The Union County Board of Equalization and Review on Thursday upheld the county tax assessor's valuations in a series of taxpayer appeals after hearing presentations from property owners and county appraisal staff.

The board, appointed by the county commissioners, voted on individual appeals ranging from vacant lots and residential parcels to commercial property. After presentations and county responses, board members moved, seconded and approved the assessor's values in each contested case the board took up that day. One scheduled hearing was rescheduled to a later date and two staff settlement lists were approved.

Board Chair (Board of Equalization and Review) opened the session by reading the board's role and procedures, telling taxpayers: "Property owners appearing before the Board of Equalization Review have a right to a fair and equitable hearing." The board followed that procedure and heard each appellant, county staff presentation and questions from members before moving to deliberation.

County appraisers described the evidence they used for each parcel. For several residential appeals staff relied on neighborhood or rural-land sales that predated Jan. 1, 2025, the statutory cutoff the county said governs sales usable for the 2025 revaluation. For commercial properties the county presented regional and countywide office sales and, where applicable, recent purchase history.

After deliberation the board approved the county values on the contested parcels and accepted the staff settlement recommendations listed on the meeting addenda.

Votes at a glance

- Hearing 1 (property key 6150043): Motion to accept the county's assessment for the parcel (mover: Mr. Ashcraft; second: Mr. O'Keefe). Outcome: Approved.
- Hearing 2 (property key 06009029): Taxpayers not present. Motion to accept county assessment of $1,191,700 (mover: Mr. Smith; second: Mr. Ashcraft). Outcome: Approved.
- Hearing 3 (property key 05165533): Rescheduled to Sept. 4 at 4:30 p.m.
- Hearing 4 (property key 09040020, Cunningham): Motion to accept county assessment of $336,500 (mover: Mr. Ashcraft; second: Mr. O'Keefe). Outcome: Approved.
- Hearing 5 (property key 07058498, Badini): Motion to accept county assessment of $739,800 (mover: Mr. Smith; second: Mr. O'Keefe). Outcome: Approved.
- Hearing 6 (property key 07058412, Klingler): Motion to accept county-adjusted assessment of $644,600 (mover: Mr. Ashcraft; second: Mr. Smith). Outcome: Approved.
- Hearing 7 (property key 08231118): Taxpayer absent. Motion to accept county assessment of $62,800 (mover: Mr. Ashcraft; second: Mr. O'Keefe). Outcome: Approved.
- Hearing 8 (property key 09363001J, commercial property): Motion to accept county assessment (county presented regional office-sales comps; mover: Mr. Ashcraft; second: Mr. Smith). Outcome: Approved (county assessment remained approximately $2.13 million as presented by county staff).
- Hearing 9 (property key 09185012, vacant land): Motion to accept county assessment of $1,077,800 (mover: Mr. Ashcraft; second: Mr. O'Keefe). Outcome: Approved.
- Addendum A (staff-recommended settlements): Motion to approve staff settlements. Outcome: Approved.
- Addendum B (notices of value where taxpayers did not respond): Motion to accept as presented. Outcome: Approved.

Why it matters

The board's routine of hearing taxpayer evidence and staff presentations is the final administrative review before written notices are issued. By upholding the assessor's values the board confirmed appraiser choices about comparable sales, zoning classification and treatment of constraints such as flood zone encumbrances for the parcels contested that day.

What the board heard

- County staff repeatedly noted the statutory cutoff for comparable sales (Jan. 1, 2025) and said they adjusted values using sales and analytic tools tuned to parcel type (rural, subdivision lots, commercial) and to site constraints (floodplain, topography).
- For commercial appeals staff ran county and regional office-sale analyses and referenced a recent 2023 purchase as a benchmark for a vacant tract that had been purchased for $950,000 on March 17, 2023.
- Board members asked questions about site constraints (shape, floodplain acreage, topography), neighborhood treatment (whether a parcel is inside a subdivision's plat or outside it) and whether recent sales or listing estimates provided by taxpayers met the statutory requirements.

The board's action closes the administrative appeal for the parcels where the county values were affirmed. Taxpayers will receive written notice of the board's decisions and any further appeal rights under state law.

The board recessed and set follow-up hearings for the coming weeks, with a larger schedule expected to begin Sept. 15.