Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Valuation Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears Ralston's batch of Port Angeles lot valuation appeals; assessor defends comparables
Summary
John Ralston asked the Clallam County Board of Equalization to lower valuations on multiple Port Angeles lots, arguing many lack sewer, water and two-point access; assessor representatives defended a grading-and-comps approach and the board recorded the listed files as sustained, with written orders to follow.
The Clallam County Board of Equalization heard a multi-file appeal from petitioner John Ralston challenging assessor valuations on numerous Port Angeles lots (files beginning 2025-109 and continuing through 2025-128).
Ralston told the board that many of the assessor's comparable sales include properties with power, water and sewer and at least two access points, while many of his appealed lots lack utilities, have single-point access and are adjacent to wetlands or steep slopes. “Not a single 1 of my comp sales has sewer systems,” Ralston said, arguing the county's comparables overstate value for his parcels.
Ralston introduced cost estimates prepared by Zenovich and Associates showing development costs of roughly $36,000 to $60,000 per lot depending on the grouping and required infrastructure, and he explained specific local constraints (alley access, topography, private sewer line options and grinder pumps). He said the timeliness of comparable sales also mattered and questioned the county's use of some later sales.
An assessor's representative explained the office’s approach: sales were selected from the neighborhood and graded (low/fair/average/good) to reflect each parcel’s challenges; given limited sales volume the office extended the search window to include sales outside a strict cutoff but applied grading to capture development costs. “I gave them a fair low average in good, grading,” the assessor's representative said, describing the valuation ranges.
Board members questioned both sides about whether utilities actually exist at the selected comparables, the distance from mains, the economics of bringing utilities to the lots, and the appropriateness of using recent sales dated after Jan. 1, 2025.
Ralston pressed detailed items in the Zenovich cost summary — mobilization, private sewer runs with grinder pumps, latecomers fee arrangements — and explained why running 9th Street as a rebuilt curb-and-gutter road would be impractical and cost-prohibitive compared with private sewer solutions.
At the close of the hearing the chair recorded the board's administrative statement that the listed files (including the various Ralston and RealTrust files cited during the hearing) were “sustained” and said written board orders with decisions would be issued in about two weeks. The transcript does not include a roll-call vote or detailed written rationale; the board directed staff to issue the written decision to involved parties.
What happens next: Board staff will issue written orders for the appealed files and those orders will describe the board's findings and any appeal rights to the state board of tax appeals, per standard procedure.
