 Well, it's 6.05, so I'll just call the meeting, well, I'll reconvene the meeting at 6.05, and imagine Jack will show up. So this should be a relatively simple one. We've got the folks from Down Street here, and I won't characterize what the issues are here. And I do know that they have agreed to present, it's a common issue that's at question here, that they will all be presented under one presentation, is that correct? We can do that. And it doesn't have to be that way, I'm just going, but it certainly doesn't have to be. And we, of course, start with the assessor, who's I suppose prepared to do the same, and that you all are planning on allowing us to waive inspections, since it's really more of a matter of facts. That's absolutely correct. All right, then. Well, it is the same meeting, so Marty, you're still under oath, if I could get you two to identify yourselves, two for the record, then we can go around and everybody can identify themselves. I'm John Davis from Ever North, I'm a senior asset manager. Chris DeVolo from Downstreet, the financial controller. So Downstreet and Ever North are in partnership with most of them? Ever North? Okay. We're partners in, I'm sorry, I'm not going to have the exact number in front of my ad here. I know I'm trying to remember too. At least four of them of the eight. And Downstreet is the sole owner of the other ones. Okay. Our sole general partner. Well, let me go ahead and get both of you sworn in. If you raise your right hands. Under the pains and penalties of perjury, do you solemnly swear that the evidence you give and the cause under consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. You want us to go around and introduce ourselves? Yeah. You want to start? I'm Kim Chamberlain. I'm Sal O'Connor, District 2 Councilor. I'm Daisy. I'm Mark Leopold. I'm Mary Cooper and I wanted to mention and to ask the appellants of the board, I, during my tenure in the legislature, worked on appropriations issues and in fact worked very hard to bring money to a broad housing conservation board which funds Downstreet and the right to work with Evermore. I don't think I have a conflict, but I, it passed through my mind so I felt I had an obligation to say something. And if anybody has an opinion, I think we need to hear it now and if you do, I can go home. I think, if I could put my two cents in, I think it might actually help to have your expertise on this. For what it may or may not be. No, I think it would be beneficial. Yeah. I just felt that it was important to disclose that but not say it or hear it in anybody else's. As we go around to, if anybody has any conflict of interest and or if it's part of a communication that you would indicate. I'm Kerry Brown. Tim Heaney. Rosie Krueger. I'm Rose. Newman. I'm John Odom. Marty Liger said I'm the assessor. Okay. And you all received a copy of the rules of procedure that I sent out. Correct. I came with the first letter. Oh. I have it. I don't have it with me today. That's okay. You all got it. Okay. So Marty, why don't we have you introduce the properties on appeal, describe the properties and give us your report. So I think what we can do is we'll just go over once. It's going to be, it's not real complicated. On the front page, you'll see that there's highlighted 21 Hebert and 208 Berry Street. That's attached to that as pertaining to that property. And also for the next one, the next one. It's basically just copies of everything. Yeah. I saw. Yeah. The first page is going to be the state probably as Mary knows has a formula how to calculate subsidized housing. You put in your income. You put in your expenses. It gives you the value. The question is expenses. So on the first page, we have highlighted a $141,156 as reported actual expenses. If you'll flip two pages on the backside, you'll see another one. It says 157,750. So this is where the issue is, is there are some reported expenses. A little further down on page five. It's circled and highlighted. And this is the difference between the two reported expenses as reported by the reappraisal contractor and as given by the downstream folks. So the difference in the two reported income, the expenses. Is everybody see that 13,000 in bad debt and then 3321 in miscellaneous administrators. Everybody see that? That's the difference in the value in reported actual expenses. So that's where the differences are coming in assessed value is based on what's allowable for real estate expenses. The reappraisal contractor informed me that they couldn't get a description of what the bad debt and the miscellaneous administrative fees were. So, excuse me, so they were discounted. And that's where we come up with the value on the second page on the bottom right hand corner is going to be the assessed value as assigned by the reappraisal contractor of 924,000. The sheets as reported by downstream gives a different value of 762,000, which is down the bottom right hand corner. The second page right here gives a actual expenses of 141,156. That's down the bottom right hand corner gives us a value of 924,000 for that project. That's reported by the reappraisal contractor. So that's page two. If you flip to page the back of page three, the reported expenses there as provided by downstream differ by roughly $16,000. And that's where the difference in assessed value is. And it's going to be the same case for all the properties. They're highlighted. The expenses in question. As you can see, the report from the accounts there to read over. The expenses in question on exhibit B are circled and highlighted. And these are going to be the same for all of them. One last, is everybody okay with that? Yeah, sorry. The report from the accounts, is that accounts employed by the breakers? That somebody downstream uses. This is third party certified public account audit, which is, I think there's probably an extra packet. More I just want to look at. As I understand it, there is, but the reappraisal contractor wasn't able to get a clear answer on the two better in question. I thought I did. I'm re-adding it right now to check, but I thought I did. I don't know when you want me to chime in. Yeah, are there questions for the assessor? I wasn't sure if you were done yet. Yes. So my understanding correctly that if we could find out, if they present evidence of what those are, and determine what those are on all of them, then it's pretty straight forward. If we can come to an agreement on the expenses, then there shouldn't be an issue. But like I said, the reappraisal contractor tried to dig into it and couldn't find those as being legitimate real estate expenses. There's an explanation on there of, just as management payroll, workers comp, training, phone, internet, various things at the very bottom of exhibit B, but it wasn't specific. So you're saying the expenses were found, but they were not being presented for real estate expenses? Correct. So all of the expenses were found, all $16,000 plus dollars were found, but the budget was not legitimate? Not legitimate real estate expenses. Is this a legal question? There should be some legal clarification somewhere. It's over my head. That's not a determination that I can make. This is a unique situation in so far as I'm speaking now. But if there's a law that says what you can include what you can, and there's a dispute as to whether these fall on the side of the line or the other. Yeah. Supposedly, I was told by the reappraisal contractor they were following the statute of what's allowable and what's not allowable. Let's finish with the questions for the assessor real quick. So I don't know if this is okay, but I looked up the instructions for filling out that worksheet, and it didn't really help me. What he says is expenses means the operating expenses ordinarily associated with income appraisal, such as maintenance and repairs, including reasonable reserves for replacement and for costs and supplies. Mortgage payments including interest or amortization associated with mortgage payments, capital improvements and depreciation are not expenses, and that's what it says in the instructions. I don't know if there's any more specific guidance in the statute, but it sounds like the idea. So I'm hearing this right, is that the appraiser looked at this and said bad debt and miscellaneous administrative expenses are not something that you would ordinarily count as an operating expenses? Correct. Is that right? Yes. I did not. Okay, any other questions for Marty? I feel like I do have a question about not sure what it is. I feel that way every day. Yeah. So just to make sure I've talked enough about the problem. So the core dispute is whether or not we're going to have to report miscellaneous administrative expenses to kind of aggregate expenses. Correct. Correct. That's the difference. That's the only part. And it sounds, you know, it's only 15,000, 20, you know, whatever that number is, but then when you, you know, when you add in the Yeah. It makes a big difference in the past decade. So the question is, what is our, what is the assessor's evidence that this should be disallowed? And you're saying that the appraisal company, their interpretation of the statute and the existing information was that this says this is not allowed. Correct. And I'm relying on them in their 20 years of municipal reappraisal experience. They're covering, I mean, they did my players reappraisal last, last time in 2010. They're familiar with St. Johnsbury as a same, you know, type of low income housing. So they're, I'm relying on them. Should they give you a citation or any direction that's aware of what they were referencing? They referenced Title 32, Chapter 21, Subchapter 004. That actual expenses incurred with respect to the property that should be provided by the owner in a format acceptable to the commissioner. So he's, he's not the commissioner. I'm not the commissioner, but this is being presented to the commissioner, obviously. So they didn't feel that it met that criteria. So Title 32, Chapter 1, 004. 004. I can, I can even copy. Yeah. I'm just going to read this. You're Cedar Way. There was one late addition to it. The one, the very last one didn't fall in the first seven. 34 Main Street, the French Walk, above all. Same situation. Disparency and expenses are circled on page two. And along with that one is attached to a property record card for that particular property. That property is carried in an assessment of $400,000, $5,800 since 2019. No, not at all. Yeah, of course. The, the last prop number, the eighth property did not, it's not on the front, the list of seven is separate by itself. It's the French block of 34 Main Street above Audishon. Same situation, the reported income. On the front page is given by the reappraisal contractor. Second page is the disputed, or the, sorry, the questioned expenses. And the third page is as submitted by Down Street. Any questions about that last one? What was the reason for impeding the rent to the property record card? That one has, had that one been carrying the assessed value of $485,000 since 2019. And I just wasn't sure why it was questioned before, so I was hoping to get an answer from them tonight. I'm not sure this is relevant, but was this an issue in 2010 or the last time it appeared? I would have to check with Steve. I don't know. Bill, the contractor is actually in Italy right now. I have to wait until he comes back to pick his brain about it. I would assume that there was some, you know, work to figure it out of what's, what's allowed or what's not. I don't think they appealed any of them in 2010. This is the first time. Yeah, can I just run it over to you? You probably understand this better than I do. I subtract it back twice because I think I can't. Can I, can I speak? I just think you will have a chance. Okay. Yeah, I assume so. Unless anyone has any questions for me. No, Mary has a copy. That actually looks like Jack has a copy. Yeah, I have a copy and for, you know, we can ask John to get it out to people if you want, but it's 32 BSA section 3481 subsection 1B. And that's the definition section and it defines appraisal 1A as appraisal value and then B sets forth the methodology for computing the appraisal value for this kind of housing. Can you either go to the court or the PBR to the property evaluation and. Yeah. So it seems to me a purely legal issue, but I don't feel very confident that I'm scrambling what I really say about it. Well, I would say, I mean, this is a matter of process to the burden of proof is on the appellant. Yeah. So I guess that should inform our decision. The problem is, you can be doing a brilliant analysis, but I have no way of knowing whether it is or not. I mean, that would be part of the appraiser to be part of an expert in this situation and not. Yeah. Essentially, yeah. Yeah. Are we ready here from the taxpayer? I apologize, everybody. I thought I had this down for six o'clock, not 630. So maybe 630, not six o'clock. So here I am. I should have called. You were in a ditch. Nope. I survived that. That's good. So, let me just say, from my own perspective and probably other perspectives, people, this is one of those, explain it to me like a five-year-old situations. Okay. Why did what they did, why is what they did wrong? Well, I actually, I have not recently read the Vermont statutes online in this particular thing. However, my instructions to you were, Christy, here's how I approach this. I have done this for almost as long as this law has been in effect. I have always excluded bad debt as an expense because it is the right off of uncollected rent from previous years that will never be collected. So you essentially say, I know I'm never going to get paid this. So I'm going to expense it in the current year. It's not an expense. So I'm not disputing that. I don't know about the math because when Christy is looking at this particular property where you did that math, she excluded that in her analysis. And we think that it's possible that the appraisal company did it twice. Okay. And that's possible. And the other admin expenses, Christy has a listing of what they are. And they are fees that we have to pay to the finance agents. The Vermont Housing Finance Agency that charges fees for monitoring that the program, the low income housing tax credit program is complied with both by physical inspection and file inspections. Bank fees that we pay to banks, which are not, they're not. It's to process payments. To process payments of tenants online payments. $400, $405 of social services and training for their staff that they built for the project. So those are what the admin expenses are. I don't know that the appraisal company, I don't under, you know, I don't know that they reached out to, they didn't reach out to me. And I'm unaware if they reached out to Christy to tell them what the miscellaneous admin expenses are. They're not in the audit. They don't typically go into that level of detail in an audit because they lump those, that kind of those expenses together. So I'm not at disputing at all that bad debt should be, bad debt should not be included. So I'll agree with that. And I don't know if there's some, and honestly, I've done probably hundreds of these analysises, analyses. And it's not difficult to make math errors. However, I know on the properties that we share, I went through them to help Christy with them and double check the math and got to a point where we came up with evaluation. We have a spreadsheet that shows there's discrepancies and we weren't really clear. We were, we came to Marty to say Marty, I'm not really sure what, why there are different values from what the appraiser company did, the appraisal company. But you didn't have them here to be for us to be able to ask them. So the, in the cover letter, I'm following every, we are following every other thing where we're excluding the other expenses that are not to be included, including amortization, depreciation, debt service. And any capital improvements that we make because we are instead, as the statute states, the required deposits to replacement reserves, which I don't want to get into details with that. But we're just basically, these properties are funding an account to be able to handle capital improvements that happen throughout the life of the property. So when we have to replace a roof in the future, we have money saved up to actually do that. And it doesn't come out of the operating expenses of the property as a result. So do you say you're not counting those as expenses? You count the deposits to the replacement reserves that are required by the funding sources, essentially, or the partnership agreement. But you're not including the expenses that you pay, the capital expenses that you have are excluded. Okay, okay. So you're not double counting it? You're not counting it and it goes into the reserve? No, it goes into the reserve. Anything that comes out of the reserve is not included in expenses. Got you. Because it's not an operating expense. It is a capital expenditure using another fund to pay for. On the small child or golden retriever line, I'm just trying to throw this out. Because to me, it's very foreign that real estate is evaluating this as an accounting exercise. Clearly, the numbers are part of the evaluation, but there are other factors. And it feels like we're reducing it to an auditable accounting exercise. I guess I don't understand the rules for this. Are they different than other properties we're reviewing? Yes. The Act 75 is the law that requires that housing properties with a housing subsidy covenant are required to have used an income approach where... I understand. Okay. And we're not using the income of the property as the basis. We're using the size of the units, the fair market rents in the area where they are. And that... In one of your things, you'll see that page that looks like this. I don't know if you can see it from there. One of those, right? There you go. That says, for residential property, there's a subject to housing subsidy covenant, blah, blah, blah. There's a spreadsheet that the State Department of Taxes has online that you plug in your other income, essentially the type of units you have and the actual expenses you have from an audit. And it comes up with evaluation. So it's a mathematical situation. So that's essentially how Act 75 is the rule and that Act 75, it's called Act 75 worksheet that is produced by the tax department. It is produced by the tax department. So we can come in and there's some things we can change and some things we can't. We change the unit numbers, whatever utility allowances are. Those are things that the tenants pay for. And that's an allowance, not actual costs. We don't know that. But that's based also in the Act 75 worksheet as another tab that tells you what the utility allowances are for your area and the size bedrooms. And then your other income that you have, you plug in that number, you plug in your reported actual expenses. You're presuming there's a 100% valuation because you're re-evaluating the whole town and then it gives you a listed value. It's an income approach, but it's not an income approach that anybody else would use to come up with, right? So it's like a specific approach. A little bit of fiction building. I'm sorry, what? A little bit of fiction building. Yep. Go ahead. In this particular case, it's a $300 argument. You agree that the bad debt can't be included? That's correct. So it's a $300 argument. Well, I don't know that. With the issue, well, there's a couple of things. I mean, the issue is that when I, because I double checked to make sure, because I excluded the bad debt already. So the calculation that was given to me for the first one that we did, I figured out the difference and basically the bad debt expense that I already excluded was excluded again. Yeah. Because I already had left it out of the calculation. You folks have me a lunch. Figure that out, right? I think so. The reappraiser contractor was trying to get an explanation of the miscellaneous. Right. In whether that was allowable. Which I did send on some of the attachments that had the breakdown down below everything that's in that line. Okay. And I think I sent it for all of the properties with the exception of French block. I don't think I sent it for that one, but I sent that breakdown for all of them, except that. Yeah. And I know they are on his, these are copies that he gave me. So he did communicate with you, but still, I guess, didn't accept your answer. So. Right. Right. So that's what we need to figure out is how to, to get past the miscellaneous expenses. Is that real estate related? Yeah. And then confirming that the, The math is wrong. Yeah. Well, and confirming that the bad debt got subtracted twice. I mean, based off of what I just calculated it did, at least on that first one. Can we just go to somebody at PBR and get an explanation of someone at the tax department? You have a district coordinator for? I do. Yes. I'm sorry? I do. Okay. Yeah. And my years of doing this. I have a question. Okay. Kim, then, Sal. Are you saying you don't know whether this is double counted or not? And I'm no way verifying that as you sit here tonight. No, I got information from the real price contractor a couple of days ago and they, they're sure that their information is accurate. And it should not be double counted. They're claiming it isn't double counted. Right. So. So my question is for Downstreet, do you have the list of expenses for all of these properties? I do. Yes. And is it double counted or not? The one I just did is, yes. Which one's happening? That was the first one. The 21 Heber and 208 Berry Street is double counted because I recalculated it while you were explaining some of this stuff. The expenses? That goes to expenses? That difference of 16,229 is, which actually is, I'm looking at a corrected sheet because I kept being told that maybe we need to subtract social services. So I did subtract that. So my numbers are off by just that much, which is only like 400 bucks. The difference between those two comes out to the 13,273, which was the bad debt expense, which I already excluded, and, and then the miscellaneous admin expense. So that is the difference between the numbers that of the 141,146 and then the numbers that's on that sheet. It's really on these two sheets, I think. Yeah. Well, yeah, because this, this one, this number is excluding social services. So that's, that's what the difference is, but it's like a 375 difference. So you want to follow up on what you just heard? Well, I mean, if we have a list of the expenses that were used for these calculations and the bad debt is excluded. Then it's just a question of the other admin, right? Of what can be included with the admin. You have this for every one of these properties tonight that shows mine item, everything in there. Yes. Donna, sorry, dude, and then Mary, I think. Well, we have a lot of reports here from your audits. Are any of those numbers we can take that are? Well, you have to, fortunately, have to pick through them. Yeah, they're, yeah. Yes, you have all the audits. You do. You have all the actual source. I can say these are the numbers from this page in the audit that went into this, that adds up to this. Yes. I had sent, I don't know if you have a copy of it, but I had sent, well, some of them I just put a note of the breakdown. Some of them I attached the detailed breakdown. I did it two different ways, which I don't know why. But anyways, the info is all there. But yeah, so the auditors do lump that miscellaneous admin. But I always know what's in it because I have to know what's in it. So the numbers don't really show the numbers. You have to do something to it. You do have to break out where the numbers came from, correct? Yes. I feel like this is a question for the auditors and this chief financial officer to get together and hash it out. I just feel like I certainly don't have that expertise with the math that you do. I don't know what you mean by what the auditors. The auditors saying you should. The assessor. The assessor. Okay. Because I was like, well, okay. I was thinking our auditors. It just feels like there's a difference of opinion between our assessors and this particular person. So I feel like they're the ones that need to hash it up open. Mary, you had your hand up. Well, it was to suggest that this just seems to be a matter of a fact of needing to lay both parties facts outside by side. We can't determine if that's been double counted here. For example, we have no ability to do that. Whereas I assume this is a personal company. And so I wonder if we can't ask before we even appointed many are having a conversation about how to go forward. Just ask for additional information to confirm what each property is and get agreement or find out the areas of disagreement. John, you know, and this is, I share the same concerns and just sort of to think out loud about the process. My concern is that as soon as this part shuts down and we've asked all our questions, assuming we're going to do what everyone has been assuming them to forego the inspection. That we go into the deliberative period and when we go into the deliberative period, we got to make a decision. And if we're not in a position to have those numbers laid out, then how do we make our decision? But I also then am concerned if it's just a matter of getting you all together again, that puts you in a position. I feel like of having to withdraw from this process and work directly with the assessor and that's an act of faith too. So I'm just very concerned about how to proceed. And let me, and Kim, I'll get to you right after that. I don't think we necessarily would have to do that. I think we could suspend this hearing and say you people sit down and figure this out. You know, one of the things that occurs to me is that the statute says that one of the things that comes into this is actual expenses incurred with respect to the property that shall be provided by the property owner. And so is there a dispute about what's countable as actual expenses? You know, that could be a factual determination that we have to make if there is a dispute and it's not clear to me whether there is. But how, I agree, I don't see how sitting around this table we can do this. Kim. I think we should suspend this hearing and direct the parties to work together. And if they're unable to appoint a competent, mutually appoint a competent CPA to guide them. Come back when they've, this, they should hash this out. If they need some third party help, they should be instructed to get it. And while we're on this point, since John, you raised that question. Down street at this point, are you waving the inspection? Yes. Waving the inspection. So that's on the record. Because it's all numbers. As we were all talking about, but we wanted to make sure it's on the record. We would waive an inspection because the basis for the valuation has nothing to do with the physical condition. Unfortunately, at all. It's, it's tied to. Good with that. Yeah. Go ahead. John, Mary. Sorry. Yeah. And just to make a note again, just to remind people for, for process. If we do put this aside and then return to it later, we need to be cognizant of the fact that if we, by the time we return to it, the executive order has been lifted. Then as I read the statute, we have to have inspections of all the patients. Regardless. You can, you can be pretty, I think those inspections could be, might wind up being pretty cursory if we have to be done. I'm not sure that it's necessary to hire a third party. And so I just didn't want the higher groups to think that they have to go out and do that. I think it is really a matter of people sitting down side by side and saying, yes, we agree or yes, we double counted or no, we didn't. And then if you need help, they'll find the help you need. But they're saying it. No, I agree. So yeah, and ideally what I'd like to see them come back with is like a sheet of paper with each property, what they say, what it, what the dispute is, and then we have something we can decide. So it's clear to us, for the Bianchi block, this is the dispute, we agree to this and we continue to dispute this. Yep. And it's usually laid down for us to understand. Rosie. So I did hear that the miscellaneous expenses, that was one that was in question. Where the assessors were saying that's not allowable and you're saying that these are expenses incurred in your real estate. Is that, that feels to me like that's something for us to decide. And you had mentioned what those exact expenses were for the first property, but I think maybe we want to hear what the exact expenses were. Right, because it is a little different for each one because they're broken out a little differently for each property. So miscellaneous admin for that property includes those things that we discussed. Sometimes there's more or less in another one, it just varies. Most of them always have, if there's the LIHTCP, which was what you talked about with the tax credit, that's on the majority of them. Their portion of our property management software is on almost all of them. The bank fees line really incorporates charges that have to do with, we have a way that our tenants can pay online and we incur the cost of the expense of taking those credit card and debit card payments. So that's what those charges are so the tenants don't have to pay those. And then some of it has to do, we also have like our site management, their portion of payroll and training and then for some phone and internet is also included in that miscellaneous admin. So they're all expenses that are part of the daily operations. So you have Barrie Street, if you look at the bottom of the page for Barrie Street, there's a whole list of things that are more than what's on the Heber Road page. Because some have a lot more of a longer list but they all have a list somewhere in there that's provided for all of them. And so there could be an argument for each one of those, well those are not legitimate expenses as defined in the statute, right? So those are allowable expenses? Well, I don't know the answer to that. One side says yes, one side says no, so we'll get some clarity. Yeah, I don't think that's on the market side. Yeah, and it says actual expenses incurred with respect to the property. And so it's kind of broad and kind of vague. So I don't know what the answer is, Mary. So I was presuming from your statement I may believe maybe, but that you're taking essentially down the street administrative costs and allocating them out over the property. Correct, yes. But it's only four, not all administrative costs. Administrative, it's property management cost. The administrative cost is not in there. It's the property management. So when I say like some of the payroll net, that's the property management, the property managers, not like not even not my income or executive directors or any of that. It's just the people who are directly working with the property. That's an interesting question then to us as to what's in and what's out. Well, we have a lot of sheets here. I don't have any idea why they're really here. When it really comes down to this form sheet where our auditors have reported actual expenses on one side and they, on the other side, it says what they're reporting. And to me, those are the backup of these two numbers. The 15775 on one and the 146 something on the other. The backup of those numbers to me is the only thing I need to know. That's what's different. And then we'll know it's indeed, if we'll put that 13 shows up. Let's give you a list of that number. There we go. And then we can vote. We can make a decision to vote on those. I could. That's my question. Well, the audit, the entire audit has provided you to whoever we're providing the entire audit because we don't, you know, we're providing the entire audit so that the audit is there. And I can't be told, oh, you only gave me two pages of the audit. And even though that might show everything that's needed, I don't know that that's necessarily all that's needed. There may be something else I need to see. So I might be overkill. Typically what we do is provide a cover letter. We provide the state formula, the act 75 worksheet and then the entire audit. You carry Mary Kim. Sorry. Is there any chance you could direct us to some spot within this audit that could show us where you got your total operating expenses? I think the hard part with that is that we do is that we do have to exclude some things like the bad debt. We also have to exclude the real estate taxes are actually excluded on that as well and any loan interest and any mortgage and interest payments. One year ago? They are listed and they're excluded. So if we're to cross them out? Yeah. So you don't have to. And then everything else up, we'd get to 157.750. Right. Which property are you looking at? I think she's looking at Bianca. Bianca 157. Yeah. Okay. Bianca. Yeah. Yeah. So if you went through that and excluded, yeah, the bad debt line and you excluded the property tax. Excluded the interest on mortgage payable and interest on notes payable. Excluded depreciation expense. And try to make sure I didn't forget anything that needs to be excluded. Then that, yeah, that's everything that should be excluded. Then yeah. Oh, and we forgot the other part. You have to add in what was transferred for replacement reserve. And it does state that in there that you can add in the replacement reserve requirements. So that's 12,400 and, oh wait, no, that was not 12,040 on that, was it? No, that was 3,121, right? No. Why do I have that written over here? Hold on, sorry. 1040. The 12,480 is how much was actually put into replacement reserve. So you do have to add that into that number after you exclude the other. And that's how that, that's where the numbers came from. Kim and Bob. I just wonder, it sounds like the parties did not have a real discussion of these questions. No, we have not. I did not know where they got their numbers from. They came from you, Bill. I think there should be some written presentation on both sides after you meet and see what you can agree to, because this is mind boggling. There's no way I can give you any. So I'm going to renew my no motion with this. I'm sorry. You price your circle of what they took out. It's very straightforward. We may not agree with the numbers, but they took out that and the slantiest. Right. That's the dispute. It's two numbers. Right. It's right there. They took out. No, I don't think that's the problem. I haven't seen one for a while. You guys don't want to see it? Yeah, we haven't seen what the ubiquitous thing is. Oh, go ahead. It sounds like we're going to end up getting together. Yeah. I'll give you a packet tonight to take with you of what their discrepancies are, and then we'll figure it out. And Bob, you have a question? You had your hand there, so yeah. It was sort of on the same line as, was there any informal discussion at all? So, Marty and the two of us met, I'm sorry, I'm not gonna remember a date, but in the last two months that the agreement was, well the agreement's hearing and then you know, you got the flood and pour over here after the flood, so it was after the flood. It was after the flood, I guess. And I don't think you knew at the time more exactly what their, I don't know, we did not see, hey, this is what they're saying, they are excluding that we are including. So, you know, so, and I, maybe that's the best thing to do is to say, we need to sit down and talk about those, because I don't think we had those, and if you can give them to us, and then we can go through and say, okay, here's the, because I, at the beginning of the process, when Christie and I were working on this, I basically went through each of the audits and said, pick this number, this number, this number, this number, exclude this one, don't include that, don't forget to add this, and came up with what the valuations were based on that. So then we provided a cover letter with the sheet, but I don't know what the appraiser contractor, how they looked at those numbers differently than we did. So, yeah, our conversation after grievance was between the contractor and I, and he, I thought he said Christie specifically, but he said he spoke to somebody, he still didn't understand what those miscellaneous looks like. Which I did talk to him about, and we did discuss potentially eliminating the social services line, which is actually a very small amount, which I have no qualms with, but even recalculating with those figures, which I actually have as well, it's still a huge significant difference in the evaluation. Okay, then I think we should probably get Clary from somebody at the tax department, I mean, between the three of us, I think we can figure out what's in all, but what's not, and then save everybody the aggravation. So Kim has made a motion to suspend this here and come back, is there a second to that? No second, ma'am. And is there any other discussion, Donna, I don't think you like that, but is there any discussion about Kim's motion? Right, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Kim, can I comment after the fact? Sure. I apologize in a way, because I don't, you know, I think what I have to do with the conversation is explain these six things are included and this is excluded. And I don't know whether I have to literally circle every number on the page of the audit to and which I did in advance in addition to including the entire audit or take the, or in the cover letter explain each single cost as indicated on the, I obviously there must, there's a, I've never had to go through like this much detail in the past. I have had times when it's been, oh, you know, some small change, but. Sure, I get what you're saying. And what I would say is that we can't tell you how to present your case because the taxpayer has the room, but you can see from the conversation how people are really, I totally guess. And it's not an uncomplicated thing. As I said, I've been doing this for a while and it's, you're learning things every time you do it. My apologies. And this is our only, no, it's a case for tonight. So we'll recess. We're in recess at $6.58.