►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - September 22, 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
This
tuesday
september
22nd
2020.
This
is
the
arlington
county
board
of
equalization
hearings.
The
first
case
out
of
order
on
the
agenda
is.
A
B
A
C
A
Okay.
Third
up,
this
is
gonna,
be
a
quick
day
today,
rpc
the
first
case
on
the
agenda.
Three
four
zero:
two:
three:
zero
zero.
Three.
They
last
night
late
last
night
accepted
the
reduction
from
the
county.
A
So
on
that,
I
guess
we
have
to
acknowledge
the
withdrawal,
so
you
know
just
to
keep
it
tidy
I'll
motion
to
accept.
Do
I
have
a
second
okay,
miss
hogan,
all
in
favor,
aye.
A
A
B
E
A
Okay,
all
right
well,
then,
to
restate
that
for
the
minutes
then
so
that
is
a
straight
withdrawal
I
would
assume
it
will
all
stay
the
same.
This
is
again
on
rpc
one:
five:
zero,
zero,
seven,
zero
five
eight.
I
motion
to
accept
the
withdrawal
now
miss
hogan,
just
a
second
okay,
all
in
favor.
A
Okay,
it's
unanimous
again!
Thank
you,
mr
chitlik,
okay.
So
next
up
for
discussion
is
the
second
case
on
the
agenda.
Rpc,
one
four:
zero:
four,
four:
two:
six
one,
this
property
located
at
818,
north
quincy
street,
mr
chitlick,
representing
the
owners,
mr
chitlick.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
E
Thank
you,
I'm
hoping
because
of
all
the
withdrawals.
I
can
have
an
hour
and
a
half
here
to
go
through
this,
just
in
case
I'll,
try
to
keep
it
to
eight
minutes,
so
the
property
is
an
equity
residential
property.
We've
all
been
through
these
enough
to
know
that
you're
going
to
see
increased
expenses
over
the
years
and
that's
of
course
occurred
here.
The
big
issue
here
is
that
the
submitted
2019
expenses
included
an
expense
line,
data
for
casualty
lost,
which
the
assessor
said.
E
I
don't
agree
with
it
and
just
removed
it,
so
you
again
will
have
a
normal
column
and
then
a
column,
a
column
e
that
you're
used
to
seeing,
which
is
the
operating
2019,
and
then
the
assessor
who
reconstructed
the
operating
2019
and-
and
I
say
that,
because
it's
not
a
true
reconstruction,
what
they
did
instead
for
column
f,
was
accept
everything
except
said.
This
number
is
too
high.
E
Let
me
pull
some
out
of
that
and
what
they
pulled
out
of
that
was
341
000,
and
I
want
to
explain
in
great
detail
what
that
is
and
why
that's
there
and
why
it
needs
to
continue
to
be
there.
It's
casualty
loss.
What
casualty
loss
is
is
what
that
was
specifically
is
there
were
three
incidents
at
the
property
of
water
damage
and
leakage
that
took
place.
E
They
had
a
a
roof
leak
and
let
me
review
the
incident
report.
Well,
first,
one
was
a
smaller
one.
It
was
a
dishwasher
leak
that
came
into
the
hallways.
It
affected,
basically
the
hallways
from
floor
20
to
30..
E
It
was
a
leak
on
the
20th
floor
that
basically
dripped
down
to
each
level
of
the
apartment
that
was
above
the
apartment,
sending
in
zero
seven
and
zero
nine
and
it
leaked
all
the
way
down
every
single
unit
on
the
way
down,
of
course,
that
you
would
say
well,
that's
a
one-time
deal,
that's
not
something
that's
reoccurring
and
then
the
other
was
an
hvac
leak
in
the
hvac
closet.
They
called
water
flooding
in
some
apartments.
Carpets
and
baseboards
were
so.
E
The
big
one
was
that
there
was
extensive
rain
and
it
flooded
the
building
and
I'll.
Read
you
from
the
from
the
lost
description,
all
elevator
panels.
Three
cabs
were
blown
and
not
operable
stairwell
from
rooftop
lobby
damaged
drywall
on
22
floors,
rooftop
hallways
from
floors,
22
through
8.
water
damage
and
drywall,
coffee,
carpets,
all
apartment,
drywall
and
carpet
damage,
and
it's
again
the
assessor's
position
is:
will
that
happen
once
you
fix
it
and
you're
done
the
problem?
E
Is
it
happened
once
and
it's
going
to
happen
again,
so
there's
a
cost
to
remediate
that
if
I
came
to
the
assessor
and
I
have
and
said
look
our
roof
is
leaking.
We
need
a
new
roof,
they
say.
Well,
that's
you
get
replacement
reserves,
there's
no
issue
there.
You
need
a
new
roof,
that's
fine
and
then,
if
we
put
five
million
dollars
to
replace
a
new
roof,
we
say
yeah,
but
that
was
a
one-time
charge.
You're
not
going
to
have
to
do
that
again.
E
So
what
this
is
is
this
is
annual
year-over-year,
recurring
issues
that
are
going
to
happen
until
the
huge
capital
expenditure
goes
to
basically
replace
every
pipe
in
the
building
and
the
roof
of
the
building.
So
what
this
cost
is
is
not
to
fix
those
issues,
it's
to
fix
the
issues
caused
by
those
issues.
So
it's
your
requirement
flooded.
That
cost
is
to
fix
the
flooded
apartment,
but
it's
not
to
fix
what
caused
the
flooded
apartment
so
by
ignoring
the
cost,
to
fix
it.
E
The
issue
that
it
caused
and
ignoring
the
issue
shows
that
they're
just
pretending
like
it
never
happened
and
trust
me
if
the
owner
could
say
look
I
just
don't
want
the
roof
to
leak,
so
it
won't
leak,
doesn't
isn't
really
how
it
works,
so
it
needs
to
be
considered
somewhere
and
the
county
isn't
considering
in
any
place.
We've
considered
it
by
using
the
actual
operating
cost,
which
is
you
have
two
choices.
You
fix
the
problem
and
then
you
don't
have
the
skies
that
you
lost
or
you
you
have
the
casualty
lost.
E
You
don't
fix
a
problem,
so
we're
showing
the
history
here.
This
is
what
it's
costing.
This
is
what
it's
doing,
and
it's
a
year
over
year
issue
until
the
major
problems
fixed,
which
is
to
tear
up
every
apartment,
to
replace
the
piping
and
to
replace
the
roof
is
a
eight-figure
change
in
the
valuation
in
the
in
the
cost
to
do
it
on
a
100
million
dollar
property.
E
So
that's
really
the
difference
between
the
columns
on
here,
because
if
you
just
used
like
what's
been
done
a
lot,
if
you
just
looked
at
basically
column
e
you'll,
see
that
the
expenses
were
2.7
million,
which
is
33,
which
is
in
line
with
a
lot
of
properties.
E
We
thought
about
keeping
the
last
case
open
just
so
you
could
see
the
35
percent
30,
plus
percent
operating
expenses,
that
normal
property
reports,
the
assessor's
taken
this
and
said.
Yes,
I
see
that
you're
at
33,
but
it's
a
it's
a
bump,
I'm
using
28.
E
So
again
it's
it's
a
bit
of
a
a
miss
on
our
part.
We
think
by
the
assessor
just
to
ignore
that
and
pretend
like
it
not
only
didn't
happen,
but
it
won't
happen
in
the
past
without
a
major
remediation
issue.
There
was
a
a
lot
of
email
exchanges
that
we
had
with
the
assessor,
but
that's
really
the
gist
of
the
property.
It's
it's
a
nicer
well-located
property
for
sure.
It's
got
like
kind
of
that.
Mid-Rise
high-rise!
E
Look
to
it
that
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
these
properties
have
built
in
2007
and
they're
they're.
Having
this
major
leak
issue,
that's
becoming
a
pretty
big
problem
throughout.
So
that's
the
issue
in
the
case
is
you've
got
a
major
issue
that
you're
not
addressing-
and
I
say
you
as
in
the
assessor
and
it
needs
to
be
addressed
somewhere
and
just
by
taking
out
the
cost
of
the
issue
is
not
fixing
that
problem
in
any
way.
E
So
the
last
step
that
I
want
to
talk
about
is
actually
under
page
55
and
I
hate
to
jump
around.
But
it's
the
co-star
five-star
properties
of
2010
are
newer.
E
What
we
did
was
said
tell
us
the
best
properties
in
arlington
and
we
pulled
those
and
we
looked
at
it
and
saw
how
they
were
assessed
and
you'll
see
there
how
those
properties
are
assessed
as
compared
to
the
subject
which
is
assessed
at
481
thousand
dollars
per
unit
for
a
2007
build
property
with
a
major
issue,
and
you
look
at
some
of
the
other
properties
on
the
list.
E
The
maxwell
virginia
square
towers
built
in
2013.
The
max
was
built
in
2014
333
unit
467.,
this
property
from
what
we
found
is
the
is
the
fourth
highest
assessed
per
unit
high-rise
apartment
in
arlington,
which
obviously
we
have
a
bit
of
an
issue
with,
considering
that
it
doesn't
get
rents
anywhere
near
that
level.
So
we
often
talk
about
location
and
there
should
be
adjustable
location
and
the
response
is
well.
E
You
get
an
adjustment
in
the
rents
because
you
can't
charge
as
much
well,
if
that's
true
they're,
if
we're
looking
at
a
price
per
unit
and
there's
a
2015
property
and
they
can
charge
more
than
where's
the
miss.
What's
going
on
here,
they've
got
origin
at
boston
quarter,
which
is
assessed
a
little
bit
less
than
we
are
built
in
2017
a
406
unit
building
substantially
nicer
gets
much
higher
rents.
The
reason
I
think
that
these
properties
are
excessive
much
higher,
is
it's
pretty
simple?
E
Actually
it's
because
that
the
expense
rate
that
they're
using
on
there
is
because
of
this
equity
expense
history.
That's
that's
been
punishing
them
for
years
that
we've
addressed
and
still
hasn't
been
picked,
the
other
one
across
the
street,
the
view
at
liberty
center.
I
know
you
all
know
that
property
pretty
well,
because
I
brought
it
in
front
of
you
before
it's
assistive
438,
it's
extremely
comparable
to
the
property,
a
tad
bit
bigger,
but
almost
the
identical
assessment.
E
E
Is
the
noi
at
the
property
last
year?
Was
it's
been
six
two
five,
nine
five
nine
and,
as
you
understand,
a
lot
of
that
has
to
do
with
the
reporting.
The
reporting
now
is
five.
Four,
the
assessor
said.
No,
I
think
it
actually
should
be
five
seven
well,
despite
the
fact
that
the
noise
down
about
ten
percent,
the
assessment's
up
again,
of
course,
no
cap
rate
change,
but
the
assessment's
up
over
three
million
dollars.
E
There's
no
reason
this
assessment
should
climb
and,
as
we
be
super
fast
as
we
fix
the
the
expense
issue
that
we've
got
at
the
properties,
we've
said
that
we'll
see
that
next
year,
we'll
see
that
next
year,
well,
despite
the
expenses
you're
being
fixed,
the
assessments
continue
to
increase.
That's
all.
A
Okay,
thank
you
representing
the
county,
mr
chicas.
F
Good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
mr
chitlik
good
morning,
mr
warren
speaking
about
the
liberty
towers,
we'll
be
focusing
primarily
on
page
three,
the
mixed
use,
income
and
expense
summary
sheet
and
looking
at
the
property
we
can
see,
the
performance
is
doing
well.
F
Apartment
revenue
is
up
two
years
in
a
row
increase
year
over
year,
2019's
increase
at
2.3
percent
parking
revenue
is
up
two
years
in
a
row,
six
point:
five
percent
2019
other
revenues
up
almost
one
percent
between
2019
rubs
or
utility
reimbursements
up
just
shy
of
seven
percent
in
2019
20
total
revenue
has
been
up
three
years
in
a
row
year.
Over
year
over
year,
2019's
increase
was
2.1
percent.
F
True
vacancy
is
stable,
three-year
average
of
3.2
percent.
If
you
include
concessions
again,
it's
stable
three-year
average
of
3.4
percent.
F
Effective
gross
is
also
up
three
years
in
a
row
growth
year
over
year
over
year,
2018's
growth
of
2.6
percent,
as
mr
chipmunk
pointed
out,
increase
in
operating
expenses.
As
we've
seen
with
the
equity
cases,
three
years
in
a
row
of
operating
expense
increases
15
in
2017,
8,
20,
18
and
39
percent
in
2019.
F
F
When
we
look
at
what
the
county
did
in
regards
to
the
projections
made
prior
to
receiving
2019
income
and
expense
questionnaire
from
the
owner,
the
board
seen
this
before
numerous
times:
equity
or
otherwise.
We
underprojected
almost
across
the
board
underprojected
gross
potential
income
by
58
thousand
or
seven
tenths
of
one
percent.
F
We
under
projected
effective
gross
by
302
000
or
just
shy
of
four
percent
under
projected
operating
expenses
by
about
eight
hundred
and
forty,
eight
thousand
or
thirty
one
percent,
and
and
over
projected
noi
by
545
thousand
or
almost
ten
percent.
F
The
reason
I
say
that
is
because
we
can
look
through
the
internet,
the
email
history
between
the
agents,
ms
ross,
mr
chilik
and
myself.
We
reached
out
to
the
agents
on
july
7th
to
inquire
about
some
of
these
costs.
We
heard
back
on
july
16th.
That
was
the
first
time
we
heard
of
what
this
casualty
loss
was.
We
replied
back
seven
days
later
on
the
23rd
and
asked
exactly
what
what
is
this
casualty
lost?
Was
it?
F
So
we
thought
there
might
be
some
correlation
between
the
extremely
large
increase
in
insurance
and
tax
and
the
casualty
loss.
But
we
didn't
hear
back
until
this
morning
in
regards
to
what
exactly
that
casualty
loss
was
not
to
put
words
mr
triplett's
mouth,
but
we
would
agree
with
his
summation
that
it's
a
one-time.
F
Operating
expense,
this
isn't
an
annual
operating
expense,
that's
to
be
incurred
by
the
owner
of
the
property,
as
he
noted
himself.
If
the
roof
needed
to
be
changed.
That's
why
you'd
have
capital
improvements,
because
that's
something
that
would
be
an
actual
something
that
would
add
long
liveness
to
the
age
of
the
property
itself.
F
So
as
approach
to
patch
and
repair,
it's
something
that
you'd
actually
replace.
So
it's
not
so
much
that
we
didn't
want
to
include
casualty
loss
for
a
operating
expense
that
was
an
appropriate
operating
expense.
It
was
more
that
we
didn't
get
word
back
until
this
morning
about
what
that
operating
expense
was,
after
three
occasions
that
we
reached
out
to
find
out
exactly
what
the
casualty
loss
was.
F
So
really
what
we're
looking
at
is
a
a
smoothing
out,
if
you
will
by
not
including
that
number
in
column
f,
as
we
both
agreed,
mr
chitlip,
and
I
that
that's
not
a
annual
operating
expense.
That's
not
something
that
you
would
expect
to
see
year
over
year
is
341
000
increase
in
your
expenses.
F
So
again,
if
you
look
back
at
the
three-year
history
to
include
1718,
and
even
if
you
were
to
include
column
e,
you
would
see
that
that's
something
that
should
be
smoothed
out
over
the
three
year
history,
as
opposed
to
there's
an
expectation
that
the
operating
expenses
are
going
to
increase
again
39
next
year.
F
We
did
a
test
with
this
newfound
information.
Again,
as
the
board
has
seen
before
we
took
the
rent
roll
that
was
provided
by
the
owner
saw
that
we
were
drastically
under
projecting
what
was
achievable.
As
far
as
the
rental
side
for
the
apartments
we
did
include
the
committed
affordable
component
which,
to
our
discredit,
we
did
not
include
on
the
january
first
test.
You
can
see
that
in
column,
g2,
there's
six
committed,
affordable
units,
229
market
retail
essentially
stayed
the
same.
We
did
make
that
test
in
columns
g1
g2
g3.
F
We
did
increase
the
operating
expenses
to
be
more
reflective
of
the
last
three
year
history.
But
again
we
also
made
changes
to
reflect
the
revenue
side
of
what's
going
on
at
the
property.
Considering
it's
doing
well.
In
three
years
in
a
row,
we
found
that
there
was
a
change
reflective
of
less
than
one
and
a
half
percent
of
what
was
put
up
by
the
county
in
january.
First
again,
the
board
is
familiar
with
our
our
processes.
F
As
far
as
with
being
within
three
percent
of
the
january
first,
we
did
not
make
a
change,
but
again,
if
we
were
to
make
a
note
just
to
point
out
the
noi
as
projected
by
the
appellant
in
columns
h1nh2
is
some
380
000
less
than
what
was
achieved
in
2019,
which
was
its
lowest
achieving
year
in
four
years.
F
As
we
talked
about
ad
nazim
with
regards
to
the
virginia
code,
the
board,
of
course,
is
empowered
to
consider
the
actuals.
If
you
were
to
consider
the
actual
operating
expenses,
we
just
asked
you
to
also
consider
how
under
projection,
how
underestimated
the
revenue
side
was
made
by
the
county.
F
E
I
did
not,
we
did
not
get
an
estimate,
we
we
got
the
questions
from
chris.
I
think
there
were
nine
of
them
and
we
responded
with
like
a
page
and
a
half
including
snapshots
of
internal
documents,
but
then
he
followed
up
with
six
more
questions
which
we
answered,
and
then
there
was
another
round
of
questions
which
at
that
point
we
were
close
enough
to
the
hearing
that
we
decided
that
we
weren't
gonna
be
able
to
satisfy
all
the
requests
after
the
15
plus
responses.
E
So
we
didn't
get
it
and
no,
I
don't
have
the
actual
final
number
for
the
roof.
But
the
big
thing
is:
it's
not
just
the
roof.
It's
the
piping,
the
roof
costs,
what
it
cost
and
that's
expected
it's
the
pulling
out
piping.
That
would
otherwise
be
good
and
replacing
it
all.
As
the
the
biggest
concern
here,
yeah
I
don't
and
any
developer
is
gonna
gonna
need
to
know
what
that
is
before
they
would
pay
full
market
for
this
property.
E
I
mean
correct
yeah,
so
the
that's
column
e
and
I'm
not
saying
we
need
to
use
every
penny
of
colony,
but
the
assessment
decided.
The
original
assessment
is
almost
exactly
600
000
in
income,
which
has
only
been
achieved
in
a
so.
The
column
d
is
actually
a
bit
more
than
b
and
c.
It's
basically
right
on
it,
but
then
they
learned
that
they
said
the
actual
income's
five
four
and
he
said
well
yeah,
but
that's
over.
It
should
actually
have
been
five.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
matskin.
H
I'm
going
to
be
quick
and
go
back
on
mute
because
there's
somebody
cutting
the
lawn
outside
for
the
for
the
economy,
so
you
have
a
13
year
old,
roof
and
13
year
old
pipes
that
are
acting
much
much
much
older.
H
So
your
anticipation,
that's
surprising
and
disappointing,
and
and
and
but
this
is
the
first-
that
they've
really
shown
up
first
question
but
you're,
anticipating
it's
long
term,
if
you
can't
do
something
first
question
is:
is
this
300
000
or
more?
This
is
after
insurance,
proceeds.
E
Yes,
this
is
the
net.
This
is
the
net
of
it.
That's
the
that's.
The
final
cost,
the
the
problem
with
insurance
on
a
building
like
this
is
that
the
deductible
is
so
high
that
the
insurance
it
needs
to
be
a
pretty
sizable
amount
to
really
put
the
insurance
claim
in
for
for
a
building
this
size,
I
mean
the
insurance
is
really
for
catastrophic
type
issues
for
the
most
part.
E
So,
yes,
this
is
the
net
final
cost
for
the
incident
report
right,
okay,.
H
E
E
No
three
hundred
thousand
twenty
five
thousand
and
sixteen
thousand
I
added.
H
One
I
miss
her.
Okay,
those
are
the
three
incidents
fyi.
There
are
solutions,
and
I
am
a
party
to
one
of
them
where
you
can
line
the
water
pipes
13
years
old,
you
shouldn't
have
to
do
it,
but
instead
of
ripping
up
the
entire
building
and
replacing
the
pipes
for
a
small
fraction
of
the
cost,
you
can
get
a
bonafide
company
to
line
them.
It's
what
arlington
county
does
in
its
sewer
system
underground,
and
you
ought
to
consider
that
and
we
could
talk
offline.
If
you
want
to
know
more.
E
H
And
the
other-
and
I
have
a
question
for
the
department-
you
had
stated
that
a
lot
of
these
casualty
costs
you
just
found
out
about
when
we
found
out
about
them.
Now
that
you
know
more
than
you
did
yesterday,
you
is
it
still.
Your
opinion
is
for
the
department
again
still
your
opinion
that
these
are
one-time
costs
and
shouldn't
affect
very
much.
F
Essentially
stated
by
mr
chitlock:
these
aren't
anticipated
costs.
These
aren't
things
that
are
expected
to
be
occurring
on
an
annual
basis.
F
This
is
something
that
happened
after
13
years
and
that's
either
been
patched
or
replaced,
I'm
not
sure
if
he
expressed
how
it
was
fixed,
but
this
isn't
something
that
was
paid
for
last
year.
Two
years
ago,
it's
not
expected
to
be
paid
for
next
year.
E
That's
not
what
I
said.
Can
I
clarify
what
I
said
sure
twice.
I
said
if
we
don't
fix
it.
If,
if
the
nothing
is
fixed
here,
they
will
be
reoccurring,
annual
expenses
and
the
assessments
based
off
of
it
not
being
fixed.
So
that's
what
I
said.
I
said
if
we
fix
it,
it
goes
away,
but
there's
a
huge
cost
of
fixing
it.
If
we
don't
fix
it,
that's
an
annual
reoccurring
expense
and
obviously
it's
not
just
the
expense
associated
with
this.
F
Yes,
ma'am
again,
so
looking
at
the
property
on
the
revenue
side,
things
are
going
well
growth
year
every
year,
every
year,
it's
a
stabilized
property
percent,
true
vacancy
3.4
percent,
when
you
include
concessions,
effective
gross
up
the
incomes
of
three
years
in
a
row.
If
you
were
to
include
the
39
increase
in
operating
expenses,
the
county
just
asked
you
to
keep
in
mind
that
again
by
the
acknowledgement
of
the
epidemic
341
000
of
that
is
not
an
annual
operating
expense.
F
Hence
why
we
reconstructed
column
f,
if
you
were
to
use
those
numbers
smooth
them
out
over
the
three-year
history
again
come
up
with
a
total
operating
expense,
much
more
in
line
with
our
test,
as
we
saw
with
our
test,
if
you're
to
increase
the
operating
expenses,
please
keep
in
mind
the
huge
under
projections
on
the
revenue
side
made
by
the
county.
We
do
believe
that
that
test
confirmed
our
initial
assessment
of
113
million
157
400..
Thank
you.
E
Yes,
he
keeps
talking
about
the
income
and
you've
got
to
look
at
the
income.
The
income
was
5
million
453
and
if
you
determine
you
know
what
that
includes
something
it
shouldn't
include
we're
throwing
100
of
that
cost
out.
He
shows
column
f,
as
5
million
7.95
his
column
g,
the
adding
the
three
together
is
over
5.9
million
he's
using
income
1.2
million
higher
than
the
property
achieved.
Even
if
you're
going
to
say
you
can't
have
any
of
that
341
000.
That
incident
never
happened.
E
So
then
him
to
say
please
look
at
if
you're
going
to
look
at
the
increase
in
expenses.
Look
at
the
increase
in
income!
Fine,
please
do
look
at
look
at
the
whole
thing.
Column,
e
or
column
f
are
really
what
what
I
was
looking
between.
If,
where
should
that
number
be?
Do
we
accept
it?
Do
we
not
but
column
g
is
basically
putting
more
weight
on
to
a
b
and
c.
E
If
we
talk
about
trends
in
the
past,
the
income's
down
four
years
in
a
row,
the
total
noise
down
four
years
in
a
row
granted
they
were
stable
for
two,
but
six
one.
Five:
nine,
five,
nine,
and
now
it's
if
you
take
their
number,
it's
basically
five,
eight
he's
using
five
nine.
So
if
we
look
at
trends,
it
should
be
below
column
f.
If
we're
looking
at
most
recent
years
should
be
below
column
now,
but
either
way
the
g.
The
test
doesn't
have
any
support.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
gentlemen.
All
right,
it's
just
among
the
board
members.
I
I
will
say
I
mean
mr
just
basically
said
what
I
was
gonna
say
here
I
mean
I
I
look
at
the
test
and
you
know.
While
it
came
down,
I
mean
it's
still
at
five,
nine
and
when
you
adjust
when
you
look
at
when
they
adjusted
column.
F,
it's
substantially
above
that
I
mean
it's
interesting
because
mr
chica
said
you
know
the
the
board
has
the
ability
you
know
under
the
code
to
look
at
actual
expenses.
A
A
A
G
G
G
Yeah
other
I
wish
I
had
a
more
concrete
estimate
of
you
know
the
contractors
looked
at
the
roof
and
here's
what
it
costs.
Contractors
look
at
the
pipe
and
here's
what
it
cost,
because
I'd
be
willing
to
consider
kind
of
a
below
the
line
deduction.
If
that
was
the
case,
but
I'm
not
going
to
guess
that
what
that
those
issues
are
and
how
much
they
cost.
A
Yeah,
I
would
agree
there
and
I
mean
I
think
that
I
mean
all
buildings
have
roofs
all
buildings
have
pipes
and,
like
mr
mats
can
set,
I
mean
it
is
kind
of
interesting
that
you're
looking
at
a
property.
That's
you
know
at
this
age
and
having
this
type
of
work.
That's
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
do
have
reserves
in
there
to
do
capital
improvements.
You
know,
so
I'm
not
necessarily
looking
to
do
something
below
the
line.
On
that.
I
I
think
that's
the
cost
of
doing
business.
A
D
Thank
you,
madam
chairman
yeah.
I
was
kind
of
thinking
that
we
had
more
information
on
the
piping
and
my
understanding
because
we
had
to
focus
on
this
at
our
condo.
D
Is
there
was
certain
suppliers
that
the
pipes
just
weren't
properly
built
or
whatever,
and
they
start
having
these
pinhole
leaks
and
then
you've
got
to
tear
into
walls
and
replace,
and
so
I
think
if
that
were
more
clearly
established,
then
then
I
think
I
would
would
be
more
with
the
applicant.
D
I
do
understand
that
I
mean
it's
a
significant
thing
if,
in
fact
it's
it's
that
bad
a
situation
on
the
roof,
you
know
you
patch
roofs
and
then
eventually
you
replace
the
whole
thing
and
then
you
don't
have
to
patch
it.
So
I'm
not
as
as
persuaded
by
the
issue
with
the
roof,
but
I
could
be
with
the
piping.
B
I
was
looking
also,
I
thought
it
was
a
little
high
to
start
with
with
the
initial
number,
but
you
know
looking
at
the
noise,
I
wasn't
really
too
persuaded
to
make
an
adjustment,
even
though
I
made
some
numbers
by
increasing
the
expenses
on
the
apartment
side
only
and
leaving
the
affordables
and
the
retail
the
same.
B
A
Okay
yeah
mr
matskin.
H
C
D
A
What
I
did
what
I
assume
is
similar
to
what
mr
penaranda
did.
I
took
the
average,
like
mr
hoffman
said.
If
we
could
look
at
you
know,
18
and
19.
I
took
the
average
of
those
two
years
and
then
assumed,
just
like
mr
pinaranda
had
said,
assumed
that
the
difference
of
the
apartments,
the
affordable
and
the
retail
was
correct.
Then,
when
I
cap
that
out,
I
end
up
at
a
you
know:
108
million
907,
which
is
probably
similar
to
what
mr
panoranda
did
and.
E
B
Right
yeah,
I
come
up
with
108
831,
but
me
it's
really
a
very
small
difference.
So
that's
why
I
was
just
I'm
more
convinced
and
accepted.
You
know
what
mr
chica
said.
I
think
the
numbers
are
there
and
I
don't
think
it's
a
building
that
is
really
going
down.
The
hill.
A
I
don't
think
it's
going
downhill,
but
I
don't
think
it's
necessarily
you
know
flying
up
and
I
don't
think
it's
close
108
million
versus
111
million.
That's
three
million
dollars.
I
I
think
that's
a
substantial
difference,
but
you
know
I
don't
know
what
the
you
know.
What
everybody
on
the
board
thinks
I
mean
and
the
other.
If
we
all
think
it's
too
high,
the
hundred
or
108
is
too
low
based
on
last
year.
We
could
also
look
at
last
year's
assessment
at
110.
C
Yeah,
I
agree
with
greg
I'd,
be
I'd,
be
fine
with
last
year's.
H
I'd
also
just
extend
greg's
thought
that
one
year
of
these
unusual
maintenance
costs
is
just
one
data
point
it
indeed,
mr
chick
licks
projection
that
this
is
going
to
be
an
annual
cost
until
they
outlast
significant
money
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
not
just
the
room,
then
we
might
start
considering
that
the
building's
not
worth
as
much
as
we
think,
but
one
year
is
not
enough.
Next
year
we
should
see
what
happens.
A
Right,
I
agree.
I
I
think
the
roof,
the
pipes,
that's
a
whole
separate
issue.
I
mean
I'm
just
kind
of
basing
this
on
the
actual
income
of
the
property,
and
so
you
know
doing
my
test
that
ended
up
at
108
million.
I
think
that's
too
low,
so
I
could
certainly
support
you
know
making
it
equal
to
last
year's.
A
A
second
okay
and
motion
is
second
by
miss
hogan,
all
in
favor
aye.
I
A
Okay
next
case
on
the
agenda
is-
and
I
did
see
mr
warren-
I
believe,
yep
various
rpc
one-
eight
zero,
zero,
three
one,
one
one
at
1200,
north
beach
street,
mr
warren
here.
I
Okay,
good
morning,
everyone,
I'm
gonna,
start
on
our
summary
effects.
On
page
55
of
214
of
the
assessors
board
memo.
This
is
cortland
towers.
It's
one
rpc.
It's
currently
assessed
at
a
value
of
216
million,
462
400
or
376
000
a
unit.
The
value
we're
requesting
from
the
board
today
is
212
million
691
900,
which
is
369
000
a
unit.
I
The
county
is
recommending
no
change.
Currently,
this
property
is
a
high
rise
in
the
clarendon
courthouse
area
built
in
1989,
originally
575
total
units,
the
mix
of
one
two
and
three
bedroom
units
and
also
includes
a
variety
of
furnished
units
as
well.
I
If
you
turn
to
page
three
you'll
see
the
mixed
use,
income
and
expense
summary
and
the
historical
reported
financials
for
the
property
and
initially
what
you'll
see
and
you'll
find
that
in
the
assessor's
comments
on
page
two
as
well,
is
that
the
county
was
under
projecting
both
gb
gpi
and
egi
in
their
initial
analysis,
but
also
substantially
under
under
projecting
operating
expenses.
I
Was
approximately
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
below
what
was
actually
reported
in
2019,
but
their
total
operating
expense
estimate
and
they
were
using
initially
for
departments
of
24
was
approximately
400
thousand
below
it
was
actually
reported
and
you'll
see
in
there
or
the
historical
actuals
for
the
the
operating
expenses
specifically
was
almost
27
in
2016
down
23
and
17
25
percent
of
18
and
26.
Most
recently
in
2019.
I
now
you'll
see
columns,
f1
and
f2
the
county's
test
column,
and
so
what
the
county
did
is
in
their
test
column,
they
did
weekly
appropriate
revised
their
operating
expenses
up
to
26.
I
However,
in
their
test
column,
they
then
increased
both
the
gpi
for
the
apartments
well
above
what
was
actually
reported
in
2019
and
well.
Above
anything,
that's
been
reported
in
the
last
three
or
four
excuse
me,
four
consecutive
years
dating
back
to
2016.
I
Total
gpi
calculation
in
their
test
column
is
now
309,
000
above
what
was
actually
reported
in
most
recently
in
2019
and
over
719
000
above
it's
now.
Excuse
me,
the
egi
for
effective
gross
income
in
their
test
column
is
now
719,
000
above
what
was
actually
reported
in
in
2019
as
well.
So
that's
that's
now.
The
main
issue
is
is
in
their
test
plan.
They
fix
the
operating
expenses,
but
then
they
substantially
increase
their
test
column,
gpi
and
egi
estimates.
I
Well,
above
anything,
the
property's
ever
produced
you'll
see
that
the
actual
noi
combined
in
column
e
that
was
reported
in
2019
was
11
million.
628
329,
the
assessor's
original
estimate,
combined
for
both
the
commercial
d1
and
d2
and
the
apartment
was
11.82
million
and
then,
following
their
test
column
that
increased
after
they
saw
that
what
was
actually
reported
was
11.6
million.
It
increased
from
11.82
to
12.26
million
in
their
test
column
combined.
I
So
I
think
we
feel
that
the
test
call
missed
the
mark
a
little
bit
on
the
projected
income
and
which
is
why
we're
asking
for
a
revision
specifically
to
to
the
gross
potential
income
and
the
effect
of
gross
income.
We,
I
know
chris,
had
asked
a
number
of
questions
detailing
this
property
as
well.
With
regard
to
some
of
the
increase
to
certain
expense,
columns,
the
the
sub,
the
admin
expense
categories
and
the
payroll
we've
provided
detailed
breakdowns
exactly
starting
on
page,
you
can
see
some
of
our
responses.
I
There's
one
on
page
14
of
214
is
where
we
started
that
off,
but
there's
a
list
and
you'll
see
a
breakdown
of
both
the
administrative
payroll
expenses,
as
well
as
some
clarification
on
why
the
vacancy
was
higher.
This
property,
as
in.
B
I
Of
the
similar
properties,
we've
discussed
with
ditmar
in
prior
weeks
has
been
going
through
some
modernization
of
some
units,
as
they
turn
over
again,
it's
being
done
to
stay
competitive
with
the
market
and
maintain
the
current
rent,
and
that's
why
you're
seeing
a
bit
higher
actual
vacancy.
But
again
it's
pretty
much
right
in
line
the
county
is
using
seven
percent
for
their
guidelines.
What
was
actually
reported
is
nine
point,
seven
percent,
most
recently
in
2019,
but
again
upon
review
of
the
test
column.
I
E
Yeah,
I
mean
just
reiterating
how
kind
of
shocking
page
three
is
when
you
see
that
the
last
four
years
of
noi
are
10
6
10,
7,
10,
4,
10
6
and
the
assessor
was
originally
using
11
8.,
so
he's
using
a
number
higher
than
the
property's
ever
achieved.
We
said:
look:
here's
the
income,
the
income's
at
11
6,
and
he
replied
with
okay.
Well,
then,
I'll
use
12.26
at
first.
I
thought
it
was
just
a
calculation
error,
so
we
recalculated
the
test
column
and
it
does
calculate
down
to
that.
E
But
there
there's
just
nothing
here
that
could
possibly
justify
that
when
the
and
the
one
thing,
because
on
the
last
case
we
went
back
to
a
prior
year
in
2017,
the
income
was
eleven
seven.
This
year
the
income's
eleven
six
I
pointed
out
because
that
2016
was
used
for
2018.
The
value
was
191
million.
The
value
on
this
property
has
gone.
187
191
last
year
was
207,
and
this
this
year
it's
216..
E
So
we've
gone
up
nine
million
dollars
in
value
with
a
nominal
change
in
income.
It
just
doesn't
make
any
sense,
and
then,
if,
if
the
assessor
is
using
his
test
as
a
base
for
next
year,
we
might
see
another
7
million
increase
next
year.
This
is
a
ditmar
property,
as
we've
discussed,
who
have
more
efficient
and
a
lot
of
things
they
do
than
really
anybody
else
can
do
because
of
their
scale
and
the
way
they're
set
up
so
to
use
the
numbers
that
he's
using
of
his
income.
E
F
Thank
you
board
members.
I
would
assume
that
if
someone
were
looking
at
just
2016,
17
and
18
that
they
would
never
assume
that
the
property
could
achieve
what
it
achieved
in
2019,
and
yet
it
did
six
percent
increase
on
the
property
revenue
alone
apartment
revenue,
loan
49
increase
in
retail
revenue,
100
percent
increase
on
other
revenue,
10
18
percent
increase
on
revs
or
utility
reimbursement.
F
F
At
the
property
again,
a
higher
apartment
revenue
and
gpi
than
had
ever
been
established
at
the
property
in
2018,
and
they
did
it
again
in
2019,
so
apartment
revenue
has
been
up
three
years
in
a
row
year.
Over
year
over
year,
2019's
increase
was
over
six
percent
three
year,
average
of
over
16
million
gross
potential
incomes
up
three
years
in
a
row.
F
Up
year
over
year
over
year,
2019's
increase
up
over
six
percent
three
year
average
of
sixteen
say
sixteen
eight,
although
again
the
vacancies
increasing,
as
was
pointed
out
by
mr
warren,
this
is
done
through
management
decision
to
modernize
and
and
renovate
departments
that
are
inside
the
property
and
that's
verified
through
the
history.
Four
percent
three
point:
eight
percent
vacant
in
2016.
four
point
two
percent
2017
five
percent
in
2018.
Then
it
jumped
almost
doubled
to
10.
In
2019..
F
We
see
a
three-year
average
of
approximately
6.3
percent.
If
we're
looking
at
again
year,
17
through
19.,
even
with
that
management
induced
vacancy
increase,
we
saw
the
effect
of
gross
was
also
up
three
years
in
a
row,
so
apartment
revenues
up
three
years
in
a
row.
Gross
potential
is
up.
Three
years
in
a
row,
effective
gross
is
up
three
years
in
a
row,
2018's
increase
of
3.1
percent.
F
F
Even
when
you
consider
the
operating
expenses
we're
up
six
point
six
percent
again,
this
is
much
more
smoothed
out
over
the
last
four
years
as
compared
to
previous
property.
F
Again,
as
the
board
has
seen
before,
when
you
look
at
columns,
d1
and
d2
is
what
we
had
prior
to
receiving
column
e
the
operating
year,
2019
ine,
and
we
saw
that
we
underprojected
almost
across
the
board.
We
under
projected
977
000,
almost
1
billion
under
projection
of
gross
potential
income,
some
six
percent
for
20
20,
real
property
assessment.
We
underprojected
over
200
thousand
dollars
of
short
revenue
on
the
effective
gross
income
side.
F
We
did
underproject
almost
400
000
for
operating
expenses
and
that
led
to
an
overprojection
of
195
thousand
dollars
for
the
net
operating
income,
but
it's
still
within
1.7
of
what
was
actually
achieved
at
the
property.
So
again,
you've
heard
us
talk
about
the
virginia
code
if
we
were
to
make
changes
to
the
operating
expenses.
Obviously
we'd
ask
you
to
keep
the
increases
on
the
revenue
side
year
over
year
over
year
in
place
in
mind,
while
you
adjust,
if
you
were
to
jeremy,
talked
a
lot
about
the
test.
F
F
These
would
be
the
2019
ine
in
regards
to
the
original
projection
made
by
the
county.
What
we
did
we
found
was
that
again,
these
are
fairly
modest
increases,
as
was
last
case.
F
So
when
you
look
at
the
projections
made
by
the
county,
we're
talking
about
one
point,
eight
four
percent
one
point:
eight
percent
growth
in
apartment
revenue.
That's
after
four
point.
Eight
percent
and
seventeen
one
point:
three
percent,
eighteen
and
six
percent
and
nineteen.
So
one
point:
eight
percent
is
fairly
modest:
total
total
gross
potential
income
projection
of
one
point,
eight
percent
again
less
than
a
third
of
what
occurred
last
year
at
six
percent
growth
at
the
property.
One
point:
three
and
eighteen
and
again
four
point
four
percent:
seventeen.
F
We
did
increase
our
projection
for
effective
gross,
but
again
there's
the
belief
that
the
monetization
is
taking
place
at
the
property
and,
as
that
continues,
the
units
obviously
will
free
up
and
generate
more
revenue
for
the
owners,
as
has
been
done.
Historically,
as
we've
seen
in
year,
17
18
and
now
19.,
we
did
make
adjustments,
increase
our
projections
for
operating
expenses,
up
to
26
of
effective
gross
on
the
apartment
side
and
yet,
as
was
pointed
out
that
still
came
out
to
an
increase
overall
as
a
projection
made.
F
F
A
H
For
the
appellant
on
the
2019
numbers
that
were
actually
the
actual
reported,
2019
numbers
see
that
there's
a
good
bump
up
in
the
apartment
revenue
and
about
the
same
in
terms
of
dollars
bump
up
in
vacancies.
And
we
understand
vacancies
are
artificially
high
but
for
good
reasons,
improving
the
property.
H
Relative
to
the
prior
three
years,
it's
a
good,
solid
bump
up
is
it
purely
just?
The
rents
went
up
and
all
the
various
units
that
came
up
for
re
lease
is
that
how
that
happened,
and
I'm
getting
to
a
point
based
on
that
response.
J
This
is
greg
rains
with
bitmark
company
yeah.
We
that
that
increase
really
was
more
on
the
market
when
we
for
the
year
in
2019,
we
we
only
had
completed
about
55
of
these
units
and
they
were
at
the
end
of
the
year,
so
we
weren't
seeing
premiums
on
these
units
that
would
reflect
a
year-long
increase
in
overall
rent
these
units
weren't
driving
the
increase.
It
was
really
just
the
market
in
that
area.
In
the
courthouse
here,
it
was,
was
moving
up.
The
normal
rent
increases.
H
J
Yes,
sir,
I
was
saying
that
we
we
did,
we
only
had
55
units
completed
at
cortland
towers
by
the
end
of
2019,
so
the
revenue
achieved
and
the
a
premium
achieved
by
those
units
would
have
been
offset
by
the
time
they
were
on
market
getting
modernized
so
that
wasn't
what
drove
the
increase
in
rent?
It
was
just
the
market
in
the
courthouse
area.
Moving
up.
H
Just
generally
speaking,
okay,
okay,
so
in
my
follow-on
question,
which
I
alluded
to
already
was:
do
you
expect
that
kind
of
increase
which
is
reflected
by
the
test
column
f1?
To
continue?
I
mean
it's
clearly
not
as
percentage-wise
as
big
of
an
increase,
but
I
mean
it
just
occurs
to
me
this.
This
might
be
a
one-time
bump
up
of
expected
rents
that
can't
sustain
itself.
J
It
will
definitely
not
sustain
itself.
We
are
not.
I
think
what
blake
or
jeremy
said
is,
is
accurate.
What
we're
seeing
is
that
this
these
modernizations
maintain
rent.
We
are
you
know
you
when
you
don't
renovate
units
in
the
rv
corridor.
J
You
turn
into
a
value
play
right,
so
you're
you're,
just
marketing
yourself
as
a
great
location
and
you'll
discount
your
rent
to
get
folks
in
the
building
to
achieve
the
rents
that
we
were
achieving
in
this
market
with
all
the
new
products
we
had
to
modernize
to
stay
in
that
realm,
so
no
this
will
not
be
an
extended
bump
in
rent.
I
can
tell
you
actually.
This
property
is
seeing
decreases
in
rents,
but
that's
neither
here
nor
there
for
this.
I
don't
think
for
this
meeting.
J
Yeah
ms
jason
20,
we
average
about
to
complete
we
average
about
15
to
18
units
a
month
that
are
completed
so
for
this
year.
You
know
we're
probably
150
140
130
150
in
that
range.
C
Okay-
and
I
understand
that
really
doesn't
apply
to
this,
but
if
you're
saying
that's
what
you're
doing
to
maintain
rents,
I
was
looking
if
you
just
curious
to
see
what
you're
doing
where
the
rents
might
be
going
going
forward,
given
that
type
of
maintenance
requirement
to
maintain
that
revenue.
But,
okay,
thank
you.
F
Absolutely
so,
if
I
understood
correctly
per
mr
raines
and
questions
from
mr
matkin,
the
growth
in
apartment
revenue,
four
point:
eight
percent
is
seventeen
one
point:
three
percent
and
eighteen
and
six
percent
and
nineteen
were
pre-modernization,
which
would
lead
me
to
believe
that
they
were
doing
quite
well
before
modernizing
renovating
their
units.
F
F
So
as
far
as
keeping
up
with
the
joneses
they've
been
doing
quite
well,
given
that
the
operating
expenses
are
fairly
stable,
we've
seen
growth
three
years
in
a
row
on
the
revenue
side
for
apartments
gross
potential
and
effective
gross.
We
do
believe
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
216
million
462
400..
Thank
you.
I
Yes,
mr
chicas
has
made
several
references
about
the
gpi
and
the
egi
going
up
over
each
last
three
years,
but
the
bottom
line
is
that
the
noise
has
basically
remained
stagnant
over
that
same
time
period.
The
noi
that
was
actually
reported
in
most
recently
in
2019
1162
is
below
what
was
reported
two
years
ago
in
2017
at
11
7..
So
it's
kind
of
been
around
that
same
level.
I
So
now
the
county's
saying
that
gpi
and
egi
are
going
to
continue
to
rise,
but
I
have
made
no
mention
that
really
noise
has
remained
pretty
flat
in
their
original
assessment,
used
an
noi
estimate
of
11.82
million,
which
is
far
above
200
000
above
what
was
most
recently
reported
in
2019
and,
above
anything,
that's
been
reported
dating
back
to
2016
at
the
property.
So
again,
when
you
just
look
at
the
bottom
line,
you
know
the
noi
has
not.
This
property's
not
been
able
to
achieve
what
what's
currently
being
estimated.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
gentlemen.
Okay,
it's
just
among
the
board
members
and
you
know
I'll
start
I
mean
I
had.
I
heard
a
lot
going
back
and
forth
from
the
county
saying:
oh,
these
are
just
modest.
It's
got
all
kinds
of
growth
potential
and
I
couldn't
disagree
more.
I
mean
I
look
at
this
and
think
I
look
at
the
test
alone.
A
A
A
I
mean,
if
you
look
at
the
four-year
average
I
mean
I
went
through
and
just
did
a
two-year
average
of
18-19,
and
you
know
that
average,
as
opposed
to
the
test
using
12-2,
you
know,
is
11-5.
I
mean
if
you
do
a
four-year
average.
It
comes
out
to
11-3
and
without
19,
which
is
what
everybody
else
was
assessed
at.
It
only
comes
in
at
11-2,
so
you
know,
I
think
it's
over
assessed.
I
mean
I
went
through.
I
did
the
average
of
18
and
19..
A
I
removed
the
retail.
I
capped
it
out
and
then
added
the
retail
back
in,
and
I
come
in
at
210
908
883,
which
is
an
increase
over
last
year,
which
I
think
you
know
is
fine.
I
mean
I
think,
to
go
from
207
to
210,
but
I
think
the
assessment
going
to
216
is
way
too
high,
based
on
the
performance
and
based
on
the
numbers.
Mr
huffman.
G
D
G
Appellants
requested
number,
so
I
I
support
a
reduction
as
well,
and
I
just
I
want
to
point
out.
Last
year,
the
department
we
sat
down
and
reviewed
this
case
and
the
department
recommended
that
we
reduce
the
assessment
from
212
to
207,
and
we
accepted
that
that
recommendation
and
now
they're
saying
it's
the
building's
worth
nine
million
dollars
more
than
than
last
year,
and
I
just
don't
see
it
so.
D
E
G
My
only
question
is:
do
we
go
with
the
appellants
number
or
or
should
we
even
go
further
with
what
you
came
up
with
mary.
A
C
H
The
only
difference
between
greg
and
mary,
of
course,
is
two-year
versus
three-year
and
I'd
prefer
to
take
a
longer
term
average
and
go
with
greg's
calculation
they're,
quite
they're,
quite
close,
but
but
more
more
data
is
better
or
better.
C
A
Like
to
question
my
seat
mate
here,
but
if
I
throw
in
one
more
year,
oh
you
threw
in
17,
which
was
the
higher
year.
I
would
I
mean
that's
just
skewing
it
higher.
I
mean
because
if
you
look,
it
was
lower
in
16.,
so.
A
No,
no,
I
understand
that,
but
I
mean
that
being
said.
If
you
really
want
to
get
technical
and
go
from
a
standpoint
of
equalization,
all
the
other
buildings
were
assessed
without
the
20
19
information
and
that
actually,
if
you
just
use
the
three-year
average,
it
comes
in
even
lower
than
what
either
one
of
us
are
suggesting.
So
and
ken.
G
A
B
Yeah
pretty
much
what
ken
was
saying.
You
know,
I
think
most
of
the
adjustments
that
we
made
for
other
buildings
were
based
on
three-year
averages
and
that's
what
I
was
doing.
I
did
an
average.
I
even
did
a
four-year
average,
but
you
know
I
wasn't
really
counting
on
that,
but
doing
a
three-year
average
on
noise.
It
comes
up
to
eleven
million
five,
eighty,
seven
nine,
eighty
nine
doing
an
average
three
year
average
on
expenses.
B
It
comes
to
three
million
eight
forty,
four
three,
fifty
seven,
the
county
is
using
much
less
than
that
on
expenses.
So
what
I
did
is
I
increased
the
expenses
to
25
on
the
apartments
I
left,
the
retail
the
same,
but
increasing
the
expenses
at
25
gives
me
a
little
more
than
the
average
for
the
past
three
years:
3
million
868
and
then,
when
I
use
that
to
come
up
to
the
noi
on
the
apartments,
I
come
up
with
million
605,
which
I
think
it's
more
in
line
with
the
average
for
the
past
three
years.
D
D
A
A
H
A
210
million
908
900..
So
a
motion
in
a
second
by
mr
hoffman,
all
in
favor
aye,
aye
and
opposed.
A
So
it
is
five
to
two
and
that's
without
mr
matskin
and
mr
panoranda,
and
that's
not
because
you're
opposed
to
it.
You
just
wanted
it
to
not
be
lowered.
Quite
that
far.
D
B
C
D
A
Just
for
the
record
to
show,
I
didn't
realize
this
on
the
first
four
cases
that
we
did:
the
withdrawal
that
they're
actually
six
to
zero,
not
seven
to
zero.
Mr
lawson
wasn't
able
to
get
on
with
either
voice
or
camera.
So
when
I
said
opposed,
I
didn't
hear
him
so
since
they
were
just
withdrawals
and
it's
unanimous
anyway,
I
don't
think
we
need
to
recall
those
votes.
So
that's
fine.
It's
more
than
enough
to
accept
the
withdrawals,
so
any
other
business
from
board
members.
G
A
G
B
D
A
There's
just
been
so
many
withdrawals
and
acceptance
that
we're
we're
doing
quite
well.
We
will
definitely
finish
on
time.
What
will.
A
I
I
don't
know
so
any
other
business
or
board
members,
no
anything
from
the
county.
Okay,
then
we
will
adjourn
at
1007
and
we
will
readjourn
next
tuesday
september
29th
at
9
00
a.m.
Okay,
thanks!
Everybody
bye
have
a
good.