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.