AB 245 authorizes county assessors to apply the pre‑disaster base‑year value of substantially damaged or destroyed property to replacement property reconstructed on the same site within five years of a gubernatorial disaster declaration, provided the rebuilt property is comparable. The bill prescribes a three‑part formula tied to a 120 percent threshold to determine whether the adjusted prior base year applies, whether excess value is added, or whether a lower reconstructed full cash value becomes the new base year.
It also bars owners who receive this relief from claiming relief under Section 69.
The measure includes two targeted, three‑year extensions for properties damaged in specified disasters (the 2018 Woolsey and Camp Fires, and several 2024–25 fires), and makes the rule apply retroactively to damage occurring on or after January 1, 2017. For assessors, property owners, and local fiscal officers, the bill creates a predictable rubric for treating rebuilt property’s base year value while raising questions about revenue effects, valuation disputes, and the practical meaning of “comparable” reconstruction.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill lets owners in a Governor‑declared disaster area apply the damaged property’s adjusted base‑year value to reconstructed property on the same site when the new structure is comparable and reconstructed within five years. If the rebuilt property’s full cash value exceeds 120% of the pre‑disaster value, the excess is added to the adjusted base year; if it is lower, the lower value becomes the base year.
Who It Affects
Directly affects owners who reconstruct substantially damaged property (defined as improvements losing >50% of pre‑disaster full cash value), county assessors who must apply the formula and determine comparability, and local governments that receive property tax revenue. It also targets specific disaster cohorts with an extra three years to rebuild after the 2018 and 2024–25 disasters listed in the bill.
Why It Matters
This creates a statutory, administrable pathway to avoid full reassessment after qualifying disasters, reducing tax shocks that can impede rebuilding. At the same time it limits revenue growth from rebuilt property through the 120% rule and the new‑construction carve‑out, so assessors and fiscal officers must reconcile taxpayer relief with revenue stability.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 245 instructs county assessors how to treat the property tax base for replacement property built on the site of substantially damaged or destroyed property after the Governor declares a disaster. The core rule is simple in concept: if the owner rebuilds a comparable property on the same site within five years, the owner may keep the adjusted base‑year value of the original property instead of triggering a full reassessment to current market value.
The statute defines ‘substantially damaged or destroyed’ (improvements losing more than 50% of their full cash value) and limits relief to owners who do the rebuilding.
The bill gives assessors a three‑branch valuation procedure. First, if the reconstructed property’s full cash value is up to 120% of the pre‑disaster full cash value, the assessor applies the adjusted prior base year unchanged.
Second, if the new value exceeds 120%, the assessor adds the excess (the portion over 120%) to the adjusted base year to create the new base. Third, if the new full cash value is actually lower than the adjusted prior base year, that lower amount becomes the base.
The legislation clarifies that the pre‑disaster full cash value is the assessor’s estimate immediately before the damage.Comparability is the gatekeeper for relief. The bill treats reconstructed property as comparable if it is similar in size, utility, and function; ‘function’ is tied to governmental restrictions such as zoning.
The statute also treats parts of a rebuild that are not similar as newly constructed, meaning those portions are not eligible to inherit the prior base year. The bill explicitly prevents owners who take this relief from also claiming relief under Section 69, so owners must choose the statutory route most advantageous to them.AB 245 also contains two limited retroactive extension rules that expand the five‑year rebuilding window by three years for named disasters: the 2018 Woolsey and Camp Fires (applies to 2018–19 fiscal years forward) and a list of 2024–25 fires (applies to 2025–26 fiscal years forward).
Finally, the statute applies to any qualifying real property damage occurring on or after January 1, 2017, which makes the relief available for a range of recent disasters and creates immediate valuation work for assessors and county fiscal staff.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill allows the adjusted pre‑disaster base‑year value to carry to reconstructed property on the same site if rebuilt within five years and the rebuilt property is comparable in size, utility, and function.
If reconstructed property’s full cash value is ≤ 120% of the original full cash value, the adjusted prior base‑year value applies unchanged; any value above 120% is added to that adjusted base.
If the reconstructed property’s full cash value is lower than the adjusted prior base year, the lower full cash value becomes the new base year value.
Owners who accept relief under this section cannot also receive property tax relief under Section 69; only owners of the damaged property are eligible for the relief here.
The five‑year rebuilding window is extended by three years for properties damaged in specified 2018 and 2024–25 disasters, and the section applies to damage on or after January 1, 2017.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Core rule: carryover of base year for comparable reconstructed property
This subdivision establishes the primary policy: assessors may apply the adjusted base‑year value of substantially damaged property to replacement property reconstructed on the same site within five years after a gubernatorial disaster declaration, provided the rebuilt property is comparable. It also includes the exclusion that owners who use this relief may not use Section 69 relief, forcing a discrete election between statutory remedies.
Valuation formula and 120% threshold
Subdivision (b) prescribes the assessor’s mechanical procedure for setting the reconstructed property’s base year. It sets three outcomes tied to the rebuilt property’s full cash value relative to 120% of the old full cash value: apply the adjusted prior base if ≤120%; add any excess above 120% to the adjusted prior base; or adopt the lower rebuilt full cash value if it is beneath the adjusted prior base. The provision also fixes the pre‑damage comparator as the assessor’s determination of full cash value immediately before the disaster, anchoring the math to an administrable benchmark.
Definitions: substantial damage, comparability, and new construction
This section sets operational definitions. ‘Substantially damaged or destroyed’ means improvements that lost more than 50% of their pre‑disaster full cash value. The statute defines comparability in three dimensions—size, utility, and function—and ties function to governmental restrictions like zoning. If parts of the rebuild are dissimilar, those parts are treated as newly constructed for tax purposes, which removes them from carryover treatment and subjects them to reassessment.
Eligibility confined to owners who reconstruct
Relief is limited to the owner or owners of the damaged property and granted only after reconstruction. That narrows eligibility to parties who actually rebuild on the original site, excluding subsequent purchasers of vacant lots or third‑party developers who did not own the damaged property at the time of the disaster.
2018 Woolsey and Camp Fire extension
This targeted clause extends the five‑year rebuild window by three years for property substantially damaged between November 1 and November 30, 2018, by the Woolsey or Camp Fires. It specifies that the extension applies to base‑year determinations for the 2018–19 fiscal year and later, effectively giving eligible owners additional time to reclaim the prior base under the bill’s formula.
2024–25 listed fires extension
Subdivision (f) mirrors the prior extension for a list of 2024 and 2025 fires (including the Palisades, Eaton, Hurst, Lidia, Sunset, Woodley, Mountain, and Franklin fires), lengthening the five‑year window by three years for property damaged between November 1, 2024, and before February 1, 2025. It directs that the extension affect base‑year determinations for the 2025–26 fiscal year and thereafter, again creating cohort‑specific relief.
Effective date for covered damage
This short clause specifies retroactivity: the section applies to real property damaged or destroyed on or after January 1, 2017. That retroactive application means assessors must evaluate whether earlier disasters since 2017 qualify, potentially opening prior years’ rebuilds to adjustment under the new statute.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Owners who rebuild homes or commercial structures on the same site after a gubernatorial disaster declaration — they can avoid immediate reassessment that would otherwise raise property taxes and potentially deter rebuilding.
- Owners of modest‑sized properties whose rebuilds stay within the 120% threshold — they retain the adjusted base year without an added taxable premium, preserving affordability.
- Counties and assessors seeking a clear statutory rubric — the bill supplies specific formulas and definitions that reduce discretion and litigation over how to treat reconstructed property’s base year.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local governments and special districts — they may see reduced near‑term property tax revenue growth when rebuilt properties carry lower base years instead of being fully reassessed.
- County assessors and appraisal staffs — the law imposes new, potentially complex valuation work (establishing pre‑disaster value, applying the 120% test, parsing partial comparability), creating administrative and training costs.
- Owners who substantially change use, enlarge, or upscale rebuilt properties beyond the 120% threshold — they face added taxable value (the portion over 120%) and can lose carryover for dissimilar portions, reducing the incentive to build larger.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between encouraging and enabling rebuilding by shielding owners from heavy tax reassessment, versus protecting local revenue and tax equity by reassessing improvements that materially increase in value; the statute privileges reconstruction continuity and owner relief at the cost of constrained near‑term tax growth and harder valuation work for assessors.
The statute’s mechanics create predictable relief but raise practical and fiscal frictions. First, the 120% threshold creates a sharp, somewhat arbitrary breakpoint: small increases in post‑disaster construction cost or upgrades can push a property over the ceiling, producing a blended base (adjusted prior base plus excess value) that may be awkward to compute and communicate.
Assessors must also determine the pre‑disaster full cash value ‘immediately prior’ to damage, which in practice can be contentious where prior assessments lag market changes or where insurance settlements suggest different valuations.
Second, the bill’s comparability standard—size, utility, and function—invites granular disputes. Partial rebuilds, phased projects, or mixed‑use conversions will require assessors to parse which portions inherit the prior base and which are newly constructed; that division can produce inequitable outcomes and litigation.
The targeted three‑year extensions for named disasters are administratively tidy but create cohort distinctions that may be perceived as arbitrary by owners of properties damaged in other declared disasters. Finally, shifting revenue timing is a material concern for local finance officers: carrying over base years reduces immediate revenue but may preserve taxpayer capacity to rebuild; balancing those competing priorities will fall to county boards and budget officers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.