2025-04-08 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Revenue

SPEAKER1 - Massachusetts Cranberry Revitalization Task Force. The objective of which was to examine the status of the6 industry and the complex challenges ahead, and to develop a multi pronged10 action plan geared towards stabilizing and
separated from Chapter 61. Developing renewable energy on land separated from chapter 61 a. The key provisions of this bill allow the farmer landowner to separate land from the provisions of chapter 61 a without requiring a municipal right of first refusal prior to separation. The farmer ultimately will be able to maintain ownership rights without the threat of a forced sale. It also eliminates the 5 year rollback or conveyance tax requirement, allowing the farmer to reinvest in their business operations as opposed to making a payment to the municipality. The positive impacts include helping the farmer generate income to support their agricultural activities, while generating clean local electricity in support of the Commonwealth's clean energy and climate goals. The other positive impact is generating tax revenue for the town. Separated land will be subject to real estate taxes and personal property taxes Last
session
Last session, an identical pill was reported out favorably, by the Joint Revenue Committee. It was a a bill that was sponsored by former senator Sue Moran and co sponsored by my predecessor, representative Bill Strauss. I strongly urge the committee's support of this bill. Thank you.
SPEAKER2 - Great. Thank you, representative. Alright. Good morning. Just for
SPEAKER3 - a little background, this was designed from the task force to help primary farmers, provide another source of income. It would not be taking away property that is in agricultural land, so this is adjacent land that's not in production. It is applicable to all of our culture, but I'm speaking just for cranberry. So the idea behind it was to help generally small to135 mid sized growers who are looking to put137 in a relatively small sized139 array. We're not talking a 40 acre swath here. We're talking something to kinda supplement their farm that will just provide enough residual income to help keep their whole farm more sustainable. So that that's149 the genesis behind it.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you.
SPEAKER4 - Well, good155 morning, chair Eldridge, chair Madrow, and members of the committee. Thank you159 very much for the opportunity to speak to you on this bill this morning. Again, my name is Kate Daniel.165 I'm the Northeast Regional Director of the Coalition for Community Solar Access or CCSA. We're a national coalition of, businesses and organizations that build, own,175 and operate community solar projects. We work across the country on on designing programs and policies to ensure access to solar and make sure that those programs are designed effectively to meet multiple goals and address multiple stakeholder issues. Here in the Commonwealth, land use is a big concern around how we meet both our climate and clean energy goals as well as make sure that we meet our conservation and agricultural land use goals. I think this bill is a major important step in the right direction of of striking that balance. As we think about how we can best protect and improve our conservation of critical habitat and prime farmland, we need to think about how we reduce barriers to being able to develop solar on suitable sites. The separation from land on on 61 a protections would indeed allow us to to build solar on suitable sites in conjunction with active farming operations and remove the penalties and barriers for doing so. Putting renewable energy on, farm properties is a really important tool for farmers to be able to maintain control on their land and keep their land and keep it in farming operations. The supplemental revenue from land leases for solar projects and other renewable energy projects can make ends meet in really tough economic situations for farmers. And so we see a really important synergy in being able to use these properties effectively and removing that right of first refusal and and the rollback taxes are important steps in being able to do that effectively. So I urge the committee to support this bill, and, thank you very much for your time and consideration.
SPEAKER2 - Great. Thank you very much, miss Daniel. And I'm just curious, with respect to your organization, have you done projects that have put solar on on farms or adjacent to farms?
SPEAKER4 - Yeah. Our our members have. Several of our members are working, specifically on agrivoltaics projects that really look at active farm use integrated into the solar project. But others are looking at, you know, taking some of that marginal land on farm properties, dedicating that towards a solar operation, which allows the rest of the the property to remain in active farm use.
SPEAKER2 - Okay. Excellent. Excellent. Do any members of the committee have questions? Yes. Yes, mister chairman. Thank you, senator. Mister Wigt, you mentioned that you're not talking about 40 acres. Do you have a a size of the land restriction in mind?
SPEAKER3 - I don't have a size of my because I I don't I feel that it this is something that, through the process, we need to figure out whether it's a percentage of land or a certain megawatt. So I'm not recommending a particular size. I think that's something that should be probably cleared up with people who know more than I about what that best would work. Because there's a certain size that the solar developers are gonna want in order to make it profitable for them. There's a certain amount of land that the agricultural people probably don't wanna give up, so you gotta find that balance. So I think that'll be all part of the conversation. But I just wanna make sure it was clear we're not talking these big solar fields where this is more of a niche that we're looking at here. At least that's the intent.
SPEAKER2 - Any other questions? Yes,
SPEAKER5 - Well, my question is, the next. We have 6 farms, 1 of this, my Orchard. They have solar panels,396 and they use the solar panels to redo the high cost of electricity. They say they save thousands of dollars every year. The the high cost of electricity406 is harming farmers across the country, especially here in Massachusetts. Massachusetts, the best place to to be farm. However, I
SPEAKER3 - don't know
SPEAKER5 - if you remember the first thing we have, sir. We pass we tried to pass a constitutional amendment to reduce the the from 5425 acres to to make less than428 that for, a lot to430 be considered farmland. And I believe that be a nice way434 for farmers to certify land as farming438 farmland. And is is this farmland? Doesn't matter. If they use part of that, solar panels to reduce the high cost of energy, and so, therefore, the cost of producing whatever they produce, whatever they're planting, so they can use that to reduce cost. If they use some land to another industry produce energy, they're no longer farmers. And we're talking about farm. I don't know all about helping them.465 That's why I'm I'm considering that467 constitutional amendment, you know, helping them to remove that limit 5 acres. So this is farmland. I'm all in favor so they they can use whatever tools they need to go green, to have solar panels, to do the high cost of energy. Farmers only gets 96¢ for each dollar they invest in487 land and all in favor of farmers. But when you target the industry in trying to get them to separate lots to enter another495 industry, unlike the labor of farmers, because they don't wanna be the farmers no499 more. They're entering another industry. It's a totally different industry, and leaving them as farmers is not fair. So I my question is, how your organization, make what what make them attractive? Is it because they have a little land? How you target that industry? How we can make sure? Like, this is gonna be exploited. Like,521 farmers trust in industry, and then then they don't have having to pay a higher tax bill. And when they have all the venue to do it, like, just when we pass the constitutional amendment, if532 you pass, they can just put some apartments if534 they do the head cost of electricity. Can you locate me with that?
SPEAKER3 - We always want this to be a farming first mentality. That's approach that we've taken with this. And that the primary purpose of that land needs to be farming, and that needs to continue. So the552 if there was to be a solar component to it, it would really need to be adjacent and secondary to its primary purpose of being a farm. And that's why the size, I think, is gonna be important that you can't have the scale tipped so much that now the major income stream is becoming the alternative energy and not the farm. So that I think that's gonna be important piece of this if this if this is to move forward to find that balance so that it still remains a farm first proposition. The idea about the alternative energy is another income stream to supplement, not to replace or displace that farming operation. I think589 that's the important component in591 in my view. And in Massachusetts, we're in the highest 1 of the highest cost farming regions. So in in cranberries, in particular, my expertise, we are the highest cost growing region in North America for growing cranberries. So it puts us at an economic our growers at an economic disadvantage. And that's just the facts and then that's just the way it is. But this615 type of program will help those growers617 compete with the other growing regions619 because they can have that opportunity for621 another income stream. And we're not talking the majority growers. This is gonna be really a a niche opportunity. Not everyone's gonna participate in this. Not every farm is gonna have the land, the connection to 3 way power that's needed. There's a lot of constraints already built into demographics and the geographics
SPEAKER5 - that we're doing. I'm all about farmers, but they're gonna be entering a another industry that had nothing to do with farming. They're gonna be entering the energy industry. They they don't know nothing about it. They don't be it's totally opposed to what they do. You know? Planting, growing food that we go and buy. That's what they do. That's what they love to do. The energy industry is a different animal. So in in and I don't know. They don't know. That they look they cannot control. So I'm afraid of of that. Like, splitting and, like, having to do a deed, splitting the land. You know, it's676
SPEAKER3 - Many of our farmers have off farm income already. That's this is just another way of looking at it. And so many of the cranberry growers majority of our cranberry growers are not full time cranberry growers. They they don't make enough money at that, so they have other jobs. This is in effect, like, another job. It's a it's an income stream in this case. So it's just an opportunity to help them keep their farm as a farm because they're getting that consistent revenue stream from the solar. I I get your point. I see what you're saying, but that's
SPEAKER5 - I guess the housing industry, we can't come here with the same argument. We can separate it so they can build housing, and then we have the same argument. They can have income building housing, and then we have the same argument. That's what I'm meaning. Like, we, as a state, we have, give grants to some farmer just to make sure they keep farmland as farm, not to use it for other business purpose. In Metul, we have done that. We did that with the Monango family. We have done that with my ultra many other farmers in in the 200%. And and I take pride of protecting my farmers. So that that's739 what I'm saying. Like, if we're gonna go to another industry, you know, like, that's totally different. And Massachusetts, we take pride of that. Historically, we have done that. Protecting farmland to remain farmland.
SPEAKER3 - Right. Absolutely. In the case of cranberry, because cranberry bogs are they're a wetland. They're unique. It's the rest of their757 land that is not being farmed in cranberries.759 That's where this proposed alternative energy would be going. It would not be going on the farmland. So the actual farmland would not be going away. And it would just be utilizing the support land that is just providing no income, giving them another income stream on land that they have. Did you join us?
SPEAKER1 - Yeah. No. I was I was just gonna make the same comment is that in particularly in the case of the cranberry industry, the bogs will continue to operate. That's you can't put solar over bogs unless it's dual use, and that's a different opportunity for farmers. But in this case, for cranberry growers, I think it's up to 50% of the land that's held in '61 a can be accessory land under the 5 acre requirement. And so what we're talking about is that accessory land that otherwise is not used for the actual farming of cranberries that they would utilize. We'd separate that from 61. The farmer would still own the land. The developer owner operator would own the solar system and pay lease revenue back to the farmer. So the farmer would still retain that land.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you. Amber Simcaster.824
SPEAKER6 - Thank you. I think you actually just answered my question. I do have a lot of agricultural lands, and I appreciate your
farmer first, look at this. And I think you just answered my question. My question was, does the farmer or property owner still need to main to still need to keep it under common ownership as the agricultural land? And if that, if they were to sell what was leased or used849 as, energy, would they then trigger the, the 61 a provisions of right855 of first refusal at that point if it was sold in the future under what you're thinking about?
SPEAKER3 - That's that would be how I862 would think. If it's not written that way currently, I think it probably should be in that if it goes from868 into solar and then something else, that that's when the town should have their right of first refusal.
SPEAKER6 - So the community would be able to have that opportunity as well.
SPEAKER3 - That's that's what I think is
SPEAKER7 - the fairs. Yeah. Okay.
SPEAKER4 - Thank you very much.
SPEAKER2 - Great. And I would just note in in the district I represent, which, has a large, many889 apple orchards is that 1 of the farms at Carlson Apple Carlson Orchards, several years ago built solar on, I'd say, less than an acre, and it cove it now covers 90% of the energy needs of the farm. So it's basically saved the family farm from perhaps, you know, being developed or turned into housing or something. So, senator Rausch, did you have
SPEAKER5 - a question?
SPEAKER6 - Thanks, mister chair.
SPEAKER8 - I'm wondering why917 why solar919 as distinct from anything else. Right? Why should we offer this particular benefit for the for the depositing of creation of solar or as distinct from, say, water for your pure fuel. These are all needs like, there's obviously a nexus as as the chair the good chair just, you know, cited an936 example of where farms need power. Right? Farms need power to be able to operate. This is true for for all of our agricultural942 businesses throughout the state. And many of them have relied on on solar, and many of them can948 can produce a lot of solar.
But why it's not just energy that they need. They also need clean water, and they956 need need housing for people957 who come and work. And so why should959 we provide this for solar only as opposed to any of the other needs of our agricultural businesses?
SPEAKER1 - I can start. So the bill actually refers to renewable energy, and it states the specific statute that defines renewable energy. So it's not just solar conceivably. It could be a wind turbine or another renewable energy technology defined under statute.
SPEAKER9 - Mhmm.
SPEAKER1 - But in this instance, the the and and Brian can speak in more detail about the report that came out from the Cranberry Growers Task Force, which specifically identified renewable energy as a priority, that this is an opportunity to meet multiple goals, the agricultural goals of the Commonwealth, generate clean1002 energy, and provide a revenue source. And so those were the reasons why this bill, I think, was prioritized by the cranberry growers, but I'll let Brian speak in more detail.
SPEAKER3 - Yeah. That that's really it. It was during the task force hearings, we1016 had a few growers who came in who were having challenges looking to put some solar on their adjacent land, and and they were running into right of first refusal issues and and things like that. So that was the, genesis behind it. Because Cranberry Land is suited well and I'm I'm speaking solar, but it it could be wind, etcetera. But solar is an easier avenue, more accept generally accepted. So the the solar opportunities were quite large because of the way that the cranberry bogs are relatively open. The adjacent land is already cleared of trees. There's a lot of positive aspects where you could put in a solar array, not have to take trees down, clear a forest, to do some of those things. So it's it was set up nicely. So it was really more of an opportunity than necessarily looking to shut out other opportunities that there's not a lot of options for in Cranberry Land just due to the way it's built, you know, the the, geology behind it. So it in this particular case, alternative energy and solar and specificity, fits well.
SPEAKER8 - Yeah. I've I've been to the Cranberry Box myself. Right? I've taken a tour and even gone in with the waiters on and and harvested some myself. So I, you know, was chair of the environmental, and and, formally, we had agriculture within the scope of that committee. Mhmm.
But I so the I'm I'm still kind of left with the question. Right? And and, you know, why the bill as it's written unless I'm misunderstanding it, which is entirely possible. And if I am, I encourage you to please correct me. You know, it is limited to energy as opposed to any of the other needs agricultural businesses.
SPEAKER10 - Yeah. It is.
SPEAKER8 - I understand it. Or, you know, a a sort of related a related question. Right? This came from the Cranberry Growers Task Force. Where what are the, what are the positions of the agricultural sectors of Massachusetts on this legislation? I
SPEAKER1 - do you know I can see yeah. The I1130 know the farm bureau is gonna be meeting on this in May. We've also we're also inquiring with the farmland trust to get their feedback
agricultural communities. I know this is a bill that's been filed in multiple sessions, and so we can certainly go back and see what the position has been in
SPEAKER9 - the past, but we're actively
SPEAKER1 - in conversations with the past, but we're actively in conversations with the Farm Bureau and the Farmland Trust.
SPEAKER8 - Okay. But the Farm Bureau, at least to my recollection, doesn't you know, that is a a government entity and not an advocacy organization for the growers themselves. The Massachusetts Farm Bureau represents the
SPEAKER1 - agricultural community, and they're usually 1 of the interest groups that we would turn to to get their feedback.
SPEAKER8 - Okay. And what about the, you know, maple syrup folks? They're they're busy right now. And, you know, the apple apple orchards and the the peach growers and other sorts of agro I mean, our agricultural businesses in Massachusetts are quite extensive. More extensive than most of us realize.
SPEAKER3 - Yeah. I think as as this moves through its process, I think those groups will need to weigh in accordingly. It was a cranberry specific proposal initially and came out of the cranberry task force. And somewhere along the line, the decision was made to open up to all of ag. I mean, ultimately, if all of ag is not interested and we wanna make it cranberry specific, I suppose we could do that1215 as well, because I don't wanna1217 speak for the other sectors of ag. But for, again, for cranberries in1221 particular, it sets up nicely because our non ag land, our adjacent land is is just useless land, so to speak. It's open space and all those benefits. But, I mean, from a revenue stream, it has no value. So putting something on it that provides value works. Other farms may may not have that that same model.
SPEAKER11 - Mhmm. Okay.
SPEAKER8 - And what's the impact of this on the ecosystems?
SPEAKER3 - In my estimation, people who know solar better can speak to it, but, I don't think there should be any impact other than you you're driving some stakes in the ground to put the solar panels up. But short of that, it's it's passive energy development. Would you
SPEAKER4 - Yeah. I mean, of of course, any solar or renewable energy development would still need to go through the proper permitting processes to make sure that all, you know, water runoff issues are addressed appropriately and, that the site is graded appropriately and and the like. But, you know, those are manageable impacts that, in net, you know, we find to have a a good footprint on on the or a good impact on the footprint.
SPEAKER8 - Sorry. I'm I'm not sure I understand what a good impact on the footprint means.
SPEAKER4 - The in net that it's it is a ecological benefit and a a reliable and beneficial use of the land.
SPEAKER8 - Okay. And is wildlife included in those, reviews?
SPEAKER6 - Yeah. Okay.
SPEAKER8 - Yep. So and out of curiosity, I can't imagine that we're actually at this point. But, if at some point down the line,
the owner let's say we put this into place and or or even the the farms that's that already have this, the ag land that already has solar. They wanna convert it back to usable agricultural land. Is that possible?
SPEAKER4 - Yeah. I think that is 1 way in which, you know, solar is a different land use than, say, housing or other more permanent uses of the land that are harder to reverse back to the original source. Okay.
SPEAKER1 - Yeah. And I'll I'll just mention with all solar projects, there's decommissioning languages, decommissioning bonds, which speaks specifically to that and the cost associated with taking the system removing the system from the site.
SPEAKER8 - Yeah. Okay. Thanks very much. And representative, congratulations and and welcome. We have good chance to connect since you're
SPEAKER11 - a win. Thank you, senator.
SPEAKER5 - Just rep Sylvia. Just give
SPEAKER9 - me 1 second.
SPEAKER2 - I just wanna write a senator Keenan's here. Thank you, senator. Yes, representative?
SPEAKER5 - Absolutely. Thank you so much. Welcome to the house. Just a quick question. You just said, if they're gonna reverse back to the farm, ma'am, they can. But out of curiosity, please, when you've researched more, tell me what what are the terms of those solar panels leases because they go for 20, 30 years, and they wanna reverse back. Those leases cannot be terminated. So how can I reverse back when those farmers may not have the money to terminate those leases? And they don't own the the the1407 the all the energy generated with those solar panels. And when they plant when they when they are planting any crop, they own the product. They don't own the electricity. They just get a residual. So I want more information about it. How much what's the percentage of the energy that they generate with that with that that they're gonna really own? And what's the length of those contract? Because when we're talking about speeding, I don't wanna know for how long they're gonna be on the hook for those leases if they really, really, legally can1438 go back and convert that land into finance again. You know? Like, we're talking about contracts and and no contract that restricted, they cannot terminate and and and contract that have restriction of transferability. We can just say, okay. They can't revert to that. What about those leases? So the conversation has to be more comprehensive. We need more information. Please provide us.
SPEAKER3 - And we can certainly look to get more information. There's gonna be some site specificity with each proposal as as it moves forward, but we can look to get a little bit more comprehensive data.
SPEAKER1 - Yeah. No. And I I would say, typically, you have a 20 year lease term with 2 5 year extensions. That's kind of the typical depending on the array. Many times, it's a situation where it's a community solar project where the electrons that are generated from that site are actually, credits that go to homeowners possibly in the area, in the local area, but certainly in the utility load zone. So there's a benefit if it's a community solar project. It may not be. It may just be simply sending the electricity into the grid and then getting compensated for that. But it's typically 20 year leases with 2 5 year extensions is what a a typical solar project is in the industry today.
SPEAKER2 - Great. Any other questions from committee members? Real quick, senator. I wanna, first of all, congratulate representative Sylvia. Welcome to the house, and congrats on, your first official testimony
SPEAKER9 - Thank you.
SPEAKER5 - To the representative. I will.
SPEAKER2 - I also wanna recognize, committee vice chair for the house representative David Litsky. Thank you.
SPEAKER12 - Great. Thank you.
SPEAKER2 - Great. Thank you so much for coming for the committee. Thank you. The next bill we have testimony on is senate 2 0 0 9, enact relative to regional transportation ballot initiatives filed by senator Cindy Friedman. And I believe we have,1552 Pete Wilson from Transportation for Mass and Georgia Barlow from MAPC.
While folks1560 are coming up, I just wanna recognize, representative Gomez. Thank you
for being here. Good morning.
SPEAKER5 - Good morning.
SPEAKER11 - Good morning, chair Eldridge, chair Mataro, and members of the committee. My name is Georgia Barlow. I'm here on behalf of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, which is the regional planning agency for Greater Boston. We serve 101 cities in the Greater Boss cities and towns in the Greater Boston region and work, daily to create a more safe, efficient, reliable transportation system for each of these cities and towns, knowing that it is really the backbone of our economy here. MAPC has long supported legislation to enable a regional ballot initiatives in Massachusetts. These would enable any municipality or groups of municipalities to
local and regional transportation projects. Things like transit design, transportation programs, road and bridge construction, bikeways, pathways, a variety of these projects. These revenue raising options are as flexible as possible because we know what works in 1 community might not work in another municipality. For example, a sales tax might make sense in 1 city or town, whereas a local room occupancy might make more sense in another town. And we want local municipalities to be able to make those decisions for themselves. Across most of the country, regional initiatives are regularly used to finance transportation projects ranging from road repairs to public transit expansions. In the 20 24 elections, across the country, 46 out of 53 RBIs were approved by their municipalities. These range from lower income areas to higher income areas and have been used to implement a variety of different projects. Flagstaff, Arizona will be electrifying their bus fleet1670 as a in response to the passage of an RBI. Regions throughout Michigan renewed operations for their regional transit authorities. And in Colorado, they will actually be building a gondola to give free transportation from 1 town to another using RBI. So really, it could look a variety of different ways. Across the country, cities and towns are joining together for limited periods of time to invest in these projects of local or regional significance. But in Massachusetts, we're unable to do that, often operating with 1 hand tied behind our backs, to make these local contributions to projects that the municipality wants to see. The inability to propose these types of infrastructure and transit revenue sources is really glaring in the face of federal transportation cuts that we are already seeing. At MAPC, we've already experienced a loss of federal transportation grants, and we expect that there will be more to come and that there will be fewer opportunities for our municipalities to apply for federal funding in the next few years. This type of revenue raising option is common throughout the rest of the country. Municipalities and cities and states are going to be relying on these options in other states, and we really see this as the moment for Massachusetts to also ensure that we have this ability, this tool to, be able to create
SPEAKER9 - and provide resources for1744 our
SPEAKER11 - for our for our residents. Our cities and towns really just need this1750 ability to raise local dollars, invest in their communities, and be a partner to the state in these times. I will just note that we often hear about residents not wanting to raise1760 taxes for broad based region reasons. But RBIs really allow municipalities and residents to know exactly where their money is going, how it's going to be spent, and kind of adds that level of transparency that makes it easier for people to hold the money accountable and ensure that that project is really something that community wants. I will just say that we, across the board, know we need more tools for transportation and infrastructure finance, and we think this is an important part of that larger system. We don't think this should be the only option on the table. We encourage this committee to think broadly about increasing the availability of different tools to raise revenue throughout the Commonwealth. So MAPC will be submitting testimony written testimony with, additional information about what's happening in our communities and how we've heard from, both mayors and town managers how they would like to use this option if it were available to them, and we're happy to answer any other questions. I'll pass it to Pete.
SPEAKER5 - Thank you.
SPEAKER12 - I'm gonna be brief because she took most of my talking points. So, thank you for, having me, chair Eldrigine, chair Matero, members of the committee. My name is Pete Wilson. I'm senior policy director at Transportation for Math. T for Math is a statewide coalition of community based organizations, transportation advocates, and others who work to improve, transportation so residents can thrive. As my colleague pointed out, RVIs are widely used across the country, as a way to raise local transportation revenue. I wanna point out a couple of things. This is not a revenue raising bill. This does not raise any revenue. It simply allows municipalities the tools to do so. If they choose not to use this tool, nothing changes. If the ballot initiatives are defeated, which, as she said, most of them are approved, nationwide, Again, nothing changes, and it gives, cities and towns the flexibility to choose which revenue sources and for how long because there are sunset provisions in the bill about, you know, once the the project is over, etcetera, the the, the appropriation, for lack of a better term, goes away. And then I also wanna point out that just in the in the broader context of transportation funding statewide, the governor's transportation funding task force did an examination of comparatives across the country to other states, including Minnesota, Colorado, North Carolina, etcetera. And while the task force chose not to, support or focus on any future revenues or other revenue sources beyond what we're currently, collecting. 1 of the provisions and 1 of the staples of the report was to enhance revenue streams by reviewing and updating streams that fund transportation for the future. So we believe
that, there's a couple of different things. Like, she mentioned some provisions. Just more recently, in November 2020, voters approved Project Connect in Austin, Texas to raise 7,000,000,000 to improve mobility in the region through adding new rail lines, cap metro rapid lines, and more services across the city. Voters in Richland County, South Carolina improved a measure in 2024 that would renew a 1% tax called the penny tax and generate 4 and a half billion over 25 years for road bridges and pedestrian projects. And voters in Nashville improved a half cent increase to the sales tax to prod to fund, the Nashville's choose how you move transportation, which includes sidewalks, transit, bus service, and other things. So, happy to answer any questions, and I really appreciate, the time and, for you having us.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you. Great. Thank you both. Are there questions from the committee? Questions? Okay. We're we're all set. Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate you coming for the committee. The next bill that we have, individuals testify on is senate 19 22, an act relative to the Massachusetts Fund for vulnerable communities most affected by climate change, filed by senator Michael Barrett. And we have a panel, 1 person in Virgil Virgil, Keith Bergman and Larry Yu in person. Good morning.
SPEAKER9 - Good morning.
SPEAKER13 - Good morning.
SPEAKER9 - My colleague, mister Bergman, should be joining remotely, and I believe he was gonna speak first.
SPEAKER2 - If you I think I just heard him. Yes. So I don't know if you want him to speak or you'd like to speak. I think
SPEAKER9 - he can kick off. Thank you. Very good.
SPEAKER2 - Go ahead, Keith.2031
SPEAKER13 - Thank thanks so much. Thanks2033 so much, chair Eldridge, chair, Madero, and members of the committee. My name is Keith Bergman. I'm a, Concord, resident, a retired, town manager speaking today as part of a panel from the Climate Reality Projects Boston Metro chapter. Larry, you and I are here. We're both, former chairs, and we're here to urge the committee's favorable action on Senate Bill 19 22, which would allow donations to a Massachusetts fund for vulnerable communities most affected by climate change. This bill, filed by my state senator Mike Barrett, supports combating the climate crisis around the world by establishing a model, for the nation, for enabling state taxpayer donations to the United Nations Least Developed Countries Fund. In fact, without this legislation, there's no way for state tax taxpayers to make private donations to the UN's fund. Let me thank this committee, for having favorably reported this bill out in each of the last 3 legislative sessions. And the stakes are higher this year with the recent dismantling of USAID. The needs of these, 44 least developed countries on the UN's list have never been more acute. So by passing this bill this year, Massachusetts can make a real difference. Since its creation, the UN's fund has supported over 4 23 projects with some $2,100,000,000 in grants benefiting over 74,000,000 people in least developed countries. These projects are crucial to support countries in building resilience to the climate impacts they are already2149 facing. And by creating a voluntary check off on personal state income tax returns, Massachusetts residents would be able to contribute directly to those around the world most vulnerable. So we urge this, committee to report out favorably, senate, bill, 1922 and help make the world a better place. So thanks very much for your consideration and support.
SPEAKER9 - Amazing. So thank you. Thank you, Keith, for that. Thank you, chairs Eldridge and Madaro Madero. Excuse me. Thank you, vice chair Linsky, and and all members of the committee, for having me. It's a pleasure to2191 be here. It's an honor to be here. And and I say it's a pleasure2193 to be here because I I think this bill should should2195 give us some some joy, some pride.2197 So hopefully, we can we can smile when we, successfully pass this bill.2201 My name is Larry Yu. I'm a Somerville resident and, former co chair as, mister Bergman pointed out of Climate Reality Project's Boston Metro chapter. I just wanna note that, the Boston Metro chapter has been working with our, colleagues in the South Coast Massachusetts chapter. So it's, it's a mouthful with Climate Reality Project Boston Metro chapter, Climate Reality South Coast Massachusetts chapter. And we've also been working alongside, Oxfam America, whose CEO Abby Maxman has provided some written testimony, I believe. Simply put, we we view this bill really as a win win win. It doesn't cost the Commonwealth anything. It doesn't burden Massachusetts taxpayers unless they want to voluntarily step up to contribute, and it helps the communities that are literally the most vulnerable to climate change. So that's 3 wins. On that last point, as as mister Bergin pointed out, this is a particularly perilous time. Even in our most generous times, national governments around the world have have not fully fulfilled their commitments to climate finance. And so I I think now is it's more important than ever, for Massachusetts to put a stake in the ground and say, we are still in it. We are still in it.
This fight against climate change. That symbolism matters, but this bill is not just a symbolic act. So the least developed countries fund, helps to provide grants for projects like 1 in The Gambia that that will improve extreme weather forecasting, and crucially to communicate that forecasting to vulnerable communities such as fishing fleets. It funds shifts in farming practices in Togo, away from rain fed agriculture to climate resilient practices that sustain both livelihoods and, ecosystems.
The average grant is less than $5,000,000 as if if you do the math quickly on on the numbers that, mister Bergman shared, and, and so we're not talking about billion dollar projects involving massive engineering seawalls. We're talking about small, smaller dollar, projects that help communities directly, and importantly, smaller donor contributions matter. So, I think that people in Massachusetts will be able to make a difference directly. The bill can also make a difference across The US, by setting a model that other states can follow, particularly the 40 or so other states that have income taxes. And frankly, other subnational governments, as as they call them in the in the business, you know, provinces,2364 counties, cantons, what have you, municipalities perhaps, can also take the2370 lead and pass their own legislation, that allows, concerned residents to make donations to this United Nations Fund. And and again, as mister Bergen pointed out, only government bodies can make these donations. So I literally cannot write that check, to the least developed countries fund without this bill. Just to wrap up quickly, the the bill is a win win win. It provides meaningful help to the communities most vulnerable to climate change, and it sets a model that other states can follow. So we do urge the committee to report out favorably s 1 9 2 2. Thank you. Happy to answer some questions if if I if I'm able.
SPEAKER2 - Great. Thank you so much, mister Yu. Appreciate your testimony. Are there questions from the committee members? Senator Rauch?
SPEAKER8 - Thank you, mister chair. Good morning.
Who decides which
SPEAKER9 - who decides which countries go on the list? The the least developed countries list is a list that's maintained by the United Nations, and it changes, I believe, year by year. Mhmm. I believe there are 46 nations currently on the list.
SPEAKER12 - So currently, if I'm looking at
SPEAKER5 - the
SPEAKER8 - UN website. Yes. It includes countries like Afghanistan and Yemen. Is that correct? You're not? Is that correct?
SPEAKER9 - You're not? That's correct. Yeah.
SPEAKER8 - So we'd be sending American tax dollar dollars to the country of Yemen?
SPEAKER9 - We would be allowing voluntary contributions, to projects potentially in those countries. I'm I'm not sure if there are current projects in the country of Yemen.
SPEAKER8 - What sort of protections are there for the American taxpayer who might unknowingly put their tax dollars into something that sounds good but could be sent to countries that are, perpetuating horrible crimes against humanity Yeah. And engaging in gross identity based discrimination, harassment, torture, and mutilation, murder, from receiving these funds. And what sort of information would be provided to the taxpayers about where those dollars are actually going to end up?
SPEAKER9 - Sure. So, the best way to put it is that the is that the the least developed countries fund facility is administered by the United Nations, global global energy fund, GEF. It might be Global Environment Fund. Excuse me. And they themselves have protections and guards, that conform with with United Nations standards on that. Beyond that, I'm I'm afraid that I can't provide more details.
SPEAKER8 - And would any information be provided to the taxpayer before they make this election about where the money would go?
SPEAKER9 - I do not know, if I'm honest.
SPEAKER8 - That is concerning to me. Thank you, mister chair.
SPEAKER2 - Great. Thank you, senator. And, senator Keenan?
SPEAKER10 - Great. Thank you, mister chair. Just a a quick follow-up. So the fund can go to the UN Youth Developed Country Fund, but it also has a provision that they can go to a not for profit
organization would be able to be funded through this state program?
SPEAKER9 - The, the funds flow to the United Nations2566 least development least developed countries fund, which is administered by the United Nations, Global Environment Fund.
SPEAKER10 - It's a I'm looking at the language here. It says that all amounts on deposit shall thereafter be available for transfer to a UNLDCF upon request by a UNLDCF trustee, or b this is or b, not for profit organization that is tax exempt under section 5 0 1 c 3 and whose work furthers the mission of the UN LTCF. So that contemplates funds going somewhere other than to the UN LTCF, to a nonprofit, provide that nonprofit's mission is consistent with the UN LCTL. But it doesn't say who would determine what nonprofit gets the funding, reviews the funding request, how that funding request would come in. Would it come into the state, to the treasurer's office? I'm sorry. I just think that needs some clarification.
SPEAKER9 - Thank you. We will provide some clarification on that.
SPEAKER10 - Thanks. Yep.
SPEAKER2 - Any questions from any of the other committee members? Okay. Alright. Thank you very much for your testimony.
SPEAKER5 - Thank you.
SPEAKER2 - And I do see we have representative Michelle Ciccolo here. Representative.
SPEAKER7 - Thank you, chairman Eldridge and Chairman Mataro and members of the committee. I'm here to testify on a bill that I have filed along with my predecessor for many, many years, h 3,051. It's an act relative to taxes due upon the death of active duty personnel and the elderly. I thought I would potentially submit written testimony, and I will still do that. But I wanted to come in honor of the late, great Pat Costello, who championed this bill for years and years and years. She was an award winning recipient of the Minuteman Caine in my community and beloved and, quite an activist. And this was an important bill to her because she felt it was 1 of the things that was impeding, seniors from actually using the senior tax deferral program. What the bill does is very, very simple. When seniors choose to defer their taxes, the community can set a, interest rate on the repayment of those tax property tax bills, which is capped at 8%. However, after they pass, the, interest rate immediately shoots up to 16%. It's the, provision of law is is in the section of the property tax, statutes that really were meant to, recapture delinquent taxpayers. But it's this is a situation where it's not a delinquent tax bill. It's just the problem becomes that the family trying to settle the estate has to deal with a very large interest payment, which is really usury and inappropriate. All the bill does is ask for a 1 year deferral to allow that senior, that senior's family members, their heirs to settle the, the debt. It doesn't release the debt, reduce it in any way. It just asks for a deferral on that 16% interest rate so that things can be settled. I recognize that this is actually part of a much larger, by the way, this also applies to veterans who use the property tax deferral program. And so the feeling is that seniors and veterans will do not use the program because they don't wanna saddle their their kids with these large or their spouses with these large interest rates that shoot up. I just wanna make mention of the fact that last session, the house, put together a commission in a, to look at all of the deferral programs more comprehensively, and that makes a lot of sense. But unfortunately, it didn't have a chance to go forward in the senate. So it that was h 4 7 9 1. And I do encourage and recommend that if we try again to do a commission to look at all the many different opportunities for deferrals that help make staying in one's home more affordable, the the deferrals that help2793 make staying in one's home more affordable. But the commission also2797 look at this particular issue, this 1 small thing, and I thank the committee for its time.
2803 SPEAKER22803 -2803 Great.2803 Thank you so much, representative. Are there any questions from committee members? Okay. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
That is all the, written sign ups that we have. Does anyone here wish to testify on any other bill before the committee today? Okay. That marks the end of the hearing. Thanks everybody for coming, and thanks to the revenue committee members for being here.