Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances, then continues, proposed fee increases for Assessment Appeals Board amid legal caution
Summary
Clerk of the Board and Assessment Appeals staff proposed raising the administrative processing fee from $30 to $45 and changing the finding‑of‑fact fee to $215/hour (max 30 hours); supervisors amended the item to increase the administrative fee to $90 and continued the measure for further legal and policy review.
A special‑order item on Assessment Appeals Board fees drew extended discussion about fairness, cost recovery and constitutional limits before the committee amended and continued the proposal.
Angela Calvillo, clerk of the board, and Assessment Appeals staff presented an ordinance to raise the administrative processing fee from $30 to $45 (with waivers for properties assessed at $7,500 or less or where the difference in opinion of value is $7,500 or less) and to replace a sliding scale finding‑of‑fact fee with an hourly charge of $215 with a 30‑hour cap, effective July 1, 2010. Calvillo said the $15 administrative increase reflects CPI adjustments since 1994 and projected roughly 4,000 applications in FY 2010‑11.
Staff and the city attorney referenced a recent court case (identified in the hearing as "Protex v. CCSF") that limits fee increases if they would make appeals prohibitively expensive; Assessment Appeals staff warned that moving toward full cost recovery could invite legal challenges. Dawn (Don) Duran, Assessment Appeals administrator, said fees must remain within what courts regard as a "minimal fee." The city attorney advised caution about raising the fee too high without additional legal analysis.
In committee discussion supervisors debated higher recovery levels. One supervisor moved to amend the administrative fee from $30 to $90 as a starting point and to continue the item so staff and counsel could analyze legal risk; the clerk's proposed technical amendments were also adopted. The committee continued Item 5 to the Board's budget hearing on June 16 for further consideration.
