Principal Assessor Questioned for Hours; Town Tax Trial Heads Into a Third Week

By IAN FEIN

BOSTON - West Tisbury principal assessor Jo-Ann Resendes this week defended the town's property tax values during two days of testimony marked by contested exchanges in a legal case that carries far-reaching implications for the community.

Ms. Resendes appeared during the second week of a Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board hearing in Boston, where attorneys for West Tisbury resident William W. Graham are arguing that the town has disproportionately assessed his land.

Attorney Richard Wulsin, who represents Mr. Graham, asked Ms. Resendes about a long list of nearby properties that have substantially lower values than Mr. Graham's lots. Property after property, Ms. Resendes said that given their different locations, she believed they were fairly assessed.

The town currently values Mr. Graham's 235 acres at Mohu off Lambert's Cove Road at more than $58 million. He is challenging his assessments for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, when he paid the town more than half a million dollars in property taxes.

Ms. Resendes is scheduled to return to the stand for cross-examination Tuesday. During direct questioning this week new information surfaced about possible inconsistencies in property records.

Mr. Wulsin on Wednesday introduced as exhibits a series of property records to compare Mr. Graham's land to 258 acres of ocean and pondfront property owned by the family of West Tisbury resident Kenneth (Mal) Jones. The property is listed in assessors records as being owned by the Tsissa Corporation.

The Jones properties, which lie on either side of Deep Bottom Cove and include a 10-acre oceanfront beach lot across Tisbury Great Pond, were valued at $21 million in fiscal year 2003. Mr. Graham's land that year was valued at more than $50 million.

During Ms. Resendes's testimony, appellate tax board chairman Anne Foley, the presiding officer, noted the Jones property records contained a different valuation method than all others introduced as exhibits. Ms. Resendes explained the Jones properties are valued under an "unusual arrangement" developed between the board of assessors and the Jones family before she took over as principal assessor roughly 20 years ago.

"When you're aware of this," Chairman Foley asked, "do you bring this to the board, even though it doesn't conform with your methodologies?"

Ms. Resendes replied that she had discussed the arrangement with the assessors, who thought the situation was fair.

Chairman Foley also noted that one Jones property record was missing. The chief presiding officer asked Ms. Resendes to search for the record and bring it back to the hearing on Tuesday.

The appellate tax board does not often hear cases of this complexity. Most hearings for single-family residences take about an hour. This case, which has featured lengthy testimony about how assessors determine land values, may last a month.

Attorneys for Mr. Graham already have submitted more than 100 exhibits into evidence. They still have at least three more witnesses to call before resting their case. Mr. Graham is expected to take the stand next week.

After Mr. Wulsin questioned Ms. Resendes for more than 10 hours this week, attorney Ellen Hutchinson, representing town assessors, asked for an extra day to prepare for cross-examination. Chairman Foley granted the request.

"The appellants produced about 35 or 40 exhibits on Wednesday," Ms. Hutchinson said yesterday by telephone from her offices in Woburn. "For me to be able to use those exhibits properly in re-examining my own witness, I needed time to review them."

On Wednesday Mr. Wulsin argued the request was unwarranted. He noted Ms. Resendes was a town witness and that virtually all exhibits came from the town assessors' office.

A top attorney for the Massachusetts Department of Revenue before Gov. Mitt Romney appointed her chairman of the appellate tax board in March, Mrs. Foley at times this week appeared to grow impatient with Ms. Resendes. Chairman Foley interrupted her testimony on more than one occasion to demand a straightforward answer.

Toward the close of testimony on Tuesday, Chairman Foley took over the questioning from Mr. Wulsin and pressed Ms. Resendes for answers about a property tax record card that Mr. Graham's attorneys allege was falsified.

That card for a nearby property lies at the center of Mr. Graham's case. His attorneys say the assessors altered property data during the fiscal year 2002 revaluation so they could reach a predetermined sale price that sent other property values in the neighborhood skyrocketing.

Mr. Graham's properties nearly tripled in value that year, from $18.5 million to $53.7 million.

Mr. Wulsin argued during the first week of testimony that West Tisbury assessors on a neighboring property reclassified eight acres of waterfront property and 60 acres of water-view property as 68 acres without a view.

Ms. Resendes confirmed this week that at least some of the handwriting on the property record was hers, but explained that merging the eight and 60 acres made the record more consistent with the valuation model used for properties elsewhere in town.

Mr. Wulsin asked why the water-view acreage was changed to no longer have a view.

"The words are different, but the intent was the same," Ms. Resendes said. "The factors were adjusted to say there was probably no view, but that's no guarantee.

"We try to make one description fit different parts of the land. And at the time of sale the road was heavily wooded. Now that it has been cleared, it has a water view."

Mr. Wulsin asked why the excess acreage of other waterfront properties, including Mr. Graham's, are treated as though they have water frontage, while the altered card treated excess acreage as neither waterfront nor water-view.

After a long pause, Ms. Resendes offered a response that appeared to rile Chairman Foley.

"You're not answering the question," Chairman Foley told Ms. Resendes. "You must only answer the question that is asked."

Chairman Foley then asked Ms. Resendes again why the record card was altered in the way it was.

"It was a very substantial reduction that is more easily explained by saying no view," Ms. Resendes testified. "[The two sales in the area] together showed that little value was placed on rear acreage," she added.

"So changes were made to match the sale price?" Mr. Wulsin asked.

"That was the goal," Ms. Resendes replied.