►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Meeting | September 12, 2023
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
morning
today
is
Tuesday
September
12
2023.
This
is
the
Arlington
County
Board
of
Equalization
hearing.
There
are
six
cases
on
the
agenda.
We
will
start
with
the
first
case
and
let
the
records
show
there
is
a
quorum
with
five
members.
Present
first
case
is
RPC
14051019
and
4420
Fairfax
Drive
Mr
Harmon.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
B
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chairwoman,
members
of
the
board
Lori
good
morning,
4420
Fairfax
Drive,
is
a
58
000
square
foot
office.
Building
it's
located
at
Fairfax
and
Vermont
in
Boston,
this
property
executed
a
sale
contract
on
March
7th
for
11
million
one
hundred
fifty
thousand
dollars
which
close
on
May
22nd
a
departmental
hearing,
was
requested
and
was
not
honored
if
you'd
be
so
kind.
Now
is
to
direct
your
attention
to
page
76
of
the
appeal.
You'll
see
our
grounds
for
this
appeal.
B
The
assessment
makes
no
adjustments
for
the
onerous
and
burdensome
offers
required
to
utilize
the
Redevelopment,
nor
for
the
cost
of
demolishing
the
existing
office
building.
Nor
for
the
fact
that,
as
of
the
data
value,
the
site
plan
was
not
legally
permissible
due
to
Arlington
County's
Community
High
School
lease
at
the
property
that
runs
through
September
of
2026
nearly
four
years
after
the
data
valued.
This
lease
is
provided
on
page
180
of
the
appeal,
and
you
can
see
it
does
not
include
any
kickout
clause.
B
The
sale
price
of
11
million
one
hundred
fifty
thousand
dollars
was
arrived
at
after
over
a
year
of
extensive
marketing.
The
purchase
and
sale
agreement
is
provided
on
the
appeal
beginning
on
page
79.,
the
Drea
knew
of
the
marketing
of
the
property
and
was
provided
with
the
bid
history
and
the
ultimate
sale
contract.
B
B
The
Drea
has
also
been
aware
of
the
burdensome
profiters
and
demo
requirements
tied
to
this
property.
For
years
now,
this
property
has
been
appealed
each
year
since
2018,
on
the
grounds
that
the
profit
costs
are
overly
burdensome
and
much
greater
than
similar
properties
in
the
county.
These
costs
have
been
relayed
to
the
Drea
and
provided
in
each
appeal
again
beginning
in
2018..
B
These
profit
costs
are
included
on
this
year's
appeal
again,
beginning
on
page
226
and,
as
I
said,
have
been
provided
to
the
county
for
the
past
six
years.
The
profit
costs
include
a
cash
contribution
of
6.9
million
dollars
to
construct
the
West
entrance
of
the
Ballston
Metro
and
7.3
million
dollars
in
Street
vacations.
B
Combine
these
profit
costs
amount
to
over
14
million
dollars,
which
is
sixty
thousand
dollars
per
approved,
multi-family
unit
that
the
owner
must
pay
in
order
to
redevelop
the
property.
Now,
if
we
look
at
a
similar
property,
the
Jay
Seoul
Apartments,
this
is
just
a
few
blocks
down
Fairfax
it's
at
Fairfax
and
Quincy.
We
see
that
the
profiters
related
to
this
Redevelopment
included
items
such
as
community
art
planning
trees
and
a
community
Plaza
in
this
Plaza
has
since
been
converted
to
outdoor
seating
for
the
retail
tenant
at
this
property.
B
So
none
of
these
benefits
tied
to
this
neighboring
property
are
anywhere
near
the
millions
of
dollars
that
this
this
project
is
required
to
pay.
Additionally,
this
property
does
have
a
58
000
square
foot
office.
Building
that
must
be
demolished
before
it
can
be
redeveloped
going
back
to
the
jsol
apartments
they
had.
If
you
all
remember
this
site,
it
was
the
former
carpool,
it's
a
it's
an
old
dive
bar
that
was
a
one-story
building.
It
was
about
8
000
square
feet.
That's
all
that
it
needed
to
demo.
This
property
has
a
58
000
square
foot
office.
B
B
It
estimated
the
cost
of
demoing
this
building
at
113
dollars
per
square
foot.
This
information
is
provided
on
page
179
of
the
appeal.
If
we
apply
Arlington
County's
own
demo,
cost
estimate
to
this
property,
we
get
to
a
demo
cost
of
over
6.5
million
dollars.
If
we
apply
that
same
rate
to
the
former
carpool
building,
where
J
Seoul
is
now,
it
would
cost
less
than
a
million
dollars
to
demo
that
building
again
no
adjustment
by
the
assessment
for
these
disappeared
site
plans.
B
Given
the
burden,
some
Proctor
and
demolition
requirements,
along
with
the
four-year
lease
to
Arlington
County
Community
School,
the
owner
has
no
plans
to
act
upon
the
site
plan
and
redevelop
the
site.
So
in
summary,
we've
we've
told
the
Drea
from
the
past
six
years
that
this
property
is
not
worth
anything
near
where
it
has
been
assessed
due
to
the
burdensome
profit
requirements
tied
to
the
site
plan.
These
costs
are
far
greater
than
similar
Redevelopment
projects
in
the
county.
B
This
property
is
further
impacted
by
the
demolition
requirements
and
the
four-year
lease
to
Arlington
County
that
prevents
any
immediate
Redevelopment.
The
property
was
widely
marketed
since
December
of
2021
received
over
125
confidentiality
agreements
and
ultimately
received
15
bids.
The
best
of
these
15
bids
was
accepted
by
the
owner
and
the
property
closed
at
a
sale
price
of
only
11
million
one
hundred
fifty
thousand
dollars.
As
such,
we
respectfully
request
the
board
reduce
the
assessment
to
the
sale
price.
Thank.
C
So
basically,
this
site
plan
was
approved
a
long
time
ago
and
it's
undergone
a
number
of
amendments
to
extend
the
site
plan
and
the
most
recent
amendment
was
June,
12
2021
and
they
were
able
they
got
an
an
extension
that
is
good
through
December
31st
2025..
It
still
makes
this
site
plan
active
and
as
for
the
kickout
Clause,
there
are
no
no
kickout
clause
for
the
school
it
turns
out.
C
This
school
is
just
a
temporary
location
for
this
school
they're
planning
to
move
over
to
the
new
I
believe
it's
the
Amazon
site
over
there.
As
soon
as
that
area
is
finished,
then
this
school
will
leave
here,
move
over
there
not
necessary
for
a
kickout
clause
once
and
once
again
the
we
did
do
a
search
on
co-star
and
noticed
that
the
new
owners
are
already
advertising.
C
Obviously
we
can't
give
consideration
to
this
because
this
occurred
after
January
1,
but
the
owners
are
already
advertising
that
they're
going
to
develop
even
using
more
or
additional
units.
I
think
it
was
like
367
units
where
this
is
currently
approved
for
237
residential
units
and
9
200
square
feet
of
retail
space,
but
the
the
new
owner
who
purchased
this
site
in
May
of
this
year
after
the
January
1
assessment
fully
intends
to
develop
this
site
and
they
sound.
C
When
you
read
the
notes,
they
sound
pretty
excited
they're,
ready
to
move
they're
ready
to
go
and,
as
Jordan
had
also
mentioned,
we,
the
county,
did
get
approval,
and
now
the
what
we
believed
was
part
of
the
holdup
was
the
the
funding
for
that
West
Metro
station.
That's
now
now
approved
full
funding,
so
that's
ready
to
go.
There
is
no
hold
up
there.
C
That's
pretty
much
it!
What
I
have
for
at
the
moment,
if
Deidra
would
like
to
I
open
the
mic
for
her
to
speak
if
she
feels
necessary
otherwise
unfinished.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board
members.
E
Yes,
thank
you.
This
is
for
Lori
if,
if
the
county
did
not
base
the
assessed
value
on
the
site
plan,
but
rather
on
the
current
office
building,
what
would
that
assessment
be.
C
E
Let
me
let
me
ask
the
applicant
one
one
quick
question:
what
the
counties
come
up
with
and
I'm,
not
saying
it's
accurate,
but
what
the
counties
come
up
with
is
is
a
value
for
a
raw
residential
apartment
unit,
any
property
you
have
to
demolish.
What's
already
there,
do
you
not.
C
B
E
B
So
it
does
for
other
properties
and,
as
I
mentioned,
the
jsol
apartments
had
the
former
carpool
one
story:
8
000
square
foot
building
there
so
that
eighty
six
thousand
dollars
per
unit
is
more
reflective
of
demoing
a
building.
As
of
that
not
a
fifty
eight
thousand
dollar
or
58
000
square
foot
office
building.
So
it's
it's
quite
a
bit
more
significant.
How.
B
F
I
I
have
two
questions.
The
first
one
is
following
up
on
what
Barnes
was
asking
about.
That
was
my
first
comment
to
myself
to
the
department.
When
you
assign
values
of
site
plan
site
planned
properties,
you
base
it
on
a
number
of
apartments
or
square
foot
of
office
or
whatever
it
is.
The
site
plan
calls
for
I
I,
don't
recall,
but
I
want
you
to
tell
me
if
my
recollection
is
poor,
that
the
cost
of
demolition
is
ever
included
in
that
blanket
assignment
of
site
plan
value.
C
When
we've
developed
the
86
000
per
unit
or
the
65
dollars
per
square
foot,
that's
based
off
of
land
sales
and
a
lands,
a
land
sale
when
a
buyer
is
buying
that
property
they've
already
factored
in
they've,
already,
basically
factored
in
their
demolition
costs.
What
any
of
their
additional
costs
necessary.
So
when
they
tell
the
seller
they
go.
Hey
I
have
to
spend
this
amount
of
money
just
to
demolish
this
building.
C
So
instead
I'm
going
to
offer
you
this
much
for
the
land,
because
I'm
going
to
have
to
pay
additional
amount
on
top
of
that,
so
the
land
values.
When
we
develop
these
land
values,
they've
already
got
a
demolition
costs
factored
in.
Those
have
already
been
accounted
for
when
the
buyer
and
the
seller
meet
and
agree
upon
a
price
and.
B
F
Other
words,
those
are
averages
of
sales
that
you've
experienced
throughout
your
research.
Okay,
some
are
higher,
some
are
lower
and
that's
the
way
it
goes.
Okay,
great.
This
is
probably
for
the
department
but
I
I
invite
the
appellant
to
chime
in,
if
necessary,
the
appellant
said
that
the
site
plan
Amendment,
which
I
assume
is
this
30-year
percent
or
so
increase
in
proposed
residential
units
to
be
built,
has
not
yet
been
approved,
but
I
thought
I
heard
you
Lori
say
that
it
was
approved.
C
C
B
It
has
not
and
Mr
matskin
this
co-star
listing
I
believe
it
predates
the
sale
so
I
don't
know
where
this
co-star
number
comes
from,
but
it's
just
it's
been
there
for
years.
I
don't
know
when
it
goes
back
to
I,
don't
see
a
record
of
when
it
was
started.
But
to
my
understanding
it's
not
the
current
owner's
listing
that
shows
this
proposed
property
of
okay.
F
A
Let
the
record
reflect
Mr
Hoffman
was
in
the
county
office
when
the
meeting
started
so
Mr
Hoffman.
You
had
a
question.
G
B
So
all
of
the
bids
that
they
received
had
site
plan,
they
were
contingent
on
us
on
site
plan
approvals.
G
B
B
For
that
highest
bid,
I
I
can
find
out
Mr
elephant,
but
I'm
not
certain
what
happened
with
that.
They
received
a
few
a
couple
of
bids
and
February
they
received
about
six
bids
in
April.
None
of
them
could
close.
They
received
another
bid
in
May.
Couldn't
close
I
received
a
bid
for
13.6
million
in
October.
Couldn't
close,
they
wanted
a
site
plan
Amendment
for
that
one
as
well,
and
then
they
received
this
later
latest
around
in
February,
so
they've
and.
B
I
believe
they
wanted
to
add
density
and
I
think
that
the
consultation
they
got
from
their
Consultants
after
they
put
in
the
bid
was
that
it
it
had
like
a
less
than
five
percent
chance
of
approval.
It
was
very
unlikely
that
this
site
plan
would
be
awarded
any
more
density
than
it
has.
C
You
so
once
again,
we
treat
this
property
like
we
do
any
property
in
the
county
when
we're
valuing
it
under
site
plan.
When
it's
been
approved,
this
one
has
been
extended
through
December
2025
for
237
residential
units
and
9
200
square
feet
of
retail
space,
and
we
ask
that
you
confirmed
this.
The
original
January
one
as
excuse
me
January
1
assessment
at
20
million,
nine
hundred
and
eighty
one
thousand.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
A
B
Thank
you.
So
the
Drea
stated
the
site
plan
runs
through
the
end
of
2025..
The
lease
to
Arlington
County
runs
through
September
of
2026.,
so
they're
going
to
have
to
get
another
extension
because
there's
the
the
site
plan
that
expires
before
this
lease
that's
in
place
with
no
kickout
Clause
expires,
so
they're
going
to
have
to
get
another
extension
in
order
to
act
upon
this
as
it
stands,
the
current
site
plan
requires
seven
million
dollars
in
a
cash
contribution
to
the
construction
of
the
Boston
Metro
insurance.
This
is
different
than
other
properties.
B
I
mentioned
the
jsol
apartments,
the
profiters
on
that
property.
It
was
community
art
which
is
like
a
10
foot
by
five
foot,
stained
glass
Mosaic
that
they
have
there.
They
had
a
community
Plaza
which
has
since
become
incorporated
into
the
retail
unit
at
that
property.
Those
are
nowhere
near
seven
million
dollars
in
cash.
Thank
you.
E
Yeah,
why
not
go
ahead
and
start
off
I'm
pretty
familiar
with
this
site
plan,
because
I
had
a
client
look
at
it
and
I
also
live
in
the
Pacific
Association
and
they've
discussed
this.
Everybody
has
known
that
this
is
not
economically
feasible.
That's
been
known
for
quite
a
while
and
when
the
site
plan
got
extended.
The
reason
the
reason
they're
extending
site
plans
is
to
file
a
new
site
plan
and
process.
E
It
costs
between
a
million
to
two
million
dollars,
and
so
the
owner
kept
approving
this
or
extending
the
site
plan,
so
they
don't
have
to
start
from
scratch
at
the
last.
This
is
a
staff
report.
When
the
site
plan
got
extended
in
I,
think
it
was
2021.
Anyhow,
here's
what
it
says.
E
It
says
that
the
proposed
extension
would
permit
the
approved
site
plan
to
remain
active
while
the
property
owner
and
a
new
development
team
prepare
plans
for
a
revised
site
plan
to
submit
to
the
county
in
that
time
frame
and
the
planning
staff
also
recognized
that
this
was
not
economical
and
so
I
I
hear
what
Laurie's,
saying
and
I
hear
what
what
Jordan's
saying
and
you
know
a
site
plan
and
every
site
plan
is
not
equal
to
every
other
site
plan.
This
is
well
located
property,
but
it
does
have
this
extraordinary
site.
E
Planck
Edition
they're,
not
profits
by
the
way,
because
we're
in
Arlington
not
Fairfax
and
in
Arlington
site
plan
conditions
are
imposed
by
the
board
they're,
not
written
out
by
the
applicant
who
signs
off.
These
are
okay
with
us.
It
probably
was
economical
way
back
when
this
got
approved,
but
cost
of
construction
and
so
forth
and
I
think
that
when
you
have
an
extraordinary
unique
condition
that
is
as
expensive
as
the
you
know,
six
million
nine
hundred
I
think
you
have
to
take
that
into
account
and
I.
Think.
G
Yeah
Barnes,
who
said
it
I'm
I'm
in
agreement,
I,
was
kind
of
thinking,
13.6
being
that
that
was
the
kind
of
closest
offer
that
was
before
the
data
valuation.
G
It
didn't
go
through
yeah,
so
I
mean
it's
11.
150
was
the
cash
offer
closed
a
little
bit
after
January
1st,
so
probably
between
that
period
between
13.6
and
11.15.
E
My
my
guess
is:
they're
gonna
wait
until
the
was
it
Western
entrance
to
Boston,
Metro
gets
built
and
then
come
in.
That's.
A
H
Yates
I,
agree
or
I
understand
it's
the
way
to
put
it
with
the
county
using
their
standard.
What
they
base
site
plan,
evaluations
on
in
the
numbers
I
agree
that
this
property
seems
to
be
quite
different
than
what
is
just
standard.
As
an
average
of
What
site
plan.
Pricing
in
the
market
is
in
Arlington
I'm,
more
inclined,
I
was
looking
at
the
11
million
150..
F
I
I'm
I'm
in
a
general
agreement
to
that
I
would
support
a
lower
valuation,
even
though,
of
course,
the
current
owner
bought
it.
Knowing
that
the
most
recent
valuation
was
way
higher
than
they
were
paying,
and
but
they
did
their
due
diligence
and
they
found
out
about
conditions
and
other
kinds
of
things
and
and
made
a
much
lower
offer
than
the
assessment.
Nonetheless,
I
think
it
should
be
lowered,
but
I
don't
think
it.
F
The
the
13
million
plus
figure,
which
I
understand
and
appreciate
that
Greg
threw
out
suggests
that,
therefore,
there's
no
additional
there's
no
contribution
by
the
now
the
current
owner,
always
the
current
owner
to
to
public
improvements
that
just
wipes
out
the
entire
obligation
that
they've
inherited
in
the
sale.
That
seems
too
extreme
to
me
and
I
would
suggest
perhaps-
and
it
is
an
extremely
high
amount
of
money
to
to
to
provide
for
the
public
good
relative
to
what
we
see
so
I
would
suggest
something
like
reducing
the
evaluation
buy.
Half
of
that
amount.
F
I
I
just
think
the
full
amount
is
just
too
much
when
it
gets
by
the
way
when
it
comes
to
demolition
costs.
We
certainly
see
somewhere
higher.
Some
are
lower.
That's
just
luck
of
the
draw,
but
these
conditions
that
that
that's
unusual
and
fair
market
values
suggest
strongly
that
it
ought
to
be
lowered
so
again,
I
I
think
it
should
be
lowered,
but
not
by
that
full
amount.
Thank
you.
A
Right,
I
just
I'm,
going
to
jump
in
real,
quick,
Mr
Yates,
and
then
you
can
comment,
I
guess,
I'm,
just
struggling
with
the
fact
that
I
mean
we've
heard
about
other
site
plans,
and
everybody
comes
in
and
says,
but
ours
is
unique,
and
this
is
different
and
we've
got
this.
A
You
know
they
extended
it,
the
the
buyer
bought
it.
Knowing
that
was
on
there,
I
mean
I,
just
think
from
a
standpoint
of
just
the
process
of
how
we
assess
site
plans.
This
is
tough
for
me
to
say.
Well,
this
is
more
unique
than
the
other
unique
situations,
so
we
should
reduce
this
I
I'm
struggling
with
that.
H
H
A
H
Long
I,
just
don't
remember,
site
playing
I,
don't
remember
and
I
don't
use
the
word
profits
being
of
this
magnitude
compared
to
the
value
of
the
property
itself.
That's
there's
an
equality
there
that
just
I
don't
think
exists.
G
I
G
Know
they
went
through
one
Brokerage
in
in
early
22.,
it
went
out
actually
late
21
and
it
went
out
and
called
for
offers
in
early
22,
and
you
can
see
how
the
offers
kind
of
went
down
as
it
got
closer
and
closer
to
the
end
of
the
year,
and
then
it
went
out
again
in
23,
and
you
know
it's
like
that's
talking
to
people
in
the
industry.
Everybody
looked
at
the
site.
G
Everybody
tried
to
figure
out
how
to
make
it
work
at
20
million,
and
the
only
company
that
made
it
work
is
is
the
ones
that
are
when
they
haven't
even
made
it
work,
but
it's
they're
at
11
million
dollar
basis
right
now.
So,
if
they're
excited
to
get
started,
they're
excited
to
pay
11
million
dollars
to
that
land
and
get
started,
but
it
just
never.
It
didn't
work
at
20
million
so
that
to
me
just
seals,
the
deal
I
mean
I
know
what
the
market
value
is.
Today.
It's
11
million
150.
A
J
Well,
I
agree
with
you:
Mary
I
mean
we've
looked
at
so
many
side
planes
before
we
and
we've
never
really
made
adjustments
based
on
any
demolition
costs
or
anything.
That
is
extraordinary
that
you
know
I
I,
guess
a
lot
of
you
guys
are
putting
weight
on
the
sales
price
of
this
year,
and
you
know
I,
don't
think
we've
done
that
before
this
is
something
that
it's
been
going
year
after
year.
J
The
extended
like
you
said
it's
not
the
first
pipeline
that
we
see
with
so
many
extensions,
and
you
know
I'm
hesitant
to
make
any
changes
and
I
I
appreciate
Mr
Hoffman's
input,
but
regardless
of
that
I,
don't
think
your
vote
would
count
in
this
case,
because
you
were,
you
know
a
little
late
to
coming
in,
but
I
don't
know
I'm,
not
really
in
favor
of
making
any
changes
myself.
Okay,.
E
Yeah,
this
is
what
I
do
for
a
living
is
a
proof
site
plans
and
I've
approved
dozens
of
sight.
Planes
I've
been
through
this
process
numerous
times,
I've
done
high
rises
in
Roslyn
at
the
Pentagon
City
I
did
Pentagon
row.
I've
done
you
know
a
ton
of
these
projects
and
I
can
tell
you
that
no
site
plan
that
I've
ever
done
has
had
conditions
like
this
one
I
mean
this.
One
is
unique.
E
It's
extraordinary
and
like
Colonial
Village,
three
Office
Buildings
got
approved
by
that
and
at
Colonial
Village
they
put
that
entrance
to
the
Metro
underneath
Wilson,
but
that
was
spread
over
three
Office
Buildings.
This
extraordinary
expense
of
six
million
nine
hundred
seven
billion
whatever
it
is
his
spread,
is-
is
hit
on
one
residential
building.
E
I
marketed
the
property
right
across
Fairfax
Drive
from
George,
Mason,
University
and
I
couldn't
get
a
single
developer
interested
in
it
and
it
ended
up
being
sold
to
George
Mason
because
they
had
money
that
had
been
given
by
the
state,
so
I
I.
Don't
think
you
could
just
ignore
the
fact
that
this
is
an
extraordinary
expense
that
no
other
site
plan
has
with
that.
I'll
be
quiet,
Madam,
chairman,
oh.
F
Agree
I
appreciate
that,
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
you're
on
the
board,
in
an
asset,
I
I'd
hate
for
this
to
go
to
the
full
amount,
because
I
am
sensitive
to
really
good,
fair
market
value,
information
and
I
don't
mean
necessarily
a
sale
past
the
date
of
evaluation,
but
the
two-year
marketing
period,
where
nothing
ever
got
close
by
a
long
shot
to
the
valuation
and
that's
one
of
the
the
current
proposed
evaluation
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
presented
a
I
think
Mark
used
the
word
and
it's
absolutely
accurate,
a
compromise
based
on
a
real
figure,
namely
the
extraordinary
amount
of
public
donation.
F
That's
why
I
picked
on
a
specific,
defensible
number
I'd
hate,
I'll
and
where
I
close
I'll
end
where
I
started
I'd
hate
for
this
to
go
back
to
a
proven
number
that
a
number
that's
proven
to
be
higher
than
fair
market
value
in
real
time.
Thank
you.
H
Well
well,
Greg
threw
out
that
last
proposed
offer
they've
had
within
the
period
of
the
13-5
I.
Believe
I
have
to
look
that
up
or
check
that
again,
but
I
think
that
might
be
the
compromise
Ken
you're
talking
about
it's
not
dropping
all
the
way,
but
there
are
cost
differences
there.
It's
an
extreme
item,
even
though
that
one
didn't
go.
H
A
G
Yeah
and
the
13-6
also
kind
of
corresponds
to,
if
you
don't
throw
out
all
the
site
plan
conditions
and
all
the
public
benefit.
It's
just
the
cash
contribution
towards
the
Metro.
That's
the
seven
million
dollar
difference.
So
if
you
took
the
the
site
plan,
calculation
of
20
million
981,
and
then
you
took
7
million
off
of
it,
you're
you're
right
around
that
13-6
number.
A
A
Okay,
just
in
an
effort,
I
don't
want
this
because
I
think
you've
you've
got
the
votes
to
do
it,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
so
Mr
Yates.
Are
you?
Okay
with
that?
Yes,.
H
G
H
J
F
A
A
B
Yes,
thank
you
so
1101
Wilson
Boulevard.
This
is
a
330
337,
000
square
foot
office,
building
it's
located
at
Wilson
and
Kent
in
Roslyn.
This
building
was
built
in
1989
and
was
37
vacant.
As
of
the
data
value,
a
departmental
hearing
was
requested
and
this
request
was
denied.
This
property
defaulted
on
its
underlying
Loan
in
May
of
2023
and
went
to
special
servicing
in
June
the
owner
states
that
elevated
interest
rates
and
lingering
demand
issues
related
to
the
pandemic
have
caused
significant
strain
on
Commercial
office
owners.
B
B
B
They
should
actually
be
hired.
This
doesn't
make
sense,
and
unfortunately,
this
is
why
we
have
so
many
cases
before
the
board.
This
year,
at
this
property
vacancy
actually
increased
from
January
1
2022
to
January
1
2023
get
the
assessment
again
increased
by
seven
percent,
so
the
property
is
in
a
worse
position.
In
one
year
prior
interest
rates,
skyrocketed
beginning
in
March
of
2022
demands
continued
to
Crater,
profitability
fell
risk
Shadow
and
the
assessment
increased
by
seven
percent.
B
B
The
Drea
cap
rates
for
2023
are
the
lowest
they
have
been
for
any
of
the
past
15
years,
which
implies
that
the
risk
profile
and
required
returns
for
this
type
of
income
stream
are
the
lowest
of
any
of
the
past
15
years.
We
know
for
a
fact.
This
was
not
the
case.
As
of
the
data
value,
low
demands,
reduced
profit
and
significantly
increased
cost
of
capital
do
impact
asset
values.
B
As
of
the
data
value,
we
knew
in
the
Drea
knew
from
the
INE
survey
forms
that
they
received
each
year
that
absorption
had
been
negative
for
each
of
the
past
three
years,
rents
had
decreased
vacancy,
had
increased
new
leases
were
for
Less
space,
with
higher
concessions
and
shorter
terms.
Sublet
space
had
increased.
B
We
also
knew
that
interest
rates
had
been
rising
since
March
of
2022
and
were
known
to
continue
to
increase
into
2023..
It
is
common
knowledge
in
the
market
that
increased
interest
rates,
lower
office
asset
values,
especially
when
this
increase
is
425
basis,
points
over
the
course
of
a
calendar
year
offices,
of
course,
at
the
record,
are
a
financial
investment.
The
value
is
not
in
the
Sticks
and
Bricks.
The
value
is
in
the
income
stream.
B
The
property
can
produce
when
the
income
stream
decreases,
the
cost
of
purchasing
the
income
stream
increases
and
the
required
return
on
the
income
stream
increases
the
value
of
the
property
necessarily
decreases.
This
is
reflected
in
the
cap
rate.
We
provided
over
a
dozen
articles
at
illustrate
both
the
state
of
the
market
as
of
the
first
of
the
year
and
the
relationship
between
interest
rates
and
asset
values.
Now,
looking
at
this
property,
we
again
see
the
Drea
increase
the
assessment
by
seven
percent
and
came
up
with
a
test
column
that
suggests
an
11
higher
valuation.
B
Knowing
this
is
not
accurate,
knowing
that
the
Drea
test
page
is
difficult
to
track.
I
request
that
you
direct
your
attention
to
our
appeal,
which
is
the
ProForm,
is
shown
on
page
84
of
the
board
pack.
So
I
want
to
walk
you
through
where
the
stabilized
potential
columns
that
we've
provided
are
from
the
leased
office
is
the
In-Place
average
Less
Market
concessions.
Vacant
office
is
at
the
net
effective
rental
rate
of
the
only
2022
lease
at
this
property
leased.
Retail
is
at
the
In-Place
average,
with
no
concessions.
B
B
The
cap
rate
is
the
2020
rate
plus
200
basis
points
to
account
for
that
425
basis.
Point
increase
in
the
cost
of
capital
that
occurred
over
2022,
beginning
in
March
and
the
increased
risk
of
office
properties
in
the
market.
As
of
the
data
value
due
to
the
reduced
demand
caused
by
work
from
home
policies,
the
increase
in
the
cap
rate
is
supported
by
2022
office
sales
in
the
county.
The
200
basis
point
increase,
has
proven
to
be
conservative,
given
that
sales
that
have
occurred
in
the
county
since
the
data
value
have
been
much
higher.
B
4601
Fairfax
Drive
sold
August
30th
for
25
million
dollars,
which
is
103
dollars
per
square
foot.
The
2023
assessment
for
4601
Fairfax
is
63
million
dollars,
which
is
over
260
dollars
per
square
foot,
4601
Fairfax
sold
at
a
14
cap
rate.
It
was
63
percent
occupied
with
GSA
as
the
main
team
at
time
of
sale.
Now
compare
this
to
the
subject
property,
which
is
also
63
occupied.
As
of
the
data
value
4601
again
sold
at
103
dollars
per
square
foot,
the
appealed
value
for
this
property
is
216
dollars
per
square
foot.
B
The
assessed
value
of
this
property
is
283
dollars
per
square
foot,
which
is
up
from
265
dollars.
Last
year,
the
assessment's
clearly
out
of
line
at
the
fair
market
value
as
of
January
1
2023..
After
all,
4601
Fairfax
didn't
drop
in
value
by
60
percent
from
January
1
to
August
30th.
No,
this
drop
in
value
began
in
March
of
2022.
The
market
knew
this.
We've
provided
information
showing
this.
This
drop
in
value
was
known
as
of
the
data
value.
Finally,
the
below
the
line
deductions
we've
reported
are
shown
on
the
next
page.
Thank
you.
K
Yes,
thank
you.
Derek
is
going
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
the
department
regarding
the
inspections
that
we're
doing
this
year.
So
go
ahead.
There
yeah.
L
Thank
you
rob
for
the
record.
I'm
Derek,
Dubai
I'm,
the
assessor
for
Arlington
County
I,
just
want
to
take
a
minute
briefly
just
to
talk
about
the
inspections
and
how
that
comes
into
play
on
the
commercial
properties.
There
was
a
case
last
week
where
we
did
an
inspection
and
found
that
there
were
Renovations
done
prior
to
January
1
and
the
directive
this
year
on
all
of
our
properties
across
the
board,
both
residential.
You
guys
have
seen
that
it's
always
been
the
case
and
even
on
Commercial
it
was.
L
It
was
sent
down
for
myself
and
Deidre
upper
management
to
all
the
appraisers
to
get
get
out.
There
see
the
properties
make
sure
that
we're
verifying
the
condition
of
these
properties,
which
is
standard
appraisal
practice.
You
know
when
you
file
an
appeal.
There
should
be
a
verification
process
that
includes
the
physical
details
of
the
property
and
it
is
equalized
amongst
all
the
appeals
this
year
and
all
the
properties
that
we're
seeing
seeing.
L
We
do
appreciate
the
agent's
time
and
coordinating
with
us
I
know
it's
very
time
consuming
it's
time,
honest
that
we
don't
have,
but
it
is
appropriate
standard
for
us
to
practice
and
it
is
appropriate
to
take
that
into
consideration
in
the
valuation
side.
In
this
case
there
was
an
effective
age
increase
that
didn't
affect
the
outcome
of
the
appeal.
L
We
don't
ever
use
information
to
recommend
an
increase
if
we
do
find
Renovations,
but
if
there
is
a
reduction
involved
in
in
our
review,
just
like
2022
income
and
expense
information
that
occurred
prior
to
January
1,
we
would
consider
you
know,
Renovations
that
were
conducted
prior
to
January
1
and
have
been
in
place
and
I've.
Let
Deedra
the
supervisor
kind
of
speak
to
that
as
well,
but
I
just
want
to
provide
some
context
on
inspections
in
general
this
week.
So
thank
you.
D
All
right,
thanks
Derek,
so
I
just
want
to
note
that
the
property's
condition,
as
of
January
1,
does
have
a
direct
correlation
to
the
contracted
rent
and
the
sales
price,
and
we
have
created
three
categories
when
we
make
any
cat
any
effective
age
adjustments,
the
first
being
large
tenant
improvements,
which
is
modernizing
of
the
least
spaces
that
could
be
anywhere
from
five
to
ten
years.
D
Renovations,
the
common
area,
an
exterior
facade,
that's
lobbies,
conference
rooms,
bathrooms
parking
garages
that
also
can
be
five
or
ten
years
and
then
the
largest
being
Building
Systems,
which
is
heating,
HVAC,
Roofing
security,
lighting
fixtures
and
wiring
upgrades.
These
can
have
higher
effective
age
adjustments
depending
on
the
quality
and
the
scope,
and
these
can
be
anywhere
from
50
years.
We
haven't
really
seen
that.
But
that's
where
is
this
is
the
category
breakdown
effective
age.
D
Changes
must
be
documented
in
any
appeal
and
they
must
be
as
a
result
of
a
site,
inspection,
permanent
work
or
an
interview
with
the
property
owner
now
I
actually
looked
at
the
last.
The
most
recent
40
cases
presented
the
board
and
the
highest
recommended
effective.
Aids
change
was
10
years.
In
one
instance,
we
recommended
a
five-year
reduction
to
the
effective
age
and
that
increased
the
cap
rate,
and
there
was
only
four
recommendations
out
of
those
40..
D
So
I
just
want
to
note
that
when
we
do
recommend
effective
age
changes,
it
is
to
note
that
it
is
when
Renovations
are
across
categories
across
multiple
of
those
categories
that
I
mentioned,
and
we
do
continue
to
continue
to
be
conservative
in
our
approach
to
recognize
them.
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
Rob.
Thank
you
all.
K
Right,
thank
you
for
this
case.
We
did
like
to
note
that
there
is
so
many
consistencies
with
the
Row
2
and
Row
2,
a
with
column,
f,
erries
revision
for
two
line
item
two:
the
per
square
foot
rate
is
correct
at
42.75,
but
the
square
footage
should
be
111
624
and
then
for
the
retail.
K
The
per
square
foot
should
be
37.31
and
the
square
foot
should
be
9542
square
feet
and
that
doesn't
change
the
the
four
numbers
in
column.
F
you'll
see
it's
consistent
with
page
seven,
the
test
page
moving
forward
from
that.
K
We
do
see
that
from
last
year
to
this
year,
if
you
compare
column,
C
and
column
e,
the
noi
of
the
property
increased
about
a
million
758
842
in
in
one
year's
time,
and
you
know
when
we
reconstructed
the
original
2022
INE,
we
do
impute
the
agent's
income,
as
they
reported
in
column
G1
as
the
for
the
vacant
office
square
footage.
K
So,
by
doing
so,
it
changes
the
overall
noi
of
the
property
and
when
you
compare
column
e
to
column
F,
which
is
our
our
revision
or
our
test,
you
see
that
we're
about
400
000
lower
than
what
the
projected
income
should
be.
K
If
you
include
the
vacant
square
footage,
given
that
we
do
recommend
a
confirmation
based
on
our
tests
or
our
revision,
and
the
original
assessment
does
offer
an
even
lower
noi
compared
to
what
the
reconstructed
noi
is
showing,
we
don't
really
have
too
many
differences
with
respect
to
column,
F
and
the
appellants
numbers.
K
As
you
see,
they
are
using
a
higher
vacancies
percentage,
we're
at
25
they're
at
30
and
we're
consistent
with
the
expense
per
square
foot
and
then,
on
top
of
that,
having
a
lower
protected
noi,
we
do
give
concessions
below
the
line.
Now
we
did
make
a
change
in
effective
age.
As
Mr
debate
pointed
out,
it
does
not
affect
that.
We're
still
trying
to
confirm
the
original
assessment
it
does
Show
and
Mark
the
renovations
made
over
the
years.
I
just
made
a
brief
point
in
my
comments.
K
Just
going
over
the
permits
that
I
listed
on
page
22
just
reviewing
the
high
level
permits
that
were
pulled,
it
amounted
to
about
25
million
over
the
course
of
since
2015.
that
was
injected
into
the
property
to
improve
the
property.
K
With
that
I.
Don't
have
anything
else
and
I'm
open
for
questions,
but
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
the
the
noi
again
speaks
volumes
and
I
believe
that
the
assessment
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Both
questions
from
board
members.
H
To
the
county-
and
you
may
have
touched
on
this-
and
maybe
I'm
I
missed
it,
but
the
other
that
you
have
in
there
in
your
in
column
f.
Could
you
touch
explain
that
again.
K
Let's
see
you're
talking
about
row,
2C
other
square
feet.
Is
that
correct?
Yes,
that
is
the
that
is
the
RGN
space.
That
is
the
sort
of
like
a
wework
kind
of
space
that
they
have
in
the
building.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
Jordan.
K
No,
it's
not
it's.
It's
actually
floors,
six,
eight
and
nine,
and
they
have
a
a
lower
per
square
foot
relative
to
the
other
tenants
in
place.
E
They
have
a
an
item-
rent
other
signage,
150,
000.,
I'm,
sure
it's
not
that.
H
Yeah!
That's
yes
and
I'm
just
trying
to
equate
that
and
balance
that
out
with
some
of
the
appellants
numbers
22
and
your
original
and
I'm,
just
not
quite
seeing
where
it
all
King.
K
B
It
in
there
what
I
think
happened
is
they
break
out
the
RGN
and
we
do
not.
Let
me
see
where
we.
H
B
B
K
Yes,
thank
you.
I
guess,
I'll
just
go
over
the
the
the
major
points
for
this
property.
This
property
is
located
a
block
from
the
Metro.
It
has
about
three
to
seven
years
left
in
the
current
leases
in
place
with
the
reconstructed
INE,
you
see
a
better,
a
better
gross
potential
income
for
the
property,
as
opposed
to
their
the
submitted
2022
INE.
K
Without
the
vacant
square
footage
income,
we
do
see
that
the
County's
original
and
the
County's
column
f
is
the
noi
is
less
than
and
what
is
reported
again
from
last
year
this
year
the
income
jumped
a
million
758
842
dollars
from
21
to
2022.
We
do
ask
the
board
to
confirm
this
case.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
so
this
reconstructed
column
that
we've
seen
the
Drea
start,
including
this
over
States
income
on
almost
every
case
that
they
include
this.
Now.
How
does
it
do
that?
So
this
property
had
a
tenant
who
was
in
occupying
leasing
space
from
January
through
September
of
last
year.
This
income
is
captured
on
Row
one.
That's
reported
in
2022
as
actual
income
received,
their
reconstruction
takes
that
actual
income
received
exactly
as
it
is
and
copies
it.
B
Now
this
space
was
vacant
after
September,
so
as
of
January
1,
it's
vacant,
and
we
impute
income
on
that
vacant
space.
So
then
they
go
over
to
our
column
and
pull
the
vacant
income
and
impute
that,
so
that
results
in
double
count.
It
double
counted
the
rent
actually
paid
from
January
through
September,
and
then
it
imputes
rent
on
it
as
if
it's
vacant,
January
1.,
so
that
reconstructed
column
is
not
a
good
barometer
as
to
the
accuracy
of
the
assessment.
It's
it's
a
red
herring,
it's
not
accurate.
B
It
double
counts
income
on
every
one
that
we
see.
Almost
the
2022
lease
at
this
property
was
at
a
net
effective.
F
What
wasn't
discussed
and
what
jumped
out
at
me
was
the
operating
expenses
they're
very
flat
over
the
a
bunch
of
last
years,
and
we
haven't,
in
my
judgment,
plus
them
up
to
assume
a
much
higher
vacancy
rate,
so
I
added
a
dollar
to
the
the
test,
column,
ten
dollars
and
fifty
cents
and
made
eleven
dollars
and
I'm
25
cents.
They
made
11.25
and
it
came
out
as
it
and
I
can
pursue
this.
F
If
you
wish
came
out
with
a
evaluation
of
therefore
more
than
a
million
dollars
less
than
column
D,
the
original
now
what
I
hadn't
considered
and
at
that
time,
I
used
the
test
column
because
I,
like
the
numbers,
the
it
appeared
that
it
was.
There
were
conservative
relative
to
what
the
narrative
said
were:
rent
income
numbers,
but
Mr
Harmon
brings
up
a
case
of
double
counting
and
I.
I
I
understood
what
he
said,
but
I
couldn't
follow.
It
all
certainly
couldn't
do
the
math
in
real
time.
F
So
maybe
my
increased
based
on
what
you
all,
if
you've,
gotten
a
better
understanding
of
this
last
argument,
maybe
increasing
the
operating
expenses
from
the
original
assessed
value
is
more
appropriate
than
from
the
test
value,
but
I'm
I'm,
but
I
am
clear
on
that.
The
operating
expenses
ought
to
go
up
two
other
things.
Something
I
want
to
remind
us
of
something
below
the
line
and
I
do
this
once
a
year
below
the
line.
F
Deductions
that
the
department
suggests
are
very
conservative
and
assuming
that
Elise
is
going
to
be
a
five
years,
assuming
there's
going
to
be
a
full
build
out,
assuming
that
they're
gonna,
there's
gonna
be
two
Realtors
involved
in
the
transaction,
really
pluses
up
those
numbers
and
I
think
we
ought
to
never
lose
sight
below.
The
number
accounting
is
is
not
at
all
trivial
and
and
favors.
In
most
cases,
in
my
judgment,
the
Appellate,
the
various
appellants
and.
G
I
mean
I
was
more
comfortable
with
last
year's
number
I,
don't
see
68
million,
but
the
I
think
keeping
it
flat
year
over
year
probably
makes
more
sense
to
me.
Given
those
projects,
some
foreclosure
I
mean
just
my
own
observation,
though,
that
to
you
know
mid
to
high
200s
per
square
foot
for
water
views.
Roslyn
seems
pretty
reasonable
a
little
bit
different
than
Boston
and,
and
you
know,
you've
got
at
least
those
top
floors.
G
Have
some
pretty
amazing
views,
so
you
know
I,
don't
see
it
going
as
low
as
100
a
square
foot,
but
it's
obviously
going
to
take
a
hit.
You
know
being
in
special
servicing
dealing
with
that
and
I
kind
of
agree
with
Ken
that
that
going
back
to
and
trying
to
get
the
same,
operating
expenses
from
2019
or
2020
doesn't
seem
like
realistic.
A
A
But
if
you
look
at
line
19
the
nois,
you
know
just
coming
off
of
2021
I
think
the
original
assessment
was
really
a
pretty
big
leap
to
go
to
the
7.1
million
after
you
know
what
they
had
adjusted
for
in
2021,
so
I'm
inclined
to
see
you
know
a
slight
reduction
there
and
I
think
you
know
the
expenses
could
be
a
place
to
take
a
look
at
it.
You
know
now.
E
Yeah
you
know
I
noticed
that
the
below
the
line
went
from
115
for
tenant
improvements
to
90.
and
I
was
trying
to
recollect
I.
Think
we've
been
consistent
at
90
is
that
right,
I
think
we
have
been
I.
Think
that
90,
you
know
just
depends
upon
the
space.
I
know.
We've
said
when,
if
it's
down
to
Bare
walls
or
or
there
are
no
walls,
then
we've
we've
gone
with
the
115
I.
Just
don't
see
why
the
value
went
up,
so
I
would
be
inclined
to
hold
it
at
last
year.
J
J
Yeah,
the
only
thing
I
looked
at
is
that
the
increased
vacancy
that
the
appellants
have
brought
up
rather
than
the
expenses
and
I
just
some
numbers,
I
increased
it
to
30
percent
and
I,
know
that
you
know
you
don't
increase
in
the
full
GPI,
but
just
on
the
office
and
Retail,
and
all
that.
But
looking
at
all
the
numbers
and
doing
the
expenses
I
mean
the
vacancy
of
30
percent
and
then
the
below
the
line
will
also
changed.
J
I
come
up
with
91
million
298
200.,
which
you
know
reduces
some,
but
not
to
the,
of
course,
not
to
the
value
that
the
problem
is
requesting,
which
I
think
it's
too
long.
F
I
I,
like
the
result
but
I'm
having
trouble
with
the
methodology,
given
that
this
isn't
an
egregiously
High
vacancy
rate,
we've
seen
him
an
excess
of
50,
and
this
is
of
course
far
lower
I
would
love
to
get
there
some
other
way.
F
It's
rare
that
I
disagree
with
with
Jose's
rationale,
but
I
do
this
time,
I
I,
don't
think
this
is
extraordinary
enough
to
change
to
25
and
then
go
below
the
line,
but
if
we
can
get
to
that
again,
my
my
result
was
higher
than
that,
but
not
as
high
as
the
original
assessment,
but
I
would
I
would
love
to
get
to
Jose's
result.
F
I
I,
don't
think,
given
the
amount
of
Capital
Improvements
that
are
put
in
this
building
I,
don't
know
that
it
should
be
flat,
but
for
this
year,
but
at
seven
percent
I
agree
with
you,
Paulin
is
seems
unwarrantedly,
high
and
I.
Think
everybody
agrees
with
that.
It's
where
we
go
and
where
we
end
up
in
between.
A
And
what
did
you
use?
Mr
matskin
for
expenses.
A
F
E
E
E
E
E
You're
calculating,
let
me
ask
Ken
Ken:
did
you
change
the
below?
What
below
the
line
figure?
Did
you
use
for
your
tinted
improvements.
F
As
as
provided
in
in
column
F,
because
this
this
building's
in
good
shape
and.
E
F
A
All
right,
well,
Mr,
Raskin
I
just
did
because
I
I
look
at
the
noi
on
the
original
assessment
and
think
that's
you
know
I
like
that
better
than
the
revision,
but
I
still
think
it's
too
high
based
on
the
performance
of
the
property.
You
know
so
I
did
what
what
you
suggested
of
taking
the
11.25
off
of
the
expenses
in
column
d
and
kept
everything
else
relatively
the
same
and
I'm
down
below
Jose.
So
if
that
would
make
you
feel
comfortable
I'm
at
90
million
eight.
Eighty
eight.
F
That's
even
those
numbers
makes
me
feel
comfortable
either
one's
fine
with
me
again.
I
want
to
get
something
yeah.
G
J
A
B
Yes,
thank
you
so
4040
Wilson
Boulevard
is
at
Wilson
and
Randolph.
It's
in
Boston.
This
property
is
mixed
use
with
part
office,
part
multi-family
and
ground
floor
retail
in
2020,
and
the
office
portion
was
37
vacant.
As
of
the
date
of
value,
a
departmental
hearing
was
again
requested
and
this
request
was
denied.
B
So
I'll
start
by
addressing
the
office
portion
first
and
as
you
can
see
on
the
Draya
test,
page
there's
16
columns
on
that
page
and
it's
it's
kind
of
difficult
to
read.
I
know
I
had
trouble
reading
it.
So
I'd
ask
if
you'd
be
so
kind
as
to
direct
your
attention
to
page
72
of
the
appeal
you'll
see
what
we
submitted.
This
is
the
appellants
pro
forma
page,
which
shows
the
stabilized
potential,
the
2023
assessment
and
the
three-year
operating
history
of
this
property.
B
Now
going
through
the
stabilized
potential
column,
you'll
see
that
the
occupied
office
income
is
the
average
least
rate
Less
Market
concessions.
The
vacant
office
rental
rate
is
the
net
effective
rental
rate
of
the
most
recent
leases
at
the
property.
These
leases
are
provided
beginning
on
page
75
of
the
appeal.
B
The
retail
income
on
the
stabilized
potential
column
is
the
actual
In-Place
rental
rate,
with
no
deduction
for
concessions.
The
Drea
test
column,
as
information
agrees
with
the
appellant's
opinion
of
total
potential
rental
income.
Now
going
to
the
pass-through
and
parking
the
stabilized
potential
column
has
those
of
the
2022
actual
rates,
as
is
the
uniform
approach.
The
Drea
test
column
agrees
with
this
approach,
as
well,
with
the
exception
of
impeding
twenty
thousand
dollars
in
in
storage
income.
B
Vacancy
and
collection
loss,
as
on
the
last
property,
is
imputed
at
30
percent,
as
has
historically
been
done
by
the
department
operating
expenses
are
at
nine
dollars
per
square
foot
based
on
a
stabilized
occupancy
of
seventy
percent.
The
cap
rate
is
200
basis
points
higher
than
the
2020
category.
This
is
again
supported
by
2022
market
sales
and
turns
out
to
be
extremely
conservative,
given
where
the
2023
sales
have
come
in
at
with
14
tap
rates.
B
The
below
the
line
deductions
are
shown
on
the
next
page,
page
73
of
the
board
mineral.
So
next
for
the
multi-family
portion
I'll
ask
that
you
direct
your
attention
to
page
seven
to
four
of
the
board
pack.
Here
you
can
see
the
three-year
operating
history
of
the
multi-family
portion.
Next
to
the
2023
assessment,
you
can
see
that
the
assessment
projects
rental
income
to
increase
by
six
percent
in
2023.
B
The
Capri
applied
to
the
three-year
operating
history
on
the
multi-family
portion
is
increased
by
86
basis
points
from
the
counties
cap
rate
to
reflect
the
increased
cost
of
financing
and
the
risk
involved
with
owning
in
commercial
investment
properties.
This
adjustment
results
in
a
cap
rate
of
only
6.03
percent.
We
know
this
rate
is
moderate
modest,
given
the
recent
sale
of
the
Avalon
Columbia
Pike
apartments
that
sold
at
a
6.66
percent
cap
rate.
B
Now
as
to
the
Drea's
test
for
the
office,
the
Drea
lowers
the
potential
rental
income.
As
I
said
earlier,
they
nearly
match
what
we
submitted
on
the
stabilized
potential,
but
they
also
include
that
non-existent
storage
income
of
twenty
thousand
dollars
the
test
column.
Then
you
know,
accepts
our
argument
on
the
rental
income,
but
then
lowers
operating
expenses
to
the
actual
2022
rate.
That
2022
operating
expense
rate
is
reflective
of
a
property
that
was
between
42
and
37
percent
vacant,
not
the
25
vacancy
rate
that
the
test
column
has
imputed
for
the
income.
B
B
B
B
The
test
also
includes
a
2023
lease
as
occupied
space.
Here
again,
we
see
the
government
apply
inconsistent
standards
to
the
taxpayers
assessment
in
an
effort
to
juice
assessments.
The
test
dfl
counts,
8
500
square
feet
is
occupied
based
on
a
2023
lease.
We
have
seen
time
and
time
again.
The
government
does
not
apply
this
same
logic
when
it
results
in
a
benefit
to
the
taxpayer.
Only
when
it
results
in
a
benefit
to
the
government,
it's
Equitable
to
account
for
2023
known
vacancies.
B
In
the
same
way,
the
Drea
has
accounted
for
2023
known
occupancies
on
this
case.
If
the
government
does
want
to
count
2023
leases
as
occupied
so
too
must
they
count
2023
expirations
as
vacant,
so
the
summer
as
the
assessment
versus
the
test
column,
the
assessment
overstates
potential
income
and
applies
Market
operating
expenses.
The
test
corrects
the
potential
income
then
changes
the
operating
expenses
to
a
below
market
rate
and
in
reality,
as
we've
seen
on
these
office
cases
in
Boston
throughout
the
year,
the
market
for
operating
expenses
is
generally
around
ten
dollars
per
square
foot.
B
The
test
column
also
reduces
the
dfl
by
including
2023
lease
spaces
as
occupied.
So
again
you
get
a
concession
on
rent,
but
then
they
clog
back
by
waiting
until
September
of
2023
to
see
what
leasing
has
taken
place
in
order
to
argue
that
2023
leases
are
actually
occupied.
As
of
January
1.,
taking
together
the
pieces
of
the
Drea
assessment
and
test
columns
are
able
to
be
reconstructed
to
come
up
with
a
reasonable,
reasonable
figure
for
the
fair
market
value
of
this
property.
B
If
we
reconstruct
the
assessment
by
imputing,
the
test,
column's
gross
potential
income
leave
all
other
variables
the
same.
We
get
to
a
value
of
about
80
86.7
million.
This
is
worth
making
no
other
adjustments
using
the
test,
gross
potential
income
in
the
assessments,
vacancy
operating
expenses
and
below
the
line
deductions.
B
This
is
not
accounting
for
any
change
in
the
cost
of
capital
or
the
increased
risk
in
the
office
Market
that
occurred
over
2022..
Now,
the
Drea
makes
a
point
to
include
2023
leases
as
justification
for
the
assessed
value.
This,
as
we
know,
is
inconsistent
appraisal
practice.
We've
seen
time
and
time
again,
the
government
does
not
even
make
mention
of
the
tenant
that
has
left
the
property.
We
saw
this
last
week
with
the
TD
Ameritrade
bank
that
moved
82
steps
across
the
street.
The
Drea's
case
had
no
mention
of
this
confirmed,
move
out.
B
We
confirmed
that
on
inspection,
yet
when
new
tenants
are
unconfirmed
but
reported
on
co-star,
the
Drea
is
all
too
ready
to
make
note
of
these
tenants
and
even
to
include
some
as
actually
occupying
the
space.
This
is
not
an
impartial
review
by
the
government
whose
job
is
not
to
set
tax
policy,
but
to
assess
fair
market
value.
As
such,
we
respectfully
request
the
board
to
reduce
the
assessment
as
set
forth
in
the
appeal.
Thank
you.
K
Yes,
thank
you.
For
this
case.
We
did
look
at
the
most
recent
2022
INE.
We
do
see
that
the
square
footage
changed
as
far
as
vacancy.
K
When
we
look
at
the
rent
roll
for
the
property,
the
original
assessment
had
75
151
square
feet
vacant.
We
know
that
isn't
true
upon
review
and
upon
looking
at
co-star.
If
you
see
my
notes
in
the
comments
section
right
below
the
summary
page
line
item
two
you'll
see
that
all
these
spec
Suites
that
were
available
did
lease.
At
the
time
of
noted
there,
April
17th,
January,
5th
and
March
28th,
keep
in
mind
that
the
review
was
appealed
and
filed
on
April
17th.
K
We
do
see
if
if
a
tenant
is
leaving
two
years
from
now,
but
you
know
when,
when
these
appeals
are
filed,
they
had
a
understanding
of
some
of
these
deals
were
coming
in
now,
I
didn't
capture
that
I
kept
the
square
footage,
as
reported
as
75
000
square
feet,
vacant
and
you'll
see
in
the
test
that
all
the
figures.
K
When
you
look
at
the
test
page
on
page
on
page
nine
you'll
see
everything
listed
there
as
far
as
what
we
factored
in
as
far
as
vacant
now,
I
did
make
on
page.
Seven
I
did
make
it
a
just
an
extra
analysis,
if
you
will,
if,
if
we
did
show
what
the
first,
what
the
I
did
make
a
different
analysis
as
far
as
what
the
excess
vacancy
would
be.
K
If
we
deducted
from
you
know
my
notes
there
exactly
what
was
rented
out
going
forward,
but
as
far
as
the
test
is
concerned,
we
kept
it
exactly
as
they
reported
leaving
the
vacant
square
footage
of
about
75
150
to
be
exact
as
faking
now
keep
in
mind
again.
K
55
219
square
feet
we
know
now
is,
is
being
leased
on
the
property,
and
these
are
spec
Suites,
where,
by
virtue
of
having
a
spec
Suite
of
developing
it
and
improving
upon
it,
you
can
kind
of
lease
these
spaces
a
lot
quicker
and
get
a
higher
per
square
foot
rate,
because
it's
already
been
ingested
into
the
property.
K
As
far
as
lead
time
moving
into
the
place,
you
know
they
cut
down
on
the
lead
time
to
to
get
in
and
start
their
business.
So
just
to
keep
that
in
mind
when
looking
at
this
property,
it
is
more
valuable
in
essence,
because
these
places
these
leases
are
in
place
after
the
first
of
the
year
might
I
note,
but
in
in
using
the
information
that
we
have.
K
If
you
compare
the
nois
from
previous
years,
I
know
and
I
know
the
the
summary
sheet
is
a
little
detailed,
but
it
wasn't
necessary
to
give
you
the
full
scope
and
the
full
picture
of
the
property
with
regards
to
office
portion.
If
you
see
column
e,
2
and
E
2.2,
you
can
compare
what
has
been
projected
and
versus
what
is
being
submitted
to
the
county.
K
Now
we
wouldn't
have
to
do
these
reconstructions
if
the
the
ionies
were
filled
out
as
we
asked
for
it,
we
do
ask
for
what
the
vacant
square
footage
would
be
projected
to
make
or
projected
to
have
an
income
for,
but
because
they're,
projecting
and
and
Reporting
actual
figures.
It
makes
it
difficult
on
our
part
to
kind
of
see
what
the
true
net
operating
income
of
a
property
can
be.
K
So
this
is
necessary
to
give
the
board
and
myself
a
better
picture
and
better
understanding
of
what
this
property
should
generate
as
far
as
income.
So
when
you
look
at
this
on
a
high
level,
we
had
less
than
we
had
244
000
less
GPI
compared
to
the
reconstructed
GPI
imputing
again
the
appellants
numbers.
As
far
as
the
income
is
concerned,
our
expenses,
I
I,
believe
Jordan
misquoted
us.
K
We
did
lower
from
the
initial
assessment
our
expenses,
but
we
did
increase
expenses
comparatively
from
21
reported
2021
and
reported
2022
expenses.
K
We'd
still
have
a
Delta,
even
using
that
figure
of
about
300K
less
than
what
was
reported
in
the
noi
for
2022.
When
you
look
at
the
reconstructed
numbers
that
the
the
apartment
the
department
projected
and
when
Mr
Jordan
pointed
out
the
storage,
the
storage
income,
it's
27
362
dollars
that
was
reported
in
the
2022
INE,
that's
page
85
of
127.,
so
that
that's
a
number
that
they
didn't
include
in
their
in
their
pro
forma,
which
was
reported
in
2022.
K
When
you
look
at
the
the
rent
loss
below
the
line,
again
they're
projecting
two
years
of
rent
loss
for
a
property
that
we
know
that
55
000
square
feet
has
already
been
leased
as
of
the
date
of
the
application,
so
that's
a
little
misleading
as
to
expect
that
sort
of
excess
vacancy
when
they
know
that
the
property
has
been
leased
up.
K
Even
despite
that,
we
do
allow
for
about
19
000
14
square
feet.
The
rent
loss
I'll
correct
that
to
be
forty,
seven
dollars
a
square
feet,
not
49
for
the
rent
loss.
Ti
is
at
115.
and
again
we're
giving
TI's
115
per
square
foot,
but
we
know
the
majority
of
the
spaces
that
are
vague
and
are
spec
Suite,
so
they
already
put
the
money
into
it.
So
why
would
we
offer
more?
K
So
that's
just
kind
of
a
side
detail
that
I
think
is
compelling
to
me
that
you
know
this.
This
property
is
doing
very
well.
If
you
again
look
at
the
noi
comparatively,
we
did
come
up
with
a
an
assessment
higher
than
the
original
assessment.
So
therefore
we
do
ask
for
a
confirmation
with
respect
to
the
apartment
portion.
K
Again,
we're
projecting
higher
for
the
vacant
units
on
the
property,
what
they
don't
report
or
it's
very
unclear,
because
they
gave
us
more
of
an
average
reach,
rent
Roll
versus
an
actual
rent
roll
of
each
each
unit.
So,
therefore
we
did
have
to
project
on
that
and
on
that
apartment
portion
as
well,
and
then,
when
you
see
that
we're
in
line
with
you
know
what
we
projected
originally
for
the
assessment
and
then
we
did
increase
some
figures
there
to
kind
of
show
exactly
what
was
captured
in
2022.
G
Yeah
Jordan
is
this
property
eligible
for
HUD
financing.
B
You
know
I'm
not
sure
Eileen.
Do
you
happen
to
have
any
insight
on
to
if
this
property
is
eligible
for
HUD
financing
or.
G
Otherwise,
any
like
are
there
any
issues
that
you
see
with
financing
the
multi-family
component
being
that
this
is
a
vertical
mixed
use
with,
with
like
a
significant
office
component.
I
I
I
J
Yes,
I
have
a
question
for
Mr
Peralta,
I'm,
looking
on
column,
F2,
the
expenses
on
the
office,
it's
showing
23,
but
it
seems
like
the
percentage
is
more
like
20
percent
am
I
correct
or
am
I
doing
something
wrong
hold
on
one.
Second,.
K
Okay
yeah,
unfortunately,
we
don't
usually
use
percentages
on
office,
but
let
me
find
out
for
sure
what
that
percentage
is.
J
Yeah
I
mean
just
showing
23
on
the
page
but
correct
it
didn't
seem
like
he
was
right.
D
K
Sure,
thank
you
again
for
this
property
we'd
like
to
focus
on
the
noi.
K
K
Again
I
like
to
point
out
that
the
leases
in
place
do
project
a
higher
income.
When
you
look
at
the
vacant
square
footage,
we
do
project
the
the
same
number
that
the
appellant
is
suggesting
our
numbers
are
are
somewhat
similar
again.
The
Delta
there
is
the
27
362
Square
figure
where
the
storage
was
reported
in
2022
INE.
The
difference
between
the
appellant
and
the
the
department
is
the
five
percent
vacancy
and
then
the
expenses,
but
even
though
considering
those
expenses
we're.
K
Delta
about
300
000
Square,
three
hundred
thousand
dollars.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you.
So
this
again
is
an
instance
of
playing
going
to
their
arcade
and
playing
whack-a-mole.
We
provided
sufficient
evidence
to
support
lower
rental
income,
which
the
Drea
you
know,
thankfully
accepted
they
lowered
their
potential
rental
income
to
come
close
to
what
the
appellant
provided,
but
then
they
decreased
their
Opex
to
the
2022
actuals.
Now
it's
not
exactly,
they
did
add
four
pins
to
the
2022
Opex
per
square
foot,
so
their
Opex
was
at
748
on
the
test.
Now
what
we
can
do,
we
have
the
pieces
to
come
up
with
a
good
assessment.
B
If
we
reconstruct
the
assessment
in
the
test
column,
we
use
the
test,
columns,
income
and
the
rest
of
the
variables
from
the
assessment
on
the
office
portion.
It
gets
us
to
a
value
of
86.7
million
dollars.
Now
this
is
with
operating
expenses
at
nine
dollars
in
square
foot,
as
we've
seen
on
property
after
property
in
Boston,
ten
dollars
per
square
foot
is
more
accurate.
The
test
column
finally
does
include
8.5
000
square
feet
of
2023
lease
space
as
occupied.
You
can
see
this
on
page
nine.
A
G
I
mean
the
issue:
there's
a
couple
issues
with
the
the
vertical
mixed-use
nature
and
using
the
cap
rates,
for
you
know
traditional
buildings
that
I
have
so
I
I
know
that
we
didn't
do
a
cap
rate
study
through
the
county
on
it,
because
there's
not
a
lot
of
product
type
like
this.
It's
very
unique,
usually
when
you
see
something,
that's
unique
that
doesn't
fit
the
box
for
a
lender
or
or
government
sponsored
lender.
G
Then
you
end
up
with
a
you
know:
a
higher
cap
rate,
because
there's
just
there's
just
issues:
you
have
to
go
to
non-traditional
financing
sources.
So
that's
why
I
asked
the
question
you
know
on
a
kind
of
like
a
high
level.
You
know
there
might
be
some
tenants
that
take
issue
with
having
residents
living
in
the
building.
You
know
secure
contractors,
government
government
tenants
things
like
that
that
could
hinder
this
value
in
the
in
the
future,
in
the
leasing
and
then
on
the
residential
side.
G
You
know
if
you're
living
in
an
office
building
there's
strangers
coming
and
going
not
everybody's
a
resident.
You
know
there's
that
interplay
you
got
to
worry
about,
I
think
they
did
a
good
job
on
the
design
to
mitigate
that.
But
you
know
I,
just
wouldn't
put
it
on
an
even
playing
field
with
a
with
a
pure
apartment
building.
As
far
as
cap
rate
goes
so
I
just
look
at
those
risks
and
and
I
I'll
just
cut
to
the
chase.
G
I
mean
I,
put
50
basis
points
on
the
apartment
cap
rate
to
a
5.2
and
I,
put
100
on
the
commercial
to
a
7.595.
G
A
Okay,
can
you
just
restate
I'm,
sorry,
so
I
didn't
get
that
all,
but
you
did
to
the
two
cap
rates
yeah.
G
A
G
And
then
on
the
commercial
it
was
6.595
and
I
used
7.595.
E
Yes,
thank
you.
I
happen
to
live
in
one
of
these
mixed-use
products.
It
you
know
we're
condo,
as
opposed
to
rental.
I
think
this
is
one
ownership
I'm
in
the
condominium,
which
is
the
residential,
and
it
is
a
I
mean
it's
just.
You
know
the
planners
all
think
it's
Utopia
when
you
have
mixed
use.
However,
mixed
use
has
big
problems,
and
you
know
I
mean
you
just
have
a
different
use
of
the
property.
E
You
have
the
residents
that
are
there,
you
know
at
night
time
and
they
want
all
the
work
done
during
the
day
and
then
the
office
people
they're
trying
to
run
an
office
during
the
day.
But
that's
when
all
the
work's
being
done
and
it's
it
just
it's
a
problem
and
like
for
example,
we
can't
even
get
insurance.
E
So
we
have
to
use
the
insurance,
that's
provided
by
the
hotel,
because
otherwise
we're
up
in
the
air
and
no
insurance
company
will
insure
it
and
so
we're
paying
enormously
High
rates,
so
I
I
would
be
in
agreement
with
what
Greg
proposed.
J
I'm
sorry,
Mr
Hoffman.
What
number
did
you
come
up
with
the
final
number.
J
J
The
reason
I
was
asking
on
the
expenses
on
the
offices,
because
I
know
that
they
don't
normally
go
by
percentages,
but
I
use
percentages
based
on
what
it
shows
on
the
columns
and
I
did
use
26
percent
on
that
revised
assessment
only
on
the
office,
and
then
everything
else
would
remain
the
same.
I
included
the
below
the
line.
Deductions
I
come
up
with
216
260
million
389
200.
F
The
the
box
was
opened
up
by
Jose.
I
did
almost
exactly
the
same
thing
and
I
didn't
like
percentages
of
like
absolute
dollars
or
dollars
per
square
foot
for
expenses,
but
I
focused
on
expenses
and
I
I
by
the
way
I'll
preface
what
Greg
and
Barnes
said.
I
didn't
agree
with
until
her,
both
of
them
say
it
and
I'm
starting
to
agree
with
that
assessment
that
there's
a
problem
with
mixed
use
and
it
should
diminish
the
value
by
raising
the
cap
rates
going
back
to
to
Jose's
analysis.
F
What
I
did
was
I
just
took
I
I
accepted
the
test
column
office.
Only
I
think
the
apartment
sector
in
Arlington
is
robust
and
I
wouldn't
fool
with
that
one
way
or
the
other,
but
I
just
took
the
what's.
It
called
the
column.
F
Fg2
operating
expenses
and
applied
it
to
the
test
case,
the
test
column
in
F1
and
came
up
with
a
figure
of
somewhat
over
217
million,
but
by
lowering
the
the
office
assessment
to
91
million
six
hundred
thousand
six,
oh
seven
thousand
and
kept
the
apartment
again
in
the
test
case.
The
same
so
I
came
up
very
close
but
used
absolute
dollars
and
not
other
percentage
dollars
for
operating
expenses.
F
H
I
hear
with
Greg
sane
and
I
I
still
agree.
I
think
the
a
full
one
percent
is
a
lot
to
adjust
it.
We're
all
come
we're
coming
in
with
numbers
of
within
the
rate
range,
I
I,
don't
know
yet
I,
don't
know
where
we
are.
G
You're
all
right
with
Jose
I
could
live
with
Jose.
It's
it's
a
cleaner
analysis
month,
a
little
bit
more.
You
know,
but
I
would
encourage
the
cat
the
county
to
try
to
figure
out.
You
know
how
this
fits
in,
because
just
applying
the
cap
rate
tables
that
we
have
for.
Like
a
you,
know,
a
building,
that's
95
apartments,
and
it's
got.
You
know
a
little
ten
thousand
foot
ground
floor,
retail,
it's
treated
differently
in
the
financial
markets.
H
J
Sure,
oh,
go
ahead
and
move
the
to
I'll
move
to
reduce
the
assessment
to
260
million
389
200.
based
by
increasing
the
expenses
on
the
office.
Part
26
percent.
A
A
B
Yes,
thank
you
so
3033
Wilson
Boulevard.
This
is
a
166
000
square
foot
office,
building
it's
located
at
Wilson
and
Garfield
in
Clarendon.
It
was
built
in
1987
and
is
53
vacant.
Today
a
departmental
hearing
again
was
requested
and
was
denied
if
you
basic
so
kind
as
to
direct
your
attention
to
page
164
of
the
appeal
you'll
see
the
taxpayers
appeal
going
through
the
taxpayers
stabilized
potential
column,
you
can
see
that
lease
office
income
is
at
a
weight.
Is
that
the
weighted
average
In-Place
lease
rate
less
10
for
Market
concessions.
B
This
rate
removes
the
effect
of
the
above
Market
rent
that
PowerSchool
group
was
paying.
This
is
because
PowerSchool
group
vacated
the
building
in
March
of
2020
and
never
returned
their
lease
was
known
to
be
expiring
at
the
end
of
March.
This
year
now
the
Drea
on
the
last
case
appeared
or
I'm.
Sorry,
the
Drea
on
this
case
appeared
to
be
willing
to
consider
the
effects
of
this
tenant,
leaving,
as
you
can
see
on
their
notes,
they
did
request
a
signed
termination
option
for
this
tenant.
B
B
Accounting
for
this
above
Market
rental
rate
of
a
tenant
known
to
be
expiring,
is
in
accordance
with
the
Drea's
expert
Peter
corpax's
conclusions
about
above
Market
rental
rates.
This
tenant
again
left
the
building
at
the
start
of
the
pandemic,
never
returned.
It
was
known
that
they
were
leaving
at
the
end
of
the
release.
B
Next,
the
vacant
office
income
is
at
forty
dollars
per
square
foot.
This
is
based
on
the
asking
rent
for
the
vacant
space,
including
concessions.
The
retail
income
is
at
the
least
retail
Avenue
tree
with
no
deduction
for
concessions.
The
Drea
test
rate
is
higher
than
this
rate,
because
the
test
ignores
one
of
the
leases.
From
last
year
there
was
a
lease
signed
by
chicken
and
whiskey
as
the
tenant's
name.
This
lease
began
in
November
of
2022.
B
B
Next,
the
pass-through
and
parking
income
on
the
stabilized
potential
column
is
imputed
from
at
the
exact
2022
rate.
Vacancy
and
collection
is
at
30
percent
based
on
Drea
historical
guidelines
and
operating
expenses
are
at
twelve
dollars
per
square
foot
based
on
the
2019
operating
expenses.
2019
was
the
last
year
when
this
property
operated
a
stabilized
occupancy
with
employees
actually
coming
in
and
using
the
office.
B
Now
we
can
look
at
this.
Alternatively,
as
well,
we
can
look
at
the
2022
operating
expenses
and
see
that
the
property
incurred
operating
expenses
at
11
per
square
foot.
This
was
when
the
building
was
only
seeing
15
utilization
15
physically
occupied
space,
so
this
eleven
dollars
incurred
in
2022
will
be
higher
due
to
the
effects
of
inflation.
B
Additionally,
if
we
are
imputing
Income
as
if
this
property
is
stabilized,
which
is
what
we've
done,
we
must
also
impede
operating
expenses,
as
if
the
property
is
stabilized
no
tenant
is
going
to
lease
space
in
today's
market,
knowing
they
will
not
occupy
it.
So
we
must
assume
any
new
leases
will
result
in
increased
expenses
due
to
physical
occupancy
being
hired
next,
the
Capri
is
the
2020
pre-pandemic
free
interest
rate
hike
cap
rate
increased
by
200
basis
points
to
reflect
the
increased
risk
in
the
office
market
and
the
increased
cost
of
capital.
B
B
This
cap
rate
is
essentially
saying
the
January
1
2023
office.
Market
is
in
the
best
shape
of
any
of
the
past
15
years
this
despite
crater
and
demand,
the
county
has
seen
three
consecutive
years
of
negative
absorption,
which
has
had
which
has
led
to
high
vacancy
across
account
higher
space
available
for
sublet,
which
pretends
vacancy
continuing
it's
much
higher
as
lease
is
expired,
lower
rents,
higher
concessions,
smaller
release,
Footprints
longer
lease
up,
Times
Higher
required
rates
of
return
due
to
the
increased
cost
of
capital
and
Tighter
lending
standards
due
to
the
property
defaults.
B
The
last
time
we
saw
only
one
of
these
effects
rapidly
increasing
interest
rates
was
in
2009
when
the
10-year
t-bill
increased
by
160
basis
points.
Now
what
did
Tommy
rice
and
the
Drea
do
the
following
year,
the
Drea
in
2010
an
increased
cap
rates
by
175
basis
points.
This
is
not
a
radical
solution.
This
is
something
the
Drea
has
done
in
the
past
when
the
negative
drivers
were
much
less
than
they
were.
As
of
January
2023.,
a
200
basis,
point
increased
to
the
Capri
gets
us
to
a
7.7
percent
cap.
B
This
is
reasonable,
considering
an
office
building
in
the
county
just
sold
for
14
cap
rate
at
the
end
of
August.
The
assessment
of
that
recent
sale
count
would
have
imputed
a
capri
of
7.1
percent
at
the
most
caprates
did
not
double
from
January
1
to
August
3rd.
No,
the
the
in
the
increase
in
cap
reads
began
in
March
of
2022
continued
throughout
2022
and
were
known
to
be
continuing
in
2023,
yet
the
Drea
cap
rates
remain
unchanged
from
2018
and
at
their
lowest
rate
of
any
of
the
past
15
years.
B
Finally,
the
below
the
line
deductions
for
lease
up
costs
are
listed
on
the
next
page,
so
in
in
closing,
since
the
assessment
imputes
above
Market
office,
Roots
ignores
actual
retail
rents
under
States
operating
expenses
and
imputes
the
lowest
cap
rate
of
any
of
the
past
15
years,
we
respectfully
request
that
the
board
reduce
the
assessment
as
set
forth
in
the
appeal.
Thank
you.
K
Yes,
thank
you
to
start.
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
the
original
assessment
of
53
million
181
600
that
wasn't
assessed
properly.
If
you
look
on
page.
K
All
right,
the
the
original
worksheet
on
page
13
of
216
you'll
see
that
there
was
an
allocation
that
was
missed.
It
was
unallocated
three
million
six
hundred
thirty
three
thousand
six
hundred
the
county
did
Issue
an
own
motion
to
correct
that
and
therefore,
when
you
look
at
our
grid
on
our
Boe
memo,
we
did
make
that
correction.
K
It
is
not
increase,
but
it
is
increased
to
the
specific
RPC,
but
the
value
total
value
for
the
EU
was
withheld
with
53
million
181
600.
So
we
did
issue
that
to
the
owners
and
I
believe
a
copy
was
sent
to
the
appellant
as
well.
K
So
we
are
arguing
that
the
initial
value
would
be
53.
181
600.,
based
on
the
review
I,
have
the
detailed
notes
and
feel
free
to
ask
me.
You
know
what
those
changes
were
exactly,
but
the
end
of
my
Boe
memo
on
page
five
kind
of
outlines
exactly
what
happened
with
the
economic
economic
unit
and
with
specifically
15
67
20
1567
too,
that
specific
RPC,
the
Improvement
value,
was
increased
by
three
million
633
600..
K
When
looking
at
this
most
recent
2022
INE
again,
the
department
still
has
to
reconstruct
the
income
again
because
they're
not
reporting
the
income
on
the
vacant
square
footage.
We
do
come
to
a
similar
value
as
the
appellant
with
respect
to
the
per
square
foot
we're.
Actually,
it
looks
like
about
a
almost
two
dollars
less
than
what
the
appellant
is
projecting.
K
As
far
as
the
leases
in
place
dollar
per
square
foot
with
respect
to
the
vacant
office,
where
similar
with
respect
to
using
forty
dollars
a
square
foot,
we
do
use
the
the
actual
reported
per
square
foot
for
the
retail
you'll,
see
the
detailed
analysis
on
page
8
of
216
showing
exactly
what
they
reported
in
the
2022
I
need
again,
the
the
averages
for
the
office
are
51.25.
K
The
average
for
detail
is
53.74
cents,
so
we
do
project
in
our
test
column
F
that
the
there
was
a
slight
increase
from
the
original
assessment
in
Gross
potential,
based
on
the
information
that
was
found,
we're
only
about
for
a
projected
income
in
our
test.
K
If
you
compare
columns
F
to
column
E1
or
about
464
thousand
dollars
less
than
what
the
projected
income
of
the
property
should
be
given
the
vacant
square
footage,
and
then
the
the
appellant
is
even
less
than
that,
they
have
a
more
Delta
with
respect
to
what
they
feel
that
the
property
should
achieve
in
2023,
again
they're
using
a
higher
vacancy
when
the
property
was
at
48
percent.
K
We
do
account
for
that
below
the
line.
We
do
note
that
there
were
some
leases
that
we
did
account
for.
K
K
We
do
see
that
there's
other
spec
Suites,
some
with
furniture
some
without
we
do
have
Suite
470,
that
they're
sort
of
advertising,
the
the
furniture
from
the
previous
tenant
to
sort
of
a
spec
suite,
for
you
know
a
future
tenant
to
come
in
move
in
sort
of
like
a
an
easier
way
to
to
get
started
and
get
to
the
ground
running.
K
So,
as
far
as
this
overall,
the
noi
of
the
property
we're
about
400
000,
less
than
what
the
projected
projected
nois
should
be
even
looking
at
the
original
reported
2022
INE
we're
still
600
000
about
600
000,
less
than
what
they're
projecting
in
the
2022
ine
and
that's
without
the
income
that
they
would
receive
from
the
vacant
square
footage
and
then
the
the
appellants
projecting
almost
you
know
a
million
a
million
three
less
than
what
they
project
in
2022..
K
And
you
know,
as
far
as
the
expenses
are
concerned,
we
did
project
slightly
higher.
We
understand
it
that
it
won't
stabilize
right
away,
so
I
mean
there's
a
gradual
period
and
we
do
capture
that
each
year,
so
the
expenses
over
the
years
have
been.
You
know
twelve
dollars,
eleven
dollars,
ten
dollars
and
we
we're
moving
that
up,
trending
upwards
at
11,
just
following
the
property
as
as
they're
reporting.
So
you
know
with
that,
we
we
have
the
understanding
that
we
do
see
that
the
expenses
will
increase
as
well.
K
As
you
know,
all
the
other
factors
that
pass
through
income.
We
do
see
that
parking
has
increased
from
last
year
this
year.
About
sixty
thousand
dollars
from
last
year
this
year,
the
pass-throughs
are
somewhat
relatively
stable
in
a
sense,
but
as
they
tenant
the
spaces
that
are
vacant,
which
could
be
a
lot
sooner
than
you
know,
the
the
General
market,
because
these
are
spec
Suites
and
in
the
inspections
that
I've
seen
the
majority
are
doing.
K
Spec
Suites,
just
to
kind
of
you
know,
get
the
the
property
ready
so
to
speak
and
allow
a
tenant
to
kind
of
visualize
better
what
the
space
would
look
like
and
if
it
would
work
for
them.
So
we
do
feel
that
that's
an
advantage
to
leasing
these
spaces
that
are
vacant.
So
we
do
ask
the
board,
based
on
the
information
provided
to
confirm
the
case.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Both
questions
from
board
members.
K
I,
don't
just
just
hitting
on
the
the
main
issues
that
noi
were
six
hundred
thousand
less
than
what
they
reported
without
the
vacant
square
foot
income.
Thank
you.
B
Yes,
thank
you.
So
this
property
had
24
000
square
feet
vacate
in
2022..
An
additional
39
000
square
feet
were
known
to
they
vacated
in
early
2020.
Their
lease
was
expiring
in
March
of
2023,
so
in
total
this
39
000
square
feet
that
expired
and
the
24
000
square
feet
that
vacated
in
2022.
This
is
38
percent
of
nla.
That's
gone!
That
property
is
not
earning
income
from
that
space
anymore.
So,
looking
back,
you
know
that
we
we've
heard
Mr
Peralta
refer
to
noi
in
2021
and
2022
numerous
times
it's
going
to
go
down.
B
38
percent
more
in
La
is
vacant.
As
of
the
data
value
than
was
in
2021
or
2022..
Now
going
to
the
office
rental
rate,
it's
not
the
rate.
It's.
The
issue
is
they've
included
that
expiring
space
at
the
above
Market
lease
rate
that
space
needs
to
be
included
at
the
vacant
office
lease
degree.
Thank
you.
G
We've
had
a
couple
cases
on
the
kind
of
50
vacant
extremely
high
vacancy
buildings.
I
I
would
suggest
that
we'd
move
the
cap
rate
up
as
we've
done
in
some
other
cases,
100
basis
points,
so
I
did
that
and
I
came
up
with
46
million
586
300.
F
F
A
Right
yeah
I
was
okay
with
the
original
assessment.
A
F
H
J
I'm:
okay,
with
the
original
assessment,
Miss
Dooley,.
H
F
I'll
throw
out
one
thing,
though:
I
did
look
at
in
both
the
appellant
and
the
department,
both
addressed
that
the
operating
expenses-
and
you
know,
I,
see
operating
expenses
of
12
in
2019
and
I,
hear
the
department
saying
well,
we
are
trending
it
up
which
in
other
cases
they
haven't
been,
and
they
have
here
from
from
22
to
23..
F
F
Only
about
six
hundred
thousand
dollars,
they
can
give
you
an
exact
number.
Oh
I'm,
sorry
I'm,
sorry
about
eight
hundred
thousand
dollar
reduction
from
the
proposed
assessment.
I
give
you
an
exact
dollar.
If,
if
you
thought
that
is
warranted
to
again
increase
from
11
to
12
dollars,
the
operating
expenses
on.
A
That
and
I
think
it
kind
of
comes
back
to
you
know
when
we
start
comparing
dollar
amounts
and
percentages
or
price
per
square
foot.
But
if
you
look
in
in
the
test
on
line
18
I
mean
the
actual
number
is
higher
than
what
was
reported
and
reconstructed
so
I
don't
see
a
need
to
have
to
increase
the
expenses.
F
A
E
Yes
looks
like
I'm
in
the
great
minority
here:
I'm
fine,
with
all
the
figures.
I
just
think
the
cap
rate
needs
to
be
adjusted.
H
E
Why?
Because
it's
53
vacant-
and
you
know
the
one
tenant
they
wanted
a
release,
but
the
tenant
just
didn't
renew
an
option
and
I
mean
I.
Think
the
cap
rate
on
all
these
offices
is
too
high
on
every
single
office.
A
J
I
agree
and
I
think
for
a
purpose
of
instead
of
calculating
the
original
assessment.
I
mean
you.
The
vacant
space
is
even
calculated
at
a
lower
rate
than
the
nla
anyways,
so
I'm,
okay
with
it,
because
it's
about
48
percent,
first
percentages
on
the
square
footage
that
is
calculated
at
a
different
level.
So
I'm,
okay
with
it.