|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
As Beacon Hill leaders celebrated what they called a historic increase in local aid this week, Mayor Jon Mitchell warned that New Bedford is still facing a projected $13 million budget gap next year, its most serious budget challenge since the Great Recession.
The addition of new unrestricted aid is a “drop in the bucket” compared to New Bedford’s needs, Mitchell told The Light. While he said the Legislature “deserves some credit” for increasing local aid at all, the money is “woefully inadequate” after a decade of declining state support.
Mitchell outlined his concerns in a letter to members of the New Bedford legislative delegation last month, saying his administration is working to close the projected deficit before submitting a budget proposal to the City Council on May 13.
“The task will involve many difficult decisions and spending reductions will impact the services provided to residents,” Mitchell wrote. “But this work is being made more difficult by the Commonwealth’s underfunding of Unrestricted General Government Aid (UGGA)” and the exclusion of New Bedford from a key public safety grant program.
On what those difficult decisions might be, Mitchell said, “everything is on the table.” He didn’t deny that fire station closures or staff reductions could be considered. However, Mitchell said, a tax override of Prop 2½, which many Massachusetts towns are facing this year, is not on the table in New Bedford.
On Monday, the Massachusetts Senate announced its proposal for a $1.4 billion investment in unrestricted local aid for the state’s 351 cities and towns, calling it the highest local aid proposal in state history. It’s a $53 million increase since last year, or roughly 3%.
But Mitchell argued the increases do little to address years of fixed aid that failed to keep pace with inflation and rising municipal costs. Data included in his letter shows New Bedford would have received an additional $187 million in unrestricted aid since 2010 if the funds kept up with inflation – roughly $12 million a year on average.
Mitchell added that this year’s projected gap does not include the cost of three unresolved union contracts, over $8 million in additional spending requests and other mandated expenses. That could push the deficit even higher.
Other municipalities, New Bedford legislators see the need
New Bedford is not alone, said Adam Chapdelaine, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association. All municipalities have been under significant financial stress from rising costs, including health insurance, utilities and gas.
The association released a report that described “a convergence of relentless cost pressures, rigid revenue limits, and eroding state aid” facing all towns and cities in the commonwealth.
“And at the same time, cities and towns are capped under Prop 2½ in terms of how much revenue they can raise every year,” said Chapdelaine. “We have an environment where cities and towns have expenses that are rising faster than inflation and revenues that can’t even keep up with inflation. So the arithmetic becomes quite easy that you have a structural imbalance when costs are rising faster than revenue can be raised.”
The relative decline in state aid has forced municipalities to lean on residential taxes, and this increasing burden has become another factor contributing to the state’s housing affordability crisis, the report said.
Antonio F.D. Cabral, New Bedford’s state representative, has been trying to solve the local issue for more than a decade, he said, and has submitted legislation every year since 2010 to “fix or create” a fair state aid formula.
“It’s beginning to get the attention of more folks,” Cabral said. “It’s not a handout. If there’s revenue growth in the state we need to share with cities and towns in a fair and equitable way.”
Cabral has again sponsored legislation that would try to modernize how this unrestricted local aid is distributed. But, “I don’t think it will pass this session,” he said.
Chapdelaine said that while the MMA had been advocating for an increase roughly six times larger than the Senate’s proposed $53 million increase, the proposal still represents “great movement toward the need that we think cities and towns have.”
Other members of New Bedford’s legislative delegation agree, including Rep. Mark Sylvia, who is also co-sponsoring Cabral’s legislation.
“Unrestricted general government aid is one of those mechanisms that we should be looking at in terms of how it works and how we can better provide or distribute funding to cities and towns through that program.”
Rep. Chris Hendricks said this issue is gaining momentum at the Statehouse: “I’m literally hearing people talk about it in the halls,” he said. “So I’m hopeful we can really do something about it.”
“We absolutely need to provide more support to cities and towns,” Hendricks said. And he noted that the economic environment is bringing a “crunch” to city and town halls this year.
Chapdelaine said he does not believe cities and towns have a spending problem. While researching its report, the MMA found that adjusted for inflation, municipalities nationwide increased spending by about 1% annually, compared with roughly 0.6% a year for Massachusetts municipalities.
“They’re being very frugal with the dollars they have,” Chapdelaine said. “And it truly is this inflationary driven cost in a revenue-restricted environment that’s creating all the needs we’re talking about.”
What does this mean for local residents?
New Bedford residents will get a clearer picture of how these figures will affect their lives next week, when Mitchell presents his budget proposal to the City Council.
Until that moment, Mitchell said, nothing is final.
In his letter he said the city has eased the burden by cutting spending in other parts of the budget in the past.
“The City has eliminated a net of roughly 100 non-school, full-time, General Fund-supported positions from the City budget since the high-point of non-school local aid in FY2009,” he wrote. “This represents a nearly ten percent reduction in non-school, full-time, General Fund-supported positions.”
Hendricks, the state representative, said, “It’s important for people to know that a lot of our public safety infrastructure [spending] comes from” this local aid. “If we’re going to be a city that invites new industry and economic development, we’re going to need some equity with this,” he said.
Meanwhile, the fight for more aid will continue.
Mitchell said he has brought the issue to the attention of Gov. Maura Healey and Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll. “They’re aware that this is going to be a very difficult year at the municipal level,” Mitchell said, but added, “I don’t know that I’ve gained any traction in changing policy yet.”
Cabral said his advocacy will continue, too. “We need to get the governor’s support to look at this in a way that translates to additional meaningful local aid that addresses the municipal finance gap.”
“Communities need relief,” Cabral said. “Communities need local aid that can support the services that they have.”
Email Eleonora Bianchi at ebianchi@newbedfordlight.organd Colin Hogan at chogan@newbedfordlight.org.
Here we go with the Blame Game, it’s so sad that we never hear politicians accept any responsibility for their failures. The state aid problem has been going on for years, the city knew this, and did not make any adjustments. With that said it’s of great importance that we vote this governor out of office, she is a complete disaster, and our state deserves so much better.
As far as the mayor who has been in office for over a decade and spent every available dollar the city got it’s hands on, just imagine if during his tenure he had stepped back, limited the expansion of city government, reduced city spending, stopped handing out money to non-profits, stopped giving city building leases away (99 years for $1.00), and focused on building private economic growth to create new revenue for the city, just maybe we would not have such a large deficit and the city might be in a lot better shape today.
Not to just bash the mayor, there is plenty of blame to share, and it is important to note the City Council has been a quiet rubber stamp for this administration and has done nothing to stop the city budget from doubling over the years (not one councilor stood up and said what are we doing to our city’s future).
Well now it’s time for our leadership to take action, step up, and make cuts across the board, no department should be exempt, and every city department should contribute to erasing this budget deficit. Taxpayers are sick of seeing their bills go up, there should not be a Proposition Two over ride this would be just more spending, and definitely there should be no Fire Station closures (the safety of all residents and businesses should come first and every section of this city should be adequately protected).
It’s a real shame to see this city in financial hardship and to think the voters elected and put their trust in these politicians. 100% New Bedford needs new leadership and a better vision for New Bedford’s future.
Progressive increases in New Bedford’s municipal budgets and ongoing deficits (pension responsibility for one) are coming home to roost.
The reliance of Dead Whale City (New Bedford) upon continued and ever increasing governmental bailouts, by way of aid programs and grants, etc. is neither viable nor a plan.
Tax increases, in a city with 50% below the poverty level, does not seem very realistic either.
Draconian changes required because of prior irresponsible actions and oblivious behavior in City Hall.
Municipal Government is supposed to serve its residents and now the resident homeowners, renters and business’s serve the out of control city government that has allowed our operating budget to be 280 million dollars more than its revenue sources. This Mayor has spent money we don’t have for the last 15 years, showing us that he has total disregard for the welfare of our community. SHAMEFUL. And now he wants to put us in more debt by floating a million dollar bond to pay for a police station that is not needed at this point especially when you have a huge deficit.
100 million dollar bond for a police station that is not needed putting the taxpayers to foot the bill of an extra 5.6 million dollars a year added to the already out of control operating budget. SHAMEFUL.
New Bedford is facing a financial crisis that reflects a larger problem affecting municipalities across Massachusetts. Although state leaders recently celebrated increases in local aid, many city officials argue that the funding remains far too small to address rising costs. The core problem is structural: municipal expenses are growing faster than the revenue cities are legally allowed to raise. As a result, New Bedford’s projected $13 million budget gap will require more than a temporary fix.
One of the biggest concerns is that unrestricted local aid has failed to keep pace with inflation for years. While costs for health insurance, utilities, pensions, and public safety continue to rise, state support has remained relatively stagnant. A long-term solution would involve restructuring the state’s approach to municipal aid. Local aid should be automatically indexed to inflation so funding keeps pace with real expenses. Aid growth could also be tied to state tax revenue, allowing cities and towns to benefit as the state economy expands. In addition, increasing Chapter 70 education funding and strengthening Unrestricted General Government Aid formulas would provide communities with greater financial stability. These changes would reduce the heavy burden currently placed on local property taxpayers.
Regionalizing municipal services is another practical solution. Many smaller and mid-sized communities operate separate systems for dispatch centers, public health administration, procurement, information technology, and fleet maintenance. By sharing services across South Coast communities, municipalities could lower administrative costs while preserving essential public services. Other regions in Massachusetts have already demonstrated that shared dispatch systems and transportation programs can save millions over time.
The crisis is also tied to housing affordability. Heavy dependence on residential property taxes increases costs for homeowners and renters alike. Rising taxes contribute to higher rents and housing prices, while municipalities often resist new housing development because of financial strain. A broader state strategy could help by shifting more school funding to the state, encouraging housing production, rewarding municipal growth, and linking zoning reform to increased fiscal aid.
The most realistic solution is a combination of reforms: moderate increases in unrestricted state aid, selective overrides of Proposition 2½, regionalized services, commercial tax base expansion, and economic development tied to the port and offshore wind industry. No single policy will eliminate New Bedford’s budget gap overnight, but together these strategies could stabilize city finances over time.
Ultimately, New Bedford’s struggle reflects a statewide imbalance between capped local revenue, rising municipal obligations, and inconsistent state support. Without structural reform, cities and towns across Massachusetts will continue facing difficult cuts to essential public services.
As horribly off economically as New Bedford has become it’s not the rest of the state’s responsibility to bail them out, especially as they’ve begun favoring right wing political candidates who don’t believe in supporting such communities.
That’s because the left wing supported illegals and sopped up the residents funds. And I’m a democrat!
Briefly,
Unrestricted local aid from the Commonwealth to municipalities is a costly “gift” that has been consistently increasing year after year. No inconsistency is seen here with this expenditure. However, it is not fiscally prudent for the Commonwealth to index this to inflation, as it may well need to be reduced at some future time. Requesting, expecting and overspending “Other People’s Money” has inexorably made “Dead Whale City” (New Bedford) a government dependency.
The solutions of some, to this fiscal crisis, is further governmental dependency for just about every municipal service.
This approach is basically disguised Receivership by the Commonwealth or FederalGovernment. This may well be necessary and occur in the relatively near future of “Dead Whale City”.
Regionalization of services, with a fiscally failing entity, is not a viable solution, especially given that “Dead Whale City” is not a smaller or mid-sized community.
“Dead Whale City” is a financially poor municipality in MA by any measure. However, mismanagement of fiscal responsibility, over the years, has aggravated and exaggerated its further financial decline. No “bail out” is coming soon and the reduction in services will need to be made by those in office that orchestrated this fiscal disaster.
New Bedford Light said budget was great back in December.
That’s a fairy tale that will not have a happy ending!
Not to little for us. Give back to the taxpayers!
This “Dead Whale” argument confuses municipal finance, economic development, and dependency in a way that sounds forceful but doesn’t hold together analytically.
First, unrestricted local aid is not a “gift.” Massachusetts municipalities are creatures of the state and operate under strict limits on local revenue generation because of state law, especially Proposition 2½. Cities like New Bedford cannot simply raise revenue freely to match inflation, infrastructure costs, pension obligations, school mandates, or public safety needs. State aid exists partly because the Commonwealth itself constrains municipal taxing authority.
Second, the writer contradicts himself. He says aid has “consistently increased year after year,” but then argues indexing it to inflation is fiscally irresponsible because it “may need to be reduced someday.” Those claims don’t logically connect. If costs rise with inflation, wages, fuel, health insurance, utilities, and schools, then ‘flat funding is effectively a cut.’ Refusing to index aid means municipalities lose purchasing power every year, even if nominal aid stays constant.
Third, calling state aid “Other People’s Money” ignores that residents of New Bedford pay state taxes, too. This framing pretends cities are freeloaders rather than contributors to a statewide economy. Massachusetts routinely redistributes resources among municipalities because economic capacity differs dramatically across communities. That is true in every modern state.
Fourth, the argument relies heavily on rhetoric (“Dead Whale City,” “dependency,” “bailout”) instead of evidence. If the claim is mismanagement, where are the audited comparisons showing New Bedford spends irresponsibly relative to peer post-industrial cities? What specific spending categories are excessive? Pension liabilities? School costs? Debt service? Public safety overtime? Without evidence, “mismanagement” becomes a slogan rather than analysis.
Fifth, regionalization is dismissed without serious examination. Economists and municipal finance experts often support regionalization precisely because it can reduce duplication in dispatch, public health, water systems, procurement, transportation, and specialized staffing. Whether it works depends on structure and incentives, not on insulting the city involved.
Finally, the deeper issue is structural economics, not moral failure. Older industrial cities across the Northeast face shrinking tax bases, aging infrastructure, concentrated poverty, and high service demands. Those conditions are expensive regardless of who is the mayor. You cannot austerity your way into growth if the underlying regional economy is weak.
A more serious discussion would ask:
* How should Massachusetts balance local autonomy with statewide equity?
* Are state mandates adequately funded?
* How can gateway cities expand their tax base?
* Which services benefit from regional cooperation?
* What long-term investments actually increase economic productivity?
That is a policy discussion. Calling a city “dependent” is mostly political theater.
Prior 2012 wasn’t the main unemployment with the fishing industry. That hasn’t improved so is it just not included in the statistics?
The amount of money is inadequate due to supporting illegals. Straight up, and just maybe you get funded again.
Make no mistake, unrestricted local aid is a “gift” and as such it may be recurrent or not, it may increase or not and it may take another form, over time, or not.
Declining to index to inflation realizes the fact that this “gift”is not to be presumed as an ever increasing phenomena and is tied to the fiscal status of the Commonwealth in any given year. It is not designed to cover “ever increasing costs” and never was intended for this purpose. Spenders of Other Peoples Monies want this, however, the commonwealth has overspent monies on its other “priorities”.
Audit is an anathema in Massachusetts. Just ask the MA Legislature about that one. Comparisons to other municipalities is irrelevant, the spending of “DEAD WHALE CITY” (New Bedford) are in question and an audit, as you have raised, may be appropriate.
Again, regionalization with a failing fiscal entity, is not a viable solution. Imagine Marion, Mattapoisett or Fairhaven entering into and then having to unilaterally support any regionalize service with “DEAD WHALE CITY”.
Why would you invoke “moral failure”in this discussion?
I did not invoke this in my discourse.
Do you feel that a “moral failure” exists? If so, where does it exist?
“DEAD WHALE CITY” is a financially poor municipality in MA by any measure. The Commonwealth is not performing as well economically as others regions in the USA. Economic growth is stagnant and resident industries are either moving out or dissolving. Over time, this will limit monies to be “gifted” to former Industrial municipalities.
Time and monies have been wasted and neither is capable returning.
Finally, New Bedford is a government dependency both Commonwealth and Federal and further dependency is being promulgated as a solution.
Receivership is another solution.
A lot of good comments here and these are my final thoughts
Our state problems can only be cured by replacing / voting out this governor and area representatives on Beacon Hill. They haven’t listened and have made it so hard for Cities, Towns, and Residents to survive.
Our city leaders were elected to lead and it’s time for them to get New Bedford’s house in order.
I believe there should not be a Prop Two Over Ride because this is nothing more than another form of spending and just creates more debt (more spending is not the answer).
I believe no Fire Station should be closed, the safety of residents and businesses should always be a priority and every section of this city should be protected.
Our city’s problems have been going on for over a decade, each year there has been no financial responsibility, the city has continued to expand city government, contribute to non profits, spend every dollar that has been available, and the biggest problem has been the city has failed to build private economic growth to bring in new city revenue.
So with our backs against the wall and before taxes are raised, I believe this city needs to take a step back, we can’t afford the size of our city government, and all the city services that are provided. It’s time to make budget cuts across the board, no department should be exempt, and every city department should contribute to erasing this budget deficit.
1. City Hall reductions should include and not be limited to staff layoffs, merging of city departments, department closures, building closures, and putting all future projects on hold.
2. Police Department (Every City Department needs to contribute to the cuts)
3. Fire Department (No Station Closures / but every City Dept. needs to contribute to the cuts)
4. EMT / Safety (Every City Department needs to contribute to the cuts)
5. School Department (Every City Department needs to contribute to the cuts)
6. Port Authority (Every City Department needs to contribute to the cuts)
7. Close the Quest Center or Privatize it (with the deficit the city cannot afford it)
8. Libraries (Every City Dept has to contribute to the cuts and look at reducing the number of libraries).
9. The Zoo (Every City Department needs to contribute to the cuts)
10. The Airport (Every City Department needs to contribute to the cuts)
11. Non Profit Organizations / Cut or claw back all budget allocations (city cannot afford it).
Once the budget deficit is resolved the city has to move forward and proceed with caution, not let this happen again, and do not spend money we do not have (also the recall petition needs to be voted on and put in place).
For the future:
1. Restructure of City Healthcare (this can has been kicked down the road far to long)
2. Restructure of all City Building Leases / no more freebies / everyone has to pay rent.
3. Address the City Pension Issues (this can has been kicked down the road far to long)
4. Fight to get ownership of the Marina and Wind Property to create New Revenue.
5. No more Water or Sewer give aways to area towns / new connections should cost a $ premium.
6. Please look at all the suggestions in the comments here and see what works, what makes sense, and if any dollars can be saved.
Our State and City needs new leadership and better vision for the future.
Many residents share frustration about rising costs, budget pressure, and a desire for stronger long-term planning from both city and state leaders. Public accountability absolutely matters.
That said, I don’t think the solution is as simple as “cut every department equally” or assuming all spending is wasteful. Some city services: public safety, schools, infrastructure, libraries, EMS, and economic development are foundational services that directly affect quality of life, property values, and the city’s ability to attract businesses and residents.
New Bedford’s challenges aren’t unique to one administration or one political party. Cities across Massachusetts are dealing with inflation, healthcare costs, pension obligations, state aid limitations, housing pressure, and years of deferred infrastructure costs. Those are structural issues that build up over decades.
I agree the city should review spending carefully, evaluate efficiency, reduce unnecessary duplication, and ensure taxpayers are getting value. Significant reductions in funding for essential services such as education, libraries, public safety, or economic assets, including the port, airport, zoo, or waterfront, can adversely impact future growth and diminish revenue-generating opportunities in the long term.
On Proposition 2½ overrides specifically, people can reasonably disagree. An override does raise taxes, but it does not automatically mean irresponsible spending or “debt.” Sometimes communities use overrides to maintain staffing, schools, and emergency services when costs rise faster than the tax levy limit. The key question is whether residents believe the spending is justified, sustainable, and transparent.
I think the bigger issue is balance:
• fiscal discipline,
• realistic long-term planning,
• economic growth,
• and protecting essential services residents rely on every day.
Residents are entitled to transparent data, truthful communication, and a comprehensive strategy that encompasses both cost-saving measures and opportunities for growth, rather than focusing solely on expenditure reductions or taxation increases.
Your welcome to your opinion but city has to stop spending money in all forms and make cuts to this budget. We can’t afford to sustain the size of our city government, departments, and services. The tax rate has to be cut or businesses will continue to pass New Bedford by, go to neighboring towns, and there will be no economic growth. Nobody wants to hear it, but we are welfare city, that survives on state aid, and until things change this city has to operate like so many families in New Bedford do (within their means). More than ever we need new leadership and a new vision for New Bedford.
Final thoughts:
DEAD WHALE CITY (New Bedford) does not have and has not had, in a very long time, any fiscal discipline, realistic long-term planning or economic growth. Just further governmental dependency as a main recourse for finances.
Essential services in New Bedford have been put at risk by long term and ongoing deficit spending. The only growth articulated by some commentators is further and further governmental dependency by way of aid and grants.
Where was the call for transparent data, truthful communication and cost-saving measures in prior years of overspending?
Growth takes time and that has been squandered along with monies.
Now, the only immediate action available are expenditure reductions.
Taxation increases are really non-viable and counter productive in a city as poor as New Bedford, although they will be advocated by the current administration that has produced this “crisis”.
Dead Whale City (New Bedford) may well be the Commonwealth’s poster child of mismanagement.
Time will arbitrate this situation, too bad so much time has been wasted.
A great point that can’t be denied (New Bedford does not have and has not had, in a very long time, any fiscal discipline, realistic long-term planning or economic growth). If the present administration was on it’s first term, you could possibly give them a pass, but this has gone on for over a decade (12 years) and a budget that has more than doubled (from $270 Million Dollars to over $550 Million Dollars). 100% it’s time for serious cuts, a moratorium on spending, and lowering the tax rate to attract businesses, or there will be no economic growth. New Bedford needs new leadership and better vision for the future.