►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing September 15, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
And
this
is
the
arlington
county
board
of
equalization
hearing.
We
have
five
cases
on
the
agenda.
The
first
case
is
rpc
one:
six,
zero,
three,
nine
zero.
Three
three
miss
eileen
borman
and
mr
harmon
are
here
to
represent
the
owners.
They
have
asked
to
take
15
minutes
to
discuss
the
first
three
cases.
The
counties
in
agreement
with
that.
So
I'm
not
sure
who's
going
to
speak,
but
whoever
is
going
to
speak
can
go
ahead
and
tell
us
about
the
background
on
these
three
cases.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chairwoman,
members
of
the
board
good
morning.
These
three
cases
are
all
subject
to
the
same:
planned
development
site
plan.
It's
number
forty,
two
four
two
two,
this
pdsp
combined
two
prior
site
plans
and
the
planning
process
for
this
started
in
february
of
2012..
B
It
was
adopted
four
years
later
in
march
of
2016,
with
a
change
in
zoning
to
roslyn
co,
just
as
a
an
example
of
how
long
things
can
take
to
get
done,
and
I'm
sure
some
of
the
people
on
the
board
have
been
through
this
process
before,
but
to
get.
This
pdsp
pass
took
17
meetings
four
years
and
two
and
a
month,
and
there
were
attorneys
architects,
engineers,
traffic
consultants,
landscape,
architects,
all
involved
in
the
process.
So
it's
a
very
complex
and
time-consuming
process.
B
What
is
at
issue
is
what
could
be
done
with
that
density
as
of
january
1.,
as
an
aside
or
of
importance
is
that
this
pdsp
is
assessed
in
a
uniform
manner.
The
county
assessed
all
the
land
subject
to
this
pdsp
the
same
last
year,
this
property
was
appealed
and
the
county
differentiated
between
the
development
density
that
could
be
built
as
of
january
1
2020
and
the
development
density
that
was
still
subject
to
4.1
or
site
plan.
B
What
I'd
like
to
do
is
start
by
showing
you
what
is
at
issue
and
what
we
are
looking
for
and
to
do
that,
I'm
going
to
share
my
screen
and
show
a
page
from
the
appeal.
This
is
page
4
of
the
appeal,
and
what
you
can
see
here
highlighted
in
green
is
the
existing
density
at
the
site,
and
that
is
valued
at
65
million
249
280..
We
have
no
complaints
about
that
valuation.
B
Then
there
is
additional
pdsp
density.
Now
mr
harman
will
get
into
how
that
density
has
to
be
purchased
or
the
consideration
for
that
density.
Later
on
in
this
presentation
last
year,
the
county,
in
its
review
of
this
case,
reduced
the
value
of
the
additional
pdsp
density
to
40
of
the
uniform
rate.
So
you
can
see
here.
B
B
If
it
was
assessed
at
100,
but
at
0.4
percent,
it
was
assessed
45.054
786.,
so
the
total
assessment,
the
land
assessment,
is
a
hundred
and
ten
million
three
o
four
o
six,
six
again
the
existing
density
at
a
hundred
percent
of
the
uniform
rates
and
the
pdsp
density
at
forty
percent
of
the
rate.
What
we
are
asking
for
is-
and
this
is
page
four
of
the
appeal
package-
is
on
page
75-
of
the
appeal
package-
I'll
just
put
it
up
there,
so
basically,
you
can
see.
B
The
existing
density
I
have
highlighted
in
green
for
go
is
at
the
same
rate
as
the
counties,
but
then
we
believe
that
the
land
or
the
right
to
pay
compensation
for
the
additional
density
is
no
longer
worth
40
of
the
65
or
40
of
the
86
000
per
unit.
We
believe
that,
because
of
the
change
in
market
conditions
and
the
speculative
nature
of
the
development,
which
mr
harman
will
get
into
further,
that
this
value
should
be
25
of
what
it
would
be,
and
that
would
be
a
value
of
28
million
159
300..
B
Another
way
to
look
at
it
is
what
was
the
cost
to
get
this
additional
density?
Because,
probably
you
know
anybody,
that's
in
the
roslin
market
could
apply
for
and
get
this,
so
the
cost
of
achieving
that
density
for
all
those
attorneys,
architects,
engineers,
etc,
is
less
than
the
28
million
159.
I
don't
have
the
exact
figure,
but
that
is
another
way
of
looking
at
it.
B
We
also
believe
that
the
demolition
costs
associated
with
the
existing
structures
at
the
property
should
be
deducted,
and
that
would
get
you
that's
another
three
million
dollars
that
gets
you
to
the
90
million
331
that's
here,
and
then
that
value
is
divided
by
the
total
number
of
square
feet
and
allocated
among
the
various
parcels.
B
So
the
difference
in
value
is.
We
are
looking
for
356
83
per
square
foot
and
in
the
county's
assessment,
both
january
1,
2020
and
january
1
2021.
That
value
is
at
435
435.72
per
square
foot,
so
that
is
how
the
case
breaks
down
and
what
we
are
looking
for
and
I'm
going
to
leave.
B
C
Yes,
thank
you
eileen,
madame
chairwoman,
members
of
the
board
good
morning,
as
eileen
said,
these
parcels
were
rezoned
in
2016
to
co.
Roslin,
the
additional
building
height
and
additional
density
provided
for
in
the
rezoning
are
contingent
upon
the
taxpayer
offering
compensation
to
the
county
via
community
benefits
that
are
above
the
base
amounts
established
by
the
arlington
county
zoning
ordinance.
C
The
value
of
the
density
is
is
also
speculative,
as
the
community
benefits
that
will
be
required
by
the
rezoning
have
not
been
determined
and
as
the
rezoning
states.
If
you
turn
to
page
48
of
the
appeal
packet
you'll
see
it
states
that
the
benefits
cannot
be
determined
until
a
an
application
is
made
by
the
owner.
C
So
as
of
the
date
of
value
january,
1
2021
plans
for
additional
buildings
did
not
exist.
The
property
had
not
received
4.1
site
plan
approval.
The
additional
density
had
not
been
purchased
via
the
community
benefits,
nor
could
its
value
be
determined,
as
set
forth
on
the
staff
report.
On
page
48
again
so
at
issue
in
this
case
is
not
the
the
value
of
the
additional
density,
but
rather
the
value
of
what
exists.
As
of
the
data
value,
which
is
the
right
to
purchase
the
additional
density
clearly
per
the
rezoning
document.
C
The
economic
support
for
pursuing
such
a
large-scale
development,
as
outlined
by
the
rezoning,
significantly
declined
over
the
course
of
2020,
resulting
in
a
fair
market
value
that
is
much
less
as
of
january
1
2021
than
it
was
on
january,
1
2020.,
the
assessment
kept
the
value
the
same.
It
basically
said
the
value
of
this
potential
development
is
exactly
the
same
january.
1
2020,
as
it
is
january,
1
2021
despite
the
global
pandemic.
C
Quite
simply,
the
market
for
office
space
in
the
county
is
much
less
favorable
on
january
1
2021
than
it
was
one
year
prior,
we're
all
aware
of
the
coven
19
pandemic
and
the
effects
it
has
had
on
the
office,
retail
and
hotel
markets
over
the
course
of
2020
from
january
1
to
january
1,
2021
office
rents
are
down,
leasing,
velocity
is
down,
vacancy
is
up,
sublet
space
available
is
up.
Clearly,
these
are
all
detriments
to
potential
development
sites,
especially
large
ones
such
as
the
subject.
C
C
C
C
A
C
To
be
fully
built
out,
so
when
this,
when
this
rezoning
will
be
acted
upon
is,
is
speculative
as
of
the
date
of
value,
the
rezoning
also
only
states
a
procedure
to
request
a
value
for
those
community
benefits
that
are
required
in
order
to
obtain
the
outline
density
and
height
again.
That
leads
to
the
speculativeness
of
the
rezoning.
C
This
is
what
should
be
assessed
and
this
value
has
decreased
over
the
past
year,
regardless
of
the
legal
status
of
the
rights
to
additional
density
for
this
property.
There
is
simply
no
way
that
the
economic
feasibility
of
the
redevelopment
is
the
exact
same
on
the
data
value
january
1
2021,
as
it
was
one
year
prior
again,
the
market
for
office,
retail
and
hotel
properties,
as
of
the
date
of
value,
had
fundamentally
shifted
from
one
year
prior,
and
we
believe
the
assessment
should
reflect
as
much
in
some.
C
We
believe,
as
eileen
stated,
that
either
the
cost
of
rezoning,
a
property
from
co
to
co,
roslin
or
25
of
the
uniform
rate
most
accurately
captures
the
fair
market
value
of
of
the
right
to
buy
density
that
existed
on
january
1
at
this
property.
This
results
in
the
value
set
forth
on
page
75
of
the
appeal
pack.
Thank
you.
A
E
Yes,
good
morning
board
this
case
is
similar.
It
includes
the
case
that
we
heard
prior
in
yesterday's
boe
with
respect
to
this
particular
cases.
The
next
three
cases
we're
dealing
with
the
same
argument
where
the
fer
did
change
for
this
property.
E
We
believe
that
the
pdsp
can
be
sold
at
this
point.
It's
one
step
further
in
the
process,
and
you
know
there
there
is
a
change
from
the
value.
Initially,
this
pdsp
is
valued
similarly
to
other
pdsps
in
the
county.
We
have
met
park,
costco,
site
and
pen
place.
E
The
this
particular
pdsp
recently
there
was
a
vdot
purchase
of
a
vdep
parcel
purchased
just
recently,
it's
another
step
towards
you
know
achieving
that.
This
pdsp,
when
looking
at
a
particular
sale
that
occurred
in
the
county
of
similar
nature,
met
park
sold
at
72
per
square
foot
when
looking
at
this
valuation
for
this
particular
year,
we're
at
43.57
per
square
foot
so
again
in
comparison
and
looking
at
an
actual
sale
that
did
occur
of
similar
nature.
We're
valuing
this
property
at
a
lower
rate
than
what
has
sold
in
the
market.
D
D
Then,
when
amazon
came
in
and
chose
that
site,
they
work
with
the
county
to
go
back
to
the
pdsp
and
convert
that
apartment
density
to
office
density
after
that
was
approved,
and
they
got
their
2.15
million
square
feet
of
office
density.
It
was
sold
for
72
square
foot.
The
reason
we
pointed
out
to
show
how
much
of
a
discount
we're
applying
to
this
site
plan,
or
this
pdsp
rather
based
off
of
the
nature
of
pdsp.
D
The
total
density
for
this
site
based
off
the
owned
lot
size
at
the
time
of
the
approval,
is
two
million
five
hundred
thirty
one
thousand
six
hundred
sixty
square
feet
and
again,
if
you
take
that
density
and
divided
by
the
total
lot
side,
mean
total
land
value
of
110
304
100.
We
have
on
this
whole
block
that
comes
out
to
the
40.
Some
dollars
that
rob
is
referring
to
and
again
that
includes
the
density
that
it
already
built
out.
D
We
value
pdsps
in
this
manner
for
years
oftentimes
discussing
the
evaluation
process
with
ms
borman
we've
always
looked
at
pdsps
and
applied.
We
looked
at
the
total
density,
approved
we've
applied
a
discount
based
on
phasing,
and
that
was
the
approach
that
we
took
with
pin
place.
That's
the
approach
we
took
with
costco
this
approach.
We
took
with
netpark
up
until
amazon
purchased
that
property
right
now,
for
example,
just
to
talk
about
how
pdsps
are
often
converted
or
changed
or
renegotiated
over
time.
The
density
for
pen
plates
was
around
1.8
million.
D
We
all
know
right
now,
based
off
articles
that
amazon
negotiating
to
have
it
increased
to
around
about
2
million
or
more
similar
to
mid
park,
and
they
will
purchase
it
once
that
approval
is
given
the
same
is
this:
the
community
benefits
are
not
determined
right
now,
because
the
community
benefits
for
roslyn
plaza.
It
involves
the
park
roslyn
plaza
park,
each
phase
they
will
build
a
park
depending
on
when
that
phase
is
started
and
completed,
determines
how
much
they
will
have
to
contribute
to
the
cost
of
the
park.
D
So
you
can't
say
how
much
contributory
value
that
any
person
would
have
to
pay
is
right
now,
because
the
park
may
not
be
built
until
10
15
years
down
the
line
and
even
then,
depending
on
what
studies
are
going
on
in
the
county,
depending
on
what
direction
the
county
may
want
to
go
to
at
that
time
period,
they
may
even
eliminate
the
park,
they
may
say
you
don't
have
to
do
the
park.
So
that's
why
it
is
discounted.
D
D
I
think
it's
important
to
go
back
to
like
what
eileen
said
this
process
started
in
2012.
There
were
17
site
plan
review
committee
meetings
for
this
property
actually
stated
that
countless
hours
put
into
this
by
the
owners
and
the
county
equates
to
value
of
this
land
in
this
pdsp.
D
D
They
were
also
taking
consideration
the
money
they
spent
on
the
vdot
parcel,
and
that's
why
we
discounted,
but
that's
why
we
believe
our
value
is
appropriate.
I
mean
we
had
a
discussion
about
this
very
pdsp
last
year
with
the
appellant,
and
this
was
the
method
in
which
we
used
to
lower
that
value
the
2020
value.
D
Since
then,
like
we
said,
amazon
bought
2.1
million
square
feet
of
density,
72
square
foot
right
at
the
end
of
2019,
which
I
know
is
before
kobe,
but
we
had
a
what
is
a
site
plan
that
was
approved
on
fairfax
drive
to
sold
for
88
dollars
a
square
foot,
and
here
we
are
applying
40
to
40
some
dollars
square
foot
per
density
to
this
site.
D
Quite
honestly,
we
don't
believe
they
provided
us
with
any
evidence
that
we
should
change
our
value
and
then,
like
rob,
alluded
to
other
site
plans
were
valued
such
as
templates
were
still
valued
off
the
old
method
of
discount.
So
in
actuality,
this
property
did
receive
a
higher
discount
than
other
pdsps
for
2021..
D
We'll
make
those
corrections
in
2022
to
make
sure
everybody's
value
the
same.
But
this
property
right
now
does
have
a
higher
discount.
When
you
take
consideration,
all
of
the
undeveloped
density
is
discounted
at
60
percent.
F
Just
so
I
can
get
the
last
word,
I'm
representing
the
valuation
for
a
spectrum
theater
which
ends
in
rpc
034.
I
just
want
to
echo
what
irving
and
rob
just
a
brief
note
that
the
zoning
changed
at
the
time
it
was
approved.
So
we
now
have
a
zoning
of
ceo
roslyn.
F
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board
members.
G
G
I
know
sometimes
it's
good
for
five
years,
sometimes
good
pretend
barnes
is
shaking
his
head
and
then
the
other
question
is:
are
there
any
ground
leases
on
the
property
or
anything
that
we
should
be
aware
of?
Or
is
this
just
a
fee,
simple
ownership.
D
So
I
would
agree
with
barnes:
there's
really
not
much
of
a
exploration.
I
think
they
put
it
in
the
plan,
but
as
we
know,
you
can
come
forth
and
do
multiple
amendments
this,
I
think
pdsps
typically
have
a
25-year
expiration.
They
want
you
to
come
because
I
think
within
five
years.
D
G
B
My
understanding
is,
it
is
fee
simple
and
that
there
are,
there
is
one
building
that
is
least
long-term
is
not
subject
to
not
the
building
we
talked
about
yesterday,
but
does
have
long-term
leases
in
it.
There's
also
two
apartment
houses
on
the
property.
G
G
Mr
hoffman,
I'm
just
just
thinking
I
was
writing
a
few
down.
While
we
were
listening
to
the
presentation,
miss
borman,
you
referred
to
the
cost
of
rezoning,
or
I
think
your
maybe
mr
harmon
mentioned
the
cost
of
rezoning.
Following
up
on
your
presentation,
are
you
talking
about
the
costs
that
were
incurred
with
all
the
you
said,
the
17
board
meetings
and
the
legal
fees,
and
all
that
is
that
what
you're
referring
to
are
you
talking
about
future
costs
that
are
going
to
be?
You
know
at
some.
B
Point
I'm
talking
about
the
cost
that
it
what
it
took
to
get
the
rezoning
passed
and
I'm
saying
it's
substantially
less
than
the
28
million
dollars
that
we're
asking
for
for
the
land
to
be
valued
at.
G
A
No
okay
would
mr
peralta
or
miss
roskin.
If
you'd
like
to
wrap
up.
E
All
right
again,
we
just
like
to
reiterate:
you
know
that
there
was
time
and
attention
spent
on
improving
the
pdsp.
We
believe
it's
more
valuable,
given
the
change
in
far
from
3.8
to
10.,
again
we're
valuing
this
property,
or
this
land
in
particular
at
43.57,
compared
to
the
most
recent
sale
of
a
similar
property
at
met
park
sold
to
amazon
at
72
square
foot
in
the
the
board.
E
Yesterday
it
was
an
a
statement
made
by
one
of
the
board
members
where
you
know
the
the
density
or
the
actual
office
can
be
exchanged
for
apartment.
It's
interchangeable
in
that
nature,
but
yet
the
density
remains
the
same,
and
that's
what
we're
talking
about
here
today.
The
density
again
is
like
I
mentioned
at
43.57
per
square
foot,
and
that
should
be
valued
as
as
such,
there.
A
E
D
So,
while
we're
frozen,
I
guess
I
guess,
take
the
time
to
try
to
answer
what
greg
mentioned.
So
as
far
as
looking
at
the
board
report,
I
looked
through
the
documents.
I
didn't
see
a
expiration
date,
but
one
thing
that
was
noted
is
that
the
pdf
doesn't
have
to
be
built
out
concurrently.
D
So
that
goes
back
to
what
rob
said
and
what
barnes
talked
about
and
what
we've
noted
with
other
pdsps
in
the
county.
The
density
approved
doesn't
change
the
use,
often
changes
and
we've
seen
that
with
pin
placement
part
where
they
had
one
point:
they
had
over
a
million
square
feet
of
office
and
then
they
came
to
the
board
said:
can
we
convert
this
to
apartments
and
at
one
point
they
had
hotels
and
they
said
we
don't
want
to
do
hotels.
Can
we
convert
this
to
apartments
or
retail
space?
D
So
that's
a
common
practice
of
pdsps.
I
think
it's
because
it's
such
a
large
block.
The
amount
of
time
is
given
to
fulfill
these
plans
and
you're,
also
giving
a
lot
of
leeway
to
be
able
to
make
changes
to
your
plan
based
off.
What's
going
on
in
the
market.
So
office
is
doing
bad,
they
would
come
to
the
board
and
say:
hey.
Can
we
convert
this
to
multi-family
because
multi-family
is
doing
great
and
that's
often
accepted
on
those
final
site
plans,
but
we're
just
saying
that
there's
value
in
this
additional
density?
D
You
look
at
an
entire
2
million
plus
square
feet
of
density.
It's
valued
around
40
some
dollars
a
square
foot,
our
actual
site
plan
and
existing
office
land
rate
is
65
square
foot
in
metro
area.
So
that
shows
that
there's
a
discounted
right
there.
If
you
compare
to
the
most
recent
sale
of
density
at
this
size,
which
was
72
dollars
per
square
foot,
again
we're
much
lower
than
that
as
well,
and
we
think
the
60
discount
on
the
undeveloped
density
is
appropriate.
F
Just
to
reiterate
just
reiterate:
the
demolition
cost
has
already
factored
into
a
purchase
price,
so
we
do
not
believe
applying
additional
demolition
costs
when
a
buyer
purchases,
a
property
they've
already
factored
that
into
their
sale
price.
That's
it.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
miss
foreman
or
miss
mr
harman.
If
you'd
like
to
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up.
B
B
Could
the
owners
have
built
this
density
on
january
1,
and
the
answer
to
that
is
in
the
the
the
document
creating
the
new
zoning
and
on
page
28,
and
I'm
just
going
to
read
it
until
such
time
as
the
roslyn
applicants
and
its
final
site
plan
application
for
development
of
the
site,
in
conformance
with
the
rosin
plan,
pdsp,
no
community
benefits
analysis
will
be
formed
because
determining
the
value
of
any
density
would
be
inaccurate
due
to
constantly
changing
market
conditions.
B
B
I
get
compensation
from
my
work.
It's
called
pay.
This
is
the
same
thing.
The
developer
has
to
pay
for
the
additional
building,
height
and
density
above
the
base
amounts
established
by
the
arlington
county
zoning
ordinance,
as
determined
by
the
county
board,
with
approval
of
each
final
site
plan.
So
we
don't
have
a
site
plan
we're
years
away
from
creating
a
site
plan.
B
We
have
a
situation
where
the
this
is
not
comparable
to
penn
place
that
that
property
was
site
planned
in.
I
think
in
the
70s
and
it's
taken
almost
45
50
years
to
to
be
developed.
It's
still
not
fully
developed.
This
property
is
not
close
to
the
airport.
It
is
not
close
to
the
pentagon,
it
does
not
have
good
access
in
roslyn.
B
It
is
a
property.
That's
going
to
require
a
google
or
a
microsoft
relocating
to
this
county
in
order
to
to
trigger
the
development,
the
owners
have
no
plans
in
the
foreseeable
future.
It
is
years
away
unless
something
miraculous
happens
and
we
are
not
saying
contrary
to
what
may
or
may
have
not
been
said.
B
But
what
I
heard
is
that
we
are
saying:
there's
no
no
value
in
this
property-
that's
not
correct
or
and
we're,
and
we
are
not
saying
that
there
is
no
value
in
the
the
fact
that
it
does
have
pdsp
approval
and
the
change
in
zoning
to
ros
and
co.
Okay,.
B
H
You
know
I
I
do
land
use
work,
I
don't
do
it
like
I
used
to,
but
we
did
met
place
and
we
did
pentagon
city
and,
what's
being
described
by
the
applicant,
is
just
not
the
reality
of
the
value
of
a
psych
plan
and
the
applicant
has
done
a
very
elegant
job
of
of
trying
to
chisel
away
at
the
value.
But
a
phase
development
site
plan
is
a
vested
thing
and
that
density
is
there
and
the
owner
chooses
when
they
want
to
utilize
it.
H
The
the
community
benefits
that
are
being
discussed
are
actually
involved
in
every
single
zoning
that
I've
done
in
the
last
15
years
and
that
the
term
community
benefits
became
was
actually
created
by
barbara
favola
when
she
was
on
the
board
and
they
they
look
at
things
such
as
providing
to
the
community
a
meeting
room
transportation
improvements,
things
of
that
nature,
things
that
that
add
to
the
value
of
the
applicants
project
as
well
as
just
to
the
community.
H
There
are
some
things
that
are
just
straight
contributions,
such
as
to
the
housing
fund,
such
as
to
the
undergrounding
fund.
In
my
opinion,
this
is
actually
more
valuable
than
a
site
on,
say
lee
highway.
I'm
just
going
to
use
that
way
of
example.
H
If
you
want
to
go
zona
site
on
the
highway,
you've
got
in
the
million
dollars
and
you
don't
know
what
you're
going
to
end
up
with
the
difference.
Here
is
you're
going
to
spend
the
million
dollars
you're
going
to
offer
up
the
same
community
benefits,
but
you
know
what
you're
going
to
end
up
with
and
if
at
any
time
it
seems
like
a
bad
bargain.
H
I
actually
think
the
county
is
perhaps
a
little
bit
generous
with
the
60
percent
and
according
to
what
I've
ascertained
out
there,
you
probably
are
more
at
50
would
probably
be
a
more
accurate
establishment
of
value.
However,
as
the
applicant
noted,
there
are
some
special
considerations
for
this
particular
site:
it
is
kind
of
isolated
and
so
forth,
so
my
own
analysis,
and
and
from
being
a
participant
in
the
zoning
process
here
in
arlington,
I
think,
where
the
county
is,
is
probably
appropriate.
A
Okay,
thank
you
other
folks,
mr
hoffman.
G
Yeah,
I
was,
I
was
thinking
the
same
thing
and
and
kind
of
in
the
back
of
my
head
was:
can
we
raise
the
assessment
a
little
bit
to
get
to
a
an
far
value
that
is
more
in
line
with
the
market,
but
I'm
okay,
leaving
it
where
the
county
is,
I
think,
barnes
kind
of
said
it
all
as
far
as
the
the
pdsp
and
the
value
in
that
I
just
wanted
to
add
to
that
that
you
know
the
comments
about
the
office
market
and
covid
and
all
that
stuff.
G
It's
kind
of
like
this
is
a
land
bank
you're
in
there
at
an
assessment
of
43
dollars,
an
far
you're
saying
it's
35.
G
you've
actually
got
some
income
on
the
property,
which
is
a
great
bonus
versus
just
being
raw
land.
So
you
know,
even
if
you
sit
there
and
pay
taxes
on
the
land
with
no
income
for
30
years
you're.
Still
you
know
below
that
65
square
foot
number
that
the
county
uses
in
its
guidelines
today.
So
I
I
don't
have
a
ton
of
sympathy,
for
you
know
we're
in
an
office
downturn
owner's.
I
G
Gonna
wait
for
the
downturn
to
come
back
around
and
the
right
time
to
pull
the
trigger.
So
I'm,
okay
with
the
county.
H
Yeah,
I
was
just
gonna,
add
one
more
thing,
and
that
is
that
it
is
a
practice
of
the
county
to
allow
trading
of
like,
for
example,
hotel
right
now.
Hotel
nobody's
buying
any
hotel,
but
if
you
did
come
in
for
a
4.1
final
site
plan
tomorrow,
my
guess
is
the
county
would
allow
that
to
be
exchanged
for
whatever
else
it
is.
You
might
want
to
do
and
what
the
county
does,
because
I've
done
this
a
couple
times
is
they'll,
say:
okay.
H
Well,
you
have
one
hotel
unit,
that's
worth
blank,
we'll
give
you
two
apartment
units,
because
the
values
equal
or
we'll
give
you
1.7
whatever,
and
they
have
a
formula
that
they
will
apply.
I'm
not
saying
it's
a
right.
You
don't
have
a
right
to
it,
but
if
conditions
are
such
that
you
know,
everybody
knows
right
now
we
got
more
hotel
than
the
market
will
absorb.
H
They
would
probably
do
that
for
you
and
there
are
standards
that
the
county
has,
that
condition
that
we
read
was
referencing
county
policies,
and
so
we
who
do
this
for
a
living,
we
kind
of
know
what
the
county
is
going
to
seek,
how
much
they're
going
to
ask
for
and
so
forth.
With
that
again
I'll,
be
quiet.
A
Okay,
thank
you
other
folks,
anything
different
or
no.
All
right,
then,
I'm
ready
to
entertain
a
motion.
G
A
Okay
I'll
second,
that
motion
in
a
second
to
confirm
the
first
case,
all
in
favor
all
right
proposed.
Okay,
that
is
five
to
zero.
It's
unanimous,
the
county
is
confirmed
at
16
573
200..
The
second
case
is
rpc
16039034
on
north
10th
street.
G
Yeah
motion
to
confirm
four
million
five.
Ninety
five
hundred.
A
G
All
right
motion
to
confirm:
20
million
575
700.
A
B
A
Moving
forward
with
thomas
foreman,
if
you're
going
to
make
a
change
like
that,
I
would
prefer
to
get
it
the
day
before
you
must
have
known.
You
were
doing
this
because
you
had
a
15
minute
presentation
done
rather
than
two
minutes
before
it.
Just
kind
of
is
disruptive
to
the
whole
situation
and
we'll
confirm
time
wise
and
things
like
that,
but
we
could
do
that
beforehand,
rather
than
right
before
we're
trying
to
go
on
the
air.
Okay,
thank
you
is
mr
steinhauser.
Here.
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
subject:
property
is
sedona
and
slate
apartment
buildings
up
in
roslyn.
It's
two
high-rise
apartments
on
one
rpc,
419
market
rate,
apartments,
55,
affordable
units
or
approximately
eleven
and
a
half
percent
and
10
625
square
feet
of
retail.
I
would
ask
everyone
to
flip
to
page
44
of
99
and
that's
where
my
appeal
materials
begin.
J
So,
just
to
you
know,
quickly,
walk
you
through
the
property.
You
know
take
a
look
at
the
co-star
summary
report
on
page
45
you'll
also
see
a
summary
of
their
their
asking
rents
for
studios
one
beds
and
two
beds
right
there.
J
You
can
feel
free
on
page
46
to
take
a
look
at
some
of
the
market
conditions
vacancy
rates
year
over
year,
asking
rents,
etc.
Again
on
page
46.,
my
income
approach
is
on
page
49
and
you
can
see
my
income
approach
is
on
the
left
and
the
county's
original
income
approach
is
on
the
right.
This
is
for
the
apartment
portion
and
I'll
walk
you
through
it
from
top
to
bottom.
J
So
the
biggest
issue
here
is
that
we
believe
the
assessors
pgi
does
not
consider
the
significant
anywhere
from
thirteen
to
fifteen
percent
year-over-year
decline
in
market
rents
from
one
one
twenty
to
one
one,
twenty
one.
This
is
true
both
in
the
market
and
specifically
at
this
property
rents
for
smaller
units,
including
efficiency
in
one
bedroom
units
decreased
the
most
significantly
as
a
result
of
a
lot
of
renters,
just
moving
out
of
the
city.
J
J
K
J
J
Again
feel
free
to
look
at
the
co-star
report.
I
originally
mentioned
for
the
subject
property
on
page
45,
where
you'll
see
that
the
asking
rents
were
1783
for
studios
and
2022
for
one
bedrooms
and
frankly,
what
I
often
find
is
that,
what's
listed
on
co-stars
higher
than
what
they're
actually
getting
at
the
property.
Again,
that's
more
of
an
asking
rent.
J
Second
issue:
the
assessor
did
lower
their
vacancy
and
collection
loss
for
high-rise
apartment
from
six
percent
to
five
percent
in
2021.
We
don't
believe
this
reflects
the
market
as
of
1.121
whatsoever
and
in
fact
the
assessor
should
have
increased
this
rate.
The
guidelines
say
that
concessions
are
captured
within
the
five
percent
vacancy
and
collection
loss.
To
put
this
into
perspective,
the
subject
property
was
6.4
percent
vacant.
On
the
1
121
data
value,
the
sub
market
was
8.2
percent
vacant.
J
We're
stipulating
to
that
number
today
just
to
try
and
find
some.
You
know
common
areas,
but
you
know
if
this
case
were
to
go
further.
You
know
withholding
the
right
to
use
a
higher
rate
there,
the
assessor.
I
appreciate
mr
chicas
for
his
work.
You
know
at
the
first
level
he
did
adjust
the
operating
expenses
upwards
and
we
are
now
in
agreement
on
those,
so
that
is
no
longer
an
issue.
J
The
the
second
to
last
issue
is
the
cap
rate.
This
county
is
using
the
same
cap
rate
as
last
year.
It's
a
sub
four
cap
rate,
we're
not
seeing
that
in
the
market
or
on
any
sales.
We
looked
at.
You
know
both
surveys
and
sales
and
we're
at
four
and
a
half
percent.
J
Finally,
there
is
a
personal
property
component
at
this.
At
this
building,
as
there
are
with
many
new
apartment
buildings,
it's
they
pay
personal
property
tax
on
352
852..
J
If
we're
supposed
to
be
valuing
the
real
estate.
Only
here,
the
personal
property
component
has
to
be
deducted
below
the
line,
and
we've
done
that
here
and
so
originally,
you
know
we
were
in
agreement
with
the
assessor
on
his
income
approach
for
the
retail
portion,
and
that
wasn't
an
issue.
J
J
Page
54
of
99
is
just
that
business
personal
property
bill,
proving
the
value
that
we
showed
of
350
2
852.
J
Page
60
of
99
and
61
of
99
specifically
show
a
change
in
rents
by
washington,
sub
market
by
the
by
the
different
neighborhoods
you'll
notice
on
the
graph
gaithersburg,
alexandria,
reston,
and
you
look
all
the
way
to
the
bottom,
and
you
will
see
rosalind
where
this
property
is
located.
J
One
final
article
is
the
apartment
list,
national
rent
report.
You
will
see
on
page
71
of
99
again
arlington
virginia
just
in
december
alone.
Rents
were
down
2.4
percent
and
overall
in
the
year
they
were
down
for
14.8
percent.
J
The
biggest
issues
are
the
rents
on
the
efficiency
in
one
bedrooms,
this
additional
retail
pass-through
income
that
should
be
removed,
cap
rate
and
personal
property
adjustment.
Thanks.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chicas,
for
the
county.
Please,
yes,
ma'am.
I
Good
morning
board
members,
mr
steinhauser,
so
we
are
speaking
about
sedona
slate.
Mr
steiner
went
over
at
fairly
succinctly
fairly
new
development,
nine
years
old,
essentially
again,
as
mr
steiner's
notice,
two
buildings
essentially
kind
of
operating
as
one
it's
a
bit
unique
in
that
residents
of
sedona
can
use
slate
amenities
and
vice
versa.
I
I
If
we
look
at
the
revision
columns,
g1
g2
g3,
especially
as
compared
to
the
appellants
columns,
h1
and
h2,
you
can
see
that,
as
mr
stein
has
another
we're
fairly
in
an
agreement,
at
least
in
regards
to
operating
expenses,
you
know
I
did
note
in
their
2020
submission
that
they
did
include
some
200
and
250
000,
or
so
what
would
be
considered
capex.
This
is
roof
repair,
installation
of
security,
fobs
cameras,
etc.
I
It
does
look
like
mr
steinhauser
noted
that
as
well
and
smoothed
that
out
as
far
as
a
stabilized
operating
expense.
I
would
note
that
is
still
a
bit
above
the
three
or
average
and
that's
18
19
and
20,
and
that's
again,
even
if
you
include
the
operating
expenses
that
we
would
consider
capital
expenses
in
column
e.
So
again,
a
three-year
average
would
put
them
much
closer
to
3.9
as
opposed
to
the
4
million,
or
so
that
mr
steiner
suggests.
I
I
would
note
and
ask
the
board
to
note
too
that
even
in
this
coveted
year
pandemic
year,
revenue
went
up
across
the
board.
It
was
achieving
stabilization
well
into
this
period.
I
You
can
actually
see
that
the
vacancy
dropped
6.9
about
five
back
to
six
and
then
actually
dropped
almost
half
a
percent
in
2020,
and
that
was
without
concessions.
Mr
steinhauser
noted
that
there
are
some
severe
concessions
being
offered
to
sort
of
get
rents
where
they
were.
I
I
would
note
that
it
appears,
even
as
of
today,
rents
have
not
only
increased
concessions
are
down
to
offering.
I
believe
it's
amenity
fees
being
waived.
I
So,
as
the
board
is
familiar,
we
did
make
adjustments
essentially
squashing
the
gross
potential
by
over
almost
half
a
million
dollars
to
get
to
a
stabilized,
effective
gross
well
within
the
stabilized
range
that
has
been
actuated
at
the
property.
The
last
three
years
we
still
are
within
it
looks
like
it's
about
a
one
percent
drop
from
last
year's
actual
reported
effect
of
gross
and
again
that
was
with
the
year
that
they
actually
dropped
vacancies
and
reported
no
concessions.
I
As
mr
sanders
noted,
we
did
increase
operating
expenses
by
quite
a
bit,
almost
260
000
or
so
equating
to
again
a
on
par
with
the
last
three
years,
reported
by
the
owners
and
again
very
much
on
par
with
the
last
three
years
reported
for
net
operating
income.
I
We
did
note
again
if
you
look
in
columns
f,
if
you
smooth
out
those
capital
expenditures,
the
net
operating
income,
that's
indicated
is
very
much
on
par
with
what
was
achieved
in
years,
2018
2019,
briefly
touching
on
what
mr
stein
has
noted,
with
the
difference
in
pass-throughs,
if
you'll,
look
at
page
6
of
99
you'll
see
the
retail
rent
roll
now.
That,
of
course,
is
provided
by
the
county,
but
you
can
also
see
the
owner's
rent
roll
on
the
subsequent
pages,
page
7
and
8..
I
I
If
you
take
those
numbers-
and
you
add
them
to
the
monthly
recovery
table,
as
you
can
see
again
on
page
six,
you
do
get
monthly
recoveries
in
the
area
about
ninety
nine
hundred
dollars,
which
equates
to
the
number
that
is
used
in
fact
we're
a
little
bit
low.
Based
on
what
they've
reported
we're
not
cast
casting
aspersions
on
the
owner,
but
it
would
appear
that,
as
mr
steiner's
noted,
the
owner
is
claiming
that
they're,
including
that
in
the
I
e.
I
I
Lastly,
when
we
come
to
our
summation,
we
see
that
our
revision
called
for
a
fairly
succinct
one
percent
to
drop
year
over
year.
Again
very
much
noi
is
very
much
in
line
with
what
they've
achieved
the
last
three
years,
whereas
we
think
the
appellant
was
a
bit
too
aggressive
in
their
call
of
a
revision
of
over
15
percent
drop
in
value.
I
It
just
doesn't
seem
warranted.
They're,
nine
point,
roughly
nine
point:
five
million
dollar
noi.
You
know
this
property
has
not
achieved
anything
that
low
in
the
last
four
years.
In
fact,
the
lowest
number
there
is
is
still
higher
than
that
by
over
500
000..
I
We
do
believe
that,
based
on
the
fact
that
this
property
does
seem
more
stabilized
in
fact
than
others
that
we've
seen
this
year,
given
that
their
vacancy
actually
dropped
year
over
year,
given
that
their
income
increased
year
over
year
and
given
that
their
effective
gross
has
increased
three
years
in
a
row,
we
do
believe
that
the
revision
made
by
the
county
was
appropriate.
We
do
believe
that
the
revised
value
of
190
million
904
000
is
accurate
and
should
be
confirmed
as
fair
and
equitable
anything
to
add
irvin.
G
Yeah
chris,
did
you
touch
on
the
personal
property
tax
comment
that
he
made
about?
Is
that
double?
What's
going
on
there.
I
I
I
understand
the
theory
of
it,
but
I
think
the
the
the
slippery
slope
is
that
every
every
commercial
entity
that
has
a
commercial
tax
would
then
apply
that
and
say
that
you
shouldn't
count
that,
but
you
know
the
idea
of
going
into
a
lease
office
and
standing
without
furniture
in
it
or
you
know
I
don't
I
don't
know
where
they
think
their
employees
would
work.
You
know
there's
going
to
be
a
component
to
that,
but
it's
that
this
this
300
52
000
or
so,
is
you
know,
I'm
not
sure
how
he
believes
that's
being
taxed.
I
J
I
But
if
I
may
say
I
don't
want
to
be
augmented,
but
just
the
difference
with
the
hotel
is,
of
course,
is
that's
a
furnished
apartment.
In
a
sense
I
mean
that
it
cannot
exist
without
having
that
furniture,
fixture
and
equipment.
It's
it's
part
of
the
return
of
return
on
investment,
that's
the
sort
of
the
basis
of
hotel
valuation,
whereas
again
this
is
a
bit
of
a
novel
idea
of
deducting
it.
It's
not
been
approached
by
any
other
owner
that
you've
seen
this
year
by
any
other
appellant.
It's
really
only
by
ryan
llc.
A
I
Yeah
mr
bailey
can
correct
my
phone,
but
I
believe
we
we
still
do
that
on
furnished
units.
So
if
an
apartment
has
furnished
units
in
which
they
again
it's
much
more
comparable
to
a
hotel
and
that
they
have
equipment
that
is
going
to
be
depreciated,
then
we
will
do
that.
But
if
mr
standers
is
talking
about
the
equipment,
that's
in
the
lobby
that
the
chairs
that
are
used
by
the
leasing
office
pool
equipment.
I
This
is
stuff
that
I
think
you're
going
to
find.
That
is,
as
necessary
is
necessary
to
get
the
effective
rents
that
they're
asking
so
I've
we've
not
seen
any
apartment
that
has
used
this
again
other
than
mr
steinhauser's
clients.
D
So
it
was
kind
of
like
a
back
and
forth
thing.
D
We
didn't
do
it
and
then,
at
one
point
discussing
with
the
agent
about
particularly
a
furnished
apartment
that
had
furnace
units,
we
started
doing
the
deduction
and
after
realizing
that
we
were
so
we
did
it
for
a
while
and
then
we
said
you
know
what
this
is
only
for
properties
that
have
furnished
units
and
we
can
see
the
rent
difference
between
a
three
bedroom
and
a
three
bedroom
furnace.
So
therefore
we
can
see
that
this
furniture
actually
attributes
to
the
value
of
the
property,
so
you're
correct
mary.
I
K
I
Yes,
ma'am
again,
looking
at
the
property
revenue
went
up
across
the
board
apartments
at
retail
parking
income,
other
income,
even
utility
reimbursement.
Excuse
me,
gross
potential,
went
up,
effective
gross
is
up
three
years
in
a
row.
We
smooth
out
the
operating
expenses
to
include
those
which
we
would
consider
capital
expense.
I
So,
even
though
we
reconstructed
them
out,
we
still
take
the
three-year
average.
The
noi
that's
resultant
and
again
revision
is
much
in
line
with
years,
18,
19
and
20.
Again,
if
you
smooth
out
the
capital
improvements,
we
do
believe
that
the
revised
value
shows
a
a
year-over-year
decrease
of
one
percent,
much
more
in
line
with.
What's
going
on
at
the
property,
as
opposed
to
the
appellant's
15
year-over-year
decline,
we
do
believe
that
the
revised
value
of
190
million
904
000
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
J
Yeah
thanks,
I
mean
the
main
issue
here
are
the
rents.
I
barely
heard
that
addressed
whatsoever
by
the
assessor
I've
shown
in
my
appeal
package.
Multiple
pages
of
support
that
rents
were
down
at
the
property
year
over
year
by
almost
15,
specifically
on
the
efficiency
in
one
bedroom
units
and
concessions
were
up
as
well.
This
all
happens.
J
You
know
in
the
second
half
of
the
year,
so,
yes,
I
mean
the
the
entire
2020
income
statement
doesn't
reflect
that,
but
we're
looking
at
the
property
on
a
specific
date
we're
not
supposed
to
be
looking
backwards,
we're
supposed
to
be
looking
forward.
What
are
we
going
to
assume
for
rents
as
of
january
1st
2021?
J
J
I
would
also
say
please
look
at
column
e
on
the
test
sheet.
You'll
see
the
noi,
the
property
actually
went
down.
The
assessor
keeps
mentioning
that
there
were
that
server
cap
x,
improv
included
in
the
operating
expenses,
I'm
not
sure,
since
when
is
fixing
a
leaky
roof
at
a
capital
improvement.
J
But
again
I
would
ask
you
to
look
at
that.
Please
look
at
the
retail
income
as
well.
It's
never
achieved
the
amount
that
the
assessor
is
using.
Those
are
the
two
biggest
issues
thanks.
A
A
You
know
to
look
at
the
individual,
you
know
amounts
being
you
know,
assessed
per
the
different
types
of
units
I
mean
that
may
be
off,
but
the
bottom
line
is
the
gpi
and
that
you
know
noi
is
certainly
in
line
with
how
it's
been
performing
over
the
last
three
years
and
for
the
appellant
to
say.
Why
are
we
looking
backwards?
We
always
look
for
a
trend,
so
we
would
look
back
to
the
past
three
years,
so
I
would
disagree
with
that,
but
I
I
myself
think
the
revision
from
the
county
is
generous.
K
I
agree
with
you,
mary,
and
I
think
you
know
most
of
the
time
in
cases
like
this.
I
retest
a
couple
ways
based
on
rental
rates
and
expenses,
but
you
know,
to
be
honest,
I
think
I
have
to
give
to
mr
chickas,
I
think
of
all
the
cases
that
I've
seen
this
year.
I
think
this
is
probably
one
of
the
best
reconstructions
and
you
know
looking
at
the
rental
rates,
I
don't
really
see
that
they
are
out
of
line.
You
know
they're
within
the
range
of
what
the
appellant
reported.
K
What
they're
getting,
not
necessarily
what
you
know.
The
reports
are
saying
that
rents
are
going
to
be
going
down
or
that's
what
they're
getting
so,
I
think
they're
within
the
range-
and
I
don't
see
anything
you
know,
I
think
it's
a
good
good
reconstruction.
I
have
to
give
a
thumbs
up
to
mr
chubbus.
H
Yes,
ma'am,
I
I
likewise
looked
at
you
know.
How
can
I
reduce
this
and
every
time
I
I
came
up
with
an
idea,
it
just
didn't
seem
to
go
anywhere.
So
I'm
also
okay
with
the
county's
assessment.
G
Same
thing,
I
thought
I
thought
there
would
be
an
actual,
bigger
dip
in
2020,
but
the
noise
there,
that's
really
where
we
saw
the
biggest
hit
on
the
efficiencies
in
one
bedrooms,
so
I
would
have
thought
it
would
have
played
out
in
the
2020
noi,
and
so
you
know
if
you
cap
out
2020
you're
at
right,
about
where
the
county
is
maybe
a
little
bit
higher.
G
So
you
know
initially
thinking.
Maybe
we
could
look
forward
and
and
and
try
to
take
something
off
on
prospective
future
rents
or
whatever,
but
we
didn't
see
it
in
2020
and
everything
we've
got
going
right
now
is
actually
going
back
up.
So
you
know,
obviously
that
wasn't
the
case
on
january
1,
but
we
do
have
the
2020
data
to
look
at
so.
L
I'm
sorry
I
tried
to
get.
I
originally
went
through
and
looked
at
the
numbers
and
tried
to
see
where
the
inconsistencies
might
show
up,
and
I
don't
I
I
was
fine
with
the
numbers
it
just
did
not
seem
to
stand
out
that
there
was
a
big
discrepancy.
Somewhere
it
balances
out.
Well
and
and
rents
are-
and
I
agree,
2020
did
make
it
it.
Just
didn't
I
mean
hey
if
the
appellant's
right
and
things
change
next
year,
then
that's
something
we
have
to
look
at,
but
right
now
it
doesn't
show
it.
A
All
right,
I'm
gonna,
allow
somebody
else
to
make
the
motion,
because
I
would
confirm
the
original
assessment
and
I
feel
you
guys
are
leaning
towards
the
revision.
I
I
don't
know
where
everybody
is
on
that,
but.
K
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion
mary,
that
we
reduce
the
assessment
to
190
million
904
thousand
even
yeah.
Second,.
A
Okay,
a
much
in
a
second
by
mr
lawson,
all
in
favor
all
right
hi.
So
it's
unanimous!
The
assessment
is
reduced
to
the
county's
revision
of
190
million
904.
Even
thank
you.
A
J
J
The
subject
property
is
known
as
ballston
one
office
building
built
in
1986,
approximately.
J
238
067
square
feet
of
rentable
space,
predominantly
office
space
and
then
a
very
small
retail
portion,
the
property
physically
16
vacant.
As
of
1
121,
we
used
an
income
approach
to
value
the
property
same
as
the
assessor
again.
I've
included
a
co-star
report
with
all
the
spaces
available
on
pages
35,
36
and
37,
and
everyone's
welcome
to
take
a
look.
H
J
There
are
really
sort
of
two
big
issues
here,
the
one
first
being
that
the
gsa
or
the,
which
is
the
dhs
specifically,
is
the
anchor
tenant
at
this
building.
They
occupy
approximately
32
of
the
building
or
76
976
square
feet.
J
Their
lease
expires
in
september
2021,
while
the
owner
is
hopeful
that
they
may
you
know,
stay
past
september.
You
know
in
you
know
some
sort
of
short
extension.
It
is
publicly
known
that
the
dhs
will
ultimately
consolidate
the
new
saint
elizabeth's
campus
in
dc.
This
has
a
profound
effect
on
the
value
of
the
property.
You
know,
as
you
essentially
have
a
lame
duck
anchored
in
it.
J
The
space
will
need
reimbursement
or
refurbishment.
Excuse
me
once
dhs
leaves
and
would
likely
need
to
be
broken
up
for
multi-tenant
use
as
the
odds
of
finding
a
tenant
to
take
77
000
square
feet
are,
you
know,
slim
to
none
right
now,.
J
In
terms
of
the
actual
rents,
we
use
the
same
brands
as
the
assessor.
We
thought
they
were
reasonable.
We
adjusted
the
cafe
rent
down
to
to
the
actual
rent,
and
we
see
the
assessor
has
done
that
as
well
in
his
revision.
So
there's
no
issue
there.
J
Unfortunately,
for
me
this
is
mainly
a
cap
rate
case.
Not
only
you
know
is
the
anchor
tenant
leaving.
They
have
had
significant
issues
with
existing
tenants
that
you
know
are
physically
in
the
building,
but
we're
you
know
failing
to
pay
rent
over
the
course
of
2020.
J
Those
three
tenants
are
made
in
tech
suite
1030.
They
occupy
77
399
square
feet.
They
were
behind
on
nine
full
months
of
rent
as
of
december
31st
2020
and
their
lease
technically
expired
february.
28Th
they
knew
as
of
1-1.
They
would
be
leaving
at
the
end,
accenture
federal
services,
sweet
1100,
496
square
feet,
confirmed
in
2020
that
they
would
be
moving
out
at
the
end
of
their
lease.
J
In
april,
the
third
and
largest
of
the
three
boston
1200
suites
suite
1200
tendon,
had
only
paid
50
rent
for
eight
months
and
up
until
12
30
120.
It
was
not
expected
to
make
it
so
the
space
was
put
on
the
market.
You
know
on
30
days
notice
for
rent.
So
in
addition
to
the
anchor
tenant
you
know,
knowing
that
they're
going
to
leave,
you
have
three
that
were
known
at
the
time
would
be
physically
in
the
property
but
would
be
vacating
in
2021,
predominantly
due
to
lack
of
rent
payment.
J
We
attempted
to
quantify
you
know
just
the
releasing
costs
alone
for
those
three
tenants
which
we
knew
would
be
leaving
in
2021
at
70
dollars
per
square
foot
for
ti's
and
leasing
commissions
at
five
years
at
six
percent,
the
total
cost.
Just
for
those
three
tenants
was
2.6
million.
J
J
I
should
add
specifically
for
this
case.
There
is
an
appraisal.
As
of
the
data
value
that
I
provided
to,
the
assessor,
the
the
value
is
72.7
million.
J
I
spoke
to
the
asset
manager
for
this
property,
where
they're
preparing
to
actually
take
this
property
to
market,
and
they
told
me
best
case
scenario-
is
low
60s
to
sell
this
property.
That's
best
case
scenario,
so
the
assessor
you
know
is
not
accounting
for
these
significant
leasing
costs
that
will
need
to
be
done
by
a
buyer
of
this
property,
but
the
market
is
saying
yes,
when
we
look
at
this
property
to
buy
it,
we're,
including
these
costs
in
our
purchase
price,
which
is
the
definition
of
fair
market
value.
J
J
Cap
rate
and
and
those
additional
lease
of
costs
for
vacating
penalties.
D
All
right,
good
morning,
again
I'll
be
following
up
to
what
mr
hasn't
had
to
talk
about,
which
was
boston.
One
office
building
on
this
property
received
the
2020
information,
this
property
on
reports,
net
effective
rents
for
2018,
19
and
2020.
They
do
not
report
the
vacancy,
as
you
can
see
in
column,
b,
c
and
e.
D
At
the
top
of
each
column,
we
notated
the
net
least
for
area.
That's
reported
to
us
on
the
ines,
along
with
the
vacant
space,
that's
reported
on
each
ie.
You
will
see
in
2017
the
property
was
29
vacant
2018,
the
property
was
23.7
vacant
and
2019.
It
was
17.1
vacant,
as
of
2020.
D
I
think
we
have
it
at
15
or
close
to
not
15.
a
little
bit
more
than
15.
So
in
our
evaluation
of
this
property
we're
using
20
vacancy.
When
you
look
at
the
original
assessment
compared
to
what
they
reported
on
2020,
our
office
revenue
for
occupy
space
is
about
400
000,
less
than
what
they
reported.
D
D
D
D
72
million
700.
the
actual
direct
cap
approach
that
they
utilize
in
this
very
appraisal
was
77
400..
That
value
was
reached
after
deducting
lease
of
costs
and
other
things
by
the
actual
appraiser,
the
actual
value
of
87
million
812
0415.
D
H
Thank
you.
I
want
to
ask
the
county
this
first.
As
you
noted,
the
actual
income
was
higher
than
the
the
assessment
and
also
the
the
applicant's
suggestion.
However,
the
applicant
is
placing
emphasis
on
the
fact.
They're
gonna
lose
a
really
big
tenant
in
the
near
future.
D
So
we
looked
into
dhs
leaving.
We
know
that
their
lease
expires
around
the
end
of
the
year.
So
after
as
of
january
1,
they
were
attending
on
the
rent
roll
as
far
as
them
vacating
the
building
there
is.
We
looked
to
the
hyenas
to
see
if
there's
been
communication
back
and
forth
about
them,
leaving.
There
was
no
indication
on
irony
that
they
would
leave
this
year.
D
We
know
that
gsa
has
in
the
past
done
extensions
such
as
tsa
out
in
pentagon
city.
When
they
were
looking
to
move,
they
did
do
an
extension
with
them
to
where
they
stayed
longer.
So,
as
a
1-1
I
mean
we
know
they're
leaving,
but
we
don't
know
the
time
period
in
which
they're
leaving
typically
they're
leaving
this
year.
When
we
have
the
information
like
they're
leaving
this
year,
we
have
utilized
that
information
and
made
discounts
or
applied
discounts
below
the
line
for
the
attendant
vacation.
H
Me
ask
the
owner
of
the
applicants
and
when,
when
you
hire
appraisals,
do
the
appraisers
factor
that
in
yes,.
J
G
D
G
D
So
the
2020
assessment
had
below
the
line
deductions.
There
was
an
assumption
that
there
was
higher
vacancy
you
see,
so
we
use
the
25
vacancy
rate
in
2020
and
we
did
below
the
line
discounts
of
1.47
million.
The
estimated
vacancy
was
53
million,
53
000,
I'm
sorry
53
850
square
feet
of
vacancy.
G
D
It
was
the
25
plus
to
below
the
line
and
then
pretty
sure
the
rent
rate
was
yeah.
The
rent
rate
was
in
line
what
we
used
in
the
test,
so
that
was
the
biggest
difference
vacancy
rating
below
the
line
deduction,
and
actually,
let
me
correct
that
the
vacancy
was
actually
61
000
106
in
the
2020
assessment,
not
53..
It
was
61,
000,
106.
D
attribute
to
vacant
office
space,
and
so
that
resulted
in
the
below
the
line
deduction
and,
as
you
can
see,
based
off
the
summary
sheet,
their
vacancy
wasn't
that
low.
It
wasn't
that
high.
D
D
Noi
is
less
than
what
they
achieved
in
2019
and
2020.
When
you
look
at
the
history
of
the
property,
the
value
of
76
million,
seven,
twenty
three
hundred,
what
we're
asking
the
board
to
take.
We
asked
if
you
consider
the
information
submitted,
especially
with
the
appraisal.
D
J
Certainly
yeah
the
value
conclusion
from
the
appraisal
was
72.7
million
and
we
can't
just
pick
and
choose
specific
approaches.
The
value
conclusion
on
page
3
of
the
appraisal
is
72.7
million.
Thanks
bye
the
two
issues.
Again,
we
believe
the
assessor
is
using
a
below
market
cap
rate.
Frankly,
don't
expect
the
board
to
change
that.
The
second
issue
are
leasing
costs
for
vacating
tenants
again,
I
agree
with
the
assessor.
We
don't
know
100.
As
of
1
121,
that
the
gsa
was
leaving
in
september.
J
We
knew
that
they
were
going
to
leave
at
some
point.
We
didn't
know
100
in
september.
That's
why,
in
the
lease
up
calculation
that
I
did
on
page
42
of
74,
I
only
included
the
three
tenants
that
we
knew
for
a
fact
we're
leaving
and
that's
because
they
had
failed
to
pay
rent
and
the
owner
told
me
they
will
be
leaving
in
early
2021..
J
The
spaces
were
all
listed
for
rent
as
of
1
121..
So
that's
the
least
of
calculation
that
I
did
and
it
equated
for
only
for
ti's
and
leasing
commissions.
It
equated
to
2.7
million.
I
would
hope,
at
the
very
least,
the
board
would
consider
deducting
that
amount.
Since
the
assessor
said
that
is
something
they
would
typically
consider
thanks.
G
I
mean
I'm
just
on
the
history.
I
look
at
this.
We
saw
this
case
in
19.
We
reduced
it
to
69
million
in
20.
It
was
the
county
came
to
the
conclusion.
It
was
68
million
and
I
just
don't
see
any
reason
why
it
should
be
any
higher
than
that
today.
Now
that
we
have
probably
some
pretty
big
impending
vacancy
staring
them
in
the
face,
so
you
know
I
kind
of
I
like
the
2020
assessment.
I
think
that's
fair
how
we
get
there.
K
What
how
we
arrived
to
those
numbers
how
the
county
arrived
on
two
years
ago?
You
know
what
deductions
were
made
below
the
line
or
what
allowances
you
know
we're.
Looking
at
different
rates,
different
cap
rates,
different
numbers-
I
mean
we
can't
just
look
at
what
it
was
last
year
and
say
you
know
we
just
think
it's
too
high.
L
K
I
think
it's
like
with
you
know
many
of
the
cases
that
we've
seen
you
know.
We
know
that
some
people
are
going
to
be
leaving.
We
don't
know
if
they're
going
to
have
a
renewal.
It's
it's
hard
to
tell
you
know.
We
don't
know
what
tenants
they
have
lined
up
if
there's
any,
which
you
know,
of
course,
that
information
doesn't
come
to
us
unless
they
there's
a
lease
signed.
L
Well,
well,
that's
valid,
but
the
fact
that
they
would
renew
after
months
of
rent
already
at
the
at
the
point
of
the
first
they
probably
aren't
renewing
and
that
yeah
you
usually
have
a
lot
of
vacancy.
The
I
think
should
have
some
consideration.
A
Right
and
I
I
I
see
where
you're
going
with
that
mystery,
it's
my
only
concern
is
you
know,
we
have
other
properties
that
we
know
tenants
are
leaving
and
we
always
say
well
we'll
gets
reported
because,
as
mr
panorando
said,
it
could
get
released.
We
don't
know
I
mean
I
agree
with
you.
H
Yes,
ma'am.
Thank
you,
madam
chairman.
The
reason
I
didn't
respond
before
I
was
in
the
middle
of
doing
some
math
based
on
jose's
comment.
I
think
you
know
I
thought
about
this,
and
and
and
and
what
I
tried
you
know.
Kind
of
my
my
check
so
to
speak
is
to
look
at
two
things.
You
know
what
did
they
make?
What
did
they
actually
earn
this
year
or
last
year?
I
mean
and
then
compare
that
to
okay.
This
goes
on
the
market
today.
H
Is
it
going
to
be
saleable
for
what
the
county
says
and
I
I
I
think
that
if
this
goes
on
the
market
today,
they're
not
going
to
get
what
is
it
77,
000.
and-
and
I
I
hear
what
you
and
jose
are
saying-
and
I
recognize
that
like
two
years
ago-
it's
speculative-
I
don't
think
today-
is
speculative
you're
going
to
lose
the
tenant
and
there's
no
market
for
a
tenant
to
come
in
and
replace
them.
H
In
fact,
they're
probably
going
to
get
requests
to
reduce
space,
and
so
I
I
think
there
should
be
a
reduction
and
what
what
I
did
was
took
the
applicant's
figure
and
then
applied
the
county
cap
rate.
I
got
75
817
662,
then
I
deducted
the
2640
for
the
year.
Rent
loss
ended
up
at
73,
177
020,
and
I
mean
we
could
we
could
just
stop
it
using
the
county
cap
rate.
I
kind
of
think
you
know
my
own
analysis.
I
think
we
should
go
to
the
73
177
000.
A
A
G
There
and
the
and
there's
a
co,
big
co-working
suite
in
here
and
that's
another
big
kind
of
scary
factor
to
a
buyer
which
is
you
know
it's
another.
We
work
in
there.
The
co-working
is
not
exactly
flourish,
so
you
take
their
income
and
you
discount
it,
and
you
say
maybe
I
recover
some
of
that,
but
there's
no
way
they're
paying
full
rent
for
the
whole
term.
K
L
They
may
very
well
rerent
those
I'm
not
thinking
they're
going
to,
but
they
could,
but
then
you've
got
the
the
the
larger
vacancy
that
we
know
is
going
to
come.
It
may
not
be
this
year
and
then
just
just
the
way,
the
market's
going
to
look
at
this
and
this
that
value
there's
too
many
variables
in
there.
That's
just
saying
this
value
would
not
hold
in
the
market
potentially
yeah.
L
K
A
A
L
Lawrence's
last
suggestion,
or
whoever
made
it
with
with
moving
that
2.6
over,
might
not
be
a
bad
one.
I
was
going.
H
I
was
going
to
make
a
mo.
Why
don't
I
throw
this
out
and
see
if
there's
three
votes
take
the
2
640
move
it
over
to
the
test
end
up
with
74
664
400.
A
A
A
A
A
G
I
would
just
say
if
we
see
that
roslyn
place
or
roslin
plaza
case
again
next
year,
maybe
we
should
just
call
that
an
economic
unit
I
mean,
I
don't
know
why
we
didn't,
but
it
might
make
sense
to
just
consolidate
it
into
one
economic
unit.
G
A
A
Okay,
perfect:
okay:
there
is
no.