 See that we have a quorum. The agenda is in your binders. The first item on the agenda is to call the order. Next is to approve the agenda, which I assume the agenda is acceptable to everybody. The next item on the agenda is to elect a chair for the board of abatement. And so the floor is open for nominations. I nominate you. Second. Are there any other nominations? Alright, we can declare that I accept the election as chair. Next item is to adopt the rules of the board of abatement, which was, they were also, sorry? Do you want to vote it in? Oh, he went by unanimous. Yeah, my inclination, yeah. There's no other candidates. Next, the rules of procedure were also provided to everybody. And so I would ask for a motion to approve the rules of procedure for the board of abatement. That's what it says. That's all it says. So I will move if we... Is there a second? Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, we have three abatement hearings scheduled for tonight. And I was discussing this at our council meeting last night, and I realized that the clerk and I had a different understanding of what we decided to do a couple of weeks ago at a board of civil authority meeting. But what my understanding of what we had agreed to was that for any of the assessment, any of the requests that are based on flood damage, that we would take the evidence at the night of the hearing and then hold all of those until the very end and then go through all of them and make it in deliberative session at the end. That way we can make sure we're consistently applying the standards and treating people fairly. So I'll repeat this speech probably at every meeting to let people who come know that they're not going to be leaving with a decision tonight. However, someone whose request is not based on flood damage, we can discuss and make those decisions at the meeting. And the first meeting, the first appellant is Susan Apto. Would you raise your right hand please? Do you solemnly affirm subject to the pains and penalties of perjury? The testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And this is parcel number 019-032-000. And we have your request for an abatement. So why don't you just tell us what's going on? Okay. Well, I checked the third box down in terms of requesting the abatement. So I am a person that is unable to pay. And I've paid my, I'm caught in a cycle. I don't have that much income. But because the assessment came, and it doesn't account for my homestead, my homestead was already submitted before the assessment. So I need an abatement for one, I think one year. I don't know if it's one year. I don't know how it all flows. But I need an abatement until I do my homestead for this year. So when you fill out, do your taxes in April, you'll submit the homestead. And you were able to make it with the income sensitivity that you had up until that point? I am. Okay. I hope. That's what you told me. I don't know. Sure. I'm sort of in the dark here. Does anyone have any questions? Tim. Just quickly, because in the packet we have, we have your last year's tax bill and this year's tax bill. And it appears that you're getting the homestead education payment on the tax bill. I can, the difference in the two tax bills is $1,194 increase because of the value, the value change. She is getting homestead. Correct. Well, I got the homestead before the new assessment. Oh, I see. Okay. Thanks. And so if you look, that's a good point because I did submit my taxes for both years. And my taxes basically, well, they sort of doubled. $3.23 was my, and $0.64 was my old tax. And my new taxes are $6.22, $21. So it's not quite doubled. Bob, you had a question? Yeah, I was looking for the, I see the sheet for the $2.23 tax. That wasn't nothing about it. Yeah, the other one is sort of, after it keeps going, that they just didn't, they weren't applied correctly. Okay, I see this one. Okay. Carrie. So just so I can clarify what's going on there, we have file your taxes in April with the state. And the state looks at how much your homestead is worth as of April 15th or whatever, when you file your taxes. And then the state says, okay, we're going to give you a certain amount of credit on your property taxes based on the value of your home and what we think your taxes are going to be in April. And on your income. Based on your income, yeah. And then after that, the tax bills come out. And the tax bills this year also came out after a reassessment. So the tax bill was higher than the state thought it was going to be. So this is a problem of the state, not calculating things in an appropriate way. I think it's an issue in a reappraisal year because they don't know what the values are going to be until August. So we're, it doesn't make sense to me that the city, I mean, I think that it makes sense that the property owner should get the appropriate amount of help from the state. But it doesn't make sense to me that the city should be making up that difference because the state doesn't calculate it in an accurate way. Is there any way to respond to that? I can, I called the state because I appealed my amount that I was reappraised at. And that's when I called the state and I was told I have to work with the city, not the state. So I worked with Marty. I did my best. So the question is really, I think the question is really, should the state have some method for a person to file an amended homestead declaration or something once there's a reappraisal? Because this has to happen like in every town where there's a reappraisal, right? But the state's payment is based on a new assessment at 2008. So the assessment here, the state payment of $4,600 and $79 is based on the income that you filed and the new assessment. It's not based on the old assessment. Where are you seeing that, Bob? If you look right here, the state payment is $4,670. It's based on the income she filed this year. The state that was the calculation based on what the current tax is, not last year's tax, but based on the current tax. And that's why you don't know what it is until the tax bill comes out. And you can hear before what her taxes are lower, the state had a lower payment. And that year, the last year's tax is the thing was her sheet. $47,000. Yeah, so there's a letter dated June 30th from the state saying this is a credit we calculated and it says house site value, $200,700, which is the old value. So I think that their credit of $46,79 was based on the old value of the house. That's what the state told me. The state won't have a final grand list until August so that they wouldn't be able to give an actual house value until then. Yeah, that's very weird. Yeah, because the house site value on the new tax bill is the 340. The city knows what's what. The state does. The state doesn't know yet. Yeah. So what do we do about that tonight? I think we had a situation we had for every single person in Montpelier that's getting a home credit. Would we have the same home? Not everybody's got an ability to pay. Yeah, but there is definitely an equity issue. Oh, the states, yeah. I mean, they measure their ability to pay. Well, I think what we do tonight is we address this property owner's issue and maybe talk to the tax department about implementing some way to... Well, I'm sure this isn't the first time that this has happened with the state so I can call them tomorrow and find out how they've been handling it. Is there a procedure to file a supplemental request to the state? That's what we're talking about, whether there is or not. Yeah. I don't think the state has a supplemental procedure once you've received your adjustment. It's based on your income. That's how they determine it. I think that's right. Yeah, Carrie. Yeah, I think the appellant has told us that she tried to do that with the state. And they said no, there's no way to address that. So you've talked to the tax department and you said this is a change now. I can't afford it now because the assessment's gone up and they said... Well, there are other reasons, too, that I can't afford it. But I'm $82, $82 over my budget for crisis fuel. And because we had a city-wide flood, there you had a flood, too, capstone is... And they had to take the money that... That's my phone. Yeah, that's my phone. They had to take the money to give to the flood victims. So they couldn't give the money to me. So I've gotten crisis fuel for... One crisis fuel for, like, over about ten years. And this year, I'm $82 over. Can you imagine? I'm just so struggling. Now, I've tried to pay. I paid my... I paid more than what I paid last year. I paid $340. And I've paid my water bill, even though... Oh my goodness, I'm just going to sound like... Just excuse what this sounds like, but I haven't had a hot water heater since July, but I'm not a flood victim. Okay? My hot water heater has been on the brink for a whole year. It was before July that I knew that I needed a hot water heater, but I was sort of hobbling with hot water. And then after the flood, right after in July, I'm not sure what the date is. I don't know if I've said it on this thing, but anyway, I had a flood in my basement. Because the water just... So when I went down to my basement, and I saw the flood in the basement, and I heard the water going, and I turned off the main water valve, that stopped it. I don't know where the water went from the basement, but when one of my adult sons came over, the water was leaving the basement. So I just said, okay, we're just going to let things... You know? I mean, what can I do? So when I went upstairs, I realized by turning off the main water valve, I have no water. So I turned off the circuit breaker to the hot water heater, and I did my best with turning off the valves to the hot water heater. They were already turned off, but... So anyway, I ran some water upstairs, and I went down to my basement, and I saw... I didn't hear any water. So anyway... So my water bill was pretty high for me. It was higher than it normally is, but I paid it. So I'm really... I've lived in my house for 36 years. I might have been late one time on my taxes, but I'm very conscientious about it. I'm not like a... What do you call that? Fly-by-night kind of person. Well, you know, you shouldn't feel bad about requesting this. The statutes provide for this relief for people who can't afford their tickets. Well, this is the first time I've ever had to come before the Board of Abatement, and it is a little bit nerve-racking for me, because all my information is out there. Sure. Folks, do we have any other questions, or is there a motion? Okay. Tell me what your request is. Exactly. Well, I'm requesting the taxes above $340. It seems like what you were saying was that you would have the ability to pay the $320, $364. Well, I pay $340 by really just being very, very, very careful. I'm paying the $340. And so, I paid my last water bill in December, and that was high. My water bill would be low. You know, this next water bill would be really low, because I haven't used any water. I mean, I've used cold water, but I don't have water. I'm waiting your request. Is it $298.57? Well, and then I was told there were fees by that bill. There. $28.57 per quarter. Yeah. So, I really don't know. The fees are automatically abated if the taxes are abated. So, good to point that out, but yeah. So, $298.57 per quarter is your request, as I understand it. Yeah, why don't you second it? Okay. Okay, now go ahead, Bob. Yeah, looking at both machines again, getting my head straight on it. In the current tax bill, the tax rate is, the education tax rate is lower than the rate than the previous year. And that's because of the reprisal of the reprisal of the state purposes dropped the rate down. I don't know if we have a policy on supplemental benefits that the state doesn't give. Does the city have a policy plan? I mean, does the city have, how do we measure the ability to pay up off and beyond how the state measures it? The state measures it on the income and the current taxes. The city does for people who pay their, the state doesn't give them enough. And I guess the way I would answer that is that the statute is wide open. It simply says, for people who don't have the ability to pay. And so it's always the judgment of the Board of Batemen whether we think the person has the ability to pay. And what we've heard from you is that you're going without some basic necessities, like hot water. Like food, I'm going without food. I'm okay in the summertime but I haven't been okay in the wintertime. And you're also in a situation where your income hasn't changed. No, well my income has, you mean for 2023? Well, I mean you're not working where your salary might fluctuate and my crop won't grow. No, no, I'm not working. But you've got a cost of living adjustment here, but yeah. And I have medical bills that I really have to, I've been disabled since 1993. So I have medical bills that I have to pay. So, anyway. Carrie. So just a procedural question. Are we able to abate for the whole tax year or only for from now and into the past? I think we can abate the whole tax year. Okay. So then I want to make a motion that we abate $1,128.84. And is that the four times? That's four times the difference. And Kim made the motion, but it's good to have the math. Okay. I just want to clarify that that's the inverse of what was being. You said you had the ability to pay $340 per quarter. Well, that's what I've I wanted to show you that I'm trying to pay. Yeah. But not necessarily. No, but I interpreted that as she was able to pay that one time. One time. Okay. But she's not committed to paying it the whole time. So you're just clarifying that it's the difference between last year and this year. $1,128.84. Really? Is that right? No, sorry. Well, the last if you look at the last paragraph on this little sheet right here the last paragraph I didn't use a $340. $1,194. Okay. Is there any other discussion? Charlotte. So what you're asking to obey is not only municipal but also education. I think that isn't the last one. So the question is are you asking to obey both the education tax and this town tax? That's a fine point. Well, I'm just looking at municipal net tax and education tax. On the tax bill you can see so I just... Well, because in the city it's still going to be on the hook for the other tax. Right. But if we abate that all from the city tax we don't have to pay the school fund anything. But it's over. She got so much they came on it. Do you see it under the municipal fund? So it's 958.62. Is it in this? Is there a municipal 148.290 on the the net municipal tax? Yeah. So that's under... So we're okay. I'm working on that. So the motion is to abate 1194.28 of the municipal tax? So can I ask... 148.290? Okay, so if I pay am I going to be responsible for paying 3 23.64? Yeah. Same as last year. Well, no, that was this year. Last year was lower than that. No, last year, that's what it was. Same as last year is what the proposal says. Because I really didn't know if it would go higher after I do the homestead. Sure. You know what I'm saying? That's why I pay the 340. Yeah. I'm still stuck on the state as a program to face both the education and municipal tax on someone's income. We are going to say that we want another particular taxpayer's situation where they say they can't pay. We want to abate the municipal tax because you know what percentage of income we'd be looking at. How much someone's supposed to pay out of 27,000 in income I think it becomes pretty arbitrary in our part. It sort of sounds like it's a little bit irrelevant because she's telling us she's requesting based on her inability to pay and she's saying she's able to pay what she could pay last year but she can't pay more than that. And we're saying that the state formula doesn't measure everybody's ability to pay by when you show your income they don't look at your medical bills they don't look at all that and that we should build something into the municipal system. I mean that's what we're doing here. We have a standard plus capacity to do what we think is right. And what criteria do we use? Kerry. I think this is a good question and we have to take them all on a case by case basis. So the state does whatever the state does. I think there's a huge problem with the timing of the state's decisions but what's before us right now is we have someone who's come to us saying what I paid last year and I can't afford to pay more and she's brought us evidence of her income she's brought us evidence of medical bills she's backed it up sufficiently for me to say okay I believe you and so I think that for me that satisfies the criteria of ability to pay. And there is no definition in the statute of what that means. We just have to say do we believe her or not. Some people may not have a mortgage. We're getting into an area where we don't really judge the ability to pay. We're just saying we'll obey taxes. John. I think the thing is that somebody with a mortgage or without a mortgage is going to be in a convenient situation. They may have the ability to pay even if they have to. Someone with a mortgage and this income may have less than that. That's where we have to make our individual judgment on a case-by-case basis. That's the question. Do you still have a mortgage on your property? Well I have a mortgage with the city. I had to replace by furnace. So you got along from the revolving long fund. Got it. So I have $12,000 that I own. But there's no interest on it. And there's no payment it'll come to. No, there's no payment. Or when my heirs sell my house? It'll come out of that. Yeah. So that's the mortgage I have. My heirs are cognizant of they're knowledgeable about that $12,000. In fact I think the city has the title for the, has the title for my house. Until that's paid off. So yeah, so that's not like a mortgage where you pay every month but it's a lien on the property. I'm very fortunate that my mortgage has been paid off for a few years. Irene. Oh my goodness. I hate sounding like I'm just like whoa is me but after Irene I had to submit an insurance claim. Because oh my gosh I'm losing it here. I'm forgetting. Oh yeah. The storm door on the deck they put in and they put the deck in by code at the time but the deck had been put in in 97 96, 97 and so Irene happened in 2011 so it was many years afterwards. And now the code is different with the deck. And so last year. I think there wasn't really a question. I think John's right. It's vested in the judgment and discretion of the board of the Bateman. Each of us gets to make our own decision about whether we think this is an appropriate case that we've been satisfied by the taxpayer that she can't lacks the ability to pay and next year it'll be different and next year any taxpayer has the ability to file another request for a Bateman but we're just dealing with this request now. I have my fingers crossed that next year it will be different. I don't know. I really don't know. I'm hoping. It will be different because taxes are going up. I mean it's inevitable coming out of the process we're in so it would make sense to not plan on it being better. Well it's not plan on what? The taxes going down or the situation being better? The costs are going up dramatically. The next year it will be based on the current assessment. Okay. It will be based on next year's assessment. Which is reflected in the current assessment we have. It will be based on the new assessment next year. No it will be based on what's on there now. Well that's the current assessment. That's what he's saying. It's the current assessment. So it's going to be based on the current assessment. Well this statement's based on the July 1st 23 assessment. No. Oh 23 yes. Okay. Because of the new grand list and the new file so there's a new value. Well that's not going to change her value. Yes it should change the results of the year. We're talking about something that could come up next year. I'm ready to vote. Okay. Is everyone else ready to vote? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? So we need to do a roll call. People should have introduced themselves anyway. Oh right. So we'll do a roll call. Kim. Charlotte. Tim. No. Kerry. Aye. Rosie. Aye. And on the on the zoom machine let's have you introduce yourselves and say Sal. Jude. Jude Newman. Aye. And Donna. Donna Bates. Aye. Please remind people to speak up around the table. It's very hard to hear people. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. You'll get a notice from her. She did ask that everybody's come. You can technically appeal anything from a quasi-judicial. Okay. Next up. Thanks for coming in. Thank you everybody. I have two separate of the Charlotte Capital Theatre LLC and so we should take them separately. The first one is 148.09300. Can you introduce yourself? Sure. I'm Lily King. I'm here on behalf of Fred and Mary Bechara. Anne, would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly affirm subject to the pains and penalties of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Great. Thank you. And we've developed them. Lily King. K-A-N-G. Nope. C-A-I-N. Okay. And we have a set of questions but why don't you first just tell us what you are and what's your role? I'm Lily King. C-A-I-N. I live in Montpelier. I'm part of the Bechara family. We own the Capital Movie Theatre. 95 State Street is the building next door and then the Yellow House is the one that will be afterwards 97 State Street. And so this is the Capital Theatre building. Yes. I think the information you filed was really quite clear. I'm going to go through a list of questions and John said it's going to be mechanical people and we're doing this so we can get the right information and the same information from everybody and members have the ability to ask other questions too. But was there a 50% or greater loss in value to the primary structure? And was there a total loss of use of the property? Was there a loss of use for 60 days or longer? Yes. And I noticed when this was filed it wasn't clear when the theatre was going to be reopened. Correct. We actually opened the movie theatre in November 17. Okay. Good. Was there a loss of access to utilities for the primary structure for 60 days or more? The building that we're talking about is the big movie theatre that's 93 State Street and then what used to be the community national bank that's part of the same tax bill that's 95 State Street. We'll have to fix the agenda afterwards. So in 95 State Street which is the rental property there was no electricity for the 60 days. In the movie theatre we did have electricity and water. What we didn't have was phone and air net for more than 60 days. They're utilities but they're not primary utilities. We're only talking about the theatre. No. The theatre is so in the agenda it was typed wrong. The first one we're doing right now the tax bill that we're talking about is 93-95 is on the same tax bill. The second hearing we're going to do is 97 State Street and that's the yellow building the yellow building next door. Got it. The property record cards will have the different correct addresses on them. Was there a condemnation of the primary structure of their federal, state and municipal law? No. It was posted that all approved contractors could be on-site and owners but it wasn't connect. The next question is if you know the answer to that the answer is it's not just damage to land only. Correct. 100% of the main building and the private sidewalk. So in front of the theatre if you recall it's the pretty brick work that we put out there we had to replace and repair some of those bricks as well. And has there been income loss? Very much so. It was from July 10 through November 16 anywhere in previous years of $164,000 and lost revenue up to $215,000. And do you have the structure's total square footage and the estimated square footage of the damaged areas? So it's 100% of the building I don't know the square footage of either property 93 or 95 would I did as I took that it says the lot is .43 acres and really the only bit of land that isn't the building is the sidewalk underneath the awning that stretch there. So if you take .43 acres that's 18,730 square feet I'm going to guess the building's about 99% and the private sidewalk would be 1%. The theater part of the building 100% of the square footage the bank side of the building are there is it just one story? It's the first floor of the basement. Okay, so again the bank side of the building was 100%? Yes. Okay. Is there any other questions? There's no second floor in the theater? No. I mean there used to be a balcony I'm just looking at the picture of it and it looks like there's a second floor The old projection rooms I guess the projection rooms are up on the second level which is what used to be a balcony. But they were effectively not accessible because of the logo. Correct. You said there was a 50% or greater loss to the property meaning the damage was more than 50% of the valuation? That's how, yes the valuation was just over a million dollars and we were looking at we were estimating 1.2 million dollars of damages I think hopefully we're going to end up being just below the million dollar mark so that's a good thing But awfully close to 100% Pretty close to 100% of the value of the building It was worse than in 92 Yeah Does anyone else have any other questions? Keeping in mind we're not voting on this tonight So we'll move to the next property and that is parcel number 148 dot 097 0000 And that is 97 stage 3 And this is Office building And I will ask you the same questions Was there a 50% or greater loss in value to the primary structure? Yes Was there a loss of use of the property by the property owner for 60 days or more? Yes Was there a loss of access to utilities for 60 days or more? There was no heat There was partial electricity We ended up switching from the furnace I think it was cotton oil I'm not sure I think it was cotton oil in the basement We switched that to efficient heat pumps Was there condemnation of the primary structure? No, again just posted that only contractors and owners could go in Is the damage to land only to an outbuilding only or both only? Both But not outbuildings The primary building Was there income loss? Yes The tenant on the first floor moved out immediately after the flood So it's been July until now We've had no tenant The upstairs tenant although their property wasn't flooded because they were affected by the no heat and the electricity and everything else they were asking for reductions in their rents as well I'm not sure how long they're going to stay So they've paid their rent but they're trying to get refunds on that The construction took a lot longer than we anticipated in that building and it was noisy and when you're putting in heat pumps they're cutting into the ceilings in the office space So he was disrupted and we understand that And again I think this last question we could probably get from the property The structure is total square footage and the estimated square footage of the damaged areas 2873 Pretty good I said 2400 That was close That was close Counting ceiling tiles And so the whole 100% of the first floor the basement was storage that was all damage that had to everything had to be removed out of there and then the effect on the second floor again was the no heat in having to replace the entire heating system Okay Any members have any questions? Lily, when was the first floor ready to be rented back out again? Um I think January 1st was pretty close where we're still kind of in there now kind of going in Do we want this is more of a procedural Do we want to ask everybody what the amount of the income loss was or should we just say was there income loss? John, do you have any We do have to be a little careful as Bob mentioned in the two main specifics of people's income just in place to tread lightly So but if we ask was there loss then that's enough to cover us with the state stuff I think it is Anything else? Anyone on the Zoom? Yeah Bob Just one question, which rent was paying for which part of the property? So the left hand side was where we had a tenant Is that upstairs? No, upstairs was the one that they continued paying rent They continued paying rent The left hand side moved out right away And the right hand side was The right hand side was vacant ahead of time We actually had just moved over our offices So even if you impute some rent payment from your business to this to the property it wasn't rentable or usable It was not rentable or usable It just barely is right now And are you requesting both quarter Yeah because you said January 1st Okay, I don't I think we are set unless anyone else wants to stop me from adjourning us We got one We do I didn't I saw Paul on the Okay I have one more to go I was wondering while Paul was here Well, okay Thanks Thank you very much everybody Appreciate all your consideration in this Okay, sorry Paul I was wondering why you were here because you weren't on my list here So just a second Yeah This is going to come back to us in a month or so And what kind of record are we going to make in the way they transcribe John's taking notes of everything So we'll get a start So we each don't have all of these notes So you have a sheet for each one Yes So just to clarify when you said a month or so I think when we approve the procedures it says within 30 days so we really need to have this result in a month, right? Okay Which looking at the schedule that seems realistic so I think it's realistic Yeah There will need to be because we have the more trickle in there will need to be more additional meaning afterwards but I think anybody else who comes in because the trickle will go on forever I'm just going to steer them to the annual board of obeyed meeting that we're required to have under the charter in the first week in June I think So we can mark the calendars for the first week in June because we'll have some more But that's way far But just so you all know that's the thing Okay so the third or the last one is Paula Fowl Hi Paul and we are this is this is actually a parcel number okay this is parcel number 131 to 133 Elm Street parcel number 043 1-0-0-0 and I think many of us may not have the have your filing with us Paul so why don't you tell us what my original okay hold on a second folks okay we'll make sure everybody gets a copy of what you filed and why don't you tell us what the basis of your request is well my original request was for abatement of water and sewer payment but I would also like to be considered for tax abatement as well essentially during the flood I had water heaters in the basement and they all got floated up and tossed around and the inlet pipes broke off there was water pouring into the basement aside from just the flood and this all came out of my attention because I got a water bill which usually is in the range of water and sewer in the range of $400 combined and this one was like $2,258 so I'm sure it was because the hot water heaters were broken off the inlet pipes and there was water just pouring out when I I went down I wanted to go in the basement and turn it off but of course the basement was totally full of water so I called the city and they sent some folks up from DPW and they were hoping to turn it off at the street but they weren't able to because this I guess the sidewalk was put over the shutoff valve so they had to come back the next day with a backhoe and they had to chop everything up and dig down and they were finally able to turn it off but meanwhile the water was just gushing out of the pipes for couple days or more so that was I was hoping to get an abatement for that particular bill I also was looking at the criteria for tax abatement and I'm thinking that at least some of them I would be eligible for I think what we should do with the tax abatement is how you file a request with the way the other people have done and we will take it up but we don't have that information in front of us now okay I did send the information I just gave you I sent an email to Serena Baker and she told me that that email would suffice as an application or as in lieu of filling out the form that you have that's for a while that's for a while Sarah do you know something about this what works you know something about this I don't I just prepared the binder it came as a supplement later because this was one that slipped in at the last minute I don't think we got any kind of supporting information the form is not required it's something that we point folks to but really any kind of written request is enough to so it's in the email from Serena December 13 there's an email changing the way about this am I right that there are other people in the room who don't have this in front of them okay well there's a on the next page there's kind of just the water bill the water bill stuff there's a typically besides it so Jack if we've got Paul on and we don't have to have a written application can we at least ask the five questions and be efficient about this I'm happy to do that okay so Paul you've heard what the questions I asked the other taxpayers so I'm going to go through them and ask you the same question with regard to the taxes can you hear me okay okay and I'm going to really ask you to speak up because you're trying to get a lot of people to hear you okay so Jack can you hold off on that until just I think maintaining silence in the room is important oh okay just getting your copy yep okay with and again we're talking about 131 133 Elm Street was there is that right Paul that address is correct the question of 50% of greater loss of value is that what you're asking me now yes yeah you know I think that if I were to actually just before the flood I was considering putting the house on the place on the market and it was brought to my attention that if I were to were to sell it right after the flood that I would probably not get 50% of what I would ordinarily have gotten so I'm not sure how to how to evaluate that question other than that okay cost of repairs there is a question about cost of repairs do you have any information about the cost of repairs I do have I do have information I'm in the process of repairing it now and I can you know I can only guess what it's going to end up being you know I don't know for sure at this point but the repairs are not I mean repairs wouldn't come to 50% okay but if I were to try to sell it I can't imagine that I would have gotten 50% of the value was there a loss of use of the property for more than 60 days or more it's still not being used the way it was it's a duplex and there on one half there are apartments three stories three apartments and on the other half there are offices and currently it's totally the building is empty except for one brave apartment weller who is still there aside from the building could it be inhabited or could any of the floors be inhabited at this point well again there's one person living there but it's just beginning to be habitable and so far as everyone needs to come in through the front entrance and it was all torn apart both sides were torn apart the steps to the front porch were torn off by the flood ended up down the street and we've since brought it back and reattached it but there's still quite a bit of debris on the in the entrance way where you in the front entrance way of the building so it's difficult it would be difficult to access any of the spaces so I mean I suppose if someone were willing to put up with that but here it is now what like six months out from and it's still not back together again okay thanks um was there a loss of access to utilities for 60 days or more uh we had electricity out not for 60 days but the heat has been out for back on now but it was certainly off for 60 or more days okay and hot water as well and was the property condemned uh has there been income loss yeah definitely yeah I haven't been able to have been able to rent the spaces out since the flood were they rented was it fully occupied before the flood um pretty much I think there's one office that was vacant but by and large it was nearly full and we have the information about the would you say that the damage was to the first floor and basement and not to the second and third floors okay okay we can compute that information based on that and about 240 square feet 2400 excuse me okay what attempts did you I don't know I want to be fair and ask everybody the same question but what attempts have you made it sounds like it's still not rentable for the most part but what attempts have you made to to make it rentable I'm sorry it's still not rentable is that what you said what attempts have you made to make it rentable to do the repairs oh we've been working on it I've hired Vermont construction company from Colchester and they've been working on it since then questions from members of the board so Paul is the current is the current tenant paying rent the full amount well she um I forgave her rent for several months but she's back to paying as of last month she's back to paying full rent last month being December she paid full rent um December that's yes yes and and January okay thank you board members have questions Donna and Jewett Ailes if you need your hands up thank you Jack Paul quick question for you do you have to move up any utilities out of the basement like your heating system or electrical yeah all of that we had to move we had to change from oil furnace in the basement to propane boiler up on the first floor and electrical panel up to the first floor as well so you lost living space to make a new mechanical room so you've got less room a little bit of a little bit of authentic space to do that um Chuck Ciccio who's a magician with heating systems manages to squeeze it in thank you okay Paul you've got what I said at the beginning in your mind we will go over this along with all the other flood damage requests at the end of this process and thanks for being here should we take the water one separately I think we can take the water one now yeah so what was the total amount of this being requested for the water one I put a value on it I just mean I thought it would be but I usually pay and it's people who are willing to do that and to forgive the difference okay and we have he submitted to us some water and sewer bills from historical water and sewer bills anybody calculated what the average previously was on Serena's thing if you look at and yeah I'm looking at this table and I'm not understanding it do you see the next page she's got two and a half the number of gallons where is the two and a half coming from that's the city's if you want to process oh okay that's your knowledge that's your knowledge that's your knowledge oh okay that's it check Jack? Donna can I ask a question of order yes there seems to be a person giving information that's not at a speaker I don't know if she's staff but could anyone who's giving information at least come to the table be close to a speaker oh that was Charlotte Hoyt she's a member of the board and she's at the table but then get next to a mic because we really couldn't hear her so looking at this looking at this table the the 2258 92 that was the bill that you got after the flood and then and the 913 62 is what is the adjustment that's being proposed and you're you're asking for a further reduction to your historical payment yes that's true and how much how much time does that well it almost doesn't matter how much time does that cover it was really a couple of days less than a week or something this water bill or the broken pipes yeah we're talking about one month one month's payment oh you mean the 2200 instead I'm not clear on what you're asking I'm sorry well the the the water was leaking for a short period of time after the flood maybe a few days or a week fine yeah a few days so this huge bill was accumulated within a few days so you're asking you're asking for an abatement of this one month's bill to your historical your historical rate okay thank you bye yeah I don't know either is it the 2258 minus 900 no no what the 915 is just what the city was on people that have leaks the city that but he wanted more than that so he came to the board yeah this was seemed like more kids all basically asked I believe for the that total about less is typical quarterly payment yeah that's what I was 2250 it's 1346 does that sound right it's he's at the city was the two and a half times was a 913 dollars is what they would normally get but he didn't feel that was enough he wants to have whatever his request was and Donna are you hearing that yes so in case people don't understand when there is an issue like this that comes up there is I guess a one time where the city will I don't remember exactly what the number was Charlotte Charlotte said well we'll give you a break of a certain amount I think it's two and a half times the normal average bill so that offer was made but it was not sufficient to the taxpayer so the taxpayer came to ask for above and beyond that I had been using it using extra water I would understand but this was beyond my control and I walked through the proper channels and they weren't able to shut it off for me so I'm kind of stuck with it Donna you have your hand raised well I wanted to get some more information dealing with how long was that the same period then the street the city's workers are out there tearing up the sidewalk to find the valve to turn it off right so was that within 24 hours of you recording it I believe it was well they came out at first and they tried to dig it out just with shovels but they realized they weren't going to be able to get it so they had to go back the next day get a backhaul and come and actually tear the sidewalk up and then dig down with the backhoe to get the turnoff shutoff valve okay so this was more than just quote your league but then we had a the city had our own issues and trying to turn it off so it lasted longer okay thank you yeah so the 9 13 62 is two and a half times what your average bill is for that particular period which I calculate to be 365 45 does that sound about right it's about right okay so we can back into that if we divide 9 13 62 by 2.5 that gets you what figure so uh well I I erased it but I'll do it again I wrote it down you said 365 45 365 45 yeah okay and so our I think the request from the taxpayer is 22 5892 minus that 365 45 so it's 1893 44 okay 1893 44 uh-huh does someone want to make that motion just for discussion to say it because there is a standard for the city it's kind of a reason for that this happens in many different ways to property owners throughout the year it can be running sinks it can be a bypass thing we had it happen the city has generously done the 2.5 percent so it's not a unique situation and I do think consistency is is part of fairness too I'm curious it sounds to me like the volume was higher than average because of all four just being thrown away sure yeah we had it happen in our properties yeah it happened all over time all right so the chair would accept would entertain a motion for some something yeah yeah calculation an exact calculation of what the normal water uses water uses compared to what these extra bills were until the time that it was stop I think that's the last page okay Donna maybe I didn't understand everything but I feel this is a difference of what Tim was talking about when we the city showed up and didn't get it turned off within 24 hours so I would propose that we reduce his bill back to the 365 dollars and 45 cents yeah okay so okay that has been moved is there a second now one of the things that's complicated about this is that I think the way he described it the situation to us he didn't even realize that this was a problem until he got his next water bill so so the water was flowing into the basement of this building way after no no it was within days is that am I right Paul or not within several days it was shut off oh okay okay so okay so discussion on the motion of that that we've heard from Rosie the the abated amount sorry yeah the abated amount is 1893 47 we want to be technical about okay it seems reasonable that if he asked the city to to turn it off and the city wasn't able to turn it off that we would give something but I also don't want to give leeway here when other people are we gonna vote on the motion we're I'm waiting we're still having discussion so and Kim's about to say something well I'm a little uh the city would normally give a 900 some on credit yeah credit this is almost twice that because they for some time and couldn't be fixed right away by the city I think that's the argument yeah the reason it was undetected was because there was so much other water due to the flood that you couldn't even get into the basement since I understood it so you're saying it doesn't meet the normal standard that the city uses it's over and above the standard that's what I'm understanding and so is there just cause and it seems to me there is this was in pretty unique situation there was just one meter was spinning and nobody knew it and nobody could stop it for some period of time I think those were extraordinary circumstances do we have enough to have heard enough to vote if so Bob you don't think you're ready yet what what is the exact number 1893 47 all those in favor signify by saying aye anyone opposed okay you'll get a notice from the clerk Paul telling you that the abatement's been granted in that amount just the water on the water bill thanks paul you're welcome so at this point I think we can we're adjourning this time right okay at this point we are going to recess at 7 55 p.m