►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - October 7, 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
A
All
righty
thank
you,
then
I
will
move
to
accept
the
withdrawal.
Do
I
have
a
second,
mr
matskin,
all
in
favor
aye.
C
A
A
A
A
The
next
case
is
the
first
case
on
the
agenda
economic
unit,
1702
702
a
is
an
apple
at
1600,
north
16th
street
and
mr
saul
gillstein
is
here
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
appellant.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
property.
F
My
client
won
the
opportunity
to
develop
this
by
proposing
a
project
that
was
part,
affordable
and
part
market
rate.
So
there
was
historic
buildings,
small
low-rise
buildings
with
four
units.
Each
excuse
me
six
units
each
and
then
there
was
neighboring
land
and
what
they
did
was.
They
took
the
low
rise
buildings
and
converted
them
to
six
affordable
units,
build
a
high-rise
apartment
building,
which
has,
let's
see
113
units.
F
F
So
we
think
this
is
an
outsized
increase
in
the
assessment
and
it
comes
down
to
what
I
will
call
the
mass
appraisal,
responsibility
of
the
department
using
their
guidelines
and,
of
course
they
have
thousands
of
properties
to
assess
so
using
their
guidelines
is
appropriate.
But
the
way
it
worked
out
for
this
project
we
think
was
inappropriate.
F
F
F
F
F
When
you,
the
department
classifies
the
metro
properties
as
those
within
a
half
a
mile
and
they
use
google
maps.
So
what
this
produces
is
that
if
you
are
5.1
miles
away,
you
get
a
5.4
percent
cap
rate,
but
if
you
are
4.9
miles
away
from
the
metro
you
get
5.15.
F
F
F
G
Yes,
for
some
reason,
it's
not
letting
me
share
and
I
don't
know
well
let
me
try
again.
Let
me
let
me
see
hold
on
how's
that
does
that
come
up?
Yes,
yes,
okay,
let
me
go,
I
think,
I'm
on
106.
F
We
calculated
this
as
though
the
property
is
a
non-metro
property
using
the
department's
guidelines,
and
that
came
up
with
a
capitalization
rate
in
the
first
box
of
5.638,
and
then
we
calculated
it
using
the
metro
and
what
we
did
is
we
blended
the
affordable
and
the
market.
In
other
words,
we
used
41.5
percent
of
the
cap
rate
at
the
affordable
rate
and
58.5
as
the
market
rate.
F
By
doing
that,
the
blended
cap
rate
is
5.492
and
because
this
property,
according
to
google
maps,
is
0.5,
which
is
right
on
the
border
of
whether
it's
metro
or
not,
we
contend
it's
not.
The
department
has
to
do
something,
so
they
came
up
with
this
value.
Excuse
me
this
distance
of
0.5,
so
we
blended
it.
We
just
used
the
average
of
the
non-metro
rate
and
the
metro
rate,
and
that
comes
up
with
5
5.565
by
employing
that
in
the
second
column
above
you
see
that
the
value
that
results
is
61
million,
562
300..
F
So,
of
course,
we
would
like
you
to
use
the
non-metro
rate
because
we
think
that's
appropriate
of
60
million
765,
but
even
as
a
compromise,
we
think
a
61
million
562
would
be
an
appropriate
number.
So
cindy
can
you
go
to
the
top
of
that
page,
and
you
can
see
that
the
prior
assessment
from
last
year
was
57
million
429
and
just
because
of
the
change
in
methodology,
it's
still
an
increase
of
over
4
million
dollars
at
the
61
million
dollar
number.
F
So
there's
still,
what
is
that
about?
Eight
percent
increase,
that's
a
substantial
increase
and
we
contend
that
the
14.2
percent
increase
is
not
appropriate.
The
next
point
I'll
make
to
you
is
that
the
department's
test
case.
F
When
they
had
the
full
information
from
us
indicated
a
reduction
in
the
assessment
by
I
think
1.1
percent,
but
the
department
did
not
provide
a
reduction
because
it
wasn't
the
magic
three
percent,
but
every
dollar
at
this
project
is
precious
and
the
very
minimum
that
we
would
ask
the
board
to
do
is
to
reduce
it
to
the
department's
lower
number.
But
you
know
being
the
reasonable
people
we
are
providing
affordable
housing.
We
would
ask
that
you
consider
either
the
60.7
million
total
value
or
the
61.562
total
value.
B
We
reviewed
this
property
based
off
the
information
that
we
have
on
file
prior
to
the
assessment
and
the
new
information
that
was
submitted
with
2019
ine.
B
B
You
also
see
the
2019
information
column
e
that
was
submitted
to
the
office
in
our
subsequent
test
of
that
income.
B
Looking
at
the
original
assessment,
you'll
see
that
our
dpi
was
actually
less
than
what
they
achieved
in
2019.
You'll
see
that
the
egi
is
pretty
spot
on.
They
had
a
little
bit
higher
vacancy
than
what
we
projected
in
our
original
assessment,
but
then
you'll
see
that
our
expenses
were
higher
than
what
they
actually
incurred
in
2019,
resulting
in
the
noi
difference
between
the
original
assessment
on
column
d
and
the
operating
year,
2019,
which
is
column
e.
The
difference
was
about
almost
fifty
thousand
dollars
between
the
two.
B
This
property
does
receive
a
rehab
exemption,
so
the
value
that
we
asked
the
board
to
uphold
was
the
64
million
eight
hundred
eighty
two
thousand
five
hundred
to
discuss
the
distance
to
metro
as
the
board
is
aware,
and
what
we
are
consistent
with
doing
is
comparing
the
distance
for
each
and
every
property
in
the
county
to
metro
based
off
of
google
maps.
B
When
you
look
at
google
maps,
this
property
has
two
parcels
with
two
different
addresses.
If
you
use
address,
which
is
1515
north
queen
street,
there
are
two
routes
that
are
0.5
miles
within
a
courthouse
metro.
This
is
the
same
distance
that
we
use
for
all
multi-family
properties.
This
is
the
same
distance.
We
use
even
for
our
office
properties.
The
routes
for
1515
north
queen
to
courthouse
metro,
which
were
0.5
miles,
would
be
to
take
15th
street
to
14th
street.
B
B
If
you
use
1616th
street
north,
which
is
also
one
of
the
addresses
this
takes
you
to
rosalind
via
north
nash,
to
clarendon
boulevard,
this
is
a
0.5
mile
wall,
courtesy
of
google
map,
so
I
think
we
proved
the
case
that,
based
off
the
cutoff
that
we
use
with
every
single
property
type,
that
this
property
is
within
0.5
miles
of
two
metro
stations.
The
way
we
value
this
property,
and
even
the
consideration
of
distance
to
metro
is
consistent
with
how
we
treat
the
views
at
clarendon,
which
is
also
a
mixed
market,
affordable
property.
B
We've
heard
that
case
before
this
year,
I
think
was
presented
by
well.
If
it
wasn't
presented
this
year,
it's
typically
presented
because
that's
the
affordable
housing
property.
B
So
when
you
look
at
our
feed
that,
on
page
four
and
page
five
to
be
exact,
we
have
our
test
sheet.
This
is
how
we
value
all
mixed
market
and
affordable
properties.
We
break
out
each
unit
based
off
of
their
their
type,
whether
it
is
standard
unit
or
subsidized
unit,
so
you'll
see.
B
B
B
We
look
at
the
expenses
for
affordable
property
types
and
we
use
the
affordable
cap
rate.
You'll
see
on
page
four
that
the
cap
rate
is
a
five
point:
nine
nine
four
percent
cap
rate
and
that's
a
blended
cap
rate
because
we
are
using
the
garden
and
the
high-rise
affordable
cap
rate.
Mind
you.
This
year
we
discussed
with
the
board
that
affordable
units
no
longer
have
a
metro
component
added
to
it.
B
So
these
are
the
same
cap
rates
that
would
be
used
for
affordable
properties
and
anywhere
in
the
county,
because
there
is
no
mark
metro
component
to
affordable
cap
rates.
The
market
component.
We
took
the
market
units,
the
rent
that
they're
achieving.
B
If
this
property
was
not
within
0.5
miles
of
either
metro,
then
we
use
a
non-metro
cap
and
the
first
column
just
blends
everything
together.
So
you
can
see
the
total.
B
This
is
consistent
with
how
the
department
has
treated
all
properties
in
the
county,
regardless
of
the
property
type,
because
within
three
percent,
then
that's
a
reasonable.
B
I
really
don't
have
much
else
to
discuss
for
this
case.
If
you
have
any
questions,
I'm
more
than
happy
to
answer
those
for
you.
I
E
E
So
let
me
take
a
different
tack,
the
garden
apartments.
This
is
for
the
appellate.
The
garden
departments
I
heard
were
existing
before
in
2014.
The
high
rise
was
built
and
at
that
time,
plus
or
minus.
However,
many
months
they
were
rehabilitating
the
gardens,
the
on
page
four
of
the
ine
sheet,
which
is
the
ine
sheet.
E
B
C
B
B
B
They
completely
redid
everything
about
the
during
this
process.
The
actual
renovation
took
place
while
they
were
building
the
the
high-rise
and
at
one
point
they
used
the
garden
buildings
for
their
construction
office.
So,
during
the
construction
of
the
high
rise,
they
used
the
garden
building
for
the
construction
office
upon
moving
the
construction
office
and
leasing
office
to
the
high
rise.
They
begin
to
do
the
major
the
work
on
the
affordable
units.
B
One
thing
also
about
this
is
that
when
this
property
was,
I
think,
was
called
with
the
queen
apartments
or
pierce
queen
apartments.
They
had
these
two
gardens
on
an
economic
unit
and
then
they
had
three
individual
parcels
for
the
other
three
buildings:
that's
how
they
qualified
for
the
rehab
exemption
because
of
these
two
buildings
being
somewhat
separated
from
the
other
three.
So
that's.
B
E
Well,
that's
that's
the
thing
you
have
to
go
back
15
years
in
effective
age,
in
order
to
get
a
different
cap
rate
and,
and
that
doesn't
likely
going
back,
does
sound
likely,
but
not
that
far
and
we've
had
a
case
like
this
before
was
extremely
extensive,
a
renovation
and
only
the
foundation
was
there
in
the
exterior
walls.
So
I'm
I
me
for
one
I'm.
I
understand
and
agree
with
your
position
very
quick
follow-up.
In
the
column
d
of
the
ine,
you
have
a
5.3
cap.
E
This
is
for
20
5.3,
that's
clearly
a
blend
of
5.15
and
5.99
right.
B
B
The
affordable,
high
rise
received
a
cap
rate
of
5.9
and
then
the
market
high
rise
had
a
cap
rate
of
5.15
get
to
a
blend
of
5.303
the
test
sheet
we
tried,
like
I
said
I
try
to
consolidate
some
of
it,
so
it's
not
so
jumbled
up
and
honestly
so
confusing,
but
you
take
the
6.4
and
the
resulting
value.
E
No,
I
had
one
more
for
the
department,
but
I've
been
taking
things
over
I'll
wait
unless
it's
okay
with
you
the
department,
what
I'm
trouble
with.
Maybe
the
department
can
explain
this.
The
nrys
each
year
are
very,
very
close,
but
all
of
a
sudden,
the
14
from
year
to
year,
as
they
progress
up,
certainly
2019
to
2020,
plus
the
the
the
appellant's
column
g
versus
the
department's
enf
they're,
very
close
to,
but
but
a
14
increase
in
20
19
to
2020.
E
B
All
right,
I'm
sorry
so
one
I
think
a
difference
to
point
out
is
that
our
cap
rate
did
change
slightly
this
year.
There
was
a
10
basis.
Point
decrease
now
this
year,
so
that's
something
that
should
be
taking
consideration.
B
Well,
actually,
the
1966
these
I
think,
1960s
and
older
actually
decreased
by
more.
I
think
they
were
20
basis.
Point.
B
I'm
not
confusing
it,
but
leave
not
the
fact.
We
collapsed
some
years
into
one
category,
and
I
think
that
was
I
know
that
was
the
older
years,
so
we
may
have
eliminated.
1916
went
to
just
1970
and
older
and
that's
what
caused
the
20
basis
point
drop
on
those
properties
and
then
everything
else
was
a
10
basis.
Point
drop
so
looking
at.
B
Yeah
so
looking
at
2019,
I
need
not
any
valuation
sheet
which
we're
comparing
to
the
2020
evaluation
sheet.
The
noi
on
that
assessment
for
2019
was
about
three
hundred
thousand
less,
actually
more
than
that.
B
No
yeah,
it's
four
hundred
thousand
less
than
what
we
use
for
twenty
twenty.
So,
although
you
see
the
2018
noi
at
3.3,
the
actual
assessment
for
2019
was
at
3
million.
So,
as
you
know
that
2018
information
was
provided
to
us
in
2019
after
the
2019
assessment
was
already
in
place.
A
B
What
you
said
exactly
exactly,
and
we
mean
we
wouldn't
have
suggested
it
anyway.
I
don't
think
this
property
appealed
last
year.
I
hope
I'm
not
mistaken
in
that,
but
we
yeah
once
we
get
the
I
need
for
okay,
a
property
owner.
We
wouldn't
suggest
that
unless
it
wasn't
appealing
it
was
like
an
egregious
difference.
B
Then
that
is
something
that
we
would
discuss
with
the
you
know
the
with
my
supervisor,
rick
millman,
and
essentially
we
would
even
talk
to
the
county
to
see
you
know
is
this
something
we
want
to
pursue
because
we
do
have
that
option,
but
most
of
the
time
I
mean
we,
we
don't
do
that.
H
Thank
you.
This
is
for
county
on
the
distance
to
and
from
metro
is
that
how
a
car
drives
or
how
a
person
walks.
B
We
go
off
the
walking
distance,
I
think
most
publications.
B
B
B
B
I
mean
this
property.
We
we
work
with
mr
gilston
and
miss
eiler
to
make
sure
that
we
were
vetting
this
property
appropriately
and
we
could
get
all
the
new
information
that
assessment
or
retail
of
this
property.
Once
we
retested
the
income
with
the
new
2019
19
information,
we
were.
B
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
mr
gilstein.
If
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up
sir.
F
The
department
assumes
that
there
are
two
separate
buildings,
a
high-rise
building
that
is
totally
a
metro
building
and
a
for
and
market
rate
as
a
creme
de
la
creme
property.
This
building
is
not
two
separate
buildings.
It's
one
building,
it's
managed
in
one
place,
there's
one
set
of
books
when
you
walk
down
the
hallway
you
can't
tell
which
is
a
an
affordable
unit
and
which
is
a
market
rate
unit
which
is
appropriate.
F
That
is
an
important
difference,
because
if
you
think
that
this
building
is
a
metro
market,
high-rise
building
the
best
building
with
the
lowest
cap
rate
in
arlington,
that
would
be,
I
submit
to
you
an
error
in
judgment
and
of
course,
the
second
point
that
we're
trying
to
make
to
you
is
that,
since
we're
by
google
0.5
map
quest,
I
misspoke
earlier
and
said
waze
by
mapquest,
it's
0.6
at
a
minimum.
H
The
arlington
chamber
for
years
tried
to
get
the
department
to
acknowledge
the
difference
between
metro
and
non-metro,
and
then
the
county
finally
did
and
and
now
they're
arguing
or
is
it?
Is
it
within
the
five,
the
0.5
or
is
it
further
than
the
0.5?
So
at
least
we
now
have.
H
We
now
distinguish
properties
that
are
close
to
the
metro
from
those
that
are
far
away
from
the
metro,
and
so
the
purpose
of
my
question
was
to
see
if
we're,
if
we
should
apply
the
the
metro
or
the
non-metro,
and
you
got
to
cut
it
off
somewhere,
and
I
I
hear
the
arguments
and
you
know
I
I'm
told
that
we
use
google
and
that's
the
way
we
should
do
it
and
in
order
to
be
consistent,
we
should
do
it
that
way,
I'm
not
sure
how
accurate
google
is,
but
putting
that
aside,
I
myself
and
am
at
the
61
562
300,
because
I
do
think
the
the
blended
capitalization
is
appropriate
in
this
case
and
I'll
just
see.
I
I
do
agree
with
the
one
point
that
the
appellant
has
on
the
cap
right.
I
think
it
should
be
a
higher
cap
rate
I'll
get
into
my
justification,
the
metro.
I
did
it
a
couple
ways
I
always
came
out
below
0.49,
so
I
think,
just
by
the
county's
policy
in
order
to
be
consistent
and
equitable,
I
think
we
need
to
stick
with
the
metro,
but
I
also
feel
like
because
of
the
high
number
of
affordable
units
in
this
building.
I
It's
not
you
really
don't
apply
the
market
rate
cap
rate
or
the
creme
de
la
creme,
as
you
use
cap
rate
to
a
building
with
such
a
high
percentage
of
affordable
units,
the
market
for
a
property
like
this
is
not
going
to
view
it
as
the
same
as
they
would
view
a
building.
That's
you
know.
Maybe
it's
200
units
and
there's
five
or
six
committed
units
they're
going
to
view
that
as
a
market
building
predominantly
and
that
that's
what
we
trade
at
that
5.15
cap
rate,
this
building's
got
40
41
affordable.
I
This
is
viewed
and
it
has
covenants
and
loans
vhta
loans
that
carry
with
the
land
the
market's
going
to
view
this
as
an
affordable
project,
because
there's
really
no
way
to
separate
out
the
the
market
rate
component
from
the
affordable
component.
I
So
I
mean
I
might
I
would
lean
towards
you
just
reading
it
under
the
committed,
affordable
cap
rate
table.
In
that
case,
the
the
the
metro
distance
is
irrelevant,
but
given
that
the
the
appellant's
proposed
a
slightly
lower
blended
cap
rate,
I
would
be
supportive
of
using
that.
E
I'm
certainly
sympathetic
to
to
that
point
of
view,
except
the
department
responded
saying
that
there
are
three
cap
rates.
They
didn't
just
say.
The
high
rise
is
one
cap
rate
and
the
gardens
are
another,
but
rather
they
blended.
E
With
fewer
columns
that
there
are
committed,
affordable
and
the
high
rise
committed,
affordable
in
the
garden
market
rate
in
one
market
rate
in
the
other,
and
so
we
don't
have
on
page
four,
the
full
extent
of
that
blending,
but
he
mentioned
that
they
have
done
that
and
it's
just
and
it
is
reflected
within
the
numbers.
I'm
still
mystified
how
this
building,
which
is
this
project,
which
is
pretty
good
stuff,
is
the
as
far
as
I
can
recall,
I
might
be
off,
but
but
not
more
than
by
one
project.
E
I
Yeah
there
were
some
sales
on
market
apartments
in
the
county
that
were
very
high
over
the
last
couple
years
and
so
that's
affected
this
property.
None
of
those
sales
are
are
predominantly
affordable,
buildings,
they're
all
market
rate
building,
672
flats.
You
know
that
type
of
property,
where
there's
a
very
high
price
paid
for
market
rate
apartments
and
that's
dragging
the
value
of
this
property
up
where
I
don't
think,
that's
really
appropriate.
A
I'm
sorry
can
I
just
jump
in
here
while
you're
on
that
point,
but
I
I
thought
the
county
did
testify
that
last
year
the
assessment
was
like
300
to
400
thousand
dollars
lower
of
the
an
noi
that
they
use
for
the
actual
assessment
and
because
it
wasn't
appealed,
I
mean
they
didn't
go
back
and
they
weren't
going
to
go
ahead
and
increase
it
anyway.
They
couldn't
without
doing
an
appraisal.
So
if
anything,
I
I
guess
where
I'm
kind
of
leaning
in
was
was
it
under
assessed
last
year,
and
so.
A
It
just
seems
very
large,
so
I'm
okay
with
the
increase
based
on
that
testimony,
but
I'm
I'm
interested
in
where
everybody
feels
about
blending
this
anymore.
I
think
we're
on
a
slippery
slope,
because
I
think,
even
though
mr
lawson
suggested
blending
it,
he
created
a
good
argument
that
the
county-
you
know
we
did
kind
of
for
years,
go
after
them
and
say
we
want
metro
non-metro,
then
they
came
up
with
it.
Finally,
and
they
said
here's
the
cut
off
and
now
we're
saying:
okay,
we're
very
close
to
the
cut-off.
A
I
Yeah,
I
think
it's
metro,
but
but
I
don't
really
think
that's
the
biggest
point
to
be
made
here.
I
The
biggest
point
is
this
is
a
this:
is
a
committed,
affordable
project
right,
whether
it's
50
51
or
100,
the
market's
going
to
treat
this
property
and
irving
you're
shaking
your
head
man,
but
you
you
want
to
buy
this
building.
It's
got
41
deeply,
affordable
units
in
it.
It's
a
different
buyer
they're,
not
the
highest,
paying
buyer
out
there.
Looking
for
the
the
creme
de
la
creme,.
D
So
you
think
the
whole
thing
is
metro
or
I
mean
affordable.
I
I
think
it
should
be
treated
more
like
an
affordable
property
just
because
of
all
the
all
the
issues
that
come
with
the
financing,
the
covenants
and
all
those
things
nobody's
going
to
pay
a
5.1
cap
rate
on
the
income
slice
relative
to
the
market
rate
apartments.
You
can't
divide
the
building
up,
it's
one
or
the
other.
E
D
I
There's
also
restrictions
on,
I
mean
because
of
the
loans
involved.
If
you
you
know,
you
can't
evict
tenants
you
for
non-payment,
there's
a
lot
of
issues
that
come
along
with
it
that
make
it
a
little
bit
of
a
riskier
proposition
than
than
a
straight
up
market
rate
building.
So
I'm
sympathetic
to
that.
I
J
Well,
I
I
think
the
county
has
already
considered
it
they.
I
don't
agree
with
the
eu
greg
that
you
know
just
because
it
has
a
high
percentage
that
the
whole
thing
should
be
considered
as
affordable.
You
know
we
have
to
look
just
like
any
other
buildings,
any
other
projects
that
have
mixed
you
know,
market
and
affordable.
J
J
You
know
things
that
are
restricted,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that,
just
because
this
has
a
higher
percentage
that
you
know,
we
should
just
go
with
the
cap
rate
for
just
affordable.
I
think
the
county
has
already
blended
in
the
original
assessment,
because
that
was
my
first
question.
You
know
we
have
two
separate
categories.
We
have
garden,
we
have
high
rises,
then
we
have
affordable
and
market,
so
we're
dealing
with
four
different
cap
rates.
But
you
know
everything
was
blended
and
I
was
satisfied
with
the
response
that
we,
you
know
early.
J
Everyone
get
everyone
give
give
us
with
the
how
they
came
up
with
the
revised.
I
said,
I'm
okay,
with
the
revised
assessment.
I
know
it's
a
minor
reduction
and
like
the
appellant
suggested,
you
know
that
they
would
be
okay
going
with
that.
If
we
have
to
make
a
change
but
just
to
treat
this
and
change
the
whole
cap
rate
to
just
affordable,
I
don't
think
it's
the
right
way
to
do
it.
I
A
H
H
J
Well
again,
I
think
when
they
came
up
with
cap
rates
for
affordable
and
non-affordable,
I
think
they
all
that
was
considered.
So
you
know
before
before
years
ago
we
didn't
even
have
that
change.
You
know
that
difference.
So
at
least
now
we
are
looking
at.
You
know
higher
cap
rates
for
that.
So
I
I
don't
agree
with
that.
Just
having
one
cap
rate
for
the
whole.
A
Right
and
I
just
think
from
a
standpoint
of
equalization,
we
do
have
other
buildings
we've
seen
buildings
this
year
that
have
the
same
makeup.
It
might
not
be
the
same
forty
one
and
a
half
percent,
but-
and
we
did
it
this
way,
I
think
I
understand
what
the
argument
is
and
maybe
that's
something
that
the
county
needs
to
revise
their
overall
guidelines,
but
I
feel
like
if
we
do
it
on
this
one.
We
are
it's
going
to
not
be
an
equalization
with
the
other
mixed
and
that's
where
I
struggle.
C
D
J
J
I
think
again
the
way
that
this
is
assessed
compared
to
other
buildings
and
other
things.
Other
projects
are
have
the
same
mix.
You
know
for
purposes
of
equalization,
I'm
not
really
looking
in
to
see
what
a
buyer
is
going
to
do
or
see.
In
the
you
know,
next,
two
or
three
years,
I'm
looking
at
how
we
are
assessing
each
product
and
equalizing.
J
You
know,
I'm
looking
at
from
the
point
of
view
that
we
are
supposed
to
be
looking
at,
not
necessarily,
as
you
know,
what
you're
gonna
do
with
it.
You're
gonna
renovate
it
you're
gonna,
sell
it
you're
gonna
renovate,
I
mean
redevelop.
J
I
think
that's
not
really
my
main
you're
looking
at
equalization.
D
J
Well,
I
think
both
I
mean
the
you
know,
everything
is
being
considered
the
income
expenses
and
I
think
everything
is
in
line
and
I
think
the
difference
from
last
year.
I
think
it
was
explained
that
it
was
maybe
under
assessed,
and
I
mean
we
would
have
to
look
at
so
many
other
issues,
cap
rates,
everything
that
they
have
used
in
for
last
year,
the
previous
years,
so
it
doesn't
really
impact
too
much.
In
my
opinion,
you
know
what
was
assessed
for
last
year:
okay,.
A
Okay,
just
because
I
just
want
to
point
out
to
everybody,
I
I'm
sure
that
you're
aware
of
it
that
there's
six
of
us,
so
if
it
ends
up
as
a
tie,
it's
going
to
go
back
to
the
original.
I
believe
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
the
entire
group,
but
I
believe
that
most
people
in
the
group
would
agree
that
the
test
assessment
is
a
better
value.
So
I
don't
want
to
risk.
A
I
don't
know
where
everybody
is
so
I
just
want
to
be
careful
to
anybody
who's
ready
to
make
a
motion
to
make
sure
that
you
have
enough
votes.
So
I
don't
know
mr
gates,
I
don't
know
where
you
are.
A
Okay,
mr
bailey,
before
we
move
on
to
case
number
two,
I
I
I
feel
like
we
have
made
a
mistake
on
the
third
case
and
if
I
did,
I
want
to
bring
it
back
up
and
have
rosa
get
miss
mr
warren
back
into
the
meeting.
But
when
mr
warren
said,
oh
is
this
for
the
revised
number
I
said
yes,
but
I
need
to
know
was
that
already
reduced.
B
So
they
go
straight:
they
file
straight
to
the
board.
Instead
of
to
the
department
at
the
department
level,
we
can
make
a
reduction
and
say
this
is
what
we're
going
to
reduce
it
to
present
it
to
them.
When
is
a
boe
only
appeal,
we
can
just
show
them
the
value
and
they
have
to
either
forego
coming
before
you
all
or
proceed
to
the
board.
I
know
it's
somewhat
confusing.
A
F
B
F
C
B
A
A
Okay,
that'll
come
up
in
other
business,
perfect,
okay,
so
the
final
case
for
today
is.
K
Okay,
sorry,
good
morning,
everybody,
mr
lawson,
glad
to
see
your
microphone
is
working
again
today.
As
noted
the
the
subject.
Property
is
3865
wilson,
boulevard,
it's
known
as
bolston
gateway
office,
a
class,
a
minus
ish
office
built
in
2003..
K
My
appeal
materials
start
on
page
69,
and
I
would
ask
that
everybody
flip
to
page
69,
and
I
will
you
know,
quickly,
walk
you
through
what
we,
what
we
did
the
big
issue
and
reason.
You
know
that
we're
here
for
appealing
this
property
this
year
is
that
the
vacancy
increased
from
31
40
this
year,
so
an
increase
of
roughly
nine
percent.
K
The
two
big
tenants
move
out.
So
that's
the
first
big
reason
that
we're
here
the
assessment
did
not
did
not
decrease,
not
even
on
review.
It's
it's
still
higher
than
it
was
last
year.
The
second
thing
is
that
the
pga
pgi
at
this
property
is
very
clearly
trending
down.
K
K
K
You
can
see
my
income
approach
on
page
74..
Mine
is
on
the
far
right.
Essentially,
we've
taken
that
40
market
rent
applied
the
county's
six
percent
concessions
per
their
own
guidelines
to
determine
an
applied
rate
of
38
dollars
per
square
foot.
We
applied
that
to
all
the
office
space,
it's
the
it's
the
best
rate
to
apply
for
both
occupied
and
vacant
space
in
our
determination
based
on
those
recent
transactions.
K
K
We
applied
a
25
vacancy
and
collection
loss,
we're
applying
a
6.25
percent
cap
rate,
which
we
looked
at
again.
I've
talked
about
the
core
past
study.
I've
talked
about
market
sales,
everything
that
you
see,
surveys.
Nothing
is
below
six
counties
at
5.6
percent.
Here
we
think
that's
way
too
low
according
to
them.
That's
what
they've
determined
from
the
from
the
income
and
expense
submissions
of
sales
that
we're
not
allowed
to
see.
K
The
last
piece
is
the
cost
to
cure
for
or
excuse
me,
we've
deducted
rent
lost,
ti's
and
leasing
commissions
for
the
excess
vacancy.
So
that's
that
additional
15
percent
and
then
finally,
a
cost
cure
for
upcoming
capital
items.
K
That's
what
we've
gotten
to
our
value:
38
million
712,
000
or
269
per
square
foot
flipping
to
page
72
pages
76.
K
We
looked
at
the
assessments
of
five
comparable
office
buildings
all
in
the
boston
virginia
square
sub-market.
These
are
all
within
a
few
blocks
of
the
subject
property.
These
are
the
direct
competitors
of
the
subject.
Property
you'll
see
the
range
here
of
assessments
235
to
315
per
square
foot,
with
an
average
of
277
per
square
foot.
K
Foot
so
we
have.
Lastly,
we
have
the
capital
plan.
K
We
have
the
income
and
expense
report
pages
if
anyone
did
want
to
specifically
look
at
those
two
leases
that
I
mentioned
they're
on
pages
85
and
86,
as
well
as
87
and
88
detail,
the
free
rent
and
everything
else
you
know-
we've
talked
about
in
previous
cases-
is
my
cap
rate
support
and
I'm
not
going
to
dive
too
deeply
into
that,
because
I
feel
like
it's
sort
of
already
been
addressed
and
hopefully
can
just
incorporate
by
reference.
K
K
The
big
issues,
the
rent
for
occupied
space,
the
assessor,
has
used
41
4125
in
their
test
again
we're
playing
38.
You
have
two
two
tenants
that
just
two
of
the
five
that
just
re
signed
at
40.
You
know
with
concessions,
so
we
feel
38
is
more
than
fair
retail,
rent
36.50
per
square
foot.
Again,
that's
just
based
on
the
tenants
that
are
there.
K
It
appears
the
assessor
has
lowered
his
expenses
from
the
original
assessment
from
nine
dollars
per
square
foot
to
8.50
per
square
foot,
even
though
they
were
nine
in
2019,
so
we've
used
dyne,
which
again
was
what
the
assessor
originally
used
and
those
those
are
really
the
three
drivers
here
that
we
would
like
the
board
to
consider.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
mr
peralta.
L
Yes,
good
morning,
good
morning
board
good
morning,
mr
steinhauser
I'd
like
to
start
my
case
with
respect
to
the
2020
assessment.
We
took
in
consideration
what
the
boe
reduced
this
property
to
last
year.
I
think
it's
only
a
.12
increase
from
last
year's
assessment
or
last
year's
reduction.
L
So
with
that
said,
we
did
account
for
more
vacant
square
feet
than
the
property
has
exhibited
in
the
2019
ine.
That
you'll
see
in
column
e
there's
a
difference
there
and
we
did
make
the
the
correction
when
we
did
test
this
property
in
column.
F.
L
L
L
Actually
it
was.
It
was
somewhat
similar
in
2016
to
what
it
is
today
in
what
they
reported
in
2019,
but
you
see
the
the
gross
potential
income
there,
where
it
actually
trended
up
in
2018
and
then
even
more
so
in
2019,
and
so
when
we
break
that
down
even
further,
I
would
ask
the
board
to
pay
attention
to
rows:
1,
1,
b
and
2
when
you're
going
across
from
columns
d,
e,
f
and
g.
L
What
the
county
did
was
break
down
the
initial
in
the
initial
2020
assessment,
what
we
viewed
as
the
least
per
square
foot
value
in
the
the
vacant
per
square
foot
rate
and
the
difference
that
I'd
like
to
point
out
is
in
the
2019
column
e.
They
reported
an
amount
there
and
won,
and
that's
supposed
to
be
the
the
gross
potential
of
the
property.
Again
I
pointed
out
it's
more
the
actual
income
and
that
actual
income
is
representing
about
87.
L
I
believe
my
number
is
about
87,
000
or
so
plus
or
minus
square
feet.
If
you
subtract
out
the
vacant
square,
footage
in
coms,
f
and
g,
the
appellant,
the
agent
and
the
county
also
agreed
that
the
vacant
square
footage
of
57
156
square
feet
is
at
that
rate,
we
both
agree
at
the
same
rate
for
the
vacant
square
footage.
So
the
main
difference
between
what
we
propose
in
column,
f
and
g
versus
the
appellants
column
g
is
what
the
least
square
footage
rate
is.
So
again.
L
Mr
steinhauser
pointed
out
our
differences
between
his
number
and
our
number.
I
like
to
point
out
that,
in
the
rent
roll
analysis
that
I
include
with
every
case,
we
we
show
exactly
what
they've
reported,
and
I
made
a
comment
in
the
summary
sheet.
There
comments
one
through
four:
if
the
board
would
like
to
take
a
look
at
those
comments
and
kind
of
refresh
your
memory
as
far
as
what
the
county
found
and
what
we're
actually
using
in
the
test
and
then
more
so
what
we
actually
used
in
the
original
2020
assessment.
L
We
do,
however,
given
the
2019
new
information.
We
do
see
that
the
new
test
is
more
accurate,
resulting
in
a
higher
number,
but
we
we
actually
ask
that
the
board
consider
the
original
2020
assessment,
despite
it
having
or
showing
more
square
footage
vacant
for
this
property.
L
Furthermore,
when
we
look
at
the
sub-market,
we
actually
look
at
this
property
in
the
boston
sub-market,
and
we
see
that
this
is
somewhat
of
a
newer
property,
so
to
speak,
I've
looked
at
the
sub
market
and
I
believe
there
are
12
of
the
17
that
we
use
in
our
analysis
in
that
sub
market
that
are
older
than
this
property.
L
What
I
like
to
point
out
further
is
when
we
look
at
the
sales
that
occurred
in
this
specific
sub-market,
we
have.
We
actually
see
that
they're
upwards
of
473
dollars
per
square
foot
513
dollars
per
square
foot,
although
those
properties
were
somewhat
newer
than
the
subject
property.
L
The
closest
one
that
I
saw
was
within
two
years
of
the
subject:
property
in
the
boston,
sub-market,
and
this
property
is
assessed
at
344
dollars
per
square
foot,
whereas
again
those
those
market
indicators
of
464
dollars
per
square
foot,
513
dollars
per
square
foot-
is
what
the
the
market
is
exhibiting.
As
far
as
the
sales
are
concerned,
the
appellant
suggested
269
dollars
per
square
foot
for
this
asset.
E
For
the
appellant,
would
you
please
repeat
when
the
two
large
tenants
moved
out
and
when
that
third
tenant
extended
its
lease.
K
Yeah
absolutely
so.
K
The
the
two
tenants
moved
out
e
global
tech
moved
out
september,
30th,
2019
and
federated
wireless
moved
out
november,
30th
2019,
so
obviously
those
higher
rents
they
were
paying
are
captured
in
the
income
from
2019
but
are
no
longer
applicable.
K
And
then
you
asked
about
when
new
leases
were
signed.
Mr
matkin.
K
Yes,
so.
E
K
Those
happen
yeah,
the
new
lease
is
dated
april
19th,
2019.
E
2018.,
okay,
then
the
follow-up,
quick
question
for
the
department.
Just
on
that
in
your
comment,
the
office
rents
average
of
43.85
is
that
up
in
place.
This
is
for
the
department
again
is
that
for
in-place
leases
as
of
1
120,
the
43
plus.
L
The
if
you
turn
to
our
page,
I
think
15
of
124
you'll
see
the
breakdown
of
what
we
included
and
the
average
there
of
all
those
leases
in
place
good.
Thank
you.
L
Yes,
thank
you.
I
guess
the
I'd
like
to
wrap
up
and
just
say
on
a
more
broader
perspective
when
looking
at
this
property,
I
guess
there's
a
difference
between
actual
report
versus
what
we
asked
for
in
the
department.
It's
more
a
gross
look
of
what
can
be
achieved
for
this
property
again.
The
appellant
and
the
department
agree
on
the
number.
L
What
the
number
of
the
per
square
foot
value
for
the
vacant
square
footage
there's
a
difference
in
what
the
leases
are
in
place
and
what
they
can
achieve
or
what
they
are
achieving.
L
Again,
I
pointed
out
our
our
analysis
of
the
the
rent
roll
and
what
is
actually
being
received
for
this
property
and
you'll,
see
that
there's
a
difference
there
and
I
believe
the
the
test
is-
is
more
accurate,
but
given
that
it's
resulting
in
a
higher
value,
we
ask
that
the
board
take
consideration.
The
original
assessment.
K
Yeah
thanks,
so
I'm
glad
the
assessor
pointed
out
the
boe
decision
last
year,
which
is
out
actually
on
page
24.
If
anybody
wants
to
take
a
look,
because
the
board
actually
voted
to
use
the
column
g
that
I
provided
with
the
assessor's
cap
rate,
and
that
was
the
basis
for
the
reduction,
the
assessor
said
he's
taken
that
into
consideration
this
year,
but
very
clearly
he
hasn't.
Otherwise
the
assessment
would
have
gone
down
the
the
vacancy
increased
from
31
to
40
percent.
K
That's
the
big
thing
here
I
mean:
where
is
the
reduction
in
in
value?
There's
more
lease-up
costs
there's
higher
vacancy?
Second,
the
pgi
is
very
obviously
going
down
here.
You
look
at
columns
a
b
c
and
e.
The
income
stream
here
is
inconsistent,
to
say
the
least.
I
talked
to
the
to
the
building
owner
and
they're,
telling
me
they're
not
getting
any
offers
for
space
above
38
dollars
per
square
foot
right
now.
K
So
if
the
assessor
wants
to
prop
up
his
top
line,
pgi
with
old
rents
that
are
expiring,
and
we
have
an
example
of
one
that
they
were
paying
46
last
year
now
they
renewed
at
40..
You
know
that
we
find
that
to
be
inappropriate.
The
the
top
line
rent
should
be
no
higher
than
38
dollars
per
square
foot
for
the
office.
Thanks.
I
So
I
do
appreciate
the
manner
in
which
you
organize
this
and
some
of
the
other
cases
as
well,
so
I
I
would
be
willing
to
do
similar
to
what
we
did
last
year,
which
is
kind
of
eliminate.
The
cap
rate
argument
use
the
county's
cap
rate
guidelines,
but
the
appellant's
guidance
on
income
and
then,
as
far
as
the
below
the
line
deductions,
I
think
the
county's
correct
on
those
on
the
test.
I
wouldn't,
I
wouldn't
include
the
capex
in
that
number.
E
Greg
could
you
spend
another
sentence
or
two
on
why
the
column
g
noi
is
makes
more
sense
to
you
than
column,
f
and
way.
I
Yeah,
just
because
of
the
effective
rents
that
are
that
are
being
realized.
You
know
the
county's
kind
of
using
the
old
lease
rates
and
the
and
the
appellant
is
using
what
the
renewals
are
coming
in
at.
So
it's
driving
the
average
effective
rent
down.
E
Well,
I
went
to
that
page
15,
where
they
came
up
with
that
number
again.
You
know
this
is
again
column
a
row
1b
and
in
the
future,
in
f
1b.
That
seems
to
be
supported
by
what
is
on
1
120
versus
column.
G1B
would
be
perhaps
what
they're
facing
now
since
1
120.,
so
maybe
the
the
rest
is
compelling
from
gm
going
through
them
all,
but
certainly
not
column,
row
1b.
C
D
E
Nine
dollars
yeah,
I
looked
at
look
at
look
at
then
the
expenses
and
f
versus
abc
and
e.
You
know
it's
just
a
tad
under
e
and
way
above
a
b
and
c.
D
A
Right
and
one
thing
I
I
always
look
at
on
operating
expenses-
it's
not
always
the
dollar
amount,
because
they're
using
different
square
footage-
I
mean
so
you
know.
So
if
you
look
at
the
total
number
in
the
columns,
I
think
that's
what
we
should
be
looking
at
and
be
careful
with
saying.
Oh,
it's
only
eight
and
a
half
versus
nine,
but
when
they're
using
you
know
a
higher
square
footage,
I
mean
it
really
comes
out
to
what
the
number
is
and
relationship
is.
What's
reported,.
A
You
know
I
struggle
a
little
bit
mr
hoffman,
with
where
you're
going,
because
I
just
think
that
the
bottom
line,
the
noi
in
column
g,
is
just
too
low.
D
I
J
It's
okay.
In
this
case
I
was
looking
at
both
you
know
the
income
and
the
expenses,
because
originally
the
county
used,
you
know
nine
dollars
for
the
expenses.
Appellant
is
using
that
same
number.
But
again,
I
think
what
you
guys
discussed.
I
think
we
have
to
look
at
the
actual
expenses.
I
think
that
was
a
little
bit
too
aggressive
when
the
current
assessment
was
done
and
also
the
income.
Now
what
I
did
is
I
used.
J
You
know
the
rates
that
they
have
on
the
new
lease
and
the
renewal
at
forty
dollars
instead
of
the
41.25
that
the
county
has,
but
even
using
that
forty
dollars,
I
still
come
up
with
a
value
that
is
a
little
bit
higher
than
last
year.
I
mean
the
current
assessment,
the
value
that
I
come
up
at
forty
dollars
per
square
foot
on
the
test
revision.
J
J
Yeah
I
try
to
work
both
ways
you
know
is
looking
at
both
expenses
and
the
rates,
but
I
think
even
at
40
it
would
still
bring
it
up
a
little
bit.
So
I'm
okay
with
the
way
it
is
right
now.
A
The
county
is
confirmed
at
49
million
147
700.
A
A
A
All
right,
I
know
that
county
has
something
is
any
anything
else
from
board
members,
no
okay,
and
because
this
is
still
a
live
session,
anybody
who's
on
the
call
can
still
be
on
the
call.
I
just
want
to
alert
that
to
you,
mr
bailey,
so,
mr
bailey,
if
you
want
to
go
ahead
and
talk
to
us
about
what
you
want
to
talk
to
us
about.
B
Yes,
ma'am.
Thank
you,
so
I
just
want
to
touch
on
the
point
about
the
affordable
policy,
so
I
think
about
2017
2018.
When
we
started
looking
into
virginia
code
32.95,
we
actually
had
in
place
a
cut
off.
I
think,
similar
to
what
greg
suggested
to
where
if
it's
40
affordable,
then
you
get
the
affordable
cap
rate
and
anything
below
that
cut
off,
didn't
get
the
cap
rate.
B
So,
of
course,
naturally
what
happens
is
we're
they're
discussing
with
colleagues
their
discussion
with
agents
and
that
cut
off
point
was
an
issue
for
a
particular
agent.
I
believe,
mr
gilstein
actually
to
where
they
were
like.
Well,
we
just
missed
the
cutoff,
I'm
like
that's
the
cutoff.
We
have
so
you
don't
get
the
affordable
cash
rate.
You
get
the
market
cap
rate.
So
after
discussion
back
and
forth,
you
know
re-reading
of
the
virginia
code.
B
B
Has
us
value
them
the
way
we
value
them
now,
where
you
separate
out
the
market,
affordable
component
and
then
the
not
market
for
the
committed,
affordable
component,
and
then
the
market
units
are
valued
on
the
market
approach
due
to
it's,
not
even
the
excuse,
but
due
to
the
system
we
have.
We
do
all
of
this
on
a
spreadsheet
which
we
include
in
our
packets.
When
we
do
the
original
assessment,
we
have
to
consolidate
it
into
one
apartment
component
to
be
able
to
get
into
the
system
and
produce
the
worksheets
we
have.
B
So
that's
why
we
show
you
the
mix
you
sheet
with
the
two
components
and
then
you'll
see
also
the
blend
together
of
how
we
got
to
the
actual
assessed
value.
B
The
and
again
I
mean
I
was
shaking
my
head
just
to
be
frank,
because
it's
about
equalization,
I
mean
that's
why
I
mentioned
the
views
that
clarendon,
because
these
are
also
properties
that
are
about
40
50
market
versus,
affordable
and
they're,
valued,
the
exact
same
way,
whether
it's
apple
wesley,
housing,
ahc.
B
We
treat
everybody
the
same,
and
so
that's
what
I
was
trying
to
like
actually
say
like
this
isn't
a
unique
property.
B
This
is
actually
the
way
the
county's
been
going
for
quite
some
time
and
we've
seen
more
and
more
affordable
properties
have
market
components,
a
large
amount
of
market
components
to
like
they
say,
leverage
building
those
buildings
like
they
have
to
get
that
income
from
somewhere.
So,
whether
it's
columbia,
hills,
not
columbia,
hills,
that's
on!
B
Well,
that's
my
fault,
but
whether
it's
the
aac
properties,
we
see
whether
it's
apple
properties,
whether
wesley
housing,
I
mean
we
treated
all
these
probably
the
same,
and
that's
because
virginia
code,
we
we
do
what
we
can
within
what's
legally
permissible
and
what's
also,
you
know
bound
by
iwa
standards
as
well.
So
when
we
value
these
property,
I
think
we
often
forget
that
the
board
changes
and
what
we
used
to
do
isn't
always
known.
B
D
Yeah
this
property,
though,
has
these
the
covenants
that
affect
the
non-affordable.
Is
that
the
same
for
some
of
the
others
that
have
the
large.
B
It
is,
I
mean
the
views
of
clarendon.
That's
I
think,
that's
that's
a
john
kennedy
building.
He
comes
in
about
295
in
the
restricted
covenant,
the
ahc
building,
because
they're
they
actually
tore
down
a
building
like
on
south
glebe.
B
They
replaced
those
buildings
with
again
mixed
properties
like
this,
and
they
have
a
restrictive
covenants
in
place,
and
that
was
the
argument
when
we
first
started
valuing
these
mixed
buildings
trying
to
consider
that
affordable
component
of
that,
even
if
it's
only
20
or
30
percent
affordable,
it
still
had
restrictive
covenants
in
place
and
that's
what
should
be
considered.
B
And
so
we
again
went
back
and
said:
how
do
you
treat
these
build
like?
How
do
we
treat
these
buildings
because
clearly
a
lot
of
these
buildings?
I
mean
when
we
first
went
to
this
affordable
component
and
we
had
the
like
30
40
cut
off
a
lot
of
the
values
dropped
drastically
because
they
were
applied.
They
reapplied
the
affordable
component
and
then
again
some
people
they
weren't
getting
that
consideration
when
we
changed
it
and
we
said
okay,
this
is
what
our
interpretation
of
the
code
is,
because
this
is
clearly
what
it
says.
B
A
few
value
increases,
but
not
a
lot,
and
then
you
saw
the
people
who
weren't
getting
that
consideration.
Getting
that
consideration,
and
even
the
I
mean
within
the
latitude,
whatever
brand
new
market
properties
being
built,
we
value
them
the
same
way
like
their
market.
Their
12
units
of
affordable
housing
are
valued
on
the
affordable
component
and
then
the
rest
is
valued
off
of
marketing.
H
Yes,
thank
you.
Are
there
any
sales
from,
let's
say
wesley,
who
has
40
percent
affordable?
Are
there
any
sales
by
wesley
to
say,
pin
sans
you.
C
B
B
I
think
we
found
two
that
were
they
were
garden
style,
but
they
had
restricted
covenants
in
place,
and
so
we
did
analysis
of
these
older
cells
and
said
you
know,
let's
compare
these
cap
rates
to
cap
rates
that
occurred
in
the
market
during
that
time
period
and
we
saw
a
difference
and
that's
how
we
moved
from
having
one
cap
rate
for
apartments
to
having
cap
rates
for
affordable.
But
you
don't
see
affordable
transactions,
I
mean
apple.
A
B
H
H
The
people
that
do
the
affordable
are
trained
to
do
affordable
and
they
know
how
to
do
it,
whereas
a
market
does
not,
and
so
you
just
don't
have
a
readily
saleable
asset
unless
it's
to
another,
affordable
developer-
and
you
know
a
number
of
years
ago,
I
did
some
projects
with
ahc
and
with
wesley,
and
you
know
what
they
do
is
they
have
to
get
government
financing
from
the
virginia
department
and
then
once
that's
in
place,
they
put
the
covenants
and-
and
so
I
think,
it's
just
totally
a
totally
different
animal
than
a
market
rate
project.
B
I
I
see
what
you're
saying
I
agree
with
some
of
it.
I
don't
agree
totally
because
the
conversation
I
had
with
them,
but
one
sale
I
will
mention,
is,
I
think,
was
clarendon
quartz
the
owner
bought
the
property
and.
C
B
Sale
was
way
below
what
we
had
it
assessed
it,
and
so
I
reached
out
to
them-
and
I
asked
you
know
what
was
the
basis
of
the
sale.
What
was
the
cap
rate
they're
like
we
bought
it
for
the
tax
benefits
point
blank
period
like
there
was
no
cap
rate
information
for
it.
That
was
like
when
we
tried
to
ask
questions
like
we
bought
it
for
the
cap
for
the
tax
benefits.
B
That's
it
like
so
again,
when
you
see
these
sales
happen
for
us
to
try
to
quantify
cap
rates
and
different
measures,
it's
not
as
easy
as
it
may
seem.
I
know
it's
very
difficult,
yeah
and
even
with
the
affordable
component,
I
mean
we
all
know,
because
we
read
the
news:
they
get
financing
from
the
county.
They
get
financing
from
the
state.
They
get
financing
from
federal
government.
The
sales
that
we
see
of
land
are
partnerships
where
they
sell
it.
From
you
know
the
spring
from
carling
springs
to
the
springs.
B
It's
a
sale
of
the
land
to
incorporate
that
ownership
into
the
partnership,
which
is
usually
when
they
get
the
tax
credits.
So
we
we've
been
down.
We've
discussed
this
years
and
years
because
that
has
impacted
how
we
value
the
land.
As
you
remember,
we
had
land
with
based
off
of
market
sales,
but
now
we
have
an
affordable
land
rate
due
to
these
sales
into
part
me
yeah,
due
to
these
sales
from
the
owner
to
their
partnership.
B
So
I
mean
we
make
adjustments
when
we
have
enough
data
to
do
it.
But
the
thing
is
you
don't
have
that
much
data
right
and
we
even
look
at
the
publications
to
try
to
change
the
cap
rates.
We
talked
to
fairfax
county.
We
we
talked
other
jurisdictions.
B
I
was
surprised
to
learn
that
we
actually
during
some
discussion,
we
were
one
of
the
few
jurisdictions
who
did
not
increase
our
cap
rate
for
affordable
this
year.
There
was
some
discussion
with
other
jurisdictions
about
it
and
they
were
like
we're
seeing
higher
cap
rates
on
our
affordable
property.
So
we
feel
like
we
can
move
that
cap
rate
where
we
couldn't,
because
we
don't
have
that
many
sales,
we
don't
we're
not.
We
don't
have
the
luxury
of
the
larger
jurisdiction.
A
C
B
A
B
No,
I
mean,
I
agree
totally
with
you,
I'm
just
speaking
more
to
like
we
don't
have
sales,
I
mean
honestly,
it
seems
to
be
three
major
players,
and
this
isn't,
like
I
mean
they're,
doing
a
great
thing
by
providing
these
units
to
people
in
the
county.
So
that's
never
been
our
position,
we're
just
saying
once
they
build
or
buy
they
don't
let
go
of
it
right
and
as
barn
state
they're
good
at
running
these
properties
developing
these
properties.
B
B
We
followed
the
code
like
I
said
3295
where
it
says.
If
it's
an
affordable
component,
it
doesn't
matter.
B
I
think
the
code
is
it
doesn't
matter
if
it's
one
unit,
that
unit
has
to
be
valued
on
the
afford,
like
based
off
the
restricted
rent,
the
restricted
expenses,
the
covenants
in
place
and
the
restriction
on
being
able
to
sell
it,
and
that's
how
we
treat
these
mixed
properties
if
it
has
an
affordable
unit,
valued
as
affordable
the
remaining
market
of
value
this
market,
and
we
combine
the
value
to
prevent
the
total
assessed
value
to
present
the
total
survey.
Sorry.
A
I
All
right,
you're
doing
a
great
job,
I'm
not
envious
of
being
in
your
shoes
because
to
try
to
develop
a
policy,
it's
not
going
to
get
you
sued
by
500
million
people,
and
and
and
do
it
where
it
can
be
applied
equitably
without
getting
a
bunch
of
weird
values
here
and
there
like
that's.
I
can't
do
that.
So
all
I'm
going
to
do
is
continue
to
look
at
each
one
individually.
I
Yeah
and
and
maybe
I'll
come
up
with
some
my
thoughts
as
we
do
our
wrap
up
on,
because
I
know
some
of
these.
You
know
the
noi.
Doesn't
none
of
that
flows
to
the
owner
for
these
affordables
right?
It
goes
to
a
loan
that
you
know.
I
had
a
conversation
with
an
affordable
developer
and
they're,
like
those
loans
are
basically
like
money
from
mom
and
dad
like
it,
never
gets
paid
back.
It
just
gets
rolled
over
and
rolled
over
and
we
never
see
any
of
that
noi.
I
Our
income
stream
is
the
fee
right.
So
you
know,
maybe
that's
that's
some
information
that
we
can
request
from
these
property
owners
that
we
can
look
at
it
and
kind
of
try
to
come
up
with
a
better
way
to
value
these.
I
don't
know
I'll
I'll
I'll
think
of
some
ideas,
but
I
think
your
policy
is
you
you've
taken
it
the
best
you
can
given
the
fact
that
it's
really
difficult
to
do
on
basis
and
we're
going
to
get
more
and
more
of
these
buildings
right
yeah
because
of
the
goals.
B
Of
the
county-
and
we
definitely
get-
I
mean
that's
one
thing-
I've
always
told
them.
We
get
100
cooperation
from
affordable
housing,
so
that's
never
been
an
issue.
We
we
try
to
have
conversations
with
them
throughout
the
year,
usually
around
the
end
of
the
year,
to
just
get
an
understanding
of
how
things
are
going
or
what?
B
What
do
they
feel
like
we're
missing,
because
there
are
some
things
about
affordable
that
we're
still
learning,
and
I
think
we
always
continue
to
learn
as
they
continue
to
become
more
innovative
in
how
they
develop
these
properties
and
work
with
jurisdictions
and
government.
H
Yeah
irvin,
the
great
that
I've
been
hearing
for
whatever
it's
worth
from
the
affordable
providers
is
they
have
to
buy
a
piece
of
property
so
they
buy
it.
H
But
then
it
sits
for
like
three
years
until
they're
done
with
construction
and
what
what
they
find
really
difficult
is
to
handle
the
taxes
between
when
they
buy
it
and
when
they
can
actually
start
renting.
That's
the
gripe
that
I've
been
hearing
from
the
affordable
providers,
so
I
don't
know
just
wanted
to
share
that
with
you.
B
That's
interesting
because
we
actually
had
a
conversation
with
a
developer,
about
a
property
that
they
were
building
and
we
actually
went
through
the
timeline
in
which
and
how
we
value
these
properties.
So
we
discuss
with
them
what
happens
to
their
property
once
the
site
plan
or
form-based
code
is
approved.
B
We
even
explained
that
if
a
building
is
still
on
that
property
that
we
lower
the
value
of
the
building
down
to
a
thousand
dollars,
because
if
there's
a
building
on
the
site,
we
have
to
value
that
building,
so
we
discussed
with
them.
You
know
if
you
demo,
that
building
as
of
november
or
december
then
that
value
goes
to
zero.
B
So
we
can
determine
whether
or
not
it
is
time
for
us
to
move
that
property
to
value
the
property
based
off
income
approach,
as
opposed
to
cost
approach
the
following
assessment
year.
So
we
we
walk
the
steps
that
we
take
when
we
value
these
properties
with
developers
whenever
they
acquire
and
oftentimes.
This
is
before
they
even
start
it
on
a
project
just
so
they
can
build
this
into
their
construction
timeline
better.
E
B
C
A
C
A
All
right,
okay!
Well,
that
being
said
on
that
note,
we
will
adjourn
at
10,
36
and
re-adjourn
next
wednesday
october
14th
at
9am.