The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026_01_29 BOER Minutes Docusign Envelope ID:3BEA2D13-5F9D-4EE1-9549-E5628BECF69D MINUTES Orange County Board of Equalization and Review Meeting held on January 29, 2026 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: Tax Administrator Nancy Freeman Office Assistant Jennifer Ri sbee Real Property Appraisal Manager Roger Gunn Chief Appraiser Kelly Wells Temporary Appraiser Assistant Rob Teachout Appraiser Jimmy Milliken Appraiser C le Anderson Appraiser Karen Atwater Appraiser Dana Hall Meeting Schedule: No. Time Appellant PIN or Abstract Appeared Appeal Type 1 9:45AM Penderosa LLC 9758784041 No Value-Real 2 10:20AM Olanrewaju 0.Alabi 9758897928 No Value-Real 3 10:35AM Fares Khalidi 9885957380 No Value-Real 4 10:45AM Rey Khan LLC dba Lucha Tigre 3218585 Yes Compromise of Listing Penalty 5 11:00AM Dennis Walters 9868629941 Yes Value-Real 6 11:00AM Dennis Walters 9868729960 Yes Value-Real Time B Meeting called to order 9:46 AM Leon Meyers Meeting adjourned 11:29 AM Richal Vanhook 1 Docusign Envelope ID:3BEA2D13-5F9D-4EE1-9549-E5628BECF69D Property Identification: Property OwnertPenderosa LLC A ellant(if different) Property Addre acres off McCauley Parcel ID or Abstract 9758784041 ne Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on access and condition. Current Assessed Value $296,100 ounty Opinion $164,500 Time of Hearin 9:46 AM Appellant Opinion $100,000 County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $164,500 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • "My father bought this property in early'60's. The property is far off the road with no easement. It once had a road which is now grown up. He had a grading company up until late '70's in Chapel Hill and dumped brush and stumps when clearing house lots. The land has no real value and honestly, we(me and my 2 brothers] would give the property away or donate it if we knew where. If an appraiser had gone and looked at the property,the value would not be where it is. We have another parcel of 10.8 acres in Chatham County bordered on 2 sides by Governors Club and that tax value is 187,000. Thanks for your consideration." Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 10-acre parcel of vacant land off McCauley Lane in NBC 7042. The property was reviewed, and the County suggests increasing the adjustments for access distance (due to the presence of an easement), the stream/buffer, and the floodplain area from -10%to -50%. Based on this review,the recommended changes would create a revised assessed value of$164,500. • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Maps • GIS Map Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $164,500 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Olanrewa'u O. Alabi Appellant if different Property Address 1200 McCauley Lane Parcel ID or Abstract 9758897928 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on comparable properties. 2 Docusign Envelope ID:3BEA2D13-5F9D-4EE1-9549-E5628BECF69D Current Assessed Value $173,100 County Opinion $132,500 Time of Hearin 10:20 AM Appellant Opinion $115,000 County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $132,500 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • "Average $/acre for recent sales based on 1206 Watson Road, 1206 McCauley Lane is about $35K/Acre or less. Our lot is still an undeveloped vacant lot with a yard item valued at $3,700." Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is located in NBC 7042 at 1200 McCauley Lane and is improved with a personal property mobile home with a shed,porch, deck, and mobile home addition as real property yard items per the county record. This neighborhood was reviewed by order of the Board of Equalization and Review, and all required changes have been completed. • County staff reviewed the appeal and the comparables submitted by the appellant. Comparable sale#1 was determined to be unqualified, as it was a related-party transaction. Comparable sale #2 occurred in 2025 and therefore falls outside the January 1, 2025 revaluation date and was not considered. Additionally, 1206 Watson Road is 2.85 acres larger than the subject and carries a 10%greater land adjustment that when valued through the AC-9 pricing table results in a lower dollar-per-acre value. • Preforming a site visit, County staff discovered the neighboring home to be encroached onto the subject property. The County suggests an additional 20%totaling a-30% adjustment for a new land value of$131,700. Also removing two sheds a deck and the addition,bringing the SFYI value to $800 and a total assessed value of$132,500. • Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • GIS Map • Photo of Subject Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $132,500 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Fares Khalidi Appellant if different Property Address 3618 Alex Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 19885957380 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on recent sales and a Redfin estimate. Current Assessed Value $703,800 County Opinion 1 $703,800 Time of Hearin 10:35 AM Appellant Opinion $656,900 County Representative C le Anderson Board Decision $703,800 3 Docusign Envelope ID:3BEA2D13-5F9D-4EE1-9549-E5628BECF69D Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant submitted a spreadsheet of recent sales as supporting documentation and stated that Redfin estimated the subject property's value at$656,900 as of January 1, 2025. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 2.44-acre tract improved with two single-family dwellings: a 2,036- square-foot dwelling on card one and a 1,1 16-square-foot dwelling on card two, located at 3616 and 3618 Alex Drive in Hillsborough. • County staff reviewed the appellant's spreadsheet,which includes three recently sold comparable properties located within the subject's neighborhood. These sales were reviewed as part of the County's sales analysis. The appellant also submitted three additional comparable sales that are not located within the subject's neighborhood. These three comparables are each from different neighborhoods, all of which have lower base rates than the subject's neighborhood based on AC-9 pricing. Additionally,two of the three sales were unqualified. The remaining comparable, 3102 Caleb Court,is a one-acre tract improved with a 1,372- square-foot single-family dwelling and is not comparable to the larger house and acreage associated with the subject property. As a result,these three sales were not considered in the County's review. • County staff analyzed the appellant's three comparable sales located within the subject's neighborhood. For the purpose of this analysis,the second dwelling listed on the subject's property record card was excluded. This analysis shows that the subject property's value per acre is in line with the comparable sales. Additionally,the subject property's value per square foot—using only the dwelling on card one—is consistent with that of the comparable sales. • It should be noted that in the appellant's analysis,the stated building value of$450,700 includes the assessed values of both single-family dwellings. The livable square footage of the dwelling on card one is 2,036 square feet, as noted on the appellant's spreadsheet,while the dwelling on card two contains 1,116 square feet of livable area. It should also be noted that the appellant's stated land value of$263,500 was reduced to $238,000 following an informal appeal earlier in 2025. • Based on the above analysis, County staff recommends no change to the subject property's current assessed value of$703,800. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Sales Analysis • Current Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept County's Proposed Value: $703,800 No change in value Made the motion Shannon Julian Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: 4 Docusign Envelope ID:3BEA2D13-5F9D-4EE1-9549-E5628BECF69D Property Owner Rey Khan LLC dba Lucha Appellant(if different) Tigre Property Address Business Personal Parcel ID or Abstract 3218585 Property at 746 Martin Luther King Jr.Boulevard Statement of Appeal: Request compromise of business personal property discovery penalty. Current Assessed Value N/A County Opinion Applied statutory listing penalties Time of Hearing 10:45 AM Appellant Opinion Request compromise of taxes in the amount of$1267.94 County Representative Karen Atwater Board Decision Compromise of taxes in the amount of$1267.94 granted Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Please see full appeal statement provided in PDF: Appellant appeal -Rey Khan LLC dba Lucha Tigre • "I am writing to respectfully request a compromise and forgiveness of the penalty in the amount$1,267.94 that was assessed following a recent audit. We did not receive any prior paperwork, notices, or instructions regarding the requirement to file and pay before the audit occurred. We were unaware of the filing and payment obligation. There was no intent to avoid compliance, and the issue resulted solely from a lack of notice and understanding of the requirement. Since becoming aware of this matter through the audit process,we now fully understand our obligations and are committed to filing and paying appropriately. We have taken corrective steps to ensure compliance and to prevent this situation from happening again. Given these circumstances, we respectfully request your consideration in forgiving the assessed penalty. We appreciate you time and understanding, and we are grateful for the opportunity to explain our situation. Sincerely, Khoa Dinh" Evidence submitted by the county representative: • In preparation for the 2025 listing period,there was a review of the internal record of businesses with active beverage licenses. It was noted that Lucha Tigre has a beverage license, but no business personal property account. An account was created, and a 2025 listing form was sent. • No listing was submitted in response to the 2025 form. • The county contracted with CTSI(County Tax Services Inc)to perform audits on businesses that have not listed as required. We submitted Lucha Tigre for review. • The audit began in August 2025. During the audit,the LLC name for Lucha Tigre was provided and added to the record. Rey Khan LLC dba Lucha Tigre cooperated with CTSI in the review process and provided the necessary financial documents. Audit Discovery was issued October 30, 2025. • No response to Discovery was received and the account was billed December 4,2025,for tax years 2020 through 2025. • Our office received an appeal for the listing penalties on January 2,2026. 5 Docusign Envelope ID:3BEA2D13-5F9D-4EE1-9549-E5628BECF69D • Rey Khan LLC has been filing annually with the NC Secretary of State since creation July 2012, Food Safety/Health Inspections regularly since December 2012,beverage licensing since at least 2013 through the ABC Board, and beverage license bills through the county since 2012. • There is a payment arrangement in place with Collections for$1,000 monthly. • Audit billing: Tax Yr. Total Bill Amt Paid Balance Due 2025 $556.20 paid$ 516.76 $ 50.56 Appealing $ 50.56 2024 $885.19 $ 902.89 Appealing$ 147.53 2023 $916.68 $ 935.02 Appealing$211.54 2022 $823.32 $ 839.79 Appealing$235.23 2021 $944.50 $ 963.39 Appealing$ 314.84 2020 $821.96 paid$483.24 $ 355.16 Appealing $308.24 Total of Appeal $1,267.94 Motion of the Board Other: Compromise taxes in the amount of $1,267.94 Made the motion Shannon Julian Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Dennis Walters Appellant if different Property Address 67.94 acres on Wilkerson Parcel ID or Abstract 9868629941 Road and Walnut Grove Church Road Statement of Appeal: Requesting the reinstatement of Present Use Value. Current Assessed Value N/A County Opinion Reinstatement of PUV for forestryonl Time of Hearing 11:00 AM Appellant Opinion Reinstatement of PUV for forestryand agriculture County Representative Dana Hall Board Decision Reinstatement of PUV for forestryonl Evidence submitted by the appellant: • We wish to appeal the removal decision from October 8, 2025. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • On March 11,2025, Dennis and Janet Walters sold 11.18 acres of land and requested full removal of that parcel from the Present Use Value(PUV)program. After processing the removal, an updated application was requested on May 19, 2025, for the remaining two parcels under joint ownership. An application received on July 24, 2025, stated that Mr. Walters was 6 Docusign Envelope ID:3BEA2D13-5F9D-4EE1-9549-E5628BECF69D farming 15 acres of hay and managing 50 acres of woodland. Upon review,multiple requests were made for an updated forestry management plan for the 20-plus acres of woodland and for additional agricultural income documentation, such as Schedule F statements or gross receipts. When no response was received, the two parcels were removed from the PUV program for failure to meet minimum requirements. On November 13, 2025,Mr. and Mrs. Walters filed an appeal, at which time the requirements for agricultural production and forestry management were explained, aerial maps were provided showing less than 10 acres in agricultural production and contact information for a private forestry consultant was given. A forestry management plan prepared by Mr. Dryman was subsequently submitted and reviewed. Based on the additional documentation,the parcels now meet the minimum requirements for forestry use only, as no further agricultural income documentation has been provided. Therefore,the County recommends reinstatement of the two parcels in the Present Use Value program under forestry use only. • GIS Map • Letter Requests • Removal Decision and Deferred Tax Bills • AV-5 Application • Aerial Measurement Maps • Forestry Management Plan • Photos Motion of the Board Other: Reinstatement of PUV for forestry only Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Dennis Walters Appellant if different Property Address 6.89 acres on Wilkerson Parcel ID or Abstract 9868729960 Road Statement of Appeal: Requesting the reinstatement of Present Use Value for forestry and agriculture. Current Assessed Value N/A County Opinion Reinstatement of PUV for forestry only Time of Hearing 11:00 AM Appellant Opinion Reinstatement of PUV for forestryand agriculture County Representative Dana Hall Board Decision Reinstatement of PUV for forestry only Evidence submitted by the appellant: • We wish to appeal the removal decision from October 8, 2025. 7 Docusign Envelope ID:3BEA2D13-5F9D-4EE1-9549-E5628BECF69D Evidence submitted by the county representative: • On March 11,2025, Dennis and Janet Walters sold 11.18 acres of land and requested full removal of that parcel from the Present Use Value(PUV)program. After processing the removal, an updated application was requested on May 19, 2025, for the remaining two parcels under joint ownership. An application received on July 24, 2025, stated that Mr. Walters was farming 15 acres of hay and managing 50 acres of woodland. Upon review,multiple requests were made for an updated forestry management plan for the 20-plus acres of woodland and for additional agricultural income documentation, such as Schedule F statements or gross receipts. When no response was received, the two parcels were removed from the PUV program for failure to meet minimum requirements. On November 13, 2025,Mr. and Mrs. Walters filed an appeal, at which time the requirements for agricultural production and forestry management were explained, aerial maps were provided showing less than 10 acres in agricultural production and contact information for a private forestry consultant was given. A forestry management plan prepared by Mr. Dryman was subsequently submitted and reviewed. Based on the additional documentation,the parcels now meet the minimum requirements for forestry use only, as no further agricultural income documentation has been provided. Therefore,the County recommends reinstatement of the two parcels in the Present Use Value program under forestry use only. • GIS Map • Letter Requests • Removal Decision and Deferred Tax Bills • AV-5 Application • Aerial Measurement Maps • Forestry Management Plan • Photos Motion of the Board Other: Reinstatement of PUV for forestry only Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Chair of the Fdi Signed by: Leon Meyers L!fF=,I.E)-,F-F 2/3/2026 Recording Sec P+a;ryed by: Kati fi Rob Teachout 2/3/2026 8 Docusign Envelope ID: BOF983D6-EAD9-4D5D-A13A-EE8461FA1918 MINUTES Orange County Board of Equalization and Review Meeting held on January 29, 2026 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: Tax Administrator Nancy Freeman Office Assistant Jennifer Ri sbee Real Property Appraisal Manager Roger Gunn Chief Appraiser Kelly Wells Temporary Appraiser Assistant Rob Teachout Appraiser Louise Benson-Lochner Appraiser C le Anderson Appraiser Bill Hiltbold Appraiser Heidi Whetzel Meeting Schedule: No. Time Appellant PIN or Abstract Appeared Appeal Type 1 1:01PM Gwendolyn Office Glen 9798274368 Yes Value-Real Lennox LLC 2 1:22PM Beach Cates Creek LLC 9873143954 Yes Value-Real 3 1:30PM Beach Cates Creek LLC 9873156626 Yes Value-Real 4 1:35PM RRPV 900 Willow Chapel Hill LP 9799134091 Yes Value-Real 5 1:50PM Dobbins Hill II LLC 9799584892 Yes Value-Real 6 2:08PM Dobbins Hill II LLC 9799593279 Yes Value-Real 7 2:15PM WRH Dobbins Hill I LLC 9799595134 Yes Value-Real 8 2:22PM HPA Borrower 2019 2 LLC 9870122533 Yes Value-Real 9 2:28PM LH3 Property North Carolina LP 9826366476 Yes Value-Real 10 2:31PM FKH SFR Propco D LP 9824228543 Yes Value-Real 11 2:37PM MCH SFR NC Owner 1 LP 9825752058 Yes Value-Real 12 2:43PM Conrex ML Portfolio 2019 01 9865634766 Yes Value-Real Operating Company LLC 13 2:46PM BSFR I Owner I LP 9769108953 Yes Value-Real 14 2:41PM IH6 Property North Carolina LP 9825754092 Yes Value-Real 15 2:53PM IH4 Property North Carolina LP 9824356984 Yes Value-Real 1 Docusign Envelope ID: BOF983D6-EAD9-4D5D-A13A-EE8461FA1918 Time B Meeting called to order 1:01 PM Leon Meyers Meeting adjourned 2:56 PM Richal Vanhook Property Identification: Property Owner Gwendolyn Office Glen Appellant(if different) Morgan Fowler/Ryan Lennox LLC LLC (Presented by Ca O'Day) PropertyAddress 101 Glen Lennox Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9798274368 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on actual income from 2024. Current Assessed Value $18,010,500 ounty Opinion $22,934,000 Time of Hearin 1:01 PM Appellant Opinion $8,837,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $22,934,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant is requesting a lower valuation based on actual income from 2024. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject is a 114,597 square feet office building constructed in 2020 and has an assessed value of$18,010,500 or$157.16 per square foot. • This is a LEED certified Class A office building in Chapel Hill. Although constructed in 2020, it still has not finished lease up(65% leased with some concessions still left to run out). The agent has provided a rent roll and summary of operations as an un-stabilized building. However, the County must assess the property as stabilized. The leases in place are in the$35 to $40+per square foot per year range with the exception of the restaurant tenant,which is leased for less,but seems to also be paying percentage rent. • Using the rent roll as a guide for potential gross income, market-based expenses, and a market capitalization rate of 8.5%vs the agent's rate of 7.5%,the County's income approach indicates a value of$23,942,443. After a deduction of almost 25%due to retail shell space,this amount is reduced to $22,839,266. • In addition to an Assessor's Sheet, a study on how the LEED certification adds value to office buildings is included. • Based on the County's income approach and the LEED Certification study,the County recommends reducing the 40%economic depreciation on the building to 18%changing the land market adjustment from+33%to+32%and applying an E05 economic modifier to the property which would result in a revised value of$22,934,000 or$200.13 per square foot, which is still below the range for comparable sales in the Triangle market. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(4 pages) 2 Docusign Envelope ID: BOF983D6-EAD9-4D5D-A13A-EE8461FA1918 • Proposed Property Record Card(4 pages) • Comparable Sales and Income Approach • LEED Certification Return on Investment for Office Buildings Motion of the Board Accept County's Proposed Value: 1 $22,934,000 Made the motion Shannon Julian Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Beach Cates Creek LLC Appellant(if different) Morgan Fowler/Ryan LLC (Presented by Ca O'Day) Property Address 25.41 acres on Cates Parcel ID or Abstract 9873143954 Creek Parkway Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on equity comparables. Current Assessed Value $7,969,400 ounty Opinion $6,176,300 Time of Hearin 1:22 PM Appellant Opinion $2,941,518 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $6,176,300 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant is requesting a lower valuation based on equity comparables. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject consists of 25.41 acres of unimproved multifamily development land and is currently valued at$7,969,400. Based on the attached comparable multifamily development land sales and the attached County's land value analysis, the property is overvalued by the County and an adjustment is warranted. An indication of value of$17,898 per buildable unit is appropriate. As the subject is currently approved for 346 buildable units, $6,192,708 should be the approximate valuation for the subject. Applying the County's Schedule of Values,the County recommends reducing the current+140% land market adjustment to+86% for a revised valuation of$6,176,300 for the subject. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(2 pages) • Recommended Property Record Card(2 pages) • Comparable Multifamily Land Sales Analysis • Land Value Analysis Motion of the Board Accept County's Proposed Value: $6,176,300 Made the motion Richal Vanhook 3 Docusign Envelope ID: BOF983D6-EAD9-4D5D-A13A-EE8461FA1918 Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Propertv Identification: Property Owner Beach Cates Creek LLC Appellant(if different) Morgan Fowler/Ryan LLC (Presented by Ca O'Day) Property Address 13.23 acres on Cates Parcel ID or Abstract 9873156626 Creek Parkway Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on equity comparables. Current Assessed Value $4,149,400 ounty Opinion $2,800,800 Time of Hearin 1:29 PM Appellant Opinion $1,531,534 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $2,800,800 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant is requesting a lower valuation based on equity comparables. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject consists of 13.23 acres of unimproved multifamily development land and is currently valued at$4,149,400. Based on the attached comparable multifamily development land sales and the attached County's land value analysis, the property is overvalued by the County and an adjustment is warranted. An indication of value of$17,898 per buildable unit is appropriate. As the subject is currently approved for 156 buildable units, $2,792,088 should be the approximate valuation for the subject. Applying the County's Schedule of Values,the County recommends reducing the current+140% land market adjustment to+62% for a revised valuation of$2,800,800 for the subject. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(2 pages) • Recommended Property Record Card(2 pages) • Comparable Multifamily Land Sales Analysis • Land Value Analysis Motion of the Board Accept County's Proposed Value: $2,800,800 Made the motion Shannon Julian Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: 4 Docusign Envelope ID: BOF983D6-EAD9-4D5D-A13A-EE8461FA1918 Property Owner RRPV 900 Willow Chapel Appellant(if different) Morgan Fowler/Ryan Hill LP LLC (Presented by Camryn O'Day) Property Address 900 Willow Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9799134091 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on a market proforma and equity comparables. Current Assessed Value $103,284,800 ounty Opinion $72,299,500 Time of Hearin 1:35 PM Appellant Opinion $58,591,900 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $72,299,500 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant is requesting a lower valuation based on a market proforma and equity comparables. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject is a 253-unit luxury apartment complex with 9,514 square feet of retail space known as 900 Willow Apartments that began construction in 2023. The property has a current assessed value of$103,284,800 or$408,240 per apartment unit. • The appellant has provided an income approach and an equity argument. It is hard to rely on the equity argument overly much since this property is one of the most premium in Town and is attached to University Mall. Plus, it has approximately 9,500 square feet of retail space. • However, the County's Income Approach is indicating a lower value of$72,425,047. The agent uses a fairly high vacancy and concessions deduction,but the property is in lease-up and the County needs to use stabilized numbers. Considering the walkability and ideal location,the County has used a stabilized occupancy of 94% and no concessions (a lease-up specific expense). The County base capitalization rate of 5% is well supported by luxury sales. • Applying the County's Schedule of Values,the County recommends applying an e30 economic modifier to the property which would reduce its current valuation to$72,299,500 or$285,769 per apartment unit which is supported by the County's comparable sales. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(6 pages) • Recommended Property Record Card(6 pages) • Comparable Sales and Income Approach • Triangle Luxury Apartment Capitalization Rate Support (19 pages) Motion of the Board Accept County's Propose Value: $72,299,500 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Dobbins Hill II LLC Appellant(if different) Morgan Fowler/Ryan LLC (Presented by Ca O'Day) 5 Docusign Envelope ID: BOF983D6-EAD9-4D5D-A13A-EE8461FA1918 Property Address 1 1749 Dobbins Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9799584892 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on actual income from 2022, 2023, and 2024. Current Assessed Value $3,552,200 ounty Opinion 1 $1,558,300 Time of Hearin 1:50 PM Appellant Opinion $1,381,500 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $1,558,300 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant is requesting a lower valuation based on actual income from 2022,2023, and 2024. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property consists of 20 units of a 32-unit Low Income Housing Tax Credit apartment community that was constructed in 2010. It is currently assessed at$3,552,200 or $177,610 per unit. The remaining 12 units of the project are located on PIN 9799593279. • In 2008 the NC General Assembly enacted G.S. 105-277.16 which dictates how properties with this special classification must be appraised, assessed, and taxed. Recommendations from the NCDOR based on the statute indicate that low-income and rent restricted properties that meet the special classification are to be valued utilizing the income approach, under which the restrictions in their rent must be considered. Furthermore, due to the special nature of these properties and their restrictions,NCDOR recommends that assessors utilize the real income and expenses presented in the audited income and expense documents,which should be provided. They also indicate that using a market-based capitalization rate would be appropriate. • Like the appellant,the County has considered the two properties that make up this project collectively. The County has reviewed the I&E documentation provided by the appellant. Based on the actual income and expenses,the basis of taxation rules for this Section 42 document,the County's income approach renders a value of$2,504,048 for the properties collectively. As the subject property contains 62.5% of the project's units, it seems reasonable that 62.5%of the value or$1,565,030 be allocated to the subject property.Applying the County's Schedule of Values,the County recommends, adding 60% economic depreciation to the building(as is applied to PIN 9799593279) changing the land's market adjustment from - 20%to -21%, and changing the E50 economic market adjustment on the property to E25 which would result in a revised value of$1,558,300 or$77,915 per unit. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(2 pages) • Recommended Property Record Card(2 pages) • Income Approach Motion of the Board Accept County's Proposed Value: $1,558,300 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against 6 Docusign Envelope ID: BOF983D6-EAD9-4D5D-A13A-EE8461FA1918 Property Identification: Property Owner Dobbins Hill II LLC Appellant(if different) Morgan Fowler/Ryan LLC (Presented by Ca O'Day) Property Address 1749 Dobbins Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9799593279 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on actual income from 2022, 2023, and 2024. Current Assessed Value $1,341,600 ounty Opinion $939,200 Time of Hearin 2:08 PM Appellant Opinion $1,043,600 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $939,200 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant is requesting a lower valuation based on actual income from 2022, 2023, and 2024. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property consists of 12 units of a 32-unit Low Income Housing Tax Credit apartment community that was constructed in 2008. It is currently assessed at$1,341,600 or $111,800 per unit. The remaining 20 units of the project are located on PIN 9799584892. • In 2008 the NC General Assembly enacted G.S. 105-277.16 which dictates how properties with this special classification must be appraised, assessed, and taxed. Recommendations from the NCDOR based on the statute indicate that low-income and rent restricted properties that meet the special classification are to be valued utilizing the income approach, under which the restrictions in their rent must be considered. Furthermore, due to the special nature of these properties and their restrictions,NCDOR recommends that assessors utilize the real income and expenses presented in the audited income and expense documents,which should be provided. They also indicate that using a market-based capitalization rate would be appropriate. • Like the appellant,the County has considered the two properties that make up this project collectively. The County has reviewed the I&E documentation provided by the appellant. Based on the actual income and expenses,the basis of taxation rules for this Section 42 document,the County's income approach renders a value of$2,504,048 for the properties collectively. As the subject property contains 37.5% of the project's units, it seems reasonable that 37.5%of the value or$939,018 be allocated to the subject property. Applying the County's Schedule of Values,the County recommends, applying an E30 economic market adjustment which would result in a revised value of$939,200 or$78,267 per unit. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(2 pages) • Recommended Property Record Card(2 pages) • Income Approach Motion of the Board Accept County's Proposed Value: $939,200 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For All BOER Members 7 Docusign Envelope ID: BOF983D6-EAD9-4D5D-A13A-EE8461FA1918 Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner WRH Dobbins Hill I LLC Appellant(if different) Morgan Fowler/Ryan LLC (Presented by Ca O'Day) Property Address 1749 Dobbins Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9799595134 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on actual income from 2022, 2023, and 2024. Current Assessed Value $5,874,500 ounty Opinion $4,943,600 Time of Hearin 2:15 PM Appellant Opinion $4,869,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $4,943,600 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant is requesting a lower valuation based on actual income from 2022, 2023, and 2024. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject consists of a 55-unit Low Income Housing Tax Credit apartment community constructed in 1994. It is currently assessed at$5,874,500 or$106,809 per unit. • In 2008 the NC General Assembly enacted G.S. 105-277.16 which dictates how properties with this special classification must be appraised, assessed, and taxed. Recommendations from the NCDOR based on the statute indicate that low-income and rent restricted properties that meet the special classification are to be valued utilizing the income approach, under which the restrictions in their rent must be considered. Furthermore, due to the special nature of these properties and their restrictions,NCDOR recommends that assessors utilize the real income and expenses presented in the audited income and expense documents,which should be provided. They also indicate that using a market-based capitalization rate would be appropriate. • The County has reviewed the I&E documentation provided by the appellant. Based on the actual income and expenses,the basis of taxation rules for this Section 42 document,the County's income approach renders a value of$4,946,577. Applying the County's Schedule of Values, the County recommends, changing the land market adjustment from -20%to -21%and the property's economic market adjustment from E02 to E17 which would result in a revised value of$4,943,600 or$89,884 per unit. • GIS Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card(10 pages) • Recommended Property Record Card(10 pages) • Income Approach Motion of the Board Accept County's Proposed Value: $4,943,600 Made the motion Shannon Julian Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook 8 Docusign Envelope ID: BOF983D6-EAD9-4D5D-A13A-EE8461FA1918 Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner HPA Borrower 2019 2 Appellant(if different) Judson Bracewell/ LLC Ryan LLC (Presented by Mason Schuster Property Address 214 Towne Ridge Lane Parcel ID or Abstract 9870122533 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on the Income Approach to valuation. Current Assessed Value $602,100 ounty Opinion $602,100 Time of Hearin 2:22 PM Appellant Opinion $528,200 County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $602,100 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Income: o Monthly Rent: $3,475 o Annual Rent: $41,700 o GRM: 152 o Indicated Value: $528,200 Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 3,224 square foot townhome with 4 bedrooms and 2& 1/2 baths built in 2004 on a .09-acre lot in the Glen Ridge subdivision in Chapel Hill. • Since the unit is a single unit townhome,the most appropriate valuation method is the sales comparison analysis. Based on sales and equity of similar units that have sold recently in the area, the County recommends no change in value. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Sales and Equity Analysis • Current Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $602,100 No change in value Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: 9 Docusign Envelope ID: BOF983D6-EAD9-4D5D-A13A-EE8461FA1918 Property Owner LH3 Property North Appellant(if different) Judson Bracewell/ Carolina LP Ryan LLC (Presented by Mason Schuster Property Address 103 Acadia Court Parcel ID or Abstract 9826366476 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on the Income Approach to valuation. Current Assessed Value $402,900 ounty Opinion $402,900 Time of Hearin 2:28 PM Appellant Opinion $329,100 County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $402,900 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Income: o Monthly Rent: $2,165 o Annual Rent: $25,980 o GRM: 152 o Indicated value: $329,100. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 2,475 square foot single-family residence with 4 bedrooms and 2& 1/2 baths,built in 1999, and located in Mebane. • As the property is a single-family home, the sales comparison approach is the most appropriate for market-based valuation. Based on sales and equity,the County recommends no change in value. • Photo of subject • GIS Map • Sales and Equity Analysis • Current Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $402,900 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 FKH SFR Propco D LP Appellant(if different) Judson Bracewell/ Ryan LLC(Presented by Mason Schuster Property Address 132 Campaign Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9824228543 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on recent purchase price and comparable sales. Current Assessed Value $373,600 County Opinion $373,600 Time of Hearing 2:31 PM Appellant Opinion $348,000 10 Docusign Envelope ID: BOF983D6-EAD9-4D5D-A13A-EE8461FA1918 County Representative I Kelly Wells Board Decision $373,600 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Recent purchase price and comparable sales. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 2,079 square foot single family home with 4 bedrooms and 2& 1/2 baths built in 2018 on a.22-acre lot in The Meadows subdivision in Mebane. • The subject property was last sold in March of 2021 for$284,000. • Based on sales and equity of very similar homes in the neighborhood,The County recommends no change in value. • Photo of subject • GIS Map • Sales and Equity Analysis • Current Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $373,600 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 MCH SFR NC Owner 1 Appellant(if different) Judson Bracewell/ LP Ryan LLC (Presented by Mason Schuster Property Address 103 Green Pasture Road Parcel ID or Abstract 9825752058 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on the Income Approach to valuation. An Income Analysis (GRM) document was supplied. Current Assessed Value $324,100 County Opinion $324,100 Time of Hearin 2:37 PM Appellant Opinion $313,000 County Representative Louise Benson- Board Decision $324,100 Lochner Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant states a reduction in value should be made based on the Income Approach to valuation. An Income Analysis(GRM)document was supplied noting a monthly rent of$2,060 and a GRM of 152 for an Indicated Value of$313,100. • It was noted the property was purchased on 11/16/2021 for$315,000. • No additional evidence e.g.,photos, repair bids, comparable sales were provided. 11 Docusign Envelope ID: BOF983D6-EAD9-4D5D-A13A-EE8461FA1918 Evidence submitted by the county representative: • On January 21,2026, a drive-by inspection of the subject was performed by this appraiser. • A drive-by evaluation is considered to be a sufficient review due to the MLS evidence available and due to the nature of the appeal. • No discrepancies in the characteristics of the subject were noted by the Appraiser. • Per the MLS photos(see attached) at the time of purchase,the Grade of C+10 and Effective Year Built of 2013, are appropriate. • A Comper Report is attached. The 5 qualified comps have a sales range of value of$299,500 to $367,000. Their assessed values range from$316,000 to $361,200. The approved County Schedule of Values was applied to the subject and the 5 comparable sales to derive the current assessed values. The application of the Schedule of Values ensures a uniform method to establish equitable assessed values. • The amenities of the comps bracket the Subject with no significant variation that would justify a reduction of assessed value from the current$324,100 to the requested$313,100. • The Appellant evidence references a Gross Rent Multiplier. It is unknown to this appraiser how the GRM was established and is considered to be of minimal value when establishing the valuation of this property as the Sales Comparison Approach is considered to be the most reliable indicator of value for single family residential properties due to the quantity and quality of the comparable sales generally available. • No change in value can be supported. • Current Property Record Card • GIS—Subject and NBC 3404 • Photos of Subject from MLS from 2021 purchase • Comper report with 6 comps • Sales Value Analysis • Subject Rental History from Realtor.com Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $324,100 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 Conrex ML Portfolio 2019 Appellant(if different) Judson Bracewell/ 01 Operating Company Ryan LLC (Presented LLC by Mason Schuster Property Address 616 Wildaro Court Parcel ID or Abstract 9865634766 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on income analysis. Current Assessed Value $200,800 ounty Opinion $200,800 Time of Hearin 2:43 PM Appellant Opinion $149,000 County Representative C le Anderson Board Decision $200,800 Evidence submitted by the appellant: 12 Docusign Envelope ID: BOF983D6-EAD9-4D5D-A13A-EE8461FA1918 • The appellant provided an income analysis as supporting documentation. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 0.23-acre tract improved with a 1,008 square foot single-family dwelling located at 616 Wildaro Court in Hillsborough. The appellant submitted an income analysis as supporting documentation. • County staff reviewed a sales analysis of recently sold properties within the subject's neighborhood. These properties exhibit significantly higher price-per-square-foot values than the subject property. Based on this analysis, County staff recommends no change to the subject property's current assessed value of$200,800. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Sales Analysis • Current Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $200,800 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 BSFR I Owner I LP Appellant(if different) Judson Bracewell/ Ryan LLC (Presented by Mason Schuster Property Address 812 Terrace View Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9769108953 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on a Gross Rent Multiplier(GRM)Analysis. Current Assessed Value $297,900 ounty Opinion $308,600 Time of Hearin 2:46 PM Appellant Opinion $296,400 County Representative Bill Hiltbold Board Decision $308,600 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant is basing their opinion of value on a Gross Rent Multiplier(GRM)Analysis in which the appellant is utilizing$1,950 as market rent and a GRM of 152 for a value of $296,400(1,950 x 152). Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject is a 3 bedroom, 1.5 bath, 1,148 square foot single-family residence that sold previously in July 2021 for$303,000. 13 Docusign Envelope ID: BOF983D6-EAD9-4D5D-A13A-EE8461FA1918 • I visited the property and remeasured the home which would result in the finished living area being increased from 1,148 square feet to 1,299 square feet and the carport area being reduced from 308 square feet to 209 square feet. • The appellant valued the property solely by the income approach(GRM Analysis)but includes no support for how their economic market rent or gross rent multiplier were calculated. No comparable sales were provided,which is strange as the sales comparison approach is widely regarded as the most reliable indicator of value for single-family residential properties with the income approach lending support,when applicable. • The recommended corrections to the property would result in a revised value of$308,600 which is well supported by sales and equity comparables. • GIS Map • Photo of Subject • Photos from 2021 sale listing • Sales and Equity Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $308,600 Made the motion Shannon Julian Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner IH6 Property North Appellant(if different) Judson Bracewell/ Carolina LP Ryan LLC (Presented by Mason Schuster Property Address 720 Blue Lake Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9825754092 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on Income Approach. Current Assessed Value $329,900 County Opinion $329,900 Time of Hearin 2:41 PM Appellant Opinion $318,000 County Representative Louise Benson- Board Decision $329,900 Lochner Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The Appellant states a revision to value should be made based on the Income Approach to valuation. An Income Analysis document was supplied noting a monthly rent of$2,092 and a Gross Rent Multiplier(GRM) of 152 and an Indicated Value of$318,000. • It was noted the property was purchased on 7/29/2021 for$272,000. • No additional evidence e.g.,photos, repair bids, comparable sales were provided. Evidence submitted by the county representative: 14 Docusign Envelope ID: BOF983D6-EAD9-4D5D-A13A-EE8461FA1918 • On January 21,2026, a drive-by inspection of the subject was performed by this appraiser. A drive-by evaluation is considered to be a sufficient review due to the MLS evidence available and due to the nature of the appeal. • No discrepancies in the characteristics of the subject were noted by the Appraiser. Per the MLS photos(see attached) at the time of purchase,the Grade of C+10 and Effective Year Built of 2013,was appropriate. • A Comper Report is attached. The 5 qualified comps have a sales range of value of$299,500 to $367,000. Their assessed values range from$316,000 to$361,200. The approved County Schedule of Values was applied to the subject and the 5 comparable sales to derive the current assessed values. The application of the Schedule of Values ensures a uniform method to establish equitable assessed values. • The amenities of the Comps bracket the subject with no significant variation that would justify a reduction of assessed value from the current$329,900 to the requested$318,000. • The Appellant evidence references a Gross Rent Multiplier. It is unknown to this appraiser how the GRM was established and is considered to be of minimal value when establishing the valuation of this property. The Sales Comparison Approach is considered to be the most reliable approach for residential properties due to the quantity and quality of the comparable sales data generally available. • An on-line search for rental history of the subject was attempted by this appraiser. Only the listing for 2025 could be located and is attached. • No change in value can be supported. • Current Property Record Card • GIS - Subject and NBC 3404 • Photos of Subject from MLS from 2021 purchase • Comper report with 6 comps • Sales Value Analysis • Subject Rental History from Realtor.com Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $329,900 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 IH4 Property North Appellant(if different) Judson Bracewell/ Carolina LP Ryan LLC (Presented by Mason Schuster Property Address 113 Norwood Court North Parcel ID or Abstract 9824356984 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on Income Approach. Current Assessed Value $342,200 ounty Opinion $342,200 Time of Hearin 2:53 PM Appellant Opinion $320,900 County Representative Heidi Whetzel Board Decision $342,200 15 Docusign Envelope ID: BOF983D6-EAD9-4D5D-A13A-EE8461FA1918 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The Appellant states a revision to value should be made based on the Income Approach to valuation. An Income Analysis document was supplied noting a monthly rent of$2,111 and a Gross Rent Multiplier(GRM) of 152 and an Indicated Value of$320,900. • It was noted the property was purchased on 8/25/2014 for$139,277. • No additional evidence e.g.,photos, repair bids, or comparable sales were provided, nor was any support for the appellant's estimate of market rent or how the Gross Rent Multiplier was derived. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is located at 113 Norwood Court North in Mebane. A site visit was conducted on January 27, 2026.No discrepancies were observed between the recorded property characteristics and the observable physical characteristics of the subject at the time of inspection. • Analysis of comparable properties within the same neighborhood similar in size, age, story height, construction quality, and grade indicate the subject's assessed value of$136 per finished square foot is below both the neighborhood average and median sale-based rates, reflecting consistency with market activity and county valuation standards. The appellant submitted a Gross Rent Multiplier(GRM) analysis to support their estimate of value. However, the comparable properties used to derive estimated market rent and the GRM were not provided, and the approach's relevance is considered an inferior indicator of value as the Sales Comparison Approach remains the most reliable valuation method for single family residential properties in neighborhoods where comparable sales are available. • After review, the County recommends no change to the current assessed value. • Summary • Current Property Record Card • Photo of Subject' • GIS Map • Sales Analysis Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $342,200 No change in value Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Shannon Julian Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Chair of the B EA;Signed by: Leon Meyers /3/2026 Recording SeEr6t-I$RS-a4-E)8 n�a by: Rob Teachout fi 4 2/3/2026 16