►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - July 14, 2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
morning,
this
is
the
arlington
county
board
of
equalization
hearing
for
tuesday
july
14
2020..
The
first
case
on
the
agenda
is.
A
B
Great
thank
you
very
much
good
morning.
Everyone
so
we're
talking
about
properties,
called
airport
plaza,
one
located
2711
jefferson,
davis,
highway.
We've
spoken
about
this
property
before
you've
seen
us
here
before
to
discuss
it.
You
know.
Unfortunately,
this
property
is
just
it
struggles
with
the
vacancy
issues.
It's
an
unusual
location.
There's
you
know
it's
an
older
building
and
the
issues
really
just
been
vacancy
over
the
years.
B
So
you
know
one
of
the
things
that
we
we
did
here
when
we
looked
at
the
property
again
for
this
year,
we
were
just
going
through
the
different
ine
and
taking
a
look
at
the
vacancy
issues,
and
we
just
didn't
feel
like
the
amount
of
credit
for
both
the
the
vacancy
and
the
lease
up
were
quite
right.
As
far
as
the
assessment
went,
so
we
put
together
a
model
for
you
looking
at
the
last
three
years
of
income,
and
we
also
put
together
a
pro
forma
here.
B
So
you
know
this
property
again
for
this
year,
struggled
with
it's
over
60
vacancy,
and
there
is
one
other
issue,
and
this
was
addressed
last
year
was
the
issue
of
the
cap
rate
and
the
whether
it
should
get
a
metro
cap
rate
or
a
non-metro.
B
Last
year
we
discussed
that
because
of
the
location
and
the
difficulty
in
actually
accessing
the
metro
it
was
about
a
mile
and
that
the
board
decided
that
the
metro,
non-metro
cap
rate
of
7.4
or
for
crystal
city,
it's
actually
7.443.
B
I
in
in
my
packet,
I
wrote
7.4,
it's
actually
7.443
was
appropriate
and
so
we're
asking
that
that
be
used
and
this
year
because
of
the
unique
situation
with
covid19
we're
actually
asking
that
an
increase
to
the
cap
rate
be
given
because
of
the
risk
of
the
property
in
the
current
market.
B
I
know
that
you
know
that
is
something
that
folks
are
considering.
Some
folks
feel
like
that's
an
issue
for
next
year,
but
we
really
feel
like
it's
a
2020
issue.
This
property
is
definitely
worth
less
than
it
was.
You
know
last
year
because
of
the
the
situation
with
cope
with
19..
B
Let
me
get
into
what
we
have
a
few
minutes.
Let
me
get
into,
and
this
property
specifically
can
point
to
some
actual
tenants
that
have
asked
for
rent
abatements
and
there's
three
tenants
that
have
asked
for
abatements
and
it's
a
total
of
over
238
thousand
000
for
the
year.
B
That's
going
to
be
missing
revenue
for
the
ownership,
and
so
I
know
sometimes
there's
just
a
thought
that
vacant
that
vacancy
would
be
an
issue
or
that
you
know
it's
just
a
little
bit
less
valuable,
but
this
is
actually
some
supportable
evidence
and
that's
based
on
a
document
that
I
have
here
on
page
five,
where
folks
are
asking
for
their
rent-
and
you
know-
and
I
wanted
to
show
that
to
you
as
well.
But
let's
look
at
our
model
on
page
four:
does
everyone
have
the
paperwork
that
I
submitted?
B
B
We
looked
again
at
the
last
three
years
of
income
and
I
charted
those
on
the
right
hand,
side
against
the
assessor's
model
on
the
top
on
the
far
right,
assessor
2020,
and
then
we
built
our
pro
forma
income
based
on
the
actuals
and
the
assessor
model.
So
we
took
we
took
occupied
and
vacant
square
footage.
We
kept
it
the
same
at
26.50.
B
Again,
you
can
see
that
model
there.
We
use
30
for
the
retail
parking
income
and
parking
income
vacancy
of
25,
and
we
came
down
here
with
a
net
effective
income
of
2.9
and
then
use
a
similar
model
for
expenses
that
the
county
uses
950
and
we
came
out
with
an
noi
of
1
million
715
0.96,
and
this
is
where
the
cap
rate
issues
come
in
here
again
we're
using
a
7.94
that
that's
the
non-metro
and
then
an
extra
50
basis
points
for
covid19.
B
So
if
perhaps
you
were
not
looking
at
code,
but
19
could
subtract
that
and
use
the
seven
point.
Four
four
three-
and
you
know
again
just
changing
the
cap
rate
to
the
non-metro-
affects
this
property
such
that
it
you
know
would
would
be
considerably
less
than
the
current
assessment.
So
again,
I've
included
some
concrete
information
from
the
ownership
regarding
folks
that
are
asking
for
abatements
here
that
they've
been
granted
here.
B
That's
on
page
five,
some
articles
about
the
market
related
to
cobia,
19
and
also
there's
a
cap
rate
study
from
pricewaterhousecoopers
on
northern
virginia
office.
B
That's
near
the
end
of
the
packet
on
page
27,
which
also
shows
a
high
a
higher
cap
rate
6.54,
and
that
would
be
before
adding
the
tax
rate
to
it.
So
yeah,
that's
essentially
it
we're.
Looking
at
you
know
a
discount
for
lease
up,
which
is
very
similar
to
the.
B
Discount
from
lisa
and
then
all
total
once
we
apply
these,
these
changes,
our
indicated
value
was
14
million
for
87
604
and
that's
with
the
covet
19,
effective,
copper,
19
and
then
the
non-metro
cap
rate.
B
Okay,
well,
then,
if
we
did
that,
I
just
want
to
go
then
to
if
you
look
at
the
assessors
model
on
the
far
right.
If
we
were
to
apply
to
that
model,
the
seven
the
seven
point,
four
fours.
Let
me
if
we
were
to
apply
the
seven
7.443
to
the
assessor's
model.
That
indicated
value
is
18
million
102
to
222.
B
So
that's
the
assessor's
model
with
the
noi
using
the
non-metro
cap
rate
of
7.443,
and
you
can
see
the
decision
from
last
year
last
year's
board,
which
was
on
page,
I
think
it's
page
11
of
the
packet
where
discuss
the
changing
to
the
non-metro
category.
Well,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
again.
This
is
a.
This
is
a
property
that
has
struggled
for
years
with
vacancy
issues.
B
Income
is
down
from
last
year
over
200
000
from
the
prior
year,
and
so
you
know
it's
it's
been.
You
know
difficult
for
these
folks
and
you
know
I
appreciate
your
time
and
going
over
allowing
us
to
speak
on
your
behalf.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Okay.
Thank
you,
sir
mr
peralta
good
morning,.
D
Looking
at
this
case,
we
did
look
at
the
history.
We
did
follow
not
initially
what
the
board
had
recommended
last
year,
but
when
we
looked
at
the
the
most
recent
2019
ine,
we
did
make
adjustments
and
consider
that
looking
overall,
the
the
last
four
years
we
did
looking
and
taking
consideration
when
developing
the
the
test
for
this
property.
D
As
you
see,
if
I
can
compare
columns
d
to
column
f,
so
that's
the
original
assessment
compared
to
what
we
did
in
our
test
and
in
between
that
we
have
the
column
e,
which
is
the
most
recent
2019
ine.
D
When
comparing
those
three
columns,
as
you
see
they're,
somewhat
close,
I
think
when
looking
at
the
overall
gross
potential
for
this
property
in
the
last
four
years
in
the
retest,
we
did
take
an
approach
that
took
all
those
years
into
consideration.
D
We
didn't
change
the
vacancy
in
the
test
compared
to
the
original
assessment
and
the
expenses
we
did
make
a
slight
uptick
in
expenses.
I
think
we
were
in
hindsight
we
might
have
been
more
aggressive
than
we
should
have
when
considering
the
most
recent
ine.
D
When,
when
we
look
at
the
cap
rate,
we
did
consider
the
the
arguments
that
the
appellant
had
made,
and
we
do
concur
that
the
cap
rate
is
what
he
had
suggested
in
his
amendment
today.
During
his
eight
minutes,
and
that
was
due
to
a
combination
of
a
non-metro
cap
rate
and
adding
the
the
bid
rate
for
this
property.
D
Overall,
when
you
compare
last
year's
assessment
to
this
year's
assessment,
I
believe
that
was
a
board
decision
on
the
the
value
for
last
year.
We
did
make
a
decrease
in
the
original
2020
assessment
of
about
13
and
I
believe
the
test
kind
of
supports
that
value
as
well
as
you
look
on
page
four
of
the
packet,
and
this
is
the
county's
summary
ine.
D
I
made
a
comment
on
the
bottom
there.
If
the
board
would
mind
looking
at
that
and
kind
of
looking
further
into
it
and
looking
at
the
rent
roll
analysis
that
we
did
compile
the
and
that
will
be
on
page
six
of
the
packet,
I
understand
the
packet
does
that
page
does
say
2017,
but
it
is
in
fact
the
2019
most
recent
ine
depicted
there.
D
There
is
a
slight
difference
when
you
compare
the
county's
vacant
square
foot.
I've
noticed
on
the
appellant's
pro
forma
is
slightly
higher
square
foot
vacant.
D
The
county
has
taken
the
rent
roll
that
was
submitted
in
2019
ine,
and
it's
exactly
as
stated
as
far
as
the
the
vacant
square
foot
is
concerned,
I
believe
that's
all
I
have
for
now.
I'm
open
for
questions.
Thank
you.
E
F
Well
to
me,
you've
addressed
between
the
two
of
you
adjust
all
my
questions
to
myself,
except
for
the
cap
rate.
I
want
to
be
clear
in
your
test.
You
have.
The
cap
rate
is
7.44,
but
on
page
two
towards
the
bottom,
it
is
that
your
opinion-
or
this
is
for
the
department-
is
that
the
department's
opinion
or
the
appellant
that
it
ought
to
be
7.94
to
accommodate
the
real
distance
from
metro.
F
E
F
Okay,
other
questions.
No,
so
I
didn't
I
didn't.
Excuse
me
mary.
I
didn't
get
the
answer.
The
original
was
7.19,
then
you've
bumped
it
in
the
test
of
7.44,
is
that
the
accommodation
for
distance
from
metro
d
versus
f.
D
G
Yeah,
the
appellant,
I
didn't
see
any
comp
sales
in
the
submission.
Are
you
aware?
Is
there
anything
you
want
to
bring
to
our
attention
that's
sold
either
in
arlington
or
maybe
just
down
the
route?
One
corridor
a
little
bit
further
out
into
alexandria
or
fairfax
for
below
140
per
square
foot
for
an
office
building.
B
So
you
know
I
don't
know
if
it'd
be,
if
it's
possible
to
to
find
a
comparable
and
make
adjustments
to
to
that.
So
we
did
not
go
with
that
type
of
approach
here.
Just
thank
you.
D
Yes,
thank
you
again.
I
believe
the
the
county
did
take
in
consideration
all
the
points
that
the
appellant
has
made.
We
did
consider
the
board
hearing
from
last
year
and
made
the
adjustment
in
the
test.
Again,
we
dropped
the
assessment
from
last
year
this
year
about
13.
D
We
did
make
the
change
to
the
cap
rate
for
non-metro
and
just
looking
at
the
gross
potential
of
this
property
and
looking
at
the
rent
roll
heavily,
I
mean
that's
all
the
information
we
have
so
the
average
the
average
rent
for
the
property
with
the
leases
in
place
is
what
I've
shown
there
in
the
comments
section
of
the
summary
ine
and
you
see
what
we
used
in
our
test
and
accounted
for
even
the
one
low
tenant
that
is
kind
of
an
aberration
based
on
the
rest
of
the
leases
in
place,
and
we
did
take
that
in
consideration
for
the
test.
D
We
asked
the
board
to
just
confirm
the
original
assessment.
If
not,
the
test
is
somewhat
similar.
Thank
you.
B
Yes,
thank
you
very
much
again.
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
speak.
You
know
to
the
fact
that
the
rent
roll
indicated,
maybe
a
30
rent.
B
Those
rents
were
in
place
for
some
time
as
well,
but
it
doesn't,
it
doesn't
take
into
consideration
any
concessions
or
other
issues,
free,
rent
things
of
that
nature,
which
will
drive
the
effective
rent
down
a
little
bit
and
in
looking
at
the
assessor's
worksheet
they
there
was
a
comment
in
there
where
it
says
2650
is,
was
used
to
take
into
consideration
other
concessions
and
things,
and
so
we
noted
that
when
the
test
was
done
that
you
know
some
of
the
changes
were
made
like
the
change
to
the
cap
rate.
B
But
then
they,
you
know,
increased
the
rent.
You
know
for
28
and
36
for
the
retail
and
some
other
things,
so
they
kind
of
boosted
the
some
of
the
different
areas
and
then
made
a
couple
changes
with
a
couple
issues
there.
So
you
know
we
just
feel
that
we
just
feel
that
the
the
income
that
we
we
supported
here
in
in
our
our
our
evaluation
is
appropriate.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Okay,
it's
just
among
board
members.
I
would
just
say
the
appellant's
argument
about
the
three
tenets
and
the
red
abatement.
You
know,
and
the
covid
19
issues
again
was
not
relevant
to
the
january
1st
assessment
date
and
I'm
sure
we're
going
to
see
a
lot
of
that
next
year.
So
to
me,
I've
just
kind
of
discounted
that
you
know
my
feeling
is.
I
agreed
with
our
decision
from
last
year
that
this
will
be
non-metro
the
county
test.
I
think
adjusting
the
cap
rate
to
this.
H
A
C
One
thing
I
noticed
on
the
test
is
the
square
footage
for
below
the
line.
Deductions
changed
and
I
think
you
would
get
a
lower
figure.
I
went
from
54
boy,
it's
as
hard
to
read.
I'm
sorry
54
something
183
square
feet
to
49,
and
so
the
only
thought
I
had
is
to
take
the
test
and
use
the
below
the
line,
deductions
that
are
in
the
assessment.
A
The
only
thing
mr
lawson
is,
if
you
look
on
the
the
top,
the
original
assessment
was
used
in
a
higher
square
footage,
and
so
they
adjusted
for
that
in
the
test
and
then
less
the
25
that
came
off.
C
I
A
A
I
A
Mr
matskin
is
a
second
okay,
all
in
favor
aye,
aye,
aye.
G
A
Opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous!
It's
reduced
to
the
county
test,
number
of
eighteen
million;
eight
sixty
eight
nine
hundred.
Thank
you.
You're
welcome
great.
B
Technical
issues-
man-
may
I
just
have
one
moment-
I'm
sorry
it's
a
little
slow.
Let
me
just
get
my
paperwork.
A
B
H
B
Now,
good
morning
again,
thank
you
the
opportunity
to
speak
with
you
today.
I
do
appreciate
it,
we're
speaking
about
the
property
known
as
1919
clarendon,
located
at
1919,
clarendon
boulevard,
multi-family,
small
amount
of
retail
here,
what
we
did
first,
this
property
was
purchased
in
2017
for
for
90
million
dollars,
so
it's
about
10
million
under
the
prior
assessment.
B
Every
year
we
found
that
the
noi
was
considerably
below
the
current
assessment,
and
so
we
we
put
together
a
stabilized
model
which
I'm
going
to
present
to
you.
We
also
found
that
the
cap
rate
was
extremely
low.
I
mean
I
guess
if
this
is
being
used
everywhere,
it's
being
used
everywhere,
but
a
3.8
cap
rate,
I
I
haven't
seen
a
3.8
cap
rate
in
any
publication,
and
so
for
your
for
your
information.
B
I've
provided
five
of
the
leading
cap
rate
publications,
including
price,
waterhouse
coopers,
and
these
are
all
publications
that
are
listed
in
the
assessment
guidelines
as
things
that
are
used
to
to
develop
the
cap
rate.
So,
anyway,
regardless
that
information
is
there,
we
also
made
an
increase
to
the
cap
rate
this
year
for
corona
19..
As
you
said
before,
I'm
not
gonna.
I'm
not
gonna
discuss
that.
B
As
you
mentioned,
you
felt
that
that
was
an
issue
for
next
year,
so
we're
gonna
kind
of
skip
that
that
issue,
but
this
as
well
is
having
issues
with
folks
for
rent.
B
Two
hundred
thousand
dollars
of
income
is
going
to
be
lost
to
the
ownership
because
of
coven
19
on
the
retail
section.
Most
of
them
are
all
closed.
I
think
only
one
of
the
product,
one
of
the
tenants,
is
open
right
now.
So
anyway,
let
me
get
into
our
our
our
pro
forma
and
I'm
on
page
four
of
my
paperwork,
and
what
we
have
here
is
the
assessor
model.
On
the
right
hand,
side
it's
extremely
small.
B
When
these
things
get
copied,
I
don't
know
exactly
what
happens.
It
gets
a
little
crazy,
so
you
may,
if
you
have
it
digitally,
it
might
be
nice
to
blow
it
up,
but
I
have
the
assessor
model
on
the
right
hand,
side,
and
then
we
have
three
years
of
income
here
as
well,
and
then
we
have
our
stabilized
model
on
the
left
hand,
side.
So
the
stabilized
model.
Again
what
we
did
was
we
looked
at
the
2020
rent
roll
first
and
we
took
the
full
market
amount
times
12
to
get
our
our
potential
gross
income.
B
B
Now
chris
actually
pointed
out
to
me
that
there
was
an
issue
with
my
spreadsheet,
where
it
did
not
calculate
the
loss
to
lease,
but
regardless,
even
so,
we
came
down
here,
so
the
noi
is
actually
a
little
bit
higher
than
what's
indicated
here
on
the
packet.
B
So
the
actual
noise
that
we're
asking
for
is
less
than
what's
displayed
here.
Unfortunately,
the
spreadsheet
had
an
error
did
not
calculate
that
field,
so
what
we
are
really
looking
at
is
an
noi
of
about.
Excuse
me,
I'm
looking
at
excuse
me
an
noi
of
about.
B
B
You
can
see
this
is
on
page
five.
We
use
the
average
rent
for
the
last
three
years.
We
have
a
three
percent
vacancy
similar
to
the
assessor
model,
effective
gross
income
slightly
below
the
current
assessment,
and
again
we
applied
a
small
bump
for
covet
19..
B
You
can
ignore
that,
so
we
didn't
know
if
that
was
going
to
be
an
issue
that
folks
are
going
to
be
looking
at
this
year,
so
we
did
add
50
basis
points
to
all
our
cap
rates,
just
because
of
the
situation,
especially
with
retail,
definitely
a
big
loss
for
these
folks
for
this
year,
but
regardless
the
indicated
value
still
comes
out
below
and
you
chris
has
in
his
boe
response,
has
charted
the
charted,
the
the
values
for
the
appellant
pro
formas
and
those
are
correct
on
our
the
line,
h
and
also
line
I
so
the
column
h
is
an
I,
those
those
are.
B
Those
are
correct,
interestingly
enough,
the
ones
with
the
lower
cap
rates
on
line
h.
Those
would
be
without
proven
19,
because
we
made
that
adjustment
for
the
boe
after
we
heard
about
the
trouble
that
the
tenants
were
giving
the
ownership
here
and
the
issues
with
the
lost
rent
and
things
of
that
nature.
We've
made
the
change
for
the
boe.
B
So
if
you
look
at
column
h
of
the
memo
that
that
chris
has
provided
to
the
board,
that
is
the
proper
pro
forma
for
us
so
and
that
would
that
would
be
without
the
code,
19
adjustment.
So
I'm
column
h
and
thank
you.
A
J
Good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
sean
essentially
what
we're
looking
at.
If
we
look
at
the
apartment
summary
sheet,
as
provided
to
the
board
member's
name,
we
can
see
that
there
is
an
increase
in
gross
potential
income
in
both
2018
and
2019..
J
property
is
still
on
its
ascendancy,
built
new,
I
believe
in
2013,
but
we
can
see
that
the
vacancy
concession
is
stabilizing
at
approximately
5.2
percent
and
in
fact,
the
actual
vacancy
dropped
year
over
year
from
18
to
19.
J
J
It
was
downward,
but
still
projected
very
modest
growth
at
all
metrics
to
include
operating
expenses,
and
we
did
project
to
noi
to
increase
approximately
1.5
percent
over
19
again,
given
its
ascendancy
and
stabilization
that's
occurring
at
the
property.
J
J
A
Okay,
mr
raiden,
do
you
have
anything
else
to
tell
us.
B
Well
I'll
just
sum
up,
I
do
appreciate
the
time
to
discuss
the
property.
We
believe
the
performance
that
we
put
together
are
conservative
and-
and
you
know,
reflected
the
last
three
years
of
income
in
the
history
of
this
property.
Again,
please
feel
free
to
not
include
any
information
on
the
kovit
19
and
I
do
want
to
point
out
the
the
revised
value
that
chris
mentioned
was
98.6600.
B
Our
indicated
value
was
closer
to
89
million,
actually
96
for
the
entire
property
96
304.
So
it's
about
2
million
below
the
revision
that
the
county
has
has
come
up
with,
but
again
there
is
a
revision
of
9806600
that
they
have
proposed.
Thank
you.
We
just
felt
that
the
actual
performance
was
slightly
below
there,
so
I
wanted
to
have
the
opportunity
to
show
you
that
information.
I
A
I
I'll
start,
I
I
think
the
same
as
the
previous
case.
I
feel
that
the
county
did
a
very
good
job
in
the
revised
numbers.
You
know,
if
you
add
the
loss
to
leaves
that
the
appellant
had
used
in
his
deductions
to
the
noi
that
he
has
or
4
million
99.
I
think
we're
pretty
pretty
close.
So
I'm,
okay
with
the
revised.
G
H
K
A
Okay,
it's
unanimous
it's
reduced
to
the
county's
recommendation
of
98
million
o
66.
Even
thank
you,
mr
rayden.
A
Yeah
I
can
and
then
the
other
gentleman
unfortunately
something's
right
across
your
name,
so
I
just
need
your
name.
E
K
Right,
alex
is
with
my
firm
he's
and
alex
is
going
to
be
speaking
primarily
on
this
presentation.
A
A
L
Great
thank
you
good
morning,
board,
members
and
good
morning
chris.
This
is
the
radnor
manor
apartments.
This
is
a
small
13
unit,
building
located
at
1521
north
12th
street,
it's
60
years
old
and
it's
three
stories
we're
requesting
a
review
of
this
year's
assessment
based
on
a
look
back
at
the
property's
most
recent
performance.
L
That
is
we
looked
at
the
most
recent
three
years,
income
generated
by
the
property
and
the
expenses
incurred
by
the
property,
and
we
think
it's
important
to
kind
of
smooth
out
the
inherent
year-over-year
fluctuations
that
are
going
to
be
seen
operating
an
investment
asset
like
this,
and
so
the
way
we
do
that
is
we
take
the
most
recent
three
years
and
we
average
them.
We
think
you
know
no
buyers.
The
data
value
is
simply
going
to
pull
out
the
highest
or
the
lowest
income
levels
or
expense
levels.
L
L
We
did
the
same
thing
with
the
operating
expenses
at
the
property,
which
again
were
very
stable,
all
right,
around
100
000,
and
so
just
looking
at
those
two
numbers
on
expenses.
We're
really
right
in
line.
We
think
the
department's
spot
on
with
where
they
stabilize
expenses
we're
both
right
around
100
000.
L
L
So
that's
the
primary
difference
here.
We
then
also
do
take
a
reserves
deduction
above
the
line
based
on
265
dollars
a
unit
and
and
that's
pulled
from
the
pricewaterhousecooper
quarterly
study.
They.
They
update
this
information
regularly
based
on
surveys
and
information
from
multi-family
owners
in
different
regions
around
the
country.
So
that's
the
the
number
for
the
mid-atlantic
region
for
this
type
of
asset
for
the
most
recent
period.
L
L
Eighty
four
thousand
four
eighty,
the
department's
got
this
valued
up
at
2
million,
268
100,
so
fairly
considerable
difference
between
our
view
of
how
a
buyer
would
look
at
this
property's
income
earning
potential
and
therefore
its
value.
As
of
the
date
of
value
and
and
then
just
to
explain,
you'll
see
behind
our
worksheet
and
our
submission
is
a
is
where
we
pulled
the
cap
rate
data
from
and
that's
from,
cbre
cb
richard
ellis
the
most
recent
period.
L
You
know
they
they
do
those
studies
twice
yearly.
This
is
the
most
recent
period,
so
just
before
the
date
of
value,
they
pull
information
for
multi-family.
This
is
suburban
multifamily
for
the
dc
region.
L
We
view
this
as
a
class
c
property
in
the
very
high
sorry
the
low
end.
So
the
best
cap
rate
for
suburban
class
c
properties
in
the
dc
region
was
5.75.
We
felt
like
that
was
a
reasonable
place
to
be
a
reasonable
number
to
be
capitalizing.
This,
the
the
department's
cap
rate
would
be
closer
to
probably
a
class
b
per
the
cb
richard
ellis
data.
K
I
would
just
add
that
we
do
know
that
the
while
the
assessment
is
2
million
308
the
assessor's
income
capitalization
is
a
million
835.
J
Good
morning,
mr
love,
good
morning,
mr
mitchell,
this
one
is
a
bit
unique.
The
board's
seen
it
before
we
do
have
some
properties
that
are
garden
apartments,
less
than
20
units
that
the
department
feels
does
not
support
the
fair
market
value
based
upon
its
income
and
via
the
income
approach.
So
what
we
actually
do
is
we
apply
a
per
unit,
cost
of
180
000
for
one
bedrooms
and
148
000
proficiencies.
J
J
We
do
track
those,
obviously,
as
they're
recorded
in
the
county,
we
found
that
there
were
10
garden
apartment
sales
amongst
those
since
2018
all
fairly
similar
sized
eight
units
16
units,
seven
units,
one-
was
fairly
large
at
74
units,
but
of
those
10
garden
sales,
there's
only
two
that
had
a
per
unit
value
below
180
000
per
unit,
and
there
was
only
one
other
that
was
within
one
mile
of
the
metro
and
that
one
sold
at
250
000
a
unit.
J
It's
important
to
note
this
location
you
know
is:
is
right
off
route
50.,
it's
within
one
miles,
walking
distance
of
the
rosslyn
metro
very
close
to
dc.
So
as
far
as
it's
you
know,
comparable
sale
potential.
J
Basically,
it's
a
bit
confusing,
but
that's
what
the
sheet
is
trying
to
show
is
that
the
indicated
total
value
would
be
simply
by
capitalizing
the
net
operating
income
and
then
what's
called
an
improvement.
Override
is
what
gets
us
to
that
total
value
of
2.308
million.
H
To
the
county,
what
was
the
age
of
these
others
that
you
used
as
a
comp?
I
mean
this
is
building
different,
older
type
units,
different
configurations
within
it.
J
Yeah,
almost
by
its
nature
of
all
the
garden
apartments
in
the
county
are
essentially
40
to
50
years
old,
the
one
we
noted
that
was
within
again
about
a
miles
walking
distance
of
the
metro
built
in
1959.
I
think
it's
a
similar
year
built
the
in
fact
it's
the
same
as
the
subject
property
right
in
your
manner.
J
J
Virtually
you
know,
that's
a
lot
of
that
is
due
to
our
sort
of
lacking
in
inspection
data
that
we
have
from
visiting
these
properties,
but
again
without
casting
dispersions
on
all
of
the
garden
apartments.
Most
of
them
are
operated
the
way
they
were
purchased
they're,
essentially
what
what
some
might
call
workhouse
residences.
J
So
they
tend
to
be
no
frills
shared
laundry
facilities,
but
no
real
common
area,
amenities,
original
windows,
original
sort
of
condition-
if
you
will
and
again
almost
all
of
them
out
of
these
10
that
we
looked
at
all
of
them,
but
2
or
20
units,
or
less
so
again,
very
similar
in
size
and
in
makeup.
F
F
No,
I'm
sorry
the
assessments
for
those
sales,
or
at
least
the
ones
that
are
most
comparable
to
the
subject
property.
Did
you
go
through
and
do
an
analysis
of
you
know
noi
versus
market
rate,
to
see
if
they
were
off?
As
you
contend,
the
subject
property
is.
J
A
Okay,
mr
lawson,
you
had
a
question.
C
Yeah
for
the
county,
aren't
you
double
hitting
the
owner,
you're,
doing
a
income
approach
and
then
you're
adding
to
that
you
know
if
they
were
to
sell
the
property
for
development
and
I
think
you
got
to
pick
one
or
the
other.
Don't
you.
J
What
the
worksheet
is
just
showing
you
is
what
would
happen
if
they
were
combined,
but
the
actual
value
is
only
solely
derived
by
the
market
approach.
J
J
No,
that's
why
we're
using
the
market
approach?
That's
the
that's
the
essentially.
The
point
is
that
the
income
approach
doesn't
support
the
market
value
based
on
what
we've
seen
and
comparable
sales
throughout
the
county.
The
last
three
years
and
again,
as
we
point
out,
is
that
this
one
has
a
bit
more
particular
location.
That
would
be
an
influencing
factor
in
that
it's
off
of
route
50,
it's
within
walking
distance
of
the
metro
and
it's
close
to
the
district
of
columbia.
G
Yeah
quick
question
for
the
appellate
just
going
through
the
expenses.
I
guess
you
guys
noted
that
you
agreed
with
the
county,
but
the
difference
I
see
in
income
a
lot
of
it's
due
to
this
employee.
That's
employee
quarters
expense
that
you've
got
on
the
income
side.
It's
like
16
5,
something
like
that.
E
G
And
then
I
guess
for
the
county,
how
do
we
normally
treat
that
should
that
be
on
the
expense
side
is
that
is
that
why
you
have
a
difference
in
the
income
I
mean?
Can
you
kind
of
get
into?
I
haven't
seen
a
lot
of
these
where
there's
an
employee
quartered
on
site.
J
Actually,
we
do
find
that
fairly
common,
mr
hoffman
and
again,
as
noted
by
mr
olav-
it's
something
shared.
It
might
be
primarily
upon
the
garden
style
apartments,
but
those
that
generally
would
give
employing
concessions.
We
do
recognize
as
a
cost
business.
Okay,.
J
As
previously
stated
for
those
properties
that
are
garden
style,
20
units
or
less,
whereby
their
income
does
not
support
the
market
value
found
throughout
the
county,
we
do
rely
upon
the
market
approach
again.
Page
32
indicates
a
number
of
sales
over
the
last
three
years
and
virtually
all
of
them,
but
two
support
a
value
of
180.
L
Alex
sure
yeah,
we
would
just
reiterate
that
you
know
we
can
appreciate
the
look
at
sales
of
of
other
garden
apartments,
but
just
because
a
property
you
know
around
the
corner
sold
for
a
number,
it
does
not
mean
that
a
buyer
would
come
in
and
buy
this
property
at
the
at
the
similar
rate.
If
it
can't
achieve
income
to
justify
that
price,
and-
and
here
you
know-
even
taking
extremely
aggressive
assumptions
on
the
income
as
the
department
did,
their
income
value
as
a
millionaire,
we
feel,
like
the
income,
supports
a
reduction.
F
We've
seen
this
before
when
it's
where
rosie's
scenario,
belief
in
close
in
northern
virginia
causes
investors
to
pay
more
than
what
the
simple
numbers
would
indicate
because
of
faith
in
the
future-
and
I
know
cap
rate's
supposed
to
do
that,
but
there's
behavioral
economics
in
there
not
just
microeconomics
involved.
So
I
I
find
this
approach
perfectly
appropriate.
I
I've
certainly
worked
with
people
professionally,
who
do
just
that.
F
F
C
Yeah,
it
seems
to
me
that
you
know
you
either
go
with
comp
sales
or
you
go
with
income,
you
don't
go
with
a
hybrid
or
both
and
we've
had
many
applicants
come
in
and
say,
yeah
well,
you
know
and
they're
they're
taxed,
based
on
an
income
approach
and
they
say
well,
we
have
all
these
comparable
sales
and
we
don't
follow
those
we
don't
evaluate
based
on
those-
and
you
know
here
we
have
a
situation
where
the
department
is
saying.
C
Well,
it's
worth
this
amount
because
we've
looked
at
these
other
sales
and
we
hereby
conclude
it's
worth
that
amount,
but
we
have
no
justification
of
that
and
it
wasn't
presented
that
way,
and
so
I
think,
if
you
know
my
own
opinion,
I
think
we
should
leave
the
value
at
a
million
eight
thirty,
five.
A
A
I
think
this
property
is
certainly
worth
the
2.308.
You
know
the
fact
that
the
income
doesn't
support
it.
That's
not
that
unusual.
We
see
this
quite
a
bit
in
some
of
the
smaller
garden
older
complexes.
So
I
I'm
okay
with
the
thesis.
A
G
I
Well,
I'm
I'm
with
ken
and
mary.
I
think
the
value
is
supported,
it's
not
the
first
time
we
see
this
and
a
lot
of
the
buildings
that
we've.
You
know
where
the
income
approach
did
not
justify.
The
county
has
done
this
through
the
years
and
I'm
okay
with
that.
I
think
the
values
that
are
using
are
reasonable.
I
You
know
going
it's
not
a
mix
of
income
and
market,
like
I
think
barnes
was
suggesting.
I
think
it's
being
you
know,
market
approach
is
being
used
and
the
income
is
there
for
comparison,
but
I
think
I'm
okay
with
it.
A
C
G
G
You
know
there's
one
in
westover,
but
it
looks
like
that
was
part
of
a
a
multiple
place.
Yeah
there's
a
whole
bunch
in
there
there
was
one
that
that
was
150
000
units,
that's
westover,
but
there's
really
not
a
good
one
to
point
to
and
say
this
is
similar
because
then
you're
starting
to
get
into
buildings
that
are
180
units
or
you
know
not
really
comparable
to
a
13
unit.
G
F
Yeah,
it's
technical.
A
Okay,
well,
we
can't
hear
him,
you
know,
I
guess
I
I
would
just
say
I
mean
when
I
look
at
the
the
guidelines
that
are
part
of
the
2020
package.
It
clearly
states
garden
apart
apartment,
market
approach,
containing
20
or
less
units
where
income
may
not
support
the
market.
Value
is
defined
as
following
efficiency,
148
one
bedroom
180..
So
if
you
do
something
different
on
this
property,
it's
out
of
equalization
with
the
other
properties
that
are
assessed
this
way
and
again
I
don't
think
the
value
supports,
lowering
it.
I
mean
if
it
had.
A
G
Well,
mary,
these
are
effectively
all
efficiency
apartments.
In
this
building
I
mean
I
went
on.
I
went
and
shopped
them
on
the
website
and
looked
at
the
I
mean
the
they
say:
they're
600
square
feet,
which
might
be
a
one
bedroom
in
a
in
a
new
modern
building,
but
it's
basically
a
one
bedroom
bachelor
shack.
I
mean
this,
you
can't
I
wouldn't
compare
this
to
a
modern
one-bedroom
unit.
C
Yeah
this
is
barnes
and
I
would
also
say,
if
you're
going
to
look
at
comp
sales.
This
is
in
the
radnor
heights
overlay
district.
I
think
in
the
comp
plan
and
I'm
not
sure
if
townhouses
are
allowed
in
this
category,
but
I
think
if
you're
going
to
look
at
comparable
sales,
you've
got.
A
All
right
ken,
where
are
you.
F
I
I
started
out.
I
was
comfortable
with
using
the
market
approach.
I
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
and
we
do
have
comparables
20
garden
departments
older
under
20
units.
This
is
assessed
at
the
low
end
of
those
comparable
sales
and
and
obviously
the
per
the
guidelines.
The
the
the
values
of
the
one
bedrooms,
all
being
small,
are
not
picked
out
of
thin
air
they're
in
the
guidelines
based
on
prior
sales
prior
years.
So
I'm
pretty
comfortable
with
this
approach
that
the
department's
approach.
A
D
A
I
A
L
L
So
we
we
looked
at
the
three
most
recent
years
of
data
that
were
available
to
us
that
would
have
been
available
to
a
buyer
as
of
the
date
of
value
averaged
out
the
effective
gross
income,
so
the
actual
income
achieved
by
ownership
that
came
to
almost
to
400
000,
almost
right
on
the
money
and
the
department's,
basically
using
almost
identical
egi,
so
there's
really
no
dispute
there.
The
primary
disputes
here
are
over
the
stabilized
operating
expense
levels.
L
When
we
look
at
the
prior
three
years,
we
feel
like
those
that
data
supports
a
slightly
higher
operating
expense
ratio
than
the
35
percent
used
by
the
department
35
on
a
35
year
old,
small
building
like
this,
that
you
know,
doesn't
necessarily
achieve
the
same
economies
of
scale.
We
feel
like
it's
too
aggressive
in
the
data
bears
that
out.
We
used
156
000,
the
department's
at
140
000
in
terms
of
absolute
numbers.
L
Again,
we
used
above
the
line
deduction
for
replacement
reserves
of
265
dollars
per
unit
based
on
the
price.
What
most
recent
price
waterhouse
cooper
data
available,
and
then
we
have
a
pretty
significant
divergence
in
opinion
over
cap
right
here
we
use
a
base
cap
rate
of
5.5
percent,
which,
based
on
the
most
current
data
available
prior
to
the
data
value
from
cbre,
that
would
be
a
class
b,
suburban
multifamily
cap
rate.
L
The
base
rate
used
by
the
department
equates
to
a
4.5
percent
which,
if
you
compare
that
to
the
market
data
compiled
by
cbre,
that
would
be
lower
than
even
the
lowest
class.
A
suburban
multi-family
cap
rate
indicated.
So
that
would
be
like
a
class,
a
plus
plus
apartment
building,
based
on
the
survey
of
market
participants.
That
cbre
does
so.
We
feel,
like
that's
too
aggressive.
L
We
come
out
to
3672
818,
based
on
those
adjustments
that
we're
requesting
the
departments
at
4576,
which
is
an
increase
over
the
prior
two
years
when
it
was
around
4.2
million,
and
the
department's
got
that
268
000
a
unit
for
this
small
apartment
building,
which
is
almost
a
mile
from
metro
walking,
we'll
leave
it
there.
J
In
regards
to
gross
potential,
the
property's
up
just
about
6.6
for
the
year
19,
effective
gross
is
up.
1.6
percent
19.
operating
expenses
are
down
almost
25
and
the
net
operated
income
is
just
shy
of
21
increase
over
19.
J
and
that's
contrasted
with
the
projections
made
by
the
county
before
the
2019
incoming
expense
was
known
to
us
in
which
we
underprojected
gross
potential.
By
about
3.7
percent,
we
underprojected
the
effector
gross
by
about
four
percent.
We
over
projected
the
operating
expenses
by
almost
eight
point,
three
percent
and
under
projected
the
net
operating
income.
By
about
nine
point,
five
percent,
those
metrics
being
used.
We
do
believe
that
the
department
should
be
confirmed
at
the
amount
of
4.576
million.
Thank
you.
F
Based
on
the
last
thing
mr
cheek
has
said,
and
and
comparing
that,
of
course
being
the
same
on
page
two,
there's
several
over,
you
know
under
projections
over
projections.
How
come
we
didn't
do
a
test
on
this
to
see
we'd
come
out
with
these
refinements,
based
on
the
2019
data.
J
That's
to
the
department,
sir.
Yes,
generally
speaking,
when
there's
another
projection,
a
test
is
generally
going
to
show
that
we
would
actually
have
a
value
that
would
be
higher
than
our
january
first
assessment,
if
it's
normally
in
the
favor
of
the
appellant.
J
That's
when
we'll
do
a
revision,
if
we're
over
you
know,
especially
if
it's
over
at
three
percent
threshold,
but
given
that
we're
under
projected
by
again
almost
99
percent
in
the
noi,
we
felt
that,
if
anything
that
would
go
up
to
mr
mitchell's
point,
we
were
well
within
the
reason
of
three
years
averages
of
the
property,
and
so
we
felt
that,
if
anything
again,
that
would
probably
project
a
upward
correction
which,
normally
speaking
the
county,
does
not
recommend
without
the
use
of
a
third
party
appraisal.
F
Just
it's
intuitively
obvious.
There's
no
need
one
other
very
quick
question.
Looking
at
this,
oh
I
dispose
of
it
this
cap
rate
versus
the
next
subject,
property,
which
you
know
it's
the
same
people
involved.
This
has
a
lower
cap
rate.
Is
that
due
to
effective
age,
1985
versus
the
1960s.
J
Exactly
yeah,
normally
speaking,
the
kept
rates
here
within
a
10-year
period.
A
Okay,
I'd
like
to
follow
up
on
something
mr
metzken
just
brought
up
for
the
county.
Let's
you
know
take
out
of
this
conversation,
column
e,
because
you
didn't
have
that
information
on
the
original
assessment,
but
just
looking
at
the
16,
17
and
18
information,
it
does
seem
like
you
were
a
little
short
on
the
expenses.
A
I
mean
granted
that
now
once
you
got
19
and
your
overall
under
you
know,
but
I
mean
if
this
was
the
flip
side.
If
those
three
years
were,
you
know,
you
know
high
and
then
low,
you
wouldn't
necessarily
come
and
say:
oh,
we
need
to
adjust
it.
It's
a
one-time
thing.
I
mean
if
you
look
at
just
stabilizing,
it
does
seem
that
you're
low
on
the
expenses
and
a
little
high
on
the
noi,
your
comments
there,
but.
J
20
number
thanks
for
looking
at
quick
math
on
the
year
16
through
18,
the
operating
expense
average
was
approximately
153
000,
but
you
would
also
look
at
the
fact
that
it
actually
was
stabilized
at
almost
exactly
143
000
for
two
years
or
I
shouldn't
be
using
numbers.
I
apologize
36
percent
of
egi
and
16
and
38.3
percent
of
egi
and
17.
J
But
if
you're
looking
at
16
through
19
now
you
would
say
that
the
definitively
2018
was
higher
than
what
was
achieved
over
a
four-year
period.
So
I'm
not
sure
I
have
a
short
answer
for
you.
I
apologize,
but
it's
essentially
the
idea
is
that
if
we
were
looking
at
those
three
years
only
which
I
believe
we
did
rather
than
use
a
three
year
average,
we
believe
that
we'll
get
closer
come
back
closer
to
that
36
to
38
percent
range
as
a
percentage
of
effective
gross.
A
F
Question
for
the
appellant
you
made
a
a
new
pro
forma
and
then
remade
it
columns,
f
and
g
respectively,
and
you
brought
from
f
to
g.
You
brought
up
your
apartment
income
a
bit
from
way
below
what
you
had
been
achieving
over
the
last
some
years,
2016
to
2019,
but
still
quite
below.
Why
did
you
project
that
your
income
upon
you
know
final
analysis
would
still
go
down
some
small
percentage
from
the
prior
year's
achievements.
L
Right,
so
the
difference
between
those
two
pro
formas
that
we
produced
is
just
due
to
having
more
data
to
avail
available
to
us.
By
the
time
we
could
prepare
our
submission
to
the
board.
So
we
were
able
to
take
into
account
the
2019
data
by
that
point,
whereas
the
initial
one
was
really
just
looking
at
the
2017
and
2018
data
that
would
have
been
available
to
the
department
in
coming
up
with
their
assessment.
L
So
that's
why
you
see
a
slight
uptick
based
on
that
stronger
2019
performance,
but
it
still
is
lower
due
to
the
smoothing
out
that
we
do
over
the
wider
range
of
years,
the
longer
range
of
years.
F
K
Based
on
the
the
assessor's
sheet
you're
right,
sir,
we
have
to
double
check
to
make
sure
that,
where
we
calculated
that.
J
Again,
just
released
a
nice
to
surmise
again
the
projections
made
by
the
county
virtually
across
the
board
and
gross
potential
effective
gross
and
net
operating
income,
while
over
projecting
on
the
achievable
operating
expense
based
off
of
2019.
We
do
believe
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
4.576.
L
Sure
yeah
we
readily
acknowledge
that
you
know
the
difference
of
opinion
here
is
this
is
the
smallest
of
any
of
our
three
cases
this
morning,
but
we
do
feel
that
I
mean
looking
at
the
current
most
most
recent
and
accurate
data
available
that
a
buyer
would
look
at
as
of
the
date
of
value,
that
an
adjustment
to
the
expense
projection
is
warranted
and
again
that
the
cap
rate
is
aggressive.
F
A
A
However,
you
know
when
you
appeal
and
you
bring
in
you-
know:
2019
numbers
it's
lower.
The
noi
is
lower
than
what
was
achieved
yet,
as
I
kind
of
mentioned
to
the
county.
If
it
was
the
flip-
and
you
had,
you
know
three
high
years
and
one
low
year,
the
county
would
say
well,
wait,
let's
wait
and
see
whether
it
stabilizes
out
at
that
number.
K
G
E
A
F
I
Well,
I
I
did
the
same
like
you
know,
a
lot
of
the
previous
cases
well
cases
in
the
past
and
doing
an
average
of
four
years.
It
comes
to
148,
000
474
in
experiences.
I
A
G
I
mean
I
just
I
thought
the
I
looked
at
it
with
the
appellant's
pro
forma
numbers
since
they're,
pretty
close
to
where
the
department
is
except
for
expenses
and
then,
if
you
just
use
the
the
cap
rate
that
is
per
the
guidelines,
you
get
down
closer
to
four
point:
two:
four
million
two:
oh
five
100.
I
Yeah
yeah,
I
looked.
I
looked
at
that
number
also,
but
I
think
it's
that's
really
close
to
I
mean
39.
I
think
it's
just
using
one
number
instead
of
at
least
looking
at
several
years.
You
know.
E
E
A
I'll
second,
okay
motion
in
the
second
by
mary
hogan,
all
in
favor
aye
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
It's
reduced
to
four
million
four
thirty
five,
two
hundred
based
on
averaging
the
expenses
for
the
past
four
years.
I
E
A
L
Thank
you
so
yeah
we
have
the
lauren
apartments
here,
1220
north
pier
street.
This
is
a
55
year
old
building
and
a
bit
bigger
than
the
two
previous.
This
is
51
units.
Again
we
took
the
same
approach.
We
wanted
to
take
the
most
current
and
accurate
data
that
we
had
available
from
the
property's
actual
performance,
not
focusing
or
putting
too
much
weight
on
any
one
up
or
down
year
on
any
of
their
actual
income
or
expense
levels.
L
L
Expenses
were
relatively
close,
but
the
department
stabilized
it
at
an
egi
just
north
or
almost
right
at
900
000
a
year.
The
property
hasn't
generated
that
level
of
actual
income
at
any
point
in
recent
history.
So
that's
the
primary
difference
here
and
then
we
also
again
have
a
bit
of
a
difference.
L
In
our
submission,
the
department's
rate
equates
to
a
4.8
percent
base
rate,
which
would
be
the
lowest
rate
indicated
for
class.
A
a
plus,
really
suburban
multi-family
in
the
dc
metro
area
is
4.75,
so
they're
effectively
capitalizing
it
with
the
the
best
of
the
best
suburban
apartment
assets
in
the
dc
metro
for
this
55
year
old
building.
So
we
feel
like
that
was
a
bit
too
aggressive.
L
Leave
it.
There.
J
Again,
as
mr
mitchell
pointed
out,
this
is
fairly
similar.
Property
also
shares
ownership
from
the
last
case
also
similar
to
the
last
case.
The
property
achieved
higher
metrics,
virtually
across
the
board
in
2019
gross
potential
up
eight
and
a
half
percent
effective
gross
just
shot
one
percent
growth
operating
expenses,
again
we're
down
about
seven
percent
net
up
in
income
just
up
just
over
nine
percent,
a
bit
of
a
flip
on
this
one,
where
we
actually
underprojected
gross
potential
by
just
about
a
half
percent.
J
Now
we
over
projected
the
effect
of
gross
by
just
shaft,
two
percent,
but
again
we
also
over
projected
operating
expenses
by
just
shy
of
three
percent
which
led
to
an
overprojection
of
the
nanowide.
J
By
about
1.1
percent
and
to
the
board's
credit,
I
did
quick
math
and
were
quite
a
bit
higher
than
the
three
year
average
and
our
projections
for
the
2020
year
about
three
percent
higher
than
the
the
average
for
the
last
three
years
and
again,
even
with
the
new
information
we'd
still
be
higher
on
the
operating
expense
side
granted.
J
We
are
also
a
bit
high
in
the
effect
of
gross,
but
that's,
of
course,
due
to
the
nature
of
stabilizing
the
property
at
the
the
five
percent
that
are
used
in
the
guideline.
Given
this
information,
we
do
believe
the
building
should
be
confirmed.
Excuse
me,
properties
should
be
confirmed
at
seven
point.
Eight
one,
eight
four
hundred.
Thank
you.
C
A
question
for
the
county:
it's
not
much
but
in
garden
apartments
and
in
apartments
in
general,
is
a
replacement
reserve,
a
proper
expense.
J
It
is,
in
fact,
it's
assumed
in
the
cap
rate
that
the
county
uses.
I
think
that
I
don't
know
how
much
information
we've
looked
into
as
far
as
a
per
unit,
or
you
know
the
per
building
per
property
type.
If
you
will,
but
that's
been
something
the
county
has
assumed
in
the
capitalization
rate
for
a
number
of
years,
if
not,
since
I've
been
in
the
county.
A
F
I
I'm
I'm
looking
for
one:
that's
the
vacancy
in
column
d,
I'm
struggling
to
get
through
the
guidelines
and
once
page
48.
F
J
Absolutely
yeah
again
based
on
the
performance
of
the
property
in
2019,
based
on
some
of
the
other
projections
made
by
the
county
and
given
that
we're
within
just
just
over
one
percent
of
the,
in
a
way
that
was
achieved
in
2019.
We
do
believe
that
the
properties
assessment
should
be
confirmed
at
seven
million.
Eight
hundred
eighteen
thousand.
Four
hundred.
Thank
you.
L
Sure
again,
we're
just
requesting
adjustment
based
on
what
we
feel
is
a
bit
too
aggressive
of
an
egi
projection.
L
When
you
look
at
the
actual
performance
of
this
property,
it's
it's
too
aggressive
to
assume
thousand
based
on
what
the
fact
the
property's
never
done
that
over
the
prior
four
years-
and
now
I
was
remiss
before
I
did
not
state
our
opinion
of
value-
is
six
million
four
twenty
six.
Seventy
two
based
on
the
adjustments
we've
outlined.
Thank
you.
A
I
Well,
I'll
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
I
thought
the
I
did
the
same.
When
I
looked
at
the
egi
originally,
I
thought
it
was
a
little
bit
high,
so
I
was
trying
to
see
if
compensating
with
a
vacancy
that
they
they
have
for
the
current
year
of
seven
percent
would
be
appropriate
and
I
did
a
test
with
that.
Seven
percent
vacancy
which
comes
to
66
0472,
which
would
give
us
an
egi
of
about
883,
which
I
thought
it
was
more
in
line
with.
I
I
A
C
H
I
It's
funny
that
how
our
numbers
work
out
sometimes
but
I'll,
go
ahead
and
move
that
we
reduce
the
assessment
to
seven
million
six.
Fifty
three
eight
hundred
and
that's
by
increasing
the
vacancy
to
seven
percent
from
the
current
assessment.