PETITIONER APPEARING PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:

ANDY YOUNG THEODORE E. ROKITA

Wadsworth, IL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA 

REBEKAH P. DURHAM 

JONATHAN D. ATWOOD

DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL

Indianapolis, IN

 

IN THE 

INDIANA TAX COURT 

 

ANDY YOUNG, ) 

 ) 

Petitioner, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Cause No. 23T-TA-00001 

 ) 

DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ) 

GOVERNMENT FINANCE ) 

 ) 

Respondent. ) 

 

ON APPEAL FROM A FINAL DETERMINATION OF

THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

 

FOR PUBLICATION

June 14, 2024

ROBB, Special Judge. 

Andy Young challenges the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance’s 

(DLGF) final determination that the Lake County Assessor properly developed the 

county’s 2022 land order.1 Mr. Young does so on three bases: the timing of the 

1 “Land order” is not a statutory term, but an industry term used in this case to describe the 

process of determining neighborhood base rates in a county. It involves a statistical analysis of 

land sales and other factors to establish the value of unimproved parcels of land in a 

neighborhood. In this opinion the Court will use the terms “determination of land values” or “land 
2

determination of land values; the process by which the land values were determined; 

and the accuracy of the base rates2 in the land values determination. (See Oral Arg. Tr.

at 4-5.) Mr. Young also contends that the DLGF failed to provide proper notice for the 

public hearing regarding the petition for review. The Court, having considered Mr. 

Young’s arguments and reviewed the record, affirms the DLGF’s final determination.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Lake County taxpayer Andy Young timely submitted a petition pursuant to Indiana 

Code § 6-1.1-4-13.6 on behalf of 191 signatory taxpayers, to the DLGF on May 19, 

2022, requesting a review of the 2022 Lake County determination of land values. (See

Cert. Admin. R. at 2936.)

On August 10, 2022, the DLGF conducted a virtual public hearing regarding the 

petition for review of the Lake County land values determination. Mr. Young and 

taxpayer James Nowacki spoke against the DLGF approving the land values 

determination. Speaking on behalf of approving the land values determination were 

LaTonya Spearman, the Lake County Assessor; taxpayer Joslyn Kelly; and Edward 

Gholson of the Calumet Township Assessor’s office. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 2961-

3006.)

The DLGF allowed any person to submit written statements on the petition until 

August 19, 2022. Mr. Young, Mr. Nowacki, and Ms. Kelly submitted additional comments 

values determination” instead of “land order.”

2 A “base rate” is the value of land established by an assessor to represent the typical and 

average characteristics of lots in a defined area. It is the starting point for an assessment of 

property in a neighborhood and may be combined with or adjusted by other factors to determine 

the assessed value of a parcel of land. A base rate is expressed as a dollar amount per unit of 

area (e.g., per square foot, per acre, etc.). See, e.g., REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR 

2021 (incorporated by reference at 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.4-1-2(c) (2020)), Ch. 2.
3

in writing, while the Lake County Assessor and the Calumet Township and Ross 

Township Assessors submitted additional information both before and after the hearing. 

(See Cert. Admin. R. at 2938.)

On November 23, 2022, the DLGF issued a final determination approving the 

Lake County land values determination with no changes. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 2935-

57.)

On January 3, 2023, Mr. Young filed this original tax appeal requesting the Court 

overturn the DLGF’s final determination.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The party challenging the propriety of the DLGF’s final determination bears the 

burden of demonstrating its invalidity. City of Greenfield v. Indiana Dep’t of Local Gov’t 

Fin., 22 N.E.3d 887, 891 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2014). Accordingly, Mr. Young must demonstrate 

to the Court that the DLGF’s final determination is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence. Id.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Timing - The Determination of Land Values Was Submitted Years Late

Mr. Young contends that the determination of land values under consideration is 

the 2018 land values determination for what he claims is the 2018-2021 quadrennial 

cycle. (See Pet’r Br. at 6.) (See also Oral Arg. Tr. at 5-8.) Mr. Young asserts that the 

determined land values should have been submitted no later than July 2017 so that they 

could have been in place by January 1, 2018, the beginning of the quadrennial cycle.

(See Pet’r Br. at 6.) Adoption of the land values determination in early 2022, he argues, 

means that the land base rates were applied retroactively to the years in the 
4

quadrennial cycle. (See Pet’r Br. at 32.)

However, that is not an accurate description of the reassessment cycle. The fouryear period is not the time during which a particular determination of land values 

applies. Rather, it is the period during which at least one land values determination must 

be adopted.

Indiana Code § 6-1.1-4-4.2 governs the county reassessment plans, which must 

be submitted for approval by the DLGF. Relevant parts of the statute follow:

(a)(3) Except as provided in subsection (b), the reassessment plan 

must divide all parcels of real property in the county into four (4) 

different groups of parcels. Each group of parcels must contain 

approximately twenty-five percent (25%) of the parcels within each 

class of real property in the county.

(a)(4) Except as provided in subsection (b), all real property in each 

group of parcels shall be reassessed under the county’s 

reassessment plan once during each four (4) year cycle.

* * * * *

(b) A county may submit a reassessment plan that provides for 

reassessing more than twenty-five percent (25%) of all parcels of 

real property in the county in a particular year. A plan may provide 

that all parcels are to be reassessed in one (1) year. However, a 

plan must cover a four (4) year period. All real property in each 

group of parcels shall be reassessed under the county’s 

reassessment plan once during each reassessment cycle.

IND. CODE § 6-1.1-4-4.2(a)(3)-(4), (b) (2022).

The Lake County Assessor submitted a determination of land values at the Lake 

County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (“PTABOA”) meeting on June 27, 

2018, the last year of that four-year cycle. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 2154.) The base 

rates in that land values determination were applied to taxes due in 2019, 2020, 2021 

and 2022. The Lake County Assessor submitted a new determination of land values at 

the Lake County PTABOA meeting on April 6, 2022, again in the last year of that four-
5

year cycle. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 123-29.) The base rates in this land values 

determination will be applied to taxes due in 2023 and subsequent years until the year 

after the next determination of land values is adopted. The next land values 

determination must be adopted no later than 2026, though it may be prepared at any 

time within the reassessment cycle.

Mr. Young has not provided evidence, nor does the record indicate, that the 

Assessor submitted the 2018 determination of land values years late in 2022. The

Court, therefore, denies this claim.

Process - The Wrong Assessor Developed the Land Base Rates

Mr. Young argues that the process for determination of the land values was 

contrary to law because “the Calumet Township Assessor had been providing the base 

rates to the Lake County Assessor, instead of vice versa as is required by law.” (Pet’r Br. 

at 31.) (See also Oral Arg. Tr. at 8; Cert. Admin. R. at 2971.) The relevant statutory 

language in question follows:

(a) The county assessor shall determine the values of all classes of 

commercial, industrial, and residential land (including farm 

homesites) in the county using guidelines determined by the 

department of local government finance. The assessor determining 

the values of land shall submit the values to the county property tax 

assessment board of appeals by the dates specified in the county’s 

reassessment plan under section 4.2 of this chapter.

IND. CODE § 6-1.1-4-13.6(a) (2022) (amended 2023).

Lake County’s assessment process and its relationship to township assessors is 

largely unique. Under Indiana Code § 36-6-5-1(d), a township assessor will continue to 

be elected in each township where, as of January 1, 2008, there were at least 15,000 

parcels of real property and the transfer of the assessment duties to the county 
6

assessor was disapproved in the 2008 referendum under Indiana Code § 36-2-15. See 

IND. CODE § 36-6-5-1(d) (2022). In those situations, the township assessor shall perform 

the assessment duties prescribed in Indiana Code § 6-1.1. See IND. CODE § 36-6-5-3(a) 

(2022).

Referenda on the elimination of township assessors were held throughout the 

state in 2008. Around 950 township assessors were eliminated, but the position of 

township assessor was retained in 13 townships, including Calumet Township. Notably, 

five of the 13 townships retaining the position of assessor are in Lake County.3

The Calumet Township Assessor provided the Lake County Assessor with the 

determined land values for submission to the PTABOA. The process followed in the 

instant case is proper because the Calumet Township Assessor is specifically 

empowered by statute to perform the assessment duties.

Accuracy – Land Base Rates Are Inaccurate and Inconsistent

Mr. Young contends that land base rates in Lake County are inaccurate. He 

expressed particular concern that the base rates of small lots in Calumet Township were 

“completely inconsistent and not uniform.” (See Cert. Admin. R. at 2978-79.) He notes 

that “you may find another lot identical by any metric to be the same, yet it might have 

a[n] assessed value of three or four times the other one. They’re maybe a rock’s throw 

3 A list of the 13 townships retaining the assessor position can be found in the Fiscal Notes

prepared by the Legislative Services Agency for House Bill 1027 of 2020 and House Bill 1262 of 

2021. See OFF. OF FISCAL & MGMT. ANALYSIS, INDIANA LEGIS. SERVS. AGENCY, FISCAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT H.B. 1027 (Jan. 14, 2020), available at https://iga.in.gov/pdfdocuments/121/2020/house/bills/HB1027/fiscal-notes/HB1027.02.COMH.FN003.pdf (last visited 

June 14, 2024); OFF. OF FISCAL & MGMT. ANALYSIS, INDIANA LEGIS. SERVS. AGENCY, FISCAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT H.B. 1262 (Dec. 9, 2020), available at https://iga.in.gov/pdfdocuments/122/2021/house/bills/HB1262/fiscal-notes/HB1262.01.INTR.FN001.pdf (last visited 

June 14, 2024).
7

of one another.” (Cert. Admin. R. at 2979.) He further asserts that “identical 

neighborhoods, side by side with indistinguishable characteristics, should have uniform 

base rates.” (Oral Arg. Tr. at 11.)

Assessors are required to submit a ratio study of assessments across 

neighborhoods to the DLGF each year. See IND. CODE § 6-1.1-14-12 (2022). The DLGF 

reviews the ratio studies to ensure “that values are equalized across properties.” (See

Cert. Admin. R. at 2950-51.) As part of its review of the determination of land values 

pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-1.1-4-13.6, the DLGF “re-checked and cross-checked 

ratio studies for each of the three years prior to 2022, and 2022.” (See Cert. Admin. R. 

at 2951.) It also “reviewed a long list of a sample of properties in detail to cross check its 

work on the ratio studies.” (See Cert. Admin. R. at 2951.) After extensive review by its 

staff, the DLGF found no reason to deny or change the land values and ordered no 

change to the land values determination. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 2954-55, 2957.)

In support of his contention that vacant lots in Calumet Township are routinely

overassessed, Mr. Young refers to a study conducted in coordination with a group from 

Indiana University Northwest regarding small vacant lots in Gary known as churners. It:

was a literal study in the unmarketability of these churners. Despite 

the study’s conclusions that these properties had little or no

marketability, even though the Lake County Assessor was closely 

involved as is indicated in the reports, no assessing official ever 

considered reducing the assessments of the subject parcels to 

comport with the study’s findings.

(Pet’r Br. at 25.)

The DLGF reviewed the study and argues that:

[t]he study deals with tax lien sales, which are for properties where 

the owner is not paying property tax. Up for sale is not the property 

itself, but the lien on the property, leaving the buyer to pursue the 
8

debt of unpaid tax. Thus it is not precisely that the property itself is 

unmarketable, but instead that the debt incurred by landowners

who refuse to pay property tax is unmarketable.

(See Resp’t Br. Opp’n Pet. (“Resp’t Br.”) at 14-15 (citing Cert. Admin. R. at 2772, 

2775).)

The Court notes that the study is titled Analysis of the Tax Sale Certificates not 

purchased at a Lake County Commissioners’ Tax Certificate Sale. (See Cert. Admin. R. 

at 2765.) The fact that there are many properties in Calumet Township that do not find 

buyers at tax sales may reflect on the general economic conditions of parts of the 

township. However, it does not mean that vacant lots in similar neighborhoods 

unencumbered by tax liens should have their assessments lowered to reflect the 

unmarketability of similar encumbered properties.

Mr. Young next argues that the DLGF did not perform a proper review of the land 

values determination since it spent only 100 hours on the review. (Pet’r Br. at 29.) He 

opines “that a thorough review of the materials that were used to support the 

construction of the Lake County Land Order would require a minimum of 1,000 hours. In 

addition, a practical review should have also required field visits to Lake County.” (Pet’r 

Br. at 30.) The DLGF responds that “the DLGF as a reviewing authority is not required 

to re-do the entirety of the work that the assessors completed during the reassessment 

cycle and the land order development process. This would be an extraordinary 

bureaucratic inefficiency and a waste of taxpayer money.” (Resp’t Br. at 15.)

The legislature has not provided any guidance on how the DLGF should conduct

the review. Indiana Code § 6-1.1-4-13.6(e) merely states:

Upon receipt of a petition for review under subsection (d), the 

department of local government finance:
9

(1) shall review the land values determined by the county 

assessor; and

(2) after a public hearing, shall:

(A) approve;

(B) modify; or

(C) disapprove;

the land values.

I.C. § 6-1.1-4-13.6(e).

The DLGF has reviewed the land values determination using statistical and other 

tools through which it normally provides oversight of the assessment process. But it has 

done so with a more thorough reexamination of the original data and additional data 

provided by the assessors and the petitioners. The DLGF’s review of the 2022 land 

values determination appears proper, and the Court has neither the authority under the 

statute nor the technical knowledge of the assessment review process to impose on the 

DLGF a requirement for an even more thorough review.

At the administrative hearing, Mr. Nowacki testified that the former Lake County 

Assessor hired an independent appraiser in January 2018 to appraise three randomly 

chosen properties in Calumet Township and compare them to the assessed values. 

(See Cert. Admin. R. at 2987-90.) The results indicated that the properties were 

assessed by multiples over the appraised values. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 2987-90.) Mr. 

Young, through his testimony and submissions, has provided anecdotal information 

regarding inconsistencies in the assessed values of properties in Calumet Township. 

However, Mr. Young has not provided the Court with any evidence, statistical or 
10

otherwise, to justify overturning the DLGF’s judgment on review of the determination of 

land values.

Insufficient Notice of Public Hearing

Mr. Young next contends that the DLGF did not provide proper notice of the 

petition hearing resulting in only Mr. Nowacki and him making statements against 

approval of the determination of land values. (See Pet’r Br at 10.) (See also Oral Arg. Tr.

at 29.) Mr. Young states in his brief that:

[DLGF] sent many notices to addresses that were not the 

addresses of record for the property addresses on the Petition. 

Many of the notice letters sent by the DLGF in advance of the 

public hearing went to empty lots[] or addresses that were not 

where the taxpayers receive their tax bills. Had the Petitioners

known this was the form of notice the DLGF had in mind we would 

have formatted the Petition differently. Had notice been proper, it is 

likely more individuals would have participated in the public 

hearing. The DLGF’s notice was improper and insufficient. Notice 

should have been sent by mail to each and every taxpayer in the 

county at their address of record.

(Pet’r Br. at 10.)

The DLGF contends that it “went above and beyond its duty by mailing notice to 

each person who signed the petition. It also posted information about the hearing on the 

DLGF website by July 15, almost a month in advance of the hearing, making the 

hearing accessible to any interested individual who wished to attend or testify, 

regardless of whether they signed the petition.” (Resp’t Br. at 17.) (See also Cert. 

Admin. R. at 70-71.) The DLGF also notes that it is not statutorily required to provide 

notice and that mailing notice to every Lake County taxpayer “would be a costly and 

wasteful use of the State’s limited resources.” (See Resp’t Br. at 16-17.) See also I.C. § 

6-1.1-4-13.6(e)(2).
11

At oral argument, the Court asked Mr. Young if he could provide any statutory 

authority regarding notice requirements for the petition for review public hearing, and 

Mr. Young was not able to do so. (See Oral Arg. Tr. at 29-30.) The statutory language in

fact does not mention notice. 

Upon receipt of a petition for review under subsection (d), the 

department of local government finance:

(1) shall review the land values determined by the county

assessor; and

(2) after a public hearing, shall:

(A) approve;

(B) modify; or

(C) disapprove;

the land values.

I.C. § 6-1.1-4-13.6(e).

“The best evidence of [the Legislature’s] intent is a statute’s text.” Adams v. 

State, 960 N.E.2d 793, 798 (Ind. 2012). The Indiana General Assembly has provided 

specific public hearing notice requirements in multiple places throughout Indiana Code’s

Article 6-1.1,

4 and here it has not done so. Mr. Young’s suggestion that notice of the 

public hearing be sent to the addresses where the petition signers receive their tax bills

instead of the property addresses may be a good one. Mailing notice to all Lake County 

4 See, e.g., IND. CODE § 6-1.1-14-9 (2024) (notice of public hearing for consideration of an 

increase in county assessments); IND. CODE § 6-1.1-17-16.1 (2024) (notice of public hearing for 

DLGF review of political subdivision budget, tax rates and tax levies); IND. CODE § 6-1.1-17-20.4

(2024) (notice of public hearing on review of proposed budget and levy of public libraries with 

excessive cash balance of funds derived from tax revenue); IND. CODE § 6-1.1-39-3 (2024)

(notice of public hearing on creation of economic development districts); IND. CODE § 6-1.1-48-

14 (2024) (notice of public hearing on creation of urban agricultural zones); and IND. CODE § 6-

1.1-50-4 (2024) (notice of public hearing on county option property tax relief for homesteads).
12

taxpayers may be less sound. Regardless of the merits or demerits of Mr. Young’s 

public hearing notice suggestions, the DLGF has made reasonable efforts to provide 

public notice despite the legislature providing no notice requirement, and the Court will 

not create its own specific notice requirement. That is a matter for the legislature.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Young has not demonstrated to the Court that the DLGF’s final determination 

is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to law, or unsupported by 

substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the DLGF’s final determination.