Hearing Officer Deborah Cohen closed the public record Oct. 22 and took under submission an assessment appeal in which the assessor had enrolled the March 25, 2024, purchase price of $1,230,000 as the base value for a single‑family home in the Solana Heights subdivision of Ventura.

The applicant, Mark Fritz, said the sale did not reflect market value and asked the appeals board to find the full cash value was lower than the enrolled price. Fritz presented a market analysis and a bank appraisal summary; he argued the assessor's sales‑comparison approach relied heavily on a single dynamic (a dollar‑per‑square‑foot adjustment) and that an alternative set of comparables and a different adjustment method point to a lower value (he cited a modeled conclusion roughly $1.203 million and a proposed settlement near $1.020 million in earlier notes, and for the hearing stated a value under the 5% threshold so as to preserve his appeal strategy).

The assessor's representative, Jose Angel, responded that the assessor requested and received transaction documents (purchase and sale agreement, closing disclosure, lender appraisal and related materials) and reconstructed the transaction timeline. The assessor reported the property had been publicly listed, drew multiple offers, and closed in escrow after the buyer accepted the seller's counteroffer; the assessor said the parties agreed to a $1,150 seller credit that was applied to the buyer's closing costs rather than being entered as a reduced sales price.

Citing Property Tax Rule 2 and Revenue & Taxation Code §60, the assessor said the purchase price is presumptively the full cash value after a change in ownership and that the presumption can be rebutted only with a preponderance of evidence showing either exigent circumstances or a deviation greater than 5 percent from the consideration paid. After compiling five neighborhood comparables and applying adjustments for differences (chiefly total living area and, where supported, bath counts and other features), the assessor concluded the adjusted range bracketed the $1.23 million sales price and that the available evidence did not demonstrate a greater‑than‑5% deviation or compelling exigent circumstances to rebut the Rule 2 presumption.

Both sides were questioned at length about: (1) the closing disclosure entries (credits to closing costs versus an adjusted sales price), (2) how comparables were chosen and whether additional comparables change the result, (3) whether lot‑size differences in this neighborhood are recognized by market participants, (4) the assessor's use of a single, standard dollar‑per‑square‑foot adjustment derived from the assessor's paired‑sales program, and (5) the bank appraisal and whether the lender's appraisal supports or undermines the enrolled sales price. The assessor said its dollar‑per‑square‑foot adjustment reflects a yearly paired‑sales analysis used across the office and applied consistently in this neighborhood; the applicant objected that a single dynamic does not capture proportional changes in price per square foot across widely different house sizes.

After closing remarks — the assessor reiterating that the adjusted comparable range enclosed the sale price and the applicant reiterating that the assessor's model was insufficiently robust and would under‑state a properly modeled opinion — Hearing Officer Cohen closed the hearing and took the matter under submission. The hearing officer said a written decision will be mailed to the parties.

What it means: The decision will rest on whether the hearing officer finds the greater weight of evidence supports the assessor's enrollment of the purchase price or the applicant's alternative indicators of value. If the hearing officer finds the sale was a standard open‑market transaction with no demonstrated >5% deviation, the assessed base will remain the $1,230,000 purchase price; if the hearing officer finds otherwise, the officer may order a different value.

Speakers quoted and roles (first references as used in the hearing): Hearing Officer Deborah Cohen; Applicant Mark Fritz; Assessor representative Jose Angel. Exact quotations are taken from the hearing record.

Votes and immediate procedural outcome: The matter was not decided at the hearing; the hearing officer closed the record and took the matter under submission for a written decision to be mailed.