►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing October 27, 2022
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
Thursday
October
27
2022-
and
this
is
the
final
Arlington
County
Board
of
Equalization
hearing,
there's
five
cases
on
the
agenda.
The
first
case
is
RPC
15087028.
The
FDIC
building
at
3501,
Fairfax,
Drive
Mr,
Michael
Tucci,
is
here
on
behalf
of
the
owners.
Didn't
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property,
sir.
B
Good
morning,
everyone
I
think
we've
been
here
before
I
think
everybody
knows
this
property,
it's
one
of
the
largest
properties
in
Arlington
County,
it's
a
unique
property,
it's
it's
owner
occupied
and
it
has
two
components.
One
is
a
student
residence
Center,
which
we
call
the
SRC
and
the
other
is
a
700
000
square
foot
office
component
with
respect
to
the
SRC.
The
FDIC
does
not
quibble
with
the
evaluation
that
has
been
placed
on
it
by
the
assessor's
office.
B
Although
I
would
point
out,
as
you
may
recall,
the
assessment
of
the
SRC
is
done
pursuant
to
a
formula
that
was
contained
in
the
settlement
agreement
reached
in
2013..
B
Application
of
that
formula
this
year
resulted
in
an
amount
that
the
county
thought
was
not
representative
of
the
fair
market
value
of
the
property,
and
there
is
a
provision
in
the
settlement
agreement
that
allows
it
to
adjust
the
the
valuation
that's
derived
by
the
formula.
The
only
thing
I
would
point
out
with
respect
to
that
is.
There
have
been
multiple
years
in
the
past
where
the
application,
the
formula,
have
resulted
in
evaluation.
B
That's
far
in
excess
of
the
fair
market
value
of
the
SRC
and
the
county
has
never
decided
that
it
would
make
an
adjustment
in
those
cases
I'm
just
pointing
that
out
for
the
record.
B
Moving
on
to
the
office
component,
again,
it's
a
unique
700,
000
square
foot
property,
the
the
County's
rental
rate
we
believe,
is
approximately
10
to
15
percent
too
high,
and
that's
because
of
the
uniqueness
of
this
property,
the
county
uses
Market
rental
rates
that
are
derived
from
much
smaller
leases
than
700
000
square
foot,
lease
which
would
be
used
or
which
would
be
applicable
to
this
property
and
larger
leases.
We
all
know
larger
leases
have
a
lower
rental
rate
than
than
smaller
leases.
B
So
we
don't
believe
that
the
county
has
taken
into
account
the
fact
that
renting
this
property,
assuming
that
there
is
a
market
for
700
000
square
feet
of
of
property,
would
be
at
a
lower
rental
rate
than
the
county
has
imputed.
We
don't
have
equivalent
with
the
expenses.
The
county
has
accepted
our
expenses
in
the
income
calculation.
The
biggest
point
of
contention
is
the
vacancy
and
collection
law.
B
You'll.
Note
that
the
county
tries
to
replicate
a
market
for
this
property
using
a
market,
rental
rate
and
Market.
We
think
Market
expenses,
but
then
doesn't
apply
a
market
vacancy
and
collection
loss.
I
have
never
heard
an
explanation
for
that
other
than
it's.
The
County's
quote
unquote
guidelines
to
use
five
percent
vac
for
owner-occupied
properties,
but
that's
mixing
apples
and
oranges.
If
you're
going
to
impute
a
market,
rental
rate
you've
got
to
impute
a
market
vacancy
and
collection
loss.
Which
is
far
different
than
the
five
percent
that
the
county
uses.
B
We
think
it's
more
like
20
and
that's
the
that's
what
we
use
in
our
calculation
of
the
of
the
value
of
the
property
and
I
just
point
out
I.
Think
using
you
know,
picking
and
picking
and
choosing
and
using
what
we
consider
to
be
an
arbitrary
vac
results
in
a
situation
where
I
think
that
the
assessment
does
not
come
informed
to
generally
accepted
appraisal
practice
and
therefore
violates
Virginia
law
and
the
the
the
only
way
to
fix
that
is
to
move
the
VAC
to
a
market
rate
vac.
B
Finally,
the
cap
rate
we
believe
here
is
too
low
and
again
we're
talking
about
the
uniqueness
of
this
property.
We're
not
talking
about
a
multi-tenant
property.
That's
investment
grade
that
trades
on
the
market,
we're
talking
about
a
700
000
square
foot
campus
with
an
attached
residence
center.
B
It's
not
going
to
trade
at
what
other
investment
grade
properties,
trade
for
in
the
county,
it's
going
to
trade
higher
they,
because
the
market
for
this
building
is
extraordinarily
small,
and
so
we
believe
that
the
appropriate
cap
rate
is
more
in
the
realm
of
7.25
unloaded,
which
results
in
a
8.381
loaded
cap
rate
using
our
rental
rate,
our
vacancy
and
collection
loss
and
the
agreed
to
expenses,
and
our
cap
rate
results
in
a
preliminary
indicated,
value
of
78
million,
seven
hundred
and
thirty
thousand
dollars
for
this
building.
C
Yes,
good
morning,
I
will
be
presenting
on
behalf
of
the
County
Ryan.
Samuel
is
part
of
the
county
attorney's
office
deputy
there
and
he's
available
for
questions.
Should
any
questions
arise
regarding
the
the
SRC
part
of
the
building
for
this
building,
we
did
look
at
it
as
100
occupied
building
like
other
unoccupied
buildings
in
the
county.
We
do
allow
for
a
five
percent
adjustment
in
vacancy
and
Collections,
and
that
is
across
the
board
in
the
office
in
the
county.
C
With
respect
to
other
office
buildings
that
are
100
owner
occupied
for
this
property,
it
is
Leed
certified
silver.
We
had
an
article
that
was
out
from
CBRE
a
study
that
came
out
in
October
2022.
It
said
about
four
percent
increase
in
rents
for
Leed
certified
buildings,
and
that's
only
about
20
percent
in
Virginia
that
are
Leed
certified
the
the
property
itself
in
the
appellant's
comments
for
this
appeal
said
that
there
was
a
cozy
retail
Center
that
was
not
occupied
after
going
through
co-star
information.
C
I
did
find
that
there
was
a
new
tenant
that
signed
a
10-year
lease
for
2
600
675
square
feet
signed
in
May
of
2022.
It's
a
barbecue
chicken
place
and
so
that
that
would
even
attest
to
the
the
property
being
100
occupied
or
fairly
close
I
believe
we
allowed
3
000
158
square
feet
vacant,
although
we're
we're
deducting
a
five
percent
vacancy
for
this
property.
C
Let's
see
here
is
in
the
Virginia
Square
sub
Market.
The
average
rents
that
we
found
in
the
analysis
for
2022
was
about
39
a
square
foot.
There
is
a
range
and
of
starting
from
27
and
we
do
apply
a
portion
of
that
for
this
property.
You
see
the
other
square
footage
that
we
assessed
at
twenty
seven
dollars
per
square
foot
and
that
represented.
C
52
669
square
feet
an
additional
28
564
square
feet
at
twenty
seven
dollars,
a
square
foot,
the
retail
we
found
to
be
41
square
foot
and
overall,
the
office
is
at
38
dollars
per
square
foot
below
what
we
found
in
the
market
for
the
record.
I
would
just
like
to
say
for
the
the
lodging
portion
did
use
a
lower
rate
than
what
is
agreed
upon
in
the
ass
in
the
agreement
between
the
county
and
the
owners
that
was
signed
in
2013..
C
The
the
lodging
portion
agreement
states
that
we
should
use
at
a
minimum
175
dollars
per
room,
we're
actually
using
the
172
dollars.
We
kind
of
took
what
the
the
appellant
had
sent
us
as
far
as
them,
mirroring
the
Federal
Government
rate
of
172
dollars
in
the
as
Mr
Tucci
stated
in
the
first
paragraph
of
the
agreement,
the
County
elected
to
not
follow
the
the
agreement
because
of
the
the
value
that
was
generated.
Using
the
current
occupancy
of
about
1.75
percent.
C
You'll
see
the
breakdown
on
my
page
H7
of
72,
and
this
gives
us
an
idea
of
what
the
2022
assessment
would
have
been
using.
The
occupancy
of
1.75
percent
versus
us
electing
to
go
back
prior
years
assessment
where
we
used
10
at
175
dollars.
A
square
foot
I
mean
175
dollars
per
room.
C
If
the
board
has
any
questions
about
that,
we're
free
to
answer
anything
but
I,
don't
believe
the
the
appellant
is
I
believe
the
appellant
is
in
agreement,
as
he
stated
with
our
lodging
portion,
so
we're
open
for
questions,
I,
guess
regarding
the
office
portion
again
Ryan
Samuels
available
for
questions
as
well.
D
The
Appellate
make
the
case
that
the
market
for
an
office
and
combined
office
and
lodging
is
small,
probably
limited
to
educational
institutions.
Typically
I've
been
buyed
100
times
so
I've
never
been
on.
The
campus
is
the
launching
the
lodging
I
think
it
has
a
common
wall
with
the
office
space.
Isn't
that
right.
D
B
Yeah,
the
electric
they're
they're,
not
separately,
metered
they're,
not
separately,
wired,
they're,
they're,
they're,
basically
commingled.
So
it
is
part
part
and
parcel
of
the
whole.
It's
it's
a
campus.
D
Yeah
a
follow-up
question
for
the
department
and
some
I
know:
you're
Rob
on
column,
f,
there's
a
large
number
for
other
income.
What
is
that.
C
That
is
the
other
I
believe
the
lower
grade
square
feet
in
the
office
portion.
E
Yeah,
this
is
for
Rob
Rob.
How
did
you
come
up
with
five
percent
or
how
did
the
county
come
up
with
five
percent.
D
C
In
Prior
years,
the
question
has
come
up
with
the
five
percent.
We
are
looking
at
guidelines
with
respect
to
that,
so
with
other
office
buildings
that
are
100
occupied.
If
you
will
not
just
owner
occupied
100
occupy,
we
do
allow
for
a
five
percent
vacancy
and
collection
I
believe
over
the
years.
It
has
been
addressed
to
the
point
that
when
the
market
was
stable,
Stable
Market
was
about
five
percent
in
the
county
and
I
believe
that
was
that
was
instituted
back
back
then
and
still
is
used
today.
C
With
respect
to
the
the
agreement.
The
agreement
also
states
that
they
will
follow
the
guidelines
of
the
county
for
the
office.
F
C
C
C
C
Yes
again,
this
is
an
owner
occupied
building.
We
do
see
that
there
was
another
lease
for
the
retail
portion
that
was
signed
in
May
of
2022
for
10
years
for
the
retail
part
of
about
2
675
square
feet,
the
office
portion
has
been
assessed
the
same
way
for
many
years.
We
did
lower
the
the
rates
after
subsequent
reviews
and
Boe
hearings.
C
We
do
feel
that,
given
the
market
guidelines
that
we
set
from
the
indes
that
we
received
that
this
is
actually
below
Market
from
for
the
Virginia
square
area,
it's
sort
of
across
the
Metro
from
Virginia
square
a
couple
blocks,
and
you
feel
that
the
assessment
or
the
revised
assessment
at
194
million
606
800,
is
a
fair
and
Equitable
assessment.
Thank
you.
B
Sure
I
think
I
just
go
back
to
the
vacancy
and
collection
loss
if
we're
imputing
a
market
rent
which
obviously
we
are
and
we're
imputing
Market
expenses
we've
got
to
impute
they
could
a
market
vacancy
and
collection
loss.
There's
I
haven't
heard
any
justification
for
this
quote
unquote
guideline
and,
as
I
stated
earlier,
Mr
Farrell
from
Colliers
is
is
on
and
it's
his
opinion
that
this
violates
generally
accepted
appraisal
practices
and
therefore,
is
contrary
to
Virginia
law.
A
G
H
A
G
H
H
H
D
D
A
D
A
D
Then
it
throws
looking
hard
and
you
know
it's
0.55
took
a
while
for
it
to
me.
Rob
mentioned
the
38
dollars
is
what
to
me.
It's
not,
but
it's
analogous
to
GSA
leases,
they're,
not
700
000,
but
they're,
big
in
large
portions
of
buildings.
We've
seen
a
bunch
of
them
this
year.
Yesterday.
As
an
example
in
the
high
30s
along
the
Metro
quarter
is
correct:
I
mean
that's
what
it
is
around
there.
D
It's
the
low
40s,
but
this
should
be
less,
as
the
opponent
says,
for
not
only
the
amount
of
square
footage
but
the
Dependable
dependability
of
the
tenant
federal
government
so
and
the
five
percent
buildings,
as
I
mentioned
before,
of
this
quality
in
this
location.
That's
the
guideline.
Next
year
the
county
wants
to
get
some
of
their
data
because
we're
at
a
permanent
hire
vacancy
than
we
had
in
person
20
years
of
my
career
than
that.
Fine,
you
want
to
become
seven
or
ten
or
something,
but
not
this
year.
A
A
B
A
H
A
I
Good
morning,
thank
you,
so
it's
known
as
MAA
National
Landing
located
at
1101,
South
Joyce,
it's
a
multi-family
property
with
504
units.
It
was
built
in
2002
and
this
is
its
20th
year,
it's
20
years
old
and
we
took
a
look
at
our
value
and
Buck
the
last
two
years
of
the
typical
financials
for
this
property
and
but
what
we
did
was
we
tried
to
stabilize
it.
As
you
know,
the
income
had
dropped
a
bit
last
year
from
the
prior
year.
I
I
didn't
want
to
go,
you
know
with
the
you
know,
complete
actual
number,
so
we
use
a
combination
of
both
2020
and
2021
to
to
get
a
more
accurate
number.
We
also
used
a
vacancy
from
the
last
two
years
of
financials
at
four
percent.
I
We
also
Incorporated
the
two-year
average
for
expenses,
which
is
you
know
consistent
with
you
know
the
last
two
years
of
actual
performance,
our
noi
number
became
the
the
actual
noi
was
below
they
account.
So,
let's
get
into
our
worksheet
here
on
my
page
three,
it's
the
big
green
worksheet
here
and
we
can
take
a
look
at
how
those
numbers
came
to
be
again.
I
A
stabilized
model
is,
on
the
left
hand,
side
be
here
that
would
you
know,
do
the
average
income
here
for
the
apartment,
Revenue,
the
garage
and
other
income
to
arrive
at
our
PGI
of
14.6
and
vacancy
at
four
percent,
some
concessions
again
that
were
average
over
the
last
two
years,
which
reflects
the
kind
of
post-covered
coveted
market,
and,
as
we
come
down
the
expenses
again,
we
average
those
over
the
last
two
years
beat
the
28
percent
again
I'm
running
a
slightly
higher
expenses
for
the
last
year.
I
Didn't
want
to
use
it
just
felt
as
though
to
to
to
average
the
last
two
years.
It
was
more
appropriate
as
a
stabilized
value,
as
opposed
to
using
the
the
actual
expenses
for
2021.
So
again,
we
we
tried
to
be
conservative
and
use
that
28,
which
was
based
on
the
last
two
years
of
expenses,
now
again
the
property
of
this
age
being
20
years
old.
You
are
running
into
a
lot
of
repairs.
A
lot
of
Maintenance
and
other
issues
that
have
come
up
in
the
20-year.
I
Defense
Year
from
the
page
on
on
the
property
for
the
increased
expenses
this
year.
So
again,
then
we
use
the
average.
We
kept
the
county
cap
rate
at
5.25
and
our
indicated
value
was
190
128
7
11,
190
million
128
711.
I
Now
we
did
remove
from
the
the
valuation
the
capital
expenditures
over
the
last
year,
that
included
a
major
AC
replacement
for
the
building
that
brand
a
couple
million
dollars
in
in
that
regard,
and
so
we
feel
as
though,
if
a
a
buyer
were
to
be
looking
at
the
fair
market
value,
they
would
consider
these
major
Renovations
and
things
that
would
need
to
be
done
to
the
property
as
something
that
would
be
discounted
from
the
sale
price
as
reflective
as
something
that
would
need
to
be
completed
to
to
bring
this
building
up
to
its
true
market
value.
I
J
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
Sean
summer
is
fairly
well
by
Mr
Aiden,
again
speaking
about
MMA
MAA,
National
Landing
homes,
again
504
unit
mid
rise
well
located
for
those
who
aren't
familiar.
This
is
essentially
Jason,
depending
on
City
within
a
half
mile,
walk
of
Pentagon
City
metro
so
well
located
fairly
well
amenitized.
It's
also
adjacent
to
essentially
attached
to
West
Post,
very
large
retail
outfit.
That's
some
98
percent,
or
so
least
so
a
lot
of
opportunities
for
food
and
Retail
shopping
Etc.
J
Looking
at
the
summary
sheets
again,
the
board
is
familiar
with
how
we
look
at
these
stabilized
nature.
Looking
at
years,
18
through
20
you'd
agree
that
it
was
very
stabilized
essentially
at
all
metric
levels.
Gross
potential
income,
stabilized
vacancy
or
I
should
say
stainless
occupancy
less
than
four
percent
vacancy
three
years
in
a
row.
Well,
less
than
one
percent
concessions
three
years
in
a
row
and
operating
expense
is
very
much
in
line
three
years
in
a
row.
18
through
20.,
as
we've
seen
with
a
number
of
properties.
J
J
You
know
we
point
out,
as
we've
done
consistently
this
year.
Essentially,
it
looks
like
there
is
a
rather
large
increase
over
100
000
increase
in
concessions
that
obviously
Aid
into
the
effect
of
gross
that
combined
with
a
downturn,
an
apartment
rent
led
to
a
overall
downturn
in
that
operate
income
income.
J
You
combine
that
with
Mr
rayden's
acknowledgment
of
a
huge
increase
in
operating
expense
near
37
percent,
which
led
to
a
lot
of
compression
on
the
net
operating
income,
which
obviously
led
to
a
downturn
and
property
value
as
you've
heard
and
are
probably
sick
of
hearing
me
say
at
this
point
one
year:
there's
not
an
assessment
make
we
do
look
at
this
as
a
stabilized
property.
J
We
will
put
more
weight
on
that
news
newest
year
2021
and
a
little
bit
less
on
2018,
but
we
are
still
going
to
look
at
this
as
a
four-year
stabilized
property.
In
doing
so,
we
did
invite
some
questions
as
far
as
I'm
sorry
instigate
some
questions.
As
far
as
some
of
the
operating
expenses
listed
primarily
with
some
items
that
we
felt,
even
after
consultation
with
the
owner,
that
they
still
probably
would
go
in
the
replacement
for
reserves
column
as
opposed
to
an
annual
operating
expense.
J
Specifically
highlighting
is
the
comment
section
notes
about
610,
120
000
for
light
bulbs,
326
000
or
so
for
cabinet,
countertops,
50
or
so
for
carpet,
another
80
for
appliances
37
for
tile.
You
know
we
did
understand
essentially
as
a
repeated
by
Mr
Rayden.
The
owner's
feeling
is
that
20
years
old,
some
of
these
things
are
going
to
have
to
be
replaced.
Etc,
you
know
it's
it's
a
matter
of
time,
etc,
etc.
J
I
think,
as
we've
tried
to
do
it
and
make
the
point
to
the
board,
we've
essentially
view
operating
expenses
in
three
different
categories:
there's
those
annual
operating
expenses
that
are
necessary
for
the
income
stream
to
maintain
there
are
those
that
are
going
to
be,
as
we
would
be
indicative
now
replacement
costs
that
maybe
come
up
every
couple
years
that
are
outside
of
your
annual
cost,
but
that
should
be
handled
by
your
replacement
for
reserves.
That's
why
that's
a
appropriate
place
for
that
to
go?
You
know
every
five
or
six
years.
J
Maybe
you
are
going
to
replace
countertops
or
light
bulbs
carpet
Etc
that
cannot
be
repaired
or
maintained
any
longer,
but
that
is
a
reserves,
replacement,
type
of
expense,
and
then
you
have
your
large
items
that
Mr
rain
related
to
which
would
be
outside
of
even
reserves,
replacement,
Capital
expenditures,
those
that
you
don't
necessarily
plan
every
five
or
seven
years
replacement
that
comes
up
out
of
more
out
of
either
Asset
Management
type
of
allocation
or
owner's
expenses
themselves,
and
those
of
course
we
do
not
make
adjustments
for
either,
but
we've
been
very
consistent
with
that.
J
We
don't
make
adjustments
for
Capital
expenditures
as
they
are
deemed
to
either
add
life
to
the
property
or
enable
it
to
increase
rents.
You
know
return
on
investment
if
you
will
that
they're
done
to
increase
the
property
value
as
opposed
to
just
get
it
back
to
where
it
was
previous.
J
That
being
said,
we
did
make
a
reconstructed
column.
I
would
note
that
it's
very
much
in
line
with
the
operating
expenditure
projection
made
by
the
appellant.
Again,
we
don't
match
dollar
for
dollar,
so
we
did
make
a
projection
in
our
vision,
column
that
added
some
200
and
280
000
to
our
original
January
1
projection.
Please
note
that
that
is
obviously
us
taking
into
account
the
large
increase
in
2021.
J
Even
after
removing
those
items
we
deemed
replacements,
given
the
history
of
the
property,
given
our
projections
are
fairly
modest
again,
given
its
location,
given
it's
a
monetized
offerings
to
its
tenants.
We
did
note
that
again
this
is
a
highly
stabilized
occupied
building
and
again
out
of
four
years.
Only
one
year
did
we
see
this
37
percent
increase
in
expenses.
J
In
our
vision,
again,
an
increase
of
over
280
thousand
dollars
of
our
original
operating
expense
projection
that
did
lead
to
a
net
operating
income
projection.
That
again
is
well
in
line
with,
what's
been
achieved
historically
and
low.
You
know
some
400
000
lower
than
18,
almost
800
000
lower
than
19
and
again
some
600
000
lower
than
2020.
So
we
do
believe
that
we've
treated
this
equitably
with
other
properties.
In
a
similar
nature,
we
do
ask
the
board
to
confirm
our
revision
value
of
199
million
847
000..
Thank
you.
H
I
Yes,
thank
you
just
you
know,
I
I
think
to
some
we're
we're
both
on
the
same
page,
that
you
know
the
value
should
be
adjusted
and
and
such
and
I
think
we
try
to
display
a
conservative
approach
and
even
in
our
approach,
when
you
take
a
look
at
the
County's
column,
f
it
it's
very
similar
to
our
model,
and
so
we
would
ask
that
something
more
along
the
lines
of
the
actual
performance.
H
I
In
our
model
that
we
propose,
in
our
pro
forma
or
in
the
county
column
F,
which
reconstructed
and
even
added
back
expenses,
as
Mr
chicas
mentioned,
you
know,
still
came
out
a
good
deal
lower
than
the
the
county
revision.
So
again,
thank
you
for
taking
a
look
at
this
and-
and
we
appreciate
your
time,
thank
you.
D
A
H
A
K
Thank
you
very
much
board.
Thank
you.
Rob
I'll
Direct
the
board,
please
to
initially
to
page
72
of
109,
which
is
our
summary
of
facts
for
this
property.
This
is
the
Arlington
Tower
office.
Building
it's
located
at
1300,
17th,
Street
North.
It
consists
of
three
tax
rpcs.
K
The
current
2022
assessment
is
247
million
313
500.
the
county
is
recommending
no
change.
Our
requested
value
from
the
border
today
is
208
million
550
000,
which
is
based
off
the
the
purchase
price
value.
This
product.
This
property
was
purchased
in
in
2021..
K
This
property
is
an
older
building
originally
built
in
1980.
It
did
was
recently
renovated.
It's
a
19-story
office
building,
392
923
square
feet
of
net
lease
full
area
and
again
it's
located
at
the
corner
of
17th,
Street,
North
and
North
Mead
Street
and
we've
provided
a
map
of
the
location
below,
so
this
property
was
initially
purchased
by
the
new
ownership
on
July
26th
of
2021
for
208
million
550
000.,
and
that
was
right
in
line
with
what
this
property
was
assessed.
K
At
the
prior
year
in
2021,
the
property
was
assessed
at
198
million
754
800,
which
is
505
a
square
foot.
Subsequently,
following
the
sale
in
2022,
the
assessment
Rose
24.4
to
the
247
million.
Now.
K
We
have,
if
you,
if
you
go
to
just
the
next
page
over
on
page
73,
we've
included
the
sale.
The
county
had
acknowledges
Dale
in
their
own
own
database,
the
petitioner.
This
was
part
of
a
portfolio
sale.
K
The
petitioner
did
include
an
exhibit
cut
out
direct
from
the
purchased
and
sale
agreement
showing
the
allocated
purchase
price
for
this
property
at
208
million
550
000.,
along
with
our
our
indication
of
the
sales
price
and
the
the
actual
acquisition
price
that
occurred
in
2021,
we
did
Supply
the
county
with
a
copy
of
the
year-end
rent
roll.
As
of
1231
2021,
and
a
copy
of
the
certified
INE
survey
for
year-end
2021
calendar
year.
K
Information
are,
if
you
now
direct
the
board
again
to
page
I,
guess
three,
which
is
their
income
and
expense.
Summary
sheet.
K
You'll,
see
column
e
with
the
calendar
year,
2021
information
and
column
B,
which
is
the
original
assessment
in
column
F,
which
is
the
County's
review
following
that
information,
and
then
our
our
Pro
format,
column,
G,
I'm,
not
sure
where
some
of
these
figures
are
coming
from
in
the
county,
column
G,
showing
the
appellant
assume
proforma.
But
a
lot
of
these
figures
are
incorrect
with
regard
to
the
gross
potential
income
for
the
office
and
vacant
space,
but
you
can
find
that
on
page
75
of
109.
K
K
K
We
did
accidentally
omit
the
the
pass-through
income,
but
when
you
add
that
625
666
to
our
our
pro
forma
model,
which
is
highlighted
in
blue
there
and
you
run
through
the
same
parameters
for
vacancy
operating
expenses,
you
get
to
a
total
indicated
value
based
on
the
income
of
225
million
554
500,
which
again
is
significantly
less
than
the
247
million
313
500,
that
the
the
county
that
this
is
currently
assessed
at
the
actual
vacancy
in
the
County's
pro
forma
was
10
percent.
K
Now,
based
on
the
the
actual
vacancy.
As
of
the
valuation
date
1-1,
it
was
12
and
a
half
and
per
the
County's
guidelines.
A
15
vacancy
rate
should
have
been
applied.
They
the
county,
did
apply
that
in
their
their
revised
testcom,
as
well
as
apply
the
actual
operating
expenses
that
were
reported
in
2021
of
8.85.
K
The
big
thing
here
with
the
County's
revised
techcom
is
with
regard
to
their
revision
to
the
the
office
rents
and
the
vacant
office
space
and
how
that
increased
from
the
original
Testament
to
the
test
column,
it
increased
from
5150
to
the
occupied
space
to
and
forty
nine
dollars
for
the
vacant
space.
K
To
now
56
dollars
per
square
foot
for
the
entire
space,
which
I'm
not
sure
how
they're
getting
to
based
on
the
rental
information
that
was
provided
in
in
the
appeal
filing
so
in
that
appeal
filing
in
the
rent
roll
is
found
on
page
93
of
109
in
our
in
the
in
the
counties
revised
memo
in
our
initial
filing
that
rent
roll
there
were
a
number
of
new
leases
signed
in
2021..
K
Eight
new
leases
were
signed
at
the
building
in
2021,
and
the
average
rate
signed
rate
of
those
leases
was
59
51.39,
so
wealth
supports
the
off
the
the
applied
office
and
bacon
square
footage
that
the
county
had
initially
had
initially
applied
in
the
original
assessment
and
does
not
support
the
the
county.
The
County's
test
column,
in
addition,
Raytheon
who's,
a
major
tenant
in
this
building.
They
take
up
floors
the
entire
floor.
Four
and
four
six.
Each
of
those
floors
is
21
245
square
feet.
K
They
just
renegotiated
and
released
that
space
at
a
renewal
rate
of
49.75.
K
So
again,
this
property
was
was
purchased
back
prior
purchased
prior
to
covid
in
the
pandemic,
back
in
early
2018,
at
250
million
dollars,
and
at
the
time
of
that
sale
in
in
2018,
the
assessment
on
this
property
was
150
million,
so
it
appears
that
the
kai
has
been
chasing
this
sale
since
then,
obviously
that
the
market
following
code
is
completely
different,
it's
realized
in
the
the
actual
leases
that
are
now
being
signed
at
this
building,
which
again
range
an
average
51.39
for
for
the
eight
new
leases
that
were
signed
it
just
in
2021.
K
the
County's
increase
of
24.5.
It
really
had
to
do
with
what
they
were
applying
from
21
to
22,
with
with
the
vacancy
they
had
estimated
vacancy
at
25
in
2021
that
dropped
down
all
the
way
to
10.
It
should
be
up
at
15
and
then
again,
along
with
what
the
true
market
vacancy
for
this
apartment,
these
rents
are
here
should
be
reflected.
The
last
thing
we
wanted
to
cover
was
with
regard
to
some
of
the
recent
sales
in
the
market
in
Arlington
County.
K
We
had
pulled
a
number
of
sales,
and
a
lot
of
them
are
evident
in
the
the
County's
guideline,
but
sales
for
that
transacted
from
2020
to
2021
for
class
A
Properties
in
Arlington
County
those
ranged
from
219
dollars
to
615
dollars
per
square
foot.
The
average
of
those
2022
assessments
for
those
properties
range
from
298
to
553.
Again,
this
property
is
assessed
at
629.
K
A
square
foot
I
think
it's
the
highest
assessed
property
or
office
property
in
the
county
on
its
per
square
foot
basis,
and
the
last
thing
I'll
say
here
is
you
know:
I
was
in
a
hearing
I.
Think
last
week,
when
a
different
consultant
was
consult,
was
addressing
a
a
a
similar
office
property
in
the
county
that
was
assessed,
High,
it's
1400,
Crystal
Drive
that
was
reduced
to
the
board
to
533
dollars
per
square
foot.
K
So
those
ranges
of
square
foots
for
the
top
office
tier
properties
in
the
county
range
from
300,
a
square
foot
to
I
think
553
at
the
highest
this
one's
at
630.
A
square
foot
way
in
excess
of
anything
else
and
again
I
think
the
beaches
that
have
signed
there
are
indicating
a
market
value.
That's
that's
much
less
in
this
building.
So
thank
you.
C
Yes
good
morning,
thank
you
for
this
property.
We
did
receive
information
regarding
the
rents
in
place
for
this
property.
We
saw
that
my
notes
have
about
nine
leases
signed
in
2021
and
you'll,
see
on
my
page,
seven
all
the
rents
there
associated
with
the
tenants
in
place.
We
have
an
average
overall
average
of
all
leases
in
place
of
58
a
square
foot.
C
The
original
assessment
had
we
had
assessed
at
51
and
50
cents
per
square
foot.
In
this
case,
in
in
the
test
we
used,
it
says
56
dollars,
it's
actually
55.70
that
we
used
for
the
leases
in
place
for
the
vacant
square
footage.
We
used
also
fifty
six
dollars
a
square
foot
for
the
I
think
we
have
a
fitness
center,
a
cafe,
we're
using
30.25
per
square
foot,
the
main
difference
from
last
year's
assessment
to
this
year's
assessment.
Unfortunately,
we
don't
have
that
information.
It
was.
C
We
weren't
supplied
that
information
for
previous
years
by
the
the
prior
owner.
We
did
see
that
given
co-star,
there
was
a
change
and,
as
you
see
on
the
most
current
2021
INE,
there's
a
significant
amount
of
leases
that
took
place
in
2021.
So,
with
the
prior
assessment,
we
were
at
25
vacancy
and
collection
and
then
for
the
2022
assessment.
C
We
moved
to
10,
given
what
we
found
at
the
time
at
38,
706
square
feet
vacant
for
the
property.
Only
given
the
research
that
we
found
through
co-star
of
the
amount
of
square
feet
vacant
at
the
time
of
the
valuation.
After
review,
we
did
find
that
there
was
more
more
vacant
square
footage
that
is
apparent
in
the
property.
At
forty
nine
thousand
two
hundred
eighty
three
square
feet,
we
did
adjust
our
vacancy
based
on
our
guidelines
to
to
move
upwards
from
10
to
15
percent.
C
We
did
adjust
our
expenses
in
line
with
what
they
were
showing
as
far
as
the
most
recent
and
only
INE.
C
Or
2021,
we
think
that
the
the
appellant
is
a
little
aggressive
using
the
10.37
for
the
expenses
I
did
see
just
now
that
the
appellants
page
75
is
has
a
different,
a
number
for
the
the
total
amount
I
believe
he
has
216
million
257
800.
C
for
the
adjustment.
On
that
his
opinion
of
value,
if
you
will
I
leave
it
states
that
it
supports
the
allocation
of
the
multi-sale,
I
would
like
to
talk
about
that
sale.
Again.
It
was
a
multi-partial
sale
and
when
looking
at
the
information
regarding
this
sale,
we
did
find
that
the
seller
was
somewhat
motivated.
It
says
it
on
the
co-star
report,
which
I
believe
I
included,
but
I
did
include
it
in
my
notes.
C
With
respect
to
this.
In
in
the
memo
you
know,
we
we
asked
for
the
financials
in
October
12th.
We
didn't
receive
any
feedback
with
respect
to
this
case
at
all.
We
did
receive
no
that's
a
different
case
later
we
did
receive
a
2021
INE
that
was
submitted.
C
I
believe
it's
part
of
the
case,
and
you
know
we
believe
the
the
burn
proof
was
not
met
and
we'd
like
to
take
it.
We
would
like
we
would
have
liked
to
take
a
look
at
the
financials
leading
to
this
allocated
amount
as
far
as
how
did
they
arrive
at
that
amount,
but
we
weren't
afforded
debt
that
data
or
that
support
with
that
we
have
we're
open
for
questions.
F
K
D
Yeah
I'm
a
little
confused
here.
I
looked
at
recent
leases
too
I
didn't
mark
down
how
big
they
were.
You
know,
but
I
just
have
dollars
per
square
foot
from
co-star
from
2021,
but
and
I
got
a
different
figure
than
YouTube.
More
importantly,
the
two
of
you
got
significantly
different
figures,
one
averaging
much
lower
than
the
other
go
ahead.
You
want
to
respond
like
yeah.
K
And
I
think
what
Rob
was
mentioning
was
the
58
square
foot
is
for
all
the
leases
in
the
building.
So
it's
not
the
not
the
recent
leases,
the
eight
leases
that
were
signed
most
recently
in
2021,
which
would
be
most
indicative
of
the
market
rents
at
the
property
when
this
property
was
sold
initially
in
2018,
there
are
about
three
tenants
in
there
that
signed
in
2018
following
the
renovation
of
the
property
that
signed
at
much
higher
rates.
Small
terms,
five-year
terms
are
going
to
come
up
that
are
skewing
that
up
to
58
square
foot.
K
Now,
when
those
terms
expire,
they're
not
going
to
be
paying,
you
know
once
paying
61
square
foot
once
paying
66
dollars
a
square
foot.
Those
three
tenants
which
take
up
a
a
couple
floors
are
not
going
to
be
renewing
admin,
those
same
rates
when
they
signed
it
was
prior
to
code.
It
was
completely
different.
Market,
the
the
property
had
just
been
recently
renovated.
What
you're,
seeing
now
and
most
recently
with
the
the
lease
up
in
in
the
2021
leases,
is
that
this
it's
not
able
to
demand
a
rate
anywhere
near
58
square
foot.
K
These
rates
are
being
signed
anywhere
from
49.50
49.75
rate
down
just
renewed
at
who
took
picked
up
two
whole
floors
and
it's
it's
ranging
from
forty
nine
dollars
a
square
foot
to
52
square
foot.
Thank.
H
C
Yes,
thank
you.
This
sale
was
part
of
12
sales
in
the
county,
all
included
in
this
multi-sale.
The
notes
that
I
read
by
a
co-star.
It
was
a
motivated
seller
that
was
trying
to
get
rid
of
all
the
office
office
properties
in
their
portfolio.
C
We
weren't
afforded
the
information
that
we
thought
would
be
valuable
in
reviewing
this
property
with
respect
to
the
the
contract
of
sale,
we
did
look
at
the
the
rents
in
place
and
the
rent
sign
in
2021,
as
I
noted,
starting
on
page
109.,
you'll
see
that
the
county
has,
you
know,
captured
these
rents
as
they
were
submitted
and
the
average
of
those
rents
are
58
a
square
foot
again
we're
using
55.70
for
those
leases.
C
K
Yep
again,
this
property
in
2021
was
assessed.
198
million
the
use,
the
same
parameters
for
for
office
rents
at
51.50
for
the
occupation,
space
49
space
for
the
vacant
space
that
carried
over
to
2022.,
the
only
difference
is
they
dropped
their
vacancy
from
25
to
10
We've
shown
that
the
the
applied
vacancy
should
be
15
and
then,
in
the
revised
test
column
once
they
saw
that
it
should
be
15,
they
bumped
up
their
their
rental
rates
to
56
dollars.
K
A
square
foot
I
think
we've
shown
that
there
is
no
evidence
that
any
of
the
new
leases
for
the
vacant
Square
the
footage
should
be
anywhere
close
to
56
dollars.
A
square
foot.
The
County's,
revised
and
align
the
test
column
is
approximately
200
off
of
their
initial
assessments.
K
So
it
looks
like
they
they,
you
know,
revise
their
vacancy
rate
and
then
just
bump
their
rental
rate
up
to
to
basically
coincide
with
the
original
assessment
to
try
and
support
it
again.
This
property
was
purchased
in
208
million,
it
was
actively
marketed,
and
then
the
income,
and
at
least
is
in
place.
I
think
support
a
a
far
lower
number.
A
I
I
read
a
loss
here,
I
mean
I
think
to
say
that
sellers
motivated
I
think
all
sellers
are
motivated.
It's
just
that.
Today's
time
you
know
this
sale
is
going
to
be
used
in
the
guidelines.
I
think.
If
this
208
550
is
allotted
to
this
parcel,
it's
in
the
the
period
I
mean
I,
don't
see
how
it
can
be
higher
than
that
right
now,
if
you
look
at
it,
I
think
you
know.
The
increase
that
they've
got
from
2021
to
2022
is
a.
A
H
A
A
D
Segregates
about
the
sales
prices
in
the
package,
I
kept
I
kept
looking
I
agree
with
you,
I
mean
24
just
sticks
out,
it's
glaring.
Clearly
they
had
a
good
year.
Clearly,
unlike
almost
everybody
else,
we
see
the
assessment
ought
to
go
up
and
so
I'm
looking
for
numbers
that
would
get
the
the
suggested
assessment
down.
They
keep
messing
up,
but
what
I
looked
at
at
first,
it
was
the
56
dollars
on
office
space,
but
then
I
realized.
That's
defensible!
That's
with
the
office
tenants
today,
1122
were
big,
but
they
get
square
footed.
D
That's
not
56
dollars
and
and
again
I
went
through
co-star
and
found
the
average.
And
again
these
guys
are
probably
smarter
than
I.
Am
they
did
it
by
total
square
footage?
You
know
they.
They
weighted
the
individual,
but
it
was
52.50
the
pounds
at
51.50
and
since
I
didn't
wait,
the
problem
probably
did
5150
is
probably
right,
but
what's
what
happened
recently
in
2021?
So
that's
where
I
would
pay
the
vacant
square
footage,
the
43,
000.
D
H
E
John
shushan
I
visited
with
Clark
detmar,
jbg
Jack,
j,
a
t
and
what's
happened
is
the
commercial
lending.
Market
has
gone
nuts
and
all
these
people
said
no
thank
you
except
Clark
and
apparently
Clark
can
pay
cash
and
what
what
Johnson
told
me
he.
E
Patient
with
me,
he
took
a
lot
of
time,
but
he
said
that
the
loans
that
they
have
in
place
when
they
come
do
he
said
we're
going
to
get
hammered,
and
so
what
I
think
is
happening
out
there
is
that
this
cap
rate-
and
you
know
the
owner-
has
not
submitted
the
income
statements
and
expense
statements,
but.
E
G
A
F
A
C
E
A
K
Thank
you
very
much.
I'll
start
on
page
33
of
117
of
the
County's
response
memo,
which
shows
our
summary
of
facts
for
this
property.
This
is
an
office
property
against
located
1600
Wilton.
It
is
consistent
of
one
tax
rpt.
K
It
is
currently
accepted
at
58
million,
209,
600
or
34
348,
a
square
foot
and
the
value
we
are
requesting
from
the
board
today
is
42
million,
700,
000
or
255
dollars
a
square
foot.
The
county
is
recommending
no
change
to
the
original
assessment.
K
The
property
was
originally
built
in
1975.,
it's
174,
890,
91
square
feet
of
leaseable
area
and
it's
located
at
the
corner
of
Wilson
Boulevard
and
North
Pierce
Street
and
we've
include
the
map
and
location
of
the
property
below
similar
to
the
last
property.
K
This
property
was
also
included
in
the
portfolio
sale
and
it's
lifted
as
as
the
allocated
sale
number
one
on,
as
you
can
see
on
page
34
of
117.,
so
this
property
sold
for
an
allocated,
purchase
price
of
42
million
700
000
again
on
that
same
date,
in
July
of
2021.
K
The
jurisdiction
acknowledges
the
transaction
date,
although
their
their
County
website
lifts
a
incorrect
or
a
not
not
accurate,
allocated
purchase
price
of
56
million
422
000
368.
again
on
page
34,
we've
included
a
snippet
exhibit
A4,
which
is
included
on
the
actual
purchase
and
sale
agreement
of
the
property.
When
it
closed
in
July
of
last
year.
K
For
this
property
we
in
our
initial
filing,
we
were
not
able
to
provide
a
year-end
rent,
roll
or
year-end
financials
from
the
prior
year.
We
did
end
up
getting
authorization
to
disclose
the
rental
just
recently,
I
think
earlier
this
week
on
on
Monday.
So,
unfortunately,
if
you
look
at
the
counties,
what
would
normally
be
page
three?
K
They
have
not
included
the
test
column
because
we
were
unable
to
display
any
any
prior
year,
financials
or
the
the
year-end
rent
roll
in
our
appeal
filing
at
the
time
of
the
the
appeal
deadline
earlier
this
year
now,
based
on
that
rental
information
that
we
did
provide
the
county,
and
you
can
also
find
the
County's
valuation
for
this
property,
which
is
based
on
the
the
income
approach
on
page
eight
of
117.
you'll
see
their
their
workup.
K
For
this
property,
they
used
a
a
office
rent,
a
39,
a
square
foot
for
the
retail,
a
rental
rate
of
40.25
and
then
a
storage
rental
rate
of
twenty
four
dollars.
A
square
foot
parking
income
of
583
100,
passed
to
another
income,
totaling
three
hundred
eighty
thousand
seven
fifty
and
they
assumed
a
vacancy
rate
of
15.
They
applied
a
10
operating
expense
ratio
and
then
capped
the
net
and
operated
income
of
four
million.
K
Eight
hundred
and
forty
eight
thousand
eight
sixty
at
eight
point
three
three
percent
to
get
to
their
final
value
of
58
million
209
600..
Now,
based
on
the
the
rent
roll
that
we
provided
on
Monday
and
based
on
the
current
leases
in
place,
we
actually
come
to
a
higher
gross
potential
income,
so
the
county
was
using
a
total
gross
potential
income
prior
to
before
vacancy
of
approximately
seven
and
a
half
million
seven
million
498
242.
K
using
the
actual
office
rents,
retail,
rent
and
storage
rents
that
are
indicated
on
the
year-end
rent
roll,
as
well
as
the
same
parking
income
and
pass-through
income
estimated
by
the
county,
because
we
did
not
have
access
to
that
information.
For
the
the
prior
year
statements
we
get
to
address
potential
income
of
8.3
million,
8
million
292
375..
K
The
difference
being
is
that
this
property,
as
of
the
valuation
date,
was
28.27
vacant,
so
above
the
25
threshold
for
for
Market
vacancy,
and
so
we
applied
instead
of
a
15
vacancy
rate
to
that
8.3
million
dollar
income
with
25
vacancy
rate
based
on
the
actual
expenses
used
based
on
the
actual
occupancy
use,
the
county
same
operating
expense
ratio
and
cap
rate,
and
that
comes
to
a
capitalized
value
of
56
million
567
634..
K
Now,
there's
still
approximately
three
point:
two
seven
percent
of
vacant
space
that
is
above
and
beyond
that
25
vacancy
threshold
and
based
on
the
counties
lease
up
deduction
at
39,
a
square
foot
and
70
for
10
improvements.
K
Six
percent
commissions
we
deducted
an
additional
six
hundred,
forty
four
thousand
six
hundred
So
based
on
the
the
income
and
the
rent
roll
and
the
current
lease
is
in
place
and
the
same
guideline
assessment
parameters
that
the
county
uses
in
their
2022
assessment
for
the
property
would
indicate
a
value
of
55
million
nine
hundred
twenty
three
thousand,
which
again
is
about
2.2
million
dollars
below
the
current
assessment.
K
However,
again
the
property
sold
at
42.7
million,
the
county
had
had
estimated
a
purchase
price
of
roughly
56
million,
which
is
incorrect,
but
we
hope
that
the
county
considers
or
excuse
me
that
the
board
considers
the
actual
transaction
amount
of
this
sale
at
42.7
million
in
their
2022
assessment
of
the
subject
property.
Thank
you.
C
Yes,
thank
you
yeah
initially,
when
we
sent
the
email
out
to
get
more
information
on
this
property,
we
didn't
hear
back
from
Mr
Warren
at
all.
He
did
send
an
email
like
he
mentioned
a
couple
days
ago
regarding
the
the
rents
in
place,
just
the
rent
roll,
nothing
other
than
that.
If
I
remember
correctly,
the
value
that
he
comes
up
with
was
55
million
923
thousand
that
the
county
is
at
a
value
of
about,
let's
say
million,
plus
more
than
than
that
value.
C
We
really
didn't
have
the
opportunity
to
submit
the
information
in
the
packet
as
as
stated
you
know,
so
we
didn't
generate
a
summary
summary
page
that
the
board
can
actually
pivot
off
of.
If
you
will
I,
don't
see
that
Mr
Warren
has
presented
anything
for
this
case
with
respect
to
that
value,
I
I
did
try
to
follow,
as
he
was
going
through.
C
The
most
that
I
got
was
the
the
total
value
of
55
million
923
923
000
again.
We
don't
think
that
the
burden
proof
was
provided
at
the
time
when
we
put
the
packet
together.
I
I
understand
that
the
the
appellant
can
present
new
information,
but
we
weren't
afforded
our
time
to
actually
digest
the
information
if
you
will
but
we're
open
for
questions.
Thank
you.
A
All
right,
you.
H
A
A
H
B
K
Yeah,
so
the
parking
income
and
Pastor
income.
Obviously
we
did
not
have
access
that
information
through
the
count
of
year
income
statements,
so
we
just
estimated
the
same
as
the
county,
which
was
583
100.
A
K
K
Just
show
you
those
numbers
but
again
when
we
file
this
appeal
back
in
in
I,
guess
to
the
board
in
April
April
15th.
The
red
role
was
not
included
in
that
field
filing
package.
So
this
analysis
was
just
done
recently,
so
it's
not
included
in
the
package
that
we
have.
A
K
K
K
Let
me
know
if
this,
this
pops
up.
A
E
A
K
K
Pass-Throughs
we
use
the
same
so
nothing
to
change
there.
The
only
thing
that
changed
was
we're
using
the
actual
leases
in
place
from
the
rent
roll,
which
actually
totals
higher
than
what
the
county
was
using,
so
6.8
million
for
the
office
and
486
000
for
the
retail
and
24
000..
So
when
you
add
all
that
up,
the
gross
potential
is
eight
eight
million
293
375.
K
J
K
000
square
feet
of
a
vacancy
here.
K
A
A
D
And
they
have
20
21
22
22
noi.
The
same
county
has
a
chance
of
one
of
my
questions:
operating
expenses,
a
million
670
400.,
and
what.
F
A
D
K
C
Yeah,
the
the
main
difference
I
see
is
the
retail
that
they're
using
is
9.91
versus
what
we've
traditionally
had
for
retail
at
40.25
for
this
property
they're
using
a
higher
office
friend
we're
okay
with
that,
obviously,
but
with
the
retail
rent
being
at
9.91,
that's
just
too
low
I
think.
A
K
A
F
A
F
D
F
K
Answer
your
question,
so
that's
that's
our
analysis
of
the
rent
roll
earlier
this
week.
Our
initial
appeal
bond
is
based
off
of
the
actual
allocation
of
the
sale
price
for
this
transacted
in
in
again
July
at
42
million.
A
So
let
me
ask
assistant
to
Mr
Peralta
what
was
the
assessed
value
in
2021?
That
doesn't
appear
to
be
honest,.
D
K
The
reason
being
last
year,
this
was
part
of
the
Bennett
Park
Apartments,
so
they
split
off
so
last
year
there
was
an
apartment
valuation
that
was
included.
We
actually
heard
that
case
last
week.
C
Because
it
was
split
off
give
me
a
second
I'd
have
to
find
out
RPC.
D
Yeah
I
have
a
question
for
the
appellant.
This
thing
sold
in
July
21,
of
course,
and
in
April
the
the
landlord
the
owner
still
didn't
have
the
rent
roll
start
over.
Did
the
landlord
didn't
get
an
Ina,
particularly
rent
rolls
upon
purchase
such
that
they
couldn't
tweak
it
to
keep
it
in
your
appeal
in
April,
I'm
sure
they
did
can't.
It
seems
odd.
K
K
It's
now
with
regard
to
the
you
know,
prior
your
financials.
It's
we
usually
don't
get
a
prior
financial
statement
or
maybe
we'll
get
a
partially
or
financial
statement
for
a
property
that's
sold
in
2021,
but
for
this
one
we
we
did
not
have
a
a
rent
roll.
If
we
had,
we
would
have
supplied
it
because
of
the
vacancy.
Obviously
there's
it
was
15
vacancy
and
if
we
could
have
showed
that
it
should
have
been
25,
we
absolutely
would
have
done
so.
C
What
this
this
purchase
was
transacted
in
July
of
last
year,
if
I
remember
correctly
from
Mr
Warren's
statement,
it
could
have
provided
year-end
statements
that
we
could
then
use
to
kind
of
gross
up
to
kind
of
determine
what
the
actual
parking
income
was.
What
what
the
actual
pass-through
income
was,
that
wasn't
provided
and
for
us
to
come
up
with
a
value
of
thin
air
is,
is
not
reasonable.
We,
you
know
with
them
using
the
the
parking
income
from
last
year,
passed
their
income
from
last
year.
C
You
know
we
just
saw
a
property
that
you
know
today
that
was
at
61
a
square
foot
for
the
retail
portion
using
9.91
Square
dollars
per
square
foot
is
unreasonable.
I,
I,
I.
H
C
Know
where
this
value
is
coming
from,
you
know
they're
using
a
rent
roll
that
was
submitted
and
wasn't
signed.
It
was
submitted
in
in
a
Excel
form
on
an
email,
so
I
just
don't
agree.
Thank.
K
Yeah,
just
to
reiterate,
when
we
filed
the
appeal
it
was
based
on
the
the
sales
price
we
did
not
have
the
the
rent
roll
at
that
time.
When
Mr
Peralta
requested
this
in
mid-october
I
think
he
said,
October
13th
we
were
able
to
provide
that
I
think
either
on
Friday
or
Monday.
K
I
know
it's
it's
at
the
last
hour,
but
all
indications
of
that
rent
roll
when
reviewed,
would
indicate
a
value
just
on
the
income
of
no
more
than
than
55
million
923
000.,
the
991
retail
rent.
It
was
inaccurate.
It
was
based
off
of
it
was
dividing
the
the
vacant
square
footage.
Unfortunately,
it
was
higher.
It's
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
higher
than
what
the
county
was
was
estimating
and
at
the
the
retail
square
footage
of
9587
square
feet.
K
It's
actually
51
square
foot
so
again,
I
think
the
the
rent
roll
I
know,
although
provided
late,
indicates
a
value
that's
below
the
current
assessment
and
this
property
sold
for
for
42.7
million
back
in
July
of
2021..
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
all
right,
it's
just
among
the
board
members.
So
this
is
similar
to
last
case
but
I.
Think
different
from
the
last
case,
I
mean
the
fact
that
it
was,
you
know,
sold
for
42.7
I.
Don't
think
that
that's
the
assessed
value
I
mean
I,
think
that's
different,
but
I
think
Mr
Peralta's
argument
that
the
991
was
a
mistake.
A
The
dollar
amount
was
higher
than
what
the
county
used
so
that
doesn't
hold
water
with
me,
I
tend
to
like
the
balance
numbers
I
mean
they're
receive
late,
but
they're
received
I
mean
they
wouldn't
have
had
2021
information
prior
to
it.
You
know.
G
B
D
I
can
I
I
think
the
county
got
hamstrung,
I
think
the
owner
could
have
done
better,
and
how
do
you
appeal
when
you
have
no
idea
what
your
numbers
are
right?
Having
said
that,
their
current
numbers
pretty
good
right
reasonable?
They
make
sense
that
you
know
they
add
up.
I
mean
there's
some
transposition
of
numbers,
but
the
bottom
line
is
so
I.
E
E
E
You
can
burn
well
that
the
buyer
got
a
right
wrong
yeah.
It's
inconceivable.