 Call this meeting to order so we can get through our business with reasonable promptness and I was talking to the clerk and we thought that one of the first the first thing we would take oh great idea oh that should be much better yeah wow one of the items on our agenda which I don't think we have listed as first but is the is the voter checklist and I'll pass that along to John yeah we don't need any the law requires the DCA to review this every other year and what we've done in the last few years as I just you know as I wrote in the email I just get it out to folks and they get back to me and a lot of you have gotten back to me and that's great so I just want for the record I don't think it needs to be a motion or anything but just for the record have it on the agenda and have us have you know affirm informally that folks received that and either have reviewed it or are reviewing it and then we're fine and John I have two questions about that great the the first is that there are it seems like it used to be that we would review the checklist we would get the whole checklist plus a list of all the people were added and all the people who proposed to be changed that's actually we do that before the elections okay so this is just look at it top bottom check it out and in fact we don't have to do that anymore either but it's still a good practice and the other question that occurred to me is that I came across a cluster of registrants listed as blind ballot number something right that's folks who are in the forget what it's called but no no their citizens but their identities are being shielded because of domestic violence concerns yeah okay cool anyone else have any questions or comments I just wondered so we gave you the folks that we thought had moved do you just take them off the list or are you double checking and like sending them a letter I challenge it we'll get sense but it's like a multi-step process of challenges yes although I mean I can just take them if you all prefer I challenge them but the BCA does have the power to just say you're removed okay so the minutes can reflect that it's been reviewed by the Board of Civil Authority we're going to be so happy at Secretary State well we want them to be happy all right we have reports on three properties Atchison star and Morse and we have Atchison up listed first so who wants to tell us about that Salar Marietta carry it's not there is a Mr. Atchison do you want to come up to the table and we're going to ask him to go first because of the no no he should get their response to the report as far as the rules and procedure bill and Marty should be available for questions and such too so think no think he's with us Marty so the main dispute really was not to the condition of the structure but to the really the ratio of the structure to the lot size and we simply found that the land evaluation is independent of the structure so we didn't see the validity of that ratio so bottom line a lot's a lot and the fact that it might be a tenth of an acre hundred of an acre more or less as long as it's a lot for that one property doesn't make a significant difference in the value of the property yes basically and we we checked the calculation that was done based on the lot schedule the value of the full acre lot schedule and then the percentage that the land was given in the property card and found it to be in in line with with those values and I think it will Mr. Atchison had an opportunity just because of the we got our sequence out of order and he resubmitted some information gave us a chart about that was very complete and impressive we had understood the argument that that the that was being made which is that the land should be value should be proportional to the properties coverage of the lot and we essentially did not agree with that we looked at the the land value separate from the house and felt that our assessment that the assessor's assessment was appropriate for for that we understood the argument had considered it and agreed with the assessor's evaluation of of of that thank you for having me back here I appreciate the opportunity and I guess I'm not you know in terms of the data I presented it shows pretty clearly that our land value per square foot is very high relative to all the comparables whether they were the ones in my original sample or the ones to the six that Marty identified to and that's what the graphs show you know they show that that that our property is an hour is an hour liar when you look at it on a per square foot basis so I guess I'm you know I it's the assess value that gives us our data to be able to do that of course we don't know and we're not going to be able to know how a sale breaks down into you know component parts but in terms of the the assess values they're supposed to reflect the market price and when we look at those and you know our property is an hour liar and not only that but it's also the ones that are similar where there's basically what their ratio is about it says you know how much land is there how big is your plot relative to the sites of building you know it's a not numeric value but really it comes down to that is how what is the footprint of your building relative to the land and ours is very small and the ones in Marty's sample and in our larger sample we're you know reflect that show that same tendency so when you have a small acreage then you know that's it seems to be a biases built into the assessors model and their methodology and I'm not this is not I'm not this is not criticism at all of Marty it is you know and it is about the the modeling that goes on and I have worked with a lot of models is my prep it's part of my profession and I built computer models so I'm no you know I conceive things I work with data and I'm sensitive to those kind of things so that's what my what our graphs are about are trying to isolate that effect that I saw in the data and on this most recent one that I said these focuses on Marty's comparable I first want to apologize for the size of the table data that you know I wanted to get it in there but it's not but I'm I wanted to get the data in there but it's not what I wanted people to focus on I wanted the graphs of what you should look at and the data there in the in the small type in the table is just its backup to show you where all the numbers came from thanks any members of the board have any questions of either the report or the taxpayer or any discussion chair would entertain a motion that we accept the quarter of over 12th Street in a discussion all those in favor signify by saying aye any opposed okay thank you thank you for coming in thanks thanks for all the work you put it to this all right next up we have have the star report four and a half Sibley Avenue should announce who can vote on this okay so we're doing star you said yes so the following people will be able to vote on this one and if I don't read your name I think I think it's probably everybody that's here but if I don't read your name you cannot vote on this one because you weren't here that meeting Jack Tim Mark Sal Kim Mary Sarah Rosie Bob oh you're all here you're right so I don't think anybody that I don't think anybody's not here I think it's the same crowd looks like you all are hardcore yeah so Bob or Sal who wants to talk about this one this is what's dark go for it Bob yeah we visited the property and it's a pretty unique property it's more to have properties basically landlock property has it hasn't been lifted since 2012 there's blockage to get into the property because of a fence that was put up there's a right away that's shared by three properties actually is shared by four six or four and a half and the property is in our opinion be almost impossible to get it up to any local condition at this point it doesn't have any water and basically the building is falling down the side of the hill is falling down and we carefully went inside the property which was actually I thought pretty dangerous to go in there it was it was difficult to walk through the property managed to somehow make the stairs into the second floor and we think the properties getting this right pretty much of a fiber hazard to be at this point is no access there the original assessment had a 95.5% appreciation on the building itself we looked at that building even 95 wasn't high enough for the condition of this building it's going to take something to it's if it's possible to have a negative value we also looked at the lot itself and on the lot the lot had adjustments for both the access and location of it because of easements and the originally it looked like they took off on the land chart they used a higher value on the land and we determined that the on the land charts should have been an EF code which is a fair condition instead of an average condition so it brought the base value down to begin with the 71,500 and then we made adjustments for the location in the easement we took off another 30% and we came up with a land value of $50,050 and on the house value we brought the house value down to $2,100 so we had the assessment reduced to $52,100. I don't know if you have the answers to all of them but one of them is I was trying to figure out from from the map and everything does the does the fence go onto the driveway at all or is the driveway at least theoretically open all the way to this property because it's not paved right it's not what not paved the driveway yeah it is okay yeah it's the property boundary I believe is shown in Marty's diagram as being like 64 feet roughly on the back and Mr. Star described the wall as being 60 feet so my guess is that we didn't measure it but it stops right at the edge it stops not so much at the edge of it stops four feet in from the edge of the property which is half of the easement easements half on number four and half on number six four feet on each side and is it possible to get the car out of there you could lift it straight up you could excavate a good portion of the top of the hill there which may not actually be the appellant's property I don't know where it where that line starts and stops it's it'd be very hard to get it out of there so he must have left the car park there when the fence was being built before according to his document he when he found out that he had to move the car off the neighbor's property he dug out the hillside and moved it over he didn't he claims he didn't know that the owner had a permit to build the fence mm-hmm okay so the fence was built without his having an opportunity to move the car you can just tow the car out into the right of way and then tow it to the junkyard well you you can't the fence went up there's no way to you'd have to tow it at right angles it there's no way to get a tow truck it's parked at right angles to the right way so you'd have to pull it out this way and there's no way to do that without creating some sort of pivot point that pulls it straight out or you'd have to dismantle the corner of the fence it would be buried in that it's just one element or just mental the car I suppose you could take the car apart I have one other question yeah good do that it sounds to me like the house is valueless the house is valueless it's actually the cost of removing that the land can't be used unless you tear the house down and get it out of there so I think your land value is too high it should be reduced by the cost of removing the house and getting all the trash out of there well we reduce the land by twice one for the category and then again for not being able to get in there but it has something to get in there the house is a liability on it yeah that's why the house is valued at $2,000 but the land has value the land has value it seems to me and there is a right of way to it and if you got rid of the house you might actually be able to build the well actually theoretically yes you know you have a lot back there the problem is the easement overlaps the driveway so I just came by the lot on the way here and there's a car parked in the driveway I don't know which house it belongs to but that's likely to be the case because the driveway is shared by two structures plus an easement generally an easement is off to one side of a driveway so that it provides access and at all times this this doesn't provide access at all times it's it's access subject to the whims of of the neighboring houses clearly would violate the right of way mm-hmm yeah I've owned two houses that have been on this kind of shared driveway situation and it was a pain but nobody parked it in the driveway to block out the other people who use the driveway or in any Mary well I I understand the potential development costs that would be associated with trying to do something there but there may but I have a hard time saying that the land should be devalued because of that because there may be other reasons that land is valuable say to the adjoining property owners you could sell the property to them and they may have a use so I have a hard time saying it the land has zero value or a substantially reduced amount of value because strikes me that adjacent property owners people would like to have a place to park their car could find value in in that yeah really expensive to you know remediate the lot essentially but that feels like it's getting way beyond what we know and hard to evaluate what it ought to be so I can be comfortable with what the committee is reporting well let me just add that the property is from the from the point of the fence there is probably well at the at the at the structure there's maybe seven feet to the foundation and then the structure is there and there's a there's a basement and behind the house there's a retaining wall that the city built it's holding a very steep hill but on either side of the structure the hill the hill goes up immediately from the fence so it's it's extremely sloped from the back from this from the southern boundary anybody else okay you have a motion to approve it I move that we accept the report of any further discussion all those in favor signify by saying aye any oppose okay and finally we have Morse and this is the same crowd except Bob you cannot vote on this one but other than that looks like it's all oh and Sarah you cannot vote on this one either and the committee here was me Donna and Lauren and Lauren's not here so Donna you want to those houses that really diminishes the property value but we did not take that incineration totally we didn't wipe out the value the house is really uninhabitable and we also went into it with prepidation and so the the whole point is really that we feel like you can't even get in the front door there's a tree there as well and then once you get in everything is very much in the stage of a lot of mold and having been redone they took a kitchen out and everything's like unsettled there's what was the kitchen is now a bedroom and what is the kitchen has all this temporary fixtures and the basement is a total mess it's hard to get up the steps because there's lacking the first two up to the second floor and then it's a very narrow everything about it is just the house we really reduce the value of the house is what we did and yes well just and the structure is being held up by poles out back that go the beam that goes across I wish I knew what the terms were the main beam of holding the roof up and so we looked at that and we felt that it wasn't reduced enough and we compared it to the other properties that was on the chart and it's just worlds away from where they are and just the location itself is very hard and the lot value so that's why we got to the 5750 the land itself is 47,000 we put in like 10,000 for the house so you all have another sheet because the house just sold so I thought you all might want to have copies I just made copies of the property tax transfer the yes sold sold for 50 yeah right that sold for 50,000 so any discussion all those in favor signal by saying aye all those opposed yeah really want to get rid of it is so sad to see property just let and I don't think we have anything else we need to do tonight so at 703 we can recess that means we're meeting some other time