Browse
Search
2025_12_02 BOER Minutes
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Board of Equalization and Review
>
Minutes
>
2025
>
2025_12_02 BOER Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/31/2025 2:27:45 PM
Creation date
12/31/2025 2:23:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/2/2025
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Docusign Envelope ID: B280D705-EADF-4415-899E-F125316E835B <br /> Meeting adjourned 3:45PM Richal Vanhook <br /> Property Identification: <br /> Property Owner KRE Hip Loft Chapel Hill Appellant(if different) <br /> Owner LLC <br /> Property Address I 1001 S. Hamilton Road Parcel ID or Abstract 9798345972.001 <br /> Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on analysis of 2024's actual income capitalized <br /> at 10.65%suggesting a lower valuation. <br /> Current Assessed Value $11,355,400 ounty Opinion $11,355,400 <br /> Time of Hearin 1:16 PM Appellant Opinion $8,200,000 <br /> County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $11,355,400 No change in value <br /> Evidence submitted by the appellant: <br /> • An analysis of 2024's actual income capitalized at 10.65% suggests a lower valuation of <br /> $8,200,000. <br /> Evidence submitted by the county representative: <br /> • The tax appeal is not supported for several reasons. <br /> 1. Please note that the appellant has only provided only one year of income and expenses, <br /> which weakens the appeal. No trending can be seen when there is only one year of Profits <br /> &Losses. There are some line-item expenses that could be questioned, and it would be <br /> easier to analyze them with more information rather than snapshot data. <br /> 2. The appellant included personal property taxes in their pro-forma expenses. This is <br /> inappropriate. The capitalization rate is loaded to account for taxes and thus,taxes should <br /> be removed. If removed Net Operating Income would be higher. This historical Net <br /> Operating Income without property taxes removed is shown in the assessor's sheet. There <br /> is another inappropriate deduction for personal property on page 5,where the income <br /> attributed to personal property is removed prior to a lump sum adjustment deduction for <br /> personal property. Only one deduction can be made,not repeated ones for the same item. <br /> 3. It is well worth noting that the property sold in 2021 for$15,169,000($117,000 per room) <br /> and the agent is asking for an assessment of only$9,275,074 prior to deduction of personal <br /> property, which is $71,000 per room. There are multiple sources that discuss how the <br /> hotel market has rebounded since Covid including this one: "Value appreciation: <br /> According to HVS, an investor acquiring a hotel in 2021 could expect a 28%increase in <br /> value by 2025,based on current market conditions." The Counties Assessed Value is <br /> $11,355,400 or$87,000 per room is low by this comparison against the previous price,but <br /> a more reasonable number than the one suggested by the agent. <br /> 4. There are no sales analyzed by the rep,but the property does not look at all like a low <br /> value property. <br /> • Based on sales of comparable hotels in the Triangle,the subject would have an indication of <br /> value of$16,036,268. After deduction of 2025 Orange County business personal value of <br /> $858,559,the indication of value for the real estate would be $15,177,709, well above the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.