Loading...
E&R 1996-06-17 I I I ~ 1 '~ "" . MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, JUNE 17, 1996 ASSEMBLY The 1996 New Hanover County Board of Equalization and Review met Monday, June 17, 1996, at 2:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third street, Wilmington, North Carolina. The purpose of the meeting was to hear appeals filed by property owners regarding their tax value assessments. Members present were: Commissioners Sandra Barone; William A. Caster; William E. Sisson, Jr.; Vice-Chairman E. L. Mathews, Jr.; Chairman Robert G. Greer; Tax Administrator Roland Register; Tax Appraisal Supervisor Jim Bethune; Assistant County Attorney Kemp Burpeau; and Deputy Clerk Teresa P. Elmore. Chairman Greer called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone present. Appellants were informed that the Board would make decisions following the hearings and notification of each decision would be mailed within a week. TAX APPEAL - EUGENE H. AND IRENE DA SILVA, 3610 BOHICKET WAY, WILMINGTON, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R06718-001-015-000 Tax Administrator Roland Register reported the appeal was withdrawn. TAX APPEAL - RAYMOND C. AND DELORES M. MILLER, 8704 BARDMOOR CIRCLE, WILMINGTON, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R02919-003-027-000 Mr. Raymond Miller, owner of a stucco home in Porter's Neck Plantation, spoke regarding the impact of adverse publicity concerning moisture problems in stucco homes. He felt he was entitled to a reduction in his assessment because of the problems occurring in other stucco homes. However, the Tax Department has only granted reductions in assessments to those who have presented proof of moisture infiltration and damage. Mr. Miller reported his home was built 18 months ago and it was inspected for moisture infiltration nine months later; however, no moisture problem was found. He presumed since every other stucco home had moisture problems that he would eventually have a problem and he felt it was not economically feasible for him to continue paying $500.00 for periodic inspections. Mr. Miller understood from the Tax Department that the reason for denial of his appeal was based on state statute, Section 105- 287, that states "a general reappraisal cannot be made by reason of reduction in value due to inflation, deflation, or other economic changes effecting the county in general." He felt the Board should allow a revaluation on all stucco houses because of the evidenced of moisture and damage in many stucco homes. By recognizing evidence of moisture damage in some of the homes is evidence of economic loss and is equally valid in homes even without known damages. He spoke of articles in the Wall street Journal and the ~ ~ } '1, ,.. '" MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, JUNE 17, 1996 star News reporting of problems with sales in stucco houses. The inability to sell the houses was not because of actual damage, but because of well-publicized problems in some of the stucco houses. He felt his property value was damaged as much as those who have had evidence of moisture damage and that he should have a reduction in his assessment. Chairman Greer asked Mr. Miller how he decided the amount of reduction for his assessment. Mr. Miller stated he based his reduction of $38,000.00 on the report in the Wall street Journal concerning his neighbor's stucco home. The value reduction is based on the cost of removing and replacing the stucco. Mr. Bethune reported the appraisal department's position for Mr. Miller and others who have called the office, is that under the statutes the County can adjust the value based on deterioration over and above normal wear and tear. Al though the County has recognized the problem with stucco construction, moisture intrusion is sudden deterioration and rot beyond normal wear and tear. Under the statutes, however, the County has to require a survey and a repair estimate in making a reduction. He reported significant reductions in values were given to 135 taxpayers who provided the required information. The County's opposition is based on the statute that the assessed value cannot be changed in a non- revaluation year where value is affected by economic conditions that are general to the jurisdiction of the county. The stucco problem is general to all of the county from Carolina Beach to Wrightsville Beach and will be addressed in the 1997 revaluation. Mr. Register reiterated that the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to provide competent evidence of damage and Mr. Miller has cited that it is a general economic problem rather than a specific problem to his property. Making a decision without that information would be arbitrary for the County. At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Mr. Bethune reported that Mr. Miller's appeal is based on the stigma of the stucco problem, which is a market adjustment that will be considered in 1997. The statute does not allow an economic adjustment that is general to the economy in a non-revaluation year. Theoretically, if all the houses in New Hanover County were stucco houses, the County would lose its tax base over night. Motion: Vice-Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to affirm the assessed value of $261,759.00, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TAX APPEAL - ARDEN C. ROLLINS, 5203 SUNDANCE WAY, UNIT #102, WILMINGTON, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R06209-002-021-053 I I I 133 ~ MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, JUNE 17, 1996 Mr. Arden Rollins, owner of a condo unit in Lakeside Village, spoke regarding the moisture damage to his unit. He reported the owners had received a revised estimate of $10,000 to repair the damaged condo units and to replace the stucco with wood shingles. Mr. Bethune reported the 50 units in the condo project were built during the past three to four years. The level of damage from moisture intrusion varies from unit to unit with some having significant damage and others none. The Tax Department has not received an estimate of repairs from the Lakeside Village Homeowners Association or from individuals; however, a copy of their moisture survey is included in the Commissioners' packet. Fifteen or more owners had called the Tax Department and were told that the Homeowners Association needed to submit an appeal for the whole project. An adjustment cannot be given to individual units based on an overall repair. Uni ts without damage should not receive an adjustment the same as units with damage. The Homeowners Association is responsible for the repairs, and they chose not to make an appeal. The owners who did not have damage were not wanting the $10,000 assessment. The earlier built units were purchased in the $40,000 range and have equity; the later built units were purchased in the $70,000 range. Mr. Rollins complained that he was unable to make the repairs because his property was part of a condo project and he was not authorized to make the repairs. Mr. Bethune sympathized with Mr. ROllins, but stated the County did not have any basis for making an adjustment to the assessed value. The Homeowners Association had made no contact and the time limit had expired for filing an appeal. The Board of Equalization and Review could have addressed the problem as a total uni t. Two years ago, the Riggins had made an appeal and adjustments were made to individual units and not to the entire project. He explained the condition of that unit impairs the value of a unit and not by the condition of another unit. Mr. Rollins reported his unit is less than a year old, but according to the moisture report, his unit had more moisture damage than the three-year-old units. He complained that although he was unable to get an individual repair estimate on his unit, he did receive an individual tax bill. At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, discussion was held regarding Mr. Rollins's situation. Although the moisture survey indicated damage in many of the units, the County had received no estimates of the repairs. Mr. Bethune reiterated that the County had no basis to make an adjustment. Motion: Vice-Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to uphold the value of $47,861, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ~ 1 ~4 MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, JUNE 17, 1996 ~l' TAX APPEAL - LORI JEANNE NOLAN, 5233 SUNDANCE WAY, UNIT #202, WILMINGTON, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R06209-002-021-039 Mr. Bethune reported Ms. Lori Jeanne Nolan resides out of state and was not present for the appeal. She submitted her appeal based on the same facts as Mr. Rollins and asked for the same consideration that he would be given. At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Mr. Bethune explained that of the 15 or 17 homeowners who called the Appraisal Department, most accepted the County's position. He felt that if any consideration is given to one of the owners, it should be given to all of the owners. MOTION: Vice-Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to uphold the value of $47,861, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TAX APPEAL - AMY MCCOMB, 405 RED CROSS STREET, WILMINGTON, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R04813-028-018-000 Ms. Amy McComb, owner of the property, spoke regarding her appeal on property located at Red Cross Street. She explained the physician located next door previously owned the vacant house. She purchased the property for $85,000 and plans to modify the structure to be used as four rental apartments. She explained to decrease the price of the property, the size and shape of the lot was reduced by removing the "T" section. She felt the adjustment for the land assessment should be less than a $200.00 reduction. The physician had paid the rate of $1.25 per square foot as opposed to her rate of $1.75. Mr. Bethune explained when property is redivided, a new appraisal must be performed using the current schedule of values and based on similar properties in the neighborhood. The assessment of $1.25 a square foot in 1991 was most likely based on the irregular lot size and the uses of the property. After reshaping the property, the rectangular lot is more useable, which is why the rate of $1. 75 was applied to both joining property owners. All the properties in the neighborhood are zoned CDD Commercial and have the same reassignment of value. At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Mr. Bethune explained to modify the rate from $1.25 per square foot to $1.75 per square foot allowed a more equitable rate in value with other properties in the neighborhood. MOTION: Vice-Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Sisson, to affirm the assessed value of $49,734.00, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TAX APPEAL - FREDERICK D. AND MARGARET W. CROUCH, THE COTTAGE RESTAURANT, 1 LAKE PARK BOULEVARD, CAROLINA BEACH, NC, TAX MAP I I I 135 ~ i MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, JUNE 17, 1996 NUMBER R09006-019-007-000 Mr. Bethune reported Mr. Crouch recently purchased a residential property and converted it into a restaurant. When they reviewed the site, the Appraisal Department found that the building was assessed as a commercial structure, rather than a residential structure used for a commercial purpose. Also, the building was one and three-quarters stories instead of a full two-story structure as assessed. He recommended the Appraisal Department be directed to correct the application and reduce the assessed value from $263,042.00 to $206,876.00. MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Commissioner Barone MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to reduce the assessed value to $206,876.00, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TAX APPEAL - NOEL AND JOCELYN J. HAZZARD, 420 WENDOVER LANE, WILMINGTON, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R04407-009-003-000 Mr. Bethune reported Mr. Noel Hazzard was not present at the hearing; however, he had requested the Board to consider the impact on value of a pig farm and three mobile homes located behind his home. Mr. Bethune reported Mr. Hazzard purchased his home in a relatively new subdivision on Wendover Lane. Mr. Ward owns the neighboring ten-acre pig farm, which has been there a number of years. The appellant felt he was entitled to a reduction based on the effected market value on his home. Normally, these circumstance would affect the market value, but a reduction in the appraisal is not justified because the assessed value of $136,791.00 is less than the market value. Mr. Hazzard paid $162,000.00 for the house. Commissioner sisson commented that the pig farm was at that location long before the Wend over North Subdivision. At the time Mr. Hazzard purchased his home, he should have been aware the farm was nearby. MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, vice- Chairman Mathews MOVED, SECONDED by commissioner Sisson, to uphold the assessed value of $136,791.00, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TAX APPEAL - GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, 2117 CASTLE HAYNE ROAD, CASTLE HAYNE, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R01700-001-001-000 Mr. Rod Sturgeon and Mr. victor Grant, Property Tax Managers for the General Electric Company and Attorney Joe Taylor were present to represent the General Electric Company. Mr. Sturgeon stated the appeal to the property tax assessment by GE was not an intent to avoid its commitment and responsibility to the community; and regardless of the outcome, GE would continue ~ "1 ~i 6 . :.; MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, JUNE 17, 1996 ~, to be a good corporate citizen of the County. He argued that GE should be entitled to a fair assessment according to the General statutes of North Carolina and he requested a 10% reduction of approximately $1 million. Mr. sturgeon commented on the def ini tions used in North Carolina when assessing property and in particular the definition of fair market value. The County is charged with assigning the type of value whether it is value in use or value in exchange and each type of value will have a different monetary value for the property. He quoted the NC General statutes in which the County is charged with assessing as follows: The words true value mean market value, that is, the price estimated in terms of money at which the property would change hands between a willing and financially able buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of all the uses to which the property is adapted and for which it is capable of being used. In further discussion, Mr. sturgeon explained that the assessed value should be a value in exchange and not a value in use. A number of court cases in North Carolina have upheld the value based on the exchange definition. A value in use differs substantially with a value in exchange by taking into account the present use of the property to the present user of that property. For the GE property, it means how the property relates to other GE nuclear and aircraft manufacturing facilities. The economic conditions of large industrial property, such as the GE Plant, has changed since the property was revalued. Mr. Grant spoke regarding the approaches to value using income, market and cost approach methods. While all three methods are reliable means to determine value, the income approach is not feasible because a rental rate is difficult to determine with very few industrial sites leased. The market approach and sales comparison approach are appropriate for assessing the value of real estate. However, investors will not pay large amounts for industrial real estate when having to deal with the limits of an older facility. In applying the cost approach method, Mr. Grant explained the value is determined by the effective age, the quality and condition of the structure, the accrued depreciation, and the estimated obsolescence of the property, which are all subjective. Most of the 1.4 million square feet of building space was built in 1967 and estimating the obsolescence and effective age of the property is difficult. In a comparison of recent sales found in South Carolina and North carolina, Mr. Grant ascertained that the smallest facility I I I 137 ~ MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, JUNE 17, 1996 sold at the highest price per square foot, while the largest facility sold for $7.10 per square foot. The facility most similar to the GE Plant sold for $10.00 per square foot. The undeveloped land value of $4 million plus the value of the facilities at $14,500,000 gives a total appraised value of $18,500,000. The cost approach method is limited because the site is not new and has a lot of accrued depreciation. The Appraisal Institute cautions against the use of cost approach when it is not supported by market data. It states: Because the estimation of accrued depreciation and entrepreneurial profit is difficult, the cost approach may be of limited usefulness in valuing older improved properties. Mr. Grant concluded that the income, market, and cost approach methods are interrelated. In the market approach, the depreciation in obsolescence is reflected in the value and ranges in value from $6 to $15 per foot. The County used a 15% obsolescence factor in the valuation of several buildings; however, the buildings would not be sold separately. The depreciation and obsolescence should be applied all the way through. The Marshall and Swift Valuation Services used similar methodology as the County, except they a~plied a 15% functional obsolescence factor all the way through. The appraised value was $17,700,000, which is close to the $~B,500,000 valuation of the market approach. In using recognized methods, 25-45% obsolescence was applied. Mr. Sturgeon commented an independent appraiser used actual sales and offers of property for sale in the marketplace. In calculating the highest and lowest offers, the average offer was $14.44 per square foot; however, most of these properties sold at an average price of $6.91 per square foot, which indicated the market value for this type of facility had declined. Mr. Bethune objected to GE submitting another appeal after they had agreed upon the value at the submittal of the 1991 appeal. Many meetings with the appraiser, Mr. Cantwell, concluded with an agreement to adjust the value by $30 million, which was based on the approved schedule of values. Although the taxpayer has the right, he felt it was inappropriate for GE to come back year after year requesting additional adjustments. He agreed that the income approach may not be appropriate because there may not be comparable sales to the GE facility. GE has not shown that the County's assessment is arbitrary or erroneous; and an agreement was reached in the 1991 appeal. Mr. Bethune recommended the assessed value of $35,264,914.00 be affirmed for 1996. At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Chairman Greer maintained there were no grounds for an appeal because the assessment had been reviewed thoroughly and established as the ~ 138 MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, JUNE 17, 1996 correct value in 1991. Mr. Register commented that GE agreed to the assessment in 1991; however, the economic conditions cannot be considered in a non-revaluation year. MOTION: Commissioner Sisson MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Mathews, to uphold the assessed value of $35,364,914.00, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TAX APPEAL - MURCHISON BUILDING LLC, 201 FRONT STREET, WILMINGTON, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R04720-007-011-000 Mr. Register reported the appeal was withdrawn. TAX APPEAL - SOUTHEAST MORTGAGE/INVESTMENT, CAPE HARBOR APARTMENTS, 7113 CAPE HARBOR DRIVE, WILMINGTON, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R04300-003- 033-000 Mr. Bethune reported the Cape Harbor Apartment complex, located on Gordon Road, was under construction at the beginning of the year. The assessment of $9,276,684.00 was based on the percentage of completion on some of the buildings as of January 1, 1996. In reviewing the property, some of the buildings were partially completed and assessed as completed. After making the adjustments, the assessed value was reduced to $8,397,389.00, and the appellant accepted the value. The Appraisal Department recommended the taxable value be reduced to the revised assessment. MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Commissioner Caster MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Sisson, to reduce the assessed value to $8,397,389.00, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TAX APPEAL - HOECHST CELANESE POLYESTER INTERMEDIATES (FORMERLY CAPE INDUSTRIES), 4600 HIGHWAY 421 NORTH, WILMINGTON, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R02400-001-001-000 Mr. Bob Mack, Director of Community Affairs for Hoechst Celanese, Wilmington Plant, spoke regarding the difference of opinion on the valuation method used in determining the assessed value of the Wilmington Plant. He introduced Grant Atkinson, Chief Financial Officer of Fortron; Hubert Graves, Chief Financial Officer of Hoechst Celanese at the Wilmington Plant; and Tom Buckley, Property Tax Manager from the Southeast Regional Office. Mr. Buckley reported a fixed cost analysis is performed periodically on Hoechst's properties. Mr. Ed White, SRA, CAE, and a former assessor from the South Carolina Department of Revenue, was hired to appraise the large industrial complex in accordance with the laws of North Carolina. Mr. Buckley commented the laws state that in order to determine a willing buyer and a willing seller, the property must be seen as a site vacant of employees and I I I ~ 1~9 MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, JUNE 17, 1996 equipment and should be valued as a sale in exchange rather than a value in use. He asked Mr. White to present the appeal. Mr. Ed White, owner of Appraisal Associates of Clemson, reported he performed an appraisal on the Wilmington Plant on U. S. Highway 421. He described the office space as better than most; but the steel buildings beyond the gate were classified as "8" lowcost pre-engineered steel buildings that were over twenty-years old. The plant was built specifically for a process by a particular company and would have no other use. If changed into an industrial park, a large capital investment would have to be made. He reported that he found no local sales of similar sized si tes that could be used for comparable sales. In checking regionally, he discovered several sales in south Carolina, which were based on per acre value of the site. Georgia Pacific sold a 2,406 acre river site similar to the Wilmington Plant to Newport Corporation for $3,868,068, or $1,607 per acre. The cost approach is a well-recognized approach to value; however, the majority of the industrial buildings are old and he placed emphases on the direct sales comparison approach. In assessing the income capitalization approach, the 300,000 square foot property with seventy-three buildings would not be a typical lease; however, he did determine an estimated rental income of the buildings. In surveying the Wilmington area and other leases in the Southeast, he calculated rental rates to be $1.79 to $4.36 per square foot for large industrial buildings. The economic rent for the Wilmington site was estimated at $2.75 per square foot. The capitalization rate was based on using a discounted cash flow, with income generated over a twenty-year period. Mr. White explained he used the direct sales comparison to determine the value. Sales were selected from several industrial properties in the region. A sale of a 612-acre chemical plant sold for $3.20 per square foot. In discussions with the people who purchased the pre-engineered steel building, he found that the building was purchased at a depressed price because of the limited market of special purpose buildings. In comparing the property with the Hoechst property, Mr. White concluded the estimated value at $5,400,000. In the cost approach, the value was estimated at $6 million, and the income approach value was estimated at $5,600,000. In evaluating each approach and recognizing the economic obsolescence, he appraised the value of the Wilmington Plant to be $5,600,000. Mr. Bethune replied that the appraisal department took exception with the appraisal because it did not prove the tax assessment as arbitrary, illegal or erroneous. He did not agree that the market value approach was the only real measure of value for the type of property. The Appraisal Department considers all three approaches to value in making an assessment, but must use the ~ 140 MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, JUNE 17, 1996 County's schedule of values. By establishing and assigning a schedule of values to all properties in New Hanover County, some obsolescence was built-in. For example, Fortron Industries probably spent $4 million on the S-type buildings of structural steel and titanium. In applying the schedule of values, the cost per square foot is less than the actual amount paid to construct the buildings. The tax assessment does reflect a reasonable value based on the established values of January 1, 1991. Mr. White's appraisal is based on 1996 values and does not prove the County's assessment as arbitrary. Mr. Bethune recommended affirming the assessed value. At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Mr. Bethune explained that although the men said that they were from Hoechst Celanese, the deed recording listed the property owner as Cape Industries. Mr. Bethune stated that property cannot be appraised to the value of the use to the owner, but he reiterated that the County's approach to value through the cost approach to value is the only way the true value can be measured. Hoechst indicated the County did not apply proper depreciation. The County's schedule of values determines the value of special purpose type buildings the same as other buildings on the schedule. He estimated Fortron's control building cost approximately $200 per square foot, whereas the schedule of values estimated the cost at $45 to $50 per square foot. Mr. Bethune maintained that if the building was vacant for several years, as the Ideal Cement property of a few years ago, the County would have given a reasonable reduction. The vacant industrial site owned by Ideal Cement Company was reduced from $15 million to around $5 million, and was finally sold at $2 million. Motion: After further discussion of using the same schedule of values as other industrial sites of the area, and there being no structural change in the manufacturing facilities, Commissioner Sisson MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Mathews, to affirm the assessed value of $10,186,348, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TAX APPEAL - FORTRON INDUSTRIES ETAL, HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION, 4600 HIGHWAY 421 NORTH, WILMINGTON, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R02400-001- 002-000 Mr. T. B. Buckley, Property Tax Manager of Hoechst Celanese Corporation, spoke regarding his approach in assessing the value of the Fortron Plant. The property consists of 13.93 acres with five buildings. The control building and office area was built for a specific purpose using quality construction. The other buildings are steel warehouses with no plumbing. Access to the property is through private property owned by Hoechst Celanese. I I I 141 ~ .' ';;, MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, JUNE 17, 1996 Because the property is adjacent to a 27-year-old facility and does not have direct access to the property, Mr. Buckley felt there was some economic and functional obsolescence of the property. Based on the cost approach method, he appraised the property at $1 million. Using the income approach to value, he appraised the property at $835,000. Based on the direct sales comparison approach of the higher quality property for industrial use, he estimated the value at $930,000. MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Commissioner Barone MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Sisson, to affirm the assessed value of $1,322,453, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BREAK Chairman Greer called a break from 3:50 p.m. to 4:05 p.m. TAX ~PPEAL - LAURA B. AND LAWRENCE A. WILSON, 1343 LANDFALL DRIVE, WILMINGTON, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R05707-002-038-000 Mr. Bethune reported Mr. and Mrs. Wilson were not appealing to the Board of Equalization and Review; however, they received their estimate for repair of their stucco home after the Board adjourned on April 15, 1996. Since then, the survey of moisture infiltration and the estimate of repairs have been reviewed and inspected by the Tax Appraisal Office. Damages were significant because the dwelling is significant. Percentage-wise, the repair costs were about the same as the other 135 dwellings that the County has reviewed. The estimate for repairs was $262,000; however, some cost items were removed as they were not justified for a reduction in the assessment. Mr. Bethune recommended reducing the assessed value by $173,825.00 for the repair and replacement of the stucco. The Wilsons agreed to the adjusted assessed value of $750,220.00. commissioner Barone asked if the reduction included temporary living cost. Mr. Bethune responded the estimate included temporary living cost, landscaping, and other costs that were not applicable to the reduction of the assessment. MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Commissioner Barone MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to reduce the assessed value by $173,825.00 to $750,220.00, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TAX APPEAL - WILLIAM C. AND NANCY STANBACK, 261 BEACH ROAD NORTH, FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND, WILMINGTON, NC, TAX MAP NUMBER R03818-002-005- 000 Mr. Bethune reported the Stanback property is located on Figure Eight Island and the appeal is similar to the Wilsons I si tuation. The repair estimate, totaling about $85,000, was j 14~) MINUTES OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, JUNE 17, 1996 received late. Based on reviewing the property and the estimate of repairs, Mr. Bethune recommended the assessed value be reduced to $699,794.00. commissioner Barone asked if this reduction was in line with amounts given to other property owners who had submitted estimates to the Tax Department. Mr. Bethune responded the repair estimates were comparable to the other 135 stucco property owners who received reductions in value due to water damages in their stucco homes. MOTION: At the conclusion of the hearings on this date, Commissioner sisson MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barone, to reduce the assessed value to $699,794.00, as recommended by the Tax Appraisal Supervisor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Greer complimented the Tax Department for their fair and thorough presentations of the appeals. Mr. Register commended Mr. Bethune for his 12 1/2 years of service as the County's Appraisal Supervisor and he complimented Mr. Bethune for not having lost a court case, which is due to his expertise as an appraiser. Motion: There being no further appeals, Commissioner Barone MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Caster, to adjourn. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectfully submitted, J~/~ Teresa P. Elmore Deputy Clerk to the Board