Kenai Peninsula Borough board upholds assessor values for three Canyon View parcels

The Kenai Peninsula Borough Board of Equalization on May 28, 2025, voted 5-0 to uphold assessor-recommended assessed values for three parcels in the Canyon View Subdivision owned by Petro Basarjan and Evdokia Rutov, following a hearing in which the appellant argued the assessments were excessive and unequal.

The Board of Equalization meeting opened the appeal as case 2025-14. The parcels are identified as 18533046, 18533047 and 18533048 (plat HM2023-44) in Section 26, Township 4 South, Range 11 West, Seward Meridian. Assessing staff recommended assessed land values of $17,500 for parcel 18533046 and $17,500 for 18533047, and a recommended total assessed value of $212,000 for parcel 18533048 after a $9,300 reduction from the original notice figure of $221,300.

The appellant, Petro Basarjan, told the board he wanted a market-based value review and said he had “a change of heart” about withdrawing the appeal after earlier verbally indicating he would accept the adjusted values. “I’m just trying to, get a fair assessment on the value as far as the market goes and, you know, the surrounding properties as well,” Basarjan said during his presentation.

Assessing Department appraiser Tom Johnson explained the department’s process and evidence. He said the department models land value from reported sales in each market area and that the subject parcels lie in the Russian Village 2 market area, where sales are limited. “This application is in accordance with the Alaska state statutes ASG 229451110,” Johnson said while describing the department’s methodology. He told the board that two land sales from the last three years were analyzed, producing a median sales-to-assessment ratio of 31.51% and a coefficient of dispersion of 14.25; the department made a 15% area-wide increase for 2025 but did not elevate values to meet the stated state percentage requirement because of the limited sales sample.

Assessing staff reported they scheduled full inspections on April 11 but that the appellant asked they not enter the parcels, instead instructing staff to inspect from the right-of-way. Staff said they observed conditions from the roadway and, after a phone conversation in which the appellant said one septic had failed and one building needed paint, removed the septic from one structure and reduced the improvement condition on another, producing the $9,300 reduction on parcel 18533048. The assessing representative, Miss Wilcox, told the board the department had relied on the appellant’s statements for those adjustments.

Legal counsel advised the board that borough rule 512060(p) (as read into the record) permits the presiding officer to exclude evidence on issues affected when an appellant has refused or failed to provide the assessor full access, after giving the appellant an opportunity to explain why exclusion should not be imposed. The chair allowed Basarjan to present his case despite the access issue; board members discussed the limits that refusal of access places on evidence the appellant may introduce.

Basarjan asked the board to set values of $9,500 for each vacant lot (parcels 18533046 and 18533047) and approximately $186,127 for the house parcel; he said the vacant lots have no utilities and that the garage square footage on the assessed file may be overstated. Board members asked him about his comparables and whether he had reviewed the two sales the assessing department used; Basarjan said he had not reviewed those sales and that his comparables were larger parcels.

After discussion, Board Member Bagley moved to uphold the assessor’s recommended values for all three parcels (18533046 at $17,500; 18533047 at $17,500; and 18533048 at $212,000). The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Cox. Bagley explained the board’s findings, stating that Basarjan and Evdokia Rutov had not presented sufficient evidence to prove excessive, unequal or improper valuation and referencing the assessing department’s four findings about uniformity, data review, standardized procedures, and the right-of-way inspection. The roll call vote was 5-0 in favor of upholding the assessor’s recommended values.

The board noted that annual assessments are for the current tax year and that the borough does not issue retroactive credits to prior years’ tax bills except for clerical errors or tax adjustments the borough identifies. Board members also advised Basarjan that allowing the assessing department full access to measure improvements in future years would give the department a chance to capture corrections in property data.

The hearing concluded after the roll call and the board’s decision to uphold the assessor’s values.