Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Cowlitz County hearing held on assessment appeal for 344 Bacey Road in Castle Rock
Loading...
Summary
An appellant, identified as Mister Robinson, contested the 2024 assessed value of a 1.77-acre riverfront property at 344 Bacey Road. The assessor's representative said the assessed total of $823,360 falls within an indicated market range; the board will issue a written decision within 45 days.
A Cowlitz County hearing on Jan. 9, 2025 considered an appeal of the 2024 assessed value for parcel WG 1020-018, commonly known as 344 Bacey Road in Castle Rock. Appellant Mister Robinson argued the assessor’s comparable sales and adjustments produced an excessive increase; the assessor’s representative said the assessed value is supported by recent sales. The board concluded the hearing and said it will issue a written decision within 45 days.
The subject parcel is a 1.77-acre riverfront site with a single-family residence built in 2010. Nathan Tacco, representing Cowlitz County Assessor Emily Wilcox, described the house as a two-story, “good minus” quality dwelling with four bedrooms, four-and-a-half bathrooms, 3,664 square feet of heated living area and a 940-square-foot attached garage (total about 4,604 square feet). The assessor’s current assessed value is $154,040 for land and $669,320 for improvements, for a total of $823,360 for the 2024 assessment (2025 payable) year.
Mister Robinson told the board that his tax bill rose sharply in one year and that he questioned the assessor’s choice of comparables and the size of the adjustments applied to them. "The tax in 1 year has gone up to $67,500," Robinson said during his testimony. He identified comparable sale number 4 as the closest match to his property but said the assessor’s five comparables required numerous adjustments — he recited the adjustment counts the assessor provided (comp 1: 10 adjustments; comp 2: 11; comp 3: 12; comp 4: 7; comp 5: 9) — and asked whether that many corrections made the comparisons unreliable.
Tacco and assessor staff explained the valuation process to the board. Tacco said the assessor used five sales within about 7.6 miles of the subject, four of which were riverfront properties, with sale dates in 2022 and 2023. After market and feature adjustments the assessor’s indicated range of value was $750,700 to $877,500, and the assessor asked the board to sustain the $823,360 assessment. Tacco stated, "based upon the review of the subject property and comparable sales, we feel the current assessed value ... is supportable and ask that it be sustained." He also noted the assessor’s packet includes photos, a sketch of the dwelling, maps and an explanation of adjustments.
An assessor staff speaker identified as Josh explained methodology and referenced appraisal guidelines: "gross adjustments, you try and attempt to be under 25%. Single line adjustment, you try and be under 10%," and said the more unique the property, the harder it is to stay within those guidelines. Tacco also addressed specific concerns Robinson raised about basements and accessory dwelling units (ADUs): the assessor’s office said they make downward adjustments when a comparable includes an ADU or a basement that the subject does not, and they adjust for below-grade area when reconciling total square footage.
Robinson asked about particular features in comps — one comparable had a basement and another included an ADU — and pressed the assessor on how those differences affected adjusted values. The assessor’s response described subtracting value for features not present on the subject; the appraiser explained that total adjusted sale prices reflect those deductions. The board asked clarifying questions about the subject’s bedroom and bathroom counts and the assessor’s data; Robinson confirmed the subject is a four-bedroom, four-and-a-half-bath home.
No formal vote was taken at the hearing. The board said it will deliberate after the hearing and issue a written decision within 45 days; the clerk reminded parties the decision can be appealed to the state tax appeal forum as provided on board decisions. The hearing record closed at the stated concluding time.
The hearing record and the assessor’s packet (photo pages, comparable-sales grid, maps, and adjustment explanations) were cited repeatedly during the presentations and are part of the file the board will review in reaching its decision.
