[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6012227,"mediaKeyId","5798436-7d0818c5fcd83ad346b1c7637b00ef28","parentId",5798436,"title","Board hears complaints about delayed property tax appeals, refunds and e‑filing; assessors, advocates press for fixes","audioSeconds",6510,"startMs",2356000,"endMs",8866000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5798436-7d0818c5fcd83ad346b1c7637b00ef28&start=2356&end=8866","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5798436-7d0818c5fcd83ad346b1c7637b00ef28/thumbnail_2356000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6012227/California/Board-hears-complaints-about-delayed-property-tax-appeals-refunds-and-efiling-assessors-advocates-press-for-fixes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6012227-7f38dd0abb07dcfadff71b2c6c4dc9fa/orig.mp4?Expires=1770749199&Signature=V3jhfP23iWWJPuAvPLDAjkv-8a4cm3I~eXrXj-EufTv4zJTAT-WOkWrrPD5RzWTVkgms7S7aLgMBJZum20V1ZgywKuDa5J3j9aAkHyA8L5HwLeMtG44DeIStbxdFmYiABtRyZ3s96H-KF-aBSrHyFhqUGV~a9hjSvLPfIBJrHnefUPmKvC-CKWzRgGsE2aVJYdeQOL9L3Sq3PM-KKUxkY20No3ZJoUt3r8i~Jf08zf5StU7u0OkXWLy5pDLWUaOIV-NpZLPOIk2hSvAHajFenHSZ3zF-9yijODLXEcaj4r5Pica~JZ7e8784wFSAwVp3ns9DDcN4JolAtw~VLqtZAA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Board of Equalization","date","2025-08-21T00:19:40Z","article","Tax officials, taxpayer advocates and consultants told the State Board of Equalization on Aug. 20 that delays in processing assessment appeals and issuing refunds are causing financial harm and administrative headaches for taxpayers and counties.

The Taxpayer Rights Advocate, Lisa Thompson, opened the hearing with a briefing on her office's annual report. “The annual report is fiscal year 2324, and it can be accessed on our agency's website as well as a link through the memo that is attached to the public agenda notice for this meeting,” Thompson said as she summarized casework and educational materials her office provides.

Advocates said the state must reduce backlogs in assessment appeals, speed refunds and standardize electronic filing and signature rules across counties. “In too many counties, complex property appeals that should take days are instead taking years,” Jennifer Rowe of the California Alliance of Taxpayer Advocates told the board. She urged stricter adherence to Property Tax Rule 323, better training of appeals board members and adoption of docketing systems like Los Angeles County’s.

County assessors defended recent steps on education and disaster relief guidance. Jeff Prang, Los Angeles County assessor and president of the California Assessors Association, praised the Taxpayer Rights Advocate Office’s information sheets, including an information guide for disaster relief released in August 2024. “These materials are written in plain language, help people to navigate the complex property tax topics, clearly, serving as, essential resource for, property owners as well as our offices,” Prang said.

Tax practitioners and counties described operational fixes that they said would reduce taxpayer hardship. Gina Rodriguez of Ryan LLC, a tax and advisory firm, said a Los Angeles property tax task force she helped facilitate cut an appeals backlog by 75% and recommended statewide forms, clearer guidance on accepting electronic signatures and a deadline for counties to correct rolls and issue refunds. “The backlog now has been reduced by 75%,” Rodriguez said, describing LA County’s work.

Speakers also pressed for consistent appeal deadlines. Greg Gibney (on the phone) said 47 counties use a Nov. 30 deadline for filing assessment appeals while 11 use Sept. 15, and urged one uniform date, noting that inconsistent deadlines confuse taxpayers who move between counties.

Several taxpayers described personal harms. Dr. Brett Nelson of Benicia explained he missed applying an earlier base‑year transfer window before Proposition 19 took effect and said his property tax doubled after he downsized; staff explained the qualification dates are statutory and changes would require constitutional action. In a written comment read into the record, Tanya Barnes described a four‑year fight to obtain a $5,253.50 refund from Los Angeles County and urged creation of a unified refund tracking system and a dedicated ombuds role; Board staff confirmed the refund was eventually issued to the escrow company and distributed to the trust after TRA intervention.

Board and staff responses and next steps: staff said an assessor’s letter and a statewide agent‑authorization form are being finalized for presentation to the board, and a county assessor letter addressing electronic signatures will issue soon. Multiple speakers suggested a BOE‑level liaison and a “shot clock” for assessors to process exemption and exemption‑related applications, and urged the board to compile best practices and examples so counties and developers could adopt them.

Why it matters: appeals and refunds affect taxpayers’ cash flow and counties’ accounting; prolonged delays create interest costs and litigation risk. Separately, the TRA annual report — the basis for the hearing — showed the TRA completed work on 329 cases in FY 23‑24, with 75% in valuation and the largest valuation category being reassessment exclusions. The board welcomed the public input and staff said it will continue outreach with assessors and local officials.

No formal board action was taken at the hearing; members said they will examine options to improve county processing and information sharing and will continue follow‑up with assessors and advocacy groups.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","August 20, 2025 BOE Board Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Tax officials, taxpayer advocates and consultants told the State Board of Equalization on Aug. 20 that delays in processing assessment appeals and issuing refunds are causing financial harm and administrative headaches for taxpayers and counties.","taxTitle","Board of Equalization, Other State Agencies, Executive, California","taxId",16214,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6012217,"Board accepts report on modular homes for disaster recovery; recommends follow‑up on insurance, labor and standards",126,10800000,10926000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5798436-7d0818c5fcd83ad346b1c7637b00ef28&start=10800&end=10926","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5798436-7d0818c5fcd83ad346b1c7637b00ef28/thumbnail_10800000.jpg","/articles/6012217/California/Board-accepts-report-on-modular-homes-for-disaster-recovery-recommends-followup-on-insurance-labor-and-standards","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6012217-08735ec494db0a392234183069306921/orig.mp4?Expires=1770749199&Signature=Dmhwi76Ri7IwGMHqw1P-LjqoyoaPxAUd~98GlifpWPdM6B9McHzOUDfZm96dyfcEbz7-Qmzu~7zupBPs80G6oXADMynZruKmm2qM8JxXuHBv7aQ04FhQq-5yVzQRcP~HA4kg6VsM1aTtYrmG-Y9eVlKz8ATB7IA4-99T5hPd4US6NFV9g~ccaxVR0Rror13pKgioEDxyOHnu27XFMxWMndPTvP8SZoTEtSU9i2l5rgdT3Oyg4wbCCm0LJ41vy2694gqXvPOyOBhOmk2UTWqFaASdC5rirdAK~6J5eJnU0L3cnK7GmoWqt89sY~Pp~LqSDLKUU1yD6S7DQafjiPvk1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The State Board of Equalization on Aug. 20 accepted a member‑led report on modular housing as a tool for post‑disaster recovery and for expanding housing supply.

Member Tony Vasquez presented the report, recounting testimony that factory‑built modular units can sharply cut construction time and, in some cases, reduce costs. “The magnitude of the reduction in cost and time speakers shared that modular homes could be built and installed in a matter of months, and for as low as $200,000 per unit,” Vasquez said in his summary of the earlier hearing.

The hearing found enthusiastic industry interest and practical hurdles. Members and witnesses noted recent advances in fire‑resistant panels and roofing systems, the feasibility of placing finished units on lots as temporary ADUs or permanent housing, and the potential for high‑volume production lines in existing manufacturing buildings. Vasquez described visiting a Watts facility where units were assembled on an industrial line and noted workers with aerospace backgrounds running the production.

Speakers and board members identified several follow‑up needs before broad deployment: (1) insurance companies must reliably classify modular homes and price coverage to reflect new fire‑resistant materials and construction methods; (2) labor organizations and manufacturers should coordinate to protect worker quality and wages while scaling factory production; and (3) state and local permitting and site‑installation processes must be standardized so a unit built for one jurisdiction can be placed and occupied quickly in another.

Board action: the board accepted the modular housing informational hearing report on a motion by Member Tony Vasquez, seconded by Vice Chair Eddie Lieber; the roll call shows unanimous approval.

Why it matters: faster housing deployment after fires, floods or other disasters can reduce displacement and speed recovery. Modular factory construction also offers potential cost and schedule benefits for affordable housing if insurance, labor and local permitting issues are resolved.

The board voted to accept the report and directed staff to consider next steps for follow‑up, including talking to insurers, labor representatives and building officials; no further binding policy changes were made at the meeting.","The Board of Equalization accepted a report summarizing an earlier informational hearing on modular housing as a rapid, factory‑built option for disaster recovery and affordable units. Board members and presenters urged work on insurer classification, labor coordination and standardization of deployment processes.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6012222,"Researchers, housing advocates urge rules, guardrails and faster review to use welfare tax exemption for affordable housing",3244,13349000,16593000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5798436-7d0818c5fcd83ad346b1c7637b00ef28&start=13349&end=16593","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5798436-7d0818c5fcd83ad346b1c7637b00ef28/thumbnail_13349000.jpg","/articles/6012222/California/Researchers-housing-advocates-urge-rules-guardrails-and-faster-review-to-use-welfare-tax-exemption-for-affordable-housing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6012222-8f8f0de65efb40cc8c7bdc8153820ea3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770749199&Signature=hUyxC~vpqEAVFhVZSJH4iLT74-sMPe2dz2bcGoAN8lrcAovAg7KYCoHoEkPzPPrIL-JQJfPWAGKsrazz0vx573y~gKRZqgRHZGzE1WhvwCVN88-79c-ju4XIJWebIB9xP8T3UtjjOiGnJ2qsFDluAz63M8hmyC6xzQji2oqK2qqXZKpEsMd6auQuhWuOa~8EOBuYZ4H7PGOxlQwPq81ftesnhGtu5oNzR6hnqZhKwCXSr-ONkoK6lgacudDN0e0y9XpKMHi4J~UHWAhZTcSvDDr5Vu9TtgU4~iyPtcL5n-KPSHv0dxZUP-IoiSRFFKjI2k9q~rPA~x~XmI8OgJf3Yg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","An Aug. 20 informational hearing at the State Board of Equalization examined whether and how the property‑tax “welfare” exemption can be used to reduce the cost of affordable housing and speed approvals for construction or acquisition of affordable units.

“There are 2 ways, 2 main ways that the welfare exemption supports affordable housing,” said Sarah Karlinsky, director of research and policy at the UC Berkeley Turner Center for Housing Innovation, opening the session. She described programs in California and other states that pair a limited public finance investment with a property‑tax exemption to generate deed‑restricted affordable units.

Karlinsky told board members the exemption has been applied in several California pilot programs: the California Municipal Finance Agency (CMFA) grants a $10,000 subsidy plus a 30‑year deed restriction; the Bay Area Housing Finance Agency provides a $5,000 grant and a 55‑year restriction; and the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles offers subordinate loans and long‑term regulatory agreements. Those programs have supported hundreds to thousands of units but also revealed recurring barriers, she said.

“The process of securing the exemption can be quite lengthy — it can take up to a year and a half — and owners must recertify annually,” Karlinsky said. Interviewed developers cited two recurring issues: the cost and time needed to verify tenant incomes and the fact that units can lose their exemption if occupant incomes rise beyond a statutory threshold.

Speakers and staff recommended concrete changes to make the exemption easier to use for affordable projects while protecting public value. Karlinsky’s report urged clearer guidance for applicants and assessors, a BOE or county liaison to answer application questions, a shot‑clock for application review, and modest affordability guardrails such as requiring rents at least 10% below market and regulatory agreements that protect existing rent‑stabilized tenants.

Justin Yato of the California Housing Partnership said the BOE’s role in authorizing nonprofit organizational clearance is important but county assessors make final property determinations, producing uneven outcomes across jurisdictions. He recommended the BOE publish model procedures, concrete examples and standardized forms so developers and counties start from the same baseline.

Both speakers suggested expanding the exemption’s use to support infill projects that qualify for state streamlining (for example, under SB 423) and recommended regional or state finance agencies—BAHFA, CMFA or CalHFA—offer nominal financing or regulatory agreements to secure affordability over decades.

Why it matters: The welfare exemption reduces a recurring operating cost (property tax) that improves project feasibility for affordable housing. Panelists emphasized that adoption at scale will require process speed, consistent county implementation, and safeguards so the public receives affordability in exchange for foregone tax revenue.

Board members thanked presenters and directed staff to consider the recommendations; no formal board action was taken at the informational hearing.","An informational BOE hearing explored how California’s property‑tax welfare exemption could be used to expand affordable housing, with recommendations for clearer guidance, a BOE liaison, processing time targets and regulatory guardrails for projects using the exemption.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board hears complaints about delayed property tax appeals, refunds and e‑filing; assessors, advocates press for fixes

Board accepts report on modular homes for disaster recovery; recommends follow‑up on insurance, labor and standards

Researchers, housing advocates urge rules, guardrails and faster review to use welfare tax exemption for affordable housing