Union County Board of Equalization upholds most assessed values after day of tax appeals

The Union County Board of Equalization and Review heard a full docket of taxpayer appeals and, after deliberation, voted to uphold the county's assessed values in the majority of cases while noting several technical issues raised during testimony.

The board opened by explaining hearing procedure and the 01/01/2025 effective date for sales comparisons. Taxpayers and county staff presented evidence on individual parcels, after which the board moved into deliberation and issued rulings. Several appeals raised the same recurring themes: whether the county's allocation method for neighborhood land values accurately prices vacant parcels, whether comparables used from neighboring sections or adjacent developments were appropriate, how flood-plain allowances were applied, and how present-use (farm/AG) valuation and rollback exposure affect large acreage parcels.

Why it matters: the board's rulings determine taxable market values that affect property-tax bills and, for farmland in the state's present-use program, also affect rollback exposure if ownership or use changes. Several taxpayers stressed that market-value findings influence future decisions about leasing, holding, or selling agricultural parcels.

What the board decided (high-level) - The board upheld the county's assessments for most residential and vacant-lot appeals after hearing both taxpayer-submitted comparables and county appraisals. - Multiple taxpayers accepted the county's assessed values during their hearings and did not press for a formal change. - For large agricultural parcels, the county confirmed market-based per-acre values and applied discounts for flood-plain acreage and right-of-way where mapped; some board members asked staff for clearer documentation of the pre-discount per-acre base and the math used to reach the final, discounted per-acre values.

Notable cases and issues raised - Dennis Gillespie (three adjoining parcels, Fairfax Farms/Cuthbertson area): Gillespie argued the three lots should use vacant-land comps and a '2% flood-plain allowance; county staff explained the subdivision is valued by allocation (a constant plus a per-acre rate) because most lots in the neighborhood are built-out. The board noted the county's methodology and retained the county values.

- Enclave at Baxley / Hemby Place (homeowner appeal): The homeowner said the county's comparables were larger, higher-end models and asked for adjustments using sales of similar models within his subdivision. County staff presented neighborhood comparables with minimal gross adjustments and recommended the assessed value stand; the board upheld the county's figure.

- Providence Downs (Jacob and Christine Mazur): The Mazurs argued that Providence Downs South comps (a higher-end, separate community) distorted the valuation and asked the board to rely more narrowly on Providence Downs sales; county staff explained adjustments and said top-weighted comps were in the same section as the subject. The board upheld the county appraisal.

- Large farmland parcels (BNC Land Holdings LLC and CF Master Limited Partnership): Multiple large parcels bought in a 1031-style transaction were discussed. Taxpayer representatives emphasized continued agricultural use and concern about rollback taxes if market values are set near development prices; county staff presented recent large-acre sales and computed a market-value base then applied discounts for mapped flood-plain acreage and rights-of-way. The board upheld the county values but several board members asked staff to supply the pre-discount per-acre calculations for review (staff indicated they could supply the detail before or during deliberations).

Votes at a glance (hearing number '2 ' parcel ' taxpayer ' outcome) - Hearing 1, property key 06147250, taxpayer present (Hemby Place / Enclave at Baxley): county value upheld. - Hearing 2, property key 06105061, Dennis Gillespie: county value upheld. - Hearing 3, property key 06105062, Dennis Gillespie: county value upheld. - Hearing 4, property key 06105063, Dennis Gillespie: county value upheld. - Hearing 5, property key 06204217, Jacob and Christine Mazur: county value upheld. - Hearing 6, property key 09149061, Walk Up Partners LLC: taxpayer accepted county value (no contested revision). - Hearing 7, property key 09087003D, BNC Land Holdings LLC: taxpayer accepted county value. - Hearing 8, property key 09417001, BNC Land Holdings LLC: county value upheld. - Hearing 9, property key 09417001M, BNC Land Holdings LLC: county value upheld. - Hearing 10, property key 08204011, BNC Land Holdings LLC: county value upheld. - Hearing 11, property key 07099021, BNC Land Holdings LLC: taxpayer accepted county value. - Hearing 12, property key 08186006A, CF Master Limited Partnership: county value upheld (discounts for mapped flood plain recorded). - Hearing 13, property key 08192001, CF Master Limited Partnership: county value upheld; board discussion noted large-parcel size and discounting but majority voted to uphold. - Hearing 14 (Addendum A, staff-settled recommendations): staff recommendations approved by the board.

What the board asked staff to provide - Several board members requested the county's pre-discount per-acre calculations and a clearer line-by-line presentation of how flood-plain and right-of-way acreage discounts were applied to large parcels. County staff indicated they would provide that detail for deliberations and follow-up.

Next steps and timing - The board moved into deliberations after the public hearing phase. Taxpayers who remained at the hearing were told they would be notified by the county in writing of the board's decisions (the chair stated the county typically sends notice within about 30 days).

Sources and evidence - Presentations and exhibits were provided in each hearing packet, including county comparable sales lists and taxpayer-supplied comparables. The board referenced the requirement that sales used as comparables be effective on or before the 01/01/2025 valuation date.

Ending - The board concluded the session after acting on all scheduled hearings and approved staff-settled recommendations on the addendum. Several board members reiterated that staff should furnish the requested calculation detail for large-parcel pricing prior to finalizing minutes and notices to taxpayers.

Speakers quoted are identified by name and role in the transcript; direct quotations in the meeting record were attributable to the speakers listed below.