Several Union County property owners told the Board of Equalization and Review that the county's 2025 revaluation used inappropriate comparables and lacked transparency about valuation methods.

Jason Klingler, a Chris Mark subdivision resident, told the board his house's assessed value rose from about $419,000 to $679,000 before appeal and that he believes comparable sales the county used did not match his house by style or square footage. "The records request I have submitted to the county have not been fulfilled," Klingler said, summarizing his concern that the county did not provide documentation he sought on how the vendor or staff selected comparables and performed inspections.

Other taxpayers made similar points. Anthony and Gail Badini told the panel their assessor's file used mostly colonial-style sales while their house is a Cape Cod and argued the county should use sales of like-for-like homes. William and Sharon Cleveland asked why an adjacent lot was valued at roughly double the land values of nearby subdivision parcels; county appraisers said the parcel had not been platted into the Steeplechase subdivision and therefore was handled as a rural parcel rather than as a neighborhood lot.

County appraisers told the board they followed statutory limits on usable sales data for the 2025 revaluation. As the chair and appraisal staff noted repeatedly, "If you are presenting any sales data ... the sales data needs to be as of 01/2025 or before since 01/2025 is the effective date of the reevaluation." Dana Chastain, a county appraiser, said she had tested nearby sales and did not find a measurable landfill influence on adjacent parcels when she pulled comparable sales around the Cunningham property.

Taxpayers who live near the county landfill said noise and truck traffic had increased since a transfer station moved closer to residential properties, and they supplied agent comments and third-party listings as evidence of a market impact. County staff said they had no objective way, using available sales data, to quantify a landfill proximity discount.

Commercial and vacant-land appellants raised separate issues. Carolina Development Services LLC's representative, Jonathan McCall, sought a modest reduction to an assessed office building near Highway 74 and to vacant tracts on Morgan Mill Road. County appraisers said they used county and regional office-sale analytics and, for one vacant tract, reclassified the site to a commerce/industrial rate, applied a reduction for floodplain acreage (about 5.7 acres were noted) and referenced a recent purchase on March 17, 2023, for $950,000 as a nearby benchmark.

Why it matters

Taxpayers' concerns about which comparable sales are admissible and how county staff implement the revaluation method are central to the fairness of property tax administration. The board's adherence to the statutory sales cutoff date and to its standard appraisal protocols means many appeals turn on the proper selection and adjustment of comparable sales, plus site-specific constraints such as floodplain, topography and utility access.

What comes next

The board upheld the county values on the contested parcels; appellants may seek further review under state law or provide additional documented sales that meet the statutory cutoff. County staff told the board they will continue to provide packet materials and to respond to records requests through the county's public records process.