Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives’ votes on three roll calls and local senators’ votes on three roll calls from the week of Sept. 12 – Sept. 16.

$20 million for police and fire – The House, 39-114, rejected an amendment requiring $20 million annually from casino revenues be transferred to a newly established Public Safety Building Assistance Fund that would provide grants to cities and towns for the construction, expansion and rehabilitation of police, fire and emergency medical service buildings. The state treasurer would administer the fund and similar to the School Building Assistance Fund model, it would award grants of up to 50 percent of the project cost.

Amendment supporters said some new police and fire stations are needed and many others are in great need of repair. They argued the $20 million annually is in essence new local aid and would help struggling cities and towns.

Amendment opponents offered no arguments.

(A “Yes” vote is for the $20 million annually. A “No” vote is against the $20 million.)

Rep. Tom Sannicandro:  No

Define “surrounding communities” – The House, 51-101, rejected an amendment to a section of the bill that allows the gaming commission to unilaterally decide which communities can be considered a “surrounding community” to the site of a casino or slot parlor. The amendment would still allow the commission to do so but would also specifically define a “surrounding community” as one that is located within two miles of the site of a gaming facility.

The definition is important because the bill provides surrounding communities with mitigation funds and several rights to protect them from any negative impact of a nearby casino.

Amendment supporters said the amendment would simply protect obviously surrounding communities by ensuring they get a seat at the table. They argued giving the commission sole power to determine which communities are surrounding ones is dangerous and places too much power in its hands.

Amendment opponents said the House should not micromanage this process by tying the hands of the commission. They said a cookie cutter two-mile radius reduces flexibility.

(A “Yes” vote is for the two-mile definition. A “No” vote is against it.)

Rep. Tom Sannicandro: Yes    

Local aid revenue – The House, 153-0, approved an amendment requiring that the portion of the casino revenue money earmarked for local aid be distributed according to the current local aid formula for distributing unrestricted local aid.

Amendment supporters said without this clarification, there is no method specified in the bill for the distribution of this revenue to cities and towns. They argued the amendment would guarantee each community gets some of this revenue.

(A “Yes” vote is for using the current local aid formula.)

Rep. Tom Sannicandro:  Yes                                    

Approve changes in pension system – The Senate, 24-10, approved and sent to the House a bill making changes in the pension and retirement system for future employees of the state and cities and towns. The proposal reduces pensions by raising the minimum retirement age for most public employees by five years, from 55 to 60, and changing the formula on which they are based.

Other provisions increase from three years to five years, the period for averaging earnings to calculate a member’s retirement allowance to more accurately reflect his or her career earnings; give retirees who married a person of the same sex, within the first year after it became legal, the option to change their retirement option in order to provide a benefit to their spouse; create an anti-salary spiking rule that would limit the allowable annual increase in most pension earnings to no more than 7 percent plus inflation of the average pension earnings over the previous two years; and mandate that retirement boards require retirees convicted of a criminal offense to repay all benefits received since the date of the offense, not just the date of conviction.

Supporters said the state and local pension systems are in dire shape and must be reformed. They argued the reforms would save the Commonwealth $5 billion over 30 years.

Opponents said the package is an anti-worker one that would reduce the pensions of future employees. They argued it would push the burden of existing pension system debt onto future generations of public employees.

(A “Yes” vote is for the bill making changes in the pension system. A “No” vote is against the bill.)

Sen. Karen Spilka: Yes        

Pay off unfunded liability at current rate – The Senate, 12-22, rejected an amendment that would require the state and municipalities to continue to pay off their unfunded pension liabilities at the same rate they are currently doing so.

Amendment supporters said without this requirement, the state and cities and towns would be free, based on the savings in this legislation, to pay off the liability at a slower rate, thus defeating one of the chief purposes of the legislation.

Amendment opponents said the calculations would be close to impossible to make. They argued the amendment is well-intentioned but misguided and difficult to implement.

(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment requiring payment at the same rate. A “No” vote is against the amendment.)

Sen. Karen Spilka: Yes 

Retirement age and pension – The Senate, 14-20, rejected an amendment to the section of the bill that raises the minimum retirement age for most public employees by five years, from 55 to 60 and reduces pensions by changing the formula on which pensions are based. The amendment would raise the age to only 57, still two years above the current age, but would leave the formula the same.

Amendment supporters said this compromise is a fair one that will still save money but ensure that people can still retire at a reasonable age with a decent pension.

Amendment opponents said the amendment would reduce the savings in the bill from $5 billion to $3 billion and fail to truly reform the pension system.

(A “Yes” vote is for making the minimum retirement age 57. A “No” vote is against age 57 and favors age 60.)

Sen. Karen Spilka: Yes