In the latter part of 2007, I received an “official property value notice” from the King County Department of Assessments advising me that the value of my three-bedroom townhome (with garage) had increased $40,000 to a value of $212,000.

It is true that the value of my home has increased, but a $40,000 increase in one year borders on the ludicrous. I had just refinanced my home to come up with additional funds to pay off a $38,000 special assessment due to defective construction by the original builder, which we could not recover from him through legal action. When I received my appraisal, the value of my townhome was $174,000 because my appraiser had properly deducted the $38,000 as the remediation work had not started yet. I appealed this valuation to the King County Board of Equalization who denied my appeal without giving me any reason for their decision. Contrary to what they said in their decision, they basically listened to everything the appraiser from the King County Assessor’s Office said and they either did not understand or consider the evidence I submitted and the testimony I gave.

Therefore, I made a final appeal to the Washington State Board of Tax Appeals who did consider my evidence and listen to my testimony. In my appeal, I correctly pointed out that both the King County Assessor’s Office and the King County Board of Equalization were trying to include the value of the remediation work in December 2006, even though work was not completed until November 2007. In their decision, which I just received, they set aside the determination of the King County Board of Equalization and ordered a value of $174,000 (not $212,000).

Needless to say, I am elated at the decision and that justice prevailed. At the same time, I am very disappointed for two reasons:

1. It took almost a year to settle this dispute and in the meantime, I had to pay property taxes on the $212,000 assessment of my home even though this valuation was in error.

2. Instead of fighting this case to the bitter end, the King County Assessor (Scott Noble) and his representative in this case (Appraiser Helena Berglund) should have been able to properly assess this appeal, realize their chances of winning were somewhere between “slim and none” because the evidence submitted was valid and advised the board that they were not contesting the appeal. That way, two appeal hearings could have been avoided and the taxpayers’ money could have been saved. But, unfortunately, it did not happen because of poor judgment exercised by the King County Assessor’s Office.

Gary Robertson

Federal Way