The Franklin County Board of Equalization on Oct. 30, 2025, sustained the assessor’s valuations for two commercial parcels owned by Project Oyster Pasco LLC and Project Pearl Pasco LLC after neither petitioner provided appraisal or income data or attended the hearings.

Chair Lexi Moore opened the first hearing at 10:01 a.m. for petition BE202505, parcel 112520230, and noted the petitioner’s agent had informed the board they would not join the hearing. Assessor Shannon Taylor told the board that “the petitioner has not presented any evidence, any clear cogent or convincing evidence,” and asked the board to rely on the assessor’s packet of evidence for its determination.

The assessor’s packet, Taylor said, relied primarily on the cost approach with Marshall & Swift cost data and local multipliers; sales were included to show the model supported the valuation but were not used to set the value. Taylor told the board the assessor had requested lease and income information from the petitioners but had received none. Taylor also noted recent on‑site improvements, including a small “hydro fuel station” recorded as a miscellaneous improvement and picked up as new construction on the county’s change‑in‑value notice.

Board members asked technical questions about lifecycle and potential future leasing of very large warehouses, and Taylor characterized the buildings as high‑quality, long‑lived distribution facilities and said some comparable sales are from other states, including Washington, where Amazon leases several large properties used as context for the market.

The second hearing, BE202506 for parcel 112530053 (Project Pearl Pasco LLC), followed the same format; the petitioner again did not submit lease, income, appraisal or cost data, and Taylor reiterated the county’s reliance on the cost approach and Marshall & Swift. After reviewing the assessor’s material and asking clarifying questions about comparables, the board announced it had decided to sustain the assessor’s values for both petitions.

The board’s announcement listed the sustained values: for BE202505 (parcel 112520230), the assessor’s value was stated in the record as $183,964,500; for BE202506 (parcel 112530053), the assessor’s value was stated as $169,712,300. The board said written decisions will be mailed within four weeks and noted that those decisions are appealable to the State Board of Tax Appeals.

The hearings were administrative, with no formal testimony from petitioners. The record shows the principal factual disputes were the absence of petitioner‑provided income or lease data and the assessor’s reliance on a cost‑based valuation supported by out‑of‑state mega‑warehouse comparables.

The board adjourned after announcing its decisions; a written order explaining the determinations will follow and include information about the appeal process.