BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 1322
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  April 29, 2013

                     ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND TAXATION
                                Raul Bocanegra, Chair

               AB 1322 (Patterson) - As Introduced:  February 22, 2013

                                      SUSPENSE

          Majority vote.  Fiscal committee.

           SUBJECT  :  Property tax postponement:  senior citizens and  
          disabled citizens. 

           SUMMARY  :  Reinstates the Senior Citizens' Property Tax  
          Postponement (PTP) program that provided property tax deferment  
          to seniors and disabled persons.  Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Reinstates the PTP program by repealing the suspension of the  
            program and allowing the State Controller (Controller) to  
            consider applications for the property tax postponement  
            program beginning July 1, 2014.

          2)Establishes the Senior Citizens and Disabled Citizens PTP Fund  
            (Fund) within the State Treasury and annually appropriates  
            moneys in the Fund for the purposes of paying costs and  
            disbursements related to the postponement of property taxes of  
            eligible senior citizens and disabled citizens.

          3)Requires PTP loan repayments to be:

             a)   Deposited directly into the Fund if they are not  
               deposited into the program's impound account; and,

             b)   Transferred to the Fund after a six-month period if they  
               are deposited into the program's impound account.

          4)Requires the transfer of funds in excess of $10 million that  
            accumulate in the Fund to the General Fund (GF) and deletes  
            any GF appropriation for the program.

          5)Takes effect immediately as a bill providing for  
            appropriations related to the Budget Bill.

           EXISTING LAW  :








                                                                  AB 1322
                                                                  Page  2


          1)Establishes the Senior Citizens and Disabled Citizens PTP Law,  
            the Senior Citizens Tenant-Stockholder PTP Law, the Senior  
            Citizens Mobilehome PTP Law, and the Senior Citizens  
            Possessory Interest Holder PTP Law in the Revenue and Taxation  
            Code, all of which allow the Controller to pay property taxes  
            to county tax collectors on behalf of individuals over the age  
            of 62 or disabled persons making less than $39,000 in income  
            per year. 

          2)Requires a claimant to repay the Controller upon sale of the  
            home, which secures the property tax loan made by the  
            Controller.  

          3)Suspends the PTP program as part of the budget reductions to  
            the state's GF programs and prohibits individuals from filing  
            new claims for property tax postponement, and the Controller  
            from accepting applications, in the 2009 calendar year and  
            thereafter.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  Unknown.  

           COMMENTS  :   

           1)Author's Statement  .  The author states that, "Many seniors and  
            Californians with disabilities on fixed incomes are faced with  
            tax bills they cannot afford.  Until 2009, California had a  
            program in place that would allow seniors and disabled  
            Californians to defer their property tax bills until sale of  
            the home.  When the Property Tax Postponement (PTP) Program  
            was eliminated in 2009 as a result of budget negotiations,  
            thousands of seniors and disabled Californians were left with  
            nowhere to turn.  They were faced with having to choose  
            between buying food and medicine or paying their bills to the  
            state.  AB 1322 would fix this problem by reinstating the PTP  
            program and giving seniors some flexibility with their  
            property tax bills."

           2)Arguments in Support  .  The proponents of this bill state that  
            the PTP program "had a minimal start-up cost and, in most  
            years generated revenue for the state General fund."   They  
            argue that it is a "valuable program that had been  
            instrumental in keeping thousands of seniors, blind, and  
            disabled individuals in their homes", and nearly "6000  
            homeowners benefitted from the program across nearly all  








                                                                  AB 1322
                                                                  Page  3

            counties in California."  Proponents assert that, with the  
            elimination of the funding for the PTP program, seniors and  
            disabled persons "risk going into foreclosure, putting state  
            at risk regarding those liens it already holds." 

           3)The PTP Program and Its Suspension  .  California has several  
            property tax programs benefiting the elderly and disabled  
            individuals, including property tax reappraisal relief and now  
            suspended property tax assistance and PTP programs.  Unlike  
            the property tax assistance program, the PTP program did not  
            refund a percentage of property taxes paid but, instead allows  
            eligible homeowners to defer payment of all, or a portion of,  
            the property taxes on their residences.  The original program  
            was enacted in 1977, after the passage of a constitutional  
            amendment authorizing the postponement of property taxes  
            (California Constitution, Article XIII, Section 8.5).  

          The PTP program was a loan program from the state to eligible  
            property owners.  Although initially designed for persons over  
            62 years of age, the PTP program was also available to  
            eligible blind and disabled persons, regardless of age.   
            However, claimants had to meet other additional criteria,  
            including having 20% equity in their homes and annual  
            household income of $39,000 or less.  Claimants were required  
            to file applications annually with the Controller's Office,  
            between May 15th and December 10th of each calendar year for  
            the fiscal year (FY) beginning July 1 of that year.  Upon  
            approval of the claim, the Controller either made payments  
            directly to the county tax collector or issued certificates of  
            eligibility to the claimant.  A certificate constituted a  
            written promise of the state to pay all or part of the  
            property taxes on the home.  The term "property taxes"  
            included everything on the claimants' secured property tax  
            bill, including special assessment, charges, and user fees, in  
            addition to ad valorem taxes.  However, special assessments  
            levied independently of the county tax bill were ineligible  
            for postponement.  

          Under the program, in exchange for paying a claimant's property  
            taxes, the state placed a lien on the property for which state  
            funding was used.  The loan was secured by the property and  
            was repaid, with interest, when the property owner died, sold  
            the home, moved, or allowed a "senior lien" to become  
            delinquent.  Each year, interest accrued on the amount that  
            the State paid to the county on behalf of the property owner.   








                                                                  AB 1322
                                                                  Page  4

            Interest rates were set each year based on the annual yield  
            received by the state on its Pooled Money Investment Account. 

          There was no maximum amount of postponed property taxes that  
            could be accumulated under the PTP program.  Over the last 30  
            years, the PTP program has provided assistance to more than  
            200,000 homeowners.  Nearly every county has at least one  
            program participant, and most counties have several dozen  
            participants.  Los Angeles County accounts for 21% of program  
            participants.  San Diego, San Bernardino, Riverside, and  
            Orange counties have 28%, and the nine San Francisco - Bay  
            Area counties have approximately 19% of the program  
            participants. 

          On February 20, 2009, the PTP program was indefinitely suspended  
            as part of the budget reductions to the state's GF programs.   
            [SB x3 8 (Ducheny), Chapter 4, Statutes of 2009].   The  
            funding for the program was eliminated and the Controller was  
            prohibited from accepting any new applications after February  
            20, 2009.  Consequently, the Controller's Office notified the  
            counties and each claimant who was approved for postponement  
            in FY 2008-09 that their application could not be accepted.   
            Most applications submitted by claimants in FY 2008-09 were  
            processed before the suspension became effective. 

           4)The Impact of the Suspension on Program Participants and  
            Counties  .  The PTP program helped thousands of low and  
            moderate income elderly, blind and disabled individuals to  
            remain in their homes.  Historically, the loan repayments,  
            with few exceptions, have equaled or exceeded the annual  
            program expenditures and administrative costs.  Over the  
            long-term, the program has been self-supporting.  For example,  
            in 2007-08 FY and 2008-09 FY, the Controller's Office  
            collected less money than it disbursed in loans.  However, the  
            overall cumulative fiscal impact of the program has been  
            positive:  The PTP program collected $41 million more in PTP  
            loan repayments than it disbursed in PTP loans.  In addition  
            to allowing program participants to remain in their homes, the  
            PTP program has also reduced county property tax default rates  
            and increased county tax collection revenues.  

          According to the survey conducted by the Controller's Office in  
            recent years, the program suspension has had a direct negative  
            impact not only on the program participants but also on the  
            counties.  The suspension of the PTP program, coupled with the  








                                                                  AB 1322
                                                                  Page  5

            elimination of the Franchise Tax Board's Homeowners and  
            Renters Assistance program, has created a tremendous financial  
            hardship for low-income senior, blind, and disabled  
            homeowners.  The program participants have expressed fear of  
            losing their homes to tax-default sales and foreclosures by  
            lenders because of the failure to pay property taxes directly  
            or through an impound account initiated by the lender.  They  
            have also expressed concerns about becoming homeless or  
            dependent on family members and not being able to afford basic  
            necessities.  Many claimants have been in the program for over  
            20 years and have been counting on the loan program to pay  
            their property taxes.  More than 50% of the program  
            participants are 75 years of age or older, and 208 claimants  
            approved for FY 2008-09 were older than 90 years of age.  

          Furthermore, the counties have also been negatively impacted by  
            the program suspension.  In 2010, the county tax collectors  
            reported a decrease in revenue due to higher delinquencies  
            rates, an increase in related workload, including the number  
            of properties that the counties were forced to sell as  
            tax-defaulted, and an increased strain on county services by  
            displaced homeowners.

           5)The "County Deferred PTP" Program  .  In response to the  
            negative impacts of the suspension of the PTP program, the  
            Legislature enacted AB 1090 (Blumenfield), Chapter 369,  
            Statutes of 2011, creating the County Deferred Property Tax  
            Program.  In contrast to the PTP program that was funded  
            exclusively by GF moneys, the County Deferred PTP program is  
            self-financing and not reliant on an annual GF appropriation.   
            It is funded by a participating county through a fund to be  
            established within its treasury.  Upon adoption of a  
            resolution by the county's governing body, and with the  
            consent of the county treasurer, excess county funds are  
            deposited in the fund for the purpose of providing property  
            tax postponement loans to qualified claimants.  AB 1090  
            established uniform statewide eligibility criteria for the  
            claimants and certain rules and guidelines for a County  
            Deferred Property Tax program.  The counties are authorized to  
            charge claimants a specified interest rate on the property tax  
            loans and an application fee, which is used exclusively to  
            cover the costs of administering the program.  Furthermore,  
            counties are allowed to grant retroactive relief for  
            individuals who could not obtain deferment when the  
            Legislature de-funded the original PTP program in 2009.  








                                                                  AB 1322
                                                                  Page  6


          Under the County Deferred PTP program, the property tax loans,  
            i.e. the amount of property taxes deferred, plus interest  
            accrued, are secured by a tax lien against the underlying  
            residential dwelling.  The amount secured by the lien is  
            reduced by the amount of any payment, and is increased to  
            reflect interest accrual or subsequent deferral for the  
            claimant.  If the lien is paid in full, the county tax  
            collector is required to record a release, evidencing the  
            satisfaction of all amounts secured by the lien, and remove  
            specified information from the secured roll and assessment  
            records required when property taxes are postponed.  

          The property taxes are immediately due and payable if the  
            claimant (a) ceases to own the building due to sale,  
            conveyance, or condemnation; (b) ends his/her permanent  
            residence dwelling; (c) experiences a fall in equity value  
            below the program's eligibility criterion; (d) refinances  
            existing loans on the property; or, (e) was erroneously  
            granted deferment because he/she did not meet eligibility  
            criteria.  Finally, similarly to the suspended PTP program, AB  
            1090 precludes lenders from requiring a borrower to maintain  
            an impound, trust, or other type of account with regard to  
            taxes established after 1978, if the borrower chooses to  
            postpone taxes, unless required by federal law or if the  
            prohibition would impair the express obligations of a loan  
            agreement.  

          While the County Deferred Property Tax Program provides a county  
            with an option to defer property taxes for homeowners residing  
            within the county, it nonetheless leaves many low-income  
            homeowners without assistance in counties that choose not to  
            participate in the program. 

           6)What Does This Bill Do ?  According to the sponsors, as the  
            result of the PTP program's suspension, many senior and  
            disabled homeowners are delinquent on their property taxes and  
            risk going into foreclosure proceedings.  AB 1322 is intended  
            to restore the suspended PTP program, with certain  
            modifications, so that postponement claims can once again be  
            accepted by the Controller.  This bill would create a  
            revolving fund to ensure that any administrative costs,  
            deposits, or disbursements remain in the program and would  
            provide a continuous appropriation for the Controller to pay  
            postponement claims. The design of the previous PTP program  








                                                                  AB 1322
                                                                  Page  7

            required some loan repayments to go to the GF and some  
            repayments to go to the program's impound account.  These  
            later amounts were transferred to the GF after six months.   
            Thus, under the previous PTP program, appropriations were made  
            from the GF to pay the postponed property taxes, in contrast  
            to the revolving fund concept embodied in this bill. 

          AB 1322 is designed to help seniors and disabled individuals as  
            well as to lessen the risk to the GF.   The Committee staff  
            estimates, however, that, to the extent that loan repayments  
            would not be transferred to or received by the GF in the  
            budget year 2013-14, resources that would be available to the  
            GF would decrease.  An identical bill, ABx1 34 (Budget  
            Committee), introduced in the 2011 legislative session, was  
            vetoed by the Governor, and was estimated to result in an  
            annual GF decrease ranging from $7 million to $10 million. 

           7)Similar Legislation  .  

            AB 1090 (Blumenfield), Chapter 369, Statutes of 2011,  
            established the County Deferred Property Tax Program for  
            Senior Citizens and Disabled Citizens and allowed each county  
            to elect to participate in the program.  

            ABx1 34 (Budget Committee), introduced in the 2011-2012  
            legislative session, was identical to this bill.  AB x1 34 was  
            vetoed by the Governor:

                    The Seniors Citizens' Property Tax Postponement Law  
                    was enacted 
                    beginning for the 1977-1978 fiscal year to give  
                    property tax relief to 
                    seniors.  It was subsequently expanded to included  
                    blind and disabled 
                    persons. The law was suspended in 2009 due to the  
                    realities of the state's
                    budget.  AB X1 34 would repeal the suspension so that  
                    postponement claims 
                    can once again be accepted by the Controller.  In  
                    addition, the bill would 
                    establish a new fund in the State Treasury and provide  
                    a continuous 
                    appropriation for the Controller to pay postponement  
                    claims.  









                                                                  AB 1322
                                                                  Page  8

                    "Given the very significant cuts to state and local  
                    core public services 
                    that are occurring, the state cannot afford the $19.3  
                    million that the 
                    Department of Finance estimates this bill would cost  
                    during the 2011-2012 
                    fiscal year or the continuing estimated annual revenue  
                    cost of $30 million."  

            REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :   

           Support 
           
          California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors
          California Association of REALTORS
          California State Association of Counties
          Howard Jarvis Association
          Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor
          Marin County Board of Supervisors
          Rural County Representatives of California

           Opposition 
           
          None on file
           
          Analysis Prepared by  :  Oksana Jaffe / REV. & TAX. / (916)  
          319-2098