1 BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 2 450 N STREET 3 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 8 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT 9 FEBRUARY 27, 2018 10 11 12 ITEM K 13 OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 14 K1 15 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 16 K1.1 17 ORGANIZATIONAL UPDATE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 REPORTED BY: Jillian M. Sumner 28 CSR NO. 13619 1 1 P R E S E N T 2 3 For the Board Honorable George Runner Equalization: Chair 4 Honorable Fiona Ma 5 CPA, Vice Chair 6 Honorable Jerome Horton Third District 7 Honorable Diane L. Harkey 8 Fourth District 9 Yvette Stowers Appearing for Betty T. 10 Yee, State Controller (per Government Code 11 Section 7.9) 12 Joann Richmond Chief 13 Board Proceedings Division 14 15 For Board of Equalization Staff: Dean Kinnee 16 Executive Director 17 David Yeung Chief 18 County-Assessed Properties Tax Division 19 Chuck Leonhardt 20 President California Assessors 21 Association 22 ---oOo--- 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 450 N STREET 2 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 3 FEBRUARY 27, 2018 4 ---oOo--- 5 MS. RICHMOND: Our next item is Item K, 6 Other Administrative Matters; Item K1, the Executive 7 Director's Report; Item K1.1, we have the 8 Organizational Update 9 MS. HARKEY: Thank you. 10 Mr. Kinnee. 11 MR. KINNEE: Morning, Chairwoman Harkey and 12 Members. Dean Kinnee, Executive Director. 13 Today I'll provide you with a brief update 14 on a couple items. 15 In reference to CEA positions, I'm pleased 16 to announce the appointment of Ms. Lisa Thompson as 17 the Board of Equalization's Taxpayers' Rights 18 Advocate. 19 Ms. Thompson started her role as TRA in 20 January 31st. I told you we were hopeful of doing it 21 short, and we have. We're pleased to have 22 Ms. Thompson aboard. And I'm looking forward to 23 working with her. 24 In reference to the Chief Legislative 25 Research and Statistics CEA position, the position 26 was posted on January 12th, 2018, and the final 27 filing date was February 1st. We hope to be 28 completed with the recruitment process by the end of 3 1 March. 2 In reference to other BOE staffing matters, 3 as I mentioned to you at our prior meeting, effective 4 February 1st, 2018, the California Department of Tax 5 and Fee Administration staff working in the Legal 6 Entity Ownership Program, Tax Area Service Section 7 and the Welfare Exemption Program returned to the 8 Board via an interagency agreement. 9 Also along with that staff, we received four 10 attorneys who had formerly worked with the Board. 11 They're now back with us, and we're very grateful to 12 have them back. They're assisting us on getting some 13 projects that I'll touch on later moving. So we're 14 very appreciative of having staff back. 15 On budgets, CDTFA continues to work on 16 updating accounting and budget processes assistance 17 to handle information for both BOE and CDTFA. We'll 18 continue to send you regular updates as information 19 becomes available. 20 And as has happened in the past, feel free 21 to come back with this question, and we'll try to 22 answer them as quickly as possible. 23 Just a little bit on some projects that 24 we're working on and engaging interested parties on, 25 we hope to bring to the Board later in 2018. And 26 these are the ones that getting staff -- Legal staff 27 has helped immensely getting these going. 28 Airlines representative period, we're 4 1 currently working on analyzing issues related to the 2 possible change to a 365-day airline representative 3 period. As you may recall, these items were before 4 the Board, and you directed us to work with the 5 parties. 6 There was an interested parties meeting held 7 yesterday to discuss the issues, and we have a second 8 meeting scheduled for March 29th on that matter. And 9 we will keep you apprised of -- of the progress in 10 that area. And we'll bring this matter back to the 11 Board -- I think we're asked to bring it back either 12 June or July. So we're shooting for that date. 13 Assessment appeals process, we're working on 14 addressing concerns about the assessment appeals 15 process that was brought up at the August 29th, 2017 16 Board Meeting during the Property Taxpayer Bill of 17 Rights hearing. 18 We had an initial meeting with parties, a 19 small group of players in December. We're opening up 20 to a larger interested parties process. We've 21 received comments. We're distilling them down in a 22 matrix. We'll post that, and then we'll meet with 23 parties. And we're hopeful that will happen in 24 April. And then we'll be moving on that. 25 Again, this is a project that getting the 26 Legal staff back has been very helpful. Because many 27 of the matters are very, very legal in nature. 28 MS. MA: And there is -- is there an 5 1 expected date to bring it back to the Board? 2 MR. KINNEE: I don't know if we have that 3 yet. I don't know. Mr. Yeung is in the audience. I 4 don't know if he wants to come up and address it, or 5 just not and say we don't have that, or we do have 6 it. 7 MR. YEUNG: We don't have it yet. 8 MR. KINNEE: We don't have it. So we'll 9 have a better idea after the April meeting. 10 MS. MA: Okay. 11 MR. KINNEE: Community Land Trust 12 Properties, this was a bill that passed a couple 13 years ago that set a -- kind of a new evaluation 14 scheme for affordable housing for -- that sold to 15 low- and moderate- income families. It has a 99-year 16 lease on the land, but the improvements transfer. 17 It's kind -- it's a new model, if you will. 18 During the legislative process, we met with 19 the Land Trust folks. We've talked to them several 20 times since then. We've talked to assessors. We've 21 traveled to some assessor's offices to talk to their 22 people that have these. We're in the process of 23 drafting guidance on that. And we'll issue that to 24 interested parties, and then meet with them, and then 25 work it through the process, and bring it to the 26 Board later in the year. 27 D Rescissions, this is another project that 28 we're working on. We're going to try to consolidate 6 1 into one letter to assessors, kind of, the guidance. 2 We have numerous legal annotated opinions. We wanted 3 to distill it down in one location for individuals. 4 And, again, we'll work this -- the 5 interested parties and bring it back to the Board. 6 And ultimately we see this one going into maybe later 7 this year moving into the update of the Assessors' 8 Handbook, 401, which is Change of Ownership manual. 9 And then we'll open that up to the interested parties 10 process as well. 11 MS. MA: Can you just go back and talk a 12 little bit about what D -- D Rescission? I don't 13 understand that. 14 MR. KINNEE: D Rescission, so property 15 owners in some instances have the ability to rescind 16 a recorded deed. And then it kind of rolls it back 17 and un-triggers the change of ownership. So -- 18 MS. MA: Oh. 19 MR. KINNEE: It's kind of a complicated 20 legal issue. We have a lot of legal opinions. And 21 we think, for guidance to all parties, it would be 22 better to consolidate it into one document. 23 MS. MA: Okay. 24 MS. STOWERS: On that note, and just kind of 25 in general, I understand that you guys do have a lot 26 of projects that you're working on. And you do come 27 to us once a month, and you kind of give us a 28 high-level update. I really will appreciate if we 7 1 had more of something in writing that I can really 2 review and understand what's going on with the 3 different programs. 4 The Franchise Tax Board has something 5 similar that they provide to us, to the -- to their 6 Board Members on a monthly basis. So if we just have 7 a good understanding of the operations so we don't 8 have any supervises. 9 For, I think, Ms. Ma -- all three of you 10 guys are familiar with the Franchise Tax Board hot 11 list. I really would appreciate if BOE would 12 consider doing something similar for -- for this 13 body. 14 MS. HARKEY: Right. 15 MR. KINNEE: We can do that. Last month, I 16 did one memo kind of going that way. But I'll -- I 17 can reach out to the Franchise Tax Board and see what 18 their model is and work towards that. 19 MS. STOWERS: Okay. Thank you. 20 MS. HARKEY: Thank you. 21 If you need any assistance, I think, you 22 know, we have somebody that might be able to do that, 23 too. If you need some -- 24 MR. KINNEE: I'll reach out to Selvi 25 Stanislaus. We worked together here at the Board 26 many, many years ago. So I'll reach out -- 27 MS. STOWERS: I'm sure she'd be willing to 28 help you on how they put together that -- that 8 1 list. 2 MR. KINNEE: Okay. Thank you. 3 MS. HARKEY: Thank you. 4 MR. KINNEE: So that just covers my update. 5 You know, we continue to work with CDTFA as 6 we work through the transition process. We thank 7 them for their cooperation and patience in working 8 with us. 9 You know, we'll continue to send e-mails to 10 the Board Members, and communicate as we progress 11 through the process, and give you monthly updates. 12 And at this time, I'm happy to answer any 13 questions the Board may have. 14 MR. HORTON: Madam Chair. 15 MS. HARKEY: Yes. Member Horton. 16 MR. HORTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. 17 Welcome, Mr. Kinnee. 18 On the taxpayers' advocate, does the agency 19 anticipate coming forth with an outreach and 20 education plan strategy at some point? 21 MR. KINNEE: We've talked about it. As you 22 know, under the statute, we're tasked with providing 23 guidance and training to county assessors. That's 24 our audience by this statute. We understand the 25 importance of having, you know, the people educated 26 to the taxes, and so they know how to proceed with 27 filings and everything. So we're looking into that. 28 Ms. Thompson and I have discussed, you know, 9 1 what kind of -- maybe we develop some publications 2 and so forth. But as far as developing an outreach 3 program, we'll be out providing training. At this 4 time, we don't have the -- the resources or the 5 budget to do that. 6 So we're hoping to kind of analyze the 7 reoccurring questions that are coming in, and see if 8 we, you know -- we can turn -- kind of like the deed 9 rescission, the individual opinions into larger, 10 broader guidance. So -- but in this case towards 11 taxpayers. 12 You know, in the past, we've -- we've 13 developed publication theory to help taxpayers 14 navigate the appeals process primarily for 15 residential individuals, not people represented by 16 tax reps. We developed a video that's online for 17 that. 18 So, you know, Ms. Thompson and I have talked 19 about that. And see what we can do in that, given 20 our resource levels. 21 MR. HORTON: So at -- at some point are you 22 going to share that with the Board, your strategy 23 that -- 24 MR. KINNEE: Yes, we can do that. 25 MR. HORTON: Many of the assessors have -- 26 have expressed a desire to have additional training. 27 And that the Board is their primary source of 28 training, knowledge, and so forth. And one of the 10 1 efforts is to assure that there is uniform treatment 2 throughout the state of California, and that they're 3 all on the same page. 4 As a result of visiting many of the 5 assessors, I see that there is a serious need -- and 6 they concur -- at least the ones that I've been able 7 to speak to -- for this additional training, if, for 8 no other reason, just to bring a level of uniformity 9 and a level of skill set, the capacity and knowledge 10 of the changes and legislation that's relative to 11 them. And that's the Board's overall constitutional 12 duty. So I look forward to that. 13 On the interested parties meeting, with the 14 airline representatives, what were the issues 15 discussed? 16 MR. KINNEE: May I call Mr. Yeung up? I was 17 not at the meeting, but Mr. Yeung was at the 18 meeting. 19 MR. YEUNG: Good morning, Board Members. 20 MR. HORTON: Morning. 21 MR. YEUNG: Yesterday -- my name is David 22 Yeung, Chief of the Property Tax -- County-Assessed 23 Property Tax Division. 24 Yesterday -- 25 MS. HARKEY: Could you pull your mic up a 26 little bit, Mr. Yeung? 27 MR. YEUNG: Of course. 28 MS. HARKEY: There you go. Thank you. 11 1 MR. YEUNG: Of course. 2 Yesterday we had an interested parties 3 meeting. The chief subject of discussion was the -- 4 the -- the alternative for using the 365-day 5 representative period for certificated aircraft. LA 6 County and the Aircraft Subcommittee made a 7 presentation on their analysis and work they've done. 8 We -- it was a cursory -- a cursory -- 9 MS. HARKEY: Review. 10 MR. YEUNG: -- review. Thank you very much. 11 I'm freezing up. 12 MS. HARKEY: I know. I've been there. 13 MR. YEUNG: It was a cursory review. 14 We have at -- in attendance were also the 15 vendors that provided some of that data. And we have 16 scheduled actually another meeting for the 29th to 17 further vet the actual results of the actual analysis 18 that LA has done on that. So that was -- that was 19 the main thrust of the meeting. 20 MR. HORTON: Did -- did LA indicate that 21 they are representing the -- the association, or 22 whether they are on their own behalf? 23 MR. YEUNG: Well, LA is -- my -- my belief 24 is that they were the subcommittee. They -- they are 25 the -- a subcommittee of the CA -- of the body 26 itself. So I know they did most of the analysis of 27 the work there. 28 MR. HORTON: And you indicated there were 12 1 more than one vendor present? 2 MR. YEUNG: Yes, there were two. 3 MR. HORTON: Two? 4 MR. YEUNG: Yes. 5 MR. HORTON: And who were they? 6 MR. YEUNG: One was Flight Global and the 7 other one was OAG. 8 MR. HORTON: And what was their assessment 9 as to their ability to provide the data for a 365-day 10 analysis? 11 MR. YEUNG: Both were of the opinion that 12 they could -- they had the information to -- to do 13 such a representative period. 14 MR. HORTON: And is BOE anticipating a 15 review of that information in the capacity? 16 MR. YEUNG: Yes. We -- they have sent us -- 17 we have one data set. They sent us a preliminary 18 data set, which represents one week of that data for 19 two major airports in California. And we -- we are 20 actually in the process of reviewing that information 21 right now. 22 MR. HORTON: Any input from the industry 23 itself? 24 MR. YEUNG: Yes, industry was represented 25 there. Industry's main input was that it would be 26 burdensome. And at the very minimum, burdensome, if 27 not impossible, for them to come up -- if they had to 28 report themselves, it would be really tough for them 13 1 to do so. 2 MR. HORTON: And is it anticipated that 3 they, too, will participate in the analysis of this 4 data? 5 MR. YEUNG: At least one vendor has 6 expressed that they -- the samples sent, which they 7 gave, they are open to letting that be vetted for -- 8 in the interested parties process. At least one has 9 so far. 10 MR. HORTON: The other vendor is not -- 11 MR. YEUNG: Not yet. 12 MR. HORTON: -- willing to -- 13 MR. YEUNG: Has not -- the other vendor has 14 not committed to it. So -- 15 MR. HORTON: Okay. 16 Part of the challenge last year was with -- 17 or at least there were a number of different issues. 18 But one of the concerns was the whole notion of sole 19 sourcing to a particular vendor. 20 Let me encourage the agency to reach out and 21 see if they can identify other vendors that can 22 provide this data -- 23 MR. YEUNG: Yes. 24 MR. HORTON: -- that's necessary in order to 25 accomplish this objective. 26 And we also encourage the agency to -- to -- 27 to work with all of the parties that will be impacted 28 by the decisions that we make. 14 1 Because what -- what happened last year 2 was -- is that parties indicated that they had not 3 had an opportunity to review the data, and had not 4 been able to verify that the data was correct and 5 accurate and so forth, and was available for -- to 6 accomplish the goal which we set forth. 7 So to the extent possible, the -- the 8 interested parties meeting, at some point we should 9 be on par and make sure that all of the parties have 10 an opportunity to participate in every level of the 11 analysis -- 12 MR. YEUNG: Yes. 13 MR. HORTON: -- and throughout the entire 14 process. So we're not faced with having to deal with 15 this a month or two months prior to the -- prior to 16 the decision. 17 MR. YEUNG: Yes, that is what we're working 18 towards, sir. 19 MS. STOWERS: Madam Chair. 20 MS. HARKEY: Yes. 21 MS. STOWERS: For the analysis that the 22 subcommittee provided, was that analysis based on 23 actual data or scheduled data? 24 And if it's actual data, if we're moving -- 25 if we're looking to try to do actual 365 days, do we 26 need to have a law or a rule change? And if so, 27 where do we stand on that issue? 28 MR. YEUNG: The data that the -- the one 15 1 data set actually contains both; an actual and 2 scheduled. So we are able to take a look at both. 3 So if we are to move towards actual data, we will 4 have to work with Legal and figure out what exactly, 5 if any, amendments to the rule will be required. 6 MS. STOWERS: Is that in -- are you working 7 with Legal right now? Because I've always thought 8 when we talk about 365 -- 9 MR. YEUNG: Yes. 10 MS. STOWERS: -- we were talking about 11 actual data. 12 MR. YEUNG: Yes. 13 MS. STOWERS: So are you guys making that 14 step? It seems that we need to have various paths 15 to -- to -- if -- to be evaluated. 16 MR. YEUNG: Right. We have -- Legal has 17 been -- is aware that we're working -- that we're 18 working on this project. They have not been 19 officially engaged yet, but we will -- 20 MR. HORTON: Part -- may -- may -- may I? 21 Part of the challenge -- 22 MR. YEUNG: Yes. 23 MR. HORTON: -- is the legislative process 24 itself. And so inherent in that process would be a 25 further delay without the concurrent legislation 26 moving through -- through the legislative process. 27 If, in fact, the 365 is what's the most 28 accurate number, and it's concluded to look at it on 16 1 an actual basis as opposed to what the current 2 legislation provided, we would be handicapped. We 3 couldn't say, "Let's do that. That's the most 4 effective and efficient way to go at this." Because 5 we wouldn't have the legislative authority. 6 MR. NANJO: Board Members, Henry Nanjo, 7 Chief Counsel. 8 Just wanted to correct Mr. Yeung's statement 9 a little bit. 10 Legal has been involved. I have an attorney 11 involved monitoring the interested parties meeting so 12 we would be ready to make whatever changes necessary. 13 I also participated -- not participated -- 14 but I attended part of the interested parties meeting 15 yesterday and talked to Mr. Yeung about it. 16 One of the concept -- there are several 17 concepts that are being discussed by the interested 18 parties group. So before we can draft legislation or 19 do something, we need to kinda settle on what that 20 is. 21 One of the presentations that was made by 22 LA -- because I did stay for LA's presentation -- was 23 that by getting data that's both scheduled and actual 24 information, their -- at least their analysis was 25 that they were hopeful that a rule change would not 26 be necessary. Because we still are using the 27 scheduled information, we're just verifying it with 28 actual data. If I understand what their concept was. 17 1 So the parties involved are looking at 2 several options. Apparently there was a discussion 3 of a model that -- I think the airlines brought up 4 the Texas model. Was that -- 5 MR. YEUNG: Yes, that is a model -- the 6 assessment scheme, which Texas uses to -- to allocate 7 the value of the certificate aircraft weight. It's 8 basically very similar to ours, except instead of 9 weighing the flight time and landing and take off, 10 it's just flight time. 11 That's one of their -- that's one of the 12 proposals by -- by -- 13 MS. STOWERS: But that's still 365, and 14 that's still actual. So it seems to me that -- I 15 mean, our direction was to look at the ability to do 16 a 365-day. And with that direction, all paths should 17 be looked into -- 18 MR. YEUNG: Yes. 19 MS. STOWERS: Including having the potential 20 of a rule change. 21 MR. YEUNG: Right. 22 MS. STOWERS: And I am somewhat concerned 23 that nothing's been done on the Leg. front as far as 24 rule change to wait until after March. We might find 25 ourselves backed up against a wall. 26 So I would urge you guys to look into a rule 27 change, at least drafting the language, as soon as 28 possible. 18 1 MR. NANJO: So with that in mind, that's why 2 Legal is involved from the very beginning. We're 3 kind of monitoring it. 4 The challenge is we need to know what we're 5 drafting legislation toward. Because 365, as I 6 understand it, can take different forms from the 7 discussion that was occurring. And it's not clear 8 that -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Yeung -- 9 that all the counties are necessarily support -- 10 county assessors aren't necessarily supportive of the 11 365 model. 12 So I think we need to have a little bit more 13 certainty before we draft legislation. But because 14 of that, I do have an attorney who is involved at 15 every one of the meetings. 16 MR. HORTON: Okay. 17 MS. HARKEY: May I just interject here just 18 quickly? 19 I feel like -- I mean, I know this is not 20 the proper mode of transportation. But somebody is 21 being railroaded here. You know, it sounds to me 22 like this train is rolling down the track towards 365 23 without us having any information and without 24 everybody participating. And I'm not sure why -- why 25 there's such pressure. 26 You know, we -- we've heard about this. 27 We've had conversations about it up here at the 28 Board. I felt like the testimony that -- that we got 19 1 up here last time was strained. And I don't -- I 2 don't feel the like the industry is getting -- 3 getting included. And I don't feel like all of the 4 county assessors are being included. 5 I feel like this is like something that's -- 6 that's rolling, and it's going to be back on our 7 laps, and we will not have accurate -- or 8 information. 9 And I know you're doing what you can under 10 pressure, but I do think that we need a little bit 11 more discussion up here. And I would like to see 12 little bit more of the interested parties process 13 coming before the Board. And I think that's one of 14 our discussion items. 15 Because this is a huge issue. This has been 16 rolling around for years. And to just set it on our 17 plate with, you know, "this is what LA thinks," or 18 "this is what this one thinks." You know, every time 19 we get into that, it ends up something happens in the 20 legislature, or something happens here, and we're 21 back where we were. 22 And so I don't want to have you spinning 23 your wheels. And I want to be sure that the Board 24 Members are fully informed going forward with who's 25 participating, what the comments are. And I -- I 26 just really feel like we need a little bit more input 27 here. Because this is going to be dumped on our 28 laps. And, you know, I don't -- I don't feel 20 1 prepared to make the analysis. 2 So I know, you know, we had this 3 conversation, but it seems like it's being promoted 4 by one or two. And I thought that LA was getting a 5 coalition together, but I might be wrong. 6 Excuse me, sir, did you have a comment? 7 MR. LEONHARDT: Good morning, Chair Harkey 8 and Member -- Honorable Board Members. I'm Chuck 9 Leonhardt, President of the California Assessors 10 Association. 11 I, too, was in Sacramento yesterday, and the 12 interested parties meeting. And I believe that there 13 was a fairly broad representation at that meeting. 14 Major airlines called in, they were there in person, 15 a coalition of assessors were there in the room. 16 When we talk about the Assessors Association 17 and this issue, it's kind of interesting because I 18 think there's only about 13 assessors that are 19 actually affected by this. Because that's where the 20 commercial airports are. And in Plumas County, we 21 don't have one of those airports, but it's a 22 fascinating topic and I've learned a lot about it. 23 I think -- my take on the meeting yesterday 24 was that a lot of good dialogue occurred. I think 25 the one vendor agreed to provide a month's worth of 26 data to the airlines so that they can take a look at 27 it. 28 It was an interesting discussion with the 21 1 perspective that sometimes it seemed like the 2 airlines told us they had the information for us, and 3 sometimes they told us they didn't have information 4 for us. And I had a difficult time really trying to 5 analyze that piece of this puzzle. But the vendors 6 seem quite confident that they can provide it. 7 One of the questions I asked them is that 8 they obtain most of their information from the 9 airlines, and my question to them was, "Well, for the 10 information you don't get, how are you going to 11 provide that to us if we need to have all the data?" 12 And I think that's a question that still needs to be 13 answered. 14 MS. HARKEY: See, this is what I mean. I 15 don't feel like I have any information. Everybody 16 else is out there giving information. We're getting 17 some from the industry, we're getting some from the 18 assessors, some assessors are more forceful than 19 others. 20 I happen to have a letter in my book from 21 one of the assessors that has been, you know, I think 22 kind of abusive in the issue. I'd like to hear from 23 other big counties. I'd like to hear the assessor 24 from LA, Orange County and others come forward and -- 25 and San Diego. We've got a lot of assessors that are 26 affected by this. And I'd kind of like to get them, 27 you know -- be sure that they're all part of the 28 interested parties, and that there's not just one 22 1 county or another county weighing in more heavily. 2 And I'd also, you know -- you're questioning 3 already the data that's being provided by the 4 so-called one vendor. You know, how do you verify it 5 to where you get it from -- so I think there's a 6 lot -- and I just don't -- what I -- what I really -- 7 I appreciate everyone's effort on this, because this 8 has been a long going. I mean, I was on the 9 Legislature when this was being talked about. And I 10 think it was being talked about even before I got 11 there. 12 What I don't want to see is something arrive 13 at this Board for a vote, and then find out that it 14 wasn't fully aired, or that we're not really fully 15 informed. And I think it's, you know -- you're on a 16 learning curve trying to figure out where all the 17 pieces fit. And I'd like to be as well informed. 18 And so, you know, I think -- I think this is 19 a real important issue for California. It's a real 20 important issue for the assessors and those that will 21 be affected. 22 MR. LEONHARDT: I, as a trained appraiser 23 and not an airline county, look at this process, and 24 I think I've come to a similar conclusion that some 25 of you Board Members have, that 365 probably is the 26 best way to do this if it can be done. 27 MS. HARKEY: If it can be done. 28 MR. LEONHARDT: If it can be done. 23 1 MS. HARKEY: Thank you. 2 MR. LEONHARDT: I think we're in the 3 process. I think staff is -- I thought they 4 conducted a good meeting yesterday. There were a lot 5 of issues that were put on the table. I think 6 there's a lot of hard work that has to take place to 7 be able to analyze this to determine whether it can 8 be done, and if it can be done in a way that's cost 9 efficient. 10 MS. HARKEY: Right. 11 I -- I just know -- I know we're a little 12 bit short of staff -- on the staff side, and I don't 13 want to see them spinning wheels if the Board Members 14 aren't -- aren't -- aren't, like, up to speed on 15 what's going on. 16 And I -- I mean, I know Mr. Kinnee and 17 Mr. Yeung have their work cut out for them on all 18 these -- all these issues. 19 So, you know, as much for their sake as for 20 our informational purposes, I hate to have them 21 spinning around on an issue that's going to require 22 legislation that we won't be able to get, or that's 23 going to have data that we won't -- that, you know, 24 we won't be able to verify. 25 So if, you know -- I just feel like I'm in 26 the dark here. And so I appreciate you in your 27 efforts. I truly do. We had a great conversation 28 the other day. And I would love to have just a 24 1 little more information brought to this Board, maybe 2 more involvement in the IP process so that we know 3 what's going on. 4 This is a very complex issue. It's -- it's 5 not -- it's not, you know, like -- you know, "the law 6 is this, and so we're going to do this." It's a very 7 complex issue. 8 So thank you very, very much. 9 MR. LEONHARDT: It -- it is a complex -- 10 MR. HORTON: Madam Chair -- 11 MR. LEONHARDT: -- issue. And to kind of 12 reassure you, I think, I've had a conversation with 13 the Orange County assessor on this topic. And I 14 think that at least in concept he's -- he's not 15 opposed to it, and he has had different visions in 16 the past. 17 San Mateo was in the room yesterday, 18 Sacramento was in the room yesterday. The assessor 19 you referred to with the letter was in the room 20 yesterday. Los Angeles was in the room. 21 MS. HARKEY: He's always in the room, isn't 22 he? 23 MR. LEONHARDT: That's -- that's not the 24 purpose of my visit today. 25 MS. HARKEY: I don't think -- does he -- 26 does he have an airport? 27 MR. LEONHARDT: Yes, he does. 28 MS. HARKEY: Well, good. At least I'm glad 25 1 to hear that. 2 MR. LEONHARDT: And I think Delta was 3 represented, Southwest was represented. There were a 4 number of other representatives there. So I think 5 you had a good cross-section of people there. 6 MS. HARKEY: Okay. Well, we need to -- we 7 need to know. 8 MR. LEONHARDT: That's why I'm here talking 9 to you today. 10 MS. HARKEY: We don't know. Well, I 11 appreciate your talking to me, but I still don't have 12 a sense of what's going on. 13 MR. LEONHARDT: Okay. 14 MS. HARKEY: So thank you very, very much. 15 Member Horton. 16 MR. HORTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. 17 Welcome, Assessor. Congratulations on your 18 election as President of the Assessors Board. 19 The things that came into -- came into 20 discussion when the Board took the matter up was 21 process, and that the process itself did not lend 22 itself to the involvement of the decision-makers, as 23 well as all of the parties who were involved. 24 And as much as I appreciate the airlines 25 being involved and the assessors being involved, the 26 county itself, school districts, all of those folks 27 play -- are interested parties, and any tax that's 28 levied, property tax that's levied. And so why we 26 1 are excluding the general public from this 2 discussion, I don't think we should. I think they 3 should be incorporated in the discussion to some 4 degree. 5 But I think, you know, the first step might 6 be to just come into an agreement as to what the 7 process is. Because what parties may very well do is 8 just rely on what process that we put out there. And 9 they will participate, but they won't necessarily 10 engage until a point in time that they have a 11 difference of opinion. 12 The Orange County assessor, for example, has 13 an opinion, at least shared with me, that the Board 14 should be doing the assessment and not the assessors. 15 Similar to what we do with the railroad assessment. 16 That that should happen. And has sought legislation 17 along those lines as well. 18 The other issue that we address was an 19 agreement as to the -- the parties were not in 20 agreement as to whether or not the data could 21 include -- or the definition of the terms. And so 22 they had different interpretations of what the terms 23 were. And so the party that was providing the data 24 would call "X," "X," and they saw "X" as "Y." 25 And so you can never come into an agreement 26 when you have these two different perceptions as to 27 what this data actually says. 28 And so I just think it's important that -- 27 1 maybe what we should do is have a discussion just 2 about the process, and have all the parties come 3 before us and come to some agreement. Not -- not 4 whether or not it should be an interested parties 5 process. 6 Because I think it -- personally, I think it 7 should be an interested parties process, because that 8 allows the experts to get together and kind of flush 9 out the facts. And I think that's important. 10 But I also feel it's important that the 11 policy-makers are involved. Not at the last minute, 12 but as the process sort of evolves so that we are 13 aware of the complexities that challenge this 14 decision. 15 On the legislation, we can't wait. If, in 16 fact, legislation is needed, what I'd like to have is 17 just a legal assessment as to what would cause 18 legislation to be needed, what would cause 19 rule-making to be needed. 20 And we've been dealing with this for -- God 21 knows -- 20, 30 years. So -- at least my experience 22 with it. And so I think there are a number of 23 situations where rule-making will be necessary if it 24 goes in that direction. 25 I know that there are a significant -- there 26 are a situation where legislative changes will be 27 necessary. And so -- and pretty much know what type 28 of rule-making we will need to make do, what type of 28 1 legislation we will need in order to accomplish the 2 various objectives. So at least a legal analysis 3 that says, "If we go in this direction, we're going 4 to need to have -- we're going to need a rule-making 5 process. This direction, we're going to need 6 legislation in order to accomplish that objective." 7 And then I think we need to be sensitive to 8 the legislative process, which says that they have 9 deadlines. If you don't introduce a bill, then we're 10 faced with having to do a gut and amend, find 11 legislation to put this in, and so forth. 12 So maybe a conversation with the Chair of a 13 committee that would oversee this to at least see if 14 this is something that could fit into an ominous bill 15 or some legislation, or if they're willing to put 16 forth a legislative outline that will eventually 17 evolve into legislation for the Board of 18 Equalization. 19 The deadline to introduce legislation is 20 upon us. So I don't think we can wait to start that 21 process. 22 MR. LEONHARDT: From my perspective, I think 23 contemplating whether you need legislation or not is 24 something that you can invest some time in. But I 25 also believe that your staff has put us on a fast 26 track here to report back. Because we have to 27 determine whether or not the data sources is accurate 28 and get everybody to agree to that. And we need to 29 1 think through the process of how this would be 2 implemented so we know what legislation needs to 3 be -- 4 MR. HORTON: Assessor Leonhardt, when you 5 say "we," you're speaking of the assessors? 6 MR. LEONHARDT: I think we're talking about 7 the assessors, I think we're talking about industry, 8 I think we're talking about the Board of 9 Equalization. All the players in the room that are 10 looking at this issue and trying to determine whether 11 it's practical. 12 MR. HORTON: See, what I'd like to hear, I 13 like to hear that come from the industry. Being 14 experienced with this process and how it works, if 15 you don't hear that from the industry -- what I heard 16 from the industry last time we took this matter up 17 is -- is that they had some serious concerns. This 18 is -- this was a new issue to them. They had not 19 had an opportunity to vet these issues. 20 And so I'm not saying it's not working, I -- 21 but no one is telling me that that is the case. And 22 so -- 23 MS. HARKEY: And I -- I think it's 24 important, too, to understand there is a bit of 25 intimidation going the other way. I mean, it's their 26 business. It's their, you know -- it's what they do. 27 And so I think there's a little bit -- they're a 28 little bit remiss to actually say exactly where 30 1 they're going with this stuff. 2 And so I -- I -- you know, I -- I -- I've 3 always thought this should be a statewide assessment 4 anyway. So I'll just throw that out there. I don't 5 understand why every county is doing something 6 different, or doing -- taking one and running with 7 it. But that's probably a bigger topic than we're 8 here to get into. 9 But I do -- I really do want to be fully 10 informed before making a decision on this. And I 11 want to be sure that everybody has a real chance to 12 vet. Because I know what it's like when lobbyists or 13 representatives of certain groups are in -- are 14 sometimes a little bit closed-mouthed. 15 And it'll come back to us, like, in a later 16 time, and say something that, you know, you just wish 17 they would have said on the dais. But they're afraid 18 to do that, because -- I mean, you know, there's 19 always the feeling that, you know -- I mean, they're 20 just -- they're afraid they're going to get cut out. 21 So -- and they don't want to be -- they don't want to 22 find any kind of hostility from their assessors. 23 So I think you need to understand the power 24 that's there. And that's why I think we need to have 25 a more open discussion. 26 You're rolling your eyes, but it's true. 27 County assessors are -- 28 MR. LEONHARDT: I didn't realize I was 31 1 rolling my eyes, because I -- 2 MS. HARKEY: Because county assessors are 3 pretty -- 4 MR. LEONHARDT: -- agree with you. 5 MS. HARKEY: -- pretty -- pretty, you 6 know -- I mean, it's pretty important. It's -- 7 it's -- it's a pretty powerful position. 8 So I think, you know, all industry kind of, 9 you know, is a little bit cautious -- eggshell kind 10 of cautious -- when they're tiptoeing around these 11 issues. And that's why I think a little bit more 12 open discussion would be good. 13 Now, I do appreciate what you're doing, 14 Mr. Leon [sic]. I do appreciate what you're doing. 15 You're not -- you haven't got an easy task. 16 But, you know -- and I appreciate our 17 Department. And I know that they're short. And I 18 know they're under the gun. And everybody is trying 19 to please everybody. But I really think that a lot 20 of that needs to come back to the Board. Because 21 we're the ones that are ultimately going to take the 22 vote. And we're ultimately going to take the hits if 23 something goes awry. 24 So, you know, I -- and I want to support my 25 staff every step of the way. Believe me, I do. I 26 want to be sure they're covered. And that -- and 27 that everything's done so that they can feel 28 comfortable with their presentation. And that they 32 1 don't get slammed after the fact. 2 MS. STOWERS: Madam Chair. 3 MS. HARKEY: Yes. 4 MS. STOWERS: I agree. There's a lot of 5 moving parts with this particular issue. And -- and 6 the industry may not -- when they come before us, 7 they may not lay it all out there. 8 I did attend the meeting yesterday, and they 9 were very open at the meeting in expressing their 10 concerns. Especially when it comes to the compliance 11 burden. 12 There was a lot of discussion about looking 13 at all these data sets. And even, I believe, some 14 assessors expressed concerns as far as the 15 administration burden. 16 My issue is that, to staff, you provide us 17 with a high level, you pour it on what took place. 18 But we're not getting -- I mean, unless a Member's 19 staff is at that meeting. Because Members cannot 20 attend. So unless a Member's staff was at that 21 meeting, they didn't have the benefit of all that 22 discussion. 23 So I would really encourage staff to report 24 back out to the Members on what was said. You don't 25 have to attribute it to any one particular person, 26 but you need to be really open and frank on what the 27 various parties are saying, so that the Members can 28 make an informed decision when we get to it. So we 33 1 can see how -- I don't think I'm gonna say it -- what 2 we call in the Controller's Office, "see the sausage 3 making." You know, they -- they -- they need to see 4 the detail. They don't -- they have staff, very 5 capable staff that can get into the detail, and -- 6 and -- and advise their members -- their Member. 7 But, staff, you guys really should be 8 presenting this information to us. And so that we 9 can see -- the Members can see both sides of the 10 story. 11 So I really encourage you guys to provide us 12 with ongoing, complete reporting on this issue. So 13 that when it comes back for a vote in July, we're not 14 just focused on one little memo. 15 And it's, you know -- if it's anything like 16 last year's memo, that was, what, 30 pages? That's a 17 lot of reading. And I really think the Members would 18 be best served to be updated on a regular basis. 19 MS. HARKEY: It's -- it's -- it's going to 20 be -- it's going to be a thorny issue, as you all 21 know. And we want to be sure we can support, you 22 know, the staff, and that the staff feels comfortably 23 supported. 24 And, you know, I mean, the industry brings 25 revenue to this state. And we need to collect the 26 tax revenues, and we -- we -- so whatever -- you 27 know, I don't want them to find us less favorable and 28 reflect less flights here. I mean, that could be 34 1 self-defeating. 2 And so, you know, I know we think we're so 3 big that nobody is going to ditch us for another 4 place, but I'm not really that sure anymore. I think 5 that, you know, cutting down the number of flights, 6 time in the air -- I mean, there's a lot of ways 7 that, you know, we could be served, but served less 8 frequently. 9 So I just want to be sure we understand that 10 the, you know -- the proper amount of assessment is 11 what we want. We don't want necessarily to be seen 12 as gouging or -- or that -- less friendly than some 13 other surrounding states that might benefit off of 14 our -- our, you know -- off of what we do here. 15 We want to be sure that we're benefiting the 16 people in the state of California to the maximum 17 extent that we can, and that we keep industry 18 flowing, and that we keep the planes, you know, here, 19 coming here frequently. 20 You know, it's really inconvenient. I mean, 21 I think you all lived through the Ontario debacle. I 22 did. You know, you book a flight down there and it 23 would cancel. You know. 24 And it's going to be -- it's going to be up 25 to the people who buy the tickets to pay for any 26 increases or what -- or get the benefit of a decrease 27 if it comes through. You know, ultimately if 28 there's a -- this ends up being an overall tax 35 1 increase, the ticket-holders are going to pay the 2 price. 3 So, you know, I mean, I'm trying to figure 4 out where this is really going. And I think that we 5 all want to generate the correct amount of revenue 6 for the state. But I think it's -- it's going to be 7 very important that we be very judicious and not just 8 assume there's more out there and we need to get it. 9 I would really like to see us understand who -- who 10 really pays for the tax, any kind of increase. 11 So on that, anymore comments? 12 No? 13 Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate 14 it. 15 And I think your direction is probably clear 16 as mud by now. But, you know, we just want to be 17 sure we're up to speed. 18 And Chief Counsel. 19 MR. NANJO: Yes. 20 MS. HARKEY: Did we -- did we determine if 21 our staff may sit in on interested parties? I 22 thought that was the point, we could do that. 23 Because it's almost a legislative process, it's 24 not -- 25 MR. NANJO: The staff could attend, the 26 Board Members cannot. 27 MS. HARKEY: The -- the Members. 28 MR. NANJO: Yeah. 36 1 MS. HARKEY: I thought -- I thought that we 2 could, because I know -- I mean, I'm not attending 3 them. But Member Horton seems to have -- 4 MR. HORTON: No, I don't -- historically, 5 that has not been the case. And there is a decision. 6 I can't remember exactly where the Chief Counsel 7 previously said that the employees -- staff of the 8 Members can also be part of the establishment of a 9 quorum by virtue that their representing us, by 10 virtue that they're communicating to us, and 11 therefore, so their participation in the interested 12 parties process on matters that will eventually come 13 before the Board would be -- 14 MR. NANJO: Limited. 15 MR. HORTON: -- in violation. So -- 16 MR. NANJO: My -- my understanding of that 17 memo, Member Horton, is that Board Member staff can 18 attend; however, it should not be representative of a 19 quorum. 20 So it's two members of -- of two staff -- 21 two sets of staff members or two Members being 22 represented is fine. It becomes problematic when 23 there's more than that attending the interested 24 parties. 25 MR. HORTON: Right. Right. 26 MR. NANJO: So there's a limitation. Thank 27 you for correcting me. There is a limitation on the 28 number of staff members that can attend. 37 1 MS. STOWERS: Okay. So wait a minute then. 2 This is another conversation. 3 On behalf of Controller Yee, I do attend the 4 IP meetings. Yesterday's meeting, Member Runner's 5 staff was there. So we were okay on your two limit. 6 But that's news to me. I've never informed anyone 7 that I'm attending a meeting so that we can check 8 that we don't have more than two. 9 MR. NANJO: Well, I mean -- 10 MS. STOWERS: And one more thing. And so I 11 also thought your memo said that staff may attend, 12 but they cannot express the opinion of their Member. 13 And -- and I know at yesterday's meeting, I 14 asked a question regarding actual versus schedule 15 data, not expressing an opinion of Controller Yee. 16 But what was presented to us at that meeting, and I 17 did look at you and ask you, "You can let me know if 18 I'm overstepping my boundaries." 19 I'm -- I'm a little confused now. I -- I 20 don't -- I'm really confused on why staff can't 21 attend an IP meeting. 22 MS. HARKEY: I don't know either -- 23 MS. STOWERS: All staff members should be 24 able to attend. 25 MS. HARKEY: -- interested parties. 26 MR. NANJO: Sure. So I could -- I could 27 provide a little bit more information. 28 The problem is the concern that was raised 38 1 by your prior Chief Counsel -- and I also looked into 2 it myself -- is the potential that that becomes a 3 serial meeting. And it becomes a serial meeting when 4 a majority of the Board Member staff are attending, 5 and to the extent that those staff members either 6 talk to themselves, talk to their Members, you've 7 created a potential serial meeting situation. 8 So to prevent that, the recommendation by 9 your prior Chief Counsel, and as I understand it, it 10 is also the recommendation of the Attorney General's 11 Office, is that you have four participating -- 12 participation at an interested parties meeting. That 13 you do not have a quorum of the Board Members' staff 14 represented. Which means, you can have, for this 15 Board, two officers represented. 16 Now, my understanding is that -- and there 17 is a motivation for this -- that Mr. Yeung also asked 18 for an RSVP -- for lack of better term -- of Board 19 Members. And that's so that we can monitor if 20 there's more than two Board Members being represented 21 at the interested parties meeting. 22 MS. STOWERS: That's a difficult item to 23 monitor considering that they can always call in and 24 not identify themselves on the telephone. 25 MR. NANJO: Yes, that's true. That is true. 26 We're -- 27 MS. HARKEY: This is kind of like the 28 mushroom approach. You know, I'm sorry, but this 39 1 whole -- this whole process seems like, you know, 2 we're being -- we're being mushroomed and asked to 3 vote. And we can't talk, and we can't listen, and we 4 can't hear the conversations. Which is why I think 5 the interested parties meetings need to come before 6 the Board. 7 We need to be here in the public forum, so 8 there's no Bagley-Keene, and we hear what's going on. 9 And I don't mind doing that at all. I just -- I 10 think it's really important that we know what it is, 11 what the path is, and that everybody gets a chance to 12 speak to -- to the Members that are gonna make a 13 decision. 14 We're not appointed, we're elected. And I 15 think it's -- you know, I mean, I don't want to gum 16 up the works, but I also don't want to, at the last 17 minute, like Mr. Yeung experienced, where we reject 18 his -- his -- his decision. I would like to have 19 support for the staff recommendation. And I don't 20 think I can have that if I'm treated as a mushroom. 21 So -- 22 MR. NANJO: So there are two things, Chair 23 Harkey and Board Members, that the Board can do 24 within Bagley-Keene and all the other laws you're 25 bound by. 26 One of the things is, as -- as been 27 suggested, you can request that staff provide more 28 detailed information, kind of give you -- I use the 40 1 terms loosely -- blow by blow about what happened at 2 the interested parties meeting. And at the same 3 time, it's within your right to have meetings held 4 here where the topic can be discussed through the 5 Board's agenda. 6 So between a combination of those things, 7 and I think, Chair Harkey, you mentioned yourself, 8 one of the things you want to do is allow time for 9 the parties to get together and kind of hash out the 10 details. That's something that you can do through 11 the interested parties meeting without the Board's 12 participation. 13 So I think you can achieve your goals 14 through a combination of the three, if you will. 15 So -- 16 MR. HORTON: I would agree, Madam Harkey. 17 The interested parties meeting, as long -- 18 when it's the experts drilling down on the issues, 19 is -- has enormous value. The inherent challenge 20 with the interested parties meeting is the law that 21 prohibits the decision-makers from engaging 22 collectively in that process, or in the information 23 gathering, information assessment analysis, and so 24 forth. And so therein, the recommendation to at 25 least have concurrence on what that process is in 26 order to collaborate, in order to come to an ultimate 27 agreement. 28 Oftentimes, that never happens because the 41 1 parties disagree on the process. And they disagree 2 on the terminology and so forth. 3 And the other challenges that exist with the 4 interested parties is the interested parties are the 5 people that we deemed to be the interested parties, 6 and the people that we send the information to and 7 ask for them to come. When, from my perspective, the 8 interested parties is -- the general public at some 9 point has to be. Not at the point that you're doing 10 your analysis, not at the point that you're gathering 11 the facts and so forth. The interested parties is 12 the public, the interested parties is the 13 decision-makers who can't attend by law, can't 14 attend, can't participate, can't deliberate, can't 15 discuss and so forth. And those are some serious 16 challenges that have just been created. 17 I mean, the notion of just ex parte 18 communication doesn't exist for the most part, 19 having -- unless we're in this public environment, 20 technically or theoretically there are challenges 21 that have yet to be resolved. 22 And so now the Board Members are faced with, 23 as Member Harkey termed it, information being 24 gathered and gathered, and then, boom, here it is 25 presented to you. And the inherent challenge with 26 that is, you have one party come to that meeting and 27 say, "I disagree," I guarantee it gets put over. Or 28 "I have a problem with the process," or -- you know. 42 1 So you're creating an environment where your 2 decision of staff can be easily challenged by an 3 outside party. And so -- and for the assessors, as I 4 encourage them, is that this process is a 5 three-pronged process where you have the general 6 public that has to make a decision, you have staff 7 that's going to provide the expert advice that has to 8 make a decision, and then you have the 9 decision-makers who are obligated to make a decision. 10 You want to come to the table with all those 11 parties nodding their head and saying, "Listen, we 12 agree. If nothing else, we agree the process was 13 equitable. That the data is -- in this case, that 14 the data is available and it can be provided." 15 One of the challenges with the selecting of 16 a vendor is that these vendors actually work for the 17 airlines. And so the last time around the vendor 18 disappeared. I mean, just disappeared. And so that 19 can throw a monkey wrench in the decision-making 20 process. And I just want to encourage you to try to 21 figure out a way to -- to -- to address that. 22 Dean -- I mean, Kinnee. My apologies. 23 MR. KINNEE: Thank you, Mr. Horton. 24 I think -- I guess my recommendation to 25 Mr. Yeung and Mr. Leonhardt would be, I think the 26 Board directed us to look into this matter and bring 27 it back, I think, July. 28 We've had an interested parties meeting. 43 1 We're going to have another one in March. April 2 might be too soon. And depending on what happens on 3 some other things here -- I know these assessors have 4 a conference. But perhaps by the May meeting -- 5 April if doable -- but the May, we bring back before 6 the Board kind of where we are and where we've 7 reached consensus. Where there's disagreements. I 8 think that's what the Board is looking for to hear 9 that kind of information. 10 MS. HARKEY: Are we supposed to vote on 11 something in -- 12 MR. KINNEE: No, this is -- I mean -- 13 MS. HARKEY: In July are we supposed to 14 vote? 15 MR. KINNEE: We were directed to bring it 16 back in July, but I think there might be some 17 benefits to -- we will have a second meeting, we will 18 know -- have a better idea where we stand to bring it 19 back to the Board in May and talk about where we 20 stand, where we reached agreement, where the rubs 21 are. So the Board would hear that. 22 MS. HARKEY: Would we have everybody in here 23 in this room so that we could actually have 24 participation? We need to be sure we're notifying 25 everybody, including the public, you know, like we 26 do. But probably -- 27 MR. KINNEE: It would be noticed. We could 28 notice it. I'm not saying an interested parties -- I 44 1 mean, it's more, "This is where we are," you know -- 2 MS. HARKEY: Yeah. I think -- I think -- 3 MR. KINNEE: Just very similar to how we 4 went the representative period, and you were able to 5 dig in -- delve into the details and find out where 6 the problems were. 7 MS. HARKEY: Okay. I just -- I just want to 8 be sure that everybody is here, and I'm not here, you 9 know, at the time for voting. And I think you 10 understand that. But just, it's really -- it's 11 really difficult. And it's a very complex issue. 12 And we've been dealing with this for, he says over 20 13 years. Which I'm sure we have. 14 So any way, thank you so very much. 15 MR. HORTON: Clarification, Madam Chair. 16 Question of Chief Counsel. 17 Do we have the -- legally, can we vote on 18 this in July? I thought the -- the -- the statute 19 provided specific time lines. 20 MR. KINNEE: I -- I -- I believe the -- Dean 21 Kinnee. 22 I think the discussion was the Board wanted 23 the parties to engage, discuss and bring it back. So 24 instead of bringing it back at the end of the year 25 and still have things bubbling around, the Board 26 would at least hear in July, and we would continue to 27 refine it. 28 But I'm suggesting instead of July, we try 45 1 to move that first appearance before the Board to 2 May -- 3 MS. HARKEY: Okay. 4 MR. KINNEE: -- to bring focus to the 5 matter. 6 MS. HARKEY: Thank you. And we're -- we 7 don't -- we don't want to stress you out. We want -- 8 we want -- just want to be sure we've got the 9 information. And I -- I always feel like we don't, 10 in issues like this, until it's right at the very 11 end. 12 And we're trying to -- and I don't know 13 about other Members, but, you know, some of my legal 14 staff is not available. You know, it's really a 15 matter of myself digging into all these issues and 16 then asking a bunch of questions. I have my -- my 17 people do the best they can. But it's, you know -- 18 it's a lot to get at the end. 19 So thank you. 20 MR. KINNEE: Thank you. 21 MR. YEUNG: Thank you for your time. 22 MS. HARKEY: Yeah. A lot longer than I 23 thought it would be. But I just want to be sure I'm 24 not getting stuck. 25 ---oOo--- 26 27 28 46 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 State of California ) 4 ) ss 5 County of Sacramento ) 6 7 I, Jillian Sumner, Hearing Reporter for 8 the California State Board of Equalization certify 9 that on February 27, 2018 I recorded verbatim, in 10 shorthand, to the best of my ability, the 11 proceedings in the above-entitled hearing; that I 12 transcribed the shorthand writing into typewriting; 13 and that the preceding pages 1 through 46 14 constitute a complete and accurate transcription of 15 the shorthand writing. 16 17 Dated: June 18 2018 18 19 20 ____________________________ 21 JILLIAN SUMNER, CSR #13619 22 Hearing Reporter 23 24 25 26 27 28 47