Bill
H 3136
Requires out-of-state educational entities in MA to negotiate a PILOT payment with local land-use authorities.
Note up front: the materials provided appear to combine text from two different bills (a Massachusetts House bill labeled H 3136 concerning private school land use / PILOT negotiations and a South Carolina vehicle code bill addressing driver’s‑license suspensions during appeals). Below are concise, separate summaries of each measure, followed by procedural status and recommended next steps to verify which measure corresponds to H 3136 in your jurisdiction.
Title (as presented): An Act relative to private school land use
Purpose
- Require out‑of‑state educational entities that use property in Massachusetts to meet with local land‑use authorities to negotiate a Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) settlement.
Key provisions
- Adds a new Section 24 to Chapter 30B of the Massachusetts General Laws.
- Language (as provided): “Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, out of state educational entity with property use in Massachusetts shall meet with local land use authorities to negotiate a Payment In Lieu Of Tax (PILOT) settlement.”
- This is a mandatory meeting/negotiation requirement; details such as timelines, binding authority, enforcement mechanisms, or criteria for settlement amounts are not specified in the text provided.
Who would be affected
- Out‑of‑state educational institutions owning or using property in Massachusetts.
- Local municipalities and their land‑use authorities (planning boards, zoning boards, select boards, etc.) that would negotiate PILOTs.
- Local taxpayers and municipal budgets (potentially affected by PILOT revenues or changes to tax base).
Procedural / timeline notes (from provided actions)
- Prefiled: 12/05/2024
- Introduced / read first time: 1/14/2025
- Referred to Committee on Judiciary (1/14/2025 and again noted 12/05/2024)
- Referred to Committee on Revenue (2/27/2025)
- Senate concurred (2/27/2025)
- Hearing scheduled / rescheduled for 09/16/2025 (in‑person and virtual)
Potential impact / considerations
- Would create a formal negotiation obligation but leaves open how disagreements are resolved.
- Municipalities may gain leverage to seek PILOT payments from institutions not currently taxable locally.
- Out‑of‑state schools may face additional administrative obligations and potential payments; legal questions could arise about preemption, taxing authority, or interstate commerce.
Purpose
- Protect motorists from immediate license suspensions while they pursue an appeal or rehearing of a conviction that would otherwise require license suspension; and to limit DMV suspensions when the DMV does not timely receive notice of qualifying convictions.
Key provisions
- Adds Section 56‑1‑557 to S.C. Code:
- When a person appeals or requests a rehearing of a conviction that requires suspension of a driver’s license, the license suspension must be stayed while the appeal/rehearing is pending.
- Amends Section 56‑1‑365(C):
- If a defendant surrendered a license to a magistrate/clerk immediately after conviction, the effective date of suspension/revocation is the surrender date.
- If a magistrate/clerk willfully fails to electronically forward disposition/license surrender within 5 business days, the suspension/revocation does not begin until the DMV receives and processes the materials (but the end date of the suspension is calculated from the surrender date).
- The DMV may not suspend a person’s license if it fails to receive notice of a conviction that requires suspension within 30 days of the conviction.
- Effective date: upon approval by the Governor.
Who would be affected
- South Carolina drivers convicted of offenses that carry mandatory license suspensions.
- Courts/magistrates and clerks responsible for forwarding surrender/disposition data.
- South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and related administrative processes.
Procedural / timeline notes
- Multiple identical versions dated 12/05/2024 included; effective upon gubernatorial approval.
Potential impact / considerations
- Prevents administrative suspension while appeals are pending, reducing risk of drivers losing driving privileges during appellate process.
- Incentivizes timely electronic reporting by magistrates/clerk offices; protects defendants where DMV lacks timely notice.
- Could require DMV and court offices to change processing workflows; potential public-safety tradeoffs debated (e.g., delaying suspensions for certain serious offenses).
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
