Union County board hears dozens of property tax appeals; several values adjusted, one tabled

The Union County Board of Equalization and Review met May 6 to hear property tax appeals from homeowners and commercial owners contesting the county'revaluation anchored to Jan. 1, 2025. The board outlined procedures at the start of the session, reminding participants that sales after Jan. 1, 2025 generally cannot be used as comparables in the county's mass-appraisal model.

The board heard more than a dozen cases in open session. Homeowners raised common themes: that nearby new subdivisions had too few sales before the cutoff to be comparable, that school-district boundaries used for comparisons changed the pool of comps materially, and that physical site issues'such as septic systems or sloping backyards'should reduce assessed land values. For example, homeowner Travis Rothman said he bought a home in the Riverstone subdivision in August 2025 for $474,800 and argued that Popland Grove sales used by the county were not "apples to apples" because of lot size and school-district difference. County appraisers noted the difficulty of valuing brand-new subdivisions when few sales exist prior to the statutory date and said they used the nearest market neighborhoods as comparables.

Board members repeatedly emphasized that statute and the county'wide mass-appraisal rules require the county to use 1/1/25 as its valuation benchmark. Where taxpayers submitted post-1/1/25 sales or bank appraisals, members said those documents could not be relied on for the 2025 revaluation. In several cases, however, the county reduced assessed values during the appeal conference after reviewing neighborhood-level adjustments. The board voted to accept the county's revised assessments in multiple homeowner appeals, including values adjusted to $428,000 and $466,500 in two residential cases.

In one notable residential matter, the board voted to table the Rothman appeal to allow county staff to research sales that match the same school district; the motion was made by a board member and carried after a second. The board told Mr. Rothman the county would contact him when new comparables were identified and a rehearing scheduled.

Two larger commercial appeals drew extended discussion. Owners of a 61-unit Riverside apartment complex said operating losses, capital repairs and falling occupancy had reduced the property's current income; county staff said the county's income-analysis and purchase-price review supported the assessed figure and that capital outlays not shown on the income statements could not be counted unless properly documented. Separately, a Kohl's representative and outside appraiser argued that most big-box sales are "lease-fee" transactions and must be adjusted to a fee-simple basis for property-tax appraisal; after hours of testimony and debate about cap rates and property-rights adjustments the board voted to lower the assessed value on that Kohl's parcel from about $11.04 million to $9.04 million.

The board closed by noting the next session will be May 20 and that May 6 at 5 p.m. was the cutoff for filing appeals for this cycle. Decisions on appeals will be mailed to taxpayers in writing within the statutory timeframe.

The board'staff packet and individual case documents are maintained by the Union County tax assessor's office; taxpayers who did not present complete financial documentation were advised during the hearing to supply receipts and formal expense records if they wish the board to consider them in future proceedings.