►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing October 6, 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
Morning
today
is
Thursday
October
6
2022.
This
is
the
Arlington
County
Board
of
Equalization
hearings.
We
have
four
cases
on
the
agenda.
Actually
one
has
been
withdrawn,
so
the
first
case
on
the
agenda
is
RPC
3402002
at
2511
Richmond
Highway.
We
have
Mr
Grant
steinhauser
with
us
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
owner,
Mr
steinhauser.
B
Morning
board:
is
it
acceptable
for
me
to
share
my
screen?
Absolutely
great,
so
this
case
is
presidential
Tower.
It's
an
office
building
in
Crystal
City,
the
original
assessment.
It
was
about
114
million.
We
appreciate
the
Assessor's
work
and
coming
up
with
a
revised
value
of
111
million
281
800..
B
Our
original
number
was
about
100
million
upon
review
of
the
Assessor's
submission.
We're
really
able
to,
we
think,
come
to
an
agreement
with
the
assessor
on
all
of
his
revised
inputs,
except
for
one.
B
The
one
outstanding
issue
is
that
there's
been
two
storage
spaces
included
within
the
vacant
office,
so
how
the
Drea
typically
handles
storage
space
is
that
they
will
take
the
actual
income
from
that
space
and
add
it.
You
know
with
the
miscellaneous
and
parking
incomes
since
they
are
taking
actuals
there,
they
will
not
apply
any
vacancy
in
collection
loss,
but
for
purposes
of
applying
any
sort
of
Market
rent.
You
know
it
would
not
be
included,
you
know
in
in
office
or
vacant
office,
or
anything
like
that.
B
So
that's
what's
happened
here
in
the
revision.
Suites
101
and
130
are
both
storage
spaces.
There
was
no
income
associated
with
that
space
in
2021.
There
was
in
Prior
years,
but
not
the
most
recent
year,
so
we
have
simply
updated
the
net
rentable
area.
B
You
know
basically
removing
those
two
spaces
from
the
vacant
office
and,
as
you
can
see,
that
it's
a
difference
of
a
total,
the
county
is
using
342
153
we're
using
338
l40
with
the
same
office
space
and
the
vacant
office
is
33
868
and
we're
using
29
708.
So
the
total
storage
is
4160
square
feet,
but
we'll
just
add
you
know:
we've
provided
pictures
of
the
space
to
the
county,
and
this
was
you
know.
B
This
was
made
as
a
as
a
settlement
offer
to
avoid
today's
hearing
if
possible,
but
we
kind
of
just.
C
B
Out
of
time,
unfortunately,
so
it's
definitely
storage
space
I
know
Rob
was
able
to
get
out
to
the
building
earlier
this
week.
Unfortunately,
the
property
manager
only
had
enough
time
to
show
him
the
storage
space
and
not
not
all
of
the
the
entire
property.
B
So
you
know,
obviously
we
offered
to
reschedule
that
if
you
wanted
to
see
the
whole
property
and
then
we
just
sort
of
came
up
on
today's
hearing,
so
that's
why
we're
kind
of
just
going
forward
with
it,
but
everything
the
same.
Just
removing
the
storage
space
from
you
know
the
the
vacant
office
portion.
B
You
know
we
come
to
a
value
of
108
million.
Eight
hundred
and
seventy
thousand
the
assessor
again
was
at
a
111
281
800..
D
Yes,
thank
you
for
this
property.
After
we
completed
our
our
review
of
the
property,
Mr
steinhauser
had
brought
up
the
storage
bases
I
then
in
turn
tried
to
get
a
inspection
of
the
storage
spaces.
I
was
able
to
get
there,
and
the
property
manager
only
showed
me
storage
spaces.
There's
a
few
other
questions.
I
had
with
respect
to
the
Suites
I
think
Mr
steinhauser
pointed
out.
Suite
101
is
storage.
D
D
D
There
was
a
signed
Covenant
for
last
year's
assessment.
Last
year's
review
and
that
encompassed
353
084
square
feet
for
the
2020
review.
We
are
at
349
693
square
feet
and
the
353-084
square
feet
of
the
sign
Covenant
last
year
did
have
amenity
spaces
included
and
I
I
tried
to
demonstrate
that
as
well.
In
the
review
this
year,
unfortunately,
I
was
unable
to
verify
the
the
total
square
feet.
D
We,
we
did
arrive
at
a
different
number
this
year,
just
going
by
what
the
rent
roll
is
saying:
349
693,
with
the
amenity
spaces,
with
no
storage.
So
there
is
some
discrepancy
as
whether
the
the
Suites
101
and
I
believe
the
other
sweet
I.
Don't
remember
off
the
top
of
my
head.
Mr
steinhauser
pointed
out
I
believe
that
the
storage
space
is
only
644
square
feet.
Unless
that
wasn't
showed
anything
more
than
that,
I
really
can't
fully
comment.
I
wasn't
able
to
see
the
full.
D
You
know
full
property,
but
that's
where
we
are
I
did
test
at
a
lower
lower
value
for
this
year.
If
we
were
to
go
over
that
those
figures.
D
So
the
current
rent
roll
showed
342
200
square
feet.
We
did
add
the
amenity
space
to
349
693
square
feet,
I
think
we're
in
agreement
of
the
amount
of
vacant
square
footage,
33,
868.
D
and
I
believe
the
appellant
was
at
15
we're
at
10
percent,
given
that
33
868
and
with
the
amenity
space
similar
to
how
we
we
look
at
the
the
vacancy
deduction
with
other
properties,
we
include
all
the
amenity
space
and
all
the
other
spaces
that
contribute
to
to
the
building
and
the
reason
why
in
this
particular
case,
it's
a
good
example
of
why
we
include
that
space
as
the
total
net
leasable
area.
D
In
this
case
last
year
there
was
management
office.
Space
about
915
square
feet
is
now
being
rented
out
to
a
tenant,
Q
networks
in
the
2021
rent
roll,
and
this
is
why
it's
important
to
for
us
to
get
the
information
and
and
really
put
eyes
on
the
property.
If
you
will
just
to
verify
the
information
with
that,
that's
all
I
have
we're
open
to
questions
the
actual
Covenant
from
last
year.
I'm.
Sorry,
let
me
add
that
was
for
117
371.
D
this
year,
with
with
the
reduction
we're
at
111
361
200..
Thank
you.
E
E
Okay
and
that
question
from
Rob
I'm
not
sure
what
the
board's
gonna
do
with
this.
But
if.
D
I
mean,
of
course,
the
inspection
would
help,
but
as
far
as
our
timeline,
we
really
like
to
you
know
just
get
this
settled
as
far
as
you
know
getting
if
we
postponed
it
to
a
different
time.
It
may
take
a
slot
for
a
different
case.
If
you
will
and
right
now,
we
don't
want
to
extend
our
our
Graces.
As
far
as
how
many
days
we
have
left
to
hear
the
Boe
hearings.
A
Okay,
I
have
a
question
on
that
same
thought,
because,
to
quote
your
own
words
to
get
this
information
would
be
really
helpful.
When
did
you
ask
for
this
information.
D
That
was
that
was
he
emailed
927.
A
Right
so
I
mean
this
is
kind
of
part
of
the
same
thing
that
we've
had
on
multiple
cases
where
you
guys
are
just
getting
to
these
cases
and
asking
for
this,
and
unfortunately
not
all
the
appellants
are
just
sitting
here
waiting.
You
know
to
be
accommodating,
so
you
know
this
is
a
problem.
If
you
haven't
had
a
chance
to
go
out
and
look
at
it,
I
don't
know
I,
guess,
I,
don't
know
how
the
board
would
feel
about
this,
but
we've
got
three
cases
on
October
12th.
A
We
could
postpone
this
and
let
the
county
go
out
and
do
the
inspection
and
get
these
numbers
right,
because
you
got
two
totally
contrasting
opinions
here
of
what
storage?
What's
not
you
know
and
just
to
say
for
the
county
like,
oh
well,
we
didn't
get
the
information
we
just
asked
for
the
information.
E
F
A
A
Right
I
mean
I'm
fine
with
that,
but
I
just
think
I
mean
the
main
issue.
Here
is
the
storage
yeah,
so
you
know
if
they
haven't
been
given
an
opportunity
to
provide
it
and
I.
Don't
know
what
happened
the
day
that
they
went.
Why
they
couldn't
see
it,
but
I
mean
to
find
out
this
stuff
one
day
and
then
ask
for
the
stuff
and
keep
saying.
Well,
we
didn't
get
the
information,
I
mean
I,
don't
think
it's
fair
on
the
taxpayer.
G
In
addition
are
related
to
it
directly,
we
saw
a
picture
of
a
big
open
shell
space
with
a
couple
of
cages
in
it,
and
the
department
said
well,
those
cages
are
clearly
storage
and
they
ought
to
be
treated
as
such.
G
My
understanding,
therefore,
is
that
the
rest
of
that
big
space,
which
is
much
larger
than
the
cages
my
question
is:
can
you
is
anybody
going
to
rent
an
office
that
has
storage
cases
in
them
that
it
says
somebody
else's
stuff
in
them?
And
so
my
question
isn't
that
whole
big
space,
it's
one
of
two-
is
not
the
whole
thing
store
set
aside
for
storage,
it's
just
not
divided
up
right.
D
A
D
It
was
I
did
measure
it.
What
Mr
steinhauser
is
saying
is
that
that
equates
to
4
000
plus
square
feet
of
storage,
which,
in
my
assumption
and
my
measuring
of
the
cages
and
to
include
Ken
to
your
point,
the
rest
of
that
area.
It's
not
4
000
square
feet.
A
B
A
B
You
can
definitely
Rob.
We
can
definitely
get
to
the
bottom
of
this,
but,
like
I
just
need
more,
you
know
I've
just
heard
from
you
on
this
case
last
week
that,
with
the
case
was
already
the
next
day
was
scheduled
for
the
Boe,
so
I
didn't
even
have
that
kind
of
period
where
we
would
normally,
you
know,
have
some
back
and
forth
decide
if
we
can
come
to
an
agreement
or
not.
This.
This
case
was
already
put
on
schedule.
The
next
day,
yeah.
A
H
To
the
appellant,
the
statement
was
made:
is
it
correct
that
the
amenities
are
now
they're,
not
common
amenities,
they're
least
to
a
tenant.
D
B
In
fact,
just
real,
quick
but
I
believe
what
Mr
Peralta
said
is
the
management
office
from
last
year
now
has
a
tenant
in
it,
and,
and
that
was
why
Mr
Peralta
like
needed
to
see
the
spaces
or
whatever,
and
that
is
true.
The
management
office
leads
to
their
smaller
office
space
and
moved
it
to
a
different
office.
On
the
first
floor,.
B
Included
yeah,
there's
5
000
square
foot,
Conference
Center
and
about
2500
square
foot,
Fitness
Center.
I
A
F
Grant,
do
you
know
it
the
storage
space?
It
looks
like
there's
on
the
rent
world.
You
know
it's
kind
of
interesting,
tenants
and
stuff
in
that
building.
Is
it?
Is
it
like
the
tenants
you
get
the
office
space
upstairs
and
then
they
part
of
the
deal?
Is
they
get
to
kind
of
free
use
of
some
storage
area
or
or
is
this,
like?
F
You
know,
storage
units
that
are
out
for
anybody
that
wants
to
go
and
Lease
them
out
on
the
market?
My.
B
Understanding
is
historically,
they
had
leased
them
to
tenants.
So
there
had
been,
you
know
like
25,
000
of
income
or
so
associated
with
the
spaces,
but
in
the
most
recent
year
none
of
them
were
leased.
It
was
more,
the
building
was
using
them
to
store,
you
know,
cleaning
supplies
and
things
of
that
nature.
F
D
Yes,
thank
you
I
just
like
to
reiterate
that
the
suite
number
on
the
rent
roll
is
Suite
101.
D
when
I
inspected
the
property,
the
directory
says
Suite
101
is
occupied
by
the
management
management
company
when
upon
review,
I
did
measure
that
area
and
it
doesn't
amount
to
four
thousand
plus
square
feet
as
miss
Mr
steinhauser
mentions
for
that
total
amount
of
square
footage
that
was
allocated
that
he
believes
is
allocated
towards
storage
again.
The
difference
that
we
came
up
with
in
our
square
footage
for
the
2022
test
amounts
to.
D
349
693
square
feet:
the
appellant
is,
is
at
337
125
square
feet.
If
we
were
to
equalize
that
and
possibly
deduct
the
square
footage
for
the
storage,
then
we'd
have
to
equalize
the
total
amount
of
square
footage
that
is
being
used
as
well.
All.
B
Sorry
so
yeah
this
one
obviously
comes
down
to
the
store
space.
I
just
wanted
to
show
on
the
test:
the
assessor
node
storage,
3829
square
feet
in
2020
review,
and
then
this
heat.
This
is
the
2021
test
or
excuse
me
this
is
this
year's
test,
and
you
know
it's
zeroed
out
that
square
footage
was
for
some
reason
then
lumped
up
here.
B
So
it's
not
like
this
is
the
first
year
they've
ever
claimed
that
there's
any
storage
at
the
building,
there's
always
been
approximately
4
000
square
feet
of
storage
at
the
building.
Historically,
the
assessors
just
included
the
actual
income
from
the
storage
space
down
here
with
the
parking
pass
through
miscellaneous,
there
isn't
any
associated
with
it
this
year.
B
It's
wrong
to
just
include
it
as
vacant
office,
space
I
think
I
showed
pictures
of
the
spaces.
You
know
it's
definitely
storage
space
now
I
hope.
The
board,
you
know,
will
consider
my
my
reasonable
argument
here
and
and
rule
for
a
value
of
108
million
870
000.
E
Yeah
I
mean
it's
a
county,
is
stubborn
and
doesn't
want
to
go.
Look
at
it
again.
E
With
the
lesser
amount
and
that
I'd
be
inclined
to
go
to
the
108
870.
I
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
that
storage
that
otherwise
would
have
been
charged
for
is
not
going
to
be
charged
and
what
is
a
challenging
market
for
office
space?
So
you
know
I'm
going
to
offer
Rob
an
opportunity
assuming.
F
Too,
if
you're,
a
landlord
you
don't
put
vacant
space,
is
a
shell
storage
on
your
rent
roll
and
make
all
those
updates
to
your
accounting
to
try
to
fool
the
county
about.
You
know:
5
000
square
feet
of
rentable
rate
right
like
nobody.
Does
that
so
and
and
grants
never
kind
of
misled
us
on
anything
in
the
past
here
so
track
record
goes
a
long
way.
H
One
of
the
things
is
I
was
listening
to.
This
was
the
deviation
from
the
historical
roughly
4
000
square
feet
is.
It
was
the
Management's
location
and
the
storage
units.
They
moved
their
location
rented
that
space,
so
this
4
000
may
not
be
valid
for
the
new
Management's
office
space
and
that
little
space
that
Rob
did
measure
I
think
they
need
to
figure
out
what
the
real
numbers
are
and
that
4
000
has
just
been
carried
forward
each
year,
maybe
not
that
the
owners
did
anything
intentionally
wrong,
but
it
doesn't
sound
like
the
numbers.
A
A
All
right,
then,
that
being
said,
I
I,
you
know
this
is-
will
be
certainly
something
that
we
can
address
on
the
the
12th
but
I'm
in
agreement
with
Barnes
that
if
it
can't
be
done
by
the
12th,
then
I'm
willing
to
go
to
the
108..
So
I
will
move
to
postpone
the
motion.
The
final
motion
and
the
vote
on
this
until
the
October
12th
hearing
and
in
the
meantime,
it's
up
to
the
county
to
make
arrangements
with
Mr
steinhauser
get
out
there
get
the
numbers
correct.
A
Otherwise,
we'll
make
a
decision
based
on
the
information
that
we
have
and
that
decision
will
be
what
it
may
sure.
So,
a
motion
to
postpone
the
vote
on
the
hearing
is
made.
Do
I
have
a
second
second
Mr
Lawson
is
the
second
all
in
favor,
I
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
A
Six
to
zero:
we
will
postpone
the
vote
on
this
and
docket
it
for
the
12th.
A
Okay,
just
in
case
anybody's
working
off
the
old
agenda,
the
rpc-34027063
there
was
an
accepted
settlement
to
withdraw
on
9
29.
So
we
won't
be
hearing
that
case
so
moving
on
to
the
next,
do
we
have
Mr
Warren
on
yep
I.
A
A
J
J
Thank
you
very
much,
sorry
about
that.
I
know.
It's
been
three
days
in
a
row.
You
guys
have
seen
me
so
you
guys
are
probably
tired
of
me
at
this
point
this
week,
but
I'll
direct
the
board,
please
to
page
102
of
243.
J
Which
again
shows
our
summary
of
facts.
This
is
the
Richmond
Square
Apartment
Complex,
it's
located
at
900
North,
Randolph
Street.
It
is
consistent
of
five
taxable
rpts.
The
combined
original
assessment
for
those
was
124
million.
271
700.
J
the
county
is
recommending
a
revision
of
117
463
700..
The
property
was
originally
built
in
1996
360,
total
units.
It's
a
high
rise
in
the
Fallston
and
Virginia
Square
sub
Market.
It's
it's
consisting
of
one
building
and
19
Stories.
The
community
offers
a
mix
of
one
two
and
two
bedroom
units,
as
well
as
street
level,
retail,
again
I'll
direct
the
board,
please
to
I
believe
page
three,
which
is
the
County's
mixed
use,
income
and
expense.
Summary.
J
These
properties
today
are
going
to
be
very
similar
to
the
properties
we
discussed
yesterday
prior
to
covet.
They
were
fairly
stabilized
properties
and,
as
you
see
in
2020
from
2020
to
2021,
you
see
a
severe
drop
in
Gross
potential
rental
income
and
gross
potential
income.
J
There
was
a
a
pretty
drastic
increase
in
vacancy
from
2019
to
2020,
at
2.75
in
2019
that
that
increased
to
nine
percent
in
2020,
and
then
you
see
that
that
decrease
again
to
4.2
percent
in
2021
because
of
the
concessions
and
lowered
rents
that
started
being
offered
again
to
to
drive
vacancies
kind
of
been
a
consistent
theme.
J
However,
those
lower
rents,
it's
going
to
take
a
couple
years
to
to
get
back
up
to
where
this
these
properties
were
prior
to
covid,
but
it's
kind
of
there
in
the
details
of
High
vacancy
concessions,
and
then
they
had
to
lower
rent
to
get
people
in
the
door
again.
The
market
that
we've
kind
of
spoken
about.
It's
not
necessarily
a
given
that
these
tenants
once
they're
in
there
for
for
a
12-year
lease,
will
stay
there.
J
It's
very
very
much
a
concession-driven
market
moving
forward,
so
effective
growth
income
you'll,
see
as
we've
spoken
about
with
with
many
of
the
ditmar
properties,
is
on
a
three-year
downward
Trend
in
effective
gross
income
from
almost
10
million
dollars,
9.98
million
dollars
in
2019
down
to
9.26
million
in
2020
and
then
most
recently,
8.85
million
in
2021
and
the
assessors
revised
test
column
they're,
still
approximately
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
above
what
the
property
was
able
to
generate
at
9.125
million
operating
expenses.
E
J
Property
operated
at
a
29
operating
expense
ratio
in
2018
27
and
a
half
percent
in
2019
30
and
a
half
percent
in
2020
and,
most
recently,
almost
35
percent
34.7
percent.
The
County's
revised
test
column
uses
an
operating
expense
ratio
of
31.6
net
operating
income
again,
a
three-year
downward
Trend
in
the
reported
net
operated
income,
7.2
million
in
2019
down
to
6.4
million
in
2020
and
down
again
to
5.78
million
in
2021.
J
The
County's
revised
test
column
is
a
net
operating
income
which
you
add
in
the
the
retail
of
six
million
300
000,
which
again
we're
almost
five
we're
over
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
above
what
this
property
was
was
capable
of
generating
most
recently
in
the
2021
reporting
year.
J
So
again,
we're
asking
the
board
consider
the
the
downward
Trend
the
impact
of
covet
that
this
property
had
most
recently
in
2021
and
the
time
it's
going
to
take
to
stabilize
this
property
and
and
increase
rents
back
up
to
the
the
levels
it
was
able
to
generate
at
prior
to
prior
to
covet.
J
I
think
Greg
and
Sophie
from
ditmar
have
have
logged
in
recently.
Greg
I,
don't
know!
If
there's
anything,
you
would
like
to
add
regarding
Richmond
Square.
J
And
with
that,
that's
all
we
have
thank
you.
K
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning,
Blake
I,
think
Blake
said
as
well
in
regards
to
looking
at
this
the
same
way,
we've
looked
at
other
cases
this
year,
especially
ditmar.
K
You
know
we
do
look
at
this
a
little
bit
differently
in
the
sense
of
they're
placing
a
good
bit
of
weight
on
solely
on
the
year
2021.
We
recommended,
as
we've
done
consistently,
that
we
look
at
this
as
a
stabilized
property.
What
it's
been
able
to
achieve
over
the
last
four
years.
We
don't
dispute
again
that
there's
been
a
downturn,
specialist
Blake
noted
in
2021
again
the
scenes
that's
fairly
apart
from
the
course
as
far
as
what's
going
on
at
the
property.
K
K
We
can
see
it
worked
and
that
as
Mr
Warren
noted,
it
dropped
from
approximately
nine
percent.
True
vacancy
down
to
just
over
four
but
of
course,
concessions.
C
K
K
We
could
see
that
virtually
all
the
income
Revenue
producing
segments
of
the
property
went
down,
except
for
some
of
the
retail
at
one
point.
Excuse
me,
including
some
of
the
retail,
so
I
would
point
out
that
we
noted
this
revision.
Excuse
me.
We
noted
that
Downtown
Vision
again
as
we've
done
now
consistently.
We
look
at
the
previous
three
years
placing
more
weight
on
2021
Less
on
2018.
K
If
we're
looking
at
operating
expenses,
please
note
that
we're
actually
higher
than
the
three-year
average
we
are
higher
than
what
was
achieved
for
the
18
2019
and
2020.
I
was
going
to
stabilize
that
nature
again.
Looking
at
it.
That
leads
us
to
net
operating
income.
We've
done
the
same
thing
there.
There
is
a
drop
three
years
in
a
row,
but
again
it
increased
to
quite
a
bit
higher
than
what
you
see
in
2018..
Again.
The
projection
made
by
the
county
is
actually
lower
than
what
was
achieved
in
years,
18,
19
and
20..
K
K
K
A
J
Yes,
just
quickly
again
and
Greg
spoken
to
this
previously
too,
but
we
would
contest
the
issue
that
that
concessions
are
are
burning
off
quickly.
Once
you
once
you
drive
occupancy.
J
What
we've
seen
and
what
Greg
has
attested
to
previously
is
that
these
tenants
that
are
signing
12-month
lease
is
you're
not
able
to
to,
at
the
end
of
the
release,
increase
the
rent
back
up,
40
50
to
where
they
were
prior
to
cobit
and
what
they're
doing
is
hopping
from
from
building
to
building
based
on
whoever
is
offering
the
best
concession
package.
J
So
it's
been
that
way
for
even
prior
to
coven
a
little
bit
in
in
this
specific
market,
and
we
don't
see
that
that
changing
again
as
as
Chris
stated,
the
revised
assessment
is
a
three
percent
decrease
from
the
final
2021
assessment.
However,
again
it
should
be
noted
that
year,
over
year,
net
and
operating
income
from
20
2020
to
2021
decreased
by
10
and
a
half
percent.
F
A
F
F
We
just
did
Virginia
Square,
which
is
like
a
block
away
very
similar
building,
and
it
was
393
000
a
unit
was
the
reduced
assessment
and
this
one's
at
345.
F
F
Folks,
I'd
be
willing
to
go
back
to
the
original
revert
to
the
original
assessment.
E
C
E
83
bucks
a
month
per
unit
which
I
don't
think,
is
an
unreasonable
assumption.
G
E
They're
going
to
have
to
if
you
spread
it
out
over
every
single
unit
and
spread
it
out
over
every
single
month,
they
have
to
bring
in
83
dollars
more
a
month
per
unit
in
order
to
get
to
where
the
county
estimates
and
I
think
that's
doable.
Right
now,
I
mean
we
see
articles
about
it
of
you
know
how
rents
are
skyrockets
Mr.
H
I
Yeah
I
mean
I,
looked
at
the
original,
the
same
as
Mr
Hoffman
did
and
the
only
thing
that
I
had
a
problem
was
with
the
expenses
I
took.
You
know
they
could
have
been
increased
a
little
bit
on
the
revised
I.
Think
Mr
Checkers
did
a
little
more
generous
than
whatever
yeah
yeah
I
would
have
probably
gone
to
30
or
30,
and.
E
E
G
Mr
Greg
brought
up
real
apparent
disparities
between
dollars,
evaluation
per
unit,
but
we
haven't
really
overlaid
those
two
buildings
and
how
many
studios
and
one
bedrooms
and
God
knows
what
so,
although
it
seemed
very
impressive
I
I'm
without
that
I
couldn't
agree.
But
I
do
agree.
Nonetheless,
with
exactly
what
with
Jose
said.
A
A
J
Thank
you
very
much
again:
I'll
direct
the
board
to
to
start
off
on
page
39
of
120,
which
is
our
summary
of
facts.
This
is
the
Virginia
Square
Plaza
Apartment
Complex,
located
801
North
Monroe
Street,
it's
consistent
of
one
tax
RPC.
J
It
was
initially
a
theft
for
2022
at
75
million
at
696
500.
and
the
county
is
recommending
a
revision
of
72
million
87
600..
The
property
was
originally
built
in
1999
225,
total
units
and
located
in
the
Boston
Virginia
Square
sub
Market.
It's
one
building
and
Nine
Stories.
The
community
offers
a
mix
of
one
two
and
three
bedroom
units
moving
on
again
to
page
three,
the
County's
income
and
expense
summary
again.
J
This
is
very
similar
to
the
prior
property
that
we
we
discussed
with
regards
to
a
increase
in
vacancy
in
2020
and
increase
in
in
concessions
and
the
lowering
of
rent
following
in
2021
to
drive
occupancy
in
2020,
the
or
I
should
say
in
2021.
The
gross
potential
rent
decreased
from
5
million
800
000
in
2020
to
5.5
million
in
2021.
The
County's
revision
is
approximately
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
above
that
and
gross
potential
income
at
6.3
million.
J
In
2020
that
dropped
to
six
million
seventy
thousand
again,
the
county
is
over
340
000
above
effective
gross
income
in
their
revised
test
column
for
regarding
the
effective
gross
income,
we're
again
showing
a
three-year
downward
Trend
in
effective
growth
income
from
six
point
or
almost
6.1
million
in
2019,
down
to
6
million
in
2020
and
further
down
to
5.7
million
in
2021.
The
counties
revised
effective
gross
income
is
approximately
200
000
above
what
the
property
was
able
to
to
generate
in
total
income
in
in
2021.
J
With
regard
to
our
operating
expenses,
this
property
ran
in
a
31
operating
expense
ratio
in
2018
32
in
2019
34
in
2020
and
increase
to
36
in
2021..
The
counties
revived
tescom
is
is
using
a
operating
expense
ratio
of
34.75
in
their
revised
test
column,
net
operate
income
again,
a
three-year
downward
Trend
year
over
year,
4.1
million
in
2019
4
million
approximately
in
2020,
and
then
all
the
way
down
to
3.67
million
in
2021.
J
The
the
counties
revised
test
column
is
approximately
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
above
what
this
property
was
able
to
generate
in
the
in
the
2021
calendar
year.
The
original
assessment
of
75
million
696
000,
that
was
a
an
approximately
a
1.6
increase
from
the
prior
year.
2021
assessment
be
the
year
over
year,
net
operating
income
decreased
from
2020
to
2021
by
7.45.
J
The
the
amount
of
time
it's
going
to
take
to
to
increase
moderately
those
those
rental
rates
to
to
get
back
up
to
the
rental
levels
prior
prior
to
covid,
Greg
or
Sophie
from
ditmar
I.
Don't
know!
If
there's
anything,
you
would
like
to
add
regarding
this
property.
C
No,
that
was
well
said
Blake.
We
just
want
to
iterate
that
the
fact
that
for
the
board,
to
consider
that
there
is
a
decrease
in
noi
and
increasing
expenses
is
definitely
becoming
more
expensive
to
operate
and
maintain
the
building
Regina
Square
Plaza.
Thank.
K
Again,
I
view
this
very
similarly
to
the
last
case
and
to
most
of
the
other
cases
we've
heard
this
year
we
saw
an
increase
in
apartment
revenue
and
gross
potential
income
18
to
19,
19
and
20..
We
saw
a
decline
in
2021,
I
think
we're
on
the
same
page,
that's
essentially
attributable
to
increasing
concessions
decreasing
and
achievable
rents
to
increase
bodies
in
the
building.
K
K
As
of
January
1st,
again,
we
look
at
this
as
a
stabilized
nature,
because
we're
applying
a
guideline
vacancy
of
eight
percents
quite
a
bit
higher
than
what's
been
achieved
with
the
property,
either
on
a
yearly
basis,
but
definitively
when
looking
as
a
stabilized
nature,
we
do
have
to
project
our
apartment
revenues
up
a
bit,
so
obviously
you
can
see
that
the
projection
is
higher
than
what's
been
achieved
at
the
property.
K
But
we
do
ask
you
to
please
note
that
that's
to
achieve
a
stabilized,
effective
gross
which
is
essentially
line,
20
Star,
Line
11..
So,
as
you
can
see
in
column,
n
line
11,
our
effective
gross
is
very
much
in
line
with
the
property.
In
fact
it's
lower
than
what
was
achieved:
2020
2019
and
barely
over
what
was
achieved
four
years
ago
in
2018.
K
in
regards
to
operating
expenditures.
We
did
note
that
they've
increased
year
over
year
of
year
over
year,
we
noted
that
we've
stabilized
those
numbers
again.
The
projected
made
projections
made
for
operating
expenses
by
the
county
is
higher
than
what
was
achieved
at
the
property
in
1819
or
20
in
some
19
000
or
so
twenty
thousand
below
what
was
achieved
last
year
again,
a
good
bit
ahead
of
what's
been
achieved
there
as
an
average
over
the
last
two
years
or
three
years
regards
to
net
operate
income.
K
Again,
we
look
at
this
very
much
the
same
way
as
we
have
previous
properties.
We've
been
consistent.
Look
at
these
as
a
stabilized
nature,
given
that
we
stabilizing
the
effect
of
growth
and
stabilize
the
operating
expenditures
that
essentially
gives
us
to
stabilize
net
operating
income.
Again.
I
would
note
that
it's
lower
than
what
was
achieved
at
the
property
in
18
lower
than
was
achieved
at
the
property
19
lower
than
what
was
achieved
at
the
property
in
2020.
and
by
good
bit,
140,
000
or
so
lower.
K
K
A
J
No
I
mean
really
just
to
summarize
what
we've
been
saying.
J
A
E
I'll,
throw
out
my
thoughts
so
first
I'll,
look
at
the
income
124
a
month
per
unit,
consistent
with
other
assessments
that
we've
reviewed
and
so
I.
Don't
think
we
can
look
at
it.
I
don't
think
we
can
look
at
reducing
the
assessed
value
based
on
less
income,
less
anticipated
income,
but
I
do
question
the
expenses
and
knowing
what
I
know
that
the
world
is
more
expensive
now
and
with
inflation
and
supplies
Etc.
So
the
one
very
small
adjustment
I
did
to
what
Chris
did
and
by
the
way
I
think
Chris.
E
F
A
E
J
G
I
saw
that
exact
same
thing
and
I
I
did
it.
It's
not
I
focused
on
it,
not
because
it's
in
column
G,
but
rather
it's
a
natural
progression
of
a
27
year
old,
building's
operating
expenses
year
over
year,
which
has
clearly
shown
here
so
I
I
was
reluctant
to
say.
Well,
that's
not
a
lot
of
money,
but
when
you
cap
it
out,
it
starts
to
be
real.
More
than
pocket
changing.
I
I'll
check
I'm,
not
sure
to
be
honest,
that
because,
overall,
if
you
look
at
it,
you
know
the
opponent
is
asking
us
just
to
look
at
the
GPI
which
and
then
he's
asking
us
to
look
at
the
egi
based
on
the
previous
years,
but
I
think
in
my
opinion.
Overall,
the
expenses
are
34
75
percent.
I
If
we
increase
that
we're
looking
at
on
35
ratio
on
expenses
and
I,
think
it's
a
bit
High
as
far
as
numbers,
yeah
I,
think
you
know
it
makes
sense
what
you're
saying
but
I'm
looking
at
the
same
way
as
the
previous
case,
I
think
the
as
far
as
percentages
I
think
the
impression
did
a
good
job.
E
A
A
Absolutely
no
I
mean
when
you
go
ahead
and
you
lower
the
GPI.
Well,
of
course
you
know
the
expenses.
You
know
the
percentage
is
going
to
go
up,
so
it
looks
like
they're
giving
them
something.
But
they're,
not
the
numbers
are
the
numbers.
If
you
look
at
one
eight,
one,
nine
two
million
two
million
too
many
you
know
look
at
where
it
is
in
the
2
million
I
mean
I.
Think
you
know
the
appellant
has
made
a
good
argument.
A
I
E
I'll
go
ahead
and
make
the
motion
Jose
I,
I
move.
We
reduce
the
assessed
value
to
71
million
695
100.
E
Oh,
the
reason
is
I
think
the
expenses
ought
to
at
least
be
at
the
same
percentage
as
they
were
last
year.
A
A
Okay,
the
assessment
is
reduced
to
71
million
695
100,
based
on
the
counties,
column,
F
revision
and
increasingly
expenses
by
twenty
one
thousand.
A
Okay,
then,
we
will
stand
adjourned
at
9
54
to
re-adjourn
next
Tuesday,
the
11th
at
9
00
a.m.
It
is
in
person.
I
asked
the
board
members
to
stay
for
a
second
just
to
finish
up
some
stuff.