c. The Respondent presented a comparable sales report
analyzing five comparable sales in the subject property’s area. The report
identifies various characteristics of the properties and makes adjustments to
the comparables. Mr. Shelhamer testified that the adjustments were made by the
CAMA system to adjust the comparables to the subject property. There are
adjustments for the number of plumbing fixtures, the total living area,
effective year built, grade, condition, fireplaces, garage size, porch size,
and deck size.
d. While the Respondent’s Comparable Sales Report follows a
sales comparison approach in form, there is no indication that it was prepared
in compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice
(USPAP). Other than to say that the adjustments were made by the CAMA system,
the Respondent did not explain the basis for each adjustment. Nor did the
Respondent explain what objective data was used to justify each adjustment.
Because the Respondent failed to explain the specific adjustments, the Board
does not find the Comparable Sales Report to be probative.
e. The Respondent testified that assessment increased due to
the addition of a concrete slab and changes in the cost tables. Even if the
assessment correctly applied the new cost tables, this evidence does not
establish the actual market value-in-use of the property. The Respondent has
failed to present a prima facie case that the assessment is correct.
f. Because the Petitioner requested the assessment be
further reduced to $77,600, the Petitioner has the burden of proving she in
entitled to the additional reduction. The Board now turns to the Petitioner’s
evidence.
g. Beyond explaining that the
three sales are located in her subdivision, Ms. Yount did not meaningfully
compare any of the sales to the subject property much less account for any
relevant ways in which they differ from each other.
h. Thus, the Petitioner failed to make a prima facie case
for an additional reduction in the assessment.
