Two quick notes on the framing of the city budget

The Worcester City Council sees the proposed city FY25 budget for the first time Tuesday. I don't have time now to go through everything they have going on with that, but I did want to make two quick notes, as it appears this year's passive aggressive language is surrounding the increase in required city spending.

Let's first just note that the city hasn't met the required spending for the past two years, and is projected not to meet its required spending for the current year, either: 

just realized I didn't source this; it's DESE Chapter 70 district profile, 2/21/24

And as (sigh) this inevitably, and yes, right in the budget, involves another round of "but this doesn't count capital or debt service," that is correct and also STANDARD, which means that, for example, all of those shiny new schools you see MSBA celebrating are in communities that are ALSO carrying debt services which ALSO doesn't count for them, and yet they not only are meeting net school spending, THEY ARE SPENDING WELL OVER IT.

Moving on: the increase required of the city is determined by the municipal revenue growth factor, which is also how it is calculated across the state for every community. Yes, this year's 5.01 is the highest it has been in some time: 

As noted on the slide, MRGF is calculated by the state by the actual changes in a community's:

• State-imposed levy limit of 2.5%
• New growth
• State aid 
• Prior year local receipts

Decisions the city may make regarding those inputs--not tapping the levy, pushing new growth into areas that don't include schools, and so forth--make no difference to the state, as the city's available revenue has still grown by that much.

And finally, to the carrying of costs: as has been ongoingly noted, the majority of Worcester's budget is carried by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. By the percentage of the foundation budget the local community is required to contribute, Worcester is 349 out of 360 (or 12 if you want to count up from the bottom); Worcester's in red:

Possibly especially because I am going to be in the State House tomorrow alongside those who will be arguing that the state should fund the inflation rate in such a way to make up prior years under the cap which would benefit Worcester: it is difficult to have that taken seriously when the city doesn't meet its required spending, and then complains about that required spending growing when it is and remains among the lowest percentages in the state.