Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board backs AB 2172 to let counties use single assessment‑appeals commissioner to reduce backlog
Summary
The State Board of Equalization voted unanimously May 27 to support AB 2172, a bill giving counties the option to have a single full‑time assessment appeals commissioner hear certain property tax appeals; Los Angeles County Assessor Jeff Pring said the change aims to cut a nearly 40,000‑case backlog while preserving taxpayers’ right to a multi‑member board.
The State Board of Equalization on May 27 unanimously endorsed Assembly Bill 2172, which would give counties the option to use a single, full‑time assessment appeals commissioner to hear and decide certain property tax appeals.
Los Angeles County Assessor Jeff Pring, appearing remotely, told the board the measure is voluntary and intended to reduce delays that result from trying to schedule three‑ or five‑member panels staffed by part‑time commissioners. “We have a backlog of close to 40,000 cases,” Pring said. He argued a permanent commissioner approach would allow one decision‑maker to build expertise, schedule hearings more efficiently and issue written findings, while preserving appellants’ access to a traditional multi‑member appeals board when requested.
Why it matters: Under current law, assessment appeals are normally decided by a three‑to‑five member panel; AB 2172 would add a county option — limited in duration in the bill’s language discussed at the meeting — to designate a single hearing commissioner for certain appeals, with the Board of Equalization adopting rules to govern procedures and standards. Supporters say the change would speed resolution and reduce interest and other carrying costs for property owners.
Board members pressed for details on safeguards. Vice Chair Gaines asked how a taxpayer would exercise the right to request a traditional panel and whether there was a risk of inadvertently waiving that right. Pring said procedural specifics (timing, forms, confirmations) would be administered by county clerks/executive offices, and that the bill preserves an appellant’s right to opt for a full board hearing. The California Association Taxpayer Advocates (letter read into the record) urged an opt‑in approach with standardized checkboxes on BOE forms to avoid lost or mishandled opt‑out requests; Pring said he disagreed with converting to an opt‑in system and that an opt‑out preserves flexibility while allowing counties to manage workload.
What the board did: Member Vasquez moved and Vice Chair Gaines seconded a motion to support AB 2172. The board recorded a unanimous roll‑call vote in favor.
Next steps: The BOE’s support will be recorded in committee materials. Staff told the board the BOE would develop implementing rules and guidance should the measure become law, and members asked to be involved in details about the opt‑out process and taxpayer notice requirements.
Sources: Presentation and Q&A with Los Angeles County Assessor Jeff Pring; written letter from Michael D. Middleton (vice president, California Association Taxpayer Advocates, "Kada") read into the record. The board’s motion and unanimous vote were recorded at the meeting.
