Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Deferral Seniors topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee sends senior property‑tax deferral bill to general orders after treasurers raise implementation concerns
Summary
Representative Wisniewski presented House Bill 355 to clarify the scope of property‑tax deferral for qualified seniors. County treasurer witnesses warned the bill’s current language could delay tax‑deed processes and carry software and administrative costs; the committee voted to send the bill to general orders for further amendment.
BOISE, March 6 — The House Revenue & Taxation Committee voted to send House Bill 355 to general orders after sponsor Representative Wisniewski described the bill as a clarification of the state’s existing property-tax deferral program for qualifying seniors and county treasurers raised operational objections.
Representative Wisniewski said the bill would clarify whether “any property tax due” that a qualified claimant may defer includes prior years in arrears, current-year charges, or both. He described the program as longstanding (in statute since 2006), available to residents age 65 and older who meet income and equity tests, and said the state places a lien on the property in exchange for the deferral; interest is set in statute as the federal rate plus two percentage points, which he said currently amounts to about 6 percent.
Annette Dygert, testifying for the Idaho Association of County Treasurers, urged the committee to hold the bill in committee unless its language were changed to specify that the deferral applies only to the current tax year and current tax delinquencies. Dygert said the tax-deed process is initiated after three consecutive years of delinquency and that adding past delinquencies into a deferral program could delay the treasurers’ statutory tax-deed hearings, in some cases by six months to a year. She also pointed to a fiscal note estimate of roughly $40,000 statewide for a software change and said only about 10 people had applied for deferral in a recent year, though county experience varies.
Dygert noted that the deferral program in statute covers the home and one acre, requires a yearly application and qualification, and prohibits reverse-mortgaged properties. She asked the committee to clarify that the bill refer to the current year and current delinquencies if counties were to support it.
Representative Wisniewski told the committee that he interprets “any tax due” to include past taxes and he expressed concern that narrowing the phrase to only the current year would defeat the purpose of protecting long‑time homeowners from imminent tax‑deed sales. He also said payments are applied to the oldest taxes first under current law, which can cure the three‑year delinquency sequence if the current year payment is applied to prior taxes.
Representative Britt Raybould moved that House Bill 355 be sent to general orders to allow further amendment; Representative Wisniewski agreed to that motion. The committee approved the motion by voice vote and the chair announced it carried.
The exchange highlighted a substantive implementation question that members said could be resolved in amendment: whether the deferral should be limited to current-year taxes and delinquencies (the treasurers’ preference) or whether the statute should permit deferral of prior taxes to prevent imminent tax-deed sales (the sponsor’s interpretation). The committee opted to advance the bill to general orders to give the sponsor and interested county officials time to negotiate clarifying language.
