If the Nov. 12 meeting of the Plumas County Board of Supervisors made anything clear about county property assessments it’s that widespread confusion reigns: Which properties get assessed? How are they assessed and how often? And how is the public notified of major changes?
The supervisors left those questions on the table after a marathon two-hour public discussion that packed the board room.
They are expected to revisit the contentious topic in December, when they asked Interim County Counsel Josh Brechtel to return with information about the legalities of changed assessments. Supervisor Tom McGowan’s motion, seconded by Supervisor Dwight Ceresola, specifically asked Brechtel to clarify the process used to notify taxpayers that the assessed value of their property assessments has increased.
Annual assessments have lapsed since 2009 crash
An alarming number of county residents have reported assessments as much as 70% higher than last year. Many complained that they were blindsided by the hikes; some said they cannot pay the unanticipated increases.
Supervisor Jeff Engel said one of his constituents had to take money out of his IRA to pay his taxes “because of the error we made.”
Two state ballot measures enacted in 1978 govern much of the assessment process. Proposition 13 rolled back most local assessments to 1975 market value levels. A landmark property tax limitation, it set most future property tax increases at a maximum of 2% per year.
Proposition 8 amended Proposition 13 to allow temporary reductions in assessed value. When a property’s value has been lowered by changes in the market, a property owner can petition the assessor’s office to lower the appraised value under Prop 8. The assessor’s office can also take that action when the market value is lower than the current assessed value. Proposition 8 also allows those lowered assessments to be removed when market conditions change.
The assessor’s office follows state law in a process that is data driven, said Cynthia Froggatt, a 23-year veteran of the department and Plumas County assessor since 2022. “We follow the market. We don’t make the market,” she said.
Froggatt and her staff determine if values are going up or down based on house sales in the immediate area. The California Constitution requires that they look at those numbers every year to determine the market value.
“Unfortunately, we had these properties assessed at less than half their value.”
John Ridley, Plumas County appraiser
That has not always happened, said John Ridley, the county’s chief appraiser. Earlier this year he reviewed properties that were appraised at Prop 8 reduced values around 2009, when the real estate market crashed. Roughly half of them were still in reduced value status, he said.
“Unfortunately, we had these properties assessed at less than half their value,” Ridley told the supervisors. Those homeowners enjoyed a ten-year “discount,” he said.
In his lengthy, often labored presentation, Ridley explained that the assessor’s office should have reappraised these Prop 8 properties in 2016. It didn’t, he said. When Ridley made his appraisals earlier this year, he found market values that had increased dramatically since 2009. His reassessments resulted in dramatically higher property taxes.
“There wasn’t any judgment. There were no appraisers deciding anything. It was a mathematical process,” he said. “There’s no agenda for us other than to do our job, and our job in this case was to move properties to their market value.”
Failing to remove the lesser-valued Prop 8 assessments as the market rebounded has cost Plumas County tax revenue, Ridley said. His office did not intend to harm the county financially “for what amounts to an assessor’s office error,” he said.
But that error fueled an eruption of anger in property owners from the far reaches of Plumas County. Irate homeowners from the Lake Almanor and Portola areas have contacted their county supervisors and the assessor’s office alike since receiving the notices.
Supervisor Greg Hagwood summarized the problem as assessments that “were not happening” over the years and are now being updated “in one fell swoop.” That places a real burden on many taxpayers, particularly those who are living on fixed incomes, he said.
Communication may not pass ‘the smell test’
Along with complaining about the tax hikes, many property owners were furious over a lack of notification.
“Most people became aware of the changes in their assessed values upon opening their <property tax> envelopes,” Hagwood said. “Very often it’s not what you do, it’s how you do it.”
The assessor’s office followed the letter of the law for notification, said Froggatt. She produces Prop 8 notices every year at the end of June and posts them on the county website. That meets the constitutional requirement, Froggatt added.
“Those are all electronic. They’re all on our website,” she said.
Hagwood: “So you’re saying that posting something on the county’s website satisfied your notification of the property owners?”
Froggatt: “Yes.”
“The minimum legal threshold for notification may not be the bar we want to use.”
Greg Hagwood, Plumas County Board of Supervisors chair
Hagwood: “I don’t think that passes the smell test… For most of the people in our communities that are seeing 50% or 60% increases, the minimum legal threshold for notification may not be the bar we want to use.”
The assessor’s office considered sending out 5,000 letters to homeowners facing steep tax increases, said Ridley. They decided against it because of the cost to the department. “It kind of runs into the budgetary thing,” he said.
Plumas County Treasurer-Tax Collector Julie White disagreed: “I just think it’s an absolute injustice that notices were not mailed. It’s not fair to the taxpayers of this county at all.”
White’s office has been heavily impacted by residents complaining about their tax increases based on higher property valuations. The time her office alone has spent dealing with the outrage would easily have justified the cost of a mailing, she said.
In hindsight, said Froggatt, she would have communicated differently with the public. “I should have sent a notification,” she said.
Supervisors call for clarifying information
In a meeting that included Hagwood pounding his gavel for order, the supervisors got an earful from the people crowded into the board room and from those participating on Zoom.
Plumas homeowner Tom O’Brian said he had been in touch with Froggatt numerous times over his property assessment. She stressed that she wanted everyone to feel like they are paying the proper amount of tax, he said.
“I’m not going to use the word ‘criminal.’ I’m just going to say it’s unfair.”
Todd Johns, Plumas County sheriff
“When I talk to my neighbors, none of us feels like that. None of us feels like you got it right,” O’Brien said to Froggatt.
Plumas County Sheriff Todd Johns said the assessor’s lack of notification to taxpayers is imposing a hardship on many. “I’m not going to use the word ‘criminal.’ I’m just going to say it’s unfair,” he said.
Portola homeowner Deborah Bress was blunt: “I think you’re really ripe for a class action suit on the way you’re doing this whole thing. I call bullshit on what you’re doing.”
McGowan urged his colleagues to begin focusing on solutions. One question, he said, was how they could “soften the blow” and spread tax increases over a longer period of time.
Engel said, “We’re not going to solve anything today.” He endorsed McGowan’s motion to direct the county counsel to research the tax code requirements for notification of changes in property values.
Taxpayers who are unhappy should contact the assessor’s office to request changes in their property valuations. As a next step, said Engel, if the issue is not resolved they can file appeals with the board of supervisors, which acts as the State Board of Equalization at the county level.
“Obviously this isn’t over,” said Hagwood.
