LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Rules for board of equalization decisions are clear

Editor, I was sorry to read in Mr. Gunn’s Sept. 9 letter to the editor, “Past experience means no support,” that he took his property tax appeal personally; however, I have seen it happen. I don’t remember the particulars of his case, but I expect, from his letter, that it was similar to many others.

Editor,

I was sorry to read in Mr. Gunn’s Sept. 9 letter to the editor, “Past experience means no support,” that he took his property tax appeal personally; however, I have seen it happen. I don’t remember the particulars of his case, but I expect, from his letter, that it was similar to many others.

I served on the Island County Board of Equalization for five years and on the State Board of Tax Appeals for five years before that, so I have been the bearer of bad news for more property owners than Mr. Gunn. The problem stems from the law that we are bound to use in our decisions: RCW 84.40.0301:

“Upon review by any court, or appellate body, of a determination of the valuation of property for purposes of taxation, it shall be presumed that the determination of the public official charged with the duty of establishing such value is correct but this presumption shall not be a defense against any correction indicated by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.”

The underlined portion is what defeats most owners. The appellate body, in this case the Island County Board of Equalization, is required to assume the assessor’s valuation is correct unless the appellant provides a very high standard of proof an alternative value. This is higher than “more likely than not” proof; it has to be clear and it has to be compelling. As Mr. Gunn states, he didn’t have any proof to provide, thus our decision was mandated for us. No amount of discussion could change that.

At the county board, we often scheduled 15 to 16 cases per day and it was necessary to keep things moving in order to hear all the cases within the allotted time. We may have seemed rushed to Mr. Gunn and he may have been mad at me, but the law prevails. The county board gives excellent instructions to property owners and I urge them to follow them closely so they are prepared to be successful in their appeals.

My current position as hospital commissioner, while also constrained by many laws and regulations, is much less confined and has allowed me to enhance many of the programs and processes within the Whidbey General Hospital system. I hope to continue this work upon my re-election.

GEORGIA GARDNER

District 2 commissioner