Massachusetts House Bill H4252

Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 7/7/25
• Refer: 7/7/25
• Refer: 8/14/25
• Engrossed: 9/22/25
• Engrossed: 10/30/25
• Enrolled: 11/3/25
• Chaptered: 11/10/25
• Passed: 11/10/25

Caption

Updating the linkage exaction program in the city of Medford

Summary

This bill updates the existing linkage exaction program for the city of Medford. The measure amends a 1989 local act by replacing the current provision governing how exaction amounts are set and revised. Under the bill, the level of any exaction must be reviewed at least once every 10 years and reset as needed based on recommendations from Medford’s office of community development and the mayor. The bill also allows interim adjustments to the exaction amount between the 10-year reviews. Those updates would be tied to changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, creating an inflation-based mechanism for keeping the exaction current over time.

Impact

The bill would change local law applicable only to Medford by revising chapter 488 of the Acts of 1989, which governs the city’s linkage exaction program. It does not create a statewide policy, but it would give Medford a clearer schedule for periodic review and a formula for inflation-based adjustments to exaction amounts. The practical effect is to make the city’s exaction framework more responsive to economic conditions and to preserve its value over time.

Sentiment

The available record suggests the bill is generally noncontroversial and locally supported. It was filed with the approval of the mayor and city council, indicating municipal backing for the update. No committee transcript, recorded vote, or opposition is included in the materials provided, so there is no evidence of significant debate in the available history.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. The only potentially debatable issue is the policy choice to allow exaction amounts to rise over time through CPI-U indexing and to delegate periodic resetting to local officials, but no opposition or competing viewpoints are recorded here. Because the bill is a local act with local approval, any disagreement would likely center on the size, timing, or administration of the exaction rather than the concept of updating it itself.