Valdez Board of Equalization Hearing – May 14, 2026

The Valdez City Council, sitting as the Board of Equalization, met on May 14, 2026, at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers to hear ten property assessment appeals for the 2026 tax year. Board member Whitty was absent and excused. The hearing followed a structured process: each appellant was sworn in and presented their case, followed by the assessor (Martins), with opportunities for questions and rebuttal. The board voted on each appeal after hearing evidence. Several property owners did not appear; their appeals were either moved to the bottom of the list or decided based on written statements.

Public Hearings (Appeal Decisions)

Appeal 29 – Searles – 312 Birch Circle

• Appellant Position: Steve Searles argued the assessment was excessive, noting a $35,800 increase for 2026 (following a similar increase the prior year). He cited uncertainty from nearby low-income housing and city acquisition of St. Patrick’s estate for future construction, and requested the value remain at the prior year’s level.
• Assessor Position: Martins presented the property details (land $39,700, building $361,500, total $401,200). He explained that comparable sales showed 6–10% annual appreciation (down from 14–18% during COVID) and recommended a small adjustment based on age depreciation, reducing the building value to $354,100 (total $393,800).
• Outcome: Motion to uphold the assessment (with the assessor’s reduction) because the appellant failed to meet the burden of proof. Vote: 6 yes, 1 absent. Motion carried.

Appeal 46 – Sweirk – 5115 Richardson Highway

• Appellant Position: The Sweirks argued that comparable properties used were in a different neighborhood (Alpine Woods) and did not account for poor neighboring property conditions, lack of legal road access (using a private driveway through six lots), and the city’s refusal to maintain the road. They provided photos of nearby junk and debris. They also noted that the property had to be owner-financed because banks would not lend due to access issues.
• Assessor Position: Martins presented an overview of Alpine Woods sales (range $300,000–$495,000, average $404,000). The subject property (1,444 sq ft upstairs plus finished basement) was valued at $236,800 (land $16,100, building $220,700). He applied 52% depreciation, assuming earlier pipe issues had been repaired. He recommended no change, noting the assessed value was below market.
• Outcome: After discussion, the assessor recalculated based on 1/3 unfinished basement, reducing the total value to $225,600. The appellants accepted that adjustment. Motion to uphold the adjusted assessment carried. Vote: 6 yes, 1 absent.

Appeal 47 – Sweirk – 5325 Lake View Drive

• Appellant Position: The Sweirks raised similar access and road quality issues, including city-caused damage (boulders, ripped road fabric) that forced them to make repairs at their own cost. They argued that rural properties (no city water, sewer, trash, snow removal) should not be compared to in-town comps. They also objected to the assessor using a “pie in the sky” listing they had posted on a personal website (1.5 million dollars) as a comparable, clarifying it was not a serious listing.
• Assessor Position: The property is a 2,576 sq ft log home with garage and two cabins, valued at $560,600 (land $61,000, building $499,600). Martins cited a comparable sale in the same subdivision (sold for $540,000 in 2023, pending at $640,000 in 2026) and noted that listings do not directly drive assessments. He recommended no change, stating the current value already reflected the property’s characteristics.
• Outcome: Motion to uphold the assessment because the appellant failed to meet the burden of proof. Vote: 6 yes, 1 absent. Motion carried.

Appeal 48 – Sweirk – 5312 Lake View Drive

• Appellant Position: Similar arguments about road quality. They questioned whether the assessment accounted for the property having a water tank instead of a well.
• Assessor Position: The 680 sq ft home with 400 sq ft finished basement was valued at $250,100. Martins proposed a $7,500 reduction to account for the missing well, bringing the total to $242,600. He explained that the $7,500 was half of the combined well/septic assessed value (about $15,000). The appellants accepted this adjustment.
• Outcome: Motion to uphold the adjusted assessment carried. Vote: 6 yes, 1 absent.

Appeal 12 – Goodwin – 6479 Elias Street (Absent, written statement)

• Appellant Position: The owner, residing in Florida, stated the land had been assessed at $0 from 2020 to 2025 because it is in a flood hazard area, unbuildable, and has no access. They requested the value remain at $0.
• Assessor Position: Martins argued that vacant land almost always has some value; he noted that all similar lots in that subdivision are assessed at $500. He cited a 1999 sale of a nearby lot for $5,000 and stated that $500 is an appropriate minimal value.
• Outcome: Motion to uphold the $500 assessment because the appellant failed to show the land has no value. Vote: 6 yes, 1 absent. Motion carried.

Appeal 19 – Blancaflor – 359 Jago (Absent, written statement)

• Appellant Position: Estimated $6,000 in flashing repair and $5,000 in fence replacement, claiming a devaluation of $16,500 due to condition issues.
• Assessor Position: Martins noted the property was financed for $331,550 in 2023, while the current assessed value is $256,000 – a $75,000 gap that more than covers the claimed repair costs. He recommended no change.
• Outcome: Motion to uphold the assessment based on the deed of trust showing significantly higher financing than assessed value. Vote: 6 yes, 1 absent. Motion carried.

Appeal 30 – Devlin – 535 Valhalla Lane (Absent, written statement)

• Appellant Position: Listed needed repairs (flooring, paint, windows, deck, doors) and argued the assessed value was too high given no significant improvements since purchase in 2016.
• Assessor Position: Martins included three recent comparable sales in the same neighborhood: one at $319,000, another at $315,000. The current assessed value is $237,600 – well below those sales. He recommended no change, as the owner did not provide photos or evidence of damage.
• Outcome: Motion to uphold the assessment because the appellant failed to provide evidence to justify a reduction. Vote: 6 yes, 1 absent. Motion carried.

Appeal 31 – Hansen – 614 Pacific Avenue (Absent, written statement)

• Appellant Position: Cited significant needed repairs (roof, railing, snow damage, original carpet, plumbing) and stated the home needs a complete renovation.
• Assessor Position: Martins had discussed the appeal with the owner and recommended an adjustment: reducing the building value to $189,200 (land $42,100, total $231,300) to account for the condition.
• Outcome: Motion to uphold the assessment (with the assessor’s reduction) because the appellant failed to provide evidence showing the assessment was still excessive. Vote: 6 yes, 1 absent. Motion carried.

Appeal 39 – Gilbert – 441 Resurrection Loop (Absent, written statement)

• Appellant Position: Questioned the basis for the increase and felt it did not reflect the housing market. The owner could not attend due to a death in the family.
• Assessor Position: Martins provided comparable sales of similar homes ranging from $315,000 to $325,000; the current assessed value is $296,500, which is below those sales. He recommended no change.
• Outcome: Motion to uphold the assessment because the appellant failed to meet the burden of proof. Vote: 6 yes, 1 absent. Motion carried.

Appeal 40 – Gilbert – 330 Birch Circle (Absent, written statement)

• Appellant Position: Similar concerns about the increase and lack of improvements.
• Assessor Position: This property has a large attached garage/shop. Martins found mixed comparable sales and recommended a slight reduction from the initial $426,000 to $418,200 (building $378,400, land $39,800) to be conservative, given the difficulty in finding exact comparables.
• Outcome: Motion to uphold the adjusted assessment because the appellant provided no evidence to contest the assessor’s revised value. Vote: 6 yes, 1 absent. Motion carried.

Key Outcomes

• The Board of Equalization upheld the assessor’s proposed values (including adjustments) on all ten appeals, with votes of 6–0 (one absent) on each.
• Two appeals (Sweirk 46 and 48) and one appeal (Hansen) were resolved with the assessor’s recommended reductions, which the appellants accepted.
• The hearing concluded with no adjournment noted, but all agenda items were addressed.
• The assessor highlighted an average annual appreciation of 6–10% across Valdez (higher during COVID) and an average assessment-to-sales ratio of about 89% citywide, with some subdivisions slightly higher.