►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing October 4, 2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
For
4th
2022,
this
is
the
Arlington
County
Board
of
Equalization
hearings.
There's
six
cases
on
the
agenda
today,
we'll
start
with
the
first
case:
RPC
14045008
at
901,
North,
Randolph,
Street
and
Mr
Blake
Warren
is
here
on
behalf
of
the
owner.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes.
Tell
us
about
this
property.
B
Thank
you
very
much,
I'll
direct
the
board,
please
to
page
53
of
153
of
the
County's
response
memo,
which
includes
our
summary
of
facts.
This
is
the
Randolph
Towers
Apartment
Complex.
It
is
located
at
901,
North,
Randolph
Street
and
is
one
attacked
RPC.
It
was
originally
assessed
for
the
2022
reevaluation
at
190
million
520
900.
B
and
the
county
is
recommending
a
revision
to
180
million
636
900.
Currently,
it's
a
older
property
originally
built
in
1986
509
total
units,
and
it
is
a
multi-family
high-rise,
Building
21
stories
sitting
on
2.3
acres
of
land.
The
community
offers
a
mix
of
one
two
and
three
bedroom
units
I'll
direct
the
board.
Now,
please
to
page
three,
which
is
the
County's
apartment,
income
and
expense
summary
for
the
property
and
kind
of
the
continuing
theme.
B
As
it's
been
is
income
has
been
down
we're
showing
Trends
increased
expenses
for
the
last
three
years
and
a
downward
Trend
in
noi
over
the
last
three
years.
The
columns
that
are
highlighted
in
blue
columns,
a
b
c
and
e
are
the
last
four
years
of
operations
at
the
subject.
Property
you'll
see
that
effective
gross
income
has
declined.
B
Each
of
the
past
three
years
from
14.1
million
in
2019
down
to
13.2
million
in
2020
and
then
most
recently,
12.2
million
in
column
e,
which
is
for
the
2021
reporting
year
in
the
County's,
revised
columns,
F1
and
F2
they're
revised
effective
gross
income
of
13.45
million
is
essentially
1.2
million
dollars
above
what
the
property
was
able
to
generate.
Most
recently
in
2021.
B
total
operating
costs
and
operating
expense
ratios
over
the
last
four
years
at
25
in
18
24
in
19,
at
25
in
2020
and
most
recently
28.
The
counties
revised
a
test
column
used
a
combined
operating
expense
ratio
of
20
25
and
a
half
percent.
So
we're
we're
requesting
the
county
or
the
board
considered
the
actual
operations.
B
Most
recently
at
the
property,
as
Greg
and
Sophia
discussed
with
ditmar
costs,
materials
and
labor
have
continued
to
be
on
the
rise
and
suspected
to
continue
into
the
future
net
operate
income
again
over
the
last
three
years.
We're
seeing
the
downward
trending
in
net
operating
income
from
10
point
775
million
in
2019
down
to
9.95
million
in
2020
and
most
recently,
8.8
million
in
2021..
B
B
the
original
assessment
value.
At
this
at
the
subject,
property
of
190
million
was
represented.
The
5.3
increase
from
the
prior
Year's
assessment.
Now
the
the
revised
assessment
value
represents
basically
a
one
percent
decrease
from
the
2021
final
assessment,
but
that's
still
considering
that
again
year
over
year,
the
noi
for
the
property
from
2020
to
2021
dropped
11
percent.
B
So
again
we're
asking
the
the
board
to
consider
the
actual
operations
and
the
downward
Trend
and
net
operating
income,
which
is
which
is
again
well
below,
where,
where
the
County's
revised
test
column
is
of
1.1
million
dollars,
essentially
higher
than
what
this
property
was
able
to
achieve
in
2021,
Jeremy
I,
don't
know
if
there's
anything
else,
you'd
like
to
add
I,
don't
know
if
I
see
Sophie
or
yeah.
C
Greg's
on
last
year,
the
board
moved
to
reduce
this
emotion,
made
that
Jose
made
sorry.
There's
horrible
feedback.
Give
me
a
second
okay.
The
property
was
reduced
last
year
to
81.9
million
a
decision
that
Jose
proposed
and
Ken
seconded
it
it
passed.
6-0
was
based
on
increasing
the
the
vacancy
of
the
property.
The
key
here,
though,
is
the
last
year.
The
assessment
of
the
property
was
81.9
million
dollars,
and
this
year
the
proposed
reduction
would
be
80.6.
C
So
we're
talking
about
a
million
dollar
decrease
a
less
than
one
percent
decrease
in
the
income
at
the
property
over
that
time
has
gone
from
9.9
to
8.8,
so
the
income
is
down
11
million
or
1.1
million
the
assessment's
down
about
the
same
amount,
the
it
just
doesn't.
It
doesn't
really
make
a
lot
of
sense
here.
C
If,
if
we're
showing
now
a
trend
last
year,
I
understand
it
was
a
one
year
and
we
we
had
it
reduced
further
than
where
the
assessor
was
recommending
it,
but
think
that
we
should
continue
that
Trend
down.
If
last
year
was
1.1.
The
last
year
was
80
181
million,
with
a
9.9
million
noi.
The
this
year
should
should
clearly
be
less
than
that
with
an
8.8
million
Greg
and
Sophie
anything
you
guys
want
to
add.
While
we
still
have
time.
D
No
just
this
property
had
a
good
amount
of
concessions
and
low
rents
just
based
on
the
number
of
units,
and
it's
not
a
one-year
down
and
then
jump
back
up
to
market
for
500
plus
units.
It's
a
a
long
slug
coming
back
up.
So
just
want
to
point
that
out.
A
Yeah,
okay,
thank
you,
Mr
chicas,
for
the
county.
Please.
E
Yes,
man.
Thank
you
board
members.
Thank
you
black.
Thank
you,
Jeremy.
Thank
you,
Greg
Sophie.
We
are
talking
about
Randolph
Towers.
This
is
very
much
like
last
week's
case
of
Cortland
Towers,
Courtland
Park,
a
number
of
other
properties
that
ditmar
is
renovating
and
has
been
for
a
number
of
years.
Again.
It's
just
slightly
disingenuous
that
in
the
eight
minutes
that
we
just
heard
not
one
mention
was
made
of
of
some
18
million
dollars
of
Capital
Improvements
over
the
last
three
years.
This
doesn't
Market
vacancy.
E
E
You
know
these
are
what
do
they
say
fully
equipped
modernized?
You
know
furnished
unfurnished
newly
renovated
furnished
and
unfurnished
Studios,
one
twos
and
threes.
So
again,
this
isn't
something
that
they're
hiding
I'm,
not
sure
that
why
we're
not
openly
talking
about
today.
E
The
reason
why
we've
seen
a
decline
year
over
year
is
because
again
they're
withholding
a
hundred
plus
units
a
year
to
modernize
them
and
renovate
them.
We
don't
know
what
they
spent
in
capex
in
2020,
but
in
years
18
through
2021,
they
spent
15.1
million
in
Capital
Improvements.
That's
heavily
renovating
all
the
units,
the
common
areas,
as
was
noted
as
project
properties
from
1986.
So
it's
not
necessarily
a
surprise
to
renovate
it
and
bring
it
up
to
Norms,
but
it
should
be
noted
that
this
is
not
Market
vacancy.
This
is
actually
owner
mandated.
E
This
can
be
further
noted
by
looking
at
where
they
are
as
of
today.
Obviously,
we
don't
look
at
where
they
are
in
on
October
4th,
but
we
welcome
the
board
numbers
to
look
at
see
where
their
vacancy
is.
As
of
today.
As
of
January
1st,
when
we
value
this
property,
we
did
not
have
2021's
information.
As
the
board
is
aware,
once
we
got
that
we
did
look
at.
E
The
property
over
the
last
three
or
four
years,
putting
a
bit
more
weight
on
the
year
2021
and
less
on
2018.
As
that
New
Year
comes
in
again,
as
the
board
is
familiar,
we
did
look
at
these
three
years.
Most
recently
and
again,
I
would
recommend
the
board.
Look
at
projections
made
in
column,
F1
and
F2.
The
projection
made
for
gross
potential
is
some
1.7
million
dollars
less
than
what
was
achieved
in
operating
year.
2021
1.7
million
dollars
less
and
in
fact,
you'll
see
that
carries
on
in
regards
to
operating
expenses.
E
Operating
expense
projection
is
actually
hired
by
almost
sixty
thousand
dollars
than
what
was
achieved
in
year,
2021
again,
because
we're
stabilizing
that
number
and
assuming
that
that
property
will
in
fact
lease
up
we're
using
a
stabilized
eight
percent,
which
again
I
believe,
is
a
good
bit
higher
than
what's
actually
being
achieved
right
now
again,
if
we're
looking
at
noi
one
year,
does
not
assessment
make?
Yes,
the
property
has
gone
down
two
three
years
in
a
row,
but
again
that's
due
to
owner
mandated
essentially
taking
units
offline.
E
We've
noted
that
this
is
509
units,
but
if
you
only
let
400
and
some
go,
it's
really
hard
to
suggest
that
you
have
509
units
available
to
rent,
given
that
we
did
note
the
renovations
going
on
at
the
property
last
four
years,
given
that
we're
still
in
original
condition,
1986
effective
age,
given,
as
was
noted,
that
we
actually
are
calling
for
a
decrease
of
one
percent,
just
shy
of
one
percent
from
last
year's
revision.
E
We
do
believe
that's
more
in
touch
with
what's
going
on
at
the
realities
of
the
property,
as
opposed
to
a
negative
13
which
is
essentially
looking
to
capitalize
just
last
year's
performance.
We
don't
agree
with
that
approach,
something
that
wasn't
brought
up.
I,
don't
know
how
big
an
issue
it
is.
We
sent
three
emails
to
the
appellants,
starting
as
you
can
see
on
page
25,
asking
about
vacancy
at
the
property
asking
if
this
was
in
fact,
units
being
monetized
renovated.
How
many
units
were
renovated?
E
How
many
in
2022,
how
many
had
left
be
renovated,
modernized
and
I
brought
up
the
personal
property
deduction
at
the
bottom
of
negative
932
000.
I
noted
it
looked
like
it
was
carried
over
from
2021s,
which
would
have
been
an
error
in
our
part,
but
I
did
ask
them
to
provide
receipts
or
some
sort
of
proof
of
the
business
tangibles
that
we
could
apply
for
this
year,
because
we
didn't
get
a
report
from
the
commission
of
the
revenue
in
regards
to
this
personal
property.
So
we
didn't
hear
a
response
to
any
of
these.
E
I
did
get
an
initial
response
from
Mr
Warren
in
the
sense
saying
that
he
would
pass
these
questions
on
to
the
owners,
but
that
we
didn't
get
any
follow-up.
So
we
did
not
apply
that
personal
property
below,
as
you
can
see,
in
columns,
F1
and
F2.
E
Given
the
review
we
made
of
the
property,
given
the
the
fact
we
know
some
60
million
dollars
a
good
bit
more
considering
we
don't
know
2022's
Cat-Back
spend
so
some
16
million
dollars
has
been
spent
over
the
last
three
years
renovating
and
modernizing
the
units
due
to
owner
mandation
mandate.
We
do
believe
that
the
revision
reflected
in
columns,
F1
and
F2
should
be
confirmed
at
180
million
dollars,
636
900..
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board
members.
G
Yes,
thank
you.
This
is
for
the
for
the
owner.
What
is
the
personal
property?
Is
that
furnished
furnished
units.
C
Yes,
some
of
some
of
the
units
are
rented
furnished,
so
it
brings
up
the
question.
Yes,
some
of
the
units
are
so
if
it's
two
thousand
dollars
to
rent
a
apartment
or
you
can
rent
the
apartment
for
three
thousand
dollars
and
it's
furnished.
G
Is
the
nine
was
it
932
000
is
that
is
that
the
same,
as
was
deducted
last
year,.
C
H
A
All
right
other
questions,
I
can't
say
Mr,
panaranda
or
Mr
Hoffman,
no.
K
Okay,
can
you
still
hear
me
yes,
yeah,
but
I
can't
hear
you
okay
and
that's
the
problem.
Okay,
I'll
dial
back
in
in
a
moment,
questions
for
the
Department
first,
one
is
with
this
multi-year
apartment
upgrade
and
the
exterior
elevation
being
extensively
renovated
between
two
and
three
years
ago.
Is
that
or
is
it
not
going
to
affect
the
effective
age
of
the
property.
K
K
No
I'm,
sorry
I.
This
is
a
new
download
of
teams.
We
can't
get
it
all
to
work,
just
go
on
to
somebody
else
and
I'll
I'll
call
in
and
when
you
can
I
have
that
question
and
the
other
question
is
about
what,
if
you
knew
what
the
vacancy
was
on
and
or
about
1-1
January
1st
2022.
go
on
to
somebody
else
and
I'll
dial
in
so
I
can
hear
you
saying:
I'll
meet
myself.
I
A
A
E
Okay,
so
in
response
to
your
question,
sir,
the
property
is
an
original
condition.
As
noted
and
much
like.
Last
week,
we
talked
about
just
being
a
Manpower
issue,
so
we'd
like
to
go
out
and
tour
these
properties
and
verify
if
an
effective
age
needs
to
be
changed,
but
as
of
this
evaluation,
it
is
in
fact
an
original
condition.
1986.
E
question
two
is
in
regards
to
vacancy.
They
reported
21.61
vacancy
and
I
would
note
that,
in
those
same
questions
that
I
would
like
to
referred
to
earlier,
we
did
ask
what
was
the
differentiation
between
true
vacancy
and
owner
mandated
vacancy
and
did
not
hear
back
I.
M
J
Appliance
pro
forma
for
retail,
you've
got
the
2021,
basically
the
income
from
2021
actual
and
then
you've
got
a
vacancy
figure
below.
That
was
that
the
actual
vacancy
in
2021
as
well
or
is
that
expected
vacancy
that.
B
D
J
C
One
vacant
unit
unit,
228,
that's
a
thousand
square
feet,
but
the
rest
of
the
commercial
for
the
rent
roll
is
is
at
least
okay.
J
E
Yeah
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
it's
unfortunate
that
a
lot
of
these
questions
that
are
being
answered
today
were
asked
by
me
in
September.
If
you
look
at
page
27
I
asked
specifically
about
the
retail
tenant
Suite
101
Suite
103
Suite
105.
in
regards
to
the
vacancy.
If
you
move
up
to
page
25,
I
asked
about
true
vacancy
how
many
units
were
renovated?
How
many
were
modernized?
How
many
in
2021
how
many
2022?
How
many
had
left
to
be
modernized?
We
refer
to
the
personal
property
deduction.
All
of
these
questions
were
ignored.
E
E
If
you
look
in
columns,
F1
and
F2
you'll
note
that
we
did
in
fact
account
for
that
our
gross
potential
projection
is
1.7
million
dollars
lower
than
what
was
achieved
at
the
property
in
2021,
and
our
operating
expenses
projection
is
higher
than
what
was
incurred
at
the
property.
We
do
believe
that
the
revision
of
180
million
636
900
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
B
Yeah
just
quickly
with
regard
to
the
the
correspondence
back
and
forth
I
mean
we
get
a
lot
of
questions
and
back
and
forth
between
me
and
and
Chris,
and
we
forward
those
questions
on
to
to
ditmar
for
their
timely
and
prompt
responses
as
quickly
as
possible.
B
If
we
did
not
get
that
one
over
to
you,
I
will
say
that
this
year,
specifically
with
I,
think
have
pushed
back
and
and
against
the
the
gun
that
the
county
is
that
in
in
many
cases
we're
only
getting
a
day
or
two
sometimes
we're
getting
these
questions,
and
if
we
don't
get
them
to
answer
the
same
day,
we're
then
getting
that
same
final
response
for
the
property
before
we
even
get
a
chance
to
to
get
an
answer
back
to
to
the
county.
These
things
can
take
time.
Blake
Blake.
C
This
one's
a
little
different
Sophie
just
sent
it
they
answer
the
questions
on
September,
16th
and
and
I
could
go
through
those
answers
if
you'd
like,
but
they
were
sent
with
all
the
information
on
September,
16th
and
Sophie
and
Greg
are
on
the
call.
If
you
want
somebody
else's
to
to
mention
that
as
well,
but
I
will
say
that
the
units
that
are
modernized,
true
vacancy
all,
that
is
on
the
rent
roll,
which
is
on
page
130
at
151.
A
G
Throw
this
out
and
see
if
anyone
agrees,
I
think
the
only
thing
I
see
wrong
here
with
what
the
county
did
is
I,
do
think
the
personal
property
tax
should
be
deleted
or
or
should
be
deducted,
and
when
you
take
the
revision
for
the
apartments,
it
goes
down
by
the
932
321
to
169
400
579.
So
that's
my
suggestion,
I'll
see
if
anyone
agrees.
J
N
G
I
G
Should
I
make
a
motion
that
we
reduce
the
assessment
to
that
figure.
G
I'm
sorry,
because
I
deducted
the
personal
property
tax
from
the
final
figure,
I
I,
think
that
was
just
simply
a
a
an
inadvertent
supplying
of
the
appropriate
information
and
so
I
think
that
it
should
be
deducted
as
it
was
in
the
original
assessment.
A
A
B
B
This
is
the
Thomas
Place
Apartments,
located
at
461
North,
Thomas
Street.
It
is
consistent
of
one
tax
RPC,
it
is,
was
originally
assessed
at
17
million
851
800.,
the
county
is
recommending
a
revision
of
14
million
854
500..
B
The
property
was
originally
built
in
2009
33
total
units.
It
is
a
garden
style
property
in
the
Boston
Virginia
sub
Market.
It's
positioned
with
approximately
around
a
mile
between
the
the
Boston
Metro
and
the
Virginia
Square
Metro
stations
and
located
to
the
south
of
the
intersection
of
Glebe
Road
and
Wilton
Boulevard.
On
page
three
you'll
find
the
County's
apartment,
income
and
expense
summary
and
historical
reporting
for
the
property
in
columns
a
b
c
and
e
show
the
last
four
years
of
actual
operations
at
the
property.
B
As
you
can
see,
gross
potential
income
increased
slightly
from
19
to
20,
1.3
million
or
1
million
three
hundred
fifty
seven
thousand
two,
forty
two
to
one
million
360
609
and
then
dropped
down
in
2021
to
1
million
226
805.
the
County's
revision.
B
Although
they
did
make
a
a
revision
from
1.4
million
to
1
million
287
000
is
still
approximately
sixty
thousand
dollars
above
the
actual
gross
potential
income.
The
property
was
capable
of
generating
in
2021,
effective
gross
income.
You'll
see
a
steady
three-year
decline
from
2019
to
2021,
1.3
million
in
2019
down
to
1.25
million
in
2020
and
most
recently,
1.1
million
the
counties
revised
effective
gross
income
in
column.
F
is
still
approximately
75
000
higher
than
the
property
was
was
able
to
achieve
most
recently
in
2021.
operating
expenses.
B
That's
a
subject:
property
for
the
last
four
years
was
26.5
and
18
27
percent
in
2019
25
and
a
half
percent
in
2020
and
most
recently
35
percent.
Again,
we've
been
talking
about
operating
costs
continuing
to
to
increase
year
over
year
and
that
Trend
expecting
to
to
continue
with
with
higher
materials,
higher
labor
costs,
higher
vendor
and
Contracting
costs.
The
county
in
their
revised
column,
is
using
operating
an
operating
expense
ratio
of
31
percent,
again
net
operating
income,
a
three-year
downward
downward
Trend
968
000
in
2019
down
to
934
000
in
2020.
B
and
then
down
to
719
000,
most
recently
in
2021..
The
counties
revised
noi
of
817
000
is
again
approximately
one
hundred
thousand
dollars
higher
than
the
property.
The
subject
property
was
able
to
achieve
the
original
assessment
value
of
17
17
million
851
000
that
represented
a
five
percent
increase
from
the
prior
Year's
value.
Now
the
the
revised
value,
14
million
854,
is
a
12
decrease
from
from
the
prior
Year's
2021
value,
but
please
consider
that
again
year
over
year,
net
operating
income
at
the
property
from
2020
to
2021
decreased
by
23.
B
So
a
significant
decrease
in
fall
off
in
in
the
operations
of
this
property
in
2021
and
we're
hoping
that
the
board
will
consider
that
in
the
2022
assessment,
that's
about
all
I
have
I,
know
Jeremy
or
Greg.
You
would
like
to
add
anything
on
before
we.
We
wrap
this
one
up.
C
Yeah,
one
of
the
reasons
you
see
such
a
drop
in
the
21
income
is
because
this
property
is
three
and
four
bedroom
units
which
are
really
hit
hard
by
covet.
It's
reliant
on
roommates
and
people
that
want
to
live
close
to
Boston.
That
might
not
other
be
able
to
afford
just
a
one
bedroom,
so
they
team
up
with
roommates.
So
then
they
live
close
to
the
mall,
where
they
have
nightlife
and
access
to
the
metro
to
get
downtown
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
C
Well,
when
covet
hit
living
with
randoms
living
with
other
people
started
moving
back
home,
as
we've
talked
about
in
the
past,
there
was
a
big
shift
for
the
younger
younger
folks
in
be
in
the
community
to
basically
move
further
out
move
home,
save
money,
kind
of
thing
not
live
with
random
people
to
be
close
to
The
Nightlife.
So
when
you
see
the
drop
from
one
point,
basically
1.2
1.2
1.3
down
to
1.1,
it's
not
just
oh,
they
had
a
bad
year
or
they
they
shut
down
for
renovations
or
self-inflicted.
C
It
was
a
shift
in
how
people
live
and
obviously
there's
going
to
be
a
trend
and
we'll
see
it
next
year
and
and
so
on,
but
to
just
use
sixty
thousand
dollars
higher,
as
if
there
isn't
a
reason
for
the
one-year
drop
I
think
is
a
little
bit
off
you'll
you'll
notice,
another
example:
the
rubs
are
up
from
4
000
to
22
000.,
that's
fine,
because
the
utilities
are
up
by
Twenty
Thousand,
so
rubs
are
up,
twenty
thousand
utilities
are
up
twenty
thousand,
they
offset
each
other,
but
then
the
assessor
basically
says,
but
your
expenses
are
high,
so
I'm
going
to
stabilize
them
down
but
uses
our
actual
rubs
number.
C
The
one-year
blip
is
just
completely
random
is
not
going
to
happen
or
there
was
no
shift
in
the
market.
We
really
should
be
considering
just
as
much
on
2020
as
we
are
in
2021..
The
income
that
they
used
is
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
higher
than
the
properties
actually
achieved
and
there's
a
reason
and
the
owners
are
here
on
the
call.
If
you
have
any
questions
of,
is
this
the
new
Norm
Is
2020,
the
new
Norm?
Is
it
a
one-year
blip?
Why
did
this
happen?
D
No
Jeremy
I
think
that
was
well
said.
I,
think
we
had
that
conversation
with
our
property
at
Cherry,
Hill
that
the
larger
units
actually
took
a
little
longer
to
vacate
just
but
but
then
once
they
were
there
empty.
It
was
very
hard
to
continue
to
continues
to
be
hard
to
to
backfill
or
refill
with,
like
you
said,
roommate
situations.
D
The
Cherry
Hill
instance
was
a
little
different
because
the
Taylor
School
District
families
kind
of
picked
up
some
units
there,
but
here
at
Thomas
place
and
our
Thomas
Court
Henderson
Park
Apartments
We've
continued
to
discount
rents
to
to
find
occupancy,
but
I
thought
that
was
well
said
and
the
rubs
conversation
I'm
happy
to
have
it.
Because
again
it's
not
rubs.
It's
it's
it's
the
same
as
the
resident
and
the
power
company.
They
just
pay
us
and
we
give
it
to
the
water
company.
So
I
don't
get
that
conversation
at
all
yeah.
C
It
seems
like
Chris
is
shaking
his
head.
He
might
disagree
with
you
on
how
you
on
how
you
do
that.
So,
if
that
is
a
discussion,
we'd
love
to
have
and
just
get
it
over
with
because
having
the
owner
here
to
talk
about
how
they
do
it
I
think
is,
is
pretty
important.
But
the
last
point
is
the
reason
that
again
on
this
one,
it
matters
so
much
on
the
shift
is
there
are
33
units.
C
A
Okay,
thank
you,
Mr
chicas,
for
the
county.
Please.
E
Thank
you,
man,
so
I
would
essentially
reject
virtually
everything.
Mr
chitla
just
said
the
property
is
100
occupied.
The
property
is
100
occupied
on
January
1st,
it's
100
occupied.
Now,
when
we
look
at
historic
vacancy
three
percent
three
point:
six
percent
two
point:
five
percent
two
point:
nine
percent,
and
a
one
year
of
a
blip
one
year
of
a
blip.
We
talked
about
that
in
regards
to
covet
in
the
year
of
covid.
E
It
would
make
sense
that
people
did
leave
and
and
fled,
went
to
their
parents
and
then
in
the
next
year
they
tighten
it
up
by
over
five
percent
and
then
the
next
day
after
that
they're
at
zero
percent.
This
is
a
well
well
occupied.
Building
it's
been
historically,
it
will
continue
to
be.
E
This
is
exactly
what
we've
seen
almost
all
year.
You
look
at
apartment
revenues,
18
to
19
and
increase
19
to
20
and
increase
20
to
21.
It
did
decrease,
but
again
that's
because
of
what
we've
seen
in
other
properties
like
this.
They
lowered
rents
and
they
increased
concessions
to
increase
occupancy.
That's
what
happened.
They
did
a
good
job
mission
accomplished.
So
when
we're
looking
at.
E
What's
going
on
from
here,
further
we're
looking
at
the
same
thing
we've
talked
about,
we
do
believe
that
at
100
occupancy
it's
going
to
be
quite
easy
to
increase
rents
by
one
or
two
percent.
That's
a
modest
increase.
Two
percent
is
a
modest
increase,
that's
what
we
projected
for
2022
and,
as
you
can
see
again,
we
do
stabilize
these
numbers.
We
also
reject
the
idea
that
somehow
rubs
grew
by
465
percent
utility
reimbursements
grew
by
466
percent
according
to
the
penance.
They
also
believe
that
somehow
utilities
grew
by
72
percent.
Just
this
year.
E
It's
amazing
I
would
suggest
and
as
I
reported
to
them
in
page
24,
in
an
email
to
the
appellants
and
to
the
owner
that
it
looks
like
they
under
reported
utilities
for
years,
18,
19
and
20
and
as
well
under
reported
the
utility
reimbursements
I
asked
that
specifically,
it
appears
as
though
rubs
and
utilities
were
underreported.
Is
this
accurate?
My
guess
is
whoever
filled
out
the
INE
prior
to
2021
was
treating
the
utility
reimbursement
as
an
offset,
but
they
should
both
be
reported
in
full.
E
So
what
I
did
was
I,
went
ahead
and
upped
the
operating
expenses
about
20
000,
approximately
for
years,
18,
19
and
20,
and
did
the
same
for
the
income
as
if
Mr
Chandler
point
out
as
a
wash
or
as
an
offset.
We
don't
believe
that
we
think
one
is
an
income
and
one
is
an
expense.
The
expenses
were
again
up
by
Twenty
Thousand.
We
stabilized
that
number
and
came
up
to
the
projected
number
that
we
did
do
the
math
any
which
way
you
want.
E
If
you're
looking
at
a
four
year,
average
we're
higher.
If
you're,
looking
at
a
three
year,
average
we're
higher
if
you're,
looking
at
a
two-year
average
we're
higher.
The
projection
made
by
the
county
is
appropriate.
The
conjunctions
made
in
regards
to
the
income
is
appropriate.
You've
seen
us
do
this.
All
year
long
we
adjust
the
parking
to
see
what
was
the
fitting
in
with
what's
been
achieved.
Historically,
we
did
the
same
with
other
income.
We
did
the
same
with
utility
reimbursements.
E
Our
effective
gross
again
is
stabilized
again
with
eight
percent
vacancy
for
a
property
that's
been
historically
under
four
percent
and
again
at
zero
percent
vacancy
on
January
1st,
we
again
established
a
stabilized
operating
expense
by
upping
the
amount
that
was
listed
for
years,
18,
19
and
20.
again
increasing
those
numbers
busted
by
Twenty
Thousand,
to
account
for
the
increased
utilities
that
were
expressed
in
2021.
E
even
again
doing
that
we
came
up
with
a
projected
number
that
called
for
a
decrease,
as
was
noted
by
approximately
12.5
percent,
far
more
with
reason,
with
what's
been
achieved
historically
than
the
appellant's
33
drop.
So
we
do
believe
based
on
this
information,
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
a
revised
value
of
14
million.
Eight
hundred
fifty
four
thousand
five
hundred.
Thank
you.
C
G
Yeah
I've
got
conflicting
information
as
to
the
bedroom
breakdown.
Is
it
is
it
in
fact
33
bedroom
units
and
three
four
bedroom
units
or
or
are
they
two
and
three,
because
I've
got
conflicting
information.
G
I
guess
whoever
can
answer
it?
Probably
the
owner.
E
G
C
Well,
Florence,
right
and-
and
that
was
the
Chris's
point
that
he
made
it
is
occupied,
but
you'll
notice
for
the
first
time
in
21,
they
offered
concessions
in
order
to
get
it
occupied.
They
dropped
the
rents
by
150
000.
So
we're
not
disputing
that
the
property
there
is
no
high
vacancy
here.
We're
not
disputing
any
of
this
was.
C
That
in
no
it's
just
making
a
statement,
we're
we're
saying
that
that
three
percent
there
is
a
three
percent
vacancy
for
the
year.
But
in
order
to
do
that,
they
had
to
offer
eighty
thousand
dollars
in
concessions
and
drop
the
rents
by
150
000.
So
we're
not
disputing
that.
Okay.
G
Okay,
one
one
follow-up.
So
if
the
target
market
is
roommates
single
people
as
roommates,
is
there
any
vacancy
not
of
a
unit
but
of
a
roommate.
C
G
N
D
Morris
answer
that
question
a
little
bit
further
with
what
Jeremy
was
saying
about
the
I.
Don't
think
we
use
the
term
randoms
in
our
in
our
marketing,
but
we
we
what
we
what
we
found
was
that
when
one
a
lot
of
for
years,
three
bedrooms
were
rented
to
be
at
least
revisions
right,
like
three
roommates
would
be
there.
One
would
leave
another
one
and
then
you
know
there'd
be
at
least
revision
to
add
that
that
occupant
to
the
lease
and
then
we'd
move
forward
and
that's
the
way
it
happened.
D
It
was
a
little
different
right
because
then,
when
that
roommate
left
no
one
wanted
to
move
in,
you
know
one
bedrooms
and
efficiencies
if
they
were
discounted
were
popular
because
you
were
by
yourself
right
and
so
three
bedrooms.
If
you
discount
them
enough,
we've
often
found
that
once
you
go
under
three
thousand
dollars,
everybody's
pays
less
than
a
thousand
dollars
a
month
and
it
feels
great,
but
this
property
was
achieving
more
than
that,
and
so
yes,
we
can
fill
the
units,
but
it's
just
difficult
to
do
it.
D
M
I
put
the
phone
away,
I
thought
I,
muted
it,
but
it's
not
muting.
For
for
the
appellant,
you
have
a
higher
cap
rate.
Do
you
have
a
dispute
whether
this
is
a
gardener
or
a
mid-rise.
C
E
Yes,
ma'am
so
again
we
noted
the
seemingly
one-year
downturn
again
we
attribute
it
to
filling
up
vacancy.
As
we've
noted
it
worked.
100
exponent
is
January
1st
still
100
occupied
we're
still
applying
a
guideline,
eight
percent
vacancy,
which
obviously
squashes
our
gross
potential.
We
did
account
for
operating
expenses,
as
we
noted
going
out
of
our
way
to
add
twenty
thousand
dollars
per
each
year,
as
we
believe
those
were
undervalued.
E
Even
then
that
we
do
believe
our
projection
shows
is
in
line
with.
What's
going
on
the
property
at
negative
12
drop
year
over
year,
as
opposed
to
the
negative
33
percent
in
one
year,
it's
just
too
much.
We
do
believe
that
the
revision
of
14
million
854
500
is
appropriate.
Thank
you.
C
Wrap
up,
he
mentions
that
the
vacancy
of
eight
percent
in
their
the
property
is
100
occupied.
What
he
I
think
I'll
say
accidentally
forgot
to
mention
is
that's
not
just
vacancy.
That's
vacancy
and
concessions
concessions
were
seven
percent,
Justin
21,
so
to
say:
hey
vacancy
zero
and
we're
giving
you
eight
we're
being
nice,
guys,
no
concessions
with
seven
percent,
so
you're,
basically
just
giving
us
a
one
percent
vacancy
at
the
property
which
is
just
can
just
be
normal
turn
a
one
percent
vacancy.
C
He
mentions
the
drop
from
the
original
assessment
that
original
assessment
noi
was
higher
than
the
properties
ever
achieved,
so
the
noi
was
922,
968
934
and
they
were
using
980.
and
then
now
it
comes
in
at
7,
19
and
they're.
Saying
well,
we'll
give
you
a
drop,
but
what
he
doesn't
mention
is
that
in
20
was
down
three
percent
and
21.
It
was
down
23
and
the
owners
here
telling
you
exactly
why
it
was
down
and
how
the
shift
wasn't
a
one-year
shift
and
how
it
changed
it.
C
This
is
not
one
that
if
you
change
this,
you
have
to
change
them
all
it's.
This
is
a
unique
property
that
is
valued
differently
and
is
is
a
different
asset
than
your
typical
one
and
two
bedroom
unit.
That
was
hit
a
lot
harder
and
the
way
the
owner
responded
was
we'll,
give
more
concessions
and
we'll
drop
rent
in
order
to
keep
the
vacancy
at
a
normal
level,
and
the
assessor
is
basically
saying
you
dropped
rent
too
much
and
your
expenses
are
a
bit
too
high.
The
expenses
are
where
the
expenses
are
they're
higher.
C
We
understand
that
the
offset
the
increase
in
utilities
of
twenty
thousand
dollars.
If
you
talk
about
percentages,
is
the
exact
same
increase
that
the
rubs
went
up.
So
the
rubs
are
up.
20
000,
the
utilities
are
20
000..
The
fact
is,
the
noi
at
the
property
is
not
719
and
that's
as
much
as
they
can
get.
J
It
was
pretty
good,
it's
just
weird,
to
look
at
these
cap
rates
today,
but
again
it's
October
and
we're
talking
about
a
January
evaluation.
So
I
I
can't
really
see
anything
wrong
with
the
value
here.
G
Yeah
you
know
I
I
looked
and
looked
and
looked
and
I
just
can't
see
how
a
reduction
would
be
appropriate.
You
look
at
the
the
actual
of
20,
let's
see
the
operating
year
and
what
the
County's
done.
I
thought
was
somewhat
generous,
so
I'm
good
with
where
the
county
is.
I
Yeah
I
agree
with
Mr
Lawson
I
think
the
county
was
a
little
bit
more
generous
with
the
numbers.
You
know
the
conversations
that
they
gave.
I,
don't
think
it's
going
to
be
something
that
was
going
to
be
year
after
year,
but
you
know
if
I
was
to
do
this.
I
would
have
used
30
on
the
expenses
instead
of
31.
So
I
think
the
county
did
very
good
in
this
I'm.
Okay,
with
the
revised.
G
I'll
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion
that
we
reduce
the
assessed
value
to
14
million
eight
hundred
fifty
four
thousand
five
hundred
per
the
County's
suggested
reduction.
A
A
Okay.
Next
up
we
have
Mr
Harmon
I,
believe
I
saw
him
yeah.
N
A
O
O
O
Now,
if
you
direct
your
attention
to
page
four
of
the
appeal,
you'll
see
the
Drea
summary
page.
Column
f
is
the
Drea
test
for
the
office
parcel
column.
F1
combines
two
separate
assessments:
the
office
and
the
parking
garage-
and
this
isn't
really
helpful
to
us
in
this
case.
So
column
f
is
the
one
we're
focusing
on
now
on
column.
F.
The
issues
are
in
the
income
section
up
top.
You
can
see
that
the
test
column
imputes
362
thousand
dollars
to
pass
through
income
and
one
hundred
forty
seven
thousand
dollars
to
miscellaneous
income.
O
You
can
see
this
on
the
rent
roll
listed
on
page
39
of
the
appeal
that
only
LA
Fitness
is
paying
past
through
income.
Since
this
past
three
income
is
assessed
on
a
separate
parcel.
The
pass-through
income
for
this
parcel
needs
to
be
reduced
to
zero
to
reflect
what
is
anticipated
at
this
person
or
the
miscellaneous
income.
You
can
see
one
hundred
forty
seven
thousand
dollars
imputed
on
the
assessment.
This
income
is
reported
on
the
ine
and
it's
co-mingled
between
the
LA
Fitness
and
the
daycare
center
at
the
office.
O
Again,
the
LA
Fitness
is
assessed
separately
as
such.
Only
the
daycare
Center's
proportionate
share
of
miscellaneous
income
should
be
assessed
on
this
parcel
that
comes
out
to
thirty
seven
thousand
dollars.
Making
these
adjustments
is
consistent
with
what
the
county
has
already
done
for
parking
income.
If
you
turn
to
page
five
of
the
appeal,
you'll
see
that,
on
the
test,
worksheet
listed
there,
the
county
initially
included
the
2021
parking
income
of
249
thousand
dollars
on
the
office
parcel.
O
Then,
on
the
summary
page,
this
parking
income
was
removed
on
the
test
column
because
again
it's
for
a
separate
parcel
and
assessed
on
a
separate
assessment,
so
correcting
the
test
column
F
to
remove
the
pass-through
income.
That's
earned
on
a
separate
parcel,
reducing
the
miscellaneous
income
to
the
proportionate
share
that
the
office
building
generates
results
in
a
final
value,
changing
nothing
else
of
26
million
five
hundred
forty
six
thousand
dollars.
O
So
briefly,
to
summarize,
this
property
is
three
commercial
condo
Parcels
all
assessed
separately,
yet
they're
all
reported
on
the
same
income
and
expense
survey
form
again.
Those
Parcels
are
the
office
building
the
parking
garage
and
the
LA
Fitness
retail
course
directing
the
county
test
column
on
page
four
by
removing
the
pass-through
income,
that's
attributable
to
the
LA
Fitness
and
adjusting
the
miscellaneous
income
to
the
proportionate
share
of
the
daycare
center,
which
is
thirty.
O
Seven
thousand
dollars
gets
us
to
a
final
value
for
this
parcel
the
office
building
of
26.5
million
dollars
since
the
assessment
imputes
income
to
the
office
parcel
that
is
actually
attributable
to
other
Parcels
that
are
assessed
separately.
The
taxpayer
respectfully
requests
that
the
assessment
be
reduced
to
26.5
million.
Thank
you
and
Eileen.
Do
you
have
anything
you'd
like
to
add.
P
No
I
think
that
you've
covered
it
beautifully
and
I
guess
we're
going
to
be
dealing
with
the
parking
parcel
later.
P
So
there
are
three
separate
units
as
you've
said,
and
one
irony,
but
it's
very
easy
to
segregate
out
the
items
as
we've
done.
Thank.
Q
Yes,
good
morning,
I
guess
initially
this
case
was
presented
and
it
didn't
have
that
distinction
as
far
as
the
pass-through
or
the
miscellaneous
income
I
would
accept
the
the
revision
to
change
the
pass-through
and
the
miscellaneous
income
to
reflect
the
37
000
for
the
test
column,
that's
test,
column,
f,
I,
guess
we
believe
we
actually
agree
on
the
per
square
foot
rate
for
the
office
and
for
the
Bright
Horizons
space.
The
only
issue
is
the
pastor
of
miscellaneous
income.
Q
With
that
I
am
open
for
questions.
Thank
you.
G
Q
Did
not
compute
it
out,
but
I
instantly
do
for
the
wrap
up.
I
I
would
like
to
check
just
to
make
sure
that
it
is
captured.
On
the
other
IPC
mentioned,
the
only
two
rpcs
that
were
listed
for
review
were
the
rpcs
ending
in
five
six,
seven
and
five
six
nine.
So
let
me
just
verify
that
just
to
be
sure
and
I
have
a
quick.
G
Question
for
the
owner,
all
three
Condominiums:
all
three
commercial
Condominiums
are
owned
by
separate
identities,.
O
O
No
sir,
the
INE
will
show
that
the
same
the
same
INE
is
reporting
income
and
expenses
for
the
LA
Fitness
the
office,
one
of
the
office
buildings
and
the
parking
garage
and
the
fourth
parcel
listed
is
an
out
parcel.
That's
it's
a
6
800
square
foot
parcel
assessed
at
sixty
eight
hundred
dollars,
so
that's
just
an
out
partial
but
of
the
three
Parcels
listed
on
the
INE
under
common
ownership.
It's
the
194
000
square
foot
office,
building
the
parking
garage
and
the
LA
Fitness
and.
P
Mr
Lawson
I,
don't
know
that
that's
actually
possible
because
the
because
of
of
How
It's
structured
Lidl,
the
vital
building,
is
a
separate
ownership
and
Lytle
has
a
right
to
park.
277
or
278
spaces.
A
Q
Yeah
I
see
that
we
allocated
about
300
000
for
the
that
third
parcel.
So
I
would
ask
the
board
to
consider
the
residual
of
that
to
be
placed
on
the
remaining
office
parcel
that
makes
sense.
Q
I'm
not
asking
to
increase
it,
we
did
allocate
300
000
in
pass-through
income.
All
I'm
asking
is,
if
that's
300
000.
The
residuals
should
be
placed
on
this.
This
remaining
parcel
here
this
office
parcel.
If
that
makes
sense,
so
300
000
was
on
568.
So
it's
362.044.
A
A
P
Madam
chairman,
that
just
doesn't
make
sense
that
doesn't
reflect
the
numbers
that
are
attributable
to
pass
through
income
for
LA
Fitness
for
pass-through
income.
Other
income,
that
is
for
LA
Fitness.
Okay,
total
amount
is
much
higher
and
making
the
noi
much
lower.
I,
don't
know
where
Mr
broad
is
coming
up
with
that
figure.
Okay,.
N
I
No,
not
really
I'm
I
got
a
different
one,
but
of
course
I
just
reduced
the
oh,
no,
no
I'm.
Sorry,
no
yeah
I
think
I
think
he's
correct.
I'm.
Sorry
I'm,
looking
at
a
different
room,
yep
laughs.
N
P
That's
on
that
parcel.
The
pass-through
income
that
is
not
attributable
to
the
office
is
362
000
by
itself
and
then
looking
at
at
that
and
parcel
F,
and
then
the
147
000
needs
to
be
reduced
as
well,
because
that
is
also
attributable
in
large
part
to
the
LA
Fitness
Jordan.
What
is
the
total
number
of
those
two
right?
I'm,
sorry.
A
O
Not
asking
you
to
we're
asking
it
to
be
reduced
on
this
one.
The
county
had
the
information
stating
which
parcel
earned
the
income
and
they
misallocated
it
to
the
wrong
one.
So
that's
you
know
the
fact
that
they
incorrectly
applied
the
pass-through
to
this
parcel.
That's
not
this
parcel's
fault.
You
know
the
the
fact
that
they
are
under
common
ownership
is
neither
here
nor
there.
These
are
separate
assessments,
separate
commercial
condos,.
A
A
M
A
Mr
Peralta
then
I'm,
sorry,
Mr
Hoffman.
Do
you
have
a
question
just.
P
A
Okay,
all
right
Mr
Perot!
If
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up.
Q
Yes,
thank
you.
I!
Don't
really
have
too
much
to
add
by
adjusting
this
parcel
to
reflect
the
residual
of
what
the
passer
income
is
being
reported,
as
we
would
come
up
with
a
figure
of
for
noi
of
three
million
382
952
going
further
to
reflect
the
excess
vacancy
of
the
property.
We
have
a
new
value
of
29
million
81
300..
Q
That's
really
all
I
have
thank
you.
Okay,.
O
Yes,
thank
you.
These
are
again
separate
parcels,
individual
entities,
you
know
oftentimes
in
the
county.
We
do
come
across
separate
assessments
on
separate
Parcels
that
are
adjacent
to
each
other.
If
the
county
assigns
income
to
one
in
error,
you
know
that
is
not
the
owner
of
that
parcel
should
not
be
punished
for
the
County's
error
when
the
county
had
the
details
and
were
able
to
make
a
correct
assessment
to
start
with.
As
such,
we
request
that
the
income
not
attributable
to
this
parcel
not
be
assessed
on
this
parcel.
Thank
you.
A
What
do
folks
think
Mr
Hoffman.
J
I
mean
I
was
on
board,
with
the
26
million
I
thought.
That
was
a
good
argument
and
and
yeah
looking
at
the
location
that
the
appellant's
right
this
is.
This
is
a
rough
spot.
This
is
not
exactly
on
Metro
at
hq2.
This
is
this
is
down
by
the
water
treatment
plant.
So
I
could
support
the
reduction.
J
26
546
was
Jordan's
number
and
then
I
checked
the
math.
You
take
the
pass-throughs
out
and
you
take
the
miscellaneous
income
down
to
37
000.
I
I'm,
okay,
with
the
revised
numbers
of
Mr
Ferrante,
came
I
think
that's
appropriate
to
make
that
reduction.
J
Yeah
yeah
take
the
pass-throughs
down
from
362.044
to
zero
and
then
miscellaneous
income
changed
it
to
37,
000.
J
and
then
I
left
all
the
other.
A
lot
of
the
line,
deductions
and
everything
the
same.
K
J
Okay
I'll
motion
to
reduce
the
assessment
to
26
million
546
000
for
reasons
stated.
A
Thank
you,
okay.
The
next
case
on
the
agenda
is
RPC
34027569,
but
the
same
address
3550
South,
Clark,
Mr
Herman.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
on
this
property.
Yes,.
O
O
O
O
If
this
parcel
had
been
assessed
as
part
of
an
economic
unit
with
the
office
building,
the
assessment
would
have
just
taken
this
2021
income
figure
and
capitalized
it
without
any
further
adjustment,
which
would
have
gotten
us
to
a
value
of
3.67
million
for
the
Grinch.
This
is
the
way
the
garage
should
be
valued.
O
Alternatively,
if
we
are
going
to
build
out
an
income
approach
for
just
the
garage,
we
should
look
at
the
actual
operations
of
the
garage
and
what
it's
obligated,
what
it's
obligated
to
so
of
the
670
spaces
at
the
garage.
Only
231
are
available
for
future
office.
Tenants
at
that
vacant
office
building
or
transient
day
Parkers
277
spaces
are
licensed
to
Lytle
at
the
adjacent
office
building
for
sixty
four
dollars
per
space
per
year
or
per
month.
O
This
comes
out
to
213
000
annually.
The
remain
remaining
162
spaces
are
reserved
for
retail,
tenants
on
other
parcels
and
generate
no
income.
O
So
if
we
impede
the
ambitious
County
guideline
rate
for
the
231
vacant
office
spaces
at
one
thousand
twenty
five
dollars
per
space,
we
get
a
gross
potential
income
of
that
125
by
231,
adding
in
the
213
000.
Due
from
Lytle
comes
up
with
an
income
of
only
four
hundred
fifty
thousand
dollars,
if
we
run
this
through
the
County's
income
approach
by
applying
a
25
vacancy
rate
and
the
reported
2021
operating
expenses
for
the
garage,
it
comes
to
a
final
capitalized
value
of
4.7
million
dollars.
O
Now
this
is
a
figure
that's
dependent
on
that
office.
Building
leasing
up
this
figure
should
likely
have
a
discount
for
lease
up
taken
below
below
the
line,
as
it
is
still
largely
vacant
due
to
35.50
the
office
building
being
largely
vacant
even
worse
than
a
standard
dfl
where
occupancy
is
somewhat
in
the
control
of
the
owner.
The
garage
is
relying
on
a
separate
parcel
leasing
up
for
its
own
occupancy
to
increase
to
the
potential
income.
O
P
Is
that
the
the
Lidl
license
is
into
perpetuity
at
the
64
per
space
and
that
the
other
100,
so
that's
277
spaces
plus
162,
that
are
reserved
for
the
retail
LA
Fitness
and
Bright
Horizons
again
leaving
230
spaces
that
can
generate
income.
P
But
I
thought
that
it
was
important
that
the
fact
that
it's
a
interpretuity
agreement
with
vitalism
something
the
board
may
want
to
know.
Q
Yes,
thank
you
kind
of,
like
the
last
case,
disinformation,
I,
guess
the
new
value
is
new
to
me
and
I
guess
the
approach
that
they're
saying
is
a
little
different
from
what
was
presented
in
their
Pro
Forma.
In
the
last
case,
I
said:
let's
treat
it
separately,
although
they
they
report
all
in
one
eye
and
E.
In
this
case
they
say:
let's
combine
it.
It's
just
like
office
depending
on
which
way
you
go
I
I
guess
I
tried
to
accommodate
both
parts
of
that.
Q
Looking
at
this
property
as
if
it
was
part
of
the
office,
you
see
my
calculation
there
F1
compared
to
F.
Originally,
when
the
this
I
guess
review
was
presented,
the
proforma
states
that
the
income
should
be
701
100.
If
you
look
at
their
column,
G1
and
now
they're
reverting
back
to
what
was
actually
achieved
at
249
521.
Q
Q
Aside
from
that,
if
you
wanted
to
treat
this
separately
like
it
has
been
valued
for
the
last
so
many
years,
this
property
is
was
uniquely
assessed,
we'll
just
say
that
that
it's
already
being
deducted
25,
which
is
an
aberration
to
all
the
other
properties
that
I've
seen
actually
I,
had
a
conversation
with
Lori
who's
been
valuing
all
the
parking
garages
and
none
of
them
were
given
a
vacancy
deduction.
Q
I
have
reference
for
this
property
that
we're
deducting
25
from
the
701
100,
which,
if
you
turn
to
my
second
page
here,
the
actual
assessment
on
page
5
of
54..
You
see
that
that
is
the
actual
income
that
we
projected
for
this
property
at
the
guideline.
Q
1025
per
space
I
have
yet
to
see
that
there's
a
difference
in
parking
spaces
I,
don't
believe
that
was
brought
up,
but
I
could
certainly
look
into
it.
I
tried
to
earlier,
but
didn't
have
enough
time,
because
again,
it
was
just
presented
because
they're
using
the
same
figure
as
the
original
assessment,
so
they're
imputing
the
1025
per
684
spaces,
so
I
I
don't
see
why
they
bring
this
new
information
to
light
during
this.
Q
This
hearing,
but
that's
new
information
for
me
to
sort
of
dispute
or
kind
of
defend
again
they're
using
the
same
count
to
arrive
at
the
701
100
000
701
100
in
their
G1
column
in
the
pro
forma.
If
we
were
to
compare
this
to
another
property
that
was
I,
had
a
review
this
year,
they're
being
assessed
for
190
spaces
at
2136
dollars
per
space.
Now
that
is
in
Clarendon,
and
this
property
is
where
it
is
I
believe.
From
the
last
case.
Q
It
was
in
a
not
the
greatest
position
in
the
county,
but
again
that's
a
difference
of
a
thousand
111
per
space
that
we
are
comparing
this
property
to
in
another
parking
garage
in
in
Clarendon
and
again,
looking
at
all
the
other
parking
garages
in
the
county,
There's
No,
Vacancy
being
deducted
for
any
of
the
properties
they're
using
the
actual
income
and
using
appropriate
cap
rate
for
this
instance,
this
cap
rate
is
actually
lower
actually
higher
at
6.8
compared
to
the
the
property
I
reference
18
14
15,
with
190
parking
spaces.
Q
So
with
that
I'm
sure
the
board
has
questions
and
we're
open
to
it.
Thank
you.
J
Yeah
thanks
just
a
question
on
the
The
Mention
Of
The
perpetuity
on
the
parking
license
from
Lidl.
Is
that
64
is
that
flat
in
for
the
forever
or
is
that
have
some
sort
of
escalation
attached
to
it?
It.
N
G
Yeah
quick
question
is
the
non-lidal
spaces?
Are
they
written
monthly?
Are
they
rented
yearly?
Are
they
rented
daily.
P
P
The
other
spaces
are
on
the
third
and
fourth
floor
of
the
garage
and
are
those
spaces
can
have
daily
Parkers
or
transient
Parkers
and
are
also
for
hopefully
future
office.
Tenants.
K
M
K
Feedback,
okay,
I
just
covered
the
phone
on
park
on
the
parking
spaces.
K
There
are
a
bunch
that
are
dedicated
to
Lytle
and
we
just
heard
a
little
bit
about
you
know
and
if,
for
some
reason
and
I
can't
imagine
what,
if
the
landlord
pulled
them
from
lie
to
Lytle
because
of
the
parking
ratios
required
for
retail,
wouldn't
in
theory
be
able
to
operate.
Therefore,
these
these
spots
really
are
taken
off
the
table
as
income
producing
pieces
of
Real
Estate.
K
The
department,
though,
includes
all
parking
spaces
in
there
their
assessment
and
then
reduces
by
25
and-
and
this
Department's
already
said,
That's
Unique,
if
not
highly
unusual-
is
that
25
reduction
sensitive
to
the
fact
that
the
little
spaces
are
inferior
will
never
be
income
producing
or
why
or
what
other
reason
might
it
be?.
Q
A
K
Well,
I
mean
I.
We
got
a
bunch
of
spaces
here
that
are
not
going
to
be
income
producing
as
far
as
we
can
tell
forever,
based
on
the
lease
and
the
practicality
that
you
know,
the
county
doesn't
want
Lotto
to
go
out
of
business
are
removed
from
from
Glebe
and
and
clerk
potential
income
on
all
spaces
that
exist
and
not
those
that
could
reasonably
produce
income.
O
Q
You
know
spaces
from
that
from
different
tenants
here
and
there
it
would
be
dependent
on
what
the
lease
entails.
I
guess,
if
parking
is
included
in
the
rent
and
things
of
that
nature,
this
property
has
been
assessed
the
same
way
for
you
know
as
long
as
I've
been
here
just
looking
at
the
the
assessment
history,
it's
been
in
the
eight
million
dollar
range
I
guess
last
year
under
review,
it
was
changed.
Q
We
kept
the
same
integral
parts
of
that
review,
going
forward
into
2022
and
now
there's
a
new
development.
If
you
will,
that
would
suggest
it
even
lower
I.
Think
that's!
Okay!.
G
Yes,
is
the
parking
garage
physically
underneath
a
structure?
Yes,
it
is.
O
A
Okay,
Mr
Price.
If
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up.
Q
Yes,
for
this
property,
we
did
look
at
other
properties
in
the
county
and
it
is
assessed
lower
in
essence,
based
on
that
negative
25
percent
deduction
that
we
include,
if
we
keep
it
in
line
with
what
or
how
the
other
parking
garages
are
assessed,
that
value
would
increase.
Q
Even
at
the
current
assessment,
it
is
being
valued
at
1025
per
space,
which
is
lower
than
the
comparable
properties
that
I
mentioned
in
Clarendon,
comparable
to
the
fact
that
per
space
they're
much
higher
in
value
in
the
other
comparables
again,
the
figure
is
a
thousand
111
per
space.
We
do
ask
that
the
board
take
that
in
consideration.
Q
If
we
were
to
put
this
in
line
with
the
other
properties,
we
would
take
out
the
25
vacancy
adjustment
and
make
the
adjustments
with
the
278
spaces
to
Lido
and
I
guess
the
the
remaining
residual
of
that
684
to
1025
per
space.
Thank
you.
Q
O
All
right,
thank
you.
So
go
ahead.
This
property
is
unique
from
the
assessment
comp
that
Mr
Peralta
cited
that
assessment
comp
is
in
Clarendon
it's
right
in
the
middle
of
Clarendon
I
assume
its
operations
are
tailored
to
the
retail
and
the
restaurants
and
the
commercial
aspect
there.
This
property
is
out
on
an
island
on
its
own.
It's
at
Glebe
and
I.
Believe
it's
Highway
One
going
south
there.
Isn't
there
aren't
restaurants,
there
aren't
shops
near
here.
There
aren't
people
coming
in
Daily
to
park
here.
O
O
The
other
office
building,
as
we
stated
in
the
last
case,
is
91
percent
vacant.
That's
a
large
percentage
of
potential
tenants
who
are
not
coming
to
this
property.
For
these
reasons,
this
property
is
more
akin
to
a
parking
garage.
That's
assessed
with
the
office
building
than
it
is
a
standalone
in
a
commercial.
You
know
going
out
to
brunch
type
area
like
Clarendon.
O
If
this
had
been
assessed
similar
to
a
parking
garage
at
an
office
building
which
it
seems
like
it's
a
zoning
peculiarity
that
it's
not
assessed
that
way,
it
would
have
only
been
assessed
as
3.67
million
dollars.
Even
if
we
cap
out
at
the
County's
ambitious
1025
per
space,
not
likely
to
happen
at
this
property,
it
only
gets
us
to
a
value
of
4.7
million
dollars.
Thank
you.
A
I,
don't
know.
I
I
the
whole
presentation
of
How
It's
put
together
I
think
it
lacks
a
little
clarity.
A
You
know,
I
can
tell
you.
I
did
something
very
simple
here:
I,
you
know,
I,
don't
know
how
they're
going
to
assess
it
next
year,
we're
talking
about
how
we
could
assess
it,
how
we
can
compare
it
to
other
properties.
I
think!
That's
a
you
know,
comments
and
concerns
for
next
year,
but
you
know
when
you
look
at
the
difference
between
column,
F
and
F1,
the
noi.
It
comes
down
to
the
701..
A
You
know
so
to
me.
I
look
at
the
appellance
number
in
G1
with
the
25
vacancy.
That's
how
the
county
assessed
it
originally
and
in
the
test
and
just
cap
it
out
with
no
deduction
below
the
line
and
I
can
live
with
the
772-8175
and
it's
assessed
every
year
and
my
feeling
is
that
next
year,
if
they
want
to
come
up
with
a
new
way,
but
at
the
11th
hour
to
be
throwing
all
these
numbers,
you
know
I,
just
don't
think
it's
it's
reasonable.
You
know
so
Mr
Hoffman.
J
Yeah
and
and
just
to
be
say
if
I
gave
him
my
own
kind
of
small
test,
and
you
know
the
way
I
look
at
it
is
this
is
underground
parking
in
Arlington.
J
M
J
Of
the
of
the
cost
to
build
relatively
new
garage
times
407
spaces,
and
then
the
Lidl
spaces
are
essentially
a
bond
right.
6.8
I
mean
put
them
on
the
market.
Let's
sell
those
at
6.8
cap
rate,
see
if
you
get
any
offers
so
I
think
that's
more
like
a
five
and
a
half
cap
on
that
income,
and
so
I
come
out
around
eight
million
dollars,
which
is
above
the
county.
J
So
that's
conservative.
It's
probably
worth
more
if
you
condo
the
entire
garage
and
sold
it
off
to
a
private
investor-
and
you
know
if,
if
the
owner
believes
the.
J
You
know
put
this
in
an
economic
unit
and
put
it
organize
it
in
a
way
that
we
can
actually
evaluate
it
a
little
bit
better.
K
I,
looked
at
a
little
bit
differently.
I
came
up
with
the
same
bottom
line,
though,
and
that
is
that
there's
no
question
these
parking
spaces
are
worth
far
less
than
any
organized
developed
parking
space
in
Clarendon
as
an
example
of
85
dollars,
a
square
foot
meaning
1025
a
year
is
the
lowest
I've
ever
seen
in
Arlington,
including
a
couple
of
classy
spaces
that
I
have
listed
that
are
not
directly
on
the
metro
line
and
they
get
more
than
85
dollars.
K
A
second
I
do
believe
that
the
opponent's
argument
that
the
legal
spaces
should
not
be
assessed
because
they're
committed
to
to
non-monthly
or
daily
or
hourly
rents,
is
legitimate.
That's
40
of
all
the
spaces,
but
the
county
has
already
deducted
25
from
I'd,
say
this.
K
Finally,
with
the
smile
on
my
face
the
inflated
amount
of
spaces
that
they
they
are
operating,
namely
all
the
spaces,
so
it's
really
a
gap
of
15
and
the
85
combined
with
the
85
dollars,
which
I
think
is
a
low
amount
for
a
quality
building,
not
on
Metro,
but
a
nice
building,
and
it's
still
an
organized
place.
So
I
still
come
up
with
for
different
reasons.
This
conclusion
that
the
the
Departments
is
as
close
as
we're
going
to
get.
I
Mary,
the
number
you
came
up
with
I
mean
I,
know
you're
agreeing
with
the
numbers
from
dependence.
But
if
you
look
at
the
it's
the
same
number
that
the
a
county
used,
except
for
they're
using
a
different
cap
rate,
the
cap
rate
that
the
appellant
is
using
is
a
little
bit
higher.
That's
the
only
reason:
there's
a
four
thousand
dollar
difference
there,
so
the
number
that
the
county
has
I
think
it's
correct.
N
O
O
Knowing
this
in
2021,
the
owners
negotiated
a
renewal
with
Lockheed
Martin
that
was
for
forty
thousand
fewer
square
feet
at
at
a
rate.
That's
15
percent
lower
than
the
prior
rate.
It
also
included
tenant
improvements
on
the
renewed
space.
The
County's
assessment
does
not
consider
the
impact
of
this
2021
lease
renewal
on
the
2022
assessment.
O
This
renewal
again
was
known
as
of
the
data
value
and
has
a
significant
impact
on
the
income
stream
at
the
property
no
pertain
no
potential
purchaser,
knowing
the
lease
renewal
was
negotiated
in
2021
would
value
the
property
based
on
the
expiring
lease
terms.
Yet
this
is
exactly
what
the
county
has
done.
What
the
county
has
done
on
similarly
situated
properties
and
the
correct
method
of
accounting
for
the
lease
renewal
is
to
capitalize
the
terms
of
the
new
space
and
add
the
excess
income
due
from
the
old
lease
below
the
line.
O
O
O
Lockheed
Martin,
renewed
186,
000
square
feet
of
this
225
000
square
foot
lease
the
remaining
40
000
square
feet
of
space
was
known
to
be
expired,
lockheed's
renewal
lease
is
at
a
rate
much
lower
than
what
it
was
previously
paying.
The
new
lease
is
only
41.39
per
square
foot,
whereas
previously
they
were
paying
forty
eight
dollars,
16
cents
per
square
foot.
O
This
is
significant.
This
represents
a
15
percent
decrease
in
the
market.
Only
four
years
after
the
prior
lease
went
into
effect.
The
renewal
also
only
has
a
five-year
term
yet
required
tenant
improvements
of
3.3
million
dollars
on
existing
space
and
leasing
commissions
of
1.65
million
dollars.
Neither
of
these
costs
are
are
accounted
for
anywhere
in
the
County's
model.
O
O
Even
if
we
adjust
this
to
come
to
the
to
even
if
we
adjust
this
to
apply
only
the
County's
six
percent
concessions
that
they
typically
do,
the
In-Place
office,
lease
rate
is
only
39.63
per
square
foot.
The
assessment
imputes
rent
at
43.95,
the
vacant
office
rental
rate,
is
not
contested
at
forty
dollars
per
square
foot.
O
Next,
we
list
the
Lockheed
new
lease
at
the
net
effective
rate
of
41.39
per
square
foot,
we've
added
the
excess
income
attributable
to
the
old
lease
below
the
line.
Next,
we
impute
the
40
000
square
feet
that
Lockheed
is
known
to
be
vacating.
We
impute
this
as
vacant
at
the
vacant
office,
rental
rate,
the
same
way,
the
county
has
treated
other
properties
with
a
large
space
known
to
be
vacating
and
again
we
added
the
excess
income
below
the
line.
O
Then
the
pass-through
income
we
also
adjusted
to
reflect
the
new
terms
of
the
Lockheed
lease
the
base
year
was
reset
on
this
new
lease
and
only
nine
months
of
pass-through
will
be
paid
on
the
old
lease
terms,
so
we've
reduced
the
pass-through
income
and
again
added
the
excess
below
the
line.
Finally,
the
dfl
is
at
57
500
square
feet
of
excess
vacancy.
Due
to
this
forty
thousand
square
feet
known
to
be
vacating.
O
All
of
these
adjustments
were
known
as
of
the
first
of
the
year,
and
a
potential
purchaser
would
take
these
into
account.
It
would
be
a
dereliction
of
a
potential
purchaser's
duty
to
Value
this
property
under
the
terms
of
the
old
lease,
with
no
adjustments
for
the
pending
vacancy
and
lower
lease
rates.
O
So
just
to
recap,
this
property
was
known
to
have
40
000
square
feet
of
space
vacating
in
2022,
and
an
additional
177
000
square
feet
being
occupied
at
a
rental
rate
that
is
15
less
than
under
the
old
terms.
This
was
known
to
the
market
in
the
county.
As
of
the
data
value,
the
assessment
treats
the
property
as
if
the
old
lease
will
continue
into
perpetuity,
with
no
adjustments
made
for
the
new
lease,
the
appellants
pro
forma
column
has
accounted
for.
The
new
lease
in
the
same
manner
as
the
county
has
on
other
properties.
O
We
capitalize
the
new
lease
terms,
added
the
excess
income
below
the
line
and
adjusted
the
dfl
to
reflect
the
actual
vacancy
known.
As
of
the
data
value,
as
such,
the
taxpayer
respectfully
requests
the
assessment
be
reduced
as
set
forth
in
the
appealed.
Thank
you
and
Eileen.
Do
you
have
anything
you'd
like
to
add
I.
Q
Yes,
thank
you
for
this
case.
We're
looking
at
this
property
historically
for
the
assessment,
there's
a
reason
why
we
use
the
marker
of
January
1st
2022
as
a
a
stop.
If
you
will
for
valuing
the
property,
this
I
guess
renewal
that
Mr
Harmon
is
speaking
about,
will
take.
An
effect
in
well
did
take
in
effect
September
15
2022.
Q
In
doing
so,
if
you
look
at
this
property
in
its
entirety,
based
on
the
history,
you'll
see
that
the
original
assessment
in
column
D,
we
were
projecting
a
lower
noi
than
has
you
know
ever
been
reported
in
2018
to
2020.,
even
in
the
most
recent
year,
2021,
which
we
didn't
have
in
information
from
when
we
did
the
original
assessment,
they're
reporting
at
14
million
470
300
much
higher
than
the
original
assessment
much
higher
than
the
test
column.
Q
So,
when
looking
at
this
property,
we
would
look
at
the
history
of
the
property
rather
than
this
potential
lease
that
in
that
potential
lease
this
new
renewal
lease
for
this
certain
tenant
in
the
building
I
think
we
have
a
different
conversation.
If
this
tenant
had
a
higher
per
square
foot
rate,
I
think
that
this
lease
would
have
been
thrown
out
but
again,
looking
at
you
know,
January
1st.
Q
What
was
this
property
achieving
you'll
see
that
in
all
prior
years,
it's
much
higher
than
what
the
county
is
assessing
the
property
for,
in
addition
to
that,
if
you
look
in
the
column,
F
we're
adding
an
additional
deduction
of
four
million
dollars
below
the
line
to
account
for
this
added
square
feet.
That's
to
be.
You
know
that
that's
the
added
excess
vacancy
below
the
line.
Originally
we
had
199
602
square
feet
that
was
supposed
to
be
vacant.
Q
When
we
did
the
original
assessment,
we
did
overstate
that
by
maybe
about
forty
five
thousand
fifty
thousand
square
feet.
We
did
make
the
adjust
adjustment
down
in
the
test
column
where
we
accounted
for
145
000
36
square
feet
that
is
vacant.
Q
Our
office
per
square
foot
rate
is
directly
from
the
rent
roll.
If
you
look
on
our
page
six
of
86,
the
lease
is
in
place,
including
the
Lockheed
Martin
tenant
and
the
other
tenants
there
average
about
46.75.
The
county
is
using
43.94
in
the
pro
forma.
The
appellant
believes
they
can
only
receive
37
dollars
and
six
cents.
I
know
they
adjusted
it
today
to
thirty
nine
dollars
a
square
foot,
but
that
is
underestimated.
Q
Given
the
rent
roll
that
was
submitted
and
analyzed
by
both
parties
and
when
looking
at
how
they
valued
this
particular
tenant
in
their
pro
forma,
that's
nothing.
I've
ever
seen,
I
haven't
seen
that
we
don't
approach
these
specific
tenants
in
this
manner.
Q
This
excess
income
below
the
line,
the
county
doesn't
do
that
I'm,
not
sure
I
believe
Mr
Hartman
referenced
us
as
this
is
how
we
treat
other
properties.
That's
not
how
I
treat
other
properties
as
far
as
that
excess
income.
Q
What
we're
attributing
to
this
property
as
the
potential
income,
and
we
ask
that
the
board
just
confirmed
the
original
assessment,
as
the
test
is
Computing
out
to
be
higher
and
the
original
assessment
again
has
199
602
square
feet
that
we're
accounting
for
to
be
vacant
based
on
the
information
I
had
at
the
time,
so
that's
even
a
lower
assessment
than
it
should
based
upon
the
the
vacant
square
footage
as
of
the
first
of
the
year.
With
that
we're
open
for
questions.
Thank
you.
K
Thank
you
question
for
the
appellant
the
below
the
line.
What's
it
called
less
rent
loss,
numbers,
I,
guess
indicated
total
value,
there's
a
big
difference
in
columns,
f
and
g
or
the
appellants
allowed
square
footage
is
about
40
000
square
feet
more
than
a
g.
What
the
but
at
the
same
per
square,
foot
rate,
then
the
county
has
deposited
in
column
f,
is
that
forty
thousand
the
the
Lockheed
Martin
reduction.
Q
Sorry
about
that
I
was
doing
well
for
myself
here,
for
this
I
don't
have
too
much
to
add
the
noi
for
this
property
has
been
reporting
high
in
the
last
four
years
compared
to
the
test
and
the
original
assessment.
The
County
also
allows
for
additional
four
plus
million
for
the
excess
vacancy
below
the
line
over
the
hundred
thousand
vacant
square
feet.
Again.
The
county
is
only
asking
to
confirm
the
original
assessment,
which
is
low
when
you
deduct
199
602
square
feet,
which
we
know
that
is
incorrect.
O
Yes,
thank
you.
So,
with
these
assessments,
we
we
adhere
to
the
principle
of
anticipation.
This
is
related
to
forward-looking
income.
Not
past
income,
Mr
Peralta
has
relied
heavily
on
the
past.
Income
of
this
property.
Noi
will
be
lower
at
this
property.
Because
of
this
new
lease
that
was
known
as
of
the
first
of
the
year,
it's
at
a
rate
that's
15
percent,
lower
than
the
old
lease
the
base
year
was
reset
to
the
current
year.
Pass-Through
income
is
going
to
be
much
lower.
Additionally,
40
000
square
feet.
Fewer
are
leased
because
of
this
new
lease.
O
Yes,
noi
is
going
to
drop,
and
this
information
Mr
Peralta
cited
the
first
of
the
year
as
a
hard
stop.
That's
not
the
full
extent
of
the
law.
The
law
allows
any
information
known
or
that
could
have
been
known.
As
of
the
first
of
the
year
to
be
used
in
the
assessment.
This
lease
was
renegotiated
back
in
March
of
2021.
It
was
known
as
of
January
1
2022.,
again,
noi
is
going
to
be
lower.
O
15
percent
lower
lease
rate
on
177
000
square
feet,
reset
the
base
here
for
pass-through
income,
forty
thousand
square
feet
fewer
being
leased.
This
new
lease
also
required
five
million
dollars
in
leasing
commissions
and
tenant
improvements
that
we
did
not
make
a
deduction
for
anywhere,
so
the
claim
value
could
be
much
lower
than
it
actually
is.
Thank
you.
J
You
know
I'm
I,
think
column,
app
and
column.
G
are
pretty
close
to
everywhere,
except
with
that
Lockheed
Martin
lease
issue
and
the
effective
rate
for
for
for
that
lease
and
I
agree
with
the
appellant
on
that
matter.
J
So
I
would
actually
go
with
the
appellants
column,
but
then
use
the
below
the
line.
Deductions
from
the
county
and
and
I
got
I
came
up
with
a
172.
374
400.
J
A
A
K
I
have
a
tough
time
that
represents
a
over
a
12
drop
from
last
year,
and
we
have
seen
that
really
in
repealed
office
spaces
and
when
it
was
because
there
was
something
really
really
dramatic.
K
I
I
agree
with
the
poem
that
the
the
Lockheed
Martin
renewed
lease
which
occurred
was
not
prospective
which
occurred
in
2021
in
the
assessment
period
matters
unlike
other
times,
while
it's
rumored
or
proposed
that
somebody's
going
to
move.
You
know
during
the
next
year.
This
one
we
really
know
is
going
to
happen,
but
I
I
think
that
that
be.
My
belief
is
that
that's
upset
by
the.
K
Negative
I'm
getting
some
feedback
here,
so
the
the
significant
amount
of
understood
before
they
got
current
data,
the
understood
amount
of
very
large
vacancy
that
is
represented
in
column
d
by
the
county.
So,
although
there
should
be
some
effort
to
to
to
look
at
the
renewed
Lockheed,
Martin
lease,
the
the
building
didn't
perform
all
that
badly
relative
to
what
the
county
are.
You
stating
is
a
little
bit
differently
with
the
county,
assumed
without
current
data
for
the
original
assessment
and
the
vacancies
that
were
achieved
in
history,
2020,
2019
and
so
forth.
K
H
G
Sorry
about
that
I
I
pressed
it,
but
it
didn't
go.
It
didn't
go
on
I
I,
wonder
if
you
have
a
good
tenant
like
Lockheed
Martin.
Does
the
cap
rate
change
for
an
investor
that
the
only
question
I
have
with
what
Greg
suggested
is
I
wonder
if
it
needs
to
go
100
or
should
it
go
80.?
That's
that's!
The
only
question
I
have.
J
N
J
J
G
It's
a
wash
yeah
in
your
opinion,
yeah.
That
was
my
only
question.
Otherwise,
I'm
good,
with
with
your
suggested
reflection,
nobody's.
J
Gonna,
take
183
000
square
feet
of
vacancy
in
the
Crystal
City
sub
market
and
put
a
six
cap
or
a
seven
cap
on
it
and
go
and
give
it
a
loan
to
buy
this
building
and
do
that.
You're.
A
No,
no,
where
Mr
panaronda
is
on
this,
but
I
tend
to
agree
with
Mr
matskin.
You
know,
I
think
the
original
assessment
makes
up
for
the
fact
that
you've
got
the
re.
The
reduced
lease
coming
in
I'm,
not
comfortable
with
the
large
reduction
that
Mr
Hoffman
has
suggesting
Mr
panaranda.
I
Well,
I
agree,
I,
think
you
know
the
original
assessment.
Normally
we
have
looked
at
what
the
history
of
the
building
has
performed,
and
you
know
this
is
not
different
and
I
know.
This
is
a
new,
a
different
lease
that
this
building
has
gone
through,
but
we
were
looking
at
the
history.
Looking
at
all
the
numbers,
I
think
the
county
has
been
lower
in
anything
else
and
the
below
the
line
deduction
that
they
have
on
the
original
is,
you
know,
10
and
a
half
million
dollars
more
than
it
should
have
been.
N
A
G
I
guess
I'm
just
wondering
if
the
three
that
that
aren't
agreeing
would
consider
any
reduction
and
and
if
not,
then
then
I'll
go
with
the
County's
value.
G
Well,
I'm
just
wondering
if
there's
like,
instead
of
the
100
of
the
reduction
that
Greg
suggested,
maybe
a
percent
I,
don't
know
maybe
50
percent.
I
H
M
K
I
think
I
think
that's
legitimate,
but
that
is
a
good
thought
that
hadn't
come
up,
but
the
deal
is
that
it,
the
landlord,
did
get
two-thirds
nine
months
of
the
standard,
Lockheed
pass-through
and
only
got
reset
for
the
last
thirds
quarters
the
last
quarter
of
the
year
starting
the
other
day
or
September
16th.
So
it's-
and
it's
only
for
you
know
some
of
what
Lockheed
used
to
pay
on.
So
it's
starting
to
diminish,
down
good
thought,
but
I
don't
think
we
should
overturned
this
yeah.
K
G
That's
that's
what
I
was
thinking
can
maybe
reduce
it.
25,
in
other
words,
take
take
the
reduced
numbers
that
Greg
had
and
instead
of
going
with
them
totally
just
reduce
it
by
25
I.
That
would
be
some
I.
Don't
know
that
I
could
necessarily
do
that.
Math.
Is
that
something
you
could
do
Greg,
or
is
that
too
hard.
K
G
H
J
Okay,
so
I
came
up
with
about
a
two
and
a
half
million
dollar
reduction
and
I'll.
Let
you
know
my
rationale
as
I
went
through
the
appellance
package
and
it
looks
like
they're
giving
to
Lockheed
to
stay
in
place.
Forty
dollars
in
TI
on
one
space
and
12
in
TI,
on
the
bulk
of
the
remaining
space,
and
that
comes
out
to
a
two.
J
128
and
landlord
TI
commitment
to
be
spent
at
some
point
in
the
future,
which
would
not
be
reflected
in
the
below
the
line.
Deductions
that
the
county
has
come
up
with.
So
if
I
took
that
number
off
the
186
606
that
the
county
has.
J
G
A
A
J
Yeah
a
motion
to
reduce
the
total
assessment
to
184
113
900
on
the
basis
of
TI
concessions
given
to
Lockheed
Martin
below
the
line
on.
H
I
I
N
A
A
O
O
This
is
the
issue
on
this
appeal
is
how
do
we
value
the
47
000
square
feet
of
vacant
space,
the
county
values
the
vacant
space
exactly
the
same
as
the
occupied
Space
by
imputing,
the
same
rental
rate
on
the
space?
This
is
not
consistent
with
either
what
the
vacant
space
will
rent
for
in
its
present
shell
condition,
nor
does
it
take
into
account
the
cost
required
to
get
the
space
into
leasable
shape.
O
Now
the
Drea
summary
is
on
page
four
of
the
appeal
here.
It's
important
to
note
that
the
county
takes
a
deduction
for
a
tax
exemption.
They
apply
this
on
the
Drea
columns,
but
not
on
the
pro
forma
column.
Now
this
is
this
is
a
bit
of
a
red
herring
slipped
in
by
the
county
to
make
it
appear
as
though
the
assessment
is
much
lower
than
it
actually
is.
O
O
What
would
the
shell
space
that's
vacant
rent
for?
Basically,
we
have
three
ways
we
can
treat
the
vacant
space
at
the
property
if
you
turn
to
page
69
of
the
appeal
you'll
see
that
the
appellant
has
applied.
Two
of
these
approaches
on
the
pro
forma.
O
This
results
in
a
final
value
of
61.3
million
dollars,
the
second
stabilized
column,
imputes
rent
on
the
vacant
space
at
the
occupied
rate.
Again,
the
same
as
the
assessment
does
leaves
the
vacancy
rate
at
the
same
five
percent
as
the
county
has
imputed
and
then
takes
a
below
the
line,
deduction
for
rent
loss,
tenant
improvements
and
leasing
commissions
to
arrive
at
a
value
of
76
million
four
hundred
eighty
five
thousand
dollars.
O
O
That's
the
issue
on
appeal
that
the
vacant
space
has
income
imputed
at
the
least
rate.
Yet
no
adjustment
has
been
made
to
account
for
the
space
being
in
Shell
condition
and
requiring
costs
to
be
spent
to
improve
the
space.
In
order
to
achieve
that
income,
that's
been
imputed
as
such,
the
taxpayer
respectfully
requests
the
assessment
be
reduced
as
set
forth
in
the
appeal.
Thank
you
and
Eileen.
Do
you
have
anything
you'd
like
to
add.
P
I'd
like
to
to
add
that
Bloomberg
has,
in
the
past,
tried
to
lease
this
space
and
the
reason
they
have
not
and
have
taken
it
off
the
market.
So
to
speak.
It's
kind
of
like
a
pocket
listing
is
because
Bloomberg
as
Mr
Peralta
knows
from
his
tour
of
the
property
is
very
security.
Conscious
and
anybody
that
goes
in
has
to
provide
their
name
in
advance
has
to
take
at
least
as
a
current
time
had
to
take
a
Cova
test
before
entering
the
building,
and
it's
not
really
suitable
for
a
third
party
tenant.
P
As
Mr
Harmon
said
the
space,
the
top
two
floors
are
in
Shell
condition,
and
you
know
I
think
that
while
we
may
want
to
look
at
a
five
percent
vacancy
I
think
we
need
to
value
that
space
using
at
a
rental
rate.
It
could
generate
in
its
current
condition,
or
we
need
to
deduct
the
cost
to
get
it
to
a
place
that
would
generate
the
36
dollars.
A
square
foot.
P
L
A
Okay,
thank
you,
Mr
Peralta,
for
the
county.
Please.
Q
Yes,
thank
you
for
this
property.
We
treat
this
property
as
an
owner-occupied
building
to
actually
say
that
the
top
two
floors
can
be
rented
out
and
it
should
be
deducted
from
an
owner-occupied
building.
Is
you
know
just
far
from
the
way
the
county
sees
it?
The
top
two
floors
is
by
choice
that
they're
I
guess
going
to
renovate
or
stripped
it
down
to
the
to
the
bare
minimum
on
those
two
floors.
Q
When
looking
at
this
property,
we
had
to
do
extensive
research
regarding
the
exemption
of
this
property.
Now
the
agent,
the
agents
actually
stated
that
they
didn't
think
they
had
the
exemption.
So
the
county,
you
know,
took
extensive
efforts
to
actually
research.
This
went
back
and
forth
on
several
occasions
and
in
fact
they
do
get
the
exemption
so
or
Mr
Harmon.
To
present
the
case,
and
such
that
we
were
not
being
fair,
is
how
we
treat
the
exemption
is
not
fair
at
all.
Q
Q
That
exemption
hinges
on
the
fact
that
they
keep
amount
a
certain
amount
of
employees
employed
and
I
think
a
certain
percentage
of
square
feet
as
well,
I'm,
not
sure
exactly
how,
if
you
deduct
these
two
floors
as
vacant,
if
it
affects
that
exemption,
I'd
have
to
read
the
language
just
to
be
sure
when
again
looking
at
this
property,
we
don't
view
that
the
square
footage.
Q
Actually
we
did.
We
took
an
account
the
46
782
square
feet
that
is
considered
vacant
for
this
property
at
36
dollars
a
square
foot,
it's
lower
than
you
know
the
the
average
rental
rate
in
that
sub
Market.
We
do
look
at
the
top.
Two
floors
is
being
vacant,
but
at
the
same
time
we
look
at
it
as
being
by
choice
that
they're
renovating
or
not
sure
exactly
what
they're
doing
with
the
property
if
they're
trying
to
rent
it
out.
Q
That
is
not
the
case
as
when
I
reviewed
this
property
I
didn't
see
it
listed
as
a
space
available
for
this.
For
this
building,
and
with
that,
we
we
did
have
a
slight
reduction
based
on
that
negative
square
feet
of
forty
six
Thousand
Seven.
Eighty
two.
Q
So
we
asked
the
board
to
take
that
in
consideration.
Thank
you.
K
Oh
for
the
appellant,
the
the
46
000
square
feet
of
the
top
two
floors.
That's
the
same
thing
right.
A
K
The
other
question
is
I'm
trying
to
balance
two
speakers
here:
I'm,
sorry,
foreign
for
the
history,
because
it's
his
owner
occupy,
let
me
make
it
simpler-
is
the
owner
reporting
for
the
County's
request
each
year
and
we
just
have
zeros
above
operating
expenses
because
they're
owner
occupied,
but
they
are
real,
I'm,
sorry
income.
We
have
zeros
in
the
INE,
but
we
have
operating
expenses
because
they're
really
reported
by
the
owner.
Isn't
that
right.
Q
Yes,
thank
you
just
reiterating
that
we
did
come
up
with
a
lower
value
value
based
on
the
46
000
782
square
feet
vacant
on
an
owner-occupied
building.
Q
Essentially
it's
100
occupied,
but
we
did
reduce
the
five
percent
for
the
building
and
we
came
up
with
a
value
of
for
the
record.
It
should
be
the
value
before
the
exemption
a
week
back
out
the
exemption
on
our
end.
So
if
the
board
would
make
a
determination
on
the
value,
they
should
note
that
the
line
21
row
21
should
be
the
value
84
million,
580,
261
or
300..
Thank
you,
foreign.
O
Yes,
thank
you.
So
this
property
is
not
100
occupied.
There
is
one
tenant
so
that
tenant
makes
up
100
of
the
occupancy,
but
Mr
Peralta
and
I
did
tour
this
property
a
couple
of
weeks
ago
in
September
and
the
top
two
floors
are
in
Shell
condition.
It
is
being
marketed,
and
when
we
were
there,
the
the
property
manager
told
us
they
had
been
in
discussions
with
a
potential
tenant.
This
tenant.
The
deal
did
not
end
up
going
through
because
it
was
a
school.
O
It
was
a
some
sort
of
a
secondary
school,
a
group
post,
High,
School
school,
and
the
issue
was,
as
Miss
Boardman
said,
the
security
protocols
at
the
property-
and
this
was
told
to
both
of
us
on
the
tour,
so
they
had
been
in
discussions.
But
with
that
many
students
coming
through
in
and
out
transiently
for
a
school
to
operate,
the
security
protocols
just
were
would
not
work
out,
so
it
is
not
fully
occupied.
It
is
being
marketed
to
the
correct
tenant.
O
If
there
is
one-
and
you
know
again,
the
issue
is
the
vacant
space
being
imputed
at
the
same
rate
as
the
lease
space,
even
though
it's
in
Shell
condition,
so
you
either
need
to
account
for
the
cost
to
get
that
space
into
leasable
condition
or
the
rate
that
somebody
would
pay
to
lease
a
shell
floor.
Thank
you.
G
Yeah
I'll
go
ahead
and
share
my
thoughts.
One
of
the
things
I've
learned
in
many
years
of
doing
real
estate
law
is
owners
can
make
strange
decisions
with
their
own
property
and
and
and
in
all
honesty,
I
think.
G
That's
what
we
have
here,
I
think
they've
decided
to
implement
a
situation,
security
or
whatever
that
basically
has
made
it
impossible
to
rent
the
top
two
floors
and
that's
our
own
decision
and
so
I'm
not
inclined
to
drastically
reduce
the
assessment
based
on
these
two
top
floors
that
they've
chosen
basically
not
to
rent
so
I'm,
okay
with
the
county
I'll
see.
If
anybody
agrees
with
that.
A
All
right,
then,
I'll
go
ahead
and
move
to
accept
the
County's
revised
number
of
84
million
580
300.
Do
we
have
a
second,
oh.
G
A
A
We
are
back
in
person
today.
I
was
just
the
only
one,
okay,
so
okay,
then
we
will
stand
adjourned
here
at
11,
19
and
return.
Tomorrow
morning,
Mary.
F
One
thing
before
you
adjourn:
the
county
does
have
one
thing:
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt.
This
is
regarding
the
this
is.
Regarding
the
first
case,
we
did
receive
some
additional
information
during
the
case
regarding
the
personal
property
that
was
lower
than
what
was
indicated
in
the
case
and
Chris
just
wanted
to
just
speak
to
that
shortly.
Sorry,
to
interrupt
okay,.
E
It's
from
the
appellant,
that's
kind
of
the
point
yeah.
This
is
what
was
requested.
You
know
in
September
with
the
personal
property
tax
bill,
so
he
did
send
it
to
us
in
the
mornings
during
the
morning
hearing
so
I
just
think
it's
appropriate,
as
Mr
Lawson
pointed
out.
If
we're
going
to
take
off
that
amount,
we
should
take
off
the
correct
amount.
A
E
E
A
Okay,
I,
don't
know
how
does
the
board
feel
about
this.
J
K
E
A
E
G
A
Rebuilding
excuse
me
I'm,
going
to
put
an
end
to
it.
We
are
not
going
to
reopen
the
case,
we're
leaving
it,
as
is
there's
not
a
consensus
from
the
board
members
to
do
anything
else.
So
is
there
any
other
business
from
the
either
the
county
or
board
members?
Okay,
then
we
stand
adjourned
at
11,
22,
we'll
re-adjourn.
Tomorrow
morning,
October
5th
at
9
00
a.m
and
Mr
vetsky
will
not
be
with
us
said
it
is
in
person
to.