[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6231412,"mediaKeyId","3431645-f067827b001190dd86b14687f18e4115","parentId",3431645,"title","QuikTrip appeals valuations on land and convenience stores; board sides with assessor on multiple properties","audioSeconds",2939,"startMs",2262000,"endMs",5201000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3431645-f067827b001190dd86b14687f18e4115&start=2262&end=5201","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3431645-f067827b001190dd86b14687f18e4115/thumbnail_2262000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6231412/Union-County/North-Carolina/QuikTrip-appeals-valuations-on-land-and-convenience-stores-board-sides-with-assessor-on-multiple-properties","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6231412-cb2cbd26b6ca3b6c2d46bb367b63e527/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184431&Signature=fUtM3fQRXJnUceBfujghMtT-LFeaMItvmfJaxnMHrFQ~YbdYyEk9~7iJxQIg38S6nvk5nYDg5MMJK3T6igYBdHG4ARYVBLS5fhzI8DeafeOyNI-JfEOozc~2rqx6HgfwUoOfy4V6sI2DHoU2Gf3od9dyvonnKKNv5JhG8AONoIt0cHrejiW0V4AjBd4DxINxQpYaT0-yw76sYLRbW~YMzk1nuiYa4YrUJY4p5xlyJLdgyNUBe1wXDpC~7Ajyr1j2QE37qmqBfa5ZAYHRChMT4YqN2czrtjl3hOzs0pEWfRIl07rtT8Ox~yFRRePuvYZVyWgJoiewHOd8hocV-KPkkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Union County, NC","date","2025-05-21T12:49:30Z","article","The Union County Board of Equalization and Review heard multiple appeals from QuikTrip and its representatives over the assessed values of a vacant land parcel and several convenience-store properties and voted to sustain the county assessor’s valuations.

QuikTrip argued one undeveloped parcel purchased in 2023 should be valued at its sale price of $175,000 because the parcel is effectively constrained by access and assemblage issues, while the county placed a higher per-acre value based on nearby sales and recent development.

Ryan Condiff of Invoke Tax Partners, representing QuikTrip, told the board that QuikTrip bought the subject parcel in 2023 and asked the board to set the taxable value at the 2023 sale price. “They bought it in 2023. They bought it for our requested value of $175,000,” Condiff said. He emphasized the parcel’s constrained frontage and the need for an easement to secure direct access from Concord Highway if sold separately.

County staff disputed treating the single lot as equivalent to the assembled parcels QuikTrip also owns. The county noted QuikTrip purchased two adjoining parcels in 2023 for $450,000 and $510,000, and that nearby development — including a 215-townhome and 307-apartment project called The Ridge At 601— materially changes market context. The county told the board it had the subject parcel appraised at roughly $270,000 per acre. “We’re at 270,000 an acre. It’s what we currently have it appraised for,” the county said.

In separate appeals of convenience-store properties, the dispute focused on building classification and the cost approach. QuikTrip’s appraiser applied a Marshall & Swift cost approach with a “good” quality classification and used a 2% per year depreciation factor to calculate replacement cost less depreciation; QuikTrip also argued that gas station sales reflect business operations (receipts) rather than real-estate value. The county maintained certain stores should be classed as “excellent” based on design, canopy and heavy-duty concrete paving, and applied its higher cost multipliers accordingly. The county described Marshall & Swift as “the gold standard for valuation” for commercial properties.

The board voted to accept the county values on the land parcel (hearing number 7 — county value $32,500) and on the convenience-store parcels (hearing numbers 8 and 9 — county values $3,391,400 and $2,067,150, respectively). Board members twice noted the key difference was the quality rating assigned to the buildings and the heavy canopy/concrete work that the county said makes the sites higher-cost to replace.

The county and the taxpayer both acknowledged differences in methodology: QuikTrip’s representatives favored cost estimates tied to local construction costs and IRS depreciation guidance in places, while the county relied on Marshall & Swift cost tables, local multipliers and built-in classification grades. The board sustained the assessor’s determinations after formal motions to retain the county values were carried.

The board’s decisions preserve the assessor’s applied land-rate matrix and cost-based assessments for convenience stores in the areas appealed. Property owners will receive formal notice from the clerk’s office of the board’s rulings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Equalization and Review | May 21, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Union County Board of Equalization and Review heard multiple appeals from QuikTrip and its representatives over the assessed values of a vacant land parcel and several convenience-store properties and voted to sustain the county assessor’s valuations.","taxTitle","Union County, North Carolina","taxId",14197,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6231416,"Union County board upholds county valuations for three Campbell properties after appraisal disputes",4754,282000,5036000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3431645-f067827b001190dd86b14687f18e4115&start=282&end=5036","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3431645-f067827b001190dd86b14687f18e4115/thumbnail_282000.jpg","/articles/6231416/Union-County/North-Carolina/Union-County-board-upholds-county-valuations-for-three-Campbell-properties-after-appraisal-disputes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6231416-8b1fe7542eb45874399bd5608d101f9c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184431&Signature=kg9NqTiD~Wl8mmkxkAZ9LvgifX5nHWqbf6wLMfi3uMrYkx5~VkFwN7G1cmenOesZFhn3BhqKuBPNi1yzwlAAvHDs4R3S4pQNBnXq06qxOnOYUB68pHoK9FLxPmC9VaAyWm91yUC7AXHBq9VPa1qTwe5~Jqr3HxFHFblSzWutsL9U8xsCr7Y56FoDoUinCWzA5wWcb9siYkrDz8MRuZk5k~g7M6Cx7UXJvUJoSimmaAf1lfWyY9DuSU9jj~Bit7DvNtMDgx7bSDx20my5k66LR69tducGBYvJwB0MrVctl3plUdPDXZ1MS-vxYIUeBs0u67a2BAqjHdGk8zCTzCMuPA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Union County Board of Equalization and Review voted to uphold the county assessor’s valuations for three properties owned by Campbell John M. Co., after hearing taxpayer testimony and county appraisals on use, zoning and depreciation.

The decision matters because the appeals sought reductions on an unimproved lot and two office buildings where the taxpayer and county used different valuation methods and assumptions, including whether structures should be treated as residential or commercial, and whether IRS depreciation schedules or Marshall & Swift tables should control.

At the hearing, a taxpayer representative said the Miller Street parcel is effectively land used for contractor storage and contains only sheds and a pole building. The county’s appraisal, presented by Latasha Wiggins, a real property appraiser for Union County, said the parcel’s zoning had been confirmed as residential and that the county had set the total value at $40,600 — $38,800 for land and $1,800 for structures. Wiggins told the board, “There’s no livable structure on the property. There’s only 2 storage buildings and a pole building.”

On the first office parcel, the taxpayer presented a cost-based valuation derived from construction costs and IRS depreciation schedules, saying they had used the National Building Cost Manual and IRS guidance to calculate what they considered a fair value. The county appraiser explained the assessor relies on Marshall & Swift cost tables for commercial properties and applies a different depreciation model. The county argued its approach is “the gold standard for valuation” used by lenders and widely accepted for commercial appraisal work.

For the multi-tenant office building, the taxpayer submitted a cost approach based on original construction costs (the taxpayer said they built the structure) and used IRS depreciation schedules; the county again used Marshall & Swift cost and depreciation tables. The taxpayer acknowledged it had not supplied income information for an income-capitalization approach.

After discussion and questioning, the board voted on the three contested items during deliberations. For the Miller Street parcel the board accepted the county value of $40,600. For the office parcel identified as hearing number 5, the board accepted the county’s total valuation of $247,700. For the multi-tenant office parcel (hearing number 6) the board accepted the county’s valuation of $65,800.

The board recorded motions to accept the assessor’s recommended values and carried each motion. The decisions preserve the county’s use of Marshall & Swift for commercial cost appraisals and its selected depreciation schedules in these cases. The county clerk said property owners will be notified of the board’s decisions by letter, consistent with Board procedures.

The board also noted the procedural posture of the cases: taxpayers raised different methodologies (cost vs. income approaches, and IRS tables vs. Marshall & Swift) but did not produce evidence the county’s methods were applied incorrectly under existing practice.

The county recommended no changes to the assessed values, and the board’s votes sustained those recommendations.","The Union County Board of Equalization and Review heard appeals from Campbell John M. Co. over three parcels — a Miller Street lot and two office properties — and voted to leave county values unchanged after hearing testimony about zoning, structure condition and competing appraisal methods.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6231402,"County board accepts late personal-property exemption application for Certeco North America",942,4553000,5495000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3431645-f067827b001190dd86b14687f18e4115&start=4553&end=5495","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3431645-f067827b001190dd86b14687f18e4115/thumbnail_4553000.jpg","/articles/6231402/Union-County/North-Carolina/County-board-accepts-late-personal-property-exemption-application-for-Certeco-North-America","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6231402-97369ef5b5d83c2f8b80c4b7c989d6c8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184431&Signature=RrbQ2sHFo6QzotClOqONJGIMPxpBKzQmZ-kdueiuL3mq7k~9zVK7WF8Eo7LoAYEkPht4eMioHlDAFji~qCOyZhRRUMpxxZ-mDIasoxEaMSiqz-koXrSwQcUl~uvx-reg77GzhG4ucix1OOvh1Ct5a~XhzCTWP6v9b0PvA8LdGzZLWA2YKWd0o84pTuJ0OR3r-fNhWGac3ozeeiYBaF1gSw0qxjpbtIGfWjled-lr46xjEHoxZ1Kk3pUZxx~Iz3wnw9VzN6RXVNRcJfGM9cX00IRYuOjj-a3luLZ~ndTJ8W3gDLEu6DIlDEcsXH~gG1fAFgSI9UrE--FcU19rYmDtSg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Union County Board of Equalization and Review accepted a late personal-property exemption application from Certeco North America after the company’s tax accountant said equipment listings were omitted during a 2023 corporate acquisition.

The matter is important because the exemption applies to personal property (business equipment) and acceptance of the late filing may restore tax-exempt status for the equipment if county policy allows retroactive correction.

Janet Gray, tax accountant for Certeco North America, told the board Certeco acquired OMNOVA Solutions on March 1, 2023, and that in the transition the personal-property exemption listing was dropped. Gray said she discovered the closed account and missing bill in late January or early February and that she subsequently filed the corrective submission. “I found this out in late January, early February when I was looking for the bill. There was no bill, so I called and that's when I found out, oh, your account has been closed,” Gray said. She told the board she had since filed the listing and submitted documentation to county staff.

County staff explained that exemption applications were due January 31 and there was no extension requested in this case; the county recorded receipt of the corrected filing on March 17 and therefore initially denied the application as untimely. The county brought the matter to the board to consider equitable relief.

After hearing the explanation and noting the remedial filing, the board voted to accept the untimely exemption application for the company’s personal property. Clerk and assessor staff will process the accepted filing and notify the taxpayer of any change in tax status or refund eligibility according to county rules.

The board’s acceptance does not automatically mean tax refunds will be issued; staff will review records, confirm eligibility, and implement any adjustment consistent with county practice and statute.","Certeco North America (which acquired OMNOVA Solutions in 2023) told the board its personal-property exemption was inadvertently dropped during the acquisition process; the board accepted the late application after county staff explained the filing deadline had been missed.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6231408,"Board accepts late farm-use application for Howell property after taxpayer cites confusion over prior escrow",1208,4164000,5372000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3431645-f067827b001190dd86b14687f18e4115&start=4164&end=5372","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3431645-f067827b001190dd86b14687f18e4115/thumbnail_4164000.jpg","/articles/6231408/Union-County/North-Carolina/Board-accepts-late-farm-use-application-for-Howell-property-after-taxpayer-cites-confusion-over-prior-escrow","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6231408-cfbf03588c3f2904b380d011a7a44015/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184431&Signature=XDMNpo9VDYhtmFZoGDyJ7FxR2Cs~EJDJ63WSCCBxg18rpFX-8BC7j8htRqAJUI8IboDm~Cuq62tZn~gdrRHldhcubifWmE9smEN7AEEWL6QNbu-oHyC7ve1BQyhNsYyzC5yuDWMYfjnpOOb4tq05oE0~u715R3fvPIc8cbfG6SYizpr1i1O67Mdvo4oE2iRGMx7pizzFi6sd2oxJ0L54oINxqQ9iYDiLduZFrQGSpHX2wVVCrIGFxiZWHAXT01881JTzgykEwiWVG9tCuPjpqf~3a9sJjrjYbaBeIPC5CuJztLONyeBExbOoT518PTBv311mmOzrZmyePRNHEcvHoA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Union County Board of Equalization and Review granted relief for a late farm-use application filed by Ronald and Barbara Howell, whose family farm had not been enrolled in the farm-use program after the mortgage escrow ended in 2007.

The board’s action matters because farm-use enrollment reduces taxable value for qualifying farmland; acceptance of the late filing may change the Howell property’s tax treatment for the relevant year if the county’s administrative processes allow retroactive relief.

Ronald Howell told the board he and his family assumed the land remained in farm-use status after their loan was paid off in February 2007 because the mortgage escrow previously handled taxes. “We were under the assumption that once you were in a farm set up that you didn't have to reapply every year,” Howell said. He explained he discovered the lapse only after talking with other farmers about tax bills and realized the farm had not been listed under the program.

County staff explained the statutory application deadline is January 31 (or an agreed extension tied to personal-property changes), and that the Howell application had been submitted after that date — the county recorded the submission as April 1. County staff said they had to deny the application as untimely under normal procedure but brought the case to the board for consideration of equitable relief.

During deliberations the board voted to accept the untimely farm-use application. The clerk indicated the board would follow its normal process for notifying the taxpayer and implementing any change to the assessment or tax bill if applicable.

Howell asked the board for leniency, saying he did not intend to evade rules and that the lapse came from a misunderstanding of the application requirement after escrow ended. The board’s vote to accept the late filing was recorded without a roll-call naming each member’s vote on the transcript; the clerk will issue an official determination and inform the taxpayer.","Ronald and Barbara Howell told the Board of Equalization and Review they believed their farm had remained in farm-use status after paying off their loan; the board accepted an otherwise untimely application after hearing the taxpayer and county explanation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

QuikTrip appeals valuations on land and convenience stores; board sides with assessor on multiple properties

Union County board upholds county valuations for three Campbell properties after appraisal disputes

County board accepts late personal-property exemption application for Certeco North America

Board accepts late farm-use application for Howell property after taxpayer cites confusion over prior escrow