Board of Equalization Meeting   6/16/2025

I see Mark.

We're going?

So that's just Mark.

So you got it?

Okay, this is the Albemarle County Board of Equalization meeting for Monday, June 16, 2025.

My name is Bob Beard.

I'm the vice chair sitting in for Evan Mayo, who is absent today, and why don't we go down the row and everybody introduce themselves.

Okay, thanks everybody for coming today.

Actually, I don't think I ever got those out to you.

We'll do that another time.

So our first hearing is actually hearing number two, application 24, route 29.

This is the one that's withdrawn.

The first two have been withdrawn.

Oh, really?

Okay.

You've got it.

Application number 24, Route 29, LLC, United Land Corporation.

Pit number 10059.

And we're going to square everybody in.

If you could raise your right hand.

Thank you.

I don't have a template for this, but yes, if you don't mind, that'd be great.

Do you solemnly swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth shall help you God?

I do.

Thank you.

And so we'll begin with the applicant.

Go ahead and talk about what you'd like.

I am totally unorganized right at the moment.

Could we start with the other one and end up with this one, please?

Do you mind if we do?

It doesn't matter, any of the other ones.

I left this one at the office, and so she just faxed it, emailed it to me, and I needed to go over it again.

So I have application number 25.

25 and 26 are the ones that we discussed last year where we're reducing the value by a percentage because the sewer line doesn't have the capacity and we're waiting for the sewer line to be brought up.

Nothing's changed.

I think the county has gotten two more movements out of the 25, I think the rest are 14 maybe.

We spoke with

Jeremy, we've got something else we just haven't asked about this.

Well, they've been telling us for the last five years it was in the CIB and we're still in a holding pattern.

The sewer story's having a problem getting all the easements from Forest Lakes residents that we have given ours, but they just

Peter's frustrated that he'd like to tax us more, but they're working on it and at some point I think they're going to have to condemn.

If I remember correctly, last year they changed the schedule, which made us adjust the

Yes.

Redundant schedule.

Have they changed the schedule again?

Jeremy sent a letter, I believe.

Did Jeremy send you a letter Peter?

I mean, yes.

2027 from 28, I think we're going out to 2029 for construction.

They're still saying they want to begin in 2027.

So he hasn't changed the schedule yet.

Yeah.

Okay.

14 to 24 evenings.

If I could ask a question.

Bill and I are on the Board of Equalization for the first time.

So we weren't here last year when this was discussed.

And was this approach agreed upon last year?

Where did it stand at the end of last year?

I don't have a sewer.

Can you explain exactly?

I missed the beginning.

So first of all, we value this property as developable land.

So we provide information as to how we come up with the value in the first place, but then because of this sewer line situation and the time frame in which

It is scheduled to be done.

We reduced the value as we go backwards, kind of the time value of money calculation so that this year we've reduced what would be the full value if you could develop it right now.

We reduce it by 46% downward to reflect the time it would take to get to when they can actually develop it.

and what happened last year is that the amount, basically the discount rate that we were using which I believe was 18%, yes, was increased.

The board in the conversation said I think

We think that it should be higher so use 22.5% and so we recalculated the schedule based on 22.5% So last year being another year away from the scheduled time period

was actually 56% as you see in the schedule.

So the value last year was based on 56% reduction, this year is based on 46% reduction.

So we're using the same schedule that was discussed last year, we didn't adjust that.

We just brought it up one year because it's one year closer to that scheduled completion.

So Jeremy appeared last year and he wasn't able to do so this year but he did provide information on yes they have to get easements, that's a normal part of this process, it's mainly getting the money into the budget or having it in their schedule at least for putting it into those fiscal year budgets that are going to be affected by this

According to his letter, we are on track for that and none of this is guaranteed.

I don't believe that I should be being charged what I'm being charged.

I can't sell the property.

I mean it's all it can be.

Nothing can be built on.

And I know that in the future it will be something once I get a sewer, but if I don't get sewer, it's a park.

And that's all it is.

I'm sitting here paying taxes on something that I can't do anything with and then they want to raise my taxes more.

And I just don't, I'm willing to pay my leave

We pay our fair share.

I'm willing to pay it when I can use it.

But nothing has changed from last year.

Zero.

Nothing has changed other than that we went 365 days.

Nothing has changed.

They haven't gotten any closer.

So I don't think that, and fair is not a great word, but it's not right to charge me more money when nothing's changed.

They're already getting more money.

They raised the rate.

I mean, come on, people.

When we move forward and they start construction, then okay.

When the service authority actually starts construction of this job, we know what's going to go in the ground, then charge me some more money.

That is correct.

We changed the time period also.

Right, so now Jeremy's not saying that he's pushed it out farther than what we talked about last year.

I don't think he is.

That is correct.

Right, but I mean, in other words, we changed it last year because they had pushed out the date.

That is correct.

So they haven't pushed the date out any further.

That is correct.

Yeah, and I don't really agree with the property.

I mean, I'm not quite sure what the applicant's asking for is the property not worth anything at all at this point, because that is, I believe, an absurd statement, just because what they plan to do can't be done right now.

Deb, remind me of the property.

It's an interim.

I have a piece of property that produces zero.

It costs me money to own it every day.

We are increasing the value and we intend to continue to increase the value until this is developed.

Because of the schedule.

I don't know what the base rates are going to do, but the reduction is going to reduce as we get further along.

So, I mean, that's basically what it comes down to.

The board just needs to make a decision on that.

We are absolutely in disagreement as to the fact this property has value.

And, you know, they own a lot of properties that they aren't developing right now.

They're just holding on to them to the opportunity when they can, you know, basically sell it for a lot of money and then, or develop it and sell the parts for a lot of money.

So, I mean, it comes down to

They want a reduction in taxes.

I think you should say for market value.

And it's been my family's business for 16 years.

I don't disagree.

I gotta tell you, we adjusted it based on the schedule that the search started in.

When they change the schedule again, I think you're right to come in here and ask for a modification.

Maybe next year we'll adjust the schedule.

Well, you know, I'd like to say something in response to Pete.

Yes, Green bought a piece of property that's producing a very good income.

They bought it for that reason.

Not to go in and redevelop it right away as an apartment complex.

They probably will.

But they bought it as an operating mobile home park.

So that has nothing to do with this.

Yes, we buy a lot of land and a lot of land that is unzoned and we speculate on property but we pay taxes based on that that we speculate so we can afford to pay the taxes until we get it zoned, until we get it site planned but this has been going on for five years I never understood the five-year program that Pete did before but we accepted it because we thought surely the service authority would at least

have this line done within five years, which is what we were told five years ago.

It was in the CIP, it was going to be done.

They can go and condemn this land.

They don't want to, I understand they don't want to, but I can't control them.

I have asked and I've asked, yet I'm being penalized.

So the property that we're talking about, that's the mobile home park.

That's not the property.

That's an indirect conversation.

You know, it's probably accurate to say what the motivation of Breeden was when they bought that property.

I can't tell you what their motivation was, but I know that they do have an interim use going on there with the Mobile Home Park.

They have the same issue with the sewer line, and we do not reduce their value by 46% based on

We're assessing theirs as an income producing property.

We're assessing theirs at the land value.

Well I will say we had other offers when we sold the mobile home park for people who are mobile home park operators across the United States.

We had offers from them at the same price that Breen paid.

So I'm not so sure that Breen was so speculative.

He just built the 300 and some apartments.

He knew he was not going to be doing anything there.

Yes, for the future, just like we speculate, but you can't be taxed like you can use it, and you can't.

And five years ago, we certainly believed we could use it.

So, like I said, I never understood Pete's five-year program, but I went along with it because I thought, well, we'll have sewer.

The Service Authority has rules that they're supposed to have this sewer ready by now, but they don't.

They don't.

What is it, Hunter?

At 80%?

It's supposed to be developed.

It's supposed to be every land.

What is 80 and 90%?

Capacity of the land.

So I had to upgrade.

When Breeden bought the land to put the apartment complex, I had to upgrade 700 feet of that line.

Because they were saying it was technically above 80% flow rate at peak times.

And at peak times for them is on a heavy downpour range.

The manhole thing comes into play because they're saying they get seepage in manholes.

I told Jeremy, I'll buy you, I'll give you $30,000 to buy O-ring sealed manholes and we'll put those on and reduce your max flow at the rate.

It's a lot cheaper than upgrading his lines.

So I mean, this is what I've done my life, my whole life.

I've put types on the ground in water and sewer.

They're not, they're crap numbers, but it's what they have to follow.

And I like Jeremy, I've worked with him for 35 years,

but they are not doing their job.

And Pete, I don't know how I solved that problem but they're not doing their job.

If I knew that they were starting construction on that, I wouldn't be sitting here today.

If I knew that that line was being started today, it was working on the ground, I would not be sitting in here fighting this tax bill right now because I knew that I can then sell this property and whether I can sell it or I can build it up myself.

Does anybody have any more questions?

I guess I'm still trying to understand why this five year plan

Well, they haven't said it one way or the other.

We did not ask that question.

I did not ask that question.

When we spoke to Jeremy last week, we simply said, how are you coming?

And he said, uh.

And I asked about this.

He was very honest with you.

And I think they've gotten two since a year ago this time.

And then there's one that they know is a big holdout that they're probably going to have to go to court with.

We've got a plan that if the service authority says, we can't do this line, if they say it's pushed a year, then I get a reduction.

But you increased the value unbelievably.

That's a combination of the base rates going up and a change from 56 to 46 percent.

It's a combination of the two.

The base rate didn't change.

So it's just the 10%?

Just the 10%.

I apologize.

So I'm not sure the

Nina was looking at you guys when she said you guys raised the value.

I just want to get clear.

We raised the value.

And I would like to ask one question.

The application says no suit capacity.

There's no barriers.

This is the hearing room.

Well, Pete, this is kind of an unusual circumstance.

Okay, that is exactly what I said.

I know that's ridiculous.

Sure.

Let's value it like you're doing 2019.

We're here on 2019 as well.

That is, let's value it like 2019.

Because it hasn't changed.

Nothing can be done with it.

2019 can at least have a house site on it.

So let's value it like 2019.

Does the board have what it needs to make a decision?

I guess one more question.

If the adjustment stayed at 56%, rather than going to 46%, would the assessment be the same this year as last year?

Right.

Well, that's not where we would like to be, but I think we would probably accept that.

I just think we've been penalized for five years and now we're continuing to be penalized and let's say we pay a lot of taxes to this county and this one is just a unique situation I think a lot of developers would have sued the service authority for now but we do too much work in this county and so that's not something we want to do it costs environmental aid but I think we would win based on their own regulations

but still, that's not something we wanna do but we've just been totally penalized and our hands have been totally tied for the last five years and looks like they're gonna be tied for several more years.

We, of course, don't believe it should be changed at all because we are already getting a reduction, a huge reduction to the value based on full market value

that they're already getting that and I don't think there's real support for any kind of reduction based on the information provided by the super authority.

Does anybody else have any more questions?

Can I do that or not?

Well, this board has no control over any year but this year, the current year, and I can just tell you that if we are given information from the sewer authority that the schedule has changed, we're going to change it.

We don't need to come back here to discuss it.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay, all in favor of affirming the assessment on application number 25, say aye.

Aye.

Anybody opposed?

No?

No?

I abstain.

Okay, so application number 25 is affirmed.

Is there anything differentiating 26 from 25?

Any information?

In that case, I'll make the same motion that we affirm the assessment

And do we have a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, abstain.

I'll tell you the same thing I told you last time.

You need to file a site plan.

You need to file a site plan and push it.

I understand it's going to cost money once it's in the site plan eventually.

I'm going for a rezoning right now.

Okay we're going to move on to application number 27.

Let's move on to application number 24.

I'm getting assessed at $100 for a stormwater pond, only thing of yours, and if you have $100, you're the best.

I don't know how long until it's $3,900 which their calculations on here is a 3,800% increase.

I just think that's, I'm sorry, but it's $3,800.

It's really, it's a little more off.

I understand it serves a purpose.

This is 3.942 acres.

It's currently assessed at $3,900.

The parcel is zoned, planned development makes commercial, and it's currently assessed as a residual land with a value of $1,000 per acre.

We had it assessed at $100 previously.

We made a correction for the 2025 assessment to correct and equalize it with other similar parcels.

On page 2 I have a list of other similar parcels that are also assessed at $1,000 per acre.

And I'll just add that you wouldn't be able to develop the

Stop and Center without this area to do the storm water.

It's an integral part of just being able to develop the land.

So it has some value.

And we're not talking about a lot of value, 3,900 compared to 100.

And in the past, what we did this year was we identified some parcels in which we just had this overridden $100 value that really should all the properties that

have limited use like this should have all been assessed the same way with this minimal rate based on size but not a minimal value of $100.

Is it illegal to go up 3800%?

I mean we're not talking about the dollars.

That's a good question.

We could have changed it a million percent and there's no legal limit to the amount of change, but we didn't, of course.

There is no limit to the amount of change over any property.

Based on market value, we believe that we are at market value on this parcel.

So the value of this thing is for the benefit of the other parcel?

That is correct.

So it would be really a $3,800 increase should come out of the parcels and drain from it.

It does.

It has to go to all of the other parts.

But those parcels that actually the next one we're going to be talking about is the parcel being served and we're going to discuss how

there's a lot of extra value in that shopping center with all the land that's not being used yet and so this court is that too and that land is by the cost approach so you don't take value out of the cost approach you would include it if there was an income approach used and that would not be so if you're talking about a cost approach you're talking about all the land that's valued

based on its value.

and three or four different owners.

Does it drain the Harris Teeter?

It drains the Harris Teeter, it drains...

Probably doesn't drain the Target.

It drains...

It drains up to, I think, the Panera Bread, would be what used to be Panera.

It drains all of Park Park Drive,

Anybody have any other questions?

Do we have a motion?

If they weren't already at the $1,000 per acre, then they would have been increased.

That's correct.

That was part of the problem.

Some of them were already at the $1,000 per acre.

How do you actually come to that number?

Well, based on these... wait, this is the...

This marginal land, these aren't sails, these are just other suspensions.

Ultimately, it's based on these residual parcels and how much they sell for it.

We haven't provided that information in this application.

No, it could be sold separately, but whoever bought it would have to be subject to the management agreement, I would imagine.

It's a necessity, I will agree, it's a necessity for the shopping center.

but it is not a standalone piece of property.

So basically what, how, I guess how we view it is whoever buys the shopping center part of that gets the three-acre pond for free.

Like they have to have it.

So there's really, you know, it's kind of how

and all the easements over this are tied to all the parcels.

anything that we have we've been able to find I'm not going to say that we missed that we didn't miss any but yes this year so there were organs just there were things that were before your time I guess this was recorded this was probably platted well before you got here if you remember there was a hearing last

in which there were some non-developable parcels that were only done as residual land and we had a long conversation about those.

That's what started this review.

We went through and checked all residual type land parcels at that time, whether it was commercial relating to this or whether it was a residential property.

And we made sure that anything that

was given a certain code was changed so that it was done differently, so it was done correctly.

Not that the Claddagh ones were done wrong, it's that some of the conquerable properties that they raised

had been done like this originally and they were using those for compables so we went through and adjusted everything so they were all done the same way and this is one of those.

Yes.

If they're part of the same property, they're already done that way.

This is just unusual, I think, because it's a separate parcel.

They do.

What's that value then?

I can't look that up right now, but I'm assuming it's very similar.

Do we have a motion?

Well, I will move that we affirm the Assessor's Assessment at $3900 for

Application number 24PIT10059.

Does that make sense?

I'll second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Abstain.

Now we need to go to application number 27.

Is that the correct one?

That is correct.

I'm property owner of Route 29 LLC Pitten number 4735.

I don't think we...

I thought we did.

No.

If I did not bring anything with me, Deb, can you share with me?

Oh no, we did.

We did, simply because our rent did not go up.

I'm sorry, if you're ready for us to go ahead and go through.

So this is a retail shopping center property that was built in 2012.

it's up on Town Center Boulevard just south of the Harris Teeter and north of Coles.

The land area that supports the existing improvements is 3.512 acres and the remaining excess land is 11.813 acres and that's kind of have its own separate highest and best use.

It's not needed to support the existing improvements.

So we value that separately.

On page two we have a map showing the land area that's supporting the existing improvements and then the surrounding excess land.

The land that's supporting the improvements is in yellow.

The assessment for the subject property today is $13,414,400.

That was affected January 1.

The owner is requesting a reduction to $12 million.

We have had an issue with trying to provide estimates of income and expenses for this center because they do not provide itemized income and expense details.

We don't get a lot of information.

What was provided to us is on page three.

So what we've done is estimate it and by establishing market rent to equalize it with other properties and so we used retail rents within a mile of the subject property as well as their reimbursements to establish a market rent for the property and the property reported a subject vacancy was 26.9%

We used extraordinary vacancy based on our retail shopping center model of 15% that has been applied to gross potential income for 2025.

The operating expenses we've estimated based on $8.80 per square foot, inclusive of a 4% management fee, which is also part of our model.

This results in $223,027 in expenses compared to the $91,400 that was reported by the owner.

We use, based on our model, a replacement reserve 4% of effective gross income for replacement reserves.

that equates to $32,227 bringing us to net operating income of $550,431.

This is a grade two property based on the shopping center model and the cap rate is 7.5% resulting in a value of $7,339,100 for the shopping center and the land that supports it.

And on page five is a copy of our shopping center income form.

where the calculations were made.

The excess land is valued separately.

That's 11.813 acres.

It's zoned a planned development mix commercial.

It's located in the APRDC, which is Airport Road District Commercial Assessing District.

And so we've considered all of the sales transactions from the district, including improved sales, where the value of the improvements can be extracted from the total sale price to arrive at a value for the land.

The base rate for highway commercial land in this district has been equalized at $30 per square foot based on the sales.

The median adjusted base rate for the sales, which is on page 7, is $35.88 per square foot.

We've adjusted the excess land parcel for size at a multiplier of 40%.

That brings the base rate down to $12 per square foot at 514,574 square feet.

The value of the excess land as of January 1, 2025 was $6,174,900.

Site improvements consist of 78,900 square feet of asphalt paving.

We have depreciated site improvements of $170,300.

I just want to point out that when you're talking about an income approach, it only includes those parts of the property that have income.

So all this excess land, the reason why we calculated an income approach on the shopping center section and we provided a packet of the general area that

that retail that exists would cover to support that retail.

All of the rest of the land is just excess land as if it was another parcel that was not getting any income.

So you have the income approach on the improved shopping center plus extra land that covered that and then cost approach for the land that or for the

It's not really cost breaks deep.

This is the shopping center that goes with the retention pond we were just talking about?

It's one of the properties that is supported by that retention pond, correct.

I have another question about it in the last paragraph of the summary.

Subject's assessment was entered into the vision camera system at 13 million 414.4.

So you went with the lower value because of that?

Correct.

That is correct.

The actual calculated value, that is correct.

The calculated value is a little bit higher than that.

That's right.

Yes, and I'd like, Deb, I'm talking about the actual rental numbers, and I take exception to a little bit of what you said.

We do provide the actual rental numbers.

However, we do not break down our expenses.

We have a lot of properties that we maintain.

So we put it all in one account.

And then we try to divide it out based on the size of the center and various things like that.

But we'd have to have an accountant come in if we had to break down for every location that we had.

We do it all and so it's one number and then I try to break it out the best I can to appropriate it to the size of the property that we have.

But we do provide all of the rental numbers and I have down that we have the average rent on this center is $19.89 a square foot.

The county has estimated rent at $31.79 a square foot.

I don't have my entire file with me right now, so Deb may have to correct me or add to what I'm saying.

So, plus our vacancy rate has been really a lot higher than what the county has.

But I mean, we have given our exact rent.

I mean, that's no deviation on that.

Mainly about the expenses.

The fact that they choose not to, like every other property that's based on income in the county actually has an accountant that creates standard statements and does standard accounting.

Because they choose not to do that doesn't mean that we should accept

An estimate, a prorata estimate of expenses by parcel.

So I got 19.5 close enough.

You're at a 27.3% vacancy on that $25,000

25% expense ratio.

So the 15%, the vacancy, you've got, y'all, the assessor's vacancy is 27.

Pretty damn close.

The expense ratio, where's that number?

Where'd y'all use it, do you know?

We used 80 per square foot.

So what does that come out, what is that?

It was $223,000 in expenses.

We used much more than they allocated for expenses.

We also don't understand the pass-through.

Who pays the expenses?

That's part of our, I'd say, not understanding the statements because is this the base rent that's provided to us?

We're not saying they didn't give us the rent.

That's the gross rent.

The expense ratio, the expense rate, if I take the

the rent per square foot at 3740 and you've got an expense of $8.80 that's 20 basically 24% expense ratio did I get that right?

24% you're talking about what we used?

It's a little more than 20%.

We're just backing into it.

That's the big difference.

And the big difference is the rent of $19 versus $37.

Because they're, I mean, they got a vacancy, reported vacancy of $20.

7%, y'all are using 26.9 rent roll vacancy.

Their expenses are 25%, you've got 24%.

So we're just down to rents.

Because, well first of all, when we're talking about market value,

We're talking about what is, and you're talking about an income approach, you're talking about what is the market rent and what is the effort.

So are these, typically the rents we're receiving from applicants, or from property owners in general, are market rents.

I mean, they might be contract rents that are slightly behind based on your timing and stuff like that, but it's the best information we have, so we rely on that to be market rent.

We don't know.

We've provided some information to you on market rent.

Did we provide information on market rent on this one?

And we don't believe that this is a true representation of market rent.

that they've provided.

And I'm not saying that's not what they're getting.

I don't believe that it's true market rent.

Plus, there is typically base rent, plus the tenants will pay expenses.

This is gross rent.

I can.

It's $3.50 a square foot.

I think y'all let's move the cam higher than that.

If I was getting $30 a square foot I would not be sitting in here.

I've never seen $30 a square foot in any of our commercial centers.

We are old school, we are.

Mr. Howard there has known my father for 60 years.

So the 37 includes the pass-throughs that we include on both sides

I do want to point out we've had these exact conversations before about the United Land Income approaches and the information they've provided to us.

We did it on the office building that they owned at Inject.

They came in here and argued that the $21 million value was way too high and then the next year sold that property for $40.5 million.

they came in here and appealed a property, I don't have my computer unfortunately to tell you that this is PID 6224 they came and appealed the value at one and a half million dollars and within the next year sold it for 2.8 million dollars so I'm trying to figure out what the problem is on our income approaches when it comes to United Land because we can't seem to assess properties high enough

based on the information they give us to be even half, or even over half of what these end up selling the properties for.

Well, I give you my word, these are accurate writs.

And I believe this is accurate writs.

Why do we have the vacancy?

So I'm wondering why y'all don't use an accountant and report all your expenses on all your properties?

No, stop.

Get in my business.

I pull the weeds.

I spray the weeds.

I cut the grass.

That's how I was raised.

That's what my father did.

And maybe I'm behind the times.

But I'm not going to change because it saves me money in the long term.

So, what I sell something for or what my father had sold something for is irrelevant.

It's what I think the value is.

Someone wants to pay me

and look, I'm fighting six, six?

I'm fighting six tax assessments out of 25 to 2700 acres.

I don't know how many partials we have.

I'm here fighting six because I just don't agree that they can randomly start raising lots 25% every year, 40% one year and then 25% the next year.

That's why I'm in here.

because that's what I do.

I go through every tax bill that comes in my office and I mainly look at the percentage.

And if it's a residential lot in the last four or five years, we're not gonna win that one.

I'm not in here fighting on a residential lot.

Well, I'm getting ready to.

But when my rents have been flat since before COVID and I see them raising things what they're raising them, come on guys.

I'm not Barracks Road.

I don't get 30 plus dollars a square foot.

I don't even know what they're getting now.

You know, I'm not Barracks Road.

And so now we've got to have our accountant come in and do

and the rest of the community.

We don't have partners.

It's us.

So now the county is trying to make us add another whatever an accountant would cost to come in and set up each one of our businesses.

And like I said, then we'd have to have at least one more full-time employee to break down all of what we do.

I mean, come on, guys.

You know, I'm giving you the risk.

I'm giving you my best estimate of the breakdown of our expenses.

You know, but I can't, well we're not, I just can't believe this.

So I just responded two things.

I just want to make clear I'm not saying, make the comment a shyster, I'm not saying that they're doing anything illegal or anything like that.

That is not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is the information they're providing is not usable for market value.

It's difficult to use for that reason and I gave those

those examples because it was the same argument.

This is what we were getting.

Actually in some of those they wouldn't even get us anything.

So, you know, it's just differences.

So we are not saying, the county is not saying that a certified statement needs to be provided.

State law says that a certified statement needs to be provided.

So it's not something that we've even pushed in this case.

But it was added to state law years ago that the owners of income-producing properties would provide a certified statement.

and now that doesn't mean that it was necessarily done by an accountant and we're not asking them to do that I'm asking you and the United Land to understand that because of that it kind of creates some certainty in that it doesn't make our numbers wrong because their numbers are different we are not asking anybody to hire anybody or do anything differently but

These statements are supposed to be certified and they think the definition of certified is that an officer of the organization signs it and says it's certified.

Now it's up to them to decide that not having an accountant is fine for them to be okay signing it as certified.

So we are not asking for that.

We're just saying that in order for us to make this information usable, we need to adjust it to what the market actually shows.

I gotta get back to the rinse.

Where is it?

That includes the national service.

That's gross.

Your 19.5 includes CAM?

1989.

I thought the CAM was $3.50.

The CAM is $3.50.

But it's not in the 19.5.

It is.

At Hollomead Town Center, it is.

We worked with some tenants during COVID that are still trying, and we've got the same thing at North Town Center.

We've got a tenant right now that is on the gorgeous filing bankruptcy.

So we're working with them.

We can.

And so we do help people out when we think they've made every effort and they've got issues still.

Yeah, I think maybe I divided it by the entire space.

I'm not sure.

I really can't say which way I did that.

Yeah.

But I'm just trying to get my head around the expenses that are included in your 37 versus the 19.5

and then you've got this 5%, well 3.65 that is your expenses for operating, but that's not snow plowing.

It is.

So the 91 is what things?

Overhead, just trying to get my head around.

I think we're still, I think there's still this

Casm, for lack of a better word, between the rents they're getting and the rents y'all are using.

Even if we pull all the expenses out to try to make sure it happens to happens.

That's full service with the, okay, so we have to get to full service before we can deduct for vacancy.

So that was an area at Airport Road?

Just tell me which tenants are paying that.

Full rent, I mean, not electricity.

Plus 350.

Plus 350.

I'm sorry.

19 includes the 350.

By the total square footage or the rented square footage?

The 19.

That's right.

3750, less $8.86.

That's your reimbursement.

Is that right?

Yeah.

Okay.

It's 2870.

Which is...

I think there's a chance that there's a calculation for that in the map, per square foot.

you just took out 32,000 divided across the 25 or the, well that's not.

So that's one percent would be, that's what we're talking about.

4% of effective gross, which effective gross was $805,686.

That's based on our income approach.

Well that's full service.

The 31 is after, the 31 is what should be compared to our 19 in my way of thinking, is that correct, Adam?

So I'm down to 27, too, because the 4% is about $1.50.

Correct.

All their information?

Yes.

In this general area?

In this general area.

And it's the same one mile of that location, is that what you said?

A somewhat related question looking at

The figures on page five, their vacancy rate over the five years has been as high as 40% and now it's at 26.9, that's what they report.

But in your model you use 15%.

We use 15%.

So we've found in general that properties do not sell based on their

actual vacancy if they have high vacancy but they do sell based on a higher vacancy than market so we have in our model it's

Unusual Vacancy.

It's down at the bottom of page 18.

So, it's basically a schedule.

So, you know, with the exaggerated example, if an income-producing property was completely vacant, it would not sell for zero because, you know, you wouldn't reduce it to a zero income.

So, the maximum we use is 40% reduction and

I'm sorry, the maximum we use is 25% reduction is for any property with more than 40% vacancy.

And then we have a schedule that, you know, we use market if you're between 0 and 10, which is 5% vacancy.

If you're between 10 and 20, we use 10.

If you are between 20 and 30, we use 15.

That's where this property fell.

And then between 30 and 40, we use 20%.

So it's just a schedule that, yeah, these are new leases.

The ones we're talking about.

Are they doing these?

No.

Because I do notice that in 22 to 23 there was a $10 per square foot dump in your assumed base room.

Oh.

At this chart on page 5?

from the last couple of years.

It's back on the 2022.

$10 for what?

Oh, the change from 24.

I was looking for $10.

It's a difference of $10.

Yeah, thereabouts.

This would have been a realization that the rent we were using was too low based on the comparable information that we had

If you take out the 880, I understand the deductions are $4 in that year, I get it, in 2022, and you still use the 4%, you're down into the $15 range, which is comparable to what they're reporting, so you could have

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the difference.

I think it's a combination of older leases, newer information.

That's why I ask.

The information you're getting from people within a mile

as giving you the starting point of $37.

When were they signed?

It all depends.

I mean, there was significant numbers.

But you can see what I'm talking about.

They're skewing.

Again, I'll try to wrap my head around the table.

I've asked a lot of questions.

because the area of Northtown Center, which we're also gonna be discussing, I think your average there was $22 a square foot.

So that's closer into town, and so that's 22, and we just, it's commensurate with what we're doing.

But anchored, you don't pay.

You should call out restaurant square footage.

It's not the same as the retail.

Restaurants can be

That depends on every case.

Right, but I'm saying you've got to pull that out.

The lease, we can rent to somebody for $20 a foot as is.

We give them $10 a square foot in 10 and up, they're not paying $20, they're paying something.

Sure.

Does anybody have a motion?

Yes.

I think the number needs to come down because of the restaurant stuff in it, but I don't know how much.

If you pulled out the restaurant numbers and did just retail and we came back and revisited that, it would pull it down and it should because the restaurants, they're not the same thing as these spaces.

But I'm not willing to reduce it to their number because I'm not sure that that's right either.

Because I think there's a lagging thing.

yearly, twice yearly, whatever, whenever you get stuff from them.

They've got leases that are three, four, whatever they are, they're older, and they haven't caught up with the market yet.

There's gonna be a lag.

The market's going up, there's a lag one way, if there's a market going down, there's a lag the other way down.

I just think I can't make a decision on that until I have that information.

Can that be done?

We currently don't have any more meetings scheduled.

I'm happy to wrap it up if you get the numbers.

Okay, so what are you asking for then?

Just out of our list of comps, just non-restaurants.

Just what would it be?

They've got to have the restaurants.

They've been with us for 35 years.

They were with us at Riverside Center and now Hollymead.

They are paying more than what we're getting from other people.

They did their own tenant outfit.

We'll take a break for about five minutes and then we'll come back and vote.

Board of Legalization meeting for Monday, June 16th.

We are still on application number 27, Route 29 LLC, regarding pit number 4735.

Did we get more information?

We're waiting on some more information.

So that's what I was spending some time doing.

So we removed a few from the list that were restaurants that were down to just retail.

Or similar.

So we have basically 11 gross rents that range from $20.28 to $58.62.

And so I have two different sets that I'm going to tell you.

You pull the high lows out?

In a second.

So just based on all 11, the median is $31.81.

and the average is $34.49.

So if we do realize that some of those are pretty high rents, they would adjust the average more than anything else.

So just all I did, instead of excluding both top and bottom, I just excluded the top.

above the next lowest one.

So I'm excluding those.

So now we're from $20.28, there are nine of them, up to $37.47.

And the median now is, based on those nine, is $29.53, and the average is $29.74.

Those are just retail, non-restaurants, and they're all within a mile.

The $8.80 is inclusive of a management fee, so we don't have to make an adjustment on that.

Well, you're trying to back into their numbers, right?

You need about $10.

So $2.29 down to $19.

So instead of starting at 3740, we would be starting your calculation at 29.

Sure.

Whatever number the board would like to.

I'll make that motion.

Redo the calculation, replacing the 3740 starting point at $30.

Do we have a second to that motion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

And then that will come up with a assessed value once they run the bottle.

I'd like to know.

That's an assumption and it is not the, nothing we know.

Okay, so I need that.

Absolutely.

We raised all of these, so we gotta raise you.

It's 2003, what we did.

That's how you just keep dropping it.

My mother used to say, well, you can't fight, and that caused us to.

That's how I just found out.

I can't read it.

and then we're going to add

74 with the landlord supporting.

Okay, so this is what I've done.

I replaced the 3740 with $30 and then recalculated all the numbers down to the NOI and then divided it by the same cap rate of seven and a half.

Instead of $7,339,100, we are coming up with $5,298,600.

and then of course the total value would include the excess land of the same six million one seventy four nine and the total value would be one would be eleven million four seventy three five hundred and that is a difference if you want to know thirteen almost two million by fourteen

Yeah, do we have a motion?

The land value is for application 27.

The land value will stay the same at $8 million.

$6 million.

No, the excess land value.

The total land value.

The total land value.

That is correct.

Including the sharks.

The improvements will be the only thing that goes down by the $2,040,000.

I need to land in the improvement.

But some of the $5.2 million will just land in the improvement.

And the land is?

The land stays.

The land stays at eight million, ten, nine hundred.

So I make a motion that we change the assessment for PID 4735 to a land value that stays the same at eight million, ten thousand, nine hundred dollars and the improvements change to three million,

$462,600 for a total of $11,473,500.

I have a question.

Okay, all those in favor of reducing the assessment on PID number 4735 signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed?

I'm at application number 28.

Six Star Associates LLC, appealing 431 and 435 Gander Drive, PID number 9425.

Yes.

We're not asking for as much as what we want because I found out that I made a mistake.

United Land doesn't pay rent, so United Land was not included in any of the numbers.

And even though we don't pay rent ourselves,

that's about.

So I made that mistake.

So anyway, the only thing, the net rentable area is actually 29,091 and we actually have in 21,591.

So that's the only adjustment that we're

came in at like $22 a square foot.

The reimbursables were a little higher than ours, but overall it is in line with our rents at our expenses.

Do you want me to go through the old numbers

We changed the net rentable area based on Nina advising us on Friday and so we now have a base rent at $22 per square foot for a total base rent of $640,000

$2 versus the $651,002 that's on page 4 of your handout.

And recoveries, we kept up $4.25 per square foot.

The difference is now, recoveries are now $123,637.

So potential gross revenue is $763,639.

versus the $776,764 that we had before.

We still applied a vacancy collection loss of 5%, so that's minus $38,182 for effective growth income becomes $725,457.

The expenses were camp charges at $4.25 a square foot.

We estimated admin in general at $0.20 a square, repairs and maintenance that would not be reversible at $0.50 a square, and a management fee at 4%.

Also, we included a replacement reserve of 4% of EGI.

It brings it down to a net operating income of $523,420.

And just to remind you that we actually reported a value and currently have an assessment of $5,303,800.

Explain it to me a little bit better.

Sure.

So when they report their rent to us, they weren't reporting United Land because they're in their own building.

But then, in addition to that, Nina's square footage went down.

So if you look at page two of our packet, it's just what they return to us in our request for information for the income amount.

And on this list they provide each of the tenants, including United Land and the Square Footages, and then they provide a total rent

So they count their space as rentable space, even though they're not getting any money, but they are getting the benefit of being there.

So this is completely different than just vacant space.

What's the average that all the other tenants are paying in there?

I think it's $22.

Yeah, it was very close to $22.

Correct.

I think you were pretty close.

I'll make a motion that we change the assessment to 6,542,700 on application number 28.

Do we have a second?

Wait a minute.

Say it again.

Six million, five forty two, seven hundred.

The land would stay the same, and then the improvement, what is the land?

Motion, do we have a second?

Second.

And all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

All right, we're going to continue on to application number 50.

in Boulder's View, LLC.

Yes.

And that one we're just really appealing the acreage.

We even had a survey done on the property.

57 acres or something.

I can't remember the exact number.

56.7.

I mean the value actually went up from that change.

Okay, if you're ready, then I can just go through and explain it.

I wish I could actually show you this one, but you do have in your book pages, it's page three of our packet, it shows you the two different parts.

So basically the one at the top of the page on the north is, we believe, and they would say is not

We don't have a home site on it.

I'm looking at the, I'm sorry, I'm looking at this.

It doesn't matter.

Oh yeah, so if we're talking about number 50, then we're talking about section B of this parcel.

So we're doing application number 7, application 50.

Okay.

All right, so like I was saying, this is broken.

We call it A and B.

So B is the part in the back.

It's got steep slope.

It's access issues.

It's just residual land.

Right now, as far as we know, it's not developable.

And we have a relatively low value based on that, on all those criteria.

so B is 56.75 acres based on the letter from the surveyor and the majority of it is critical slope and non-biddable.

We have no home site, just residual value with an adjustment of minus 90% for Topo, therefore the value of this area is 64,700 based on that information.

However, the front parcel, which we refer to as A, is usable.

We have a home site on it, and just a two acre, you know, we're not calling this development land or anything like that, it's just a home site with a, it's 34.9 acres, so it's basically like any other 34.9 acre parcel in the county, the way we adjust two acre home site plus residual, and then we,

We adjusted for size and topo based on those criteria, the way it actually lays out.

Overall, this section is valued at $413,600.

So what I was explaining is that the value changed slightly, increased slightly, it's very slightly, I can't remember the exact amount.

The actual survey information that we received said that the back part was smaller and the front part was a little larger.

And because the front part is more valuable, that increase based on the increase in acreage caused the overall value with a slight increase, the decrease in the back that was less than the increase caused a net increase.

I don't remember the amount.

$5800, okay.

That sounds about right.

Yes.

Yeah, $5800.

That was the total increase.

So the new value that is being appealed today is $478,300.

The total acreage did change, but the acreage of each section changed.

Okay.

I don't think I wrote that down.

Well, we understand the breakdown now, which has been helpful, I think, to them and to us.

I think the bottom part, although it is a big lot, it's 35 acres,

I haven't seen sales go through $413,000.

Even though it's big, it's still one lot.

And so $413,000 for one lot is pretty high in Outlaw County.

So I just think it's a little bit high for a one valuable piece of land if you could do something besides build one else on it.

If I could just say that no utilities wouldn't really apply for a rural area property.

I mean, you do water, you do well on a septic on an acreage parcel like this.

Obviously, electricity would be run to it.

We do have some sales that show that these are slightly larger parcels

and, you know, slightly two larger, larger parcels that show that people spend $300,000 to $610,000 for an acreage parcel in the rural areas.

Pete, are those, since we did not get that for some reason or we don't have it right now, are those like inside a subdivision?

We can't say whether actually...

I mean, you don't have to give me an address.

No, I don't have an address.

I don't know where are these, Billy.

One's on Fox Mountain Road, one's on Fox Mountain.

One's on Fox Mountain, one's on Whitehall Road, and one's down south of Batesville in a fake store.

and they sold between $250,000 and $610,000.

This is on top of that ridge.

Right below North Park.

There are some houses up on the mountain behind that, I guess.

It's all the original part of when I was at the University Research Park in the 70s when my father bought it and this is just a residual piece off of it that somehow got landlocked.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Abstain?

So this is application number 31.

Next Generation LLC vacant parcel off Pritchett Ridge Lane, pit number 6337.

30 acre parcel, they reduced it to $7,680 on the first go around.

It still puts in about 10,000, a little over 10,000 in the maker.

The lower piece of what we just did, we needed 66,000 something.

The parcels around it, while one of them is high, which I don't know why we didn't fight that one.

We'll do that another day.

You've got one section, 3336 is a little over 5,000 an acre, 3335A is $4,800 an acre, I think just 10,000 acres too high for that, and a 25% increase in a year.

The Assessor's Office, please.

Okay, so as the Board knows, we don't really work in how much things change from year to year.

It's really in what the sales tell us the market value of the property is.

The overview of the property is it's off, if you know where Watts Passage is, you go off 29 down Watts Passage.

I'm trying to figure out his name.

401's Drive, maybe Tom 401's developed that.

A little bit past that is this parcel.

There's a private lane, road called Pritchett Ridge Lane.

This does have a little bit of frontage on Watts Passage.

But halfway down, I'm trying to see if you don't have it in your, halfway down,

there's a split in the property with an easement and that easement goes to another adjoining property off to the right which would be to the west so that's on the like our third page you have it in there yeah oh okay you can see the split in the subject property

It divides one parcel and it's all assessed as one parcel with the easement going through the middle of it off of Pritchett, Toulon, Jordan, and Clark.

And so what we've done is we've made adjustments

and let's see, I'm trying to think if I have the, okay.

Here we go.

The base rate for properties in this market area is 105,000 per acre for the home site HS1.

The home site and the residuals were adjusted at 10% as all of the properties in that market area are off quads,

and then residual acreage was adjusted for size.

It was given a 25% adjustment down for the easement and then some adjustments down for the topography and also there's an area in the water protection restriction.

Your home site, base rate?

$105,000.

For two acres.

Not per acre, just 100%.

Are these lots that you see on this plaque?

No, no, no.

These are just, this is the whole parcel with that easement running through it.

Are you talking about the ones around it?

Yeah.

The ones around it are single family residential.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Depending on size.

Oh yeah.

This houses, that's Watts Passage.

Is it possible to do the same thing to this land?

We've done the same thing.

Oh no, I'm sorry.

We are doing all of this property and the surrounding properties as a single home site and then residual land.

So if they're two acres, they're assessed at $105,000.

If they're 10 acres, they're at $105,000 for the first two, and then it's about $15,500 per acre for the rest of the acreage.

So the more acreage they have, they get more residual land value.

So every one of them in this area will be done that same way.

This just has the further reduction in value due to that easement that crosses it and cuts it in half.

Can this property be, can it access anything?

You know, I don't know the answer to that except it does have frontage on Watts Passage.

I don't know why that is.

It's the piece that would be all the way down in the bottom right corner.

Well, it's where Pritchett Lane comes in.

Right, but Pritchett Lane, yeah.

But there is frontage along Watts Passage.

So the applicant, in your application you say property is a phrase of more than its fair market value.

Less than 10-3.

I mean you got the piece behind is obviously not, is it 5,131?

The other piece that goes down and has a very small sliver that joins...

So we provided you with three comparables that are smaller than the other ones we provided on application 50 because this one is a smaller total parcel and basically we provide a range of sale prices from $250,000 to $480,000

The average value per acre from $9,400 to $21,000.

So we kind of show you a range of sales, range of sale prices, value per acre that brackets the subject property and shows that we believe that this is definitely an achievable value.

In one transaction, that is correct.

There again to what Hunter said earlier, 2023 went up 41%, 2024 went up 64%, 60% in two years.

I don't know how people are going to live here.

Only the millionaires will live here, so I think we better stop talking about affordable housing.

What is the motion?

$315,700, application number 31.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed?

Okay, that is the last application I believe on today's agenda.

Any other business?

No, sir, we still are pending one that got postponed and it may or may not come back to the board, so we will let you know if one of the dates

All those in favor?

All those opposed?

We are adjourned.