Westerville City Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision

• Decision Date: 13 April 2016
• Docket Number: No. 2014–1036.,2014–1036.
• Parties: WESTERVILLE CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Appellees, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

146 Ohio St.3d 412

57 N.E.3d 1126

WESTERVILLE CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Appellees

v.FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellants.

No. 2014–1036.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Dec. 15, 2015.

Decided April 13, 2016.

Law Offices of John C. Camillus, L.L.C., and John C. Camillus ; and George L. Henry, Columbus, for appellants Elizabeth P. Henry, Bruce R. Chase, and Lorraine Chase.

Rich & Gillis Law Group, L.L.C., Mark H. Gillis, Dublin, and Kelley A. Gorry, for appellee Board of Education of the Westerville City Schools.

PER CURIAM.

{¶ 1} This case involves a dispute over the value of three undeveloped residential lots in the Westerville City Schools District. The lots are located in Franklin County, near Hoover Reservoir.

{¶ 2} The property owners filed complaints with the Franklin County Board of Revision (“BOR”) seeking reductions in the county auditor's tax–year–2011 valuations of all three parcels. In support, they introduced the testimony and written appraisal report of Ralph F. Berger, a member of the Appraisal Institute. The BOR adopted Berger's opinion of value and granted the requested reductions.

{¶ 3} The Westerville City Schools (“school board”) appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”), where it introduced the testimony and written appraisal report of Thomas D. Sprout, C.P.A. Relying heavily on the 2007 sale of a nearby lot, Sprout arrived at higher valuations for the parcels than either Berger or the auditor. The owners countered with testimony from Berger and several other witnesses and introduced additional evidence supporting lower valuations. The BTA adopted Sprout's valuations.

{¶ 4} The owners now appeal, asking this court to hold that the BTA acted unlawfully and unreasonably by finding that the school board met its burden of proof at the BTA hearing. The owners also argue that the BTA violated Article XII, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution

, which requires that property “be taxed by uniform rule according to value.” For the reasons below, we reject the owners' claims and affirm the BTA's decision.

Facts

{¶ 5} The subject properties are three undeveloped residential lots located near Hoover Reservoir in the Westerville City Schools District in Franklin County. Parcel No. 110–005931 (“Lot 1”) is 10.62 acres, Parcel No. 110–005929 (“Lot 2”) is 5.854 acres, and Parcel No. 110–000113 (“Lot 3”) is 5.63 acres. Lots 1 and 3 are owned by Elizabeth P. Henry, and Lot 2 is owned by Lorraine and Bruce R. Chase.

2011 tax valuation and BOR proceedings

{¶ 6} In tax year 2011, a sexennial reappraisal year in Franklin County, the county auditor valued the properties as follows:

Lot 1, $709,700; Lot 2, $676,800; and Lot 3, $566,900.

{¶ 7} On March 16, 2012, Henry and the Chases filed complaints with the BOR requesting reductions. The school board filed countercomplaints seeking to retain the auditor's valuations.

{¶ 8} On May 2, 2012, the BOR consolidated the three cases and held a hearing. The owners presented testimony and a written appraisal report from appraiser Ralph Berger. The school board cross-examined Berger but did not present any witnesses or exhibits.

{¶ 9} According to Berger, the subject properties overlook Hoover Reservoir, are heavily wooded, and have rolling topography. Berger opined that the highest and best use of each site was as an acreage home site for a single-family dwelling. He indicated that the lots had access to public electric and telephone lines but would need private water and aeration.

{¶ 10} Berger used the sales-comparison approach to determine the value of each lot. He explained that it was difficult to find appropriate comparables because there were no recent lot sales in the immediate area; only a few comparable high-end acreage home sites had sold in Franklin and Delaware Counties during the last three years. Berger noted that a property located between Lots 1 and 2—the “Harker tract”—sold for $775,000 in July 2007, but he did not consider that sale probative, because market conditions had changed substantially.

{¶ 11} Berger selected four nearby sales from 2009 and 2010 as comparables. He reviewed aerial photographs of each property and used public records and land-valuation services to verify the sales. Two of the four properties included woods and a pond, but the others did not have any water features. Berger made adjustments and arrived at valuations of $380,000 for Lot 1, $350,000 for Lot 2, and $340,000 for Lot 3.

{¶ 12} On May 25, 2012, the BOR issued a decision letter accepting Berger's valuations and awarding the requested reductions.

BTA proceedings

{¶ 13} The school board appealed to the BTA, which held a hearing on September 16, 2013.

{¶ 14} At the hearing, the school board introduced the testimony and written appraisal report of Thomas Sprout. Sprout opined that the highest and best use of the properties was “for residential development” by a single owner. He indicated that Lots 1, 2, and 3 had “all necessary utilities” and said that he believed riparian rights were available to their owners. Sprout also noted that as of the tax-lien date, January 1, 2011, Lots 1, 2, and 3 were listed on the multiple-listing service for prices of $1,539,900, $927,700, and $827,610, respectively.

{¶ 15} Like Berger, Sprout used the sales-comparison approach. He explained that it was difficult to locate appropriate comparables because the subject properties are “unique” in light of their “access to Hoover Reservoir.” Because Sprout believed that the market had remained relatively stable for sales of higher-end residential lots since 2006 in spite of the recession, he looked to older sales to identify comparable properties.

{¶ 16} Sprout selected six comparables and verified the transaction data of five of them with at least one party to the sale. According to Sprout, the 2007 sale of the Harker tract provided the best indication of value for the subject properties. However, because that sale occurred during a “superior economic period,” he made a downward adjustment. Sprout's remaining five comparables were subdivision properties that had all utilities available. Two of the properties were located on water, one was on a golf course, one had water views, and two were partially wooded. Sprout made adjustments to each comparable and arrived at valuations of $940,000 for Lot 1, $760,000 for Lot 2, and $705,000 for Lot 3.

{¶ 17} The owners defended the BOR's valuations, introducing new testimony from Berger and three additional witnesses, Berger's appraisal report, and evidence of legal and regulatory changes that might impact the development of the lots.

{¶ 18} Berger's testimony at the BTA echoed his testimony before the BOR. He described his appraisal and his selection of recent comparable sales. Berger again opined that the sale of the Harker tract was not a good comparable because the market had changed significantly since 2007. He testified that his own comparables required fewer adjustments than Sprout's.

{¶ 19} Gary R. Smith, the appraisal director for Franklin County, testified that he met with George Henry, the husband of Elizabeth Henry, about the three parcels in 2011. Smith was not personally involved in determining the value of the properties; the county had hired a contract appraiser. However, he testified about the property record cards for the three lots. Each card indicates the property's current market value, the date when data was collected about the property, and the date that an appraisal value was entered into the county's system. Smith explained that although the cards do not record the actual date of appraisal, if a card indicates a value in the “final value conclusion box,” then the property was appraised.

{¶ 20} Bob Binns testified that he assists Berger with subdivision appraisals and that since 1980, he has published a market report that tracks new home sales, lot sales, and building-permit activity for central Ohio. According to Binns, relatively few high-end residential lots sold in the area during the ten years preceding the tax-lien date. He identified the following lot sales that met or exceeded sales prices of $300,000, $500,000, and $700,000:

Central Ohio residential lot sales from 2000 to 2010

2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
$300,000+	6	4	5	10	8	11	24	16	15	8	8

$500,000+ 2 (prior to 2006) 6 4 0 1 0

$700,000+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0

{¶ 21} Finally, George Henry testified about the properties. Henry explained that he and his wife purchased all three lots (as well as the Harker tract) during the 1990s. The Henrys still own Lots 1 and 3, but they sold Lot 2 to the Chases before 2000, and they sold the Harker tract in 2007. According to Henry, his wife and the Chases listed their lots for sale for at least seven or eight years without receiving any offers; they set the prices very high and did not really expect to sell unless a unique buyer came along.

{¶ 22} Henry testified that when he and his wife bought the properties, they expected that sewer lines would eventually be extended nearby. Years later, the nearest sewer line is at least one and one-half miles away, and the nearest water line is more than one mile away. Henry stated that in light of recent legal and regulatory changes, it would be expensive and difficult to obtain the necessary local, state, and federal approval to install these systems. However, Henry admitted on cross-examination that he had never actually sought approval for a sewer system on the property. And he was not aware of the buyers of the Harker tract having difficulty getting utilities when they built on their lot, although he believed that requirements were more lax at that time.

{¶ 23} On May 23, 2014, the BTA issued a decision reversing the BOR. The BTA considered the parties' competing appraisals and found Sprout's valuations more persuasive. In its decision, the BTA explained that “[u]nlike Mr. Berger, Mr. Sprout utilized sales of similar lots in the Hoover area, including the Harker sale, which he properly adjusted to account for...