SB 1352 tightens the statutory definition of “newly constructed” property and creates two targeted exceptions that prevent automatic property tax reassessment in common scenarios. First, the bill says timely reconstruction after misfortune or calamity is not 'new construction' so long as the rebuilt property is substantially equivalent to the pre-loss property.
Second, the bill treats required improvements to underground storage tanks and related reconstruction of structures as normal maintenance rather than new construction when those works merely restore prior utility.
For property owners, assessors, and local governments this changes when a rebuilt or compliance-upgraded asset will trigger a reassessment and a new base year value. The result is greater tax continuity following disaster losses and when owners make regulatory-compliance tank repairs, but it also creates new valuation questions and potential administrative burdens for county assessors who must determine substantive equivalence and apportion any value that exceeds it.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill defines 'newly constructed' to include additions and major rehabilitations since the last lien date, but then carves out timely reconstruction after damage and compulsory underground storage tank improvements from that definition when the post-work property is 'substantially equivalent' to the pre-loss property. Where reconstruction exceeds 'substantially equivalent,' only the portion that exceeds gets a new base year value under existing law.
Who It Affects
County assessors, residential and commercial property owners who rebuild after damage, owners/operators of underground storage tanks (USTs), developers working on sites with regulated tanks, and local governments that rely on property tax revenues.
Why It Matters
By narrowing when rebuilds and compliance-driven upgrades trigger reassessment, the bill reduces the risk of unexpected tax increases for affected owners and removes a disincentive to comply with tank regulations; at the same time it shifts valuation work to assessors and may reduce assessed-value growth for some jurisdictions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute starts by restating the baseline test for 'newly constructed' property: additions or alterations to land or improvements since the last lien date count as new construction if they are major rehabilitations or convert the property to a different use. It then provides two important exceptions that change how assessors must treat certain rebuilds and regulated upgrades.
When property is damaged or destroyed by misfortune or calamity, SB 1352 requires assessors to treat a timely reconstruction as not being 'new construction' if the rebuilt property is substantially equivalent to the pre-loss property. The bill directs assessors to treat any portion of the reconstruction that is not substantially equivalent as new construction and to determine a new base year value for only that excess portion using the process already in Section 110.1.
This creates a two-step inquiry for assessors: compare pre-loss and post-reconstruction property; if substantially equivalent, preserve the base year value; if not, isolate and revalue only the expansion or conversion.To give a concrete measurement, the bill includes an explicit size-based benchmark: reconstruction that results in an improvement no larger than 110 percent of the pre-damage size qualifies as substantially equivalent (the bill ties that benchmark to replacement property for damage occurring on or after January 1, 2025, and to lien dates on or after January 1, 2025). That numeric backstop will be the primary, though not necessarily exclusive, factor assessors use when judging whether a rebuild preserved the property's essential character.Separately, the bill treats improvements, upgrades, or replacements of underground storage tanks that are performed to comply with federal, state, or local UST regulations as maintenance and repair, not new construction.
If completing UST work requires reconstructing a structure or part of a structure, that reconstruction is also maintenance—and therefore not a reassessment trigger—so long as the rebuilt portion remains substantially equivalent in size, utility, and function to the prior structure. Together these provisions are designed to prevent regulatory compliance and disaster recovery from producing automatic reassessments, but they require assessors to make factual determinations about equivalence and to apportion value when reconstruction truly expands or converts property use.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines 'major rehabilitation' to include any rehabilitation, renovation, or modernization that converts an improvement or fixture to the substantial equivalent of a new improvement or fixture.
When property is rebuilt after damage, only the portion of reconstruction that exceeds a 'substantially equivalent' rebuild receives a new base year value; the remainder retains its pre-loss base year value under Section 110.1.
SB 1352 establishes a specific size benchmark: reconstruction that does not increase an improvement’s size beyond 110 percent of its pre-damage size is treated as substantially equivalent for replacement property damaged on or after January 1, 2025 (and for lien dates on or after January 1, 2025).
Work on underground storage tanks required by law—improvements, upgrades, or replacements—will not be treated as 'new construction' and instead counts as normal maintenance and repair.
If UST compliance work leads to reconstructing a structure, that reconstruction is treated as maintenance (no reassessment) only if the rebuilt structure remains substantially equivalent to the prior structure in size, utility, and function.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Baseline definition of 'newly constructed' and scope of additions/alterations
This provision reiterates the baseline standard: additions or alterations to land or improvements since the last lien date qualify as new construction when they are major rehabilitations or convert the property to a different use. Practically, it preserves the traditional test assessors use to determine whether a physical change warrants reassessment and sets the stage for the carve-outs that follow.
What counts as 'major rehabilitation'
Subdivision (b) clarifies that a 'major rehabilitation' includes work that converts an existing improvement or fixture into the substantial equivalent of a new one. This is a functional, not solely cosmetic, test: an owner who modernizes systems or reconfigures space so it effectively becomes 'new' will trigger the major-rehab standard even if some original elements remain. That language gives assessors a statutory hook to treat deep renovations as reassessable when they change the nature or utility of an improvement.
Calamity/reconstruction exception and apportionment rule
Subdivision (c)(1) creates the calamity exception: timely reconstruction that yields property substantially equivalent to the pre-damage condition is not new construction. If reconstruction is not substantially equivalent, only the portion that exceeds equivalence is reassessed and assigned a new base year value under Section 110.1. Subdivision (c)(2) supplies a concrete size test—110 percent of pre-damage size—as part of the 'substantially equivalent' analysis, and (c)(3) applies that size rule prospectively to replacement property damaged on or after January 1, 2025. The provision forces an assessor to perform a comparative analysis and then apportion value, rather than automatically resetting the entire parcel’s base year value after a loss.
Underground storage tank compliance treated as maintenance
Subdivision (d)(1) says UST improvements done to satisfy regulatory requirements are maintenance—not new construction. Subdivision (d)(2) extends that protection to structures partially or fully reconstructed as a consequence of UST work, provided the reconstructed structure is substantially equivalent in size, utility, and function. This creates a narrow safe harbor for owners undertaking mandated tank work so their property-tax status remains stable, but it conditions that protection on equivalence, creating potential factual disputes.
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 rebuilding residences or commercial properties after disaster: They avoid full reassessment if the rebuild preserves the property's essential character, preserving pre-loss tax levels for most of the property’s value.
- Owners/operators undertaking required underground storage tank (UST) upgrades: Mandatory compliance work will not automatically trigger reassessment, reducing the tax penalty for following regulatory requirements.
- Assessors seeking clearer statutory guidance: The bill gives assessors a statutory framework (including a size benchmark) for evaluating reconstruction-versus-new-construction questions, which can streamline determinations in many cases.
Who Bears the Cost
- County assessors and appraisal staffs: They must develop protocols, gather pre- and post-reconstruction evidence, perform comparative analyses, and apportion value when only part of a reconstruction is reassessable—work that adds administrative burden without new staffing or funding in the bill.
- Local governments and special districts reliant on property tax growth: Excluding certain rebuilds and compliance-driven tank work from reassessment will suppress some assessed-value gains and reduce incremental property tax revenue relative to current practice.
- Owners who expand or convert property beyond 'substantially equivalent' limits: These owners will face partial reassessment for the excess and must expect a new base year value on the expanded portion, which may affect project economics.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The statute pits two legitimate goals against each other: protect property owners from punitive reassessment during recovery and while complying with regulation, versus preserve local tax bases and prevent circumvention of reassessment rules; the more protection the bill affords owners, the more factual complexity and potential revenue leakage it creates for assessors and local governments.
SB 1352 solves a clear problem—avoiding punitive reassessments for disaster victims and owners complying with UST rules—but it trades that clarity for several implementation challenges. First, the bill relies on qualitative judgments of 'substantially equivalent' in size, utility, and function; apart from the 110 percent size benchmark applied in one context, the statute leaves material ambiguity about how assessors should weigh interior reconfigurations, changes in building systems, or minor shifts in use.
Second, the apportionment requirement—reassessing only the portion that exceeds equivalence—will force assessors to separate value between 'pre-loss' and 'new' components, a fact-intensive and data-heavy exercise that counties may not be resourced to perform quickly or consistently.
There is also a risk of perverse incentives. Owners might fragment projects, limit size increases to stay under the 110 percent threshold, or sequence work to fall within the maintenance carve-out, creating compliance and enforcement headaches.
Finally, the bill's prospective date language (applying the 110 percent benchmark to damage occurring on or after January 1, 2025) leaves open boundary questions about older losses, partial reconstructions spanning the date, and the interplay with other replacement-property rules; those gaps invite administrative guidance or litigation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.