County assessors, advocates urge clearer rules, tech and scheduling to speed property tax appeals

The Board of Equalization convened a work group panel of county assessors, clerk representatives and taxpayer advocates to discuss reforms to California’s assessment appeals process, focusing on simplifying the appeal application, defining factors for "good cause" postponements, and improving scheduling and electronic processes to reduce delays.

Santa Clara County Assessor Nesa Fleore, newly elected and speaking for her office, said her county currently handles "12,000 active appeals with a value in dispute of $155 billion, 98% of which are commercial," and urged changes that would let more matters resolve before formal hearings. "We support using plain language and less jargon," Fleore said, recommending a FAQ, fillable narrative fields, and contact information on the appeal form so taxpayers can get answers within 24 hours. She also proposed a factors-based, non-mandatory definition of "good cause" to guide Assessment Appeal Board (AAB) members and recommended that boards state the reason when granting a postponement to improve consistency.

San Diego County’s representative, Martin Aas, told the panel that appeals filed in his county in 2024 "put over $34 billion in assessed value at issue, representing approximately $340 million in potential revenue," and argued for professionalizing AAB membership and investing in modern systems. "E-signatures should be standard statewide. Remote hearing should be funded and normalized," Aas said, adding that technology upgrades could reduce delays, improve record retention and make hearings accessible without requiring taxpayers to miss a full workday.

Kristen Depal, president of the California Assessors Association and Modoc County assessor-recorder, said small counties face different operational pressures and supported BOE-issued guidance and training to promote uniformity, while cautioning that simplification must preserve the form’s utility for assessors and clerks.

Representatives from Los Angeles and Placer counties described local scheduling practices that help reduce downtime and continuances. Los Angeles principal appraiser Gregory Le Young said existing case-categorization (straightforward vs. complex regions) helps clerks schedule efficiently. Placer County Assessor Matt Maynard and assessment manager Brian Wartz described a proactive calendar approach: drafting proposed hearing schedules months ahead and sharing them with clerks at least 90 days before hearings to reduce last-minute postponements.

A recurring theme was the mismatch between assessor systems and auditor/treasurer systems that can delay refunds. Several speakers described how refunds can be held up during roll-close procedures or by manual processing when systems are incompatible. Multiple counties reported that quarterly interdepartmental meetings (assessor, auditor, treasurer-tax collector) have helped address bottlenecks.

Taxpayer advocates reading a submitted KADA letter urged a standardized statewide prehearing model: an initial assessor disclosure of assessment basis, limited and proportional use of Revenue and Taxation Code section 441D information requests, a prehearing conference with assessor, taxpayer and clerk, and a scheduling order that documents deadlines and preserves evidentiary hearings for unresolved disputes. The advocates also recommended adding the refund-payee name to the claim-for-refund field on the appeal form to avoid refunds being sent to third-party payment processors.

Panelists generally supported clarifying "reasonable time" language with specific day-driven timelines for exchanges (for example, X days to respond to document requests, Y days for assessor review) and favoring stronger use of informal reviews to resolve cases early. They warned against overusing prehearings for small residential matters, but supported robust prehearings for large, complex commercial cases.

Board members closed by thanking participants and said staff would return with draft recommendations and possible draft guidance for discussion at an upcoming meeting. No formal votes or motions were taken during the panel.

The work group identified next steps including drafting plain-language instructions and FAQ content for the appeal application, exploring a factors-based "good cause" guidance with discretion preserved for AABs, defining day-count timelines for document exchange, pursuing e-signature and remote-hearing standards, and continued outreach on filing fees and refund-processing improvements.