Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly declines to join amicus brief for Fairbanks North Star Borough; split views on Board of Equalization role
Summary
The Assembly considered a Fairbanks North Star Borough petition and a request to join an amicus brief challenging interpretation of Alaska statute 29.45.200 on appeals to the Board of Equalization. Members were split; the Assembly did not authorize spending to join the amicus brief and left the BOE option unchanged for now.
The Kodiak Island Borough Assembly reviewed a request from Fairbanks North Star Borough on Jan. 30 to support a petition to the Alaska Supreme Court and to file an amicus brief in Fairbanks’ case challenging a superior court interpretation of Alaska statute 29.45.200 related to property tax appeals and the Board of Equalization (BOE).
Amy (borough manager) explained the superior court’s earlier decision had remanded Kodiak’s related case and said the Fairbanks petition asks the Supreme Court to review whether appellants must first go to a BOE or may instead appeal directly to court. The Fairbanks borough asked Kodiak to support their petition for review and to be ready to file an amicus brief if the Supreme Court orders briefing.
Assembly discussion divided. Some members favored preserving the borough’s current BOE option because it can reduce the need for court litigation and promote local resolution. Others raised concerns about potential bias for elected local officials deciding quasi‑judicial appeals and proposed mandatory training for assembly members who would sit as the BOE.
Manager Amy explained costs and timelines: initial participation to join the petition could cost a small fee (staff estimated about $500), and additional attorney work to prepare an amicus brief would be separate. At least one member opposed spending borough funds to join the petition. After discussion the Assembly did not instruct staff to expend funds to participate in the amicus filing at this time; members asked for clarity on training and the BOE role going forward.
The Assembly did not change local practice: appellants retain the statutory option to appeal either to a local BOE or to the superior court, and members asked staff to consider training requirements for assembly members serving as the BOE.
