BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 1172
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 1172 (Bocanegra)
          As Amended  
           January 6, 2014    
          Majority vote 

           LOCAL GOVERNMENT    9-0         REVENUE & TAXATION       8-0    
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Achadjian, Levine, Alejo, |Ayes:|Bocanegra, Dahle, Harkey, |
          |     |Bradford, Gordon,         |     |Mullin, Nestande, Pan, V. |
          |     |Melendez, Mullin, Rendon, |     |Manuel P�rez, Ting        |
          |     |Waldron                   |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           APPROPRIATIONS      16-0                                        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, Allen,    |     |                          |
          |     |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian  |     |                          |
          |     |Calderon, Campos, Eggman, |     |                          |
          |     |Gomez, Holden, Linder,    |     |                          |
          |     |Pan, Quirk,               |     |                          |
          |     |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner,    |     |                          |
          |     |Weber                     |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Requires the California Research Bureau (CRB), on or  
          before December 1, 2015, to provide the Legislature with a  
          report that evaluates the impact of Florida's "Save Our Homes"  
          portability statute on Florida's state and local revenue, and  
          the potential revenue impacts on California if a similar statute  
          were enacted in California.  Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Requires the CRB, on or before December 1, 2015, to provide a  
            report to the Legislature that evaluates the impact of  
            Florida's "Save Our Homes" portability statute (Florida  
            Statute Section 193.155 (8)) on Florida's state and local  
            revenue, and the potential revenue impacts on California if a  
            similar statute were enacted in California.  

          2)Requires the CRB to submit the report to the Legislature in  
            compliance with specified requirements in existing law.  








                                                                  AB 1172
                                                                  Page  2



          3)Repeals this section on December 1, 2019.  

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Provides that all property is taxable unless explicitly  
            exempted by the California Constitution or federal law.  

          2)Limits the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real  
            property at 1% of full cash value. 

          3)Requires assessors to reappraise property whenever it is  
            purchased, newly constructed, or when ownership changes.  

          4)Allows homeowners over the age of 55 to transfer, subject to  
            limitations, their existing assessed value to a new home, of  
            equal or lesser market value, within the same county. 

          5)Allows homeowners over the age of 55 to transfer, subject to  
            limitations, their existing assessed value to a new home, of  
            equal or lesser market value, in a different participating  
            county, only if the county has adopted an ordinance.  

          6)Authorizes a county board of supervisors, in consultation with  
            all other local affected agencies within the county's  
            boundaries, to adopt an ordinance to allow an intercounty  
            transfer described in 5) above, subject to specific  
            requirements.  

          7)Allows disabled homeowners to transfer, subject to  
            limitations, their existing assessed value from an existing  
            home to a newly purchased home of equal or lesser market  
            value.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, costs of approximately $50,000 to the CRB for  
          preparation of the report.
             
           COMMENTS :  This bill requires the CRB to submit a report to the  
          Legislature, on or before December 1, 2015, that evaluates the  
          impact of the Florida State "Save Our Homes" portability statute  
          on Florida's state and local revenue, and the potential revenue  
          impacts on California if a similar statute were enacted in  
          California.  This bill is author-sponsored.  








                                                                  AB 1172
                                                                  Page  3



          The Florida Department of Revenue describes the "Save Our Homes"  
          portability statute, as follows, "After the first year a home  
          receives a homestead exemption and the property appraiser  
          assesses it at just value, the amount the assessment can  
          increase for each following year cannot be more than 3% or the  
          percent change in the Consumer Price Index whichever is less.   
          This is called the "Save Our Homes" (SOH) assessment limitation.  
           The accumulated difference between your assessed value and the  
          just (market) value is your SOH benefit.  Portability allows  
          most Florida homestead owners to transfer (or "port") their SOH  
          benefit from their old homestead to a new homestead, lowering  
          the tax assessment (and consequently, the taxes) for the new  
          homestead."  

          According to the author, "Since the passage of Proposition 13 in  
          1978, property is generally taxed on the value at the time of  
          acquisition, with increases thereafter limited to 2% per year.   
          The 2% increase is generally not enough to keep up with the  
          natural rise in home prices in the market.  The 2% limit  
          eventually creates a gap between the assessed value of the  
          property and its actual market value, which generally increases  
          the longer the owner holds on to the property.  The disparity  
          between assessed property value and market value that comes from  
          an acquisition value system leads to serious economic  
          inefficiencies.  Specifically, it increases the cost of  
          purchasing property and imposes moving penalties.  

          "Florida's portability statute, which allows a homeowner to  
          transfer the tax savings accumulated over the years to a new  
          home, may help address the moving penalties experienced by  
          homeowners when moving to bigger homes.  Instead of discouraging  
          homeowners from moving into homes that better suit their needs,  
          the portability statute allows homeowners to make the move  
          without fear of having to pay substantially higher property  
          taxes."  

          Proponents of Proposition 13 argue that it has provided property  
          owners in California with substantial protections from higher  
          property tax rates and frequent reassessments.  The author  
          argues that an unintended consequence of Proposition 13 is that  
          it provides taxpayers with a strong tax incentive not to move to  
          housing that more closely meets their demand.  









                                                                  AB 1172
                                                                  Page  4


          The Legislature may wish to consider the following policy  
          questions:

          1)The CRB, as part of the California State Library, provides  
            nonpartisan research services, which may include the  
            preparation of reports, to the Governor, Legislature, and to  
            other elected state officials.  According to the CRB, requests  
            of this nature can be made absent legislation through a more  
            informal process that includes discussions and a written  
            request from a client.  

            The Legislature may wish to ask the author why this bill is  
            necessary if the report in this bill can be requested by  
            simply contacting the CRB.  

          2)Florida does not have a state-level property tax.  Local  
            governments, including cities, counties, school boards, and  
            special districts, levy property taxes that are generally set  
            on an annual basis with the oversight of the Florida  
            Department of Revenue.  

            The Legislature may wish to consider the value of a report  
            given the vast differences between Florida and California's  
            tax systems.  

          3)In California, Proposition 60 (1986) and Proposition 90 (1988)  
            allow disabled homeowners and those over the age of 55,  
            subject to certain conditions, to transfer a property's base  
            year value from an existing residence to a replacement  
            residence within the same county.  Eligible homeowners may  
            transfer their existing assessed value to a new home within  
            their current county of residence, and may transfer to other  
            counties if the destination county has enacted a resolution.  

            Currently, eight counties (Alameda, El Dorado, Los Angeles,  
            Orange, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Ventura) have  
            approved ordinances pursuant to Proposition 90.  Several  
            counties (Contra Costa, Inyo, Kern, Riverside, Modoc,  
            Monterey, and Marin) have repealed this ordinance due to  
            fiscal constraints.  

            The Legislature may wish to consider if further study on  
            California's existing laws, especially among the counties that  
            repealed the Proposition 90 ordinance due to fiscal  








                                                                  AB 1172
                                                                  Page  5


            constraints, may be more valuable than the information  
            requested by this bill that is specific to another state.  

          Support arguments:  According to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers  
          Association, this bill will expand the knowledge base and  
          increase empirical data as to the financial impact of  
          portability.  

          Opposition arguments:  Opposition may argue that the bill is  
          unnecessary and can be accomplished by a written request to the  
          CRB.  

           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    Misa Yokoi-Shelton / L. GOV. / (916)  
          319-3958 

               
                                                                FN: 0002989