Board of Equalization upholds assessor in multiple appeals; lack of interior access cited

The Board of Equalization met April 10 in borough chambers and heard a series of property assessment appeals, most of which ended with the board upholding assessor valuations.

The meeting opened with the chair reading the board’s procedures and reminding appellants that the burden of proof rests with property owners and that the board requires evidence — typically interior access, current photos, bids, or comparable sales — to lower an assessment. "The appellant bears the burden of proof," the chair said as part of the procedural overview.

Several appeals followed a pattern: owners urged reductions for condition, classification or neighborhood impacts, while appraisers relied on comparable sales arrays or noted that the appellant had refused interior access. In Case 101 (409 Beechwood), appellant Mr. Callaway told the board he believed assessor photos, exterior comparables and a one-time exterior inspection overstated his 620-square-foot dwelling’s value; he also said an assessor had told him he would not be "sided with" if he refused an inspection. Assessors, including appraiser Jeff Jackson, said they had offered an interior inspection and that borough code limits consideration of evidence when access is denied. The board voted 4–1 to uphold the assessor’s valuation of $157,384 and adopted written findings of fact.

Other appellants raised a range of technical objections: Mr. Klauser (multiple cases) cited a nearby junkyard, road deterioration and classification disputes for a group of rental‑cabin parcels; appraisers presented sales arrays and paired‑sale checks and the board again found the assessor’s values supported by the evidence. In remote‑property appeals the assessors noted that while nearby nuisances such as junkyards lengthen days on market, their data did not show a consistent sale‑price reduction sufficient to change assessments.

A recurring message from the board and staff was procedural: appellants who want a lower valuation must provide usable evidence. Board members repeatedly encouraged owners to secure contractor estimates, up-to-date interior photos and comparable sold prices before the exchange deadline. For example, after reviewing photos and testimony in multiple cases, the board told several appellants they had "the opportunity to bring in bids and additional documentation" for next year's review.

The board did make some assessor-side adjustments where justified: in the log-house case (Case 45) appraisers had reinstated a 40% downward adjustment for rotted foundation after inspection; with that adjustment the board upheld the assessor’s adjusted total of $38,580. In other cases, the assessors noted they had applied downward adjustments for septic/settling concerns where supported by inspection notes.

Several contested hearings drew lengthy exchanges over the proper role of percentage‑complete tables when new construction is in progress. David Hayden, a licensed architect and owner of a duplex in townsite, argued his property was roughly 50% complete and that the assessor’s 2026 improvement value overstated what the finished value would be in this neighborhood. Assessors responded that mass-appraisal rate development and the available sales sample supported their rates; the board ultimately upheld the adjusted assessment for that property after a close vote.

The board closed by instructing clerks to issue written findings and mail them to appellants and the assessor. Multiple members urged appellants to return with concrete evidence — contractor estimates, updated interior photos or better‑matched sold comparables — if they wanted different outcomes next year.