OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

Transcription

1 OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS Cincinnati School District, Board of ) CASE NO K-1543 Education, ) ) (REAL PROPERTY TAX) Appellant, ) ) DECISION AND ORDER vs. ) ) Hamilton County Board of Revision, ) Hamilton County Auditor, and DRL Real ) Estate, Ltd., ) ) Appellees. ) APPEARANCES: For the Appellant For the County Appellees For the Appellee Property Owner - David C. DiMuzio, Inc. David C. DiMuzio 1900 Kroger Building 1014 Vine Street Cincinnati, Ohio Joseph T. Deters Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney Thomas J. Scheve Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 230 East Ninth Street, Suite 4000 Cincinnati, Ohio Goodman & Goodman Stanley Goodman 123 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, Ohio Entered November 16, 2007 Ms. Margulies, Mr. Eberhart, and Mr. Dunlap concur. This matter is before this board as a result of an appeal filed on behalf of the Cincinnati School District, Board of Education ( BOE ). The BOE challenges a decision of the Hamilton County Board of Revision ( BOR ) in which it reduced the value of certain

2 real property, for ad valorem tax purposes, from that originally assigned it by the Hamilton County Auditor ( auditor) for tax year The subject property, identified in the auditor s records as parcel number , is improved with a three-story building of approximately 30,000 square feet, built circa 1970, a parking lot, and two storage sheds. Until approximately mid-2004, the primary building had been used as a nursing home, known as Ridge Pavilion, and was comprised of approximately fifty-one residence rooms, most of which were shared by two or three individuals, with a connecting bathroom. The building apparently also has office space, a dining room, and a physical therapy room. As of January 1, 2004, the auditor valued the property as set forth below: TRUE VALUE TAXABLE VALUE Land $ 202,100 Land $ 70,740 Building $2,557,600 Building $895,160 Total $2,759,700 Total $965,900 The appellee property owner, DRL Real Estate Ltd., filed a complaint with the BOR seeking to have the value of the property reduced to $1,000,000, 1 stating in its complaint: The subject property was improved with a single-purpose structure utilized as a nursing home. The structure became functionally obsolete so that it could no longer be utilized for the purpose for which it was designed. The operation in the 1 At the initial hearing before the BOR, the owner was permitted to amend its alleged value to $975,000 in order to comport with the evidence presented on its behalf. As has been previously acknowledged by the Supreme Court, a value set forth in a complaint filed with a county board of revision places neither minimum nor maximum limitations on the court s determination of value, and there are none save the judicial requirement that the determination be supported by the evidence. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 61, 63. See, also, Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Revision (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 591, 595 ( There is no requirement that the value of the property, as determined by the board of revision, must match the opinion of value set forth in the complaint. ). 2

3 structure was terminated June 30, The property has been for sale since that date and no prospects have been found. S.T. at Ex. I. In its complaint filed pursuant to R.C (B), the BOE requested that the auditor s values be retained, asserting there was [n]ot sufficient evidence to support a decrease of [the] Auditor s current value. S.T. at Ex. II. Following its consideration of evidence and testimony received at hearings convened on September 7 and October 12, 2005, the BOR reduced the auditor s values as follows: TRUE VALUE TAXABLE VALUE Land $ 133,700 Land $ 46,800 Building $ 916,300 Building $320,710 Total $1,050,000 Total $367,510 Through this appeal, the BOE seeks to have the property s value returned to that originally established by the auditor, maintaining that there exists insufficient evidence to support the reduction granted by the BOR. Although the parties were accorded an opportunity to amplify the evidentiary record, a hearing before this board was waived, with only the BOE filing written argument in support of its position. Accordingly, this matter is now considered upon the notice of appeal, the transcript of the proceedings and evidence presented before the BOR as certified to this board by the auditor pursuant to R.C , and the brief filed on behalf of the BOE. An initial hearing was convened before the BOR on September 7, 2005, where the property owner presented the testimony and written appraisal report of M. Robert Garfield, a state-certified appraiser having designations bestowed upon him by several appraisal organizations. In his report, Garfield opined that the subject property had a value of $975,000 as of July 1, 2004, a date represented to be consistent with the point in time 3

4 when business operations at the property ceased. His overall opinion of value resulted from his reliance upon two approaches, i.e., the cost and sales comparison approaches. In his cost approach, Garfield estimated land value at $40,000 per acre, which when applied to the subject s land area reflected a value of $70,160. To this amount, he added improvement costs at $60 per square foot, totaling $1,800,000, which he then depreciated by one-half, i.e., $900,000, resulting in a rounded total of $970,000. In his sales comparison approach, Garfield indicated the property would likely transfer somewhere in a range of $31 to $35 per square foot. Selecting $32.50 per square foot as most appropriate, his sales comparison approach suggested a value of $975,000. He rejected use of the income approach [d]ue to the fact that the property is improved with a single purpose nursing home structure and the structure has become functionally obsolescent so it could not be operated and there is no certificate of need with the property [sic] the income approach could not be developed, therefore none is. S.T., Ex. A at 17. Sustaining an objection made by the BOE s counsel, Garfield was not permitted to express an opinion of value as of the pertinent tax lien date, i.e., January 1, 2004, but appellant s counsel proffered that his opinion of value would be the same for the tax lien date six months earlier. 2 2 At a subsequent hearing before the BOR, see discussion infra, a supplemental written report was provided to the BOR in which Garfield opined that the subject s value would be $975,000 as of January 1, In determining the taxable value of real property, a tribunal may consider pre- and post-tax lien date factors that affect the true value of the taxpayer s property on the tax lien date. In the instant matter, the BOR correctly recognized that when appraisal evidence is offered, a county board of revision is required to base its decision on an opinion which expresses a value for the property as of the pertinent tax lien date. See Olmsted Falls Village Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 552, See, also, Freshwater v. Belmont Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 26, Nevertheless, this board has permitted an appraiser to testify as to a date other than that expressed within a written report and, under certain circumstances, found such testimony, coupled with factual data included within the report, to be competent and probative evidence of a property s value. See, e.g., Jefferson Area Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. 4

5 Also testifying at the BOR s initial hearing was Camilla Hileman, apparently an employee of the auditor s office and also a state-certified appraiser. Although she had not performed an appraisal of the subject property, she had, on behalf of the auditor, reviewed Garfield s report, and found it insufficient to support the property owner s claimed value. Based upon concerns that the auditor s value might not fairly reflect the subject s value, the BOR recessed in order to permit the auditor s office to conduct a further review. On October 12, 2005, the BOR reconvened its hearing, having been provided with a supplemental report prepared by Garfield which reflected an opinion of value of $975,000 as of the tax lien date in issue, i.e., January 1, In addition to Garfield s testimony, also testifying at this hearing were David R. Lipson, the owner s managing member, and Shaun O Bryan, identified as a certified appraiser with the auditor s office. At hearing, Lipson confirmed the accuracy of information provided via affidavit in which he attested, in part: 3. The nursing home was operated under a Certificate of Need permitting 121 nursing home beds. 4. Beginning July 1, 2002 I removed 51 beds from the Certificate of Need, leaving a Certificate of Need for 70 beds. 5. Beginning in 2002, I closed the lower level so that only the upper two levels were operated as a nursing home. 6. Despite my marketing efforts, I was unable to attain a census of more than 51 residents (72.8%) during the period from July 1, 2003 through January 31, Footnote contd. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Revision (May 12, 2006), BTA No R-506, unreported; AP Hotels of Illinois, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Feb. 16, 2007), BTA No K-349, unreported. Compare Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Feb. 16, 2007), BTA No H-1212, unreported. However, because a supplemental report was accepted by the BOR, we need not address the propriety of its decision to preclude Garfield from offering any testimony at the BOR s initial hearing as to whether he had an opinion regarding the subject s value as of tax lien date. 5

6 Lipson also testified that the certificate of need under which the property had operated was sold in February He indicated, however, that the decision to sell the certificate had been made prior to tax lien date. O Bryan testified that while he had not performed an appraisal of the subject property, he had estimated its value through a cost approach pursuant to the instructions given to him by his supervisor. In a two-page summary, with attachments, he suggested that the land had a value of $1.75 per square foot, or $133,700. Testifying that he classified the improvements as an average C class building, BOR hearing record at 24, he multiplied the subject s size, i.e., 30,239 square feet, by an adjusted base cost of $86.41, 3 which reflected replacement cost new of $2,612,950. To this amount, he added $38,250 for an elevator, $67,430 for a sprinkler system, and $271,860 for ten percent entrepreneurial profit, thereby reflecting an estimated total cost new of $2,990,490. Concluding that the subject structure would have a forty-year economic life and attributing a twenty-year effective age to the improvements, he depreciated the total cost new by one-half in order to arrive at an improvement value of $1,495,245. To this amount, he added $15,800 for depreciated site improvements and the aforementioned land value of $133,700, so as to conclude to a rounded value of $1,645,000. Although the BOE s counsel examined the witnesses who appeared before the BOR, the BOE offered no evidence of value. Instead, it elected before the BOR, as it has 3 This figure was derived by starting with Marshall & Swift s cost per square foot for average class C convalescent hospitals of $91.67 by a perimeter multiplier of.924 and then adding current and local cost multipliers of 1.01 and

7 before this board, to rely exclusively upon its argument as to why the various expressions of value are deficient. Ultimately, upon consideration of the information before it, the BOR adopted a true value of $1,050,000. With both the county commissioner s representative and the auditor s representative voting in agreement, the Hamilton County Treasurer s representative explained how this figure was derived: Officially the Board took a short period to deliberate and recess and made its decision. *** Again, the Board is familiar with how the value originally was determined on this property. It goes back to a sale initially and most likely the CONs were a party to that particular sale as far as how it was reflected on the Conveyance Fee Statement. 4 The Board did review and again, principally the cost approach that came before us today. It didn t have a great deal of other evidence to work with. The Board is also concerned with the fact that the type of building and its age. It was built in 1970 and looking at the way the cost approach was valued gave little more concern to depreciation and was taken into light from the testimony that we have had this morning. As a result of that, we determined a value of $1,050,000 on the property as of tax lien date. *** BOR hearing record at Although the record is not entirely clear on this point, it appears the treasurer s representative may have been referring to O Bryan s speculation as to how the auditor s valuation may have been derived: In wrapping up my testimony, let me say I do think the value on a cost analysis is over stated [sic]. I think that the value became... There was a prior sale prior transfer back in 96 for like around $2,800,000. *** And that s how the values... Yeah and the values got taken to a number that approached that, which probably included the certificate of needs and so forth. So that s in terms of the current value [i.e., the auditor s values]. I think where you are seeing the numbers being generated. BOR hearing record at 36. 7

8 When it ultimately issued its written decision, the BOR attributed $133,700 to the land, with the remainder, i.e., $916,300, attributed to the improvements. As previously indicated, it is from this decision that the BOE has appealed, with both parties waiving hearing and only the BOE submitting written argument. In light of recent decisions issued by the Supreme Court, we find it important to set forth the standard by which this board s review is to be conducted and the obligations borne by the parties on appeal. Almost two decades ago, the Supreme Court in R.R.Z. Associates v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 198, 200, noted that [w]hile the board of revision is a deciding tribunal, it is not a truly impartial tribunal in the sense that a trial court or the BTA is. The board of revision is composed of the county auditor, who establishes the initial true value of the property, the county treasurer, who collects taxes based upon the true value, and the president of the county commissioners, which operates the county. As a result, [w]hile a determination of the true value of real property by a board of revision is entitled to consideration by the BTA, such determination is not presumptively valid. Amsdell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 572, 574. See, also, Springfield Local Bd. of Edn. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 493, 495; Cambridge Arms, Ltd. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 69 Ohio St. 3d 337, 338. In Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 13, a case procedurally similar to the present one, the parties waived hearing and elected to rely exclusively upon the record developed before a county board of revision. Under such circumstances, the court expressly addressed the statutory duty imposed upon this board: 8

9 The parties herein apparently waived presentation of further evidence and agreed that only the evidence presented to the BOR was to be considered by the BTA. The situation faced by the BTA in this case is analogous to that faced by the common pleas court in Black v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1985), 16 Ohio St.3d 11 ***. The court in Black had before it an appeal from a board of revision under R.C , the alternative appeal provision to R.C The only evidence before the common pleas court was the statutory transcript from the board of revision. We stated in Black that the common pleas court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing or a trial de novo, but that the common pleas court has a duty on appeal to independently weigh and evaluate all evidence properly before it. The court is then required to make an independent determination concerning the valuation of the property at issue. The court s review of the evidence should be thorough and comprehensive, and should ensure that its final determination is more than a mere rubber stamping of the board of revision s determination. Id. at ***. Our conclusion in Black was that R.C contemplates a decision de novo. (Emphasis sic.) Id. at 14 ***. The duty of both the BTA and the common pleas court upon an appeal is to determine the taxable value of the property. See R.C and We find that the BTA in this case is required to meet the standard enunciated in Black. Thus, if the only evidence before the BTA is the statutory transcript from the board of revision, the BTA must make its own independent judgment based on its weighing of the evidence contained in that transcript. Id. at 15. (Parallel citations omitted.) See, also, Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, Franklin App. No. 03AP- 106, 2004-Ohio-586. In heeding the court s admonitions, we have recognized that [t]he valuation determined by the BTA must be supported by competent and probative evidence. Without some evidence of record, [a reviewing court is] unable to determine whether the decision of the BTA is reasonable and lawful. Columbus City School Dist., 90 Ohio St.3d, at

10 Although our review is de novo, it nevertheless remains the responsibility of an appellant to support its claim. When cases are appealed from a board of revision to the BTA, the burden of proof is on the appellant, whether it be a taxpayer or a board of education, to prove its right to an increase [in] or decrease from the value determined by the board of revision. Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 564, 566. See, also, Soin v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Revision, 110 Ohio St.3d 408, Ohio-4708; Lakota Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Revision, 108 Ohio St.3d 310, 2006-Ohio The manner by which an appellant attempts to satisfy its assigned burden falls within its own discretion. For example, an appellant may rely, as the BOE has in this instance, solely upon its counsel s cross-examination of opposing witnesses and its legal argument: To be sure, the burden of proof rested on the board of education before the BTA, but [h]ow a party seeking a change in valuation attempts to meet its burden of proof *** is a matter for that party s judgment. Snavely v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 500, 503 ***. The board of education could meet its burden of proof before the BTA by showing through cross-examination of Timberlake s appraiser and in a posthearing brief that the board of revision had erred when it reduced the value from the amount first determined by the auditor. Vandalia-Butler City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 157, Ohio-4385, at 9. Even in those instances where a party elects to present evidence of value, the Supreme Court has previously held that a party is not entitled to a claimed value merely because it was the only one to present evidence. Simmons v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 47. Indeed, this board is not required to adopt the appraisal 10

11 methodology espoused by any expert or witness. Hotel Statler v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 299, 303. Rather, the BTA as the finder of fact has wide discretion to determine the weight and credibility of witnesses; thus it may accept all, part, or none of the testimony of a witness. Simmons, supra, at 48. See, also, Cardinal Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Bd. of Revision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13; Witt Co. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 155; Wynwood Apartments, Inc. v. Bd. of Revision (1979), 59 Ohio St.2d 34. It is because of the duty imposed upon this board to independently evaluate the evidence that appellate courts have noted that they do not serve as super Boards of Tax Appeals and do not themselves sit as triers of fact de novo. See, e.g., Simmons, supra, at 49. More recently, however, in Dayton-Montgomery Cty. Port Auth. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 113 Ohio St.3d 281, 2007-Ohio-1948, the Supreme Court reversed this board s reinstatement of a county auditor s original valuation where the court determined that value had been sufficiently contradicted. The court concluded that the reinstatement of the auditor s initial valuation was in error because the auditor had applied an unsubstantiated and unexplained grade factor adjustment to his replacement cost figure for the subject s improvements, an amount which approximated the costs incurred in the recent construction of the property. In remanding the matter, the court stated: Today we hold that the reasoning we applied in Columbus (2001), Columbus (1996), and Amsdell also applies to the auditor s determination of value. Namely, when the evidence presented to the board of revision or the BTA contradicts the auditor s determination in whole or in part, and when no evidence has been adduced to support the auditor s valuation, the BTA may not simply revert to the auditor s determination. Whenever it does so, the BTA is acting unlawfully by making a 11

12 finding of value that is affirmatively contradicted by the only evidence in the record. Id. at 27. Thereafter, in Bedford Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, Ohio St.3d, 2007-Ohio-5237, the majority applied Dayton-Montgomery, supra, and again reversed our vacation of a board of revision s valuation, rejection of the taxpayer s evidence, and return to an auditor s valuation, finding that the BTA erred in reinstating the auditor s determination of value when the taxpayer had presented sufficient evidence to the BOR to justify the reduction the BOR ordered. From its decisions in Dayton-Montgomery and Bedford Bd. of Edn., it is clear the court disfavors the reinstatement of an auditor s value when a board of revision alters that amount and there exists sufficient evidence to support an adjustment. Compare Vandalia-Butler City School Dist., supra. 5 In reviewing the record in this appeal, there exists some basis for questioning the probative value of the evidence presented in ascertaining the subject property s true value. The need for an appraiser to explain how his or her opinion of value was derived was acknowledged by the court in Freshwater v. Belmont Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 26, 30, wherein it pointed out that [a]n expert s opinion of value in a tax 5 In Vandalia-Butler City School Dist., the court acknowledged that under certain circumstances it may be appropriate to return to an auditor s value: In the absence of probative evidence supporting the reduction in value ordered by the board of revision, and in light of the problems identified by the BTA with the even lower value proposed by the Timberlake appraiser, the BTA s conclusion that the county auditor s original valuation should be reinstated was not unreasonable. In the absence of probative evidence of a lower value, a county board of revision and the BTA are justified in fixing the value at the amount assessed by the county auditor. Salem Med. Arts & Dev. Corp. v. Columbiana Cty. Bd. of Revision (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 193, 195 ***. The BTA s decision to reject the board of revision s valuation and 12

13 valuation case is of little help to the trier of fact if the expert does not explain the basis for the opinion. Garfield s appraisal 6 offers virtually no insight into how the two approaches relied upon were applied to the subject. Instead, his appraisal is limited to a description of the subject property s physical composition and the general purpose of and methodologies employed in appraising any real property. It includes as attachments portions of the Cincinnati zoning code, unadjusted sales data from 72 properties, historic Marshall Valuation Service materials apparently ranging from 1992 to 2000, and general market information about the Cincinnati metropolitan area. Notably absent from the appraisal, however, is the identification of the specific data actually used to develop the opinion expressed therein. For example, after explaining how a cost approach is to be prepared, Garfield s discussion of its application to the subject property is limited to the following: Present costs in this appraisal are estimated and developed utilizing both the Marshall and Swift and Boeckh s manuals. It is also the opinion of the appraisers that local builder estimates are sometimes more valid than the manualized construction services. *** In reviewing the cost approach, the ground valued at $40, an acre for acres is $70, The building with improvements based on current building costs for the 30,000 sq. ft. of buildings should cost $60.00 per sq. ft. for a Footnote contd. reinstate the auditor s original finding is supported by the evidence, and the BTA did not abuse its discretion in reaching that conclusion. Id. at We make reference only to Garfield s initial appraisal report since his supplemental report was comprised of nothing more than an indication that based upon Lipson s affidavit, the opinion of value expressed as of July 1, 2004 would be the same for January 1, Other than Lipson s affidavit, and the materials attached thereto, no additional analysis or documentation was included. 13

14 total cost of $1,800, adjusting for deprec[i]ation at 50% leaves a value of $900,00.00 [sic] for the improvements, adding the land at $70, indicates a cost approach value of $970,160. SAY: $970, S.T., Ex. A at 14. (Emphasis sic.) His sales comparison approach is expressed in equally summary fashion: In using the Sales Comparison Approach attached to and made part of this appraisal are a number of sales made in the general area within the last several years. It is somewhat difficult to find a real comparable since this property is improved with a special purpose building and it [sic] condition is such it can t even be operated in the specialty use as in which it was designed for. However reflecting that commercial buildings in this part of town bring in the range of $ $35.00 per sq. ft., therefore the 30,000 sq. ft. in this building valued at $32.50 per sq. ft. would give a Sales Comparison Approach Value of $975, SAY: $975, S.T., Ex. A at 19. (Emphasis sic.) The Appraisal of Real Estate (12 th Ed. 2001), at 425, states that [i]deally, if all comparable properties are identical to the subject property, no adjustments would be required. However, this is rarely the case, especially for nonresidential properties. Continuing, this treatise provides: The first step in any comparative analysis is to identify which elements of comparison affect property values in the subject market. Each of the basic elements of comparison must be analyzed to determine whether an adjustment is required. If sufficient information is available, a quantitative adjustment can be made. If there is insufficient support for a quantitative adjustment, the element is addressed using qualitative analysis. Adjustments for differences are made to the price of each comparable property to make the comparable equal to the subject on the effective date of the value estimate. Adjustments for differences in elements of comparison may be made to the total property price, to a common unit price, or to a mix of both, but the unit prices used must be consistently applied to the 14

15 comparable properties. The amount of adjustment made for each element of comparison depends on the extent to which each comparable property differs from the subject property. Appraisers must be sure to consider all appropriate elements of comparison and avoid adjusting for the same difference more than once. Id. at 430. See, also, Edgewood Manor of Westerville, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Sept. 8, 2006), BTA No T-706, unreported. While the addendum to Garfield s report appears to include some sales information, 7 we are unable to determine which sales may have been relied upon, whether any of the sales had been confirmed, whether the properties had been inspected, or what adjustments, if any, were made to reflect differences, significant in some instances, between the tax lien date and the date of the sale, or the location, size, age, and quality of construction of the comparables when measured against the subject. Garfield s cost approach is similarly lacking. The Appraisal of Real Estate provides that [l]ike the sales comparison and income capitalization approaches, the cost approach to value is based on comparison. Id. at 349. However, Garfield provided no explanation regarding the comparative data and the manualized data to which reference was made in his report. See Freshwater, supra. While both Garfield and the auditor s employee agreed that the replacement cost of improvements be depreciated by one-half, support for this figure appears restricted to printed materials contained within a valuation service. Again referring to The Appraisal of Real Estate, at 355, 7 As in the body of the report itself, the addendum is comprised primarily of generalized geographic data and market studies. There are several pages, identified under the heading of short report, which appear to have been gathered from the Internet briefly listing information for 72 properties which had sold. The land use for these properties includes charitable organization, educational service, funeral home, hotel/motel, mobile home park, nursery school, nursing home, parking lot, recreational, and residential. 15

16 [w]hen improvements are considerably older ***, the physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and external obsolescence of the structure are more difficult to estimate, thereby highlighting the importance of explaining and supporting the adjustments made. With regard to the auditor s employee s efforts, the summary worksheet provided clearly is not an appraisal and, consistent with the limiting instructions given to him, reflected but one methodology, i.e., the cost approach. With respect to his calculation of a land value, one of the four sales referenced appears to only be a list price, rendering it unreliable. See Gupta v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 397. As with Garfield s appraisal, no adjustments are disclosed nor is any effort made to explain how these sales, ranging from $1.04 to 3.02 square foot, were weighted or relied upon to arrive at the attributed land value of $133,700, other than O Bryan s brief explanation that he chose $1.75 per square foot. With the exception of the entrepreneurial profit, a ten percent figure which is again not explained, the remainder of the calculations reflect exclusive reliance upon figures contained within a valuation service, with no independent market analysis apparently having been undertaken. Although we have questioned various aspects of the valuation efforts undertaken in this appeal, we acknowledge the unique appraisal challenge presented. More than thirty years old as of tax lien date, the property had been used the entire time as a nursing home. As a result of declining occupancy, a factor impacting the property prior to tax lien date, a decision was made by the owner to sell the certificate of need under which the facility operated, a transaction ultimately accomplished in early Six months after tax lien date, the property was vacated and remains so. 16

17 Having reviewed and evaluated countless appraisals, we find the evidence of value contained within the present record to be far less than that which we may have in the past considered sufficient, i.e., competent and probative. However, upon consideration of the court s recent pronouncements in Dayton-Montgomery and Bedford Bd. of Edn., we are unable to conclude that the BOE, which presented no evidence of value, has met its affirmative burden. Moreover, we are reluctant to reinstate the auditor s value in light of the foregoing precedent where it has been challenged by the taxpayer, there exists some evidence of a lesser value, and both the auditor s employee and his representative on the BOR concluded to significantly lesser value amounts. As the BOR s determination falls within the range of values expressed, being only $75,000 more than that opined by appellant s appraiser, we confirm its determination and therefore find the true and taxable values of the subject property, as of January 1, 2004, to be as follows: TRUE VALUE TAXABLE VALUE Land $ 133,700 Land $ 46,800 Building $ 916,300 Building $320,710 Total $1,050,000 Total $367,510 It is the order of this board that the Hamilton County Auditor list and assess the subject property in conformity with our decision as announced herein. ohiosearchkeybta 17