566 A.2d 1349 | Vt. | 1989
The Town of Goshen appeals from a decision of the State Board of Appraisers (Board) reducing the valuation of taxpayers’ property and setting it in the grand list at $61,700. We affirm.
The subject property consists of two houses and a structure serving as a barn or garage on two acres of land. The Listers and the Board of Civil Authority (BCA) both appraised the property at $71,450, consisting of $7,800 for the value of the land and $63,650 for the improvements. Taxpayers questioned only the value of the improvements. The Board decision was confined to correcting an error they found in the Listers’ card for the subject property. The card is used to guide the Listers in evaluating the multitude of factors relating to construction and condition of each component part of the property to reach a total appraisal. Referring in its decision to the Listers’ cards for the subject and comparable properties, the Board made findings that the Listers had misgraded certain parts of the subject property, yielding an appraised value after all computations of $61,700, rather than the Listers’ and BCA’s appraisal of $71,450. This appeal followed.
The Town argues that the Board did not make findings as to the values of the comparable properties and therefore failed to follow the mandate of 32 V.S.A. § 4467 that “[t]he findings and determinations of the board shall be made in
In arguing that initial fair market valuation under § 4467 cannot be determined without a direct discussion of comparable properties, the Town construes the Board’s discretion far too narrowly. The unswerving goal of the statute is fair market valuation, but there is no single pathway to that goal. In Sondergeld v. Town of Hubbardton, 150 Vt. 565, 567-68, 556 A.2d 64, 66 (1988), the taxpayers objected to schedules produced by the State reflecting per-foot frontage values on the lake where their property was located and on two nearby lakes. We held that the State figures had been based on sales and reflected appraised valuation within the meaning of 32 V.S.A. § 3481(1). We stated:
While the most persuasive method of appraising residential property in Vermont is to establish fair market value through bona fide sale transactions, our statute does not prescribe the method nor limit the manner in which evidence of fair market value may be presented to the Board.
Id. at 567, 556 A.2d at 66 (citations omitted).
In the present case, the Board also omitted direct comparisons between the subject and comparable properties, but again it met its obligation to consider fair market valuation. It first identified the comparable properties and proceeded to recite in detail the categories in the subject
The Board made a detailed and specific analysis of the subject property. Although Finding 13 does not recite the unit grading for each of the structure criteria (such as exterior walls, trim, floor joists, roof, and foundation) of the comparable properties, the finding taken as a whole does compare subject and comparable properties, criterion by criterion, and does assign numerical values to the former. The appraisal cards of the comparables, each containing its own structure unit grading, were introduced into evidence and were before the Board. While essential findings cannot be left to speculation, see Roy v. Town of Barnet, 147 Vt. 551, 551-52, 522 A.2d 225, 226 (1986), here the Board identified the comparables and noted in considerable detail, using specific structural criteria, the differences between subject and comparable properties. It would have been preferable for the Board to note the structure unit grades of the comparables in its findings after electing to compare structural criteria, rather than the broader descriptive characteristics commonly used by the Board in initial valuations under 32 V.S.A. § 4467; however, the
The Town also argues that the Board never performed the second step prescribed by § 4467, comparing the subject property to comparable properties for purposes of equalization. The Town has no standing to raise this issue. Equalization is a process designed to promote uniformity of taxation within a town by reducing an initial fair market valuation by the ratio of listed values to fair market values of comparable properties. Bookstaver v. Town of Westminster, 131 Vt. 133, 143, 300 A.2d 891, 897 (1973). But in no event may a property be listed at a value higher than fair market value. Brown v. Town of Windsor, 139 Vt. 129, 131, 422 A.2d 1268, 1269 (1980). Consequently, any failure of the Board to apply an equalization figure to the subject property was a failure that could only have benefitted the Town. See Haystack Property Owners Assoc. v. Town of Wilmington, 151 Vt. 47, 49, 556 A.2d 110, 111 (1989). As taxpayers have not raised the issue, no question of the Board’s duty to equalize under § 4467 is before this Court.
The Town next argues that the transcript was riddled with errors and omissions and was “confused and incomprehensible.” The transcript reflected a hearing that was difficult and complex, involving many computational differences and explanations, as well as discussions and comparisons of the subject and comparable properties. V.R.A.P. 10(e)
Finally, the Town argues that taxpayers did not perfect their appeal to the Listers under 32 V.S.A. § 4222 because they failed to submit a written statement of their grievances. The transcript reveals that the Chairman of the Board of Listers “wrote them [grievances] down as notes from him [Mr. Gionet]” on the date of the appeal to the Listers. The notes fully satisfy the requirement of a writing “at or prior to the time fixed for hearing appeals” under § 4222. Although the Town complained to the State Board by letter prior to the hearing that issues concerning the “little house” had not been raised until the tax abatement hearing, the same letter goes on to state that the major issue concerning the house was a zoning, rather than a tax abatement, issue. It appears clear that even if mention of the “little house” was omitted from the notes of the Board of Listers, the omission was insubstantial in light of the lengthy list of complaints actually raised and recorded in the written notes of the Chairman of the Board of Listers and in light of the Town’s assertion that in any event the issues concerning the “little house” were not central to the tax appeal but rather were zoning questions.
Affirmed.
32 V.S.A. § 3481 defines “appraisal value” as fair market value and “listed value” as equal to 100 percent of the appraisal value. See Royal Parke Corp. v. Town of Essex, 145 Vt. 376, 378, 488 A.2d 766, 767-68 (1985).
V.R.A.P. 1(a) states that the Rules of Appellate Procedure govern proceedings to review or enforce administrative board orders.
