Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Appeal Marks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board affirms assessor on two Marks properties after lengthy owner objections
Summary
Property owner Philip Marks challenged assessments on two parcels, citing misgraded condition and missing interior inspections; the assessor defended the mass-appraisal model and the board affirmed the assessor's figures for both properties (application 63 and 64).
Philip Marks presented two appeals on July 13 (applications 63 and 64, Property IDs 17614 and 17693), arguing the assessor misclassified the properties' grade and condition and that the assessor had not properly accounted for interior deficiencies, buried oil tanks and other liabilities.
Marks detailed his concerns at length, saying the house lacked central air, had 7.5-foot upstairs ceilings, and contained outbuildings with damage; he said he believed the properties were overassessed and questioned why similar homes showed different assessment behavior. ‘‘I don't understand how I can go from being worth $460,000 to $900,000 in 5 years,’’ he said during his testimony.
Assessor staff responded that the office used a mass-appraisal model calibrated to recent sales and that field notes and listing descriptions — particularly during 2020 when visits were limited — inform grade changes. The assessor said the department would update grades when an interior inspection or other compelling evidence was provided but that, on the record before the board, the assessors' inputs were supported by the data available. ‘‘Our model is appropriate,’’ the assessor's representative said, describing calibration and sale-matching procedures.
Board members asked for clarifications about grading changes, generator and permit records, and whether specific comparables had been reclassified. The board discussed the applicant's burden of proof and the extent to which the panel could act without new inspection evidence. After deliberation the board moved and voted to affirm the assessor's figures for both properties.
The assessor said appellants retain the option to permit an interior inspection or pursue further appeal routes; the board closed the items and continued with other business.
