Property owners approach assessing board of review for adjustments
BARRINGTON — Pat Kinnane sat by himself at the table inside the Barrington Town Council Chambers, facing a long, wooden desk and the two people seated behind it — E. Jenny Flanagan and Louis Codega.
Ms. Flanagan and Mr. Codega, the lone members of the Barrington Assessing Board of Review, were prepared to listen to Mr. Kinnane’s case. The Bay Spring resident wanted the town’s assessment on his property lowered. He had pulled some comparable home sales, as is recommended by town officials, and had also hired a private appraiser to provide a second opinion.
His challenge was not unique.
This year, dozens of property owners in Barrington are approaching the assessing board of review asking for assessment assistance. Following a tumultuous town-wide statistical revaluation, a number of residents are seeking lower assessments. They believe Vision Appraisal Technology, the company that conducted the reval, failed to correctly price properties.
Recourse for residents included appeals with Vision — hundreds of assessments were altered during that period. Property owners can also file applications for appeals with Barrington Tax Assessor Michael Minardi, and/or with the review board.
But according to some people, the task can be expensive and confusing. Hiring a private appraiser can cost hundreds and understanding assessment terminology is, in itself, challenging for residents who don’t have backgrounds in real estate.
Ms. Flanagan, an appraiser by trade, has been offering some helpful advice to residents as they prepare for appeals. First they should find out why they think their assessment is wrong.
“If they do hire an appraiser, I am interested in hearing what they say the problem is. I want to see the appraiser provide some evidence of the problem,” Ms. Flanagan said.
At the same time, Ms. Flanagan said she understands how the appeal process can become burdensome to residents, both stressful and financially taxing.
Consider, for example, the challenge for a Washington Road resident whose property assessment was increased dramatically during the recent revaluation. The resident says Vision failed to account for the fact that much of the property is wetlands; the town’s tax assessor said a Class I property survey and information from a certified wetlands biologist is needed to substantiate any wetlands claims. The assessor said proof is needed. The residents say the services required will cost thousands.
“I recognize that hiring people is a burden,” she said. “Hopefully what you gain on a reduction in taxes is worth what you paid for a professional.”
Mr. Kinnane spent money for a private appraisal, but did not pay to have him assist during the appeal hearing.
The long-time resident said his property assessment increased to $249,700 during the last reval. He hired a private appraiser to offer a second opinion, which came in at $210,000.
During the appeal hearing, Mr. Kinnane looked at Ms. Flanagan and Mr. Codega and offered his pitch: “I didn’t know what I was doing, so I got a professional,” he said.
Mr. Kinnane said he wasn’t sure why surrounding land values were lower — significantly lower, he said — than the price attached to his parcel.
Ms. Flanagan offered an explanation of how land values are set and why some parcels are priced higher than others even when they abut.
Then she noticed a problem.
Apparently, a key factor in establishing values — the “C-factor” — appeared to be wrong for Mr. Kinnane’s property. Lots on either side of his had C-factors of 1.5, while his property had a 1.75. The difference resulted in the higher assessment.
“That needs to be corrected,” she said.
A few minutes later, the board voted 2-0 to adjust the C-factor for Mr. Kinnane’s property, which in turn reduced his assessment to $225,000. A pleased Mr. Kinnane accepted the adjustment.
Significant reduction
A few minutes earlier, Adams Point Road residents John and Betsy Harker, and appraiser Peter M. Scotti, sat before the assessing board. Mr. Scotti, a well-established appraiser, offered explanations as to why the Harkers’ property was assessed too high, including the fact that a buildable lot sat between their property and views of the Warren River.
Mr. Scotti handled the bulk of the discussion with the board. He offered his analysis of four comparable home sales in Barrington and discussed other details with Ms. Flanagan. Mr. Codega remained quiet through much of the talk.
Nearing the end of the discussion, Barrington Tax Assessor Michael Minardi offered two different home sales he felt should be examined; Mr. Scotti said he had no prior notice of the two examples. Both sales offered higher property values than the one Mr. Scotti was focused on, but they were later dismissed by Ms. Flanagan because the views from those homes were of Narragansett Bay and not the Warren River.
“You can’t compare the views,” Mr. Harker said.
The board then voted 2-0 to significantly lower the Harkers’ property assessments. The 30 percent reduction for the total parcel dropped the town’s valuation from $3,346,300 to $2,338,500.
Mr. Scotti said Vision had increased the property assessment during the last reval, using the small sale sampling available. He said Vision officials owed it to the town to dig deeper into the real estate market, incorporating the sale price trend that was taking shape in Barrington.
“They used all the sales they could find, but when they saw that the market was dropping, they needed to go back and look and see what’s really on the market,” Mr. Scotti said. “If you look at the sales graphs from 2005 to 2008 there was really no change. They could have made their job a lot easier...”
Mr. Scotti said his company has handled dozens of jobs in Barrington following the recent revaluation.
Robert Ryan, a Barrington resident and professional appraiser, said the adjustment made to the Harkers’ property will open the door for other sizable assessment reductions in town. He said he is representing a number of Barrington residents who are also requesting significant changes.
“I think you’re going to see more of it, a lot more of it,” he said. “I think as this board makes this decision, people will say ‘Hey, I’ll take my shot at it.’
“I smell a supplemental tax bill. I think they’re going to reduce so much in taxes that we’re going to be short on money. Based upon clients of mine, I see millions of dollars being abated.”
Mr. Scotti agreed with Mr. Ryan.
“Yeah, I would say they’re going to have a problem with their rate in Barrington,” he said.
Mr. Ryan, who has handled dozens of appraisals for Barrington residents following Vision’s work, said the recent revaluation has created a dysfunctional system in town.
“I don’t recall a reval that wasn’t done as badly as this one,” he said. “I don’t recall an outcry like this from the public... I think it’s unique.”
He said he could not criticize town officials from requiring documented proof of reasons for potential assessment reductions, but added that there are other — often times less expensive — ways of finding out whether a parcel has deficiencies, like the Washington Road property that is covered in part by wetlands.
“I think there are other ways the problem can be solved short of a Class I survey and wetlands biologist, but at the same time the burden of proof does fall on the property owner.”
No fun for Flanagan
After agreeing on the 30 percent reduction, the Harkers and Ms. Flanagan thanked each other. The cordial exchange may have been a high point for Ms. Flanagan, who said in a later interview that she was not enjoying her role as Assessing Board of Reviewing Chairwoman.
“I did not want to be chairperson. I don’t want to be in the hot seat,” she said.
Ms. Flanagan is hoping the town council finds a third member to fill the void left by Shawn Quigley, who resigned her post in early October.
Those in attendance at last week’s appeal hearing said Ms. Flanagan’s increased role on the board was a welcome change. Previously, Ms. Quigley, a real estate agent, has served as the board’s chair.
Last week’s hearing also featured a crowd of about two dozen onlookers. A few members of the residents group Barrington for Equitable Taxes, which is suing the town over the recent reval, were in attendance. Also in the audience were some people gathering notes on the board’s actions. The residents said they wanted to be as prepared as possible when they approached the board and requested reductions.
“Yes, there are a number of people coming to the meetings and learning ...” Ms. Flanagan said. “I recognize that for some property owners it is an easier process than it is for others.”
Appeal hearings continue this week
The next Barrington Assessing Board of Review meeting is set for Wednesday, Nov. 4 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers, and will feature at least two property owners’ appeals that had been continued from previous hearings.
What you need to know:
• Appeals to the board must be filed within 30 days of the tax assessor’s decision.
• If the tax assessor does not render a decision within 45 days of the filing of an initial appeal, then the time frame to appeal to the board is extended to 90 days.
• Once an appeal application is accepted as complete, the board has 90 days to hear the appeal and render a written decision; the board has 30 days after all testimony has been given to render the written decision.
The bogus reval was negligently managed by Mr. Minardi.
Then he tried to hide the tell-tale initial appeal records for as long as possible.
The “C-factor” mentioned in the article is one of the bogus FUDGE FACTORS Vision used to make arbitrary adjustments. Now the Board uses this “FUDGE FACTOR”.
The “C-factor” is really a “FUDGE-FACTOR”. Let’s call it what it really is: a “FUDGE-FACTOR”.
The law clearly prohibits the use of a FUDGE-FACTOR. But Barrington officials consider themselves above the law.
The law requires that “DEFINED STANDARDS” are to be applied to verified documented facts. There is no “FUDGE-FACTOR” allowed by law or IAAO standards. In fact, the legally required “DEFINED STANDARDS” are the exact opposite of a “FUDGE-FACTOR” scheme.
The Town should have insisted that Mr. Minardi publish “DEFINED STANDARDS” and put them on the Town web-site so that everyone could easily understand how the values were arrived at. And, Vision would have done a better job if they knew that the public was informed of the “DEFINED STANDARDS”.
The Town Council did not write letters to the editor or otherwise take Mr. Minardi, the Manager, or the Solicitor to task for the negligent bogus reval, or the dishonest hiding of tell-tale public records. WHY NOT?
Oh, Mrs. Flanagan, you are not alone in the “hot seat”.
The entire Board of Assessment Review is on the “hot seat” on this reval …
as is the Tax Assessor,
and the Town Manager, and
the Solicitor,
and the reval company and, last but not least,
the Town Council.
Hey, we all know the reval was done wrong.
Even the Board of Assessment Review is having a really, really hard time pretending that they don’t know how wrong it all is.
If someone who sits on the Board of Assessment Review thinks that this reval was done RIGHT… well, that person is not qualified to be sitting on that Board.
Not that the Board hasn’t tried to be creative about attempting to scale back their legal duties….
“Now remember, appellants, each property is unique”, they say. (What they mean is, “there are no legal, uniform standards here in Barrington, suckers”.)
“Make sure you get your documents in well in advance of your hearing”, they say. (What they mean is, “how can we have a hearing before the hearing and ask someone else what to do with this mess if you just state your appeal and present your documents at the actual real-life hearing itself?!”)
“We are only looking at specific issues with individual properties, not the ‘global issues’ “, they say. (What they mean is, “We aren’t going to fix the non-uniform disproportionality even though there IS a block to check off for that on the appeal form DO NOT check off THAT block –WHOA – we don’t know WHAT to do about THAT mess and we don't want you preserving your appeal rights on THAT one!”).
The Board may have to face facts: try as the Board may, this thing is not going to get fixed one little property at a time.
The Vision initial appeal documents are an interesting read, to say the least.
There is not a rug big enough to sweep this one under, folks.
The Town Council actually held a “hearing” at which they turned a deaf ear to the problems. They knowingly accepted this reval, flaws and all.
When the Barrington Town Council hired Mr. Minardi and Vision, they appeared to have purchased what just might turn out to be the biggest reval lawsuit in the history of the world.
Many residents on Boyce Ave. went to Mr. Minardi to ask for the "defined standards" that determined their "C" factor. The standards document to resolve the Boyce Ave issues was never provided BECAUSE THERE IS NO STANDARDS DOCUMENT in this reval. The Vision job was done based on a low cost "drive around wild a$$ guessing game” where no property was actually walked. And a standards document would have cost money to publish.
Now they are talking about a supplemental tax bill. This could have been avoided long ago if the Town Council had an ounce of leadership. Instead they gambled that the crisis would die on the vine.
Well it didn't. Simply stated, arrogance on the part of the TC is the cause of this mess.
I wonder if President Speakman will have another one of her insightful counterpoint LTE’s in the BT next week.
And thank you Jenny and Lou for the time and effort on our behalf to unravel this mess!
Those of us who cannot afford private appraisals are out of luck. It takes money to make money. Vision's shoddy work coupled with Mr. Minardi's kangaroo court and the town council's indifference has left me livid with the entire process. The throngs whose taxes are too low (again, thank you Vision) are laughing up their sleeves at the rest of us poor saps.
I have allways wondered why after years and years of this Visions compny screwing up why the cities and town don't sue them for the bad job they do and with hold payment unitl it is straightened out at Visions expence and also fine them for the trouble they caused. Just a thought.
Jack
The Assessor offers bogus “comps” at a hearing. That’s not his duty. He shouldn’t be trying to hurt people. It’s a good thing the appellants could afford to hire an appraiser. What if an appellant comes in alone with only comps…? Maybe the Assessor would have prevailed in “dueling comps”. He might have carried more weight in that scenario, even though he was wrong. At the very least, it puts the Board and the appellant in a much more difficult position than if the Assessor was acting in good faith.
Supplemental tax bills? That raises interesting questions. Such as….Based on what? The bogus reval? Wouldn’t that result in another big lawsuit?
The town budgeted hundreds of thousands of dollars for abatements because they knew the reval was all wrong. Gross up that number to get the amount of valuation reduction that was budgeted before a supplemental bill would be necessary due to abatements.
Budgeting hundreds of thousands of dollars for abatements….sounds like an admission, doesn’t it?
Our tax rate is already based on the fact that the reval is wrong. Wasn’t it wrong to do that as well?
And, what about the people who didn’t appeal? Maybe they didn’t know how. Maybe they can’t afford to appeal.
“Can’t afford to appeal”?
Why should people have to be able “to afford” to appeal? In Barrington, the taxpayers have to pay the taxes that paid for the bogus reval and then they have to be able to afford to appeal the bogus reval so that they can get their taxes reduced to the right amount…
What a mess.
It’s too bad our government doesn’t care to fix this mess.
Don't hesitate to appeal if you are not satisfied with your assessment. Jenny Flannigan, acting chairman and an appraiser, said to make a special note on your appeal form that you cannot afford an appraiser. She promised to pay close attention to these appeals in an effort to help determine the fair market value of your property.
Mrs. Flanagan is offering this one thing as a standard? She will allow people to appeal using methods other than appraisals, only if they make a special note on their appeal form that they cannot afford an appraiser? This is a problem.
People are entitled to be valued properly, and an appraisal is not the only accepted method to get property to fmv.
This one newly made-up standard does not address the problems with the reval and it is not a legitimate standard. It would be nice if Mrs. Flanagan would insist that the Assessor do his duty and publish some standards.
It would be great if the town would have the Assessor revalue properties properly town-wide. People should not have to be going through this arduous process to get the values that should have been assigned in the first place.
Will Mrs. Flanagan also revalue every other property in town? Or will she insist that the Assessor do his duty now?
Can we make a special note that we shouldn't have to hire an appraiser to be valued at fair market value during a town-wide revaluation?
Should appellants be held to 100% of fmv if others in town are at a lower percentage of fmv? No. The town is supposed to be at a stated uniform percentage of fmv. The Board of Assessment Review has not even begun to address this issue.
If you appeal and are adjusted down to 100% of fmv at 12/31/08, you will still pay a disproportionate share of taxes if others are at a lower percentage of fmv.
The taxpayers deserve a Board of Assessment Review that understands and can deal with the real problems with this reval.
A Board that understands the problems will ask the Town Council to fix the town-wide reval.
"Band-aid" valuation reductions to 100% of fmv for only those who appeal? That won't fix the problems with this reval.
Although E. Jenny may have good intentions, she should read the law and insist that the Town comply.
From Rhode Island General Law S. 44-5-26:
“REASONS FOR AN APPEAL. It is the intent of the general assembly to ensure that all taxpayers in Rhode Island are treated equitably. Ensuring that taxpayers are treated fairly begins where cities and towns meet defined standards related to performing property values. All properties should be assessed in a uniform manner, and properties of equal value should be assessed the same.
“You may appeal your assessment if your property is: (1) OVERVALUED (assessed value is more than the fair market value as of December 31 in the year of the last update or revaluation for real estate and as of December 31 of the tax year for personal estate for any reason, including clerical and data processing errors; (2) disproportionately assessed in comparison with other properties;”
E. Jenny should inform June that the Board cannot legally proceed without:
1) The legally required “defined standards”, and
2) The Town first fixing the town-wide “disproportionately assessed” problem.
The Board is holding hearings as though all they have to do is arrive at 100% of fmv for the appellants who come in. That's not all they have to do.
This is mass appraisal. The values have to be proportional in relation to one another. The fmv has to be at a uniform percentage. Does the Board know what the level of assessment is at 12/31/08?
"CAMA" (computer assisted mass appraisal) is not a legitimate valuation method. It's just a tool that is used in conducting the mass appraisal.
Do the Board members have any training in mass appraisal & the law related to mass appraisal?
Is the Board relying on advice from Mr. Minardi? It does not appear that Mr. Minardi can defend the valuations he approved. Can't Vision staff defend the valuations they assigned? If the Town Council hearings were any gauge... the answer is "no".
Barrington Anon,
Unfortunately the law goes on to say that the Dept of Revenue defines the standards which they did do in a Rules and Regs document. It is poorly written and lacks definition (standards) on matters like defining "C" factors. The C factor is a Vision process item and they were the ones who had to define how it was implemented. The law does not require it for an appeal to the Board.
The case law is equally loose stating only that anything that arrives at a "willing buyer / willing seller" price in a regular market is OK by them.
The Appeals Board is supposed to hear an appeal de novo. That is, as if starting from scratch based only the info in front of them (the appraisers determined value and the comps supporting the determination). Their job is only to make a ruling on the true and correct value, not where things went wrong. Thus things like C factors are irrelevant for an appeal except to allow a place to make the change once a determination is made.
I have attended several of these appeals meetings and Flanagan is doing all the work. The position of chair could be revolving but with only two members and only one who expresses any opinion or understanding of the material that would be difficult. One board member shouldn't have to carry the whole burden of cleaning up after a very messy revaluation. It's no wonder standards are being ignored. Never-the-less the standards are supposed to be the floor of competence not the ceiling.
Gary, with regard to “defined standards” - the good news for the BET lawsuit is that “defined standards” are indeed specifically required by RI law.
The law requires that “cities and towns meet defined standards related to performing property values.” The law also requires that “Procedures for administering the property tax are standardized – such as general reporting and classification systems”. And, another statute indicates that “Cities and towns meet defined standards related to performing updates of property values”.
Please note that a general principal is that statutes trump regulations, and regulations must be consistent with the applicable enabling law. Also, there is a rule in interpreting laws that the more specific law governs if there are conflicting laws (which isn’t the case here anyway – as I don’t see any conflict). In this case the enabling law for the regulation you are referring to indicates that regulations should be promulgated “to define the requirements for the updates”, and lists certain cost rates that should be adjusted in an update. The regulation itself indicates that certain IAAO standards must be complied with (BET can point to non-compliance here), and indicates that the property valuation system should have the “ability to meet minimum standards for assessment administration”, etc., but does not define them. I agree the regulation is otherwise vague and poorly drafted. However, the poorly drafted regulation that deals with how “updates” are to be done in general and on an over-all basis, in no way negates the specific and pointed statutory requirement that “cities and towns meet defined standards related to performing property values.” Stretching to reach this conclusion would provide an absurd proposition that a regulation can eliminate a specific statute. Towns and Cities are required to follow both the statutory requirement that “defined standards” are implemented, followed, and disclosed, and also to comply with the additional regulatory requirements related to updates.
The regulation cannot, and does not eliminate the over-riding statutory requirements of “defined standards related to performing property values”, “full and cash value or a uniform percentage of value”, etc. The underlying “defined standards” that are applicable with regard to how all the basic property record data and factors are arrived at are legally required for updates (e.g., “func”, “topo”, “grade”, “c factor”, building classifications, story height standards, “living space” “enclosed porch”, “open porch”, “unfinished attic”, etc., etc.). I think if you read to flow of the law as presented below, you will see.
And keep in mind that under the regulation, the assessor is required to provide documentation to substantiate the values.
§ 44-5-12 Assessment at full and fair cash value. – (a) All real property subject to taxation shall be assessed at its full and fair cash value, or at a uniform percentage of its value,
§ 44-5-11.5 (3) It is the intent of the general assembly to ensure that all taxpayers in Rhode Island are treated equitably. The more frequent the revaluation, the greater the equity within and among jurisdictions. Ensuring that taxpayers are treated fairly begins with modernizing the administration of the property tax that ensures:
(i) Up-to-date property values are maintained through more frequent property revaluations;
(ii) Cities and towns meet defined standards related to performing updates of property values;
(iii) The state shares in the cost of performing updates of property values in the cities and towns;
(iv) A meaningful and effective method of ensuring that cities and towns comply with the nine (9) year revaluation cycle and the updates of property values are developed;
(v) Procedures for administering the property tax are standardized – such as general reporting and classification systems;
(vi) Assessors and contracted property revaluation companies meet appropriate qualifications and standards; and
(vii) Intergovernmental cooperation in the administration of the property tax is maximized.
(4) With these findings in mind, it is the intent of the general assembly to institute a revaluation cycle where every city or town conducts a revaluation within nine (9) years of the date of the prior revaluation and shall conduct an update of real property every three (3) years from the date of the last revaluation.
§ 44-5-11.6 (b) No later than February 1, 1998, the director of the department of revenue shall promulgate rules and regulations consistent with the provisions of this section to define the requirements for the updates which shall include, but not be limited to:
(1) An analysis of sales;
(2) A rebuilding of land value tables;
(3) A rebuilding of cost tables of all improvement items; and
(4) A rebuilding of depreciation schedules.
§ 44-5-26 REASONS FOR AN APPEAL. It is the intent of the general assembly to ensure that all taxpayers in Rhode Island are treated equitably. Ensuring that taxpayers are treated fairly begins where cities and towns meet defined standards related to performing property values. All properties should be assessed in a uniform manner, and properties of equal value should be assessed the same. You may appeal your assessment if your property is: (1) OVERVALUED (assessed value is more than the fair market value as of December 31 in the year of the last update or revaluation for real estate and as of December 31 of the tax year for personal estate for any reason, including clerical and data processing errors; (2) disproportionately assessed in comparison with other properties;
Gary, respectfully, “things like C factors” are causing disproportionality because this is an undefined bogus fudge factor that was applied differently and arbitrarily across town, and therefore must be considered on appeal. Everyone should be treated the same under one set of published objective standards. Fair Market Value is not the only basis for appeal. “Disproportianality” is also a basis for appeal, and “Disproportionality” is the big Barrington problem. Everyone appealing is affected and should be checking the “disproportionately assessed” box and forcing this issue to be addressed.
Yes, the Appeals Board should be addressing “where things went wrong”, and demanding that the Town Council fix it. The over-all bogus reval means that the Board can’t completely cure the disproportianlity problem for anyone. Yet they are required to address “disproportionately assessed” properties.
And: Property record card data (“living space” square footage, style of home) and legitimately defined factors (depreciation, grade, etc. - supported by standards applied to verified facts) should be corrected by the Board without necessarily the need for an appraisal or reference to fair market value. This would be under the uniformity requirement. (Although, yes I know we aren’t uniform in Barrington)
The law:
“You may appeal your assessment if your property is: (1) OVERVALUED (assessed value is more than the fair market value as of December 31 in the year of the last update or revaluation for real estate and as of December 31 of the tax year for personal estate for any reason, including clerical and data processing errors; (2) disproportionately assessed in comparison with other properties”
What a mess.
So ... therefore ... it is impossible to properly resolve specific property valuation problems in Barrington without first solving the general disproportionality problem in Barrington ...
OK your above points well taken, but only if this were in front of a Superior Court judge.
My comments before pertained to the role of the Appeals Board and their jurisdiction. They are not rigidly bound by the case law or standards. Instead, they are there to render an opinion based on the information in front of them (the appraisal and comps) and their own life experience in rendering an opinion on such matters.
RI law forbids a non attorney from rendering a legal opinion in any form so they cannot reference statutes or legal standards in their judgments. ll Board seats required such opinions, only lawyers and appraisers would fill the seats.
BET will prevail in Superior Court on such matters when in front of a judge, but we should not place the volunteers on the Board under such a microscope.
These mass appraisals involve many, many complicated legal issues and the Board has to be qualified and armed with a full understanding of the legal issues as they apply to mass appraisal. They also have to understand the legal burdens of proof.
Barrington Anonymous has it right& more can be said. garymm ...got to be wary of approaching it that way...it's just not right.
imjutsayin = exactly!
Regarding the Barrington “Double Vision” Reval Mess:
The Appeals Board is required to follow the law.
The Board is charged with applying the property tax law to verified facts at a hearing to determine proper valuations.
Mr. Minardi’s role should be to explain how the values were arrived at, and substantiating the values with documented verified facts applied to defined standards.
The Appeals Board is legally required to apply defined standards.
The Appeals Board is legally required to address fair market value.
The Appeals Board is legally required to address disproportionality.
The Appeals Board is legally required to fix clerical and data errors.
But……… neither the Board nor the public has been given “defined standards”.
And, the Barrington reval is so disproportionately bogus that however well-intentioned, the Board cannot completely cure anyone. And, by having to use “C factor” adjustments as a fudge factor to reach fair market value, the Board is admitting that Vision’s factors and methodology are arbitrary and bogus. Applying “unique” individualized methodology in a vacuum for some taxpayers does not cure the big disproportionality problem. It creates more disproportionality. That’s because while most taxpayers are valued under the arbitrary Vision scheme, others are now valued under the Boards’ different methodology. The Board needs to report all of this to the Town Council.
June needs to step up and have Mr. Minardi publish “defined standards”, and have Vision re-do the bogus and disproportionate reval.
As far as “legal opinions”: Mr. Ursillo is being paid to attend all the hearings and his role should be to provide any “legal opinions” that the Board needs with respect to interpreting the law, so that the Board can properly apply the law to the facts.
What a mess.
Barrington Annon,
There is one single standard under the statutes and the existing caselaw. The value in an appeal is determined as a hypothetical willing seller and willing buyer exchanging the property under normal market conditions. The rest is noise when it comes to an individual appeal.
The Appeals Board hears the appeal as if no other cases exist including the BET lawsuit. We should recognize that disproportionality is what the lawsuit is about and not an issue for the Appeals Board to make a determination on which they would have to do if disproportionality were to become part of the equation.
My point is that we would be pushing the Board to do something they are not charged to do if disproportionality were to become a factor.
Barrington Anonymous is right about everything.
The disproportionality is a factor that cannot be ignored, as is the non-uniformity in the level of assessment. Standards are required. Barrington doesn't have them. This is a big problem for the Barrington government.
This is a mass appraisal scheme that needs to be corrected. You have to keep that in mind. This is not a simiply a matter of opinion. And it's not simply a matter of looking at fmv. It is more complicated than that although, the Barrington government would have you believe that that's all there is to it. Good thing BET knows better!
Applicable case law is clear and Barrington Anonymous is right.
Barrington Anonymous, you are amazing. You seem to have a great legal mind and you also seem to be a tax expert. You have an unparalleled grasp of the issues, the facts, the data, and the law. It is very refreshing to see such a tax expert here in Barrington.
So ... as we wait ... the situation only gets worse ...
... (meaning more complicated ... more "disproportional" ... and more non-"uniform") ...
Then why are we waiting? ...
... (meaning what exactly are we waiting for?) ...
This is headed for a very unhappy ending ...
Regarding the Bogus Barrington Reval, the law IS THE LAW, and RI law does apply in Barrington.
The law does apply with respect to the Barrington Board of Assessment.
The Board is “charged” by law to address “disproportionately assessed in comparison with other properties”. The Town is required to “meet defined standards related to performing property values” (and the Board is required to apply these “defined standards”).
The solution to the Reval Mess is to demand that our government start honestly applying the laws, and we need to make enough “noise” so that they hear the message. The solution should not involve choosing which laws we want to apply. That’s exactly the mind set that created this mess.
The disproportionality is systemically wide-spread, and Board action is needed to address it. The Board is legally charged to fix disproportionality, but due to the constraints caused by the bogus reval, the Board cannot completely cure the problem.
And, the Board has no legally required “defined standards”.
The Board needs to tell June that the Reval is a broken-down mess that cannot be fixed by arbitrarily adjusting “C factors” for the limited number of taxpayers who appeal and who have appraisals. What about the rest of the Town that did not appeal? What about those who cannot afford an appraisal? June needs to step up and fix this mess.
Again, HERE IS THE LAW:
“§ 44-5-26 REASONS FOR AN APPEAL. It is the intent of the general assembly to ensure that all taxpayers in Rhode Island are treated equitably. Ensuring that taxpayers are treated fairly begins where cities and towns meet defined standards related to performing property values. All properties should be assessed in a uniform manner, and properties of equal value should be assessed the same. You may appeal your assessment if your property is: (1) OVERVALUED (assessed value is more than the fair market value as of December 31 in the year of the last update or revaluation for real estate and as of December 31 of the tax year for personal estate for any reason, including clerical and data processing errors; (2) disproportionately assessed in comparison with other properties;”
What a mess.
Imjustsayin,
The BET case stands on its own merit against the entire mass appraisal as a whole.
This is heading for success!
Cowboyup,
I pity the fool who walks into the Appeals Board asking to fix specific Vision errors or consideration for disproportionality based on statutes.
You only need a determined value for your home (appraisal) and the supporting comps. Nothing more, nothing less.
Oh Garymm, you are perfect... well, a perfect example of just what they're looking for in a taxpayer/appellant.
You pity "the fool who walks into the Appeals Board" and asks them to fix specific Vision errors? To fix the disproportionality? To do their job?
It is the job of the Board to fix all errors. Including that an appellant has a right to appeal the disproportionate assessment.
And the appeal form has a block right on the form that the appellant can check off that says, “disproportionate assessment”. (This block can be checked in addition to the other blocks.)
Of course the Board doesn’t want to deal with this big, messy problem.
Even though it’s wrong for the Board to refuse to deal with this problem.
But the Town Council isn’t going to make them do their duty. Just like they don’t make the Tax Assessor, Eddie and the solicitor do their duty.
So the Board tells people that the Board is NOT going to deal with this “global problem” of disproportionate assessments. The Board says don’t come to us with that issue. We’ve (wrongly) decided that that issue is only for….. A REALLY BIG LAWSUIT !
(When did the Board decide that issue, anyway?)
This REALLY BIG LAWSUIT being the same lawsuit that the Solicitor is working really hard to get dismissed.
Here’s the plan. See, the Town Council is counting on the Board to convince the Barrington appellants to be too polite and timid to check off “disproportionate assessment” once the Board has TOLD THEM NOT to check off THAT block!
But, then, the polite, timid Barrington appellant won’t be able to appeal to Superior Court on the disproportionality issue because he didn’t raise it on appeal.
Yup, they’re trying to “polite” people right out of their appeal rights.
Neat trick.
No need to go around on this again. Those who understand mass appraisal get it.
Cowboy up,
Your logic is correct if there were no lawsuit. In fact your logic is a matter I had considered as well IF THERE WAS NO LAWSUIT FILED. But there is a lawsuit. If no lawsuit was filed, a resident would have to have checked the disproportionality box, had their appeal, made the argument, and then filed the action in Superior Court and made the case before a judge on those grounds. BUT THERE IS A LAWSUIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE TOWN which I'm assuming includes you and the others on this blog.
I trust you can look up the Doctrine of Res Judicata. I doubt any of the legal minds in this blog could even pronounce it. It states that you can't be named in two separate lawsuits for the same or similar matters. Are you suggesting that the army of novices who check the disproportionality box are prepared to go it alone in Superior Court and that a novice who goes it alone will do a better job than an experienced attorney backed up by the resources needed? Have you ever tried to do "discovery" in a legal action? You don't want to go there alone.
I hope to see your lawsuit in Superior Court, Cowboy et al vs Barrington. The more the merrier. But if you are already named in the current lawsuit, you can't go there.
So why harass the Board to do a job you yourself are not willing to follow up on with an action in Superior Court. If you check the box, I hope to see one more action filed in Superior Court. But I doubt that will happen even from those in this blog.
Anything less and your suggestion amounts to harassment of the Board. They are doing a good job on behalf of residents. I don't want that to change.
Garymm, you are all wrong. No more time for your bogus legal theories from a non-lawyer who is not a tax expert. (See statutes about those things, also.) Good luck with the BET lawsuit.
Paul Doughty
Cowboyup,
My last post! We differ because I view this as winning relief when in an individual appeal (cash in hand), you see this as a fight in larger principle. Both are a matter of choice for the appellant.
The cash side requires a common sense approach placed before a Board that is not about to fall off a technical cliff. Expecting the Board to calculate the townwide apportionment in each individual appeal based on statutory language is an appeal I personally would not choose. I'll take the cash.
Gary "every man for himself"mm:
The only thing you are right about is that we differ.
We differ for a lot of reasons. See comments, above.
In addition, we have a key, key difference:
You are taking an "every man for himself" approach when the proper legal approach is a solution that corrects the bogus reval for everyone - even for those who didn't know how to appeal, who cannot afford a lawyer & an appraiser, and who shoudln't have to be appealing to get justice.
The ONLY thing that you are right about - we differ.
And since that was your last word, we'll leave it at that.
I just dont understand the reason this system cant be stream lined and made a hell of a lot easyer. Why must a taxpayer always get the short end of the stick and have so many hoops to jump though to get justice. Seems to me there has to be a better way that is fair and simple, how hard could it be geeze.
Jack
Good points, Jackkb. And think about it....Vision made a million dollar mistake on the Harkers’ property. Not $10,000 or even $100, 000... a million.
So Harkers’ Vision valuation was off….. a million bucks. No big deal. What’s a million bucks one way or the other among friends, right?
What if they didn’t know to appeal? These people had to spend a lot of time and money to get this mistake fixed.
Not to mention all the anxiety that Vision’s errors must have caused these people.
It is not right that these people had to go through this to get their valuation fixed. Especially given that the town government knows that Vision did a lousy job and made lots and lots of mistakes. For this Board to pretend that they don't know that the valuation was done wrong is nothing short of a slap in the face to these appellants.
Vision also made mistakes on the Washington Road property. That property owner also had to spend his time and money to get a Vision mistake fixed.
The Washington Road owner came in with an appraisal at $210,000.
Mrs. Flanagan says she wants to see the appraisals so she can see what the problems are. But the Board REJECTED this gentleman’s appraisal. Why? On what basis? What standards did the Board apply in substituting their own judgment for the work of an appraiser?
Mrs. Flanagan may have a background as an appraiser, but did Mrs. Flanagan do her own appraisal on this property and disagree with the appraisal presented by the appellant? It doesn’t appear so, because it doesn’t seem that any other appraisal was presented t the meeting for Mr. Codega and Mrs. Flanagan to vote to accept in lieu of the appraisal presented by the appellant.
Did Mr. Codega do his own appraisal on this property? It doesn’t appear so.
Isn’t the appellant at least entitled to know why his appraised value is being rejected? Well, for whatever reason, the Board rejected the appraisal that was presented.
Then, the Board found that Vision had made an obvious mistake with the Washington Road property’s “c factor” on the land. So, the Board had to fix this Vision mistake.
OK, so the Board is fixing Vision’s mistakes. But Vision has made thousands and thousands of mistakes. Have they all been fixed? Have they all been appealed? Ask yourself, Is MY “c factor” correct? Is my “func” right? Is my “st idx” correct? What about my “dep code”? Is my “grade” correct? Is my “eco/ext dep” ok? How was my “cond” and “%” calculated? And what about my “style” and “story
height”? Am I entitled to a “topo” that I didn’t get?
Some of the Vision appeal documents have “Discovery” written in on them in red. This means that Vision discovered that they made mistakes – when an appellant brought it to their attention. Some of the Vision appeal documents have “Company Error” written in on them in red.
This means that Vision discovered some of their own errors - when an appellant brought it to their attention.
Have the appellants caught all the mistakes yet?
Is this how the system is supposed to work?
And then, ask yourself: During the initial appeals, why did some people get reductions just for the asking, but others had to hire engineers and appraisers and lawyers to get reductions? Like for wet land and lots of other reductions to value. What gives?
There are a lot more questions that need answers.
There’s a lot more Vision mistakes that need fixing.
There’s a lot more that needs fixing.
response to cowboy
Isn’t the appellant at least entitled to know why his appraised value is being rejected? Well, for whatever reason, the Board rejected the appraisal that was presented.
It would seem to me that they are rquired by law to give a reason in writing as they are for any rejection by a zoning board,HDC, or any town boards far as I know.
I would contact the A.G."s office on that. Im almost positive that is a requirement in order to have be able to present it in court if they were to sue. And because they are a government entity they cannot make a determination with out showing cause whether in favor or against. is has to be recorded and the citizen is entitled to that in writing under open records act.
No action can be taken by any government entity on an oral order it must be recorded and a record maintained by the government.
Though this is my opinion I believe I read this a long time ago in a few of the federal cases I reseached on other matters in concerning Labor complaint and It applies to all dicisions by any goverment entity.
Jack
Oh proably In Title 5 of the U.S. government Code of Regulations. somewhere.
Jack
