[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-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],{"_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",6092770,"mediaKeyId","2852384-cd2584cccd5901e2ae22dcdf2a6f1daf","parentId",2852384,"title","Board defers review of AB 317, citing questions about tax deferral mechanics and price cap","audioSeconds",995,"startMs",664000,"endMs",1659890,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2852384-cd2584cccd5901e2ae22dcdf2a6f1daf&start=664&end=1659","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2852384-cd2584cccd5901e2ae22dcdf2a6f1daf/thumbnail_664000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6092770/California/Board-defers-review-of-AB-317-citing-questions-about-tax-deferral-mechanics-and-price-cap","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6092770-5d866b2d2efa9dff7390f4d063b62e93/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146070&Signature=Ycy~yJD~U6XmBcO69eRTD0RRsJvcCz~DZHsmeQnldJGvy1p~p9VNeWjzgWWLyZ9EyUb6BiOoLhAhXbow07rOI~fymv~y0ksA5Z0VWynhSQaLhxbKk~2ZkVD0R58u9JM24aCYEdVuYQyxZaOBIA6wx9EO7kAA3GKIQAZoSp93ziLV7X~EgneUGg~wA377xuiMuBibyMp9iEcGigGKfF6TedfyVTCbbbyR1xhuu5XWarapzPuYkf4KX-fsClv-OxfzQzHpWbtaD6pUFF-qFsT9gzuulzXczYr5BFz1SGw6WnlLz7iL14MEjn11RivV5D2q1aDDwSTEC5iDLlTwPfw-Iw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Board of Equalization","date","2025-04-02T20:19:41.843Z","article","The Board of Equalization on Thursday heard a presentation on AB 317, the California First‑Time Homebuyers Dream Act, then agreed to defer formal board action and request more specifics about the bill’s tax‑deferral mechanics and geographic reach.

Mitchell Matos, legislative director for Assemblymember Corey Jackson, told the board that AB 317 would create two principal incentives for first‑time buyers: an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act for certain newly constructed single‑family homes, and a property‑tax deferral tied to those homes.

The bill as presented would apply to newly constructed single‑family homes of 1,500 square feet or less, with no more than three bedrooms and a sale price at or below $400,000. Matos said the deferral would let property taxes be deferred “until the home changes ownership or until the owner notifies the assessor,” allowing new buyers more time to settle into a home without immediate tax payments.

Board members and staff raised multiple implementation questions. Richard Boone, chief counsel, said the bill’s current draft appears to direct the deferral to developers rather than purchasers: “The property tax deferral would go to the property builder, not to the first time home buyer.” Members also queried whether the deferral would be administered by assessors or by tax collectors, and whether the draft’s language would require revision to reflect the collector’s role in tax collection and deferral administration.

Vice Chair Lieber pressed the bill’s targeting and eligibility rules. “I didn’t see anything in the text to the bill that would indicate that the buyers would be income qualified,” she said, asking that income‑qualification or other targeting mechanisms be considered so the benefit reaches lower‑income first‑time buyers rather than investors or resellers.

Members also questioned the $400,000 price cap’s realism in many California markets; staff and the presenter said the level was intended to start a policy conversation and could be adjusted as committees — Natural Resources followed by Revenue and Taxation — work through amendments. Board members suggested the bill’s drafters consider whether mobile homes should be included and asked for clearer language to ensure the intended beneficiaries actually obtain the homes.

Because the draft leaves key mechanics unspecified, board members agreed to postpone action and place the item on the board’s April agenda so the author or a sponsor can return with further detail. The board asked staff to continue discussions with the author’s office and with committee consultants to clarify whether the deferral is meant for builders or buyers, which agency would administer the deferral, how eligibility would be verified, and whether mobile homes or income qualifications should be added.

If AB 317 proceeds with the proposed exemptions and deferral, local assessors and tax collectors — and the Board of Equalization in an oversight capacity — will need explicit guidance on procedures to report ownership changes, request deferrals, and administer any state reimbursement if the measure imposes state‑mandated local costs.

The item was deferred to the board’s next meeting in April for follow‑up and possible return by the author’s representative.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","March 26, 2025 BOE Board Meeting - PM Session","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Equalization on Thursday heard a presentation on AB 317, the California First‑Time Homebuyers Dream Act, then agreed to defer formal board action and request more specifics about the bill’s tax‑deferral mechanics and geographic reach.","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},6092766,"Board affirms practice allowing anonymous public comment, citing Bagley‑Keene and AG guidance",1579,1701225,3281205,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2852384-cd2584cccd5901e2ae22dcdf2a6f1daf&start=1701&end=3281","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2852384-cd2584cccd5901e2ae22dcdf2a6f1daf/thumbnail_1701225.jpg","/articles/6092766/California/Board-affirms-practice-allowing-anonymous-public-comment-citing-BagleyKeene-and-AG-guidance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6092766-9b5819b909ad2ee3e5f8c32aee6bfcc1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146070&Signature=gqSkkGOoSWx2~Sb9GI82pnN3FiKACDdVEq1EUHUZ5QDLCNJE9B13rpRWLkRLMT5MI89lagpSadBPacxbipvpMjWSauiy5noK9LmB8NT-18~cDeCOdzhSMy1fHWhcZctMWr6nYuKiGIlTr2z8WRBIbHgL2f645FVcX-Wbjvl1-xNwLrpb4fzaKSTZ2izKpESDJFVGoViY4tF-61Ihj8~8jm9lsDMibZ4yCQ-L0~e-yt9OwOaJ3bRGTAiJz9qs-3PgdGWU1zJeHO73w7f5zAPNOM4-NaHKSv7r8Zi68joSrIGDtv7U1np3-23E33be3KY4YbMRSzsnpq-8pIn3ANbGqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Equalization voted to affirm its current practice of advising the public that they may comment anonymously at public meetings, reiterating a legal opinion that Bagley‑Keene and Attorney General guidance support allowing anonymous speakers.

Vice Chair Lieber moved the measure to “affirm our current practice of advising the public of their right to make comments anonymously, pursuant to Bagley‑Keene.” Deputy Controller Amron seconded the motion.

Legal staff summarized prior analysis finding that the board’s long‑standing practice — in place for many years — to allow anonymous public comment is consistent with the Bagley‑Keene Open Meeting Act and Attorney General opinions interpreting that law. Mr. Moon, BOE legal staff, told the board that courts treat public meetings as public forums and that any restriction on anonymous speech would require a compelling state interest that the board concluded does not exist in this context.

Member Schaffer urged tighter written guidance, arguing the board’s standard public comment form goes beyond the statute by adding language he described as “free legal advice” that completes the sentence “completing a public comment appearance sheet is voluntary; speakers who decline to fill out an appearance sheet will not be precluded from speaking.” Schaffer said he objects to the additional explanatory language and asked staff to consider a simpler form like other agencies use.

Board members said chairs retain authority to cut off disruptive or irrelevant comments and that criminal threats would be handled by law enforcement. Deputy Controller Amron said the board’s discretion and the chair’s procedural authority have proven sufficient in past incidents; Ms. Stowers, the executive director, confirmed the same language appears on the hard‑copy comment sheet used at in‑person meetings.

Roll call produced four ayes and one no: Chair Gaines, Vice Chair Lieber, Member Vasquez and Deputy Controller Amron voted yes; Member Schaffer voted no. The clerk announced the motion carried. The board requested a copy of the resolution for Member Schaffer.","After debate over printed guidance that describes sign‑up as voluntary, the Board of Equalization voted to affirm its longstanding practice of permitting anonymous commenters at public meetings, citing Bagley‑Keene Act and Attorney General guidance. The motion passed 4–1 with Member Schaffer opposed.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board defers review of AB 317, citing questions about tax deferral mechanics and price cap

Board affirms practice allowing anonymous public comment, citing Bagley‑Keene and AG guidance