 We are able to call the meeting to order, so we are continuing on with the hearing that was commenced on September 21st, and we have, I think, three appellants before us today. First one being Carl Hammer. I should ask, does everybody have the rules of procedure, and did everybody get the materials that were sent out today? Yes. Great. And I actually think I'm missing the latest in discussion about the changes that were proposed. So how, I don't know how that, I'm not sure the changes. Change. The consolidation of 1860 and 1996. Oh, the record card. So I haven't sent that to you because it's not official until errors and emissions at the end of the year. Okay, procedurally I don't understand how it comes in here at this point. Okay. If you did. Okay. I don't think I have the materials with me, so if you have an extra set. Oh, I have that from this point. Is there something else? Okay. There's one about 1860 that I haven't seen. Great. Okay. So Mr. Hammer, I'll start off by asking you to raise your right hand. Do you solemnly affirm, subject to the pains and penalties of perjury, the testimony you're about to give, be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Very well. So what did we say? We're having the assessor start. Yeah. Okay. That's fine. Well, I'll actually have you sworn in too. You solemnly affirm testimony you're about to give the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. All right. So first property is 1860 Main Street was purchased by Carl Hammer. The grand list value currently is 324.8 as set by the reappraisal contractor. On the sheet it describes the property, it's a 29-acre lot, slightly sloping, and a traffic average neighborhood. We talked about that a little bit over the last couple of meetings. It's a little old, it has a little old house built in 1932. The home is rated as fair. The reappraiser contractor did get, at least poked his head in and talked to the, there is a tenant there in the home. The home is heated with a propane-fired wall heater. It's graved in sea for an average quality build. The one comp that I can find, because it is sort of a unique property, it's a small house with a large lot. The first one on there is 2900 Allen Street. That one sold for $400,000. Breaks down to $240 a square foot. The subject property is assessed at $284 a square foot with 29 acres, so the difference in the lot size is going to be where that difference in square footage comes in. The second page contains the equity content as far as the assessments. The first one is an abutting property, 104 Gidney Place. It's a larger piece of land, it abuts the hammer property. The house is not habitated at the moment, and I don't think it could be. It's given a very poor condition. It's almost worthless, I'll say. That one comes in at $295 a square foot. Gould Hill Road is the second one that's comparable at $271 a square foot, similar size lot. The assessment on the subject, like I said, is at $282 a square foot. Now, Mr. Hammer purchased this property in 22, and per state statute, this should have been combined with his homestead in 1996, Main Street, so that's going to be handled through errors in emissions before the end of this year, and that's going to lower the assessment of 1860 to 195 by combining, the state's theory on this is when you combine two lots, it makes the per value of the land lower. Another thing Mr. Hammer mentioned is that there's a tenant in the property. We were not, the appraisal contractor wasn't given any information about any adverse possession claims by the tenant, and I don't know if the tenant is a squatter or a tenant at sufferance, that's going to be something for you guys to decide, I'm not a legal expert, but a squatter is someone that knowingly moves into an abandoned home, and is there for 15 years you can file an adverse possession claim, a tenant that suffers is someone who lived there at one point but won't leave, and they cannot file an adverse possession claim according to the state, and that's all we have on this property. Thanks. You're up. So on the 104 getting place, you said you would call that property almost worthless? The home. So that is a value of $336,000 in space on my equation? Yes. And there is also a positive view adjustment made to 104, it does have a better view, so there's a positive adjustment made to the land as well. Is this a property that could be subdivided? I'm sure it could be, I don't know for sure, I'm not a part of the zoning. Are you talking about Mr. Hammers? Yeah, the subject property. Oh, I don't see why it could, I don't know. Okay, thanks. Any other questions from members? This is $29.50. Correct. $29.6. What? $29.6. Yeah. Yeah. All right, Mr. Hammer. So, as background I bought it in July of 22, a settlement with an estate of $488,000, which was negotiated with the estate. The negotiation by that piece of land had been ongoing for about 28 years. And anyway, in the event we settled with the estate for that $188,000, which among other things required in the closing and settlement that I take accept responsibility for the adverse possession claim of the tenant in the house that I would hold the estate harmless. And so, the reappraisal to 300 somehow seemed quite extreme to me in terms of the values. The appraisal is supposed to be a fair market value assessment. And the tenant in the house has been there for almost 30 years and was asked to leave repeatedly over the period of time that she lives there now. And so, as I understand from law, she has a substantial claim to adverse possession. She has been an open notorious and hostile occupation of the premises for more than 15 years. So, I held the estate harmless for that value when I purchased the place. And that was part of the value determination and the negotiation to get to the $188,000. So, I question whether that place can, if Rosanna was properly represented, her rights are substantial at the minimum, the house and the house line acreage. So, that's... I had been under the misunderstanding that the actual transaction price was an important consideration if it was relatively recent. I've since heard that because it was in a budding piece of land and because it was not advertised in certain ways as being for sale, though there were, I mean, it was known that it was for sale, but the whole, it was a relatively... there were multiple beneficiaries in the estate that had it and some of them were certainly shopping it as it were to others. So, anyway, I believe at that point that it was a... that I had a reasonable claim that the real estate, as it currently exists, is not marketable as described without counting for the likely significant cost of settling the claim of that tenant. And I, well, I actually looked at the kidney place and thought the kidney place, I mean, it is in a budding place. But I thought that the land value there was substantially higher. It's much better land, much more usable land with better access and better views. So, I added that to my concern. The person who's living there, you and Marty both referred to her as a tenant. Do you know how she initially came to live on the property and what she thinks, what she says about her possession of the property? Yeah, I do. We were married and remained neighbors and co-parents. So, the house, the land was originally purchased by the now deceased prior owner with the intention of locating a co-housing project. And at the time interested and involved in that project, we, I think this was 1994, we walked over the land and made that Don aware that there were, while it was a kind of tertiary tillage hill farm in Vermont, it had substantial farming potential. And in the concept of the co-housing project that was proposed, we should, as we said at the time, find the footprint of the farm and build infrastructure for housing in such a way that it would support not damage the farming potential of the land. And we undertook at that time to start working that piece of land. We started to mold it, cloud it, fertilize parts of it, put some crops on it and started utilizing the house with a 2B ultimately defined leasehold. Anyway, going forward, a couple years in, no leasehold forthcoming, argument started about certain practices on the farm. November of 1996, we were asked to vacate the premises, which we did not do. At that moment, it got offered 1996 Main Street, the abutting. Actually, it had all been one farm once and it had. So I, at that time, we, at that time bought the abutting house barn at 1918.65 acres. And started to renovate the house so that it would be more habitable than some pretty rough shade still working on it. Anyway, at a certain point, I moved up to the 1996, but Rosanna stayed in 1860. And we roofed it, we insulated it, we did a lot of work on it. And periodically, Rosanna was asked to leave. But no, effectively. Removal happened. So, as I read adverse possession statute, she's clearly in the box. She's been in open, notorious, and hostile possession for well and excessive 15 years. It became an issue because I also had an adverse possession claim going to the land, which was part of the negotiation with the estate was lit. Whether we could achieve some settlement, short of litigation about my adverse possession and the event we did. And I paid the money and undertook the liability for Rosanna's adverse possession. Did that answer the question? It partly answered my question, yes. It's been a very long time since I studied this in law school, but my recollection is that the other element of adverse possession is that it be under a claim of right. Do you know if that's a part of Vermont law? That is not in Vermont statute. So it's really about the fact. Open, notorious, hostile. Meaning that, yeah, that it's explicitly without the permission of the owner. Or the record owner. Well, it does go back into English common law. And the right ownership is the right. It's a use right. God, king or republic, landowner. You have the responsibility to act as owner and protect and to use land. That's how we have to rise. Now I've got another question, which is that according, as I understand what the assessor said, that this property just in the normal operations of the work of the assessor, this property is about to be reassessed down to 195. And I don't quite understand how that works. But if that happens, is that something that you would be satisfied with? Yeah, it's really close to what I was thinking was an appropriate response to the facts. I've retained and didn't write about some concerns about the valuation on 1996. And overall, much of the land that we're talking about in the joint pieces is very challenging, unbuildable, legy, steep, et cetera. But I decided that in the scope of things, the appraisal was fair for the infrastructure on the upper portion, even though the grand list, as I understand it, went up about 35% overall. 1996 doubled, more than double in value. I'm not overwhelmed with feelings of joyful equity about that, either, which would be told. But you didn't appeal in 1997. Yeah, but I really felt strongly about the value of the 29 and a half acres. And it sounds like by whatever magic happened. It's basically the two acre building mark goes away. So when you take the two and combine them into one, you don't have that. It's still there. You still have that two acre building lot. It's you just tag separately on it. So that brings the assessed value down, if that makes sense. Would that go back to April 1st? Yes. Uh-huh. And so whatever Bill has gotten will be readjusted. Okay. Any other questions that anyone has? Well, is it your testimony that the value is $199.5? Yes. It will be corrected to that through errors and missions. And that's acceptable to you? Yeah, it kind of moots the point. I mean, 180 is close. But you know, this is, we keep missing the opportunity to make precedent about these things which have mostly not really been, this very, very little case law about adverse possession of a mark. Very little. I think, I mean, I did some research into it. And what it's going to come down to is how she initially established tenancy. That's going to decide whether she has a right to adverse possession of a mark. And again, I'm not a real estate lawyer. Where did that opinion come from? Because that's not in statute. It showed up when I was Googling what is... It came from the internet. Yeah, it's got to be tripped some years. So the question is really, is there a dispute here? I think we've, you know, I mean, I guess I could hold out for 188. Which is a proven arms length. John, does that mean you don't need an inspection or anything like that? I'm sorry, I didn't know that. That means you're not interested in inspections? Of the premises? That we're fine. I think we didn't, wasn't there one? Well, the assessment, yeah. But if you wanted to appeal the amount, then we'd send inspection to the amount. But if you're satisfied with the amount, I was going to make a motion to waive. Yeah, I don't, it really is a money question and ultimately not a justice question, I think. So we're all in this together, relatively. So yes, I would accept the massage to the valuation. I'll go forward and hope the city controls itself. 199. 195. And what's the... Errors and omissions. Oh, no, no, I'm sorry. What's the address? 1860. 1860. Okay, because I feel like to dot i's and cross t's since we're at this point. Yeah. We should formally waive. Inspection? Inspection. So I'm going to... Unless you choose to just drop the appeal. Yeah. Can you just drop the appeal? Yes. One outcome is to vote to change to 195 or the other outcome is that you drop the appeal. I understand. All right. Right. That's good. And the statute says that the appellant can drop the appeal at any time. Oh, sweet. Okay. Then I'm not going to say it. Is that the easiest thing if I drop the appeal? It is. All right. I'll drop the appeal. Okay. Well, thanks for coming in. This was very, very interesting to watch. Yeah. Do at least a couple of us, you know what I mean? Yeah. That was very interesting. Definitely a long short story. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Board of Civil Authority. And it's appropriate to leave here. Yes. Okay. Yeah, we don't make people sad. We hear the others. Yeah. Although some people do. I don't want to reveal. I don't want to reveal. Okay. Next up, we have Roger Preston. Is that you? Yes. All right. Great. Where did you miss him? Oh, he took his chair, didn't he? He took his chair. Okay. We've got chairs. Okay. So only firm subject to the pains and penalties of perjury testimony about to give me the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. All right. Next up is 45 Terrace Street. It is a multi-unit property. The current assessment as established by the Reaprise of Contracts for $487,100. The property owner did come to the informal meetings and data changes were made. No changes were made during the formal grievance period. The three-unit building is in a mid-good neighborhood. It is a home built in 18, around 1880s, three units with 2,620 square feet. The building is graded C plus as an average plus. It has good quality construction and is in good condition. So it's given very little depreciation at 16%. The property wasn't measured by the Reaprise of Contract from the exterior of the property. It did not gain interior access. And I believe that the first round, I think, there were data changes to the condition made in the informal meetings. Comparable sales are on the first page there. The first sale is the subject itself. It was purchased in August of 2020 at a sale price of $470,000, which breaks down to $157,000 per unit. And then there's five comparable properties, three and four unit buildings. They're anywhere from $120,000 to $180,000 per unit. When a sale happens in Montpelier, a sale verification letter is sent to the buyer. In this case, the buyer sent it back to my office and felt it was a good market, arms length transaction at the time. On the next page are the equity comps. Wait, are you saying the buyer said it was a arms length transaction? We send a verification letter to every purchaser of real estate in Montpelier. It was returned by the buyers stating that they felt it was an arms length transaction. Okay, gotcha. We have equity comps. We have similar neighborhoods. These are all taken from same made food neighborhoods. They are anywhere between $148,000 to $200,000 per unit. So I feel the sale of the subject itself, the equity comps, I think this is a fair assessment of $487,100. Okay, any questions from the members of the board? One of the things in the letter is disputing the number of bedrooms that you mentioned were made. No, should have been addressed first. If only we used the hell we made up for data errors and now it should have been corrected in the first round. And was it? Was it a bedroom question? Yeah, we have three bedrooms on the... Okay, then yeah, because it did say five. Yeah, okay. Is that an actual valuation at all? No. Square footage. Any other questions from members of the board before we go into the next room? Okay, Mr. Kressman. Can I have a copy of that? Of the terrible sales that we used? Yes, I've never seen that. There's one on the left. Thank you. So thank you, I appreciate the time. I remember signing the letter and I remember the question about was it a market sale, but I wanted to make sure everyone knew the reasons why we bought it. So it might impact the definition of a market sale. So my wife and I live next door. We own the adjacent property. It was in the middle of the pandemic. My mother-in-law lived in Virginia and we were looking for a place for her to buy. When did I buy it from you, Tim? 2022? For 20 years we have been talking to the neighbor about buying the adjacent property for multiple reasons. One is an investment property, but also because it has always been our belief that there is a lot in between the two properties that would add value to the ownership. And the only way you can create that third block is by owning the other two. The property was never put on the market as far as I know. We approached our neighbor. We said, what do you want for it? She gave us a number. We said, we will buy it. I mean, do I think it was a fair price? Yes, because I hate it. Do I think it's market value? Maybe, maybe not. Our purposes for buying it were driven by getting my mother-in-law to move up here and having the ability to create a third block and generate revenue out of that sale of that third block. So I was willing to pay more than anyone else was to a point to have those two benefits as the adjacent landowner. So I guess that's one thing I just wanted everyone to know. I haven't seen these comp sales, but I did do an analysis and found 48 other three-unit apartment buildings in Montpelier on the grand list. There might be 46 or 49. I did a Google, I mean, I did that Excel search as best I could. I don't know how the comp sales are done, but the three units in there, two are one bedrooms and one's an efficiency. So there's only a total of 10 rooms and there's really only two bedrooms. I know on efficiency you have to believe you have to say there's a bedroom in there. So that's why there's three. So it's a 10-room, two or three-bedroom unit. All of the other, the top 20 other three-bed, three-unit, three apartment building units all had anywhere from 11 to 20 rooms and all were five to nine bedrooms. So significantly more opportunity for income with multiple bedrooms. I think everyone knows that people don't rent based on square footage. They rent based on rooms and bedroom sizes. So the closest one I can find in terms of a comp is 32 Luma Street, which is a three apartment building which seems to have similar number of bedrooms and number of rooms and it's assessed at $473,200. So I guess I'm just asking the question of if the unit I own has smaller number of units, smaller number of, I'm small number of rooms, smaller number of bedrooms. We had different reasons why we bought it. Why aren't we more in line with something that's $15,000 less assessed value than the place we bought? Katie, I mean... Can you say again how many bedrooms are in the units? Well, legally I guess there's three. There's a one bed, there are two units or one bedroom each and one is an efficiency. So in your letter you said one is a two bedroom and one is a one bedroom. One is a one bedroom with a den that could be used as a second bedroom is currently being used as a one bedroom. But that goes to the total number of rooms. But even at four bedrooms it's still well below any of the other three unit apartment buildings that I looked at. And 32 Luma Street, do you know that your thinking is the best comparable? Just from looking at the tax card and it looked to seem that it had a similar number of rooms, a similar number of bedrooms and square footage, walking distance to Montpelier, those sorts of things. I can walk but it's a steep hill coming back up. Luma Street is a lot flatter getting downtown. Yeah, another thing to make that walk. Any other questions? If we're searching for comps that are off by $10,000 or $15,000 it's probably going to be a matter of condition. So when you look at 32 Luma Street look at the condition versus 45 Terrace. That's typically where you see the differences in the condition. Their home is rated as very little. Appreciation has been kept up really well. 32 Luma Street may have more depreciation so it's going to come in at a lower assessment. So it's typically where we see those differences. A question for the assessor. Between August of 2020 and April of 2023, how much do property values... Not assessed values but property values and sales go up in that year and a half. It's been steep. It's been 30, 40 percent. I still see them 30, 40 percent over assessment, some 50. It's not on the assessed value. Correct. And I want to clarify, make sure I understand what you're saying. When you said you thought there was a lot between the two houses. There's not a separate parcel of land now but because of the size of the yards you could steal a little bit from one, a little bit from the other to create a new building lot. I was told that originally there were three lots and that the original owners split it, the third lot split it down the middle and created two on Jordan Street. I don't have facts to that but there is definitely... So I did go down to the city planning department a couple years ago and had a conversation and the only reason I cannot create a third lot there right now is because I have three units on the apartment building property and the square footage does not allow me to create a fourth unit with... I basically have to take that property down to a two-unit property to create that middle lot or I could do a lot line adjustment and build a second structure on my primary residence but I couldn't subdivide it out. So right now it's a zoning square footage question is my understanding but there's probably people in this room who know much better than me. Okay. Does anyone else have any questions? Can we look at the... I think we agree that we can look at the property parts for any property and be curious to look at the property part for 32. Yeah. I can email that out to the board. Okay. I think the next step is to appoint a committee to go out and view the property and come up with a report. Could we ask if anyone wants an inspection? Well, I think the standard practice is there... I guess we have to. Yeah. We do. Yeah. Karen, you're one. I'm volunteering. Yup. Bob and Mark. Okay. Great. And do we have your contact information? There's on the list. Okay. So what's going to happen is the members of the committee will contact you to set up a viewing of the property. We'll look at the other at the comparables, and they'll issue a report with their opinion, and we'll come back here and talk about... and then we'll make a decision. Okay. I do not have an email address for you. Write it down. You got my name, right? That's the name at gmail.com. Okay. Okay. Don't forget the name, Roger. Okay. You are going to visit a cell phone. It's both e-mail because I have a hard time if you'll respond to messages like at the phone. All right. Thanks for coming in. You're up. Good to see you. It's been a while. How are you? Good. Are you going to have to present any testimony? Yeah. Okay. You and Jesse are going to be testifying also. You saw only a firm subject to the pain and penalties of perjury. The testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is excellent. Thank you. Dave, we're going to just do something real quick. Do you want to look for me? Do you want to make an exception? Yeah, let's... Yeah, I think the introduction may be worthwhile. First, yeah. My name is Elaine Murphy. I'm an attorney in Burlington. I'm a school attorney. I'm a lawmaker. I'm Jesse. Yeah. I know some of you. I don't know all of you. I'm Jesse Jacobs. My family and I have been working in investment middle school in Montpelio for some time now. So... My son doesn't work for you. I think he has. Who's your son? Ben Jean. You know, you and I have never met. We haven't, but Ben talks about you. So I think he is one of my good friends and then I've done a ton of work together. I'm going to... You're going to recuse yourself in this one? Yeah. Gotcha. Just when it comes to our program. Okay. So just by way of introduction, we sort of have two separate presentations to talk to you about. And I made copies of letters for all of you. We're going to pass them around this way. Right here, Steven. And some of the... Yeah. Yeah. So this first letter is just... we're raising a procedural question, which is that simply the statute requires that the BCA issue a notice of hearing to be held no more than 14 days after the last day of the appeal. So here the decisions of the listors were issued on August 16th, which made the last day of the appeal on August 30th by statute. They would have had to notice that they have a hearing no later than September 14th and that hearing notice for the BCA did not go out until September 7th and for beginning on the 21st. So we're raising a procedural issue whether you comply with a statute, which I have had some exchange of communications. There is an argument that because of the emergency that there was an allowable extension of deadlines. I don't think it applies because it only applies to licenses, permits, programs, and plans. And this is not one of those. And then there's also a question about municipalities extending specific deadlines for if you're over 5,000 for 50 days. And that doesn't apply to this particular issue because that is really with the filing of the grand list. You'll see I refer to a case that just came in 2020, just came down from the Vermont Supreme Court written by Beth Robinson who in that case says that there are some deadlines that are suggested but not mandatory, but she specifically talks about the deadline for the BCA and the notice for the 14 days being mandatory. So with that said, I've submitted this letter. Certainly you can look at it and consult about it. But we also want to make our presentation as well. Well, let me just ask you one question. I know I don't think anybody wants to spend a lot of time in legal arguments here. But the question that occurred to me was if you were able to find any cases that define what substantially complied means. No, you... This man is obviously a very competent and bright lawyer who focused right on the important issue, which is what is substantially complied mean? There isn't. And the question is if it was a day, would that be substantial? Is seven days insubstantial? I did not find any case. At least in the tax context and I frankly didn't have time to look outside the tax context to determine what substantial compliance is. But that's why we decided that we'd also make a presentation on the values as well. Okay, thanks. Okay. So before we talk about your private individual values, I would give you another letter to put into your letter. So this is a letter outlining some background on the fair market value of the law. I'll talk about that first and then we'll... Just in a generalized sense. I think there are two letters. Did I put the letters backwards? No. So the big picture, as you know, is in any appraisal, the issue is... Are people saying that they look the same? No, they look the same. I apologize, but they are different letters. One addresses the procedural issue and the other addresses in general. And that is... What is an assessment supposed to apply? It's supposed to take a snapshot as of April 1st, a magic time saying what on April 1st would a willing buyer buy a property from a willing seller assuming that there was no requirement to sell or requirement to buy? So what would it be in an open marketplace? And I know you've dealt with a lot of residential properties, but when you come to commercial properties, the issue is it's an investment. And the question is when you have somebody buying a commercial property, they are looking at what are they going to buy that property for and get a return on their investment. Generally, what a buyer does is look at the income and expenses and then they determine what rate of return they're going to get. You know, if there are several examples if you were going to buy a property for $100,000 and you wanted an 8% return on that property, you would want to have an income of $8,000 after you pay over your income expenses. And that's how commercial properties are purchased. Now, one of the issues that we deal with is it's a timing issue. It's an issue of what is the particular time when people are investing. And you have, you know, the town obviously hires this appraisal company. They come in and they do a chart. Where's that little chart? They have a very simple chart that they use in determining what they come up with values. And, you know, this came from them. It gives a value of what a studio, the square footage of what banks, manufacturing office, restaurants should be. And then they give an expense ratio of what they think expenses should be. And then they multiply that by what's called a capitalization rate. A capitalization rate is the rate of return that somebody is expecting to get in the vessel. The issue that we have here and why there are so many properties that we're looking at is the appraisal company are coming in and looking at this in a generalized way and they're looking backwards. So last summer, 2022, when they were putting over their work together, they're looking at properties that have sold in early 22, in 21, in 20. And they're using that material to project what a property would have sold on April 1st of 2023. I've done this for 40 years and I represent a lot of purchasers and a lot of developers. And what I have found is, effectively these appraisal companies are always looking backwards. They're looking at what did something sell for before versus a developer or purchaser or an investor is going to look at, what am I going to get in the future? Because what do I put my money into? And as we know, there has been an absolute sea change in properties in the last few years. In 2021, 22, 2021 and early 22, interest rates were 3-4%. Bond rates were zero. Anybody who had money in a bank account or an investment was getting very little on that money. So what, when people invested in real estate at that time, they were looking at the comparable investments they could get in interest rates and in bonds and they would add to that. Because when you buy real estate versus buying and getting a bond, you're taking on more risk. It's illiquid. It has subject to possibility of damage. You get maintenance. You get a lot of unexpected expenses. So traditionally, what people have looked at is the difference between a money market rate and investment in real estate. They want 5% more because of that investment that they're making is riskier and it's illiquid. So now come to April 1st of this year. April 1st of this year, bonds were paying 4%. Interest rates were paying 6.5%. There had been a sea change today. There were bonds were paying 5%. So the question is, if you have an investor as of April 1st looking at a building in Montpelier that's an apartment building or a mixed apartment office building or a mixed apartment restaurant building, what are they going to pay in terms of getting a rate of return from their money when they can be looking at a market where they were paying that 4% for guaranteed investment and no profit. They're going to pay a lot less. They're going to want an investment return higher. So in this case, what the appraisal company did, they used as a rate of return, ranging a number between 6.29% for apartments and 7.79% for a mixed restaurant and apartment building because those are more risky. So we believe that those rates that they did, that multiplier that they did, was much too low by April 1st, 2023. And that doesn't even take into account something that is the elephant in the room which was that anybody investing in Montpelier in April of 2023 would have known that in the last 15 years there have been in this downtown probably street flood properties. And the additional risk of that, they would take into account. Now, next April 1st, the amount of risk that somebody will take into account will obviously be much higher because now there's been a third one and a much more severe one. So what we've done is we've tried to do a couple of things to try to make this more realistic. And that is first, instead of projecting for the projected incomes based upon a chart, we looked at the exact income that each property got for the last three years and averaged it. And if there were vacancies, we projected what those vacancies should get because there are some vacancies and those will be explained. And then we put in the real expenses of the property. And then that comes up without a net income. And then we propose a very conservative but still a higher cap rate of 7.75 for apartments, 8% for mixed office apartments and 8.25% for a mixed office and restaurant. So those multipliers then came up with a different number. But to be conservative, we then took those numbers, took our income and expenses and multiplied by what the appraiser had put in, this 6.19 to 7.75 and came up with a value and then we averaged them to be conservative. So I'm going to give you some charts now. I'm sorry, but we need to give you some background of how we're trying to approach these properties because they're important properties. They are all properties that are commercial and investment properties. And so what we've done is put all of the income and expenses on this chart and then use our multipliers and we will be glad to share the actual income and expenses for every property with the assessor so that they can confirm but we're asking them obviously to be confidential. Any of the materials we're giving you now is public and we just don't want all of the details to be available so we'll pass them on. So with that, on the other hand, Jesse, we can then proceed property by property to discuss them. Does that make sense? Yeah, we typically do here from Marty. Marty suggested that it would make sense to get the overview from Liam because this is a different... I'm sure I made 20 copies. I think if you want to come around here. I know people are watching. I'd like to just bring your response. Yeah. It's too complicated. Yes. We need one more up here from... So I made 20 copies. So, yeah, proceed on property by property. So the order we have them in is the order that I'm going to go in and the first one we have is 15 Dairy Street. Let's look for that. So the way that we... the way that the City Company reappraised the contractor came up with values is we did send out information to all commercial and apartment owners to get expenses. So the expenses that we have on these properties are derived from actual income and expense requests. 15 Dairy Street, we've come it out to four other similar properties. We're breaking it down first-square foot on that first page at $121 per square foot of the assessed value. And that's falling right in line with the first... with the four comps of State Street, Langdon, Maine, and another one on Dairy Street. These are all similar properties. Similar properties that have sold within that April 20 to April 23 timeframe. 100 Main Street is probably most similar because it's a mixed residential restaurant used similar to Dairy Street. On the second page, there's some general income approach information which is very generalized until you get down to the subject property itself, the income, the vacancy, the expenses. That gives you a value of $583,000 versus the assessment of $568,500. And again, the equity comps on the next page. The subject at 15 Dairy Street at $121 per square foot falls well within the range of these five other properties, six other properties, five other properties, I should say. So it appears that this one in the opinion of the assessor seems to be fairly assessed at $568,500. We should probably open each one of them up to questions so we don't blast right through them too fast. Lindsay. So, Bernie, I see you listed capitalization rate of 9.5 here, which is higher than what the account is saying that we're using. These are cap rates that were generated from actual income expense from all property owners that submitted information back in March when we requested it. So these are all current, these are current numbers. Is that more specific to this property or is this an average? This is going to be typical, typical numbers between 9.5 and 10%. Yeah, ma'am. To be fair, the trade and the assessment company, the mechanism company, when it does a capitalization rate, it excludes taxes from the expenses. So that then the, obviously then the expenses are lower and so what typically happens in these is the reason they do that is because the year that they're doing the appraisal, the tax rate is going to change and they make an assumption. So our charts reflect taking off the 2.21, 2.21 which ended up being your tax rate for this year to reduce the, to take out the taxes. Okay, so when they put 9%, we say that that's actually a 6.8, 6.9% gap rate. What was the percentage? 2.1, which is 2.2. 2.2. 2.1, I apologize. 2.21, which is your tax, new tax rate? Our taxes all out and remember, it's a special proposal. What are taxes? Is it not taxes? Not typically. Well then, you know, if you don't count the taxes, you'll have a higher cap rate. We just put the lower, we include the taxes and then put a lower capitalization rate to reflect that. It's the same thing. It's either 9% including taxes or 6.79% without taxes. It ends up being the same effect. Then your number should be the same as ours then. Yeah. No, no, no. If we were in agreement about the cap rate. What you said, one or the other. No, no, and when we, in the column that we put in here, where we put in the lower cap rate, we just assume it's 2.21% less. Right, so in, actually everybody has, everyone has a copy of the spreadsheet with all of the properties on it. The city assessor cap rate, it's column one, two, three, four, five. It's column six here. If you are to add in the tax rate for this year, 2.21, that will equalize to the rate that Marty is talking about. I was looking at Marty's summary. So, one of the taxes on this column, average tax. 15 tax. 5, 6, 8, 9, 9, 10. Proposed 10, 12, 6, 6, 9, 9, 10. No, no, no, the taxes, no. Just the average taxes. Okay. The average taxes for this program. Okay, it's 15 there, right? 15. What was the tax that you paid last year? 11,540. So, the explanation is, if you look on page two, they haven't met in about 55,000 between 83,000. But that doesn't include payment of taxes of 11,000. 545,000. So, if you were to, if we were to leave the taxes in, then 9.5% is fine because your net income is more. What we did is take the taxes out as an expense, which means that just 44,000, but you reduce the capitalization rate by 2.21% and the multiplier effectively will end up being the same. It's just a matter of how you approach the taxes. I think the important thing to say is as, when somebody is looking to purchase property, they look at the taxes as an expense, which is why we are looking at the capitalization rates with the taxes included as an expense. We have built the tax rate back in to the capitalization rate to account for how the methodology of the assessor is working here. Are we... We're confusing everyone. No? So, then, you know, it's important to understand what capitalization was. If you were to look at this part by $55,000, what the question is, is what would you spend on the property in order to get a 9.5% return to get $55,000 in your pocket? That's how they did the calculation. And that's how they come up with... I don't know if you want to do the math. That's why they come up with $568,000. Because if you bought something for $568,000 and you got a 9.5% return on that money, you would end up putting $55,384 in your pocket. The problem with that calculation is that you wouldn't have... Then you'd pay your taxes of $11,000, right? And then you'd have $44,000 in your pocket. All we said was, fine, what would it cost to get a 7.6... I'm doing my math wrong here. 6.79. 7.79, I think you said? No, 6.79. 2.21 off of 9.5 is... Yeah, 7.29. All we said is, if I bought a property and I wanted a 7.29% and I paid all my taxes, then I would have to buy it at the same amount. $568,000. But that's usually their calculation. Sorry, the calculations end up being the same amount. It's just, you know, all we've said is somebody's going to calculate the money that goes into their pocket. After they pay their taxes, not before they pay their taxes. So, we've got them a higher rate but then they're going to pay the taxes later. So, that's how we got there. But, you know, they end up being near to the same number if we agreed with the numbers. But the real issue here is the actual net income of these properties is what? At the average net income of 15 Berry Street over 2020, 2021, and 2022 is $30,978.17. Right. Thank you. So, we're saying they projected $55,000 not including their taxes, but if you take off the taxes, $44,000. So, they're projecting the projected numbers, but actual numbers that would give us. Well, we don't know where they came from. Well, the testimony is that it was based on an information request from the assessor to the property owner and the property owner. And the property owner reported certain numbers and that's what this is. Let's have a discussion about what goes into those expense numbers, because that may be obviously the difference is and we'll share this with the assessors. I've seen a couple of questions. Bob, you had your hand up are you set now or not? Well, the way people are hearing and giving you a portion of the projected income of the 583, so I don't know where you used the income approach they came with the 583,000. Uh-huh. They didn't accept that if they use the other method which was comparable to that. Thank you. Do you have a question too? Just to help me remember isn't this similar to something we've had in the past where what they're saying is expenses and what the assessor counts as reasonable expenses aren't the same? So that was an Act 78 question and they were trying to they were using various unaccounted works. That's different. That is the question to answer which was so there were assumptions they used a generalized 3%, 5% vacancy we used a generalized 3% vacancy. They, we include an 8% management fee and a 3% 2.75% 2.75% capital reserve and those maybe the differences that result in a different calculation but again what we try to do in our calculations is what any person who is investing in commercial real estate could look at the income expenses for the last few years they would put in the actual expenses their vacancies they project what they might get from that if there were some upside potential in the property they would put that in and then they do a calculation rate and then they buy the property based upon that and that's what we're trying to understand and all of these we're very consistent in each case of putting in a management fee a vacancy rate a capital reserve and there's also two other approaches to value too what is it worth in the open market and where is the assessment as far as equity you know when you're doing city library appraises it has to be the three-prong test is the data accurate doesn't reflect market value which includes both of course and is it fairly assessed when compared to similar properties so and that's what these the breakdown of each one of these will show where they fall in line as far as that goes and Donna I think you have a question I just look back to numbers and so I really wanted to understand when you mentioned the grievance meeting was there any clarity of which party listing what they consider expensive to income all that information is collected in March and it was all I mean I don't think the income expense wasn't an issue at the time but they're using that as a big basis now so this is like new information yeah that's kind of new to me well there was a because as you know the appeal period that started and this started the week of the floods and well let's address that first I was just going to say that then the hearings were put off and we thought we would there was a miscommunication about when the hearings would be and we apparently didn't request a hearing and we thought we were going to get a notice so there was a hearing at the grievance at the listers just because there was a miscommunication of how of when that would be otherwise we would have presented all this information at that time so after the flood we were right in the middle of a second week of grievance I contacted Carl Andier who was a staff attorney of the LCT and he sent to me during a state of emergency declared that this chapter of municipal corporation may extend any statutory deadline applicable to municipal corporations so we were well within our right to extend I also think it's the humane thing to do when people are trying to shovel out their basements of mud to extend two weeks we met every statutory deadline notices went now as they were required to they went out as a matter of fact you guys came to the formal grievance we still met the September 14th deadline to file the brain list we have not missed a deadline and we were well advised by the LCT and the city's staff attorney that we were well within our right to extend the grievance period I'm just saying I had a miscommunication about when the hearing would be and that's why we didn't everybody else got them I don't understand the taxpayer to say that we did something wrong I think he's just trying to answer Donna's question which is why are we coming why are we faced with these numbers now when that's the kind of thing that we might have expected to be thrashed out of the grievance process I just looked at the email today I wrote you on August 16th saying hey when are we having the hearing and you were back you missed it and we're issuing the decisions today and that was my I hadn't checked in I'm not blaming that at all there was a miscommunication I thought we I really didn't notice and we did and that's just why we didn't I'm not blaming the city at all on that I'm just saying it didn't happen because there was a miscommunication okay thanks question for Marty we see two approaches here an income approach and a repair of the sales approach requirements to weigh one or the other it seems like all your assessments come out to the comparison approach we're going to find there's two properties in there that I think were over assessed and that's going to be based on the equity comps so if they all fall in line then there's no precedence to rely on one or the other but at the end of the day it has to be equitable everyone has to be treated fairly so I tend to lean more towards the equity the equity comparisons okay may I just comment but the the the assessors didn't do that they based upon not on comparables but on that's projected they projected the income gave it a cap rate and multiplied that out we're I mean we're giving you the information we think that the expenses the net income was a lot less than that they had and if you've heard that we think the cap rate was too high and if I can be clear I haven't had to have a chance to read your thing yet but would you say that for each one of these appeals the difference between where you are and where the assessment assessor is comes down to vacancy and management as expenses or are there other factors for some of the properties I mean I think the answer to I'm not entirely sure the expenses are the assessor is using specifically here I know that all of these expenses have been averaged over the last three years and that's where we came up with the net income figures that we are using on the spreadsheet that we passed out to everyone here and in order to get to those values we took that net income and multiplied it by the capitalization rate that we believe to be equitable and so it's your testimony that you would offer this chart as an exhibit as accurately reflecting each of the figures in here including your expenses and this chart yeah okay next up 96 Berry Street real crazy company set a value of $674,900 it's another multi unit building with seven residential units with $6,305 square feet total with these the importance is like I said before this building is being a good average plus for quality it's an average condition it was a detached cottage which is rated as fair so it's not giving a great value it's comped out to six sales of larger buildings and they are selling between $91,000 $200,000 per unit that three to five seater street is a very nice building so that's it just gives you the really ceiling of the of the per unit value is that the new one yeah so the subject being assessed at $96,000 per unit falls in line with the $98,137 $92,991 again the income that was provided is on the second page for the income approach the income approach on this one Bob was asking earlier about the differences in values this one indicates a much lower value of $607 by the income approach and I believe that it could be rented below market the equity comps all fall in line with similar properties when comparing something this size we want to use buildings of more than four units these tend to fall into commercial commercial territory so the assessment of $96,000 per unit on this one falls in line with the equity comps anywhere between $95,000 $125,000 so the assessment of $674,000 as far as equity it falls in line as far as sales it falls right in line the income approach may be something you want to consider as the board and attached are the of course other record cards for two buildings there are two separate buildings on this property it gives the condition ratings for the buildings any questions on the phone not for me okay guys, John 104 Berry Street another building with seven units it's going to have similar comps the reappraised contractor set an initial value of $514,200 these are all considered traffic habits, neighborhoods Berry Street is a street compared to sales this one breaks down to $74,400 per unit which is well under the range of other comparable sales of larger buildings again that's that Cedar Street that's in there just because it was a recent sale I would tend to discount that one income approach on this one indicates a little bit higher value $527,300 versus the assessment of $514,200 when comparing equity the per unit value on it's well under neighboring properties on Berry Street at $734,400 per unit so it appears that this one is equitably assessed at $514,200 $514,200 do we have a condition of these other buildings? these are all selected because they're similar conditions, same neighborhood same condition is it lower because there are so many units? usually the more units you have the lower per unit price per unit value in your account size? size? no and Marty one of the things I you did testify earlier that the city or the contractor wrote to all the commercial property owners asking them for their income and expenses but for a couple of these the last one 96 to 98 Berry Street and this one your report specifically says that the owner did not provide actual income and expense information that would be a type of rough layer I apologize for that so all these things where it says the owner did not provide actual that's wrong and they actually did Mr. Jacobs did provide okay thank you any other questions on that one yeah I just want to put it on this the taxes last year were 77 60 and our our actual income and expenses are 35 27 37 that's the average three years okay so the next one I have is 28 Main Street reappraise the contractor set an initial value of $636,100 and adjustment was made during the informal meetings it lowered the value of $558,700 issued there was a parking an adjustment was made to parking this is a created C average quality and fair condition with high depreciation of 58% which is going to be reflected in the per square foot price we have that as $98 per square foot in assessed value like I said that's due to the high depreciation of it so when compared to before sales it's well well below the sale there the current sale price income approach on this one indicates a value of $689,900 the assessment is $558,700 so let's roll with the acceptable range there as far as the income goes equity cost like I said the price assessed value per square foot is pretty low due to the high depreciation so that's well under comparable properties on stating the industry so with this one it appears to be effortfully assessed at $558,700 see this one your turn that's the third property just under the 28 they listed as 28 and Stan listed as 28 30 so looking at this picture on the back is it just this correct oh it's just the white building is that what you're talking about yeah it's just the white any questions on that one can I make some notes there are some significant difference between the our income on that property and what the assessor has huge in 2019 I think we all have the notes here the state got in touch with us about updating their files regarding petroleum cleanups and petroleum cleanup work that was done back in the 80s that was out back and was removed when they came through it should have been covered by the petroleum cleanup back but when they came through to do the work they found that there were there were some dry cleaning solvents on site there which the petroleum cleanup fund does not cover the removal of and so we've been working through various mitigation plans environmental agencies to the point of actual removal of the compromised soils in the alley way there but it's been a significant expense over the course of the last three years at this point we believe we've gotten we've gotten everything completed but the site remains under state supervision for the time being we have to do we have to do continual testing until they decide that we are worthy of a smack letter there and is the is the alley part of this parcel it's it's kind of split between the two buildings there and because it was dry cleaning solvents at some point in history that building was a dry cleaner not the other one so the expenses wouldn't have the mitigation in here so we removed $65,000 expenses over the last three years from our expenses but we left in $5,000 a year for monitoring costs which is what we're expecting will go forward so and obviously it's a contaminated property which will make it more difficult for anybody to buy we'll get on that one 54 Main Street we have an originally the contract is set of a value of $836 during the informal meeting assessment changes were made lowering the value to $777 $700 again I believe this was a parking issue it's a three-story brick building built around $1,908 residential units if you want to retail in one restaurant you need $8,426 square feet which breaks down to $92 a square foot versus the assessment again it's counter to four other similar properties they are all selling from $119 to $161 a square foot these are all commercial properties that we're comparing them to this is another building that has a relative high depreciation to it which is going to be reflected in the square foot value income approach the income approach as reported by the contractor indicates a value of $957,700 the property is assessed like a set of $777,700 equity comparisons again we're comparing it to other similar properties of similar commercial properties in the downtown area their assessments are between $108 a square foot to $220 the subject property is at $92 per square foot and again it appears that it is equitably assessed at $777,700 yes all three of those approaches I'm sorry but the cost is the lowest per square foot above $161 the income approach the income approach is much higher than the assessment and when the equity approach is by far the lowest per square foot it is because of the depreciation which you'll see right in the front page there's a relatively high depreciation if the price of the contractor gives you a 58% the higher the depreciation the lower the value is going to be at the bill do you imply that after other properties? that's all the per square foot value of the buildings did I lose on that at all? I think I understood just for the record taxes last year were $17,000 and our average net income for the last few years is approximately $47,000 it was a substantial difference between what the estimate is $95,000 well minus that $17,000 would be $78,000 you're using average numbers not actual average of three years $22,000 because we're using actual numbers that were submitted in March from what I understand the next one is $139,000 again to be the re-appraisal contractor set an initial value of $87,800 during the informal process they lowered the assessment to $725,100 sorry can we go back to the next one? just a 54 main street there's a gross income of $160,000 and $9 for one year the actual last year was $110,000 $110,000, $110,000, $898,000 so we're a little confused so we don't know that's why we think that they were using their chart to project income not using actual but obviously they're not here to tell us and I was told that these were all actual we'll be glad as I said we'll give you the income and expenses for everything, for every property I think that some can they'll have to get the board because from here it's their decisions the problem is the confidentiality and I believe that there's a mechanism I've done it with every other town to give to the assessor to review and then the assessor can verify to the board that the representations were accurate obviously all of this can be public record but we don't want every single detail of every property to be floating around in the public record so $139 main street reappraised a contractor set a value of $878,500 during the informal meetings an assessment change was made lowering the value to $725,100 what's that? this one may have been another condition issue yeah that would not be parking this is the funeral parlor I made there's a lot of parking in the back this one I went with with Jesse to look at and made a condition adjustment on it because the interior condition is kind of rough yeah which is why we've given it a fair condition rating again a step high a condition of 58% so that's going to give us a per square foot value of $101 per square foot when comped out to these four to these four sales they are selling at a much higher per square foot value because they're in better condition so they're being treated fairly as far as the sale approach goes this one I don't believe is going to be the income on no zero I don't think it's I think it's an apartment or something as far as equity comparisons the $101 per square foot of assessed value falls well under the range of $108 to $220 per square foot so this one appears to be equitably assessed at $725,100 $1100 questions about that one I'm not seeing any are you set on that one no we have to comment the comparable to what I made earlier and all of these are two other assessments that's not necessarily fair market value you know this is yes this is a big parcel but the primary income in this parcel is the parking there's not that much rent from this it did flood it did flood it's a property that is potentially redevelopable but last year the taxes were $16,650 so even if it's a property that is being held for redevelopment the cost of holding it until that time could happen is very expensive and we think that it's well over value given what it is first floor is basically a warehouse and I want to make sure I understand one of the things you said which was that I thought you said that the comparables on this property were based on assessments not sales isn't that what that column says I can explain this for you so the first page is going to be comparing it to sole properties right third page we want to make sure that no one is being overly assessed so we compare the assessment of the subject to similar properties to make sure that their assessment falls in line with what we feel are compared for a sense and that's the case in every one of the equity okay sorry I should explain that so the first set is going to be sales and the second set are going to be equity assessments can I a question and you would obviously know the answer to this the 144 main street sale that was across the street was that after April 1 no everything is as of April 1 or sooner right no I was asking if that property across the street sold after oh the one with three puny no no no 140 man yeah 140 man that was after April 1 that was after April 1 how significant was that month 2 month 2 right 675 okay so we'll just note that for the record yes we start with that one with 130 main it seems it seems worth just saying our average income and expenses inclusive of an additional $42,000 that I built back in here just for value in the building as warehouse space for my management company which unfortunately got flooded out lost everything it's a real pain in the butt is has been included back into the net income here as far as averages and we have that building over the over 2020 2021 and 2022 with a net income of $38,990 and 66 cents I know the main issue obviously with these income properties is are they making money but there's also the value to sell it what is the sales approach what is it worth when compared to others we're trying to look at it holistically from all three K-rated you move to the next one where do you have something to say I'll comment up here want to make sure that you have every opportunity for sure in the state street reappraise the contractor set an initial value of $652,000 $1,000 an adjustment was made in informal in informal readings properties of brick building built in 1900 with four residential units two retail units with a total of 5236 square feet the building is given a C plus which is an average plus quality is an average condition total depreciation is about 50% again it's going to be reflected in the per square foot of assessed value price of $160 and again it's comped out to four similar properties on the state main street they are selling in a range of $19 to $161 per square foot subject is assessed at $116 per square foot income approach on this one indicates a value of $645,500 again the assessment is $605,100 equity comparisons the similar properties per square foot of assessed value are in a $108 to $220 range is subject to assessed at $116 per square foot so this one appears that it's equitably assessed as well again the actual income last year was A7234 you don't know where picking up an $107,000 taxes for $12,800 so our real men of about almost $40,000 it's a $39,900 something is a much more accurate reflection of the income of the property than they projected so that would probably bring it closer to $605,100 where it's assessed at no good there I have 41 state street reappraise a contractor set of value of $1,351,100 again changes were made in the informal meeting so the brick building built around 1874 with two residential units one office unit, one retail unit one restaurant with a total of $12,566 square feet the building is rated as being a C plus or an average plus for quality and is an average plus condition this one's given a little less depreciation than the rest at 43% the assessment versus size breaks down to $99 per square foot 100 main street is probably the most similar in that it has a residential and restaurant use to it again that falls well below typical sales income again on this one residential one hundred main street I believe there's someone from the second floor there it is no it's on the office on the second floor income on this one as reported by the contractor gives it a value of $1,335,400 a little over the current assessed value equity costs again at $99 per square foot the subject falls well below the comparable properties of between $108 and $220 per square foot so again this one appears to be equitably assessed at $1.241900 again the actual income for last year was $114,000 approximately they came up with $223,000 in addition we're just talking about last year and we have an average that income was just a net expense and this property has a restaurant vacancy for 5 years which comprises 20% of the building and when we did our calculations we did actually project a rent for that restaurant because it is going to be finally it's being rented and there is a projected rent that we did include but again the only way they could have gotten $223,000 gross income is by making some projections based upon and not on the data that we provided I guess it does seem important to say that the average net income $41,000 $45,000 state street adjusted to include the rental of that restaurant with a vacancy factor this turned up to 10% because 20% of the building was not rented for 5 years that number is $75,160 and 46 cents why wasn't it completed it was COVID the folks from Ajanahouse moved out 2018 I had a couple people kicking the tires on it and then it was COVID and it took until now before somebody wanted to you know take a risk I'm very happy to have it rented this isn't wood but I'm knocking next one is 58 state street this is one I think is I think is assessed a little bit high the reappraisal contract set a value of $974,200 it is a two-story building built around 1900 graded average plus or C plus is an average in good condition with light depreciation at 36% the per square foot assessment on this one is $175 so it falls a little above the comparables that we used again the income approach on this one indicates a value lower than the property assessment of $894,800 equity comparisons like I said earlier we're at $175 per square foot at the assessed value of $974,200 the equity comps would indicate a value closer to $160 a square foot or $890,000 total assessment do we have any questions on that one? probably do you have any questions on that one? yeah go ahead do you have a comment on this inclusion does that mean that it's going to go a little lower? that's my opinion because it should be closer to $890,000 and why did you come up with that inclusion? based on so the if you look at the comparables sales on the first page $175 it's higher than what they're selling for the better comparisons are the $160 to $161 per square foot same with the assessment as far as the equity comps go the equity comparison on the per square foot of assessed value is higher than what the equity comps are good there do you have any comments about this one? I guess just to get the record going taxes last year were $17,000 $161 the gross income here is not far off what we have to record you said the gross income is not far off this is not far off what the record is but the expenses are obviously a lot different the gross income is about $51,000 including taxes $18,000 okay any questions before we move to the next one? okay thank you next up is $49,000 we appraise a contract to set an initial value of $1.773 million data changes were made I think it was a condition I think it was a condition they changed the value lower to $1.688,700 this is a big building built in 1946 with 24 units total of $15,000 square feet the building is graded C plus or average plus the quality is an average condition depreciation with this one is pretty typical of 88% when comping this one out we comp it out of per unit value of $70,000 for the subject when comparing it to the assessed value comparable sales are between $91,000 to $137,500 per unit range again, I wouldn't put much credence in data by Cedar street so when comparing it to other sales it's well under the current market value income approach on this one as reported by the contractor would indicate a value of $1.758,100 slightly higher than what the property assessment is at $1.78,700 again with the equity comps we have other large buildings with multiple units in them they're assessed anywhere between $95,000 and $125,000 per unit the subject is well under that at $70,000 per unit so I believe this one is fairly equitably assessed at $1.68,700 this one because you have a can that does not provide actual utility expenses there should be scratched on all of them KWL just for the record the actual income last year was $34,000 $36,000 less $233 taxes were $23,243 and you know that's $36,000 $23,000 $50,000 $59,000 and therefore that puts the net income that we're showing at $101,000 probably the difference between those two and this property has one or two parking spaces for each apartment right it has two parking spaces for each of the two bedrooms 16 and then there are eight parking spaces for each of the one bedrooms it's 124 spaces thank you question on how how did they value parking parking is measured parking lot is measured and accounted for on the record card if there is no parking there is an adjustment made on the record cards that are provided to you we were talking earlier about one of them on it was on main street on the adjustment aid which breaks the value down so there's no adjustment when there's parking there's a negative adjustment made when there's no parking but it's just assumed there will be parking do you want to add something to this oh no I'm ready for the next one okay everybody go now next one is four-language this should be an order yeah re-appraisal contract is set in initial value $387,800 again the change was made in the form of meetings setting the current value of cleaning is $61,600 it's a two-story building built around 1850 it's a restaurant some office space with a total of 4,000 square feet the building is graded C average isn't fair the condition it's getting a little bit higher depreciation of 62% the assessment on this one breaks down to $90 a square foot when compared to similar properties of similar location they're either between $81 $132 a square foot those are recent sales income on this one indicates a value of $391,200 versus the current assessment of $361,600 equity comparisons again the assessment is $90 a square foot comparable properties assessed values are between $116 and $163 per square foot so this one appears to be equitably assessed at $361,600 so the actual income for last year was $47,300 $24,000 less the taxes were $7,000 $149 $149 so the net from here substantial of us half of what they're suggesting for net income I have an average net income over the course of the three years 2020, 2021 and 2022 it has $18,425 Marty why don't you include taxes in your expense specifically not allowed in this type of assessment in bank work they're included in assessment they don't include when you say not allowed is that some legal that I don't know I don't know if it's in statute I don't know where it is that says that they don't include it that I don't know but doesn't that throw your cap rate it will if our cap rates are different our expenses are different it will throw the assessment way off so that's why we're going to come to an agreement on what is allowed as far as taxes and I'll get confirmation again from the contractor why they didn't include it we can't throw everything off if everybody has been the carbon rate it will everybody has not allowed to count that so Marty you said several times on the equity tables that the square footage price is adjusted for appreciation on the subject property is it built into the comparables that are listed as well and are they similar to the subject property yes they are thanks okay next up is 70 Main Street re-appraise the contract to set an initial value of $209,800 again during the informal meetings a parking adjustment was made lowering the value to $272,000 this is a two-story building built around 1860 with one restaurant and some office space with a total of 1,965 square feet the building is graded as C or average and is in fair condition and is given a fairly high rate of depreciation of 58% the current assessment on it breaks down to $138 per square foot so as far as comparing it to sales it's a little above the current market for sales income approach would indicate a value of $307,400 compared to the current assessment of $272,000 equity comparisons at $138 per square foot will compare to similar properties they're in the $116 to $264 per square foot range so this one appears to be equitably assessed at $272,000 the income and equity indicate that it's assessed properly when you compare it to sales it looks like it might be a little bit high any questions on that one Tim question on $68.70 main thankfully the same bill was kind of provided I have them separated yes it's $68 yes separate it's different it looks like identical even looks like Kelly's windows in my office but it's not there's too separate okay okay do you have a comment on this one yes sure yeah so we own this building and we own both of the businesses that are in my management office operates out of a little office up on the second floor there and we have our own bar for 45 plus years or so um so what we did because we essentially leased those back to ourselves as we revised what the actual expenses and come up with the basic word to take into account someone else renting those and we put $18 on the restaurant space and we put um a value of $10.50 I believe is what we did for C plus office space above the dot bar it's humble up there so we we come up with net average net income even with the recalculation of those values at $16 $443 and $54 annually adjusted for someone else to own the building or someone else to lease those spaces yeah I'm sorry I just understood maybe what you said you own the business and the building and so the business is do lease space from the building but I give myself a discount essentially so what we did is we revised that to account for what what someone else would rent those spaces for and that increased the income $18 square foot restaurant space seems to be fair market value and the office is not nice so it's on the lower end well office rentals are $10.50 I'm sorry one other question no please so the income from the bar is that included in the business no that's just the income from the bar the bar is a totally separate business but you want it sounds like it next is two to four spring street reappraise a contract for certain initial value of $6.800 again during the informal meetings they made an adjustment for condition to I'm sorry Marty what are we on two to four spring lowering the value to $714,000 this is a property with two buildings a brick building a wood structure building on spring street one of them is built around $1,900 two residential units one office unit with $2,763 square feet the other building has $2,762 square feet the brick excuse me the brick building is graded as C++ is an average good plus construction so they're calling it a very good build and is an average condition total depreciation on the brick building is 33% the wood construction building is graded as C++ for quality is given a low depreciation of 14% total property assessment breaks down to $129 per square foot when compared to four sales again from $119 to $161 square foot falls well within range when compared to sales income approach would indicate a value of $786,100 versus the assessment of $714,000 equity comps we have the subject at $129 per square foot when compared to similar properties the assessments fall in the $108 to $220 per square foot range so it appears that two to four spring street is equitably assessed $714,000 so again we're not sure whether contract came up with this income gross income from last year was actually $60,744 about $100,000 taxes on the building were $15,500 up to two buildings the expenses you'll see this are and that income is low because it's two buildings they each require insurance policies and separate flood insurance policies so the expenses for these buildings are very high and as resulted in a very low net income so the net income for these two properties over the course of the last three years here is $13,742 for both for both as a property and as a utility okay next up is number two Monsignor Crosby have here we're drawing this appeal that's not on our chart okay Monsignor and next on $91 $91 also with drawing drawing same same with $100 so that leaves $144 mainstream we appraise a contract of $741,300 again a parking adjustment was made during informal meetings lowering the value of $692,300 this is a brick building built around 1890 as retail and office use for a total of 5,745 square feet the building is graded as C plus or average plus for quality and is an average to good condition it is given a high depreciation for some unfinished in the upper floors which will be reflected in the per square foot value of $120 of assessed value so does that mean that that's not finished rentable or usable space on the second and third floors? correct, if everybody can turn to the very last page you'll see a property record card with a picture of the building on the left-hand side you'll see a depreciation the second column over for four items down they'll say depreciation is a physical condition there is an adjustment for the upper floors being unfinished so that is a negative adjustment to value and then there's also the economic adjustment that is a negative value adjustment for lack of parking everybody okay with that? okay income on this one again as reported would indicate $799,300 versus an assessment of $692,300 as far as equity comparisons at $120 per square foot of assessed value it falls at or below typical comparables at $108 to $163 per square foot of assessed value so this one appears to be equitably assessed at $692,300 okay so you may know about the full-spot space that this property has been waiting for three years five years 2018 and so the actual again we don't have any idea why they came up with their rents because the actual rents last year were $34,520 and really again there is now potential rental of that property so we have imputed a new rent in our calculations of $36,000 and the agreement would be then projected at $72,000 but it was not the taxes on that property have been $15,000 and so instead of their projected rent almost $80,000 even with the addition of rent from the vacant space we think that the net expenses are more like $36,000 yeah and actually we on top of the actual rents of $34,000 as we had a $42,000 we had a $42,000 no and an appropriated tax reimbursed from the restaurant to the $7,639 and even with adding that income back in which is not in substantial we have an average net income over the course of the last few years of $36,368 okay any questions from anyone on the board okay thank you do you have a $101,000 made right now 44 Main Street $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 and as we look at this picture how much of this block here is the property where sure with all of the white eyebrows okay it is but it's a little misleading because this building actually only goes halfway through and then you probably all have sat on the back of what used to be the black door there so you know that you're in between two buildings it doesn't go all the way back to the rear parking lot okay oh gosh that's great yeah okay so do you go ahead one of the things that we did not address at the beginning and I think it is a significant amount of expenses is that because you know these are mostly almost two buildings they are mostly all on the national registrar or some other places the cost of expenses of the expenses in maintaining them are high this isn't city center this is a series of old buildings that take a lot of cost to maintain and you know as we all know from the pandemic what has occurred with the cost of providers or officials workers, HVAC people they've gone up and the problem as I said earlier is that so many of the comparables are looking backwards if you look at the comparables from 2021 at that point interest rates were much much lower and costs of repairs were much much lower and therefore you know there is a much difference now in looking at also as a result of the pandemic unfortunately restaurants and offices and retail are increasingly being challenged for rentals rates are going down places are being vacant longer and therefore you know the issue again is what would a willing buyer like a willing seller on April 1st of 2023 in looking at these buildings and evaluating we have in the last column of this chart that we gave you what we think would be a fair estimate of what somebody would actually buy the buildings for if they were even willing to buy them given the knowledge that they would have about the downtown of Montpelier at the time so we know this is a lot of detail and we know that we are really challenging this appraisal company's evaluation and we apologize that we did not get all of this material to the assessor earlier in the process so it could be processed and understood but hopefully in this time that we'll look at the materials that we're willing to submit and hopefully we can fairly evaluate the property I don't know what you want to do about inspections we're willing to waive them if need be I think you all know most of the properties that are any particular properties that anybody feels that they need to see we'd be glad to do that but in order to keep the process going we're also glad to waive the inspections as well we're at a pause I just wondered if I could get in just before the record since we've reached by the 14 day deadline issue for the hearing just a quick response for the record the working backwards from the state of emergency it actually you all got the statutes with you and in fact this is from consulting with VLCT attorney in the past again today and the materials I have to look like from the PowerPoint they are but from the training materials that actually in the Title 20 here the state of emergency we're authorized it isn't only applying to licenses programs but in fact it says extended in the statutory deadline applicable to municipal corporations provided that the deadline does not relate to a license program or plan issued by the state of federal government and then just really underline that what's more important is we don't even get that far because in Title 32 that 14 day deadline is automatically extended it's the several dates mixed up all before which hearings upon such grievances shall be closed to the board of the civil authorities shall be considered the same in towns of 5,000 or more inhabitants it's extended by 50 days which would actually put the deadline into November just to make sure I get that down to the reason why the deadline was set as it was which I know Marty had conversations with the attorney about to but I just wanted to make sure that was out of this well-cutting territory. Thanks John, Donna. Do we need a motion? Well let me, that's what I was just going to address in scheduling this I talked to Mr. Murphy three or four weeks ago something like that and to clarify what the in his view the issues were in these appeals and that he indicated that he did not think that the issues raised by these appeals were such that they would be addressed by inspection committee inspections of these buildings and so he told me then and he again reiterated that the taxpayer was waiving the appeals for the necessity of doing an inspection of all of these properties we might need to make an exception for 70 Main Street you can all visit that location on your own but we're open, please come I'm glad you're open I think that's great yes but so I think that I don't think we need to do inspection committees but I do think we you know we're not in a position to make a decision tonight and I think that we probably wanted a point to committee to evaluate all this information and come up with a proposed we're with a set of proposed evaluations for all these properties and I would suggest more than a three person committee because there's so much to deal with here um can I just ask for clarification so the committee would essentially be looking at the discrepancy between income and the tax thing that they're saying is not fair that's basically the work of the committee right? Sounds good I think that's right the other information they provided about vacancies etc it's all part of the income it's all part of the income though I mean if it's empty they're making money so that would be reflected in their income I still I was hard on this but I'd still be comfortable with the motion if we skip inspections just to have it on the record okay do you want to make that motion? sure I'll move that with the agreement of the appellant under the authority granted to the board of civil authority under the governor's executive order number 0323 and the declaration of Montpelier is being subject to a call hazards event inspections for the properties of 1860 Main Street 15 Berry Street 9698 Berry Street 104 Berry Street 98 Main Street 94 Main Street 139 Main Street 57 State Street 41 State Street 58 State Street 49 Greenwood Terrace 4 Langdon Street 70 Main Street 24 Spring Street and 44 45 Main Street be waived I just mentioned the understanding is that 1860 Main Street is withdrawn that was the Carl Hammers and a couple of those properties are not mine I'm not sure who's there I must have just done a quick cutting of all of them and if you said 45 Terrace Street that also has to come out right is there a second? any discussion? all those in favor signify by saying aye aye anyone opposed? okay thank you for your patience and notice of volunteer board we really appreciate that now volunteer and spend your evenings here doing this for a period of time particularly in the area it's bigger than so who would like to be on this committee and I told John that I would volunteer to be on this committee Donna what is this committee going to do since there's no inspection are you going to sit down and go through all this stuff and come up with a recommendation on all these properties so is there a separate recommendation for each property I think you're entitled to a separate determination for each property Jude you're saying yes too yes you're cursing yourself because you haven't been able to so this is not a story you're going to have more than three we're going to have more than four that's four that's five I'm not going once I don't know okay thank you so much based on the completion of our business tonight we will be we know