Homeowner Jamieson wins reassessment adjustment after Lake County hearing; board sets further deliberation

On April 3, 2026, the Lake County Board of Equalization heard an appeal by an owner identified in the record as Miss Jamieson over the county’s supplemental reassessment of her Cobb residence and accepted evidence that led to corrections and refunds for multiple years.

Appellant counsel Andre Ross told the board that Jamieson acquired the property at a tax-default sale after it had been substantially destroyed and that she hired a local contractor to remove debris and restore the home’s original footprint. Ross argued the contractor costs were rehabilitative — not new construction — and therefore should not be added as assessable new-construction value under state law: “The current owner is entitled to the assessor's fair and uniform treatment of her property in light of legal requirements under California constitution and California statutes,” Ross said.

Assessor senior appraiser Michelle Bocchaniani told the board the assessor’s office received Jamieson’s photographs and an invoice for work totaling $157,800. After reviewing the evidence the assessor adjusted the property’s Proposition 13 base-year value and later issued refunds where earlier supplemental assessments had been incorrect. Bocchaniani summarized the office’s calculation: the base-year value had been adjusted to $80,000 (about $30,000 land; $50,000 improvements), then additional improvement value of $64,000 (for 2023) and $93,800 (for 2024) was recorded, which contributed to the higher assessed totals in subsequent years. She said the assessor used the appellant’s submitted costs to inform those adjustments and followed the Board of Equalization rules and the local application of Revenue and Taxation Code guidance.

Board members pressed both sides for clarity because multiple valuation figures were in the record: the appellant’s appeal form listed $184,783, the contractor invoice was reported at $157,800, the assessor’s interim corrected figure was cited as $144,600 for 2023, and the 2025 total assessment figures discussed in the hearing included larger totals (the assessor noted the 2025 assessed total at one point as $246,117). Supervisor questions focused on which year the board’s decision would set as the Prop 13 base year (the board confirmed the base-year determination remains the focus because it sets the floor for future lien-year increases).

County counsel and staff outlined procedure options after testimony closed. The appellant requested written findings of fact. County counsel recommended that the board either set a closed-session date for deliberations and written findings or, if parties can sign a stipulation, approve it and record the agreement. The parties agreed to leave the matter trailed so the board can deliberate further; county staff suggested an April 7 closed-session deliberation (with a short written-submission deadline beforehand) or, alternatively, waiting until the November calendar if a full board is required. The assessor said it was willing to proceed with April 7 or accept a written waiver to go to November 3.

What happens next: the board closed testimony on the appeal and will take the matter up again for deliberation and written findings (the county counsel suggested April 7 as a likely closed-session date). The assessor’s office has already issued corrections and refunds for the years it identified as misvalued pending the board’s formal deliberation and written determinations.