Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Property Valuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff says medical office appraisal appears lower than past sale; requests further QA
Summary
Union County appraisers told the board they have the medical office in Waxhaw appraised below a 2016 sale price and below medians of comparable medical-office sales, and recommended a quality-assurance review; the appellant did not submit income documentation to offset the countyanalysis.
County appraisal staff told the Board of Equalization and Review that a medical-office property on South Providence Road in Waxhaw appears appraised below what past sales and market comparables would suggest and recommended a quality-assurance review.
County presenter Joe Hunter said the subject property, listed to the board as PM AK Waxhaw LLC, sold in 2016 for $6.6 million; the county currently values it at $6,364,700 (about $246 per square foot). Hunter said comparable medical-office sales show medians near $296 per square foot and a median sale price around $10.3 million, indicating the countycost-based estimate is "significantly lower than market indicates" and that staff likely should perform a full QA to determine whether an income approach or other adjustments are warranted.
Hunter told the board the appellant had not submitted an income approach, cap rate, or similar pro forma evidence before the hearing. Board members noted that for income-producing properties the income-capitalization approach often better reflects market value than cost-based measures; Hunter agreed, saying cost is "almost always" lower than sales when income drives price.
The board recorded the presentation and indicated the matter would be subject to further internal review to confirm whether the current appraisal record should be adjusted or a different valuation approach applied. No formal vote on the property's assessment was taken during the public hearing.
The county flagged that absent taxpayer-submitted income documentation, staff used available sales and cost data and advised the board that any future evidence from the taxpayer would be reviewed as part of quality assurance and possible reassessment.
