BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 668 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 27, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND TAXATION Philip Ting, Chair AB 668 (Gomez) - As Amended March 26, 2015 Majority vote. Fiscal committee. SUBJECT: Property taxation: assessment: affordable housing SUMMARY: Requires the county assessor to consider, when valuing real property for property taxation purposes, a recorded contract that restricts the use of the land for at least 30 years to affordable housing, as specified, with a nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is the advancement of affordable housing, as specified. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires the county assessor, when valuing real property for property taxation purposes, to consider a recorded contract with a nonprofit corporation. 2)Provides that the recorded contract must restrict the use of the land for at least 30 years to housing available at AB 668 Page 2 affordable housing cost or affordable rent, as defined under the Zenovich-Moscone-Chacon Housing and Home Finance Act. 3)Provides that the recorded contract must be with a nonprofit corporation, organized pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 501(c)(3), that has a primary purpose of advancing affordable housing and provides funding or land for affordable housing. EXISTING LAW: 1)Limits the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property at 1% of full cash value (California Constitution Section One of Article XIII). 2)Requires property to be reassessed to current fair market value whenever it is purchased, newly constructed, or when ownership changes, with specified exceptions, and provides a rebuttable presumption that the fair market value is the purchase price. 3)Defines "purchase price" as the total consideration provided by the purchaser or on the purchaser's behalf, valued in money, whether paid in money or otherwise. 4)Requires county assessors, when determining assessed valuation, to consider the effect on property of the value of any enforceable restrictions against the use of the land, such as zoning, easements, environmental restrictions, and recorded contracts with government agencies [Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) Section 402.1]. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Board of Equalization (BOE) "[i]t is not possible to determine the revenue impact of this measure with any degree of certainty due to the number of variables. Each assessor must exercise his or her judgment to determine whether the value of the property at that particular location is equal to, or more or less than, the purchase price AB 668 Page 3 as a result of the impact of the enforceable restriction placed by the nonprofit organization." COMMENTS: 1)Author's Statement : The author has provided the following statement in support of this bill: It is in our best interest as a State to promote affordable housing and create opportunities for affordable homeownership. AB 668 will allow a county assessor to consider certain affordable housing deed restrictions when valuing a property for property tax purposes. Currently, there is a wide variance between jurisdictions with regard to assessing the value of affordable homes. While some assessors consider the recorded contracts and deed restrictions between a low-income homeowner and a non-profit organization, others choose not to and instead, assess these homes at the "fair market value". This is especially burdensome for a low-income household that is restricted from spending more than 30 percent of its income on its monthly mortgage, which includes property taxes. AB 668 provides a simple remedy to this discrepancy and creates equity for low-income homeowners by encouraging consistency among local property tax assessors. Under my bill, assessors would consider affordability restrictions of at least 30 years when determining the value of a house for property tax purposes. I will continue working closely with the California Assessors' Association and others to address any outstanding concerns with the bill. 2)Arguments in Support : According to California Housing Consortium, "[a]ffordable housing rental and ownership units typically have rent restrictions tied to the property for a minimum of 15 years, with some lasting for 55 years or longer. AB 668 Page 4 However, under current law, a county assessor does not have the authority to consider these deed restrictions when valuing property for property tax purposes. AB 668 would allow a county assessor to consider a restriction that requires housing to be available at affordable cost or affordable rent for at least 30 years when assessing the land." 3)Arguments in Opposition : According to the California Assessor's Association, "Section 402.1 of the [R&TC] requires the assessors to take into consideration the effect of 'enforceable governmental' restrictions on a property's full cash value to substantially reduce the assessed value of the property. This bill would specifically require a county assessor to consider a recorded contract with a non-profit entity that restricts the use of the land for at least 30 years for affordable housing or affordable rent, when valuing real property for property taxation purposes." The California Assessor's Association further state that "the meaning of 'enforceable restrictions' is limited to government entities - and for good reason. Government entities are in the best position to evaluate the overall benefit to the entire community relative to the loss in property tax revenue." 4)Background : Habitat for Humanity works with families who contribute sweat equity to the construction of the home. Habitat for Humanity attaches a covenant or restrictions sometimes known as a "silent second mortgage", secured by a deed of trust that limits any family purchasing the home from reselling it so that the home remains affordable should the initially selected family choose to move out. Households that assume a mortgage from Habitat for Humanity are restricted from spending more than 30% of their income on their monthly mortgage, which includes property taxes, insurance, HOA dues, and deferred maintenance. The family must agree to the covenant in order to buy the subsidized home. Assessment of the property at fair market value, without consideration of the affordability covenant which limits the resale price, AB 668 Page 5 increases the amount of the property taxes the homeowner must pay making the home less affordable for lower income families. 5)What is the Problem ? Habitat for Humanity claims that county assessors do not always take the affordable housing restrictions within the contract into consideration. In 2015, the organization surveyed 22 counties and found that assessment practices varied on homes their affiliates sold. The organization states that in some areas the assessed value is based on whether or not the construction involved city or county funds and in others the value is based on verbal agreements with the local assessor. According to Habitat for Humanity, the "variance in local tax policy financially disadvantages one low-income family purchasing a home in one area of the state compared to a low-income family in a neighboring jurisdiction." 6)Do Assessors have Authority to Consider Private Agreements ? Existing law requires every assessor to assess property subject to general property taxation at its full value. In the assessment of land, the assessor must consider the effect of any enforceable restrictions to which the use of the land may be subject, such as zoning, easements, environmental restrictions, and recorded contracts with governmental agencies. However, "[a]s a general rule, private parties cannot reduce the taxable value of their property by imposing private encumbrances upon it; only enforceable government restrictions under [R&TC] Section 402.1 are recognized as limiting the full fee simple interest." (Assessor's Handbook Section 502, ADVANCED APPRAISAL December 1998, Reprinted January 2015, pg. 6). The inability of private parties to reduce the taxable value of their property through self-imposed private encumbrances has long been recognized by courts. (Carlson v. Assessment Appeals Board, 167 Cal. App. 3d 1004). In Carlson v. Assessment Appeals Board, Walton entered into a AB 668 Page 6 written agreement with Standard Realty and Development Company (Standard Company) for the purchase of a 4.9-acre parcel of unimproved land. The agreement required Walton to construct a warehouse of not less than 60,000 square feet on the property within two years, contract with Western Pacific Railroad for rail services to the warehouse, and grant an easement to Western Pacific. If Walton failed to construct the warehouse, Standard Company had the option to repurchase the land for the price sold. Walton was not allowed to either assign the agreement or convey the property without Standard Company's prior written consent. The assessor valued the property as a "fee simple unencumbered" using comparable sales method, but the assessment appeals board determined that the deed restrictions adversely affected the value of the property. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the assessment appeals board unlawfully considered the restrictions placed upon the property by agreement of the owner and seller. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal explained that Walton did not acquire complete rights of fee ownership because an interest in the property remained with Standard Company. Furthermore, having multiple legal interests in property does not affect the assessment because the assessment is against the property itself. (Id.) Therefore, the assessor properly took into consideration the value of the fee simple absolute, which included the combined interests of Walton and Standard Company. (Id.) According to information provided by Habitat for Humanity, in consideration for receiving a home for less than fair market value, the family receiving a home must generally agree to the following conditions: (a) Habitat for Humanity maintains an option to repurchase the home if the property is leased, refinanced, encumbered, or transferred; (b) the home shall be used only for the use of the family along with present and future children; (c) the family must maintain the home; (d) AB 668 Page 7 additions or substantial alterations may not be made without the Habitat for Humanity's consent; and, (e) the home must be maintained for affordable housing. The restrictions imposed on land within the "grant deed," without additional information, appear to be the kinds of private party encumbrances described within the Assessor's Handbook and in Carlson v. Assessment Appeals Board. It is clear that private encumbrances cannot be considered in the assessment of land. However, R&TC Section 402.1 does provide for the consideration of recorded government contract in the assessment of land. Habitat for Humanity, in its letter of support, has stated that "[i]n some areas, the assessed value was reduced based on whether or not city or county funds were involved in the construction." Using city or county funds for a project, by itself, does not appear to be a government contract because the restrictions imposed on the use of land are contained within the grant deed agreed to between Habitat for Humanity and the family purchasing the property. It could be that city or county funds are conditional upon the family's acceptance of the restrictions held within the grant deed, but additional information would be required. Finally, Habitat for Humanity explains that in other areas the assessed value was reduced "based on verbal agreements with the local assessor, which recognized the effect of our long-term affordability restrictions upon the value of the land." There appears to be even less authority supporting the reduction in assessed value for long term affordability restrictions recognized by verbal agreements. Therefore, it is unclear to Committee staff whether assessors have the authority to consider such private land restrictions in the valuation of property. As such, authorization in law may be required. 7)What Does this Bill Do ? This bill requires the county assessor, when valuing real property, to consider a recorded contract that restricts the use of the land for at least 30 AB 668 Page 8 years to affordable housing with a nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is the advancement of affordable housing. In essence, this bill requires a county assessor to consider the private encumbrances created by nonprofit corporations that advance affordable housing. Such a change in law would allow private entities to effectively reduce the assessment value based on self-imposed encumbrances, which could be problematic for local property tax revenue. To try and limit the application of the law to legitimate nonprofits providing affordable housing, the Committee on Housing and Community Development suggested limiting the application of this bill to 501 (c) 3 nonprofit organizations that have been approved by the BOE for a welfare exemption for properties intended to be sold to low-income families who participate in a special no-interest loan program. However, requiring a nonprofit organization to receive approval from the BOE for a welfare exemption does not provide oversight with respect to long-term restrictions imposed on the property or the price a low-income family pays for the property, all of which affect the assessment value. Even if the bill limits the application to legitimate nonprofits, assessors and local governments are subject to varying restrictions decided between private parties. 8)Double referral : This bill was double referred to the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development, which passed this bill on April 15, 2015, with a vote of 6-0. For additional discussion of this bill, please refer to the analysis prepared by the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development. 9)Prior Legislation : SB 449 (Wyland), of the 2013-14 Legislative Session, is identical to this bill. SB 449 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee's Suspense File. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: AB 668 Page 9 Support Habitat for Humanity California California Housing Consortium Opposition California Assessors' Association Analysis Prepared by:Carlos Anguiano / REV. & TAX. / (916) 319-2098