In a recent board of review meeting, significant discussions centered around the assessment of a property owned by Walgreens, focusing on the valuation methods of market rent versus contract rent. The board heard objections from the taxpayer's representatives, who argued that the assessment should reflect market rent, which they claimed was more appropriate than the lower contract rent used by the city assessor.

The taxpayer's representatives outlined their compliance with statutory requirements, asserting that they had submitted timely objections and provided necessary income and expense information. They emphasized that their valuation was based on market conditions, citing a Supreme Court case that supported the use of market rent in property assessments.

Conversely, the city attorney contended that the evidence presented by the taxpayer was primarily hearsay and did not meet the good faith standard required for a valid objection. The city argued that the board should dismiss the case outright, as the taxpayer's presentation lacked substantial evidence to support a change in the assessment.

The board engaged in extensive discussions regarding procedural rules, the nature of the evidence, and the implications of hearsay in administrative hearings. The city maintained that the taxpayer's evidence was insufficient to warrant a change in valuation, while the taxpayer's representatives argued for the legitimacy of their claims based on established legal precedents.

Ultimately, the board faced the challenge of balancing the statutory requirements for a hearing with the quality of evidence presented. While the city acknowledged that the taxpayer had met procedural requirements for a hearing, it remained firm in its stance that the evidence was inadequate to justify a reassessment. The board's deliberations will determine whether to uphold the current assessment or consider the taxpayer's arguments for a reduction based on market rent.