Loading...
06-10-2025 Meeting Minutes ERPage 1 of 2 PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION & REVIEW June 10, 2025 MEMBERS OTHERS PRESENT David Newell, Chair Russell Jones, Tax Administrator Susan Laws Mike Kennedy, Real Prop Appr Manager Larry King Lynn Brandon, Real Property Appraiser Kyle Puryear, Commissioner Emmett Curl, Pearson Appraisal Service Sherry Wilborn, Commissioner Michelle Poole, Pers Prop Appr Supervisor The Board of Equalization and Review for the County of Person, North Carolina, met on Tuesday June 10, 2025 at 9:00am in the Person County Tax Office Building in the conference room. Vice chairman Newell called the meeting to order at 9:00 am. The meeting began with the Pledge of Allegiance. The minutes from the June 3, 2025 meeting were reviewed. Mr. Puryear made a motion to approve the minutes, Ms. Wilborn seconded the motion, and the motion carried with a 5-0 vote. Review/motion to accept items on consent agenda – None at this time Review/motion to reject late filed appeals – None at this time The following appeals were heard by the board: Taxpayer: GOREE, SARAH & LUSSIER, MARIE 9:04AM Map #: A15 10A Ms. Lussier started by stating she wanted to discuss two things, the land rate and the adjustment rate. She felt the land base rate of $600,000 for the Deerfield Subdivision was very high compared to some of her adjoining neighbors. She referred to her handout, on page 1 and 2, to compare land base rates. The handout indicated one subdivision had a base rate of $425,000 and another had a base rate of $250,000. Further south, Guy Gardner subdivision had a base rate of $385,000. Stonegate subdivision had a base rate of $220,000. Ms. Lussier was hoping to understand why her specific subdivision (Deerfield) was so much higher. Each subdivision had the same paved roads, septic and well. Deerfield had no lighting, no nice mailboxes and the roads are original and had several big holes patched over the years. The adjustment rate for their land was 0.97. They had the smallest frontage and not on the pointe. She suggested an adjustment rate of 0.60. The water depth at the dock was around 6-7 feet. Discussion: GIS was used to display land assessments. The subject property was purchased on 4/5/2023 for $638,000. MLS still had the listing available and was used to validate the quality of the location and view, as well as the. The lot was very flat, unlike the lot around the corner, with a great view. The same base rate was used for all properties in the subdivision, and adjusted for desirability (view, slope, water depth, cove, etc). The water depth had been measured fall 2024 and recorded as 11 foot at end of dock when lake was at full pool. Tax office staff recommended an adjustment to the effective age of the boat house and a revised tax assessment of $922,944. Decision: Mr. Newell made a motion to lower the tax assessment to $922,944 as recommended, Mr. King seconded the motion, and the motion carried with a 5-0 vote. Page 2 of 2 Taxpayer: LOUISIANA PACIFIC 9:23 AM Map # A66 11 Mr. Andrew Delaney represented the taxpayer. He referred to the appeal packet to show the location was very rural. The property was roughly 51 acres and improvements were approximately 334,000 sf. The facility was a metal building built in 1995. The value of this property increased by 25%, or an increase in value of $2,700,000. It was not typical to see this large of an increase on such an old facility. Also included were charts and comparables. Sales of this type of property are were, especially in this area. Therefore, the search grid expanded to the central North Carolina regions to find comparable sales. Based on this information, the subject property should be valued at $34/sf. The comparable industrial chart showed. 11 sales and 9 listings averaging $27/sf. In prior discussion with the reappraisal staff, all parties had suggested a tax assessment of $12,026,232. Discussion: The biggest increase in the tax assessment was on the land value. Land valuation was based on sales at Polywood and our North industrial park. The subject property had no public sewer, however the other land sales had access to public water/sewer. The tax office and taxpayer had previously discussed a lower tax assessment of $12,026,232. Decision: Mr. Puryear made a motion to lower the tax assessment to $12,026,232. Ms. Wilborn seconded the motion, and the motion carried with a 5-0 vote. Taxpayer: LOWES HOME IMPROVEMENT 9:36 AM Map #: 110 15 Valerie, from Lowes Home Improvement called on Monday, June 9th to advise that no one was going to represent the appeal in person today. Discussion: Staff presented the packet that had been submitted by the taxpayer. Tax office staff had previously discussed with the taxpayer a lower tax assessment of $8,500,000, which was not acceptable to the board. Decision: Mr. Newell made a motion to lower the tax assessment to $9,497,653, Mr. Puryear seconded the motion, and the motion carried with a 5-0 vote. Taxpayer: CASE, BENJAMIN & ANGELA 10:13 AM Map #: A20 187 Mr. Case stated that comparables were hard to find(larger and newer home) because there were very few. They did find one in Orange county. RedFin was also used to average values going up nationally. Mr. Case questioned if there was any allowance for the flood zone. Ms. Case presented comparables for discussion. Discussion: Land value had not been adjusted for area in flood zone. Upon review using GIS, it was determined that 6.5 acres of woodland was affected. A 75% adjustment for the 6.5 acres in the flood zone(25% good) and ACF(3) adjustment would lower the tax assessment to $925,447. Decision: Mr. Newell made a motion to lower the tax assessment to $925,447, Ms. Wilborn seconded the motion, and the motion carried with a 5-0 vote. Mr. Newell made a motion to recess at 10:38 am. Our next meeting is scheduled for June 24, 2025 at 9:00 am. No meeting on June 17, 2025.