Board of Equalization Meeting   7/29/2021

staff members, Ms. Stein, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Bates, and Nicole Jones is IT?

Yes.

Mr. Farrell, do you have that?

Got that, thank you.

Reading?

Thoughts?

Any corrections?

I make a move to approve them.

Mr. Cromwell, do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Mr. Lynch, do we have the first applicant?

Yeah, let me bring, they're on the phone, they're not on video, just so you know.

What's their name?

I'll let them on.

This is Wayne Tannenbaum with Pivotal Tax.

Excuse me, I just, since I don't see your name, could you spell your name for us so we put it, make sure we have it?

Sure, first name is Wayne, W-A-Y-N-E, last name is Tannenbaum, T-A-N-N-E-N-B-A-U-M Very good.

And the company name, I'm sorry?

Is Pivotal Tax.

Thank you.

Would you like to continue?

Is that a fair question?

To my knowledge, in your appeal, you would have discussed this with Mr. Lynch?

Is this all correct Mr. Lynch?

Stuart, did you discuss this with the pivotal tax?

Important two procedures for the office though.

I don't remember seeing a request for the information.

to see that and I know in the information that we sent out was asked if anything needed to be provided and but I don't see anything in any correspondence that I have that asks for that.

I just want the board to know that.

So you weren't interested in their rationalization?

I'm not sure why, but.

OK, that's fine.

But yes, we'll proceed when you're ready, sir.

Are you representing all the parcels?

One is a BMW dealership and the other one's an Audi dealership.

Each of them separately, or are you just going to?

We have it together as an economic unit, yes.

All right, which one would you like to begin with?

So is this 1295, so this is parcels 15 and 15B that we're doing first, is that right?

Oh, that's fine.

I'm just checking to make sure I have the records right.

Our secretary is recording this in writing as well as the visual and audio recording, and that's why we're trying to get it on paper as well.

So this is 1295 Richmond Road and 1289 Richmond Road combined, correct?

Yes, correct.

Thank you.

All right, Mr. Tannenbaum, you may go ahead.

And that completes our presentation.

So, in effect, on this unit, this economic unit, you don't believe there's a problem with the land value?

That's all we're saying is I'm just being honest and saying I don't know if we have enough land costs to support a lower land value.

And what what did you spend?

I didn't receive that information.

I agree.

And we truly believe that because it's so specific to that builder or that dealership that if another dealership comes in, they're going to remodel, they're going to do things to that building, so they're not going to value it on the extreme 100% that it costs to build the original builder.

So all the millions of dollars that you allude to spending on upgrading these buildings when a dealer comes in that make them so unique shouldn't be used?

We believe it's lower than that.

Ms. Pape?

And with regard to your sale at 154 Hansen Road?

No, I'm not aware of that situation.

That property is almost 100% under managed slopes or steep slopes.

Then there would definitely be an inferior comp, I agree with you, yes.

I think that is a, it's not a commercial property.

If you have that information, I'd have to agree with you.

And in all likelihood, I would think that's why you used it, only the cost approach.

We did just do a straight cost approach based on Marshall's List.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Farrell, do you have a question?

Mr. Lynch is off, that's what you have in your report, is that right, that half of what we're talking about sold in 2008 for 3.5 million?

and the current assessment is 4.075 just for that property.

But it sold in 2003.5.

And this is just for the one single property.

your discussion of page 13 and look looking at you know how you picked 106 dollars for this showroom which is a sort of a higher end bmw showroom and i'm sort of chuckling at the picture you added i've never seen a a service bay that has a brick floor is that average

Wait, are you talking about the showroom or the service garage?

Well, the service is even, you have the service bay as average as well, right?

I think this is absolutely an average dealership.

I have no other questions.

Ms. Pape?

So I just wanted you to be aware of that in case you were not.

Staples like to present your end of it?

Yeah, Stuart's going to kind of go through these.

They are style buildings, nothing that would have a BMW moniker or Porsche Audi moniker.

I'm sorry, we didn't use sales on this one.

I apologize.

But Stewart's preempting the explanation of those sales.

And we believe we have assessed the property appropriately.

We use a higher multiplier.

Stewart, on the service center, do you know the value of the permit pulled for the construction?

I just looked that up.

Oh, what was that?

It was 1.6 million in 2014.

In 2014, thank you.

I mean, it's in good shape.

Good Class C, good building or?

I'm sorry, you're asking me how we arrived at our class?

That's okay.

I've been out and visited the property as well and I concur.

And so Class C good construction that you're using?

Portia, Aldi, and also BMW, you would expect that.

The rationale between the two.

And I believe are super premium automobile dealerships.

All right.

We use a 0.96 multiplier.

Gotcha.

Mr. Tenenbaum, would you like to, oh, Ms. Cromwell, I'm sorry.

Yeah, Mr. Tenenbaum, did you personally visit the subject properties?

Personally, no, but I believe somebody I can find out in our firm has, but I'm sorry, do I not get rebuttal or closing or any of that?

Mr. Lynch, what would you like?

If he wants to follow up on anything that was said, I have no objection to that.

Normally we have to keep to a timetable and we can't get into arguments back and forth, but feel free to go ahead.

And that's all we have.

And then Mr. Tenenbaum is going to go with his next economic unit and present his valuations for us.

We agree that our other land sales are not as appropriate and we're not really going to put much weight on those so we have four land sales that to us support a lower value we have obviously as we explained a lower improvement value but again obviously it's up to the board to come up with what they believe is the fair value overall and most likely to understand or we hope it's not maybe going to be to our number but hopefully it's lower than the improvement in land value of the the county and that concludes our presentation.

Ms. Pape, go ahead.

I do have some questions about your lands.

Ms. Pape.

Can you hear me?

You can hear you.

Mr. Lynch, do you have that sale?

Yeah, that was the, it's actually a condo building and there was no sale of the land.

Okay, so that was a shell condo.

That was not a sale.

Does that not in fact include about 45 acres and isn't it R1 land?

Well, is that a question to me?

Mr. Tannenbaum, I wouldn't think that you would have any way of knowing that unless you had looked at the county records.

Sorry.

And I think that is.

And I certainly hope he would.

Right.

The Gold Eagle Drive Sale.

It's off of 29th where the JWC beard distribution is.

That's all zoned R1.

I'm sorry to do it to you, Mr. Tannenbaum, but we have to have the accurate information.

I'm not saying it doesn't, but either way.

I feel your pain, but they are they are incorrect sales.

But the other two sales are still valid, I suppose.

Would you like to look at that and those numbers?

You want me to,

If you pull up your packet for the BMW dealership, if I'm not mistaken, you gave some comparable sales?

We don't have sales now.

And they have completely destroyed or taken down all the buildings?

They've taken down the front of the building and they have a building permit for I believe it was right around $5 million to improve the property.

And it sort of leads me to wonder, and I was wondering whether Mr. Tenenbaum could explain any of this.

The problem is what's involved is the question.

Mr. Lynch?

It's completely vacant except for what's left of the buildings.

I mean.

It's right across the street from the subject property.

Mr. Stables, would you like, oh, Mr. Referel.

Do that sold?

It wasn't the Toyota service dealership in the back.

So we would really like to get some clarity on what is being appealed.

You're saying we're not appealing the right properties?

So there's some confusion there.

is for 15D and 15E combined.

That adds to our provision.

But I'm not sure why, because our packet is just concerning.

It's not behind.

Oh, OK. And what's 15E then?

It's under the yellow arrow.

We still have the values and everything and our argument still would be the same.

I doubt that because your cost approach includes the back parcel in the fourteen thousand two hundred square foot building that's on the back parcel.

because you're saying that for these two parcels, the total building size, can I ask is, what do you have?

I believe that you're talking about the back parcel, the warehouse building or auto service center building is 14,200.

It's a service dealership for the other service component.

That really does make things difficult because you're saying that, wow, I'm not sure what to say about that because everything, including our appeals, you're saying is for essentially 14,000 plus square foot building and combined with another parcel of land, right?

It's a little bit confusing that there's another parcel included in the analysis that's not included in the appeal.

That would be a problem.

And so I ask you, would you withdraw this appeal on 15D and 15E right now?

Is that correct?

Yeah, I was just hoping you would withdraw it because of

Is this the appraiser I'm talking to or board member?

This is Peter Lynch, I'm the assessor.

Is that fair to say?

We are we are depending on the cost approach with the support from the sales comparison approach.

so most weight should be given to the cost approach so I'm just hoping the board takes that into account and even if they find based on the market approach a certain value that based on the cost approach should be given most weight because we both look at the cost approach and give most weight that's all I wanted to say.

Yep.

Exactly the same thing last year.

We do not have any information to that effect with the link properties.

Are you following this, Mr. Tenenbaum?

Well, I'm making notes, so hopefully it won't happen next year.

to proceed.

Anyone's thoughts?

I would too.

Go ahead.

That concludes unless Pete wants to add something.

Staples, do you remember or do you know, this was originally a Linkus VW dealership, I believe.

Had not experienced it.

And then as you say, may have done land lease to Flo.

It's under Flo 1313 Richmond LLC.

Any other questions?

Is that correct?

For the vacant piece?

No, for the improved piece.

You're looking at the improvement value per square foot?

Yes, I'm looking, I wanna know what the improved value was per square foot.

Oh, I'll have to get my calculator out.

I just want to make sure that's correct.

Well, if that includes the back building in error, it's probably not correct.

That's right.

Oh yeah, the per square foot amount is not correct because it includes that 14,200 square foot in that calculation.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

See how they compare and just ask, you know, I want to find out how you equalize those, if they're different.

It'll be $238.47 if you were to back out the square footage for that basement.

My question is, what is the price per square foot of the building improvements without the land?

Without the land, it's $212 for the portionality dealer.

OK.

Okay.

And when you do that, is it based on the size of the buildings, if there's the discrepancy?

Yeah, one is much larger than the other, over 4,000 square feet larger than the BMW dealership.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mr. Lynch, any thoughts?

This would be, you know, it wouldn't go anywhere.

I think we had this once before a couple of years ago at the Doubletree where the applicant was talking all about things but had never seen it and had no idea what in the world he was talking about.

I'm sorry, I'll let you guys discuss that.

Mr. Cromwell.

But I move that we affirm the assessor on all four of these cases.

Stuart?

Also CarMax, we have CarMax value very high too, the highest in the county, $486.62.

And is that based on sales or is that actually on?

Cost.

There are larger lots and there are larger improvement square footages.

All right, Ms. Pape.

And I was motion.

And I have no problem going along with the motion.

Any further?

So I'm good.

He just...

I think it was Mr. Tannenbaum.

That property across the street.

But on page 31, you can see that he appealed not only Albemarle, Chesterfield, and Ford and Henrico as well.

That's his right to do that.

It's like Landau or any other national appraisal firm.

He appeals every year.

Are we taking a brief recess or are we going to call in the next applicant?

Billy, you want to call and confirm?

Yeah, he's already here.

Then if he's already with us, we probably don't have to wait till three.

He's the four o'clock.

Well, we actually coordinated with Mr. Williams, thinking that the first four parcels would not take the time to make sure that... Pete, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but it's Neil Williamson and... Oh, that's Neil Williamson.

Paige Williams is in the, is the...

Right.

All I need to do is call him and he can appear at three.

So if the board agrees, we will call him and ask him to go ahead and appear at three o'clock.

Everybody else?

All right, Billy, if you would do that, thank you.

Do we quit recording or do we keep recording?

It's

I think in the past we've kept recording and we just adjourn now until three o'clock.

Okay, we'll keep the recording running.

Very good.

Thank you.

Ms. Taylor, can we bring in the applicant?

He may try to reconnect.

Should we ask Mr. Williams how it's gonna go on their end?

I just added her in so she should be here right now.

Would you like to begin or do you want Mr. Payne to join?

He's on.

We're gonna bring him over now.

Hey, good afternoon.

Yeah, sorry I'm late.

Which one of you would like to begin?

I'll begin if it's okay with you.

Thank you, Paige.

I'm sure Mr. Payne has some thoughts of his own.

And again, thank you all for listening to us.

Ms. Pape.

First, was this property within, was it part of the original condominium of White Gables?

Yes, it was.

I know it's zoned for commercial office, but are there restrictions within the condo documents that would restrict that property from being used for office use?

I've never heard it discussed that it might be used for office use, but Paige?

I think if it were to be used as an office or some other use, it would have to be approved by the condominium association, existing condominium association, which is the White Gables condominium association.

All right, thank you.

And know that in order for you to change it, they would have to give permission.

what is existing there as White Gables as opposed to White Gables II.

Mr. Farrell.

Just wondering why you didn't include that.

You know, it's not, it's not a residential, potentially residential.

It's the same zoning as the pain property.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Cromwell.

And I was wondering if there was a site plan that was submitted on his parcel for Rhonda Williams.

Should we not be able to get these approvals for any reason, then there are real questions about what this value of this property is, and the million two seems to be a very likely number in that case.

and the highway commercial zoning classification?

There are 46 that remain and we had proposed to build 42 in the three buildings that we had submitted for site plan approval.

Okay, so you do have an approved firm, a special use firm.

There is a special use permit that was approved in 2003 that governs the use of this property.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I mean, can we assume that you're feeling that this is going to go through and people are putting in reservations for condos?

And we did begin taking or signing contracts just a few weeks ago and actually have one of the units under contract so far.

Great, thanks.

Can you tell me what that, how you made that calculation?

That was Mr. Payne's, it was 42 time units times 5% of average expected sales price in units.

All right, thank you.

And I would mention, excuse me, I would mention that, you know, this is all interesting and helps you understanding, but the assessment is as of January 1, of course, beginning of this year.

and he's obligated to correct it.

We didn't own it for 10 years before.

Do you not find it unusual that the assessment had not gone up at all in 10 years?

We looked at the current assessment when we bought, and I don't believe I ever looked at, in fact, 10 years until we were preparing for this hearing.

If there are no other questions, we'll let Mr. Lynch.

I'm just curious, is that the math to come up with the amount you requested on the application?

I don't have that in front of me.

Does that make sense?

You know, I'm sure it varies, but yeah, for rule of thumb, you know, four to five to 6%, that seems to be in the ballpark.

Perfect, thanks.

Mr. Lynch?

So Stuart, if you want to go ahead and talk about the valuation and the equalizations of the property.

You'll notice that we don't have page five.

And this is just other properties that are that are coming that you have not included in your that if the board would like I can share my screen.

Please do.

Mr. Lynch can answer any questions that you may have.

You may have, and I'd be curious to know if that is the case.

Whatever type of that are approved moving forward would be for the next assessed year.

But the property was already encumbered as of January 1st by the original deed and plat or condominium development plan that was filed, if I'm not mistaken.

We don't have that information.

I'm sorry.

Did you make any adjustment for the fact that there was a 215 foot setback on this property or the other properties along this corridor?

And no, we made a locational adjustment of 5% and also a size adjustment for all commercial properties in the county.

And you were not aware of the special use permit in effect on this property?

No, I was not.

And you were not aware of the condominium documents in force?

No.

Existing, thank you.

Any thoughts?

No, I was just thinking along the lines of Karen who was just speaking up, but no, I think I don't have any other questions.

Mr. Pape or Mr. Ferrall, I'm sorry.

That's my question.

So that's the reason why it just didn't get found.

And did the sale initiate the findings?

And that's what made us find that override that was an error.

I guess Mr. Lynch did not like to be below this 90%.

It happens all the time, but this was just a case where we had the wrong information.

Staples?

You know, something like this gets brought to your attention, Mr. Lynch, and we make the change.

And unfortunately, there are some errors that we've been finding that were substantial in value changes that caused us to have to correct those values back to January.

So not often with commercial properties?

And I think a handful is too much, but I still have to correct them.

OK. And you have Ole Miss Pate?

when you believed it to be a residential use?

You mean when that was originally put on the property?

Yes.

I wasn't hearing that.

No, I think that was Bruce Woodsville and it's been that way ever since probably.

Did you not before you- I was not aware that it was-

I was not aware that it was a commercial property until the property sold.

But you did reappraise it and you were comfortable with that $375,000 when you believed it to be residential in nature.

However, it was valued as residential up until recently.

I just wanted to know what it was.

I'll follow up there and say I'm of the opinion that the average sales price will be in excess of a million dollars there, not $800,000.

That's all irrelevant as of January 1st.

That's correct.

And we thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

And thank you all for your consideration.

I'm sure you get paid a lot for this.

It was nice meeting you both.

Thank you gentlemen.

Mr. Ferrell.

It covers the whole area.

They knew that there was going to be condominiums there and not commercial office unless they gave permission.

and I know that it's really hard for you, you cannot possibly do that as an assessor.

Mr. Crowell.

It changes everything.

And it carried at 1.289 million for a decade.

There was another assessor between Mr. Wiesel and Mr. Lynch I know he never looked at anything.

I don't think they're going to have a problem with this assessment going forward.

No, I don't agree.

so that's the issue but if the law is that Mr. Lynch finds an error whether it's by a sale or whatever reason some neighbor calling whatever reason if he finds an error if the law says he's supposed to correct it then he's supposed to correct it.

Did you reassess them as well?

They're individually owned now as condominiums.

But the whole property, the land,

I'm sorry.

OK.

They are allowed to build whatever it is, what do you say, 70 units, 70 some units?

42 is what he proposes.

No, he's trying to build 42, but he had the right to build 70.

He's already built.

No.

Pate?