(1)The California Constitution generally limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property. For purposes of this limitation, full cash value is defined as the assessors valuation of real property as shown on the 197576 tax bill under full cash value or, thereafter, the appraised value of that real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred. The California Constitution authorizes the full cash value base to be reduced to reflect substantial damage, destruction, or other factors causing a decline in value.

This bill would require each property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles to be reassessed so that the full cash value base of the property reflects any decline in value of the property arising from the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event, as defined. The bill would require reassessments to be retroactive to the January 1, 2022, lien date. The bill would require, following reassessment, the assessor to send a specified notice of the assessment value change to the taxpayer. By imposing additional duties on local tax officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing property tax law authorizes any person to elect to pay delinquent taxes in installments (installment redemption plan) by a certain date before the tax collector obtains the power to sell the property in order to redeem certain tax-defaulted property. Existing property tax law prohibits restarting installment payments if those payments are started under these provisions and the amount required to be paid in any fiscal year is not paid as required (default).

This bill would prohibit an installment redemption plan, for which all payments due on or before January 7, 2025, have been timely made, from being considered in default until April 10, 2030, for property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles. By imposing additional duties on local tax officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing property tax law authorizes, for taxes due on escape assessments for prior fiscal years, those taxes to be paid over a four-year period (installment plan) at the option of the assessee if the additional tax is over $500 and a written request for installment payment is filed by the assessee with the tax collector by a certain time.

This bill would suspend the taxes due on a property making payments pursuant to an installment plan as described above, would prohibit their collection, and would prohibit the taxes from being considered delinquent, all until April 10, 2030, for property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles, provided that, on or before April 1, 2025, all payments required by the plan were timely made. By imposing additional duties on local tax officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law authorizes the auditor or tax collector to cancel any penalty, costs, or other charges resulting from tax delinquency upon certain findings, including if the cancellation was ordered by a local, state, or federal court.

This bill would also authorize any penalty, costs, or other charges resulting from tax delinquency to be canceled if failure to make a timely payment is due to a documented hardship, as determined by the tax collector, arising from the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event, as defined.

(3)This bill would make findings and declarations related to a gift of public funds.

(4)This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Los Angeles.

(5)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(6)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

(1)The California Constitution generally limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property. For purposes of this limitation, full cash value is defined as the assessors valuation of real property as shown on the 197576 tax bill under full cash value or, thereafter, the appraised value of that real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred. The California Constitution authorizes the full cash value base to be reduced to reflect substantial damage, destruction, or other factors causing a decline in value.

This bill would require each property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles to be reassessed so that the full cash value base of the property reflects any decline in value of the property arising from the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event, as defined. The bill would require reassessments to be retroactive to the January 1, 2022, lien date. The bill would require, following reassessment, the assessor to send a specified notice of the assessment value change to the taxpayer. By imposing additional duties on local tax officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing property tax law authorizes any person to elect to pay delinquent taxes in installments (installment redemption plan) by a certain date before the tax collector obtains the power to sell the property in order to redeem certain tax-defaulted property. Existing property tax law prohibits restarting installment payments if those payments are started under these provisions and the amount required to be paid in any fiscal year is not paid as required (default).

This bill would prohibit an installment redemption plan, for which all payments due on or before January 7, 2025, have been timely made, from being considered in default until April 10, 2030, for property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles. By imposing additional duties on local tax officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing property tax law authorizes, for taxes due on escape assessments for prior fiscal years, those taxes to be paid over a four-year period (installment plan) at the option of the assessee if the additional tax is over $500 and a written request for installment payment is filed by the assessee with the tax collector by a certain time.

This bill would suspend the taxes due on a property making payments pursuant to an installment plan as described above, would prohibit their collection, and would prohibit the taxes from being considered delinquent, all until April 10, 2030, for property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles, provided that, on or before April 1, 2025, all payments required by the plan were timely made. By imposing additional duties on local tax officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law authorizes the auditor or tax collector to cancel any penalty, costs, or other charges resulting from tax delinquency upon certain findings, including if the cancellation was ordered by a local, state, or federal court.

This bill would also authorize any penalty, costs, or other charges resulting from tax delinquency to be canceled if failure to make a timely payment is due to a documented hardship, as determined by the tax collector, arising from the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event, as defined.

(3)This bill would make findings and declarations related to a gift of public funds.

(4)This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Los Angeles.

(5)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(6)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

(1)The California Constitution generally limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property. For purposes of this limitation, full cash value is defined as the assessors valuation of real property as shown on the 197576 tax bill under full cash value or, thereafter, the appraised value of that real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred. The California Constitution authorizes the full cash value base to be reduced to reflect substantial damage, destruction, or other factors causing a decline in value.

This bill would require each property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles to be reassessed so that the full cash value base of the property reflects any decline in value of the property arising from the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event, as defined. The bill would require reassessments to be retroactive to the January 1, 2022, lien date. The bill would require require, following reassessment, the auditor-controller assessor to send a specified notice of overpayments of taxes the assessment value change to the taxpayer. By imposing additional duties on local tax officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing property tax law authorizes any person to elect to pay delinquent taxes in installments (installment redemption plan) by a certain date before the tax collector obtains the power to sell the property in order to redeem certain tax-defaulted property. Existing property tax law prohibits restarting installment payments if those payments are started under these provisions and the amount required to be paid in any fiscal year is not paid as required (default).

This bill would prohibit an installment redemption plan, for which all payments due on or before January 7, 2025, have been timely made, from being considered in default until April 10, 2030, for property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles. By imposing additional duties on local tax officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing property tax law authorizes, for taxes due on escape assessments for prior fiscal years, those taxes to be paid over a four-year period (installment plan) at the option of the assessee if the additional tax is over $500 and a written request for installment payment is filed by the assessee with the tax collector by a certain time.

This bill would suspend the taxes due on a property making payments pursuant to an installment plan as described above, would prohibit their collection, and would prohibit the taxes from being considered delinquent, all until April 10, 2030, for property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles, provided that, on or before April 1, 2025, all payments required by the plan were timely made. By imposing additional duties on local tax officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law authorizes the auditor or tax collector to cancel any penalty, costs, or other charges resulting from tax delinquency upon certain findings, including if the cancellation was ordered by a local, state, or federal court.

This bill would also authorize any penalty, costs, or other charges resulting from tax delinquency to be canceled if failure to make a timely payment is due to a documented hardship, as determined by the tax collector, arising from the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event, as defined.

(3)This bill would make findings and declarations related to a gift of public funds.

(4)This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Los Angeles.

(5)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(6)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

(1)The California Constitution generally limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property. For purposes of this limitation, full cash value is defined as the assessors valuation of real property as shown on the 197576 tax bill under full cash value or, thereafter, the appraised value of that real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred. The California Constitution authorizes the full cash value base to be reduced to reflect substantial damage, destruction, or other factors causing a decline in value.

This bill would require each property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles to be reassessed so that the full cash value base of the property reflects any decline in value of the property arising from the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event, as defined. The bill would require reassessments to be retroactive to the January 1, 2022, lien date. The bill would require the tax collector auditor-controller to send a specified notice of overpayments of taxes to the taxpayer. By imposing additional duties on local tax officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing property tax law authorizes any person to elect to pay delinquent taxes in installments (installment redemption plan) by a certain date before the tax collector obtains the power to sell the property in order to redeem certain tax-defaulted property. Existing property tax law prohibits restarting installment payments if those payments are started under these provisions and the amount required to be paid in any fiscal year is not paid as required (default).

This bill would prohibit an installment redemption plan, for which all payments due on or before January 7, 2025, have been timely made, from being considered in default until April 10, 2030, for property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles. By imposing additional duties on local tax officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing property tax law authorizes, for taxes due on escape assessments for prior fiscal years, those taxes to be paid over a four-year period (installment plan) at the option of the assessee if the additional tax is over $500 and a written request for installment payment is filed by the assessee with the tax collector by a certain time.

This bill would suspend the taxes due on a property making payments pursuant to an installment plan as described above, would prohibit their collection, and would prohibit the taxes from being considered delinquent, all until April 10, 2030, for property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles, provided that, on or before April 1, 2025, all payments required by the plan were timely made. By imposing additional duties on local tax officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law authorizes the auditor or tax collector to cancel any penalty, costs, or other charges resulting from tax delinquency upon certain findings, including if the cancellation was ordered by a local, state, or federal court.

This bill would also authorize any penalty, costs, or other charges resulting from tax delinquency to be canceled if failure to make a timely payment is due to a documented hardship, as determined by the tax collector, arising from the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event, as defined.

(3)This bill would make findings and declarations related to a gift of public funds.

(4)This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Los Angeles.

(5)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(2)Existing property tax law authorizes any person to elect to pay delinquent taxes in installments (installment redemption plan) by a certain date before the tax collector obtains the power to sell the property in order to redeem certain tax-defaulted property. Existing property tax law prohibits restarting installment payments if those payments are started under these provisions and the amount required to be paid in any fiscal year is not paid as required (default).

This bill would prohibit an installment redemption plan, for which all payments due on or before January 7, 2025, have been timely made, from being considered in default until April 10, 2030, for property located in a certain area within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles. By imposing additional duties on local tax officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing property tax law authorizes, for taxes due on escape assessments for prior fiscal years, those taxes to be paid over a four-year period (installment plan) at the option of the assessee if the additional tax is over $500 and a written request for installment payment is filed by the assessee with the tax collector by a certain time.

This bill would suspend the taxes due on a property making payments pursuant to an installment plan as described above, would prohibit their collection, and would prohibit the taxes from being considered delinquent, all until April 10, 2030, for property located in a certain area within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles, provided that, on or before April 1, 2025, all payments required by the plan were timely made. By imposing additional duties on local tax officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4)This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Los Angeles.

Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, establishes the Medical Board of California within the Department of Consumer Affairs and sets forth its powers and duties relating to the licensure and regulation of physicians and surgeons.

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a person to use in any sign, business card, or letterhead, or, in an advertisement, the words doctor or physician, the letters or prefix Dr., the initials M.D. or D.O., or any other terms or letters indicating or implying that the person is a physician and surgeon, physician, surgeon, or practitioner, without having a certificate as a physician and surgeon. Existing law also prohibits a person from using the words doctor or physician, the letters or prefix Dr., the initials M.D. or D.O., or any other terms or letters indicating or implying that the person is a physician and surgeon, physician, surgeon, or practitioner in a health care setting that would lead a reasonable patient to determine that person is a licensed M.D. or D.O. Existing law contains some exceptions to these provisions.

This bill would specifically make it unlawful for a person to use the title doctor or the letters or prefix Dr. on their name tag unless authorized to use that term pursuant to the provisions described above or any other law.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 985

Author:(Schiavo)

As Amended Ver:September 4, 2025

2/3 vote. Urgency

SUMMARY

Extends tax relief to properties impacted by the "Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event (ETLE)".

Senate Amendments

1. Require a county assessor to reassess property within a five-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in Los Angeles (LA) County to reflect the decline in value resulting from the "Chiquita Canyon ETLE." Reassessments pursuant to this bill must be retroactively applied to the January 1, 2022 lien date. An assessor must send a notice to an owner of property that has received a value adjustment, stating the amount of the value change and informing an owner of any potential refund. This bill defines, for the purposes of this reassessment requirement, the "Chiquita Canyon ETLE" as the ETLE that occurred beneath Chiquita Canyon Landfill in LA County.
2. Prohibit a redemption plan for delinquent property taxes from being considered in default until April 10, 2030, if that property is located within a five-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in LA County, and if the redemption plan has no delinquent payments on or before January 7, 2025.
3. Prohibit collection of payments and consideration of delinquency for unpaid amounts of a property tax installment plan until April 10, 2030, if that property is located within a five-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in LA County and if all payments required by the plan were timely made on or before January 7, 2025.
4. Authorize a county tax collector to cancel any penalties, costs, or other charges on delinquent property taxes resulting from a documented hardship arising from the "Chiquita Canyon ETLE," if the principal payment of the proper amount of tax liability is paid on or before June 30 of the fourth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the tax became delinquent. This bill defines, for the purposes of this authorization, the "Chiquita Canyon ETLE" as an ETLE that occurred under the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in LA County beginning in 2022, and for which the Department of Toxic Substances Control issued an imminent and substantial endangerment order to the owners of the landfill.
5. Finds and declares that the reassessment of properties near the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in LA County required by this bill serves the public purpose of remedying the burden the Chiquita Canyon ETLE has placed on the residents of the area and does not constitute a gift of public funds, as provided in existing law.
6. Finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable because of the unique circumstances of the ETLE that occurred beneath the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in LA County.
7. Requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for costs that the Commission on State Mandates determines are contained in this bill.
8. Provides that this bill is an urgency measure, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, constituted by the fact that the Chiquita Canyon ETLE has placed a financial burden on residents of the area that must be remedied as soon as possible.

COMMENTS

1. Chiquita Canyon Landfill event: Beginning in May 2022, an ongoing ETLE at the Chiquita Canyon Landfill has grown in size according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). The landfill is a 639-acre municipal solid waste facility in Los Angeles County operated by Chiquita Canyon, LLC, a subsidiary of Waste Connections, Inc. The ignition and expansion of this ETLE has negatively affected communities surrounding the landfill. The precise cause of the ETLE has yet to be determined, but the subsurface reaction at the landfill has impeded the ability to collect waste gas emitting from the landfill and has increased leachate production^[1]. Specifically, the ETLE has precipitated 6,800 odor complaints in 2023, and increased leachate production from approximately 150,000 gallons per week in January 2022, to over 1,000,000 gallons per week in December 2023^[2].
2. Response to the ETLE: In November 2023, a multi-agency critical action team led by the US EPA was formed to address the ETLE. According to a list published by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Chiquita Canyon, LLC has been issued 113 violations, all for the discharge of contaminants causing a nuisance, except one violation for failing to properly maintain equipment. The ETLE, however, was not declared a disaster at any level of government, and those impacted by the ETLE remain ineligible for disaster relief provisions in existing statute.

According to the Author

The Chiquita Canyon Landfill in my district has been burning for the last three years. The landfill fire is releasing carcinogens into the air and causing health problems among residents, businesses to shut down, and making the surrounding area completely unlivable. Requests that a state of emergency be enacted so residents receive needed assistance have gone ignored. The people of Val Verde and Castaic deserve better and need the resources to protect themselves. AB 985 ensures those additional resources such as mortgage forbearance or property tax reassessment are available for residents to utilize.

Arguments in Support

None on file

Arguments in Opposition

None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS

The Senate Committee on Appropriations notes the following in its analysis of a previous, but substantially similar, version of this bill:

1. The State Board of Equalization (BOE) indicates that any property tax revenue loss resulting from this bill would be dependent upon individual reduction calculations resulting from retroactive property tax reassessment. The magnitude is unknown. Reductions in local property tax revenues, in turn, can increase General Fund Proposition 98 spending by up to roughly 50% (the exact amount depends on the specific amount of the annual Proposition 98 guarantee, which in turns depends upon a variety of economic, demographic and budgetary factors). The BOE would incur minor administrative costs to implement the provisions of the bill.
2. By imposing specified duties on LA County tax officials, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on local agencies, local agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs. The magnitude is unknown, but potentially in excess of $50,000 annually (General Fund).

VOTES:

ASM BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS: 17-0-1

YES: Berman, Flora, Ahrens, Alanis, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Caloza, Chen, Elhawary, Hadwick, Haney, Irwin, Jackson, Lowenthal, Macedo, Nguyen, Pellerin

ABS, ABST OR NV: Krell

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-1-14

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Schultz, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Rivas

NO: DeMaio

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bauer-Kahan, Dixon, Gallagher, Mark González, Hadwick, Jackson, Kalra, Muratsuchi, Patel, Patterson, Sanchez, Schiavo, Sharp-Collins, Zbur

UPDATED

VERSION: September 4, 2025

CONSULTANT: Harrison Bowlby / REV. & TAX. / (916) 319-2098 FN: 0002069

1. Leachate, in the context of a landfill, is water that has percolated through the landfill, leaching chemicals or constituents from that waste. ↑

2. US EPA, Chiquita Canyon Landfill, Castaic, CA, https://www.epa.gov/ca/chiquita-canyon-landfill#reaction, accessed February 2025. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 985

Author: Schiavo (D), et al.

Amended: 9/4/25 in Senate

Vote: 27- Urgency

SENATE REVENUE AND TAXATION COMMITTEE: 3-0, 7/9/25

AYES: Valladares, Ashby, Umberg

NO VOTE RECORDED: McNerney, Grayson

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/29/25

AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-1, 6/3/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Chiquita Canyon Landfill: property tax reassessment and penalties

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill enacts property tax relief measures for taxpayers affected by the Chiquita Canyon Elevated Land Temperature Event.

Senate Floor Amendments of 9/4/25 (1) replace the bill’s direction to auditors to notify affected taxpayers of overpayments, instead requiring assessors to notify taxpayers of assessed value changes, (2) clarify that the assessor can notify taxpayers to file a claim for refund with the auditor-controller if taxes have already been paid at the higher assessed value, and (3) make conforming, grammatical, and typographical changes.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that all property is taxable unless explicitly exempted by the Constitution or federal law (California Constitution, Article XIII, Section One.)
2. Limits the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property at 1% of full cash value, plus any locally-authorized bonded indebtedness, and caps a property’s annual inflationary increase in taxable value to 2%. Provides that assessors reappraise property whenever it is purchased, newly constructed, or when ownership changes (California Constitution, Article XIIIA, as added by Proposition 13, 1978).
3. Allow temporary reductions in assessed value in cases where real property suffers a decline in value (California Constitution, Article XIIIA, as amended by Proposition 8, 1978).
4. Implements Proposition 8 to direct the assessor to evaluate the change in a property’s value from one lien date (January 1 of each year) to the next, and enrolls a new value if the property’s current market value falls below its previous assessed value. If the market value subsequently increases, the assessor can revalue the property upward, but not higher than its Prop. 13 value.
5. Provides that property taxes are due in two installments, the first on November 1^st and the second on February 1^st, with delinquency for the second installment occurring on April 10^th.
6. Requires county tax collectors to begin imposing penalties for nonpayment of property taxes for each amount due, plus administrative charges, once taxes become delinquent.
7. Provides that property becomes tax-defaulted and can be subject to tax sale to satisfy outstanding taxes, penalties, and administrative charges if a property owner does not pay the property taxes due in the current fiscal year before June 30^th.
8. Allows each tax collector to waive penalties and other charges when failure to pay is due to reasonable cause and where there is no willful neglect. While the tax collector in each county makes this determination for any specific taxpayer, reasonable cause usually applies to circumstances outside the taxpayer’s control, such as illness, but generally does not when the taxpayer lacks funds to pay taxes.
9. Allows a tax collector to cancel any penalty, cost, or other charge resulting from a tax delinquency when failure to make the payment is due to a documented hardship as determined by the tax collector, when the documented hardship resulted from a shelter-in-place order, as defined, issued by the Governor or the public health officer of a city, county, or city and county in which the property is located or its owner resides. The taxpayer must also make the principal payment by June 30^th of the fiscal year in which the payment became delinquent SB 219 (McGuire, Chapter 131, Statutes of 2021).
10. Permits taxpayers to elect to pay delinquent amounts in installments at any time prior to 5 p.m. on the last business day prior to the date when the tax collector obtains the power to sell the property.
11. Provides that while the installment plan is in effect, the property cannot be subject to the power to sell.
12. Allow taxpayers to pay taxes due on escape assessments over a four-year period, if the amount of tax exceeds $500 and the taxpayer makes a written request before the second installment of taxes on the secured roll becomes delinquent, or by the last day of the month following the month in which the tax bill is mailed, whichever is later.

This bill:

1. Provides that pursuant to Proposition 8, the assessor must reassess each property located within a five mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles so that its value reflects any decline in the value of the property arising from the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event.
2. States that any reassessments are retroactive to January 1, 2022.
3. Requires assessors to notify affected taxpayers following the reassessment of assessed value changes.
4. Provides that the notice must include the amount of the overpayment and that a refund claim may be filed if property taxes were paid at the higher assessment value.
5. Defines “Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event.”
6. Mirrors treatment under SB 219 for failures to make a timely payment of property taxes due to a documented hardship, as determined by the tax collector, arising from the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event, so long as the principal payment for the proper amount of tax due is paid no later than June 30^th of the fourth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the tax became delinquent.
7. Provides that the tax collector shall not consider in default a redemption installment plan for which all payments due on or before January 7, 2025 have been timely paid, provided that the property that is located within a five mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles.
8. Suspends payment of taxes due pursuant to the optional four-year payment period for escape assessments, and precludes the tax collector from collecting or considering in default taxes under that plan, until April 10, 2030, for property that is located within a five mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles, provided that all payments required by the plan were timely made as of January 7, 2025.
9. Contains legislative findings and declarations to:
   1. State that its retroactive treatment does not constitute a gift of public funds for purposes of Section 6 of Article XVI of the California Constitution.
   2. That a special statute is necessary because of the unique circumstances of the elevated temperature landfill event that occurred beneath the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles, California.
10. Provides that its provisions take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Background

Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event. Since May of 2022, the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in Los Angeles County has been experiencing a chemical reaction that the Environmental Protection Agency calls a Subsurface Elevated Temperature event. This type of event causes excessive toxic leakage, which increases emissions and odors from carbon monoxide, hydrogen gas, hydrogen sulfide, and volatile organic compounds, while methane is decreased. The extreme heat smoldered decades-old garbage and damaged the landfill’s gas control systems, causing foul odors to drift into the surrounding area. The smoldering chemical reaction has sent noxious odors into area neighborhoods and triggered legal action by residents and Los Angeles County.

Prior/Related legislation

AB 27 (Schiavo) enacts a Personal Income and Corporation Tax exclusion for any Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event payment amount received by a taxpayer, on or after March 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2029. AB 27’s provisions were enacted as part of SB 132 (Committee on Budget & Fiscal Review, Chapter 17, Statutes of 2025).

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The Board of Equalization (BOE) indicates that any property tax revenue loss resulting from this bill would be dependent upon individual reduction calculations resulting from retroactive property tax reassessment. The magnitude is unknown. Reductions in local property tax revenues, in turn, can increase General Fund Proposition 98 spending by up to roughly 50 percent (the exact amount depends on the specific amount of the annual Proposition 98 guarantee, which in turns depends upon a variety of economic, demographic and budgetary factors). BOE would incur minor administrative costs to implement the provisions of the bill.
• By imposing specified duties on Los Angeles County tax officials, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on local agencies, local agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs. The magnitude is unknown, but potentially in excess of $50,000 annually (General Fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/5/25)

Freedom’s Way Baptist Church

One Individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/5/25)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in my district has been burning for the last three years. The landfill fire is releasing carcinogens into the air and causing health problems among residents, businesses to shut down, and making the surrounding area completely unlivable. Requests that a state of emergency be enacted so residents receive needed assistance have gone ignored. The people of Val Verde and Castaic deserve better and need the resources to protect themselves. AB 985 ensures those additional resources such as property tax reassessment are available for residents to utilize.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-1, 6/3/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Schultz, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Rivas

NOES: DeMaio

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bauer-Kahan, Dixon, Gallagher, Mark González, Hadwick, Jackson, Kalra, Muratsuchi, Patel, Patterson, Sanchez, Schiavo, Sharp-Collins, Zbur

Prepared by: Colin Grinnell / REV. & TAX. / (916) 651-4117

9/8/25 21:29:49

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 985

Author: Schiavo (D), et al.

Amended: 8/29/25 in Senate

Vote: 27- Urgency

SENATE REVENUE AND TAXATION COMMITTEE: 3-0, 7/9/25

AYES: Valladares, Ashby, Umberg

NO VOTE RECORDED: McNerney, Grayson

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/29/25

AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-1, 6/3/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Chiquita Canyon Landfill: property tax reassessment and penalties

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill enacts property tax relief measures for taxpayers affected by the Chiquita Canyon Elevated Land Temperature Event

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that all property is taxable unless explicitly exempted by the Constitution or federal law (California Constitution, Article XIII, Section One).
2. Limits the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property at 1% of full cash value, plus any locally-authorized bonded indebtedness, and caps a property’s annual inflationary increase in taxable value to 2%. Provides that assessors reappraise property whenever it is purchased, newly constructed, or when ownership changes (California Constitution, Article XIIIA, as added by Proposition 13, 1978).
3. Allows temporary reductions in assessed value in cases where real property suffers a decline in value (California Constitution, Article XIIIA, as amended by Proposition 8, 1978).
4. Implements Proposition 8 to direct the assessor to evaluate the change in a property’s value from one lien date (January 1 of each year) to the next, and enrolls a new value if the property’s current market value falls below its previous assessed value. If the market value subsequently increases, the assessor can revalue the property upward, but not higher than its Prop. 13 value.
5. Provides that property taxes are due in two installments, the first on November 1^st and the second on February 1^st, with delinquency for the second installment occurring on April 10^th.
6. Requires county tax collectors to begin imposing penalties for nonpayment of property taxes for each amount due, plus administrative charges, once taxes become delinquent.
7. Provides that property becomes tax-defaulted and can be subject to tax sale to satisfy outstanding taxes, penalties, and administrative charges if a property owner does not pay the property taxes due in the current fiscal year before June 30^th.
8. Allows each tax collector to waive penalties and other charges when failure to pay is due to reasonable cause and where there is no willful neglect. While the tax collector in each county makes this determination for any specific taxpayer, reasonable cause usually applies to circumstances outside the taxpayer’s control, such as illness, but generally does not when the taxpayer lacks funds to pay taxes.
9. Allows a tax collector to cancel any penalty, cost, or other charge resulting from a tax delinquency when failure to make the payment is due to a documented hardship as determined by the tax collector, when the documented hardship resulted from a shelter-in-place order, as defined, issued by the Governor or the public health officer of a city, county, or city and county in which the property is located or its owner resides. The taxpayer must also make the principal payment by June 30th of the fiscal year in which the payment became delinquent (SB 219, McGuire, Chapter 131, Statutes of 2021).
10. Permits taxpayers to elect to pay delinquent amounts in installments at any time prior to 5 p.m. on the last business day prior to the date when the tax collector obtains the power to sell the property.
11. Provides that while the installment plan is in effect, the property cannot be subject to the power to sell.
12. Allow taxpayers to pay taxes due on escape assessments over a four-year period, if the amount of tax exceeds $500 and the taxpayer makes a written request before the second installment of taxes on the secured roll becomes delinquent, or by the last day of the month following the month in which the tax bill is mailed, whichever is later.

This bill:

1. Provides that pursuant to Proposition 8, the assessor must reassess each property located within a five mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles so that its value reflects any decline in value of the property arising from the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event.
2. States that any reassessments are retroactive to January 1, 2022.
3. Directs the auditor-controller to send notice of overpayments of taxes to affected taxpayers stating the amount of the overpayment and that a refund claim may be filed.
4. Defines “Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event.”
5. Mirrors treatment under SB 219 for failures to make a timely payment of property taxes due to a documented hardship, as determined by the tax collector, arising from the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event, so long as the principal payment for the proper amount of tax due is paid no later than June 30 of the fourth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the tax became delinquent.
6. Provides that the tax collector shall not consider in default a redemption installment plan for which all payments due on or before January 7, 2025 have been timely paid, provided that the property that is located within a five mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles.
7. Suspends payment of taxes due pursuant to the optional four-year payment period for escape assessments, and precludes the tax collector from collecting or considering in default taxes under that plan, until April 10, 2030, for property that is located within a five mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles, provided that all payments required by the plan were timely made as of January 7, 2025.
8. Contains legislative findings and declarations to:
   1. State that its retroactive treatment does not constitute a gift of public funds for purposes of Section 6 of Article XVI of the California Constitution.
   2. That a special statute is necessary because of the unique circumstances of the elevated temperature landfill event that occurred beneath the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles, California.
9. Provides that its provisions take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Background

Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event. Since May of 2022, the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in Los Angeles County has been experiencing a chemical reaction that the Environmental Protection Agency calls a Subsurface Elevated Temperature event. This type of event causes excessive toxic leakage, which increases emissions and odors from carbon monoxide, hydrogen gas, hydrogen sulfide, and volatile organic compounds, while methane is decreased. The extreme heat smoldered decades-old garbage and damaged the landfill’s gas control systems, causing foul odors to drift into the surrounding area. The smoldering chemical reaction has sent noxious odors into area neighborhoods and triggered legal action by residents and Los Angeles County.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 27 (Schiavo, 2025) enacts a Personal Income and Corporation Tax exclusion for any Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event payment amount received by a taxpayer, on or after March 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2029. The bill’s provisions were enacted as part of SB 132 (Committee on Budget & Fiscal Review, Chapter 17, Statutes of 2025).

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The Board of Equalization (BOE) indicates that any property tax revenue loss resulting from this bill would be dependent upon individual reduction calculations resulting from retroactive property tax reassessment. The magnitude is unknown. Reductions in local property tax revenues, in turn, can increase General Fund Proposition 98 spending by up to roughly 50 percent (the exact amount depends on the specific amount of the annual Proposition 98 guarantee, which in turns depends upon a variety of economic, demographic and budgetary factors). BOE would incur minor administrative costs to implement the provisions of this bill.
• By imposing specified duties on Los Angeles County tax officials, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on local agencies, local agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs. The magnitude is unknown, but potentially in excess of $50,000 annually (General Fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/29/25)

Freedom’s Way Baptist Church

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/29/25)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in my district has been burning for the last three years. The landfill fire is releasing carcinogens into the air and causing health problems among residents, businesses to shut down, and making the surrounding area completely unlivable. Requests that a state of emergency be enacted so residents receive needed assistance have gone ignored. The people of Val Verde and Castaic deserve better and need the resources to protect themselves. AB 985 ensures those additional resources such as property tax reassessment are available for residents to utilize.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-1, 6/3/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Schultz, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Rivas

NOES: DeMaio

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bauer-Kahan, Dixon, Gallagher, Mark González, Hadwick, Jackson, Kalra, Muratsuchi, Patel, Patterson, Sanchez, Schiavo, Sharp-Collins, Zbur

Prepared by: Colin Grinnell / REV. & TAX. / (916) 651-4117

9/2/25 18:08:46

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 985 (Schiavo) - Chiquita Canyon Landfill: property tax reassessment and penalties

Bill Summary:

AB 985 would authorize property tax relief to residents in the neighborhoods surrounding the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, as specified.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 29, 2025

Fiscal Impact:

• The Board of Equalization (BOE) indicates that any property tax revenue loss resulting from this bill would be dependent upon individual reduction calculations resulting from retroactive property tax reassessment. The magnitude is unknown. Reductions in local property tax revenues, in turn, can increase General Fund Proposition 98 spending by up to roughly 50 percent (the exact amount depends on the specific amount of the annual Proposition 98 guarantee, which in turns depends upon a variety of economic, demographic and budgetary factors). BOE would incur minor administrative costs to implement the provisions of the bill.
• By imposing specified duties on Los Angeles County tax officials, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on local agencies, local agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs. The magnitude is unknown, but potentially in excess of $50,000 annually (General Fund).

Author Amendments:

Add an urgency clause.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 985 (Schiavo) - Chiquita Canyon Landfill: property tax reassessment and penalties

Bill Summary:

AB 985 would authorize property tax relief to residents in the neighborhoods surrounding the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• The Board of Equalization (BOE) indicates that any property tax revenue loss resulting from this bill would be dependent upon individual reduction calculations resulting from retroactive property tax reassessment. The magnitude is unknown. Reductions in local property tax revenues, in turn, can increase General Fund Proposition 98 spending by up to roughly 50 percent (the exact amount depends on the specific amount of the annual Proposition 98 guarantee, which in turns depends upon a variety of economic, demographic and budgetary factors). BOE would incur minor administrative costs to implement the provisions of the bill.
• By imposing specified duties on Los Angeles County tax officials, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on local agencies, local agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs. The magnitude is unknown, but potentially in excess of $50,000 annually (General Fund).

Background:

Under the California Constitution, all property is taxable unless explicitly exempted by itself or federal law. The Constitution limits the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property at one percent of full cash value, plus any locally-authorized bonded indebtedness (Proposition 13). Assessors reappraise property wheneverit is purchased, newly constructed, or when ownership changes (as defined by both statute and the Constitution). Current law generally sets a property’s value as its sales price when purchased or, when there is no sales price, at its fair market value when ownership changes (base year value). Thereafter, existing law requires an annual inflation adjustment to that value that cannot exceed 2 percent (factored base year value).

Current law requires a county assessor to annually enroll the lesser of a property's Proposition 13 factored base year value or its market value as of January 1st. An assessor's office continually monitors real estate market conditions and reviews and adjusts assessed values as necessary to ensure properties are assessed correctly. County assessors generally will review a property's assessment for a possible decline in value upon request. The review may be provided as an informal discussion with Assessor's staff, or the Assessor may require the property owner complete a request form. An appraiser from the Assessor's office will then review the information submitted and perform a market value analysis of your property as of January 1. The assessor's office will determine whether the current market value of the property is lower than its current factored base year value. The lower value is enrolled. After the review is complete, the property owner is notified of the assessed value. If taxpayers disagree with the assessed value after the review has been completed, they may file an assessment appeal application with the county clerk during the county assessment filing period.

The Chiquita Canyon Landfill is a 639-acre municipal solid waste facility in Los Angeles County operated by Chiquita Canyon, LLC, a subsidiary of Waste Connections, Inc. Since May 2022, there has been an elevated land temperature event (ELTE) at the Landfill, resulting in gas emissions from the site that have harmed the surrounding communities. The event has not been declared a disaster at any level of government; consequently, community members impacted by the event remain ineligible for disaster relief.

Waste Connections, Inc. has begun issuing reimbursement payments to community members impacted by the event, providing grants ranging between $1,000 to $2,000 per household to cover expenses related to mitigating air contamination and odors from the event.

Proposed Law:

This bill, among other things, would do the following:

• Require each property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles to be reassessed so that the full cash value base of the property reflects any decline in value of the property arising from the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event, as defined.
• Require reassessments to be retroactive to the January 1, 2022, lien date.
• Require the tax collector to send a specified notice of overpayments of taxes to the taxpayer.
• Prohibit an installment redemption plan, for which all payments due on or before January 7, 2025, have been timely made, from being considered in default until April 10, 2030, for property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles.
• Suspend the taxes due on a property making payments pursuant to a specified installment plan, would prohibit their collection, and would prohibit the taxes from being considered delinquent, all until April 10, 2030, for property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles, provided that, on or before April 1, 2025, all payments required by the plan were timely made.
• Authorize any penalty, costs, or other charges resulting from tax delinquency to be canceled if failure to make a timely payment is due to a documented hardship, as determined by the tax collector, arising from the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event, as defined.

Staff Comments:

Based on property maps, BOE estimates that 2,200 homes are within five miles of the ETLE. The Board lacks the requisite data to determine the revenue loss resulting from the bill, but notes the potential of significant refunds of property taxes paid during the proposed four-year look-back period. BOE estimates that the amount could average up to $3,500 per home impacted per year, if relief is limited to improvements and not the underlying land.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 985 (Schiavo) - Chiquita Canyon Landfill: property tax reassessment and penalties

Bill Summary:

AB 985 would authorize property tax relief to residents in the neighborhoods surrounding the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

Fiscal Pending; Mandate

• The Board of Equalization (BOE) indicates that any property tax revenue loss resulting from this bill would be dependent upon individual reduction calculations resulting from retroactive property tax reassessment. The magnitude is unknown. Reductions in local property tax revenues, in turn, can increase General Fund Proposition 98 spending by up to roughly 50 percent (the exact amount depends on the specific amount of the annual Proposition 98 guarantee, which in turns depends upon a variety of economic, demographic and budgetary factors). BOE would incur minor administrative costs to implement the provisions of the bill.
• By imposing specified duties on Los Angeles County tax officials, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on local agencies, local agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs. The magnitude is unknown, but potentially in excess of $50,000 annually (General Fund).

Background:

Under the California Constitution, all property is taxable unless explicitly exempted by itself or federal law. The Constitution limits the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property at one percent of full cash value, plus any locally-authorized bonded indebtedness (Proposition 13). Assessors reappraise property wheneverit is purchased, newly constructed, or when ownership changes (as defined by both statute and the Constitution). Current law generally sets a property’s value as its sales price when purchased or, when there is no sales price, at its fair market value when ownership changes (base year value). Thereafter, existing law requires an annual inflation adjustment to that value that cannot exceed 2 percent (factored base year value).

Current law requires a county assessor to annually enroll the lesser of a property's Proposition 13 factored base year value or its market value as of January 1st. An assessor's office continually monitors real estate market conditions and reviews and adjusts assessed values as necessary to ensure properties are assessed correctly. County assessors generally will review a property's assessment for a possible decline in value upon request. The review may be provided as an informal discussion with Assessor's staff, or the Assessor may require the property owner complete a request form. An appraiser from the Assessor's office will then review the information submitted and perform a market value analysis of your property as of January 1. The assessor's office will determine whether the current market value of the property is lower than its current factored base year value. The lower value is enrolled. After the review is complete, the property owner is notified of the assessed value. If taxpayers disagree with the assessed value after the review has been completed, they may file an assessment appeal application with the county clerk during the county assessment filing period.

The Chiquita Canyon Landfill is a 639-acre municipal solid waste facility in Los Angeles County operated by Chiquita Canyon, LLC, a subsidiary of Waste Connections, Inc. Since May 2022, there has been an elevated land temperature event (ELTE) at the Landfill, resulting in gas emissions from the site that have harmed the surrounding communities. The event has not been declared a disaster at any level of government; consequently, community members impacted by the event remain ineligible for disaster relief.

Waste Connections, Inc. has begun issuing reimbursement payments to community members impacted by the event, providing grants ranging between $1,000 to $2,000 per household to cover expenses related to mitigating air contamination and odors from the event.

Proposed Law:

This bill, among other things, would do the following:

• Require each property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles to be reassessed so that the full cash value base of the property reflects any decline in value of the property arising from the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event, as defined.
• Require reassessments to be retroactive to the January 1, 2022, lien date.
• Require the tax collector to send a specified notice of overpayments of taxes to the taxpayer.
• Prohibit an installment redemption plan, for which all payments due on or before January 7, 2025, have been timely made, from being considered in default until April 10, 2030, for property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles.
• Suspend the taxes due on a property making payments pursuant to a specified installment plan, would prohibit their collection, and would prohibit the taxes from being considered delinquent, all until April 10, 2030, for property located within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles, provided that, on or before April 1, 2025, all payments required by the plan were timely made.
• Authorize any penalty, costs, or other charges resulting from tax delinquency to be canceled if failure to make a timely payment is due to a documented hardship, as determined by the tax collector, arising from the Chiquita Canyon elevated temperature landfill event, as defined.

Staff Comments:

Based on property maps, BOE estimates that 2,200 homes are within five miles of the ETLE. The Board lacks the requisite data to determine the revenue loss resulting from the bill, but notes the potential of significant refunds of property taxes paid during the proposed four-year look-back period. BOE estimates that the amount could average up to $3,500 per home impacted per year, if relief is limited to improvements and not the underlying land.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Senator Timothy Grayson, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 985 Hearing Date: July 16, 2025

Subject: Chiquita Canyon Landfill: mortgage forbearance: property tax reassessment and penalties

SUMMARY

This bill provides property tax relief and mandates mortgage forbearance for persons affected by an elevated temperature landfill event in Los Angeles County.

EXISTING LAW

1. Prohibits a mortgage servicer from recording a notice of default until at least 30 days after making contact, as specified, with a borrower to discuss options for avoiding foreclosure. (Civil Code Section 2923.5)
2. Authorizes the board of supervisors of a county, by ordinance, to provide that every assessee of any taxable property, or any person liable for the taxes thereon, whose property was damaged or destroyed without their fault, may apply for reassessment of that property, as specified. (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 170)
3. Imposes various penalties, costs, and interest upon taxpayers that pay their property taxes after various delinquency dates. (Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 75.52, 463, 2617, 2618, 2704, 2705, 2922, 4103, and 4837.5)

THIS BILL

1. Defines “landfill event” as the elevated temperature landfill event that occurred beneath the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in the County of Los Angeles.
2. Permits a borrower who is experiencing financial hardship that prevents the borrower from making timely payments on a residential mortgage loan due directly to the landfill event to request forbearance on the residential mortgage loan, as specified.
3. Requires a mortgage servicer, upon a request from a borrower pursuant to #2 above, to offer mortgage payment forbearance for a period of up to an initial 90 days, which shall be extended at the request of the borrower in 90-day increments.
4. Provides that a mortgage servicer, if acting under delegated authority to make forbearance determinations on behalf of the investor, shall not be in violation of #3 above if the mortgage servicer denies a forbearance request and provides written notice to the borrower stating the specific reason for denial, as specified.
5. Provides a specified process for a borrower to cure a defect in the borrower’s forbearance request.
6. Prohibits a mortgage servicer from the following acts:
   1. Assessing any late fees or charging a default rate of interest during the forbearance period.
   2. Requiring a lump sum payment for a borrower who was current on the residential mortgage loan when the borrower entered forbearance.
   3. Initiating any judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure process, moving for a foreclosure judgment or order of sale, or executing a foreclosure-related eviction or foreclosure sale during the time of forbearance, if the borrower is performing pursuant to the terms of the forbearance.
7. Provides that failure to comply with the provisions of this bill shall not affect the validity of a trustee’s sale or a sale to a bona fide purchaser of value.
8. Provides that a person shall not be held liable for a violation of a provision of this bill if compliance with such a provision conflicts with specified servicing guidelines.
9. Requires the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation to post the following information on its website:
   1. Links to the provisions of servicing guidelines pertaining to disaster-related forbearance relief for federally backed loans.
   2. A summary of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guidance to assist borrowers in understanding their forbearance programs.
   3. A dedicated telephone number for borrowers seeking assistance.
10. Declares the intent of the Legislature that a mortgage servicer offer a borrower forbearance that is consistent with the mortgage servicer’s contractual or other authority. Provides that nothing in this bill requires a mortgage servicer to take any action that would require the mortgage servicer to breach the terms of an existing contract with the investor that owns the residential mortgage loan.

COMMENTS

1. Purpose

According to the author:

Chiquita Canyon Landfill in District 40 has had a smoldering event beneath its waste for over 3 years. Residents of Val Verde and Castaic have been experiencing health complications such as nose bleeds, migraines, respiratory issues and about 100 yards from the landfill a cancer cluster has formed. After a Multi Agency Group was formed and determined there is no resolution in sight, our office has pleaded to the Governor and County Board of Supervisors for a State of Emergency.

We have been denied multiple times however, the issue still stands and residents are not getting any better. This is why AB 985 was introduced. To allow residents to have the same opportunities they would have, given a State of Emergency.

The author intends to accomplish this goal, in part, by requiring a mortgage servicer to grant forbearance (i.e., a temporary pause on repayment obligations) to a borrower who is experiencing a financial hardship due to the landfill event.

1. Background

Chiquita Canyon Landfill, located in the northern section of Los Angeles County, is figuratively (and almost literally) a dumpster fire. Based on an assessment from the California Environmental Protection Agency, Bloomberg reports the following:

In early 2022 a closed section in the landfill’s northwest corner began overheating, eventually reaching temperatures above 200F (93C). That’s nearly 40% hotter than the federal EPA’s standard for landfill operations. As the waste slowly cooked, it belched out toxic gases, elevating nearby levels of hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide and benzene, which can damage DNA and cause leukemia after enough exposure. Large amounts of leachate (basically, trash juice) built up and bubbled, boiled and even shot into the air like geysers.

One such geyser appeared to gush from a landfill gas well that exceeded the legal limit for benzene, as did several other samples of leachate, according to CalEPA. Other officials cited Waste Connections for allowing the leachate to seep into waterways, an allegation the operator has disputed. Cracks and fissures have worn away at the landfill’s surface, state regulators say, threatening to rupture storage tanks of toxic leachate, which the company also denies. Health officials are investigating a possible cancer cluster because of the number of residents who’ve fallen ill. Pets have inexplicably dropped dead. Val Verde resident Erin Wakefield says she’s arrived home more than once to whole swarms of insect carcasses strewn around her property. “This is so much bigger than a trash fire,” she said at a press conference in April. “This is a state of emergency.”^[1]

The “landfill event” has negatively affected hundreds of households in the surrounding area. As of June 25, 2025, the South Coast Air Quality Management District had received more than 29,500 odor complaints from residents near the landfill since January 2023.^[2] The operator of the landfill, Waste Connections, established the Chiquita Canyon Landfill Community Relief Program in March 2024 to assist with offsetting costs associated with odor mitigation for those living in communities surrounding the landfill. As explained by Waste Connections,

The Community Relief Program is meant to compensate community members for claimed damages or injury suffered from any odors or fumes emanating from the Chiquita Landfill, including but not limited to adverse health effects (past, current, or future), impact(s) on use, enjoyment, and/or value of property, impact(s) on daily activities, and/or any other personal injuries or property damage community members may claim to have suffered. However, submission of the application form and receipt of compensation does not constitute a release of any legal claims the applicant may have against Chiquita Canyon, LLC or any related entities and does not constitute a waiver of any additional damages to which the applicant may be entitled.^[3]

Waste Connections decided to end the program in February 2025, having paid out $25 million to at least 1,829 households.^[4] The company claims that the decision to end the program is based on “on-site surface emissions data show[ing] that the potential for any off-site air emissions from the Landfill has steadily decreased over the past year. Off-site air quality data also shows improvement in air quality and potential odor impacts.”

The landfill event and its associated consequences are subjects of ongoing litigation. Private residents and Los Angeles County have filed separate suits against the operator of the landfill, alleging various legal violations that have resulted in negative health effects for residents of the surrounding communities and financial harms associated with exposure to noxious fumes and unpleasant odors.^[5] Los Angeles County recently moved to seek a preliminary injunction that, among other things, seeks relocation assistance and home hardening for affected residents.^[6]

Despite continued efforts by residents and some of their elected representatives, no local, state, or federal government has declared a state of emergency due to the landfill event. The broader implications of such a declaration (or the lack thereof) are beyond the scope of the Committee’s jurisdiction and this analysis. But within the context of mortgage forbearance, the lack of an emergency declaration, particularly a federal declaration, may affect the availability and terms of mortgage relief that a mortgage servicer is authorized to offer.

This bill proposes relief for homeowners affected by the landfill event in two primary categories: property tax relief and mortgage forbearance. The former category is outside of the jurisdiction of this Committee and was analyzed and considered by the Committee on Revenue and Taxation, whose analysis is incorporated herein by reference. The jurisdiction of this Committee includes the proposed mortgage forbearance provisions, which is the focus of the remainder of this analysis.

1. The purpose of mortgage forbearance

Mortgage forbearance refers to a temporary pause in monthly payments, offered to borrowers who face financial challenges. These payments are not forgiven, and the borrower is required to repay the scheduled payments at a later date, sometimes with interest accruing over the time that the payments are deferred. As recognized by the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: “Forbearance is complicated. There isn’t a ‘one size fits all’ answer, because the options depend on many factors.”^[7] Forbearance is not a giveaway to borrowers; it is a tool that can be used to avoid unnecessary defaults, late fees, and foreclosures caused by temporary disruptions to a borrower’s financial situation.

Mortgage servicers typically allow a borrower to receive up to 12 months of mortgage forbearance when dealing with a financial hardship. Servicers of federally backed mortgages are subject to guidelines that establish expectations, responsibilities, and authorities when servicing mortgages on behalf of the investors who purchase mortgage-backed securities and the government agencies that insure certain mortgages.^[8] These guidelines authorize – but do not require – servicers to offer forbearance to borrowers facing a financial hardship, whether related to a natural disaster or a more typical hardship, such as the loss of employment. Servicers of fully private mortgages, which do not receive government support, often follow federal guidelines, at least in part, when servicing these loans.

The author intends the mortgage forbearance provisions of this bill to provide people affected by the landfill event “an opportunity to relocate.” By pausing a homeowner’s mortgage repayment obligations, the author argues that the homeowner would have financial means to move to another property outside of the affected area, whether through renting or purchasing another home. This bill gives borrowers forbearance in 90-day increments that can be renewed at the request of the borrower, provided that such action is not in conflict with existing legal obligations or federal guidelines that apply to the borrower’s mortgage servicer.^[9]

The intent of the author is at odds with the purpose of mortgage forbearance, as permitted by investors, guarantors, or insurers of federally backed mortgages. Forbearance is intended to provide flexibility to a borrower experiencing a short-term financial hardship, such as unemployment or a reduction in income. For both the borrower and the mortgage holder, the ideal outcome upon entering forbearance is that the borrower’s financial situation stabilizes in a manner that allows the borrower to afford their monthly mortgage payment once the forbearance period is over. In some cases, a borrower may need and a mortgage servicer may grant a loan modification that reduces the monthly payment and stretches out the term of the loan, without materially harming the interests of the mortgage holder.

Mortgage forbearance is not intended as a way for a borrower to structurally increase their household’s monthly expenses. If a borrower obligates themselves to additional housing expenses on top of their existing mortgage, it is difficult to see how the borrower will be able to afford two housing payments once the forbearance period ends. Important for the context of the Chiquita Canyon landfill event, there is no assurance – not even a likely probability – that the underlying problem will be remedied within a 12-month forbearance period, meaning the borrower is almost certainly going to face the same challenges with odors, noxious fumes, and related health effects once their forbearance period is over.

1. Downside risk

This bill introduces material risks to borrowers, mortgage servicers and mortgage holders, which may have broader implications for the mortgage finance market in California. Enacting a law that compels a mortgage servicer to provide forbearance in the particular case of the Chiquita Canyon landfill event may send confusing signals to the market, potentially resulting in unintended negative consequences.

Enacting this bill could suggest an endorsement by the state for a borrower to enter into mortgage forbearance for the purpose of freeing up monthly cash flow that can be used to pay for alternative housing. As discussed in the preceding comment, mortgage forbearance is not a tool designed to induce higher consumption, especially if such consumption is related to a new, ongoing monthly obligation, such as rental payments under a lease or mortgage payments for a second home. A borrower who is desperate to leave the contaminated area may perceive mortgage forbearance as an immediate way out of their problem, but forbearance may ultimately complicate their financial situation and harm their longer-term well-being. In some situations, the borrower will be better off selling their property, rather than entering forbearance and dealing with the financial consequences later.

There is also risk that this bill does not deliver the intended results to borrowers. Servicing guidelines that apply to federally backed mortgages do not authorize a mortgage servicer to provide forbearance for the purpose of helping a borrower afford to relocate. Unlike the Los Angeles wildfires which were part of a federally declared disaster area, borrowers affected by the Chiquita Canyon landfill event are not covered by any federal, state, or local emergency or disaster declaration. Mortgage servicers may be confused about their obligations pursuant to servicing agreements and whether those obligations conflict with any provision of this bill. If mortgage servicers perceive conflicts, they may not offer forbearance in line with a borrower’s expectations based on the borrower’s understanding of this bill. Such confusion may lead to a lack of trust in government and the mortgage industry and may result in some borrowers feeling that they were offered false hope when facing a stressful situation.

This bill may impair the financial interests of mortgage servicers, including banks and independent mortgage companies. Servicers of federally backed loans are often required to make payments to mortgage holders or other parties, even when the borrower does not pay the servicer. This means that while a borrower is in a forbearance period, the mortgage servicer uses their own funds to make principal interest payments to investors, property tax payments to local governments, and premium payments to insurance companies. In some cases, a mortgage servicer may not recover these payment advances for a significant period of time or even not at all.

This bill may impair the financial interests of mortgage holders, which includes banks, as well as pension funds, insurance companies, and mutual funds. If a mortgage servicer grants forbearance to a borrower who subsequently increases their monthly obligations, the borrower is less likely to be able to afford their mortgage payment when the forbearance period ends. If this policy leads to higher levels of mortgage defaults and foreclosures in the longer-term, holders of mortgages may be harmed.

The proposed extension of mandatory forbearance by state government in this context – where the underlying problem is expected to persist for a decade or more, where a private party (i.e., the landfill operator) may be liable for tort damages, where the nexus between the problem and related financial hardship is not clear, and where a state of emergency has not been declared – raises an important question about where the Committee will establish limiting principles related to mandatory forbearance. It is unfortunately easy to imagine a variety of industrial failures that could lead to similar outcomes in other areas of the state, whether those failures emanate from chemical processing, metal recycling, the fossil fuel supply chain, goods manufacturing, agricultural activities, etc. The perception that the state is seeking to add to on an ever-growing list of situations that should compel mortgage forbearance could send a chilling effect on mortgage market activity in the state. If forbearance were an unambiguous solution for families affected by this landfill event, the decision on whether to extend forbearance in this particular case would be more difficult. But when homeowners will not clearly benefit from this bill, is this proposed extension worth the risk?

1. Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of mortgage industry trade associations writes in opposition:

The bill…imposes significant new legal liability and compliance-related impediments. Without clearly defined criteria for establishing borrower eligibility or demonstrating hardship, lenders may face inconsistent application standards, legal exposure, and the potential for non-compliance with existing loan servicing obligations. This not only increases the cost and complexity of servicing loans but also places servicers in the untenable position of having to reconcile state directives with contractual obligations and federal servicing guidelines.

Moreover, many mortgage loans in California are backed by government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or insured by governmental agencies, like the FHA, USDA, and VA. These loans are governed by uniform federal servicing frameworks, including strict eligibility rules for forbearance. State-level mandates that conflict with these federal standards are not only infeasible to implement, but also risk creating legal and compliance challenges for servicers and confusion for borrowers, particularly in cases where federal guidelines preclude relief absent a disaster declaration.

1. Double Referral

This bill was first referred to the Committee on Revenue and Taxation which passed the bill on July 9, 2025, on a 3-0 vote with 2 Senators not voting (those two being the Chair of the Revenue and Taxation Committee and the Chair of this Committee who also sits on Revenue and Taxation).

1. Prior and Related Legislation

AB 238 (Harabedian) of this legislative session would provide mortgage forbearance to borrowers facing financial hardship due to the Los Angeles wildfires of January 2025.

LIST OF REGISTERED SUPPORT/OPPOSITION

Support

None received

Opposition

California Bankers Association
California Community Banking Network
California Credit Union League
California Mortgage Association
California Mortgage Bankers Association
United Trustees Association

-- END --

1. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-america-hot-garbage-problem-toxic-landfills/ ↑

2. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/news-archive/2025/chiquita-canyon-landfill-ordered-to-take-stronger-actions-to-reduce-odors---june-25-2025.pdf?sfvrsn=97719c61_3 ↑

3. https://www.chiquitalandfillcommunityrelief.com/ ↑

4. https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/03/chiquita-canyon-landfill-california/ ↑

5. https://abc7.com/post/la-county-sues-chiquita-canyon-landfill-claiming-castaic-residents-have-been-sickened-noxious-fumes-odors/15672684/ ↑

6. https://scvnews.com/county-files-preliminary-injunction-motion-in-chiquita-canyon-landfill-lawsuit/ ↑

7. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/what-is-mortgage-forbearance-en-289/ ↑

8. The federal government supports the mortgage financing system through several programs designed to ensure liquidity in mortgage markets, subsidize costs for credit-challenged borrowers, aid first-time homebuyers, and to increase homeownership. Approximately 70% of mortgages nationwide are supported by federal agencies or government-sponsored enterprises, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (see, e.g., https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/price-tag-keeping-29-million-families-their-homes-162-billion). Each federal program maintains maximum loan amounts to qualify. Given the higher prices of California real estate compared to the national average, it is likely that federally back mortgages comprise significantly less than 70% of outstanding mortgages in California, though there is no publicly available data to provide a more precise estimate. ↑

9. Most federally backed loans fall under servicing guidelines that allow mortgage servicers to provide up to 12 months of forbearance for a broad range of financial hardships, without receiving express written approval from the investor, guarantor, or insurer. While this bill does not provide a cap on how many times the 90-day forbearance period is requested to be renewed by the borrower, many mortgage servicers will be effectively capped at allowing four 90-day periods due to federal guidelines or contractual obligations. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 985

Author:(Ahrens)

As Amended Ver:March 24, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Establishes the Anesthesiologist Assistant Practice Act to allow certified anesthesiologist assistants to assist supervising anesthesiologists in developing and implementing an anesthesia care plan for a patient.

Major Provisions

1. Defines "anesthesiologist" as a licensed physician and surgeon who has completed a training program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association or equivalent organizations.
2. Provides that a person may only use the title "anesthesiologist assistant" if they meet both of the following requirements:
3. Have graduated from an anesthesiologist assistant program recognized by the Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs.
4. Hold an active certification by the National Commission for Certification of Anesthesiologist Assistants.
5. Makes it an unfair business practice for any person who does not meet these requirements to use the title "anesthesiologist assistant" or any other term that implies or suggests that the person is certified as an anesthesiologist assistant.
6. Requires an anesthesiologist assistant to work under the direction and supervision of an anesthesiologist and requires the supervising anesthesiologist to do both of the following:
7. Be physically present on the premises and immediately available to the anesthesiologist assistant when medical services are being rendered.
8. Oversee the activities of, and accept responsibility for, the medical services being rendered by the anesthesiologist assistant.
9. Authorizes an anesthesiologist assistant to assist their supervising anesthesiologist in developing and implementing an anesthesia care plan for a patient.

COMMENTS

Access to Anesthesiology Services. Anesthesia is a form of health care practice used to manage pain and discomfort during surgical or diagnostic procedures by inducing a temporary loss of sensation or awareness. It can range from local anesthesia, which numbs a small area, to general anesthesia, which renders a patient fully unconscious. Because the majority of anesthesia and sedation procedures involve significant risks to patients, such as adverse effects on the nervous system, heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory functions, it is critical that the health professionals responsible for administering anesthesia are highly trained.

There are currently two categories of health professionals that typically provide anesthesia services in California. Anesthesiologists licensed by the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California are medical doctors who specialize in administering anesthesia, monitoring patient vital signs during procedures, and managing pain before, during, and after surgery. Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) are advanced practice nurses licensed by the Board of Registered Nursing who are trained to perform many of the same functions, including delivering various types of anesthesia and ensuring patient safety throughout the perioperative period. Both professionals play a critical role in safeguarding patient well-being and managing complex physiological responses to anesthesia.

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that there is a shortage of anesthesiology providers both nationally and within California, which has been attributed to various factors including insufficient graduate medical education funding, an aging and retiring workforce, and a steady increase in demand for surgical services over the next decade due to population growth, particularly among the elderly. A long-acknowledged physician workforce shortage continues to disproportionately impact rural communities with concentrated populations of immigrant families and people of color. Labor analysis has found that facilities in rural communities with fewer available physicians are more likely to employ CRNAs than other parts of the state; however, the CRNA workforce has also been found to be insufficient to meet demand.

This bill is intended to address the shortage of anesthesia providers by authorizing the practice of anesthesiologist assistants in California. While there is currently no state law recognizing this category of professional, the author has provided information demonstrating that similar providers are recognized to practice in numerous other states and can currently work within the Veterans Administration in California facilities. The intent of this bill is to enable certified anesthesiologist assistants to work in California to help bolster the anesthesia provider workforce that is currently not being adequately addressed by physician anesthesiologists or CRNAs.

According to the Author

"California and the U.S. is currently experiencing an access to care crisis of epidemic proportions. Adding to this crisis is the severe shortage of anesthesia providers, including anesthesiologists and other non-physician anesthesia providers such as nurse anesthetists. All Californians deserve access to safe physician-led anesthesia care. AB 985 (Ahrens) successfully accomplishes this objective by adding an additional class of anesthesia providers to the health care workforce that are recognized to practice in 19 other states, the District of Columbia, the Veterans Administration and in Medicare. By providing title act protection to these nationally certified Anesthesiologist Assistants, patients throughout California will have immediate access to the safest form of anesthesia care being provided under the supervision of state licensed anesthesiologists, who are medical doctors specializing in anesthesiology."

Arguments in Support

The California Society of Anesthesiologists (CSA), the sponsor of this bill, writes: "Certified Anesthesiologist Assistants have been practicing in the U.S. for over 50 years and are authorized to work in 20 states plus Guam and the District of Columbia. They are also able to practice within the Veterans Administration system nationwide with direct anesthesiologist supervision, demonstrating their value in a variety of health care settings. There are over 4,000 practicing CAAs in the U.S. who serve as valuable mid-level providers within the ACT – implementing this model would bring California in line with national best practices, immediately expanding patient access to anesthesia services while maintaining strong oversight and safety standards."

Arguments in Opposition

The United Nurses Association of California opposes this bill, writing: "AB 985 attempts to insert a new scope of practice that seemingly overlaps with that of CRNAs, as the bill provides that an anesthesiologist assistant shall work under the direction and supervision of an anesthesiologist, and further requires that the anesthesiologist be 'physically present on the premises' and 'immediately available.' In other words, it is not clear what gap the anesthesiologist assistant is filling that cannot already be performed by CRNAs. As such, this bill is likely to sow confusion, undermine clearly established patient health care protocols, and complicate the delivery of health care."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, the Medical Board of California anticipates minor and absorbable costs associated with increased enforcement workload.

VOTES

ASM BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS: 17-0-1

YES: Berman, Flora, Ahrens, Alanis, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Caloza, Chen, Elhawary, Hadwick, Haney, Irwin, Jackson, Lowenthal, Macedo, Nguyen, Pellerin

ABS, ABST OR NV: Krell

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: March 24, 2025

CONSULTANT: Robert Sumner / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301 FN: 0000357

Date of Hearing: May 7, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 985

Author:(Ahrens) – As Amended Ver:March 24, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill establishes the Anesthesiologist Assistant Practice Act. The bill prohibits a person from holding themselves out as an anesthesiologist assistant (AA) unless they meet specified educational and certification requirements. The bill requires an AA to work under the direction and supervision of an anesthesiologist, as specified.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a person from holding themselves out as an AA unless they graduated from a recognized AA program, as specified, and hold an active certification by the National Commission for Certification of Anesthesiologist Assistants.
   
2. Provides that it is an unfair business practice for a person to use the title “anesthesiologist assistant” or any other term, including, “certified,” “licensed,” “registered,” or “AA,” that implies or suggests that the person is certified as an AA, if the person does not meet the requirements in item 1, above.
   
3. Requires an AA to work under the direction and supervision of an anesthesiologist.
4. Requires supervising anesthesiologist to be physically present on the premises and immediately available to the AA when medical services are being rendered, and to oversee the activities of, and accept responsibility for, the medical services rendered by the AA.
   
5. Authorizes an AA to assist the supervising anesthesiologist in developing and implementing an anesthesia care plan for a patient.
   

FISCAL EFFECT:

The Medical Board of California anticipates minor and absorbable costs associated with increased enforcement workload.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the California Society of Anesthesiologists. According to the author:
   

California and the U.S. is currently experiencing an access to care crisis of epidemic proportions. Adding to this crisis is the severe shortage of anesthesia providers, including anesthesiologists and other non-physician anesthesia providers such as nurse anesthetists. All Californians deserve access to safe physician-led anesthesia care. AB 985 (Ahrens) successfully accomplishes this objective by adding an additional class of anesthesia providers to the health care workforce that are recognized to practice in 19 other states, the District of Columbia, the Veterans Administration and in Medicare. By providing title act protection to these nationally certified Anesthesiologist Assistants, patients throughout California will have immediate access to the safest form of anesthesia care being provided under the supervision of state licensed anesthesiologists, who are medical doctors specializing in anesthesiology.

1. Background. Two categories of health professionals typically provide anesthesia services in California. Anesthesiologists licensed by the Medical Board of California (MBC) or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California are medical doctors who specialize in administering anesthesia, monitoring patient vital signs during procedures, and managing pain before, during, and after surgery. Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) are advanced practice nurses licensed by the Board of Registered Nursing who are trained to perform many of the same functions, including delivering various types of anesthesia and ensuring patient safety throughout the perioperative period.
   
   Although this bill proposes to establish the “Anesthesiologist Practice Act,” the majority of the bill functions as a title act, with language reserving use of the term “anesthesiologist assistant” for qualified individuals as defined in the bill. Rather than being enforced by a board, this title protection would be enforceable as an unfair business practice. The MBC analysis of a similar bill, AB 890 (Ridley-Thomas), of the 2015-16 Legislative Session, stated:

If an AA were to provide substandard patient care, there is no license to take disciplinary action against and there is no way to stop the AA from practicing. Although the bill does charge the supervising anesthesiologist with accepting responsibility for the medical services being rendered by an AA, there is not a clear pathway for regulatory oversight other than the normal regulatory oversight provided by the board for physicians.

1. Related Legislation. AB 876 (Flora), of the current Legislative Session, codifies certain terms for purposes of the provision of anesthesia by CRNAs and makes other changes to CRNA practice. AB 876 is pending in this committee.
   
2. Prior Legislation. AB 890 (Ridley-Thomas), of the 2015-16 Legislative Session, was essentially identical to this bill and was held in this committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Allegra Kim / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing:

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS

Marc Berman, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 985

Author:(Ahrens) – As Amended Ver:March 24, 2025

SUBJECT: Anesthesiologist assistants.

SUMMARY: Establishes the Anesthesiologist Assistant Practice Act to allow certified anesthesiologist assistants to assist supervising anesthesiologists in developing and implementing an anesthesia care plan for a patient.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 100)
2. Enumerates various regulatory boards, bureaus, committees, and commissions under the DCA’s jurisdiction, including healing arts boards under Division 2. (BPC § 101)
3. Makes it unlawful for any healing arts licensee to publically communicate a false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive statement, claim, or image for the purpose of or likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the rendering of professional services in connection with the professional practice or business for which they are licensed. (BPC § 651)
4. Establishes the Medical Board of California (MBC) within the DCA, which regulates physicians and surgeons under the Medical Practice Act. (BPC §§ 2000 et seq.)
5. Establishes the Osteopathic Medical Board of California (OMBC) within the DCA, which regulates physicians and surgeons under the Osteopathic Act who possess the same privileges as licensees regulated by the MBC. (BPC § 2450)
6. Restricts use of the titles “doctor” or “physician” to persons licensed under the Medical Practice Act or the Osteopathic Initiative Act, with specified exceptions. (BPC § 2054)
7. Authorizes unlicensed medical assistants to perform certain technical supportive services under the supervision of a physician or another specified practitioner. (BPC § 2069)
8. Establishes the Board of Registered Nursing (BRN) within the DCA, which regulates registered nurses (RNs) under the Nursing Practice Act. (BPC §§ 2700 et seq.)
9. Defines the RN scope of practice, which includes basic healthcare that requires a substantial amount of scientific knowledge or technical skill. (BPC § 2725)
10. Restricts the use of the title “registered nurse” to persons licensed under the Nursing Practice Act. (BPC § 2732)
11. Defines “nurse anesthetist” (CRNA) as a licensed RN who has met standards for certification from the BRN, which must consider the standards of the National Board of Certification and Recertification for Nurse Anesthetists, or a successor national professional organization approved by the BRN. (BPC § 2826)
12. Authorizes a CRNA to provide anesthesia services in (1) an acute care facility if approved by the acute care facility administration and the appropriate committee, and at the discretion of the physician, dentist or podiatrist, and (2) in a dental office, the dentist holds a general anesthesia permit. (BPC § 2827)
13. Makes it unlawful for any person to make or disseminate any statement in the advertising of services, professional or otherwise, which is untrue or misleading. (BPC §§ 17200 et seq.)
14. Defines “outpatient setting” as any facility, clinic, unlicensed clinic, center, office, or other setting that is not part of a general acute care facility and where anesthesia, except local anesthesia or peripheral nerve blocks, or both, is used in compliance with the community standard of practice, in doses that, when administered have the probability of placing a patient at risk for loss of the patient’s life-preserving protective reflexes. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 1248)
15. Provides for the certification of nurse assistants by the Department of Public Health (CDPH). (HSC §§ 1337 et seq.)
16. Establishes a “sunrise review” process for the Legislature to evaluate proposals to create any state board or category of licensed professional. (Government Code (GOV) §§ 9148 et seq.)
17. Requires a plan for the establishment and operation of any proposed state board or new category of licensed professional to be developed by the author or sponsor of the legislation prior to consideration by the Legislature, including, but not limited, to all of the following:
18. A description of the problem that the creation of the specific state board or new category of licensed professional would address, including the specific evidence of need for the state to address the problem.
19. The reasons why this proposed state board or new category of licensed professional was selected to address this problem, including the full range of alternatives considered and the reason why each of these alternatives was not selected, including no action, the use of a current state board or agency or the existence of a current category of licensed professional to address the problem, existing regulation or administration, and addressing the problem by federal or local agencies.
20. The specific public benefit or harm that would result from the establishment of the proposed state board or new category of licensed professional, the specific manner in which the proposed state board or new category of licensed professional would achieve this benefit, and the specific standards of performance which shall be used in reviewing the subsequent operation of the board or category of licensed professional.
21. The specific source or sources of revenue and funding to be utilized by the proposed state board or new category of licensed professional in achieving its mandate.
22. The necessary data and other information required shall be provided to the Legislature with the initial legislation and forwarded to the policy committees in which the bill will be heard.
23. (GOV § 9148.4)

THIS BILL:

1. Enacts the Anesthesiologist Assistant Practice Act.
2. Defines “anesthesiologist” as a physician and surgeon who has successfully completed a training program in anesthesiology accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association or equivalent organizations and is licensed under the Medical Practice Act.
3. Provides that a person may only use the title “anesthesiologist assistant” if they meet both of the following requirements:
4. Have graduated from an anesthesiologist assistant program recognized by the Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs.
5. Hold an active certification by the National Commission for Certification of Anesthesiologist Assistants.
6. Makes it an unfair business practice for any person who does not meet these requirements to use the title “anesthesiologist assistant” or any other term that implies or suggests that the person is certified as an anesthesiologist assistant.
7. Requires an anesthesiologist assistant to work under the direction and supervision of an anesthesiologist and requires the supervising anesthesiologist to do both of the following:
8. Be physically present on the premises and immediately available to the anesthesiologist assistant when medical services are being rendered.
9. Oversee the activities of, and accept responsibility for, the medical services being rendered by the anesthesiologist assistant.
10. Authorizes an anesthesiologist assistant to assist their supervising anesthesiologist in developing and implementing an anesthesia care plan for a patient.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown; this bill is keyed fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the California Society of Anesthesiologists. According to the author:

California and the U.S. is currently experiencing an access to care crisis of epidemic proportions. Adding to this crisis is the severe shortage of anesthesia providers, including anesthesiologists and other non-physician anesthesia providers such as nurse anesthetists. All Californians deserve access to safe physician-led anesthesia care. AB 985 (Ahrens) successfully accomplishes this objective by adding an additional class of anesthesia providers to the health care workforce that are recognized to practice in 19 other states, the District of Columbia, the Veterans Administration and in Medicare. By providing title act protection to these nationally certified Anesthesiologist Assistants, patients throughout California will have immediate access to the safest form of anesthesia care being provided under the supervision of state licensed anesthesiologists, who are medical doctors specializing in anesthesiology.

Background.

Access to Anesthesiology Services. Anesthesia is a form of health care practice used to manage pain and discomfort during surgical or diagnostic procedures by inducing a temporary loss of sensation or awareness. It can range from local anesthesia, which numbs a small area, to general anesthesia, which renders a patient fully unconscious. Because the majority of anesthesia and sedation procedures involve significant risks to patients, such as adverse effects on the nervous system, heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory functions, it is critical that the health professionals responsible for administering anesthesia are highly trained.

There are currently two categories of health professionals that typically provide anesthesia services in California. Anesthesiologists licensed by the MBC or the OMBC are medical doctors who specialize in administering anesthesia, monitoring patient vital signs during procedures, and managing pain before, during, and after surgery. Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) are advanced practice nurses licensed by the BRN who are trained to perform many of the same functions, including delivering various types of anesthesia and ensuring patient safety throughout the perioperative period. Both professionals play a critical role in safeguarding patient well-being and managing complex physiological responses to anesthesia.

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that there is a shortage of anesthesiology providers both nationally and within California, which has been attributed to various factors including insufficient graduate medical education funding, an aging and retiring workforce, and a steady increase in demand for surgical services over the next decade due to population growth, particularly among the elderly.^[1] A long-acknowledged physician workforce shortage continues to disproportionately impact rural communities with concentrated populations of immigrant families and people of color.^[2] Labor analysis has found that facilities in rural communities with fewer available physicians are more likely to employ CRNAs than other parts of the state; however, the CRNA workforce has also been found to be insufficient to meet demand.^[3]

This bill is intended to address the shortage of anesthesia providers by authorizing the practice of anesthesiologist assistants in California. While there is currently no state law recognizing this category of professional, the author has provided information demonstrating that similar providers are recognized to practice in numerous other states and can currently work within the Veterans Administration in California facilities. The intent of this bill is to enable certified anesthesiologist assistants to work in California to help bolster the anesthesia provider workforce that is currently not being adequately addressed by physician anesthesiologists or CRNAs.

Sunrise Review. This bill proposes to establish a new category of regulated professional. As such, this bill is required to undergo what is known as the “sunrise process.” As laid out in Section 9148.4 of the Government Code, sunrise review is required prior to consideration by the Legislature of legislation creating a new state board or legislation creating a new category of licensed professional. The sunrise process includes a questionnaire and a set of evaluative scales to be completed by the group supporting regulation.

The author and sponsor of this bill have provided the committee with a completed sunrise questionnaire in support of this proposal. The questionnaire is an objective tool for collecting and analyzing information needed to arrive at accurate, informed, and publicly supportable decisions regarding the merits of regulatory proposals. New regulatory and licensing proposals are generally intended to assure the competence of specified practitioners in different occupations. However, these proposals have resulted in a proliferation of licensure and certification programs, which are often met with mixed support. Proponents argue that regulation benefits the public by assuring competence and an avenue for consumer redress. Critics argue that regulation benefits a profession more than it benefits the public. Sunrise helps distill those arguments by: (1) placing the burden of showing the necessity for new regulations on the requesting groups; (2) allowing the systematic collection of opinions both pro and con; and (3) documenting the criteria used to decide upon new regulatory proposals.^[4]

The primary effect of the language in the bill would be protection of the title “anesthesiologist assistant.” Title protection is one of the forms of regulation of professional services that can be imposed by the Legislature to protect patients and consumers by reserving the use of words, terms, initials, and titles for individuals who have met certain requirements to demonstrate competence. While title protection is typically included as an element of licensure, the Legislature will sometimes grant recognition to persons who obtain a voluntary certification or registration relating to an unlicensed profession by providing them with exclusive use of specified titles. In many cases, this title protection is limited to the use of terms such as “certified” or “licensed” in association with terms related to the profession. However, some specific terms, such as “dietician” or “athletic trainer,” are reserved for individuals who have obtained a voluntary certification or met other requirements despite there being no requirement to obtain a license to practice that profession.

This bill would provide that the term “anesthesiologist assistant” would be reserved for use only by individuals who have both graduated from an anesthesiologist assistant program recognized by the Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs and who hold an active certification by the National Commission for Certification of Anesthesiologist Assistants. Unlawful use of a title is typically enforced by regulatory entities, including healing arts boards, consistent with the process for enforcement against unlicensed practice. While the bill does not specify a regulatory entity that would enforce this restriction, the bill would declare that it is an unfair business practice for an unqualified individual to use the title “anesthesiologist assistant.” Additionally, Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code broadly prohibits unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.

This bill would additionally authorize anesthesiologist assistants to assist “in developing and implementing an anesthesia care plan for a patient.” Any services provided by the anesthesiologist assistant would be required to be under the direction and supervision of an anesthesiologist, who would be required to be physically present on the premises and immediately available to the anesthesiologist assistant when medical services are being rendered. Additionally, the anesthesiologist would ultimately be responsible for overseeing the activities of, and accept responsibility for, the medical services being rendered by the anesthesiologist assistant.

Current Related Legislation. AB 876 (Flora) would codify certain terms for purposes of the provision of anesthesia by CRNAs and make other changes to CRNA practice. This bill is pending in this committee.

AB 1215 (Flora) would clarify that dentists, podiatrists, clinical psychologists, nurse practitioners, CRNAs, nurse midwives, and other licensed health care professionals may serve on medical staff. This bill is pending in this committee.

Prior Related Legislation. AB 2526 (Gipson) of 2024 would have authorized a CNRA to administer general anesthesia or deep sedation in the office of a licensed dentist to dental patients, if certain conditions are met. This bill died on suspense in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

AB 765 (Wood) of 2023 would have prohibited any person who is not a licensed physician from using various medical specialty titles, including the title “anesthesiologist.” This bill died on suspense in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

AB 890 (Ridley-Thomas) was substantially similar to this bill. This bill died on suspense in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

The California Society of Anesthesiologists (CSA) is sponsoring this bill. According to CSA: “Certified Anesthesiologist Assistants (CAAs) have been practicing in the U.S. for over 50 years and are authorized to work in 20 states plus Guam and the District of Columbia. They are also able to practice within the Veterans Administration system nationwide with direct anesthesiologist supervision, demonstrating their value in a variety of health care settings. There are over 4,000 practicing CAAs in the U.S. who serve as valuable mid-level providers within the ACT – implementing this model would bring California in line with national best practices, immediately expanding patient access to anesthesia services while maintaining strong oversight and safety standards.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

The United Nurses Association of California opposes this bill, writing: “AB 985 attempts to insert a new scope of practice that seemingly overlaps with that of CRNAs, as the bill provides that an anesthesiologist assistant shall work under the direction and supervision of an anesthesiologist, and further requires that the anesthesiologist be ‘physically present on the premises’ and ‘immediately available.’ In other words, it is not clear what gap the anesthesiologist assistant is filling that cannot already be performed by CRNAs. As such, this bill is likely to sow confusion, undermine clearly established patient health care protocols, and complicate the delivery of health care.”

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES:

While the law proposed by this bill would be formally titled the “Anesthesiologist Practice Act,” the majority of the bill functions more like a title act, with language reserving use of the term “anesthesiologist assistant” for qualified individuals holding an active certification by the National Commission for Certification of Anesthesiologist Assistants. Rather than being enforced by a board, this title protection would be enforceable as an unfair business practice. While typically title acts do not provide for a specific scope of practice, however, this bill does include language generally allowing anesthesiologist assistants to “assist the supervising anesthesiologist in developing and implementing an anesthesia care plan for a patient.” It is not clear whether this assistance would fall within the range of supportive services generally authorized for medical assistants under the Medical Practice Act or whether anesthesiologist assistants would be authorized to engage in broader activities.

The sunrise questionnaire completed by the author and sponsor of this bill states that “the medical board is responsible for detailing the specific scope of practice for CAAs.” However, this bill does not recognize the MBC as having a formal role in overseeing the practice of anesthesiologist assistants. The sunrise questionnaire does list a series of examples of tasks that an anesthesiologist assistant could potentially perform, and there are specific services that students enrolled in an anesthesiologist assistant program recognized by the Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs are required to learn to obtain certification. The author may wish to consider adding language to the bill more specifically describing the scope of practice that anesthesiologist assistants would be provided in addition to the provisions establishing title protection.

REGISTERED SUPPORT:

California Society of Anesthesiologists (Sponsor)

California Medical Association

California Orthopedic Association

REGISTERED OPPOSITION:

United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals

Analysis Prepared by: Robert Sumner / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301

1. Menezes, John et al. “Anesthesiologist Shortage in the United States: A Call for Action.” Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, vol. 2, 2024. ↑

2. Liu M, Wadhera RK. Primary Care Physician Supply by County-Level Characteristics, 2010-2019. ↑

3. Daugherty, Lindsay et al. “An Analysis of the Labor Markets for Anesthesiology.” Rand health quarterly vol. 1,3 18, 2011. ↑

4. https://abp.assembly.ca.gov/sites/abp.assembly.ca.gov/files/reports/SunriseProcessDescriptionAsm.pdf ↑