In Massachusetts, we’ve set ambitious climate targets: to be net zero by 2050 by making 97% of vehicles electric, 80% of homes heated and cooled by electric heat pumps, and permanently conserving 40% of all land and bodies of water. In Franklin County, we are deeply connected to the natural landscape, whether it be through our infrastructure, tourism, or public safety. Planning for the impacts climate change and meeting our climate goals will require thoughtful leadership, local partnerships, and practical policies that protect our natural resources, and expands our use of renewable energy and capacity for energy storage. And let’s be clear, rural leaders must be at the table if we plan to meet these ambitious climate goals.

Conservation: Protecting forests, farmland, wetlands, and rivers is one of the most effective climate strategies we have in rural areas. Our region’s forests and open spaces absorb carbon, reduce flooding, protect drinking water, and provide critical wildlife habitat. Conservation is not just about preservation, it is about keeping land productive, accessible, and healthy for future generations. Every day in Massachusetts, it’s estimated that we lose 13.5 acres of natural land to development. Furthering our land protection goals must be a priority not just in rural communities, but statewide.

Agriculture is an integral part of our economy and food system in Franklin County. Our farmers are already facing unpredictable weather, crop losses, and rising costs (think land, housing, labor, and equipment). Though farming is especially vulnerable to climate disasters, sustainable farming practices are also a key tool in building long-term sustainability and resilient food systems. By expanding access to climate-smart farming programs that reward farmers who improve soil health, support regenerative practices, invest in sustainable water management, and adopt on-farm renewable energy, we can build a foundation of stability for the farming industry and meet our climate goals.

Students in the 1st Franklin district deserve the same educational opportunities as students anywhere in the Commonwealth, yet rural and small districts face a growing funding crisis that threatens fundamental educational programs, staffing, and the long-term sustainability of our local schools. Declining enrollment, aging populations, and competition from school choice, charter, and vocational programs reduce revenue for public schools, while fixed costs like transportation, special education, facilities, and staffing remain proportionally high. Small schools cannot achieve the economies of scale of larger districts, making it far more expensive to educate each student in rural communities.

The current state funding system does not reflect these realities, or provide stability. The Chapter 70 formula (the chapter of Massachusetts General Law that governs public school funding) fails to account for the higher per-pupil costs of rural districts. As programs are reduced, families with options leave, accelerating enrollment loss and pushing districts into a damaging cycle of deeper cuts and fewer opportunities for the students who remain.

Rural School Aid: We must fully fund the $60 million in Rural School Aid recommended by the 2022 Rural Schools Commission Report. Rural districts need stable, predictable funding to support core programs, educator staffing, and special education services. We can also strengthen the funding impact by:

• allowing districts to carry funds over between fiscal years so they can plan sustainable budgets;

• using a three-year average to determine eligibility (so small income changes do not cause sudden losses in aid); and

• phasing out aid gradually if districts become ineligible based on income.

Chapter 70 Funding Reform: For years, our district’s schools have been facing declining enrollment, and therefore have been in “hold harmless” funding for many years. In reforming Chapter 70, we must:

• recognize the higher per-student costs in rural districts when calculating the state’s share of education funding; and

• reduce the impact of outliers in small towns by using more accurate income measures and adjusting property value calculations so that one high-income resident or large landowners do not unfairly inflate a community’s perceived ability to pay.

Complex local road networks, a high proportion of of unpaved roads, thousands of aging culverts and small bridges, limited municipal staffing, and safety risks on rural roadways all drive higher costs for municipalities when trying to maintain infrastructure and transportation networks. Yet, Chapter 90 ( MA transportation law) funding formulas still rely heavily on population rather than infrastructure needs.

In recent years, sustained advocacy has led to meaningful progress: Chapter 90 now takes, in part, the total number of roadway miles a municipality must maintain into account when calculating allocations. Fair Share revenue, as well, has begun to correct long-standing inequities and better reflect the infrastructure demands of rural towns.

I plan to build on this progress by advocating for transportation funding and grant criteria that allows our communities to compete with municipalities across the state by building in eligibility requirements that fit small, rural communities. By considering road miles, equipment access, climate resilience, and expanding technical assistance, our municipalities will be able to make long-term investment plans and stabilize their budgets. With fairer policies, we can improve safety, strengthen climate resilience, and ensure rural communities receive the infrastructure investment they deserve.

At the same time, we need to expand transportation options that better connect Western Massachusetts to Boston, give rural workers more reliable ways to get to jobs and services, and reduce our dependence on single-occupancy vehicles. I will prioritize expanding FRTA Access and other flexible, on-demand transit that meets daily transportation needs in rural communities, while continuing to advocate for passenger rail investments, including West–East Rail and new service in the Northern Tier corridor. Together, these investments will improve mobility, strengthen our regional economy, and support climate goals.

People who live in rural, more isolated locations face higher impact rates of chronic disease, injury, suicide, opioid overdose, mental illness, and domestic violence. Driven by limited access to healthcare and social services, these challenges are compounded by workforce shortages, aging populations, and long emergency response times. Today, many of our communities lack reliable access to medical emergency responders, mental health services, and most importantly, preventative primary care services.

At the same time, integral rural hospitals and community health centers have struggled with federal cuts to funding, inequitable insurance reimbursement rates, and staffing shortages. When these facilities struggle or close, entire regions lose both critical services and economic stability.

Healthcare and emergency response workforce recruitment has to be a priority for this district. To do this, we must incentivize providers and responders to move to and remain in rural communities- whether that be with affordable housing, tax credits, or fellowship opportunities. Every resident, regardless of zip code, deserves access to effective, on demand emergency services, high-quality care primary care, and the opportunity to live a healthy life.

Additionally, we must strengthen our community health centers who play such a vital role in our healthcare system. Providing stable, long term funding streams that allow for the expansion of preventative services and programs is essential for this region, and for saving the Commonwealth from increased medical costs down the road.

Every resident, regardless of zip code, deserves access to effective, on demand emergency services, high-quality primary care, and the opportunity to live a healthy life.