[0:23] I I think we're good to go, aren't we?

[0:27] » Yep.

[0:28] » Yeah.

[0:31] » Any objections, director?

[0:36] » Um, no, chair. and the recording is on

[0:39] for you.

[0:40] » Okay.

[0:41] All right. It's 9:00 um

[0:46] 22nd of a 26th of August

[0:50] and we're going to commence um

[0:54] with the monthly board meeting for the

[0:57] division of real estates appraisal

[0:59] board.

[1:01] Uh, first item on the agenda is to

[1:04] consider and approve the meeting minutes

[1:06] from the July 29th,

[1:08] 2026 meeting.

[1:14] If the board members have had a chance

[1:16] to review it,

[1:18] I'm open to a motion.

[1:24] » [clears throat]

[1:24] » Chair, I have uh reviewed the minutes

[1:28] and uh make a motion that we approve as

[1:31] drafted.

[1:34] » Is that a motion to approve as drafted?

[1:37] And there was a second.

[1:40] » Uh all in favor say I.

[1:42] » I.

[1:44] » I.

[1:45] » I.

[1:46] » Any nays?

[1:49] Okay. Passes. Uh we're going to move on

[1:53] to agenda item number two, the public

[1:56] comment. We'll now open it up for any

[1:58] com public comment.

[2:15] I don't know how much sufficient time is

[2:18] defined as, but I think we're pretty

[2:20] close. Um,

[2:23] seeing that there's no uh public comment

[2:26] at this point, we'll close the public

[2:28] comment portion of this meeting and move

[2:31] on to agenda item number three, the

[2:34] division section report. So, we'll begin

[2:36] with the director's report. Uh, director

[2:39] of VA.

[2:42] » Thank you, chair, and good morning board

[2:44] members. So good to see you all. Um

[2:48] [clears throat] the first thing I wanted

[2:49] to touch on is with your um meeting

[2:52] materials. I circulated some proposed

[2:55] 2027 meeting dates. Um and I know that

[2:58] that um seems kind of uh crazy that

[3:02] we're already planning 2027, but um I

[3:06] find the more lead time we can give you

[3:08] all with your schedules probably the

[3:10] better. Um, and so I'm just looking to

[3:14] to make sure that kind of tenatively

[3:16] these dates look good and then I can set

[3:18] up uh calendar invites that I can add

[3:21] you all to. Um, now we've had with some

[3:24] of our other public bodies, maybe um, a

[3:27] professional organization has an event

[3:29] that a lot of board members are going

[3:30] to, things like that. as things come up,

[3:33] we are free to kind of reschedu, but I

[3:35] think it's good to kind of get a

[3:37] schedule down um that we can work with.

[3:40] the administrative law judges um which

[3:45] act as the judge when there's a formal

[3:48] hearing before you. Um, they use our

[3:53] schedule and they typically will use

[3:56] that to set their hearings because they

[3:59] not only hear cases that come before the

[4:02] appraiser board, but they also hear

[4:04] cases that come before our other public

[4:06] bodies, but then cases that come before

[4:09] all of the other divisions and offices

[4:11] in commerce. So, um, when we can set a

[4:14] schedule, it gives them kind of a

[4:15] framework. um some of these if a

[4:18] proceeding is formal rather than

[4:20] informal um you're going to have a full

[4:22] discovery process and things like that.

[4:24] So they actually plan those hearings

[4:26] pretty far out. Um so do any board

[4:30] members just at a glance with with these

[4:32] dates um see any issues as of right now?

[4:39] Yeah, director. Um there there was um

[4:46] uh one one particular that I thought u

[4:51] might cause might cause a a challenge.

[4:54] » Okay.

[4:55] » Um

[4:57] I'm I'm looking at my notes. Sorry, I

[4:59] did this earlier and I should have had

[5:01] my notes um I should have had my notes

[5:03] pulled up.

[5:04] » No, no, you're totally fine. Um

[5:08] » Here I'll share the date. April the

[5:11] April 20 the April 28th

[5:15] um

[5:17] date conflicts with

[5:21] um the appraisal institute national

[5:23] conference

[5:25] and so that there may be some of us that

[5:28] are planning to go to that and I think

[5:31] it also the

[5:33] arrow conference

[5:37] um was a was a conflict ICT or or

[5:40] potentially had a conflict in the

[5:43] September

[5:45] um

[5:47] the September uh time time frame. And

[5:50] then the other one that I was wondering

[5:53] about

[5:54] um March is listed as the 24th,

[6:00] but your note said that we met the last

[6:04] Wednesday of the month, which would

[6:06] actually be March 31st.

[6:08] So, I I don't know if that if that was

[6:12] um

[6:14] » Just it's the fourth I think it's the

[6:16] fourth Wednesday of the month, but the

[6:19] last Monday actually or the last

[6:20] Wednesday actually happens to be the

[6:22] 31st. So, those were those were just

[6:24] ones to look to look at there.

[6:28] » Thank you so much, Vice Chair. I'll get

[6:30] these a second look. Um, and if

[6:33] [clears throat] they conflict, I'll um

[6:36] I'll propose some alternate dates and

[6:38] circulate um a new schedule to y'all.

[6:42] Um, board member Davidson.

[6:44] » Yeah. So, I this actually reminds me of

[6:48] and I remember you had mentioned that we

[6:50] had to meet in person at least once a

[6:52] year and I I don't has that been done

[6:55] this year? Is that something that we

[6:57] need to add for this year? Just based on

[7:00] my traveling, being able to travel, I

[7:03] just wanted to make sure to plan ahead

[7:04] for that one.

[7:06] » Absolutely. Thank you so much for

[7:08] bringing that up. Yes. So, that is a

[7:10] Department of Commerce policy that all

[7:12] of the public bodies that meet um within

[7:16] the department um we we like them to

[7:19] meet in person at least once a year. Um,

[7:21] and so y'all have not, unless I'm

[7:25] remembering incorrectly, met in person

[7:27] yet this year. So, if y'all wanted to uh

[7:30] think about or um if you have ideas

[7:32] about what month out of the remaining

[7:34] months of the year um feel like a good

[7:37] fit. And board member Davidson, I think

[7:39] you might be the one traveling the

[7:41] farthest

[7:42] up here, correct?

[7:44] » I would assume so. Yeah. And I I'm okay

[7:47] proposing for um September 30th or

[7:50] October 28th of this of this year. I'm

[7:53] I'm open to either of those dates.

[7:56] » Okay. Other board members, how do you

[7:58] all feel about that?

[8:00] » I was thinking in December we should go

[8:02] to St. George.

[8:04] » Oh, okay. [laughter]

[8:06] Now, now you're thinking, Vice Chair,

[8:08] because I I don't uh know of anything in

[8:11] in the requirement that says it has to

[8:13] be at Hebrew Wells. So, [laughter]

[8:16] I would say the sooner we meet the

[8:18] better for this year. If we have to do

[8:19] one this year, it's got to be pretty

[8:21] soon. We just don't want to get running

[8:23] up into the holiday season when

[8:24] everybody's jaming their schedules and

[8:27] weather, you know, for traveling. It's

[8:29] just easier.

[8:30] » So, I would just say this September

[8:32] meeting would be a great one to do.

[8:34] » Okay. And board member Brumble,

[8:38] » I was just going to say um that I have a

[8:42] probably a conflict. I mean, I'm fine to

[8:44] meet on September 30th, but I'll be

[8:46] doing so remotely from Washington DC.

[8:48] So,

[8:49] » Okay.

[8:50] » Um, so, however that works, I if

[8:54] » Yeah, for the in-person meeting, we will

[8:56] still have a virtual option um for the

[8:59] public. I mean, the public is free to

[9:01] meet in person, but usually it's easier.

[9:03] And so, um, assuming we go with

[9:06] September, um, we will make sure that

[9:08] you're able to join us remotely, board

[9:10] member Rumble, so that you we can

[9:11] accommodate that.

[9:12] » Thank you.

[9:14] » Um, okay. So, we Let's go ahead and plan

[9:16] on September. And how that will work is

[9:19] um my assistant Lori um can help

[9:22] coordinate any travels. So,

[9:24] [clears throat]

[9:25] she's been working with you all on

[9:26] getting your PDM payments set up for

[9:30] your meeting. um as you've discussed

[9:32] with her, I'm sure, it requires us

[9:34] setting you up as if you were an

[9:35] employee in the state system to get an

[9:38] employee identification number. Um but

[9:40] we are also able under the law to um pay

[9:44] travel expenses. So um for most of you

[9:47] that's probably going to be things like

[9:49] mileage. Um we will send you kind of

[9:52] parking logistics as well because we can

[9:55] um give you parking validation. Um, but

[9:58] especially for you, board member

[9:59] Davidson, Lori can coordinate with you

[10:01] to make sure that we um get you um

[10:04] whatever you need in terms of lodging,

[10:07] anything like that.

[10:09] » Yeah, no problem. Thank you.

[10:11] » All right.

[10:12] » One one question I would have to um if

[10:15] we're going to do it at the Heber

[10:16] building,

[10:18] uh the last time I was there, there was

[10:19] some special um I think security type

[10:24] things for getting through the building.

[10:25] Is there anything that we should be

[10:27] aware of? Is there a list that is posted

[10:31] of who's who's uh accessible? I I just

[10:35] was wondering if that might be and you

[10:37] could send it to us in an email. Um

[10:39] » Yeah,

[10:40] » At a later date, but um I don't I don't

[10:42] know what the protocol is. It's been a

[10:44] long time, maybe even COVID since I was

[10:46] in the building. So

[10:47] » Um

[10:50] that would be a question.

[10:51] » No, I'm glad you asked that question.

[10:53] So, typically to get past uh or to the

[10:56] upper floors of the building, folks have

[10:58] to um show a governmentisssued ID and

[11:01] typically we would let security know

[11:03] ahead of time, but we have a conference

[11:05] room and a hearing room now on the first

[11:07] floor. So, I might see if we could

[11:09] schedule our meeting there just so if we

[11:11] have members of the public, they don't

[11:13] have to um go through too much trouble

[11:16] to be able to attend the meeting in

[11:18] person if they would like to. So, I will

[11:20] um I'm glad you brought that up, uh,

[11:22] Vice Chair Pryer, and I will um I will

[11:25] uh talk about those logistics with Lori

[11:27] so that we can get that all all set up.

[11:30] » I would also assume that if there's

[11:32] anybody that is appealing, they would

[11:34] also meet in person. Is that correct?

[11:36] » They have the option to, but um

[11:39] typically we allow them to appear

[11:40] remotely if it's more convenient for

[11:42] them. Um we um postcoid it seems like um

[11:48] it we have robust as you know virtual

[11:51] meeting tools and so it can be good for

[11:53] folks um who are maybe appealing or

[11:56] having a hearing um we're able to

[11:58] accommodate them a little bit more and

[12:00] and make things easier for them but they

[12:03] are certainly welcome to attend in

[12:04] person.

[12:09] Okay.

[12:12] All right.

[12:14] And then as far as other items, um

[12:17] [clears throat]

[12:18] so last time we spoke a little bit about

[12:21] um replacing board member Jensen's AMC

[12:25] representative seat, which we are very

[12:27] sad to see board member Jensen leave us,

[12:30] but um we got some amazing applications.

[12:34] And so the next step will be setting up

[12:36] interviews with applicants with um

[12:40] division management. And following those

[12:42] interviews, the division will make a

[12:45] recommendation to the commissioner of

[12:47] the department. Um this past legislative

[12:50] session, just as as a point to note, um

[12:54] the law changed and what we previously

[12:57] referred to as our executive director of

[12:59] the department is now referred to as a

[13:02] commissioner. So, if you hear me say

[13:03] that, I'm referring to Commissioner

[13:05] Margaret Woolly Busy. So, same person,

[13:07] just a different title now. Um, and so

[13:10] we make a recommendation and then it

[13:11] goes up through her to the governor who

[13:14] then makes a recommendation to the

[13:16] Senate and then that person goes before

[13:18] a Senate confirmation committee and then

[13:21] if uh assuming they're recommended

[13:23] favorably to the entire Senate for

[13:25] confirmation. So, I know that sounds

[13:28] kind of like an overwhelming process,

[13:29] but the governor's office um obviously

[13:32] you all have recently gone through that

[13:33] process. So, you know how that works

[13:35] obviously. Um but um the governor's

[13:38] office does a good job of trying to

[13:40] shepherd folks through the process and

[13:41] we are also here as a resource for any

[13:44] folks who are going through the process.

[13:46] Um I'm always happy if if any of our

[13:50] nominees need to to go with them to the

[13:52] capitol or just be at the meeting if

[13:54] they're appearing remotely. So, more to

[13:56] come on that. A big thank you to board

[13:58] member Jensen for continuing his service

[14:00] while we find a replacement. And I just

[14:03] want to shout out my Jenko for helping

[14:06] me um get a communication out to the

[14:08] AMC's and helping us coordinate the

[14:10] process. So, um other than that, um I am

[14:15] still working on proposed rule language

[14:18] for you on the topic of the instructor

[14:20] development workshop. Um, I just want to

[14:22] thank you all. Um, you all and also

[14:25] educators and and stakeholders in the

[14:28] space gave us some amazing feedback and

[14:30] things to consider to make sure that we

[14:32] get um, some great language here to make

[14:36] what we think will be a really positive

[14:38] change um, in terms of the instructor

[14:41] development workshop requirement. So, I

[14:43] just want to thank you all um, for for

[14:46] spending the time to really help us get

[14:48] it right. Um, and I believe that that is

[14:52] all I have for you today, but I'm happy

[14:54] to answer any questions that board

[14:56] members may have.

[15:03] » All right, I'll turn it back over to

[15:05] you, Chair Pollson.

[15:07] » Thank you. Um,

[15:10] where's a re review and approve on the

[15:13] agenda? Do we need to take action on

[15:16] that or does it automatically no action

[15:19] we we'll just move forward?

[15:22] » Yes, I think it's okay. And Elliot, feel

[15:24] free to chime in if if you feel

[15:25] differently, but on those dates kind of

[15:27] just seeking a tenative like this looks

[15:30] good to us, so I don't think a vote is

[15:31] necessary.

[15:33] » All right.

[15:35] Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Elliot.

[15:37] » No, just gonna say that's fine. Um,

[15:38] director is right. As long as there's

[15:40] some tentative agreement, I think we're

[15:42] good.

[15:43] All right. I didn't know if we needed to

[15:45] continue it or not. So anyway,

[15:49] um moving on to uh the next item,

[15:52] licensing and education. Laurel North.

[15:55] » Hi. Thanks, Chair Pollson. Um,

[16:02] as the director stated, uh, we met with

[16:05] some people to go over these ideas for,

[16:10] um, switch up to IDW and we met with

[16:14] board member Pricer, who I just want to

[16:16] thank personally for his time. Um, I

[16:19] think we got some the best options on

[16:22] more flexible

[16:24] um, IDW options. So, uh, our director is

[16:29] writing those up for us, so we will

[16:30] consider those. While we were talking to

[16:32] him, something came up. Uh, we had, you

[16:36] know, we look at experience hours all

[16:37] the time, and it kind of crossed my mind

[16:40] that, uh, why don't we look at practicum

[16:45] as a possibility for 100% acceptance

[16:47] rather than the 50% that we do now? So,

[16:49] I kind of tossed that out to a board

[16:53] member, Chrysler, and I think he thought

[16:55] it was a good idea. He can speak for

[16:57] himself, but I I can do a more full

[17:01] presentation, but I want a couple things

[17:02] to be in your mind, whether you say

[17:05] something today or in a future meeting.

[17:07] Um,

[17:09] so the traditional practicum is

[17:11] classroom based, kind of like Perea, but

[17:14] they have live or virtual site visits.

[17:17] Um there are nine states currently that

[17:19] accept 100% practicum.

[17:22] Uh Arizona, Colorado, Ohio, Michigan,

[17:24] Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New

[17:27] Jersey, and Oklahoma. And then sitting

[17:29] with us at 50% are California and

[17:31] Kansas. I looked at the pass rates real

[17:34] quick and the pass rates are good. 62%

[17:38] national pass rate um the first time

[17:41] around and then 15% this the second

[17:44] time. And that is uh equal if not better

[17:47] than our you know traditional experience

[17:50] pathway. Pereia is very high. Um it's

[17:53] even higher than that. So just kind of

[17:56] think about that if you would or if

[17:58] anyone wants to say any if they have any

[18:00] thoughts about it and they want to say

[18:02] it. I'm thinking we can throw this in

[18:04] with the IDW stuff if if it's something

[18:06] that lowers barriers and is practical.

[18:09] We don't have to do it. Just thinking

[18:11] about it.

[18:15] Jared, you you had your hand up.

[18:19] » Yeah, it it was it was a a really good

[18:22] meeting that we had um talking about

[18:24] education in general and IDW and and uh

[18:28] and so I really appreciate the

[18:30] opportunity to be able to to visit and

[18:32] and talk about some of these ideas.

[18:35] When it comes to the practicum,

[18:37] uh I think that there's the way that we

[18:40] learn today, the tools that we have um

[18:43] have all um changed it dra you know

[18:47] dramatically since co and um and there's

[18:51] no reason why as a board we shouldn't

[18:54] recognize uh those opportunities those

[18:57] those new changes in and and I I

[19:01] interact with a lot of the uh students

[19:04] students who have been going through a

[19:06] PA practicum type uh education or para

[19:10] and are finding that that they are

[19:12] understanding the concepts and applying

[19:14] them in a real world scenario in these

[19:17] in these cases and and I think in our

[19:20] profession uh you know we ought to be

[19:23] looking at we ought to be looking at

[19:24] those as alternate tracks um lowering

[19:27] the barrier to entry um into into the

[19:31] industry. I don't see any reason why as

[19:33] a board we couldn't um review and and um

[19:37] look at seriously a proposal from from

[19:40] the division on amending amending our

[19:43] rules to be able to accept those. So,

[19:47] um, and I I think certainly, you know,

[19:49] if we had someone who was licensed in

[19:52] Minnesota, just picking the state

[19:53] because I spent a couple years there, my

[19:55] dad's from there and and I love

[19:57] Minnesota. if they had someone become a

[20:01] licensed appraiser through practicum

[20:04] and they applied for reciprocity or or a

[20:07] reciprocal license with us, I don't

[20:10] think we'd have an issue accepting that

[20:12] license um from from that state. And and

[20:17] so to me, you know, that that even

[20:20] further would um you know, would

[20:23] encourage us to to look at um adopting,

[20:27] you know, some some alternative or or

[20:29] making a change to our current policy.

[20:31] So,

[20:37] » Um thank you. Anyone else?

[20:39] » Yeah. Um okay. Oh, I'm not done. I'll

[20:43] I'll tell you when it's when my part's

[20:45] done, but thanks. Um, I just wanted to

[20:48] let you know in my mind from last

[20:50] meeting. I'm still thinking about the

[20:52] exam question. Should applicants take

[20:54] the exam before they start their

[20:56] experience hours. So, I kind of want to

[20:58] discuss that at some point as well, so I

[21:00] haven't forgotten about it. It's on the

[21:02] table for me. And then the experience

[21:05] review reports. Um, I thought this was a

[21:07] great idea from uh Chairman Pollson.

[21:11] Uh,

[21:13] I like the idea of submitting reports

[21:16] just by the applicant, not with the

[21:19] supervisor. So, I want to talk about

[21:21] that at some point, too. So, all these

[21:24] three things will come up. Again, if you

[21:26] have any thoughts, just shoot me an

[21:28] email or give me a call. I'd love to

[21:30] discuss it. Um, so to the regular

[21:34] reports, a request to sit for appraiser

[21:36] exams. We had one that would like to sit

[21:40] for the licensed appraiser exam. That's

[21:42] James Grub. We didn't have any denials

[21:45] on the yes answer spreadsheet. That's a

[21:47] clean sweep, too. We didn't have any

[21:50] affirmative disclosures

[21:52] for applicants on that sheet. Uh we have

[21:54] a couple uh coming up for next week,

[21:57] next month. Uh the stats between June

[22:00] and July. Uh the total number of

[22:02] licences experienced just a minor

[22:04] contraction dropped by six. uh

[22:07] credentials overall uh individual

[22:11] licences decreased by three. The largest

[22:13] decline was among certified residential

[22:16] appraisers which was five along with

[22:19] minor losses in licensed appraisers.

[22:21] They could have moved up of course and

[22:23] then pre-licicensed instructors. We lost

[22:25] one. These were partially offset by

[22:27] small gains in certified general

[22:29] appraisers. So that could have taken our

[22:31] uh certified res up and continuing

[22:34] education instructors we added to

[22:37] appraiser trainees remained completely

[22:39] stable. Our entities decreased by three.

[22:43] Uh this decline was driven by the

[22:45] appraisal management companies which

[22:47] fell from 103 to 100. Pre-licensed

[22:50] schools and continuing education

[22:51] providers remain unchanged. So overall,

[22:54] the board data shows high month-to-month

[22:57] stability with slight dips in

[23:00] residential appraisers and AMC's

[23:02] representing the primary shifts. We

[23:05] don't have any experience reviews for

[23:07] you today. Next, September, we have a

[23:10] couple things that could come up. So, I

[23:13] just wanted to um

[23:16] put in your mind that we might have a

[23:17] little extra time in September. In in

[23:21] for September, we did have a denial in

[23:23] August. So that could come up for

[23:24] review, but it's not currently

[23:26] scheduled. And then we also have a

[23:27] candidate uh that the board

[23:31] uh returned to samples. So that'll need

[23:34] to be discussed. That could also hit our

[23:36] September um meeting. And that's all I

[23:40] have for you today. If there are any

[23:41] questions, I'm open.

[23:54] I don't see any questions. So, thank

[23:56] you. Um, we'll we'll move on. Board and

[24:00] industry issues. Uh, Justin Baring.

[24:04] » Yes. Thank you for your time. It's good

[24:06] to be with you all today.

[24:10] » Excuse me. Director Veette mentioned

[24:12] about possible rule amendment uh with

[24:16] regard to IDW. We'll be looking at that.

[24:19] We've also talked about maybe uh some

[24:23] policy or rule or some some

[24:27] clarification to the role of the

[24:29] alternate board member. We appreciate

[24:32] um Joel Frost being here today as a an

[24:36] alternate member of the board. And uh so

[24:40] so we'll be looking at those things, but

[24:42] I don't have anything to propose here

[24:44] for your consideration today, but I am

[24:47] happy to um answer any questions or

[24:50] respond to any any issues that uh you

[24:53] would like to address.

[24:58] » Go ahead, Jere.

[25:02] » Yeah. Um

[25:04] I I when I was reviewing back through my

[25:07] notes, I had a note that I was um I had

[25:10] taken on a task of preparing a

[25:14] um a proposal for that alternate uh

[25:16] member participation

[25:18] um policy. I uh Justin, I have that and

[25:24] I'll forward it to you in an email. I I

[25:27] did it uh a little bit later it just in

[25:30] the last couple of days and so didn't

[25:33] have time to get it in this agenda but I

[25:35] will send it to you and then you can

[25:36] look at it and get the ideas from it and

[25:39] and I don't know if that will help but

[25:41] um I think in the notes I actually had

[25:44] taken on that assignment um and then

[25:47] failed to to execute earlier in the

[25:49] month to to give that to you but I do

[25:52] have I do have a document kind of

[25:54] prepped for you

[25:55] » That's Wonderful. I appreciate that,

[25:57] Jared. We'll be happy to look at that

[25:58] and uh we can get that on the agenda and

[26:02] consider make that consideration board

[26:04] policy.

[26:06] » Yeah, it's just a starting point. Like

[26:07] I'm not a I'm not an attorney. I don't

[26:10] even play one on TV. Um I am uh but it's

[26:14] a starting point with some ideas that um

[26:17] that have some some code attached to it

[26:20] and stuff. So anyway,

[26:22] » No, that's great.

[26:22] » Take it for what it's worth. For what

[26:24] it's worth. Okay, thank you. I'll look

[26:27] for that email.

[26:28] » Thank you.

[26:32] » Any other uh comments or questions for

[26:35] me?

[26:38] » All right. Well, thank you.

[26:40] » All right. Seeing none, thank you,

[26:42] Justin. Um we'll go on to enforcement.

[26:45] Bring Kaylin.

[26:47] » Thank you, chair. For the month of July,

[26:50] uh the DRE managed a total of 11

[26:52] appraisal cases. We've made solid

[26:55] progress by resolving and closing four

[26:57] of those cases. And while two are

[27:00] currently pending legal action, we are

[27:03] doing really great on the enforcement

[27:05] cases. Uh we have remained clear on AMC

[27:11] cases. Uh we did not receive any

[27:13] additional AMC cases during this

[27:15] reporting period. We don't have any

[27:17] stipulations to present today. Uh, but I

[27:21] did want to offer for the board's

[27:24] consideration a board training

[27:26] opportunity that Elliot Clark and Kevin

[27:29] Ule uh have offered their services for

[27:32] to be a resource and maybe provide

[27:36] guidance, training, and answer questions

[27:38] that you all in this new role might

[27:41] have. So, I wanted to gauge interest and

[27:44] then depending on how many board

[27:46] attendees uh are interested and in

[27:49] attendance, we could schedule this for a

[27:51] public meeting or a private meeting um

[27:54] hopefully before the next board meeting.

[28:00] » Just as a clarification on that. So, uh

[28:03] if if there is a quorum of board

[28:06] members, then it is required to be a

[28:08] public meeting. If it's if it's less

[28:10] than a quorum, then we can just get

[28:12] together on everybody's schedule and and

[28:15] go from there.

[28:18] What would you Brent anticipate the

[28:21] topics to be um training for the board

[28:24] members right in terms of like how how

[28:27] we uh like procedural things that we do

[28:30] as a board or or review how to appro how

[28:33] to review others of work or what do you

[28:36] » I see it as an informationational

[28:39] session. It could answer all of the

[28:42] above um procedures um just kind of the

[28:46] more technical aspects of executive

[28:49] session and public session. It could go

[28:51] over some of the experience review items

[28:55] and um just general guidance from a past

[29:00] board member and then Elliot as your

[29:02] legal representative just offering to

[29:06] again answer questions, provide guidance

[29:09] on any of those topics.

[29:12] » Well, I'd be interested in attending

[29:14] that.

[29:16] » Okay. one who's not, you know,

[29:20] very experienced with board procedures

[29:22] and I mean somewhat but not to the

[29:25] extent I feel like I ought to be.

[29:27] » So, it would be good for me.

[29:29] » Fantastic.

[29:32] » Yeah, it sounds like Kevin's been on the

[29:34] board for a long time. Learning from his

[29:37] experience would be great. I have no

[29:38] problem with that either.

[29:41] » Okay.

[29:45] I I guess the question is do you want it

[29:47] during a typical meeting like this or do

[29:49] you want a separate meeting?

[29:52] » So again that depending on if we have a

[29:55] quorum or not if if we don't have a

[29:58] quorum I could see it just uh according

[30:01] to Elliot Kevin and right now Chris and

[30:04] Steve's schedules. So something in

[30:07] between this uh board meeting and next

[30:10] board meeting.

[30:12] » All right. And I'm assuming it can be

[30:14] recorded so that future board members

[30:16] could review it.

[30:19] » I I think that's a great idea.

[30:21] » Okay.

[30:22] » I I would like to participate. I think

[30:25] um it would be good.

[30:27] » It would be good training. I' I'd love

[30:28] to be involved. So I don't know if that

[30:30] makes us a quorum, but

[30:34] » Okay.

[30:35] » I wonder if we could uh propose that it

[30:37] happens on uh September 30th while we're

[30:40] all together in person.

[30:43] Okay.

[30:44] » So, why would a why would a training

[30:46] meeting like that be a public meeting? I

[30:48] don't understand that.

[30:51] » Go ahead.

[30:53] » Default [clears throat] to Mr. Clark on

[30:55] this one.

[30:56] » Yeah. No, that's that's a good question.

[30:58] Um, anytime, so because you guys are a

[31:01] public meeting or a public meeting, a

[31:03] public board created under statute,

[31:05] anytime you guys have a quorum

[31:07] discussing board business, it has to be

[31:09] noticed publicly for the public to be

[31:11] able to attend. That doesn't mean you

[31:13] would have to allow things like public

[31:15] comment or things like that, but when

[31:18] you've got four or more of you convened

[31:21] discussing board business, that's that's

[31:23] a public meeting. So, that's why it

[31:24] would need to be open to the public. Um,

[31:27] one way

[31:29] to tackle that, I mean, we can certainly

[31:31] do it in a public meeting. Um, if you'd

[31:34] rather not, we can just keep, as Bren

[31:36] said, we can just Brenn and Justin have

[31:38] said, we can just keep, um, attendees to

[31:42] three current board members um, and and

[31:45] just do two separate meetings if we need

[31:47] to. I mean, that doubles some people's

[31:49] time and effort, but it's it's an

[31:51] option. And it also allows

[31:54] uh for you know if you want to get into

[31:56] really detailed attorney client

[31:58] communications. I mean you're not doing

[32:00] it in a public meeting. So really up to

[32:03] you guys. Um I sort of envision this as

[32:06] just a general introduction of here's

[32:08] what the public meetings act is. Here's

[32:11] um here's how you conduct board meetings

[32:14] and you know things like that. So, I'm

[32:16] I'm fine doing it in a public board

[32:18] meeting, but I I'm certainly not opposed

[32:20] to just doubling up and doing two

[32:22] separate meetings with three of you guys

[32:25] or fewer. So, and we can discuss all

[32:29] that. I mean, I I'll get the contact

[32:31] information from Bren after the meeting

[32:33] and then I can touch base with uh the

[32:36] the former board member who's offered to

[32:38] help and we can sort of talk through

[32:40] those things. So,

[32:46] Oh, go ahead, Bren.

[32:48] » I was just gonna say I think Justin has

[32:49] his hand up.

[32:50] » Yeah, I was gonna say the same thing.

[32:52] » Okay, thanks. Um, so the um we've done

[32:57] this before. [clears throat] It's been

[32:59] several years and uh the in the past we

[33:03] have selected an alternate day rather

[33:06] than a a a regular meeting day for the

[33:10] the board. it is a public meeting and

[33:12] and but nobody was interested in coming

[33:15] to it. Uh but uh as as Elliot said,

[33:20] there's no public comment, but it is

[33:22] open to the public. So So we could set

[33:26] aside some time uh either before or

[33:29] after the regular business of a meeting

[33:32] and do it that way or just on a separate

[33:34] day that's convenient for you. We just

[33:37] have to make sure that it gets noticed

[33:38] up in advance. I think it's

[33:42] makes more sense to do it as a public

[33:44] meeting because

[33:47] um it is the public's business and and

[33:50] we hope that more than three would be

[33:52] interested in in participating in the

[33:55] training particularly because we have so

[33:56] many new members of the board. So that

[33:59] would be my recommendation, but uh

[34:02] certainly uh Director Veette should

[34:05] weigh in on that and and you as a board

[34:07] can make that decision,

[34:13] but it's not a new thing. What I'm

[34:15] saying is we've done this before, but

[34:17] it's been a number of years.

[34:20] » At this point, we're just looking for

[34:22] feedback back to uh Bren because we

[34:25] can't take action on it. Okay, that

[34:28] concludes the enforcement report. I

[34:30] appreciate your time.

[34:32] » Thank you.

[34:33] » Thank you.

[34:35] » Is there any other items anyone members

[34:38] of the board want to bring up?

[34:43] » If not, uh we're to item number four for

[34:47] adjournment. So, if there is a motion to

[34:50] adjurnn,

[34:54] » Uh, I'll present a or make a motion to

[34:57] adjurnn.

[34:59] » We have a motion and a second.

[35:02] There's a second. All in favor say I.

[35:06] » I.

[35:07] » I.

[35:08] » And we are ajourned. Thank you.

[35:12] » Thank you.

[35:13] » Thank you guys. Bye.

Appraiser Board Monthly Meeting: August 2026

Transcript