Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disaster Rebuild topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assessor urges BOE to support SB 1352 to protect wildfire survivors rebuilding up to 110% without reassessment
Summary
Los Angeles County Assessor Jeff Pring asked the board to support SB 1352, which would clarify that rebuilding up to 110% of the original size after a declared disaster does not trigger reassessment; the bill was placed on the Senate appropriations suspense calendar and is unlikely to move this year.
Get email alerts on the Disaster Rebuild topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Los Angeles County Assessor Jeff Pring asked the State Board of Equalization on May 27 to support Senate Bill 1352, legislation aimed at clarifying property tax treatment for homeowners rebuilding after disasters.
Pring said the bill would expressly allow reconstruction up to 110% of the pre‑loss size — consistent with the governor’s expedited post‑disaster building policies — to qualify as “substantially equivalent” under Proposition 13 and thus avoid reassessment. He said ambiguity in current law has created uncertainty for property owners and assessors following the 2025 wildfires and risks imposing unexpected tax increases on families during a critical recovery period.
Fiscal context: Pring told the board the worst‑case statewide revenue exposure if every affected property sought the relief would be small (he estimated total revenue at risk at roughly $5 million on a half‑billion dollars of assessed value in a hypothetical scenario), and he expressed frustration that the Senate appropriations committee placed SB 1352 on the suspense calendar, making movement this year unlikely.
Board reaction: Members expressed sympathy and said the board would monitor the issue for next year. Pring said he would continue to press senators to find a path forward and noted local governments and cities impacted by the 2025 fires had endorsed the measure.
Status: Pring described SB 1352 as likely held on the appropriations suspense file this session; the board did not take a formal vote because the bill was not moving this year but recorded interest in the policy and asked staff to track it for the next legislative cycle.

