Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not t o be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

ENTRY ORDER

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2010-146

JANUARY TERM, 2011

Judith Pizzagalli } APPEALED FROM: }

v. } } Property Valuation and Review
Division } Town of Shelburne } DOCKET NO. PVR 2008-148

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

The Town of Shelburne appeals from the state apprai ser’s assessment of property owned by taxpayer Judith Pizzagalli. We affirm.

The property at issue consists of two lots totaling 20.7 acres with 1275 feet of frontage on Lake Champlain. There are two single-family dwelli ngs on the property, one that contains 5213 square feet of gross living area (GLA) and the othe r that contains 1228 square feet of GLA. There is also a 1472 square foot detached barn. Th e property is well landscaped, and it includes a tennis court and private rocky beach. In 2007-20 08, the Town conducted a town-wide reappraisal, and its asssessor set the fair market value (FMV) of the subject property at $5,824,100 as of April 1, 2008. Taxpayer appealed to the Board of Civil Authority, which reduced the FMV to $5,414,775. Taxpayer then appea led to the state appraiser, which set the FMV at $4,638,200.

In reaching his conclusion, the appraiser made the following findings. Both parties offered the sales of comparable properties to suppo rt their respective positions as to FMV. Both cited the same sale of a nearby property, the Harbo r Road property, which sold for $3,889,000 in September 2007. The appraiser found that, overall, this property was inferior to the subject property. Among other things, it had less GLA, lak e frontage, and acreage. Based on these and other differences, the Town adjusted the sales pric e for this property to $6,197,500. Taxpayer adjusted the sales price to $5,040,400. “Using the most convincing evidence of record when comparing the sale with the [subject property],” th e appraiser found the adjusted sales price of the Harbor Road property to be $6,133,800. The app raiser engaged in a similar analysis with the other proffered comparables.

In doing so, he rejected several of the comparables identified by the Town. One of these was a property located approximately four miles fro m the subject property, the Beach Road property, which sold for $2,338,500 in May 2008. T he appraiser found that this property had less GLA, lake frontage, and acreage than the subje ct property, and overall, it was inferior to the subject property. He found the adjusted sales pric e to be $5,017,200, which resulted in a net adjustment that was greater than the sales price, a nd net and gross adjustment ratios that were2

well over 100%. The appraiser stated that ratios a bove 100% showed a complete lack of comparability, and thus, he did not consider this s ale in reaching his conclusion.

The appraiser found that four of the proffered comp arable sale properties provided the most reliable estimate of FMV for the subject prope rty. The estimates of FMV for these four sales ranged from $4,388,400 to $6,133,800, with a median value of $4,638,200. The appraiser

found that the median value was the best estimate o f FMV for the subject property on April 1, 2008, and he thus adopted this value for purposes o f the Town’s grand list. This appeal by the
Town followed.

The Town first argues that the appraiser failed to provide sufficient findings of fact to
substantiate his determinations of the value of the comparable properties. It complains that the appraiser did not explain which specific factors he adjusted for each property; the amount of adjustment for each factor; or the basis for the ad justment. The Town cites Saufroy v. Town of
Danville , 148 Vt. 624 (1987), as support for its argument. The Town also argues that the appraiser erred by failing to use one of the compar able properties it proffered. It maintains that the appraiser acted arbitrarily in excluding this p roperty based on the fact that the adjustments exceeded the sales price. It points to another cas e decided by the appraiser, Lisman v. Town of
Shelburne , No. 2010-251 (Vt. Dec. 8, 2010) (unpub. mem.), wh ere the appraiser used a comparable property that had a net adjustment ratio of 102.5%. Finally, the Town asserts that the appraiser failed to provide sufficient findings of fact to justify using the median value of the comparable properties to arrive at the subject prop erty’s FMV.

On review, we defer to the appraiser’s decision. G arilli v. Town of Waitsfield , 2008 VT 91, ¶ 9, 184 Vt. 594. “Where the record contains s ome basis in evidence for the state appraiser’s valuation, the appellant bears the burden of demons trating that the exercise of discretion was clearly erroneous.” State Hous. Auth. v. Town of N orthfield , 2007 VT 63, ¶ 5, 182 Vt. 90 (quotation omitted).

The arguments raised by the Town are essentially th e same as those that we considered and rejected in Lisman , No. 2010-251, slip op. at 1-2. As in that case, the appraiser here provided sufficient grounds for his decision, and w e are not “left to speculate on how the Board
reached its conclusion on fair market value.” Sauf roy , 148 Vt. at 626. This case is unlike Saufroy where the board of appraisers set the fair market value of a parcel of property at a value identical to that of the taxpayers’ lone comparable , despite finding “very significant differences between [the] taxpayers’ property and the comparabl e property.” Id . at 625-26. The board in Saufroy offered no “explanation how these differenc es cancel out so that the fair market values

are identical.” Id . at 626. Here, by contrast, the appraiser specifi cally indicated how each of the proposed comparables differed from the subject prop erty, and he then determined a value for the comparables based on the stated differences. We fo und this approach sufficient in Lisman to show how the appraiser reached his conclusion and t o allow for review by this Court. Id . at 2.
We reach a similar conclusion here.

We similarly find no abuse of discretion in the app raiser’s rejection of one of the Town’s comparables, the Beach Road property. See Sonderge ld v. Town of Hubbardton , 150 Vt. 565, 572 (1988) (stating that decision to use certain pr operty as comparable sale “is an evidentiary question which rests solely within the trier’s disc retion”). The appraiser found that: this property3

had less GLA, lake frontage, and acreage than the s ubject property; did not have a guest house or detached barn; had inferior construction quality; a nd overall was inferior to the subject property. The Town adjusted the actual sales price of this pr operty—$2,338,500—to $5,327,500. The appraiser found that the adjusted price should be $ 5,017,200, which resulted in net and gross adjustment ratios of over 100%. Although, as the T own points out, the Harbor Road sale similarly had less GLA, lake frontage, and acreage than the subject property, its net adjustment ratio did not exceed 100%. It was within the appra iser’s discretion to conclude that when the value of the adjustments to a property exceeds the sales price of that property, it is not a useful comparable. The fact that the appraiser, in a diff erent case, considered a comparable with adjustments of 102.5% of the sales price does not d emonstrate that the appraiser abused his
discretion here. See Lisman , No. 2010-251, slip op. at 2 (reaching similar con clusion).

Finally, the Town argues that the appraiser abused his discretion by using the median value of the comparables without explaining why he chose this approach over any other method.
As we stated in Lisman , “[t]here is no requirement that the state apprais er take the average rather than the median of comparable properties—or either one for that matter.” Id . The value of the comparables here ranged from $4,388,400 to $6,133,8 00. Given this wide range, and “the fact that the median represents the midpoint among value s,” id . at 3, the appraiser acted within his discretion in relying on this means of valuation. His approach was reasonable, and he was not obligated to justify his decision to apply this met hod. Contrary to the Town’s assertion, we are not left to speculate how the appraiser reached his conclusion as to FMV, and we find no error in the appraiser’s decision.

Affirmed

.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________________ Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

_______________________________________ Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice

_______________________________________ Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice