Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board orders assessor to verify small structure’s use after homeowner appeal
Summary
Elkhart County tax board allowed the assessor’s office to inspect a secondary building on James Bechtel’s parcel to determine whether it should be classified as a storage unit rather than a residence and to return with a corrected assessment.
Mike Settles, a member of the Elkhart County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals, on March 17 allowed the assessor’s office to re-inspect a smaller building on petitioner James A. Bechtel’s property to verify whether the structure is a storage unit rather than a residence and to return with a revised assessment if warranted. The board heard sworn testimony and reviewed exchanged exhibits, including property record cards, a building permit excerpt and photographs.
Bechtel testified that the smaller structure had been “decommissioned” from the septic system, lacks running water and a functioning furnace, and is used only for storage. “Just because it looks like a house doesn’t mean it’s a house,” he told the board, arguing that the county’s assessment treated the building as a dwelling and therefore overstated his tax burden. He asked that, if the office confirms the building was misrepresented, the county adjust prior years’ taxes where the law permits.
A county representative told the board that no new valuation model had been completed because assessors were denied a field visit and that current property-record-card information shows the secondary structure classified as a residence. The assessor’s office said it needs an on-site verification to determine whether a nonsubjective correction exists and noted that, where statutory nonsubjective corrections can be substantiated, they can be applied up to three tax years.
After questioning from board members about plumbing, utilities and the parcel’s access, the board moved to permit the assessor’s office to inspect the smaller structure and, if appropriate, reclassify that component as storage and issue an updated assessment for the year in question. The motion passed. The board advised Bechtel to coordinate scheduling with the assessor’s office; the petitioner said he will do so. The board noted that any retroactive tax adjustments would be handled according to applicable statutory limits.
The Bechtel petition was then adjourned; the petitioner will receive the board’s written decision by mail and the results of any inspection or reassessment will be applied per law and county procedure.
