1 BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 2 450 N STREET 3 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 8 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT 9 FEBRUARY 27, 2018 10 11 12 ITEM K 13 OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 14 K1 15 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 16 K1.4 17 APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2018-'19 18 EXCISE TAX RATE ADJUSTMENT FOR 19 MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 REPORTED BY: Jillian M. Sumner 28 CSR NO. 13619 1 1 P R E S E N T 2 3 For the Board Equalization: Honorable Fiona Ma 4 CPA, Vice Chair 5 Honorable Jerome Horton Third District 6 Honorable Diane L. Harkey 7 Fourth District 8 Yvette Stowers Appearing for Betty T. 9 Yee, State Controller (per Government Code 10 Section 7.9) 11 Joann Richmond Chief 12 Board Proceedings Division 13 14 For Board of Equalization Staff: Henry Nanjo 15 Chief Counsel 16 Dean Kinnee Executive Director 17 Mark Durham, 18 CDTFA Chief of Research 19 20 21 ---oOo--- 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 450 N STREET 2 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 3 FEBRUARY 27, 2018 4 ---oOo--- 5 MS. RICHMOND: So our next item is K1.4, 6 Approval of the Fiscal Year 2018-'19, Excise Tax Rate 7 Adjustment for Motor Vehicle Fuel, which is the Fuel 8 Tax Swap. 9 MR. KINNEE: Chairwoman Harkey, Members, 10 Dean Kinnee, Executive Director. 11 Last year the Governor signed Senate Bill 1, 12 the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, and 13 Assembly Bill 102. 14 Together, they require the Board of 15 Equalization to determine revenue neutrality 16 adjustment calculation one more time for the motor 17 vehicle fuel for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 18 2018. 19 SB 1 immediately eliminates the annual 20 revenue neutrality adjustment calculation for diesel 21 fuel. 22 The Fuel Swap model takes into account 23 current statewide fuel prices and consumption to 24 forecast for the next fiscal year, plus looking back 25 one year to account for the over/under difference 26 between the forecast and the actuals. 27 For motor vehicle fuel, staff reviewed the 28 calculated rate from the Department of Finance, and 3 1 recommends the Board set the excise tax rate for the 2 period of July 1st, 2018 through June 30th, 2019 at 3 33.7 cents per gallon, and the increase of 4 cents 4 from current rate of 29.7 cents. 5 Therefore, I am requesting approval of the 6 new excise tax rate for motor vehicle fuels effective 7 July 1st, 2018, which is required by current law to 8 be adjusted by the Board of Equalization by March 9 1st, 2018. 10 I'm available for questions. 11 MS. HARKEY: Thank you. 12 Members. 13 MR. HORTON: No. 14 MS. HARKEY: I would just -- I would just 15 say I've never voted for a tax increase on gasoline 16 for my constituents. It hurts them. It hurts, I 17 think, the working people of the state a lot. It's 18 something that's directly passed onto them. So I 19 will be voting no. 20 MR. HORTON: Madam Chair. 21 MS. HARKEY: Yes. Member Horton. 22 MR. HORTON: I -- I -- I need some help 23 understanding how -- I mean, I understand how it 24 works. You know, I understand the Fuel Tax Swap in 25 2010, the efforts and the balancing of the budget, 26 and why it was done, and -- and the whole 27 transportation fund equation. 28 SB 1 seems to add another variable to this 4 1 where SB 1, effective, I believe, November of 2017, 2 added another 12 cents a gallon to the gasoline tax, 3 and another 20 cents a gallon to the excise tax. 4 With those increases, are they -- are those 5 increases included in the projection given that the 6 overall effort -- or the intent, as I understand it, 7 of the Fuel Tax Swap was to keep the general fund 8 whole? And of course to be able to shift funds from 9 the Gas Tax Fund as opposed to the sales tax, so that 10 you could would have a greater benefit in balancing 11 the budget without going into all of the detail. 12 But how does SB 1 affect us now? I mean, 13 affect the computations and so forth? 14 Second question is -- is that -- did the 15 Board of Equalization, the BOE, make these 16 computations? Or did CDTFA make the computation, and 17 the Department of Finance made their computations, 18 and the Board compared those and decided -- based on 19 what, I want to know -- that this was the number that 20 they would ultimately settle on? 21 The other variable that gives me a little 22 bit of pause is that in 2019 the gas tax will go up 23 again to 47.3 cents. So this is a significant 24 increase in the tax. And the gas tax is somewhat 25 regressive in nature by virtue that if you own a 26 company, you're -- you're -- you're able to write it 27 off. And you work from home, there's very little 28 charge to that. But for those that fall into the 5 1 category of poverty and that are challenged 2 somewhat -- 3 MS. HARKEY: Working people. 4 MR. HORTON: -- that are sort of pushed out 5 into the suburbs in the first place in order to be 6 able to afford housing, now the cost of them driving 7 to work is increased significantly. So -- 8 MR. KINNEE: If I may. 9 MR. HORTON: -- help me sort of see the 10 equity in -- 11 MR. KINNEE: Mr. -- Mr. Mark Durham, Chief 12 of the Research and Statistics Unit with CDTF is -- 13 is here. We had permission for him to come up here 14 and -- and address this. 15 MR. HORTON: I -- I appreciate Mark. And 16 he's a very, very talented individual. Whom from the 17 BOE has looked at this? 18 MR. KINNEE: We had a meeting. We met with 19 CDTFA, and our research person was also in the 20 meeting. 21 MR. HORTON: Is our research person present? 22 MR. KINNEE: I don't -- I don't believe he 23 is. 24 MR. HORTON: Hi Mark. 25 MR. DURHAM: Good morning. Mark Durham, 26 CDTFA, Chief of Research. 27 So your questions, the -- first off, what we 28 do is we take the calculation from the Department of 6 1 Finance. And they forecast what the price is gonna 2 be, you know, for the next 18 months. They have to 3 forecast out 18 months. 4 MR. HORTON: Eighteen months going -- I 5 mean, I'm asking these questions for the -- for the 6 public that's listening in. 7 Eighteen months going forward? 8 MR. DURHAM: Forward. Correct. 9 MR. HORTON: All right. 10 MR. DURHAM: So when they look at that they 11 look at the price of what they think the price is 12 going to be, forecast. And they have a unit over the 13 Department of Finance that does that. They also look 14 at the gallons. 15 And prices are going up, gallons are going 16 down. So when you -- when you take those two factors 17 in, we have to -- like Dean was saying, you have to 18 look at the revenue neutrality, because the sales tax 19 has been eliminated. So with that, there is an 20 increase of four cents for just the excise tax. 21 And the only thing that -- so SB 1 has 22 nothing to do with this -- with this excise tax of 23 fuel swap. It's completely separate. 24 MS. HARKEY: But it will have something to 25 do with our constituents who are paying at the pump. 26 And that's kind of what we're -- I'm looking at. 27 I mean, they're gonna pay more at the pump 28 because of SB 1. Now they're gonna pay more because 7 1 of this -- this flipping of -- of -- or this forward 2 scoring, so to speak, of what the anticipated 3 revenues are. 4 And, in fact, if -- if -- if people are 5 buying less gasoline, that means that it's doing what 6 the state intends. Which is to drive less, or to -- 7 or to go to electric vehicles. Which is all just a 8 spiral. And what it leaves is the people that can 9 least afford it paying more increases. 10 Now, I know this is not up to you. But I'm 11 just saying that this is, you know -- it's a very 12 fatally flawed policy, I think, for those, like 13 Member Horton -- like Member Horton said, that are 14 commuting and working and probably have the least 15 fuel efficient cars. You know, it's a tough -- it's 16 a tough burden. So -- 17 MR. HORTON: Mark, here's where I need to 18 sort of understand. I understand the mechanics of 19 it. It's the equity of it that I'm having some 20 pause. 21 The intent of the Legislature, as I 22 understood it, was to fill some gaps in the budget. 23 And so this was done in order to be able to address 24 other policy-related matters, education, so forth and 25 so on. But they -- the tax on the gasoline has been 26 raised significantly, and the tax on the excise tax 27 has been raised significantly. And so, 28 theoretically, the net income to the state is going 8 1 to go up significantly as they projected. 2 And so are you -- are you saying that 3 irrespective of the revenue -- the increase in 4 revenue, that the state would -- is currently going 5 to receive as a result of the projected revenue, 6 currently going to receive as a result of SB 1. In 7 addition to that revenue, we're now going to add on 8 this four cents. And they'll receive even more. 9 So the intent of the Legislature, from my 10 perspective, was to solve some problems that it 11 appears SB 1 has addressed and solved. 12 MR. DURHAM: That, I'm not 100 percent -- 13 well, when we get into the specifics of SB 1, what 14 SB 1 actually covers, and what all the programs that 15 it goes to, that's completely separate from what this 16 excise tax is. 17 So if we didn't have SB 1 at all, and we do 18 the calculation, the calculation we'd get from the 19 Department of Finance would also show the force in 20 increase. They didn't look at SB 1 when they did the 21 excise tax. 22 MS. HARKEY: Yeah, we know that. 23 MR. DURHAM: It's really a question that I 24 can't really answer. I mean, we're just -- like I 25 said, we're just looking at the excise tax. 26 MR. HORTON: I think as an -- as an agency, 27 we have to look at this holistically. I mean, the 28 swip [sic] -- the swap intended for us to look at 9 1 sales tax, excise tax, and try to come out with a 2 balance. That was the intent of the swap is to bring 3 a level of equity between the sales tax and the 4 excise tax, the uses, the consumption, and so forth. 5 To bring some equity so that you would have 6 neutrality. 7 I don't see neutrality when sale -- when 8 gasoline goes up 20 cents with a cost of living. 9 Which means, theoretically, it could go up every year 10 and just keep going up. 11 Maybe they should've kinda -- I -- I don't 12 know if it's fair not to take that into 13 consideration. And I get -- I -- I -- I -- I think I 14 understand what your -- what your testimony is, is 15 that SB 1, the increase in the gas tax and the excise 16 tax under SB 1 was for other programs other than the 17 excise tax program. 18 So -- yeah. I -- I -- I can't quite -- this 19 gives me pause. And as well as the fact that the BOE 20 staff is not here to speak to how they came about 21 their computations, and did they take that into 22 consideration. 23 MR. KINNEE: We allowed Mr. Durham's -- our 24 person was in the meeting listening, but it was 25 Mr. Durham who had done it. Our person we had had 26 not done it previous years was my understanding. 27 MS. STOWERS: So does CDTF provide this 28 calculation under your standing memo understanding 10 1 you're using their resources? So that they were -- 2 MR. KINNEE: Yes, they looked -- 3 MS. STOWERS: -- they were -- 4 MR. KINNEE: -- as in past years. This has 5 been discussed many times before the Board. And I 6 think two years ago the decision was to go with the 7 Department of Finance's estimate that they do for the 8 Governor's budget in December to prepare it. 9 And we looked at -- Mark and his group 10 looked at that, and it all worked -- you know, what 11 they had is correct. 12 We also took a look at what we would do as 13 we've done prior years, not the last two because the 14 Board decided to go with Finance's projections. I 15 think the discussion is they have units that do all 16 of these projections, and that they have more 17 expertise, so we'll go with Finance. That was the 18 Board's decision two years ago. 19 We looked at it as we had prior to the -- 20 prior two years. And I think -- was it -- we would 21 be .7 cents higher here. 22 MS. STOWERS: So -- so -- 23 MR. KINNEE: We would be -- 24 MS. STOWERS: So the number that Finance 25 set -- 26 MR. KINNEE: Is lower than what we would if 27 we calculated it today. 28 MS. STOWERS: Today. And -- but -- 11 1 MR. KINNEE: With two months more of data. 2 MS. STOWERS: And -- but is higher than what 3 we set last year? 4 MR. KINNEE: Correct. Correct. 5 MR. DURHAM: Based off the same calculation 6 that, you know -- we're not -- we're not changing the 7 calculation. The only thing we change is the 8 variables, because they're going up and down. The 9 price is going up, gallons are going up and down. 10 MS. HARKEY: Yeah. This is the same process 11 that I've objected to year after year. 12 MS. STOWERS: So what's -- 13 MS. HARKEY: It's flawed to begin with. 14 And so to -- our staff is trying to do -- 15 follow direction, but that direction was not 16 unanimous from this Board, because I objected to it 17 every year. 18 MS. STOWERS: So what's the consequences if 19 we don't set a rate? 20 Chief Counsel. 21 MR. NANJO: So if we don't set the rate, 22 then at this point it would be automatically -- stay 23 the same, right? 24 MS. HARKEY: Right. Right. 25 MR. NANJO: Part of the problem is, in my 26 discussions with Mr. Durham on this, this is -- this 27 is -- we're doing this looking back, as I understand 28 it, right? 12 1 MR. DURHAM: This is to -- going back -- 2 well, this -- this is part of the -- this calculation 3 looks at -- 4 MR. HORTON: We're basically guessing what 5 the future is going to look like -- 6 MR. DURHAM: -- and the forecast. 7 MR. HORTON: -- based on past information. 8 And typically, we don't have -- and future 9 information. We don't have knowledge that tax is 10 going to go up 20 cents. And then on gasoline its 11 going to go up, you know, another 16 cents or so on 12 excise tax. 13 And if I understand the testimony, that 14 wasn't taken in consideration in the computation. 15 And now I'm hearing that the BOE staff would have 16 recommended a 10 cent increase or -- or -- 17 MR. KINNEE: No, it would be .7 cents higher 18 than what Finance calculated. 19 MR. HORTON: Oh, okay. 20 MR. KINNEE: Based on -- or two months more 21 of data. 22 MR. NANJO: Let me clarify. What I meant 23 was -- my understanding is each year previously, this 24 Board -- based on the information we got through 25 Mark's group, which was then part of BOE and 26 Finance -- from that data, we projected an amount. 27 So what happens is at this point, we're 28 looking back to see how that projection did. And at 13 1 this point, the results of Finance's analysis is that 2 projection was low. Which is why it requires a four 3 cents increase. 4 MR. DURHAM: Part -- part of the four cents 5 is -- look at -- we call it the true-up. 6 So part of the four cents, 1.3 cents of the 7 four cents is the true-up. 8 MR. HORTON: Not to interrupt you, 9 Mr. Durham, but I understand the true-up, I 10 understand the swap. I get it. You know, and I've 11 always voted for this. Because I've always read the 12 legislation, and the intent was to create a 13 neutrality. 14 So at the end of the day, the taxpayer, 15 theoretically, wouldn't pay any additional taxes. 16 Even though the excise tax may have went up, it's -- 17 the rate may have went up, because over a long term, 18 the sales tax was down. And so the net effect then 19 would be zero. 20 But the things that we sort of take into 21 consideration is the impact on the market, the 22 supply, demand, things of that nature. What the 23 various marketers are going to do. And they're 24 starting to -- things are changing out there as a 25 result of that spike in the -- in the gas tax from 26 SB 1. And so it changes demand. It changes usage. 27 And not to take that into consideration 28 when, in fact, demand and usage is one of the 14 1 variables in the computation, says that the 2 computation is off in my mind. 3 So -- any way. The other part -- let me 4 just say, I really didn't get a thorough briefing on 5 all of this from staff. And the information that I 6 did have seems to echo the testimony that these other 7 variables were not taken into consideration in the 8 computation. 9 And I need to sort of figure out whether 10 they should have been, and how does this fit into the 11 equity and fairness equation? Is it equitable and 12 fair to -- to -- to -- to the -- to the 8 million 13 people that are living in poverty today? You know, 14 the one in five children that go to bed starving 15 every day? 16 Those are the folks that I have to be 17 concerned about when we start raising it and 18 determining whether there will be a wash, whether 19 there will be a true-up in the proceeding 18 months, 20 given the other variables that were not taken into 21 consideration. 22 MR. NANJO: So to address a point that was 23 raised, I have not analyzed what happens if this 24 Board doesn't vote on this particular item. But from 25 a fiscal standpoint, as I understand it, it would 26 create a hole. So that we would be under-collecting. 27 And then my understanding is this Board is 28 not going to be doing this next year, but the true-up 15 1 would be even larger. 2 Is that fair to say, Mr. Durham? 3 MS. HARKEY: It could be or it could not be. 4 It depends on what the Governor decides to do. This 5 is the Governor's plan, and this is the Legislature's 6 Bill. And they also passed SB 1. 7 And I don't -- I don't think that -- I mean, 8 quite honestly, we're not -- we're not dissenting 9 with staff here. I'm not dissenting here with staff, 10 I'm dissenting with the whole policy and the process. 11 And I think Member Horton makes some great 12 points that it affects those that are, you know, 13 need -- need the help the most. And everybody else, 14 too. 15 You know, there's -- there's a lot of 16 decisions. And as I understand it right now, the 17 state budget is in a surplus. So I don't know how 18 anybody can justify increasing more gas taxes. 19 I mean, these are working people. These are 20 people that go out every day and try to earn a living 21 here in California, and this is -- this is a very 22 regressive tax. 23 And so for those reasons, and also because 24 it's just not an equitable formula, I have never 25 supported it. And I'm not going to support it now. 26 So I apologize, Members, but that's -- that's my 27 point. 28 Thank you. 16 1 MS. STOWERS: What was the rate last year? 2 MR. KINNEE: 29.7. 3 MS. STOWERS: I'm sorry? 4 MR. KINNEE: 29. -- excuse me -- 29.7. And 5 we're recommending a 33.7 cents per gallon. 6 MS. HARKEY: Members, do I hear a motion? 7 MS. STOWERS: Move to adopt staff 8 recommendation. 9 MS. HARKEY: Is there a second? 10 MS. MA: Second. 11 MS. HARKEY: There's a motion and second. 12 Objection. 13 Call the roll. 14 MS. RICHMOND: Chairwoman Harkey. 15 MS. HARKEY: No. 16 MS. RICHMOND: Mr. Horton. 17 MR. HORTON: No. 18 MS. RICHMOND: Ms. Ma. 19 MS. MA: Aye. 20 MS. RICHMOND: Ms. Stowers. 21 MS. STOWERS: Aye. 22 MS. HARKEY: Two/two, motion fails. I think 23 it stays the same. 24 Thank you. 25 If the Legislature wants to adjust -- wants 26 to raise gas taxes again, they can do it. 27 MR. HORTON: Well, let me be clear. I don't 28 see this as raising gas tax, and I never have. I see 17 1 this as neutrality truing up and so forth. 2 However, the fact the staff has said they 3 did not take into consideration the -- the impact on 4 the market as it relates to the increase from SB 1, 5 gives me pause and consideration. And possibly we 6 can have some conversations about how that fits into 7 this equation from an equitable perspective. 8 MS. HARKEY: Okay. 9 MS. MA: And I think -- just to chime in -- 10 you know, next year the Board no longer has to take a 11 vote on any of these taxes. And we've taken the 12 position that we are reviewing the Governor's Office 13 of Finance's calculation. And if there was any 14 significant change from when he issued his January 15 budget to today, that was kind of our job. 16 I think we're in a different situation, 17 because they changed the calculation. It's not the 18 same. That was under the Fuel Tax Swap. 19 You know, the Legislature passed it, the 20 Governor passed it. I -- I don't agree necessarily, 21 you know, with the increase, or, you know, that we 22 have to vote here on the Board. Because I don't 23 think our role is the same as when we initially were 24 assigned to, you know, true-up or ensure revenue 25 neutrality, or verify that the Governor's Office 26 numbers are correct. 27 But in my opinion, if the Legislature passed 28 it, the Governor signed it, it is what it is. So 18 1 that's my vote. 2 MS. HARKEY: Thank you. 3 Okay. Members, I guess next item. 4 Mr. Kinnee, are you off the hot seat? 5 MR. KINNEE: I am. 6 MS. HARKEY: Okay. 7 MR. KINNEE: I'd like to thank CDTFA 8 management for making Mr. Durham available for the 9 discussion. 10 MS. HARKEY: Thank you. 11 MS. STOWERS: One more, and then I'm going 12 to be quiet. 13 MS. HARKEY: Yes. 14 MS. STOWERS: I had it in my notes earlier, 15 you -- you -- you had said something about we have a 16 new TRA, Ms. Thompson? 17 MR. KINNEE: Yes. 18 MS. STOWERS: I'd like to say -- welcome 19 Ms. Thompson. 20 I'm looking forward to seeing all the great 21 work you're going to do as the BOE Taxpayer Right's 22 Advocate. 23 MS. HARKEY: Where is she? Is she here? 24 Oh. Come on down and say hi. 25 MR. HORTON: Excellent choice, by the way. 26 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Honorable Board 27 Members. I appreciate it. 28 MS. HARKEY: My -- my goal is to see that 19 1 you are staffed up. Because it's really an important 2 position. So I would hope that, you know -- that our 3 Taxpayer Advocate fulfills a very important role for 4 the people in our district, and also facilitate the 5 Board Members' staff with -- with resolution to 6 issues. 7 So welcome aboard. Thank you so much. Let 8 us know what you need, and we'll try to make the 9 requisition for same along with Mr. Kinnee. 10 MR. HORTON: I don't know if we can make the 11 recommendation, but -- 12 MS. HARKEY: We can. We can make it up 13 here. 14 MR. HORTON: Do you -- do you have staff? 15 MS. THOMPSON: I have one person that 16 actually has continued from the past Taxpayer Rights 17 Advocate's Office, Mark Sutter, who is my senior 18 staff. And then I will be sharing an office 19 technician with the Executive Team as well. 20 MR. HORTON: Okay. Any legal support? 21 MS. THOMPSON: I think that they will still 22 be available. 23 MR. KINNEE: Yes, sir. Legal is available, 24 and supports the Taxpayer Rights Advocate's Office. 25 MR. NANJO: I'm sorry, was there a question 26 for Legal? 27 MS. HARKEY: No. 28 MR. HORTON: No. 20 1 MS. HARKEY: We just want to be sure she's 2 covered, and she's getting the staff that she needs. 3 Because I know -- I mean, we resolved, what, 4 or 500 4 taxpayer issues in our office just over the last 5 couple of years. Small things and -- and some of 6 them we went through the Taxpayer Rights Advocate. 7 But many of them, you know, were researched and 8 resolved. 9 And I think that -- and I want to be sure 10 that that doesn't slip through the cracks. Because 11 people do have -- a tax concern is very frightening 12 and important to anyone who has it. 13 And I've always found, too, a lot of people 14 are not willing to come forward and admit they might 15 have a tax issue because of embarrassment. 16 So I think it's really important that they 17 have an open forum and discussion. That they know 18 somebody is out there advocating for them. 19 Because it's -- it's -- it's tough in 20 California. We have a lot of -- a lot of taxes, and 21 a lot of different laws. And people are just -- you 22 know, like I said, they start up new and they get 23 stuck, and -- like a lot of people don't want to 24 admit. 25 And so that was part of our -- biggest part 26 of our job, quite honestly, was going out and letting 27 people know who we were, what we were doing, and to 28 please call us. 21 1 So, you know, I look forward to working with 2 you. 3 MR. HORTON: Yeah. 4 MS. THOMPSON: I have an extensive 5 background in property tax, and I'm very committed to 6 customer service. So -- 7 MS. HARKEY: Good. 8 MR. HORTON: Excellent. 9 Let me share the change in dynamics as to 10 how Board Members are engaged in this taxpayers' 11 rights process will -- at least in our office -- will 12 cause us to shift a lot of the constituent matters to 13 the Taxpayers Advocate's Office. Far more than 14 they've received in the past. 15 And of course the publicizing of the role of 16 the Board of Equalization is causing many more 17 assessors to engage Members and -- and in a natural 18 evolution, it just happens to be the point in time in 19 history where property tax matters, as far as the 20 rule-making process and all of those, are now being 21 taken under consideration, irrespective of the 22 changes. It's just we have not looked at many of 23 these issues over a number of years. 24 The other variable is there were quite a few 25 matters that were percolating in the property tax 26 arena as it relates to CalTax and some of the others, 27 the property tax assessors and so forth, that are 28 coming to a -- coming to a fruition. 22 1 And so that in and of itself is going to -- 2 I would anticipate generate greater activity as far 3 as the Taxpayer Rights Advocate's Office, 4 irregardless of the interpretation that the Board of 5 Equalization is not representing property tax, 6 property owners. Which I, quite frankly, find hard 7 to believe. But I don't think that's the perception 8 of the general public who voted for these Members. 9 That there wouldn't have that level of 10 representation. 11 So I only share that to encourage 12 Mr. Kinnee to do what he can to maybe provide our new 13 Taxpayer Rights Advocate with a staff of -- of their 14 own. So they're not sharing staff in anticipation 15 that over the next year or so the workload will 16 increase and the capacity will need to be there. 17 Thank you. 18 MS. HARKEY: Thank you. 19 Okay. Thank you and welcome. Thanks for 20 joining us. 21 And thank you, Mr. Kinnee, for your 22 testimony and for your updates. 23 24 25 26 27 28 23 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 State of California ) 4 ) ss 5 County of Sacramento ) 6 7 I, Jillian Sumner, Hearing Reporter for 8 the California State Board of Equalization certify 9 that on February 27, 2018 I recorded verbatim, in 10 shorthand, to the best of my ability, the 11 proceedings in the above-entitled hearing; that I 12 transcribed the shorthand writing into typewriting; 13 and that the preceding pages 1 through 24 14 constitute a complete and accurate transcription of 15 the shorthand writing. 16 17 Dated: June 19, 2018 18 19 20 ____________________________ 21 JILLIAN SUMNER, CSR #13619 22 Hearing Reporter 23 24 25 26 27 28 24