Rhode Island sponsor pitches voluntary tax-deferral program for seniors and disabled

Representative Megan Carter introduced House Bill 7567, describing it as "about dignity" and saying the voluntary program would allow eligible seniors, disabled residents and disabled veterans to defer property taxes and repay deferred amounts later, typically when the home is sold or transferred. Carter said the bill is intended to keep people on fixed incomes from being forced out of their homes and indicated a $2,000,000 appropriation in the draft language.

Members asked substantive questions about eligibility (the bill as written leaves eligibility determinations to municipalities), how the $2,000,000 would be administered and whether the idea belongs in Finance because it appropriates funds. Representative Carson urged clarity on interaction with recently enacted statewide property tax changes, asking whether owner-occupancy or full-time residency rules would be required. Representative Spears and others recommended tightening the bill's definitions of "owner-occupied."

Committee members also pressed the sponsor on the bill's financial terms. Representative Fasha asked why the bill specifies a 6% annual interest rate and whether interest compounds; the sponsor said the rate in the bill was chosen to mirror the prime rate at the time and confirmed interest is compounded annually in the draft. Witness Ernest Polasco, a health‑care consultant who researched deferral programs in other states, testified that municipal programs across Rhode Island are heterogeneous (some place liens and charge interest; Coventry sends the outstanding amount to the new owner without interest). Polasco suggested a state-administered revolving fund or a pilot program, noting other states' approaches (Idaho with no interest, Illinois 3%, Massachusetts 8%).

Robert Marshall of the Rhode Island Developmental Disabilities Council urged that accessory dwelling units not be treated as disqualifying in cases where multigenerational households rely on the program. Witnesses and members identified several outstanding program design issues — eligibility criteria, interaction with local programs, administrative placement (municipal vs. state), interest rate and look-back rules — that would need to be resolved before substantive adoption.

The committee closed the hearing on HB 7567 after testimony and several members indicated willingness to work on technical language and cross‑referrals to appropriate committees for the appropriation detail.