WeVote

Bill

Bill

H 3189

Local government meeting agendas

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Jay Kilmartin and 1 co-sponsor

Massachusetts bill lets tax-collecting vendors keep 2% of what they collect each year, capped at $750, easing admin costs but reducing state receipts.

Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Kilmartin
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · H 3189

Summary — H 3189 (mixed source content; see note)

Note on source material: The version content provided appears to contain text from two different proposals (a Massachusetts bill numbered H 3189 concerning a vendors’ collection allowance, and a separate South Carolina draft statute regarding members’ ability to place items on local government agendas). Below are concise, separate summaries of each proposal and the procedural information supplied. Please verify against the official state legislative website for the version you intend to track.

A. Massachusetts: “An Act to establish a vendors’ collection allowance” (House Docket No. 3979 / H 3189)

Purpose
- Authorizes vendors who collect sales or related taxes to retain a small percentage of the tax they collect as a collection allowance.

Key provisions
- Amends:
- Section 5 of Chapter 64H (sales tax provisions).
- Section 6 of Chapter 64I (other specified tax provisions).
- Entitles vendors to retain 2% of the total tax they collect in any calendar year.
- Annual maximum retention per vendor: $750 total, combined across amounts retained under both Chapter 64H and Chapter 64I.
- Vendors may deduct up to 2% of tax collected in each standard reporting period until they reach the annual $750 cap.
- Once the annual cap is reached, vendors cannot deduct further amounts until the next calendar year.

Who is affected
- Retail vendors and other taxpayers required to collect taxes under Chapters 64H and 64I.
- Massachusetts Department of Revenue (administration, guidance, reporting).
- Indirectly affects state tax receipts (reduced remittances up to the allowance amount).

Potential impacts
- Provides modest administrative relief/compensation to vendors for collection duties.
- Reduces net tax receipts for the Commonwealth by up to $750 per vendor per year (aggregate statewide impact depends on the number of vendors).
- Requires vendors and the Department of Revenue to track annual retention amounts across reporting periods and across the two statutory chapters.

Procedural/timeline notes (from supplied actions)
- Prefiled: 12/05/2024
- Introduced and read first time: 01/14/2025
- Referred: Committee on Judiciary (01/14/2025) and later to Committee on Revenue (02/27/2025)
- Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Kilmartin (02/26/2025)
- Senate concurred: 02/27/2025
- Hearing scheduled: 09/29/2025 (01:00–05:00 PM in A-1)

B. South Carolina: Proposed addition of Section 6-1-165 (local government meeting agendas)

Purpose
- To grant individual school board, municipal council, and county council members the right to place items on public meeting agendas and to address failures to include such items.

Key provisions
- Any member may place one or more items on the agenda of meetings of the board/council on which they serve; that request is not subject to approval by another member.
- Items must be placed on the agenda if the request complies with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) notice requirements.
- If a properly requested item is omitted, the requesting member is entitled to a three‑minute “personal privilege” period during the meeting to publicly address the omission; additional 3‑minute periods apply for each omitted item.
- All such personal-privilege periods must occur before the meeting may be adjourned; any motion to adjourn made before these periods occur is invalid.
- Effective upon governor’s approval (per the draft).

Who is affected
- Local elected members of school district boards, municipal councils, and county councils.
- Local governments’ clerks and FOIA/meeting notice processes.
- Public meeting agendas and potentially meeting length and operations.

Potential impacts
- Increases the ability of individual members to compel agenda inclusion and public discussion.
- Could lengthen meetings and affect local agenda-setting processes.
- Raises considerations about FOIA compliance and administrative implementation.

If you want, I can:
- Produce a single consolidated comparison and highlight legal/administrative questions to check with the relevant state legislature, or
- Pull up the official bill text/status from the Massachusetts or South Carolina legislative website (please specify which).

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

Sign in to ask a question.