Bill
H 3120
Gives cities/towns the option to freeze a homeowner's property tax rate and/or assessed value for eligible seniors or permanently disabled residents, under local rules.
Status snapshot
- Bill number: H.3120 (House Docket No. 1724)
- Title shown in docket: “Hospitals” (see note on drafting inconsistency below)
- Sponsors: Reps. James K. Hawkins and David F. DeCoste
- Introduced / first read: 2025‑01‑14 (prefiled 2024‑12‑05)
- Referred: Committee on Revenue (02/27/2025)
- Scrivener’s error corrected: 2025‑02‑04
- Hearing scheduled: 2025‑06‑16 (01:00–05:00 PM, A‑1)
- Note: The bill text in the docket includes two distinct pieces of legislation (see “Drafting/discrepancy” below).
Overview / main purpose
- The principal Massachusetts measure in the docket would give cities and towns the option to adopt a municipal ordinance to “freeze” the residential property tax rate and/or assessed valuation for certain elderly or permanently disabled homeowners, subject to means‑tested criteria set locally. The intent is to allow municipalities to protect qualifying seniors from increases in property tax liability due to rising tax rates or reassessments.
Key provisions (Massachusetts municipal tax‑freeze option)
- Municipal option: City/town legislative bodies (city councils or town meetings/select boards) may adopt an ordinance establishing a tax‑rate and/or valuation freeze for qualifying residential property owners.
- Local control of thresholds: Eligibility criteria (income and asset limits, maximum property valuation, qualifying age) are to be set by the adopting municipality; the statute authorizes local bodies to determine the exact figures.
- Eligible persons:
- Persons of the “requisite age” as set by the municipality (text references 65 as an example for joint applicants), or
- Persons who are totally and permanently disabled regardless of age,
- Provided income/assets do not exceed locally established thresholds.
- Residency requirement: At least one applicant (or joint applicant) must have been domiciled in the city or town for at least ten consecutive years immediately prior to applying.
- Property requirement: The property must be owned and occupied by the applicant(s) as their domicile and have a maximum valuation limit as set by the assessor/municipality.
- Application and proof: Applicants must present evidence to local assessors on or before the deadline for filing sworn statements for the tax year for which the freeze is claimed; the evidence remains valid while the legal residence is unchanged.
- Asset review: The board of assessors may deny an application if it finds the applicant has “excessive assets” placing them outside the intended recipient class established by the municipality.
- Interaction with other exemptions: The freeze is explicitly “in addition to any other exemption provided by law,” and property subject to the freeze remains on the tax rolls and subject to municipal bonded indebtedness.
Who would be affected
- Potentially eligible: Local senior homeowners (or permanently disabled homeowners) who meet locally set age, residency, income, asset and property valuation criteria.
- Municipalities: Cities and towns choosing whether to adopt the option would bear administrative responsibility and potentially fiscal outcomes (shifts in tax burdens, impact on local revenue).
- Local assessors: Responsible for application review, verification of eligibility, and denial where assets exceed municipal limits.
Potential fiscal and administrative impacts
- Local revenue effects will vary by municipality depending on adoption, the number of qualifying households, and locally set thresholds. A tax freeze may reduce property tax revenue from participating properties unless offset by other taxpayers or municipal budget adjustments.
- Administrative burden: Assessors’ offices would need procedures to verify income/assets, process applications, and track frozen valuations/ rates.
Procedural/timeline notes
- Referred to Revenue Committee (02/27/2025); public hearing scheduled 06/16/2025.
- Scrivener’s error corrected on 02/04/2025 (see drafting/discrepancy).
Drafting / discrepancy in docketed text
- The docket includes a separate, unrelated South Carolina bill text (added repeatedly in the document) that would require Medicaid‑accepting hospitals to collect patient immigration‑status information on admission/registration forms, submit quarterly aggregate reports to the state Department of Public Health, and require an annual departmental report on admissions, uncompensated care costs for non‑lawfully present aliens, and related impacts.
- This South Carolina hospital provision is not substantively connected to the Massachusetts municipal tax‑freeze option and appears to be included in the same docket record in error (consistent with the “scrivener’s error corrected” notation). Readers should treat the two texts as distinct proposals and consult the official legislative file or committee clerk for authoritative, final bill text and corrections.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
