Union County board upholds county property assessments after two no-shows

The Union County Board of Equalization and Review upheld the county's assessed values for two parcels after the property owners did not appear for their scheduled hearings, the board said during a meeting.

The board, which hears taxpayer challenges to property valuations in Union County, approved staff recommendations on consent items and then moved into deliberations on two contested parcels after giving the appellants time to appear and checking for messages. "By statute, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to demonstrate that the assessment is erroneous," the chairman said while explaining procedure.

Board members said they initially delayed deliberations briefly and asked staff to check voicemail and email for any notice from the appellants. A staff member reported, "Customer service hasn't received any calls." The clerk (Bella) also checked messages and email. After giving additional waiting time of roughly 20 minutes with no messages or contact, the board proceeded to deliberate and vote.

For hearing No. 1, parcel ID 06147204 (listed to Richard W. Jones III and Misty S. Jones), the appellant did not appear. A board member recommended that the county's assessed value be approved "as we've done in the past," and the motion and a second were made; the board carried the motion by voice vote and the county's assessed value remained in place.

For hearing No. 2, parcel ID 05110062 (White Oak of Waxhaw LLC), the appellant likewise did not appear. The board again moved, seconded and carried a motion to accept the county assessor's valuation, leaving the county recommendation in place.

Earlier in the meeting the board approved staff recommendations on the consent agenda by motion and voice vote. Board members noted that appraisers and county staff routinely attempt outreach before hearings: a staff member said appraisers "are doing the best they can to resolve these" matters without requiring appellants to appear. One board member observed that Jody Belmont's phone number appears on the hearing letter for contact if a taxpayer is running late.

The board recorded that one appellant for the earlier item was located in Birmingham and that staff had not received any calls or emails from the appellants before the board moved into deliberation. With no further business, the board adjourned and scheduled another session for Wednesday.

The rulings leave the county's assessed values in place for the two parcels referenced on the agenda and reflect the board's application of its procedural rules regarding no-shows, notification and the statutory burden of proof.