2021_12_13 BOER MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DocuSign Envelope ID:639C5139-26DA-4AC3-8274-8C6D5BE5A52A Tri City Investments LLC PIN 9799692931 This meeting is a continuation from prior meeting on November 17, 2021 where the Board requested the terms of the lease to determine value and requested County Attorney Anne Marie Tosco's presence. Michael Benak from McCarter&English appeared before the Board to continue the appeal of the value of the property located at 1801 Fordham Boulevard, Chapel Hill. The current assessed value of the property is $16,045,200. A list of evidence follows: APPELLANT COUNTY 9799692931 Appeal 9799692931 County Michael Benak presented a PDF from the previous meeting with the income approach and additional assessment comparables showing the reasoning for the appellant's opinion of value of$65.00 per square foot for the subject property. Mr.Benak discussed the fee simple interest versus a leased fee interest and provided more evidence explaining how the appellant does not think the leased fee sales by themselves without adjustments is the proper way to reassess commercial properties. Mr. Benak provided evidence of two stores from different counties in which the values were settled using fee simple sales including a number of sales whose valued had been adjusted based on the lease term remaining,Evidence of stores selling twice including one of the County's comparable sales. A Gaston County appraisal report showed a sale of a Lowe's Home Improvement in South Carolina sold twice with the second sale indicating a 4% rate adjustment. The appellant recommends using the 4%per year for the remaining lease as used by the Property Tax Commission for other counties' appeals.Applying the 4% adjustment to the subject property leads to an opinion of value of$69.00 per square foot.with an overall assessment of$8,838,900. Kelly Wells represented the County and stated that upon review of this property by CCA, CCA weighted the sales comparison approach at 40%and the income approach at 60%for a reconciled valuation of $11,467,369. As a result of this review,the County recommends increasing the economic market adjustment on the property from E20 to E43 for a revised valuation of$11,432,100. Chris Mashburn with CCA reviewed the additional documents provided by the appellant and going through the PDF said that on the surface of the evidence,no disagreements can be found. However,the appellant provided no lease agreement and his only concern is if County adjusts the 4%per year amount of the time remaining on the lease,the lease terms would be needed to calculate the value. Mr.Benak clarified he is not valuing the subject lease but rather the leases of comparable sales. Mr. Beattie addressed Ms. Tosco in regards to a suggestion on how the Board could effectively settle a value per square foot issue in which Board members have not encountered before to avoid an appeal going to the Property Tax Commission.Mr.Beattie stated that he has the impression that this Board should look at whether the taxpayer has provided competent material and substantial evidence in their valuation and not just settle the valuation out of convenience or to avoid going to the Property Tax Commission, as was suggested in the previous meeting. Mrs. Tosco advised if the value were to be changed,the Board would need substantial evidence to support the change and it might be the case that the other counties' Boards did hear competent and substantial evidence in the way settlement was used.