WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HD 2169

An Act relative to the building or rebuilding of bridges on land that falls under the jurisdiction of more than one municipality

194th Legislature (2025-2026) Introduced by Bruce Ayers

Requires an inter-municipal agreement before any bridge project affecting multiple towns; mandates joint planning, cost-sharing, and impact analysis to ensure coordinated building.

0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HD 2169

Summary: House Bill HD 2169 – Inter-municipal Bridge Projects

Overview

  • Title: An Act relative to the building or rebuilding of bridges on land that falls under the jurisdiction of more than one municipality.
  • Scope: Amends Chapter 40 of the General Laws to add a new Section 40L requiring inter-municipal cooperation for certain bridge and related construction projects.
  • Introduced: 2025-11-29 (House docket No. 2169; accompanying bill filed Jan 15, 2025 as House No. 2248; representative Bruce J. Ayers).
  • Purpose: Ensure collaborative planning and shared accountability when bridge projects affect two or more municipalities, particularly for structures in navigable or tide waters.

What the bill would do

  • Prohibits proceeding with construction projects that affect building structures in or over navigable or tide waters involving two or more municipalities until an inter-municipal agreement (IMA) is executed.
  • Requires each IMA to establish a framework for joint planning, cost-sharing, and mutual consideration of impacts across municipalities and neighboring communities.

Key Provisions

  • Scope of projects (new Section 40L(a)): Applies to construction projects involving bridges or related structures in or over navigable/tide waters that affect two or more municipalities.
  • Inter-municipal agreement prerequisites (40L(b)):
    • Create a buffer zone around construction.
    • Assess whether alternative approaches exist that avoid multi-municipality impact.
    • Evaluate all viable cost/benefit options, including short- and long-term environmental benefits.
    • Assist neighboring communities with related infrastructure needs.
    • Establish binding procedures for joint planning.
    • Consider quality of life, traffic, health, and environmental impacts on nearby communities.
    • Involve state, regional, and municipal planning agencies as facilitators, including citizen representatives and non-elected participants.
  • Required contents of an IMA (40L(c)):
    • Names of participating cities/towns.
    • Effective date and term of the agreement.
    • General purpose of the agreement.
    • Specifics on cost-sharing.
    • How participation may be terminated or amended.
    • Acknowledgment of liability under the agreement.
    • Communication channels among municipalities.
    • Dispute resolution process.
  • Legislative and gubernatorial approval (40L(d)):
    • An IMA must be approved by a majority vote of each participating municipality’s legislative body and the chief executive officer.
    • After internal approvals, the municipalities petition the General Court for approval.
    • Upon passage by the General Court and approval by the Governor, the IMA becomes binding, and the project may proceed per the agreement.

Affected Parties

  • Municipalities and their governing bodies involved in multi-jurisdictional bridge projects.
  • Residents and neighboring communities impacted by bridge construction (through buffers, planning considerations, and environmental/quality-of-life assessments).
  • State, regional, and municipal planning agencies serving as facilitators.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Pre-project: No construction may proceed until an IMA is executed and approved.
  • Approval workflow: Local legislative bodies and mayors/CEOs vote, then General Court approval, followed by gubernatorial approval.
  • Binding effect: Once approved, the IMA governs the project moving forward.

Potential Impacts and Considerations

  • Pros: Structured collaboration, clearer cost-sharing, comprehensive impact analysis, enhanced community input, and formal dispute resolution mechanisms.
  • Cons: Possible project delays due to the need for multilevel approvals and negotiation of inter-municipal terms.
  • Policy intent: Promote inter-jurisdictional transparency, environmental stewardship, and coordinated planning for bridges affecting multiple municipalities.

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

Sign in to ask a question.