Listening to taxpayers

When Raymond Sevigny of Harmony Court left the Board of Assessment Review Thursday night, he was smiling.

That wasn’t his disposition earlier in the evening as he sat tensely waiting for his assessment appeal to be called, drumming his fingers on his chair and nervously shifting.

“That’s one for the home team,” Sevigny said, turning to leave the downstairs City Hall conference room after the board chopped $16,400 from his valuation, reducing it to $185,200.

Sevigny was not the only one leaving the meeting with the feeling the board had listened to their argument and, in most cases, agreed in part with their reasoning.

The board is a step in the appeals process that started in the spring when new residential and commercial valuations were sent to property owners. The first step were hearings conducted by CLT, which completed the residential revaluation, and Vision, which revalued commercial properties. If property owners weren’t satisfied, they could appeal to the tax assessor. The next step is to go to the board and the final course of action is the court.

City Tax Assessor Christopher Celeste notes with satisfaction that it is not uncommon for 2 to 3 percent of property owners to appeal valuations following a full revaluation, but in the most current revaluation less than 1 percent have appealed. Still, 448 appeals are a lot.

But the board that meets weekly and sometimes twice a week was in no rush. Celeste expects the hearing to run through the first of the new year.

Sevigny based his appeal on two arguments: that his property increased more in valuation than others in Warwick, and the city had rendered as much as a third of his lot unusable.

Sevigny said the value of his property went up 15 percent when across the city residential property values increased an average of 7 percent. Commercial values increased an average of 3 percent. Secondly, he said, much of his land is a wetlands and unusable because of a city drainage pipe.

The board didn’t buy the percentage argument, whether made by Sevigny or several others contesting their property values.

“We can’t all be average,” board member Mark McHugh said, looking up from his iPad. On the screen was Sevigny’s written complaint, pictures of the property, and a history of valuations. He had access to a lot more, too.

“There have been a lot of sales on Harmony Court,” he observed. It was a point that worked in Sevigny’s favor.

Recent sales and the valuations of comparative properties weigh heavily in board decisions. That was the case later in the hearing when attorney John Revens, representing Warwick Neck resident Peter McGinn, used multiple sales to show high-end properties are selling for less than they have been valued. He pointed out that a house at 164 Beacon Ave., which the city valued at $978,700, sold this July for $825,000.

“The house is a mansion compared to my client’s house,” said Revens. He pointed to another Beacon Avenue property with more than two acres that was valued for $1.3 million and likewise sold for $825,000. Then there was the house next to McGinn on Katherine Court that sold two years ago for about $800,000 and is valued at more than $1 million.

Deputy assessor Anthony Davey noted some of the comparatives Revens used were estate sales, suggesting the properties had sold for less than their value in order to settle the estate. Revens didn’t buy it. He said he handles about 40 estate sales annually and “none of those are under stress…they’re at arm’s length. No one out there is giving away money.”

McHugh, a Warwick Neck resident and realtor, agreed. “We don’t have a plethora of $1 million buyers. [Warwick Neck] homes are going for a lot less. There is just no market out there.”

The board – McHugh and member Thomas Sweeney were in attendance; board chair Glen Whitehead was not present – voted to reduce the value of McGinn’s house from $969,700 to $800,000. The board appointed by the mayor with council confirmation receives an annual stipend of $1,000.

Agostino Petrucci, who lives on the water in Conimicut, likewise thought his property was overvalued in relationship to his neighbors.

“What, is there oil underground?” he asked. “Conimicut is not Warwick Neck.” Petrucci didn’t offer much for the board to go on other than he thought his valuation was too high. He was asked how much he thought the home should be valued at.

“I’d like to take it all off,” he said to the amusement of the board and the assessors.

Sweeney noted that waterfront values have gone up and McHugh said he thought a $350,000 valuation for waterfront was “pretty good.” But in the end the board shaved the valuation to $325,000, and Petrucci left smiling.

Celeste said the board has received only two major appeals, those of West Bay Marina and NYLO Hotel. NYLO’s appeal of its $7 million valuation was denied. West Bay Marina came up Thursday night with attorney Mitchell Riffkin arguing on behalf of his client that a settlement was reached concerning the prior valuation and how could it increase in a matter of weeks by more than $500,000 with the new revaluation.

Action on Bay Marina was postponed in order for the assessors to review how the value was established.

Celeste said Friday he would be concerned if multiple hotels and marinas were appealing, as that could indicate a flaw in arriving at the value of that use of property.

As for Sevigny, the board concurred that the drainage pipe Sevigny gave the city permission to put on his property contributed to the wetlands there now.

“Bob Knox,” Sevigny said of the former DPW director, “talked me into it, and being a good neighbor I agreed to it.”

The wetlands hadn’t been ignored in the valuation Celeste told the board.

Nonetheless, the board saw reason to shave $16,400 off Sevigny’s valuation.

In order to appeal your property valuation, you must have acted within 90 days of receiving your tax bill. However, while you may not have appealed the value assigned following the revaluation, you can still appeal that valuation after the tax bills have been mailed next year. Should the valuation be dropped following that appeal, the new value would only apply to that year and going forward.