Property taxes: community land trust.
Summary
The California Constitution generally limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property. For purposes of this limitation, the California Constitution defines "full cash value" as the assessor's fair market value valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill under "full cash value" or, thereafter, the appraised value of that real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred. Existing property tax law generally defines this "full cash value" of property as the property's "fair market value" and defines these terms to mean the amount of cash or its equivalent that property would bring if exposed for sale in the open market under conditions in which neither buyer nor seller could take advantage of the exigencies of the other, and both the buyer and the seller have knowledge of all of the uses and purposes to which the property is adapted and for which it is capable of being used, and of the enforceable restrictions upon those uses and purposes. Existing property tax law requires the assessor to consider the effect of certain enforceable restrictions, including, among others, a contract that is a 99-year ground lease between a community land trust, as defined, and the qualified owner, as defined, of an owner-occupied single-family dwelling or an owner-occupied unit in a multifamily dwelling, that subjects a single-family dwelling or unit in a multifamily dwelling and the leased land on which the dwelling or unit is situated to affordability restrictions, as defined. This bill would require, when valuing property subject to the enforceable restriction described above, that the sale or resale price of the dwelling or unit be rebuttably presumed to include both the dwelling or unit and the leased land on which the dwelling or unit is situated, and would authorize this presumption to be overcome if the assessor establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that all or a portion of the value of the leased land is not reflected in the sale or resale price of the dwelling or unit. The bill would require corrections of base year values and declines in value owing to the restrictions on properties assessed pursuant to these provisions to apply to all lien dates occurring after September 27, 2016. The bill would also make findings and declarations regarding the public purpose served by the bill. Existing property tax law, in accordance with the California Constitution, provides for a "welfare exemption" for property used exclusively for religious, hospital, scientific, or charitable purposes and that is owned or operated by certain types of nonprofit entities, if certain qualifying criteria are met. This bill would provide that property is within the welfare exemption if that property is owned by a community land trust, as defined, otherwise qualifying for the welfare exemption, and specified conditions are met, including that the property is being or will be developed or rehabilitated as housing, as specified. The bill would require this exemption to apply for 5 lien dates, as provided. The bill would prohibit this exemption from being denied on the basis that the subject property does not currently contain specified property that is in the course of construction. The bill would require the community land trust to be liable for property tax for the years for which the property was exempt under these provisions if the property was not developed or rehabilitated, or if the development or rehabilitation is not in the course of construction, by January 1, 2025, in the case of property acquired by the community land trust before January 1, 2020, or within 5 years of the lien date following the acquisition of the property in the case of property acquired by the community land trust on and after January 1, 2020, and before January 1, 2025, and would require the community land trust to notify the assessor if property owned by the community land trust is not in the course of construction by these dates. The bill, in the case where property that is owned by a community land trust becomes subject to taxation as so described, would require any assessment made, as provided, to be made within 5 years of the lien date following the date on which the property becomes subject to taxation. By imposing new duties upon local government officials with respect to the exemption provided by this bill, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Existing law requires the state to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding those provisions, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Jan 2019
Committee Review
Aug 2019
Senate Passage
May 2019
Assembly Passage
Sep 2019
Signed into Law
Oct 2019
Introduced Jan 31, 2019
Signed Oct 9, 2019
Floor votes · Senate May 23, 2019 · Assembly Sep 10, 2019
How they voted
35–0
Passed
Total votes 35
May 23, 2019
D
Democratic27
100% Yea
R
Republican8
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
31
Key actions
10
Committee
7
Amendments
3
Oct 9, 2019
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Sep 11, 2019
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2867.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Sep 10, 2019
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Sep 10, 2019
Lower · Passed
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 3333.) Ordered to the Senate.
lower
Sep 3, 2019
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
lower
Aug 30, 2019
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 18. Noes 0.) (August 30).
lower
Jul 9, 2019
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (July 8). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jun 24, 2019
Lower · Passed
June 24 hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Jun 6, 2019
Committee
Referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.
lower
May 23, 2019
Upper · Passed
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 1272.) Ordered to the Assembly.
upper
May 16, 2019
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 1092.) (May 16).
upper
May 6, 2019
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 902.) (May 1).
upper
Feb 13, 2019
Committee
Referred to Com. on GOV. & F.
upper
Jan 31, 2019
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 2 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Jim Beall
DDemocratic
Co
Bob Wieckowski
DDemocratic
Co
Mike McGuire
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 196
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 196. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline