Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Revaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County assessor explains revaluation timing: moving reappraisal to 2025 could have raised values another 6–7%
Summary
A county valuation official told commissioners that a 2025 revaluation would likely have produced appraisal increases roughly 6–7% higher than the 2024 revaluation figures, and that state law (G.S. 105-286) requires a revaluation at least once every eight years and can mandate earlier action under certain sales-ratio thresholds.
Cabarrus County valuation staff presented data and legal context June 16 showing why the county’s optional schedule and statutory requirements matter for property tax reappraisals.
David Thrift (presenter) explained that North Carolina General Statute 105-286 requires counties to conduct a revaluation at least once every eight years and allows commissioners to adopt a shorter cycle. The statute also creates a mandatory advancement trigger if the sales-ratio report deviates more than 15% from a 100% sales ratio.
Thrift reviewed comparative county revaluations and local MLS sales figures for 2023–2024 and said that sales activity from October through December 2024 produced a median sales ratio of about 93.8%. He calculated that, had the county postponed a revaluation until 2025 rather than conducting the 2024 revaluation, assessed values would likely have been approximately 6–7% higher based on the most recent sales data.
Thrift cautioned that county-to-county comparisons are imperfect because markets differ, but he noted that several jurisdictions that performed 2025 revaluations saw larger percentage increases than Cabarrus County’s 2024 adjustment. He also told commissioners that the board could lawfully elect a different revaluation schedule, but that the mandatory advancement language in the statute would require action when the sales-ratio threshold is met.
Commissioners discussed the political and taxpayer implications of larger revaluation increases, including one commissioner’s comment that the law might merit change to limit tax increases tied to rapid market appreciation.
No formal decision on revaluation scheduling was made at the June 16 meeting; the presentation provided the board with data to inform future scheduling decisions.
