Landowner Takes the Stand in Tax Case; Vision Appraisal Defends Town
Position

By IAN FEIN

West Tisbury resident William W. Graham, who is challenging the
town's methods for determining land values and property taxes,
took the stand for the first time last week in a protracted court case
that has grown costly for both sides. But in a tense day of testimony
earlier in the week, a senior appraiser for the company hired by West
Tisbury assessors defended the town's position.

Using aerial photographs and topographical maps, Mr. Graham
described in great detail to the chairman of the Massachusetts Appellate
Tax Board the north shore of West Tisbury, and his properties in
particular.

His testimony led to a terse exchange between Mr. Graham and Ellen
Hutchinson, the attorney representing the West Tisbury assessors, when
he referred to a 3,000-square-foot neighboring home that was later
replaced by a 12,000-square-foot structure as small.

"That's small?" Ms. Hutchinson asked.

"Just wait until you've seen the new house," Mr.
Graham said.

"I've seen your house, Mr. Graham. That's enough
for me," she replied.

"My house looks quite modest in comparison, Ms.
Hutchinson," he said. "Just wait."

Mr. Graham owns 235 acres at Mohu off Lambert's Cove Road. He
is appealing his assessments from fiscal years 2002 and 2003, when he
paid the town more than a half-million dollars in property taxes.

Mr. Graham will take the stand again next Tuesday, when the legal
hearing resumes for its sixth week of testimony at the appellate tax
board in Boston. Prior to its start on May 3, the hearing was expected
to last two or three days.

Attorneys for Mr. Graham have charged during the hearing that town
assessors deliberately falsified the property record of an abutting
parcel to match a predetermined price that sent other land values and
property taxes in the Paul's Point area skyrocketing.

Last week June Perry, a senior appraiser for Vision Appraisal, the
company hired by the town to help revalue all of its properties every
three years, testified that changes made to the altered property record
were indeed to match a predetermined value. But she maintained those
alterations were both justified and correct based on the market in the
area.

There were two waterfront sales near Paul's Point in July 1999
- an 80-acre parcel that sold for $12 million and a 12-acre parcel
for $10.4 million.

Ms. Perry testified that during the town-wide 2002 revaluation, she
and West Tisbury principal assessor JoAnn Resendes decided to base the
neighborhood's assessments on the second sale instead of the
first, even though they had widely divergent per-acre prices. The
property record for the first sale then required certain changes to
bring it in line with the market, she said.

Tax board chairman Anne Foley asked Ms. Perry on several occasions
why they did not begin with the first sale instead, and then make any
necessary changes to the second property record or simply disregard it.

Ms. Perry explained that the larger parcel had more unknown
variables due in large part to an extra land line that she said had
mistakenly appeared on the property record in the past. She also said
that as long as the assessment came out near the sale price, she felt it
was the proper approach.

Town assessments are required by the Massachusetts Department of
Revenue to represent fair market value. Assessments for properties that
recently sold are expected to fall close to the sale price.

"In this case, you knew what the sale price was and then you
solved for the variable that would result in that price," attorney
Mark Murphy, representing Mr. Graham, said to Ms. Perry. "So is
the system producing the values or is the sale price determining what
those variables will be?" he asked.

"The system is how we bring the assessment to market
price," Ms. Perry answered.

"But if you can adjust the variables any way you want to
produce a value close to the sale price, won't every assessment
hit the exact sale price?" Mr. Murphy continued.

"Every one is unique, especially the large tracts of
land," Ms. Perry replied. "We adjusted the variables based
on what Mr. Roberts was willing to pay for that excess acreage."

Ms. Resendes testified earlier in the hearing that the variable in
question - known as a condition factor - is supposed to
reflect the specific characteristics of a property that help determine
its value, such as views, access, easements and size.

When she and Ms. Perry altered the property record for the first
sale to make it fit the second, they substantially decreased the
condition factor and reclassified it from having a water view to having
no view.

The meaning behind that change was critical to a line of questioning
Ms. Perry faced last Wednesday. Her answers at times appeared
inconsistent.

"The whole thing is a waterfront property and it has a view.
That's a given," Ms. Perry said.

"But the card says no view," Chairman Foley replied.

"We could put lots of things there, and one of the
descriptions we put down was no view," Ms. Perry answered.

"So the indication in the note section does not necessarily
indicate the reality of the property?" Mr. Murphy asked.

"We were trying to describe why he got such a good price on
the excess acreage and why we adjusted the condition factor," Ms.
Perry said.

Mr. Murphy and Chairman Foley also challenged whether Ms. Perry
actually visited the property where the record was changed. Ms. Perry
testified that she visited the property with Ms. Resendes in the spring
of 2001.

At one point Ms. Perry struggled to remember where the house was
located on the property. But under intense questioning from Mr. Murphy,
she described its general appearance as pictured on the property record.

Chairman Foley pointed out that site visits are almost always noted
on property records, yet the altered property record does not list a
visit during the year that it was changed.

"My understanding is that the condition factor you decided on
was a mathematical determination as opposed to going back to the site
and physically determining it based on factors applied elsewhere in
town," Chairman Foley said to Ms. Perry. "You're
stating that you did visit in 2001, and you're saying that there
was no view," she added.

"When I drove up to it, it was heavily wooded. We're not
saying the parcel doesn't have a view," Ms. Perry answered.

"Do you recall seeing leaves on the trees?" Mr. Murphy
asked.

"There would have had to have been because I remember it being
heavily wooded," she replied.

Ms. Perry testified that she did not recall exactly when they
visited the property, but that it was March at the earliest and early
May at the latest.

When Mr. Graham was on the stand the following day, Chairman Foley
asked him when leaves typically bloom in West Tisbury. He testified that
it varies year-to-year, but that trees usually begin to leaf in early or
mid-May.

Also last week, Ms. Hutchinson continued her cross-examination of
the expert land appraiser hired by Mr. Graham to review the town's
2002 revaluation and how it specifically related to his property.
LandVest appraiser Jay Closser testified two weeks ago that West Tisbury
assessors should have started with the first Paul's Point sale to
determine values in the neighborhood because the larger parcel will tell
assessors more about the market.

Ms. Hutchinson spent much of her cross-examination trying to
undermine Mr. Closser's testimony and his 14-page report, which
was entered as evidence critical of the assessors' methods. Mr.
Closser said under questioning that he did not speak with either Ms.
Resendes or any Vision Appraisal representatives when conducting his
review.

Mr. Closser testified earlier that the neighborhood prices assessors
placed on the Paul's Point area resulted in stark boundaries and
inconsistencies between properties. But he acknowledged he was aware of
two subsequent waterfront sales in the area that occurred in 2002
- a five-acre property that sold for $11 million and an eight-acre
parcel that sold for $15 million.

"Do these sales support the creation of the
neighborhood?" Ms. Hutchinson asked.

"Yes," Mr. Closser replied.