Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Valuations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clallam County Board of Equalization sustains assessor valuations for multiple Sequim parcels
Summary
At an administrative hearing, the Clallam County Board of Equalization sustained assessor valuations for Grubb Brothers parcels (2025-51–58), a Grubb Mariner Drive parcel (2025-59), Pointer Properties condominium parcels (2025-60–81) and two Pointer vacant-land parcels (2025-82, 83); the board also declined to add a calendar date to evidence-deadline notices, keeping the 21-business-day language.
The Clallam County Board of Equalization on the morning of the administrative hearing sustained the assessor’s valuations for multiple property tax petitions covering parcels in Sequim.
The board upheld assessor values for files 2025-51 through 2025-58 (Grubb Brothers, West Hendrickson Road), file 2025-59 (William and Christine Grubb, Mariner Drive), Pointer Properties files 2025-60 through 2025-81 (new-construction condominiums), and Pointer Properties files 2025-82 and 2025-83 (vacant land). The clerk read each file into the record and the board announced each determination as "sustained."
Why it matters: sustaining the assessor values means those assessed values will stand unless further appealed; several of the contested parcels involved new construction valuation and a petitioner damage claim that the assessor said lacked supporting evidence.
Assessor presentation and legal timing An assessor’s office representative told the board that Washington law requires new construction to be valued as of July 31 each year regardless of the percentage of completion. "The RCW ... expressly require[s] evaluation of new construction annually as of July 31," the assessor’s representative said, arguing the petitioners provided no market-based evidence to support reductions. The representative recommended that the board sustain values for the contested files.
On file 2025-59, the clerk recorded an assessor transfer value of $680,416 and a petitioner estimate of $487,500; the assessor summarized that the petitioner had described the property as a duplex/condominium and claimed roughly $200,000 in damage but that no photographs or cost documentation had been submitted. "I do not have any photo evidence or any...clear and convincing evidence of an over assessment of the subject property," the assessor’s representative said.
Pointer Properties and percent-complete valuation Tanya Kern of the assessor’s office described field inspections of Pointer Properties condominium units near the July 31 valuation date and explained how the office estimated percent complete for new construction. Kern said the assessor’s market analysis placed fully completed units around $400,000 apiece and that, based on visible exterior progress and listed unit prices, she did not find evidence the properties were overassessed.
Board action and administrative business After discussion and questions about evidence and documentation, the board announced sustained decisions for the grouped files: 2025-51 through 58 (Grubb Brothers); 2025-59 (William and Christine Grubb); 2025-60 through 81 (Pointer Properties condominiums); and 2025-82 and 2025-83 (Pointer Properties vacant parcels). The clerk confirmed property IDs were read into the record before the rulings.
In a separate administrative matter, staff noted a citizen request to add a specific calendar due date to hearing notices instead of the current "21 business days" wording. The Department of Revenue and the county prosecuting attorney advised there is no statutory requirement to include a calendar date, and the board declined to change the notices, directing staff to keep the 21-business-day language.
What’s next Staff closed the record and adjourned the hearing at about 09:25; the clerk noted the next meeting is scheduled for April 8 and said staff will continue processing petitions received before the end of April or carry them to fall administrative hearings as needed.
Quotes "The RCW ... expressly require evaluation of new construction annually as of July 31," an assessor’s office representative told the board when explaining valuation timing.
"I do not have any photo evidence or any clear and convincing evidence of an over assessment of the subject property," the assessor’s representative said about file 2025-59.
The board instructed staff to retain the current 21-business-day evidence-due-date wording after advice from the Department of Revenue and the prosecuting attorney’s office.
Ending The board sustained the assessor’s recommendations for the files heard and adjourned the meeting; staff will circulate formal board orders and respond to the citizen peer request as indicated.
