Commonwealth Report Legislators Method

Berkshire County

Washington

Town · Berkshire County · 526 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

Regional planning agency

Berkshire Regional Planning Commission

Fairness Index

Washington scores 56 on the Fairness Index for all state aid and 96 for discretionary money. Fifty is a fair share.

All state aid

56 / 10070th of 351 (1 = most above its share)

Equal
65
Need
68
Burden
34
Effort
57

Rank under other weightings: 39th to 114th.

Weighting-dependent: the range crosses the 45–55 band

Washington received more than its share of state aid on three of four measures; its blended score of 56 stays between 50 and 62 under every weighting tested.

Discretionary money only

96 / 10016th of 351 (1 = most above its share)

Equal
98
Need
98
Burden
89
Effort
97

Rank under other weightings: 12th to 19th.

Stable high: above 55 under every weighting

Washington received more than its share of discretionary money on all four measures; its blended score of 96 stays between 94 and 97 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

Washington’s town government and school districts received $8.2 million in formula aid and $3.7 million in competitive grants over ten years.

Formula aid

$8.2M

$15,534 per resident (67th of 351) · gross

Competitive grants

$3.7M

$6,984 per resident (8th of 351)

Earmark-account payments

$52,000

$99.80 per resident (23rd of 351)

Competitive grants to Washington peaked in FY2018 at $785,000, 21% of the ten-year total.
Formula aid$8.2M total · peak $1.2M in FY2024
Competitive grants$3.7M total · peak $785,000 in FY2018
Earmark-account payments$52,000 total · peak $50,000 in FY2025
FY17FY18FY19FY20FY21FY22FY23FY24FY25FY26

Each class has its own scale. Bars show dollars paid in each fiscal year.

With 526 residents, a single payment moves Washington’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, $1.3M in all, are not shown. Rank 1 is the highest amount per resident among 351.

Earmarks

Washington received $50,000 in local earmarks in ten enacted budgets on all three measures.

Names the town

$50,000

$95.06 per resident (56th of 351)

Placed in the town

$50,000

$95.06 per resident (76th of 351)

Everything placed

$50,000

$95.06 per resident (86th of 351)

Losers Club

Not a member

35 municipalities had none

Local earmarks are counted three ways: clauses that name Washington; clauses placed in Washington, adding organizations located here; and everything placed, adding state facilities located here. Three ways to count a local earmark.

Placed in the town: one clause in one of ten budgets; it came in FY2025. Every one names Washington directly.

Largest items placed in the town, FY2017–FY2026 (the town’s share where a clause names several towns)
YearAmountBudget text (excerpt)Stage
FY2025$50,000“the town of Washington to acquire a vehicle for use by its police department”Enacted
names the town

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, Washington received 1.16 times its proportional share of competitive grant awards.

Local road miles

42.2

283rd of 351 · 80.2 per 1,000 residents (6th of 351)

Town-owned bridges, replacement cost

$5.3M

scored exposure $1.6M · four in poor condition

Road-stream crossings

78

172nd of 351 · culverts and small crossings

Town-owned hazard dams

0

high or significant hazard

Land area

38.0 sq mi

46% state-owned

Seasonal homes

12%

share of housing units

Peak service population

605

residents plus seasonal

Core infrastructure index

2.12

roads, culverts, dams, coast, flood, energy

The burden index divides the competitive awards Washington 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. Washington: 1.16. 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

11,720 acres

48.2% of land area · FY2026

State-owned land PILOT, FY2026

$117,000

payment in lieu of taxes, cherry sheet

PILOT per eligible acre

$10.00

statewide $117 · FY2026

New growth per resident

$18,839

FY2017–2025 · 205th 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 13.2% of Washington’s general-fund spending in FY2025, up from 12.4% in FY2006.

State aid as a share of general-fund spending

FY2006

12.4%

$139,000 of $1.1M · median town 14.1%

FY2016

13.8%

$205,000 of $1.5M · median town 12.2%

FY2025

13.2%

$284,000 of $2.1M · median town 11.5%

Net of state charges, FY2025

13.2%

FY2010: 13.1% · 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.

Washington’s own cherry sheet carries no Chapter 70 for pupils in its regional district; the state paid $315,000 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.

Washington’s state aid kept pace with both price measures: FY2025 aid was 31.9% above its FY2006 aid grown by Boston-area consumer prices and 17.2% above grown by the government price index.
FY2006 aid
$139,000
At FY2025 consumer prices
$216,000
At FY2025 government prices
$243,000
FY2025 aid
$284,000

Gross state aid went from $139,000 in FY2006 to $284,000 in FY2025, +104.6% 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

+45.3%

$32,000 to $46,000 · all towns +54.0%

All fixed costs, FY2016–25

+11.2%

$100,000 to $111,000 · all towns +53.0%

Years squeezed

4 of 9

fixed costs grew faster than allowed levy growth

Health insurance

4 of 9

years it grew faster than allowed levy growth

Nine years at 2.5% add 24.9%. Grown that way from FY2016, Washington’s health insurance would have been $40,000 in FY2025; it was $46,000, $6,504 above the path. Its fixed costs would have been $124,000 in FY2025; it was $111,000, $14,000 below 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 FY2017 (+67%). 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 Washington came to $50,000, 3.5 times the $14,000 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$50,0003.5 times28.2%
Placed in the town$50,0003.5 times42.3%
Everything placed$50,0003.5 times45.2%

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

Washington’s required school contribution is 2.6% of median household income, 185th highest of 351.

Chapter 70 aid, FY2026

$230,000

attributed to the town

Required local contribution

$632,000

FY2026

Share of household income

2.6%

185th of 351 (1 = highest)

Real aid per pupil, FY2017–26

−18%

after inflation

Washington has no school district of its own. Its pupils attend Washington and Central Berkshire; Washington accounts for 100% and 3% 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

Washington received $3.7 million in earmarks placed in the town and competitive grants over ten years, 2.0 times the $1.8 million its size, need and institutions predict.

Expected
$1.8M
Received
$3.7M

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

Washington ranks 1st of 11 on earmark dollars placed in the town per resident among itself and its ten nearest peers.

Peers are the ten municipalities nearest to Washington 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
Washingtonthis town56$15,534$6,984$95.061.162.6%
Perupeer61$22,437$3,220$39.681.982.8%
Cummingtonpeer · lowest in class of 3049$9,157$4,050$01.511.5%
Montgomerypeer42$9,334$283$45.370.272.3%
Sandisfieldpeer43$9,713$2,087$00.343.1%
Whatelypeer45$9,968$1,484$28.911.022.4%
Oakhampeer61$18,722$794$12.201.243.2%
Tollandpeer55$10,826$4,602$11.321.821.1%
Worthingtonpeer45$10,665$2,563$58.770.592.8%
Windsorpeer53$9,357$3,955$23.471.381.5%
Blandfordpeer52$10,142$5,405$00.802.6%
Egremontbest in class of 3051$9,039$3,748$3942.062.0%

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