The Union County Board of Equalization and Review on Wednesday heard appeals for a series of commercial parcels—mostly former and current bank branches—and voted to uphold the county's assessed values for all contested parcels except one, where the board accepted an untimely application for hearing.

The board accepted the late appeal from Timothy and Martha Charo (parcel 9247006) after the appellants said illness and confusion about filing protocol caused the delay. "I have been sick with pneumonia, and I didn't know about the protocol," appellant Martha Charo told the board during her brief appearance. The board voted to accept the untimely application and send the matter to deliberation.

Why it matters: The hearings addressed how assessors should value older, purpose-built bank buildings in a market where banks build smaller branches and customers increasingly use mobile and online banking. Owners’ agents argued that large legacy bank buildings suffer "functional obsolescence"—that significant portions of the buildings are no longer used for banking—and therefore should be assessed at substantially lower values. County staff responded with sales and cost evidence, arguing recent sales and land values support the county assessments.

Owner presentations: John Steber, the owners’ representative (identified in the record as representing several bank-property appellants and introduced as affiliated with Ernst & Young), repeatedly told the board that many bank branches built before about 2015 are larger than current branch footprints and that “roughly half or more of this bank is not being utilized to its full extent.” Steber presented pro forma income calculations, market lease comparisons drawn from retail lease rates (saying bank leases are rarely available), and sales listings he said supported lower valuations. In one example, Steber said his opinion of market value for a 3,300-square-foot Bank of America branch at 901 E. Roosevelt was about $825,000 based on his income and sales analysis.

County presentations: County staff (presenters identified in the record as Don Ziegler and Brent, among others) countered that the county’s valuations rely principally on cost and sales approaches and that available bank sales and local market activity did not support the owners’ lower figures. The county noted recent bank sales in Union County, pointed to locations where new branches have been constructed, and argued land value in some locations is the primary driver of assessed value. The county repeatedly asked for copies of actual bank leases when appellants used income-based approaches and said those leases were not provided. As county staff summarized at the hearing, “we're asking the board to uphold the county's value.”

Board deliberations and votes: After presentations and questions from board members—including Mr. Smith, Mr. O'Keefe and Mr. Ashcraft, who pressed for lease documentation and emphasized the limits of relying on hypothetical income—the board entered deliberations and voted on each appeal. The board accepted the untimely application for the Charos and otherwise voted to uphold the county assessments for the contested parcels. The board also approved a group of staff-recommended, settled cases.

Votes at a glance (as recorded in the hearing record):
- Hearing 1 (Parcel 9247006, Timothy and Martha Charo): Motion to accept untimely application (motion by Mr. Smith; second Mr. Ashcraft). Motion carried — untimely application accepted.
- Hearing 2 (Parcel 08135007, Griffin Farm and Landfill Inc.): Motion to accept county valuation (motion by Mr. Ashcraft; second Mr. Smith). Motion carried — county value sustained.
- Hearing 3 (Parcel 02239332, Carolina Development Services LLC): Motion to accept county valuation (motion by Mr. Smith; second Mr. O'Keefe). Motion carried — county value sustained.
- Hearing 4 (Parcel 070270258, Thomas D. Haywood): Motion to accept county valuation (motion by Mr. Smith; second Mr. O'Keefe). Motion carried — county value sustained.
- Hearing 5 (Parcel 07027026801, Thomas and Reba Haywood): Motion to accept county valuation (motion by Mr. O'Keefe; second Mr. Ashcraft). Motion carried — county value sustained.
- Hearing 6 (Parcel 07027026B, Thomas Haywood): Motion to accept county valuation (motion by Mr. Smith; second Mr. Ashcraft). Motion carried — county value sustained.
- Hearing 7 (Parcel 09156002D, Goodyear Properties LLC): Motion to accept county valuation (motion by Mr. Ashcraft; second Mr. O'Keefe). Motion carried — county value sustained.
- Hearing 8 (Parcel 06072006D, Pumpkin Realty Corp.): Motion to accept county valuation (motion by Mr. Ashcraft; second Mr. O'Keefe). Motion carried — county value sustained.
- Hearing 9 (Parcel 07114038F, Rushing Holdings Inc.): Motion to accept county valuation (motion by Mr. O'Keefe; second Mr. Smith). Motion carried — county value sustained.
- Hearing 10 (Parcel 06162005F, Cureton Station LLC): Motion to accept county valuation (motion by Mr. Smith; second Mr. O'Keefe). Motion carried — county value sustained.
- Hearing 11 (Parcel 09259157, First Charter Real Estate Holdings LLC): Motion to accept county valuation (motion by Mr. Ashcraft; second Mr. O'Keefe). Motion carried — county value sustained.
- Hearing 12 (Staff-settled recommendations): Motion to accept staff recommendations (motion by Mr. Smith; second Mr. Ashcraft). Motion carried — staff recommendations approved.

What the board said and asked: Board members repeatedly asked appellants for concrete lease documentation when an income approach was asserted and questioned whether potential future changes in use (for example, repurposing a branch) should determine current assessed value. Several board members said they understood the market shift toward smaller branch footprints but noted that until a branch closes and sells, the sales evidence and the assessor’s cost/land analysis often prevail in their review.

Next steps: The board moved into deliberations at the end of the hearing day and indicated that county staff typically notifies appellants of the board’s decisions within about 30 days. The board chair reminded appellants of procedural rules discussed at the start of the hearing, including evidence deadlines and the date limit for sales data used in presentations.

Ending note: The session included multiple contested commercial property appeals with similar factual disputes—most centrally whether older, larger bank-branch buildings should be discounted for functional obsolescence. The board declined to change the county values in the contested cases presented, while allowing one late filing to proceed to deliberation.