►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Meetings | August 23, 2023
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
morning
today
is
Wednesday
August
23rd
2023.
This
is
the
Arlington
County
Board
of
Equalization
hearings.
We
have
four
cases
on
the
agenda
today
and
six
members
present
to
meet
our
Forum,
so
we
will
start
with
the
first
case
on
the
agenda.
We
have
MS
Shuttlesworth
I
checked
your
camera
on
the
RPC
is
3200-605
a
at
2920
Columbia
Pike,
Mr
Conklin
is
not
present,
so
we
are
going
to
go
ahead
and
hear
this
without
hints
of
the
Shuttlesworth.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
B
Yes,
good
morning,
everybody,
let
me
start
okay.
First
I
wanted
to
apologize
for
the
inconvenience
I
just
noticed
something
last
night
on
our
summary
sheet,
when
I
converted
Excel
to
PDF,
it
cut
off
the
cumulative
number
for
column,
D1
and
D2.
When
you
look
at
row,
seven
I'm,
not
sure
if
you
can
see
it,
but
on
my
end
you
cannot
see
that
number.
B
So
this
number
should
be
9761
and
635
dollars.
So
I
apologize
again.
B
B
The
issue
is
that
the
Appellate,
the
appellants,
are
contesting
the
other
income
and
the
cap
rate
on
June
13.
The
agent
notify
me
that
quote-unquote
confidentially
the
property
was
under
contract.
At
that
time
it
was
not
listed
in
CoStar.
However,
the
property
was
advertised
on
North,
Marks,
multi-family
Group
website.
The
asking
price
was
not
disclosed.
B
According
to
the
public
records,
the
property
sold
405
million,
which,
according
to
the
agent,
was
within
the
range
they
anticipated
to
set.
We
have
analyzed
the
provided
INE
service
for
years,
2019
through
2022,
as
well
as
the
actual
rentals
for
both
components.
B
As
of
January
1
2023,
the
2022
income
derived
from
the
apartment
component
noted
at
6.91
growth
and
as
of
January
1
2023,
the
project
the
apartment
component
was
97
occupied,
our
projected
apartment
income
increases
only
3.09
percent,
and
if,
if
the
board
could
take
a
look
at
Pages,
5
and
12
in
your
packet,
which
is
the
actual
rental
achieved,
as
of
January
1
and
mixed
use
worksheet,
so
you
can
compare
the
rates
we
used
to
those
numbers
that
were
actually
achieved.
B
These
are
not
speculative
numbers.
These
rental
rates
were
actually
achieved
as
of
January
1
2023.,
and
they
perform
at
2023.
The
the
apartment
income
is
even
higher
than
the
income
we
projected
in
test
column,
one
F
F1
and
the
income
we
used
in
our
2023
assessment
for
the
retail
component.
The
rate
per
square
foot
we
used
was
also
based
on
the
actual
rent
Road
provided.
As
of
January,
1.,
again
feel
free
to
look
at
Pages,
5
and
11,
so
you
can
see
exactly
how
we
supported
our
numbers.
B
The
retail
component
experienced
an
11
growth
and
as
of
January
1
2023,
it
was
100
occupied
in
the
2022
INE,
the
appellants
reported
600,
600
I'm,
sorry
I
cannot
say
the
number,
but
you
can
see
how
much
they
reported
for
their
retail
income.
However,
on
the
2023
performer,
they
reported
much
higher
figure.
As
you
can
see,
they
projected
retail
income
also
exceeds
our
tested
retail
income
in
column
F2.
B
B
We
wanted
to
stress
the
fact
that
our
other
income
is
below
the
other
income
they
used.
They
are
projecting
at
13,
almost
thirteen
and
a
half
percent
increase
in
Opex,
which
we
believe
is
too
high.
We
decreased
our
objects,
as
we
believe
we
overstated
our
Opex
and
our
analysis.
B
So
you
can
see
you
can
see
that
in
columns
F1
and
F2.
These
are
the
factors
that
we
really
wanted
to
stress
to
the
boards
number
one
our
tested
GPI
is
below
the
GPI
reported
on
the
balance.
2023
performer,
the
same
goes
for
the
egi.
They
are
overestimating
the
Opex
projections.
We
stabilize
those
project
that
number
in
our
projections,
our
tested
opinion
of
value,
exceeds
our
actual
2023
assessment.
B
We
use
the
nine
percent
stabilized
vacancy
for
the
retail
component,
why
it
is
what
why
it
is
100
occupied
and
we
use
six
percent
vacancy
and
concessions
for
the
apartment
component
by
the
property
is
97
occupied
the
property
sold
in
July
2023,
again,
405
million
dollars
no
appraisal
was
provided.
The
sale
occurred
after
January
1
2023,
which
was
our
cutoff
date
for
2023
assessments.
This
sale
will
be
used
in
our
2024
analysis.
C
I
want
to
make
sure
I
understood
this
right.
The
Jeep
one
and
G2
new
phones
perform
the
appellant
provided
that
to
you.
Yes,
they.
B
D
B
So
I'll
have
to
check
that
according
to
the
agent
he
and
I
spoke,
he
said
it
was
100
occupied,
so
that
was
my
understanding,
but
as
far
as
they
moved
in
yet
I
I
am
not
sure.
Okay.
D
B
Just
again,
we
asked
the
board
to
compare
our
tested,
GPI,
egi
and
noi
the
balance
project
at
3.2
percent
increase
in
the
2023
performa.
For
a
reason,
if
you
take
a
look
at
the
actual
rental
as
of
January
1
2023,
it
will
all
make
sense.
We
also
wanted
to
remind
the
board
about
our
card
of
date
and
this
sale
occurred
on
over
six
months
after
the
cat
update.
B
C
It'd
be
good
things
to
say
across
the
border,
very,
very
close,
except
for,
of
course,
the
cap
on
the
apartment
building.
That's
where
the
most
of
the
diversion
wise
and
I
I
focused
on
the
retail
differences
and
the
other
differences
and
Retail
I
was
completely
explained
by
the
department
and
why
there
are
some
differences
in
in
juxtaposing
against
what
the
appellant
has
offered
for
this
year
and
other
free.
We
didn't
get
on
it,
but
I.
C
Look
at
the
same
thing:
D1
G1
G2
also
explains
the
Department's
alleged
or
actual
increase
in
F1
of
other
which
which
the
pollen
had
changed
that,
but
it
seems
explicable
to
me
and
so
I
I
support
the
divisions,
the
I'm,
sorry,
the
original
assessment.
D
I
thought
the
retail
was
a
little
high
if
that
space
was
vacant.
But
you
know
I
expect
next
year
the
our
the
new
owner's
agent
will
come
in
and
argue
if,
if
they
haven't
opened
and
if
they're
not
paying,
rent
or
whatever
and
we'll
deal
with
that
case,
but
I'm
not
going
to
make
that
assumption.
So
I
have
to
assume
that
they're
paying
rent
if
they're
on
the
rapper
all.
A
C
B
C
A
E
You
Ms
Torres
board.
Thank
you
for
your
time,
Lori.
Thank
you
for
your
time
as
well.
This
is
formerly
known
as
Pentagon
row
now
been
rebranded
West,
Post
and
I
just
want
to
be
very
clear
that
this
is
actually
only
related
to
the
retail
and
office
component,
not
the
multi-family
component.
That's
over
there.
We
followed
a
first
level
review
for
this
for
this
particular
property
and
subsequently
filed
to
the
board,
pending
a
final
review
and
decision
by
by
Ms
roskin.
E
So
at
the
time
that
we
submitted
our
year
in
2022
I
and
e
so
2023,
I
e
had
not
been
completed.
Yet
there
was
some
turnover
we
lost
an
accountant
and
a
finance
manager
and
they
were
unfortunately
were
not
able
to
complete
the
INE
until
mid-june,
so
that
information
was
not
included
at
the
time
of
this
submission,
but
I
will
present
oral
testimony
as
to
those
reported
income
numbers.
E
If
you
will
I've
submitted
some
information
for
your
review
as
part
of
this
appeal
and
if
you
can
follow
along
in
the
narrative
that
I've
provided
starting
on
numbered
page
three,
the
current
appraised
value
is
just
under
145
million
dollars
and
we
are
requesting
just
a
shade
over
128
million
dollars
about
a
sixteen
and
a
half
million
dollar
difference.
E
There
are
a
lot
of
moving
pieces
to
this
property,
which
is
struggled
mightily
since
covid
and
frankly
has
not
recovered,
but
I
do
want
to
hit
on
a
couple
of
of
high
points
here:
the
assumed
net
operating
income
and
the
information
that
Lori
is
going
to
present,
which
was
a
revised
analysis
from
the
initial,
but
still
effectively
comports
to
the
same
assessment.
E
The
the
current
noi,
that's
being
used
by
the
department
is
approximately
10.7
million
dollars,
I'm
sorry,
11.1
million
dollars.
This
property
has
not
reported
that
level
of
net
operating
income
to
the
county
since
year
in
2018
numbers
were
reported.
The
most
recent
income
and
expense
information
that
was
Prov
provided
to
the
county
for
a
year
in
2022
and
again
our
apologies
for
not
having
submitted
at
the
time
that
first
level
review
was
being
completed,
but
we
just
simply
did
not
have
the
the
folks
to
get
it
done.
That
income
was
reported.
E
The
noi
was
reported
at
8.8
million
dollars,
which
was
only
a
small
improvement
over
what
was
reported
for
a
year
in
2021,
which
was
approximately
8.3
that
those
noi
numbers
are
reported
there
on
numbered
page
four
and
the
information
that
we
provided.
So
you
can
see
that
the
current
noi
that
was
calculated
for
purposes
of
assessment
that
11.1
we
haven't
seen
that
level
of
performance.
Nor
has
it
been
reported
in
any
time
in
recent
history.
So
that's
that's
one
relevant
fact.
E
The
other
reason
that
we
appealed
is
how
the
office
component
of
this
property
is
currently
being
valued.
The
for
those
who
don't
know
there
was
a.
There
was
some
some
second
floor,
retail
space
that
was
converted
to
office
space
about
31
000
square
feet
several
years
ago
and
that
was
leased
to
flear
systems
coming
out
of
covid
flear
closed
up
shop,
they've
since
vacated
and
that
property,
or
that
that
portion
of
the
property
and
that
space
has
been
put
on
the
market.
E
The
key
relevant
facts
related
to
that
and
I'll
try
to
tie
it
back
to
to
Lori's
analysis.
We
don't
have
the
final
deal
terms
on
what
is
currently
being
negotiated
for
that
space
But.
What
I
do
know
what
I
do
know
is
that
there
will
be
at
least
at
least
two
years
of
free
rent
offered
on
that
space
and
125
dollars
a
square
foot
in
tenant
Improvement
allowance.
In
the
current
analysis,
as
you
will
see,
when
Lloyd
presents
and
I
assume,
it's
been
provided
it's
sitting
in
front
of
you.
E
This,
the
Assumption
for
rent
loss
was
really
only
a
single
year
and
115
dollars.
A
square
foot
in
TI
and
the
overall
vacancy
at
the
property
is
approximately
13
and
a
half
percent,
and
so
we
are
asking
for
consideration
on
a
couple
fronts.
One
for
an
adjustment
to
the
vacancy
and
I
believe.
E
What's
currently
being
used
is
12
we're
actually
13
and
a
half
percent
and
guidelines
do
allow
for
a
range
up
to
15
I
believe
so
we're
still
well
within
the
the
appropriate
bandwidth
for
requests
for
an
increase
in
vacancy
from
12
to
13
and
a
half.
And
then
we
would
ask
for
further
consideration
over
actual
concessions.
This
office
space
is
incredibly
difficult
to
lease
these
days.
E
As
you
know,
and
so
two
years
of
free
rent
on
125
dollars,
a
square
foot
in
tenant
Improvement
allowance
is,
is
certainly
in
line
with
Market
I
re-ran.
E
The
numbers,
based
on
the
new
analysis
that
Lori
provided
and
again
I'm
trying
to
work
within
the
box,
that
of
the
Department
of
real
estate
assessments
Works
within
and
if
I,
were
to
adjust
the
model
that
Ms
roskin
submitted
and
take
the
vacancy
from
12
to
13
and
a
half
and
then
also
increase
the
concession
deduction
below
the
line
to
what
is
actually
being
negotiated
for
this
space.
I
get
to
an
assessment
of
approximately
140
million
231
815.
E
So
this
is
higher
than
the
number
that
we
requested,
but
but
certainly
lower
than
the
current
assessment
and
again
I
want
to
point
out
that
we
are
still
not
at
what
is
being
considered
as
stabilized
noi
for
this
property
anywhere
close
to
what
to
to
what
the
the
department
has
been
using
again
reported:
8.8
million
for
a
year
in
2022,
around
500
600
000
less
than
that
for
year
and
21
and
I.
E
Don't
expect
for
us
to
come
anywhere
close
to
hitting
that
stabilized
noi
number,
certainly
within
the
next
few
years,
and
I
think
that
the
market
continues
to
shift
in
the
wrong
direction.
So
I'm
trying
to
distill
this
down
into
the
relevant
facts
associated
with
this
case
and
would
certainly
appreciate
the
board's
consideration
for
the
increased
vacancy
the
difficulties
in
the
office
Market
the
lease
terms
that
are
currently
being
negotiated
on
this
space
and
again,
overall
degradation
in
the
market
as
a
whole.
Thank
you.
F
Board
members,
okay,
so,
first
of
all,
you
always
know:
I
have
my
wonderful
little
rolls
that
I
like
to
reconstruct.
F
So
that's
what
I
used
when
I
was
testing
or
column
F,
because
if
you
notice
our
column
D
the
original
original
January
1
assessment,
rnro
noi
is
less
than
what's
being
reported
for
2022,
but
because
there
was
an
issue
with
the
office.
I
wanted
to
test
this,
and
then
you
know
see
hey
what's
going
on
here.
F
So
with
the
rent
roll
I
determined.
What
would
be
what
would
become
the
average
rent?
And
you
can
see
that
on
on
the
test
page
of
page
five,
but
I
used
for
the
average
rent
that
was
developed
from
the
rent
roll.
As
for
the
office
space,
I
researched,
the
local
area,
I
looked
up
incoming
expense
statements
from
other
competing
office
properties
in
that
area,
I
also
looked
at
co-star,
and
so
that's
how
I
developed
the
rental
rate
used
for
the
office?
Okay,
okay,
now
I
did
reconstruct
the
the
income
for
the
percentage.
Rent.
F
Okay
I
still
have
a
few
Legacy
tenants
where
they
are
paying
like
a
partial
base,
rent
and
percentage
rent.
F
So
what
I
did
is,
instead
of
using
the
full
amount
that
was
being
reported
for
the
percentage
rent,
I
removed,
the
tenants
that
I
removed
some
of
the
tenants
and
they
are
showing
on
the
rent,
roll
and
I
considered
what
their
annual
rent
would
be
and
that's
how
I
developed
that
the
the
base,
rent
and
I
excluded
once
again,
I
excluded
the
percentage
rent,
and
you
can
see
that
on
the
test.
F
As
for
the
vacancy
we,
this
particular
owner,
always
reports
concessions
of
tenant,
Improvement
allowances,
and
we
do
not
consider
that
as
a
concession
and
so
that
was
reconstructed.
That's
why
you
see
it
reconstructed
across
every
year.
That's
what
was
being
reconstructed!
That's
the
only
thing,
that's
being
reconstructed
for
every
year.
F
As
for
the
expenses,
I
noted
that
they
were
a
lot
less,
not
sure
what
was
going
on
there,
but
they
it
was
primarily
in
the
maintenance.
So
the
the
three
prior
years
2019
through
2021,
they
reported
much
higher
maintenance
than
what
we
was
being
reported
in
2022.
F
However,
when
I
reviewed
each
one
of
the
at
the
bottom,
they're
reporting
Renovations
a
considerable
amount
for
renovations
every
one
of
those
years,
so
my
assumption
is
that,
due
to
those
Renovations,
that's
the
reason
why
so
because
of
the
office
space
So
based
on
the
rent,
roll
I,
determined
that
the
retail
vacancy
rate
is
1.9
percent?
F
Obviously
the
office
is
a
hundred
percent
vacant,
so
I
came
up
with
the
total
physical
agency
of
11.9
percent,
okay,
and
so
because
of
the
office
space
that
they
we
knew
that
they
were
having
some
issues
trying
to
rent
it
up.
That's
why
I
did
a
test
I
added
to
the
test
below
the
line
adjustment
for
rent
loss,
TI,
tenant
improvements
and
leasing
commissions,
and
that's.
F
F
F
It's
pretty
much
it
yes,
I'm
open
for
questions.
Okay,.
G
Yeah
this
for
the
applicant
the
second
floor
office.
How
do
you
get
to
it.
E
E
So
you've
got
you've,
got
retail
facing
the
surface
parking.
You've
got
retail,
tucked
around
the
corner
where
the
gym
is
and
then
you've
got
retail
lining
the
courtyard
and
then
yes,
someone
Joyce.
So
it's
effectively
on
the.
G
E
F
I
just
wanted
to
know
that
I
have
been
out
to
the
property
and
the
the
office
space
is
General.
In
the
second
floor
you
can
walk
upstairs
and
there
is
an
elevator
to
get
to
it.
Elevator.
C
A
question
to
the
department
you
you
might
have
covered
this
and
you're
talking
about
retail
I
have
two
questions.
First,
one
retail
rent,
you
project
for
this
year,
a
32
increase
in
retail,
rent
income,
retail
I'm;
sorry,
income
from
retail,
from
20
from
the
actual
achieved
in
2022
to
what
might
be
32
percent
of
the
big
number.
Was
there
a
big
lease
up
at
the
end
of
2022
and
but
they
weren't
paid
until
2023.
F
That's
possible,
but
basically,
when
I
I
developed
that
rental
rate
we're
looking
at
December
31st.
What
are
the
rents
for
December,
because
we're
projecting
forward
right.
G
F
C
Okay,
there
you
go
all
right
and
question
yes
and
answer.
The
other
question
is
I
couldn't
find
in
anywhere
what
the
retail
portion
of
this
overall
project
was,
including
that
little
bit
30
000
square
feet
of
office
was
assessed
for
in
2022.,
I,
see
the
entire
project.
If
not
it's
the
retail
question,
can
you
repeat
that
again
2022
assessment
for
retail
torsion?
What
was
it.
C
E
A
I
can
answer
that
question:
it's
139
million
36
900.,
and
that
was
after
an
adjustment
from
the
original
assessment,
which
was
156
898
900.,
so
the
increase
in
from
2020
the
increase
from
the
reduced
value
in
2022
to
2023
is
just
over
four
percent
and
the
the
assessment
in
2021
after
a
reduction
at
the
first
and
second
level,
was
138
million,
113
200.
so
factoring
in
adjustments.
E
G
E
G
If
you
park
down
where
there's
below
ground
parking
for
the
safe
for
the
grocery
store,
it's
Harris,
Teeter
I
think
it
is.
E
There
is
a
Harris
Teeter
over
there.
My
my
understanding
is
that
you
don't
have
our
office
parking
co-mingled
with
the
retail
okay.
G
F
It
turns
out
that
I
actually
did
an
inspection
of
the
apartment,
and
at
that
time
I
talked
to
the
property
manager.
I
learned
that
they
have
two
levels
of
parking
underground
under
that
entire
facility
and
the
second
level
parking
is
solely
for
apartment
and
the
first
level
is
solely
for
the
retail
office
portion.
So
they
have
the
first
level
of
underground
parking,
and
then
they
have
surface
parking.
That's
there's
a
bunch
of
it.
That's
in
front
of
the
oh
there's
plenty
of
things,
even
they
don't
need
to
park
outside
of
this.
E
D
E
To
be
honest,
I
I
do
not
know,
but
I
I
do
know
that
if
it
was
allowed,
it
would
have
to
come
through
approvals
with
the
county.
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
that
there's
buy
right
density
there
yeah.
F
I
want
to
reiterate
that
I
did
thoroughly
review
the
rep
roll.
That's
how
I
was
able
to
develop
the
retail
rent
that
was
used.
F
F
I
lowered
the
percentage
rental
income,
because
I
was
going
to
use
a
basement
in
my
test
and
and
once
again
the
the
January
one
vacancy
is
11.9
percent
and
I
just
asked
that
you
consider
the
original
January
assessed
value
of
1
million
for
one
million
144
million
841.
Thank
you.
F
E
Yes
again
so
a
lot
of
moving
pieces
here,
however,
let
me
distill
it
down
just
to
a
couple
points.
One
I
reported
noi
is
significantly
less
than
what
the
department
is
using.
It's
been
that
way
for
several
years,
two,
the
leases
that
were
signed.
E
If
you
look
on
number
page,
six
of
our
analysis,
we're
talking
about
retail
leases,
you'll
see
that
we've
got
a
number
of
leases,
specifically
for
our
big
box
spaces
that
are
coming
in
significantly
less
than
35
dollars
a
square
foot
that
was
imputed
into
the
direct
cap
in
the
analysis
presented
to
the
board
by
the
department.
E
So
we
are
experiencing
lease
rates
that
are
below
what's
being
assumed,
which
again
is
what's
driving
much
of
the
net
operating
income
difference
and
then,
finally,
to
the
office
piece,
which
is
really
the
the
hole
in
the
middle
of
the
donut
here,
which
has
been
very,
very
difficult
to
lease
for
a
number
of
reasons.
E
The
the
overall
lease
terms
that
are
being
discussed
would
result
in
a
below
the
line.
Deduction
if
I
make
those
adjustments
to
6
million
379
385
dollars,
that's
two
years
of
free
rent,
125
dollars
a
square
foot
in
TI
in
The
Brokerage
commissions.
So
there
are
a
lot
of
changes
here,
a
lot
of
things
that
just
do
not
match
the
reality
of
it
do
not
match
the
assumptions
that
the
department
is
using.
So
we
we
would
ask
for
your
consideration.
Thank
you.
A
G
I'll
share
some
thoughts
when,
when
Federal,
Realty
and
Cape
Fritz
were
in
control
of
this
property,
they
learned
a
couple
of
things
and.
G
Learned
was
that
it's
difficult
with
retail,
when
you
don't
have
it
on
both
sides
of
the
street
and
so
okay
for
it
my
own.
If
there
was
River
House
or
they
owned
the
apartments,
so
they
were
going
to
put
a
row
of
retail
to
to
spruce
up
this
retail
and
they
ended
up
suing
with
eight
Street
development
and
so
that
property
got
partitioned.
K
first
of
Austin,
the.
B
G
Office
was
above
I
think
it
was
a
like
a
sporting
goods
store
and
you
had
an
elevator
that
went
up
and
you
know
to
have
this
one
little
bit
of
office
I
think
is
going
to
be
really
difficult
to
rent
and
the
reason
it
wasn't
converted
to
residential
is
that
the
residential
has
been
used
up,
and
so
you,
the
last
time,
I
checked.
It's
been
a
few
years.
You
would
have
to
do
a
amend
the
overall
site
plan
and
the
this
specific
site
plan,
which
is
probably
cost
prohibitive.
G
A
B
D
Yeah
I
was
okay
with
the
accountant
suggestions
below
the
line.
D
Ti
and
and
the
rent
concessions
are
probably
accurate,
but
I
think
Lori's
got
the
actual
vacancy
in
there
at
12
and
I
really
didn't
see
the
13
and
a
half
off
of
the
rent
roll
and
what's
the
vacant
office,
and
all
that
so
I
would
I
would
keep
the
vacancy
the
same
and
when
I
make
those
changes
I'm
higher
than
the
amount
of
146
800
Which
is
higher
than
the
original
assessment.
So
I
think
I
think
she's
right
on
so.
G
G
Right,
I,
I,
guess,
I
see
a
bigger
problem
at
that
second
floor
space.
Maybe
I,
don't
know,
maybe
it's
because
I'm
familiar
with
it,
it's
rough
yeah.
If
there's
I
mean
you
know,
my
office
used
to
be
in
a
condo
and
it
was
a
pain
in
the
you
know
what
and
it
finally
drove
us
the
hell
out
of
there
I
kind
of
see
the
same
situation.
I.
D
Think
wasn't
there
in
LA
Fitness
or
something
up
there
before
I
thought
it
was
yeah,
so
there's
a
gym
in
there.
Yeah
I
mean
I.
Think
that's.
That
was
the
original
intended
user.
It
was
like
a
gym
because
you're
you're
back
off
the
street,
you
don't
have
the
visibility,
yeah
yeah,
it's
terrible
retail.
G
C
Yeah
I
was
like
they
could
sell
some
of
it.
30
000
square
feet
too
big,
but
artistic
up
in
the
back
office
for
some
of
the
retailers
restaurateurs
a
lot
of
times
that
you
know
they
don't
want
to
have
their
business
card
in
the
middle
of
grease
traps
and
stuff,
but
they're
grown
up
people,
so
they
they're
they're
going
up
at
the
the
other
thing.
That
problem
is.
This
is
kind
of
a
cool
walk
the
space
given
that
it's
surrounded
by
retail
and
liveliness,
and
certainly
but
I,
don't
know
what
they've
done.
C
Can
only
say
yeah,
this
isn't
worth
fifty
dollars,
it's
square
foot
for
anyone
and
they're
pegging
you
to
35.,
which
could
be
a
little
high
I
guess,
because
it
is
odd
and-
and
it's
specific
you
know,
Market
Niche
kind
of
thing,
but
you
know
what
what
I
came
down
to
Rick
mentioned
no
I'm.
Sorry
I'll
say
you
mentioned
parking.
They
got
real
well
on
parking,
which
shows
that
there's
good
activity
there,
which,
by
definition
and
that
told
me
well
okay,
three
and
a
half
percent
increase.
C
A
Patrick
County,
it's
compartment,
144
841!
Thank
you,
okay!
Next,
our
PC
is
how
do
you
see
35205031
1101,
George,
Street
right
now,
I
guess
if
you
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
part.
I
Good
morning
hope
everyone's
doing
well.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
We
we
really
appreciate
it.
So
this
is
the
apartment
portion
of
this
same
property
that
we
were
just
discussing,
not
as
many
moving
Parts.
It's
just
fairly
straightforward.
I
You
know
it's
a
mid-rise,
multi-family
property.
It
was
built
in
2001.,
total
of
504
units
spread
on
a
couple
different
buildings,
but
you
know
in
the
same
vicinity.
I
You
know.
Essentially
our
case
boils
down
to
a
couple
points.
One
and
first
of
all,
we
do
appreciate
that
Lori
has
worked
with
us
to
to
visit
the
property
to
take
a
another
look
at
the
the
income
statements
and-
and
you
know,
provided
a
revision
to
the
original
assessment.
I
But
when
we
put
together
our
model,
we
we
tried
to
be
fairly
conservative
with
what
we
did
and
putting
together
that
that
model
that
stabilized
income
model
of
what
we
believe
best
represents
the
the
current
fair
market
value
of
the
property
and
what
we
did
to
to
stabilize.
That
was
we.
We
used
the
last
three
years
of
income,
the
reported
income,
the
reported
expenses,
and
you
know,
while
cap
rates
we
feel,
have
risen
recently,
we
we
stuck
with
the
Department's
cap
rates.
We
we
understand
that
you
know
it's.
I
It's
not
quite
appropriate
with
Equalization
to
try
to
you
know,
increase
the
capitalization
rate,
but
we
try
to
thereby
fit
our
our
income
in
there
and
our
expenses
as
as
best
we
could
and
tried
to
be
a
conservative
when
we
put
together
our
model,
in
fact
departing
from
the
the
Department's
vacant
and
using
an
average
vacancy
of
four
percent,
which
is
you
know
what
they
had
over
the
last
three
years
and
so
anyway,
again
so
we're
looking
at
our
stabilized
model-
and
this
is
on
the
petitioners-
it's
a
green,
colored,
green
colored,
worksheet
here
and
again,
there's
there's
some
differences
between
the
numbers
that
the
Department's
using
and
and
what
we
have
is
their
actual
reported
income.
I
But
you
know
the
bottom
line
is
the
noi
is
a
bit
lower
than
what
the
department
is
showing
our
stabilized
income
and
our
expenses,
our
stabilized
income,
is,
is
below
what
the
department
has
in
the
last
several
years.
Specifically
21
and
22
have
been
difficult
for
the
subject
there
has
been.
You
know
higher
concessions
over
the
last
three
years,
and
so
what
we
did
we
put
in
a
concession
amount
for
the
LA.
I
You
know
averaging
the
last
three
years
when
we
look
at
what
the
Department's
revision
comes
up
to
be
we're,
seeing
you
know
the
the
numbers
very
close
to
the
actual
22
numbers,
but
we
really
don't
feel
like
that.
You
know
we
should
be
considering
the
absolute
you
know
the
most
recent
best
number
as
far
as
that
goes
with
with
some
of
these
aspects.
So
we
really
would
like
to
take
a
look
at
more
of
a
three-year
approach
when
we're
putting
together
our
model
and
so
on.
I
On
our
left
hand,
side
you
can
see,
we
we've
averaged
the
the
last
three
years
of
income
for
the
apartment,
the
garage
other
we
put
together
a
vacancy
again
using
four
percent
based
on
the
performacal
performance
history.
Using
a
concession.
Excuse
me,
vacancy
of
a
four
percent
we've
come
down
here.
We
we
use
the
average
expense
percentage
of
29
percent
and
use
that
number
of
4.1
million
are
are
noi,
thereby
is
9.9
and
again
using
the
the
cap
rate,
the
county
cap
rate
5.25.
I
We
come
to
a
total
income
value
of
189
545
634.
Now
the
subject
property
had
a
extensive,
have
recent
Renovations,
let's
say
updating
refreshing
to
to
make
it
more
appealing
in
the
marketplace.
Now
those
totaled
5.6
million
dollars.
We
removed
that
from
the
bottom
line
as
those
Renovations
and
improvements
there
as
a
negative
to
the
the
property's
value.
But
you.
B
I
I
understand
from
from
previous,
you
know,
hearings
that
the
board
doesn't
really
consider
those
for
for
these
types
of
this
type
of
Renovations.
But
you
know
again:
our
income
value
still
is
189
million
five
45,
and
this
is
using
our
conservative
approach,
keeping
the
county
cap
rate
and
again
even
using
the
actual
vacancy
at
four
percent.
So
again
we
asked
that
the
board
consider
these
actual
performance
numbers
and
our
indicated
value
based
on
those
it's
189
million
545
634.
F
Members,
okay,
so
basically
excuse
me:
I
should
have
probably
written
on
the
top
of
2021
and
2022
reconstructed,
I've
reconstructed,
the
expenses
in
this
case,
because
the
owner
was
reporting
a
bunch
of
improvements,
expenses
and
they're.
They
were
not
repairs,
they
were
improvements
Renovations.
They
were
improving
so
once
again,
operating
year,
2021
and
2022,
the
expenses
are
reconstructed
and.
G
F
Make
a
comment
so,
basically,
once
again
my
I
I
added
I
provided
to
you
a
rental
analysis.
I
started
what
was
the
average
rents
for
each
one
of
the
students
and
I
actually
used
something
a
little
less
than
what
was
developed
in
the
rent
roll
analysis
for
the
apartment
rent.
If
you
take
a
look
at,
we
were
applying
a
six
percent
vacancy
rate
that
brought
our
ETI
in
line
with
what
they're
reporting
and
once
again
the
expenses
have
been
reconstructed
and
therefore,
therefore
you'll
note
that
column
F.
F
We
were
going
in
line
with
what
they're
reporting
for
the
last
couple
of
years,
and
we
came
up
with
the
revised
value
of
200
million
I
did
go
out,
inspect
the
property
I
inspected,
a
number
of
units
of
the
entire
site
and
through
the
garage
I
went
through
all
their
common
areas.
It
looks
beautiful
out
there,
they
remodeled
quite
a
bit,
so
I
did
get
to
witness
those
5.6
million
and
I'm
open
for
questions.
Thank.
F
President
I
just
ask
that
you
give
serious
consideration
com
F
our
revision
at
200
million
821
000.
Once
again,
I
have
my
referral
to
back
up
the
the
supported
rents
and
I
actually
use
something
less
than
what
was
developed,
and
our
noi
is
pretty
much
in
line
with
what
they're
reporting
thank.
I
Yes,
thank
you.
Thank
you
again.
I
I
I
appreciate
again
Lori.
Thank
you
very
much
for
for
working
on
this
and
and
I
do
appreciate
the
the
revision.
I
You
know,
there's
still
a
slight
difference
of
opinion
as
to
you
know
the
total
amount
of
expenses,
but
when
you
think
about
it,
we,
if,
if
these
expenses
are
continuing
to
occur
annually,
then
they
are
really
should
be
considered
a
a
recurring
expense
and
not
not
a
a
one-time
type
of
expense
and
I.
Think
that's
where
some
of
the
the
differences
are.
I
We
really
feel
like
the
expense
is
reported
and
and
as
certified
are
are
are,
are,
are
not
one-time
improvements
to
the
property
that
they
are
just
recurring,
regular
expenses
and
and
that's
the
way,
they're
reporting
those
expenses
so
again
we're
trying
to
use
the
actual
income
on
a
conservative
approach,
keeping
the
county
cap
rate.
So
thank
you
very
much.
I
appreciate
your
consideration.
Thank.
A
H
Do
you
have
a
little
reconstruction
on
the
the
numbers
using
pretty
much
the
approach
that
the
appellant
used,
but
I
started
using
three
years,
I
used
four-year
average.
H
By
doing
the
income
of
course
comes
up
higher
than
but
revision
is
up
to
15
million
744
I
use
the
same
percentage
of
vacancy
Which
is
higher
than
what
dependent
is
requesting
at
six
percent
and
I
use
the
expenses
at
27.
It
also
becomes
higher
than
what
what's
ever
been
even
the
2022.
H
C
Notion
on
the
averages,
I
I
think
we
use
that
a
lot
on
Trends,
but
given
that
most
of
the
average
period,
three
or
four
years
is
covid,
things
are
screwy
and
so
I.
In
this
case,
in
this
time
period
I
ended
up
liking,
Kyle
meth
a
lot
for
a
lot.
A
lot
of
reasons.
I
just
wanted
to
mention
the
averages.
G
Oh,
but
but
what
struck
me
was
the
difference
between
allowed
vacancy
visa
fee
actual
and
that's
I
mean
I
capped
out
just
the
difference
between
those
fingers
and
it
opened
about
five
billion.
So.
C
J
A
great
project-
I
I,
also
disagree
with
the
with
the
averaging
during
this
period,
but
the
the
other
thing
I
looked
at
is
is
with
that,
where
they
have
these,
the
vacancy
concessions,
the
six
percent.
If
I
bump
that
expenses,
two
percent-
that's
280,
000.
we're
almost
at
what
the
difference
in
the
six
percent
is
that's
where
I
think
column.
F
came
up
right,
right,
I,
don't
you
know
so
I'm
fine
with
the
income
I'm
fine,
with
the
balance
of
the
two
yeah
I,
see
what
you're
saying.
A
A
A
K
Can
I
go
forward
there?
You
go
wonderful
good
morning
good
morning.
Everyone
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
talk
about
our
property
and
thank
you
to
Lori,
as
always,
for
the
work
conducted
in
appraising
the
property.
William
Waters
is
a
hundred
percent
affordable
property.
It's
a
four-story
one.
Second
21
United
Property
there
is
one
vacant
I'll
keep
this
nice
and
short.
K
We
were
hoping
and
and
doing
some
analysis
to
see
if
it
would
be
if
that
value
could
be
reduced
primarily
because
because
a
lot
of
the
income
that
was
received
last
year
was
is
not
guaranteed
income,
it's,
it
was
income
that
was
offset
from
subsidy
sources,
and
so
we
are
unsure
if
that
will
be
maintained,
that
rental
will
be
maintained
moving
forward,
but
I
was
advised
that
we
have
to
focus
on
the
actual
income
that
was
received
and
so
I
think.
A
F
Basically,
oh
once
again,
I
did
go
out
and
inspect
this
property.
I
went
inside
a
sample
of
the
unit.
One
unit
I
think
I
was
able
to
I
was
actually
able
to
get
into
two
units.
I
even
went
up
on
the
rooftop
noticed
that
the
roof
looks
in
great
shape
the
rehab.
They
did
a
wonderful
job,
refurbishing
this
property,
basically,
so
the
the
rent
that
I
used
for
column
F
on
the
revision
that
comes
from
the
rent,
roll
okay
once
again,
they're
their
their
vacancy
is
low.
F
Yes,
we're
using
three
percent.
However,
it's
nothing
out
of
the
it's
nothing
it's
organic.
What
I
did
want
to.
Let
you
know,
though,
is
that
for
the
years
for
each
of
the
years,
the
agent
notified
me
through
an
email
that
they
were
reporting
ground,
beefs
in
as
maintenance,
and
so
that
was
that's,
why
I
reconstructed
each
one
of
the
years,
the
first
year
2019
they
had
accumulated
about
three
years
that
they
were
reporting
for
127
000,
just
for
the
ground.
F
These
that
does
not
belong
in
here
is
some
operating
expense
and
the
each
of
the
other
years
removed,
30,
mil
I'm.
Sorry,
30
600
for
each
of
the
other
years,
and
so
you
now
see
what
is
a
more
normalized
expense
rate
for
this
property
other
than
that
that
was
the
big
issue
is
just
reconstructing
the
ground
lease
from
each
one
of
those
years,
and
we
feel
that
our
column
app
is
in
line
with,
what's
currently
happening,
with
the
property.
F
My
apologies,
so
this
is
my
first
time
working
in
rehab
exemption,
Chris
was
gone
on,
vacation
Deidre
didn't
know
how
to
do
it.
So
this
was
my
fault.
I
had
I
had
tacked
on
that
rehab
to
the
bottom
of
it
when
I
wasn't
supposed
to
I,
didn't
know
that
that's
something
that
the
treasurer's
office
does
and
that's
where
the
number
of
1.7
came.
F
Yeah
the
best
values
and
like
I,
said
I
actually
had
corrected
this
sheet
for
the
VOE
packet
and
removed
that.
A
G
F
J
Yates
well
I,
just
really
you
touched
on
them
that
maintenance
issue
and
the
expenses
and
yeah
what
they
reported
in
D1
that
40
000
is
before
you
adjusted
that
correct.
Okay,
all.
C
Do
I
need
help
here
from
the
Department,
the
column
F,
the
everything
seems
to
be
just
going
along
pretty
smoothly
to
doing
the
same.
We
reconstruct
maybe
but
saving
on
income,
saying
about
expensive
and
Kyle
left
I
know
why
it
seems
a
good
bit
higher
than
this.
The
the
nris
becomes
EBC
and
also
dips.
Maybe
that's
the
question.
It
dips
all
of
a
sudden
in
2022
and
then
comes
back
up
proposed
for
2023
to
what
the
historical
averages
did
you
and
so
I've
been
looking
at
the
column.
Why
is
that
such
a.
C
C
G
G
F
F
G
F
So
once
again,
we're
developed
the
rent
through
using
the
rental
that
they
provided.
We
used
our
stabilized
vacancy
rate
at
three
percent
and
and
the
expenses
are
basically
an
average
of
What
has
occurred
over
the
last
40
years
and
and
that's
excluding
that
ground
lease.
K
K
Saved
the
1.749,
we
did
not
receive
the
2.857
number
as
a
proposed
value.
A
L
Madam,
chairman
yeah,
that
the
rehab
amount
will
be
976
700,
so
the
number
that
miss
roskin
is
using
is
encompassing
that
amount.
So
we
do
apologize
for
the
confusion.
The
assessment
will
be
the
assessment
and
then
Treasurer
will
pull
off
that
remaining
976
to
get
to
that
17
one
million
seven
hundred
thousand
number.
That
will
be
what
they'll
be
taxed
on.
L
J
L
A
H
G
Well,
we
have
to
go
with
the
actual
figures,
not
reconstructed
or
averaged,
or
anything
like
that
and
I
took
the
176
531
and
it
got
two
million
634.
H
C
A
A
C
C
J
Go
ahead:
let's
throw
out
the
other
day
the
concessions
they
got
for
Kobe.
That
will
not
be
going
forward
that
kind
of
offsets.
What's
in
E2
that
11
000
rip
lost
it.
A
J
C
Getting
that
concession,
my
understanding
is
that
tenants,
when
they
qualify,
get
checks
page
generally
to
the
landlord
to
offset
some
of
the
with
the
tenant
votes.
I
mean
this
concession
is:
what
is
this
conception.
G
D
My
feeling
was
going
to
six
percent
on
that
rap
boss,
collection
losses,
probably
more
than
reasonable
yeah,
and
so
you
could
take
it
on
column,
F
or
you
could
take
the
actuals
which
are
going
to
be
pretty
close
to
what
that
final
number
is,
but
I
would
I
did
calculate
it.
The
same
way
Barnes
did
but
I
can
I
can
redo
it,
but
just
use
modifying
column
app
with.