$1B Life Science Bill Under the Microscope

By Catherine WilliamsPrint Story | Email Story
and Kyle Cheney State House News Service BOSTON - Gov. Deval Patrick said the Bay State stands to lose business expansion projects if his $1 billion life sciences bill fails to pass. During a hearing on his bill Tuesday, the governor said Cambridge-based Novartis AG recently abandoned plans to grow its business in Massachusetts by 400 jobs because the life sciences bill had yet to pass. But the bill – designed to pump $1 billion in grants, tax breaks and capital investments into life sciences businesses and research institutions over the next decade – is facing a tough review through six hearings before the Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, which is co-chaired by Rep. Daniel E. Bosley, D-North Adams. Legislators questioned the bill's tax breaks and overall cost during the first of those hearings Tuesday. Three of Patrick's Cabinet secretaries, former secretary of economic development Ranch Kimball and New England Patriots President Jonathan Kraft testified in support of the bill, which Patrick said could spur as many as 250,000 new jobs over 10 years. "Life sciences is a powerful force in the commonwealth," said Patrick. "For the sake our economy and for the sake of our competitive future I urge you to take swift and favorable action on this bill." If passed, the bill would create life sciences research grants for research institutions, tax incentives for businesses and $65 million to construct a stem cell research center at University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester. The bill invests $500 million over 10 years in life science research, laboratories and equipment. The bill also features business incentives – including credits for Federal Drug Administration user fees, research and development tax credits and grants for life sciences companies that grow their businesses and add jobs in Massachusetts. Patrick's bill also includes administrative changes to the board of directors that governs the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center, the quasi-state agency dedicated to making the state's life sciences investment decisions. Daniel O'Connell, secretary of the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development, faced questions from committee members about the structure of the tax incentives in the bill. Critics of the bill say promising industries, such as alternative energy technology, would suffer if lawmakers decide to throw so much state funding toward one industry. John Regan, executive vice president of government affairs at Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said he opposes the targeted industry investments made in Patrick's life sciences bill. "We believe the far more effective thing for state government to do is to work on broad-based economic climate change," said Regan. "Highly targeted activity is to be avoided." Sen. Susan Tucker, D-Andover, said she is "skeptical" about the ability of state government to pick industry winner and losers. She also said the committee is concerned with the structure of tax incentives and the bill's high price tag. "All of us are struggling with the issue of a cost-benefit analysis," said Tucker. "This is a very expensive proposal." But supporters of the bill, including Nobel Prize-winning UMass professor Craig Mello, call it a great investment opportunity for Massachusetts to stay ahead of other states. "The time is now," said Mello, who is an expert in RNAi research. Suzanne Bump, secretary of labor and work-force development, and JudyAnn Bigby, secretary of health and human services, joined Patrick and O'Connell at the hearing to testify in favor of the bill. It is unclear which parts of Patrick's bill will survive the legislative process or if the total price tag would be reduced. Sen. Jack Hart, co-chairman of the committee, said lawmakers would work together with administration officials to find the right combination of incentives "within the resources available to us." According to Senate President Therese Murray, the hearing process is just beginning. "We were informed that there were going to be six hearings on the bill – more than we do on the budget," Murray told the News Service Tuesday, adding that all six would be held by the Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies. Murray didn't specify any expected changes to the bill, but she said "the administration's been meeting with the [committee] chairs to talk about some concerns they had and some things they would like to see changed." Both Hart and Bosley said they supported finding ways to grow the Bay State life sciences industry and Bosley added that the committee is focusing most of its time on reviewing Patrick's life sciences bill. "We will eventually pass a life sciences bill," said Bosley.
If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Lanesborough Officials Take Road District Dissolution Off Warrant

By Breanna SteeleiBerkshires Staff

LANESBOROUGH, Mass. — The Select Board has removed a town meeting warrant article regarding the dissolution of the Baker Hill Road District.

JMJ Holdings development consultant Tim Grogan spoke in public comment saying the Berkshire Mall owner is currently has purchase-and-sale agreement for the mall. 

Back in February, the Select Board settled a tax dispute with JMJ Holdings by agreeing to move forward in dissolving the district if the company paid $1.1 million to the town. JMJ Holdings had to provide a signed development-and-purchase agreement 30 days before the town meeting. 

JMJ holdings did not submit a payment to be made by May 9. Because of that, the Select Board voted to take the article of the warrant to be voted at the annual town meeting.

Meanwhile, the Baker Hill Road District presented a slideshow defending the district and explaining what it does.

The district currently provides a non-resident-funded revenue stream of around $500,000 per year. These funds help pay for police cars and officer salaries, dump trucks, fire trucks, and more for the town.

"Dissolution would mean the district's three commercial property owners would no longer have to pay for upkeep of the Route Seven/Eight connector road. As a result, the BHRD annual contribution of more than $500,000 to Lanesborough would disappear permanently, since the services and maintenance costs associated with the Route Seven and Eight connector road would still remain," said Tom Caraccioli, PR consultant with AH&M Inc. "Lanesborough would have to absorb these costs and continue to provide emergency services to the mall and Target. The financial burden for these remaining expenses would then fall on Lanesborough taxpayers through higher taxes or the reduction of other important town services."

The proposal with JMJ would affect the town in a negative way Caraccioli claimed. 

"JMJ is proposing a one-time payment of $1.1 million to Lanesborough in exchange, JMJ would never pay BHRD taxes again. The decision to dissolve the BHRD by accepting this proposed $1.1 million would be a permanent choice that would have irreversible consequences," he said. "There will be no official system in place to cover recurring costs once the money from this single payment is spent. Therefore, the proposed one-time payment is not a long-term solution for the town of Lanesborough."

JMJ's dispute was that the Berkshire Mall no longer exists as a functioning entity and it should not be on the hook for protection and maintenance that had been based on the mall's operation in its heyday. The company is seeking to redevelop the site as senior housing and town officials were asking the state to take over the Connector Road. 

District officials said it's not guaranteed that the state would take over the road linking Routes 7 and 8, built to service the mall back in the '80s, and that the state Department of Transportation had historically discouraged the town from asking. Even if it happened, it could take three to five years, during which no BHRD funds would be collected if the district is dissolved. The state would not replace the revenue they support, and they argued the state is facing its own budget issues making it unlikely they would want to take over.

The road district was created by an act of the Legislature and would require another act to dissolve it. The town meeting article asked for voter support for a home-rule petition to start that process.  

After the presentation, it was asked what the current financial status of the BHRD, given that JMJ hasn’t paid in a long time and if the district actually has the money or if it is dependent on the mall sale.

Mark Siegars, attorney for BHRD, reminded the room that the mall is under a purchase and sale agreement and if the sale closes, the district expects to receive more than a million dollars because of the lawsuit and lien, but does not have that cash yet. If the sale does not go through, BHRD will take the mall and sell it. The district still gets payments from Target, which is separate from the mall. 

There were also some questions on the district's history, with Select Board member Jason Breault asking if the mall did not have a high tax rate from the district, would it still be solvent. The exchange became heated between Siegars and BHRD Chair Bill Prendergast.

View Full Story

More Stories