Columbus City Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision
| Decision Date | 27 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2014–0885.,2014–0885. |
| Citation | 2016 Ohio 7466,148 Ohio St.3d 499,71 N.E.3d 988 |
| Parties | COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Rich & Gillis Law Group, L.L.C., and Mark H. Gillis, Dublin, for appellant.
Bluestone Law Group, L.L.C., and Charles L. Bluestone, for appellee Albany Commons, Ltd.
{¶ 1} This real-property-valuation case concerns the proper valuation for tax year 2005 of a 240–unit apartment complex in northeast Franklin County. Appellee Albany Commons, Ltd., the property owner, sought a reduction from the original valuation of $13,600,000 to $9,720,000. Ultimately, appellee Franklin County Board of Revision ("BOR") in a two-to-one vote adopted the appraisal valuation of $9,338,000 proposed by James Horner, a certified appraiser and Member of the Appraisal Institute ("MAI"). The Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA") affirmed.
{¶ 2} Appellant, the Columbus City Schools Board of Education ("BOE"), has appealed, claiming that the absence of market data and other flaws in the appraisal made it unreasonable and unlawful for the BOR and the BTA to accept Horner's opinion of value. Because the tax tribunals are the finders of fact, possessing wide discretion to weigh the probative force of expert opinions, we reject the BOE's contentions and affirm the decision of the BTA.
{¶ 3} The Albany Commons apartment complex was constructed and rented out in a two-phase project, with the first phase completed in 2002 and the second phase in late 2003 or early 2004. It has a small clubhouse with a swimming pool and a small exercise facility. Seventy-nine units have attached garages, and 58 units have detached garages. Seventy percent of the units have two bedrooms and 30 percent have one bedroom. The complex has a gated entrance. The property is owned by Albany Commons, Ltd., and managed by Oakwood Management Company.
{¶ 4} These proceedings stem from a complaint filed by Albany Commons for tax year 2005 (a reappraisal year in Franklin County) seeking a reduction from the auditor's valuation of $13,600,000 to $9,720,000. The BOR initially held a hearing on March 23, 2009, and voted on April 3, 2009, to retain the auditor's valuation for tax year 2005.1 The BOR mailed the statutory decision letter on April 29, 2009. The BOR later vacated its 2005 determination on May 27, 2009; notice of the vacation was mailed on May 28.2
{¶ 5} In 2011, the BOR convened a hearing on the owner's complaints for 2005 and 2008, at which Albany Commons presented an appraisal by James Horner, MAI, that was based primarily on the income approach but also cited sale comparables and appraised the property at $9,338,000 on January 1, 2005, and $11,400,000 on January 1, 2008.
Instead, Horner relied on a combination of income and sales-comparison approaches, with emphasis on the former.
{¶ 7} Horner adduced ten sales of apartment complexes from 2003 to 2010. He provided a chart that gave the following information for each sale: the sale date, the sale price, the "going-in" capitalization rate, and the sale price per unit. The capitalization rates ranged from 7.5 percent to 9.5 percent. The price-per-unit figures ranged from $35,833 to $87,500.
{¶ 8} The appraisal report states that "[a] per unit comparison is a ‘weak’ barometer for estimating value because of the numerous differences from the standpoint of location and physical characteristics." Nonetheless, Horner did derive a sales-comparison estimate of value by positing a price per unit for the subject property of $40,000 for tax year 2005, leading to an estimated value of $9,600,000 for the 240–unit complex. But the report qualifies the estimate by stating that "this per unit analysis is used only as further support for the value as reported within the subsequent [income approach] section."
{¶ 9} Notably, Horner performed no adjustments in reaching his estimate of value by the sales-comparison method. When cross-examined about this at the BOR hearing, he stated that He noted that the properties listed were in various locations and had "seven different kinds of apartments, with different sizes, some with garages, some without, some with an amenity package, some [without]," and that the "myriad of differences" meant that no potential buyer or seller would
{¶ 10} The main use Horner made of the sale comparables was to abstract from them a capitalization rate that could be applied in the income approach. Horner expressed his view that the comparable sales furnished a sound basis for that use despite the range in time of the sales. Noting that "[t]he subject is inferior in overall quality, amenities and location" in comparison to most of the sold properties, Horner "estimated the overall rate for the subject to be at 8.5%," which he said was also supported by the band-of-investment analysis, which is set forth in the appraisal.
{¶ 11} Under the income approach, Horner used actual revenues and expenses of the property over several years. In the written appraisal, Horner referred to a "file memorandum" that contained "various rent comparables which support the current and previous rent levels for the subject." At the BOR hearing, Horner testified that he had looked at "old appraisals" that he had done "in that same marketing area" and that the rents and expenses for those properties supported the rent and expense figures for the subject property.
{¶ 12} On cross-examination, Horner did adduce a figure of $.80 per square foot as a market-rent figure. He also stated that the average square footage of the one- and two-bedroom apartments at issue was 972 square feet. Later, he stated that he had found that the income and expenses of the subject property closely tracked the market, and so he used the subject property's figures.
{¶ 13} Horner said that he had reviewed the expenses in other appraisal projects that he had worked on but had not included that data in the report because it was "proprietary," so he was "not at liberty" to supply that information in the present appraisal report. However, Horner also stated that "the most accurate and meaningful barometer for estimating net income is the actual income performance for the past 7 years."
{¶ 14} To derive revenue and expense figures for 2005, Horner averaged the 2004 and 2005 information. He indicated that he believed that blending the information would give a more accurate indication of value, since the second phase of the property was newly built in 2004, so 2004 was the "lease-up period" for the apartments in that phase. The net-operating-income figure he arrived at was $1,015,995. Horner developed a tax additur of 2.38 percent, which he added to the previously estimated rate of 8.5 percent to derive a capitalization rate of 10.88 percent. Dividing the income figure by the capitalization rate resulted, after rounding, in a property valuation of $9,338,000 for 2005.
{¶ 15} On September 15, 2011, the BOR convened to decide the case. Horner's valuation was adopted despite objection from the treasurer's delegate.
{¶ 16} The BOE appealed to the BTA. At that level, two hearings were held, one addressing a motion for sanctions for failure to comply with discovery and a second addressing the value of personal property. The owner's witness testified that the value of personal property as of 2005 was $150,000. On that basis, the owner asked for a reduction of value to $9,188,000.3
{¶ 17} The BTA issued its decision on May 1, 2014. It tersely adopted the Horner appraisal valuation without adjustment and without discussion of other issues raised by the BOE. The BOE has appealed, and the adoption of the appraisal valuation is the sole issue on appeal.
{¶ 18} In this case, an MAI appraiser presented an appraisal report that was reviewed and adopted by both the BOR and the BTA. On appeal, the BOE advances a single proposition of law: "An appraisal that fails to include relevant market data and the specific adjustments made thereto is inherently unreliable and cannot be used to determine the true value of real property for tax purposes." Under this proposition of law, the BOE advanced three reasons why the BTA erred in relying on Horner's appraisal:
{¶ 19} Elemental to the tax appeals that come before this court is the well-articulated and often repeated proposition that "[i]n reviewing the BTA's disposition of the factual issues in a property valuation case, ‘[t]his court does not sit either as a super BTA or as a trier of fact de novo.’ " Strongsville Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 112 Ohio St.3d 309, 2007-Ohio-6, 859 N.E.2d 540, ¶ 22, quoting DAK,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cincinnati Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Revision
...unless it affirmatively appears from the record that such decision is unreasonable or unlawful.’ " Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 148 Ohio St.3d 499, 2016-Ohio-7466, 71 N.E.3d 988, ¶ 19, quoting Cardinal Fed. S. & L. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revisio......