WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HD 6066

A communication from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (see Section 105 of Chapter 9 of the Acts of 2025) submitting the Crumbling Concrete Stakeholder Working Group final report

194th Legislature (2025-2026)

Establish a state-backed program to remediate pyrrhotite-damaged foundations through funding, governance, and oversight, with options for indemnity, a replacement program, or a pri

Placed on file
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HD 6066

Overview

  • Bill: HD 6066 (194th Legislature, Massachusetts)
  • Title: A communication from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities submitting the Crumbling Concrete Stakeholder Working Group final report
  • Status: Placed on file (as of May 26, 2026)
  • Scope: Implements the recommendations of the Crumbling Concrete Stakeholder Working Group, established to address residential foundations deteriorating due to pyrrhotite-containing concrete aggregate.

Main purpose and intent

  • Recognize and respond to the deterioration of residential foundations caused by pyrrhotite in concrete aggregate.
  • Establish a comprehensive, state-supported remediation framework to mitigate homeowner losses, protect municipalities’ fiscal health, and preserve Massachusetts’ housing stock.
  • Provide funding, governance, and program design options to remediate affected foundations and prevent future occurrences.
  • Improve prevention, consumer protection, disclosure, and public awareness related to pyrrhotite issues.

Key provisions and changes proposed

The report outlines two primary remediation models and several supporting measures. While the bill text itself may authorize or adopt these concepts through future legislation, the recommendations are:

1) Massachusetts Foundations Solutions Indemnity Company (MFSIC) model
- Create two Massachusetts entities: Massachusetts Foundations Solutions Indemnity Company (MFSIC) and a Massachusetts Crumbling Foundation Concrete Assistance Fund (CFCAF).
- Establish a Massachusetts-based captive insurer (MFSIC) administered by a superintendent, with consultants (actuaries, claims, legal, outreach).
- CFCAF would fund the program, provide oversight, and ensure annual audits.
- Use a Connecticut-like captive-insurance approach but locally governed; oversight by a Massachusetts board with broad stakeholder representation.
- Potential funding and administration details modeled on Connecticut’s Crumbling Foundations Solutions Indemnity Company (CFSIC).
- Estimated payout scale and costs: could reproduce Connecticut-like payouts ($25–$30 million/year in claims; ~$1.5–$1.8 million/year in admin costs; administrative cap around 10%).
- Implementation window: could start paying claims within about one year after enabling statute; tax-exempt status and corporate approvals needed; potential sunset provisions to align with ongoing need.

2) Massachusetts Concrete Foundation Replacement Program (MCFRP) model
- Create a Massachusetts-based program administered by a quasi-governmental agency (e.g., CEDAC, MassHousing, or Massachusetts Housing Partnership).
- The agency would determine eligibility, oversee contractor qualification, disburse funds, and assist homeowners in obtaining financing.
- Administrative cost cap: 10% of annual fund disbursement.
- Implementation window: 12–24 months to fully launch, depending on design.
- Potential benefits: more Massachusetts-centric design, flexible governance, and built-in accountability.

3) Alternative non-governmental option
- Establish a Massachusetts-based nonprofit to manage a program similar to CFSIC via a private guaranty fund manager or third-party administrator, potentially leveraging existing Massachusetts guaranty funds.

4) Financial sources for remediation
- Recommend funding at $20 million to $30 million per year for 10 years (total scale to address backlogs and achieve economies of scale).
- Potential funding sources:
- Bond authorizations (Capital Improvement Plan-like funding).
- Initial small earmark (e.g., $1 million) to accelerate program start.
- Fees or surcharges on concrete aggregate (e.g., a per-cubic-yard fee; example: $6–$12; estimated yield).
- Homeowners insurance surcharge (Connecticut model: $12/year; Massachusetts could consider similar or reduced levels).
- Line-item appropriations in annual budget.
- Federal funding opportunities (CDBG/HOME, HUD Section 108, and potential discretionary earmarks; limited likelihood for FEMA disaster aid due to eligibility constraints).

5) Pyrrhotite prevention and regulation
- Education and professional training:
- Consider continuing education requirements on pyrrhotite for licensed real estate professionals and home inspectors; integrate into license renewal cycles.
- MassDOT aggregate licensure and building code integration:
- Incorporate MassDOT aggregate licensing requirements into the Massachusetts Building Code via BBRS (Board of Building Regulations and Standards), to ensure concrete used in residential construction comes from licensed sources.
- Require concrete batch tickets:
- Implement batch-ticket documentation to trace concrete from supplier to pour; aim to embed this in building-code requirements for traceability.
- Public education campaign:
- Launch statewide education efforts on pyrrhotite risks, testing, disclosures, and available assistance.
- Testing for remediation eligibility:
- Consider pyrrhotite disclosure requirements in real estate transactions (seller disclosures on testing status and presence of pyrrhotite); potentially tie eligibility for remediation funds to testing at time of sale.

6) Additional program design elements
- Clarify sunset provisions for remediation funding; determine eligibility windows and how long funds remain available.
- Ensure privacy and ethics around testing data; prioritize owner-occupied primary residences.
- Emphasize accountability, audits, and reporting to Legislature.

Who would be affected

  • Homeowners with crumbling or pyrrhotite-impacted foundations (potentially 1,000–10,000 homes statewide; thousands more as awareness and detection expand).
  • Municipalities facing property-value depreciation and tax-revenue impacts due to abatement eligibility and foregone development.
  • Homebuyers and real estate professionals (through disclosures and required inspections).
  • Construction industry stakeholders (aggregate suppliers, quarry operators, contractors, lenders).
  • State agencies and regulators (EOHLC, MassHousing, MHP, CEDAC, MassDOT, BBRS, and the Department of Insurance and Banking).

Procedural and timeline considerations

  • Reporting deadline: The Working Group submitted its final report and recommendations by March 31, 2026.
  • Implementation timing: Depending on the selected model, program launch could occur within 12–24 months; full funding and long-term administration would follow.
  • Oversight and accountability: Provisions envision annual reporting to the Legislature; external audits; ongoing evaluation of cost controls and efficacy.
  • Sunset and scalability: Proposals include sunset provisions and the possibility to scale or extend funding based on ongoing need.

Potential impact

  • Provides a structured, state-led pathway to remediate deteriorating foundations, reducing homeowner financial hardship and stabilizing housing markets.
  • Aims to protect municipal tax bases and preserve housing stock in affected communities.
  • Establishes preventive measures to reduce future pyrrhotite-related failures through regulation, traceability, and professional education.
  • Creates a framework for potential federal funding collaborations while leveraging state resources to expedite remediation.

This summary reflects the report’s substantive proposals and does not presume final legislative enactment. Readers should watch for future MA General Court actions to codify the chosen model and funding mechanisms.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.