Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable Joseph F. Wagner, House Chair
The Honorable Stephen M. Brewer, Senate Chair
The Honorable Ann-Margaret Ferrante, House Vice Chair
The Honorable Gale D. Candaras, Senate Vice Chair
The Honorable Susan Gifford, Ranking House Member
The Honorable Donald F. Humason, Jr., Ranking Senate Member
Joint Conference Committee on the Economic Development Legislation (H. 4181 & S. 2241)
State House, Boston
Dear Chairman Wagner, Chairman Brewer, Representative Ferrante, Senator Candaras, Representative Gifford and Senator Humason,
On behalf of cities and towns across the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association is writing to express our strong support for many provisions in H. 4181 and S. 2241, the important economic development legislation advanced by the House of Representatives and Senate. We thank you for initiating this vital measure to promote economic development, improve and invest in infrastructure in our communities, and expand workforce development opportunities for our residents. As you know, the economy of Massachusetts is only as strong as the economies of its cities and towns, and we appreciate your work and ongoing partnership to craft legislation that helps realize the economic potential of all communities across the Commonwealth.
Local Control of Liquor Licenses
One of the most important proposals is the provision in S. 2241 to remove the statutory limitation on the number of liquor licenses that a municipality can issue. Under current law, a municipality that has reached the statutory cap on liquor licenses may issue no further liquor licenses without going through a home rule petition process requiring state legislative approval. This process is both time-consuming and cumbersome at both the local and state levels, and often proves incapable of moving swiftly enough to meet local demand.
The existing state-set statutory cap system is inefficient and ineffective, and hurts economic development planning across the Commonwealth. New liquor license approvals are frequently delayed by the current system, and new restaurants, bars, hotels, or other hospitality-related entities often delay their openings, or open and operate at less than full capacity as they await their licenses. These delays have negative implications beyond the businesses themselves – restaurants play a key role in the revitalization of neighborhoods and increasingly serve as anchor tenants in large-scale retail or mixed-use developments of regional significance, generating tax revenue at the local and state levels. Delays in the liquor license issuance process are bad for business and bad for the local economy.
By lifting statutory caps, this provision in the Senate bill would allow a municipality, at local discretion, to create a plan for the number of liquor licenses that it deems appropriate, eliminating the need for time-consuming home rule petitions. This would allow municipalities to have greater control over local
economic development, allowing each municipality to consider the scale and scope of the needs of its population, its tourism sector, and its future development plans. We note that the final Senate language is
balanced and reasonable, making it clear that new licenses granted by cities and towns under the legislation would be non-transferable, ensuring that currently held transferable licenses would retain their value and
remain unique from the new structure. This is an outstanding and wise balance. Local control of liquor licenses is a key priority for local officials and the MMA, and we applaud its inclusion in the bill, and ask the conference committee to adopt the Senate language.
We also ask you to please support the Senate provisions to grant the City of Boston the ability to appoint its own liquor licensing board, and move forward with additional license approvals. Every other municipality in the Commonwealth has this ability, except for the City of Boston. As an issue of equity, please support the transfer of this important decision to the local level in our capital city.
Preserving Municipal Authority in Siting Wireless Antennas
We also underscore our urgent request to NOT include industry-backed proposals that would weaken local authority in the siting of wireless antennas and equipment. Please refer to our detailed comments on this issue in our separate letter of July 15, 2014. The language before the conference committee (Sections 74 and 75 of H. 4181) would allow telecom companies, third-party tower developers, and development speculators to place wireless antennas and equipment on virtually any building or structure in any location in any community, overriding municipal zoning bylaws and ordinances, and eroding the local authority that cities and towns exercise to protect neighborhoods from unsightly and intrusive antennas. The telecommunications industry has moved to fast-track this far-reaching language, even though the FCC will soon release national uniform standards for the collocation of wireless antennas and equipment which are expected to include the industry priority of a time-limited expedited application process. The Legislature should not act on this issue until after the FCC releases its uniform national standards later this year, and we ask you to reject this telecom industry language, and support the important role that cities and towns have in protecting the public interest.
Expansion of I-Cubed
The expansion of the I-Cubed (Infrastructure Investment Incentive) program would allow more municipalities to access financing for essential infrastructure projects in support of high-value developments. This successful program has proven instrumental to several major municipal development projects. Under current law, a municipality may have no more than three I-Cubed development projects, and the program may expend no more than $325 million on all projects. H. 4181 and S. 2241 would raise the number of allowed projects in any municipality to eight, and increase the amount of total allowable program spending to $600 million.
Brownfields Redevelopment Fund Recapitalization
Brownfields redevelopment funding continues to drive the environmental cleanup of contaminated land, transforming dangerous, harmful and compromised sites to safe, positive and productive use as part of key redevelopment projects. H. 4181 and S. 2241 would add $10 million to the Brownfields Redevelopment Fund, allowing for the remediation of more sites in more municipalities. We ask you to build on the longstanding success of this program and support this additional capital commitment.
Economic Development Incentive Program Changes
Economic Development Incentive Program (EDIP) projects receive tax incentives for job creation, manufacturing job retention, and private investment commitments, promoting business development and employment in cities and towns. Under current law, projects must be located in designated Economic Target Areas (ETAs) or Economic Opportunity Areas (EOAs) in order to qualify for the incentives. However, these designations are outdated and limit state support for projects that would otherwise qualify. H. 4181 and S. 2133 would remove the requirement that EDIP projects be located in ETA or EOA areas, thus expanding the reach of the program statewide.
Gateway Cities Transformative Redevelopment Fund
In order to support large-scale transformative development projects in Gateway Cities, H. 4181 and S. 2133 would create a Transformational Development Fund at MassDevelopment. This fund would
support equity investments and technical assistance, and assist in the creation of collaborative workspaces to jumpstart revitalization and redevelopment efforts in Gateway Cities. The House bill would capitalize this innovative program with $17 million, while S. 2241 would provide $10 million. We urge you to invest $17 million, so that this program can leverage support and resources in more communities, and have maximum impact.
Expanded Housing Development Incentive Program
Incentive programs provide important tools to leverage the creation of a vibrant array of housing in many Gateway Cities. H. 4181 and S. 2133 would expand the Housing Development Incentive Program (HDIP), offering developers in Gateway Cities tax credits of up to 10 percent for market-rate and mixed-income housing units. In addition, the credits would double from $5 million to $10 million for the next four years, a meaningful increase that would certainly lead to the development of more housing.
Local Seat on the Economic Assistance Coordinating Council
Under both the House and Senate bills, the Massachusetts Office of Business Development (MOBD) will house an Economic Assistance Coordinating Council (EACC) comprised of members from sectors including business development, housing and community development, career services, labor and workforce development, as well as gubernatorial appointees. Each gubernatorial appointee must have expertise in issues pertaining to training, business relocation, and inner-city and rural economic development. The Senate bill (in Section 18) would require that at least one gubernatorial appointee to the EACC be a municipal official, and we ask that you include this important language in the final bill.
Technical Language Change to Preserve MassWorks Eligibility for All Cities and Towns
The highly successful MassWorks grant program offers competitive funding for catalytic infrastructure investments in cities and towns across the state, serving as a primary source of state investment for major development projects. Both the House and Senate bills include language specifying the purpose of the program and the types of development projects that are eligible to receive funding. However, there is a significant difference between the two versions due one small word change: in line 775 of H. 4181, the House uses the word “or” when completing the list of eligible project categories, and in line 886 of S. 2242 the Senate uses the word “and” to complete the list of eligible project categories. The result is that the Senate bill would limit all MassWorks projects only to those involving “transit-oriented housing located within .5 miles of a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station, at least 25 per cent of which shall be affordable.” MassWorks has been a tremendously important program that has assisted municipalities of all sizes with a broad range of public infrastructure projects. The Senate language would unintentionally narrow future project eligibility dramatically, and eliminate hundreds of communities from participation in the program. We respectfully ask that the final bill include the House language, connecting the program eligibility criteria with the word “or” to preserve the MassWorks program as a key resource for local economic development.
Summary
We know that you and your colleagues in the Legislature are committed and dedicated to building a strong, healthy and thriving Massachusetts economy, and we respectfully ask you to embrace the strongest possible bill to support economic growth in our communities. The municipally-focused measures outlined above, particularly local control of liquor licenses, would bring real growth and opportunity to our cities and towns and support the residents and businesses of the Commonwealth, and we urge you to include these provisions in your final bill. At the same time, we ask you to oppose any effort to erode or undermine local decision-making authority on the siting of wireless facilities, as these provisions would weaken the state-local partnership by weakening the municipal role that is necessary to protect communities and neighborhoods. We urge you to wait until the FCC acts, as noted above.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to have your staff contact me, John Robertson or Catherine Rollins of the MMA staff at (617) 426-7272 at any time.
Thank you again for your important work on this legislation to promote economic development, improve our infrastructure, and invest in our communities.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director, MMA