MMA urges Senate to support municipal priorities while protecting essential local authority

Dear Senator,

We are writing to comment on the Senate’s development bill proposal, S. 3178, which provides many investments and provisions impacting municipalities in the Commonwealth. We greatly appreciate the dedicated work by so many on this bill, and for moving it forward for debate this Wednesday. S. 3178 includes many policies that build off of the framework of last session’s “Mass Leads Act,” providing programs and policies that aim to support community development and revitalize local economic hubs.

With more than $325 million in bonding authorizations and grants included in this bill, we believe the economic development investments proposed will help support our communities and ensure our cities and towns remain the best place to live and thrive.

Additionally, there are several policy changes proposed in this bill, and since many impact municipalities, you can understand the unique perspective cities and towns would have on these matters:

• Municipal control of liquor licenses: The MMA supports returning the control of liquor licenses to municipalities. This provision would allow municipalities, who best understand local needs and dynamics, to make their own determinations on the appropriate number of bar and restaurant liquor licenses for their communities.
• Site plan review: The MMA supports a standardized site plan review process. We understand the benefits of a uniform framework, which can create predictable and transparent timelines for all parties, including local officials, developers, and residents. This opportunity could assist all parties in moving projects from the drawing board to breaking ground more quickly and efficiently.
• Commercial conversion: The MMA supports accelerating the conversion of underutilized commercial properties and building upon the Commercial Conversion Tax Credit Initiative through an opt-in commercial conversion program. However, the MMA has concerns over language that could give preference to HousingWorks funding through section 27 ½ of Chapter 23B to communities that have adopted the commercial conversion program. HousingWorks funding is critical statewide for producing, preserving, and rehabilitating affordable housing. Prioritizing communities who have adopted the commercial conversion program could leave many communities further behind in their affordable housing work, essentially turning this incentive into a penalty for others who may not have feasible commercial conversion opportunities.
• Micromobility standards and definitions: The MMA supports the included definitions and provisions around micromobility devices. The clear and predictable speed tier classification system removes the guesswork for local law enforcement and municipal planners, and allows for sensible rules regarding who can operate these vehicles and where they can safely travel.
• Duplex housing by-right on residential lots: The MMA strongly opposes this provision in the bill. While we understand the need for housing across Massachusetts, we also know that the most effective way to build housing is through a partnership, not preemption. These types of carve outs undermine community-driven planning and remove the voice of residents in this important process. Allowing the development of duplex housing by-right on all residentially zoned lots bypasses standard community input, undermines elected municipal officials, and ignores infrastructure needs. Recent progress on federal housing legislation proves you can promote bipartisan housing supply solutions without preempting local government.
• Grant preference modifier: The MMA strongly opposes this provision establishing a preference modifier for grant applicants that have specific zoning or land use policies for all discretionary and competitive grant funding across all agencies. Municipalities craft local rules through a thorough public process, determining which such policies best fit in their community. This would subvert that process, weaken environmental standards and particularly harm rural communities that rely on regionalized partnerships.

In this letter, we welcome the opportunity to offer insights on proposed amendments during your deliberations this week. Please see below on two areas of amendments we know would empower municipal governments, local officials, and the residents they serve:

Modernizing Municipal Tools and Providing Administrative Relief
Please support and co-sponsor the following amendments, which would modernize various municipal practices while providing additional tools to streamline and update services, including:

• SUPPORT Amendments #117 and #327 (Modernizing Municipal Meetings)
  These amendments would permanently codify the existing remote meeting authorizations and allow municipalities that were already successfully utilizing the temporary authorization for their remote town meetings and caucuses to continue with remote participation.
• SUPPORT Amendments #92 and #32 (Chapter 30B Procurement Reforms and Cooperative Purchasing) These amendments would update Chapter 30B procurement law, allowing for the procurement of both goods and services, and bring all municipal purchases in line with the School Operational Efficiency Act passed in 2022, among other provisions. These commonsense updates would help to prevent unintentional errors and are reflective of the impact on costs from inflation.
• SUPPORT Amendment #166 (Municipal and Public Safety Building Authority Commission)
  This amendment would study a framework to create a state authority to assist municipalities with the construction of or improvements to public safety or municipal buildings and facilities, reflecting a significant need in each and every city and town.
• SUPPORT Amendment #114 (Double Poles)
  This amendment would create stronger enforcement mechanisms and a double pole municipal fund to speed up the removal of double poles.
• SUPPORT Amendment #159 (Legal Ads)
  This amendment would allow for the online posting of legal notices and public meeting notices, eliminating the need for municipalities to pay for costly print publishing.
• SUPPORT Amendment #181 (Municipal Operations)
  This amendment contains several technical and modernization updates to existing laws affecting municipal government operations, including allowing municipalities to expand property tax exemptions; increase the maximum bond terms from 30 to 40 years; grant towns and cities the ability to amortize emergency deficit spending; and eliminate redundant policies.
• SUPPORT Amendment #71 (Water Banking)
  This amendment would allow cities and towns to establish water, stormwater, and wastewater utility fees to support the cost of expanded or upgraded water infrastructure, protect public health, and meet federal Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act and other state and federal environmental requirements.

Local Housing Solutions
The number of amendments filed on this issue is itself instructive. We feel it reflects an understanding that broad state preemption of local zoning authority is not a precise policy tool. Housing challenges vary significantly across the Commonwealth, and communities need the flexibility to tailor solutions that account for local infrastructure, environmental constraints, and planning priorities while advancing the Commonwealth’s housing goals.

Please support and co-sponsor amendments that would maintain municipal control over local zoning and allow for practical reviews:

• SUPPORT Amendment #343 (Zoning Ordinance)
  This amendment would repeal the provision allowing by-right duplex housing on residential zoned lots.
• SUPPORT Amendment #286 (Preference Modifier Repeal)
  This amendment would repeal the grant preference modifier to ensure all municipalities have access to needed grant funding.
• SUPPORT Amendment #280 (Housing Production in Nonconforming Lots)
  This amendment would make technical changes to outside section 43 of the FY2027 budget to ensure consistency in definitions while also ensuring municipalities can enforce lot coverage and floor area limitation on nonconforming lots.
• SUPPORT Amendment #168 (Modernizing 40R Payments)
  This amendment would expand financial incentives for Smart Growth Zoning districts.

Further, we respectfully ask that you OPPOSE amendments that would further deride municipal decision making and authority:

• OPPOSE Amendment #135 (Parking Minimums)
  This amendment would restrict parking minimums on new developments, as well as residential senior and assisted living communities. This blanket policy does not reflect the reality or needs of many residents or their local elected officials.
• OPPOSE Amendment #326 (By-Right Subdivision)
  This amendment would strip local planning boards of their discretionary approval power for specific types of residential subdivisions, bypassing the traditional, rigorous review needed to ensure that local water, sewer, and electric grids can handle a sudden increase in density.
• OPPOSE Amendment #372 (Expanding ADUs By-Right)
  By making this “technical” correction, this amendment would expand the ADU law to all residential districts, greatly expanding where ADUs would be allowed by right.

SUMMARY
Thank you for your attention to the municipal perspective on these issues and for your ongoing work. With your partnership, municipalities are eager to find locally-driven solutions to support economic growth across the Commonwealth.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to have your office contact me, MMA Senior Executive and Legislative Director Dave Koffman at [email protected], or Legislative and Policy Counsel Ali DiMatteo at [email protected] at any time.

Sincerely,

Adam Chapdelaine
Executive Director & CEO