Assessor and Clerk dispute backlog as audit finds appeals workload poses growing financial risk

Santa Clara County’s assessor and the Clerk of the Board traded sharply different diagnostic accounts of an assessment‑appeal backlog when the Finance & Government Operations Committee considered an internal audit on April 15.

County Assessor Larry Stone told the committee that clerical delays in activating appeals contributed to thousands of cases that cannot be resolved within the two‑year statute of limitations and that the problem creates “an unacceptable financial risk to the county, cities and our schools.” Stone said the assessor’s office calculates 11,165 active appeals with a value at risk of about $35.5 billion — which the assessor said translates roughly to $1.3 billion in potential property‑tax refunds.

John Derechio, the assessor’s chief appraiser, and other assessor staff described audit recommendations that remain unfulfilled, including a customizable dashboard in the Clerk of the Board’s ADAM system (recommendations 1.2 and 10.4), improved sub‑appeal scheduling visibility (items 5.1 and 5.2), data‑mapping deliverables, and restoration of the longstanding “pending stipulations” agenda function that existed prior to the ADAM implementation.

Acting Clerk of the Board Curtis Boone acknowledged the 2023 filing period processing had been delayed but said the office met its target for processing the 2024 regular filing period by Dec. 31, 2024. Boone told the committee that several dashboards were rolled out earlier in April and are awaiting testing and vendor support; he added scheduling capacity for value hearing officers had recently been expanded and that many appeals in the queue await 2026 calendar dates expected to be approved in May. Boone said that scheduling operates as a flow and that the composition of the queue changes as cases move through the system.

The assessor’s office said the backlog has grown steeply in recent years: the value at risk figure was up 84% in five years, and the assessor said when the office receives adequate reports it currently retains about 94% of the contested value. Stone said other counties report much lower retention rates, adding “this represents an unacceptable financial risk…It must be fixed.”

Members of the public and county staff asked questions about whether the assessor’s valuations were higher or lower than taxpayers’ claims; a public commenter urged clarification of whether appeals reflect taxpayers seeking lower assessed values or other errors. The assessor’s staff said the office requested unified scheduling rules and improved access to ADAM reporting so it can activate and prepare appeals promptly.

After public comment, the committee moved to accept the assessor’s presentation and report; the motion was seconded and approved by recorded committee votes. Committee members asked the assessor and clerk to continue collaborating on dashboards, data‑mapping and scheduling improvements and to keep the committee informed of implementation progress.