Dukes County
Chilmark
Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.
State House
- Barnstable-Dukes-Nantucket · Thomas W. Moakley
State Senate
- Cape and Islands · Julian Cyr
School districts
- Martha's Vineyard Regional School District, shared with Aquinnah, Edgartown, Oak Bluffs, Tisbury and West Tisbury
- Up-Island Regional School District, shared with Aquinnah and West Tisbury
Regional planning agency
Martha's Vineyard Commission
Fairness Index
Chilmark scores 33 on the Fairness Index for all state aid and 42 for discretionary money. Fifty is a fair share.
All state aid
33 / 100280th of 351 (1 = most above its share)
Rank under other weightings: 259th to 295th.
Stable low: below 45 under every weighting
Chilmark received less than its share of state aid on all four measures; its blended score of 33 stays between 30 and 36 under every weighting tested.
Discretionary money only
42 / 100215th of 351 (1 = most above its share)
Rank under other weightings: 188th to 254th.
Weighting-dependent: the range crosses the 45–55 band
Chilmark received less than its share of discretionary money on two of four measures; its blended score of 42 stays between 33 and 50 under every weighting tested.
Each bar is one way of defining a fair share: Equal, the same per resident; Need, weighted toward poverty, low income and a thin tax base; Burden, by what each program pays for (road miles, bridges, pupils and so on); Effort, by what residents already pay in property tax relative to their income. The line marks 50. The score is the average of the four. Discretionary money is competitive grants and earmarks that name the town. How the index is built.
State money, FY2017–FY2026
Chilmark’s town government and school districts received $8.1 million in formula aid and $527,000 in competitive grants over ten years.
Formula aid
$8.1M
$5,153 per resident (342nd of 351) · gross
Competitive grants
$527,000
$334 per resident (194th of 351)
Earmark-account payments
$1,850
$1.17 per resident (324th of 351)
Each class has its own scale. Bars show dollars paid in each fiscal year.
Formula aid is gross: Chapter 70 as DESE attributes it to the town, and cherry-sheet aid before the state deducts charges such as charter tuition and transit assessments, plus other formula programs as paid. Competitive grants and earmark-account payments are Comptroller payments to the town government and its school districts (stage: paid), the same payees as the Fairness Index. Enacted earmarks and earmark payments are different things: enacted earmarks are budget clauses, counted three ways above; earmark-account payments are Comptroller payments to the town government and its school districts from accounts classified as earmarks, which can include prior-year and statewide-program money. Either can be larger. Shared revenue, pass-through contracts, transfers to state entities and unclassified payments, $3.7M in all, are not shown. Rank 1 is the highest amount per resident among 351.
Formula aid is gross; competitive grants and earmark-account payments are as paid. Other classes, $3.7 million, are not shown.
Earmarks
No local earmark was placed in Chilmark in ten enacted budgets, FY2017 to FY2026, on any of the three measures.
Names the town
$0
enacted, ten budgets
Placed in the town
$0
enacted, ten budgets
Everything placed
$0
enacted, ten budgets
Losers Club
Member
one of 35 municipalities
Local earmarks are counted three ways: clauses that name Chilmark; clauses placed in Chilmark, adding organizations located here; and everything placed, adding state facilities located here. Three ways to count a local earmark.
The Comptroller records $1,850 in payments to Chilmark’s town government and school districts from accounts classified as earmarks over the same ten years. Those accounts can carry prior-year and statewide-program money; no enacted clause was placed in Chilmark.
The Losers Club is the project’s name for the 35 cities and towns with no earmark placed in them in any of the ten budgets. It counts enacted earmarks only. Several members won competitive grants in the same years; those appear under State money above.
| Municipality | Names the town | Placed in the town | Everything placed | Placed, per resident |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Marlborough | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Monterey | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Otis | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Truro | $72,000 | $222,000 | $222,000 | $130 |
| West Tisbury | $0 | $45,000 | $45,000 | $14.61 |
Enacted earmarks and earmark payments are different things: enacted earmarks are budget clauses, counted three ways above; earmark-account payments are Comptroller payments to the town government and its school districts from accounts classified as earmarks, which can include prior-year and statewide-program money. Either can be larger.
What the town carries
Measured against what it maintains, Chilmark received 74% of its proportional share of competitive grant awards.
Local road miles
14.1
348th of 351 · 8.9 per 1,000 residents (120th of 351)
Town-owned bridges, replacement cost
$698,000
scored exposure $134,000 · none in poor condition
Road-stream crossings
65
208th of 351 · culverts and small crossings
Town-owned hazard dams
0
high or significant hazard
Land area
19.0 sq mi
0% state-owned
Seasonal homes
63%
share of housing units
Peak service population
4,280
residents plus seasonal
Core infrastructure index
0.32
roads, culverts, dams, coast, flood, energy
The burden index divides the competitive awards Chilmark received from FY2017 to FY2026 by what it would have received if every program had split its money by its own measure of need: road miles for road programs, crossings for culvert grants, town-owned hazard dams for dam repair, jobs for economic development, residents for libraries. 1.0 is proportional. Chilmark: 0.74. State median: 0.91. Bridges count by replacement cost and condition, not by number, and only bridges the town owns. Ranks run from 1, the most among 351.
Burden index 0.74; state median 0.91; 1.0 is proportional. Ranks run from 1, the most among 351.
State land and growth
State land eligible for PILOT
0 acres
no eligible state land in FY2026
State-owned land PILOT, FY2026
$0
payment in lieu of taxes, cherry sheet
PILOT per eligible acre
not applicable
no eligible acres · statewide $117
New growth per resident
$205,643
FY2017–2025 · 5th of 351 · median town $20,524
State land eligible for PILOT is the Division of Local Services’ count of state-owned acres on which the state pays a payment in lieu of taxes; the payment follows the land’s assessed value, not its acreage, so the per-acre figure is a comparison, not the formula. The state-owned share on the land-area tile above is the MassGIS map of all state-owned open space, a wider count. New growth is the assessed value of new construction and improvements added to the tax base, summed FY2017–FY2025 and divided by 2020–24 residents; taxed at the prior year’s rates, it adds to the levy limit beyond 2.5%.
Costs and the 2½% limit
State aid covered 0.1% of Chilmark’s general-fund spending in FY2025, the same share as in FY2006.
State aid as a share of general-fund spending
FY2006
0.1%
$8,026 of $6.2M · median town 14.1%
FY2016
0.1%
$8,691 of $9M · median town 12.2%
FY2025
0.1%
$11,000 of $15.4M · median town 11.5%
Net of state charges, FY2025
-1.5%
FY2010: -3.4% · median town 10.0%
State aid is the gross cherry sheet as entered on the tax rate recap; spending is the town’s general-fund expenditures as filed with the Division of Local Services. Net subtracts the charges the state assesses on the same cherry sheet (charter and school-choice tuition, transit, county and other assessments), itemized from FY2010.
Chilmark’s own cherry sheet carries no Chapter 70 for pupils in its regional district; the state paid $312,000 in FY2025 Chapter 70 to the district on its behalf, outside these figures, while the town’s assessment to the district sits in its spending. For a regional member the share understates state support for school costs.
Gross state aid went from $8,026 in FY2006 to $11,000 in FY2025, +42.6% in dollars. Consumer prices are the Boston-area CPI-U, up 55.1% over those years; government prices are the federal price index for state and local government purchases, up 74.5%. Fiscal-year averages.
Fixed costs against the 2½% limit, FY2016–FY2025
Health insurance, FY2016–25
+59.3%
$547,000 to $872,000 · all towns +54.0%
All fixed costs, FY2016–25
+54.4%
$1.2M to $1.9M · all towns +53.0%
Years squeezed
5 of 9
fixed costs grew faster than allowed levy growth
Health insurance
6 of 9
years it grew faster than allowed levy growth
Nine years at 2.5% add 24.9%. Grown that way from FY2016, Chilmark’s health insurance would have been $684,000 in FY2025; it was $872,000, $189,000 above the path. Its fixed costs would have been $1.55 million in FY2025; it was $1.92 million, $367,000 above the path.
Fixed costs are employee benefits, retirement, insurance and similar costs in the general fund; health insurance comes from a separate DLS report. Allowed levy growth is 2.5% plus new growth, as a share of the prior year’s levy limit; a year counts as squeezed when fixed costs grew by a larger percentage.
Local earmarks against the health-insurance increase
Over the nine budgets, earmarks naming Chilmark came to $0, 0.0% of the $325,000 rise in its health insurance.
| Measure | Earmarks | Share of the increase | All towns, pooled |
|---|---|---|---|
| Names the town | $0 | 0.0% | 28.2% |
| Placed in the town | $0 | 0.0% | 42.3% |
| Everything placed | $0 | 0.0% | 45.2% |
An earmark is a one-year appropriation; a health-insurance increase recurs in every later budget. Earmarks are counted on the three measures and are not adjusted for the January 2024 mid-year cuts or the FY2026 hold. All towns: pooled over the towns that reported health insurance in both years. All dollars nominal. Method.
Schools
Chilmark’s required school contribution is 1.4% of median household income, 341st highest of 351.
Chapter 70 aid, FY2026
$356,000
attributed to the town
Required local contribution
$1.3M
FY2026
Share of household income
1.4%
341st of 351 (1 = highest)
Real aid per pupil, FY2017–26
−2%
after inflation
Chilmark has no school district of its own. Its pupils attend Upisland and Martha's Vineyard; Chilmark accounts for 19% and 4% of their foundation budgets, in that order. Aid and contribution are DESE’s attribution to the town. How a region splits its assessment among members is set by its own agreement and is not published statewide.
Real figures use the CPI-U, fiscal-year average, in FY2026 dollars. The required contribution is the local share the state sets under the Chapter 70 formula; the share of income divides it per household by the town’s median household income.
Expected and actual
Chilmark received $1.2 million in earmarks placed in the town and competitive grants over ten years, 31% of the $3.9 million its size, need and institutions predict.
The expectation comes from a statewide model of all 351 municipalities that uses population, road miles, jobs, poverty, income, tax base, school-aid share and the presence of hospitals, colleges and nonprofits. Those factors explain about 55–60% of the differences between towns. The model leaves out many legitimate reasons a town may receive more or less, such as a single large project, so a gap is a starting point for questions, not a finding about anyone’s conduct.
Earmarks here are placed in the town, the second of three measures (enacted); competitive grants are Comptroller payments (paid). Method.
Peers
Chilmark is one of six municipalities, among itself and its ten nearest peers, with no earmarks placed in them in the ten budgets.
Peers are the ten municipalities nearest to Chilmark on population, income need and tax-base need. The best and lowest performers are the highest and lowest on earmark dollars placed in the town per resident in the wider class of 30 nearest, the second of three measures.
| Municipality | Fairness Index | Formula aid per resident | Competitive per resident | Earmarks placed in the town, per resident (enacted) | Burden index | School contribution, share of income |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chilmarkthis town | 33 | $5,153 | $334 | $0 | 0.74 | 1.4% |
| New Marlboroughpeer · lowest in class of 30 | 49 | $8,719 | $3,098 | $0 | 2.06 | 2.0% |
| Montereypeer | 67 | $11,798 | $7,628 | $0 | 3.68 | 1.8% |
| Otispeer | 43 | $6,679 | $2,109 | $0 | 1.01 | 2.2% |
| Truropeer | 56 | $7,537 | $7,483 | $130 | 1.62 | 1.6% |
| West Tisburypeer | 52 | $11,333 | $312 | $14.61 | 0.59 | 2.5% |
| Aquinnahpeer | 38 | $6,830 | $786 | $150 | 2.09 | 1.9% |
| Sherbornpeer | 39 | $9,422 | $708 | $109 | 0.88 | 2.7% |
| Tyringhampeer | 34 | $4,388 | $85.59 | $0 | 0.28 | 1.0% |
| West Newburypeer | 48 | $10,655 | $574 | $38.12 | 0.91 | 2.1% |
| Alfordpeer | 43 | $5,565 | $1,817 | $0 | 0.13 | 0.9% |
| Princetonbest in class of 30 | 39 | $8,727 | $417 | $299 | 0.96 | 2.3% |
Formula aid per resident is the ten-year gross total; competitive grants are ten-year totals paid, FY2017–FY2026; earmarks are enacted clauses placed in the town over the same ten budgets. Add up to ten towns to the table; adding needs JavaScript.
Sources
Every figure traces to a public record.
Fairness Index
Representation
State money
What the town carries
- MassDOT Chapter 90 apportionment and Road Inventory
- FHWA National Bridge Inventory, 2025
- MassDOT Bridges layer (GeoDOT)
- North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaborative, road-stream crossings
- DCR Office of Dam Safety inventory, via MassGIS
- American Community Survey housing tables, U.S. Census Bureau
- State grant award lists (Community One Stop, MVP, Green Communities and others)
- DLS Databank, state-owned land eligible for PILOT
- DLS Databank, new growth
Costs and the 2½% limit
- DLS Databank, Schedule A general fund expenditures and revenues
- DLS Databank, health insurance expenditures
- DLS Databank, revenue by source (state aid)
- DLS Databank, cherry sheet receipts and charges by program
- DLS Databank, new growth and levy limits
- Boston-area CPI-U (BLS) and state-local price index (BEA), via FRED
Every figure on this page is built by script from these public sources. Method and limits.
Parcenomics helps towns turn numbers like these into a plan. Municipal services · Contact