HomeMy WebLinkAboutE&R 1993-05-17
/,..,/
,)(0
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW MEETING
MAY 17, 1993
ASSEMBLY
The 1993 Board of Equalization and Review met on Monday, May
17, 1993, at 3:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover
County Administration Building, 320 Chestnut Street, Wilmington,
North Carolina. The purpose of the meeting was to hear appeals
filed by property owners regarding their tax value assessments.
Each appellant was informed that the board would make a decision
following the hearings and notification of the decision would be
received within a week.
Members present were:
Caster; William E. Sisson,
Chairman Robert G. Greer;
Appraisal Supervisor Jim
Elmore.
Commissioners Sandra Barone; William A.
Jr.; vice-Chairman E. L. Mathews, Jr.;
Tax Administrator Roland Register; Tax
Bethune; and Deputy Clerk Teresa P.
Chairman Greer called the meeting to order.
TAX APPEAL - FRANK R. AND MARGARET B. PINER, PARCEL R07114-003-001-
000, 621 MOHICAN TRAIL
Mr. Frank R. piner spoke regarding his property located in the
Tanglewood Subdivision. He stated part of the vacant lot is used
for a vegetable garden and is considered part of his home site.
The lot is not for sale and it is not required for it to be
connected to the sewer system. Mr. piner requested the value to
remain at $7,000.
Mr. Bethune explained that the value of the vacant lot was
assigned a 50% value reduction due to the lot not being suitable
for a septic tank system. Now that the sewer system is completed
for this area, the condition for the reduction was removed and the
value for the lot is assessed at 100%. Mr. Bethune suggested that
Mr. piner could re-record the lots as one lot; otherwise, State law
requires assigned values to be placed on each recorded lot.
Mr. Bethune also informed the Board that the Engineering
Department talked with Mr. piner about placing a sewer easement
through the lot. If there was an easement, the lot would be deemed
unbuildable which would decrease the assessed value.
Mr. piner replied that the engineering department wanted to
put the sewer easement in the area of his vegetable garden, which
would not be acceptable to him.
Motion: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Vice-
Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barone, to accept
the assessed value of $14,000 as recommended by the appraisal
staff. Upon vote the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
TAX APPEAL - WILLIAM RAY AND MARION F. STALLINGS, PARCEL R04914-
005-008-000, 4230 MARKET STREET
>'0
I
I
I
87 ~
MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 17, 1993
Mr. Bethune announced that Mr. Stallings was not able to
attend the hearing and staff was requested to give his appeal. Mr.
Bethune reported that Mr. Stallings is appealing the assessed value
of the property based on the fact that he paid $230,000 for the
property in April 1992; therefore, he reasoned that the property
should be assessed at the selling price.
Mr. Bethune recommended to uphold the value of the property as
the law requires all property to be appraised at its true value.
At the time of the sale, the property was listed for $335,000 and
a MAI appraisal dated July 7, 1990, estimated the value to be
$315,000. The actual selling price indicates that the property was
sold with the seller being under compulsion to sell.
Motion: At the
Commissioner Barone
uphold the assessed
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
conclusion of the hearings on
MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
value of $328,659. Upon vote,
this date,
Sisson, to
the MOTION
TAX APPEAL - ALEXANDER M. HALL, PARCEL R07100-003-015-003, 4702
SOUTH COLLEGE ROAD
Mr. Register reported that Mr. Alexander Hall requested
postponement of the hearing until the regular scheduled meeting of
the Commissioners on June 21, 1993.
TAX APPEAL - WEST CARY INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, PARCEL R06018-004-
036-004, 1192 HARBOUR DRIVE
Mr. Fred Crawley, Executive Vice President of Summit Realty
Group, representing the owner, West Cary Investment Associates,
spoke briefly concerning Mr. Beck's letter regarding the appeal for
Sand Ridge II Apartments. Information was submitted to support the
market value of the land and improvements to be $1,665,532. To
determine this value, a vacancy rate of 7.5%, an expense rate of
37.5%, and a capitalization rate of .1018 were used in the
calculations.
Mr. Bethune argued the vacancy rate is more likely at 5%, and
expenses should be at 30% of the total income. Expenses are not
usually high on newly constructed apartments compared to structures
that are 15 to 20 years old. The tax office would consider the
cost approach method in determining the value of the property, if
the owner provided the actual cost of the construction. Building
permits were issued for $1,746,600.
Mr. Crawley stated it was real doubtful if a buyer could be
found to purchase the apartments at the assessed value.
MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, vice-
Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Sisson, to uphold
the assessed value of $2,003,592 as recommended by the Tax
Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
~
(3 fs
MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 17, 1993
TAX APPEAL - LANNY THOMAS WILSON, PARCEL R05118-001-046-000, 1442
QUADRANT CIRCLE
Mr. Lanny Wilson spoke concerning the value placed on his
newly constructed home. When dealing with new construction, he
considered the actual cost to be the best way to determine the
value of property. The land was purchased in May 1988 for $90,000,
which included $10,000 for membership at Landfall Country Club.
Based on the actual cost of construction, he estimated the fair
market value of his property to be approximately $600,000.
After reviewing Mr. Wilson's construction contract and cost
over-run items, Mr. Bethune estimated the replacement cost of the
home and land value to be $630,000. Since the construction was not
completed until February 1993, he recommended to adjust the
assessed value with a 90% completion applying for 1993.
MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date,
Commissioner Barone MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to
adjust the assessed value to $630,000 with a 90 percent completion
applying for 1993 as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
TAX APPEAL - NEW HANOVER ASSOCIATES, PARCEL R04920-001-001-000
(OFFICE BUILDING) AND R04916-001-006-000 (VACANT LAND), 5051 NEW
CENTRE DRIVE
Mr. Alan Toll, an attorney with Stephens, McGhee, Morgan,
Lennon and O'Quinn Attorneys and representing the appellant, New
Hanover Associates, spoke regarding the appeals. He stated the
building is currently in foreclosure because the rental income
cannot support the mortgage. The owners requested the assessed
value to be adjusted to $713,000, the amount owed on the loan.
Recently the sister building sold for $600,000; however, it too was
in foreclosure.
On the vacant land, Mr. Toll reported that the Corps of
Engineers have notified the owners that the vacant and unimproved
land around the office building is being considered jurisdictional
wetlands. If any construction is done, civil penal ties and
criminal charges will be imposed. Needham, Jernigan and Associates
are working to prove to the Corps that the vacant land has been
altered and should not be considered wetlands. A huge barrow pit
was made in the area when the overpass on NC Highway 132 was built.
Mr. Toll requested the assessed value on the vacant land to be
adjusted to $2,000, since the property is virtually worthless until
after the appeals process. Portions of the vacant land area may be
removed from the wetland classification, but license and permits
will most likely be needed for those areas to be developed.
Mr. Bethune responded that the tax department would classify
the land as wastelands at $150 per acre; however, there is the
I
I
I
~
89
MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 17, 1993
possibili ty that the property can be improved by doing certain
things to remove it from the wetlands classification. He stated it
is feasible for an investor to purchase the land at 50% of the
market value if in fact the property can be improved. For this
reason, the assessed value is at $3.30 per square foot. If the
property is determined to be wetlands, the assessed value will be
reduced further.
In regards to the office building, Mr. Bethune recommended to
reduce the assessed value by $250,000 to an adjusted value of
$1,149,622. He explained the design and physical location of the
building rendered the heating and cooling system inadequate. Over
the years, high utility expenses and repairs have caused frequent
turnovers in tenants. It would be a significant investment to
correct the problems in the building.
Mr. Toll agreed to the recommended reduction in the office
building, but felt additional relief was needed on the property
classified as wetlands. Purchasing contracts were released
because of the Corps' decision to classify the property as
wetlands. He stated it will be a long, hard struggle to change the
classification. Additional relief was requested for the vacant
property.
MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date,
Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barone, to
reduce the assessed value of the office building by $250,000 as
recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION: After a short discussion on the vacant land, Commissioner
Sisson MOVED, SECONDED BY Commissioner Caster, to reduce the value
by 50% while the Corps of Engineers is making a determination of
the wetlands classification. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
TAX APPEAL - MAQ/PINES ASSOCIATES (THE PINES APARTMENTS), PARCEL
R06019-006-009-000, 1272 SHIPYARD BOULEVARD
Mr. Peyton Cooper, Avtax, Inc, representing the owners of the
pines Apartments, spoke regarding the poor condition and problems
of the apartment complex. Because the city sewer system is unable
to handle heavy runoff of rain during storms, 28 units are
routinely flooded. Because of the disrepaired flat roof, IS units
suffered water damage from the last storm. A major problem in
repairing the roof is the removal of asbestos in the roofing
material. It is estimated to cost $1.3 million to remove the
asbestos and repair the roof.
Mr. Cooper requested a reduction in the assessed value based
on the actual income/expense figures. He explained that the high
renter turnover rate resulted in higher maintenance and expenses in
~
qc'
\0. j )
MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 17, 1993
operating cost. He estimated the assessed value to be $3-3.5
million and asked that the cost of the asbestos removal be deducted
from the value. An appraisal by Robert Cantwell estimates the
value to be $2.5 million.
Mr. Bruce Lifton spoke regarding the problems of the property.
Because of the liability of asbestos in the roofing material, the
Resolution Trust Corporation will not allow the owners to go into
foreclosure. The RTC has cut the mortgage from $3.3 million to
$2.1 million, also a floating rate with the payment fixed at
$25,OOO/month was given.
He stated at the time of the prior appeal, the asbestos
problem was not known. He felt Mr. Cantwell's appraisal of $2.5
million is indicative of the property. As expenses continue to
rise, it will be difficult to get a buyer for the complex. If
problems are not taken care of directly, the problems will
increase.
Mr. Bethune responded that the existence of asbestos is
present in all properties of similar construction built in the same
era; therefore, no reduction in value can be assessed for that
reason. Also, the March 1993 storm damage does not affect the 1993
assessed value. He surmised that the assessed value is reasonable
and fairly supported.
Mr. Bethune explained that the decision of the County's 1991
Board of Equalization and Review for this property was appealed to
the State Property Tax Commission. Their decision to not include
the asbestos issue in the appeal was made because the earlier Board
of E&R did not know of its presence. Mr. Bethune commented that
the asbestos probably will not ever be removed. Some consideration
may be given for monitoring of the situation in the future.
At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, discussion was
held on the condition of the buildings and the removal of the
asbestos. Chairman Greer felt the value of the property should be
reduced in the amount of $1.3 million to cover the cost of removing
the asbestos.
Mr. Register replied that the owners will have to remove the
asbestos as they replace the roofs that have deteriorated; however,
the other roofs will only need to be monitored for the asbestos.
Monitoring cost will be $20,000/year. He stated the income stream
has not been effected at all. Occupancy rates are very good and
expenses have been low.
Mr. Register explained that during the next step of the
appeal, an expert from the Department of Revenue will work for a
compromise between the County and the appellant. The Property Tax
Commission will take advice from the Department of Revenue and then
I
I
I
9 1 """"IIIl
MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 17, 1993
send an official order. Mr. Register recommended that the Board
allow the specialist with the Property Tax Commission and the
Department of Revenue to review the property to make a
determination.
MOTION: Vice-Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Caster, to uphold the assessed value of $4,936,424, pending the
decision of the Court of Appeals as recommended by the Tax
Appraisal Supervisor.
Commissioner Barone MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, SECONDED BY
Chairman Greer, to reduce the assessed value to $3,636,424. Upon
vote of the Substitute Motion, the MOTION DID NOT CARRY.
Voting Aye:
Commissioner Barone
Chairman Greer
Voting Nay:
Commissioner Caster
Commissioner Sisson
Vice Chairman Mathews
Upon vote of the Motion to uphold the assessed value, the MOTION
CARRIED AS FOLLOWS:
Voting Aye:
Commissioner Caster
Commissioner Sisson
Vice Chairman Mathews
Voting Nay:
Commissioner Barone
Chairman Greer
TAX APPEAL - GREENFOUNTAIN COMPANY (ST. JAMES VILLAGE, SEC. 1),
PARCEL R05511-002-035-001 THROUGH R05511-002-035-008, 761-777 SOUTH
KERR AVENUE
Mr. Alton Lennon, representing the owner, Charles F. Green,
III, spoke regarding the appeal on the building. He stated the
property was purchased from the builder for use as a general rental
office building even though it was built as condominium units. The
building has never been rented, sold, used or financed as condo
units; however, the documents on record show that these are eight
separate units with separate appraisals.
Mr. Lennon reported that the building is now completely
leased. Based on the independent fair market value appraisal by
Mr. O. J. Clontz, Jr., the market data approach estimated the value
at $430,000, the income approach at $400,000 and the cost approach
at $451,000. He concluded that if the property was not legally
documented as condo units, the tax department would be more
inclined to reduce the tax appraisal value. There is no benefit to
Mr. Green to have the property listed as condominiums; however,
there is an expense to remove the declaration of condominiums.
~
~:r-
MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 17, 1993
Mr. Bethune responded that the County is required to appraise
property as it is legally structured; however, the appellant has
based his appeal on an appraisal for an office building. If the
property was combined by removal of recordation of "condominium,"
the tax office would be able to appraise the property as one, with
one perimeter wall like other office buildings. This would
definitely cause the value to be less than the appraisal with
individual units. The assessed value is supported by the price Mr.
Green paid for the property in 1987. Comparable sales of office
condominiums would support the assessed value. Originally the
market price was $92,000 for each unit. It is not an office
complex appraised as one building and one tract of land, but
condominium units with individual site values.
Mr. Lennon reiterated that with Mr. Clontz's appraisal, the
property seems to be priced at $115,000 more just because of the
legal classification. Also, he felt the owner actually paid too
much and a more fair price would have been $525,000.
Commissioner Sisson noted that the actual site value raised
the value of the property and that Mr. Green could market and sell
as individual units.
MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date,
Commissioner Barone MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Mathews, to
accept the Tax Appraisal Supervisor's recommendation to uphold the
assessed value of $68,194 per unit or $545,552 for the eight units.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
TAX APPEAL - ATRIUM LANDFALL LTD., PARCEL R05612-009-008-000, 1410
COMMONWEALTH DRIVE
Mr. Al LaMontagne, President of PVG America and representing
the owner Atrium Landfall Limited Partnership, stated that based on
the pro forma capitalization of income approach, the assessed value
of the 60,000 square foot office building should be reduced to
$3,418,559. The data used was based on lease agreements made in
1989 with a vacancy rate at 10 percent and expense rate at 40%.
The shell of the building was completed in 1989 with leases
beginning in October 1989. The building was 72 percent leased in
1991.
Mr. Bethune replied the assessed appraisal of $5,115,210 for
the office building was determined by the cost approach to value
method. In using the income approach to value, this high quality
office building would not have a 10% vacancy rate, the potential
gross income would be at $13.50/PSF, and expenses are contracted
with the tenant to share the cost over and above $3.50/PSF. Using
these adjustments and a capitalization rate of 10.25 percent, the
income approach to value would be $5,030,798, which strengthens the
cost approach to value at $5,115,210.
I
I
I
~
93
MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 17, 1993
Mr. LaMontagne reiterated that the property should be based on
1991 rent payments. He argued that the current composite rent rate
is $3.29; however, Mr. Bethune used the absolute high rent rate of
$13.50/PSF which is based on one lease, although it is the major
lease. He reported that an exact building in Guilford County is
assessed at $1.7 million less.
MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Vice-
Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Sisson, to uphold
the assessed value of $5,115,210 as recommended by the Tax
Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
TAX APPEAL - NORTH SOUTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PARCEL R04911-
001-005-000, R04911-001-006-000, AND R04911-001-007-000, LOCATED
NORTH OF MARKET STREET, BEHIND THE HOLIDAY INN AND RAMADA
Mr. Bethune reported the owner Mr. A. V. Saffo is not present;
however, staff did meet with Mr. Saffo to discuss the problems of
the property. Currently, most of the property is not marketable
due to excessive expenses required for development and providing a
sewer system. Staff proposed a 50% reduction in value for 6.7
acres of Parcel #1, 4 acres of Parcel #2 and the 3.9 acres of
Parcel #3.
MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date,
Commissioner Barone MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Sisson, to
reduce the assessed value on Parcel #1 to $225,000, Parcel #2 to
$40,000, and Parcel #3 to $39,000 as recommended by the Tax
Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
TAX APPEAL - BALCOR/COLONIAL STORAGE, PARCEL R05508-001-003-000,
426 SOUTH COLLEGE ROAD
Mr. Bethune reported that Tax Representative Terry Hughes of
Marvin Poer & Company, representing the owner Balcor/Colonial
Storage, submitted an appeal requesting a reduction in the assessed
value of the mini-storage facility to $683,365. After the 1991
Revaluation, staff met with the owner to review the appraisal and
made a $41,806 reduction in the assessed value. The owners
accepted the adjusted value at that time so there is no
justification for a reappraisal in a non-revaluation year.
Mr. Bethune explained that most tax representatives are on a
contingent fee basis. Sometimes tax appeals are used as a means of
deferring taxes until after the appeals procedure. The Property
Tax Commission will ask the General Assembly to require a $100
filing fee for appeals in order to curtail some of the frivolous
appeals.
MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date,
Commissioner Sisson MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barone, to
uphold the assessed value of $877,941 as recommended by the Tax
Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
~
g4
MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 17, 1993
TAX APPEAL - WILMINGTON RETIREMENT PARTNERSHIP, PARCEL R06006-00S-
012-000, HOSPITAL PLAZA
Mr. Bethune reported that Tax Representative Terry Hughes of
Marvin Poer & Company, representing the owner, Wilmington
Retirement Partnership, submitted an appeal requesting a reduction
in the assessed value to $5,485,681. The appeal is based on the
actual building cost of the retirement complex.
Mr. Bethune stated that the actual construction cost plus the
land value should be the best estimate of market value on a new
building. Upon reviewing the actual cost figures and excluding
items of personal property and "soft-cost," he recommended the
assessed value be reduced to $5,985,989.
MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date,
Commissioner Barone MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Sisson, to
reduce the value of the property to $5,985,989. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
TAX APPEAL - MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, PARCELS R04916-
001-006-001, 5041 NEW CENTRE DRIVE, AND R04916-003-002-000,
WILMINGTON MARKET PLACE SHOPPING CENTER
Mr. John Hunsucker, Real Tax Resources, Inc., spoke regarding
the appeals of the owner, Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company.
He withdrew the appeal on the Market Place Shopping Center and
spoke about the office building on New Centre Drive. The owners had
foreclosed on the property in 1991 and listed to sell the property
for $750,000. In March 1993, the property was sold in foreclosure
to Jerry Cook in the amount of $600,000.
Mr. Bethune stated that the foreclosure price does not reflect
the market value. The true market value is somewhere in between
the offered price of $859,000 and the actual offer. Staff
recommended to reduce the value by $250,000 until renovations and
improvements are made to the structure.
MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Vice-
Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Sisson, to reduce
the assessed value of the office building by $250,000 to $871,433.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION: Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Sisson, to uphold the value of the Market Place Shopping Center.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
TAX APPEAL - LEROY L. AND MILDRED U. LITTLE, PARCEL ROS408-007-004-
000, 405 STRADLEIGH ROAD
Mr. Leroy Little spoke of his concern with high taxes paid in
New Hanover County. In 1992, he paid $1,364.80 in property taxes;
$671.61 in City taxes and $683.19 in County taxes. He understood
the amount paid to the City because it was for services he
I
I
I
g 5 -..,
MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, MAY 17, 1993
received; however, he contested the amount paid to the County for
services he did not receive. He noted that BO% of the county
budget is for education, human services and courts and public
safety. He urged the Board to say "no" to the State and Federal
governments for unfunded mandated programs.
Mr. Little stated ad valorem tax collecting is a medieval and
colonial system of taxation and recommended a study be performed of
alternate tax resources. He urged the Board to stop the continual
escalation of taxes and reliance on ad valorem taxes.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no additional appeals, Chairman Greer adjourned
the meeting at 5:30 p.m. The Board of E&R will meet again on June
21, 1993, to hear Mr. Hall's appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
~~fJ ~
Teresa P. Elmore
Deputy Clerk
~