HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Minutes - Board of Civil Authority - 09/12/2024 (2)
PAGE 1
BOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY
12 SEPTEMBER 2024
The South Burlington Board of Civil Authority held a meeting on12 September
2024, at 2:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 180 Market St.
Members Present: C. Shaw, Chair; T. Barritt, D. Kinville, M. Sunderland, L. Smith,
A. Chalnick, E. Fitzgerald, M. Scanlan, H. Rees, L. Benner, L. Vera
Also Present: E. Norway, Assessor; B. Stavitsky, Esq.
1. BCA Oaths, Welcome, Instructions on exiting the building in an
emergency:
Ms. Rees administered the oaths to BCA members. She also provided instructions
on leaving the building in the event of an emergency.
2. Review of hearing procedures:
Mr. Shaw reviewed the hearing procedures. He noted this appeal is for a
commercial property which is sometimes assessed based on revenue and other
times assessed based on sale price. After both sides have been heard, an
inspection team will be appointed to inspect the property. Within 30 days, the
BCA will reconvene to hear the inspection report (the appellants will receive a
copy). They will then enter deliberative session and notify the appellant of their
decision within 15 days.
3. Open Hearing and Appellant Oaths:
Ms. Rees administered the Oath to the appellants and to the City Assessor.
Mr. Shaw identified the property being appealed as #0670000514 located at 514
Farrell Street. He noted that this is directly opposite Shaw’s Plaza.
The appellant said the property is 16,000 sq. ft. 10% of the property is not used
for retail. It has access by a back door and up a flight of stairs. That area is used
only for storage.
BOARD OF CIVIL AUTHORITY [DATE] | PAGE 2
The appellant presented a “comparable” property located in Massachusetts. It is
assessed at $156/sq. ft. Mr. Stavitsky said they are seeking $200/sq. ft. for the
Vermont property. Ms. Kinville asked about income for the Massachusetts
property since the appellant is using the income method for South Burlington.
Mr. Stavitsky said he didn’t have any income information for that property.
Mr. Stavitsky said they are seeking an assessment value of $4,352,316, using 82.54
as a CLA ratio.. The City’s assessed value is $5,328,000. The City agrees that the
upper floor serves no purposes, but it is there. Ms. Vera noted that the CLA ratio
is not used in assessment calculations.
The property was originally assessed in 2021 at $7,400,000. They appealed, and in
the grievance process this was reduced to $5,400,000. A square foot discrepancy
was also corrected. The tenant began a 75-year lease in 2009 (this was a build-to-
suit). In 2019, Walgreen bought the lease. Members asked to know the actual
rent per square foot that was paid on the lease for the buyout. Mr. Stavitsky said
it was “not exposed to the market.” They applied $17/sq. ft. as market rent. There
is no “implied rent” there is actual rent.
The city used a comparable CVS in Colchester. It is slightly smaller and is
assessed at $5,100,000.
An inspection team consisting of Mr. Shaw, Mr. Barritt and Ms. Kinville was
assigned and agreed to inspect the property at 8 a.m. on Thursday 19 September.
Members agreed to convene again on 25 September at 10 a.m. to hear the
inspection report and deliberate.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Scanlan
moved to adjourn. Mr. Barritt seconded. The motion passed with all present
voting in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 3:04 p.m.