Williams, Kimberly & Waynelovich, Nick v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Montague (August 19, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
KIMBERLY WILLIAMS & 	V. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
NICK WAYNELOVICH 	THE TOWN OF MONTAGUE
Docket No. F345661 	Promulgated:
August 19, 2025
This 	is 	an 	appeal 	filed 	under 	the 	formal 	procedure 	pursuant
to G.L. c. 58A, § 7 and G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65 from the refusal
of the Board of Assessors of the Town of Montague (“assessors” or
“appellee”) to abate a tax on real estate located in Montague owned
by 	and 	assessed 	to 	JaDuke, 	Inc. 	(“JaDuke”) 	for 	fiscal 	year 	2022
(“fiscal year at issue”). This appeal was filed on behalf of JaDuke
by 	Kimberly 	Williams, 	President 	and 	Treasurer, 	and 	Nick
Waynelovich, Vice-President and Secretary (“appellants”).
Chairman 	DeFrancisco 	heard 	this 	appeal. 	Commissioners 	Good,
Elliott, 	Metzer, 	and 	Bernier 	joined 	him 	in 	the 	decision 	for 	the
appellants.
These findings of fact and report are promulgated pursuant to
a 	request 	by 	the 	appellee 	under 	G.L. 	c. 	58A, 	§ 	13 	and 	831 	CMR
1.32.1
Kimberly Williams, pro se, for the appellants.
Karen Tonelli, Assessor, for the appellee.
1 This citation is to the regulation in effect prior to January 5, 2024.
ATB 2025-268

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based on the testimony and exhibits admitted into evidence at
the hearing of this appeal, the Appellate Tax Board (“Board”) made
the following findings of fact.
On 	January 	1, 	2021, 	the 	relevant 	date 	of 	valuation 	and
assessment 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue, 	JaDuke 	was 	the 	assessed
owner 	of 	a 	2.098-acre 	parcel 	of 	real 	estate 	improved 	with 	a
building located at 110 Industrial Boulevard in Montague (“subject
property”). The subject property is located in an industrial park
and 	contains 	a 	total 	of 	23,827 	square 	feet 	divided 	into 	various
educational 	uses, 	including: 	day 	care; 	after-school 	programs 	for
singing, dancing, and acting; a driving school; and music lessons.
A unique aspect of the subject property is its theater space, with
high 	ceilings 	and 	stadium 	seating. 	The 	theater 	space 	seats 	540
people 	and 	is 	used 	for 	dance 	recitals, 	as 	well 	as 	children’s
concerts 	and 	plays. 	The 	appellants 	and 	their 	family 	operate 	all
the activities at the subject property and there were no leases or
rental 	agreements 	for 	use 	of 	the 	space 	on 	the 	relevant 	date 	of
valuation. The appellants had the subject property constructed in
2019 	for 	use 	in 	conjunction 	with 	an 	adjoining 	property 	that 	was
being used for essentially the same educational purposes.
For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject
property 	at 	$2,264,600. 	In 	accordance 	with 	a 	Tax 	Increment
ATB 2025-269

Financing Agreement (“TIF agreement”)2 between JaDuke and the Town
of Montague – the specific details of which were not entered into
evidence - the taxable value of the subject property was $1,605,170
(“TIF value”) for the fiscal year at issue. Application of the tax
rate of $25.83 per $1,000 to the TIF value resulted in a tax amount
of $41,461.54, plus a Turner Falls Fire District tax of $6,308.32,
for a total tax amount of $47,769.86 for the fiscal year at issue.
The tax was paid without incurring interest. On January 10, 2022,
the 	appellants 	timely 	filed 	an 	abatement 	application 	with 	the
assessors, 	which 	was 	deemed 	denied 	on 	April 	10, 	2022. 	On 	May 	23,
2022, 	the 	assessors 	reduced 	the 	TIF 	value 	by 	$100,000 	to
$1,505,170, 	resulting 	in 	a 	partial 	abatement 	of 	$2,976 	off 	the
total 	tax 	amount. 	On 	June 	6, 	2022, 	the 	appellants 	timely 	filed 	a
petition with the Board. Based on these facts, the Board found and
ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
The appellants’ main contention was that the classroom space
in 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	assessed 	far 	in 	excess 	of 	its 	value,
particularly 	compared 	to 	the 	assessed 	value 	of 	similar, 	albeit
older, 	space 	in 	the 	adjoining 	building. 	Documents 	in 	the 	record
established 	that 	the 	subject 	property’s 	classroom 	space 	was
2 “[A]ny city or town by vote of its town meeting, town council, or city council
with the approval of the mayor where required by law, on its own behalf or in
conjunction 	with 	one 	or 	more 	cities 	or 	towns, 	may 	adopt 	and 	execute 	a 	tax
increment financing agreement hereinafter referred to as a TIF agreement.” G.L.
c. 40, § 59. See also G.L. c. 59, § 5, Clause Fifty-first.
ATB 2025-270

assessed 	at 	$89.43 	per 	square 	foot, 	while 	the 	classroom 	space 	in
the adjoining building was assessed at $34 per square foot.
The 	appellants 	submitted 	a 	detailed 	valuation 	analysis 	and
testified about the sales considered in arriving at their opinion
of value. The appellants considered six sales, five of which were
located 	in 	the 	same 	industrial 	park 	as 	the 	subject 	property. 	The
sale 	prices 	per 	square 	foot 	of 	building 	area 	for 	these 	six 	sales
ranged 	from 	just 	under 	$20 	per 	square 	foot 	to 	more 	than 	$60 	per
square foot, with an average per-square-foot value of $43.33. The
square 	footage 	of 	these 	six 	sales 	ranged 	from 	12,066 	square 	feet
to 	37,089 	square 	feet, 	with 	an 	average 	of 	22,372 	square 	feet,
compared to the subject property’s 23,827 square feet.
To arrive at their opinion of value, the appellants used the
$43.33 	per-square-foot 	average 	from 	their 	comparable 	sales 	to
value 	the 	8,281 	square 	feet 	of 	classroom 	space 	in 	the 	subject
property. Leaving unchanged the assessed values per square foot of
all 	the 	other 	spaces 	located 	in 	the 	subject 	property 	besides 	the
classroom space, the appellants determined an opinion of value for
the subject property of $1,769,432.17 for the fiscal year at issue.
For 	their 	case, 	the 	assessors 	submitted 	the 	jurisdictional
documents 	into 	evidence 	and 	primarily 	relied 	upon 	the 	appraisal
report 	and 	testimony 	of 	George 	E. 	Sansoucy, 	a 	certified 	general
appraiser whom the Board qualified as an expert witness.
ATB 2025-271

After 	determining 	that 	the 	subject 	property’s 	highest 	and
best 	use 	was 	its 	continued 	use, 	Mr. 	Sansoucy 	then 	considered 	the
three 	usual 	valuation 	methods 	- 	the cost 	approach, 	the 	income-
capitalization 	approach, 	and 	the 	sales-comparison 	approach 	– 	to
arrive at his opinion of value for the subject property.
For 	his 	cost 	approach, 	Mr. 	Sansoucy 	first 	developed 	a
replacement 	cost 	new 	for 	the 	subject 	property, 	using 	industry
standards 	and 	cost 	manuals, 	and 	then 	deducted 	for 	physical 	and
functional 	depreciation. 	His 	analysis 	resulted 	in 	an 	indicated
value of $3,338,500.
Next, 	Mr. 	Sansoucy 	developed 	an 	income-capitalization
approach. 	To 	begin, 	he 	selected 	six 	leases 	of 	purportedly
comparable theater space and four leases of purportedly comparable
classroom 	space. 	Mr. 	Sansoucy 	made 	various 	adjustments 	to 	these
lease 	comparison 	properties 	to 	account 	for 	differences 	with 	the
subject property and selected a capitalization rate of 8.29 percent
to derive a value of $2,486,000 under his income approach.
For his sales-comparison approach, he relied upon three sales
of 	purportedly 	comparable 	properties 	located 	in 	the 	same
industrial 	complex 	as 	the 	subject 	property. 	These 	properties
ranged in size from 14,662 square feet to 37,089 square feet, with
sale 	prices 	that 	ranged 	from 	$990,000 	to 	$1,092,000. 	After
adjustments 	to 	account 	for 	differences 	between 	the 	subject
property 	and 	the 	comparable-sales 	properties, 	Mr. 	Sansoucy
ATB 2025-272

calculated 	an 	indicated 	value 	of 	$1,886,300 	under 	his 	sales-
comparison approach.
To arrive at his final opinion of value, Mr. Sansoucy relied
upon 	his 	value 	conclusions 	from 	all 	three 	approaches, 	giving 	20
percent weight to his cost approach and 40 percent weight to both
his 	sales-comparison 	approach 	and 	his 	income-capitalization
approach. His final opinion of value for the subject property was
$2,417,000 for the fiscal year at issue.
On 	the 	basis 	of 	all 	the 	evidence, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled
that 	the 	appellants 	met 	their 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	the 	subject
property 	was 	overvalued 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	The 	Board
found inherent limitations with both parties’ valuation analyses,
from 	the 	lack 	of 	adequate 	adjustments 	by 	the 	appellants 	to 	Mr.
Sansoucy’s 	reliance 	on 	a 	cost 	approach 	and 	income-capitalization
approach.
Regarding Mr. Sansoucy’s cost approach, there was no showing
that the subject property is special purpose property or that the
cost 	to 	construct 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	related 	to 	its 	value.
The 	appellants 	conceded 	that 	they 	spent 	more 	to 	construct 	the
subject property than it was worth because the appellants’ family
is committed to education, particularly the education of families
in the community.
Regarding 	his 	income-capitalization 	approach, 	Mr. 	Sansoucy
relied upon rents from industrial properties that were being used
ATB 2025-273

for 	industrial 	operations. 	When 	questioned, 	he 	acknowledged 	that
he 	did 	not 	consider 	the 	cost 	to 	convert 	the 	subject 	property 	to
industrial use, which would include installation of high-bay doors
and 	the 	filling 	in 	of 	below-grade 	areas 	that 	were 	currently 	in
place to facilitate stadium seating
The 	record 	in 	aggregate, 	however, 	provided 	the 	Board 	with
sufficient 	evidence 	to 	form 	its 	own 	judgment 	as 	to 	the 	fair 	cash
value 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	The
Board 	agreed 	with 	the 	appellants’ 	contention 	that 	the 	classroom
space 	was 	significantly 	overvalued 	and 	that 	the 	subject 	property
itself 	was 	overvalued. 	A 	comparison 	of 	the 	assessed 	value 	of 	the
classroom 	space 	to 	the 	assessed 	value 	of 	the 	classroom 	space 	in
the adjoining building, as well as consideration of Mr. Sansoucy’s
sales-comparison 	approach, 3 	amply 	supported 	a 	finding 	of
overvaluation. 	After 	reviewing 	the 	record, 	the 	Board 	selected 	a
$50 	per 	square 	foot 	value 	for 	the 	classroom 	space, 	slightly 	more
than 	the 	similar 	but 	older 	classroom 	space 	in 	the 	adjoining
building, 	while 	retaining 	the 	assessed 	values 	for 	the 	non-
classroom 	spaces. 	This 	resulted 	in 	a 	rounded 	fair 	cash 	value 	for
the subject property of $1,825,000 for the fiscal year at issue.
To 	account 	for 	the 	effect 	of 	the 	TIF 	agreement, 	the 	Board
ordered 	the 	parties 	- 	under 	Rule 	33 	of 	the 	Board’s 	Rules 	of
3 The Board notes that the appellants’ opinion of value ($1,769,432.17) and Mr.
Sansoucy’s value derived from his sales-comparison approach ($1,886,300) were
$116,867.90 apart, a less than 7 percent difference in value.
ATB 2025-274

Practice and Procedure – to calculate the abatement amount due to
the appellants. In accordance with the Board’s order, the parties
submitted 	agreed-upon 	calculations. 	Based 	on 	these 	calculations,
the 	Board 	issued 	a 	decision 	for 	the 	appellants 	and 	granted 	an
abatement in the amount of $6,181.75, plus interest.
OPINION
Assessors are required to assess real estate at its fair cash
value. 	G.L. 	c. 	59, 	§ 	38. 	Fair 	cash 	value 	is 	defined 	as 	the 	price
on 	which 	a 	willing 	seller 	and 	a 	willing 	buyer 	will 	agree 	if 	both
are 	fully 	informed 	and 	under 	no 	compulsion. 	Boston 	Gas 	Co. 	v.
Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).
A 	taxpayer 	has 	the 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	the 	property 	at
issue 	has 	a 	lower 	value 	than 	its 	assessed 	value. 	“The 	burden 	of
proof 	is 	upon 	the 	petitioner 	to 	make 	out 	its 	right 	as 	[a] 	matter
of 	law 	to 	[an] 	abatement 	of 	the 	tax.″ 	Schlaiker 	v. 	Assessors 	of
Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974) (quoting Judson Freight
Forwarding 	Co. 	v. 	Commonwealth, 	242 	Mass. 	47, 	55 	(1922)). 	“[T]he
board 	is 	entitled 	to 	‘presume 	that 	the 	valuation 	made 	by 	the
assessors 	[is] 	valid 	unless 	the 	taxpayer[] 	sustain[s] 	the 	burden
of 	proving 	the 	contrary.’” 	General 	Electric 	Co. 	v. 	Assessors 	of
Lynn, 	393 	Mass. 	591, 	598 	(1984) 	(quoting 	Schlaiker, 	365 	Mass. 	at
245).
ATB 2025-275

In 	appeals 	before 	the 	Board, 	a 	taxpayer 	“may 	present
persuasive 	evidence 	of 	overvaluation 	either 	by 	exposing 	flaws 	or
errors 	in 	the 	assessors’ 	method 	of 	valuation, 	or 	by 	introducing
affirmative 	evidence 	of 	value 	which 	undermines 	the 	assessors’
valuation.” General Electric Co., 393 Mass. at 600 (quoting Donlon
v. Assessors of Holliston, 389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983)).
In 	reaching 	its 	opinion 	of 	fair 	cash 	value 	in 	this 	appeal,
the Board was not required to believe the testimony of any witness
or 	to 	adopt 	any 	particular 	method 	of 	valuation 	that 	an 	expert
witness suggested. Cummington School of Arts, Inc. v. Assessors of
Cummington, 	373 	Mass. 	597, 	605 	(1977) 	(“The 	credibility 	of
witnesses, the weight of the evidence, and inferences to be drawn
from the evidence are matters for the board.”). Rather, the Board
could 	accept 	those 	portions 	of 	the 	evidence 	that 	the 	Board
determined 	had 	more 	convincing 	weight. Foxboro 	Associates 	v.
Assessors 	of 	Foxborough, 	385 	Mass. 	679, 	683 	(1982); New 	Boston
Garden 	Corp. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Boston, 	383 	Mass. 	456, 	473
(1981); Assessors 	of 	Lynnfield 	v. 	New 	England 	Oyster 	House, 	362
Mass. 	696, 	702 	(1972). 	The 	fair 	cash 	value 	of 	property 	cannot 	be
proven 	with 	“mathematical 	certainty 	and 	must 	ultimately 	rest 	in
the realm of opinion, estimate and judgment.” Assessors of Quincy
v. Boston 	Consol. 	Gas 	Co., 309 	Mass. 	60, 	72 	(1941). 	See 	also 	New
Boston Garden Corp., 383 Mass. at 473.
ATB 2025-276

In 	the 	present 	appeal, 	the 	Board 	declined 	to 	adopt 	entirely
either party’s opinion of value. Instead, the Board considered the
appellants’ 	showing 	of 	overvaluation 	of 	the 	classroom 	space 	and
then viewed the record in the aggregate, which afforded the Board
sufficient and probative evidence to derive the fair cash value of
the 	subject 	property 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	In 	sum, 	based
on 	all 	the 	evidence 	presented 	in 	this 	appeal, 	and 	reasonable
inferences 	drawn 	therefrom, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the
appellants 	met 	their 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	the 	subject 	property
was overvalued and determined a fair cash value of $1,825,000 for
the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled
for 	the 	appellants 	and 	granted 	an 	abatement 	in 	the 	amount 	of
$6,181.75, plus statutory interest under G.L. c. 59, § 69, pursuant
to the parties’ agreed-upon calculations provided under Rule 33 of
the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: _______________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: ______________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-277