Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 11-09-2010 - 2
ORANGE COUNTY • BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 9, 2010 Action Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Planning for Future Revaluation Schedule DEPARTMENT: Tax Administration PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Revaluation Fact Sheet 2. Estimate of Cost 3. DOR Sales Ratio Study (multi-year) 4. Current Sales Ratio Study Data 5. Commercial Appraiser Opinion 6. Articles of Interest INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo Roberson, Tax Administrator, 245-2727 Frank Clifton, County Manager, 245-2300 • PURPOSE: To discuss current market trends including data for consideration in timeframe planning for the County's next revaluation. BACKGROUND: Beginning in 1993, Orange County moved from a six year revaluation cycle to a four year cycle. Since 1993, each revaluation that has been completed has reflected an average growth in value from sales alone of 4% per year. When factoring in new construction, the average growth per year in value has been 6%. Of the five revaluations occurring in this timeframe, the least amount of overall growth has been 21 %. Over the past two years, there has been a marked decline in the number of property sales, permit issuance for new construction, and a definitive increase in the number of days property for sale has remained on the market. Historically, the County has also not seen the number of completed foreclosures or short sales that have occurred within the past twelve months. FINANCIAL IMPACT: If the Board chooses to move forward with .the current revaluation schedule, the County will have various financial decisions to make. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that: • The Board consider the information brought forward in this discussion; and • Based upon the information brought forward, provide direction to the Tax Administrator and the Manager for the next revaluation timeframe schedule. • Attachment 1 • Revaluation Facts: • The purpose of a revaluation is not to garner increased values and thereby be in position to lower the tax rate it is in fact to ensure that all citizens are having their assets taxed fairly and equitably. • The average growth has historically prior to 2009 been 4% per year. This 4% represented actual increase in existing property value. When new construction was factored into the equation the percent of growth averaged 6% per year. That equated to 24% every four years. • Beginning in the later part of 2007 and during the year 2009 we began to see a slowing in new building permit issuance and number of actual completed sales. Additionally with an increased fiehd presence of Orange County staff we were able to complete the 2009 revaluation with the closest to full market sales ratio since 1987. (please see Exhibit I available through the North Carolina Department of Revenue) • Factors currently affecting the market - over the past 18 months the number of sales have dropped approximately 50% in comparison to prior years. Sales for the timeframe of January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2006 were 4844. For the timeframe of January 1, 2009 through October 31, 2010 the total sales is 2178. Additionally property is remaining on the market for a longer average time than historically data indicates. (See please Orange County Sales document included) • Currently with the limited number of completed sales it is reasonable to state that • at 22 months out from the 2009 revaluation we have basically established the equivalent to less than 1 year of sales data historically. • The sales market analysis which was presented to the Board of County Commissions in February f 2010 reflected an average ratio of assessed value to sales price of 100.40%. The median ration of assessed value to sale price was 100% and the measure of how closely values clustered around the median (COD) was 9.68. As reflected in the included sales market analysis covering January 1, 2010 through October 31, 2010 you will find this data has sifted very little. • The North Carolina Department of Revenue Property Tax Division sales ratio study of January 1, 2010 reflected the Orange County median as 98.65%. The same timeframe out from the 2005 revaluation the median for Orange County was 89.74%. • The 2005 beginning ratio was 95.58% and by the end of the year of 2006 the median was 88.29%. Our current reflected median from January 1, 2010 to October 31, 2010 is .99069 reflecting that our values are remaining flat. Prepared 11-3-2010 J Roberson • 2 Attachment 2 3 Informational Cost Data for Consideration in Relation to Potential Revaluation Schedule - • Year Prior to Revaluation: • Mailing Value Notices -based on today's known cost approximately $29,000. • Additional Field Review -higher gas costs $ 7,800 • Employment of two separate Realtors to review Historic Areas Chapel Hill and Hillsborough Estimated Cost $14,000 • Employment of Analytical Consultants for review -used for prior examples: shopping center reviews, comparison of commercial property with review of sales data and direction of market, analytical review of Chapel Hill's Franklin St - Rosemary St. area. $20,000 • Hiring additional temporary staff for data entry 6 month assignment required for data entry and preparation work ups $18,000 Year of Revaluation • Hire additional appraisal (1) staff to assist with gathering data and review of data for informal and Board of Equalization and Review hearings $30,000 • Mailing of the entire Abstract Listing to every resident (proposed to be done once every four years) $20,000 • Additional expense of extended Board of Equalization and Review • Meetings $24,425 • Cost of production and mailing of Decision Notices from Informal Appeals, Appointment Notices, Formal Notice of Board of Equalization and Review Notices $ 5,800 • Duplication Costs encompassing Year of and Year After $ 8,949 • Expert Review and Witness Testimony for Property Tax Appeals $35,000 Estimated cost to conduct a revaluation from year prior through year after over and above standard cost of operation is $213,000. Please understand is this strictly an estimate based on costs of the 2009 revaluation and prior. This does not fact in inflation. • • G, 0 lll~~~...777(((""" ~ ~~~~ yyy~@ @ @ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ COUNTIES 2010 820091 2006 2007 2006 X2005 Y 2004 • REAL ESTATE ASSESSMENT SALES RATIO STUDY PERCENTAGES da ~~ L• ~ 5 2003 2002 ( 2001 2000 1999 1998 ~ 1997 8 1996 ~~ r r 1995 1994 6 1993 @ 1992 1991 X1990 1969 1988 1987• Cherokee 1.1504 1.0096 0.9820 0.6324 0.7480 0.8188 0.9686 0.6034 0.6550 0.7125 0.7301 0.8236 0.8712 0.8653 0.9846 0.7004 0.7900 0.8091 0.8260 0.8271 0.8136 0.8605 0.9274 0.6089 Brunswick 1.1359 1.0193 0,9807 0.9929 0.6250 0.8000 0.8738 1.0000 0.8122 0.8577 0.9321 1.0000 0.7400 0.8333 0.8929 0.9364 0.9969 0.7435 0.7999 0.7611 0.7155 0.7876 0.8191 0.9018 Dare 1.1283 0.9842 0.9246 0.8308 0.8284 0.9894 0.4064 0.5166 0.6854 0.7868 0.8689 0.9354 0.9550 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0115 0.9141 0.9904 0.4640 0.4348 0.6667 Carteret 1.1265 1.0657 0.9840 7.0000 0.6044 0.7779 0.8662 0.9245 0.9404 1.0000 0.7715 0.8621 0.8867 0.9867 0.7490 0.7923 0.8475 0.8700 0.9163 0.9073 0.9213 1.0000 0.5702 0.6744 Macon 1.0929 0.9817 0.9588 1.0000 0.7743 0.0986 0.9600 1.0000 0.8385 0.6480 0.9384 1.0000 0.7846 0.8606 0.8790 0.9293 0.9888 1.0000 0.9782 1.0000 0.8196 0.8504 0.8884 0.8709 Jackson 1.0772 1.0583 1.0000 0.6757 0.9212 0.9526 1.0000 0.7833 0.6100 0.8723 0.9886 0.7075 0.7835 0.7617 0.8380 0.9393 0.9633 0.9660 1.0046 0.7365 0.7419 0.7446 0.7623 0.8717 Lincoln 1.0701 0.9754 0.9919 0.8407 0.9007 0.9596 0.9869 0.8617 0.8968 0.9410 0.9756 0.6364 0.8781 0.9350 0.9846 0.9095 0.8962 0.9487 0.9826 0.5170 0.5963 0.6220 0.6500 0.6577 Union 1.0646 0.9600 0.9645 0.8403 0.9096 0.9312 0.9753 0.8873 0.9425 0.9392 0.9814 0.6950 0.7462 0.7712 0.8217 0.8832 0.9395 0.9292 0.9547 0.5515 0.5956 0.6765 0.6856 0.7022 Perquimans 1.0617 1.0600 1.0000 0.5880 0.7236 0.6686 0.8742 0.8758 0.9311 0.9581 1.0000 0.9130 0.8987 0.8607 0.9334 0.8920 0.6598 0.9560 0.9518 0.5748 0.6133 0.6844 0.6923 0.7249 Caswell 1.0488 0.9004 1.0000 0.8884 0.9406 0.9320 0.9928 0.8712 0.9276 0.9444 0.9759 0.8369 0.8535 0.8952 0.9728 0.7717 0.8152 0.8231 0.9018 0.6717 0.7373 0.6742 0.7733 0.7103 New Hanover 1.0459 0.9697 0.9369 0.9703 0.6733 0.8183 0.9133 0.9287 0.9302 0.9613 0.9505 0.9874 0.7035 0.7391 0.8227 0.8499 0.8899 0.9384 0.9600 0.9849 0.7419 0.7525 0.7762 0.8371 Gates 1.0445 0.9950 0.4350 0.4998 0.5912 0.7126 0.8261 0.9531 0.9558 0.9929 0.7022 0.8173 0.6000 0.8700 0.8570 0.9477 0.9375 0.9746 0.6791 0.6433 0.6370 0.6966 0.7619 0.7442 Camden 1.0431 1.0441 0.9411 1.0000 0.4978 0.6311 0.7883 0.8481 0.9017 1.0000 0.7300 0.8219 0.8245 0.8378 0.8378 0.9530 0.9245 0.5763 0.6967 0.6849 0.7309 0.7583 0.7733 0.5533 Warren 1.0426 0.9728 0.5996 0.4142 0.5431 0.7188 0.7927 0.8240 0.8660 1.0000 0.7222 0.7456 0.8332 0.8200 0.9536 0.9328 0.9340 1,0000 0.5521 0.6000 0.6363 0.7333 0.8046 0.8055 Cabarrus 1.0362 0.9967 1.0000 0.8993 0.9603 0.9833 1.0000 0.8945 0.9402 0.9683 0.9874 1.0000 0.9084 0.9858 0.9850 1.0000 0.9785 0.9902 0.9996 1.0000 0.6800 0.7367 0.7817 0.7949 Wake 1.0346 0.9932 0.9991 0.8132 0.8447 0.8916 0.9093 0.9180 0.9282 0.9629 0.9959 0.7300 0.7591 0.7697 0.8005 0.8654 0.9088 0.9440 0.9602 0.6655 0.6918 0.6680 0.7222 0.7302 Yadkin 1.0260 1.0046 0.8542 0.8843 0.9419 1.0000 0.8142 0.8660 0.8606 0.6973 0.9103 1.0000 0.7100 0.7489 0.8267 0.8200 0.9277 0.9779 0.9716 0.9857 0.6450 0.7072 0.7902 0.7974 Davie 1.0256 1.0005 0.9094 0.9400 0.9634 0.9994 0.9304 0.9392 0.9588 0.9966 0.8189 0.8396 0.8750 0.9188 0.9728 0.9833 1.0000 0.6950 0.7126 0.7111 0.6880 0.8123 0.8465 0.8779 Currituck 1.0240 0.9680 0.8537 0.7383 0.8433 1.0000 0.5378 0.6630 0.7970 0.8491 0.8634 0.9250 0.9542 0.9880 0.9033 0.9182 0.9361 0.9443 0.9453 0.9029 0.9200 1.0000 0.5497 0.7482 Mitchell 1,0207 0.9698 0.5419 0.5952 0.6531 0.7482 0.7773 0.8467 0.8462 0.9604 0.6678 0.7491 0.7760 0.7729 0.9315 0.9106 0.8823 0.9915 0.7671 0.7320 0.7487 0.8387 0.8258 0.8210 Richmond 1.0182 0.9573 1.0000 0.8653 0.9370 0.9129 1.0000 0.7823 0.7453 0.8450 0.6763 0.9249 0.9547 0.9961 0.7500 0.7640 0.8286 0.6210 0.8510 0.8828 0.8857 0.9379 0.7100 0.6971 Wilson 1.0161 0.9697 1.0000 0.8763 0.9160 0.9071 0.9375 0.9598 0.9636 0.9906 1.0000 0.8079 0.8260 0.8589 0.8890 0.9088 0.9515 0.9649 1.0000 0.8062 0.8042 0.8478 0.8333 0.8603 Forsyth 1.0129 0.9866 0.9210 0.9368 0.9689 1.0000 0.9358 0.9589 0.9669 0.9972 0.9054 0.9427 0.9447 7.0000 0.8690 0.9000 0.9252 0.9780 0.9031 0.9143 0.9362 0.9427 0.9731 0.7911 Vance 1.0063 0.9453 1.0000 0.7421 0.8000 0.7778 0.7643 0.8242 O.B402 0.6239 0.9139 0,7368 0.8430 0.8111 0.9000 0.9413 0.9552 0.9554 1.0000 0.5385 0.6000 0.6347 0.6364 0.6452 Anson 1.0057 0.7229 0.6769 0.7633 0.8111 0.7221 0.8707 0.8405 0.9603 0.6145 0.6378 0.7964 0.7606 0.8235 0.8571 0.9143 0.9310 0.6833 0.7065 0.6673 0.8109 0.7933 0.8167 0.9622 Lenoir 1.0055 0.9959 0.9105 0.9193 0.9471 0.9594 0.9729 0.9661 0.9960 1.0000 0.8707 0.9137 0.9533 1.0000 0.8100 0.8017 0.8430 0.8660 0.9013 0.8523 0.8995 0.9709 0.8323 0.8400 Davidson 1.0036 0.9940 0.9998 1.0000 0.9312 0.9232 0.9614 0.9924 0.9839 1.0000 0.9218 0.9302 0.9635 0.9918 0.7496 0.7973 0.8418 0.8460 0.8257 0.8794 0.9002 0.9791 0.7100 0.6340 Harnett 1.0024 0.9901 0.8198 0.8377 0.9041 0.9473 0.9532 0.9962 0.8577 0.8730 0:9474 0.9501 0.9414 0.9664 0.8475 0.8491 0.8810 0.9140 0.9685 0.9153 0.9693 0.8612 0.9591 0.4939 D Alamance 1.0022 0.9960 0.8708 0.9049 0.9140 0.9491 0.9529 0.9864 0.9763 1.0000 0.7015 0.7333 0.7483 0.7680 0.8408 0.8844 0.9153 0.9853 0.6290 0.6010 0.6533 0.6864 0.7362 0.8252 M Chatham 1 0011 0 9986 0 8863 0 8990 0 9753 0000 1 8976 0 9402 0 9440 0 1.0000 0.7030 0.7125 0.7591 0.8214 0.8919 0.9718 0.7240 0.7312 0.7753 0.7000 0.6000 0.7722 0.8699 0.9419 ~ Graham . 1.0009 . 0.5175 . 0.5164 . 0.5401 . 0.6200 . 0.8000 . 0.7980 . 0.8155 , 1.0000 0.5540 0.6136 0.6850 0.7646 0.8203 0.9186 0.9625 0.8294 0.8839 0.8333 0.8689 0.8823 0.8330 0.9440 0.9839 ~ Burke 1.0000 0.9505 0.9641 1.0000 0.8131 0.8450 0.8886 0.8793 0.9336 0.9320 0.6613 0.7236 0.7532 0.7619 0.8356 0.9054 0.9770 0.7638 0.7643 0.7725 0.8511 0.8670 0.9147 0.9794 Clay 1.0000 0.6329 0.5549 0.5611 0.6038 0.7530 0.8996 0.9356 1.0000 0.7100 0.7055 0.7857 0.8677 1.0000 0.9181 0.9545 1.0000 0.7638 0.7668 0.7883 0.8205 0.8859 0.8124 0.9447 ~ Craven 0.9990 0.6668 0.6615 0.6861 0.8222 0.9133 0.9436 0.9746 1.0000 0.7969 0.8330 0.8600 0.6738 0.8909 0.9163 0.9438 0.9922 0.8605 0.8709 0.8333 0.8709 0.8982 0.9258 0.9671 M Durham 0.9987 1.0002 1.0000 0.8654 0.8837 0.9192 0.9311 0.9444 0.9728 1.0000 0.7120 0.7596 0.7832 0.8155 0.8677 0.8744 0.9150 0.9562 0.7453 0.7505 0.7615 0.7324 0.7818 0.9134 ~„> Cumberland 0.9984 0.9989 0.8172 0.8600 0.8965 0.9246 0.9833 1.0000 0.9403 0.9271 0.9582 0.9683 0.9793 1.0000 1.0000 0.9054 0.9425 0.9605 1.0000 0.9460 0.9634 1.0000 0.9993 0.5910 Tyrrell 0.9975 1.0098 0.7634 0.7426 0.8978 1.0000 0.5840 0.6713 0.7825 0.6984 0.8000 0.9132 1.0297 1.0000 0.6739 0.7275 0.7699 0.7316 0.7724 0.7113 0.6781 0.9644 0.6771 0.4566 Transylvania 0.9943 0.9960 0.7971 0.7671 0.8200 0.9231 0.9117 0.9257 0.9966 0.7712 0.8547 0.9056 0.9294 0.9720 0.9603 0.9975 0.7540 0.7675 0.8100 0.7838 0.8590 0.8650 0.9337 0.9857 Greene 0.9931 0.9918 0.8981 0.9648 0.9720 1.0000 0.7904 0,7159 0.6752. 0.7769 0.7716 0.9081 0.9259 1.0000 0.7154 0.7834 0.7923 0.9133 0.8760 0.9451 0.8880 0.9782 0.6254 0.5798 Beaufort 0.9894 0.6929 0.6802 0.6759 0.7701 0.8961 0.9222 0.9436 1.0000 0.8023 0.8204 0.8639 0.8575 0.9023 0.9500 0.9500 1.0000 0.7665 0.7690 0.7853 0.7521 0.8500 0.8465 0.8571 Pltt 0.9867 0.9801 0.9944 0.6806 0.9260 0.9675 0.9886 0.7972 0.7955 0.8214 0.8576 0.6840 0.9327 0.9328 0.9797 0.8010 0.8464 0.8378 0.8969 0.8882 0.9263 0.9693 1.0000 0.7535 Oranqe 0 9865 ~ 0 9897 ~ 0 7933 0 8314 0 8974 ~0 9558 ~ 0 8377 0 8818 0 9016 C 0 9662 0 8302 D 8848 0 9309 ~ 0 9646 ~ 0 8~9 ~Q8591 0 8960 J ~0 9462 ~ 0 BSF6 0 840 0 8457 n e8E2 n a959 n aa6'i Nash 0.9857 0.9624 0.8192 0.8278 0.8810 0.9108 0.9081 0.9107 0.9184 0.9617 0.7029 0.7817 0.8235 0.8315 0.8782 0.8957 0.9605 0.9516 0.7810 0.7710 0.7793 0.8221 0.8422 0.8735 Duplin 0.9651 0.9953 0.7800 0.7100 0.8491 0.8509 0.8951 0.9161 0.9109 1.0000 0.5940 0.7143 0.7170 0.7669 0.8228 0.6188 0.9794 0.7195 0.6947 0.8182 0.8333 0.8345 0.8875 0.7895 Robeson 0.9847 0.8318 0.8440 0.8972 0.9046 0.9730 0.9058 0.9058 0.8988 0.8526 0.8100 0.9036 0.8903 0.9083 1.0000 0.7680 0.7991 0.8561 0.8-181 0.9252 0.8964 0.6968 0.9793 0.6080 Gaston 0.9835 0.9484 0.9327 0.9687 0.9285 0.9729 .0.9555 1.0000 0.8119 0.8125 0.8809 0.9122 0.9682 0.9960 0.8690 0.8885 0.9042 0.9521 0.8377 0.8592 0.8918 0.9570 0.6580 0.6501 Edgecombe 0.9831 0.9966 0.7597 0.7703 0.7718 0.8502 0.8402 0.8505 0.8710 0.9726 0.7323 0.8144 0.8261 0.8550 0.9333 0.9300 0.9564 1.0000 0.8357 0.8409 0.8605 0.9014 0.9059 0.9191 Granville 0.9822 0.9227 0.8610 0.8811 0.9447 0.9845 0.9510 0.9825 1.0000 0.6600 0.7014 0.7042 0.7277 0.7678 0.7815 0.8813 0.9498 0.6474 0.6667 0.7007 0.6661 0.6962 0.7197 0.7579 Randolph 0.9819 0.9634 0.9243 0.9676 0.8618 0.8820 0.8908 0.9001 0.9108 0.9699 0.6391 0.7151 0.7538 0.8060 0.8543 0.8999 0.9292 0.9582 0.5800 0.6417 0.6569 0.6569 0.7117 0.7657 Iredell 0.9806 0.9486 0.9210 0.9940 0.9084 0.9337 0.9797 1.0000 0.8947 0.9251 0.9718 1.0000 0.8874 0.9208 0.9695 1.0000 0.9617 0.9787 1.0001 0.6600 0.7075 0.7274 0.8062 0.8183 Stokes 0.9806 0.9987 0.8947 0.9183 0.9574 0.9984 0.9104 0.9302 0.9250 0.9950 0.8767 0.8992 0.9228 1.0000 0.9250 0.9320 0.9864 1.0000 0.7705 0.7375 0.7963 0.8667 0.9445 0.9426 Catawba 0.9785 0.9741 0.9794 0.9773 0.9458 0.9647 0.9930 0.9965 0.8923 0.9222 0.9375 0.9914 0.7140 0.7606 0.7961 0.8175 0.8632 0.8863 0.9111 0.9419 0.6800 0.7603 0.7733 0.8241 Person 0.9785 0.9586 0.8903 0.9085 0.9727 1.0000 0.9080 0.9416 0.9597 0.9891 0.9213 0.9137 0.9586 0.9735 0.9200 0.9245 0.9372 0.9588 0.8729 0.9347 0.9166 0.9784 0.6536 0.7095 Note: Ratios In BOLD denote the year of revaluation REAL ESTATE ASSESSMENT SALES RATIO STUDY PERCENTAGES COUNTIES 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 Rowan 9776 0 9671 0 9672 0 0.9978 0.9490 0.9839 0.9734 1.0000 0.9282 0.9494 0.9552 0.9876 0.9052 0.9043 0.9699 1.0000 0.8650 0.8817 0.9092 0.9301 1.0000 0.7259 0.7772 0.8220 Cleveland . 9752 0 . 9640 0 . 9785 0 8452 0 0.9221 0.9245 0.9852 0.8545 0.8510 0.9060 0.9156 0.8075 O.B384 0.8664 0.9367 0.9672 0.9162 0.8986 0.9526 0.9338 0.8890 0.9442 1.0000 0.6673 Onslow . 9752 0 . 8013 0 . 8270 0 . 0.8937 1.0000 0.8393 0.9018 0.9301 0.9722 0.9827 1.0000 0.8136 0.8373 0.8714 0.6943 0.9089 0.9352 0.9612 0.9937 0.8143 0.7792 0.8028 0.8441 0.8087 Hyde . 0.9741 . 0.9796 . 0.7243 0.6632 0.6924 0.7386 0.8520 0.9574 0.6640 0.7387 0.8149 0.9363 0.8393 0.8593 0.8396 1.0000 0.6600 0.6944 0.6298 0.6000 0.6800 0.7135 0.7636 0.8625 8750 Martin 9702 0 0020 1 7291 0 0.8149 O.B096 0.8971 0.8807 0.9199 0.9368 0.9534 0.7692 0.8440 0.8243 0.8720 0.9156 0.9322 0.9537 0.9844 0.7635 0.7422 0.7742 0.8132 0.8449 0. Pasquotank . 9661 0 . 0.8814 . 0.8578 0.8641 1.0000 0.6682 0.7319 0.7738 0.8073 0.8417 0.8583 0.9283 0.9631 0.7880 0.8000 0.8623 0.8300 0.8749 0.8889 0.8606 0.9577 0.5136 0.5378 0.6175 Moore . 0 9652 9377 0 9412 0 1.0000 0.8966 0.9716 1.0000 1.0000 0.7800 0.8212 0.8124 O.B296 0.9143 0.9549 0.9615 1.0000 0.8450 0.8690 0.8933 0.8751 0.9267 0.9396 0.9336 0.9909 Surry . 9630 0 . 0.9620 . 0.9878 0.9025 0.9779 0.9667 1.0000 0.8583 0.9000 0.9276 1.0000 1.0000 0.7988 0.8752 0.9051 0.9722 0.9122 0.9102 0.9544 0.9954 0.7365 0.7271 0.8630 0.8456 Wilkes . 9627 0 0 9477 0 9297 0.9866 0.8622 0.8743 0.9265 0.9687 0.8442 0.8656 0.9164 0.9625 1.0000 0.7500 0.7720 0.8455 0.9186 0.9945 0.7860 0.7980 0.8609 0.6200 0.8569 0.9017 Lee . 9577 0 . 0 9550 . 9394 0 1.0000 0.8793 0.8875 0.9558 1.0000 0.7525 0.8182 0.8238 0.6363 0.8750 0.6840 0.9232 0.9903 0.8091 0.8528 0.6556 0.8677 0.8712 0.8933 1.0000 0.6046 Yancey . 0.9507 . 0.9883 . 0.9974 0.6333 0.6687 0.7591 0.7893 0.8292 0.8963 0.9708 1.0000 0.7452 0.7673 0.8165 0.8131 0.9326 0.9297 0.9746 1.0038 0.6755 0.7862 0.8083 0.7407 0.8698 Guilford 0 9502 9105 0 0.9160 0.9272 0.9612 0.9869 0.9935 0.8060 0.8319 0.8477 0.8850 0.8935 0.9426 0.9600 1.0000 0.8640 0.9083 0.9259 0.9318 0.9173 0.9627 0.9689 1.0000 0.6516 Alleghany . 0.9475 . 0.8280 0.8909 1.0000 0.5406 0.7475 0.7057 0.7377 0.7942 0.7981 0.7650 0.9554 0.6588 0.6757 0.6471 0.7400 0.8571 0.8571 0.8786 0.9896 0.6154 0.6424 0.7143 0.7500 Henderson 9475 0 8719 0 0 9075 0.9794 0.8303 0.8646 0.9241 0.9947 0.8586 0.8845 0.9596 1.0000 0.8476 0.8607 0.8986 0.9699 0.6610 0.8947 0.9236 0.9167 1.0000 0.5893 0.6545 0.6902 Franklin . 9425 0 . 0 8392 . 0.9013 0.9000 0.9451 0.9884 1.0000 0.6654 0.7414 0.7167 0.7663 0.8463 0.9433 0.7050 0.8227 0.8333 0.8600 0.9051 0.9314 0.9152 0.9916 0.5593 0.6313 0.6402 Buncombe . 9356 0 . 8652 0 0.8360 0.8740 0.9891 0.8261 0.8848 0.9103 0.9938 0.8080 0.8788 0.9493 0.9604 0.8264 0.8738 0.9738 0.9812 0.8632 0.8706 0.8724 0.9337 0.6550 0.7372 0.7707 Avery . 0.9330 . 0.7768 0.7107 0.8233 1.0000 0.7236 0.7744 0.8235 1.0000 0.6350 0.7607 0.7971 0.7975 0.8908 0.8208 0.9522 0.9981 0.6083 0.8049 0.8000 0.7765 0.8936 0.9113 0.0837 • Rutherford 0 9329 0 9127 9324 0 0.9364 0.8245 0.8861 0.8746 0.6962 0.9690 0.7400 0.7698 0.7943 0.8165 0.9027 0.9314 1.0000 1.0000 0.7393 0.8093 0.7391 0.7440 0.8500 0.8571 0.9178 Halifax . 9292 0 . 9193 0 . 0 8624 0.9831 0.8155 0.7886 0.8654 0.8685 0.8645 0.8857 0.9231 1.0000 0.7812 0.7800 0.7800 0.8500 0.8507 0.8557 0.9243 0.9619 0.6667 0.7443 0.7200 0.6675 Chowan . 9279 0 . 6299 0 . 9516 0 0.8865 1.0000 0.7278 0.8168 0.6289 0.8165 0.9558 0.9658 0.9688 1.0000 0.8200 0.8515 0.9284 0.9438 0.9909 0.9412 0.9235 0.9820 0.5553 0.5931 0.7296 Hoke . 9247 0 . 9249 0 . 0 9556 0.9654 1.0000 0.8209 0.8825 0.9063 0.9175 0.9333 0.9578 0.9817 1.0000 0.7650 0.8249 0.8557 0.8552 0.9531 0.9807 0.9900 1.0000 0.5732 0.5560 0.6110 Rockingham . 0.9164 . 0.8807 . 0.8808 0.8976 0.8892 0.9556 0.9729 0.9892 0.8522 0.6816 0.9290 0.9816 0.8467 0.8800 0.8921 0.9871 0.8664 0.9300 0.9516 0.9884 0.8691 0.8784 0.9864 1.0000 Alexander 0 9141 9181 0 0.9474 0.9706 0.8430 0.9027 0.9258 0.9390 0.9904 O.fi750 0.6992 0.7348 0.7490 0.8297 0.8824 0.9117 1.0000 0.6760 0.6516 0.7315 0.6857 0.7810 0.8444 0.8893 Watauga . 0.9101 . 0.7874 0.7838 0.8403 0.9753 0.7649 0.8438 0.8733 0.9689 0.6352 0.6821 0.7619 0.8140 0.8575 0.9250 1.0000 0.7160 0.7340 0.8600 0.8000 0.8035 0.8444 0.9485 0.9700 Caldwell 9079 0 8700 0 0.8585 0.8886 0.9187 1.0000 0.8591 0.8861 0.8977 0.9380 0.7778 0.7793 0.8534 0.9518 0.6700 0.7914 0.8360 0.8175 0.8880 0.9111 0.9316 0.9913 ' 0.6440 0.7056 Scotland . 9061 0 . 0 9423 8820 0 0.9159 0.9136 0.9748 1.0000 1.0000 0.7948 0.6320 0.8864 0.8614 0.9315 0.9091 1.0000 1.0000 0.7668 0.8115 O.B431 0.8462 O.B641 0.9073 0.9309 0.9656 Hertford . 0 9020 . 8645 0 . 0.8324 0.8231 0.9851 0.9622 1.0000 1.0000 0.7704 0.7825 0.8628 0.8746 0.7944 0.9014 0.8651 0.9207 0.8100 0.6486 0.8599 0.9239 0.8794 0.9237 0.9921 0.9595 Johnston . 9005 0 . 0 6655 0 8555 0.8926 0.9171 0.9704 0.9615 0.9837 0.7725 0.7750 0.8225 0.8207 0.8675 0.8822 0.9070 0.9569 0.8130 0.8398 0.8927 0.8500 0.8661 0.9000 0.9360 0.9386 Haywood . 6693 0 . 0.8361 . 0.6415 0.8636 1.0000 0.7798 0.8403 0.9474 1.0000 0.7284 0.7330 0.7450 0.8533 0.9266 1.0000 0.7415 0.7694 0.8200 0.8170 0.8400 0.8750 0.9030 0.9791 0.4815 . Mecklenburg 0.8893 0.8189 0.8290 0.8733 0.9376 0.9506 0.9580 0.9808 0.8761 0.8813 0.9427 0.9410 0.9840 0.8632 0.8885 0.9257 0.9597 0.9824 0.9816 0.9961 0.8419 O.B869 0.9314 0.9744 Swain 8861 0 6608 0 6629 0 7265 0 0.9421 0.9916 0.5530 0.6608 0.6657 0.7000 0.9159 0.7341 0.7047 0.9167 0.7240 0.8333 0.9000 0.8675 0.9393 0.8973 0.8940 0.9356 0.5438 0.6484 Stanly . 0.8829 . 0.8690 . 0.8191 . 0.9057 0.9575 0.9990 0.6568 0.8875 0.9542 1.0000 0.6683 0.7370 0.7950 0.8050 0.8554 0.8771 0.9263 0.9887 0.6180 0.6691 0.6114 0.7100 0.7816 0.8003 Polk 8789 0 0 9390 0 6080 0.6216 0.6842 0.7560 0.7634 0.8376 0.8934 1.0000 0.6796 0.8342 0.8107 0.8930 0.9000 0.9565 0.9905 1.0000 0.7586 0.7258 0.7410 0.7790 0.9022 0.8749 Jones . 8750 0 . 8917 0 . 8744 0 8682 0 1.0000 0.8610 0.8838 0.7905 0.9315 0.9277 0.9151 0.9928 1.0000 0.7815 0.8423 0.8252 0.8000 0.8423 0.8688 0.9294 0.9951 0.7383 0.6616 0.7254 Bertie . 8722 0 . 8273 0 . 8809 0 . 0.8662 0.8765 0.9470 1.0000 0.7500 0.8316 0.6728 0.8053 0.8355 0.8339 0.8720 0.9811 0.7400 0.8031 0.8564 0.8651 0.9527 0.6895 0.7834 0.7379 0.8297 Columbus . 0 6662 . 8101 0 . 8466 0 8370 0 0.9150 0.9849 0.7516 0.7787 0.8109 0.7540 0.8057 0.8655 0.8727 0.9826 0.6750 0.7503 0.7626 0.7525 0.8]50 0.8503 0.9422 0.9299 0.4645 0.4233 . Northampton 0 8655 . 0.8609 . 0.9180 . 0.9807 0.6300 0.7123 0.7813 0.8608 0.9412 0.9772 0.8234 0.9152 0.8950 0.9566 0.9636 0.7300 0.7027 0.8127 0.6200 0.8224 0.8659 0.9540 0.9660 0.5208 Bladen . 8640 0 8000 0 0 9069 1.0000 0.6029 0.6954 0.7540 0.7476 0.8356 0.8952 0.8747 0.9756 0.7454 0.7778 0.7722 0.8200 0.8608 0.8236 0.8956 0.9750 0.7971 0.8205 0.6200 0.7351 Washington . 0.8540 . 0.7966 . 0.8607 0.8207 0.9468 1.0000 0.7575 0.7995 0.7600 0.8564 0.9272 0.8744 0.9209 0.9958 0.7798 0.8667 0.8580 0.6651 0.9250 0.8929 0.9591 1.0000 0.7457 0.7350 Sampson 0.8369 0.7751 0.8160 0.8542 0.8609 0.9218 0.9690 1.0000 0.7200 0.7732 0.7101 0.8060 0.8000 0.8884 0.9060 1.0000 0.6800 0.6886 0.7441 0.7095 0.7941 0.8420 0.9201 0.9647 Wayne 8267 0 0.8245 0.8281 0.8795 0.9083 0.9452 0.9822 0.9987 0.7450 0.7887 0.7794 0.8000 0.8549 0.8646 0.8990 0.9552 0.7685 0.8371 0.8718 0.8316 0.8916 0.9527 0.9819 0.9904 McDowell . 8200 0 7408 0 0 8000 0.8511 0.8898 0.9040 0.9929 1.0000 0.6575 0.6455 0.7580 0.7325 0.7731 0.9056 0.8789 0.9533 0.7060 0.7206 0.7739 0.7425 0.8178 0.8690 0.8952 0.9528 Ashe . 0 7985 . 0 7500 . 7896 0 0.8708 0.9789 0.5695 0.6400 0.6600 0.7100 0.7916 0.8424 0.9077 1.0000 0.7195 0.7677 0.8000 0.8114 0.8592 0.6461 0.8624 0.9087 0.5263 0.6173 0.5990 . 7840 Montgomery 0 . 0.6806 . 0.7200 0.7700 0.8359 0.8325 0.9727 0.7458 0.6648 0.7799 0.7712 0.8300 0.8934 0.9100 0.9981 0.7675 0.8427 0.8396 0.7300 0.7692 0.7727 0.6248 1.0000 0.6550 Madison . 7533 0 6651 0 0 6546 7220 0 0.8592 0.8769 0.9757 0.4552 0.4955 0.4804 0.5750 0.5595 0.6919 0.7520 0.8538 0.5214 0.5520 0.6250 0.6500 0.6386 0.8363 0.8776 0.9333 0.4602 Pender . 7037 0 . 0 6419 . 5566 0 . 6167 0 6393 0 0.7416 0.8543 1.0000 0.6450 0.6324 0.7390 0.7638 0.8226 0.8365 0.9062 0.9878 0.6850 0.7791 0.7500 0.7309 0.7207 0.7820 0.8208 0.8942 Pamlico . 0.6429 . 0.5547 . 0.4841 . 0.4252 . 0.5752 0.9446 1.0000 0.8426 0.8501 0.8195 0.8960 0.9083 0.9273 0.9250 0.9947 0.7290 0.7881 0.7935 0.7500 0.7753 0.7893 0.8696 0.9855 0.4762 Note: Ratios in BOLD denote the year of revaluation • • • ~ Attachment 4 • ORAI~IGE COUl~TTY SALES (does not include vacant land sales) 2010 (January through October Total number of sales - 796 Includes: condos, townhouses, detached, modular, manufactured homes Omitted: foreclosures, relocations, land trust, multiples, short sales, bank/lender owned, FSBO (for sale by owner), unqualified (conditions of sale were skewed). Financial concessions were considered. "Entry Only" sales were considered however these sales are typically slightly lower because less commission to listing broker is paid. NOTE: there were tax incentives in place for properties under contract by Apri12010 and closed by June 30, 2010. According to Triangle Multiple Listings Service (TMLS) 2009': 2010. ~ °~° Change from 009 to 2010 New Listin s 1886 2179 +15.5 Closed Sales 870 916 +5.3 Median Sale Price* 260,000 280,000 +7.7 Avera a Sale Price* 322,373 335,527 +4.1 Percent of Original List rice received at sale 96.6% 96.2% +0.4 Average Day on Market until Sale 92 107 +15.5 *Does not account for seller concessions. Additionally, the Median Sale Price and Average Sale Price indicate that 2010 sales were of higher priced homes over that of 2009. Total number of sales (7961 January - 39 February - 45 March - 67 April - 102 May- 112 June - 164 July - 95 August - 81 September - 56 October - 35 6 Overall AppraisaUSale Ratio = 1.001271 (a ratio of 1.00 would indicate that the appraised values • and the sales amounts are equal) 7 SPECIFICS Condos (total 99) -all in Chapel Hill AppraisaUSale Ratio = .987394 Townhouses -Appraisal/Sale Ratio .993711 Chapel Hill/Carrboro (total 97} Hillsborough (total 13) Mebane (total 3) Modular (total 11) (aII sales north of Homestead Rd) -AppraisaUSale Ratio = 1.038142 Manufactured/Doublewide (total 9) (all sales north of IH85) - Appraisal/Sale Ratio =1.161041 Detached/Single Famil~(total 566) -AppraisaUSale Ratio =1.001924 • The Median Appraisal/Sale Ratio is .99069 The Coefficient of Dispersion (COD) is 9.50471342 • • • Detached Single Family Homes by Triangle Multiple Listings Service (TMLS) "Areas" (see attached map) i ~1r~a!Sub ~~ez ll7a~ 2U1 A~pi liti~L'Sal~ l~jtio after remc>vin~~---~ ~rnnber of _ llllClUa~1f1C(j S3~CS ~ ~g]e,~ - - - -l.U"~'3"198 ~ -- - 71 :202 - l .028841 13 203 .94275 23 204 :945875 57` 205 .956754 20 206 l .08672 85 ;; 207 .988596 56 208. x1.013028 6"' 209 1.052243 ] 4 21.0 1:09043 6 3 6 211 1.056562 l 0 212 1.000305 13- 213 1.04299 15 214 .970707 14 215 1.039515 11 216 ::..989356 35 217 .935305 10 21.8 __ 1:025434 16 219 1.018224 6 220 1.009696 6 221 1.129885 2 222.. .984I05 _ 2 223 ].032669 12 224 .934227 7 228 1.021359 46 TOTAL 566 • • Detached dales (January through October 2010) Orange County Grouped by Price Price Range ~AppraisalJSa]eRatio after removing un ualified sales Number vC Sales.': _ U to 100,000 1.11336 2 100,001 - 150,000 .969037 27 150,001 - 200,000 1.Q284752 54 .200;001 = 250,000 1.0292893 77 250,001 - 300,000 300,001 - 3.50,000. .9841614 1.0049229 71 55 350,001 - 400,000 400,001= 450,000 450,001 - 500,000 1.0063569 .9799102:, .9935883 74 49 34 .:500,001= SSQ;000. .9679528 20 550,001 - 600,000 1.0327598 23 600,001-650,000. 1.0321623 23 650,001 - 700,000 1.04261 10 700,001 - 750,000 .9710767 13 750,001 - 800,000 .9845998 8 800,001 - 900;000 1.052789 ' 6 900,00] - 1,000,000 .8936017 5 .1,000,001-' 1,200,000 1.0399875 5 1,200,001 - ],300,000 .8786831 ~ 1,300,001 - 1;400,000 .7262103 3 Over 1,400,001 .8256459 2 AVERAI:L RATE ' 1.001924 566 • • • /,IL i• ~~a . ~~~ _ilppraisaUSale". Ratio: "Numbe"r' of Sales' 201 ].023798 77 202 1.02884] 13: 203 .94275 23 204 .945875 57 205 .956754 20 206 1.008672 85 207 .988596 56 208 1.013028 6 209 1.052243 ] 4 210 ].090436 16 21 ] 1.056562 10 "272 ].000305 13" 213 ].04299 15 214 .970707 14 21.5 1.039515 11 216 .989356 35' 217 .935305 ]0 318 ].025434 16 219 1.018224 b 220 ].009696 6 1.129885 2 .984105 2 223 1.032669 12 324 .934227 7 228 ].021359 46 2010 (.January through October) Orar,~e County Sales Triangle ivlultiple Listing Service "Areas" This map shows the number ofsales in each area and the Appraisal/Sale Ratio in each area ~~ ® ~~ 2?2 Eland \\\ Czdar~ Walnut Grove . ~~~ Grove Rd ChurrJi Rd ` LPe's Chapedl5 Sa,Nmi11 Ra~Pearson A ~~ RR `~~!a ~ . Carr Store Rd ~~ 23'~ 233 ~~ ~~ U Gov Burke Rd a~ $ Nllller Rd :, Fd " Rd ~"~ ~ N. FrazJer Rd Baldwin ~0 Rd 8~/ep St sh ~"~ ~ ~~ 7 2~ ~ Lawrencs - Rd • ' / ~~, Mtn !mil i ~~5 ~02Q e N ~ (~ ~~ ~~ ~ Old CH- \\85 \o HBGH Rd a 2'~ 4 ~ ~ 2'12 r ? ~ ~' 2 ~oQJ ` w ~a gores d ea Mt Sinai,Rd ~~ L° Minnis Rd ' \~~' v . ~.' 2fl8 ~ 207 2fl9 ~ 0 ~~~.` Nomes~ 201 1ho ~, 1~ \~ ~• Fayetfaville R ~~~ c 2fl2 J 2~~ fl3 2fl~ 2fl~ ^~\~O ~ 10 ~22~020 l ~ ~ta~e I h~~ "11 Attachment 5 1 1 • There have been only 46 qualified commercial sales of both land only and improved properties recorded from January 2009 through mid-September 2010. Of these, 10 are outside Carrboro- Chapel Hill township and have a median sales ratio of 1.00 which would suggest through this limited sample that commercial properties' values out in the "county" have held relatively stable since 1/1/2009. Of the 36 remaining sales around Carrboro-Chapel Hill, the median ratio is .99 which also suggests overall stability in value for that area as well. Of these 36 sales , 10 are office condo sales which represents the only commercial sector that shows a discernable pattern of declining values (probably due to the glut and availability of office space, including new office space, in that area). Roger Gunn, Appraiser II Specialization -Commercial Appraisal • Attachment 6 A•: e N.C. property tax assessments underwater? J Coates' Canons: NC Local Government ... 12 . (RSS) . Michael Crowell (RSS) . Richard Ducker RSS) . Robert Joyce (RSS) . Seal Zota RS ) . Shea Dennine (~) . Tyler Mulligan (mss) ~~ Print This Post Are N.C. property tax assessments underwater? Thursday, August 12, 2010 By Christopher McLaughlin ~: I For two years now we've read story after story about the increasing number of homes that are mortgaged for far more than they are now worth. A recent report by the i N.C. Department of Revenue suggests that for the first time a similar problem may be afflicting property tax • assessments across the state. Last year, real property tax assessments exceeded market value in 31 of North Carolina's 100 counties. These figures suggest that many city and county tax bases are overvalued. What does this mean for local government finances in North Carolina? It means that local governments can no longer count on comfortable increases in their tax bases when they revalue their real property every four or so years. Many counties and towns may actually experience shrinkage in their tax bases after revaluation, anunheard-of occurrence. It means that more local governments may increasingly fund their budget needs with other revenue sources such as the Local option sales tax that may be more volatile and more regressive than the property taxes that have been the bedrock of local governments' revenue for decades. It means that more counties may choose to postpone revaluations for as long as possible in the hope that property values will recover, in the mean time leaving increasingly frustrated taxpayers with increasingly inaccurate assessments. Let's take a closer look at the numbers producing such unusual consequences. Each spring, the N.C. Department of Revenue calculates anassessment-to-sales ratio ("ASR") for real property in each county. This ratio represents a comparison of property tax assessments with actual sales prices in that county from the preceding calendar yeaz. If the ratio is less than one, then on average • that.county's property tax assessments were less than the properties' sales prices. In other words, the properties were undervalued for tax purposes. If the ratio is greater ~ 2 -~i C' ~~s o-~ ! n~~'r~s ~- http://sogweb.sog.unc.edtl/blogs/localgovt/?p=2978 10/29/2010 F.re N.C. property tax assessments underwater? ~ Coates' Canons: NC Local Government ... _ ,~ 3 than one, then on average that county's property tax assessments exceeded the properties' sales prices. In other words, the properties were overvalued for tax purposes. If we can use mortage Iingo in a tax context, these properties could be considered "underwater." In normal economic times, a county's ASR will decrease in the years following a revaluation because market prices are increasing while tax assessments are constant, When a county revalues its tax base, a process that must occur at least every eight years, its ASR will bounce back close to one because it will raise its assessments (and increase its tax base) to reflect the general appreciation of its real property. 'These are not normal economic times. According to the N.C. Association of Realtors, the average sales price of an existing home in North Carolina has fallen about 11 from its peak in 2007. The news is far worse in some areas of the state: the Outer Banks and parts of western N.C. have seen home prices drop 25% or more. Overall, N.C. housing prices today are about where they were in mid-2005. As a result more and more counties are seeing their ASRs grow over time instead of shrink, as they always have before. Four counties now have ASRs over 1.10, meaning that the real property sold in those counties Last year on average was assessed 10% or more above its true market value, Not surprisingly, all four counties are from the mountains or the coast, where prices have been most volatile. Cherokee County takes the dubious honor at the top with an ASR of 1.15. Another six counties have ASRs above 1,05. Allthirty-one counties with high ASRs are ]ilcely to suffer decreases in their tax bases if they revalue their property anytime soon. But even counties with "normal" ASRs could suffer that same fate in these uncertain economic times. Consider Onslow County's experience with its revaluation this year. The county had last revalued its real property in 2006, neaz the peak of the market. Despite the fact that its ASR was well below one (.80) in 2004, Ons[ow County saw its real property value increase less than 3% after its 2010 revaluation, compared to a typical post-reval increase of 25% or more. Two of the county's municipalities, both beach towns, suffered shocking drops in their tax bases of more than forty percent. Unless these two towns wish to dramatically decrease spending, obviously they will need to either faire their property tax rates or seek other revenue sources. With home prices at best stagnant across the state, many more local goverfunents may be facing similar decisions in the near future. 7ltis entry was posted on 77tursday, August 12th, 2010 at 12:05 PM and is filed undo Ge c I 1 I C ~. You can follow any responses to this entry through the ISSS2.4 fad. • • • http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/localgovt/?p=2978 10/29/2010 -Durham, Orange properties on mazk 14 • Durham, Orange properties on mark 08.28.10 - 09:49 pm , By Ray Gronberg gronberg@heraldsun.com; 419-6648 DURHAM -- State figures suggest that on average, property in Durham and Orange counties is still selling for about or slightly more than its assessed tax value. But in 31 other counties -- among them two Triangle counties, Wake and Chatham -- assessed tax values for many properties are now running a little to a lot ahead of what people can actually sell them for. Those numbers prompted Chris McLaughlin, a professor in UNC's School of Government, to author a blog posting on aschool-sponsored website, Coates' Canons, that warned that many North Carolina communities could face fiscal or tax crunches linked to a shaky real-estate mazket. Though North Carolina didn't have the same real-estate bubble places like Florida and Nevada did, many counties aren't seeing the steady growth in tax base they once could count on, McLaughlin said. • "Combine that with the drop in sales-tax revenue, and we've got a real problem," he said in an interview Friday. McLaughlin decided to speak up after reviewing figures published by the N.C. Department of Revenue. The department each year puts out a "sales assessment ratio" study, comparing a sample of sales numbers against published tax assessments, which officials are supposed to use in calculating payments due from some utility companies. But McLaughlin finds the numbers in the study interesting for what they say about the condition of the real-estate market in each county. In theory, the assessed value and market value of property is supposed to match up, $1 for $1. In practice, the ratio fluctuates. In most counties, it usually drops further below 1 to 1 the longer tax assessors have gone between state-mandated property revaluations. In some, it clocks in above a 1-to-1 match thanks to assessment or market problems. What caught McLaughlin's eye was a sharp rise in the number of counties reporting problem ratios. Cherokee County, for example, now has astate-worst ratio of 1.15 -- meaning • assessed values are 15 percent higher than actual market values. http://www.heraldsun.com/printer friendly/9314920 09/03/2010 Durham, Orange properties on mark 15 Durham's 2010 ratio --based on sales data from last year -- is very close to the ideal $1 to $1 match, coming in at 0.9987. Tax assessors here revalued property two years ago, in 2008, and according to the state that year hit the market average dead on. They managed the same feat in 2001. Orange County's current ratio is 0.9865, again very close to the $1 for $1 ideal. It's a year removed from a somewhat controversial property revaluation that saw critics azgue that Orange's assessors had overvalued land and homes compared to actual market conditions. But according to the state, the Orange tax office has never in its six most recent revaluations hit the $1 to $1 standard for valuing property. Each time, it assessed properties on average for less than they were worth on the market. The current ratio is actually closer to the ideal than it was immediately following all but two of Orange's six most recent revaluations. McLaughlin said another reason for concern is that counties like Durham aren't seeing the drop in their ratio they'd normally expect as the years pass since their most recent revaluation. For example, two years after its 2001 revaluation, Durham on average was taxing • property on only about 94.4 cents of its actual market value. And two years after its 1493 revaluation, it was taxing only 87.4 cents of a property's market value. So a $1 to $1 ratio now isn't necessarily good news. "If we're not seeing a big drop like other places, we're seeing flat [numbers], a lack of growth," McLaughlin said. Many of the counties with plus-1 ratios are, like Cherokee, in the mountains or near the coast, suggesting that the market for vacation homes has taken a hit. But a few urban or urbanizing counties have taken a hit. Wake County's ratio is about 1,03, meaning assessed values are 3 percent higher than the market average. Forsyth County's is about 1.01 and Chatham's is just slightly above the ideal at 1.0011. Forsyth and Chatham, like Orange County, are just a year removed from a property revaluation. Wake last revalued property for tax purposes in 2008, the same as Durham. A 2008 revaluation would have come as real-estate prices were neaz the peak, McLaughlin said. © heraldsun.com 2010 • http://www.heraldsun.com/printer friendly/9314920 09/03/2010