Board of Equalization Meeting   11/7/2023

Okay, good morning.

I'm going to call this meeting to order.

It's November 7th, 902 a.m. We have a quorum.

All five members are present.

I guess we'll hold off on the approval of minutes until the end of the meeting, and I'll go ahead and call the first case, our first and only case.

This is case number, BOD application number 94, PID 3-1-9-2-3.

Owner's name is the income, I-N-C-A-M. And let me go ahead, Mr. Patel, the applicant.

You are aware of our results.

I'll go through the field real quick.

Good morning and welcome.

Board of Board of Equalization.

I'll go ahead and skip a little bit about it.

So here's how the hearing will work.

You'll have 10 minutes to present your case, et cetera.

We'll have seven minutes to present theirs.

Then you'll have another three minutes for rebuttal.

During the hearing, we may stop to ask you any assessment questions.

Please note that for Virginia law, there is a presumption of correctness.

The burden of proof is on the applicant.

Before we begin, we're going to swear on the witnesses.

So whoever's planning to testify, please raise your right hand.

Thanks.

Mr. Arsali, since this is a supplemental appeal, I just wanted to point out that this is not an appeal of the January 1 value, and it's not an appeal of the difference between the 22 and 23.

I know there's information in the packet about that, but really what we're, what the board is here to determine is, is the supplemental value that was effective September 1st, I believe, is that appropriate or not?

Okay.

And then, so that just for clarification purposes, so the valuation has a January 1st, 2023 with $1,002,400.

The valuation after the most recent review was $1,129,900.

Oh, no, no.

The assessment as of, I'm sorry, I said the wrong date.

August 1st is $1,067,300.

What's the, but there's a underneath.

Correct.

Okay.

So what we are, so we have this for clarification then.

But we have the option to, you all are requesting that we increase it to $1,000,000?

Got it.

But he's requesting that you keep it at $1,000,000 too.

one million, 2,400, right?

He was challenging that.

No, I think, well, here, this is the, Mr. Carroll, this is the point you're interested in.

So what's your total value there?

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, it's a bit compounded.

The delay value, I'm not disputing.

Let's put it that way, yeah.

Now, in terms of what the assessor has indicated,

Oh, and another thing is we can't change the land value.

I mean, you know, you're not contesting it anyway, but you can't change the land value in the middle of the year.

So yeah that's what I have here on your nominee so but just I think because this is kind of a unique situation this is the first one we've handled I've ever handled on the board any of us have handled and as this is noted they haven't handled these anytime recently though in terms of before the board so despite the fact that you are arguing 896 just for clarification understand that

The appeal was not timely as to the January 1st, 2023.

That's the 1,000,000,000 to 1,000,000 to 2,400.

This is for the 1,000,000,000 to 6,300.

And so really all we're considering and what we're limited to appears to be part two.

Just really all it is is just their increase.

Yeah, I think I have,

With respect to the discussion on the land value, as I said, is it fairness?

The building value that I signed, I may have mixed up which valuation I was looking at myself, but anyways, we can get to that.

So I'll present.

I thank you for the staff and you guys as well.

I know you said it's the first, and I hope we'll make it the last for me as well.

But nonetheless, the opportunity is appreciated.

So anyways, respected members of the board and the county staff, I thank you for the opportunity to present my case.

My name is B. Paul Patel and I own the residence at 943 Jefferson Lake Drive.

Given a 10 minutes allotted to me, I will do my best to complete a time.

At an as-is condition, I purchased 943 Jefferson Lake Drive on 12-16-2015.

The dilapidated structures and grounds lacked enormously to justify normal living.

Thus I applied for multiple permits including one for the main house or as referred by assessor staff as dwelling number one.

On December 20th morning Ms. Dana Grimm conducted an announced interior self-visit and left the yellow ticket on the doorknob.

The yellow ticket was marked as building permits and remark as progress check.

Rest of the notation was illegible but I attached a copy of it.

Same day I called Mr. Rand at 1145 and again I'm 1221.

We spoke to the level of completions, which is remarked in the assessment report, but notably to the fact that completion within two to three months to total completion.

County completed the final residential inspection on 5-18-2023 and the home state clearance

on 6-20-20-2023.

So if I could just pause there, the Home State Fair is basically a short-term rental, Airbnb, for lack of a better word.

That residence went through the entire process through zoning department and the Board of Supervisors to gain the approval, new guidelines that they had set forth.

So just want to make that clear.

So Homestead refers to short-term rentals and Airbnb type facilities.

My appeal is founded on the understanding of the data provided by the county staff, as I'm neither an assessor nor an analyst.

The assessor's report indicates the assessments of being established by the median and mean sales of 12 properties.

And I do want to add there are other factors, obviously, that I'm not familiar with.

But before I begin with my case, this past Friday, November 3rd, 11 a.m., I received an email from Ms. Billie Taylor, deputy assessor with states

After Dana Grimm's inspection of the property on October 25th and the information taken from the current VRBO listings found online, we are proposing a change in our assessed value to the Board of Equalization.

The proposed value change is from $1,067,300 to $1,129,900.

Frankly, I find the latest communication to further increase the value by $62,600 as unjust

based on an established understanding to the visit by Ms. Grimm.

I will clarify my rebuttal.

So holding true to the August 1st assessment of $1,067,300, I present as follows.

With the 12 properties evaluation samples and interjecting the mean and median factors, I seek an adjustment from the Board of Equalization.

My email to the assessor on October 19, 2023 provided the following following for the site visit and conversation with Ms. Grimm.

Of the bulk property samples, I attempted to simplify my understanding and apply several low value and high value properties to establish the following.

As I said, the fair market land ranges from 13.8 to 17.3, and I accept the land assessment as presented.

Fair market improvements range from negative 0.4 to 35.2%.

Data provided shows significant range increase, including a decrease.

The circumstances to be tackled with a decrease in value is unknown to me.

The new 2023 assessment fair market improvements

assessment, I'm sorry, the new 2023 assessment is basically 43.9% in total.

I accept the just valuation increase in coordination to the improvements.

Now the new assessment received 11.3 November 3rd with an additional increase in unjust and unwarranted and I reserve the right to clarify my rebuttal.

As a historical placement,

I provided several samples of property sold on December 2027 and October 2021 within my vicinity and not established the accepted fair market improvement which I applied to my property.

I fully understand that valuation increases are a legal necessity and are essential to a functioning governing locality.

The excessive valuation led to my uniquely and approved R1 zoning homestay use property adjacent to Monticello's is unjust and unwarranted.

Thank you.

Anything further before we turn it over to the session?

I'm sorry.

Turn it over to the session.

So I want to point out, because Mr. Patel includes a lot of

information about how other properties had, how much they had changed.

And I'm assuming this is in the reassessment from 22 to 23.

But when a renovation of a property, new construction basically has occurred on a property, the property generally, almost always, increases in value because what you end up with is better than what it was before, which is definitely the case with this property.

So comparing how much other properties changed from year to year isn't really appropriate as opposed to what a property will change after it's been renovated.

And having said that, there are lots of different reasons why properties will change at different amounts.

Different style of homes will have different values within them that we use to value them.

We'll find out more information about some.

Quite often if the market's generally going up, something goes down because we found out something about that house that we've changed.

And it's not always, you know, we're not always finding out things that increase values.

Sometimes they decrease the value.

So I just wanted to comment on that.

If you look at the pictures that were in the packet, and we did provide this, as Mr. Patel pointed out, Billy sent our packet to him so that he'd be aware of everything we were discussing, including the requests to increase the value.

And as you can see at the end of this, you can see pictures of the work that was done

on the interior of this house.

And as he said, this property was barely livable or something to that effect.

And now it's very well done.

It was a major renovation of the property down to the studs, I think was basically the description of it.

And so there's definitely a lot of value that was added from what there was when he bought it and since then.

So

Our description now that we've had a thorough inspection of the property, we believe is appropriate.

Also, when we talk about the sales that we have to determine the value of a property, because this does not work the same way as a fee appraisal or a single property appraisal,

We had 12 sales within this market area that were used to determine how the model should be adjusted.

So it's not the same thing as we use 12 sales to determine this specific property, but to determine that model in which this property is valued.

And then the description of the property is then applied to the model.

So it's a little bit different, but it comes up with kind of the same thing.

But having said that, we believe that

The way we value the property is appropriate, especially due to the fact that, you know, one of the things you might notice in those pictures is that every bedroom has kind of a kitchenette in it.

They're not kitchens, legally speaking.

They don't have a stove or an oven.

But they're very well equipped dishwashers, little refrigerators or full refrigerators, lots of cabinetry.

That's unusual to have in a bedroom.

I'll admit that.

We have reduced the overall value

from 100% from new by 15% for functional obsolescence due to that kind of different layout or use as an Airbnb instead of, you know, if this was purchased as a house with six bedrooms, you wouldn't have a kitchen in each one.

So if they didn't have the kitchens at each one, then we wouldn't have that 15% reduction.

So we believe that we've treated that fairly as a reduction from what it would have been without that issue.

And I think that was everything.

We had a condition, I just need to vote.

Prior to our new request, we had a condition adjustment on the property.

So that was included in the 1,067,000 value, right?

And we removed that.

So could you say that again?

It was a condition adjustment on the property, on top of the function.

We already had the functional in there.

It was just the good to excellent that changed the values.

Yeah.

All right.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, this is beyond my understanding.

I mean, I do capture most of it.

I just don't understand how it works.

As I said, I'm not a tester nor an analyst of any means, but I had geared up some rebuttal questions.

I may be off on a few, but we'll go through it.

So at least you'll have different documents.

So I'll begin and we'll remove some just five counts and start again.

I would like to address the following.

So the first thing I said was very available to Gary what she is.

So thank you Dana.

And so pretty much we can move on.

So Ms. Grimm on September 27th, email indicates that she reviewed the listings at VRBO, which is a website where Airbnb is similar to Airbnb.

and that the interior photos online show that the construction is complete and that being May 8th, 2023.

So what I mean by that second paragraph or second statement and what the session just mentioned leads me to ask what did change from the September 27th email and the inspection that we had to the latest on October 25th?

because if it was viewed on VRBO, I can tell you right now, nothing has changed on my side.

So maybe you guys address that, but I do want to, it's a contentious point for me.

The first visit, the VRBO review online to now with an increase, nothing has changed at my property.

I love that.

If you don't mind, I just want to clarify.

You're saying, so this is, I just want to make sure, but you have the timeline, right?

So September 27th, you're saying, you know, that was the $1,067 valuation at that point.

$1,067 as of September 27th.

Correct.

But you didn't do it in person inspection at that point.

I had gone by the property.

Obviously I was unable to access the interior at the time, but I did take exterior photos.

There's no signs of ongoing construction.

It had been completed as far as community development and I went ahead and looked

So, but for clarification,

Nothing changed from this September 27th with her visit.

Same scenario happened.

I believe that I did meet you, I believe, on both occasions, but we didn't visit the interior.

But we, I did not do an interior inspection in October.

Okay, so there's no, okay.

And so I think Mr. Pethia's contention is just that, or he just wants clarification, sounds like, why was it changed between

Okay, so we're not saying that the property changed, we're saying that our description of the property changed upon our review, that we found that one of the major items that we're pointing out is that based on the

Extensive renovation of the property.

It should have been in excellent condition.

We should have called it excellent condition and not good.

So as part of the just picking up the new construction, Dana said this is in good condition because the renovation.

But based on our guidelines, it really should have been put in excellent condition.

And that's what we found on the review.

So could I ask, so what triggered that?

Was it your looking at the VRDO website between September and October?

There must have been something- That was my decision, actually.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And the Billy and Lewis one, we reviewed it.

You only reviewed it.

I don't know what subjective measures I've used, from good to excellent.

If there's a definition of that, I have no idea.

But certainly my personal meeting with Ms. Grimm was that the province is in good condition.

I would agree with the good condition.

But it's how much work is done.

And in this case, it was extensive.

When you say down to the studs, everything's being replaced.

That has gone through an extensive renovation, which should be, yes.

I'm not guaranteeing you that our records are exactly right, but when we find them that they have been extensively- What percentage would you say?

So, I mean, that's a contentious point for me.

I do find, I mean, I'm just going to add on, I do find that

This appeal could be a reason to just push it up.

That's my opinion.

I'm not making it up.

But no, I just don't see how you guys, two days before or three days before this hearing, tell me it went from good to excellent.

DRBO is not going to tell you that.

And that's all through the timing inspections, the applications and so forth.

So no, I do not object to that.

But nonetheless, let me move on.

So this past Friday, Ms. Billie Taylor writes, and I don't want to go through it, but it's already there for you guys.

There's a value change from $1,067,300 to $1,129,900.

So Ms. Grimm communicated to me on October 19th that her visit, which I facilitated on October 25th, as we are working on the upcoming 2024 assessment at this time.

That's what was communicated to me.

So is it legal for the assessor to reformulate the intent of her visit?

I see in the new, new reassessment of November 3rd, I see it as an overreach because I was communicated this visit was specifically for 2024 assessment.

And you'll see an email that's attached to it.

In fact, post May 18th, final residential inspection and in June 20th, homestay clearance, nothing has changed.

So what is it that you reevaluated?

Why would my interior finish and justify a grade from Ms. Grimm's good to your excellent?

I still have the same boring standard materials.

Drywall with latex paint, vinyl flooring, ceiling pan lights,

Surely then there must be a bias to my tangible epiphany, which are fixtures and equipment, which we all know as personal property, and that I will duly file within the county's homestay regulations.

Yet, the new assessment states dwelling number one is adjusted for 15% functional obsolescence

The utility no longer suitable as a single-family residence for home.

And this is where I may have misunderstood what it means, but I'll go through this.

So is the assessor, are the assessor telling me that this, and this board and the zoning department, this property is not zoned as an R1 residence, as stated in their email saying no longer suitable as a single-family residence?

Factually, county classifies a home today as an R1

and my homestay use was duly approved by the Board of Supervisors on August 4th, 2021.

I'll skip on, I think rest of it might not be relevant, but at the end, I do state Ms. Taylor, please tell us what really prompted you to formulate this new reassessment to tune an additional 62,600 entries.

I sincerely believe that the assessments represent a moving of the goalpost to justify the perceived values.

I don't know if I saw the email.

I'm assuming that some of those things were those things that Mr. Patel was saying were in the email, but I'm not sure exactly what the 2024 reference was.

Do you have a copy of it there that I can see?

I mean, obviously we are creating the 2024 assessments now.

We're working on that now.

That's what we do in this time period.

Yeah, I think all of what this is saying is that, you know, so we're working with this review, we are still dealing with 2023 data.

So everything included in this assessment is 2023 values and rates.

We're working on 2024 going forward, but that's

I think it sounds like there's a blurb of misunderstanding.

How I read it.

as well.

This is because obviously we probably deal with David.

Please understand that I was accommodating, you know, I made time, we set a date of October 23rd.

The contentious point is, again, it's from September 27th when the house is complete, down to the studs, renovations, I'm not denying that.

But everything was in place on September 27th.

I request this appeal.

October 25th comes along and now, you know, there's an increase.

Again, it went from good to excellent.

So for future reference, they have their

who guidelines and everything are on the assessor's website.

And then just, you didn't mention, you didn't mention the quality issues.

So the quality is separate from condition.

So the good to excellent is just condition.

So again, it hasn't been renovated or not.

Like what materials you use would be quality.

Right.

And we have this as a B minus one quality.

It's not an excessive quality.

Understood.

I think it's not really specific to Mr. Coppola's property, but when you do that supplemental, let's say it's effective as a, what do we say, August 1st?

Correct.

Any other questions?

I think that's all good for now.

I appreciate it.

I know election day is the best, so I hope I didn't miss coming up for anyone.

I did my duty earlier.

Thank you.

Thank you, David.

Thank you.

Good day.

Thank you.

That's fine.

Where's Mr. Canterbury?

That was the one like all day.

You were a big face on the scene.

Yeah.

I thought I had a memory of being in there and maybe that was another commercial one too.

But yeah, that's, so do we have a motion to approve the August 18th minutes?

So moved.

Second?

Second.

All in favor?

Okay, perfect.

So let's go back to,

If we all, any discussion here?

So again, so right now, our baseline is 1,067,000 and change.

Again, you're asking that we increase it.

and that's happened multiple times.

It could go either way.

It's not a penalty.

So let's limit this, I guess, to the, I guess the 1.667,

I would just point out that I think we have to be really thoughtful about the scope of the appeal, right?

So, I mean, the issue is just the supplemental increase, and then I think also at issue is the increase that the board or the assessors have added on as a result of their second look.

So I think most of the arguments that the appellant made should have been made as part of an initial appeal, right?

especially with the comps you know it didn't show that any of those comps had partially completed building permits as of Jan 1 that then were completed during the course of the year we have no idea of what the scope of any of the construction was if any was completed at all the the equivalence or the balance sort of subjective belief about the motivations of the assessor I don't think are enough to compel act and by the board

I'm sort of left wondering what was said that we could reasonably consider as probative of the assessors misidentifying the fair market value of only the supplemental issues, which would be the good to excellent grade, the two buyer places, and then the completion of the $140,000 in building permits.

and that's where, so the difference in valuation from the one million, 2,400, the one million 67,300 have to do with the completion percentage.

Okay.

And I don't think there was any objection.

There's nothing, he didn't argue that anything that it's done.

It was a hundred percent completed as of August 1st.

And it seemed like it was a little bit for that.

Okay.

So, Evan says the question that is,

Yeah, based on the evidence presented, I mean, I mean, I mean, anybody else want to chime in?

I mean, it doesn't sound like a reduction from the 1,000,00067 as it were.

If that's the question is from 1,002,400 to 1,000,067,300, the $65,000 increase based on the fact that it wasn't completed, that the increase seems reasonable.

But then the question for us, I think,

is the good tax and whether or not how we feel about increasing the additional $60,000 because it was not properly

This looks interesting question also like the the mouth that the assessor decides is for him to be correct right and I think that applies to the 1067 300.

I don't know I don't think that applies to the 1,129,900.

I don't think so yeah so that's a preponderance okay so just to be clear on that does anyone disagree with with what Anthony said does anyone think that

1067-300 that the appellant carried his burden to show that that was not fair market value.

Okay, so then just measuring the second piece, I think that's worth considering for me is that now the question is did the assessor carry a burden by the preponderance to move from 67-300 to 1,129,900?

based on the evidence provided about the site visits, the condition, and the changes made.

It would have gone up a little bit higher except we reduced for the interoperable fireplaces also.

Well, I don't think we made a good point, you know, nothing changed.

Right?

It's just your analysis that changed.

So property didn't change.

And so I think presuming, you know, that Dayton was correct, right?

That's the way Vince Carter goes to go back and say, well, now actually, you know what I'm saying?

But that argument could be made, you know, on every assessment year to year, right?

Like I've got the same property this year as I did last year.

Yeah.

I don't think, there's no question that 24, that's going to be excellent from day one.

That's what it's going to be.

Yeah.

It's been good enough for him.

But he didn't say it was.

I actually drove by there yesterday.

My family and talents went by.

Went up a third time.

It's a good location.

But that's not in the literature.

But I understand it has changed to me.

It's not uniform enough.

Right.

So just speaking as a member of the board here, my understanding of the kind of the code of the ordinance is that the appellant has the burden of proof.

So needs to make sure that it's more likely than not that the assessor's value is not paramount to value in a normal assessment.

I don't think that the presumption of correctness, meaning that he or she doesn't do anything, the assessor wins, right?

We accept that value.

If the assessor appears on the day of and asks for a different value than the one that was communicated in the supplemental notice, I think that that is not presumed.

My understanding is that would not be presumed correct because it wasn't reached through the same process and provided them ahead of time.

I think we can still change it based on that, as we've done throughout the course of the hearings.

But I think that there has to be evidence presented in favor of that.

It can't be provided without evidence and accepted without a reservation.

So yeah, here we have the building.

Excellent.

The building has major renovations and or additions.

May include a total gutter and renovation for a substantial combination of replacements.

May also include substantial system updates like installation of ductwork for HVAC.

The building has been updated to include any combination of kitchens, baths, and windows.

General wear and tear may still be

Normal for a home in that actual age in any areas in which updating was not done.

Yeah, I think it's hard to argue that it's an even blood accent given that it's sexual.

He has gone mostly to mini splits.

I believe it was radiators before.

I actually think you guys gave him a break on that functional obsolescence.

I mean he's not marketing this as a single family home.

It's a custom-built product for VRBO.

I don't think it would even be, I'm not sure it's even appropriate to compare it to a single family home anymore.

I think it's

Custom built for exactly what it is, right?

It may not be obsolescent at all.

It may be a perfect match between what it's doing.

So, but I understand what you did.

The model is for, the model and the way we set it up is based on single family homes and then not based on something with this type of layout.

Yeah.

And that's why we're addressing it.

No, no.

Yeah, and honestly, this is kind of an untested thing.

These are very new.

The AirBnB thing is new.

What I mean is as it applies to an appraisal question.

He does not look like him.

Okay, so the thing I'm struggling with is it really is the office.

You know, I think that

Basically, I think basically, if we want to go from good to excellent next year, for me, I'm cool with that because you don't want to send a message that, oh, if you file an appeal, they're going to jack the price up on you.

You know, there's some validity in that.

And we don't want to send that message.

So I feel like, hey, when it works out,

and the taxpayer's paper.

Cool.

Well, I don't want those equalizations.

We have to make sure it's fair for everybody so they have to probably tax.

So yeah, that's the

Yeah.

So as long as there, I think it's, as long as I think

Yeah, folks are put on notice, which I think maybe put it in bold next year.

It's something to think about.

It's just because it's happened multiple times this year.

Just for folks to understand, a full review is not a full review.

It seems to me that the potential explanation for the good to excellent when the whole thing was done is that they were probably waiting until all of the renovations were complete to reassess that, right?

But these were just 140k worth of permits.

They were the last ones.

When they finished, they assigned value to that.

And then, you know, two weeks, three weeks later, which I don't think is unreasonable delay at all, they said stepping back and looking at the whole thing just now qualifies as excellent.

I had put the depreciation rating of good on it.

I think it was last year.

And then, you know, of course, when we were analyzing it in the office for the review,

And so at the time you put the good rating on it, the whole to the studs renovation had not been completed like ever.

You know, I'd like to address what you said, because I kind of felt the same thing.

I thought, well, you know, if it was a mistake, then, you know, we're talking a couple hundred dollars, right, for the rest of the year.

But the problem is,

that if you classify it as good and then classify it January 1st as excellent, then it would give a property owner the opportunity to come back in and say, when you change my rating from good to excellent, nothing else changed.

And so we'd be having that exact same argument next year about this property when in fact the condition is excellent.

I agree with you 100%.

I think the differentiating factor is his appeal triggered it as opposed to the normal one year cycle.

If we go through the normal one year cycle, yeah, we have to accommodate and consider the fact that it has changed.

But like his whole premise was you wouldn't have looked at it and changed it if I would not have appealed.

Right.

And so that

I agree with you, you're right, we wouldn't be in that same situation.

But, you know, I think that's a good one.

So if we're going through the normal one year, January 1, and we're looking at it, yes, we can consider going from good to excellent.

But we don't want to consider going from good to excellent for somebody else.

I mean, but we do.

And that would have meant that the value would not get changed.

Because we're asking you if you want to change value.

We put you a thousand percent.

And it seems like that's my point.

I could argue in this both ways.

If you want to start your appeal, we won't increase.

But if you leave your appeal in it, then we're going to increase.

Exactly.

That's not what happened.

Time is really short on these supplemental appeals.

I mean, when we're getting these in March and we're meeting in July, we have lots of time to deal with all these questions and communicate and everything.

That's why I didn't just change the value and say, this is what we're defending today and send them a new notice.

because honestly I was on vacation and just got back a couple days ago and so it's just kind of very tight.

Honestly I can withdraw the request to increase it if that will help and we'll just carry it over at the value that we assessed it at originally and we will go forward with

One thought that I've had is does changing the grade of the entire property, is that appropriate to be done through supplemental assessment, right?

Yeah, condition is definitely something that should be done as part of the new construction.

Got it.

It seemed like the parts that had been assessed, you know, if it's just a supplemental related to the part that was constructed, but then the condition is changed to excellent and that increases the price of all the square footage that had already been completed.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

I mean, we're changing it based on whatever has been changed.

And when you're talking about a condition adjustment or a condition code, is it good or is it excellent?

If half of this property had been renovated, we would have to decide, is enough of it renovated and

compared to the rest to make it excellent versus good.

We'd have to kind of come up with a weighted average.

Actually, I would argue that the taxpayer got the benefit of a good grade for much longer than probably should have because this was only assigned when the last piece was done.

You could have argued that it met the condition excellent much earlier in the process.

I mean, there's a six year long renovation to the studs on six units.

And then the very last one and a half, the one third of one and a half units is when we assigned excellent grade.

I don't know.

Are they what?

The pictures on the BRBO, they have 22 on the bottom.

Is that October 2022?

I think we have, this has been a big 10 months there, I think the processor proposed the possibility of drawing

It's up to you all because otherwise we're going to just go based on what's there.

So it's not, you don't have to obviously, it's just a matter of if you all, because of circumstances of communication or whatever else you don't want to, you're welcome to, but you also don't have to do so.

Okay, let's not.

Okay, yeah.

Okay, just wanted to make sure before we make that decision.

there in terms of the 1-1-2-9 or?

Yes.

Why is it not here?

I think it's, the new one's 9-27-300.

Make sure you change live.

Do you think there's extra features?

By the way, we've just been doing that in total improvement, total improvement.

Oh, total improvement.

Yeah, for a number of purposes.

95400.

Okay, do we have a motion?

I move to adjust the improvement value to $950,400 and to leave the land value as you assessed not being challenged by the balance of $179,500 for a total of $1,129,900.

Well, excuse me.

I was just going to say, as of today, I'm in favor of the 1,067,300.

In 60 days, I 100% would support the 1,129,900.

So today, I'm opposed, no.

I oppose.

All right.

Do we have a motion to adjourn?

Only, like I said, we could have a December 5th hearing.

OK. And we'll find out in the next week or so if that's going to happen.

OK. Do we have a motion to adjourn?

Second.

Second.

And then all in favor?

I have time.

All right.