Number 9. July 19, 1967

Number 9. July 19, 1967. M. Joseph Stacey, Comptroller, Executive Office for Administration and Finance Dear Mr. Stacey: — You have requested my opinion on the effect of a distribution to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (the "MAPC") of funds appropriated by Item 3015-05 of the Supplementary Budget for the 1967 Fiscal Year (St. 1966, c. 709, § 2). Under Item 3015-05, $30,000 was appropriated from the Local Aid Fund to the Department of Commerce and Development "for the reim- bursement, on a matching basis, of regional planning agencies for a pro- gram of planning studies. . . ." Since an appropriation from the General Fund of $107, 000 had already been made directly to the MAPC for its "expenses" in Item 0474-01 of the Budget for the same year (St. 1966, c. 4 1 1 , § 2), a question arose as to whether or not the MAPC was eligible to share in the appropriation under Item 3015-05. In an opinion dated June 5, 1 967 to the Executive Director of the MAPC, I expressed the view that "the MAPC is among the 'regional planning agencies' referred to in Item 3015- 05 . . . and hence is eligible to receive a portion of the funds appropriated thereunder." My opinion to the MAPC was, of course, confined to the issue of whether or not such a distribution of funds to the MAPC was permissible, and did not deal with the question of how such funds, once distributed, should be accounted for. However, I did point out that under G. L. c. 6, § 114, sums appropriated by the General Court directly to the MAPC are (within cer- tain limits) thereafter recovered by the State Treasurer from the member cit- ies and towns through annual assessments made upon them, and that "a distribution of money from the Local Aid Fund to the MAPC under Item 3015-05 will thus have the effect of reducing the assessments upon these municipalities." You state in your letter that the above-quoted statement from my opinion to the MAPC leaves you in doubt as to whether funds distributed to the MAPC under Item 3015-05 may be expended by that agency, or may be used solely to reduce assessments upon the constituent municipalities under G. L. c. 6, § 114. Specifically, you have asked the following questions: " 1 . May the MAPC spend the amount of an allocation made by the Department of Commerce and Development from Item 3015-05 in addition to the amount appropriated to it under a separate item, 0474-01 of Chapter 41 1 of the Acts of 1966? "2. If the answer to Question #1 is in the negative, may the De- partment of Commerce and Development allocate funds to MAPC to be used only to reduce assessments on the cities and towns on account of expenses made from appropria- tions authorized by the Legislature directly to the MAPC?" Since I am of the opinion that Question I calls for an affirmative answer, no answer to Question 2 is required. The stated purpose of Item 30 1 5-05 is "the reimbursement ... of region- al planning agencies" for certain projects undertaken by them. The usual 50 P.D. 12 rule is that words appearing in statutes "shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language. . . ." G. L. c. 4, § 6, Clause Third. The word "reimburse" is ordinarily understood as a synonym for the word "pay" with reference to "the return of an exact equivalent for an ex- penditure. . . ." Webster's Third International Dictionary (1964), p. 1659. It means "to pay back (an equivalent for something . . . expended) to some- one "/c/., p. 1914. In the present context the "someone" to be reimbursed is the MAPC, as one of the "regional planning agencies" referred to in Item 3015-05. The occasion for such reimbursement is the expenditure of other funds by the MAPC (presumably from its appropriation under Item 0474-01) "for a program of regional planning studies." Thus, once the Department of Com- merce and Development is satisfied that such expenditures have been made and orders a distribution of funds "for the reimbursement" of the MAPC therefor, the conditions of Item 3015-05 have been fulfilled and the MAPC may disburse the funds so distributed for any purpose which its statutory powers permit. The alternative interpretation of Item 3015-05 which is suggested by Question 2 would mean that a distribution thereunder to the MAPC would be nothing but a paper transaction. If that interpretation were adopted, the amount of the "distribution" would merely be applied in reduction of the annual assessments upon the member municipalities and the money in- volved would never actually leave the State Treasury. It seems to me im- probable that the Legislature would have chosen such a complex and round- about procedure merely to accomplish the relatively simple objective of re- ducing municipal assessments. Moreover, such an interpretation is difficult to reconcile with the language of Item 3015-05: a "reimbursement" is a payment on account of expenditures previously made and not a reduction in the amount of a prospective charge; Item 3015-05 calls for the reimburse- ment "of regional planning agencies" and not of their constituent cities and towns. While Item 3015-05 speaks in terms of "reimbursement. . . of regional planning agencies" rather than reimbursement of their member communi- ties, the communities, of course, are indirect beneficiaries. Funds distribut- ed to the MAPC under Item 3015-05, unlike appropriations made directly to it under Item 0474-01, are not recoverable from the municipalities. The expenses to which the money so distributed is applied are, at least in theory, expenses for which funds would otherwise have to be appropriated directly to the MAPC. Hence, the practical effect of such a distribution, other things being equal, may be to permit a reduction in the direct appropriations thereafter needed by the MAPC, and a corresponding reduction in the as- sessments upon the constituent municipalities. When I stated in my opinion to the MAPC that a distribution of funds under Item 3015-05 would "have- the effect of reducing the assessments upon these municipalities," I meant to refer only to the possible consequences of such a distribution and not to the legal conditions under which a distribution could be made or expended. It is therefore my opinion that the MAPC may spend any sums distribut- ed to it by the Department of Commerce and Development under Item 3015-05 of the 1967 Supplementary Budget, in addition to funds allocated to it by direct appropriation. Very truly yours, Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General P.D. 12 51