Owen County appeals board upholds assessment for 350 Westmore Street after land-value dispute

An Owen County property owner appealed the land-only component of the assessment for 350 Westmore Street at a meeting of the county’s Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals. The appellant told the board the land value rose “from 20,100 to, 37,300,” an “85% increase,” and said the change did not reflect local market sales. "My assessed value went from 20,100 to, 37,300, which is a, 85% increase," the appellant said during the hearing.

County appraisal staff described the county’s mass-appraisal process and presented neighborhood comparables, saying the county uses a base-rate method adjusted for lot size. An unidentified assessor (Speaker 6) summarized the approach: "It's a mass appraisal" and explained that nearby lots and recent sales support the total assessed value the county assigned.

Board members asked whether the appellant’s comparables were in the same neighborhood or affected by floodplain status, and staff explained why some suggested comparables might not be appropriate for direct comparison. Staff also outlined that base rates (cited in the discussion as $80,000 for the neighborhood) are multiplied and adjusted by lot size to arrive at the land component shown on assessment cards.

After questioning and discussion, Josh Kennedy moved to leave the assessment as presented; the motion was seconded and board members present indicated agreement by voice. Staff said they would send the appellant a written determination and explained the next steps to pursue an administrative appeal. Meeting staff told the appellant he may file with the IVTR and that the IVTR process can take several months; staff said they would provide the evidence used by the county.

The board’s action to leave the assessment unchanged was carried by voice vote; the record does not show a roll-call tally. The appellant was advised to submit evidence when filing with the IVTR as part of the administrative appeal process.

The board’s discussion focused on method and comparability rather than a single disputed sale price; staff emphasized the difference between individual land components and total assessed value, noting county practice uses a repeated base-rate adjustment and periodic reassessments.