Bill
H 3078
MA bill lets towns freeze either property tax rate or assessed value for qualifying elderly or permanently disabled homeowners, with means tests and a 10-year domicile rule.
Status and key dates
- Bill number: H 3078 (Presented by Rep. David F. DeCoste, 5th Plymouth)
- Title: An Act to provide municipalities with the option to freeze residential tax rate or valuation for the elderly with means‑tested criteria
- Introduced / read 1st time: 2025-01-14; Prefiled: 2024-12-05
- Referred: Revenue Committee (2025-02-27); hearing scheduled 06/16/2025 (1:00–5:00 PM, A‑1)
- Note: the bill file also contains unrelated draft language from a South Carolina alimony bill — that language appears to be extraneous to this Massachusetts municipal tax measure. Verify the official docket for final text.
Purpose and intent
- To give cities and towns in Massachusetts the local option to adopt an ordinance that freezes either the property tax rate or the assessed valuation for qualifying residential property owned and occupied by elderly or permanently and totally disabled residents who meet locally‑determined means tests. The intent is to limit tax increases for certain long‑term, lower‑income homeowners.
Key provisions and requirements
- Local option: Each municipality’s legislative body (city/town council) may adopt an ordinance establishing the tax freeze program and setting numerical eligibility thresholds (income, assets, maximum property valuation, and qualifying age).
- Eligible individuals:
- Persons at or above a “requisite age” as set by the municipality (or joint applicants where at least one meets the age requirement); or
- Persons who are totally and permanently disabled, regardless of age.
- Domicile requirement: The applicant (or at least one joint applicant) must have been domiciled in the city/town for at least 10 consecutive years prior to filing.
- Means and asset limits: Income and asset caps are set by the municipal legislative body; the board of assessors may deny applications if the applicant’s assets are “excessive” and fall outside the intended recipients.
- Property criteria:
- Property must be owned and occupied by the applicant as their domicile.
- A municipality/assessor may impose a maximum valuation threshold for eligible property.
- Application timing: Applicants must present evidence to the assessors on or before the last day for filing sworn statements with assessors for the relevant tax year.
- Interaction with other law: The freeze is explicitly additional to any other exemption provided by law; properties under the freeze remain on the tax rolls and remain subject to the municipality’s bonded indebtedness.
Who would be affected
- Directly: Elderly homeowners and permanently disabled homeowners who meet local age, domicile, income/asset, and property valuation criteria and whose municipality adopts the ordinance. Joint homeowners are addressed where one spouse or co‑owner meets the age requirement.
- Indirectly: Municipal budgets and taxpayers — local governments that adopt the option could experience reduced property tax revenue for participating properties and may need to adjust budgets or other tax rates to compensate. Local assessors will have additional administrative responsibilities for eligibility verification and appeals.
Potential impacts and considerations
- Fiscal: Local revenue loss exposure varies with municipal adoption, the generosity of thresholds, and program uptake. Because properties remain on the tax rolls and subject to bonded indebtedness, only annual tax increases (rate or assessment) would be frozen per the ordinance’s terms.
- Equity and targeting: Means testing and a 10‑year domicile requirement focus benefits on long‑term, lower‑income residents but require administrative capacity to verify income/assets and domicile history.
- Administrative: Assessors will need rules and processes to review applications, evidence, and potential denials for “excessive assets.”
- Local control: The bill is a true local option; municipalities are not required to adopt it and can set specific eligibility parameters locally.
Related / background
- Similar matter filed in the prior legislative session: House No. 2823 (2023–2024). The bill file references a related document HD 1937 (listed as replacing).
Recommendation
- Because the bill delegates key thresholds and program design to municipalities, local fiscal analyses will be needed to estimate revenue impact and administrative cost before adoption. Also verify the official Massachusetts legislative text for final language and disregard the unrelated South Carolina alimony text included in the circulated materials.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
