►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing June 16, 2021
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
Two
one
good
morning
today
is
wednesday
june
16
2021,
and
this
is
the
arlington
county
virginia
board
of
equalization
hearings.
We
have
five
cases
today.
The
first
case
is
rpc
1601,
the
property
located
at
1817,
north
quinn
street.
We
have
mr
ethan
giddings
representing
the
owner
and
mr
giddings.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
your
property.
B
Okay
question:
will
I
have
a
chance
for
a
rebuttal
after
the
department's
presentation.
A
B
Great
okay,
so,
as
stated,
this
is
a
64
unit,
1950s
vintage
apartment
at
1817,
north
quinn.
We
submitted
information
to
the
department
and
they
made
a
revision
to
the
assessment
based
on
our
information.
B
B
B
B
B
B
So
I
I
guess
my
concern
is
that
if,
if
we're
not
able
to
include
real
estate
taxes
in
our
expenses
and
then
load
those
back
in
at
the
end
by
by
loading
the
cap
rate,
then
the
assessor
is
using
a
far
below
market
rate
on
this
property.
To
say
this
property
has
37
percent
expenses.
B
You
know
just
that's
just
so
far
below
what
it's
actually
been
operating
at
over
the
past
four
years.
This
this
is
an
old
property.
That's
what
it
takes
to
run
this
place
and
retain
tenants
at
the
level
they
have
and
to
maintain
the
rent
levels
they
have.
So
it's
not
an
inflated
expense
level.
It
may
be
higher
than
other
newer
properties,
but
that's
that's
how
it's
been
for,
since
the
time
of
purchase.
B
B
I
guess.
In
summary,
if
you
take
that
equation
and
you
apply
the
the
tax
load
to
the
assessor's
cap
rate,
you
basically
wind
up
at
our
number.
So
I'm
not
sure
I
think
that'll
that'll
conclude
our
initial
presentation.
A
Okay,
oh
thank
you,
sir
mr
chris
chicas
for
the
county.
C
Thank
you
board
members.
Thank
you,
mr
giddings.
Just
to
start,
I
guess
on
that
note
the
guidelines
that
are
presented
not
only
to
the
board
that
are
available
to
everybody,
they're
publicly
available,
do
show
on
page
9
of
the
guideline
replacement
reserves
assumed
in
the
capitalization,
as
replacement
allowance
of
0.2
percent.
We've
gone
over
this
with
the
board
previous
meetings.
It's
on
the
worksheet
that's
available
to
everyone.
C
So
that
should
be
no
surprise
at
this
point
in
regards
to
the
tax
load
being
part
of
the
cap
rate.
Again,
that's
sort
of
the
basis
of
ad
valorem
tax
when
you're
doing
property
tax
assessments,
it
becomes
circular
logic
to
include
taxes,
because,
of
course,
that's
what
you're
trying
to
find
at
the
end
of
the
day
in
regards
to
the
real
property
values,
is
the
tax
amount?
C
I
would
just
say
you
know,
as
the
board
is
aware
by
now,
we
rely
very
heavily
on
our
summary
sheet.
As
you
can
see
on
the
summary
sheet,
we
didn't
have
year
17
available,
but
in
years
18,
19
and
20..
Echoing
mr
gidding's
account
it's
a
fairly
stabilized
property,
you
know
went
up
about
one
1.6.
C
Excuse
me
1.1
percent,
in
2020
in
the
pandemic
year,
but
in
that
same
year,
gpi
increased
by
about
three
and
a
half
percent
effective
gross
by
about
2.3
percent
and
operating
expenses
actually
dropped
by
about
6.4
percent.
We
did
take
the
2020
ionine
to
account.
We
did
a
revision,
as
you
can
see
in
column,
f
and
without
putting
words
in
mr
getting's
mouth.
We
are
very
similar
in
fact
we're
within
2
500
of
each
other
in
the
net
operating
income
opinion.
C
C
We
do
believe,
obviously,
that
the
cap
rate
is
appropriate.
I
would
point
that
this
is
the
highest
cap
rate
that
is
available
for
mid-rise
apartments.
This
is
categorized
as
1970
and
earlier,
but
it
is.
D
C
Close
net
operating
incomes
between
the
department
and
the
appellant,
we
do
believe
that
again,
the
the
clear
difference
is
the
cap
rate.
The
board
is
familiar
with
how
we
apply
our
cap
rates
again.
This
is
the
highest
one
that
was
available,
it's
applicable
to
the
age
and
the
property
class
code
of
being
in
mid-rise.
C
F
A
question
for
the
department
on
one
of
the
primary
aspects
of
the
appellant
brought
up,
namely
loading
taking
real
estate
taxes
out
of
expenses
and
putting
them
into
cap
rate
and
and
at
the
same
time,
saying
that
the
the
operating
expenses
were
much
higher
in
the
49
or
so
versus
the
mid
thirty
percents
that
we
see
in
the
ine
and
columns
b
through
g.
F
C
Real
estate
taxes
or
replacement
expenses
that
mr
gettings
noted.
F
G
Yeah
for
the
county,
the
that
note
at
the
bottom
about
the
reserve
replacement
allowance.
That
reserve
is
two
percent,
not
point
two
percent.
Is
that
correct.
G
And
you
know,
I
remember
we
discussed
this
last
year.
The
hotels
are
always
higher
is
in
your
opinion,
is
the
two
percent
normal
for
residential
of
this
nature,
or
should
it
be
higher.
C
G
Two
percent,
in
your
opinion,
is
pretty
much
what
everyone
does
with
this
nature
of
real
estate.
G
C
Yes,
ma'am
again
fairly
limited
history,
2018
to
2021,
it's
very
much
stabilized
in
the
sense
of
increasing
gross
potential,
19
and
20.
C
again,
an
increase
in
effective
gross
and
20
and
a
decrease
in
operating
expenses
in
2020.
very
much
in
line
with
the
net
operating
income
opinion
of
value
by
the
appellant.
It's
just
really
a
matter
of
the
95
basis,
points
that
were
added
to
the
cap
rate.
B
If
the
real
estate
taxes
have
been
deducted
from
expenses,
you
know
to
back
calculate
into
a
0.2
percent
deduction
or
addition
to
the
cap
rate
for
just
taking
the
the
actual
reserve,
taking
a
two
percent,
replace
reserve
replacement
and
then
converting
that
to
a
point,
two
percent
change
to
the
cap
rate
that
that
implies
an
even
further
lower
base
cap
rate.
If
you're
adding
real
estate
taxes
and
a
reserve,
then
then
the
starting
cap
rate
has
to
be
even
lower
than
4.5.
B
G
G
You
know,
and
I
I've
questioned
that,
but
I
I
now
have
kind
of
come
around
to
the
way
the
county.
Does
this
and-
and
I
know
the
the
the
applicant
doesn't
agree
with
this
methodology,
and
yet
it's
been
demonstrated
the
last
few
years
I've
been
on
this
that
when
these
properties
do
in
fact
sell
the
counties
the
way
the
county
does,
this
is
really
pretty
accurate
and
so
having
analyzed
this
looked
it
over
yesterday
and
and
listened
to
it
today.
H
Yes,
thank
you
yeah.
I
think
the
original
assessment
was
a
bit
aggressive
from
the
county.
You
know
at
the
beginning
of
the
year,
but
based
on
the
numbers
from
last
year,
I
think
they
did
a
very
good
job
recreating
and
reconstructing
the
numbers,
and
you
know
I've
tried
to
look
at
all
the
cap
rates
that
comparing
to
last
year's
and
everything
that
is,
we've
been
provided,
and
you
know
it
is
the
highest
cap
rate
that
they
have
for
mid-rises,
and
I
don't
really
see
where
we
could
make
any
changes.
H
I
think
the
assessment
that
it
is
right
now
the
revised
assessment.
It
is
pretty
accurate.
You
know
I'm
okay
with
it.
A
A
C
The
the
revised
number.
G
A
Right
all
right
and
I
will
motion
to
accept
the
county's
revised
assessment
of
15
million
135
500.
A
Okay
and
a
second
by
mr
lawson,
all
in
favor,
aye
opposed
okay.
It
is
unanimous
five
to
zero.
The
revised
assessment
of
fifteen
million
one
thirty
five
five
hundred
has
been
confirmed.
Thank
you,
mr
giddings.
B
A
A
Okay
well
we'll
proceed,
then
again
without
mr
yates
on
this,
and
just
with
the
five
of
us
okay.
So
the
second
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc,
one:
four:
zero:
five:
zero,
zero,
three
six
properties
located
at
900
north
stuart
street.
We
have
mr
michael
butler,
representing
the
owner.
Mr
butler,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
property.
Sir
great.
E
Good
morning
to
everyone,
thank
you
for
your
time.
The
property
is
a
435
unit,
multi-family
building
located
at
stuart
street.
It
was
built
in
1997
and
it
has
roughly
about
5
400
square
feet
of
commercial
space.
E
E
with
the
concessions
reflected
in
the
in
the
secondary
column
there.
So
that
would
be
for
new
leases
on
renewals.
What
you're
seeing
is
fundamentally
just
a
fall
off
in
the
pace
of
renewals.
A
E
In
the
year,
because
what
was
happening
where
renewals
were
then
essentially
becoming
new
leases
at
that
pace,
the
rates
were
just
substantially
lower
and
so
people
just
weren't
renewing.
They
were
signing
new
leases.
E
So
our
appeal
today
basically
is
associated
with
the
rents
that
were
applied
as
of
the
valuation
date
of
january
1
of
2020..
E
In
jumping
back
to
the
memo
on
page
three
you'll
see
where
the
worksheet
that
the
county
put
together
underlined
the
various
assessments
and
operations
throughout
the
period.
E
Our
our
understanding
was
that
that
for
the
2020
cycle
that
there
would
be
a
re-evaluation
of
what
was
going
to
be
included
in
the
income
and
expense
statements,
because,
as
demonstrated,
the
the
drop
in
rents
took
place
basically
in
the
second
half
of
the
year.
So
while
our
operating
statement
reflects
essentially
a
beginning
six
first
six
months,
basically,
we
hadn't
seen
that
drop
in
the
rent,
and
so
it
wasn't
impacted
into
our
income
and
expensive
statements.
E
And
if
you
compare
that
to
our
revised
appeal
pro
forma,
the
last
two
columns,
we
come
within
basically
less
than
a
percentage
difference
in
terms
of
our
our
boe
pro
forma.
So
our
our
proposal
is
that
we
get
a
a
number,
that's
more
realistic
to
the
to
the
true,
fair
market
value
assessments.
As
of
the
january
one
date.
C
Ma'am
again,
as
described
most
for
butler,
well-functioning
high-rise
apartment
revenue
has
been
up
three
years
in
a
row.
Approximately
2.3
in
2020.
retail
revenue
is
also
up
three
years
in
a
row.
Gross
potential
is
up
three
years
in
a
row
just
shut
one
point:
eight
percent
one
point:
seven
percent
in
2020,
the
effect
of
gross
was
down
as
you
can
see,
and
this
will
be
a
theme
that
you'll
hear
throughout
the
year.
Obviously,
this
property
was
not
able
to
escape
the
effects
of
the
covid
pandemic.
C
The
vacancy
true
vacancy
jumped
approximately
five
percent
and
concessions
also
went
up
just
shy
of
three
percent,
but
this
is
a
bit
of
an
anomaly
in
the
sense
that
this
was
a
very
stabilized
property.
In
fact,
the
vacancy
and
concessions
were
dropping
in
the
years.
Previous
operating
expenses
were
down
about
4.4
percent
second
year
of
a
decline
in
operating
expenses,
both
the
19
and
20.
C
If
there's
a
test
that
does
not
indicate
a
change
of
over
three
percent
from
the
original
january
first
assessment,
we
do
not
offer
revision
again.
As
mr
butler
noted,
we
are
quite
close
in
regards
to
overall
change.
It's
just
a
matter
of
again
a
policy,
the
board
the
department
has
in
regards
to
changing
the
genuine
one
assessment.
C
If
it
is
within
three
percent,
as
again,
you
can
see
in
the
test
column
due
diligence,
we
did
note
that
there
would
be
an
approximate
change
to
the
department
revenue,
but
overall
it
was
still
an
increase
to
the
effect
of
gross.
Our
operating
expenses
are
very
much
in
line
with.
What's
going
on
at
the
property,
in
fact,
was
almost
100
000
increase
over
what
was
incurred
at
the
property
in
2020,
and
yet
still
this
did
not
call
for
revision.
C
I
C
No,
it's
again
without
beating
that
drum
it's
a
well-functioning
property
revenues
up
across
the
board
apartment
retail
gross
potential
they
just
were
hit
by
the
pandemic.
In
this
case,
the
vacancy
went
up
and
concessions
went
up.
We
don't
believe
that
that's
going
to
be
a
factor
that
will
stay
for
years
to
come,
it's
been
well
run.
We
expect
the
concessions
and
vacancy
to
burn
off
we're
close
on
revenue,
it's
just
a
matter
of
again
not
being
with
having
more
than
three
percent
change
to
the
original.
E
I
think
using
the
historical
numbers
is
probably
inaccurate
in
the
sense
that
it's
really
a
fair
market
value
determination.
As
of
the
1-1
date,
which,
in
an
appraisal
method,
you
would
use
the
in-place
rents
recognizing
that
there
were
some
increases
in
the
past
years.
The
face
rents
that
are
in
place
at
this
point
in
time
that
were
demonstrated
on
the
chart
show
that
there
was.
D
E
F
F
I
thought
it
was
really
good,
really
reflective
of
the
current,
the
most
current
and
the
recent
past,
and
it
also
confirmed
my
intuition
that
even
very
nice
luxury
apartments
like
this
are
not
were
not
booming
last
year,
but
we're
not
being
slaughtered
either,
and
the
test
results
show
about
a
two
percent
increase
which
intuitively
but
again
based
on
the
numbers
on
the
ine,
seems
to
be
an
appropriate
increase
for
this
kind
of
property,
not
much
but
not
savaged,
and
I
would
support
the
test
results.
A
Yeah,
I
would
agree
in
the
closing
comment
that
the
appellant
just
made
not
to
look
at
historical.
I
think
that
that's
incorrect.
I
think
that
that's
the
way
that
we
do
look
at
assessments
and
the
fact
that
this
past
year
certainly
was
an
anomaly
from
a
standpoint
of,
as
you
said,
mr
metzken,
a
lot
of
properties
having
issues
as
a
fallout
from
the
the
covid.
I
think
the
test
column,
you
know
is
more
than
fair.
A
G
Yeah,
I
I
thought
the
test
was
very
accurate
and
I
think
I
you
know,
I
know
the
county
has
this
policy,
but
you
know
if
it
went
up
by
three
percent.
I
think
the
county
would
have
made
the
change,
but
if
it
goes
down
by
three
percent,
they
they
don't,
and
so
I
think
from
you
know,
a
fairness
and
equity.
I
I
think
we
should
go
to
the
test
figure.
A
Well,
I
I
will
say
I
agree
that
we
should
go
to
it,
but
if
it
went
up,
the
county
cannot
increase
it
without
an
appraisal,
so
that
that's
not
actually
a
true
statement
that
you
just
made.
Oh.
H
No,
I'm,
okay
with
it.
Also.
This
is
jose,
I'm
okay
with
it.
I
think
the
revised
assessment
is
more
than
fair
and,
like
you
said
you
know,
we
do
look
at
past
information
and
the
current
income
and
all
the
expenses,
and
I
think,
yeah.
The
revision
is
more
than
fair.
A
Right
because
I
mean
just
I
mean
in
comparison-
I
mean
excuse
me
if
next
year,
everybody
bounces
back
in
all
the
numbers,
you
know
are
increased.
We
certainly
wouldn't
just
take
a
you
know,
a
blip
on
the
screen
and
look
at
the
increased
numbers
and
say:
oh
we've
got
to
raise
everybody,
so
I
think
the
historical
information
is
important
all
right.
H
A
Opposed:
okay:
six
to
zero,
the
county's
test
column
of
180
875
400,
has
been
confirmed.
A
You
all
right,
okay-
and
I
believe
we
saw
earlier
miss
roskin-
was
on
and
also
mr
viola.
Yes,
they
are
there.
He
is
okay.
We've
got
everybody
alrighty
moving
along
to
the
third
case
on
the
agenda.
It
is
rpc18014331,
the
property
is
located
at
1220
north
fillmore
street
and
mr
andrew
viola
is
here
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
property.
Mr
viola,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
D
Our
property
is
a
station
square
located
in
clarendon
between
fillmore
and
garfield
and
flying
on
clarendon
boulevard.
This
is
our
third
year
in
a
row
to
appear
before
you
and
I'll
it
shouldn't.
Take
long
I'll.
Just
tell
you
a
brief
history
of
how
that
came
to
be
back
in
2019
condominiums
commercial
condominiums
were
given
a
cap
rate
of
four
percent.
We
came
in
and
appealed
that
and
successfully
had
it
increased
to
6.25.
D
Then
in
2020
remotely
last
summer,
we
again
appealed
disputing
the
6.25
cap
rate,
our
our
rationale,
which
we've
been
disputing
back
in
2019
and
again
in
2020,
which
we
are
again
presenting
our
concern
today
is
that
we
have
no
difference
in
terms
of
our
commercial
property,
whether
it
be
a
commercial
property
or
a
commercial
condominium,
and
but
this
year
we
came
to
armed
with
a
little
better
information,
which
is
we
ascertained
that
there
were
other
condominiums
in
the
county
that
were
being
treated
with
as
commercial
properties,
so
their
cap,
their
cap
rate,
was
7.3,
not
6.55.
D
So
we
presented
that
to
the
department
and
said:
hey,
you
know,
what's
what's
the
deal
here
and
they
said
well,
you
know
matter
of
fact
it
was
laurie.
He
said
she
told
me
he
said,
look
well,
that's
that's
a
larger
economic
unit.
Sometimes
we
do
that
in
the
county.
I
said:
well
I'm
a
little
confused
here,
because
our
economic
unit
is
about
50
000
square
feet
and
she
said
yeah,
but
you
have
individual
income
expense
reports.
D
D
You
know
nobody
said
this
to
me
three
years
ago
you
know:
we've
been
paying
these
higher
taxes
based
upon
assessments
that
are
based
upon
a
yield
on
a
cap
rate
of
6.25.
Now
this
year,
6.55
and
that's
really,
the
crux
of
our
concern
here
is,
and
I
you're
not
the
first
department
to
not
tell
people
things.
You
know
it's
like
if
you
able
to
ferret
it
out
and
figure
it
out
and
and
then
approach
them
we'll
say
well,
yeah
well,
yeah.
We
can
look
at
that.
I've
had
it
happen
in
the
building
inspections
department.
D
So
it's
something
that
I've
found
in
the
county.
If
you
don't
ask
the
right
question,
and
even
when
you
do
they're
not
going
to
give
you
a
helpful
information,
so
that's
why,
and
I
honestly
suggest
we
just
look
at
all
three
of
these
cases
the
same
way
and
what
I'm
simply
asking
is
look
I've
already
gotten
hammered
two
years
because
I
didn't
know
I
could
consolidate
them
into
an
income,
expense,
expense
report
and
in
turn,
have
a
0.8
increase
in
the
cap
rate
say
so
I'm
just
saying
look
I
already
got
hammered
two
years.
D
Is
there
any
way?
I'm
absolutely
next
year
we're
going
to
do
it
with
the
consolidated
income
expense
report,
but
it
just
seems
unfair
and
nobody
gave
us
the
information,
and
here
we
are
and
as
you
is,
I'm
not
refuting
the
income,
the
expenses
or
anything.
I'm
just
saying,
look
yeah!
Why
6.55,
when,
frankly
we're
a
commercial
property?
I
don't
occupy
all
this
as
a
an
owner
and
so
and
I've
read
it
all
out,
guess
what
we
do
I
mean
bushra
is
part
of
it.
D
A
I
I
Yes,
we
do.
That's
the
only
other
commercial
property
out
of
the
approximately
270
in
the
county
that
we
use
a
higher
cap
rate,
and
the
purpose
of
using
the
higher
cap
rate
is
that
it's
under
one
ownership.
Yes
and
it's
some
it's
net
leasable
area
is
substantially
larger
than
the
other
commercial
condominiums
in
the
county.
I
think
it's
at
about.
I
Give
me
it's,
I
think
it's
81
or
80,
some
thousand
square
feet,
not
least
a
blue
area.
Excuse
me,
and
so
because
of
its
sheer
size,
we
use
a
different
cap
rate
for
that
one.
I
As
for
this
particular
property,
there
are
total
of
nine
commercial
condominium
units
in
this
building.
Not
all
of
them
are
owned
by
mr
viola.
Okay,
and
when
we
appraise
this
condominium
project
or
the
commercial
units,
I
applied
the
the
same
rental
rate,
the
same
stabilization
vacancy
the
same
expenses
and
the
same
cap
rate
of
6.55
percent
to
all
of
them.
Okay,
mr
viola,
did
appeal
a
couple
of
other
properties
besides
these
three
and
so
they're
all
being
treated
equally,
okay
and
otherwise.
I
We
believe
that
the
current
cap
rate
of
6.55
is
fair.
As
for
the
economic
unit,
we
don't
years
past
many
years
ago,
we
went
ahead
and
we
created
economic
units,
but
we
had.
I
We
had
owners,
complain
about
that,
so
we
don't
automatically
create
economic
units.
As
for
me,
trying
to
keep
up
with
the
calling
owners
and
and
saying
hey,
can
we
you
know
we?
If
we
have
the
conversation,
then
we
do
so.
We
started
having
a
conversation
this
year
with
mr
viola
about
creating
an
economic
unit
for
the
year
2022.
I
J
Sorry
about
that,
I
think
another
thing
we
want
to
point
out
is
when
you
look
at
the
information
provided
for
these
cases,
particularly
the
summary
sheet.
You'll
see
that
our
projected
noi
is
much
less
than
what
this
these
properties
have
actually
achieved,
and
so
the
the
argument
being
made
is
mainly
about
the
cap
rate,
but
we
we
think
the
board
should
focus
also
on
the
net
operating
income
of
this
property,
because
if
you
were
to
take,
for
example,
on
the
parcel
ending
in
three
two,
eight.
J
You
divide
that
by
the
0.073
cap
rate,
you
actually
have
a
higher
value
than
what
the
actual
assessment
is
when
you're
looking
at
their
actual
net
operating
income,
our
income
is
consistently
lower
on
all
three
other
parcels
in
lori's
summary
sheet.
J
And
I
think
that's
something
that's
kind
of
being
glossed
over
because
of
the
difference
in
cap
rate
argument.
Also,
when
we
first
switched
to
the
incoming
approach
for
commercial
condos,
it
was
because
we
had
received
income
and
expense
information
for
these
condo
properties.
J
These
condo
properties
were
originally
in
residential
neighborhoods.
So
if
there
was
a
if
there's
residential
condos,
there
is
a
neighborhood
number,
usually
like
310294,
something
like
that.
The
commercial
components
were
part
of
those
neighborhoods
and
since
they
were
part
of
those
neighborhoods,
they
were
actually
valued
off.
J
They
were
valued
off
of
per
market
approach
and
since
we
didn't
have
any
sales
of
these
commercial
condos
oftentimes,
the
assessments
were
increased
along
with
the
residential
condo
units
or,
unfortunately,
some
were
just
rolled
over
because
of
the
lack
of
commercial
sales,
and
we
didn't
want
to
treat
those
the
same
as
residential
units.
It
was
really
oftentimes
based
off
the
appraiser
to
try
to
clean
up
that
process.
We
removed
all
the
commercial
condos
from
the
residential
neighborhoods
and
put
them
in
their
own
commercial,
condo
neighborhood.
J
J
J
So,
along
with
these
sales
that
we
have
again,
we
looked
at
publications
to
see
if
they
had
any
information
about
commercial
condo
sales
sites
such
as
co-star,
they
may
or
may
not
have
information,
because
they
they
usually
report
on
sales
that
hit
a
certain
threshold
as
far
as
dollar
value.
So
they
may
or
may
not
have
the
information.
But
when
we
did
see
the
information
we
did
try
to
utilize
what
they
provided
to
assist
us
in
developing
this
cap
rate
for
commercial
condos.
J
So
I
just
want
to
get
some
perspective
as
to
why
we
value
commercial
condos.
The
way
we
do,
we
were
diligent
about
how
we
went
about
converting
these
from
sales
comparison
to
income.
We
actually
had
income
for
several
commercial
condos
for
about
three
years
before
we
switched
to
the
income
approach,
and
that
was
to
give
us
more
time
to
gather
data
on
how
we
should
treat
these
property
types
in
the
past.
J
Lori
has
pointed
out
that
one
of
the
things
that
sets
commercial
condos
apart
from
a
regular
general
commercial
space,
such
as
a
standalone
retail
store
or
a
7-eleven
and
a
fast
food
type
restaurant,
is
the
commercial
condo
fees
that
they
pay.
That's
something
that
we
have
included
in
our
expenses
for
this
property
type,
and
so
that's
something
that
sets
them
apart
from
other
other
commercial
condo,
I
mean
other
commercial
properties
with
the
commercial
condo
that
is
pointed
out.
I
think
it
is
in
national
landing.
That
is
true.
J
What
lori
said
this
property
is
about
81
000
square
feet,
it's
owned
by
one
owner.
I
think
they
always
own
all
of
the
the
units,
and
it
is
all
of
the
commercial
space
in
that
building.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
that's
similar
to
in
our
minds
to
apartment
buildings
that
have
apartments
above
ground.
I
mean
apartments
above
retail,
where
they
have
one
or
several
large
commercial
spaces
that
are
owned
by
the
apartment
owners
and
that's
why
we've
treated
that
one
property
type
similar
to
those.
J
That
is
something
that
we're
seeing
and
those
properties
are
being
treated
the
same
as
mixed
use,
apartments
and
the
same
as
the
property
out
in
national
landing
with
the
81
000
square
feet
of
retail
space.
Again
lori
did
have
a
conversation
with
mr
viola
about
creating
a
economic
unit
for
these
properties.
I
think
in
the
past.
One
of
the
reason
that
conversation
wasn't
had
is
because
there
are
several
other
commercial
condo
units
in
this
development
that
were
sold
off,
and
I
guess
off
of
assumptions
it
was.
J
I
Defined
it's
just.
J
I
don't
think
it's
in
the
county
ordinance.
It's
essentially.
The
economic
unit
is
a
group
of
parcels
that
are
valued
together
and
operated
together.
It
can
come
in
different
shapes
and
forms.
You
can
have
an
apartment,
building
with
two
vacant
lots
attached
to
it
for
density
support,
and
so
we
value
those
three
as
units,
because
the
two
lights
support
the
other
light,
a
building
that
sits
on
two
lights.
So
therefore,
that's
the
economic
unit,
it's
really
just
a
grouping
of
economic
parcels
that
are
valued
as
one
unit.
G
J
Because
it
speaks
to
in
the
beginning
when
this
project
was
built,
just
like
the
residential
units
were
sold
off
individually.
That's
the
activity
that
was
happening
at
this
property
type
and
we
were
anticipating
it
being
continuing
in
the
future,
and
mr
viola
still
retains
the
economic
units
that
he
means.
J
E
K
Following
up
on
that
to
the
county,
if
he
does,
as
he's
suggesting,
he
will
do
for
next
year,
look
at
this
as
a
unit
and
do
the
accounting
change
to
the
accounting.
Will
the
county
look
at
this
differently?
I
Differently
for
these
particular
parcels-
and
I
when
they're
assembled
together,
I
believe
he
does
have.
It
does
come
out
to
a
substantially
larger
net
leasable
area,
and
I
believe
that
we
were
under
the
notion
that
we
would
treat
it
like
the
other
retail
that,
just
like
the
eclipse
or
the
other
retail
properties,
I'm
I'm
trying
to
think
of
another
one,
but
I
can't
think
of
it
offhand,
but
the
other
retail
properties.
That's
a
a
group
as
a
whole.
The
large
size
within
a
apartment,
complex.
J
J
You
know,
because
the
one
in
national
landing
is
the
economy,
so
when
this
economy
unit
gives
us
a
little
bit
more
leeway
to
treat
it
as
such,
because
one
of
the
questions
that
I
think
comes
up
and
lord
mayor
asked
it
is,
do
you
treat
all
of
these
parcels
as
one
economic
unit
yourself,
because
that's
that's
also
the
difference
that
sets
these
properties.
Apart
from
the
economic
units,
we
look
at
mainly
the
one
that
was
pointed
out
in
national
land.
J
These
are
reported
and
treated
as
one
one
property
they're
not
treated
as
multiple
properties
that
I
own
and
therefore
I
want
to
put
together.
Like
that's
one
of
the
differences,
it's
not
just
about
how
we
view
the
properties,
it's
also
about
how
the
owners
view
the
properties
and
that's
why
we
don't
create
economic
units
on
our
own
without
having
these
conversations.
A
H
F
I
see
that
the
appellant,
the
traditionally
expenses
have
been
quite
low
as
a
percentage
of
no
of
egi,
and
it
went
up
a
lot
in
2021,
both
in
absolute
dollars
and
its
percentage
and
and
the
department
followed
that
and
didn't
increase
it
quite
as
much
being
conservative,
but
still
given
that
we
like
stabilized
overtime,
numbers,
the
departments
again
in
column
d,
total
operating
expenses
at
20
is
much
much
more
than
the
average
5.2
or
3
percent
that
was
reported
in
past
years
and
you
again
but
lower
than
what
the
appellate
suggested
for
2021.
F
But
it
still
seems
way
out
of
whack
four
times
the
historical
amount.
Could
you
speak
to
how
you
feel
comfortable
that
it
should
go
up
as
a
in
dollars
by
about
four
times
from
what
the
historical
achievement
was
work.
I
Okay,
so,
first
of
all,
when
we
determined
the
expenses,
we
were
looking
at
all
of
the
units
within
that
project,
and
this
is
that
now
keep
in
mind.
I
Some
of
the
units
are
retail
and
some
of
the
units
are
office,
so
vary
okay,
different
different
different
retail
units
like
if
they're
a
restaurant,
they're
gonna,
probably
have
higher
expenses
than
versus
the
office.
Okay,
and
so,
with
this
particular
project
station
square,
all
of
the
condo
units
we
applied.
We
looked
at
all
of
those
and
we
came
up
with
the
20
average
and
we
applied
it
to
all
of
the
units
whether
they
were
retail
or
office
or
both
is
that
explained
did.
Is
that
what
you
were
asking?
I
And
so
yes,
it
does
look
higher
in
column
d,
our
expenses
at
127
000
looks
more
than
what
they're,
showing
for
column
a
b
and
c,
but
once
again,
when
I
valued
all
the
commercial
condo
units
within
this
project,
I
applied
the
same
rental
rate,
the
same
vacancy,
the
same
expenses
in
the
same
category
across
the
board
for
all
of
them.
So
they
all
got
the
same
thing.
F
I
understand,
but
but
it's
four
times
the
historical
average,
although
once
again
reiterate
on
purpose
still
less
than
what
the
the
appellant's
projecting
I
get
that
you're
treating
them
all
the
same,
which
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
I
I
There
are
other
there
are
other
other
owners
that
are
that
are
reporting
different
expenses,
so
their
expenses
that
they're
reporting
may
something
different
than
what
mr
viola
is
reporting.
G
I
Thank
you.
So
once
again,
I
want
to
explain
that
this
is
not
an
economic
unit,
but
yes,
we
did
apply
the
same
rental
rate,
expense
rate,
stabilized
stabilized
vacancy
and
cap
rate
across
all
nine
units
within
the
condo
project,
and
mr
viola
he's
only
got
three
here
that
he's
arguing
before
the
board.
Today
he
actually
owns
a
total
of
five,
and
so
the
other
two
were
using
the
same
expense
rate.
The
same
that
you
see
within
column
d,
okay,
and
we
just
ask
that
you
accept
the
2021
assessment.
D
A
D
What's
being
lost,
here
is
the
fact.
Yes,
we
developed
this
as
an
80,
000
square
foot,
commercial
economy,
retail
office.
We
made
the
decision
in
08,
so
this
has
been
in
this
way
for
13
years
and
to
say
well,
they
might
be
thinking
about
selling
another
unit.
I
mean,
obviously,
that's
not
the
case.
We
put
a
mortgage
on
the
portion
of
the
property
we
own,
so
it
is
indeed
an
economic
unit
of
approximately
50
000
square
feet
with
you
know:
190
parking
spaces,
that's
our
that's!
What
we
finance
we
don't
have.
D
Obviously
we
can't
finance
the
other
condos.
The
only
other
thing
I
would
say
is
that
their
expenses
shouldn't
very
much
mars.
Somebody
said
the
condo.
Yes,
we
manage
it
as
laurie
knows
we
charge
18
000
a
year,
ken
you're,
in
real
estate.
Normally
a
management
fee
would
be
150,
000,
we've
had
bids.
That's
why
I
do
it
and
I
do
everything
in
this
project
that
cost,
which
is
why
our
expenses
are
exceedingly
low.
A
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
you
know
I
look
at
this
and,
and
I
can
see
you
know
where
the
appellant
is
coming
from.
However,
I
I
believe
it
was
mr
bailey.
That
said,
I
hope
the
noi
is
not
being
glossed
over
here
and
I'm
concerned
about
the
noi,
because
here's
where
I
sit
on
this,
even
if
you
went
to
the
appellant's
cap
rate,
the
noi
that
he's
using
a
509,
I
mean
that's
ridiculous
when
you
look
at
the
performance
of
the
property.
A
If
you
take
a
three
year
and
throw
out
2017
it
caps
out
at
7.983
and
if
you
just
take
the
operating
year
of
2020,
it
caps
out
at
8.2
million.
So
to
be
honest
with
you,
I
think
the
assessment
of
the
7.775
is
low
from
where
I'm
sitting
I'd
be
interested
in
seeing
what
other
people
think.
But
I
I
don't
think
you
can
have
your
cake
and
eat
it
too,
and
have
a
low
noi
and
then
bump
the
cap
rate
up
mr
lawson.
G
Yeah,
I
agree
with
you
mary
and
I
took
the
operating
year
and
I
got
over
8
million
here's
what
I
would
suggest
to
the
county.
However,
if
you're
going
to
apply
a
different
cap
rate
to
an
economic
unit
versus
something
that's
not
an
economic
unit,
I
think
you
better
define
what
an
economic
unit
is,
because
you
know
here
we
have
a
taxpayer
who's,
making
this
argument
and
the
county.
G
So
I
would
strongly
urge
the
county
to
either
not
change
cap
rates
based
on
whether
it's
an
economic
unit
or
come
up
with
a
definition
that
is
that
is
supportable,
but
as
to
this
particular
appeal,
I
recognize
what
mr
viola
is
saying
and
I
think
he's
made
a
fair
point,
but
just
like
mary
pointed
out,
you
know
the
actuality
is
it's
probably
even
worth
more
than
it's
assessed
for.
A
And
I
I
would
just
jump
in
on
the
economic
unit.
There
is
a
universal
definition
of
that.
If
you
you
know,
google,
it
go.
Look
it
up.
It's
under
law,
it's
under
appraisal
practice,
it's
under
economics,
it's
a
collection
of
parcels
that
are
under
common
ownership
and
operation
and
we've
seen
other
cases
where
the
county
has
said.
You
know
you
should
come
to
us
and
move
parcels
in
under
and
make
an
economic
unit.
A
G
G
I
think
mary,
a
condo,
a
group
of
condominium
units,
commercial
or
otherwise
are
a
little
bit
different
than
real
property,
because
some
of
the
economic
units,
what
could
have
been
done
is
a
deal
consolidation,
but
sometimes
owners
don't
want
to
do
that
because
they
don't
want
to
lose
vested
lots
or
something
like
that.
So
I
think
that
maybe
the
definition
ought
to
be
a
little
more
clear
for
commercial
condos.
A
Right
and
I
agree
with
you,
as
I
said,
some
some
folks
don't
want
them
combined,
but
I
mean
the
county's
been
very
open
to
you
know
in
the
past,
as
far
as
I
can
recall,
of
anybody
wanting
to
put
parcels
into
an
economic
unit
and
have
them
assessed
in
text
that
way
so.
Okay,
other
comments,
mr
panoranda.
H
Yeah,
I
think
in
this
particular
case.
I
think
that,
like
barnes
said,
I
think
the
main
difference
is
these
are
condominium
units,
and
you
know
we've
seen
before
there
may
be
a
building
that
you
know
all
the
100
units
in
the
building
are
all
condominium
units,
but
they're
operated
as
apartments.
H
F
Just
register
this
quickly,
taking
off
from
what
doug
barnes
started
to
talk
about
in
the
community
session
that
most
of
the
the
by
definition,
most
of
the
expenses
are
the
condo
fee.
What's
what's
in
addition
to
that,
are
utilities
and
paid
by
individual
residents
or
owners,
but
that
of
course,
is
accounted
for
separately
in
the
90s.
F
It's
actually
a
doubling
or
so
of
historical,
which
just
mystifies
me,
given
the
overwhelming
part
of
the
overwhelming
creation
of
cost
is
the
condo
fee
and
of
course,
all
units
are
treated
equally
based
on
the
square
footage
in
terms
of
the
condo
fee.
So
I'm
a
little
at
a
loss
to
understand
why
there's
such
big
differences
in
in
expenses-
and
I'm
not
going
to
solve
it
here,
but
it
drives
me
to
support.
Therefore,
the
county's
assessment.
F
One
last
thing:
it
seems
to
me
that
economic
units
ought
to
have
perhaps
different
legal
pieces
integrally
related
to
the
main
business
and
we've
seen
it
many
times
historically
in
a
in
shirlington,
a
a
storage
facility
where
they
had
different
lots
for
parking
and
for
this
warehouse
and
that
warehouse,
but
they
all
were
used
for
the
same
purpose
in
business.
Clearly,
here,
that's
not
the
case.
I
would
also
extend
that
it's
also
not
the
case
at
the
eclipse,
but
they
are
treating
it.
F
A
K
A
A
Does
we
can
move
on
to
the
fourth?
Does
anybody
need
to
take
a
break.
A
D
A
H
I'll
go
ahead
and
move
that
we
confirmed
the
assessment
at
1793,
200
200.
A
A
second
okay
motion,
a
second
by
miss
hogan
all
in
favor.
I
opposed
okay,
the
county's
confirmed
it
one
million
seven.
Ninety
three,
two
hundred
final
parcel
is
rpc
one,
eight
zero
one,
four
three,
two
eight
again
at
twelve,
twenty
north
film
or
number
one
ten,
any
comments
from
either
side
additional
comments
to
this.
A
D
A
Okay,
all
right
any
questions
from
board
members
on
this
parcel.
H
I
think
king
has
the
coverage.
I'm
sorry,
you
know
it's
quite.
F
All
right,
I'm
gonna,
ask
my
question.
I
don't
I
guess
it's
the
department.
I
don't
understand.
I
alluded
to
this
in
my
last
comment:
why
size
matters?
What's
the
difference
between
them
and
and
I'm
gonna
stab
it
the
answer?
What's
the
difference
between
the
the
cap
rates,
which
is
a
key
constituent
in
all
of
this,
of
course,
between
commercial,
commercial
properties
and
quote
commercial
condominiums?
J
So
again,
in
the
past,
we
value
these
properties
off
the
sales
comparison
approach
and
what
we
saw
was
most
of
the
sales
were
of
a
certain
sized
condo
condo
unit.
And
so
when
you
have
a
sales
of
2500
square
feet,
3000
square
feet,
maybe
even
10
thousand
square
feet,
and
we
use
that
to
assess
a
property.
That's
80
000
square
feet.
J
It
resulted
in
large
swings,
so
we
actually
began
to
value
that
unit
in
national
landing
on
the
income
approach
way
before
we
begin
to
value
the
smaller
individual
units
and
what
we
did
was
compare
it
again
to
mixed-use
apartment
buildings
and
so
that
general
commercial
guideline
was
always
attached
to
that
unit
out
in
national
landing,
because
it
was
from
a
comparable
standpoint,
the
smaller
condo
units
in
the
county.
We
just
didn't
believe
they
were
sufficient
and
it
was
accurate
for
us
to
use
those
as
comps
from
an
equity
standpoint.
F
J
F
A
Okay,
any
other
comments,
questions.
The
only
thing
else
I'll
throw
out
here
is
all
three
of
these
assessments.
The
noi
was
far
lower
than
the
reportable
income
in
most
cases,
for
the
historical
as
well.
As
you
know,
the
operating
year,
2020
so.
K
D
Can
get
the
one
minute
on
the
last
one?
No
I'll
make
it
very
quick,
as
I
mentioned
early
on,
you
know,
we
operate
them
very
tightly,
so
our
expenses
are
low.
You
know
and
in
all
fairness
to
the
county,
they
try
to
they
look
more
globally
and
lori's.
H
That's
a
good
explanation,
and
that
makes
it
look
a
little
bit
better
as
far
as
the
expenses
but
yeah.
I
agree
with
you.
I
think
these
are
all
three
units
that,
in
my
opinion,
they're
a
little
bit
under
assessed,
but
because
doing
my
own
testing,
I
came
up
with
a
value
also
about
2.8
some.
A
A
A
Okay,
any
other
business
from
board
members
or
the
county.
I
just
have
one
thing:
it's
very
simple
on
case
two
today
the
the
comparison
grid
it
because
it
was
so
long
and
it
had
so
many
columns
in
it
it
cut
off.
We
were
fortunate
in
that
the
appellate
wasn't
talking
about
the
retail,
but
as
we
know
it
opens
up
everything
so
it
could
have
come
in.
So
I
don't
know
what
we're
going
to
do,
but
either
it
needs
to
go
on
two
pages
or
it
needs
to
have
a
second
page.
A
That's
got
the
other
half
of
it,
but
because,
as
we're
flipping
through
it's
kind
of
nice
to
have
it
all
together.
So
that's
the
only
thing
I
don't
know
how
I
mean
if
it
gets
too
much
smaller.
Luckily,
we
can
all
make
it
larger
on
our
computer
screens,
but
just
to
kind
of
make
sure
if
that
happens,
where
it's
a
column
that
we
really
are
using.
It
could
be
a
problem
in
the
hearings.
J
Okay,
in
a
situation
like
that,
would
you
want
us
to
do
the
operating
history
on
the
first
page
and
then
say
the
assessment
and
the
remaining
information
on
the
last
page.
So
that
way.
A
Know
but
like
I
said,
we
were
lucky
because
he
wasn't
arguing
the
retail,
but
I
know
a
lot
of
times
I
was.
I
was
expecting
someone
to
say,
hey.
Well,
you
know
when
you
you
know
appeal,
it
opens
up
all
avenues,
so
it
could
have
feasibly
gone
that
way,
but
the
information
was
cut
off.
So
I
I
just
I'm
trying
to
hedge
my
bets
for
the
future
that
in
case
that
is,
you
know
it
comes
up
and
it
is
an
issue
that
would
be
really
helpful.