Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025_10_09 BOER Minutes Docusign Envelope ID:C8E723E3-2B12-40AF-B37E-6AE9409FEA45 MINUTES Orange County Board of Equalization and Review Meeting held on October 9, 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 Jimmy Milliken Staff Attorney Martha Bordogna Meeting Schedule: No. Time Appellant PIN or Abstract Appeared Appeal Type 1 1:05PM 23 West 69th Street Corp. 9875004490 Remote Value-Real 3 1:46PM DRE Investors LLC 9788267431 Yes Value-Real 4 2:12PM Joseph P. Saponaro 9882026124 Yes Value-Real 5 2:50PM Joseph P. Saponaro 9882026282 Yes Value-Real 6 2:52PM Patricia P. Saponaro 9882025056 Yes Value-Real Time B Meeting called to order 1:01PM Leon Meyers Meeting adjourned 3:44PM Leon Meyers Related meeting notes: • Chad Phillips reached out to Martha Bordogna,the staff attorney, for guidance regarding questions and concerns that have recently come up from both staff and Board members. Key points to take away from Martha's recommendations are: Docusign Envelope ID:C8E723E3-2B12-40AF-B37E-6AE9409FEA45 a. "The BOER is able to continue to meet after adjournment only for the purposes of hearing timely appeals. However, If the BOER grants a taxpayer appeal and reduces the assessed value, the taxpayer is entitled to a refund of any overpayment. NCGS 105- 360(e)provides that interest is to be paid on that overpayment but does not begin to accrue until January 6th. So, if we are able to finish all appeals in time to mail refund checks by 12/31/2025,the county would not owe interest on any repayments. But if we extend into January and February, the county would owe interest of up to 2.75% (2% until 2/1 and .75%for every month or partial month after that date)." b. "I agree with Ms. Pierce's advice that the hearing is the best place to provide that. First, the taxpayer has the burden of proof,not the county. When the taxpayer spends time arguing against the county's position,they are not providing their own evidence that the valuation is incorrect. Second, it is inappropriate to change the procedures for hearings in the middle of the year. The Appeals Manual mentions that there are counties where the tax office provides position statements prior to the hearing to the taxpayer, but there is no requirement for the tax office to do so. In any event,it would not be fair to provide this in advance to some taxpayers but not to all taxpayers, and I would advise that it confuses the burden of proof for the taxpayer to do so at all. The statute requires that the assessor provide the BOER with all available info re:the listing and valuation. There is no requirement that this be done prior to the hearing or that this be sent to the taxpayer as well." c. "The BOER appeals hearings are quasi-judicial hearings,meaning that the Board is required to evaluate evidence, make conclusions, and then issue a decision. The County and the taxpayer are generally holding adversarial positions -the taxpayer requesting a reduction in value, and the County arguing that the value should stand. The County does not have a burden of proof at all in these matters, only the appealing taxpayer. P. 30 of the Appeals Manual lays out the "greater weight of the evidence" test that the BOER should rely on in its decisions. "In all appeals before the county BOER it is incumbent on the appealing taxpayer to persuade the board,by the greater weight of the evidence,that the county assessor's decision was unlawful or incorrect." It is not appropriate for the County to argue on behalf of the taxpayer. If the County agrees that there should be a reduction, that is a different situation than advocating on behalf of the taxpayer. Further, this could be construed as a conflict of interest. P. 26 of the appeals manual states "neither a county employee nor a member of the BOER should take any action that should be construed as giving any taxpayer an unfair advantage over any other taxpayer." I think that requesting the County advocate on behalf of taxpayers would be an action that could be construed in this way." d. "In all judicial hearings, quasi-judicial hearings, etc. the party with the burden of proof presents their evidence first. This is also the format laid out in the Appeals Manual. The taxpayer has the burden of proof and should present their evidence first, followed by the County stating their position. If the taxpayer presented no evidence,the BOER should rule for the County, as the taxpayer has not sufficiently met their burden of proof. P. 27 of the Appeals Manual outlines this requirement in more detail." e. "Continuances should be made on a case by case basis,however, I think that the best practice would be for continuances to be granted only on request of a party, or if the BOER needs a legal opinion and I am not present. The BOER does have the power to request that additional information be provided by either the appellant or the County,but they should set a specific time frame within which to receive that information and make a decision based on what they have at that point. The Appeals Manual recommends one week to 10 days to get information in that instance." Docusign Envelope ID:C8E723E3-2B12-40AF-B37E-6AE9409FEA45 Property Identification: Property Owner 23 West 69th Street Corp. Appellant(if different) Michael Benak Property Address 1200 US 70 E I Parcel ID or Abstract 19875004490 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction value based on an income approach and comparable pharmacy sales. Current Assessed Value $3,713,100 ounty Opinion $3,713,100 Time of Hearin 1:05PM Appellant Opinion $3,199,412 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $3,713,100 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The income approach and sales of pharmacies support a lower valuation. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject is a Walgreens Pharmacy built in 2005 containing 11,984 square feet of gross building area and is assessed at$3,713,100 or$309.84 per square foot. The appellant's evidence was analyzed by the County and the County's commercial appraiser consultant. Based on both the analysis of the appellant evidence and evidence compiled by the County's commercial appraiser consultant(attached), it is the County's current assessed value is supported by the income approach and relevant pharmacy sales. No adjustment to the current assessed value is recommended. • Photograph of Subject • Location Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card of Subject • Commercial Appraiser Consultant Analysis Motion of the Board Accept County's Proposed Value: $3,713,100 No Change in Value Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Leon Meyers Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner DRE Investors LLC Appellant(if different) Mr. Patel Property Address 104 Mallette Street Parcel ID or Abstract 9788267431 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on the value of comparable properties. Current Assessed Value $4,252,800 County Opinion $4,252,800 Time of Hearin 1:46PM Appellant Opinion $2,000,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $4,252,800 No Change in Value Docusign Envelope ID:C8E723E3-2B12-40AF-B37E-6AE9409FEA45 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • I'm writing to request a reduction in Assessed Value for the above referenced parcel from $4,252,800 to below$2,000,000. This parcel's assessed value is inconsistent with assessments of similar properties and is based on the potential future use of the site instead of the existing use of the site as of January 1, 2025. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject is a.69 acre parking lot with frontage on both Mallette Street and Keenan Street. Per the County's commercial property appraisal consultant review,this appeal uses another "pieces and parts"equity argument. This was previously discussed in depth in regard to the appeal of 9778-66-6947 (501 W. Main Street). Grabbing an improved property land allocation from nearby for an appeal of land only is not"apples to apples" as the properties are fundamentally different. They also look at a tiny parking lot on Graham Street that is owned by the Town. That has 3 issues. 1.)Town owned properties are tax exempt, and may not be valued at their market value,thus also not"apples to apples". 2.)Graham Street is further from Campus and thus less attractive for student housing. 3.) The parking lot is much less developable in size and dimensions. Overall,there is very scant evidence to support the appeal. No real sales are provided, and the equity argument does not contain enough depth to have merit. • The County has provided a number of land sales in Chapel Hill and Carrboro from 2022-2024 that illustrates the subject's $141.50 value per square foot is well within range of indicated sales prices from the provided land sales. As a result,no adjustment to the current value is supported. • Photograph of Subject • Location Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card of Subject • Comparable Land Sales Appraisal Worksheet Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $4,252,800 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 Joseph P. Saponaro Appellant(if different) Property Address 2208 New Hope Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9882026124 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on an independent appraisal. Current Assessed Value $363,100 County Opinion $353,700 Time of Hearin 2:12PM Appellant Opinion $301,000 County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $353,700 Evidence submitted by the appellant: Docusign Envelope ID:C8E723E3-2B12-40AF-B37E-6AE9409FEA45 • As indicated by the attached appraisal,the highest and best use and concluded value of the subject property is its current use as combined with the adjacent two vacant lots(one of which is required to grant septic for any residential construction. This appraisal includes a copy of the assessor card with notes describing the limitation of the subject site to a 3-bedroom residence without the normally required repair area. Please see the attached appraisal. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Subject property is located at 2208 New Hope Drive,was built in 1957, and contains 1,628 square feet and was moved to the current location in 1991. The property was purchased in 2009 for$160,000 and was renovated including a pool addition 2018/2020 at$271,000 per Orange County building permits. • After reviewing the appraisal, Comp#1 1515 Indian Camp Road(NBC 6404) sold in January of 2025 for$325,000 and again in May of 2025 for$345,000 with no changes. Both sales are after the 2025 revaluation date of 01/01/2025 and cannot be considered. • Comp#2 3202 Shamrock Road(NBC 4009), a valid sale from a different neighborhood with a different land rate sold in November of 2024 for$430,000 with updates. • Comp#3 2110 New Hope Drive(NBC 7806), from the subject's neighborhood, sold in August of 2024 with minimal kitchen updates and window upgrades for$390,000. • After creating an analysis of properties that sold from NBC 7806,the County suggests reducing the effective year built from 2014 to 2009 creating a revised value of$353,700. • Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Photo of Subject • GIS Map Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $353,700 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Joseph P. Saponaro Appellant(if different) Property Address Lot 9, New Hope Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9882026282 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on the fact that the land is not buildable. Current Assessed Value $88,000 ounty Opinion $55,000 Time of Hearin 2:50PM Appellant Opinion Not provided County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $55,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: 9 Reduce the land due to not being buildable. Docusign Envelope ID:C8E723E3-2B12-40AF-B37E-6AE9409FEA45 • See attached information of cost and limits of a non-conventional septic system. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Subject property is a.56 acre vacant lot on New Hope Drive. This lot contains the septic system for 2208 New Hope Drive(Lot 8). and is valued at$88,000. After reviewing the submitted appraisal and land documents,the County suggests increasing the -20% land adjustment for development to -50%. This change will illustrate the consistency to 2208 New Hope's land value and is due to the lot not being able to sustain an additional livable improvement. This will create a revised value of$55,000. • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • GIS Map Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $55,000 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Patricia P. Saponaro Appellant(if different) Property Address Lot 7, New Hope Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9882025056 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on the fact that the property does not perc and an independent appraisal. Current Assessed Value $27,500 ounty Opinion $27,500 Time of Hearin 2:52PM Appellant Opinion $15,000 County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $27,500 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • I hired a broker who sold a similar lot for me on April 17, 2025,for$14,000. Both lots failed a perc test. Please see attached appraisal for details. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a.56 acre vacant lot that does not perk for improving . The lot has been assessed at the standard-75%no perk adjustment by the County. • An analysis of like properties has been created, and the evidence suggests no change in value. • Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Maps Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $27,500 No Change in Value Docusign Envelope ID:C8E723E3-2B12-40AF-B37E-6AE9409FEA45 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... ... Chair of the Signed by: Leon Meyers 11/13/2025 Recording Secre �TocuSigned by: Jennifer Rigsbee � � 11/13/2025