Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable Christine P. Barber, House Chair
The Honorable Rebecca L. Rausch, Senate Chair
Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
State House, Boston
Delivered electronically
Dear Chair Barber, Chair Rausch, and Distinguished Members of the Committee,
On behalf of the 351 cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association is writing to provide comments on S. 2542, An Act to build resilience for Massachusetts communities, known as the Mass Ready Act.
Governor Healey’s environmental bond bill proposal, filed in June, is a strong starting point to necessary and timely conversations surrounding resilience, and we appreciate your prompt review and consideration of this legislation. We write today to express our support for various authorizations and provisions within, as well as to offer comments on certain sections that need additional consideration and revisions. We also highlight supplemental policies that we recommend incorporating in order to strengthen future versions of the bill. The Mass Ready Act must enable cities and towns to meet the complex challenges posed by climate change with new resources and critical flexibilities. And, importantly, the bond bill must continue funding of lifeline programs and bolster key accounts and authorizations wherever possible.
Cities and towns across the Commonwealth have experienced extreme weather events, sea level rise, coastal erosion, powerful storms, drought, and flooding in more frequent intervals and with increased severity. Locally-adopted climate and clean energy goals reflect the shared commitment that municipalities have to protect their environment, residents, and communities from harm. We applaud the Healey-Driscoll Administration for recognizing this need with a $2.9 billion proposal, building significantly from the $2.4 billion bond bill adopted in 2018.
Local problems need local solutions that are not only cost-effective but financially sustainable. Your work on this legislation will be monumental to support cities and towns as they work to tackle a changing climate, and a changing expectation of municipal service, head on. We greatly appreciate the Legislature’s careful review of the Mass Ready Act and offer the following comments.
Bond Authorizations
Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) Program (line item 2000-7088)
The MVP Program’s authorization within the Governor’s proposal comes to $315 million for the next five years. As the flagship resilience grant program for municipal governments, we are pleased to see such a strong starting figure for this line item.
This is reflective of the great success of the program in its ability to serve 99% (349/351) of communities in the Commonwealth and the widespread need for grant funding for resilience projects. In fact, in the FY2025 round of funding, $108 million of grant funding was requested, and a total of $52.4 million was awarded. 71 action grant projects were funded with an average grant of $738,000.
We raise these statistics to highlight once again that cities and towns are ready to take action, and need the assistance of the Administration and the Legislature to make their communities more resilient. While $315 million is a vast improvement over the 2018 environmental bond bill’s authorization for the program ($75 million), the $315 million will go very quickly. We urge you to bolster line item 2000-7088 with additional funding in order to program as many projects as possible. As part of our partnership with the Massachusetts MVP Coalition and the overwhelming endorsement of MMA members in a 2024 policy resolution, we respectfully request an authorization of $500 million to support this program over the next five years.
Climate Mitigation, Adaptation, Resiliency and Recovery (line item 0640-1008)
We also greatly appreciate the Administration’s inclusion of $50 million for grants to cities, towns and regional planning agencies for climate-related capital investments, plans, and projects.
This authorization for climate mitigation, adaptation, resiliency, and recovery projects, and its broad description of what grant funds could be used for, will provide the Executive Office of Administration and Finance needed flexibility while providing additional support to municipal governments and others engaged in this necessary work.
Coastal and Inland Flooding (line items 2000-7086, 2000-7083)
As cities and towns across the Commonwealth continue work to shore up their coastal infrastructure, their frequently-flooded inland areas, and manage increasingly challenging and costly damages from severe weather, the Mass Ready Act incorporates several meaningful authorizations related to coastal and inland flooding.
Line item 2000-7086 authorizes $93.5 million to address municipally- and publicly-owned dams and inland flood control projects, prioritizing projects with the greatest risk to public health, safety, and the environment. Similarly, line item 2000-7083 authorizes $200 million for coastal infrastructure and resilience measures, including essential elements such as seawall repairs, nature-based solutions, and port infrastructure.
Whether a community has miles of coastline or riverine access points and facilities, local officials have taken on a great deal of responsibility to adapt to a changing climate. These natural resources, while contributing greatly to the character of each community, can pose significant risks if not maintained or updated to account for more frequent, sudden flooding and rainfall events. Municipal revenues alone cannot fully fund the necessary infrastructure and maintenance costs incurred by cities and towns. Any funding support for these purposes to address inland flooding would be welcome news to MMA members.
Solid Waste and Recycling (line item 2200-7028)
Though less frequently understood as important resilience work, the Commonwealth’s management of solid waste and recycling is incredibly important. Line item 2200-7028 provides $28 million for the assessment of solid waste facilities across the state as well as providing financial support for composting, recycling, and waste reduction programs.
We raise this important authorization to your attention because our local governments are on the front lines of managing waste, recycling, and composting contracts for residents. As the dedicated environmental stewards who receive calls daily regarding waste and recycling management, it is resoundingly clear that additional municipal support is needed.
Massachusetts is on the cusp of a widespread solid waste capacity crisis. Over the next decade, nearly all of Massachusetts’ landfills will reach capacity. Additionally, no new landfill capacity is currently expected to come online within the next 10 years, leaving cities and towns with the environmental and financial burden of transporting waste to another state or country willing to accept that waste, to great expense.
Waste and recycling management is a form of climate action and pollution abatement. All essential services provided by cities and towns, including waste and recycling management, must be resilient enough to carry us forward throughout the next decade and beyond. With existing resources and facilities, this resilience is simply unattainable. Cities and towns cannot handle this responsibility alone, and look to the Administration and the Legislature or guidance and support. We respectfully request additional dollars be appropriated to assist cities and towns with this work.
Water Infrastructure and Quality Improvements (line item 0640-1008)
We appreciate the Administration’s proposed funding increase for the Clean Water Trust for a total authorization of $385 million. As communities grapple with increasing state and federal water-related regulations and requirements, resources are necessary to assist local officials.
Under the Proposition 2½ cap on property taxes, municipalities have been extremely limited in their ability to independently generate the financial resources needed to maintain and fortify water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure. Even with existing local and state funding, critical funding gaps remain.
Taking into account data from 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that, over the next 20 years, $37 billion of investment was needed in Massachusetts to comply with baseline, existing clean and drinking water regulations through the Clean Water Act. However, the 2012 Water Infrastructure Finance Commission report identified that within the Commonwealth, at least $10.2 billion was needed for drinking water, $11.2 billion for clean water, and more than $18 billion for stormwater systems.
Additional funding to complement the required state match for the federal State Revolving Fund (SRF) is helpful, but does not close the gaps identified. Whether through Title 5 compliance or PFAS remediation, the needs of cities and towns go far beyond the Governor’s proposal. We urge the Legislature to increase the funding available to the Clean Water Trust, as well as other water infrastructure and quality improvement programs to speed up the pace and possibility of these essential public health and safety service upgrades.
Outside Sections
Resilience Revolving Fund (Section 10)
The MMA strongly supports the inclusion of the new resilience revolving fund put forward by Section 10. This loan fund has been discussed with MMA staff and municipal members and the Healey-Driscoll Administration over the past several months as part of the ongoing work to fulfill the 2023 ResilientMass Plan and the Recommendations of the Climate Chief. Throughout these conversations, it has been made clear that additional, new financing options are needed to support cities and towns.
We understand that with a decrease in federal funding and increased costs at the local level, the state cannot make up every lost dollar from climate-related grant and loan programs. As such, the Administration has put forward a loan program that 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. The flexibility this loan fund would provide would help fill gaps left by other state and federal grant programs and could potentially result in awards larger than grants could provide.
The return on these investments would help to grow this fund over time, increasing its impact across the Commonwealth. Our members reiterate 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.
We respectfully request the Legislature maintain this provision in redrafts and strengthen initial and future authorizations for this fund whenever possible.
Areas of Concern
We also write to express concerns and comments on a selection of policies needing further consideration and consultation with cities and towns.
State’s Right of First Refusal (Sections 16-20)
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 (ROFR).
Chapter 61, Chapter 61A, and Chapter 61B of the General Law each provide property owners with significant local tax benefits when land is dedicated to forestry, agricultural, and recreational purposes, respectively. Should that land later be sold or used for another purpose, a municipality has the option to exercise or assign its right of first refusal to purchase the land before it becomes available to others in the market for other purposes.
Sections 16 through 20 of the Mass Ready Act propose to create such a right for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation (DCR) for forested and recreational land as well as for the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) for agricultural land. This ROFR would be secondary to the existing timeline and procedures municipalities currently use.
These sections of the bill introduce a complicated discussion on the practical application of a proposed state’s right of first refusal and potential fiscal and logistical impacts for cities and towns.
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 is in need of adjustment to ensure long-term success. 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 would suggest that the existing 120 day timeline be extended to 180 days. Within the current 120 day time frame, a public hearing must be held and a proposed purchase and sale contract for the land must be given to the land owner. With current expectations and requirements surrounding public meetings, and the complex legal and financial nature of these draft contracts, 120 days is simply not enough time. 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 strict 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.
Another fundamental concern we want to express is whether a state’s right of first refusal is in fact necessary. As stated above, we fully 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. Within the current process for sales of Chapter 61 forested land, Chapter 61A agricultural land, and Chapter 61B recreational land, a municipality has the opportunity to “assign its option to a nonprofit conservation organization or to the commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions under the terms and conditions that the mayor or board of selectmen may consider appropriate.”
With an existing pathway for a local government to defer its option to exercise its right of first refusal to the Commonwealth (and effectively to DCR and MDAR), this complicates the bill’s intention to introduce this right in a process subsequent to the municipal process. With a completely separate state ROFR, landowners might need to wait twice as long before a final decision is reached by local and state parties to determine if that land should be made available for sale on the open market. This 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. We are further 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.
This topic is of importance to our membership and decisions regarding forested, agricultural, and recreational land are fundamental to the community’s character, environment, and long-term financial wellbeing. We welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to determine a better path forward, such as concurrent ROFR processes or an amended notification process for municipal refusals.
Permit Streamlining Reforms (Sections 12, 31, 50, 51, 73, 74)
The Mass Ready Act contains several sections related to streamlined environmental permitting through the Wetlands Protection Act and permitting process reforms for housing development. We echo the concerns raised by many advocates and local officials on undermining the important work of conservation commissions. These sections, particularly sections 12, 31, 50-51, and 73-74, need additional time to be reviewed by cities and towns, and to determine what impact they would have.
Local officials share a desire to make the permitting process work for developers, community members, and all involved. However, it is imperative that municipal boards and commissions retain their ability to apply conditions that represent the unique, individual needs of their lands, infrastructure, and waterways. Significant review of these sections is needed due to their various impacts to the public participation process and the work of local boards and commissions to meaningfully review projects impacting their communities.
It is particularly concerning that the language in section 12 specifically exempts an undefined term of “priority housing” as one of several “categories of projects that are not presumed likely to cause damage to the environment” and thus should “not require an environmental impact report regardless of location.” Though the rapid development of housing is of critical importance to communities across the Commonwealth, there are many reasons that housing might have an environmental impact on the lands upon which it is built. This extremely broad application of such an exemption should be changed.
Additional Considerations
The MMA also wishes to urge the inclusion of additional policies in future versions of the bill. These policies are vetted and supported by the MMA’s membership and would meaningfully contribute towards the overarching goals of the Mass Ready Act. We suggest the Committee add the following policies:
Water Banking Bill
As you know, the environmental bond bill enables and authorizes the state to borrow money for long-term investments and initiatives. Cities and towns also need to be able to save and dedicate funds for public infrastructure projects, including for water system investments. The water banking legislation put forward by H. 2324 and S. 1443, An Act providing for the establishment of sustainable water resource funds, would provide necessary funding flexibility without overburdening local ratepayers or relying too heavily on the state or federal government for funding.
Water banking enables a city or town to collect reasonable fees to dedicate toward water infrastructure costs. With the inclusion of this language, municipalities would be able to collect funds and deposit them into a separate “Sustainable Water Resource Funds” account. This would enable those funds to be used for a wider range of eligible projects than cities and towns are able to currently pursue. Water banking especially is needed to support new development and new capital projects, a shared goal of the Administration, the Legislature, and our communities.
This practice is a common-sense addition to the environmental bond bill, enabling municipalities and their water districts to plan for long-term improvements, investments, and expansions of service.
Cost-Benefit Bill
Safeguards are needed to ensure that rules and regulations crafted by the state are sustainable and feasible for local governments, and that unfunded mandates are not imposed. We recommend the Legislature incorporate H. 1039 and S. 675, An Act to assist municipal and district ratepayers, to address new environmental regulations that pertain to water, wastewater, and stormwater. This legislation would require the EEA to complete a regulatory impact statement for each new rule, regulation, guidance document, or policy to guarantee that all stakeholders are fully informed about the financial implications, costs, and benefits of proposed environmental policy changes.
This legislation promotes good governance, empowering regulatory authorities within EEA as well as local governments to make informed decisions and better prepare for the future. Additionally, this cost-benefit analysis would help the Legislature to better allocate resources and guarantee regulations and rules are able to be smoothly implemented. Communities and the state must be able to understand not only the intent of new rules, but the shared financial responsibility of future rules.
Bottle Bill
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.
This policy aligns well with the overarching goals of the Mass Ready Act, and represents another non-controversial addition that cities and towns would be pleased to see enter this conversation.
In summary, your support and attention to the provisions of the Mass Ready Act that support local governments is greatly appreciated. We look forward to the work ahead to build on this initial proposal, and stand ready to facilitate conversations with municipal stakeholders, Committee members and staff, and members of the Legislature. 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 [email protected] at any time.
Sincerely,
Adam Chapdelaine
MMA Executive Director and CEO