[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-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],{"_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",6551400,"mediaKeyId","5338918-be4bbff626c0bfd1a6a96af58f0ac10e","parentId",5338918,"title","Commissioners table Drakeford Library condominium agreement; staff to refine MOU and declaration","audioSeconds",802,"startMs",5618000,"endMs",6420000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5338918-be4bbff626c0bfd1a6a96af58f0ac10e&start=5618&end=6420","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5338918-be4bbff626c0bfd1a6a96af58f0ac10e/thumbnail_5618000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6551400/Orange-County/North-Carolina/Commissioners-table-Drakeford-Library-condominium-agreement-staff-to-refine-MOU-and-declaration","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6551400-b3e7b7ff6bce6c5221c645c7b07b6abc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771119334&Signature=nx1K9LZE6h6b5HLG7aAOSwtL-XnGR9oyRLJN~xEQcKEcWfS9T3FzevsXDhp0nE8GOV62Br9rL8AY0qt-UcleHl9XkLz6SNwkSjGlXIR0Zcm0Bi992jAgO8tUu0sRCKBqhBQGqZCqQDKLKg34MGnq75oOa22Rv-rphNlVD7R3HevBBMyKioDtW2OJ-AfeIbViCz5sh6PPH9AOUsg0MOfhGWBbRPzFWD9itYDLmAHazFLYGRXhecPgna2m2BZUV~i9QF6FdL3xisBoMRq6oGgD5Rj~suNldVmmj1MNlkwMfH4dHOb~ov~aNBkbA3B5uT19ednAxfTnE~Cv2KSur2btEg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Orange County","date","2025-07-08T00:00:00Z","article","The Board of County Commissioners on July 8 delayed a final vote on the Drakeford Library condominium declaration and the related memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Town of Carrboro, sending the documents back to staff and legal counsel for further refinement.

Why it matters: The documents would govern condominium ownership and use of the Drakeford Library complex, a shared facility between the county and the town. Commissioners raised questions about executive‑board makeup, insurance language, parking rights and how to allow future subdivision of condominium units without repeated costly amendments to the declaration.

Discussion and reasons for delay
County- and town-drafting counsel reviewed the draft declaration and MOU and told commissioners the documents were designed to allow county and town operational flexibility while avoiding frequent, costly filings to amend a recorded condominium declaration. Counsel noted that the MOU has been used as a working document while final construction details and surveys were completed.

Commissioners asked for changes and clarifications including:
- Executive board composition and quorum rules and whether each governmental party could name additional representatives; counsel said the declaration could be revised to allow the BOCC and the town to name additional designees.
- Insurance coverage: counsel said MOU paragraph 15 (insurance) could be mirrored into the declaration if commissioners wished; county and town risk managers reviewed insurance language.
- Parking and limited common elements: counsel said parking spaces designated for each party are intended for that party's use, but that limited common elements could allow some future adjustments; the declaration currently permits the county to \"have the right, but not the obligation\" to charge for parking.
- Amendment thresholds and subdivision: counsel said allowing limited subdivision of ownership units was intended as a flexibility measure, and recommended avoiding frequent recorded amendments since recording changes is costly. They also said nonmaterial edits could be handled in the MOU while material amendments to the declaration would require both parties' approval and re-recording.

Board action and next steps
Commissioner Jean Fowler moved to delay action; a majority of commissioners voted to table further action. Counsel and staff will draft clarified language addressing the executive board composition, insurance cross‑references, and any other nonmaterial edits and return the package to the board for consideration. The town indicated it had provisionally approved the package subject to any minor nonmaterial changes.

What was not decided
No recorded adoption or filing took place. The board did not authorize filing at the Register of Deeds or finalize governance rules; staff will return with revised draft language.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Orange County - BOCC Business Meeting 20250708 - Jul 08, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","After a legal review and questions about governance, insurance, parking and amendment thresholds, the board voted to delay final adoption of the Drakeford Library condominium declaration and memorandum of understanding and asked staff and counsel to return with clarified language.","taxTitle","Orange County, North Carolina","taxId",3848,"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},6551405,"Orange County commissioners adopt resolution opposing Senate Bill 205",327,1858000,2185000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5338918-be4bbff626c0bfd1a6a96af58f0ac10e&start=1858&end=2185","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5338918-be4bbff626c0bfd1a6a96af58f0ac10e/thumbnail_1858000.jpg","/articles/6551405/Orange-County/North-Carolina/Orange-County-commissioners-adopt-resolution-opposing-Senate-Bill-205","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6551405-f6470cf0cc45cd707c465af0725d9097/orig.mp4?Expires=1771119334&Signature=FaD71lc9xg33anFlSH78ct0IFL~xVKHoM8y~nMQXSfAKxra1iAc83N0v3uVZQZ4S9VK6-A5r5halq7hysfnhWFr2VImD3Al15pjXg8bgKEFLau7iI0NOBj~8ADNRp6jb4qS9fJSrvLs5w-3HT803GNGlpZujbGSk8ytjfnqik8Lwb9U9n-Rx7-J5ZQ-SjeYK3FFToxkcs5eJ-jN14giUUPkF9Z6dRRntA63YJdvVi4ZekbJ-BIV9QiA9aDFuIwjar44HGbAyB1jCQO-5OgY8hT1pIRTLrWP9z1JkoFrR~Ek1IKOpI8IG7Xilp2H4Fyofu9FVFwjTVJU6lLmlxMZHlg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Orange County commissioners on July 8 adopted a resolution formally opposing North Carolina Senate Bill 205, which county staff and several commissioners said would curtail local land-use authority and limit public participation.

The board voted on the resolution after staff and commissioners described the potential effects of the bill. The county\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000s planning director and county attorney had briefed the board on the measure earlier in the meeting; the county said the resolution was drafted following guidance from the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the bill would require the county to change how it receives, processes and notifies the public about land-use applications and could reduce opportunities for local public comment.

What happened at the meeting
- Introduction: County staff described Senate Bill 205 as proposing \"substantial changes\" to state land‑use law and said it would \"limit public participation and notification of land use change in the county should it be adopted into law by the state.\"
- Motion and vote: A commissioner moved adoption; Commissioner Hamilton seconded the motion. The board passed the resolution by voice vote; no roll‑call tally was recorded in the meeting minutes.
- Next steps: The clerk will share the adopted resolution with the county's legislative delegation and other stakeholders.

Context and comments
Commissioner Portia Ascott said the resolution followed a recommendation from the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners and formalized the board's concerns. Commissioner McKay (speaking from experience with legislators) described the drafting process for many state bills as narrow and urged vigilance.

What was not decided
The action was a formal expression of the board's position on state legislation; it did not change local law or county policy beyond sending the resolution to the delegation.

Provenance
The board introduced the item in the meeting agenda at 6b and concluded with a voice vote adopting the resolution; the clerk will transmit the document to legislators.","The Board of County Commissioners voted to adopt a written resolution opposing North Carolina Senate Bill 205, which county staff and commissioners said would reduce local land‑use authority and public notice.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":80,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6551410,"Orange County tax office details revaluation review as residents press appeals",3123,5308000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5338918-be4bbff626c0bfd1a6a96af58f0ac10e&start=2185&end=5308","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5338918-be4bbff626c0bfd1a6a96af58f0ac10e/thumbnail_2185000.jpg","/articles/6551410/Orange-County/North-Carolina/Orange-County-tax-office-details-revaluation-review-as-residents-press-appeals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6551410-02071ef879408b97a773aaa04a6f9dac/orig.mp4?Expires=1771119334&Signature=NXxW-TG~m0UquovhMeYHxLGkBLrwIYhvMUGJKGd1YVX8bpPPVhlKB4-n4Xv2HASA4u9IuG6QQjO4SLNyDRU0vM8gSdT0p4UICy5nxAXZL4zUJDtVE0G-iZSD3V8LCxvxdRQ47E~3ZdgHIzoNE9UALpiv~BvX4hgioaDcU8DnoFSEgffGzouEusnNL15YH2aEvXd0uiZBk~BMiL2gD0IJf5fVJkb-PH-etdfU05GxcX-VyoT6mJj~JUj~v7C5AOnWGtIqawN0Uy8HEks8329f3G0~gq5ycLsgu~uETgWA9WagmQVbv1bK67DULntflRN6YjW1-ACpBKyMwiQbRrC1Mg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Orange County tax office staff on July 8 described ongoing work to review the county's 2025 property revaluation, saying a third-party vendor is analyzing vertical equity and time‑adjusted sales while county appraisers continue neighborhood-level reviews and processing appeals.

The tax office presentation, given to the Board of County Commissioners by tax office staff Nancy Freeman, said the vendor is comparing 2024 and 2025 valuations, calculating median and mean sales ratios, the coefficient of dispersion (COD), and the price‑related differential (PRD). Freeman said the vendor\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\"had some preliminary results\" and that \"our hope is to have that information as early as tomorrow\"; she said the county expects to bring results to the Board of Equalization and Review before returning findings to the commissioners in September.

Why it matters: County residents will receive tax bills based on the revaluation, and many say increases will make homeownership unaffordable. The county's review is aimed at identifying statistical irregularities that could signal biased valuations and at making neighborhood corrections before tax bills are finalized.

What the county presented
- Scope and methods: The vendor will run vertical equity analyses for residential and nonresidential property, compare 2024 vs. 2025 values by building and land types, and compute PRD, COD and median sales ratios by strata including building type, land use, age and quintiles by value. Freeman explained the Department of Revenue standard for the median sales ratio (0.90\u0000to\u00001.10) and IAAO guidance ranges for COD (roughly 5\u0000to\u000025) and PRD (0.98\u0000to\u00001.03).
- Time adjustment: The vendor will calculate time adjustments from county sales; county staff also noted an internal, illustrative monthly factor drawn from Redfin (0.065) for some comparisons. Deputy Assessor Chad Phillips said the vendor is \"actually calculating the time adjustment for the sales in the study,\" not using the Redfin statewide rate for the vendor's primary work.
- Neighborhood follow-up: The tax office said it has identified 44 neighborhoods internally for additional review and is also examining 20 neighborhoods recommended by the Orange County Property Tax Justice Coalition. Freeman described use of PRB (price‑related bias) as a second check and said appraisers will do targeted follow-up when statistical indicators remain outside acceptable ranges.
- Appeals and corrections: As of June 30 the tax office reported 3,462 informal appeals and 366 formal appeals, with 2,561 appeals completed. The office said 1,403 of the completed cases resulted in a change; 30 of those were increases. Freeman described a neighborhood correction already made: after an error identified in Chestnut Oaks was corrected, the Board of Equalization and Review on June 12 approved changes affecting about 45 parcels and the county mailed value‑change notices to affected owners.

Public concerns and reactions
Residents, housing advocates and neighborhood representatives urged faster and more granular corrections and said many appeals either were denied or resulted in adjustments far smaller than residents expected.
- Beverly Walton, a resident of Morris Hill, said, \"If we take this community from the people that have given their blood, sweat, and tears to build it through taxation, ... you have to have insurance on your homes. My home is old. It has not been renovated.\" Walton and other speakers told commissioners they fear displacement as values and taxes rise.
- Hudson Vaughn of the North Carolina Housing Coalition said county and outside analyses indicate \"Black communities with 3 times the increase in value compared to white communities with the same market increase,\" and urged the county to work with neighborhoods to correct disparities rather than treating the analysis as proof the county has no problem.
- Christine Abernathy, director of housing justice at the Marion Cheek Jackson Center, said appeals submitted with photos and comparable sales evidence were being denied or returned with minimal adjustments; she urged the board and tax staff to \"act with urgency for the people that are going to get these tax bills in August and September.\"

County staff response and next steps
Freeman described the vendor study and said the county will review the vendor's findings, perform neighborhood-level checks where PRD/PRB flag issues, and, where appropriate, take corrected valuations to the Board of Equalization and Review for formal changes and subsequent notice to property owners. She said the county aims to finish internal reviews and return results to the commissioners in mid‑September (tentatively Sept. 16).

The tax office reiterated that the informal appeals process relies on evidence submitted by property owners; staff said formal appeals include field visits. Freeman said the office had completed about 350 field reviews for informal appeals to date and stressed that additional documentation from appellants speeds correction. Deputy Assessor Chad Phillips and tax office staff said they will provide the vendor study to commissioners as soon as it is available.

What was not decided
The board did not take a policy vote on rate relief or other short‑term tax relief measures at the meeting. Several commissioners said the county manager will convene a longer-term working group this fall to explore other tools and options beyond the immediate technical review.

Ending note
Commissioners and staff said they will continue to process appeals through the July 31 formal appeal deadline and to prioritize neighborhood reviews flagged by statistical tests and community submissions; the county expects to present the vendor's detailed results and any recommended neighborhood value adjustments this fall.","County tax staff described a vendor-led review of the 2025 revaluation, outlined statistical checks (PRD/PRB/COD), and reported thousands of appeals. Residents and local advocates urged faster corrections and neighborhood-level fixes amid concerns about disproportionate increases in historically Black neighborhoods.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners table Drakeford Library condominium agreement; staff to refine MOU and declaration

Orange County commissioners adopt resolution opposing Senate Bill 205

Orange County tax office details revaluation review as residents press appeals