Petitioner tells Elkhart County board fixed income makes 2024 assessment increase untenable

Craig Hankler told the Elkhart County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals on April 21 that a recent rise in his home’s assessed value is causing financial hardship and that the board should consider senior and fixed‑income circumstances when weighing his appeal.

At the administrative hearing, board member Mike Settles and county staff reviewed exhibits submitted by the assessor’s office, including the property record card and aerial photos. The county’s representative noted the parcel includes about 1.35 acres currently valued at an agricultural rate (the record card shows that acreage carrying a land value of $3,160) and presented four sales from Harrison and Olive townships as comparables. The assessor concluded those sales did not support a reduction in the 2025 assessed value.

Hankler, who said he built the house in 1987 and put roughly $40,000 of his own labor into construction, described family circumstances that complicate his tax burden: he and his wife are retired and on fixed incomes, and an adjoining accessible house currently houses his elderly mother. “I plan on dying in that house. I don’t plan on moving,” Hankler said, arguing that the assessment increase is unrealistic for homeowners in his situation.

Board members and county staff explained procedural limits: the county follows state law that requires market‑value assessments and uses trending and ratio studies to reconcile sales and assessed values. A board member noted the property record card’s neighborhood factor listed as 2.0000 and explained this is derived by comparing recent sales to assessments for the township. Staff also advised Hankler to check with the auditor’s office about available over‑65 and other homestead-related deductions, noting recent state adjustments to eligibility thresholds.

The board did not take an immediate vote. Chair Settles closed the testimony and said the board will review notes and evidence and notify the petitioner by mail. Hankler was advised to confirm with the auditor whether he now qualifies for any newly adjusted exemptions.

The hearing record shows the petitioner raised both factual claims about how the parcel was configured to accommodate a barn and normative appeals for the board’s equitable discretion, while the county relied on neighbor sales and statutory market‑value methodology.