►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Meeting | September 5, 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
2023
this
is
the
Arlington
County
Board
of
Equalization
hearing.
We
have
five
cases
on
the
agenda.
The
first
case
is
RPC
15071
031
at
3101
Wilson
Boulevard,
Mr
Harmon.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
Sir.
B
B
82
steps
just
keep
that
in
mind
and
I'll
come
back
to
explain
why
82
steps
is
important
in
this
case
now,
I
think
it's
safe
to
say:
we've
heard
a
lot
of
office
cases
at
the
board
this
year
and
there
are
dozen
more
dozens
more
remaining.
Why
are
there
so
many
cases
before
the
board
this
year?
To
start
there
were
more
appeals
this
year
than
most
years.
Why?
Because
there's
more
appeals
this
year,
because
the
Dr
refused
to
use
2022
office
sales
data
for
the
2023
assessments.
B
This
resulted
in
office
properties
in
the
county
being
assessed
at
more
than
their
fair
market
value
as
of
January
1.
Now,
why
are
so
many
cases
being
heard
before
the
board
this
year?
Well,
the
dr's
methodology
of
testing
cases
appears
to
be
broken
as
well
to
illustrate.
Let's
look
at
the
numbers:
we've
presented
18
office
cases
at
the
board,
so
so
far
this
year
before
today.
Another
eight
offices,
including
the
two
today
are
scheduled
for
next
week
for
a
total
of
26
office
properties.
B
For
20
of
these
26
office
cases,
the
Dr
test
column
has
arrived
at
a
value
greater
than
the
assessment,
so
77%
of
the
time
the
Dr
is
essentially
claiming.
The
assessments
are
too
low.
Keep
in
mind
that
overall
2023
office
assessments
were
unchanged
from
2022.
We
know
the
2023
assessments
overstated
the
fair
market
value
of
offices
in
the
County
due
to
the
Dr,
not
utilizing
market
sales
to
reflect
the
turmoil.
The
office
Market
sustained
in
2022
for
3ars
of
the
properties
we've
heard
or
are
scheduled
to
be
heard.
B
The
Dr
test
again
states
that,
on
average,
the
value
should
be
4.7%
higher
than
the
2023
assessment,
which
again
was
flat
year-over-year
overall.
Does
this
make
any
sense
after
a
year
like
we
had
in
2022?
Is
it
just
a
coincidence
that
this
year,
77%
of
test
columns
come
in
higher
than
the
assessment,
or
is
this
part
of
a
broader
strategic
shift
this
year?
To
give
you
an
example,
we
have
94
office
properties
in
the
county
that
we've
reviewed
this
year.
10%
of
these
properties
are
in
default
or
have
gone
back
to
the
lender.
B
We
recommend
appeals
on
these
properties
that
Merit
a
decrease
on
77%
of
the
properties
we
hear
before
the
board.
The
Dr
has
indicated
an
increase
of
nearly
5%
is
warranted.
It
appears
the
dr's
tests
no
longer
ostensibly
reflect
fair
market
value
upon
incorporation
of
new
information.
Rather,
it
appears
the
test.
Columns
are
being
used
as
an
opportunity
to
attempt
to
Anchor
the
board's
mind
at
the
higher
number
to
make.
The
assessment
seem
reasonable
by
comparison.
This
property
offers
an
example
of
how
the
Dr
test
columns
have
become
unuseful
this
year.
B
To
start
this
property
was
heard
at
the
board
last
year
and
the
board
agreed
with
the
owner
and
removed
termination
fee
income
from
the
income
capitalization
to
arrive
at
a
final
value.
If
we
look
at
the
test
page
this
year,
we
see
that
the
Dr
has
included
termination
fee
income
in
the
operating
history
of
this
property
for
both
2020
and
2021,
which
of
course
skews
the
historical
noi
upwards.
B
Once
termination
fee
income
has
been
removed
from
the
historical
noi,
we
see
that
noi
has
decreased
year
over
year
over
year,
declining
by
21%
from
2020
to
2022.
If
we
use
the
dr's
figures
on
their
test,
page
noi
has
decreased
by
27%
over
this
time
frame
now
to
the
test
column.
So
what
has
changed
from
the
initial
assessment
to
the
test
that
has
caused
an
increase?
What
what?
With
the
new
information
the
DR
had
from
the
owner's
appeal,
the
2022
ine
and
an
inspection
of
the
property?
B
We
see
that
the
Dr
did
use
the
new
information
for
occupancy,
but
failed
to
incorporate
the
same
leasing
activity
to
arrive
at
a
vacant
office
rental
rate
that
is
reflective
of
the
market.
These
new
leases
were
provided
to
the
Dr
with
the
appeal,
as
you
can
see,
on
pages
44
through
52
of
the
board
pack.
Yet
this
information
was
not
utilized
by
the
Dr
upon
review.
These
new
leases,
2022
leases
were
at
a
weighted
average
net,
effective
rate
of
only
$41
per
square
foot,
the
Dr
test,
imputes
$44
per
square
foot.
B
So
this
is
part
of
a
theme
this
year.
The
test
columns
include
information
that
supports
higher
values,
but
does
not
include
information
that
supports
lower
values.
We
also
see
that
the
total
retail
income
occupied
and
vacant
combined
increased
by
43%
on
the
test
column.
As
a
note,
the
vacant
retail
is
wrote
2A
on
the
test
page.
They
have
that
labeled
as
miscellaneous
square
foot,
but
on
page
six
you
can
see
that
they're
clearly
referring
to
vacant
retail.
Now
this
is
really
interesting.
Why
did
the
retail
income
increase
43%
from
the
initial
assessment?
B
The
retail
income
increased
because
the
Dr
treats
the
former
TD
Bank
as
occupying
this
8,000
square
feet
at
once
leased
now,
if
we
take
a
closer
look
at
this
Bank
lease,
it
ended
in
February
of
this
year.
The
bank
had
told
the
owner
they
would
not
renew,
and
this
was
known
as
of
the
date
of
value,
the
bank
had
signed
a
lease
across
the
street
for
a
new
Branch.
This
was
known
in
2022.
The
new
Branch
began
buildout
in
January
of
2022,
as
reported
in
ARL.
B
Now
now
back
to
the
82
steps
I
mentioned
at
the
beginning.
I
was
in
Clarendon
this
past
weekend
and
out
of
Cur
curiosity
I
counted
the
steps
from
the
front
door
of
the
old
bank
to
the
front
door
of
the
new
bank
and
found
that
the
two
banks
are
82
steps.
Apart
from
each
other,
you
have
a
clear
line
of
sight
from
One
bank
to
the
other.
So
what
is
so?
B
What
this
means
is
that
the
test
column
is
essentially
telling
us
to
believe
that
a
potential
purchaser
would
consider
the
bank
as
remaining
at
this
property
in
perpetuity,
despite
all
available
evidence
to
the
contrary.
We
also
see
that
the
test
column
for
this
property
imputed
the
operating
expenses
from
2022
exactly
the
same
amount
after
a
year
when
inflation
was
6.5%,
the
Dr
is
telling
us
that
January
2023
expenses
will
be
exactly
the
same
as
January
22
22
expenses,
February
2023
expenses
will
be
exactly
the
same
as
February
2022
expenses
and
so
on.
B
We
know
for
a
fact.
This
is
not
true.
Finally,
the
cap
rate
for
this
High
vacancy
property
is
the
lowest
it's
been
in
any
of
the
past
15
years.
This
is
simply
not
supported
by
the
market
or
the
2019
sale
of
this
property.
This
property
sold
in
December
of
2019
at
a
cap
rate
of
7.58%.
The
assessment
cap
rate
is
only
6.75
%.
Clearly,
the
cap
rate
is
not
reflective
of
this
property's
fair
market
value.
B
As
of
January
1
2023,
the
Dr
cap
rates
have
been
flat
since
2018
no
recognition
of
reduced
demand
for
office
product,
no
recognition
of
increased
cost
of
capital,
no
recognition
of
market
sales
in
the
county.
Additionally,
this
property
has
had
a
high
vacancy
for
each
of
the
past
three
years:
January
1
2021.
It
was
202
22%
2022,
it
was
27%
and
2023.
It
was
21%
which
was
known
to
be
in
increasing
to
25%
with
the
pending
vacancy
of
the
bank.
As
such,
we
respectfully
request
the
board
reduce
the
assessment
as
set
forth
in
the
appeal.
B
C
Yes,
good
morning,
thank
you
for
this
case
I'd,
like
the
board
to
pay
attention
to
the
summary
page
as
I
go
over
the
particular
point
of
the
case
for
this
property
we
initially
had
the
the
assessment
overallocated
for
vacant
square
footage.
If
you
see
column
D,
we
had
64,66
Square
F
feet
on
the
original
assessment
as
vacant
after
reviewing
this
property
and
the
2022
INE
we're
back
at
45,49
square
feet.
C
So
during
that
period
from
last
year
to
this
year,
they
leased
up
some
square
footage
and
we
accounted
at
for
in
the
test
and
that's
primarily,
why
there's
an
increase
in
the
test
versus
the
original
assessment.
When
you
look
at
column,
C,
the
2021
INE
I
did
see
what
Mr
Jordan
pointed
out
about
411,000
430
ft
in
termination
fee
is
in
indicated
or
shown
on
the
2021
INE
column.
C
But
if
you
back
that
out
from
the
no
we're
we're
well
under,
if
you
compare
nois
in
column,
C
versus
column,
B
we're
well
under
what
they
reported
in
2021.
And
then,
if
you
compare
what
in
they
reported
in
2022,
we'll
still
we,
we
are
still
under
their
noi
by
about
473,000
dollars.
C
So
this
property,
we
did
recommend
a
confirmation
and
the
particular
points
that
I
just
like
to
point
out
the
gross
potential
property,
the
gross
gross
potential
income
for
this
property
in
the
in
the
original
assessment
and
the
test
is
including
the
the
vacant
square
footage
again
for
45,49
square
feet
on
the
test
and
then
on
the
original.
We
had
again.
C
Are
not
reporting
the
gross
potential
income
of
the
property
and
therefore,
when
you
know
the
department
evaluates
this
property
either
on
the
original
assessment
or
on
the
test.
We
include
that
and
it
it
seems
higher,
but
it
is
just
a
gross
potential,
whereas
the
owners
are
reporting
the
actual
income
received.
When
you
look
at
the
parking
from
last
year
to
this
year
alone,
parking
grew
about
25,6
197
square
feet.
We
saw
this
in
last
week's
cases
where
parking
has
overall
in
the
county
has
increased.
C
The
county
is
just
taking
the
actual
income
of
the
property
and
using
it
in
the
test.
As
you
know,
just
a
test
to
see
if
our
original
assessment
was
correct,
you
see
in
our
original
assessment
we
had
a
parking
income
of
306,000,
two
about
200,000
less
than
what
they
reported
in
20,
the
most
recent
INE.
So
if
there's
any
change
in
in
gross
potential
income
from
this
property,
we
do
feel
that
that
income
for
the
parking
would
increase
again
for
next
year.
C
Just
given
that
the
property
is
leasing
up,
as
you
see
from
last
year
this
year,
and
we
see
that
the
most
recent
lease
in
the
property
was
January
1st
of
2023
and
that
had
a
rent,
a
contract,
rent
of
a
range
from
$48
to
$57
a
square
feet
over
I
believe
a
eight-year
term
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
and
then
another
new
lease
from
$48
to
$63
over
a
12year
term.
C
So
we
do
feel
that
this
income
will
grow
just
by
contract
leases
alone,
and
we
do
feel
that
this
property
is
a
good
example
of
how
the
county
has
treated
all
properties,
office
properties.
And
we
do
ask
the
board
to
confirm
this
case.
Thank.
D
Matkin
I
have
several
quick
questions
and
answers.
I
trust
answers
for
the
Department
only
in
no
particular
order
of
preference
on
hey.
How
do
you
treat
the
fitness
center?
Is
that
does
that
impute
any
kind
of
income.
C
It
does
not.
We
just
indicate
it
as
a
overall
square
footage
for
the
property.
We
do
see
that
in
the
past
some
retail
or
or
some
vacant
office
space
is
converted
in.
We
do
see
that
as
a
pattern
here
in
the
office
in
the
county,
especially
during
the
coid
season,
they
are
menzing
a
lot
of
the
building
and
taking
space
that
is
vacant.
C
D
All
right,
thank
you.
I
got
a
lot
of
questions.
I,
I
I,
don't
want
to
hog
all
the
time,
so
I
I
hope
I'm,
not
too
imp
poite.
The
next
question
is
on
the
termination
fee.
I'm
not
completely
clear
on
it.
I
mean
termination
fee
typically,
is
certain
amount
of
rents
month's
rent
owed
upfront,
so
some
of
it
might
be
next
year's
rent
being
received
this
year
as
an
example,
but
rarely
is
it
ever
the
entire
rent,
just
lum
sum
you
know
paid
up
front
but
you're
you're.
D
Considering
where
do
the?
Where
do
you
lie
Visa
the
appelin
on
how
to
account
for
this
termination
fee
I,
I
I
was
just
not
clear
on
on
the
two.
D
C
Yeah
he
well.
The
Mr
hman
had
pointed
out
that
the
noi
of
2021
or
2022
includes
termination
fees,
so
it
gives
a
over
overestimation
of
noi
and
what
I
did
is
just
looked
at
2021.
If
you
back
out
the
411,000
termination
fee
on
2012's
noi
and
we're
it's
just
under
7
million.
D
Can
you
just
it
out
and
that's
what
you
compare
nois
from
prior
years
to
this
year
thanks
next
next
question
is
in
column
d,
misscellaneous,
south
of
a
half
a
million
dollars?
What
is
that
income
for,
given
that
there's
no
other
comparable
number
in
that
row.
D
Just
down
lower
in
a
different
row:
okay,
great
correct,
why
in
column,
F
the
test
you
up,
the
actual
rents
and
the
imputed
rents,
a
dollar
or
so
a
square
foot?
That's
based
on
your
testimony
that
you
saw
recent
leases
are
fairly
robust.
C
D
C
Yeah,
the
average
office
leases
were
$52
19
we're
at
$48.95
for
the
leases
in
place.
B
Sir,
so
that
there
were
2022
leases,
they
came
in
at
a
net
effective
rental
rate
of
$41,
so
I.
Imagine
the
the
Dr
is
looking
at
co-star
because
he
cited
a
range
of
I
think
it
was
$48
to
$62.
So
that
sounds
like
a
co-star
estimate
as
to
their
rent
and
and
not
actually
what
it
leased
for
which
we
provided.
The
2022
leases
with
the
appeal.
D
B
D
Yeah,
the
difference
is
concessions
and
and
probable
abatements,
which,
which
is
accounted
for.
I
trust,
Mr
ala
in
vacancy
and
collection,
Rowe,
10.
C
D
A
Much
okay,
good
questions,
Mr
Yates
turn
your
microphone
on.
F
Please
I
two
screens
and
trying
to
get
between
them.
Sorry
for
Rob
I,
see
where
you
got
that
miscellaneous
I
understand
your
explanation.
You
pulled
it
from
21.
What
is
it
why
I
mean
it's
not
consistently
throughout.
F
C
Yeah
they
didn't
fill
out.
The
INE
request
form
for
the
couny,
so
they
submitted
an
income
statement.
F
I
couldn't
total
it
up
in
any
in
22.
I
saw
where
you
pulled
it
from
21,
but
I
can't
find
any
explanation.
Is
it
a
one-time.
C
Event,
other
income
of
3328
was
reported,
and
that
was
for
retail
rent,
real
I'm.
Sorry
here
you.
G
F
C
Second
I
think
I
would
have
to
agree
because
in
the
test
we
didn't
take
that
same
4
49600.
We
dropped
it
down
about.
F
C
Yes,
thank
you.
If
there's
any
question
about
what
the
office
least
office
per
square
foot
rate
would
be
just
to
give
you
a
comparison
of
what
they
reported
in
2022
versus
the
the
Department's
test.
So
if
you
compare
columns
e
to
F,
we're.
C
$426,500
in
place,
we
just
spoke
about
two
new
leases
8
years
and
12
years.
We
do
expect
those
leases
to
increase
about
2
a
half
3%.
We
do
ask
the
board
to
confirm
this
case.
Thank
you.
B
Yes,
thank
you.
So
the
December
2021
December,
2019
sale
of
this
property
was
at
a
cap
rate
of
7.58%.
The
2023
assessment
is
at
6.75%,
so
they're
below
even
the
2019
salecat.
Next,
the
Dr.
They
cited
that
that
rental
rate
range
they
were
looking
at
rents
that
are
due
in
the
last
year
of
this
12year
lease,
so
they
cited
$62
as
a
a
rental
rate.
That's
going
to
be
due
in
2034
2035.
It's
not
reflective
of
January
1
rental
rates,
so
the
vacant
office
is
at
$41.
B
They
did
include
the
TD
Bank,
which
we
know
was
going
right
across
the
street
and
the
25%
vacancy
and
collection
loss
that
does
not
account
for
abatements.
This
property
is
25%
physically
vacant
that
25%
applied
in
the
test
column
only
accounts
for
the
Lost
rent
from
having
that
space
vacant.
It
does
not
account
for
free
rent
abatements
on
these
new
leases.
Thank.
A
A
D
Manin
I
look
I
was
doing
a
little
math
on
that
mysterious
miscellaneous
figure
and
reduced
it
in
in
the
original
assessment,
because
I,
like
the
numbers
better
in
the
original
assessment,
Visa
everything
else,
but
it
reduced
it
by
410,
,000
or
so
meaning
bringing
it
to
the
39,000.
That
is
in
the
test
case
and
in
the
actual
column
e
case.
But
when
I
capped
it
out
it,
it
not
surprising
I
mean
it's
mathematics.
D
It
reduced
the
noi
by
over
$6
million
and
I
I
think
that
TD
Bank
for
next
year
is
going
to
be
a
big
loss,
because
it's
going
to
be
tough
to
replace
a
a
retail
space
that
size
but
I
I.
So
I
looked
at
that
and
it
just
seemed
to
be
an
over
correction:
that
minus
6
million
plus
further
I
looked
at
the
operating
expenses
and
realized
that
it
is
a
good
bit
higher
than
the
historical
operating
expenses.
So
at
first
I
had
a.
A
F
It
I
think
some
of
the
numbers
are
off
I.
Think
the
abatement
issue
I
think
the
miscellaneous
I'm
surprised
your
number
came
out
as
low
as
it
did.
But,
honestly,
that's
the
math
I
think
it
may
be.
A
D
And
and
I
I
mean
the
the
vacancy
is
down
a
bit,
rents
are
down
a
bit
and
the
the
assessment
proposed
assessment
is
down
just
a
little
bit,
but
that
we're
not
seeing
the
ugliness
we've
seen
in
this
building,
which
is
a
really
quite
a
nice
building
and
in
a
great
location
if
people
start
taking
Metro
again
anytime
soon
it
it
just
to
me,
didn't
justify
that
kind
of
decrease
in.
G
Yeah,
can
you
hear
me?
Okay,
yes,
sir
okay,
I
I
just
wanted
to
share
I.
Don't
think
that
if
we
increase
expenses
we
necessarily
have
to
increase
parking
I
think
the
two
have
nothing
to
do
with
each
other.
You
know
your
parking
income
is
going
to
be
based
on.
You
know
how
how
occupied
your
building
is,
whereas
expenses
are
going
to
you
know
they
just
keep
going
up
with
inflation
here
lately,
I
I
don't
have
any
problem
with
the
math
or
the
figures
I
tinkered
around
with
it
a
whole
lot.
G
H
Pen,
let
me
see
if
I'm
I'm,
okay
with
the
original
assessment,
yeah
I,
was
trying
to
also
make
some
changes
as
far
as
the
expenses
and
all
that,
but
overall
you
know,
I
think
the
income
itself
that
is
used
in
the
original
assessment
is
already
lower
than
to
begin
with.
So
you
know
I'm,
okay,
with
it.
A
A
H
I'm,
not
sure
I
mean
you
I
thought
that
was
more
of
a
involving
the
termination
fee,
rather
than
all
the
other
small
stuff
yeah
I
couldn't
I
couldn't
find
either
a
justification
of
you
know
where
each
specific
amount
was,
but
I
thought
it
was
also
a
onetime
feed
that
was
included.
But,
like
I
said,
you
know,
looking
at
the
egi
and
the
nois
from
the
previous
years
and
the
operating
2022,
you
know,
I
thought
I
was
I
felt
comfortable
with
the
original.
F
I
think
it
should
be
lower
yeah.
For
me,
that's
unusual
yeah,
I,
I.
D
D
But
not
this
high
and
I
I
wouldn't
mind
adjusting
it
downward,
not
the
full
amount
down
to
39,000
plus,
but
maybe
cutting
it
in
half
and
capping
that
out
and
putting
on
the
assessment
to
account
for
some
of
it
being
prob
more
than
likely,
especially
because
the
the
department
couldn't
give
us
a
definitive
answer,
but
but
just
a
an
indication
that
it
was
some
of
it
was
onetime
fee
and
and
therefore
it
shouldn't,
of
course
be
brought
forward.
So
what
do
you
think
about
just
cutting
the
49,000
five
449,000
in
half?
G
Sure,
Madam
chairman
this
is
Barnes
I'll
share.
One
of
you
know:
I
tinkered
around
with
a
whole
lot
of
ideas,
and
one
of
the
ideas
I
had
was
I
took
what
the
applicant
reported
of
noi
of
5,906,
324
and
I
cap,
that
at
the
County's
cap
rate
and
it
with
87501
100
I,
don't
know
if
that
merits
any.
G
Line
oop,
sorry
no
I
just
took
on
what
page
is
it
on.
G
F
F
A
D
Yeah,
what
what
I
got
was
the
new
noi
would
be
92,
143,
451
and
then
below
the
line.
Adjustments
brings
the
assessment
down
to
I'm,
sorry,
not
the
noi,
the
indicated
total
value
of
92
143
451
and
then
the
other
adjustments
below
the
line
brings
the
final
assessment
to
89.
E
The
noi
then
I
didn't
I,
didn't
do
that.
Okay,.
D
I
I
just
went
I
just
took
off
the
the
$224,700
off
the
miscellaneous
and
brought
it
down
directly.
You
know
just
Capp
that
out
and
that's
a
3,
329
630
figure
and
I
just
deducted
that,
from
the
indicated,
total
value
on
line
on
Road
22
and
then
went
below
the
line
so
I
just
skipped
the
noi
just
didn't.
D
D
H
His
if
I
take
the
below
the
line,
deduction
I
come
up
with
86
mil
562
670
I,
don't
know
what
I
did
is
I
took
that
amount
from
the
top
from
the
GPI.
Is
that
what
you
did.
H
Yeah
I
took
the
same
25%
vacancy
and
I
took
the
same
expenses,
and
so
I
come
up
with
an
noi
of
6,.
A
H
H
Yeah
I'm,
okay
with
it.
A
I'll,
second,
all
in
favor
I
I
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
The
county
is
confirmed
at
92
million.
Excuse
me,
92
m593,.
A
B
Yes,
thank
you
so
401
Fairfax
Drive
is
located
at
Fairfax
and
Quincy
in
bolon.
It
was
built
in
1989
and
was
19.3%
vacant.
As
of
the
date
of
value,
this
property
last
sold
for
$62.5
million
in
August
of
2016
and
was
appraised
at
only
$59,900
th000.
As
of
December
31st
2022,
a
copy
of
the
pertinent
pages
of
the
appraisal
were
included
with
the
appeal
and
appear
beginning
on
page
69
of
the
dr's
board
submission
where
you
can
see.
The
final
value
conclusion
is
$59,900
th000.
B
Now
this
apprais
value
of
$59,900
th000
is
interesting
because
if
you
look
at
the
2022
actual
reported
noi
in
column
e
on
the
test
page
and
cap,
this
figure
out
at
the
Dr
unchanged
cap
rate
plus
200
basis
points,
as
we've
included
with
the
appeal
you
arrive
at
the
same
value,
$9,700
th000.
So
all
in
all,
pretty
close.
You
can
see
this
Illustrated
on
the
owners
Pro
fora
on
page
68
of
the
board
PC.
B
This
makes
sense
that
the
actual
2022
income
capped
out
at
a
market
cap
rate
gets
to
the
apprais
value.
After
all,
this
property
was
about
20%
vacant
for
all
of
2022,
which
means
that
noi
reported
is
reflective
of
a
stabilized
property
per
the
draa
model.
Keep
in
mind
that
2022
was
the
best
operating
year
of
any
of
the
past
four
years
for
this
property.
B
This
property
has
also
suffered
High
vacancy
over
the
past
several
years,
going
into
as
high
as
32%
in
2019,
and
it's
consistently
been
at
or
above
20%
vacant
for
the
last
3
years.
So
we
have
two
separate
sources
telling
us
that
the
value
of
this
property
is
right
at
$59.9
million.
There's
the
professional
appraisal
dated
December
31st
2022
and
the
actual
2022
noi
at
the
property.
Now
briefly,
I
want
to
address
column,
G
and
G1.
On
the
test
page,
the
Dr
has
labeled
column,
G1
appellant,
proforma,
Dr
estimated.
B
This
is
not
a
proforma
that
was
submitted
by
the
owner
and
labeling
this
column
as
such,
especially
when
the
figure
is
listed
when
the
figure
listed
is
higher
than
anything
the
owner
submitted
with
the
appeal.
This
is
very
misleading.
You
can
see
what
was
submitted
on
page
68
of
the
board
submission
now
column.
G1
is
a
2021
value
that
I'm
not
entirely
sure
why
it
was
included,
but
it
is
worth
noting
that
the
Dr
did
reduce
the
assessment
that
year,
based
on
that
appealed
value.
B
Now
you
can
see
this
is
another
property
where
the
Dr
test
seemingly
concludes
that
the
assessment
is
actually
too
low
this
time,
stating
that
the
assessment
is
essentially
11%
too
low.
This
has
become
part
for
the
course
for
the
test
columns
this
year.
Despite
the
widespread
turmoil
in
the
office
Market
throughout
2022,
due
to
reduced
demand
and
profitability
and
increased
cost
of
capital,
the
test
column
is
telling
us
the
property
actually
increased
in
value
from
2022
by
over
133%.
B
The
test
column
provides
an
alternative
value
that
claims
of
property
has
increased
by
177%
from
2022.
This
is
simply
not
reflective
of
the
fair
market
value
as
of
January
1
20123,
as
evidence
by
the
appraisal
included
with
the
appeal
beginning
on
page
69
of
the
board
Peg.
So
to
summarize,
both
the
professional
appraisal
for
this
property
and
the
actual
2022
noi
achieved
by
the
property
support
a
value
of
$59,900,
and
we
respectfully
request
the
board
reduce
the
assessment.
Accordingly.
Thank
you.
C
Please,
yes,
thank
you
for
this
case,
the
the
county
did
inspect
this
property
with
the
appellant
we
inspected
it
on
July
13th
of
this
year.
What
we
did
notice
on
this
property
is
extensive,
Renovations
to
the
lobby,
Plaza
they
added
new
Plaza
Courtyard
outside
new
fitness
center.
We
had
asked
for
the
square
footage
on
a
number
of
things.
C
C
They
couldn't
comment
on
what
that
was.
It's
1485
ft
of
Bulma
adjustments.
We
we
feel
that
I
mean
that
that
amount
of
square
footage
is
just
too
much
to
not
be
accounted
for.
They
listed
on
the
rent
roll
and
it
could
affect
the
value
based
on.
You
know
that
square
footage
being
possible
nla
that
leasable
area.
C
We
did
indicate,
as
the
data
value,
that
the
on
our
summary
page,
that
35356
square
F
feet
was
vacant
and
that's
subtracting
out
that
14,000
Bulma
adjustments
made
to
the
property
what
we
did
find
the
appellant
stated
that
they
included
the
appraisal
and
they
belied
that
they
included
all
the
pertinent
figures
that
was
necessary
to
prove
that
this
property
is
worth
what
it
was
appraised
for
if
they
had
a
full
appraisal,
which
we
asked
for
I
think
it
would
indicate
the
cap
rate
that
they
use
to
arrive
at
that
value.
C
It
would
indicate
the
actual
rent
that
they're
using
and
any
discounts
concessions
and-
and
you
know
so
forth,
so
without
that
information
we
do
feel
that
it's
a
little
misleading.
It's
just
say
it's.
You
know
this
amount
based
on
the
appraisal
if
it
was
sort
of
a
Smoking
Gun
to
suggest
that
our
cap
rates
were
higher
than
what
it
should
be
in
the
market,
shouldn't
that
be
something
that
be
included
in
the
packet
I
think
so
so
it
wasn't
included.
C
But
then,
looking
at
the
pertinent
facts
of
this
case,
if
you
look
at
the
County's
original
assessment
compared
to
what
they
reported
in
2021,
if
you
just
compare
the
nois
alone,
the
the
county
is,
you
know
right
within
the
the
noi
as
reported
and
then
in
the
test.
C
You
see
that
the
income
grew
from
last
year
this
year
of
about
$820,000
$300
from
21
to
22,
as
the
appellant
suggested
that
2022
is
the
most
successful
operating
year
and
it
the
reported
income
is
much
higher
than
what
they
reported
in
the
past.
As
you
see
that
the
vacancy
of
the
property
could
be
indicative
of
all
the
renovations,
they
were
doing
to
the
property
as
I
mentioned
earlier.
So
it's
not
it.
It
might
not
be
influenced
just
by
the
market
alone.
C
It
could
be
influenced
by
the
Management's
decision
to
renovate
this
property.
We
do
feel
that,
based
on
those
Renovations,
we
did
make
an
effective
age
change.
We
changed
the
effective
age
to
1988
and
increased
it
to
1998,
and
by
do
so,
the
cap
rate
changed
based
on
that
and
we
do
see
that
the
overall
value
still
is
supporting
the
original
assessment,
whereas
the
original
assessment
isn't
taking
into
account
that
82,00
in
income
that
increased
from
last
year
this
year.
C
So
with
that
information,
we
do
ask
the
board
to
confirm
this
case.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board.
A
A
Okay
and
Mr
Harmon
any
final
comments.
B
Yes,
thank
you.
So
the
effective
age
adjustments
that
we've
heard
the
Dr
propose
a
few
times
this
year,
they've
provided
no
calculations
for
how
they
arrive
at
these
adjustments.
They
just
go
in
and
they
say
new
Lobby
10
years
newer.
You
know
us
p,
generally
accepted
appraisal.
Practice
does
have
calculations
that
you
can
do
to
make
effective
age
C
adjustments.
The
Dr
is
not
doing
that
they're
going
in
and
saying,
there's
new
paint.
It
smells
good
in
here,
let's
add
10
years
to
the
effective
age.
B
Now
it's
highly
speculative
that
the
vacancy
is
caused
by
Renovations.
This
hasn't
been
a
four-year
renov
in
ation
program,
as
the
Dr
suggests
vacancy
has
been
high
at
this
property
over
the
past
four
years
at
least
a
professional
appraisal
dated
December
31st
2022
came
in
at
$59,900
th000
as
indicative
of
the
market.
As
of
that
date
and
the
value
of
this
property,
we
know
the
Dr
did
not
consider
sales
data
from
the
fourth
quarter
of
2022.
That's
why
their
assessments
are
missing
the
market.
This
approach
comes
in
and
shows
what
the
market
value
was.
G
One
this
is
Barnes.
Are
you
able
to
see
me.
G
H
Penada
this
case,
I,
think
more
than
the
previous
case
is
actually
showing
the
numbers
that
are
more
in
favor,
of
just
confirming
the
current
assessment
I'm
not
putting
any
weight
into
that
appraisal.
I
would
have
liked
to
see
more
information
on
how
they
arrived
at
the
number.
You
know
just
the
first
two
pages
saying
this
is
what
we
think
it's
worth
doesn't
really
tell
me
anything.
H
You
know
most
appraisals
that
I
look
at
I
want
to
see
how
they
arrive,
and
so
I
agree
with
Mr
Peralta
that
if
they
wanted
to
include
that
appraisal
as
burden
of
proof,
like
Mr
Lawson
said
it
should
be
the
whole
thing
you
know
so
I'm
not
putting
any
way
to
it.
D
On
on
the
fee
appraisal,
I
think
the
the
appellant
made
his
case
that
they
ran
some
numbers
and
then
they
added
200
basis
points
onto
the
County's
cap
rate
and
came
up
with
a
59
plus
million
doll
figure,
and
we
have
not
chosen
to
change.
I
I
haven't
done
the
the
math,
but
without
the
200
basis
points
my
guess
is
the
appraiser
would
have
come
up.
Would
the
fee
appraiser
would
have
come
up
very,
very,
very
close
to
the
county.
D
D
I
just
wanted
to
point
it
out
because
we
brought
it
up
a
number
of
times
and
lastly,
this
seems
to
be
almost
an
effective
age
issue
more
than
a
cap
rate
issue,
and
my
understanding
is
from
asking
many
many
times
over
the
years
how
these
County
Assessors
make
effective
age
changes
and
it's
based
on
not
only
experience
but
also
book
learning
going
to
seminars.
D
So
I
I
think
the
landlord
did
the
right
thing
by
keeping
by
updating
the
building
and
keeping
the
and
improving
just
a
little
bit
on
the
tenant
base.
So
the
there
their
business
model,
I
think
is
working
I,
wouldn't
it
seems
a
2.2%
proposed
assessment
rate
is
is
warranted.
Maybe
it
could
be
1.2
it's
hard
to
know
that,
but
I'm
with
Mr
penera.
The
numbers
seem
to
make
some
sense.
D
F
Gates
I'm,
okay
with
column,
D,
I,
think.
The
one
item
that
did
I
noticed
was
the
square
footage
and
I
just
looked
up
the
appraiser
even
used
a
different
square
footage
I
mean
there's
no
consistency
in
this
at
all
for
that,
and
that
was
an
area
that
I
thought
that
maybe
there
needed
to
be
an
answer
but
I'm,
okay
with
d,
the
others
two
they're.
E
D
That
we
accept
the
County's
assessment
of
64
mil.
A
Motion
to
Second
by
Mr
penanda,
all
in
favor
I
opposed
okay,
it's
4
to
one
with
the
exception
of
Mr
Lawson.
The
county
is
confirmed
at
64,8
300.
Thank
you.
Okay,
the
next
two
cases
on
the
agenda:
RPC
15059,
011
and
RPC
17027
02a.
The
appellant
has
been
asked
to
withdraw
them
on
91
I
assume,
there's
no
objection
from
the
county;
that's
correct!
Okay
and
Mr.
Bralton!
No
objection.
A
Okay,
all
right,
then
I
will
move
to
accept
the
withdrawal.
On
the
first
case,
ending
in
011
do
I
have
a.
H
H
A
H
G
A
Mr
Lawson
again,
all
in
favor
I
opposed
okay,
those
are
unanimous.
Both
cases
have
been
withdrawn
and
the
fifth
case
rpc1
18013
011.
There
is
a
signed
settlement
letter
on
the
31st
of
August,
so
that's
no
longer
needs
to
be
heard.
So
that
completes
the
agenda.
Is
there
any
other
business
before
the
board?