Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Valuation Campbell topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union County board upholds county valuations for three Campbell properties after appraisal disputes
Summary
The Union County Board of Equalization and Review heard appeals from Campbell John M. Co. over three parcels — a Miller Street lot and two office properties — and voted to leave county values unchanged after hearing testimony about zoning, structure condition and competing appraisal methods.
The Union County Board of Equalization and Review voted to uphold the county assessor’s valuations for three properties owned by Campbell John M. Co., after hearing taxpayer testimony and county appraisals on use, zoning and depreciation.
The decision matters because the appeals sought reductions on an unimproved lot and two office buildings where the taxpayer and county used different valuation methods and assumptions, including whether structures should be treated as residential or commercial, and whether IRS depreciation schedules or Marshall & Swift tables should control.
At the hearing, a taxpayer representative said the Miller Street parcel is effectively land used for contractor storage and contains only sheds and a pole building. The county’s appraisal, presented by Latasha Wiggins, a real property appraiser for Union County, said the parcel’s zoning had been confirmed as residential and that the county had set the total value at $40,600 — $38,800 for land and $1,800 for structures. Wiggins told the board, “There’s no livable structure on the property. There’s only 2 storage buildings and a pole building.”
On the first office parcel, the taxpayer presented a cost-based valuation derived from construction costs and IRS depreciation schedules, saying they had used the National Building Cost Manual and IRS guidance to calculate what they considered a fair value. The county appraiser explained the assessor relies on Marshall & Swift cost tables for commercial properties and applies a different depreciation model. The county argued its approach is “the gold standard for valuation” used by lenders and widely accepted for commercial appraisal work.
For the multi-tenant office building, the taxpayer submitted a cost approach based on original construction costs (the taxpayer said they built the structure) and used IRS depreciation schedules; the county again used Marshall & Swift cost and depreciation tables. The taxpayer acknowledged it had not supplied income information for an income-capitalization approach.
After discussion and questioning, the board voted on the three contested items during deliberations. For the Miller Street parcel the board accepted the county value of $40,600. For the office parcel identified as hearing number 5, the board accepted the county’s total valuation of $247,700. For the multi-tenant office parcel (hearing number 6) the board accepted the county’s valuation of $65,800.
The board recorded motions to accept the assessor’s recommended values and carried each motion. The decisions preserve the county’s use of Marshall & Swift for commercial cost appraisals and its selected depreciation schedules in these cases. The county clerk said property owners will be notified of the board’s decisions by letter, consistent with Board procedures.
The board also noted the procedural posture of the cases: taxpayers raised different methodologies (cost vs. income approaches, and IRS tables vs. Marshall & Swift) but did not produce evidence the county’s methods were applied incorrectly under existing practice.
The county recommended no changes to the assessed values, and the board’s votes sustained those recommendations.
