Walgreen Eastern Company, Inc. v. City of Milford (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a tax appeal brought by the plaintiff, Walgreen Eastern Company, Inc., (“Walgreen”), challenging the assessor's valuation of its property located at 1083 Boston Post Road, Milford (“the property”) on the grand list of October 1, 2011.   This matter was tried before the court on May 10 and 22, 2013.   The parties submitted trial briefs pursuant to P.B. § 5–1, and argued before the court on August 2, 2013.

Walgreen brought this administrative appeal by complaint dated May 15, 2012.   In the first count, brought pursuant to C.G.S. § 12–117a, the plaintiff claims to be aggrieved by the refusal of the defendant's board of assessment appeals to reduce the assessment of the property on the October 1, 2011 Grand List.¹ In the second count, brought pursuant to C.G.S. § 12–119, the plaintiff claims that the defendant's assessor wrongfully assessed the property.

As of October 1, 2011, the Milford assessor found the fair market value of the property to be $1,831,500 for the land, $1,580,970 for the building, which totals $3,412,470.   Property is assessed in Milford at 70% of value, which translates to a total assessed value of $2,388,730.   Walgreen duly appealed their assessment to the board of assessment appeals of the city of Milford, which did not reduce the assessment of the property.

The court heard testimony from three witnesses.   Daniel Thomas, the assessor for the City of Milford (Milford), who appraised the fair market value of the subject property as of October 1, 2011, at $3,412,470.   Walgreen's appraiser, Richard Michaud (Michaud), appraised the fair market value of the subject property as of October 1, 2011, at $2,400,000.   Milford's appraiser, Christopher Kerin (Kerin), appraised the fair market value of the subject property, as of October 1, 2011, at $4,300,000.

The property is a 1.11–acre rectangular site with level topography located on the south side of the Boston Post Road, adjacent to Exit 39B off Interstate 95 in Milford, Connecticut.   Access to the site is via two curb cuts on Home Acres Avenue, which has a traffic light at its intersection with the Boston Post Road.

On October 1, 2011, Labelle Milford, LLC, was the owner of the property located at 1083 Boston Post Road, Milford, and Walgreen was the lessee of the property.   Walgreen had previously executed a lease with a prior owner, and was still obligated on the lease as of the valuation date.

By way of background, on April 16, 2004, 1083 Boston Post Road, LLC purchased the property located at 1083 Boston Post Road, Milford for $1,400,000.   Shortly thereafter, the new owner demolished an existing motel on the premises, and entered into a long-term lease with Walgreen, and then constructed a free-standing building of approximately 15,132 square feet, which includes 4,046 square feet of second story/mezzanine storage space.   The subject property was sold most recently on March 23, 2005, at a price of $5,770,000, to the current owner, LaBelle Milford, LLC, which property is still subject to the Walgreen's lease.   The current owners of the property have listed the property for sale at a price of $5,639,098, based on a 6.65% capitalization rate on the lease.

The original lease between 1083 Boston Post Road, LLC, and Walgreen was recorded on July 20, 2004, on the Milford Land Records.   While the lease term is 75 years, apparently Walgreen does have various options to terminate after 25 years, and every five years thereafter.   The annual base rental is $375,000, with provisions for percentage rent for gross sales.   The tenant pays all expenses on a “triple net” basis, including taxes, insurance, utilities and is responsible for all interior and exterior repairs.

“In § 12–117a tax appeals, the trial court tries the matter de novo and the ultimate question is the ascertainment of the true and actual value of the [taxpayer's] property ․ At the de novo proceeding, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing that the assessor has overassessed its 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 taxpayer's property] by weighing the opinion of the appraisers, the claims of the parties in light of all the circumstances in evidence bearing on value, and his own general knowledge of the elements going to establish value ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Middletown, 77 Conn.App. 21, 26, cert. denied, 265 Conn. 901 (2003).

It should also be noted that “the ‘process of estimating the value of property for taxation is, at best, one of approximation and judgment, and there is a margin for a difference of opinion.’  “ Carol Management Corp. v. Board of Tax Review, 228 Conn. 23, 39–40 (1993), citing Burrit Mutual Savings Bank v. New Britain, 146 Conn. 669, 675 (1959).   Our courts often have defined fair market value as the price that would result from the fair negotiations of a willing seller and a desirous buyer.  Uniroyal, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, 174 Conn. 380, 390, 389 A.2d 734 (1978).

Both Michaud, the plaintiff's appraiser, and Kerin, the city's appraiser, were of the same opinion regarding the highest and best use of the subject property as of the last revaluation date, that being its current use as a retail pharmacy.   Michaud described the highest and best use as follows:  “[T]he highest and best use of the site as improved is for continued use as a retail pharmacy with a drive-up service window.”   Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, p. 39.   Kerin described the highest and best use as follows:  “[T]he highest and best use of the subject property as improved is for the continued present use of the subject property as a retail pharmacy.”   Defendant's Exhibit A, p. 19.

At first glance, a property that was sold for more than five million dollars in 2005 and is currently listed for sale at more than five million would not seem to be over valued by an assessor who finds the value at $3,400,000.   Further, plaintiff's expert, Michaud, testified that he believed that the value of the property from October 11, 2011 to May of 2012 has remained somewhat constant, which is relevant due to the fact that the property is currently listed for sale at more than $5.6 million.   However, plaintiff claims that the value of the long-term lease, which is not subject to taxation, would affect, and in this case, inflate any sales price of the property.

The applicable statute concerning the valuation of property by assessors is found at C.G.S. § 12–63b,² which requires that an assessor “shall consider the actual rental income applicable with respect to such real property under the terms of an existing contract of lease at the time of such determination.”

The court heard from Daniel Thomas, the city's assessor, who credibly explained the process by which properties were valued in Milford for the 2011 revaluation.   While some cities and towns hire firms to perform their valuations, Thomas estimated that 98% of the Milford 2011 revaluation was done in-house.   The assessor utilized what is known as a mass appraisal, whereby his office analyzed all 22,000 tax parcels in Milford and attempted to equitably assess all properties on a uniform basis.   The process began well over a year prior to the revaluation date, when his office began evaluating sales, construction costs and performing physical reviews of the properties.   The process involved a constant review and re-calibration of the sales and construction data.

Thomas utilized, as a primary approach in the revaluation, the cost approach.³  With respect to placing a value on the land, the assessor analyzed actual land sales and made adjustments to size, location, zoning and physical characteristics.   He valued the basic site containing 40,000 square feet or 0.92 acres, at $1,575,000, and valued the additional 0.19 acres at $256,500, for a total land value of $1,831,500.   With reference to the improvements, the assessor arrived at a base rate for construction cost of $108 per square foot for the first floor, and $70.20 for the mezzanine, after reviewing recognized construction cost tables.   He then multiplied by the total exterior measurements of 15,132 square feet, which included the 11,086 square foot first floor and the 4,046 square foot mezzanine level, by the applicable construction costs, which totaled $1,481,328.   The assessor then deducted only 2% for depreciation, which the court finds reasonable given the age of the building at the time, and found the value of the building to be $1,451,700.   The assessor also calculated values of the paved parking lot, plumbing, sprinklers and electrical upgrades, which he added to the value of the improvements.   The total value of the property and improvements was found by the assessor to be $3,412,470, as of October 1, 2011.

The assessor also employed an income capitalization approach ⁴ as a check to the cost approach on the property.   In doing so, the Assessor used a gross income figure of $23.23 per square foot, or a total of $350,000.   He arrived at that figure after considering that the property's lease rental was $375,000 per year.   He considered market rents and adjusted upward because of location and age of the building from a base rent model of $10.50 per square foot, before arriving at his figure of $23.23, which is in the higher range of the overall commercial rents in Milford.   He deducted 7%, or $25,000, as a vacancy allowance and 15%, or $48,720 for expenses, and arrived at a net operating income of $276,080.   He applied a capitalization rate of 8.08%, which he calculated starting with a 7% rate, then adding in a tax adjustment, and then subtracting .5%, considering the desirability of the property and lower risk.   By doing so, the assessor arrived at a value of $3,416,800, or approximately $225.00 per square foot of building area.

Since the assessor's income approach analysis was within ten percent of his cost approach analysis, the assessor utilized the cost approach for the Walgreen property, which was the lower of the two approaches he examined.

The plaintiff's expert, Michaud, only considered the sales comparison approach and the income approach in his analysis of valuating the subject property, and he arrived at a final valuation of $2,400,000.

Using the sales approach,⁵ Michaud compared six comparable properties in Orange and Milford that he considered comparable to the subject.

Sale 1 was a property offered for sale located at 449 Boston Post Road, Orange, built in 1957 and containing 13,660 square feet of gross building area.   The offering price was $139.09 per square foot.

Sale 2 was a sale of an 18,378 square foot property located at 250 Indian River Road, Orange, built in 2005.   The property was sold in December 23, 2010 for $1,336,000, or $72.70 per square foot.

Sale 3 was a sale of a 34,660 square foot property located at 1574 Boston Post Road, Milford, built in 1994.   The property was sold in October 26, 2010 for $6,273,513 or $181.00 per square foot.

Sale 4 was a sale of a 29,750 square foot property located at 401 Boston Post Road, Orange, built in 1945.   The property was sold in June 23, 2010 for

$2,700,000, or $90.76 per square foot.

Sale 5 was a sale of a 10,000 square foot property located at 196 Boston Post Road, Orange, built in 1945.   The property was sold in March 1, 2010 for $885,000. or $88.50 per square foot.

Sale 6 was a sale of a 10,020 square foot property located at 292 Boston Post Road, Orange, built in 1975.   The property was sold in January 6, 2010 for $1,500,000. or $149.70 per square foot.

After adjustments, Michaud found the price range to be between $137.94 and 171.95 per square foot.   He concluded that the property had a value of $160. per square foot, or $2,420,000.

The court finds that the comparable sales utilized by the plaintiff to be troubling.   The first comparable is for a listing price, and not a sale.   The second comparable is a distressed sale, as Michaud indicated in his report that the lender had started foreclosure proceedings against the owner.   Other than that second comparable, which was constructed in 2005, all of the other comparable properties were much older buildings than the subject, ranging in age from approximately twenty years old to nearly seventy.

Further, none of the comparable sales were existing drug stores, such as a Rite Aide, CVS or Walgreen.   The court finds that factor to be significant.   In this age where neighborhood drug stores have all but disappeared, and as the baby boom generation has begun its retirement years, the location and convenience of these corporate drug store chains is of utmost importance to the clientele.   The credible testimony was that drug stores are most ideal in central locations, at a traffic light, on a corner and with a drive up window.   Those factors correlate to a higher price for the property, and those are precisely the parameters of the subject property.   Those factors are important elements left out by plaintiff's appraiser, despite his opining that the highest and best use of the property is for continued use as a retail pharmacy.   As such, the court does not find Michaud's sales approach to be persuasive.

The city's expert, Kerin, also utilized a sales comparison approach in his analysis.   In his sales comparison approach, he utilized recent sales of existing drug stores in the towns of Torrington, East Haven, Windsor Locks and New London.

Sale 1 was a Walgreen property located at 28 East Elm Street, Torrington, built in 2001 and containing 15,322 square feet of gross building area.   The property was sold in March 1, 2012 for $6,068,965.00, or $396.09 per square foot.

Sale 2 was a Walgreen property located at 698 Bank Street, New London, built in 2008 and containing 14,206 square feet of gross building area.   The property was sold in December 3, 2009 for $6,433,333.00, or $452.86 per square foot.

Sale 3 was a Walgreen property located at 157 Main Street, East Haven, built in 2008 and containing 11,896 square feet of gross building area.   The property was sold in October 20, 2009 for $5,600,000.00, or $470.75 per square foot.

Sale 4 was a Walgreen property located at 1 East Elm Street, Windsor Locks, built in 2008 and containing 14,488 square feet of gross building area.   The property was sold in November 25, 2009 for $4,963,000.00, or $342.56 per square foot.

After adjustments, including a leased fee to fee adjustment, Kerin found the mean price per square foot to be $320, which correlates to a sales comparison value of the 15,132 square foot building to be $4,840,000.

Kerin's sales analysis is also not without its issues.   In the plaintiff's brief, among the criticisms of Kerin's sales approach, plaintiff points out that the analyzed drug stores are not in the Milford/Orange market area, and that the adjustment for leased fee to fee property rights is arbitrary and too low.

However, the court looks to the least desirable of the four locations examined by Kerin, in terms of price/gross building area comparison, that being the Walgreen's located on Elm Street, Windsor Locks.   Its price per square foot, before any property rights adjustment for the property's lease, was $342.56 per square foot.   While Kerin used a property rights adjustment of 15%, even if that adjustment was doubled to 30%, or $102.36 per square foot, it would leave a net adjusted price of $240.20 per square foot, which correlates to a value of the subject property of $3,634,706.

In considering the sales comparison approaches utilized by the parties' experts, the court concludes that the property was not overvalued by the city's assessor.   The experts agree that the property's highest and best use is for a drug store, and that's what Kerin primarily evaluated.   Further, the plaintiff's property is a relatively new construction, at an intersection, a traffic light, and a free standing building with a drive through.   Based upon those factors, the court finds Kerin's evaluation to be more reliable.   Plaintiff's expert, Michaud also valuated the property while using the income capitalization approach.   While doing so, Michaud formulated a net operating income of $246,291.   He arrived at that figure by calculating $20.00 per square foot for the 11,000 first floor retail space, and $5.00 for the 3,800 square foot mezzanine space, for total gross rent of $239,000.   He added recoveries for all expenses under a triple net lease, and deducted 5% for vacancy.   He then deducted $54,794. for operating expenses to arrive at his net operating income.   He then capitalized at a rate of 10.292%, which he arrived at by utilizing an overall rate of 8.5%, and he added a “tax load” of 1.792%. Using Michaud's net operating income of $246,291 with his 10.292% cap rate produced an approximate value of $2,390,000.

Michaud's income approach is not without substantial issues and questionable assumptions.   He acknowledges on page 48 of his report that eight of his comparables which he used to determine fair market rent are not free standing buildings, nine were significantly older buildings, none were drug stores, nor did any have a drive up window.   Two of the comparable rents were offerings, and two were classified as confidential.   By utilizing those comparables, he arrived at a fair market rent calculation of $20 00 per square foot for the 11,000 first floor retail space.   He further valued the 3,800 square foot mezzanine space at a value of $5.00 per square foot for total gross rent of $239,000.   The mezzanine space value is troubling in two respects.   First, he has no comparable figures to support it.   Further, since the Walgreen mezzanine area is mainly used for storage, and most all of his comparables have significant storage space, he does not account for any of the comparables' partial use of their properties as storage space.   His $5.00 per square foot value for the mezzanine is not credible.

Moreover, Michaud's use of a 10.292% cap rate is also not credible.   In their analysis, the assessor used cap rates of 8.08%;  the city's expert, Kerin, used a cap rate of 7.40%, after considering bands of investment, regional sales and National Investor Surveys.   Michaud himself testified that he had seen a Walgreen that had a cap rate in a range of 5%. The current listing of the property of $5,639,098 is based upon a 6.65% capitalization rate on the existing lease.   The differences in cap rates is significant;  whereas, if the total building area of 15,132 square feet is more properly multiplied by $20 per square foot, and thereupon the higher of the two cap rates of 8.08% is applied, the value of the property would be $3,745,544, which is higher than the value placed upon the property by the assessor.

In Kerin's income capitalization approach, to determine a market rental rate, he selected rents of six retail drug stores in Middletown, Dayville, North Haven, Norwalk, Naugatuck and East Haven.   He further adjusted their rents based upon what he considered to be above market land acquisitions.   He also considered the rent of the subject property, as well as the rent of a 6,500 square foot free standing retail building just north of the subject.   Based upon those comparables and the subject rent, Kerin estimated the gross income for the subject at $22.00 per square feet, and applied the $22.00 figure to the entire 15,132 square foot building, and ended with a gross income of $332,904 per year.   He then deducted a 3% vacancy and credit loss and a 3% management fee, resulting in a net operating income of $313,229 per year.   Kerin utilized three methods to arrive at an applicable cap rate—band of investment, regional sales, and national investor surveys, and he found that 7.4% was the appropriate cap rate, which resulted in a value of $4,230,000 or $279.54 per square foot of building.

The plaintiff, in its brief, points out many credible deficiencies in Kerin's analysis.   First, his rent comparisons include values of the long-term leases, and second, little analysis of market expenses is considered.

The court remains unconvinced regarding value after examining both parties' expert analyses using the income approach.   While both market rent analyses have flaws, it appears that Kerin, at least, “consider[ed] the actual rental income [of the property] under the terms of an existing contract of lease” in making his determination of the market rent, see First Bethel Associates v. Bethel, 231 Conn. 731, 742 (1995).

Kerin also estimated a value of the subject by utilizing a cost approach.   In doing so, he considered comparable land sales and determined the value of the 1.11–acre site to be $950,000 per acre, or $1,050,000.   He valued the improvements by determining the direct construction costs of $137.00 per square foot, site improvement costs of $400,000, taxes during construction of $15,000, a 20% entrepreneurial profit of $497,617.   Kerin's replacement cost of $2,985,701 was reduced by depreciation of $530,713, resulting in a value of the improvements to be $2,454,988.   Adding to that figure is the value of the land of $1,050,000, which results in a value of $3,504,988 by using the cost approach.

“At least four methods exist for determining the fair market value of property for taxation purposes:  (1) analysis of comparable sales;  (2) capitalization of gross income;  (3) capitalization of net income;  and (4) reproduction cost less depreciation and obsolescence ․ Each of these is an approved method of ascertaining the actual value of real estate for purposes of taxation.”   (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Second Stone Ridge Cooperative Corp. v. Bridgeport, 220 Conn. 335, 342, 597 A.2d 326 (1991).   “ ‘Because cost and market value are usually closely related when properties are new, the cost approach is important in estimating the market value of new or relatively new construction.’   The Appraisal of Real Estate 316 (10th ed.1992),” Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Board of Tax Review, Superior Court, Tax Session, Docket No. 381380 (October 18, 1995, Blue, J.).

The plaintiff has dismissed the cost approach in its analysis.   However, in this case, the building on the property was relatively new, having been built in 2005.   The value of the subject land itself is not wholly speculative, as it was purchased in 2004 for $1,400,000. by 1083 Boston Post Road, LLC, years prior to the real estate bubble of 2008.   Because of that fact, the court views Kerin's costs analysis perhaps as being too low in terms of land value, notwithstanding his claim that the price paid included a premium for a pharmacy.

For all of the above reasons, and after reviewing the briefs, the transcripts and exhibits, including the appraisals, the court concludes that the property was not over-assessed by the assessor.⁶

In conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Matasavage, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Walgreen subsequently amended its appeal to include the October 1, 2012 grand list..  FN1. Walgreen subsequently amended its appeal to include the October 1, 2012 grand list.

FN2. C.G.S. § 12–63b provides:  “(a) The assessor or board of assessors in any town, at any time, when determining the present true and actual value of real property as provided in section 12–63, which property is used primarily for the purpose of producing rental income, exclusive of such property used solely for residential purposes, containing not more than six dwelling units and in which the owner resides, shall determine such value on the basis of an appraisal which shall include to the extent applicable with respect to such property, consideration of each of the following methods of appraisal:  (1) Replacement cost less depreciation, plus the market value of the land, (2) capitalization of net income based on market rent for similar property, and (3) a sales comparison approach based on current bona fide sales of comparable property.   The provisions of this section shall not be applicable with respect to any housing assisted by the federal or state government except any such housing for which the federal assistance directly related to rent for each unit in such housing is no less than the difference between the fair market rent for each such unit in the applicable area and the amount of rent payable by the tenant in each such unit, as determined under the federal program providing for such assistance.(b) For purposes of subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of this section and, generally, in its use as a factor in any appraisal with respect to real property used primarily for the purpose of producing rental income, the term “market rent” means the rental income that such property would most probably command on the open market as indicated by present rentals being paid for comparable space.   In determining market rent the assessor shall consider the actual rental income applicable with respect to such real property under the terms of an existing contract of lease at the time of such determination.”.  FN2. C.G.S. § 12–63b provides:  “(a) The assessor or board of assessors in any town, at any time, when determining the present true and actual value of real property as provided in section 12–63, which property is used primarily for the purpose of producing rental income, exclusive of such property used solely for residential purposes, containing not more than six dwelling units and in which the owner resides, shall determine such value on the basis of an appraisal which shall include to the extent applicable with respect to such property, consideration of each of the following methods of appraisal:  (1) Replacement cost less depreciation, plus the market value of the land, (2) capitalization of net income based on market rent for similar property, and (3) a sales comparison approach based on current bona fide sales of comparable property.   The provisions of this section shall not be applicable with respect to any housing assisted by the federal or state government except any such housing for which the federal assistance directly related to rent for each unit in such housing is no less than the difference between the fair market rent for each such unit in the applicable area and the amount of rent payable by the tenant in each such unit, as determined under the federal program providing for such assistance.(b) For purposes of subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of this section and, generally, in its use as a factor in any appraisal with respect to real property used primarily for the purpose of producing rental income, the term “market rent” means the rental income that such property would most probably command on the open market as indicated by present rentals being paid for comparable space.   In determining market rent the assessor shall consider the actual rental income applicable with respect to such real property under the terms of an existing contract of lease at the time of such determination.”

FN3. “Under the cost approach, the appraiser estimates the current cost of replacing the subject property with adjustments for depreciation, the value of the underlying land and entrepreneurial profit ․'This approach is particularly useful in valuing new or nearly new improvements and properties that are not frequently exchanged in the market.'   The Appraisal of Real Estate.   Appraisal Institute (10th Ed.1992) p. 80.”  (Citation omitted.)  Sun Valley v. Stafford, 94 Conn.App. 696, fn.10 (2006)..  FN3. “Under the cost approach, the appraiser estimates the current cost of replacing the subject property with adjustments for depreciation, the value of the underlying land and entrepreneurial profit ․'This approach is particularly useful in valuing new or nearly new improvements and properties that are not frequently exchanged in the market.'   The Appraisal of Real Estate.   Appraisal Institute (10th Ed.1992) p. 80.”  (Citation omitted.)  Sun Valley v. Stafford, 94 Conn.App. 696, fn.10 (2006).

FN4. “The income capitalization approach consists of the following seven steps:  (1) estimate gross income;  (2) estimate vacancy and collection loss;  (3) calculate effective gross income (i.e., deduct vacancy and collection loss from estimated gross income);  (4) estimate fixed and operating expenses and reserves for replacement of short-lived items;  (5) estimate net income (i.e., deduct expenses from effective gross income);  (6) select an applicable capitalization rate;  and (7) apply the capitalization rate to net income to arrive at an indication of the market value of the property being appraised ․ The process is based on the principle that the amount of net income a property can produce is related to its market value ․ This approach only has utility where the property under appraisal is income producing in nature.”  (Citations omitted.)   Sun Valley v. Stafford, 94 Conn.App. 696, fn.9 (2006)..  FN4. “The income capitalization approach consists of the following seven steps:  (1) estimate gross income;  (2) estimate vacancy and collection loss;  (3) calculate effective gross income (i.e., deduct vacancy and collection loss from estimated gross income);  (4) estimate fixed and operating expenses and reserves for replacement of short-lived items;  (5) estimate net income (i.e., deduct expenses from effective gross income);  (6) select an applicable capitalization rate;  and (7) apply the capitalization rate to net income to arrive at an indication of the market value of the property being appraised ․ The process is based on the principle that the amount of net income a property can produce is related to its market value ․ This approach only has utility where the property under appraisal is income producing in nature.”  (Citations omitted.)   Sun Valley v. Stafford, 94 Conn.App. 696, fn.9 (2006).

FN5. “The comparable sales approach is also known as the ‘market data approach’ or ‘sales comparison approach.’  ․'It is a process of analyzing sales of similar recently sold properties in order to derive an indication of the most probable sales price of the property being appraised.   The reliability of this technique is dependent upon (a) the availability of comparable sales data, (b) the verification of the sales data, (c) the degree of comparability or extent of adjustment necessary for time differences, and (d) the absence of non-typical conditions affecting the sales price.'   American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and the Society of Real Estate Appraisers, Real Estate Appraisal Terminology (Rev. Ed.1981) p. 160.   After identifying comparable sales, the appraiser makes adjustments to the sales prices ‘based on elements of comparison.’   The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal (3d Ed.1993) p. 318.”  (Citation omitted.)  Sun Valley v. Stafford, 94 Conn.App. 696, fn.8 (2006)..  FN5. “The comparable sales approach is also known as the ‘market data approach’ or ‘sales comparison approach.’  ․'It is a process of analyzing sales of similar recently sold properties in order to derive an indication of the most probable sales price of the property being appraised.   The reliability of this technique is dependent upon (a) the availability of comparable sales data, (b) the verification of the sales data, (c) the degree of comparability or extent of adjustment necessary for time differences, and (d) the absence of non-typical conditions affecting the sales price.'   American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and the Society of Real Estate Appraisers, Real Estate Appraisal Terminology (Rev. Ed.1981) p. 160.   After identifying comparable sales, the appraiser makes adjustments to the sales prices ‘based on elements of comparison.’   The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal (3d Ed.1993) p. 318.”  (Citation omitted.)  Sun Valley v. Stafford, 94 Conn.App. 696, fn.8 (2006).

FN6. In the second count, the plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to § 12–119, whereby the plaintiff must prove that the assessment was “(a) manifestly excessive and (b) ․ could not have been arrived at except by disregarding the provisions of the statutes for determining the valuation of the property,” see E. Ingraham Co. v. Bristol, 146 Conn. 403, 409, 151 A.2d 700, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 929, 80 S.Ct. 367, 4 L.Ed.2d 352 (1959).   Because the court finds that the property was not overly assessed, the court need not further consider the allegations of the second count..  FN6. In the second count, the plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to § 12–119, whereby the plaintiff must prove that the assessment was “(a) manifestly excessive and (b) ․ could not have been arrived at except by disregarding the provisions of the statutes for determining the valuation of the property,” see E. Ingraham Co. v. Bristol, 146 Conn. 403, 409, 151 A.2d 700, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 929, 80 S.Ct. 367, 4 L.Ed.2d 352 (1959).   Because the court finds that the property was not overly assessed, the court need not further consider the allegations of the second count.

Matasavage, Paul, J.