A Call for Greater Accountability and Revamp of the Gateway Municipality Initiative

Driscoll calls attention to inaccuracies in officially named Gateway Municipalities and the associated criteria

DECEMBER 18, 2025

Upon review of publicly available data, I have identified more than $1 Million and counting in preferential or exclusive funding intended for Gateway Municipalities provided to cities or towns that no longer meet the legal criteria to be considered a Gateway Municipality under Massachusetts General Laws. Further, the Economic Development Incentive Program (EDIP) has provided more than $5 million in tax credits to entities in these same no-longer qualifying municipalities. This raises further questions surrounding the connection between the EDIP and Gateway Municipality status. 

Additionally, it's clear in the data that at least one community in Massachusetts has qualified for Gateway Municipality status since 2019 but has never been included in the initiative. 

These findings were made upon careful review of data and information published by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Federal, U.S. Census Bureau. I have been exploring possible legislative changes to the Commonwealth’s Gateway Municipality designation for several years in an effort to include more and Similarly Situated communities in the pool of cities and towns benefitting from this initiative. 

It is imperative that the Gateway MGL is changed and updated to address these issues so that in the future we have assurances that any and all qualifying cities and towns are getting the designation, entitling them to Gateway Municipality-focused funding. Additionally, these updates must make for clear accountability and oversight in terms of how the eligibility is enforced and managed, ensuring that the list of municipalities qualifying for grants and tax credits is updated as communities enter or exit the designation criteria for a Gateway or Similarly Situated municipality. 

Currently, “Gateway Municipalities” is a designation defined in state law and granted to more than 20 municipalities in Massachusetts. By law, a Gateway Municipality is a community that has a: (1) population greater than 35,000, but less than 250,000; (2) median household income below the Commonwealth’s average; and (3) rate of educational attainment of a bachelor’s degree or above that is below the Commonwealth’s average. A municipality gains a substantial benefit from receiving this designation, primarily in the form of exclusive or preferential funding under a wide array of state programs. Alternatively, the 2018 Economic Development Bond bill created the Similarly Situated category. This category comprises of seven cities and towns that meet some but not all of the Gateway criteria; specifically, there are several municipalities which have a population below 35,000, but are within eligibility for the remaining two Gateway MGL qualifiers, relative to income and education demographics.

The data demonstrates that the occurrence of funding being sent to no longer qualifying municipalities has not been due to a one-time lapse, but rather a lack of oversight that has persisted relative to managing Gateway status eligibility year-to-year and Federal census-to-census data every ten years. The situation has compounded and taken place across many years and multiple administrations. Nowhere is this made more apparent than when one particular community met the qualifying criteria before the 2020 census, but was never added to the official list, and as far as I am aware, has never been included in opportunities available to Gateway or Similarly Situated Communities. 

What my team and I have found is that while the Legislature defined a Gateway Municipality in 2009, there appears to never have been a clear or consistent approach adopted by the executive branch to define who was in charge of reviewing these criteria, and ensuring the communities on the official list continued to meet the legal thresholds. With no one in the driver seat, the published Gateway list has remained essentially static since 2013, at 26 communities; and since its establishment in 2018, the Similarly Situated category remains with the same seven communities. 

The result is that state money has flowed to communities that no longer meet the statutory criteria of a Gateway Municipality. Further, without anyone tracking the Gateway designation the number may continue to grow as we approach the 2030 census and the Legislature continues to allocate funding for Gateway programs that flow into communities not meeting the statutory criteria. As municipalities have grown and the demographics of these communities have changed, municipalities have teetered on the edge between qualifying and not qualifying. 

There is a broader discussion to be had on how to define Gateway Municipalities and whether the criteria currently used aligns with the goals of the statute. As it stands now, insofar as what it means to be a Gateway, the published list does not fit the law as written.

To further this discussion I will continue to put forth legislation related to updating the Gateway Municipalities and Similarly Situated statutes. Ultimately, the intention would be to task the Executive Office of Economic Development with reviewing the data and determine which communities meet the criteria of a Gateway Municipality; while reforming the eligibility criteria to include additional metrics and economic indicators. These efforts seek to expand the reach of some of our most successful economic development programs and ensure that the Commonwealth’s most vulnerable communities are adequately supported. 

I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Legislature to iterate the legislative proposal, gathering their thoughts, feedback, and input on how we can match the law to its purpose, and maximize transparency and efficiency of state money for our constituents. 

###