Committee hears Rosensweig’s proposal to let lower‑income seniors defer property‑tax increases via state loans

Representative Scott Rosensweig introduced House Bill 836 to the House Taxation Committee as a property‑tax deferral loan program intended to help lower‑income seniors stay in their homes when property taxes rise. Rosensweig said the bill would finance only the increase in property taxes since 2022 rather than the entire tax bill and described the plan as a state‑managed reverse‑mortgage‑style loan with simple interest and consumer protections.

Rosensweig told the committee the loan would be offered at the prime mortgage rate or 5%, whichever is less, and would not compound: "these loans get paid back to the state when the home is sold by the owners or when the estate is sold after the owner's death," he said, adding the loan uses simple interest so interest does not compound. He said the program would be structured as liens and therefore would not create a general‑fund loss.

Eligibility in the bill, as explained to the committee, would target property owners age 62 and older with at least 20% equity in the home (a 10% equity threshold was described for active‑duty military). Rosensweig said qualifying borrowers would also be subject to the Board of Housing's purchase‑price limits (the bill embeds a table of limits and adds 25% to those ceilings to broaden access). He asked for an initial $50,000,000 appropriation to seed the loan program on a first‑come, first‑served basis.

Cheryl Cohen, executive director of the Montana Board of Housing, testified as an informational witness and answered technical questions about loan originations and servicing. Cohen said the board currently originates mortgage and down‑payment assistance loans, purchases those loans using proceeds from tax‑exempt mortgage revenue bonds and would intend to originate and service these unique deferral loans in‑house for operational reasons. She described application checks the board would perform, including title pulls and payoff verifications to determine whether applicants meet the equity requirement.

Committee members pressed sponsors and staff on several details: whether the program is means‑tested (Rosensweig said income limits are set by the Board of Housing and the table on page one is the bill's means test); whether temporary absences affect eligibility (the bill requires an occupant to be in the home seven months a year); and how increases in subsequent years are handled (Cohen pointed to section 3, which allows annual certification of the billed property tax and limits increases to the difference between current year taxes and 2022 levies).

Lawmakers also questioned resale effects—committee members were told liens would appear on title and be paid at closing, and that estates would repay outstanding lien amounts when homes are sold. Several members raised general concerns about reverse‑mortgage products; Rosensweig said the state's use of simple interest and a 5% cap would avoid commercial reverse‑mortgage pitfalls and reduce the risk to heirs compared with compounded commercial loans.

Rosensweig closed by reiterating that the program is designed to let seniors remain in their homes without creating a tax shift and said he is open to amendments. The committee did not take an immediate vote; the hearing closed and executive action was scheduled later in the day for other items.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing on HB 836 with no vote taken; staff indicated a fiscal note had been drafted but not always physically available in members' packets, and the committee requested fiscal information before scheduling executive action.