Potts stated that the property’s
assessed value is likely too low. In support of this contention, Potts
presented a sales comparison analysis he prepared. Potts identified two
commercial properties and adjusted those sales for differences in size, age, construction,
and site size based on costs in the Indiana assessment guidelines. Potts also
developed a location adjustment for the comparable property located in Brookston.
d. On March 7, 2013, Potts was
certified by the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance as a
professional appraiser authorized to provide technical assistance to White
County. But he did not indicate that he complied with the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) in preparing the sales comparison
analysis. Further, Potts failed to show how he arrived at many of the adjustments
he made for the many differences between the comparable properties and the
subject property. For example, Potts developed a location adjustment of
-$13,600 for the difference in location between the subject property and
comparable 2. He also made adjustments of -$6,800 based on the dates each
property was built, and +$1,600 based on the type of building on each of the
properties. Potts made multiple adjustments, but failed to account for how he
arrived at each adjustment. It is not clear to the Board what objective data
Potts used to justify the adjustments.
e. Finally, Potts stated that he
was not advocating for a value in his analysis for the subject property. He
merely claimed his evidence showed that lowering the assessment was not
appropriate.
f. The adjustments used to
support the conclusion the assessment should not be lowered were a significant
part of the Respondent’s case. Nevertheless, Potts failed to explain to the
Board how he arrived at the specific adjustment numbers. Based on Potts’ failure
to show how he arrived at such an integral part of the analysis, the Board does
not find his evidence or testimony to be probative.
g. In other cases where the
Respondent has the burden to prove the assessment is correct and failed to
carry that burden, the Board has ordered that the assessment be returned to the
assessed value of the preceding year. In this case, the assessment is reduced
to $14,400.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Amick_91-002-12-1-4-00001.pdf
