Inyo County says property tax software backlog largely cleared; dozens of refunds issued

Noam Shendahr, Inyo County chief information officer and project manager for the property tax management system, told the Board of Supervisors on March 25 that the county “cleared through the vast majority of the backlog” and is now operating on a regular cadence for assessing and billing property taxes.

Shendahr said the county organized a stakeholder group with the assessor, auditor and treasurer-tax collector and ran focused working sessions with the vendor. “We locked ourselves in a room 8 to 5 every single day and actually usually after 5 and processed through issues,” he said.

The update described the work completed since the county moved to the new software: more than 500 current items processed (supplementals and roll corrections), more than 2,500 backlog items worked through previously, and 412 refunds issued to taxpayers as a result of the cleanup. Shendahr reported a remaining backlog of 289 items: two supplementals, 57 data conversion items that require vendor data fixes, and 230 “corner case” roll corrections (personal property and exemption billing-date penalties) that staff must correct before accurate tax bills go out.

Assessor Dave Stalmeier, Treasurer/Tax Collector Christy Martindale and Auditor-Controller Amy Sheppard joined Shendahr for the briefing and described how the departments now coordinate. Shendahr said the assessor processes items on the first and 15th of each month; when the assessor submits items they proceed to the auditor for certification and then to the tax collector for billing.

Supervisors asked about timelines and whether the work would satisfy the county grand jury report. Shendahr and staff said the report presented to the board would serve as the record if the grand jury requests documentation, and that most remaining items are not expected to generate erroneous bills if cleared promptly. Shendahr said many remaining roll-correction items date back to 02/2021 and that the penalties in question are relatively small in most cases.

Board members and department heads discussed next steps. Amy Sheppard said the system now supports day-to-day operations but noted that optimization remains: “There are areas where it can be more efficient” and the next phase will focus on automating refund queuing and other “nice to have” process improvements. Noam Shendahr and the department heads said they will continue working with the vendor on data fixes and on manual cases until the remaining exceptions are cleared.

The board did not take formal action on the update; staff asked for continued support and suggested quarterly or milestone reporting as the county moves from remediation to workflow optimization.