Board of Equalization Meeting   7/13/2026

131.

All right.

It's 131 p.m., so I'm going to call to order the July 13, 2026 meeting of the Board of Equalization for Albemarle County.

We'll start with the roll call.

Yeah, this is Jim Naughton.

Thank you.

Frank Friedman, David Mitchell, Kevin Mayo, Dave Norford.

Alright, so we have a quorum and we'll now move to review of the minutes from the June 15th, 2026 meeting.

Everyone have a copy of those and had an opportunity to review them for accuracy?

Thank you, Mr. Norford.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Mr. Friedman.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Mr. Don and I will abstain.

Oh, yes, I'm in favor of adopting the minutes.

That's all right, it was just a bit delayed.

So I think we have four votes, four, and five will abstain since I wasn't at the meeting.

So those are approved.

We'll next move to, well, any new business?

Otherwise, we can move to the first hearing.

Okay, the first hearing is, well, hearing number two set for 130, it's application number 73, property owned by Judy Esau, property ID 1925.

Yes, my ignorance is showing for the last time.

So hearing number two is application number 84, property owned by SJB Ventures, LLC, property ID 10718.

And we've been provided an email exchange between Mr. Lynch and Dr. Seth Burrell regarding a request.

Dr. Burrell is unable to attend the session on 713 for work commitments and

of Family Medical Matter asks us to reschedule the request to a date that is outside of work hours and to propose dates or times.

And then a response by Mr. Lynch explaining that he was unable to reschedule the meeting without the board deciding to do so.

All of our explaining also that the board's schedule is only set during work hours, that there's no

for the rules of procedure.

And I think that the question is to the board today as to whether we want to meet this request for rescheduling the meeting as opposed to any date.

And then if so, to outside work hours.

And then also, I think there's a virtual attendance option.

Could we hear from you, Peter?

I mean, this is probably not the first time you've had a request like this.

Typically they don't necessarily come this late before the hearing.

We also had a request from Mr. Vong, who's the third hearing today, I believe it's the third hearing.

And this was like a month ago.

He found out that he had to leave the country for work and wouldn't be back until the middle of August.

So I let him know that, you know,

while there's one meeting after that at the right at the end of August everything has to be decided by the beginning of September by the board and that of course we don't know because that was the second time he's rescheduled because of work so I let him know that you know it's quite possible he would reschedule to the end of August we bring you all back for just him to be there and then he would be unavailable again

So he agreed.

I said, the board can look at the written documentation we've provided, and they can make the decision.

And he, in writing, he responded and said, that's fine for it.

Now, Mr. Dr. Burrell has not responded to my email as of yet.

So I don't know any portion.

This is the first time he's asked to reschedule.

Do we have another meeting scheduled after this?

I know we've reserved dates, but are we going to use any of those dates?

We don't have any of those actually scheduled.

We don't have any hearings after today.

The last five were scheduled for today.

So I think the answer to the question of whether he can have a virtual meeting is pretty clear.

I mean, I think that's a straight no.

So it's just a matter of whether we want to reschedule it to the end of August or not.

I think that's right.

He did not indicate what dates he would or would not be available.

Yeah, but we have to use the dates we've advertised.

You do, you do.

Oh, thank you.

July 16th, 17th, and August 20th.

You have three dates left.

So... Would you say 16th and 17th?

Correct.

That's this week.

That's this Thursday and Friday.

And then what's last?

August 20th.

August 20th.

Correct.

I guess the key question to me is, is there anything that we would miss from, or is there any indication on the face of the application that would cause us to think that the in-person participation was required?

Because I think we have like roughly 15 pages of single-spaced argument analysis that it seems like enough to decide based on the written submissions.

Thinking also of just the time to stand in.

It was 9.30 last night.

Applicants always have the ability to appeal their assessment to the circuit court and that doesn't matter if the board meets or not or what they decide.

It's always outside, it's another level.

So that would be, as far as I know, that would be what the applicant could do as to

I mean, the applicants are permitted to submit a written argument and not, I think we've had before people show up and not say anything and just say everything I've got to say is in the submission.

Yeah, I mean, it would have been great if he sort of, as you mentioned, one of the other applicants did, if he had sort of given us permission to do that, I think it would be easy to move forward.

Yeah, I mean, if no one had showed up with no notice, we would certainly be entitled to decide it, right?

In this case, someone has showed up and said that he's not going to show up, you know, 16 hours at a time or however it is.

I would just think also about like how we're going to treat this moving into the future.

Rescheduling these is difficult.

Yeah, so I think that's a very, I think,

Good way to look at it.

So if we had sort of our own operating procedure where it's something along the lines of, well, listen, if you only give us less than 48 hours notice, we can't really do anything other than look what you've already submitted.

I think that's a reasonable sort of operational approach to handle these.

And that's something we could do consistently.

Yeah, I guess I would note also that I think the Assessor's Office does a very good job of shuffling it around in response to the request from the applicants.

Okay, yeah.

I'm on board now.

I agree.

I think you've persuaded me.

Okay then.

So I think we should have a motion on the request submitted by email through Mr. Lynch as to whether or not to reschedule this.

And I can move to deny the request and to evaluate the application based on the submittal that came in.

Is there a second for the motion?

Oh, sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Norford.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Okay.

The motion passes unanimously.

We will evaluate application number 84, property ID 10718.

And there's not a submittal from, or there's not a period of argument or

explanation from the attendee who's not here, the non-attendee, Dr. Pearl.

So do we want to take any time to review the materials submitted or should we proceed with the staff's rebuttal argument or response argument?

I would suggest this, why don't we take, you know, three or five minutes to review the materials.

And we have everything that you gave us, so if we can't come with you, that's different.

We wouldn't normally during the portion where the applicant is discussing, so my suggestion would be to record those till the end in the way that we normally do.

Thank you

Anybody need no time to review the provided materials?

I'm good.

Ready to proceed.

Mr. Naughton, I can't see your face.

We're looking at the database structure.

Are you prepared to proceed?

Yes, I am prepared.

Very good.

So then I think we'll have a presentation from the Assessor's Office, please, and then we can ask questions afterwards.

We'd like to swear soon.

Yes, thank you.

Anyone who's going to be giving testimony today, do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony, both oral and documentary, which you're about to give, will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

So I actually don't really want to present a lot today.

I mean, I certainly didn't go by it directly, just like you're doing for Dr. Berle.

I think it's pretty clear that I disagree with just about everything he said in his initial and follow-up messages.

However, we will answer any questions that you have.

Patricia is the one who did the review, kind of base level reviews of the appraiser.

So she can answer questions or I can answer questions as you like.

It's just the fact that it's in Raintree, which is an older established neighborhood.

This is obviously a lot that was kind of a spot lot that was left over that was built with a newer, much superior home to the rest.

It doesn't fit in perfectly with the style and grade and size of the neighborhood.

A substantial amount of what he's presented has to do with whether or not the county can require an interior inspection.

Again, so I'm not going to do a review.

So if we're talking about the different levels, so the first one is the review, the review request, and then there's the Board of Equalization Appeal.

So your rules allow someone to appeal without requiring an internal inspection.

Okay, so they don't have to have a review before they can appeal?

Correct.

Okay.

They can go right to appeal to you guys.

Okay, that clears that up.

One of the other questions I had was he had a whole list of things on why the home was

including no access to natural gas.

Well, it would if his was the only house in the neighborhood that didn't have it.

And I'm not sure how much, how we can measure that.

That's what I'm asking.

But still, it would only matter if the neighborhood had it and he did.

But the majority of

The calibration of the values is at the neighborhood level.

So everything that, every economic or social factor that affects his neighborhood would be included in the value as the neighborhood is adjusted.

So that would have to do with where he's questioning the quality of the schools, where he's talking about- The Port County School Region, this is the second time that's come out.

Yeah, I was surprised.

It has come up twice.

Who ranks the schools and says one's better than the other?

I haven't seen those rankings that indicate that it's not good schools.

Right.

And then I have one other question, which is, limited usable flat land and slope blocks, but you've already deducted 10%, correct?

Well, I can look at that.

There's a blue floodplain?

That's critical slope.

It's not floodplain.

Not floodplain?

Correct.

It's just the slope of that.

Slope?

The slope, yes.

It's a managed slope.

Yes.

15% I mean.

Oh, yes.

So the appreciation that's basically in the value is based on the age of the property and it being a condition.

And I think we've talked about this before, but the average condition means it's,

For a house that's 20 years old and hasn't really had any updates, averages about where it will end up in terms of condition, correct?

Where is the neighborhood still in font?

That's fine, thank you.

That is correct.

And I do want to point out that as you see from the dates of the response, he's been aware of all of this information since March.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

That is my response.

March 13.

So I'm not seeing anything in the application that would warrant a change in the assessment.

Not either.

Yeah, it sounds like of the list that he provided, we think that the comps are mostly not capable of being used or not very probative.

and for the model solves for things that he's pointing out as not being properly considered or actually being considered at the proper weight under the model.

I would just note also that I think the language around fear and hate, coercion, duress is foolish and rude.

should not be encouraged as part of this process.

When I look at it,

The comparables are so much smaller in size than this property.

I mean, in general, it's 1,200 square feet, 1,300 square feet larger.

If you just took the 1,300 square feet multiplied out by the $156 per square foot, you get the difference between the assessed value of his comps and his.

I mean, it almost works out.

Exactly.

I would note also that to the extent that the condition or grade were, it's not really clear from the application as to whether those are contested, but if they were, the inability to take the interior inspection results is part of that process.

I think it makes it hard to conclude that those

Presuming as we must that the assessor's work is correct or that the value is correct without the benefit of the actual interior inspection or photos.

Evan, I think in one of his many letters he actually says he's not contesting the sanctions.

So he's okay with the grading condition.

He didn't contest the condition.

I mean this comes down to the comps to use and

of looking at the house fully built earlier on an orphan lot.

I think the assessor did the right thing to look just slightly outside of the neighborhoods because you have to get comparable for that building.

So we're just trying to get the present.

Okay, no problem.

Can you guys hear me okay?

I went quiet there for about four minutes or so.

The video has, I've no video, I previously had the video, you guys, so that went away.

And the sound went away too, but now I have the

The County of Albemarle symbol, and I have the voice back, so I can hear you.

All right, thank you.

I thought you could still hear us.

I thought we just couldn't see it on the screens.

Mr. Mayo, how would you like to handle it?

I would invite the applicant to, if you like, give another presentation of the same kind to ensure that Mr. Naught was able to hear you.

In the interest of time, I think, in fact, there's four people here, I think, in the way that you're reading.

Okay, I appreciate your

Consideration here.

Okay, thank you.

So that's when I found what was recently announced.

So basically, I think we will agree that what this comes down to is the adjustment for the building.

that we make to the land value.

We have a 1.5 adjustment for the properties that are located right here, the closest to this hole.

And the sale that he referenced over here, 1526, instead of a 1.5, it's a 1.3 adjustment, which kind of goes down

from the golf course itself.

And so we agree otherwise that I believe everything else on the property is described correctly, that if these are pretty straightforward, the cottages, they vary a little bit in how much the area's been

What if you put 1.3 on the subject?

They should build scenario-based modeling in this tool so you don't have to change it to observe the facts.

It's frustrating.

Is there a range of values that you contemplate applying to golf course bots like this, like 1.3, 1.5?

It appeared, because this is right on the hole, this would be the highest

adjustments are that we currently have on them, but I would assume that that would be the highest I can.

But certainly they're all over one, right?

Because this is a plus factor.

It's a plus factor.

That is correct.

You think the top end is 1.5.

I guess my, well, shall we, okay.

Is there anything further that you'd like to say, Peter?

Otherwise I'm going to invite the rebuttal and then maybe ask a couple of questions.

I do not have any.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

So I guess my thought on it is the pictures provided by the applicant, does the Assessor's Office agree that these are the pictures taken from the right spot?

I mean, is there any dispute that this is the view from the backyard?

Leachton, and Jeremy.

Yes, that looks like it for the subject for 1454 Bremerton.

Okay.

Okay.

So my perspective on it is that this is probably not the very best golf course view that one could buy or expect to receive.

It is a pretty view, but there's other houses visible

Oh, that's 1526.

So I would say that the actual golf course is somewhat obscured by the foliage.

The topography of the land doesn't make it one of the sort of spectacular look down golf course views.

Mr. Mayo, I do want to make it clear that we're just talking about within the cottages.

The golf courses, all the properties that are in Glen, the regular Glenmore neighborhood golf, on the golf course are adjusted differently.

They're not given a percentage adjustment.

So the base rate in golf appears to be 300,000.

III, exactly III, yes.

Mr. Gillespie, did you play golf?

I did.

It just seems to me, and I think I'm going along with Evan here, the 1.5 versus the 1.3, I am not persuaded that the views are that different.

It's a $30,000 impact on the assessment.

I don't see why they would not both be 1.3.

They're very similar.

And that would bring the assessment down to what you said, Peter, around 8.13, which is almost exactly the assessment of comparable number two.

And I agree with that.

And particularly, like I found not only the applicant's pictures, but also, you know, page six that the Assessor's Office put together showing comparable number two in the subject and the view they, you know, the location on the map.

They're very similar.

I agree.

If 1.5 is the highest multiplier for golf course views, this can't be the best view of the golf course.

There is some golf course access, but not the best.

I'll make a motion then.

You're ready for that, Evan?

Yes.

To roll back the adjustment to 1.3 on the subject property and then whatever the assessment

I'll second that.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Mr. Mitchell, you know.

I mean, yes, sorry.

You're asking me to write and talk.

I know.

So, hearing no nays and Mr. Mitchell's vote having been clarified as aye, the motion passes unanimously and the

The applicant's assessment will be adjusted to $813,000 even.

That's $206,700.

Thank you for your recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You certainly can.

We'll take a short break.

So now are we going ahead with Luong?

Are we going to do that one just based on the materials we have?

That is correct.

There we go.

With

We were prepared to continue then with application number 61, property owned by Chan, Q, and Jessica Van Pham Vuong, property ID 55280.

I understand that

There's been correspondence between the applicant and the assessor's office during which a rescheduling was discussed, but the applicant is ultimately elected to move forward based on the written submission.

That is correct.

Anyone wish to take a few minutes to review the written submission before we hear from the staff?

This one was much less voluminous.

I don't require any extra time to review it just because of the length.

I don't need any time.

Okay.

Hearing none, I would invite the Assessor's Office and shall I swear you in if you made a testimony today?

This is a pretty straightforward assessment.

It's a townhouse in a townhouse neighborhood.

One of the things you guys look, the board looks at

is their grade.

Sometimes that is a possible thing that might need to be adjusted, or at least that's been our experience this year.

In this case, the entire townhouse neighborhood is B- and B- graded homes, and the subjects is a B-.

It's very unlikely that it would be

I'd say the condition information provided, settlement cracks, ceiling stain, that makes sense to me that that would independently arise to the level of a change in condition.

I also find persuasive the Assessor's Office

I remember shopping for the townhome and this was like the one big distinction they make is between interior units and exterior units so that would it would not make sense to me to use the interior units as a comparable source of comparables

It seems to be the Assessor's Office's assessment is well supported on the grounds that the applicant has criticized.

Welcome, other thoughts?

Can you say that for their thing that water pools behind, is that something you, I mean, that would be like the Homeland Association's supposed to take care of that, right?

How do you deal with that?

Well, first of all, is it, how big a problem is it?

Well, I don't know.

I'm just asking how, you know, the chronic problem with mosquitoes and so forth, wouldn't that be, somebody would have to fix that.

That, yes, I agree, especially in a townhouse neighborhood like this, the homeless association would have to fix those kinds of issues.

If that's what you're asking.

So you wouldn't normally devalue the property?

I mean, let me bring this up.

Let me catch up.

We're saying the end units are less valuable than the interior units?

No, they're more valuable.

Should be also.

Yes, plus.

I would have said that a little bit.

Right in there.

Right.

You have no adjustment on the land and what we're looking at here in the corner isn't even on the property, it's on the common area.

Okay, is there a second?

441-100.

Is there a second for Mr. Norford's motion?

Second.

All right, all those in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Aye.

Okay, the motion back unanimously to affirm the assessment for application number 61 property ID 55280.

And vehicle.

So we've got application number 63 and 64 properties owned by Billope and Andy Marks.

Property ID is 17614 and 17693.

Are you Mr. Marks?

Yes, I am.

So we can take these one at a time or if there are arguments that you think are sort of consistent between the properties or if you wish to argue them together, we can also do that.

Similarities and differences.

Okay, very good.

So you have up to 10 minutes to present your case and the seven minute response period and then up to three minutes for rebuttal.

And we would

invite, you know, whatever you think is going to be persuasive, but what tends to be the most compelling to us is data-driven analysis.

We're putting out mistakes of fact in the assessor's report or the assessor's data model.

We are empowered to take action on those things.

It did go up too much.

I understand what you said.

I appreciate it.

I understand your situation, because I don't think you ever talk to anybody here that's completely happy.

Yeah.

Can I swear you in real quick?

I think I forgot.

So yeah, Sid Lewis as well.

If you just raise your right hand.

How we got here was essentially, I've owned the property that we're talking about now for probably over four years.

We lived in it all that time.

It's not in great shape.

I understand how they grade this, but the fact alone that it had to be so several years back, even to find anything in that category to use as a comparable shows that the data that the county is using is not gonna be all that accurate.

It's what they've got, and I understand how they do it, and I understand the formula that they use.

I've got a better understanding of it now than I had before, but there seems to be

No real C-1 houses in the area.

And what Mr. Lynch I think said in his letter was that I'm basing my judgment on the assessment of the houses, the improvements rather than the property because the road consists of mine being the smallest property on there up to 50 acres right across the street from me.

So no acreage makes any sense.

The problem was that I encountered, I heard all things about the county raising this and this and this going up this percent, six percent, nine percent.

When I got my assessment, the property had gone, the home alone had gone up 28 percent.

I said that seemed like an awful lot.

So I looked at every other house for a mile down my road.

Nothing had gone up 28 percent.

There's just no other house on the road, and I own one of those houses on the road.

Nothing else had gone up 28%.

I know you said that's not a basis for it, but that's what caught my attention first.

They're showing something like a 63% increase over four years for my house, and that's double what everything else on the road is.

So since this is an equalization, it seems to me for equality purposes, I don't know why my house

goes up twice what other houses have gone up in the area.

And then it was explained to me by Mr. Lynch on comparing it to other houses that the grade quality of the construction has a lot to do with it too.

So apparently a C minus one goes up at a higher rate than an A plus.

I don't know why that is.

I'm sure they have some data, but when they showed me comparables in neighborhood sales or in other houses of that type around here, they really couldn't find any.

Some of the sales went back to I think 2000, what were we doing here?

Sale price, sale date, yeah, 20 for one of the comparables and 97 on one of their, their comparable number three, that sale goes back to 1997.

Now I don't know if the basis for the comparison is based on

their assessed value or what the house actually sold for.

But there's such a discrepancy in looking at just their examples and my examples, differences between what a house sold for and how is that assessed within the same year.

And I've always been under the impression that you're required to assess by fair market value, but yet there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven under neighborhood sales that when the assessment, the appraised value

was lower than the selling price within the same year by substantial amounts on something.

Looking at the percentages, mine went up 28% for the house.

Most of the houses on my road went up 15%.

You say that's probably not anything to consider, but if I go by, I don't know what else to go by other than the fact that my house is graded wrong probably, but that still doesn't qualify for why it goes up so much.

I'm looking at the,

The quality guides that you have on the website.

And I'm looking at C and D. And I see that there's eight foot ceiling.

My upstairs in that house is seven and a half foot.

I have no heat at all upstairs.

Never had any.

We lived in that house.

almost 40 years, never had any heat.

Somebody took a one-story house, put a shed door around the back 50 years ago, never put heat in the upstairs.

So there is no heat in the upstairs, there's no air conditioning anywhere in the house.

We have all the categories that D and D plus say, we have vinyl floor in the kitchen, we have no central AC, we have no heat upstairs, which isn't even on any of those, and they talk about two to three feet of bathroom vanity.

We don't even have that.

So I'm not sure how the grading came into being, but I believe

that it should be downgraded.

And I understand from talking to Mr. Lynch on the other house, particularly, that being an A-minus means that your house went up more last year than being an A-plus or an A. I don't have the chart that shows that.

I've looked really hard.

I went down to this building.

to find that information.

I also know that the area I live in, they keep telling me that's because the area we live in has a higher percentage because it's south of US 250.

So those are all data points that you guys use to determine the value.

But if you can't find maybe one C-minus house in the whole area and you have to go back 10, 12 years to show me comparable sales,

I don't think the data is that good that you can come up with a data that shows what that house is worth.

They always ask me, would you sell it for that on both houses?

And that's not the point, should we?

Sure, I'd sell it for what they've assessed this one for, you're over by well over $100,000.

I don't understand one thing maybe you can help me with it.

They've shown an outbuilding of $10,400.

I don't know what that means, but I also have

the tree that fell on one of those outbuildings and I have a roof caving in on one of the other outbuildings.

They said they did a site visit that I didn't allow them in the house and that's true because the last time somebody came in the house they took our downstairs bathroom and called it a full bath when it wasn't.

So I'm kind of shy about doing that anymore.

So there are two oil tanks in the ground that have been there over 40 years, have to be removed for the house to be sold is what I've been told by every realtor I've talked with and the outbuilding has the collapsing roof over it.

I don't see any comparables that are really comparables.

I don't see any up-to-date comparables.

I don't see anything in my building grade guide that's comparable to this.

And I just wanted to point out that if they've actually done a site visit rather than using the satellite function on the GIS, they would have seen a collapsed roof here.

They would have seen a tree on this building here.

They might've seen a lot more than just printing out the bird's eye view.

So I think it's misclassified.

I think the condition is graded improperly.

and only thing I can tell you is that I don't see a grade in your grade guide that considers seven and a half foot ceilings and no heat.

You may not have the ability to determine the value based on the anomalies in our house, but it certainly doesn't comply with the rating that they're giving.

So I don't have much more to tell you on that house.

I just think that

Well, we've gone up, if I look at, in a second, it's gone up over the years, and they give me an ISO chart like that, which I'm sure you can tell too, showing the increase.

Yeah, I mean, even in the comparables that the county's doing, I go by square footage,

dollar per square foot.

I should be much lower and I'm not.

And don't know what else I can tell you other than the fact that I've got basically a one and a half story house that doesn't have any heat, no air condition, and quality materials is from the 40s.

The basement is actually a bomb shelter, not a fallout shelter, but a bomb shelter, no doors.

and I just think it's over classified.

I don't put this, you can probably tell me, did somebody actually visit the house or did they just use the aerial photography from it to determine that it's an excellent condition or average condition or whatever it says.

But I've got seven and a half foot ceilings, I got no heat at all upstairs, I got vinyl floors in the kitchen and the bath, no central AC, no manatees to speak of and I just think it's being assessed at a whole lot more than the house is ever worth

and we spent 30 plus years trying to get out of that house.

And now I've been told because of the two oil tanks that I can't even sell it until those are removed and remediated.

I don't know if that's considered in the value of a house or not, but what the liabilities are, if you don't get heavy oil, thanks in the ground.

So my appraiser who does not appear today is on vacation this year.

But he didn't inspect the property anyway, so I didn't think it was implicit to actually have him here.

He did not do the exterior inspection.

It was clear from the interaction with Mr. Marks that he was not welcome in Barcelona, practically.

So we were doing, we did our review from aerial photography.

In our write-up, we provide the three comparables that Mr. Marks provides for this house.

They are not sales from 2025 either.

One sold in 2003, 2023 is the closest in 2020.

We provided on purpose several recent sales from 2025, we'll do three of them, but we also provided some C minus one compables that are one and a half story like the subject just to provide equity comps.

So we've provided those just to compare the assessment on those two to the assessment on the subject property.

The first three were provided as sales,

Just recent sales, and they're to give that support, but the other two are only to give equity support.

The things that Mr. Marks was talking about would be easily confirmed and dealt with with an inspection, but that was not allowed.

So we're not able to confirm any of that information about the interior of the home.

No question from me at this time.

I circle back.

All I'd like to say is that where this house is situated, it is the setbacks from US 250 and from Morgantown Road cross in the kitchen.

So you can well imagine that standing on the road and within the right of way, you can get a pretty good idea of looking at the house without actually having to be in the house to see what the condition of it is.

It's just right there for anyone to see.

I've lived in there for 38 years or so.

And if they can't make an assessment as to the condition or the quality of the construction,

by walking by the house or looking, then where did the classification come from in the first place?

As far as I know, it's been that way for 38 years.

If I look at your guidelines, it fits with D much better than it fits with C. And from what I understand from talking to Mr. Lynch, the fact that it's a C- means that it went up more in value than if it'd been a C+.

None of that really makes any sense to a layperson

trying to figure this out.

And I know you have charts, but when there's only this few C minus or C pluses to go by, how can you make a generalization that a C minus has to be appraised at this much higher than any other, than a C plus or an A, as we're talking about 20% versus 15 versus 19 versus 20?

That's a lot.

I'm double some of the other houses on the road that are,

you know, that are B's, things like that.

But that's explained as being a different quality of construction.

And I just don't, your metrics are questionable.

And I don't know if I can question it or not.

I can talk about the condition and that's a variable we can look at and see.

But if you only have two houses, you can show me of those similar to all, if not even two, then I don't see how you can make the generalization that all houses in that build quality

have gone up 28% versus the quality level above that, gone up 15.

This is a board of equalization.

Mr. Mann, pretty much every conversation I have with Mr. Marks, what I always have to get over is when he's talking about

the C minus went up more than something or the A minus went up more than SA plus or whatever it is.

He's only talking about percentage changes.

We are assessing typically the higher grades are more valuable than the lower grades.

I don't know what you're referring to there, just to clarify.

You're saying C minus one went up 28% or some amount that you're...

That one went up only 27%.

And I asked why my next door neighbor's house, which is three times the square footage, only went up half of that.

And I was told that's because that A plus

went up less of a percentage according to your charts than the B minus or the A minus.

A minus went up much, went up double what the A plus did.

That just doesn't make any sense because the house on the other side of my other house

So- But do you understand, this is an interlinked data model with like, I think more than a hundred variables.

And you're talking about one there saying, well, these are geographically connected.

They're in close geographic proximity.

So the percentage change should always stay tight.

But when you might move one up because you're moving something else down, or you might move one up because you realized you were actually under assessing in previous years.

It does, except that I also charted on the sales that percent.

the local sales, how many of them actually were assessed at thousands less than what they just sold for in the same year?

So that's a question that I have when you're using these models and you're building them from apparently firm data of sales or actual, what do you call it, fair market value.

I don't see how a house that sells for a million dollars should then be

assessed at 900 in the same year.

So your models go out because I don't know what numbers you're actually using.

Are you using the selling price?

Are you using the assessment made six months after the house just sold?

There's the chart that was sent to me.

Well, this is the neighborhood sales is what I'm looking at.

And if I go by

I don't know how many there are right now, page 17.

Starting at the top, one, two, three, four, five, six were appraised at less than their selling price in the year they were sold.

Four were actually appraised higher.

So I don't know what that does for evaluating my house if that goes into the mystery.

How the house is valued when you're not even consistent with a selling price being a fair market value or what you're basing it on.

Are you basing it on the appraisal of the house?

If I could just jump in for a second.

I feel like we're moving a little bit off topic.

So as the Board of Equalization, what we are able to do is look at the inputs from your property that go into the valuation model and decide whether they're being reflected fairly.

And really when we say fairly, it's on the same basis as every other property in the county.

So there's always going to be deviations above and below when you use a model like this and there's always going to be difficulty understanding how the model works when it has more than a hundred inputs and so I think you know if we just refocus a little bit and kind of think about the things

in your property that aren't reflected correctly.

So one thing that I have a question for Mr. Lynch on is, do we know how much of the gross living area of this subject property is on the second floor?

And can you sort of inform the board how you typically handle situations where there's no HVAC?

on a floor.

So in the past, we've had sunrooms that we've assessed differently from normal square footage.

Okay, so we have 540 square feet on the second floor in our sketch.

And the answer to your second question about how to handle node AC

We have a- The answer would be functional.

Okay, and that's what we do with sunrooms, right?

We do a functional adjustment for a sunroom?

Right.

Heating system is an oil-fired boiler.

with cast iron radiators in the ground floor, except the sun porch, which has some sort of baseboard stuff added later.

There's nothing upstairs.

There's an electric baseboard on the center.

In the sun, no, it's still oil, but it's a little baseboard.

It's not a cast iron radiator.

Something was added.

It's plugged into the same water system.

Yes, it's cycled through the same boiler.

But upstairs, there's absolutely nothing.

Nothing goes up there.

I mean, it'll function.

No air conditioning.

I put a window unit in the downstairs but all it does is make a lot of noise and cools the living room.

And the second floor has seven and a half foot ceilings.

It's a shed dormer built where there was probably nothing there previously.

Now that's only for the larger of the two rooms.

The other room is just a flat seven and a half foot ceiling.

The other one goes from seven and a half down to probably seven.

But at the tallest, it's seven and a half feet.

I mean, I can, when I was re-dry walling and I could hold it up by my hand, I can't do that with a ceiling.

That's the last seven, seven and a half up students.

So you're looking at,

Let me get myself oriented here.

Yeah, it's that one of the picture, the part on the left is what I call the master bed.

We kept a water bed up there so we could adjust the temperature while we were sleeping by going up and down on the water bed here.

Our record shows no air conditioning.

Or am I missing something?

Well, it's a B minus one at home, but it's small.

Well, see, I'm looking at the same side.

Okay.

So yes, it's a, it's a, oh, sorry.

Yes.

I mean, that's about as close as you can get in.

The only differences I would mention is that there's, and I don't know how you categorize these, outbuildings for both of those with values.

I don't know if that's figured in the way I'm calculating the, what you call your, the buildings, the improvements.

So I don't know if the total adds those things and what,

Outbuilding, you're counting, in my case, is that my garage where my water tank is?

Or is that my outbuilding that's a garden shed with no utilities and a tree that fell on it?

So I really don't know what that, and there's $25,000 in outbuilding on that one.

On comp two, there's 10 on mine.

So I don't know what that is.

That was just sold for $3.95 in December.

So that's actually a disfigurable comparison for you.

It suggests that you're not assessed high enough.

Well, what's the condition there?

I'm sure it's on there somewhere.

That's considered excellent, right?

Is E excellent?

E is excellent, yes.

So that means there's been some renovations to produce that.

And mine is A, and I'm arguing that that's not correct.

That's average.

Another question for the assessor.

In your conclusion on page six,

You have the statement, however, the improvement multiplier changed from 99% to 115%.

And then you go on with that.

Oh, absolutely.

So when we are looking at this market area 132 during our reassessment analysis, we're looking at those 17 sales that took place in 2025.

trying to figure out how to get the median ratio to 100% with the lowest variability between what we call CFE.

And so we have to adjust the land value or we can adjust the land value and or the adjustment to the improvements.

So the prior

So it was a minus one percent compared to most of the county.

And the land was $175 for the homesite, for the two-acre homesite.

But during the reassessment, in order to get these 17 sales up to the right range, we adjusted that improvement adjustment from 99 percent to 100.

15% and brought the land up a little bit from 175 to 180.

And that was mainly because there were four land sales included in these 17 sales.

It's give and take sometimes.

So are you saying in this market area,

Everybody assessment was increased to 115%.

So when Mr. Marks talks about the 28% increase, 16%, a little more than half of that,

was market area wide, and the rest was due to the particulars of his property and the comparables.

Is that correct?

I mean, there's a $3 million house across the street from me on 48th, so I'm not sure I'd make that comparable to anything.

Mr. Mayo, do you want to

What does the board think would be most helpful?

I think the arguments are very highly similar.

I don't care if you make a decision tomorrow, to be honest.

get my two cents in on both properties.

The other one is more complicated.

This one is just based on condition and how the condition is, I think that, well, not misrepresented, but I think it's been misclassified.

You tell me that you've raised all the problems.

That's a mis-aggregation by the applicant.

So what about this?

Well, it's certainly a B rather than a C.

A grade, but then you have condition where you've listed it as average.

It's not average.

Well, below average, because I haven't found any chart that shows me what those mean.

Okay, but that's your burden to prove that the average condition is incorrect.

You must show that there's some other condition that is, you have to overcome that presumption.

I don't know, I'm not able to find them.

I came down here to the office to ask the question.

And so that would be the one you're equipping as fair.

Is there a case to apply fair to this property?

I would object to making a change of that type when it would be easy enough to allow access to this property and see that.

And we would be happy to change

Condition, grade, if we saw anything that supported that.

I think if I'm, you guys correct me if I'm wrong, but in the past when this has come up, we had, in the absence of being able to go to the property and inspect, we assume what you say is right.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's even stronger than I think it's, if the county's office has inspected the property, then we trust that they've accurately reflected the condition and the grade of the property.

Because that's not our expertise.

That's the expertise of the assessor's office.

And in this case, we don't have that.

And so the question is, if we don't have it because the applicant won't allow it, what should we assume?

And I agree with Mr. Lynch on this point.

I think if you would like to see the grade changed or the condition changed, I think he needs to allow the Assessor's Office to go look.

and then have the Assessor's Office make that determination.

Mr. Lynch asked me if he could come and reassess the property and go inside the house.

I said I'd prefer you didn't go inside the house.

He said we can just do it from the outside.

They didn't even do that.

No.

The bottom line is I don't have any evidence to convince me to lower it from average to fair.

Nothing's been presented that would convince me to make that change.

There are no visuals of other homes that are fair as opposed to this one being average or what the differences are.

There's nothing compelling me other than I think it's fair, not average.

There's also nothing in your grade chart that accounts for a whole floor of the house.

You told me they would do an exterior assessment.

But that's not your evidence.

He was not mustering that evidence.

There's not?

I mean, condition of the roof, condition of the gutters, the siding.

None of that's before us.

No, you haven't presented any of that.

No, it can have a bearing.

I don't think we're taking that view.

We're just saying we haven't overcome the presumption of correctness that the Assessor's Office enjoys under statute.

Yeah, I mean, that's a hypothetical scenario.

It hasn't occurred, and so it can't enter it.

I was told it's going to.

Let me finish what I'm going to say.

Let's have a clear record.

The fact that you were told that it was going to, A,

to explain their reasoning there, they can.

But B, it doesn't change the fact that today we don't have that information in front of us.

Like if the things you're describing about your house are true, I would suggest to you, you ought to really consider allowing the interior inspection and that you could benefit from, they'll muster the evidence for you.

They'll take pictures and present it all and that the appraisal, if you were to appeal it next year.

Yeah, that would affect the assessment next year.

So on this one, I'm going to move to affirm the assessor's figures on it.

Property ID 17614.

Thank you.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

All right, the motion passes unanimously.

We'll turn now to

application number 64-3707, Morgantown Road, property ID 17693.

All right.

Same situation.

Got my assessment.

This one, the improvement had gone up 27%.

Again, no other house nearby other than my own that 28% had gone up that much.

So I went and looked at it further.

That's where Mr. Lynch told me.

that the A- condition increased more than others in the MA-132 neighborhood, giving it a higher value.

It's also four times over the increase for Albemarle County, average for Albemarle County.

Then when I said I was gonna have to go to the Board of Equalization, they did a reassessment.

And instead of going up 28%, it went up 40%.

Now, you're basing a lot of this on what, I mean, the county knows my house.

I just built the house.

They have some plans.

Mr. Lynch told me, he said, we went back in and looked at your plans.

So we decided yours was a one and a half story house rather than two, which increases the value of the square footage because it's a one and a half story house.

So I went from 28% increase

to 27% increase to a 40% increase just in asking questions.

What that was done I was told was based on it being a one and a half versus a two story and then adding $13,000 for a generator that they just figured out I had.

Now I had to get a permit for that generator three years ago and I installed it and the permit was for, I believe it was for $6,075

to install it.

I came down here, the county who I talked with was an assessor for a different area, told me that they depreciated it from 14-13 based on age.

Cost me 6,000 put in.

So already I'm paying double in terms of taxable assessment on a generator that I bought for half that money.

Doesn't make any sense to me.

It's only a half house generator too.

I have two panels that was wired that way when we built it.

One panel of the necessities that the generator takes care of, the other one just go dead when power goes out.

That is going to get a little, again, we're going into construction quality.

I'm an A-1.

I can use some of the county's examples of comparables in the area and read what the realtors say as a description of the interior.

But basically they're talking about grade of trim inside.

This is the trim for my house, my million dollar house.

that I paid $460,000 to build.

That's my window casing.

This is my floor with windows.

You can see that if you have to go in the house to see that.

The house was inspected every week during construction.

Everybody saw how it was being built and yet didn't miss the fact that it was a one and a half story.

I can't question the way that you go about your assessments based on the fact that they're inequities based on differences between what a house sold for and then what it was assessed for later.

but all that affects my house but you're saying I can't even talk about that stuff.

So let me change one thing if I can find it.

This is your Assessor's Comp number six describing the interior.

Blue stone walkway, Douglas fir front door, oversized 48, chef's kitchen, gorgeous inset cabinets, a G&M marble counter, 36 inch KitchenAid castrated with custom built-in KitchenAid, French door refrigerator, 42 inch wood burning fireplace, first floor primary,

bedroom oasis and spa-like bathroom with frameless glass shower, deep soaking tub, and oversized double vanity.

Off the kitchen is an oversized laundry room, gracious mudroom with custom built-ins and stairs that lead to a finished room over the garage.

Upstairs offers gorgeous hardwood floors, three comfortably sized bedrooms, two bathrooms, one en suite, and a loft ideal for work or play.

That's an A-.

I'm at A- with this molding with Samsung appliances from the scratch and dent part of Best Buy.

and yet I'm somehow considered by interior fittings to be equal to this other house in your own example.

It gets even worse because I found some other A minuses out there.

There are even more fun to look at.

This one.

This is an A minus and it's, first of all, the county calls this one,

I think 1,800 square feet, but the realtor calls it 3,700 square feet.

Four bedrooms to my three bedrooms.

Chef's Kitchen, anchored by a Le Cornu range, custom brass hoods, sub-zero refrigerator, quartz countertops, white oak island with farmhouse sink, wall and pantry, dedicated coffee station, first floor primary suite, freestanding soaking tub, dramatic home office with floor to ceiling, finished basement as a tour entertainment destination, a professional HD golf simulator with movie theater and multi-sport packages, same system installed in private residence of top professional golfers.

Full wet bar, recreation lounge, private bath, balcony,

unfinished storage space, Lenox HVAC, Stat LG Bondry, oversized two-car garage, wooded walk-in drills.

That's an A-minus also.

Now, my house is only six years old.

The inspectors who went in my house know what it's built of.

You have the plans for my house.

Nothing in there has anything to do with these other A-minus homes.

So I think once again, I'm misdescribed.

I started this conversation with Mr. Lynch and Mr.

showed about a house, three houses, four houses down the road, that when we built our house, that house was $100,000 more valuable than ours when we built it.

It quickly escalated to where our house is now worth about double.

And I was told that's because that house is a B and ours isn't A minus, A minus one.

So I think I'm, miss, my condition is considered wrong on that house as well.

That's grade.

Great.

And then the B is

trusses, which I have, two by six trusses, minimal architectural detail, generally open floor between kitchen, dining room, flat eight foot, nine foot ceilings, minimal 10 foot ceiling, cathedral, some recess lighting, minimal crown.

This is my holdings.

I have no crown.

Kitchen, standard painted compressed board or oak, that's what I have.

This is B, good quality hardware, okay.

I picked it out on Amazon.

Good quality countertops, yeah.

Tile backsplash, some builder gray appliances, that's what I have.

I bought scratch and dead Samsung from Best Buy.

So I think those are probably builder grade.

So I think if you look at the qualifications between E and A, and you compare any other A house in my area

You'll see that I'm more of a B than an A.

They shouldn't have to go through it to see that.

They were there when the house was being built.

And the comparison I first made with Mr. Lynch was to a house just down the street from me, which is probably under Foner's comps.

It went up.

It was a five bedroom, three and a half bath house compared to my three bedroom, two and a half bath house.

and they show the value of that house now as 728 and mine is now 917.9.

Nothing changed on either house.

That's a brick exterior house.

It's two story.

Mine's now considered one and a half.

That's where my 40% increase came from.

Mostly it was because my house is now considered one and a half hours.

So I,

I understand that now my house is being classified as the right type as one and a half because they did it wrong for the last five years.

But I question how anything else can be relied on when simple things like that aren't done properly.

So how can I go from being worth 100,000 less than a house, four houses down the street from me and all of a sudden I'm $400,000 more when neither house has changed?

That's what I consider equitable.

I know you probably don't, but I'm told a lot of that is the fact that that one's a B and mine's an A minus.

So I guess I have to fight for it to be a B, which will lower the assessed value and worse, lower how much it went up from year to year.

Because that's the part I don't understand.

Why if A minus goes up half the rate of an A plus or B?

Why am I in that narrow little area

where that happened.

So if you go by the assessor's comps and just do the improvements and you go by cost per square foot, I'm at 292 under their assessment and I'm using all the other comps, they're all lower except for one where it gets confused because the assessed value is completely different than what it just sold for.

So I was unable to find the table of factors for the increase by grade

came down here and asked for that.

And I found while I was doing this and comparing my house to other houses of the same grade level, I came up with one house that sold in 25 for a million three, less than four miles from my house.

26 assessment was a million 37.

So almost 300,000 less in the assessment for the same year it was sold.

And then it's currently on the market for a million three.

So I think you've used all the time.

Well, the questions that always came up to me every time I had a discussion was, would you sell it for that?

I don't see how that has any bearing on it at all, but I had both assessors I talked with asking me that same question, but wouldn't you sell it for that?

I said, I didn't have any intention of selling it.

You can buy the other one down the road that we're questioning the condition of, you can buy that for your assessed value all day long.

But I didn't build mine to, I'm 73 years old.

I've lived in this area for 50 years.

I've been in that other house for 48, I think.

and I bought this property that this house is on.

I bought that over 40 years ago.

I intended to stay here, but at the rate that it's going, and I know this has nothing to do with it, but I will be paying the county in taxes by, in two years, I'll be paying $2,000 a month for living in a house that's completely paid off.

I just don't understand that.

Why has mine gone up from a $460,000 house to a $900,000 house in five years?

It just makes no sense.

I changed nothing, house down the road, made of brick, didn't go up anywhere near that.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I need a moment because Mr. Marsh throws out so many things.

He's kind of a master of hyperbole and I had a real hard time following it all and when I tried to keep up with it, I just kind of lose track.

Can I suggest you start with the interview?

Our description of the property is accurate as far as we have the ability to confirm with no inspection, with no interior inspection, no immediate outside inspection, just area.

And I believe our model is appropriate.

It works really well across a lot of properties, 50,000 properties in the county.

You would expect in any neighborhood that at least half of the properties, that half of the sales that are recent would be assessed below their assessment and half would be assessed above their assessment.

I mean, assessed above their sale price and assessed below their sale price.

In this case, six of the 17 in the neighborhood in the market area are assessed above their sale price and 11 are assessed above their sale price.

The median is really what Mass Appraisal is looking at.

It's the IAAO standards throughout the country and other countries that follow these same standards.

We do sales studies and we calibrate our model based on those sales.

And the median being at 100% is the target.

Are you making the adjustments appropriately in that model and do you need to adjust those adjustments from year to year?

Yes.

And do things change differently for some houses as others in a specific year?

Yes, that will happen.

But over time it's generally appropriate

The amount that we assess and the question is are we assessing this property appropriately in 2026 for what is there and will he sell it for that?

I mean, that's half the equation.

Will he sell it for that?

Will somebody pay him for that at that price is the other half.

And you can't have a sale without both sides agreeing to that.

So asking a property owner if they would sell for that I think is a total waste of time, because whether they would or would not doesn't answer the question.

Is it the value that someone would pay him for it is really the question.

I think, you know, when we, he mentioned that when we picked this house up, when it was new, we would walk through it.

I'm assuming that happened.

I don't know if it's, there's no note in here that says, I walk through the house.

But at the time it was picked up by the appraiser,

We put an A minus two grade on the property.

A minus two has since been consolidated into A minus one.

So at the time we've been in the house last, most likely, we determined that based on the quality that was seen inside the house, it was an A minus two, which is now an A minus one.

So the best information we have is that the grade is correct.

I don't,

I'll point out that there is a typo on page four where we had at the bottom of the subjects column, we had the original value for this year prior to the increase that was made by correcting the style of the home and adding the generator, but on the assessor combo, the one we have the correct value.

So I noticed this morning that those two did not match and I didn't know why, but that was the answer to that.

Thank you, Mr. Lynch.

Well, just one fact that he brought up.

There are seven on your neighborhood sales, seven homes

that were appraised at less than their selling price and four that were appraised at slightly more.

So you said, I think, I don't know what your number was, but it's seven before in terms of how you base it.

You say half should be this way, half should be that way.

That's not true according to your own neighborhood sales that you gave me.

Plus you didn't address the fact that you assessed me for $13,000 per generator.

that I paid $6,000 for that only does half a house.

And I came down here and talked with an assessor for a different market area.

And he told me, well, that's based on a whole house.

I said, mine's not a whole house.

I can show you the receipt, show you whatever you want.

You come in my basement and look at my panels if you want.

That generator, it's I think 18 kilowatts or 17 kilowatts.

It's not enough to do a whole house.

It wasn't intended to be.

And yet somehow I'm being taxed on $13,000.

So that's one small thing that I know I'm right on that you didn't even add until this year.

Sure.

The data that's being used doesn't support

to the findings that you've come up with on my house simply because they're, as I said, they're seven houses that were sold and then assessed at lower than what they sold for.

And that's what you're basing other stuff on, but not mine somehow.

Mine goes up 40% in one year.

The average you say is a certain amount.

I'm double the average.

And nobody can explain to me why I'm double the average.

I've read you descriptions of two houses in the area.

One is one of the comparables that actually describes the interior of the houses from frou-frou stoves and everything to professional golf courses in the basement.

I have none of that.

I don't have a single built-in shelf in the house.

That would have been obvious in the walkthrough.

So if the classification is what's killing me on this, then I say that the classification is on.

You want to come through that house and look at it, you're more than welcome to do it.

But you already said you had the plans.

You looked at the plans, and that's how you made your determination.

First of all, it wasn't a one and a half story house.

It wasn't a two story house.

It was a one and a half.

So I don't know what to do.

This is beyond frustrating in what I've had to put up with in terms of I make an inquiry and then I'm told that my house is double what it was before I made the inquiry.

And yet I'm supposed to say, assume that all the other data that the county has used is accurate when they can't even get the number of floors in my house or the fact that there's a generator vacuum.

Okay, can we just,

I think we get the point.

I'd like to deliberate with the board on this.

So just to get some clarification, Mr. Lynch, can you provide a little more context for the change from a two story to a one and a half story?

So Mr. Naughton, can you see what's on the screen?

If it's easier, I don't dispute that classification change.

I'll answer if I'm allowed.

All right, so this is the floor plan.

This is our sketch.

House, and basically our definition of a one and a half story is a house that has a ratio of 1.25 to 1.75 between the second floor and the first floor.

So the two story would be basically equal second floor and first floor.

This is clearly not a two story.

and I think this is what originally happened.

Yeah, when I look at the photo, that's exactly what I'm looking at as well.

This looks like a two-story and that's why it was called a two-story in the first place.

I do also want to add that the building permit back in 2018 for the improvements was $464,700 and then the value that immediately followed when it was picked up was $466,900 which is,

That's very helpful.

And also, we don't have a building permit in our system for the generator.

That's why we didn't pick it up originally.

One of the owner comps that much of his argument relies on is at 3413 Morgantown Road.

And Mr. Lynch, in one of your responses,

You say that that property was downgraded to a B in 2022.

Can you explain why that happened in 2022 and what caused it to be downgraded to a B?

I will try to do that.

Let's see if there's some notes.

Because much of Mr. Marks' argument, if you look at comparables, relies on his analysis of that particular property.

and notes.

And so make sure I have the right property here.

This is, there we go.

3413 Morgantown Road.

That's the one.

So I have a note in here that it sold in 2020.

And I'm assuming that based on the information that was available during that sale, that that would have

cause the determination of the change of grade.

There are no notes in here that say I changed the grade from this to this because of this specific thing.

Because I assume since the grade was changed,

It could have been, well, actually I can, I might be able to answer that question.

This is old grade B. Billy, could you, or could you look at 2020 and see what it, or 2019 and see what it was?

Because obviously the base rate per square foot is substantially different between an A minus one and a B.

Yeah.

I have a question for you.

Just so I'm on the right side here.

Plus three.

Right.

Not a whole house generator.

But they didn't charge you for the generator the last couple of years.

Maybe not.

No, we don't do that, but I'm just, you know.

Make a response to what Mr. Friedman is saying.

I have the assessed values of the improvements between that house you're discussing now, that is a B, and my house.

In 21,

That house was 543.9.

My house was 488.2.

The next year, 22, which is where apparently it's changed.

That house went up to 549.

My house went up to 561.

So in one year's time, I passed it in value.

Currently, and this is before they reassessed my house, just recently, that house was 728 minus 834 minus now 900.

Neither one changed, both on the same road and not

The other point of that is that that house is a 3,500 square foot house.

Mine's a 2,400 square foot house.

So it's impossible to understand how all that can happen.

That house is 220 per square foot in terms of its assessment.

Mine is 374 per square foot.

Now is that all the difference between B and A?

In which case I would have to say that mine is really a B.

I have showed you my moldings.

I've read you characterizations of two other A-minus houses.

I think the facts and the data- The descriptions that you read us, where did they come from?

Not from the county's description.

No, they wouldn't use a smart, professional driving range in the basement either, but

That's, I'm telling you, that's even the square footage between what the realtor says and what the county says is not correct.

But that's a house that was sold for one million three and then was appraised the same year for one million.

Well,

On all the sales in that neighborhood, you're quoting that there's seven below average and four above.

I think that's in the sales in the market.

Yeah, there were 17 sales meetings.

They got it pretty darn close, 0.9974%.

One would be perfect.

What I find difficult, not just with this application, but with the application itself,

Did you learn anything about the grape?

We did.

No, no, we don't have the reasons.

The note is the only thing.

But you don't have that there was an inspection of the property or anything like that?

No.

Yes, we definitely look at the listing of the property when it sells to determine if our description is correct, plus we visit the property to see if there's any information we can get listed.

out of the 2020 sale, yes, 2020, yes.

So it's unlikely we'd have gone to the house in 2020, but we would have looked at it in the MLS.

Because of COVID?

Because of COVID, yeah.

That's correct.

But I just want to make one more point.

The size does not determine the grade.

You could have a 5,000 square foot C house, and you can have a 2,000 or 1,500 square foot A plus house.

The size doesn't have anything to do with the period for a rebuttal is complete.

We've had more than the share of time we typically have with the others.

I think we affirm the assessment as the county has it.

I'll second it.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Mr. Naughton, I think you might have been muted.

My vote is aye.

Okay.

When I came down here to visit, they told me they valued it as $13,000.

I understand you said that's the answer.

Again, let them in, do your stuff.

You didn't bring us any information.

Let them go in.

All right, we're done.

We're done.

Anything, any other additional matters for today?

or no hearing today.

So I just wanted, I mentioned this before the meeting just to you, but just so all of the board members are aware, they made a change.

They made a correction to the amount that you're getting paid for meeting by a couple of dollars.

So that it changed the last year, but you, and I'm only telling, I know you're really excited about this $3, but

So instead of $1 an hour, we're now making $1.10 an hour.

So I can retire now.

In case you get a very small check and you're like, what is this thing?

Is it a mistake or whatever?

I just want to thank you all for the $1.10 an hour that you've been doing this.

I appreciate your effort in trying to come up with some equitable solutions.

I will work towards the next year, maybe having Mr. Lynch's office come into my houses to look at them, but I don't know how the estimate was made in the first place if they didn't, but that's different matter.

All right.

Alright, so this is your last meeting that we currently have set.

As Mr. Friedman pointed out, you can cancel or take off your calendar and then redesign a reassessment.

The ones for this week and the one for August.

You're not going to meet for those because all of the appeals based on reassessment are done.

If we get any appeals based on supplemental assessments, which could happen, rarely does, but it could.

We'll use one of the September, October, November, December meetings for that.

Are you going to send, I mean, so you don't send a meeting

Is that correct?

That is correct for the supplementals.

So we'll just gray it out for now, then you'll send something if there is a meeting.

Okay.

Just so I'm clear, I need to hold the meetings from August on.

Which dates could we release?

July and August.

July, this Thursday and Friday, 16th and 17th, I think.

And then August 20th, I believe.

Correct.

Okay.

Perfect.

Yes, thank you for, your office does an excellent job of being organized and having everything ready for us.

What's that?

Oh, no, you haven't done that.

I was still doing extra recall additional.

Okay, well, I'll give it for you to join.

Yeah, there you go.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All right.

I'll let you want to say something else.

Not on the record.

I'm going to stop recording.