Barbara A. Esip v. Board of Assessors of the City of Worcester (December 15, 2014)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD




BARBARA A. ESIP			 v.	     BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF									THE CITY OF WORCESTER

Docket No. F318334					Promulgated:
		   						December 15, 2014


	This is an appeal under the formal procedure, pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7 and G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, from the refusal of the appellee to abate taxes on certain real estate in the City of Worcester owned by and assessed to the appellant under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2012.  
	Commissioner Chmielinski heard this appeal under        G.L. c. 58A, § 1A and 831 CMR 1.20, and issued a single-member decision for the appellant.   
	These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellant under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.  

	Barbara A. Esip, pro se, for the appellant.

	John F. O'Day, Jr., Esq. for the appellee.


FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Introduction
	On January 1, 2011, Barbara A. Esip (the "appellant") was the assessed owner of a parcel of real estate located at 2A Nonquit Street in the City of Worcester (the "subject property").  As of January 1, 2011, the valuation and assessment date for fiscal year 2012, the subject property contained approximately 9,457 square feet of land and was improved with a converted two-family dwelling.  At all relevant times, the 1,307-square-foot home was one and one-half stories, and it contained four bedrooms and two full bathrooms.  The interior had plaster walls and hardwood floors; the exterior had primarily vinyl siding and asphalt-shingle roofing.  The dwelling also contained an enclosed and open porch, as well as a wood deck.  There was also a single-vehicle detached garage.  The parcel had 63 feet of frontage along Quinsigamond Lake, but it was not useable as a beach because of the precipitous slope of the topography and drop-off to the water.     
For fiscal year 2012, the Board of Assessors of Worcester (the "assessors") valued the subject property at $279,900 - $179,400 for the land, $97,400 for the dwelling, plus $3,100 for the garage - and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $16.98 per thousand, in the amount of $4,752.70.  

Jurisdiction
In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57C, the appellant paid the tax assessed on the subject property without incurring interest.  In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellant timely filed her Application for Abatement with the assessors, which they subsequently denied.  In accordance with G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, the appellant seasonably filed her Petition Under the Formal Procedure with the Appellate Tax Board (the "Board").  On the basis of these facts, the Presiding Commissioner found that the Board had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.  
Merits
	At the hearing of this appeal, both the appellant and Worcester's City Assessor, William J. Ford, testified for their respective sides of this appeal and introduced several exhibits, including the requisite jurisdictional documents, the subject property's property record card, and the property record cards for several other neighboring waterfront properties.  The appellant's testimony focused on the purported failure of the assessors to properly consider in the subject property's land assessment the small size of her parcel (the "subject parcel"), its steeply sloping topography on the rear third and drop-off to the water, its limited frontage on the lake, and its location opposite the seasonally congested parking area for the side entrance to a state park.  The City Assessor's presentation focused primarily on the specific justifications supporting the subject property's land assessment.  Neither party testified about the subject property's improvements. 
The appellant testified that she was challenging the subject property's land assessment because it had increased by over $70,000 from the previous year's assessment.  To support her case, she introduced the subject property's property record card, as well as the property record cards of two neighboring properties, the parcels of which were approximately twice the size of the subject parcel and contained significantly more useable frontage on the lake.  She pointed out that the steep slope to the rear third of her land and sudden drop-off to the water precluded the existence of a beach, unlike her neighbors.  She demonstrated that the assessors had assessed the subject parcel at $5.06 per square foot and the two neighboring parcels at only $2.50 per square foot, and that they had not considered the relatively short extent and usability of water frontage as a valuation factor.  The appellant further testified that the subject property's location opposite a side entrance to the state park created seasonal heavy traffic and parking area congestion issues, which adversely affected the value of the subject property. 
For his part, the City Assessor explained how land tables are derived and utilized to value parcels of varying sizes.  He testified how smaller parcels will invariably have higher per-square-foot values than larger parcels, and that the relationship is not linear.  He admitted, however, that the mass appraisal process used in Worcester does not include a factor for differing lengths or usability of water frontage.  He further admitted that the assessors had not considered in their assessment of the subject property its parcel's steeply sloped topography or the subject property's location opposite the seasonally congested parking area for the state park's side entrance.   
On the basis of all of the evidence, the Presiding Commissioner found that in setting the fiscal year 2012 assessment for the subject property, the assessors had properly applied the land tables to the subject parcel.  It is a familiar principle of valuation that as square footage increases, the unit value decreases, and vice versa.  See Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate 212 (13th ed., 2008).  The Presiding Commissioner also found, however, that the assessors had failed to properly consider the relatively short 63-foot length and lesser quality of the subject parcel's water frontage, the subject parcel's steep slope and drop-off to the water, and its location opposite the high traffic and seasonally congested parking area.  Relying on the appellant's evidence regarding the limitations and infirmities of the subject parcel relating to the lesser quality and shorter extent of its water frontage, the subject parcel's steep slope and drop-off, and its location opposite the busy and seasonally congested parking area, as well as the City Assessor's testimony regarding assessment practices in Worcester, the Presiding Commissioner found that the fiscal year 2012 assessment attributed to the land component was excessive by approximately ten percent which rendered the subject property's overall assessment excessive.  
Relying on the parties' concurrence that the $100,500 assessment for the subject property's improvements for fiscal year 2012 was reasonable under the circumstances, the Presiding Commissioner adopted and maintained the value attributed to that component.  In accordance with his findings, the Presiding Commissioner lowered the value of the portion of the assessment attributed to the subject property's land component by $17,940, from $179,400 to $161,460.  He then added the original assessment of $100,500 attributed to the subject property's improvements to reach an overall value of $261,960, which he then rounded up to $262,000.  The Presiding Commissioner ultimately found that this reduced value best represented the overall fair cash value of the subject property as of the January 1, 2011, the valuation and assessment date for fiscal year 2012.     
The Presiding Commissioner, therefore, decided this appeal for the appellant and granted an abatement in the amount of $303.94.    

OPINION
	 The 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 in a free and open market will agree if both of them are fully informed and under no compulsion.  Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).
	The appellant has the burden of proving that the property has a lower value than that assessed. "'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 taxpayers . . . prov[e] the contrary.'" General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 598 (1984) (quoting Schlaiker, 365 Mass. at 245).  
In appeals before this 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 this appeal, the Presiding Commissioner rejected appellant's contention that the subject property's land assessment exceeded its fair market value based upon appellant's proffer of a lineal price-per-square-foot analysis.  This analysis failed to take into consideration the well-established principle that "[generally], as size increases, unit prices decrease.  Conversely, as size decreases, unit prices increase." Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate 212 (13th ed., 2008).  See also Boquist v. Assessors of Lincoln, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2014-704, 719 (rejecting taxpayer's argument that subject property's smaller prime site was assessed at a higher per-square-foot value than larger prime sites of neighboring properties);  Ashkouri v. Assessors of Newton, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2013-1130 (finding that taxpayer's formulation of fair market value based upon a comparison of price-per-square foot was "unfounded");  Seto v. Assessor of Quincy,  Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2006-585, 591.   
However, in this appeal, the Presiding Commissioner found that, in setting their assessment for the subject property for fiscal year 2012, the assessors had failed to properly consider the relatively short 63-foot length and lesser quality of the subject property's water frontage, as well as the subject parcel's steep slope and drop-off to the water precluding a beach, and its location opposite a seasonally busy and congested parking area.  The Presiding Commissioner further found that the appellant met her burden of demonstrating that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2012 by showing that the assessors had overvalued the land component of the assessment thereby rendering the overall assessment commensurately excessive.  The assessors acknowledged that they had not considered the relatively short length and lesser quality of the subject property's water frontage, the parcel's steep slope and drop-off to the water nor its location opposite the seasonally congested parking area for the state park's side entrance in their land assessment for the subject property for fiscal year 2012.
In abatement proceedings, "the question is whether the assessment for the parcel of real estate, including both the land and the structures thereon, is excessive.  The component parts, on which that single assessment is laid, are each open to inquiry and revision by the appellate tribunal in reaching the conclusion whether that single assessment is excessive."  Massachusetts General Hospital v. Belmont, 238 Mass. 396, 403 (1921).  See also Chelmsford Mobile Home Properties, LLC v. Assessors of Chelmsford, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2011-646, 667 (citing Buckley v. Assessors of Duxbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990-110, 119; Jernegan v. Assessors of Duxbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990-39, 48-49; Everhart v. Assessors of Dalton, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1985-49, 54).  In the present appeal, the Presiding Commissioner ruled that the excessive value attributed to the land component of the subject property's assessment resulted in the assessors commensurately overvaluing the subject property's assessment.  
On this basis, the Presiding Commissioner decided this appeal for the appellant and granted an abatement in the amount of $303.94.

  					  APPELLATE TAX BOARD

				By:			          	_________
				   Richard G. Chmielinski, Commissioner 


A true copy,


Attest:					___
     Clerk of the Board

ATB 2014-1145