Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to limit how low-income housing tax credits count toward property valuation after extended debate
Summary
The committee advanced House Bill 0753, which would prevent jurisdictions from using low-income housing tax credit values to inflate property assessments, after lengthy debate about rural development incentives, concentrated poverty and fiscal impact; the bill passed, 18–4.
The State and Local Government Committee advanced House Bill 0753 on April 15, 2026, a bill that would change how low-income housing tax credits are treated for property valuation and taxation.
Chairman Faison explained the bill and amendment 18,145, saying the state has over 900 active low-income housing projects and roughly 54,000 units and arguing that current property-valuation practices discourage developers from building outside the state—s largest cities. "There's a disparity," he said, "52% of our low income housing developments built over the last 10 years were built in just the big four cities." He added the proposal would stop local assessors from taxing the incentive and thereby make projects more viable in rural areas.
Opponents, including Representative Dixie, expressed concerns that concentrating tax-credit developments could create "pockets of poverty" and depress local property values. "I just can't get behind this because I know in my heart of hearts where these developments will end up in," Representative Dixie said, urging more safeguards and time to study distribution requirements and enforcement. Representative Bricken and others asked about the fiscal note; a representative reading the fiscal note said the estimated statewide property tax effect was about $100,000.
During debate members also raised a parliamentary question about whether the procedural motion required a two-thirds threshold; the chair sought legal clarification and then resumed debate. After extended discussion the committee voted to advance the bill, 18 ayes and 4 noes.
The bill now moves to the calendar and rules committee; supporters said it aims to incentivize development in underserved areas, while critics want clearer geographic or enforcement safeguards before statewide application.
