Cherrytree Group LLC Blog

State Auditor Suzanne Bump intends to review public subsidies for Evergreen Solar, the energy company that recently announced plans to shutter its Devens plant and move more 800 jobs elsewhere despite receiving millions of dollars in public funds, as part of a broader review of the state’s entire system of tax incentives.

With the Patrick administration saying it could recoup $13 million of the $31 million the state invested in Evergreen Solar, the News Service asked Bump if she was considering an examination of the public subsidies in the company.

Bump’s press secretary Christopher Thompson responded with a statement noting that before she took office, Bump had described reviewing the state’s broad system of tax incentives as a priority.

“She has developed an internal team and a strategy to evaluate these investments with a focus on accountability and tax payer [sic] benefit,” Thompson said. “The Auditor’s review will take a broad look at many different tax incentives, and the tax incentives granted to Evergreen Solar will be reviewed in this broader context.”

On the campaign trail last year, Bump talked up plans to examine tax incentives, saying they should be measured by the benefits provided to Massachusetts citizens and taxpayers and that accountability for public investments “must be built into state government.”

As a candidate, Bump said that all state tax incentives and credits should be reviewed for effectiveness and that she would begin with economic development tax incentives. She estimated state government would forego $1.7 billion in fiscal 2011 due to tax incentives and credits.

Bump also pledged to conduct audits of agencies charged with providing or documenting tax incentives to determine whether agency managers used appropriate procedures, provided objective analysis, measured outcomes as intended, and held recipients accountable for performance.

State Housing and Economic Development Secretary Greg Bialecki said last week that Evergreen had received $21 million in cash grants - $20 million to help build its facility and $1 million for workforce training - $7.5 million in investment tax credits and a long-term lease on state land valued at $2.7 million.

Evergreen has received other forms of public aid, but Bialecki said he did not count in his estimate $13 million in state grants used to build road and utilities infrastructure at Devens and some state taxes the company avoided when paying for equipment.

Bialecki estimated the state can recoup $13 million, including the $7.5 million investment tax credit, which he said won’t be claimed, $3 million in state grants that were tied to a job creation formula, and land costs.

"We’re looking very carefully at what happened here and what lessons can be learned," Bialecki said last week. "This wasn’t so much an investment in Evergreen Solar as it was in the clean energy sector. The purpose wasn’t to benefit a company but to grow an industry and the investment really put us on the map."

In announcing its Devens plant closing plans, Evergreen Solar President Michael El-Hillow said the firm’s production costs in Devens were “much higher than those of our low cost competitors in China.”

“Solar manufacturers in China have received considerable government and financial support and, together with their low manufacturing costs, have become price leaders within the industry,” El-Hillow said in a statement. “While the United States and other western industrial economies are beneficiaries of rapidly declining installation costs of solar energy, we expect the United States will continue to be at a disadvantage from a manufacturing standpoint.”

MassGOP Chairman Jennifer Nassour has called the state’s investments in Evergreen “reckless policy” and urged the Patrick administration to offer a more broad-based approach to economic incentives for companies.

House Minority Leader Brad Jones has said that the Evergreen case should serve as a “lesson to Governor Patrick that throwing money at companies in industries he approves of won’t necessarily translate into success.” Jones said Patrick and Lt. Gov. Tim Murray “should turn their attention to creating an economic climate where all businesses can succeed and thrive.”

Gov. Deval Patrick has defended his administration in light of the Evergreen controversy, saying the process of doling out incentives to individual companies or industries "works well."

"I am disappointed that we are losing these manufacturing jobs to China, but Evergreen produced over 900 jobs for each of the years in question (two or three times what they promised) and that was good for the workers who got those jobs," Patrick said during a recent online chat.

"Evergreen did not use about half of the benefits that were offered to them and we have recovered or will recover most of the rest. Beyond that, we need to ask ourselves whether we are serious about competing for jobs on the same playing field as other states. Far more often than not, we win in a competition. But we have to compete to win."

Senate President Therese Murray told WCVB-TV Sunday that Evergreen “paid us back” $11 million based on an initial state investment of $2.5 million. “I think that’s pretty good,” Murray said.

But Murray added, “Probably their five or ten-year plan was a little aggressive . . . It’s still a loss. There should have been a bit more due diligence. I would have had a bigger clawback - that if the jobs left that the money came back.”

Murray said she’s been told that “solar doesn’t make a profit,” adding, “I’m still grappling with that.”

House Speaker Robert DeLeo, who has also called into question the Evergreen investments, on Wednesday reiterated his support for tax incentives aimed at stimulating film industry business. DeLeo noted that “The Social Network,” “The Town” and “The Fighter,” which all have a Massachusetts connection, tallied 16 Oscar nominations this week.

“These movies, filmed right here in Massachusetts, are a good reminder of how important the film tax credit has been to our state’s economy in these challenging times,” DeLeo said in a statement, referencing House votes from nearly a year ago to block efforts to reduce incentives available to the film industry.

A Department of Revenue report released this month found that the film tax credit cost the state $82.4 million for productions filmed in 2009 and generated $319 million in spending, of which $104 million was spent in Massachusetts. Of the $215 million spent outside of Massachusetts, $82 million paid salaries of $1 million or more to actors, according to the report.

Over the four years in which the tax credit program has been on the books, the total credit-eligible spending for 449 productions claiming the tax credit was $1.047 billion, with 32 percent or $335.5 million paid to Massachusetts residents and 68 percent or $712.3 million paid to non-residents or out-of-state businesses, according to the Department of Revenue.

On Wednesday, Patrick said his newly unveiled budget proposal included a continuation of the film tax credit program.

By Warren Kirshenbaum

In the recent election, Question 2 on the Massachusetts ballot asked whether voters should “repeal the law allowing developers of projects that include low- or moderate-income housing to apply for a single comprehensive permit from a city or town’s zoning board” The law in question is M.G.L. Chapter 40B, which is an expedited permitting statute. Chapter 40B creates an expedited permitting procedure for those developers that include an affordable component to their development. Specifically, in order to receive a permit under 40B, 25% of the housing units to be built must be considered affordable housing. The towns in the Commonwealth that are subject to 40B are those towns whose affordable housing stock does not exceed 10% of their total housing inventory. 40B subjects the Zoning Board to a streamlined procedure greatly reducing the time and cost of the permitting procedure, and limiting the ability of the town to deny the permit.

On Tuesday, November 2nd, Massachusetts voters, in a decisive victory of 58% to 42% voted not to repeal 40B.

This trend in the voting patterns comports with conversations that I had with people, in which it seemed that there was a lot of non-information, and even misinformation on this issue, and as this movement to repeal 40B could resurface again, I am hoping to shed some light on the issue in this post.

The main underlying issue that I sensed is the NIMBY one. Not in My Back Yard is understandable, and is a concern about falling property values and the denigration of a neighborhood when some of the housing is affordable. Declining property values is indeed a fallout of affordable housing, as the financing options discussed below are very favorable to developers or affordable buyers and, therefore, their properties. These affordability factors lower the market value of a single family home, or a multifamily property, and, therefore, affect the comps of other sellers in the area. This effect is a micro-economic effect, and a relatively minor one at that, as lower comps would affect a financing appraisal in small part, and the market value of a sale with even less consequence. In any event, 40B historically has mostly been used for multi-family construction, and 95% of the projects permitted under 40B are multi-family apartment complexes or condos.

Practically speaking, if a condo development were built near your home, whether it was affordable or market-rate your property value and property enjoyment would decline, so this is not an affordable housing, or 40B issue, as much as it is a land-use or urban planning issue.

Secondly, people I spoke to understood 40B to be a financing statute, and assumed that it gave developers funding to pursue their affordable housing projects. 40B is an expedited permitting statute that allows an override of municipal zoning authority to promote affordable housing. It is not a financing statute. There are forms of financing that are available to developers of affordable housing, such as the Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit, HUD insured mortgages, tax-exempt bonds, Community Block Grants, and other state and federal sources of funding, and developers use these sources of funding once they are permitted, whether pursuant to 40B or otherwise. 40B is not a preamble to these sources of financing.

While realizing that concern over retaining a leafy suburban lifestyle, or holding on to a paper appraisal of a home value may be important to some in the micro-economic sense, it is not a positive economic trend in the big picture that justifies the repeal of a statute such as 40B. Consider this: a community is more than just our home values; it is a collection of individuals, families, homes, stores, houses of worship, and so forth. While we are happy when we see a fire truck scooting off to tame a brush fire near our neighbor’s yard, we would be foolish to attempt to exclude the possibility that the first responders on the fire-truck also be given the opportunity to live among us in our community by creating affordable options here, and not force them to be relegated to living in a far-off town for affordability reasons.

It should also be pointed out since its enactment, 40B has been credited with spurring upwards of 80% of the new development in Massachusetts, and there are several new developments, as well as many ongoing ones that would not have been built, or will not now be completed were 40B to be repealed, or if it didn’t exist in the first place. This construction has created jobs, spending, and economic activity that we rely on for our stability, and, particularly in our economic malaise, we can little afford to repeal a statute that has created such substantial growth and employment.

The Citizens Housing and Planning Association (“CHAPA”), a prominent Massachusetts non-profit that plays a decisive role in encouraging the production and preservation of affordable housing claimed that this vote evidenced the largest victory margin of any ballot campaign. CHAPA claimed that, “over 1.2 million voters and 80% of cities and towns affirmed their support for protecting the affordable housing law for seniors and working families in urban, suburban, and rural communities all across the state.” While this is true, an analysis of the voting results shows that the larger urban centers voted strongly in favor of not repealing 40B, constituting the largest slice of the 16% victory margin, while the voting in many towns was closer than this 16% victory margin suggests. Many towns actually voted in favor of repeal. Cities and towns such as Worcester, Somerville, Quincy, Arlington, Boston, Brockton, Lawrence, New Bedford and Cambridge opposed repealing 40B in large numbers, and they were joined by the suburban bastions of Newton, Needham, Lexington, Brookline, and Milton, which all together carried the NO vote on this question. Significantly, however, there were also several towns that voted to repeal 40B, such as Abington, Amesbury, Billerica, Bridgewater, Sudbury, Stoughton, Wilmington, Westford, Chelmsford, Tewksbury, Walpole, and Canton.