BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 1284
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   July 16, 2008

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                  Mark Leno, Chair

                   SB 1284 (Lowenthal) - As Amended:  July 1, 2008 

          Policy Committee:                             Revenue and  
          Taxation     Vote:                            9-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          Yes    Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill restores a full property tax exemption and cancels  
          outstanding property taxes for an affordable project that was  
          originally created as part of the "Century Freeway Housing"  
          program.  Specifically, this bill:

          1)Enables a low income housing development to qualify for the  
            property tax "welfare exemption" if it was previously  
            purchased and owned by the Department of Transportation  
            pursuant to a consent decree requiring housing mitigation  
            measures related to freeway construction.

          2)Provides that any outstanding tax levied on low income housing  
            between January 1, 2002 and January 1, 2009 be canceled if the  
            property (a) was previously purchased and owned by the  
            Department of Transportation pursuant to a consent decree  
            related to the construction of a freeway and (b) the owner is  
            a non-profit organization and had been operating the property  
            continuously for low-income housing. 

           FISCAL EFFECT
           
          Board of Equalization (BOE) staff estimate that the bill will  
          result in (a) the cancellation of past due property taxes  
          totaling $932,000, and (b) ongoing property tax reductions of  
          $167,000 annually. Under Proposition 98, the roughly 40% share  
          of local property tax reductions allocated to schools would be  
          backfilled by the General Fund, resulting in an ongoing increase  
          in GF costs of around $70,000 annually.

          Ongoing losses only occur, however, if it is assumed that,  








                                                                  SB 1284
                                                                  Page  2

          without the bill, the existing owner will continue to operate  
          the affordable housing project without refinancing its privately  
          secured loan with public financing sources (which, as discussed  
          below, would restore the exemption.) 

           COMMENTS
           
           1)Background - welfare exemption for affordable housing  
            projects  . Under existing law, property owned and operated by a  
            nonprofit corporation or partnership and used exclusively for  
            low income rental housing is eligible for a "welfare  
            exemption" from California's property tax, provided that it  
            meets one of several criteria. These are (a) the acquisition  
            of the property was publicly financed with tax exempt bonds,  
            or federal or state loans or grants; (b) the owner of the  
            property receives federal low-income housing tax credits; or  
            (c) 90% of the occupants of the property are low income  
            households whose rent does not exceed an amount specified by  
            California's Health and Safety Code. A project qualifying  
            under the last of the three criteria is eligible for an  
            exemption capped at $20,000 annually.

          2)Background - Century Freeway Housing Program.  This bill is  
            narrowly crafted so that it would likely apply only to 222  
            units of rental housing in 12 separate developments owned by  
            the Long Beach Affordable Housing Coalition (LBAHC). These  
            properties were originally developed by Caltrans pursuant to a  
            court challenge to the Century Freeway (I-105) in Los Angeles  
            County. In 1979, the case was settled and the district court  
            issued a consent decree requiring Caltrans to replenish the  
            affordable housing that was demolished to build the freeway.  
            The consent decree created the "Century Freeway Housing  
            Program" and designated the California Department of Housing  
            and Community as the lead agency to coordinate and implement  
            the housing program.

            Caltrans developed 222 units of rental housing in 12  
            developments to be maintained as affordable housing for  
            low-income households, and later transferred those properties  
            to the Century Freeway Housing program. In 1995, the program  
            was privatized, and the developments were transferred several  
            times between non-profit organizations. In 2004, the  
            developments were sold to LBAHC at a reduced price. Because of  
            the reduced price, LBAHC was able to finance the acquisition  
            private mortgage secured by rental income. The properties are  








                                                                  SB 1284
                                                                  Page  3

            in the cities of Compton, Cudahy, Inglewood, Los Angeles,  
            Lynwood, and Paramount. The transfer of the properties to  
            LBAHC reset a low income housing affordability deed  
            restriction on these properties to a new 50-year period.

            Up until the time the properties were sold to LBAHC, they were  
            eligible for the full welfare exemption from property taxes  
            because they were secured through tax-exempt financing, were  
            owned by non-profit organizations, and were maintained as  
            affordable housing projects.

            However, when the properties were sold to LBAHC they lost the  
            eligibility for the full exemption, even though the  
            developments continue to be operated as affordable housing and  
            LBAHC is a non-profit organization. This is because  
            legislation enacted in 1999 (AB 1559 (Wiggins, Chapter 927,  
            Statutes of 1999) added a requirement that, in order to  
            qualify for the full exemption, a development must have been  
            acquired using public financing. Because LBAHC was able to  
            purchase the project at a reduced price using private funding,  
            the project no longer meets that criteria. Since it meets  
            other criteria, the project continues to be eligible for the  
            capped exemption (i.e. exemption for the first $20,000 of  
            property taxes). However because the assessed value of the  
            project is over $16 million, the owners remain liable for  
            $167,000 in annual property taxes. With penalties and  
            interest, the accumulated property tax bill since 2004 is now  
            $932,000. 

            LBAHC could regain the full exemption by refinancing its  
            private loan with tax exempt bonds. However, this option would  
            result in considerable time and expense and, ironically, could  
            result in a loss of state revenues to the extent that interest  
            LBAHC paid on tax-exempt bonds would not be subject to state  
            income taxes. 

           3)Purpose  . The author states that this bill is needed to ensure  
            the continued affordability of a portion of the Century  
            Freeway affordable housing portfolio without the need for  
            additional public subsidies. Supporters assert that if LBAHC  
            is required to pay property taxes on these developments, the  
            properties will operate in the red, and LBAHC's only option  
            will be to sell the properties or refinance with new public  
            subsidy funds, in which case, the properties will qualify for  
            a tax exemption again.








                                                                  SB 1284
                                                                  Page  4


           4)Narrow exemption or reasonable accommodation  ?  The purpose  
            behind the public financing requirement added by SB 1559 was  
            to prevent owners of blighted and deteriorated housing  
            projects from receiving the welfare exemption by using a  
            nonprofit organization as a front for the property owners in a  
            limited partnership or by creating a non-profit organization.  
            Thus, even though LBAHC is a highly respected nonprofit  
            organization, it is reasonable to ask whether the bill will  
            erode safeguards put in place by earlier legislation.

            It can be also be argued, however, that earlier legislation  
            did not envision the unique circumstances surrounding the  
            Century Freeway properties, and this bill proposes a  
            reasonable accommodation that recognizes these unique  
            circumstances. Virtually all low income projects need public  
            subsidies to be viable, and this normally takes the form of  
            tax exempt financing, government subsidized loans, and/or low  
            income housing tax credits. The Century Freeway units,  
            however, were developed by a public agency using public  
            funding. They were then privatized with the intent that they  
            continue to be operated as affordable housing units. The  
            "public-subsidy" in this case took the form of a below-market  
            sale of the properties to these entities. Because of this  
            below-market purchase, the current operator did not require  
            the use of other public subsidies that that would have  
            qualified them for the exemption.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081