City and Town Clerks: Please post this notice pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 39, Section 23B

1 Fenn Street, Suite 201

Pittsfield, MA 01201

T: (413) 442-1521 · F: (413) 442-1523

TTY: 771 or (800) 439-2370

berkshireplanning.org

Please Note: For information regarding postponements or cancelations on the day of a scheduled meeting, please call Berkshire Regional Planning Commission at (413) 442-1521, x5

MEETING NOTICE

There will be a meeting of

the

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

of the

BERKSHIRE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

on Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 4:00 p.m.

This will be a Virtual Meeting as allowed by Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker’s Executive Order dated March 12, 2020 suspending certain provision of the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c.30

sec.20.

Information to join the meeting is:

Meeting ID: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/3926128831?pwd=Y2pza09DdWQ0c3JybndoN1pCVmlxZz09

Meeting ID: 392 612 8831 Passcode: 100120

Call in information: 312.626.6799, 646.558.8656, 301.715.8592, 346.248.7799, 669.900.9128 Meeting Material: All written materials for the meeting are posted on BRPC’s website: www.berkshireplanning.org. Click on the calendar of events for the meeting and materials available will be listed.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order & Open Meeting Law Statement (4:00)

II. Approval of Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting of September 3, 2020*(4:05)

III. Financial Reports (4:10)

A. September Expenditures Report * B. Accounts Receivable Report & Assessments

C. Line of Credit Report D. Other

IV. Delegate & Alternate Issues (4:15)

V. Items Requiring Action* (4:25)

A. Approval to Submit Grant Application to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for Brownfields Assessment Funding*\

1

B. Approval to Submit Grant Application to the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General

C. Approval to Submit Grant Application to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health Bureau of Substance Addiction Services (BSAS)*

D. Other*

VI. Committee Reports (4:35)

A. Environmental Review Committee B. Regional Issues Committee C. CEDS Committee D. Other

VII. Executive Director’s Report (4:40)

A. Report on New Contracts / Agreements B. Berkshires Tomorrow Inc. Update C. Staff Update D. East-West Rail Update

E. Rural Policy Advisory Commission Update F. Culvert & Small Bridges Work Group Report

G. Culvert Grants H. MVP Grants I. Site Development Grant Program

J. Unemployment Data

K. Citizen Planner Training Collaborative Fall Virtual Workshops L. Orientation for new BRPC Members M. Shared Streets and Spaces Grant Awards

N. Attorney General’s Small Business Relief Partnership Grant Program

O. Other

VIII. Old Business (4:50)

A. Review of FY 20 Berkshire Group Purchasing Program B. Review of Staff Top Ten Commitments – FY21 C. Review of BRPC Values Statement D. Office Space / Lease E. Other

IX. New Business (5:10)

A. Comments on Chapter 70 School Funding B. Support for Proposed Legislation regarding Public Health C. November Full Commission Meeting (Virtual) – September 19, 2020 D. Other

X. Adjournment (5:30)

Attachments:

- Unapproved Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting of September 3, 2020 - September Expenditures Report - September Accounts Receivable Report - Line of Credit Report - Memo – Executive Committee Agenda Items - Unapproved Minutes of the Regional Issues Committee meeting September 24, 2020 - Unapproved Minutes of the CEDS meeting September 10, 2020 - BRPC Adopted Mission, Vision and Values Statement - Economic Impact of COVID-19 on Berkshire County MA

* Items Requiring Action

2

1 Fenn Street, Suite 201 Pittsfield, MA 01201

T: (413) 442-1521 · F: (413) 442-1523 TTY: 771 or (800) 439-2370

berkshireplanning.org

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

Thursday, September 3, 2020 Virtual Meeting as allowed by Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker’s Executive Order dated July 16, 2020 suspending certain provision of the Open Meeting Law,

G.L. c.30 sec.20. I. Call to Order & Open Meeting Law Statement

A. The meeting was called to order at: 4:07 p.m.

Vice-Chair John Duval started the meeting by reading a statement regarding the Open Meeting Law. BRPC records all meetings. Others may record the meeting after informing the chair. Any documents presented must be left with the Chair of the meeting.

B. Roll Call:

Kyle Hanlon, Chair John Duval, Vice Chair Sheila Irvin, Clerk Malcolm Fick, Treasurer Roger Bolton, Environmental Review Committee Chair Rene Wood, Commission Development Committee Chair CJ Hoss, Regional Issues Committee Chair Buck Donovan, At-Large

Sam Haupt, At-Large Others Present: Edward Regendahl, Egremont Delegate, Fred Schubert, Richmond Alternate, Tammy Daniels, iberkshires staff Staff Present: Thomas Matuszko, Executive Director, Marianne Sniezek, Office Manager

II. Approval of Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting on

July 16, 2020

CJ Hoss moved to approve the minutes of the July 16, 2020 meeting which was seconded by Roger Bolton. It was approved by roll call vote from Rene Wood, CJ Hoss, Buck Donovan, John Duval, Roger Bolton, Malcolm Fick, Sheila Irvin, and Kyle Hanlon. Sam Haupt abstained.

III. Financial Reports

A. July & August Expenditures Report

Kyle asked for a roll call vote.

3

2

Approved by roll call vote from Rene Wood, CJ Hoss, Buck Donovan, John Duval, Roger Bolton, Malcolm Fick, Sheila Irvin, Kyle Hanlon and Sam Haupt.

B. Accounts Receivable Report & Assessments Tom reported no issues with the 90-day aged receivables.

C. Line of Credit Report The line of credit was not needed over the last month. Tom reported cash flow is currently very good.

D. Unaudited FY20 Financial Results for BRPC

Tom reported that BRPC ended FY 2020 with a surplus in the General Fund of approximately $4,137 which was lower than our budgeted amount of $15,000. BRPC used additional funds in the General fund for grant applications. BRPC put $87,258 into our Retiree Health Insurance Trust Fund, which was higher than the budgeted amount of $45,000. The Retiree Health Insurance Trust Fund balance at year end was $654,998 out of the approximately $1.85 million estimated Total OPEB Retirees Health liability. Tom reported it is our intention to continue to add each year to the trust to fund the unfunded amount. The unfunded liability increased in FY20 from $1,128,729 million to $1,198,909 due to changes in staff, staff plan changes and insurance rate changes.

Tom reported setting the overhead rate for the year makes it easier to manage projects and allowed BRPC to put more money into the Trust fund last year. Rene commended BRPC on the larger amount funded into the trust. Marianne reported BRPC had 118 projects in FY 2020. The committee recommended to announce at the next Commission meeting the number of projects and to point out projects that are not the normal projects done in the past. The COVID-19 related projects and the use of the District Local Technical Assistance (DLTA) funds should be highlighted.

Tom also reported he would provide language for letters of support for

funding for DLTA in the State budget. E. Indirect Cost Rate

BRPC’s Cost Allocation Method combines its indirect program expenses into a pool which are allocated to each program in proportion to the direct salaries of the staff members who work on each program according to federal guidance specified in The Uniform Guidance (2 CFR § 200). The Uniform Guidance also defines the cognizant agency as the Federal agency responsible for reviewing and approving the governmental unit’s indirect cost rate on behalf of the Federal Government and further states that “the cognizant agency responsible for review and approval is the Federal agency with the largest dollar value of total Federal awards with a governmental unit.” Consistently, year-to-year, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

4

3

with funds passed through MassDOT has provided the largest dollar value of Federal awards to BRPC. Our indirect cost rate has been consistently reviewed and approved by MassDOT through an agreement with FHWA. Recently the federal Economic Development Administration (EDA), which is in the Department of Commerce, is not recognizing MassDOT as our indirect cost rate approval entity and is requiring us to secure an indirect rate approved by EDA as a condition of a possible EDA CARES Act application.

BRPC recently applied for an indirect rate with EDA. EDA could approve a

rate that is different than the indirect rate from MassDOT. Our auditors did not think having two rates would be a problem. If the EDA indirect rate is lower, BRPC would possibly need to subsidize the difference from the General Fund or another source. If BRPC was to be audited by the state, all contracts should be treated equal. It was not sure how long it will take to receive an EDA’s indirect rate.

F. Other – Tom reported on September 1, 2020 a “Payroll Tax Holiday,” where

employers could stop the deductions of Social Security and Medicare and deduct and pay it later, went into effect. Deferring the tax deductions is an option for employers. BRPC will still take the deductions based on a recommendation from the Employers Association of the Northeast and the uncertainty of this Payroll Tax Holiday.

IV. Delegate & Alternate Issues – None V. Items Requiring Action

A. Modify Disposal of Surplus Property Procedure

The Executive Committee was requested to approve a modification to BRPC’s Disposal of Surplus Property Procedure. This procedure had not been modified in the last 10 years. The two key modifications were to offer surplus property to non-profit organizations if municipalities don’t want it and to increase the dollar amount from $100 to $200 for which BRPC tries to sell an item not wanted by a municipality or non-profit.

Tom explained the change in the policy would increase the amount from

$100 to $200 and offer the items to municipalities first then non-profit organizations.

Rene Wood moved to approve a modification to BRPC’s Disposal of Surplus

Property Procedure. The motion was seconded by Malcolm Fick. It was approved by roll call vote from Rene Wood, CJ Hoss, Buck Donovan, John Duval, Roger Bolton, Malcolm Fick, Sheila Irvin, Kyle Hanlon and Sam Haupt.

B. Approve Surplus Property Items*

The Executive Committee was requested to approve a list of surplus property

5

4

according to our procedure. Most of these items are desktop computers which are no longer needed with our transition to laptops to enable staff to seamlessly transition between telecommuting and in-office work.

Rene Wood moved to approve to offer surplus property per BRPC procedures.

The motion was seconded by Malcolm Fick. It was approved by roll call vote from Rene Wood, CJ Hoss, Buck Donovan, John Duval, Roger Bolton, Malcolm Fick, Sheila Irvin, Kyle Hanlon and Sam Haupt.

C. Approve Modifications to the Personnel Pay Plan*

The Executive Committee was requested to approve a modification to the Personnel Plan by adding a Grant and Procurement Specialist Position. This position is a professional level position which requires a significant amount of time devoted to both routine administrative tasks and complex, compliance related decision-making responsibilities for two programs: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Berkshire County Regional Group Purchasing (BRGPP). After a short discussion on the Group Purchasing Program, Tom reported he would give the Executive Committee a review of the program at the next Executive meeting. The program pays for itself and BRPC will continue to improve the program. BRPC has learned the program needs year-long attention. Rene Wood moved to approve a modification to the Personnel Plan by adding a Grant and Procurement Specialist Position. The motion was seconded by Roger Bolton. It was approved by roll call vote from Rene Wood, CJ Hoss, Buck Donovan, John Duval, Roger Bolton, Malcolm Fick, Sheila Irvin, Kyle Hanlon and Sam Haupt.

D. Approve Acceptance of Supplemental Budget Funds The Executive Committee was requested to authorize BRPC to accept $250,000 from the Executive Office of Administration and Finance and authorize the Executive Director to enter into necessary contracts and agreements related thereto. Senator Hinds had an amendment approved to section 2A, in item 1599-1232 of the Supplemental Budget, by adding the following: “provided further, that not less than $250,000 shall be expended for the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission to assist businesses, municipalities, and non-profit institutions in acquiring supplies and adapting to the 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic.” The details of how these funds would be spent are still being finalized but generally they would be used for reimbursement of costs related to adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic. Rene Wood moved to approve the Executive Director, on behalf of the Commission, to accept $250,000 from the Executive Office of Administration and Finance and authorize the Executive Director to enter into necessary

6

5

contracts and agreements. The motion was seconded by Roger Bolton. It was approved by roll call vote from Rene Wood, CJ Hoss, Buck Donovan, John Duval, Roger Bolton, Malcolm Fick, Sheila Irvin, Kyle Hanlon and Sam Haupt.

E. Approve Receipt of IT Bond Bill Funds The Executive Committee was requested to authorize BRPC to accept $500,000 through the IT Bond Bill and authorize the Executive Director to enter into necessary contracts and agreements related thereto. Senator Hinds had an amendment approved to section 2G, in item 1100-2514 of the IT Bond Bill, by adding the following: "provided further, that not less than $500,000 shall be expended for the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission for the purpose of a grant program for Berkshire County businesses to undertake internet infrastructure upgrades." This would be funding through a bond bill, so it’s certainly not a guarantee that it would be appropriated – it would require the Baker Administration to program it into a capital budget.

Tom explained these funds are for business in the region. Municipalities are not eligible for these funds. Rene Wood moved to approve the Executive Director, on behalf of the Commission, to accept $500,000 through the IT Bond Bill and authorize the Executive Director to enter into necessary contracts and agreements. The motion was seconded by Roger Bolton. It was approved by roll call vote from Rene Wood, CJ Hoss, Buck Donovan, John Duval, Roger Bolton, Malcolm Fick, Sheila Irvin, Kyle Hanlon and Sam Haupt.

F. Other -None

VI. Committee Reports A. Environmental Review Committee

The Environmental Review Committee met on August 18, 2020. The main topic of the meeting was an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) and Request for Waiver of Mandatory Environmental Impact Report for the Watson Road dam removal in Hinsdale. Due to the submission deadline not coinciding with an Executive or Commission meeting, comments were sent from the Environmental Review Committee.

Roger reported the Environmental Review Committee examined one project where the environmental impacts were low. There was no public money involved in this project. The comment letter was sent by BRPC staff. Rene Wood moved to endorse the Watson Road Dam Removal EENF, EEA #16249 comment letter sent by BRPC Staff. The motion was seconded by Malcolm Fick. It was approved by roll call vote from Rene Wood, CJ Hoss,

7

6

Buck Donovan, John Duval, Roger Bolton, Malcolm Fick, Sheila Irvin, Kyle Hanlon and Sam Haupt.

B. Other – None

VII. Executive Director’s Report

A. Report on New Contracts/Agreements

New Grants and Contracts received / initiated 7/1/2020 to 8/31/2020 • Health Resources in Action - Community Health Improvement Plan 5yr

- $300,005.64 • Health Resources in Action Pittsfield Grey to Green 5yr - $931,766.49 • Berkshire Community Action Council, Inc.– Berkshire Remote Learning

Initiative - $94,675 • Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) – Vaccination Exercise

Series - $33,000 • Sandisfield – Public Health Nursing Services - $2,000 • Peru – Public Health Inspectional Services - $7,842 • Berkshire County Boards of Health Association - Public Health Support

Services - $11,000 • Dept. of Energy Resources – Regional Energy Planning Assistants -

$15,500 • Lanesborough – Stormwater Management Plan Support - $11,000 • Lanesborough – Road Condition Survey - $4,925

Grants and Contracts Not received - None

B. Staff Updates

• Recent Hire: Beth Carroll started as the Finance Office Assistant. Beth will help with the day to day financial transactions as well as assist with office administration activities, such as time sheets. (Resume was attached.)

• Current Hiring: There open positions for the environmental planner position and part-time offsite Specialist position to serve as Project Facilitator for the Berkshire Remote Learning Initiative (BRLI).

Tom reported someone has accepted the position of the Grant and Procurement Specialist and will start on September 21, 2020.

C. Committee Membership

The Committee membership for FY 21 has mostly been finalized.

D. Berkshires Tomorrow Inc. (BTI) Update

8

7

Below is an update of BTI activities from 7/16/20 through 8/26/20.

• Repurposed unspent funds totaling $20,562.12 from the $35,000 received from Milltown Operating Foundation, dba Milltown Capital, for the COVID-19 Front Line Worker Fridge Filler Program to the continuation of the Outdoor Recreation Plan for Berkshire County.

• Approved the receipt of $15,000 from the Berkshire United Way to support the Berkshire Remote Learning Initiative

E. CDBG CARES Act Awards Adams ($850,000), Lenox ($765,000) and North Adams ($121,050) received awards from the CDBG CARES act funding to assist low to moderate populations. These funds will provide assistance to micro-enterprises. BRPC staff, primarily Patricia Mullins, assisted with the Lenox and Adams applications. BPRC staff will have a primary role in Lenox and secondary role in Adams to implement the grants.

F. The Resilient Lands Initiative The Resilient Lands Initiative through the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs is focused on developing a ten-year plan for land conservation in Massachusetts that reduces vulnerability to climate change and builds resilience in natural communities. A year-long process of stakeholder meetings has led to creation of a Resilient Lands Initiative's draft Vision Summary. While the summary contains some details, a public comment period is underway to inform a more thorough set of recommendations. Comments can be submitted before September 17 to Bob O’Connor, Forest & Land Policy Director for the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs, at Robert.oconnor@mass.gov

G. Economic Development Bond Bill

The Economic Development Bond Bill (H4887, S2874), contains many important items related to housing, food security and broadband. There are two directly impactful items: a rural and small town development fund; and municipal and regional grant program. The rural and small town development fund (funded in H4887 at $10 million and in S2874 at $20 million) will be for a competitive program of grants or other financial assistance to support economic development, job creation and housing and climate resilience initiatives to promote economic opportunity and prosperity in small towns or rural areas (7,000 population or less). The municipal and regional grant program (funded in both bills at $10 million) will be for grants and technical assistance to be made to municipalities and regional applicants, to support planning and locally-driven initiatives related to community development, housing production, workforce training and economic opportunity, childcare

9

8

and early education initiatives and climate resilience initiatives, including nature-based solutions projects.

H. East-West Rail Update There has been no activity of the East-West Rail Advisory Committee since the last Executive Committee.

I. Rural Policy Advisory Commission The Rural Policy Advisory Commission has not met since June 25, 2020.

J. Other – None

VIII. Old Business

A. Review of Staff Top Ten Commitments – FY 20 A review of the work items the BRPC staff committed to making significant progress during the last fiscal year was presented in the meeting materials. There was no discussion.

B. Executive Director Review

BRPC’s Bylaws require “On an annual basis, the Executive Director shall prepare a review of his/her accomplishments for the preceding year and goals for the upcoming years as part of his/her performance evaluation by the Executive Committee.” A brief written summary was provided immediately prior to the previous meeting that was discussed. After a discussion a motion for a merit increase based on performance was made. Rene Wood moved to approve the Executive Director’s merit increase of 3% retroactive to July 1, 2020. The motion was seconded by Roger Bolton. It was approved by roll call vote from Rene Wood, CJ Hoss, Buck Donovan, John Duval, Roger Bolton, Malcolm Fick, Sheila Irvin, Kyle Hanlon and Sam Haupt.

C. Annual Meeting Previously there was a decision to cease preparations for the BRPC Annual

Meeting, typically held in the Fall. Given the current situation vis-à-vis COVID-19 an in-person meeting is still not possible.

10

9

It was decided instead of the annual meeting to have BPRC’s annual report be a statement of BRPC’s accomplishments with pictures to be distributed to the Commission, non-profits and other organizations.

D. Other - None

IX. New Business

A. Review BRPC Values Statement

The recent protests in the wake of police shootings and the Black Lives Matter demonstrations has provided the opportunity to re-examine how all of us may contribute to systemic racism and discrimination. The BRPC values statement touches on issues of diversity, equity and inclusion but is not explicit. Tom asked the Committee their thoughts on changing the BRPC Values Statement to have a clearer statement on diversity, equity and inclusion. After a discussion a motion was made for the next steps. Rene Wood moved to bring the current BRPC Values Statement to the Full Commission to engage a discussion on changing the Values Statement to include diversity, equity and inclusion. A decision would not be made at the next Full Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Sheila Irvin. It was approved by roll call vote from Rene Wood, CJ Hoss, Buck Donovan, John Duval, Roger Bolton, Malcolm Fick, Sheila Irvin, Kyle Hanlon and Sam Haupt.

B. Staff Top Ten Commitments – FY 21 Similar to last year, staff is preparing Top Ten Commitments for FY 21.

Tom reported this will be presented at the next Executive Committee

meeting. C. Citizen Planner Training Collaborative (CPTC) Fall Virtual Workshops

CPTC's Fall workshop series will be virtual. CPTC would like to partner with Regional Planning Agencies to hold these virtual workshops. CPTC would administer the registration and payments and the RPAs administer the actual Webinar, if possible, with assistance from CPTC, if needed. Both CPTC and the RPAs would perform outreach for the workshops. Like the in-person workshops, the Webinars will be open to people outside the host region.

CPTC wants RPAs to identify the workshops they would want to administer from the following: - Roles and Responsibilities of Planning and Zoning Boards

11

10

- Adopting and Revising Rules and Regulations - Introduction to the Zoning Act - Design Review - Special Permits and Variances - Drafting Zoning Amendments - Introduction to Subdivision Control and ANR - Fair Housing Laws - Site Plan Review - Zoning with Overlay Districts - Vested Rights and Nonconforming Uses and Structures - Creating Master Plans - Zoning Exemptions - Planning with Community Support - Fair, Defensible Land Use Decisions - Chapter 40B

It was decided the virtual trainings BPRC would coordinate should be Roles and Responsibilities of Planning and Zoning Boards and Fair, Defensible Land Use Decisions. .

D. Orientation for new BRPC Members

Typically, BRPC has an orientation prior to the September Full Commission meeting. After a discussion it was decided Tom would contact new BRPC members. If there is interest in a virtual orientation one would be provided.

E. September Full Commission Meeting (Virtual) – September 17, 2020

The possible topics for the September Full Commission meeting were

discussed. - Review of Staff Top Ten Commitments – Skip - Quick walk-through of the new BRPC website – Yes, where to find

information and projects. - Revisions to BRPC’s value statement – Yes, engage a discussion. - Recognition of outstanding Berkshire County responses to COVID-19 - Yes

for Recognition and Thank you. - A report about what really happened from the Public Health perspective in

response to COVID-19 – Not discussed - A report on the State Budget – Not discussed - Open discussion about how communities want to work with BRPC. –

Instead a survey could be sent asking communities what they want. - A report on where BRPC’s expertise is with examples of BRPC’s good

qualities.

F. Other – None

12

11

X. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 pm by a motion made by Roger Bolton and seconded by Sam Haupt. Attachments:

- Unapproved Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting of July 16, 2020 - July-August Expenditures Report - August Accounts Receivable Report - Line of Credit Report - Memo – Executive Committee Agenda Items - BRPC Disposal of Surplus Property Procedure - BRPC List of Surplus Property August 2020 - BRPC Personnel Pay Plan - Grant and Procurement Specialist Position Description - BRPC Watson Road Dam EENF Comments - Beth Carroll resume - BRPC Committee membership - Resilient Lands Initiative Summary - CDBG CARES Act Announcement - FY 20 BRPC Staff Top Ten Commitment Results - BRPC Adopted Mission, Vision and Values Statement

13

BERKSHIRE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Check Register

For the Period From Sep 1, 2020 to Sep 24, 2020 Filter Criteria includes: Report order is by Date.

Check # Date Payee Amount Dept# Dept Description Detail

14692 9/3/20 ADCARE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE 35.00 571 HRSA/HIV

HIV Capacity Development &

Planning Training

14693 9/3/20 SARAH CARLTON 4,690.00 583 BTI/BARR/HSG

Berkshire Tomorrow / Barr /

High School Graduate Project Subcontractor

14694 9/3/20 KELLEY CLEANING SERVICES 300.00 40 ADMIN Admin Cleaning

14695 9/3/20 MACFARLANE OFFICE PRODUCTS, INC. 379.67 40 ADMIN Admin Copying

14696 9/3/20 MARPA 2,400.00 40 ADMIN Admin VOIDED

14697 9/3/20 MIIA HEALTH BENEFITS TRUST 1,747.92 40 ADMIN Admin Dental Insurance

14698 9/3/20 MIIA HEALTH BENEFITS TRUST 37,144.08 40 ADMIN Admin Health Insurance

14699 9/3/20 MUTUAL OF OMAHA 765.49 40 ADMIN Admin Life; LTD; STD

14700 9/3/20 NORTHERN BERKSHIRE COMMUNITY COALITION 1,304.00 531 ESBCI/MOB

Elder Services - Matter of

Balance Subcontractor

14701 9/3/20 PETTY CASH / SUSAN NAWAZELSKI 28.95 40 ADMIN Admin Postage

14702 9/3/20 CITY OF PITTSFIELD 235.00 40 ADMIN Admin Parking

14703 9/3/20 THE COOPER CENTER, LLC 4,393.00 40 ADMIN Admin Rent

14704 9/3/20 MIKE SCUTIERI 210.00 40 ADMIN Admin Maintenance

14705 9/3/20 VALLEY GREEN SHREDDING, LLC 70.00 40 ADMIN Admin Recycle/Shredding

14696V 9/3/20 MARPA -2,400.00 40 ADMIN Admin VOIDED

14706 9/3/20 MARPA 2,400.00 40 ADMIN Admin Dues

1061 9/3/20 EMERALD LEAD TESTING 1,518.00 522 CHS/NMB/CDBG18

Cheshire-New Marlborough

CDBG VOIDED

1156 9/3/20 EMERALD LEAD TESTING 1,762.00

570

SHFNMBOTS/CDBG19

Sheffield New Marlb Otis

CDBG FY19 Subcontractor

1061V 9/3/20 EMERALD LEAD TESTING -1,518.00 522 CHS/NMB/CDBG18

Cheshire-New Marlborough

CDBG VOIDED

1062 9/3/20 EMERALD LEAD TESTING 1,306.00 522 CHS/NMB/CDBG18

Cheshire-New Marlborough

CDBG Subcontractor

14707 9/3/20 ALESIA CORBETT 250.00 478 BKT/CDBG Becket CDBG Refund

14708 9/3/20 NANCY SIMONDS-RUDERMAN 180.00 283 BPHA/INSP Inspectional Services Subcontractor

14709 9/3/20 JUNE AXT 825.00 284 BPHA/PHN Public Health Nursing Nurses

14710 9/3/20 LESLIE DRAGER 4,141.00 284 BPHA/PHN Public Health Nursing Nurses

14711 9/3/20 AMANDA OSGOOD 288.00 284 BPHA/PHN Public Health Nursing Nurses

9/29/2020 at 2:50 PM Page: 114

BERKSHIRE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Check Register

For the Period From Sep 1, 2020 to Sep 24, 2020 Filter Criteria includes: Report order is by Date.

Check # Date Payee Amount Dept# Dept Description Detail

14712 9/3/20 KARA POTTER 160.00 284 BPHA/PHN Public Health Nursing Nurses

14713 9/3/20 ANIMAGIC MUSEUM 3,000.00 612 AGO

Massachusettes Attorney

General Office - Small

Business Relief Partnership Grant Award

14714 9/3/20 CEDAR TREE INVESTMENTS GROUP 3,000.00 612 AGO

Massachusettes Attorney

General Office - Small

Business Relief Partnership Grant Award

14715 9/3/20 CHEEKIE ORGANICS, LLC 3,000.00 612 AGO

Massachusettes Attorney

General Office - Small

Business Relief Partnership Grant Award

14716 9/3/20 GREYLOCK WORKS, LLC 3,000.00 612 AGO

Massachusettes Attorney

General Office - Small

Business Relief Partnership Grant Award

14717 9/3/20 WOODSTOCK SOUTH 3,000.00 612 AGO

Massachusettes Attorney

General Office - Small

Business Relief Partnership Grant Award

14718 9/3/20 MASS STATE BOARD OF RETIREMENT 6,355.95 --- --- Retirement

14719 9/9/20 NEW ENGLAND NEWSPAPERS, INC. 3,542.48 40 ADMIN and 490 USDA

Admin and USDA Farmers

Market Promotion Program Advertising

14720 9/9/20 TPX COMMUNICATONS 869.35 40 ADMIN Admin Telephone

14721 9/9/20 EDWARD M. FAHEY 500.23 --- Varied Projects Expense Report

14722 9/14/20 CHRISTOPHER CUTS 3,000.00 612 AGO

Massachusettes Attorney

General Office - Small

Business Relief Partnership Grant Award

14723 9/14/20 ORCHID BEAUTY SALON 3,000.00 612 AGO

Massachusettes Attorney

General Office - Small

Business Relief Partnership Grant Award

14724 9/14/20 PRADO DEL LANA SHEEP FARM LLC 3,000.00 612 AGO

Massachusettes Attorney

General Office - Small

Business Relief Partnership Grant Award

14725 9/14/20 FEDEX 94.46 40 ADMIN Admin Postage

14726 9/14/20 KATHRYN HEEDER HOCKER 325.00 490 USDA/FMP

USDA Farmers Market

Promotion Program Graphic Designer

9/29/2020 at 2:50 PM Page: 215

BERKSHIRE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Check Register

For the Period From Sep 1, 2020 to Sep 24, 2020 Filter Criteria includes: Report order is by Date.

Check # Date Payee Amount Dept# Dept Description Detail

14727 9/14/20 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS-803222 40,762.61 --- --- VOIDED

14728 9/14/20 MARY NASH 5,000.00 583 BTI/BARR/HSG

Berkshire Tomorrow / Barr /

High School Graduate Project Subcontractor

14729 9/14/20 PITNEY BOWES, INC. 83.97 40 ADMIN Admin Postage Supplies

14730 9/14/20 UNANET TECHNOLOGIES 183.10 40 ADMIN Admin Licenses

14731 9/14/20 W.B. MASON COMPANY, INC. 56.47 40 ADMIN Admin Supplies

14734 9/14/20 BERK COUNTY SUPERINTENDENTS ROUNDTABLE 33,250.00 615 BCAC/BRLI

Berkshire Community Action

Council, Inc.(BCAC)- Berkshire

Remote Learning Initiative Champions

14727V 9/14/20 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS-803222 -40,762.61 --- --- VOIDED

14735 9/14/20 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS-803222 33,272.66--- ---

OPEB Balance For

FY20

14736 9/14/20 BERKSHIRE MAGAZINE 1,500.00 490 USDA/FMP

USDA Farmers Market

Promotion Program Advertising

14737 9/17/20 BRAYTONVILLE PROPERTIES LLC 3,000.00 612 AGO

Massachusettes Attorney

General Office - Small

Business Relief Partnership Grant Award

14738 9/17/20 MASS STATE BOARD OF RETIREMENT 6,566.41 --- --- VOIDED

14738V 9/17/20 MASS STATE BOARD OF RETIREMENT -6,566.41 --- --- VOIDED

14739 9/17/20 MASS STATE BOARD OF RETIREMENT 6,556.08 --- --- Retirement

14740 9/24/20 100-104 RIVER STREET LLC 515.82 612 AGO

Massachusettes Attorney

General Office - Small

Business Relief Partnership Grant Award

14741 9/24/20 ADELSON MOYNIHAN KOWALCZYK, PC 2,485.00 40 ADMIN Admin June Review

14742 9/24/20 BERKSHIRES TOMORROW, INC. 255.78 40 ADMIN

Admin

Hand Sanitizer -

Wrong Debit Card

used

14743 9/24/20 BERKSHIRE BROCHURE DISPLAY 1,250.00 490 USDA/FMP

USDA Farmers Market

Promotion Program Advertising

14744 9/24/20 COMPUWORKS 1,640.00 40 ADMINAdmin

Computers/Server

/Support

14745 9/24/20 MACFARLANE OFFICE PRODUCTS, INC. 240.65 40 ADMIN Admin Copying

9/29/2020 at 2:50 PM Page: 316

BERKSHIRE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Check Register

For the Period From Sep 1, 2020 to Sep 24, 2020 Filter Criteria includes: Report order is by Date.

Check # Date Payee Amount Dept# Dept Description Detail

14746 9/24/20 NORTH ADAMS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 13,750.00 583 BTI/BARR/HSG

Berkshire Tomorrow / Barr /

High School Graduate Project Subcontractor

14747 9/24/20 PITTSFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS 27,500.00 583 BTI/BARR/HSG

Berkshire Tomorrow / Barr /

High School Graduate Project Subcontractor

14748 9/24/20 THE COOPER CENTER, LLC 786.66 40 ADMIN Admin Utilities

14749 9/24/20 VALLEY GREEN SHREDDING, LLC 70.00 40 ADMIN Admin Recycle/Shredding

14750 9/24/20 W.B. MASON COMPANY, INC. 50.34 40 ADMIN Admin Supplies

14751 9/24/20 BERKSHIRE SPRINGS 35.50 40 ADMIN Admin Water

1053 9/24/20 TOWN OF GREAT BARRINGTON 8,542.80 166 EPA/RLF Revolving Loan Fund Sub Grant

1104 9/24/20 RALPH G. LOMBARDI, JR 7,209.00 478 BKT/CDBG Becket CDBG Subcontractor

1063 9/24/20 R&B CUSTOM HOME BUILDERS 4,000.00 522 CHS/NMB/CDBG18

Cheshire-New Marlborough

CDBG Subcontractor

1064 9/24/20 R&B CUSTOM HOME BUILDERS 9,900.00 522 CHS/NMB/CDBG18

Cheshire-New Marlborough

CDBG Subcontractor

1157 9/24/20 HENRY E BARTLETT III 11,115.00

570

SHFNMBOTS/CDBG19

Sheffield New Marlb Otis

CDBG FY19 Subcontractor

Total 270,551.41

9/29/2020 at 2:50 PM Page: 417

BERKSHIRE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Aged Receivables As of Sep 24, 2020

Filter Criteria includes: 1) Includes Drop Shipments. Report order is by ID. Report is pri

Customer ID Customer Over 90 days Amount Due

166/TOWN OF LEE TOWN OF LEE 2,000.00 2,000.00 EPA Add'l Funding

283/BHHA/INSP/PTS CITY OF PITTSFIELD - BOARD OF HEALTH 450.00

284 BPHA/PHN/SAV TOWN OF SAVOY 1,500.00

284/BHPN/PHN/CHS TOWN OF CHESHIRE 277.50

284/BPHN/PHN/CLK TOWN OF CLARKSBURG 679.25 679.25 LK To follow up

400/FDA/FOOD16 FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION 5,903.00

432 LAN/ECON TOWN OF LANESBOROUGH 807.50

440/TPL17 MASSDOT#75425 - TPL13 100,032.96

522 TOWN OF CHESHIRE TOWN OF CHESHIRE 51,594.53

531 ESBCI/MOB 531 ESBCI/MOB 90.26 122.35 LK To follow up

533 FCSD/OJJDP SDF-SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, FRANKLIN 11,449.71

553 NAD/HM CITY OF NORTH ADAMS 7,042.54 8,729.62 CM Checking Status

554 NMB/HM TOWN OF NEW MARLBOROUGH 779.72 779.72

560 COMMVENPUR COMMUNITY VENDOR PURCHASING 8,800.00

562 MAPC/NPI METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL 1,686.60

571 HRSA/HIV HEALTH AND HUMAN SERICES -57.58 520.17

582 PTS/5YRPLAN CITY OF PITTSFIELD 4,722.00 4,838.00 PM in touch with PTS

585 NBCC/OD2A NBCC 8,687.98

589 MAHB/CHII PTS MAHB 2,500.00

594 LEE/COMC TOWN OF LEE 31.05 31.05 Invoice Adjustment

607 BTI/AARP/SICC BERKSHIRES TOMORROW, INC. 747.31 747.31 Transfer BTI Balance

608 ADM/MTWPGG TOWN OF ADAMS 881.64

614 MAPC/VACEXER METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL 9,253.24

615 BCAC BCAC 38,459.00

CITY OF NORTH ADAMS CITY OF NORTH ADAMS 10,922.12

COOK INSURANCE CHARLES COOK -0.62

KARNS INSURANCE NATHANIEL W KARNS 184.35

PARKING PERMIT FEES PARKING PERMIT FEES -5.00 20.00 COVID Adjust

TOWN OF EGREMONT TOWN OF EGREMONT 976.06

TOWN OF LENOX TOWN OF LENOX -100.09 Pd First Invoice

TOWN OF MONTEREY TOWN OF MONTEREY 765.70

TOWN OF SANDISFIELD TOWN OF SANDISFIELD -18.23 Pd First Invoice

TOWN OF TYRINGHAM TOWN OF TYRINGHAM -6.51 Pd First Invoice

TOWN OF WINDSOR TOWN OF WINDSOR -17.91 Pd First Invoice

Report Total 16,029.55 275,456.00

9/29/2020 at 2:55 PM Page: 118

Line of Credit as of 9/23/2020

Current Balance

$0.00

Available Credit

$230,000.00

Amount Due

$0.00

Payment Due Date

Oct 5, 2020

19

1 Fenn St., Suite 201, Pittsfield, MA 01201 T: (413) 442-1521 · F: (413) 442-1523

berkshireplanning.org TTY: 771 or 1(800) 439-2370

KYLE HANLON, Chair JOHN DUVAL, Vice-Chair

SHEILA IRVIN, Clerk

MALCOLM FICK, Treasurer THOMAS MATUSZKO, A.I.C.P.

Executive Director

MEMORANDUM

TO: Executive Committee, Berkshire Regional Planning Commission

FROM: Thomas Matuszko, Executive Director

DATE: September 28, 2020

SUBJ: Agenda Items – October 01, 2020 Executive Committee Meeting

V. Items Requiring Action

A. Approval to Submit Grant Application to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for Brownfields Assessment Funding

Approval is requested for the Executive Director to submit a grant application to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for Brownfields Assessment

funding in the upcoming grant round and to approve any resulting contracts and agreements. We have exhausted all of the funding from the previously

awarded assessment grant and are currently in the process of closing that project. There are currently no funds available for site assessments; however, several potential sites have been identified that could benefit from

environmental site assessments for both hazardous and petroleum contamination. The maximum grant award is $300,000, and we anticipate

requesting $200,000 in hazardous funds and $100,000 in petroleum funds. No local match is required and a limited amount of administration is now allowed under Brownfields Grants. Staff lead is Melissa Provencher,

mprovencher@berkshrieplanning.org.

B. Approval to Submit Grant Application to the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General

Approval is requested for the Executive Director to submit a grant application to the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General Promoting Cultural

Humility in Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Grant program and to approve any resulting contracts and agreements. This grant opportunity is an offering from the AG Office to fund innovative solutions to improve the ability

of Opioid Use Disorder treatment providers to address the complex and specific needs of their patients. Grant applications can be for an amount up

to $100, 000. The specific budget is still being determined. There is no

20

2

match required Staff lead on this project is Jennifer Kimball, jkimball@berkshireplanning.org, 413-442-1521 x37.

C. Approval to Submit Grant Application to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) Bureau of Substance Addiction

Services (BSAS)*

Approval is requested for the Executive Director to submit a grant application to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health/Bureau of Substance

Addiction Services (BSAS) Massachusetts Collaborative for Action, Leadership, and Learning 3 (MassCALL3) Substance Misuse Prevention Grant and to approve any resulting contracts and agreements. This grant

opportunity is a continuation of Substance Abuse Prevention Coalition (SAPC) funding we currently have and provides multi-year funding (up to

$125,000/year for 9 years. Under the services described in this grant, communities will be able to build capacity, develop a strategic plan to implement existing evidence-based strategies, or design innovative

approaches that adhere to the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF).

No match is required. Staff lead on this project is Jennifer Kimball, jkimball@berkshireplanning.org. x37

D. Other*

VI. Committee Reports

A. Environmental Review Committee

National Grid (NEP) has submitted an Expanded Environmental Notification

Form (EENF) with a request for a Single Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Hoosic River Bank Stabilization and Erosion Control Project in the

Town of Adams. The Project’s goal is to protect existing electrical utility infrastructure near the Hoosic River where bank erosion poses an imminent threat to the integrity of multiple transmission line structures. The

Environmental Review Committee has not met to discuss this project yet. Comments are due October 23, 2020. The Executive Committee needs to

either authorize the Environmental Review Committee to submit comments or schedule an additional meeting prior to the 23rd. a

B. Regional Issues Committee

The Regional Issues Committee met on September 14, 2020. The main topic of the meeting was a presentation about the Resilient Lands Initiative. Comments about that proposed initiative were prepared and approved by the

Full Commission on Thursday September 24, 2025. Draft minutes are attached.

21

3

C. CEDS Committee

The CEDS Committee met on September 10, 2020. The main topic of the meeting was to confirm / amend the priority projects and other information

to be included in the 2020 CEDS update. The 2020 CEDS update will need to be voted on by the Commission at the November meeting. Draft minutes are attached.

D. Other

VII. Executive Director’s Report

A. Report on New Contracts/Agreements

New Grants and Contracts received / initiated 9/1/2020 to 9/30/2020 DPH – Berkshire Opioid Addition Prevention Collaborative - $25,000 DPH - Opioid Abuse Prevention - $75,000

FRCOG – Public Health Emergency Preparedness - $150,909 FRCOG – Berkshire & Franklin County Medical Reserve Corps - $44,112

Savoy – Public Health Nursing Services - $2,000 Washington – Public Health Inspection Services - $3,825

Windsor – Public Health Inspection Services - $7,650 Windsor – Public Health Nursing Services - $2,000

Grants and Contracts Not received None

B. Berkshires Tomorrow Inc. (BTI) Update

Below is an update of BTI activities from 8/26/20 through 9/28/20.

Approved a software lease agreement with BRPC for 48 Subscriptions

of Microsoft Office 365 for FY2021 totaling $7,200.

C. Staff Update

We have an open position for the Environmental Planner position. The part-time offsite Specialist position to serve as Project Facilitator for the

Berkshire Remote Learning Initiative (BRLI) was hired as a contract position.

D. East-West Rail Update

The next East-West Passenger Rail Study Advisory Committee will be Wednesday, Sept. 30, from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. During this meeting,

analysis of the final three study alternatives will be presented, including updated ridership, cost estimates, and community and environmental impacts. Next steps to complete the Study, including the Draft and Final

22

4

Report, will be discussed, https://www.mass.gov/east-west-passenger-rail-study.

E. Rural Policy Advisory Commission Update

The next meeting of the Rural Policy Advisory Commission is tentatively scheduled for October 9, 2020.

F. Culvert & Small Bridges Work Group Report

Through Senator Hinds’ leadership, the Culverts and Small Bridges Working Group was convened to identify and evaluate the costs and

benefits of existing environmental rules and regulations, engineering standards, and permitting processes and their impact on the replacement or repair of deteriorated or substandard culverts and small bridges. A

report which contains the recommendations was finally released. We are trying to set up a virtual “5th Thursday” gathering to explain the report

which can be accessed here, https://www.mass.gov/doc/massachusetts-culverts-and-small-bridges-working-group-report/download.

G. Culvert Grants

The Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game’s Division of Ecological Restoration (DER) Culvert Replacement Municipal Assistance Grant Program helps municipalities replace undersized and deteriorating culverts

with crossings that meet improved design standards for fish and wildlife passage, river health, and storm resiliency. Becket was awarded, $65,000

for engineering and design work for a culvert replacement on Center Pond Brook. Alford was awarded $15,000 to complete planning and data collection work to replace a culvert on a tributary to Green River.

H. MVP Grants

The Municipal Vulnerability Program provides grants to communities to plan for impacts from climate change and then once planning is complete grants to implement improvements. Cheshire, Mount Washington, Otis,

Stockbridge, Richmond were recently awarded planning grants. Great Barrington, Williamstown (on behalf of the Mohawk Trail Woodlands

Partnership) and Windsor were awarded action (implementation) grants.

I. Site Development Grant Program

MassDevelopment has a new round of funding under its Site Readiness

Program. The program offers grants to finance land acquisition, feasibility

studies, master planning, environmental permitting, site improvements,

and other work. It is geared toward boosting investments in industrial and

commercial projects, and supporting the conversion of abandoned sites

and facilities. Responses are due by Nov. 12

23

5

https://www.massdevelopment.com/what-we-offer/real-estate-services/site-

readiness/

J. Unemployment Data

The MassHire Berkshire Workforce Board has compiled a useful data set on labor statistics, including unemployment, on their webpage,

https://masshireberkshire.com/Labor-Market/. The Board also commissioned a

report regarding the impact of COVID-19 on Berkshire County Industries

(attached).

K. Citizen Planner Training Collaborative Fall Virtual Workshops

The Fall schedule for the CPTC trainings has not yet been released.

L. Orientation for new BRPC Members

The orientation for new members has not been scheduled yet.

M. Shared Street and Spaces Grant Award

The Shared Streets & Spaces program through MassDOT provides

technical and funding assistance to help Massachusetts cities and towns conceive, design, and implement tactical changes to curbs, streets, on-

street parking spaces, and off-street parking lots in support of public health, safe mobility, and renewed commerce. Pittsfield received $238,826.50 to support new dedicated cycling facilities, curb extensions,

one-way streets, outdoor seating areas for restaurants, and improvements to intersections to make them more welcoming. West

Stockbridge received $141,358.60 to convert several downtown public and private spaces for safe outdoor gathering and dining, establish

expanded walking and bicycling routes, install new traffic calming measures, mount new wayfinding and integrate public art.

N. Attorney General’s Small Business Relief Partnership Grant Program

The Attorney General’s Small Business Relief Partnership Grant Program was established to help small businesses address fixed debt, payroll, accounts payable, lost sales, lost opportunities, and other working capital

expenses incurred by the COVID-19 pandemic. BRPC’s grant provided a total of $45,00 to the following 16 companies in 10 municipalities.

Applicant City / Town Award Amount

DeMarsico's Wine Cellar, LLC North Adams $3,000.00

Kinderhof Waldorf School North Egremont $3,000.00

Maplewood B&B Hinsdale $3,000.00

Berkshire Paint and Sip Pittsfield $2,991.40

Eastgate Inn B&B Lenox $2,492.78

Tamarack Hollow Windsor $3,000.00

24

6

Greylock Works North Adams $3,000.00

Klo Organic Beauty Williamstown $3,000.00

Animagic Museum Lee $3,000.00

Woodstock South Adams $3,000.00

Cedar Tree Investment Group Pittsfield $3,000.00

Prado del Lana Sheep Farm Yarn & Wool Shop Stockbridge $3,000.00

Braytonville Properties llc / REDPM Adams $3,000.00

Orchid Beauty Salon North Adams $3,000.00

Christopher's Cuts North Adams $3,000.00

100-104 River Street LLC North Adams $515.82

O. Other

VIII. Old Business

A. Review of the FY 20 Berkshire Group Purchasing Program

Attached is a summary report of the Berkshire Group Purchasing Program for FY 20.

B. Review of Staff Top Ten Commitments – FY 21

We are still working in the final draft of the FY21 Top Ten Commitments.

C. Review of BRPC Values Statement

Last Thursday’s Commission meeting contained a lot of good discussion. We need to determine the best was to proceed. We stated at the

Commission meeting we would bring it as an agenda for the next Commission meeting for further discussion.

D. Office Space / Lease

The lease for our current office space expires next September. We are not able to renew and have to go out to bid. We need to start the process to secure Office Space after next September.

E. Other

IX. New Business

A. Comments on Chapter 70 School Funding

The Massachusetts Division of Local Services and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education are conducting a study to

determine the fairness of the Chapter 70 funding provision for

25

7

schools. One of the key provisions of the current method is the

“hold harmless” provision. The hold-harmless provision guarantees that districts receive at least the same amount of

Chapter 70 aid as the previous year even when their foundation budgets decrease due to declining enrollment. Berkshire schools

receive significant amount of “hold harmless” funding. A recent report, attached, by the Massachusetts Business Alliance for

Education and Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce recommends eliminating the “hold harmless” provision. Without

substitute funding, many of the Berkshire schools’ budgets would be devastated. Comments are being solicited until October 16th.

We need to determine if BRPC should submit comments.

B. Support for Proposed Legislation regarding Public Health

On Wednesday September 30, 2020, new legislation will be

proposed to implement recommendations from the Special

Commission on Local and Regional Health, including those now in

statute as Chapter 72 of the Acts of 2020, An Act Relative to

Strengthening the Local and Regional Public Health System (also

known as the State Action for Public Health Excellence, or SAPHE,

Act). BRPC Public Health Program Manager Laura Kittross was a

member of the Special Commission and has been involved in a

working group to shape the legislation. Laura will brief the

Executive Committee. We are working on a letter of support for

consideration.

C. November Commission Meeting

We still have time to determine the agenda as we can finalize at the November Executive Committee meeting. Possible topics include: - CEDS 2020 Annual Update (required)

- Revisions to BRPC’s value statement (continued from last meeting) - Additional recognition of outstanding Berkshire County responses to

COVID-19

D. Other

26

1 Fenn Street, Suite 201

Pittsfield, MA 01201

T: (413) 442-1521 · F: (413) 442-1523

TTY: 771 or (800) 439-2370

berkshireplanning.org

MINUTES OF THE REGIONAL ISSUES COMMITTEE

September 14, 2020

Meeting Held Via Zoom Video Communications

I. Call to Order

The meeting to called to order at 4:01 by CJ Hoss, Committee Chair. The meeting was

recorded.

Committee Members Present

CJ Hoss, Chair, Pittsfield

Shelia Irvin, Pittsfield

Kyle Hanlon, North Adams

Andrew Groff, North Adams

Chris Rembold, Great Barrington

Eleanor Tillinghast, Mount Washington (non-Commission member)

Committee Members Absent

none

BRPC Staff Present

Tom Matuzsko, Executive Director

Laura Brennan, Senior Planner

Guests Present

Robert O’Connor, EOEEA

II. Approval of May 20th, 2020 Meeting Minutes

Kyle H. moved to approve the minutes of the May 20th, 2020 meeting. The motion was

seconded by Sheila I. Eleanor T. provided typographical edits to be incorporated into the

final version. The Committee voted to approve the minutes. The results of the roll call vote

were as follows:

- Andrew G. – Yes

- Chris R. – Yes

- CJ Hoss – Yes

- Eleanor T. – Yes

- Kyle H. – Yes

- Sheila I. – Yes

III. Resilient Lands Initiative Overview

CJ Hoss welcomed Robert O’Connor to the meeting and everyone briefly introduced

themselves.

Mr. O’Connor shared a slide presentation with the group, overviewing the statewide

conservation plan for Massachusetts. This plan has a focus on “expanding nature across the

Commonwealth to help people”. He stated that this is being referred to as an initiative

rather than a plan because it will be an ongoing effort over the next ten years, and in

27

contrast to the previous plan in 2003/2004, is an inclusive vision in the climate change era.

Participants looked at how land conservation could be most beneficial to communities. The

last statewide land conservation plan had a stated goal of protecting 1,000,000 acres and

thus far about 40% of that has been achieved. The steering committee of 40 participants for

the current plan included state and federal agencies, conservation agents, municipal and

regional planners, non-profits, urban organizations and universities, and did not state an

acreage goal. Multiple focus group sessions were held, coordinated by UMass Donahue.

Eight (8) Land Values were considered and served as topics for focus group sessions.

Urban Parks and Public Health

Reducing Climate Impacts to People

Supporting Stable Economies

Forests

Farms

Habitats

Watershed and Water Supply

Outdoor Recreation

Eight (8) Strategies were developed based on the ideas brought forth by participants:

Improve the health of community residents by providing close-to-home outdoor

recreation and preparing communities for increased heat waves and flooding (focus

on cooling of neighborhoods with parks/green space);

Expand the amount of locally grown food, especially in food deserts, and prepare

farms for future stress from droughts and floods (includes a Vacant Lots to Farms

program);

Create a new green economy with expanded jobs in local farm and forest products

and in building resilient forests and urban canopy and healthy soils that store more

carbon (creating 10 new jobs in each of 100 rural communities, as well as a “Lands

for People” Law which would incentivize greening of spaces);

Achieve a significant increase in carbon storage and climate resilience in our forests;

Expand landscape and watershed-scale conservation and restoration projects via EEA

agencies and regional and statewide land trusts and watershed organizations –

permanent conservation means constantly improving climate resilience values for

people and habitat;

Protect and restore water supplies, waterways and habitats from increased threats

(overlap of high biodiversity areas and drinking water watersheds);

Achieve a no-net loss of farms and forests by 2030;

Collaborate with residents and communities about land conservation and restoration

as the key to climate change solutions (expanding the diversity of the partnership,

creating a website for RLI).

After the presentation, committee members had an opportunity to ask questions and share

concerns. CJ Hoss raised a concern regarding availability of land as more and more land is

conserved without measures to ensure that housing options for workforce are available,

especially in regions with high concentrations of poverty. Funding for water and sewer in

rural communities is needed so that people are not priced out. He also felt the aspect of

adding jobs in the green economy were important to achieving the strategies of the plan.

Andrew Groff shared that in his community of Williamstown a common concern is farm

succession plans and would like to see that be an area of focus moving forward. Mr.

28

O’Connor responded that the APR program needs to be expanded beyond the federal

guidelines to address some situations.

Eleanor Tillinghast stated that she is very impressed with what has been put together, and

had questions about Strategy 6 (providing annual payments for implementing best practices

for carbon storage and climate resilience) and 7 (annual incentives for verified forestry

practices such as thinning, extended rotation, tree retention, etc.). She brought up the

alternative of leaving forests intact as older forests absorb more carbon than young forests

and wondered if discussions included annual or incentive payments to leave forests intact.

Mr. O’Connor described working with the Nature Conservancy on their pilot program in

Pennsylvania which includes light-duty and normal forestry as well as setting aside land.

There are arguments for both thinning the forests to increase growth or leaving it alone

entirely. There are situations where one or the other might be better, depending on the type

of forest and its conditions. Eleanor T. asked if landowners that leave forests intact would

also be eligible for payments or incentives under the proposed plan. Mr. O’Connor stated

that he believes so and will look into it further. Eleanor T. asked that the committee’s letter

of support include mention of incentives and payment for leaving forests alone, which would

be important especially for municipal landowners.

Sheila I. stated that she feels urban green spaces is an important part of this initiative,

especially as paved areas are hotter in the summer and susceptible to intense weather in

the winter, and we need to balance the need for new housing with urban green space.

Tom M. added comments about affordability, as the Berkshire region relies on our pristine

landscape but hardships are created for municipalities when land is taken off of the tax rolls,

and benefits for rural communities that might already have significant land conserved

should be considered through this initiative. He also indicated that the Housing Choice

program which includes incentives for housing development, and the two initiatives should

be tied together. Mr. O’Connor replied that Chapter 40 smart growth efforts should also

include greening of neighborhoods where housing is being developed. Vacant lots should be

considered not only for redevelopment but also green space. Better coordination is needed

between agencies.

Chris R. offered congratulations on the program, which encompasses large rural landscapes

as well as urban greening on a smaller scale in gateway and other cities. He suggested that

Housing Choice, MassWorks, and other state grant programs should incorporate elements of

this plan as additional bonus points or incentives would help to advance this initiative. He

further suggested that the BRPC letter of support does not need to be too detailed, but that

we look forward to working further with EOEEA on the implementation of this plan.

Tom M. asked Mr. O’Connor what would be most useful. Mr. O’Connor suggested that a brief

letter that listed areas we would like to focus on in the future would be helpful.

The committee discussed timing for the letter, which will need to be endorsed by the

Commission on Thursday evening, September 17th. Review by the RIC will need to occur

quickly in order to advance the letter to the Full Commission.

A motion was made by Eleanor T. that BRPC staff draft a letter of general support which

also identifies specific topics of interest for further exploration, circulate the draft to the

group in time for consideration and endorsement by the Full Commission on Thursday,

September 17th. Chris R. seconded, and a roll call vote was conducted:

Kyle H. – yes

29

CJ H. – yes

Sheila I. – yes

Chris R. – yes

Eleanor T. - yes

IV. Topics for Future Consideration

A number of previously discussed potential topics for consideration were brought up again

by committee members and staff:

Update on Solar PILOT/tax agreement legislation

Monitoring of upcoming overhaul of RGGI standards

Recently released Culvert Report

Middle Mile broadband – contract renewal for Axia

Transportation Climate Initiative progress

Staff and Committee Chair will regroup later in September or early October to determine

which topic if any is most time sensitive and should be placed on the agenda for October.

V. Next Committee Meeting Date – October 28th, 2020

VI. Adjournment

CJ H. adjourned the meeting at 5:09pm.

30

1 Fenn Street, Suite 201

Pittsfield, MA 01201

T: (413) 442-1521 · F: (413) 442-1523

TTY: 771 or (800) 439-2370

berkshireplanning.org

CEDS COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

ZOOM Virtual Meeting

September 10, 2020

I. Call to Order

Kyle H. called the meeting to order at 1:01pm

Committee Members Present

Roger Bolton, Williams College

Mike Ferry, Berkshire Bank (retired)

Keith Girouard, Massachusetts Small Business Development Center Network

Kyle Hanlon, BRPC

Ben Lamb, 1Berkshire

Jim Lovejoy, Mount Washington

Laurie Mick, PERC

Mike Nuvallie, North Adams

Ian Rasch, Alander Group

Chris Rembold, Town of Great Barrington

Deanna Ruffer, City of Pittsfield (Arrived after meeting called to order)

Ben Sosne, Berkshire Innovation Center

Shannon Zayac, MassHire Berkshires, Alternate

BRPC Staff Present

Tom Matuszko, Executive Director

Laura Brennan, Senior Planner

Alexander Valentini, Researcher

Non-Committee Members Present

Lesley Herzberg, Berkshire Historical Society at Arrowhead

Allison Marchese, Community Development Corporation of Southern Berkshire

Richard Stanley, Community Development Corporation of Southern Berkshire

Christina Wynn, Berkshire Community College

II. Approval of Minutes from May 27th, 2020

Chris R. moved to approve from the May 27th, 2020 meeting. Keith G. seconded the motion.

Roll Call

Roger B. – Yes

Mike F. – Yes

Keith G. – Yes

Kyle H. – Yes

Ben L. – Yes

Jim L. – Abstain

Laurie M. – Yes

Mike N. – Abstain

Ian R. – Yes

31

Chris R. – Yes

Ben S. – Yes

Shannon Z. – Yes

III. Comments from the Public

No comments from the public.

IV. Economic Development Administrative (EDA) Updates

Laura B. gave an update on the EDA COVID grant application submitted by BRPC in late

June. Over the course of the summer, BRPC has received requests for additional information

from EDA, including a formal request in late August. BRPC has responded to all requests.

BRPC recently received a letter from EDA indicating that the application was “viewed

favorably” by that organization. The application was for an overall budget of approximately

$1M, including a 20% local match both in cash and in kind. It is likely that approval of the

application will be pushed past the end of the Federal fiscal year (September 30) due to

requests for additional information.

Laura B. gave an update on the Economic Development District (EDD) application submitted

to EDA in September 2019. At time of submission, BRPC was informed that review and

approval by EDA may take up to 18 months – this is likely to be further delayed given

exigent circumstances (COVID). The most recent correspondence from EDA regarding the

EDD application was a request for updated economic distress criteria figures in late spring,

which were provided by BRPC.

Ben S. mentioned that Laura B. and BRPC has been assisting the BIC with its EDA grant

application.

Laura B. mentioned that one of the advantages of receiving EDD designation would be an

expansion of BRPC’s ability to help other organizations, such as the BIC, engage with and

receive assistance from EDA.

V. Committee Review of Updated/Additional Priority Projects for 2020 CEDS

Update

Kyle H. prefaced the discussion by saying that there are 41 listed priority projects on the

CEDS update draft. 3 projects are still being updated. 2 projects – Washington Broadband

Fiber-Optic Network Construction and Miraval-Lenox Expansion at Cranwell Lenox – are

complete and should be voted on for removal.

Jim M. mentioned that there seems to be a lack of urgency regarding the expansion of

broadband to all Berkshire County municipalities and that COVID has shown how critical

broadband is for work and education.

Laura B. said that BRPC received an update the Berkshire Hills Internship Program from

MCLA, which stated that the organization is working on implementing virtual internships.

Alexander V. mentioned that the Eagle Mill entry needs to be updated as recent media

articles have indicated a scaling-down of the project as a result of COVID.

Chris R. moved to remove the completed Washington Broadband and Miraval projects and

approve the remaining 39 projects for inclusion in the 2020 CEDS Update. Roger B.

seconded the motion.

32

Roll Call

Roger B. – Yes

Mike F. – Yes

Keith G. – Yes

Kyle H. – Yes

Ben L. – Yes

Jim L. – Yes

Laurie M. – Yes

Mike N. – Yes

Ian R. – Yes

Chris R. – Yes

Deanna R. - Yes

Ben S. – Yes

Shannon Z. – Yes

VI. Discussion of CEDS 2020 Update General Content

Tom M. said that the East-West and North County rail studies should be included in the

Goals section, in addition to the Berkshire Flyer.

Ben L. mentioned that 1Berkshire is working on a Transportation Management Association

that can be included. BRPC to send request for information.

Deanna R. mentioned that the City of Pittsfield is working with the Pittsfield Economic

Development Authority on a master plan for the redevelopment of “Site 9” in the William

Stanley Business Park. This plan is nearing completion and will include $20M of

infrastructure development. This can be included in representative activities.

Ben L. suggested that the outdoor recreation bullet point under Goal #6, economic

resiliency, should be expanded on.

Deanna R. moved to approve the adoption of the suggested changes. Ben L. seconded the

motion.

Roll Call

Roger B. – Yes

Mike F. – Yes

Keith G. – Yes

Kyle H. – Yes

Ben L. – Yes

Jim L. – Yes

Laurie M. – Yes

Mike N. – Yes

Ian R. – Yes

Chris R. – Yes

Deanna R. - Yes

Ben S. – Yes

Shannon Z. – Yes

Deanna R. moved to approve the 2020 CEDS Update for submission to EDA, and to

authorize BRPC to make changes and update data as necessary. Ben L. seconded the

motion.

33

Roll Call

Roger B. – Yes

Mike F. – Yes

Keith G. – Yes

Kyle H. – Yes

Ben L. – Yes

Jim L. – Yes

Laurie M. – Yes

Mike N. – Yes

Ian R. – Yes

Chris R. – Yes

Deanna R. - Yes

Ben S. – Yes

Shannon Z. – Yes

VII. Adjournment

Ian R. moved to adjourn the meeting. Kyle H. adjourned the meeting at 1:37.

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

FY20 Group Purchasing Program Summary

The following consists of a brief summary of the Berkshire Regional Group Purchasing Program (BRGPP) activities for FY20. Participating Municipalities 30 participating municipalities: Adams Alford Becket Cheshire Clarksburg Dalton Egremont Florida Great Barrington Lanesborough

Lee Lenox Monterey Mt. Washington New Ashford New Marlborough North Adams Otis Peru Pittsfield

Richmond Sandisfield Savoy Sheffield Stockbridge Tolland Tyringham Washington Williamstown Windsor

Vendors Awarded Bids 22 vendors awarded bids: All States Asphalt, Inc. Apalachee, LLC Century Aggregates, Inc. D. Condron Construction, Inc. Eastern Minerals, Inc. Everett J. Prescott, Inc. Innovative Municipal Products J. Donovan & Sons Lipton Energy Markings, Inc. Mirabito Energy

Morton Salt, Inc. Northeast Paving O’Connell Oil Premier Fence, LLC Safe Road Services Sealcoating, Inc. Tonlino & Sons, LLC Trew Stone, LLC Troy Sand & Gravel Warner Bros., LLC West Oil, Inc.

Products and Services Offered: 159 Products and services offered in 17 product categories

Product Category # Products/Services Offered

Aggregates & Loam 26

Cold Patch 1

Calcium Chloride and Magnesium Chloride 4

Culvert Piping 54

Guard Rail & Posts Delivered 15

Guard Rail & Posts Installed 16

Line Painting 12

43

Road Crack Sealing 2

Stone Seal 3

Hot Mix Asphalt 4

Winter Rock Mix 2

Winter Sand 4

Pre-Treat Liquid and Treated Winter Salt 3

Gasoline 3

Diesel 3

Heating Oil 3

Liquid Propane 1

Total 159

Revenue Collected $40,436.02 collected in administrative fees from vendors. $24,800 collected in fees from municipalities. $65,236.02 total revenue collected. $12,106.34 additional, confirmed receivables from vendors; other vendor fees anticipated Hours Billed

Employee Project Hours

Matt Dovell COMM/VEN/GPUR 399

Matt Dovell DHCD/DLTA19 5

Alexander Valentini COMM/VEN/GPUR 21

Emily Kirby COMM/VEN/GPUR 3

Laura Dorr COMM/VEN/GPUR 3

Total 431

Recommended Program Modifications for Future Activities Program staff have determined that this service could be improved in the following ways:

Viewing this program as a year-round effort as opposed to a seasonal activity, and providing staff to support the program on that basis

Earlier and increased outreach to the participating communities, likely beginning in late January, and including building stronger relationships with DPW and other department heads

Continued improvements and refinements to the Municipal Request Survey Staggering solicitations for various products over the course of several weeks or months, as

opposed to issuing all bids on a single date Improvements to the vendors quarterly reporting system, including requiring the vendor name a

single responsible party Issuing invoices to vendors based on quarterly reports, as opposed to relying on vendor

discretion Offer other procurement services, such as contract bidding assistance for municipal paving and

construction contracts, etc.

44

BERKSHIRE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

1 FENN STREET, SUITE 201, PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 01201

TELEPHONE (413) 442-1521 · FAX (413) 442-1523

Massachusetts Relay Service: TTY: 771 or 1-800-439-2370

www.berkshireplanning.org

KYLE HANLON, Chair NATHANIEL W. KARNS, A.I.C.P. SHEILA IRVIN, Vice-Chair Executive Director MARIE RAFTERY, Clerk CHARLES P. OGDEN, Treasurer

Mission Statement - Adopted November 17, 2016 Berkshire Regional Planning Commission provides leadership and assistance to the County’s municipalities, organizations and citizens in achieving County-wide inter-relationships, prosperity, opportunities, quality of life, strength and vibrancy. BRPC’S Vision - Adopted November 17, 2016 Berkshire Regional Planning Commission, as an indispensable source of support and leadership to municipalities, organizations and citizens, effects positive change through its collaborative efforts to achieve Sustainable Berkshires principles and a high quality of life for County residents, including greater economic growth, sustainable resource management, environmental, social and economic equity, and effective governmental and educational services. BRPC is recognized as the primary:

Source of trusted, reliable Berkshire County data and analysis Provider of technical assistance to Berkshire municipalities and organizations Convener of interests seeking to seize opportunities for and confront challenges to

the Berkshires Advocate on behalf of the collective interests of Berkshire County

BRPC’s VALUES - Adopted January 19, 2017

Enhance the Berkshire’s human, environmental and developed resources, including its sense of place and built heritage.

Provide the highest quality information and analysis is the basis for our work. Actively seek, engage and respect varying voices to ensure all viewpoints are

considered prior to reaching decisions or providing guidance. Engage diverse people, organizations and interests within and outside Berkshire

County who can effect change in the region. Balance competing public interests. Nurture and rely upon partnerships and collaborations to provide optimal

outcomes. Be responsive and open to change and innovation. Respect the contributions of staff, community members, and organizations. Act with integrity and the highest ethical standards.

45

46

47

48

49

Missing the Mark How Chapter 70 Education Aid Distribution Benefits Wealthier School Districts and Widens Equity Gaps

50

AUTHORSHIPThis working paper was authored by Ryan Flynn (rflynn@mbae.org)

and James Sutherland, PhD ( jsutherland@bostonchamber.com).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSRoger Hatch, retired DESE school finance administrator, developed the model used

to assess the impact of formula factors examined in this report, provided invaluable

background and context on the Chapter 70 formulas, and reviewed a draft of this report.

This work also benefited from review by and suggestions from Kristin Blagg, senior

research associate at the Urban Institute; Ben Forman, research director at MassINC;

Hannah Jarmolowski, research fellow at the Edunomics Lab; Lorena Lopera, executive

director, Massachusetts, at Latinos for Education; Natasha Ushomirsky, state director

for Massachusetts at The Education Trust; and Jeff Wulfson, retired DESE deputy com-

missioner. Errors of fact or interpretation are solely the authors’ responsibility.

51

Preface from MBAE and GBCC

Dear Friend of Education,

It is imperative, in the face of increasing income inequality, economic uncertainty, and the growing challenge for businesses to hire talented and skilled employees, that Massachusetts has public schools that provide a high-quality education to each and every student. That requires appropriate funding.

Beginning with the creation of the 1993 Education Reform Act’s Chapter 70 funding formula and continuing through the passage of last year’s Student Opportunity Act (SOA), the state has partnered with communities to provide funding for schools based on students’ needs. The formula targets state resources to make up the difference between what an adequate education costs and what a local community can afford. However, over time, deviations from that progressive concept of having state funds equalize local educational opportunity have caused growing amounts of state funding to be distributed to higher wealth communities to ensure that “every community receives something.”

In this report, Missing the Mark: How Chapter 70 Education Aid Distribution Benefits Wealthier School Districts and Widens Equity Gaps, which our organizations jointly produced, we find that $778 million in the fiscal year 2021 budget proposal, or 14% of the total annual state Chapter 70 appropriation to aid public schools, goes to districts regardless of their ability to fund K-12 education on their own. Much of that total, almost $500 million a year, goes to the wealthiest 20% of school districts in Massachusetts, which serve cities and towns with a level of wealth that the formula recognizes as giving them the capacity to fully fund their school budgets from local revenues.

This is state money that could otherwise be used to accelerate increases in funding to higher needs districts that do not have the capacity to fully fund their schools. It is funding that could be used to close yawning gaps in opportunity and achieve-ment for high-needs and low-income students, gaps that have likely been widened by the recent school closures related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Efforts taken now to roll back some of these nonprogressive funding elements could produce the money necessary to close the digital divide that has consigned so many lower income students to a dangerous loss of learn-ing and instruction that threatens their economic future.

Although it may be understandable how, when financial times were better, formula changes that increased Chapter 70 aid without regard to underlying student and community need could be justified as practically and politically expedient, the state is entering an urgent period of much greater uncertainty that requires a reexamination of these changes.

The combination of unmet student need (which, even by the rosiest estimates in the SOA, would take 7 years for the Commonwealth to fully fund), and the new financial circumstances and ensuing economic fallout created by the pandemic, requires that we revisit whether Massachusetts should continue to subsidize wealthier communities at the expense of stu-dents still waiting for equity in educational opportunity.

The Chapter 70 formula is complex and multifaceted. We recognize that changes to address one perceived problem can create unintended consequences that impact other communities in negative ways. We understand that some rural and other districts have unique circumstances that must be accounted for.

Rather than call for an immediate end to the elements of the Chapter 70 aid formula highlighted in this report, we recom-mend beginning to roll them back in ways that advance the original intent of the formula as a vehicle for filling funding gaps in communities where the need exists.

Ed Lambert James E. Rooney Executive Director President & CEO Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce

52

MISSING THE MARK

1

Executive SummaryClosing racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps in educa-

tion is an urgent priority in Massachusetts. Across almost every

indicator of student opportunity and achievement—from high

school graduation rates to performance on Advanced Placement

exams, to access to a college readiness course of study—Black

and Latinx students, English learners, students with disabili-

ties, and students from low-income backgrounds do not enjoy

the same outcomes as their peers. Equitable access to resources

is an important component of the effort to close these gaps.

The state foundation budget formula for K-12 education deter-

mines how much money a school district must spend per stu-

dent to provide an adequate education. The formula is designed

to provide additional resources for those students with greater

needs by allocating more money for low-income students,

English language learners, and students with a disability. In

2014, a state commission called the Foundation Budget Review

Commission (FBRC) found that Massachusetts was short-

changing its higher needs students by underestimating the

cost of providing them an adequate education. Wealthy com-

munities have addressed this gap by tapping into local revenue

sources to spend more than required under the foundation

formula, resulting in significantly greater spending per student

when compared with less wealthy communities. The Student

Opportunity Act (SOA), passed in 2019, seeks to address this

issue by altering the foundation budget formula to better

reflect the actual cost of providing an adequate education and

phasing in these changes over 7 years. These changes will pro-

vide additional money to close achievement gaps in K-12 edu-

cation, particularly to districts with greater numbers of high-

needs students.

The responsibility for funding each school district’s foundation

budget is shared by the state and municipalities. The Chapter

70 state education aid formula, created as part of landmark 1993

education reform that sought to address significant disparities

in access to high quality education related to overreliance on

local revenues to fund schools, determines the share of each

school district’s foundation budget that must be contributed by

the municipality or municipalities it serves. The state provides

the remainder to each school district in the form of Chapter 70

state education aid. Governor Baker’s fiscal year (FY) 2021 bud-

get proposal (House 2 or H.2) provides $5.48 billion in Chapter

70 aid to support a statewide foundation budget of $11.95 bil-

lion. Collectively, municipalities are required to contribute a

total of at least $6.79 billion to meet their foundation budget

spending requirements.

The Chapter 70 aid formula is designed to be progressive, using

state dollars to fund a larger share of total required spending in

less affluent school districts. The SOA did not significantly alter

the Chapter 70 aid formula. Instead, the Legislature tasked the

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the

Department of Revenue with reviewing specific elements of

this formula. In line with the Legislature’s call for additional

review, we conducted an analysis to determine if the Chapter

70 aid formula helps or hinders the goal of directing adequate

resources to high-needs students.

In the FY 2021 H.2 budget proposal, $778 million, or 14% of total

Chapter 70 aid, is distributed as a result of Chapter 70 aid formula factors that are not based on community wealth

and income. 64% of every needs-blind dollar goes to the wealthiest 20%

of school districts.

This analysis shows that Massachusetts distributes to wealthier

school districts more aid than their formula-determined need

at the expense of increasing resources to low-income commu-

nities. In the FY 2021 H.2 budget proposal, $778 million, or 14%

of total Chapter 70 aid, is distributed as a result of Chapter 70

aid formula factors that are not based on community wealth

and income. These factors, many added to the formula during

previous reforms to build political support by ensuring that

nearly every community received more money than before, are

essentially needs-blind in that they do not account for a com-

munity’s capacity to provide an adequate education. Under the

current FY 2021 proposal, 64% of every needs-blind dollar goes

to the wealthiest 20% of school districts in the Commonwealth

(Figure 1).

53

MISSING THE MARK

2

Figure 1: Chapter 70 Aid by School District Wealth Quintile (FY 2021 H.2)1

$3,018M

$213M

$742M$612M

$310M$118M $495M

$14M

Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5

LEAST WEALTHY WEALTHIEST

Needs-Based AidNeeds-Blind Aid

64%of needs-blind

aid goes to state’s wealthiest school

districts

Source: Authors’ calculations using school finance data from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education (2020a).

Massachusetts is at a critical juncture in education funding

reform. Because the SOA does not provide a pathway for rais-

ing additional revenue, the task of identifying the resources

necessary to meet SOA spending obligations falls to state and

local budget writers. In July 2020, legislators committed to

providing schools with FY 2020 levels of Chapter 70 aid plus

an inflationary adjustment for the coming FY 2021 school year

while opting to delay passing a FY 2021 budget in the face of

uncertainty caused by COVID-19. The severe pressure that

COVID-19 places on the state’s fiscal landscape likely hampers

planned SOA-driven foundation budget increases for years to

come. During this unprecedented budget cycle, the state must

be creative in how it leverages its drastically reduced resources.

Faced with difficult financial choices, Massachusetts would be

wise to consider how needs-blind state aid currently sent to its

wealthiest communities could be better directed toward low-in-

come students and communities to help close the decades-long

achievement and opportunity gaps the FBRC recommended

addressing with additional funding. It is prudent to address

these inequities now, in light of the current fiscal crisis, both

to ensure the maximum possible funding for high-needs com-

munities and to better align the state’s total investment in K-12

education with student need.

Policy RecommendationsBased on the findings described in this policy paper, we provide

four recommendations to make the Chapter 70 aid formula

more equitable. These recommendations can be addressed

now, in conjunction with revisions to the foundation budget

formula made by the SOA. Although these four items do not

lead to a fully needs-based Chapter 70 aid calculation, they are

impactful steps that ensure funding reaches those students

who need it most.

1. Incrementally phase out the hold-harmless provision. The hold-harmless provision guarantees that districts receive at least the same amount of Chapter 70 aid as the previous year even when their foundation budgets decrease. Chapter 70 aid attributable to the hold-harmless factor is equal to $319 million in H.2, with the wealthiest school districts receiving approximately 5 times more state aid attribut-able to the hold-harmless factor per student than the least wealthy. Many middle-wealth school districts, particularly rural areas with declining enrollment, also rrely on this for-mula factor. These districts often face challenges related to diseconomies of scale that cause costs per student to be higher than contemplated in the foundation budget for-mula. The phase-out of the hold-harmless provision should proceed in parallel with a set of reviews, required under the SOA, related to assessing the long-term fiscal health of those rural school districts with declining enrollment.

2. Phase out minimum aid. Minimum aid provides a flat per-student increase in state aid to districts in years when all other foundation budget and Chapter 70 formula fac-tors do not generate an aid increase. The proposed FY 2021 minimum aid rate is $30 per student, accounting for $11.9 million in Chapter 70 state aid, with the wealthiest commu-nities receiving more than 6 times more minimum aid per student than the lowest resourced school districts.

1 Needs-blind aid includes aid attributable to the hold-harmless provision, minimum aid, below-effort aid, aid attributable to the floor for the wage adjustment factor, and the cap on municipalities’ maximum local contribution share of their foundation budgets. Although Quintile 1 districts receive much more Chapter 70 aid, Quintile 5 districts still spend more on education per pupil because those communities have the local resources to do so; this inequity was the basis of the SOA.

54

MISSING THE MARK

3

3. Eliminate below-effort aid to municipalities that havethe capacity to fund 125% or more of their foundationbudgets. The state calculates a target percentage for eachmunicipality’s share of its school districts’ total requiredspending. Under certain circumstances, the state allowsmunicipalities to fall short of this target, filling the short-fall with state aid. This below-effort aid accounts for $156million in Chapter 70 aid in the FY 2021 budget proposal.Currently, below-effort aid benefits low-income communi-ties more than wealthier ones and therefore should not beremoved entirely, at least until the full implementation ofthe SOA reforms. However, the state should stop provid-ing below-effort aid to better resourced communities thatcan afford to fund 125% or more of their school districts’budgets from local revenue alone. Doing so will free up $1million with no impact on the lowest resourced school dis-tricts. More important, this measure improves progressiv-ity of the state aid formula.

4. Increase the maximum required local contributiontoward school district budgets that wealthy municipalities are expected to make. A municipality’s local contributionto its schools is capped at 82.5% of its foundation budget.For FY 2021, the state calculates that 104 of Massachusetts’351 municipalities can afford to fund their schools entirelyfrom local resources. The net effect of raising the maximum required local contribution from 82.5% to 100% of a munic-ipality’s foundation budget is a Chapter 70 aid increase of$221 million statewide, with the lowest resourced schooldistricts gaining $82 million in aid and the wealthiestschool districts seeing an aid reduction of $4 million. Amore incremental increase in the maximum required con-tribution share yields a progressive, but smaller, effect.

55

MISSING THE MARK

4

IntroductionIn November 2019, Massachusetts passed the Student

Opportunity Act (SOA), a landmark education funding reform

bill. Support for the reform was motivated by two facts. First,

the cost of specific inputs— particularly staff health care and

the educators, materials, and services needed to fully meet the

needs of low-income students, English learners, and students

with disabilities—exceeds what the state’s funding formula

assumed was needed for those purposes. Second, the under-

estimated cost of providing every student with the resources

needed for a high-quality education contributed, over time, to

stark inequalities in access to resources and opportunity across

school districts. Although wealthier districts can meet the

demand to spend beyond what the funding formula requires,

less wealthy districts struggle to increase spending in line with

need, resulting in serious deprivation that disproportionately

affects Black, Latinx, and high-needs students. In fiscal year

2019 (FY 2019), the wealthiest quintile of districts spent an

average of $4,642 more per student than did the least wealthy

quintile of districts. The SOA addresses both issues directly by

dramatically increasing state aid and required local spending

on education.

Although the changes to Massachusetts’ funding formula con-

tained in the SOA are expected to make significant contri-

butions to providing more vulnerable students with needed

resources, the originally envisioned 7-year phase-in means that,

under ideal circumstances and without the fiscal impacts of

COVID-19, it will still take more than half a K-12 career for this

relief to be fully realized. The expected stress on state revenue

resulting from COVID-19 and widespread economic slowdown

may jeopardize or lengthen this incremental phase-in. There

is a risk that many of the Commonwealth’s highest-needs dis-

tricts will not receive increased funding as quickly as they had

expected when the SOA passed.

Although historic in scope, the SOA left untouched several

aspects of the state’s education funding formula that deter-

mines how much state aid flows to districts and how this aid

is shared among communities. The Foundation Budget Review

Commission (FBRC), whose findings formed the basis for

the SOA, did not study these formula factors. Several of these

factors are needs-blind: They influence the distribution of

Chapter 70 state education aid among school districts but do

not account for the availability of local resources based on com-

munities’ property wealth and income.

This paper examines the impact of these factors and finds

that some of them make the overall distribution of Chapter

70 aid less progressive. Each year, the state distributes more

aid to wealthier districts than what they need at the expense

of increasing resources to low-income communities. Under

the FY 2021 budget proposal (House 2 or H.2), 14% of the total

$5.48 billion Chapter 70 aid allocation, approximately $778 mil-

lion, is distributed as a result of needs-blind factors that are not

based on municipalities’ capacity to contribute to their schools.

About 64% of every needs-blind dollar in Chapter 70 aid is tar-

geted to the wealthiest 20% of school districts.

This needs-blind aid often is explained as the sweetener needed

to pass progressive education reform; however, in the context

of incremental phase-in of funding increases or delayed SOA

implementation as the state budget recovers from COVID-19

in the coming years, changes to the needs-blind elements of

the Chapter 70 state education aid calculation could strategi-

cally shift some funding to shield the lowest income districts

from the full force of continued underfunding while not sub-

stantially affecting the ability of wealthy districts to provide for

their students.

56

MISSING THE MARK

5

The Foundation Budget and Chapter 70 State Education Aid Calculations The Massachusetts school funding system is designed to ensure

that state funding is progressive, both by allocating more

money for students with higher needs through a foundation

budget formula2 and by using state dollars to pick up a larger

share of funding for less affluent districts through the Chapter

70 state education aid formula. The SOA recently made sub-

stantial changes to the foundation budget formula based on

recommendations by the FBRC, which convened in 2014 to

review the programs, services, and costs associated with pro-

viding adequate education and to make recommendations for

formula changes. These changes will increase the amount of

Chapter 70 state education aid by an estimated $1.4 billion

when fully implemented. The FY 2021 H.2 budget proposal—

developed before the COVID-19 outbreak—allocates almost

2 Terms in bold italics are defined in the glossary in Appendix 1. They are technical terms that have a specific meaning in the state foundation budget or Chapter 70 aid calculations.

$5.48 billion to Chapter 70 state education aid. This amounts

to a $304 million, or 5.9%, increase in Chapter 70 aid compared

with that of FY 2020.

The foundation budget calculation determines the amount of

money needed to provide students an adequate education, but

the Chapter 70 aid calculation, a separate formula, determines

the distribution of aid among communities. The FBRC did not

deeply examine how state aid is shared among school districts.

We, therefore, conducted this analysis of the Chapter 70 aid

formula, which determines how great a share of each school

district’s budget should be paid for with state education aid, a

separate step from determining how much each district must

spend to meet the needs of its students (see Box 1).

Box 1: Summarizing the Foundation Budget and Chapter 70 Aid CalculationsRequired state and local spending on K-12 education is determined by two calculations: a foundation budget calculation and a Chapter 70 aid calculation.

FOUNDATION BUDGET CALCULATION

Foundation Budget

ENROLLMENT7 student enrollment types

+ special education,English learner, low-income

student increments

FOUNDATION RATESPer-student allocation for

11 categories of inputs (teachers, pupil services,

benefits, equiptment, etc.)

x =

First, the Commonwealth calculates the amount that each district must spend to provide an adequate education for its students, or foundation budget, based on enrollment, student demographics, and wage levels.

CHAPTER 70 AID CALCULATION

Required Local Contribution Chapter 70 Aid

Foundation Budget

Next, the Commonwealth determines the share of each school district's foundation budget that must be paid for by the municipal-ity or municipalities the district serves, based on each municipality’s aggregate property values and residents’ income. More afflu-ent municipalities are required to pay for a greater share of their school districts' foundation budgets. Chapter 70 state aid fills the gap between the local contribution and the total foundation budget amount. However, the Chapter 70 aid formula includes several elements that deviate from this needs-based funding principle. This paper describes these elements.

57

MISSING THE MARK

6

The Chapter 70 aid calculation first determines each munici-

pality’s required local contribution to the school district or dis-

tricts that serve resident students. The calculation starts with

each municipality’s required local contribution from the prior

fiscal year and increases it by a municipal revenue growth fac-

tor, which is calculated annually for each municipality by the

Department of Revenue and estimates the growth in capacity

to collect local revenue to spend on education. This yields each

community’s preliminary local contribution. The Chapter 70

aid calculation then compares the preliminary local contribu-

tion amount to the target local contribution, the share of each

municipality’s foundation budget that the state has calculated

should be funded from local contributions based on the munic-

ipality’s property wealth and residents’ income. In practice,

a municipality’s preliminary and target local contributions

are never exactly equal. If a municipality’s preliminary local

contribution is greater than its target local contribution, the

state reduces the municipality’s required contribution to the

target amount.3 If a municipality’s preliminary local contribu-

tion is less than its target local contribution, the state provides

below-effort aid to make up the difference between the com-

munity’s target and required contributions. In these commu-

nities, the preliminary local contribution amount becomes the

required local contribution.4 Having determined a municipali-

ty’s required local contribution, the state then divides the con-

tribution among the school districts to which the municipality

belongs based on the municipality’s share of the total founda-

tion budgets for the district(s) to which it sends students.

Figure 2: School Districts' Target and Actual Chapter 70 Aid as a Percentage of Their Foundation Budgets (FY 2021 H.2)

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

AID TARGET (Percentage of Foundation Budget)

ACTU

AL A

ID (P

erce

ntag

e of

Fou

ndat

ion

Budg

et)

Districts far from the actual aid = aid target line receive significantly more aid than their

target amount

Higher aid target percentage generally means lower wealth

School districts' aid percentage cannot be lower than 17.5% of foundation budget, regardless of wealth

Line denotes that actual aid = aid target

Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2020a).

3 Before FY 2019, above-target municipalities’ contributions were reduced by a percentage of the difference between their preliminary local contribution and their target local contribution. The SOA requires that the preliminary local contribution reduction percentage be set in the state budget each year, meaning that in future years it is possible that above-target municipal contributions may not be fully reduced to target.

4 When the difference between a municipality’s target local contribution and preliminary local contribution would exceed 2.5% of the munici-pality’s foundation budget, the municipality is required to increase its local contribution by an amount equal to 1% of the prior year’s required local contribution. If the difference between its target and preliminary contributions exceeds 7.5% of the municipality’s foundation budget, the municipality is required to increase its local contribution by an amount equal to 2% of the prior year’s required local contribution. In these cases, the required local contribution is greater than the preliminary local contribution but less than the target local contribution. A municipality with the capacity to fund 175% or more of its foundation budget from local revenue is not eligible for below-effort aid, regardless of the difference between its target and preliminary local contribution.

58

MISSING THE MARK

7

The state next determines how much Chapter 70 state aid each

district needs by calculating the difference between each dis-

trict’s foundation budget and the required local contribution

to which that district is entitled. The state provides foundation

aid to cover the difference between a school district’s founda-

tion budget and required local contribution. Foundation aid has

several parts. The first part is base aid, which is the amount of

aid the district received in the prior fiscal year. Importantly, dis-

tricts are held harmless, meaning that total Chapter 70 aid in

the current year cannot be less than base aid. If the difference

between a district’s required local contribution and its foun-

dation aid is greater than base aid, then the district receives a

foundation aid increase equal to the difference between foun-

dation aid and base aid. If a district does not get a foundation

aid increase, then the district receives minimum aid. Minimum

aid is a guaranteed increase in funding each year, often calcu-

lated on a per-pupil basis. The FY 2021 H.2 proposal includes

a $30 per-pupil minimum aid increase. Districts that receive a

foundation aid increase smaller than their minimum aid enti-

tlement also receive minimum aid up to the full entitlement

amount.

Aspects of the Chapter 70 aid calculation, including the

hold-harmless provision and minimum aid, create disparities

in the distribution of aid and move the formula away from its

intended goal of creating a needs-based funding structure. As

Figure 2 shows, many school districts end up receiving aid

above their target amount, which is based on the formula’s

calculation of what the school district needs. In H.2’s FY 2021

recommendations, 262 operating districts (out of 318) would

Box 2: School District QuintilesFor this analysis, school districts are divided into five equal groups, or quintiles, based on the ratio of wealth and income of the municipality(ies) the school district serves to the school district’s foundation budget. Quintile 1 represents the 20% of districts with the lowest community wealth relative to school funding needs, and Quintile 5 represents the 20% of districts with the highest community wealth relative to school funding needs. This analysis includes all 318 operational, noncharter school districts in Massachusetts, so each quintile contains 63 or 64 school districts. The higher rates of economically disadvantaged students and English language learners in Quintile 5, when compared with those of Quintiles 2 through 4, is due to Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville, cities with substantial property wealth and income whose school districts serve large numbers of high-needs students.

13%

39%

4%20%

4%23%

6%

37%

17%

67%

Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5

LEAST WEALTHY WEALTHIEST

129,178STUDENTS

149,145STUDENTS

161,735STUDENTS

190,148STUDENTS

Economically Disadvantaged

English Language Learners307,337STUDENTS

Source: Authors' calculations using K-12 enrollment data from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, (2020c).

59

MISSING THE MARK

8

receive aid that is at least 1 percentage point greater than their

target level of aid. In total, the state would distribute $579 mil-

lion in aid above the target set by the Chapter 70 aid formula.5

A needs-based Chapter 70 aid formula would match a commu-

nity’s required local contribution to the amount the commu-

nity can afford to pay from local resources. A fully needs-based

Chapter 70 aid formula would not include several needs-blind

formula factors, such as the hold-harmless provision, minimum

aid, below-effort aid, or a floor for the wage adjustment factor

(WAF),6 and it would require communities with the capacity to

fully fund their schools via local contributions to do so.

5 This amount is different from the $778 million mentioned above because some of the needs-blind factors examined in this paper also affect the target set by the formula and/or the foundation budget calculation itself. For example, the formula element that sets a maximum required local contribution share of 82.5% of a municipality’s foundation budget would lower the target amount of state aid to those communities by requiring a greater local contribution.

6 The WAF alters the foundation budget allotments to reflect differences in the average annual wages in different labor markets across the state.

60

MISSING THE MARK

9

The Impact of Needs-Blind Factors in the Distribution of Chapter 70 Aid

growing fiscal crisis and allow for more rapid progress to the

new spending levels required in low-income communities.

In this section, we examine the impact of needs-blind formula

elements on the amount and distribution of Chapter 70 aid.

Hold-Harmless ProvisionThe hold-harmless provision applies when a school district’s

Chapter 70 aid from the previous year, called base aid, is higher

than the amount of foundation aid called for by the current

year’s Chapter 70 aid calculation. When this occurs, the dis-

trict receives the entirety of its base aid amount; the state effec-

tively holds the district harmless to changes in enrollment or

required local contributions that would otherwise cause its

Chapter 70 state aid to fall. In the FY 2021 budget proposal, 186

school districts, 59% of all operating districts, benefit from the

hold-harmless provision.

Chapter 70 aid attributable to the hold-harmless provision is

equal to $319 million in the FY 2021 budget proposal, or $340

per student statewide. Table 1 shows that the wealthiest com-

munities receive more than 5 times as much per student in

Figure 3: Comparison of Actual and Needs-Based State Aid by District Quintile (FY 2021 H.2)

Actual AidNeeds-Based Aid

Quintile 1

AGGREGATED AID DISTRIBUTION BY DISTRICT QUINTILE PER-PUPIL AID DISTRIBUTION BY DISTRICT QUINTILE

$3.23B

$3.02B

$0.73B

$0.74B

$0.58B

$0.61B

$0.43B

$0.31B

$0.51B

$0.01B

$10,514

$9,819

$5,632

$5,742

$3,880

$4,105

$2,646

$1,919

$2,675

$74

LEAST WEALTHY

WEALTHIEST

Quintile 2

Quintile 3

Quintile 4

Quintile 5

Quintile 1

Quintile 2

Quintile 3

Quintile 4

Quintile 5

Source: Authors' calculations.

The wealthiest school districts in the Commonwealth benefit

the most from the needs-blind factors in the Chapter 70 aid

formula. Figure 3 compares proposed FY 2021 funding by dis-

trict quintile (see Box 2) with the funding that districts would

receive under a formula that removes needs-blind factors (see

Appendix 2 for more details on the methodology). Under a fully

needs-based formula, Chapter 70 state aid is reduced by 14%, or

just under $778 million, compared with the FY 2021 proposed

expenditures in H.2. Of this reduction in aid, 64% comes from

the wealthiest 20% of school districts.

By using a more progressive needs-based formula, the state

could better leverage this money by spending it in low-income

communities and on efforts that help close achievement gaps.

Making a substantial change to the Chapter 70 aid formula will

be difficult for districts and the state alike. Progress toward

a fully needs-based distribution of Chapter 70 aid could be

achieved through incremental changes, including the adjust-

ments to the formula outlined in the policy recommendations.

Altering regressive elements of the formula, in coordination

with implementing the increases in funding enshrined in the

SOA, will help address continued underfunding in light of the

61

MISSING THE MARK

10

hold-harmless base aid than the lowest wealth communities; a

significant number of middle-wealth communities, particularly

in Quintile 3, also benefit. A disproportionate number of the

middle-wealth districts that benefit from the hold-harmless

provision have seen declining enrollment for several years.

Also, many of these districts are located in rural areas, adding

challenges related to serving a dispersed student population to

declining enrollment.

Table 1: Chapter 70 State Aid Attributable to the Hold-Harmless Provision (FY 2021 H.2)

LEAST WEALTHY

WEALTHIEST

AGGREGATE PER PUPIL

DISTRICTS BENEFITING

Quintile 1 $19,204,566 $62 17

Quintile 2 $45,296,348 $351 34

Quintile 3 $126,363,475 $847 53

Quintile 4 $69,557,514 $430 43

Quintile 5 $58,777,255 $309 39

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Minimum AidMinimum aid guarantees a minimum per-pupil increase in

Chapter 70 aid for districts that do not receive a sufficiently

large foundation aid increase. The Legislature sets the mini-

mum aid rate each year. Over the past 10 years, the rate has

fluctuated between $55 per student at its peak in FY 2017 and

a low of $0 per student in FY 2010 through FY 2012. The SOA

requires that the minimum aid rate be at least $30 per student

each year. In the FY 2021 budget proposal, the minimum aid

rate is $30 per student and 186 school districts, 59% of all oper-

ating districts, receive minimum aid.

In FY 2021, Chapter 70 aid attributable to the minimum aid

provision is equal to $11.9 million. Minimum aid is regressive.

Table 2 shows that, on a per-student basis, the lowest wealth

quintile of districts receives the smallest amount of minimum

aid, both in aggregate and per pupil. The wealthiest commu-

nities receive 10 times more minimum aid per pupil than the

poorest. Quintile 3 districts receive more than 11 times as much

minimum aid per student than the poorest districts. Because of

this regressive distribution, any decision by the Legislature to

increase the minimum aid rate would decrease the progressiv-

ity of Chapter 70 aid.

Table 2: Chapter 70 State Aid Attributable to Minimum Aid (FY 2021 H.2)

LEAST WEALTHY

WEALTHIEST

AGGREGATE PER PUPIL

DISTRICTS BENEFITING

Quintile 1 $741,840 $2 17

Quintile 2 $1,631,112 $13 34

Quintile 3 $3,229,907 $22 53

Quintile 4 $2,489,190 $15 43

Quintile 5 $3,836,138 $20 39

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Below-Effort AidGenerally, required contributions by municipalities to their

school districts’ budgets are not allowed to increase more than

a fixed percentage each year, regardless of changes to their

foundation budget. The maximum percentage increase is based

on the municipal revenue growth factor (MRGF), which is cal-

culated by the Department of Revenue each year and estimates

the growth in each municipality’s capacity to fund education.

Inclusion of the MRGF in the Chapter 70 aid formula prevents

municipalities from absorbing large required contribution

increases in just 1 year, which could potentially strain municipal

budgets. Each municipality’s prior-year required contribution

is increased by that municipality’s MRGF to yield a preliminary

contribution, which may be adjusted, as described in the sec-

tion explaining the foundation budget and Chapter 70 aid cal-

culations, to set a required local contribution amount.

When a municipality’s required contribution is less than its tar-

get contribution, the community is considered “below target.”

School districts serving communities whose required local con-

tribution are less than their target local contribution still need

to be able to spend at the level required by their foundation

budget. When their spending requirement would otherwise fall

short of the level required by their foundation budget, the state

provides additional aid to make up the shortfall. We call this

type of aid below-effort aid because it allows communities to

exert a lower level of tax effort to support their schools than

62

MISSING THE MARK

11

their target local contribution would imply. Below-effort aid

accounts for $156 million in Chapter 70 aid in the FY 2021 pro-

posal, or $166 per student. Table 3 demonstrates that, although

below-effort aid is needs-blind in the sense that it is not based

on student need or community wealth, the effect of allowing

districts to be below target is progressive, as 76% of below-ef-

fort aid goes to Quintile 1 districts.

Table 3: Chapter 70 Aid Attributable to Below-Effort Aid (FY 2021 H.2)

LEAST WEALTHY

WEALTHIEST

AGGREGATE PER PUPIL

DISTRICTS BENEFITING

Quintile 1 $118,721,987 $386 45

Quintile 2 $15,642,698 $121 29

Quintile 3 $8,964,587 $60 11

Quintile 4 $11,074,016 $68 17

Quintile 5 $1,246,427 $7 9

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Wage Adjustment Factor (WAF)The WAF alters the foundation budget allotments related to

staffing to reflect differences in the average annual wages in

different labor market areas across the state. The rationale is

to help school districts offer salaries that are competitive for

the local labor market. For FY 2021, the WAF ranges from

0.796 to 1.108. However, the foundation budget formula sets a

WAF floor of 1, meaning the state does not adjust allotments

downward in communities where wages are lower than a fac-

tor of 1.7 This benefits communities in labor market areas with

lower wages.

Table 4 shows that applying a floor of 1 to the WAF accounts for

$158 million in Chapter 70 aid in the FY 2021 H.2, or $169 per

student, that otherwise would not go out to communities in

lower wage labor market areas. Almost all of this aid currently

goes to low-wealth communities, making the floor highly pro-

gressive in terms of its impact on Chapter 70 aid distribution

among school districts.

Table 4: Chapter 70 Aid Attributable to the Wage Adjustment Factor Floor (FY 2021 H.2)

LEAST WEALTHY

WEALTHIEST

AGGREGATE PER PUPIL

DISTRICTS BENEFITING

Quintile 1 $159,529,701 $519 40

Quintile 2 $1,557,744 $12 22

Quintile 3 ($6,095,874) ($41) 4

Quintile 4 $2,744,539 $17 9

Quintile 5 $359,863 $2 11

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Note: Aid attributable to the WAF floor is negative for Quintile 3. This can be interpreted as forgone state aid that is not delivered as a result of the WAF floor. The removal of the WAF floor yields a net aid

increase across Quintile 3 districts. It is important to note that this impact is not uniform across districts, as indicated by the fact that, despite the net negative aid in Quintile 3, four districts nonetheless

benefit from additional state aid attributable to the WAF floor.

We also examined what would happen if the WAF were removed

entirely, effectively leaving foundation budget allotments unad-

justed in high-wage labor markets across the state. Increasing

base foundation budget rates by the WAF in higher wage areas

accounts for $46 million, or $49 per student, in Chapter 70 aid.

Table 5 shows that the impact is somewhat greater in lower

wealth districts. On a per-student basis, the impact is great-

est (though still relatively small) in low- and middle-wealth

communities.

7 In the foundation budget formula, the WAF is multiplied by the base allotment for the following 8 (out of 11) foundation budget categories: administration; instructional leadership; classroom and specialist teachers; other teaching services; professional development; guidance and psychological services; pupil services; and operations and maintenance. A WAF of 1 makes no changes to the base allotments. A WAF above 1 increases the base foundation allotments by a percentage equal to the WAF minus 1. For example, foundation allotments in the categories above for Cambridge, which has a WAF 1.108, are 10.8% larger as a result of the WAF.

63

MISSING THE MARK

12

Table 5: Chapter 70 Aid Attributable to the Wage Adjustment Factor (FY 2021 H.2)

LEAST WEALTHY

WEALTHIEST

AGGREGATE PER PUPIL

DISTRICTS BENEFITING

Quintile 1 $15,868,062 $52 16

Quintile 2 $10,964,900 $85 14

Quintile 3 $7,102,417 $48 8

Quintile 4 $9,004,327 $56 17

Quintile 5 $3,385,568 $18 14

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Maximum Local Contribution Share of the Foundation BudgetThe required local contribution by a municipality cannot exceed

82.5% of its foundation budget, regardless of that municipality’s

assessed capacity to spend local resources on education. As a

result, the state reduces 157, or 45%, of the Commonwealth’s

351 municipalities’ required local contributions to 82.5% of

their foundation budget. Of these 157 municipalities, 104 can

fully meet their foundation budget obligations from local rev-

enue; the other 53 can fund between 82.5% and 100% of their

foundation budget from local revenue, according to the state’s

calculation.

The effect of capping local contributions at 82.5% of each

municipality’s foundation budget is to distribute Chapter 70

aid more evenly among school districts. This results in addi-

tional aid (and lower local contributions) in wealthy communi-

ties, and reduces aid and increases the amount of local contri-

butions required in less wealthy communities.

Removing the cap on required local contributions produces a

highly progressive but also somewhat counterintuitive effect,

as shown in Table 6. It reduces Chapter 70 aid to Quintile 5

districts, all of which have 100% or greater capacity to meet

their foundation budget, by only $4 million, and increases

Chapter 70 aid to Quintile 1 and 2 districts by a combined $149

million. Including increases to Quintile 3 and 4 districts, total

Chapter 70 aid increases by almost $221 million. This occurs

because total state contributions are fixed at 59% of the state

foundation budget in statute. Raising the maximum local con-

tribution share requires larger contributions from wealthier

communities, and, as a result, smaller local contributions are

required of communities in the lower quintiles. Those com-

munities now require higher amounts of state aid to maintain

foundation budget spending.

Table 6: Chapter 70 Aid Attributable to the Maximum Local Contribution Share

of Foundation Budget (FY 2021 H.2)

LEAST WEALTHY

WEALTHIEST

AGGREGATE PER PUPIL

DISTRICTS BENEFITING

Quintile 1 ($82,301,777) ($268) 0

Quintile 2 ($66,781,062) ($517) 0

Quintile 3 ($65,247,444) ($437) 0

Quintile 4 ($10,317,970) ($64) 13

Quintile 5 $3,845,476 $20 24

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Note: Aid attributable to the maximum local contribution share of foundation budget floor is negative for Quintiles 1 through 4.

This represents forgone state aid that is not delivered as a result of the use of a cap on local contributions. The impact of this formula factor is large: Quintile 1 through 4 districts collectively forgo $225 million in state aid. The “Districts Benefiting” column is the number of districts that receive additional aid as a result of the inclusion of

the maximum local contribution share of foundation budget formula factor under H.2, and thus would see aid decrease if the formula

factor were removed.

64

MISSING THE MARK

13

Policy Recommendationssent to the state’s wealthiest communities is better directed

toward low-income students and communities, to help close

the decades-long achievement and opportunity gaps the FBRC

recommended addressing with additional funding. The impact

of needs-blind factors compound over time, making it more

expensive for the state to meet the needs of students in low-in-

come communities.10 It is prudent to address these inequities

now, both to ensure the maximum possible funding for high-

needs students in light of the fiscal crisis and to better align the

state’s total investment in K-12 education with student need as

the state budget starts to recover.

Based on the findings presented above, the authors have four

recommendations to make the Chapter 70 aid distribution for-

mula more equitable. These suggestions can be addressed now,

in conjunction with revisions to the foundation budget formula

made under the SOA.

1. Incrementally phase out the hold-harmless provision that currently guarantees every school district level Chapter 70 aid each fiscal year, even when student enrollment is declining. Chapter 70 aid attributable to the hold-harmless provision is equal to $319 million in H.2, with the wealthiest school districts receiving approximately 5 times more state aid attributable to the hold-harmless provision per student than the least wealthy districts.

8 Part of this scrutiny entails balancing the statewide and local budget impacts of any formula changes. Although this analysis primarily focuses on the statewide impact of needs-blind formula factors on Chapter 70 aid, budget writers must also consider local factors, such as the student population served by the district. For example, Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville are high-wealth communities (Quintile 5) but have student populations with higher levels of needs, on average, than those of other Quintile 5 districts. Formula changes should not negatively impact higher needs students’ access to needed services.

9 By comparison, spending was 104% of required levels in Quintile 1 districts, 124% of required levels in Quintile 2 districts, 128% of required levels in Quintile 3 districts, and 139% of required levels in Quintile 4 districts in 2019. That wealthy communities elect to significantly exceed required spending levels even while in receipt of significant needs-blind aid provides suggestive evidence that wealthy communities’ fiscal capacity to spend on schools may be greater than the Chapter 70 aid formula estimates. The SOA requires that the Division of Local Services within the Department of Revenue and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education jointly conduct a study on the equity, predictability, and accuracy of how the formula determines municipalities’ ability to contribute toward education funding.

10 An econometric study of the Chapter 70 formula published in 2011 found the following: “Once a district receives aid in excess of foundation, it faces an increased likelihood that it will be eligible for such aid in subsequent years as well” (Fahy, 2011, p. 226). According to the author’s calculations, 214 of the 247 districts that received aid above foundation in FY 2008 (87%) also received aid above foundation in FY 2009. Of those districts, almost half would not have been eligible for aid above foundation in FY 2009 had those districts not received it in previous year. In other words, aid obligations created in previous years rolled over, obliging the state to send aid above foundation even though those districts’ FY 2009 situations did not call for this additional aid. Although subsequent changes have been made to the foundation and Chapter 70 distribution formulas, two core non-needs-based mechanisms examined in Fahy (2011)—minimum aid and the hold-harmless provision—remain in place. Our own analysis of last year’s (FY 2020) Chapter 70 aid indicated that a total of $700 million in needs-blind aid was delivered to school districts. The $778 million in needs-blind aid in the proposed FY 2021 H.2 Chapter 70 budget represents a $78 million increase in needs-blind aid over the previous year.

Many needs-blind factors in the Chapter 70 aid formula

increase state aid to communities beyond their calculated level

of need. These factors disproportionately benefit the wealthiest

communities in the Commonwealth. As the Legislature plans

the implementation of the SOA with significantly less revenue

available, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and associated eco-

nomic slowdown, needs-blind formula elements deserve care-

ful scrutiny.8 And although legislators recently level-funded

Chapter 70 state aid (plus inflation) for FY 2021, Massachusetts’

deteriorating fiscal climate jeopardizes the state’s ability to

fully fund the SOA recommendations for years to come. The

findings above provide options for altering spending levels far

more progressively than delaying implementation of the new

SOA foundation rates.

Massachusetts is at a critical juncture in education funding

reforms. The Commonwealth must commit to ensuring that all

students can access a high-quality education. It is not required

that a significant portion of new or existing state funds sub-

sidize communities with the means to provide more funding

on their own. Quintile 5 school districts’ collective spending

was 153% of the amount needed to meet legally required spend-

ing obligations in 2019, the last year for which spending data

are available.9 This level of spending is evidence of significant

fiscal capacity beyond what is necessary to meet foundation

budget spending requirements. Needs-blind Chapter 70 aid

65

MISSING THE MARK

14

The phase-out should be implemented incrementally. Some districts—particularly those with persistently declin-ing enrollment, many of which are not wealthy—benefit from the hold-harmless provision. As a result, each year, these districts’ annual Chapter 70 aid amount exceeds the target amount calculated in the state aid formula by a large margin. In some districts, often those that serve smaller or rural middle-wealth communities, Chapter 70 aid as a per-centage of the district foundation budget is more than dou-ble the target aid percentage. Removing the hold-harmless provision would cause significant reductions in aid to these communities.

Even a phased withdrawal of the hold-harmless provision would cause significant budget pressures in the beneficiary school districts and the municipalities that support them. Should initiating a phased withdrawal of the hold-harmless provision not be immediately feasible, an alternative step is to switch to a per-student hold-harmless calculation, such that districts are guaranteed a certain amount per student relative to a base year, but are not guaranteed an ever-in-creasing budget in the face of declining enrollment or other factors that reduce the need for Chapter 70 aid. Holding districts harmless to their FY 2020 per-pupil Chapter 70 aid amounts frees up $16 million that could be redistributed on the basis of student need to districts.

2. Phase out minimum aid. Minimum aid in the proposed FY 2021 budget accounts for $11.9 million in Chapter 70 aid, with the wealthiest school districts receiving more than 6 times more minimum aid per student compared with the lowest resourced districts. The SOA also introduced a new form of minimum aid, called the minimum aid adjustment, which benefits school districts for which the SOA reforms result in a reduction in Chapter 70 aid. This adjustment requires the state to calculate annually the amount of Chapter 70 aid that each district would have received, using the foundation budget rates that the SOA replaced, and provide aid in the amount dictated by the old rates if, after adjusting for inflation, the old rates yield a greater amount of Chapter 70 aid. This form of minimum aid should also be removed.

3. Eliminate below-effort aid to municipalities that have the capacity to fund 125% or more of their foundation budget from local contributions. Below-effort aid helps munici-palities facing a large annual increase in required contribu-tions to their schools to afford the increased contribution. Providing below-effort aid effectively shifts some of the

responsibility for paying for the increased required contri-bution from the municipality to the state. Municipalities with the capacity to fund 125% or more of their foundation from local revenue do not necessarily need additional state support to afford their required local contribution.

Currently, the state does not provide below-effort aid to districts that have local contribution capacity in excess of 175% of their entire foundation budget. Eliminating below-effort aid to municipalities that have the capacity to fund 125% or more of their foundation budget is, there-fore, an extension of the state’s current approach. Lowering the threshold at which communities are expected to meet their target from 175% of their foundation budget to 125% of foundation budget would affect 11 districts and changes state aid by $1 million under the FY 2021 H.2 budget pro-posal. The impact on the bottom 80% of districts in terms of wealth is minimal, increasing the overall progressivity of Chapter 70 aid.

4. Increase from 82.5% to 85% the maximum required local contribution share of the foundation budget that wealthy communities are expected to make, and examine the impact on equity of further increasing the maximum required contributions through the study of municipal con-tributions, which is required under the SOA. Raising the maximum local contribution share to 85% of the founda-tion budget reduces Chapter 70 aid in wealthier Quintile 4 and 5 districts by approximately $5.4 million and increases Chapter 70 aid in Quintile 1, 2, and 3 districts by $11.8 mil-lion. The result is a net increase in Chapter 70 aid of $6.4 million, meaning that raising the maximum required local contribution increases both the progressivity and total amount of Chapter 70 aid.

Together, these four changes reduce Chapter 70 aid by a total

of $25.2 million, 0.5% of total Chapter 70 aid and 8% of the

Chapter 70 increase in H.2. These changes are progressive, gen-

erating an increase in Chapter 70 aid of $2.5 million in the low-

est wealth Quintile 1 districts and reducing aid by $13.2 million

in the highest wealth Quintile 5 districts.

The recommendations above are meant to illustrate how

reforms to the formula factors examined in this paper can

improve the progressivity of aid by both increasing aid to lower

wealth communities and reducing needs-blind aid to wealthy

communities. The overall impact on the amount of aid to any

community is relatively small, demonstrating how progress

66

MISSING THE MARK

15

toward a more needs-based distribution of aid could be made

without forcing significant single-year adjustments in any com-

munity. Should a larger impact be required,  greater progress

toward phasing out the hold-harmless provision and further

lowering the threshold at which districts no longer benefit

from below-effort aid would both further reduce Chapter 70

aid and slightly increase the progressivity of its distribution.

Further increasing the maximum required contribution share

of the foundation budget for wealthy communities increases

the amount of Chapter 70 aid and slightly increases the pro-

gressivity of its distribution.

The state budgets in upcoming fiscal years will undoubtedly

be among the most strained in the state’s history, with budget

writers stuck in the vise grip of enormous reductions in reve-

nue and greater demand for public services. Making the best

use of the state’s resources is an urgent necessity not only

because of budget stress, but even more so because of the col-

lective and imperative responsibility to close achievement and

opportunity gaps. Changes to the needs-blind formula factors

examined in this report should be considered as options in the

FY 2021 budget process, especially at a moment when there

is a well-established disparity between the state aid provided

to the lowest income communities and what they need. Even

in the absence of a budget crisis, the significant amount of aid

distributed each year as a result of needs-blind factors is cause

for further examination. The SOA, passed before the current

crisis, requires studying the equity of how the formula cur-

rently determines municipal capacity to contribute to schools.

In addition to the recommendations above, such a study is an

important step in determining whether Massachusetts contin-

ues to miss the mark on fulfilling the SOA’s historic commit-

ment to progressive education funding reform. 

67

MISSING THE MARK

16

Appendix 1: GlossaryBase aid: Equal to the amount of Chapter 70 state aid provided

to a school district in the prior fiscal year. Base aid ensures that

every school district gets at least as much Chapter 70 state aid

as it did the previous year. Other forms of aid, such as minimum

aid and below-effort aid, as well as any required foundation aid

increase, are added on top of base aid.

Below-effort aid: State aid provided when a municipality’s

required contribution falls below its target contribution, and

the funding available to at least one of the school districts to

which the municipality belongs would fall short of the districts’

foundation budgets as a result. Below-effort aid is a subset of

overall foundation aid.

Chapter 70 state education aid: Total state aid distributed

to school districts to supplement local revenue allocated to

schools and allow them to provide an adequate education to all

students, as required under Chapter 70 of the Massachusetts

General Laws. Chapter 70 aid fills the difference between the

revenue a school district can afford to raise from local sources

and the total amount of money needed to adequately meet the

needs of all students. It is defined in statute as the greater of

(a) foundation aid or (b) the sum of base aid and minimum aid.

Chapter 70 state education aid formula: The formula that

determines how responsibility for the total required spending,

determined by the foundation budget formula, is shared among

the state and each of its public school districts. The formula

calculation starts with each municipality’s foundation budget

and determines what each municipality can afford to contrib-

ute based on its property wealth and residents’ income. The

formula then adjusts this amount using factors such as base

aid, minimum aid, below-effort aid, and others to arrive at a

final required local contribution for each municipality and state

Chapter 70 aid contribution to each district.

Foundation aid: For each school district, the difference between

the foundation budget of that district and the required local

contribution of the municipality(ies) it serves.

Foundation budget formula: The state formula that determines

how much money is needed to provide every student enrolled

in public school districts an adequate education. It starts with

the number of students enrolled in a district and allocates a

fixed amount of money per student, a foundation allotment

rate, for each of the following foundation categories: admin-

istration; instructional leadership; classroom and specialist

teachers; other teaching services; professional development;

instructional materials, equipment and technology; guidance

and psychological services; pupil services; operations and

maintenance; employee benefits and fixed charges; and spe-

cial education tuition. It then adds additional money, or incre-

ments, to the total of each student’s base rates if the student

is designated as a special education, English learner, or low-in-

come pupil. The result of this calculation is the total amount

that must be spent at the state, municipal, and district levels on

K-12 education.

Hold harmless: A commitment on the part of the Legislature

that no school district should receive less Chapter 70 aid than

that of the prior year, regardless of changes in the number and

needs of students served. Base aid is the factor in the Chapter 70

aid formula that guarantees that every district is held harmless.

Minimum aid: The amount of Chapter 70 state aid provided

in addition to base aid to school districts so that each dis-

trict is ensured a per-student increase above the prior year’s

aid amount. The minimum per-student amount is determined

by the Legislature each year, and under the SOA would not be

allowed to fall below $30 per student. Minimum aid is distrib-

uted only when foundation aid is insufficient to generate the

minimum per-student Chapter 70 increase required by the

Legislature. For example, if base aid plus foundation aid gen-

erates a $20 per-student Chapter 70 increase, the school dis-

trict would receive $10 per student in minimum aid so that it

receives the minimum required per-student increase.

Municipal revenue growth factor (MRGF): A multiplier that

quantifies for each municipality its capacity to increase the

amount of its local contribution to the foundation budget of the

school district(s) its students attend as a result of (a) growth in

municipal revenue due to Proposition 2 ½ levy limit increases

and (b) additional revenue resulting from new growth in the

tax base, as compared to the prior year. The Division of Local

Services of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue calcu-

lates the MRGF.

68

MISSING THE MARK

17

Preliminary local contribution: A municipality’s required local

contribution for the prior fiscal year increased by the munici-

pal revenue growth factor. The preliminary local contribution is

one of the figures used in the Chapter 70 aid formula for deter-

mining a municipality’s required local contribution.

Required local contribution: The total amount a school dis-

trict is required to contribute toward its foundation budget.

The required local contribution is calculated by adjusting the

target local contribution by Chapter 70 aid formula factors

such as below-effort aid and the 82.5% cap on required local

contributions.

Target local contribution: The amount a municipality can con-

tribute to the foundation budget of the school district(s) its

students attend, based on its property wealth and residents’

income, provided that the Legislature has determined that no

municipality’s target local contribution can exceed 82.5% of its

foundation budget. The target local contribution is one of the

figures used in the Chapter 70 aid formula for determining a

municipality’s required local contribution.

Wage adjustment factor (WAF): A multiplier used in the founda-

tion budget formula to account for differences in average wage

level in different labor market areas in the Commonwealth. It

reflects the view that, depending on where a school district

is located, the school district may need to adjust staff wages

relative to the state average in order to offer competitive sal-

aries and wages. The WAF is calculated by the Department of

Elementary and Secondary Education using average wage data

supplied by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and

Workforce Development.

69

MISSING THE MARK

18

Appendix 2: MethodologyThis analysis is based on the Complete Formula Spreadsheet

published by the Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education (DESE) on January 22, 2020, and available on its

website. The version of the spreadsheet used reflects the gov-

ernor’s preliminary FY 2021 H.2 budget proposal. This spread-

sheet takes as inputs the foundation budget for each district

(calculated and divided among the district’s member munici-

palities by DESE in a separate set of spreadsheets) as well as

parameters such as the minimum aid per student, base aid, and

the cap on required local contributions as a percentage of the

foundation budget, and calculates a required local contribution

and the amount of state aid for each school district. Some of the

formula factors studied are not possible to modify in the ver-

sion of the file provided by DESE on its website; therefore, the

formulas in this file were augmented by the research team to

allow analysis of the impact of a broader set of needs-blind fac-

tors. Specifically, parameters that allow analysis of changes to

the WAF and below-effort aid were added by the research team,

as were parameters that allow reductions in minimum and base

aid to be conditioned on community wealth and income.

The SOA contains a minimum aid adjustment provision that

provides additional hold-harmless aid to districts that would

have lost aid due to SOA changes to the formula. This provision

was removed by the research team before conducting the anal-

ysis. Not removing it would have made it impossible to capture

the impact of any formula factors whose removal would have

resulted in a district receiving less aid than it had in FY 2020.

Removing the Minimum Aid Adjustment did not affect the total

foundation budget or communities’ required local contribu-

tions, and reduced Chapter 70 aid by under $1 million, so the

difference between the preliminary FY 2021 aid published in

H.2 and the amounts used in the calculations described above

are negligible.

The impact of each needs-blind formula factor was determined

by rerunning the required local contribution and aid calcula-

tions with that factor removed from the formula and subtract-

ing the results from the official FY 2021 amounts published by

DESE (less the Minimum Aid Adjustment). The total impact

of needs-blind formula factors was determined by running the

required local contribution and aid calculations with all factors

removed.

Quintiles of district wealth were calculated by the research

team by ranking each school district by the ratio of its com-

bined effort yield to its foundation budget. The combined effort

yield is the sum of a district’s property and income effort. It is

calculated by DESE to determine how much each municipality

must contribute to funding its schools based on its property

wealth and income such that the sum of effort from every dis-

trict equals 59% of the total statewide foundation budget, as

required under statute. The combined effort yield serves as a

measure of relative effort capacity among districts based on

both income and wealth. A higher combined effort yield indi-

cates that a district has a greater capacity to fund its schools.

Nonoperational districts were excluded from this ranking, leav-

ing a total of 318 operational school districts that were then

divided into quintiles of 63 or 64 districts each.

We examine the impact on resource equity of needs-blind for-

mula factors by school district because school districts are the

entities that receive Chapter 70 aid under the formula. One

could equally ask about the impact of needs-blind funding for-

mula factors on student subgroups, regardless of which district

students in the subgroup attend. Those interested in this ques-

tion should refer to Lee and Blagg (2018). For an econometric

examination of the impact of formula factors that cause a devi-

ation from the distribution of a “pure” implementation of the

foundation budget formula, see Fahy (2011).

70

MISSING THE MARK

19

ReferencesAn Act Relative to Educational Opportunity for Students, 2019 Mass. Acts 132.

Fahy, C. (2011). Education funding in Massachusetts: The effects of aid modifications on vertical and horizontal equity. Journal of Education Finance, 36(3), 217–243. doi.org/10.1353/jef.2011.0000

Lee, V., & Blagg, K. (2018). School district funding in Massachusetts. Urban Institute. urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99544/school_district_funding_in_massachusetts.pdf

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Education. (2020a, January 22). Complete formula spreadsheet. doe.mass.edu/finance/chapter70/fy2021/prelim.html

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2020b, June 15). FY 2019 Compliance With Net School Spending Requirements. doe.mass.edu/finance/chapter70/compliance.html

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2020c, January 16). Selected Populations Report (District). profiles.doe.mass.edu/statereport/selectedpopulations.aspx

Massachusetts Foundation Budget Review Commission. (2015). Foundation Budget Review Commission Final Report. malegislature.gov/Reports/2212/SD2273_Foundation%20Budget%20Review%20Commission%20Final%20Report%20(October%2030%202015).pdf

Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. (2020, May 28). Massachusetts fiscal challenges could last years. masstaxpayers.org/sites/default/files/publications/2020-06/MTF%20Tax%20Revenue%20Outlook%20final%20%281%29_0.pdf

71

mbae.org bostonchamber.com

72