Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 59, § 20A (2026)

Increase in assessments

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 20A. No county, district, public authority, the commonwealth, or other governmental entity authorized by law to assess costs, charges or fees upon cities and towns, except regional school districts, regional water districts and regional sewerage districts, may increase the total of such costs, charges or fees by more than the sum of: (1) two and one-half per cent of the total of such costs, charges or fees over the preceding fiscal year; and (2) any increases in costs, charges or fees for services customarily provided locally or for services subscribed to at local option.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1981–2005 · leading case: Massachusetts Teachers Ass'n v. Sec'y of the Commonwealth, 424 N.E.2d 469 (Mass. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Massachusetts Teachers Ass'n v. Sec'y of the Commonwealth, 424 N.E.2d 469 (Mass. 1981). · cites it 2× “” G. L. c. 59, § 20A, inserted by St. 1980, c.”

Boston Water & Sewer Comm'n v. Metro. Dist. Comm'n, 562 N.E.2d 470 (Mass. 1990). · cites it 2× “4 Given our determination that G. L. c. 59, § 20A, does not apply to the BWSC, we do not reach the question whether the § 20A cap on assessments applies to the aggregate assessments by the MDC for all its divisions, or whether such cap must be calculated separately for each…”

North Shore Vocational Reg'l Sch. Dist. v. City of Salem, 471 N.E.2d 104 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 3× “782, § 9, which became effective January 14, 1982, it is clear that after fiscal 1982, G. L. c. 59, § 20A, has not imposed a cap on the amount that the district may certify to a municipality as its share of the district’s costs.”

Everett Ret. Bd. v. Bd. of Assessors of Everett, 6 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1626 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985). · cites it 4× “32 is subject to control by municipalities under G. L. c. 59, § 20A, as appearing in St. 1981, c.”

Cnty. of Barnstable v. Commonwealth, 572 N.E.2d 548 (Mass. 1991). · cites it 2× “6 We express no view at this juncture as to whether the counties and their constituent municipalities may be able to assert the limitations imposed by G. L. c. 59, §§ 20A and 21C (1988 ed.) (“Proposition 2 VS”), as a bar to the assessment to cover their obligation to provide…”

Cnty. of Barnstable v. Commonwealth, 661 N.E.2d 47 (Mass. 1996). · cites it 2× “We continue to express “no view at this juncture as to whether the counties and their constituent municipalities may be able to assert the limitations imposed by G. L. c. 59, §§ 20A and 21C (1988 ed.) (‘Proposition 2½’), as a bar to [an] assessment to cover their obligation to…”

Breslin v. Sch. Comm. of Quincy, 478 N.E.2d 149 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985). “4 A majority of the committee, the judge found, were influenced by consideration of a decline in student enrollment of some 40% since 1971, a budget reduction of approximately 25% over the period of time between enactment of Proposition 2'A (G. L. c. 59, § 20A) and adoption of…”

Brockton Ret. Bd. v. Pub. Emp. Ret. Admin. Comm'n, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 172 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2005). “32, §8 is in conflict with G.L.c. 59, §20A, and is therefore unconstitutional; 4.”

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.