California Proposition 110, Property Tax Factors for Severely Disabled Homeowners (1990)
Proposition 110 authorized the California State Legislature to allow severely disabled homeowners to transfer the value of their existing home to a replacement home, and it excluded from reappraisal any building improvements to an owner-occupied home that were made to enhance the home's level of functionality for a severely disabled person.
|I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XA • XB • XI • XII • XIII • XIII A • XIII B • XIII C • XIII D • XIV • XV • XVI • XVIII • XIX • XIX A • XIX B • XIX C • XX • XXI • XXII • XXXIV • XXXV|
Proposition 110 amended Section 2 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution.
The ballot summary said, "Measure would permit Legislature to allow severely disabled homeowners to transfer base year values of former primary residences to replacement dwellings, purchased or newly constructed on or after the effective date of this measure. This measure would also exclude from the definition of "newly constructed" the construction, installation, or modification of any portion or structural component of a single or multiple family dwelling eligible for the homeowner's exemption if such construction, installation or modification is for the purpose of making the dwelling more accessible to severely disabled persons. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: Measure would have no direct state or local fiscal effect because it merely authorizes the Legislature to implement its provisions. If implemented by Legislature, reductions in annual property tax collections from the reappraisal of replacement homes beginning in 1990-91, would result in property tax revenue loss of probably $1 million to $2 million per year. However, exclusions of structural improvements for use by disabled persons from reappraisal would not reduce revenues by a significant amount. Cities, counties and special districts would bear approximately two-thirds of the revenue loss, with the remainder affecting school districts and community college districts. However, existing law requires the state to replace lost education revenues if they caused the amount of funding per student to fall below existing levels, as adjusted for inflation."
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:
"This measure would have no direct state or local fiscal effect, because it merely authorizes the Legislature to implement its provisions.
If implemented by the Legislature, the measure would reduce annual property tax collections from the reappraisal of replacement homes, beginning in 1990-91. The property tax revenue loss probably would be $1 to $2 million per year. However, improvements to make homes more usable by the disabled usually do not add substantial market value, so that excluding these improvements from reappraisal would not reduce revenues by a significant amount.
Cities, counties, and special districts would bear approximately two-thirds of the revenue loss. The remainder of the loss would affect school districts and community college districts. Under existing constitutional requirements, the state would have to replace these lost education revenues if they caused the amount of funding per student to fall below existing levels, as adjusted for inflation."
Path to the ballot
The California State Legislature voted to put Proposition 110 on the ballot via Senate Constitutional Amendment 37 (Statutes of 1988, Resolution Chapter 102).
State of California
|Ballot measures by year||
1910 | 1911 | 1912 | 1914 | 1915 | 1916 | 1919 | 1920 | 1922 | 1924 | 1926 | 1928 | 1930 | 1932 | 1933 | 1934 | 1935 | 1936 | 1938 | 1939 | 1940 | 1942 | 1944 | 1946 | 1948 | 1949 | 1950 | 1952 | 1954 | 1956 | 1958 | 1960 | 1962 | 1964 | 1966 | 1968 | 1970 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1976 | 1978 | 1980 | 1982 | 1984 | 1986 | 1988 | 1990 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1996 | 1998 | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2006 (local) | 2008 | 2008 (local) | 2009 | 2009 (local) | 2010 | 2010 (local) | 2011 (local) | 2012 | 2012 (local) | 2014 | 2016 |
|State executive offices||
Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Controller | Treasurer | State Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Secretary of Agriculture | Secretary for Natural Resources | Director of Industrial Relations | President of Public Utilities |