Fairbanks North Star Borough Board of Equalization elects chair, hears state assessor training on SB 179 and appeals rules

Cheryl Markwood was elected chair of the Fairbanks North Star Borough Board of Equalization, and Mr. Shuster was chosen deputy chair by unanimous consent at the board’s April 1 meeting in the borough chambers. The board then spent the session on training and procedural briefings ahead of the assessment season.

The session’s primary presentations came from Dan Nelson, the state assessor, and Brent Erickson, the board attorney. State Assessor Dan Nelson reviewed the assessor’s statutory duties, how property values are derived (cost, sales-comparison and income approaches), and new provisions from 2024 legislation identified in the meeting as SB 179. Nelson said the state assessor compiles the annual full-value determination and the Alaska Taxable report, provides training and oversight to local assessors, and has authority to issue a “letter of major error” when jurisdictions have significant assessment mistakes.

Nelson summarized key points of SB 179 described in the training: the state assessor must adopt assessment standards that are not inconsistent with guidance from the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO); the state assessor will publish a farm‑use deferment application; assessors must meet with property owners who request a meeting to answer reasonable questions about methods used to value property; and long‑form appraisals were clarified in statute. Nelson said a long‑form appraisal should, in the assessor’s office guidance, be prepared by a licensed fee appraiser in Alaska and include a full interior and exterior inspection and sufficient explanation of adjustments so the board can evaluate the appraisal’s reasoning.

Nelson reiterated appeal mechanics under state law and borough code: assessors must mail assessment notices at least 30 days before equalization hearings; an assessor who corrects the assessment must re‑mail a corrected notice and allow another 30‑day appeal period; only the person listed on the assessment roll (or that person’s agent) may file an appeal; and the appellant carries the burden of proof to show an assessment is unequal, excessive, improper, or undervalued. Nelson emphasized that the Board of Equalization generally may not raise an assessment for the current year unless the appellant explicitly requests an increase.

Brent Erickson told the board that its role is quasi‑judicial: members must apply law to facts presented, avoid bias and conflicts of interest, disclose any ex parte communications or personal knowledge that could affect impartiality, and build an evidentiary record with findings of fact and conclusions of law. Erickson stressed that a clear written record explaining how the board reached its decision is essential if a decision is later appealed to superior court. As an illustration he urged the board to “show your work” in findings so a court can review the basis for the decision.

Members asked practical questions during both presentations. Nelson said the state assessor does not regard automated home‑value estimates from sites such as Zillow as a reliable source for valuation. Board members also asked whether a case could be remanded to the assessor; both Nelson and borough staff clarified that borough code permits remand only for exemption appeals, whereas valuation appeals may be postponed to allow assessor and appellant discussions but not formally remanded in the same way.

Borough staff (the borough clerk and the staff trainer) reviewed local code (FNSBC ch. 4.28) and borough procedures: the BOE must have five members physically present to convene (the board has no teleconferencing capability), alternate members may be seated when a regular member is absent or conflicted, exemption appeals have a distinct record and scheduling process (including filing fees and possible cost bonds), and written‑record appeals follow a briefing schedule before an oral argument limited by code. The chair was advised to read procedural guidance at the start of hearings, to manage the time and sequence of presentations, and to announce motions and vote results clearly.

The meeting concluded with scheduling notes for the board’s upcoming sessions and an administrative note that one scheduled appeal had been withdrawn. The chair adjourned the meeting at 3:52 p.m.

Ending: The training and procedural refresher were presented to prepare the board for assessment season and to ensure members follow statutory requirements, maintain an evidentiary record, and manage conflicts or ex parte contacts as they hear appeals.