Subcommittee debates tax-sale protections for homeowners with medical hardship and changes to homeowner-protection program
Loading...
Summary
Members discussed a bill that would let homeowners designate a representative, require counties to withhold properties from tax sale for owners with terminal illness or medical hardship, and raise the homeowner-protection program's assessed-value cap from $300,000 to $450,000; members disagreed over mandatory withholding versus authorization and whether protections should be time-limited.
The Local Revenue Subcommittee spent its lengthiest discussion on a bill from Delegate Layman proposing multiple changes to homeowner protections in tax sale.
Stan summarized the measure: it would allow a homeowner to designate a representative to work with the state tax sale ombudsman, require local governments to withhold from tax sale properties owned by homeowners with a terminal illness or documented medical hardship, and raise the assessed-value cap for the homeowner protection program from $300,000 to $450,000. Stan also said the homeowner protection program is income-restricted and currently requires a combined household income under $60,000 to qualify.
Delegate Hartman urged caution and proposed time limits for terminal-illness or medical-hardship flags so protections do not remain in perpetuity—citing a personal example where a terminal prognosis lasted years. "I just think if we put the homeowner or representative of shall reapply annually," Hartman said, recommending an annual renewal so the protection does not last indefinitely.
Members discussed a written comment from Mako asking that the bill authorize rather than require counties to withhold properties; Dolby Lamon, who joined remotely, said she does not support Mako's request. Lamon argued the bill should require withholding to prevent situations in which a sick homeowner loses title while battling illness: "I am absolutely not going to agree to any wiggle room on the fact that they have to withhold from a tax sale," she said.
Stan clarified drafting points: the $450,000 threshold and the medical-hardship withholding are separate provisions in the bill (the withholding applies regardless of property value), and the ombudsman runs the homeowner protection program but does not control county tax-sale administration. As a result, members agreed that the placement of regulatory language and whether counties must periodically reevaluate withholding status need clearer drafting.
Committee members raised additional implementation questions that remain unresolved: how state liens for unpaid medical or nursing-home bills interact with withholding; whether a designee should be required to reauthorize protections annually; and which entity (ombudsman or county) should define "medical hardship" for tax-sale withholding versus program eligibility. Chair Robertson said staff and sponsors would work with Stan to draft amendment language and return the item next week. No vote was taken.
"The bill actually doesn't connect the $450,000 threshold and the medical hardship," Stan said, adding the withholding requirement for medically hard-hit homeowners applies regardless of assessed value. The committee left several operational items to be resolved in drafting.
