Here, both of the appraisers
estimated the value of the Respondents’ property using the sales comparison
approach. The Assessor’s appraiser, Mr. Hasselbring, used four comparable
properties that sold between January of 2005 and September 15, 2006, and valued
the property as of January 1, 2006. The Respondents’ appraiser, Mr. Arvia, used
three properties that sold between January of 2006 and January of 2007 and
valued the property as of March 1, 2007. While the Assessor’s appraisal valued the property as
of the proper valuation date, the Respondents trended their appraiser’s value
to the proper valuation date using the annual adjustment that the Assessor
determined for the neighborhood during the relevant time period. An appraisal
valuing the property as of the proper valuation date may be more reliable than
an appraisal that must be trended, but because the Respondents’ appraised value
was only fourteen months from the valuation date and the Respondents used a
reasonable method to trend the property’s 2007 appraised value to the 2006
valuation date, the difference between the valuation dates is not determinative
of this appeal. Moreover, neither the Assessor’s appraiser, nor the
Respondents’ appraiser made an adjustment for the date of their comparable
sales, indicating that they believed the market was stable during the period at
issue.
The Assessor’s and the
Respondents’ appraisals are both similar in that the appraisers made
adjustments for the differences in the properties ranging from -2% to 19% in
the Hasselbring appraisal and from 1.6% to 16.6% in the Arvia appraisal. And
both appraisers valued the living area of the comparable properties at about
$40 per square foot. The appraisers departed on their valuation of golf course
property – the Assessor’s appraiser valued a lot on the golf course at $15,000,
while the Respondents’ appraiser valued a lot on the golf course at $25,000.
The biggest difference between the Assessor’s and the Respondents’ appraisals,
however, lies in the comparable properties chosen by the appraisers. The
comparable sales in the Respondents’ appraisal are closer in location to the
subject property than the sales in the Assessor’s appraisal and the
Respondents’ evidence suggests that, in the case of the subject property’s
neighborhood, proximity matters. According to Mr. Port, the Assessor’s
appraiser’s comparable properties are all located in Springwood – where the
properties are more valuable. In fact, Mr. Port showed that between 2000 and
2009, the highest sale on Troon Court was $352,000 – which suggests that the Respondents’
appraisal is a more reasonable estimate of the property’s value than the
Assessor’s appraisal. Moreover, the other half of the duplex, located at 915
Troon Court, sold for $320,000 in 2008. While the 2008 sale is more than two
years removed from the January 1, 2006, valuation date, the Assessor’s trending
factors strongly support a finding that the property would not have been worth
more than $350,000 in 2006. Because 915 Troon Court is similar to the property
at issue in this appeal – but with a larger finished basement and extra
bathroom, the Board finds that the Respondents’ property would not sell for
substantially more than its neighboring condo. Thus, the Board finds that the
Respondents’ trended appraised value of $346,725 is the best evidence of the
property’s value for the March 1, 2007, assessment date.
