The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025_10_08 BOER Minutes Docusign Envelope ID:C1C9D8C0-856C-4210-8FBB-3D5A9118D2E3 MINUTES Orange County Board of Equalization and Review Meeting held on October 8, 2025 Board Members in attendance: Chair of the Board Leon Meyers Yes Regular Member Saru Salvi Yes Regular Member Richal Vanhook Yes Alternate Member Shareese Alston No Alternate Member Hunter Beattie No Alternate Member Tony Blake No Alternate Member Vaughn Compton No Alternate Member Shannon Julian No Alternate Member Barbara Levine No Orange County Staff in attendance: Tax Administrator Nancy Freeman Office Assistant Jennifer Rigsbee Deputy Tax Assessor Chad Phillips Real Property Appraisal Manager Roger Gunn Commercial Property Consultant Paul Snow Temporary praiser Assistant Rob Teachout Appraiser Louise Benson-Lochner Staff Attorney Martha Bordogna Meeting Schedule: No. Time Appellant PIN or Abstract Appeared Appeal Type 1 1:OOPM University CH Owner LLC 978839520OL1 Yes Value-Real 2 1:53PM State Employees Credit Union 9798247978 Yes Value-Real 3 2:12PM State Employees Credit Union 9778190203 Yes Value-Real 4 2:16PM State Employees Credit Union 9863975248 Yes Value-Real 5 2:17PM State Employees Credit Union 9799144784 Yes Value-Real 6 2:24PM State Employees Credit Union 9799895159 Yes Value-Real 7 2:47PM Christina M. Ferguson 9864872602 Yes Value-Real Time B Meeting called to order 1:00PM Leon Meyers Meeting adjourned 3:22PM Leon Meyers Motion Time By Second To move into recess 2:08PM Leon Meyers Saru Salvi To return to order 2:12PM Leon Meyers Richal Vanhook Docusign Envelope ID:C1C9D8C0-856C-4210-8FBB-3D5A9118D2E3 Related meeting notes: • Discussion with the county attorney and staff will be postponed until October 9th when Martha Bordogna will be available to be present for the meeting. Property Identification: Property Owner University CH Owner LLC Appellant(if different) Anthony Cimini Property Address 600-0 Martin Luther King Parcel ID or Abstract 978839S2001-1 Jr. Boulevard Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on the results of a pro-forma income analysis, a cash flow analysis and a uniformity analysis. Current Assessed Value $15,103,900 ounty Opinion $15,103,900 Time of Hearin 1:00PM Appellant Opinion $13,000,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $14,500,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant is requesting a reduction in value as a result of a pro-forma income analysis, a cash flow analysis, and a uniformity analysis leading to a reconciled valuation of$13,000,000. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject is leasehold improvements that consist of a 154 unit/154 bed student apartment building containing 112,089 square feet gross building area and is commonly known as University Apartments. After reviewing both the appellant's analyses and the County's commercial real property appraiser consultant's analysis (attached),the County feels the current value is supported with no change in value recommended. • Photograph of Subject • Location Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card of Subject(6 pages) • Commercial Real Property Appraisal Consultant's Analysis (8 pages) Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $14,500,000 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Leon Meyers Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner State Employees Credit Appellant(if different) Tom Berry Union Property Address 1010 S. Hamilton Road Parcel ID or Abstract 9798247978 Docusign Envelope ID:C1C9D8C0-856C-4210-8FBB-3D5A9118D2E3 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on comparable bank sales. Current Assessed Value $1,814,300 County Opinion $1,814,300 Time of Hearin 1:53PM Appellant Opinion $1,355,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $1,814,300 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Bank sales within 40 miles of Orange County excluding Orange,Wake, and Durham Counties support a lower valuation. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject is a State Employees Credit Union branch bank built in 1995 and containing 6,153 square feet of gross building area. An analysis of the appellant's evidence by the County and the county's commercial appraiser consultant found the appellant's representative only uses comps from outside the Triangle area and that is not appropriate. Some of the highest values in the Triangle are found in Orange County. The area is very desirable for banks and there have been a number circling for years looking for a good Chapel Hill/Carrboro location,but the entitlement process(especially for a drive-thru)is very,very difficult. All the appellant's sales are assessed below the average of the sales the County has identified. The idea that Orange County does not contain primary market pricing is a deeply false narrative. The County does not believe a reduction to the current assessed value is supported. • Photograph of Subject • Location Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card of Subject • Comparable Sales for Subject Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $1,814,300 No Change in Value Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner State Employees Credit Appellant(if different) Tom Berry Union Property Address 100 NC 54 Bypass I Parcel ID or Abstract 9778190203 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on comparable bank sales. Current Assessed Value $1,746,400 County Opinion $1,746,400 Time of Hearin 2:12PM Appellant Opinion $1,249,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $1,746,400 Docusign Envelope ID:C1C9D8C0-856C-4210-8FBB-3D5A9118D2E3 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Bank sales within 40 miles of Orange County excluding Orange,Wake, and Durham Counties support a lower valuation. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject is a State Employees Credit Union branch bank built in 1999 and containing 5,679 square feet of gross building area. An analysis of the appellant's evidence by the County and the county's commercial appraiser consultant found the appellant's representative only uses comps from outside the Triangle area and that is not appropriate. Some of the highest values in the Triangle are found in Orange County. The area is very desirable for banks and there have been a number circling for years looking for a good Chapel Hill/Carrboro location,but the entitlement process(especially for a drive-thru)is very,very difficult. All the appellant's sales are assessed below the average of the sales the County has identified. The idea that Orange County does not contain primary market pricing is a deeply false narrative. The County does not believe a reduction to the current assessed value is supported. • Photograph of Subject • Location Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card of Subject • Comparable Sales for Subject Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $1,746,400 No Change in Value Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner State Employees Credit Appellant(if different) Tom Berry Union Property Address 12315 Old NC 86 Parcel ID or Abstract 9863975248 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on comparable bank sales. Current Assessed Value $2,089,700 ounty Opinion $209,700 Time of Hearin 2:16PM Appellant Opinion $1,393,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $2,089,700 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Bank sales within 40 miles of Orange County excluding Orange,Wake, and Durham Counties support a lower valuation. Evidence submitted by the county representative: Docusign Envelope ID:C1C9D8C0-856C-4210-8FBB-3D5A9118D2E3 • The subject is a State Employees Credit Union branch bank built in 1999 and containing 6,163 square feet of gross building area. An analysis of the appellant's evidence by the County and the county's commercial appraiser consultant found the appellant's representative only uses comps from outside the Triangle area and that is not appropriate. Some of the highest values in the Triangle are found in Orange County. The area is very desirable for banks and there have been a number circling for years looking for a good Chapel Hill/Carrboro location,but the entitlement process(especially for a drive-thru)is very,very difficult. All the appellant's sales are assessed below the average of the sales the County has identified. The idea that Orange County does not contain primary market pricing is a deeply false narrative. The County does not believe a reduction to the current assessed value is supported. • Photograph of Subject • Location Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card of Subject • Comparable Sales for Subject Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $2,089,700 No Change in Value Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner State Employees Credit Appellant(if different) Tom Berry Union Property Address 110 S. Elliot Road Parcel ID or Abstract 9799144784 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on comparable bank sales. Current Assessed Value $1,197,600 ounty Opinion $1,197,600 Time of Hearin 2:17PM Appellant Opinion $816,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $1,197,600 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Bank sales within 40 miles of Orange County excluding Orange,Wake, and Durham Counties support a lower valuation. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject is a State Employees Credit Union branch bank built in 1982 and containing 4,052 square feet of gross building area. An analysis of the appellant's evidence by the County and the county's commercial appraiser consultant found the appellant's representative only uses comps from outside the Triangle area and that is not appropriate. Some of the highest values in the Triangle are found in Orange County. The area is very desirable for banks and there have been a number circling for years looking for a good Chapel Hill/Carrboro location,but the entitlement process(especially for a drive-thru)is very,very difficult. All the appellant's sales are assessed below the average of the sales the County has identified. The idea that Orange Docusign Envelope ID:C1C9D8C0-856C-4210-8FBB-3D5A9118D2E3 County does not contain primary market pricing is a deeply false narrative. The County does not believe a reduction to the current assessed value is supported. • Photograph of Subject • Location Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card of Subject • Comparable Sales for Subject Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $1,197,600 No Change in Value Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner State Employees Credit Appellant(if different) Tom Berry Union Property Address 11830 Fordham Boulevard Parcel ID or Abstract 9799895159 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on comparable bank sales. Current Assessed Value $41,079,000 ounty Opinion $41,079,000 Time of Hearin 2:24PM Appellant Opinion $27,506,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $41,079,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Office sales containing 100,000 square feet or more in gross building area within 40 miles of the subject support a lower valuation. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject is a large office building in Chapel Hill known as the Parkline Building built in 1973 and containing 220,044 square feet of gross building area. An analysis of the appellant's evidence by the County and the county's commercial appraiser consultant found the property has been valued by the appellant's representative using only the sales and the income approaches for the office building. The site contains 37.15 acres of super-prime development land whereas most of the office sales presented by the appellant have less than 10 acres of land. The appellant's representative does not appear to consider the value of the other 27 acres of super prime development land on a major corridor. Without a serious attempt to address the potential highest and best use of the land or a building+excess land valuation,the evidence does not address the actual characteristics of the property. The County has identified sales of properties for redevelopment purposes that support the County's current valuation. The County does not believe a reduction to the current assessed value is supported from the appellant's evidence. • Photograph of Subject • Location Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card of Subject 8 pages) Docusign Envelope ID:C1C9D8C0-856C-4210-8FBB-3D5A9118D2E3 • Sales for Development Purposes Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: 1 $41,079,000 No Change in Value Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Christy Ferguson Appellant(if different) Property Address T318 W Queen I Parcel ID or Abstract 9864872602 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value due to incorrect data on the current property record and condition of home. Current Assessed Value $907,200 County Opinion $819,900 Time of Hearin 2:47PM Appellant Opinion $823,509 County Representative Louise Benson- Board Decision $819,900 Lochner Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The Appellant filed a formal appeal on 7/31/2025. The Appellant stated the square footage should be 2,134 based on MLS/appraisal sketch provided. The grade of A+70 was questioned. It was mentioned that there are defects in the masonry,and it has some wood rot. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • NOTE: This appeal was presented to the Board on September 3, 2025. The Appellant was not in attendance due to being under the impression that the recommendation from the County with the corrections of structural aspects(1) fireplaces and(2) square footage would be approved. At the request of this appraiser, a Continuation was granted to allow the Appellant to present their position to encourage the Board to accept the corrections as noted, along with any additional evidence. • NOTE: County evidence packet has not changed from the originally presented packet on September 3, 2025, except for these notes. • On 8/28/2025 a site visit was performed by this appraiser. The taxpayer was in attendance for the exterior viewing. Due to guests, the interior was not viewed but MLS photos from the purchase on 10/10/2023 for$910,000 are available online. Exterior photos were taken of the residence and the outbuilding. • Appraiser's observations and recommendations: 1. The residence was re-sketched per the appraisal sketch and confirmed by on-site observation. The County records will now reflect 2,054 finished square feet. Due to rounding, this is slightly lower than the square footage of 2,135 per the appraisal. This correction results in a reduction in assessed valuation of$71,200. 2. The condition of the home is currently rated as "Average". Due to the home having cosmetic updates, continued maintenance and no capital items having exhausted their useful Docusign Envelope ID:C1C9D8C0-856C-4210-8FBB-3D5A9118D2E3 life, an"Average" rating is considered appropriate. Some minor deferred maintenance such that the subject has is expected. No value change. 3. Two of the four fireplaces are inoperable. This correction results in a reduction in assessed value of$16,100. 4. The Grade of the home is currently noted as A+70. Upon review,this grade is confirmed as being appropriate for the actual age and upgrades to the home in comparison with sales in the same neighborhood(NBC 4702 -Historical District). 5. Land influences -No land influences are applicable. • These changes would reduce the current assessed value of the property from$907,200 to $819,900, a total reduction of$87,300. • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Photos of Improvements • GIS map Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $819,900 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Chair of the duSigned by: Leon Meyers 11/13/2025 Recording Secre �ocuSigned by: Jennifer Ri sbee g essssoo 11/13/2025