Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property Tax Assessments topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Orange County Board of Equalization and Review upholds most assessments, lowers one to $7.5 million

Orange County Board of Equalization and Review · January 14, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At hearings Jan. 14, 2026, the Orange County Board of Equalization and Review accepted the county assessor’s values for the large majority of appealed properties and approved a reduced assessment of $7,500,000 for one multifamily property after adopting a higher depreciation rate.

The Orange County Board of Equalization and Review met Jan. 14, 2026, and heard valuation appeals for residential duplexes, apartment complexes and commercial properties. The board accepted the county assessor’s recommendations in most cases; one appeal resulted in a board‑adopted assessed value of $7,500,000 after the county’s commercial appraiser recommended a larger depreciation adjustment.

Board Chair Leon Meyers called the morning session to order at 10:00 AM. County appraisal staff reviewed each appeal, citing comparable sales, income approaches, vacancy data and the county’s Schedule of Values. For many multifamily properties, the county recommended no change after concluding evidence submitted by appellants either omitted nonrecurring expenses or did not contradict the county’s market or income analyses.

Why it matters: assessment decisions set the taxable base used to calculate property tax bills. Changes to assessed values for large apartment and commercial parcels can materially affect county tax revenues and the tax burdens of property owners.

Key outcomes and context

- Jamie Paulen (907 Eno Street): Appellant requested a reduction to $250,000 based on uniqueness; county staff presented a 2021 MLS sale and recommended no change. The board accepted the county’s proposed value of $363,500.

- Carraway Village / NR Edge Apartments (100 Carraway Crossing): County staff recommended lowering the economic modifier to E13 and a county opinion of $84,004,700 after reviewing vacancy and rent assumptions; the board accepted the county value.

- Pinewood Station (600 S. Churton St., RG Hillsborough): County staff noted post‑purchase renovations and rising revenue and recommended no change to $26,881,300; the board accepted the county recommendation.

- Chapel View Apartments (2701 Homestead Road): County recommended a revised value of $36,076,700 after considering purchase price and owner capital expenditures; the board accepted the county proposal.

- Hillsborough NC I SGF LLC (113 Mayo Street): County analyses recommended increasing building demand depreciation from 35% to 46%, producing a county opinion of $8,030,300. The board adopted a Board Decision of $7,500,000 (motion by Leon Meyers, seconded by Saru Salvi), a recorded assessed‑value reduction relative to some earlier figures in the file.

- Thermo Fisher Scientific Asheville LLC (6086 West Ten Road): County’s reconciled income and sales approaches supported an increased assessment to $39,670,900; the board accepted the county’s proposed value.

- West End Flats (200 NC‑54 Bypass): County used renovation history and survey data and recommended no change to $23,532,900; the board accepted the county value.

- Autumn Woods (222 Old Fayetteville Road) and other large apartment complexes (Shadowood Apartments, Shelton Station, Kingswood Apartments): County presentations emphasized sale comparables, pro forma adjustments and assumptions about vacancy and expenses; in these cases the board accepted the county’s proposed assessments (see list below for parcel IDs and final values).

Votes at a glance (selected motions and board decisions)

[Each item below lists the property owner, parcel or address, county opinion (if shown), appellant opinion (if shown) and the board decision as recorded in the minutes. Motion makers and seconders are noted where recorded.]

- Jamie Paulen — 907 Eno Street (PIN 9864448445): County opinion $363,500; appellant $250,000; Board decision $363,500. (Motion: Richal Vanhook; Second: Saru Salvi.)

- NR Edge Apartments / Carraway Village — 100 Carraway Crossing (PIN 9870985265): County proposed $84,004,700; appellant $71,088,800; Board decision $84,004,700. (Motion: Saru Salvi; Second: Richal Vanhook.)

- RG Hillsborough / Pinewood Station — 600 S. Churton St. (PIN 9863886264): County opinion $26,881,300; appellant $21,800,000; Board decision $26,881,300. (Motion: Richal Vanhook; Second: Saru Salvi.)

- Beachfront LLC / Pondfront LLC (Chapel View Apartments) — 2701 Homestead Road (PIN 9880200342): County proposed $36,076,700; appellant $31,208,500; Board decision $36,076,700. (Motion: Saru Salvi; Second: Richal Vanhook.)

- Hillsborough NC I SGF LLC — 113 Mayo Street (PIN 9864807744): County opinion $8,030,300; appellant $6,477,018; Board decision $7,500,000 (value changed). (Motion: Leon Meyers; Second: Saru Salvi.)

- Thermo Fisher Scientific Asheville LLC — 6086 West Ten Road (PIN 9834445110): County proposed $39,670,900; appellant $32,647,000; Board decision $39,670,900. (Motion: Richal Vanhook; Second: Saru Salvi.)

- ECP CH West End LLC (West End Flats) — 200 NC‑54 Bypass (PIN 9778266500): County opinion $23,532,900; appellant $20,583,900; Board decision $23,532,900. (Motion: Saru Salvi; Second: Richal Vanhook.)

- Folsom Gateway Associates LP (Autumn Woods) — 222 Old Fayetteville Road (PIN 9778258181): County opinion $44,292,300; appellant $40,000,000; Board decision $44,292,300. (Motion: Saru Salvi; Second: Richal Vanhook.)

- Multiple 100 Regent Place LLC duplex parcels (Weaver Dairy / Regent Place area; various PINs): For each duplex listed in the afternoon session the county recommended no change to the parcel‑level assessed values (examples: 91 Weaver Dairy Road $456,600; 105 Regent Place $447,200; 106 Regent Place $443,200; 95 Weaver Dairy Road Unit A $442,600; 87 Weaver Dairy Road $435,700; 107 Regent Place $432,000; 100 Regent Place $404,000; 101 Regent Place $394,000; 75 Weaver Dairy Road $541,900; 104 Regent Place $470,700). (Motions recorded with Shannon Julian and Richal Vanhook as movers/seconders across items.)

- Chapel Hill 336 LLC (Shadowood Apartments) — 101 Shadowood Drive (PIN 9789365443): County recommended $42,196,200 based on sale and investments; Board decision $42,196,200. (Motion: Shannon Julian; Second: Richal Vanhook.)

- Shelton Station Apartments LLC — 430 N. Greensboro Street (PIN 9778970532): County opinion $19,309,800; appellant $18,435,000; Board decision $19,309,800. (Motion: Richal Vanhook; Second: Shannon Julian.)

- KIWA LLC / Kingswood Apartments (two contiguous parcels, PINs 9778913957 and 9778919619): County recommended no change to values $14,946,700 and $17,918,800 after allocating collective income‑approach results; board accepted county recommendations. (Motions recorded with Richal Vanhook and Shannon Julian.)

Procedural notes and next steps

- The board recorded motions, movers and seconders for each appeal and indicated that in most cases all board members present voted in favor of the county recommendation. Morning session adjourned at 12:11 PM; the afternoon session began at 1:00 PM and adjourned at 3:34 PM. The minutes were signed by Chair Leon Meyers and Recording Secretary Jennifer Rigsbee.

The minutes record staff exhibits (photo, GIS map, property record cards, comparable sales and income approaches, and consultant analyses) for most appeals. The board’s formal decisions as recorded in the minutes will be reflected in the official assessment roll and notice processes the county follows.