MMA letter to House regarding economic development bill

Dear Representative,

On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association would like to offer comments on H. 4110, An Act Relative to Infrastructure Investment, Enhanced Competitiveness and Economic Growth in the Commonwealth. We thank you for your initiative in developing this important legislation to promote economic development, and improve and invest in infrastructure in our communities.

This is a sweeping initiative with 96 sections, offering a multi-faceted vision for economic development and job growth. In this letter, we will highlight support and suggestions on key provisions as they appear in the legislation.

First, the MMA would like to express its support for Section 35, the MassWorks Infrastructure Program, which would streamline access to state grant funds for a wide range of critical municipal infrastructure projects that leverage economic development, create jobs, grow local tax bases, and enhance the quality of life for residents across the Commonwealth.

Section 39 of the legislation would create a Local Infrastructure Development Program and grant municipalities the authority to establish targeted development zones in which predetermined infrastructure improvements would be funded, based on an advance agreement, by those within the zone. This is a thoughtful and innovative approach to bolstering investment in municipal infrastructure, and the MMA fully supports the concept. However, the development zones are broadly empowered to enter independently into contracts and agreements, and to make assessments on the members of the zone to finance improvements within the zone. In the absence of direct oversight or accountability to the host local government, this could result in unforeseen situations in which development zones could enter into fiscally challenging or risky situations, or encounter logistical impediments that stall construction. It is unclear how these situations would be resolved or handled. As this legislation progresses, the MMA requests that the broad granting of fiscal authority to the development zones be carefully examined due to the potential risks inherent with the structure. Greater clarity and accountability would enhance the proposal.

In addition, the MMA supports expanding the Local Infrastructure Development Program to make dam removal an eligible use of funds. There are nearly 3,000 dams across the Commonwealth, and many have exceeded their useful lifecycles, imposing substantial economic and environmental costs on municipalities. Allowing dam removal under this program would offer a significant and sensible opportunity for mitigation. We urge you to support the amendment filed by Rep. Stephen Kulik to allow dam removal through the LID Program.

Section 48 of H. 4110 offers an expanded definition of a priority development site under Chapter 43D, the state’s local-option expedited permitting law, to provide for the expedited permitting of residential developments. This change should only be prospective. Otherwise, adoption of this modification would NOT be a local option for communities that previously adopted Chapter 43D in order to provide expedited permitting for business and commercial ventures. While this is not intentional, the current wording would require those cities and towns that have accepted 43D to implement expedited permitting for residential developments. This should be a local-option decision, not a mandate.

We also endorse the expansion of the I-Cubed (Infrastructure Investment Incentive) program, in Sections 73, 74, 75, and 76. The legislation before you would allow more municipalities to access financing for essential infrastructure projects and has our full support. This program has been instrumental in allowing several successful major municipal development projects to go forward.

Finally, the MMA opposes sections 87 and 88, which would automatically extend most local permits by a period of two additional years beyond the two-year extension enacted in 2010, for a total unilateral extension of four years. The local governing processes already allow for discretionary permitting extensions on a case-by-case basis, with each extension based on the merits and viability of the individual development project. Blanket extensions are problematic in that they do not give consideration to any change in local conditions that may have occurred since the permit was originally granted. Ironically, allowing development projects to proceed past the original permit period could have the effect of artificially prolonging unviable projects, disallowing the permitting of new and more viable economic initiatives due to the local infrastructure capacity limits. We urge you to support the amendment filed by Rep. Stephen Kulik to strike these two sections.

Again, we deeply appreciate your commitment and dedication to our state’s economic recovery, and your recognition that cities and towns are vital partners in promoting and building a stronger economic future for the citizens of the Commonwealth. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions about this legislation and its impact on local government. Your office can be in touch with Catherine Rollins (crollins@mma.org) or John Robertson (jrobertson@mma.org) at (617) 426-7272 at any time.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director, MMA