Vermillion County held an administrative hearing Oct. 23, 2025, at the Vermillion County Courthouse on an appeal of the 2025 assessment for parcel 83-09-09-900-001.005-011, known as Vermillion Rise Mega Park. The hearing was recorded and will be posted on the county’s YouTube channel.

The petitioner, identified only as Adam, told the hearing panel the assessor’s office increased the building assessment by 41% for 2025 and that the property’s total assessed value on the county property record card is $609,900 (land $281,900; improvements $328,000). Adam said he purchased the building in 2023 for $175,000 and rents the facility for $36,300 a year. Using an income approach, Adam said a 15% capitalization rate would value the property at about $242,163; a 10% cap rate, he said, would value it at approximately $300,000. He asked that the assessment be lowered.

Why it matters: the valuation under appeal determines local property tax liability for 2025 and may affect future assessments of the industrial site.

During the hearing, Adam described physical and site limitations he said reduce the property’s market value: he said the building is about 84 years old, has roof leaks, holes in walls, extensive internal concrete deterioration and internal roof poles that prevent full-span storage. He also said the site lacks phone/fiber service, potable water, heat and sewer service (only fire water is available), and that about 3.5 acres of the roughly 31-acre parcel are unusable because of topography. Adam also told the panel a military PFOS groundwater study is under way for the area; he said the site may be affected by that investigation.

Kathy Gould, representing Vermillion County’s assessor staff, explained how the assessor’s office treated the land and building in its valuation. Gould said 5.94 acres are already listed as unusable/undeveloped in county records and that the assessor’s records currently treat 15 acres as a secondary land classification rather than fully usable land. She said moving that secondary acreage to a usable classification would reduce the land assessment from about $281,900 to about $251,900. Gould said the assessor used an income approach with a 12% cap rate in its calculations and that the county’s computed total assessment based on that methodology falls within the range discussed during the hearing.

Gould also said assessor staff consulted an industrial evaluator, identified in the hearing as Barb Burgess, who suggested a low square‑foot rate for a building of this age and condition; Gould said Burgess recommended a rate in the $6–$7 per square‑foot range, which staff used as part of their review.

The panel discussed the cap rates the parties used. Adam said he felt a higher cap rate (he cited 15% and referenced earlier consideration of 20%) was appropriate because of the building’s age, condition and local market risk. Gould said she had used 12% in her computations and that 15% was “a little high” but that the assessor’s numbers and Adam’s figures were in overlapping ranges when different assumptions were applied.

The hearing officer, Pat Ritchie, confirmed that no additional evidence had been requested during the hearing and that the board would consider the materials presented. The board adjourned the case and will render a written determination on Form 115. Ritchie told the petitioner that the right to appeal the county’s determination to the Indiana Board of Tax Review is described on Form 115 and that staff would assist with the appeal procedure if the petitioner chooses to pursue it.

No formal vote was taken at the hearing; the board took the matter under advisement and did not announce a final valuation or change in assessment at the conclusion of the session.