►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing September 20, 2022
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
Tuesday
September
20
20th.
This
is
the
Arlington
County
Board
of
Equalization
hearing.
There
are
six
cases
on
the
agenda
today.
First
case
we'll
be
hearing
is
RPC
one:
six,
zero,
three
six
zero!
Three,
a
at
1820
Fort,
Myer,
Drive,
Mr,
Grant
steinhauser,
is
here
representing
the
owner.
You
can
start
Mr
steinhauser
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
I've,
also
like
to
introduce
Tim
primel
who's
with
Snell,
the
owner
of
AIMS,
Center,
LP
and
I.
Believe
David
Hanna
is
on
as
well
his
Council,
so
the
property
we
have
before
you
today
is
it's
three
separate
rpcs
that
have
just
this
year
been
combined
into
one
economic
unit
by
the
county.
B
It
is
the
Ames
Center
currently
in
a
vacant
office,
building
in
Roslyn
and
just
below
our
two
Parcels
owned
by
the
church,
the
Arlington
Temple
United,
Methodist
Church
one
is
a
gas
station
that
I'm
sure
many
of
you
are
familiar
with
sort
of
below
the
church
and
and
then
the
actual
Church
itself.
Above
it,
our
appeal
materials
start
on
page
73
of
136
of
the
Boe
memorandum.
So
let
everyone
sort
of
take
a
chance
to
to
flip
down
there.
B
Two
major
issues
that
we
have
to
discuss
today.
One
is
the
value.
The
value
has
nearly
doubled
from
last
year
to
this
year
and
then
it's
obviously
causing
a
you
know
a
huge
issue
with
the
prospects
of
you
know
this
new
development
ever
even
getting
off
the
ground,
and
the
second
issue
is
the
allocation
between
the
Lots
and
that
we'll
get
into
that.
B
Second,
but
there's
you
know
there
was
a
obviously
the
assessor
looked
at
it
and
made
sort
of
a
revision
you
know
and
and
that
has
actually
caused
even
more
issues
than
sort
of
where
we
originally
started.
So
first
we'll
address
the
evaluation.
B
Again.
This
is
100
vacant
office,
building
on
the
aim,
Center
Lot
and
then
still
an
operating
church
and
gas
station
on
the
southern
I.
Guess
you
could
call
it
RPC.
B
The
assessor
has
switched
to
evaluation
based
on
the
site
plan,
so
they've
taken,
you
know
a
very
basic.
You
know:
86
000,
you
know
per
approved
unit,
multiplied
it
by
the
number
of
units
and
then
taking
a
rate.
You
know
per
buildable
square
foot
on
the
very
small
commercial
component
that
that
was
also
included
in
the
site
plan
and
applied
that
that's
how
they
got
to
their
66.3
million
dollar
number.
B
As
the
original
assessment
and
the
revised
assessment
reflects
slightly
revised
site
plan
where
I
believe
there
are
something
like
12
less
units
than
in
the
original.
B
We
don't
believe
that
this
approach
to
Value
takes
into
account
any
of
the
necessary
costs
that
it
will
take
to
actually
get
to
the
ground,
of
which
there
are
a
number,
and
not
only
that
I
mean
it
there's.
This
is
specifically
evidenced
by
the
fact
that
this
owner
has
tried.
You
know
to
bring
in
a
partner
at
a
specific
land
basis
to
get
this
project
going.
B
It
was
originally
put
out
there
by
it
was
marketed
by
I
believe
it
was
a
new
Mark
Tim
by
Newmark
at
a
60
or
at
a
60
million
dollar
land
value
to
over
150
different
institutional
investors,
of
which
they
got
zero
bytes.
They
then
lowered
it
to
50
million
dollars,
land
basis,
zero
bytes
at
to
the
point
where
they've
been
told,
they
would
need
to
lower
the
land
value
to
between
15
and
20
million.
For
this
project
to
be
feasible.
B
So
there's
we
have
very
specific
evidence
that
you
know
getting
to
the
land.
You
know
the
value
could
not
be
higher
than
20
million,
otherwise
they
will
not
be
able
to
build
the
project
which
there
are
all
sorts
of
costs,
including
obviously
demoing
the
existing
structure,
but
we're
also
talking
about
a
number
of
cash
commitments
to
a
variety
of
different
projects
that
are
required
within
the
site
plan.
B
We're
talking
about
you
know:
12
million
dollars
to
construct.
You
know
a
public
Plaza
on
18th
Street
quarter,
we're
talking
about
future
maintenance
of
that
Plaza
we're
talking
about
paying
the
gas
station.
You
know
to
go
dark
for
42
months,
we're
talking
about
rebuilding
the
church.
You
know
within
the
project.
B
These
costs
are
well
over
30
million
dollars
and
while
the
assessor
sort
of
generic
you
know
approach
to
these,
you
know
developments
is
to
sort
of
just
you
know,
slap
that
you
know.
86
000
per
unit
value
on
you
know
on
any
new.
You
know
approved
site
plan
in
Arlington.
B
You
know,
ours
is
unique
and
it
really
just
doesn't
work
here
at
all.
So
we
did.
We
took
two
approaches
to
Value
and
this
can
be
seen
on
page
79
of
136.
B
This
is
an
office
income
approach,
a
very
standard
valuation.
This
is
how
the
aim
Center
had
been
valued
up
until
this
year
you
can
see
we
took
a
market
rent
of
36.50
per
square
foot.
B
We
took
the
miscellaneous
income
and
parking
income
from
2021.
As
there
still
was.
You
know,
income
at
the
office
in
2021
until
ultimately
by
1122
to
The,
Last
Tenant
was
gone.
B
B
Sure,
yeah
so
yeah,
and
how
about
in
30
seconds
I'm
gonna
we're
gonna
pivot
to
you?
Okay,
so
that's
how
we
get
to
an
office
value
of
28
million
350.
and
then
we
just
add
previously.
The
gas
station
has
always
been
assessed
at
a
million
149
900
and
the
church
has
always
been
assessed
at
three
million.
Ninety
one
thousand
eight
hundred
I
assume
those
were
based
on
cost
approaches.
But
if
you
look
historically
at
those
two
rpcs,
that's
what
they've
always
been.
B
So
we
added
those
figures
back
and
that's
how
we
get
to
a
number
of
32
million
592
000..
We've
also
done
a
cost
approach
to
Value,
which
actually
came
in
at
a
lower
value.
B
So
that's
why
that's
the
number
that
we're
putting
forward
today
but
I
want
Tim
to
make
sure
I
want
to
make
sure
Tim
has
a
chance
to
talk
here
so
Tim.
Can
you
tell
us
a
little
bit
more
about
you
know
this
project
and,
what's
what's
been
going
on
sure.
C
You
know
staff
has
assess
this
as
if
it's
already
a
closed
project.
You
know
we
already
have
a
deal
with
the
church
and
that's
not
the
case.
We
don't,
we
actually
don't
have
any
we
haven't.
C
We
haven't,
purchased
the
density
from
the
church,
yet
so
what
we
own
is
our
vacant
office
building
the
church
still
owns
the
church
and
the
gas
station
and,
like
Grant,
said
the
Project's
not
economically
viable
today,
and
we
won't
close
with
close
our
deal
with
the
church
until
that
changes,
and
so
you
know
right
now
between
the
financial
markets
and
the
construction
markets.
D
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
Grant
2010.,
but
we
are
of
course
talking
about
AIMS
Center
site
plan.
Redevelopment
is
the
board
is
familiar,
that's
essentially
very
straightforward
and
as
in
fact
as
Grand
is
already
outlayed,
there's
really
only
three
ways:
the
county
is
going
to
Value
property.
If
it
is
income
producing,
we
will
value
that
via
the
income
approach
to
Value
capitalization
to
our
capitalization.
If
there
is
a
site
plan,
that's
been
requested
a
special
exception
site
plan.
D
That's
been
put
before
the
County
Board
and
approved
that
will
take
precedence
in
case
it
will
be
valued
via
the
site
plan.
Once
the
site
plan
the
ground
flip
permit
has
been
issued
and
construction
has
started,
these
will
be
either
demo
of
the
existing
condition
or
construction
of
the
new
approved
development.
It
will
then
switch
to
cost
approach.
D
So,
as
noted,
this
project
was
approved.
January
2021
for
approximately
I
think
it
was
740
units.
It
was
amended
in
July
of
that
same
year
as
Grant
noted
to
reduce
the
number
of
units,
as
well
as
reduce
some
of
the.
What
they're
calling
convertible
space,
essentially
mixed
retail
office
space.
Some
various
changes
to
exterior
facade
parking,
Etc
exclusion,
densities.
D
What
not
just
being
blunt
so
we
we
do
not
make
adjustments
to
the
site
plans
that
are
approved
by
the
board
in
regards
to
the
items
listed
that
are
felt
needed
to
make
this
plan
come
to
fruition.
D
We
would
point
out
that,
essentially,
these
are
items
that
either
the
county
asked
for
to
achieve
this
3.8
4.8
density
or
extensions
of
that
density,
increased
density
and
that
would
be
through
those
some
of
those
items
that
were
listed,
increased
contributions
to
a
half
increased
units
committed,
affordable
units,
the
public,
facade
and
I
can't
quite
quote
that
100,
particularly
but
I'm,
fairly
sure
that
the
language
in
there
states
that
the
developer,
the
the
sole
cost
of
these
developments
and
upkeep
is
at
the
sole
cost
of
the
developer.
D
So
essentially
passing
it
back
on
to
the
county
to
give
a
discount
for
the
approved
density.
It
gets
kind
of
meta,
because
you're,
essentially
asking
for
a
discount
of
the
things
that
you
needed
in
place
to
get
the
density
approved.
We
make
that
very
easy.
We
don't
offer
any
reductions
or
adjustments
to
the
site
plan
that
is
approved
again.
D
It's
very
much
straightforward,
as
Grant
pointed
out,
eighty
six
thousand
dollars
per
approved
unit
and
I
believe
we
were
at
55
or
thereabouts
for
the
per
square
foot
rate
for
the
retail
again
in
regards
to
we,
you
know
we
don't
want
to
come
up
as
argumentative.
D
Each
project
has
its
own
particulars.
We
would
point
out
again.
This
is
not
confidential
information.
This
is
public
records.
So,
as
far
as
how
these
values
are
are
put
forth,
you
know
every
project
that
is
currently
valued
as
a
site
plan
is
valid.
The
same
way
in
regards
to
number
of
units
times
that
let
that
Year's
land
rate
and
again
prescribed
foot
rates.
D
I
would
also
note
that
I
took
a
look
at
the
counties,
what
they
call
Corridor
development
report,
which
essentially
is
looking
at
what's
currently
under
construction
and
there's
a
number
of
things
under
construction
and
similar
projects.
If
you
will
next
door
is
Rosalind
Holiday
Inn,
which
the
board
might
be
aware
about.
That's
another
site
plan,
that's
being
built.
D
Currently,
that's
going
to
be
essentially
three
components
where
you're
going
to
have
Apartments
a
hotel
conference
or
Office
Space
jbg
alone
is
building
two
sets
of
Twin
Towers
in
national
land
and
Crystal
City.
We
have
Boston
nearest
theater
site
right
next
to
you
guys
on
that
What's
called
the
courthouse
block,
there's
a
mixed
use
project,
that's
coming
and
being
built
as
we
speak.
D
So
the
the
particulars
of
why
this
project
can't
get
on
the
ground.
You
know
that's
one
thing:
we
don't
get
into
that:
Laura
Mass,
appraisal,
evaluation,
the
the
particulars
of
development
agreements
between
them
and
the
church.
We
don't
get
into
payments
to
a
gas
station
or
remain
closed.
We
don't
get
into
we
value
this.
The
same
way
we
value
other
approved
site
plans
that
are
active
and
we
believe
that
this
one
should
be
confirmed
as
well.
D
We
do
ask
you
to
to
recognize
the
revision
that
was
made
to
note
the
amendment
from
July
with
again,
which
was
a
bit
of
a
decrease
in
units
and
the
convertible
space.
That
being
said,
we
do
ask
the
county
board
members
to
prove
the
County's
revision
to
65
million
432
600..
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board
members.
F
Yeah
I
got
a
question
for
snow.
Have
you
filed
any
construction,
drawings
or
psych
plans
or
anything
after
approval
of
the
4.1.
F
Question
for
the
county,
the
the
the
applicant
filed
an
appeal
based
on
the
assumption
that
that
we
should.
G
F
It
based
upon
it
being
office
as
income.
You,
you
didn't
do
a
workup
of
that,
though,
did
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Mr
matskin,
you
had
your
hand
up.
H
The
only
unusual
part
about
this
I
find
is
that
the
appellant
apparently
doesn't
own
all
the
land.
They
have
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
you
have
a
site
plan
approval
for
all
the
land,
but
you
don't
own
all
the
land,
that's
correct,
yeah
I
mean
subject
to
rational
stuff.
What
what
percentage
of
the
because
we're
talking
about
far
here!
You
know
it's
based
on
square
footage
of
rural
land
when
it
becomes
raw
land.
What
percentage
do
you
own
now?
What
percentage?
Don't
you
own
now.
B
B
The
calculation
can
be
seen
on
page
78
of
136
in
our
yeah
of
the
Boe
memorandum,
but
apparent
the
Snell
lot.
The
aim
Center
Lot,
is
approximately
79
of
the
total
sixty
two
thousand
three
hundred
and
seventy
eight
square
feet.
The
church
owns
sixteen
thousand
two
hundred
ninety
three
square
feet
or
approximately
you
know,
20.71
percent.
A
Okay
and
a
follow-up
to
that
for
the
county,
Mr
chicas
are
there
other
appellants
that
would
own
portions
of
site
plans
that
are
assessed
the
same
way.
I
mean
I'm,
just
looking
from
an
equalization
standpoint.
A
Are
there
other,
you
know,
site
plan
approvals
where
you
know
like
in
this
situation?
They
don't
own
100
of
the
land.
H
C
Down
to
church
they
own
everything,
so
they
have
two
Parcels
one
is
for
profit,
which
is
the
gas
station,
which
is
a
tenant
of
the
church,
and
their
second
parcel
is
not
non-profit,
which
is
the
church
itself,
but
they
own
the
entire
land
parcel
that
sits
on
those
two.
But
those
two
rpcs
sit
on.
C
If
you
think
about
it
like
a
condominium,
they
they
pay
tax
on
the
on
our
PC
that
is
allocated
to
the
gas
station
yeah
peace.
They
do
not
pay
tax
on
the
on
the
part
that
is
allocated
to
the
church
right.
A
I
Yeah
I
was
reading
the
comments
from
newmark's
offering
and
a
lot
of
stuff
related
to.
G
I
Many
units
I
mean,
could
the
appellant
speak
to
that?
Is
there
any
way
to
phase
this
thing
and
deliberate
in
smaller
chunks,
or
is
it
732
units
bam
delivered
all
together
and
trying
to
absorb
in
the
market?
So.
C
There
you
should
come
work
with
us.
That's
a
great
idea,
that's
exactly
what
we're
trying
to
figure
out
the
moment.
The
current
plan
is
to
try
to
phase
the
projects
and
it's
if
we
do
that,
we'll
still
likely
have
to
close
with
the
church
at
some
point
before
that
happens,
but
the
idea
would
be
to
build
one
of
the
two
towers,
because
it
is
less
units
there,
it's
easier
easier
to
stabilize
when
you
have
400
units
instead
of
750
units
or
whatever
the
numbers
are,
and
so
you
know
the
time
frames
are
shorter.
I
Thanks
Mr
chicas:
we
we
get
this
86
000
per
unit
guideline
every
year
and
I,
don't
think
it's
changed
in
the
last
three
or
four
years,
but
I
don't
have
the
the
study
that
it
came
from
so
I'm
just
curious.
I
D
Sure
yeah,
essentially
it's
it
is
from
projects
that
are
already
proved
and
unpurchased.
So
when
you
do
the
the
math
backwards
of
the
purchase
price
for
the
approved
units,
they're,
usually
we're
up
in
the
area
of
100
200
000
per
unit,
so
the
86
000
per
unit
is
actually
quite
low.
In
regards
to
your
first
part,
are
there
other
properties
that
are
going
up
about
many
units?
Yes
again
we
mentioned
jbg's,
Water,
Tower
or
whatever
they're
calling.
D
It
now
has
two
units,
approximately
800,
Two
Towers,
approximately
800
units
and
then
about
a
half
a
block
away:
Crystal
Drive,
the
similar
deal,
another
two
towers
of
732
units.
So
this
is
not
that
unusual,
again,
Rosalind
the
holiday
and
rosin
is
technically
Two.
Towers
one
will
be
a
hotel.
One
will
be
an
apartment.
D
There'll
be
two
new
towers
that
the
Marriott
Roslin
site,
one
being
a
condo
one
being
an
apartment,
so
it
tends
to
be
we're
seeing
almost
like
a
return
on
investment
where
they're
actually
building
more
units
on
smaller
Lots
through
these
improved
densities,
where
they,
the
new
sector
plans,
put
out
by
the
board
to
encourage
the
steps.
C
C
You
know
our
return.
Profiles
are
completely
different
than
a
huge
Reit,
and
you
know
as
a
as
that
goes
to
ditmar.
Yes,
they're
also
a
family
office.
However,
they
started
their
project,
I
think
18
months
or
24
months
ago,
so
they
were,
you
know
demolishing
their
building
long
before
the
current
economic
conditions
happened
and
then
I'll
just
say
one
more
thing
that
this
project
could
stay
like
this
literally
for
years.
Until
things
change
right
and
again,
we
don't
own
the
whole
project.
We
only
own
our.
H
F
H
F
D
Yes
Man:
it's
you
know,
we
don't
want
to
sound
argumentative,
but
it's
it
seemed
like.
The
cart
was
put
before
the
horse
that
if
the
development
deal
was
not
set
in
place,
I
don't
know
why
they
spent
the
money
in
the
time
they
did
on
getting
this
property
approved
and
an
amended
for
that
matter.
So
this
property
has
not
only
been
cycling
approved.
D
It's
been
amended
six
months
after
that
date,
seven
months
after
that
date,
if
they're
looking
as
far
as
the
project
not
being
able
to
get
off
the
ground,
I'd
recommend
either
pulling
that
Amendment
or
or
revising
it
heavily,
because,
obviously,
once
that
site
plan
is
approved,
it
will
stay
in
place
until
it
either
expires
or
it
switches
to
cost
approach.
Given
that
we
are
valuing
this
property
exactly
like
other
site
plans
that
are
approved
by
the
category
the
special
exception,
we
do
believe
that
this
property
should
be.
B
Yeah
thanks
the
one
issue
we
really
didn't
have
time
to
touch
on
and
frankly,
we
could
have
an
entire
second
case
about.
It
is
the
allocation.
B
If
you
look
at
the
column,
2022
original
on
page
one
and
then
2022
proposed,
the
assessor
has
completely
moved
all
of
the
allocated
value.
It
was
originally
spread
out
across
the
three
rpcs
and
they've
moved.
You
know
90
98
of
it
or
so
to
the
aim
Center
lot.
B
This
is
the
result
of
the
owners
in
good
faith
going
to
the
assessor
about
a
month
ago
and
saying
hey,
you
know
you've
allocated
too
much
to
the
gas
station
here
they
were
double
counting
the
land
that
the
church
owned,
and
they
said
you
know
it
should
be
lowered
and
some
of
that
the
value
should
be
rebalanced.
B
Unfortunately,
what
has
since
happened
is
the
assessor
has
taken
all
of
the
density
and
put
it
on
the
aim
Center
lot,
so
the
density
that
they
don't
even
have
access
to
until
they've
completed
a
purchase
of
the
church
is
now
entirely
on
the
002
lot
owned
owned
by
am
Center.
So
that
is
a
significant
issue
and
the
second
obviously
the
valuation.
A
B
They're
just
trying
to
get
off
the
ground
here
they
would
like
to
be
assessed
fairly
until
they
start
building
and
then,
of
course,
this
is
going
to
be
a
cash
cow
for
the
county,
we're
talking
about
a
700
unit
apartment
building,
but
up
until
then
I
mean
just
let
them
get
started.
Okay,.
F
Throw
out
some
thinking
and
see
what
others
think
originally
I
was
thinking.
Maybe
we
should
just
go
back
to
where
it
was
in.
E
F
G
F
My
thinking
is
that
you
know
I,
don't
think
we
can
get
into
all
the
cost
of
bringing
this
project
online,
but.
G
F
Do
think
we
could
certainly
allocate
the
appropriate
amount
of
density
to
snell,
because
it's
not
uncommon
to
have
a
site
plan
over
several
owned
properties,
and
each
property
has
contributed
the
amount
of
density
based
upon
their
area
and-
and
you
can't
just
say
well-
this
is
the
biggest
property
owner.
This
was
the
applicant.
Therefore,
we
charge
all
the
density
to
them.
It's
got
to
be
allocated
to
each
parcel,
so
I
think
a
reduction
is
appropriate
based
upon
the
percentage
of
density
that
that
Snell
actually
owns.
That's
that's
where
I
am.
H
On
that,
specifically,
it's
another
way
to
say
it
that
you
would
accept
density,
yeah,
yeah,
it's
just
that
simple.
G
H
H
J
H
H
But
that
includes
that
that
21
79
is
includes
the
gas
station
and
I
was
thinking.
You
should
only
include
the
church
that
isn't
taxable
you
know,
I,
don't
know
why
these
guys
should
pay
tax
on
property.
They
don't
own
I,
understand
it's
an
economic
unit
site
plans,
but
in
this
case
that
to
me
that's
the
unique
aspect:
demoing
it
and
paying
the
the
gas
station
to
go
dark
is
not
unique,
but.
G
H
K
Well,
I
originally
thought
that
the
county
is
correcting
what
they
did.
You
know
they
normally
will
assess
based
on
the
side
plan,
regardless
of
who
pays
the
tax
bill.
There
are
three
Parcels
here,
but
you
know
I,
don't
think
our
job
is
to
worry
about
who's,
going
to
be
paying
the
tax
bill
and
who's,
not.
In
my
opinion,
he
was
assessed
based
on
the
side
plan,
which
has
been
done
for
many
years.
I
I
mean
I
think
it's
due
for
reduction.
I
go
along
with
what
looks
to
be
a
consensus
here
and
just
to
say
that
86
000
a
unit
you
take
that,
and
it's
not
that
difficult
to
apply
and
extraordinary
circumstance
which
sometimes
you
have.
You
got
buildings
that
sit
on
rocks
that
need
to
go
underground
and
we
usually
end
up
in
that
discussion
and
I
kind
of
side.
With
this,
it
costs
more
to
develop
different
sites.
I
You
know
it's
contaminated
land
whatever
it
is
this
one
that
obviously
has
a
lot
of
profits,
a
lot
of
public
space
improvements
which
I
think
should
be
factored
into
it
and
really
the
biggest
issue
is
the
the
unit
count,
and
it's
there's
evidence
in
the
package
from
you
know
dozens
of
Capital
partners
that
have
said
there's
too
many
units
it's
too
much
Supply
and
next
year
we're
going
to
have
another
argument,
part
of
the
board-
and
it's
probably
due
for
another
reduction,
because
we
live
in
732
units
in
in
higher
interest
rate
environment.
I
I
In
the
next
year
and
get
things
going,
then
we'll
be
looking
at
it
as
a
development
side.
A
Right,
my
only
concern
on
that
is,
as
we've
heard
from
other
you
know,
cases
before
I
mean
if
there's
a
site
plan
on
it,
like
Mr
panaranda,
said,
and
it's
assessed
on
the
site
plan.
I
I
do
believe
that
it's
not
allocated
properly
between
all
the
entities
but
I'm,
not
sure
from
this
standpoint.
You
know
how
we
go
about
reallocating
because
it's
going
to
be
increasing
the
amount
to
somebody
so
I
I.
Just
don't
think
that
we
can
turn
and
arbitrarily
say.
Oh
we're
going
to
just
reduce
the
whole
thing.
A
I
think
the
county
in
good
faith
does
have
it
misappropriated
between
you
know
the
four
Parcels
or
the
three
parcels
you
know,
but
I'm
not
sure
I'm
not
really
comfortable.
Just
saying,
oh
we're
gonna
just
reduce
it,
because
there
is
in
fact
a
site
plan
in
place,
and
we've
heard
from
other
folks
where
they've
said:
oh
well,
it
doesn't
seem
like
it's
feasible.
Nonetheless,
you
know
it
is
approved.
They
could
still
sell
it.
They
could
do
you
know
several
things
with
it.
So
I'm
most
apprehensive
with
just
reducing
it.
A
J
H
A
The
site
plan
for
this
economic
unit,
you
know,
is
valued
at
the
65
432
600.
I
mean
that
I
I'm,
not
disputing
and
I
I.
Don't
think
that
it's
in
our
purview
to
say,
oh
well,
there's
other
you
know
factors
out
there,
so
this
isn't
worth
as
much.
The
bottom
line
is
from
a
standpoint
of
equalization
when
there's
a
site
plan
put
on
a
parcel
of
property,
whether
it's
an
economic
unit
or
an
individual,
you
know
RPC
number.
It's
based
on
the
site
plan,
no
negotiating
know
anything.
A
H
H
A
F
H
K
F
F
H
B
H
H
The
the
the
the
empty
office
building
is
a
site
plan.
There's
no
question
the
the
county
has
calculated
it
correctly,
so
I
just
attracted.
G
H
G
H
You're
you're
79
suggests
that
the
gas
station
in
the
church
generate
no
real
estate
tax
and
in
2021
they
did
so.
They
should
continue
to
pay
because
nothing's
changed
for
them.
They
still
own
it
and
they're.
L
H
A
J
A
F
F
A
I,
don't
know
Mr
goodbye.
E
M
M
It's
something
that
we
can
continue
to
consider
going
into
next
year.
But
what
you're
looking
at
is
the
value
for
this
year.
A
A
G
J
J
Well,
it
could,
and
especially,
if
they're
talking
about
phasing
you
know
that's
a
lot
to
ask,
but
that's
really
what's
going
to
make
any
change
on
here,
I'm
doing
the
tax
prepared
would
be
based.
G
F
H
I
H
A
K
I
think
last
year
I
mean
the.
K
K
A
Right
Mr
panaranda
I,
like
where
you're
going
with
this
okay,
so
you're
saying
to
take
the
11
million
378
500,
that's
on
the
006,
the
church
property.
A
K
K
K
H
A
F
H
For
the
assessment
from
2021
there
really
what
this
is
o4
yeah
there
really
was
an
assessment
of
over
a
million
dollars.
I
would
do
exactly
what
he
said,
but
then
busted
up
by
the
same
2021
assessment,
so
it's
minus
11
million
plus
plus
a
little
over
a
million.
It's
a
10
million,
rounded
adjustment,
because
the
church
owns
it,
but
you
guys
convinced
me
it
doesn't
matter
who
owns
it.
It's
cycling.
A
I
Here's
the
issue
I
see,
is
I'm
reading
through
the
80
different
firms
that
looked
at
this
property
and
all
their
comments,
and
at
least
half
of
them
are
ground.
Lease
is
an
issue.
The
ground
lease
is
an
issue
can't
work
under
the
ground
race.
So
what
if
we
took
the
2022
original
at
62
million,
we
like
the
way
that's
allocated
a
little
bit
better
and
take
10
off
for
the
ground
race
issues
just
call
today.
J
I
G
I
K
J
A
H
A
A
A
Yes,
yes,
all
right,
then
I'm
gonna
move
to
confirm
the
revised
or
not
confirm
I,
guess
I'm
going
to
reduce
it
to
the
County's,
revised
number
of
65
million
432
600,
with
the
allocation
from
the
original
assessment
and
the
reduction
of
the
887
400
coming
off
of
parcel
ending
002.
A
L
A
A
Okay,
do
we
have
Mr
Warren?
Is
he
not
coming
come
here?
Oh
there
he
is,
we've
finally
filled
the
slot.
That's
been
sitting
open,
okay,
so
the
next
on
the
agenda
is
rpc14041187
at
3807,
Wilson,
Boulevard,
Mr
Warren.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
E
Yes,
thank
you.
I
would
like
to
direct
the
board
to
page
45
of
116.
E
of
the
County
response
memo.
This
property
is
the
Amelia
located
at
816
North
Oakland
Street.
It
is
consists
of
a
single
tax
RPC.
It
was
initially
a
theft
for
2022
at
43
million
715
200..
The
county
is
recommending
a
value
of
41
million
at
944
300,
and
the
requested
value
that
were
requested
from
the
board
today
is
37
million
512
200..
E
This
property
was
originally
built
in
2009.
It's
108
total
units,
one
building,
eight
stories.
E
It
is
a
high-rise
apartment
that
offers
a
mix
of
one
and
two
bedroom
units,
the
one
bedroom
units
range
and
size
from
650
to
695
square
feet
and
the
two
bedroom
range
from
840
up
to
1060
square
feet,
I'd
like
to
direct
the
board
now
to
page
four
or
excuse
me
page
four
of
116,
which
is
the
County's
historical
income
and
expense
summary
sheet
and
the
main
issues
that
we
still
have
following
the
revision
of
the
county.
E
It's
a
theme
for
for
all
these
properties
that
we'll
bring
before
you
over
the
course
of
the
next
month
or
so
with
these
dip.
My
properties
and
we
discussed
them
in
the
hearings
last
year-
is
that
covet
was
not
a
one-year
blip
and
that
the
numbers
are
trending
poorly
last
year
and
now
there's
there's
evidence
of
that
for
all
these
properties
that
will
present
to
the
board
this
year,
you'll
see
in
with
regards
to
the
gross
potential
income.
E
the
counties
revised
gross
potential
income.
It
was
revised
down
from
roughly
3.5
million
to
now
3.39
million
3.4
million
still
around
200
000
away
from
what
was
actually
reported
in
2021
and
effective
growth
is
the
again
a
three-year
downward
trend
from
3.17
3.18
million
in
2019,
3
million
72
000
in
2020,
and
then
most
recently,
three
million
at
24
000
in
2021.
E
gross
potential
income.
We
feel
that
the
county
is
overstated,
the
gross
potential
income
for
this
property
and
again
there
is
a
three-year
downward
Trend
and
it's
the
same
thing
with
the
operating
expenses
for
the
three
years
from
2019.
It
was
reported
operating
expenses
of
26
26
again
in
2020
and
then
most
recently,
30
percent
in
2021.
The
County's
revised
operating
expenses
are
still
well
below
what
was
reported
in
2021
at
27
and
a
half
percent,
and
then
down
to
to
the
net
operating
income
and
what
was
reported
again.
E
We're
showing
a
three-year
historical
Trend
covet
was
not
a
one-year
blip
and
it's
going
to
be
years
before
all
these
properties
make
a
make
a
slow
recovery,
but
net
operating
income
reported
in
2019
was
2
million,
2.34
million
in
2019.
E
2
million
265
000
in
2020,
and
most
recently
2.1
million
in
2021..
The
counties
revised
noi
of
2
million
224
000
puts
it
basically
right
in
the
middle
of
the
three-year
average.
It's
it's
right
at
where
2020
was,
however,
I.
Think
we've
then
shown
this
this
trend
and
it's
going
to
be
an
ongoing
theme
throughout
all
these
cases
is
the
the
most
recent
operating
year
should
be
given
the
the
greatest
weight.
E
When,
when
considering
the
2022
assessment,
the
revised
assessment
value
is
represents
a
two
percent
decrease
from
the
final
2021
assessment.
However,
the
actual
net
operating
income
that
was
reported
that
represents
a
seven
percent
decline
from
2020
to
2021..
So
again,
all
that
being
said,
we're
hoping
that
the
the
board
considers
and
gives
the
most
way
to
the
most
recent
calendar
year
reporting
year,
when
giving
consideration
to
the
2022
assessment
for
this
property
I.
N
I
also
want
to
introduce
Greg
rains
and
Sophie
Maurer.
Here
they
work
for
the
ownership.
I
know
you
all
are
familiar
with
them
and
and
might
have
some
comments
to
add
on
this.
But
as
we
heard
last
year,
when
Greg
was
telling
you
look,
things
are
bad
and
things
are
getting
worse.
The
board's
response
was
well.
We
need
to
see
it
well
we're
going
to
show
you
today
and
really
throughout
the
cases
that
we're
showing
it
to
you
now
in
the
county.
It's
still
not
accepting
it
or
looking
at
it.
O
No
I
mean
I
think
that
was
pretty
well
said:
Thank,
You,
Blake
and
Jeremy,
and
good
to
see
the
board
again
yeah.
We
had
the
conversations
last
year
that
that
you
know
the
start
of
21
was
still
had
a
little
residual
from
2020,
but
the
the
year
was
going
to
get
worse
as
it
went
forward
and
it
did.
All
of
our
properties
were
significantly
down
on
income
and
expenses
based
on
Supply
chains
and
overall
costs
are
higher.
O
So
every
every
property
we'll
see
will
have
a
lower
income
than
we've
achieved
in
the
past
and
higher
expenses,
and
that
that
is
that
is
the
north.
That's
not
a
one-year
blip
I
mean
we
talked
about
that
last
year
and
it
was
like
look
we're
going
to
take
this
year
for
this
year.
Well,
I
would
appreciate
if
we
would
look
at
21
as
this
year
for
this
year
and
moving
forward.
It's
not
improved,
well,
it'll
improved,
but
slowly,
it's
not
a
one
year
down
and
then
jump
right
back
up.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Mr
chicas
for
the
County
Police.
D
Yes
Man
again
summarized
sheet
that
we're
looking
at,
of
course,
the
board's
very
familiar
with
I
believe
Blake
misspoke
a
little
bit
and
the
idea
that
the
gross
potential
has
not
decreased
three
years
in
a
row.
D
In
fact,
it
increased
in
2020
the
year
of
covet
that
the
claim
was
the
the
not
a
one-year
blip,
so
the
Inc
income
actually
went
up
in
covet
and
it
does
look
like
it
did,
went
down
after
three
years
of
increases
18
19
20.,
but
if
we're
looking
at
the
total
snapshot,
you'll
see
that
the
vacancy
dropped
by
almost
four
percent
makes
very
much
sense
that
in
order
to
increase
occupancy,
they
drop
rents
and
increased
concessions,
which
is
exactly
what
happened.
Concessions
are
up
almost
half.
D
Excuse
me,
a
hundred
percent
and
again
vacancies
down
five
percent,
so
it
looks
like
what
they
did
and
as
Mr
chetlick
and
Warren
Mr
Warren
pointed
out,
they
did
with
all
their
properties.
Is
they
tightened
up
occupancy
by
dropping
rats?
It's
not
they're,
not
alone.
We
saw
that
with
most
owners.
If
the
idea
was
that
covid
caused
a
ripple
in
the
vacancy,
the
way
they
fill
those
vacant
spots
is
by
lowering
your
rents.
You
stay
competitive
with
new
properties
and
stay
competitive
with
your
own
ditmar.
D
Most
of
the
cases
we're
going
to
hear
today
and
in
the
future
will
be
dip
our
properties
because
they
have
a
lot
of
them,
so
they're
filling
up
a
lot
of
these
spaces.
In
this
case
they
didn't
need
to
modernize
or
retrofit
this
property,
because
it's
generally
relatively
new,
but
again
in
looking
at
the
property
itself.
When
we
look
at
the
revision,
we
do
agree
somewhat
with
Mr
chitlick
in
that
four
years
out
is
looking
back
four
years.
D
We
wouldn't
Place
much
weight
on
2018,
but
again
the
reason
why
there's
four
years
displays
to
show
a
stable
operating
operating
history.
So
knowing
that
we
can
see
the
property
what
they're
able
to
achieve.
We
then
look
at
the
rent
roll
and,
if
you
notice,
on
the
rent
roll
on
the
revised
worksheet,
some
of
the
rents
that
we're
actually
applying
and
projecting
for
January
1
2022
are
lower
than
what
was
achieved
on
the
rent
roll.
Now
we
do
that,
as
the
board
is
seen
in
order
to
come
up
with
a
stabilized,
effective
gross.
D
D
Obviously,
once
you
have
a
captive
audience,
that's
in
place
it's
easy
to
raise
rents
than
it
is
to
try
to
get
people
in
to
this
apartment
with
higher
rents
now
that
they
have
them
in
place
and
as
you'll
note
on
the
summary
sheet,
property
was
98
occupied
on
January
1
for
the
rent
roll
submitted
once
they
have
them
in
place
again.
That
makes
much
more
sense
that
it's
easier
to
get
back
to
the
rents
that
were
achieved
in
1819
and
even
in
20.
D
you'll,
see
that
the
projection
made
for
2022
is
actually
a
good
bit
below
what
was
achieved
just
two
years
ago.
We
did
make
adjustments
to
parking
other
and
rubs.
We
did
note
and
asked
for
clarification.
We
didn't
get
it
in
time,
but
you'll.
Note
too,
the
difference
in
rubs,
which
is
again,
the
ratio
Utility
Billing
System
and
the
utilities
that
are
being
listed.
D
Utilities
increased
from
2018
to
2021
and
rubs
did
accordingly.
What
we've
asked
them
to
do
and
make
sure
that
they
do
in
the
future
is
list
those
two
independently.
So
in
other
words,
the
utility
should
not
be
an
offset
of
the
race
Utility
Billing
System
for
two
totally
separate
things.
One
is
an
expense
to
the
owner
of
utilities.
One
is
an
income
producing
entity
whereby
they
charge
the
tenants
for
a
reimbursement
of
those
utilities,
so
they
should
not
be
seen
as
an
offset.
They
should,
in
fact
be
reported
correctly.
D
So
I
did
point
out
that
my
looks
like
2019-2020's
income
was
a
bit
low
compared
to
the
rubs
that
were
reported
for
2021.
regardless.
The
board
is
aware
of
how
we
look
at
these
again.
As
looking
in
stabilized
nature,
we
did
stabilize
the
effect
of
growths
in
line
with.
What's
going
on
the
last
three
years.
In
fact,
you
can
see
it's
a
modest
two
percent
increase
over
what
was
projected
last
year,
which
was
again
itself
a
1.6
decrease.
D
As
regards
to
operating
expenses,
what
they
reported
for
2021
was
higher
by
almost
a
hundred
thousand
eighty
thousand
dollars
than
anything
they
reported
the
last
four
years
again,
as
the
board
has
heard,
we
don't
take
one
year
and
a
just
slap
a
cap
rate
on
that.
That
would
be
inappropriate.
We
do
smooth
that
out.
Our
projection
for
operating
expenses
was
higher
than
what
was
originally
produced.
D
The
projected
January
one
higher
than
years,
18,
19
and
20.,
and
again
very
much
in
line
with
the
average
of
the
last
three
years
same
thing
with
noi
you'll
see
the
noi
projected
as
just
barely
a
hundred
thousand
over
what
was
produced
last
year
again
in
a
year
in
which
they
saw
three
percent
drop
in
GPI,
but
based
on
its
historical
operating.
We
do
believe
that
the
revised
figure
is
very
much
in
play,
based
on
again
98
occupancy
rents
that
are
projected
to
increase
based
on
retro
submitted.
D
H
Two
quick
ones:
the
Appellate
first
one
is
to
the
apartment:
tenants
pay
their
own
utilities
directly
or
maybe
some
of
them.
O
The
department
tenants
pay
their
own
utilities
directly
to
the
utility
companies
yeah
yeah.
The
this
property
is
as
water
meters
that
they'll
pay
us
for
the
charge
and
we
pay
the
water
bill.
That's
a
pass-through,
it's
not
a
good!
So
the
100
meters,
the
power,
the
power's
paid
directly
to
the
power.
H
O
N
H
N
N
D
Yeah
so
again,
I
think
we're
getting
the
semantics
here
with
the
idea
of
it's
not
Revenue,
producing
if
another
apartment,
a
similar
apartment
does
not
collect
that
pass-through
reimbursement.
Whatever
you
want
to
call
it.
That's
not
Revenue
producing.
This
is
revenue
producing
they
made
71
809
by
collecting
that
revenue
from
their
attendance.
N
D
O
H
A
D
Sure,
I
guess
we'll
have
to
take
a
minute
wrapping
up
what
reimbursements
are
again.
This
is
not
a
unique
thing.
Many
properties
charge
their
tenants
for
utilities,
whether
it's
cable,
whether
it's
electric,
whether
it's
water,
whether
it's
sewer,
whether
it's
all
of
the
above.
If
they
do
not
collect
these
things,
they
are
not
collecting
Revenue
against
that
expense.
You
got
to
keep
those
totally
different.
Yes,
there
is
an
expense
associated
with
these
utilities.
They
are
not
under
obligation
to
collect
Revenue
associated
with
those
expenses.
D
If
they
do,
please
consider
that
as
a
revenue
producing
entity,
it's
not
an
offset
of
expenses.
The
expenses
will
stay.
The
exact
same
amount.
We've
established
that
whether
or
not
they
collect
Revenue
against.
That
is
what
we're
deciding
here.
They
are
absolutely
collecting
Revenue
against
that
and,
as
I've
pointed
out
in
the
opening,
they
apparently
underreported
in
years,
18,
19
and
20.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
Mr
Warren.
If
you
take
a
minute,
if.
N
I'll
start
the
wrap
up.
I,
don't
want
to
muddy
the
waters.
With
this
point,
the
fact
is
that
the
assessor
every
year
it
says
we
say
things
are
getting
worse
and
he
says
we
gotta
see
it
well
we're
now
showing
it
to
you
and
that's
the
key
and
his
response
really
talked
about,
but
things
are
indicating
that
next
year,
it'll
be
better
which
doesn't
matter
the
the
electric
goes
directly
to
the
electric
company.
N
If
the
owner
collected
the
electric
bill
of
a
million
dollars
and
paid
the
electric
company
a
million
dollars,
it's
the
exact
same
as
them
paying.
What
Chris
is
saying
is
yeah,
but
then
you
would
have
a
million
dollars.
You
could
do
whatever
you
want
with.
It
would
be
just
to
be
paying
the
electric
bill.
In
this
case
the
fact
is,
he's
overvalued
the
income.
This
property
can
be
produced
by
130
000
and
using
well
before
the
pandemic.
That's
where
it
was
so
we're
taking
it
stabilized.
N
Greg
mentioned
expenses
are
up
across
the
board
incomes
down
and
his
point
is
yeah,
but
you
only
have
two
percent
vacancy
in
the
income
statement.
I'm
calling
me
the
vacancy
was
1.62,
we're
not
hiding
that
if
you
cast
nothing
but
call
me
you're
using
a
two
percent
vacancy,
but
Chris
doesn't
Run
Apartments
Greg
does
any
they
run
a
lot
of
them.
They
run
them
as
very
well
and
they
have
a
lot
of
efficiencies
in
their
expenses
that
they
can
charge
lower
numbers
than
other
people
can.
N
But
the
fact
is
that
their
decision
to
use
concessions
was
not
just
to
be
nice
guys
in
the
community.
It
was
to
drive
the
income
to
using
a
vacancy
of
1.6,
which
is
what's
being
used
in
column
e.
So
if
you
cap
column
e
you're,
actually
staying
consistent
with
where
we
were
last
year
at
an
equalizer,
okay.
A
G
I
000
a
unit
I'm
just
looking
at
the
comps
and
the
guidelines
and
almost.
N
I
A
A
You
know
and
I
know
we're
only
saying:
oh
it's
a
hundred
thousand,
but
it's
a
hundred
thousand
in
a
year
when,
in
all
honesty
we
did
all
sit
here
last
year
and
say:
oh
wait:
it's
covid,
we
gotta
wait.
We
got
to
see
it
well
now
they're
showing
it
to
us.
So
we
can't
just
go
oh
well.
Next
year
it
looks
like
it's
going
to
be
better,
so
we're
gonna
pop
it
back
up
again.
G
I
Right
now
the
prime
rate
is,
you
know,
so
we'll
do
this
again
and
maybe
next
year
it's
a
seven
and
a
half
cap
and
this
thing's
gonna
drop
by
10
million
dollars
on
the
assessment.
But
you
know
that's
the
January
1st
issue.
A
G
F
At
the
County
Board,
the.
B
F
Members
were
talking
that
at
certain
locations,
there's
actually
videos
for
rental
units
like
there
was,
for
you
know,
purchasing
homes
and
the
vacancy
rate
is
really
plummeted
and
I
mean
I.
Myself
am
okay,
with
account.
F
H
And
there
maybe
isn't
some
because
of
covid
and
supply
chain
and
all
this
good
stuff,
but
there
are
numbers
so
sure
there
is
a
slight
decline.
It's
like
we're
talking
one
percent
here
and
point
six
percent
I
was
trying
to
find
something
to
lower
the
assessment
and
I
looked
at
a
very
small
number
of
rows
and
it
went
from
an
average
of
I.
Don't
know
twenty
five
or
six
thousand
to
seventy
thousand.
But
when
you
cap
it
out,
it
gets
to
be
real
money
and
the
assessment
770
000
over.
H
But
then
the
department
says
what
the
numbers
in
columns
a
b
and
c
were
under
reported
and
again
it's
only
Water
and
Sewer,
and
it
doesn't
matter
that
it's
money
and
money
out
because
it's
captured
if
it's
money
in
drugs
and
it's
money
out
operating
expenses,
it's
true.
It's
not
a
profit
for
the
appellant,
so
I'm,
just
looking
at
the
the
constituents
of
the
egi
and
I
said:
oh,
we
should
pack
40
000
off
drugs,
but
then
I
find
that
the
base
numbers
were
underreported.
So
it's
still
just
around
it
issue.
H
Matskin
I
moved
that
we
accept
the
County's
proposed
in
a
41
million
944
300.
A
A
motion
a
second
by
Mr
Lawson,
all
in
favor
and
I'm,
opposed
only
because
I
think
it
should
be
lower.
Okay,
it
as
the
County's
revised
number
of
41
million
944
300
is
confirmed.
A
E
Thank
you
direct
the
board
to
page
53
of
159
of
the
County's
response
memo
which
you'll
find
our
summary
of
facts.
This
is
Cortland
Towers.
It
is
consistent
of
one
single
tax
RPC.
It
is
currently
assessed
or
originally
a
set
of
203
million
910
500.
E
and
the
county
is
recommending
a
value,
a
revision
down
to
184
million
934
700..
The
value
we're
asking
for
today,
based
on
the
most
recent
2021
reported
income
at
the
properties,
160
million
242
700..
E
It's
an
older
property,
originally
built
in
1989
575,
total
units
in
the
Clarendon
courthouse,
submarket
and
17
stories
high.
It's
a
mix
of
one
two
and
three
bedroom
units
and
also
includes
a
both
furnished
and
unfurnished
units.
E
E
Just
going
down
to
the
last
three
years
of
reported
noi,
the
last
staple
year
in
2019,
11
million
628
000
330
was
the
noi
and
following
covet,
had
dropped
to
9
859
615,
and
this
is
another
one
where
we've
told
you
at
the
hearing
last
year
that
this
is
continuing
to
Trend
downwards
and
reported
another.
Basically,
a
million
dollars
below
the
reported
noi
in
2020
of
8
million
seven
hundred
eighty
four
thousand
two.
E
Seventy
two,
the
effect
of
a
gross
income
as
you'll
see
the
last
three
reported
years
that
has
dropped
off
significantly
from
15
million
15.75
million
in
2019,
down
to
13.6
million
in
2020
and
most
recently,
12.6
million
in
2021.
The
the
county
has
revised
their
effective
growth
income
from
15
million
twenty
five
thousand
one.
E
Eighty
three
initially
and
dropped
it
a
million
to
14
million
16
309,
but
we're
still
almost
a
million
and
a
half
dollars
away
from
what
was
actually
reported
at
the
subject:
property
in
terms
of
the
total
revenue
expenses
again
26
percent
in
2019,
and
that
increased
slightly
to
twenty
seven
and
a
half
percent
in
2020
and
most
recently,
30.5
percent
the
county
and
their
revised
test
column
revised
their
operating
expenses
from
25.86
percent
up
to
27.9
percent.
E
Again
the
assessors
revised
noi
for
the
subject.
Property
is
down
about
a
million
dollars.
It
was
11.1
million
dollars
initially
and
then,
following
our
appeal,
dropped
to
10
million
one
hundred
and
five
thousand
one.
Ninety
eight
so
again
we're
still
1.3
million
dollars
off
of
what
this
property
actually
reported
in
2021.
The
revised
assessment
is
a
represents.
A
six
and
a
half
percent
decrease,
however,
that
the
actual
noi
from
20
to
20
21
represents
an
11
drop
year
over
year.
E
N
Blake
and
I
have
no
idea
how
to
run
an
apartment,
building
and
I'm
going
to
guess
that
Chris
doesn't
know
how
to
run
an
apartment,
building
either
Greg
Greg
does
and
I
think.
It's
really
important
to
understand
why
the
income
is
what
it
is
instead
of
just
saying
they
could
do
more
here
or
make
less
there
and
why
they
made
the
decision.
So
I
think
it's
important.
If
you
do
have
questions
about.
Why
were
certain
things
on
the
income
statement
done
the
way
they
are
that
Greg's
here
to
answer
that
go
ahead,
Greg.
O
O
Be
up
and
I
I
think
last
meeting
we
heard
a
little
just,
maybe
anecdotal,
about
bidding
wars,
I
mean
there's.
There's
concessions
down
the
street
at
new
builds
direct.
You
know
the
highlands
is
still
offering
two
to
three
months,
free
across
the
street
from
Portland
Towers,
that's
not
a
bidding
one
I,
don't
think
we
can
get
I
think
we
have
to
look
at
the
actual
data
here
and
focus
on
that
versus
you
know
things
that
are
maybe
that
we've
heard
at
a
board
meeting
this
this
property
the
same
thing.
O
The
expenses
are
up.
Those
expenses
keep
climbing
next
year,
which
I'm
not
going
to
talk
about.
The
defenses
will
be
higher
income.
Whenever
you
say
it's
easier
to
raise
rents
on
someone
they
came
in
than
it
is
to
bring
somebody
else
new.
If
we
discounted
with
a
16
concession
and
a
20
lower
asking
rent
those
folks
don't
and
could
not
qualify,
what
you're
saying
is
marketing
one
we're
not
raising
rents
that
much
and
two?
O
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
those
numbers
because
we're
down
and
we
said
we're
going
to
be
down
and
it's
a
bad
year
and
the
expenses
are
up,
and
so
we
cannot
say
last
year
take
this
year
for
this
year,
we'll
look
at
next
year
next
year
and
then,
when
we
get
to
this
year,
we
say
we
heard
at
a
board
meeting
that
rents.
There's
a
bidding
war,
there's
no
bidding
wars.
N
This
property
was
reduced
by
the
board
in
19
and
20
and
21,
and
now
they're,
coming
in
front
of
the
board,
with
a
basically
19
and
19
million
dollar
reduction,
which
we
appreciate,
but
that
still
would
be
accepting
income
1.4
million
dollars
higher
than
the
property
achieved,
and
this
game
is
no
surprise
to
anybody,
because
we,
we
told
you
this
was
coming
last
year
when
I
understand
they
need
the
numbers
to
do
it,
but
now
they
have
the
numbers
that
they
won't
recognize.
It
is
what's
become,
frustrating.
A
D
Sorry
I
think
those
are
10
minutes
and
then
numbed
you
up.
So
we
are
talking
about
Courtland
Towers
I
find
this
disingenuous.
That
we've
talked
about
the
decline
in
value.
Not
one
thing
was
mentioned
about
the
fact
that
this
property
has
been
heavily
renovated,
the
last
30
years.
D
You
know
we
can
agree.
We
have
to
agree
on
facts.
I
think
is
what
this
this
has
basically
brought
us
to.
This
property
has
been
under
Renovations
for
three
years.
20
plus
million
dollars
has
been
spent
in
capital
expenditures.
Over
the
last
three
years
last
year,
257
units
were
offline
to
be
renovated.
This
year,
114
units
were
offline
to
be
renovated.
D
E
D
You
know,
Mr
Reigns
just
testified
that
that
they're
not
raising
rents,
much
they're,
raising
rents
they're
going
to
raise
rents
as
much
as
they
can
to
keep
that
occupancy
where
they
can
live
with
it.
If
you
will,
you
know,
there's
no
altruism,
that
I
can
count
where
that
we're
we're
keeping
rents
at
a
reasonable
rate
for
it.
For
those
in
the
metro
area.
This
property
is
well
located.
That's
it's
Metro
adjacent,
it's
well
amenitized.
Obviously,
they've
spent
a
lot
of
money
on
not
only
furnished
units
but
modernizing
the
existing
units.
D
Regardless,
we
did
look
at
this
again
as
a
stabilized
unit.
We've
had
board
members
talk
about,
you
know
it's
essentially.
Speculation
on
buildings
that
are
empty
I
would
like
the
board
to
try
to
differentiate
between
Market
vacancy
and
owner
mandated
vacancy.
D
If
you
look
at
page
32,
I
asked
specifically
what
a
percentage
of
the
18.4
percent
attributable
to
True
vacancy
is
do
attributable
to
Renovations,
and
they
responded
14.7
percent,
which
I
appreciated
that
essentially
put
true
vacancy
at
about
three
percent.
That's
Market
driven,
that's
competitive
driven,
so
they
decided
to
take
114
units
offline
and
renovate
them.
But
that's
again,
that's
not
a
unreasonable
ask
you're
trying
to
keep
up
with
the
Joneses
again
I
guess
it
was
pointed
out.
D
This
property
was
built
1989,
so
they're
modernizing
making
it
more
in
line
with
what
their
competitors
are
offering.
We
did
note
that,
and
we
also
noted
that
again,
our
gross
potential
is
about
1.5
million
dollars
lower
than
what
was
achieved
last
year,
so
our
projection
for
gross
potential
is
1.5
million
dollars
lower
than
what
they
achieved
last
year,
and
this
was
a
year
in
which
they
were
18
vacant
due
to
15
of
that
being
owner
mandated.
Let's
not
rent
these
out.
Let's
improve
these
modernize,
these
furnaces
Etc.
D
So
when
we're
looking
at
our
projections,
they're
way
off
of
what's
been
achieved
over
the
last
four
years,
because
we're
looking
at
what
is
a
stabilized
effective
growth,
in
other
words,
we
are
taking
into
account
owner
mandated
vacancy
even
to
allow
for
a
stabilized
value.
So
when
we
put
out
our
projected
effective
growth,
that
is
in
fact
looking
at
what
was
achieved
in
years,
18,
19
and
20.
D
in
regards
to
operating
expenses,
Mr
Warren
noted
the
percentage,
but
not
the
dollar
amount.
The
operating
expense
offered
projected
by
the
county
is
actually
some
sixty
thousand
dollars
higher
than
what
was
achieved
last
year
at
the
property
so
again,
very
much
take
into
account.
What's
going
on
at
the
property
looking
at,
what's
been
achieved
historically
and
into
making
adjustments
accordingly.
D
Our
gross
excuse
me
are
our
noi
projection
is
barely
over
what
was
achieved
in
2020
again
in
a
year
in
which
owner
mandated
22
percent
vacancy,
so
we're
mudding
the
waters
here,
but
I'm
asking
the
board
to
separate
what
is
market
driven
and
what
is
owner
mandated.
If
the
owner
decides
to
keep
units
off
line
effectively,
that's
going
to
lower
the
achievable
growth
right,
you're,
going
from
a
projected
gross
potential
to
what
they're
actually
achieving
actuals.
D
So
again,
I
ask
you
to
keep
in
mind
what
is
actually
the
projected
growth
and
you
can
see
that
pretty
easily.
Even
in
the
covet
year,
they
actually
grew
their
apartment
revenue
from
18
to
19
and
again
from
19
to
20..
They
grew
their
apartment
Revenue
in
the
year
of
covet.
So
the
fact
that
it
dropped
off
some
eight
percent
again
I'm
going
to
put
more
akin
to
getting
bodies
into
the
units
and
tightening
up
that
vacancy,
which
again
was
effectively
owner
mandated.
Given
that
we
did
look
at
this
property
as
a
stabilized
entity.
D
Even
though
again,
these
are
are
self-inflicted
vacancies.
We
do
believe
that
the
revision
of
184
million
934
700
should
be
approved.
D
Confirmed
brother
I
would
point
out
too
that
that's
a
six
and
a
half
percent
drop
from
last
year's
197
8086..
The
appendants
are
asking
for
a
20
drop
one
year,
19
drop
from
one
year,
and
that's
essentially,
you've
heard
this
before.
That's
why
you
do
not
slap
a
capitalization
rate
on
one
year.
One
year
does
not
an
assessment
make.
A
All
right,
thank
you
again.
All
right
questions
from
board
members,
no
okay,
Mr
metzkin.
H
I
have
an
easy
one
for
the
Department.
It's
been
mentioned
several
times
that
the
appellants
reinvesting
in
his
property,
I,
noticed
and
and
that
the
the
property
sold
was
due
for
renovation
and
they're
doing
it.
But
the
effective
age
hasn't
changed.
Will
it
change
when
all
the
apartments
that
are
due
to
be
upgraded
or
updated,
or
do
you
do
it
incrementally?
Will.
D
There
be
a
big
unfortunate,
that's
the
egg,
on
our
face,
sir,
it's
just
a
lack
of
Manpower
and
visitation.
You
know
we
have
some
600
parcels
and,
as
of
today,
we
actually
now
have
a
fourth
team
member,
so
we've
just
been,
unfortunately,
a
little
bit
behind
as
far
as
site
inspections
updating
permits,
but
you
are
correct,
sir.
Yes,
please
do
note
that
that
is
an
original
condition
and
they've
noted
that
they've
spent
some
20
billion
dollars.
The
last
three
years.
N
Greg,
do
you
want
to
talk
about
what
this
this
20
million
that
Chris
is
talking
about?
Is
it?
Is
it
you're
gutting
the
place.
O
Oh,
no,
no!
It's
an
interior
unit
renovation,
so
replacing
cabinets
commanders
and.
N
A
D
Yes,
ma'am
so
again
we're
looking
at
a
property
that
has
been
undergoing
small
just
amount
of
vacancy,
but
again
I
would
point
out
that
it's
clearly
been
driven
by
owner's
decision
to
renovate
modernize
I've
not
yet
seen
a
property.
That's
not
modernized!
D
That's
not
received
return
on
investment,
so
I
think
the
anticipation
on
our
side
and
the
owners
is
that
these
properties
units
have
been
modernized
and
furnished
will
be
collecting
higher
rents
than
they
did
previously,
given
that
we
looked
at
this
as
a
stabilized
property
and
acknowledged
Again,
full
1.5
million
dollar
lower
gross
potential
income
than
what
was
achieved
last
year.
We
do
believe
that
the
stabilized
value
of
184
million
934
700
feet
recognized
and
confirmed
again
a
seven
percent
drop
from
last
year,
as
opposed
to
19
drop,
as
recommended
by
the
pound.
Thank
you.
A
N
As
Greg
said,
the
money
wasn't
spent
to
make
this
building
much
better.
It's
to
stop
the
bleeding
and
to
stay
up
and
stay
competitive
and
I
think
that's
important.
The
the
speculation
that's
being
done
is
okay.
Now
that
these
buildings
have
been
modernized
and
much
newer
and
greater
that
their
income
is
going
to
go
way
up.
The
fact
is:
the
income
last
year
was
nine
eight
and
this
year
it's
eight
seven
and
they
assessor
using
10..
N
We,
we
told
you
all
this
was
coming.
This
is
just
like
the
last
case,
but
much
more
dramatic
in
that
sense
and
expenses
are
much
higher.
Expenses
are
thirty
percent
plus
the
owner
testified
that
that's
where
it
is
now
it's
only
going
higher
next
year
and
the
assessor
is
just
basically
ignoring
columns
really
c
and
e,
and
focusing
more
on
columns,
A
and
B
than
he
is
on
E,
which
I
think
is
a
miss.
N
This
property
received
a
20
million
reduction
last
year,
and
then
they
shot
the
the
value
kind
of
back
up
again.
N
This
is
being
reduced
every
single
year,
because
the
assessor
just
won't
accept
the
fact
that
the
income
is
the
income
on
this
case
and
last
year,
when
we
presented
it
to
you
again,
we're
told
wait
till
next
year,
so
next
year
we'll
get
the
new
income
and
it'll
be
2022
and
it'll
be
very
similar
to
the
21
levels,
maybe
slightly
higher
and
we'll
say
well,
this
is
a
two-year
average
or
you'll
hear
how
next
year
is
going
to
be
better.
It's
a
little
bit
frustrating
in
that
sense.
A
F
J
I'm
good
with
the
production,
I
looked
up
the
notes
from
last
year's
discussion,
and
it
was
all
about
the
renovation
it's
about
the
staging
of
the
renovation
and
the,
and
they
were
they're
doing
to
stay,
competitive
and
they're
keeping
our
community
up
by
doing
it
and
the
rents
are
going
to
the
higher
rents
of
the
newer
buildings.
It's
they
it's
the
same
discussion.
J
It's
just
they're,
trying
to
present
it
a
little
different
I'm
good
with
the
numbers
and
at
some
point
and
I've,
heard
some
statement
that
they're
done
the
renovations
now
so
we'll
say
that
these
numbers
are
good.
A
Okay,
we
have
a
motion,
a
second
by
Mr
Lawson,
all
in
favor
aye
opposed
hey,
it's
unanimous.
It's
reduced
to
the
County's,
revised
number
of
184
934
700.
A
All
right
going
to
k6
on
the
agenda.
S4
is
rpc-0505203
a
at
2110
North
Monroe
Street,
Mr
Warren.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
E
Thank
you
I'd
like
to
direct
the
board
to
page
71
of
178,
which
is
our
summary
of
facts.
This
is
the
Cherry
Hill
Apartments.
It
is
consistent
of
three
tax
rpcs.
The
2022
assessment
originally
was
50
million
490
800.
The
county
is
recommending
a
revised
value
of
47
million
three
hundred
fifty
nine
thousand
seven
hundred,
and
we
were
requesting
a
value
from
the
board
today
of
40
million
nine
hundred
twenty
one
thousand
four
hundred.
E
This
property
was
originally
built
in
2019,
it's
93
total
units
and
what
we
classify
as
a
garden
style
apartment,
and
it's
been
one
of
the
the
contentions
over
the
last
few
years.
The
the
county
classifies
this
as
a
mid-rise,
it's
four
stories
and
as
I
direct
you
to
now
page
four
of
178
is
the
County's
historical
apartment,
income
and
expense
summary
going
back
four
years
there
was
no
income
in
2018.
2019
was
a
was
at
least
up
year.
E
The
the
2022
assessment.
The
revised
assessment
is
a
represents.
A
5.4
decrease
from
the
prior
years.
2021
value,
however,
actual
noi
year
over
year,
from
2020
to
2021,
decreased
nine
and
a
half
percent
similar
to
the
previous
two
cases
we've
discussed.
E
We
feel
that
the
county
has
overestimated
the
gross
potential
income
in
comparison
to
the
most
recent
reporting
year
and
there's
been
a
downward
Trend,
since
the
property
was
most
recently
stabilized
in
2020
3.75
million
in
2020
down
to
3
million
556
000
in
2021,
the
County's
revised
GPI
brought
it
down
originally
from
3.85
million
to
3.75
million,
which
is
right.
E
What
was
basically
what
was
reported
in
2020,
the
effective
gross
income,
also
on
a
downward
trend
from
2020
3.55
million
in
2020
down
to
3.36
million
in
2021,
the
County's
revised
effective
gross
income
is
3
million,
455
000.,
so
approximately
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
above
what
was
actually
reported
in
2021.
operating
expenses
were
at
23
percent
in
2020,
increased
to
26
and
a
half
percent,
and
the
county
did
revise
their
operating
expenses
up
from
23
to
26
percent.
E
The
difference
in
the
cap
rate
for
a
garden
style
in
comparison
to
a
mid-rise
is
essentially
50
basis
points,
which
is
the
difference
in
the
the
cap
rate
that
we're
using
5.9
in
comparison
to
the
County's
5.4
percent.
E
Looking
at
the
assessors
noi
compared
to
2020,
the
noi
reported
was
2.7
million
that
dropped
to
2
million
468
573
in
2021
the
assessors
revised
noi.
Again,
it
is
approximately
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
above
what
was
actually
reported
in
2021,
and
we
would
ask
the
board
to
give
consideration
and
a
greater
weight
to
the
income
that
was
most
recently
reported
in
the
2021
calendar.
B
E
O
Not
much
like
other
than
you
know,
this
properties,
majority
two
and
three
bedroom
units
and
those
units
and
and
covet
really
did
take
warm
hit
than
our
normal
units
and
also
we're
a
little
harder
to
to
fill
so
I.
Just
just
for
what
that's
worth
those
units
are.
That
property
has
a
different
level
of
stress
based
on
the
typing.
D
It's
been
again
fairly
well
summarized
by
Mr
Warren
I
mean
I,
wouldn't
count
on
any
trends
at
this
property.
You
have
basically
two
operating
years
and
again,
at
least
I
think
we
have
a
difference,
an
opinion
of
what's
going
on
at
the
property,
much
like
the
other
two
I
should
say
at
least
the
first
dude.
The
property
seems
to
have
dropped
its
rents
to
again
increase
its
occupancy.
Even
if
at
this
point
it
was
essentially
about
one
percent,
one
and
a
percent.
D
You
saw
this
again
with
concessions
concessions
go
up,
some
of
the
other
income
tends
to
go
down.
Either
parking
fees
get
waived
or
minimized.
Maybe
a
three
months
rent
on
a
two
free
months,
rent
a
14-month
lease
whatever,
but
again
concessions
burn
off
and
they
are.
They
serve
a
purpose
they're
there
to
entice
occupancy.
It
works
they're
down
at
just
just
over
north
of
one
percent
occupancy.
So
you
can
see
the
brunt
of
the
vacancy
and
Concession
is
concession
we
can
send
that
will
burn
off.
D
When
we
go
down
the
line,
we
look
at
operating
expenses,
we're
actually
offering
a
higher
projected
amount
than
what
was
achieved
at
the
property
last
year,
modestly,
but
still
again,
I
think
that
speaks
for
the
idea
that
there
probably
will
be
some
movement
on
a
property.
That's
only
had
two
full
years
of
occupancy,
given
that
it's
essentially
98
occupied
or
so,
and
it
shows
that
97
occupied
as
the
1-1
2022
rent
roll.
We
do
believe
that
our
operating
expense
is
spot
on.
We
do
believe
again.
D
There
will
be
an
increase
slightly
less
than
two
percent
or
so
expectation
for
the
rents.
Again,
not
only
is
this
advertised
as
a
mid-rise,
it's
advertised
as
a
luxury
mid-rise
and
its
amenities
that
fit
that
yoga
studios,
TRX
amenities,
Fitness
spaces,
electric
parking,
yoga
studios
Etc
as
far
as
again
rubs
those
have
increased
year
over
year
of
the
year,
a
similar
issue-
we're
not
going
to
get
into
it
now.
D
But
a
similar
issue
is
what
we
pointed
out
earlier,
making
sure
that
those
rugs
are
again
reported
in
full
and
again
with
regards
to
the
full
amount
of
utilities
to
be
reported
in
full
as
well,
given
that
again,
we're
looking
at
rents
based
off
the
rent
roll
submitted,
a
very
modest
increase,
applied
to
those
adjustments
made
to
parking
adjustments
made
to
other
and
rubs
and
again
an
increase
in
operating
expense
projection
over
what
was
achieved
at
the
property.
D
We
do
believe
that
the
County's
noi
is
more
in
play
with
what
is
going
to
be
achieved
at
the
property
in
2022.
Therefore,
we
do
believe
that
the
revised
value
of
47
million
359
700
should
be
confirmed
as
we've
done
in
previous
cases.
I
will
point
out
too.
This
is
a
reduction
of
about
five
and
a
half
percent
from
last
year's
value,
which
again
is
much
more
in
play
with
what
was
reported
in
2021
versus
the
appendix
requested
reduction
of
almost
19
18.3
percent.
D
A
Okay,
thank
you,
questions
from
the
board
members.
D
Again,
just
to
keep
in
mind,
you
know
what
we
did
as
far
as
the
adjustments
made.
We
do
believe
that
this
is
more
in
line
with
what
will
be
achieved:
January
1
2022
again,
a
reflection
of
a
five
percent
drop
from
last
year,
much
more
in
reason,
as
opposed
to
the
18
adjusted
but
suggested
by
the
pennant.
So
we
do
believe
that
47
million
359
700
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
E
So
yeah
just
to
reiterate
quickly
what
Chris
just
said:
this
property
is
a
newer
property.
It's
only
had
two
full
calendar
years
of
operations
and
and
because
of
that
I
think
you.
You
need
to
really
consider
the
most
recent
reporting
year
when
given
consideration
to
the
2022
assessment
for
the
2021
reported
financials
regarding
the
classification
issue,
I
just
like
to
bring
up
again.
E
This
is
an
issue
that
we've
brought
with
ditmar's,
similar
properties
that
are
of
this
bill:
Birchwood
Henderson,
Park,
Thomas,
Place,
Thomas
court,
and
in
Prior
years
the
board
has
ruled
in
favor
of
classifying
this
type
of
apartment
as
a
low-rise
or
garden
style
apartment
and
subject
to
the
the
County's
guidelines
for
assessment
of
the
vacancy
and
cap
rate.
Thank
you.
F
We'll
talk
about
the
garden
versus
head
rides
and
I
think
it
was
three
years
ago,
four
years
ago
we
did
in
fact
change
some
from
mid
rise
to
guard,
but
the
discussion
that
revolved
around
that
dealt
with
four-story
units
that
were
at
stairs
only
and
not
elevators
and
I
was
one
of
those
that
felt
like
it
should
be
classified
as
Garden,
but
I
did
not
Prevail.
In
that
opinion,
and
so
I've
got
to
go
with
the.
F
That's
been
made
already,
you
know
again,
I,
look
at
this
and
I
look
at
what
happened
in
20
I
looked
at
what
happened
and
21
and
then
you
know,
I
was
actually
okay
with
the
original
assessment
and
I.
Think
that
going
to
the
47
million
359
is
perhaps
in
a
little
too
kind
to
the
property,
younger
and
so
I
think
you
know
I'm
at
the
47
and
359
700
I'm,
okay,
with
the
county.
H
S,
yellow
shirt
I'll
do
this
quickly:
I
Didn't
Do
It.
On
the
last
case,
if
I
feel
out
to
myself
just
to
go
down
the
bullets
operating
expenses,
the
department
set
them
up
a
tiny
bit.
The
overall
assessment
is
down
five
and
a
half,
almost
five
and
a
half
percent.
The
last
one
was
six
and
a
half
percent,
which
I
think
is
the
highest
you've
ever
seen.
H
This
might
be
the
second
or
third
highest
of
the
highest
reduction
that
we've
seen
in
apartments,
the
the
which
speaks
directly
to
the
appellant's
case
that
we
are
weakening
both
five
five
percent
I.
Consider
weakening
and
offices
we're
seeing
one
in
two
percent
in
some
cases,
which
I
think
are
weakening
a
lot
more.
H
The
appellant
in
their
performance
didn't
include
rubs,
it's
a
small
number,
but
we
all
know
that
the
money
comes
in
the
money
goes
out
and
again
it
is
offset
by
an
increased
operating
expenses
in
the
in
the
revision
over
what
they
achieved
in
in
2021,
and
also
that
the
department
increased
significantly
vacancy
allowance.
H
A
H
That
we
accept
the
Department's
proposed
assessment
of
47
million
three
hundred
fifty
nine
thousand
seven
hundred
dollars.
A
A
F
A
On
both
of
them,
okay,
all
right,
that's
noted:
do
we
need
to
take
a
break
or
can
we
move
on
yeah.
A
Right
we
have
Miss
Ross,
we
will
not
have
Mr
Lawson
on
either
of
these
cases.
A
So
the
next
case
on
the
agenda
to
discuss
is
rpc15004034
2001,
North,
Adams,
Street,
Ms
Ross.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
Okay,.
P
We're
starting
with
that
one
sorry
about
that.
I
thought
it
was
the
Shawnee
that
we
were
starting
with
this
is
Potomac
Towers.
That's
the
current
the
county
did
I
would
like
to
thank
Chris
for
considering
what
we
provided.
He
did
reduce
the
property
on
review
from
118
million
to
116
million.
However,
the
owners
felt
that
there
was
still
some
relief
that
they
needed.
If
we
turn
to
page
44
of
the
Boe
memo,
you
could
see
our
side-by-side
analysis.
P
Let
me
just
pull
that
up.
I
had
the
other
property
up,
I
apologize.
P
Our
gross
potential
is
actually
the
actual
gross
potential
of
8.7
million.
We
have
other
income
of
nine
hundred
and
seventeen
thousand.
We
use
the
eight
percent
cap
rate
and
the
vacancy
was
I
mean
the
expenses
were
kind
of
high
at
3.2
million,
so
our
estimate
of
value
is
102
million.
144
400.
P
one
thing
I
did
want
to
mention
is
that
this
building
in
the
next
building?
They
they
have
the
really
old
buildings
and
they
have
plaster
walls
instead
of
drywall.
So
often
the
the
owners
put
it
down
as
renovation,
but
what
it
really
is
is
is
when
they're
doing
a
turnover
with
for
a
new
tenant,
sometimes
they
go
in
and
the
the
number
fluctuates.
Sometimes
the
walls
are
really
destroyed,
so
they
have
to
renovate
them
in
order
to
get
a
new
tenant
in,
which
is
the
same
case
with
the
next
with
the
next
property.
D
Morning,
Ms
Ross
good
morning,
so
yeah,
it's
essentially
this
one
I'll
try
to
be
very
brief.
It's
essentially
just
the
difference
in
opinion.
As
far
as
that
last
item
Ms
Ross
noted,
which
was
the
renovation
cost
that
we
inquired
about,
as
you
see,
highlighted,
for
maintenance
repair.
Obviously
it
shot
up
268
percent
year
over
year.
That
was
alarming.
We
looked
into
it
and
did
find
that
approximately
820
635
dollars
of
that
was
attributable
to
renovation
expense.
D
One
thing
I
would
note
you'll
see
on
there.
This
property
just
entered
the
partial
rehab
exemption
program
where
about
went
through
a
multi-year
renovation,
some
25
million
30
million
dollars
spent
on
upgrades
throughout
the
building.
D
So
you
know
that
is
a
is
an
expense
that
would
be
considered
to
the
owner
again
a
capital
expense
as
opposed
to
an
end
repair
in
our
maintenance
of
existing
features
of
the
property.
As
you
can
see
in
column
F,
we
did
do
reconstruction
of
the
submitted
ime,
it's
essentially
a
identical,
except
for
that
removal
of
that
820
000.
D
D
Given
that
we
did
look
at
that
as
a
stabilized
nature,
we
did
do
a
revision
as
a
scene
and
offered
in
column
G
again.
Expense
is
very
much
on
par
with,
what's
been
achieved.
Again,
if
you
look
at
reconstruction,
it's
actually
essentially
in
line
with
the
highest
amount
that
they've
spent
the
last
four
years
and
again
given
2022
was
a
year
of
renovation,
so
the
expenses
went
down
a
bit.
D
Given
that
we
did
look
at
this
again
as
a
stabilized
property,
we
do
exclude
Capital
expenditures,
as
the
board
is
seen
on
other
cases.
We
do
believe
that
Colin
excuse
me,
column
f,
is
more
representative
of
what
actually
occurred
at
the
property
in
2021.
Given
that
revised
noi,
we
do
believe
that
our
Revision
in
column
G
is
most
appropriate.
We
ask
that
you
revise
the
value
to
116
million
589
500,
which,
after
the
exemption,
rehab
exemption
amount,
would
come
to
76
225.3.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Both
any
questions
from
board
members.
H
Mr
Jenkins
and
you
might
have
addressed
this
and
I-
missed
it.
Operating
expenses,
bottom
line
operating
expenses
in
the
appellants
Pro
former
for
2022.
They
put
in
a
number
the
same
as
what
they
achieved
in
2021,
whereas
your
revision
is
much
lower
than
that.
What
did
that
have
to
do
with
the
upgrades
and
capital
expenses
and
all
this
kind
of
stuff.
D
Yeah,
yes,
sir
yeah,
specifically
due
to
item
noted
as
renovation
expense
of
820
000
635.
So
again
we
related
to
and
included
in
the
packet
in
Pages.
22
is
the
response
we
received
from
the
owner,
and
then
we
went
ahead
and
included
in
Pages
24
and
25
the
scope
of
work
and
Renovations
that
were
outplayed
by
the
owner
when
they
went
through
the
renovation.
So
yes
more
distinctly.
The
number
that
you
see
is
excluding
that
Capital
expense,
that
the
county
consents.
D
Yes,
ma'am
again,
the
board
is
historically
seen
that
we
do
not
consider
Capital
expenditures
as
an
annual
repent
or
maintenance
cost.
Therefore
we
do
a
reconstruction
of
the
received
forms
from
the
ownership.
In
this
case
you
see
that
reflected
in
the
Reconstruction
column
F.
Once
reconstructed,
you
see
the
noi
jumps
by
almost
800
000,
again
you're
very
much
in
play
with
the
revision
that
we
made
in
column
G.
D
We
do
believe
that
considering
we
do
not
allow
for
consideration
of
capital
expenditures
that
column
F
should
be
considered
more
appropriately,
thereby
making
the
revision
in
column
G,
something
that
we
would
recommend.
We
do
believe
that
the
value
of
116
million,
589
500
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
P
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Okay,
it's
just
among
the
board
members
where's
everybody
on
this
one.
A
H
H
Considering
that
I'm,
going
with
the
the
Department's
defense
of
lowering
the
operating
expenses,
okay.
K
A
A
P
Okay,
this
is
Shawnee
Apartments,
it's
a
mid-rise
apartment
with
85
units,
there's
also
an
old
building.
It
was
built
in
1961..
P
If
you
go
to
page
42
of
the
Boe
memo,
you
can
see
our
side
by
side
analysis.
We
utilize
the
actual
income
generated
by
the
property.
The
vacancy
agrees
with
the
county
expenses
are
also
the
actuals
I
did
want
to
mention
that
the
noi
has
actually
gone
down
31
percent
year
over
year,
and
our
other
I
also
wanted
to
mention
again.
I
did
mention
it
earlier
that
this
also
is
plaster
walls,
and
it's
not
really
fixing
holes
in
the
plaster.
P
It's
more
that
what
he
explained
to
me
was
there's
leaks,
and
so
they
have
to
take
the
whole
wall
down.
He
said
that
there
was
like
drywall
damage
and
plaster
repairs
around
the
convectors
and
I.
Don't
believe
that
would
be
something
that
would
be
a
capital
expense,
it's
something
that
they
need
to
do
to
turn
the
property
to
re-rent
the
property
and
that's
all
I
have
I,
won't
keep
you
very
long.
P
L
I
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
when
your
view,
both
the
columns,
D
and
F,
take
a
look
at
their
their
reported
I'm.
Sorry
take
a
look
at
their
reported
vacancy
versus
what
what
we're
using
for
column
D,
which
is
the
original
assessment,
we're
actually
given
a
little
bit
extra
vacancy.
L
So
basically,
the
big
issue
here
with
this
property
is
the
expenses
and,
as
you
noticed
in
the
comments
below
I,
made
note
that
both
were
the
years
2020
and
2021
they're
reporting
oh
Renovations,
in
the
annual
expenses,
which
we
do
not
consider
that
so
I
wanted
to
because
they're
not
including
a
2018,
they
did
not
submit
an
INE
for
2018..
I
went
back
so
far
as
the
2017
to
see
what
is
reasonable
and
2017
is
actually
very
much
in
line
with
2019.,
so
you
go
well,
that's
not
covered!
L
L
So
my
column,
F
was
simply
a
test.
We
believe
that
the
the
original
assessment
of
16
million
512
100
is
very
is
a
good
representation
of
the
subject
property
as
a
stand
based
on
the
2021
irony
Chris.
Did
you
want
to
add
anything.
D
I
did
yeah
just
to
reiterate,
you
know
the
biggest
issue
issue
here
is
similar
to
the
last
one,
in
that
we
considers
those
costs
that
Ms
roskin
detailed
in
the
comments
as
capital
expenditures.
D
D
So
you
know
it's
not
the
smirch.
The
owners
I
think
we
mentioned
in
years
previous.
We
actually
met
with
them
in
anticipation
of
their
joining
the
County's
rehab
exemption
program
for
rehabilitation
of
properties.
They
did
not
officially
enter,
but
it
does
appear
at
least
the
conjecture
on
the
County's
part.
It
does
appear
that
they're
essentially
doing
those
Renovations
anyways
again
to
better
their
property
at
the
age
in
which
it
sits.
I
would
also
point
out
to
the
board
members.
D
Ms
roskin
went
through
a
retinal
nasus
on
page
five
and
six,
and
you
can
see
she's
very,
very
modestly,
adjusted
those
up
rents
increased
from
what
was
achieved
by
five
dollars:
six
dollars
for
efficiencies.
D
It
looks
like
six
dollars
for
one
bedroom,
so
this
isn't
even
one
percent
increase.
It's
not
a
two
percent
increase,
we're
talking
about
a
couple
dollars,
so
I
think
it's
a
safe
bet
again,
as
we've
seen
in
previous
cases.
2022
is
a
bit
more
robust
market,
so
there
was
an
anticipation
that
rents
would
increase
and
again
much
more
than
five
or
six
dollars
per
unit.
Given
that
we
did
acknowledge,
you
know
we
probably
could
have
better
represented
the
reconstructions
by
taking
out
those
Renovations.
D
The
capitol
expenditures
from
columns
c
and
e
we'd.
Ask
you
to
do
that
math
with
us,
but
you
can
see
in
Ms
raskin's
test
that
essentially
that's
about
where
the
reasonable
amount
of
outbreak
expects
operating
expenses
would
be
minus
those
Capital
expense,
Renovations
listed
in
the
comments.
That
being
said,
we
do
believe
that
that
essentially
confirms
the
assessment
as
fair
and
Equitable
in
column
Dean.
We
ask
you
to
confirm
the
60
million
512
100..
Thank
you.
L
Just
wanted
to
reiterate
that
we
were
cons,
we
don't
consider
those
Renovations
in
a
annual
as
an
annual
expense
and,
as
I
said,
I
went
back
a
little
further
just
to
see
what
would
be
typical
annual
expense
and
the
2017
was
in
line
with
the
2019
and
that
the
2020
and
21
includes
renovation
expenses
when
what's
being
reported,
and
so
we
feel
that
column
D.
The
original
assessment
is
very
reasonable
and
Equitable,
especially
with
what's
being
reported
in
column
e.
P
Difference
between
the
the
amounts
for
the
fixing
the
plaster
is
a
lot
is
a
lot
smaller
for
this
property.
The
difference
was
338
921
and
228
000
in
in
2020
I
would
just
again
ask
that
the
board
consider
the
actual
performance
of
the
property.
Thank
you
very
much.
Okay,.
H
Everything
else
everybody
agrees,
I
think,
but
it
would
increase
the
operating
expenses
in
column
F
by
some
reasonable
that
Define
its
scientific
amount
of
a
hundred
thousand
dollars,
and
then
cap
that
out
and
reduce
it.
What
do
you
think
about
that
again?
They're
going
to
have
plaster
problems
and
then
Potomac
Towers
too,
maybe
at
the
appellant
brought
that
up
I
might
have
come
up
with
the
same
conclusion.
H
A
H
H
H
I
Somebody
to
work
there
have
part-time
like
it.
It
management
you
end
up
paying
a
higher
percentage,
300
unit,
building
where
you've
got
full
time.
Maybe
it's.
H
I
Yeah,
so
that
I
would
I'm
not
sure
what
the
right
number
is.
That's
really
kind
of
the
issue
right
now,
but
I
agree
with
the
concept.
G
H
I
would
add
one
thing
that
this
the
on
the
other
hand,
but
it
doesn't
negate
my
position
that
63
operating
expense
isn't
sustainable
over
time.
68
of
income
I
mean
that's
a
very
bad
business
model,
so
it
couldn't
possibly
go
anywhere
in
my
judgment,
nearly
that
high,
but
a
building
this
age,
the
the
42
percent.
J
Foreign,
they
talked
about
something
the
walls
fixing
the
plumbing
things
like
that
I
mean
that's
more
than
just
patching
plaster
that
hopefully
pipe's
not
going
to
leak
again.
That's
that's
it!
That's
going
in
and
redoing
things,
that's
so
there's
a
mix
between
it.
I
understand
what
you're
saying
about
repairs.
K
K
J
I
A
A
Does
anybody
else
have
any
other
business?
No
all
right,
then
we
will
stand
adjourned
at
11,
12
and
re-adjourn
tomorrow
morning,
at
9am
thanks,
everybody.