By Tim Verschuyl

In 1994, I purchased my land for one half of what the Island County Assessor appraised it for. Because of bald eagle restrictions, I cannot build upon, or clear for a view, on 58 percent of my frontage. For my 2009 property taxes, the assessor recommended an 18 percent surcharge on my valuation because I’m within 400-feet of an eagles’ nest. This same assessor “study” determined that a 42 percent surcharge would be recommended if I were 400 to 800-feet from a nest.

Most every year since 1995 I’ve appealed my assessor valuation. Except for the first few years, the Island County Board of Equalization (BOE), the taxpayer’s first level of appeal, decided that the eagle restrictions that remain in effect to date, had no effect on valuation.

But fortunately, the state level of appeal is much more professional. The State Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) actually reads and studies the taxpayer’s presentation. Typically, the BTA substantially lowered my valuation. And most years following, the assessor ignores the BTA’s determination that the eagle restrictions do lower value. Why doesn’t BTA’s valuation, resulting from a more thorough review, set precedence for the assessor to follow in subsequent years? What a hassle every year to go through all this! There has to be a better way.

On Feb. 2, 2009, Island County Assessor Mattens and Deputy Assessor Bur testified in Olympia against proposed legislation SB5179. This bill would require the assessor to follow through in subsequent years, valuation decisions by the State Board of Tax Appeals, concerning the impact of government restrictions on valuation. Mattens offered his own Double Bluff home as an example: Mattens claims to be within 400-feet of an eagles’ nest. Yet an eagle surcharge has not been added to his appraisal.

My property tax bill has almost doubled from 2007 to 2009, primarily reflecting changes in land value. On a fixed income (actually a decreasing retirement income with the present economy), I’m being taxed out of my home. Since he took office, during that same 2007 to 2009, Assessor Mattens’ property tax bill actually decreased (account number 675656).

Does the assessor treat me so aggressively because I usually appeal? In a Feb. 6, 2009, letter to the Operations and Elections Committee in Olympia, Mattens wrote, “I’m sure the citizens at large will appreciate how the legislators are watching out for their fellow elected officials.” Has Assessor Mattens forgotten that he was elected to watch out for his constituents? This “good old boy” attitude is out of place in a democracy. It’s just another form of discrimination.

I believe in fair taxation to all based on true market value. Over 600 state property tax programs shift taxes not paid by some on to the rest of us. If we all pay our fair share of property tax based on our true market values, then most of us will end up paying less, without the tax shift from the 600-plus tax loopholes. Some of these programs are justified, and some are being abused.

It just doesn’t look good!

Tim Verschuyl lives in Oak Harbor.