Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable Michael J. Rodrigues, Chair
Senate Committee on Ways and Means
State House, Boston
Dear Chair Rodrigues and Distinguished Members of the Committee,
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association writes in support of S. 2542, An Act to build resilience for Massachusetts communities, known as the Mass Ready Act.
Governor Healey’s environmental bond bill proposal is an urgently needed piece of legislation. Cities and towns across Massachusetts know well the need for community resilience in the face of continuing climate change. Municipalities have relied upon a state and local partnership to fund critical projects and to enable long-term success. This legislation stands to continue and strengthen this partnership through meaningful investments and policy initiatives.
As you review S. 2542, we write to share our comments and suggest changes to make this bill more meaningful to our members. Local government officials work around the clock to ensure that extreme weather events, sea level rise, coastal erosion, powerful storms, drought, and flooding do not threaten the well-being of their community. Their work as environmental stewards often goes above and beyond the typical expectations of municipal service, with new issues and complexities needing urgent attention.
Municipal officials, with support from the state, have adopted climate solutions specifically engineered and tailored to fit the neighborhoods and natural environment impacted by severe weather. Our members see this environmental bond bill proposal as a vehicle to improve the lives of Massachusetts residents and continue this good work and partnership.
With this context in mind, please see our comments detailed below.
Bond authorizations
S. 2542 proposes a $315 million authorization for the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) Program (line item 2000-7088). This figure reflects a strong starting point for conversation for this program’s reauthorization.
As you know, this program is unique in its ability to reach 99% (349/351) of communities in the Commonwealth. It helps to bring critical planning and action grants for climate resiliency projects to areas most in need of investment. The trend over the past several years has been an increasing need for funding. In the FY2025 round of funding, $108 million was requested for projects across the state. A total of $52.4 million was awarded, leaving many important projects without support.
We respectfully request a $500 million investment in the MVP Program to support this program’s success over the next five years. As partners of the Massachusetts MVP Coalition and with the overwhelming endorsement of MMA members in a 2024 policy resolution, we feel strongly that this additional investment will be responsibly awarded and well-utilized to mitigate serious climate impacts.
In addition to funding the MVP Program, S. 2542 also includes other authorizations related to climate change. We support the $50 million authorization for Climate Mitigation, Adaptation, Resiliency and Recovery (line item 0640-1008) grants to municipalities and regional planning agencies, as well as a series of authorizations related to Coastal and Inland Flooding (line items 2000-7086, 2000-7083).
An authorization for a Solid Waste and Recycling (line item 2200-7028) assessment of facilities across the state and corresponding financial support for composting, recycling, and waste reduction programs would be welcome news to MMA members. Often a subtler connection to climate and resilience work, solid waste and recycling management is an essential public service also subject to increasing costs and expectations. Cities and towns cannot handle this responsibility alone, and look to the Administration and the Legislature for guidance and support. We respectfully request additional dollars be appropriated to assist cities and towns with this work.
We appreciate the Administration’s proposal to provide for Water Infrastructure and Quality Improvements (line item 0640-1008) in S. 2542. This proposed authorization of $385 million for the Clean Water Trust (CWT) is helpful, but we request additional funding as the needs of cities and towns go far beyond the Governor’s proposal. The CWT is one of many state resources to fortify and reduce funding gaps for local water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure investment. As cities and towns are extremely limited in their ability to independently generate revenues for various expenditures, including public infrastructure upgrades, we urge the Legislature to increase the funding available to the CWT as well as other water infrastructure programs. Additional investment will only help strengthen our ability to provide reliable service for customers.
Outside Sections
The MMA strongly supports the inclusion of the new Resilience Revolving Fund put forward by Section 10. The Administration’s proposed loan program builds on the model of the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs, with the added flexibility of running this program separately from federal requirements and procedures.
Though not every community might be able to take on additional debt, this loan fund for resilience projects would add another tool in the toolbox to creatively and effectively finance major projects. Our members have stressed that bond terms must be competitive and with low to no interest in order to be most beneficial and desirable to communities of limited resources. Additionally, we recommend slightly editing the definition of eligible entities to align with the MVP Program’s definition to provide consistency and allow public water and wastewater districts to be eligible.
Areas of concern
We appreciate the Administration’s intent to provide new opportunities for land conservation, recreation, and agriculture through a proposed State’s Right of First Refusal (Sections 16-20). However, these sections of the bill introduce a complicated discussion on the practical application of a proposed state’s right of first refusal (ROFR) and potential fiscal and logistical impacts for cities and towns.
Sections 16 through 20 of the Mass Ready Act propose to create a right of first refusal for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation for forested and recreational land as well as for the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources for agricultural land, secondary to the existing timeline and procedures municipalities currently use.
Of primary concern are adjustments to the law that do not correct the limits of current Chapter 61, 61A, and 61B timelines. First and foremost, the 120-day timeline a city or town has to exercise its ROFR option must be extended. Language to extend ROFR timelines for agricultural and recreational land was put forward by S. 66, An Act relative to a municipalities right of first refusal of agricultural and recreational land. We recommend the existing 120-day timeline be extended to 180 days. Local officials, especially serving our smallest communities, often do not have the time or capacity to secure the funding for a purchase of land they are willing to make due to its complex nature and the short timeframe. This might be perceived as disinterest, when in reality, the boundaries of the ROFR timeline are too rigid to be feasible. Greater timeline flexibility for the current ROFR process could be incorporated into this bond bill to solve this common problem, and also address the timeline for forested land.
Additionally, we understand the intent of the Administration in their proposal to conserve and preserve Chapter lands. However, the decisions and authority governing these lands must remain under local control. With an existing pathway for a local government to defer its option to exercise its right of first refusal to the Commonwealth, this complicates the bill’s intention to introduce this right in a process subsequent to the municipal process. The ROFR changes put forward by the Mass Ready Act might reduce the opportunities a landowner has to make a profit on this land, or to maintain any desirability about the property’s future development. Further, we are concerned that the introduction of a state’s right of first refusal would negatively impact local assessed tax revenues by reducing the amount of taxable property available. We instead recommend concurrent ROFR processes or an amended notification process for municipal refusals.
The Mass Ready Act also contains several sections that introduce Permit Streamlining Reforms (Sections 12, 31, 50, 51, 73, 74). These impact the Wetlands Protection Act and permitting processes for housing development. We share the concerns raised by many advocates and local officials on potential undermining of the work of local conservation commissions. The impact of sections 12, 31, 50-51, and 73-74 must be determined, and municipal boards and commissions must retain their ability to apply conditions that represent the unique, individual needs of their lands, infrastructure, and waterways.
Additional considerations
We recommend the Committee include and support additional outside sections in future redrafts. These recommendations have been vetted and supported by the MMA’s membership and align well with the goals of the Mass Ready Act.
Adding the water banking legislation put forward by S. 1443, An Act providing for the establishment of sustainable water resource funds, to the Mass Ready Act would provide necessary funding flexibility without overburdening local ratepayers. This allowance will help interested municipalities and their water districts to better plan for long-term improvements, investments, and expansions of service. Water banking especially is needed to support new development and new capital projects, a shared goal of the Administration, the Legislature, and our communities.
We recommend the incorporation of S. 675, An Act to assist municipal and district ratepayers, to address new environmental regulations that pertain to water, wastewater, and stormwater. This cost-benefit legislation will help ensure that rules and regulations crafted by the state are sustainable and feasible for local governments, and that unfunded mandates are not imposed. Communities and the state must be able to understand not only the intent of new rules, but the shared financial responsibility of future rules, a critical component of good governance.
We additionally request the Legislature incorporate an updated, expanded bottle bill in future versions of the Mass Ready Act. Our ability to manage our own waste and recycling resources, as discussed above, is critical to the long-term success and vitality of our state’s recycling market and our competitiveness with other states who have led the way on deposit return system reforms. We must reduce contamination in our recycling stream, fund critical solid waste and recycling initiatives through a reinstated clean environment fund, and reinvigorate public interest in redeeming eligible bottles.
Another meaningful policy item that could be added to the environmental bond bill is S. 647, An Act relative to paint recycling. Following the work of the Extended Producer Responsibility Commission and the issuance of its report, we recommend the Senate support paint recycling legislation as another way to strengthen our solid waste and recycling framework here in Massachusetts and avoid unnecessary environmental pollution of unused, unwanted paint.
We also recommend the addition of S. 2292, An Act to further empower local climate action. The Municipal Fossil Fuel-Free Building Demonstration Program, a concept led by the Senate, was a competitive, selective program. As the implementation of this program continues, we recommend the expansion of this program to allow 10 additional municipalities to participate and identify best practices to reduce fossil fuel use in major renovation and new construction.
These policies would greatly strengthen the environmental bond bill proposal, and are supported by our 351 member municipalities.
In summary, your consideration of this bill and its provisions that impact municipal government is much appreciated. We look forward to partnering with you to move this bill forward and stand ready to assist. If you have any questions or desire further information, please do not hesitate to have your office contact me or MMA Senior Legislative Analyst Josie Ahlberg at any time.
Sincerely,
Adam Chapdelaine
MMA Executive Director and CEO