I will call to order the uh reconvening of the local board of appeals. Um let you guys get way. We can let um anyone in the audience start first. Come on up. name and address. Scott Weedma, 13990 Birkshshire Lane. All right. Uh, first I guess I'd like to start by thanking the mayor and the council for uh, extending this two weeks for me. I was caught a little offguard and I just want to let you guys know that I appreciate that. Thank you. Um I would like to talk about my uh residence at 13990 Birkshshire Lane. I've just gone through some information here and uh uh from 2022 um I had a market value of 678,000. In 2023, in one year, they raised it from $678,000 to $784, $106,000 increase, 16%. In 2024, they raised that number another $24,600 to $88,000. 2025, they raised that number another $12,000 to $820,000. In 2024, I came into the city and I got a permit to build a new home on my property. I have 13 1/2 acres. Now, to build there, I am only allowed to have one home on that 13 1/2 acres. And the way our zoning has gone, the city here has made a complete new zoning that wasn't even heard of 5 years ago where I can never subdivide. So, I got a permit and the city had me made me put up a cash bond guaranteeing that when I was done building the new house that I would tear the other house down. So, I put up a cash bond with the city to do that and that was fair enough to ask for that. So, now in January of 2025, the assessor's office came in and they raised my value another $200,000 to million22. And when I called them in back and I believe it was Mitch, did I talked to you when I called you about the value on that? Um, I believe you talked to an appraiser at new construction, which would be okay. That was another So, I called and asked, "Okay, what's the situation with raising that up $200,000?" and he said, "Well, you've started construction and you have a foundation in and you have started framing and we put that value at $21,000." Well, I guess where I have a real issue of that is I cannot have two homes on that property. When I'm done, I have to tear the other one down. So, why am I being assessed for two homes when I can only have one? So, if they want to assess me the 200,000 for what's on the new house, then maybe they should credit me the 800,000 that they have the existing house that's going to go away. Does that make sense? Would you Yeah. Was the county aware of this to you? Yes. I explained it to him. Um, so we have the value prop property as of January 2nd of 2025 for what's on the lot. So the original home was still there um living in and then um constructing another home right beside it which um was only partially built um approximately 30%. So we had 150,000 additional improvement amount on that property. So what you're saying then on top of the 150,000 for that you were raising my value on my existing property another 50,000 this year is that what you're telling me because I I did recall the number to be 150 and when I looked at this it's 200. So I I should not be paying taxes on two places if I can only have one. Go ahead. I for how the assessor's office has to value. We have to value what is on the property as of January 2nd. no matter what. It doesn't matter what the city has for their zoning or any other things. We have to value it at what it's being used as currently and what is there. But so, so I guess I I'm going to question that because to me, if there's a if there's a city ordinance that makes one of those properties effectively worthless, um I don't understand why that wouldn't be factored in. That's state statute. We have to value what is there at that given time. So it might be the city's ordinance to have it removed, but currently there is two homes there and we have to value it as such. Once that other house gets demolished, our value will change next January because of that. But state statute requires us to value what is there at any given time. It doesn't matter the the zoning of what you guys have. It's what is what is allowed on there at that time. But if that value well what would you then base the value on since it's not sellable since it's effectively worthless in the market to depend I mean how would you do a comp on that be a very difficult comp to do um in that case but okay but to respond to the other 50,000 that you're wondering um the neighborhood on average went up 5.3%. So, the neighborhood went up 5.3% because that's how much you raised it. Mhm. I mean, it just like I said, I mean, a few years ago I was valued at 676,000 and not count what they've done this year, I'm valued at 820,000. I mean, in three short years, they've raised my values a couple hundred,000 more than that. Um, you know, I I will add too, we this is the first we're aware of him appealing this property. He told us three different times that he was not appealing his personal property. It was just the other property. So, we have not viewed it, which um in that case, we could be wrong on some stuff as well. But since he did not allow us to view it, the board cannot make a a vote on this property. This board or your board? your board cannot make a neither board could at the county board level couldn't either because the the owner didn't let you inspect it. Correct. If you're appealing your your value um you have to let So I can read the statute. The board may not make an individual market value adjustment or classification change that would benefit the property if the owner or other people having control over the property have refused to the assessor to access or inspect the property and the interior of any buildings or structures as provided. Um, statute 273.20. Okay. So, what I told them when I talked to them on the telephone is till I got my numbers together and figured anything out. I didn't know what I was and wasn't appealing. I also have three other PID numbers that I'm not going to discuss tonight because I have turned that over to a legal team and they are going to go directly to the county with that. Scott, I talked to you yesterday and you said you weren't appealing. I I you know what I I gave it some thought and I've changed my mind cuz I'm here tonight. Can I Is that my prerogative or not? Sure, but you should probably let us know. Well, you know what? That's why I'm here. And I've thought about it and I thought about the fact that I can't I shouldn't be paying tax on the value on both if I can't have both. And that's that's of the opinion I I honestly I was only going to come tonight just to thank the council mayor because the other part I have decided that I'm going to let my attorneys take care of that. But I did I had a change of heart today and I think that's my prerogative because it's I just I like I said I had to put up a bond with the city a cash bond guarantee and I would tear the house down. I I think that's fair and if I can't have both which is understood from day one. I never question that. But and and not only that but how did they get their value of 150,000 for what was done? Nobody called me and asked me how much I had into it. What did they assume? What did they use? I don't know. I mean, I think they just shot from the hip. In fact, I know they just shot from the hip and they just took a number that they thought that they could jack my tack or my values up by. They didn't they didn't base it on anything. I know that. How much would you say was done as of January 2nd? I haven't done the math, but it's irre how much would you say? 30%. You You don't know 30% of what? Total build. So, of the total build of what the new house and the old house or the new house, we we get everyone's plans from the city. So, everything that you submit to the city, we take that, we enter all that information into our system. Um, we have the size of your home, the different number of bedrooms, bathrooms, how much finish, everything in there, and that's what's keing a value on there. So, we're not just pulling this out of thin air. Um, everything is based off of a camera system, a computer automated mass appraisal system that helps us value these properties. And you're saying 30% complete, which is not the case. But I I I guess I'm here to ask if there's if there could be some kind of reconsideration on this. This board cannot make a decision on it. You can take this to the county level, the county board. Now, um if you would let us through or appealed before today and came through, we could look at it today. So, let me just double check here. You're saying state statute doesn't let us make an adjustment because an inspection wasn't allowed. Correct. Okay. Okay. But Okay. So, when I was here two weeks ago, you know, they asked me, "Well, do you have any numbers?" And I'm like, "No, I don't because like I I had explained to you guys last time, I I just I wasn't prepared. I came here." And then ever since I was here two weeks ago, I mean, these guys have been calling me steady. Now, they didn't say, "You know what? But if you don't let us come out and look, then you can't appeal. They didn't they never said that. They didn't say if you don't come out, if we don't come out, then you can't appeal. I did tell you that that day you were here and we were talking that we had to come in and do the problem in order. It's kind of any changes made because that's a statute whether they told it to you or not. It's kind of So it seems like it sounds like our hands are tied. It does. And it seems to me like the the disconnect is, you know, you guys use permits that have been applied for and things to add value to a property, but the the taxes should be based on market value. And that's where this kind of falls apart for me is that you got to the value of that new material and whatever building on the property is basically zero because it can't it can't be if you put it on on the market today there's no added value. There is actually someone could finish that property based on his plans and specs and what's there. So there is some value and then it would be valued differently at that time and they would have to tear down the other place. That's the whole value. I disagree. Yeah. I don't see how any of that has raised market value if only one house can ultimately be there. It it doesn't matter. That's not actually what the issue is. The issue is what the state statute, which is something we can't change here. We have to go by what the state statute is. Well, the state statute is a value, right? So, and on a property. Yep. We get back into a definition of what that value is. And to me, if you can't sell something, the value is putus. But how do you prove that if it's not on the open market to show that there's no value? You have to have something to prove that there is value. There you go. You just answered your own question. How do you prove that if it's not on the open market building? There have been times in the past. Sounds like our hands are tied, Scott. So, um, I don't know where you go from here. Okay. You're going to have to probably work it out with them somehow. You're going to have to sign up for county board of appeal if you want to continue that. How does that process work? I mean, is that for payable 2026? I can go ahead and do that. That's for the same process. So, um, if you read the the notice that you get, you have all the different options. So, the first option is the local board for So, first you're supposed to call the assessor's office and work with them to set up an appointment to come take a look at your properties, do all that. So that was the very first step. If you did not like what the assessor came up with for numbers at that, you would come to this board here. If you didn't like what this board here did, then you could go to have another appraiser come out and take a look at your property and try to see if you come up with something them. If that's still you disagreements with, then you could go to the county board. So, another board just like this board, but at the county level, and you can appeal to them. And if you don't like what they came up with, then your final option is tax court. So currently, right now, we are in the the second step because we did a reconvene for you because you didn't do the the first part of the the process. But now, since you also did not let us through your property, this board cannot help you on that process and now your next option is to go to the county board. Okay. Okay. So, say you had viewed the property. What difference does that make that you you can have you can't have both houses? Now, you know that but the city allow the city did allow you to to have both houses currently. So, we have to value it as of January 2nd of what is there and what is buildable. And we have had other properties. I have one in Rogers, for instance, that the person was halfway through building it and they end up losing their business and whatever else and needed to sell the house and that house actually sold for quite a bit higher of a value than what we had on it. So, people do buy properties that are only partially understand. I understand. I'm just saying in this case, if somebody did buy it, they would still have to tear down the other house and they could do it. more value in that house right now than there was on January second of the one that's under construction. Think if we've been through it then there was maybe something with that house that's existing that might have changed something we didn't have or something that we had on there that wasn't backed. So there could have been some change there but because we didn't get through it. You mean in the in the existing home but you raised the value of that 50,000. So I'd say you had that covered land values in general. But actually Dayton, I'm right now on the MLS. You can look at what properties are doing. And the increase in Dayton alone just in in the city of Dayton has been 10 10.8% from 2024. That's what property values have increased based on the sales in the city of Dayton based on based on what price homes? All of them. Right. You're taking an average of how how many homes have sold for $800,000. There's a 3% increase on the $800,000 houses. Anything that's over Okay, I'm not I'm not disputing that. The only thing the only reason that I'm here today is uh like I said, one I wanted to thank the council for extending this for me and the other was I got to thinking about it. I'm like I'm paying taxes on both properties when I have to tear one down. So, and then so do I still have the right then to have use my attorney to go after this then just like I'm going on the other property? You can take it to tax court too if you So I have to file that by April 30th. Is that correct? Up next year. You get a whole another year till you have to file for tax court for the for taxes for the 2025 assessment for tax bail 2026. You have till April 30th of 2026 to file. Okay. So if I have tax court there is a fee to file as well. That's that's why there is these other steps that you can go through before that. But so if this is for 2026 and I have to April of 2026 to appeal that in tax court, why can't we deal with it now without going to court because you missed your step here. You did not let us through the property. Yeah, we're our hands are tight. I I I think your your next step is whatever they will let you get let you deal with in the in in the near term. Otherwise, it sounds like it's court, but it it's out of our hands at this point. Okay. And that's why I said you can go to the county board level. So, just like this level, but it's at the the county level and you can still I can do that. When can I do that? You can sign up right now. Okay. You can and I can find that online or it should on your statement. You should have a phone number for that as well. Okay, it's on that second paper. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much for listening to me. I appreciate it. Anybody else here for Come on up. Name and address. Patrick Brenton, 12161 East French Lake. [Applause] um just in for my yearly appeals process on classification of the property. Um I would like it to be agriculture and the assessor and I have been going back for five years now back and forth on this state statute for that. Um quick rundown. I'm a small business. I grow primarily fruits and veget all fruits and vegetables at the moment. Um apples are a core crop. I sell to the local farmers markets and now I'm supplying up into a winery and brewery up by the Princeton area um for their hard cers. Um the statute in question is for properties under 11 acres selling intensive market farming in uh market farming in the statute is defined as growing one or more fruits or vegetables for market. The back and forth we always have is on intensive. Um, and it feels that the county has the position that every inch has to be planted to qualify as intensive. I do not have every inch planted, but I do have a considerable portion. I have map I can share if you guys want to see a map. Yeah, the the issue I think is I I guess I'm not speaking for the whole board here. I personally agree with you with your definition of intensive, but they don't and they can override us. They overrode us last year. Yeah, I was there. So, and I will be back again this year and that was a 44 at the council meeting and they had other funding games played beforehand of show up at 1 and they held the hearing at 10 and then we had to respe after the issue was resolved. Um so even though so I are you asking us to reclassify even though you know they're going to override this is that um the message that they gave me was come back after I had they were using the what was planted for 2023 only in in property for 2023. Um the uh everything is planted except for the back on probably if the assessor gave you the map it would be the tree processing area. Everything is planted except for that. It is in play for 2024. Can I ask a question? Yes. Because this is my first time. I wasn't here before. Um so how large is your property? How large is your parcel? Uh I think it's like 9.6 I lose 9.02 acres is what we have. Okay. And how and how much of it is agricultural use to sell at market? I don't know how how you want to phrase that. You know what I'm asking, right? Um I don't have a percentage. I it's at least I would say 50 is very very safe. I can add to that. I I measured today and I measured about two acres in production total out of the nine which is like 20 some%. How much is that? Oh yeah. Okay. How much of that do I lose at the lake shore? How much of that is the unplannable on? Yeah. take your number. No, we we take off the I think it's like a 1.3 acres down by the lake. Um the woods there that um we're not requiring you to um plant. Um take out the processing area, the wetland area, the area around the house and the barn. Um like I we just basically measured everything that you gave us initially and I came up with about two acres in production out of the nine. And what we would Right. I think and I I I do agree with Patrick. He has been adding more and more every year, but we still do not feel that he is up to the intensive use that he needs to be. if if you'd be using basically everything but the 1.3 acres on the back plus an an acre for what we consider the house garage and one acre area. Um we we we would like him to be at six or seven acres in production and not the two acres in production in in order for if if he keeps on continuing to add stuff like he has been, he'll get there and eventually we would agree that he would qualify. But under current current circumstances, we do not. Um, and the department of revenue also agrees with us on that. But um, and just a clarifying question again because this is my first go around, so please forgive me. Um, that in was it intense? Is that the word that they use? Is that based on a percentage of like you just told me like minus the house, minus the barn, minus that. Is that a percentage? Is that the same? Was it lot by lot? Like does that change? I'm just wondering like I like clearcut rules and they're not always clearcut. So do you just determine that on a parcel by parcel basis or is that like it has to be over a certain percent? So technically statute in order to have egg class you need 10 or more acres in production. But then they do have where if you have a vacant chunk of of land with no buildings, nothing, and it's just primarily devoted to agricultural, you could have four, five, 6, 7, 8, 9 acres of um a crop on there and that would also get egg. But that needs to be um exclusively used as egg. And in the statute there, it's borderto border needs needs to be. But when you get to the um property with a house on it, so anything under 11 acres, we you automatically have to take the house garage and that one acre off. So you you need 10. So Mr. Britain has nine total. You take away that that one acre um for that. You take away the other 1.3 down by the water that um they would not require to to remove trees or anything like that. and and you're at what 6.7 acres that you would roughly need in in production then. So we we look at all of it. We're trying to be consistent statewide with how everyone does it. So we consider intensively use basically being you using as much as you possibly can um on that property besides that house scratch and one acre and any other wetland is in production. Like I said, Mr. Britain's getting there. He has been adding more and more, but he's still at two acres out of the the nine. We do not feel that is intensive use. And that just is strictly land use, right? Like it doesn't matter how closely he planted his asparagus together. Like you you're not in there that deep. You're just saying this is No, there there's a lot of things that are pretty spaced out in in general on it, but we're we're counting all that. Um, and just to throw it out there, um, because the statute can be clearly looked at it in multiple different ways from Mr. Britain's, um, point of view and and our point of view. Um, legislation is currently has some bills out there trying to add language. Um, so we don't have to deal with this. They're also adding um, uh, a dollar per acre minimum as well, or not dollar per acre, just a income minimum. on it. Um we we might know that in a few weeks even if it does get passed here but which would be awesome because I can qualify for that and that's not wouldn't be back looking. That would be as of whenever whenever it's blow past. So next year we may not be here. Well, we would be beautiful. The the problem we have is when you look at intensive what they just described as extensive farming where you're using wallto-wall. Intensive farming by definition is maximizing a high profitable product with the most you can get out per acre nowhere in the statute. And the problem we have is intensive isn't defined in the statute and that's what I'm doing. So yes, I know that I will have to go in front of the county board again. Um, even if you weigh in my favor, I'm sure they will appeal and I won't be back in there. Um, and then tax court, the issue there is it's probably going to be a $60,000 bill to wait to try and have this. Um, so I'm trying to stem the tide until we can all get a statute we want, right, that works. And I can I fully understand if they don't want a small property because anything under 11 that sells in a farmers market, you don't want a oneacre property with four apple trees selling to a market. I have hundreds of trees. My question would be how many years have we been at this game? I think this is five. Here's how I look at this deal. In five years, we got two acres out of the I think I think they'd let you go if you even had five or six. Maybe they a little bit of grace, you know, and in five years we got two acres planted. And I just see you to me, you got to be a little more aggressive and get after it a little harder. That's that's me. I mean, it's taken five years to get two acres planted. Uh I'm not sure if we're doing it with the shovel or if we got some equipment out there. mostly show but and it's all fruit for a tree and it's highly intensive and now this is all I am doing so being more aggressive I totally understand your point I think what we need to look at at the two acres planted once we start backing everything off so that's 33% if we're going to be even because we back off the 1.3 and the one for the house off of the 9 acre plot now we're down to six and some change unfortunately they're not they don't look at it's nine acres But they just Yeah, but the the math is different. Then I I do not have that number to argue theirs. I'm on the side that uh I would get a little more aggressive and then then they'd stay off your back and and I don't think you want to go down. This is me personally. I don't think you want to go down the revenue avenue because most of the time what nobody knows. Don't hurt you. If you follow what I mean. But if they post a you need to sell this many to be classified as egg, I I'm there. I'm already paying the tax on that anyway. So, and buy a tractor and till it till more up. Uh actually, and that was part of it. I cleared four acres the first year to be able to do anything. So, then it's digging because I'm not tilling and putting something in. You got to go in and dig all the roots and stuff which takes time. Okay. Understood. Okay. So, so where do we go? Where do we go? I I'd be okay changing the classification, but where are you guys at? I'm okay changing the classification. I just our our votes are going to get overruled. So, it's okay. A step in the process. It's a step in the process. So, that's fine. I guess for me, you know, you're going to be taking this to the county and you know where they're at on it. Um, if that's something you want to pursue, I I don't want to stop you. Okay. So, we would need a motion to change classification. Yep. So, moved. Okay. Need a second. I'll second. Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. No. The motion carries four to one. So, we probably won't see you next year because I suspect we're not going to be in the Linds board next year, but hopefully we'll have a new statute. We won't have it. Anybody else here for um boards? All right. Uh, that's what I think. And then, uh, you've had some to read in, right? Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Other than that, we got five properties to read in. Um, PID 2312022110032 was originally assessed at $550,800. We're recommending a reduction to $512,300. PID 3012022516014 is a mobile home in Dayton. Um valued at $13,700 recommending a reduction down to $6,000. PID 3312022410011 was originally assessed at $453,800. We're recommending a reduction down to $415,100. And then our com our industrial appraiser wanted me to read in two properties. Um 251203410010 [Music] was originally assessed at $1,862,000. We are recommending a reduction down to 1,513,000. And finally, 25120 23410013 was originally assessed at 1,460,000. We are recommending a reduction down to $1,187,000. Do you know what those last two why they came down so significant? Yeah. So, the explanation for those um those two parcels are the Pinepoint products lumber yard. Um, this reduction is part of a multi-year tax court settlement. Oh, Mr. Talbath provided an appraisal which we felt warranted a reduction to these values and the board approving the values saves uh tax court filing fees. Okay. A motion a second for those, right? All okay. I need a motion a second. I'll second. Any more discussion on those? All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed say no. Motion carries five to zero. And with that I think we can close. Okay. We will there are no objections. We will adjourn the local board of appeals. Right.