HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021_08_25 BOER MINUTES DocuSign Envelope ID: E275D4DE-CD48-4919-BE2A-D86FEADF0352
MINUTES
Board of Equalization and Review
Date: August 25, 2021
Board Members Present:
Hunter Beattie, Chair
Leon Meyers,Regular
Barbara Levine,Regular
Staff Members Present:Nancy Freeman, Tax Administrator
Chad Phillips,Deputy Tax Assessor
Roger Gunn,Real Property Appraisal Manager
Chris Mashburn MAI, State Certified General Appraiser with CCA
Kelly Wells, Chief Appraiser
Cyle Anderson,Appraiser
Vrinlli Flores,Administrative Assistant
SCHEDULE:
9798345972.134-.191 Environs at East 54 LLC APPEARING
9874064150 Vandy Enterprises LLC APPEARING
Chair Hunter Beattie called the meeting to order at 1:01 PM.
Environs at East 54 LLC PIN 9798345972.134-.191
Kevin Baker from Marvin F. Poer&Company appeared before the Board on behalf of the appellant to
appeal the valuation of the 58 condominium units located at 5008-5413 Environ Way, Chapel Hill. The
current cumulative assessed value of all condominium units of this property is $11,494,700. A list of
evidence follows:
APPELLANT COUNTY
9798345972.134-191 Appeal 9798345972.134-.191 County
The original cumulative assessed values of all 58 condominium units that comprise the Environ's Lofts at
East 54 Apartments was $13,487,000 yielding an average value of$232,535 per unit. The appellant
submitted an informal appeal in which the County reviewed and decreased the cumulative valuation of
the 58 units to $11,494,700 or$198,184 per unit.
The appellant is requesting that the Board further reduce the cumulative valuation of the units to
$9,566,733 or$164,944 per unit. Mr. Baker explained that the subject property is an apartment complex
originally developed as individual condominium units. However,the market indicated the better use of
the units was for all units to be held by a single entity and operated as an apartment complex. Despite
being operated as an apartment complex,the 58 units are still encumbered by Homeowners Association
(HOA)fees that cover common areas and maintenance,which should account for an additional 9 to 10%
DocuSign Envelope ID: E275D4DE-CD48-4919-BE2A-D86FEADF0352
in the complex's expense ratio. Mr. Baker explained that in a traditional condominium setting,the HOA
fees would be paid by the individual owners,but in a rental setting must be recouped in the rents charged
to tenants. The appellant provided evidence on how the HOA dues affects the subject property compared
to otherwise comparable properties, and it was noted that the subject properties' rents are already at the
top of the market per unit, and the appellant is therefore unable to raise rent to cover the HOA dues.
John and Wes McAdams of the Environs also appeared at the meeting. John McAdams stated that he
overpaid for this property, and that this investment is part of his retirement income. Mr.McAdams stated
that he has not had a distribution of cash overflow since taking ownership as payment of HOA dues are
not optional.
Kelly Wells&Chris Mashburn represented the County. Mr. Mashburn stated that a 6% capitalization
rate was selected for the valuation of this property to account for the POA fees, and after reviewing the
owner provided data and reconstructing the operating statement, CCA recommends a revised cumulative
value of$10,670,395 for the property.Ms. Wells stated that based on CCA's review,the County
recommends applying an E31 economic market adjustment to each unit for a revised cumulative valuation
of$10,575,100 or$182,329 per unit. The table below was presented to the Board indicating the
individual properties and their recommended values.
Parcel Owners Opinion of Value County's Appraised Value
9798345972.134 $ 99,000 $ 121,500
9798345972.135 $ 118,000 $ 130,800
9798345972.136 $ 147,000 $ 162,200
9798345972.137 $ 185,000 $ 204,000
9798345972.138 $ 209,000 $ 230,000
9798345972.139 $ 13500 $ 149,600
9798345972.140 $ 155,000 $ 170,400
9798345972.141 $ 135,000 $ 149,600
9798345972.142 $ 131,000 $ 145,100
9798345972.143 $ 135,000 $ 149,600
9798345972.144 $ 172,000 $ 189,700
9798345972.145 $ 185,000 $ 204,000
9798345972.146 $ 131,000 $ 145,300
9798345972.147 $ 111,000 $ 122,900
9798345972.148 $ 163,000 $ 180,200
9798345972.149 $ 111,000 $ 122,900
9798345972.150 $ 188,000 $ 206,600
9798345972.151 $ 194,000 $ 214,200
9798345972.152 $ 218,000 $ 240,500
9798345972.153 $ 142,000 $ 157,100
9798345972.154 $ 162,000 $ 178,900
9798345972.155 $ 142,000 $ 157,100
9798345972.156 $ 138,000 $ 152,400
9798345972.157 $ 142,000 $ 157,100
9798345972.158 $ 180,000 $ 199,200
9798345972.159 $ 194,000 $ 214,200
DocuSign Envelope ID: E275D4DE-CD48-4919-BE2A-D86FEADF0352
9798345972.160 $ 138,000 $ 152,600
9798345972.161 $ 116,000 $ 129,000
9798345972.162 $ 171,000 $ 189,300
9798345972.163 $ 116,000 $ 129,000
9798345972.164 $ 197,000 $ 216,900
9798345972.165 $ 203,000 $ 224,400
9798345972.166 $ 235,000 $ 250,900
9798345972.167 $ 148,000 $ 164,500
9798345972.168 $ 170,000 $ 187,400
9798345972.169 $ 148,000 $ 164,500
9798345972.170 $ 144,000 $ 159,600
9798345972.171 $ 148,000 $ 164,500
9798345972.172 $ 189,000 $ 208,600
9798345972.173 $ 203,000 $ 224,400
9798345972.174 $ 144,000 $ 159,800
9798345972.175 $ 122,000 $ 135,200
9798345972.176 $ 179,000 $ 198,300
9798345972.177 $ 122,000 $ 135,200
9798345972.178 $ 206,000 $ 227,200
9798345972.179 $ 213,000 $ 234,600
9798345972.180 $ 237,000 $ 261,400
9798345972.181 $ 155,000 $ 172,000
9798345972.182 $ 178,000 $ 195,900
9798345972.183 $ 155,000 $ 172,000
9798345972.184 $ 151,000 $ 166,900
9798345972.185 $ 155,000 $ 172,000
9798345972.186 $ 197,000 $ 218,100
9798345972.187 $ 213,000 $ 234,600
9798345972.188 $ 151,000 $ 167,100
9798345972.189 $ 236,000 $ 259,200
9798345972.190 $ 188,000 $ 207,300
9798345972.191 $ 216,000 $ 237,600
The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After
deliberation and review,Mr. Beattie made a motion to accept the County's revised cumulative valuation
of$10,670,395. Ms. Levine seconded the motion.
Ms. Wells stated the correct amount the County recommended is $10,575,100 for the cumulative
valuation.
Mr. Meyers made an amendment to the motion to correct the revised cumulative valuation to
$10,575,100. Mr. Beattie seconded the motion and the motion carried.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E275D4DE-CD48-4919-BE2A-D86FEADF0352
Yes: 3
Noes: 0
Vandy Enterprises LLC PIN 9874064150
Toby Vandemark appeared before the Board to appeal the valuation of the property located at 110 S.
Churton Street,Hillsborough. The current assessed value of the property is $710,600. A list of evidence
follows:
APPELLANT COUNTY
9874064150 Appeal 9874064150 County
The appellant is requesting that the Board lower the valuation citing the fact that the neighboring
properties on S. Churton Street have lower valuations than the subject property. The appellant provided a
2020 income and expense statement for the property and assessed values of similar nearby properties
indicating that the increase in value from the revaluation was greater for the subject than similar nearby
properties.
Cyle Anderson represented the County and stated that the property is currently recorded as a two story
commercial building having 4.416 square feet of finished area with 2,208 square foot of restaurant space
on the first floor and 2,208 square foot of residential apartment space on the second floor. Mr. Anderson
stated that it was brought to the attention of the Tax Office that the finished area of the second floor was
overstated by 216 square feet as the second floor space included an unheated porch area. The County
recommends correcting the second floor finished area to 1,992 square feet and the overall finished area of
the building to 4,200 square feet.
Mr. Anderson explained that upon review of the property by CCA,the indicated value of the property
from the sales comparison approach was $712,223 and the indicated value of the property from the
income approach was $543,012.Due to the nature of this property, CCA placed 45%weight on the sales
comparison approach and 55%weight on the income approach for a reconciled value of$619,157.
As a result of this review and in addition to the recommended finished area correction,the County
recommends removing the+25%market adjustment on the land, changing the effective year built of the
building from 2015 to 2010 and applying an E01 economic market adjustment to the property for a
revised valuation of$618,400 for the property.
Chris Mashburn clarified the three comparable sales were found by identifying sales of other properties
with similar building sizes and location attributes. For the sales comparison approach,the resulting
valuation indicated approximately$177 per square foot. The income approach was based on the income
generated from leasing the restaurant and second floor apartment.
The Board reviewed all documents and information provided by the appellant and the County. After
deliberation and review,Mr.Beattie made a motion to accept the County's recommended revised value of
$618,400. Mr. Meyers seconded the motion and the motion carried.
Yes: 3
Noes: 0
DocuSign Envelope ID: E275D4DE-CD48-4919-BE2A-D86FEADF0352
Having heard all of the appeals scheduled on this date,Mr. Beattie made a motion to adjourn this meeting
at 1:40 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Meyers and the meeting was adjourned.
FDocuSigneRd9
I' Si ^ b�y: A tl�l/N N ✓- 1`L
Hunter Beattie, Chair 4/1/2022
/DocuSigned by:
Vrin 1 ores, Recording Secretary 4/1/2022