2026 Limited Scope Review of the Whatcom County Board of Equalization

Published: September 1, 2026

Overview

Introduction

The Department of Revenue (Department) conducted an interview with the Clerk of the Whatcom County Board of Equalization (Clerk) and the Whatcom County Board of Equalization (Board).

Purpose

The Department’s primary purpose with this review is to assist the Board in their processes and procedures to ensure compliance with state statutes and regulations.

An effective review of the methods employed by the Board in administering the assessment appeal process promotes fair, timely, and uniform property tax assessments.

Scope of review

While reviewing the records for the 2023 Whatcom County Board Review, the Department identified additional areas of concern with the Board’s procedures and compliance with statutes and regulations. This review is limited in scope to only those areas.

Information reviewed

To complete our review, we gathered information about the administration of the Board through interviews, documents provided by the Clerk, and independent verification. The areas we reviewed included, but were not limited to:

• Appeal petitions for the 2024 assessment year.
• Hearing procedures.
• Deliberation processes.
• Board orders.
• Reconvening processes.
• Publications, forms, literature, and website.
• Board policies.

Acknowledgement

We thank the Board and Clerk for their cooperation throughout the process. We commend the Board for their willingness to look at opportunities to improve the uniformity and administration of property tax.

Executive summary

About this review

The Department interviewed the Board and their staff about the processes and procedures related to property tax appeals.

Categories of results

The Department has completed its review and grouped the results into two categories:

• The first category, Requirements, is of the greatest urgency for effective administration by the Clerk and the Board. A change is required to adhere to the law.
• The second category, Recommendations, requires the attention of the Board. The Department believes the Board could improve their performance and service to the public by making voluntary changes in procedures.

The Department bases requirements and recommendations contained in our reports on our review of the administrative procedures employed, existing state statutes and regulations, and areas we saw opportunities to improve processes, procedures, and communication. Where statutes or rules do not prescribe a specific timeframe or procedure, the Department provides recommendations to promote efficient and uniform administration statewide. Boards may adopt alternative procedures provided they are consistent with applicable law and achieve substantially equivalent results.

Results

The Department identified eight requirements necessary to ensure the Board’s procedures and decisions comply with applicable statutes and rules.

The items identified may be specific to the Clerk’s duties, the Board’s duties, county legislative authority duties, or they may have shared components of responsibility. The Board remains responsible for ensuring its policies, procedures, and decisions comply with applicable statutes and rules. A summary of these items follows.

Requirement 1 – Board correspondence

Requirement

The Board is required to inform petitioners of their right to appeal the Board’s denial of a petition to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA). The Board must provide accurate, neutral correspondence that complies with applicable statutes and rules, and preserves the Board's impartial role in the appeals process.

What the law says

Any incomplete or untimely petition cannot be considered by the Board and a notice of the Board’s rejection of the petition must be promptly mailed to the taxpayer. A late petition may not be accepted unless the taxpayer requests and demonstrates good cause for waiving the filing deadline within a reasonable time after the original filing deadline. (RCW 84.40.038).

Any taxpayer aggrieved by the action of the Board may appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals within 30 days after the Board has served or mailed its decision. (RCW 84.08.130).

As an independent tribunal responsible for administering property tax appeals, the Board must provide neutral procedural information while maintaining impartiality throughout the appeals process. (RCW 84.48.010).

What we found

Petition dismissal letter:

The Department reviewed the Board's petition denial letter for untimely petitions. The letter did not inform petitioners of their right to appeal the Board’s dismissal to the Board of Tax Appeals.

Late petition letter:

The Department reviewed the Board's late petition letter and related forms. The letter identifies April 30 as the deadline for both, good cause waiver and reconvening requests. While April 30 is the statutory deadline for certain reconvening requests under WAC 458-14-127, it does not apply to good cause waiver requests under RCW 84.40.038 and WAC 458-14-056. Good cause waiver requests must be submitted within a reasonable time after the original filing deadline. Applying the April 30 deadline to both types of requests does not reflect the separate statutory requirements governing good cause waivers and reconvening requests and may affect a petitioner's ability to pursue the appropriate form of relief.

Additionally, the correspondence instructs petitioners to:

• choose only one late-filing request;
• refrain from submitting both a good cause waiver request and a reconvening request; and
• complete custom Board-developed forms based on the exception selected.

The reconvening packet includes a pre-written declaration that establishes a qualifying reconvening circumstance and requires only the petitioner’s signature.

These materials direct petitioners on how to characterize their requests and limit requests to only qualifying reasons rather than allowing them to identify the basis and supporting facts they believe led to untimely filing of the petition. As a result, the Board's correspondence extends beyond explaining procedures and may create the appearance that the Board is assisting one party in satisfying jurisdictional requirements.

Notice of hearing letter:

The Department reviewed the Board's Notice of Hearing letter. The letter provides examples of evidence the Board considers persuasive, including recommending that taxpayers obtain comparable sales information from specific real estate websites. While the Board may explain hearing procedures and statutory evidence requirements, it should avoid identifying preferred evidence or valuation sources. Taxpayers may submit any relevant evidence, and the Board is responsible for determining the admissibility, credibility, and weight of that evidence during the hearing.

As a result, it appears that:

Collectively, these practices extend beyond explaining the Board's procedures and instead direct petitioners on how to pursue relief and present their requests. The Board's role is to explain the applicable procedures and legal standards, evaluate the requests submitted, and determine whether the statutory requirements have been met. It is not the Board's role to shape a petitioner's request or discourage the submission of alternative grounds for relief.

Action needed to meet requirements

The Board must:

• Revise the petition denial letter to:
  • Inform taxpayers of their right to appeal the Board’s dismissal to the Board of Tax Appeals.
  • Articulate the timeframe of what constitutes a “reasonable time” consistent with WAC 458-14-056.
  • Use terminology that accurately reflects the Board’s action, such as “dismissed petition” rather than “voided petition”.
• Revise the untimely petition letter and custom forms to:
  • Use the April 30 deadline only for qualifying reconvening requests under WAC 458-14-127.
  • Clearly distinguish between good cause waiver requests and reconvening requests, including the filing requirements applicable to each.
  • Require petitioners to self-identify the basis for a good cause waiver or reconvening, and of their obligation to provide any required supporting facts, documentation, or declarations.
  • Remove instructions directing petitioners to select a particular request or discouraging alternative grounds for relief.
  • Eliminate pre-written declarations that establish a qualifying circumstance on behalf of petitioners.
  • Revise correspondence and forms to explain applicable procedures without directing petitioners how to characterize their requests or complete jurisdictional requirements.

Department recommendation

To promote efficient and uniform administration statewide, the Department recommends that the Board establish and consistently apply a written policy defining what constitutes a reasonable time for submitting a good cause waiver request. While neither RCW 84.40.038 nor WAC 458-14-056 establishes a specific timeframe, the Department recommends using a period of approximately two to four weeks after the original filing deadline. The Board may adopt a different timeframe provided it is reasonable, consistently applied, and complies with applicable law.

Why it’s important

Board correspondence is often a taxpayer's first interaction with the appeals process. Correspondence that accurately explains statutory requirements while remaining neutral promotes consistent administration, protects the rights of all parties, and reinforces the Board's role as an impartial decision-maker.

The statutory filing deadlines and limited exceptions established in RCW 84.40.038 and WAC 458-14-056 preserve the integrity of the appeals process. Because the petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for statutory relief, Board correspondence should explain procedural requirements without directing petitioners how to satisfy those requirements or limiting the claims they choose to present.

Hearing notices should explain the Board's procedures without influencing how either party presents its case. WAC 458-14-087 requires that the Board evaluate the relevance, credibility, and weight of the evidence presented in each appeal. Providing neutral procedural information helps preserve the Board's impartial role while ensuring taxpayers understand that they may submit any relevant evidence permitted by law.

The Department promotes uniform statewide administration by ensuring that local boards apply consistent procedures while preserving their independent role as neutral decision-makers. Correspondence that extends beyond explaining procedures undermines that objective and may create inconsistent practices among counties.

Requirement 2 – Custom forms

Requirement

The Board must submit locally developed forms to the Department for approval before requiring or providing them for use in the appeals process.

When evaluating good cause waiver requests, the Board may not require taxpayers to complete a form in order for their request to be considered.

What the law says

The Department prescribes and approves forms used in administering the property tax appeal process. Local boards may not require the use of Board-developed forms unless those forms have been approved by the Department. (RCW 84.40.038).

Good cause may be shown by documentation of one or more events or circumstances described in RCW 84.40.038.

A Board may reconvene if the taxpayer submits a request with a sworn affidavit stating the notice of change of value for the requested assessment year was not received at least 15 days prior to the deadline for filing the petition. Additionally, the taxpayer must show proof that the value actually changed. (WAC 458-14-127(1)(a)).

What we found

The Department reviewed the Board's custom forms used for good cause waivers and reconvening requests. The Board requires petitioners to complete Board-developed forms that have not been approved by the Department.

Late filing exception request (Good cause form):

The Late Filing Exception Request form has not been approved by the Department. Additionally, the form appears to be a requirement when requesting a good cause waiver and includes an affidavit with a declaration before the signature block.

Declaration form:

The reconvene declaration form states that it is provided for the taxpayer’s convenience and that the Board cannot grant a reconvene request without it. It appears that this declaration is used to eliminate the requirement for a taxpayer to submit a sworn affidavit when requesting a reconvene under WAC 458-14-127(1)(a) and that use of the form guarantees approval.

Collectively, the Board-developed forms extend beyond collecting information necessary to evaluate a request. Instead, they direct petitioners how to characterize their request, provide legal conclusions for petitioners, and establish procedural requirements that differ from those prescribed by statute, rule, and Department-approved forms.

Action needed to meet requirement

The Board must:

• Submit all custom forms to the Department for approval prior to providing them to taxpayers.
• Discontinue requiring taxpayers to complete a Late Filing Exception Request (Good Cause form) and requiring an affidavit for requests under RCW 84.48.038 or WAC 458-14-056(3).
• Advise taxpayers of the requirement to provide an affidavit for reconvene requests under WAC 458-14-127(1)(a).
• Require petitioners to provide the facts and supporting documentation they believe support their request.

Department recommendation

To promote efficient and uniform statewide administration, the Department recommends periodically reviewing all locally developed forms to ensure they remain consistent with current statutes, rules, Department-approved forms, and Department guidance.

Why it’s important

The Department's approval of forms promotes consistent administration of the property tax appeal process throughout the state. When local boards develop or require forms that differ from Department-approved forms, petitioners may receive different instructions, procedural requirements, or opportunities depending on the county in which they file. Uniform forms help ensure statutory requirements are applied consistently while preserving each Board's independent role in evaluating the facts of an individual appeal.

Requirement 3 – Incomplete petitions

Requirement

The Board must promptly review incomplete petitions, provide taxpayers with a reasonable opportunity to correct deficiencies, and dismiss petitions that remain incomplete.

What the law says

Any incomplete or untimely petition cannot be considered by the Board and a notice of the Board’s rejection of the petition must be promptly mailed to the taxpayer. (RCW 84.40.038).

What we found

The Department reviewed petition files involving incomplete petitions. In several cases, the Board provided taxpayers multiple opportunities to correct deficiencies over an extended period rather than making a timely determination whether the petition satisfied the statutory filing requirements.

In one case, the Board kept the petition open for more than four months after the original filing date and established three separate deadlines for the petitioner to perfect the petition before ultimately dismissing it.

These repeated extensions exceeded the Board's role of providing a reasonable opportunity to correct deficiencies and resulted in inconsistent administration of petitions.

Action needed to meet requirement

The Board must:

• Provide taxpayers with notice of all missing or incomplete items and set a reasonable deadline to provide the requested information. The Department recommends two weeks to a month as a reasonable time frame.
• Petitions which are not perfected by the deadline must be promptly dismissed and taxpayers must be notified in writing.

Department recommendation

The Department recommends establishing a standard timeframe for correcting incomplete petitions. While RCW 84.40.038 does not prescribe a specific period, the Department recommends providing approximately two to four weeks for taxpayers to submit missing information. Boards may adopt a different timeframe provided it is reasonable, consistently applied, and does not unnecessarily delay administration of the appeals process.

Why it’s important

Promptly resolving incomplete petitions promotes the efficient and uniform administration of the appeals process and provides consistent treatment for all taxpayers. While taxpayers should be given a reasonable opportunity to correct deficiencies, repeated extensions beyond an established deadline may delay the appeals process and result in inconsistent administration among similarly situated petitioners.

Under RCW 84.08.010, the Department is responsible for promoting uniform statewide administration of the property tax system. Consistently applying deadlines for incomplete petitions helps ensure appeals are processed in a timely manner while preserving equal treatment of taxpayers across counties.

Requirement 4 – Reconvening of the board

Requirement

A Board may only reconvene in circumstances when a request is made, and documentation is provided demonstrating that the request meets all applicable requirements. The Board must deny requests that do not qualify and notify taxpayers in writing of their decision.

What the law says

Taxpayers may request that the Board reconvene to hear an appeal for the current assessment year. The Board may reconvene only when the request meets one of the circumstances identified in WAC 458-14-127 and the request is filed with the Board by April 30 of the year immediately following the Board’s regularly convened session. All requests must include sufficient information and documentation to demonstrate that the requirements for reconvening have been met. (WAC 458-14-127).

What we found

Two of the petition files reviewed by the Department included granted reconvening requests that either did not meet the requirements under the requested code or did not include documentation to prove the requirement had been met.

• Reconvening code 03 – WAC 458-14-127(1)(c): One file included a granted request under code 03, which applies when a property is purchased between July 1 and December 31 and the taxpayer demonstrates the sale was an arm’s-length transaction for less than 90% of the assessed value. The documentation provided with the request did not support that the transaction met all of these requirements. According to information available on the county’s website, the property was purchased on February 13, 2025. Because the request was for the 2024 assessment year, the transaction would have needed to occur between July 1 and December 31, 2024, to qualify under this code.
• Reconvening code 04 – WAC 458-14-127(2): One file included a granted request under code 04, which applies when property or value has been omitted from the assessment rolls and the request is made within 30 days after the assessor mails notification of the discovery of the omitted property or value. The documentation reviewed did not demonstrate that the requirements of this provision had been met. The request appeared to be based on the taxpayer’s assertion that a fact materially affecting the property’s value was unknown to the Whatcom County Assessor (Assessor) when the property was valued. However, that circumstance corresponds to WAC 458-14-127(1)(b), which is initiated at the discretion of the assessor and requires action by the assessor, not a taxpayer request. The file did not include documentation demonstrating that property or value had been omitted from the assessment rolls, that the Assessor had issued a notice of discovery, or that the request was filed within the required timeframe. As a result, the documentation reviewed did not establish that the requirements for reconvening under the requested code had been satisfied.

Action needed to meet requirement

The Board must:

• Evaluate each reconvene request using the specific provision identified and the requirements established in WAC 458-14-127.
• Require sufficient facts and documentation to demonstrate that all elements of the requested reconvening provision have been met.
• Grant requests only when all elements of the requested provision are met and any required information or documentation is provided.
• Deny requests when any requirements of the requested provision have not been met sufficient documentation is not provided.
• Avoid granting requests based on circumstances that would fall under a different reconvening provision, particularly when that provision requires action or discretion by another party, such as the assessor.
• Promptly dismiss denied requests and inform taxpayers in writing of the decision with notice of their appeal rights to the Board of Tax Appeals.

Why it’s important

Reconvening is a limited exception to the regular appeal process and is only available when the conditions established in law have been met. Strict adherence to the requirements of WAC 458-14-127 ensures that this process is applied consistently and that taxpayers are held to the same standards when seeking an exception to the regular filing process.

The Board’s decisions can affect not only the individual taxpayer requesting relief but also other taxpayers within the taxing district. A change in assessed value resulting from an appeal may shift the property tax burden to taxpayers who did not participate in the appeal and have no knowledge of the proceedings. Ensuring that reconvening requests are granted only when the statutory requirements are satisfied also protects taxpayers who timely filed and complied with the established process.

Consistent application of these requirements promotes fairness, preserves confidence in the appeals process, and supports the uniform administration of property tax laws throughout the state. The Board’s role is to apply the requirements established by statute and rule, not to expand exceptions beyond those authorized by law.

Requirement 5 – Filing deadline waiver for good cause

Requirement

The Board may only consider timely and complete petitions. When a petition is filed after the statutory deadline, the Board must promptly evaluate a taxpayer’s request for a waiver of the filing deadline for good cause, determine whether the taxpayer has established the requirements for relief, and notify the taxpayer in writing of the Board’s decision.

A waiver of the filing deadline for good cause may only be granted when the request is made within a reasonable time after the original filing deadline and sufficient information and documentation demonstrating that the requirements for the claimed circumstance have been met is provided.

What the law says

Petitions must be filed with the Board on or before July 1 of the assessment year or within 30 days after the mailing date of the notice of value or other determination, whichever is later. (RCW 84.40.038).

Late petitions may not be considered unless a taxpayer requests and demonstrates good cause for waiving the filing deadline. Such requests must be made within a reasonable time after the original filing deadline and must include information demonstrating that the requirements for good cause have been met. If the taxpayer does not establish good cause, the Board must dismiss the petition. (RCW 84.40.038 and WAC 458-14-056).

The Board must issue a decision on all requests to waive the filing deadline for good cause and must promptly provide written notification of its decision to the taxpayer. Decisions to waive the filing deadline for good cause are final and may not be appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals. (RCW 84.40.038).

What we found

The Department reviewed petition files involving good cause waiver requests. One file included a granted request under WAC 458-14-056(3)(b).

This provision applies when a taxpayer was absent from the address where they usually receive the notice of change in value for more than 15 days of the period allowed to file the petition before the filing deadline. The taxpayer asserted they were absent from their primary address and that their mail was held during that time. However, the file did not include documentation supporting the claimed absence or demonstrating that the time requirements of WAC 458-14-056(3)(b) had been met.

Good cause waiver requests must be supported by documentation demonstrating the circumstances claimed by the taxpayer. For example, an absence from the taxpayer’s usual mailing address may be supported by travel records, lodging documentation, or other evidence establishing the period of absence.

The Department also identified delays in the Board’s processing of the good cause waiver request. The Change of Value Notice was mailed on November 19, 2024, with a petition filing deadline of December 19, 2024. The petition appears to have been filed on January 29, 2025, and the good cause waiver request was sent on April 18, 2025. The Board’s decision appears to have been issued approximately 90 days after receiving the waiver request.

The Board’s delayed review resulted in an extended period where the taxpayer’s appeal status remained unresolved and delayed the Board’s determination of whether the petition could be considered.

Action needed to meet requirement

The Board must:

• Promptly review untimely petitions and notify taxpayers of the opportunity to request a good cause waiver when applicable.
• Evaluate good cause waiver requests based on the specific circumstance identified by the taxpayer and the requirements established in RCW 84.40.038 and WAC 458-14-056.
• Grant waiver requests only when the request demonstrates that all required elements of the claimed circumstance have been met and includes supporting documentation.
• Dismiss untimely petitions when the taxpayer does not demonstrate good cause for waiving the filing deadline.
• Promptly evaluate and decide all waiver requests and provide taxpayers with written notice of the Board’s decision.

Department recommendation

The Department recommends establishing and consistently applying a written timeframe for reviewing and deciding good cause waiver requests to ensure requests are resolved promptly.

Why it’s important

The statutory filing deadline establishes a consistent process for all taxpayers seeking review of their property assessments. Good cause waivers provide a limited exception to that deadline and are intended for circumstances where a taxpayer can demonstrate that a qualifying circumstance prevented timely filing.

Consistently requiring taxpayers to establish eligibility for a waiver and promptly deciding those requests ensures fairness between taxpayers who timely filed petitions and taxpayers seeking an exception to the filing deadline. Allowing exceptions without adequate support or delaying decisions for extended periods may result in inconsistent treatment among taxpayers and uncertainty in the appeals process.

Prompt decisions are also necessary to provide timely notice to all parties to the appeal. The Assessor, as a party responsible for defending the assessed value, does not receive notice of an appeal until the Board accepts the petition as timely and complete. Delayed decisions on good cause waiver requests may delay notification to the Assessor, limit the time available to prepare for the appeal, and create uncertainty regarding whether the appeal will proceed.

Board decisions may affect the allocation of property taxes among all taxpayers within a taxing district, including taxpayers who did not participate in the appeal and may have no knowledge of the proceedings. Applying uniform filing requirements and resolving waiver requests promptly helps ensure all taxpayers are held to the same standards, protects the rights of all parties, and supports equitable administration of property tax laws throughout the state.

Requirement 6 – Valuation, evidence, and hearing procedures

Requirement

The certified assessed value is presumed correct. Taxpayers have the burden of demonstrating that the assessed value, valuation method, or specific value components are incorrect.

Taxpayers must satisfy the clear, cogent, and convincing evidence standard. If this standard is met for a particular valuation issue, the standard of proof changes to a preponderance of the evidence for that issue.

The Board may adjust the assessed value only when taxpayers present sufficient evidence supporting a different market value consistent with statutory valuation standards.

Both parties must provide additional evidence to the Board and the opposing party at least 21 business days before the hearing.

What the law says

All property must be valued at 100% of its true and fair value in money, and the valuation must be determined using the applicable valuation standards. (RCW 84.40.030).

The assessed value certified by the assessor is presumed correct. Taxpayers must present clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the assessed value is incorrect before the presumption of correctness may be overcome. (RCW 84.40.0301 and WAC 458-14-046).

Taxpayers must demonstrate that the assessed value, valuation method, or specific component of the assessed value is incorrect under the valuation standards established in RCW 84.40.030. If this standard is met, the applicable standard of proof changes only for the challenged valuation issue, and taxpayers must still demonstrate the appropriate value by a preponderance of the evidence. (RCW 84.40.030 and RCW 84.40.0301).

The Board must evaluate provided evidence and determine the relevance, credibility, and weight of that evidence when making a decision. (RCW 84.40.030 and WAC 458-14-087).

Evidence submitted after a petition is filed must be provided to both the Board and the opposing party at least 21 business days before the hearing. (RCW 84.48.150 and WAC 458-14-066).

When evidence is not timely submitted and one party objects, the Board may exclude the evidence, postpone the hearing while establishing a schedule allowing review of the evidence, or continue the hearing while providing both parties an opportunity to submit additional evidence, rebuttal, or comments. (RCW 84.48.150 and WAC 458-14-066).

What we found

Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence

The Department reviewed petition files where the Board reduced assessed values. Three files did not demonstrate that the taxpayer presented clear, cogent, and convincing evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption that the certified assessed value was correct.

• One petition file contained no documentary evidence. It appears, the value was reduced based solely on the taxpayer’s testimony that the property could not be sold for the assessed value and referenced a prior appraisal from 2021 that was not submitted as evidence. The record did not include documentary evidence demonstrating that the taxpayer met the burden necessary to overcome the presumption of correctness or nor to support a different market value.
• One petition file relied on a comparative market analysis which lacked sufficient information to establish the comparability between the subject and the sales. Despite the limited supporting information, the value was reduced based on the analysis and testimony. The decision did not identify what evidence satisfied the clear, cogent, and convincing evidence standard or explain what was used to support a different market value.
• One petition file contained no evidence submitted by the taxpayer. Instead, the Board relied on market information provided by the Assessor and independently concluded that a busy street negatively affected the property’s value. The Board established a value different from both the Assessor’s valuation and the taxpayer’s requested value. The record did not contain evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion that external obsolescence affected the property’s value and to what extent.

During the interview with the Board, several members indicated that they generally rely on taxpayer statements regarding facts related to the property without requiring additional supporting documentation. Board members also indicated that statements provided by taxpayers may be considered more reliable than information maintained or provided by the Assessor in certain circumstances.

Testimony may be considered evidence, and the Board may evaluate the credibility of testimony provided by either party. However, testimony must still be evaluated under the criteria established in WAC 458-14-087 and must support the applicable standard of proof required to adjust assessed value. Evidence must establish not only that a condition or circumstance exists, but also the effect of that condition or circumstance on market value and whether that impact was already reflected in the original assessed value. The Board may not adjust an assessed value unless the taxpayer first overcomes the presumption of correctness with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the value is incorrect. This standard is less than beyond a reasonable doubt but greater than a preponderance of the evidence or “highly probable”.

Once the Board determines that this burden has been met using the criteria set forth in RCW 84.40.030, the standard of proof shifts to a preponderance of evidence.

Evidence receipt and exchange

The Department reviewed petition files to determine whether evidence submission and exchange requirements were documented.

Evidence maintained in the petition files generally did not include a postmark, date stamp, or other documentation establishing when evidence was received. As a result, the Department could not verify whether evidence was timely submitted or exchanged as required.

Multiple petition files showed taxpayers provided additional evidence the day before their hearing. The Board accepted the evidence; however, the record did not demonstrate whether the Assessor received the evidence before the hearing or whether the Assessor had an opportunity to review and respond.

Several files included written objections from the Assessor requesting exclusion of untimely evidence because the Assessor had not been provided an opportunity to review and respond. The files did not document how the Board considered or resolved those objections.

However, the Board indicated that it accepts late evidence when taxpayers state that a copy was also provided to the Assessor. The reviewed petition files did not demonstrate how the Board verified receipt by the opposing party or how objections to late evidence were resolved.

The Board confirmed it accepts and considers photographs presented at the hearing on electronic devices or in printed form, including circumstances where the photographs were not exchanged within the time frame required by WAC 458-14-066. When interviewed, several members indicated that photographs may be considered compelling and should not be subject to the evidence exchange requirements.

Action needed to meet requirement

The Board must:

• Apply the burden of proof and production requirements established in RCW 84.40.0301 when evaluating valuation appeals.
• Require taxpayers challenging the assessed value to provide the evidence necessary to support their position.
  • The Board should not independently develop a basis for changing assessed value or rely on information that does not demonstrate taxpayers have met the applicable standard.
• Initially apply the preponderance of the evidence standard only in non-valuation appeals.
• Once the clear, cogent, and convincing evidence standard is satisfied for a challenged valuation issue, apply the preponderance of the evidence standard to determine whether the taxpayer has demonstrated a different market value.
• Recognize that testimony, photographs, and other evidence may be considered; however, the evidence must establish not only that a condition or circumstance exists, but also the effect of that condition or circumstance on market value and whether that impact was already reflected in the original assessment.
• Evaluate all valuation evidence using the criteria established in RCW 84.40.030 and WAC 458-14-087, including relevance, credibility, and weight, without assigning greater evidentiary value to evidence submitted by taxpayers.
• Base decisions solely on evidence submitted by the parties and avoid substituting the Board's own opinions or conclusions unsupported by the record.
• Date stamp or otherwise document receipt of all evidence and retain envelopes when evidence is received by mail.
• Require all evidence considered by the Board, including photographs and other visual evidence, to be exchanged between the parties within the timeframe established by WAC 458-14-066.
• When untimely evidence is submitted and a party objects, follow the procedures established in WAC 458-14-066 by:
  • Excluding the untimely evidence; or
  • Postponing the hearing while establishing a schedule allowing both parties to review and respond; or
  • Continuing the hearing and establishing a schedule for additional evidence, rebuttal, or comments before issuing a decision.

Why it’s important

Board decisions affect not only taxpayers who appeal but also taxpayers who do not participate in the appeals process. Correctly applying burden-of-proof requirements ensures assessed values are adjusted only when supported by sufficient evidence and protects taxpayers who followed the statutory process, including those who timely filed or chose not to appeal.

The burden of proof and burden of production are fundamental protections within the property tax appeal process. Taxpayers challenging the certified assessed value are responsible for presenting sufficient evidence demonstrating that the assessed value is incorrect and supporting a different market value. The Board’s role is to evaluate the evidence presented using the standards established in law, not to independently develop evidence or establish a basis for reducing value when taxpayers have not met the required standard.

Evidence may include testimony, photographs, and other information regarding a property’s characteristics or condition. However, evidence must establish more than the existence of a condition or circumstance; it must also demonstrate the impact of that condition on market value and whether that impact was already reflected in the original assessment. For example, a photograph may show that a condition exists, but without additional context or an opportunity for the opposing party to review and respond, there is insufficient information to determine whether the photograph accurately represents the property, reflects conditions as of the relevant assessment date, demonstrates the extent of the condition, or establishes an impact on market value.

Evidence exchange requirements protect due process by ensuring both parties have a meaningful opportunity to review, verify, respond to, and rebut evidence considered by the Board. The type or persuasive nature of evidence does not eliminate the statutory requirements for timely exchange. Allowing evidence to be considered without providing both parties an opportunity to review and respond may create the appearance that one party received a procedural advantage, limit the opposing party’s ability to present relevant rebuttal evidence, and undermine the presumption that the certified assessed value is correct.

Consistent application of evidence standards, burden-of-proof requirements, and hearing procedures promotes fairness among taxpayers, the Assessor as a party to the appeal, and taxpayers who are not involved in the appeals process. It ensures assessed values are changed only when supported by competent evidence and supports uniform administration of property tax laws statewide.

Requirement 7 – Due process

Requirement

The Board is required to provide due process for all parties involved in the appeal process. The Board must apply procedures consistently and maintain both actual and apparent impartiality when administering appeals.

What the law says

Taxpayers may request valuation information from the assessor on the petition form when filing an appeal with the Board. Such requested valuation information must be provided to taxpayers and the Board within sixty calendar days of the request and at least 21 business days, excluding legal holidays, before the hearing. (RCW 84.48.150 and WAC 458-14-066).

When a taxpayer provides additional evidence after the petition is filed, they must submit a copy to the Assessor’s Office and the board at least 21 business days prior to the hearing. (RCW 84.48.150 and WAC 458-14-066).

Due process requires decision makers to provide fair procedures to all parties affected by a decision. This includes providing parties a meaningful opportunity to participate in the appeal process and maintaining the impartiality and appearance of impartiality required of the Board. (RCW 84.48.010).

What we found

Delay in providing notice of appeals to the Assessor

Multiple petition files reviewed by the Department indicate that petitions were not forwarded to the Assessor for approximately four to five months after being received by the Board.

This delay reduces the time available for the Assessor, as a party to the appeal, to review the petition, prepare evidence, identify appropriate staff resources, and participate meaningfully in the appeal process.

Additionally, when taxpayers request valuation information from the Assessor on the petition form, the Assessor’s statutory timeframe to provide that information begins when the Assessor receives the request. Delays in providing petitions to the Assessor may affect the Assessor’s ability to meet statutory deadlines and may delay when taxpayers receive requested valuation information.

Rescheduling procedures with untimely evidence

The Department reviewed the Board’s procedures for addressing untimely evidence. The Board Policy Manual states that, because the Assessor’s Office has issued a standing objection to untimely evidence, taxpayers may be offered an opportunity to reschedule their hearing when they submit evidence after the deadline.

The stated purpose of this procedure is to allow taxpayers additional time to submit evidence and avoid situations where late evidence may not be considered by the Board. When a reschedule is granted, both parties receive a new hearing date and a new opportunity to submit evidence.

However, this procedure provides taxpayers with an additional opportunity to submit evidence after missing the statutory evidence exchange deadline. The procedure does not apply equally when evidence deadlines are missed or when additional preparation time is needed by the Assessor.

As a result:

• The Board’s procedures may create an appearance that one party receives a procedural advantage not equally available to the opposing party.
• The Board may inadvertently circumvent statutory evidence exchange requirements by allowing additional time for one party to submit evidence after the established deadline.
• The Board’s procedures may undermine the requirement that both parties comply with the same evidence submission requirements.

Action needed to meet requirement

The Board must:

• Ensure accepted appeals are provided to the Assessor in a timely manner to allow all parties a meaningful opportunity to participate in the appeal process.
• Ensure Board procedures apply equally to both parties.
• Discontinue procedures that use hearing rescheduling as a means to allow taxpayers to submit evidence after the statutory deadline solely because the evidence may otherwise be excluded.
• Consider the impact of rescheduling on the timely administration and resolution of appeals. The Board should not create additional delays in resolving outstanding appeals by routinely extending hearing timelines to accommodate late evidence submissions when statutory procedures already establish deadlines for evidence exchange.
• Revise the Board Policy Manual to:
  • Remove language identifying the Assessor’s objection to untimely evidence as a basis for providing additional opportunities to taxpayers.
  • Remove language suggesting rescheduling is an appropriate method for allowing taxpayers additional time to submit evidence after missing statutory deadlines.
  • Establish that statutory evidence exchange deadlines apply equally to both parties.
  • Establish criteria for additional rescheduling requests based on unavoidable circumstances consistent with circumstances described in WAC 458-14-056(3).

Why it’s important

The Board’s role is to provide a fair and impartial forum for resolving various disputes between taxpayers and the Assessor. Due process requires that both parties have a meaningful opportunity to participate, present evidence, and respond to the opposing party’s position. The Board’s procedures must be applied consistently so that neither party receives a procedural advantage through additional opportunities to meet requirements after statutory deadlines have passed.

The evidence exchange deadlines established by law ensure that both parties have adequate time to review, evaluate, and respond to information that may be considered by the Board. Rescheduling a hearing is a procedural accommodation intended to preserve a fair hearing process when circumstances warrant; it should not be used as a substitute for statutory deadlines or as a method for allowing a party to cure a failure to timely prepare.

The Board’s decisions affect not only the parties participating in an appeal but also the broader property tax system. Delays in resolving appeals may affect timely administration and create additional workload for the Board, Assessors, and taxpayers. When the Board routinely extends hearing timelines to address missed deadlines, it may contribute to delays in resolving outstanding appeals and undermine the consistent application of appeal procedures.

Applying evidence exchange requirements and rescheduling procedures consistently protects the rights of both parties, preserves the Board’s impartial role, and ensures taxpayers who appeal and taxpayers who do not participate in the appeals process are treated equitably. Uniform application of these procedures supports confidence in the appeals process and promotes consistent administration of property tax laws statewide.

Requirement 8 – Ex parte contact and impartiality

Requirement

The Board is required to perform its duties impartially while avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. The Board must act within the authority granted by statute and rule, evaluate evidence presented by the parties, and make decisions based on the legal standards applicable to property tax appeals.

What the law says

Members of the Board are prohibited from discussing aspects of a case with one party to an appeal without notice and opportunity for the other party to participate. (WAC 458-14-160).

Members of the Board are prohibited from making or attempting to make ex parte contact with any person regarding any issue in a proceeding without notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. (WAC 458-14-160).

The Board is limited to the authority granted under RCW 84.48 and WAC 458-14 and is responsible for impartially reviewing appeals and determining whether the evidence presented supports a change in assessed value. (RCW 84.48.010).

The certified assessed value is presumed correct. Taxpayers have the burden of production and burden of proof to demonstrate that the assessed value, valuation method, or specific valuation component is incorrect. The Board may adjust assessed values only when the evidence presented satisfies the standards established in RCW 84.40.030 and RCW 84.40.0301.

The Board must evaluate evidence based on its relevance, credibility, and weight when determining whether the evidence supports a different market value. (WAC 458-14-087).

What we found

Ex parte

The Department identified instances where a Board member received additional evidence or engaged in communications outside the appeal process regarding matters related to pending appeals.

In one instance, a taxpayer contacted a Board member at their home prior to the hearing to provide additional materials and evidence. Ex parte contact is prohibited even when the Board member does not initiate the contact. In this case, the Board accepted and considered the provided evidence when making their determination. The Department was unable to identify anything in the record disclosing the ex parte contact either in the decision or on the record at hearing.

This exchange provided the taxpayer an opportunity to supplement and strengthen their case outside the formal appeal process and without notice or opportunity for the Assessor to participate. By accepting the taxpayer’s evidence gained through ex parte contact, the Board created the appearance that the Board member was assisting the taxpayer in developing their case rather than impartially evaluating the evidence presented by both parties.

In another instance, a Board member contacted the Assessor’s staff to obtain information related to a property without identifying themselves as a Board member or disclosing that the information was being requested in connection with a pending appeal.

The Board’s role is to evaluate the evidence submitted by the parties and determine whether the taxpayer has met the statutory burden necessary to overcome the presumption that the certified assessed value is correct. The Board is not authorized to independently investigate an appeal, gather additional facts, or develop evidence to support a particular valuation conclusion.

Valuation decisions and Board authority

Several decisions reviewed by the Department appeared to include actions inconsistent with the Board’s role as a neutral decision-maker, including:

• Substituting the Board’s preferred valuation methodology for the methodology used by the Assessor without evidence demonstrating that the Assessor’s methodology failed to comply with statutory valuation requirements.
• Developing an independent value determination that was not supported by evidence presented by either party and did not correspond with either the certified assessed value or the value requested by the taxpayer.
• Selecting comparable sales based on achieving a value closer to the taxpayer’s requested value rather than evaluating the reliability, relevance, and adjustments associated with comparable sales using the valuation standards established in RCW 84.40.030.

The Board must evaluate the evidence presented by the parties and determine whether taxpayers have met the statutory burden of proof. The Board may not independently develop a valuation position, create evidence, or establish a basis for reducing value when taxpayers have not met the required standard.

When the Board develops its own valuation conclusions rather than evaluating the evidence presented by the parties, it creates the appearance that the Board is acting as an advocate for a party rather than as a neutral decision-maker.

Appearance of impropriety

The Department observed practices that may create an appearance of impropriety or advocacy for one party, including:

• Obtaining or considering information outside the formal appeal record without disclosing this on the record.
• Relying on taxpayer statements regarding property conditions, marketability, or value without requiring supporting evidence sufficient to establish the impact on market value.
• Giving greater weight to unsupported taxpayer statements than to information provided by the Assessor without documenting the basis for determining that the taxpayer’s evidence was more credible or reliable.

Testimony may be considered evidence; however, the Board must evaluate the relevance, credibility, and weight of that testimony. A taxpayer’s statements regarding a property’s condition, marketability, or value do not automatically establish that the certified assessed value is incorrect or demonstrate the amount of any adjustment necessary.

The Board must remain neutral and may not assist either party in satisfying its burden of proof or develop information necessary to support a party’s position.

Action needed to meet requirement

The Board must:

• Maintain both actual impartiality and the appearance of impartiality by avoiding actions that may be perceived as advocating for a party or assisting a party in developing its case.
• If the Board determines additional information is necessary to decide an appeal, obtain that information through a process that provides notice and an opportunity for all parties to participate.
• Ensure that all communications and evidence related to an appeal follow procedures that provide notice and an opportunity for all parties to participate, including any additional information the Board deems necessary for its decision.
• Refrain from independently investigating appeals, conducting fact-finding, or gathering information outside the record to support a preferred outcome or valuation conclusion.
• Base decisions solely on evidence submitted by the parties and properly admitted or considered under applicable statutes and rules.
• Disclose any ex parte contact during the public hearing, even when the contact was not initiated by the Board or its members.
• Require the party with the burden of proof to present evidence sufficient to support its position. The Board must not independently develop a basis for changing assessed value when taxpayers have not met the statutory requirements.
• Afford the presumption of correctness to the certified value and require taxpayers to overcome that presumption before adjusting values.
• Evaluate all evidence using the criteria established in WAC 458-14-087, including relevance, credibility, and weight, without assigning greater evidentiary value solely because evidence was submitted by taxpayers or the Assessor.
• Avoid substituting the Board’s preferred valuation methodology or independent valuation conclusions for evidence presented in the record.
• Clearly document in written decisions how the provided evidence satisfies the applicable burden of proof when determining that the presumption of correctness has been overcome.

Why it’s important

The Board serves as an independent tribunal responsible for resolving valuation disputes between taxpayers and the Assessor. Maintaining impartiality and avoiding the appearance of impropriety are essential to preserving public confidence that appeals are decided based on the evidence and legal standards rather than the Board’s preferences or advocacy for one party.

The Board’s role is to evaluate the evidence presented by the parties, determine the relevance, credibility, and weight of that evidence, and issue a decision based on the record. The Board is not a party to the appeal and should not develop evidence, investigate facts, or assist either party in establishing its position.

Independent fact-finding creates a risk that the Board considers information that has not been reviewed, verified, or rebutted by the opposing party. Evidence obtained outside the formal appeal process may not be subject to the same scrutiny as evidence submitted by the parties and may limit the opposing party’s ability to respond.

The statutory presumption that the certified assessed value is correct and the taxpayer’s burden to overcome that presumption are fundamental protections within the property tax appeal process. These requirements ensure assessed values are changed only when supported by sufficient evidence and prevent the tax burden from shifting to taxpayers who did not participate in the appeal process without a documented basis for the adjustment.

Consistent application of ex parte restrictions, evidence standards, and valuation requirements ensures equitable treatment for taxpayers, assessors, and those not involved in the appeals process. When the Board accepts evidence submitted outside the statutory appeal procedures, it appears to strengthen one party’s position and creates the impression that the Board is advocating for a particular outcome rather than acting as a neutral tribunal.

Maintaining impartial procedures protects due process, supports confidence in Board decisions, and promotes uniform administration of property tax laws statewide.

Next steps

Prioritizing requirements and recommendations

Once the Clerk and Board receive a final copy of this review, the Department will (if requested) consult with them to prioritize the items listed in the report.

Follow-up

The Department will follow up to review the changes implemented. This will give the Board an opportunity to provide information to the Department about any issues encountered during the implementation process.

The Department’s goal is to provide the necessary tools to accommodate the most successful operation of the Board in the future.

The Department will follow up with regular monthly appointments as the Board applies these changes to their structure. Additionally, the Department will be available for supporting guidance throughout the implementation process.