Yes.

I think we're already late today.

You got a tape reporter?

We are being filmed.

Oh.

Okay.

It's all recorded, so we're good.

Okay.

I gotta go back and watch.

We'll go ahead and start a Peter Bowl meeting for today's January 30th, 2026.

First board is I guess we'll introduce ourselves.

Joe O'Connor on the county assessor and secretary of the board.

Great.

Greg Rath now, uh member of the board.

Kathy Gould, board member.

Steve Adamie, president of the board.

Kevin Robinson board member.

Okay, first order of business is minutes from last month.

I'll make a motion to uh accept the minutes from last month as written.

No second.

It's been moving secondary for discussion.

Seeing none all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Against the ayes have it.

Do we have guessed?

Yes.

Um they are on believe it.

I'm trying to find one of the parcels now.

Uh I think the one we're going to talk about is indicator and it's Arborwood apartments.

Catherine, do you know the parcel?

There are three parcels in total.

The parcel numbers are T01 and 4372.

2012 855.

There's a third small land parcel.

That one's not on there because that one already, we can talk about it, but that somehow still went through with withdrawal.

Okay, that's fine.

The intention was to withdraw it, but to settle it as part of the economic unique.

So page three ninety-seven.

This is one that was tabled.

Um gosh, back in Octo October.

Um for us to review.

It had so the value that you see on there is um the original value.

The second parcel is 2012.

And that is on page.

Uh 2855.

Should be close by cater two.

Yes, it's decor two.

So it's gonna be on three eighty six.

And um so the original value on the total assessed value for all the parcels was thirty-seven million, four thirty-one six hundred.

Um they had requested thirty-one million fifty-nine thousand three hundred, and our values came in at thirty-one million eight.

Uh, and the board tabled it.

They want to speak to the board today on this.

Um it sold for 51 million.

We've looked at the income.

Uh I don't know.

Gabe, if you have them talk.

Okay.

I mean, that it's a 2024 assessment.

Okay.

The petitioners bought the property in 2023 for 51 million dollars.

Okay.

And the assessment all total is 37.

37.

There's a recommendation.

It's 37 million.

At this point, yes.

Okay.

Catherine, are you you're an attorney, right?

I am.

Okay.

Wait, that's not the recommendation.

That's not the recommendation.

Okay.

We do not want 37 million.

That's changed.

Right.

We're the 37 million.

Okay.

I looked at it.

And I agree with the words table.

Okay.

So you believe it shouldn't be lowered from the 37.

Right.

So we were saying it should stay at the 37.

Oh, okay.

No, no, no.

I was saying we wear it.

That's what I was like.

Yeah, it was confused too.

Okay.

Either here or there, wherever you want.

Wherever you want.

If you want to send it, I have we can put the card.

You just tell me where I need to be.

This is what you need.

All right, I can do that.

Maybe that's slightly so you're a little behind that high.

She's just gonna pass and say, it's all right, yeah.

And they want 31.

There's one that bought you now.

Because that's even with the bar, so that's one of the stuff should be.

Thank you.

Because I no, no, I know right.

Well, I mean because my list of three I just left as it was because we had however they come out the lowest, is how are they supposed to come in?

I have this, I have mine on the computer.

You see that has changed.

I've just corporate disposition.

Well, I'll let him and good morning.

Go ahead.

My name's Catherine Merritt Fraser.

I'm the attorney for 6505 Tanner Drive, uh, LLC.

This is a somewhat interesting apartment community.

Um, as Mr.

Deaton stated, it there's no question it sold for 51 million dollars in 2023.

Uh, but this is an apartment community, it was actually two apartments, they are adjacent to one another.

It's the former Canterbury and the former Arborwood apartment communities.

My client purchased it coming out of affordable housing, so it is still in January 1, 2024, still suffering from an affordable housing market base.

It does not have the ability as of 124 to charge full market rents.

It was also purchased for that 51 million under the theory that it was going to be able to be converted out of affordable into market.

They're getting there, but on 124, it was 65.87% occupied.

It had significant occupancy issues, they were converting, they were working through the property.

That $51 million is basically what they anticipate their future value to be.

I have a question before you proceed.

Please is it a law that if you you have a commercial property and it's 65% of the capacity or bacon or whatever.

Occupy that the taxes should be lowered.

Because is it that's why isn't it the same way for residential?

So just say somebody owns a property and they lose their job, or they you know they get a reduced in salary or whatever, but they're still responsible for paying resident the same residential property taxes, correct?

I I I agree with your premise, but Indiana law carves out specifically for multifamily residential properties, which is what we're talking about today.

This is an apartment community.

Yeah, the Indiana Code specifically says that you have to value it using the lowest of three assessment methods income capitalization, sales comparison, and replacement cost.

In this situation, I'm arguing that we have to use the income capitalization methodology, which factors in some of that vacancy.

But is that a law that is it different from commercial than residential?

Say if I own a house and I owe five thousand dollars in taxes, I lose my job.

I'm still responsible to pay for those taxes on my house.

You are Indiana Code carves out specifically for apartment communities the lowest of three assessment methods income, sales, and replacement costs.

Right.

That same carve out does not exist for your and I's personal homesteads.

That does not exist.

That's that's not right.

Okay, I got you.

I don't agree with that, but okay.

You gotta walk down the gotta walk a couple roads down the block and take it up with them.

They're in there in session right now.

Yeah, I'm gonna bring it up.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um, okay.

So I've I've tried to lay out a pretty succinct uh presentation here, but again, please please ask questions.

Um petitioners exhibit one just shows you the the parcels that we're talking about here.

We've got two primary parcels, which are parcels 2012, and 20142.

Um, and then you've got a small land parcel.

Evidently that has already been withdrawn.

Um so we're we're talking about these two uh improved parcels today.

Um, and again, this is now known as Arborwood Apartments being operated as a single economic unit.

Uh but prior to the acquisition, it was two separate economic units.

Petitioners exhibit two A shows you that this property increased assessment from 23 to 24 of about 12 percent.

That triggers a burden shift.

Um, Indiana Code 61.1520 clearly states that the properties assessment increased more than 5% over the properties assessment for the prior tax year, then the assessment is no longer presumed to be equal to the property's true tax value, and the assessing official has the burden of proof.

I'm gonna walk you through my evidence today, but if you don't find my evidence persuasive, it really doesn't matter.

You have to find the the county assessor's evidence persuasive today, otherwise the assessment's gonna revert back to the prior 2023 assessment.

That's what Indiana Code 61.11520 says.

Now let's get into the meat of all of this.

Petitioners exhibit 3A shows you an income capitalization approach.

This is the actual income, actual expenses, um, capitalized at 6.25% plus low to cap rate.

That gives us the 30 million 961600.

This property, combined property, was settled with the assessor, signed form 134s for 31.8 million.

Our numbers are very very close to what this assessor's office said they should be.

Petitioners exhibit 3B is the rent roll, or excuse me, the unit mix.

This is uh the combined unit mix for basically what was Canterbury and what was Arborwood.

So we're dealing with 416 units.

Petitioners exhibit 3C is the rent roll, um, as you can see on the last page of the rent roll, it summarizes the occupancy.

Um there were 140 available units, so we're we're looking at uh a 65% occupancy as of 124, which is the relevant assessment date.

Petitioners exhibit 3D is the income uh financial report uh that ties back out to petitioners exhibits 3A, um, so all of the numbers correspond.

Petitioners exhibit 3E is the IRR viewpoint uh capitalization reports, IRR as you will see on the next exhibit, is utilized by the Marion County assessor for purposes of uh their appraisal work.

So we have used their capitalization rate for suburban class B properties at 6.25%.

Petitioners exhibit 3F is what I just alluded to, uh, wherein the Marion County assessor is cited as one of the clients of IRR.

And petitioners exhibit 3G just summarizes our numbers.

So again, based on an actual income approach, uh 30 million 961600 would be the income capitalization valuation for the combined Arborwood entity.

I know there's questions about occupancy, and Mr.

Robinson, you you have raised a very good question, and one that I think bothers all of us.

Should we value a property using something that is not typical market vacancy?

So we've tackled that and we tackled that in petitioners exhibit 4A, where we did a market analysis.

So you have the unit mixes for both of the properties.

This is somewhat unusual again, because we've got two distinct properties going on here, and as of 124, you had properties that could not have equivalent rents because of the affordability component that existed.

So you basically see two unit mixes here.

You see one for the former Arborwood site and one for the former Canterbury site.

If we apply those gross potential rents, we apply market vacancies, which is much closer to about a 7.2% for one in a two-bedroom and a 10.6% for the three and four bedrooms.

That's straight out of Co-Star.

I'll show you that data in a second.

We apply market expenses.

We load the capitalization rate the same way we did previously in Petitioners Exhibit 3A.

We come up with a capitalized value of 32,453.100.

Again, very darn close to where this thing settled at at 31.8 million dollars.

The assessor's original proposal for settlement was not inappropriate.

All we've done is further support that proposal.

Petitioners exhibit 4B is that co-star vacancy analysis.

You can see the three-bedroom, the two-bedroom, the one-bedrooms, and the studios.

To star unfortunately does not keep data for four-bedroom apartments.

So we have mirrored the four-bedroom units to the three bedroom units.

Petitioners exhibit four C is just a summary of the gross potential rents approach, which again is the lowest of those three using income sales and cost.

That gives you 32.4 million dollars.

Petitioners exhibit 5A is a comparison assessment analysis.

The Indiana Constitution is very clear.

Arborwood, the combined Arborwood, is somewhat unique in that it has a 2004 and a 2014 bill.

Combined, it's 416 units.

It has a grade factor of 1.15.

It has a current 2020, excuse me, that has a typo in it.

I should say 2024 per unit.

It is a current 2024 per unit assessment of 89,980.

Six of its neighboring properties, all built between 2000 and 2015, with Murphy's landing having a significant renovation in 2019, all with a similar unit mix, all with a similar grade factor, have a median assessed value per unit of 78,414.

Much lower, no explanation for why.

No explanation for why Southern Dunes, who has a 2015 bill, 384 units, as compared to Arborwood with a 2004 and a 2014 bill and 416 units, with a grade factor, Southern Dunes of 1.2, whereas Arborwood has a grade factor of 1.15, why Southern Dunes has an assessment of 65,000 per unit, and Arborwood has an assessment of nearly 90,000 per unit.

Makes it really difficult for the owners to be competitive when they let's face it, are passing through these taxes in the form of lens.

Petitioners exhibit 5B is the summary of those comparables.

If you wanted to have pictures, those are the photographs of those comparables.

Petitioners exhibit 5C summarizes the comparable assessment approach.

Basically, if we applied that 78,414 per unit, it would put us at 32,620, 200.

Pretty darn close to the gross potential rent analysis that we looked at in petitioners exhibits four.

And finally, petitioners exhibit six is the summary of food market values.

If we use actual income, applying actual occupancy, we're at 30,961,000.

If we use gross potential, we're at 32,452.

If we use comparables, we're at 32,620.

We average all three, we're at 32,011,000.

Again, this thing settled at 31,800,000.

These numbers all correspond.

Yes.

Harbor side drive breast of the Bristol.

So Bristol, excuse me.

Asking rent 2406.

Per co star, yes.

Is that how many bedrooms?

Bristol has 211 bedrooms and is assessed for $82,619 per unit.

No, no, how many bedrooms in each apartment?

Is it rent per apartment $2400?

Per apartment, not per bedroom.

So how many how many bedrooms are the apartment?

Well, it's 211 units.

I I don't know the distribution bed counts.

I'm sorry.

That seems okay.

Are any of these apartments uh based on income?

Like they get extra help from any agencies or anything?

Is it just no?

It says uh market expenses at 45%.

Yes.

Is that normal?

Yes.

For all apartments.

These yes, we are seeing market there was a dramatic increase in 2021.

It used to be about 39 to 41 percent.

2021, we saw about a 20% to 30% increase in insurance costs, which has driven up the market expenses to approximately 45% or 45%.

Yes.

Seems awful high to me, but that's what it is.

But the sales prices continue to rise.

Can you explain that they sold it for 51 million, right?

My client purchased it for 50 million.

He purchased the purchase 51 million.

So it's assessed at 30%.

377.

Yes.

Can you explain that?

Absolutely.

They purchased it coming out of an affordable model.

So it was it was under a LITEC affordability model where it had a 15-year requirement to keep a full rents at an up at a certain percentages of area median income.

As of $124, it had just come out of that program.

So on $124, their entire unit mix, all of their residents were still under the LITEC model.

They hadn't yet converted to a full market model.

So they went I'm also a real estate broker in addition to a tax lawyer.

Um so when you model for purposes of purchasing a property, you model on pro forma.

They weren't modeling on actual income and rents, they were modeling on what they thought they would take the property to in two months or four years from now and what its actual market value would be at that time when it was fully converted.

As of 124, the date in question here, it had not converted yet.

It has come out of out of the LITEC requirements, so now they can start, but obviously you've got tenants that have leases, right?

So those leases have to burn off before you can switch them over.

Once the lease goes off, put it back to market rent.

Correct.

But that did not happen as of January 1st, 2024.

If we're having this conversation as for evaluation as of January 1st, 2026, very different conversation.

So are you saying that they paid too much for it?

No, they paid what the market required them to purchase it for as if it was going to perform at a full market level.

But how they had it, how do they know how it's going to perform in a future?

They take a they take their best educated guess.

They took a big risk.

Absolutely, they did.

So absolutely.

And they should have known that you know that they're leading they had leases that weren't going to expire for a year or two, right?

Like that's not, they didn't think these leases were all going to expire on December 31st, 2023.

No, not at all.

What I'm saying is that Indiana law requires us to use an income model to look at this for purposes of the lowest of the three assessment methods.

Yes.

The income modeling, even if we use a gross potential using market vacancy, puts us at 32 million.

We can't look at that sale price.

That sale price has nothing to do with this assessment.

I agree.

And that's why it's not assessed at 51 million.

It's assessed at 37 million.

They're getting the cost approach.

2024.

We had to develop all three approaches to value.

The lowest of those three is the cost approach.

It's 37 million.

It's 14 million below market.

And comparing it to others, I don't think that plays anymore.

You get your cost approach.

You get the lowest of the three, Mr.

Deaton.

That's the cost approach.

What's your income?

How have you modeled your income?

I didn't know we were having a hearing today, Catherine.

I was told this was going to be table.

I I had the conversation with this teacher yesterday.

I didn't know I didn't know about that.

I'm sorry.

Question on the insurance that Steve brought up.

Or you said the operating costs is at 45%, right?

So I always I have always had an issue when people come present evidence.

We don't see it.

All we see is a number.

We don't see what the insurance company charges last year and what it is this year.

We don't see the bills.

So and not to Steve's point.

Did you have a hearing?

Ma'am?

Oh to Steve's point.

Do you have a hearing today?

I should do.

Okay.

You want to sign in then?

Two twenty-one?

It's down to the left.

Okay.

So Steve's point, 45%.

Is that just that's just not insurance?

That's overall, right?

That's all in market operating expenses.

So what it costs to operate these apartments.

Yes.

That includes utilities?

Yes.

But it does not include real estate taxes.

This has been backed out and they are loaded in the capitalization.

So Mr.

Robinson, if you look at petitioners exhibit 3D, this is that is the actual income of the property, and you can see every line item expense.

3D?

Yes.

So Catherine, so the property, I mean, I understand what you're saying, the concept of they bought it with encumbrances or burden with that you know, rent that had to be locked in.

So as when is the timeline when it comes off?

Is it one one?

It's now 125.

As well, as of 124, the federal requirements to keep rents at percentages of AMI had come off.

Okay.

I want to be very transparent there.

It had come off.

So it's full market rent.

You can't can you can't flip that switch and say all of a sudden, Mr.

O'Connor, you're now your rent is now twelve hundred dollars a month, but last week it was $900 a month.

Oh, and you have a lease.

So yes, and and again, if we're having this conversation for the $126 assessment, it's it's a different conversation.

It's it's it's not a theory that their rents were depressed and their occupancy was depressed.

They're performing well.

What about 2025?

It was getting better in 2025.

They had no rent restrictions, they had no rent restrictions.

It was just an occupancy problem couple.

They they did have an occupancy problem, so their 2025.

88 units or 88 units.

For available, 88 available units, yes.

And they had a hundred and forty memory serves in 24.

And that's for the low income.

Is that what you're saying?

That's for all 416 units.

So there was no low income.

There's no low income, right?

Not anymore.

As a 1124.

As of 124.

Okay.

Do they did they have an explanation as to why their vacancy was so low?

Well, their occupancy was low, their vacancy was occupancy was so low.

Well, they were in the process of converting.

So when you convert a property from affordable to market, you have to send notices.

There's federal notices that are required that go out to tenants.

Obviously, those tenants that were previously there paying $700 a month, now suddenly can't afford when their lease expires.

$1,200 a month.

So where those they vacate.

Where'd those people go?

And what presumably to another affordable community.

Well, why did they change it?

The the federal tax credits fell off.

It's a section 42 federal program.

They're only for 15 years.

You can't renew them.

They don't they don't go on for performance.

So they had them they had them.

This people that own the the seller.

They had 15 years.

The seller had the benefit of the credits, yes.

For 15 years.

I don't want to say that definitively.

I can tell you that the program is a 15-year program.

So I don't know how many owners prior, but they bought it from the last owner who was under the affordable program.

So the people that was in there, they had to move out if they couldn't afford.

Yes.

Okay.

Do you want us to table it again or do we mean anything else you want to add?

Or I don't care.

I mean I I can't poke holes in her income because I stopped.

I stopped looking at it after I saw the vacancy rate that she used.

I think I saw 17% used.

And that's just overstated.

17%.

It's way too high.

Which is why this was reworked, and you can look at petitioners exhibit 4A, which uses market vacancies.

And what did you use for that?

It's co-star numbers, 7.2% for the one and two bedrooms, and 10.6% for the three and four bedrooms.

So you're that still seems odd.

They get paid COSR saying in an apple serious or seven percent.

Petitioners exhibit 4B is the exact co-star printout.

And they're saying as of 2023, quarter four for South Marion County.

One bedroom vacancy is 7.2%, two bedroom vacancy is 7.2%, three bedroom vacancy is 10.6%.

I always thought it's higher than that, but vacancy is higher than that.

I thought it was good.

I guess got up.

I'll take a higher number if you'd like.

So the question, and I'm learning as I go.

Okay.

So when they bought when they when they bought this portfolio, this these properties.

Did they did they investigate before they pay $51 million on the CES at $37, correct?

Did they look at that?

Because why would you pay for something that's assessed for a less amount, but then you are you basing it on the leases and the future or how do they so assessments and trading market values are diametrically opposed to each other?

If if real estate investors only purchase based upon the assessed value, no one would sell their properties.

Okay.

They just wouldn't.

So they're based on the the generating of income from the leases.

Okay.

Correct.

All right.

When when are the rest of these leases?

Um term, the ones that were on the low income.

So they would be coming to term in 24.

Okay.

So during during the year of 24, all leases were then renewed or had to the low incomes had to be renewed at the higher market rate.

Correct.

There were no there were no affordable restrictions in place anymore.

It is now a fully market rate community.

So the leases were basically more like a year, a year lease, they renew every renew it every year.

They're all 12-month leases.

Okay, that that's I think that was more my question.

The other question I have is on the cap rate.

Why you used uh 2.2 when it's capped at 2%?

Because there's a referendum in place.

There's a voter-approved referendum that kicks the effective rate up to 2.243%.

That is the effective rate.

The voters approved a rate over the 2% capital uh constitutional tax cap.

Well yeah, they were taxed on the 2%, and then the referendum rate is a quarter of the percent basically.

Okay.

So you add those two numbers together, and that's the tax.

That's okay, gotcha.

Is that just for Marion County or everybody?

It's every every taxing district in Mary's only has one with the exception of Franklin Township.

Okay, and then maybe one other one.

Franklin's only one.

Okay, I didn't say that's all.

So in the school, that's a that's a statewide initiative that taxpayers can vote.

Um now it's annually, it used to be semi-annually to add uh referendum rates over that tax cap rate.

Typically it's for school funding.

Okay, thank you.

So that had to be a shortfalls the tax caps.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh we're we did this on the fly, but we show for 2023 7.5% vacancy for South Marion County.

That's higher than that's higher than she requested.

Uh well, I'm using a blend.

So I for for the one in two bedrooms, which is the bulk of the property, it's seven point two.

For the three and four bedrooms, it's ten point six.

Uh the three and four bedroom though for the for the unit makeup is there, excuse me.

The three and four bedrooms uh make up about a hundred and forty of the four hundred and sixteen units.

The bulk of the units are in the one and two bedrooms.

So what's your blended vacancy rate?

Eight or probably about eight.

Let me I'll do that math for you.

I've got it separated here by unit type to make it more granular for everyone.

Eight point six.

Yeah, we're only eight point six, so almost a whole point higher than table it.

Do you want to table this to give you a chance?

I mean if you guys want to tell.

I'm not gonna tell you the thing.

So staff's recommendations is what sustain the assessed value.

That's not what's on the agenda, right?

Not what's on the agenda.

I think what's on the agenda is what the original value that was what staff agreed to stipulate to the appeal, and you guys table it for more information.

We already tabled it once.

So you would be agreeing to parcel 20142 would be 26 million 354 800, and 2012 would be 10 million nine ninety-seven five hundred.

Which is the 37 million pieces, which is the thing, right?

Including the third parcel that has already been withdrawn uh at 793, which comes in at 37, 431, 600.

So why are we gonna table if we already tabled it before?

That's up to you to table it if you want to.

Well, I would just say we have that that's the cost approach.

That 37 million that's with no factor because land plus the building minus appreciation on the on the improvement.

Um or income approaching to I know on the one it was uh we we developed all three approaches.

Our sales comparison approach was actually higher than the assessed value, or it was actually higher than the sales cost.

Uh the income approach at least came in less than a million dollars higher than the cost approach, so it was close.

I think we used the six percent cap rate.

I don't have to find a lot of vacancy rate was made in six and a half, yeah.

Six and a half, seven percent was our vacancy.

So what are you saying if we leave it just it reverts back to twenty-three?

So if we don't if you don't like my numbers, and if the assessor can't prove their numbers, then it'll revert back to the twenty-three.

Unless the twenty-three the the twenty I'm sorry, go ahead.

If you sustain the 37 million.

Right.

She would file to the IBT.

Sorry, no.

The words you know.

Correct.

She filed to the IBTR.

If we failed to meet our burden, it could potentially fall back to the 2023 assessment.

Or the IPTR or whatever, right?

Right.

She'd have to file with uh it doesn't revert automatically.

You have to file correct?

Yeah, we have to file absolutely then there'd have to be a hearing.

Right.

If if I could using your 7.6% global vacancy, not the blended vacancy that I have used, that gives me a capitalized value of 33 million two sixteen two eighty-three.

The 2023 assessment is 33 million four twenty-nine seven hundred.

We worked we worked that up in twenty seconds on postal.

So I don't need to use that number.

I mean, I'm not gonna agree to that now.

If you want to table it, if you want to table it, I can try to work with her on a number.

You know what?

Agreed upon capitalization rate.

And I I haven't looked at her expenses.

I think she used the proper uh I don't think I would squabble with her loaded cap rate question.

More the vacancy rate.

No, I was that's that's the issue with the vacancy.

That's what I'm saying.

That's the one that you really and if we correct that for 33 million two sixteen three hundred, the prior year assessment is thirty-three million, four twenty-nine seven hundred.

This matter has been before the assessor since August.

It was settled at 31.8 million.

It was tabled by this board in October.

It wasn't settled because it's not settled until we approve it.

Respectfully, it was settled with the assessor's office with a signed form 134.

That is a contract.

I understand what Indian law says, and I understand you have the final say, but the assessor's office and my office settled it for 38.1 million dollars.

That was the number that the assessor 38 million.

Excuse me, 31.8 million dollars.

That was the number that the assessor determined the market value it used to be.

They signed a form 134 to that effect.

And it came to as soon as this was tabled, my office then immediately started working with the assessor again.

So this has been going on since the first part of November.

My client made adjustments to their 2025 and 2026 budgets based upon that settled number.

Not settled.

It's just settled, and it's not black and white until we approve it.

Correct?

It is a quirk of the law, but it is the law, yes.

Any other questions for the board?

Um I'll make a motion to leave it at 37 point 431600.

Is that what it is?

Uh yes, 37 million 431600.

Okay.

Second.

Any questions?

Yeah, I I don't know what the value part of me.

I mean, I would like to see um pardon me.

I'd like to see kind of you know the staff's numbers in comparison to what she's presenting us and and what what that comes to.

I mean, I don't want to, you know, I mean, if you guys wrote this up in 20 seconds, um you know, I I I just I I think I want to do what's what what's fair and what's right, and um so I'd like to I'd like to see in really tangible kind of comparable numbers from you and from from you guys.

I that's personally what I would like to see.

I'm not sure that I'm super comfortable saying I'm definitely not comfortable saying 31 or whatever, um, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying 37 at this point either.

Um so I my my I guess my my thing, I think I would like to table it.

Um so I think on this motion I'm not sure how I'll be that might be a no but only because I would rather table, not because I agree with the petitioner or agree with the assessor's office.

Well the assessor's gonna come up with a 20 seconds, they come up with before, right?

I mean it's not nothing that came up today.

It's been that way.

Well, okay, so so I guess what maybe maybe I'm a little bit uh and I'm sorry for this.

I'm maybe I'm a little confused about um the 31 million or whatever that you said that you know point was it was it was agreed on assessors agreed number, yes.

So where so then how why are we debating the 37 if 31 was agreed upon?

Well 31 is agreed upon with a 130 was on 134 it was approved or wasn't approved, but we had a final say so on all appeals, and it was tabled what back a couple months ago back in October it was tabled because the because you as the board was questioning the 30 the agreement of 31 million eight the reduction, yes of the reduction from 37 million to 318 see what they haven't assessor has to have a preliminary agreement basically for how much was it you said 31.81.8 it was brought to us and it was I thought it was too low, too much of a reduction, so it was tabled, and they came back and noted we didn't come to an agreement.

After 31.8 million we're not saying that we can or can't if you table it, but we gave her a cap rate on the fly of 20 seconds of looking at what we have in code star or a vacancy rate, sorry.

I mean we used co-star to develop our vacancy rate for our income approach, and I know we didn't use seven and a half to use something less than that.

The co star numbers themselves.

I'm not making these numbers up, I'm giving you the data.

7.2 for a one and two bedroom and ten point six for three and four bedroom.

That those are the numbers.

This is not something I have pulled out of thin air.

Okay, well, there's a motion to leave it at 37 million four thirty-one six hundred.

Spin second it, any of first out of discussion.

See a none all in favor say aye.

Aye, I against so it's four oh.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Moving on.

That's all the visitors we have.

So we got a pages one through 16.

Before you start moving um page 12 parcels 105, 8745, and 1090965.

Uh we're asking those to be tabled till next month.

The taxpayer could not make it to today's meeting.

That was housing agency.

Yes, it's a 130 objective appeal.

It's a I put 136 exemption.

It's a 130 objective appeal where they're wanting to come they're using the objective form for their exemption.

So we've got two parcels on that, okay?

Yes.

I'm looking motion to set pages one through sixteen with access ones we tabled.

Second.

So we're moving secondary for discussion.

See you none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

The ayes have it.

Uh I got pages 17 through 489.

Preliminary agreements, which are preliminary agreements.

Do we rule that there?

Final.

Page 22.

Parcel 1008949.

Well, a bunch of these are Ryan.

Are they all shattered properties?

They're all they're all settled or withdrawn using our gross rent multiplier.

Okay.

They're not related.

I mean, they're not.

They're all represented by Ryan and a couple different entities.

But they're all single family or duplexes that aren't all valuing that value as a group together.

Gotcha.

Brought up different owners.

Some of them.

I think some are most of them are it's probably like CS 4 or 5 owners.

V B one L C so we'd be one kind of basically all together and they're all individual but all have the same owner.

Right.

So they're not they're not assessed together as one economic unit.

They're all separate units.

Separate units, okay.

Yeah.

But they're they are all rental properties.

Um based on GRM.

Yeah.

Ghost R okay.

Page 173, parcel 701, 9129.

91829.

Uh-huh.

Yeah.

That's a red it's a residential.

Okay.

Oh yes.

No, I guess.

Oh, no, that's fine.

I gotta look a little bit low, but it's based on G C R G R M, so page uh one eighty one parcel, I don't have to couple them there.

That's you.

Kind of says it was sixty-eight thousand one down to ten thousand.

Like ten thousand off a little assessment for a house.

I think we lowered it to very poor condition, which is a designation that comes up in the cost tables.

Right.

Uh I mean lands.

We're saying it's not livable.

Okay.

Um it depreciates fully and put it in very poor condition.

So condition okay.

Yes.

And probably the same thing on the bottom one on the same page, nine oh two, four, oh, two, eight.

Total assessments nine thousand three hundred, probably the same way.

Yes.

Okay.

Well, once they rehab it, you go back out and pick it back up again, right?

Okay.

Okay.

Did you just say Zillow had that out?

Yeah.

They don't do a lot of field work over.

Oh, that's true.

That was why much.

For us to take it to very poor.

There was a field inspection done.

Um so I didn't look, but probably should have pictures in there unless they ask for us not to post them.

There should be pictures.

There you go.

Does that help you?

Zillow didn't show you this.

No.

Or this.

I think that kitchen is great to cook in.

Rental.

Okay.

What's that picture?

That's the foundation is all that's a basement on the outside.

Yes.

You can just kind of slide in there if you need to.

Okay, you'll tear that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I don't know.

Page uh two eighty-seven.

Parcel 404, 6652.

6005 sunny slide.

Yeah.

I guess the land went down.

Is that 404652?

That's commercial, yeah.

Could you go back for those initially?

Oh, so this is there was a pond that we weren't picking up.

Um wooded area.

That's not the right person.

Um so we made adjustments to the land to account for the retention pond and the woods.

These are apartments.

It's just a bacon lot.

It's just north of pound.

He's got this pond and then he has a creek that runs through it, and so we were we weren't making any adjustments for the property for that.

What year is that picture?

That is current as of December 22nd, 2025.

Okay, is it for sale or no?

Okay.

They're just holding on to it.

They own a lot next north of it too?

I bel yes.

They own I believe they own this one.

Okay.

I don't know.

Page supported.

Nope.

This is uh sits at the uh basically the corner of Sunnyside and Pennell and Pike.

There's a wall down.

All things there.

Yeah, safety shake and the spray.

They're building more industrial out there, so my guess is they're gonna sell this eventually.

Page 370.

Parcel 1003 or sorry, 1006308.

We table those last month.

We didn't.

And um we came to an agreement on all those.

Uh um so the value is going up originally from 4.8 million to six million.

Okay.

So you're agreement with those?

Okay.

Oh, this is scattered.

The scattered plot site.

And we did the same thing on Apex really parcel six zero zero zero six zero zero.

We had those last month too.

Yeah.

Wait, six zero zero, what?

Six zero zero zero six zero zero.

Six thousand six hundred.

Yeah, what why were they they were vacant lots?

They were baking lots of before, right?

I don't think uh yeah.

All those vacant land parcels that were in pike.

Oh, well, the Augusta plots?

Yes, I think it was basically a defunct right uh subdivision.

Yeah.

Um those those were taken down to the sale prices.

Yeah.

They were selling for 20,000.

Right.

Those are 24 and 25 the put on a row.

Yes.

25, I mean, I think some of them have houses in 25.

Some doing some little construction happening up there.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Okay, I thought so.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um 501 2656.

4309 Southeast Street.

So there's one from res commercial to residential.

So zoning don't really have much to do with pricing.

No, we don't look at the zoning, we look at the use of the property.

Yes, it was a um insurance company.

And they're living in there.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Rare.

I know that's all right.

The father thought it should be less.

The son said no, it should be more.

And since it's in the son's name, we went.

The sun agreed with what we thought and our value.

But they're changing a class too though, right?

Right.

So they're coming from a three percent cap to one percent cap.

So the taxes actually went down, but the assessment went up.

Let's look at homestead.

Yes.

Okay.

That's the only question I had from those pages.

So I'll make a motion to accept pages 17 through 489.

Exception.

Exceptions one through table.

Second.

For discussion.

Seeing none all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Against the ayes have it.

We got withdrawals.

Pages 490 through 1263.

Correct.

We did not have any hearings last month.

There were no recommendations.

I'll make a recommendation to set pages 490 through 1263.

Second.

See no all in fair say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

The ayes have it.

Got exemptions 1264 through 1272.

Anyone east?

I'll make a motion to set pages 1264 through 1272.

Second.

So move and second any further discussion.

All in favor said aye.

Aye.

Against the ayes have it.

Any else come before the board?

Just a reminder next month.

We're uh in room 221.

Is that the in the at this end on the left?

Okay.

I'll have a sign out there for you, but that's where we're at the rest of the year.

Okay.

Did we decide, Joe, if we need to make a new president every year?

I'm sorry, but we need to have a new present every year appointed or you do need to have a new president every year.

But we're just looking into how that's done.

Okay, gotcha.

No, no, no.

Okay.

Every board appears to be different.

Yeah.

Oh, we do we adjourn already?

Yeah, we have go ahead and be public then.

You asked me about the election of officers.

I posed it to OCC, and it looks like it's a SHA according to what we have looked at so far, but I mean I think we should gear up next month to hold an election of officers.

There's just I'm on the secretary by virtue of the larger right.

So they're just one officer elected, and that's the chair or the president of the board.

Okay.

We also have looking staggered terms.

What's that?

We have to look into staggered terms too.

Yeah, I don't know.

Have we figured that out?

Has OCC figured that out?

I mean they're all they're all one year term.

Right.

Right now they're all one year.

How do you stagger a one-year term?

Yeah.

I thought we were gonna have a couple two-year.

Yeah, but I don't think it's that well says you had you can't have them all at the same time.

Right, right.

I mean, you should do one year terms, but make them start and begin in different yeah, you come on that how do we do that?

Yeah, because they all have to be in place by January first.

Right, yeah.

So you'd have to even if somebody got on the board in June, that doesn't mean they go till the following.

Calendar year.

Okay.

Anything else?

Okay.

That's where adjourned.

Well we couldn't use so much.