 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alvarez v. Borough8/17/2001
No. 5452
I. INTRODUCTION
Sonja Alvarez appealed the 1997 property tax assessment for three of her properties to the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Board of Equalization. The Board affirmed the assessments, and Alvarez appealed to the superior court, which affirmed the decision of the Board. Alvarez has appealed various aspects of the superior court's decision. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Sonja Alvarez owns three parcels of property in Ketchikan: two adjacent unimproved lots (lots A and B) , and her residential property including a house and another building located at 124 Nadeau Street. In 1997 the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Assessor assessed these properties for tax purposes at the following values: lot A, $30,000; lot B, $30,600; the residential property, $196,600.
Alvarez appealed these assessments to the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Board of Equalization. On April 14, 1997, the Board held separate hearings for each of the three parcels, and, after hearing from both Alvarez and the borough assessor, the Board affirmed each of the 1997 assessments.
As for lots A and B, the Board considered these assessments as, respectively, Appeal No. 424 (lot A) and Appeal No. 425 (lot B). Even though there were separate hearings for the two lots, the arguments made by the parties were the same for both. Alvarez claimed that the market value (and therefore, the value for tax assessment) of the two lots together was $50,000 because that was the best offer that she received to buy them when she had them on the market for sale. The borough assessor, on the other hand, argued that Alvarez's attempts to sell the lots were substandard and that sales of comparable local property suggested a true market value of approximately $60,600 for both lots. There was also some discussion of the effect of the closure of a nearby timber mill on land values; Alvarez claimed that this should reduce the assessment, while the borough assessor claimed that surveys showed that the closure had no effect on the market value of unimproved properties.
The Board voted against Alvarez and in favor of the borough assessor as to both unimproved lots, by a vote of five to two.
As for Alvarez's residential property, the Board considered this assessment as Appeal No. 423. Alvarez argued that the assessed value of this property increased dramatically (from $160,900 to $206,450) between 1992 and 1993, and that this increase was based on various factual errors made by the borough assessor. Alvarez claimed, among other things, that the assessed value was based on the assumption that her property had a functional garage and balcony, while in reality these features were unusable. Alvarez also claimed that a neighbor's building encroached on her land and that the square footage of encroachment should not be included within her taxable square footage. The borough assessor responded by claiming that the 1997 assessment included corrections for past errors, and was verified by an exterior inspection; Alvarez apparently refused to allow an interior inspection. The borough assessor also claimed that no adjustment for the encroachment was warranted, because the encroachment did not affect market value -- as shown by an analysis of similar encroachments on other properties.
The Board voted against Alvarez and in favor of the borough assessor, affirming the assessment of the residential property by a vote of five to one.
Alvarez appealed the Board's decisions to the superior court on May 15, 1997, and the case was assigned to Superior Court Judge Thomas M. Jahnke. Alvarez appealed the merits of the Boar
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alaska Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|