Washington Senate Bill SB6077

Washington 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/26
• Refer: 1/13/26

Caption

AN ACT Relating to Washington's property assessment appeal procedures;

Summary

SB 6077 revises Washington’s property tax assessment appeal procedures. The bill requires county assessors, when a taxpayer petitions the board of equalization over a valuation dispute or tax claim, to provide the taxpayer with the comparable sales used to establish the property’s assessed value. If the assessor relied on valuation methods other than comparable sales, the assessor must also provide the other factors and the addresses of the properties used in making the valuation. The information must be provided within 60 days of the request and at least 21 business days before the board hearing, with a similar deadline for taxpayers who list comparable sales on their notice of appeal. The bill also limits late changes to the evidence used in the appeal. Comparable sales or other valuation evidence may not be changed after disclosure unless new evidence is found supporting the revised valuation, in which case the new evidence must be shared with both the taxpayer and the board at least 21 business days before the hearing. If either side fails to meet these disclosure requirements, the board of equalization may continue the hearing to allow review of the evidence or may refuse to consider untimely sales evidence. The act applies to appeal petitions filed on or after July 1. In practical terms, SB 6077 would affect county assessors, taxpayers challenging property valuations, and county boards of equalization by making the appeal process more transparent and more structured. It would not change the underlying property tax system itself, but it would alter the procedural rules governing valuation disputes and the exchange of evidence in assessment appeals. There is little recorded committee or floor discussion available for this bill, and no voting history is provided, so overall sentiment cannot be measured directly from the record. Based on the bill text, the measure appears aimed at improving fairness and due process in property tax appeals by ensuring both sides have access to the valuation evidence before the hearing. The main point of potential contention is the restriction on changing comparable sales or other evidence close to the hearing, which may be viewed as protecting taxpayers’ ability to prepare while also limiting flexibility for assessors and appellants to update their cases.

Impact

SB 6077 amends Washington statutes governing property assessment appeals, specifically the procedures for disclosure of valuation evidence in board of equalization proceedings. It requires assessors to provide taxpayers with comparable sales or other valuation factors used in the assessment, imposes timing deadlines for disclosure, and authorizes boards to continue hearings or exclude untimely evidence. The bill affects county assessors, taxpayers, and boards of equalization by changing procedural obligations in property tax valuation disputes.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or vote records are available, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or recorded support/opposition. The bill’s text suggests a generally pro-transparency, pro-taxpayer procedural reform intended to make assessment appeals more fair and predictable. Any opposition would likely center on administrative burden and limits on last-minute evidence changes, but that is not documented in the provided record.

Contention

The likely point of contention is the bill’s strict disclosure timeline and its restriction on changing comparable sales or other valuation evidence after it has been disclosed. Taxpayers may support these requirements as necessary for due process and meaningful preparation, while assessors may view them as constraining their ability to refine valuations or respond to new information. The board of equalization is given discretion to continue hearings or exclude untimely evidence, which could also raise concerns about enforcement and procedural fairness.