BOE sustains assessor valuation after hearing over garage living area and outbuilding values

The Okanogan County Board of Equalization sustained the assessor’s valuation of $312,200 for parcel BOE24‑137 after the assessor’s presenter explained time‑adjusted comparables and additional improvements the assessor had added to the property record.

The assessor’s representative told the panel the owners purchased the property in 2024 for $365,000; the assessor’s roll lists the parcel at $312,200 (land $29,200; improvements $283,000). The assessor described three older comparable sales and one 2024 sale used with time adjustments. Brandon Horton, identified in the hearing as the assessor’s presenter, explained he “used 2 of their comparables” and applied time adjustments because “the market had changed so much” since some sale dates.

Nut graf: The hearing turned on whether the assessor had correctly accounted for structures not previously recorded on the assessor’s sketch — notably a finished garage living area and a 10‑by‑16 outbuilding — and whether the petitioner’s submitted comparables (several older sales) justified a lower valuation. The petitioners, Brian and Beth August, indicated they intended to attend but were not present; the board considered the assessor’s evidence and the petitioners’ submitted materials in their absence.

During questioning, board members and the assessor debated the treatment and valuation of a finished room in the garage (called a “garage living area”) and a separate 10‑by‑16 outbuilding. Horton told the board he valued the garage living area at a higher per‑square‑foot rate ($112 per sq. ft.) than the main garage ($55 per sq. ft.) because it is finished living space. The assessor’s worksheet also shows $32,800 listed under miscellaneous improvements for outbuildings; the assessor explained that figure aggregates miscellaneous improvements rather than representing a single shed valuation.

After deliberation, a board member moved that there was “no clear and convincing evidence to change” the assessor’s valuation; another member seconded the motion. The panel voted unanimously to sustain the assessor’s value and closed BOE24‑137. The board noted a written decision will be mailed to the petitioners and reminded attendees that an appeal can be filed with the State Board of Tax Appeals.

Ending: The board reaffirmed that the county uses time‑adjusted sales and mass appraisal methods to set values and urged petitioners to provide documentation of improvements or qualifying comparable sales during the appeal window. The decision to sustain the valuation is subject to appeal to the State Board of Tax Appeals.