Dukes County
Gosnold
Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.
State House
- Barnstable-Dukes-Nantucket · Thomas W. Moakley
State Senate
- Cape and Islands · Julian Cyr
School districts
- Gosnold Public Schools, the town’s own district
Regional planning agency
Martha's Vineyard Commission
Fairness Index
Gosnold scores 82 on the Fairness Index for all state aid and 96 for discretionary money. Fifty is a fair share.
All state aid
82 / 1001st of 351 (1 = most above its share)
Rank under other weightings: 1st to 2nd.
Stable high: above 55 under every weighting
Gosnold received more than its share of state aid on all four measures; its blended score of 82 stays between 80 and 84 under every weighting tested.
Discretionary money only
96 / 10014th of 351 (1 = most above its share)
Rank under other weightings: 4th to 25th.
Stable high: above 55 under every weighting
Gosnold received more than its share of discretionary money on all four measures; its blended score of 96 stays between 94 and 98 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
Gosnold’s town government and school districts received $1 million in formula aid and $6.6 million in competitive grants over ten years.
Formula aid
$1M
$32,727 per resident (3rd of 351) · gross
Competitive grants
$6.6M
$214,090 per resident (1st of 351)
Earmark-account payments
$0
$0 per resident (339th of 351)
Each class has its own scale. Bars show dollars paid in each fiscal year.
With 31 residents, a single payment moves Gosnold’s per-resident figures a long way.
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, $2.3M 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, $2.3 million, are not shown.
Earmarks
No local earmark was placed in Gosnold 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 Gosnold; clauses placed in Gosnold, adding organizations located here; and everything placed, adding state facilities located here. Three ways to count a local earmark.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mount Washington | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Alford | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Tyringham | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Aquinnah | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $150 |
| Monterey | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
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, Gosnold received 76% of its proportional share of competitive grant awards.
Local road miles
2.0
351st of 351 · 64.5 per 1,000 residents (12th of 351)
Town-owned bridges, replacement cost
$0
scored exposure $0 · none in poor condition
Road-stream crossings
0
346th of 351 · culverts and small crossings
Town-owned hazard dams
0
high or significant hazard
Land area
13.2 sq mi
1% state-owned
Seasonal homes
86%
share of housing units
Peak service population
265
residents plus seasonal
Core infrastructure index
0.73
roads, culverts, dams, coast, flood, energy
The burden index divides the competitive awards Gosnold 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. Gosnold: 0.76. 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 0.76; 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
68 acres
0.8% of land area · FY2026
State-owned land PILOT, FY2026
$34,000
payment in lieu of taxes, cherry sheet
PILOT per eligible acre
$502
statewide $117 · FY2026
New growth per resident
$392,988
FY2017–2025 · 1st 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
The Division of Local Services shows no FY2025 general-fund spending for Gosnold; in FY2016 state aid covered 3.2% of it.
State aid as a share of general-fund spending
FY2006
1.8%
$24,000 of $1.3M · median town 14.1%
FY2016
3.2%
$43,000 of $1.3M · median town 12.2%
FY2025
not reported
aid $41,000; spending not reported · median town 11.5%
Net of state charges, FY2025
not reported
FY2010: 2.5% · 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.
Gross state aid went from $24,000 in FY2006 to $41,000 in FY2025, +67.9% 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
not reported
FY2016 or FY2025 not reported · all towns +54.0%
All fixed costs, FY2016–25
not reported
FY2016 or FY2025 not reported · all towns +53.0%
Years squeezed
4 of 6
fixed costs grew faster than allowed levy growth · three years not reported
Health insurance
3 of 6
years it grew faster than allowed levy growth · three years not reported
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.
Flag: health insurance changed by more than 30% in one year in FY2019 (+33%) and FY2024 (+56%). Swings this size usually mark costs moving between budget lines, into or out of trust funds, or into the state’s Group Insurance Commission, so the comparison may reflect accounting as well as cost.
Local earmarks against the health-insurance increase
Gosnold’s health insurance is not reported for FY2016 or FY2025, so its earmarks are not set against it.
| Measure | Earmarks | Share of the increase | All towns, pooled |
|---|---|---|---|
| Names the town | $0 | not reported | 28.2% |
| Placed in the town | $0 | not reported | 42.3% |
| Everything placed | $0 | not reported | 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
Gosnold had no resident pupils in DESE’s FY2026 Chapter 70 enrollment.
Chapter 70 aid, FY2026
not available
attributed to the town
Required local contribution
$0
FY2026
Share of household income
not available
no Census median income
Real aid per pupil, FY2017–26
not available
after inflation
DESE’s FY2026 Chapter 70 files assign Gosnold no foundation enrollment or district share. DESE counts no resident pupils for Gosnold in FY2026.
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
Gosnold received $6.6 million in earmarks placed in the town and competitive grants over ten years, 2.7 times the $2.5 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
Gosnold is one of eight 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 Gosnold 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gosnoldthis town | 82 | $32,727 | $214,090 | $0 | 0.76 | not available |
| Mount Washingtonpeer · lowest in class of 30 | 62 | $22,393 | $6,365 | $0 | 1.07 | 0.4% |
| Alfordpeer | 43 | $5,565 | $1,817 | $0 | 0.13 | 0.9% |
| Tyringhampeer | 34 | $4,388 | $85.59 | $0 | 0.28 | 1.0% |
| Aquinnahpeer | 38 | $6,830 | $786 | $150 | 2.09 | 1.9% |
| Montereypeer | 67 | $11,798 | $7,628 | $0 | 3.68 | 1.8% |
| New Marlboroughpeer | 49 | $8,719 | $3,098 | $0 | 2.06 | 2.0% |
| Chilmarkpeer | 33 | $5,153 | $334 | $0 | 0.74 | 1.4% |
| 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% |
| 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