Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers modest extension to evidence deadlines in property tax appeals
Summary
Senate Bill 6,077 would shift assessor and taxpayer evidence deadlines from 21 to 28 business days to give taxpayers more time to respond to late assessor submissions; assessors, industry representatives and appeals professionals gave mixed testimony about backlogs and fairness for commercial properties.
Senate Bill 6,077 would alter timelines in county property tax appeals by requiring assessors to provide valuation evidence at least 28 business days before a board hearing (up from 21), with the change applying to petitions filed on or after July 1, 2026.
Committee staff Karen Epps and sponsor Senator Vandana Schlatter said the bill is intended to level the procedural playing field for taxpayers, who sometimes receive assessor comparables only hours before hearings. “If an assessor submits evidence at the very last moment, taxpayers still have a meaningful time to review it,” Schlatter said, adding that the Department of Revenue raised no administrative concerns.
Industry and assessor witnesses offered a range of perspectives. Brent Luteman of the Building Industry Association said his group had no objection to the narrow deadline change but urged the committee also address long delays in scheduling hearings (citing examples of backlogs of up to three years). Leisha Howie, who represents taxpayers in appeals, described real-world cases where assessor evidence arrived late and prevented taxpayers from presenting a clear, cogent case. Jim Hall, chief appraiser for King County, said he would not oppose the change for residential properties but warned the extra time could benefit well‑represented commercial owners and shift tax burdens to other taxpayers if reductions increase.
Committee members asked staff and witnesses about practical effects on backlogs, the presumption of assessor correctness, and whether additional reforms — such as temporary hearing officers or reporting requirements — should accompany the timeline change. The transcript does not record a vote.
