Nevada County Grand Jury
2009-2010
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (1)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Proposition 8 allows but does not require reassessments.
F2:
Proposition 8 does not require the Assessor’s Office to publicize the possibility of a reduction in assessed value.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
In addition to maintaining the website, the Assessor’s Office should issue press releases at least twice yearly, in April and October, to inform the public of their rights. (C5, 6) Responses Nevada County Assessor. June 1, 2010 Assessor’s Office Response to Declining Real Estate Values pages 31-MAR-2010
F3:
The Assessor’s Office determined that a proactive posture would benefit many Nevada County property owners and instituted a computer-assisted process. Analysis indicated that some adjustments were warranted. The process was used only for the 2008-2009 assessment roll. Assessor’s Office Response to Declining Real Estate Values pages 31-MAR-2010
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Assessor’s Office should perform this computer-assisted analysis annually to support assessment decisions. (C2, 3)
F4:
The Assessor’s Office elected to exclude from the study properties that changed ownership prior to July 2004. The rationale given for this was that it was unlikely that the analysis would result in a lower assessed value.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Assessor’s Office should expand the computer-assisted analysis to include more properties. (C2, 3, 4)
F5:
The criteria used to select the properties for the analysis included: a. Transfer of ownership between July 2004 and December 2008 b. 800-3500 square feet c. Standard sales only (no foreclosures or short sales) d. No swimming pools e. Single family residences only f. No guest houses g. No extra garages
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Assessor’s Office should expand the computer-assisted analysis to include more properties. (C2, 3, 4)
F6:
Properties not meeting the analysis criteria were excluded unless the property owner called the Assessor’s Office to request a manual review.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Assessor’s Office should expand the computer-assisted analysis to include more properties. (C2, 3, 4)
R3:
Property owners should promptly review their tax bills. If they believe that the assessed value is too high, they should contact the Assessor’s Office to request a review. (C4, 5)
F7:
Based on the computer-assisted analysis, a total of 3183 properties had their assessed values for the 2008-2009 tax year reduced.
F8:
Additional properties were reduced because of owner-initiated requests to the Assessor’s Office.
F9:
The Assessor’s Office provides information entitled “Property Assessment Basics” only on the website, http://mynevadacounty.com/assessor/. This information describes the procedures to follow in order to initiate a review by the Assessor’s Office. Conclusions C.1. The Assessor’s Office complied with the provisions of Proposition 8. (F1) C.2. Using computer-assisted analysis made identification of properties potentially qualified for Proposition 8 adjustments much easier and more efficient. (F3) C.3. Properties excluded from the computer-assisted analysis may be eligible for reduction. (F4, 5, 6) C.4. Any property owner may request a review of the assessed value. (F8, 9) C.5. Ultimate responsibility to initiate an assessment review resides with the property owner. (F1, 9) Assessor’s Office Response to Declining Real Estate Values pages 31-MAR-2010 C.6. More effective communication from the Assessor’s Office would help the public understand their rights. (F2, 9) Recommendations