Principal Assessor Questioned for Hours; Town Tax Trial Heads Into a
Third Week

By IAN FEIN

BOSTON - West Tisbury principal assessor Jo-Ann Resendes this
week defended the town's property tax values during two days of
testimony marked by contested exchanges in a legal case that carries
far-reaching implications for the community.

Ms. Resendes appeared during the second week of a Massachusetts
Appellate Tax Board hearing in Boston, where attorneys for West Tisbury
resident William W. Graham are arguing that the town has
disproportionately assessed his land.

Attorney Richard Wulsin, who represents Mr. Graham, asked Ms.
Resendes about a long list of nearby properties that have substantially
lower values than Mr. Graham's lots. Property after property, Ms.
Resendes said that given their different locations, she believed they
were fairly assessed.

The town currently values Mr. Graham's 235 acres at Mohu off
Lambert's Cove Road at more than $58 million. He is challenging
his assessments for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, when he paid the town
more than half a million dollars in property taxes.

Ms. Resendes is scheduled to return to the stand for
cross-examination Tuesday. During direct questioning this week new
information surfaced about possible inconsistencies in property records.

Mr. Wulsin on Wednesday introduced as exhibits a series of property
records to compare Mr. Graham's land to 258 acres of ocean and
pondfront property owned by the family of West Tisbury resident Kenneth
(Mal) Jones. The property is listed in assessors records as being owned
by the Tsissa Corporation.

The Jones properties, which lie on either side of Deep Bottom Cove
and include a 10-acre oceanfront beach lot across Tisbury Great Pond,
were valued at $21 million in fiscal year 2003. Mr. Graham's land
that year was valued at more than $50 million.

During Ms. Resendes's testimony, appellate tax board chairman
Anne Foley, the presiding officer, noted the Jones property records
contained a different valuation method than all others introduced as
exhibits. Ms. Resendes explained the Jones properties are valued under
an "unusual arrangement" developed between the board of
assessors and the Jones family before she took over as principal
assessor roughly 20 years ago.

"When you're aware of this," Chairman Foley asked,
"do you bring this to the board, even though it doesn't
conform with your methodologies?"

Ms. Resendes replied that she had discussed the arrangement with the
assessors, who thought the situation was fair.

Chairman Foley also noted that one Jones property record was
missing. The chief presiding officer asked Ms. Resendes to search for
the record and bring it back to the hearing on Tuesday.

The appellate tax board does not often hear cases of this
complexity. Most hearings for single-family residences take about an
hour. This case, which has featured lengthy testimony about how
assessors determine land values, may last a month.

Attorneys for Mr. Graham already have submitted more than 100
exhibits into evidence. They still have at least three more witnesses to
call before resting their case. Mr. Graham is expected to take the stand
next week.

After Mr. Wulsin questioned Ms. Resendes for more than 10 hours this
week, attorney Ellen Hutchinson, representing town assessors, asked for
an extra day to prepare for cross-examination. Chairman Foley granted
the request.

"The appellants produced about 35 or 40 exhibits on
Wednesday," Ms. Hutchinson said yesterday by telephone from her
offices in Woburn. "For me to be able to use those exhibits
properly in re-examining my own witness, I needed time to review
them."

On Wednesday Mr. Wulsin argued the request was unwarranted. He noted
Ms. Resendes was a town witness and that virtually all exhibits came
from the town assessors' office.

A top attorney for the Massachusetts Department of Revenue before
Gov. Mitt Romney appointed her chairman of the appellate tax board in
March, Mrs. Foley at times this week appeared to grow impatient with Ms.
Resendes. Chairman Foley interrupted her testimony on more than one
occasion to demand a straightforward answer.

Toward the close of testimony on Tuesday, Chairman Foley took over
the questioning from Mr. Wulsin and pressed Ms. Resendes for answers
about a property tax record card that Mr. Graham's attorneys
allege was falsified.

That card for a nearby property lies at the center of Mr.
Graham's case. His attorneys say the assessors altered property
data during the fiscal year 2002 revaluation so they could reach a
predetermined sale price that sent other property values in the
neighborhood skyrocketing.

Mr. Graham's properties nearly tripled in value that year,
from $18.5 million to $53.7 million.

Mr. Wulsin argued during the first week of testimony that West
Tisbury assessors on a neighboring property reclassified eight acres of
waterfront property and 60 acres of water-view property as 68 acres
without a view.

Ms. Resendes confirmed this week that at least some of the
handwriting on the property record was hers, but explained that merging
the eight and 60 acres made the record more consistent with the
valuation model used for properties elsewhere in town.

Mr. Wulsin asked why the water-view acreage was changed to no longer
have a view.

"The words are different, but the intent was the same,"
Ms. Resendes said. "The factors were adjusted to say there was
probably no view, but that's no guarantee.

"We try to make one description fit different parts of the
land. And at the time of sale the road was heavily wooded. Now that it
has been cleared, it has a water view."

Mr. Wulsin asked why the excess acreage of other waterfront
properties, including Mr. Graham's, are treated as though they
have water frontage, while the altered card treated excess acreage as
neither waterfront nor water-view.

After a long pause, Ms. Resendes offered a response that appeared to
rile Chairman Foley.

"You're not answering the question," Chairman
Foley told Ms. Resendes. "You must only answer the question that
is asked."

Chairman Foley then asked Ms. Resendes again why the record card was
altered in the way it was.

"It was a very substantial reduction that is more easily
explained by saying no view," Ms. Resendes testified. "[The
two sales in the area] together showed that little value was placed on
rear acreage," she added.

"So changes were made to match the sale price?" Mr.
Wulsin asked.

"That was the goal," Ms. Resendes replied.