Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Of Tax Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Tax Appeals seeks ARPA spending and two support positions to reduce backlog
Summary
The Board of Tax Appeals told the budget committee it holds $117,000 in remaining ARPA funds for modernization and requested two support positions (legal assistant, administrative assistant) to relieve staff and speed appeals processing; the committee asked for more detail on caseload and fee-fund balances.
The Committee on General Government Budget heard a presentation from the Board of Tax Appeals that the agency’s approved FY2026 budget totals about $2.6 million, split roughly $1.5 million in state general fund and $1.1 million from the board’s filing fee fund. Jacob Crespi, the committee’s fiscal analyst, said the agency is not seeking new SGF but is asking permission to spend about $117,000 in remaining ARPA dollars on one-time IT and modernization items.
An agency representative explained the operations pressure behind two requested positions: a legal assistant and an administrative assistant. “We had about 8,400 filings” in the past year, and some processes take “a minimum of 5 hours of time to process a basic single-family residential appeal,” the representative said, describing an administrative workload that equates to thousands of staff hours. The board previously proposed a taxpayer-advocate position but told the committee that remains under consideration by the Department of Revenue and is no longer part of the board’s budget ask.
Committee members pressed the agency for evidence tying new positions to measurable reductions in backlog. Representative Hubert asked whether the added roles would handle caseload directly or primarily provide support; the agency replied the roles are intended to free staff attorneys for higher‑value case management and status conferences. Crespi and the agency also told members that recent technology investments equate to roughly 1.5 full‑time equivalents of productivity but do not replace the human interaction needed to guide taxpayers through filings.
Representatives also asked about the board’s filing fee fund balance — an ending balance shown in the budget narrative near $956,000 — and whether some requests could be funded from that reserve. The agency cautioned the ending balance can fluctuate through the year and likely represents only two to three months of operating expenses, noting the legislature would have to authorize any expansion of fee‑fund spending limits.
The presentation closed with committee requests for: (1) a monthly fee‑fund printout showing how that balance changes during the fiscal year; (2) documentation supporting the agency’s salary‑comparison research; and (3) clearer estimates of how additional staff would reduce backlog and increase hearings scheduled. The agency agreed to provide the paperwork.
The committee did not take a final vote on BOTA’s enhancements during the hearing; the agency’s enhancement requests for FY2027 were removed earlier by a global motion and would require committee action to restore.
