Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Siskiyou County appeals board hears homeowner challenge to $10,000 supplemental assessment for Mount Shasta sunroom
Summary
At a June hearing the Siskiyou County Assessment Appeals Board heard homeowner Tia Gaston challenge a $10,000 supplemental assessment placed after reconstruction of a sunroom at 2604 Shawn Way. The assessor said the work constituted assessable new construction; the board recessed to allow the parties to confer.
At an assessment appeals hearing on June 17, 2025, the Siskiyou County Assessment Appeals Board considered an appeal from homeowner Tia Gaston over a $10,000 supplemental assessment tied to a rebuilt sunroom at 2604 Shawn Way in Mount Shasta.
Sandy Robertson, representing the assessor’s office, told the board the county issued a building permit in June 2024 for reconstruction of the sunroom and completed the final inspection on Sept. 25, 2024. Robertson said the owners reported construction costs of about $26,005.65 and that the assessor removed a prior factored base-year value (about $16,320) to enroll a $10,000 incremental new-construction value. “We added $10,000 new construction value on the rebuild of the sunroom,” Robertson said, and recommended the board uphold the supplemental assessment.
The assessor framed the issue under state rules and guidance. Robertson cited Property Tax Rule 4.63, Revenue and Taxation Code provisions and the Assessor’s Handbook 4.10, saying the relevant standard is whether reconstruction converts the improvement to the “substantial equivalent of new.” She argued the prior glass enclosure was removed, a roof extension and wall were added tying the space into the main residence, and the work produced “a fully integrated living area,” which supports a finding of assessable new construction.
The appellant, Tia Gaston, who identified herself during the hearing, countered that the reconstruction was driven by repair needs: she said the original curved-glass atrium and sliding door were beyond useful life, that some original flooring and a window were salvaged, and that local availability of like-for-like curved glass made a like-for-like repair infeasible. Gaston asked the board to reverse the supplemental assessment, arguing the work did not raise fair market value in a way that should be taxed. “My request to this board is that the board reverses the above referenced supplemental assessment,” Gaston said. She added that she was not seeking a reduction in assessed value but rather asked that “we just call it even.”
Board members questioned both sides about methodology. Robertson said the assessor used the owner-reported contractor cost as an indicator of market value and removed the prior factor-based value to avoid double assessment; that arithmetic produced the enrolled $10,000 figure. The appellant pressed for more detail about calculation steps and for consideration of fair-market impacts such as the loss of a mountain view after the remodel.
No final vote was taken. The chair suggested leaving the hearing open and taking a short recess so the assessor and appellant could confer and attempt to resolve the matter. “So why don't you take a few minutes while we take a few minutes to see if you could square things away,” the chair said; the hearing was put off the record but remained open.
The appeals board did not announce a date to resume or a timetable for a decision; the matter remained pending while the parties conferred.
