Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025_12_18 BOER Minutes Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 MINUTES Orange County Board of Equalization and Review Meeting held on December 18, 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 Real Estate Consultant Paul Snow Chief Appraiser Kelly Wells Temporary Appraiser Assistant Rob Teachout Appraiser Karen Atwater Appraiser C le Anderson Appraiser Jimmy Milliken Meeting Schedule: No. Time Ap� PIN or Abstract Appeared Appeal Type 1 9:04AM Dhaba Hub 7568 dba Momos 3205560 No Compromise of Master Listing Penalty 2 9:12AM Morgan Creek Capital No Compromise of Management LLC 281391 Listing Penalty 3 9:18AM No Compromise of Tarheel Town Pharmacy 3217350 Listing Penalty 4 9:24AM Paul Mihas 9779321555 Yes Value-Real 9:42AM William D. Westbrook Sr. 9835006065 No Value-Real 9:36AM Judith Dickinson 9873257498 No Value-Real 5 10:05AM Robert Medred 9865861928 No Value-Real 6 10:20AM David Duty 9873181638 Yes Value-Real 7 10:30AM K 2 Properties LLC 9880560070 Yes Value-Real 8 10:40AM Willow Creek 100 LLC 9778343325.002 No Value-Real 9 10:54AM Nick Watts Properties Inc. 9778673083 No Value-Real 10 10:59AM Nick Watts Properties Inc. 9778664904 No Value-Real 11 11:06AM K Group LLC 9874318551 Yes Value-Real Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 12 11:12AM Yogi Business Solution LLC 9799450932 No Value-Real 13 11:15AM Sidney A. Martin Jr. 9788068275 Yes Value-Real 14 11:55AM KEPSC Hillsborough LLC 9874490155 No Value-Real Time B Meeting called to order 9:04 AM Leon Meyers Meeting adjourned 12:05 PM Leon Meyers Property Identification: Property Owner Dhaba Hub 7568 dba Appellant(if different) Momos Master Property Address Business Personal Parcel ID or Abstract 3205560 Property at 110 N. Columbia Street, Chapel Hill Statement of Appeal: Request to remove penalties associated with business personal property tax discovery notice. Current Appealed N/A County Opinion Applied statutory listing Value enalties for 2022-2024 Time of Hearing 9:04 AM Appellant Opinion Request compromise of listing penalties in the amount of $1,071.70. County Representative Karen Atwater Board Decision Compromise of listing penalties in the amount of$1,071.70 not granted. Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Dhaba Hub 7568 LLC dba Momos Master is requesting that the Board compromise listing penalties, in the amount$1071.10,resulting from a discovery audit that was completed by our vendor County Tax Services Inc. (CTSI)). Please see full appeal statement provided in PDF: Appellant appeal -Dhaba Hub 7568 LLC dba Momos Master • I am writing to respectfully request a compromise of tax penalties assessed against my business. • My goal in establishing this business has always been to contribute to the community by providing affordable, quality food and service. • Despite being a small business,we make it a priority to support nonprofit organizations each year, giving back to the community that supports us. • The penalties place a significant burden on our ability to continue serving the community and supporting charitable causes. • I kindly ask for your consideration in waiving these penalties, so that we may continue to operate sustainably and fulfill our mission of service. • Penalties year and amount below 2025 $25.25+ $84.59 Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 2024 $309.13 2023 $372.13 2022 $280.00 • Ramesh Dahal-Momo's Master Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Dhaba Hub 7568 dba Momos Master had been provided with business listing instructions and forms from the County beginning in 2023. No listing was submitted in 2023. • In January 2024,Ramesh Dahal came to the county tax office to inquire about the forms and was granted an extension to file for 2024. No listing was submitted in 2024. • For the 2025 listing form, equipment cost data from the restaurant that had previously operated at the location was pre-populated to the form,to be updated if a listing was submitted by Dhaba Hub/Momos Master. No 2025 listing was submitted. • The County has contracted with CTSI to perform audits on businesses that have not listed as required. We submitted Dhaba Hub/Momos Master for review. • The audit began in August 2025. Dhaba Hub/Momos Master cooperated with CTSI in the review process and provided the necessary financial documents. Audit Discovery was issued October 30, 2025. • Ramesh Dahal came to the county tax office November 18, 2025,to agree to the audit findings and to partially pay the tax bills, less the listing penalties, with the intention to appeal only the listing penalties. • The outstanding balances total$1,071.10. • The balances are the penalties, resulting from the audit, and are as follows: 2025 $25.25 and$84.59 2024 $309.13 2023 $372.13 2022 $280.00 • Appellant appeal-Dhaba Hub 7568 LLC dba Momos Master (appellants full statement) • County evidence-Dhaba Hub 7568 LLC dba Momos Master (BOER Summary,2023-2025 listing forms as mailed, Intro/Mail in Request letter from CTSI to Dhaba Hub,Audit Discovery,balance due statements (5)totaling$1071.10,copy of NCGS 105-312 Motion of the Board Other: Deny compromise of listing penalties in the total amount of $1,071.10. Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Morgan Creek Capital Appellant(if different) Management LLC Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 Property Address Business Personal Parcel ID or Abstract 281391 Property at 301 W. Barbee Chapel Road, Chapel Hill Statement of Appeal: Request to remove penalties associated with business personal property tax discovery notice. Current Appealed N/A County Opinion Applied statutory listing Value enalties for 2025 Time of Hearing 9:12 AM Appellant Opinion Request compromise of listing penalties in the amount of $1,116.96 County Representative Karen Atwater Board Decision Compromise of listing penalties in the amount of$1,116.96 anted. Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Morgan Creek Capital Management LLC is requesting that the Board compromise listing penalties from an untimely 2025 listing, in the amount$1,116.96. • Please see full appeal statement provided in PDF: • Appellant appeal-Morgan Creek Capital Management LLC • I write to respectfully request an abatement in full of the late list penalties charged on our tax bill. • Morgan Creek has been operating in Orange County since our formation 20 years ago.We are a small locally owned business. These late list fees were charged because our listing was not filed by April 15, 2025. We were notified of this non-filing by mail and promptly contacted the Tax Office, filing the missing listing electronically. We have carefully checked our files and are unable to ascertain if the filing was made and lost in the mail,or the filing was inadvertently not made. • We are requesting this abatement given this is the first time such a filing deadline was missed in the firm's 20-year history, and we promptly provided the listing as soon as we became aware of this. We note that no tax payments have been paid late by the firm in our history. • We appreciate your consideration in this matter.Nick Taylor Evidence submitted by the county representative: • For the 2025 listing period, a timely extension request was made and approved for Morgan Creek Capital Management LLC, allowing up to April 15, 2025, for the annual listing. • No listing form was received by the deadline so a Discovery Notice,the purpose of which is to notify businesses that we have information on file and did not receive a listing,was mailed out June 10,2025. • Mr. Taylor called June 17, 2025 to understand the Discovery Notice and what it meant. • When it was explained that no listing was received,he indicated that he believed their listing had been sent. Since a listing did not arrive, an online/electronic means of instant submittal was provided to him and he promptly submitted the listing via our online service,CivicPlus, that same day. • The listing was processed as received June 17,2025,to include listing penalty per NCGS 105- 312. Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 • A review of their account history shows that they have always listed and paid in a timely manner. • The outstanding balance of the 2025 billing, $1,116.96,represents the referenced penalties in their request for compromise. • Appellant appeal-Morgan Creek Capital Management LLC • County evidence-Morgan Creek Capital Management LLC • (BOER Summary,June 10,2025, Discovery Notice, June 17, 2025, email receipt of electronic listing filing via CivicPlus,balance due statement$1,116.96,copy of NCGS 105-312 Motion of the Board Other: Grant compromise of listing penalties in the total amount of $1,116.96. Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members ... Voted Against ... ... Property Identification: Property Owner Tarheel Town Pharmacy Appellant(if different Property Address Business Personal Parcel ID or Abstract 3217350 Property at 370 E. Main Street, Suite 160,Carrboro Statement of Appeal: Request to remove penalties associated with business personal property tax discovery notice. Current Appealed N/A County Opinion Applied statutory listing Value enalties for 2022-2024 Time of Hearing 9:18 AM Appellant Opinion Request compromise of listing penalties in the amount of $86.80. County Representative Karen Atwater Board Decision Compromise of listing penalties in the amount of$86.80 ranted. Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Tarheel Town Pharmacy is requesting that the Board compromise listing penalties from a 2020-2024 discovery in the amount$86.86. • Appellant appeal-Tarheel Town Pharmacy • I agree to the assessed value of taxable personal property, accordingly I signed and returned the form. • We never received the BPP listing form till mid-January 2025. This is the first time we have received the form, and we sent the BPP listing. • We request that no penalty be charged for not paying tax in previous years. It is purely due to lack of communication and awareness. We are okay to pay the applicable tax going forward. Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 • Please waive the total penalty amount$86.86. • Your help and cooperation are appreciated. Malleshappa M. Baba Evidence submitted by the county representative: • While conducting a virtual canvas of businesses in the Carrboro area in November 2024, it was noticed that Tarheel Town Pharmacy was operating, and no business personal property account was on the tax scroll. • NCGS 105-308 states that it is the duty of the taxpayer to list. However,many businesses, especially smaller businesses are unaware of this requirement and may only find out through the county contacting them or interaction with business colleagues or accounting professionals. • Tarheel Town Pharmacy was added to the scroll for tax year 2025 and a listing form was sent out among the annual listing forms mailing batch. • The pharmacy did list for 2025. On the listing it was noted that the business began operating in Orange County in November 2017. • Per NCGS 105-312, where needed, Discovery can be made for the current year and up to any of the preceding applicable five years. • Using the 2025 listing,Discovery was created for previous tax years 2020 through 2024 and a Discovery Notice as to values for the years covered was mailed March 3,2025. Tarheel Town Pharmacy agreed to the Discovery and submitted signed agreement. • 2025 assessment for the pharmacy was billed during the annual billing cycle in August, and the bill was paid in full. • Billing for the tax years covered in the Discovery was created 10/29/2025. • Currently the full Discovery bill amounts are showing due by 1/5/2026,pending the results of this appeal to compromise the listing penalty amounts. • Total penalty amount for all discovered years is $86.86. 0 2024 $11.96;2023 $20.98; 2022 $10.5 8; 2021 $16.40; 2020 $26.94 • Appellant appeal-Tarheel Town Pharmacy • (Appeal letter, copy of March 2025 Discovery Notice showing signed agreement to Discovery) • County evidence-Tarheel Town Pharmacy • (BOER Summary,2025 listing form,March 2025 Discovery Notice for tax years 2020-2024 with signed agreement,balance due statements (5) for tax years 2020-2024, copy of NCGS 105-308, copy of NCGS 105-312) Motion of the Board Other: Grant compromise of listing penalties in the total amount of $86.80 Made the motion Leon Meyers Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Paul Mihas Appellant if different Property Address 2206 Pathway Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 19779321555 Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on comparable property directly across the street from the subject. Current Assessed Value $405,300 County Opinion $383,500 Time of Hearin 9:24 AM Appellant Opinion $356,100 County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $383,500 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • This request is based on comparison of my property to 2208 Pathway Drive,which is located directly across the street, and which was sold on July 17, 2025, for$440,000 ($268 per square foor), an appraised square footage of 1,642 while mine is 1,152 square feet. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 1,152 square foot townhome with 2 bedrooms, 2 and 1/2 baths built in 1988 located in the Fairoaks Subdivision in Chapel Hill. • Based on recent sales of similar units (2224 Pathway),The County recommends: *Increasing the land adjustment from-10%to -15% *Reducing the effective year built from 1995 to 1993 • Resulting in a reduction in value from$405,300 to$389,700 • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Sales and Equity Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $383,500 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner I William D. Westbrook Sr. A ellant if different) Property Address 6702 East Washington Parcel ID or Abstract 9835006065 Street Extension Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on parcel location, zoning, and condition. Current Assessed Value $93,900 ounty Opinion $53,200 Time of Hearin 9:42 AM Appellant Opinion $37,120 County Representative C le Anderson Board Decision $53,200 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant states that the land value is overstated given its location. The appellant also states that the zoning for this lot is industrial but has a single-family dwelling here. The Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 appellant also states that the dwelling is in a state of total disrepair, having been vacant for decades and would have to be torn down. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 1.12-acre tract improved with a 1,214-square-foot single-family dwelling located at 6702 E Washington Street Ext in Mebane. • The appellant contends that there are numerous issues with the property that significantly affect its marketability and overall value. • County staff conducted an on-site inspection of the property and engaged in multiple discussions with the appellant regarding the site's challenges and physical condition. • The property is adjacent to a large commercial warehouse and is situated directly across from active railroad tracks,both of which negatively influence residential appeal and market desirability. • The subject dwelling has been vacant for several decades and has deteriorated substantially over time. Based on its current state, any potential buyer would most likely consider the structure a tear-down rather than a viable renovation candidate. • Following inspection and analysis, County staff recommends the following adjustments to better reflect the property's condition and market influences: - Increase the land adjustment from-15%to-50%to account for the property's proximity to railroad tracks and commercial uses. - Increase the physical depreciation on the subject dwelling from 90%to 99% • These recommended adjustments result in a revised total assessed value of$53,200 for the subject property. • Deed • GIS Map • Sales Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $53,200 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Judith Dickinson Appellant(if different) Property Address 135 Skip Rook Road Parcel ID or Abstract 9873257498 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on subject being smallest unit, a Habitat home, and values of Waterstone units. Current Assessed Value $149,100 ounty Opinion $149,100 Time of Hearin 9:36 AM Appellant Opinion $160,000 County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $149,100 Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Smallest unit • Habitat home • Values based on Waterstone units Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The value was reduced during the BOER ordered revaluation of Habitat Homes to$149,100 which is less than the appellant's opinion of value. She agreed to go on the Consent Agenda but did not return the form before the scheduled appeal. • No further change in value. Motion of the Board Accept County's Proposed Value: $149,100 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 Robert Medred Appellant(if different Property Address 1121 NC 86 N Parcel ID or Abstract 19865861928 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on the position that comparable sales do not justify the County's market value.No supporting documentation was provided. Current Assessed Value $642,000 ounty Opinion $642,000 Time of Hearin 10:05 AM Appellant Opinion $550,000 County Representative Cyle Anderson Board Decision $642,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant states that sales of comparable property do not justify the County's market value. No supporting documentation was provided with this appeal. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 13.31-acre tract improved with a 2,888-square-foot single-family dwelling, located at 1121 Highway 86 North in Hillsborough. The appellant did not submit any supporting documentation with this appeal. • County staff reviewed a sales analysis of three properties located within the subject's neighborhood. Comparable sale one is improved with a dwelling that is larger than the subject and of a lower grade, resulting in a lower price per square foot when compared to the subject property. Comparable sales two and three are vacant land sales that are substantially smaller than the subject and have less road frontage; as a result,these properties exhibit a higher price- per-acre. All three comparable sales share the same AC-9 land pricing base rate as the subject property. • After review of the available market data, and in the absence of supporting documentation from the appellant, County staff recommends no change to the current assessed value of $642,000. Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Sales Analysis • Current Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $642,000 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 David Duty Appellant(if different) Property Address Unimproved 1.76-acre Parcel ID or Abstract 9873181638 parcel on Leah Drive Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on online estimates,past lot sale comparable, and easement. Current Assessed Value $197,200 County Opinion $197,200 Time of Hearin 10:20 AM Appellant Opinion $103,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $197,200 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant is requesting a lower valuation based on Zillow estimates on the subject street and past lot sales in the neighborhood, and because approximately 1/3 of the property is encumbered with a driveway easement for the adjacent property. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The appellant has made two points. 1.) That the easement area of the driveway is detrimental to value. The easement was adjusted for at-33%when the property was assessed. The overall footprint impact of the easement is closer to 45%on this site,but the easement area does have some advantages to the site in terms of FAR calculations and it doesn't have any setbacks. Since it is the owner's own easement, they can probably use the area for various things like laydown as well. 2.) The overall assessment rate is too high per acre. There is no evidence here. This 1.76-acre 76,666 square foot property is assessed at$2.57/SF. The last two lot sales in Millstone transacted at$4.84/SF and$2.47/SF,with the most recent 1.02-acre lot that sold in July 2024 selling for$215,000. • It's worth noting that this lot is one of the flattest ones in Millstone. Also, he could have placed the driveway for 2219 Leah Drive on the 2219 Leah Drive lot. Since he placed it on the 2215 lot,there must have been some value to doing that. As a result,no change in value is recommended. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card • Land Sales in Millstone Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $197,200 No change in value Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property OwnertK2 Pro erties LLC A ellant(if different) Stac Little AttornProperty Addre Vilcom Center Drive, Parcel ID or Abstract 9880560070 it 100 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on the actual income of this income-producing property. Current Assessed Value $10,491,800 ounty Opinion $8,630,400 Time of Hearin 10:30 AM Appellant Opinion $7,000,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $8,630,400 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The taxpayer's opinion of value is based on the actual income of this income-producing property. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject is a 57,051 square foot three story office building situated on a 0.43-acre site. It is a Class B medical and general office building that includes some UNC space and some surgical space. It has underperformed the market, and an income approach shows this under performance. The appellant has produced financials and estimated a value of$7,000,000 based off 2024 actuals. That would indicate almost a 9%capitalization rate. For a property that has surgical space and UNC anchored medical space,this is too high. The County has used a 7% capitalization rate to reflect the property's tenant mix and potential upside. The current assessed value is still below the range of sales. However, giving greater weight to the income approach, the County recommends applying a-5%market adjustment to the land and an E17 economic modifier to the property to reduce the value to $8,630,400. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Comparable Sales and Income Approach Analysis Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $8,630,400 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 Property Owner Willow Creek 100 LLC Appellant(if different) Property Address 610 Jones Ferry Road, Parcel ID or Abstract 9778343325.002 Unit 100 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on construction and HOA costs, condition, inability to find a buyer, and lack of income from property. Current Assessed Value $1,564,100 ounty Opinion $1,564,100 Time of Hearin 10:40 AM Appellant Opinion $1,000,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $1,564,100 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • "Recent Construction Cost: Decided by HOA association members,but they are beneficial each other. Never care about my suggestions." • "HOA charge is extremely high, I guess the principle of HOA is unfair to treat me. But I am tired to sue him. HOA charge is $11986/quarter Rent income is Zero." • "Condition/Maintenance of exterior is so so,but HOA charge is too much, since they all have the smaller units, so they don't care, I am strongly against to charge HOA fee based on the square footage, this is bullying and stealing openly." • "A few units of this building were sold in the past few years,but my unit is too big, it's very hard to find the buyer or tenant." • "Tex-X, LoopNet, gave me auction price $1000000. In the past 6-7 years, I tried my best to sell or lease it,but still can't make it,the main reason is too high surcharge, especially HOA charge, I searched the whole area commercial building of HOA, commonly is 0.5-2$/sqft,but this building HOA charges me$4.95/square foot,I am very sure Adam, etc.,HOA key members are doing very selfish things to cause my HOA increasing from$8,600/quarter to $11,986/square foot. Also, I found the other unit of this buildings are all sold in a very low price in the past years. I already paid out of my pocket in cash about$400,000 since I purchased it, and I got nothing income from this property since it can't be sold or leased. So, I appeal to keep the tax value as$1,000,000." Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject is a 9,710 square foot office condominium in the Willow Creek office condominium development. The County has attached sales since 2021 in the subject project. The sale of the largest unit supports the value of the subject. With no more compelling evidence presented by the appellant as to the value of the property,no adjustment to value is supported. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card • Sales in Subject Project Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $1,564,100 No change in value Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 Property Identification: Property Owner Nick Watts Properties Inc. A ellant(if different) Property Address 503-A West Main Street I Parcel ID or Abstract 19778673083 Statement of Appeal: Request collective reduction in value of two parcels based on an April 11,2024, appraisal. Current Assessed Value $1,074,600 County Opinion $245,000 Time of Hearing 10:54 AM Appellant Opinion Reduction in Value of PINs 9778673083 and 9778664904 collectively to$2,500,000. County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $245,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The subject is one of two retail parcels owned by the same appellant. The appellant is requesting a reduction in value for the two parcels collectively to$2,500,000 based on an April 11, 2024, appraisal contained in the a ellant's documentation. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject parcel is a 7,700 square foot parcel and contains a 7,500 retail building used as a fitness center in conjunction with the similar 12,780 square foot building of the same use on PIN 9778664904. The subject parcel would likely not be sold separately, as it contains no additional area for parking. Therefore, like the appellant,the County analyzed both parcels collectively. • The appraisal lists the estimated value of both parcels being$2,500,000 based on a total land valuation of$31.02 a square foot based on Mixed-Use Development as the concluded highest and best use. The County considers this a reasonable conclusion and as a result suggests the following changes to the subject property based on the County's schedule of values: change the land market adjustment from-30%to -44% and add 99%functional depreciation for design on the building as the current improvements do not represent the highest and best building use for the site. These recommendations would lead to a revised value of$245,000 for the subject property. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $245,000 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Pro a Owner Nick Watts Properties Inc. A ellant if different Property Address 1503 West Main Street I Parcel ID or Abstract 19778664904 Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 Statement of Appeal: Request collective reduction in value of two parcels based on an April 11, 2024, appraisal. Current Assessed Value $1,576,600 County Opinion $2,242,700 Time of Hearing 10:59 AM Appellant Opinion Reduction in Value of PINs 9778673083 and 9778664904 collectively to$2,500,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $2,242,700 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The subject is one of two retail parcels owned by the same appellant. The appellant is requesting a reduction in value for the two parcels collectively to$2,500,000 based on an April 11, 2024, appraisal contained in the a ellant's documentation. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject parcel is a 72,620 square foot parcel and contains a 12,780 square foot retail building used as a fitness center in conjunction with the similar 7,500 square foot building of the same use on PIN 9778673083. The subject parcel would likely not be sold separately, as that would leave no area for parking for PIN 9778673083. Therefore, like the appellant,the County analyzed both parcels collectively. • The appraisal lists the estimated value of both parcels being$2,500,000 based on a total land valuation of$31.02 a square foot based on Mixed-Use Development as the concluded highest and best use. The County considers this a reasonable conclusion and as a result suggests the following changes to the subject property based on the County's schedule of values: remove the E32 economic modifier adjustment on the parcel, change the land market adjustment from- 45%to -44%, and change 80%functional depreciation for design on the building to 99%and override the depreciation of the paving from 60%to 99% as well as the current improvements do not represent the highest and best building use for the site. These recommendations would lead to a revised value of$2,242,700 for the subject property. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $2,242,700 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner K Group LLC Appellant(if different) Jimmy Riley Controller/Re Property Address 511 Valley Forge Road Parcel ID or Abstract 9874318551 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on a February 8, 2024, appraisal. Current Assessed Value 1 $1,664,700 1 County Opinion 1 $1,460,800 Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 Time of Hearin 11:06 AM Appellant Opinion $1,440,000 County Re resentative Roger Gunn Board Decision $1,460,800 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant's opinion of value is based on a February 8,2024 appraisal. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 12,000 square foot flex industrial building constructed in 1987 on 1.53 acres of land, located in Hillsborough. • The County's Appraisal Consultant states: The appellant has presented sufficient evidence in the form of an appraisal. The value"As-Is" indicated in the appraisal was $1,440,000 or$120 per square foot as of February 8,2024. As shown in the attached graph in the Analysis, industrial properties within the Durham-Chapel Hill MSA have seen decent appreciation over the course of 2024. Given that date of the market value was earlier in the year, 3%appreciation is applied, yielding an adjusted assessed value of$1,483,200. This value gives weight to the evidence provided by the appellant,while considering appreciation that has occurred between the date of the appraisal and the revaluation date. • Based on this recommendation, The County recommends reducing the grade from A+80 to A+45 resulting in a reduction in value from$1,664,700 to$1,460,800. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Appreciation Graph Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $1,460,800 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Yogi Business Solution Appellant(if different) LLC Property Address 1709 Legion Road Unit Parcel ID or Abstract 9799450932 101 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on functional obsolescence, and abnormally high core factor. Current Assessed Value $2,469,500 ounty Opinion $1,307,300 Time of Hearin 11:12 AM Appellant Opinion $1,131,263 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $1,307,300 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • See 2021 appraisal. Market values have deteriorated since then given interest rate and other changes. Please note that page 2 of appraisal characterizes property as incurably functionally Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 obsolete given abnormally high core factor. Net leasable area is 10,913 square feet,not 15,008 square feet. As it is the most reliable approach,we ask that the income approach be applied and given 100%weight. There are limited comparable sales, and the general office market is known to be very weak. The property's first floor was recently marketed at$20 per square foot (see marketing flyer). This is reasonable indication of market rent for building. CoStar lists Orange County vacancy rate at>8%. The County's Schedule of Values allow a 40%expense ratio which reflects market expense level for general office. CoStar lists 3-star office cap rates at 9%which is low for general office. Please note that medical offices are performing much better than general offices in terms of vacancy,rent, and overall value. Medical offices are not comparable to the subject but are included in the Costar data. Loading this 9%cap rate with the 1.6529 2024 tax rate results in a 10.65%loaded cap rate. This market data indicates a value of$1.131 million. (10913*20*0.92*0.6)/0.1065). • Please note abnormally high core factor noted in appraisal and that net leasable area is 10,913 square feet, well below the gross building area of 15,008 square feet. • Please see recent marketing flyer. • Please note conclusion noted on page 2 that property is incurably functionally obsolete. Office market has deteriorated since appraisal.Appraisal is too large for upload into appeal module. Please contact Dave Pawlowski for full copy of appraisal. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The agent has presented an appraisal from 2021 that clarifies some issues that the property faces that keep it from performing as compared to other local office spaces. A lot of the space is demised into smaller suites, which creates an abnormal amount of common area that generates expenses but no income. Please note that the agent does not present a current rent roll or Profit&Loss statement to back up their claims on the appropriate rental rate for the building and, although it's true that office space has generally suffered, small suite space is quite popular and rents may have gone up at this property,not down, since the 2021 appraisal. The County has taken a reasonable approach to value the property by the attached income approach at$1,310,523. Asa result,the County recommends removing the E18 economic modifier on the property value and adding 70%functional depreciation for design to the building which would result in a revised assessed value of$1,307,300. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Comparable Sales and Income Approach • Agent's Acceptance of Proposed Value Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $1,307,300 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Sidney A. Martin Jr. Appellant if different Property Address 108 North Graham Street Parcel ID or Abstract 19788068275 Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on purchase price, parcel utility/potential, and comparable property values. Current Assessed Value $2,140,000 ounty Opinion $2,140,000 Time of Hearin 11:15 AM Appellant Opinion $1,800,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $1,983,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • From Informal Appeal: The properties on the corner of N. Graham and W. Franklin and the corner of Merritt Mill and W. Franklin both front on W. Franklin. There are two usable buildings. The lots are under one owner and total .41 acres. The assessor has valued that land at $88/square foot while the valuation on the Graham Street property that we own has two buildings on one lot with street frontage only on N. Graham. The difference in potential use is huge. There is NO way that our.47 acres should be valued at almost$99/square foot given what we paid and how you have valued the neighboring property. In addition, our property is encumbered by dumpster sites that are used by the properties on the 500 block of W. Franklin in addition to our tenants. If we don't let them have access,they have NO other option. The tenants are struggling already and a huge increase like this could put them all over the edge. • We purchased the property on January 2,2025, for$1,101,000. 1 am not claiming that that is the "value". There was additional remuneration that does not show on the closing statement. There was an adjustment made because this was part of a sequence of direct sales without the efforts of any real estate agent. The money that was saved was deducted from the sales price AND an additional$160,000 was paid totally above board to the previous owners (an LLC). If you add it all up it is just under$1.5M. • From Formal Appeal: I believe you used the property at 104 N. Graham Street as a comp. The buyer of the property was the owner of the business known as Al's Burger Shack. He paid a premium for the property because of that. He was also able to incorporate the second structure into his existing business. It is a premium corner on Franklin Street, also adding to the value. 108 N. Graham does not enjoy the same potential, as the buildings are occupied with 4-5 tenants at any time who are not able to buy just their space. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • There is no evidence that is applicable to value in the appeal.No sales data,which could help either for land or improved parcels. There is an equity argument,but just based on one property that is smaller and less developable(and sold for a massive amount- see attached). The argument concerning the dumpsters that are used by adjacent landowners that have no recourse, may be worth an optional 5%to 10% adjustment downward in value,but there is no evidence to support any other change. The owner was involved in the sale of the corner parcel, which they reference as an equity comp. It sold in October 2024 for almost$200/square foot based on land or over$700/square foot based on building size. This sale does not support an appeal. • No change in value is supported. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(4 pages) • Retail Sales and Development Land Sales Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $1,983,000 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 Voted For I All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner KEPSC Hillsborough LLC A ellant(if different) Property Address 715 US 70 East I Parcel ID or Abstract 19874490155 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on the value without sewer as of January 1, 2025,per appellant's appraisal. Current Assessed Value $1,428,000 ounty Opinion $705,600 Time of Hearin 11:55 AM Appellant Opinion $712,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $705,600 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The value without sewer as of January 1, 2025 is$712,000 per a ellant's appraisal. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The Town of Hillsborough is in active litigation with the property owner over sewer rights and possible uses. The owner claims that they had assurances of sewer service from the Town that were then withdrawn with no actionable timeline on when sewer service will be available. • The property was assessed assuming that it could be developed in line with permitted uses that require sewer service. The appellant has presented an appraisal from May 2025 that values the property based on the current limitations at$712,000. Given the uncertainty surrounding the future development of this parcel, the County recommends changing the current -15%market adjustment on the parcel to -58%development adjustment which would reduce the current valuation to $705,600. Should the issue surrounding the subject become resolved and sewer made available during this revaluation cycle,the value would revert to the current assessment. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card of Subject • Proposed Property Record Card of Subject Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $705,600 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Chair of the B iuSigned by: Leon Meyers 1/1/2026 Recording Secretary: Docusign Envelope ID: BE7173ED-52F6-47B6-A7EB-347CE2C7F857 Signed by: Rob Teachou r6bulf fi�A�u LD 1/1/2026 Docusign Envelope ID: D8F1F6B3-4E5C-46D1-9276-28B887499D7C MINUTES Orange County Board of Equalization and Review Meeting held on December 18, 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 Real Estate Consultant Paul Snow Chief Appraiser Kelly Wells Temporary Appraiser Assistant Rob Teachout Appraiser Heidi Whetzel Appraiser Jimmy Milliken Appraiser C le Anderson Meeting Schedule: No. Time I Appellant PIN or Abstract Appeared Appeal Type 1 1:05PM Ravi Kumar 19862246076 No Value-Real 2 1:10PM Industrial Connections and 9834088521 No Value-Real Solutions LLC 3 1:18PM West Franklin Preservation 9788265985 No Value-Real Partners 4 1:21PM Antoine A. Puech 9788274180 No Value-Real 5 1:27PM West Franklin Preservation 9788264981 No Value-Real Partners 6 1:58PM Jonathan R. Walsh 9830181782 Yes Value-Real 7 2:11PM Michelle Erin Brinker Trustee 9798661493 Yes Value-Real 8 3:02PM Sarah Kathleen Martin 9864690091 Yes Value-Real 9 3:15PM Alapati Srinath Trustee 9857603461 Yes Value-Real 10 3:30PM Charles L. Nunn 9788697289 Yes Value-Real Docusign Envelope ID: D8F1F6B3-4E5C-46D1-9276-28B887499D7C Time B Meeting called to order 1:05 PM Leon Meyers Meeting adjourned 3:45 PM Richal Vanhook Property Identification: Property OwnertRavi Kumar Appellant(if different) Property Addreacre on New Hope Parcel ID or Abstract 9862246076 n s Drive Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on recent purchase price and development costs. Current Assessed Value $8,400 ounty Opinion $8,400 Time of Hearin 1:05 PM Appellant Opinion $4,500 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $5,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • I recently purchased this parcel from Orange County less than 6 months ago, at$4,500,which was the deemed FV and Tax basis communicated to me by the County at the time of purchase. There has been no development on this parcel, and there will be no structures built on this parcel, as the sole purpose is to build a driveway from our private road to New Hope Springs Drive. • The parcel is currently undeveloped. We need to remove trees, grade, and build a driveway through the parcel. None of this work has taken place to date, so there is no reason for the parcel to double in value on a sale within the past six months. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject is a.26-acre vacant tract that was formerly recorded as a public easement and owned by Orange County. Per Orange County Deed Book 6879,page 2280,the parcel transferred after the January 1,2025,revaluation date in May 2025 for$5,000. The parcel was a surplus parcel no longer needed by Orange County and offered for sale to the property owner. For 2025,the parcel was valued on the AC-9 land valuation method with a base price of $105,000 and adjusted down-75%for its overall utility. Size of the parcel is considered in the AC-9 valuation model. As a result, no adjustment is supported. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $5,000 Made the motion Leon Meyers Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Industrial Connections& Appellant(if different) Solutions LLC Docusign Envelope ID: D8F1F6B3-4E5C-46D1-9276-28B887499D7C Property Address 16801 Industrial Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9834088521 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on the contention that the County has the incorrect gross building area on the property record and based on industrial sales in the Triad area. Current Assessed Value $42,744,900 County Opinion $35,935,300 Time of Hearin 1:10 PM Appellant Opinion $38,800,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $35,935,300 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant is requesting a reduction in value based on the contention that the County has the incorrect gross building area on the property record and based on industrial sales (sales dates notprovided)in the Triad area. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The County contended that the subject property,the ABB facility(formerly General Electric) in Mebane contained 679,090 square feet of gross building area. This amount was derived from a prior inspection of the subject property as part of a former PTC appeal when the property was owned by GE and the more recent 2020 warehouse and two-story office addition by ABB. Upon architectural plans as well as physical measurement of the facility, it was determined that the property has 552,964 square feet of gross building area. As a result of the remeasurement, the County has consolidated the former 19 building section cards into 9 cards as well as adding a canopy,paving, and office and storage mezzanines and updating effective year built for the various improvements. • Attached are our commercial appraiser consultant's comparable industrial sales. The indicated value from these sales is $65 per square foot, and when applied to the subject property yields a value of$35,942,660. Applying to County's schedule of values,the County recommends adjusting the value to $35,935,300. • The agent's emailed acceptance of this value is attached. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Comparable Industrial Sales • Agent's Acceptance of Proposed Valuation Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $35,935,300 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Docusign Envelope ID: D8F1F6B3-4E5C-46D1-9276-28B887499D7C Property Owner West Franklin Appellant(if different) Preservation Partners Property Address 200 West Franklin Street Parcel ID or Abstract 9788265985 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on the office and retail building being 73.5% vacant for the past 3 years. Current Assessed Value $8,130,300 County Opinion $6,565,900 Time of Hearin 1:18 PM Appellant Opinion $5,471,665 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $6,565,900 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant's opinion of value is based on the office and retail building being 73.5%vacant for the past 3 years. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is recorded as a 30,981 square foot retail and office building office built in 1998 on.41 acres located on W. Franklin Street in Chapel Hill. • The owner has not presented any evidence but has represented that the property is 73.5% vacant. It is clear that a new lease was signed for the entire third floor(or the vast majority of it) and has been occupied since mid-2025. However, it is not clear when the lease was committed to by the tenant(whether committed in 2024 or 2025). • The County's current recorded gross building area is incorrect. Leasing materials indicate a floor plan of around 14,361 for the third floor and GIS measurements seem to back this up. Thus, gross building area is estimated to be 43,083 square feet(14,361 x 3 stories). Leasing materials further indicate that there is at least 10,167 square feet of leasable area on the first floor. For the purposes of this appeal, a size of 38,000 leasable square feet has been utilized for calculation of value by the income approach. • An Income Approach is attached. Vacancy has been estimated at 25%,which is very high on Franklin Street and gives strong deference to the property's history of high vacancy. Beyond that,the other inputs used in the Income Approach are fairly standard for the market. • Based on the Income Approach,the indicated value is$6,555,392. As a result,the County recommends correcting the gross building area to 43,083 square feet and applying 5 1% economic depreciation. These changes would result in a revised value of$6,565,900. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Income Approach Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $6,565,900 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Docusign Envelope ID: D8F1F6B3-4E5C-46D1-9276-28B887499D7C Prove Provertv Owner Antoine A Puech A ellant(if different) Property Address 109 Church Street I Parcel ID or Abstract 19788274180 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on the building being very old and vacant: 100% vacant for over 2 years. Current Assessed Value $4,509,500 ounty Opinion $4,405,600 Time of Hearin 1:21 PM Appellant Opinion $3,500,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $4,405,600 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The taxpayer's opinion of value is based on the building being very old and vacant: 100% vacant for over 2 years only suitable as single office space with most people working from home. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a Class C office building with 4,693 square feet of first floor office space, 966 square feet second floor office area, and 414 square feet unfinished basement built in 1952 on.58 acres (25,154 square feet) located at the corner of Church Street and W. Rosemary Street. in Chapel Hill. • The highest and best use of this parcel is redevelopment. The parcel is good sized and shape on a prime corner in Downtown Chapel Hill. Similar parcels nearby have been developed in the last ten years with mid-rise buildings. • The County's commercial appraisal consultant recommends that the value of the building be minimal, and the land valued at$175 per square foot,which is similar to the sale prices of land in the immediate vicinity. • Based on this recommendation, The County recommends reducing the value of the building from $631,900 to $3,500 and increasing the land value from$3,873,700 to$4,402,000 and a total revised valuation of$4,405,600. • GIS Map of the Subject • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $4,405,600 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner West Franklin Appellant(if different) Preservation Partners Property Address 206 W. Franklin Street Parcel ID or Abstract 9788264981 Docusign Envelope ID: D8F1F6B3-4E5C-46D1-9276-28B887499D7C Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on the age and condition of the building,vacancy rate and lower net operating income. Current Assessed Value $5,446,100 ounty Opinion $5,313,000 Time of Hearin 1:27 PM Appellant Opinion $5,316,800 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $5,313,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant's opinion of value is based on the age and condition of the building, vacancy rate and lower net operating income. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a restaurant building with 3,969 square feet, 16,860 square feet of office space and 4,750 square feet of basement office built in 1955 on.37 acres located on W. Franklin Street in Chapel Hill. • The County's Commercial Appraisal Consultant recommends a reduction in value from $5,446,100 to $5,316,800 based on the vacancy evidence provided. Please see the attached Income Approach • Based on this recommendation, The County proposes changing the economic modifier from EI I to E12 and adding 15%external depreciation to the building on card 1,resulting in a revised value from $5,446,100 to $5,313,000. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(6 pages) • Proposed Property Record Card(6 pages) • Income Approach Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $5,313,000 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Jonathan R. Walsh Appellant if different Property Address 6701 Cane Creek Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 19830181782 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on comparable properties with a focus on bedroom count. Current Assessed Value $314,600 ounty Opinion $314,600 Time of Hearin 1:58 PM Appellant Opinion $260,000 County Representative Heidi Whetzel Board Decision $314,600 Evidence submitted by the appellant: Docusign Envelope ID: D8F1F6B3-4E5C-46D1-9276-28B887499D7C • Appraisal and comparable property data for my house appear to be based on comparisons to 3- bedroom homes. Our home is 2-bedrooms; industry standards indicate that added bedrooms increase property value by 101/o-20%. Orange County's COMPER service indicates that recent sales of comparable 2-bedroom homes averaged$276,000. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is located at 6701 Cane Creek Drive in Efland. Photos were obtained and reviewed from realtor.com as the property was recently purchased on May 22,2024, for $340,000 which is more than the current assessed value of$314,600. Listing photos show that the deck is inaccurately placed on the sketch,but the home otherwise appears to be in average condition. • A sales analysis shows the comparables are older homes on larger parcels,with sale prices from$275,000 to $395,000 and price-per-square-foot values between$200 and$291. The subject's sale at$234 per square foot falls comfortably within that range, and its assessed value of$216 per square foot is below both the average and median. Based on the market data and the recent sale, the assessment is supported. • After review, the only change recommended is correcting the deck location on the sketch. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Sales Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Comp Photos Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $314,600 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 Michelle Erin Brinker Appellant(if different) Trustee Property Address 1304 Faison Road Parcel ID or Abstract 9798661493 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on 2022 purchase price. Current Assessed Value $1,291,600 ounty Opinion $1,288,900 Time of Hearin 2:11 PM Appellant Opinion $1,100,000 County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $1,288,900 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Adjust to the purchase price in 2022. Evidence submitted by the county representative: Docusign Envelope ID: D8F1F6B3-4E5C-46D1-9276-28B887499D7C • The subject property is located in NBC 7500 at 304 Faison Road and was built in 2002. Per County records, the dwelling was previously listed with 3,922 square feet of living area. • The subject property sold in 2022 for$1,100,000 and currently has an assessed value of $1,291,600. • As part of the continued appeal review, and based on information provided by the appellant, County staff determined that the dwelling's living area should be corrected from 3,922 square feet to 3,482 square feet. This correction results in a revised assessed value of$1,228,900. • County staff conducted a sales analysis using the updated square footage. Based on the findings of this analysis, County staff recommends no further adjustments to the assessed value. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Ma Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $1,288,900 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Sarah Kathleen Martin Appellant(if different) Property Address F405 Terrell Road Parcel ID or Abstract 19864690091 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on condition of house and land. Current Assessed Value $257,900 ounty Opinion $180,400 Time of Hearin 3:02 PM Appellant Opinion $150,000 County Representative C le Anderson Board Decision $180,400 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant states: "House requires extensive structural repair work and regrading of yard to correct flooding/drainage issues causing water incursion at the foundation in multiple spots. House has not been updated recently and the condition of the interior is fair,with older appliances. The yard has no landscaping. At the time of revaluation, the HVAC required replacement. This property would require approximately$100,000 worth of work to sell for the tax revaluation price." Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 0.31-acre tract improved with a 984-square-foot single-family dwelling located at 405 Terrell Road in Hillsborough. Docusign Envelope ID: D8F1F6B3-4E5C-46D1-9276-28B887499D7C • The appellant contends that the home is dated on the interior and lacks modern updates. In addition,the appellant reports that drainage issues on the property are contributing to foundation problems, adversely affecting the property's condition and overall value.No supporting documentation or cost-to-cure estimates were provided with this appeal. • County staff conducted an on-site inspection of the property to verify its condition and obtain photos. A sales analysis of recently sold comparable properties within the subject's neighborhood was also performed. • Upon review of the comparable sales, staff determined that the subject's price per square foot is notably lower than nearby comparables, which is consistent with the property's dated interior and lack of updates. • Based on the inspection and market analysis, County staff recommends the following adjustments to reflect the subject property's condition and site limitations more accurately: - Reduce the effective year built from 1999 to 1974 to account for the property's dated interior. - Apply a-20%land adjustment to account for drainage issues affecting the site and contributing to potential foundation issues. • These proposed adjustments would result in a revised assessed value of$194,300 for the subject property. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Sales Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Analysis Report Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $180,400 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Ala ati Srinath Trustee Appellant if different) Property Address 3550 Just A Mere Farm Parcel ID or Abstract 9857603461 Road Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on 2023 purchase price and market behavior since. Current Assessed Value $1,114,600 ounty Opinion $1,094,800 Time of Hearin 3:15 PM Appellant Opinion $900,000 County Representative C le Anderson Board Decision $1,075,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: 9 The appellant states: Docusign Envelope ID: D8F1F6B3-4E5C-46D1-9276-28B887499D7C "We went into a contract to build our house in July 2023 --when the housing market was near its peak. In the past two years,housing inventory has significantly gone up, and housing prices have declined by 10 to 20%. We don't believe our house purchased in 2023, completed in 2024 and we are now in 2025, is not worth the same price. The approimate. price per square foot is $260 in our neighborhood." • Two comparable sales were provided with this appeal. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 10.14-acre tract improved with a 3,632-square-foot single-family dwelling located at 3550 Just A Mere Farm Road in Hillsborough. • The subject property was purchased in July 2024 for$1,121,000. The appellant contends that the housing market has declined since the date of purchase and submitted two comparable sales for consideration. • Comparable Sales Analysis: - 417 McMannen Drive: Located in Durham County; not considered due to being outside the relevant market area. - 6101 Biron Lane: Located in a different neighborhood but reviewed by County staff in a sales analysis. Although this comparable shows a higher land value,the subject property has a significantly higher price per square foot due to superior grade and construction quality. • County staff also reviewed recent sales within the subject's neighborhood. The only sale in this neighborhood from January 2022 to December 2024 was the subject property itself,which sold in July of 2024. • Following review, County staff recommends applying a-10%land adjustment for floodplain. This adjustment results in a revised value of$1,094,800 for the subject property. • GIS Map • Sales Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Deed Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $1,075,000 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Charles L.Nunn Appellant(if different) Property Address 709 East Rosemary Street Parcel ID or Abstract 19788697289 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on condition (house and land). Current Assessed Value $1,214,000 ounty Opinion $1,074,000 Time of Hearin 3:30 PM Appellant Opinion $950,000 County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $1,074,000 Docusign Envelope ID: D8F1F6B3-4E5C-46D1-9276-28B887499D7C Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Condition/Maintenance: We live in the historic district on a small lot,but in a 1970's house that is not up to the modern standards of the neighboring larger houses on larger lots. Given features of the lot, its small size, its positioning of the former septic drainage of the house to the west, and steep slope,we do not anticipate that a new house meeting modern standards could be built on the property, especially given that a house to our east has built into the set-back on their property; hence,the newly increased property value seems very out of line with neighboring properties. The house itself is typical of the 1970s,with small bedrooms (3)and two very small bathrooms(2). The kitchen and bathrooms need renovation. We understand that property values have increased, but it is clearly excessive to go from$778,000 in 2021 to $1,385,200 in 2025 - an increase of 78%and much larger than the average increase of 46% for Chapel Hill. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 2,802 square foot single family home with 3 bedrooms and 2 baths built in 1977 on a.46-acre lot on E. Rosemary Street in the Historic District in Chapel Hill. • Tanner Valuations Group reviewed the property and the appeal: "Based on a field visit to the property,I would recommend a negative -10% land adjustment given the location of the subject." The dwelling doesn't appear to have any severe deferred maintenance. • The County agrees with TVG's assessment and recommends removing the market adjustment on the land and adding an additional -10%adjustment for location(dead end dirt road) resulting in a revised value from $1,214,000 to$1,074,000. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Sales and Equity Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $1,074,000 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Chair of the ,la1dnsigned by: Leon Meyers WE 1/1/2026 Recording Se nyd by: Rob Teachout 1/1/2026