►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - June 14, 2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
B
Good
morning
board
members,
as
you
all
know,
I
rely
fairly
heavily
upon
the
summary
sheet
that
you'll
see,
I
believe,
on
page
three.
We
touched
on
this
case
a
little
bit
last
week,
this
one's
a
little
bit
unique
in
that
in
lieu
of
county
issued
income
expense
questionnaires.
We
received
either
what's
called
a
supplemental
income
and
loss
schedule,
e
form
or
a
data
used
in
federal
tax
return
form.
B
B
B
One
thing
we
did
find
and
which
caused
the
delay
in
the
case
was
when
mr
knox
asked
for
a
worksheet
for
the
county
and
received
one,
he
noted
that
the
we
had
transposed
the
unit
count
for
efficiencies
in
two
bedrooms,
and
that
is
actually
what
kind
of
initiated
the
revision
that
we
offered
as
you
can
see
in
column
g.
That
did
indicate
that
our
projection,
based
on
the
former
unit
count,
was
off
by
about
twenty
thousand
dollars,
both
at
the
gross
potential
and
at
the
effective
gross
levels.
B
One
of
the
biggest
problems
we
had
without
using
the
county
issue,
dianese
was
figuring
out
vacancy
and
concessions,
etc.
Essentially,
they
were
starting
with
effective
gross,
so
we
knew
that
that
was
essentially
baked
in
as
far
as
whatever
vacancy
was
being
incurred
at
the
property.
But
we
didn't
know
exactly
what
percentage.
B
It
was
kind
of
a
moot
point
in
that
we're
using
stabilized
seven
percent,
but
we
did
want
to
get
down
to
a
level
that
was
somewhat
in
par
with,
what's
going
on
at
the
property
at
least
the
last
two
years,
when
I'm
looking
at
a
four
year
history,
if
I
don't
see
any
trending
whatsoever,
I'll
usually
place
more
weight
on
the
the
most
recent
two
years
and
that's
what
we
did
here.
B
B
I
did
ask
mr
knox
about
that,
and
then
he
was
related
back.
That
was
essentially
some
what
we
would
consider:
capital
expenditures,
capital
improvement,
expenditures
like
a
lot
of
money
and
paint
work
to
the
floor
boards
etc,
but
rather
than
again
be
something
that's
done,
a
turnover
on
units
that
have
moved
out.
It
was
essentially
done
to
the
entire
building
17
units
at
once.
B
It
kind
of
made
it
again
a
moot
point
in
that
the
increase
in
2021
when
stabilized
over
the
years
1920
saw
a
revision
that
was
essentially
right
where
we
were
as
far
as
operating
expenses,
so
they
stayed
essentially
the
same
right
at
about
30
percent
of
effective
gross,
but
that
did
lower
noi
projection
by
about
18
000,
which
brought
us
to
our
proposed
value.
B
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board
members.
C
B
I
don't
want
to
get
the
wording
incorrect,
but
I
believe
that
the
virginia
code
states
that
if
they
do
not
issue
a
income
statement,
then
they
cannot
argue
the
income
approach
com
time
for
an
appeal.
So
I'm
not
sure
how
the
wording
goes
as
far
as
if
it's
our
income
or
a
statement
or
a
income
statement.
C
A
B
I'd
have
to
go
some
years
back
man
again,
as
I
understand,
the
story
is
even
in
the
year
that
it
was
provided,
was
provided
by
the
management
company
right.
So,
as
I
understand.
B
That's
correct:
the
tax
return
was
actually
yeah,
that's
that's
where
it
gets
interesting.
The
tax
returns
were
actually
filled
out
by
mr
knox
himself,
so
we
had
to
actually
modify
those
to
get
rid
of
his
social
security
number
and
things
like
that
right.
So
I
assume
that
those
were
literal
from
his
from
his
tax
return,
his
1040s,
but
I'd
have
to
go
back
to
find
out
when
they
stopped.
D
Me
too,
so
I'll
refer
my
questions
only
to
the
department
a
couple
of
small
questions.
First,
one
is
you
mentioned
that
there's
some
upgrades
in
the
place,
the
effective
age
will
probably
be
changed
to
a
more
modern
time
than
1950.
Are
you
planning
on
doing
that
this
year,
going
over
into
on-site.
B
Yeah
I'd
love
to
tell
you
that
and
and
and
make
that
an
accurate
assertion.
The
biggest
problem
we
have
is
still
just
the
manpower
and
number
of
properties
to
touch.
I
think
miss
kelly's
told
you
I'm
already
at
some
60
reviews
in
for
the
year
and
I
still
have
93
to
go.
So
it's
really
just
a
matter
of
how
much
time
we
can
allot
for
that.
But
that
is
the
goal,
is
to
touch
each
property
and
make
sure
that
we
have
especially.
D
Yes,
sir,
all
right
sounds
good
thanks
next
question:
the
apartment
income,
the
rents,
in
both
columns,
f
and
g.
A
D
B
D
B
So
again
we
looked
at
b
c
d
and
f,
which
is
going
to
be
years
19,
20
21..
We
did
note
that
again.
B
Unfortunately,
mr
knox's
documents
don't
provide
a
gross
potential,
only
an
effective
gross,
so
we
don't
have
the
ability
to
sort
of
discern
concessions
or
vacancy,
so
we're
looking
at
an
average
of
those
effective
gross
and
again,
as
I
noted
in
years,
without
any
sort
of
trending
or
or
true
stabilization
on
its
own
I'll,
look
to
put
more
weight
on
the
previous
two
years
or
the
most
recent
two
years,
which
is
what
we
did
with
years
2021
and
saw
that,
but
some
of
the
properties
they
were
having
a
downturn
in
income
either
as
they
tightened
up
occupancy
and
lowered
their
rents
or
just
lost
rental
income.
D
And
and
lastly,
directly
on
that,
what
you
just
said,
that
process
yielded
page
four
of
60,
the
22
apartment
revisions
sheet
right.
A
But
just
to
follow
up
on
that,
mr
chica,
so
you
you
change
the
counts
of
the
units,
but
I
mean
in
some
respects.
How
does
you
know
this
change
from
the
standpoint
of
any
other
kind
of
income
or
whatnot
associated
with
it?
I
mean
I
just
think
it's
very
difficult
to
do
this.
Why
we're
looking
at
equality
and
uniformity
in
assessment.
A
B
B
B
So
it's
three
years
going
down
and
what
we
do
see
is
that
without
knowing
what
the
vacancy
concession
is,
it
makes
most
sense
to
use
a
revision
of
the
effect
of
gross
rather
than
a
projected
gross
potential,
which
we
really
have
no
inkling
of
whatsoever
right.
But
we
know
what
the
effect
of
gross
has
reported
us.
A
B
Absolutely
so
again,
based
on
limited
knowledge
we
do
have
based
on
the
lack
of
gross
potential,
but
seeing
three
years
in
a
row
of
effect
or
gross
income
drop.
We
did
note
that
the
unit
count
mix
projected
a
lower
gross
potential
than
what
we
had
projected
january
1st.
Based
on
that
new
information,
we
do
believe
that
the
revised
value
of
three
million
six
hundred
three
thousand
eight
hundred
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
A
All
right,
thank
you
all
right,
it's
just
among
the
board
members.
I
mean
I'll
just
start
by
saying
one
thing:
you
know
I
don't
I
I
don't
feel
comfortable
just
arbitrarily
saying,
okay.
Well,
we've
got
some
of
the
information
I
feel
like
the
appellant.
It's
the
burden
of
proof
is
on
the
appellant.
The
appellant
did
not
provide
the
information
to
you
know
sign
across
the
bottom
of
1040s.
That
doesn't
necessarily
tell
me
that
those
are
the
ones
that
he
filed
with
the
irs.
A
If
those
are
legitimate,
you
know
I
don't
know
you
need
a
4506
to
see
if
that
was
actually
the
return
and
plus
it's
just
not
uniform
with
everybody
else.
So
I
feel
like
this
is
rewarding
bad
behavior
this
this
guy,
you
know,
I
went
on
the
website.
He's
got
40
years
in
property
management.
30
years
in
construction,
he's
got
an
engineering
degree
in
mba
in
finance.
He
knows
how
to
how
to
do
this.
I
mean
mass
appraisal
is
done
on
providing
the
information
and
he's
asking
for
a
reduction
and
he's
not
playing
by
the
rules.
A
So,
from
a
standpoint
of
equalization
I
mean,
I
think,
it's
just
opening
the
door
to
just
allowing
anybody
to
provide
whatever
information
and
go.
Oh,
you
have
the
room
count
wrong
or
you
have
the
apartment
mix
wrong,
so
it
should
be
decreased.
He's
not
provided
the
information,
so
I
you
know
may
be
alone
in
this,
but
I
do
not
have
any
inkling
to
reduce
it.
I
think
the
original
assessment
should
stand
and
he
should
provide
the
information.
E
But
mary,
I'm
sorry,
but
wasn't
the
value
already
revised
and
lowered.
A
C
F
D
B
No
covenant
here
right,
yeah,
exactly
that's
what
had
happened
was
to
refresh
everyone's
memories.
This
was
this
came
about
the
friday
before
the
last
tuesday's
hearing.
It's
basically,
he
asked
to
see
worksheet
at
that
point.
He
noted
this
was
incorrect
and
then
we
offered
her
vision
before
the
board.
Here.
D
Directly
related
to
your
your
points,
mary,
mr
chiekas,
who
has
been
doing
this
a
while
knows
a
lot
of
stuff
suggests
that
state
statute
says
that
people
abrogate
their
rights
to
appeal
if
they
don't
provide
the
data
in
a
consistent
fashion,
one
if
that's
true
that
just
adds
fuel
to
your
fire
mary
b,
I'd
like
to
request
the
department
that
they
make
sure
that
that's
true
through
their
legal
interpretation.
C
Yes,
I
guess
I
look
at
this
a
little
differently.
I
kind
of
feel
like
you
know,
the
county's
expert
and
the
property
owner
have
worked
together
and
come
up
with
a
compromised
position,
and
if
we
don't
uphold
it,
the
property
owner
could
just
file
an
appeal
to
court
and
then
the
county
would
acquiesce
in
the
in
the
value
that
the
property
owner
is
seeking.
C
I
feel
we
should
ratify
the
agreement
between
the
two
parties.
C
C
A
A
F
C
A
F
A
D
I
would
add,
excuse
me,
I
would
add
that
the
appellants
did
himself
no
favors
aside
from
not
being
here
but
not
really
providing
any
definitive
information
defending
or
explaining
anything
here.
My
1040s
and
my
you
know
schedules
whatever
department
enjoy.
I
mean
the
burden
improves
on
on
on
the
appellant
and,
although
I'm
very
sympathetic
to
what
barnes
just
said,
you
know
these
are
the
parties
they're
grown-ups
and
they
know
the
score.
C
And
can
this
is
barnes
again,
you
know
if
this
were
a
rookie,
then
I
would
agree
with
you,
but
I
mean
chris
chris.
How
long
have
you
been
doing
this.
C
E
E
E
I
thought
you
know
this
is
really
putting
a
big
icing
on
the
cake,
but
I
I'm
you
know
I
was
tending
to
go
with
the
revised
assessment
because
I
thought
it
was
already
lowered
but
yeah.
I
agree
with
you.
You
know,
and
this
is
not
the
first
time
we've
seen
many
cases
that
they
provide.
You
know
whatever
information
is
just
convenient
to
them,
but
once
you
know
this
is
one
point
that
they
discovered.
The
number
of
units
was
incorrect.
E
They
corrected,
but
overall,
looking
at
all
the
numbers
yeah,
they
should
provide
in
the
way
that
you
know
they're
really
supposed
to,
and
this
is
not
the
first
time
we've
seen
this
so
yeah,
I'm
I'm.
Okay.
With
that,
I'm
just
going
with
the
original
ideas.
D
F
A
D
Mathkin
mark,
I
think
you
maybe
you
made
an
incredibly
salient
point
in
that
sure
these
numbers
are
off
for
this
year,
but
they've
always
been
off
for
the
same
reason,
and
if
we
accepted
him
before
and
and
mr
cheek
is
struggling
to
make
sense
of
this-
maybe
we
should
accept
his
output
now
again
for
the
same
reasons
he
just
just
trying
to
do
the
best
he
can
with
what
he
has,
and
so
his
extrapolations
from
prior
years
are
estimates
of
estimates,
or
I
I
guess,
I'm
flipping,
because
what
you
said
really
affected
me
that
that's
yeah
now,
I'm
not.
C
D
I'm
now
on
the
side
of
accepting
the
revision
between
the
parties.
If
we
see
this
next
year
and
it's
the
same,
gobbledygook
I'd
probably
be
a
lot
less
thrilled.
But
again
these
are
just
guesstimates
of
estimates
or
estimates
of
guesstimates
and
and
the
the
department
worked
with
these
same
kind
of
numbers
before
came
up
with
something
nobody
said
anything
he
got
his
tax
bill.
Presumably
he
paid
it
this
year.
For
some
reason
he
decided
it
was
an
outrage
and
appealed,
but
nothing
really
has
changed
and
and
of
course,
mark's
right.
A
Yeah,
I
guess
you
know,
I
don't
know,
I
look
at
this
and
I
think
so
we
change
the
you
know
the
count,
but
I
mean
the
gross
potential
that
they've
tried
to
extrapolate
is
in
line
with
what
was
reported
so
whether
you
know
there's
10
units
or
20
units.
What
difference
is
you
know
what
I
mean?
I
just
think
it's
just
not
enough
information,
but
I
guess
everybody's
got
their
opinion
so
yeah.
I
don't
know
mr
yates
you're
about
to
say
something.
A
A
Okay,
emotion,
a
second
all
in
favor
aye
opposed
okay,
so
it
is
four
to
two
and
that's.
Without
mr
panaranda
and
myself,
the
county's
revised
assessment
of
3
603
800
is
confirmed
since
mr
knox
likes
to
quote
the
code,
I'm
going
to
ask
the
county
attorney
under
58.1-33
to
compel
them
to
provide
the
income
and
expense
statements
moving
forward
or
be
subject
to
a
class
for
misdemeanor
for
not
doing
so
so
that
completes
the
agenda
for
today.
Does
anybody
have
any
other
business?