The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025_12_02 BOER Minutes Docusign Envelope ID:7407D742-46FF-40B4-9943-4A3D2B49D298 MINUTES Orange County Board of Equalization and Review Meeting held on December 2, 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: Real Property Appraisal Manager Roger Gunn Temporary praiser Assistant Rob Teachout Commercial Ap raisal Consultant Paul Snow Administrative Support I Vrinlli Flores Meeting Schedule: No. Time Appellant PIN or Abstract Appeared Appeal Type 1 9:02AM CAJF Associates LLC 9778548099 Remote Value-Real 2 9:45AM FWDA LLC 9799043366 Remote Value-Real 3 10:09AM North Estes LLC 9778996233 Remote Value-Real 4 10:39AM PNGA LLC 9890700067 Remote Value-Real 5 11:04AM RWJF Associates LLC 9778558604 Remote Value-Real 6 11:16AM RP Barnes LLC 9778731754 Remote Value-Real 7 10:30AM RP Barnes LLC 9778741062 Remote Value-Real 8 10:45AM RP Barnes LLC 9778734827 Remote Value-Real 9 11:00AM RP Barnes LLC 9778734362 Remote Value-Real 10 11:15AM RP Barnes LLC 9778644530 Remote Value-Real 11 11:57AM 7315 Oakwood Street 9824697043 Remote Value -Real Extension 12 11:45AM HD Development of Maryland 9873680800 Remote Value-Real Inc Time B Meeting called to order 9:02 AM Leon Meyers Meeting adjourned 12:10 PM Richal Vanhook Docusign Envelope ID:7407D742-46FF-40B4-9943-4A3D2B49D298 Property Identification: Property Owner CAN Associates LLC Appellant(if different) Debbie Askins, Ryan LLC Property Address 401 NC 54 Bypass Parcel ID or Abstract 9778548099 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on 2023 and 2024 financial documents income approach. Current Assessed Value $25,447,800 ounty Opinion $23,157,500 Time of Hearin 9:02 Appellant Opinion $19,800,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $23,157,500 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Based on 2023 and 2024 financial documents,the indicated value from the income approach is $14,719,328. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Similar to other projects in this ownership entity,the owners have been investing into updating units and property and the December 2024 rent roll shows a 5%higher income than the effective gross income from 2024. Based on the information supplied by the appellant and the County's income approach analysis(see attached), the property has an estimated value of $23,205,492. • As a result, the county recommends applying an E 11 economic market adjustment to the property which would reduce the value of the property from$25,447,800 to$23,157,500. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(22 pages) • Recommended Property Record Card(22 pages) • Income Approach Calculation Sheet Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $23,157,500 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Leon Meyers Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner FWDA LLC Appellant(if different) Debbie Askins, Ryan LLC Property Address 1521 E. Franklin Street Parcel ID or Abstract 9799043366 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on 2022,2023, and 2024 financial documents income approach. Docusign Envelope ID:7407D742-46FF-40B4-9943-4A3D2B49D298 Current Assessed Value $16,323,400 County Opinion $13,322,100 Time of Hearin 9:49 AM Appellant Opinion $11,392,500 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $13,322,100 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Based on 2022,2023, and 2024 financial documents,the indicated value from the income approach is $11,392,500. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The agent has used 2023 and 2024 Profit and Loss to generate their estimated value of $11,392,500 or$113,925 per unit. The property is older but is prime real estate in a walkable prime location. It is 99%occupied and looks to be well taken care of with plenty of maintenance and notable capital investment. The main issue is the capitalization cap rate. The agent uses 6.5%,which is near the top rate used in for apartments of this class in Chapel Hill. Based on actual rents and expenses,the capitalization rate should be lower. A 5.75%is used in the income approach below. $145,434 Monthly Rent(12/24 Rent Roll) ($6,356) Credit Loss $139,078 Monthly Net Rent $1,668,933 Effective Gross Income $29,206 Other Income @ 1.75%of EGI $1,698,139 EGI Adjusted ($679,256)Expenses at 40%of EGI adjusted. ($33,963)Reserves @ 2.00%of EGI adjusted. $984,921 Net Operating Income 5.75%Capitalization Rate 1.65%Loaded for Tax Rate 7.40%Loaded Rate $984,921/.074=$13,309,741 • Applying the Orange County schedule of values,the County recommends applying an E 19 economic market adjustment to the property which would reduce its value from$16,323,400 to $13,322,100. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(6 pages) • Proposed Property Record Card(6 pages) Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $13,322,100 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Docusign Envelope ID:7407D742-46FF-40B4-9943-4A3D2B49D298 Property Identification: Property Owner North Estes LLC Appellant(if different) Debbie Askins, Ryan LLC Property Address 306 Estes Drive Building Parcel ID or Abstract 9778996233 A Unit 1 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on 2022,2023, and 2024 financial documents income approach. Current Assessed Value $32,707,800 ounty Opinion $29,770,900 Time of Hearin 10:09 AM Appellant Opinion $22,019,400 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $28,000,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Based on 2022,2023, and 2024 financial documents,the indicated value from the income approach is $22,019,400. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The property has strengths and weaknesses. On the one hand it has smaller units than many complexes and is older. On the other hand,they have been putting good money into updating units and rents have consistently increased over the past 3 years. The December rent roll shows a forward looking 6%higher revenue as compared to 2024, so you would expect the value would be headed up in any pricing of the asset on January 1,2025. Based on forward looking income directly taken from the December 2024 rent roll,the value would look as shown in the attached Income Approach Calculation Sheet. A 6.25%capitalization rate was used because the property is moving forward and gaining value. That is not a low capitalization rate in this market. • As a result of this analysis,the County recommends changing the E03 economic market adjustment on the property to E13 which would reduce the current assessed value to $29,770,900. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(36 pages) • Recommended Property Record Card(36 pages) • Income Approach Calculation Sheet Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $28,000,000 Made the motion Leon Meyers Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Docusign Envelope ID:7407D742-46FF-40B4-9943-4A3D2B49D298 Property Identification: Property Owner PNGA LLC Appellant(if different) Debbie Askins, Ryan LLC Property Address 100 Pine ate Circle Parcel ID or Abstract 9890700067 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on 2022,2023, and 2024 financial documents income approach. Current Assessed Value $41,298,300 ounty Opinion $37,126,700 Time of Hearin 10:39 AM Appellant Opinion $31,288,289 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $35,800,00 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Based on 2022,2023, and 2024 fmancial documents, the indicated value from the income approach is $31,288,289. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Like other properties under this ownership entity,the owners have been investing in capital expenditures to keep the property competitive. The appellant supplied rent roll indicates rent increasing 8%+for 2025. Based on the information supplied by the appellant and the County's income approach analysis (see attached), the property has an estimated value of$41,298,300. • As a result, the county recommends increasing the E01 economic market adjustment on the property to El I which would reduce the value of the property from $41,298,300 to $37,126,700. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(22 pages) • Proposed Property Record Card(22 pages) • Income Approach Calculation Sheet Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $35,800,00 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner RWJF Associates LLC Appellant(if different) Debbie Askins, Ryan LLC Property Address 404 Jones Ferry Road Parcel ID or Abstract 9778558604 Building A Unit 1 Docusign Envelope ID:7407D742-46FF-40B4-9943-4A3D2B49D298 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on 2022,2023, and 2024 financial documents income approach. Current Assessed Value $17,120,100 ounty Opinion $16,255,700 Time of Hearin 11:04 AM Appellant Opinion $12,109,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $16,255,700 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Based on 2022,2023, and 2024 financial documents, the indicated value from the income approach is $12,109,000. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Like other properties under this ownership entity,the owners have been investing in capital expenditures to keep the property competitive. The appellant supplied rent roll indicates rent increasing for 2025. Based on the information supplied by the appellant and the County's income approach analysis (see attached), the property has an estimated value of$16,325,602. • As a result, the county recommends increasing the E01 economic market adjustment on the property to E06 which would reduce the value of the property from$17,120,100 to $16,255,700. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(18 pages) • Proposed Property Record Card(18 pages) • Income Approach Calculation Sheet Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $16,255,700 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner RP Barnes LLC Appellant(if different) Debbie Askins, Ryan LLC Property Address 501 NC 54 Bypass Parcel ID or Abstract 9778731754 Building A Unit 1 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on 2023 and 2024 financial documents' collective indicated value of five parcels containing two apartment complexes owned by the same appellant and operated as one economic unit. Current Assessed Value $26,187,700 ounty Opinion $21,381,800 Time of Hearin 11:16 AM Appellant Opinion $17,864,597 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $21,381,800 Docusign Envelope ID:7407D742-46FF-40B4-9943-4A3D2B49D298 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The subject is one of five parcels containing two apartment complexes owned by the same appellant and operated as one economic unit. Based on 2023 and 2024 financial documents, the collective indicated value for all five parcels is$33,433,471 with$17,864,597 attributable to this parcel. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Like the appellant,the County analyzed the 5 parcels collectively as one economic unit and based on the County's income analysis as contained in the attached Income Approach and Parcel Value Allocation Sheet,the collective value of the five parcels is $40,001,542 with a value of$21,374,133 being attributable to the subject property. • As a result, the County recommends increasing the land market adjustment from Mkt-37 to Mkt-38 and also applying an E18 economic market adjustment to the property's component values which will reduce the overall value of the subject from$26,187,700 to$21,381,800. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(32 pages) • Proposed Property Record Card(32 pages) • Income Approach and Parcel Value Allocation Sheet Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $21,381,800 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner RP Barnes LLC Appellant(if different) Debbie Askins, Ryan LLC Property Address 501 NC 54 Bypass Parcel ID or Abstract 9778741062 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on 2023 and 2024 financial documents' collective indicated value of five parcels containing two apartment complexes owned by the same appellant and operated as one economic unit. Current Assessed Value $467,100 ounty Opinion $383,000 Time of Hearin 11:16 AM Appellant Opinion $318,644 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $383,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The subject is one of five parcels containing two apartment complexes owned by the same appellant and operated as one economic unit. Based on 2023 and 2024 financial documents, the collective indicated value for all five parcels is $33,433,471 with$318,644 attributable to this parcel. Docusign Envelope ID:7407D742-46FF-40B4-9943-4A3D2B49D298 Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Like the appellant,the County analyzed the 5 parcels collectively as one economic unit and based on the County's income analysis as contained in the attached Income Approach and Parcel Value Allocation Sheet,the collective value of the five parcels is $40,001,542 with a value of$381,242 being attributable to the subject property. • As a result, the County recommends increasing the property's E50 economic market adjustment E59 which will reduce the overall value of the subject from$467,100 to $383,000. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(2 pages) • Proposed Property Record Card(2 pages) • Income Approach and Parcel Value Allocation Sheet Motion of the Board Accept County's Proposed Value: $383,000 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner RP Barnes LLC Appellant(if different) Debbie Askins, Ryan LLC Property Address 2.15 acres on King Street Parcel ID or Abstract 9778734827 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on 2023 and 2024 financial documents' collective indicated value of five parcels containing two apartment complexes owned by the same appellant and operated as one economic unit. Current Assessed Value $269,600 ounty Opinion $223,200 Time of Hearin 11:16 AM Appellant Opinion $183,914 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $223,200 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The subject is one of five parcels containing two apartment complexes owned by the same appellant and operated as one economic unit. Based on 2023 and 2024 financial documents, the collective indicated value for all five parcels is$33,433,471 with$183,914 attributable to this parcel. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Like the appellant,the County analyzed the 5 parcels collectively as one economic unit and based on the County's income analysis as contained in the attached Income Approach and Parcel Value Allocation Sheet,the collective value of the five parcels is $40,001,542 with a value of$220,045 being attributable to the subject property. Docusign Envelope ID:7407D742-46FF-40B4-9943-4A3D2B49D298 • As a result, the County recommends increasing the property's MKT -90%land adjustment to MKT-92%which will reduce the overall value of the subject from$269,600 to$223,200. • Location Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(2 pages) • Proposed Property Record Card(2 pages) • Income Approach and Parcel Value Allocation Sheet Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $223,200 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner RP Barnes LLC Appellant(if different) Debbie Askins, Ryan LLC Property Address .08 acre on NC 54 Bypass Parcel ID or Abstract 9778734362 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on 2023 and 2024 financial documents' collective indicated value of five parcels containing two apartment complexes owned by the same appellant and operated as one economic unit. Current Assessed Value $28,500 ounty Opinion $23,300 Time of Hearin 11:16 AM Appellant Opinion $19,442 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $23,300 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The subject is one of five parcels containing two apartment complexes owned by the same appellant and operated as one economic unit. Based on 2023 and 2024 financial documents, the collective indicated value for all five parcels is$33,433,471 with$19,442 attributable to this parcel. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Like the appellant,the County analyzed the 5 parcels collectively as one economic unit and based on the County's income analysis as contained in the attached Income Approach and Parcel Value Allocation Sheet,the collective value of the five parcels is $40,001,542 with a value of$23,261 being attributable to the subject property. • As a result, the County recommends increasing the property's MKT -67%land adjustment to MKT-73%which will reduce the overall value of the subject from$28,500 to$23,300. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(2 pages) • Proposed Property Record Card(2 pages) • Income Approach and Parcel Value Allocation Sheet Docusign Envelope ID:7407D742-46FF-40B4-9943-4A3D2B49D298 Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $23,300 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner RP Barnes LLC Appellant(if different) Debbie Askins, Ryan LLC Property Address 200 Barnes Street Building Parcel ID or Abstract 9778644530 A Unit 1 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on 2023 and 2024 financial documents' collective indicated value of five parcels containing two apartment complexes owned by the same appellant and operated as one economic unit. Current Assessed Value $22,057,200 ounty Opinion $17,866,500 Time of Hearin 11:16 AM Appellant Opinion $15,046,873 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $17,866,500 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The subject is one of five parcels containing two apartment complexes owned by the same appellant and operated as one economic unit. Based on 2023 and 2024 financial documents, the collective indicated value for all five parcels is$33,433,471 with$15,046,873 attributable to this parcel. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Like the appellant,the County analyzed the 5 parcels collectively as one economic unit and based on the County's income analysis as contained in the attached Income Approach and Parcel Allocation Sheet,the collective value of the five parcels is $40,001,542 with a value of $18,002,861 being attributable to the subject property. • As a result, the County recommends applying an E19 economic market adjustment to the property's value which will reduce the value of the subject from$22,057,200 to$17,866,500. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(20 pages) • Proposed Property Record Card(20 pages) • Income Approach and Parcel Value Allocation Sheet Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $17,866,500 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Docusign Envelope ID:7407D742-46FF-40B4-9943-4A3D2B49D298 Property Identification: Property Owner AKG North America Inc Appellant(if different) Greg Bandemer, Ryan LLC Property Address 7315 Oakwood Street Parcel ID or Abstract 9824697043 Extension Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on the appellant's pro-forma income approach calculations. Current Assessed Value $16,604,500 ounty Opinion $16,604,500 Time of Hearin 11:57 AM Appellant Opinion $13,047,900 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $16,604,500 No change in value Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Based on the appellant's pro-forma income approach calculations,the subject has a value of $13,047,900. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Based on the County's detailed sales and income analyses (see attached),the County concludes that no adjustment to value is supported. • Location Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(24 pages) • Sales and Income Approach Analyses Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $16,604,500 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 HD Development of Appellant(if different) John Cumbie, Maryland Inc Ryan LLC Property Address 625 Hampton Pointe Parcel ID or Abstract 9873680800 Boulevard • Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on Cost Approach and equity comparables pointing to a lower valuation. Current Assessed Value $10,460,000 County Opinion $10,460,000 Time of Hearing 12:18 PM Appellant Opinion $8,185,780 Docusign Envelope ID:7407D742-46FF-40B4-9943-4A3D2B49D298 County Representative I Roger Gunn Board Decision $10,460,000 No chan a in value Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Cost Approach and equity comparables point to a lower valuation. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • No adjustment to value is supported. • Location Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card • Appraiser Consultant's Analysis Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $10,460,000 No change in value Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Chair of the Board's.9�ed bY: Leon Meyers L---,6D4FE... 12/29/2025 Recording Sec grjy;bY: Rob Teachout 94�u� fi 4 12/29/2025 Docusign Envelope ID: B280D705-EADF-4415-899E-F125316E835B MINUTES Orange County Board of Equalization and Review Meeting held on December 2, 2025 Board Members in attendance: Chair of the Board Leon Meyers Yes Regular Member Saru Salvi No 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 Yes Alternate Member Barbara Levine No Orange County Staff in attendance: Administrative Assistant Vrinlli Flores Deputy Tax Assessor Chad Phillips Real Property Appraisal Manager Roger Gunn Chief Appraiser Kelly Wells Temporary Appraiser Assistant Rob Teachout Commercial Appraisal Consultant Paul Snow Meeting Schedule: No. Time Appellant PIN or Abstract Appeared Appeal Type 1 1:16PM KRE Hip Loft Chapel Hill Owner 9798345972.001 No Value-Real LLC 2 1:33PM Glen Lennox Phase Two Land 9798269502 Remote Value-Real LLC 3 1:40PM Glen Lennox Phase Two Land 9798268290 Remote Value-Real LLC 4 1:51PM CHI 54 LLC 9798730033 Yes Value-Real 5 2:13PM CHI Europa LLC 9799478402 Yes Value-Real 6 2:22PM Tarheel Lodging LLC 9799461693 Yes Value-Real 7 2:31PM Tarheel Lodging Flag Lot LLC 9799462939 Yes Value-Real 8 2:41PM Tarheel Lodging II LLC 9778969391.002 Yes Value-Real 9 Chateau Apartments NC LLC 9778370093 Remote Value-Real 10 2:58PM Environs at East 54 LLC 9798345972.134- Remote Value-Real 191 11 3:37PM 9863892477 No Value -Real Time B Meeting called to order I 1:09PM Leon Meyers Docusign Envelope ID: B280D705-EADF-4415-899E-F125316E835B Meeting adjourned 3:45PM Richal Vanhook Property Identification: Property Owner KRE Hip Loft Chapel Hill Appellant(if different) Owner LLC Property Address I 1001 S. Hamilton Road Parcel ID or Abstract 9798345972.001 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on analysis of 2024's actual income capitalized at 10.65%suggesting a lower valuation. Current Assessed Value $11,355,400 ounty Opinion $11,355,400 Time of Hearin 1:16 PM Appellant Opinion $8,200,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $11,355,400 No change in value Evidence submitted by the appellant: • An analysis of 2024's actual income capitalized at 10.65% suggests a lower valuation of $8,200,000. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The tax appeal is not supported for several reasons. 1. Please note that the appellant has only provided only one year of income and expenses, which weakens the appeal. No trending can be seen when there is only one year of Profits &Losses. There are some line-item expenses that could be questioned, and it would be easier to analyze them with more information rather than snapshot data. 2. The appellant included personal property taxes in their pro-forma expenses. This is inappropriate. The capitalization rate is loaded to account for taxes and thus,taxes should be removed. If removed Net Operating Income would be higher. This historical Net Operating Income without property taxes removed is shown in the assessor's sheet. There is another inappropriate deduction for personal property on page 5,where the income attributed to personal property is removed prior to a lump sum adjustment deduction for personal property. Only one deduction can be made,not repeated ones for the same item. 3. It is well worth noting that the property sold in 2021 for$15,169,000($117,000 per room) and the agent is asking for an assessment of only$9,275,074 prior to deduction of personal property, which is $71,000 per room. There are multiple sources that discuss how the hotel market has rebounded since Covid including this one: "Value appreciation: According to HVS, an investor acquiring a hotel in 2021 could expect a 28%increase in value by 2025,based on current market conditions." The Counties Assessed Value is $11,355,400 or$87,000 per room is low by this comparison against the previous price,but a more reasonable number than the one suggested by the agent. 4. There are no sales analyzed by the rep,but the property does not look at all like a low value property. • Based on sales of comparable hotels in the Triangle,the subject would have an indication of value of$16,036,268. After deduction of 2025 Orange County business personal value of $858,559,the indication of value for the real estate would be $15,177,709, well above the Docusign Envelope ID: B280D705-EADF-4415-899E-F125316E835B current assessed value of$11,355,400. As a result,the County feels the current assessed value is well supported. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(6 pages) • Subject and Comparable Sales Photos(6 pages) • Comparable Sales Sheet • Photos of Triangle Sales 60,000 to$80,000 per room • Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill Hospitality Market Report Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $11,355,400 No change in value Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Glen Lennox Phase Two Appellant(if different) Morgan Fowler, Land LLC Ryan LLC Property Address 0.93-acre parcel between Parcel ID or Abstract 9798269502 Hamilton Road and Maxwell Road Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on sales of comparable properties. Current Assessed Value $1,944,500 County Opinion $1,944,500 Time of Hearin 1:33 PM Ap ellant Opinion $1,150,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $1,944,500 No change in value Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Based on sales of comparable properties,the subject has an indicated value of$1,150,000. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property constitutes Block 4 and a portion of Block 5 of the Glenn Lennox Master Plan as indicated in the Glen Lennox Area Neighborhood Conservation District Plan for CD- SC as adopted by the Chapel Hill Town Council on May 30, 2012. According to the zoning overlay, as well as the height amendment approved in 2021,Block 4 is approved for up to 6 stories. In 2022 Block 4 was approved for the Link Apartments Calyx II, a 291-unit complex. • Approval of the CD-8C overlay, as well as the Glenn Lennox Master Plan represents the culmination of a tremendous amount of entrepreneurial effort going back as far as 2010. As a result,the land is now heavily entitled,with broad options for development ranging based on block between commercial, office,residential, and mixed-use with heights up to 8 stories based on block. Any reasonable market participant would expect to be compensated or pay for the effort required to gain this approval and the time involved. Docusign Envelope ID: B280D705-EADF-4415-899E-F125316E835B • The appellant has provided a pieces and parts equity argument based on six comparable properties. Three of the comparables provided include allocated values of improved property, while two do not have zoning/entitlements consistent with those of the subject property. The remaining comparable is that of 19 Maxwell Rd,which is under the same master plan as the subject property and is assessed at a similar value. This poor equity argument is then combined with sales of the same properties,two of which occurred after the lien date(201 Village Centre Dr& 1708-1712 Legion Rd)and one of which(19 Maxwell Rd) appears to have been a related party transaction between companies owned by the owner of the subject property in question. • The result of a reconciliation of such inconsistent data cannot sustain a consistency argument such as that being presented by the appellant. Consequently,no adjustment can be supported. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(24 pages) • Comparable Sales Analysis Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $1,944,500 No change in value Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Glen Lennox Phase Two Appellant(if different) Morgan Fowler, Land LLC Ryan LLC Property Address 2 Maxwell Road Parcel ID or Abstract 9798268290 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on sales of comparable properties. Current Assessed Value $5,896,300 ounty Opinion $5,896,300 Time of Hearin 1:40 PM Appellant Opinion $3,500,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $5,896,300 No change in value Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Based on sales of comparable properties,the subject has an indicated value of$3,500,000. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property constitutes Block 4 and a portion of Block 5 of the Glenn Lennox Master Plan as indicated in the Glen Lennox Area Neighborhood Conservation District Plan for CD- 8C as adopted by the Chapel Hill Town Council on May 30, 2012. According to the zoning overlay, as well as the height amendment approved in 2021,Block 4 is approved for up to 6 stories. In 2022 Block 4 was approved for the Link Apartments Calyx 11, a 291-unit complex. • Approval of the CD-8C overlay, as well as the Glenn Lennox Master Plan represents the culmination of a tremendous amount of entrepreneurial effort going back as far as 2010. As a result,the land is now heavily entitled,with broad options for development ranging based on block between commercial, office,residential, and mixed-use with heights up to 8 stories based Docusign Envelope ID: B280D705-EADF-4415-899E-F125316E835B on block. Any reasonable market participant would expect to be compensated or pay for the effort required to gain this approval and the time involved. • The appellant has provided a pieces and parts equity argument based on six comparable properties. Three of the comparables provided include allocated values of improved property, while two do not have zoning/entitlements consistent with those of the subject property. The remaining comparable is that of 19 Maxwell Rd,which is under the same master plan as the subject property and is assessed at a similar value. This poor equity argument is then combined with sales of the same properties,two of which occurred after the lien date(201 Village Centre Dr& 1708-1712 Legion Rd)and one of which(19 Maxwell Rd) appears to have been a related party transaction between companies owned by the owner of the subject property in question. • The result of a reconciliation of such inconsistent data cannot sustain a consistency argument such as that being presented by the appellant. Consequently,no adjustment can be supported. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card (24 pages) • Comparable Sales Analysis Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $5,896,300 No change in value Made the motion Shannon Julian Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner CHI 54 LLC Appellant(if different) Property Address 100 Marriott Way Parcel ID or Abstract 9798730033 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on condition, parking location, and comparable property values. Current Assessed Value $19,223,100 ounty Opinion $19,233,100 Time of Hearin 1:51 PM Appellant Opinion $12,633,336 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $19,233,100 No change in value Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The property needs to be fully renovated to meet Marriott requirements but at this point has not been renovated due to lack of business caused by Covid and the disruptions at the Friday Center which provide a significant portion of the demand for this property. • The value placed on the property is inconsistent with other similarly situated hotels in Chapel Hill. The Marriott Aloft located at 1001 Hamilton Road,Chapel Hill,NC, which is much newer than the subject property is valued at$87,349 per room but somehow the subject property is valued at$113,807 per room. Similarly,the newly built Tru by Hilton located at 1742 Fordham Blvd is valued at $87,306 per room. Using the higher of these two numbers the Courtyard would be valued at$14,762,020. However, this value still overstates the value of the hotel because both the Aloft and Tru have all their parking in Orange County and the tax value Docusign Envelope ID: B280D705-EADF-4415-899E-F125316E835B includes the value of the parking. The subject property however is bifurcated by the Durham/Orange County line and a significant portion of the parking lot for the subject property is in Durham and Durham has placed a tax value of$2,128,684 of this parking. This should be backed out of the value of the subject property resulting in a new value of$12,633,336. In addition,the Aloft is located within a vibrant mixed-use development with shopping and food outlets making it more attractive to visitors. The Tru is in the new Blue Hill district which also makes it more attractive to travelers. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The owner has made three primary arguments. The first is an equity argument. There is no support for an equity argument on a commercial property when commercial properties are quite different, and we do not have income and expense numbers provided for the appellant's equity comparables. Additionally, I always take note when there is an equity argument and no income/expense data provided for the subject. The County agrees that the Tru by Hilton on Fordham Blvd is probably under-assessed. The County also notes that we were provided income and expenses on Aloft,but not on the Tru by Hilton or the subject Courtyard by Marriott. • The indicated value from comparable sales in the attached Comparable Sales Sheet indicates a total property value of$22,417,995 for the property. However, as 3.06 acres of the property is located in Durham County,the Durham County assigned value of$2,128,684 should be removed from this amount as well as the$1,087,631 of Orange County 2025 business personal property value for a value of the Orange County real property of$19,201,680. As this value is 99.8%of the current assessed value of$19,233,100,no change to the current assessed value is supported. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record • Sales Value Sheet Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $19,233,100 No change in value Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For Voted Against Leon Meyers Property Identification: FP—ro—perty Owner CHI Europa LLC Appellant Rf different Property Address 1 Europa Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 19799478402 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on deduction of items taxed as personal property, age of property, depreciation/maintenance, 2024 EBITDA,brand value,and grade/condition. Docusign Envelope ID: B280D705-EADF-4415-899E-F125316E835B Current Assessed Value $18,061,700 County Opinion $18,061,700 Time of Hearin 2:13 PM Appellant Opinion $11,606,552 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $18,061,700 No change in value Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The value of the furniture, fixtures and equipment which are taxed as personal property need to be deducted from the value of the hotel. Per the tax card the value of the personal property for the hotel is $3,164,330. • The property is 45-year-old and expensive to operate due to its age and inefficient design. Utilities alone for this hotel cost 348k in 2024 compared to a newer similar size hotel which costs under$200k per year. • Ongoing maintenance and replacement of depreciated items are estimated to cost 8%of revenues per annum compared to 4%often used for newer properties. Simply put, older hotels are considerably more expensive to maintain due to aging backbone systems. • The EBITDA for the hotel for year end 2024 adjusted for an 8%replacement and maintenance reserve is approximately $1.1M which utilizing a 10%capitalization rate results in a value of $11,606,552. From this value you subtract the personal property which is taxed separately and valued at$3,164,330 which equals our opinion of value. If the proposed tax value offered by the County already excludes personal property for the hotel,then the owner's opinion of value is $11,606,552. • A portion of the value of the hotel is intangible personal property related to the Marriott brand, which is not real property and needs to be deducted from the value of the property. This has not been taken into consideration in the owner's opinion of value. • The property is 45 years old and its mechanical, plumbing, and electrical backbone systems are generally original to the hotel. While the hotel has been renovated to upgrade its interior and certain mechanical systems have been replaced, the building itself remains inefficient and in many ways functionally obsolete. A significant portion of the building(former Shula's restaurant and the related kitchen) is unused due to obsolete design. The cost to maintain this hotel is double the cost to maintain newer hotels. This space is unusable without considerable expense. • The property is in C quality and below average in condition due to its age design. The interior finishes in the property are new as is the personal property in the hotel but most of the backbone of the hotel is original. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The County has provided some similar sales comparables. The first two are very similar full- service hotels. All data points to a value more than$100,000 per key. Also,the recent investment in the hotel by the owner is $24,000,000(see notes in the attached sheet) and https://chapelboro.com/news/business/sheraton-chapel-hill-reopens-after-15m-renovation- embraces-carolina-community. • 1 have prepared some sales comparables to review. The first two are very similar full-service hotels. All data points to a value more than$100,000 per key. • All sales include FF&E(business personal property. The indicated sales comparison value of $22,285,344 less the 2025 Orange County business personal property value of$2,416,377 yields an indicated real property value of$19,868,967 which exceeds the current real property valuation of$18,061,700. As a result,no change in value is recommended. • GIS Map of Subject Docusign Envelope ID: B280D705-EADF-4415-899E-F125316E835B • Current Property Record Card • Sales Comparison Approach Value Sheet Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $18,061,700 No change in value Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Tarheel Lodging LLC Appellant(if different) Property Address 1740 Fordham Boulevard Parcel ID or Abstract 9799461693 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on condition(demolition of everything except underground and footings). Current Assessed Value $5,443,200 ounty Opinion $5,443,200 Time of Hearin 2:22 PM Appellant Opinion $1,448,831 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $5,443,200 No change in value Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The property has footings and foundation of the hotel that was on the property until late 2024. The motel was demolished due to problems with it becoming a homeless encampment and due to vandalism. • The Quality Inn hotel was located on the site but due to problems with homeless taking shelter in the closed hotel and vandalism,prior to the end of 2024 we had the hotel buildings(but not the foundations or underground) demolished to eliminate the security issues for the area. At the time the property was valued at$3,824,200 which allocated$1,825,00 to the 3.65 acres of land and$1,920,800 to the building. The land value equated to $500,000 per acre. With the last revaluation,the land for the Sheraton hotel which is company with which we are involved owned by an affiliate of our company is valued at$1,984,700 for 5 acres or$396,800 per acre. We believe the land should be valued at the same per acre price as the Sheraton property or$1,448,320. Additionally,the size and dimensions of the property make redevelopment of the site less suitable for immediate re-development. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The owner is appealing three contiguous parcels. The two vacant parcels should be looked at together and are looked at here. The owner has made two arguments: 1. The properties (especially 9799462939)are strangely configured and will not be easy to develop. The entitlement of the property shows 5-story buildings on almost all of it, so it does seem like it is able to be developed well. Docusign Envelope ID: B280D705-EADF-4415-899E-F125316E835B 2. An equity argument based on the land/building allocation from a single property that has a different zoning than this and is being used for a hotel while this parcel is in process of being a dense multifamily site. The property referenced is 9799478402,the Sheraton Hotel which GIS shows as having a land value of $1,984,700 for 5 acres or$396,800 per acre. Please note that the land would be valued at$3,482,012 but was adjusted to its current value by application of an E43 market adjustment to adjust the overall market value of all components equally in the CAMA system. • The appellant additionally mentions that they have old foundations in the ground but provide no evidence on the cost of removal. • The parcels they are appealing(9799461693, 9799462939)has a massive ongoing entitlement of three sites(the third is a hotel site that is already developed), each of which is under appeal and in combination will support: • Proposed Floor Area: 397,523 total sq. ft. (312,037 square feet of residential)in 5- story buildings with a wrapped parking deck. • Proposed Dwelling Units: 283. The parcels they are appealing(9799461693, 9799462939)a massive ongoing entitlement of three sites (the third is a hotel site that is already developed), each of which is under appeal and in combination will support: A copy of the development plan is included. Please note that both parcels have 5 story buildings on them. • Overall parcel 9799461693 is assessed at$5,443,200 or$33/square foot,which is at the lower end of the range of nearby comparable sales. The assessment is supported by sales. Parcel 9799462939 received a 40% downward adjustment for utility and is assessed at$20/square foot. Based on the plans for the property it is certainly usable, but justifies the lower assessment per Square foot. • As a result of the County's analysis,no change in vale for either PIN 9799461693 or 9799462939 is supported. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card • Land Sales Value Sheet • Development Plans Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $5,443,200 No change in value Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Docusign Envelope ID: B280D705-EADF-4415-899E-F125316E835B Property Owner Tarheel Lodging Flag Lot Appellant(if different) LLC Property Address 0.85-acre parcel on Parcel ID or Abstract 9799462939 Service Road Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on parcel utility(no road frontage). Current Assessed Value $740,000 ounty Opinion $740,000 Time of Hearin 2:31 PM Appellant Opinion $100,537 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $590,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • This is a remnant parcel with limited uses given its configuration and shape. The parcel has no road frontage and the cost to gain access to the parcel would be greater than the value of the parcel itself. The parcel is located behind the quick lube oil change store. This parcel carried a tax value of$66,800 in the last revaluation and$44,500 in the prior revaluation. Its underlying zoning has not changed since the last valuation but somehow the new tax value has gone up 1 OX. Attached is a survey showing the parcel so you can see the odd shape and location. The owner opinion of value was derived by multiplying the percentage increase in the parcel revaluation in the 2021 cycle compared to the prior cycle. This parcel will have limited to no value until the adjacent parcel owned by Tarheel Lodging LLC is redeveloped. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The owner is appealing three contiguous parcels. The two vacant parcels should be looked at together and are looked at here. The owner has made two arguments: 1. The properties (especially 9799462939)are strangely configured and will not be easy to develop. The entitlement of the property shows 5-story buildings on almost all of it, so it does seem like it is able to be developed well. 2. An equity argument based on the land/building allocation from a single property that has a different zoning than this and is being used for a hotel while this parcel is in process of being a dense multifamily site. The property referenced is 9799478402,the Sheraton Hotel which GIS shows as having a land value of$1,984,700 for 5 acres or$396,800 per acre. Please note that the land would be valued at$3,482,012 but was adjusted to its current value by application of an E43 market adjustment to adjust the overall market value of all components equally in the CAMA system. • The appellant additionally mentions that they have old foundations in the ground but provide no evidence on the cost of removal. • The parcels they are appealing(9799461693, 9799462939)has a massive ongoing entitlement of three sites (the third is a hotel site that is already developed), each of which is under appeal and in combination will support: ➢ Proposed Floor Area: 397,523 total square feet(312,037 sq. ft. of residential) in 5- story buildings with a wrapped parking deck. ➢ Proposed Dwelling Units: 283. A copy of the development plan is included. Please note that both parcels have 5 story buildings on them. • Overall parcel 9799461693 is assessed at$5,443,200 or$33/square foot,which is at the lower end of the range of nearby comparable sales. The assessment is supported by sales. Parcel 9799462939 received a 40%downward adjustment for utility and is assessed at$20/s uare Docusign Envelope ID: B280D705-EADF-4415-899E-F125316E835B foot. Based on the plans for the property it is certainly usable, but justifies the lower assessment per square foot. • As a result of the County's analysis,no change in vale for either PIN 9799461693 or 9799462939 is supported. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card • Land Sales Value Sheet • Development Plans Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: 1 $590,000 General value adjustment Made the motion Leon Meyers Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Tarheel Lodging 11 LLC Appellant(if different Property Address 370 East Main Street,Unit Parcel ID or Abstract 9778969391.002 100 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on an argument about equity based on one other hotel. Current Assessed Value $18,070,900 ounty Opinion $16,899,400 Time of Hearin 2:41 PM Appellant Opinion $14,983,337 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $16,899,400 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • There are only two non-boutique franchised hotels in the downtown area: the AC Marriott built in 2017, and the Hampton Inn& Suites built in 2012. The Hampton is classified by STR(the standard rating company in the hospitality industry) as an upper mid-scale limited-service hotel while the AC is an upscale full-service hotel offering food and beverage as well as a cocktail bar. In the prior revaluation cycle,the tax value of the AC Hotel was $119,854 per room and the Hampton Inn& Suites was$101,009 per room. This $18,845 delta in the prior revaluation properly reflected the difference in locations, age,brand scale and service levels. The tax value of the Hampton is broken into two tax cards due to its parking being provided in the adjacent parking garage condominium. In this newest valuation,the Hampton's tax value was increased 33.2%to $134,588 per room(this includes the $1,013,600 ascribed to the parking for the Hampton)while the AC was only increased 11.32%to$133,420 per room. The AC's parking is located underneath the building so is not taxed separately. This change in tax values now values the Hampton more than the AC Marriott,which is inequitable and does not properly discount the Hampton's relative lower value considering inferior location, age,lower brand scale, and lower service levels; something the prior valuation properly discounted for. At a maximum,the tax value of the Hampton should not be increased by any more than 11.32% from its prior value which would result in a value of$112,443 per key or$15,966,937 Docusign Envelope ID: B280D705-EADF-4415-899E-F125316E835B inclusive of the parking which is tax valued at$1,013,600. Without the parking the Hampton's value would be$14,983,337 with the remaining value being on the tax card for the parking. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The agent makes an argument about equity based on one other hotel, feels like the increase is too steep and provides no income information for the properties. The agent's estimate of value is at the bottom of the range of sales (all of which have lower rack rates than the Hampton they are appealing). • The attached Sales Value sheet shows an indicated value for the subject and associated parking on PIN 9788060110.002 at $19,044,455. After deducting the $1,013,600 value of parking on PIN 9788060110.002 and the $1,057,594 value of the subject's 2025 Orange County Business Personal Property,the indication of value for the subject's real estate is $16,973,261. • As a result of the County's analysis and appellant evidence,the County recommends reclassifying the hotel from a full-service hotel with an A+20 grade to a limited-service hotel with an A grade and changing the E31 economic modifier to E09 for a revised value of $16,899,400 or$119,010 per room. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(8 pages) • Proposed Property Record Card(8 pages) • Sales Value Sheet Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $16,899,400 Made the motion Shannon Julian Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Chateau Apartments NC Appellant(if different) Morgan Fowler, LLC Ryan LLC Property Address 1201 NC 54 Bypass Parcel ID or Abstract 9778370093 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on 2022,2023, and 2024 financial documents; the indicated value from the income approach. Current Assessed Value $18,363,000 ounty Opinion $17,628,500 Time of Hearin 2:58 PM Appellant Opinion $16,556,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $17,628,500 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Based on 2022,2023, and 2024 financial documents,the indicated value from the income approach is $17,672,400. [amended by appellant at hearing to $16,556,000(adjusted 5.75% cap rate to 6.25%)]. Docusign Envelope ID: B280D705-EADF-4415-899E-F125316E835B Evidence submitted by the county representative: • 2024 NOI is$1,043,847 after taxes and the agent uses a loaded cap rate of 7.4153%to estimate a property value of$17,672,400. That is below the 2021 sale at$18,715,000 with a 5.73%cap rate. In general, apartments rose in value until mid-2022 and then fell due to rising interest rates only to rise in value again due to rising rents and some relief to rates by the date of January 1, 2025. Overall,the previous sale is indicative of the general value range for this property. • The agent used a 5.75% capitalization rate, which is lower than the cap rate used to establish the current value and is reasonable for a property that is in an "improvement cycle". The County's analysis of the property's financial data is below: • 2024 Gross Income $2,395,000 Less Vacancy ($119,750) 5% Concessions ($35,925) 2% Bad Debt($23,950) 1% Loss to Lease ($71,850) 3% Other Income $167,650 7%$2,311,175 Expenses ($855,135) 37% Reserves ($69,335) 3.0%Total Expenses ($924,470) Net Operating Income $1,386,705 Capitalization Rate 6.25%Tax Rate 1.67%Total OAR 7.92% Indicated RE FMV$17,519,298 Agent's Value $17,672,400 • Based on this County's analysis and a reasonable request by the appellant, the County recommends applying an E04 economic market adjustment to the property which would reduce its value from $18,363,000 to$17,628,500. Motion of the Board Accept County's Proposed Value: $17,628,500 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Environs at East 54 LLC Appellant(if different) Morgan Fowler, Ryan LLC Property Address 5008 Environ Way(58 Parcel ID or Abstract 9798345972.134-191 individual condominium units) Statement of Appeal: 58 individual units. Request reduction in value based on income as of 9/25. Current Assessed Value Total: County Opinion $13,812,700 -No change in $13,812,700 value for each individual unit Time of Hearin 3:11 PM Appellant Opinion Total: $10,575,000 County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $13,812,700 -No change in value for each individual unit Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Opinion of value based on income as of 9/25. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The County argues that its assessed value of$13,812,700 is well supported by market data and proper valuation methods,noting that the appellant relied on flawed assumptions—including Docusign Envelope ID: B280D705-EADF-4415-899E-F125316E835B an unreallistic 6%cap rate, the use of leased rather than market rents that ignore vacant units, and the exclusion of substantial other income and accurate tenant fee reimbursements—making the appellant's pro forma inconsistent with true market value. Comparable sales also support the assessment, as the subject property's per-unit value is near the low end of the relevant range. Additionally,the current assessment reflects only a 2%increase from the 2016 purchase price despite rising rents,whereas the appellant's proposed value represents an unsupported 8.5%decrease; given the property's relative newness and expected appreciation,the County concludes that the appellant has not met the burden of evidence required to justify a lower valuation. • Individual Unit Information • Image of subjects • GIS Map • Analysis provided by consulting Commercial Appraiser Motion of the Board Accept County's Proposed Value: $13,812,700 -No change in value for each individual unit Made the motion Shannon Julian Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Rainbow Hospitality LLC Appellant(if different) Property Address 202 Cardinal Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 19863892477 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on consideration of Income Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, and Cost Approach. Current Assessed Value $5,784,800 ounty Opinion 1 $4,700,100 Time of Hearin 3:37 PM Appellant Opinion $2,531,491 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $4,700,100 Evidence submitted by the appellant: We respectfully disagree with the current assessed value for Rainbow Hospitality,LLC(Parcel ID: 9863892477)and request a reassessment to reflect a more accurate market valuation. This property is a Holiday Inn Express,Midscale class hotel in Orange County with 42,250 of square feet. Taxpayer did not note any repairs or deferred maintenance as of January 1, 2025. In our valuation analysis, we considered all three standard approaches to value: • Income Approach: An income and expense statement for 2024 and 2023 was reviewed and provided with our analysis. The property has 83 rooms, and all room were available during the year. For 2024,total income was $2,164,238 and expenses were $1,886,536. The cap rate was calculated using a conservative base rate of 9.5%and an effective tax rate of 1.47%for a total cap rate of 10.97%. Cap rates ranged from 8.56 to 11.21%for similar class hotels in North Carolina. A cap rate study from PWC is also included in our analysis. This shows a base cap rate of 9.68%for Economy and Midscale hotels. Given the income, expenses and overall cap rate for this property, Docusign Envelope ID: B280D705-EADF-4415-899E-F125316E835B an income approach indicates a value of$2,531,491 ($60/square foot). I find the income approach as the most appropriate as hotels are income producing assets and their value is directly tied to their ability to generate income streams. • Sales Comparison Approach: There were no hotel sales within the past three years in Orange County. Economy and Midscale class hotel sales were reviewed in all of North Carolina utilizing peer sales data from Costar. Adjustments were made for time of sale, location, size of property, land size and building characteristics. This method indicates a value of$4,436,250 ($105/sq. ft.). Given the number of adjustments as no hotel sales occurred in Orange County within the past three years,preference was not given for this approach. • Cost Approach: Given the property's age, condition, land, and building characteristics this method indicates a value of$4,453,742($108/square foot.). Given the age and the amount of depreciation that must be estimated for this property,preference was not given for this approach. Considering market income and expenses,I believe a fair market value for the parcel should be $2,531,491 $60/s uare foot.). Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The agent presented some sales,but they were either Covid influenced(2022 sale dates on over half of them) or located in very small markets. The County has presented all the 2024 sales of similar, older hotels in the state(Charlotte was excluded) and arrayed them in the attached Sales Value Sheet. The agent's current request is listed in Spatialest at$4,479,158 but I think that is in error? The agent's analysis requests a value of$2,531,491 or$30,500,which is very, very low for a post-Covid hotel value. • The Income is hard to analyze because of the way expenses/type of expenses shown,but an 87% expense ratio is very, very high. A typical expense ratio would be below 75%on this product. Even at a high 75%ratio the Net Operating Income would be $541,059 (Gross Income at 2,156,006 x 75%). Capitalized at a 9%rate or a 10.47% loaded rate would indicate a value of $5,167,713. After subtracting 2025 Orange County business personal property value of$451, 814,the indicated value of the real estate would be $4,715,899. Applying the County's schedule of values and changing the E04 economic modifier to E22,the indicated property value of the subject would be $4,700,100 or approximately$56,628 per room. • It's worth noting that in 2022 a Deed of Trust was issued on the property(and no others are mentioned as collateral) for$3,400,000,which would indicate at that time a bank thought it was worth far more than $2.5 million. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Sales Value Sheet Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $4,700,100 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Chair of the Board: Docusign Envelope ID: B280D705-EADF-4415-899E-Fl25316E835B DocuSigned by: Leon Meyers 12/29/2025 Recording Sec AD;by: Rob Teachout r0bu� 1-"4 12/29/2025