Salvatore Speringo et al. v. Town of New Haven, et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This tax appeal, brought pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 12-117a was tried before the court on February 11, 2010.   Thereafter, defendant City of New Haven filed its post-trial memorandum dated March 11, 2010, and plaintiffs filed their post-trial memorandum on March 12.   The appeal is taken on the City of New Haven's reassessment of property values on the Grand List of October 1, 2006.   This citywide revaluation set a fair market value of four hundred ninety-eight thousand six hundred dollars ($498,600.) on property owned by the plaintiffs known as 170 Olive Street, New Haven, Connecticut.

As of the revaluation date of October 1, 2006, the property consisted of an approximate .42 acre parcel of land improved with a 6,968 square foot garage used by the plaintiffs for the repair of motor vehicles, as well as 6,500 square feet of paved area.   The property has 2 underground gasoline storage tanks and 2 gasoline pump dispensers, which tanks and pumps have not been operational for a number of years and, according to plaintiff, do not comply with current regulations applicable to such installations.

The prior citywide revaluation of October 1, 2001 established the fair market value of the subject property at $266,500.00.   On February 1, 2010, plaintiffs filed an Amended Application requesting that the valuation of the property on October 1, 2007 and October 1, 2008 also be “stricken” or “reduced.”

Before addressing the merits of the parties claims, we first set forth the well-settled legal principles underlying a § 12-117a tax appeal as well as our applicable standard of review.   In § 12-117a tax appeals, the trial court tries the matter de nova and the ultimate question is the ascertainment of the true and actual value of the [taxpayer's] property ․ At the de nova proceedings, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing that the assessor has over assessed the property ․ Once the taxpayer has demonstrated aggrievement by proving that its property was overassessed, the trial court [will] then undertake a further inquiry to determine the amount of the reassessment that would be just ․ The trier of fact must arrive at [its] own conclusions as to the value of the taxpayers property by weighing the opinions of the appraisers, the claims of the parties in light of all the circumstances in evidence bearing on value, and its own general knowledge of the elements to establish value ․ Aetna Life Insurance v. City of Middletown, 77 Conn.App. 21 at pp. 25-26.

According to Joseph F. Perrelli, plaintiff's appraiser the subject property was in average to fair condition on the date of his visit to the property.   Also, he opined that the building required significant deferred maintenance and had insufficient on-site parking for the size of the building and lot size.   These opinions had their genesis, as a result of a “complete interior and exterior inspection” of the property for the purpose of estimating its retrospective market value, in fee simple as of October 1, 2006 ․” Plaintiff's exhibit 1 pg. 2.

The above inspection must be contrasted with the statement of William O'Brien, the present City appraiser in Defendant's Exhibit A on page 8, “I have not made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report.”   Furthermore, William O'Brien was not the City Appraiser at the time of the citywide assessment on October 1, 2006 which is before the court and under attack by the plaintiffs.   In fact, Exhibit A pg. 1, reveals that the “City employed Vision Appraisal Technology, a Connecticut certified revaluation company to assist in the revaluation process.”   The valuation analyses and conclusions of Vision Appraisal Technology were then approved by the City Assessor and, thereafter, adopted as the Assessor's opinion of market value.   See Exhibit A.

The City assessment of $498,600 equates to $71.56 per gross square foot of building area including land.   Both City appraisal and Perrelli agreed that the sales comparison approach or Direct Sales Comparison is the most appropriate approach for determining the market value of the property in this case.   The court agrees that this approach is the most accurate because it tests what a reasonable purchaser is likely to pay for the subject property by comparing it to other similar properties and their sales prices.

The property, according to Perrelli, has a triangular shape which accounts for its limited parking area that can only accommodate approximately 10 vehicles.   This is so in spite of a frontage on the westerly side of Olive Street of 322.75 +/- feet.   In addition, parking is not allowed on Olive Street.   What effect these parking limitations have on the plaintiff's business, if any, the court cannot speculate, as it has no evidence of income derived from the business.   There was evidence that four advertising billboards produce $1,200 per year according to the plaintiffs.   The Court does not take issue with the City's valuation of $17,100 as the value of the billboards to the property owner.   Both Perrelli and the City agree that the highest and best use of the property is as a repair garage with part office facility for the remaining economic life of the improvements.

Perrelli's comparables are as follows:  (1) 18 Mackenzie Ave., Wallingford described as a 7,208 square foot garage on the first level and 864 square feet of second level office space.   The sales price on November 9, 2006 was $360,000;  comparable 2, 19 Marietta Street, Hamden, CT, a 3-bay garage with office areas on both the first and second floor.   This property and building was sold for $285,000 on July 14, 2006;  comparable sale 3, 149 Ramsdell Street, New Haven, a building with office in front and garage space in rear.   This property was sold to Palace Garage Realty, LLC, on March 9, 2005 for $275,000.

Similarly the City's comparables evidence the following sale prices;  224 Davenport Avenue on 10/19/04, $155,000;  85 Welton Street on 7/19/05, $225,000;  530 East Street on 12/23/05, $215,000;  and 102 Fowler Street on 9/13/06, $375,000.   All of these sales were service garages.   The Fowler Street parcel was considerably larger than the other parcels at 54,886 square feet and, more than twice the area of the subject premises at 20,238 square feet.

The court is struck by the apparent pattern as to sales price of those sales of repair garage complexes used as comparables by both sides of this controversy.   Most of these sales took place in 2005 and 2006 close to the time of revaluation setting the alleged market value of the instant property.   Based on these comparable sales and considering that the location of the instant property may prove convenient for some employees who work in downtown New Haven to drop their cars off on the way to work and pick them up on the way from work, the court finds that the present City assessment of $498,600 on October 1, 2006 was excessive, and further finds that the plaintiffs are aggrieved by the Board of Assessment of Appeals.

Based upon all the evidence as well as the opinions of the appraisers and reports of the appraisers, it is the opinion of the court that said assessment should be lowered to reflect a 100% market valuation of $366,000 + $17,100 or $383,100 as of October 1, 2006.   Further, the court orders that the assessment should be reduced to $383,100 on all subsequent grand lists until there is a town-wide revaluation, or a substantial change in the subject property which would justify a revaluation.

The plaintiff's are awarded appropriate taxable costs.

David W. Skolnick

Judge Trial Referee

Skolnick, David W., J.T.R.