 According to my cell phone company at 632 so I think we can start and so recall the meeting order and Mr. Clerk could you tell us just that yes so for those of you who have not heard Mr. Goldman has withdrawn his appeals on his four properties that's as of about 3.30 today so surprise that sort of changes the nature of the meeting a little bit so we'll just have Marty's report about Down Street and then we've got Mr. Krusman to speak as a response to the report that he received he wants to be able to respond to it okay it's gonna be it so so Marty you're up everybody remembers the Down Street properties there are 15 of them that was punted back to me I've gone back and forth with the state there's been four or five different people that I've spoken to on the second page there is a worksheet gives the property addresses the the amount per valuation worksheet submitted per property the first column on the left hand side those are the values of each individual property as submitted by Down Street next column is formal reappraisal received those are the numbers that the reappraisal contractor came up with and then the differences on the right hand side so as you can see down at the bottom right hand corner there's a difference of a million five sixty seven four ninety eight back on the first page the reappraisal contractor had concerns with four different expenses the expenses were signed off by an independent CPA firm and verified by the state of Vermont property valuation and review employee as being legitimate real estate expenses if you remember what they were the first one was a software a specialized software that they have to use for subsidized housing the second fee is a credit card fee which is used for tenants to be able to pay their rent if anybody's paid their parking ticket my clear online there's a five dollar fee that fee is included in the subsidized housing so that folks can pay their rent by credit card the other is a is training fees which you have to train the people because these these are all HUD subsidized homes the programs are changing constantly so the the staff needs to be trained on how to do this so it's my recommendation that we accept the proposed values in the first column under amount per valuation worksheet submitted and you will as I said before you'll see there there will be a difference of a million five the third page also of all the properties yes in aggregate of all the third page is a the state of Vermont has a an Excel spreadsheet it's pretty pretty simple you plug in how many units there are this is just a sample of one of the units it tells you what it's worth so there was no discrepancy on the income for all of the properties it was the four expenses that the reappraisal contractor had an issue with those have all been verified by a CPA and by the state. The way that they were figuring the cap rate is all it's it's been determined that it was done properly. Yeah, any other questions. Okay, so if I'm reading this right so is the is the assessment on one unit at 34 Main Street or is it for the 18 units? 21 Heber. Oh, that's okay that one. Yeah, that is so down the bottom right hand corner give a listed value. This is just an example of 296 that's for the French block apartments that's for all of them for all the 18. Yes, it says you get two at the top. What's that? Condo, right? So Abishan hardware. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Wow. Yeah, that was the pilot from the state. But then we get from this guy. Yeah. We get a lot from the state. I am to this is this is all the legislature passed in previous I mean years ago and that's why this worksheet in the back is tied into the legislative legislation. I think it's called acts. You might remember. I don't remember the number acts something. But this is all based on the HUD numbers that the state came up with. It's appropriate for us to make a city council because we're here to would be talking to our legislators about revising this. This is really not. Well, I assume that the reasoning is that this is this is a policy decision by the legislature to encourage investment in a subsidized housing by suppressing the taxes they're paying, right? I charge lower rents than they do. I have good affordliness in town and I don't get any free. Nope. Well, I hear you. It's a conversation we need to have. I agree. Mary. Since we seem to be having a general conversation, I think it would be wise to point out to our reps and ask them to talk with ways and means about the consequence of this because I agree. And I personally totally support figuring out how to create as much of the sort of housing as possible. But I suspect that people may not realize what a cost shift it is to municipalities. I mean, look at this chart goes, whoa. Yeah. It would be hard to find a single family home. I think one of the best one of the best people to talk to would be John Davis, who came to the senior center for the grievance hearing. He seems to be an he or he is an expert on the way this program works. I think he would be a good one to maybe come in front of the council one day. I can try to facilitate that if there's a need for it. It might make everybody feel better to understand how this works. I think we understand how it works. I think the problem is that we're I'm agreeing with Tim and with Mary that this is a really enormous cost for the city to have to bear. I'm also very supportive of what the legislature was trying to do and provide incentives. But I'm not sure that the math was done to understand that you're asking municipalities to actually put this bill rather than the state. It seems like if the state wants to subsidize this, then they should. And it may be so old that it hasn't been updated. I don't think so. It's a good conversation to have for the council because it seems like our hands are tied, but there's going to be more of a need for it. It's not going away, so it would be good for the council to understand it. Yeah, because we're going to try to develop more subsidized housing. I mean, and maybe this policy remains the way it is, but whoever said more pilot. So there is a way of bringing money into the communities that choose to step up and support people in this way, but bring more money in. So it's not such a cost ship. Particularly since your pilot, our pilot payments are going to be kept. One of the things that is a concern to me is that, not just in Montpelier, but other municipalities, this is a real disincentive to approve other housing, right? I don't understand what the consequences are. I mean, because how can you say no, we don't want more low income housing? And then when you look at this, you say, so how are we going to pay for it? Yep. These guys at hearings permitting their property say, can we pay taxes? They're like, now that I know what you're paying. Yeah. Really? Yeah. All right. Well, that's something we could put on our work list. Thank you. We'll be talking to our legislators. So the chair would accept a motion to approve this. Is there a second? I think Rosie has a question. Oh, Rosie. I just wanted to ask the process. Because Marty has talked with us, this still needs to be accepted by us, right? Yes. So I will second. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye with a heavy heart. Any opposed? I'll say no. It just doesn't sit right with you. No, I don't. I agree. It doesn't sit with any of us, I think. This is why it took me three months to get to the bottom of it. You know, it's not something I took lightly. It had a lot of conversations within the state. And they basically said, this is what the legislature wants. Hmm. Does the phrase unfunded mandate ring a bell? Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Marty. Next up, we have Mr. Kruseman. And we're starting with the report, right? Or we're starting with having Mr. Kruseman testify? We're going to start with the report. Okay. And so the report comes from Carrie Bob and Mark. So I don't know. Is that when we were emailing? Yeah. It would have been sent out. And I had some other copies, too, if somebody didn't bring them. Let me take your copy. Okay. No, wait a minute. Here we go. I have quite a few. Thank you. Go. Pass them all around. Pass them all around. Okay. Let me see if we run out. Get them going. So Carrie or Mark, who wants to guide us through this? Oh, and just informationally, everybody can vote on this one, except for Sarah, because she wasn't here for the... Oh, Mary. You weren't here either, were you? Okay. Okay. Okay. This is 45 Terrace Street. And Mark and I inspected the property. This is a three-unit house on a fairly large lot. There's a... Let me see. It's a one-bedroom, one-two bedroom, and one studio apartment. And it's in really nice condition. Very nice place. We looked at the accuracy of the information. None of the accuracy was in dispute. We looked at the comparable sales, and we found that the per-unit price was right around in the middle of the comparable sales. We looked at the equity comparables that the assessor provided. Same thing. It was right around in the middle. And then we looked at one that the appellant had provided, which was one other property, 32 Luma Street. And the per-unit cost there was a little bit lower than the appellant property, but not significantly instilled within that same range. So we felt like the case had not been made to reduce the assessment, and so our recommendation is to maintain the current assessment. Any questions before we get from the taxpayer? All right. Oh, you're up. So I sent in my dispute. Was that shared with everyone? Yeah. Okay. So my dispute is that the comparable sales aren't comparable. They range from 1,000 to 2,500 square feet larger than my property, all of them. They all have two to five more bedrooms than my property. They have four to eight more rooms. And if you know anything about rental markets, it's all about bedrooms and square footage. And one of the comparable sales, Six Woodrow Avenue, according to the tax records, is actually a single-family home, not a multi-unit dwelling. So I think my property should not fall in the middle of all of them if it's significantly less, has significantly fewer bedrooms, and significantly fewer rooms from a rental perspective. So my rebuttal is I should be at the low end, if not below the low end, and the comparable sale I provided is actually very similar in terms of number of bedrooms, number of square foot, and number of total rooms. So I would ask you to reconsider where I fall in that range of those comparable sales. Okay, thanks. Anyone have any questions for the taxpayer? Okay, thanks for coming in. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the report? Is there a second? I'll second it. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? So may I ask what my next, yes, what's available to me as the next line of discussion? Yeah, there are two avenues of appeal. One is to the tax department, the other is to superior court. And how do they work? There will be detail on the report I sent to you, but one of them, in both cases, you just bring a letter to me, and if you're appealing to the division evaluation, it's a $70 check to them. And if you're appealing to superior court, it's a $295 fee for each parcel, yeah. Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks. Do we have anything else? All right. Well, at 6.45, we'll be in recess. Right, next time senior center. Oh, is it next week, John? Yeah, are we meeting next week? Yes. Yeah. So, Mark and Rosie, you should talk about schedule, because I got some information. And I expect we'll have a call. Process. I could feel so bad that we don't have any questions. Move somebody. This feels like they've asked for consideration. Well, but now we don't have this. I don't feel the same way. So just so you know, Donna, everyone that's been here, they've already come through an informal process. They've met with the appraisal contractors. No, I'm just saying, like I have also spoken to them. Carpenter, I spent hours talking to her. I spent a lot of time with everyone that's been here so far. I really appreciate that. No, I'm not trying to brag. I'm just saying that they have, and anytime they call, I answer any question they have. I email off any information they need. So it's not a cold process. I spend a lot of time. This steps here. I agree. I want people to come away from this. Do we need to come back in if we're going to discuss the process? We formally recessed, so I just want to make sure. That's true. Recessed. Let's come out of recess. Recess. Maybe it's only me, but it's just, I really thought there was something. I want to be something to get it served. Statement. I agree. It feels awkward, but I don't know. I mean, it's just that's part of the process. Absolutely it is. Yeah. I always want to make people feel that they've been heard, that they've had a complete opportunity to say everything they're going to say. And so some of the appeals have gone. And we shot for 15 minutes a case from the beginning, but we've certainly gone over on a number of them that people aren't done, and I don't want to cut people off. It just seems like, even like, even if there's no questions, everyone has read your file ahead of Tommy's comeback error. We've considered this, but as you can see, they're finally agreed with the committee. Just some little transitional statement on this. That's a good suggestion, I think, yeah. We're learning through this. Yeah. Anyone else want to address this before we pack up and go home? Okay. We're in recess again.