BZA Minutes - Virginia



MADISON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATIONMADISON VIRGINIA 22727The Madison County Board of Equalization met Thursday, June 13, 2019, in the County Administration Auditorium in the Town of Madison, Virginia. The committee members present were Phil Brockman, Bill Gentry, Kimberly Pumphrey, and John Quinley; member Doug Fears arrived before the start of the agenda. Board Clerk Suzanne Long was also present. Chairman Brockman noted that a quorum was present and the meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. Chairman Brockman said the agenda would be to discuss the previous six cases and to deliberate and dispose of those and after that to proceed on to the new cases. Chairman Brockman asked the Board if that agenda was approved. There being no disagreement, the agenda was approved. Chairman Brockman stated that regarding the previous minutes the final two cases were “x’ed-out.” Based on those being incomplete, the Chairman recommended that those minutes not be voted on until the correct version was distributed. Member Gentry asked why they were “x’ed-out.” Clerk Long replied that it served as a placeholder for content that couldn’t be recovered on the office laptop (software problem), but was available on the home/personal computer. Chairman Brockman said we will approve the minutes at the next meeting once we have the complete information. Member Fears arrived at the meeting.Menhart. Chairman Brockman began the deliberation with the case of Menhart. The Chairman asked the Board if there were any comments and/or discussion about the Menhart appeal. Member Gentry noted they were very finite in how they approached the assessment, with a subject property and several other comparables. Member Gentry noted what he believes are significant differences between the subject and comparables. Gentry said the Menhart property was built in 2015 and the other two were 8 years older, with depreciation having an effect. Secondly, the comparables did not have finished basements, which would have an effect on the assessment. Member Gentry also noted the location of the house, and while he didn’t go up the driveway, he noted the total privacy of the Menhart lot while the comparables all front on Innovation Road and can be seen from the road. Member Gentry would put higher value on the privacy instead of the how the lot “drops off.” Member Gentry also considered how the Menhart property went up 24% since the last assessment while the comparables went up +/- 10%. Based on all those elements, Member Gentry said he thought the assessed value should be reduced by about 12%, down to about $485,600.00. Chairman Brockman asked if this was the both the land and the home. Member Gentry said, yes, the total assessed value. Member Fears said he thought the land value was fair, but he felt the square footage value placed on the subject house was high compared to the other two. Member Fears said he is in agreement that the Board should reduce the assessment somewhat. Chairman Brockman said that in the reports the Board must complete to change assessments, the change order must differentiate between land value and building value. Member Pumphrey said she noted that it is eight years newer, and the land is more significant than the others there, and she felt the privacy added value. She also felt that based on outside-only viewpoint, their house was comparable to those in the subdivision. Member Pumphrey said “no change.” She also noted that pools could be a negative instead of a positive. Member Pumphrey said she thought the property was evened-out with the rest of those in the neighborhood. Member Quinley said he felt the appellant provided a lot of statistical information, but he didn’t understand why it wasn’t uniform. The other houses were older and the land was less. He felt it was pretty uniform with the others in the neighborhood. Member Quinley said his opinion was “leave it as it is.” Chairman Brockman said he looked at the square foot charts and was satisfied that those were correct. Brockman said the land value said the comparables were different sized-lots, so that has an impact. Brockman said his question was whether or not the land value was correct. The smaller lots seemed to be $7,000/acre and the larger lots were $9,000/acre. Chairman Brockman asked if that was common. Member Gentry said that generally, based on market value, a smaller, buildable lot will have a larger per-acre value than a larger buildable lot. He stated this was a general statement, and subject to topography, access, use and other characteristics. As a general rule of thumb, smaller acre lots go for a higher dollar amount per acre than larger acres. Based on that Chairman Brockman thought he might lower the land value. He noted that the Board is “all over the board” on this appeal. Member Gentry posed the question that maybe we consider about what is the market value for the property? Member Pumphrey said she could see paying more for that property. Member Quinley said we’re supposed to assume that the assessor was accurate, but I don’t see anything here other than the owner saying it was too high. But if this is overpriced for the market with no reason for that overprice, then we should consider it. Member Gentry said that another point is if it is conforming to the other properties, and I think there is general conformity is because it is the same builder. Member Gentry asked how we can reconcile the big differences between the percentage of increase on the comparables (10%) and the subject (24%); that seems odd to me. Member Pumphrey said looking at the past assessment she wondered if there was a “catch-up” this year. Chairman Brockman asked if there were any other comments or discussion. Member Gentry asked how the group can now select an action and a dollar figure. Chairman Brockman said we must take an action. Member Pumphrey asked if the Board decides on the value increase/decrease/no change, and Chairman Brockman said yes, the Board must determine the amount. Chairman Brockman summarized the positions of the Board, saying Member Fears and Gentry proposed reducing the total assessment, Members Pumphrey and Quinley were supportive of no change, and the Chairman was comfortable with the land, but felt the improvement assessment was a little high. Member Fears suggested reducing the improvement value by 5%. $511, 480.00 is the new total value. Chairman Brockman called the question: Quinley-yes, Pumphrey-yes, Fears-yes, Gentry-yes, Brockman-yes. Gioelli. The Chairman asked the Board to present their thoughts on how we should handle this case. Member Gentry asked when you go back to the assessment sheet, with the section on land description, they put a value on a homesite, with 1 acre for the house for $50,000; then they list the other acreage as non-homesite (for less value). Member Gentry asked how they could give the same value for the “studio” as the homesite. He said he believed it was over-assessed based on the land value and utility value for the accessory building (using the same value formula as the actual homesite). It is not divided; it is just an accessory building on that property, and one well and septic serves them both. Chairman Brockman asked if that meant he would assign $7,000 to that one acre from the studio, and eliminate the home site and utility value. Member Gentry said yes, and he said he had an additional concern based on a marketing perspective. The property has been on the market for two-three years with several realtors, listed at $795,000. The neighborhood has much less value. Member Gentry looked at reducing to $697,000.00. Current: $811,000-50,000 (land reduction) and took $64,000 off improvement based on other sales in the neighborhood—since it did not sell. It is over-improved for that neighborhood. Chairman Brockman asked if he wanted to reduce some on the land, as well as on the improvement. Member Gentry said he did not take the financial hardship into account. Member Quinley said that is very reasonable. Member Pumphrey said it is reasonable. Member Fears said he had a problem with this property, and he thinks the proposal to reduce is reasonable. Chairman Brockman said he also thinks it is reasonable, and he asked Member Gentry to restate his proposal. Member Gentry said he did a subtraction of $50,000 off the second homesite for the one acre (on the land), and since the house has been on the market for over two years with good exposure, he subtracted another $64,000 off the improvement. Member Pumphrey asked how he came up with the $64,000 figure. Member Gentry said he went back and looked at other sales, and based on his experience, he said the value is less than her asking price of $795,000. Member Fears asked what the breakdown was for the proposed land value and building value. Member Gentry said one homesite would remain at $50,000. Chairman Brockman asked if the remaining 5.121 acres should be valued at $7,000 each. Member Gentry said yes. Chairman Brockman said that will change the total we just came up with by $7,000.00. Member Pumphrey said the total land assessment was $140,800, less the $50,000 for the second homesite, the new land value is $90,800. The total assessment for the improvements was $670,200, and taking away the $64,000 for the second property, the new improvement value is $228,600.00. When you add that together, you get $697,000.00.Quinley—yes, Pumphrey—yes, Fears—years, Brockman—yes, Gentry—yes Retka. Chairman Brockman noted that Member Gentry would recuse himself from this case as he did in the initial hearing. Member Pumphrey said since nothing had changed on the land—which is what he was appealing—that she felt it could be reduced to what it was last time. Chairman Brockman said that we do have several cases today where the assessor revisited the property and noted that an alternative drain system would be required, so he is in favor of dropping the assessment some. He suggested reducing it by $5,000.00 to $34,600.00. Member Fears said that Mr. Retka said he would be happy with $33,000, and that a reduction to $34,600 would be a good suggestion. Member Quinley agreed that sounded good. Member Pumphrey agreed. Chairman Brockman said the four of them recommend a $5,000 reduction on the land value for Mr. Retka. Quinley—yes, Pumphrey—yes, Fears—years, Brockman—yesMoonen. Chairman Brockman noted that Mr. Gentry has rejoined the Board for deliberation. Chairman Brockman asked for the Board to share their thoughts. Member Pumphrey noted that the land value went down on this assessment. It was the building itself that went up. Member Pumphrey wondered if this was a catch-up. When she looked at the other properties she felt they matched up now. Member Pumphrey said while she was empathetic to the Moonen property being the “gatekeeper” at the road, but she thinks the assessment was correct; she is affirming the existing assessment. Member Gentry said he has different opinion, based on her brand-new fee-based appraisal. Member Gentry believes that carries more weight than the mass-appraisal because it is very detailed and specific. Chairman Brockman noted that the BOE manual said that a fee-based appraisals are to be given great weight, but not absolute. Member Quinley agrees that the fee-appraisal is the best source and fair and equitable; it is up-to-date and reasonable. Member Fears noted that in his previous career his company used this particular appraiser a lot and he felt it is something the bank would have used. Chairman Brockman said that in his opinion this is so close and feels that it is valid for this case (and does not necessarily transfer to other cases). Reduce to $475,000 (off the improvement).Quinley—yes, Pumphrey—yes, Fears—years, Brockman—yes; Gentry—yes.Donelan. Chairman Brockman asked Clerk Long to describe what happened since the last meeting. Clerk Long reported that Mr. Donelan came into the Commissioner’s office during the week of June 10 and spoke with Commissioner Daniel and land use. Commissioner Daniel advised him to focus on the value of the homesite land. The request was if Mr. Donelan is appeal the homesite value and he has scheduled a hearing for the second meeting in July. Chairman Brockman asked if the Clerk took that request as to mean to table the deliberation the current application until he has a chance to come back in July. The Board will table this appeal until the July 25 meeting. Woodward. Chairman Brockman said this is the case on Poor House Road where she did not appear in person but she did send in pictures. Member Pumphrey said there is extreme deterioration and is not livable and the land is questionable as to how the water runs through it. She felt it should be decreased to the previous assessment. Member Gentry said that the previous assessment, if the site conditions had not changed, he said that this house was a “push-over” and that the current total assessment should be reduced to $15,000.00. Chairman Brockman asked Member Gentry to separate between land and building. Member Gentry said land about $9,000.00, and if you were to put a well and septic on it, it wouldn’t fit with the erosion. So he proposed $6,000 for the house (unchanged). $15,000 for the total assessed value.Quinley—yes, Fears-yes, Pumphrey-yes, Gentry-yes, Brockman-yes.Chairman Brockman said that concludes the unfinished business. The Chairman called for a break until 2 p.m. We reduced five assessments.Chairman called the session back to order at 2 p.m.1. Madison Community Health Center, LLC. Chairman Brockman swore in Spencer DeJarnette, Carty Yowell, and Francis Lacy. All three affirmed their oath. Mr. DeJarnette said he is a member of the Culpeper Wellness Foundation, who is the owner of the subject property. He introduced Francis Lacy, who is the Chairwoman of Madison Learning Center Board, who is the lessee of the property. Mr. DeJarnette noted that Mrs. Lacy has been involved with the Learning Center since it was built in 1997. He also introduced Mr. Carty Yowell as a stakeholder, being the finance director of Skyline CAP. Mr. DeJarnette said the property is utilized as a childcare center for the families of Madison County. Mr. DeJarnette said they believe the assessed value of the subject property should be around $500,000 to 600,000. Mr. DeJarnette gave the Board members a copy of a listing of comparable sales as a market study. The comparables include: MWP Supply Co (sale from REC). Mr. DeJarnette believes this is the most comparable in terms of the building. Mr. DeJarnette said most of the acreage of the subject property is not useable; the actual useable acreage is about 1? acres. Another comparable is the Greystone Electric building from 2015. The 3rd comparable was Yoder’s on Rt. 230, which was an arms-length transaction to MESA. The last comparable was Dr. Schenk’s office on Main Street. Mr. DeJarnette felt these are competing properties for the subject property. According to Mr. DeJarnette, all were either 2015 or 2016 sales, but the market has been fairly flat from 2015 to 2019. Member Quinley asked where this information came from and Mr. DeJarnette said it came off the Zillow website for Madison County. Mr. DeJarnette said they are thinking about a fair assessment for the land of $230,000 and $370,000 on the building and improvements, which would make a total of $600,000.00. Mr. DeJarnette said that the 1 acre that the building and parking lot sits on is assessed correctly at $4.50 square foot, but he feels the rest of the land (about 6 acres of excess land) should be assessed the same as agriculture land. Mr. DeJarnette said he appreciates the Board looking into this. Member Quinley asked for clarification of the figures. Chairman Brockman asked if the property is in the town limits. Mr. DeJarnette said the building and parking lot are in the town, the excess land is not. Member Quinley asked if the sale of the old post office was a distressed sale and Mr. DeJarnette said not necessarily, and that is why he didn’t include this in his comparables. Chairman Brockman asked if it was an elementary school. Mrs. Lacy answered that it was never an elementary school, it was purposely built as a child care center. Chairman Brockman asked if all the information on the property record card is correct to the best of his knowledge. Mr. DeJarnette said yes, he got his information from Madison County assessment cards. Member Fears asked what the original price was for the property in 1995 and what the cost of construction was. Mr. DeJarnette said it was $174,360 from Dr. Graves. The building was started in 1996; I do not have any idea of the cost of the construction. There were no other questions. Mr. Yowell said that the reason he was here was that the Skyline Community Action Agency will have a board member on the Madison Community Health Center LLC. It will continue to be non-profit. Member Quinley said he appreciated the thoughtful presentation. Chairman Brockman asked if there should be functional depreciation on the property, and Mr. DeJarnette suggested that there should be physical depreciation. There is about $150,000 maintenance and update work that needs to be completed. Structurally the building is sound, but physical deterioration would be appropriate. Member Gentry asked if this was the original roof, and Mr. DeJarnette said it is. The mailing address is Madison Learning Center, PO Box 665 (don’t put MESA on it). Chairman Brockman advised that the Madison RE taxes be paid and any adjustments will be made at a later date.2. Sue Seale. Chairman Brockman swore in Ms. Seale. Ms. Seale affirmed her oath. Ms. Seale said “If you pay me this amount, it is yours.” Ms. Seale has an appraisal for much less, she said the highest we could get was $490,000.00. She said she tried to sell it for $500,000, but didn’t get anywhere. Chairman Brockman asked if she had information about her neighbors’ properties, and she said that was all on her appraisal. Member Quinley asked when she tried to sell it, and she said three years ago, and nobody would look at it. Chairman Brockman asked if she had done any improvements on the building, and Ms. Seale said “no, maybe ten years ago.” Chairman Brockman asked if there were any other questions from the Board. Member Fears asked if she bought the land and then built the house. Ms. Seale said that was “Hunter’s property” and they bought out his two sisters. Chairman Brockman asked if there were any corrections to be the square footage, and she said she thought that was all correct. Member Fears asked about the difference between the square footage, and she said that addition was ten years ago. Chairman Brockman said she needs to check the square footage on the property record card because it shows a difference since the last assessment. Chairman Brockman asked if the assessor came out a second time, and she no. Chairman Brockman asked if there was anything else. There being none, Ms. Seale left.3. Craig Estes. Chairman Brockman swore in Mr. Estes, and he affirmed his oath and signed his application forms for all three parcels. Mr. Estes said when he bought it, it perked. He thought about selling it in the 1980’s, and it didn’t perk at that time. Mr. Estes said Mr. Dixon from the Health Department had been out and it wouldn’t perk. Mr. Estes said if he sells it, he wants to sell all three lots. Chairman Brockman asked if he met with the Assessor, and Mr. Estes said he had. One of the lots was reduced following the meeting with the assessor. Mr. Estes said the “best” lot is the one that Mr. Dixon from the Health Department wouldn’t even test because he knew it wouldn’t perk. Mr. Estes said another county automatically reduces non-perk able lots. Member Fears asked what the land looks like. Mr. Estes says it backs up to the game commission land. The lower lot is very steep, but the upper two lots have bad elevation—they are too rocky with shallow drainage. Mr. Estes said that Mr. Dixon told him it is a swale and it will hold water. Member Gentry noted that the 1993 report from the Health Department was non-perk able, but did anything bad happen as a result of the 1995 floods? Mr. Estes said no, it wasn’t damaged. Mr. Estes said he is trying to sell all three lots and he can’t even get $45,000.00 (assessed at $109,000 for all 3). Member Fears asked what the best use for this property is. Mr. Estes said “nothing”. With two lots you could put a house on it, with an unconventional system. Or, if you had 20 acres you could put it in forestry. Member Gentry asked if there was any provision for timber, and Mr. Estes said no. Chairman Brockman asked if there were further questions from the Board, and there were none.4. Gabrielle Masill. Chairman Brockman swore in Ms. Masill, and she affirmed her oath. Ms. Masill said her properties are in White Oak Lake. She said these lots were created as lots to access the lake for fishing. They were not created for building lots, and some lots don’t have the appropriate topography for both a house and a septic system. Ms. Masill is now talking about parcels 5 & 6, a house and a garage, one on each; she would never be able to sell lot 5 separately. The land went up 250%. Member Gentry asked if there is a pool on lot 5, but Ms. Masill says the pool is not there. Lot 4 is vacant land. Member Gentry asked if a conventional system could be approved for that. Ms. Masill does not know; she hasn’t done that. She said other lots in the subdivision are for sale and they cannot sell them. Member Gentry asked if when she bought the property, did she buy it with the understanding it could be perked. Ms. Masill said, no, they just bought all three lots at the same time. Member Pumphrey asked if it is lot 4 and lot 5 that she wants reductions for the assessment. Ms. Masill said, yes. Member Pumphrey asked if there is anything she wants done with lot 6. Ms. Masill, said lot 6 has the house on it and she can understand the assessment based on having the house on there. She said she thinks that once there is a house there the assessor bases the assessment on the house and the acreage isn’t so important. She said she can understand that this is a lot that is built out and would have a different value. She said there are some cheaper lots than hers. Member Fears said he is familiar with this property, and he says the lots are so small that you can’t do much with an individual lot. Chairman Brockman asked member Fears asked about the property. Member Fears said his daughter lives there and he can provide his daughter’s assessment as a comparable. Other business. Chairman Brockman asked if there was other discussion because there was some time before the next appointment. Member Gentry said he pulled a recent sale near the Estes property. It was 4.5 acres for $10,000. Member Gentry said he didn’t know if it was perk able or not. Gentry said the little lots are not worth much. But if you can’t get a conventional drain field on it, the value really drops. Chairman Brockman said just getting a truck up the roads to service systems, that is a challenge right there. Member Gentry said a conventional system requires about $6,000, while non-conventional systems can cost $20,000 or more. You could easily spend two-three times what you spent on the land for the septic. Chairman Brockman discussed the change in schedule for the June 27 meeting. There will be only one appellant, Bill Price. The other appellant has cancelled. Chairman Brockman said that Page 66 of the Board of Equalization manual instructs how we dispense with these cases. We will need to prepare separate 907s for each parcel under appeal with changes. Chairman Brockman said the Board issues orders, not suggestions. He stated the Board has broad authority within limited scope. Clerk Long described the June 27 meeting—Mr. Price has 3 separate cases. Chairman Brockman said there is a proscriptive easement on one of the Price applications. 5. Scott Lohr. Chairman Brockman swore in Mr. Lohr and Lohr affirmed his oath. Mr. Lohr said he built his properties himself. There are two properties on one lot and cannot be separated. Mr. Lohr has an appraisal from 2018 for the parcel with the two buildings and another one from the previous year. Chairman Brockman asked the Board if they wanted copies of both appraisals and the Member Gentry and Member Pumphrey asked for just the most recent. Mr. Lohr said the second dwelling was appraised at $32,000 in 2016. Member Gentry asked if this was a full appraisal, and who completed it. Mr. Lohr said it was a full appraisal done by Heidi Adams for Union Bank & Trust. Chairman Brockman asked when the homes were built, and Mr. Lohr said 2006 and 2003. Mr. Lohr thinks they are of equal value, but he has always heard if there are two homes on the same lot, the second one is of lesser value. Chairman Brockman asked what happened when Mr. Lohr met with the assessor. Mr. Lohr said they reduced the assessment a little bit. Mr. Lohr said there is only one working well. There are two separate drain fields. Chairman Brockman asked why it couldn’t be separated. Mr. Lohr said he didn’t think there was enough road frontage or they were too close to the right of way. Both drain fields are in the back. Chairman Brockman asked if there were other questions. Member Fears asked if he bought just the property, and Mr. Lohr said yes, he bought the land and built the two houses. Chairman Brockman asked if it was the value of the second house he is appealing, and Mr. Lohr said yes, and the first house is just the same as his comparable, which is assessed for less. Mr. Lohr also said he was appealing the land value too. Chairman Brockman asked if there are other questions from Mr. Lohr. There being none, Mr. Lohr’s appeal was finished. 6. Robert C. Morrison. Chairman Brockman swore in Mr. Morrison. Mr. Morrison affirmed his oath. Mr. Morrison said he has owned the house for many years. It has increased in value in what they thought were reasonable increases. Mr. Morrison said this year seemed to him a large jump; the value of the house increased $40,400.00. Mr. Morrison said he is renting that house, and he spoke with his realtor about this increase. Mr. Morrison said he found a sale from 2015 of a similar property (e.g., lot size was about the same and the square footage was about the same) that sold for $154,000. Mr. Morrison said he didn’t consider the houses at the front part of Happy Hills, because the lots are much smaller. Chairman Brockman asked if Morrison used the County GIS website. Mr. Morrison said yes. Morrison said he didn’t use any of the houses that are somewhat rundown. Mr. Morrison looked at the houses that are around his home. Chairman Brockman asked if Mr. Morrison had a list of the comparables. Mr. Morrison said he did. For his home, Mr. Morrison said his increase was 19.9% increase. Mr. Morrison said the comparables increased at lower rates than his increase. 40B-2-10.16% increase40B-2-18.12.7% increase40B-2-2.10% increase40B-2-3.8.5% increase40B-216.3% increase40B-2-5.7.4% increase40B-2-8.5% increase.Chairman Brockman asked if there were improvements. Mr. Morrison said there is a “very small” second bathroom, but it was always there and they corrected an error. They also added a shed which is new. Mr. Morrison has a 2-car garage, and some of the other comparables do too. Mr. Morrison included properties that are in good shape and owners take care of them. He found the assessment to be an extreme increase. Mr. Morrison said he is renting the house because he didn’t think he could sell it for what he would like to get. Chairman Brockman asked if the land value of the neighbors is around $8,500; did your research uncover that? Mr. Morrison didn’t look at that, but it is his impression they are all about the same. Mr. Morrison said he doesn’t have a problem with his land value. The properties that are changing hands in Happy Hills are in the East section, and they have much smaller lots. Mr. Morrison said they have maintained their property; but nearby are properties that turned into a junk yard and a wood yard. Mr. Morrison said the house across the street from him is custom-built and he didn’t include that as one of his comparables. Chairman Brockman asked if there were other questions for Mr. Morrison. There were none, so the appeal presentation was completed. Chairman Brockman urged Morrison to pay his taxes. He notified Mr. Morrison that the Board will deliberate on June 27 and he will be notified afterward.The Board will try to meet at 6 p.m. for the deliberation time. With no further business to address, Chairman Brockman adjourned the meeting.Chairman Phil BrockmanA recording of this meeting is available upon request from the Commissioner of the Revenue. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download