25. First, the Petitioner’s evidence raises a prima facie case that the Petitioner leased the apartments at Woodhaven Park for less than fair market rent. The Petitioner showed that its rent rates were below the rent levels established by the Indiana Housing Development Authority and the market rents used by HUD. Petitioner Exhibit K, L and W. Similarly, except for a single property which was offering a “rent special” on its one bedroom apartments, three rent studies and an USPAP-compliant appraisal found that Woodhaven Park’s rent levels for its one bedroom apartments and two bedroom and three bedroom townhomes fell below the rates charged by other apartment complexes in the area. See Petitioner Exhibits O through Q and V.
26. The Petitioner also raised
a prima facie case that it provided charitable benefits and services to its
residents, in addition to providing affordable housing. Here, the Petitioner
did more than simply refer its tenants to social services, it arranged to have
organizations come to the site and provide services to its residents such as a
credit counseling program, personal and family counseling, and a summer lunch
program. Similarly, while the Petitioner did not provide its own tax
preparation services, it offered a rent credit to its residents to obtain tax
preparation assistance. Further, the Petitioner offered its own programs to
improve the situations of its tenants, such as resume assistance, financial
planning, a language learning program and a student tutoring program – in
addition to community activities such as a New Year’s Eve celebration and a
Valentine’s Day party. The Petitioner also offered rent and utility assistance
by offering payment options and forbearance plans in case of tenant hardship.
Finally, the Petitioner applied for grants, such as a grant from Microsoft
which donated computers and sixty software licenses and a Book Club for Kids
grant which gave the Petitioner the opportunity to buy books at a reduced cost
which the Petitioner then gave for free to its residents. The undisputed
evidence showed that offering such programs came at a significant cost to the
Petitioner. See Petitioner Exhibit S at p. 5 through 6. In fact, the
Petitioner’s witness testified that its management company hired an extra
employee to assist with these particular programs. Cane testimony.
27. In addition, by repaving
the city street that Woodhaven Park shared with the single-family homes across
the street, the Petitioner relieved the government of the burden to maintain
that street.
28. The Board therefore finds
that the Petitioner raised a prima facie case its property was predominantly
owned, occupied and used for charitable purposes and qualifies for 100%
exemption for the 2008 assessment year."
