ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This contested case is brought by Fred W. Felkel, Jr. (Taxpayer) against the Richland County Assessor (Assessor) concerning
property valuation for the 1999 tax year. The Taxpayer exhausted all prehearing remedies with the Assessor and the Richland County
Board of Assessment Appeals (Board). Jurisdiction is granted to the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD) by S.C. Code Ann.
§ 12-60-2540(A)(2000) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 1999). After notice to all parties, a hearing was conducted on October
2, 2000 at the ALJD in Columbia, South Carolina. Based on the evidence, I find that the proper valuation of the property located at
816 Burwell Lane, Columbia, South Carolina is $137,500 for the 1999 tax year.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered the testimony and the arguments of both sides, and taking into account the credibility of the evidence and
witnesses, I find the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to all parties in a timely manner.
2. The Taxpayer is the owner of real property located at 816 Burwell Lane, Columbia, South Carolina, which is the subject of this
contested case hearing.
3. The subject property is identified as Tax Map Number R13815-03-18 for tax purposes.
4. The Assessor orginally valued the property at $151,000. The Assessor adjusted that value to $145,800 after the Taxpayer requested
a review of the appraisal. The Taxpayer appealed this assessment to the Richland County Board of Assessment Appeals. The Board
determined that the value of the subject property should be further reduced to $137,500. The Board stated that its decision to lower
the value of the property was based upon the evidence provided by the Taxpayer concerning the flooding of the subject property.
5. The Taxpayer contends that the value of the subject property should be further reduced to $125,000 because the lot is in the
floodway and borders Gills Creek. The Taxpayer submitted the assessed values of other homes located on the Gills Creek side of
Burwell Lane. The Taxpayer argues that the subject property should be valued the same as or lower than the property located at 824
Burwell Lane. This property's land value is $21,000 and the building value is $106,300. Therefore, the total value of the property
located at 824 Burwell Lane is $127,300 ($60.39 per sq. ft.).
6. The Assessor appraised the subject property using the sales comparison approach and the cost approach.
7. Under the cost approach, the Assessor utilized Marshall & Swift and determined the value of the subject property to be $138,035.
8. In determining the value under the sales comparison approach, the Assessor used four comparable properties.
9. Comparable #1 is located at 848 Burwell Lane. Comparable #1 has a house with 1646 square feet, and it is located in the Gills
Creek floodway and borders Gills Creek. This comparable sold in March 1999 for $126,888 ($77.09 per sq. ft). The Assessor points
out in the appraisal that this sale occurred three months after the assessment date but if this sales price is discounted back to the
assessment date by as much as 5%, it would have a value of $73.23 per square foot.
10. Comparable #2 is located at 849 Burwell Lane. This comparable has a house with 1797 square feet, and it is located in the Gills
Creek floodplain. This comparable is located across the street from the subject property so it does not border Gills Creek. This
comparable sold in September 1998 for $128,500 ($71.51 per sq. ft.).
11. Comparable #3 is located at 839 Burwell Lane. This comparable has a house with 1840 square feet and is located in the Gills
Creek floodplain. This comparable sold in June 1998 for $148,000 ($80.43 per sq. ft.).
12. Comparable #4 is located at 4808 Datura Road. This comparable has a house with 2064 square feet and is located in the Gills
Creek floodplain. This comparable sold in January 1998 for $155,000 ($75.10 per sq. ft.).
13. The Assessor used these comparables to arrive at a range of value for the subject property from $70.00 per square foot to $75.00
per square foot or $147,770 to $158,325.
14. Next, the Assessor determined that the sales comparison approach was the best method for estimating the value of the subject
property. The Assessor explained the difference in value between the cost approach and the sales comparison approach could be
attributed to the impact of the market for this area and the market driven appreciation is greater than the physical/functional
depreciation over time. Therefore, the Assessor contends that the 1998 estimate of fair market value of $145,800 ($69.07 per sq. ft.)
is well supported by the sales comparison approach range of values of $147,770 to $158,325.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. The ALJD has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(A) (2000) and S.C. Code Ann.
§ 1-23-600 (Supp. 1999).
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (Supp. 1999) provides:
All property must be valued for taxation at its true value in money which in all cases is the price which the property would bring
following reasonable exposure to the market, where both the seller and the buyer are willing, are not acting under compulsion, and are
reasonably well informed of the uses and purposes for which it is adapted and for which it is capable of being used.
3. Fair market value is the measure of true value for taxation purposes under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930. Lindsey v. South Carolina
Tax Com'n, 302 S.C. 504, 397 S.E.2d 95 (1990).
4. Unlike commodities, land does not have a fixed market price at a given period, and its value is determined by the estimate of the
person who values it. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 411 at 793 (1954). "Generally , the proper valuation of realty for taxation is a question of
fact, to be ascertained in each individual case in the manner prescribed by statute." Id.
5. The Taxpayer has the burden of showing that the Assessor's valuation is incorrect. Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 171
(Ct. App. 1988).
6. In the instant case, the Taxpayer argues that the value of the subject property should be reduced because the lot is in the floodway
and borders Gills Creek. The Taxpayer wants the value of his property to be more in line with the assessed values of other homes in
his neighborhood.
7. However, the Taxpayer did not meet his burden of proving that the Assessor's valuation is incorrect. From the evidence presented
by the Taxpayer and the Assessor, it appears that the value of the subject property is in line with the assessed values of other homes in
that neighborhood. Furthermore, in valuing the subject property, it appears that the Assessor took into account the property's
location on Gills Creek and the fact that the land floods regularly. The Assessor used comparables that are located on Burwell Lane
and are in the floodplain or the floodway. Therefore, I find that $137,500 is a reasonable valuation for this property.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Taxpayers' property, located at 816 Burwell Lane, Columbia, South Carolina, be valued
at $137,500 ($65.14 per square foot) for the 1999 tax year.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
C. Dukes Scott
Administrative Law Judge
November 30, 2000
Columbia, South Carolina |
