 395 4,787 7.7 92.9 92.9 8.3 FY94 5,116 456 5,214 8.9 98.9 101.9 8.8 FY95 5,257 468 5,346 8.9 101.3 101.7 8.8 FY96 5,349 525 5,466 9.8 99.0 102.2 9.6 FY97 5,485 582 5,732 10.6 99.3 104.5 10.2 FY98 5,676 640 5,959 11.3 100.8 105.0 10.7 FY99 5,862 725 6,087 12.4 101.0 103.8 11.9 FY00 5,898 853 6,285 14.5 102.7 106.6 13.6 FY01 6,033 1,031 6,866 17.1 110.4 113.8 15.0 FY02 6,382 1,133 7,226 17.8 105.7 113.2 15.7 FY03 6,414 1,173 7,962 18.3 110.3 124.1 14.7 FY04 6,530 938 8,328 14.4 110.0 127.5 11.3 FY05 6,721 924 8,431 13.8 110.0 125.5 11.0 FY06 6,995 946 8,445 13.5 108.3 120.7 11.2 FY07 7,406 1,027 8,564 13.9 102.9 115.6 12.0 FY08 7,771 1,133 9,418 14.6 103.0 121.2 12.0 FY09 8,219 1,100 9,757 13.4 99.3 118.7 11.3 FY10 8,509 1,197 9,745 14.1 97.3 114.5 12.3 FY11 8,375 1,350 9,951 16.1 102.2 118.8 13.6 FY12 8,557 1,346 10,155 15.7 100.7 118.7 13.3 FY13 8,924 1,492 10,619 16.7 100.3 119.0 14.1 *Budgeted 15 Chapter 74 Trends, FY93 to FYI NORTH ANDOVER $60,000, 00 , -. ��uesst,iaz,a a4 Sta'�s $50;000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000.000 �00"* $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Fiscal Year yY you�datznNdgReruired*lam t.utualf e0khoci hapLerM PA 93 17.455,947 15k39.946 35�nq°=t6 12H,047 94 16,943,615 1:,753,174 97229062 3,551,423 95 17 915,314 18,149,957 18,220,810 1,596,621 96 18,975,522 18,789;373 99388,248 1532,:548 97 201,333,522 20,239:046 21200,369 2,1:3537 % 22,716,957 21,889510 22,793,940 2,450,937 99 22577,989 23,215584 23,8132,478' 2,842,537 r 00 23,865,012 24593288 25,429,"44 3,449;437 r 01 24,317,2W 261=167 27576,300 4,154,562 02 23339322 27,897.735 29,877,443 4,687;10-0 ' W 2,,.738;049 29,493954 33,193,3M 4,889200 ,54 27,2;'?,9135 2_.24,6M 3.5226 _.'11 X46 05 2E,441,359 31270996 35,Mu70 3,913,443 06 3.054toc4 33,076,823 "*6975992 4,129,740 07 33,510,013 31-A95,538 33;75130 1 4,644,317 r 03 34,903,395 -15:V,814 42203;325 5,087 268 09 37,117,714 36972,190 44964,905 4,%3,107 r 10 33 E39,068 37,060,013 441,315523 9,440,937 11 37 F 973 0"50499 .98.064 6,092,035 12 33236231 39213,933 46,23'31116 6,124,740 13 40.732.324 44,813923 48,442,532 6,60'323 16 School Finance: Chapter 70 Program FY14 Chapter 70 Aid and Required Contribution Calculations January 23,2013 Chapter 70 is the Commonwealth's program for ensuring adequate and equitable K-12 education funding. It determines an adequate spending level for each school district(the foundation budget).It then uses each community's property values and residents'incomes to determine how much of the foundation budget should be funded from local property taxes. Chapter 70 state aid pays for the entire remaining amount. Summary of how the formula works A foundation budget is calculated for each school district,representing the minimum spending level needed to provide an adequate education.The foundation budget is adjusted each year to reflect changes in the district's enrollment; changes in student demographics(grade levels; low income status;English language proficiency); inflation,and geographical differences in wage levels.A description of how foundation budgets are calculated is available at H. The inflation adjustment for FY14 foundation budgets is set at 1.55 percent,in accordance with the Chapter 70 statute, which stipulates usage of the ratio of the current year's third-quarter inflation index(2012= 126.609)to the prior year's third-quarter index(2011 = 124.682). Enrollment grew from 934,763 in FY13 to 940,208 in FY14, a 0.6% increase. About half of this increase is attributed to removing the cap on pre-kindergarten enrollment.Fifty-two percent of districts saw enrollment declines by as much as fourteen percent.Forty seven percent of districts saw increases of as much as fifteen percent. The total statewide foundation budget increased from$9.467 billion in FY13 to$9.814 billion in FY14, a 3.67 percent rise. In addition to enrollment growth and inflation,about one-third of this increase can be attributed to removal of the pre- kindergarten cap, and to an increase in the foundation budget rate for out of district special education students. A target local contribution establishes an ideal goal for how much each city and town should contribute toward its foundation budget, based on the municipality's wealth.Two measures of municipal wealth are used: aggregate property values and aggregate personal income levels, with each given equal weight. The target is recalculated each year based upon the most recent income and property valuations. The target calculations assume that local contributions in total should cover 59 percent of the state-wide foundation budget (target local share), with state aid covering the remaining 41 percent(target aid share).The target local share and target aid share for any individual city or town will vary in proportion to the municipality's wealth.The target calculation also includes a maximum local share of 82.5 percent,thus ensuring that all communities will get some minimum amount of state funding. The required local contribution for each municipality is based on the previous year's required contribution, and includes some transition factors so that the shift toward the target levels occurs over a period of several years. • Municipalities whose local contribution requirements are now higher than their targets will see a reduction in the requirement of 100 percent of the amount above the target.This fully phases in the equity component of the formula for the first time. • Municipalities whose local contribution requirements are now lower than their targets will continue to see their requirements increased by the municipal revenue growth factor. If they are more than 2.5 percent below their 17 target,an increment of either two or three percent will be added to their growth factor. In FY14 the Chapter 70 aid calculation begins with each district's FY13 Chapter 70 amount. If the sum of that amount and the required local contribution is less than the district's foundation budget,then foundation aid is added to cover the gap.Finally, every district is guaranteed at least a$25 per pupil increase. Target contribution calculations • Determine the state-wide target local contribution level. Fifty-nine percent of the statewide foundation budget of $9.814 billion amounts to a total target local contribution of$5.790 billion.For FY14, the property percentage is set at 0.3593%, which is applied to each municipality's 2012 aggregate equalized property valuation.The income percentage is set at 1.5595%, which is applied to each municipality's aggregate total personal income, as reported to the Department of Revenue by local residents for the 2010 calendar year.When these two factors are applied statewide,they yield a total local contribution of$7,010,823,108with half($3,505,411,555)coming from the property percentage and the other half from the income percentage. • Apply the property percentage and the income percentage to each individual municipality's aggregate property valuation and income, which determines the municipality's combined effort yield. Some municipalities have so much wealth, or a small enough student population,that their combined effort yield is excessive.The maximum local contribution is set at 82.5 percent of foundation budget, which means that the formula would fund a minimum of 17.5 percent of foundation through state aid, even for the wealthiest of communities. In FY14, 126 communities are assigned this maximum contribution.A municipality's target local contribution is the lesser of the combined effort yield and the maximum local contribution.The total target local contribution for all municipalities, after taking into account the 82.5 percent cap, equals 59 percent of statewide foundation budgets, or$5.790 billion. • A city or town's target local share presents the target local contribution as a percentage of its municipal foundation budget. Calculation of the FY14 increments toward the targets • Increase(or decrease)the city or town's FY13 required local contribution by the municipal revenue growth factor(mrgf). The mrgf has been calculated each year since FY94 by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue and quantifies the most recent annual percentage change in each community's local revenues(such as the annual increase in the Proposition 2'/a levy limit)that should be available for schools. The state average mrgf is 3.74 percent.The result of applying the mrgf to the FY13 required contribution is the FY14 preliminary local contribution. • If the preliminary local contribution is greater than the target local contribution, then the difference is called excess local effort. In FY14, 241 or 69 percent of the 351 cities and towns have a total of$202 million in excess local effort.For each of these communities the preliminary local contribution is reduced by 100 percent of their excess effort to arrive at the FY14 required local contribution • If the preliminary local contribution is less than the city or town's target local contribution, an additional increment may augment the preliminary contribution. If the community is more than 7.5 percent below its target, the increment is three percent of the FYI local contribution. If it is between 2.5 and 7.5 percent,the increment is two percent. If it is less than 2.5 percent, there is no additional increment. In FY14, 110 cities and towns have preliminary contributions that are below target, by$201 million.Those who fall below by more than 2.5 percent are required to make additional increments totaling$28 million to get closer to their effort goals. • Most cities and towns belong to at least one regional school district. Some operate a local district and are members of as many as three regionals. A municipality's total contribution is apportioned among the various districts to which it belongs,based on each district's share of the total foundation budget for all of the municipality's students. Calculation of aid • The aid calculation begins with each district's FY13 Chapter 70 amount. • The difference between each district's foundation budget and its required contribution equals foundation aid. 18 179 districts receive increases over FYI through this calculation. • A minimum aid guarantee ensures that every district receives at least$25 per pupil in additional FY14 Chapter 70. 151 operating districts receive additional funding through this aid component. Net School Spending Requirements Each district must spend the sum of its required district contribution and its Chapter 70 aid.This sum is referred to as the "net school spending requirement." In spite of the fiscal challenges confronting school and municipal officials in FY14, the spending requirements remain fully in effect in accordance with statute. 19 Joint Meeting of North Andover Board of Selectmen, School Committee and Finance Committee - March 4, 2013 Selected Bill Summaries LOCAL AID • Senate Bill 1426,An Act dedicating a portion of the stabilization fund to cities and towns Lead Sponsor: Senator Bruce Tarr Committee Assignment: Revenue Summary: This bill requires that not less than 10% of the total amount of the Stabilization Fund shall be designated and set aside for the sole purpose of avoiding or mitigating reductions in the amounts of local aid distributed to cities and towns. FOUNDATION BUDGET • House Bill 441,An Act relative to target share funding Lead Sponsor: Representative James J. Lyons, Jr. Committee Assignment: Education Summary: This bill would establish a minimum state funding contribution of not less than 17.5 per cent of the gross education foundation budget for every municipal, regional or other school district. • Senate Bill 207,An Act reviving the Foundation Budget Review Commission Lead Sponsor: Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz Committee Assignment: Education Summary: The bill would reconstitute the Foundation Budget Review Commission, which was first established in the Education Reform Act of 1993, to ensure that the foundation budget is reviewed and, if necessary, recalculated on a regular basis. This bill updates the Commission's language to look at specific programs and services to meet the Commonwealth's educational goals, as well as to examine the effectiveness of such programs and services. The Commission would be required to examine the foundation budget and report back to the legislature next year. (NOTE: The language included in this bill was unanimously adopted in the Senate by a 38-0 roll call vote during the FY2013 state budget debate last spring, but was not included in the final budget.) 20 UNFUNDED MANDATES • House Bill 459,An Act establishing an educational mandate task force Lead Sponsor: Rep. Alice H. Peisch Committee Assignment: Education Summary: This bill creates an 11 member task force to (i) identify and review all existing mandates imposed on school districts by state law or regulation, including school and district reporting requirements; (ii) determine the costs of such mandates and reporting requirements to school districts; and (iii) identify opportunities to streamline, consolidate, or eliminate such mandates or reporting requirements that are duplicative or inconsistent with current laws,regulations or practices. The report would be due no later than 6 months following the first meeting of the task force • House Bill 3216,An Act relative to protecting municipalities from unfunded mandates Lead Sponsor: Rep. Matthew A. Beaton Committee Assignment: Ways and Means Summary: This bill defines what an unfunded mandate is and seeks to prevent municipalities from absorbing further costs as a result of legislation enacted by the General Court by doing 2 things: 1.)When any bill that contains an unfunded mandate is referred to a joint legislative committee or the House or Senate Ways and Means Committee,that bill must be accompanied by a fiscal note or study that details what the cost of enacting such a bill will be before receiving a favorable report of committee. 2.)In the event that there is a cost to municipalities as a result of the legislation being considered,the Legislature shall refrain from enacting it unless or until appropriations are allocated by the General Court. • House Bill 2024,An Act relative to protecting the privacy of children Lead Sponsor: Rep. James J. Lyons, Jr. Committee Assignment: Public Health Summary: This bill would prohibit the Department of Public Health from collecting data on students' height, weight and body mass index (BMI). This would address North Andover's concerns about the administrative and human resource costs associated with BMI testing and parental notification, which annually exceeds $15,000. 21 • House Bill 1048,An Act to determine cost of mandates Lead Sponsor: Rep. George N. Peterson, Jr. Committee Assignment: Health Care Financing Summary: This bill requires the Commissioner of Insurance to direct the health care access bureau to hold hearings every two years by July 1 in the year following the end of each legislative session(odd- numbered years) to determine the impact on health care premiums and health care cost trends resulting from new mandated health benefits, assessments on health plans or providers, new data reporting requirements and any other law passed by the legislature during the session just concluded that would impact premiums and cost trends. The bureau shall issue a comprehensive report by October 1 summarizing its findings. • House Bill 1849,An Act creating a commission to study the effects of unfunded mandates on municipalities Lead Sponsor: Rep. Steven S. Howitt Committee Assignment: Municipalities and Regional Government Summary: This bill establishes a commission, consisting of seven members, on unfunded mandates on municipalities. The commission will review, analyze and compile a list of unfunded local mandates from state and federal authorities and their costs to the municipal government. This list, alongside any proposals to mitigate the effects of such mandates, will be filed with the clerks of the Senate and the House of Representatives. An economic report on the effects on municipalities will be delivered to the governor and leadership of the House and Senate. Three of the commission's members shall be appointed by the governor, one of whom will be a municipal official who serves as co-chair. The director of the division of local mandates will also serve as co-chair. One member apiece will be nominated by the Massachusetts Municipal Association, Massachusetts Treasurer's and Collector's Association and the Massachusetts Town Clerk's Association. Each member will serve a two-year term without compensation. PREVAILING WAGE • Senate Bill 893,An Act relative to setting the prevailing wage rate Lead Sponsor: Senator Bruce Tarr Committee Assignment: Labor and Workforce Development Summary: This bill directs the Commissioner(Director of the Department of Labor)to set the prevailing wage rate taking into consideration wages established by collective bargaining agreements or understandings in the private construction industry between organized labor and employers. It would allow the commissioner to take into consideration the abundance or paucity of agreements related to the local wage request and to regional wage differences. This bill would eliminate the requirement that the 22 wage be "not less than"the private union rate to be replaced by a rate set by the state taking into consideration the union rate and other factors. • Senate Bill 896,An Act providing for increased transparency in the prevailing wage Lead Sponsor: Senator Bruce Tarr Committee Assignment: Labor and Workforce Development Summary: This bill establishes a 12-member commission to determine the effectiveness, practicality and usefulness in establishing fair wage rates under the current Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Law, and to consider whether the provisions of the current law result in wage rates which accurately reflect the actual market wage rates in the specific categories and geographic areas to which they apply, and whether other methodologies may yield rates which more accurately reflect prevailing market rates. The bill also directs the Department of Labor Standards to provide information on the state's website that details the current prevailing wage rates, the methodology by which the rates are determined, and any actions that have been taken within the last twelve months to modify one or more rates. In addition, the bill requires the Department of Labor Standards within the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development to conduct at least one public hearing per year on issues relating to the prevailing wage law. • Senate Bill 1553,An Act to promote contract efficiency Lead Sponsor: Senator Bruce Tarr Committee Assignment: State Administration &Regulatory Oversight Summary: This bill stipulates that the prevailing wage law shall not apply to any contract or transaction with an amount of less than$500,000. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS • House Bill 414,An Act relative to school improvement plans Lead Sponsor: Rep. Patricia A. Haddad Committee Assignment: Education Summary: Since 2004, school principals have been required to develop annual school improvement plans and to submit these plans to the superintendent for approval. This bill would return the law to where it stood prior to 2004,by requiring the superintendent to review and recommend the school improvement plan to the school committee for final review and approval, as the school committee is the body charged with making school policy. . 23 SPECIAL EDUCATION CIRCUIT BREAKER/ REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION • House Bill 354,An Act relative to increasing special education circuit breaker and regional transportation reimbursement Lead Sponsor: Rep. Thomas J. Calter Committee Assignment: Education Summary: This legislation would change the formula for district reimbursement through the circuit breaker from 75% of all approved costs that exceed four times the state average per pupil rate to three times the state average per pupil rate, resulting in increased reimbursement to districts. It would also allow school districts to be eligible for reimbursement for special education transportation costs through the circuit breaker if the district uses a "regional transportation network" or some other collaborative approach. • House Bill 355,An Act relative to special education budgets Lead Sponsor: Rep. Thomas J. Calter Committee Assignment: Education Summary: This bill would establish an insurance program for municipalities in relation to special education costs. The bill establishes a formula in which municipalities would receive reimbursement for costs that exceed 25% of the following amount: the average statewide SPED costs over the last 3 years divided by the average total enrollment for the state over the last 3 years (multiplied by the number of students in that particular school district). • House Bill 485,An Act to establish a school choice circuit breaker Lead Sponsor: Rep. John W. Scibak Committee Assignment: Education Summary: This bill allows any sending school district that experiences, due to school choice, a net loss of more than 5% of its student population in a given grade or a net loss of more than 10% of the total student population, to be eligible to apply for school choice reimbursement from the Commonwealth. The bill also establishes a formula for the reimbursement amount. The formula for reimbursement would be equal to 50% of school choice tuition for each student enrolled in the receiving district in the prior year, in excess of 5% of the total population of a given grade from the sending district, or in excess of 10% of the total population of the sending district. 24 • House Bill 492,An Act relative to circuit breaker reimbursement Lead Sponsor: Rep. Frank I. Smizik Committee Assignment: Education Summary: This bill amends M.G.L. Chapter 71B, Section 5A(c)by changing the formula for circuit breaker reimbursement to any expenses above 3 times (currently 4 times)the state average per pupil foundation budget. • Senate Bill 216,An Act relative to circuit breaker reimbursement Lead Sponsor: Senator Cynthia S. Creem. Committee Assignment: Education Summary: This bill reduces the special education circuit breaker trigger from 4 times the per pupil foundation budget costs to 3 times. • Senate Bill 220,An Act relating to special education funding Lead Sponsor: Senator Sal N. DiDomenico Committee Assignment: Education Summary: This bill expands previously filed legislation to ensure state reimbursements for special education services are closely aligned with actual district spending. The state requires school districts to provide comprehensive special education services, and the Chapter 70 and Circuit Breaker formulas should be updated to keep pace with the cost of special education services. CHARTER SCHOOLS • Senate Bill 272,An Act ensuring charter school integrity Lead Sponsor: Senator Bruce Tarr Committee Assignment: Education Summary: This bill requires the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, within 30 days of the approval of a new commonwealth charter school in any community, to issue a written confirmation that the school meets all applicable requirements and regulations. It also: bans charter schools from using economic incentives to increase applications; allows the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to reconsider the granting of a charter; and allows the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to waive charter school regulations upon a 2/3 vote and written explanation. 25 • House Bill 413,Resolve establishing a charter school commission Lead Sponsor: Rep. Danielle W. Gregoire Committee Assignment: Education Summary: This resolve establishes a charter school commission to study the financing of, caps imposed upon, and innovations promoted by commonwealth and Horace Mann charter schools. The first meeting of the commission shall take place within 30 days of the effective date of this act, and a final report to the Legislature—containing recommendations for any necessary legislative or regulatory changes—will be filed within six months of the first meeting of the commission. • House Bill 491,An Act relative to charter schools Lead Sponsor: Rep. Frank I. Smizik Committee Assignment: Education Summary: The bill amends M.G.L. Chapter 71, Section 89 and provides that a commonwealth charter school application must be approved(1)by the district or regional school committee, OR (2)by the voters of a school district(s) or region(s) at a general election or town meeting(s), city councils. If local approval is received the new charter school will be funded pursuant to current statute. However, if neither method of local approval is received, funding must be provided by the Board of Education without usage of Chapter 70 or any other local funds. • Senate Bill 212,An Act relative to charter schools Lead Sponsor: Senator Katherine M. Clark Committee Assignment: Education Summary: This bill requires approval of a commonwealth charter school application by the district or regional school committee, or by the voters of a school district(s) or region(s) at a general election or town meeting(s), city councils. If local approval is received the new charter school shall be funded pursuant to current statute. If either method of local approval is not received, funding must be provided by the Board of Education without usage of Chapter 70 or any other local funds. • Senate Bill 222,An Act concerning charter school funding Lead Sponsor: Senator Sal N. DiDomenico Committee Assignment: Education Summary: This bill seeks to ensure the actual amounts generated by an individual student full-time equivalent enrollment in a charter school during the previous year shall be subject to reimbursement. 26 • Senate Bill 258,An Act relative to charter schools Lead Sponsor: Senator Marc R. Pacheco Committee Assignment: Education Summary: This bill would require approval from local or regional school committees on all charter school applications. 27 Division of Local Mandates Frequently Asked Questions What is the Local Mandate Law? What is the role of the Division of Local Mandates (DLM)? What are some of the exceptions to the Local Mandate Law? Who may _petition. petition DLM for a determination`?. When the Auditor issues a mandate determination, what are the petitioner's options? What are some of the court decisions that guide DLM in its mandate determination process? What is DL M's other statutory duty conceining state-mandated programs? What is the DLM petition process? What is the Local Mandate Law? The local Mandate Law was enacted as part of the property tax limit initiative known as Proposition 2 1/2. In general terms, the Local Mandate Law provides that any post-1980 state law or regulation "imposing any direct service or cost obligation upon any city or town shall be effective only if" the community votes to accept the law or regulation, or the Commonwealth assumes the cost of compliance. G. L. c. 29, s. 27C (a). It also allows any community aggrieved by an unfunded state mandate to petition superior court for an exemption from compliance. In such a proceeding,the determination by the Division of Local Mandates (DLM) of the amount of compliance cost is considered prima facie evidence of the amount of state funding necessary to sustain the mandate. G. L. c. 29, s. 27C (e). If you have any questions about mandates, call DLM at(617)727-0025. What is the role of the Division of Local Mandates(DLM)? Within the Office of the State Auditor, DLM is responsible for determining the local financial impact of proposed or existing state mandates. DLM responds to written requests for opinions and cost impact analysis from cities, towns, regional school districts, and educational collaboratives, as well as the General Court and state agencies. Responses take the form of opinion letters and cost determinations. DLM also provides informal telephone consultation when appropriate. 28 What are some of the exceptions to the Local Mandate Law? The Local Mandate Law does not apply: • When the new mandate imposes only incidental administration expenses on cities and towns. • When there is a stipulation that requires municipal compliance with the mandate as a condition of state aid. • When the new mandate imposes indirect, NOT direct costs such as the regulatory expenses imposed on commercial enterprises that are indirectly passed on to customers, including municipalities. • When the new mandate is the result of a court decision. • When the new mandate or amendment permits local option compliance. • When the Legislature overrides the Local Mandate Law. • When the new mandate is a federal pass-through mandate, such as EPA regulations governing safe drinking water standard. • When the new mandate regulates the compensation, hours, status, conditions or benefits of municipal employment. (Article 115 of the State Constitution governs this area of state law. However, no funding is required for such laws passed by a 2/3s vote of both the House and Senate.) The local Mandate Law is designed to protect cities,towns,regional school districts and educational collaboratives from state imposed costs. It does not protect counties, authorities, and other regional subdivisions. Who may petition DLMfor a determination? • Any legislative committee or either branch of the General Court. • The chief executive officer of a city or town(mayor, manager, etc). • The board of selectmen,board of alderman,town council, or city council. • The superintendent or school committee of a city or town, or regional school district, or executive director of an educational collaborative. When the Auditor issues a mandate determination, what are the petitioner's options? • Seek a legislative solution: ask the local Representative or Senator to pursue state funding or local option language. • Seek an exemption from the statute or regulation in question in superior court. - Only the courts can declare a law ineffective in any city,town, or regional school district. - A DLM determination is prima facie evidence in superior court. • According to subsection(e), any ten taxable inhabitants of any city or town in a class action suit may also petition superior court alleging the deficiency of state monies to reimburse cities and towns for mandates covered by subsections (a), (b), and(c). 29 What are some of the court decisions that guide DLM in its mandate determinations process? In making its determinations in response to municipal petitions, DLM must apply the terms of the Local Mandate Law in light of relevant court authority. Following are the major court decisions that directly affect interpretation of the Local Mandate Law, and guide DLM in making its determinations. • City of Worcester v. The Governor, 416 Mass. 751 (1994). • City of Cambridge v. Attorney General, 410 Mass. 165 (1991). • Town of Norfolk v. Dept. of Environmental Quality Engineering, 407 Mass. 233 (1990). • School Committee of Lexington v. Commissioner of Education, 397 Mass. 593 (1986). • Town of Lexington v. Commissioner of Education, 393 Mass. 693 (1985). What is DLM's other statutory duty concerning state-mandated programs? Chapter 126 of the Acts of 1984 expanded the Division's mission by authorizing DLM to examine any state law or regulation that has a significant local cost impact, regardless of whether it satisfies the more technical standards for a mandate determination. This statute is codified as Section 6B of Chapter 11 of the General Laws. Known as municipal impact studies, Chapter 126 reviews include cost-benefit analyses and recommendations to the General Court. Examples of DLM's Chapter 126 reviews include studies on the school finance law, Medicaid payments for special education costs, and property tax relief for elderly homeowners. What is the DLM petition process? • Address a letter to: The Honorable Suzanne M. Bump Auditor of the Commonwealth State House, Room 230 Boston, MA 02133 • Cite the new law or regulation imposing costs and the nature of the local financial impact. Provide cost data, if possible. • State your request for a DLM determination of the fiscal impact of this new mandate under the provisions of G. L. c. 29, s. 27C. 30 • PART I ADN41NISTRATION Or THE GOVERNMENT (Chapters I through 1 fit) • TITLE H EXECLTTIt1E AND ADMINISTRATI'VE OFFICERS OF THE COMMONWEALTH • CHAPTER 11 DEPARTMENT Or THE STATE AUDITOR o Section6B Division of local mandates; responsibilitiesandpowers Section fila. The division of local mandates, as provided.for in section six of this chapter, shall have the responsibility of determining to the hest of its ability and in a timely manner the estimated and actual financial effects on each city and town of laws, and rules and regulations of achninistrative agencies of the co mn.onwealth either proposed or in.effect, as required under section.twenty-seven C of chapter twenty-nine of the General Laws. The division shall have the power to require the chief officer of any appropriate administrative agency of the commonwealth to supply In a timely manner ally information determined by the division to be necessary in the determination.of local financial effects Linder said section twenty-seven C. The chief officer shall convey the requested :information to the division with a signed statement to the effect that the information is accurate and complete to the best of his ability. The division when requested ander the provisions of subsections (d) and (f) of said section twenty-seven C, shall.update its determination of financial effects based on either actual cost figures or i.nlproved estinl.ates or both. The division shall review every five years those laws and adinin:istrative regulations which have a significant financial impact upon cities or towns. For the purposes of this section"Significant.financial impact" is defined as requiring.municipalities to expand existing services, employ additional personnel, or increase local expenditures. Said division shall determine the costs and benefits of each such law and regulation, and sul:mit a report to the general.court of each session together witI.its recommendation, if any, for the continuation, modification or elimination of such law or regulation. 31 o PART-I A17:'tiEINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT (Chapters 1 through 182) s TITLE III LAWS RELATING TO STATE OFFICERS • CHAPTER 29 STATE FINANCE sSection 27G Certain laws, rules, etc. relating to costs or assessments effective only by vote of acceptance or appropriation'. written notice requesting deternxintatimi; class actions Section 27C. Notwithstanding any provision of any special or general law to the contrary: (a) Any law taking effect on or after January first, nineteen hundred and eighty-one imposing any direct service or cost obligation upon any city or town shall be effective in.any city or town only if such law is accepted by vote or by the appropriation of money for such purposes, in the case of a city by the city council.in accordance with its charter, and. in the case of a town by a town meeting, unless the general court, at the sarize session in which such law is enacted, provides,by general law and by appropriation, for the assumption by the corxuna.o.nwealth of such cost, exclusive of incidental local. administration.expenses and unless the general court provides by appropriation in each successive year for such assumption. (b) Any law taking effect on or after January first,nineteen hundred and eighty-one granting or increasing exemptions from local taxation shall be effective many city or town only if the general court, at the same session.in.which such law is enacted, provides by general. law and by appropriation for payment by the commonwealth to each city and town of any loss of taxes resulting from such exemption. (c) Any administrative rule or regulation taking effect on.or after January first, nineteen hundred and eighty-one which shall result in the imposition of additional costs upon any city or town shalt not be effective until the general court has provided by general law and by appropriation for the assumption by the commonwealth of such cost, exclusive of incidental local administration expenses, and unless the general court provides by appropriation in.each successive year for such assumption. (d)Any city or town, any committee of the general court, and either house of the general court by a majority vote of its members, may submit written notice to the division of local mandates, established ander section six of chapter eleven of the general laws, requesting that the division determine whether the costs imposed by the comin.onwe.alth by any law, rule or regulation.subject to the provisions of this section have been paid in full by the commonwealth in the preceding year and, if not, the amount of any deficiency in such payments. The division shall make public its determination within sixty days after such notice. (e)Any city or town, or any ten taxable inhabitants of any city or town may in a class action suit petition the superior court alleging that under the provisions of subsections (a), (b) and(c) of this section with respect to a. general or special.law or rule or regulation of any administrative agency of the comzxionwealth under which any city or town is required to expend funds in anticipation of reimbursement by the commonwealth, the amount necessary for such reiinbutrsefnent has not been included. in the general or any special appropriation bill for any year. Any city or town, or any ten taxable inhabitants of any city or towel may in a class action suit petition the superior court alleging ghat under the provisions of subsections (a), (b) and(c) of this section with respect to any general or special.law, or rule or regulation of any administrative agency of the Commonwealth which imposes additional casts on any city or town or which grants or increases exemptions from local taxation, the amount necessary to reimburse such city or town has not been included in the general or any special appropriation bill For any year. The determination of the amount of deficiency provided by the division of local. mandates under subsection (d) of this section shall.be prima facie evidence of the amount necessary. The superior court shall determine the amount of'the deficiency, if any, and shall order that the said city or town be exempt from such general or special law, or rule or regulation of any administrative agency until the conn-nonwealth shall 32 reimburse such city or town the amount of said.deficiency or additional costs or shall repeal such exeml.)-tion from local taxation. (f) Any of the parties permitted to submit written notice to the division of local mandates under subsection(d) of this section may submit written notice to the division requesting that the division determine the total annual financial effect for a period of not less than three years of any proposed law or rule or regulation of any administrative agency of the conullonweatth. The division shall make public its determination within sixty days of such notice. (g) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection(a), (b) and(c), any city or town shall be allowed to accept the provision of any law, rule or regulation specified by said subsections whether or not such law, rule, or regulation is funded by the commonwealth.. (h) This section shall apply to regional school districts and educational. collaboratives organized pursuant to section-four E of chapter forty, to the same extent as it applies to cities and towns. A regional school district may accept a law, rule or regulation by vote of its school committee, and an educational collaborative by vote of its board of directors. The provisions of this section shall.not apply to any costs to cities and towns or exemptions to local taxation. resulting, from a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or to any law, rule or regulation enacted or promulgated as a direct result of such a decision.