BOE hearing spotlights appeals backlogs, refund delays, e-signature gaps and Proposition 19 confusion

The Board of Equalization on Aug. 20 held its annual taxpayer bill of rights hearing, where the Taxpayer Rights Advocate and multiple stakeholder groups described ongoing problems in property-tax administration — notably a high volume of valuation and administrative inquiries, delays in assessment appeals and refunds, inconsistent county practices on filing deadlines and a need for clearer electronic-signature and agent-authorization procedures.

Lisa Thompson, the agency’s Taxpayer Rights Advocate, opened the hearing with a review of the Taxpayer Rights Advocate (TRA) annual report for fiscal 2023–24 and the TRA office’s role in helping taxpayers and coordinating with county assessors and tax collectors. Thompson told the board the TRA office completed 329 cases in FY 23–24 and described how the office classifies and resolves cases by researching law and contacting local agencies to facilitate fair outcomes.

The TRA report showed 75% of the completed cases fell into valuation issues and 25% into administrative issues; the largest valuation topic was exclusions from reassessment (35%), followed by change in ownership (16%), and the top administrative topic was delinquent or defaulted taxes (30%). Thompson said the TRA produces plain-language information sheets and recently published a disaster-relief guide and an updated co-tenancy/exclusion sheet to help taxpayers navigate changes such as Proposition 19.

Jeff Prang, Los Angeles County assessor and president of the California Assessors Association, commended the TRA office’s educational materials and highlighted a disaster-relief information guide released in August 2024 that explains relief under state law and timelines for rebuilding or relocating after a disaster. “This guide provides essential information for property owners affected by disasters,” Prang said.

Stakeholders urged operational fixes. Jennifer Rowe of the California Alliance of Taxpayer Advocates described a working group convened by Member Vasquez to address assessment-appeals delays and refunds and called for short-term reforms including stricter adherence to Property Tax Rule 323, improved training for assessment appeals board members, and adoption of docketing systems to reduce continuances.

Gina Rodriguez, principal at Ryan LLC, said process improvements in Los Angeles have reduced a post‑COVID appeals backlog from roughly 40,000 appeals by about 75% and sped scheduling, but she warned that delayed refunds remain a statewide problem. “The backlog now has been reduced by 75% and appeals are being scheduled within a few months of receipt,” Rodriguez said. She recommended a combination of statutory fixes, uniform forms and county process changes to speed role corrections and refund issuance.

County and state officials described specific operational obstacles. Deputy Director David Young of the Property Tax Department explained that two different statutory appeal‑deadline regimes exist: 47 counties use a November 30 deadline tied to the property‑tax bill while 11 counties that mail a separate assessment notice use a September 15 deadline. Young said any statewide change to a single uniform appeal date would require statute change. Multiple speakers urged clearer statewide guidance on electronic signatures and a uniform agent‑authorization form; Thompson and staff said a statewide agent‑authorization form is in development and expected to come before the board this quarter.

Several participants called for tighter timelines on refunds and better tracking. Stakeholders recommended statutory or administrative requirements to correct the secured roll promptly after an assessment appeal and to issue refunds within a targeted period (participants suggested 30 days after enrollment as a benchmark). Tanya Barnes, who submitted a detailed written statement read into the record, described a multi‑year delay in receiving a refund owed after a parent‑child exclusion was approved; she urged a unified refund‑tracking system and a dedicated refund ombudsperson. “Enforce refund timelines because without clear deadlines, acknowledged refunds can sit for years,” her written testimony said.

Speakers also raised Proposition 19 implementation challenges. Dr. Brett Nelson, a Solano County homeowner, described a downsizing sale that predated Proposition 19 and asked for relief; Thompson and staff explained that the base‑year transfer provisions in Prop. 19 are not retroactive and that relief would require a constitutional amendment or statutory change to change effective dates.

Board and staff responses and next steps - Thompson said the TRA office will continue to publish and promote plain‑language information sheets and to coordinate with the California Assessors Association and county offices. - Staff confirmed the agent‑authorization statewide form is nearing board consideration this quarter and that guidance on electronic signatures (an LTA) will be issued; stakeholders urged that guidance be specific on facsimile and electronic submission processes. - Board members and stakeholders said they will continue the assessor/AAB working group and planned a follow‑up hearing on September 17 to refine proposals, and participants urged shared metrics and sample surveys on appeals timing and refund turnaround.

No formal votes or board actions were taken during this item; the hearing served to solicit public input and identify operational, statutory and outreach changes that stakeholders and staff will pursue.

The hearing included in‑person and teleconference testimony from county assessors, taxpayer advocates, tax professionals and individual taxpayers; written comments were also entered into the record. The board recessed after the item and scheduled further discussion and follow‑up with staff and stakeholders to pursue the specific process and legislative remedies discussed at the hearing.