►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing September 22, 2021
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
wednesday
september
22nd
2021.
This
is
the
arlington
county,
virginia
board
of
equalization
hearing.
There
are
five
cases
on
the
agenda
today
and
we'll
start
with
the
first
case.
It's
an
economic
unit.
170-4902
a
is
an
apple.
The
property
is
located
at
2025,
fairfax
drive
and
mr
jonathan
kinney
is
here
to
represent
the
owners.
Mr
kinney,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
Sir.
B
This
is
a
property
that
we've
been
before
the
board
of
equalization
before
so
I
know
some
of
you
are
familiar
with
it.
Others
may
not
be
it's
a
small
property,
that's
part
of
a
larger
complex.
It's
has
different
owners,
but
basically
it's
a
site
of
less
than
20
000
feet
and,
in
our
opinion,
it's
an
extremely
difficult
site
to
develop
and
we've
had
offers
that
reflect
the
fact
that
it
is
not
consistent
with
other
sites
in
the
area
that
would
bring
potentially
a
higher
value.
B
The
two
reasons
for
that
are
the
underground
rock
that
exists
on
the
site:
we've
enclosed
reports
from
environmental
studies
that
show
the
existence
of
a
granite
type
of
rock,
underneath
the
structure
of
the
soil
that
would
be
affected
by
the
development
of
an
underground
garage
on
the
site.
The
other
is
the
fact
the
property
is
surrounded
on
two
sides
by
an
historic,
wakefield,
manor,
building
designated
historic
in
the
county,
one
of
the
essential
sites
and
any
development
has
to
take
into
consideration
protecting
those
sites
with
extensive
monitoring
and
extra
work
involved.
B
In
that
regard,
the
owner's
been
trying
to
sell
this
site,
which
is
under
different
ownership
than
the
wakefield
manor
apartments.
I
know
the
county
treats
this
as
an
economic
unit,
but
we've
always
said
that
it's
hard
to
treat
something
it's
an
economic
unit
when
you
have
different
ownerships,
but
just
taking
this
property
by
itself,
we've
the
owners
attempted
to
sell
the
property.
For
the
last
five
years,
we've
designated
or
listed
in
our
application.
B
We
were
initially
rejected
the
offer,
but
we
were
able
to
after
that
time
reach
an
agreement
with
fortis
basically
at
the
four
million
dollar
mark,
which
is
less
than
half
of
the
assessment,
and
that
contract
is
in
force
and
in
play
at
the
present
time,
and
we
think
that
the
market
sale
of
the
property
is
the
best
determination
of
value.
B
B
The
people
who
put
the
offers
in
pulled
out
before
going
firm
on
the
contract
because
of
the
situation
they
found
with
both
the
historic
provision,
next
door
and
the
underground
underground
rock
strata
that
was
underneath
the
property.
So,
in
our
opinion,
the
market
value
not
having
any
offers
equal
to
the
assessment
and
where
the
owner
has
actually
accepted
an
offer
of
the
four
million
dollars
is
really
the
best
example
of
what
the
price
of
the
property
reflects.
C
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning,
similar
to
what
mr
kinney
said,
this
case
has
been
before
the
board
several
years
in
a
row,
now,
probably
one
about
five
years
in
a
row
as
we've
done
in
the
past,
we've
valued
this
property
consistently
with
how
we
value
other
site
plans
that
have
apartment
units
approved.
C
We
have
been
provided
some
lois
in
the
past,
one
that
was
recently
provided
in
the
package
stated
that
there
was
an
offer
on
the
table
about
4
million
and
mr
cain,
mr
kenny
stated.
There
was
also
some
information
in
there
about
having
to
provide
the
garden
properties
which
he
referenced
parking
spaces
in
this
new
development.
C
In
the
initial
loi
they
stated
they
would
deduct
sixty
thousand
dollars
per
partner
space
in
whatever
agreement
they
reach
and
later
reflected
that
there
will
be
30
parking
spaces
provided
for
the
apartment
complex.
So
by
my
map,
that's
about
1.8
million
per.
C
Yeah
1.8
million
for
30
parking
spaces
that
they
were
going
to
deduct.
There
was
another
loi
provided
dated
january
28
of
this
year
for
a
lower
price
than
what
was
in
the
november
loi,
but
in
this
one
they
didn't
make
reference
to
the
parking
spaces
deduction.
I
think
they
went
ahead
and
deducted
that
out
when
they
provided
this
loi
and
again
we
have
to
value
this
property
based
off
of
existing
sales,
that
we
have
this
property
hasn't
sold
yet
so,
therefore,
there
is
no
deduction
being
made
by
the
county.
C
In
the
past
we
have
made
deductions
for
things
such
as
environmental
remediation
on
site
plans.
That
deduction
is
based
off
the
amount
spent
for
the
environmental
remediation
again,
this
property
hasn't
sold
and
no
work
has
been
done.
So
there
is
no
quantifiable
deduction
for
us
to
place
on
this
property.
Last
year
the
board
looked
at
residential
properties,
they
have
a
10
outside
influence
adjustment,
and
that
was
the
way
you
all
made
your
decision
again.
C
D
Yeah
for
mr
kenny,
our
our
package
shows
the
appellant's
estimate
of
value
is
6
million
360
even
and
is.
Can
you
just
clarify?
Is
that
the
estimate
for
the
the
one
rpc
related
to
the
redevelopment
site
or
the
or
the
entire
property,
including
the
existing
apartments.
B
That's
our
estimate
solely
for
this.
The
single
lot-
okay,
which
is
the
development
site
it
currently
is
like
40
parking
spaces.
Mr
bailey's
correct
that
the
contract
does
provide
for
replacement
of
30..
So
we
added
on
what
we
thought
was
a
more
than
generous
value
on
to
the
4
million
dollars
to
cover
the
parking
spaces.
If
you
took
the
60
000
in
the
contract,
it
would
be
five
eight.
B
We
went
a
little
higher
because
we
were
hoping
actually
to
negotiate
a
slightly
better
deal,
but
we
weren't
able
to
so
that
is
our
assessment
or
valuation
of
the
single
lot
itself.
We
are
not
not
addressing
or
not
appealing
anything
on
either
the
apartment
buildings
in
that
area,
either
courthouse
manor
or
wakefield
manor.
E
F
I
do
have
a
question
for
you
on
this
one
site:
you
talk
about
building
constraints,
the
underlying
rock
as
an
example
and
some
other
constraints.
B
If
you
provided
the
parking
required,
there's
probably
no
reason
you
couldn't
build
out,
it's
the
cost
factor
of
building
out
on
a
small
site
and
the
the
undergrounding
under
underground
rock
on
the
site.
But
we
haven't
built
it
and
a
number
of
the
people
who
have
come
in
have
shown
fewer
units.
But
I
don't
know
the
next
developer
could
show
extra
units,
but
we've
always
assumed
that
104
units
could
potentially
be
built
there.
B
But
some
of
the
people
who
have
submitted
contracts
have
said
that
they
wanted
to
take
it
down
into
the
88
or
85
range.
Just
to
max.
You
know
to
reduce
the
size
of
the
project
and
therefore
the
parking.
F
A
B
B
This
is
not
my
area
of
expertise.
What
I've
been
told
is
that,
yes,
you
can
blast
the
rock,
but
it's
the
same
thing
as
doing
pile
drillings
next
to
an
historic
building.
It's
not
something
that's
recommended,
because
the
the
nature
of
that
building
has
to
be
protected,
and
people
have
suggested
that
you
need
to
drill
rather
than
pile,
and
you
you're
going
to
not
necessarily
blast
but
dig
in
and
break
it
up
would
be
the
recommended
way
of
doing
it.
D
Mr
huffman
just
yeah
another
quick
one.
What
was
the
the
thought
process
behind
renewing
the
site
plan
through
23.
B
Could
get
a
parking
reduction
that
would
help
on
the
price
what
it
seemed.
It
does
not
seem
to
have
helped
on
the
price,
but
it
does
seem
to
have
helped
in
terms
of
getting
interest
in
the
property,
but
at
the
figures
that
we've
seen
the
4
million
plus
the
30
parking
spaces,
which
you
can
value
either
at
60
000,
which
the
contract
did,
which
would
add
1.8
million
or
5.8
or,
as
we
suggested
in
terms
of
valuation.
The
6'3
figure.
A
C
We
don't
have
anything
further.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
mr
kinney,
if
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up.
D
D
I've
read
the
geotech
report
that
was
included
in
the
package
they're
not
doing
any
of
this
stuff
purely
to
save
on
taxes,
they're
actually
trying
to
develop
this
site,
and-
and
the
issue
is
now
we
have
a
you
know,
a
policy
that
says
we
look
at
site
plans
at
the
exact
same
price
per
unit,
which
is
not
really
fair
market
value.
It's
just
a
policy
for
mass
appraisal.
So
I
don't
look
at
that
as
something
that
we
need
to
follow.
D
D
D
The
policy
is
very
broad
when
you
get
into
issues
like
really
small
sites
and
site
plans
that
were
approved.
That,
probably
are
not
feasible.
We
need
to
take
consideration,
so
we
did
it
last
year.
I'd
support
doing
it
again.
G
Yes,
I
had
a
client
that
also
looked
at
it
and
I
I
barely
got
involved
because
they
they
took
what
mr
johnson
had
and
studied
and
evaluated
and
and
what
made
them
pass
on
it
was.
They
were
very
worried
about
dealing
with
the
rock
and
the
impact
on
the
neighboring.
G
I
think
it's
a
garden
apartment
project
and
they
just
decided
that
there's
other
sites
with
less
challenges,
and
so
I
don't
know
that
they
would
have
bought
it
at
any
price.
So
I
just
wanted
to
share
that.
That
was
the
purpose
of
my
question.
Asking
about
the
blasting.
I
mean
this
site
just
has
such
challenges.
Thank
you.
A
Right,
I
certainly
agree
that
there's
challenges
with
the
site.
My
problem
is,
you
know
that
we're
sitting
here
with
a
site
plan,
that's
approved
for
one
thing
and
lots
of
options
to
do
something
different
and
you
know
if
they
would
just
go
and
modify
the
psych
plan.
I
think
we
wouldn't
have
an
issue,
you
know,
and
it's
not
like
you
know
they
don't
know
they
haven't
known
about
this.
A
G
A
F
Excuse
me:
I
support
that.
I
I
have
sympathy
here
for
the
owner,
but
they've
made
this
site
plan
bed
and
they've
found
out
through
the
market
that
it's
not
appropriate
for
this
site,
and
I
I
would
feel
uncomfortable
making
an
exception
for
real
circumstances
and
get
away
from
the
site
plan
into
what
developers
suggest
it's
worth
and
I'm.
I
have
no
reason
to
believe
that
the
developers
aren't
legitimate
and
appropriate
and
capable,
but
the
cycle
is
the
site
plan
and
because
again
they
apparently
oversized
it.
F
I
I
don't
see
why
the
owner
needs
to
get
a
full
tax
break.
We've
certainly
seen
site
plans
where
there's
nothing
on
the
land
at
all.
H
H
You
know
we
don't
really
go
by
how
many
offers
what
kind
of
offers
and
what
else
somebody
else
or
somebody
else
could
do
it.
What
could
they
not
do
it?
They
could
change
it.
They
could
not
change
it.
You
know
it
really.
There
are
so
many
variables
and
we
are
not
really
going
to
make
a
decision
based
on
all
the
ifs.
H
I
think
we
have
to
look
at
it.
Just
like
we've
done
with
many
cases.
Many
slide
plans
what
it's
approved
for,
and
you
know,
regardless
of
what
steps
other
prospective
buyers
take.
If
they
change
it,
then
you
know
I'm
sure
the
value
will
change
too.
So
I
think
you
know
for
purposes
like
you
said,
for
equalization.
H
We
have
to
treat
it
the
same
way
as
everybody
else.
I
Yeah
I
saw
this
is
the
challenging
one,
because
exactly
what
you're
saying
that
we
there
is
a
slate
plan
and
there's
a
procedure
and
plan
for
sight
fans
greg,
makes
a
good
argument
in
this
too.
But
if,
if
this
was
an
existing
building
and
we
came
across
something
something
was
brought
up,
that
says
that
does
not
meet
that
value.
I
I
G
G
The
county
board
has
the
right
to
impose
conditions
upon
that
psych
plan,
and
you
know
it
could
be
you're
gonna
fix
the
road.
You're
gonna
put
a
tunnel
underneath
wilson
boulevard
to
connect
the
metro
and-
and
so
you
can't
just
say
well,
every
site
plan.
Every
unit
has
this
value
you,
you
you're,
comparing
an
apple
to
an
orange
as
far
as
why
why
mr
johnson
didn't
go
amen
the
site
plan.
G
First
of
all,
it's
enormously
expensive
when,
when
you
do
a
site
plan
from
scratch,
if
you're
doing
a
major
site
plan,
you're
talking
a
million
dollars,
that's
just
the
complexity
of
real
estate
development
in
today's
world.
You
all
may
or
may
not
have
seen
that
I'm
doing
a
site
plan
for
a
duplex
and
there's
been
a
whole
bunch
of
pushback
and
comments
by
the
public
that
it's
crazy
to
put
a
duplex
through
the
site
plan
process.
G
The
other
reason
why
mr
johnson
can't
go
amen
the
site
plan
is,
he
can't
predict
what
the
ultimate
owner
of
the
property
is
going
to
want
to
build,
and
when
I
have
represented
sellers
that
want
to
sell
property,
I
never
tell
them
go
get
a
site
plan
approved,
because
when,
when
you
do
that
you're
going
to
make
assumptions
that
the
builders
aren't
going
to
agree
with
you'll
have
one
builder
that
says
you
must
have
two
parking
spots
per
unit.
The
next
builder
says:
no,
you
don't
need
that.
G
You
only
need
one,
but
there's
always
going
to
be
changes.
The
reason
the
site
plan
got
approved
in
the
first
place.
Is
they
wanted
to
understand?
How
can
this
property
be
developed
because
they
were
being
encouraged
for
a
number
of
reasons
to
preserve
those
garden
apartments,
and
so,
in
order
to
make
sure
this
was
an
economic
thing
they
could
live
with.
G
They
got
the
site
plan
approved
and
when
you
do
the
these
site
plan
plans,
you
don't
necessarily
always
have
geotechnical
reports
on
on
on
how
you're
going
to
actually
excavate
to
put
in
that
parking
garage.
These
steps
come
later
when
you
turn
your
attention
to
the
engineering
site
plan,
so
I
I
I
think
that
the
board
is
is
trying
to
equalize.
What's
unequalizable
and
you
know
my
own
opinion,
I
would
go
to
where
the
applicant
wants
to
be.
A
Okay,
I
will
just
on
that.
I
don't
think
anybody's
trying
to
equalize
this
with
another
site
plan,
but
the
general
policy
of
the
county
has
been,
and
we've
accepted
that
as
well
as
the
court
has
accepted
that
that
if
the
site
plan
is
approved,
it's
assessed
on
the
site
plan.
So,
yes,
all
of
the
things
you
said
are
true,
but
those
things
are
also
true
on
all
the
other
folks
that
have
psych
plans.
A
So
I'm
not
sympathetic
to
that
I
mean
I
think
again,
I
don't
feel
comfortable
just
going
in
there
and
saying:
oh
I'm
going
to
reduce
it
because
of
now.
We
know
this
one
piece
because
now
we're
reducing
it
on
this
one
and
on
other
ones
we
have
not.
So
I
mean
that's
my
my
thought
on
that.
Mr
panoranda.
H
Yes,
barnes,
I
think
you're
kind
of
mixing
a
little
bit.
I
mean
we're
equalizing
the
process,
you
know
as
a
board.
We
have
to
equalize
properties
the
way
they
are
not
necessarily
that
we're
equalizing
all
side
plans
the
same
way,
because
we,
we
know
all
are
different.
They
all
apply
for
different
purposes,
they
all
apply
for
different
sizes
and
densities,
and
there
are
so
many
variables
so
we're
not
equalizing
the
parcels,
we're
equalizing,
how
we
treat
properties
as
far
as
what
the
value
we
apply
to.
H
So
the
equalization
is
not
on
the
property
itself.
You
know
what
is
the
site
plan
approved
for,
but
how
we
are
treating
them
based
on
the
status
of
the
property.
You
know
if
they
have
a
site
approval,
then
that's
what
we're
based
on
right.
I
Oh
now
it
I
understand
jose
that
it
is
that
equalization
of
the
site
plan,
but
if
it
also
goes
to
market
value
and
if
the
market
value
doesn't
say
that
it's
correct,
then
we
have
to
consider
that
and
if
it
was
an
existing
building
and
other
buildings
went
around
it
blocking
view
or
traffic
patterns
changed
or
something
that,
even
though,
that
building
has
a
value,
new
information
changed
what
it
could
be
sold
for.
I
A
A
F
Yeah,
I'm
that
just
was
thinking,
I'm
very,
very
appreciative
of
mark's
comments,
but
this
is
not
unlike
many
apartment,
multi-family
owners,
saying:
oh
we're
not
going
to
lease
up
in
a
year.
You
only
give
us
credit
for
new
year.
It's
going
to
take
two.
How
do
they
know
that
we
only
go
year
at
a
time
we
only
go
because
there's
too
many
variables
in
this
case.
No,
it
can't
be
built
out
the
full
site
plan
specs.
F
Well,
maybe
you
can
nobody
really
knows
that,
and
we
can't
guess-
and
we
can
only
go
to
what
the
approval
is-
the
approval
changes.
The
assessment
will
change,
but
we
only
know
what
we
know
in
the
present
right.
A
Okay,
I
believe
we
appear
to
be
split
here
so
and
on
with
six
of
us
on
a
tie,
it's
going
to
revert
to
the
county.
So
would
somebody
like
to
make
a
motion.
D
Sorry
about
that,
the
rationale
which
carried
last
year
was
to
do
the
county
policy,
approved
10
reduction
for
site
difficulties
in
the
86
000,
which
means
it's
77
400
per
unit,
which
would
bring
rpc
170
1705
to
8
million
or
49
600,
which
would
be
the
same
as
last
year's
assessment,
which
we
approved
as
a
board.
So
that's
my
motion.
A
It
was
not
it's
four
to
two
without
jose
and
myself.
The
assessment
is
reduced
to
eight
million
forty
nine
six
hundred
based
on
last
year's
ten
percent
reduction.
C
E
A
A
Oh
there
you
are,
they
are
perfect
all
right.
Thank
you,
okay.
The
second
case
on
the
agenda
is
economic
unit.
340
6716g,
at
3600,
south
glebe
road
we've
received
a
letter
authorizing
kuching
powell
to
represent
the
owners
on
this.
So,
mr
powell,
you
can
go
ahead
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
Sir.
J
I
appreciate
it.
Thank
you
as
you'll
see
on
page
one.
You
know
I
just
want
to
point
out
a
reminder.
I
mean
this.
This
board
did
hear
an
appeal
of
this
and
reduced
an
assessment
on
this
property
last
year.
As
a
reminder,
we're
talking
about
the
retail
component
at
the
base
of
the
property
you
see
in
the
picture
on
page
one
right,
so
this
is
related
to
the
retail
market
square.
J
There,
the
main
the
main
thing
that
sort
of
jumped
out
to
us
in
our
review
this
year,
our
bright
or
bright,
sounding
alarm
and
red
flag
was
this.
Last
year
you
saw
fit
to
reduce
the
assessment
significantly
down
to
roughly
27.7
million
dollars
with
the
effective
value
date
of
january
1st
of
20.,
and
of
course
you
know
when
we
see
the
assessment
rise.
You
know
to
28.9.
J
Roughly
this
year
the
alarms
went
off
because
we're
talking
about
a
valuation
date
in
the
midst
of
covet
for
in
the
midst
of
pandemic
and
all
the
struggles
that
are
associated
with
retail
and
so
forth
with
that
1
121
value
date,
so
we
have
to
now
take
that
into
account.
You
know
we
certainly
wouldn't
have
anticipated
any
assessment
for
that
retail
to
have
risen.
J
We
would
have
expected
it
to
stay
flat
or
or
significantly
drop
with
those
type
implications.
You
know
the
greater
risk
out
there
within
the
retail
marketplace,
so
that
was
our
first
red
flag.
If
I
took
you
to
page
two
of
our
submission,
you
can
see
on
the
bottom
left
some
a
summary
of
some
of
the
some
of
the
values
we
considered
just
so
you
understand
what
I'm
talking
about.
You
know
the
the
the
trending
assessment
for
20.
J
You
can
see
the
20
and
then
21
jumping
up
our
indicated
value
that
we
are
we
are
requesting
here
today
is
23.8
million
per
the
offering
memorandum
that
you
see
on
that
listed
as
2021
value
here
on
this
page
too,
it
lists
a
value
of
22.5
million
they're
trying
to
sell
the
property
they're.
Trying
unsuccessfully
they've,
been
trying
to
sell
this
property.
In
fact,
since
2018
at
that
point
in
time,
the
highest
the
the
highest
acceptable
bid,
they
got
was
a
25
million
dollar
bid
right.
You
can
see
that
documented.
J
They
got
some
additional
bids
in
2019,
the
highest
of
which
was
26.5
million.
You
can
see
that
documented
from
the
client
on
page
44
of
our
submission,
now
that's
height
of
market
28
and
29
and
they're
getting
bids
at
25,
26
26
and
a
half
million
dollars
on
the
high
end,
they're
willing
to
accept
an
offer
for
25
million
dollars
at
height
of
market
and
then
covet
hits,
and
now
we're
expected
to
believe
that
the
the
value
is.
J
Is
you
know
several
million
higher
than
that,
and
so,
once
again
you
can
see
it
just
didn't.
It
didn't
pass
the
basic
smell
test
for
us
and
that's
where
we
arrived
at.
We
we
utilized
county
guidelines
and
arrived
at
an
indicated
value
of
23
773
7700.
We
rounded
it
up
to
our
requested
value
of
23.8
million
dollars
today.
J
If
I
take
you
to
page
three
of
our
submission
I'll
walk
through
how
how
that's
calculated-
but
I
want
to
point
out
when
you
see
on
that,
we've
highlighted
for
you
the
significant
differences
between
our
analysis
and
the
assessors,
and
you
can
see
there
are
about
two
right
vacancy
and
collection
and
the
the
cap
rate
being
utilized
right,
the
overall
rate
and
it's
driven
entirely
by,
of
course,
the
base
cap
rate.
J
So
vacancy
and
collection
we
knew
was
significantly
off
and
within
the
assessor
analysis,
at
four
percent,
because
we
knew
actual
vacancy
alone
exceeded
5.5
before
we
even
factored
in
collection
loss
or
any
additional
risk,
or
any
impending
vacancies
that
are
about
to
incur
during
this
calendar
year.
Right
to
start
the
year.
It
was
already
at
5.5
just
pure
vacancy
before
collection
issue,
and
they
have
two
tenants
whose
whose
leases
are
known
to
terminate
this
year
within
a
month
or
so
now
right.
J
So
they
have
that
additional
uptick
in
vacancy
looming
and
it's
going
to
be
hard
to
fill
that
for
for
small
retail
spaces
in
this
market
where
retail
is
struggling,
and
so
we
think
certainly
a
vacancy
and
collection
uptick
is
warranted,
and
certainly
we
considered
it
within
our
analysis
and
then
also,
then
I
get
to
the
second
point
of
contention.
The
other.
The
other
significant
difference
is
that
base
cap
rate.
J
We
highlight
the
the
overall
rate
for
you,
but
it's
really
the
base
and
the
assessor
is
using
a
6.1
and
change
base
rate,
whereas
we're
using
a
7.3
and
that's
a
significant,
significant
difference,
and
we
don't
believe
that
the
6.1
rate
is
reflective
of
the
risk
of
the
current
retail
market
and
to
support
that
we
have
a
couple
of
different
sources.
J
But
if
you
go
to
page
five
of
the
analysis
for
an
example,
you
can
start
to
see
various
surveys
on
page
five
for
an
example
you'll
see
us
it'll,
be
we
we've
circled
it
in
red
for
you
to
make
it
a
little
easier
to
get
through
all
those
numbers
but
they're
showing
a
range
between
7.8
and
8.2
for
a
base
cap
rate
for
roots
for
retail
such
as
this
right.
J
J
So
I
think,
once
you
start
to
factor
in
all
of
these,
you
start
to
realize
that
something
you
know
just
was
a
bit
was
a
bit
off
was
a
bit
of
a
miss
with
the
initial
assessment,
and
we
understand
some
of
the
limitations
placed
upon
the
assessor
with
the
the
model
that
they're
working
with
within,
but
I
think,
certainly
it's
it's
critically
important
that
we
factor
in
you
know
where,
where
you
found
this
value
to
be
last
year
as
of
1
120,
and
recognize
that
in
a
covet
world
retail
values
are
not,
you
know,
moving
up,
you
know
they're
flat
and
and
trending
down
with
the
added
risk
that
must
be
reflected
in
potential
vacancy.
J
That
must
be
reflected
in
potential
cap
rate
changes
via
the
risk
factor
to
those
cap
rates
as
well
those
those
changes
alone,
you
know,
drive
a
significant
difference
and
that's
the
basis
of
our
case.
K
You
board
so,
first
of
all,
I
just
want
to
remind
you.
This
is
a
commercial
condo,
however,
because
of
its
substantial
size
and
its
singular
ownership.
K
But
I
want
to
direct
your
attention
to
the
summary
page
and
looking
at
the
summary
page,
we
ran
a
test
I
after
some
discussion
with
the
agent
sean
escow,
that
there
was
an
abatement
that
was
made.
So
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we,
because
when
I
first
looked
at
the
january
one
assessment
and
compared
it
to
the
2020
ine,
I
was
like.
K
Oh,
this
is
simple,
but
I
wanted
to
run
a
test
and
make
sure
that
we
had
considered
any
abatements,
and
so
we
did
and
if
you
wanted
to
see
the
only
abatement
that
was
given
for
the
year
2020.
K
It
was
on
the
rent,
roll
analysis,
and
it
was
also
mentioned
in
the
the
email
correspondence
that
went
back
and
forth
between
sean
and
I
so
only
one
tenant
received
a
covet
abatement
and
everyone
else
paid
their
rent.
You
have
a
yes,
I
understand
this,
this
area,
they
experience
visibility,
but
that's
going
to
show
in
their
rents
back
to
so
the
test.
We
gave
a
discount
of
20
cents
per
square
foot
for
the
covet
abatement
and
that's
what
you're,
showing
in
column
f
that
we
tested.
K
K
Okay,
the
our
egi
is
a
lot
less.
It's
a
hundred
thousand
plus
less
than
what
they
reported
for
2020..
K
You
go
down
to
the
noi,
it's
a
hundred
thousand
less
than
what
they
reported
for
2020,
and
once
again,
only
one
tenant
received
an
abatement.
Everyone
else
paid
their
rent,
so
we
believe
that
our
original
assessment
and
the
noi
is
well
supported.
K
That
is
all
oh.
I
I
do
want
to
mention
that
I
took
a
look
at
the
vacancy
and
there
was
a
note
that
was
made
on
the
in
the
comment
section
on
the
summary
page
and
I
put
down
that
it
was
13.3
vacant,
that's
actually
13.3
percent
of
the
small
retail
tenants
that
does
not
include
the
grocer
okay,
when
I
put
that
calculation
in
there.
K
If
you
want
to
look
at-
and
this
is
based
on
square
footage,
if
you
want
to
look
at
the
overall
vacancy
when
you
include
the
grocer,
it
comes
out
to
5.5
percent,
and
then
you
compare
it
to
their
financial
vacancy
that
they're
reporting
at
six
percent,
but
even
though
they're
reporting
a
higher
vacancy
than
what
we
used
for
stabilized
vacancy
once
again,
I
want
to
draw
your
attention
to
our
egi
and
our
noi
is
still
a
hundred
thousand
less
than
what
they're
reporting
for
the
2020
asses
2020
operating
year.
F
For
the
department,
can
you
tell
me
what
the
cap
rate
was
for
this
specific
economic
unit
from
last
year?.
K
Yes,
it
should
be,
they
believe
it
was
seven
percent.
But
if
you
give
me
a
moment,
you
want
to
ask
another
question:
no.
K
F
K
Yes,
we
looked
at
publications,
so
our
cap
rates
are
based
on
sales,
but
last
year
we
didn't
have
an
adequate
number
of
sales.
So
we
referred
to
publications
and
publications,
showed
overall,
a
30
basis,
point
increase,
and
so
we
followed
suit.
We
increased
the
cap
rate
30
basis
points
because
of
that.
F
F
G
Yes,
this
is
for
the
applicant.
You
said
that
your
two
tenants
are
are
leaving
next
year.
Is
that
correct.
J
That
is,
I
want
to
say,
pizano's
pizza
and
the
second
one
I
need
to
check
on
I'll
have
to
look
for
the
rent
roll
here.
For
you.
I
know
I
believe
one
is
paisano's.
J
G
A
All
right,
no
further
questions
miss
ruskin.
If
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up,
please.
K
Okay,
thank
you
once
again,
when
we
valued
this
property,
it
wasn't
meant
to
to
increase
anything
over
what
any
decisions
that
were
made.
Last
year
we
took
a
look
at
all.
We
had
was
the
2019
and
obviously
where
our
noi
is
less
than
2019,
and
we
also
considered
that
there
may
be
some
problems
due
to
pogon.
K
So
now
that
we
have
the
2020
income
expense
statement,
the
county
believes
that
we
are.
Our
assessment
is,
is
adequate,
it's
reasonable,
because
the
noi
is
showing
hundred
thousand
less
than
what
they
are
reporting,
and
we
just
recommend
that
the
board
confirmed
the
january
one
assessment
of
twenty
eight
million
eight
hundred
eighty
five
thousand
three
hundred.
Thank
you.
That's
all.
I
have.
C
All
right,
quick,
there
is
one
tenant
scheduled
to
have
their
lease
expired
this
year.
That's
pizzano's
pizza,
also
that's
listed
on
page
100
of
the
appellate
packet.
No
other
lease
expires
until
and
that's
from
the
rent
row.
A
J
I
believe
we
when,
when
comparing
the
capitalism
the
base
cap
rate
or
even
the
I'm
sorry,
the
loaded
cap
rate
that
the
assessor
used,
you
know
it's,
it's
notable
that
when
you're,
comparing
that
seven
to
the
seven
point
three,
you
know,
I
I
don't
believe
that's
reflective
of
seven
two
that
is
used
to
arrive
at
the
board's
decision
last
year,
which
was
a
significant
reduction
from
what
the
the
value
that
the
assessor
assigned.
J
So
I
would
caution
that
we
make
sure
we're
not
comparing
apples
and
oranges
there,
but
also
we
just
we
still.
You
know
stand
by
the
the
critical
fact
that
in
this
diminished
market
there
is
a
significant
change
to
the
risk
profile
for
property
like
this,
with
massages,
with
a
hair
and
day
spa
with
a
pizza
parlor
with
you
know,
with
with
child
care,
I
mean
we
know
that
we
know
the
the
nature
of
these
type
small
retail
spots
and
how
risky
they
are
right.
Now
you
know
talking
about
paisano's.
J
Well,
yvonne
hairspa
expired
in
2020,
byzano's
expired
in
21,
right
and
cns.
The
dental
I
mentioned
expires
in
22.,
but
there's
a
lot
of
risk
of
more
of
these
falling
off
as
well.
So
I
think
it
needs
to
be
reflected
in
the
cap
and
that's
that's
the
end
of
our
argument.
A
I
mean
I'll
start
on
this.
I
think
the
appellant
made
a
lot
of
great
arguments,
but
those
are
really
arguments
for
2022..
I
think,
based
on
the
numbers
that
we
have,
I
think
the
original
assessment
you
know.
Obviously,
once
we
see
the
2020
numbers
is
slightly
low,
so
I'm
fine
with
the
original
assessment
you
know
based
on
you,
know
the
performance,
and
I
mean
it's
lower
than
18
and
19
and
then
come
to
find
out
once
we
get
2020
it
was
lower
than
that
as
well.
H
Yeah
once
again,
mary,
I
agree
with
you,
I
think,
and
I'm
with
the
county.
In
this
case,
I
don't
think
it's
necessarily
just
reasonable.
I
think
it's
more
just
reasonable
and
and
also
generous.
I
think
the
numbers
are
reflecting.
You
know,
like
ms
roskin
said,
looking
at
all
three
numbers,
you
know
gpi
egi,
you
know,
I
think
it's
more
more
generous
than
we've
seen
in
many
cases,
so
I'm
okay
with
accounting
for
the
original
assets.
D
I
mean,
I
think,
to
me
the
risk.
The
biggest
risk
for
this
property
is
not
that
paisano's
is
going
to
leave
next
year
or
this
year.
It's
more
of
the
you
know,
six
or
seven
years
down
the
road
that
harris
teeter
decides
to
leave,
and
so
I
that
there's
still
quite
a
bit
of
term
left.
D
I
don't
really
think
we
need
to
make
an
adjustment
this
year
based
on
that,
but
it
might
be
something
to
look
at
as
you
get
closer
to
that
kind
of
impending
event,
where
they're
standing
relative
to
the
market
for
grocery
space,
you
know
what
kind
of
concessions
would
need
to
be
provided
to
retain
them.
D
I
G
A
Again,
that'll
be
for
next
year,
so,
okay,
the
only
thing
I
do
see
the
discrepancy
of
the
front
page
says
it
ends
in
400
and
the
second
or
the
grid
says
it
ends
in
300.
So.
H
K
A
A
There
we
have
it:
okay,
all
right,
perfect,
then
moving
along
to
the
third
case
on
the
agenda
rpc14045008
at
901,
north
randolph
street.
We
have
mr
blake
warren
here
for
the
owners
and
mr
warren.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
E
Thank
you
very
much,
I'd
like
to
direct
the
board
to
page
48
of
136
of
our
submitted
appeal
package.
This
is
the
randolph
towers
apartment
located
at
901,
north
randolph
street.
It's
consistent
of
one
tax
rpc.
It
was
originally
assessed
for
2021
at
197
million
230
4800,
which
is
387
000
a
unit.
E
The
county
is
currently
recommending
a
value
of
186
599
200
following
our
appeal
previously
and
the
recommendation
to
the
board.
This
is
an
older
high-rise
apartment
building.
It
was
originally
built
in
1986,
it's
509
total
units
and
21
stories
high.
E
The
the
main
issues
here
with
regards
to
the
even
the
county's
revision
has
to
do
with
the
vacancy
of
this
property.
This
again
is
an
older
property.
It
has
been
going
through
some
some
ongoing
renovations
unit
monetization
over
the
last
few
years,
and
that's
been
mainly
due
to
to
competition.
They've
had
a
high
vacancy.
You
can
see
this
not
just
last
year
from
covet,
but
that
exasperated
it
certainly.
E
Now
again
there
there
has
been
unit
modernization
ongoing
with
this.
But
again
the
cause
of
that
has
been
due
to
that.
There's
a
well
above
market
vacancy
here
due
to
the
competition
in
the
area
and
then
exasperated
by
coburn.
I
know
greg
with
ditmar.
E
L
Yeah
blake
thanks
and
thanks
good
morning,
everyone
yeah,
I
mean
normally.
The
vacancy
here
is
high,
just
based
on
the
competition
locally,
but
with
the
lease
ups,
you
know
the
waycroft
and
a
lot
of
the
crazy
concessions
that
they
were
doing,
but
more
specifically,
jason
right
behind
the
building
was
given
four
to
five
months.
L
If
you
added
up
everything
so
that
the
there
was
an
exodus
based
on
one
new
competition
locally
and
covet-
and
so
you
know
the
modernization
of
the
units
we
haven't,
pushed
any
vacancy
to
get
those
units
that
was
just
natural
turnover
and
honestly,
if
we
don't
modernize
the
units,
then
we're
gonna
have
a
different
conversation
just
about
achieving
any
rent.
So
you
know
it
would
be
the
same
story,
but
you
know
yeah,
the
the
cove
covid
and
the
direct
competition
next
door
jason
and
the
waycroft
really
drove
the
vacancy.
M
This
is
jeremy,
like
we
mentioned
this
last
year
at
the
hearing
and
were
basically
told.
Well,
let's
see
it,
that's
that's
a
discussion
for
next
year,
and
here
we
are
next
year
and
we've
seen
it
dramatically.
M
M
It
came
it's
here
and
and
now
we're
going
to
tell
you
that
in
2021
the
numbers
are
going
to
look
worse
than
they
do
in
20,
which
of
course,
will
say
well
we'll
hit
that
next
year,
but
the
the
we'll
get
it
next
year
is
here
and
it's
time
and
the
numbers
are
are
showing
that
supporting
that
so
I'll,
kick
it
back
to
blake
with
the
time
we
left.
E
Again,
you
know
with
regard
to
the
vacancy,
the
county
goes
by
their
their
high-rise
guidelines,
they're
using
five
percent,
we're
showing
that
for
the
last
three
consecutive
years,
this
property
is
operating
well
above
five
percent.
E
It
hasn't
operated
below
essentially
12
percent
dating
back
to
2018
and,
as
you
can
see,
jumped
again
to
21.5
most
recently
in
2020,
the
and
again
that's
reflective
in
the
ny,
as
jeremy
just
said,
were
approximately
you
know
the
county's
revised
or
recommended
value
their
estimated
ny
is
approximately
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
above
what
the
property
was
capable
of
achieving
most
recently
in
2020,
the
county
has
has
not
given
any.
It
has
not
given
this
property,
any
consideration
for
that
excess
vacancy
they've
stuck
with
their
guidelines.
E
So
we
would
request
that
the
county,
the
board,
consider
the
excess
vacancy
at
the
subject,
location
and
then
really.
The
last
thing
is
with
regard
to
the
assessment
increase
year
over
year,
the
the
original
2021
assessment,
197
million-
that
was
actually
approximately
a
two
percent
increase
from
the
final
2020
assessment
value.
Now
their
revised
value
would
represent
a
3.6
decrease
from
the
prior
year,
2020
assessment,
but
we
don't
think
that
that
goes
far
enough.
E
As
you
can
see
from
2019
to
2020,
the
actual
noi
decrease
was
was
approximately
eight
percent
and
as
jeremy
and
greg
have
spoke
to
previously,
we
expect
that
trend
to
continue
with
with
high
vacancy
as
this
property
struggles
to
to
compete
with
some
of
the
surrounding
properties
in
the
area
chairman.
I
don't
know
if
there's
anything
else,
you'd
like
to
add.
M
Just
at
the
end,
we
all
agree
that
when
you
are
voting,
there's
that
minus
932
321
that
both
the
county
and
the
and
ourselves
agree
on.
So
when
you
do
get
to
a
final
noi
number
capitalize
that
both
sides,
we
subtract
the
personal
property
value,
because
these
are
furnished
at
nine
hundred
thirty,
two
thousand
three
twenty
one.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chicas,
for
the
county.
Please.
N
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
mr
warren,
mr
chitlick,
this
is
randolph
towers,
we're
speaking
of
I've
surmised
fairly
nicely
by
mr
warren
and
chitlik.
Again,
I
tend
to
rely
heavily
upon
the
summary
sheet.
I
believe,
that's
page,
three
sort
of
echoing
the
comments
made
by
the
agents
and
the
owners
themselves
as
as
echoed
by
emails
with
the
agent
from
the
owners.
This
is
largely
owner-derived
vacancy.
N
You
can
see
that
again.
If
you
look
at
the
summary
sheet
in
in
the
year
2017,
they
started
these
renovations
in
2018,
continuing
in
2019
and
contending
last
year
and
in
fact,
they're
doing
them
now.
Point
of
fact,
there's
still
56
active
permits,
there's
some
eight
pages
of
permits
for
the
property
over
the
last
four
years.
N
They
admitted
in
last
year's
testimony,
in
fact,
the
emails
and
the
packet
as
well
that
they
spent
some
six
million
dollars
on
capital
improvements
over
the
last
couple
years.
That's
not
denied
by
the
owner.
In
fact,
that
makes
up
our
case
as
opposed
to
market
derived
vacancy
and
again
this
point
of
fact
right
now,
market
drive
vacancy
is
near
six
percent
again
by
the
owners
of
testation.
N
This
was
at
least
10
percent
increase
by
owner's
decision
not
to
rent
out
units
and
again
in
point
of
fact,
we
can
see
that
the
renovations
are
working.
If
you
look
at
the
growth
potential,
just
apartment
revenue
from
2017
to
2020,
it
grew
by
over
2.4
million
18
percent
gross
potential
also
grew
by
almost
2.4
million
or
16.
N
Again,
that's
just
sort
of
to
reinforce
the
fact
that
we
recognize
this
was
a
management
owner
derived
decision
to
not
allow
full
potential
rent
to
be
achieved.
That
has
been
seen
in
the
increase
here
every
year
every
year.
But,
as
a
point
of
fact,
I
think
mr
warren
made
some
claim
that
the
county
has
not
recognized
this
large
increase
in
vacancy.
N
So
I
would
beg
to
differ,
we're
very
much
in
recognition
of
the
vacancy,
but,
as
the
board
knows
using
five
percent
guideline
vacancy
forced
our
hand
to
squash
the
potential
gross
to
come
up
with
a
effective
gross,
which
is
much
more
in
line
with
the
last
four
years
again
operating
expenses
very
much
in
line
with
the
last
three
years,
they've
gone
down
three
years
in
a
row,
but
again
that
makes
sense
in
a
property.
That's
vacancy
has
increased
three
years
in
a
row
and
again
we
did
note
that
the
net
operating
income
dropped.
N
N
Again,
you
can
see,
as
mr
warren
noted,
we
did
in
fact
recognize
the
drop
in
effective
gross.
Our
year-over-year
revision
reflects
a
3.7
percent
drop,
which
we
think
is
much
more
in
line
with
the
last
three
years
of
stabilized
history.
The
appellants
again
are
looking
for
over
a
12
drop
year
every
year,
it's
just
too
aggressive.
N
It's
essentially
looking
for
a
drop
even
from
last
year,
which
was
the
lowest
that's
been
reported
over
the
last
four
years.
N
Excuse
me,
the
last
three
years,
but
again
this
is
attributable
slowly
solely
to
vacancy
decisions
made
by
the
owner,
and
you
can
see
that
in
recognition
of
the
gross
potential
income
going
up
four
years
in
a
row,
even
though
the
effective
growth
dropped
this
year
again
due
to
the
increase
in
vacancy
based
upon
the
revision
based
upon
the
property's
location,
noted,
it's
a
half
a
mile
to
virginia
square
metro,
it's
a
half
a
mile
to
boston
metro,
it's
a
block
from
boston
quarter.
It's
two
blocks
from
central
library
in
quincy
park.
N
C
I
I'll
start
to
the
point:
how
what
percentage
of
the
building
has
been
renovated?
That's
expected
to
continue.
L
F
I
know
this
building
real
well
and
the
the
owner
spent
a
great
deal
of
money,
reskinning,
the
exterior
it's
a
big
building,
so
it's
it's
real
money
and
and,
as
we've
gone
over
several
times,
spending
a
good
amount
of
money,
refurbishing
updating
the
interior,
but
I
see
that
the
effective
age
is
only
1985..
F
I
mean
it's.
A
question
just
has
to
be
asked,
although
I
assume
I
know
the
answer.
You've
taken
all
these
factors
into
account
and
the
professional
assessment
is,
it's
only
increased
in
effective
age
by
20
years,
given
where
they've
done
that
the
owner
is
done
through
1121..
F
Is
that
right,
which
affects
the
cap
rate?
Of
course,.
N
Exactly
yeah,
I
think
that
the
the
best
answers
again
and
it's
unfortunate
just
with
the
manpower
we
have
devoted
to
the
finishing
of
these
records,
I
have
not
personally
been
out
to
that
property
to
verify
the
work.
That's
been
done
over
the
last
four
years.
N
We
do
a
property
tour
and
and
try
to
make
sure
that
we
look
at
more
than
just
bathroom
skin
finishes
or
as
you're
saying
exterior.
You
know,
pressure
washing
work
or
brick
work,
whatever
we'd
want
to
do
a
more
thorough
sort
of
walk
through,
but
as
of
now
the
the
work
they've
done.
The
last
four
years
is
not
reflected
in
that
effective
answer.
N
Yes,
ma'am
again
not
to
be
today,
of
course,
we're
all
in
agreement
that
this
property
has
been
modernized
as
we
speak.
It
has
been
over
the
last
two
years
again.
We
believe
that
we
have
reflected
that
large
increase
in
owner
mandated
vacancy
again.
Our
gross
potential
revision
is
over
1.6
million
dollars
lower
than
what
what
was
achieved
in
last
year
again
in
a
covert
year.
N
Our
revision
is
3.7
percent
reduction
from
last
year,
more
in
line
with
what's
going
on
at
the
property,
the
12
percent
indicated
by
the
opponent
is
just
too
aggressive.
We
do
believe
that
186
million
599
200
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
E
Yes
again,
as
we
we've
previously
stated,
the
the
revised
column
in
the
county's
response
metal
is
recommending
an
noise,
approximately
500
000
above
what
this
property
actually
reported.
As
the
owner
has
detailed,
this
property
is
experiencing
a
downward
trend
in
terms
of
vacancy
due
to
competition
exasperated
by
covid,
and
that
trend
is
expected
to
continue
in
into
the
future.
I
think
it's
important
to
note
too.
E
These
aren't
you
know,
forced
vacancies,
they're,
not
they're,
not
kicking
people
out
of
of
these
units
to
modernize
them,
it's
as
they
become
available.
E
E
So
I
think
again
when
the
county
is
just
using
a
five
percent
market
vacancy
and
we're
showing
you
know
vacancy
year
over
year
for
the
last
several
years,
it's
been
well
in
excess
of
that.
We
don't
think
it's
it's
been
given
enough
consideration.
G
Yeah,
thank
you,
madam
chairman,
very
close
friend
of
mine
lives
here,
and
so
I
I
asked
her
about
the
23
vacancy
and
what
she
told
me
was
that
this
building
was
full
of
you
know.
Young
single
people.
A
G
When
kovit
came,
she
said
there
was
a
mass
exodus
of
the
young
single
people.
They
went
home
to.
You
know,
stay
with
their
folks
or
went
back
home
wherever
they're
from
and
they
were
able
to
work
by
a
zoom,
and
so
it's
not
it's
not
really.
I
mean
it's
partly
self-imposed,
but
partly
due
to
covit,
and
so
she
said,
management
took
that
opportunity
to
go
ahead
and
accelerate
their
renovation
program.
G
So
what
I
did
and
I'll
see
if
anyone
agrees
with
this,
I
took
the
department's
revision
and
they
have
vacancy
of
five
percent.
I
went
back
to
2017
to
try
to
get
a
more
standard,
fair
vacancy
number,
and
I
took
the
six
percent
instead
of
the
five
percent.
G
I
did
a
whole
bunch
of
math
and
I
hope
I
did
it
right
and
by
increasing
the
vacancy
by
that
one
percent,
I
ended
up
at
184,
114
600,
and
you
know
I
I
know
that
they
are
going
through
the
renovation,
but
the
the
extreme
vacancy
was
is
partially
caused
by
trying
to
catch
up
with
competition
and
partially
caused
by
the
covet.
G
So
you
know
to
in
my
mind
the
184
114
600
is
more
fair
and
I'll
see.
If
anyone
agrees
with
that.
A
Okay,
I'll
jump
in
behind
you.
A
I
listen
to
both
sides
and
I
think
both
sides
had
some
very
good
points.
I
would
certainly
agree
that
the
four
percent
reduction
was
warranted.
I
don't
think
the
12
percent.
I
think
the
12
was
a
little
bit
high,
but
I
look
at
this
and
think
I
think
the
appellant's
argument
of
you
know
almost
500
000
worth
of
income
being
capitalized
that
wasn't
achieved
is
a
good
one
and
we
do
assess
on
an
annual
basis.
It's
actually
472
000,
but
you
know
close
enough
to
call
it
500..
A
You
know
that
equates
to
8.6
million.
You
know
that's
a
pretty
significant
amount
of
money
that
does
give
me
a
little
angst.
What
I
did
is
I
took
the
actual
appellants
numbers
and
used
the
county
cap
rate
and
it
ends
up
being
an
eight
percent
drop
which
is
really
pretty
much
in
the
middle
of
you
know
where
the
two
of
them
are
at
178
million.
Eight
sixty
nine
six
hundred
you
know,
but
that's
you
know
it.
It
is
a
significant
drop.
I
don't
know
what
other
people
think
about
that.
A
I
took
the
appellant's
numbers
which
are
in
line
with
what
it
actually
reported
in
2020
and
not
you
know
nearly
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
higher
and
capped
out
each
portion,
the
apartment
in
the
retail,
with
the
county's
cap
rates
and
it
combines
at
178
869
600-
and
you
know
I
look
at
this
and
think
you
know
this
year
is
going
to
be.
You
know
it's
going
to
be
interesting
to
see
what
happens.
The
appellant
is
saying:
oh
it's
going
to
still
carry
over
into
next
year.
A
I
don't
know:
we've
read
things
that
have
said
that
you
know
especially
this
market.
You
know
the
rents
have
come
back
and
have
surpassed
pre-coveted
numbers.
So
I
don't
know
what
this
building
is
going
to
show,
but
I
think
for
this
year
since
we
do
assess
it
every
year.
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
that,
but
I'm
curious
I
see
mr
panorando
was
doing
some
numbers.
I'm
sure
he's
got
a
third
number
to
you
know.
Consider
so.
Mr
pentaronda.
H
Yeah
well,
my
number
comes
between
both
and
I'm
actually
pretty
much.
I
mean
I'm.
I
agree
with
barnes.
I
think
the
six
percent
vacancy
that's
the
same
thing.
I
did.
I
applied
the
six
percent
vacancy
adjust
to
the
apartments
and
doing
the
numbers.
I
do
come
up
with
a
lower
number
that
barnes
came
up
because
I'm
just
reducing
the
vacancy.
I
mean
I'm
increasing
the
vacancy
just
from
the
apartments
which
brings
me
to
an
egi
12.7
approximately
and
I'm
using
the
same
rate
of
expenses.
H
So
the
noi
that
I
come
up
with
is
9
million
531
537,
that's
just
the
apartment.
H
H
A
D
M
M
Mary,
just
a
quick
point
of
clarification
was
the
personal
property
removed.
That's.
A
A
All
right,
thank
you.
I
have
been
asked
to
take
a
break
by
one
of
the
board
members,
so
it's
10
16.
So
if
we
take
five
minutes
and
come
back
at
10
21,
we
can
wrap
up
the
last
two
fairly
quickly.
So
if
you
turn
off
your
microphones
and
your
cameras
during
the
five-minute
break,
we
will
see
everybody
back.
A
Okay,
we're
waiting
for
mr
matskin
and
mr
hoffman
is
miss
roskin
back
on.
Yes,
I
am
here
okay
and
then
miss
foreman
and
mr
harmon.
A
Thank
you.
We
got
everybody
there.
Okay,
well
just
give
mr
metzken
one
more
minute
and
there
he
is
okay.
Returning
to
the
agenda.
The
fourth
case
on
the
agenda
is
economic
unit,
3500
384
g
at
575,
south
12th
road.
It's
my
understanding
that
you
both
have
agreed
last
night
to
a
value.
Both
parties-
yes,
ma'am,
correct,
okay,
so
that's
the
the
economic
unit,
the
10
million
285
100.
K
A
And
the
appellant
is
has
agreed
to
that.
Okay,
all
right,
then
I
will
move
to
accept
the
withdrawal.
Do
I
have
a
second,
mr
matskin,
all
in
favor
of
accepting
the
withdrawal
I
opposed.
Okay
withdrawal
is
accepted,
okay
and
thank
you,
miss
roskin
and
then
we'll
move
mr
chicas
back
up
here.
Thank
you.
Eileen
thank.
A
A
O
Yes,
so
this
is
the
hilton
garden
in
shirlington
and
first
off
madam
chairwoman,
members
of
the
board,
mr
chiefess
good
morning,
as
I
said,
this
is
the
hilton
garden
inn
shirlington.
It
was
built
in
2009.,
so
we've
viewed
prior
board
hearings
for
hospitality,
hotel
properties
and
we
understand
the
method
methodology
the
county
has
used.
While
we
don't
agree
with
the
methodology
and
believe
that
it
results
in
assessments
in
excess
of
fair
market
value.
O
If
we
are
seeking
a
revenue
per
the
methodology
in
between
the
2018
and
2019
levels,
which
is
my
understanding
based
on
the
prior
hearings,
then
we
assume
the
occu.
Then
we
assume
occupancy
based
on
the
average
of
the
2018-2019
years.
Also,
this
was
80
occupied
in
2018
and
82
in
2019
for
an
average
of
81
percent
occupancy.
O
O
If
you
would
direct
your
attention
back
to
page
three,
please
note:
the
operating
expenses
were
five
million
one
hundred
fifty
thousand
four
hundred
fifty
three
dollars
in
2019
and
four
million
seven
hundred.
Ninety
eight
thousand
nine
hundred
twenty
seven
dollars
in
2018
in
order
to
get
to
that
rev
par
at
81,
occup
occupancy
assumed
by
the
assessment.
O
The
operating
expenses
are
not
going
to
be
the
same
or
in
between
where
they
were
in
2018
2019.
As
of
the
date
of
value,
the
expenses
will
have
increased
due
to
the
increased
cost
of
labor
and
materials,
especially
given
the
supply
issues
caused
by
the
pandemic
and
and
witnessed
by
all
parties
throughout
the
2020
calendar
year.
N
Yes
ma'am,
this
is
in
fact
I've
lost
count
of
how
many
hotels
we've
heard
this
year,
you've
heard
a
number
of
them
far
and
wide
you've
been
in
in
agreement
with
the
county's
evaluation
of
these.
As
we've
explained
in
previous
cases,
we
did
look
at
the
previous
years
again
prior
to
january
1.
The
thinking
was
that
this
may
be
a
two-year
turnaround,
which
is,
I
believe,
the
the
thinking
behind
mr
harmon's
notation
of
revenue
somewhere
in
between
2018-2019.
N
We
did
offer
revision,
reflecting
that.
I
believe
mr
armand
spoke
a
little
bit
in
the
sense
that
if
you
were
to
take
the
average
of
2018
and
2019,
you
would
in
fact
get
a
red
car
of
138.
N
I
think
he
was
quoting
the
adr
average
daily
rate,
which
would
have
been
in
that
area
about
170
or
so
per
room
regardless.
This
really
boils
down
to
the
summary
sheets
and
really
even
more
and
so,
to
columns
I
and
j.
It's
the
revision
made
by
the
county
versus
the
appellant's
opinion
of
value,
we're
both
fairly
close
in
regards
to
net
operating
income.
I
think
it's
about
30,
000
difference.
We
are
a
little
bit
lower
again
reflecting
more
in
line
with
the
2018
and
a
half.
N
If
you
will
year
2019
as
opposed
to
what
they
did
achieve
in
2019.,
this
board
is
familiar.
We
did
make
a
below
the
line
adjustment
of
65
percent
of
revenue.
This
again
is
in
line
with
every
other
select
service,
property
and
full
service
property
that
we've
seen
in
the
county,
and
this
resulted
in
a
year-over-year
reduction
of
32
percent,
bold,
but
still
warranted
with
what
happened
in
the
2020
year,
the
appendants
made
an
adjustment
of
over
145
percent
of
the
achievable
income.
N
So
it's
just
too
big
of
a
bite,
as
I've
said
previous,
that
led
to
a
year-over-year
reduction
of
over
52
percent.
You
know,
I
just
don't
believe
the
the
even
the
owner
themselves
would
be
willing
to
sell
the
property
for
the
value
tested
to
opined
by
the
representative
for
the
owner.
N
That
being
said,
and
again
in
accordance
with
what
we've
done
on
all
the
other
properties
in
the
county,
full
service
and
select
service,
and
that
being
said,
a
negative
65
adjustments
of
total
revenue.
We
do
believe
that
the
county's
revision
of
21
million-
seventy
thousand
one
hundred
should
be
confirmed
as
fair
and
equitable
anything
to
add
irvin.
G
Yeah,
I
I
didn't
catch
it.
What
what
figure
is
the
applicant
looking
for.
O
F
I
would
like
to
hear
the
appellant's
description
as
he
was
starting
on
how
it
goes
up
that
four
and
a
half
million
dollars.
What
is
it
you
adjusted
based
it
on
what
based
on
what
you've
seen
the
board
do
over
time
this
year,.
O
O
O
F
I'm
sorry,
that's
the
number
you
have
at
five
million
plus
in
column,
j
and
column
e,
so
that's
unchanged,
but
in
column,
j,
your
your
bottom
line
is
14.8
or
so
and
now
you're
upping
it
four
million
or
so,
but
the
operating
expenses
is
unchanged
in
that
same
column,.
O
So
something
else
must
change
to
get
the
14
million
up.
Whenever
I
miss
something.
So
we
have,
we
have
taken
a
new
approach,
given
the
further
understanding
that
we
have
gained
of
the
methodology
we're
now
looking
at
column,
I,
the
revised
assessment
provided
by
the
county
and
we're
adjusting
we're
proposing
adjusting
their
expense
rate
in
that
column
by
about
200,
000
or
so
correct.
Yes,
sir.
N
Yes,
ma'am
so,
unfortunately,
mr
harmon's
speculation
is
just
that
he
claimed
that
the
property
can't
achieve
more
income,
while
also
lowering
expenses,
but
they
did
that
in
2017
and
2018.
N
revenue
increased
by
almost
what
180,
000
and
the
operating
expenses
actually
went
down
by
about
400
000.
So
it's
not
unheard
of
for
this
to
happen,
and
again,
ours
is
much
more
in
line
with
what
was
actually
achieved
in
18
and
19..
If
you
take
the
average
of
what
was
reported
in
2018
column
c,
add
it
to
column
e
and
take
that
average
you'll
see
exactly
where
we
got
a
revision
from
again.
Our
revision
is
32
percent
drop
in
value
year
every
year.
N
This
is
the
first
time
we're
hearing
about
this
new
value
based
upon
by
the
penalty,
either
way.
We
do
believe
that
it's
taking
too
big
of
an
adjustment
based
on
2019's
actuals,
as
opposed
to
as
a
excuse
me.
N
What
am
I
trying
to
say
a
standardized
look
at
over
the
last
three
years
that
has
been
actually
achieved
at
the
property
so
again,
based
on
previous
decisions
made
by
the
board,
based
on
the
exact
same
rationale
used
by
the
county.
We
do
believe
that
the
revision
of
21
million
70
100
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
O
Yes,
thank
you
so
column.
I
we're
looking
at
stabilizing
the
revenue
and
the
occupancy
at
those
levels.
Those
are
20
in
between
2018
2019.
Those
expenses
will
no
longer
be
achievable
in
as
of
january
1st
2021,
as
we've
all
been
aware,
over
the
course
of
2020,
there
were
many
supply
chain
issues,
both
with
labor
and
material.
O
So
instead
of
the
typical
you
know,
rule
of
thumb,
three
percent
increase
in
inflation,
actual
prices
most
likely
rose
significantly
above
that
we're
contending
that
there's
no
way
of
achieving
the
stabilized
occupancy,
that's
assumed
by
the
assessment
at
that
operating
expense
level
and
at
a
minimum
it
should
be
the
ups
column.
I
should
be
up
to
the
2019
actual
expenses
eileen.
Do
you
have
anything.
F
It's
I,
with
extra
cleaning
and
extra
ppe
and
and
sensitivity
in
hotels
in
in
motels
cost,
should
go
up
per
person
per
room
per
activity,
but,
of
course,
there's
a
whole
lot,
less
rooms
being
let
people
in
the
place
activity.
Overall,
I
you
know
I
I
I'm
not
sure
how
to
this
is
just
20.
20
is
an
unusual
year
as
of
1
121,
and
I
don't
know
how
you
offset
fewer
people
for
more
cost
per
person
in
any
rational
way.
I
could
buy
either
of
these
operating
expenses
as
as
reasonable.
A
Yeah,
I
could
I'll
jump
in
there
as
well.
You
know
I
look
at
this
and
I'm
fine
with
the
county's
revision.
I
look
at
you
know
the
appellants
willing
to
accept
that.
I
mean
they.
You
know
want
slightly
higher
on
expenses,
but
they
also
in
their
column
also
had
you
know
a
higher
effective
gross
income
to
offset
that.
So
you
know
I
I
don't
know,
I
I'm
fine
with
what
the
county
did
and
I
think
the
revision
is
certainly
a
fair
reduction.
A
A
A
You
all
right
before
people
screwed
out
that
completes
the
agenda
for
today,
but
just
so
that
everybody
knows
on
wednesday
the
28th-
and
this
includes
miss
borman
and
mr
harman.
The
first
case
has
asked
to
withdraw
so
we'll
be
voting
on
that
so
you're,
the
second
third,
fourth
and
fifth
case
so
you'll
be
starting.
So
I
didn't
want
you
to
come
in
late
because
we'll
be
ready
to
move
to
you
immediately
at
901
on
that
day.
So
does
anybody
else
have
anything
a
business
to
talk
about
county?
No?