A Few Money Notes

A few budget-related items:

Is a fee a tax? We'll find out how local folks feel about that question in the next few months, I'd guess. The Building Department is ramping up a fee increase, and Mayor Lisa Wong has pointed to larger fees in general as a possible revenue source. When Gov. Mitt Romney increased fees during his term, he was killed for it as a tax increase measure, and it was a popular talking point against him while he was running for president. Will residents feel the same way if it costs more to get a dog license, for businesses to pay more for a liquor license, or for someone to build a new home? Or will they fork over the few extra bucks without even really realizing the difference? Should be an interesting situation on this one as it moves forward.

Is the city's projected budget deficit really $5 million? Here's why I ask: This level-services talk is a lot of old-school budget thinking. But Wong has discussed, time and again, creating a new budget process. In fact, in a recent interview, she pointed directly to not just automatically all line items to keep services at today's levels. According to the Mayor's Office, the plan is still to move toward the "performanced-based" budgeting and make some changes. So if that's the plan -- and that was going to naturally lead to a reduction in costs -- isn't that $5 million really an out-dated, old-school figure? Isn't that number probably lower? Those questions hasn't been given a yes-or-no answer, but it will be interesting to see if the changes can lead to some savings, or if it will be cuts alone that fill in the gap.

Finally, you may have read over the last few days a few things about health-care costs for municipalities. One thing that seems to have been missing in the story and today's editorial is the fact that for the city to join the state's GIC insurance program, the city's unions have to agree to the change. The city can't just unilaterally make the change. So to make it happen, the city would need to negotiate, one union at a time, the change. You talk to municipal leaders around the state and call that provision a "poison pill," and not one argues that term. And trust me, I've tried to find someone to say, "No, no, no. It's not really a poison pill." But no one will do it. One guy (not local) said the savings wouldn't be worth the hassle of endless and headache-causing union negotiations. Even State House folks admit the union mandate is a problem. And you wonder why fewer than 20 communities have signed up for something that seems so logical. Health care costs for cities and towns -- just like for you and I -- are going crazy, but the current GIC situation is a non-starter, and will only gain real traction when the state yanks out the union provision. Which is unlikely to happen any time soon.

The Governor's -- and Fitchburg's -- Big Gamble

When asked yesterday about casinos, gambling, and whether or not she like Gov. Deval Patrick's plan, Mayor Lisa Wong begged off on an opinion, but noted the city needs to look locally for new revenue.

It would have been nice (in terms of news value) if Wong had either sworn off casinos or discussed a grand vision for a casino in Fitchburg and all it's gaming goodness, but instead she stayed out of it. But she does make a point: The city shouldn't be relying on casino revenue anytime soon. And that's not good news.

When Patrick unveiled his budget yesterday, he also stuck his stake in the ground on his priorities, both how important he thinks casinos are to the state, and where new money should go for cities and towns.

For Fitchburg, Patrick's local aid funding includes an increase of about $1 million for the schools. It is, roughly, a 2.5 percent increase. Not great, but not bad, either. I think if the School Department was given a take-it-or-leave-it choice, it would take it, no questions asked.

But the other side of the coin, the government side, isn't as rosy -- and the school situation isn't exactly "stand up and cheer."

Local government aid would be dead-level funded, but that includes $1.3 million in "gaming revenues for lottery gap" or whatever Patrick is calling it. In short, lottery proceeds are tailing off, and Patrick is filling the gap with casino (license) revenue. Overall, Patrick is looking at $124.1 million to fill in the gap.

So, now it's on to the Legislature, which will most certainly make, uh, some changes. I think casinos are a good idea for Massachusetts -- why send all that money out of state -- but Patrick's plan is very, very flawed. Additionally, Patrick is going up House Speaker Sal DiMasi, who is not only anti-casino, but has taken his effort to prove he is the biggest gun in the State House to inferiority complex levels this week (if you missed it, check out DiMasi's outburst here). That's a long way of saying, casinos aren't happening right now.

So, what happens next? Does the House fill in the $124 million somewhere else? In a $28 billion budget, you're talking moving around one-half of one percent of the available money. But there's a $1 billion that hole that already needs filling. How much will the House fill in the gap at the expense of state services? Will it slide out some of that Chapter 70 increase and dump it in the government aid?

Wong was smart enough to say yesterday that she expects the numbers to change, and it sounds like she'll be taking a conservative, small-number approach to the budget. But the fact of the matter is, the math doesn't look too good in the early going. Even if Patrick's big casino gamble comes through, the city does no better than even. Not good times.

Some More School Aid

In a unique move, the House and Senate have agreed to local aid funding levels for next year. Fitchburg would receive more education aid under the plan. To read more, check out the Fitchburg Pride website.