����Ӱ��AV

Former Treasurer Brian Johnson refused to issue the payments after he claimed the assessment method that found 630 property owners had overpaid on their taxes went against state law. But now that Johnson suddenly resigned earlier this month, the office along with the county assessor's office are now proceeding with the refunds.

Johnson resigned June 12, citing “recent urgent changes in my personal responsibilities,” in a letter to county supervisors.

“It is clear at this time that the treasurer's office does not have the legal or statutory authority to litigate, hold up, or investigate NOPCs,” said Chief Deputy Treasurer Jake Martin, who is overseeing day to day operations until supervisors appoint a new treasurer.

NOPC’s are Notices of Proposed Corrections, a formal notice the assessor issues to property owners when they find an overpayment or underpayment. The Assessor’s office found the overvaluation of 630 properties the county that led to overpayments of $5.8 million plus interest over four years.

County Assessor Suzanne Droubie said Johnson’s resignation had nothing to do with the disputed tax refund dollars. She said she could not comment on Johnson’s decision to withhold payments, but said her office’s decision to issue the refund notices was made carefully.

“The acting treasurer, who has also been a party to scrutinizing these NOPC's, has found no reason to believe that anything nefarious is going on,” she said.

Droubie said the assessor’s office handles tax roll corrections every day, and the large refund total is seemingly high because it took place over four years.

“We are very, very sensitive to the fact that everything that we're doing affects somebody out there in one way or another ...” Droubie said. “This has been one of those series of unfortunate events that has led to some mistrust in the community, and I am deeply saddened by that.”

Her office became aware of the overvaluations when they transitioned to using a new tax valuation software, she said.

Droubie said the specific errors in the old valuation system extend back to 2012, when former assessor Bill Staples made certain adjustments to property data later administrations found to be unsubstantiated.

As part of switching systems, her office was required to analyze any property values that fluctuated significantly after the new system was in place. That was how these 630 properties were identified, Droubie said.

In a 27-page memo to supervisors in May, Johnson claimed he did not have to issue refunds if the corrections failed to meet standards set by state law, and provided a complex list of alleged deficiencies in the assessor’s method.

Johnson argued Droubie used the full cash value for 2026 and applied it to the last four years, instead of calculating each year separately. State law requires the full cash value of a property to be calculated once a year on an annual valuation date. Pima County taxes are based on limited property value, which is calculated by applying a specific formula to a property’s larger full cash value amount.

“It was highly unusual, how you could come up with the same value on a property after you corrected an error that would be exactly the same for four years in a row. The values are supposed to be market values, right, and that doesn't happen,” he Johnson said.

Johnson wrote Droubie should have used the old software to calculate the full cash values because that was the system in place for the disputed years, which Droubie said would not be possible.

“We could not use the system in place at the time because the system itself is what contained the errors, and there were enough of them where it made it prohibitive to be able to use that system to correct the errors,” she said.

Pima Supervisor Matt Heinz said he supported Droubie’s decision to issue the refund notices, and Johnson’s challenge of them overstepped the duties of the treasurer’s office.

“The treasurer's responsibility does not include second guessing the assessor, so once the assessor makes a decision, then it's a ministerial function of the office of the treasurer to cut those checks,” he said.

It is still unclear how the refund costs will be felt among the jurisdictions that receive property tax revenue, including school districts, library districts and the county itself. Johnson’s memo said the Tucson Unified School District could be responsible for about $1.3 million of the refund.

TUSD officials were unavailable for comment at the time of publication.

Supervisors on Tuesday are expected to discuss potentially releasing a privileged memo from the Pima County Attorney's office about the disputed Notices of Property Correction.