►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - July 8, 2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
morning
it
is
July,
8th
2020,
and
this
is
the
Arlington
County
Board
of
Equalization.
Hearing
the
first
case
on
the
agenda
is
our
PC
zero
four
zero
one,
one,
two,
two
nine
at
twenty
seven,
twenty
nine
North
Marcy
Road,
the
Sir
Peter
Fallon,
is
presenting
for
the
appellant
I
just
want
to
say
before
we
start,
I
know
mr.
Fallon
personally
and
professionally,
but
I
feel
that
I
can
be
objective.
So
if
there's
no
objection
from
the
county
or
for
mr.
Fallon
I'll
proceed
is
so
not
okay.
Mr.
B
Yes,
good
morning,
members
of
the
Board
of
Equalization
and
Miss
Ross
kind,
and
anyone
else
in
on
this
call.
My
name
is
Peter
Fallon
for
the
record.
I
am
the
agent
along
with
Michael
Griffin
joining
me
on
this
call
on
behalf
of
the
Donaldson
run,
Recreation
Association,
the.
As
you
know,
we
have.
We
are
seeking
to
appeal
our
real
estate
assessment.
I'll
turn
it
over
to
mr.
Griffin
in
a
moment
to
talk
about
more
specifics
and
I
believe
we're
also
being
joined
by
mrs.
Karen
Hanneman
a
past
president
current
board
member
of
Donaldson
run
cool.
A
B
A
C
C
That
the
basis
for
our
argument
is
that
Donaldson
runs.
Property
is
burdened
with
a
restrictive
covenant
in
a
deed
and
application
of
the
Chesapeake
Bay
preservation
ordinance
under
our
s3,
a
zoning
and
the
restricted
deed
covenant.
Thompson
runs
development
rights
would
be
limited
to
construction
of
a
single-family
home
on
the
entire
property.
If
we
were
to
pursue
development
rights
and
the
the
properties
proximity
to
Rick
sees
run
and
the
associated
resource
protected
area.
Further
limits,
Donaldson
runs
development
rights
by
precluding
construction
near
the
stream
that
borders
the
property.
C
We
take
the
position
that
the
appropriate
property
comparisons
for
purposes
of
resume
review
assessment
are
the
three
other
properties
located
within
the
county,
owned
by
other
non-governmental
associations
that
operate
through
the
swimming
pools.
Each
of
those
other
properties
is
own
dark
six,
which
would
permit
them
to
develop
practically
seven
single-family
dwellings
per
acre.
In
contrast,
Donelson
runs
right
to
develop
only
one
single-family
dwelling,
our
on
our
five
acre
site.
C
You
think
Donna's
run
is
zone
s
380
because
we're
located
within
the
boundaries
of
Potomac
overlook
Park,
which
is
down
s
3a.
If
there
are
other,
you
know
privately
owned,
s3a
properties
in
the
county,
we're
not
we
haven't,
I'm
able
to
identify
them,
we're
not
aware
of
them.
We
think
comparing
Donelson
runs
property
to
s,
create
properties.
These
are
inappropriate
for
at
least
two
reasons.
First,
our
use
of
the
community
swimming
pool
is
distinct
from
the
other
s
create
properties,
including
the
Pentagon
national
airport.
C
The
Parkway
and
other
properties,
as
I
mentioned
Donelson
run,
is
a
tax
payer
and
those
other
s3a
properties
are
not
using
the
other
arlington
community
pool
associations
as
the
appropriate,
comparable
properties
for
our
appeal
in
our
materials
we
have
provided
historical
and
current
comparison
of
tax
rates
for
those
properties.
Donelson
run
historically
was
assessed
at
approximately
seventy-five
percent
to
an
81
percent
of
land
valuation
of
those
other
properties.
C
Past
sales
revenue,
at
the
same
time,
we
were
fully-staffed
in
able
to
kind
of
keep
the
property
properly
safe
and
sanitized,
and
we
have
occurred
additional
expenses
associated
with
sanitation
and
safety.
So
for
all
of
those
reasons
you
know,
we
think
that
the
historical
comparison
of
our
valuation
as
a
in
comparison
with
the
other
neighborhood
pool
associations
in
arlington
in
that
differential
of
a
properties
of
approximately
75
to
80
percent.
C
You
know
it's
still
appropriate
and
we
have
requested
of
reduction
in
the
in
our
land
valuation,
to
a
historical
tax
rate
of
$12
94
cents
for
total,
revised
land
assessment
of
two
million
dollars,
818
thousand
three
hundred
and
thirty
two
dollars
Peter.
If
you'd
like
to
add
anything
else,
please
please
do
I
yield
my
time.
Thank
you.
B
I
would
just
add
just
by
way
of
background
I
guess
we're
at
Donaldson
run
were
surprised,
though
I
did
talk
to
miss
Ross
kind
about
this,
that
our
20/20
assessment
was
essentially
the
same
as
the
2019
assessment
prior
to
the
board
of
equalizations
adjustment.
We
had
assumed
that
that
was
sort
of
the
new
starting
point.
B
Staff
has
explained
to
me
that
they
don't
look
at
the
the
board's
valuation
methodology,
but
we
were
surprised
that
essentially,
our
20/20
was
the
same
as
the
2019
prior
to
adjustment,
since
we
viewed
the
Board
of
equations
adjustment
as
as
acknowledgment
that
the
value
should
in
fact
be
lower
and
should
start
from
there.
Additionally,
I
do
want
to
note
that
in
the
staff
report,
as
mr.
Griffin
says,
we
are
currently
being
valued
at
the
staff
at
fifteen
dollars.
A
square
foot,
overly
pool,
which
is
our
six
and
has
significantly
more
development.
B
Rights
is
actually
I
believe
zoned
at
fifth
valued
at
fifteen
dollars
and
61
cents
a
square
foot,
and
we
certainly
should
believe
that,
because
of
the
development
rights
we
should
and
the
other
encumbrances
on
the
property,
with
the
chess,
Bay,
ordinance
and
other
factors
that
we
should
be.
You
know
much
lower
than
overly.
D
Thank
you
board
members,
Donaldson
run
representatives
and
the
agent
this
particular
property.
Yes,
they
mentioned
that
there
there
are
no
other
privately
owned
properties
like
this
one
on
the
zoning
of
s3,
a
that
is
correct.
So
when
we
looked
at
this
property
and
we
valued
the
we're
looking
at,
did
we
equalize
with
the
other
community
pools?
Yes,
we
did.
We
use
the
cost
approach.
We
use
the
cost
approach
for
those
properties.
D
Awesome
we
valued
that
property,
and
then
we
took
a
look
at
the
neighboring
properties,
which
is
the
Potomac
Overlook
park
and
the
Marcy
Park
playground
which
are
zoned
similar
and
those
are
the
land
rate
for
those
are
at
twenty
three
dollars
and
sixty
nine
cents
and
twenty
four
dollars
and
33
cents,
a
square
foot
which
is
much
higher
than
the
subject
at
fifteen.
So
then
we're
going
okay!
Well,
let's
take
a
look
at
the
other
community
properties.
D
We
feel
that
the
the
subject
property
Donaldson
run
at
fifteen
dollars.
A
square
foot
is
still
less
than
the
other
property,
the
other
community
pool
properties.
So
then
we
took
a
look
at
okay
on
page
15
of
your
packet.
I'll.
Give
you
a
moment
to
look
on
page
15
through
18
I,
provided
the
watershed
resource
protection
areas
for
each
one
of
those
properties
and,
as
you
can
see,
I
did
my
best
to
mark
them.
D
If
you
could
I
put
the
last
three
digits
of
the
RPC
number
on
top
of
each
one
of
those
outlined
parcels
so
that
you
can
see
where
the
the
watershed
the
resource
protection
area
runs
through
there
and
for
the
subject,
it's
a
rough
roughly,
it's
covered
about
15
percent
of
the
site
and
then,
when
you
look
over
at
the
next
page,
Arlington
Forest,
it's
comprised
of
three
parcels
and
none
of
those
parcels
are
in
the
resource
resource
protection
area.
Dominion
Hills.
D
We
estimated
there's
two
parcels
involved
there
and
we
estimated
roughly
40%
of
those
parcels,
are
covered
in
their
resource
protection
area
and
then
last
is
the
overly
community
association.
None
of
those
parcels
are
located
in
the
resource
protection
area.
So
we
looked
at
all
of
these
things,
so
we
said:
okay
is
this.
D
First
of
all,
is
it
equity
is
equitably
assessed,
yes,
but
we're
used
in
the
cost
approach,
just
like
we
did
for
the
other
community
pools
and
the
surrounding
zoning
of
s3a,
and
we
did
take
into
consideration
that
a
portion
of
the
site
is
covered
by
that
resource
protection
area,
and
then
it
has
a
slope,
and
the
subject
is
still.
Land
rate
is
less
than
any
of
these
properties
that
you
have
listed
before
you
in
the
packet
Irving.
Did
you
want
to
make
a
comment
for
the
rest
of
our
time?.
F
D
Last
year,
when
it
went
before
the
county,
as
you
know,
we
don't
increase
okay,
so
we
made
all
those
Corrections
and
we
left
the
improvements
alone
for
2018,
but
we
stated
in
the
2019
that
we
will
be
making
those
Corrections
for
the
2020
assessment,
and
so
that's
what
we
did.
Some
of
the
pools
were
the
wrong
size.
D
B
A
Had
a
chance,
this
is
questions
right
now
from
board
members:
okay,
okay,
so
I'd
like
to
just
piggyback
on
mr.
Madsen's
question
there
so
I'm
sorry,
so
his
historically
you're
telling
me
that
this
has
always
been
assessed
at
$100
for
the
building,
even
though
manholes
have
been
there
okay.
So
why
I
guess
I'm
gonna
go
back
and
restate
the
question:
why,
then
the
change?
Why
did
it
go
from
100
to
216
if
we
knew
there
was
pools
and
buildings
there?
Okay,.
D
D
The
shown
that's
displayed
at
the
County
web
site
and
you'll
see
that
for
2018,
the
improvement
value
was
two
hundred
fourteen
thousand
eight
hundred
for
2019.
It
went
up
to
two
hundred
seventeen
thousand
and
then
for
2020.
It
went
to
two
hundred
sixteen
thousand
one
hundred,
that's
probably
due
to
depreciation
right.
A
And
also
because
of
whatever
changes,
also,
it
actually
only
went
up
two
thousand
dollars
there.
We
know
and
down
again:
okay,
okay,
a
second
question:
I
have
for
the
county:
the
appellant
is
brought
up
several
times
about
the
future
use
of
properties,
and
this
being
you
know,
the
s3a
versus
the
r6
have
have
you
topped
it
off
with
the
association
and
the
folks
about
that
you're
assessing
it
for
the
current
use
and
not
the
potential
use,
and
can
the
county
just
respond
that
explain
how
you
view
that,
from
a
standpoint
evaluation,
so.
D
Yes,
we
are,
we
do
I
have
talked
to
them
in
the
past.
We
do
value
on
its
current
use
and
not
how
many
Lots
that
we
can
get
out
of
it
if
it
was
residential.
That's
potent
you
know,
that's
down
the
road,
you
know
we
did
ask
him.
If
they've
looked
for
any
other
means
of
protecting
the
site
and
I
apologize,
I
forgot,
it
was
written
with
Irving.
Maybe
you
could
comment
on
that.
You
mentioned
you
asked
if
they
had
looked
into
protecting
the
lot.
E
Yes,
we
talked
to
them
about
or
asked
Lori
to
ask
them
about.
I
think
the
state
has
a
program
where
you
can
do
a
green
space
like
a
green
space
conservation
easement
on
the
property.
It's
similar
to
the
program
that
was
mentioned
when
the
golf
courses
were
talked
about
years
ago,
where
you
can
ask
the
county
to
put
in
a
green
space
evening
all
your
property
itself
imposed
onto
the
property.
It
does
have
a
few
restrictions
with
it,
but
that's
something
that
they
can
talk
to
the
county
about.
B
He
to
if
I
can
respond.
The
yeah,
miss
Roth,
Condon,
asked
me
in
an
email.
If
we
had
pursued
something
I
want
to
say
was
a
Virginia
conservation,
easement
or
something
of
this
I'm
using
the
right
term,
and
the
answer
is
no.
We
had
not
because
I
guess
two
reasons
primarily
one.
We
didn't
really
know
about
it.
B
In
other
words,
we
did
not
use,
unlike
other
pools
in
Arlington,
and
we
did
not
use
our
renovation
process
as
a
way
to
expand
or
change
operations
or
change
the
footprint
so
to
speak
or
other
aspects
of
it.
The
other
thing
I
would
ask
I
would
just
say
is
that
you
know
when
I
had
asked
about
what
would
be
tax
benefits,
miss
Roz
con,
since
she
wasn't
in
a
position
obviously
to
to
answer
that
as
a
IRS,
501,
C,
7
exempt
organization,
we
don't
pay
income
tax,
so
you
know.
H
H
H
I
Yeah
for
the
county,
I
remember
this
case.
From
last
year
it
was
$15
land
rape
was
used
this
year,
15
dollars
a
square
foot.
Land
rate
is
used
again.
I
wasn't
clear
on
how
that
number
is
derived.
I
know.
You
mentioned
some
public
parks
and
things
like
that
they're
in
the
$20,
but
I
don't
think
those
are
really
relevant
because
there's
no
sales
on
public
parks
than
that
happening
I
mean.
What
can
you
just
go
through?
How
$15
goes
into
this
system
as
being
the
land
right,
this
property,
so.
D
Approximately
we
looked
at
the
other
communities,
those
are
at
17,
25
and
15
I
corrected
the
1561
who
was
missing
one
of
the
parcels
and
so
that
changed
so
why
the
parcels
I
believe
is
assessed
at
1725
and
the
other
one.
It's
not,
and
so
it
changed
it.
So
we'll
be
making
a
correction
and
we
looked
at
those
and
then
we
looked
at
what
its
limitations
are
because
of
the
slope
and
they
are
they.
We
recognized
that
dolls
and
run
has
limitations
due
to
the
slope
of
the
land
and
in
the
majority
of
the
site.
D
That
is
level
is
up
high
and
that's
where
the
parking
is
and
it
does
slope
down,
and
then
it
tends
to
level
off
a
little
where
the
pool
is,
and
then
you
have
the
resource
protection.
So
we
just
looked
at
what
is
a
realistic
number,
that's
less
than
what
any
of
those
pools
and
the
neighboring
properties
are.
D
D
Once
again,
we're
valuing
this
property
as
of
January
1
2020,
and
we,
like
I,
said
we
feel
that
the
property
is
equitably
assessed.
Faced
with
the
other
pools
based
on
the
fact
we're
using
the
cost
approaches
like
we
used
with
those
other
properties
and
our
land
value
is
lower
for
the
subject
than
any
of
the
surrounding
similar.
D
Similarly
zoned
s38
properties
and
any
of
the
pools
that
are
list,
the
community
pools
that
are
listed
in
the
packet
and,
like
I,
said
we
do
recognize
that
a
portion
about
15%
of
the
site
is
on
a
resource
protection
area,
and
we
do
some
of
the
other
pools
number
to
Dominion.
Hills
is
being
covered.
Approximately
40%
of
its
site
is
being
covered
by
a
resource
protection
area,
but
the
other
two
are
not
so
we
looked
at
all
those.
We
feel
that
our
15
dollars
a
square
foot
for
the
land
raises.
B
That's
us:
okay,
I
guess
what
I
would
just
it
just
sort
of
just
add.
Is
that
as
a
reminder
to
the
to
the
board
prior
to
27
2017,
the
staff
did
do
our
evaluation
on
a
larger
percentage
or
discount.
If
you'd
like
that,
you
know
for
nearly
ten
years
and
we're
really
asking
you
know
with
our
request
to
go
back
to
that
differential
level.
It's
just
in
2017,
I,
guess,
20,
18,
19
and
20.
B
A
I
Mean
I
can
recall,
because
I
look
back
through
my
notes
to
try
to
figure
out.
It
was
basically
a
split
vote
and
the
idea
that
the
$15
land
rate
was
too
high
and
was
not
equitable
with
the
other
pool
properties
that
were
in
the
you
know,
in
the
15
to
17
dollar
range
that
had
our
six
zoning
and
pretty
similar
to
the
the
case
that
the
appellant
brought
forward.
F
H
H
If,
if
that
is
violated,
then
it
it
would
return
back
to
the
original
conveyers
or
their
heirs
or
whomever
and
so
I
think
it's
not
just
the
zoning
that
impacts,
value,
I,
think
it's
the
Covenant
and
the
limitation
on
uses
the
pool,
clubs
and
I
analyzed
it
for
Dominion
Hills
years
ago,
Dominion
Hills
could
do
a
cluster
and
cluster
their
units
in
the
part
of
the
property
that
does
not
have
EQC
and
so
their
highest
and
best
use.
If
and
when
it
ceases
to
be,
a
pool
club
would
be
a
number
of
single-family
dwellings.
H
I
I
mean
I
would
add
that
using
properties
like
Potomac
Overlook
Park
as
a
Marcy
Playground
as
a
there's,
a
reason
why
the
land
Book
value
should
be
higher.
It's
it's
not
rubbing
relative
relevant
at
all,
because
I
mean
I,
don't
believe
the
county
pays
taxes
on
any
of
those
properties.
There's
really
no
landowner
there
to
defend
the
valuation
of
the
property,
so
they
could
just
raise
the
land
rate
up
to
a
hundred
dollars
a
square
foot.
It
really
wouldn't
matter
so
I.
You
know,
I,
think
you
got
to
look
as
Barnes's,
that's
kind
of
mentioned.
J
J
In
my
opinion,
this
property,
as
well
as
all
the
other
pool
practice,
were
assessed
equally,
the
fact
that
you
know
we're
trying
to
see
what
could
be
done
with
the
property
I
think
it's
totally
irrelevant.
We
don't
really
see
any
property,
whether
it's
nonprofit
or
for-profit.
What
could
be
done
with
it?
You
know
it's
the
current.
You
stand
as
the
appellant
indicated.
J
You
know,
there's
really
no
intention
to
making
a
change
to
the
use
anyway,
it
is
possible
to
happen
or
not,
but
you
know
we
can't
really
see
what
the
potential
development
is
going
to
be
on
any
property.
We
have
to
look
at
whether
it's
assessed
properly
and
the
value
that
is
used
to
assess
it.
It's
or
the
you
know
the
factors
the
rates
are
properly
used
and
I
think
they
are.
H
Yeah
I
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
Dominion
Hills,
for
example,
could
right
now
go
through
file
a
subdivision
and
create
at
least
one,
maybe
even
two
building
Lots,
and
then
they
could
sell
it
if
they
ran
into
a
cash
flow
problem
or
something
like
that
haven't
looked
at
the
site.
Plans
of
the
other
pool
clubs,
but
I
would
imagine
they
could
as
well
and
so
I.
Don't
think
you
can
ignore
the
zoning
I
mean
the
zoning
right
now
adds
value
to
the
other
swim
clubs.
F
That
makes
sense
as
far
as
it
goes,
but
then
I'd
look
at
Potomac
overlooked
that
has
the
same
limitations,
namely
today
3s
3a.
We
can't
get
into
whether
they're
gonna
change,
zoning
or
high
tides
or
anything
else,
and
look
at
how
significant
the
assessment
is.
Fifty
percent
more
per
square
foot-
and
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
art
here
and
not
science,
because
they're
sure
not
a
lot
of
sales
of
this
kind
of
zone
property
and
although
I'm
sympathetic
to
mr.
Lawson's
position
that
without
any
zoning,
they
could
get
building
Lots
they
meaning
Dominion
Hills.
F
Nonetheless,
that's
three
is
s3
and
relative
to
purely
s3.
Again,
knowing
this
is
somewhat
subjective.
I've
got
to
go
with
Jose,
saying
that
it
is
what
it
is
today
and
we
can't
get
into
site
plans
and
zoning
restrictions.
We
can
only
get
into
comparables
and
the
comparable
is
that
the
solid
one
is
that
it's
much
higher
than
the
imbalance.
K
F
There's
no
assurance
may
I
respond
check,
there's
no
assurance
that
there
ever
gonna
get
me
the
Covenant,
sir,
be
scofflaws
or
return
it
all
our
six
and
develop
it.
We
don't
that's
all
speculative.
We
have
absolutely
no
idea
what
they
might
or
might
not
do,
nor
do
they,
nor
should
they
so
we're
looking
at
what
are
you
just
today
sure
there's
there's
covenants,
but
it's
it's
a
part.
The
covenants
say
it's
got
to
be
a
part.
I
I
mean
can
I
think
I
hear
what
you're
saying
that
these
pools
are
pools
than
they
should
be
viewed
as
commercial
properties,
and
we
should
be
looking
at
an
income
and
expense
report,
but
I
think
that
for
most
of
these
pools,
they're
not
profit
generating
entities.
So
we're
going
to
end
up
with
the
value
of
zero,
so
I
mean
I'm
not
opposed
to
that
I.
Don't
think!
I
That's
the
county's
policy
for
looking
at
any
of
these
nonprofit
pools,
but
as
far
as
a
methodology
for
determining
the
land
rate,
I
think
the
appellant
put
forward
a
pretty
good
case
in
the
in
the
package
by
just
basically
putting
a
discount
factor
based
on
the
RP,
a
and
and
and
the
the
use
restrictions
on
the
other
pools
which
did
not
contain
the
same
use,
restriction
and
just
working
towards
a
$13
square-foot
land
rate.
So
I
mean
I
thought
it
was
a
good.
K
H
I
I
B
A
L
A
A
L
L
Now
that
109
million
dollar
value
that
was
initially
came
out
as
a
20/20
assessment.
That
value
is
the
value
of
the
current
use
and
operating
hotel,
plus
the
approved
land
value
for
redevelopment
based
on
the
county's
guidelines.
The
two
values
were
combined.
That's
it
one
one
funny
and
our
issue
was:
you
know,
because
the
the
existing
sits
on
the
site
where
this
redevelopment
is
going
to
occur.
L
Sixty-Two
of
the
county
package,
62
679
you'll,
see
our
Debrett
cat
value
of
54
million
three
hundred
and
fifty
four
thousand
four
hundred
now
that's
based
on
the
actual
reported
income
and
expenses
for
2019
value.
They
did
have
included
income
approach,
one
sixty
five
million
three
hundred
fifteen
thousand
five
hundred.
Now
they
over
or
underestimated
actual
operating
expenses,
as
well
as
their
guideline
expenses
for
hotels,
we've
included
the
guideline
hotel
snippet.
L
On
page
sixty
of
79,
these
full
service
hotels,
the
county,
has
recommended
at
sixty
nine
point,
seven
percent
they're
using
somewhere
in
the
range
of
sixty
four
percent,
the
axial
operators,
so
looking
at
it
on
a
income
approach
value
it's
substantially
less
than
the
revised
value
of
the
sixteen
million
now
based
on
the
land
valuation
approach.
You'll
see
that
on
page
63
that
that
value
is
in
line
with
what
we
have
for
valuation,
which
is
what
the
county
is
doing.
L
However,
that
did
not.
That
does
not
take
into
consideration
any
of
the
redevelopment
costs,
so
the
demolition
of
the
existing
site.
This
is
not
a
vacant
land
parcel.
This
is
a
three
hundred
six
unit
hotel.
That
needs
to
be
demolished
pave
way
for
the
redevelopment
would
just
occur
at
start
occurring
in
the
spring
of
next
year.
L
In
addition,
there
is
an
amendment
to
the
existing
site
plan
to
change
the
plea.
The
unit
counts,
Brown
from
375
units
to
the
hotel
to
325
units
and
then
a
slight
increase
to
the
apartments
from
502
units
to
517
units.
If
you
apply
the
county's
land
IOH
guidelines
of
50,000
a
unit
for
the
hotel's
86,000
unit
for
the
the
apartments
that
come
to
a
value,
roughly
a
million
dollars
lower
than
the
revived
County
value,
that
value
would
come
to
61
million
648,
780,
so
I
think
that's
something
to
take
into
consideration
as
well.
M
Yeah
I
like
to
chime
in
really
quick
in
Greg,
Raines
and
Sophie
malar
on
the
phone
as
well
or
on
the
call
as
well.
If
you
have
any
questions
for
them,
they
believe
you
all
know
them
from
prior
years,
but
they
work
for
Dittmar.
The
the
big
thing
here
is
the
Assessor
went
from
the
income
approach.
Originally
they
said
they
were
saying
we're
going
to
use
the
existing
hotel
and
then
the
value
is
if
you
demoed
the
hotel,
so
they
double
counted.
N
Jeremy
thanks
and
thanks
for
everybody
for
getting
on
this
call,
so
the
demo
cost-
and
this
is
just
demo-
cost
this-
isn't
any
architectural
engineering
or
anything.
But
we
have
around
six
million
dollars
in
relocation
of
gas,
sewer
and
water
that
those
lines
are
40
feet
deep
and
run
under
current
property.
We
have
to
get
them
out
in
the
lehigh
way.
So
that's
about
six
million
dollars
to
do
that.
1.7
million
dollars
to
abate
the
building
properly
the
building
was
built
in
the
early
70s.
N
So
there's
state
codes
as
far
as
how
you
remove
drywall
and
and
items
in
the
building
freon,
and
all
that
all
that
stuff
about
$420,000
County
permits,
and
then
we
got
about
2.6
million
dollars
and
Road
support
structural
demolition,
actually
bringing
the
building
down
yeah
and
decided
the
method
which
will
bring
that
down
that
we
have
a
about
11
million
up
to
eight
four
or
five
million
dollar
cost
in
demo
to
get
the
parcel
to
develop
a
lot.
Thank
you
right.
M
So
so,
to
wrap
up,
if
you
value
this
as
an
existing
hotel,
which
is
whether
the
value
a
CD
does
I
use,
54
million
using
the
guidelines
and
the
actuals,
if
you
value
and
in
highest
and
best
use
like
the
county,
did
and
you
consider
the
actual
demolition
cost
the
values.
Fifty
point,
eight
million
so
either
way
it's
dramatically
more
than
the
sixty
two
point.
Eight,
that
is
the
current
assessment.
O
Morning
board
members,
as
stated
previously,
this
property
was
approved
for
redevelopment
September
of
2019.
The
board
is
very
familiar
once
that
occurs.
The
cyclin
evaluation
takes
precedence
over
the
income
approach.
As
the
agents
previously
noted,
we
did
erroneously
value
the
proper
desk
January
first,
using
both
the
existing
improvement.
You
know
that
income
approach
in
the
approved
density,
obviously
MediaCorp
on
our
part.
We
did
correct
that
error
and
that
solely
on
the
site
plan
that
was
approved
by
the
county
board.
O
What
we
want
to
note
is
obviously
there
was
agreement
on
that
used
to
be
a
email
from
the
agent
that
was
attached
to
the
packet
on
page
six,
six,
six,
seventy
eight
in
February
of
two
thousand
twenty
with
they
stated
that
the
belief
is
that
the
property
should
be
valued
based
on
the
approved
site
plan.
We
agree.
We
made
that
change,
we
would
know
and
I
don't
misspeak,
so
everything
can
chime
in,
but
previously
I'm,
not
sure
what
mr.
O
chat
links
referring
to
in
regards
to
incorporating
demolition
costs
and
their
cyclin
valuation
in
my
13
years,
I,
don't
know
if
that
happening
again
doesn't
mean
it
hasn't.
Just
that
I'm
not
aware
of
it,
and
it's
important
to
note
too,
that
the
essential
that's
conjecture
as
there's
no
demo-
that's
yet
occurred
so
cost
that
will
occur
later
in
the
year
if
at
all
this
year,
when
you
be
counted
into
the
January
first
assessment,
so
these
would
be
using
the
site
plan
that
was
approved.
O
The
value
is
agreed
upon
by
both
the
appellant
and
ourselves
for
the
use.
Mr.
Warren
pointed
out
some
amendment
changes.
I
was
made
aware
this
during
this
hearing.
So
that's
not
something
we
incorporated
into
our
evaluation
I'm,
not
sure
again,
if
mr.
Bailey
can
speak
to
that,
but
normally
speaking
that'd
be
something
we'd
be
made
aware
of.
O
Obviously,
if
that
would
affect
the
value
based
on
the
value
that
was
approved,
excuse
me
the
site
plan
that
was
approved
the
valuation
we
call
for
value
of
sixty
two
million
eight,
fifty
nine
eight
hundred,
and
that
would
be
for
what
was
approved
on
September
24,
2009,
teen,
five
hundred
two
residential
units,
375
hotel
keys
and
fourteen
thousand
four
hundred
and
twelve
square
feet
of
retail
mr.
Bailey.
Anything.
To
add
to
that.
E
No
I
just
want
to
say
that
Chris
is
correct.
We
haven't
taken
into
consideration
demo
cough
one
thing
we
have
pointed
out
and
we'll
team
to
point
out.
Our
land
rate
is
based
on
sales
that
occur
in
the
county.
These
sales
typically
have
some
kind
of
appraisal,
or
some
due
diligence
done
to
come
up
to
a
cost
of
demolition
costs
or
part
of
those
cops
that
are
accounting
for
when
you
reach
your
sales
price.
So
again,
our
sales,
our
land
rate,
is
based
on
sales.
E
We'd
already
taken
consideration
to
demo
cost
better
to
take
up
how
to
take
place
so
and
the
site
plan
amendment.
We
did
having
a
chance
to
look
at
the
just
now
CJ's
B
website
was
they
update
any
amendments.
No
amendment
has
been
updated
or
approved
by
the
county
board
for
the
hotel.
It
may
be
something
that's
requested,
but
it's
not
amended
and
approved.
So
we
go
off
the
site
plan
of
the
prude
September
or
at
least
in
2019.
I
Yeah
I
mean
mr.
Bailey
just
touched
on
it,
but
if
you
could
just
real
quick,
there's,
there's
three
rates
that
are
used
in
the
site:
plan
valuation,
the
retail
$65,
a
square
foot
hotel,
fifty
thousand
a
key
and
apartments
at
eighty
six
thousand
a
unit.
Could
you
just
kind
of
read,
since
this
is
the
first
case,
like
this
refresh
our
memory,
how
you
come
up
with
those
land
values.
O
O
I
O
E
J
H
O
We
were
made
aware
of
the
site
plan
approved
last
September.
24Th
2019
was
more
just
an
error,
in
fact
that
we
valued
that
property
via
the
income
approach
for
January
1st
2020,
but
also
incorporating
the
approved
density
from
the
site
plan,
and
that's
what
I
made
mention
you
know.
I
was
brought
to
our
attention
in
February
6
220
by
mr.
Warren.
That
thought
that
was
inappropriate
and
should
be
either
or
mr.
Bailey
and
I
talked
about
that
and
made
the
change
that
you
see
before
you.
The
provisions
now
valued
solely
rights.
H
E
So
the
site
plans
have
a
three
year:
life
hermanas.
During
a
three
year
period.
You
can
sell
this
property
for
the
density
that
was
approved.
That
makes
it
different
than
well
how
it
sat
before
the
site.
Man
with
the
proof
and
to
go
back
to
your
first
question.
This
property
was
valued
based
off
the
income
approach
and
the
site
land,
because
the
hotels
were
in
where
the
land
was
having
additional
hotel
rooms
added.
There
was
confusion
about
whether
or
not
they
were
demoing,
the
complete
hotel
or
they're
gonna
build
on
to
existing
hotel.
E
So
that's
the
reason
why
I
was
valued
that
way
after
we
talked
to
mr.
rains
and
the
agents,
and
they
confirmed
that
would
be
demolished.
This
year
we
removed
the
income
approach
of
that
hotel
that
existed,
invaded
based
solely
off
of
the
density
that
sits
on
their
land
based
on
on
base
because
of
the
site
plan
approval
that
Hotel
being
closed
this
year.
It
still
remains
to
be
closed
and
it's
to
our
knowledge
that
it
won't
reopen
they'll,
just
move
forward
with
whatever
redevelopment
plans
that
they
have
start
an
issue
or
next
year.
H
N
P
J
O
K
I
N
Now
I
mean
we
obviously
went
through
those
discussions
with
staff
and
the
board,
and
the
decision
was
there
that
the
dollars
paid
towards
the
community
benefits
would
be
better
used
on
another
site,
not
as
expensive
as
this
one,
because
you
just
won't
get
the
units
on
it.
But
there
is
a
significant,
affordable
contribution,
not
only
a
lot
of
ordinance,
the
ordinance
to
the
to
the
county.
What.
N
H
Thought
of
another
question
for
the
applicant:
you
all
have
a
site
plan
amendment
in
to
the
county
that
hasn't
yet
been
acted
on.
If
that's
not
granted,
will
you
go
forward
or
will
you
go
forward
with
what's
currently
approved.
M
Gregg
I
can't
answer
that
question
under
the
emitter
Sophie
either
of
you
can
answer
that
question
I
believe
the
project
is
a
go,
no
matter
what
but
I
defer
to
them.
I
mean
I.
Can't
I
can't
imagine
the
reopening
a
hotel
right
now
in
these
times,
but
Gregg,
if
you,
if
you
might
be
muted
or
you're
away
from
your
desk.
Looking
for
those
numbers,
so
I
gave
him
a
homework
assignment
left.
So
he
might
seem
like
come
back
an
hour.
A
O
As
we've
done
in
previous
cases,
involving
the
proofs,
I
plans
did
prove
what
was
excuse
me
beli
what
was
approved
by
the
county
as
far
as
you
know,
potential
future
amendments
we
didn't
take
that
into
account
and
as
far
as
demolition
costs
as
againt
and
precedents
before
we
do
not
take
those
counts
cost
into
account,
especially
as
they
have
not
been
incurred.
That
being
said,
we
do
believe
the
board
should
approve
our
revision,
based
on
the
approved
site
plan
of
sixty-two
million
eight
hundred
fifty
nine
thousand
eight
hundred.
Thank
you.
M
If
you
don't
mind
money,
let
me
jump
in
if,
if
the
owner
had
decided
in
November
in
December
that
they
were
going
to
spend
ten
point,
eight
million
dollars
in
demo
cost
has
spent
that
money.
The
valuation
as
of
the
first
year
would
be
identical.
The
value
would
be
a
vacant
site
and
evaluation
for
vacant
sites
of
sixty
five
dollars
of
retail.
M
Fifty
thousand
four
hotels
in
eighty
six
thousand
four
apartments,
the
fact
they
did
not
spend
that
ten
twenty
million
dollars
doesn't
mean
that
they
don't
have
to,
and
Chris
did
admit
that
there
are
some
circumstances
where
there's
above
and
beyond,
demolition,
cost
and
I
think
right
explained
with
the
tunneling
and
the
location
of
this
property.
There
are
absolutely
above
and
beyond
demolition
costs.
The
county
would
consider
like
a
dry,
cleaner
or
grocery
store.
M
I
So,
just
to
chime
in
as
a
as
a
developer
or
somebody
who
we
might
be
looking
at
purchasing
sites
like
this,
we
would
look
at
exactly
the
way
the
county
has
valued
this.
You
know:
what's
our
dollar
value
for
the
retail,
what's
the
dollar
value,
you
know
market
value
for
hotel.
What's
the
market
value
for
apart
apartments,
and
then
we
would
deduct
any
kind
of
extraordinary
costs
that
we're
gonna
have
to
spend
in
order
to
get
there.
A
P
F
Going
to
Greg's
point
extraordinary
costs
are
stuff
that
you
couldn't
contemplate
from
drycleaners
environmental
remediation,
which,
of
course
the
department
brought
up
as
extraordinary
but
moving
utilities,
and
maybe
these
are
a
little
bit
different,
because
it's
the
40
feet
down
and
not
who
knows
20
feet
down,
but
pretty
much.
All
development
in
this
county
is
is
reuse
of
land
and
therefore
movement
of
utilities
and
and
drywall
removal
and
implosions
and
I'm
all
for
diminishing
this
for
extraordinary.
But
what
the
appellant
has
cited.
I,
don't
think
is
extraordinary
it.
I
I
So
it's
it's
somewhere
in
between
I'm,
more
sympathetic
to
the
pure
cash
extraction
to
go
towards
the
affordable
housing
fund
as
being
just
an
easy
dollar
for
dollar
adjustment,
then
I
am
towards
demo
cost,
because
I
do
feel
like
a
lot
of
demo
and
utility
work
is
captured
in
the
in
the
comparables
that
the
county
used
to
establish
these
rates.
Okay,.
A
I'm,
just
gonna
make
one
last
comment
and
then
we'll
move
on
to
mr.
Lawson.
But
that
being
said
again,
we
see
many
times
where
there's
different
properties
that
have
a
site
plan
on
it
that
they
haven't
converted
over
to
the
site
plan,
but
they
have
the
site
plan
and
it's
being
assessed
at
that
now.
I
would
have
to
imagine
that
they're
going
to
move
forward
with
this,
and
that
may
not
be
the
case
here,
but
from
a
standpoint
of
Equalization.
A
We
take
all
of
the
properties
as
soon
as
there's
a
site
plan
and
it's
assessed
at
the
value
of
the
site
plan
without
taking
into
account
those
extraordinary
costs.
So
I
think
if
we
do
it
on
this,
one
then
we're
out
of
equalization
with
the
other
product.
Okay
with
that
being
said,
mr.
Lawson,
your
comment,
yeah.
H
H
The
the
housing
contribution,
however,
is
now
pretty
much
codified,
and
so
somebody
knows
before
they
even
file
pretty
much
what
their
housing
contribution
is
going
to
be,
and
this
came
out
of
an
amendment
to
the
state
code
a
few
years
ago,
so
when,
when
Dittmar
bought
this
or
Ditmars
developing
it
or
whatever
they
know
before
they
file
their
Sony,
pretty
close
to
where
they're
gonna
be
on
the
housing.
I.
H
Guess
where
I
am
is
you
know,
given
today's
world
I'm,
not
so
sure
they're
going
to
develop
this
and
so
to
switch
from
valuing
it
as
a
hotel
to
valuing
it
based
upon
the
site
plan?
Approval
I'm,
not
sure,
is
the
right
way
to
go,
and
so
I
mean
this
is
a
difficult
one.
It
truly
is
and
I'm
not
a
hundred
percent
sure,
where
I'm
going
to
end
up
Orange.
A
J
Think
told
me
with
you
and
I
think
and
I
appreciate.
You
know
Greg
looking
at
this
as
a
developer,
you
know,
but
if
we're
all
going
to
start
looking
each
property
as
an
investor,
we're
all
gonna
come
with
different,
come
up
with
different
values.
We
have
to
see
whether
we're
working
towards
well
we're
supposed
to
do
equalizing
and
making
sure
that
each
prop
is
either
the
same.
So
I
don't
think
we
can
make
any
change
based
on
just
you
know,
extra-ordinary
cost
or
one
property
may
have
against
the
other.
K
I
P
A
H
A
H
A
L
P
A
A
Q
Q
Q
R
Q
Recently,
in
the
sub
market
and
2019,
we
saw
a
decrease
in
transient
transient
traffic,
specifically
a
lot
less
construction
workers
parking
in
our
parking
garage
and
the
net
operating
income
before
real
estate
taxes
dropped.
Two
prior
rates
similar
to
2017,
twenty-six
see
and
what
we're
asking
for
the
Board
of
Equalization
to
do
is
to
reduce
our
assessment.
Q
The
county
has
cut
down
to
seven
point:
two:
nine
nine
million
we'd
like
it
reduced
back
down
to
five
point:
seven
million
and
2017.
The
assessment
was
five
point:
four
million.
We
understand
every
time
things
do
appreciate,
but
we
are
asking
for
it
to
be
reduced
to
the
five
point:
seven
million
that
equates
to
thirty
thousand
dollars
per
space,
which
is
close
to
cost.
Q
If
a
cap
rate
must
be
used,
the
county
has
elected
or
the
real
estate
department
has
used
a
direct
capitalization
method
based
on
the
Noi
of
the
parking
garage
operation,
and
we
would
like
to
see
the
effect
of
cap
rate
go
back
to
the
2017
amount
and
the
effective
back
then,
on
the
actual
Noi
was
nine
percent
the
county.
During
our
department
hearing,
we
did
discuss
with
the
county.
What
other
jurisdictions
do,
including
the
District
of
Columbia,
which
actually
has
a
regression
model
for
condominiums
and
they
assign
a
specific
amount
for
parking
space?
Q
That's
actually
in
the
neighborhood
of
twenty
two
thousand
dollars.
We
also
see
that
the
county
and
their
and
their
package
mentioned
on
page
eight.
They
list
the
comparable
and
the
comparable
listed
is
3101
Wilson
Boulevard
in
Arlington
right
around
the
corner.
This
is
a
two
hundred
and
twelve
thousand
square
foot
office.
Building
I
think
AECOM
is
the
major
tenant
there.
It
has
four
hundred
and
two
spaces
so
in
our
case
were
at
a
hundred
and
ninety
spaces
and
this
office
building
with
only
office
in
it,
has
402
spaces.
Q
If
I
take
this,
this
building
sold
for
128
million
I'm
at
the
end
of
2019,
its
current
assessment
as
a
hundred
and
nineteen
million
to
74.
If
I
take
the
mints
amount
about
assessment
at
104,
792
500
and
multiply
it
by
a
factor
of
12%
which
is
normal
or
when
you're
doing
a
purchase,
price
allocation
and
real
estate
too,
to
allocate
to
garage
or
parking
I
come
up
with
12
million
575
100
when
I
divide
that
by
the
four
hundred
and
two
spaces
in
that
building,
I
come
up
with
$31,000
per
space.
Q
When
I
compare
that
all
right
well,
I
did
some
I
compared
the
six
point.
Nine
to
seven
point:
three
million
and
I
came
up
with
parking
revenue
estimated
at
four
hundred
and
ninety
four
thousand.
Oh
I
know
what
I
did
I
used.
The
cap
rate
s
675
on
that
I
derived
the
Noy
that
the
county
would
use
versus
versus
that
and
I
came
up
with
parking
revenue
for
those
four
hundred
and
two
spaces
of
four
hundred.
Q
Ninety
four
thousand
eight
sixty
to
seventy
two
which
what
if
I
use
a
cap
rate
of
six
point,
seven
five
percent,
which
the
county
is
using
for
us
I,
come
up
with
seven
point:
three
million
dollars
of
value
very
similar
to
what
we're
being
assessed
for
for
our
one
hundred
and
ninety
spaces
and
four
hundred
and
two
spaces
that
comes
up
with
eighteen
thousand
per
space.
So
I
would
contend
that
looking
at
the
comparable
that
the
county
is
saying
is
equitable
to
our
assessment.
Q
I
do
not
think
they
are
equal
at
all
unless
the
county
is
done
counting
spaces
and
comparing
the
total
spaces
in
our
garage
to
the
total
spaces
there.
So
we
contend
that
we
would
like
to
go
back
to
our
net
operating
income.
Page
38
of
the
packet
gives
a
great
chart
that
shows
you
year
by
year.
What
the
assessment
is,
what
the
change
is
and
then,
where
our
revenue
and
Noi
before
real
estate
taxes
and
what
rate
is
each
year
since
our
Noi
has
in
2019
returned
back
to
2017
levels.
Q
We
would
like
the
Board
of
Equalization
to
similarly
reduce
our
assessment
from
the
seven
point:
two
nine
nine
two
five
point:
seven
million
dollars,
of
course,
taken
to
account
a
small
increase
each
year
for
for
the
land
and
and
just
for
the
port
in
general
mister
viola.
Do
you
have
anything
else
to
add.
R
Only
one
thing,
as
I
mentioned
in
the
context
last
week
of
goals
and
how
that
was
a
sweetheart
lease
so
that
we
could
develop
four
hundred
eighty
thousand
square
feet
here.
Likewise,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
the
normal
requirement
for
parking
is
one
space
for
every
580
square
feet
for
80,000
square
feet.
That
was
140
spaces
in
order
to
prepare,
if
you
to
present
ourselves
in
a
more
positive
light.
As
you
know,
we
had
a
rather
contentious
case
here.
R
We
provided
fifty
public
parking
spaces,
they
can
be
used
anytime,
except
for
when
metros
closed
for
that
purpose,
and
so
my
point
being
that
you
know
it's
a
it's
heavily
part
in
terms
of
the
number
of
spaces
and
we're
just
not
getting
the
patronage.
Once
we
got
past
the
enjoyment
of
having
all
these
construction
workers
as
a
double
entendre
in
the
garage,
then
our
revenue
started
to
shrink.
We
were
over
fifty
thousand
a
month
now
we're
wallowing
around
38,
I,
think
or
something
like
that,
so
significant
adjustment
to
what
our
revenue
this.
Q
S
Hold
on
one
second,
forgive
me:
we
did
look
back
at
2017
as
the
appellant
pointed
out,
and
the
cap
rate
in
2017
was
seven
percent,
not
nine
percent,
as
she
stated
so
moving
at
that
seven
percent
cap
rate
in
2017,
when
comparing
it
to
the
other
garages
in
the
county.
We
did
want
to
mend
that,
and
so,
if
you
look
at
the
the
Noi
for
the
test
for
92
698,
you
use
a
7%
cap
rate.
That
value
would
be
seven
million,
thirty-eight
thousand
six
hundred
and
that's
86
percent
of
the
current
assessment.
S
Initially
we
looked
at
this
property.
If
you
want
to
look
at
the
2020
assessment,
we
did
follow
the
income
stream
for
I,
believe
we
headed
2018
IME
at
551
981
for
the
Noi
I,
believe
we
capture
that
in
the
new
assessment
I'm,
sorry
so
that
we
captured
the
2018
and
the
Noi
in
the
new
2020
in
the
original
2020
assessment
and
upon
looking
at
the
2019
assessment,
I
mean
I&E.
We
did
do
a
test
again,
we
are
reverting
to
a
set
percent
cap
for
the
test
and
it
had
the
new
value
that
I
mentioned.
I
Yeah
you
answered
my
first
question,
which
is
why
wasn't
a
7%
cat
used?
Second
question
would
be
just
to
the
county
going
back
through
the
guidebook
to
see
what
we
had
on
parking
and
I.
Remember.
In
past
years,
we've
used
$20,000
of
space.
If
it's
like
a
condo
or
an
office
parking
lot,
that's
that's
kind
of
accessory
to
the
to
the
office
building
itself.
Why
didn't
we
use
that
for
this
property
and
also
in
the
guidelines?
There's
another
parking
garage
fashion
center
parking
garage?
That's
an
eight
cat,
that's
used!
S
I
E
On
that
one
Laurie
Rothstein
she's
over
models,
she
was
looking
at
the
parking
garages
in
the
surrounding
area
or
assumedly,
situated
to
the
one
and
Fashion
Center
it's
attached
to
the
mall
I
think
when
you
look
at
Boston
quarters,
they
mm-hm
I'm,
staying
tuned.
Their
parking
garage
is
also
the
eight
cap
and
it's
just
the
proximity
to
the
the
mall.
We
also
looked
at
the
cap
rate
that
we
placed
on
the
mall
and
correlation
to
the
parking
garage.
As
you
know,
the
commercial
condos
are
valued
with
their
own
cap
rate.
E
G
S
S
Q
So
we
just
want
to
point
out
on
page
38
of
the
memo.
There
is
an
historical
data.
You
can
see
the
assessments,
you
can
see
the
net
operating
income
before
we
tax
it
matches
the
ima
surveys
and
you
can
see
and
do
the
math
to
calculate
the
cap
rate.
The
cap
rate
used
in
2017
was
nine
percent,
not
seven
percent.
We're
not
looking
for
you
know
with
the
noi
has
decreased,
as
everyone
has
agreed.
Q
We'd
also
like
to
point
out
that,
as
a
condominium,
we
are
restricted
to
who
we
can
sell
parking
to
fashion
center,
Pentagon
or
ball.
Stand
could
sell
to
a
third
party.
We
cannot,
we
can
only
sell
to
a
commercial
condominium
owner
and
that
should
decrease
the
value,
not
increase
the
value
which,
in
turn
should
increase
the
cap
rate
versus
those
comparables,
and
even
you
know
digging
into
the
comparable
use
in
this
local
market.
We
are
being
assessed
at
the
same
amount,
despite
the
fact
that
we
have
less
than
half
the
spaces
they
do.
Okay,
all.
I
So
I
mean
if
we
wanted
to
be
equitable,
with
the
Boston
quarter,
parking
garage
and
a
fashion,
Center
parking
garage,
and
we
used
an
8
cap
on
the
test
column.
It
comes
out
to
6
million
158
700,
which
is
about
32,400
of
space
still
higher
than
if
we
treated
this
as
a
parking
garage
for
an
office
building
which
is
kind
of
essentially
what
it
is
with
50
public
spaces,
so
I
mean
I'm
I
can't
see
why
we
would
assign
a
higher
value
to
this
slot
than
the
fashion
Center.
T
F
F
So
I'm
very
sympathetic
to
the
the
two
of
you
Marion
and
Gregg.
My
question
can
be
if
we
fool
with
this
camporee
like
the
two
parts.
First,
we
fool
with
this
cap
rate:
do
we
throw
it
out
of
whack
with
other
similar
office
properties
and
again
I?
Don't
understand
how
it
dropped
all
the
way
down
to
seven
in
two
years.
F
Parking
revenue,
instability
hasn't
so
significantly
done
so
much
better
that
the
cap
rate
should
go
from
2017
to
nine
percent
down
to
seven
percent
in
2020,
so
I
I,
just
don't
know
how
you
fool
with
the
cap
rate
and
not
get
things
out
of
whack,
although
I'm
very
sympathetic
that
it
should
be
worth
less.
The
other
part
is
how
do
we
come
up
with
III
I?
Think
the
public
parking,
the
fifty
plus
140
I,
think
anybody
can
park
there
in
the
150
and
they
probably
they
may
generate
more
income
from
the
landlord.
F
So
I'm
not
sympathetic
to
the
appellant
point
of
view
there
that
they
built
an
extra
fifty
for
the
public
I.
Think
that's
a
good
thing
for
them,
but
I
stuck
on
how
190
spaces
could
be
evaluated
about
the
same
is
402
spaces
in
the
same
marketplace,
with
the
same
kind
of
building,
meaning
meaning
not
mall.
So
can
anybody
help
on
that
respond
to
that?
Those
two.
I
Well,
I
look
at
it
kind
of
very
similar
to
the
Boston
quarter
or
the
fennec
fashion
center,
because
those
are
both
mixed-use
properties.
These
are
all
three
mixed-use
properties.
You
have
people
parking
there.
People
parking
at
Fashion,
Center
and
going
over
to
the
Pentagon
I
mean
there's,
there's
a
lot
of
different
user
for
those
garages,
so
I
think
as
far
as
the
most
comparable
type
of
property
I
would
look
at
those
two
and
use
that
cat
free,
you're.
F
A
K
K
G
J
A
A
A
T
Morning
we
have
presented
this
case
in
the
past,
so
I
suspect
you're
all
are
familiar
with
it,
given
that
it's
also
right
across
the
street
from
the
county
government
offices.
This
is
colonial
place,
includes
three
office
buildings
and
some
retail
very
large
733,
eight
hundred
and
eight
thousand
seven
hundred
thirty,
three
thousand
eight
hundred
eight
square
feet
of
office
space.
So
again,
very
large.
The
property
has
had
an
ongoing
issue
with
vacancies,
so
I'll
kind
of
skip
to
the
to
the
value
date.
T
T
So,
looking
at
the
leased
office
space,
the
county
was
originally
at
forty
three
dollars
and
twenty
five
cents
per
square
foot,
but
in
their
test
they
increased
that
to
forty
four
dollars
per
square
foot,
claiming
that
the
average
least
rent
was
at
forty
six
dollars
per
square
foot.
However,
if
you
look
at
the
rent
rolls
carefully
the
tenants
with
the
higher
rents,
which
is
skewing
that
average
I
have
at
least
expirations
in
the
near
future,
so
for
sample.
T
If
you
turn
to
page
six
of
the
package,
the
the
County
itemizes
all
of
the
rents
in
on
page
six,
they
show
their
rents
for
central
place,
one
our
coil
placed
one
and,
for
example,
javelin
is
at
forty
nine
dollars
and
seventeen
cents
per
square
foot,
but
their
lease
expires
in
2021.
And
then
you
have
the
US
Corps
of
Engineers
there
at
forty
seven
dollars
and
twenty
one
cents
per
square
foot
and
they
also
expire
in
2021.
T
So,
presumably
when,
when
those
tenants
either
renew
or
vacate
that
that
space
is
going
to
come
out
at
a
lower
rate
for
the
vacant
office
space,
the
county
was
originally
at
forty
one
dollars
per
square
foot
and
now
they've
increased
it
to
forty
two
dollars
per
square
foot.
We
think
that
it
should
be
at
forty
eight
forty
dollars
a
foot
based
upon
the
recent
leasing
activity,
which
I've
summarized
in
the
written
submission
the
the
average
of
the
recent
leases.
T
When
you
subtract,
the
six
percent
discount
for
concessions
comes
out
to
about
thirty
nine
dollars
and
thirty-five
cents
per
square
foot
for
one
and
forty
one
dollars
and
86
cents
per
square
foot
for
another,
plus
thirty
nine
forty
eight
for
another.
So
all
of
those
recent
leases
indicate
a
much
lower
rental
rate
again
net
of
concession,
so
that
would
be
forty
dollars
per
square
foot
supported
by
the
recent
leasing
activity
on
and
then
lots
a
relatively
small
impact.
T
While
we
we
do
recognize
that
that
total
value,
the
the
total
of
four
hundred
and
seventy
four
thousand
eight
hundred
and
eighty
eight
five
dollars
in
their
test
column,
is
similar
to
the
2019
income.
The
largest
tenant
in
that
is
the
Bank
of
America
and
they're.
Lisa
also
expires
in
2021,
so,
presumably
that
rents
going
go
down.
T
T
The
county
had
estimated
expenses
at
$11
per
square
foot,
and
we
have
said
that
they
ought
to
be
at
11
dollars
and
15
to
25
cents
per
square
foot
basis
upon
the
operating
history.
The
county's
response
to
that
is
that
the
expenses
after
subtracting
leasing
commissions,
are
lower.
However,
at
least
in
commissions
have
been
consistent
for
the
last
several
years
running
right
around
two
million
dollars
and
they
have
actually
itemized
that
in
there
and
page
four
of
the
package,
so,
for
example,
in
2019,
the
leasing
Commission's
were
almost
2.4
million
2018.
T
So
that
gives
us
to
our
estimated
net
operating
income
of
18
million.
Two
hundred
and
ninety
thousand
two
hundred
and
fifty
six
dollars,
which
compares
with
the
2019
noi
at
only
17
million
dollars
on
the
average
noi
over
the
last
three
years
was
about
17
point:
eight
million
dollars.
So
we
don't
disagree
with
the
county's
cap
rate.
So
then
the
total
for
the
the
economic
unit
is
270
million.
Nine
hundred
and
sixty-six
thousand
eight
hundred
rounded.
S
Just
give
you
a
backdrop
of
what
had
transpired
since
then,
looking
at
the
overall
history
of
this
property,
you
see
that
the
vacancy
over
the
last
three,
even
the
most
current
year,
has
declined.
Overall
in
the
original
assessment,
we
did
note
that
the
vacant
square
footage
is
similar
to
what
they
reported
in
2018.
With
that
2018
I,
any
information
we
did
capture
the
exact
square
footage
that
was
reported.
S
Looking
at
the
2019
I&E,
we
did
retest
based
on
the
the
figures
that
we
came
up
with.
We
do
see
that
the
averages
were
slightly
higher
than
what
we
originally
projected
in
the
original
20/20
assessment.
My
page
9
of
the
packet,
has
overall
summary
of
the
three
buildings
and
it
compiles
all
three
buildings
with
the
square
footage
the
overall
average
in
each
building
and
then
an
overall
average
of
the
three
buildings.
So
when
you
look
at
the
rents
closer,
as
mr.
S
Castro
pointed
out,
those
rents
that
she
believes
will
expire
in
2021
are
are
exactly
that
they're
going
to
expire
in
2021.
We
value
this
property
as
of
January
1st
2020,
and
at
that
time,
given
the
rent
roll
analysis
that
we
did
conduct,
we
did
find
the
overall
average
to
be
slightly
higher
than
what
we
originally
had.
S
Looking
at
the
the
retail,
we
did
note
that
the
two
main
retail
portions
were
at
$49
a
square
foot,
but
overall
46
dollars
a
square
foot,
so
we
did
make
adjustments
based
on
the
findings
that
we
had
after
the
rent
roll
analysis.
It
is
not
within
the
department's
interests
of
finagle
with
the
numbers,
so
the
numbers
are
what
they
are
and
we
try
to
report
that
as
such.
If
you
look
at
the
overall
history
of
this
property,
you
can
see
that
the
original,
as
well
as
the
test,
is
supported.
S
Looking
at
the
overall
Noi
throughout
the
look
at
the
past
four
years.
I
think
the
county
is
following
it
closely
and
we
did
afford
11
percent
in
expenses,
although
what
we've
done
is
remove
the
leasing
commissions,
as
we
found
that
when
valuing
sales
throughout
the
county
and
other
experts
have
also
removed
the
leasing
commissions
when
development
cap
rates.
So
this
is
why
we
have
done
that
in
this
case
and
with
all
the
other
cases
in
which
these
and
commissions
are
reported
within
the
expenses.
F
The
department,
based
on
the
downward
trend
of
office
only
rents
what
you
originally
assessed,
the
average
rent
the
same
as
what
the
appellant
submitted
and
then,
with
your
tests,
you
increased
it
by
you
know:
75
cents,
a
square
foot
which
isn't
a
lot
except
that
there's
a
lot
of
square
footage
in
this
project.
What
was
the
rationale
for
increasing
it?
After
getting
more
information
from
the
appellant
just.
K
To
the
county,
but
when
you
look
at
the
actual
rent
rolls
and
the
age
of
those
leases
in
page
71,
and
on
that
you
know
there,
they've
got
some
age
on
them.
They've
got
some
increases
to
them.
Do
you
think
those
rent
rates
that
were
established
way
back
when
mostly
over
15
years
are
going
to
maintain
at
that
higher
level?
K
Given
the
market
today,
elsewhere,
I
mean
I,
understand,
increasing
it
based
on
one
with
the
rents,
are
in
the
building
with
the
prior
tenants,
many
of
which
are
going
to
be
expiring
and
are
very
aged
leases
that
have
been
bumped.
You
know,
I,
guess
that
I'm
pointing
to
the
question
a
little
bit
there
or
the
answer.
I,
don't
see
how
that
comes
about,
but
you
feel
that's.
A
justified
number
is
just
the
average
of
the
building
with
aged
leases.
K
S
As
of
the
first
I'm,
sorry,
can
you
hear
me
yeah?
As
of
the
first
of
the
year,
we
look
at
the
property,
and-
and
this
is
the
snapshot
that
we
see-
we
do
see
that
these
rents
are
in
place
and
it
will
last
until
2021
we
don't
under.
We
don't
know
for
sure
what
these,
if
they're,
gonna
renew
this
space
and
at
what
rate
they
would
renew
the
space
at.
That's,
that's
pretty
speculation
on
our
part,
so
we
don't
try
to
speculate.
S
J
Yeah
I
have
one
for
mr.
Peralta
when
the
original
assessment
was
done.
I
know
you
tried
to
follow
the
previous
years,
but
the
expenses
I
know
that
you
weren't
a
little
more
generous
I
guess
than
what
we
would
normally
see.
As
you
know,
the
meets
the
high
amount
compared
to
the
previous
years
and
even
the
reported
2019
was
that
something
just
to
compensate
for
their
properties
or
just
maybe
a
mistake.
I
don't
know.
S
F
Wanna
make
sure
I
got
this
right.
Excuse
me,
mr.
Peralta,
you
referred
me
to
page
nine.
Is
that
right
in
the
packet?
Yes,
okay,
welcome
the
2019
income,
which
shows
actually
$100,000
or
better
part
of
$100,000
more
of
office
rent
than
you
have
in
your
test.
You
agree
with
that.
Did
I
read
it
right:
it's
25
million
plus
versus
20,
less
than
25
million
in
the
test,
so
I
mean
I.
I
was
reading.
You.
F
S
You
just
to
note
I'd
like
to
remind
the
board
that
they
did
make
a
reduction
in
this
case
in
2019.
To
301
million
is
what
my
notes
say:
301
million
I'm
trying
to
give
you
this
I'm
sorry
Zack.
Here
we
had
a
1
million
nine
thousand
and
for
2020
we
did
a
six
percent
decrease
now
to
equate
that
decrease.
We
did
look
at
the
vacancy
of
this
property.
As
you
see,
there
was
a
two
percent
drop
in
vacancy
for
this
property
from
twenty
nineteen.
S
T
I
just
like
to
focus
on
the
rental
rate
for
the
vacant
office.
Space
on
the
county
originally
had
that
at
forty
one
dollars
per
square
foot
and
then
has
increased
it
in
the
test
of
forty
two
dollars
per
square
foot
and
as
I
summarized
on
pages
67
and
68
in
the
package.
There's
a
fair
amount
of
leasing
activity
over
the
last
couple
of
years
and
that
leasing
activity
is
all
at
rates
that
are
the
support
of
a
forty
dollar
per
square
foot
rate.
T
So,
for
example,
in
2019,
the
average
was
forty
two
dollars
and
twenty
four
cents
which,
if
you
discount
for
the
six
percent
concessions,
is
thirty
nine
dollars
and
seventy
cents
per
square
foot.
So
we
think
that
the
county's
tested
forty
two
is
just
not
supported
and
that's
our
primary
issue
here
and
the
with
the
test
and
in
response
to
the
Noi
I'm.
Sorry,
the
mister
Peralta's
comment
about
the
reducing
vacancy.
Yes,
that's
true,
but
the
Noi
actually
went
down.
J
I'm
gonna
start
with
this
I
looked
at
what
you
know,
the
primary
argument
is
on
the
vacant.
Space
and
I
did
some
numbers
with
$40
per
square
foot,
because
I
think
expenses
are
just.
You
know,
they're
just
high.
You
know
we
don't
we
look
at
another
property,
we're
gonna
be
looking
at
probably
the
average.
Well,
the
situation
is
where
there's
there's.
You
know
extraordinay
extraordinary
expenses
that
may
be
considered,
but
I.
J
Think
in
this
case,
when
I
did
an
average
for
four
years,
I
come
up
with
eight
dollars
and
seven
cents
per
square
foot
on
expenses,
so
what
I
did
is
I
used
825
just
to
test,
and
even
with
that,
you
know.
With
a
vacant,
space
I
came
up
with
the
GPI
of
27
million
64
after
deducting
the
vacancy
and
the
expenses
at
8:25
NY
is
still
higher.
You
know
20
million
791,
so
that
would
give
a
value
of
about
three
hundred
eight
million
dollars
for
the
value
in
the
property
which.
A
Expenses
may
be
low
and
then
they
adjust
it
for
it.
But
when
you
look
at
this,
you
know
the
actual
noi
and
19
moving
forward
with
the
absence
of
the
county,
not
having
column
8.
I
mean
to
be
honest
with
you.
I
think
the
assessment
is
right.
On
target
I
mean
and
to
me
the
test
is
really
the
2019
ine
that
came
from
the
appellant,
so
I
mean
I
I
understand
what
the
appellant
saying
that
we've
got.
A
H
J
K
P
A
K
K
J
A
A
A
D
D
Operating
the
profit
loss
statement
that
he
submitted
it's
on
page
41
of
your
packet,
I
reviewed
the
expenses
that
they
showed
they're,
actually
reporting
a
hundred
and
thirty
five
thousand
dollars,
and
repairs
and
maintenance.
D
So,
however,
what
I
did
do
was
I
increase
the
effective
age
and
therefore
based
on
the
increased
effective
age.
It
increased
the
depreciation
from
thirty
two
percent
to
thirty
five
point:
six
percent
and
we
made
a
we
sent
out
a
revision
letter
to
the
appellant
and
they
did
not
accept
it,
and
here
we
are
today.
Thank
you.
D
D
F
D
D
These
statements
are
really
difficult
to
determine
the
the
income
and
value
the
property.
You
know
to
value
the
property
because
they
have
a
tendency
of
the
owners,
have
a
tendency
to
mix
business
expenses
in
with,
and
instead
of
leaving
the
business
spins
out
there.
They're
missed
they're
mixing
it
in
so
it
makes
it
very
difficult
and
also
they're
in
very
different
formats,
from
one
another.
F
D
F
Great,
it's
run,
everybody
does
cheer
my
question
in
the
second
half
improvements
value
that
the
cop
gave
the
cost
approach.
They
say
the
improvement
you
know
to
build.
It
again
is
almost
five
and
a
half
million
dollars,
and
then
you
can
depreciate
a
lot
from
it
and
I
don't
want
to
get
there
yet,
but
I'm
the
Assessors
cost
approach
side.
F
Depreciation,
thank
you.
No
I!
Guess
you
don't
have
you
don't
have
what
the
improvement
value
is.
You
just
have
a
depreciation
cost
of
3.7
plus
million
dollars.
I
guess
I'm,
not
following
more
look
at
it,
the
less
I
understand
it.
Can
you
walk
me
through
it
quickly,
please
all
right
so
there?
In
other
words,
the
bottom
line.
Did
you
come
up
with
two
million
dollars
more
of
value
than
the
appellant
does
correct.
F
Well
on
this
chart,
though,
again
I
see,
they
think
they
propose
across
five
and
a
half
million
dollars
to
build
it
and
and
what
I
just
don't
know
where
you're
I
guess
depreciate
I,
don't
understand,
I,
guess
the
land
value
2.2
or
7
million,
plus
the
depreciation
value.
Yes,
appreciation
cost
a
three
point:
seven
to
two
million
equals
your
total
cost,
plus
land,
of
course.
But
where
does
the
three
point?
Seven,
twenty
two
million
come
from
depreciating
from
what?
F
D
R
D
To
page
four
Ashley
page
five,
the
revised
cost
estimate
that
value
changed
to
three
million
five
hundred
twenty
eight
thousand
nine
hundred
and
change,
so
we
would
reduce
the
it
reduced
the
cost
or
that's
what
we
did
is
we
increase
the
effective
age.
It
increased
the
depreciation,
therefore,
it
reduced
the
improvement
cost
so.
F
D
E
F
A
P
D
Hold
on
I
can
pull
up
the
list
right
now.
I
actually
have
it.
There
are
multiple
sunrise
properties.
D
A
A
H
H
D
E
H
They
say
they
can't
rebuild
this.
If
this
were
to
be
an
earthquake
came,
they
would
have
to
dramatically
alter
it,
because
there's
all
these
new
standards
and
the
the
points
that
they're
making
about
bathrooms
and
bedrooms
they'd
all
be
differently
designed
plus
they'd,
have
to
go
through
the
county
approval
process,
which
now
is
going
to
require
a
percentage
available
for
folks
of
lower
income.
So
they
they
can't
build.
What's
there
now
and
I'm,
just
wondering
what
impact,
if
any,
does
that
have
on
the
valuation
are.
E
E
H
It
would
have
to
be
designed
very
differently
wait.
We
just
got
an
approval.
That's
why
I'm
gonna,
wear
I'm,
aware
of
this
and
I
remember
their
presentation
last
year
that
this
is
becoming
rapidly
obsolete,
so
so
I'm
just
asking
what
impact,
if
any,
is
there
if
they
can't
rebuild
exactly
what's
there
now?
Yes,.
E
H
It
they
have
to
get
a
use
permit
approval.
The
county
board
is
getting
ready
to
amend
the
requirements
for
approvals
of
these
type
of
facilities.
No
structure
is
ever
being
rebuilt
without
Bokke
code
changes,
building
code
changes
and
the
standards
in
the
industry
are
very
different,
and
so
they
would.
You
have
to
have
a
total
redesign
of
this,
so
I
can't
I
can't
tell
you
exactly
precisely
what
it
is
that
would
require
design
changes,
but
they
would
never
rebuild.
What's
here
now
right.
A
But
wouldn't
that
also
be
applicable
to
all
the
rest
of
these
units?
You
know
the
rest
of
these
properties
as
well,
so
that
issue
is
equalized
as
well.
I
mean
sometimes
I
think
we
get
lost
in
the
weeds
with
what
ifs
and
down
the
road.
What
would
happen?
I
mean
look
at
an
office
building
most
office
buildings
that
are
of
age
wouldn't
rebuild
what
they
have.
They
would
do
different
things,
because
offices
have
changed
these
tools.
F
E
Approach
so
one
of
the
things
about
Lori
touched
on
it,
so
weak,
skilled,
nursing
facilities.
We
are
gathering
income,
expense
information
on
those
property
types.
One
thing
that
we
wish
we
still
lack
and
maybe
we'll
see
one
day
ourselves.
So
in
order
to
derive
a
cap
rate,
I
mean
we
need
to
have
a
sale
or
beautify
reliable
publications
that
can
give
us
some
guidance
on
what
a
cap
rate
should
be.
E
Unlike
surrounding
areas
such
as
Fairfax
or
Prince,
William
County
mean
we
don't
have
as
much
land
there
for
as
many
Oh
skilled
nursing
facilities,
the
independent
living
facilities
are
valued
based
off
the
income
approach
based
off
of
sales,
we've
seen
and
information
we've
received
from
them,
but
the
actual,
assisted
living
and
nursing
homes
are
totally
different,
especially
when
you
consider
all
the
personal
property
into
business
bagged
and
go
into
these
properties
and
Laurie
touched
on
with
something
I
need
to
receive.
So
hopefully
that
kind
of
explains.
Why
we're
doing
the
cost
approach?
E
E
D
Once
again,
we
would
have
liked
to
have
had
the
opportunity
to
go
out
and
inspect
this
property,
we'll
see
what
happens
next
year,
but
based
on
historical
interior
inspections
and
reading
through
the
permits
and
based
on
their
profit
loss
statement
that
they
submitted,
showing
that
they
are
making
repairs
and
maintenance
to
the
property.
We
believe
that
the
subject
is
in
good
condition,
similar
to
the
other
properties
that
I
actually
stated
earlier
to
you.
When
you
ask
me
the
question
we
did
increase
the
effect
of
age
and
which
increased
the
depreciation.