►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - October 27, 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
27
2020,
and
it
is
the
final
hearing
for
the
arlington
county
board
of
equalization
hearing
for
the
year.
The
first
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc3504007
at
600
army
navy
drive,
mr
grant
steinhauser
is
representing
the
appellant
and
mr
rob
peralta
is
representing
the
county.
Mr
seinhauser,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
B
B
B
The
previous
lease
had
gone
from
2008
to
2018
the
15-year
lease
starts
when
the
construction
is
finished.
On
the
renovation.
It's
a
150
million
dollar
renovation,
including
the
total.
What
was
given
to
the
tenant
in
total
was
55
million
dollars
in
tis
17
million
dollars
for
building
specific
amortized
capital,
70
million
dollar
cash
concession,
which
can
be
either
applied
as
free
rent
or
can
be
used
for
additional
ti
and
4.7
million
dollars
in
leasing
commissions.
B
B
motivation-
I
don't
just
mean
you
know,
they're
they're,
you
know
making
a
few
floors
prettier
and
swapping
out
some
furniture.
I'm
tell
we're
talking
about
a
complete
gutting
fro
floor
by
floor
from
floor
to
ceiling.
So
it's
it's.
It's
we've.
We
inspected
the
property
twice
myself,
mr
peralta
and
mr
bailey,
and
you
know
seeing
the
contrast
between
you
know.
The
new
and
the
old
is
is
very
striking,
so
anyways.
B
B
It
the
assessor,
had
applied
a
market
rent
of
34
dollars
per
square
foot.
Our
assumption
there
is
essentially
that
the
assessor
was
attempting
to
sort
of
account
for
those
above
and
beyond
tis
I
didn't
mention
the
total
is
300
per
square
foot
for
the
concession
and
the
ti's
so
about
you
know
three
or
four
times
much
as
is
as
typical,
so
the
assessor
used
thirty
four
dollars
the
rent
on
the
new
lease
is
38.50,
so
it's
a
little
bit
more
than
you
know
what
they
would
normally
give.
B
So
we
we
also
used
to
thirty
four
dollars,
keeping
in
that
assumption
that
it
was
to
account
for
some
of
that
additional
cost
in
retaining
the
tenant.
The
next
big
thing
is
real
estate
tax
reimbursement.
B
The
assessor
is
essentially
just
saying:
okay,
there
were
000
in
real
estate
tax
reimbursement
income
last
year
and
is
just
you
know
applying
that
just
capitalizing
that
into
value
that
that's
just
completely
wrong.
On
its
face,
the
lease
resets
in
2021
the
base
year,
resets
there's
zero
dollars
in
real
estate
tax
reimbursement
income
in
2021
and
going
forward
there
will
only
be
real
estate
tax
reimbursement
if
the
assessment
goes
up.
If
it
never
went
up,
there
would
never
be
any
so
you
can't
just
capitalize
that
into
value.
B
B
The
assessor
has
applied
the
amount
that
was
negotiated
in
the
old
lease
that
expired
from
2008
to
2018
of
4,
150
million,
or
excuse
me
4
million
150,
000
or
3787
per
space.
That's
just
so.
Everyone
knows
that's
three
times
the
amount,
that's
in
the
guidelines,
so
it's
completely
atypical
and
has
to
do
specifically
with
this
tenant
and
their
needs
not
only
that,
but
the
parking
income
has
already
been
renegotiated
in
the
new
lease,
which
has
been
a
plot
given
to
the
assessor.
B
I
think
back
in
2018
and
again
this
most
recent
year
and
per
the
new
lease,
the
amount
will
be
3
million,
336
300..
So
at
the
very
least,
we
would
expect
the
county
to
recognize
that
and
lower
the
parking
income
to
that
amount.
B
What
we
used
was
was
the
guidelines
so
1
350
for
the
guidelines,
which
came
to
1.5
million
the
third
big
issue.
There
is,
what's
called
hvac
pass.
It's
hvac,
xs,
hvac
income.
This
pro
this
tenant
uses
the
building
almost
24
7.,
there's
a
pre-negotiated
rate.
They
pay
for
all
the
hours
over
a
certain
number
of
hours
and
really
what
it's
for
is
the
constant
repair
and
replacement
that's
needed
for
the
hvac
at
this
property.
B
It's
not
a
pass-through.
They
already
pay
the
electric
at
this
property
directly.
It's
income
on
top
of
that
for
the
owner
to
then
essentially
put
into
a
reserve
to
use
for
capital
expenses
related
to
the
hvac,
so
it
can't
be
listed
as
pass
through
income
when
there's
no
expense,
there's
no
expense
that
the
assessor
is
accounting
for
in
the
operating
expenses.
That
directly
correlates
to
that
we
would
say
there
either
has
to
be
a
reserve,
or
there
has
to
be
some
sort
of
capital
fund.
B
So
those
three
things
you
know
just
those
three
things
in
total,
we're
talking
when
captain
to
value
are
about
approximately
30
million
dollars.
The
last
item
I'm
going
to
touch
on
here
is
expenses.
The
assessors
used
seven
dollars
per
square
foot
in
expenses.
It
equates
to
approximately
15
percent
of
egi.
B
I
know
we
don't
look
at
it
in
percents
here
we
look
at
the
dollar
per
square
foot
amount,
but
15
is
again
lower
than
I
think
anyone
would
ever
see
in
the
marketplace
for
full
service
lease
we'd
use
nine
dollars
per
square
foot,
which
we
believe
is
market.
It's
equates
to
about
roughly
25
of
ugi.
B
B
higher
than
any
other
building
in
all
of
pentagon
city,
even
though
it's
literally
being
gutted
as
we
speak
page
123,
I
just
quickly
wanted
to
touch
on
the
reimbursements
that
I
discussed
previously.
You
can
see
on
the
ine
on
page
123.
B
They
very
specifically
said
for
the
parking
income
amount
will
reset
to
3.3
annually
and
they
very
specifically
describe
the
pass-through
income
as
well
as
the
real
estate
tax
reimbursement
income.
That's
going
to
reset
to
zero,
and
if
I
may
just
have
30
more
seconds
to
wrap
up.
B
B
B
A
C
D
Yes,
good
morning
board
when
reviewing
this
property,
we
did
find
that
there
was
an
amendment
that
took
into
place
and
I
don't
believe
the
mr
steinhauser
had
commented
on
this
extensively
during
his
eight
minutes.
D
But
what
the
amendment
says
is
exactly
what
we're
looking
at
andrea's
test
here.
That
amendment
took
in
effect
october,
1st
2018,
so
as
an
extension
of
the
old
lease
to
fill
in
that
gap.
If
you
will,
before
the
new
lease
is
taken
in
effect
and
like
the
mr
steinhauser
has
said
that
it
won't
take
an
effect
until
the
building
has
been
completed
through
all
the
renovations
that
they
proposed.
D
So
when
you
look
at
it's
on
actually
page
124
361,
that
kind
of
outlines
exactly
what
the
the
test
in
column,
andrea's
column
is
suggesting
and
we
did
take
into
account
the
old
square
footage
the
500,
seven
3000
six.
As
you
see
in
the
original
assessment,
we
used
five
eleven
four
eighty,
seven
assuming
the
new
lease
the
fifteen
year
lease.
That
was
that
we
had
at
the
time
this
amendment
was
was
given
to
us
upon
review,
and
then
we
made
the
necessary
changes.
D
I
believe
irving
may
interject
here
and
there
during
my
eight
minutes,
to
kind
of
give
you
some
other
background.
As
far
as
you
know,
the
details
of
of
that
and
the
discussions
he
had
with
with
grant
regarding
this
case,
but
for
the
most
part
we
we
followed
that
amended
lease.
D
We
see
that
the
history
of
this
property
being
operated
from
the
years
2016
through
2019,
the
most
recent
ine,
and
we
see
that
the
original,
as
well
as
the
test,
is
supported
based
on
the
income
and
expenses
that
they
submitted
throughout
the
years.
I
would
like
to
point
out,
since
mr
steinhauser
pointed
out
the
court
cases,
the
court
did
upheld
the
2017-2018
assessments
for
those
years.
I
understand
it
is
under
appeal,
but
I
believe
the
court
did,
you
know,
uphold
the
assessment
for
those
years.
D
With
respect
to
expenses,
the
seven
dollars
per
square
foot
that
is
proposed,
it's
an
increase
from
what
we
had
last
originally,
but
that
that
number,
I
believe,
was
in
part
due
to
what
we've
seen
in
the
amendment
as
well,
it's
kind
of
outlined
as
far
as
expenses
and
it's
actually
higher
than
what
they've
been
reporting
in
the
last
four
years.
D
So
I
think
that's
a
reasonable
expense
rate
and
compared
to
what
the
appellant
is
saying,
it
should
be
it's
you
know
where
I
believe
I
believe
we're
on
opposite
ends.
There.
E
Let
me
jump
in
for
a
minute
around
sure
all
right
so
back
to
those
expenses
as
well.
If
you
look
into
the
package,
you'll
see
that
rob
had
emailed
mr
steinhauser
about
the
expenses
they'll
report
on
the
2019,
I
need,
and
there
were
over
a
million
dollars
in
expenses
that
were
reported
that
went
to
notes
payable
entries
which
are
not
operating
expenses,
so
those
were
deducted
from
what
was
reported
to
us
and
you
get
closer
to
the
value
of.
E
We
need
the
expense
rate
of
what
we
use,
which
can
be
seen
on
the
summary
sheet
on
page
three,
I
also
I'm
not
trying
to
jump
around
too
much
one
point
out.
Then,
when
you
look
at
peter
korpak's
appraisal
for
the
court
case
that
was
attached
to
this
document,
you
can
see
that
he
also
uses
zero
percent
vacancy
in
his
calculation
for
this
property,
whereas
the
county
has
a
five
percent
vacancy
rate
for
owner-occupied
or
100
occupied
property
type.
So
that's
the
difference
as
well.
E
E
It
lays
out
what
the
parking
should
be
and
we
went
over
this
pretty
extensively
in
the
past
few
days,
honestly,
because
when
you
look
at
the
rent
roll
provided
by
the
provided
impact
for
2019,
if
you
calculate
the
parking
column,
just
take
their
monthly
parking
income
and
multiply
that
by
12.
it'll,
add
up
to
what
rob
is
using
on
the
summary
sheet.
E
If
you
take
the
rent
that
they
are
listing
on
this
ine
for
2019
multiplied
it
by
12.,
and
you
have
to
take
both
buildings
because
they
do
separate
out
the
office
rent
and
parking
income
for
each
building
on
two
different
rent
rolls.
If
you
take
those
numbers
and
multiply
them
by
12,
you'll
be
around
where
you'll
actually
be
close
to
what
we're
using
on
the
test
sheet
and
also
what
is
being
reported
for
2019.
E
What
we're
seeing
is
that
they
say
that
the
new
lease
starts
in
2021
and
they're
completely
ignoring
this
lease
amendment
that
we
received,
which
we're
using
to
do
our
tests.
So
that's
that's
one
of
the
things.
I
think
we
need
to
really
focus
on.
You
have
a
lease
amendment
in
place
that
says
what
the
tenant
is
responsible
for
when
it
comes
to
parking
and
reimbursements.
E
So
what
we
want
to
focus
on
is
the
lease
amendment
was
shown
as
far
as
the
history
of
this
property
from
16,
17,
18
and
19.,
and
you
can
see
on
our
test
that
that's
what
we're
going
off
of.
We
actually
made
a
below
the
line
deduction
for
some
capital
improvements
that
were
started
in
october
2019
for
this
large
renovation.
E
The
discussion
that
grant
and
myself
had
was
what
is
the
appropriate
amount
of
below
the
line
deduction?
We
used
3.6
million,
because
that
was
the
ti
line
item
that
we
saw
after
discussion
with
grant.
He
pointed
out
that
there
was
a
second
page
that
we
missed
robin
myself
discussed
that
this
is
where
the
cip
part
of
the
project
comes
in.
E
I
think
it
comes
out
to
about
14
million
and
we
are
willing
to
increase
the
below
the
line
deduction
to
account
for
some
of
the
cip
costs
that
we
missed,
but
that
is
being
deducted
from
the
test
sheet.
E
That's
pretty
much
all
I
have
there's
so
many
more
things
we
can
point
out
about
this
case.
I
said
sorry
for
jumping
around,
but
we
believe
that
the
test
column
is
the
appropriate
value
and
that's
where
we
should
deduct
any
below
the
line.
Deduction.
A
E
E
I
have
a
copy
of
the.
I
think
it's
a
memorandum
from
the.
G
E
Oh
sorry,
the
total
below
the
line
deduction
would
be
14
million,
243
754.
D
Yeah
we
do
have
it
don't
say
it's
confidential,
so
I'm
not
sure
that.
E
E
we're
actually
working
on
some
processes
for
that
which
we'll
be
able
to
discuss
with
the
board
later
once
we
finalize
those
process,
we're
taking
consideration
the
the
amount
of
money
put
into
this
project
and
things
of
that
nature.
Okay,.
H
D
Yeah,
just
based
on
again
the
amendment
that
the
the
county
is
facing
is
basing
the
test
on
and
I
believe
the
adjusted
below
the
line.
Adjustments
that
mr
bailey
just
went
over
is
is
reasonable
to
suggest
the
the
value
for
this
property.
D
C
I
just
want
to
make
one
quick
comment
if
I
can,
and
that
is
that
the
next
buyer
of
this
property,
as
of
january
1
2020,
is
not
buying
the
income
stream
from
2017,
2018,
2019
or
even
2020
they're
looking
into
the
future,
and
we
have
an
executed
lease.
That's
a
long-term
lease
with
gsa,
and
so
we
know
exactly
what
those
inputs
should
be
as
it
relates
to
the
parking
income
and
the
other
expenses
associated
with
the
common
area
are
with.
C
System,
so
I
think
it's
important
to
to
note
the
long-term
lease
rather
than
what's
essentially
a
carryover
for
for
just
a
few
months,
and
then
I
didn't
hear
the
county
really
address
their
own
expert's
opinion.
Yes,
the
expert
may
have
used
zero
percent
vacancy,
but
somewhere
in
their
calculation
of
what
the
appropriate
value
was.
They
made
some
adjustments
that
indicated
a
much
lower
value
than
even
what
the
county
has
profited
here
today.
That's
all.
I
have
grant.
B
Yeah
I'll
just
reiterate
I've
my
discussions
with
mr
bailey
and
mr
peralta.
I've
even
said
you
know
once
the
construction
is
finished
here
once
this
project
is
finished,
you
know,
as
stabilized
the
building's
probably
going
to
be
worth
more
than
you
know,
280,
000
or
285.
Whatever
the
assessment
is
now
but
right
before
you
know
right
as
they're
getting
started
on
a
150
million
dollar
project.
That's
required!
B
You
know
it's
not
optional,
they're,
not
just
doing
this
to
be
nice.
They
have
to
do
this
in
order
to
get
this
income
from
the
gsa
for
the
next
15
years.
You
know
it's
not
the
building's,
not
worth
280,
plus
the
150
it
takes.
You
know
to
keep
the
tenant,
so
you
know
they're,
looking
obviously
for
the
assessment
to
be
lowered
during
these
construction
years
and
they
understand
it's
going
to
be
higher
in
the
future.
So
ask
the
board
to
take
that
into
consideration.
C
B
C
I
Well,
I
think
the
county
has
done
the
proper
way
to
do
the
retest.
I
think
the
you
know
considering
the
new
lease
they
use,
the,
in
my
opinion,
the
appropriate
rental
rates
and
with
this
below-the-line
adjustment
that
they
proposed,
I'm
okay
with
the
or
the
county's
numbers,
with
the
current
number
that
the
county
is
proposing.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chairman.
You
know
we
had
cases
where
there
have
been
new
leases
and
the
county
has
tried
to
or
the
county
has
faced
their
assessment
upon
what's
coming
and
we
have
occasionally
not
agreed
with
that,
and
here
you
kind
of
have
the
opposite.
You
have
the
landowner
wanting
to
you
know,
put
into
place
terms
that
are
going
to
come
in
the
future.
F
I
also
would
would
really
like
to
see
that
court
opinion
it's
too
bad
that
it's
confidential.
We
can't
look
at
it
because
it
does
seem
very
peculiar
to
me
that
the
circuit
court
judge
would
not
go
with
the
county's
own
expert.
F
H
Yeah
I
mean
I
agree
with
jose
the
way
he
put
it.
I
think
it's
we're
under
500
a
square
foot
and
looking
at
the
palace,
comps
kind
of
through
potomac
yard.
The
epa
headquarters
is
probably
the
best
one,
because
it's
a
government
agency
tenant
equal
credit
to
dea.
I
would
imagine
so
that
one
was
over
500,
so
we're
a
little
bit
under
that.
A
Okay,
all
right,
mr
panorana,
would
you
like
to
make
a
motion.
A
Okay,
I'll
second,
that
so
motion
a
second
by
mysterily
all
in
favor,
okay,
it's
unanimous
five
to
zero,
it's
reduced
based
on
the
county's
recommendation
to
254
698
500..
A
Okay,
I
believe
I
saw
miss
borman
and
mr
chicas
okay,
so
the
next
case
on
the
agenda.
I'm
sorry,
mr
thompson,
can
you
turn
your
camera
off?
So
I
can
move
you
down
there.
You
go.
Thank
you
next
case
on.
The
agenda
is
rpc
one:
five,
zero
one,
two
zero
six,
three
three
thousand
lee
highway.
We
have
miss
eileen
borman
for
the
appellant
and
mr
chris
chicas
for
the
county,
miss
foreman.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
your
property.
J
Thank
you
good
morning
board
good
morning
county.
This
is
the
lion
village
apartments.
Everybody
is
probably
familiar
with
it.
It
was
constructed
in
1940
to
44.
J
Obviously,
somewhat
dated,
I
want
to
talk
about
first,
what
this
building
does
not
have.
It
does
not
have
a
business
lounge,
it
does
not
have
a
club
room,
it
does
not
have
a
residential
lounge.
The
only
thing
it
does
have
is
it
has
a
bike,
storage
room
and
it
has
a
fitness
room.
The
fitness
room
is
11
feet
wide
by
approximately
20
feet.
Long,
and
I
doubt
anyone
on
this
in
this
meeting,
would
go
into
that
fitness
room,
let
alone
work
out
in
it.
J
The
property
has
been
renovated,
the
units
they
started,
renovating
the
units
in
2013
and
they
finished
renovating
all
of
the
units.
Last
year
they
say
that
renovated
in
2013
now
are
already
free
for
for
renovation.
Once
again,
the
property
has
had
a
significant
has
had
increases
in
in
assessments
from
and
which
have
been
reduced
upon
appeal.
J
Last
year's
assessment
was
19786
the
year
before
was
approximately
19
million,
and
this
year
the
county
has
revised
its
assessment
because
they
had
the
wrong
number
of
apartment
units
and
they've
just
made
a
correction
in
that
regard,
and
the
assessment
stands
at
well,
their
recommendation
is
21
million.
J
J
Units
have
been
renovated
on
turn,
they
have
not.
They
have
always
had
vacancy
on
available,
completed
and
renovated
units.
So
there
has
not
been
a
situation
where,
as
a
result
of
the
renovations,
the
vacancy
has
gone
up.
What
has
happened
is
as
they
renovated
them
on
turn.
They
have
not
been
released
and
in
fact
they
are
finding
that
the
income
that
they
anticipate
getting
at
this
point
in
time
is
actually
less
than
they
they
would
and
they're
having
to
offer
a
month's
concessions.
J
J
My
conclusion
was
that
I
didn't
ask
for
the
assessment
to
go
down
enough,
and
that
is
not
an
easy
thing
for
me
to
say,
but
that
is
true
and
chris's
opinion
was
that
the
assessment
was
fair
and
reasonable.
J
Now,
if
you
look
at
our
case
is
begins
on
page
38
and
what
you
see
there
is
you
see
the
income
streams
from
2018
and
2019
and
the
income
for
2018
was
1
million.
One
night
was
what
you
can
see,
what
it
is
and
the
income
was
basically
in
half
or
a
little
bit
more
than
half
in
2019..
J
J
It
has
been
updated
so
that
there
are
washer
dryers
now
in
the
units
and
are
as
follows.
After
watching
a
number
of
board
cases
this
year,
I
heard
mr
bailey
state
on
a
number
of
occasions.
The
capital
improvements
that
were
required
going
forward
would
not
be
considered,
but
the
capital
improvements
that
had
been
done
previously
would
be
deducted
that
hasn't
been
done
in
this
case
on
the
income
and
expense
survey
form
which
appears
on
page
42
of
79.
J
J
J
J
Mr
chicas,
I
believe,
will
say
based
on
his
write-up,
that
that
was
self-induced.
I
say
that
in
order
to
get
any
income
at
this
problem
and
a
future
life,
this
property
has
to
be
had
to
be
renovated.
It
is
in
the
market
competing
with
new
assets
with
great
amenities,
and
it
is
old.
I
mean
it's
a
1939-1942
vintage
asset,
so
I
believe
that
the
approach
used
by
the
taxpayer
in
column
g
results
in
a
value
that
is
reasonable
and
is
lower
than
the
2019
assessment.
J
But
does
take
into
consideration
the
current
status
of
the
property,
as
well
as
items
that
need
to
be
completed.
The
county
also
frequently
when
you
have
a
very
high
vacancy
property,
will
do
a
deduct.
Typically,
you
see
it
on
new
apartments,
a
deduct
below
the
line
for
loss
lost
rent
lease
up.
This
is
clearly
a
case
where
that
is
not
inappropriate,
given
that
the
vacancy
rate
was
58
on
january
1.,
it
would
seem
that
a
deduction
below
the
line
for
vacancy
is
also
a
correct
way
to
go.
J
A
Occupancy
okay,
thank
you.
Miss
foreman,
mr
chica.
K
K
You
know,
I
think,
if
you
look
at
columns,
f
and
g
and
and
to
miss
borman's
credit,
the
county
did
note
that
we
were
one
two
bedroom
unit
count
two
high
so
january.
First
we
had
110
units.
We
did
revise
that
in
column,
f
to
109
units
correctly
aligning
with
what's
on
the
property.
K
If
you
look
at
columns,
f
and
g
you'll
note
that
the
noi
were
within
4
500
of
each
other,
that's
pretty
much
spot
on.
The
biggest
difference,
of
course,
is
the
cap
rate.
Mrs
borman
uses
a
cap
rate
about
40
basis
points
higher
than
the
county
per
the
guideline
for
this
property
and
then
the
below
the
line
deductions,
but
as
the
board
is
familiar
as
they've
seen
all
I
don't
know
how
many
cases
we've
had
this
year
with
each
other,
but
lots
and
we
do
not
make
below
the
line.
K
Deductions
for
those
properties,
unlike
mr
form,
noted
the
newer
properties
that
get
the
initial
first
year
lease
up
again.
As
mormon
noted,
this
is
a
property
some,
what
80
years
old
it's
been
renovated
previously,
but
that
this
last
three
years
was
the
most
extensive
again,
as
ms
borman
noted
in
communications
between
ourselves
and
the
ownership,
we
did
ask
because
we
noted
that
there
were
no
open
permits
and
that
was
confirmed.
All
permits
were
finaled
all
units,
all
109
units
were
renovated.
K
As
ms
borman
noted,
the
owner
listed
some
3.4
million
dollars
of
capital
improvements
that
should
be
added
to
that
list
in
regards
to
lost
rents,
or
at
least
up,
I
won't
speak
100
definitively,
and
mr
bailey
can
support
me
on
that.
But
to
my
knowledge
we
don't
make
adjustments
on
renovated
properties,
at
least
with
a
below
the
line,
deduction
for
lisa
or
lost
rent.
K
As
mrs
borman
noted,
this
was,
in
fact,
a
management
induced
decision
to
renovate
the
properties,
and
I
believed
to
quote
her:
not
release
them
as
they
turned
over
in
regards
to
concessions.
That's
actually
a
double
count,
because
if
you
look
at
the
I
need
to
submitted
for
the
included
96
000
of
rent
concession
and
then
in
regards
to
deferred
roof
maintenance.
That's
that's
exactly
what
it
is.
It's
deferred
maintenance,
it's
future
project.
K
As
again,
the
board
is
known
with
us,
irrespective
of
how
we
deal
with
capital
improvements
below
the
line
we
definitively
don't
make
below
the
line,
adjustments
for
future
renovations
or
improvements
that
are
planned
in
in
the
future.
Again,
that
would
be
an
owner
expense
as
opposed
to
an
expense
to
the
property.
K
Given
the
history
of
the
property,
given
when
looking
at
column
f,
we
projected
below
what
was
achieved
at
the
property
in
16
and
17
and
in
fact
just
a
bit
higher
than
what
was
achieved
in
2018
when
it
was
25
vacant.
We
do
believe
that
column
f
is
a
fair
representation
of
the
renovated
units.
This
gpi
was
achieved
using
information
provided
by
the
owner
in
regards
to
rents
being
achieved,
as
we
speak,
at
least
as
of
january
1st,
which
is
when
the
appraisal
date
is
so
looking
into.
K
What's
going
on
this
year,
I
think
is
a
bit
disingenuous
and
that
obviously,
outside
influences
are
going
to
be
affecting
what
rents
are
achieved.
I
think
far
greater
than
the
look
of
the
property
after
a
post
renovation.
If
you
will
so
when
we're
looking
at
the
property
in
column,
f
again
more
than
4
500
of
the
agent
for
the
owner,
we
do
believe
that
these
blue
line
deductions
are
inappropriate
based
on
the
properties
that
we've
seen
before
the
board
this
year.
K
E
I
just
wanna
comment
that
one
of
the
things
that
we
or
did
I
also
discuss
is
that
once
a
property
undergoes
renovation,
we
also
assess
the
condition
of
the
property
based
off
those
renovations
that
were
done
and,
as
chris
noted,
this
property
is
a
1940
built.
E
Building
the
effective
age
has
been
1950
for
quite
some
time
and
on
the
2020
assessment
that
has
not
changed
so
when,
when
we
discuss
renovation
deductions
or
consideration
of
capital
improvement,
we
want
the
board
to
also
keep
in
mind
that
we
also
assess
how
those
improvements
affected
his
property.
E
I
was
just
going
through
some
of
the
older
ines
trying
to
assess
what
was
actually
done
in
this
property
and
try
to
compare
the
vacancy
over
the
time
period
to
which
this
renovation
is
taking
place,
and
I
think
the
agent
ms
borman,
I'm
sorry.
The
attorney
mrs
borman
stated
that
the
property
renovation
started
in
2013.
E
2013,
the
vacancy
was
6.25
2014.
The
vacancy
was
6.92.
E
These
renovations
that
have
taken
place
recently
are
the
cause
for
the
spike
in
the
vacancy,
and
I
can
actually
attest
to
some
of
the
changes
that
we've
seen,
because
me
and
chris
did
a
actual
inspection
of
this
property
back
in
2015.
E
When
we
had
this
case
and
so
2015
me
and
chris
inspected
this
property
on
july
7th,
we
noted
that
the
property
had
all
new
windows
that
were
replaced
in
2002,
we
notated
and
actually
took
pictures
of
the
property
and
noticed
how
the
kitchens
and
the
bathrooms
were
original
condition.
If
you
look
at
the
website
now,
those
bathrooms
and
kitchens
are
completely
updated
beyond
what
they
were
even
in
2015
and
that's
based
off
of
the
extensive
work.
That's
been
done
over
the
past
few.
C
E
Actually-
and
so
I
think
chris
did
a
great
job.
Lastly,
on
the
summer
sheet,
accounting
for
what
has
been
going
on
this
property
and
and
explaining
to
you
all
why
that
vase
is
so
high,
that's
all
I
have
for
now.
Thank
you.
F
F
A
K
K
K
I
Yeah,
I'm
sorry,
I
wasn't
sure
if
you
could
see
me
this
is
for
mr
chikas
normally
when
we
see
the
recess
in
the
reviews
that
you,
the
revisions
that
you
make
and
the
suggested
numbers
in
this
case,
this
property
has
a
high
vacancy.
Wouldn't
you
increase
knowing
that
the
vacancy
has
been
high
for
a
while
and
not
just
go
with
the
guidelines.
K
Yeah,
so
normally
we
would,
in
a
case,
we've
seen
this
a
couple
times
this
year,
where
we're
talking
about
economic
vacancy.
If
you
will,
as
opposed
to
owner
boost,
I
think
the
county.
Let
me
watch
our
phrases.
The
county's
belief
is
that,
obviously,
if
this
was
something
that
was
going
on
county-wide
even
north
arlington-wide,
then
that
would
be
affecting
other
property
types.
But,
as
mr
bailey
noted,
this
is
something
that
the
has
not
been
historical,
so
this
is
basically
associated
with
the
renovations
that
began
17,
18
19..
K
So
the
feeling
is
is
that,
as
of
january
1st,
given
that
the
property
had
been
finalized,
we
felt
that
that
would
be
stabilized
again
this
year.
Much
like
it
was
in
previous
years.
This
isn't
a
endemic
problem
to
the
property
itself,
where
they
can't
lease
up
the
property.
It's
that
the
owner
again
decided
not
to
release
the
units
upon
turnover
and
do
renovations.
So
normally
speaking,
we
may
reflect
that.
But
in
this
case
we
did
go
with
the
stabilized
three
percent.
K
J
So,
as
I
stated
in
my
initial
presentation,
there
have.
J
That
were
renovated
and
available.
There
has
never
been
a
situation
at
this
property
where
there
were
not
renovated
available
units
for
lease.
The
units
were
only
renovated
on
turn.
Nobody
was
asked
to
leave,
the
property
is
old
and
it
had
in
order
to
to
continue
to
be
able
to
be
rented
it
it
needed
to
have
the
renovation,
so
people
were
leaving
because
you
could
rent
for
at
a
new
property,
and
you
know.
J
Very
difficult
time
for
them
to
lease
this
property
back
up
as
a
you
know,
there's
been
there
were
hundreds
of
not
hundreds.
There
is
always
you
know,
15
percent
of
units
available
for
lease
throughout
the
renovation
period.
So
it's
not,
as
mr
chicas
has
said,
owner
induced
because
there
have
been
renovated
available
units.
K
Repeatedly
but
again,
4
500
separation
is
nothing.
We're
essentially
believe
that
the
property
will
be
able
to
achieve
the
same
amount
of
income
in
2020
based
on
these
renovations
that
again
comes
down
to
the
capitalization
rate,
that's
applied
in
the
bloodline
deductions.
K
I
believe
I
can
attest
a
100
accuracy
that
we
do
not
make
online
deductions
on
multi-family
renovations,
so
any
below
the
line.
Deduction
on
this
property
would
be
inappropriate
and
of
equalization
with
the
other
properties
we've
heard
this
year,
it's
to
the
cap
rate.
K
We
do
believe
that
again,
as
mr
bailey
pointed
out
as
well,
we
have
not
adjusted
the
effective
age
regardless
of
the
renovations
that
have
occurred
at
this
property,
so
for
this
property
type,
but
this
year
the
cap
rate
is
applied
correctly
in
columns
f
and
d,
and
it's
40
points
too
high
in
column
g.
That
being
said,
given
the
very
close
projection
based
on
the
net
upper
income
between
the
appointment
and
ourselves,
we
do
believe
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
as
21
million
hundred
two
thousand
six
hundred.
Thank
you.
J
J
J
J
So
it's
it's
very
unfair
and
inaccurate
to
compare
those
two
line
items
unless
you
take
the
whole
picture
into
account-
and
the
fact
is
is
mr
cheek
has
also
testified
that
he
thought
that
this
property
would
achieve
this
income
in
2020.
The
property
is
still
48
vacant.
Thank
you.
H
Concessions
below
the
line,
I
think
that
still
comes
out
to
20
million
248
600,
which
is
higher
than
last
year,
but
a
little
bit
lower
than
the
counter
revised
number.
H
Just
with
strikes
they're
not
done
with
the
construction
or
they're
not
done
with
the
renovation,
so
there's
still
money
to
be
spent.
So
I
think
it's
fair
to
look
at
it.
As
you
know,
here's
a
three
percent
on
the
county's
test-
column.
F,
you
know
three
percent
vacancy,
but
to
get
there
you're
going
to
have
to
spend
that
758
000
that
the
appellant
has
to
for
remaining
construction
costs,
and
I
think
that
the
concession.
G
H
000,
to
get
to
get.
F
F
Yes,
thank
you.
I
had
jd
print
this.
F
The
gray
areas
are
parking
areas
and
this
project
has
a
real
problem
in
parking
and
there's
a
side
lot.
There's
street
parking
as
you
go
up
the
hill,
a
couple
spaces
in
between
those
two
front
buildings
and
then
a
parking
lot
in
the
back,
which
is
not
adequate.
The
parking
in
the
back
is,
I
think,
on
property
zone
r6
and
the
I
think
the
project,
if
they,
if
they
did
a
raise
rebuild,
I
think
they
might
have
lost
their
right
to
that
parking.
E
F
So
they've
done
the
renovation
and
I'm
a
little
bit
familiar
with
this
and
it's
it's
a
real
problem,
but
the
parking
is
not
convenient
and
they
don't
have
enough
parking
they're,
not
on
a
metro-
and
this
is
just
I
mean
this.
This
just
has
problems,
and
so,
in
my
own
analysis,
I'm
convinced
I
think
the
applicant
has
carried
the
burden
of
proof
and
I
would
be
willing
to
go
with
the
applicant's
suggested
value.
Thank
you.
A
A
You
know
pretty
close
from
the
standpoint
of
rent,
so
that
doesn't
give
me
yanks,
I'm
not
sure
I
would
go
as
far
as
where
the
appellant
is
going.
I
think
the
price
per
unit
I
mean
it
drops
it
down
to
160
000
a
unit
which
I
think
is
a
little
low.
So
I
would
be
more
inclined
to
lean
towards
greg.
A
A
I
I
Yeah,
I
was
taking
a
little
different
approach.
You
know,
because
my
problem,
I
guess
with
this
one,
was
from
the
vacancy
like
I
was
asking,
so
I
was
doubling
the
the
vacancy
that
they
have
instead
of
three
percent
to
six
6,
I
come
up
with
almost
a
little
bit
higher
than
what
you
came
up
with
is
20
million
449,
which
I
think
the
value
is
the
way
it
is.
I
think
it
is
high
in
my
opinion,
but
I
think
one
of
those
two
changes
need
to
be
done.
H
I
I
I
All
right
I'll
make
a
move
that
we
reduce
the
assessment
to
20
million
449
900,
based
on
increasing
the
vacancy
to
six
percent.
A
A
A
Thank
you,
okay.
The
final
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc
three,
four:
zero:
two
zero,
two
six,
eight
at
twenty
two,
twenty
twentieth
street
south
and
again
we
have
miss
eileen's
warming
with
the
apparently
mr
christine
or
the
county.
Thank
you,
mrs
moorman.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
J
The
this
property
was
constructed
in
2009
and,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
it
was
a
conversion
from
an
office
building
to
an
apartment
building
and
it's
one
of
them,
one
of
the
first
to
sort
of
amenitize
their
assets,
and
it's
not
quite
to
the
level
of
you
know
some
of
the
properties
like
the
bartlett
or
or
others,
but
it
does
have
a
rooftop
pool,
it's
small.
It
also
has
a
small
business
center
and
a
small
tenant
lounge.
They
do
have
great
views.
J
However,
at
least
the
first
two,
the
property,
as
I
said,
was
2009,
and
the
main
issue
remaining
in
this
case
between
mr
chicas
and
and
myself
is
what
is
appropriate
for
operating
expenses,
and
it
comes
down
to
if
you
look
at
his
page,
full
page,
four,
what
it
what
it
comes
down
to
is.
Mr
chicas
has
removed
a
turn,
expense
associated
with
flooring,
and
that
expense
is
353
000.
J
Now
the
property
as
of
january
1
was
11
years
old.
It
is
billed
out
as
a
it's
pretty
much
a
young
people's
kind
of
a
hip
place
to
live,
and
it
got
to
a
point
where
we're
now
where
renovations
need
to
to
be
undertaken
on
occupied
units.
So
the
turn
at
the
property
has
been
very
consistent.
114
units
turned
over
in
17
119
in
18
and
111
in
2019,
and
one
of
the
things
that
the
owners
were
hearing
was
that
you
know
the
units
needed
to
be
updated
a
bit
and
flooring.
J
J
The
owners
accountants
have
confirmed
for
me
that
this
is
an
operating
expense
and
that,
on
their
federal
income
tax
returns,
it
is
considered
an
operating
expense.
The
county
has
opted
to
consider
this
to
remove
this
expenses,
although
it
should
not
be-
and
this
is
something
that
is
anticipated
to
go
on
in
the
future.
You
know
one
year,
it'll
be
flooring
another
year,
it'll
be
something
else
in
the
units,
but
it
is
anticipated,
at
least
as
of
january
1.
J
J
J
You
know
the
owner
of
this
property
is
very
straightforward.
If
you
look
at
page
48,
the
owner
actually
showed
the
retail
income
compared
to
the
county's
retail
income,
and
that
represented
an
increase
in
value,
and
you
know
that
is,
it
is
what
it
is.
J
and
there
you
see
that
the
inc
that
the
assessment
for
that
portion
of
the
property
using
we
did
use
a
higher
cap
rate.
So
I
guess
that
would
the
board
is
not
adjusting
cap
rates,
but
the
income
used
was
about
600
and
in
excess
of
600
000
greater
than
what
was
actually
achieved
going
to
page
46.
J
You
can
see
the
combined
income
at
the
property,
and
you
know
you
can
tell
that.
Regardless
of
what
adjustments
mr
chicas
makes
you
know,
the
combined
income
at
the
at
the
subject
was
about
six
hundred
thousand
dollars
less
than
that
used
to
prepare
the
initial
2020
assessment
and
still
a
considerably
a
considerable
amount
greater
than
what
was
actually
earned
at
the
property
in
2019.
J
So
again,
the
assessment,
the
property
is
aging
in
order
to
maintain
its
position
in
the
marketplace
and
to
keep
occupancy
up,
they
do
need
to
repair
and
or
replace
because
things
do
get
old
and
age
out
and
the
property
is
now
as
of
january.
1
was
about
11
years
old,
and
so
this
is
something
that
we
can
expect
to
see
moving
forward
in
the
future.
K
Yes,
ma'am
so
again,
focusing
primarily
on
the
mixed
use,
income
and
expense
summary
sheets.
K
K
K
Resurfaced
we
sanded
the
these
were
replaced.
They
took
wood
floors
out,
we
put
a
new
one
to
the
cost
of
353
000.
Mrs
borman
testified
that
the
turnover
level
is
approximately
the
same
2018
and
2019.,
and
yet
only
in
2019
did
we
see
this
additional
353
000
increase
in
expense
associated
with
turnover
again.
I
think
that
basically
points
out
that
that
was
a
one-time
capital
improvement
as
opposed
to
a
annual
operating
to
operate
this
property.
K
You
know
it
may
seem
semantics,
but
again
I
think
the
definition
or
the
difference
is
the
owner.
Listening
to
tenants
wanted
to
either
maintain
the
occupants
they
had
or
increase
their
rents,
and
to
do
that,
they
spent
money
to
make
money,
as
the
board
has
seen
before,
we
did
reconstruct
out
that
353
thousand
dollars
and
columns
f1
and
f2.
K
Unfortunately,
there's
not
much
of
a
history
in
place
with
this
property
and
that
they
didn't
turn
in
income
and
expense
forms
prior
to
2018.
So
all
we
can
see
is
the
year
2018
and
2019,
but
again
using
2018
as
a
barometer.
We
can
see
that
the
expenses
showed
up
almost
24,
based
almost
entirely
on
that
353
000
capital
improvement,
the
reason
again,
the
board,
the
county,
puts
out
the
reconstruction
columns,
f1
and
f2s
to
show
you
what
consider
annual
operating
expenses,
which
I
would
point
out,
was
still
called
for
six.
K
Almost
a
seven
percent
increase
over
2019.
Excuse
me
2018's
operating
expenses,
and
so
we
did
in
fact
move
along
the
lines
with
those
expenses,
the
reconstruction,
the
revision
that
we
put
out
had
a
total
of
26.3
percent
of
effective
gross
for
expenses
over
2.2
million,
very
much
in
line
with
the
reconstruction
and,
not
surprisingly,
just
about
353
thousand
dollars
below
what
was
reported
in
2019
due
to
the
capital
improvements
for
the
replacement
of
wood
floors.
K
Given
that
the
projections
we
made
on
the
revenue
side
come
again
directly
from
the
owner's
rent
wall
submission,
these
aren't
wild
guesses.
These
are
pulled
from
the
owner
in
regards
to
retail.
We
get
the
retail
rent
roll.
We
got
the
residential
rent
roll,
as
you
can
see
again
extremely
modest
projections
of
a
half,
a
percent
increase
on
on
revenue
side
for
apartments,
less
than
a
quarter
of
a
percent
increase
on
the
retail
side,
and
when
you
look
at
gross
potential,
we're
at
a
point,
four
percent
increase
again
below
what
they
achieved
in
2019.
K
When
we
look
at
the
effect
of
growth,
we're
below
what
they
achieved
in
2019,
we
actually
are
in
line
with
their
projection
of
losing
approximately
half
a
percent
due
to
effective
gross
again,
our
operating
expenses
are
higher
than
what
they
reported.
A
good
bit
higher
was
250
000
higher
than
what
they
reported
in
2018
and
very
much
in
line
with
what
they
would
have
reported
in
2019.
K
E
Really
follow
up
on
what
you
said
and
try
to
re-emphasize
that
when
we
look
at
the
inds
we're
looking
for
repairs,
repairs
are
usually
one-off
fixes
to
a
property
where
floor
replacements
are
improvements
to
a
property.
Anything
that
improves
or
extends
the
life
of
the
property
is
considered
a
capital
expense
and-
and
that's
one
reason
why
we
try
to
spell
a
lot
of
this
out
on
the
ine
definition
page.
So
owners
will
know
when
they
feel
like
these
forms,
like
what's
a
repair
or
proper
expense
and
what
is
a
capital
expense?
E
We
state
that
anything
that
improves
the
life
of
a
property,
something
that
you
don't
replace
every
single
year.
That's
a
capital
improvement,
whether
it's
kitchen
renovations,
bathroom
updates,
like
all
of
those
things,
are
capital
improvements.
I
mean
replacing
a
broken
tile
in
the
kitchen,
I
mean
that
would
be
a
repair
but
gutting
all
the
floors
and
replacing
it
that's
capital
improvement,
and
so
that's
how
we
treated
all
properties.
F
This
is
for
chris,
if
the
internal
revenue
service
and
the
accountant
consider
this
to
be
maintenance.
Why
isn't
that
decisive.
K
I'm
not
sure
you're
asking
why
doesn't
the
internal
revenue
service
performed
the
assessments
for
the
county
of
arlington
yeah?
No.
F
No
miss
borman
said
that
the
accountant
had
certified
in
the
federal
tax
return,
that
this
was
maintenance,
and
so
why
isn't
that
decisive
to
the
county.
K
E
So
so
let
me
let
me
jump
in
so
barnes.
One
thing
that
we
learn
right
away
when
we
go
to
assessor
school
is
that
our
proper
expenses
for
assessment
purposes
are
not
the
same
as
expense
property,
expense
for
irs
tax
filing
purposes
like
we
learned
that
right
off
the
bat
like
they're,
not
equal
at
all
and
again,
that's
why
we
even
spell
out
in
our
just
for
the
I
needs.
What
are
proper
expenses,
because
even
with
irs,
you
get
to
write
off
what
amateurization
and
depreciation.
F
Let
me
ask
the
owner
one
follow-up:
what
was
the
former
flooring
and
what's
the
new
floor.
J
Thank
you.
The
former
flooring
was
in
many
cases
it
was
varied
depending
on
the
unit.
Some
was
carpet.
Some
was
tile.
Some
was
wood.
K
Okay
literally
says
solid,
but
mr
lawson,
I
did
find
an
email
from
the
owner
in
which
I
asked
specifically
is
this
item?
Is
this
an
item
that
is
expense
for
irs
purposes,
or
is
it
considered
a
capital
cost?
The
reply
was
this
item
is
considered
as
a
turnover
cost
and
should
be
factored
into
the
noi.
J
What
I'm
suggesting
is
as
follows
that
this
building
was
was
completed
in
2009
and
that,
as
part
of
the
you
know,
as
the
life
expectancy
of
certain
items
change
it
you
know
expires.
That
items
will
be
replaced.
This
is
an
ongoing
project
on
flooring,
once
they're
done
with
flooring,
there'll
be
something
else.
It's
it's
just.
J
It's
hit
the
end
of
useful
life
in
a
number
of
different
areas.
I
don't
suggest
that
it
will
be
flooring
every
year,
but
I
do
suggest
that
there
will
be
something
every
year,
whether
it's
replacing
washer
dryers
or
it's.
You
know
changing
kitchen
cabinets
or
countertops
or
something
along
those
lines.
H
J
I
think
that
it's
a
good
question
and
I'm
not
sure
I'm
going
to
be
able
to
answer
it.
The
way
I
I
would
like
to
and
what
I
can
say
is,
as
I
said,
the
irs
considers
this
an
operating
expense.
J
J
J
I
think
that
the
irs
clearly
states
it's
an
operating
cost.
The
owners
have
filed
it
as
an
operating
cost,
and
I
I
know
what
mr
bailey
said
about
assessor
school,
but
I
don't
think
that
the
laws
change
the
irs
code
change
previously.
This
was
considered
a
capex
item
until
probably
four
or
five
years
ago,
by
the
irs.
Now
it
is
considered
an
operating
expense,
and
I
think
that
that
is
how
it
should
be
considered
for
purposes
of
of
this
case.
G
J
Well,
I
I
would
say
that
would
be
assuming
that
the
term
stays
the
same.
I
would
say
that
I
think
there's
only
265
units
here,
but
let
me
double
check.
I
think
that
once
they're
done
with
the
flooring
on
the
units,
then
they'll
move
on
to
something
else.
J
J
I
can
tell
you
that
this
year
there
will
not
be
that
amount
of
expense
in
terms
of
decorating,
because,
because
of
covid,
a
lot
of
people
that
are
are
staying
in
place
and
there
is
not
a
lot
of
work
being
done
on
units
because
of
the
virus,
so
the
units
this
year,
the
cost,
will
not
be
that
amount.
As
of
I
did
get
the
amount
for
this
year
and
it
was
about.
Let
me
get
back
to
it
on
my
computer.
J
It
was
significantly
less
I'm
trying
to
find
it,
but
I
think
it
was
about
115
000
this
year.
K
Yes,
ma'am
so
essentially
just
sort
of
following
on
the
the
lines
of
mr
hoffman's
questions,
as
we
believe
we've
made
the
case.
We
do
not
believe
that
a
owner's
decision
to
upgrade
or
replace
different
features
of
the
property
in
this
case
353
000
for
wood
floors,
should
be
considered
a
annual
operating
expenses.
This
is
not
something
that
happens
annually.
K
As
we've
seen,
we
only
have
two
years
of
histories,
18
and
19,
and
obviously,
if
we're
just
using
those
two
years,
which
is
the
only
information
we
have,
we
can
see
that
they
went
from
approximately
2.1
to
2.6
in
operating
expenses.
That's
not
a
typical
yearly
turnover,
that's
something
that
again
per
the
attestation
by
the
attorney
for
the
owner
was
something
that
was
done
to
keep
the
tenants
happy
to
either
increase
their
rental
or
revenue
or
to
keep
them
in
place.
K
As
we've
heard
testified,
this
was
a
replacement,
not
a
refinishing
or
a
refurbishment
of
the
existing
wood.
This
was
replacement.
That
being
said,
we
do
believe
that
the
county's
revision
should
be
confirmed
that
119
million
three
hundred
ten
thousand
two
hundred.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
J
I
just
want
to
be
clear,
mr
hoffman,
I
don't
believe
the
flooring
will
be
replaced
every
year.
I
do
not
believe
that
is
an
expense
that
will
be
incurred.
You
know
routinely.
J
A
Go
ahead
and
start,
I
see
a
couple
problems
here,
one,
the
lack
of
you
know,
information
we're
only
looking
at
two
years.
That
gives
me
a
little
pause
to
start
with,
but
you
know,
as
far
as
you
know,
the
irs,
whether
they
consider
it
an
expense,
a
capital
improvement.
A
I
mean,
I
think,
we're
getting
down
to
where
we
see
our
appraisers
or
appraisals
done,
for
you
know,
market
value
for
resale,
or
are
they
done
for
assessment?
I
think
it's
two
different
things.
You
know
with
the
absence
of
the
actual
tax
return.
You
know
we
don't
know.
Was
there,
you
know
any
kind
of
amortization.
Was
there
any
depreciation?
A
I
think
that's
kind
of
a
slippery
slope
to
get
into
that.
They
just
on
this
particular
case,
we're
doing
this
as
an
expense.
So
we
want
to
move
this
over
out
of
capital
improvements
to
expenses
and
I
think
it's
getting
out
of
equalization
with
how
the
county
assesses
all
the
properties.
Now,
if
moving
forward,
that's
a
a
code
change
that
the
county
is
going
to
recognize
and
say
all
right,
we're
going
to
take
all
flooring
for
all
properties
and
put
it
to
expense.
I
The
expenses
should
not
be
considered
an
annual
expense,
regardless
of
what
the
irs
or
any
accountant
or
you
know,
whatever
other
purpose
they
use
it
for,
but
for
purposes
of
our
valuation
and
equalization.
I
think
the
county
did
the
proper
way
to
do
it.
I'm
okay,
with
the
revised
number.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chairman,
you
know
I
was
when
I
first
reviewed
this.
I
was
kind
of
leaning
towards
deducting
as
an
expense
the
replacement
of
flooring,
but
after
questioning
that
something
that
I
found
persuasive,
was
that
in
the
county
assessment
process
and
evaluation,
you
don't
do
depreciation,
and
so
the
purpose
of
is
a
capital.
Or
is
it
expense?
F
H
I
think
the
county
did
a
good
job
here.
There's
26
percent
expenses
in
the
test
column
and,
like
you
pointed
out,
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
data
to
go
on.
We
don't
have
three
or
four
years
to
kind
of
average
out
and
see
what
statements
so
I'd.
E
A
H
A
Okay
motion
is
second
by
mr
huffman.
All
in
favor
opposed
okay,
it's
you
know
unanimous
five
to
zero.
The
revised
number
of
119
million
310
200
is
the
assessment
all
right.
Thank
you,
miss
barman
and
mr
chikas,
and
thank
you
for
accepting
the
seven
cases
for
tomorrow
and
ending
our
our
schedule
a
day
early.
J
A
All
righty
any
other.