2025_10_08 BOER Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Docusign Envelope ID:C1C9D8C0-856C-4210-8FBB-3D5A9118D2E3 County does not contain primary market pricing is a deeply false narrative. The County does not believe a reduction to the current assessed value is supported. • Photograph of Subject • Location Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card of Subject • Comparable Sales for Subject Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $1,197,600 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 State Employees Credit Appellant(if different) Tom Berry Union Property Address 11830 Fordham Boulevard Parcel ID or Abstract 9799895159 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on comparable bank sales. Current Assessed Value $41,079,000 ounty Opinion $41,079,000 Time of Hearin 2:24PM Appellant Opinion $27,506,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $41,079,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Office sales containing 100,000 square feet or more in gross building area within 40 miles of the subject support a lower valuation. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject is a large office building in Chapel Hill known as the Parkline Building built in 1973 and containing 220,044 square feet of gross building area. An analysis of the appellant's evidence by the County and the county's commercial appraiser consultant found the property has been valued by the appellant's representative using only the sales and the income approaches for the office building. The site contains 37.15 acres of super-prime development land whereas most of the office sales presented by the appellant have less than 10 acres of land. The appellant's representative does not appear to consider the value of the other 27 acres of super prime development land on a major corridor. Without a serious attempt to address the potential highest and best use of the land or a building+excess land valuation,the evidence does not address the actual characteristics of the property. The County has identified sales of properties for redevelopment purposes that support the County's current valuation. The County does not believe a reduction to the current assessed value is supported from the appellant's evidence. • Photograph of Subject • Location Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card of Subject 8 pages)