►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - October 21, 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
October
21st
2020:
this
is
the
arlington
county,
virginia
board
of
equalization
hearing
the
first
case
on
the
agenda
is
economic
unit.
3400
203a
at
1505
crystal
drive,
and
mr
jeremy
chitlick
is
here
representing
the
owners.
Mr
chitlik,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
B
All
right,
thank
you.
So
the
property
is
a
362
unit,
high-rise
apartment
building
located
in
crystal
city,
the
back
of
it
faces
the
airport,
the
the
front
of
it
faces
crystal
drive,
it's
kind
of
a
the
shape
of
the
building
is
curved
and
they
they
sit
next
to
each
other,
so
it
kind
of
makes
somewhat
of
like
an
s
shape.
B
Typically,
we
just
go
through
page
three
and
go
through
each
of
the
cases.
There
are
parts
of
the
case
this
one's
a
little
different,
because
for
once
we
have
a
perfect
comp-
and
I
say
a
perfect
cop,
because
we've
got
a
property,
that's
directly
across
the
street,
that's
sold
and-
and
I
want
to
talk
about
the
sales
for
a
little
bit.
B
I
know
this
is
a
little
different
than
I
usually
approach
this,
but
so
waterpark
towers
is
currently
assessed
at
413
444
per
unit,
the
property
crystal
square
apartments
sold
in
2017
for
135
million
dollars,
which
is
357
a
unit.
So
we're
look
we're
talking
about
just
over
sixty
thousand
dollars
less
per
unit
and,
of
course,
well.
Units
mixes
are
different.
B
It's
true
that
property
has
bigger
units
and
higher
rents
that
property.
In
my
appeal,
I
state,
and
I
want
to
correct
this
and
I'm
on.
I
know
I
don't
like
to
typically
skip
around,
but
I'm
on.
What's
page
67
of
142.,
I
state
that
property
is
currently
assessed
at
146
000
295
900,
which
is
387
000
per
unit,
which
obviously
is
a
bit
upsetting
to
the
owner.
When
we
share
that
with
them
because
they
say
wait,
how
could
we
possibly
be
assessed?
30
000
a
unit
higher
when
they
have
bigger
units
with
higher
rent?
B
Well,
then,
we
dug
in
a
little
bit
that
property
got
an
8
million
reduction
to
the
first
level,
so
they're
now
actually
assessed
at
365
per
unit,
so
they
were
reduced
according
to
the
the
website
at
review
at
the
review
level
for
this
year
and
their
current
assessment
is
now
138
million
288
900,
which
comes
to
just
just
over
365
000
per
unit.
I
gave
you
a
unit
mix
there
a
breakdown,
because
I
know
it
property.
We
need
to
look
at
in
a
comparable
set
that
property
has
more
three
bedrooms.
B
B
Now
the
asking
rents
are
about
the
same
per
square
foot,
but
note
that
that's
because
their
units
are
30
larger,
so
there's
no
reason
that
we
should
be,
and
we
stayed
in
the
pack
at
26
000
per
unit
higher
than
that
property,
which
is
a
block
away
and
it
recently
sold
let
alone
46
000,
which
happened
after
the
first
level,
so
kind
of
going
on
that
same
that
same
thought
crystal
flats-
and
I
know
that
you
all
are
aware
of
crystal
flats,
because
when
I
looked
at
the
assessment,
it
was
reduced
from
a
boe
decision
this
year.
B
B
The
property
was
reduced
by
the
boe.
This
year
to
a
value
of
73
and
a
half
million
dollars
that
property
crystal
flats
at
370,
I
said,
330.
73.5
million
dollars-
is
what
it
sold
for
in
june.
Of
20.
73.5
million
dollars
is
what
the
boe
reduced
the
assessment
to
in
2020.
B
B
If
the
subject
is
where
it
is-
and
I
know
again,
word
413
a
lot
of
times,
we
look
at
page
three
and
say
the
numbers
are
the
numbers
and
that's
what
they
are
something's
wrong
with
those
numbers
and
what
we've
been
telling
you
for
years
and
and
what
the
board
is
recognized,
is
that
the
numbers
that
are
being
reported
by
this
owner
have
some
issues
with
them
and
they've
been
corrected
over
the
years
with
the
expenses
owners,
just
not
that
much
better
at
operating
a
property
to
justify
their
property
being
50
000
per
unit
better
than
a
comparable
property,
and
these
aren't
just
comparable
assessments.
B
These
are
properties
that
sold
so
one
more
on.
That
kind
of
that
thought
is
aura
at
pentagon
city.
I
think
you
all
know
that
that
property,
it's
a
five-star
property
sold
in
may
of
2019
for
427
000
per
unit,
that's
10
000
per
unit
higher
than
the
subject
property.
B
It
makes
absolutely
no
sense
now,
if
you
go
to
page
three
and
you
look
at
well,
I
looked
at
a
three
year
average
of
the
income
and
that's
what
it
is.
That's
what
the
number
comes
to
and
the
numbers
are,
the
numbers.
The
numbers
aren't
the
numbers
we
have
to
test
it.
We
can't
just
put
something
in
a
formula
and
say:
does
it
make
sense?
Because
when
you
do
that
this
property
is
not
more
valuable
than
aura,
it's
not
more
valuable
than
crystal
flats,
it's
dramatically
less
valuable
than
the
property
across
the
street.
B
That
is
a
direct
competitor
to
it.
Although
that
property
is
a
four-star
and
gets
much
higher
rents
than
this
property,
which
is
a
three
star,
so
something's,
missing
and
what's
missing
is
we're
talking
about
a
property.
That's
31
years
old
that
is
operating.
The
assessor
originally
used
a
26
expense
rate
and
then
bumping
up
to
28
percent
three
years
ago
when
they
had
the
different
guidelines.
B
The
expense
rate
would
have
been
34
to
38
on
this,
but
they
changed
the
guidelines
to
a
range
of
per
square
foot
and
that
range
is
like
a
dollar
to
a
million
dollars
so
sure
it
fits
in
the
range
everything
fits
in
that
range.
So
what
doesn't
make
sense?
The
thing
that
doesn't
make
sense
is
the
expenses
are
so
low
of
what
was
reported
on
this,
that
we
need
to
stabilize
them
up
and
the
assessor
didn't
only
stabilize
them.
B
The
the
result
is
on
the
original
assessment,
a
value
of
413
000
per
square
foot
when
the
perfect
comp
is
across
the
street.
It
sold
in
2017
just
got
a
massive
reduction
at
the
at
some
level,
and
then
you
have
a
far
far
superior
property
that
I
mean
crystal
class
is
nowhere
in
the
same
ballpark
as
this
property
and
the
board
reduced
that
this
year
to
a
value,
that's
about
30,
000,
less
than
the
current
property.
B
So
I'd
like
this
is
my
last
case
of
the
year.
I'd
like,
if
possible,
to
discuss
at
least
look.
We
looked
at
page
three
and
the
numbers
are
the
numbers,
but
do
those
numbers
make
sense
and
they
do
not
make
any
sense,
because
when
we
run
them
against
the
comps
they're
totally
out
of
whack?
And
it's
more
apparent
on
this
one
than
any
other
property
you've
had
this
year,
because
the
perfect
comp
exists,
which
is
the
superior
property
assessed
at
a
fraction
of
the
assessment.
C
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning
board
members
come
on
mr
chetlick
speaking
about
waterpark
towers.
This
is
a
two
building
property
sits
in
what
now
I
guess.
It's
a
national
landing
crystal
city
neighborhood,
it's
a
half,
a
mile,
walk
to
crystal
city
subway
station
metro
station.
C
When
we're
looking
at
the
summer
sheet
page
three
we
can
see
again.
This
is
a
property.
That's
performed
well
apartment
revenues
up
three
years
in
a
row,
the
2018's
increase
is
2.5
percent
parking
revenue
is
up
three
years
in
a
row.
Other
revenues
up
two
years
in
a
row.
Gross
potential
income
is
up
three
years
in
a
row.
2019's
increase
was
2.7
percent,
a
very
stabilized
building
3-year
vacancy
average
of
3.3
percent.
If
we
include
concessions
that
increases
the
3.8
percent
three-year
average
effective
gross
is
up
three
years
in
a
row.
C
C
Although
we've
gone
over
this
case
last
three
years
and
in
fact
included
a
document
in
this
year's
packets,
where
basically
the
appellants
admit
that
the
maintenance
repair
number,
the
five
million
dollar
operating
expense
reported
in
2017,
was
due
to
a
one-time,
exterior
repair,
and
so,
as
the
board
has
seen
before,
we
did
include
column
c,
which
is
reconstruction,
excluding
that
2.5
million
dollars
of
capital
improvements
and
again
there's
documentation
in
the
packet
in
which
the
it's
at
that
time
noted
that
that
was
a
one-time
repair
and,
in
fact,
did
not
include
it
in
their
appeal
as
well.
C
So
if
we're
using
the
reconstructed
number,
we
see
that
it
makes
much
more
sense,
smoothing
out
to
have
approximately
3.3
million
dollar
two-year
average.
The
three-year
would
be
3.1
million
average,
either
way.
The
net
operating
income
is
up
two
years
in
a
row.
2019's
increase
was
over
four
percent
when
we
look
at
the
original
assessment
again,
as
the
board
has
seen
numerous
times
this
year.
C
Unfortunately,
the
county
under
projected
across
the
board
340
000
over
340
000
under
projection
on
gross
potential
income
well
over
six
hundred
thousand
dollar
under
projection
on
effective
gross.
C
While
we
missed
the
mark
on
operating
expenses
by
420
000
that
still
left
us
over
216
000
shy
of
the
net
operating
income
that
was
achieved
at
the
property
and
again
this
is
a
property.
That's
increased
its
revenue
four
years
now
in
a
row,
and
you
can
essentially
see
that
it's
operating
expenses
have
been
stabilized
for
the
most
part.
If
we're
using
columns
a
c
d
and
f,
you
can
see
that
it's
two
six,
two
seven
three,
three
three
three.
C
As
mr
chitwick
noted,
we
did
test
this
new
information
using
the
residential
rent
roll
supplied
by
the
owner
themselves,
so
these
rents
that
are
being
projected
for
apartment
revenue,
again
very
modest,
very
modest
increase
of
0.4,
less
than
half
of
one
percent
after
increases
of
1.5
2.6
and
2.5
percent
respectively.
Over
the
last
three
years,
we
did
project
a
gross
potential
income
increase
of
again
just
slightly
psi
of
0.4
tenths
of
one
percent.
As
the
board
has
seen
per
the
virginia
code,
we
did
look
at
the
actual
number
of
vacancy
and
concessions.
C
C
C
As
the
board
knows,
without
a
third-party
appraisal,
we
do
not
ask
for
an
increase
of
the
property,
but
given
that
again,
we
underprojected
across
the
board
and
even
again
allowing
for
the
test
for
a
full
dollar
amount
of
the
operating
expenses
incurred
at
the
property.
It
would
have
called
for.
A
increase
of
our
original
assessment
do
believe
that,
based
on
these
metrics
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
a
149
million
666
900,
and
I
believe
mr
bailey
just
wants
to
add
an
order
to
him.
D
Good
morning,
everybody
I
just
wanted
to
speak
on
the
perfect
comp
that
was
mentioned
by
the
appellant,
if
I
may,
since
they
introduced
this
property
as
a
perfect
comp
and
the
fact
that
this
property
was
heard
earlier
this
year.
I
would
like
to
just
discuss
some
differences
between
these
two
properties
without
getting
too
much
into
detail.
D
One
crystal
square
tile
questa
square
was
a
case
brought
forth
by
the
author's
group.
So
I
think
that
allows
us
more
leeway
to
discuss
these
two
differences
when
you
compare
the
two
properties
part
waterpark
tower
the
case
we're
hearing
now
has
had
higher
gpi
has
had
lower
expenses
and
lower
vacancy
than
the
comp
that
he
referred
to.
When
you
look
at
the
three-year
history
that
we
had
for
crystal
square
apartments,
they
were
almost
a
million
dollars.
D
They
almost
generated
a
million
dollars
less
each
year
than
the
subject
property
that
we're
referring
to
while
having
a
little
bit
higher
on
the
expense
side.
So
we
talk
about
this
a
lot
like
when
you
bring
up
a
comp,
whether
it's
a
sale
or
you're.
Looking
at
the
per
square
foot
rate,
you
can't
really
just
narrow
in
on
your
your
primary
metric,
you
got
to
look
at
all
the
details
behind
it.
D
So
when
you
look
at
it
from
a
mass
appraisal
standpoint
crystal
square
tower,
when
we
saw
that
property
they
not
only
had
higher
vacancy
than
this
subject
property,
their
vacancy
for
the
past
two
years
was
higher
than
our
guidelines
and
those
were
things
we
took
in
consideration
this
year
alone.
They
were
at
double
digit
on
the
vacancy.
D
When
you
look
at
the
subject,
you'll
see
that
the
subject
is
well
below.
For
the
most
part,
our
yeah.
They
were
below
our
vacancy
that
we
use
on
our
guidelines.
We
use
six
percent
and
each
year
they're
around
three
point.
Seven
four
three
point,
eight
nine
so
say
they're
around
four
percent
each
year.
So
that's
a
two
percent
difference
and
they're,
comparing
it
to
a
subject
property,
which
has
been
three
percent
higher
than
our
guidelines
one
year
and
double
our
guidelines
for
this
year.
D
E
I,
for
one
for
each
party,
they'll
actually
have
a
comment
for
the
appellant.
We
hear
a
lot
about,
as
you
did
present.
E
Average
value
based
on
the
real
estate
assessment
per
unit
in
a
building,
and
I
don't
want
to
admonish
you-
I've,
never
brought
it
up,
but
your
colleagues
do
exactly
what
you
have
done.
Your
colleagues,
meaning
representing
landlords,
have
done
just
what
you
did.
Although
you
went,
you
were
a
little
bit
more
forthcoming.
E
You
said
well
mixes
change
among
buildings,
but
never
ever
this
entire
year,
including
right
now,
have
I
heard
what
the
mix
is
and
if
you're,
comparing
one
building
to
another
to
say
it's
x,
percent
of
studios
y
percent
of
one
bedrooms
and
so
forth.
I
don't
have
a
clue
and
I'm
sure
the
board
doesn't
have
a
clue
on
how
these
mixes
stack
up
when
you're
comparing
two
buildings
and
I
think
they're
pretty
knowable.
E
Obviously
you
know
what
the
mix
is
exactly
in
your
own
appeal
building,
subject
building,
but
I
think
it's
pretty
easy
to
find
out
if
you're
going
to
bring
up
other
buildings
to
compare
to
what
those
mixes
are
and
just
as
one
side
example,
because
I
know
as
well.
The
river
houses
as
a
percentage
have
an
extraordinarily
high
percentage
of
studio
apartments
and
that
really
skews
what
the
average
is.
So
I
think
you
would
help
all
of
us,
you
and
all
of
your
colleagues
who
can't
hear
this
to
bri.
B
Correct
so
on
page
67,
I
show
the
unit
mix
of
the
subject
and
of
my
comparable
and
it
shows
the
unit
mix
by
unit
type
square,
footage
of
unit
mixed
average,
rent
per
unit
average,
rent
per
square
footage,
and
that's
in
my
packet
on
page
six
67
to
142
or
if
you
look
at
the
other
numbers
four
of
68..
So
I
did.
E
Exactly
what
you
asked
I,
I
will
look
at
that
in
a
moment.
Thank
you
thanks
for
bringing
it
up
now
for
the
department,
quick
question,
the
guidelines,
as
I
read
it,
calls
for
this
kind
of
building
a
six
percent
vacancy
rate,
but
you
in
your
original
had
six
and
then
changing
the
test
of
four.
Why
is
that.
C
Yes,
sir,
mr
metzken,
you
probably
heard
us
reference
this
a
couple
times
this
year,
where
the
county
virginia
code
allows
the
board
of
equalization
to
consider
actuals
that
are
being
incurred
at
the
property.
So
when
you're
looking
at
actual
vacancy
and
concessions,
you
may
have
heard
some
of
the
appellant
sincere
talk
about
how
the
county
gives
everybody
a
guideline.
C
Constraints,
if
you
will-
and
so
the
virginia
code
allows
the
board
of
equalization
to
consider
the
actual
performance
of
the
property.
So
what
we
do
if
they
appeal
to
the
department
level,
we
still
will
use
the
guideline
number
that's
put
up
by
the
county,
but
if
they
appeal
to
the
board
of
equalization,
we're
simply
showing
you
what
is
going
on
at
the
property
using
the
actual
performance
of
the
property
in
2018.
C
B
Right
but
we've
never
seen,
we've
never
seen
them
go
to
they'll,
go
to
what
the
property
achieves,
but
we'll
never
see
them
actually
go
to
the
correct
cap
rate.
At
this
level,
like
the
6.1,
the
comparable.
F
Can
you
hear
me
okay?
Yes,
sir.
F
The
for
the
applicant
isn't
that
better,
isn't
a
better
guide
to
value
the
value
per
bedroom
versus
value
per
unit.
B
I
mean
the
the
problem
with
value
per
bedroom.
Is
that
that's
as
if
you'd
get
a
thousand
dollars
for
one
bedrooms
and
two
thousand
dollar
for
two
bedrooms
which
isn't
a
a
straight
shot,
because
there's
so
many
other
things
that
go
into
an
apartment
if
you're
getting?
If
you
rent
a
one
bedroom,
you
were
getting
one
kitchen,
one
living
room
and
one
bedroom.
B
Is
the
industry
standard
for
comparing
apartments
as
long
as
the
unit
mix
like
I
was
stating
that
we
have
on
page
67
shows
that
one
is
in
all
studios
and
one's
all
two
bedrooms,
and
in
this
situation
are
comparable
the
units
you
have
more
units
actually
in
the
the
better
property,
the
comparable
property
than
you
do
in
the
subject,
but
even
so
the
per
bedrooms.
You
have
a
lot
more
bedrooms
in
crystal
square.
The
other
problem
with
the
per
bedroom
is
that
it's
stating
look.
If
I'm
all
three
bedrooms,
I've
got.
B
B
F
F
F
B
I
mean
it's.
Certainly
it's
certainly
a
matrix
to
compare
in
every
matrix
we've
compared
when
I
looked
at
in
a
per
unit
per
square.
Footage
for
a
bedroom
per
asking
rent
is
not
just
crystal
square,
but
even
the
other
properties
that
are
in
the
area
that
have
recently
sold
is
there's
absolutely
no
support
for,
for
the
value
that's
placed
on
the
property.
C
Well,
I
don't
think
it's
influenced
mr
metzken's
decision,
but
I
will
note
that
the
unit
mix
that's
indicated
on
page
67
is
inaccurate.
I
believe
mr
chitler
pulled
that
from
costar.
C
We
have
the
unit
mix
from
the
owner
themselves,
as
obviously
we
did
a
review
of
assessment
earlier
this
year
in
regards
to
the
property
that
we're
speaking
about
again,
the
board
has
seen
this
numerous
times
this
year.
Unfortunately,
we
did
unproject
across
the
board
remind
the
board.
This
is
a
property,
that's
increased
its
apartment
revenue,
three
years
in
a
row,
gross
potential
income.
Three
years
in
a
row
effective
gross
three
years
in
a
row,
net
operating
income
is
up
two
years
in
a
row.
C
We
tested
the
property
using
the
exact
dollar
amount
within
three
thousand
dollars
of
the
exact
dollar
amount
spent
at
the
property.
That
test
indicated
a
value
higher
than
the
original
assessment
for
january.
One
we'll
point
out:
the
appellants
pro
forma
suggest
a
net
operating
income
that
was
achieved
sometime
in
2017,
so
they're
under
2018's
performance
and
well,
some
five
or
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
under
2019's
performance,
given
the
underperformance
under
projection
across
the
board.
C
Given
a
test
that
confirmed
our
original
assessment,
we
do
believe
the
board
should
confirm
the
county,
149
million
six
hundred
sixty
six
thousand
nine
hundred.
Thank
you.
B
Yes,
something
kristin
mentioned
crystal
square
sold
at
an
arlington,
equivalent
6.1
percent
cap
rate.
The
subject
is
assessed
at
a
5.49
percent
cap
rate.
That's
the
difference!
That's
why
there's
such
a
delta
here
and
I
say
arlington
equivalent,
because
that's
the
base
cap
rate
plus
20
basis
points
for
replacement
reserves
and
then
the
tax
rate.
B
So
that's
that's
why,
when
you
compare
it,
he
says
well,
look
my
income
is
my
income
and
that's
where
it
is-
and
I
reduce
my
vacancy
and
this
and
that
well
that's
because
the
properties
are
selling
at
much
higher
cap
rates
in
this
area.
Now,
if
this
property
was
in
clarendon
on
top
of
the
metro
station,
he
would
use
the
exact
same
cap
rate
now.
So
that's
part
of
the
problem.
B
The
other
thing
that
he
did
not
mention
at
all
was
what
about
crystal
flats,
which
the
board
reduced
this
year
to
a
value
of
73.5
million
dollars.
It's
a
five-star
property.
It's
assessed
at
371
000
per
unit.
It's
sold
for
371
000
per
unit.
It's
much
higher
rents,
luxury
property,
much
much
better
as
compared
to
the
subject
is
assessed
at
about
40
in
it
and
you
compare
it
to
bedrooms
and
it's
even
more
of
a
delta,
so
everything
that
we've
got
going
on.
B
He
just
relies
on
the
numbers,
but
the
issue
when
it
all
comes
down
to
it.
A
lot
of
it
has
to
do
with
what
the
cap
rate
is
and
the
cap
rate
being
applied
to
this
area
is
incorrect,
maybe
once
the
amazon
effect
is
in
full
blown
and
in
five
years
and
everything
gets
torn
down
and
rebuilt,
that's
possible,
but
today
that's
why
the
numbers
are
off
because
things
are
selling
in
the
area
at
six,
but
he
doesn't
look
at
it
by
area.
B
He's
saying-
and
I
say
he-
this
isn't
a
personal
attack
on
chris
I
mean
the
county,
the
the
they
look
at
one
county
in
one
county
within
a
half
mile
of
metro
and
all
metro
stations
are
not
equal,
which
is
shown
by
your
rent
and
which
is
shown
by
your
numbers.
So
this
is
my
last
case
of
the
year.
I
thank
you
for
for
listening
to
my
rambling
and
I'll,
see
you
all
next
year,
thanks.
F
F
What
we're
seeing
in
the
marketplace
out
there
right
now
is
a
couple
of
things:
we're
seeing
our
developers
moving
towards
more
one
bedrooms,
more
efficiencies,
two
bedrooms,
they
hate
doing
three
bedrooms,
we're
seeing
the
unit
sizes
going
down
and
we're
seeing
the
parking
being
provided
going
way
down,
all
of
which
ascuse
how
much
it
would
cost
to
build
this
product.
F
F
You
know
if
something
just
sold
at
a
much
lower
price
per
unit,
whereas
this
one's
assessed
at
a
higher
per
unit.
Is
that
really
that
relevant?
And
I'm
not
sure
I
just
wanted
to
share
that
this
is
what
we've
been
seeing
out
there
and
I
don't
have
a
conclusion
right.
Yet
I
want
to
see
what
other
members
of
the
board
said.
G
I
was
just
thinking
about
the
on
the
original
county's
assessment.
I
felt
like
the
expenses
are
a
little
low.
G
It
got
fixed
on
the
test
to
basically
match
2019
and
then,
but
a
lot
of
other
things
changed
on
the
test
so
which
made
the
assessment
go
up.
So
I'm
not
really
sure
how
to
you
know
how
to
react
to
that.
I
certainly
don't
think
it
should
go
up.
You
know
I'm
not
really
shocked
at
a
four
hundred
thousand
four
hundred
thirteen
thousand
unit
for
this
building.
G
G
G
So
I
don't
know
I'd
support
a
slight
reduction,
but
I
can't
really
see
how
to
get
there,
logically,
without
kind
of
triggering
the
test.
The
vacancies
so
low
on
this
property
that
you
know.
G
It's
super
stable.
There
was
a
blip
when
they
went
through
all
the
big
renovations
and
everything
and
looks
like
they
had
some
repointing
or
something
done
in
2017,
but
super
stable
property
super
stable
market
growing
market.
A
Yeah,
I
I
agree
with
mr
hoffman.
I
mean
I
originally
looked
at
this
and
thought
the
expenses
were
low,
but
I
also
think
the
effective
gross
income
and
obviously
the
noi
as
a
result
is
a
little
low.
So
I'm
not
sure
I
have
any
strong
position
on
increasing
the
expenses
because
I
think
the
noi
it
kind
of
balanced
itself
out
by
having
you
know
the
lower
gross
potential
income
before
six
percent.
So
mr
lawson.
F
For
greg
greg,
do
you
think
the
fact
this
has
higher
parking
and
has
a
pretty
significant
parking
income?
Do
you
think
that
makes
a
difference.
H
This
is
mark.
I
I
originally
looked
at
the
numbers
to
start
with,
and
the
county
was
pretty
reasonable
in
their
numbers.
I
do
think
the
expenses
maybe
but
comparing
it
to
what
happened
in
19.
H
I
was
very
comfortable
with
their
assessment
as
far
as
the
issue
of
comparing
it
to
other
buildings
and
looking
at
it
and
hearing
the
arguments,
there's
other
fact,
there's
so
many
factors
that
go
into
the
assessment
itself
and
we've
had
arguments
dealing
with
everything
from
odors
to
views
and
other
construction,
there's
reasons
for
buildings
having
different
assessments,
even
though
on
the
surface
they
may
be
very
equal
in
what
they
might
have
started
at.
A
H
A
B
All
right,
thank
you.
Crystal
square
was
bought
by
dweck,
not
jpg.
I
know
it
doesn't
make
that
much
of
a
difference,
but
thank
you.
You
all
have
a
good
good
rest
of
the
year.
B
A
Okay
next
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc
or
first
is
mr
branham
on
the
line.
I
just
realized.
E
I
My
I
have
a
new
computer
and
thing
is
working
and
I'm
actually
my
microphone.
Nothing
works.
So
I'm
I'm
actually
calling
in
on
my
phone.
A
So
I
don't
know
all
right:
well,
we
can
hear
you
so
okay.
The
next
case
is
five
seven
and
that
is
3400
south
clark
street,
and
so
we
will
hear
from
mr
sean
raiden
on
behalf
of
the
owners
of
the
property.
Mr
raiden,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
property.
I
Yeah
yeah,
thank
you
very
much,
so
I
do
I
just
wanted
to
let
the
board
know
that
we've
been
speaking
with
the
county
and
you
know,
we've
come
to
an
agreement
and
I'm
gonna
maybe
pass
this
time
over
to
chris,
and
he
can
explain
and
let
the
board
know
about
our
discussion
and
the
new
value
that
we've
agreed
on.
So
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
pass
this
over
to
chris.
If
you
don't
mind.
C
Yes,
ma'am
members
of
the
board.
Essentially
we
got
some
information.
This
case
came
to
us.
We
scheduled
it
obviously
to
meet
the
deadlines
by
the
31st
of
this
month,
unfortunately
rushed
the
process
a
bit.
As
for
some
information
that
we
received
after
the
board
pack
was
already
assembled
long
story
short.
Once
we
received
that
information,
we
did
internally
make
a
revision
that
was
agreed
upon.
C
And
then
just
to
be
clear,
that
is
just
for
this.
The
first
case
34027572.
D
A
D
The
approach
to
valuing
this
property
once
chris
received
some
documents
from
tom
branham,
showing
that
the
project
was
indeed
not
complete,
as
we
thought
it
was.
We
switched
back
to
the
cost
approach.
D
We
go
off
of
site
inspections
and
any
kind
of
documentation
that
the
appellants
can
provide
us
to
show
that
the
property
was
not
substantially
completed.
The
documents
provided,
I
think
yesterday
or
sometime
after
this
case
was
scheduled,
showed
that
this
property
indeed
was
not
substantially
completed
and
should
be
reverted
back
to
the
cost
approach.
So
we
took
the
cost
value
from
marshall
and
swift
and
valued
it
as
80
complete
based
off
the
photos
we
saw
and
we'll
switch
it
to
income
approach
for
2021.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Any
questions
from
board
members.
A
A
Okay,
then,
I
will
move
to
accept
the
county's
revised
number
of
60
69
million
965.
C
A
A
Okay
motion
in
a
second
by
mr
lawson,
all
in
favor
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
The
county's,
revised
number
of
69
million
965,
based
back
on
the
cost
approach,
has
been
confirmed,
alrighty
well,
that
certainly
went
smoother
than
I
thought
it
was
going
to
go.
Okay
and
the
last
case
for
the
day
is
rpc
34027
573
on
south
clark
street
and
again
mr
sean
raiden
is
here
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
owner.
So,
mr
raiden,
you
can
go
ahead
and
start
telling
us
about
this
property.
A
I
Thank
you.
This
is
a
small
land
parcel
associated
with
the
previous
case
currently
assessed
at
29
000.
we're
we're
okay.
With
the
current
assessment.
I
It
was
originally
included
as
part
of
our
vehicle
because
it
was,
you
know,
one
of
the
parcels
and
made
up
the
larger
piece,
and
we
had
thought
if
it
was
a
discussion
as
to
a
portion
that
was
going
to
be
exempt,
that
the
land
should
be
part
of
that
should
be
exempt
as
well.
But
that's
really
not
part
of
the
discussion
right
now
at
this
point,
so
I
think
we're
we're.
Okay
with
the
the
current
assessment
at
the
29
000
and
change.
A
Thank
you,
mr.
I
F
Thank
you,
madam
chairman.
You
know,
I
did
an
appeal.
Oh,
I
don't
know
three
or
four
years
ago,
five
years
ago,
on
a
comparable
situation.
F
That
this
is
at
one
dollar
a
square
foot
I
think,
is
the
assessed
value
and
I
think
when,
when
I
did
it,
I
think
the
county
was
at
something
like
five
bucks,
a
square
foot.
So
you
know
I
just
wanted
to
share
that.
I
think
this
is
probably
right
on
as
far
as
value.
Thank
you.
E
I
Yes,
well,
a
portion
of
this
building
is
being
used
as
what
the
ownership
calls.
A
meeting
house,
which
is
part
of
the
church
of
latter-day
saints,
more
or
less
a
religious
community
room
for
the
exact
square
footage
amount
to
give
you
a
percentage,
20
or
more
building
is
going
to
be
used
in
a
large
portion
of
the
parking.
I
E
I
I
E
I
The
development
group
that
built
this
property
is
owned
by
the
church
of
latter-day
saints
and
so
they've
included
this
portion
of
the
building
for
that,
and
so
they
will
be
discussing
that
at
some
for
21.,
but
that's
not
that
is
really
being
considered
right
now.
You
know
the
gonna
be
the
next
phase
of
the
assessment
process.
F
Yes,
thank
you
again,
I
don't
think
that's
our
decision.
I
think
we
decide
value,
but
we
don't
decide
whether
something
is
exempt
or
not,
but
I
I
think
this.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,.
J
Wanted
to
add
very
quickly
that
this
property,
it's
it's
being
used
as
density
and
it's
supporting
the
entire
it's
part
of
the
entire
pdsp
for
site
plan
346.,
and
we
actually
reduce
the
land
value
on
the
clark
which
was
just
heard
earlier,
because
we're
valuing
this
at
a
dollar
per
square
foot.
So
if
we
weren't
valuing
this,
then
that
amount
would
be
lumped
back
over
to
the
clark
okay,
so
the
value's
going
one
place
or
the
other.
J
Like
I
said
it's
been,
the
clark
has
been
reduced
and
it's
placed
here
and
it's
only
a
dollar
per
square
foot
and
it's
one
of
a
dozen
parcels
that
support
the
entire
pdspa
for
the
density
purposes.
Okay,.
F
A
A
Second,
okay
motion,
a
second
by
mr
lawson,
all
in
favor
aye
opposed
okay.
It's
also
unanimous.
It's
confirmed
at
twenty
nine
thousand
nine
hundred
all
right.
Thank
you,
mr
reagan.
K
Yes,
I
have
one
clarification
for
the
first
case.
I
know
we
confirmed
that
at
149,
666
900.,
the
first
page
on
the
memo
shows
a
hundred
dollars
less,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that's
the
number,
because
a
lot
of
the
things
that
go
behind
the
scenes
that
you
guys
don't
know
is
what
we
go
through
with
rosa.
We
make
sure
that
the
numbers
are
correct
in
the
orders,
so
we
need
to
make
sure
that
the
100
difference
is
shown
in
one
of
the
orders.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
no
other
business,
mr
panorana.
Okay,
just
to
let
everybody
know
we
will
be
meeting
two
times
next
week.
We
are
meeting
on
tuesday
and
wednesday
to
wind
up
the
final
10
cases.
It's
going
to
be
a
little
bit
lighter
day
on
tuesday,
a
little
bit
heavier,
there's
seven
cases
on
wednesday,
but
they're
all
related
together,
which
is
why
we're
putting
seven
in
together
so
anyway.
So
all
right,
then
we
will
stand
adjourned
at
9,
45
and
re-adjourn
on
tuesday
october
27th
at
9
00
a.m.