►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing September 7, 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
B
Yes,
go
ahead,
please!
Yes,
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
board,
members
of
the
county
good
morning,
4301
Wilson
Boulevard
is
the
national
Rural
Electric
building
in
Boston.
The
issues
on
appeal
today
are
the
occupied
office,
rental
rate
and
the
operating
expenses
first
I'd
like
to
make
note
of
the
actual
noi
at
the
property
over
the
past
four
years.
B
This
is
row
19
on
the
Drea
summary
page
on
page
5
of
the
appeal
noi
reached
a
high
water
mark
of
5.87
million
in
2018
then
fell
the
next
two
years
before
recovering
to
5.37
million
in
2021,
the
2021
noi
was
achieved
when
the
property
was
stabilized.
Yet
the
assessment
is
still
above
this.
The
main
issue
on
appeal
is
the
operating
expenses
at
the
property.
B
B
Therefore,
the
operating
expenses
should
be
imputed
again
at
12.50
per
square
foot
or
higher.
As
you
can
see,
the
assessment
only
still
only
uses
twelve
dollars.
A
square
foot
1250
per
square
foot
is
appropriate,
given
the
fact
that
this
property
has
an
extensive
outdoor
Courtyard
area
that
requires
higher
expenses
related
to
security,
Landscaping,
Maintenance
and
cleaning.
This
property
also
has
a
550
person
Auditorium
that
is
open
to
the
public
that
requires
additional
expenses
to
supervise
and
maintain.
B
B
B
B
B
B
This
level
of
concessions
is
where
the
market
is
currently
at
the
office.
Rental
rate
should
reflect
this
much
so,
to
recap,
the
operating
expense
rate
of
12
12.50,
set
by
the
board
last
year,
is
the
appropriate
rate
to
use
again
this
year.
If
not
more
and
the
concessions
rate
applied
by
the
test
column
does
not
adequately
reflect
the
actual
market
conditions
as
such
taxpayer.
Respectfully
requests
the
assessment
be
reduced,
as
outlined
in
the
appeal.
Thank
you
and
Eileen.
Do
you
have
anything
you'd
like
to
add.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
We
have
Mr
Peralta
representing
the
county
good
morning,
Miss
Peralta.
D
Yes
good
morning,
thank
you
for
this
property.
We
believe
that
this
property
is
stabilized,
as
you
see
in
the
history
starting
from
2018
they're
about
30
000
square
feet
vacant
and
compared
to
the
current
assessment.
Originally,
we
understated
the
amount
of
vacancy
at
9162
and
upon
review,
we're
able
to
ascertain
that
11
224
square
feet
was
vacant.
D
Now,
after
making
the
change
and
doing
our
test,
we
did
find
that
the
gross
potential
income
for
the
property
did
decrease,
but
in
the
actual
2021
INE
you
see
the
gross
potential
income
of
this
property
has
increased
year
over
year
to
2021
at
9.3
million.
Again
we're
testing
at
9.1
and
in
addition
to
that,
we're
deducting
another
five
percent
based
on
our
guideline
vacancy,
so
we're
actually
reducing
the
market
rent
for
this
property,
which
we
originally
had
at
38.75.
D
D
The
major
difference
between
the
appellants
pro
forma
and
the
test
column
f
for
the
county
is
the
leases
in
place
again.
I
mentioned
the
average
of
leases
in
place
is
43
dollars
and
fourteen
cents,
and
then
we
have
the
expenses
at
twelve
dollars
versus
the
appellants
12.47.
D
Now,
if
you
look
at
the
expenses
of
this
property
over
the
years,
you
see
that
there
was
a
slight
increase
in
2019.
D
You
see
that
the
property
has
increased
in
decrease
in
vacancy,
and
so
overall
it
has
stabilized,
and
we
feel
that
over
the
years
the
average
of
expenses
is
exactly
what
they
pointed
out
in
the
2021
INE
11.87.
You
see
the
2020
INE
comparison
to
2021.
It
changed
by
one
cent
and
the
county
has
tested
at
a
higher
average
at
12
flat,
so
we're
slightly
higher
than
what
they
report
in
2021.
E
Yes,
thank
you.
Rob
I
just
wanted
to
point
out,
as
we
have
in
previous
cases
again.
Well,
we
appreciate
the
appellants
looking
at
the
new
concessions
for
newly
signed
tenants.
We
do
want
to
point
out
again
that
it
appears
that
they're
essentially
applying
that
discount
to
the
leases
of
the
place.
We
don't
believe
that
any
owner
would
go
to
a
tenant.
That's
already
in
place
generally
with
lease
escalations,
one
two
three
percent
annual
and
ask
them
to
pay
a
lower
rate
based
on
the
newest
leases
signed.
E
F
Easy
questions
first,
one
for
the
Appellate,
the
the
brand
new
lease
you
might
have
mentioned
this,
but
maybe
I
missed
it.
When
was
that
sign
up
approximately.
B
That
was
a
signed
at
the
end
of
2019,
so
it's
a
pre-pandemic
rental
rate
and
it
was
effective
February
of
2020
so
well.
F
F
Grade
10
and
I
hope
they
are
there
for
16
and
a
half
years,
but
another
question
I
found
out
I
was
going
to
ask
the
question
how
what
is
the
vacancy
here
but
Mr
Peralta
mentioned
it.
It's
something
like
four
or
five
percent.
Do
you
know
what
the
the
usage
of
the
building
is?
How
many
people
are
Sweeping
in
swiping
in.
B
C
F
Yeah
they
could
I
wanted
to
make
sure
I
heard
the
35
last
question
for
the
the
department
we're
hearing
here.
I,
don't
know
that
it
came
up
in
discussion,
but
it's
written
and
we've
heard
it
before
recently
from
this
another
repellents
from
this
a
palantation
and
others
about
real
estate.
Taxes
went
up
last
year
for
commercial
and
therefore
it
should
affect
create
an
increase
to
offset
it
in
the
cap
rate.
Is
that
standard
assessment
there's
a
direct
relationship
between
real
estate,
tax
and
cabery,
given.
C
E
Address
that
anybody
in
that
apartment,
so
County's
perspective,
I
would
say
no
that
what
was
actually
increased
was
the
storm
water
tax.
So
it
wasn't
a
cap
rate.
It
wasn't
a
real
estate
tax,
storm,
water
and
I
believe
it
was
two
thousandths
of
one
percent,
and
so,
as
we
explained,
we
don't
change
cap
rates
based
on
two
thousand
seven
percent,
but
they
are
looked
at
annually.
We
are
looked
at
in
relation
to
the
tax
rate,
but
in
this
case
there
was
no
adjustment
for
the
storm
water,
Senate,
Tech,
District,
okay,.
F
A
Okay,
thank
you
any
other
questions.
D
Yes,
thank
you.
The
department
would
just
like
to
point
out
that
there's
no
question
with
respect
to
the
new
leases.
The
new
lease
is
actually
yielded
by
the
the
appellants
pro
forma,
a
higher
rate
than
what
we're
using
in
the
test
column.
If
you
compare
so
that
that
shouldn't
be
an
issue
with
respect
to
our
test.
With
respect
to
this
assessment,
the
original
22
assessment
is
within
one
percent
of
what
they
reported
in
2021
INE.
Our
test
is
within
2.7
percent.
D
The
appellants
is
actually
3.1
percent
of
the
actual
reported
income
of
in
the
2021
INE.
So
when
looking
at
this
property,
the
tested
value,
we
feel
is
more
appropriate.
Given
the
the
new
information
we
had
in
the
2021
assessment.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
so
the
vacant
office
that
the
county
has
mentioned
as
being
at
a
lower
rate
than
the
new
lease
that's
incorrect.
They
have
the
vacant
office
at
35.25,
which
is
what
that
new
lease
was
at.
So
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
that
new
lease
is
at
35.25
net,
effective
now
for
the
operating
expenses
again,
these
were
set
at
12.50
per
square
foot
at
last
year's
hearing,
and
the
reason
for
that
is.
B
This
property
has
unique
aspects
that
require
quite
a
bit
more
operating
expenses
than
neighboring
properties
and
I
wanted
to
make
a
quick
note
about
something
that
we're
going
to
see
on
most
of
these
cases
today
on
the
on
the
county
summary
page,
the
Drea
columns,
so
in
this
case
D
and
F,
their
per
square
foot
operating
expense
rate
is
uses
a
different
nla
than
the
rest
of
the
columns.
The
nla
those
columns
uses
subtracts
storage
space.
We
don't
disagree
with
this
methodology,
but
the
issue
is
the
other.
B
A
Thank
you,
okay.
Now
it's
among
the
board,
but
what
do
you?
What
do
you
have
in
mind?
Any
changes
that
should
be
made
go
ahead.
Mr
all
Lawson.
G
Yeah,
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
I'll
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
and
just
share
my
thinking
and
see.
If
anyone
agrees,
here's
what
I
did
I
took
the
income
that
the
appellant
had
in
their
column,
G
and
then
I
deduct
it
from
that.
The
expenses
in
the
test
column
and
ended
up
at
83
million
574
14,
which
would
round
down
round
down
the
reason
I
did
it.
That
way
was
I.
G
I
was
persuaded
by
the
applicants
presentation
about
what
they
have
to
give
in
order
to
encourage
tenants
to
come
into
a
building
given
today's
world
yet
I,
but
then,
on
the
other
hand,
I
think
that
the
expenses
at
1247-
and
that
may
be
where
we
put
it
last
year,
but
my
thinking
on
that
is,
you
know
we
also
have
to
keep
in
mind
what
we've
done
on
some
of
the
other
cases,
and
so
the
the
county
has
acquiesced
in
the
twelve
dollars,
so
I
use
that
figure
so
for
whatever
it's
worth
where
I
ended
up
is
83
million
574
000..
A
Okay,
thank
you
any
other
thoughts,
Mr
matsky.
A
F
A
little
clunky
through
Barnes
repeat
the
first
part
on
the
the
income
side.
I
got
your
your
operating
expenses
rationale,
but
I
didn't
get
fully.
First
part
and
you'd
summarize
it.
G
Yeah,
what
what
I
did
Ken
and
I?
You
know
I,
don't
report
to
be.
You
know
necessarily
right
in
this,
but
what
I
looked
at
I
looked
at
the
income,
that
was
for
the
operating
year,
I
looked
at
the
income
and
the
tests
look
at
the,
and
so
it
looked
to
me
like
the
actual,
was
eight
million
605..
G
The
appellant
is
suggesting
eight
million
652
counties
at
8
million
seven
hundred
one,
and
it
just
seemed
to
me
that
the
county
might
be
a
little
aggressive.
So
that's
just
my
thinking.
A
Thank
you.
I
did
a
little
something
a
little
different
than
what
you
did.
Mr
Lawson,
but
I
came
up
with
a
number
very
close
to
it.
I
took
pretty
much
everything
from
the
revised
assessment
that
the
county
used,
except
that
I
used
it
12.25
cents
on
expenses,
because
I
thought
originally
I
thought
the
number
was
better
compared
to
you
know,
what's
been
in
the
past,
so
I
did
give
the
benefit
based
on
the
what
we
did
prior.
A
You
know
last
year
in
this
case,
but
by
doing
that
by
using
the
expenses
that
the
originally
that
they
were
used
originally
by
the
county.
The
value
that
I
come
up
is,
let's
see,
83
million
four
fourteen
fifteen.
So
it's
about
a
thousand
dollars,
I
guess
lower
than
yours.
D
H
Yeah,
that's
that's
kind
of
the
direction
I
was
going,
I
was
actually
going
a
little
more
than
the
12
and
a
quarter
but
I
I
can
see
that
I
agree.
I,
understand
the
appellant's
point
concerning
what
the
leasable
area
was
and
dropping
the
storage.
H
The
past
numbers
do
not
reflect
that
and
I
that's
a
good
point
and
looking
at
the
flow
of
this,
and
really
where
the
pre,
where
the
operating
expenses
drop
to
during
the
pandemic
they're
coming
back
up
and
that's
what
we're
looking
at
and
I
think
the
expenses
should
have
been
higher
but
and
so
I
go
with
what
you're
saying.
That's
that's
a
good
number
for
me.
A
I
Just
for
what
it's
worth,
I'll
I'll
State
my
deceptic
opinion
I-
think
County's
got
a
good
number
here
I.
I
When
we
looked
at
this
last
year,
we
still
kind
of
had
the
open
question
of
TI.
That
was
the
landlord
or
the
owner
was
going
to
have
to
spend
by
I
think
it
was
January
31st
now
you're,
looking
at
a
property
where
the
owner
has
put
that
105
dollars
a
square
foot
into
the
building,
they
paid
the
commissions
and
they've,
already
kind
of
expended
the
free
rent
allowance.
I
That
was
in
the
at
least
the
lease
that
was
provided
to
us,
the
excerpt
from
it
so
now
to
say
that
the
building
is
worth
the
same
as
it
was
last
year.
I
mean
I
would
argue
that
it's
probably
worth
100
square
foot
more.
I
A
A
You
know
well
I'll,
go
ahead
and
move
that
we
reduce
the
assessment
to
83
million
414
and
fifteen
dollars.
I
mean
83
million
414.
Even
this
is
based
on
increasing
the
expenses
to
12.25
on
the
revised
assessment.
A
Do
we
have
a
second
Mr
Lawson.
A
All
in
favor
aye
aye
aye
against
okay,
so
we
are
three
to
two:
the
assessment
is
reduced
to
83
million
414
000,
even
okay,
we'll
go
ahead
and
go
to
the
second
case:
economic
unit,
3500
8020,
the
address
701
12th,
Street
South.
C
Thank
you,
Jordan
all
right
go.
This
is
the
old
TSA
buildings.
These
are
in
Pentagon
City.
They
consist
of
562
000
square
feet
of
net
reasonable
area.
The
buildings
are
40
years
old
and
they
are
what
you
would
consider
to
be.
A
typical
grab
federal
office
building,
I've
actually
heard
them
referred
to
as
Soviet
era.
Office
Buildings,
the
property
is
currently
zoned,
Co
2.5
the
lot
size
is
212
485
square
feet
and
the
net
leasable
area
again
is
562
thousand
dollars.
C
C
C
So
again,
one
of
the
board
members
last
year
said
143
dollars
per
square
foot.
Things
got
a
little
messy
at
the
end
of
the
hearing.
C
C
The
issues
on
appeal
are
the
office,
rental
rate,
parking
storage,
passer
and
other
income
and
operating
expenses
for
this
building.
The
county
used
forty
dollars
per
square
foot
again
we're
talking
about
it,
1982,
building
with
an
effective
age
of
1982.
That
is
old,
and
you
know
it.
It's
really
a
bad.
These
are
bad
are
not
great
buildings.
The
taxpayer
used
35.50,
which
represents
94
percent
of
the
average
asking
rate
for
office
space
in
this
sub
Market
in
the
fourth
quarter
of
2001.
C
that
average,
that
appears
on
page
45
of
our
appeal,
the
average
asking
rate
was
37.76
and
less
six
percent
equals
35.50,
whose
alt
amount
also
makes
sense
when
viewed
with
other
cases,
heard
by
the
board
and
reviewed
by
the
county.
This
year,
we
currently
have
17
cases
that
have
been
heard
by
the
board
or
settled
with
the
county
and
of
all
of
these
properties.
Only
one
property
has
rent
higher
than
what
was
used
to
assess
this
property.
C
C
Finally,
we
also
looked
today
at
because
the
board
has
these
packages.
This
is
also
the
highest
rent
used
by
the
county
on
any
of
the
cases
being
heard
today,
so
in
40,
40
North
Fairfax,
the
county
on
vacant
office,
used
34.50
on
1200
Wilson,
another
case
being
heard
today
on
the
vacant
office,
the
county
used
35
dollars
on
4301,
Wilson,
35
dollars
and
25
cents
on
vacant
office
and
on
4401
Wilson
36
dollars
per
square
foot
on
vacant
space.
C
In
the
last
case,
or
the
second
to
last
case
today,
2011
Crystal,
the
county
is
36.75
cents
per
square
foot,
so
there's
a
range
of
34.50
to
36.75
for
all
those
other
buildings,
one
on
the
4401,
which
was
built
in
2006..
The
county
is
using
36
dollars
per
square
foot.
Yet
on
this
building,
the
county
is
using
forty
dollars
per
square
foot.
Purely
this
does
not
make
sense.
C
The
next
item
that
I
want
to
discuss
is
income
that
is
not
attributable
to
base
rental
rate.
If
you
look
at
the
test
page,
the
county
used
915
000,
a
total
of
nine
hundred
and
fifteen
thousand
dollars
per
pass
through
parking,
other
and
storage
income.
So
that's
900
and
almost
a
million
dollars.
This
property
is
100
vacant.
There
are
no
tenants.
There
are
no
employees
showing
up
for
work
each
day,
no
one's
paying
for
parking
for
tax
year
2022
the
parking
income
should
be
zero.
C
There
is
no
storage
space
lease
to
assume
53
000
square
feet
in
storage
income
is
not
accurate.
The
same
argument
is
for
miscellaneous
income,
which,
as
you
can
see
on
page
66,
were
Bill
backs
to
the
tenants
well
with
no
tenants,
there's
not
going
to
be
any
build
backs
now.
Well,
all
of
these
figures
were
reported
in
2021,
the
one
that
the
county
left
off
is
passed
through
income.
C
C
I
think
that
if
we're
going
to
be
intellectually
reasonable,
we
need
to
either
use
zero
in
these
items,
or
we
need
to
look
at
the
total
package
of
expenses
or
of
income
that
was
earned
in
2021,
and
that
would
be
adjusting
the
ninth
total
of
915
000
to
593
000..
Finally,
operating
expenses,
the
county
used
eight
dollars
and
fifteen
and
fifty
cents
on
the
nla
exclusive
of
storage.
The
taxpayer
used
nine
dollars
again.
C
In
this
case,
we
have
the
same
issue
of
the
county,
showing
the
amount
per
square
foot
in
the
taxpayer's
actual
potential
columns,
based
on
the
total
nla.
While
on
the
assessment
and
the
test,
the
county
uses
the
nla,
Less
storage
in
the
submission
to
the
VOE,
the
taxpayer
adopted
nine
dollars
per
square
foot,
which
was
what
the
County's
original
assessment
used.
Even
though
this
is
lower
than
what
was
incurred
at
the
property
when
it
had
a
stabilized
occupancy
in
2018
and
2019
in
2017.,
So
In
Sum.
A
Thank
you,
Mrs
Borman,
okay,
Mr
Peralta,.
D
Yes,
how
you
doing
good
for
this
property?
D
What
you
don't
see
is:
yes,
we
do
use
forty
dollars
a
square
foot
for
the
the
base
rent
for
this
property,
but
in
addition
to
that,
compared
to
the
other
properties,
now
I
haven't
gone
through
all
the
other
properties
that
Miss
Forma
has
mentioned,
but
in
addition
to
that,
we're
taking
a
25
deduction
from
those
rents
because
the
current
vacancy.
D
So
if
you
would
equate
that
and
subtract
that
out
we're
actually
at
a
thirty
dollar
net,
effective
rent
for
the
base
rents
of
this
property,
when
looking
at
this
overall,
you
see
the
history
of
this
property
is
very
important
where
you
see
that
it
has
grossed
over
24
or
25
million
in
income
over
the
past
three
years.
In
this
current
year,
they
reported
the
actual
income
again
less
than
what
you
know
they
had
in
the
past.
D
But
in
looking
at
the
original
assessment,
our
gross
potential
income
is
about
10
percent,
less
than
what
they're
reporting
and,
in
the
the
test
column
itself
again
we're
at
more
than
10
percent
less
than
what
they've
reported
in
the
past.
D
In
last
week's
hearings,
the
appellants
have
argued
that
we're
not
using
the
actual
income.
That's
reported
in
2021
assessment.
This
time,
they're
saying
we
shouldn't
look
at
the
actual
income
that
was
reported
in
2021
assessment,
so
I
think
there's
a
little
discrepancy
in
it
as
to
how
the
appellants
want
us
to
view
these
Ines
that
we've
seen
in
these
cases
when
looking
at
this
property,
we
did
see
that
overall,
this
history
of
the
property
has
shown
lower
expenses.
D
Overall,
we
are
showing
eight
dollars
and
fifty
cents
for
this
property
based
on
the
history
when
looking
at
the
excess
vacancy
below
the
line,
we're
taking
additional
concessions,
if
you
will
a
rent
loss,
tis
at
110
per
square
foot
and
commissions
as
well
as
you
know,
excess
vacancy
above
100
000
square
feet.
So
overall
we're
taking
about
eighty
thousand
eighty
million
871
600
less
for
this
property
based
on
the
aforementioned
data
points
that
I
pointed
out
earlier.
D
If
we
were
to
compare
our
test
column
versus
the
the
appellants
final
value,
they're
they're,
saying
that,
overall,
with
that
value
at
55,
745
000,
that's
allocating
a
Improvement
value
of
about
21
21
million
300.
on
the
property.
That's
50
percent,
less
than
what
they
paid
for
the
property
in
2006.
I,
don't
think!
That's
appropriate!
Based
on
the
income
and
the
history
of
this
property.
I
asked
the
board
to
confirm
the
test
column,
revised
value
of
95
million
989
300..
D
Thank
you.
Chris
did
you
have
anything
to
add.
E
Just
wanted
to
follow,
along
with
what
you're
pointing
out
in
regards
to
looking
at
the
operating
history
of
18,
19
and
20..
Obviously,
the
projection
is
made
by
Rob.
E
This
reports
are
very
much
in
line
with
what
was
being
achieved
historically
again,
doesn't
send
you
much
of
a
stretch
at
forty
dollars,
a
square
foot
compared
to
what
they've
again
and
have
been
getting
historically,
don't
necessarily
disagree
with
the
ND
that
the
parking
income
should
be
looked
at
more
of
a
smoothed
out
of
what
they
were
getting
versus,
what
they
will
be
getting
with
a
virtual,
empty
building,
but
again
based
on
the
penalence
numbers
being
almost
five
million
dollars
lower
than
what
was
achieved
in
its
lowest
year.
E
2018's
report
for
GPI,
and
we
do
believe
that
the
appellance
numbers
projection
is
just
too
low.
If
we're
looking
at
operating
expenses
again,
18
19
20
appears
to
have
been
fully
occupied.
Operating
expenses
ranged,
as
you
can
see,
from
just
chat
9
to
just
north
of
eight,
so
it
does
appear
that
Mr,
Peralta's
average
850
seems
appropriate,
given
that
we
are
assuming
that
this
would
actually
be
less
occupied
than
it
has
been.
E
A
Thank
you,
Mr
chicas.
Do
we
have
any
questions
from
any
board
members
at
the
time.
G
Yeah
I've
got
some
questions
for
the
owner.
In
operating
year
2021
there
was
income
from
leases
at
5
million
333,
but
you
say
the
building
is
100
empty.
Today.
C
Correct
so
the
lease
to
TSA
expired
in
March
of
2021,
and
so
that
is
why
there
was
income
in
2021.
It
was
known
as
far
back
I
believe
as
2018
that
TSA
announced
and
it
would
be
moving
to
the
Boston
properties,
building
and.
J
G
That,
let
me
ask
you
this,
you
say:
there's
no
zoning
filed
or
4.1.
That's.
C
C
I
am
sure
about
that.
There
had
been
one
file
that
was
withdrawn
years
ago,
but
there
is
nothing
active
at
this
point
in
time.
I
believe
that
was
withdrawn.
J
C
I
I
am
100
well
say
that
I
have
actually
examined
all
of
the
County's
records,
but
I
did
chat
with
the
owner
yesterday
and
I
was
told
that
there
have
been
no
land
use,
filings
done
and
further
that
if
they
were
that
they
are
trying
to
lease
it
still
and
that
if
there
was
to
be
anything
done,
then
it
would
take
two
to
three
years
to
get
done
and
cause
between
one
million
and
two
excuse
me.
They
said
one
million
and
2.5
million
dollars
to
get
done.
C
C
Well,
that
would
be
consistent
with
the
County's
methodology.
That
is
what
they
do
on
all
other
properties:
income
producing,
Properties
or
potentially,
income
producing
properties.
They
look
at
the
income
approach
to
Value,
as
it
is
currently
zoned
and
legally
permissible
for
its
use,
and
so,
therefore
that
is
how
we
valued
it.
I
brought
up
what
was
said
at
the
board
last
year.
C
Simply
because
that
statement
there
was
a
statement
that
it
was
looked
at
it
as
a
development
site
that
a
developer
would
pay
about
143
million
dollars
for
the
asset
which
resulted
in
the
value
I
referenced
earlier
of
I
think
it
was
about
80
million
dollars.
Okay,
thank.
G
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Mr
matskin
go
ahead.
F
Okay
thanks
a
quick
question
for
the
for
the
Department
I've
been
vanity
back
and
forth
a
little
bit
about
pass-throughs
and
and
storage
fees.
F
Of
course,
to
get
a
gross
potential
income,
you
pretend
at
the
top
or
estimated
the
top
with
the
the
it
fully
leased
what
the
office,
if
there's
any
retail
rents,
would
be.
Do
you
also
do
that
for
pretending
or
estimating
that
the
full
potential
income
if
it
was
fully
leased-
and
there
would
be
some
level
of
pass-throughs
and
storage
and
parking
unless
I
forgot
that
before
do
you
plus
them
up
as
well
as
a
standard
course
or
do
you
treat
them
differently
than
the
space
potential
rentals.
F
J
F
J
F
D
Don't
historically,
we
haven't
management
and
new
management
and
I
have
been
speaking,
and
it's
something
that
we're
looking
into
that.
It
should
be
that
way
where
you
should
gross
up
the
potential
of
the
property.
D
In
this
case
we
didn't
for
the
past,
through
income
and
for
the
parking
looking
at
the
history
of
the
property.
They
were
grossing
over
2.5
million
for
parking,
but
we're
only
allocating
670
000.
D
Yeah
well
at
as
Ms
Borman
stated
as
of
the
First
of
the
Year,
this
property
was
still
occupied
as
far
as
the
tenants
lease
was
still
in
place.
So
initially,
when
our
we
did
the
assessment,
we
were
at
five
percent
vacant
upon
review.
We
were
allocating
for
more
25
traditionally,
when
we
compared
other
properties
as
of
the
first
of
the
day
as
the
first
of
the
year.
That
is
our
marker,
where
we
did
distinguish
between
what
was
occupied
and
what
was
vacant
in
this
instance,
because
the
whole
building
was
vacant.
D
We
were
looking
at
an
exception
for
this
property.
F
C
I,
remember
correctly,
I
think
the
confusion
is
we're
talking
about
different
years.
If
I
can
Rob,
please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
in
2021
the
property
had
occupancy
in
2022
January
1.
It
did
not
so
I
the
year
that
Rob
was
referring
to
was
January
1
2021
when
one
of
the
buildings
was
occupied
for
three
months,
the
owners
paid
rent
on
on
the
buildings
on
both
buildings
for
three
months
and
their
contract
rate.
F
C
You
I
I,
just
like
to
point
out
on
the
operating
expenses.
Mr
cheek
has
mentioned
that
the
properties
were
fully
occupied.
That's
not
the
case
in
2020,
the
buildings
were
were
virtually
vacant
and
in
fact
one
of
the
buildings
had
been
completely
moved
out
of
so
the
operating
expenses
that
are
represented
are
are
not
based
upon
fully
physically
occupied
buildings.
C
A
I
I
Just
for
the
appellant,
would
you
consider
using
the
income
approach
to
value
a
vacant
property
as
being
speculative.
C
That's
interesting
question:
I
would
not
because
I
think
that's
how
the
market
would
look
at
a
property
that
can
produce
income
is
they
would
look
at?
What
is
the
property?
What
income
can
the
property
produce,
and
in
this
case,
and
and
what
would
it
cost
to
get
that
tenant
in
there
so
and
I?
Think
Virginia
law
requires
that
the
income
approach
be
used
on
the
on
assets
that
are
capable
of
producing
income,
so
I,
do
not
it's
speculative
Parts
would
be.
C
What
is
the
rent
that
you
can
get
and
it
can
you
get
40
bucks
a
foot
on
this
space
and
by
the
way,
there's
a
mistake
on
I.
Don't
know
if
you
have
the
revised
page,
but
the
initial
test
showed
that
the
taxpayer
used
forty
dollars
per
square
foot
on
it.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
that
we
actually
use
35.50
and
I
think
that
rate
is
supported
by
the
other
buildings
that
that
the
board
has
seen
and
that
we
have
seen
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
way.
I
You
you
chose
not
to
bring
any
comps
for
vacant
property
sales
in
Prime
locations,
and
you
chose
not
to
do
a
cost
approach
to
come
up
with
a
building
value
for
the
improvements
on
the
land.
So
you
chose
to
use
the
income
approach
which
you're
saying
the
county
has
also
chosen
to
you
and
that's
the
reason
why
you
did
that
not.
I
C
County
chose
to
use
it,
we
chose
to
use
it,
but
it's
also
what's
required
by
case
law.
The
case
law
says
the
income
approach
is
the
preferred
method.
So
that
is
why
we
used
that
approach.
There
are
sales
there
were
sales
of
I
guess,
presidential
towers
and
about
125
140
per
square
foot.
There
was
sales
of
of
other
buildings,
I
know
that
so
I
think
for
uniformity.
The
income
approach
is
a
correct
approach.
I
think
what
you're
really
asking
is,
what
is
the
highest
investor
use
of
property?
And
you
know
yeah,
okay,.
C
No,
we
relied
on
the
income
approach
that
it's
our
job
to
prove
an
error
in
the
manner
in
which
the
assessment
was
made.
What
we
did
and
in
the
package
there
is
a
page
printed
out,
a
co-star
that
shows
the
average
asking
rooms
in
the
sub
market
and
that's
on
page
45
of
132,
and
it
shows
the
asking
rent
to
be
under
38
dollars
per
square
foot.
C
And
given
that
this
building
is
one
of
the
older
buildings
and
the
least
attractive
buildings
in
the
sub
Market,
we
use
that
average
asking
rent
and
deducted
six
percent
commissions
to
to
derive
the
35.50
used
in
the
appeal.
A
No
okay,
we'll
go
to
wrap-ups
Mr
Peralta.
If
you
would
like
to
start
with
you
one
minute,
please.
D
Yes,
thank
you.
Well,
this
property.
Again
we
looked
at
co-star
to
see
what
the
the
estimated
rents
would
be
as
Miss
Borman
pointed
out,
it's
included
in
the
packet
and
the
range
is
from
37
to
45
dollars
per
square
foot.
D
The
the
history
of
this
property
shows
exactly
what
this
property
can
achieve
in
the
past.
With
the
the
tenancy
in
place,
they
were
achieving
a
gross
potential
of
over
24
25
million,
again
we're
at
10
percent.
Less
than
that,
this
assessment
has
decreased
from
last
year's
assessment
by
18,
and
we
account
that
for
the
lease
that
it
was
to
expire
for
this
property,
again
we're
giving
80
million
871
600
for
the
excess
vacancy
of
this
property.
We
asked
the
board
to
confirm
the
original
of
the
test
column
F.
Thank
you.
D
A
Thank
you,
Ms
Borman,
Yvette,.
C
In
terms
of
the
operating
expenses,
you
know,
GSA
buildings
typically
operate
at
much
lower
operating
expense
rates
because
they
do
predominantly
a
lot
of
their
own
janitorial
Etc.
These
buildings
were
built
out
specifically
for
TSA
there's
a
lot
of
skiff
space
in
the
buildings.
They
the
lease
rate
that
and
the
lease
that
Mr
Peralta
keeps
mentioning
was
a
2004
lease.
You
know,
there's
no
resemblance
to
the
you
know:
it's
a
it's.
C
A
18
year
old,
the
building's
18
years
older
and
trying
to
lease
a
market
at
least
an
office
building
in
the
current
environment
is
is
challenging
at
best
to
the
operating
expenses
used
by
the
taxpayer
are
more
reasonable
at
nine
dollars
per
square
foot.
The
rent
used
by
the
taxpayer
at
35.50
is
well
within
the
range
of
rents
used
by
the
county
on
other
properties
and,
in
fact,.
A
Okay.
Thank
you
sorry
about
that.
All
right,
it's
among
the
board
or
where
do
we
stand
in
this
case?
G
Yeah,
let
me
go
ahead
and
start
off
and
I'll
throw
some
thoughts
out
there.
You.
J
G
I
just
went
through
a
a
significant
analysis
of
what
it
costs
to
go
through
a
4.1
process
in
Arlington
County
with
Tom
Colucci,
and
we
looked
at
a
whole
bunch
of
4.1s
and
for
a
straightforward,
4.1
you're,
looking
at
maybe
a
million,
maybe
as
much
as
a
million
and
a
half
just
because
of
the
complexity
of
the
process.
For
a
very
difficult
complex
case,
you
might
be
more
to
2
million
two
and
a
half
million.
G
What
I
did
was
looked
at
this
property
since
it's
empty
as
a
developable
site
and
what
I
did
is
I
I
looked
at
the
current
zoning
and
I.
Don't
know
if
there's
been
a
plan.
Amendment,
that's
up
the
possible
density
down
here.
I
didn't
look
into
that,
but
I
did
do
a
straightforward
zoning
analysis
and
you
get
115
residential
units
out
of
the
zoning
and
then
with
bonuses.
You
multiply
that
by
1.25
I
ended
up
at
about
699
units
at
90
000
a
unit.
G
So,
just
looking
as
a
developable
site,
I
came
up
with
62
million
964
900.,
so
that
was
I
kind
of
did
that
as
a
check
to
see
if
the
the
applicants
proposed
figure
would
be
justified
given,
given
the
fact
that
this
might
be
a
raise
rebuild
situation
and
I
know,
I've
heard
that
raise
rebuild
is
speculative
when
it
comes
to
the
the
value
of
this
based
on
income
approach
and
I
kind
of
don't
think
income
is
the
way
to
assess
this,
but
I
guess
the
county
applicant
agree
that
it
is
I'll,
be
honest,
I,
don't
know
how
you,
how?
G
How
do
we
come
to
a
fair
figure
with
an
empty
building
in
today's
market
and
I?
Guess
I'm
going
to
defer
to
others
that
have
more
experience
in
this
than
myself
and
see
what
thoughts
they
might
have
as
to
value
with
that
I'll
be
quiet
for
right
now,
but
I
did
want
to
share
that
as
a
raise
rebuild,
I
think
you're
in
about
62
million,
you
could
be
even
higher
because
of
the
current
County
bonus
procedures
that
they're
using
so
I
just
wanted
to
share
that.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
Mr
matskin
thank.
F
So
I
agree
with
the
county
and
the
applicant
that
income
approach
is
appropriate
and
the
rest
is
interesting
for
development
nerds.
But
is
it
relevant
here,
I
think
so.
I
had
two
points
that
I
wanted
to
go
on.
One
was
I
agree
with
the
applicant
that
the
forty
dollars
a
square
foot
for
this
building
in
this
environment
on
1122
is
too
high.
It
should
be
32.62
or
39.
18.
I
have
no
idea,
but
40
is
too
high
and
I
and
I'll
get
back
to
it
in
a
moment.
F
I
just
reduced
it
to
37.,
meaning
the
bottom
of
the
Crystal
City
leasing
Spectrum,
except
for
2001,
whatever
they
call
the
street
now
Bell
Street,
or
something
because
that's
short
term
and
first
of
all,
business
on
purpose,
so
I
I
did
that
and
I'll
get
back
as
I
said,
I'll
get
back
to
it
in
a
second.
The
other
part
is
pass,
throughs,
I'm,
sorry
parking
and
end
passes
or
parking
and
storage
I
mean
bacon.
F
Is
vacant
the
County's
made
the
case
clearly
to
me
finally,
or
that
I,
maybe
they've
been
clear,
but
I
haven't
been
able
to
understand
it
that
they
don't
plus
up
like
they
do
on
office
and
Retail
spaces
and
and
estimated
at
95
or
100
vacancy,
so
empty
is
empty.
There's
no
parking
income
they're,
not
renting
the
storage
space.
That's
the
end
of
it
I'm
willing
to
debate
that
with
the
rest
of
the
board,
whether
that
should
be
eliminated
from
the
GPI
I.
So
going
back
to
the
rental,
the
37.
F
What
I
did
was
I
reduced,
the
the
GI
or
the
GPI
down
by
three
dollars?
A
square
foot
and
I
can
get
numbers
later
and
then,
of
course,
below
the
line.
I
reduce
the
amount
of
money
to
be
taken
off
instead
of
forty
dollars
times
the
the
75
percent
figure
of
vacant
office
instead,
thirty
seven
dollars
so
that
deduction
got
a
little
smaller
and
but
the
ride
off
above
the
line
got
a
little
larger,
I'm,
sorry,
I'm!
Sorry,
they
both
got
smaller.
F
The
income
got
smaller
by
three
dollars:
a
square
foot
times
the
nla,
I'm
restating
it
and
make
it
more
comprehensible
and
the
write-off
got
three
dollars
a
square
foot
times.
The
fourth
four
hundred
and
eleven
thousand
meaning.
J
F
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Did
you
work
out
numbers.
F
Yes,
the
the
four
a
three
dollar:
a
square:
foot:
income
reduction;
it's
TI
minus
a
million
655
886
dollars,
so
it
gets
reduced
down
to
15
million,
plus
50
million
237
188
2.
I
realize
now
maybe
I.
F
No
that's
right
and
by
reducing
the
rent
loss
figure
from
forty
dollars
to
thirty
seven
dollars
a
square
foot
and
that
16
million
four
hundred
would
instead
become.
F
Well,
I
guess:
I
didn't
deduct,
I'm,
sorry
I'm,
the
new
ETI,
it's
again
17
million
plus
because
this
is
a
public
meeting.
So
that's
as
far
as
I'm
going
to
go
minus
the
million
six.
Fifty
five
eight
sixty
six
I
did
not
take
that
oh
and
I
got
and
I
got
there
for
an
ny
I
do
of
11..
I
I
did
deduct
it
I'm.
Sorry,
the
noi.
The
new
noi
would
be
instead
of
12
million,
plus
the
11
million
65
744..
F
That's
a
reduction
of
a
million
six
plus
and
the
the
rent
loss
below
the
line,
instead
of
being
16
million
plus,
would
be
15.
237
192.
F
But
I
think
I
didn't
follow
through.
So
you
got
those
numbers,
somebody's
gonna
be
better
than
I.
So
the.
J
F
G
F
A
F
A
Well,
go
ahead
and
take
the
time
to
work
it
out.
I'll
tell
you
my
opinion.
I
thought
this
was
a
building
that
is
being
treated
the
same
as
any
other
vacant.
A
Building
that
the
county
would
have
as
we've
seen
in
many
cases
in
years
past
I
don't
really
see
anything
wrong
with
the
revised
assessment,
to
be
honest,
I
think,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
I
think
even
the
parking
income
should
have
been
higher
based
on
the
the
how
you
know
the
building
is
vacant,
but
what
it
could
potentially
achieve
and
that's
what
we
normally
would
have
seen
in
any
empty
building.
A
A
G
Do
you
really
think
that
a
a
buyer
is
going
to
pay
95
million
for
a
totally
empty
building
that
needs
all
this
renovation
and
Lease
up
really
Alice
Greg?
That
too
Greg?
Would
you
buy
it
for
95
million
yeah
I.
I
Would
empty
if
I
had
95
million
okay,
basically,
I
mean
a
gut
check.
Is
always
the
cost
approach,
we're
building
a
warehouse
right
now
that
costs
more
than
175
dollars
a
square
foot.
I
So
you
look
at
two.
You
know
they're,
not
the
prettiest
buildings
in
the
world,
but,
let's,
let's
be
honest,
Arlington
is
not
really
known
for
the
best
architecture,
especially
down
in
that
TSA
area
or
the
DBA,
and
the
CSA
was
for
a
while.
So
there's
there's
federal
agencies,
it's
just
a
matter
of
time
that
are
going
to
look
at
fully
occupying
buildings
again
and
the
fact
that
it's
got
skiff
in
it.
I
I
mean
to
me
just
the
shell
itself,
with
the
parking
is
probably
worth
in
excess
of
200
a
square
foot
to
build
so.
F
I
And
to
to
to
anybody,
that's
not
trying
to
speculate
on
future
Redevelopment!
That's
a
pretty
good
backstop
on
value!
So
when
you
start
playing
this,
let's
speculate
on
what
the
income
could
be.
If
we
lease
it
up
game,
if
you've
got
in
the
back
of
your
head,
hey,
you
know
what
it's
this
is,
prime.
This
is
Arlington.
I
This
location
couldn't
get
much
better
than
this
and
I'm
buying
improvements
for
174
dollars,
a
square
foot
when
it
would
cost
me
200
250,
maybe
even
more,
to
put
those
same
improvements
on
a
raw
piece
of
ground
right
now,
I
think
there's
a
buyer
that
would
pay
that.
I
Mean
today
the
markets
are
going
haywire
right
now,
so
we're
talking
about
Jan
one
and
look.
The
buyers
are
not
necessarily
getting
loans
for
this
stuff.
This
is,
you
know,
Brookfield
type
of
deal.
These
are
funds
that
are
investing
in
properties
like
this.
It
you
couldn't
get
a
better
piece
of
ground,
that's
the
key,
and
so
that's
how
I
look
at
it
as
174
for
a
shell
I
think
the
County's
been
pretty
generous,
Greg.
G
I
I
G
G
I
You
guys
are
talking
me
through
the
income
approach
again
and
I.
You
know
I'm
kind
of
I'm
more
in
line
with
the
cost
approach.
As
far
as
valuing
these
things,
so
you
know.
A
Think
any
speculation
on
what
could
be
done.
You
know
it's
like
any
other
thing
that
we've
seen
you
know
we
can't
really
base
the
any.
We
can't
put
any
value
on
what
could
happen
with
it
and
for
purposes
of
Equalization
I
think
the
county
has
done
what
they
normally
do
with
any
other
vacant
building,
like
I,
said,
in
my
opinion,
I
think
the
parking
income
just
more
than
justifies
the
the
rental
blueprints.
H
F
A
Okay,
all
right
do
we
have
a
motion
for
this
case.
I
A
We
have
Mr,
Lawson
and
Mr
masking
against,
so
the
reduction
is
being
made
to
95
million
989
300.,
based
on
the
revised
assessment.
Thank
you
all
right,
we'll
go
to
the
third
case.
It's
rpc17002007
1200
Wilson
Boulevard,
and
we
have
Miss
Borman
or
Mr
Harmon
to
go
with.
J
C
So
1200
Wilson
is
the
building
that
at
one
point
had
Boeing
in
it.
There's
currently
the
Department
of
State
and
as
of
January
1
Institute
management
was
in
the
building.
C
There
are
a
number
of
issues
on
the
on
appeal.
The
primary
one
focuses
on
The
Institute
management
space
as
of
January
1
2022.
The
owners
of
the
building
knew
that
Institute
management
would
be
vacating.
In
fact,
they
had
signed
a
one-year
extension
in
2021
to
facilitate
the
process
of
going
remote.
The
function
that
was
in
this
building
is
and
will
is
in
the
process
of,
but
will
be
100
remote
workers.
C
As
of
the
end
of
this
lease
term,
they're
largely
out
of
a
vast
majority
of
the
space
and
the
one-year
lease
extension
was
done
solely
for
the
purpose
of
allowing
the
orderly
transition
of
a
98
000
square
foot
tenant
into
into
remote
work.
Excuse
me,
93,
000
square
foot
tenant
into
a
remote
workspace.
C
The
we
did
request
a
department
hearing
on
this.
We
did
not
receive
the
ability
to
have
one
we
would
have
gone
through.
All
of
these
various
factors
had
we
had
a
department
hearing,
but
again
the
vacancy
was
known
on
January
1
the
tenant
was
vacating
again
we
find
ourselves
in
a
market
that
is
challenging
at
best,
and
this
is
just
one
of
many
tenants
that
we
are
aware
of
that
have
transitioned
to
100
remote,
at
least
in
terms
of
the
function
that
was
taking
place
at
this
building.
C
They
do
have
other
office,
but
this
office
is
not
being
replaced
with
office.
So
what
we've
done
in
this
case
is
we
have
looked
at
that
space
and
we
have
done
two
things.
The
first
one
is
we
imputed
a
market
rental
rate
on
that
space
and
we
used
35
dollars
per
square
foot
for
vacant
space
in
the
County's
test,
or
for
the
vacant
space
and
The
Institute
management
space
and
the
County's
test.
The
county
also
used
35
dollars
per
square
foot
per
vacant
space.
C
So
the
first
instance
that
I'm
aware
of
was
occurred
with
the
to
what
used
to
be
called
Stafford
one
and
Stafford
two.
It's
now
Boston
exchange
one
in
Boston
exchange
two
and
on
those
properties,
those
buildings
sold
in
2015
for
200,
the
first
one
4201
sold
for
219
million
dollars.
Now
it's
sold
for
that
amount,
despite
the
fact
that
the,
if
you
capped
out
the
2016
and
2017
noi
you'd
result,
the
values
would
be
over
300
million.
C
So
why
did
it
sell
for
219
million?
Well
it
sold
for
219
million,
because
the
market
knew
that
NSF
was
going
to
vacate
these
buildings
and
the
same
thing
happened
at
4121,
Wilson,
NSF
occupied
part
of
the
buildings,
so
the
income
they
sold
in
2015
for
78
million
and
the
income
that
was
generated
in
the
two
subsequent
years.
The
actual
income
limited
generated
a
value
of
over
90
million.
Another
example
of
the
same
thing
is
2015
Street,
which
had
MedStar
and
Bae
in
it
that
property
was
purchased
in
2019
for
57
million
dollars.
C
So
what
has
the
county
done
since
that
time,
the
county?
Now,
if
they
know
of
a
large
upcoming
vacancy,
they
deduct
the
cost
of
rent
loss,
tis
and
leasing
commissions,
they
use
the
vacancy
rate
in
place
on
the
date
of
value
and
by
deducting
those
costs
they
get
much
closer
to
what
the
fair
market
value
would
be.
C
Let's
have
some
examples,
so
the
last
case
we
just
heard
in
601
701
12th
Street
in
2021,
even
though
the
lease
didn't
expire
until
the
end
of
March,
the
county
deducted
rent
loss,
tenant
improvements
and
leasing
commissions
at
277,
Crystal
Drive
in
21
and
22
the
rent,
the
lease
on
that
space
expires
in
March
of
22.
But
in
2021
the
county
used
a
five
percent
vacancy
to
reflect
the
actual
leases
in
place,
but
then
deducted
rent
loss,
tenant
improvements
and
leasing
commissions.
C
Then,
in
another
example.
So
that
was
the
lease
that
was
ending
15
months
subsequent
in
the
date
of
value
in
2021.,
2015
Street
in
2020,
again
the
county
deducted
rent
loss,
TI's
and
leasing
commissions.
C
Despite
the
fact
that
the
property
was
was
still
leased,
there
would
be
at
least
expiration
on
September
30th
of
2020
and
another
one
on
January
31st
of
2022.,
another
one
1750
Crystal
Drive,
the
Amazon
building
or
the
temporary
Amazon
building
the
county
deducted
rent
loss,
tis
and
leasing
Commissions
in
2021,
because
those
amounts
had
not
been
spent
and
then
on.
950
North
Glebe
Street,
the
American
Trucking
Association,
was
leaving
their
lease
expires
in
May
of
2022.
C
The
county
knew
it
and
in
2020,
two
years
prior
to
the
expiration,
2021
and
2022
deductive,
rent
loss,
tis
and
leasing
commissions.
So
where
does
that
leave
us
on
the
current
building?
We
know
the
lease
is
expired,
expired
we
know
the
tenant
is
leaving
and
we
know
they're
going
remote.
So
what
should
be
done
so
what
the
taxpayer
has
done
is
it
has
looked
at
the
market
and
said
what
is
market
rental
rate
counting
and
the
taxpayer
agree?
C
35
is
the
market
rental
rate
on
vacant
space,
but
what
do
we
do
with
the
extra
income
that's
being
earned
at
the
property?
Now
The
Institute
management?
It's
going
to
be
a
big
hit
that
lease
is
currently
at
48.25,
while
market
rate
is
35.,
so
what
the
taxpayer
did
and
you
can
see
as
we
added
the
difference
between
the
market
rent
that
would
be
achieved
on
or
assumed
by
the
market
on
January
1
of
35
and
the
difference
of
48.25,
and
that
one
amount
is
added
below
the
line.
C
We
also
did
not
include
the
pass-through
income,
because
if
you
look
at
the
rent
roll
on
page
68,
you
can
see
that
the
entirety
of
the
pass-through
income
at
this
property
is
paid
by
Institute
management
and
that
would
not
be
included
by
a
potential
purchaser.
That
income
was
included
in
the
excess
income
line,
that's
provided
by
the
taxpayer.
We
also
deducted
the
cost
to
re-tenant
the
building,
6
million
326,
which
is
a
hundred
and
ten
dollars
per
square
foot
on
90
372
square
feet.
C
We
deducted
the
leasing
commissions
on
a
five-year
deal
and
we
deducted
a
tenant
improvements.
The
loss
print
we
have
in
there
is
for
a
two-year
period
if
it
was
adjusted
to
a
one-year
period.
Can
I
have
just
a
couple
more
seconds:
Mr
Peralta,
Mr,
panaronda.
A
Yes,
go
ahead.
Thank.
C
You,
if
the
that
amount
is
adjusted
to
one
year
all
right,
the
total
value
of
the
property
would
be
38
million.
One
hundred
and
eighty
four
thousand.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
Mr
Peralta.
Yes,
thank.
D
D
Sorry
for
the
for
this
case,
when
you
compare
the
column
f
with
column
G,
the
pro
former
for
the
appellant,
the
main
difference
is:
are
the
leases
in
place
and
the
the
vacant
rent
for
the
the
vacant
square?
Footage
for
this
property
I
believe
we
both
agree
that
the
vacant
square
footage
as
of
first
of
the
year
is
sixty
thousand
five.
Eighty
three,
that
was
that's
what
was
reported
in
2021
INE,
with
respect
to
the
rents
in
place.
D
We
have
an
average
of
40.42
cents
for
the
office
space
and
Retail
was
about
forty
five
dollars
and
sixty
dollars
per
square
foot
for
the
two
retail
spaces
that
we
have
for
this
property.
D
The
major
difference
I
see
is
that
vacant
square
footage
that
they're
using
the
vacant
rent
per
square
foot
that
they're
using
we're
using
3450
they're
at
27.50
for
a
building
in
Ballston,
where
the
the
average
rent
for
the
properties
there
is
about
38,
a
square
foot
that
was
reported
in
the
all
the
2021
2020
Ines,
that
you
know
the
guidelines
were
based
on
now.
Looking
at
the
the
rest
of
the
rents,
I
believe
the
appellant
and
the
county
agree
on
most
of
those
figures.
D
D
They
range
anywhere
from
38.50
to
36
dollars
to
forty
five
dollars,
a
square
foot
and
that's
all
in
2021.
Most
recent
2022
January
22
is
at
thirty
seven
dollars
a
square
foot
to
be
at
27.50
for
vacant
space.
It
is
a
bit
understated,
I
think.
When
you
look
at
this
overall
property,
we
grossed
up
what
we
think
the
property
should
achieve,
based
on
the
leases
in
place.
D
What
we
see
is
the
market
indicators
in
the
Boston
region
and
when
looking
at
the
the
expenses
overall,
we
see
that
it's
averaged
about
seven
dollars
a
square
foot.
Now
there
there
may
be
different
denominators
if
you
will,
but
that's
what's
reported
in
the
Ines
as
far
as
the
net
leasable
area,
when
looking
at
the
total
value
of
expenses.
If
you
compare
those
figures
alone,
the
average
expenses
over
four
years
are
at
1.3
million
and
for
our
test
column
we're
about
1.4
million
at
eight
dollars
a
square
foot.
D
We
do
account
for
the
excess
vacancy
below
the
line.
Again
we
agree
about
the
the
amount
of
square
foot
vacant
for
the
property.
We
don't
agree
on
the
the
dollar
amount
for
the
rent
that,
for
that
vacant
space
we
are
allowing
more
as
far
as
34.50
below
the
line
versus
the
27.50,
we
actually
are
at
seventy
dollars.
A
square
foot
and
I
did
research
that
and
from
last
week,
just
to
give
the
the
board
a
better
indication
of
what
I've
seen
in.
C
The
market
for
TI's
I
think
you're
looking
at
the
wrong
case,
you're
not
we're
on
1200
Wilson.
E
Is
1727
give
me
another
eight
minutes.
D
D
I
apologize
I
was
going
by
the
order.
I
had
okay
for
this
property.
We
only
had
four
thousand
four
hundred
seventy
two
square
feet
vacant,
there's
no
below
the
line.
Adjustments
I
do
apologize.
There
is,
we
do
agree
on
the
the
vacant
square
footage
amount
and
we
asked
that
the
board
confirmed
the
original
assessment.
We
believe
that
this
assessment
originally
was
a
good
indicator.
What
this
Market
can
achieve.
Sorry,
thank
you.
E
In
fact,
just
looking
at
the
historical
operator
again,
this
is
a
property.
That's
been
very
well
occupied,
as
we
see
in
18
1920.
It
looks
like
the
biggest
difference
is
the
matter
of
the
occupancies
of
the
data
valuation
January
1,
the
appendix
won
the
county
to
look
at
the
pending
vacancy,
as
opposed
to.
What's
there
January
1
I
won't
speak
for
Mr
Peralta,
but
I
do
believe
that,
as
a
department,
we've
been
a
very
consistent
with
the
ideas
we
value.
E
What's
there
generally
one,
we
don't
anticipate
value,
we
don't
take
value
for
his
years
of
people
going
to
bring
it
forward.
So,
if
we're
looking
into
stabilized
property
and
building
it
as
of
January
1st,
what
is
there
in
columns
dnf
would
be
applicable
in
the
case
of
the
test,
as
Mr
Foster
pointed
out
his
operating
expense
alone,
his
protection
is
well
above,
what's
been
reported
again
on
a
very
stabilized
property
in
regards
to
the
achievable
income
very
much
in
line
with
what's
been
reported,
especially
considering
the
increased
18,
19
and
20..
E
A
Thank
you
and
thanks
for
bringing
that
up,
Miss
Borman
I
know
that
we
were
looking
at
different
numbers.
Do
we
have
any
questions
from
the
board?
F
Yeah
I'd
like
to
to
pick
up
precisely
where
the
department
left
off
or
else
certainly
where
Chris
chica
slept
off
on
not
speculating
and
not
and
and
assuming
things
aren't.
F
D
When
we
look
at
this
property,
the
lease
doesn't
expire
until
November
18
2022,
so
I
mean
that's
a
full
year,
essentially
for
this
property.
In
past
cases,
we
did
just
that.
We,
we
did
account
for
the
leases
in
place
as
of
the
data
value,
and
if
the
data
value
is
the
First
of
the
Year.
This
doesn't
expire
until
11
months
later
in
the
year.
So.
F
Too
cited
a
bunch
of
cases
in
the
last
couple
of
years.
We
have
not
done
that.
You
have
assumed
deductions
today
for
likely
probable
vacancies
tomorrow,
meaning
in
the
past
the
data
value
she
started
a
bunch
I
didn't
write
them
down,
but
you
guys,
your
your
ears
should
have
picked
up
on
that.
She.
J
D
C
You
sure,
in
fact,
I
just
listened
to
two
hearings
from
last
year
for
601
701
and
then
for
2011
Crystal
Drive
and
in
both
of
those
cases
the
county
articulated
the
particular
the
position
that
the
taxpayer
has
said
it
has
held.
In
fact,
Mr
chicas
gave
testimony
as
it
related
to
601
701
and
stated
that
it
is
the
department
policy
when
it
there's
a
known
lease.
C
That's
going
to
be
vacating
to
deduct
to
use
the
vacancy
in
place
as
of
January
1,
to
determine
the
vacancy
rate,
but
then
to
deduct
the
cost
to
retent
the
building
and
Mr
perolda
has
said
the
same
thing
on
numerous
occasions,
as
has
Mr
Bailey
when
he
was
at
the
county
and
the
cases
that
I
referenced
were
examples.
That
I
was
able
to
pull
together
very
quickly.
C
I
think
that
one
is
one.
That's
very
important
is
you
know,
950
North
Glebe,
the
American
Trucking
Association,
whose
lease
expires
on
in
May
of
22
the
county
knew
it
and
the
county
deducted
the
cost
to
retent
that
building
in
2020
in
2021.
In
fact,
I
met
with
Mr
Bailey
about
this
case
in
2020
and
that's
how
they
determined
to
handle
it.
The
same
thing
is
for
twelve
thousand
two
thousand
fifteenth
Street,
the
MedStar
building
the
county
deducted.
C
The
leases
expired
on
that
building
in
2020
June
or
September
2020
and
January
31st
2022
and
in
2020
the
county
deducted
the
rent
loss,
tenant
improvements
and
leasing
commissions
on
that
building
and
the
reason
I
went
into
the
Stafford
history,
which
the
board
did
reduce
in
on
appeal
to
the
purchase
price,
was
because
I
believe
that
the
reason
the
county
changed
its
methodology,
at
least
according
to
Mr
Bailey,
was
because
to
apply
the
same
methodology
on
properties
where
there
was
a
known
vacancy
upcoming,
resulted
in
Assessments
in
excess
of
fair
market
value.
C
His
testimony
at
prior
cases
was
that
the
department
looked
at
that
and
looked
at
those
purchase
prices
and
looked
at
the
way
that
the
assessments
were
coming
out
and
found
that
there
was
Market
evidence
that
showed
that,
when
a
lease
is
expiring,
that
the
count
that
the
purchasers
in
the
market
are
going
to
reduce
the
value
and
not
capitalize
into
perpetuity
an
income
that
doesn't
is
not
going
to
exist,
especially
when
it
48
dollars
per
square.
But
in
this
case
versus
35,
which
is
the
market.
C
So
it
has
been
historic
that
the
county
has
done
it.
It
has
done
it
two
years
in
advance.
It
has
done
it
one
year
in
advance.
It
has
done
it
18
months
in
advance,
and
this
property,
as
I
said
previously,
was
the
vacancy
was
known
and
it
should
be
deducted
just
like
it
was
in
those
other
cases,
yeah.
E
A
County
May,
okay,
I'm,
sorry.
E
So
I
would
argue
against
that,
specifically
with
the
first
statement
that
apparently
I
am
on
recordings
arguing
about
office
properties
from
last
year.
I
didn't
defend
office
properties
last
year,
so
this
would
have
to
be
addressed
privately.
This
is
the
first
time
I've
been
assisting
with
Mr
prots
in
his
office
property.
So
it
may
be
confusing
me
with
Mr
Bailey.
The
second
part
would
be
is
that
these
it
sounds
like
Ms
Borman
referred
to
three
properties
over
three
years,
2000
to
2021
and
2022.
E
She
mentioned
three
properties
that
I
understand,
two
of
which
went
apparently
private
consultation
with
the
former
supervisor
Mr
Bailey.
If
those
are
conversations
that
they've
held
privately
about
two
properties
out
of
you
know,
I,
don't
know
how
many
Mr
Price
has
reviewed
over
the
last
30
years,
I
wouldn't
necessarily
say
that's
a
standard
that
needs
to
be
set
if
she's
brought
about
particular
cases
that
need
to
be
addressed
in
a
particular
fashion
that
may
be
from
what
I
understand.
E
The
county
policy
is
just
that
we
value
properties
on
January
1
and
the
properties
that
are
leases
done
in
place
are
valued.
At
that
time
we
don't
project
forward.
We
don't
bring
leases
that
are
going
to
current
in
April
or
March
and
say
hey.
We
should
count
these
as
part
of
the
valuation.
In
the
same
respect,
we
don't
use
leases
that
are
going
to
expire
in
that
same
year,
that
they're
being
valued.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
Mr
Mr
Hoffman.
You
have
a
question.
I
Yeah,
given
that
we're
looking
at
the
appellants
numbers
for
re-tenancing,
the
space
has,
has
there
been
an
inspection
on
the
Institution
Institute
management,
space
or
or
any
photos
submitted
or
description
of
the
existing
build
out
versus
what
the
prospective
tenants
might
want
in
that
space
or
anything
that
we
can
kind
of
validate
the
numbers
that
have
been
presented
to
us.
C
Mr
Hoffman,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
wasn't
muted
in
terms
of
the
numbers
that
were
used
below
the
line
you
just
went
with
the
county
guidelines,
for
we
used
110,
actually
I
said
I.
Suppose
you
could
use
70,
which
is
the
county,
may
be
the
county
guidelines,
the
rent
per
square
foot.
You
know
that
was
something
that
was
agreed
to
by
the
county
on
vacant
space.
So
I,
don't
necessarily
know
what
more
you
would
be.
Looking
for.
I
This
isn't
like
a
really
nice
existing
build
out
in
there
with
skiff
space.
That's
all
up
to
you
know,
or
maybe
there's
Laboratories
in
there
without
an
inspection
or
something
to
document
the
condition.
C
You
know
the
1200
Wilson
is
an
older
building.
As
you
know,
it
was
has
an
effective
age
of
1994.
F
C
A
number
of
those
cases
did
go
to
come
to
the
board
and
I
kind
of
would
like
to
ask
the
board
to
defer
the
decision
on
this
case
and
go
back
and
listen
to
the
601
701
hearing
from
last
year,
as
well
as
the
hearing
last
year
on
2011,
to
hear
the
boards
articulating
the
position
that
I
have
said
that
they
articulated,
because
that
is
the
position
that
they
took
last
year
in
front
of
this
board,
including
a
guest
appearance
by
Mr
chicas
for
601
701.
So
I
think
that.
C
It's
very
troubling
to
me
that
that
that
that
position
is
is
being
changed
or
said
differently,
but
the
601
701
case
I
reference
did
come
before
the
board.
That
was
not
a
private
conversation,
the
private
conversation
with
Mr
Bailey
related
to
the
Stafford
buildings
and
the
change
in
methodology.
It
did
not
reset
relate
to
any
of
the
cases
I
referenced.
C
A
C
J
J
A
To
go
through
more
debates,
I
think
we've
gone
through
enough
in
this
case
and
I,
don't
think
we
are
going
to
defer
anything.
We
have
enough
information,
I
think
based
on
the
numbers
and
leases
in
place.
So
if
there's
no
other
question
we'll
go
to
wrap-ups
Mr
Peralta,
you
want
to
go
with
one
minute.
Please!
Yes,.
D
Thank
you,
I
think
the
difference
in
this
case
and
and
what
Miss,
born
and
Borman
has
been
pointing
out
with
the
previous
cases
is
those
leases
were
set
to
expire
and
on
the
cusp
of
the
the
January
1st
valuation
date,
so
there
may
have
been
some
concessions
made
for
the
February
March
of
the
following
year
when
they
were
set
to
expire.
I.
Think
I
believe
that
that
is
the
case.
I'd
have
to
check
myself
but
I
believe
that
is
the
difference
in
this
case.
This
lease
is
in
place
and
expires
November.
D
You
know
well,
after
the
the
January
1st
evaluation
date
for
this
property,
we
asked
the
board
to
really
take
in
consideration
our
test
column,
and
it
only
confirms
the
original
assessment
based
on
all
the
rents
that
we
saw
in
place
and
the
vacant
see.
As
of
the
data
value.
Thank
you.
C
No
potential
purchaser
would
assume
that
a
property
it
has
a
93
000
square
feet
lease
expiring,
because
the
tenants
are
going
remote
in
November
of
2022
would
assume
an
above
Market
rental
rate
of
48.25.
On
that
space.
Further
any
potential
purchaser
would
assume
the
costs
associated
with
re-tenanting
that
space,
as
has
been
done
by
the
taxpayer,
the
taxpayer.
A
I
Just
one
thing
where
I
was
hoping:
we'd
have
a
little
bit
more
information
on
the
inside
of
the
building,
because
some
of
these
State
Department
or
secure
kind
of
federal
lease
properties,
they've
got
a
they've,
got
a
cotenency
type
of
thing
where
you
get
groups
that
come
in
and
are
very
eager
to
get
space.
That's
fully
built
out
and
ready
to
lease.
That's
next
to
the
agency,
that's
awarding
them
contracts.
I
So
that's
where
I
was
trying
to
find
out
from
the
appellant.
You
know
is
this:
you
know
you
walk
through
this
space.
Is
it
completely
you
know
depleted
and
unusable
or
or
is
it
something
that
a
tenant
working
with
the
state
department
would
be
very
eager
to
move
into?
I
I
I
think
it
puts
a
higher
burden
on
the
appellant
to
prove
the
case
of
what
the
re-tenanting
is
going
to
cost
next
year
and
I.
Don't
think
you've
met
that
part.
A
Right
I
agree:
Mr
masking.
F
Yeah
I
agree
with
that
too.
Of
course,
I
I
thought
we
had
a
long,
long,
strict
precedent
of
not
speculating
it's
on
on
when
leases
are
going
to
start
and
then
they're
not
going
to
start
and
end
until
they
actually
indeed
start
and
end.
If
the
department
made
departures
from
that
in
a
couple
of
cases
in
the
last
couple
of
years,
that's
new
to
me:
that's
why
acid
ever
came
to
the
board,
because
to
me
that's
immutable
yeah
in
one
one
of
the
year.
F
That's
it
what's
the
situation
so
I
I'm,
I
I'm,
just
going
to
avoid
all
of
that
and
say
I'm
sticking
to
what
our
our
our
our.
F
Are
our
sensible
policies?
It
is
what
it
is
until
something
else
actually
happens
and
therefore
I
reject
all
this
below
the
line.
Stuff
I.
Don't,
however,
I
do,
however,
also
reject
the
proposed
office
rents
in
the
test
column.
F
This
building
is
no
longer
by
any
means,
the
the
best
of
the
best
in
its
sub
market
and
45
dollars.
A
square
foot
is
pretty
much
the
the
highest
possible
rent
increase,
so
I
just
ran
some
numbers
at
forty
dollars.
A
square
foot
still
certainly
within
the
sub
Market
rent
range,
but
not
at
the
top
and
I
have
some
numbers
for
that
and
I'll
give
them
to
you
if
you're
interested.
But
what
it
does
is
the
bottom
line.
F
Is
it
reduces
the
value
about
by
about
a
million
two
or
so,
but
I
give
you
actual
actual
numbers.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Anybody
else,
any
comments.
A
No,
no
Mr
Lawson.
G
Yeah
I
I
do
think.
Adjustment
is
appropriate
in
this
case
and
I'd
like
to
hear
what
Ken
proposes.
F
I'll
just
tell
you
quickly
is
that
okay,
very
simple
at
forty
dollars
and
the
office,
the
the
GPI,
the
egi
would
be
reduced
to
5
million
nine
twenty
one,
six,
six,
seven,
in
other
words
by
five
hundred
one
thousand
two
hundred
ninety
two
dollars,
and
so
then
I.
Then
the
noi
has
reduced
to
4
million
two
sixteen
One
Eighty
three
another
501
million
501
000,
and
so
it
caps
out
to
65
997.
F
I
A
A
A
G
F
A
C
F
F
A
Can
go
with
that?
Well,
I'm,
I'm.
Okay,
with
the
current
I
said,
it's
been
based
on
the
current
releases
and
the
rates
and
the
income
that
is
being
consistent.
You
know
with
the
history
of
the
building
and
the
noi,
so
originally
I
was
more
than
okay
with
it.
I
think
the
noi
that
was
used
is
much
lower
than
was
reported
and
what
the
previous
year
was.
So
you
know
I
wasn't
in
favor
of
making
any
changes
to
this
one.
I
Go
along
with
that
I
think
forty
dollars
is
a
reasonable
rent,
not
really
in
the
condition
of
the
space,
which
is
kind
of
guessing
that
somebody
was
just
there.
I
could
support
59
974.
F
I
move
that
assessment
be
reduced
to
59
million
nine
hundred
seventy
four
thousand
150
one
hundred
dollars
I'm.
Sorry,
two
dollars
the
ending
is
200
and
rounding
up
based.
J
F
A
forty
dollar,
a
square
foot
rental
rate.
A
Against
I
will
be
dissenting,
so
it's
four
to
one.
It
has
been
reduced
to
59
974
200,
based
on
the
reduction
of
the
square
footage
240
dollars
all
right.
We
just
take
a
five
minute
break
at
this
point
and
we'll
come
back
at
10
50.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Looked
up
the
hearing
dates
for
those
two
cases
and
the
701
12th
Street
case
was
heard.
October
20th,
2021.
C
A
C
A
All
right,
Miss
Morgan,
we'll
go
ahead
and
continue
with
the
meeting
we'll
go
ahead
and
start
is
Rosa
back
or
not
yet.
I
A
J
A
B
B
B
the
2022
assessment
imputes
noi,
that
is
nearly
350
000
higher
than
the
prior
year
actual
noi
next
I'd
like
to
address
column
E2
on
the
summary
page.
This
is
labeled
as
a
reconstruction.
However,
this
column
is
simply
an
effort
to
muddy
the
waters
and
confuse
the
issues.
The
Reconstruction
is
an
amalgamation
that
picks
and
chooses
figures
from
the
rest
of
the
worksheet
in
search
of
a
final
value.
B
B
However,
this
does
not
include
all
of
the
leased
office
space
at
the
property,
nearly
60,
000
square
feet
or
23
percent
of
the
net
leaseable
area
is
not
included
in
this
rate,
if
you
direct
your
attention
to
page
six
of
the
appeal,
you'll
see
the
County's
rent
roll
on
this
rent
roll
on
page
six,
the
initial
block
of
tenants
is
listed
as
office,
but,
of
course,
as
I
said,
this
doesn't
capture
all
the
office
tenants.
The
fourth
block
on
this
rent
roll
is
listed
as
other.
These
two
tenants
are
office.
B
B
If
we
reduce
this
weighted
average
37.62
by
six
percent
concessions,
the
net
effective
rental
rate
for
In-Place
office
becomes
thirty
five
dollars,
36
cents
per
square
foot
comment.
One
excludes
one
third
of
the
least
office
space
to
imply
that
the
property
has
a
higher
rental
rate
than
it
actually
does.
B
B
B
B
However,
it
does
not
deduct
storage
from
the
nla
for
the
other
columns
to
to
divide
in
to
get
that
operating
expense
rate
per
square
foot.
What
this
results
is
what
what
the
net
result
of
this
is.
The
Drea's
columns
appear
to
list
operating
expense
rate,
that's
closer
than
what's
been
historically
reported
and
what's
claimed
in
in
column
G.
B
The
assessment
imputes
operating
expenses
at
nine
dollars,
fifty
cents
per
square
foot,
as
we've
discussed
at
many
other
Boston
properties,
ten
dollars
per
square
foot
is
more
appropriate
based
on
the
historical
operating
expense
rates
in
both
2019
and
2020
operating
expenses.
Excluding
storage
space
was
nine
dollars,
fifty
cents
or
greater,
even
with
low
physical
occupancy.
In
2020.,
the
owners
made
note
of
low
physical
occupancy
in
2020
and
2021
on
the
Ines.
B
B
B
The
assessment
also
assumes
an
operating
expense
rate
that
is
below
both
the
the
sub
market
and
what
is
expected
based
on
historical
operations
at
the
property
you
can
see
on
the
summary
page,
The
Columns
a
b
and
c
do
not
have
the
operating
expenses
per
square
foot
listed
to
the
decimals
2019,
and
these
are
figures.
Excluding
the
storage
space,
so
2019
operating
expenses
were
9.50.
B
B
A
D
For
this
property,
we
looked
at
the
the
rent
roll
that
was
yeah.
Let's.
G
An
amazing
talk
later.
A
Yeah
we
can
mute
any
other
microphone.
Please
Mr
Peralta
go
ahead.
D
Yes,
for
this
property,
we're
looking
at
the
leases
in
place
and
for
the
record
when
we're
looking
at
this
rent
roll,
we
did
see
that
there
was
a
lease
that
was
renegotiated
in
a
termination
of
Hanover
Floors
for
a
particular
floor.
It
is
noted
on
the
rent
roll.
We
did
exclude
that
from
the
average
per
se.
D
But
then,
when
you
look
at
my
page
page
five
of
86,
you
can
see
that
Hanover
Floors
was
given
a
rate
of
33
dollars
exactly
what
they're
reporting
in
the
rent
roll
ideal
Innovations
was
given
25.
Actually,
the
33
and
25
is,
is
less
concessions
and
then
the
overall
office
portion
that
was
included
in
that
average
that
Mr
Harmon
pointed
out
was
given
a
4254
rate
for
the
leases
in
place.
D
Sophie
revert
back
to
the
summary
page,
as
you
see
what
they
actually
reported
in
2021
was
actually
about
600
000,
more
or
500
550
000
more
than
what
we're
using
in
our
test
column.
So
we're
accounting
for
some
of
the
the
vacancies
or
turnover
that
Mr
Harmon
has
pointed
out,
which
he
believes
E2,
is
inadmissible.
D
This
E2
again
has
been
created
to
kind
of
demonstrate
to
give
the
board
an
idea
of
exactly
what
the
gross
potential
property
could
achieve,
based
on
the
agent's
estimate
of
her
square
foot
rate
at
36
dollars,
a
square
foot
for
vacant
office
and
forty
dollars
per
square
foot
for
vacant
retail.
Again
we're
looking
at
this
property
as
a
whole,
and
given
the
history,
you
can
see
that
this
property
is
I'm,
gonna,
call
it
stabilize
while
being
vacant
consistently.
D
As
you
can
see
in
2018,
49
000
about
500
square
feet
was
vacant
2018
and
we're
at
58
022
square
feet
as
of
the
current
year.
Now,
given
that
vacancy
the
county
has
afforded
a
25
reduction
based
on
guidelines
and
950
and
expenses,
and
if
you
look
at
the
expenses
overall
we're
right
in
line
with
what
they've
been
reporting
again,
this
property
has
been
somewhat
vacant
for
quite
some
time.
D
There
are
turnovers
so
as
Mr
Harmon
suggested
that
tenants
leave
and
tenants
have
signed
for
the
property
with
respect
to
the
overall
net
operating
income.
If
you
believe
in
the
E2
column
that,
when
we're
grossing
the
property
up,
that
noi
is
just
an
indication
of
what
we
think
it
should
be,
because
if
you
base
that
compare
that
to
the
previous
history,
you'll
see
that
the
row
19.
If
you
look
at
the
nois
for
previous
years,
2018
is
6.3.
D
D
A
You,
okay,
thank
you.
Do
I
have
any
questions
from
board
members.
F
F
And
then
the
other
question
is
sorry.
The
the
line
one
in
column
f
is
is
a
good
bit
less
than
the
latest
lease
signed
and
the
rent
rates,
but
you
have
no
concessions.
Did
you
just
reduce
your
gross
potential
rental
income
by
a
proposed
amount
of
concessions
such
that
they're
not
reported
once
you
get
the
39
Plus.
D
Is
it
was
just
the
average?
If
you
look
at
the
page
five
of
86,
you
can
see
the
breakdown
of
exactly
what
rents
were
used.
So
on
the
vacant
office
we
actually
used
36
dollars
per
square
foot.
F
E
D
Yeah
for
the
leases
in
place,
we
had
an
average
excluding
the
hand
over
floors
and
the
ideal
Innovations
of
45.26
for
2021
and
that's
up
from
2020,
where
the
average
43
dollars
a
square
foot
a
42.94
to
be
exact
and
in
this
year
again
we're
looking
at
the
potential
growth
of
this
property,
we're
at
42.54
for
leases
in
place
for
vacant
office,
we're
using
36
we're
using
the
contract
rent
for
ideal
Innovations
and
Hanover
Floors
minus
the
six
percent,
and
so
I
mean
this
is
what
we
came
up
with
as
far
as
a
reduction
or
revision
of
the
original
assessment,
and
we
feel
that's
a
better
indication
of
market
value
for
this
property.
D
We
have
co-star,
saying
that
asking
rents
for
this
property
are
at
forty
four
dollars
a
square
foot.
We
asked
the
board
to
confirm
the
79
million
six
hundred
thousand
seven
hundred.
Thank.
A
B
Thank
you
to
reiterate
the
the
most
recent
activity
at
the
at
the
property
supports
a
lower
In-Place
office
rental
rate,
the
the
amount
that
the
county
has
stated
as
the
In-Place
average
on
comment,
one
that
excludes
the
two
leases
that
were
renegotiated,
the
the
newer
leases
that
were
at
lower
rates,
so
it
it
has
the
effect
of
skewing
that
total
up
higher
as
far
as
operating
expenses,
again
historical
operating
expenses
at
the
property.
B
If
we
use
the
same
nla,
excluding
storage
space
to
come
up
with
a
per
square
foot
operating
expense
rate,
we
see
in
2019
it
was
nine
dollars,
fifty
cents
per
square
foot
2020,
it
was
9.59
per
square
foot
and
it
dropped
to
just
about
nine
dollars
per
square
foot
in
2021.
2020
2021,
as
we've
discussed
at
nauseum,
have
been
impacted
by
limited
physical
occupancy.
Again
just
about
35
percent
of
employees
were
coming
in
in
those
years
as
such,
We
Believe
operating
expenses
should
be
ten
dollars
a
square
foot.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
A
Well,
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
I.
Think
I
think
this
is
probably
one
of
the
cases
that
from
this
morning
that
I've
seen
that
you
know
it's
more
than
in
line,
maybe
even
lower
than
they
should
have
been
so
I'm
I'm.
Okay,
with
the
revised
assessment
on
this
I,
don't
you
know,
looking
at
the
rental
rates,
I've
looked
and
I
revised
and
I
actually
redid
numbers
to
come
up
close
to
what
the
county
has
so
I'm?
Okay
with
it.
H
Yeah
I
I
hear
what
the
appellants
saying
on
some
of
it:
I,
don't
think
the
values
off
and
I
don't
think
the
counties
that
far
off.
If
there's
some
minor
adjustments
at
best
but
I,
agree
with
where
the
county
is.
A
Okay,
all
right,
then
I'll
go
ahead
and
move
the
weekend
from
the
assessment
that
I
mean
that
we
reduce
the
assessment
to
the
revised
number
of
79
million
600
700..
A
Thank
you
we'll
go
to
the
next
case.
Rpc
34020233.
A
B
You
2011
Crystal
Drive.
This
is
a
440
000
square
foot,
building
in
National
Landing,
it's
38
years
old.
To
start
I'd
like
to
make
note
of
the
2020
assessed
value
in
relation
to
the
2021
assessment.
The
Drea
recommendation
recommended
reduction
in
the
test
column
represents
a
nearly
1
million
dollar
increase
over
the
2021
value
of
139
million.
B
Seven
hundred
thirty,
four
thousand
seven
hundred
dollars
now
I
bring
this
up
because
I
want
to
I
want
to
ask
what
has
changed
at
this
property
over
the
course
of
2021
to
to
Warrant
a
one
million
dollar
increase
in
value.
Let's
look
at
what's
happened
at
the
property.
The
Smithsonian
Institute
vacated
46
000
square
feet
at
the
end
of
April
2021.,
the
conservation
International
Foundation
vacated
an
additional
43
500
square
feet
at
the
end
of
November.
2021.
B
combine
these
two
tenants
vacated
89
500
square
feet,
which
is
20
percent
of
the
total
net
leasable
area.
Now,
to
be
fair,
we
have
to
look
at
net
absorption,
not
just
what
they
lost,
so
new
leasing
at
the
property.
Only
totaled
21
400
square
feet
in
2021,
which
gets
us
to
a
negative
net
absorption
of
68
000
square
feet,
which
is
15
of
the
nla,
so
on
January,
1
2022,
the
property
had
15
percent
less
occupancy
than
it
did
one
year
prior.
B
Despite
this,
the
assessment
increased
by
over
by
a
million
dollars
over
the
past
year.
This
property
is
clearly
worse
off
on
the
data
value
in
2022
than
one
year
earlier,
due
to
losing
two
credit
tenants
who
were
releasing
a
combined
20
percent
of
the
building.
How
do
we
correct
the
assessment
to
reflect
the
value
of
the
property
as
of
January
1
2022.?
B
We
look
to
the
office
rental
rate,
the
operating
expenses
and
the
lease
up
costs,
the
assessment
imputes
a
below
Market
concession
rate
to
the
office
to
the
In-Place
office,
rental
rate.
If
we
correct
this
to
reflect
even
partially
the
most
recent
Market
leasing
activity
at
the
property,
which
required
nearly
17
percent
in
concessions,
the
net
effective
rental
rate
for
office
space
is
40.25
cents
per
square
foot.
B
This
rate
is
seven
and
a
half
percent
above
the
rental
rates
for
the
most
recent
leasing
activity.
At
the
property
also
worth
noting,
new
leases
in
2021
were
at
a
lower
rate
and
required
higher
concessions
than
lease
is
effective
in
2020.,
which
were
again
lower
than
the
rates
previously
in
place.
Rental
rates
are
trending
down.
Concessions
are
trending
up
at
this
property.
B
Next,
if
we
look
at
the
operating
expenses
here
again,
we
have
the
issue
with
the
per
square
foot
figures
listed
to
the
right
of
the
columns
same
same
issue,
the
Drea
columns
in
D
and
F
subtracted
storage
space
from
the
nla
to
come
up
with
that
per
square
foot
figure.
We
don't
disagree
with
this
methodology.
We
just
dispute
that
it
should
be
applied
to
all
columns
and
not
just
the
Drea
columns.
B
B
B
Add
to
the
equation:
seven
percent
inflation
in
the
market
experienced
over
2021
and
it
is
fair
to
say,
seven
dollars,
fifty
cents
per
square
foot
in
operating
expenses
for
a
38
year
old
building,
a
national
Landing
is
not
adequate.
In
2019
the
last
year
physical
occupancy
was
unaffected
by
the
pandemic.
Operating
expenses
were
eight
dollars
per
square
foot
growing.
This
number
by
two
years,
worth
of
inflation,
supports
nine
dollars.
B
Finally,
the
assessment
deducts
below
the
line
lease
up
costs
at
one
year,
free
rent
and
seventy
dollars.
Tis
we've
discussed
why,
one
year,
lease
up
costs
are
not
reflective
of
a
market
that
has
chronically
experienced
negative
absorption
for
TI's
the
new
leasing
activity
at
this
property
in
2021
required
75
dollars
per
square
foot
on
renewal,
lease
and
95
dollars
per
square
foot
on
expansion,
space,
which
was
for
18
000
square
feet.
B
Given
that
actual
TI's
for
leases
at
the
property
average
95
dollars
per
square
foot,
the
allowance
should
be
increased
on
the
assessment.
It's
important
to
note
that
even
on
renewal
leases,
the
required
tenant
improvements
were
75
dollars.
Which
is
higher
than
the
county
allows
on
on
their
standard
guidelines.
B
This
is
because
the
assessment
under
counts
the
rate
of
Market
concessions
applicable
to
the
property,
as
evidenced
by
the
most
recent
leasing
activity.
The
assessment
imputes
operating
expenses
that
are
below
both
what
the
sub
market
and
the
operating
history
supports
and
the
below
the
line.
Deductions
for
free
rent
antenna
improvements
do
not
adequately
capture
what
is
to
be
expected
to
lease
up.
Thank
you
and
Eileen.
Do
you
have
anything
you'd
like
to
add.
A
Thank
you,
we're
going
to
board
questions.
Do
we
have
any
questions
from
anyone.
D
You
yeah
for
this
property.
We
looked
at
the
history
with
respect
to
the
most
recent
2021
INE,
as
the
summary
pay
suggests
that
leases
in
place
were
at
47.97.
D
That's
it
for
all
the
leases
that
are
in
place:
minus
the
205
599
vacant
square
footage
for
this
property.
Initially,
our
assessment
didn't
account
for
about
a
hundred
thousand
square
feet
of
vacant
space.
We
did
correct
that
in
the
test
or
the
revision,
if
you
will
in
column
F
and
with
that,
we
came
up
with
a
different
vowel,
a
different
value
lower
than
the
original
assessment.
D
As
you
see
in
our
rent
roll
analysis
on
on
page
six
of
109.,
you
see
that
the
the
lease
is
in
place
average
that
47.97
and
that's
Verbatim
what
was
used
and
what
was
reported
in
the
2021
INE.
D
We
took
off
six
percent
of
that,
based
on
what
we
found
in
the
market
to
be
reasonable
concessions
for
the
leases
in
place.
Now
we
don't
argue
too
much
with
the
the
vacant
office
space
what
this
property
would
achieve
for
the
vacant
square
footage
if
you
compare
what
the
county
has
at
36.75
and
what
the
the
appellant
has
used
and
row
1A
of
vacant
office
they're
at
36.55,
a
square
foot,
so
we
believe
it's
at
a
minimal
difference,
they're
using
a
different
square
footage.
D
That's
why
their
value
is
actually
more
than
what
we
are
testing
or
revising
our
assessment
to
be
we're
at
6.8,
600,
6
million
810
510,
and
then
the
the
appellant
is
at
slightly
higher
with
their
numbers,
also
with
the
the
retail
as
well
slightly
higher,
due
to
different
square
footage.
D
When
we
look
at
overall
what
this
property
can
achieve,
you
see
that
in
Prior
years,
they've
amassed
the
17.8
or
18
million
in
2019,
and
there
was
a
drop
of
2020
and
2021
again:
they're
reporting
actual
income
they're,
not
reporting
the
potential
growths
of
this
property.
The
Department's
test
is
a
better
indication
of
what
this
property
can
achieve.
D
Again.
The
comparison
between
the
appellant
and
the
the
department
is
the
minor
difference
of
the
leases
in
place
about
four
dollars
and
25
cents
and
then
25
cents.
If
you
will,
for
the
vacant
space
again,
I'd
be
happy
to
go
and
walk
through
the
rent
roll
and
to
show
exactly
how
I
came
up
with
my
figures.
D
I
do
that
with
every
case.
The
rent
roll
analysis
is
a
very
arduous
task,
but
you
know
the
the
appellant
looks
at
the
the
rent
roll
as
well
and
comes
up
with
their
own
analysis,
which
we've
shared,
and
you
know
for
this
instance.
That
I
mean
everything
is
shown
as
it
is
in
the
2021
INE
rent
role
with
that
we're
open
for
questions
unless
Chris
has
anything
to
add.
E
Just
wanted
to
highlight,
obviously,
the
fairly
glaring
difference
between
the
test,
especially
rule
of
one,
as
far
as
what
gross
potential
for
the
office
is
based
on
what
was
actually
achieved.
If
that's
been
consistent
with
the
2021's
reports,
there
actually
are
showing
actuals
so
again,
Ask
the
board
members
to
look
at
the
actuals.
E
What
was
received
in
2021
versus
what
is
projected
by
Mr
Peralta,
as
Mr
Peralta
pointed
out,
looks
like
it's
mostly
a
difference
in
square
footage
of
whether
it's
retail
or
vacant
office,
I'm,
sorry,
retail
or
vacant
retail,
we're
both
at
seven
dollars
and
fifty
cents
a
square
foot
again.
This
is
assuming
that,
as
the
accounts
have
pointed
out,
physical
occupancy
is
in
the
area
of
35
percent
does
seem
in
line
with
what
was
recorded
in
2022
and
2021.
E
We
do
believe
that
this
supports
the
tests
and
we
would
ask
the
board
to
confirm
a
revised
value
of
140
million
638
600..
Thank
you.
I.
D
I
would
if
I
may,
if
I
have
any
time
to
address
the
TI's
that
Mr
Harmon
had
pointed
out
in
our
guidelines.
We
make
reference
to
quarter
three
Cushman
Wakefield
report,
talking
about
the
the
TI's
just
to
give
you
a
rough
summary,
the
second
generation
TI's
average
about
63.18
and
first
generation
we're
90.22
we've
seen
in
previous
cases
at
seventy
dollars,
a
square
foot
was
accepted
and
was
used
by
the
appellant
in
previous
cases.
Thank
you.
A
I'm,
sorry,
okay,
do
we
have
any
questions
from
board
members.
A
B
I
believe
it's
the
county
as.
D
Yeah
I
mean
for
this
assessment.
I
I
again
I
draw
your
attention
to
the
rent
roll.
It
shows
exactly
what
we
found
in
the
2021
rent,
roll
analysis
and
all
the
rents
there
and
what
they
attribute
to
the
overall
value
of
this
property.
We
do
ask
that
you
take
in
consideration
what
we've
seen
in
the
past
at
seventy
dollars:
a
square
foot
for
TI's
we're
at
the
same
expense
rate.
D
B
Yes,
thank
you.
So
the
county
has
drawn
points
out
the
2021
income
reported.
What
they
failed
to
mention
in
that
same
breath
is
that
income
was
reported
when
20
percent
more
of
the
property
was
occupied
and
paying
rent.
That's
what
the
January
1
2021
assessment
reflected
since
then.
Those
20
percent
of
the
nla
has
left
that
2021
income
is
not
reflective
of.
What's
anticipated
in
2022
credit,
tenants
vacated
nearly
90
000
square
feet.
Twenty
percent
of
the
nla
that
was
the
Smithsonian
Institute
and
the
conservation
Foundation
International
this
oversights.
B
What
results
in
the
assessment
being
too
high
the
assessment
increased
by
nearly
a
million
dollars
year
over
year,
yet
vacancy
increased
by
15
percent.
This
doesn't
make
sense
and
the
operating
we
believe
it's
due
to
overestimating
In-Place
rents
and
the
operating
expenses
not
being
imputed
at
a
rate
that
is
reflective
of
the
sub-market
or
the
property.
Thank
you.
Okay.
Thank.
A
You,
okay,
it's
among
the
board
now
any
comments.
Where
do
we
stand
in
this
case?.
F
Start
off
to
avoid
a
vacuum:
I'm
I
agree
that
we're
seeing
one
two
three
percent
decrease
in
most
reasonably
good
Office
Buildings
throughout
the
county-
and
this
year
in
this
case,
we're
seeing
a
very,
very,
very
small
increase.
Very
small
I
mean
half
a
percent
or
less,
and
that
doesn't
quite
make
sense.
So,
of
course
we
go
to
the
numbers
and
and
taking
into
account
that
there's
a
net
loss
of
vacancy
as
of
1122
over
1
121..
F
It
still
makes
sense
that
maybe
there
shouldn't
be
an
increase
but
I
I'm,
but
the
numbers
seem
to
make
sense
to
me
and
I'm
guessing,
maybe
that
the
because,
because
the
rent
roll
is
is
per
square
foot,
these
tenants
are
paying
a
good
amount
of
money.
Maybe
it's
an
Amazon
effect,
but
so
I
come
to
the
conclusion
that
point
five
percent
here
or
there
in
Mass
appraisal,
is
just
too
small
to
to
to
decept
oftentimes.
F
We
get
a
disagreement
on
operating
expenses,
but
not
this
time
the
county
has
certain
accounted
for
an
increased
vacancy
rate
below
the
line
deductions.
They
all
seem
to
make
sense
to
me
so
I'm
I'm
sitting
with
the
the
test
page,
the
test.
H
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Mr
Lawson,.
G
G
Do
you
think
the
owner
has
a
good
point
that
the
tenant
improvements
at
70
bucks,
a
square
foot
are
inadequate?
That's
the
one
thing
I
saw
Ken
that
I
thought
might
need
an
adjustment
upward.
F
My
response
is,
it
depends
on
who
the
new
tenant
is.
You
know
if
it's
a
call
center,
they
want
25.
If
it's
a
white
table,
Law
Firm,
they
want
180
dollars.
We
can't
know
that,
unfortunately,
how
many
after
the
fact,
so
somebody
got
to
be
honest-
I've
never
represented
anybody
in
25
years
that
I've
been
doing
this,
that
got
70
dollars
a
square
foot
TI
of
course,
I'd
never
represented
Microsoft
or
Amazon.
So
I'm
sure
there
are
realtors
out
there
who
have
commanded
that,
but
we
gotta
we
gotta
average
it
out
somewhere.
A
Okay,
thank
you
well
pretty
much
in
agreement
with
the
most
of
the
consensus,
I'm.
Okay,
with
the
revised
decision,
Mr
Hoffman,
you
had
a
comment.
Yeah.
I
I
was
just
going
to
point
out
that
I
think
the
maybe
it's
worth
taking
a
look
at
the
operating
expenses.
If
you
go
back
to
2018
and
and
we're
at
7
50.
I
and
then
just
to
use
the
test
column
and
say
it's
going
to
be
7
50
today,
I,
don't
think
we've
seen
flat
operating
expenses
like
that
anywhere,
so
I
you
know
I
would
support,
maybe
pushing
it
up
to
eight,
given
the
inflation.
F
A
Course:
okay,
Mr
masking
just.
F
To
extend
the
thought
that
seems
reasonable,
except
that
we've
got
this
smoothing
out
of
operating
expenses,
given
the
low
use
rate
in
this
case
also
vacancy
rate,
and-
and
it's
not
just
you
know,
assuming
it
gross
potential
income
at
75
percent
vacant
at
least
or
95
of
these,
and
therefore
you
plus
operating
expenses.
We've
been
spending
some
time
on
this
lately.
Thank
you
can't
do
it
as
strictly
because
there
are
fixed
operating
expenses
even
if
it
were
vacant.
F
G
A
Okay
with
it
yeah
I,
originally
I
did
take
a
look
at
that
Mr,
Hoffman
and
I
did.
Did
you
know?
I
did
numbers
at
eight
dollars
on
the
expenses,
but
again
the
only
year
that
I
saw
that
it
was
higher,
was
in
2020
and,
like
Marx
has
pointed
out,
you
know
both
sides
are
really
going
with
the
750
rates,
so
I'm
just
sticking
to
the
number
and
going
with
the
revised.
J
A
All
right
any
other
comments.
Any
anybody
wants
to
make
a
motion.
H
I'll
make
a
motion
to
con
confirm
the
reduct,
the
County's
reducted
price,
the.
A
A
A
A
B
4040
Fairfax
Drive,
this
property
is
just
west
of
the
intersection
of
Fairfax
and
Quincy.
It's
in
Boston.
This
building
is
56
years
old
and
has
194
000
square
feet
of
leasable
area.
The
issues
on
appeal
are
the
office
rental
rate,
the
operating
expenses
and
the
lease
up
costs.
Now,
first
I'd
just
like
to
point
out
a
discrepancy
on
the
appellants
pro
forma
listed
there
in
column,
G
the
total
square
footage
of
leased
office.
That's
the
incorrect
number
we
we
did
see.
We
agree
with
the
County's
number
of
119324
square
feet
of
leased
office.
B
B
Adjusting
the
office
space
rent
by
only
10
percent
results
in
a
rental
rate
of
36.50
Additionally.
The
asking
rents
on
co-star
are
only
39
dollars
per
square
foot.
Assuming
new
leases
can
actually
achieve
this.
Asking
rent,
which
is
no
sure
thing
and
if
we
apply
the
County's
six
percent
concessions.
This
supports
the
rate
of
36.50
per
square
foot
for
Office
Space
for
the
vacant
office.
Rental
rate,
two
new
leases
were
effective
in
August,
2021
and
January
2022..
B
B
B
That's
why
2970
is
is
what
they're
able
to
achieve
on
Market
leases.
A
copy
of
the
2021
lease
is
provided
on
page
44
of
the
appeal
we
have
imputed
the
net
effective
rental
rate
of
this
most
recent
leasing
activity
at
the
property,
as
indicative
of
the
market
rate
for
vacant
space
that
this
property
can
achieve.
B
B
B
Yet,
during
this
stretch,
operating
expenses
were
seven
dollars:
20
cents
in
2018,
when
the
property
was
63
vacant,
seven
dollars,
ten
cents
with
46
vacant
in
2019,
7
24
in
2020,
with
36
percent
vacant
and
work
from
home,
depressing
reported
operating
expenses
and
then
in
2021
operating
expenses
reported
were
7.84
cents
per
square
foot
with
33
percent
vacant
and
limited
physical
occupancy
again,
2021
and
2020
were
artificially
loaded
due
to
low
physical
occupancy
at
the
property.
This
is
noted
on
the
2021
INE
on
page
56
of
the
appeal.
B
Now,
if
we're
going
to
impute
income
on
to
the
property
as
if
it
has
a
fully
stabilized
leased
and
physically
occupied
occupancy,
we
have
to
assume
that
those
occupants
are
going
to
require
operating
expenses.
Even
variable
costs
they're
going
to
turn
more
lights
on
they're,
going
to
require
their
trash
cans
being
empty.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
they're
going
to
require
the
bathrooms
be
cleaned.
More
often
we
have
to.
B
We
can't
look
at
the
2020
and
2021
with
low
High
vacancy
and
low
physical
occupancy,
and
and
use
those
to
get
what
2022
at
stabilized
occupancy
will
be
growing.
The
operating
expenses
for
stabilized
occupancy,
increased
physical
occupancy
and
to
account
for
that
seven
percent
inflation.
The
market
experienced
in
2021.
nine
dollars,
fifty
cents
per
square
foot
in
operating
expenses
is
appropriate
for
this
property.
B
Finally,
the
lease
up
cost
assigned
by
the
assessment
do
not
account
for
either
the
time
required
to
lease
up
the
excess
vacancy
nor
the
tenant
Improvement
allowance
required
for
new
tenants.
As
we've
discussed,
the
office
absorption
in
Arlington
County
has
been
negative
over
each
of
the
past
two
years.
B
Yet
the
assessment
only
applies
one
year
of
rent
loss.
Two
years
is
more
appropriate.
The
vacant
space
at
the
property
is
in
various
States.
Some
is
built
out
of
spec
Suites.
Some
is
in
Shell
condition
and
some
is
still
built
out
for
the
prior
tenant
and
will
need
to
be
demoed
to
Shell
and
built
out
again
for
a
new
tenant.
B
B
D
Thank
you
so
for
this
property,
the
the
assessment
from
last
year
to
this
year
changed
0.02
percent
and
in
that
time
frame
from
last
year
this
year,
what
happened
with
the
property
as
we
look
at
the
rent
roll?
We
see
that
if
you
compare
what
was
vacant
in
2020
to
what
was
reported
in
2021,
we
have
about
13
455
square
feet
that
was
leased
on
the
property,
in
particular
about
11
281
square
feet.
D
As
you
see
on
my
rent
roll
analysis,
page
six
has
leases
there
on
the
average
are
actually
reported,
38
dollars
a
square
feet
for
July
21
lease
all
the
way
up
to
August
January
22
at
37,
a
square
foot.
Overall,
this
property
on
average
had
a
base
square
feet
for
leases
in
place
about
forty
dollars
and
forty
two
cents.
D
Eagle
Bank,
one
of
the
the
retail
tenants,
was
at
60.62
cents.
When
we
refer
back
to
our
summary
page,
we
see
that
that's
the
major
differences
between
the
two,
the
column,
F
and
column,
G
again,
as
I
stated
earlier,
the
difference
in
a
vacant
square
footage
that
the
department
is
stating
at
34.50
versus
the
appellant.
D
D
We
look
at
it
thoroughly
with
each
case
and
for
this
particular
case,
we're
just
at
a
higher
rate
than
what
the
appellant
is
stating
given
that
the
concessions
that
they're
saying
that
they've
achieved
I
think
we're
already
discounting
that
rent.
If
you
will,
from
the
owner's
perspective,
the
appellant
believes
that.
D
Grant
and
offer
and
also
get
higher
expenses.
We
believe
that
there's
an
extent
us
expense
stops
in
place
with
every
tenant
that
normalizes
the
rent
across
the
years.
If
you
you
see
on
this
property
in
2018,
there's
seven
dollars
a
square
foot
and
they
were
116,
516
square
feet
vacant
and
then
in
2016
they
leased
up,
and
it's
still
at
seven
dollars
a
square
foot
in
20
2020.
They
leased
up
even
more
and
they're
still
at
seven
dollars
a
square
foot.
D
If
you
see
that
pattern
overall,
the
value
alone,
if
you
don't
want
to
look
at
the
dollar
per
square
foot
value
alone,
is
well
under
what
the
county
has
originally
proposed
in
our
original
assessment
and
what
we're
proposing
in
our
revised
test
column,
it
actually
values
out
to
be
higher
than
the
original
assessment,
and
so
we
asked
the
board
to
just
consider
that
our
test
kind
of
confirms
what
we
have
in
the
original
assessment
and
the
the
rates
and
the
original
assessment
are
much
lower
than
what
is
proposed
in
the
Trio's
test,
column,
F
and
the
talents
column
G.
D
E
If
I
may,
Mr
Panorama
just
wanted
to
point
out
basically
piling
on
with
what
Mr
protza
just
pointed
out,
if
we're
only
even
looking
at
just
line.
One
historically
we'll
see
that
this
line,
one
grows
by
quite
a
bit
each
year
from
18
to
19
19,
to
20
20
to
21..
That's
of
course,
in
reference
to
the
escalations
that
Mr
Peralta
pointed
out.
E
If
we
look
at
the
rent
roll
briefly
on
page
six,
we
see
that
this
property
has
tenants
in
place
for
multiple
years,
2023
2025
2027.,
multiple
tenants
that
are
going
through
2031..
All
of
these
tenants
will
have
escalation.
I
should
say
conventional
wisdom
is
that
these
tenants
will
have
escalations
in
place.
E
That
will
continue
this
growth
that
we've
seen
the
last
four
years
in
regards
to
again
the
operating
expenses,
as
Mr
Peralta
pointed
out
they're
very
much
in
line
with
the
property
that
had
the
require
a
vacancy
three
years
ago,
and
this
still
doesn't
below
the
idea
that,
as
the
opponents
have
pointed
out,
even
with
the
occupancy
of
paper,
there's
still
a
physical
occupancy.
So
if
people
aren't
going
into
the
office,
as
was
proposed
with
2020-2021,
there's
really
no
reason
to
believe
that
the
operating
expenses
would
actually
increase.
E
F
Easy
one
for
whoever
can
answer
this
either
calendar
Department
was
the
building
formally
legally
more
occupied
as
the
date
of
assessment
versus
the
year
prior
1121.
D
A
A
D
Thank
you
again.
The
test
supports
the
original
value
that
the
assessment
had
that
the
department
had
we
took
in
account
the
the
escalations
in
place
and
even
with
that,
it's
higher
than
the
original
assessment.
So
we
asked
the
board
to
just
confirm
the
original
assessment
as
a
fair
Equitable
assessment
on
the
property.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
Mr
Harmon.
You
have
a
minute
thank.
B
You
so
the
county
has
contended
that
their
vacant
office,
rental
rate
is
supported
by
the
average
Boston
office
rental
rates.
This
property
is
not
an
average
office
building
in
Boston,
the
average
sub-market
rental
rate
should
not
be
applied
if
you're,
all,
if
you
all,
are
familiar
about
walking
around
Ballston.
This
property
is
the
the
black
Q
building.
That's
in
between
J
Seoul
apartments
that
went
up
a
couple
years
ago
and
the
Bronson
Beer
Hall.
B
This
is
below
average
for
Boston
more
more
fully
more
recent
leasing
activity
at
the
actual
property
which
we
have
evidence
of
was
at
29.70
per
square
foot.
Simply
disregarding
what's
happened
at
the
property
in
favor
of
what
the
average
for
Ballston
sub
Market
is,
is
not
accurate.
The
we
have
recent
recent
leasing
activity
at
29.70.
That's
what
should
be
applied
to
the
vacant
office
space.
The
county
also
contends
that
no
reason
to
adjust
operating
expenses
because
no
reason
to
believe
people
are
coming
back
to
the
office.
A
It's
not
going
to
lease
up.
Thank
you.
Okay,
that's
good!
Thank
you!
Okay,
it's
among
the
board.
Now,
where
do
we
stand
any?
I
Yeah
one
thing
I
agreed
with
is
the
use
of
110
for
TI,
on
that
shell
space.
That
I
mean
you
can
walk
by
the
building
and
actually
see
it
through
the
windows.
It's
there's,
there's
shell
space.
That's
been
that
way
for
a
while.
I
So
you
know
it's
clear
that
that's
going
to
be
more
than
100
or
more
than
70
dollars
a
square
foot
to
re-ten
it,
but
then,
if,
if
you
only
make
that
change
in
the
test
column
with
the
right
numbers
and
everything
on
vacancy,
you
end
up
still
higher
than
the
original
assessment,
so
I'm
not
I,
think
that
leaves
us
back
to
the
original
assessment.
A
Right
yeah
I
looked
at
that
also,
and
also
the
expenses
I,
consider
the
appellons
numbers
and
against
the
expenses
that
the
county
used
and
I'm
still
coming
up
with.
You
know,
similar
numbers
I,
don't
really
see
where
a
change
could
be
made.
I
know
that
the
allowance
that
is
being
used
on
the
current
assessment
is
more
because
the
square
footage
that
you're
using
is
more
below
the
line,
so
I
I'm.
Okay,
with
the
current
assessment
there's
no
one
anything
else,
would
increase.
F
I'll,
just
throw
away
and
I
thought
the
the
original
column
D
was
far
more
reflective
of
the
situation
than
the
test.
That's
unusual
for
whatever
reason,
and
it
does
cater
to
the
appellant's
contention-
that
lease
rates
are
going
downwards,
that
the
tests
showed
them
going
up
just
as
one
case
I'm
kind
of
on
the
appellant
side.
But
the
bottom
line
is
that
the
department
did
it
right.
In
my
judgment,
the
first
time.
A
F
A
It's
still
awesome,
okay,
so
it
is
four
to
one
it
is
being
confirmed,
and
that
concludes
the
meeting
for
today.
Thank
you.
Everybody.