Avery v. Clackamas County Assessor ( 2013 )

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
MARY JO AVERY, )
)
Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 130170C
)
v. )
)
CLACKAMAS COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Defendant. ) DECISION
Plaintiff appealed the real market value (RMV) of certain unimproved land in the city of
Lake Oswego identified in the assessor’s records as Account 05014494. The tax year at issue is
2012-13. Trial was held is Salem on June 24, 2013. Plaintiff was represented by Nick Bunick
(Bunick), Plaintiff’s husband and a real estate broker.1 Defendant was represented by Kathleen
Rastetter, Assistant County Counsel. Bunick testified for Plaintiff, and Geoff Bennett (Bennett),
Senior Appraiser, Clackamas County Assessor’s Office, testified for Defendant. Plaintiff’s
Exhibits B, C, and D, and Defendant’s Exhibits A, B, and D were admitted at trial, the latter two
as rebuttal.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The subject property is a one acre landlocked parcel located in an area of upscale homes
in the City of Lake Oswego. Plaintiff purchased the property in May 2006 for $475,000.
Plaintiff purchased the land from a friend in the real estate business. According to the testimony,
Plaintiff was told at the time of purchase that the property was a separate legal lot that had been
legally partitioned from the larger 2 acre parcel of which it is a part, the front having a home on
1
It is not entirely clear to the court whether Bunick was still a broker at the time of trial or whether his
status as a broker of some 30 years has lapsed. Regardless, Bunick’s knowledge and experience in real estate
development was convincingly established at trial.
DECISION TC-MD 130170C 1
it. By letter dated June 1, 2007, Plaintiff was informed by the city of Lake Oswego that the city
had no record of a partition “which would have been required to create legal one acre parcels in
that area.” (Ptf’s Ex C at 1.) That letter went on to state “both newly designated one acre
parcels * * * are therefore illegal lots and cannot be improved or developed.” (Id.)
The RMV on the assessment and tax rolls for the 2012-13 tax year is $334,594. Plaintiff
has requested that the value be reduced to $-0-. (Ptf’s Compl at 1.) Defendant requests that the
court sustain the current RMV of $334,594. (Def’s Ans at 1; Closing Arg.)
Bunick testified that both he and his wife, Plaintiff in this matter, are experienced real
estate professionals; Plaintiff with more than 30 years of experience selling real estate and
Bunick a real estate broker with more than 30 years of experience developing property that
included creating more than 30 subdivisions and a major secondary arterial and commercial
business development in Lake Oswego just off Interstate 5. The court found Bunick to be very
knowledgeable about real estate development in general and about the attributes and details of
the subject property and, accordingly, deems him a qualified expert in this case on real estate
development.2
The evidence shows, and both parties acknowledge, that the subject property was not
buildable at the time of Plaintiff’s May 2006 purchase, and was not buildable at the time of trial
in June 2013. (Def’s Ex A at 43; Test of Bunick and Bennett.) The property can be developed,
but certain actions must be taken.
The first problem is that, although the county assessor has “created” a new tax lot for the
subject property (TL 611), the documentary evidence submitted at trial, including certain of
2
Typically a real estate broker would be deemed qualified in real estate sales and possibly evaluation.
However, in this case Bunick did not speak to his experience in those areas, addressing instead only his involvement
in real estate development.
DECISION TC-MD 130170C 2
Defendant’s exhibits, clearly demonstrates that there was no legal partition creating the subject
one acre lot known as Tax Lot 611. A letter from the City of Lake Oswego dated June 1, 2007,
notes that a Tax Lot 607 consisted of two acres prior to the transfer of the back (or eastern) one
acre portion of the property, which came to be designated Tax Lot 611, and that “[t]he problem
is that the City has no record of a partition which would have been required to create legal one
acre parcels at this location.” (Ptf’s Ex C at 1.) Defendant submitted a document from the City
of Lake Oswego that indicates, in part, that it is addressing an application for a “minor
development” that would constitute a “[o]ne-parcel minor land partition to legalize Tax Lot
611.” (Def’s Ex A at 15. (emphasis added).) Finally, Defendant acknowledges in its Summary
Appraisal Report that “[t]he only difference between [Defendant’s] two comparable properties
and the subject is that the subject needs to be formally partitioned with the City of Lake
Oswego.” (Id. at 5.) Thus, Plaintiff was sold a lot that did not legally exist and still owns that
“illegal” lot. It appears that the lot can be converted to legal status through the partition approval
process. Defendant subtracted $6,460 from his value estimate in that appraisal to account for the
partition application fees. (Id.)
Assuming the lot was legally partitioned and development allowed, such development
would require the creation of a road running through the property in a north/south direction.
Bunick testified that the road must be 40 feet wide and 165 feet long. Two
partition/development applications filed with the city, one filed in September 2007 and the other
in May 2011, indicate that a 40 foot wide road is required for any residential development.
(Ptf’s Ex D at 3; Def’s Ex A at 19-20.) In addition, a Memorandum from the City of Lake
Oswego indicates that the street is required and that there must be an additional 10-foot-wide
easement for trees, slope, and sidewalk, and that the street is to terminate “at the south property
DECISION TC-MD 130170C 3
line.” (Def’s Ex A at 13-14.) A map of the property indicates that the lot is 165 feet long from
the north to the south. (Ptf’s Ex B at 1, 3.) Bunick testified that, based on his 30 years of real
estate development experience, his conservative estimate of the cost of the road is $175,000.
Defendant questioned that figure, but presented no evidence on the cost of the road, and included
no adjustment in its appraisal, which is discussed more fully below. Defendant questioned
whether Plaintiff would be responsible for the cost of the road, but introduced no evidence to
support that line of thinking. The only reliable evidence submitted at trial is Plaintiff’s
September 2007 development application, and it states that “* * * the applicant (i.e., Plaintiff)
will be required to extend the 40-foot wide public street through the property * * *.” (Ptf’s Ex D
at 3) (emphasis added).
Additional impediments to development of the subject property include: (1) the lack of
direct service for water or sewer. Those services are available to the north of the subject, on
Siena Drive, but connection, which is necessary for development of the subject property, is
costly; (2) a portion of the property, which Bunick testified consisted of more than one-half of
the one acre lot, is a protected natural area due to the presence of wetlands and a stream,
rendering it undevelopable. Defendant acknowledged that there were certain existing city codes
in place at the time of purchase and still in existence at the time of trial that may impact
development, but believes the restrictions might be lifted by action of the Lake Oswego City
Council. The court found that testimony and supporting documentary evidence unpersuasive and
irrelevant, given that the possible changes are uncertain and prospective because the case
concerns the RMV as of the January 1, 2012, assessment date3; (3) setback requirements for
3
Defendant introduced evidence and the testimony of Bennett attempting to show that the City of Lake
Oswego was considering making changes to those restrictions for residential property. However, that evidence, both
documentary and testimonial, did not describe in any detail the nature or extent of the changes. Moreover,
Defendant’s documentary evidence of the proposed land use changes consisted of a printout of a “blog,” which the
DECISION TC-MD 130170C 4
building a house which, according to Bunick, require a home 20 feet away from the rear property
line and 20 feet back from the road that must be constructed. Bunick testified that the setback
requirements for a home result in a situation where any house that could be built on the subject
property could not be more than 20 feet deep (front to back), once you account for the
development of the road and driveway and remove the half acre of undevelopable land.
Bunick argues that the problems set forth above (that the subject property is not legally
partitioned, is landlocked because of the lack of a road; lacks water and sewer; that more than
half of the one acre parcel is not legally buildable because it is a protected natural area that
cannot be developed, leaving less than one-half acre on which to build; the prohibitive cost of the
road; and that the setback requirements) render the property valueless, and has therefore
requested the court reduced the value to $-0-.
It is Defendant’s position that the property is at least worth the current RMV of $334,594.
Defendant submitted an appraisal supporting that value and noted that Plaintiff purchased the
property in 2006 for $475,000 and that the property is in an area of upscale homes.
Defendant’s appraisal considered, but rejected both the cost and income approaches to
value and relied on two sales; a one quarter acre lot (0.27 acres) selling in May 2012 for
$320,000, and another quarter acre lot (0.26 acres) selling in July 2012 for $450,000. (Def’s Ex
A at 4.) Both of Bennett’s comparables are developable lots on paved streets with utilities to the
properties. (Id. at 6-9.) Defendant states in its report that “[t]he two comparable sales show a
court accords little weight. (Def’s Ex D at 1.) Also, given the lack of specificity, the document is even less reliable
or relevant. For example, the “article” states that the city is planning to “overhaul the city’s controversial Sensitive
Lands program,” and that the “planned changes * * * include removing all private property from the program * * *.”
(Id.) Bunick insists that the “overhaul” discussed in that document is only intended to allow existing homeowners to
enlarge their yards by removing a few trees to install a swing set or swimming pool or gain more sunlight in their
backyard, but will not affect the development limitations imposed by the protected natural area zoning that impacts
the subject property. The court further notes that the subject property has an area that is designated a protected
natural area, and that it is unclear whether the Sensitive Lands program is either synonymous with or includes
protected natural areas.
DECISION TC-MD 130170C 5
range of value of $320,000 to $450,000. Factoring in Application Fees of $6,460 [to have the
partition approved by the city], this adjusted range of value supports the Assessor’s RMV of
$334,594.” (Id. at 5.) Bennett concludes his valuation analysis by stating that “[t]he final
conclusion is that the evidence indicates a Real Market Value of the subject to be $335,000 on
January 1, 2012.” (Id.)
II. ANALYSIS
In Oregon, all real property “not exempt from ad valorem property taxation or subject to
special assessment shall be valued at 100 percent of its real market value.” ORS 308.232.4
RMV is defined in ORS 308.205(1) as follows:
“Real market value of all property, real and personal, means 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.”
RMV is determined by the particular methods and procedures adopted by the Department
of Revenue. ORS 308.205(2). There are three approaches to valuation (income, cost, and sales
comparison) that must be considered when determining the RMV of a property, although they
need not all be developed. OAR 150-308.205-(A)(2)(a) (stating that all three approaches must
be considered, although all three approaches may not be applicable to the valuation of a given
property); see also Allen v. Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 248, 252 (2003); Gangle v. Dept. of Rev., 13
OTR 343, 345 (1995); Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate 130 (13th ed 2008).
When value is appealed to the court, the approach to be used (or combination of approaches) is a
question of fact to be determined by the court upon the record. Pacific Power & Light Co. v.
Dept. of Revenue, 286 Or 529, 533, 596 P2d 912 (1979) (“[W]hether in any given assessment
one [valuation] approach should be used exclusive of the others or is preferable to another or to a
4
The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2011.
DECISION TC-MD 130170C 6
combination of approaches is a question of fact to be determined by the court upon the record.”).
As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the
subject property’s RMV on the tax roll is incorrect. See ORS 305.427. Plaintiff must establish
her claim “by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of
evidence.” Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev., TC No 4530, WL 914208 at *2 (July 12, 2001) (citing
Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302 (1971)).
Burden of proof requires that the party seeking relief (Plaintiff in this case) provide
evidence to support its argument. The evidence that a plaintiff provides must be competent
evidence of the requested RMV of the property in order to sustain the burden of proof.
Poddar v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 324, 332 (2005) (citing Woods v. Dept. of Rev., 16 OTR 56, 59
(2002)) (emphasis added).
“Competent evidence includes appraisal reports and sales adjusted for time, location,
size, quality, and other distinguishing differences, and testimony from licensed professionals
such as appraisers, real estate agents, and licensed brokers.” Danielson v. Multnomah County
Assessor, TC-MD No 110300D, WL 879285 (Mar 13, 2012). Evidence that is inconclusive or
unpersuasive is insufficient to sustain the burden of proof. Reed v. Dept. of Rev., 310 Or 260,
265, 798 P2d 235 (1990).
This court has previously noted that value is a range rather than an absolute. Price v.
Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 18, 25 (1977). “The value of property is ultimately a question of fact.”
Chart Development Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 16 OTR 9, 11 (2001) (citation omitted). Finally, “the
court has jurisdiction to determine the real market value or correct valuation on the basis of the
evidence before the court, without regard to the values pleaded by the parties.” ORS 305.412.
Plaintiff believes the value of the property should be reduced but has presented no market
DECISION TC-MD 130170C 7
data to support that position. Nonetheless, the subject property has not been legally partitioned,
notwithstanding the sale to Plaintiff, is landlocked, lacks water and sewer, requires the
construction of a road in order for the lot to be accessed or developed, and has some issues
concerning the wetlands area on a portion of the property. Those factors no doubt affect value.
The court has already stated that it finds Bunick qualified to render opinions about property
development. The court further finds Bunick’s $175,000 estimate for the cost of developing a
road 40 feet wide and 165 feet long, and connecting to nearby water and sewer services and
bringing those services to the subject property’s homesite area, to be reasonable. Moreover, the
court cannot, for obvious reasons, accept Bennett’s value estimate based on his highest and best
use conclusion stated in the report, which is “as a vacant residential lot.” (Def’s Ex A at 5.)
Bennett’s comparable sales are two developable lots on paved streets with city services available
(water, sewer, electricity). Additionally, the court does not find Defendant’s comparable sales to
be truly comparable because of their location on a paved street and access to all utilities.
Given the court’s authority to determine the real market value on the basis of the
evidence before the court, and without regard to the values pleaded by the parties, the court finds
that the RMV of the subject property as of January 1, 2012, was $145,000. That figure is well
below the current maximum assessed value (MAV) and assessed value (AV) of $299,937.
Plaintiff is therefore aggrieved because the AV, based on the court’s RMV determination, and in
light of the applicable statute – ORS 308.146(1) – is $145,000. The court arrived at that number
by subtracting Plaintiff’s $175,000 road construction cost from the $320,000 sale price for
Defendant’s nearby comparable number one. The court recognizes that lot is only 0.27 acres in
size. However, the court also believes that half or more of the subject property is impacted by
the combination of the protected natural area/wetlands and the loss of land attributable to the
DECISION TC-MD 130170C 8
required road and driveway, as well as applicable utility setbacks, leaving the amount of usable
land to less than one half acre. Moreover, that comparable is ready for development, is located
only approximately 500 feet from the subject property, and sold within months of the applicable
assessment date.
(Def’s Ex A at 4.)
III. CONCLUSION
The court has carefully considered the matter and concludes that the RMV of the subject
property, Account 05014494, was $145,000 as of January 1, 2012. Now, therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff’s appeal is granted in part and
Defendant shall reflect the court’s $145,000 real market value determination.
IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that Defendant shall make appropriate adjustments to the
assessed value based on the reduced real market value.
Dated this day of August 2013.
DAN ROBINSON
MAGISTRATE
If you want to appeal this Decision, file a Complaint in the Regular Division of
the Oregon Tax Court, by mailing to: 1163 State Street, Salem, OR 97301-2563;
or by hand delivery to: Fourth Floor, 1241 State Street, Salem, OR.
Your Complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date of the Decision
or this Decision becomes final and cannot be changed.
This Decision was signed by Magistrate Dan Robinson on August 12, 2013. The
Court filed and entered this Decision on August 12, 2013.
DECISION TC-MD 130170C 9