Board of Equalization Meeting   7/15/2021

This meeting is being held pursuant to and in compliance with Ordinance 20-A, sub-paragraph 6.

Members of the committee present, David Van Roijen, Mr. Ferrall, Mr. Arsali, and Mr. Wynn.

Staff members present, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Stein, Ms. Taylor, and we also have David Cook here.

All right, so we actually have another member of the committee on, Mr. Cromwell.

Good afternoon.

All right, I see we have a quorum present.

I'm gonna call the meeting to order.

Do we have an approval for the minutes of the previous meeting?

I've just sent them out and recorrected them.

I think we're in good shape.

Yeah, I reviewed it.

I moved to.

Okay.

Correct.

Yeah, that corrected her and corrected the spelling on the fourth one.

Motion by Mr. Arsali.

Aye.

Aye.

Very good, thank you.

The first applicant is not coming.

All right.

Yes.

How do we want to approach this?

Do we want to discuss his or do we want to hear Mr. Lynch first?

I think we could take a minute here just to review his documents if we haven't already done so and then hear from Mr. Lynch.

Does that make sense?

All right.

Mr. Lynch, did they give us any explanation for this?

Yeah, it's apparent based on what was submitted that Mr. Wright took.

And it is Mr. Wright because I talked to Mrs. Wright and she was unaware of the appeal when I talked to her.

So, a land sale, a single land sale and determined based on the land kind of a

extracting the land value out of that per square foot.

Another sale and extracted the improvement value out of that per square foot and then put them together.

And that is just not, I mean, we've got three methods of appraising property and single property appraisal that is not fit into any of those.

It's kind of twisting basically a mathematical model to come up with

There weren't any

There weren't any current sales that low.

We might have some properties that are smaller that are assessed, not in the Gulf.

So this is the Gulf neighborhood.

Yeah, that value is below any Gulf properties in the neighborhood.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

Picture for the rest of the committee of the little golf neighborhood, just so they can see what this is all about.

Let's see.

So this is, let me check this off here.

I didn't hit the share button to finish it off.

OK, do you see it now?

OK, so that's the property.

Can you?

Yeah, so the rest of the area is actually the entire Glenmore neighborhood of all properties that are actually on the golf course.

We have Glenmore broken down into a couple of assessing neighborhoods, so the properties that are in

The Scottish homes and in the cottages are a neighborhood because those have some different amenities.

They have added money they pay each year for homeowners association dues that cover lawn maintenance, stuff like that.

So we have those as a single neighborhood.

Then we have the golf properties broken off

So anything fronting the golf course will be in its own golf course neighborhood.

And then we have the main Glenmore neighborhood, which includes everything else.

And the only exception to that is the preserve area, which is kind of special in Glenmore because it's high acreage parcels that are kind of like a rural area, you know, like a market area property.

So we have that separated from the regular parcels within Glenmore.

So that's kind of your breakdown, but if I need to kind of go out to cover the whole neighborhood here, let me turn off a couple of these layers and then I can turn off roads.

So I can show you neighborhoods here.

So the kind of tannish color is your regular Glenmore, Maine neighborhood.

The purple, as you see, that kind of borders the golf course, those are all the golf course properties.

But we don't have any sales from last year.

I have not.

I don't know, David.

Can you in your data pull that out?

No, I would doubt if any were that low on the golf.

I'm looking at the figures in front of me on the screen.

You're looking at these.

Oh, the numbers on the map.

Purple numbers.

Yes.

Yes.

So you do see the median for those neighborhoods from the reassessment.

Yeah.

And the Glenn that's Glenn M. Glenn M. Where's the Glenn G?

All I see is Glenn C. Let me see if I can zoom in and get a Glenn G. The left, 130 parcels.

Here it is.

I mean,

I don't know how much more we want to discuss this, but it's their burden.

What they put in is not proper, I guess.

I mean, it doesn't show much and they bought for 575 years ago.

No, I concur with you all.

I'm just trying to give the applicant as much benefit of the doubt as I can in terms of how he figured this out.

Has the applicant been here before?

I mean, it was 636 two years ago and then it was 596 and now we're at 582.

Were they here at 636 the year they bought it?

Well, they wouldn't have been there for 636 if they bought it in the middle of 2019.

Well, does anybody have any further thoughts?

Do we have a motion?

Yes.

Would you like to make a motion?

Oh, no, no, no.

I don't want to abstain on this one.

All right.

Absolutely.

Yes.

Very good.

We have a second.

Mr. Arsali seconds.

All in favor.

Aye.

Mr. Farrell is unanimous.

Yep.

All right, Mr. Lynch.

We have 45 minutes.

Correct.

So we, Mr. Ferrell, if you wouldn't mind reminding us again when we start up to start the recording, but Danielle will make a note to do that also.

Please.

Mr. Hammel.

Well, thank you.

This is your board of equalization.

We're

members of the community that represent each of the districts.

And we're here to hear your appeal and to make sure that Mr. Lynch is not doing the wrong thing or going too far overboard.

And we will assess what you have to say relative to his assessment.

Okay, thank you for the opportunity.

I guess before I get started, I've kind of got a little introduction as to why we're here, but I had forwarded a few items over to Peter to pass on to y'all.

Mr. Lynch forwarded a number of items to us.

Very good.

Okay.

Well, what I wanted to do, I wanted to kind of do a little intro.

You know, good afternoon to everyone there on the board.

I do appreciate the time that you all have given me today to kind of discuss this matter.

I am Clifford Hamill, and of course, my wife, Chrissy, here.

We are here today to discuss the 2021 reassessment of two properties I own on Blenheim Road in Scottsville, 6542 Blenheim Road, partial ID, and it starts with 122 ending in 25 DO and 6591 Blenheim Road, partial ID ending in 25 BO.

Before we get to the specific details of my concerns, I'd like to

to just take a moment to provide you with a quick summary for why we are here.

Upon receiving the January notice of assessments, I noted that the assessment value increased most notably on land values.

As I do every year when there is a change up or down, I went to the county's GIS website and began to review the new assessments of adjoining and neighboring properties.

which I do have included a map that we can discuss about that showing in the comparisons.

I was surprised to find that only a very small number of properties, the majority which are mine saw increases.

Neighboring properties either had assessments that remained exactly the same or in some cases were reduced.

As a visual, I included a map again in the materials there that we can discuss and to reference as part of today's hearing to depict my findings.

You will note that comparatively most neighborhood properties have two acre home sites valued at $47,500, while mine was assessed a two acre home site valued at $75,000.

This was puzzling especially since much of the adjoining property had recently been subdivided prior to 2021 with added improvements including underground utilities, wells were installed on the properties, some excavation was done to enhance the properties and they received no assessment change whatsoever.

Others remained the same as the previous year.

I had no question on the improvement values which we had also saw a small increase but they appeared to be in line with our surrounding properties.

Unfortunately the phone call has led us down a path of inconsistent answers, conflicting data and no real plausible answers.

Let's start with the house.

In my notes, I have, we're looking at one property.

Okay.

We're looking at 6591 Blenheim Road.

I mean, you'd like it by address or tax or partial.

Okay.

Okay.

Sorry.

It's in what you said, Mr. Lynch.

I may have missed that.

There's an application 54 and an application

55, 6542 Blenheim Road, and 6591 Blenheim Road.

One of them is the mobile home and one of them is the partially finished house.

Okay, that's fine.

That's no problem.

Perfect.

Okay, let me just grab my notes.

Okay for the what what we were here originally I've been building this house for several years pay as I go there is no mortgages there's no family inheritance that was passed down for that this was just a home my first home of it building myself with that and

Again, back in 2021, the reassessment notices came out and with improvements, we again did not question it.

Originally went up $10,300 as of January 1st.

After review of it from Ms. Graham, she had come back out to look at the property, which we never questioned the structure whatsoever as far as the improvements.

We just kind of considered that was probably just an adjustment based on the market area.

or the market in general.

But we did question the land of being at $75,000 for two acre partial when all of my adjoining neighbors around was only at $47,500.

Again, referring back to the map here, and I don't know, do y'all have the copy of the map in hand that has the little values?

It's the printout of the partial layout.

It should have been sent over in the packet that was to be forwarded to y'all.

Okay.

I don't know what number how was referred to y'all as to we're in the little info.

But it's a it actually it's just like a GIS map.

It's just kind of like a printout.

Maybe you can see there.

Okay.

Well, in looking at the partials there, if you look at it with it, starting with my partial 122, 25C1, 25C25B, all of those belong to me.

with it.

The house is on, of course, one.

The other is just vacant lots.

And the trailer that I own, which is in another case, but still owned by me, which is the 6542.

As you can look around that map all the way around as far as it goes, which we're talking land that's smooth.

Some of them have pasture fields.

Some cut hay from that.

They only had a value of 47.5.

The majority, that's for a two acre home site.

with that.

But if you notice with mine, it was 75,000 with it.

And that's kind of how we got here to begin with.

I was trying to determine how Miss Grimm had adjusted or which formula that she used that really made mine of way more value than what my neighbors were around.

I was just trying to be consistent in the fairness of the taxation.

So that's kind of what she had come out here originally for to do to look at the property with it, filled out the little paperwork for the appeal thing through the assessors.

And then when she came out here, she said, oh, yeah, I see what you're talking about.

But her explanation to me was this little spot here was in a different census, that it was all by itself.

And to me, that really didn't make a lot of

since to me from the perspective is why would just such a small little spot, majority of my properties be at way more assessment than what the neighborhood is.

I mean, I understand census tracts and I know it has to stop and start somewhere, but not just that little rectangle piece and looking all the way around.

And this is just a small version of the map.

If you go way bigger, it's even places, there's two-tenths of a mile from here, actually the land value went down.

from it, that I drive by every day commuting back and forth.

So that's kind of what got me here.

The second thing was, again, the value of it.

After she came out and reviewed it, and I'll read with it here to kind of give a little detail.

After review, another $91,900 was added to the total increase, increasing the property to $102,200.

with no improvements or changes being made to the property in 2021 or from 2020 through 21.

No straightforward explanation or data has been provided to support such changes.

I have asked Ms. Graham multiple times again how she arrived at that, have not got any answers whatsoever as to why that was done that way.

upon review of the assessor's notes file sent to us by Billy Taylor which what we had done we had actually once they had sent the letter back to us saying it went up and they give us the right to appeal through the board to y'all with it that's where we had spoke with Ms. Taylor with that and it says upon the review the assessor's notes sent by Ms. Taylor in an email dated January 22, 2021

The construction detail indicates, again from the county records, not mine, that 33% complete with an effective year built of 2009.

In comparison, the 2021 construction detail indicates 49% complete with an effective year built of 2008.

Actually, the construction was started back in 2002, 2003.

We had three inconsistent dates of even the year of construction.

I had went through the county, followed all procedures, got building permits with it.

All of that's on file from day one before we ever started disturbing the property with soil erosion barriers and everything put up.

In comparison, in speaking with Ms. Grimm, when we had originally got that letter from her and was just really shocked by the major increase, I had called her on the phone to again, to discuss the letter that I had received.

And she had told me verbally on the phone that the property was at 39% complete.

And after her review, the property is now 49% complete.

with that.

And I says, well, how did you determine that increase?

I said, when there's been no items done or completion to the property, she says, we have a chart that we go by that gives a percentage of completion.

So like the foundation is X percent, the walls is a percentage, the roof is a percentage, heat, air, et cetera.

And I asked her, I said, can you send me a copy of that

of the United States.

I never received a phone call from anybody.

I never got a call back, no additional follow-up information whatsoever of it.

So I don't know how that stands, except the only thing I did receive back after that conversation was a letter from Mr. Lynch saying that if I had any questions or wanted any detail from my file, that I had a right to come in the office

and take a review of the file.

That's the only explanation that I had got whatsoever from that phone conversation.

So I was a little concerned that, you know, again, as a taxpayer, I wasn't getting the answers

that I needed to determine again, are we on the right path?

Was Ms. Grimm correct in what she had done or was there some kind of issue that this is a premature increase?

Well, since there was no change value of that.

And when I called to schedule the appointment per the letter to come in and review the file, the office staff, again, I was coming in based on what Mr. Lynch had sent me on the file.

I wanted to come in and review the file before we had this meeting today.

The office staff indicated because of COVID that they did not know how I could do, but

and how I could do that but would pass the request on.

Ms. Taylor then reached out and provided us with an option to have the documents sent electronically.

Upon receiving and reviewing the documents, I had additional questions, which I sent an email to Ms. Taylor, again, based off her letter, dated June 28th.

On July the 6th, Ms. Grimm responded,

by email, a copy of which is included in your packet as well of which she had sent back to me with an answer to some of my questions.

Unfortunately, they did not provide much assistance in solving the puzzle.

However, please do not hesitate to quit.

Please do note her response to question number four.

Again, this is coming from Ms. Graham.

She notes that the House has been assessed at 49% complete since 2005 with no changes in the previous 15 years.

Again, I asked them what is the basis for a $102,000 increase, which is over $800 and some dollars extra that I would have to pay in this year's taxes with it on these improvements.

Yet again, another inconsistency in the data on the construction report from 2020 to 2021 and what she told me verbally when

When she noted it was previously had been assessed at 39%.

That's what she told me over the phone with it.

I don't know where she got that information from.

There is nothing in any of the documents that indicate a 39% completion of it.

with no changes in the previous 15 years.

Again, I asked for the basis for the $102,000 increase of improvements.

Even Miss Graham had indicated, per her follow-up letter, that there had been no changes to the percentage of completion since 2005.

So again, one of my questions is how we're here questioning this difference of $102,000 when she acknowledges there was no difference.

of it.

And my question to number five attempts to again to try to understand or a minimum see the match for the increase by asking for an immunization itemization of what changed from 33% according to the county records which noted in in that attachment I had sent y'all noted in 2020 to the 49% noted in 2021.

In question five, or in other words, show me how you calculated, being the county, how they have calculated a $102,200 increase.

She referred me back to her response to question four, in which she notes, with no changes in the previous 15 years.

So again, I asked, then why

for the change and even while we're here today with that.

She indicates there's no changes with it, but again, I'm paying on 102,000 more dollars worth of value that does not exist.

there.

And I don't understand why it should be such a difficult question or answer.

Mr. Hamill?

Yes, sir.

Is there anything more on this?

I mean, I understand that you're confused.

I'm a little confused.

Let's ask a few questions and then we'll listen to Mr. Lynch.

Perhaps we can go through this.

The roof is complete and has been complete and there's actually been two other assessors that have been out here in the prior five years.

The reason being one of them was is that again, I review all the properties when it comes out.

I go on the GIS.

website and stuff.

One year they had I had fireplaces.

There's two chimneys with flues in the basement.

I called them.

They came out reviewed.

Actually, David Cook was one of them.

And Miss Taylor has been the second one here, to my knowledge, in the last five years to review items that, again, were incorrect from the year before on there.

Yes, sir, it has been complete.

The house is pretty much a shell.

In other words, the house has a foundation that was a poured concrete foundation.

The floors in the basement are still concrete.

There is no plump dirt.

I mean dirt, I apologize.

There is no plumbing, there is no electricity, there's no septic hookup, there is no water in the property whatsoever, there's no insulation, nothing.

It's just a complete hull, just a structure.

So looking from the outside, you would say, you know, this house looks fairly complete, but there's not even electricity running to the property, the house itself, with that.

Anyone else would like to ask Mr. Hamill something?

Mr. Hamill, at this point, Mr. Cromwell?

Thank you.

No, sir, I don't recall seeing that.

So just to correct that a little bit, there is a check sheet.

It's called an appraiser review checklist, but it's not, unless you have a different copy, it's just a one column.

David, you're on mute.

I'm sorry, just for the record, who was speaking?

Who was speaking?

I don't, I didn't see you.

That's my wife speaking.

I didn't see Kristy.

No worries.

What they're referring to is not the draw sheet.

I got that.

And maybe we can get some answers.

I'm confused as to why they didn't get the draw sheet too.

All right.

Any other questions from the committee for Mr. Hammel?

Absolutely, and as usual, I'll get started, and then I will want Dana and Billy to kind of chime in as needed to kind of talk about some of the parts.

I do want to make it clear, Mr. Hamill started out, and I never clarified this, but he started out with his property being

his land being assessed much higher than his neighbors.

What he didn't tell you is that we adjusted that during the review.

We lowered the land value on on his properties, not just these two, but several others.

And the problem was now Mr. Hamill called it a census.

But what it is, is our neighborhood, our neighborhood boundaries.

And it wasn't a small

A small area.

We are just on the edge.

His properties on the one side of the street were on the edge of one neighborhood, and across the street was a separate assessing neighborhood.

So we addressed that problem in our initial review of the property.

I don't know if we communicated that to him effectively or not, but but we did lower the value on the land based on that review in the meantime.

So that was on.

I think there might have been five properties.

Yeah, I think it was five properties.

But one thing I would like to say and I mean to interrupt by no means with it, and they did lower the property and that we're not even in question here today of the properties and I do appreciate that of it and in what Miss Graham had told me when she had originally come

for the first time, she said that my property was like a pie, that there was four censuses that ran together, all together, and they all pretty much intersect on my property.

That's verbally what I was told of that.

But including back in reviewing the maps, that did not indicate to make sense whatsoever of it, because if you look at all the assessments all the way around me in all directions, they were either way lower or were reduced.

So again, I'm no genius on where the map's drawn, but the property was lower, but we're here today to discuss the $102,000 value increase on the structure with no improvements whatsoever.

I just didn't want to take a time up with the land issue.

I just want to add to that too and you gave us our opportunity and so we'll give you yours and we'll leave it there but our property is split by the road

So the explanation that the road is the division is not correct or is a little bit suspicious at least.

The other thing is when you say it's a big area, based on our research of all the properties, both all the way around in a circle of us, there's only about 10 properties that are assessed at $75,000 for the two acre building site.

And none of the rest are.

And so ours were adjusted down.

And again, we appreciate it, but it was adjusted down based on a floodplain description.

But there are still very few properties in this area that are still assessed at the 75,000 for two acres.

Again, not our problem.

That's another taxpayer's problem.

But as we look at mass assessments and as we review the data,

You know, it is interesting of why there's such a small area that has maybe one sale at that two acre lot, at that two acre price.

But again, not why we're here today.

But again, the only reason why that was brought up is to sort of determine that that's why we were here.

Okay, and we'll get to the improvements in a second.

So just for clarity, can everybody see the screen with the map on it?

Yes.

Okay, so these are assessing neighborhoods, or market areas we call in the rural areas.

So as you can see, there's this larger one, which the properties were

I'm sorry, not larger one, but the kind of tannish colored one.

All of these are relatively large, parcel count wise, 300, 700, 500, and 700.

Oh, I'm sorry, and 786 down here.

So the purple area's one, I don't know, bluish here, and then the greenish one on the left.

And then the property, you probably see this little

Square right here.

And to your point, yes, it kind of goes across the street here because the parcel goes across the street.

But the remainder of the properties are split by the road.

So that's my kind of general description.

We had this neighborhood, which was much higher, that was in the

the tanish color, and this market area that was quite a bit lower, and you were right on the board with that.

So that just, I wanted to make sure it was clear that we did lower the land value on all five.

At the same time, we found that there was an error, and I'm sorry if this was not communicated effectively to you, Mr. and Mrs. Hamel.

During our system conversion from 2016 to 2017, there were some

Data issues that we had on a few parcels.

And what happened on this, so we're talking about the house now, the partially completed house.

For some reason, the conversion that was valuing the property at 49% in 2016 and before, all the way back, as we said, to 2005 at 49%.

For some reason, when we switched into our new system going into 2017, that percentage showed up as 33%.

So 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, our initial assessment, all had that 33% complete amount.

During this review, when we were correcting the land, we found that issue and that this property was actually 49% complete.

And we will provide you with the straw sheet,

The draw sheet, and this is what I think Mr. Van Roijen was kind of getting to, the draw sheet basically says the foundation is 7%.

If that's complete, that's 7%.

If it's under temporary roof, that's another 20%.

Of course, that includes all the framing.

Doors and windows being set is 5%.

Permanent roof is another 5%.

Site and exterior trim is 12%.

So those are the items that get us to 49%.

We have actually several copies over time because it's been so long that this property's been under construction.

We have seven.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven draw sheets.

The first couple of them showed smaller percentage.

Those were in the first years that the building was under construction.

But ever since 2005 that these sheets have said forty nine percent.

Now, I apologize that we have made that error.

but it was a computer error that caused that percentage to get changed to 33%.

We are now correcting it back up to 49%, which it should have been the entire time from 17 on.

So that's explain why the improvements went up.

What you describe as an experience with our office does not sound acceptable.

I would like Dana and Billy to be able to kind of speak to the communication about the property.

It was a little bit complicated.

I'm not sure how recently we figured out the 49% part or exactly how far back it went in the details of it.

Sure, Mr. Hammel, it's nice to see you again.

And I apologize that you did not receive something that you had requested.

I'm aware that that was specifically something you had asked for.

And if it had been, I definitely would have sent it to you.

And you are cost modeling worksheet, which gave you a breakdown of how the model is set up and how we arrived at the value based on the model, but it didn't explain or clarify

that 49%.

And again, all I can say is that I didn't realize that that was a specific document that you had asked for, or I would have been happy to provide it to you.

It's a very simple document.

I've shown it to you while I was in the field there with you when we had our meeting there at your house.

But it's just a short little list, maybe 20 items on it, 22 items on it, and each one is assigned a percentage that indicates

component of the structure having been completed in construction.

And, you know, while I was there, and we did a walkthrough there in the house observing all COVID procedures for a permanent inspection, I came up with the 49.

And when I looked back in your file folder, I could see that several other inspections over the previous years had also concluded 49.

And I was

One thing I'd like to say and comment to Mr. Lynch's and also to Ms. Graham's comments there.

Really, we may have already answered the question that we're looking for.

Mr. Lynch had said in his conversation that it was valued at 49% complete, as my understanding, since 2005.

with it, and then with the computer conversion that converted it back to let's say 33% as that's on the papers in 2017, then that should have reduced the value of that structure.

The structure should have actually come down in value, but the structure did not come down in value.

The price stayed the same.

That's what I was paying.

So if you got less of a house, it's less of a value.

And then in

As this year, the assessment went up 102,000.

As Ms. Graham just indicated, there has been no change in the percentage at 49%.

Mr. Lynch just indicated that there was no change since 2005.

So maybe the computer had messed up on the percentage.

I don't know.

I'm not a computer genius, and I don't know the answer.

But it appears that it's always been, of course, from both comments, 49%

on paper with it and I had been paying 40% tax rate of completion.

So if that would have dropped in 2017 according to Mr. Lynch, I should have seen a reduction in the house value.

There was no reduction until this year

It went up $102,000.

So again, that's why we're here.

I'm just trying to get a clear answer.

Right, so I can answer that.

So you're kind of getting to the heart of why we didn't find this, that percentage change in 2017.

We had some other data issues and the change in value was a

Great indicator of what's going on with this parcel.

Why did it typically drop so much?

And we found the reason it dropped so much is because there was this data issue between the two systems.

In your case,

Besides that, at the same time we were overhauling our valuation model and process.

We were doing a lot of stuff all at the same time.

We increased our rates that we use and the valuation model

substantially in 2017.

So when your property in 2017 was reassessed, it dropped from 49% to 33% incorrectly, but it also got a very large change in the rates used to determine those properties.

So all other properties went up

The improvement part of the property went up appreciably in 2017.

In the rural areas, we at the same time made a reduction to the land value.

And if you were to look at your assessments for

in 2016 and 17, the land dropped by 25 percent.

That was our realignment of rural area properties.

Because we had not increased those rates for at least six years prior to that, it caused us to basically do a correction to our rates and adjust our land values that were

kind of the balance of the land and building at that time and up to 16 was off so 17 we realigned those we reduced the land by 25% and we increased the rates now in your case it makes it look like yes we went up in the value which we did by about $29,000 it looks like but

No, I didn't say that at all.

That is effectively what happened.

That is effectively what happened.

If you've changed your methodology that's assessed it at a higher value, effectively we're paying a higher tax.

No, that is nothing to do with our job.

We do an assessment.

Right, but your job sets the value by which the tax rate is applied.

Ms. Hamill, if you don't mind just for a second.

Ms. Hamill, I remember this year when Mr. Lynch came in and remodeled the county.

And there were many, many citizens that came out upset about this reassessment and the remodeling of what the land was worth versus what the houses were worth.

And we had a lot of hearings that year,

to my dismay and Mr. Lynch's dismay but we got it straightened out and what it appears is you missed out on that reassessment valuation of the property and the house to the point in which you've had a few years free ride here but now it is being assessed correctly and

Well, I don't actually see that.

I'm going to disagree with you a little bit.

I don't actually see that as a free ride at all.

I see that as a lack of communication on the part of the county that if you were aware that there was a system issue that caused this, why was there not a complete review and a notification to taxpayers?

And why are we only finding this out?

Because we happen to exercise our right to ask a question about a different valuation.

I don't see that as a free ride.

That's an error on your part, not ours.

We have in good faith done what we are supposed to do.

And now we're being told and paid the taxes.

You know, we are willing participants of the process.

And now we're being told that you've changed the math on your end.

That's now at our detriment of 800 and some dollars a year.

Well, I'm sorry, but you would have probably had to pay in 18, 19, and 20, that extra $800 or thereabouts.

And that, you know, we're not, nobody's going back and saying you owe us those back years.

What we are saying is the valuation is this right now, but we haven't determined that for sure at this point.

Yeah, I would say to Mrs. Hamel that she is correct.

She did not get a free ride.

That was a very poor choice of words.

I apologize.

The fact that you did pay your amount, you pay what you were asked to pay by the county, not a free ride.

So that was, I just don't go wrong with that.

But I understand

that you're upset about it.

But one thing I would like to comment on what Mr. Lynch had mentioned in 2017, I think he said the property dropped 20 some thousand or whatever.

If you go back and look at all assessments all around, everybody's dropped.

We weren't just the lucky ones that had something dropped.

or just singled out to make us feel better.

And again, looking back, I had paid extremely higher for my properties numerous and numerous years.

I didn't go back to the county and ask for a refund as to why I was overcharged.

I paid those taxes each year with it on time, never had been delayed.

but I still haven't got an answer why that small pocket and Mr. Lynch has showed us that census tract and I'm very respectful of it but there's a lot other property still in that census tract that was originally at 47.5.

We're just getting back to the land issue since we're talking about it a little bit here that should have been at 75,000 the same I'm paying so maybe I should have went back and asked for a refund where I felt overcharged for multiple years

When my neighbors are joining, we're not paying the same amount.

I'm not using it for an example.

Mr. Hammel, I apologize for using the word free ride.

You have paid your taxes in full on time.

And we are here today to try to straighten out the valuation of the improvements.

And I think we're getting to the answer.

And the answer was that it wasn't correctly noted on the computer since 2017, the level of completion of the building.

Now that extra hundred and some thousand dollars, I believe is due to the level of completion, which I hope you agree with.

Well, I mean, no, I don't agree with it, because again, you know, back in up to 2017, Mr. Lynch and Ms. Grimboth has commented here that it was at 49%.

Regardless what the paperwork says, the current shows 33%.

Now I could see if a percentage of completion doesn't go up and doesn't fall back, unless there's an error.

You don't

Put in walls and then knock walls out to reduce the percentage of it.

And I think it is a computer error.

I'm very respectful of that.

But that computer error did not save me one hundred and some thousand dollars.

It never went back.

I still pay taxes on the forty nine percent complete.

with it.

Now, if the market area had adjusted and went up $10,000 this year, as it did originally, everybody else went up.

We don't even need to be here with it.

This really had taken up y'all's time for nothing.

But the question is, it went up $102,000

Again, only to 49% complete.

So we're back at the same level of completion we were that all parties agree to of it.

And that's where I'm just not understanding of how I really the last two or three years, it was a computer glitch and

You know, it should have been higher, but the percentage didn't change.

In new construction, you pay based on the level of completion.

And again, changing, if you go back and look on the website, pull this property up here with this model, it really almost shows that it's a complete house.

It says it has a heat pump.

There is no heat pump with it.

It lists all these items that are there that are not even in the structure.

All right, Mr. Hamill, I understand your confusion.

Mr. Hamill and Mrs. Hamill, I understand your frustration, like the idea that you're appealing your taxes and it ends up going up, not down.

And yeah, definitely understand your frustration.

A couple of things.

I just want to make sure that you all are clear about

When I'm looking at it, I'm looking at the properties around there.

The $75,000 is consistent with that area.

So if you go north, and a lot of that's owned by that merchial logo and LLC, so there are bigger things, but if you go north, even the smaller parcels up there, if you go where Mr. Lynch had shown, they are $75,000.

So yours was consistent with that, but they're saying, okay, now that's not appropriate.

It was actually, you should be the same as what's to the south for the building site.

So I don't think we have an issue there.

The only question is with the 2016-2017, when I'm looking at all those, it looks like other houses were increased quite a bit in that time period, whereas yours wasn't.

So that is something that there was a certain benefit there.

But at the end of the day, I understand, like if I was in your shoes, I would be very frustrated to see, OK, I'm

requesting that my taxes be lowered or arguing that they should be lowered because of one thing, the land, but the improvement is.

But at the same time, they need to have accurate information.

And so whether or not, I think we'll discuss a little bit further, whether or not the increase in assessment for this year is appropriate.

And I think the assessor can tell us why or why not based on the code, Virginia code, and whether or not they could do that.

So that's, but for next year, I mean, it was 49%, it's 49%.

and then you can argue that the structure is worth this or that but that's what we have to hear is say the structure is worth X dollars.

Is that appropriate?

Is the modeling they're using appropriate in terms of that?

And then the other thing I would like for you to have is that copy of what we have here.

And it looks like this is just a basic form they use for every single house that's not complete and they're assessing.

And it shows, okay, if the foundation is done,

X percentage of a full home is the price, if it's a roof, et cetera.

So that's what it looks like Ms. Scrimm did on here, and I guess there were prior ones that showed that.

So those few points, I think land, it's appropriate they changed it, but you were not

or you may have been over assessed in the past years for your land because of that section but relative to your home the last couple years it was potentially under assessed in that sense but that's the thing I think we want to hear from one part is we're going to have to hear that's not going to be

something up to you guys it's going to be more up to Mr. Lynch's office and such as office to to kind of argue that that's appropriate for an increase when you're asking for a decrease and it might be but I'm going to leave that's up to them to make that argument and then two the real argument you do have with this is okay it is 49% complete is it worth this this much and they have they're going to show us why it is as well so

I think we all hear you, the five of us that are here that are part of the board and we're all similar homeowners to you all in the county.

So, but I just wanna make sure you're heard.

Thank you.

I appreciate your comments, certainly.

Certainly there's not much argument if you have a checklist and you determine what the percent of complete is and you know if it's 49 it's 49.

So I do want to go back though because again this is not my expertise, but I am somewhat familiar with the assessment process.

If we're going to talk about a computer problem, I'm going to go to the thing that I know, which is the numbers.

I want to just ask a question in this way, so we're not arguing about 49 or 33 or whatever it is.

But in the documentation, and again, this is as best I can surmise from the information we got, but in the documentation that we received, I'd like to refer you to the construction summary.

There's two of them.

One is dated 2-25 and one is dated 3-12-21.

So in that summary, there is a section in there that's called a cost market valuation.

The one dated 225 has an RCN, which Ms. Grimm provided me a definition.

Again, it's a little bit too technical over my head, but again, just concentrating on the numbers.

The RCN is 509,

A 509,000 on the 225.

Do you all have this?

This would have been in the information that the county provided to us originally.

Mr. Lynch will be able to pull it up, I believe, and put it on the screen for us.

Yes.

If you'll give him just a second, I think he can do that.

I'm talking about the 2-25.

It's probably a page, I don't know what page it is in the PDF, I'm just roughing this, probably 12 or 13.

So is the property record card?

Oh, is that what you're talking about?

I'm sorry.

That would have the house.

Okay.

Okay.

I'm trying to see if Mr. Lynch is going to put it on the screen for us.

We've all been sent this as PDFs, but they may not be right in front of us at the moment.

Well, I have the PDF.

But we're wasting time.

We can send this to you later.

Mr. Lynch can provide it to you later.

There is no later when it comes to the hearing.

It needs to be resolved.

So I think it'd be better if you if you probably show that at this point.

Yes, sir.

Let me just pull it up.

I'm sorry.

I've got copies.

So you're saying this is from February 25th.

Is that what you mean by 225?

Yes, that's the date in the corner.

This was just in the packet that was sent.

So is this it?

Let's see.

See if I can figure out the share screen.

Oh, here we go.

There we go.

OK.

So again, I work with numbers.

So this is what I know.

This is what I went to to try to make sense of this.

This is dated 2-25-21.

The RCN is 509.

The adjustments were 140.

Still an RCN, the undepreciated value is 368,741.

That was again, March, sorry, February 25th.

Going down in the document, this is the one dated 312.

Little bit of change here, little bit of change between the RCN and the adjustments, but effectively the undepreciated value did not change.

So again, this is from 20 to 21.

So if we're talking about, and this one has 49%.

And the other one had 33.

If you want to stop sharing your screen, I'm going to share.

And so we talked about the market areas that we had the property in and that we moved the property to.

so can you can you see the map now okay so the property was in the tan neighborhood and the tan neighborhood had a land-based rate of 75 000 as we've discussed and it had a residential multiplier of 100 which means there was no adjustment to the improvements the neighborhood we moved it into

had a 47.5 land base rate, but a 105% adjustment.

So the trade-off of moving into the lower land neighborhood meant it had a higher adjustment on the improvement.

It applies to the entire neighborhood that is in this kind of greenish color.

So while we have the tannish color at a higher land rate, we have the improvements at a lower multiplier, and we have the greenish area at a slightly higher multiplier, and that's the difference between the report that you were showing a second ago and the valuation of the property now with the higher RCM.

It's basically 5% higher.

The other item's the same.

OK, so that really doesn't mean anything to me.

So I don't really have an argument for that for or against it.

I don't understand it.

I'm not sure.

Again, if you have to make a change, it still seems to our disadvantage with not a lot of explanation when why there's such a big adjustment for properties that literally touch each other.

I don't buy it.

It is what it is.

But I guess the other question then while we're sticking on these numbers is in Ms. Grimm's email that she sent us, she did include another sheet that was an output from a modeling engine.

And it notes all of these value added additions in that that got us to this $260,000 value.

In the value-added editions, she notes full bathrooms, basement, pooling, exterior walls, roofing, garage, and a porch.

Again, the bathrooms are framed walls.

There's nothing about the bathroom, but if because there's a bathroom on the plan, if that has to be value added, that's fine.

But there is nothing related to cooling.

Absolutely, and I can answer that too.

So we're saying that this property is 49% complete.

We're not saying it's 49% of the shell that it is, we're saying it's 49% of the finally completed house.

So the finally completed house is going to have an HVAC system, it's going to have bathrooms,

It's going to have every item that would add to the value of that house as a completed home.

However, we're reducing that down to 49%.

which I completely understand, but value added of nothing is nothing.

And so if there is no cooling, we could choose to not have any kind of heating and air at all.

Well, I mean, I think it's all we have to share with this of it.

You know, like again, you know, I pay my taxes on time.

I've done everything as the county had said.

I was just floored with this $102,000 increase.

And I am very respectful that property's changed.

When Mr. Lynch had said, others had went up higher than what we've paid.

Maybe others had higher levels of completion.

Can't speak to anybody else with that.

But I just know as to what has changed there, I have not seen any decreases in value whatsoever from a dollar perspective.

with it until I was just floored with 102,000 this year.

It does sound to me like to me if the county knew that there was a glitch in this system, again can't speak on behalf of the county on as a whole, but they should have went back and reviewed you know some of these files and stuff or again made people aware of it so again we wouldn't be floored when something comes up and again

I don't mind paying taxes.

This is not an issue of I don't want to pay taxes.

I want a free ride.

I don't want to do anything.

I believe in paying taxes.

I think that's part of the system as far as it goes.

I just want to be treated fairly as my neighbors and colleagues and different people in this neighborhood, all around me, big, little or small, whatever you want to look at.

We should all be on the same level.

We shouldn't pick and choose who pays more, who pays less in a little demographic area.

about this big.

And that's all that I'm asking for is tax fairness.

There's a couple of other properties that were on this side of the road that should have been changed when done.

They didn't complain about it.

They're still at $75,000.

So if you actually change that census area, then those other few properties should have been dropped from $75,000 down to $47,000.

Currently, if you go to the county's review, they are still at $75,000.

Mr. Hammel.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

I agree with you.

And we will ask Mr. Lynch to review these properties around you to make sure that they are being traded fairly even though they didn't appeal their assessments.

At this point, we're sort of moving into the next hour for your next piece of property.

When you're all done with your properties, just a second.

Okay.

We will discuss this.

We will try to ascertain whether you have been given a fair evaluation on this assessment based on your information and Mr. Lynch's information.

And we will let you know in two weeks in

Yeah, just before we start the next one, I just wanted to say there's the same issue on the other parcel.

I think it was a deck that was in the old system that dropped off in the new system.

So there was, and I think there might've been a communication that we've never assessed this deck that we told Mr. Hamill at some point, but the deck was assessed up to 2016 and it dropped off in 2017 from the parcel.

Mr. Hamill, I will tell you that

Mr. Lynch has told us there was a computer glitch.

It wasn't like everybody in the county.

was involved in the glitch.

The real problem is finding where the glitch is.

And sometimes it takes years.

And but as I told another applicant the other day, this is not an exact science.

And we're working at it every year to get better and better information and more accurate information and put

put things in the right categories.

What's that?

I'm sorry.

I mean, I'm... Go ahead.

Oh, okay.

What I was saying, I mean, we're talking with the back on the new file, correct?

Oh, no.

And again, I'm very respectful and I mean, I respect each one of the board with it.

I must say, you know, it's not something that I call the county every day to have discussions with.

But I was very, very, very disappointed in the communications from Ms. Graham, how this whole process took place, the inconsistency in the answers

that I had asked her verbally on the phone and as well and when Mr. Grimm had mentioned a few minutes ago about she would have sent me that chart if I would have asked her about it.

If you go back and read the original email, I asked for that chart.

She gave me other information that I had asked for in that memo.

She did not give me a chart.

So I had asked for that chart.

with that, but somewhere there was a breakdown from her interpreting my email to the response I had gotten back from that email.

So, you know, I just wish the whole communication level could have been a lot smoother.

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Grant, Mr. Hall.

May we move to the next parcel, Mr. Lynch?

Okay well I've done a little summary I'll just kind of read that basically the improvements which when the 2021 assessments come out originally the house the where I'm living at now went up $200 on the reassessment again we had Ms. Graham come out again we were not questioning the increase on the structure here the mobile home but we were

again trying to justify the land values which we'd already spoke about with it they had come out addressed that and had lowered it so that solved it but in the summary of the the the reassessment notice I got I had got an increase of $2,100 was added supposedly for a missed debt that was dropped off in 2017

Now, when I got the letter originally of that, it showed the land decreasing.

It showed the mobile home had went up again of it.

So that's when I had called Miss Graham and she said that she asked me on the phone.

This was her exact word.

She said,

When did you install that deck on your house?

I said that deck was put there in 2002.

It was part of the original building permit.

We have no record that a deck ever existed on that house.

I said, well, that can't be correct because I have had the county out on two or three occasions previously for some adjustments with it.

And a couple of those were the deck.

So I knew the deck was on paper of that.

when I didn't really agree with not getting the answer she couldn't give me one that's when we notified Ms. Taylor by email as far as it goes to see what our next step was because again we were in disagreement that's when Ms. Taylor had indicated to my wife that in 2017 there was a computer glitch that dropped the deck off with that and again you know I

I had no way of justifying yea or nay as far as it goes.

I know that back in 2017 I went back and pulled my tax records as far as it goes and the property had dropped I think it was about $4,000 and some dollars with that it had went down but then I pulled

and three mobile homes that were adjacent to me in the area and all of theirs had dropped in 2017 as well.

I think some up as much as 9,000 and some dollars had depreciated.

And then in 2018, it appears with it, then it started to go back up, but the surrounding properties that were mobile homes seemed to go back up as well.

So again, I just took that as,

marketing the market area the values of readjustment each year but again kind of getting back to the issue before I can understand if the computer dropped it off but it did not drop it off on my assessment I with that it dropped off as a market overall for everybody I could see it if only mine dropped and the neighboring surround stayed the same I would say sure with that but since we all appeared to drop

I won't say a substantial amount, but a decent amount.

Again, that's why we're back questioning the deck today.

I mean, the deck is dilapidated.

The deck is not even safe to walk on.

When Ms. Grimm was here, she could probably comment as well.

I told her to please be very careful when she got up on the deck because she was taking measurements of the deck.

I just didn't want her to fall through or get injured with this deck.

And again, I know it's only a small amount.

We're only talking $2,300 total from the year before.

But then again, if the deck was dropped off with it, I should have looked like there may have been some kind of adjustment or some kind of notification.

I wasn't notified.

And also when Ms. Grimm was here, I have a portable carport that's just sitting on top of the ground out here.

And the carport is on the tax record.

It's listed there.

but also she had told me that that carport is not taxable.

So I says, well, I've been paying taxes on it.

And she says, well, you shouldn't have paid taxes.

But she said, I will make that correction when I go back to the office.

She said, I will pull it up and review everything and I'll make the correction.

Again, the carport still showing on there.

I don't know if I'm still paying taxes

on that carport.

But again, there was never a follow up or yes, I took it all for anything like that.

I was just kind of totally left in the dark.

All right, Mr. Hamill, I'm going to try to make this simple for the committee.

Typically, when we review an appeal, we break it into two parts.

There's the land value and this improvement value.

No, sir.

I mean, it was dropped.

I mean, I have to accept what it is with that, but no, it was lowered.

And see the whole ball game to both of these with the house over on the hill.

And also when I say on the hill, the other structure we just talked in the last meeting in here,

There never was a question on the assessment of the house.

Again, we're looking back at the January 1st assessment, which one went up 10,000 and something, this one up 200.

We only questioned the property values.

That's the only thing that we appealed originally with that, that was corrected.

And again, very appreciative of that.

But now we're to other issues that never was an issue as of January the 1st,

of it.

And I really don't know why it wouldn't have been added January 1st.

I mean, it kind of almost makes you think that the adjustments is all set.

In other words, if we adjust all for this property here of it, then we need to make up that revenue loss somewhere else.

It's kind of almost how I feel.

And I'm not saying that that's what's being done here.

I don't know.

But then it's added back over here.

So at the end of the day, the county still

consumed the same amount of revenue that they had when we originated.

If I could just respond to that.

Yes, certainly.

This property was reduced from $70,300 to $50,300.

There was no offsetting change at all.

All we do in our reviews, you cannot choose to review a specific section of your property.

We review the entire property or we don't review it at all.

So it doesn't matter if the

And that's fine, I'm appreciative of the process, but again I want to point out a miscommunication because of all that other than the deck that was discussed when Ms. Grimm was on this property,

There was actually no conversation about anything about the structure or the fact that she would be reviewing that.

The only conversations were about the land.

So again, there's a communication issue in terms of what the expectations are, because as a result of this, and again, you are absolutely correct,

our land went down and it went down substantially on this partial but I don't when as a taxpayer I don't say oh well I got a big savings here I look at my total tax bill right and while it was slightly reduced it is a material increase that is an error on the part of your process your computer

And every explanation is just that we should accept it.

There should be something that is an explanation, some kind of thing.

We can afford it, but there are people who can't afford an $800 increase every year because of a computer error.

So while I appreciate it, you know, justifying that that's your process doesn't really explain the lack of communication or the effect of this error.

And if we had this material error, I'm sure we're not the only one.

I haven't seen any reports about this.

Ms. Hammill, your property went down roughly this parcel.

I understand.

I'm not debating that.

They were not making an excuse.

They reviewed the property.

They lowered your assessment 25%.

They added in a deck which they didn't have on their records, but you're still down 25% in terms of the assessment according to my rough calculations.

So the county is admitting they made an error and they've tried to correct it and present it to you.

And if you're not happy with that assess or correction, please let us know.

But I'm thinking that you have said it was incorrectly assessed.

Yeah, so we're not questioning the assessment, but I guess the point for you as the board that had we gotten the appropriate information and had the questions been transparently answered and the information transparently provided, we probably wouldn't be here in a hearing with you, but we got no

None of our questions were answered and the only answer that we were provided until today in this hearing was that the deck did not exist in their records.

It was dropped off.

We never got that explanation for why the assessment changed over on the hill and now we're sorry at the other property.

and now we're hearing that this is the excuse or the reasoning for all of it.

Had that been explained, I mean, the answers are so simple now as we're sitting in this hearing, but had that had been explained initially, we probably wouldn't be wasting your time.

And I don't appreciate that that's used as an answer or an excuse for why we should feel good about the fact that our property got reduced here.

There was a substantial error

I understand your frustration at the level of communication.

Sounds like, Mr. and Mrs. Hamill, I appreciate your concerns here.

I'd suggest taking it up with your supervisor.

That might be the point you want to go to.

I mean, we're getting real off target here.

We're here to listen to your questions about your assessment.

Does anybody else have?

Ms. Cromwell?

I agree with David.

I think it's clear that communication was not the strong suit here.

I think we all agree with that.

I think, you know, I regret that on behalf of the county.

I'm not a county employee, but I can't let you leave with the conception that we have anything to do with revenue for the county.

The assessor is not charged with maintaining any kind of revenue level.

In fact, we were prohibited.

That's just not the way it was set up.

The supervisors charge the rate, the assessor does his best to get the value correctly, and the rest works its way out.

but we don't care what the county raises in terms of income or anything.

We only wanna make sure your assessment is appropriate in relation to everybody else.

And sometimes there are errors and I think we just regret that but I thank you for sharing that with us.

Well, one thing, and again, I certainly do appreciate your comments, but you know, one thing that I just had in question is, and like I say, $2,300 is maybe not a lot of money to some with that, but it almost makes me feel that I have been double taxed.

In other words, that yes, it was always on there with that, I paid taxes on it, then it got dropped off by the computer with that, and now that it's put back on, well, we're gonna add the value back.

I really don't see how the value got lost to begin with.

Maybe on a spreadsheet or that computer, however it was converted over.

But that's my only question.

It seems like that I'm paying over again for an error of the county.

And again, I'm very appreciative.

of the board taking my time with that.

Again, I had no problem with paying taxes.

I'm just asking for fairness across the board as a taxpayer.

I have lived in Almar County for 55 years with it.

I was born and raised here in Almar County, had paid taxes ever since I was big enough to own property with that.

But I just want to see tax fairness among everybody.

with it.

Yes, technology happens, things happen with computer programs, but the taxpayer should not always be held to pay the price for a computer glitch or something of that nature.

That's how I feel.

Maybe some other taxpayers feel differently, but, you know, again, that's just my comment.

I don't really have anything else to add with that.

And I'm sorry about the miscommunication that transpired.

Hopefully when I get the review, I'll have a better afternoon than I've had today, but we will wait and see.

All right, take a deep breath, everyone.

Before we get started, if you don't mind, the question I raised earlier, and hopefully, Pete, you can address that.

I know we can't increase assessments.

There is no limit.

I mean, we're just as supposed to correctly assess it.

So if someone asks for a review, that's the risk they take is potentially... For the current year.

For the current year.

I can absolutely go back three years.

and required to go back three years.

I make an exception when they go through this process.

So, so I think that might, I mean, we can't really tell them now.

I mean, the previous assessor of Rabble County threatened me when I brought property to the Board of Equalization.

Well, yeah, well, I'm going to raise your taxes for the last three years.

That's the gospel truth.

You're still being recorded, but yeah, so that is the way the law works, but we cannot

I do not want to do a review and just ignore parts and fix parts.

You know, whether it's to our benefit or against us, it doesn't matter to me.

I just want to double check that point.

I think we will, I would move that we vote to affirm the assessments, you know, and that's the technical part of our job today.

However, I really think that you guys in the Assessor's Office need to reach out, at least have a letter to that person, sit in the spreadsheet and just regret the error or something.

But I would not let this just sit.

I'd put some salve on it if I could.

but that's not part of my motion.

I mean, you know, there's an hour and a half of accusations of miscommunications.

I mean, it's sort of one side, you know, I applaud Billy and Peter and Ms. Grimm for sitting and not sort of taking that on, but are we sure there's miscommunication?

I mean, is there a problem, Peter?

There was broken communication, I think.

There was different communications at different times.

Well, I didn't get a chance to say anything, but I certainly want to clear up a few things that I think would be helpful.

Every correspondence that Dana received or I received from the Hamels

We responded to and we provided them what they asked for.

They didn't get the draw sheet, it appears, the way that you all did, but they received a breakout of the same thing that was on the draw sheet percentage-wise.

They were provided that in a email written summary of all of their questions.

And when they reached out to me, I certainly went and provided them every copy of everything that we had review-wise in the office that they requested and did that in a timely manner.

So it was really hard to sit here and listen to that and not be able to respond.

So I'm glad for the opportunity.

and in the past they have requested reviews, if not every year, every other year of their property.

And I was assigned these properties in 2015 and 2016.

And I did go out, that was the only years that I was assigned that area, but I did go out and review

The new house and there was an error on it with the fireplaces and we corrected everything according to the way our processes were done at that time.

And then processes were changed when we went to the new system and we didn't value aluminum carports anymore.

We had a taxpayer

a different one bring that concern to us.

And we decided that that just really wasn't something we wanted to value.

And thus, when you run the reports and you think you find them all and there are some that you don't get and then you find them.

Yeah, thank you for that, Billy.

No, I don't think so at all.

Before we vote on that, just one question.

I just wanted to make a point that's kind of unrelated, but related.

I do see that in Dana's last email, it does have those percentages out there.

I'm going back to it.

It just wasn't on that sheet.

Billy, can you answer that?

I want to go back to the partial to see.

That is based, I believe that the year built, we have the year built is 2008.

And then we have the under construction code under condition under depreciation.

Right, but why 2008?

He actually, we had him at 49% since 2005.

No, no, I'm surprised he hasn't finished this.

I mean, this will start to be a depreciating asset at some point.

Well, I was wondering, are we depreciating it?

Unheated and unconditioned.

There's a depreciation there.

For so many years now.

But it's a huge house.

I'm going back in the old system just to see

Looks like we have a building under construction in 2003.

So I don't know why that might be another.

And the way our system, the old system works, you could pretty much do anything you wanted to do.

And the new system, you're confined and restricted to be, how am I saying, maybe more equitable

Again, that might've been an issue with the conversion.

Right.

Well, I can kind of answer or at least give some information on this.

Not why it was 2008, but the fact that it is 2008 doesn't make any difference in our valuation.

I mean, because typically,

If this was a completed house, we would take off depreciation based on that year built.

Right now we are overriding it at 49% complete.

So that 49% is not going to change.

It's not going to add any depreciation to it.

It's kind of a, this is one of those really odd, what, 16 years, no, 20 years this has been under construction.

And it's only half complete.

16 years it's been half complete.

The system wasn't designed for a situation like this.

So that's a question.

The 49%, so if this was built today and it's 49% complete, it would have the same valuation as the fact that it was 2008, maybe whatever you have in there.

I think this is based on today's construction costs.

Well, 2003, the building permit was taken out, looks like in 2000 and the permit date 2002.

I am.

I'm learning a lot.

I'm learning a lot.

But this last case, it just seems like it just became personal between with them and Miss Graham.

It seemed like it just became personal and they were just a little bent out of shape.

Well, I do believe that a lot of the public

doesn't really get the language that the assessment office speaks.

And the assessment office is very familiar with their process and they answer the questions, but the public is not as familiar with everything.

And so when they hear things, they don't hear it always with a full understanding.

One eight.

The basement you're giving looks like there's a zero value in the basement.

So on the other side, there might be some valuation, something that needs to go up.

It has a unit cost for the living square footage.

I don't think it's that.

I have that the basement is being valued.

Yeah, according to the workup, the basement is valuing at 34,900 plus 5%.

I would make the motion of that 18%.

That's from 2003, though.

That can be a short change.

I mean, if they laid a few block and that was it, and then they didn't get to 49% until five or six years later.

Do we know what the roof went in?

It was only given a $45,000 value then.

I mean, I think there should be some depreciation too, but I'm looking at a 3,000 square foot, one story home, which is the most expensive square footage.

It looks like it's brick roofed.

And, you know, today you're not building the current, what's there, anywhere near 260, in my opinion.

You're not going to get to that point from 260, I don't think.

Maybe you are, but it doesn't feel strange.

It is 6,650 square feet under roof.

So the value of the property, if it was completed right now, but well, if it had been completed and built in 2000, what do I have right now?

2003 is what I have on here right now.

If it had been completed in 2003 or four,

The value right now would be 487.2 altogether, including land, based on our model.

So that's that RCN of 530 minus a 143 adjustment.

No, that's not.

It's wrong.

Minus the 18% depreciation.

18%.

No, that would include today's rates.

That's your cost number.

Yeah the only thing is, but yeah the only question just is that roof thing the roof and windows if they were in like 2005 I feel like an effective year 2005 of what's there will be appropriate.

Well that might be a valuation thing.

That's what you have, though?

It was 2005.

It might be a little bit different, let's see.

So 49% improvement was valued at 69,500 in 2005 for the 6600 square foot home.

If it had been 100%, it would have been $145,000.

And to answer Mr. Arsali's question, it's 16% if you use 2005.

2005, when you said it was first 49%.

Oh, right, right.

Well, as Billy was saying, back then,

We kind of had an iffy way of doing new construction, under construction.

And he had $150,000 estimated value.

And actually this doesn't add up to me either.

Oh, so he underestimated the building purpose.

Almost certainly.

They always do.

Yeah, he definitely did.

2008 was the first year that the value was actually, the house information was actually entered in the system as if it were completed, then a percentage taken from it.

Just the 16% deduction.

I think that's the appropriate thing.

Because it's not a new construction.

So if the valuation would have been on U, it would have been X dollars.

So I would draw my previous motion.

Just for Robert's Rules of Order.

And I think it's got to be something that the county can document in their files.

Because we're going to go through this every year.

and I think it should go with the letter.

It was going into taking all that list and when they add them by item, the component, you know, what's its remaining life like to build a reserve for replacement or something.

You're gonna get wrapped around the axle real quick on this unless you keep it simple.

2005, excuse me, yeah.

I don't know, do we need to do it?

I think we should tell him what we've done.

Well, he'll be confused anyway, because he's still thinking some sort of census track data going on.

But I think we just got to move.

In fact, personally, I have an appointment at 5 o'clock.

No, I think we can wrap this up.

If you take 16% depreciation off of 49%, it actually comes up to 41% completion.

Yeah, 218, it's 260, 100, yeah.

Is that for the total value?

Anthony, do you amortize depreciation?

I mean, it's the first year.

I think we're taking whatever.

I think that's how we're doing.

We're just doing simple, simple depreciation.

Keep the land the same.

What percentage did you reduce the improvements overall?

16%.

16% off the depreciation.

Oh, 16% off of where it was, where we had it.

Exactly.

260, 100.

Yes.

Oh, OK. OK. All right.

All right, I'm sorry.

And that's how, yeah, because that's how, is that how you would, would you, I mean, does it make a difference with which one we do first?

49ers?

No.

How is that how you would do it?

Would you do the 16 first or 49 first?

I know you don't have it.

Like, there's not, this is like the unique case of one house, which has been sitting forever.

That's half finished.

So that's what creates the problem.

But I think that's appropriate.

I'm just trying to find a way to combine it into one number.

The problem is the 49% under construction cell overrides everything else on this field in

Can you get your IT person to change the program?

They'll make that change in the next 12 years I think.

Is it okay if we use 41 even?

It'll be a little lower than what you were saying.

I don't know.

This says 217.6.

Okay, so it's slightly below that.

That's fine.

All right.

Okay, so it's, if I can do that, it's 49% complete, the number, the final value of that improvement is then reduced by 16%.

Is that correct, Mr. Arsali?

Right.

You might want to make a note of your system because that's how you're going to reflect that.

You're right.

We'll make a note.

So it's very clear.

So we can follow going forward what we're doing.

because 20 years from now when it's still not complete, we need to make sure we have a different number.

Aye.

Thank you.

I'll go ahead and move it.

Move first to affirm that one.

All in favor?

That's correct.

Right.

The first one is at nine.

The second one is at 10.

Okay.

And then were there no hearings on Thursday?

Correct.

So myself and Mr. Cromwell will not be there Tuesday.

Mr. Arsali will be taking minutes, but the three of you better make sure you're here and you better check with Karen to make sure she's coming.

Otherwise there's no quorum.

Next Tuesday wasn't a day that she said that she was not going to be here.

Perfect.

She should be.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear on that, Billie.

OK, good.

If you don't mind sending us the next set of materials when you get a chance.

I don't know if we got, I don't think, do we have that?

I have not sent them to you yet.

Okay.

I appreciate that.

Thanks so much.

Have we adjourned?

Meeting adjourned.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Who seconded that?

Thank you.

451.

Thank you very much.

Great.

Really, I'm chatting with support staff for the phone number right now.

Okay.

Can you help me stop the recording?

Because Danielle started the recording, I'm co-host, so are you.

Okay, great.

That's awesome.

Oh, okay.

Oh, so maybe I can leave the meeting.

Thank you so much.

She started out, I don't think so.

Well, I'll have to take it back.

So you're still in it, right?

Well, I think Nicole is going to do that.

She's a co-host as well, Nicole is.

I was, and then I left the meeting.

Edit profile picture.

No.

I've not shown that option.

Generally you are.

Yep.

It's because it's still going to continue recording on her computer.

We might just have to cut down the recording.

She is, she started it from home.

She started it from her work computer.

Yes, she did start it from her work computer.

Yes.

That's what we have people like this here.

Billy, if you wanna go ahead and leave, this might take a minute because I don't have access to a computer without her permission, but I'm reaching out to the rest of the staff.

Oh, okay, yeah.

Nicole, can you turn the power off to her house

Because maybe there's somebody at her house.

You think?

You can click the button.

Maybe Kayden's there.

Well, he's the one that's going to.

Where's Keith there?