Nevada County BOS Pushes Unconstitutional Property Tax Scheme Despite Public Outcry
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors hears public comment on July 22, 2025
On Tuesday July 22, 2025, Nevada County’s Board of Supervisors (BOS) voted on Resolution SR 25-1750, a controversial measure that would allow code enforcement fees and administrative costs to be added to property tax rolls. This move, which critics argue violates the California Constitution, has sparked significant public opposition and raised concerns about property rights and government overreach.
Background: A Contentious Proposal
The proposed resolution, backed by county staff, was formulated to enable the county to place code enforcement “administrative” costs directly onto property tax bills. If unpaid, these fees could lead to tax auctions, putting property owners at risk of losing their homes. The county cites California Government Code Section 25845(d) to justify this action, which allows costs of abatement to be “specially assessed” against a parcel and collected like ordinary county taxes, subject to the same penalties and procedures, including potential property sales for delinquency. The California Government Code does not include the language “administrative costs.”
However, opponents argue this violates Article XIII D of the California Constitution, which imposes strict guidelines for special assessments. The Constitution requires clear justification, public notice, and due process, including demonstrating that the fees address a public nuisance threatening health, life, or safety. Many affected property owners reportedly lack formal abatement orders, and contested alleged violations, raising questions about the county’s compliance with mandated constitutional provisions with due process of law, which requires hands-off judicial review, not an administrative hearing before a hearing officer hired by the same agency making accusations of code violations.
California Constitution Article XIII D Sections 1-6 (excerpts below) are mandatory and prohibitory as established in Article 1 Sec. 26 Declaration of Rights.
The County shall not under Section 1. (a) Provide any new authority to any agency to impose a tax, assessment, fee, or charge. Section 4, demands Procedures and Requirements for ALL assessments must be met to impose an assessment strictly related to a special benefit conferred. (b) All assessments shall be supported by a detailed engineer’s report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California. (e) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed assessment not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed assessment to the record owners of each identified parcel. At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed assessment and tabulate the ballots. The agency shall not impose an assessment if there is a majority protest. Section 6. For Property Related Fees and Charges, has similar mandatory and prohibitory requirements, such as; (2) Public Hearing within 45 days…(b) Fees cannot be imposed unless, (1) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service. (2) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed. (3) The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. (4) No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Fees or charges based on potential or future use of a service are not permitted. Standby charges, whether characterized as charges or assessments, shall be classified as assessments and shall not be imposed without compliance with Section 4. (c) Voter Approval for New or Increased Fees and Charges. Except for fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection services, no property related fee or charge shall be imposed or increased unless and until that fee or charge is submitted and approved by a majority vote of the property owners of the property subject to the fee or charge or, at the option of the agency, by a two-thirds vote of the electorate residing in the affected area. The election shall be conducted not less than 45 days after the public hearing. An agency may adopt procedures similar to those for increases in assessments in the conduct of elections under this subdivision.
Public Pushback and Misleading Claims
At a previous BOS meeting, on June 24, 2025, the resolution was placed on the consent calendar, typically reserved for non-controversial items. Public outcry, with 99% of comments opposing the measure, led Supervisor Hardy Bullock, joined by Supervisors Robb Tucker and Sue Hoek, to table the item for 60 days. However, in less than 30 days, the county staff has pushed to bring the resolution back for a vote, which happened on Tuesday, July 22nd.
Critics have accused county officials of misleading the public. County Counsel Kit Elliott claimed the resolution would not lead to property loss, stating, “These go on the roll, they don’t lose their house over these, they lose their house over non-payment of property taxes… We don’t confiscate people’s property over these kinds of taxes.” However, Treasurer-Tax Collector Michelle Bodley corrected the record, confirming that unpaid special assessments on the tax roll could lead to a tax auction by 2031 if the resolution passes. This contradiction has fueled distrust among residents, who see the measure as a potential “Pandora’s box” for adding other fees to property taxes without oversight.
The current meeting on Tuesday revealed more evidence of County Counsel Kit Elliott’s misstatements. Administrative analyst Ashley Fucci gave a presentation of the tax collection process and that data concluded a total of 4 properties were sold at tax auction for failure to pay the CDA special assessment.
Further statements from County Counsel Douglas Johnson informed the public and the Board that “Courts have reviewed this process in depth and found it to be supported by law…” yet he cited no case law. When staff came back with the resolution for July 22nd Board meeting, the 11-page document attempting to justify their actions was absent of any court decisions.
Residents Fight Back
Concerned citizens urged each other to act before the BOS meeting on Tuesday, July 22, 2025, at 9:00 AM.
Critics warn that this resolution sets a dangerous precedent, allowing the county to impose fees on property tax rolls without lawful justification or constitutional due process of law, before a judge. This could erode property rights and expose residents to financial penalties or even property loss through tax auctions. The overwhelming public opposition—evidenced by public comments obtained through a records request—underscores the community’s demand for transparency and accountability.
Several members of the community promised to take this to court to challenge the lawfulness of this resolution.