►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing October 20, 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
21
this
is
the
arlington
county,
virginia
board
of
equalization
hearing.
There
are
six
cases
on
the
agenda
today.
The
first
case
is
rpc15058016
the
property
located
at
2201,
wilson
boulevard
and
mr
jeremy.
The
chitlik
is
here
representing
the
owner,
mr
chitlik,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
Sir.
B
All
right,
thank
you.
I
am
sitting
in
for
suzanne
ross
she's
out
this
week
at
ipt
school
down
in
atlanta,
so
just
filling
in
for
this
case.
The
case
is
one
I'm
familiar
with,
though,
because
I
heard
it
last
year
it's
2201
wilson,
it's
right
by
where
we
used
to
meet
at
the
the
old,
the
assessor's
office,
it's
right
across
the
street.
B
The
property
was
built
in
2000,
it's
kind
of
the
the
mid-rise
high-rise
level
of
it's,
not
a
it's,
not
like
a
very
tall
building,
but
it's
11
stories.
The
issue
here
is
in
2017.
B
This
is
an
equity
residential
case.
As
you
remember,
in
14,
15
and
16
expenses
were
reported
very
low.
In
2017
we
increased
the
expense
reporting
to
match
how
arlington
wanted
it
done,
and
I
say
as
we
as
in
the
owner
did,
and
the
main
column
that
I
think
is
causing
some
concern
here
is
that
the
sub
maintenance
and
payroll
went
to
1.1
million.
That
was
in
2017.
We
appealed
in
2018.
B
It
dropped
back
down
to
550
000,
but
then
in
19
it
was
at
1.4
and
then
this
most
recent
year,
it's
a
million.
So
it
has
been,
it's
been
over
a
million
for
three
of
the
last
four
years.
B
The
assessor
has
taken
the
position
that
that
none
of
that
should
be
included.
So
they've
done
something
a
bit
unique,
is
they've
recreated
the
reported
and
removed
what
they
feel
should
be
removed,
so
you'll
see
a
column
d
and
a
column
g,
which
is
not
what
the
owner
reported
on
the
incoming
expense
form.
But
it's
what
the
owner
reported
with
the
things
that
the
assessor
felt
should
not
have
been
included.
B
So
it
shows
that
the
maintenance
payroll,
which
is
really
1.1
million
550
000
1.4
in
a
million,
should
have
actually
been
about
the
the
assessor
could
have
essentially
saved
saved
about
a
million
and
a
half
over
the
last
two
years
for
the
owner
and
not
spent
those
expenses.
B
Those
expenses,
the
the
assessor,
asked
what
they
were
and
we
broke
down
what
the
numbers
were,
but
the
main
part
of
it
was
unit
updates
was
the
line
item
which
is
514
000..
He
took
out
the
rest
as
well,
but
so
what
a
unit
update
is-
and
I
know
we've
talked
about
this
sorry-
there's
an
echo
now-
there's
we've
talked
about
this
in
great
lengths
with
the
assessor
with
the
board,
when
somebody
leaves
a
space,
they
turn
the
space
over
and
in
an
older
building.
If
the
property's
got
old
carpet
they're.
B
Turning
that
over
they're,
not
saying
okay,
I'm
going
to
spend
two
thousand
dollars
to
put
carpet
in
I'm
going
to
spend
2500
to
put
wood
in
or
laminate
or
luxury
vinyl
tile-
something
like
that.
So
they
turn
it
over
and
they
do
this
non-stop
it's
every
single
year
and,
as
you
can
see,
that
number
has
been
over
500
000
for
four
of
the
last
four
years.
If
the
assessor
is
now
recreating
that
it
should
only
be
440
000.
B
This
is
an
ongoing
process
that
continues
over
and
over
every
single
year
and
it
never
ends
in
five
years,
although
there
might
be
floors
on
the
not
hardwood
floors
but
lamin
in
there
after
five
years
of
apartment
living
when
somebody
leaves
they're
turning
that
over
and
it's
really
a
turn
cost
and
we've
again
explained
that
to
the
accessory
in
great
length,
we've
explained
it
to
the
board
in
great
length
and
in
this
property
you're,
seeing
a
history
of
it
where
it's
happened
every
single
year.
B
So
to
just
remove
that
and
say
yes,
you
are
spending
it
every
year,
but
I
don't
think
you
should
spend
it
every
year
or
I
don't
think
it
should
be
included
every
year,
because
it's
not
reoccurring.
It
is
reoccurring.
This.
This
property
has
not
been
going
through
a
renovation
over
the
last
four
years.
B
Again,
it's
a
annual
normal
term
cost
when
these
expenses
weren't
reported-
and
we
brought
them
to
the
board
and
said
you
must
include
these-
the
board
responded
at
the
time
and-
and
I
don't
mean
to
bring
up
old
stuff,
but
again
this
was
five
years
ago.
It
said:
look
if
you
want
it
included,
you
need
to
report
it
and
then,
after
a
year
of
reporting,
it
says,
look
if
you
want
it
included,
you
need
to
report
it,
but
we
need
to
see
a
trend.
B
Well
now
we're
four
years
down
the
road
and
we're
at
the
point
where
the
asset
says.
Well,
I
don't
think
you
should
include
it.
So
I'm
not
going
to
include
it
column
f
is
the
operating
expense,
you'll
notice,
column,
f
and
our
numbers
are
very
close
to
each
other.
So
that's
what
we
ask
you
to
look
at
the
assessor's
noi
is
about
5
million
150..
B
The
actual
reported
in
the
last
four
years
is
400,
4.5,
5.3,
4.4
and
4.9.
So
using
five
one
plus,
I
I
believe,
is
inappropriate.
So
I
know
one
other
thing:
it's
been
talked
about
in
discussions
before
of
comps
and
how
other
properties
are
assessed.
I
found
what
I
think
is
the
perfect
comp
and
I
could
speak
to
it
because
I
know
a
bit
about
it
because
we
represent
it.
B
2500
clarendon
boulevard,
it's
cortland
park,
they're,
both
three-star
properties
in
co-star,
now
cortland
park
has
some
three
bedroom
units,
and
this
one
doesn't-
and
I
say
some
90
of
the
266
units
are
three
bedroom.
That's
got
266
units
we're
a
219,
similar
vintage
coil,
park's
a
bit
older,
but
has
been
updated.
It's
assessed
at
313
a
unit
we're
just
at
434
unit.
That
is,
if
you
talk
to
this
owner,
that's
their
comp
and
if
you
talk
to
cortland
parks
owner
which
I
have
because
we
represent
them.
This
is
their
comp.
B
So
for
one
to
be
assessed
at
four
hundred
and
thirty
thousand
dollars
and
the
other
to
be
assessed
at
313
is
inappropriate
and
if
you
break
down
the
reason
they're
assessed.
That
way
is
because
the
assessor
doesn't
believe
the
expenses
on
this
one
and
believes
the
expenses
on
that
one.
They
operate
at
very
similar
expenses,
they're
both
at
30
plus.
So
that's
that's
the
case
here.
B
I
think
that
we
finally
have
able
to
have
finally
been
able
to
build
up
a
history
here
of
high
expenses
and
high
turn
and
in
this
turnover
cost
and
where
it's
reported
and
how
it's
reported,
but
unfortunately
it's
it's
not
being
accepted,
at
least
in
this,
this
new
recreated
model
to
say
look.
I
accept
all
income
you're
reported
100
of
the
income
you
reported
I'm
using,
but
your
expenses
are
too
high.
C
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning
board
members,
mr
chitlick
again,
there
seems
to
be
a
belief
that
this
is
the
first
time
we've
done
this,
as
mr
chet
lagarde
testified.
He
did
this
case
last
year.
He
did
this
case
last
year.
He
wasn't
paying
attention
we
put
in
the
exact
same
form.
We
recreated
this
expense
that
we
believe
is
a
non-reoccurring
owner
expense.
C
We
explained
this
time
and
time
again.
Mr
chitlip
seems
to
believe
that
this
is
the
first
time
we've
all
heard
this
case
or
equity
residential
and
padding
their
expenses.
We've
heard
a
number
of
cases
for
equity
residents
already
this
year
and
point
of
case.
If
you
look
at
the
comments,
the
opponents
testified
in
emails
to
the
county
that
the
approximately
almost
one
million
dollars
in
capital
expense.
Excuse
me
what
they
termed
common
area
or
exterior
repairs
in
2019
were
capital
improvements.
That's
a
fact
that
was
related
to
us
by
suzanne.
C
In
last
year's
case.
We
actually
took
the
time
to
write
back
and
ask
specifically
what
is
the
difference
between
a
capital
improvement,
what
was
necessary
to
maintain
this
income
stream?
We
heard
nothing
back
so
time
and
again,
we've
actually
taken
the
time
to
reach
out
and
ask
what
are
these
expenses?
Are
these
ownership
expenses
that
would
be
considered
improvements
to
the
property
either
to
extend
the
life
of
the
property
or
to
expect
a
return
on
income
and
investment,
or
these
necessary
annual
operating
expenses?
We
don't
hear
back.
C
Mr
chitlick
testified
just
a
minute
ago
that
he
told
us
what
unit
updates
were,
but
if
you
look
in
the
packet
you'll
see
that
the
email
dated
september
22nd,
this
is
on
page
23
of
243.
We
asked.
Actually,
I
appreciate
you
and
that's
from
last
year,
but
this
is
again.
This
is
the
email
from
last
year
showing
that
they
met
to
over
a
million
dollars
in
capital
improvements,
and
also
it
asks
us
ask
them
to
take
the
time
to
break
down
what
is
a
capital
improvement
versus
an
annual
operating
expense.
C
We
heard
nothing
back
in
regards
to
this
year's
appeal
we
reached
out
and
to
ms
ross's
credit.
She
did
give
me
a
three
line
item
of
what
was
representative
for
their
six
hundred
seventeen
thousand
of
miscellaneous
repair.
They
responded
back
replacement
reserves
of
a
hundred
thousand
which
are
below
the
line
item.
This
is
on
the
ie.
This
has
been
gone
over
numerous
times
below
the
line:
item
of
100
000
unit
updates
of
515,
000
and
capital
costs
of
2600.
C
So
we
responded
within
five
minutes
of
that
email
within
five
minutes.
I
responded
thank
you
for
this,
but
can
you
tell
me
what
is
a
unit
update
what
was
updated?
How
many
units
were
updated?
Nothing
mr
testified
this
morning
that
it's
a
turnover
cost,
but
that
it's
actually
associated
with
the
replacement
of
floors.
C
If
it's
carpet
now
we're
going
to
put
in
wood,
not
wood,
vinyl.
So
even
by
his
own
test
of
a
testimony,
these
are
replacement
costs.
I
understand
that
there's
a
maybe
semantical
difference
over
what
is
necessary
to
achieve
an
income
stream,
but,
as
you
can
see,
when
you
look
at
the
summary
sheet,
this
property
has
gone
up
four
years
in
a
row.
C
18
excuse
me:
18
increased
2.3,
19,
increased
2.6
and
again
in
a
pandemic
year,
2020
increased
over
1.3
percent.
If
we
look
at
effective
gross
again,
this
is
a
stabilized
property
increase.
3.1
18
2
19
and
another
almost
one
percent
in
2020
a
pandemic
year.
So,
as
mr
chevrolet
pointed
out,
he's
not
worried
about
the
income.
That's
gone
up
four
years
in
a
row
he's
worried
about
the
expenses
that
the
owner
insists
on
putting
in.
We
believe
we've
made
the
case
with
this.
C
When
we
ask
for
the
information
onto
what
is
an
appropriate
expense,
what
is
the
annual
operating
expense
necessary
for
the
income
stream
versus
what
is
spent
by
the
owner
to
achieve
greater
income?
We
need
to
be
able
to
delineate
that,
and
we
ask
for
transparency,
that's
the
least
of
what
we
should
ask
and
excuse
me
and
receive
as
transparency
if
there's
discussion
as
for
whether
or
not
it's
an
appropriate
expense,
this
would
be
a
good
venue
for
that,
but
there
should
be
transparency
for
all
the
board
members
to
understand.
What
is
the
expense?
C
Why
was
it
made?
Is
it
necessary?
Is
it
an
annual
operating
expense?
Is
it
a
capital
improvement
again
this
the
belief
that
we're
somehow
being
nefarious
by
excluding
these
expenses?
C
But
we've
done
this
consistently,
not
only
this
year,
but
for
pr
previous
years,
given
that
we've
taken
the
time
and
putting
in
due
diligence
to
exclude
those
owner
expenses
that
we
either
confirmed
as
capital
expenses,
a
la
2019
or
not
confirmed
as
capital
expenses,
a
lot
515
000
in
unit
updates,
which
I
believe
will
admit
today,
as
testified
by
mr
chitling,
was
in
fact
in
a
replacement
cost
for
the
flooring
goods
throughout
the
the
units
not
to
be
confused
with
turnover
costs
which
we
have
gone
over
plenty
of
times.
C
We've
talked
about
the
the
line
item,
for
this
is
what's
called
line
on
e16
or
expense
16.
It's
noted
as
decorating
next
to
decorating
the
words
are
painting
carpet,
etc,
we're
getting
into
where
it's.
It's
almost
obvious.
Where
we're
saying
like
well,
we
know
those
are
what
you
consider
turnover
costs,
but
we're
going
to
put
them
in
another
line
item,
and
then
we
may
explain
them
or
we
may
not.
C
We've
asked
that
line
item
to
be
filled
up
with
turnover
costs.
Those
costs
associated
with
the
turnover
of
units
that
are
leaving
out
that
should
be
a
fairly
simple
operation,
if
there's
carpets
where
they
cleaned.
C
If
the
walls
were
they
repainted
lighting
fixtures,
you
know
we
understand,
there's
going
to
be
wear
and
tear
over
a
tendency's
term,
but
those
should
not
be
confused
with
updates
replacements,
anything
that's
improving
the
life
of
the
property
or
the
expectation
of
return
on
income
return
on
investment,
given
again
that
the
property
has
gone
up
in
income,
18,
19
and
20..
Effective
gross
has
gone
up
three
years
in
a
row,
very
stabilized
property,
a
three-year
average
of
less
than
three
percent
for
true
vacancy
just
over
three
percent.
C
If
we
include
concessions,
this
is
across
the
street
from
courthouse
metro,
it's
well
retailed,
has
three
retail
components:
the
no
issue
we
heard
no
complaints
about
the
retail
components.
We
do
believe
that
again,
there's
actually
agreement
on
whether
or
not
these
with
mr
trevor,
whether
or
not
these
expenses
are
are
applicable.
We
do
not
believe
they
are.
We've
made
that
case.
We
believe
we've
made
that
case
succinctly.
We've
made
that
case
uniformly.
We've
made
that
case
repeatedly.
C
We
do
believe
that
the
reconstruction
shows
a
confirmation
of
the
county
at
97
million
75
900,
which,
in
fact
is,
is
virtually
on
par
with
last
year's
assessment.
So
we
did
recognize
that
there's
essentially
the
stabilization
of
the
property,
given
that
the
income
is
up
and
expenses
somehow
went
up
according
to
the
owner,
but
again,
given
that
we've
reconstructed
those
with
the
expenses
that
we
were
not
given.
Information
on.
We
do
believe
that
the
accounting
should
be
confirmed
irving.
Anything
then.
D
Oh
yes,
I
just
want
to
speak
a
little
bit
on
our
actual
ind
form,
so
we've
talked
to
the
board
countless
times
about
how
we
revised
our
ine
phone,
where
we
included
instructions
to
get
more
accurate
information
from
the
owners.
The
I
need
instructions
for
apartments
are
four
pages
long.
D
If
there's
any
questions
about
what
goes
on
a
line
item,
those
instructions
are
a
part
of
the
form.
So
you
don't
have
to
go.
Looking
all
over
the
internet
page
to
see
where
the
instructions
are
they're
included
on
the
form
for
common
area,
exterior
repairs,
it's
states
specified
for
decoration,
which
is
carpeting,
painting,
etcetera,
is
states
specified,
miscellaneous
repairs
state
give
details.
D
So
this
question
chris
is
asking
is
not
something
unusual,
because
these
questions-
or
this
request
for
details,
is
on
the
ine
form
and
that's
just
the
point
I
want
to
make
about
chris's
questions,
we're
simply
asking
for
what
is
not
put
on
the
form
when
you
just
give
a
lump
sum
value
that
increases
exponentially
year
over
year,
and
we
see
no
fault
in
that.
That's
all.
Thank
you.
E
I
just
wanted
to
ask
about
the
the
comp
that
the
appellate
brought
up.
That's
you
said
it
was
an
older
building
is,
is
the
effect
of
age
difference
like
isn't
it
like
20
years
older,
or
something
like
that.
E
F
D
So
that
property
is
owned
by
dick
mars
on
the
corner
of
barton
street,
we
know
that
it
probably
also
has
been
renovated,
since
it
is
something
that
was
just
brought
up,
I
mean
we
can
look
in
the
system
and
see
what
the
effective
age
is
that
we
have
on
our
worksheet.
C
Mr
hoffman
regards
to
a
comp
that
we
heard
about
20
minutes
ago,
but
I
would
point
to
the
fact
that
there
are
four
pages
of
permits
that
were
taken
out
under
cortland
park,
and
I
believe
this
was
testified
as
mr
chitlik's
co-worker,
mr
warren,
that
this
project
was
heavily
renovated
again,
looking
at
the
property
looking
at
stabilized
nature,
the
property
looking
at
the
fact
that
we've
done
this
consistently
with
the
removal
of
capital
expenditures,
especially
those
that
are
tested
to
buy
the
owners
as
capital
expenditures
as
they
were
in
2019
this
morning,
you
heard
what
a
unit
update
was.
C
It
sounds
to
us
like
a
capital
improvement
regardless
we
didn't
hear
about
that
until
20
minutes
ago.
We
do
believe
that
the
reconstruction
made
is
prudent,
so
we
believe
that
it
shows
the
increase
four
years
in
a
row,
the
stabilized
stabilized
nature
of
the
property.
Four
years
in
a
row,
we
ask
you
to
consider
the
reconstructed
columns
and
confirm
this
property
at
97
million
75
900..
Thank
you.
A
B
All
right
thanks
so
apparently
cortland
park's,
a
heavily
renovated
property
that
says
313
000
per
unit
and
the
subject
says
to
434
000
per
unit.
That's
a
pretty
big
delta
for
the
comp
of
both
the
identical
comp.
Basically,
I
I
apologize.
If
you
got
confused,
obviously
chris
did
and
either
he
got
confused
or
he
greatly
twisted
my
words.
B
What
I'm
saying
is
that
turn
costs
when
they
turn
it
they're,
not
just
taking
over
out
12
year
carpet
and
putting
in
carpet
from
12
years
ago,
they're
putting
in
a
product
that
they
can
do
at
a
very
similar
cost
that
one
might
think.
Yes,
that's
a
little
bit
nicer,
that's
a
lot
different
than
closing
a
unit
down
ripping
out
carpet
and
putting
in
something
brand
new.
That's
much
nicer!
It's
when
you're
turning!
B
I
have
to
replace
this
carpet
now
that
I
have
to
replace
it,
I'm
going
to
put
laminate
down
and
when
you
have
to
place
that
replace
that
laminate,
you
replace
and
you
put
more
laminate
down.
It's
not
a
situation
where
rip
everything
out
and
replace
it
all
it's
it's
what
he.
What
he
suggested
I
was
saying,
is
completely
wrong.
What
he
is
doing
is
he's
saying
these
one-year
expense
bumps.
The
expenses
are
down
400
000
from
last
year,
and
he
obviously
had
an
issue
because
he
shared
an
email
that
was
sent
20
months
ago.
B
The
expenses
have
consistently
been
over
a
million
dollars
to
that
line
item,
and
this
is
consistently
being
reported
on
the
income
and
expense
form
as
the
board
demanded
it
be
done
in
order
to
have
it
considered,
and
now
we
have
a
four-year
history
of
it
and
the
assessor's
saying
no,
none
of
those
expenses
count.
All
the
income
is
good.
All
the
income
counts,
but
those
expenses
are
no
good.
They
don't
count
which
is
just
wrong,
which
is
why
this
property
is
set
so
much
higher
than
its
comps.
A
E
E
E
It's
not
going
to
make
a
huge
change,
but
it
it
affects
probably
affects
the
retail
tenant,
so
they're,
probably
more
interested
in
that
making
sure
that's
accurate.
We
didn't
really
talk
about
it
because
it's
a
small
number,
but
if
we're
going
to
make
an
adjustment,
I'd
make
an
adjustment
there
as
well.
A
G
I
think
this
is
a
case
similar
to
one
that
we've
seen
maybe
a
week
or
two
weeks
ago,
where
you
know,
I
think
the
county
is
doing
the
the
best
to
try
to
get
details,
and
I
know
mr
chitlik
said
that
it's
an
email
from
last
year
but
or
20
months
ago,
but
this
was
a
request
done
just
last
month,
I'm
looking
at
the
email,
it's
september
22nd,
and
I
think
it's
fair,
that
the
county
needs
to
have
that
detail,
and
you
know
when
you
put
the
outside
repairs,
and
you
know
you
need
to
know
what
the
repairs
are,
whether
it's
just
a
paint
job
or
it's-
something
that
it's
really
improving
the
you
know
the
life
of
the
building.
G
So
you
know,
based
on
the
information
that
we
have,
and
I
don't
really
see
where
we
can
make
any
changes.
You
know.
I
think
the
assessment
is
fair.
In
my
opinion,.
A
Okay,
I
I
have
some
concern
over
the
expenses,
but
anybody
else,
mr
lawson,
where
are
you
on
this.
J
A
A
Okay,
what,
if
folks
think
about
let's
do
it
in
portions
then
in
on
the
apartment
side,.
A
A
I
Yes-
and
I
I
did
want
to
say
that
I
think
it's
somewhere
between
what
the
county
and
what
the
appellant's
saying
and
I
I
believe
there
is
an
adjustment
due
but
we're
I
think,
we're
guessing
where
that
falls,
and
I
think
that
can
the
appellants
need
to
get
provide
the
documentation
the
county's
after
going
forward,
if
they
really
want
to
see
this
happen.
This
way.
A
No,
I
I
agree.
Okay.
E
G
E
Yeah,
I
just
think
that
the
pellets
save
their
time
for
the
apartments,
because
that's
where
the
money
is,
but
I
think
the
retail
deserves
a
fair
shot.
I
don't
see
anything
wrong
with
their
numbers.
A
E
H
H
You
know
there
was
a
reduction,
a
slight
reduction
in
the
residential
and
it's
come
back
very
strong
and
it's
stronger
now
than
it
was
at
the
first
of
the
year.
So
I'm
okay
with
the
total
figure.
E
Sure
yeah
motion
to
reduce
so
95
million
572
100
as
the
total.
A
Think
motion
is
second
by
mr
lawson.
All
in
favor
opposed
hi;
okay,
so
it
is
four
to
one
without
mr
panoranda.
The
assessment
is
reduced
to
95
million
572
100.
Even
thank
you.
Thank
you.
E
Operating
expenses
to
twenty
eight
percent
on
apartments
and
appellants
pro
forma
numbers
for
retail.
A
Yes,
ma'am.
Thank
you,
okay,
okay,
do
we
have
miss
foreman?
Mr
chitlick,
we'll
say
thank
you
to
you
and
we
have
mr
harmon
and
miss
borman.
A
Okay,
so
on
the
second
case,
rpc
one:
five:
zero,
zero,
five,
zero,
two,
a
at
1947
north
yule
street,
mr
lawson,
has
a
conflict
and
will
not
be
voting
on
this,
and
then
mr
maskin
will
be
joining
us
on
that,
so
we're
still
at
five
members
total.
So
I
assume
mr
harmon,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
problem.
Sir.
K
K
It
was
built
in
2015
and
has
198
units,
11
of
which
are
committed
affordable
for
the
purposes
of
my
discussion,
since
the
property
consists
of
market
and
affordable
apartments,
as
well
as
a
retail
portion
it'll
be
useful
to
reference.
The
combined
revised
assessment
on
page
four
of
the
appeal
and
our
combined
operating
history
located
on
page
42
of
the
appeal.
K
K
K
As
you
can
see
on
page
44,
the
county-wide
vacancy
rate
was
rising
steeply
as
of
the
end
of
the
year,
while
rents
were
falling.
Clearly
the
use
of
a
six
percent
vacancy
rate
understated
the
true
vacancy
at
the
subject
property,
the
county
was
experiencing
much
higher
vacancy
as
of
the
date
of
value.
K
K
K
The
test
column
made
an
adjustment
to
these
expenses,
but
this
was
offset
by
the
large
increase
in
other
income
which
jumped
by
83
to
a
level
that
is
nearly
four
times
higher
than
the
actual
reported
other
income.
The
net
effect
of
the
assessment
overstating
other
income
understating
vacancy
and
under
counting
operating
expenses,
is
an
assessed
noi
above
what
the
property
has
been
able
to
achieve
in
three
of
the
previous
four
operating
years,
including
2018
when
actual
occupancy
was
closer
to
the
county's
stabilized
rate.
K
K
C
Yes,
ma'am
talking
about
verde
point.
This
is
something
we
visited
her
to
appeal
on
2019
again
when
we're
looking
at
the
property.
Let's
look
at
the
summary
sheet,
which
shows
the
stabilized
nature
of
the
property,
and
I
think
that's
going
to
be
the
difference
in
in
this
kind
of
explanation.
C
The
appellants
are
essentially
suggesting
that
it
makes
most
sense
to
capitalize
one
year
when
we're
looking
at
a
stabilized
property.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
looking
at
at
least
two
or
three
years,
especially
if
we
have
those
to
look
upon
that's
the
nature
of
the
stabilized
assessment,
is
looking
at
the
available
years
that
our
historically
operated
and
reported
to
the
county.
C
This
property
does
show
as
year
built
2014.
But
again
we
want
the
board
to
note
not
to
confuse
you,
but
this
really
began
operations
in
2016..
2014
is
essentially
when
they
break
ground,
so
2016
is
when
they
actually
started
lease
up
and
you'll
see
that
within
essentially
two
years
they
were
stabilized
at
less
than
three
and
a
half
percent
vacancy,
true
vacancy
that
went
down
again
almost
another
full
point
in
2019
also
bringing
down
concessions.
C
Now,
rent
loss
did
go
up,
but
overall
16
concessions
went
down
so
again,
essentially
fully
stabilized
property
within
three
years
of
its
opening.
That
speaks
to
the
the
nature
of
the
property
itself.
It's
a
legal
certified!
C
It's
one
of
these
properties
that
actually
has
a
couple
different
uses,
some,
what
they
call
flat
town
homes
and
then
the
high-rise
component,
and
then,
of
course,
as
mr
harmon
noted,
a
mom's
organic
grocery
on
sites,
it's
a
nice
feature
to
have,
as
opposed
to
especially
last
year
with
having
to
go
out
of
your
house
and
go
shopping
at
another
spot.
You
can
just
walk
downstairs
as
we
can
see
the
retail
has
grown.
C
If
you
look
at
retail
income
year
over
year,
went
up
over
two
and
a
half
percent
apartment
income
went
up,
rubs
went
up,
I'm
not
quite
sure
where
mr
harmon
spoke
about
the
all
the
other.
I
have
a
feeling
he
crammed
together
parking
income,
other
income
and
pass-through
income
that
would
be
allocated
to
the
retail
component.
C
The
board
is
fairly
aware
with
our
limitations
of
our
rius
worksheet.
So
while
we
can
defend
differentiate
a
little
bit
more
here
with
the
line
items
again
of
parking,
other
pass-through
rubs
on
our
worksheet,
that's
essentially
two
lines:
it's
apartment,
income
or
other
income
in
regards
to
the
revision
and
how
we
got
those
numbers,
you
can
see
column
a
essentially.
What
we
try
to
do
without
having
forward
projection
is
use
the
numbers
that
were
developed
at
the
property
itself.
C
So
parking
is
in
line
with
what
was
achieved
again,
noting
that
it
actually
dropped
about
seven
percent
in
2020,
other
income
and
then
rubs,
of
course,
is
essentially
what's
reported
by
the
owner.
If
we're
talking
about
the
commercial
components,
we
did,
of
course,
a
retail
rent
roll
and
we
directed
there
again.
It's
one
large
tenant
well
placed
that
they're
there
for
the
next
number
of
years,
at
least
they
do
receive
a
fairly
healthy
pass-through.
C
The
owner
seems
a
fairly
healthy
pass-through
income,
again
very
typical
of
retail
components,
with
either
cam
or
operating
expenses
that
are
passed
back
to
the
owner.
So
in
regards
to
our
our
income,
I
think
you
can
see
exactly
how
we
got
where
we
are.
We
use
the
retail
rent
roll.
We
use
the
residential
rent
roll.
We
use
the
numbers
reported
by
the
owner
themselves.
C
In
regards
to
stabilization
again,
I
ask
you
to
not
just
look
upon
the
increase
in
2020,
which
again
the
board
has
seen
numerous
times.
This
has
been
across
the
board
across
property
types,
gardens,
mid-rise
high-rise,
not
too
many
properties
were
unaffected.
But
again,
let's
look
at
19
and
18.
as
the
pillars
want
you
to
do.
C
If
we're
looking
at
stabilized
effective
gross
you'll
see
that
there
we
did
a
test
column,
as
mr
harman
noted,
we
did
in
fact
note
the
very
consistent,
as
opposed
to
last
case
this.
This
operating
expense
is
what
we'd
like
to
see,
and
that's
not
just
to
be
crossed
about
it's
that
this
is
an
expectation
you
have
annual
operating
expenses
that
are
the
same
year
over
year
over
year
over
year.
C
C
We
did
test
this
new
information
received
for
the
2020
year.
We
took
the
time
to
break
down
the
three
components:
retail
committed,
affordable
and
market.
As
the
board
knows,
they
do
have
different
components,
metrics
applicable
to
them,
regards
to
vacancy
concession
and,
of
course,
operating
expenses,
let
alone
cap
rate.
So
we
did
break
that
down.
We
did
note
that
the
test
indicated
a
increase
from
the
january
one
assessment.
As
again
the
board
knows
without
a
third-party
appraisal
and
without
an
error.
In
fact,
we
do
not
recommend
a
increase
year-over-year
again.
C
This
is
a
property
that
the
board
has
heard.
Two
years
ago,
we
were
confirmed
at
that
point
the
property's
done
better
in
the
last
two
years.
Obviously
in
2020
there
was
a
hiccup
with
vacancy
increasing
by
granted
almost
five
percent,
but
again
that's
something
that
we've
seen
almost
across
the
board
with
these
property
types
in
the
county.
We
don't
believe
that
something
inherent
to
the
property
itself
to
the
building.
That's
going
to
continue
this
and
again
it's
speculation
with
just
as
much
as
the
appellants
have
made.
C
If
we're
relying
on
the
operating
historical
property
operations,
then
this
would
indicate
that
this
property
was
stabilized
the
last
two
years
and
should
continue
that
that
trend
even
after
2020.,
given
that
we
did
the
test
of
the
new
information
and
to
reflect
the
increased
operating
expenses
by
almost
eighty
thousand
dollars,
we
do
believe
that
we
should
also
capture
the
increase
that
would
be
applicable
for
the
income.
The
board's
seen
that
before
we
don't
just
adjust
one
area.
If
there
are
multiple
adjustments
to
be
made,
our
test
did
indicate
an
increase.
C
F
Excuse
me
we'll
have
a
home
for
each
party
for
the
department
on
page
two
of
103
in
the
second
paragraph,
talk
about
an
adjustment,
because
there
was
a
very
large
active
laundry
operation
on
that
site
for
a
long
time,
and
there
was
some
remediation
does
that
adjustment
have
anything
to
do
with
this?
Today's
assessment
of
the
property-
you
know
you
say
you
adjusted
it
over
time.
C
Yeah,
so
just
to
sort
of
remind
the
board.
This
was
visited,
I
believe
in
2014,
and
that
was
at
the
time
that
it
was
being
built
that
the
site
plan
was
approved,
and
so
we
know
that
there's
a
1.75
million
adjustments
that
was
made
to
make
the
land
comparable
with
other
site
remediation
sites
in
the
county.
So
our
feeling
was
this
is
not
an
annual
adjustment
we
make.
C
We
don't
make
any
adjustments
to
dry
cleaners
or
other
sites
that
have
potential
for
site
remediation
and
to
sort
of
further
that
point
we
didn't
get
into
this
there,
so
you
can
shut
me
down
if
we're
getting
contingent,
but
the
peloton
documents
note
that
they
received.
How
did
they
say?
C
They've
essentially
received
immunity
from
any
potential
actions
at
the
site
in
perpetuity
and
that
extends
to
these
owners,
the
new
owners
and
etc
so
directly
answer
your
question
we
have
addressed
more
of
the
board
has
addressed
the
site
plan
at
that
time,
with
a
1.75
million
dollar
adjustment
that
was
made
to
adjust
for
the
site
remediation
at
the
site.
At
that
point,
we
don't
make
any
other
adjustments
on
an
annual
basis.
F
Okay,
so
it's
it's
history.
It's
background,
great
thanks
for
the
appellant.
You
mentioned
several
times
that
the
other,
which
is
a
line,
seven
significantly
increased.
I
mean
I've
just
gone
over
it
a
couple
of
times,
and
I
look
at
tell
me
what
I'm
missing.
I
see
the
other
indeed
one
a
tad
about
average,
of
what
you've
reported
in
2017,
18
and
19,
and
much
much
less
in
the
test
in
f1,
so
where's,
the
other
that's
so
your
report
is
inflated.
K
Yes,
sir,
if
you
would
please
reference
the
revised
assessment
on
page
four,
the
test
page
there:
that's
where
they
have,
they
do
have
it
portioned
out,
contrary
to
what
the
county
has
testified,
that
they
do
have
it
portioned
out
there
between
apartment
retail
parking
and
then
other
income.
It
does
appear
that
they
combined
a
couple
of
categories
from
that
page
three,
that
has
you
know
a
dozen
columns.
F
Well,
I'm
not
seeing
that
in
the
80s.
Oh
any
summary,
so
there's
zero
for
for
affordable
units
in
retail,
so
I
should
go
to
page
four.
I.
K
Believe-
and
I
hope
the
county
can
speak
to
this
better,
but
it
looks
as
though
it
includes
the
other
on
the
market
units
the
rubs
on
the
market
units
the
retail
pass
through.
It
looks
like
on
page
four
they've
lumped
all
of
those
items
together
and
called
it
other
income,
and
that
is
how
it
was
reported
on
the
initial
assessment
too,
which
is
why,
for
comparison
purposes,
that's
what
we're
using
when
it's.
When
the
initial
assessment
and
the
revised
assessment
are
presented
in
such
a
way
as
to
not
allow
easy
comparison.
K
You
know
it
kind
of
confuses
the
issue
and
it
seems
like
it's
trying
to
hide
what
it's
doing.
So.
We've
tried
to
review
both
the
initial
assessment
and
the
revised
assessment
in
the
most
straightforward
and
simple
way,
and
we
believe
that
if
you
look
on
page
four,
the
county
has
combined
that
into
a
more
digestible
format
and
look
at
that
other
income
and
bump
it
up
against
the
initial
other
income
on
page
42,
which
the
initial
assessment
had.
F
D
So,
as
chris
stated
in
his
eight-minute
opening,
our
worksheet
is
limited
by
fields
due
to
things
that
drill
cannot
control
so
again,
the
other
income,
that's
reported,
that
was
other
income
and
rubs.
That's
reported
on
their
ine
form.
Also,
you
can
see
on
commercial
that
pass-throughs
is
passed
out.
I
mean
parcelled
out
on
the
page
six
of
the
document,
which
shows
retail
and
pass-through
income.
When
you
add
those
two
together
for
the
original
assessment,
then
that's
870
thousand
dollars
after
chris
received
the
2020
I
need
yes,
it
did
increase.
D
But
again,
if
you
look
at
the
rent,
roll
you'll
understand
why
we
can
speak
to
that
later,
but
we
already
stated
that
limitations
to
the
system.
Allow
doesn't
allow
us
to
show
all
the
detail
but
excel
sheet
that
we
create
ourselves
does
allow
us
to
do
that
and
therefore
that's
what
we
present
to
the
board.
C
Yes
ma'am:
this
is
the
third
week
in
a
row
that
we've
been
and
I
specifically
been
accused
of
either
hiding
things
disingenuousness
misleading.
It's
offensive,
it's
offensive,
so
I
would
note
I'm
gonna
spend
my
one
minute,
noting
what
I
do
for
a
living.
I'm
here,
eight
hours
a
day.
Five
days
a
week,
I'm
available
via
email
via
phone,
my
cell
phone.
C
We
took
the
time
to
to
offer
department
hearings
to
the
the
owners
representatives.
This
was
not
mentioned
once
that
there's
a
confusing
nature
of
the
worksheet.
That's
been
used,
for.
I
don't
even
know
how
long
eight
years
plus,
if
they
had
a
question
they
should
have
asked
it.
It
would
have
been
replied
to
in
regards
to
looking
at
the
property.
We
can
see
that
this
again
is
a
very
stabilized
property.
Three
years
after
it's
broke
ground,
it
was
stabilized.
C
We
did
have
the
property
to
receive
a
hiccup
in
2020
due
to
covid
again.
This
is
something
that
was
seen
across
other
property
types.
The
operating
expenses
are
very
stabilized.
If
we're
going
to
make
an
adjustment
to
the
operating
expense,
we
ask
that
you
again
look
at
the
retail
rent
roll
and
the
residential
rent
roll
is
supplied
by
the
owner.
We
did
that.
We
took
the
time
to
break
down
the
different
components:
market
committed,
affordable,
retail.
Our
revision.
Excuse
me,
our
test
found
a
increase.
We
do
not
recommend
any
increase
with
a
third-party
appraisal.
K
K
K
It
seems
like
2018
that
that
was
you
know.
2019
was
the
high
year.
We
also
heard
that
something
about
capitalizing
one
year
of
income.
We
in
in
my
presentation,
I
mentioned
the
four
years
of
income.
If
he
wants
to
mention
three
years,
we
can
look
at
three
years.
The
assessed
noi
is
higher
than
two
of
the
prior
three
years.
2019
was
an
one-off
because
the
concessions
and
were
lower.
K
H
You
know
I
I'm
okay
with
the
assessment.
F
Quickly,
one
of
course
the
because
it
may
affect
sometimes
unknown.
You
know
change
the
effective
date
to
2016,
which
is
with
probably
the
first
comment
that
kind
of
made.
It's
not
you
know
in
the
I
says,
2014
and
he
said
no,
the
building
was
available
for
rental
in
2016
ought
to
be
changed,
easy
stuff.
F
G
Yeah,
I
agree
with
it.
Originally.
What
I
saw
is
the
retail.
I
thought
it
was
maybe
a
little
bit
off
on
the
revision,
but
based
on
pretty
much
the
whole
all
the
numbers,
and
regardless
of
you
know
when
what
year
it
was
2014
15
or
you
know,
we
have
the
numbers
here
and
if
even
if
making
a
small
change
in
the
retail,
the
difference
will
be
very
minor.
So
I'm
okay
with
the
assessment.
The
way
it
is.
I
A
I'll
second,
it
all
in
favor,
aye,
aye,
okay
and
opposed,
so
that
is
five
to
zero.
It's
unanimous,
the
county's
confirmed
84
million
850
for
800.
A
Okay,
moving
to
the
third
case
on
the
agenda
that
is
rpc34020268.
A
K
K
K
Physical
vacancy,
as
of
the
date
of
value,
was
10
economic
vacancy
over
the
course
of
twenty
was
nine
percent
vacancy
at
the
property
will
be
a
challenge
over
at
least
the
next
six
years,
given
the
volume
of
construction
already
underway
and
near
this
property,
which
was
known
as
of
the
data
value.
Some
of
these
construction
projects
nearby
include
1851
and
1900
crystal
drive,
which
is
immediately
across
20th
street
south
from
220
20th
street.
These
were
both
under
construction.
K
As
of
january
1st,
2021
2000
and
2001
south
bell
immediately
adjacent
to
220
20th
were
known
to
be
starting
construction
in
the
second
half
of
2021
dining
in
the
park
on
crystal,
which
is
caddy
corner
to
the
east,
from
the
property
was
scheduled
to
begin
construction
in
the
second
half
of
2021
223
23rd
street,
which
is
half
a
block
from
the
property,
was
scheduled
to
begin
construction
in
2022
23rd
street
itself.
Between
richmond
highway
crystal
drive
was
scheduled
to
be
under
construction
from
early
2022
to
early
2023.
K
These
are
just
the
projects
within
the
immediate
vicinity
of
220
20th
street
south.
There
are
numerous
other
construction
projects
just
over
a
block
away
that
will
be
under
under
construction
over
the
next
five
plus
years.
These
construction
projects
aren't
expected
to
begin
to
deliver
until
2024
and
last
through
at
least
2027..
K
All
of
this
construction
right
on
top
of
the
apartment
building
impacts
the
competitiveness
of
the
property
to
attract
and
retain
tenants,
especially
given
the
prevalence
of
work
from
home
policies
and
the
typical
tenant
profile
at
the
property.
Ingress
and
egress
from
the
property
has
been
and
will
continue
to
be
impacted
by
road
closures
and
construction
traffic.
K
Construction
noise
will
be
cons
will
be
significant
and
it
was
as
of
the
date
of
value.
Even
more
importantly,
this
property's
parking
is
located
in
a
garage
that
is
beneath
the
apartment,
building
itself
and
includes
spaces
under
2000
and
2001
south
bell
street
beginning
in
the
third
quarter
of
2021.
It
was.
K
This
will
adversely
impact
both
parking
revenue
and
the
ability
to
attract
and
retain
tenants
the
owner
plans
to
offer
replacement
parking
in
a
garage
across
crystal
drive
at
a
discounted
rate.
However,
the
discounted
parking
across
the
street
is
not
expected
to
overcome.
The
preference
of
the
typical
tenant
for
convenience
and
accessibility
having
to
park
across
the
street
is
very
inconvenient
having
to
walk
in
inclement
weather
or
lug.
Groceries
across
the
street
are
a
couple
of
inconveniences
that
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
people.
K
These
tenants
tend
to
be
higher
earners
who
value
convenience
over
discounted
parking.
Additionally,
the
new
parking
arrangement
means
that
the
assumed
parking
income
on
the
assessment
is
overstated,
as
any
potential
revenue
generated
by
the
discounted
parking
across
the
street
would
not
be
income
generated
by
this
property,
but
rather
income
attributable
to
another
property.
K
K
To
summarize,
as
a
result
of
the
significant
construction
in
progress
and
plan
for
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
property,
the
assessment
needs
to
be
adjusted
to
reflect
the
impacts
on
vacancy
on
parking
income,
as
well
as
the
higher
expenses
actually
incurred.
Thank
you
and
eileen.
Do
you
have
anything
you
would
like
to
add.
C
It's
been
a
lot
of
time
talking
about
parking,
but
it
wasn't
listed
as
part
of
the
appellant's
issues,
as
noted
on
page
39
of
90s,
and
this
appears
to
be
another
issue
where
we're
talking
about
things
that
are
brought
up
at
the
time
of
the
hearing.
I
thought
we
had
gone
over
that,
but
regardless
this
was
just
told
to
us
that
was
known
at
the
time
of
the
evaluation,
but
they
didn't
include
it
in
their
summaries
of
evaluation
issues.
So
it's
not
something
we're
necessarily
prepared
to
talk
about
today.
C
C
We
did
ask
the
owners
representatives
about
a
large
spike
in
reported
maintenance
and
repair,
almost
70
68
in
2019.
We
were
told
that
it
was
approximately
353
000
in
flooring
replacements
to
ms
bourne's
credit.
She
didn't
fight
as
much
on
the
idea
that
it
is
a
capital
improvement,
but
that's
one
that's
necessary
for
the
income
stream,
so
a
bit
of
melding
of
our
two
worlds
of
explanation
of
if
it's
an
appropriate
expense
or
not
again,
we'd
highlight
the
fact
that
this
is
not
an
annual
operating
expense.
C
Again,
if
we're
looking
at
this
property
of
portugal,
we
don't
have
year
17
to
call
upon
so
we're
looking
at
18,
19
and
20..
I
would
ask
the
board
members
to
look
upon
columns,
d1
and
d2,
which
are
reconstructed
efforts
when
we're
looking
at
this
property.
Again,
we
see
one
in
which
the
gross
potential
went
up
about
point
seven
percent
2019
and
down
just
slight
of
the
two
tenths
of
one
percent,
so
again
fairly
stabilized
income
stream
from
19
to
20.
C
we're
looking
at
the
effect
of
gross.
We
did
note
that
the
vacancy
did
increase
just
by
about
one
percent,
so
from
4.6
to
5.62
the
biggest
drivers,
of
course,
where
they
increase
on
rent
loss
and
concessions.
That's
something
that
again
bit
speculative
on
my
part,
but
that's
something
I
think
the
board
has
agreed.
Are
things
that
burn
off
usually
within
the
year
it's
time
so
not
an
expectation
that
there's
going
to
be
continued
rent
loss
or
concessions
made.
C
Mr
harmon
made
note,
I
believe
that
there's
140
turnovers
or
140
move
outs,
but
he
didn't
mention
move-ins,
so
that
to
me
is
a
little
disingenuous
and
the
idea
that
he's
portraying
that
the
building
is
people
are
fleeing
the
building
140
units.
I
think
you
said
about
half
the
the
units
available.
You
have
to,
of
course
take
into
account
move-ins
if
you're
talking
about
turnover
rate,
that's
really
going
to
be
a
mix
of
the
two.
C
So,
if
we're
only
concentrating
turnovers,
it
sounds
as
if
people
are
fleeing
the
building
and
I
believe
it's
due
to
the
future
construction
at
the
site.
Again,
the
board
has
seen
this
before.
This
is
something
that,
if
there's
a
future
implication
on
the
effect
on
the
income
stream,
that's
something
we
would
see
in
next
year's
income
stream
to
assume
that
the
2021
is
going
to
go
down
because
of
future
projects.
Kind
of
belies
the
nature
of
what
we
do.
C
We're
looking
at
past
history
to
project
forward,
not
to
assume
construction
costs
or
or
the
the
the
owner
moving
parking
lots,
the
amenity
fees
and
things
like
that.
So
a
lot
of
speculation
you
heard
on
whether
or
not
the
residents
will
like
that,
whether
or
not
residents
will
be
affected
by
it.
Whether
or
not
residents
will
stay
there,
because
we
don't
know
it
seems
to
be
most
prudent
to
wait
for
the
2021
numbers
to
come
in
next
march.
Something
we've
done
uniformly
something
done
historically,
it's
something
we'll
continue
to
do.
C
Based
on
the
history
of
the
project.
We
do
believe
that
the
revision
that
we
made
and
collins,
g1
and
g2
were
warranted.
We
did
note
an
increase
in
operating
expense.
We
did
note
a
decrease
in
effective
gross
again
getting
to
a
stabilized
number
you'll
note
that
our
noi
is
actually
much
in
line
with
year.
17
and
again,
I
ask
you:
excuse
me:
here's
18
and
the
reconstructed
2019
year
and
looking
at
2020's
numbers
you'll
see
that
our
revision
is
actually
low.
C
You'll
see
that
our
operating
expense
projection
is
high,
you'll
see
that
our
effective
gross
projection
is
low.
We
do
believe
that
this
is
a
prudent
revision
that
was
made
again.
It's
obviously
a
drop,
a
fair
large
drop
from
last
year
and
much
more
in
line
with
what's
going
on
on
the
property,
as
opposed
to
the
appellant's
opinion
of
you
know,
5.5
million,
which
is
lower
than
anything
achieved
in
the
four
years
that
we
have
available
to
look
at.
C
Excuse
me
three
years
to
look
at
so
we
do
believe
that
the
revision
made
by
the
county
was
warranted
based
on
the
operating
history,
as
displayed
in
the
summary
sheet
again
gross
projection
low
compared
to
our
stabilized
averages.
Effective
gross
low
compared
to
stabilized
averages
and
our
operating
expense
is
high
compared
to
our
stabilized
averages,
leads
to
a
net
operating
income,
that's
low
compared
to
stabilized
averages.
C
D
I
mean
I
don't
think
the
parking
is
really
that
big
of
an
issue.
If
you
look
at
the
original
assessment
and
the
test,
we
actually
reduced
our
parking
and
we
compared
to
what
they
achieved
in
2020
and
even
with
the
pro
forma.
The
agent's
pro
forma
is
we're
only
about
seven
thousand
dollars.
Apart
on
the
parking
issue,
all
the
construction
that
was
noted
going
on
in
national
landing
is
actually
being
done
by
the
owners
of
this
property
jbg.
D
So
I'm
pretty
sure
that,
with
the
decision
they
made
to
do
all
the
development
they
took
in
consideration
the
impact
that
it
would
have
on
all
of
their
properties
in
the
area,
both
positive
and
negative.
As
far
as
the
parking
is
concerned,
we
go
out
for
actual
parking,
that's
reported
to
us.
So
again
we
reflect
that
in
the
test
to
speculate
anything
further
than
that,
especially
without
the
knowledge
of
any
parking
spaces
being
reduced.
D
E
K
So
they're
set
to
lose
the
parking,
so
the
parking
garage
goes
under
2000
2001
south
bell,
they're
expecting
to
lose
about
half
of
those
274
spaces.
E
So,
and
and
in
the
owner's
opinion,
is
a
a
0.5
to
1
parking
ratio
for
an
apartment
building
in
crystal
city.
Is
that
an
unmarketable
property?
Is
that
a
an
impaired
property?
Is
that
something
that
should
not
be
developed?
E
L
The
owner's
opinion,
so
in
the
the
owner's
opinion,
is
this
that,
in
order
to
make
they
will
get
the
parking
back
when
all
of
this
construction
is
done.
The
owner's
opinion
is
that
the
they
will
need
to
increase
concessions
and
reduce
rents
in
order
to
maintain
occupancy
of
the
property
that
this
is
necessary
and
that
you
know
that
folks,
who
are
generally
attracted
to
this
building,
tend
to
be
those
who
value
convenience
and
that
it
will
require
them
to
drop
rents
either
by
straight
across
line,
dropping
rents
or
increasing
conceptions.
E
L
L
If
you
look
at
the
amount
of
parking
revenue
generated,
whether
or
not
people
commute
to
work,
there
is
the
demand
to
have
the
ability
to
park
at
the
property,
particularly
for
grocery
shopping
and
other
things
I
mean
you
know.
Nobody
wants.
Most
of
those
folks
have
a
car
that
live
in
this
building.
E
L
L
This
was
provided,
as
I
said,
to
provide
color
for
the
reason
that
the
there
is
going
to
be
an
ongoing
vacancy
and
concession
issue
at
this
property,
which
is
different
than
many
other
properties.
How.
A
I
just
interject
one
second
here
on
on
this
issue.
I
was
going
to
wait
until
the
end
to
talk
about
this,
but
mr
chicas
did
bring
up
the
point
that
we're
just
hearing
at
the
11th
hour
about
this,
but
the
way
that
the
statute
reads
to
protect
the
owners.
A
A
I
know
mr
chica
said:
oh,
we
just
heard
about
this
20
seconds
ago
or
20
minutes
ago,
and
I'm
not
prepared
to
speak
on
it.
But
that
being
said,
a
board
member
could
ask
a
question
about
the
parking
or
something
else.
So
I
think
you
have
to
be
able
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
case,
and
I
I
think
we've
got
a
lot
of
emotion
here,
we're
getting
to
the
end
of
the
hearings
and
a
lot
of
animosity
between
players.
A
We
talked
about
this
yesterday
and
in
the
tone
that
we're
responding
to
people,
but
the
appellant
has
every
right
to
bring
up
any
issue
at
this
hearing
to
speak
to
and
the
county
needs
to
address
it.
If
they
don't
have
the
answer
they
can
just
say
we
don't
have
the
answer,
but
it's
not
really
germane
to
it
of
when
they
brought
that
up,
because
the
appellant
can
bring
it
up
at
this
point.
F
First,
quick
question
for
the
appellant:
I
think
it's
shown
in
your
f1
operating
year
for
2020..
I
just
want
to
be
sure
you
made
a
very
clear
statement.
There
was
an
unusual
amount
of
turnover
in
2020
and
I
think
the
numbers
meaning
increased
vacancy
reflects
that
you
didn't
the
the
owner
didn't
recoup
all
of
those
vacancies.
F
All
those
move
outs
with
an
equal
amount
of
move-ins
is
that
right,
so
high
high
turnover
and
therefore
a
little
bit
higher
operating
expenses
for
turnover
costs
which
are
normal,
but
they
weren't
all
replaced.
L
L
Now,
which
would
be
you
know,
I
guess
you
know
approximately
26
units,
so
I
think
that
in
terms
of
operating
expenses
any
time
you
turn
that
many
units
it's
going
to
be
expensive.
F
F
But
rather
that
you
didn't
make
up
for
all
that
high
turnover
with
high
move
outs
with
approximately
the
same
amount
of
move-ins
every
person
moved
out,
wasn't
replaced.
F
F
At
yes,
10,
yes,
yes,
yes,
thanks
now
for
the
department
we
heard
from
the
appellant
a
lot
of
probable
or
proposed
upset
and
increased
vacancy
or
or
something
in
this
building
because
of
construction
over
the
planned
construction
over
the
next
couple
of
years.
You
would
mention
that.
Well,
that's
in
the
future,
we're
worried
about
1
120..
F
I
I
I
for
one
agree
with
that,
but
I
I'd
like
to
know
now,
if
it's
appropriate
what
the
policy
is
going
to
be
next
year,
if
and
when
this
appellant
comes
back
with
pleading
a
a
an
additionally
lowered
assessment
due
to
all
that
upset,
because
the
property
is
diminished
in
the
near
term
for
long-term
gain
by
jpg
smith,
whether
that's
going
to
be
taking
into
account
that
there's
unusual
vacancy
for
one
year,
meaning
the
2021
assessment
due
to
the
choices
of
the
landlord
in
the
immediate
area,
meaning
lots
of
construction
and
road
closures
and
noise
and
ugliness
is
that
is
that
going
to
be
a
bonus
contention
next
year?.
C
No,
it's
never
born
in
contention
as
long
as
we
get
transparent,
ines,
so
to
be
clear.
We've
seen
this
with
some
of
the
ditmore
properties
that
had
owner
induced
turnover
through
renovations.
All
we
ask
is
for
transparency.
When
we
ask,
is
this
due
to
market
conditions,
or
is
this
due
to
owner
decision
to
renovate
units
and
that's
probably
the
same
thing
next
year,
the
anticipation
is
per
storm,
and
ms
borman
is
that
there
will
be
disruption
to
the
occupancy
and
that
should
be
relayed
into
the
ines
that
are
turned
into
us
again.
C
We
ask
for
patience
in
the
sense
that
this
is
a
cyclical
nature.
We
get
the
information
in
march
and
then
we'll
make
adjustments
to
the
genuine
assessment
that
time
to
make
speculative
changes
now,
based
on
what
may
happen,
that's
similar
to
deferred
maintenance
and
things
like
that,
we've
talked
about,
we
don't
make
adjustments
and
things
that
haven't
happened.
F
C
A
E
A
C
Exact
same
information
just
with
a
new
column
added.
So
what
we
look
for
is
stabilization.
We
want
to
show
you
what
we
see
and
that's
the
purpose
of
these
hearings.
We
have
a
belief
in
the
opinion
of
value
the
owner's
representatives
do
and
then
you
can
have
a
third
party
decide
for
yourselves,
but
the
idea
is
that
we're
always
going
to
transplant
what
the
information
gives
us.
If
we
need
to
reconstruct
it,
we
will
do
so,
but
we're
going
to
be
openly
about
why
we
did
it
we're
transparent.
C
We
ask
questions
we
put
in
information
in
our
comment
field
so,
along
with
it
again
answers
that.
Yes,
we're
going
to
look
at
this
annually
as
we
do
every
year,
information
provided
by
the
owner,
you
know
in
a
more
coherent
fashion
would
be
appreciated.
So
if
we
can
get
that,
that's
something
that
would
may
affect
our
valuation
efforts,
that's
something
we
would
consider.
But
yes
thank
you.
C
No
man
just
looking
again
at
the
summary
sheets,
we're
looking
at
the
changes
made
they're
prudent,
they're,
made
based
off
of
the
history
of
1819's
reconstruction
in
2020
is
reported.
We
believe
we've
captured
the
vacancy
concession
uptick
last
year.
We
believe
we've
captured
the
increase
in
operating
expenses
and,
moreover,
we'll
point
out
that
our
revision
is
a
four
percent
drop
from
last
year,
which
makes
more
sense
than
an
almost
20
percent
drop
that
the
appellant
is
requesting.
D
Microphones,
didn't
let
me
jump
in
right,
quick,
because
I
want
to
speak
on
that
parking
before
our
minutes
up.
So
there
was
a
request
to
the
make
amendments
to
the
site
plan
may
11
to
2021
where
they
asked
to
reduce
the
parking
at
this
site.
So
again,
like
we
said,
we'll,
take
consideration
and
reduce
parking
and
any
changes
made
to
this
property
based
off
of
the
ongoing
development
which
affects
this
property
type.
D
K
Yes,
thank
you,
so
it's
it
was
interesting.
I
thought
that
we
we
heard
from
the
county
that
it's
speculative
as
to
whether
or
not
tenants
in
an
apartment
building
will
enjoy
living
in
a
construction
zone.
I
think
that
we're
all
you
know
been
around
enough
to
know
that
living
in
a
construction
zone,
and
especially
with
work
from
home
policies
that
were
in
place
as
of
the
date
of
value,
is
not
a
pleasant
experience
and
is
not
desirable.
K
K
As
of
the
date
of
value,
any
buyer
would
come
in
and
look
at
this
property
and
say
it's
in
a
construction
zone,
it's
going
to
lose
its
parking,
it's
less
valuable,
they're,
not
going
to
look
at
it
and
say:
well,
since
the
owner
is
doing
the
construction
right
next
door,
it's
the
same
value
that
doesn't
decrease
the
value.
So
you
know
it's
it's
a
matter
of
framing
it
to
where
we're
evaluating
this
property.
On
a
hypothetical
sale
and
all
of
this
construction
will
decrease
its
value.
K
F
Thanks
yeah,
I
I
I
support
the
the
sentiment
of
the
appellant
just
now
that
the
long-term,
the
choices
of
the
landlord-
and
I
mentioned
this-
my
question
before
doesn't
affect
this
one
property
I
mean
if,
if
the
desirability
is
less,
then
the
value
is
less
it's
just
that
simple,
even
even
though
it's
a
landowner's
choice
over
the
long
term.
So
I
I
I
just
kind
of
ignored
that
I
I
and
and.
D
F
Again,
I
guess
I'm
just
going
to
reiterate
out
of
my
question
before
during
our
q
and
a
session,
what's
going
to
happen
if
the
perspective
upset
that
diminishes
the
value
of
this
building
next
year
is
accounted
for
next
year,
and
I'm
just
I
I
guess
I
can't
get
an
answer
for
next
year.
Nor
is
it
appropriate,
but
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
it
was
in
the
mix
for
next
year.
It
is
prospective
this
year.
F
H
Yes,
thank
you.
What
I
did
is
I
just
looked
up
the
most
recent.
I
think
it's
the
most
recent
jbg
zoning
approvals
and
the
parking
ratio
on
the
new
high-rises
they
just
got
approved
are
0.32
spaces
per
unit,
and
the
standard
by
the
county
is
0.3
per
per
unit
and
the
staff
recommended
approval
at
a
slightly
higher
0.32.
H
You
know
I
argued
strenuously
on
a
recent
appeal
that
the
construction
is
an
impact
that
should
be
considered.
I
think
it's
a
little
different
when
it's
yourself
doing
it,
and
I
remember
a
couple
years
ago,
another
developer
made
that
argument
that
you.
H
It's
their
own
project,
and
so
I
don't
think
that
should
be
given
consideration.
You
know
steps
can
be
made
to
mitigate
that.
A
a
neighbor
cannot
make
they
can
you
know
so
so
I
just
think
that
it's
like
a
self-imposed
hardship
so
just
wanted
to
share
those
two
things
with
the
committee.
I
E
E
A
G
G
The
account
is
recommended
to
reduce
it
to
the
revised,
but
I
mean
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
in
this
parking
issue,
but
you
know
the
numbers
that
they
recorded
for
last
year
and
the
numbers
that
the
county
used.
You.
H
G
If
you
add
and
subtract
between
the
parking
and
the
other
income,
you
know
we're
only
talking
a
difference
of
maybe
five
thousand
dollars
altogether,
so
it
is
very
minor.
So
I'm
with
mark,
I
think
the
revised
assessment,
I'm
okay
with
it,
even
though,
like
greg
said,
I
think
the
original
is
in
line.
But
if.
A
F
Thanks,
I
just
the
last
two
comments
are
related
directly
to
what
I
wanted
to
say,
and
that
was
that
the
anticipation
of
the
proposing
existing
tenants
in
that
building
and
say
no.
We
don't
want
to
be
here
when
there's
all
this
construction
here
and
vacancy
has
gone
up.
Because
of
that
and
the
revised
assessment
takes.
F
It
takes
the
value
of
the
building
down
five
percent,
which
to
me,
is
kind
of
somewhat
consistent
with
the
in
the
near
term
the
lack
of
appeal
for
this
building
in
anticipation,
I
don't
think
that
we
should
take
the
proposed
construction
externalities
is
a
part
of
our
consideration,
but
tenants
have
and
therefore
I
think
the
test
ends
up
right
on
the
mark.
H
Yes,
ma'am.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
think
when
we
have
a
proposed
reduction
by
the
department
and
there's
an
appeal,
I
don't
think
we
should
go
back
to
the
original.
I
think
that
that's
that
would
chill
a
property
owner's
willingness
to
file
an
appeal
and
pursue
an
appeal
because
they
could
have
easily
said
yeah.
We
agreed
to
hear
from
those
you
know
two
weeks
ago
and
we
wouldn't
even
hear.
E
H
But
they
think
they
have
legitimate
reasons
to
present
that
they
think
it
should
be
reduced
even
more
so
I
think
in
a
situation
like
this,
I
would
not
be
comfortable
going
back
to
the
original.
A
The
the
deal
on
the
table
is
the
original
assessment.
It's
not
just
a
guarantee
that
you're
going
to
get
the
revision.
You
know
we
could
look
at
it
and
say
you
know.
Just
for
the
sake
of
argument.
You
know
we
don't
like
the
effective
gross
income.
We
could
adjust
it,
we
could
increase
it.
You
know
that
the
issue
that
we
have
before
us
is:
are
we
going
to
confirm
the
original
assessment
or
accept
the
county's
revised
number?
So
it's
not
a
given
that
you're
going
to
get
the
revised
number.
H
I
I
just
wanted
to
share
that.
You
know
this
was
a
matter
of
quick
discussion
at
the
chamber
of
commerce
and
the
chamber
felt
like
when
a
reduction,
what
was
offered
that
it
shouldn't
be
then
taken
back
and-
and
so
I'm
just
kind
of
following
up
on.
A
E
I
was
asking
if
whether
or
not
it
was
possible
without
an
appraisal,
I
wasn't
making
a
motion
or
anything,
but
I
think
in
some
cases
we
may
want
to
do
that
if
we
feel
the
county's
made
an
error
in
the
in
the
reduction.
So.
A
E
Barnes
to
your
point,
there
may
be
other
cases
where
we
want
to
dissuade
appellants
from
coming
in,
and
you
know
wasting
time
and
effort
on
arguments
just
kind
of
throwing
stuff
against
the
wall,
to
see
what
sticks,
especially
bringing
new
information
out
and
really
not
putting
it
in
any
kind
of
calculations
for
it
or
any
kind
of
market
data
that
can
support
it,
that
it
is
a
waste
of
time.
So
that
would
be
a
situation
where
we
would
want
to
go
back
to
the
original
appraisal.
E
E
F
I
move
that
we
reduced
the
assessment
to
to
114
million
399
600.
A
A
A
Thank
you,
mr
chicas.
Thank
you
board
members.
Before
we
start
mr
peralta,
on
for
the
final
three,
I've
been
able
to
take
a
break,
so
it's
10
29,
so
everybody
can
be
back
around
10
35
and
I
just
ask
that
you
turn
off
your
cameras
and
your
microphones
while
you're
gone,
we'll
see
you
in
five
minutes.
G
A
K
Yes,
thank
you
601
and
701
south
12th
street,
I'm
sure
everyone's
familiar
with
these
properties.
They're
very
large
they're,
very
dated
they're,
the
twin
buildings
in
pentagon
city
that
formerly
house
the
tsa
headquarters.
They
were
built
in
1982
and
combined.
They
have
over
half
a
million
square
feet
of
vacant
leasable
area.
K
K
As
a
result,
the
owners
do
have
a
concept
drawing
of
the
rebuilt
lobby,
but
no
no
renovation
has
been
undertaken
at
this
point.
The
interior
needs
to
be
completely
demolished
to
even
get
it
into
shell
condition.
Tsa
left
their
cabling
and
furniture
at
the
property.
The
owner
will
need
to
remove
all
this
and
the
owner
estimates.
It
will
cost
at
least
six
dollars
per
square
foot
to
even
get
to
shell
condition.
K
The
owners
have
been
marketing
the
space
for
lease
since
before
the
date
of
value
and
have
not
received
any
interest.
It
was
widely
publicized
as
early
as
2017
that
tsa
would
be
vacating
at
the
end
of
their
lease.
The
appeal
includes
articles
concerning
their
intent
to
vacate
on
page
46
of
the
appeal
you'll
see
an
article
dated
august
2017
from
biz.
Now
that
is
headlined.
K
K
This
same
release
also
mentioned
that
tsa's
intent
is
to
begin
moving
into
the
new
facility
in
the
fall
of
2020
tsa,
had
vacated
701
prior
to
year
in
2020
and
was
largely
out
of
601
by
the
end
of
the
year,
but
did
not
complete
their
move
out
until
the
end
of
their
lease
term.
In
march
of
2021,
tsa
received
vacancy
credits
in
2020
for
some
of
the
space
they
had
left.
K
The
county
used
a
five
percent
vacancy
and
collection.
While
we
use
25
this
more
accurately
captures
the
actual
vacancy
the
property
was
known
to
be
experiencing.
As
of
the
date
of
value,
the
county
agrees
that
the
market
would
reflect
the
cost
related
to
re-tenanting
the
property
in
its
below-the-line
deductions.
K
K
K
Purchaser,
while
a
potential
purchaser
would
likely
value
the
property
using
a
discounted
cash
flow,
we
must
of
course,
work
within
the
confines
of
the
statutory
scheme
in
virginia
and
use
the
direct
capitalization
of
income
approach
to
value,
recognizing
that
the
lease
was
known
to
be
expiring.
As
of
the
date
of
value
and
in
fact,
50
of
the
lease
space
had
vacated.
As
as
of
the
date
of
value,
the
assessment
should
use
a
25
vacancy
rate.
K
Next,
the
assessment
assumes
an
operating
expense
rate
that
is
not
reflective
of
what
it
would
cost
to
operate
the
property.
As
at
a
stabilized
occupancy
on
the
county's
test
page,
you
can
see
that
when
tsa
was
fully
occupying
the
building
in
2017
through
2019
operating
expenses,
average
9.25
cents
per
square
foot,
this
is
even
with
tsa
providing
the
majority
of
their
own
security.
In
addition
to
some
other
services.
K
K
K
This
is
not
how
the
market
would
value
the
property
since
tsa
was
known
to
be
vacating
the
entire
property
and
had
actually
vacated
over
half
of
the
space,
a
higher
vacancy
rate
should
be
used.
Additionally,
the
operating
expenses
assumed
by
the
assessment
are
below
what
the
property
would
incur
at
a
stabilized
occupancy.
J
Yes,
thank
you.
Can
you
guys
see
me
just
wanted
to
make
sure?
Okay,
thank
you
with
this
property
upon
review.
J
I
did
have
several
questions
that
I
asked
mrs
borman
and
mr
jordan
harman
and
those
questions
are
outlined
in
my
review
packet
as
part
of
the
board
memo
and
one
of
which
was
the
increase
in
square
footage
where,
as
you
see
in
the
previous
years
to
2017-2019,
the
total
square
footage
was
506
049
at
the
most,
when
looking
at
the
the
new
square
footage
that
was
used
in
the
2020,
I
e
it's
you
know
551
962
square
feet
to
date.
I
didn't
get
an
explanation.
J
Why,
for
the
purposes
of
the
test
and
upon
conferring
with
irving
about
this
case,
we
did
opt
to
use
the
new
square
footage.
J
We
did
see
that
the
tsa
lease
end
ended
in
331
of
this
year
and
so
with
other
properties
of
this
nature,
we
do
account
for
that.
We
didn't
see
that
in
an
original
assessment,
but
upon
review
we
did
test
and.
J
Discount
the
assessment
based
on
the
square
footage
that
was
vacant
after
the
first
of
the
year
below
the
line
and
that's
customary
to
other
properties
that
we've
seen
here
in
in
arlington
as
the
board
may
or
may
not
remember.
We
did
that
with
stafford
1-2
when
the
lease
ended
after
the
the
assessment
period,
but
we
did
account
for
it
because
it
was
it
was
known
and
we
accounted
for
below
the
line,
as
I
suggested
looking
at
this
further
when
you're,
comparing
what
they
actually
reported.
J
I
know
parking
was
a
big
issue
for
today's
cases,
but
looking
at
the
parking
for
this
property,
our
original
assessment
was
understated,
as
far
as
what
they
projected
and
or
reported
in
2019
were
566
000
less
in
the
original
assessment,
and
even
going
forward
to
the
2020
ine
in
column
e.
J
We
are
lower
in
our
test
by
our
considerable
amount.
What
we
did
use
is
the
the
average
that
we
found
in
the
county
based
on
our
guidelines,
that's
with
the
assumption
that
they're
not
going
to
achieve
that
parking
income
going
forward
with
tsa
no
longer
in
the
building.
J
When
looking
at
the
the
vacancy
of
this
property.
Again,
we
use
a
stabilized
five
percent,
because
you
know
the
the
lease
was
in
place
as
of
the
first
of
the
year,
but
we
do
deduct
the
entire
square
footage
of
the
property
below
the
line
and
account
for
that
in
our
test.
J
As
you
see
on
our
page
page
2,
page
6
of
88,
where
we
find
519
152
in
excess
of
that
5
that
we
use
before
capitalization
with
respect
to
our
expenses
and
comparing
that
with
the
the
pellets
pro
forma,
we
believe
that
the
the
number
that
they're
using
includes
the
leasing
commissions
that
they
would
receive
when
leasing
this
property.
We
do
feel
that
we've
done
this
in
the
past,
where
we
exclude
the
leasing
commissions
from
the
expenses.
J
J
As
far
as
the
below
the
line.
Adjustments,
when
comparing
previous
tests
in
column
f
compared
to
column
g,
I'm
not
sure
exactly
how
they
calculated
the
their
figure
as
far
as
far
as
how
much
they
allowed
the
414
044
square
feet,
but
we
are
actually
allowing
500
1952
square
feet
again.
They
do
a
two-year
rent
loss.
We
do
a
a
one-year
lease
one-year
rent
loss
because
we
do
this
every
year.
If
they
were
to
have
this
same
issue
next
year,
we
would
account
for
that
in
the
little
line.
J
Adjustments
as
well
with
that
said,
we
did
make
the
revision
and
we
were
offering
that
that
value,
146
million
hundred
sixty
seven
four
hundred
irving
did
you
have
anything
else
to
add.
Oh,
I
just
wanna.
D
I
guess
elaborate
on
our
method
of
taking
the
excess
vacancy
into
consideration,
but
also
recognizing
that
it
was
100
leased.
As
of
1-1
as
the
board
very
well
knows,
assessments
are
a
year
behind
in
the
activity
of
the
market,
so
oftentimes
we'll
have
rent
rolls
where
we
see
that
a
property
has
leased
up
space
after
january
1.,
but
since
that
space
was
leased
after
january,
1
is
still
considered
as
vacant.
D
So
when
the
property
has
a
tenant
who
is
vacating
after
january
1,
we
recognize
that
space
as
being
occupied
again
with
properties
that
have
large
amounts
of
vacancy
that
are
coming
up
and
we're
made
aware
of
ahead
of
time.
We
have
taken
the
necessary
steps
to
make
adjustments
below
the
line,
to
account
for
that,
as
rob
noted,
we've
done
it
on
several
properties.
D
We've
also
done
that
on
cases
that's
come
before
the
board
this
year,
where
we've
known
about
large
vacancy
coming
up
in
a
multi-tenant
space,
and
we
accounted
for
that
vacancy
below
the
line,
but
that
actual
space
still
being
under
lease
after
1-1
was
not
counting
towards
the
vacancy
above
the
line.
So
our
approach
is
consistent
in
how
we
treat
properties
of
this
nature.
D
L
That's
correct
the
100.
H
F
Two
quick
questions
just
because
they're
so
important.
I
want
to
nail
it
down.
Nobody
made
these
two
specific
comments
for
the
appellant.
The
department
said
that
the
lease
was
in
place
in
1121
and
the
lease
expired
331-21
gsa,
but
nobody
said
the
gsa
indeed
paid
the
rent
for
those
three
months
on
behalf
of
tsa
dgsa.
L
Mr
matkin,
actually
our
appeal
does
address
that
and
we
added
the
additional
rent
below
the
line
because
we
believed
that
they
did.
They
did
pay
the
rent,
or
at
least
they
owe
the
rent
whether
or
not
they
actually
have
paid
it.
Yet
I
don't
know,
but
on
our
appeal
package
we
did
use
the
25
vacancy,
but
we
also
added
two
million
dollars
for
additional
income
to
the
capitalized
value.
In
addition
to
deducting
the
costs
associated
with
re-tenanting
the
building,
we
added
the
income
that
would
be
received
in
2021
from
gsa.
F
The
watch-
okay,
you've
answered
the
question
thanks
for
the
department,
equally
nitpicky
but
important
question.
The
below
the
line
deductions
assumes
the
top.
The
entire
space
of
the
two
buildings
are
vacant,
so
the
commissions,
the
ti,
which
is
as
high
as
you
you
project,
are
all
based
on
the
entire
551
000
plus
square
feet
right
correct,
that's
it!
Thank
you.
L
E
L
Actually,
it's
it's
quite
a
lot
and
the
owners
have
not
gotten
demolition
costs
on
that.
Yet
the
demolition
costs
on
just
the
the
regular
area
is
six
dollars
a
square
foot
which
is
not
included.
L
H
H
H
D
H
D
I'm
not
sure
what
you
mean
by
what
being
up
the
vacation.
D
J
J
J
Yes,
thank
you
again
we're
accounting
for
this
building
as
being
vacant
as
after
the
first
of
the
year,
we
did
see
that
the
lease
ended
331
of
this
year
as
well
we're
discounting
the
parking,
we're
discounting
the
pass-throughs
miscellaneous
income
that
they
obviously
reported
in
2020..
J
We
are
looking
at
this
building
as
five
percent
vacant,
although
it
was
a
hundred
percent
occupied.
As
of
the
first
a
year,
the
expenses
average
over
the
course
of
four
years
at
4.5
on
average
we're
200
000
more
in
our
test
in
the
expenses
in
the
load-align
deductions,
we
account
for
the
property
being
a
hundred
percent
vacant.
J
We
do
attribute
in
the
ti's
the
max
that
our
guidelines
has
afforded
at
110
dollars
square
foot
and
we
take
an
additional
deduction
of
over
16.7
million
for
the
the
square
feet
above
100
000
square
feet,
and
so
with
that,
we
believe
that
the
test
at
146
million
167
400,
is
appropriate.
This
time,
we
believe
that
the
appellant's
pro
forma
figure
of
71
million
is
a
bit
aggressive
and
we
do
stand
by
what
we've
done
in
the
test
irving
anything
else.
They
had.
K
Yes,
thank
you
so
just
to
reiterate
we're
trying
to
value
this
property
as
the
market.
Would
the
fair
market
value
of
a
property
is
the
price
which
it
will
bring
when
it
is
offered
for
sale
by
one
who
desires
but
is
not
obliged
to
sell
it
and
is
bought
by
one
who
is
under
no
necessity
of
having
it?
How
would
the
buyer
assess
this
property?
K
How
would
they
evaluate
this
property
as
of
the
date
of
value
they
had
tsa
with
a
lease
through
the
end
of
march,
tsa
had
already
begun
to
move
months
ahead
of
time.
They
announced
their
intent
to
move
four
years
ahead
of
time.
They
were
out
of
more
than
half
the
property.
A
willing
buyer
would
not
assess
that
property,
as
if
tsa
was
going
to
remain
so
we
asked
that
the
the
vacancy
rate
be
increased
to
match
what
the
market
knew
at
the
date
of
value.
K
That
tsa
was
out
of
this
building
and
reflect
a
25
vacancy
rate
and
just
as
an
explainer,
for
why
our
square
footage
on
the
dfl
differs
from
the
counties.
The
counties
is
the
excess
vacancy
based
on
five
percent
vacancy
above
the
line.
Hours
is
a
lower
square
footage,
but
it's
based
on
a
25
vacancy
above
the
line
and
that's
all
I'll
have
thank
you.
E
Yeah,
I
was
gonna
say
I
I
agree
with
the
county's
kind
of
major
reduction
from
last
year.
I
think
that
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
in
light
of
the
circumstances,
so
we'll
probably
be
looking
at
this
every
year
until
the
owner,
you
know,
puts
a
path
forward
on
on.
You
know,
redevelopment
plans
releasing
plans
whatever
it
may
be,
and
we
get
some
some
market
data
to
back
that
up,
but
I
think
I
think
it's
a
good
reduction
to
do
this
year.
E
I
mean
personally,
I
don't
think
you
look
at
this
anymore
with
the
income
approach
from
this
point
on
there's
going
to
be
zero
income
next
year,
so
so
kind
of
looking
at
it
like
brookfield's
gonna
go
and
you
know,
try
to
get
a
bunch
of
leases
done
and
fill
up
this
building
and
do
ti
it's
like
we
all
kind
of
know.
That's
not
gonna
happen.
E
It's
gonna
be
a
single
tenant
user
or
it's
going
to
be
a
big
transformation
type
project.
There's
enough
precedent
that
a
buyer
understands
that
developers
in
this
area
are
getting.
You
know,
seven
far,
densities
and
so
they're
at
a
two
and
a
half
right
now,
so
the
property's,
probably
gonna.
At
some
point,
the
value
is
going
to
be
driven
more
by
the
the
potential
density
than
the
actual
office
building.
A
E
Now
it's
gonna
say
I
mean
it's:
it's
143
dollars
a
square
foot
for
the
building.
I
think
that's
kind
of
in
line
with
what
a
willing
buyer
would
would
pay
for
this
property
today.
G
Yeah,
I
agree
with
greg.
I
think
the
revised
assessment
is
more
than
appropriate.
G
You
know,
with
the
below
the
line,
deductions
that
the
county
gave
pretty
much
it's
assuming
that
the
building
is
vacant
as
of
january
first
they're,
giving
the
full
years
of
you
know,
rent
loss
concession,
which
is
you
know,
I
feel
more
generous
than
we've
seen
even
though
they're
getting
an
extra
rent
for
three
more
months.
So
you
know
I'm
okay.
With
the
revised
assessment,
I
think
it's
proper.
H
Yeah,
I
think
the
only
difference
I
have
with
what
the
county
did
is,
I
think,
the
the
rent
loss
being
limited
to
a
year.
I
mean
it's
just
not
realistic.
You've
got
the
whole
building.
It's
going
to
take
months
to
negotiate
a
lease.
Then
you've
got
to
do
the
plans.
H
Then
you
got
to
build
it
out
and
the
tenant's
not
going
to
pay
any
rent
until
they
have
occupancy
and
can
use
it,
and
I
think
I'm
going
to
be
in
the
minority,
but
I
think
that
the
the
one-year
rent
loss
is
just
not
appropriate.
A
Right,
my
only
concern
with
that.
I
don't
disagree
with
the
points
that
you're
making
there,
but
from
a
standpoint
of
equalization
we
use
one
year
on
all
properties
so
to
to
treat
this
one
differently
below
the
line.
I
would
have
a
problem
with
that
you
know,
so
I
would
lean
towards
greg.
H
Yeah,
don't
you
think,
maybe
there's
a
difference
in
in
in
a
whole
building
being
empty
vis-a-vis,
you
know
one-third
of
the
building
being
empty,
because
here
you're
not
you're,
not
you're,
not
doing
space
you're
doing
the
whole
building.
A
A
G
We've
considered
that
before
we've
seen
buildings
that
were
it's
not
the
first
time,
you
know
this
is
happening
and
we've
always
done
that.
You
know
the
assessments
are
done
here
on
a
yearly
basis,
and
I
think
you
know
we
should
be
consistent
in
it.
A
E
Sometimes
having
a
lease
in
a
building
can
be
a
detriment
if
it
impedes
it
so
bunch
to
your
point:
if
it's
a
if
it's,
if
I
just
spent
three
hundred
dollars
a
square
foot,
building
a
brand
new
trophy
office
building
and
it's
empty,
then
I
think
you
need
more
time
to
lease
it
up.
If
it's
the
last
tenant
has
finally
moved
out,
and
that
opens
up
the
door
to
a
lot
of
other
possibilities,
then
you
got
to
look
at
it
a
little
bit
differently.
H
A
A
F
I
I
E
All
right
I'll
motion
to
confirm
or
to
accept
the
county's
reduction
to
78
million
802
700.
A
A
A
K
Yes,
thank
you.
So,
as
you
mentioned,
4401
fairfax
drive,
this
property
is
located
on.
Fairfax
drive
just
east
of
glebe
road.
It
was
built
in
1988,
mr
peralta,
and
I
toured
the
property
on
october.
8Th.
This
property
is
at
the
end
of
fairfax,
it's
away
from
the
primary
pedestrian
areas
and
features
a
very
small
and
isolated
lobby.
K
K
K
K
The
most
recent
two
leases
signed
in
the
fourth
quarter
of
2019
had
a
net
effective
rental
rate
of
32.78
per
square
foot.
This
was
after
10.8
in
concessions,
the
assessment
overstates,
the
occupied
and
vacant
office,
rental
rate,
by
not
fully
incorporating
the
level
of
concessions
that
have
been
required
to
lease
this
property.
K
K
K
So
to
recap
the
most
recent
leases
signed
at
the
property
all
from
2019.
Of
course,
this
is
pre-covered
pre-office
market
detriments
that
it
suffered
required
concessions
at
a
rate
much
higher
than
assumed
by
the
assessment.
As
such,
the
occupied
and
vacant
office
rental
rates
assumed
by
the
assessment
overstate
the
actual
income
that
is
achievable
at
the
property.
K
The
operating
expenses
assumed
by
the
assessment
understate
the
cost
that
are
likely
to
be
incurred
at
a
stabilized
occupancy
and
the
tenant
improvement
allowance
should
be
increased
from
seventy
dollars
per
square
foot
to
one
hundred
ten
dollars
per
square
foot
to
reflect
the
condition
of
the
vacant
space.
Thank
you
and
eileen.
Would
you
like
to
add
anything.
L
No,
the
only
thing
I
will
add
is
for
clarification
is
we
were
not
aware
of
the
40
000
plus
square
feet
in
shell
condition
until
mr
peralta
and
mr
harmon
toured
the
property.
So
our
appeal
includes
that
space
at
70,
but
based
on
that
tour,
we
believe
it
should
be
closer
to
110.
J
Yes,
thank
you.
I'd
just
like
to
update
the
board
that
this
packet
was
generated
and
put
together
prior
to
the
inspection
inspection
was
asked
for,
I
believe
september
29th.
J
As
you
see
in
my
board
memo
packet,
I
had
initially
put
139
000
square
feet,
plus
because
I
knew
it
could
or
it
may
change
based
on
inspection,
because
what
I
did
find
in
costar
was
that
there
was
a
fitness
center
and
conference
room
not
accounted
for
in
the
rent
roll.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
the
rent
roll
that
was
supplied
to
the
county
did
not
contain
the
square
feet
vacant
for
this
property,
and
I
was
trying
to
gather
that
information.
J
As
far
as
the
breakdown
of
each
category
you
know
leased
office.
I
did
find
in
the
rent
roll
that
the
leased
office
on
the
property
was
72
0808,
so
based
upon
that
and
that
figure
alone,
I
used
139,
000
and
kind
of
backed
into
that
number
to
derive
the
vacant
office
square
footage.
J
So
again
I
asked
that
information
from
to
the
appellant
on
september
29th,
as
of
today,
I
haven't,
received
anything
to
my
knowledge
that
would
stipulate
otherwise
going
forth
and
looking
at
the
our
our
summary
sheet,
when
looking
at
this
property,
I
did
note
that
the
139
000
square
feet
exclusive
fitness
center
conference
center.
J
You
know
after
looking
at
this
and
reviewing
this
case.
You
know,
I'm
not
sure
if
that
square
footage
vacant
contains
that
fitness
center
conference
center
square
footage.
But
again,
if
I
was
applied,
the
answers
for
this
property
we'd
be
looking
at
probably
a
different
test,
and-
and
also
you
know,
if
asked
by
the
board
how
my
inspection
would
affect
this
projection
for
this
test.
J
I
could
speak
to
that
as
well,
but
using
the
information
I
did
have
I
in
our
column
f,
we
did
summarize
exactly
the
square
footage
that
was
leased
and
we
used
the
average
minus
the
six
percent
for
this
property
for
the
lease
spaces.
J
It
averaged
41
about
41
dollars,
a
square
foot
and
for
the
least
spaces
about
forty
four
dollars
and
some
change
you'll
see
my
comments
on
the
summary
sheet
below
exactly
what
those
figures
are
and
just
to
compare
what
we
found
on
the
averages.
We
did
use
those
figures
in
our
column
f
to
derive
a
test.
If
you
will
for
this
property,
originally
the
the
county
had
a
projection
of
more
than
what
they
actually
had
based
on
my
calculations.
J
Original
assessment
had
about
54
248
square
feet
vacant,
whereas
in
the
test
column
I
have
53
559
square
feet
vacant
bringing
that
below
the
line,
you'll
see
that
we
accounted
more
in
excess
vacancy
below
the
line.
J
I
understand
the
appellant's
understanding
of
that.
You
know
the
floors
that
we
did
tour,
maybe
in
show
condition.
But
again,
if
I'm
asked
how
the
inspection
would
affect
our
test,
then
I
could
speak
to
that
as
well.
J
In
co-star,
I
did
have
some
conflicting
information.
I
did
provide
that
as
part
of
this
packet
that
co-star
reported
151,
687
square
feet
of
net
leasable
area
and
that's
contrary
to
what
we've
seen
in
our
test
column
as
well
as
the
appellants
pro
forma
we're
at
139
000
square
feet
plus.
You
know
the
other
square
footage
that
I
mentioned
before
in
previous
years.
J
It's
fluctuated
from
135
231
to
140
668
and
that's
kind
of
why
I
wanted
to
you
know,
put
my
eyes
on
the
property
and
and
figure
out
exactly
what
was
going
on.
But
again
we
we
opted
to
use
what
the
appellant
used
at
139
000
square
feet.
J
I
think
that's
all
I
have
for
now.
Oh
actually
on
the
the
expenses
average
over
the
course
of
the
four
years
average
around
900,
so
thousand
we're
at
1.1
for
our
test.
I
think
that's
all
I
have
for
now.
You
have
anything
else
to
add
irvin.
D
Yes,
so
speaking
of
the
expenses,
when
you
look
at
page
44,
the
packet,
which
is
the
agents
page
one,
you
will
note
that
they
comment
in
section
two,
that
they
take
consideration:
leasing
commissions
for
their
expenses.
We've
come
to
the
board,
time
and
time
again
to
say
that
we
don't
include
leasing
commissions
in
our
expenses,
so
we
don't
believe
the
9.50
cents
they're
using
is
appropriate
since
it
states
they
take
consideration,
leasing,
commissions
and
other
than
that.
I
mean
we're
open
for
questions.
That's
it.
J
A
Okay,
it's
questions
from
the
board
and
I'll
start.
Mr
peralta
you've
alluded,
I
think,
two
or
three
times
to
how
the
inspection
would
have
changed
your
test.
Without
I
don't
want
you
to
introduce
new
information
from
the
standpoint
if
it's
higher
than
the
40
million,
then
we
don't
need
to
hear
about
it.
But
if
it's
lower
then
I'd
like
to
hear
about
it.
J
E
K
So
we
had,
we
saw
two
and
a
half
floors
and
we
didn't.
I
don't
believe
we
and
mr
peralta
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
don't
believe
we
stopped
on
every
single
floor.
We
saw
two
and
a
half
floors
in
shell
condition
and
we,
when
I
coincided
those
with
co-star,
it
came
out
to
45
000
and
some
change.
E
J
L
Going
to
address
that
very
quickly,
we've
received
mr
peralta's
questions
and
a
request
to
tour
the
property
a
day
before
we
maybe
two
days
before
we
received
the
board
case,
so
it
seemed
really
ridiculous
to
bother
doing
anything
or
reaching
out
to
mr
peralta
at
that
time.
Since
we
already
had
the
board
case
in
hand.
A
F
I'm
not
sure
I'll
try
the
appellant
first
in
columns
a
b
and
c
there's
no
dollar
value
put
in
for
bank
in
office,
meaning-
and
we
know
there
was
a
bunch
of
vacant
office
and
we're
looking
at,
of
course,
potential
income.
But
then
we
do
see
it
in
g
and
again
we
don't
see
it
in
e,
but
the
office
value
was
way
up
in
g
over
a
b
and
c.
So
is
there
some
change
so
going
back
to
the
beginning
in
the
prior
year?
F
L
Can
address
that
so,
basically,
as
you
know,
being
involved
in
commercial,
real
estate
rents
are
going
to
vary
based
on
the
creditworthiness
of
the
tenant,
the
length
of
the
term
the
amount
of
build
out
the
amount
of
free
rent,
so
just
to
put
anything
in
in
a
b
c
or
e
as
potential
income
would
also
provide,
require
the
deduction
for
or
the
an
estimate
of
what
is
the
free
rent
etc.
So
no
the
owners
have
to
certify
on
those
income
and
expense
survey
forms
to
those
numbers.
L
So
no,
they
don't
do
that
and
they
shouldn't
do
that
because
they
would
be
guessing,
but
in
column
g.
What
it
has
done
is
we've
looked
at
the
actual
rents
in
place
and
assumed
or
concluded
that
those
represent
a
reasonable
way
forward.
Column
g
includes
the
rents
with
concessions
deducted
and
then
includes
on
the
vacant.
Space
is
the
net
effective
rent
on
the
most
recent
leases,
reflected.
F
Yeah
well,
what
about
column
e,
where
there's
again
no
potential
of
foregone
rent,
but.
L
L
J
As
you
see
in
our
columns
e
and
f
between
columns,
e
and
f,
we
use
what
the
appellant
is
proposing.
As
far
as
the
vacant
office,
income
for
the
property
and
the
total
estimated
gross
potential
is
5.5
versus
what
you
know
the
test
is
using
or
the
the
appellant
is
using.
In
years
past,
the
the
property
owners
have
supplied
a
proposed
income,
and
you
know
filled
out
the
form
exactly
how
we
asked
for
it
as
a
potential
gross
income
to
compare
when
we're
doing
this
summary
sheet.
J
We
do
provide
exactly
what
or
show
exactly
what
they
supply
the
county,
but
in
all
actuality
it
should
have
that
potential
gross
income
that
we've
you
know,
kind
of
estimated
between
comps.
F
Okay,
a
question
for
the
department:
why?
Why
is
the
effect
of
aids
until
1988
when
clearly
it's
been
updated.
J
J
Yes,
thank
you
again.
I
just
would
like
to
lead
off
that
and
say
this
property
was
renovated
upon
inspection.
We
did
find
that
there
was
a
fitness
center.
There
was
a
conference
center
again.
I
asked
the
information
from
the
appellants
for
that
specific
information.
As
far
as
what
is
included
in
that
hundred
thirty
nine
thousand
square
feet
net
leasable
area,
we
didn't
get
an
answer,
and
that
was
again
I'd
like
to
note
we
asked
for
this
september,
29
2021.
J
I
believe
I
included
as
part
of
this
packet,
it's
page
7
of
103
and
that's
the
email
that
I
asked.
They've
responded
to
the
question
of
inspection,
but
didn't
offer
the
square
footage
breakdown
of
this
property,
nor
was
a
rent
roll
supplied
with
the
vacant
square
footage
of
this
property.
So
we
sort
of
backed
into
that
information
based
on
what
we
had
on
this
property
again
it
the
renovation,
would
definitely
affect
the
effective
age
of
this
property.
There's
pictures
that
I've
included
from
costar
that
that
show
exactly
you
know.
J
The
renovations
made
to
this
property
is
not
a
1988
building.
The
square
footage
that
they're,
showing
co-star
is
151
687
square
feet
versus
the
139
000
square
feet
that
we're
showing
in
our
test
with
that
lack
of
information.
It
would
definitely
change
the
test,
and
so
I'm
asking
that
the
board
confirmed
the
original
assessment
which
is
lower
than
what
I
have
from
the
test.
Thank
you.
K
Yes,
thank
you
so
to
address
expenses,
there's
some
confusion
about
whether
or
not
leasing
commissions
are
included.
If
we
look
at
the
three-year
average
reported
without
leasing
commissions,
that's
7.38
per
square
foot.
This
is
while
the
property
has
been
largely
vacant.
That
includes
2018.
When
it
was
71
percent
vacant,
2019
45
vacant
20
20
was
42
vacant.
We
didn't
include
2017,
as
you
can
see,
it
had
a
negative
noi,
that's
because
it
was
80
vacant.
K
So
over
the
past
three
years,
operating
expenses
have
averaged
seven
dollars,
38
cents
per
square
foot
and
that's
with
average
vacancy
of
53
percent.
I
believe
2020
rent
roll
that
was
included
on
page
75.
K
E
E
Essentially,
you
know
more
than
50
vacant
for
two
of
those
years
and-
and
I
also
thought
that
it's
valid-
to
look
at
the
ti
number,
given
the
condition
of
the
space.
E
Yeah
well,
actually,
I
was
working
off
of
the
test
and,
and
I
end
up
when
I,
when
I
make
those
changes,
I
I
made
three
changes.
I
end
up
slightly
below
the
original
assessment,
but
I'm
working
off
of
the
test
column.
F
F
Why
do
you
think
over
history
expenses
went
up
so
much?
I
mean
these.
Other
expenses
are
based
on
a
largely
or
significantly
vacant
building
you
know,
high
percentage
is
not
100.
You
know
50
40.,.
F
E
E
E
F
The
the
the
ti,
I
said
that
I'm.
E
E
Yep
and-
and
I
thought
you
put
a
year
and
a
half
on
the
lease
up
kind
of
barnes
argument
from
the
last
case
and
and
you
do
a
hundred
dollars
on
ti.
F
We've
well
established,
including
the
last
case
that
we
lease
up
year
by
years.
I
wouldn't
support
that.
I
absolutely
support
increasing
the
ti
and
I
would
take
again
the
shell
space
and
it
may
be
more
than
this,
but
it's
only
documented
to
be
45
000
square
feet
up
to
again
the
standard
ti
for
extensively
expensive
renovations
needed
at
110
square
foot,
which
comes
out
to
a
million
eight
million
eight
hundred
thousand
dollars.
G
G
Also,
I
did
look
at
the
number
of
I
mean
increasing
the
expenses
at
nine
dollars,
not
950,
because
I
think
it
was
a
little
more
appropriate
based
on
the
original
assessment,
and
I
also
considered
doing
the
tis
that
110
by
doing
those
two
changes,
you
know
changing
to
nine
dollars
and
the
I
mean
the
ti
at
110
and
the
9
on
expenses.
G
The
final
value
that
I
come
up
with
is
37
million
903
948,
which
is
you
know,
we're
pretty
much
in
the
same
as
the
original
assessment.
G
A
E
G
G
G
All
the
numbers
that
are
on
the
test,
I
think
you
know
doing
the
reconstruction.
As
you
see
on
page
five,
I'm
I'm
okay
with
it,
except
that
you
know
making
those
two
changes.
That
would
be
the
final
value
that
would
come
up
with
37
903
98,
which
948
I'm
sorry.
But
you
know
it's
it's
a
very
minor
difference.
In
my
opinion,.
H
Yeah
greg:
what
was
your,
what
what
figure
did
you
end
up
with.
E
G
Well,
that's
using
the
expenses
that,
from
the
appellant's
column,.
H
Yeah,
I
think,
yeah.
The
only
comment
I
would
share
jose
is,
I
think
the
950
is
more
appropriate
than
nine.
Only
because
everything's
so
daggone,
more
expensive
and
everything
takes
longer
and-
and
you
know
you
got
order
supply,
it
just
seems
like,
like
the
expenses
are
just
going
way
up,
so
I
I
think
the
only
difference
is
I
would.
I
would
go
with
greg
on
the
950.
E
A
F
While
we're
waiting,
this
is
a
commercial
realtor
talking.
This
whole
dispute
on
the
size
of
the
leaseable
spaces
is
more
than
just
the
conference
center
and
the
fitness
center.
I
I
would
ask
the
appellant
to
go
to
the
their
client
and
say
your
leasing
agent,
whoever
puts
in
data
to
co-star
get
it
straight.
Co-Star
doesn't
make
this
stuff
up,
they
get
it
from
their
their
customers
and
not
again,
I
don't
know
if
it's
a
leasing,
agent
or
the
landlord
of
themselves,
who
does
it,
but.
F
Well,
yeah
on
new
buildings,
but
co-star
gets
it
from
the
people
who
say
we
have
so
much
space,
releasing
we're
asking
so
many
dollars
and
all
this
good
stuff
and
it's
up
to
the
appellant
somewhere
to
get
this
straight.
They
shouldn't
be
bouncing
around.
G
Okay,
doing
it
at
950.
The
number
I
come
up
with
is
36
million
964
681.
G
G
A
A
Okay,
do
I
have
a
second
okay?
Mr
hoffman
is
the
second
all
in
favor
aye
opposed
okay,
it's
five
to
one
without
mr
matskin,
the
assessment's
reduced
to
36
million
964
700,
based
on
increasing
the
county's
test
column,
the
expenses
to
950
and
100
for
the
ti
below
the
line.