Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2006-02698-R-1 Harris

              (Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds no change in the assessment of the
property as established by the Clinton County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
LAND: $ 11,490
IMPR.: $ 91,394
TOTAL: $ 102,884
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/smw/06-02698/9-08
1 of 6
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Walter B & Mary R. Harris
DOCKET NO.: 06-02698.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 05-05-12-300-013
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are Walter B and Mary R. Harris, the appellants; and the Clinton County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of a 1.65 acre parcel improved with a part one-story and part two-story single family dwelling that contains approximately 3,400 square feet of living area. The dwelling was constructed in 2005 with features that include central air conditioning, a fireplace, an unfinished basement and a three-car attached garage. The dwelling has a brick and vinyl exterior. The property is located in the Sunset Hills Subdivision, Sugar Creek Township, Aviston, Clinton County.
The appellants appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board contending both the land and the improvement assessments are excessive. With respect to the land assessment the appellants testified they purchased the subject parcel in November 2004 for a price of $29,500 from Clinton Acres, Inc. The appellants explained that the asking price for the parcel was $30,000. They offered $29,500, which was accepted. The appellants indicated that the parties to the transaction were not related and under no duress to complete the sale. A copy of the contract was submitted by the appellants documenting the purchase of the parcel. Based on this the appellants requested the subject's land assessment be reduced to reflect the purchase price.
With respect to the improvement assessment, the appellants argued the board of review had incorrectly valued the home as a two-story dwelling. The appellants contend the subject dwelling is not a two-story dwelling but a one and one-half story home due to the fact that a portion of the home has a cathedral ceiling or an open area that extends to second floor. Due to this open area, the appellants contend the subject dwelling has 429 square feet less of living area than it is being assessed as having. Mr. Harris stated that if you accept the improvement assessment of $25.70 per square foot as the improvement is currently assessed using 3,730 square feet as the living area, the improvement assessment should be reduced by $11,025 or to $84,848.