Loading...
TR-2009-34 FY10 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET yus�pp 17 . - i - TR-2009-34 'A�Prmx-s- 17/ Oq A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FISCAL YEAR 20 10 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF AGAWAM WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts recently appropriated additional local aid in the amount of$129,666.00 in the final state budget which may be appropriated by the Agawam City Council; and WHEREAS, the Mayor is hereby submitting a request for a Supplemental Budget for Fiscal Year 2010 seeking appropriation of the $129,666.00 in additional local aid as detailed below; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the Town of Agawam to fund the proposed Fiscal Year 20 10 Supplemental Budget; NOW THEREFORE, the Agawam City Council hereby approves the attached appropriations entitled Fiscal Year 20 10 Supplemental Budget totaling $129,666.00. DATED THIS DAY OF 2009. PER ORDER OF THE AGAWAM CITY COUNCIL 0 JAILN Ai�5`M. Le-tellier, QiCAD Vresident C&AL 9AJ46 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY L' ()Ltj"x, Christopher C. J on, Solicitor 09 .-14-0S :01 0 61 ON 60 FISCAL YEAR 2010 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET Org Object Fiscal 2009 Fiscal 2010 Proposed Fiscal 2010 Account Descri ption Code Code Appropriated Recommended Supplemental Revised DEPARTMEENT Ill: COUNCIL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11112 52.190 $ 10,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 0 5,000 DEPARTMENT 211: FIRE REGULAR PERMANENT 12201 51010 $ 2,700,453 $ 2,660,099 $ 42,656 $ 2,702,755 HOLIDAYPAY 12201 51050 $ 145,977 $ 142,199 $ 2,112 $ 1443311 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 12201 51070 $ 37,100 $ 37,560 $ 750 $ 38,250 SCIENCE COLLEGE 12201 51120 $ 70,475 $ 70,475 $ 3,000 73,475 $ 48,518 DEPARTMIENT 610: LIBRARY 0=- R SUPPLIES 16103 52240 $ 27,000 $ 18,500 $ 1,575 $ 20,075 BOOKS &PERIODICALS 16103 52270 $ 89'5514 $ 52,000 $ 20,000 $ 72,000 $ 21,575 DEPARTMENT'660. LINE ITEMS ADAlTATSTRATION SOLID WASTE ENFENSE 16602 52420 -1,744,229 1',719,541 29,000 $ 1,748,541 RESER VE FUArDS RESERVE FUND 16605 57300 $ 500,000 S 400,000 $ -27,573 S 427,573 TOTAL PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS $ 129,666 MAYORAL ACT-HOUN Received this dayof 41)au.,:�,t 2009 from Town Council Clerk. Signed by Council President this day of ixt-t 2009. APPROVAL OF LEGISLAIION By the powers vested in me pursuant to Article 3, Section 3-6 of the Agawam Char-ter, as amended, I hereby approve the passage of the above legislation on this day of -12009. Susan R. Dawson, Mayor DISAPPROVAL OF-L-EGISLAII!QN By the powers vested in me pursuant to Article 3, Section 3-6 of the Agawam Charter, as amended, I hereby veto the passage of the above legislation on this day of 2009 for the following reason(s): Susan R. Dawson, Mayor RETURN OF LEGISLAIION TO COUNCIL CLE Returned to Council Clerk this—Iqljb day of k-%+ 2009. TR-2009-34 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FISCAL YEAR 2010 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF AGAWAM WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts recently appropriated additional local aid in the amount of$129,666.00 in the final state budget which may be appropriated by the Agawam City Council; and WHEREAS, the Mayor is hereby submitting a request for a Supplemental Budget for Fiscal Year 2010 seeking appropriation of the $129,666.00 in additional local aid as detailed below; and WHEREAS, it is in the best 'interests of the Town of Agawam to fund the proposed Fiscal Year 20 10 Supplemental Budget; NOW THEREFORE, the Agawam City Council hereby approves the attached appropriations entitled Fiscal Year 2010 Supplemental Budget totaling $129,666.00. DATED THIS DAY OF 2009. PER ORDER OF THE AGAWAM CITY COUNCIL Gina M. Letellier, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY Christopher C. J09 on, Solicitor LZ -it�P!' FISCAL YEAR 2010 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET Org Object Fiscal 2009 Fiscal 2010 Proposed Fiscal 2010 Account Description Code Code Appropriated Recommended Supplemental Revised DEPARTMENT Ill: COUNCIL PROFtSSIONAL SERVICES 11112 52.190 $ 10,000 $ 2,000 3,000 $ 5,000 DEPARTMENT 211: FIRE REGULAR PERNLANENT 12201 51010 $ 2,700,453 $ 2,660,099 $ 42,656 $ 2,702,755 HOLIDAY PAY 12201 51050 $ 145,977 $ 142,199 $ 2,112 $ 144,311 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 12201 51070 $ 37,100 $ 37,560 $ 750 $ 38,250 SCIENCE COLLEGE 12201 51120 $ 70,475 $ 70,475 $ 3,000 $ 73,475 $ 48,518 DEPARTMENT 610: LIEBRARY OTBER SUPPLIES 16103 52240 $ 27)000 $ 18,500 $ 1,575 20,075 BOOKS &PERIODICALS 16103 52270 $ 8%514 $ 52,000 $ 20,000 72,000 $ 21,575 DEPARTMENT 660; LINE ITEMS ADAffMSTR,4TION SOLID WASTE EXPENSE 16602 52420 1,744,229 1,719,541 29,000 $ 1,748,541 AESER VE FUADS RESERVE FUND 16605 .57300 $ 500,000 400,000 -27,573 427,573 TOTAL PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 129,666 Town of Agawam 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1837 Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927 To: Agawam City Council From: Susan R. Dawson, Mayor Date: July 9, 2009 Re: Supplemental Budget Please find attached documents relating to the proposed Fiscal Year 2010 budget as well as the Supplemental Budget being submitted herewith. An explanation of each pagc follows. This inforrnatiofi was reviewed with the Council President during our meeting today. Page One: The first page explains the revenue lost during this year following through each phase of the State budget process. The total amount Agawam lost is $1,975,357. Page Two: The second page (listed as page 12) details the changes in assessments, again, through each phase of the State budget process. Page Three: This page reflects the overall amount Agawam gained as aresult of the final State budget and that amount is $129,666. Page Four: This page is the proposed Supplemental Budget in the amount of $129,666 and outlines the areas determined to be most critical. Please note the Solid Waste Expense covers the reinstatement of the yard waste curbside pick up program in full. The Library funds restore the amount needed to continue state certification. In the Fire Department, 2 firefighters have/will retire and I firefighter has been deployed to Iraq. It is proposed to fill one retiring firefighter position to reduce the amount of overtime expended in meeting the minimum manning contractual obligations. Please note that $27,573 is proposed to be placed in the Reserve Fund. As requested by Council President Gina Letellier today, current information on the meals tax and revenue that would be generated is included for Council's review. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. , y yours, =,-, _,q L.""") Atta. a/s %%%1Susan-'R- Dawson, Mayor 10 w0f . Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Revenue Notice to Assessors of Estimated Receipts To Be Used in Determining the Tax Levy General Laws,Chap.58,Sect.25A,and Chap.59,Sect.23 A. EDUCATION Increase Governor's House Senate. Final (Decrease) Reduction Distributions and Reimbursements 2009 Budget Budget Budget Budget From Senate from FY09 Chapter 70 $16,486,547 $ 16,486,547 S 16,486,547 S 16 156,816 S 16,156,816 S - $329,731 Charter Tuition Assessment Reimbursement $5,358 $ 251 S 23,315 S �K23,315 S 25,672 $ 2,357 (S17,957) Offset Item-Reserve for Direct Expenditure School Lunch 1970.Ch.871 $25,984 S 28,524 S 28,524 S 28,524 S 28,524 $ - ($2,540) Sebool Choice Receiving Tuition $443,488 S 482,300 S 482,300 $ 482,300 S 398,426 S (83,874) ($38,912) jSub-Total,All Fducation[terns $16,961,377 $ 16,997,622 $ 17,020,686 S 16,690,955 $ 16,609,438 $ (81,517) $ 270,422 B. GENERAL GOVERNMENT Distributions and Reimbursements General Municipal Aid(Lottery,Benno&Cbarity Games) $4,585,049 $ 3,276.078 $ 3,797,041 $ 3,018,948 S 3.245,836 S 226,888 $1,566,101 Revenues from Meals Tax Increase so $ 436,324 $ - $ - so Reveneues from Rooms Tax Increase so $ 84,639 $ $ $0 Police Career Incentive Ch.41,3.104?L $197,071 $ 151,082 S 89,095 $ 35,638 $ 35,638 $ $161,433 Veterans'Benefits Ch.115,x.6 $66,470 $ 106,325 S 106,325 S 106,868 S 106,968 $ (S40,398) Exem ptions:Vets,Blind&Surviving Spouse Ch.58..s.8A,-Ch.59 5 so and Elderly ch.jq,j.j.C1.41,41B,41C $86,003 S 88,121 S $8,121 $ 88,121 S 88,121 $ ($2,118) State Owned Land Ch.58,ss.13-17 $55,160 $ 55,121 S 55,123 S 49,611 S 49,692 $ 81 $5,549 Offset Item-Reserve for Direct Expenditure Public Libraries Ch.78,j.19A $52,687 $ 45,696 S 45,652 S 38,319 $ 38,319 S S14,368 Sub-Total,All General Government $5,042,440 $ 4,243,386 S 4,181,357 S 3,337,505 S 3,564,474 S 226,969 S 1,704,93 ITOTAL"CHERRY SHEET"RECEIPTS FISCAL 2010 $22,003,817 $21,241,008 S 21,202,043 S 20,028,460 S 20,173,912 S 145,452 S 1,975,357 School Construction 1948,Ch.643;1976,Ch.51 $979,091 $979,091 $ 979,091 S 979,09t $ 979,091 so ITOTAL ESTIMATED STATE RECEIPTS FISCAL 2010 $22,982,908 S22,220,099 S 22,181,134 S 21,007,551 S 21,153,003 S 145,452 S 1,975,357 Based on F710 Senate Budget Plear Note that this is an Esfirnate of Cherry Sheet Receipts. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Revenue Notice to Assessors of Estimated Charges To Be Used In Determining the Tax Levy GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 59, SECTION 21 FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2010 Increase Increase Governor's House Senate Final (Decrease) (Decrease) FY 2009 Budget Budget Budget Budget From Senatt FY09 A. County Assessment County Tax Ch. 35, ss. 30, 31 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so ISub-Total,County Assessment $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 so B. State Assessments and Charges Air Pollution Districts Ch. IH,ss. 142B, S6,634 $6,852 $6,852 $6,852 $6,852 so $218 RMV Non-Renewal Surcharge, Ch. 90; $23,760 $26,040 $26,040 $26,040 $26,040 $0 $2,280 ISub-Total,State Assessments $30,394 $32,892 $32,892 $32,892 $32,892 $0 $2,498 -C. 'transportation Authorities Reg'l Trans.Auth's Ck 161B, ss. 9,10,2: $130,534 S127,317 $127,317 $127,317 $127,317 $0 ($3,217) ISub-Total,Transportation Assessment $130,534 $127,317 $127,317 $127,317 $127,317 so ($3,217) D. Annual Charges Against Receipts - Spec. Educ. Ch. 7 1 B, ss, 10, 12 $764 $8,848 $8,848 $8,848 S9,055 $207 $8,291 ISub-Total,Charges Against Receipts $764 $8,848 $8,848 $8,848 $9,055 $207 $8,291 E. Tuition Assessments School Choice Sending Tuition $211,447 $147,654 $147,654 $147,654 $157,073 $9,419 ($54,374) Charter School Sending Tuition $63,648 $67,650 $90,685 $90,6�5 $96,845 $6,160 $33,197 ISub-Total,Charges Against Receipts $275,095 V15,304 $238,339 S238,339 $253,918 $15,579 ($2 1,177) ITOTAL ESTIMATED CHARGES FI.1 $436,787 $384,361 $407,396 $407,396 $423,182 $15,786. ($13,605) NET CHARGES,FISCAL 2010 Please Note this is an estimate of Cherry Sheet Charges based on FY10 Senate Ways&Means Budget Page 12 PROPOSED BUDGET SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2010 1. ESTIMATED RECEIEPTS Local Aid (Estimated Cherry Sheet)Final Budget Difference $145,452 Local Receipts $0 fl. AVAILABLE FUNDS Certified Ffee Cash M. REAL ESTATE TAX LEVY (2.5% Increase) so $145,452 1. GENERAL OPERATING BUDGET $0. A. Tbwn Departments B. School Committee Request C. Line Items 11. CAPITAL HVIEPROVEMENT BUDGET so M. CHERRY SHEET ASSESSMENTS $15,786 IV. CHERRY SHEET OFFSETS so V. ALLOWANCE FOR ABATEMENTS AND EXEMPTIONS so .'$15,7861 $129,66 "'SIOD I. INCREASE GENERAL OPERATING BUDGET $129,666 A. Town Departments $73,093 B. School Committee Request . so C. Line Items $56,573 $129,66D TOWN OF AGAWAM - FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET PROPOSED REDUCTIONS Org Object Fiscal 2009 Fiscal 2010 Proposed Fiscal 2010 Account Description Code Code Appropriated Re commended Supplemental Revised DEPARTMENT Ill: COUNCIL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11112 52.190 $ 10,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 5,000 DEPARTMENT 211: FIRE REGULAR PERNIANENT 12201 51010 $ 2,700,453 $ 2,660,099 $ 42,656 $ 2,702,755 HOLIDAY PAY 12201 51050 $ 145,977 $ 142,199 $ 2,112 $ 144,311 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 12201 51070 $ 37,100 $ 37,500 $ 750 $ 38,250 SCIENCE COLLEGE 12201 51120 $ 70,475 $ 70,475 $ 3,000 $ 73,475 $ 48,518 DEPARTMENT 610: LIBRARY OTHER SUPPLIES 16103 52240 $ 27,000 $ 18,500 $ 1,575 $ 20,075 BOOKS &PERIODICALS 16103 52270 $ 89,514 $ 52,000 $ 20,000 $ 72,000 $ 21,575 DEPARTMENT 660; LINE ITEMS ADMINISTRATION SOLID WASTE EYPENSE 16602 52420 $ 1,744,229 $ 1,719,541 $ 29,000 $ 1,748,541 RESER VE FUADS RESERVE FUND 16605 57300 $ 500,000 400,000 $ 27,573 $ 427,573 TOTAL PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS $ 129,666 Estimates of Impact of Local Option Meals Tax January 2009 Explanation of methodology and data limitations DISCLAEUER: General limitation of DOR returns data for meals taxes DOR data contains addresses for meals tax returns, or taxpayer registrations, as part of their return, However, businesses that operate in more than one location in Massachusetts generally file a single meals tax return covering all of the locations in the state. In the data kept by DOR, these meals would all be attributed to the address listed on the return, or registration. Take for example a theoretical business that has two locations, one in Sheffield and one in Cambridge. If this business files a single return from Sheffield listing meals tax from both locations, then the data from the meals tax returns would be placed under the"Sheffield" category, even though some of the meals tax was not generated by sales in that locality. Similarly, meals tax from restaurants that are part of a chain may be filed together under the address of the corporate headquarters. If this address is out-of-state, then the meals tax from this chain might not appear in any of the local tallies, and would need to be distributed among the cities and towns. Furthermore, a business can have its return filed by a third party, such as an accountant, with the address of this party on its return. In this case, our data may show the meals tax in the city or town in which the accountant's office is located. For these reasons, DOR returns data does not well represent the amounts of economic activity taking place in any particular city or town. Two Methods: Using DOR Returns Data and U.S. Census Data Two methods are presented to estimate the impact of a 1% increase in the meals tax that raises a total of$125 million in new tax revenues. The first uses DOR meals tax return data to allocate this increase. The second method uses data gathered by the US Census bureau as part of its 2002 Economic Census of business activity. Method 1: DOR Meals Tax Returns The accompanying spreadsheet lists all 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts in alphabetical order. The first method uses 2007 meals taxes (by town) obtained from DOR's meals tax return data for taxable receipts. These data are subject to the data limitations described in the disclaimer. Also note that towns from which fewer than three taxpayers filed tax returns in Page I of 10 any given year are excluded from these data to ensure the confidentiality of taxpayer-specific information. This method uses the percentage of meals taxes reported by each town in the 2007 meals tax return data to allocate the revenue that would be generated by a I% increase in the meals tax. For the meals tax revenue reported from out-of-state taxpayers, revenue was distributed to Massachusetts cities and towns proportionately, based on the percentage of in-state meals tax revenue attributable to each city and town. Method 2: U.S. Census Data Using food service industry data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2002 Economic Census of Business Activity(the most recent available), the Department of Revenue estimated the proportion of total restaurant activity(and thus meals tax revenue) for each of the Commonwealth's 351 cities and towns. The 2002 census provided the following information: total food service(mostly restaurant)sales and the number of food service establishments for the state as a whole; foo(I service sales for the larger individual towns; and the number of food service establishments for many of the smaller towns in Massachusetts. These data were used to allocate meals taxes to individual towns. However, for some towns (mainly the smallest ones), there were neither sales nor establishment data available from the Census Bureau. Where no sales or establishment data were available, the remaining meals tax was allocated based on population. The percentages of total restaurant activity for each city and town were then used to allocate the approximately$125 million in new meals tax revenue. Note on Estimates The actual impact of the proposal to increase the meals tax rate in any given city or town depends on several factors, including how many establishments actually exi�t, their future sales, and how customers would react to an increase in the meals tax. Customers' reaction§may be especially important if contiguous towns(whether inside or outside Massachusetts) opt for different local option taxes or none at all. While the Department of Revenue believes that in general the Census-based estimates to be preferable to the meals tax retum-based estimates, in some cases the estimates based on meals tax returns may be more accurate, especially where Census data on sales and the number of food service establishments were unavailable. It should also be noted that the method based on the 2002 U.S. Census data implicitly assumes that the distribution of restaurant sales among cities and towns has not changed since 2002. DOR believes that while this is a reasonable assumption, there are probably some cases in which this assumption does not hold, and that the estimates should therefore be used with caution. Page 2 of 10 ................ W. 11N M I T[,.-g Me W I _VP 0 P V -Iff I.D Method: Using DOR Returns Method: Using U.S. Census Department (This method uses 2007 Meals Tax Return data Data on Restaurant Sales, Number of to distribute the Aggregate Revenue Impact Restaurants, or Population in a Locality Meals Tax From Out-of-State Returns(Mostly (This method uses MA Economic Census data for Restaurant Chains)is Distributed Proportionately NAICS code 722(Food Services)to dist6bute the CITIES a..nd TOWNS to In-State Cities and Towns) Aggregate Revenue Impact-see L2!2�� 8 �j in ton 235,268 308,659 (002)Acton 320,817 305,519 E (003)Acushnet 72,925 102,475 (004)Adams 65,783 267,897 P (005)Agawam 622.639 294,311 (006)Alford 9,722 P (007)Amesbury 166,300 174,582 E (008)Amherst 465,788 468,109 (009)Andover 567,860 657,140 (010)Arlington 300,245 480,101 E (011)Ashbumharn 16,084 75,356 P (0 12)Ashby 3,143 32,181 P (013)Ashfield 13,010 21,308 P (014)Ashland 154,570 237,698 (015)Athol 96,033 96,690 (0 16)Attleboro 617,585 538,295 E (0 17)Auburn 276,873 298,244 E (018)Avon 126.724 79,827 P (019)Ayer 93,118 65,979 P (020)Barnstable 1,598,593 1,626,187 (021)Barre 41,841 62,289 P (022).Becket 9,193 45,083 P (023)Bedford 473,214 293,882 (024)Belchertown 120,313 189,447 (025)Bellingham 175,743 247,325 E (026)Belmont 158,410 200,977 (027)Berkley 59,499 81,352 P �028)Bedin 9,662 32,458 P (029)Berriardston 38,248 31,745 P (030)Beverly 580,102 691,054 E (031)Billerica 536,868 560,117 E (032)Blackstone 50,419 106,079 P (033)Blandford 3,123 18,857 P (034)Bolton 79,467 62,586 P (035)Boston 24,640,591 23,345,650 (036)Bourne 286,34� 501,757 (037)Boxboroudh 58,992 54,668 P (038)Boxford 34,703 154,392 P (039)Boylston 71,221 56,747 P (040)Braintree 704,423 1,167,299 (041)Brewster 212,427 90,301 (042)Bridgewater 213,825 431,494 (043)Bdmfield 14,102 55,138 P (044)Brockton 942,939 1,322,547 (045)Brookfield 19,490 38,980 P (D46)Brookline 1,162,366 1,192,250 (04.7)Suckland 3,514 P (048)Burlington 1,036,597 1,230,582 (049)Cambridge 3,878,354 4,058,091 (050)Canton 534,297 509,957 (051)Carlisle 49,169 53,092 P 01 1 -,w1&Wdf '0 1!1 ,Wqg) -q% grd gge MADI Or qp . p _,Sn_,t g 014M Method:' Using DOR Returns Method: Using U.S.Census Department (This method uses 2007 Meals Tax Return data Data on Restaurant Sales, Number of to distribute the Aggregate Revenue Impact Restaurants, or Population in a Locality Meals Tax From Out-of-State Roturns(Mostly (This method uses MA Economic Census data for Restaurant Chains)is Distributed Proportionately NAICS code 722(Food Services)to distribute the CITIES and TOWNS to In-State Cities and Towns) Aggregate Revenue-Impact-see footnotes) (052)Carver 139,672 116.388 E (053)ChadernOnt 15,994 17,719 P (054)Charlton 77.664 189,131 E (055)Chatham 432,261 466,768 P (05. 6)Chelmsford 342,459 f 494,649 E (057)Chelsea 537,727 436,455 E (058)Cheshire 8,306 109,473 P (059)Chester 5,519 21,150 P (060)Chesterfield 14,792 P (0611)Chicopee 2,088,168 652,402 (062)Chilmark 34,800 49,807 P (063)Clarksburg 3,945 48,198 P (064)Clinton 140,325 254,599 E (065)Cohasset 181,927 142,663 P (066)Colrain 25,988 P (067)Concord 379,931 225,502 E (068)Conway 2,036 24,732 P (069)Cummington 5,627 16,010 P (070)Dalton 36,291 228,804 P (071)Danvers 643,962 1,082,125 (072)Dartmouth 445,102 906,475 (073)Dedham 2,463,457 334,616 E (074)Deerfield 109,807 81,538 P (075)Dennis 569,624 579,093 (076)Dighton 35,785 89,168 P (077)Douglas 311,746 104,678 P (078)Dover. 7,796 115,594 P (079)Dracut 269,368 320.899 (080)Dudley 79,309 46,157 (081)Dunstable 7,881 33,676 P (082)Duxbury 89,727 109,114 E (083)East Bddgewater 111,243 170,093 (084)East Brookfield 17,811 26.656 P (085)East Longmeadow 158,928 232,776 E (086)Eastharn 136,687 370,445 P (087)Easthampton 153,115 149,075 (08B)Easton 318,550 400,879 (089)Edgartown 352,582 243,447 P (090)Egremont 41,660 25,058 P (091)Erving 9,895 19,289 P (092)Essex 226,642 55,793 P (093)Everett 378,356 516,472 E (094)Fairhaven 325,741 370,987 E (095)Fall Piver 873,789 1,218,221 (096)Falmouth 945,479 873,941 (097)Fitchburg 343,009 583,522 (098)Florida 18,725 P (099)Foxborough 628,332 386,115 (100)Framingham 925,168 1,785,838 (101)Franklin 567,400 566,033 (102)Freetown 114,856 115,330 P pj�l 5 1�5 ��� Method: Using DOR Returns Method: Using U.S.Census Department (This method uses 2007 Meals Tax Return data Data on Restaurant Sales, Number of to distribute the Aggregate Revenue Impact Restaurants, or Population in a Locality Meals Tax From Out-of-State Returns(Mostly (This method uses MA Economic Census data for Restaurant Chains)is Distributed Proportionately NAICS code 722(Food Services)to distribute the CITIES and TOWNS to In-State Cities and Tbwn� Aggregate Revenue!Meact-see footnotes) (103)Gardner 223,881 254,599 E (1104)Aquinnah 10,093 11,843 P (105)Georgetown 93,459 143,304 P (106)Gill 9,571 17,585 P (107)Gloucester 550,134 664,643 (108)Goshen 2,178 9,514 P (109)Gosnold 2,810 2,546 P (I 10)Grafton 147,153 203,679 E (111)Granby V.870 108,184 P (112)Granville 21,393 23,292 P (1113)Great Barrington 296,733 256,121 P (1114)Greenfield 225.184 355,192 (1115)Groton 116,533 109,896 P (116)Groveland 24,400 115,820 P (117)Hadley 164,691 .81,990 P (118)Halifax 115,036 116,718 P (1119)Hamilton 65,924 137,628 P (1120)Hampden 70,331 87,195 P (121)Hancock 7,896 8,353 P (122)Hanover 218,682 403,644 (123)Hanson 143,900 160.868 P (124)Hardwick 5,457 22,503 P (125)Harvard 15,769 69,455 P (126)Harwich 399,153 234,450 (127)Hatfield 28,361 57,702 P (1128)Haverhill 890,874 880,184 E (129)Hawley 2,901 P (130)Heath 5,084 P (131)Hingham 606,938 463,666 (132)Hinsdale 10,311 71,544 P (133)Holbrook 77,287 127,385 (134)Holden 177,889 172,281 (135)Holland 3.684 34,109 P (136)Holliston 54,245 92,127 (137)Holyoke 462,081 846,775 (138)Hopedale 11,914 75,803 P (139)Hopkinton 116,094 113,239 (140)Hubbardston 6,989 56,734 P (141)Hudson 197,050 247,604 (142)Hull 188,662 196,405 E (143)Huntington 8,229 43,651 P (144)Ipswich 225,085 241,752 (145)Kingston 460,602 210,953 E (146)LakevAlle 79,112 163,253 P (147)Lancaster 12,614 79,683 P (148)Lanesborough 193,735 87,667 P (1149)Lawrence 483,799 581,940 E (150)Lee 200,323 202,412 P (151)Leicester 91 j089 50,976 (152)Lenox 396,226 166,845 P (153)Leominster 572,300 826,777 pvg p je a tpq�- n c e 9 n n Method: Using DOR Returns Method: Using U.S.Census Department (This method uses 2007 Meals Tax Retum data Data on Restaurant Sales, Number of to distribute the Aggregate Revenue Impact Restaurants,or Population in a Locality Meals Tax From Out-of-State Returns(Mostly (This method uses MA Economic Census data hor Restaurant Chains)is Distributed Proportionately NAICS code 722(Food Services)to distribute the CITIES and TOWNS to In-State Cities and Towns) Aggregate Revenue Laact-see�2� (154)Levereft 23,551 P (155)Lexington 471,474 447,694 (156)Leyden 870 9,929 P (157)Lincoln 4,635 53,651 P (158)Litfleton 45,652 89,900 P (159)Longmeadow 97,727 114,594 (1160)Lowell 1,130,654 1,188,236 7 7 3 5 2 5 4 5 2 7 4 (161)Ludlow 206,753 261,482 (162)Lunenburg 94,976 124,106 P (163)Lynn 11 622,433 662,495 (164)Lynnfield 70,563 275,547 (165)Malden 465,522 556,960 ) 6 (1166)Manchester 74,926 89,216 P (167)Mansfield 257,751 232,776 E (168)Marblehead 269,140 235.658 (169)Marion 52,486 76,564 P (170)Marlborough 577,477 927,748 (117 1)Marshfield 600,751 312,793 E (172)Mashpee 270,439 210,953 E (173)Mattapolseft 1 G8.013 96,546 P (174)Maynard 415,204 220,693 (1175)Medfield 96,936 110.045 (1176)Medford 361,042 516,472 E (177)Medway 151,110 135,036 (178)Melrose 143,600 203,674 (179)Mendon 94,387 74,823 P (180)Merrimac 27,816 106,964 P (181)Methuen 512,542 523,746 E (182)Middleborough 335,047 430,286 (183)Middlefield 5,807 P (184)Middleton .216,076 133,657 P (185)Milford 498,876 632,310 (186)Millbury 148.539 72,974 (1187)Millis 88,850 154,586 P (188)Millville 3,626 38,472 P (189)Milton 124,444 109,114 E (190)Monroe 733 P (191)Monson 22,584 124,335 P (192)Montague 75.736 113,926 P (193)Monterey 21,463 P (194)Montgomery 11,721 P (1195)Mount Washington 3,663 P (196)Nahant 73,364 58,991 P (197)Nantucket I,OV,422 741,421 P (198)Natick 654,254 581,940 E (199)Needham 792,516 349,164 E (200)Now Ashford 5,682 P (201)New Bedford 1,177,014 1,174,600 (202)New Braintree 15,746 P (203)New Marlborough 28,531 35,498 P (204)New Salem - 13,323 P V 9',Y- In mv PIMM Ae, �-;ffljmp-o Method: Using DOR Returns Method: Using U.S.Census Department (This method uses 2007 Meals Tax Retum data Data on Restaurant Sales, Number of to distribute the Aggregate Revenue Impact Restaurants, or Population in a Locality Meals Tax From Out-of-State Returns(Mostly (This method uses MA Economic Census data for Restaurant Chains)is Distributed Proportionately NAICS.code 722(Food Services)to distribute the CITIES and TOWNS to In-State Cities and Town� A22regate Revenue Impact-see footnotes) (205)Newbury 22,768 116,910 P (206)Newburyport 495,524 436,455 E (207)Newton 1,823,930 1,997,337 (208)Norfolk 127,583 74,745 (209)North Adams 253,678 341,890 E (210)North Andover 502,394 341,890 E (211)North Attleborough 404,557 541.713 (212)North Brookfield 23,978 54,738 P (213)North Reading 218,332 263,642 (214)Northampton 948,117 778,606 (215)Northborough 1,429,978 247,325 E (216)Northbridge 57,466 121,117 (W)Northfield 8,342 45,547 P (218)Norton 246.071 232,776 E (219)Norwell 103,210 171,720 P (220)Norwood 894,758 687,996 (221)Oak Bluffs 289,613 137,468 P (222)Oakham 2,278 24,734 P (223)Orange 89,542 100,827 P (224)Orleans 356,938 490,661 P (225)Otis 13,589 43,885 P (226)Oxford 215,048 138,211 E (227)Palmer 171.249 159.665 (228)Paxton 8,941 54,837 P (229)Peabody 928,943 1,341,230 (230)Pelham 18,922 P (231)Pembroke 274,792 225.502 E (232)Pepperell 25,7D4 38,467 (233)Peru 19,683 P (234)Petersham 3,742 14,481 P (235)Philfipston 15,239 20,693 P (236)Pittsfield 697,666 743,710 (237)Plainfield 8,684 P (238)Plainville 171,874 159,424 P (239)Plymouth 2,010,354 878,209 (240)Plympton 6,229 44,119 P (241)Princeton 79,696 45,018 P (242)Provincetown 624.675 238.773 P (243)Quincy 1,815,783 1,454.850 E (244)Randolph 370.W 443,729 E (245)Raynham 264,785 327,341 E (246)Reading 234,531 190,320 (247)Rehoboth 95,971 57,821 (248)Revere 769,971 596,489 E (249)Richmond 812 39,538 P (250)Rochester 11,474 82,614 P (251)Rockland 368,266 339,596 (252)Rockport 102,794 119,476 P (253)Rowe 8,643 P (254)Rowley 222,428 103,643 P (255)Royalston 13,787 P P Q PAMITMIT P-P. Inte, Method: Using DOR Returns Method: Using U.S. Census Department (This method uses 2007 Meals Tax Return data Data on Restaurant Sales, Number of to distribute the Aggregate Revenue Impact. Restaurants, or Population in a Locality Meals Tax From Out-of-State Raturris(Mostly (This method uses MA Economic Census data for Restaurant Chains)is Distributed Proportionately NAICS code 722(Food Services)to distribute the CITIES and TOWNS to In-State Cities and Towns) Aggregate Revenue�Eeact-see (256)Russell 11,451 23,398 P (257)Rutland 36,525 96,061 P (258)Salem 1,042,631 835,420 (259)Salisbury 224,325 125,485 P (260)Sandisfield 5,523 19,546 P (261)Sandwich 403,856 263,723 (262)Saugus 785,714 1,378,261 (263)Savoy 22,627 P (264)Scituate 302,376 181,856 E (265)Seekonk 534,045 861,123 (266)Sharon 98,505 137,921 (267)Sheffield 23,502 100,607 P (268)Shelburne 39,647 54,907 P (269)Sherbom 63.396 47,132 P (270)Shirley 24,879 56,0011 P (271)Shrewsbury 584,820 503,743 (272)Shutesbury 1,133 20,366 P (273)Somerset 241,620 210,953 E (274)Somerville 988,870 1.112,960 E (275)South Hadley 136,235 195,353 (276)Southampton 188,826 100,647 P (277)Southborough 278,062 127,515 P (278)Southbridge 83,384 127,573 (279)Southwick 117,112 142,755 P (280)Spencer 107,964 130,937 E (281)Springfield 1,768,060 2,024,301 (282)Sterling 156,909 100,326 P (283)Stockbridge 21,270 48,232 P (284)Stoneham 303,860 371,875 (285)Stoughton 401,107 421,907 E (286)Stow 79,695 69,121 P (287)Sturbridge 312,331 118,713 P (288)Sudbury 266,983 181,856 E (289)Sunderland 44,487 46,115 P (290)Sutton 64,505 114,745 P (291)Swampscott 329,118 152,759 E (292)Swansea 696,107 247,325 E (293)Taunton 586,204 785,619 E (294)Templeton 37,473 90,656 P (295)Tewksbury 1,898,631 663,918 (296)Tisbury 188,242 327,344 P (297)Tolland 5,023 P (298)Topsfield 15.970 109,811 P (299)Townsend 92,922 93,989 P (300)Truro 35,928 134,536 P (301)Tyingsborough 168,411 210,953 E (302)Tyringham 6,093 P (303)Upton 26,568 88,858 P (304)Uxbridge 127.245 152,759 E (305)Wakefield 269,737 320,067 E (306)Wales 4,274 24,725 P MIQ1 1110111111 1 1 P11 iii Method: Using DOR R eturns Method: Using U.S.Census Department (This method uses 2007 Meals Tax Return data Data on Restaurant Sales, Number of to distribute the Aggregate Revenue Impact Restaurants,or Population in a Locality Meals Tax From Out-of-State Returns(Mostly (This method uses MA Economic Consus data for Restaurant Chains)is Distributed Proportionately NAICS code 722(Food Services)to distribute the CITIES and TOWNS to In-State Cities and Towns) Aggregate Revenue Impact-see footnotes) (307)Walpole 592,928 312,793 E (308)Waltham 1,223,8D4 1,699,912 (309)Ware 124,997 165,992 P (310)Wareham 456,544 536.157 (311)Warren 9,571 50,709 P (312)Warwick 10,138 P (313)Washington 16,123 P (314)Watertown 637,369 674,666 E (315)Wayland 534,895 145,485 E (316)Webster 225,030 261,873 E (317)Wellesley 594,236 487,375 E (318)Wellfleet 233,431 210,434 P (319)Wendelf 10.781 P (320)Wenham 108,418 65,756 P (321)West Boylston 268,227 80,390 P (322)West Bridgewater 228,299 97,004 P (323)West Brookfield 68,984 47,869 P (324)West Newbury 9,059 78,250 P (325)West Springfield 627,924 910,233 (326)West Stockbridge 25,659 37,963 P (327)West Tisbury 51,454 94,025 P (328)Westborough 381,933 761,413 (329)Westfield 349,587 432,555 (330)Westford 232,942 305,519 E (331)Westhampton 8,173 26,653 P (332)Westminster 98,686 91,536 P (333)Weston 66,202 61,981 E (334)Westport 207,375 203,679 E (335)Westmod 167,264 160,034 E (336)Weymouth 554,608 712,877.E (337)Whately 21,959 13,368 P (338)Whitman 86,442 195,460 (339)Wilbraham 155,156 181,856 E (340)Williamsburg 31,501 61,709 P (341)Williamstown 224,993 196,113 P (342)Wilmington 206,468 404,288 (343)Winchendon 60,991 115,564 P (344)Winchester 137,038 141,934 (345)Windsor 25,913 P (346)Winthrop 126,068 125,641 (347)Woburn lJ40,564 963,504 (348)Worcester 2,780,336 3.071,086 (349)Worthington 3,345 21,164 P (350)Wrentham 278,107 138,211 E (351)Yarmouth 813,521 819,287 Total for Small Towns 21,376 Total for the Rest 124,978,624 TOTALS 125,000,OOD 125,000,000 Method: Using DOR Returns Method: Using U.S. Census Department (This method uses 2007 Meals Tax Return data Data on Restaurant Sales, Number of to distribute the Aggregate Revenue Impact, Restaurants, or Population in a Locality Meals Tax From Out-of-State Returns(Mostly (This method uses MA Economic Census data for Restaurant Chains)is Distfibuted Proportionately NAICS code 722(Food Services)to distribute the CITIES and TOWNS to In-State Cities and Town� Aggregate Revenue Impact—see fbotnoW) Disclosure rules prohibit release of data where the number of taxpayers is less than 3;If some townsfLocalities share same ZIP code, numbers may not be accurate. E:By using establishment proportions.Only"establishment"data were available from the U.S.Census Bureau for these towns(there were no sales data available). P:By using population proportion.Neither"sales'nor'establishmenr data were available from the U.S.Census Bureau for these towns.