Kenai Peninsula Borough board upholds assessor values in multiple May 22 appeals; one withdrawal

The Kenai Peninsula Borough Board of Equalization on May 22, 2025, heard seven property assessment appeals and either upheld the borough assessor's recommended values or recorded an appellant withdrawal. In roll-call votes, the board unanimously (5–0) approved the assessor's recommended value in each contested hearing where a formal motion was made. One appellant, Michael Adams, withdrew his appeal after reaching agreement with the assessing department.

Why it matters: decisions by the Board of Equalization determine the assessed values used for property tax calculations and can affect what owners pay and whether they can use recent sales or appraisals to alter assessments. The board said appellants generally failed to meet the legal standard for changing an assessment by January 1, the statutory assessment date.

Most of the day’s appeals were handled under the borough’s standardized procedures. Borough Assessor Adena Wilcox and staff explained the assessing department’s market models and supporting sales data for each parcel. Tom Johnson, an appraiser with the assessing department, summarized the department’s approach in the Homer market: “The Kenai Peninsula Borough Assessing Department uses a market adjusted cost approach to value residential structures for assessment purposes,” Johnson said, describing the department’s use of replacement cost less depreciation combined with a statistically tested market adjustment.

Board discussion and evidence: in several hearings board members pressed appellants and assessors for clarifying details such as whether recent sales or a settlement statement were provided, whether utilities or DEC-approved septic systems were present, and how access influenced land values in remote areas.

Notable exchanges included a lengthy appeal by Josiah Brooks over two parcels (17303410 and 17405040) in which Brooks challenged building square-footage, percent-complete adjustments and the treatment of non–DEC-approved septic systems. Brooks told the board that a septic on one parcel “will not pass DEC” and that, because of that and other site conditions, the property would likely only sell to a cash buyer. Assessors noted they had relied on on-site inspections where possible, MLS listing information for an active listing and market sales in the same market areas.

In the rural Caribou Hills appeal brought by Anthony Lopez, the primary disagreement centered on how the assessing department models access in the Caribou Hills/Caribou Lake market area. Assessing manager Les Crane described the borough’s land model and pointed to a 40% positive adjustment the department applies where parcels have superior (unmaintained but drivable) trail access compared with the base rate for limited or no-access parcels. Lopez said he believed nearby sales and his broker opinion supported a lower land value for his 4.69-acre parcel.

Several appellants did not appear in chambers when their cases were called; the board considered the assessor’s evidence in absentia where the record allowed. In one case—appeal 2025-09 by Michael Adams—the appellant and assessing staff reached an agreement and Adams withdrew the appeal before the board rendered a decision.

Votes at a glance

- Case 2025-06 (Parcel 01237011, appellant Bryce Lake): Motion to uphold assessor’s recommended value of $25,000; mover: Vice Chair Cox (motion recorded by board minutes); second: not specified in the transcript; vote: 5–0 to uphold. Appellant absent. (Assessing exhibits: ASG 1–30; appellant exhibits: APP 1–6.)

- Case 2025-08 (Parcel 06607007, appellants Randall and Judy Elledge): Motion to uphold assessor’s recommended value of $116,500; mover: Vice Chair Cox; second: not specified; vote: 5–0 to uphold. Appellant did not share settlement price; assessing staff noted land market adjustment and that trees are not individually valued.

- Case 2025-07 (Parcel 06605043, appellants Michael and Wendy Kukowski): Motion to uphold assessor’s recommended value of $16,100; mover: Vice Chair Cox; second: not specified; vote: 5–0 to uphold. Assessors applied discounts for lack of electric service on neighboring parcels.

- Case 2025-09 (Parcel 11907132, appellant Michael Adams): Appellant withdrew the appeal after reaching an agreement with assessing staff; no board motion or vote was required.

- Case 2025-10 (Parcels 17303410 and 17405040, appellant Josiah and Emmy Brooks): Motion to uphold assessor’s recommended values of $227,300 and $988,400 for the two parcels, respectively; mover: Vice Chair Cox; second: not specified; vote: 5–0 to uphold. Key issues raised by Brooks included percent-complete adjustments, unfinished siding and exterior work, condition of detached structures, septic system approval and maintainability of the access road.

- Case 2025-12 (Parcel 18550839, appellants Anthony Lopez and Cynthia Spizziali): Motion to uphold assessor’s recommended value of $25,400; mover: Vice Chair Cox; second: not specified; vote: 5–0 to uphold. The appellant provided a broker market analysis and questioned the borough’s combined Caribou Hills/Caribou Lake market model and the 40% access adjustment the department applies for superior unmaintained access.

- Case 2025-13 (Parcel 18521085, appellants Pavel and Valentina Kuznetsov): Motion to uphold assessor’s recommended value adjusted to $1,294,600 (after agricultural restriction and easement/wetland adjustments); mover: Vice Chair Cox; second: not specified; vote: 5–0 to uphold. Assessors noted a recorded agricultural restriction and a downward adjustment for wetlands and a road easement.

What the board said: Board members repeatedly framed the issue as whether appellants had shifted the burden of proof from the assessor to the appellant. In findings read into the record, Board Member Cox summarized the common reasoning for several upholds: “The appellant ... has not presented sufficient evidence to prove an excessive valuation,” citing the assessing department’s findings and the applicable sales data.

How the assessor defended values: assessors cited their market-area sales analysis, ratio studies and physical inspections (where performed). For example, Tom Johnson explained the department’s process of combining land values derived from sales with replacement-cost estimates for improvements and then applying a market adjustment. Les Crane described differences between the northern Caribou Hills (closer to Oilwell Road with better year-round access) and the more remote Caribou Lakeside properties, and explained why access was a major influence in the land model.

Next steps and context: Except where appellants filed additional, dated evidence (such as a recent settlement statement or broker opinion), the board recorded assessing testimony that the appellants had not met their burden to change assessments for the January 1 valuation date. Appellants retain whatever administrative or legal remedies remain under borough code and state law if they choose to pursue them. The board chair closed each hearing after the roll call and noted the next scheduled appeals.

Ending: The board’s unanimous upholds maintain the assessor’s recommended assessments for the parcels listed above; the decisions and written findings will be entered into the official record and used for the borough’s tax roll and any future legal or administrative proceedings.