California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: Enacted 1 D cosponsors

SB 196 — Property taxes: community land trust.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 669, Statutes of 2019.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 31, 2019. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 76% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 3 sponsors

    1 primary, 2 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 8 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

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 Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 669, Statutes of 2019.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2867.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. Ordered to special consent calendar.

  6. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  7. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 3333.) Ordered to the Senate.

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 18. Noes 0.) (August 30).

  11. August 14 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  12. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (July 8). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  13. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.

  14. July 1 hearing: Heard for testimony only.

  15. June 24 hearing postponed by committee.

  16. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.

  17. Referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.

  18. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  19. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 1272.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  20. Ordered to special consent calendar.

  21. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  22. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 1092.) (May 16).

  23. Set for hearing May 16.

  24. May 13 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  25. Set for hearing May 13.

  26. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  27. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 902.) (May 1).

  28. Set for hearing May 1.

  29. Referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  30. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 3.

  31. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Beall · Primary
  • Mike McGuire · Cosponsor
  • Wieckowski · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 2 co-sponsors · 119 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Beall

Co-sponsors (2)

Not signed on (119)

119 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 119 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Unfinished Business SB196 Beall et al. Concurrence

Passed 40 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 27000
Democratic 10000
Republican 3000
Total 40000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Rubio — Yea
Monning — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Beall — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Hill — Yea
Roth — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Allen — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bates — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Chang — Yea
Pan — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

SB 196 Beall Senate Third Reading By Petrie-Norris

Passed 79 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 52000
Democratic 22000
Republican 5000
Total 79000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Mathis — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Diep — Yea
Chau — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Low — Yea
Burke — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Smith — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Gray — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Kamlager-Dove — Yea
Medina — Yea
Chu — Yea
Ting — Yea
McCarty — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Salas — Yea
Brough — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Holden — Yea
Daly — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Weber — Yea
Fong — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Levine — Yea
Wood — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 18 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 5000
Unaffiliated 13000
Total 18000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Fong — Yea
Brough — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Diep — Yea
Chau — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Special Consent SB196

Passed 38 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 27000
Democratic 9000
Republican 2000
Total 38000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (38)
Member Party Vote
Rubio — Yea
Monning — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Beall — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Hill — Yea
Roth — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Allen — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bates — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Chang — Yea
Pan — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Unaffiliated 5000
Total 6000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (6)
Member Party Vote
Wieckowski — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bates — Yea
Hill — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Unaffiliated 5000
Total 6000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (6)
Member Party Vote
Wieckowski — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bates — Yea
Hill — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

taxation housing
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 196 do?
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.
Who sponsors SB 196?
SB 196 is sponsored by Beall, McGuire, Mike (Democratic), and Wieckowski.
What is the current status of SB 196?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 31, 2019. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 196?
Track SB 196 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 196

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 196

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →