Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Durham commissioners over land-rate gaps in Falls Lake watershed reappraisals
Summary
Two rural Durham County residents told commissioners they see inconsistent land-rate assessments after the county'wide 2025 general reappraisal and appealed to the Board of Equalization and Review; the county tax administrator said staff are working with residents but noted that land-value variation across neighborhoods is normal.
Two residents told the Durham County Board of Commissioners during public comment that inconsistent land-rate assessments from the county'wide 2025 general reappraisal are forcing appeals and confusion, particularly for parcels inside the Falls Lake Critical Watershed.
Donna Stankback, who said she and volunteers have helped more than 60 taxpayers with appeals covering roughly 145 parcels, said county appraisers focus on building values and that land-rate adjustments are opaque. "Our major concern issue is the land rates in the critical watershed and the accessible data for what was used to come up with those land rates and the what they call comparables," Stankback said. She said many appellants do not receive a substantive review of land values at the initial appeal and must go to the Board of Equalization and Review or the state to continue the process.
Betty Hamilton, who lives in northern Durham County, told commissioners she could not find consistency among nearby lots: "I see no consistency. I look at the amount that's given for one vacant lot, which is part of my property as compared to my brother's who is less than a mile away from me, and there's no way I can determine how these amounts are calculated." Hamilton gave a specific comparison she said residents are seeing: about $50,000 per acre in Rougemont versus about $125,000 per acre in Redwood (as reported by the speaker).
Tax administrator P.R. Doyle told the board county staff have been in communication with the residents and continue to work with them to obtain data and investigate whether adjustments are warranted. He said staff have not identified a uniform adjustment that would address the commenters' concerns and that the Board of Equalization and Review has in some cases concluded the submitted comparables did not support changes. "What they are describing are real things," Doyle said, adding that "land rates differing across the county . . . is a normal occurrence." He encouraged continued follow-up with staff and said county appraisers rely on sales data and neighborhood-specific information.
Why it matters: Property owners often rely on consistent land-rate methodology to estimate tax liability and make land-use decisions; where land values vary sharply, appeals and confusion can rise and some residents may lack resources to pursue state-level appeals.
Details and context: Stankback said volunteers have developed their own lists of comparables and submitted them with appeals but that those comparables were sometimes rejected as "too low." Hamilton also said some residents experienced difficulties submitting appeals through the county website. Doyle acknowledged the website concern and said staff would investigate further.
What the board did: Commissioners heard the public comments during the public-comment portion of the meeting and asked the tax administrator to continue outreach with affected residents. No formal policy change or vote addressing reassessment methodology occurred at the meeting.
Next steps: Commissioners did not set a formal timeline in the meeting record; Doyle asked residents to continue communication with county staff for follow-up.
