Ben Allen
- Democratic
- Senator
- District 24
The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to exempt from taxation, in whole or in part, property that is used exclusively for religious, hospital, or charitable purposes, and is owned or held in trust by a nonprofit entity. Pursuant to this constitutional authority, existing law partially exempts, as described, from property taxation property that is used exclusively for rental housing and related facilities and that is owned and operated by specified entities if any of specified criteria are met. Under existing law, one of those criteria requires, except in the case of a limited partnership in which the managing general partner is a nonprofit corporation eligible for the exemption, that 90% or more of the occupants of the property be lower income households whose rents do not exceed the rent limits prescribed by a specified law. Existing law limits the total exemption amount allowed to a taxpayer under that criteria, with respect to a single property or multiple properties for any fiscal year on the sole basis of the application of that criterion, to $20,000,000 of assessed value. This bill would remove, for the 2024–25 fiscal year through the 2028–29 fiscal year, the above-described limit on the total exemption amount for any property for which a claim is filed and granted if, in addition to the above-described requirement, at least 90% of the property's units are made continuously available to, as defined, or are occupied by lower income households, as defined, at a rent that does not exceed the rent for lower income households, as prescribed by specified law, the property is owned and operated by an eligible nonprofit corporation, and the claimant provides an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, that any additional moneys that would have been used to pay any ad valorem property taxes on the property if not for the removal of the exemption cap will be used for the construction or rehabilitation of single or multifamily residential units on specified properties. The bill would require the claimant seeking an exemption pursuant to the bill's provisions to provide to the county assessor any additional documents and materials requested by the county assessor necessary to evaluate the claimant's eligibility for the exemption. The bill would also provide that the claimant is liable for property tax for the years for which the property received the bill's tax benefit if single or multifamily residential units were not constructed or rehabilitated or were not in the course of construction or rehabilitation by specified dates, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing additional duties on local tax officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure to contain, among other things, specific goals, purposes, and objectives that the tax expenditure will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. This bill would include findings and reporting requirements in compliance with this requirement. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so 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. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
July 1 set for second hearing canceled at the request of author.
July 10 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 1327.) Ordered to the Assembly.
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 1176.) (May 18).
Set for hearing May 18.
May 15 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.
Set for hearing May 15.
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 993.) (May 3). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
Set for hearing May 3.
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 18.
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Bill Text Versions | Format |
---|---|
SB588 | HTML |
02/15/23 - Introduced | |
03/20/23 - Amended Senate | |
06/30/23 - Amended Assembly |
Document | Format |
---|---|
04/28/23- Senate Governance and Finance | |
05/12/23- Senate Appropriations | |
05/20/23- Sen. Floor Analyses | |
06/28/24- Assembly Revenue and Taxation |
Data on Open States is updated periodically throughout the day from the official website of the California State Legislature.
If you notice any inconsistencies with these official sources, feel free to file an issue.