State Concerns Aired in Trial

Department of Revenue Official Testifies West Tisbury Valuations May
Have Been Massaged; Accuracy Is Questioned

By IAN FEIN

BOSTON - The state official who reviewed the 2002 West Tisbury
revaluation expressed concerns in October 2001 that town assessors and
their third-party consultant may have "massaged" the values
of certain properties to fit their sale prices.

The revelation came Friday during a prolonged legal hearing at the
Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board in Boston. A central facet of the case
alleges that West Tisbury assessors falsified the property record of an
80-acre parcel near Paul's Point that year to hit a specific sale
price that sent other values in the area skyrocketing.

The state official expressed his concerns in internal handwritten
notes produced as evidence during cross-examination by attorneys for
West Tisbury resident William W. Graham, who is challenging his property
tax assessments for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

The October 2001 notes read, in part:

"Met with Steve F. in Northboro - discussed why [vacant
land] parcels are valued inconsistently . . . spoke about various sales
(approximately eight to 10) that seemed ‘massaged.' He will
speak with Joanne."

Stephen Ferreira is the district manager for Vision Appraisal
Technology Inc., the Northboro-based company that assists West Tisbury
assessors with their revaluations. Mr. Ferreira attended every one of
the first 19 days of the tax board hearing prior to last week. Jo-Ann
Resendes is the West Tisbury principal assessor.

Community advisor Scott Santangelo, who works for the Bureau of
Local Assessments in the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, wrote the
notes to himself while he reviewed the town assessors' 2002
revaluation. The bureau certified the West Tisbury assessments two
months later.

In the notes Mr. Santangelo lists specific instances where
irregularities appeared in the assessments of properties that sold. He
speculates that certain changes were made for no apparent reason other
than to hit the sale prices.

Attorneys for Mr. Graham said they obtained the notes through a
state public records request.

Asked about the notes during cross-examination, Mr. Santangelo
testified that he did not remember them directly. As a bureau community
advisor, he said he helps about 15 towns or cities through their
certification process every year. He estimated he spent a total of about
16 hours reviewing the West Tisbury revaluation of 4,000 property
parcels in 2001.

Mr. Santangelo testified that he also did not remember whether his
concerns were answered directly, though he assumes there were sufficient
explanations from the town because the state bureau ultimately certified
the values. Following some of the questions and concerns in the
handwritten notes, Mr. Santangelo wrote short explanations or
"OK." He also wrote that Ms. Resendes would send him the
property records that have been changed.

"Anything that for whatever reason made me want to ask a
question, I asked the consultant or the assessors and looked for an
answer," Mr. Santangelo testified. "If the response that I
received seemed reasonable and I was satisfied, then I would have moved
on."

Mr. Santangelo had questions about eight or 10 of the 43 properties
that sold in calendar year 2000. Mr. Santangelo testified last week
that, in fair and consistent assessment methods, non-sale properties
should be treated the same as properties that sold

In the fall of 2001 Mr. Santangelo also had questions and asked for
additional information about the town's list of its top five
taxpayers - a form it must send to the state every year.

The 2002 list identified Katharine Graham, the late mother of Mr.
Graham, as the town's third highest taxpayer. It noted that her
five properties almost tripled in value between 2001 and 2002 -
from $10.6 million to $31.5 million. Properties for other taxpayers on
the list increased at a significantly lower rate.

In her additional explanations faxed to Mr. Santangelo in November
2001, Ms. Resendes noted that the Graham properties are all residential
waterfront, and have hundreds of acres and multiple houses. In fact,
only two Graham parcels have water frontage and only one had more than a
single house.

Mr. Santangelo testified last week that he was satisfied with the
principal assessor's explanation.

In her first day of presenting the town defense, attorney Ellen
Hutchinson, who is representing the West Tisbury assessors, called state
bureau of local assessment chief Marilyn Browne to the stand.

Ms. Browne, who signed and certified the 2002 West Tisbury
revaluation, testified at length about the steps involved in the
certification process. The town assessors provide numerous spreadsheets
and statistical analyses to the bureau, which then reviews them to
ensure the methods are consistent, she said.

During cross-examination Ms. Browne testified that the accuracy of
property records and data supplied to the state was critical.

"Am I correct that the bureau relies on the data provided by
the town, and the integrity of the town in providing that data?"
attorney Richard Wulsin, who is representing Mr. Graham, asked Ms.
Browne.

"Yes," she replied. "The quality of the data is
important for the revaluation, because if you don't have good data
- it's the old garbage in, garbage out."

Tax board chairman Anne Foley, who is presiding over the hearing,
asked Ms. Browne some follow-up questions related to the case.

"Would the DOR [state Department of Revenue] ever approve
- if they had knowledge of it - a change to the property
record card if it didn't reflect the reality of the
property?" Chairman Foley asked.

"No," Ms. Browne said.

"So, if the town has used as one of the property value
characteristics whether it had a view of the water, then the reality of
whether the property had a view or not should be reflected on the
property record card?" Chairman Foley asked.

"Yes," Ms. Browne replied.

Attorneys for Mr. Graham allege that town assessors altered the
property record for a neighboring 80-acre parcel in 2001 by changing its
classification from having a water view to no longer having a view.

Ms. Resendes testified on Friday that the bulk of the 80-acre
property did not have a view when she visited it in late March or early
April 2001 with the senior appraiser from Vision Appraisal. She also
said they saw the original house on the property, which supports the
earlier testimony of the appraiser but sharply contradicts recent
accounts from Island landscaper Brian Abbot about the condition of the
property.

Mr. Abbott testified last week that he cleared six acres of trees on
the property prior to June 2000 to enhance an already existing water
view, and that the original house was demolished prior March 2001.

Ms. Resendes, who testified for five full days early in the hearing,
will retake the stand when the hearing resumes in Boston today. Ms.
Hutchinson said she plans to call two more witnesses and hopes to wrap
up the town's defense by the end of the week.

Attorneys for Mr. Graham said they plan to call at least two Island
residents as rebuttal witnesses in response to the testimony taken on
Friday. They did not reveal the identity of the witnesses.