Baiting Wild Turkeys

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Chip Campsen and 1 co-sponsor

Eliminates the 4.5% cap on Chapter 70 inflation by using IPD-only growth, potentially boosting state aid when inflation rises and increasing budget pressure.

Act No. 21

Main purpose

S.345 would remove the statutory cap that limits the annual inflation adjustment used in Massachusetts’ Chapter 70 school aid formula. In short, the bill replaces the current “lesser of … and 1.045 (4.5%)” language with a straight inflation ratio based on the implicit price deflator for state and local government purchases. This allows the Chapter 70 inflation factor to exceed 4.5% when the deflator so indicates.

Key provision (exact change)

Amends Section 2 of Chapter 70 of the General Laws by striking the phrase that set the annual adjustment as “the lesser of: (i) the ratio of the value of the implicit price deflator for state and local government purchases in the third quarter of the prior fiscal year to its value in the third quarter of the fiscal year 2 years prior; and (ii) 1.045” and replacing it with simply: “the ratio of the value of the implicit price deflator for state and local government purchases in the third quarter of the prior fiscal year to its value in the third quarter of the fiscal year 2 years prior.”

Effected parties

School districts and students: Chapter 70 aid allocations would be indexed solely to the implicit price deflator (IPD) without a 4.5% ceiling, potentially increasing state aid in high-inflation years.

Municipalities and local school budgets: May receive larger state support if the IPD rises above 4.5%, affecting local budget planning and property tax considerations.

Commonwealth budget and taxpayers: Removing the cap could increase state spending obligations for education in years when the IPD exceeds 4.5%; the net fiscal impact depends on actual IPD values and total Chapter 70 funding levels.

Fiscal/Policy implications

In high-inflation periods, state education aid under Chapter 70 could grow faster than under current law, increasing pressure on the state budget unless offset by additional revenues or spending reductions.

Distributional impacts among districts would depend on the Chapter 70 formula’s other components; local fiscal relief and adequacy goals could improve where aid rises.

Requires a fiscal note/estimate to quantify potential additional annual outlays.

Procedural status and timeline

Introduced/Filed: January 17–30, 2025 (Sen. Sal N. DiDomenico sponsor; co‑petitions listed).

Referred to: Committee on Finance; Committee on Education; Budget and Revenue (status shown as REFERRED TO BUDGET AND REVENUE).

Hearing: Scheduled May 12, 2025 (A‑2).

Related/companion bills and prior-session bills are noted; additional companion measures exist.

Stakeholders (school districts, municipal finance officers, education advocates, and state budget analysts) should review the bill’s fiscal impact statement and the projected IPD path to assess concrete budgetary effects.

Bill