Board sustains assessor values on Port Angeles mini-storage parcels; owners cite business intangibles and steep tax increase

Clallam County Board of Equalization hearing examiners on Feb. 21 sustained assessor valuations for five parcels of a Port Angeles mini‑storage complex owned by Donald and Sandra Hawkins, despite the owners’ contention that intangibles tied to their business were not removed from the property assessment.

The Hawkinses appealed five assessment notices for property at 112 McCarver Street (petition numbers 2024‑106 through 2024‑110), arguing the parcels should be treated as one business and that the assessor’s comparables relied on much larger statewide facilities. The board heard the appellants’ presentation, comments from the assessor’s representative and appraiser Lee Hancock, and then announced the recommendation to sustain the assessor’s determinations.

The appeals covered five separate assessor parcel statements that the appellants said should have been treated as a single business purchase. Donald Hawkins said the purchase included business assets such as the customer base and software, and he urged the board to separate those intangibles from the real property value: "There's $5,000,000 on this property in there. Why they're separated into 5 separate, tax statements? I have no idea. We operated as 1 business." He also told the board the tax increase from 2024 to 2025 exceeded 260% on each statement and that "the total amount of the taxes are gonna consume 16% of our gross income."

Appraiser Lee Hancock, representing the assessor's office, described the site as a fenced mini‑storage complex with five buildings and noted that many units in the complex had been "effectively condominiumized," meaning each unit had its own parcel. Hancock said assessor comparables included local sales and statewide data; he noted the assessor's valuation (for example, $133,037 on petition 2024‑106 vs. the petitioners' estimate of $56,415) remained below the owners' purchase price in 2022 and that the assessor found no strong local evidence the property was overvalued. Hancock summarized: "This is an investment property. People purchase for rate of return. There was nothing in the state and nothing locally that really particularly supported that we're overvalued on it."

The board did not receive or record a motion with a named mover or a roll‑call vote in the hearing transcript. At the conclusion of the session the hearing examiner announced that the five Hawkins parcels (property IDs 48219, 48220, 48221, 48222 and 48223; petitions 2024‑106 through 2024‑110) were sustained.

The hearing examiner told the parties they would receive a written board order in about two weeks, and that either side could appeal the board’s decision to the state Court of Tax Appeals in Olympia.

The Hawkinses raised the allocation of value between real property, personal property and intangibles and urged the board to recognize business value separately; the assessor’s appraiser said the assessor’s sales comparisons and inspection supported the recommended valuations. The board’s written order will state the official rationale and provide appeal instructions.