Here, Mr. Oldham generally claimed that the subject parcels were assessed too high in comparison to other parcels in his area, even though some of the other parcels are buildable. Pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-18(c), “To accurately determine market-value-in-use, a taxpayer or an assessing official may … introduce evidence of the assessments of comparable properties located in the same taxing district or within two (2) miles of a boundary of the taxing district…” Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-18.4 The statute states that “the determination of whether properties are comparable shall be made using generally accepted appraisal and assessment practices.” Id.
In support of his contentions, Mr. Oldham submitted “Property Assessment Detail Reports” which provide a total assessed value for each parcel. Mr. Oldham also provided a plat map to show that Parcel 34 was virtually the same size as every other lot in the subdivision and provided pictures to show that Lots 51 and 63 had a similar ravine running through the center of the property as Lot 34. In addition, Mr. Oldham testified that a ditch runs through Lots 44, 45, and 46.
The Board notes that to compare the assessed values of comparable properties, at a minimum the proponent must provide property record cards to show how the various properties are assessed. Here the Petitioners provided no such data. The Petitioners’ “Property Assessment Detail Reports” are not the kind of report that would allow the Board to determine how a property was assessed and whether the subject parcels were assessed differently.
Despite the Petitioners failure to provide detailed assessment information, the Respondent’s representative testified that each lot in the subdivision was assessed with a base rate of $170. And while Lot 34 was given a 30% adjustment for its lack of septic and well and a 25% adjustment for topography, Mr. Thomas testified that Lots 44, 45 and 46 received a 30% adjustment for their lack of septic and well; a 30% adjustment for “excess frontage” because it would require all three lots together to be a buildable lot; and the PTABOA applied a 44% adjustment because the lots individually were not buildable.
While conceding the parcels were similar in topography, the Respondent argued that the owner of Lots 44, 45 and 46 provided evidence to the PTABOA that its properties were not buildable; whereas the Petitioner did not. But the Assessor’s contractor noted that Lot 34 “would not be sellable without adjacent parcels” and, in fact, Mr. Thomas agreed in hearing that Lot 34 was unbuildable.
Given the Respondent’s admission that Lot 34 suffers from the same unbuildable conditions as Lots 44, 45 and 46 as a result of the parcels’ topography, and given the Petitioners’ evidence that the parcels were located in the same subdivision and were all virtually identical in size, the Board finds that the totality of the evidence shows that Lot 34 should be assessed no more than the highest assessed value assigned to Lots 44, 45 or 46. Thus, the Board holds that the assessed value of Lot 34 should be reduced to $4,800 for the 2009 assessment year. Mr. Oldham, however, failed to show that the 1.82 Acre Lot or the 1.21 Acre Lot were comparable to the parcels in the subdivision sufficient to make a prima facie case that they were over-valued for the 2009 assessment.
