Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
691 <br /> BOARD Cr cO::,�3ISSIMERS Action cenda <br /> Itea P;o. b <br /> D,=,GCC, DATE OCTOBER 25, 1982 <br /> Subjec,-: Report on Appeals to Property Tax Commission <br /> spa , :Tax Supervisor <br /> Public H erin : ' — -x <br /> Attachment(s): ii carma n. contact. Kermit Lloyd <br /> No Pphone Nu-,bar: 732-8181 ext. 41.Nu-,bar: <br /> PURPOSE: To receive the Tax Supervisor's report on the impact of the appeals to the <br /> Property Tax Commission on the 1981 Revaluation. <br /> From the 1981 session of the Orange County Board of Equalization and Review <br /> there were 37 appeals of sixty-five different parcels of real estate to the <br /> NC Property Tax Commission. The total assessed value of the property under. <br /> appeal was $7,087,943.00. <br /> A reduction in value was ordered by the Commission on twenty-eight of the <br /> properties under appeal for a total of $647,962,00. This was a percentage <br /> adjustment of 9.1% reduction in the overall valuation of the properties under <br /> appeal. <br /> There was no clear cut pattern as to the reasons for the reductions that <br /> showed a weakness of the revaluation as a whole. The predominant reason <br /> for reduction was information that was presented to the Commission that i <br /> not presented to the Tax Supervisor or the Board of Equalization and Review; <br /> i.e., perk test by the Health Department, access problems, or flood plain and/ <br /> or topo problems. <br /> The next most common reason for reduction was residential property that <br /> was assessed at the upper limit of the assessment ratio range. <br /> To explain: <br /> Our overall assessment ratio was 93.89%, using all sales in our final <br /> sales ratio study. <br /> We had a standard deviation of 12.27, therefore, there were a few pro- <br /> perties that were assessed at over the 100% of market value amount. <br /> Other reasons for reduction were errors in approach to value used, <br /> in amount of depreciation given and functional obsolescence not being <br /> recognized. <br /> r <br /> Considering our overall assessment ratio it was expressed by personnel <br /> of the Ad Valorem Tax Division that a reduction of only 9.1% was considered <br /> by them to be very low. <br /> All appeals have been adjudicated except one. The point of contention <br /> of this remaining appeal is a $300.00 barn. Therefore, when this appeal <br /> is finally adjudicated it will have very little impact on our total <br /> evaluation. <br />