The subject property’s land value
is assessed too high. The property is
impacted by negative factors that do not affect other properties located
in close proximity. These other
properties, however, are assessed at much lower values. The 2009 and 2010 assessments failed to
recognize the adverse topography, percentage of slope, grade of the land, and
other similar characteristics that contribute to a decrease in value. Hoback testimony; Daw testimony.
…
In this assessment appeal, Petitioner offered evidence
trying to prove that the 2009 and 2010 assessments of the subject property were
excessive. Petitioner, however, offered almost
no valuation analysis. Trustees
discussed mostly assessment methodology in a failed attempt to prove what the
actual market value-in-use should be for the subject property. Much of Petitioner’s case
focused on issues such as proper land classification, topography,
percentage of slope, and other negative influence factors. While the Board understands that issues like
adverse topography and flooding can have negative effects on the market
value-in-use of the property, Petitioner did not demonstrate how these issues would
result in a specific lower market value-in-use.
When asked to explain the basis for the requested land value of $8,300
as stated on the Petitions, Hoback attempted to go through the mathematical
process he believed to be correct after having read the Assessment Manual. In the end, however, Petitioner's approach
failed to monetarily quantify the alleged sources of negative impact by
the use of any recognized appraisal technique.
See Talesnick v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs., 756 N.E.2d 1104, 1108 (Ind.
Tax Ct. 2001). The evidence and
arguments presented by Petitioner were not enough to rebut the presumption that
the assessments are correct.
