Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Edgecombe County panel affirms assessor values in series of tax appeals; multiple adjustments approved
Summary
The Board of Equalization and Review met May 20 and approved assessor recommendations and negotiated adjustments on a series of property tax appeals, including a $530,046 valuation for a log home in Tarboro and several reduced commercial and multi‑unit valuations after staff review or taxpayer documentation.
The Edgecombe County Board of Equalization and Review on May 20 heard formal property tax appeals and voted to approve the tax assessor’s recommendations or negotiated adjustments in multiple cases.
County commissioners convened as the board of equalization and review and heard testimony from Tax Administrator Theresa Lewis and appraisal staff before taking votes on each appeal. Appraisal staff also sworn in appellants and representatives before testimony.
The board approved the assessor’s recommended 2025 taxable value of $530,046 for the property identified as Appellant No. 4 (433 Cotton Lane, Tarboro). Tax staff described the assessment process and adjustments made after on‑site visits — including changing a basement from finished to unfinished and adjusting condition and interior finish codes. An appellant representative, identified in the record as Mr. Rosolo, disputed the higher figure and presented estimated construction costs and comparables; the board nevertheless moved to set the value at the assessor’s recommended $530,046 and approved the motion.
The board also handled dozens of additional appeals during the session: - Appellant No. 5 (115 East Pitt Street, Tarboro): the assessor recommended changing the 2025 value to $10,007.11 after staff determined a structure was a storage/garage rather than a finished commercial building; the board approved the recommendation with no appellant appearing to speak in person. - Appellant No. 6 (712 Martin Luther King Drive, Tarboro): staff found structural damage and adjusted condition and related building factors; staff reported the owner (Dorothy Purvis) accepted the new recommended value of about $89,000 and the board approved the adjustment. - Appellant No. 7 (2412 Augustine/ Augustine Lane, Rocky Mount): appraisal staff concluded the dwelling was uninhabitable due to flooding and made topography/condition adjustments; staff recommended a taxable value of $8,003.71 and the board approved it. - Appellants Nos. 8–18: a series of appeals for a common owner/entity (listed in the record under various ET/ETxx LP names and related parcel addresses in Tarboro and Rocky Mount) were discussed and each recommended adjustment from appraisal staff was presented and approved after staff said most of these had been agreed to with the taxpayers’ representative (Ryan LLC / Mason) by email or during on‑site verification. Staff described re‑measurements and change orders that altered square footage or porch/garage configurations in several subdivisions; the board approved the recommended values for each parcel. - Appellant No. 19 (KB Rocky Mount LLC, 170 Glory Drive): the parcel had been constructed as low‑income housing subject to federal low‑income housing tax credits (IRC §42). Under the cited state provisions staff applied an income‑approach valuation using the rent‑restricted income data provided by the taxpayer; staff reported the taxpayer provided the required income information late in the process and accepted the assessor’s income‑approach recommendation. The board approved the lower value derived from the income approach. - Appellant No. 20 (JCTANC1 LLC, 3301 Main Street, Tarboro): staff reported the deed transfers included sale‑leaseback elements that inflated the deed price; staff consulted an MAI commercial appraiser and Department of Revenue guidance and negotiated a downward adjustment, recommending a taxable value of $9,000,000; the board approved that recommendation.
Throughout the hearing appraisal staff — including real property appraisers Art Bradley and Shane Blanton and Deputy Tax Administrator Caitlin Kiel — explained the county’s schedule of values and point system (base rate per square foot multiplied by a quality/index derived from points) and why certain components (porch segments, basement finish classification, fireplace treatment) produce particular adjustments in value. Staff noted a few system calculation items (porch component calculations) that would be rechecked after the meeting.
Board actions were recorded as motions to accept assessor recommendations or amended assessor recommendations; in each recorded instance the board voted in favor and no recorded opposing votes were announced on the record.
What this matters: property owners who appealed their 2025 notices had formal, on‑the‑record hearings and several values were adjusted downward where staff verified condition, structural damage, or where law (for example, IRC §42 low‑income housing rules) required the assessor to use an income approach rather than schedule values. The decisions set each parcel’s 2025 taxable real value, which will be used to calculate tax bills once the county tax rate is set.
The board concluded the formal appeal docket and returned to county business.
