Let’s start here. The burden of proof is on the complainant in a Board of Revision case. It’s state law.
Mr. Huddy filed for his Board of Revision hearing in January and it was assigned to an appraiser. Mr. Huddy keeps saying he originally filed the same evidence as Mr. Knab.
Mr. Huddy filed a complaint dated 1/25/2018 and stamped by the BOR 1/29/18, requesting a value of $44,000. Mr. Huddy’s condo is in Colerain Township/Northwest Schools. However, he attached a spreadsheet of 4 sales of condos in Green Township/Oak Hills Schools, not Colerain/Northwest and one 2002 sale from his complex which is in Colerain/Northwest as his evidence along with a value (not sales) comparison spreadsheet of selected condos in his complex. He also included an email exchange between the Auditor, Assistant Director Shaun O’Bryan and him. The appraiser deemed the evidence insufficient and set it for a hearing.
Mr. Knab filed two complaints on 3/28/18, stamped by the BOR on 3/28/18, seeking a value of $40,000. He included a narrative, 8 MLS sheets and one Auditor website print-out as his evidence. Of the MLS sheets, 3 were from Green/Oak Hills and 5 from Colerain/Northwest from 2013-2017. It was assigned to a different appraiser who reached the conclusion that he agreed with Mr. Knab. He marked the complaint justified.
Eleven days before his scheduled hearing, Mr. Huddy brought in additional information comparable to Mr. Knab’s, that is, in Colerain/Northwest where his property is located. The appraiser who had set Mr. Huddy’s case for a hearing now reached a conclusion that his asserted value was justified, given the additional evidence presented. She did so independently as a professional appraiser should.
No property owner is put on the “back burner”. Some cases require more work than others. Obviously a case where the Auditor’s appraiser agrees with the complainant is going to be expedited and one requiring a hearing could well take longer to be scheduled and heard. We have over 4,400 other cases besides Mr. Huddy’s.
The BOR is a quasi-judicial process, governed by the state law. Does anyone think the judicial system hears every case on a first in, first heard basis?
Contrary to Huddy’s claims, once he brought in useful evidence his case was justified.
However, it was not before he peddled his phony story to local and national media and accused me of political favoritism and discrimination in written complaints to the Attorney General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the media.
Though at the time of the Dan Horn interview my spokesperson could not talk about the merits of the case since it had not yet been heard by the Board of Revision, the case documents, including the appraisal report, were available to the reporter under Ohio Public Records Law.
It seems suspect that the reporter opted not to request the documents.
Why not have ALL the facts before writing the story? Mr. Huddy certainly did find a willing receptacle for his anger in Dan Horn though didn’t he? And did you know Horn was the reporter who covered the dispute Mr. Huddy had with his former employer, the Horseshoe Casino?
I usually respond when someone falsely attacks the office or me. Contrary to his posture on the radio interview of simply being critical of the process, he first accused me of favoring a political contributor over him. He then criticized me for defending myself with the facts. I’m not going to have a large measure of “compassion” for someone who accuses me of breaking the law as his opening gambit.
Under no circumstance is he or anyone else going to intimidate our office into giving them special treatment by a massive public relations campaign. And yes, I will demand an apology; NOT for someone criticizing the process, but rather, for every single time someone accuses me of “blatant discriminatory abuse of power by an elected official”, “extreme incompetence”, “criminal behavior” and “extortion”. All that before his case is even heard!
It isn’t required that our Real Estate Department help the Board of Revision. We could just let complainants file without our appraisers’ input. We often agree with complainants (in the above two cases for example) and when we do, it can minimize the time and inconvenience to the property owner.
Interesting that Mr. Huddy previously sought a political appointment in Colerain Township from the Republican Party. And he sought out my opponent in the November election to press his property valuation case. Strange how a $100 contribution four years ago was first blamed for the alleged special treatment of Mr. Knab. They have dropped that but my opponent is still using the story to try and raise campaign funds.
More directly, you’re allowing my opponent to say she is going to change the process when you should darn well know the process is set in state law. You’re an attorney by training. Will you continue to allow her to say she is going to ignore the law?
June 27, 2018