AB 985 requires county assessors to reassess every parcel within a five‑mile radius of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill so the Prop. 13 full cash value base reflects any loss in value caused by the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event. Those reassessments are retroactive to the January 1, 2022 lien date and must trigger a notice to taxpayers that explains the assessment change and how to file for refunds if taxes were paid at a higher value.
The bill also freezes certain collection and default rules for affected properties: redemption plans that were current through January 7, 2025, cannot be treated as in default until April 10, 2030; taxes tied to escape-assessment installment plans are suspended and not considered delinquent until April 10, 2030 if payments were current through January 7, 2025; and auditors or tax collectors may cancel penalties, costs, or other charges where timely payment failure is a documented hardship caused by the landfill event. The law declares urgency and includes findings to limit gift‑of‑public‑funds and special‑statute challenges, while preserving the Commission on State Mandates reimbursement process for local costs.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill orders county assessors to lower Prop. 13 base year values where property values declined because of the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature event and makes those reductions effective to the 1/1/2022 lien date. It also pauses defaults and collections for qualifying installment and escape‑assessment plans through April 10, 2030, and authorizes cancellation of penalties tied to documented hardship from the event.
Who It Affects
Directly affects property owners within a five‑mile radius of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in Los Angeles County, county assessors, tax collectors, and auditor‑controllers who must process reassessments, notices, refunds, and suspension of collections. Local taxing agencies and school districts are affected indirectly through changes to assessed values and cash flow.
Why It Matters
AB 985 is a targeted, legally self‑standing intervention that interrupts normal Prop. 13 assessment and collection rules for a defined disaster footprint. For compliance officers and local finance officers it creates immediate administrative duties, potential refund liabilities, and timing changes to property tax revenue streams.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 985 creates a geographically targeted reassessment program. It mandates that assessors revalue every parcel within five miles of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill so the Prop. 13 full cash value reflects any diminution caused by the elevated temperature event that began in 2022.
Those corrected values are treated as if in effect on the January 1, 2022 lien date, which means past tax years may be eligible for refunds; the assessor must send a notice specifying the assessment change and, if taxes were paid at the higher value, notifying the owner how to file a refund claim with the auditor‑controller.
On collection and delinquency rules, the bill treats certain installment arrangements more leniently. For redemption plans (installment payments to cure tax default) that were current through January 7, 2025, the statute prevents categorizing those plans as in default until April 10, 2030.
Similarly, for escape‑assessment installment plans (four‑year payment options for prior years’ underassessments), taxes on qualifying accounts are suspended and not deemed delinquent until April 10, 2030, provided the required payments were timely through January 7, 2025. The suspension applies to secured and unsecured taxes and preserves the installment structure while prohibiting collection and delinquency findings during the suspension period.AB 985 also widens grounds for cancellation of penalties, costs, and charges by the auditor or tax collector: if a taxpayer can show a documented hardship arising from the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature event, the agency may cancel those amounts so long as the principal is paid by a statutory deadline (generally within four fiscal years after delinquency).
The bill ties the event definition to the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s imminent and substantial endangerment order, using that administrative finding as a predicate for relief and cancellation decisions.Finally, the Legislature labeled the measure an urgency statute and included findings designed to head off constitutional challenges (gift of public funds, need for a special statute for Los Angeles County). The bill also contains the standard provision that if the Commission on State Mandates finds state‑mandated costs for local agencies, reimbursement procedures in state law will apply.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill forces reassessment of every parcel within a 5‑mile radius of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, with corrected full cash values effective to the January 1, 2022 lien date.
After reassessment the county assessor must notify taxpayers of the amount of the assessment change and explain that a refund claim may be filed with the auditor‑controller under Section 5096 et seq.
Redemption (installment) plans that were current through January 7, 2025, are protected from being declared in default until April 10, 2030 for properties inside the five‑mile zone.
Taxes under escape‑assessment installment plans are suspended, not collected, and not treated as delinquent until April 10, 2030 for qualifying properties that were current through January 7, 2025.
The auditor or tax collector may cancel penalties, costs, or other delinquency charges where failure to pay is a documented hardship tied to the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event; the event is defined to require a DTSC imminent and substantial endangerment order.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Targeted reassessment and notice requirements
This new section directs assessors to adjust the Prop. 13 full cash value base for any parcel within five miles of the landfill to reflect declines caused by the elevated temperature event, and makes those changes retroactive to the 1/1/2022 lien date. It imposes a specific notice duty: assessors must tell taxpayers both the size of the assessment change and that, if they paid taxes at the previous (higher) value, they may file a refund claim with the auditor‑controller under the referenced refund procedures. Practically, counties will need to identify affected parcels, determine value declines attributable to the event, and coordinate refund workflows with the auditor‑controller.
Extension of default protections for installment redemption plans
The statute preserves the standard rules for initiating and processing installment redemption plans but inserts a carve‑out: accounts that were current through January 7, 2025, and that are for properties inside the five‑mile zone may not be treated as in default until April 10, 2030. That changes the timing when a tax collector may resume usual enforcement for these plans and reduces the near‑term risk of power‑of‑sale actions for qualifying owners. Counties must flag eligible accounts to prevent automated default processes from triggering.
Suspension of collection for escape‑assessment installment plans
This amendment preserves the four‑year installment option for escape assessments but suspends collection, delinquency designation, and enforcement for qualifying accounts until April 10, 2030, if the account was current through January 7, 2025. The suspension applies to both secured and unsecured taxes and carries through interest and penalty mechanics during the suspension period as stated in the section. Tax collectors must maintain records of suspended accounts and adjust billing and reporting to reflect the pause in collection activity.
Penalty cancellation for documented hardship tied to the landfill event
The auditor or tax collector already has authority to cancel penalties for reasonable cause, inadvertent error, or court order; AB 985 adds documented hardship from the Chiquita Canyon event as an additional ground for cancellation, with a deadline for principal payment (generally within four fiscal years after delinquency). The bill defines the triggering event to require that DTSC issued an imminent and substantial endangerment order. This ties relief to an administrative finding and gives tax officials discretion to accept documentation of hardship when evaluating cancellations.
Legislative findings, special‑statute rationale, and state mandate language
The bill includes explicit legislative findings asserting the reassessment serves a public purpose and is not a gift of public funds, plus a declaration that a special statute is necessary for Los Angeles County. It also declares the measure an urgency statute effective immediately and preserves the Commission on State Mandates process for any required reimbursement to local agencies. Those clauses are designed to limit procedural and constitutional challenges while acknowledging potential local fiscal impacts that may trigger reimbursement claims.
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
- Residential and commercial property owners within five miles of Chiquita Canyon — they get prospective lower assessed values tied back to 1/1/2022, potential refunds for taxes paid at higher values, and protection from immediate default for qualifying installment plans.
- Owners on redemption or escape‑assessment installment plans who were current through January 7, 2025 — the bill pauses collection and prevents default or delinquency findings through April 10, 2030, giving them breathing room to recover.
- Tenants and local consumers in the zone — indirect benefit from stabilized housing costs and avoidance of distress sales that could follow forced tax sales; commercial tenants may avoid abrupt pass‑throughs if landlords obtain relief.
- Taxpayers who suffered documented financial hardship tied to the Chiquita Canyon event — they can seek cancellation of penalties, costs, and other delinquency charges if the tax collector finds the hardship is documented and causally related.
Who Bears the Cost
- Los Angeles County assessor, tax collector, and auditor‑controller — must identify affected parcels, perform retroactive reassessments, issue notices, process refund claims, suspend collection workflows, and maintain special records; those are immediate administrative costs and workloads.
- Local taxing entities and school districts — face reduced assessed values and potential refund liabilities that affect revenue and cash flow, at least until the Commission on State Mandates resolves reimbursement claims.
- County treasury and cash‑management functions — suspension of collections and delayed delinquency determinations will disrupt timing of property tax receipts and may require short‑term borrowing or budget adjustments.
- State or local courts and legal counsel — the special statute and urgency posture make litigation over scope, causation, and constitutionality likely, imposing legal costs on public agencies.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between providing prompt, targeted tax relief to property owners demonstrably harmed by an environmental emergency and preserving the stability, predictability, and fiscal integrity of the local property tax system: relief reduces tax revenues, creates refund liabilities, and forces complex valuation and causation determinations that burden local administrators and risk litigation.
AB 985 is tightly targeted but operationally disruptive. Reassessing values retroactively to 1/1/2022 creates immediate refund exposure: counties must reconcile prior tax receipts, allocate refunds among multiple taxing jurisdictions, and track statute‑of‑limitations questions for claims already litigated or closed.
The assessor’s valuation work requires causal attribution — determining how much of a parcel’s decline is due to the elevated temperature event versus market forces — which is fact‑intensive and will invite appeals and litigation. The bill attempts to limit constitutional challenges with express findings, but courts will still evaluate whether the relief, especially if it triggers large refunds, amounts to an impermissible gift or improper targeting.
On enforcement relief, the dual deadlines (payments timely through January 7, 2025, and suspension until April 10, 2030) create an eligibility cliff: taxpayers who missed the January 7, 2025 cut‑off lose protection, which will drive administrative disputes about receipt timing and proof of timely payment. The DTSC finding is the statutory predicate for hardship cancellations, which centralizes causation evidence but also ties relief to an administrative determination that could be contested.
Finally, while the bill contemplates Commission on State Mandates reimbursement, the timing and sufficiency of that process is uncertain; in practice local governments may front costs and absorb revenue impacts before any reimbursement is adjudicated.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.