Thursday, October 1, 2026
CHELAN COUNTY — Are higher-value homes in Chelan County being assessed at lower percentages of their market value than less expensive homes?
That question has become a central issue in this year's race for Chelan County assessor. Rather than evaluate campaign claims alone, Ward Media reviewed county assessment records, state appraisal guidance, an independent statistical analysis and written responses from Chelan County Assessor Wes Cornelius to determine what the available evidence shows.
The review found that while many of the individual examples cited during the campaign proved more complicated than they first appeared, broader questions remain about whether assessment ratios vary systematically by property value.
An independent statistical analysis appears to identify a countywide pattern that Washington's own appraisal guidance says assessors should evaluate collectively rather than dismiss sale by sale. Cornelius argues many of the most visible examples are statistical outliers. Guidance from the Washington State Department of Revenue suggests both perspectives matter — but that persistent patterns, not isolated transactions, ultimately determine whether the market itself has moved.
Questions about property assessments did not begin with this year's election.
For years, homeowners across Chelan County have questioned why some assessed values appeared to differ sharply from recent sale prices. Those concerns intensified as home values climbed rapidly following the COVID-19 pandemic, prompting more residents to compare county assessments with what neighboring properties were selling for.
Among them was Chelan County Realtor Britini Port.
After comparing numerous recent sales with assessed values, Port became convinced that higher-priced homes were being assessed at lower percentages of their market value than less expensive properties. She compiled examples on her website, FairPropertyTaxes.com, before announcing an independent campaign for county assessor against incumbent Wes Cornelius.
The campaign's examples raised a broader public question:
Were they isolated properties with unique circumstances, or evidence of a countywide pattern?
Ward Media set out to answer that question by examining the campaign's claims, reviewing assessment records, requesting documentation from the assessor's office and comparing those materials with an independent statistical analysis.
To determine whether the campaign's examples reflected isolated properties or a broader trend, Ward Media turned to Edward Martinez, an independent civic researcher in Leavenworth who had begun conducting his own review after examining Port's website.
Using 2,438 validated arm's-length residential sales from 2024 and 2025, Martinez conducted what he described as an International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) ratio study comparing assessed values with sale prices across Chelan County.
According to Martinez, homes selling for less than $600,000 were assessed at a median of approximately 85 percent of their sale prices, while homes selling for more than $2 million were assessed at roughly 72 percent. Martinez concluded that the relationship was statistically significant.
Martinez argued the county appeared to exhibit what appraisers call vertical inequity — a condition in which assessment ratios change depending on a property's value. In practical terms, it means higher-valued homes are assessed at lower percentages of their market value than less expensive homes, even though both are assessed under the same system.
At the same time, Martinez critically examined portions of Port's methodology.
He noted that Washington assessments are based on a fixed valuation date and that directly comparing current assessments with historical sale prices can exaggerate apparent differences. Several showcase properties also appeared to involve current-use classifications, multiple parcels or other circumstances requiring additional analysis.
Martinez also challenged the campaign's characterization of "lost revenue," arguing that the more significant effect of inequitable assessments lies elsewhere.
If assessments are inequitable, Martinez argued, the primary effect is not simply that governments collect less money overall. Instead, a larger share of the money needed to fund public services comes from owners of lower-valued homes, while owners of higher-valued homes contribute a smaller share than they otherwise would.
Martinez's analysis did not attempt to prove favoritism, misconduct or corruption. Instead, it asked a narrower question: Did a statistically significant relationship exist between sale price and assessment ratio across the county?
According to Martinez, the answer appeared to be yes.
Cornelius did not dismiss Port's concerns outright. Instead, he responded to detailed questions from Ward Media with spreadsheets, neighborhood sales comparisons, Department of Revenue ratio reports and written explanations intended to show why many of the campaign's most visible examples did not tell the entire story.
Several of those explanations accounted for discrepancies that appeared significant at first glance.
One property involved multiple parcels sold together. Another was enrolled in an agricultural classification that uses a different valuation method. One sale reflected significant disrepair, while another involved an estate transaction. In another instance, Cornelius acknowledged that a property was missing what he described as a "subset adjustment," adding that the assessment would be corrected.
Those explanations reinforced one of the central realities of Washington's property tax system: Comparing one sale price with one assessed value rarely tells the whole story.
Cornelius also rejected the idea that assessments should simply be adjusted to match recent sales.
"We can not just automatically raise their values based on the sale," he wrote in response to Ward Media's questions. "Doing so would be illegal and called 'Shooting the Sale.'"
The practice, more commonly called "sales chasing," is discouraged because it can artificially improve the apparent accuracy of sold properties while leaving comparable unsold properties unchanged.
Instead, assessors use what is known as mass appraisal, estimating market value by analyzing neighborhoods and groups of comparable properties rather than reappraising homes individually each time they sell.
On that point, Cornelius and the Department of Revenue agree.
The larger disagreement is what happens when enough individual sales begin pointing in the same direction.
Cornelius argued that some of the campaign's showcase properties were outliers — sales that differed substantially from comparable homes and therefore should not be treated as representative of the broader market.
Martinez, by contrast, asked whether those apparent outliers remained isolated after thousands of sales were examined together, or instead formed a statistically significant pattern.
The Washington State Department of Revenue's guidance provides the framework through which those competing views can be evaluated.
Asked by Ward Media whether it is acceptable appraisal practice for an assessor to conclude that otherwise valid, arm's-length sales simply reflected buyers "paying too much," Department of Revenue spokesperson Mikhail Carpenter drew a careful distinction.
An arm's-length sale, Carpenter explained, is the primary basis for determining market value because it reflects a transaction between unrelated parties acting without unusual motivations. Assessors analyze those sales collectively, recognizing that individual transactions may fall above or below the broader market while asking whether additional comparable sales support the same trend.
"A single sale that differs significantly from comparable properties may be considered an outlier if it is not supported by other market evidence," Carpenter wrote. "Conversely, when multiple comparable sales consistently reflect a similar change in price, those sales may indicate market movement that should be recognized in the valuation analysis."
The Department of Revenue's guidance suggests that both perspectives are part of the appraisal process. Individual properties can be misleading. Persistent patterns across many comparable sales deserve attention.
Where Cornelius and the Department of Revenue appeared to diverge was in how they described the role of today's housing market.
Addressing questions about the county's assessment ratios, Cornelius argued that recent market conditions themselves have made professional appraisal standards difficult to achieve.
"Now onto the IAAO standards," he wrote. "Two things would have to happen to correct this. First off, the market would have to normalize."
The Department of Revenue framed the issue differently.
Asked whether sustained market appreciation justified departing from accepted appraisal standards, Carpenter said changing market conditions do not alter the standards assessors are expected to meet.
"Market appreciation itself is not a basis for departing from accepted appraisal standards or statutory requirements," Carpenter wrote. "Maintaining compliance with performance standards depends on timely market analysis and the application of generally accepted mass appraisal practices."
Carpenter also emphasized that valuation decisions are based on the market as a whole rather than judgments about individual buyers.
"Assessors rely on objective market data, including comparable arm's-length sales, property characteristics, and market trends," he wrote. "The assessment process is based on analyzing the market as a whole rather than relying on individual opinions about whether a particular sale price is high or low."
The Department of Revenue recognizes that unusual sales occur and that assessors must exercise professional judgment in identifying them. At the same time, it directs assessors to determine whether repeated sales exhibiting similar characteristics represent isolated transactions or evidence that the market itself has changed.
After reviewing campaign claims, county assessment records, state appraisal guidance, an independent statistical analysis and written responses from Cornelius, several findings emerged.
Some of the examples highlighted during the campaign required additional context. In some cases, properties involved multiple parcels, agricultural classifications, estate sales or other circumstances that made direct comparisons between assessed values and sale prices misleading.
Individual sales alone cannot determine whether an assessment system is functioning equitably. Washington's property tax system relies on mass appraisal, requiring assessors to analyze neighborhoods and groups of comparable properties rather than adjusting values to match individual sales.
According to Martinez, however, examining 2,438 validated residential sales revealed a statistical pattern that merits further examination. His analysis found that assessment ratios declined as sale prices increased, a relationship he argued was consistent with vertical inequity.
Cornelius disputed that interpretation, maintaining that many of the most visible examples cited during the campaign represented statistical outliers and that assessments should not be judged by isolated sales.
The Department of Revenue's guidance emphasizes that both perspectives have a place in the appraisal process. Individual sales may be outliers, but repeated patterns across comparable sales may indicate market movement that assessors are expected to recognize.
Ward Media did not set out to determine whether any single home had been assessed correctly. It set out to determine whether a question first raised by individual examples remained after those examples were tested. According to Martinez's analysis, it does, and the Department of Revenue's guidance provides the framework Washington expects assessors to use when evaluating that question.
For homeowners trying to understand their own assessments, the takeaway is both simpler and more complicated than comparing a tax value with a recent sale price.
Washington's property tax system is built on mass appraisal, meaning assessors estimate market value by analyzing neighborhoods, comparable properties and broader market trends rather than assigning values one home at a time. That means two neighboring properties can legitimately receive different assessments because of differences in condition, construction quality, location, view, lot characteristics or other factors that may not be immediately apparent in public records.
Assessors are also expected to analyze the market collectively, recognizing when repeated patterns across many comparable sales suggest the market itself has changed.
For homeowners, that distinction may be the most useful takeaway.
Understanding a property assessment requires more than comparing it with a recent sale price. It requires understanding how assessments are made, why some apparent discrepancies have legitimate explanations and when those explanations stop being isolated exceptions and begin forming measurable patterns.
Homeowners who believe their property's assessed value does not reflect its market value may appeal through the Chelan County Board of Equalization, where assessments can be reviewed individually under the same standards that govern the county's appraisal process.
Andrew Simpson: 509-433-7626 or andrew@ward.media
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here