Committee debate spotlights why Buncombe County and Urban3 report different sales-ratio trends

A debate over how to measure assessment accuracy dominated a May 18 Buncombe County property appraisal committee meeting, with outside analysts and county appraisal staff sharply disagreeing over which sales-ratio method best reflects the county’s housing stock.

The committee heard presentations from consultants who said comparing sale prices to assessed values after updating property characteristics on sold properties produces a more favorable ratio for those parcels, but that approach may mask broader data gaps. County appraisal staff said those gaps—unpermitted interior renovations and incomplete property records—are the primary cause of the discrepancy and must be fixed before drawing broader conclusions.

Why it matters: the committee must recommend whether the county’s sales-ratio study shows assessment performance is equitable across neighborhoods. Consultants argued the post-sale corrected sample shows high accuracy when data are complete; county staff said a study that excludes or reclassifies flawed sales may understate inaccuracy across the rest of the tax roll.

Consultants’ case

Eric Greger, presenter, summarized the Urban3 analysis and used two examples to show how updating property characteristics drives large ratio changes. In one example, a home listed at 4,500 square feet sold in mid-2021 for nearly $2 million; the county’s pre-sale record showed about 4,000 square feet and an assessment at roughly 58% of sale price. After staff updated interior improvements the appraisal model produced a new assessed value close to the sale price and a sales ratio around 94% for that parcel. Greger described the updated sample as showing that "with good data, the assessment factors performed well." He also said Urban3’s lower curve reflects the broader market when many properties lack complete data.

County staff view

County appraisal staff explained the office’s approach: sales used in ratio studies must represent an arm’s-length transaction with correct property characteristics on the day of sale. Staff warned that if analysts replace the record characteristics with corrected features after the sale and then compute ratios against a later assessed value, the study can appear artificially improved. As appraisal staff put it, "Sale price has to be independent. Cannot calculate your tax value based on sale price. Only thing the appraiser could do [is] find those missing property characteristics." Staff described their workflow of checking MLS listings, permitting records and, when available, site visits, then updating the appraisal system when evidence supports a change.

Data gaps and scale

Both sides agreed data quality is a problem: staff reported that, in their review of sales, roughly 60% of transfers required updates to property characteristics (square footage, finished basement, bathroom counts, etc.). Committee members noted the county has about 90,000 residential parcels and roughly 5,000 sales a year, so properties that do not sell provide little opportunity to trigger corrections. Consultants stressed international ratio-study guidance (referenced repeatedly in the meeting) favors comparing like data sets and warned that focusing only on corrected sales is effectively "sales-chasing," a practice the county and state guidance discourage.

Committee reaction and next steps

Several committee members said the two methods lead to different policy implications for equity and tax burden. Some urged staff to document procedures for how sales are screened and corrected and to produce parallel ratio reports (uncorrected vs. corrected) so the committee and public can see how data-cleaning changes results.

After extended discussion the committee did not adopt a formal motion. Members directed staff and Urban3 to continue clarifying methodology differences and to provide the committee with a written comparison of (a) the underlying datasets used, (b) which assessed-year values each side compared to sale prices, and (c) the rules used to include or exclude sales from the published ratio study.

Ending

Committee chair Rachel (committee member) closed the segment by noting the meeting produced "one of the most productive sessions we've ever had" on equity and data questions and urged staff and consultants to return with clearer, side-by-side documentation for the committee’s next meeting.