►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - July 1, 2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
morning
today
is
July
1st.
We
are
meeting
for
the
Arlington
County
Board
of
Equalization
hearing.
The
first
case
for
today
is
RPC
number
one:
four:
zero:
five,
nine
zero,
three
seven
six.
Seventy
one
north
glebe,
Road,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
agent,
is
Miss
Rachel
Brown.
Mr.
Brown,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
to
tell
us
about
your
property
good.
B
Morning,
everyone,
the
main
issue
that
faces
this
building,
is
the
large
amount
of
vacant
and
rolling
space.
A
belong,
Bay
was
in
about
seventy
three
thousand
square
feet.
They
recently
moved
out
in
April
2020,
and
there
are
two
other
leases
in
the
building
expiring
in
2022
and
2023,
and
this
was
all
in
transition
before
Cove
it
hit,
and
now
it's
likely
going
to
take
even
longer
to
stabilize
this
building
the
main
tenant
in
the
building
now
is
etrade
in
about
a
hundred
thousand
square
feet.
They
renewed
their
lease.
B
The
owners
also
be
the
tenants
six
months
free
right
as
a
part
of
that
at
renewal.
So
we
looked
at
first,
we
looked
at
the
actual
2019
Noi.
We
capped
that
at
the
assessor's
cap
rate,
and
that
indicates
a
value
of
94
million
and
the
owners
are
projecting
the
2020
Noi
to
be
at
least
five
hundred
thousand
less
than
it
was
in
2019.
C
Your
gun
good
morning
board
madam
chair
Miss,
Brown
Rob
Peralta,
representing
the
department
for
this
case
this
case.
When
you
look
at
the
history
of
this
property,
we
believe
the
the
original
assessment
is
well
supported,
just
looking
at
the
overall
GPA
for
the
previous
years,
and
when
we
took
in
consideration
the
most
recent
irony,
we
did
perform
a
test
and
can
same
GP
I
as
the
appellant
in
this
case
in
column
G.
C
In
the
original
assessment
were
supported,
we
did
retest
and
allow
for
more
expenses
in
test
and
which
was
slightly
higher
than
and
what
the
appellant
is
asking
for.
Just
to
clarify
when
you
compare
the
below-the-line
deductions,
because
that
that
is
the
main
difference
here,
that
I
see
the
appellant
is
including,
as
she
mentioned,
2022
and
2023
vacancies,
which
again
our
assessments
are
yearly,
and
we
do
look
at
what
is
current
in
the
building.
C
They
did
support
their
their
value
in
column,
G
with
an
appraisal
and
some
comps
just
looking
over
the
appraisal
and
the
comps.
We
feel
that
the
original
assessment
is
somewhat
was
supported,
but
even
more
so,
the
test
is
well
bracketed
within
the
comps
and
in
the
appraisal
itself
right
in
between
the
Aza's
values
that
was
suggested
and
the
stabilized
value.
C
D
Question
for
the
appellant
I
heard
you
talk
about
and
then
I
think
a
follow
up
with
her
Department
I
thought.
I
heard
you
talk
about
Avalon,
Bay,
moving
out
in
2020
and
a
real
potential
for
a
bunch,
more
vacancies
in
2022
and
2023
I
think,
but
in
the
future
anyway,
and
the
department's
already
mentioned
that
we
get
to
out
ears
in
the
out-years.
D
What
I
see,
though,
is
in
the
department's
test
and
also
in
its
original
and
it's
test
below
the
line
offsetting
of
big
vacancies,
but
I
didn't
hear
you
the
appellant
mention
in
20
just
before
January
1st
2020.
What
the
big
bacon
sees
were
such
that
the
Department
wrote
them
off
below
the
line,
so
did
I
miss
some
vacancies
that
happen
in
late
2019
or
during
2019.
B
C
E
Please
be
so
Avalon.
They
actually
announced
things
around
last
year
so
that
they
had
signed
a
lease
in
the
new
building,
4040
Wilson,
it
was
being
constructed,
so
they
terminated
that
lease
and
they
moved
out
April
2020
this
year,
so
we've
discussed
this
is
bid
in
the
past.
They
acknowledge
like
when
a
large
tenant
states
that
they're
moving
out
in
the
future
like.
E
How
can
we
recognize
that-
and
this
was
published
in
multiple
media
sources,
that
they
were
moving
out
and
it
was
verified,
as
Rob
stated,
the
difference
between
the
Avalon
Bay
and
the
2022
and
2023
leases.
Avalon
Bay
stated
we're
not
coming
back
we're
moving
down
three
we're
after
2022
to
2023
leases.
This
is
just
speculations
about
whether
or
not
they'll
renew
we
no
they're
renew
or
not.
So
that's
why
we
recognize
an
Avalon
baby
and
we're
not
recognizing
the
2022
and
2023
leases
that
were
mentioned.
Okay,.
D
E
That's
something
that
we
started
doing
trying
to
cuz.
It
was
also
reflected
in
some
sales
we've
seen
in
the
past
as
well,
where
they
had
100%
I've
seen.
But
then
the
property
sold
and
part
of
the
sell
transaction
information
spoke
about
a
major
tenant
telling
the
owner.
They
would
not
renew
and
they
were
believing
in
a
year
or
the
following
year.
F
B
F
B
B
F
B
His
I'm
looking
at
the
actual
case
we
submitted
I,
wasn't
looking
at
what
the
Assessor
prepared.
No
that's
our
first
level
submission
not
what
we
submitted
to
the
board.
C
F
A
Okay,
I
have
a
question
for
the
kind
of
just
to
confirm
when
you
did
the
original
assessment.
What
was
the
vacancy
rate
that
you
thought
you
had.
A
A
C
A
C
A
C
When
I
reviewed
the
property
for
the
assessment
in
2019
I
found
at
19,000
7-9
that
that
amount
was
vacant.
But
then,
when
you
look
at
the
2019
roll,
they
reported
a
different
figure,
which
was
five
percent,
if
not
less,
and
that
that
actually,
that
square
feet
vacant
that
they
reported
was
in
all
actuality.
The
swing
space
that
one
of
the
tenants
were
in.
So
what
I?
If
you
see
on
count
e,
it
is
zero
for
the
rent,
roll
and
colony
based
on
the
rent,
roll.
A
C
G
G
C
G
G
All
right,
it's
a
it's
a
I,
don't
know
if
we're
gonna
be
wanting
to
change
this
at
all,
but
it
is
a
small
amount
of
difference
in
every
assessment
it
uses
that
six
point.
Eight,
nine
five
versus
six
point:
nine!
It's
your
we're
technically
under
assessing
by
a
very
small
amount,
but
could
be
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
on
a
building
like
this.
So
I
don't
know
if
we
want
to
make
that
correction.
G
G
$85,000
on
the
assessment
I
mean
it's
not
a
huge
amount
relative
to
the
property,
but
if
it
was
my
house
I'd
really
care.
If
it
was,
you
know,
assess
to
$85,000
higher
than
it
should
be
or
lower
than
it
should
be.
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
something
we
could
fix
in
the
system
or
just
do
it
as
long
as
it's
applied
evenly.
That
might
be.
G
G
G
C
Yes,
thank
you,
I,
believe
the
department
did
capture
the
most
recent
situation
in
in
the
subject
property
we
did
allow
for
that
lease,
the
Avalon
lease
a
belittle
line.
We
made
those
deductions
the
and
which
was
the
major
difference
between
the
column
F
in
column
G.
We
do
ask
the
board
to
consider
the
new
value
that
we
proposed
in
column
F.
Thank
you.
B
D
F
A
A
F
A
I
Yeah,
that
was
the
only
question
I
also
had,
and
you
know
you
you
gotta
help
me
Mary,
but
the
first
thing
that
I
wanted
to
do
was
make
that
attachment
to
10%
but
and
I.
Think
Rob
is
correct.
I
looked
at
other
records
and
I
agree.
I
mean
the
5%
based
on
also
the
previous
couple
years.
I
think
he
did
the
right
thing:
I'm,
okay,
with
it.
A
A
G
Okay,
you're
saying:
okay,
we're.
Okay,
with
what
the
test
column,
column,
F
I
mean.
The
only
thing
I'll
point
out
is-
and
this
is
why
I
asked
if
there
was
a
lease
kind
of
signed
on
the
space
already
is
we're
in
July
right
now,
there's
no
lease
on
that
space,
even
assuming
they
got
something
in
the
fourth
quarter.
That's
that
one
year
of
rent
loss
gone
right
and
then
all
we
have
is
$70
in
leasing
commissions,
there
are
$70
in
TI
and
leasing
commissions,
assuming
a
five-year
deal,
but
there's
no
deal
in
this
market.
A
A
That
is
that's
information
we
know
now
and
from
a
standpoint
of
equalization
to
all
the
other
properties
that
may
be
having
that
same
situation,
it
puts
this
property
out
of
line.
I
mean
they're
already
getting
the
benefit
of
this
new
program.
From
a
standpoint
of
looking
at
potential
loss
from
the
Avalon
below
the
line
that
you
know
up
until
2019,
they
wouldn't
have
received.
So
anybody
else
who
didn't
petition
the
board
and
I
look
at
and
to
say,
oh
well,
they
could
be
empty
too.
I
think
that's
a
slippery
slope
to
say.
H
D
Very
quickly,
maybe
this
will
make
great
feel
a
little
bit
better.
Seventy
dollars
a
square
foot-
forty
I
is
pretty
generous
for
a
nicely
built
out.
Building
clearly
nobody's
gonna
want
exactly
what
Avalon
Bay
had.
Seventy
dollars
are
taking
a
long
way
for
a
well
finished
building,
so
I
think
that's
more
than
adequate
to
offset
a
little
bit
of
your
concern.
D
G
G
If
there
was
a
lease
sign
before
next
year,
then
I
guess
we
would
be
looking
at
the
effective
rent
rate
of
that
new
tenant
and
it
would
encompass
whatever
free
rent
would
be
built
into
that
lease,
not
the
face
rent,
so
that
would
kind
of
carry
through
to
the
Noi
and
we'd.
Look
at
it
next
year,
right:
okay,
okay,.
A
C
A
I
A
A
J
Just
matter
is
keeping
myself
in
check
I'm,
reminding
that
I
will
not
be
disclosing
this
confidential
information
and
do
my
best
to
refer
to
line
items
on
the
summary
page,
because
this
is
being
recorded.
Live
for
broadcast
live
on
the
Internet
once
again.
Looking
at
the
summary
page,
which
is
page.
J
Four
of
the
case,
we
did
create
a
revised
worksheet
based
on
some
of
the
vacancies
that
have
occurred
in
this
building
for
general
commercial.
We
do
not
give
below
the
line
adjustments
instead.
What
we,
what
we
will
do
is
we'll
lower
the
rent
to
accommodate
for
the
vacancy
okay,
and
in
this
case,
when
the
appellant
reported
for
the
year,
the
income
and
expense
statement
for
operating
years,
2018
and
2019,
they
were
actually
reporting,
actuals
and
not
gross
potential.
J
After
reviewing
the
rent
roll
most
rent,
lease
was
most
recent
lantry's
lease
was
signed
in
year,
2019
with
the
base
rent
of
upon
analyzing
the
occupied
space,
only
an
average
rent
of,
and
you
can
obviously
see
what
I
put
in
there
was
determined.
Two
units
have
been
vacant
since
February
2018
in
May
2018.
J
We
did,
and
it
is
our
policy
I'm,
going
to
let
curving
to
to
help
supplement
what
I'm
going
to
say,
but
is
the
policy
within
the
county
in
the
county
that
if
they
have
actually
gone
through
remediation,
they've,
actually
spent
dollars
to
mediate
an
environmental
risk,
then
we
will
adjust
the
assessment
of
one-time
adjustment
based
on
that,
according
to
the
environmental
report
that
the
appellant
submitted.
If
you
look
on
page
35
and
I'll,
give
you
a
moment
if
you'd
like
to
look.
J
If
you
look
on
page
35
of
our
report,
it
states
contaminant
concentrations
were
below
human
health
risk
based
screening
levels
established
by
V
DEQ
for
commercial
workers
and
residents.
Based
on
these
results,
there
is
no
apparent
human
health
risk
to
persons
who
might
be
exposed
to
Kent
contaminants
in
the
soil
or
groundwater.
J
D
D
Yeah
but
I'm,
looking
at
you
revise
your
test,
revised
worksheet
to
accommodate
the
10.7%
actual
vacancy.
It's
not
anywhere
close
to
the
numbers
either
in
that
second
bottom
paragraph
in
page
two
or
comes
de
or
comes
D
and
E.
Tell
me
about
again
about
two
percent
and
of
course
it's
0.01
percent,
or
something
between
D
and
E
means
$0.10.
The
square
foot,
but
I
expected
in
your
test
an
F
for
your
revision
that
it
would
be
about
10%
or
11%.
D
J
Also,
keep
in
mind
when
we're
reducing
the
rent,
that's
being
capitalized.
First
is
when,
when
you
see
big
office
and
then
big
office,
summary
pages
and
they're
offering
below
the
line
adjustments,
that's
not
capitalized,
it's
smaller,
okay.
So
when
you're
doing
it
above
the
line,
its
capitalized,
it's
bigger
number.
J
Once
again,
I'm
just
asking
that
these
wart
recognize
calm,
F,
which
he
we
did
reduce
based
on
the
additional
vacancy
and
once
again
the
appellant
did
provide
us
a
report,
an
environmental
report.
However,
there,
as
I
stated
before
there
was
nothing
detrimental
to
human
health
or
groundwater
and
the
appellant
chose
not
to
enroll
in
making
any
remediation
to
the
site.
A
A
A
So
my
first
reaction
was,
you
know,
maybe
that
those
rents
needed
to
come
down
a
little
bit.
But
then,
when
I
look
at
the
final
number
of
the
Noi,
while
it's
higher
than
last
year,
it's
certainly
in
line
and
lower
you
know
than
the
previous
three
years.
Well,
it's
pretty
well
its
neck
and
neck
with
2016.
A
You
know
from
so
from
a
standpoint
of
stabilizing
like
it
looks
like
yes,
it
did
have
a
buffer
year
in
2019
and
possibly
if
we
see
the
same
situation
in
2020,
then
we've
got
a
different
trend,
but
I'd
just
be
interested
in
hearing
what
other
folks
have
to
say,
but
I'm
I
could
have
gone
either
way
but
I'm
leaning
more
towards
you
know.
The
revision
took
most
of
it
into
account,
I
think.
I
One
point
also
that
we're
looking
that
make
me
a
little
bit
of
a
difference
that
what's
reported
in
columns
he
he
has
a
less
amount
of
nettle,
leasable
area
and
I.
Think
that
makes
the
difference
that,
on
the
point
that
Ken
was
making
that
it
doesn't
show
that
it's
much
of
a
difference
but
I
think
the
owner
is
reporting
the
actuals
they're,
not
including
the
vacant
space
that
he
had
was
every
other
number.
It
has
the
16,000
819
square
feet.
I
A
H
A
F
A
A
K
K
The
prior
year's
assessment
was
nine
million
nine
and
denoted
overall
opinion
of
value,
which
is
just
an
average
of
the
sales,
and
the
direct
capitalization
shows
the
value
of
8
million
853
600,
but
I
would
revise
to
note
that
our
actual
contention
of
value
and
amend
our
filing
to
be
nine
million
251
100,
which
is
our
direct
capitalization
on
page
35.
There's
a
quick
summary
of
the
tenants.
K
K
On
page
36
is
a
summary
of
the
past
three
years,
piell's
which
the
pianos
have
been
included
as
well.
But
this
is
just
a
summary
summary
of
the
three
years
you
can
see
the
net
operating
income
at
the
very
bottom
for
17,
18
and
19
in
this
I'll
note,
that's
after
property
tax,
six
hundred
and
seventy
six
thousand
and
seventeen
694
and
eighteen
and
six
thirty,
eight
and
19.
So
overall
is
trending
slightly
downward,
but
pretty
stable.
K
When
you
go
to
the
the
top
half
of
that
page
you'll
see
collected
minimum
rentals,
not
really
changing
much
at
all,
749
754
747.
They
also
have
a
temporary
tenant
that
in
2017
that
occupies
space
on
the
on
the
parking
lot
of
twenty
one
thousand
five
hundred
fifteen
thousand
and
eighteen
and
ten
thousand
and
in
nineteen.
Our
direct
capitalization
income
approach
is
on
page
37
and
we're
just
going
right
with
the
actuals
from
2019.
K
We
start
with
the
the
minimum
rental
amount,
seven
hundred
and
forty
seven
thousand
seven.
Eighty
seven.
We
include
with
that
all
of
the
pass-through
amount
that
they
receive:
80
thousand
dollars,
income
area
maintenance
that
they
received
from
their
three
tenants
the
real
estate
tax
that
they
receive
as
a
reimbursement.
It's
it's
not
only
included
in
the
income,
but
it's
also
deducted
down
under
the
expenses
just
trying
to
keep
it
pretty
simple.
As
far
as
looking
at
here's
the
PNL.
K
Well,
here's
the
direct
capitalization
approaches
their
actual
net
operating
income
towards
the
bottom
of
page
37
of
$619,000
825.
That's
after
making
a
deduction
of
to
nine
percent
for
capital
reserves,
which
is
eighteen
thousand
six.
Ninety
five,
the
overall
expense
ratio,
when
you
include
not
only
the
property
taxes,
but
all
the
pass-through
items
that
they
collect
from
the
from
the
tenants,
but
then
they
also
paid
right
out
for
the
different
operating
expenses
is
thirty.
Three
point:
five
percent.
K
If
you
were
to
duct
out
the
the
pass
throughs
that
ultimately
aren't
impacting
the
value,
it
would
be
a
lot
lower,
but
and
also
deducting
out
the
property
taxes
on
both
the
top
and
the
bottom.
We
used
an
overall
capitalization
rate
of
6.7%,
which
is
nine
million
to
51
or
four
hundred
ninety-three
three
dollars
a
square
foot,
just
a
comparison
of
what
we
did
versus
the
county's
approach.
K
Which
I'll
go
to
page
three
of
the
county's
report?
Page
three
of
the
memo
you
can
see
that
we're
pretty
close
on
revenue,
column,
D
versus
column,
F,
column
D,
is
the
the
county's
approach.
They
have
revenue
of
nine.
Eighty
three
we're
at
960
again
we're
basing
ours
on
actual
the
which
I
will
know
about
that
includes
you'll,
see
at
the
very
top,
the
Reynold,
the
the
rental
amount
758
for
the
county
versus
747,
but
they've
included
the
ten
thousand
dollars
that
you
see
a
line.
K
Aid
of
column,
F
they've,
just
combined
it
into
line
to
the
pass-throughs,
are
pretty
similar
209
for
the
county
OH.
Now
here's
the
reference,
the
county,
has
only
included
$190,000
for
the
expenses
versus
we've
included
the
full
three
hundred
and
forty
thousand
dollars
of
expenses
that
that
I
just
went
through.
So
it
seems
to
me
that
the
county
is
is
taking
into
consideration
the
pass
throughs
on
the
income
side,
but
then
not
recognizing
the
fact
that
those
are
in
turn
immediately
paid
out
as
operating
expenses.
K
Page
36
again,
you
can
see
again
there's
the
roughly
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
in
the
pass
throughs,
which
includes
real
estate,
tax
income
and
cam
coming
area
maintenance,
two
hundred
two
thousand
I'm
looking
at
the
far
right
column,
2019
and
there's
all
the
expenses
down
there.
That
associate
with
all
of
that
which
is
three
hundred
and
twenty
one
thousand
dollars.
K
Middle
the
pain
under
market
conditions,
the
sub
market
sales
activity.
It
shows
the
average
sale
price
per
square
foot
at
382
dollars
a
square
foot
again.
This
property
is:
this
is
being
assessed
proposed
for
2020
at
582
dollars,
a
square
foot,
almost
eighty
percent
higher
than
than
what
the
average
is
for
this
sub
market.
So.
K
K
A
J
J
Yes,
we
did
recognize
that
the
the
leases
are
going
to
expire,
but
there
it's
still
there's
still
plenty
of
time
out
before
these
leases
expire,
and
these
are
also
national
tenants,
they're,
not
little
local
tenants
that
are
occupying
this
space.
And
yes,
basically,
the
big
difference
in
this
are
the
expenses,
as
I
did
explain
during
the
departmental
hearing
to
mr.
J
Wilson
that
our
cap
rate
is
loaded
okay.
So
we
do
not
include
the
real
estate
taxes
because
we're
trying
to
determine
what
the
value
would
be
so
that
we
can't
you
know
some
attacks
are
gathered
taxes,
but
that
so
we
do
not
include
the
real
estate
taxes
and
his
number.
He
does
he's
also
including
an
asset
management
fee
which
we
do
not
include
he's
already.
It's.
The
management
fee
is
already
captured
in
the
in
the
rent,
roll
I'm.
J
Multiple
properties
for
an
area
their
their
asset-
it's
not
the
management
of
the
operation
of
this
building,
so
we
do
not
include
that
also.
He
is
including
capital
reserves
in
his
expenses.
That's
why,
in
his
column,
F
his
expenses
are
much
higher
than
what
we
are
showing.
However,
when
you
look
at
column,
D
our
expenses
and
you
compare
them
to
coms
a
B,
C
and
E
they're,
substantially
higher
than
what
they're
reporting
also
I
wanted
to
comment
about.
J
F
Can
you
hear
me
this
is
for
the
county
I'm
allowed
to
have
a
reserved
as
an
expense
with
a
shopping
center.
Now.
J
G
G
G
Know
what
I
have
one
more
do?
Were
there
any
cop
sales
that,
like
with
in
Arlington
of
shopping,
either
a
strip
center
or
standalone
CBS,
or
anything
like
that
that
we
could
point
to
as
a
comparable
cap
rate,
because
I
mean
just
my
opinion?
Is
that
CBS
is
generally
trade
a
little
bit
lower
than
you
know
your
mom-and-pop
tenants
if.
F
J
Again,
I
just
asking
the
board
to
recognize
that
our
original
assessment,
we
believe,
is
as
fair
and
equitable
our
expenses
we're
actually
reporting
our
use
and
excuse
me
that
we're
using
are
higher
than
what's
being
reported
for
the
years
2016
through
2019,
and
we
do
not
include
real
estate
tax
in
those
expenses,
asset
management,
fee
or
capital
reserves.
When
we're
valuing
these
particular
property
types
thanks.
J
K
You
I
just
like
to
point
out
again
on
page
three
of
the
county's
approach:
the
pass
through
and
passed
through
revenue
items
that
they
added
of
$209,000
includes
property
tax
over
a
hundred
and
twenty
thousand
dollars
in
reimbursed
property
tax.
So
it's
being
loaded
down
at
the
bottom,
but
it's
also
being
added
at
the
top.
So
they're
getting
a
double
whammy
here
by
including
it
as
a
revenue
item,
but
not
an
expense
item,
because
it's
not
obviously
being
included
on
the
the
expense
side.
K
K
Page
36,
you
could
see
the
common
area
maintenance,
far
right,
column,
$80,000
for
Kim
and
121
thousand
dollars
for
real
estate
tax.
The
total
is
under
none,
no
I,
think
I,
think
that
has
to
be
adjusted
for
it
in
order
to
get
the
income
approach,
numbers
just
factually
and
methodically
correct.
In
accordance
with
I,
ee,
oh
and
and
Appraisal
Institute
valuation,
Stander's,
okay,.
F
Yes,
ma'am
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
this
off.
You
know,
as
far
as
the
tax,
the
real
estate
tax,
being
a
double
whammy.
If
the
property
were
vacant,
the
owner
would
pay
taxes,
and
so
now
that
it's
rented
the
owners
being
reimbursed
for
those
taxes,
so
I
think
the
way
the
county
is
doing.
It
is
correct.
F
I
am
sympathetic,
though,
to
the
fact
that
for
these
smaller
centers,
the
pass-throughs
are
escalating
rapidly,
and
so
it
is
having
a
chilling
effect
on
the
ability
to
get
in
its
and
to
get
the
kind
of
rents
we've
had
in
past
years.
As
far
as
the
cap
rate
I'm
pretty
confident
that's
the
same
cap
rate
that's
being
used
throughout
Northern,
Virginia
I.
Don't
know
that
for
sure,
but
I
think
it
is,
and
you
know
I
guess
bottom
line:
I'm,
ok
with
the
county.
D
D
A
G
D
A
K
I
I
I
A
L
A
Okay
and
then
do
we
have
mr.
Sekulow.
Yes,
she
is
okay.
Okay,
all
right,
I
believe
we're
all
set.
Then
okay,
resuming
where
we
left
off
the
fourth
case
for
the
day
is
our
PC
one,
five
zero
one,
two
zero
four
130
130
Lee
highway,
miss
Castillo.
You
can
take
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
your
property.
Yes,.
L
Thank
you
good
morning.
My
property
is
a
Walgreens
free-standing
property
located
at
3130,
Lee
Highway.
The
property
has
done
least
since
2010
it's
and
on
a
long-term
lease
for
60
years,
with
a
current
rate
of
forty
three
dollars:
a
square
foot,
the
assessment
increase
year-over-year
by
fifteen
and
a
half
percent
from
2019
and
upon
a
review
of
the
worksheet
I
realized
that
the
assessment
was
increased
dramatically
because
now
the
the
county
is
including
tax
reimbursement
as
part
of
the
revenue
when
I
inquired
about
this.
L
On
the
on
the
first
level,
hearing
I
was
told
that
this
was
supposed
to
be
done.
This
way
before
that
the
embarrassment
would
have
been
included.
Although
my
my
client
does
not
benefit
up
there
in
verse,
most
the
the
tenant
pays,
the
taxes
directly
to
the
county
and
the
reimbursements
now
being
included
at
an
extra
$6,
a
square
foot
to
the
to
the
revenue
for
those
property.
I
don't
have
any
concerns
with
the
operating
expenses.
I
understand
the
cap
rate,
as
I
was
explained
on
the
first
level
hearing
is
loaded.
L
L
You
can
see
that
I
did
an
acquisition,
analysis
and
I
could
compare
the
assessment
of
this
property,
which
is
currently
at
six
hundred
forty-seven
thousand
square
foot,
with
my
agreements
of
Columbia,
Pike
and
CBS
on
Richmond,
highway
and
CBS
on
215
or
gleave.
Road
of
this
properties
are
assess
between
for
three
hundred
sixty
four
thousand
square
foot
and
five
hundred
sixty.
J
J
When
I
realized
that
they
were,
but
the
tenant
is
paying
the
real
estate
tax
separately
than
what's
being
that
went
and
it's
actually
written
in
the
lease
okay,
which
is
attached
to
the
case
when
I
realized
that
last
year,
I
had
included
that
in
the
assessment,
and
that
does.
That
is
why
the
the
assessment
increased.
J
So
much
is
because
now
we're
recognizing
the
real
estate
taxes
passed
through
when
we
looked
over
historically
at
the
income
and
expense
statements,
the
owner
was
not
filling
it
out
correctly
and
they
were
not
stating
a
pass-through
and
that's
why
it
was
missed.
And
then,
when
I
realized
the,
when
I
got
ahold
of
the
lease
we
found
a
copy
of
the
lease
I
think
it
was
the
year
before.
Then
we
read
through
it
and
realized
that
the
tenant
is
responsible
for
the
real
estate
taxes
above
and
beyond.
What
is
the
the
rent?
F
This
is
for
the
county
in
the
last
application
that
we
heard
there
were
more
than
one
tenant
and
they
were
reimbursing
real
estate
taxes
to
the
owner.
This
is
a
ground
lease,
apparently
60
years
and
length,
and
that's
kind
of
a
that's
a
little
bit
of
a
different
animal.
Given
that
it's
a
ground
lease
does
the
county
still
think
it's
appropriate
to
tax
the
owner
on
the
fact
that
the
real
estate
tax
is
paying
directly
by
the
tenant.
J
Yes,
to
compare
this
equally
with
all
of
the
owners
across
the
county:
okay,
so
you're,
you
have
gross
leases
and
you
have
triple
net
leases
and
we
try
to
equalize
those.
That's
why
we
asked
for
all
this
information
and
the
income
and
expense
statement
we
like
it,
broken
out
so
that
we
can
actually
measure
what
is
the
base
rent
and
we're
applying
base
rent
and
then
we're
applying
real
estate
tax.
J
F
L
Yes
and
the
expenses
reported
by
my
client
they're,
you
know,
bigger
shop-
are
very
minimal.
Expenses
included
on
my
analysis
is
2%.
So,
aside
from
the
management
and
she's
oversight
of
the
property,
there's
not
a
lot
there
and
once
again,
I
don't
disagree
with
the
expenses
and
just
to
also
be
clear.
My
client
has
not
reported
reimbursements
because
they
don't
know
they
don't
collect
this
until
20:18.
They
facilitated
the
payment
from
the
tenant
to
the
county,
but
the
key
tenant
is
required,
as
mr.
D
A
three
the
the
pass-throughs
I'm
told
only
included
real
estate
taxes
this
year
in
prior
years,
but
yet
the
numbers
are
very,
very
consistent.
So
where
is
the
real
estate,
which
is
the
substantial
number,
because
it's
a
big
property?
Where
is
the
the
pass-through
amount
Inc
as
income
from
real
estate
tax
this
year?
2020
are.
D
J
Okay,
let's
see
if
I
can
explain
this
clearly
the
tenant
I'm.
Sorry,
the
owner
is
submitting
the
income
and
expense
statements
and
was
not
including
pass-through.
Whether
or
not
the
owner
is
hanging.
The
real
estate
tech
he's
not
collecting
the
real
estate
tax,
it's
the
same
thing
as
if
he
was
collecting
it
and
paying
it
to
the
county
and
the
revenue.
J
D
D
J
You,
like
I,
said
the
county
had
in
the
past,
did
not
notice
that
the
tenant
was
paying
the
real
estate
tax,
so
we
included
it
as
they
passed
through.
It's
the
same
thing
as
if
the
owner
is
collecting
the
tax
and
reporting
it
as
if
they're
not
reporting
it
and
the
tenant
is
paying
the
tax
bill
directly
to
the
county.
We
recognize
it
as
being
the
same
thing:
okay,
especially
when
the
rent
is
not
changing.
It's
the
same.
J
L
A
I
A
A
You
know
in
this
case,
when
you
look
at
on
the
grid,
what
they're
getting
for
rent
and
if
they
weren't
getting
the
pass-through,
that
number
would
be
added
to
the
rent
and
they
still
wouldn't
be
getting
an
expense
of
the
real
estate
taxes
like
every
other
property
in
Arlington.
They
don't
deduct
that
so
that
from
that
standpoint
is
equalized
the
other
point.
You
know
that
kind
of
jumped
out
at
me.
A
When
you
look
at
the
history
of
the
assessment,
it's
really
been
quite
what
was
flat
for
17
and
18,
and
then
it
went
down
in
19,
which
I
don't
think
this
property
went
down
in
value
so
had
that
had
a
slightly
a
slight
increase
to
the
2019.
This
wouldn't
be
such
a
large
increase
in
2020,
so
I
think
it
was
actually
under
assessed
last
year
and
now
it's
stabilized
and
caught
back
up
again
in
reviewing
of
how
that
they
were
reporting
that
income
so
I
think
the
assessment
is
fair.
F
Yes,
ma'am,
the
only
hesitation
I
have-
and
maybe
this
isn't
today-
that
we
ought
to
think
this
through.
The
only
hesitation
I
have
is
that
a
long-term
ground
lease
like
this,
it's
almost
like
the
tenancy
owner
and
not
the
owner
and
the
tenant
probably
could
do
whatever
they
want
with
the
land,
and
you
know
maybe
it
ought
to
be
the
tenant
paying
the
real
estate
tax
are
being
assessed.
The
real
estate
tax,
but
I,
don't
think
that's
to
be
decided
today.
I
do
think
that
something,
maybe
we
oughta
look
at.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
G
G
What
just
doesn't
make
any
sense,
so
there's
a
disconnect
there,
obviously
I,
don't
think
the
board
is
considering
raising
the
tax
rate
to
100%,
but
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
logical,
disconnect
there
and
I
guess
as
long
as
we're
doing
that
each
year
and
updating
the
cap
rates
and
doing
studies-
it's
probably
okay,
but
it's
just
something
that
keep
an
eye
on
it
doesn't
affect
my
opinion
on
this
property.
I
think
it's
I
think
it's
assessed
fairly
right
now,.
A
H
F
A
L
I'm
thinking
this
is
a
turquoise,
a
self-storage
property
that
is
located
in
South
Arlington.
The
property
I
want
to
take
you
to
page
four
of
the
package,
and
you
can
see
that
the
income,
the
revenues
have
been
pretty
consistent,
but
this
property.
Now
the
the
income
is
reported
as
effective
rate
and
not
the
market
rate.
However,
the
analyte
is
reflective
of
what
the
capability,
the
income
capabilities
of
the
other
property,
are
and,
as
you
can
see,
they're
consistent
from
2016
to
2019.
L
L
L
Like
I
said
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
below
what
the
county
is
assuming
and
I
had
included
what
the
income
and
expense
a
surveys,
the
ownership
has
included
red
rolls
the
detail,
their
rates
for
each
tenant,
so
my
thought
on
this
as
either
the
the
rent,
the
rent
that
they
kind
is
receiving,
needs
to
be
taken
an
account
or
it
needs
to
also
be
accounted
for,
and
the
in
the
vacancy
rate,
which
right
now
is
only
six
percent.
This
property
has
been
consistently
bacon
about
twenty
two
percent
since
2016.
L
It
is
an
odd
property
that
the
the
layout
of
the
property
is
kind
of
odd,
so
doesn't
rent
as
well.
In
addition,
there's
three
other
storage
self
storage
facilities
within
half
a
mile
of
the
property
that
pose
additional
competition
for
it.
With
that,
my
request
for
the
the
value
reduction
is
a
ten
million
two
and
I
have.
Thank
you.
Okay.
Thank
you.
J
Thank
you
board
with
this
particular
property.
The
rent
roll
analysis
that
I
did
was
we're
trying
to
determine
what
is
the
potential
gross,
and
that
was
the
point
of
the
rent
roll,
so
we're,
but
the
owner
is
reporting
actual
year-over-year
note
that
they're
not
including
any
vacancy
rent
loss
or
concessions,
and
we
do
give
a
stabilized
vacancy
rate
of
6%.
J
So
that
is
why
we
need
to
determine
when
I
look
over
the
entire
rent
roll,
then
I'm
trying
to
find
out
what
is
the
average
rent
for
the
occupied
spaces,
and
when
we
look
back
over
what
is
being
reported
for
the
2019,
we
felt
that
our
original
assessment
is
fair
and
equitable.
The
agent
is
reek.
Lewd.
Excuse
me,
the
agent
is
including
in
her
expenses
under
column
F.
She
is
including
replacement
reserves
and,
once
again,
we
do
not
include
replacement
reserves
for
these
property
types,
the
only
ones
that
we
do
bars
for
hotel.
J
D
D
But
apparently
consistent
with
this,
there
are
four
columns
a
through
C
plus
C
past
years.
You
didn't
do
that
potential
that
stabilizing
influence.
You
just
accept,
there's
a
question:
you
just
accepted
their
income,
as
is
but
this
year
you,
the
policy
has
changed
such
that
you
did
a
potential
growth
potential
income.
Is
that
what
I'm?
Looking
at
okay.
J
So
when
I
analyzed
the
rent,
roll
okay
on
page
2,
the
appraiser
comments,
if
you
look
at
the
last
paragraph
right
there,
it
states
what
how
we,
what
we
came
up
with
for
an
average
rental
rate.
It's
the
very
first
sentence
on
the
last
paragraph:
okay,
that's
what
we
determined
the
average
rental
rate
would
be,
and
that's
why
I
reconstructed
I
did
a
rental
analysis
and
when
you
look
at
the
original
assessment,
the
amount
that
we
used
was
substantially
less
than
what
the
average
rental
rate
is.
J
If
you
lose,
let's
see
the
worksheet
figure
out.
What
page
it's
on
page,
20
of
the
packet
you'll
see
the
rental
rate
that
was
originally
it
was
used
in
the
original
assessment
is
less
than
what
I
had
determined
from
the
rent
analysis,
which
you
find
in
the
last
paragraph
page
2
of
the
appraiser
comments.
D
J
J
Yes,
that
was
the
difference.
There
was
2019,
the
vacancy
was
9
percent,
stabilized
vacancy.
That's
used
for
all
of
that
property,
furch
all
similar
property
types
as
a
subject,
and
then
in
2020
it
was
6%
which
was
applied
to
all
of
the
property,
the
same
properties
in
that
property
type,
which
is
property
class
code,
252,
which.
A
J
So,
like
I
said
we're
looking
at
the
original
assessment,
we
used
a
lower
lower
rental
rate,
we're
also
applying
vacancy
and
keep
in
mind
when
you're
looking
at
their
their
history.
Okay,
note
that
they're
not
including
vacancies.
So
when
you
look
at
their
inner,
why
it's
not
including
it's
not
including
the
gross
potential,
and
it's
not
including
the
vacancies,
so
that's
gonna
be
different
than
what
you
see
in
column
D
and
we
don't
I.
A
A
H
H
J
J
You
once
again,
we
I
looked
at
the
rent
roll
analyzed.
It
determined
that
the
original
assessment
2020
the
rent
that
we're
using
is
less
than
what
they're
achieving
at
average
rental
rate
and
we're
applying
a
stabilized
vacancy,
keep
in
mind.
There
are
only
reporting,
actuals
and
they're,
not
reporting
a
vacancy,
so
excuse
the
Noi
when
you
compare
it.
Otherwise,
we
believe
that
our
original
assessment
for
2020
at
12
million
five
hundred
and
sixty
two
thousand
seven
hundred
is
fair
and
equitable.
Thank
you.
L
Take
a
minute
thank
you.
Yeah
I,
mentioned
before
the
valar.
Laurie
is
right
that
they're
not
reporting
vacancy
and
potential
gross
income,
but
I
do
want
to
mention
that
the
rent
does
include
vacancy
right
because
they
didn't
receive
any
additional
rent
for
the
vacant
spaces.
So
my
thought
on
this
is
that
you
either
take
into
account
vacancy
that
the
property
has
consistently
suffered
of,
or
you
reduce
the
rental
rate
to
reflect
this
vacancy
as
well
in
terms
of
the
expenses
I.
L
Do
want
to
mention
that
this
property
was
built
in
the
60s
renovated
in
1985
a
35
year.
Old
property
would
expect
that,
although
the
county
takes
this
approach,
if
not
considering
reserves
at
all
I'm,
not
sure
how
that
jives,
with
the
fact
that
the
property
is
aging
and
Rick
fires
at
some
point,
it's
gonna
require
roof,
etc.
So
my
request
stands
for
the
assessment
to
be
lower
based
on
consistent.
D
Have
an
issue
with
putting
the
stabilized
average
reasonable
reported.
They
can
see
rate
for
all
similar
properties
and
applying
it
to
this
property,
which
has
a
history
of
more
than
and
some
years
significantly
more
than
double
one
year,
two
years,
okay,
but
this
seems
to
be
a
steady
trend
and
I
would
suggest
that
and
that
we,
in
order
to
get
it
not
to
their
actual,
they
could
see
red,
but
not
pegging
it
at
this
year.
D
Six
percent
vacancy
rate
for
this
type
of
property
that
we
double
the
vacancy
rate,
expense
for
these
folks
and
and
apply
to
new
and
they're
part,
of
course,
of
diminishing
Vienna.
Why
and
and
and
the
assessed
value
and
I
say
double
so
that
it's
not
the
actual
vacancy
rate
that
is
significantly
more
than
apparently
the
vacancy
rate
of
their
competitors.
I.
H
A
C
D
F
Very
interesting
can
what
I
did
is
some
quick
math
and
the
way
you
proposed
I
think
we'd
end
up
at
about
eleven
million
four
hundred
sixty-four
I?
Did
it
slightly
differently
and
I
went
with
what
the
applicant
suggested
and
so
I
love
the
income
and
do
not
even
have
a
vacancy
deduction
and
I
ended
up
right
at
eleven
million,
almost
even
so,
I
guess
I
guess
we
ought
to
figure
out
there.
We
go
Ken's
way
or
the
way
I
suggested
Barnes.
F
A
I
mean
I'll
tell
you
what
I
did
is
a
test.
I
took
the
actual
numbers,
as
reported
in
column,
E
and
I
got
a
slight
reduction
from
last
year's
I.
Don't
believe
that
it's
necessarily
gone
downs
but
I,
don't
necessarily
think
it's
gone
up
based
on
you
know
just
the
uniqueness
of
this
property
in
the
proximity
to
other
units.
A
A
A
I
I
mean
normally
when
I
read
the
package.
That's
you
know.
This
is
one
of
the
first
pages
that
we
get
to
and
without
really
knowing
that
there
are
actual
numbers
that
made
a
little
bit
of
a
difference
to
me
but
yeah.
That
was
the
first
thing
that
I
thought
about
doing
it.
I
could
go
either
way
with
increasing
dividend,
a
can
see
or
I
think
going
just
capping
that
number
for
this
year.
I
think
I'm,
ok
with
it.
F
G
H
I
D
I
D
Well
doing
it
either
way.
The
bottom
line
is
is
quite
close,
he's
just
whose
methodology
that
we
adopt
to
get
to
that
modified
number
and
and
I'm
good
either
way.
But
I
would
argue
that
the
department's
methodology
is
more
in
line
with
what
we
ought
to
be
doing
for
all
properties
in
the
county
that
the
department
assesses.
A
D
No
I'm
saying
accounting
for
the
high
vacancy
again
I
just
threw
out
doubling
the
amount
from
6
to
12
percent
reduction
per
vacancy,
her
expense
for
vacancy.
Now
you
could
say
it
should
be
2.5
times
or
1
point
6
2
times
or
something,
but
I
made
a
significant
increase
again
because
using
the
department's,
otherwise
methodology
and
the
other
line
items.
F
D
F
D
Other
way
of
doing
it
by
just
simply
capping
twelve
nineteen
at
the
new
cap
rate
I
get
my
twelve
percent
is
arbitrary,
I'm
just
trying
to
get
somewhere
between
the
rest
of
the
county
and
this
historical
trend
here
so
I'm
not
wedded
to
it.
I
mean
it's
just
again,
trying
to
get
a
median
number,
but
at
hosea
mary's.
Instead,
that's
better
Barnes
thinks
because
fill
in
the
blanks,
so
I
feel
100%,
confident
comfortable.