Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Of Equalization Staffing Direct Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County faces short-term board-of-equalization staffing gap; commissioners to act on direct-appeal request
Summary
A resignation left Clallam County’s Board of Equalization below the three-member minimum required by statute; commissioners discussed designating themselves as the board or appointing hearing examiners so hearings can continue and agreed to consider related resolutions and a direct-appeal request at the next regular meeting.
Clallam County officials told the Board of County Commissioners on Feb. 3 that a recent resignation dropped the county’s Board of Equalization below the three-member minimum established by state statute, creating an immediate need for action so hearings and appeals can proceed.
County legal staff cited RCW 8448014 (as referenced in the meeting packet) and said the county legislative authority — the Board of County Commissioners — may constitutionally serve as the board of equalization when the statutorily required membership is not met. To allow the county’s two remaining equalization members to continue hearing testimony and gathering evidence, staff recommended the board consider a resolution designating those members as hearing examiners and authorizing the board to act as the Board of Equalization until the panel is restaffed.
Commissioners discussed recruitment challenges for qualified appraisers and valuation experts, noting the need for impartial, experienced members. Staff urged public outreach and targeted recruitment for a District 1 representative and an alternate. The county said it has previously sought appraisers with expertise in real estate valuation and comparable-sales analysis and that such recruits are hard to find.
The county is also facing several requests for a “direct appeal” to the Washington State Board of Tax Appeals. Legal staff reviewed WAC 458-14171 and related guidance cited in the packet, saying the direct-appeal process is limited to cases that meet specific statutory and administrative-code criteria (for example: complex issues or ‘highly valued’ property as described in the referenced WAC/RCW provisions). The county clerk noted one submitted direct-appeal form bears the taxpayer’s signature but lacks the assessor’s signature; county staff said the presence or absence of an assessor or assessor-designee signature affects whether the county can forward a matter by direct appeal.
County staff said the WAC allows the board to act on a direct-appeal request within 15 calendar days of receipt and that written notice must be provided to all parties if the request is denied. Commissioners directed staff to bring the resolution and the direct-appeal request to the regular meeting tomorrow so the board can decide whether to accept or deny the request and, separately, whether to serve as the Board of Equalization until the panel is restaffed.
