Subscribe

Friday, March 26, 2010

Finally, A New Bridge Over Local Waters


For those of you who don’t receive our email updates about the upcoming reconstruction of the Bates Bridge (between Groveland and Haverhill), here is an update:

On December 8, 2009, this project went to bid. MassHighway (now MassDOT) selected a construction company to perform the work. A contract was awarded to Cianbro Construction on January 6, 2010. On January 27, 2010, the Notice to Proceed was issued (this is final step in the process of getting the project moving). This project is expected to be completed in 2014.

One of MassDOT’s main goals is to keep travel routes the same during construction, and only change slightly after completion—as the new bridge will be constructed 60 feet downstream.

MassDOT plans to remove the blinking light at the intersection in Groveland when the project is completed. Intersections at both ends of the bridge will have controlled signals installed.

If you would like to see the construction plans, please stop by Groveland Town Hall or Haverhill City Hall. In Groveland the plans can be viewed by visiting the Selectman’s Office; in Haverhill you can go to Room 214, Mondays through Fridays, from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.

This month, MassDOT held a Pre-Construction Conference with Cianbro and local utility companies to discuss specifics on how to arrange and protect services to residents on either side of the bridge. Given some of the interruptions the area has had recently, this office’s goal is to minimize them in the future.

Due to environmental restrictions relating to in-water construction, Cianbro believes the summer of 2010 may be consumed with prep-work. Now, actual construction is expected for late summer/early fall of 2010.

If you would like to be included on future Bates Bridge email updates please send me an email (stephanie.cappucci@state.ma.us) with your name and address!

Spring Office Hours

Rep. Stanley’s office will next be conducting office hours April 12th and 13th at the following locations and times:

April 12, 2010:
The Merrimac Public Library from 10:00 A.M. – 11:30 A.M.
Groveland Town Hall from 1:00 P.M. – 2:30 P.M.
Georgetown Town Hall from 3:00 P.M. – 4:30 P.M.

April 13, 2010:
West Newbury’s GAR Library from 10:00 A.M. – 11:30 A.M.
Newbury’s Town Library from 1:00 P.M. – 2:30 P.M.
The Rowley Public Library from 3:00 P.M. – 4:30 P.M.

As always, residents who cannot come to office hours are invited to call the office with their questions or concerns (617-722-2430).

Friday, March 19, 2010

State House Column


We’re Back! You are reading the first edition of the State House Column in blog format. This column was originally written for and published in the West Newbury News. It ran for nearly a dozen years. Recently, Ron and Lee Ann Delp closed the paper for the foreseeable future. The Delps gave the State House Column its beginning, and social media will provide its future.


A Hand Up or a Hand Out? A lot has been written about the $35 million dollar bond authorization bill for the city of Lawrence. My comments on the issue can be found in the Eagle-Tribune story here.

Basically, the intent of the Lawrence legislation is to allow the city to borrow upwards of $35 million, with the state being the guarantor for what Lawrence borrows. This means that all Massachusetts taxpayers would be liable for the debt in the event the city defaults. Because the possibility of a default exists, I think that the entire Commonwealth – not just the residents of Lawrence – has a stake in this legislation. That is why I argued for strong outside fiscal oversight.

There was also a personal angle. About 25 years ago, as an investment banker, I worked on a “special” financing for Lawrence. (It was “special” because the city had so many financial issues that no one would buy their bonds.) The Commonwealth had to get involved then, too, and not much has changed. Giving Lawrence another hand-out is not really the answer.

Casinos Back “On the Table.” It’s true. With the exit of former Speaker Sal DiMasi – long a gambling opponent –Massachusetts may become a casino destination. Honestly, It’s a proposal I’ve been on both sides of but every bill is different.

Win, lose or draw on this proposition, the Commonwealth still needs to consider how to spur the growth of innovative long-term (and good paying) jobs. Casinos offer more of those jobs than slots, but the Commonwealth needs every job it can get right now.

The 2011 Budget. The House is coming out with its own version of the state budget in mid-April. The Governor’s budget proposal sought to level fund local aid. But, as I emailed constituents, the Governor’s level-funding was based on projected revenue growth during the coming fiscal year, (very) high estimates of federal stimulus aid and additional taxes. While the Commonwealth may luck out on one of these, all three are unlikely to occur. After a controversial sales tax hike last year, the House won’t pursue increased taxes this year. (Which is good, because I wouldn’t support them.)

Latest estimate? A 4% cut in both local aid and Chapter #70 educational funding. Why? Not because legislators want to cut either account. Because the state’s tax revenues aren’t enough to level fund.

Holding The Line on Health Care. As the House Chair of the Health Care Financing Committee, I’ve spent a lot of time looking for ways to bring the annual (exponential) growth in health care costs under control. The emerging Massachusetts plan to rein in costs is a lot different than what is currently under consideration in Washington D.C.

This week, there were major hearings on the Massachusetts version of the issue and two factors emerged as culprits: medical price-inflation and the fee-for-service (FFS) system. Medical price inflation is about 3X regular inflation, and the FFS system often times drives over-testing and greater costs. What is currently being discussed on Beacon Hill is the potential for “global payments.” Global payments are a kinder and gentler form of capitation. You can read about the ongoing debate, as well as the differences between fee-for-service and global payments, here.