Petitioners challenge Elkhart County’s treatment of industrial mezzanines; county says evidence needed for systemwide change

At an administrative hearing Feb. 3, petitioner tax counsel (David Shad) urged the Elkhart County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals to reconsider how the county values industrial mezzanines. Shad presented analyses and local examples showing that, under the county’s current approach (using a 60‑year life table plus market factors), mezzanines for storage are sometimes being valued at a higher per‑square‑foot rate than entire buildings.

Shad said state guidance supports shorter life tables for some framing types and proposed using a 40‑year life table for storage mezzanines. He presented spreadsheet examples and comparables — including a local Elkhart building and a Forest River parcel — suggesting that applying a 40‑year table and removing an applied market factor for some line items would reduce assessed values by several hundred thousand dollars in example calculations.

Ty Miller, the county’s representative, acknowledged some validity to the petitioner’s mechanical argument but said the assessor’s office must treat like properties uniformly across the county. Miller argued mezzanines are heterogeneous (unfinished storage, office mezzanines, heavy‑duty mezzanines with elevators or bathrooms) and said any change would require evidence from contractors and a countywide ratio study to avoid creating new inequities.

The board and parties discussed whether switching from the county’s current GCK cost schedule to GCI cost tables for certain prefabricated steel buildings would remove the need for a large market factor and thereby reduce mezzanine pricing. County staff said such a shift would require a formal sales‑ratio study and consistent data collection; the county offered to pursue contractor quotes and additional documentation if parties provide leads.

The board heard a related Forest River petition (2022 assessment) where petitioner argued the same mezzanine issues inflate the parcel’s assessment. County staff said it had no market evidence showing a misvaluation for that specific parcel and recommended reviewing field‑visit notes and permit data before deciding.

The board adjourned the petitions for deliberation; no immediate change to county practice was ordered at the hearing.