In Kelley v. Municipality of Anchorage, Board of Equalization,[1] the supreme court held that a board of equalization does not abuse its discretion by not considering evidence offered past assigned deadlines and also does not abuse its discretion by not finding a landowner’s sale of a nearby lot in the same subdivision or the landowner’s purchase price for the lot-at-dispute as definitive evidence of its value. Kelley sought review of the municipality’s tax valuation for his property after the city assessor valued his lot at $318,900, despite his purchase price of $160,000. Kelley appealed the valuation to the Municipality of Anchorage Board of Equalization, where he requested additional time to gather evidence; Kelley did not meet the Board’s deadline for proffering evidence. After the Board ultimately revaluated the property at $259,800 and allowed further hearings, Kelley again contested the valuation which was ultimately affirmed by the Board of Equalization and the superior court. Kelley claimed the Board should have allowed his proffered evidence submitted past the assigned deadline and that the Board misapplied valuation tools to assess his property’s value. The supreme court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting consideration of evidence offered past the announced deadline. Additionally, the Court held that the Board was not required to assign definitive evidence of value on the sale of a nearby lot or on the purchase price of the property in dispute, particularly a property purchased at an estate sale where sale values are less reliable than at-market sales. The supreme court affirmed the superior court’s decision to affirm the Board of Equalization, holding that a board of equalization does not abuse its discretion by forbidding evidence offered past assigned deadlines and by not accepting as the definitive value of a property the sale of nearby lots or purchase price for the property-in-dispute at an estate sale.
[1] 442 P.3d 725 (Alaska 2019).
