Yes.

Okay, we're going to have to start a Peter Bowl meeting for July the 24th.

First order business will introduce ourselves.

Joe O'Connor, I'm the county assessor and the secretary of the board, also a non-voting member.

Greg Rath now, board member.

Kathy Gould, board member.

Steve Adrian, president.

Kevin Robinson, board member.

Okay, first second order businesses.

Minutes from last month.

I'll go ahead.

Make a motion to approve the uh minutes from last month is written.

I'll second it.

All in favor, all then all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

I guess the ayes have it.

So we have several guests.

If you're a guest and you want to speak today, can you stand up so I can swear you all in all at the same time?

If you're not attorney, don't need to raise your right hand.

You swear to tell the truth, tone truth, nothing but truth, so I'll help you God.

Uh Todd.

I'm sorry.

Yes.

I'm sorry.

He's a witness.

Okay.

So need to be sworn in again.

Oh, is he not here?

He was not standing.

Oh, okay.

Yes, go ahead and stand off sort of you and again.

You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but true.

The truth so help you God.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Todd.

Is it Rosenbutt?

Last I can't say.

Okay.

6528.

Corral Avenue.

Okay.

Yes.

This is not on the agenda it itself.

Um I have it up on the screen.

This is when I've been working with him.

I gave Kathy and Steve the financial statements.

Um this is a property in Broadripple.

The assessed value went from 313,800 to 693,000.

Uh we had sales that attested to that to why the values went up.

We're not saying that that value is a hundred percent accurate.

Um I have not had time to completely go over the financial statements, but he's here today, so I wanted him to go ahead and be able to present his case at least to the board and see if we can come to an agreement on a value.

So it's not on the agenda.

Not on the agenda, but it's a 2025 appeal.

Okay.

And this is the property.

Is that um Cornell and I would say 62nd, but we have assessed for how much?

We have it assessed for 693,000.

And in 2024, it was assessed at half that 313,000.

Now I I don't think based off of um new cost tables and stuff, that it should go down to back down to 2024 value.

Um I just haven't been able to find a value in the middle to set.

You want to discuss it with him, want to table it and discuss with him later.

I think he wants to go ahead and say some stuff to the board first, and then if you guys want us to table it.

Okay, if you guys want to make okay, you want to go ahead.

The microphone's right there, so can you just stay over there?

Yeah, so I bought the property, I believe it was in 2014, um, for 275,000.

Um we haven't approved the property.

The property was built um, I think in 1920.

So it's only a 1,200 square foot property.

And um the revenues we generate basically um between and it hasn't been leased, but if it was fully leased, um would only be $60,000 a year in revenue.

So the property taxes just based on the cost approach would be over 30% basically of the gross revenue of the property.

So it's just a big burden for the property, and it was shocking.

Um the address the county had was in California, so I didn't basically get the um notification until I went to pay the property taxes and I noticed the assessment changed, and I immediately basically filed the appeal.

So I'm not really sure how the process works, but I haven't seen any comps in Brownable, especially for small properties like mine for $690,000.

I think there was a property recently sold next to the bike line, and that sold for $450,000.

Okay.

So the last time we had anybody out there was in 2018.

We are doing starting in two weeks.

And then there's been updates to it.

That's the 1200 square foot building.

Okay.

That's the larger of the two.

That's larger of the two.

The small building is 650 square feet.

Which is this one, right?

I don't know if this one is.

So I mean the property has had some updates to it.

Uh as you can tell.

So it had some more depreciation before, and then we went in and changed the effective age.

I just on a property like this, where there's those I mean, based off of sales, I think we're in where we need to be at the sales.

Um, but maybe the income, which I just haven't had a time chance to completely look at.

Okay.

Would change that value.

Oh question.

So how many buildings is it?

Three?

Two.

And the total square foot?

1200 square feet.

One building is ten uh one building is a thousand square feet, which is this one here, and then this one's uh is it maybe it's we have it at 500, sorry.

So we have 3500 square feet is the back of the room.

So we have a dwelling in at 1,016 square feet, and then we have the building in as utility storage, which is my other issue, and we have 528 square feet.

Um so like the building in the back, the smaller building, we only have 52,000 on that assessment.

Um so really the the assessments on the dwelling itself, and I don't know what if anything we can do on that.

Um I mean maybe change the grade, but it's got a 1990 um effective age, so it's getting some depreciation, but we're calling it a dwelling, so it's getting residential pricing, it's just all going into cap three.

Is there a land as our land how much land is it?

The land is um.188 acres, and we only have 135,000 on the land, so all the pricing is in the building.

So there aren't there's so there's no comps comparable to this in the area?

Not that well, there's some smaller ones, but not that have sold recently, I don't believe.

I have one or two cells.

Um but no, no, we have sales from we have sales from 2024, right?

But but that size though, that size, the same size, 1200,000.

Sure, a mixture of sizes.

That just seems to me, I'm just not paying that small small but uh square footage.

I don't know, just I don't know, seems seems high.

Is it being leased?

Um I just leased it.

Yeah, so I just leased it.

Um they pay the first month's rent in August.

That's five thousand a month you get.

You said sixty thousand.

Is what I get for that building.

So totally it's sixty grand a year, though.

So yes, yes, sir.

For the both buildings, yes, sir.

So was it not being leased prior to just recently?

No, sir, it was vacant for five months.

Okay.

So what was it before five months ago?

It's called the source.

It was a little next door.

So you bought it in 2014?

Yes, sir.

And you just have multiple tent tenants in there come and go.

Yes, sir.

Throughout the years.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

And you said the zone residential?

No, it's own commercial, but this was a house that they turned into a business.

So we've just left that main building as a house.

That's kind of been our philosophy.

If it was a house turned into business, if it can be turned back into a house, we leave it as a house.

And I haven't, I mean, nobody's been out there since 2017.

So I can't say for sure.

So does that affect the value by leaving it the same versus putting it in a business?

Um I think the if we put it if we put the house in as a business, it would probably increase the value more.

But doesn't the depreciation go up?

The depreciation would go up, so that may help it.

Do you have a loan on the building?

Yes, sir.

Can I ask what you pay for?

Um $2300 a month.

No, no, for the property.

What I paid for it?

Um I paid $250,000 for it.

In 2014.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

2014.

Do you have anything that indicates the value?

An appraisal that you've done over the years for financing or whatever.

Um when we approved the back property, we did get an appraisal done for the property.

I just like seven years ago now.

What did it come out to?

We struggled to get the value.

I think it was in the 400s.

How long ago was that?

Um when we approved that property, it was six years ago.

Anywhere 400?

There is a property next to the bike line that's sold.

Um I'll pull like I don't have that comp with me right now.

I believe that property sold between four and five hundred thousand dollars, and that's a larger property is like a block away.

What do you think your property's worth then?

Um between five and six hundred thousand dollars.

Oh no.

And we we don't have income?

He n none was submitted.

No, we have his income here.

I just haven't looked at his income.

These are as tax returns, right?

Right, his tax returns.

But you'll have income and expenses from that building separate.

What's that?

You don't have income and expenses separate for that building?

It's all it's all one property.

Oh, yeah, but it's all including your tax return.

Yes, sir.

Is it is it gross rent?

Is it net?

How's the lease set up?

Um it's modified gross, so um I paid tax insurance, they paid utilities.

Um this actually may be on your agenda now that I look at it.

It is on your agenda page 26.

So we're okay there, and then there's just no recommendation on it.

So you think if you go back, you can talk meet with him and you say five or six hundred.

That's a big gap.

You're at 630 or now, right, Messie?

So I'm with you.

Sorry, I've talked to a lot of people.

This is more to let him go back to 2025.

He filed June 24th to 26 because the mailing address was wrong.

So this is a late filing.

This is a late filing.

So he would like us to be able to do it for 25.

So if the board would say yes, we'll allow him to file for 25.

He missed the deadline by nine days.

Um you filed 133.

Have you looked at your property record card?

No, sir.

So there's an objective appeal that does allow.

I mean, regardless of just the decision here.

You filed an objective appeal, which does allow to go backwards, six tax payments.

Um there has to be an objective error made though.

So I would look at your property record card and see like is the square footage wrong on something, or um do we have something assessed that's not there?

You know, just an objectively verifiable mistake that we've made?

Okay, and that would so we're gonna side.

That would render whatever they do.

Meaningless, because we can go back on the objective error part of the state.

So they would have to decide where it set up the peel being late, right?

to be an objective error made though so I'll look at your property record card and see like is the square footage wrong on something or um do we have something assessed that's not there you know just an objectively verifiable mistake that we've made and that would so we're gonna slide that would render whatever they do meaningless because we can go back on the objective error part they would have to decide where it's set appeal being late right there we accept appeal to be late anyway table and appealed uh pre-assessment and look at it whatever yes a lot so that's the wrong address in California yes sir how did that address it posted to us just on the ESR would you have a correct address on her now Westfield what's that sir Westfield is the correct address now yes sir okay um question for board Greg I was gonna make a motion but go ahead um I'll make a motion to um accept the late uh filing second okay move secondary for discussion all fair say aye aye against the eyes have it now dealing with the assessment that we can table it just table and then let us look at it yes again yeah it looks like this was just to decide okay yeah wait so I I do have just a question on page 26 here it says and I see this is for year 2026 but it says the assessed values at 585 and then I thought up here it was six yeah yeah so 2026 it's at 585 um 2025 it's at 693 so we got yeah the value went down at 26 okay so so we're agreeing on the 26 no you're not agreeing we're just saying that I mean you can say to change the 25 to the 26 if you want but uh we're just asking for you to allow him to have what he filed as a 2025 instead of a 2026 and then we can look at it and try to come to a decision for 2025 instead of 26 I mean that it went down that's great for taxpayer but why I wonder why it won that load before.

Well because we had sales that whole area was right that whole broad ripple and that's why we're I think I I said it last month was we're going out to Broadbull because we've had so many sales in Broad Ripple Broad Ripple hasn't been physically looked at for quite some time so because we're getting so many appeals at Broad Record properties we're gonna spend my entire staff is going to spend a week or two just walking broader and looking at every single commercial property and reassessing it.

I don't want to look at residential too because this is basically residential right and so if is that got a use code of commercial is what we base our cars off of so somebody from your office could hold it and it's gonna be me but yes okay all right sir yes sir okay thanks for coming in thank you uh Mr.

Farrell will ferrell yes this is on your agenda uh do you see it on there do you have the cover page okay this is no I don't um this is on parcel one oh nine nine seven one one page yeah I mean I get that it's on the agenda I know we only did one line oh okay page one sixty nine of your agenda I don't have the 25 that's only 20 that's your 24 page 25 that's what you paid based off of our adjustment was the address uh that's the 25 one which I didn't get I thought I printed it but it did not print on that home merch down by Barrington Raymond and so this is one where um Mr.

Um to a hundred and thirty thousand uh based off of other information that was provided at that time.

Um this property has um oh I'm on the wrong one.

We're in a nine hundred thousand for twenty twenty-five, nine hundred and thirty-one thousand.

Um and he would like it to go to the hundred and thirty thousand.

I can't justify it going that low.

Um I mean, we have he's getting max appreciation at nineteen seventy-one.

Um he's got six buildings on the property.

I uh hundred and thirty thousand you mean lower it 130?

We lowered the value for 24 to 130,000.

Um and then it went back up with new taxes.

Uh it had some uh obsolescence on it that we took off of um so I don't believe the property should go back down to 130,000.

I believe I offered did I make an offer?

Uh I think so.

I I think I made them offer like six hundred thousand and he wasn't in agreement with that um so we're here.

Okay, sir, you want to state your name?

Willie Furrow.

And you're the owner of the property correct.

Okay.

Yeah, I don't think nothing's sold over in that area to come up with that assessment.

Uh 2014, I bought the uh the place for 50,000.

Um after closing, I wind up only paying 13,000 because of conditions.

Um dollars.

I rent them out, I'll make them roughly before I pay doing the upkeeps or maintenance and all that, and bills.

I rent them out total I get in, probably like ten thousand dollars a month around that.

I paid a light bill, the house lights, the security lights, the water bill, um sewer, uh I keep the upkeeps, cutting the grass, clean the gutters I'm sorry, and repair that's a Hobart and where's that at?

Uh Hobarton, yeah.

It's only 20 units out there.

And that's Raymond and Raymond and Perkins.

Raymond and Hobart?

Yeah, Raymond Hobart.

I don't believe the value there, you know.

Are they apartments?

From one eighty to nine hundred thousand.

You know, and it's the same condition, it'd been like that for years.

They brick.

They're apartments, yeah.

Apartments, sorry about that.

How much rent did you get?

Roughly about 10,000 a month for all of them.

Yeah.

How many units?

20 units.

Just 20 units.

Oh how much do you think the properties worth?

Uh probably right now right about 300,000.

That's because the value of properties went up, you know.

And you said you bought it in 2014 or 15 for 50,000.

But you you bought it for 50, but then ended up after closing only.

Yeah, only paid like 13 something.

It's on the it should be on uh listen, I went to a title copy.

And so what what missy um uh how does I mean in one year it went from a hundred and because I had 90 percent obsolescence on the property, and so it basically we were only assessing it at 10 percent.

Um I did that I kind of kept that for one year, but I can't keep that going.

Can you explain?

There's no justification.

Obsolescence is basically at some point somebody said his property is in poor condition or um maybe not functioning well, and so they took 90 percent of the assessed value off.

I don't have a justification based off the income he's given me or anything to bring it back down to that.

Um I offered him I I believe around six hundred thousand um and we couldn't come to an agreement, so we came here.

So I guess I'm okay.

So one, what was it, one thirty?

130 at the 90% obsolescence.

That means it's unlivable, right?

Right.

Basically where you're saying it was in very poor condition.

And that's when you when you don't when you purchased them, they were unlivable, or were they that's the reason why I rented out cheap cheap rent?

No, I'm saying when you purchased them, were they livable when when it was the one thirty?

Uh majority of majority.

One building.

But then you've done improvements over the years.

On one building.

On one building.

Yeah.

Are there comps in the area that justify your number?

Um I have not pulled comps because I was basically looking at his income.

Um basically for apartments, your income or costs is gonna be the lowest.

Um in this one we're at cost.

There aren't gonna be any sales for $15,000 a unit.

Okay, so what's the average rent?

You said $10,000 a month.

So what is it was it $500 a month?

Yeah.

So after you collect $500 a month and you pay all your expenses, what's left?

Oh no, probably about six thousand.

Okay.

So I'm I guess I'm wondering how how can we come up with and this is a question for Joe or Missy.

How do you come up with if you don't have any comps in the area and you're just going by income and his income is he's telling us what he's clearing after expenses?

How do you come up with that number?

You typically just capitalize the income.

Whatever the over so many years?

No.

Kevin, I didn't mean there weren't colors.

I'm saying the comps would bring this value up.

But there has been anything sold that justifies the number.

No.

Right.

I don't know.

So you're clearing you're netting six thousand dollars a month.

Yeah, roughly.

Yeah.

Not since I've purchased that anyway.

Same people have been around a year as I grew up over there.

So annually you collect seventy-two thousand dollars in rent from this property.

After your expenses, you pocket seventy-two thousand dollars annually.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Including the property taxes?

Uh no.

You gotta figure all that.

So well, okay.

I can't figure right now.

I gotta calculate.

I mean, yeah, you subtract the property taxes, you know.

Right.

So well, your property taxes usually run you a month or a year or every six months.

Um every six months.

Um property taxes?

Because all that needs to get calculated in for 20 2025.

It keeps fluctuating.

Well, I mean, yeah.

Oh, okay.

So I mean, just based roughly on these numbers, it'd be eight hundred and fifty thousand.

Yeah, that's what I came up with.

A eight to nine hundred thousand dollars if you capitalize what he's currently getting.

That's what I can do.

So is that eight thousand that's a year?

That's a half.

That's a half.

So it's sixteen thousand a year.

Yes.

Right?

Yeah.

So now your number went down to five thousand.

I'm trying to, I'm trying to figure I guess we're trying to figure out what the after you pay everything, what's left over?

And the number you gave was six, but you didn't include the taxes.

No, I'm taxing five.

So five.

Yeah, probably about five or forty-five.

Just unload the rate.

So either way, the taxes are gonna be accounted for.

Either it's gonna be loaded in the cap rate, or he'll take it out as an expense.

Gotcha, okay.

That's prior to rate.

Not a hundred thousand.

A million, almost a million.

And what's what's your vacancy?

Huh?

You have any vacancy?

Yeah, I got three of vacancies right now.

Three out of how many?

Twenty.

Uh twenty.

Yeah.

Anyone are vacant, do you redo them?

Yeah.

Paint, flooring.

It's like musical chairs.

It's part of business.

Yeah.

Three out of twenty is not too bad.

I mean, that's your average, right?

About three a month or three a year.

Sound like that.

Yeah, your leases.

Yeah, one year leases or two years or one year lease.

You get any money from the government?

Section 42 or not like that?

No.

Section eight?

I don't do section eight.

Do we have his thesis?

No.

I mean, we can work up the income, but that doesn't seem like it's gonna help any much.

No.

I'm just curious.

I don't just plan here.

If you don't have comps, this is like any other real estate that we hear.

If you don't have comps and he's coming in protesting the amount where saying the assessed value, how can we just give a number?

And this that's a that's a drastic number.

I'm just trying to figure out how do we have the income?

We have comps.

You do have comps?

Yeah, sure.

So that's the comps come in at 1.5 million.

Yeah.

That's being sold or just the value of being assessed by the process.

That's that's that's the um that's the value that he place on comparable properties.

Right.

Okay, all right so what he's asking.

I didn't hear that.

There's no there's not gonna be a sale of 15,000 unit.

A deduction of 15,000.

No, no.

I mean, I think he said something 300, 400,000 is the total value.

So if you divide that by the number of units, I think you get 15,000.

I'm just saying that's that's not a realistic number for the sales price.

Yeah.

Is twice my size, so I don't know where they got the comps from if they got the comps.

And this is 2025.

So we're responsible for developing the cost approach, the income approach, and the sales comparison approach.

Does he in almost all cases the cost approach would be the lowest?

Does he get to see the the comps that were made available?

No.

He's not okay.

He's not being assessed via a sales comparison approach.

This is a cost.

We're not assessing him based on the comps.

We're assessing him straight on cost.

Which is gonna be less when you're in this type of building, you're gonna rely heavily on the income approach to value, not sales comparison.

Now, the sales comparison approach will develop the cap rates so you can perform the income approach, but there won't be a comparable property, his size, his area that we can look and say there was a sale, but the market would derive how we arrive at his value based on the income approach.

Well, there's 20, there's 20 units.

And I'm figuring like from 160 to a million, that's a large, yeah.

160 was generous.

Um it wasn't an accurate number that we gave.

Uh and that was corrected.

Um even the 600,000 I offered was below what the income is.

Um I mean income is at what nine hundred thousand, we said close to that.

Right.

Time twelve sixty six years, seven thousand a year.

So if you capitalize seventy thousand dollars a year with the cap rate, you're gonna be around eight hundred nine, eight or nine hundred thousand.

Yeah.

For how many years was that um ninety percent?

Since he bought it in 2014.

So he's been getting a break for over 10 years on the property.

Okay.

And what what it brought about, how did like how did this come up?

So with the new law that came into place for our apartments in 2024, we had to take off all adjustments, so any obsolescence, any market adjustments to get to straight cost.

Because we have to do it based off cost, income, and sales.

So that all fell off when we went to that.

So if we use rough numbers for cap rate, something should come up right by running 150,000.

Okay.

And the cost you said was around six something?

No, the cost is at nine.

Oh, cost is at nine, okay.

Nine thirty-one.

But you had offered him six of them.

Okay.

To try to come to an agreement.

Yeah.

Is is this a like what's the deduction for that's the cap two deduction, which you'll learn about later today in the level changes.

So that's a 75.

Yes.

So it's pretty close to the 850 that were if we used the cap rate.

Yes.

Okay.

Based on based on that new law.

Is this a is he in a unique situation where I mean I I just I have a problem with uh the the his tax rate in one year jumping from 160 to 931.

Like that that's a that's a that's a burden I don't I'm not sure that many people could absorb.

Um so I guess is this a unique situation, or are we going to see a lot of this based on that new law or he saw it last year and we made an adjustment for one year, but I can't continue to lower it just because of the tax amount he's getting.

I have to value it based off of what the actual value is.

So that's why we we gave him a break for one year, but in 25, I can't do that large of a break again because if I do it for him, then I have to do it for the whole county.

Um so that's why we're where we're at.

That I mean, unfortunately, he's been getting a break for over 10 years by having it paying only on 10% of the property.

That's partially our fault for not catching that during reassessment, but I mean, we have to assess it based off of what's there and the cost tables, and that's where we're at at the 900,000.

Have you ever had an indication of value performed on the property, an appraisal of some sorts, like anything that says this is what your property is worth?

No, not yet.

I mean, no, not at all.

You you never had to say it.

I purchased for 50 and it was at 160, it's run to almost a million.

And if you basing it solely off the my income, yeah, that's and that's how took an accountability of everything I have to pay to keep the upkeep to keep it running.

Well, it is generating 120,000 dollars annually prior to me after my expense.

That's a part of the income.

Yeah, we would deduct your that's your gross.

Right.

That's your gross income.

Like I said, I got dumpster fees, uh, everything.

Yeah, and that's part of the business, right?

I mean, you're in the apartment owning business, so every apartment owner has those similar fees, and we take that all into account.

It's a market expense.

We're gonna use a market derived cap rate.

So what do you think this property is worth?

I think we already asked that.

Like I said, about three three fifty at best.

You would not sell it for 350,000.

It's only 20 innings.

Yeah, but it's generating 120,000 annually.

The break, I didn't really have to do too much.

Uh I paid 50,000 after close and I walked away and only had to pay 13,000.

Yeah, but what you paid for, that's kind of irrelevant so long ago in time and condition of the property.

I mean, you would have bought it reflective of that that market back in 2014, over you know, 10 years ago.

I don't think a bank will ever loan that amount of money on 20 yellings.

I don't know.

I mean, they would look at your income, your pro forma of what it's so look at the value of it too.

They won't just look at the income, they look at the actual cash value of that's how they derive the value.

Yeah, so would it would it it wouldn't get come to it?

To cap to bounce off of Joe's uh question.

What if he was to get an appraisal on what those units are actually worth?

If they come back at the 900, it is what it is.

So has that been brought up?

Has he been a I mean he can get an appraisal?

It's not something we are saying he has to get, but it's totally his choice.

Yeah, we would look at it.

But we want to we want to be fair because it is generating good money, but like Greg was saying from 160, now I'm gonna got a million dollar assessment.

That's that's a lot.

So I'm saying is to curb the curiosity.

Can he get an appraisal?

Yeah, he can.

If it comes back at that number, it is what it is, but it comes if it comes back at a lower number, then he has evidence that it's worth this much.

Right.

So I'm but that's his choice to pay for the appraisal or not.

Right, but I mean that may be something I'm not so recommending.

I'm just throwing it out there, like that's what I think would be fair.

That way you won't make a table for a month.

So I like to I like to make a motion.

Too much.

I'd like to make a motion.

Yes, sir.

To table this for a month for the taxpayer to come back with evidence as to the value of if you wish.

Yeah.

Or we can mo we can do it right now and and then you know give me a I'm giving you I I would like to give you a fair opportunity.

I'll greatly approach it.

To get a estimate.

That way we you know, and then we know Missy knows what the value is.

So that's my motion to table it for a month.

To type it, yes.

Second.

So move second and tabled them for 30 days.

Well, it's our next port meeting, right?

Right, August 2028.

Sorry.

You should we have the zero crow?

No.

No, it's just been him talking to me and giving me his income.

So you don't have anything written and um written down or printed out as to all your expenses.

I can get it together.

So we try to we're we're trying to be fair, but we need the information.

We can't just have you telling us, you know what I mean?

We have to have the information, you know what everything is, what the value is, so we can be fair to the taxpayer.

Correct.

Granted, we want to collect money when money's due, but we also want to be fair.

Right.

So that's my motion.

Okay.

So it's been moved second to tables till August the 28th for next board meeting.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Against the ayes have it.

So we'll set up next month.

So we just get your some proof from your value.

What do you think the value should be, and we'll go from there.

All right, thank you.

We'll be back here uh on August 28th.

We'll send you a notice.

Okay.

Yep.

Uh Brett Alberry, you're here.

Are you here on something?

He's here to listen, but we do have a correction.

A small correction.

Okay.

This is for 101 West Ohio.

There are three parcels, but the correction uh is only with respect to the main parcel, which is 101 212.

And good morning, uh, Mr.

President, members of the board, assessor of time.

State or YR.

I will do that.

Brent Albert, my attorney with Bakery Drinker on behalf of the taxpayer.

Okay.

Um West of Ohio 2 property owner LLC.

Gotcha.

Several weeks ago, we worked out uh values uh with Missy and Gabe, and uh when the agenda came out yesterday, um we uh cross-checked the agenda values with uh the agreement uh values uh and uh there was 27.

Yep, sorry, page 27 of your agenda.

Yes, it's uh the first is on uh so one correction for the 2025 tax year, it's on page uh 77 of the agenda.

Uh the improvement value uh for 2025 should be sixteen million twenty-seven thousand three hundred for a total of seventeen million nine hundred and seventy-two thousand seven hundred uh for the twenty twenty-six tax year that is on page one oh one of the agenda.

Uh for that the improvement value should be fifteen million eight hundred and thirty-five thousand seven hundred dollars for a total of seventeen million seven hundred eighty-one thousand one hundred dollars, and those uh numbers that I just uh stated are consistent with uh the uh total values that uh we had agreed to, and I what happened, uh the best I can uh make out is the 2025 agenda reflects uh an initial 134 draft uh value for the improvement that was then corrected, and then on the 2026 line item, the agenda reflects what the improvement in total value should have been for 2025, so just a couple of clerical errors, and so that's really what I had I'm asking is just to correct um the 2025 and 2026 to reflect uh the numbers that I just just stated, which are completely consistent with what we had agreed to, and these are just simple clerical errors.

Were the 134s not correct when you signed them because this polls from the 134s?

Well, so for we we don't have uh completely signed 134s, those come after the hearing, but right, but the ones you sent that I sent and you guys signed that.

So the ones you sent uh the for 2025, uh the improvement value was slightly overstated uh by 49 499,100 dollars, and so we sent back a corrected uh number, which would reflect the 16 million uh 27,300.

Okay, and then uh so that's 2025.

So basically for 2025, the original draft of the 134 was overstated on on the improvement value by 499,100, and we sent back uh a corrected number, and then for on the 2026 agenda item on page 101, just somehow that those two numbers for 2025 were in uh incorrectly put onto the 2026 agenda item.

Excuse me.

So you keep saying overstated.

So did you provide did you provide documentation?

Yeah, we came to an agreement on a number.

I understand you came to an agreement, but did he have proof from an appraisal report and all that saying that those numbers should be what they are?

We we had appraisals.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

No, I'm asking.

No.

No, we I it's a it was a stipulated agreement.

So I said me, stipulate me.

We sat down and we talked and had discussions and looked at what they documentations they had.

They didn't have an appraisal.

No, we did have an appraisal.

So wait a minute.

So so okay, so I'm just making sure I'm I'm understanding this.

So when y'all had the sit down and and he keeps saying stated, y'all talked about it.

Did he give you guys an appraisal?

He did from a realtor or somebody saying that the value should be that what it is.

It's actually uh his appraisal was less than what we agreed to, correct?

Correct.

But who was appraisal from?

It was from an app uh Cushman and Wakefield.

Chris Cushman and Wakefield did it, an appraisal company.

Okay.

That's because he keeps saying stated, and I'm like, okay, he just did it.

So he's saying that what we stated and what we talked about in our stipulated agreement, not what was stated in the appraisal or whatever.

We we sat down, we said these numbers when I sent them to have them done, put on the agenda.

We missed that our numbers were incorrect on the 134.

So he's made an agreement for 18 million, and we sent him an agreement for 18.5 million.

Right.

We had the wrong number.

That's a lot of money to make a mistake.

When you're doing three parcels for five years, no, I know I'm just saying I want to make sure I'm clear because we do we we talk about one issue, now we got the same issue.

We're gonna be fair across the board with everybody.

So I just want to make sure that the information was provided the information because this is a lot of money to say, oh, well, we just we're gonna make it this.

And I just I just want to make sure I'm clear on how that process.

And we believe this is a fair deal.

Okay, all right.

And and we appreciate working with Mincy and Gabe and all of Joe's states.

I'm sure you do what's that one I want?

What's that one I want in West Ohio Island?

Um, I mean several office buildings.

I believe there's the it's on the agenda for some exemptions as well.

There's some state properties.

Um the commission for higher education wasn't it.

I'm just trying.

I'm just trying to picture where it's at.

I didn't pull it up for you, I'm sorry.

Well, basically we're just talking about numbers.

Right, correct.

Just correcting the numbers, and we'll correct any.

Right.

Yes, okay.

It's it's uh Ohio and Illinois.

Right.

Okay, uh yeah, I know where to have now.

Well, I know where it was at, but I was trying to figure what's what was in there.

Okay.

So do we need a motion on that, or we just needed to be like one?

Yes, he would like a motion to correct make the corrections.

Okay, I'll make a motion to get the one parcel or two parcels.

It's three parcels.

But the correction's only on one, one oh one, two, one, two, two.

I'll make a motion to make sure the numbers are correct on parcel one on one two one two for 25 and 26.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um thank you.

Thank you, Brian.

Good Emily Scott.

This is on your agenda cover page.

And Andrew Green and Jay Ugar.

You're on the same autogetter.

Yes.

So this is for parcel 110543 uh 2026-136 on page 238 of the agenda.

So I was instructed to bring eight handouts.

Uh so I know there's more than eight of you, so I've got a I don't know if Satan's just share the number and stuff up by it.

Uh so I know there's more than eight of you, so I'm gonna, I don't know if Seth wants to share the number and stuff up, but um my name is Emily Scott.

I'm the executive director of Near East Area Renewal.

We're a nonprofit community development corporation that builds affordable housing on the near east side of Indianapolis.

We're here today as related to parcel 1105843, which is uh part of the Mini Hartman uh development uh on the Near East side.

We are the owner of record on the property card.

We were involved in a low-income housing tax credit uh development of this former IPS school in 2018 and 2019.

Uh we're here today to request an exemption for charitable use on the parcel, uh specifically the parcel that the daycares operated in, the uh Shepherd uh community early learning scholars uh that's operated by Shepherd uh Community Center, they're a nonprofit community center on the near east side.

Uh again, we're we and uh Shepherd took occupancy of the space and began operating the daycare in late 2020, and I think in 2020 or 2021, we filed uh uh one uh 140 or 136 form on behalf of the property was filed.

At the time it was filed, I believe the building uh the space was still a white box, and uh Shepherd had not taken occupancy.

And so in the the years since it was filed and in 2020 or 2021, um indicating the space was vacant.

Uh there has not been a request for exemption since then.

Uh our organization primarily builds single family affordable housing, so uh we were not in the business of traditionally operating uh spaces that are for nonprofit uses, and our partners at Shepherd are in the business of operating a community center and operating a child care, so uh I don't think we potentially miss the opportunity to understand uh the process for requesting exemption and the subsequent years.

Over the last year, we've taken inventory of that and are here today to both request an exemption for the current year and a retroactive exemption for uh the years for which uh Shepherd has uh operated the the charitable child care in the facility.

So my uh our partners at uh Shepherd Community Center, Reverend Jay Hyde is really here to speak to the nature of the charitable use for the property.

Good morning, Shepherd Community.

In August of 2020, opened our early childhood center there.

Um I'm sorry, Jay Height.

Okay.

We go ahead.

Okay.

Uh and so we currently operate facilities at 4107 East Washington Street and provide a variety of services at this location.

It is all child care from four weeks to four years old.

We average between 50 to 70 kids there.

We have been in existence in the near east side for 41 years.

So it's it's recommended for approval for 26.

Yes.

So we're just we're trying to figure out 45.

So if everyone knew about 25, right?

They're requesting it, 21.

21.

From the year that the daycare began occupancy of the building.

So was this a previous daycare before?

Or this a no, it was an IPS school that was closed down, it said empty.

I'm trying to pitch a 340.

Here it's between New York and I have it up Vermont and Sherman Drive.

Yeah, right there.

Oh, okay.

Across from the old firehouse, which 21 you've been operating in the same status.

And so you realize recently that you would have you should have filed for an exemption back in 21.

That's correct.

They did.

They did file exemption in 219.

It was denied by a former employee.

And as I mentioned, uh in the description of the parcel, it was indicated that it was a white box.

So I think whenever we sub whoever predecessors involved in the project submitted the form, it was not reflective of the occupancy of the space.

And so based on the fact that it was like a white box with no chair to place.

It wasn't owned, occupied, and used.

It was owned by a nonprofit, but it wasn't occupied.

Right, you have to meet the three of the tests.

So the one test failed and they denied it back in 21.

Yeah.

Okay, but you do have an exemption on file for 21 forward.

No.

Oh, oh, I mean you have a file 21 that was denied.

Yes.

Yeah.

And then I think fast forward to 26 and it's approved for 26.

So we're talking about 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.

I don't know that it's been approved for 26.

I think that's for it's recommended.

Right, it's recommended.

Yeah, sorry.

And I think again, I think it was uh um just a mislabel.

A mislabel, and also just again, I think our our collective organizations didn't necessarily understand the process for which we should have been pursuing an exemption.

Um, and so I think uh as you know, um I'm sure Jay could get into the details of you know what the C C D F voucher reductions and things like that, operating daycare has been uh more complicated business throughout the state of Indiana over the last year, and so as both his organization and our organization have taken account of you know the cost of operating the daycary thing, trying to understand where we can save money, we should have been saving money on the operations, which is not uh was kind of caught in our collective you know financial review over the last year.

So how many buildings do you guys have currently so our organization is a nonprofit affordable housing developer?

We uh we own in addition to this, we own two commercial spaces that are leased to for-profit businesses.

We do not have a tax exemption on either of those spaces because they're leased to small businesses.

We have our office space, which is and a former um house that was renovated at 10th and rule, which is our office.

I think we have an exemption on that, and then we have a number of vacant lots in which we develop affordable housing, but because they're vacant, they don't have any charitable use.

We pay property taxes on those until we're they are developed.

Well, how long they've been vacant.

Um most of them are vacant lots that we bought from the land bank in the city of Indianapolis.

So we primarily build housing using HUD grants that come through the Department of Metropolitan Development.

But you have so many years until you have to develop, and then you start paying taxes.

So I was wondering how long you had she's paying taxes.

Oh you are paying I don't know how long you've been paying taxes on those properties since you've owned them?

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Can we go back year and on more years on exemptions or I mean 2021 is they filed and we're not so I don't know how we get to 21.

I think we're open to we would like to request as much as possible, but don't understand the limits of your procedural ability to go back.

So um we are making the request but understand it may not be granted, but appreciate consideration for prior years if possible.

When was the daycare open?

In August of 2020.

Yes.

I wonder why we denied it in 21 then.

Don't say it right.

This says exemption disallowed not being used for an exempt purpose.

I think which we thought it was not a white box.

She claimed that it was a white box on the application, so it was not being an unoccupied building not being used for an exempt purpose, therefore it was denied based on that.

And I think at that time a CPA potentially filed that on behalf of the property without realizing that they've been taken occupancy, so that was an administrative error on our part when that forum was filed, and so based on what was submitted at that time, like it would not have met the requirements.

And you're only using part of school, right?

So the the parcel that's for consideration to before you today is entirely occupied by Shepherd Community Center.

The rest of the building, which was partially, which was uh a rehab of the remainder of the school and the new construction is a low-income causing a low-income housing tax credit project, but that is not part of the discussion today.

Is that exempt?

No.

Okay, but you're just satisfied on one parcel to be exempt.

Okay, correct.

They're just asking for the daycare.

Okay.

Any questions from the board?

Um, I think you kind of asked this, but my my understanding um since I've been on this board is that the maximum we can go back is three years.

I thought that was like real estate and statute, right?

Like that was that's that's been my impression.

Um so I just uh I guess with that being said, um I would be uh willing to make a motion to go back those three years um that were allowed by law to do um and and give you the exemption.

So back to 2023.

Yes.

Yeah, it's actually six of the payment cycles.

So that's yeah, but I feel like we're in the middle of the year.

We're in the middle of the payment cycle.

Half of 2023 back instead of all of 2023.

So they get all of 25.

24 and then 23.

Yeah, okay.

Because we're in 25, pay 26 right now.

So that's two payments.

No one.

One.

And then so you would look at half of 22, possibly.

But to make life easier, it would be nice if we just went back to 23.

23.

It'd make it easier for the auditor and for us.

That's awards decision.

So okay, so um my motion will be to go back to 23.

Pay 24.

Okay, I'll second that.

See you non-all fair say aye.

Aye.

Against the ayes have it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any other guests out there?

Staff.

Okay.

Page eight.

Ellie Alicia has one that needs to be tabled.

Yeah, I need um three zero one eight nine one to be tabled.

It was originally put on as a failure to appear, but then they contacted the county and they were able to come to an agreement.

It's the last one on page eight.

So you want table it?

Yes.

You got 39 million for 2023.

You know, 2024 you got 28 million.

I'm just giving you rough numbers.

And 2025 got a page one, yeah, withdrawal at 39 million.

953.

2024, you got an agreement of 28 million 340.

In 2025, we got a withdrawal 33 million six hundred and seventy-five.

Difference between the three years.

Well, cost tables is one.

Um the other reasoning behind this is um income.

No, this is the one where I believe we corrected the framing pricing.

Um and the occupancy.

So we had some of this property priced out as office and it's utility storage.

We also had the whole building being priced out as reinforced concrete.

Um first floor should have been fire resistant or fireproof steel, and the upper floors should have been wood joist.

So over the different years, the cost tables for those pricings made a difference.

So some they just withdrew and then others it went out.

Well the first one they would drew 39 million and 953.

Right.

And the second year went down to 28 million.

Right, from 30 million.

It was in at 30 million.

It was 39 million a year before.

Right.

Well, they agreed to.

But um 24 is 24 is um the year for because these are apartments that we went to cost income and sales.

Okay.

So that's why that value went from 39 million to 30, and then we went to 28 based off of the framing adjustments.

Okay, then an extra day withdrew at 33 million.

Right.

And same thing on the other parcel 101.

Right.

Because the value, I believe the value would have gone up for the other years, right, y'all?

Yes, we we adjusted the it was about 25 square foot was the framing just.

So the values would have gone up for the other years based off of the framing adjustments, so they just withdrew their appeals.

Okay, I'm just seems strange one from 39 to 28 to 33.

I mean, those are the new cost tables we get every year from the state.

It's no coincidence that we're seeing these swings in value on apartment complexes.

We had to basically fee appraise every apartment complex in Marion County, like the state of Indiana was instructed to do by the General Assembly.

And so by doing that, you're gonna remove things that have been on there in error.

Right.

I mean, you're gonna wipe the slate clean of everything, and you're gonna see these bounces when the state impl implements a new cost table.

You know, we still have to assess them the same way, but you're gonna have huge fluctuations in value on the cost from one year to the next.

Um, and then you know, we have to apply those every year now according to the General Assembly.

So they changed the cost tables every year.

Yes.

Well they did.

They did in both 25 and 26.

And 24.

No.

Yeah, 24 was new too.

So it since 24, we've had new new cost tables every year.

Okay.

Why do they keep doing that?

Just you're lowering amount of no, they're raising the cost tables.

No, I'll put them up there.

Your your values went down.

So our it was older, like for 23, it was a different cost table than 24.

So the values, I believe, were lower in 23.

23, we were using, we weren't using costs.

Correct.

We were using a income or whatever appraisal approach based on sales.

And then 24 now they get the lowest of the three approaches, which is gonna be cost.

I mean, in nearly every case in 24, it was cost.

And then in 25 they went up further.

And income became the lowest on you know, a small percentage, but cost is still the overwhelming lowest approach.

Page eight, parcel three zero zero zero one seven one.

Is that a house or is that commercial building?

No, I got assessment twenty one thousand the house.

No, you know that's uh a structure.

Looks like just a pole barn or something.

Went down to 21,000.

I don't want to say why.

They changed it from a detached garage to an enclosed car shed.

So two different types of structure.

So that's car shed central garage.

Where's the egg on it would be this?

The whole thing is a let's table it.

Okay.

I mean, I'm not concerned about the shed versus the garage, but yeah.

It's over two acres in the land is 4600.

It's a great deal.

Doesn't appear to be farmed.

I checked in the next for the deep.

Okay.

I'll make a motion to check pages one through 26.

Oh, I'm sorry, page 26, parcel 804, 5435 has no minutes.

I think that's the one that we looked at, but yeah, that's the one that we we already did that one.

Gotcha.

Okay.

So I'll make a motion that page one two twenty-six one of the table.

Second.

So I'm gonna for discussion.

See none of all favor say aye.

Against you guys have it.

Yeah, pages 27 through 104.

I have a few parcels to abstain from this drawing verb.

Parcel 108, 5887 on page 27.

Parcel 50, 3945 on page 28, 35, and 87.

Parcel 503, 7904 on page 28, 35, and 88.

Parcel 109, 7252 on page 32.

And parcel 501 8006 on page 87, 171, and 174.

Pass that out of you.

It's great.

Page 30, SMC Financial Group.

Were they all done through like a mass appeal, whatever?

Surely thank you.

Oh 102 7679 is one of the parcels.

There's a bunch of SNC financial group.

767.

Okay, we're all looks like Carmen did this one.

Yes, she worked them all together.

Page 76.

Parcel.

Uh 905.

8716.

Yes.

Speedway?

Yes.

So part of that building is there, but we took it off.

You took it all off and couldn't believe it's partly there.

Yes.

It's been there like that for years.

Yes.

Because it shouldn't have been like that.

Sorry.

It should not have been like that.

Because there wasn't, it was just frame.

We've had this before, so this is just another year.

But yeah, there was nothing the way we assess commercial-wise, there has to be the structure there to know what we're supposed to call it.

Okay.

It was just beams.

No walls, no windows.

So it's 24 day on a year to go back on.

Yes, we've already done the other years.

And took it off for no better years.

Okay.

Page 79, parcel 104, 6554.

And our capitalist one is an apartments again.

104 6544.

104 6554.

Yes, this was adjusted based off of the in-house.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay, that's one question.

I'll make a motion accept pages 27 through 104.

Second.

Moon secondary for discussion.

Seeing none all in favor say aye.

I against the ask have it.

Uh POSP for the hearing officer, pages 105 through 169.

On page 105, if we can uh table parcel 104-8792.

Um I don't believe the taxpayer was given notification that this was going to be heard this month at the board.

Was that the case last month too?

Well somebody keeps putting it on the agenda without sending out a notice.

So and I don't think it's you.

Um so we have somebody else that's finding the P2BO table than just automatically putting them back on.

Um I go to Lysha first before it comes here or not.

Well, I this is an auditors issue, so that's why it has to be heard here at Peter Bulla.

So that's why I had the auditor's office here earlier, and then I realized I don't believe the taxpayer was notified.

So a homestead or whatever.

It's a homestead issue.

Okay.

So Alicia, will you send out a 114 on that for us, please?

For next month.

For next month.

Okay.

Alice, do you have anything on these?

No.

Okay.

I'll make a motion to set page 105 through 169 with exceptional only tabled.

Second.

Second and for discussion.

Seeing none on all fair say aye.

I have it.

We'll have withdrawals pages uh 170 through 210.

I'll make a money on set page 170 through 210.

Second.

All favor say aye.

Aye.

Against guys have it.

We got exemptions pages 211 through 256.

Except those ones.

We had a couple already, right?

Yeah.

Page 238 where I had 236 parcel 1100 880.

It's not part of that new hotel.

1100 880.

Yes.

21 is 20s, 2810.

259 stock capital 279.

Illinois, and I guess that's all part of commission center stuff.

Yes.

Can we talk about that before the this is when the city came in and discussed actually references on that one too?

Um a new hotel downtown Capitol, Panama Plaza.

Oh weren't you part of that?

I was.

Yeah.

Not recently.

No, not recently.

But it isn't, but then we thought about part of it being leased to uh private.

Right, but they're not open yet.

They're still under construction.

Okay, so it'll be exact until are operational.

Once they become operational, then it will go to a percentage for what's over on the first floor or other floors that shouldn't be included.

I mean hotel.

Right?

Well, the first floor though, I believe they're gonna have some business.

Retail, right?

Retail.

Um, and then I think the question becomes to like some hotels have been putting in like uh golf simulators and stuff for guests.

I think that might come up as a question at some point where that goes into play.

But want the hotels space be taxable.

No, the hotel space will not be taxable because the city owns it, and the way the lease agreement is um it's still the city's property until a certain amount is made.

It's the city's property, correct?

That's all he's saying.

It's the city.

But I believe there's released out to anything.

Right, it's leased out to the company, but the the setup that the city did with the company.

Because no taxes being paid.

Correct.

Right.

Right.

It's a Hilton brand, but there's an agreement that they won't pay taxes until a certain amount of profit or something, I believe, is what it was.

It's been a couple years since we had the conversation.

My my understanding is it's not a lease, but it's more of an operational agreement.

There's no profit that the manager of the hotel is not making a profit based on the revenue being generated.

It's just it's just whatever the fee is.

Now I'm reaching back in my memory for two years ago, but that's that I just want to make that that was my understanding.

Yeah, I believe it's still the same.

Okay.

So the hotel makes profit then was that might go to the city.

I believe it goes to pay down the yes.

Plus it's a 5th district too, right?

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

I'll make a motion to set page.

Yeah.

I was gonna say we could table um two parcels.

One is on page two twenty-eight.

What's the parcel?

107601.

Sorry, parcel what?

107601.

Okay.

And then the other one is on page 249.

7035792.

7135792, you said.

Yes.

Yes, I need to um change the recommendation.

And one's rent's on that one, isn't he?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, I'll make a motion to set pages 211 through 256 with the exceptions on the table.

Second.

Moon secondary first description.

None all fair say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Against the ayes have it.

Out of business.

We did that with Scott.

Yes.

And we don't do the other ones turn a meeting or separate meeting or I how does that have to go, Benita?

For the for the presentation.

Yeah, for the presentation we just before we get started though.

Um we brought up the union discussion last month, and then I had just come today just to give just a legal perspective of what if anything has changed from a court case perspective uh regarding unions, and then you know, if we need to dive deeper, we can, but I was gonna have her just update you a little bit on that.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Um, so there were two recent decisions by the Indiana tax court.

You want to state your name?

Oh, sorry, I'm just reading Gaston from the Office of Provision Council.

Okay.

I don't know, but public mind not.

Go ahead.

And so there were two recent court decisions from the Indian tax court in March of this year that involved unions and the Allen County assessor.

So not us, Allen County.

Um, and there were some uh questions about what they mean and like what what the impact of those decisions will be.

And looking at those decisions, they both turned on the definition of school, and uh in both cases the Indiana Tax Court reversed and remanded to the IBTR for them to uh use a a broader definition of school.

So I so it's honestly it's hard to say what the impact is going to be since they were remanded, so we don't have final decisions on those cases yet.

Uh but it appears that the the definition of school is going to be broader than the IBTR thought that it was.

Uh so the impact isn't isn't really on unions, even though the decisions involve unions.

The impact that that we'll actually see is gonna be on the educational exemption.

So just just real real quick.

And is this come into the realm of unions because they're using it for educational purposes or training?

Is that how yes, exactly?

If you classify an area of the building as a training center, then it is exempt, but if it's not, it isn't.

I mean they still have to meet the criteria for educational exemption.

It's just that the uh and it looks like in both of those cases the Allen County assessor wasn't really fighting as much about that that uh that they may have agreed about parts of that, so there wasn't much of a fight about that.

Uh so this kind of case could come out differently if the facts were better developed regarding the the educational position.

So it's lumber anyways, right?

Yeah, I mean, I think it's it was there was an inquiry as to something was something that's changed uh and how the courts are viewing exemptions being allowed for unions, and I don't think that is the case.

Uh I mean it's up to you to the board if you guys want us to dive deeper into the issue and we could call the unions here and have them testify, retestify to what they're using the space for, or I guess we'll look to your guidance.

I mean, you could wait for the maybe the court to make a decision.

I don't know.

It's gonna be we meant allowing them based on uh court ruin from way back when, right?

Yeah, I think there was an injunction back in 2009.

Uh I don't I don't know if it just yeah, it stopped kind of broad.

So nothing, nothing that we have seen since the court injunction of 2009 has changed the exemption status of unions.

But then the inquiry stated a court case may have done that, but according to our legal counsel, it hasn't.

Okay, so I don't know if we just want to wait, and maybe if there is a final court decision, then we can have them take a look at it and see if it does, and then bring it back to you.

But I think that's a good idea.

No, don't that much sense?

I think we'll just kind of leave it as it is in open air.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you.

Okay, do we continue this meeting?

Do we need an adjourn and start a new one?

Or no, okay.

So we got a pilot program or TIFF.

I mean you got TIP on agenda, but it's a pilot program.

It is the pilot program.

I never changed it to say pilot program.

Um they don't want to stay for my presentation.

I should I feel hurt they don't want to stay for it?

So this is what I got from the city of Indianapolis.

Um I sat with them and uh Brittany was actually in on that one with us.

Um this kind of goes over what the city looks at for their pilots and how they do the applications and their timelines.

So pilot agreements allow for property tax exemption for low-income housing.

Um, these are the lie tech properties that we call.

Um they're usually 15 term 15-year terms, DMD negotiates these with the developers, they have an application that they have to fill out that because DMD requires the project to provide services to the tenants of the property.

Um the city cap catches this in their community benefits agreement.

Um I don't have I have the application, I just that they use they ask for like educational training classes, maybe like financials, or where they have them help them find jobs, uh things like that.

DMD is the one who is they uh monitor the compliance annually on the properties and with the agreement to make sure that what they're doing, um they are the ones who can terminate the pilot agreement and lose their tax exemption status.

So these are apartments that are coming to us and asking for a property tax exemption because they've worked with the city to pay a tax amount and they've met the city requirement.

Um the city has a program for scored policy priorities, permanent supportive housing, deeper levels of affordability, more units for special needs population, um, more higher units with three plus bedrooms for the larger families, keeping affordable housing more in Indy.

Um they have to have on-site property management or resident staff and resident community services focus on economic mobility and financial stability, community health and wellness, food access, youth enrichment, and community investments that's all different things that they kind of require these groups to have projects that meet the program parties will score higher and be eligible for more of a saving with the city.

So the more they do of these scored policies with the city, the higher amount that they could get saved from the city.

But is there offer new projects correct?

Correct, new projects, and do it some old and rehabit, and right.

Yeah, and and they only offer it through for 15 years.

So it's allocated through the state.

The city doesn't choose who gets the credit, but developers often come to the city looking for a commitment to enter into a pilot to discriminate to demonstrate a stronger application when applying to the state.

The pilot application is due March 31st for projects applying in the state's summer round or August 31st for projects applying in the state's fall.

They have to do a presentation, housing pipeline team and staff evaluations in April or September.

All projects have to meet the threshold requirements that will be brought to the city county council for consideration, depending on when they apply, either in June or November.

If they get the approval, DMD would provide a commitment to enter into the pilot agreement to help the projects.

Project receives council approval in July, developer applies to the state in July for the LITEC, state announces awards in November, DMD then negotiates terms of the pilot agreements only with those projects that are rewarded the LITEX credits by the state.

So if they they can apply and not get the award, and then the state or the city won't work out an agreement with them.

If they do get the approval DMD and the developer enter into a pilot agreement in the first quarter, the developer submits for the property tax exemption on April 1st.

So that's kind of all the basics.

Basics of a LITEC program.

I think we've had more pilots, and I thought it would be good for you guys to kind of see what the city's looking at.

So you all are the last step of it.

Right.

And if you chose not to grant an exemption, they won't get it.

Right.

And the city could tax exemption.

Yeah.

And the city could come back on them if they're not meeting the agreements that the city has paid a pilot with them on the pilot.

So if they stop providing the programs that they said they were, then the city can pull their pilot agreement.

And then we can come back and put exemption.

And then we could come back on the exemption.

Okay.

Yep.

All right.

New laws.

I know you guys are excited to see this.

I kind of gave you a lot.

A lot of it isn't completely affecting the PTABOA.

But I think it's good for you guys to have an idea.

Sure, go ahead and weed flow now.

It's fine.

So we have major credits and deductions, which is mostly the homestead credit.

Indiana homeowners automatically get a 10% credit on there.

There's a credit and cap cap credit cap and calculations.

The credit is capped at $300 and applied after all other deductions.

The credit benefits about two-thirds of Hoosier homeowners based on property value.

So there's still a value that goes in there.

So it's going to be fixed dollars and percentages and to it was fixed dollars and percentage and it's going into a single-based percentage increasing through 2031.

The deduction increases increases gradually to about 66.7% of the assessed value by 2031.

So it's a slow process.

Get the homestead, 3% gets nothing.

But 2% for rentals.

So the 2% also applies to single family homes that are rented out, so doubles or triplexes get a 2% credit now.

Anything that falls under the so even if it's vacant land, it's a 2% because they're that could help some people.

So residents that could help some people.

Um the biggest change was in business personal property, the exit exemption thrust threshold rise from 80,000 to 2 million.

Um so basically any business that reports personal property less than two million dollars files this year and then they don't file anymore.

And it's acquisition costs.

So it's not what they paid for it.

What's the threshold now?

80,000.

It was 80,000.

Now it's two million.

Okay.

So they changed it from 80,000 to 2 million.

We lost about 80% of the tax payment, which is not numbers value.

We retained about 80% of the value and lost about 80% of the I don't want to do away with property taxes.

I don't want to do away with property taxes.

They wouldn't at least do away with personal property.

And then they'll have to make it up somewhere else.

Yeah.

Um this talks about the rental stuff again, the two percent cap where it's phased in.

They started at six percent in 2026 and will increase it through 2031.

Um, it helps tenants and stuff.

Here's some ag and special relief.

Um I didn't know this.

I don't know if you did, surely, because I don't really deal with ag, but the ag assessed values are going to be based on the current farming economic conditions.

Um they're doing changed changes to reduce taxable assessments, providing significant multi-year savings for farmland owners, and there's a hundred and twenty-five billion savings over three years for I agricultural stability and supports rural property owners.

So those are more for the smaller counties, probably than in Marion County.

Um, and then the veterans property relief, they got some relief in there.

Um they removed the the value uh value cap.

So it used to be a 240,000 assessed value cap was removed and now there's no value cap.

Um surviving spouses who have not remarried can continue to qualify for the spouse's um disability exemption.

Um this is gonna be a permanent one that they're gonna change it to.

So and then this just talks about different tax rates for fire territories, the property tax referendum timing for schools and stuff.

If you guys have kind of heard about that in the news, I think there's more schools asking for more money again.

Um but it's supposed to provide more accountability.

Um Gabe, I didn't know this one on the tax the county tax bill.

If we if we use our tax bill as notice of assessment, we have to mail out even zero tax bills to taxpayers.

I learned something on this thing.

Um in 2027, and payable 27, so 26 payable 27, they're gonna provide more charts and stuff on the tax bills for taxpayers, clarifying changes in the amount due and stuff for the taxpayers.

So all the people that don't pay property tax, they have to get a bill.

They have to get a bill if we don't send out form 11s notifying them of their assessed values.

Wow.

Or we have to send them.

Right.

They gotta get something that says zero assessment.

Right.

And send that out.

Um this is just bills anyways because you got water, right?

Yeah.

Yeah, water.

If you get a bill for water, you still get assessment in those.

But if you're if you're an exempt, if you're exempt, sometimes they bill that outside of the tax books.

Gotcha.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Um with projections under the various rates and stuff.

So, like if they wanted to go see what the school was asking for, they could put that in and see what it would do to their taxes.

And then the last one they did was for seniors.

Um they're trying to give more over 65 deductions and relief.

I thought it would be a lot, but I believe the over 65 deduction, and I wish Colleen was here for it.

I think it's only like $300 or $100.

$150, $150 off their taxes.

It used to be $14.

Right.

It used to be a $14,000 assessment deduction, and now they just give $150 off their taxes.

Didn't even though they qualified for that L65, they didn't get the benefit of it because the 1% tax cap is how it was calculated.

So that's why part of the reason why they went to this 150 flat credit.

So you just took it to 1% plus $150 off.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And they're still looking at making changes for them.

Um I didn't there isn't really any changes for the exemptions.

One thing to note, um daycares, it's not on this, but if the daycare is a non-profit, we uh they file under charitable, so we don't look at the age ages for them, so they don't get a partial, they can get 100%.

Whereas if it's a for-profit daycare, they can only qualify for an exemption for children four to six years old.

Whereas nonprofits can get six weeks up to six years old.

It because it's more of the charitable side of what they're charging for the kids to come in than the educational side, whereas non for-profits, it's more the educational side.

Okay, hope this helps you guys.

We had those apartments last month.

We still work on those.

Yes, I have not.

Okay.

We've um he's reached out to me, but I called him back.

Okay.

Um, so we'll get those.

And you got some for the board.

I have a question.

Yes.

Those apartments that um got their exemption right away on college.

They changed the yeah, the hub of the are we checking on the to see okay.

How's that going?

Do you know?

Um, I'm waiting to hear.

I gotta get back in touch with Michael Redd on those to set up a time to come out, go out to them and look at them.

But I want to visit every property this time because the last few times I've gone out every year to a couple of the properties, but this time we're gonna ask them to go see every single one.

Yeah, we don't want to be caught off guard on the correct that was a mess.

Yes.

Okay, and we'll have more visitors next month, so it's August 28th.

Okay, so we're we're turned.

Thanks.

Thank you.