Board of Equalization Meeting   5/1/2025

Thank you so much.

So I'll call the meeting to order.

This is the Board of Equalization of Albemarle County.

It's May 1, 2025.

First meeting where we're hearing applicant argument on the assessments.

Frank Friedman.

Thank you, Frank.

Evan Mayo, David Mitchell, Whitehall, David Norford, Rivanna.

We do have a quorum.

And Mr. Bill Howard is absent this week.

So has everyone had a chance to review the minutes from the March 27, 2025 meeting?

Yes.

Are there any revisions or proposed amendments to the minutes as prepared by the Assessor's Office?

Move approval.

Okay, thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right, all in favor?

Aye.

The motion passes unanimously to adopt the minutes of the March 27, 2025 meeting of the Board of Equalization.

There's two very quick sort of points of order before we get to the first hearing today.

And the first is a consideration for approval of the draft remote participation policy that we talked about a little bit in March.

Is there a limit to the number of people?

My experience with online meetings is there's too many that aren't there.

That is correct.

The limit is that you have to have a quorum in person.

Let me just make sure I'm clear.

That is correct.

But it has been done before under the general, we didn't have this policy adopted for this group, but we have had people that have participated on vacation.

I can't remember the wording of the document.

but if this is passed, that's not justification.

That is correct.

That is correct.

The county has a policy of not, it actually came from the inability to use county equipment out of the country.

So anyone with a county computer or

and cell phone or even email address cannot use that while out of the country.

They're automatically shut down.

Now in this case- Your own computer, your own email address.

That is correct.

So the county attorney pointed out to me that as long as you are not using any of the county equipment, there's really no reason why you shouldn't

Be able to participate when out of the country.

I added that, to be totally clear, I added that because I thought that anyone on a trip out of the country really

You know, instead of having to worry, it wasn't the technical part.

It was really having to do with, you know, the documentation and looking at everything while you're on vacation.

I thought it would be more appropriate to just separate from that meeting and not have to participate during that time.

And seeing that there are six board members, you should be able to meet a quorum even with somebody out of the country.

That was my reasoning.

Is there a motion to amend?

I'm okay with the explanation.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Item number four, consideration of request for additional time by Lawrence Miller, three parcels.

I guess I'll go first on this one.

I reviewed the nature of the request by Mr. Miller for extra time.

It appeared to me that there were not

I think that the parcels are not so unique that they would justify so much extra time.

And I think that those arguments advanced by Mr. Miller could be advanced by many of the folks who come in front of the board.

I agree with you.

Thank you, David.

May I just, the board, you know, if you deny the request for extra time, you can just stipulate that all three can be heard at one time.

So he can spend his 30 minutes that he gets for all three hearings as one group,

and to make one presentation, it's all the same.

While each one might have slight differences in how they're adjusted, it's really all the same argument.

I mean, I'm fine with that if anybody else is.

Let him make that choice.

Okay.

Yeah, I will say that generally in the cases where we have allowed extra time, I have not felt, it felt like there was a clear point of diminishing returns.

And the last 20 or 30 or hour of it is rarely as impactful as the first.

Is there a second on that motion?

I'll second it.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

The motion passes unanimously.

Okay, with those, any other sort of housekeeping matters before we move to the first hearing?

All right.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Better?

OK. You have before you my appeal.

As you can see, it's pretty simple and straightforward.

On my part, I will not be taking much time, but I do have some questions and concerns about the assessor's proposal.

Hopefully, most will be probably answered during his time.

So I'm asking that whatever time is left over from now be carried over to the latter part.

OK?

OK, good.

The next one is a little bit unusual.

My second request is my wife came along, she was interested in coming, but I said, man, this is a good time for her to do some video work.

But since you're already videoing, she doesn't need to do that.

Yes, it's posted on the website as a streamable file, and I think it can be downloaded as well.

Thank you.

I want to find out how bad I did.

Thank you.

All right, so getting started on the application for appeal, there was only four reasons allowed.

We as individuals were allowed to address before the board.

Two of them we're not going to deal with.

The appraisal's too low.

I wouldn't come before you if the appraisal was too low.

So that's out of the question.

And the other one was condition of the property.

It wasn't an issue.

With the remaining two, I decided to give you both of them.

The first one was, let me say it this way, I did the two of them so that you can see a wider range of issues that we're dealing with.

The first is how to determine a fair market value.

That's my job to present to you a different way than what the assessor does.

So it's really hard to come up with a reason how I can come up with ways to show you that there's a different value.

And I tried to do that three different ways.

The first, I'll get to that in a minute.

And then the second one,

It says, well, what is a fair market value?

According to the published statements for the county, fair market value is defined as the most probable price that a property would bring if exposed for sale in the open market in an arm's length transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

Sounds pretty simple.

and unless you have a computer program that discounts the fact that you had a sale, okay?

The one of the options I gave in my report, so that's one of the options I gave in my report.

So one approach is using the actual sales price.

Sales price was $785,000.

Another option we used comps, the comp approach.

I did that and I showed you three different properties.

Two of them which were in the same market area that was given to me.

And from that it was 799, 991.

The third approach, which I think is kind of novel in a sense, is to use estimates from websites like Zillow and Realtor and homes and places like that.

Now we say, well, why do you want to use that?

Well, research has shown that their numbers of, if you want to call it a ratio of what they estimate to actual sales, is like 97%.

They do a pretty good job of estimating.

So that came out to be 798, 607.

As you can see, there's not a 2% difference between all three.

whether it's the sales, the comps, or the estimates.

Based on those, the market value that we determined was 794,200.

This value is $93,800 below the assessed value, which amount of adjustment that we're requesting, I am requesting.

Next, we need to deal with the inequality of assessments.

This is the second allowed of the four.

The chart's pretty straightforward.

It reflects the massive inequalities that exist between the so-called comparables.

When one property is assessed at $100,000 more and another property is assessed at $100,000 less, it's hard to say we have equity in that system.

But according to the program and the assessor's office,

They're great because it's one to one.

In other words, it's 100% accurate when you add the two together, and they say everything's good.

I'm sorry, as a taxpayer, because this applies to taxes directly one to one, correct?

So one person is paying up to $100,000 more in taxes, while the other person is paying less for their $100,000.

I don't think that's fair and equitable.

So that's why it's simple.

and concise alternatives to the board.

And I hope you approve what I'm asking for in the $93,000.

Very short and sweet.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

So I'll first address the sale price.

And, you know, we see

that sale prices can vary across the board based on the time of year, based on motivations of the seller and buyer.

And what we found in our information is typically the best information is from the agents that are involved, the real estate agents that are involved.

In this case, we spoke to the selling agent who indicated

that the seller had already bought a new home, they were just ready to go and they weren't really interested in sticking around and getting the most probable price for this property that Mr. Burgoyne described in the definition.

And that tends to skew what the sale price might be.

So we contend that the seller would have gotten more money if they had gotten multiple offers.

And especially in this market, we still see multiple offers.

We still see offers above the asking price.

So, you know, all of that we expect would have shown a different sales price if the if the seller had been normally motivated, market motivated.

And then Mr. Borine's comment about

where we do mass appraisal and we create our model, we determine values, and then we look at the range of ratios of sale price to assessment.

or did I get that backwards?

Assessment of sale price, sorry.

Assessment of sale price ratio.

There is a range.

So I will just, you know, we never say that our values are 100% accurate.

We do mass appraisal and we expect a range and we show, we clearly show the range of assessment to sale price ratios.

And in this case, with the nine sales that

took place in Ballard.

They range from 89% to 116%.

There's no way I would call that 100% accurate.

However, it is within parameters set by the IAAO for doing mass appraisal, which is what we do.

And I feel that the value of this property is appropriate based on the model being correctly calibrated based on these sales.

And that in conjunction with the fact that we feel that Mr. and Mrs. Burgoyne got a good

A good deal on this house because of the lack of motivation of the seller, the non-typical market motivation of the seller, that's why there's a discrepancy between the assessment and the sale price.

We also want to point out that the owner provided comparables that were all two story or one and a half story.

It's a one story house

is can be different in how it compares to those properties when you compare them by square foot rates or anything else.

So it's always important to consider one story home sales as long as you have some.

And there are some in the assessor provided comps we have

some one-story home sales.

We added a few from what we segment out as old Trail Village single-family, but there are also some from within Ballard.

So we provide four one-story comps, which we think is much more appropriate if you're just looking at a comparison of properties that sold to the subject to compare to a one-story instead of all two stories or one and a half stories.

Thank you, Mr. Lynch.

So.

There's some issues that I'm confused.

Was the evaluation of 888,100 from the comparables of one-story homes?

It's a one-story home.

So you're saying it's based on a one-story home.

OK. That's good to know.

The assessor makes an issue of the owner's comps

versus the Assessives comps.

You know where I got my comps from?

The gentleman right there.

He sent it to me.

I didn't create that.

I didn't make that up.

It came from the Assessives office.

When he told me these were the comps, those are the comps I used.

I didn't go outside of that to try to prove my point.

I just used his own comps, OK?

I didn't try to distort the numbers or his numbers.

Secondly, I am totally, totally aggravated by what's been taking place today.

Not only was the Assessor's Office misleading about the owner's comps, it's misleading about the lack of a single family home in my evaluation.

Like I manipulated comps to avoid one level homes.

No, it's whatever was given to me, okay?

He infers that the sellers were under stress due to time constraints and financial concerns with possible having two homes at the same time since he had already bought one.

He indicates that he got this information from the listing agent.

Who talked to the listing agent?

Anybody here?

I did.

Let me give you her reaction.

You would be shocked to learn that Mr. Lynch, nor anyone in his office, ever contacted the selling agent or listing agent.

Never did.

One of the reasons I'm just totally outraged, okay?

But I did, and she was appalled.

Can I ask a question?

So is that true that the first offer was accepted?

OK?

I may have to take an extra minute to get there, but I'll try to get there, all right?

She was totally appalled that somebody would quote her after never even talking to her.

She wanted to come here today, but I only got the information this week, and I didn't get a chance to talk to her until yesterday.

And when I told her the meeting was today, she had a conflict.

Well, she wanted to come here and stand before this board

is to tell you all it's all fabricated, okay?

So I don't lose my place.

I'm gonna quote some of the things from her and you are welcome to contact her, okay?

She said that the sale was above board and that no one was under duress, that she herself developed a selling price and the owners agreed to it.

that the selling price was at fair market value that she had determined, that there had been multiple offers, and ours was the fourth offer, and that we paid asking price.

There was no negotiations.

I did not count on an offer or anything, neither did I.

We gave them what they asked for, and they asked for based on fair market value that the listing agent created.

The agent was extremely upset and offered to come here, which I've already told you that, OK?

I can't believe that a public office would distort facts in order to win a case.

But it seems like this is what's happening.

This validates the mistrust people have in the assessment process, and now I'm not the only one.

And finally, the issue that makes this process truly implausible is the fact that the county assessor's office is not in compliance.

Compliance.

With state regulation, minority AIAA-D, standard of mass application, and the standard of ratio studies.

Because this is a taxation process, even though it's here, an assessment process,

It becomes highly questionable to take the assessment and use it for taxation.

They have not performed the required onsite reviews within the allotted timeframe.

And they have not done the proper quality control over mass appraisal programs.

No ratio studies have been done as required.

This puts the assessments into a highly questionable category and the county is at risk for that.

Thank you.

I'd like to give the Assessor's Office an opportunity to respond if they want to.

Absolutely.

Yeah, first thing, the comps that I provided Mr. Burgoyne

Usually when somebody asks for sales during this whole process, I give them the sales that occurred in their specific neighborhood.

I gave them the Ballard sales, not necessarily all of Old Trail, but the ones in his specific section.

When I started the write-up for this appeal, I called the listing agent and forgive me, I'm sorry, I can't remember her name, but I called her and spoke with someone in their office, told her what I was doing, what I was asking about.

And what I had in the report was exactly what I was told.

I wish I could remember her name.

I might have it written down somewhere, but that's what I was told when I told her the address, was asking why this sold for $785.

I told her what we had to assess for, and I was curious.

I just wanted to know more about the sale.

I sent the sales report, so yeah.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question for the Assessor's Office concerning the sale.

I'm getting the impression that you all thought it was sort of a quick sale.

They didn't hold out for a longer period.

So what would be, give us a little bit of the timeframe there.

The active status on the listing for the property was January 24th of 2024.

There's four days.

I have a question for the applicant.

Yes, sir.

Yes.

Her name was Denise.

Yeah.

You're saying Denise listed and sold it.

No, no, no, no, no, no.

If I said that, no.

That's not what I meant.

Okay.

She was a listing agent, went through the process.

Yes, he was a listing agent.

He looked at it.

was different, was not her.

But it is true that one story homes are more per square foot than two story homes.

I'm a builder.

It costs more to build it.

And you basically, you have to spread the cost of the land over a smaller square footage.

It is.

I understand that.

But I do want to say this.

With a pool of comps that they use for one story, if you look at the ratio of assessments to sales,

91%.

It's almost invalid at that point in time.

Actually, it's 90.9, okay?

That's how wild it is.

So I just point out that the op, the, when you did your calculation, I'm just, I want to make sure I understand this.

You did your calculation with your bar chart.

You used three.

And

I think they were all two-story, they were, one was a 1.2, I don't know what a 1.25 and a 1.6, what is that?

Is that a cape?

Okay, thank you.

And I didn't feel like I had a choice.

Well, this section here, this is owner provided comparables.

Correct.

And there's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine of them.

One of them is a subject.

Sorry, eight of them.

Based on the fact that some of them in my opinion would I compare a

That's fair.

Would I compare a tree veggie?

But you didn't use any one stories.

The county didn't use any comps in coming up with a value of 888,100.

He didn't use one-story comps.

My evaluation was based on costs, the cost approach.

Comps had nothing to do with all this stuff, okay?

We've been blowing smoke all the time.

Here's my, you have it right there.

He should have it.

Mine was based on cost.

How did you perform an analysis on the cost of building the house?

I didn't.

Here's all of the data they used.

It was given to me by this gentleman.

OK?

So we're probably smokier.

All this about comps has nothing to do with it.

They didn't use that approach.

Is that, you wanna comment on that?

Yes, that page is just a report of the model as it applies to his house.

It's not a cost approach and at the top it says cost, but it's not a cost approach.

I mean, it's not representative of the cost to build this house.

It's a representation of the model recreating his value

So did you receive a copy of the Assessor's Office submission from last week?

Yes.

The report?

Yes.

I have one.

We did not swear anybody in and seeing that there's kind of accusations of dishonesty, I would like to actually get everybody sworn in.

Absolutely.

All right.

We'll go one at a time.

Thank you so much.

I would point out.

Here, say the right word.

No offense, but niece isn't here.

And I will bring her next time.

But you understand my issue, right?

Like the person that is saying the words that you're saying said is not here to.

So you are testifying this is what

You remember her saying to you.

Yes.

But we don't know.

Would you like for me to bring her to the next meeting?

I'll have her give you a call.

She wants to call you guys.

It has to be in this meeting in public.

It cannot be a phone call with me and her.

So Mr. McGoin, would you mind?

I'm going to swear you in quickly, and we'll do the same thing for the Assessor's Office.

Yes.

So I'm trying to remember how we started off here.

Oh.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony, both oral and documentary, which you have given today, was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Yes.

Mr. Lynch, do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony, both oral and documentary, which you have given today, was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Let me finish this process.

and we didn't quite, I don't know if you got the names Mr. Mitchell, but it's Lewis Herndon.

Thank you.

All right, Mr. Herndon, do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony, the oral testimony you gave today was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Thank you.

Can I just clarify something here?

Sure.

Mr. Burgoyne,

Louis, if I heard you correct, and this one I'm trying to clarify, you did not talk to the listing agent, you talked to someone in that person's office, is that correct?

I had called the listing agent's office.

Denise Remay was not in.

I did speak with her.

I said listing agent, but I spoke with a representative from her office.

I told her what I was doing, told her the address, and she knew about it just off the top of her head.

So it's quite possible that both of you are telling the truth.

Yep.

Just to clarify a couple of things.

When Mr. Herndon came out for a site visit, one of the first things he said to me, he says, you know, as soon as you call me, and I looked at the numbers, I knew something was wrong.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

I mean, it has value, but not the full value.

One last thing I want to clarify is an untruth.

He did say that the 888-100 came from the comparables of one single-family home, correct?

That is incorrect.

The assessment of the property was determined based on the

The sales study for the neighborhood, which includes all the sales that took place in the neighborhood.

Mr. Burgoyne, I've hoped that this is clear.

It's not the easiest thing in the world to grasp, but those are provided as a courtesy to you to match the evidence that you submitted.

They used a mass appraisal technique that you would never have any hope of beating them at if that's all they relied on because you don't have the data.

I did not ask for the comps.

Okay, someone said that earlier, but I take issue with that also.

It was sent to me.

I did not request it.

When the county assessor's office gives you data, you assume that's what it is.

That's the comps.

And if I was wrong in that, I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

The single family homes you're referring to, some of them are in the brand new section.

How old is it?

Not even one year old?

Well, you shouldn't include that where the house is 14.

As an example, that's what I'm trying to say.

It was even in Ballard.

Yeah.

And I know you guys, you're here to protect the system.

It's stated that, no, no, it's stated that way that you, I think it's, I don't know where it's in the right up for this board.

You assume automatically, it says that assessor's office is correct.

and that it's my position to have to prove them wrong.

And I've tried to do that.

Okay.

Saying that we have to presume that the assessor is right first is not the same thing as accusing us of protecting the system.

No, it's not.

I agree.

I agree.

I agree.

You know, I don't have all of that.

I don't have all the time.

I don't have the staff.

It's just the two of us, okay?

And when somebody says something and puts it in writing and gives it to you, and it's not true, I have to address it, okay?

And all that I'm trying to say from my perspective, it was smoke and mirrors coming to you guys.

and that's what I was trying to explain.

All right, thank you, sir.

So if the other members of the board agree, I would propose that we not deliberate at this moment.

Let's go ahead and get the next hearing started and then we can deliberate on both hearings afterwards.

Does that work for everyone?

We just have one left, right?

Mr. McDermott, we're ready for you.

Good morning.

Thanks for the opportunity to present in front of you.

Thanks for hearing my appeal.

By way of background, we moved here to Charlottesville about two and a half years ago from Omaha.

It's a lot warmer here than it is in Omaha.

We like the winters a lot better here.

We bought our home on October 3rd of 2022, and you see the price there.

My question is not necessarily with, I guess in general,

The point is that the assessment model, I think, includes a lot of variables.

It includes square footage.

It includes a type of home.

It includes finished square footage in the basement.

Using the comps that were provided by the Assessor's Office, I think there's a discrepancy in the assessed value that they've arrived at, although Danielle did come out and do an assessment of the home.

Graciously, she did a great job.

I'm not here to complain about the assessor.

I'm here to say the model may have been skewed.

I think there's, I'll use my phrase, some Kentucky windage in the model.

And I think maybe if we can point out, I want to go to some of the comps and walk through some of the comps and maybe highlight some of those things that I think may be a little skewed.

And I want to ask for your consideration.

I did an assessment and all these numbers are from the assessor's website.

So I did an assessment of properties sold in the Still Meadow area.

It's about 140 to 150 homes.

Very similar, I think there's four or five builders in the area.

Did an assessment of both

Price increases from 22 to 23 to 24, and then median sales price, and then actually median prices from 22 to 23, 24.

So let me just provide some background and some numbers.

Sales prices in 23 increased over 22 by 1.64%.

And then they jumped an additional 7.61% in 24.

Those are the sale prices.

The median prices jumped about 8.52% in 24 to 732,000.

and then up to 810,024 that represented a 10.58% jump.

So using that kind of as background, kind of start from there, I just wanted to talk through some of the comps that were provided and call your attention to the paragraph.

And I think this document that you all have a copy of, which is on page three, just above the assessment box.

Total number of 25B1 graded homes in Stillmetal neighborhood with a median appraised value of $741,000.

and that the subject home, my home, actually falls, which is a B1 graded home, falls above that.

It does.

It falls above that by 30.36%.

It comes out to about $225,000 above the median, which I think calls into question maybe the validity of the model or some of the components that go into the model.

Secondly, and this is a secondary issue, I noticed on one of the data cards for our property, we have a whirlpool listed for a value of $3,500 or an assessed value.

We don't have a whirlpool.

We don't have a whirlpool tub in the house, and we don't have a spa-like whirlpool outside.

So I think the previous owners may have had those.

We don't have that.

So just by way of reference.

So let me call your attention, if you would, to page four.

And I'm looking at the set.

I'm looking at the first comp, comp one.

It's 1870 River End Drive.

Basically, a couple of things, a couple of issues.

So it's on page four.

It's the first comp listed at the second column.

1870, so what you can see there is that the appraised value is 866, 300.

It's a two-story, it's a B1 type of property, average condition.

If you take a look, the total square foot is slightly above my particular home, 3,164.

You'll note that the bathrooms are pretty similar, four full and one half.

And the finished basement is within 25 square feet.

And you'll notice the assessment on that is 866-300.

The second comp, I'm not going to go through it.

We don't have the details on these.

You read from a card sheet?

No, no.

This is the sheet that was sent by the assessor's office.

You all sent this.

And I was, I guess in the letter it said you all would have a copy.

It's in our right.

We were looking on the, excuse me, we were looking on what you sent us.

Mr. McDermott, sorry.

I'm going to stop you really quick.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you're giving is true and accurate?

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes, sir, I do.

All right.

Referring again to page four, comp three.

It's the fourth column over.

Again, a larger lot.

This is 130 River Inn Lane.

It's a larger lot.

The assessed value is 873K, roughly.

It is a larger home, 3,400 square feet.

The number of bathrooms is comparable, and the finished square footage in the basement is higher, although the assessed price is lower.

And then finally, I guess, let me go to page five and six.

So I'm looking at the first comp on page five and six, which is 1870 River Inn Lane.

and in that particular home, it's a larger lot.

And the current one, the assessed value is 866.

It's average condition.

The living area is larger.

The bathrooms are comparable in terms of number and type.

And the finished square footage is in the basement is very close to what, although the assessed value is about $100,000,

$1,100 less than what we currently are looking at in my particular home.

So to sum it up, I guess is that there are many variables in the model.

I understand that square footage, number of bathrooms, et cetera.

But I think that in looking at the comparables in the same neighborhood, in the same age homes, I think there's a discrepancy in maybe the valuation.

I did take a look at the median.

I think it was stated here on page one, or excuse me, on page three that the

The median appraised value of the whole neighborhood is about $741,900.

Like I mentioned, mine is 30.36% higher, about 225K higher.

If I took that number, 741, and I multiplied it by the median price increases that I mentioned when I first started of

basically 10.58 and 8.52, I would come up with a value of about $883,000.

I think that's probably low.

I've provided some information with you.

I think that the range that I came in at was about $925,000 as a fair market assessment.

So I just want to start off apologizing.

We had some typos in our write-up where Mr. McDermott mentioned 130 River Inn Lane.

That was actually 1830 River Inn Lane.

The other information is correct.

I was looking for it, yes.

and I just want to point out that 1870 River and Lane on page four is the same sale on page six.

It was just unfortunately a little confusing.

We provided the comps that we had during the review period and then the owner provided the three comps for the review originally.

and then the additional, including those same three, the 22 comps for the Board of Equalization packet that he provided to us.

So if there's a little confusion there, that's what it's from.

Also on the first page of our write-up,

What we had originally sent to the board and to Mr. McDermott just had the wrong historical assessments at the top.

It doesn't make any material difference to the actual information.

It was just wrong at the top.

What you have right now, the board has right now is correct, showing the 967,000 for the current assessment and $200.

So I do want to point out Mr. McDermott talks about

the or shows the difference in the sales from 22 to 23 and 23 to 24 so this is sometimes can be misleading when you're looking at this not that Mr McDermott's being misleading it's just that these are the types of numbers you would see from car MLS where they say

The average sale price has increased by 4% from last year to this year.

It's not the same houses that have sold last year and this year.

So you can easily have, now I'm going to exaggerate it just to make my point.

You could have 10 homes that sell for an average of $1 million because they're really big homes in the neighborhood.

And then you can have some smaller homes in the neighborhood

the next year that sell for $700,000.

That analysis would indicate a 30% reduction.

for the neighborhood over that year.

However, they're totally different homes.

And like I said, I'm exaggerating this for my point, but in that same period, the market has actually gone up.

So the same home, if the same home had sold from one year to the next, it would have sold for more.

So it's difficult to look at those numbers and use them as an accurate accounting for what the change in value is.

Having said that,

What Mr. McDermott is saying is that overall, over those two years, it changed, I think, 9.25%.

Our assessments actually changed 10.6% over those two years.

From the 22 sales to 23 sales went down 1.4%.

And then in the last year, 23 to 24 sales for the current assessment, there was a 12.2% increase.

So if you take that a little bit further and say his sale price of $850,000 increased by the 10.6%, you would come up with a $940,000 value.

And I'm gonna do that math again just to make sure I didn't mess it up times 1.104%.

oh sorry 1.106 yes that was correct $940,000 so if you're just comparing the change the average change of assessments for the neighborhood compared to his sale price you would actually come up with something pretty close to his assessment about $27,000 below what his current assessment is based on the model so one of the other things that we included in the packet several pictures in the back

and one of the reasons why his house is assessed for more than some of this comparable sales is because it's been renovated and it's in what we call good condition.

So you can tell by those pictures that it is in good condition and that good condition in our model makes the property more valuable and rightly so.

So we feel that that is properly reflected and that's why it's difficult sometimes to just compare sales directly without any adjustments because you're just looking at a range of sales or a range of sale price per square foot.

Thank you, Mr. Lynch.

I note that you guys had made an adjustment based on some factors around the basement and the lot.

Okay, so this is the note from the property from the original review we did.

And this is from Danielle and she can certainly answer any questions relating to that visit.

All property info looked correct.

There is a view adjustment on the land and there were no real views.

Part of the view is the house behind them and the rest is trees.

Remove the view adjustment.

So that would have come off the land.

the previous owners remodeled the house so kept in good condition so that we found that the good condition was appropriate and we changed the basement type to full greater than 1800 square feet and I'm assuming we have different categories for those for the basement the basement itself not the finish where it could be a walkout or it could be a full basement or a full basement over a certain size

which would typically be a lower per square foot amount.

And that I'm assuming that it changed from a full basement.

Okay, so it's a full walkout to just a full over 1800 square feet.

and that would be a slightly lower amount, lower per square foot amount for that calculation.

And overall we, during that review, we lowered the value $84,600.

Could I ask a question just trying to understand all the numbers being thrown around?

There are two comps listed.

One is at 1870 River Inn Lane and one is at 1830 River Inn Lane.

Yes, sir, those are two distinct comps.

Okay.

That's what I'm looking at.

That is correct.

Their sales were about the same time period of the property we're looking at.

So that's why I'm focusing in on those.

On both of them, the assessed value compared to the sale price

is up approximately $60,000, $65,000, about 8%.

And yet for the home we're looking at here, the subject home, the assessment over sale price is up about 117,000, approximately double.

Why is that?

because I'm looking at two homes sold at about the same time, similar price, close.

It doesn't necessarily justify a difference.

over the sale price.

It'll justify a difference in value of the good one over the average one.

You're mainly asking about the increase.

About double.

And the only difference I saw was the good versus average.

like maybe those two hadn't been renovated yet.

What is the difference between good and average?

How do y'all?

Less value is reduced for a good property based on its age than for an average property.

And it's basically the difference between a percentage assigned

Yeah, so they should be very similar.

Well, we're not looking at it that way.

We're determining the value of this property if it were new and then we're reducing it just like a cost approach as we discussed in the last hearing.

And we're reducing that value based on the combination of age and condition.

So this property was in good condition when it sold.

So it's not a matter of

This one was adjusted differently after it sold than the other properties that are in this list.

These are currently $60,000 in assessment above what they sold for in 22.

But they're not necessarily $60,000 above what they were assessed for in 22.

I'm assuming we'd have to look at these properties and see what, actually, let me bring one up.

I think that would be clear.

So this is 1870 River in Lane was assessed for 770.

This was a 22 sale.

So in 23, it was assessed for 803.

and 24, it was reduced to 774.

As I mentioned earlier, this neighborhood went down between 23 and 24 by an average of 1.4%.

So this makes sense that this assessment went down.

And then between 24 and 25, it went from 774 to 866.

So even though this property sold for 803,

It was then the next year assessed for 774.

And we go back to the mass appraisal and we're looking for that median sale and what that indicates to us.

I'm trying to understand.

It's really based on what's done.

So they're broad categories like everything else we do.

So if kitchens and baths, typically that's what we call a good condition.

If kitchens and baths are renovated, that creates a good condition for a property.

Well, prior to these renovations, was this average and then it moved up to good?

Yes, sir.

Well, Mr. Lynch is looking at that.

Just two comments.

Danielle Stein did come out, did a walkthrough after I filed, and the initial assessment for 2025

Just to clarify, it was $996,400.

I love my home.

It's a beautiful home.

We love living here.

I'm not sure it's worth that much money.

It was subsequently reduced after Danielle's walked through to $967,200, which is where it is currently right now.

I think the Assessor's Office just came up with a value of $940,000.

based on their dollar value.

And I think if we take the $3,500 out for the set value of the Whirlpool, which we don't have, I think we've got a reasonable number.

Thank you.

Sure.

I do want to correct something that I said earlier.

I was reading the note, and the note said that I told you that the property was reduced $84,000 in change during the review, and it didn't.

It went down $29,000 during the review.

And I confirmed the actual change we made.

We'll have to go back and correct that note.

Okay, so this property, I'll compare this property's age, which was built in 2002.

Change it from good to average.

You know, that would have been a quick way to do it, thank you.

Okay.

So right now, and it's in good, we are reducing the value by 15%.

So if we were to change that to average, sorry, I'm in way too many things.

I'm in, I got into that other parcel.

12942, 12942.

while he's doing that.

You said you'd have a hot tub, but I don't see it listed on here.

I don't have a hot tub.

That's the point.

Right.

This printout says you don't have a hot tub.

I'm wondering, did they not change the note?

Is the $3,500?

Okay.

All right.

I have an answer for you.

Okay.

Like from excellent?

From new.

From new.

From new, correct.

An additional?

No, it would be 16 instead of- From new.

Correct, from new.

Is 12, correct.

And it only applies to the house, not the whole- To the house.

Mr. Lynch, I noticed the assessor provider comps are all in Still Meadow, but some of these others are in Dunlora, aren't they?

As Mr. Friedman said, these two on River Lane, River Inn, you just hold those as they

They're pretty close.

One's a one and a half, one's a two, sales, blah, blah, blah.

The only difference, I mean, nothing's perfect.

Like the square footages aren't gonna be perfect.

Basements aren't gonna be perfect.

But if you look at the percentage and change, and you applied the 12% difference between average to good to the average between river in and river, the two river ends, you end up at 977.

Did you do that, Mr. Friedman?

Did you do that saying math?

I'm just making sure.

I'm simply saying this in that you're being treated equally.

with your neighbors.

Yeah, all the homes, I think it's 140 or 150 homes in Stilmetto, they're all the same.

They were built roughly within two years of each other.

We're not very creative.

I guess in closing, I just wanted to say, I'm assuming just a second.

I just felt that the assessed value currently of 30.36 higher, $225,000 over the median was a little rich.

I think we just heard the assessor office talk about a price in the 940 range.

I think that's more equitable.

Mr. Mayo, we agree that there's no whirlpool in there.

You can see in the pictures after the renovation, what was there prior to the renovation is that whirlpool shower, and what's now there is a cloth-lift tub.

So we agree that that should be removed.

We're not, I just want to clarify, we're not saying that the property should be worth $940,000.

based on the change in value, average change in value applied to the sale price.

We're just saying that using that number comes up with something close to ours.

We believe that our current assessment should be reduced by the amount of 3300.

No, it would be adjusted.

Actually, I will just take it out and we'll find out.

OK.

Very good.

Any further questions from the board?

OK. Are we ready to deliberate?

All right.

So let's deliberate on application number 38 first, since it's fresher in our minds.

And then we can circle back to Mr. Burgoyne's application.

Well, the appraisal has been reduced twice.

Certainly coming here today was effective in that we cleared up the whirlpool piece.

I have to say when the margin of error or the amount is low in comparison to the price,

You know, they're separated here by, after the Whirlpool adjustment, I think just about $35,000.

I feel that the burden of proof starts to weigh more heavily in my mind.

The smaller the difference between the two numbers, it just becomes very difficult to carry the burden of proof.

I understand the analysis that Mr. McDermott put together.

have a hunch that using two-year-old data and blending it with last year's data is going to be less accurate on the whole than using last year's data in the way that the mass appraisal approach tends to do.

And I guess the part that I always look at also, like the coefficient of dispersion and the fact that they're off by 55 hundredths of a percent on the median

Appraisal to sales ratio on those six, the closest six comparables, which I do believe are comparable.

And so, although I understand Mr. McDermott's arguments, and I think that some of them are good arguments, they've proven good twice already, I don't feel that Mr. McDermott carries his burden of proof that makes it more likely that 928 is the right number and not

964-200, or 964-400, wherever we ended after the Whirlpool amount.

Can you remind me of the number you, 964?

I mean, after Mr. Friedman's point about the, I've put every possible number on this, I don't think the assessor is off significantly or at all.

Sometimes they're low, but I'm willing to compromise on what the assessor's revised today at this meeting.

Well, I think our options are to sort of set the number at something neither side asked for or either the two options.

And I think if they're correcting a mistake on the Whirlpool, I'm inclined to just accept that at face value and say that's, and ultimately it's closer to his number, right?

So I'm not really like pressure testing that.

We have a firm reduce.

We have a firm reduce or increase.

We feel it represents fair market value.

So just to be clear, you're saying 963.4 right now after adjusting for the hot tub, the lack of a hot tub.

OK. Could I just ask the applicant a question, even though we're in deliberation?

In the assessor's analysis, he does have a paragraph

that says the subject property has had many renovations before it was last purchased, hardwood and ceramic tile flooring was replaced, kitchen was remodeled, master bath was renovated to luxury math, all bathrooms are updated with new fixtures, lighting mirrors, front back doors were replaced, deck was replaced with a larger one, new lighting throughout, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Is all that correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

But all those renovations have taken place.

Yes, sir.

Does anybody

Beard, do you have anything further to say?

You want to talk?

You're done.

Mr.

Beard.

Is there a motion?

Make the motion that the assessment be reduced to $963,400.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

The motion passes unanimously.

To clarify, we're adjusting the improvement, not the land.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Great.

So everyone will turn back now to application number 36.

There were no changes here at the end.

The present value is $888,100.

And the applicant, as a reminder, is requesting a reduction to $794,199.

I have one more question.

I think for you, Mr. Lynch.

That actually does not include the basement at all.

Well, because the reason I ask is that of the assessor provided comps, all the one stories, unless I'm missing something, are higher per square foot than the subject.

And some of them have finished basement.

Three of them are higher grades than the subject.

Three of them are A minus ones instead of B plus ones that the subject is.

Is it my understanding, correct, also, Mr. Lynch, that we're assessing as of January 1 and the

Zillow, Trulia, Realtor.com.

I don't know the effective date of any of those systems.

And even if you looked at it in March, I don't know what date it would be using data.

It's the unknown of what's going on in the background and what's being used to determine those values.

Okay, thank you.

That's helpful.

I think I want to state on the record that this is my fourth year on the board, and in my experience, the Assessor's Office has been scrupulously honest and forthright in the work that they do to try to get these right.

Sometimes to their detriment, sometimes when they make a mistake, sort of acknowledging that very much on the front end and not playing this out as if it were a gladiatorial arena to set these prices.

Well, I will say I appreciate Mr. Burgoyne coming in today.

We would all wish that our property taxes were lower, but I don't think he made the case that his assessment should be lowered to the amount that he would prefer.

Anyone else care to comment or is there a motion?

I have more information if you would like it.

Louis just talked to Denise Ramey herself.

who said the property listed for $775,000 sold for $785,000 cash offer.

All inspections waived.

Only one offer made.

No other offers taken as owner was happy with the $785,000 offer.

The owner wanted to list higher but was advised against it as listing agent thought 775 was fair.

Prior owner had already bought a condo in a retirement community.

Thank you, Mr. Lynch.

Regardless of everything everybody's talked about, I've run multiple numbers across this.

And when you look at one bedrooms, I mean, sorry, one story units, and you look at the comparable, you know, basement finished, unfinished, all that stuff.

I'm comfortable that what you've done here from a master praising standpoint is, you know, accurate.

And this assessment is,

I'm on the same page.

Okay.

I move to affirm the

Assessors Valuation or Appraisal Assessment, excuse me, of application number 36.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

The motion passes unanimously.

What is the assessed value?

Yeah, I'll say that out loud.

I guess I have to.

Land value, 202,000.

Improvements, 686,100.

Total, 888,100.

I will do better in the next meeting.

Remember some of these things.

Anything further before we adjourn?

Okay.

Are you all set on the minutes?

Got everything?

Okay.

Thank you, David.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

I make a motion to adjourn.

21st.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

The meeting is adjourned at 11.32 AM.

The 12th, is that still scheduled?

The 12th of May, yes.

How many total applicants do we have?

I think it's eight that day.

What did we say, the 12th at what time?

starting at 8.30.

Just make sure I got that on.

No.

No.

No.

Yeah.