Board of Equalization Meeting   5/9/2022

Should I repeat the first part of our meeting since we weren't being recorded?

It didn't get started in time until I would if I were you.

Do we have a motion?

I move to accept the minutes.

I second the motion.

Let's move on to, now let me bring up the agenda for this meeting, I apologize.

And all that, okay.

So the next item, Anthony, was the introducing of the assessor staff that was present.

So either I guess we'll do we'll start with the Board of Equalization.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So Karen, do you wish to start?

I own a real estate appraisal company, payment company associated.

Is that all I say?

Whatever you like.

I've been on the board for I think this is now my fifth year and I'm a real estate broker at Nest Realty.

Waki?

I'm a Charlottesville native, been a realtor for 20 years, and I represent the Rio District, and this is my second year on the board.

I look forward to serving to the best of my ability with fairness and common sense.

Thanks, Bob and Evan.

And I have lived and invested in Albemarle County for six years now.

Pete, if you want to start and introduce your staff.

Billy Taylor.

I am the deputy assessor and I've been with the county over 20 years.

And Sheila.

Sheila Conrad and I'm the administrative supervisor and I've been here about nine years.

At this point, it's the three of us.

Do we just have folks nominate folks, or how do we want to do that?

I'll make a motion to nominate Mr. Arsali as chair this year, and Ms. Pape as vice chair.

And how about, before, thanks, but before, well, how about secretary, David, would you, I'm happy to do it if no one wants to do it.

I mean, but I don't know, can I nominate myself?

I think, go ahead and make the motion for all three, as long as there's no further questions.

Okay, I make a motion to, the motion is to appoint Mr. Arsali as chairman, Ms. Pape as vice chair, and myself as secretary.

All right.

Thanks, Karen.

Do we wanna watch, and Pete I think, so we have that rules situation, we have the hearings coming up, so I don't know what we, what do you think is best to go over next?

You can do that before you do the rules, a procedure, and that might be helpful.

Sure, let's go ahead and do the legal updates first.

So Anthony, go ahead, Anthony Bissette, go ahead.

I'm not sure, but if you check your email, just to be sure, I sent you the correct one hour and a half ago.

And that's the one that I sent out to the board yesterday.

But for what it's worth right now, my read of it is that it is almost completely still on point and valid.

But we have it in the works to be added to our website so that it'll be on.

I'm sorry, what is it again?

The Board of Equalization Manual.

Well, let me look real quick.

I know I have the recent copy.

It didn't seem to be available online as of a couple of weeks ago, but it may be now.

And also, I did not send, you sent me the legal update, Anthony Bissette, I did not send that out to the members of the board.

And then, have they seen the proposed procedures?

Yes.

But again, I don't have just an off-the-cuff presentation about it.

Well, Mr. Arsali, this might be a good segue to move to that step and review that document.

So, anything else you wanted to add before I go into that in terms of legal updates or anything else?

Again, would you like me to stick around for this discussion?

Only if the board would like it.

Feel free to stop me wherever I'm going to kind of go through it myself and then stop me wherever you want to stop to discuss something because I think a lot of it's not very controversial and probably it's things that were I think would be good with source of authority assuming all those references are correct which those are good officers that's what we've done and 2.4 is helpful in terms of that off period which we kind of did today

Anthony, just for my benefit, since it sounds like there have been possibly some small changes made since I last saw it, would you be able to screen share as we go through?

as regardless, that's a good idea to kind of go over, look at it that way.

Are you able to see my screen?

Administrative, same thoughts.

3.3 watt of each BOE and panel meeting.

8.2, I just wanted to, as a clarification, because it does say that has to be electronically recorded until we have minutes.

Were our meetings, which were in person, were they electronically recorded?

Okay, so if there's no requirement for us to have it electronically recorded, I would suggest we remove that language.

I think there are going to be some special rules related to the hybrid meetings and we'll have to see what those are on the 18th.

Anyone have any thoughts there?

And I think limits might curtail some of that.

I would say 15 to 20 minutes on the side, but I don't know if anybody has a thought specifically.

Yeah, I think 20 minutes.

So it'll be 20, 20, and then we'll just give five for about 45 and then 15 for us to discuss it.

OK.

Any other comments or thoughts on that?

It looks like we're adding that on, but maybe you do 15 for the appellant and then the five minute rebuttal so that both sides are equal.

Then the assessor would have 20 and then they would have five minutes to rebut.

I'm usually on the appellant side, so that's extra fine.

the petitioners, or the panelists I guess in this case, extra time.

Looks reasonable to me as a framework.

And Mr. Arsali, 5A.

8.5A, we need to discuss before we move on.

8.5A.

Swearing in.

Yes, that's right.

I wanna make sure I'm not reading it wrong, but basically in your time or your discussion among BOE or panel members would be including questions that might come to us.

David?

Yeah, OK. Let me know.

I know that when I was practicing in Florida, the swearing in was a part of it.

So does that mean all the county has to be sworn in each time as well?

We certainly did it in Virginia Beach.

Any objections?

No, we can add that to the order of business, just the normal procedure for each year.

And one note I just want to add with that is, well, let's make sure these rules are provided to the appellants before they come in so they're obviously aware of what our rules are, and the timing especially.

No.

No.

Does anybody else see any reason to have a panel for our purposes?

That's our quorum anyway, so I don't see any reason.

Mr. Arsali.

I didn't know if maybe a subgroup of you as a panel would be something that you would use for an inspection of a property if you ever decided you actually wanted to inspect a property yourselves.

But if anybody else wants to have some time to if anyone wants to have any time to think about it or anything else, let us know.

And I'm guessing you can just do verbatim the ruling that you guys made last year.

Does everyone need a refresh, or do they have that?

Yeah, can you read it out again?

Item number three, after discussion, a motion was made by Arsali, and I quote, as a general rule, we do not inspect properties as a board, but will consider special circumstances, unquote, and then it was further clarified that special circumstances will determine in a hearing with the property owner, is what we had.

It might be, we could put it in earlier I guess but I think it shouldn't be in that hearing section because it's a part of the hearing process I guess.

We want to tidy up the language now, or do we want to?

Yeah, I think we should.

So we had, as a general rule, we do not inspect properties as a board, but we'll consider special circumstances.

But if anybody has thoughts on that.

Are there any guidelines for special circumstances?

Well, we have a couple of new members, but I don't want to rehash the same arguments, but if anybody feels strongly that we should have them, then let's stick with something similar in terms of language.

I shook my head no, and now I can't remember exactly what the wording was in the Board of Equalization manual about inspections.

But I don't have access to my emails from Denip in front of me at this moment.

So I would be fine with just saying we're not going to do inspections.

I guess the point is do you say that or you just not say anything, just not mention it?

But I think it may be helpful to say it just to make it clear so we don't have that request again, because we just had all that back and forth between at least that one applicant.

I think it'd be good to have the policy written down and published to anybody who's coming before us so that they can make an assessment of what they want to ask for with all the information.

The only thing, before we make that final decision, I want to know what the rule was, because I remember there is some language there about inspections, from what I recall.

I just sent the latest version of the VOE manual to everyone, along with the legal update.

And I'm searching through it right now.

But I think just keeping it there.

So just the Board of Equalization.

I don't, I'm assuming that won't stop us from entering Sam's Club, but.

Not as a group of six or four or more.

Yeah, it's not an individual.

I mean, is this something that's almost done?

So yeah, so other than that, we have not had it from, as far as I know, we have not had the board, unless they did like many, many years ago, but not many years ago.

But prior to 2009,

So I think any objection to that language just saying we will not do it?

So I have down the BOE will not enter and inspect any real estate subject to equalization by the board.

Evan, any thoughts as the other attorney on the board?

I think that sounds good.

Yeah, I mean, anything you see that's objectionable with anything that we've made changes or with this most recent revision that you think we should hold off on voting on this right now?

But my recommendation would be to be careful about the notion of adopting a rule that says we will never exercise our discretion in one way or the other.

Otherwise we're locked in.

But what is the piece of information that we'd hope to gain from an inspection that couldn't be conveyed by pictures or a video, I suppose?

Or the report of the assessor.

So it's rare to begin with.

Did he let you in the property?

My appraiser did.

It wasn't that he didn't let you in, but he wanted us to come in.

Are you addressing it enough for condition issues, grade issues?

So I'd be open to that if that's a good argument.

but as a general rule we don't, but they can come at the meeting if they show, I forgot what exactly the language was.

We will consider special circumstances.

Yeah, then maybe let's go back to that.

We didn't go any further than that.

We just said the board will consider special circumstances.

A majority of the board will agree.

But it doesn't hurt to spell it out.

I think it would protect us and everyone else in the process to spell it out.

Going back to David, if you can, sorry.

As a general rule, we do not inspect properties as a board, but we'll consider special circumstances.

But the board may on a majority vote do so based on special circumstances.

Yeah, but may do so after a majority vote.

Waki, you were going to add something?

Special is such an arbitrary word.

I would stick with special, but I don't have, not really tied to it, but at the end of the day, I don't know if that's going to stop or like people are going to either, they're going to do it or not, I guess, but at least they have a general idea.

So, you know.

Would that wording help?

I don't know if I want to just use that language in order to facilitate the performance of the students.

What if we were to say something like, you know, we normally don't like whatever the language is, we normally don't inspect the properties, but the board may agree.

Special Circumstances at a board meeting in which kind of like that.

Yes, the board may agree to inspect the property based on special circumstances presented by the appellant during the hearing.

And David, I know you're writing it all down.

I'm not the lawyer.

Sorry, we kind of said it together and now I'm not.

David, what did I say?

Okay.

Is that close enough?

I have the majority vote.

I would say the board may agree during a meeting.

During a meeting, OK. May agree to do so.

Something like that?

That's mine.

And I would suggest that we keep the language of special circumstances in there because I do think it addresses that just because you're not, you're requesting an inspection doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get approval.

and consideration of special circumstances.

Any other thoughts or comments till we move on?

I mean, over just this statement.

Okay, I was gonna do the minutes and have maybe you guys correct the document then we- Oh, okay, that's fine.

All right.

Yes, Mr. Briscoe.

Pete, with your permission, I'll drop off now.

Let me pull that.

Board of Equalization.

14 at last count, wasn't it?

There are 16 now.

16.

Makes sense.

When can we start, in theory, Peter, Billy, when will everything be together and you can start advertising?

I am going to be on vacation from the 24th to the 30th of May.

Oh, OK.

So if we can start after the 31st.

Karen, you're on mute.

I'll be away the week of the 5th of June.

5 through 12?

Yes.

You're on mute.

I'll be away the week of the June 13th.

OK.

Memorial Day is up.

All right, so if we started, so we could in theory start the week of Monday the 20th.

Yeah, 20th is the week of the 27th.

Evan?

Looks clear.

I got that.

We should have at least one more and probably I know we have usually the dates out we need to have dates like out in October or something like that right that's what we usually do every year.

Do we need a few more of these dates Peter before we do supplement?

So I think we did around the 1st of October, 1st of November, 1st of December last year.

Last year we were September 2nd, October 12th, November 9th, and December 2nd.

There we go.

Karen, you had your hand up.

So will this be?

And that the hybrid part of it is really only for people to watch, for the public to actually watch the proceedings, but not those who would participate in any way.

Okay.

The board members would have to be there then.

Just out of caution, I'm really sorry, but I think we need to strike that 23rd date, because I am going to be traveling, and I thought I'd just call in.

We do have a quorum, though.

Oh, OK. Well, that's fine.

I mean, that quorum is going to be a quorum, but I mean, that's a question, too.

If you can make note of that, Billie.

Yes.

OK, so we should do additional days.

The only problem is if we are in those weeks, those same people who might not be available are probably not going to be available.

I'd probably go into July.

That would be excellent.

Now Mr. Wood, Wendell Wood was notorious for taking the final day that was available and we still had to pull him forward a little bit but since he luckily hasn't been appealing anything in the last couple years we haven't had that problem but for the most part they most people just want in and get it done so it's not a problem.

That was why we didn't do that one.

First two weeks of June, we didn't do.

And then, Bob, were you not available the last week of June?

No, I am available.

No, he's there.

We're set in June.

Okay, we just did, what dates did we, oh, we did 21st, 30th.

21, 23rd, 28th.

Okay, so July, available limited, I'll probably weigh that first week at least.

Do Tuesday the 12th and Thursday the 14th?

Anybody else?

Works for me.

You say once more, what do we decide on?

All right.

Bear with me just one minute while I look at my calendar.

And are those all day events then?

Let's see.

Got it.

OK.

I will not be available on the 14th.

Let's do those four.

with the understanding that they may not be used.

Correct.

That should be plenty.

I mean, we could alternate and do a Tuesday one month, Thursday the next month.

That's the second Tuesday this year, so.

Right, so it'd be Tuesday the 1st, right, in November.

We didn't go into December, did we?

So we did December 2nd.

Is that correct, once we have these dates kind of settled?

I believe that's it.

Okay, anyone else, any comments?

Okay.

David, could you just repeat all those dates very quickly?

6-21, 9-1.

You don't have to give the time.

And I hope to get these minutes all over to Billy for final typing and out so we can double check all that.

and these are all gonna be again in person most likely we're thinking at this point.

The board is gonna pass that resolution on the 18th and that'll include the planning commission and there were five or six boards that were included in that, including this one.

Do we have a motion to adjourn?

Do we know yet?

It's the big conference room.

So do I have a motion to adjourn?

Make a motion to adjourn until nine o'clock 621 at this office, wherever the meeting's to be decided.

Second?

I second it.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Thank you.