Commonwealth Report Legislators Method

Berkshire County

Richmond

Town · Berkshire County · 1,403 residents (ACS 2020–24)

Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.

State House

  • 3rd Berkshire · Leigh DavisThe author was a candidate for this seat in 2024.

State Senate

School districts

  • Richmond Public Schools, the town’s own district

Regional planning agency

Berkshire Regional Planning Commission

Fairness Index

Richmond scores 40 on the Fairness Index for all state aid and 68 for discretionary money. Fifty is a fair share.

All state aid

40 / 100216th of 351 (1 = most above its share)

Equal
37
Need
42
Burden
40
Effort
39

Rank under other weightings: 210th to 241st.

Stable low: below 45 under every weighting

Richmond received less than its share of state aid on all four measures; its blended score of 39 stays between 39 and 40 under every weighting tested.

Discretionary money only

68 / 100117th of 351 (1 = most above its share)

Equal
70
Need
74
Burden
56
Effort
72

Rank under other weightings: 108th to 122nd.

Stable high: above 55 under every weighting

Richmond received more than its share of discretionary money on all four measures; its blended score of 68 stays between 65 and 71 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

Richmond’s town government and school districts received $11.3 million in formula aid and $1.1 million in competitive grants over ten years.

Formula aid

$11.3M

$8,072 per resident (252nd of 351) · gross

Competitive grants

$1.1M

$776 per resident (99th of 351)

Earmark-account payments

$2,500

$1.78 per resident (318th of 351)

Competitive grants to Richmond peaked in FY2022 at $526,000, 48% of the ten-year total.
Formula aid$11.3M total · peak $1.7M in FY2023
Competitive grants$1.1M total · peak $526,000 in FY2022
Earmark-account payments$2,500 total · peak $2,500 in FY2022
FY17FY18FY19FY20FY21FY22FY23FY24FY25FY26

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, $974,000 in all, are not shown. Rank 1 is the highest amount per resident among 351.

Earmarks

No local earmark was placed in Richmond 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 Richmond; clauses placed in Richmond, adding organizations located here; and everything placed, adding state facilities located here. Three ways to count a local earmark.

The Comptroller records $2,500 in payments to Richmond’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 Richmond.

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.

Local earmarks in the same ten budgets: Richmond’s five nearest peers (enacted)
MunicipalityNames the townPlaced in the townEverything placedPlaced, per resident
West Stockbridge$0$0$0$0
Egremont$0$485,000$485,000$394
Erving$0$0$0$0
Blandford$0$0$0$0
Hinsdale$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, Richmond received 19% of its proportional share of competitive grant awards.

Local road miles

39.0

295th of 351 · 27.8 per 1,000 residents (45th of 351)

Town-owned bridges, replacement cost

$1.5M

scored exposure $194,000 · none in poor condition

Road-stream crossings

90

141st of 351 · culverts and small crossings

Town-owned hazard dams

0

high or significant hazard

Land area

18.7 sq mi

2% state-owned

Seasonal homes

24%

share of housing units

Peak service population

1,860

residents plus seasonal

Core infrastructure index

0.68

roads, culverts, dams, coast, flood, energy

The burden index divides the competitive awards Richmond 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. Richmond: 0.19. 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.

State land and growth

State land eligible for PILOT

289 acres

2.4% of land area · FY2026

State-owned land PILOT, FY2026

$25,000

payment in lieu of taxes, cherry sheet

PILOT per eligible acre

$86.17

statewide $117 · FY2026

New growth per resident

$21,572

FY2017–2025 · 166th 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 13.4% of Richmond’s general-fund spending in FY2025, down from 17.8% in FY2006.

State aid as a share of general-fund spending

FY2006

17.8%

$820,000 of $4.6M · median town 14.1%

FY2016

15.5%

$848,000 of $5.5M · median town 12.2%

FY2025

13.4%

$1.1M of $7.9M · median town 11.5%

Net of state charges, FY2025

11.5%

FY2010: 20.5% · 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.

Richmond’s state aid did not keep pace with either price measure: FY2025 aid was 16.0% below its FY2006 aid grown by Boston-area consumer prices and 25.4% below grown by the government price index.
FY2006 aid
$820,000
At FY2025 consumer prices
$1.3M
At FY2025 government prices
$1.4M
FY2025 aid
$1.1M

Gross state aid went from $820,000 in FY2006 to $1.1 million in FY2025, +30.2% 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. Flag: in FY2010, $297,000 of Richmond’s gross aid was in receipts the itemized cherry sheet does not show, consistent with school-building reimbursements that ended by FY2024 (not verified line by line). Part of the change since FY2006 may be that phase-out.

Fixed costs against the 2½% limit, FY2016–FY2025

Health insurance, FY2016–25

+49.8%

$129,000 to $193,000 · all towns +54.0%

All fixed costs, FY2016–25

+67.2%

$340,000 to $569,000 · all towns +53.0%

Years squeezed

5 of 9

fixed costs grew faster than allowed levy growth

Health insurance

5 of 9

years it grew faster than allowed levy growth

Nine years at 2.5% add 24.9%. Grown that way from FY2016, Richmond’s health insurance would have been $161,000 in FY2025; it was $193,000, $32,000 above the path. Its fixed costs would have been $425,000 in FY2025; it was $569,000, $144,000 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.

Flag: health insurance changed by more than 30% in one year in FY2020 (−34%) and FY2023 (+39%). 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

Over the nine budgets, earmarks naming Richmond came to $0, 0.0% of the $64,000 rise in its health insurance.

Local earmarks FY2017–FY2025 (enacted, nine budgets) against the FY2016–FY2025 rise in health insurance
MeasureEarmarksShare of the increaseAll towns, pooled
Names the town$00.0%28.2%
Placed in the town$00.0%42.3%
Everything placed$00.0%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

Richmond’s required school contribution is 2.2% of median household income, 285th highest of 351.

Chapter 70 aid, FY2026

$554,000

to the town’s district

Required local contribution

$1.5M

FY2026

Share of household income

2.2%

285th of 351 (1 = highest)

Real aid per pupil, FY2017–26

+12%

after inflation

Richmond runs its own school district.

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

Richmond received $1.1 million in earmarks placed in the town and competitive grants over ten years, 42% of the $2.6 million its size, need and institutions predict.

Expected
$2.6M
Received
$1.1M

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

Richmond 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 Richmond 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.

MunicipalityFairness IndexFormula aid per residentCompetitive per residentEarmarks placed in the town, per resident (enacted)Burden indexSchool contribution, share of income
Richmondthis town40$8,072$776$00.192.2%
West Stockbridgepeer · lowest in class of 3043$9,304$478$00.462.4%
Egremontpeer · best in class of 3051$9,039$3,748$3942.062.0%
Ervingpeer50$7,326$3,750$08.124.7%
Blandfordpeer52$10,142$5,405$00.802.6%
Hinsdalepeer44$9,786$1,790$02.543.6%
Worthingtonpeer45$10,665$2,563$58.770.592.8%
Tollandpeer55$10,826$4,602$11.321.821.1%
Plymptonpeer35$9,237$274$1140.713.4%
Sandisfieldpeer43$9,713$2,087$00.343.1%
Whatelypeer45$9,968$1,484$28.911.022.4%

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.

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