WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 3915

Enacts the psychology interjurisdictional compact, the recognition of emergency medical services personnel licensure interstate compact and the interstate counseling compact

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Rob Ortt

Revises PILOTs and long-term property tax exemptions to require sharing PILOT revenue with school districts, adds transparency, posting rules, audits, and penalties for nonpayment.

DEFEATED IN HIGHER EDUCATION
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 3915

Summary — S3915 (2024-2025): Changes to PILOTs and Long‑Term Property Tax Exemptions

Status and timeline
- Introduced: November 18, 2024 (Sen. Robert Ortt, primary sponsor).
- Referred to Senate Community and Urban Affairs and Higher Education (Jan 30, 2025).
- Defeated in Senate Higher Education Committee: May 13, 2025 (recorded).
- Later reported favorably with committee amendments by Senate Community & Urban Affairs: November 10, 2025 (1R) and referred to Senate Budget & Appropriations.
- Related/companion bills: A1107, A4566; prior-session S6883.

Purpose and intent
- To revise how municipalities handle long‑term property tax exemptions and payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs), increase transparency and oversight, and require sharing of certain PILOT revenue with school districts unless an alternative agreement (special projects) is reached among the municipality, urban renewal entity, and school district.

Key provisions
- Municipal sharing of PILOT revenue:
- Municipalities generally must remit portions of PILOT payments to the school districts that serve the municipality unless the municipality, urban renewal entity, and school district enter an approved agreement to provide one or more agreed “special projects.”
- For residential projects, the payment to school districts equals: (number of school‑age children residing in the project who attend public school) × (the Commissioner of Education’s base per‑pupil amount for the previous school year).
- For nonresidential or mixed‑use projects, the school remittance may instead equal 5% of the PILOT or an in‑kind contribution of equivalent value.
- Where a regional district is involved, distribution must reflect the equalized valuation that would have been contributed absent the exemption; multiple districts split amounts in proportion to each district’s share of the municipality’s total school tax levy.
- Remitted school share cannot exceed the percentage of property tax dollars normally distributed to that district.

  • Notification, transparency and filings:

    • Urban renewal entities must provide PILOT/exemption applications to the county, affected school districts, and the Division of Local Government Services (DLGS); DLGS must post the application online.
    • Municipal mayor’s recommendations on exemption applications must also be sent to county and local school districts; county/districts may submit recommendations within 10 days.
    • Mayor and urban renewal entity must notify boards of education and superintendents within five business days if they intend to negotiate special‑project agreements.
    • Municipalities must furnish copies of ordinances and financial agreements approving long‑term exemptions (and five‑year abatements) to DLGS and school districts; DLGS to post them on DCA website.
    • Annual audits by urban renewal entities must certify the number of school‑age children residing in projects and be submitted to DLGS for posting.

  • Remedies and enforcement:

    • School districts may recover unpaid remittances, interest (1% per month), attorneys’ fees and costs from municipalities in court.
    • A municipal finance officer’s certificate may be suspended or revoked for willful failure to remit.

  • Administrative rules:

    • Directs Commissioner of Education, in consultation with DLGS, to adopt rules for calculating and distributing payments (further detail truncated in document).

Who is affected
- Municipal governments, urban renewal entities/developers, county governments, local and regional school districts, the Division of Local Government Services/Department of Community Affairs, municipal finance officers, and indirectly local taxpayers (through property tax levy impacts).

Potential impacts
- Increases school district access to revenue tied to exempted properties or forces negotiated in‑kind school benefits.
- Adds notification, reporting, and posting requirements to improve transparency and oversight of PILOT agreements.
- May change the fiscal calculus for municipalities and developers when negotiating long‑term exemptions and could shift budgetary obligations among municipal, county, and school budgets.

Notes
- The bill amends existing statutes governing urban renewal financial agreements (P.L.1991, c.431 et seq.) and related laws; it includes updated definitions (e.g., project scope) and new posting/audit requirements intended to improve transparency and protect school funding.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.