Yarbrough v. Marion County Assessor

DECISION TC-MD 250214N 1 of 7
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
JACK YARBROUGH, )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff, TC-MD 250214N
v.
MARION COUNTY ASSESSOR,
DECISION	Defendant.
Plaintiff appealed the value of property identified as Account 531295 (subject property)
for the 2024-25 tax year. A trial was held on June 22, 2026, in the courtroom of the Oregon Tax
Court. William L. Ghiorso, an Oregon attorney, appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Plaintiff and
Tim Moneke (Moneke), a general contractor, testified on behalf of Plaintiff. Scott Norris,
Assistant County Counsel, appeared on behalf of Defendant. Craig Farnstrom (Farnstrom),
Senior Commercial Property Appraiser, testified on behalf of Defendant. Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1
to 3 and Defendant’s Exhibit A to C were received without objection. Plaintiff offered a trial
memo, but Defendant objected because it was not timely filed under TCR 61 B, and the court
excluded it.1
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The subject property is a 3,772-square foot airplane hangar located at the City of Salem
airport. (Def’s Ex A at 2; see also Ptf’s Ex 2 at 21.) The hangar includes 240 square feet of
heated office with mezzanine storage space above. (Id.) “Yard improvements total 563 square
feet of asphalt and 2,098 square feet of concrete aprons.” (Def’s Ex A at 4.) The subject
property is a single building demised into two units, A and B. (Id. at 9.) Unit A is 2,501 square
Tax Court Rules (TCR).

DECISION TC-MD 250214N 2 of 7
feet with 240 square feet of office area. (Id.) Unit B is 1,271 square feet. (Id.) There are two
concrete approach pads, one in front of each unit. (Id.)
Plaintiff purchased Unit A along with personal property including a plane for $350,000
on March 1, 2023. (Def’s Ex A at 9.) Plaintiff testified that, based on his research, the plane
was worth $305,000 or $310,000, and the additional personal property was worth $10,000,
leaving $35,000 allocated to Unit A.2 That is one basis for Plaintiff’s requested value.
Defendant did not consider Plaintiff’s purchase of the subject property to be a good market
indicator given the significant amount of personal property included in the sale. (See id.)
The subject property is situated on land leased from the City of Salem, which is not
included in the subject assessment. (Def’s Ex at 4.) Plaintiff’s lease with the city was effective
July 1, 2023, and required Plaintiff to pay taxes on the property. (Ptf’s Ex 2 at 1, 6.) Plaintiff
noted that the city made separate leases for each of the two units, but Defendant did not create
two separate tax accounts. As a result, Plaintiff paid property tax on the entire subject property
for the 2024-25 tax year and collected one-third from the occupant of Unit B.3
Plaintiff testified that the subject property is over 50 years old and in poor condition. He
presented photographs detailing condition issues, including roof leaks, rust, sticky doors, gaps in
the walls, and cracks in the concrete. (Ptf’s Ex 1 (photos).) Moneke provided an estimate for
repairs totaling $107,715 as of June 11, 2026. (Ptf’s Ex 3.) That amount included $48,840 to
remove and replace the roof; $16,000 to remove and replace concrete on each side of the door
and to replace the rail system for the door; $33,000 to remove and replace the hangar door; and
just under $10,000 to remove and replace the asphalt approach pad. (Id.) Moneke testified that
2 Plaintiff did not identify the other personal property included in the sale of the subject property beyond
the plane.
3 In response to a question about any other shared expenses, Plaintiff testified that there were none.

DECISION TC-MD 250214N 3 of 7
the estimate represents the “bare minimum” to return the subject property to a usable condition.
Farnstrom testified that he used the cost and sales comparison approaches to value the
subject property; the income approach was not relevant because hangars are typically owner-
occupied. (See Def’s Ex A at 21.) For the cost approach, he used Marshall and Swift to estimate
the replacement cost new. (Id. at 22-23.) Estimating depreciation was difficult due to the age of
the structure, so Farnsworth extracted depreciation rates from his comparable sales, concluding a
rate of 70 percent based on the poor condition of the subject. (See id. at 23.) He concluded a
depreciated cost of $65,747 and added 10 percent entrepreneurial incentive for an indicated value
of $87,660 under the cost approach. (Id.)
For the sales comparison approach, Farnsworth selected four sales from the Salem airport
from March 2022 through January 2024. (Def’s Ex A at 25.) Farnsworth testified that he
confirmed each sale, which is especially important because hangar sales are generally made by
word of mouth rather than listing on the RMLS. The unadjusted sale prices ranged from $23.33
to $40 per square foot. (Id.) Farnsworth adjusted three of the four sales downward because they
were in average condition. (See id.) He placed the most weight on sale 2, which was in poor
condition and required no adjustment. (See id.) Sale 2 occurred on March 20, 2023, or $23.33
per square foot. (Id.) Farnsworth concluded $23.33 per square foot for the subject property, for
an indicated value of $88,000. (Id. at 26.)
The subject property’s 2024-25 tax roll real market value was $95,190 and its maximum
assessed value was $62,780. (Compl at 2.) The Property Value Appeals Board (PVAB) reduced
the subject property’s real market value to $84,210. (Id.) Plaintiff requests a real market value
of $35,000. (Id. at 1.) Defendant concluded a real market value of $88,000, which supports the
PVAB value. (Def’s Ex A at 2.)

DECISION TC-MD 250214N 4 of 7
II. ANALYSIS
The issue presented is the 2024-25 real market value of the subject property. Before
reaching that issue, the court addresses a threshold question raised by Plaintiff relating to the
relevant unit of property to be valued. Plaintiff maintains that the subject property should be
divided between Units A and B and assessed as separate accounts. The party seeking affirmative
relief bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, which means “the greater
weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.” ORS 305.427; Feves v. Dept. of Rev., 4
OTR 302, 312 (1971).4 Here, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof.
A. Unit of Property to be Valued
Plaintiff argues that the subject property was demised into two units and should be valued
accordingly. Defendant responds that the subject property was one tax lot in 2024-25 and that’s
how it was taxed; neither Defendant nor the court can create two separate ownerships here.
Property “tax accounts are an administrative means of tracking property that may or may
not reflect whether the property contained in one or more tax accounts is a single economic
unit.” Dept. of Rev. v. River’s Edge Investments, LLC, 359 Or 822, 826-27 (2016), citing
ORS 308.142(2) (for purposes of Measure 50, the term “property tax account” means “the
administrative division of property for purposes of listing on the assessment roll”).
“For each parcel of real property, the assessor shall set down in the assessment
roll according to the best information the assessor can obtain: (A) The name of the
owner or owners and, if the assessor or tax collector is instructed in writing by the
owner or owners to send statements and notices relating to taxation to an agent or
representative, the name of such agent or representative.”
ORS 308.215(1)(a)(A).5 A person wishing to divide the taxes assessed on a single parcel or tract
4 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2023.
5 See also Knapp v. City of Jacksonville, 342 Or 268, 275, 151 P3d 143 (2007) (“property taxes in Oregon
are assessed on real property as a whole and in the name of the owner of the whole. * * * Real property includes all

DECISION TC-MD 250214N 5 of 7
may apply to the assessor requesting such division. ORS 311.280(1).
Here, it is unclear if Unit B is owned separately from Unit A. Plaintiff did not present an
instrument detailing his purchase of the subject property, nor did he present any document
describing the relationship between Units A and B. Plaintiff testified that he pays tax on the
entire hangar and collects a proportionate share from Unit B. The court received no evidence
that Plaintiff applied to the assessor to divide the assessment between the two units.
In support of his request to divide the subject property assessment, Plaintiff notes that the
ground lease from the city was divided into two, with separate leases for Units A and B. Plaintiff
argues ORS 307.110 and related case law requires Defendant to divide the subject property in
accordance with the city’s ground lease.6 ORS 307.110 and the cases cited by Plaintiff stand for
the rule that otherwise exempt public property leased to a taxable owner is taxable.7 See Pollin
v. Dept. of Rev., 326 Or 427, 952 OR 427 (1998) (a hotel constructed on land leased from the
Port of Portland near the airport was subject to tax); Johnson v. Dept. of Rev., 292 Or 373, 639
P2d 128 (1982) (submerged and submersible lands owned by the state and leased to a taxable
individual who owned the adjacent dry land were subject to tax). It is unclear how ORS 307.110
lesser interests, such as ‘[a]ny estate, right, title or interest whatever in the land or real property, less than the fee
simple.’ * * * The limited instances in which severable, separately owned interests may be separately taxed are
specifically prescribed.”).
6 OAR 150-308-0320 states: “Properties with multiple leases must be assessed as one parcel except those
properties covered by 307.110(2). The statutes have no provisions for assessing multiple leaseholds of undivided
parcels of real property as separate tax accounts. It is not the assessor’s responsibility to divide the assessed values
and tax amounts for each leasehold for the owner. The accounts shall be set up as one account and the appraisal
card(s) shall reflect the value of the entire parcel. Only buildings, machinery and equipment or fixtures owned
separately from other associated property shall be separately assessed.”
7 ORS 307.110(1) states: “Except as provided in ORS 307.120, all real and personal property of this state or
any institution or department thereof or of any county or city, town or other municipal corporation or political
subdivision of this state, held under a lease or other interest or estate less than a fee simple, by any person whose
real property, if any, is taxable, except employees of the state, municipality or political subdivision as an incident to
such employment, shall be subject to assessment and taxation for the assessed or specially assessed value thereof
uniformly with real property of nonexempt ownerships.”

DECISION TC-MD 250214N 6 of 7
or related case law support Plaintiff’s request to divide the subject property assessment based on
the two separate units, each of which was occupied by a taxable individual. Plaintiff’s request to
divide the subject property assessment between Units A and B is denied.
B. Real Market Value
“Real market value” is “the amount in cash that could reasonably be expected to be paid
by an informed buyer to an informed seller, each acting without compulsion in an arm’s-length
transaction occurring as of the assessment date for the tax year.” ORS 308.205(1). The
assessment date was January 1, 2024, for the 2024-25 tax year. See ORS 308.007. Real market
value “shall be determined by methods and procedures in accordance with rules adopted by the
Department of Revenue * * *.” ORS 308.205(2). Three approaches to value must be considered
but may not be applicable in every case: the cost approach; the sales comparison approach; and
the income approach. OAR 150-308-0240(2)(a).
In addition to the three approaches to value,
“[a] recent sale of the property in question is important in determining its market
value. If the sale is a recent, voluntary, arm’s length transaction between a buyer
and seller, both of whom are knowledgeable and willing, then the sales price,
while certainly not conclusive, is very persuasive of the market value.”
Kem v. Dept. of Rev., 267 Or 111, 114, 514 P2d 1335 (1973). Here, Plaintiff’s purchase of the
subject property in 2023 appears to have been recent, voluntary, and arm’s-length. However, it
included significant personal property, and Plaintiff did not offer persuasive evidence of how to
allocate the purchase price between the subject property, the plane, and additional personal
property. The court is unable to determine the subject property’s real market value based on that
sale.
Plaintiff also presented evidence that the cost to cure the subject property’s poor
condition would total $107,715. However, cost to cure evidence does not, by itself, establish real

DECISION TC-MD 250214N 7 of 7
market value, and Plaintiff failed to present a valuation of the subject property under any of the
three approaches to value. Defendant maintains that it reflected the subject property’s poor
condition by using a 70 percent depreciation rate under the cost approach and making condition
adjustments under the sales comparison approach. Defendant placed the most weight on a
comparable sale that was in “poor” condition like the subject property. The court finds that
Plaintiff has not met his burden of proof to reduce the subject property’s real market value.
III. CONCLUSION
Upon careful consideration, the court concludes that Plaintiff has not met his burden of
proof to divide the subject property into two tax accounts, or to reduce its 2024-25 real market
value. Now, therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff’s appeal is denied.
To appeal this Decision, file a complaint in the Regular Division of the Oregon
Tax Court. Appeals are accepted by electronic filing; by mail at 1163 State
Street, Salem, OR 97301-2563; and by hand delivery to 1241 State Street, Salem,
OR, Floor 4R.
Your complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date of this Decision
or this Decision cannot be changed. TCR-MD 19 B.
This Decision was signed by Presiding Magistrate Allison R. Boomer and
entered on September 21, 2026.