Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40, § 6 (2026)

Towns; reserve funds for extraordinary expenditures; establishment

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 6. To provide for extraordinary or unforeseen expenditures, a town may at an annual or special town meeting appropriate or transfer a sum or sums not exceeding in the aggregate five per cent of the levy of the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the fund, to be known as the reserve fund, is established. No direct drafts against this fund shall be made, but transfers from the fund may from time to time be voted by the finance or appropriation committee of the town, in towns having such a committee, and in other towns by the selectmen; and the town accountant in towns having such an official, and in other towns the auditor or board of auditors, shall make such transfers accordingly.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1928–2010 · leading case: Debnam v. Town of Belmont, 447 N.E.2d 1237 (Mass. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Debnam v. Town of Belmont, 447 N.E.2d 1237 (Mass. 1983). · cites it 2× “When the layoffs occurred, the town had over $500,000 in its reserve fund, which was established pursuant to G. L. c. 40, § 6. The parties stipulated before the commission that the town’s good faith with respect to the layoffs was not in issue.”

Davis v. Zoning Bd. of Chatham, 754 N.E.2d 101 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001). “16 The flexibility of the term “neighborhood” as used in G. L. c. 40, § 6, and the Chatham by-law facilitates the *362 exercise of the wide discretion which reviewing courts accord zoning authorities when they consider and balance localized interests of whatever kind or…”

Bloom v. City of Worcester, 293 N.E.2d 268 (Mass. 1973). “40, § 5B, concerning (in part) the maximum amounts which may be appropriated to stabilization funds, and G. L. c. 40, § 6, similarly concerned with reserve funds; and G.”

Rourke v. Rothman, 448 Mass. 190 (Mass. 2007). “” G. L. c. 40, § 6. We have interpreted the “time of recording or endorsement” to mean the time of “the most recent instrument of record prior to the effective date of the zoning change.”

Titcomb v. Bd. of Appeals, 835 N.E.2d 295 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005). “Using the language that mirrors G. L. c. 40, § 6, section 2420 of the by-law authorizes a special permit for a change or alteration of a pre-existing nonconforming use “only if the special permit granting authority finds that the proposed change .”

Twombly v. Billerica, 159 N.E. 630 (Mass. 1928). “It is provided by G. L. c. 40, § 6, that “To provide for extraordinary or unforeseen expenditures” a limited sum, to be known as the reserve fund, may be established, and that “No direct drafts against this fund shall be made, but transfers from the fund may .”

Price v. Excel Recycling, LLC, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 581 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “The issue is whether under the Westport Zoning Bylaw (the “Bylaw”) and G.L.c. 40, §6, the Board had legal authority to condition its determination that the defendant Excel Recycling, LLC’s (“Excel’s”) non-conforming use of its property was not substantially more detrimental to…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.