Property Assessment Appeal Board Ruling, Dan Nadermann v. City Board of ReviewCity of Dubuque
City Council Meeting
Consent Items # 11.
Copyrighted
December 20, 2021
ITEM TITLE: Property Assessment Appeal Board Ruling, Dan Nadermann v. City
Board of Review
SUMMARY: Senior Counsel transmitting a ruling from the Property Assessment
Appeal Board affirming the Board of Reviews January 1, 2021
assessment of the Nadermann property.
SUGGESTED Suggested Disposition: Receive and File
DISPOSITION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Memo Staff Memo
Property Assessment Appeal Board Findings of Fact, Supporting Documentation
Conclusions of Law, and Order
THE CITY OF
DUB E
Masterpiece on the
BARRY A. LINDAI
SENIOR COUNSEI
MEMO
To: Roy D. Buol, Mayor
City Council
DATE: December 7, 2021
Dubuque
AlII-Am iea city
nvxrnu,-t�:u i�-
I �• r
I I
2007-2012.2013
2017*2019
RE: Property Assessment Appeal Board Ruling, Dan Nadermann v. City Board
of Review
Attached is a ruling from the Property Assessment Appeal Board affirming the Board of
Review's January 1, 2021 assessment of the Nadermann property.
BAL:JLM
Attachments
cc: Crenna Brumwell, City Attorney
Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
Troy Patzner, City Assessor
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DUBUQUE, IOWA
SUITE 330, HARBOR VIEW PLACE, 300 MAIN STREET DUBUQUE, IA 52001-6944
TELEPHONE (563) 583-4113 / FAx (563) 583-1040 / EMAIL balesq@cityofdubuque.org
Electronically Filed
2021-12-03 12:27:39
PAAB
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
PAAB Docket No. 2021-104-10036R
Parcel No. 118353008
Dan Nadermann,
Appellant,
vs.
City of Dubuque Board of Review,
Appellee.
Introduction
The appeal came on for written consideration before the Property Assessment
Appeal Board (PAAB) on October 22, 2021. Dan Nadermann is self -represented and
asked that the appeal proceed without a hearing. City Attorney Barry Lindahl represents
the Board of Review.
Nadermann Family Properties LLC owns a property at 929 Garfield Avenue,
Dubuque, Iowa. Its January 1, 2021, assessment was set at $110,080, allocated as
$17,000 in land value and $93,080 in building value. (Ex. B).
Nadermann petitioned the Board of Review asserting the subject property's
assessment was not equitable as compared with assessment of other like property and
that the property was assessed for more than the value authorized by law. (Attachment
to Appeal). Iowa Code § 441.37(1)(a)(1)(a & b) (2021). The Board of Review denied
Nadermann's petition "based on the Board of Review's knowledge of the current market
conditions and values." (Attachment to Appeal).
Nadermann then appealed to PAAB checking the box that the property is
assessed for more than authorized by law. Additionally, he wrote "that said assessment
is not equitable as compared with assessments of other like property in the taxing
1
district." (Appeal). We will consider both claims to ensure Nadermann's concerns are
addressed. Iowa Code § 441.37(1)(a)(1)(a & b).
General Principles of Assessment Law
PAAB has jurisdiction of this matter under Iowa Code sections 421.1A and
441.37A. PAAB is an agency and the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act
apply. § 17A.2(1). This appeal is a contested case. § 441.37A(1)(b). PAAB may
consider any grounds under Iowa Code section 441.37(1)(a) properly raised by the
appellant following the provisions of section 441.37A(1)(b) and Iowa Admin. Code R.
701-126.2(2-4). New or additional evidence may be introduced. Id. PAAB considers the
record as a whole and all of the evidence regardless of who introduced it.
§ 441.37A(3)(a); see also Hy-Vee, Inc. v. Employment Appeal Bd., 710 N.W.2d 1, 3
(Iowa 2005). There is no presumption the assessed value is correct, but the taxpayer
has the burden of proof. §§ 441.21(3); 441.37A(3)(a). The burden may be shifted; but
even if it is not, the taxpayer may still prevail based on a preponderance of the
evidence. Id.; Compiano v. Bd. of Review of Polk Cnty., 771 N.W.2d 392, 396 (Iowa
2009) (citation omitted).
Findings of Fact
The subject property is a two-story, brick duplex built in 1881. It has 3136 square
feet of gross living area, a full unfinished basement, and three patios. The property also
has a 1080-square-foot-detached brick garage that was built in 1969. The
improvements are listed in very -poor condition with a 4+00 grade (average quality). The
site is 0.164 acres. (Ex. B).
Nadermann purchased the property in December 2019 for $83,000. (Ex. A). The
property record card indicates the sale was normal.' In an April 2021 letter to the Board
of Review, Nadermann wrote the subject was listed for sale through the multiple listing
.' Iowa Dept. of Revenue, Sales Condition Codes, available at
https://tax.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/NUTCSalesConditionCodes-v5.pdf (stating a NUTC Code
of '0' indicates a normal sale).
2
service (MLS) for $85,000. (Attachment to Appeal). He asserts it was available for
anyone to buy, but did not submit any evidence showing the listing history or time on
market.
Nadermann reports he has done some minor updating to the property since his
purchase. He installed vinyl flooring on the main level, painted some rooms, installed a
new ceiling fan in the living room and a used ceiling light in the dining room, and also
installed a used vanity in the bathroom. He states the total expense for these
improvements was about $2500. (Appeal). He believes the property's value is
approximately $92,000 and that's how it should be assessed. (Appeal). The Board of
Review asserts the subject had one damaged unit that was vacant at the time of sale.
After the sale the unit was repaired and subsequently rented.
Nadermann submitted three properties to support his claims, which are
summarized in the following table. (Ex. C).
Address
Year
Built
Gross
Living
Area SF
Grade
Condition
2021
Assessed
Value
Sale
Date
Sale
Price
Subject
1881
3136
4+00
Very Poor
$110,080
Dec-19
$83,000
N1 — 911-13 Garfield Ave
1880
2210
5+10
Normal
$58,120
NA
NA
N2 — 925-27 Garfield Ave
1900
2785
4+00
Very Poor
$90,450
NA
NA
N3 — 923 Garfield Ave
1900
1333
5+10
Poor
$60,080
NA
NA
Nadermann did not submit any information regarding the comparables such as a
property record card and there is no evidence that any of the properties have recently
sold. PAAB notes the subject is the largest of the properties and the only brick property.
Comparables N1 and N3 have inferior quality grades compared to the subject.
The Board of Review asserts Comparable N 1 has been vacant for several years
and is currently condemned. (Ex. A). The Assessor's Office has applied a 50%
reduction to this property's assessment because the interior has been gutted. (Ex. C).
Comparable N2 does not have a garage like the subject property and it has vinyl
siding. (Exs. A & C).
Comparable N3 is a single-family property. (Ex. A). We agree with the Board of
Review that this property's comparability to the subject is questionable.
3
Considering the attributes of these properties as pointed out by the Board of
Review, we question the comparability of all of them to the subject property.
The Board of Review submitted four equity comparables which are summarized
in the following table. (Ex. D).
Address
Year
Built
Gross Living
Area (SF)
Grade
Condition
2021 Assessed
Value
Sale
Date
Sale
Price
Subject
1881
3136
4+00
Very Poor
$110,080
Dec-19
$83,000
E1 — 1891 Garfield Ave
1875
2576
4+00
Poor
$100,240
NA
NA
E2 — 1027 Rhomberg Ave
1896
2400
4+00
Very Poor
$80,410
NA
NA
E3 — 1100 Lincoln Ave
1898
2400
4+00
Normal
$138,780
NA
NA
E4 — 1600 Rhomberg Ave
1908
2484
5+00
Poor
$93,930
NA
NA
These properties are all two-story, brick duplex properties like the subject. (Exs.
D & G). They have less gross living area compared to the subject and all lack a garage.
E1's lot size is most similar to the subject, whereas E2 and E4 are roughly half the size
and E3 is twice as large. Comparable E4 has an inferior quality compared to the subject
and Comparables E1, E3, and E4 have superior condition ratings. Comparable E1 is the
only equity comparable known to have recently sold and is also included in the Board of
Review's comparable sales.
The Board of Review also submitted five 2020-2021 sale comparables adjusted
for differences compared to the subject. These sale comparables are summarized in the
following table. (Exs. E, F & G).
Address
Year
Built
Gross
Living
Area SF
Condition
2021
Assessed
Value
Sale
Date
Sale
Price
Adjusted
Sale Price
Assessment/
Sales Ratio
Subject
1881
3136
Very Poor
$110,080
12/2019
$83,000
NA
--
S1 — 1891 Garfield Ave
1875
2576
Poor
$100,240
10/2020
$119,000
$128,842
0.84
S2 — 30 E 15th St
1911
2919
Very Poor
$72,070
2/2020
$74,168
$112,187
0.97
S3 — 2417 Windsor Ave
1880
2544
Below
Normal
$132,730
2/2021
$137,000
$114,359
0.97
S4 — 2411 Queen St
1900
2550
Poor
$94,410
1/2021
$98,000
$113,673
0.96
S5 — 1428 Washington St
1890
2240
Poor
$80,250
1/2020
$98,000
$127,835
0.82
The comparables had sale prices ranging from $74,168 to $137,000; and an
adjusted sale price range from $112,187 to $128,842. The Board of Review believes the
adjusted sale prices support the assessed value.
12
The 2020 sales indicate assessment -to -sales -price ratios of 0.84, 0.97, and 0.82.
Ratios less than 1.00 suggest a property is assessed for less than its actual market
value. Here, the three 2020 sales indicate assessments are between 3% to 18% under
market value. The two 2021 sales indicate ratios of 0.96 and 0.97. We note the median
and mean adjusted sales prices are $114,359 and $119,379, respectively. If these
values were used as indications of market value for the subject property, its
assessment -to -sales price ratio would be or 0.96 or 0.92, respectively, and within the
median range of ratios established by these comparables.
Analysis & Conclusions of Law
Nadermann believes his assessment was not equitable as compared with the
assessments of other like property in the taxing district and that the subject is assessed
for more than authorized by law. § 441.37(1)(a)(1)(a & b).
Under section 441.37(1)(a)(1)(a), a taxpayer may claim that their "assessment is
not equitable as compared with assessments of other like property in the taxing district."
To prove inequity, a taxpayer may show an assessor did not apply an assessing
method uniformly to similarly situated or comparable properties. Eagle Food Centers v.
Bd. of Review of the City of Davenport, 497 N.W.2d 860, 865 (Iowa 1993). Nadermann
failed to show any improper variation in assessment methodology among comparable
properties.
Alternatively, a taxpayer may show the property is assessed higher
proportionately than other like properties using criteria set forth in Maxwell v. Shivers,
133 N.W.2d 709, 711 (Iowa 1965). The Maxwell test provides inequity exists when, after
considering the actual (2020) and assessed (2021) values of similar properties, the
subject property is assessed at a higher proportion of its actual value. Id. This is
commonly done through an assessment/sales ratio analysis comparing prior year sales
(2020) and current year assessments (2021) of the subject property and comparable
properties. It is insufficient to simply compare the subject property's assessed value to
the assessments of other properties or the rate of change of property assessments to
demonstrate inequity.
5
Nadermann submitted three properties for comparison to his, but none are
known to have recently sold. Therefore, assessment ratios for these properties cannot
be calculated.
The Board of Review submitted five recent sales. The three 2020 sales indicate
assessments are currently less than actual market value.
Because Nadermann's other claim also requires a showing of actual value, we
examine that claim as well. In an appeal alleging the property is assessed for more than
the value authorized by law, the taxpayer must show: 1) the assessment is excessive
and 2) the subject property's correct value. Soifer v. Floyd Cnty. Bd. of Review, 759
N.W.2d 775, 780 (Iowa 2009) (citation omitted).
Nadermann's support for this claim was based on the December 2019 purchase
price. The sale is reported to be a normal sale by the assessor's office and Nadermann
asserts the assessed value should be based on the sale price adjusted for market
conditions and minor updates completed since the sale. The Board of Review asserts
one of the units was damaged and vacant at the time of sale, which was repaired and
rented after the sale. Additionally, while the subject may have been listed for sale on the
MLS, its listing history and length of time on the market is not in evidence. Further, while
Nadermann may have spent a minimal amount on repairs, cost often does not equal
market value. The Board of Review asserts damage to the subject was repaired and
one unit was able to be rented. Additionally, the record suggests newer sales of similar
properties exist in the jurisdiction. Therefore, we decline to solely rely on Nadermann's
calculations.
Nadermann has not submitted any other evidence of the subject property's fair
market value as of January 1, 2021 such as an appraisal or any recent comparable
sales adjusted for differences to support the subject's market value as of January 1,
2021. Conversely, the Board of Review did submit adjusted sales to indicate a range in
value for the subject property from $112,187 to $128,842. Even though these
adjustments were based on cost, it is the only other evidence of market value in the
record. We agree with the Board of Review in that the adjusted sales tend to support
the assessment. It would appear Nadermann's property is thus not assessed for more
X
than its market value. Additionally, an assessment -to -sales -price ratio calculated using
the median and mean of these sales also suggests that Nadermann's property is
equitably assessed.
For these reasons, Nadermann has failed to show the subject property is
inequitably assessed or assessed for more than authorized by law.
Order
PAAB HEREBY AFFIRMS the City of Dubuque Board of Review's assessment.
This Order shall be considered final agency action for the purposes of Iowa Code
Chapter 17A (2021).
Any application for reconsideration or rehearing shall be filed with PAAB within
20 days of the date of this Order and comply with the requirements of PAAB
administrative rules. Such application will stay the period for filing a judicial review
action.
Any judicial action challenging this Order shall be filed in the district court where
the property is located within 30 days of the date of this Order and comply with the
requirements of Iowa Code section 441.37B and Chapter 17A.
Dennis Loll, Board Member
Karen Oberman, Board Member
Elizabeth Goodman, Board Member
7
Copies to:
Dan Nadermann
10655 Timber Ridge
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
City of Dubuque Board of Review by eFile