►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - June 30, 2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
morning
this
is
the
arlington
county
board
of
equalization
hearing
for
june
30th
2020..
We
will
start
with
the
first
case.
Rpc
number
zero
one,
zero,
three,
four
zero
one,
one:
twenty
seven
2709
north
somerset
street,
mr
daniel
sullivan,
is
the
homeowner
and
he
can
start
with
his
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
case.
B
Thank
you,
ma'am,
thanks
to
all
of
you,
it's
nice
to
meet
you.
I
live
at
this
home
with
my
wife
and
children,
and
I'm
just
coming
at
this.
The
perspective
of
a
homeowner
who
thinks
that
you
know,
like
cases,
should
be
treated
alike,
and
so
I'd
like
to
address
three
things.
One
is
the
fair
market
value
issue.
I
don't
think
my
home
has
been
valued
in
comparison
with
the
fair
market
value
of
homes
in
the
area.
The
appraisers
have
listed
three
homes
of
comparable
sales.
B
I
should
step
back
and
mention
in
my
neighborhood.
The
homes
are
are
generally
cookie
cutter
built
in
1951.
B
The
only
modifications
are,
if
you
know
me,
people
add
a
small
addition,
things
of
that
sort,
so
it's
pretty
easy
to
get
comparables.
So
two
of
these
sales
were
for
760.
one
was
for
8.25.
B
The
760
is
well
below
what
my
home
was
originally
assessed
at,
which
was
8.27
after
I
appealed
it
got
lowered
to
814,
but
760
is
what
the
market
is
saying.
A
comparable
home
is
in
my
neighborhood
that
825
home
similar
setup
to
mine,
but
is
an
example
of
a
home
where
changes
and
additions
have
been
made.
There
is
a
sun
room
which
is
enclosed
and
used
as
a
full
room
comparison
to
my
home.
I
have
a
sunroom,
but
it's
it
cam,
it's
not
winterized.
It
doesn't
have
an
air
conditioner,
it's
not
a.
B
It
was
essentially
a
screened-in
porch
that
put
somebody
put
some
slabs
of
of
window
slabs
on,
whereas
this
825
home
has
a
full
sunroom.
That's
that's
fully
enclosed
and
usable,
and
they
added
an
addition,
above
it
so
I'll
bump
out
above
it
that
doesn't
exist
in
my
home.
That
doesn't
exist
in
this
in
these
two
homes
at
760..
B
So
that's
on
the
comparable
sales.
I
think
my
home
is
being
over
over
valued,
then
second,
on
comparable
assessments
in
my
appeal,
I
included
a
number
of
assessments,
but
I'll
just
focus
on
the
one
that
the
appraisers
focused
on,
which
is
a
home
right
around
the
block
from
mine
which
sold
for
8
30
in
2017.
B
B
The
other
issue
is
that
this
home
is
again
an
example
of
one
of
these
cookie
cutter
homes.
That,
though,
had
had
changes
made
to
it
so
similar
situation.
They
made
changes
to
their
sun
room.
It's
a
bumped
out
sun
room,
fully
usable
I've
been
in
the
home
when
it
was
on
the
market
and
so
and
they've
got
a
finished
basement
like
mine.
B
They've
got
a
new
kitchen
all
of
those
things,
so
just
in
terms
of
the
comparable,
that's
being
used,
it's
it's
comparable,
but
it's
actually
a
nicer
and
bigger
home
than
than
mine
is,
and
so
I
think
we're
not
just
light.
Cases
are
not
being
treated
alike.
I'm
not
an
expert
on
assessments
and
just
in
reviewing
the
materials
beforehand.
B
B
B
I
didn't
know
that
that
was
being
listed
as
comparable
until
I
got
the
response
which
I
received
after
my
appeal
was
filed,
and
I
don't
have
photos
of
the
inside
of
that
home,
but
somebody
thought
it
was
worth
8.25,
so
it
can't
be
a
dump,
and
so
I
I
think
the
issue
just
from
you
know,
assessment
point
of
view.
Is
that
mine?
You
know,
because
I
know
this
is
being
offered.
This
is
done
off
a
calculator
all
that
stuff.
B
My
ea
is
out
of
line
with
the
other
eas
in
the
neighborhood,
and
so
I
think
that's
the
root
cause
of
the
issue.
But
if
you
just
run
the
numbers,
if
you
take
the
three
comparable
home
sales
that
they
listed,
the
median
price
is
760..
So
I'm
being
way
way
above
that.
But
if
we
want
to
take
into
account
the
home
for
825,
the
average
price
would
have
been
782.
B
So
again,
my
assessment
is
is
way
above
that
and
then,
if
we
want
to
look
at
the
assessment
values
and
not
just
the
the
price
values,
if
you
take
the
average
of
the
of
all
four
that
they're
looking
at
that
comes
out
to
804..
So
you
know
to
price
me
originally
at
827
and
then
just
to
bump
me
down
to
814.
B
You
know,
I
don't
think
is
equitable
and
I'd
say
this
is
a
culmination
of
you
know
a
number
of
years
of
bump
ups
in
the
assessment
value,
and
I
may
have
been
asleep
at
the
switch
and
not
realizing
this.
But
I
just
think
you
know
in
my
neighborhood
they're,
very
comparable
homes
and
mine
is
is
being
priced
out
of
whack
and
in
fact,
I'm
being
you
know,
priced
lower
in
this
one
case,
a
house
that
is
a
nicer
house,
a
bigger
house
than
mine
and
that's
sold
for
considerably
more
so
I'll.
B
Leave
it
at
that
I'll
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
have,
but
thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration.
A
C
D
You,
okay
hi
good
morning,
members
of
the
board,
mr
sullivan
good
morning
today
I
will
explain
the
2020
evaluation
for
the
property
at
2709
north
somerset
street.
The
house
was
built
in
1951.
It's
a
two-story
brick
with
a
finished
basement.
It's
well
maintained
in
a
good
condition:
three
bedrooms:
two
and
a
half
bathrooms
the
house
was
purchased
in
2015
for
7.75
75,
000
and
the
subject.
Property
also
was
inspected
in
2019.
Due
to
a
previous
assessment
review.
Last
year,
the
the
sketch
and
the
exterior
measurements
were
all
confirmed.
D
E
D
D
D
We
consider
that
the
location
of
the
properties
of
mr
sullivan
is
superior
because
it's
in
a
more
quiet
section
of
the
street
there's
no
right
on
the
intersection
with
north
korea
that
which
can
be
a
little
more
traffic
or
more
loud
on
that
section
of
the
street
comp
number
three
also
is
a
similar
house
built
in
1951
sold
for
760
in
2018.
D
Similar
footprint
to
the
subject
basement
is
only
partially
finished,
with
wood
paneling
no
bathroom.
Also,
this
house
is
the
second
from
the
corner
with
not
north
trivia
street.
Again,
the
subject
isn't
a
much
more
quiet
section
of
the
street.
Now
as
close
to
north
new
york,
like
the
two
properties
that
sold
for
760.
D
the
side,
porch
of
this
house
is
almost
identical.
Condition
than
mr
sullivan's
house
is
is
yes
a
side.
Porch
is
now
considered
part
of
the
level
of
space
of
the
house,
and
does
it
doesn't
add
to
the
finish
to
the
totally
level
space
of
the
house.
We
can
see
that
the
subject
actually
has
more
more
recent
renovations
in
the
basement
and
also
has
an
additional
value
in
the
basement
that
we
consider
that
the
subject
is
superior
to
this
house.
D
Also,
after
the
owner's
request
to
review
the
assessment
of
the
property,
we
decide
to
make
a
revision
from
the
original
827
thousand
dollars
down
to
814
thousand.
D
F
D
D
Yeah
so
again,
some
of
these
houses
have,
I
mean
most
of
these
houses,
have
a
porch
on
the
side,
small
brick
porch.
Some
of
them
actually
have
refinished
that
area,
and
we
are
counting
that
additional
square
footage
into
the
total
finished
area
of
the
house.
That's
the
that's.
The
difference
between
the
the
square
footage
of
the.
D
E
G
The
main
difference
is
the
basement
that
is
making
the
effective
age
higher
than
the
rest,
but
yeah
I
mean
looking
at
the
pictures
of
the
comparables
that
were
provided,
and
you
know
I
looked
down
mris
also
the
similarities
are
there,
I
mean
some
of
the
homes
also
have
the
old
tiles.
Like
mr
sullivan,
you
know
the
green,
pink
or
yellow
tiles.
I
know
so.
Is
it
just
the
basement
that
is
making
the
difference
in
the
effective
age.
D
D
So
I
actually
decided
to
make
a
correction
to
the
effective
age
and
lower
that
to
1975,
even
though
the
house
was
built
in
1951,
but
I
feel
comfortable
with
that
effective,
as
is
today.
After
reviewing
the
assessment,
I
don't
see,
I
don't
feel
like.
I
should
lower
that
much
more
and
this
has
been
renovated
has
been
upgraded
recently.
D
I
Yeah,
why
do
you
think
the
we've
got
two
sales
that
are
significantly
below
the
assessed
value,
comp,
one
and
comp
three
and
they're
pretty
recent?
So
what
do
you
what's
going
on
there?
Is
there?
Are
there
non-arc
length
transaction?
Is
this
a
tear
down?
What
do
you
think
is
happening
there.
D
D
These
properties
are,
one
of
them
is
in
the
corner
of
north
trinidad
street
and
the
other
one
is
the
second,
from
from
the
from
the
corner
of
north
nila
street
might
be
an
actual
outside
influence
for
being
located
that
close
to
that
street
and
also
being
close
to
the
high
school,
that
is
on
north
treaty,
that
that
might
be
an
outside
influence
and
negative
adjustments
that
need
to
be
included
to
those
properties
on
that
section
of
north
trinidad.
D
That's
something
that
we
might
need
to
research
more
and
it
has
been
brought
up
by
by
the
analytic
review
for
mr
sullivan.
D
Today,
all
these
properties
have
been
valued
the
same.
There
is
no
adjustments
again.
We
might
need
to
make
more
research
and
see
exactly
something
that
is
an
enough,
an
external
factor
bringing
those
values
down,
but
in
2019,
when
I
did
the
review
for
mr
sullivan
also,
we
have
sales
that
are
above
800
000.
D
We
have
a
bro.
We
support
the
assessment
last
year
showing
that
there
were
sales
for
830,
850
and
900
000
dollars
in
the
same
neighborhood,
in
the
same
location
that
as
mr
sloven,
so
the
prices
are,
the
sales
prices
are
are
supporting
the
current
assessment.
Okay,.
A
Hey
any
other
questions,
mr
yates,
I
can't
see
you
for
some
reason.
Mr
brinley's
camera
is
on
and
he's
taking
your
spot
on
the
screen.
Do
you
have
any
questions.
D
Yes,
so
again,
after
reviewing
mr
sullivan's
assessment
for
2020,
it
was
recommended
by
to
reduce
the
revise
the
assessment
from
820
000
to
down
to
814
000,
and
that
will
be
our
recommendation
for
the
assessment
on
year.
20
2020..
Thank
you.
B
B
One
thing
mr
eubart
did
not
talk
about
was
comparable
number
four,
the
home,
that's
around
the
block.
For
me,
that
is
not
near
north
trinidad
street
and
that
has
that
is
priced
less
than
mine,
but
sold
for
830.
And
if
you
look
at
the
pictures
of
the
basement,
fully
finished
basement
nice
bathroom
nice
kitchen,
so
I
don't
and
then
has
that
bump
out
of
the
sun
room.
B
A
G
Think
well
I'll
I'll
go
ahead
and
start.
The
first
reaction
I
had
with
this
case
is
where
you
know
we're
looking
at
fair
market
value,
we're
looking
at
what
a
house
would
sell
for,
and
normally
the
assessment
is
either
there
or
below.
G
F
Trying
to
be
polite
and
not
squeak
in
front
of
people,
even
though
I
have
a
squeakless
chair.
Thank
you.
What
I
was
focusing
on
the
entire
time
was
the
effect
of
age,
I'm
sure
it's
a
little
more
modern
than
the
comparables,
but
the
comparables
and
the
subjects
house
are
not
modern,
effective
ages
and
the
difference
between
an
effective
age.
F
As
an
example,
2015
versus
2005
is
much
bigger
difference
to
me
than
1975
and
1965,
and
so
I'm
I'm
sympathetic
that
I
mean
that
that
that
shouldn't
be
taken
in
such
significant
account
as
an
example
between
it
and
comparable
one.
F
The
twenty
thousand
dollars
are
so
different
and
I
was
edging
in
my
mind
and
I'll
just
put
it
out
now
to
re
to
return
the
assessed
value
all
in
the
improvement,
of
course,
to
the
2019
level,
because
I'm
not
I
I
just
don't
feel
compelling
1975
is
such
a
compelling,
effective
age
that
it
should
be
demonstrated.
The
improvement
should
be
demonstrably
higher
than
otherwise
very
very
similar
homes.
I
Okay,
mr
hoffman
yeah,
I'm
I'm
with
you
ken
and
I
think
it
puts
it
kind
of
in
the
right
spot
between
comps
one
and
three
and
comp
four.
I
think
it's
definitely
not
as
nice,
a
house
as
comp
4
when
you
look
at
comport's
a
bigger
lot
he's
got
the
finished
basement
in
the
the
enclosed
sunroom,
which
you
mentioned,
and
the
assessment's
808
600.
So
I
think
you
need
to
be
for
equalization
purposes.
A
C
I
agree
it
should
be
lowered
and
what
I
focused
on
excuse
me
was.
You
know
this
has
more
finished
basement
space,
but
to
me
that's
of
less
value
and
it's
just
not
as
accommodating.
I
don't
think
as
general
finished
area
and
comp
3
is
the
same
with
finished
area
but
comps
one
and
two
have
significantly
more,
and
so
I
I
would
go
with
with
this
suggestion
to
go
with
2019.
A
I'm
sorry,
I
just
have
a
a
comment
and
a
question
to
your
point,
mr
lawson,
about
the
basement
being
lesser
value.
I
think
that's
built
into
the
system
that
anything
below
grade
is
assessed
at
a
less
value,
so
I
think
that's
covered.
My
concern
is,
I
think,
mr
yates,
you
suggested
to
go
back
to
the
value
of
2019.
Are
you
talking
the
whole
value,
because
that
puts
it
back
at
171
4
for
the
building
and
the
land
did
in
fact
go
up.
F
I'm
getting
too
good
at
this.
My
idea
was
no
the
land's
the
land,
I'm
100
happy,
but
I
I
was
just
thinking
the
overall
assessment
of
803.
500
and
and
taking
it
directly
out
of
the
improvement.
F
That
was
my
notion,
but
because
of
course
the
improvement
is
the
same
2019
and
2020..
So
I
would
recommend.
F
Well,
I
would,
I
wouldn't
touch
the
land
not
ever.
It
was
the
overall
assessment
I
was
looking
at,
and
so
so
having
said
that,
so
that
brings
the
because
this
is
a
great
question.
So
thank
you
brings
the
it
down
11
thousand
one,
forty
seven,
which
is
still
higher
than
comps
one
and
three
yeah.
I
feel.
A
F
Yes,
no,
I
was
looking
at
at
starting
with
814
2020
and
158
the
improvement
for
2020
and
getting
the
again
the
814
down
to
8035
and
so
taking
10
500
off
of
the
improvement,
making
it
140
147.9,
which
again
is
higher
than
counts
one
and
three,
which
are
the
best
comps.
J
A
F
J
A
J
J
G
I
know
it's
not
a
big
difference
on
the
assessment
itself,
but
I
agree
with
kane.
I
think
either
we
you
know,
that's
a
a
good
number
to
pick
to
you
know
I
guess
to
just
make
a
an
adjustment.
What
I
was
doing
is
I
was
looking
at
comparable
number
one
that
is
assessed
at
796.8,
and
you
know
to
me
honestly,
looking
at
the
pictures
they
look
similar
the
same.
G
You
know
same
type
of
quality,
whether
the
basement
on
that
one
is
a
little
bit
newer
or
not
like
we
said
you
know,
I
don't
think
it
makes
so
much
of
a
difference.
The
effective
age-
and
I
also
looked
at
comparable
number
four
assessed
at
808
600..
G
If
we
just
take
the
difference
in
the
land,
because
it's
a
little
bit
bigger,
that's
eleven
thousand
seven
hundred,
I
reduce
it
from
the
eight
fourteen.
G
I'm
sorry
if
we
reduce
that
difference
from
comparable
number
four.
I
come
up
with
another
number
of
seven.
Ninety
six,
nine
hundred
which
to
me
is
a
little
bit
more
in
line
than
you
know.
As
far
as
success
than
just
sale
prices,
I
think
the
sale
price
is
a
good
way
to
work
with,
but
looking
at
the
assessments,
I
would
feel
more
comfortable
going
with
something
that
at
least
I
can
justify.
A
E
K
A
A
D
G
A
Jose
thank
you.
Okay.
Mr
panorana
made
a
motion
to
reduce
the
assessment
to
796
900,
based
on
the
assessments
of
comp
one
and
come
four
have
a
second.
A
A
A
M
M
M
If
you
cycle
through
the
photographs,
I
submitted
a
living
room,
kitchen,
dining
area,
bathroom
bedroom
and
so
forth.
You'll
see
that
carpeting
throughout
the
apartment
is,
as
it
was
in
june
1998
when
we
purchased
it.
M
M
So
it's
essentially
the
same
kitchen
that
I
walked
into
in
june
of
1998,
with
the
exception
of
the
upgraded
granite
countertops,
the
cabinets
are
original.
The
floor
is
original,
as
is
the
tile
floor
in
the
foyer.
M
The
bathroom
in
that
picture.
That's
the
same
bathroom
when
we
bought
the
place,
with
the
exception
of
replacing
the
toilet
back
in
2010,
the
exterior
window
screens
are
all
the
same.
I
don't
have
an
exterior
shot
of
that,
but
they
are
the
same
and
deteriorating
to
some
extent.
M
So,
as
I
said,
there's
been
no
improvements
in
this
apartment
and
the
two
comparable
units
that
I
submitted
are
both
the
same
size
area
as
mine,
which
is
the
637
to
670
square
feet,
and
I'm
sort
of
in
the
middle
of
that
at
644
square
feet.
They
both
have
terraces
and
all
both
of
them
have
had
wooden
floors.
M
Tile
floor
took
place
upgrades
to
the
kitchen
to
stainless
steel
and
they're
described
in
the
documents
that
I
submitted.
They've
had
bathrooms
upgraded
and
you
can
see
from
the
pictures,
particularly
of
a
comp
ii,
the
living
room,
but
particularly
the
kitchen
area
and
so
forth,
which
has
been
totally
redone
and
so
forth
and
they're.
Both
both
of
those
are
assessed
considerably
lower
in
mind.
M
M
M
M
The
contrast
between
the
two
comparables
that
I
submitted,
the
first
of
which
sold
for
380
000
and
the
second
one
sold
for
435,
reflect
improved
apartments
of
this
kind
in
the
complex,
and
I
just
asked
the
board
to
really
consider
looking
at
the
photographs
of
my
apartment.
If
you
really
think
that
that's
worth
400
000
on
the
market
in
in
january
of
this
year,.
N
N
This
trend
has
been
repeated
for
several
years
now
and
when
we
bump
up
assessments
to
reflect
market
value,
but
then
the
following
year,
market
value
for
these
units
increase
again
and
we've
been
playing
catch-up
so
to
speak.
In
2019,
all
184
units
saw
a
three
percent
increase
and
in
2020
all
units
saw
a
five
percent
increase,
even
after
the
five
percent
increase.
The
median
assessment
still
only
reached
96
percent
of
market
value
in
this
building,
although
built
in
the
mid
1990s,
the
original
build
quality
was
high
and
the
units
have
not
aged
much.
N
N
I
wanted
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
terrorists
that
the
appellant
mentioned
in
his
write
up
to
the
boe
adjustments
such
as
tear
floor
parking,
balconies,
etc,
are
reviewed
every
year
to
make
sure
that
our
current
values
are
accurate
when
a
unit
sells
that
has
characteristics
that
have
value.
We
review
these
during
the
analysis.
N
N
The
subject
currently
has
an
adjustment
of
20
000
that
is
given
to
the
large
400
square
foot
terrace,
not
for
the
view
that
you
have
from
it.
So
the
2
20
000
adjustment
is
for
the
terrace,
not
the
view.
This
terrace
is
for
the
private
use
of
the
homeowner
and
is
not
shared.
Sixteen
other
units
have
a
similar
terrace
and
received
the
same
adjustment.
N
Past
sales
have
shown
that
the
market
value
on
these
terraces
have
not
changed
in
the
past
couple
years,
but
in
fact,
our
department
determined
in
2009
that
the
terraces
were
not
as
desirable
as
they
once
were,
and
their
assessed
value
was
reduced
from
40
000
to
20
000
in
2009.,
a
unit
that
has
one
of
these
terraces
sold
during
the
analysis
period
and
like
most
sales
in
this
complex,
the
sales
price
was
higher
than
the
assessed
value.
Even
after
the
five
percent
increase
for
2020.
N
A
Okay,
thank
you,
questions
from
board
members,
please.
G
E
N
Right
20
like
to
make
a
clarification
in
in
our
system.
The
way
this
building
was
set
up,
originally,
there's
no
option
in
our
system
to
have
a
terrorist
value.
Some
units
have
patio
values,
but
whoever
set
this
building
up
when
it
was
constructed
in
our
department
said
these
are
not
patios.
These
are
terraces
and
the
way
they
were
set
up
in
our
system.
They
were
categorized
as
a
view
adjustment
because
we
just
don't
have
a
terrace
adjustment.
The
twenty
thousand
dollar
value
is
for
the
terrorists.
It's
not
for
the
view.
N
There
are
sixteen
units
that
have
this
terrace
the
highest
one
is
on
the
seventh
floor,
the
lowest
one
is
on
the
fourth
floor,
the
ones
that
are
on
the
fourth
floor
are
looking
at
the
townhomes
across
the
street
or
into
trees.
They
don't
have
a
view,
but
they
still
have
that
twenty
thousand
dollar
adjustment
for
the
terrace
okay.
G
N
I'm
sorry
about
that
yeah.
We
do
have
floor
adjustments
in
this
building.
I
believe
they
start
on
the
fourth
floor.
The
fourth
floor
has
an
adjustment
of
a
thousand
fifth
is
two
thousand
six
is
three
thousand
and
the
seventh
floor
has
a
floor.
Adjustment
of
four
thousand.
N
N
M
Yes,
I
I
read
the
department's
analysis
and
so
forth,
but
what
I
want
the
board
to
concentrate
on
is
the
condition
of
my
apartment,
712
versus
the
renovated
apartments
that
are
in
the
same
size
as
mine
and
both
have
terraces,
which
you
know
their
system
may
call
a
patio
but
they're
around
120
150
square
feet
each
so
they're,
not
small,
and
look
at
the
condition
that
those
two
apartments
are
in
and
they've
sold
recently
and
one's
over
400
000,
the
others
are
380..
M
M
C
I
think
I
have
it
on
now.
I'd
be
curious.
If
greg
has
a
comment
on
a
square
foot
basis,
I
was
looking
at
the
living
area
of
of
this
unit
and
then
the
others-
and
I
only
looked
at
north
taylor,
but
his
on
a
square
foot
basis
is
615..
C
I
I
don't
think
it's
that
far
out
of
whack,
I
mean
there's
a
difference,
but
if
you,
if
you
you
got
to
pull
out
that
20
000
on
on
the
terrace
and
that
brings
the
square
foot
down
a
little
bit
closer.
A
Yeah,
I
would
agree
with
greg,
I
mean
I
look
at
the
comps.
I
think
the
comps
support
the
assessment.
I
mean
in
answer
to
the
question
from
the
appellate.
You
know,
would
you
pay
this
in
the
current
condition?
I
mean,
there's
obviously
deferred
maintenance.
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
a
realtor,
but
I
think
if
a
realtor
went
in
there
you
would
say
pick
up
the
trash
bags.
You
know
get
rid
of
the
clutter,
the
the
square
footage
and
just
the
location
alone.
I
I
don't
see
where
396.5
is
an
overassessment.
F
Know
I
know
I'm
sorry,
I
I
keep
it
up
so
that
I
can
see
it
and
I
still
don't
see
it.
I
I
the
key
to
me
is
the
the
terrace
for
this
building.
That's
unusual
and
that's
got
to
be
real,
exciting
to
people,
and
I
I
wanted
to
lower
this,
but
after
the
height
adjustment,
the
terrace
adjustment,
it
does
seem
in
line
to
me
again
after
stewing
on
it
that
this
seems
high
based
on
some
comps.
C
G
No,
I
agree,
I
think
the
main
difference
is
that
twenty
thousand
dollar
in
you
know
increment.
G
J
J
A
C
A
Opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous,
the
county
is
confirmed
at
396
500
for
2020.
A
Okay
is
mr
viola
on
the
call.
I
see
him.
Yes,
okay,
there
was
a
request.
Well,
we'll
take
a
little
break
before
we
do
the
three
cases,
but
there
was
a
request
and
there's
some
confusion
over
hearing
the
cases
and
a
request
to
postpone
it's
been
the
practice
of
the
board
that
if
there's
certainly
good
notice
to
do
it
and
we
could
replace
it,
we
would
do
it,
but
historically,
we
have
not
done.
That
is
the
board
in
agreement
with
that.
That
we'll
hear
the
cases.
A
Yes,
yes,
okay,
all
right,
so
we
will
hear
these
cases.
Mr
lawson
is
not
going
to
be
present
because
he
didn't
read
the
cases,
so
he
can
go
ahead
and
sign
off,
but
then
we'll
take
a
five
minute
break.
It's
9
51.
we'll
come
back
at
9
56
and
we
will
hear
these
three
cases.
Mr
lawson.
C
A
G
A
Yes
and
andrew
viola,
okay,
perfect,
okay,
before
we
call
the
case,
I
just
want
to
remind
all
the
board
members:
this
is
streaming
live.
There
are
other
people
on
the
call
and
other
people
who
will
hear
this.
So
please
don't
use
actual
numbers
in
any
of
the
discussions
or
questions
you
have
to
refer
to
page
numbers
and
line
numbers.
A
H
So
this
rpc,
this
is
in
the
station
square
condominium
in
arlington.
It
is
a
building
built
by
a
developer
and
there
is
approximately
sixty
thousand
square
feet,
still
owned,
contiguous
square
feet
owned
and
operated
by
the
developer,
at
least
to
third
parties.
This
particular
rpc.
H
H
I
want
to
take
a
few
minutes
to
just
talk
about
the
market,
real
quick,
because
one
of
the
things
in
our
argument
is
about
cap
rate
and
to
remind
people
even
pre-covet.
H
This
claritin
courthouse
market
had
about
6.3
million
square
feet
of
office
space
at
an
average
rent
of
40,
a
square
foot
and
a
vacancy
rate
of
14,
and
also
in
competing
areas.
There's
another
800
000
square
feet
of
vacant
space
and
then
the
4
million
big
square
feet
of
vacant
space
in
the
boston
roseland
market.
H
I
know
we're
probably
one
of
the
first
commercial
commercial
hearings
that
you
guys
are
having.
I
also
wanted
to
point
out
that
in
2018
the
average
score
the
sales
price
average
on
the
three
transactions
that
occurred
was
344
dollars
a
square
foot,
and
there
was
one
cap
rate
that
was
disclosed
at
6.25.
H
Actually
2500
wilson
and
this
building
actually
is
over
a
hundred
thousand
square
feet.
Has
an
atrium
has
a
conferencing
facility?
Has
a
property
manager
on
site?
Has
a
restaurant
and
has
shower
facilities?
H
The
cap
rate
that
the
county
is
using
is
an
effective,
unloaded
rate
of
5.2
percent
5.2
percent
for
a
tenant
whose
credit,
as
I
disclose
in
my
write-up,
is
really
shaky.
Within
this
this
market
even
pre-coded,
I
cited
an
actual
write-up
by
a
third
party
about
how
many
locations
they
had
closed
and
consolidated.
H
We
spoke
about
the
the
transaction
that
we
had
been
asked
to
do,
where
we're
no
longer
getting
corporate
guarantee
and
subsequently
we
all
know
it's
happened
subsequently
and
that
will
be
for
next
year,
but
I
think
my
my
my
insight
was
quite
on
point,
given
their
reactions
to
current
events
and
trying
to
get
out
of
leases
with
landlords.
H
Let's
see,
I
do
want
to
point
out
in
the
appraiser's
comments
for
this,
that
there
are
several
corrections
that
need
to
be
made.
So
I'm
referring
to
the
memorandum
to
the
board
station
square.
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
it's
residential
condo,
mainly
there
is
office
and
retail
space
as
the
appraiser
indicates.
H
I
also
wanted
to
clarify
that
the
parking
areas
are
not
part
of
the
condo
association.
The
parking
area
is
a
separate
rpc
and
is
operated
by
colonial
and
all
tenants.
Office,
residential
or
commercial
have
to
pay
for
parking
and
parking
is
eleven
dollars
an
hour
eleven
dollars
for
the
day,
so
parking
is
not
included
in
just
being
a
tenant
here.
H
They
also,
let's
see
the
site,
we
talked
about
besides
being
contiguous,
and
I
also
want
to
clarify
that
the
two
rpcs
together
and
the
write-up
the
appraiser
indicates
that
we're
claiming
a
value
and
that's
incorrect.
The
value
that
we're
claiming
is
the
6.2
plus
the
1.3
for
a
total
of
7.5
rpc331
is
a
larger
space
at
6.2
we're
claiming
a
cap
rate
of
8.
H
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
and
the
ine
summary
provided
and
the
appraisers
write
up.
It's
misleading
on
the
column
g2
on
the
appellants
pro
forma.
That
square
footage
uses
the
larger
square
footage.
The
per
square
foot
number
of
356
uses
the
the
larger
square
footage
and
the
comp
to
compare
it
to
the
the
real
estate's
office.
523
is
more
like
a
400
per
square
foot,
so
yeah.
So
this
is
part
of
a
larger,
a
larger,
continuous
the
space
if
it
was
redone,
would
more
likely
be
office
than
its
current
use.
H
H
H
The
pwc
investors
survey
specifically
stated
that
no
one
would
be
interested
in
non-institutional
grade
buildings
and
this
particular
complex.
This
space
would
not
be
considered.
Institutional
is
not
large
enough
and
they
actually
cite
cap
rates
of
4.5
to
8.5
percent,
and
somehow
we
end
up
with
a
5.2
here
and
70
percent
of
them
can
consider
it
a
buyer's
market
and
the
other
30
percent
said
it
was
just
neutral.
H
The
price
waterhouse
coopers
has
no
office
information
at
all
and
then,
if
we
look
over
at
the
at
the
other,
the
other
guidelines
that
they
use
for
office,
they
cite
the
same
reports
except
for
a
jll
office,
cost
benchmarking
report
and
that
really
only
states
to
regarding
the
cost
of
the
build
out
and
with
less
than
one
minute
left.
Mr
decamp,
do
you
have
anything
to
say
on
on
this
one?
No
you've
covered
it.
O
O
L
Good
morning
board
good
morning,
appellants,
my
name
is
lori
roskind
and
I
am
a
commercial
appraiser
with
arlington
county
to
start
off
with.
L
First
of
all,
I
just
gave
a
brief
description
that
this
is
a
station
square
commercial
condominium
and
it's
comprised
of
yes.
It
is
mixed
use
with
residential,
multiple
stories
high
and
on
the
the
three
floors,
it's
primarily
restaurant,
retail
and
office,
and
and
this
the
subject
is
located
in
building
a.
There-
are
multiple
buildings
in
station
square.
L
So,
first
of
all,
I
just
want
to
remind
the
board
that,
when
we're
valuing
these
properties
we're
basing
on
january
1
2020
also
when
we
look
at
the
general
commercial
guidelines,
these
the
guidelines
for
commercial
condominiums
are
based
on
sales
and
income
and
expense
statements
solely
pertaining
to
commercial
condominiums.
L
They
do
not
include
the
large
office
buildings,
they
don't
include
small
office
or
other
freestanding
retail
or
restaurant
or
so
on
and
so
forth.
It's
strictly
we're
analyzing,
just
commercial
condominium
properties
together
and
we
did
base
our
cap
rate,
which
is
loaded
at
6.25
percent
and
that's
based
on
the
sales
that
have
occurred
in
the
county
of
other
commercial
condominiums.
L
L
L
That
this
had
occurred
october
2019.
when
we
valued
all
the
commercial
units
within
station
square.
We
applied
the
same
rental
rate,
stabilized
vacancy
expenses
and
cap
rate
across
all
the
units
to
equalize
and.
A
F
A
lot
of
this
has
to
do
with
the
cap
rate,
and
I've
heard
several
of
them
from
the
appellant
in
the
department,
but
I
didn't
hear
the
one.
This,
I
guess
is
the
question
for
the
department.
I
didn't
hear
the
one
that
is
on
page
nine
of
the
guidelines,
which
is
for
general
commercial
and
condominium,
which
is
seven
percent.
I
heard
five
point
two
or
6.2
heard
it's
loaded.
It's
unloaded
tell
me
the
department
and
since
your
guidelines,
page
nine
towards
the
bottom
general
commercial
properties,
oh
excluding
commercial,
condos,
so
where's
the
6.2.
L
It's
on
page
nine,
okay,
and
if
you
look
about
midway,
where
it
mentions
capitalization
rates
for
general
commercial
properties,
it's
a
grid
and
you'll
see
seven
percent
and
then
you'll
see
6.25
repeated
three
times.
Yes,
okay,
look
over
to
the
left,
where
it
says
commercial,
condominiums,
excluding
north
and
south
medical.
The
cap
rate
is
6.25.
F
A
Okay,
I
have
a
question
for
the
appellant
miss
waters
when
I
look
at
page
four,
the
ina
statement
and
I'm
going
to
try
and
do
this
slowly.
So
I
don't
say
numbers
out
loud,
but
when
I
look
at
the
historical
information
of
the
noi
on
line
21
for
column,
a
b
and
c
for
2016,
17
and
18..
A
H
Because
I'm
using
the
actual
noi
and
the
counties
actually
loaded
their
income
number
with
real
estate
tax
reimbursement.
H
That
we
have,
this
is
a
space.
That's
that's
leased
to
a
single
tenant.
This
is
not.
This
is
not
operated
as
a
condominium.
This
is
operated
as
an
office
and
that's
kind
of
one
of
our
key
points
here.
If
this
isn't
like
a
three
or
five
or
a
six
thousand
square
foot
condominium,
that's
operated
and
owner
operated
like
on
the
fourth
floor.
This
is
60
000
square
feet.
This
is
a
piece
of
60
000
square
feet
that
a
developer
built
and
a
developer.
Lease
is
out.
H
It
is
financed
all
together.
It
is
it
these
there's
two
spaces
here,
three,
three
one
and
three,
three
two,
and
if
the
word
wants,
I
think
we
can
table
it
and
look
at
three
three
two,
because
I
think
these
two
need
to
be
looked
in
conjunction,
and
I
will
actually
point
out
that
the
boe
memo
431
is
missing
our
entire
boe
application.
If
you
look
at
that-
and
I
brought
that
to
mrs
torres
attention
as
soon
as
the
memo
was
was
produced-
and
I
was
told
that
that
nothing
could
be
done
of
it.
A
Okay,
well
we'll
get
to
that
when
we
get
to
that
case.
This
is
this
case.
H
A
Right,
but
that
was
what
was
sent
out
to
us
yesterday
afternoon.
Okay,
you
did
receive
that
yes,
but
I
guess
where
I'm
confused
in
though
looking
at
this
you've
got
you
know.
Historically,
we've
always
had
income
coming
from
it
factor
in
vacancy
and
then
do
the
expenses,
and
you
come
up
with
the
noi
for
the
three
previous
years.
Yeah.
H
And
I
don't
think
we
have
any
any
any
argument
on
noi.
Our
simple
argument
is
cap
rate
and
classification
of
of
the
asset.
The
asset
is
leased
and
should
be
more
considered
as
a
small
office
or
office
because
it's
second
floor
space.
Okay,.
A
I
Yeah
the
department
mentioned
another
sale
in
the
in
the
building
or
in
the
complex.
I
didn't
have
it
in
the
packet,
but
it
was
rpc
18015
334.
I
just
wondering
if
there
was
any
information
on
that
sale.
Is
this
a
retail
condo
in
the
same
complex
just.
I
I
H
L
Okay,
my
apologies,
but
the
I'll
have
to
pull
up
a
different
program.
If
you
could
give
me
just
a
moment,
I
can
pull
that
out
because
it
just.
L
P
Hey
greg,
I
got
the
answers
for
you
me
and
lori
was
actually
talking
about
this
sale
earlier,
so
the
sale
is
for
a
space
that
is
6
678
square
feet.
P
In
this
complex,
the
price
per
square
foot
was
546.57
and,
as
she
stated,
the
assessment
to
sales
ratio
was
88
percent.
I
A
F
Let
me
ask
the
the
appellant
first,
I
guess
I
have
two
questions
for
the
opponent
and
I
should
know
this,
but
jargon
is
used
differently
by
different
people.
How
does
the
real
estate
taxes,
because
they
do
take
it
out
as
pass-throughs
to
deduce
the
the
egi
the
effective
gross
income
through
pass-throughs
and
how?
How
does
the
loading
of
real
estate
taxes
make?
The
cap
rate
go
from
5.2
to
6.2
your
contention
being
that
it's
really
effectively,
therefore
5.2,
which
is
a
very,
very
low
cap
rate.
H
F
So
for
the
department,
following
up
directly
on
that
real
estate
tax,
isn't
considered
an
expense.
I
know
mortgage
payments
aren't
principal
interest.
L
All
right,
so
the
expense
is
because
we're
we're
trying
to
determine
what
the
taxes
are
going
to
be
for
properties.
We
do
not
include
taxes,
real
estate
taxes
and
the
expenses
and
that's
canceled
out
by
the
loaded
cap
rate
and
income
the
when
we're
looking
at
revenue.
We
want
to
know
what
the
base
is:
okay,
the
base
rate
and,
on
top
of
that
owners
are
being
reimbursed
for
real
estate
taxes
for
cam
insurance.
Other
items
also.
F
All
right
so
and
again,
I'm
rusty
I've
been
on
the
board
for
three
years,
so
I'm
doing
going
on
muscle
memory.
So
the
key
is
that
real
estate
taxes
are
the
payment
of
real
estate.
Taxes
by
owners
is
accounted
for
in
the
higher
than
otherwise
the
higher
cap
rate.
F
In
this
case
five
6.2
when
the
impeller
is
calculated
without
it
would
be
5.2,
but
also-
and
this
is
for
all
of
us-
the
the
opponent's
position
is
that
it
shouldn't
start
at
5.2
because
that's
lower
than
anything
in
the
county
for
for
several
years.
So
the
6.2
in
the
appellant's
position,
including
the
real
estate
tax,
offset,
should
be
something
higher
than
6.25.
Not
6.2
should
be
up
in
the
6.75
or
something
range
right.
A
ballot
ms
waters.
L
You
okay,
I'd
just
like
to
remind
the
board
on
page
four,
when
you
take
a
look
at
their
gpi,
it
increases
from
year
to
year
from
2016
to
2019..
L
L
I
would
like
to
remind
you
of
the
sale
that
has
occurred
within
this
subject's
building
and,
like
I
said
it
sold
for
three
million
six
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
and
the
assessment
ratio
is
eighty-eight
percent
and
additionally,
when
we
valued
all
of
the
commercial
condominiums
in
this
project,
we
applied
the
same
rental
rate,
stabilized
bacon,
baby
expenses
and
cap
rate
across
the
board.
H
Sure
thank
you,
so
I
did
want
to
clarify
one
thing
that
the
the
unit
that
sold
on
the
fourth
floor
for
that
3.6
million
dollars
is
an
owner-occupied
unit.
It
is
occupied
by
by
a
government
contractor
and
that
particular
floor
has
no
other
access.
H
They
have
no
other
commercial
above
them
and
their
tenant
their
their
neighboring
fellow
condominium
owner
is
also
a
a
high
security
high
risk
owner
very,
very
big
on
the
security
for
what's
going
up
there
without
saying
too
much
on
a
recorded
line,
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
our
building
has
been
referred
to
as
a
complex,
and
it
is
one
only
one
of
the
buildings
at
station
square,
commercial,
there's
only
one
very
modest
lobby
and
two
elevators
that
serve
the
commercial
space.
H
H
I
also
wanted
to
point
out
that
the
increases
that
lori
talked
about
are
due
to
re
real
estate.
Tax
reimbursement
increases
not
increases
in
actual
base,
rent.
F
Maybe
this
was
for
the
department,
but
you
all
I
bet
can
help
me.
I've
heard
twice
that
there
was
a
fourth
floor
unit
in
that
building
that
sold
recently
for
344
dollars
a
square
foot,
but
this
second
floor
space
is
assessed
at
522
dollars,
a
square
foot
and
the
department
said
that
the
ratio
was
very
low
and
I
I
didn't
hear
what
the
assessed
value
for
that
fourth
floor
unit
was,
but
the
sales
price
was
344
is
the
assessment
is
82
of
that
I
I
presume
so.
F
A
My
notes
say
that
it
sold
for
the
3.6
million
at
546
dollars
a
square
foot.
F
G
Just
one
thing
I
don't
think:
we've
had
anything
in
the
past
that
we
combined
units
to
make
it
just
because
they're
using
this
or
renting
it
and
they
consider
an
office
space.
I
mean
when
they're
condos,
we
look
at
each
condo
individually.
Don't
we
absolutely.
A
F
F
I
mean
you
know
in
this
country
and
they're
shaky,
and
particularly
now
with
kobe
they're
shakier,
but
I
don't
see
that
we're
making
assessments
on
current
tenants
cap
rate,
of
course,
is
all
about
future
value
based
on
today's
prices,
and
I
I
don't
think
us
that
we
should
take
that
into
consideration,
and
and
nor
is
it
up
to
us
to
deserve
to
determine
what
tenants
are
stronger
or
weaker
or
average
or
smart
or
slow.
So
I
I
don't
think
we
should
take
that
into
account
when
making
our
final
determination
comments
on
that.
G
Well,
I
agree,
I
think
you
know
if
that
was
the
case,
I'll
be
getting
tenants
with
bad
credit.
All
the
time
yeah.
A
So
the
issue
of
the
cap
rate
how's,
everybody
feel
about
that.
F
F
Assessments
or
determinations
or
reviews
or
investigations
of
larger
areas,
meaning
again
mid-atlantic
region
or
the
state
of
virginia,
and
I
feel
very,
although
again
my
feeling
is
the
cap
rate's
too
low.
I
couldn't
possibly
prove
that
and
I
have
to
defer
to
the
department.
That's
my
commercial
real
estate
hat
on.
I
It
can
I
have
the
same
feeling
and
I
get
it
because
I
understand
how
the
county's
got
to
do
bulk
appraisals-
and
you
know,
come
up
with
a
cap
rate
that
they
can
apply
to
every
property.
But
I
know
from
actual
practice
that
the
the
the
lease
and
the
tenant
and
their
credit
worthiness
is
probably
the
number
one
determinant
of
what
the
cap
rate
is
on
the
property,
especially
with
retail.
I
So
you
end
up
with
probably
some
really
nice
bank
properties
that
are
net
leased
for
25
years
to
you
know,
chase
bank
that
are
that
are
the
cap
rates,
probably
too
high,
that
the
county
is
using,
and
then
you
have
gold's
gem
who's
in
bankruptcy
from
what
I
understand
and
we're
they're
applying
a
cap
rate-
that's
far
too
low.
I
I
You
know
relative
to
what
their
corporate
credit
is.
A
bank
or
a
gold's
gym
is
going
to
trade
based
on
what
their
corporate
credit
is,
their
ability
to
pay
that
lease
throughout
the
term.
When
you
get
towards
the
end
of
the
term,
you
start
looking
at
okay.
I
Well,
what's
the
market
value
of
this
space,
not
so
much
based
on
the
lease
but
based
on
you
know
what
any
tenant
that
you
would
expect
to
take,
that
property
would
be
so,
and
I
think
the
gold's
gym
only
had
like
one
one
year
left
to
term
anyway,
so
you
kind
of
have
to
look
at
what
the
sub
market
rates
are
and-
and
you
know
it
kind
of
circles
back
around
to
maybe
when
you're
on
a
very
long
leased
property.
I
You
look
more
at
the
tenant
when
you're
on
a
short-term
lease.
You've
got
to
look
more
at
kind
of
the
average
across
the
the
county.
So
you
know
I
think
they've
I'm
rambling
on
here,
but
I
think
they
did
a
good
job,
making
an
adjustment
from,
I
think
they're
at
four
percent
or
something
last
year
on
commercial
condos,
and
this
is
an
improvement.
I
F
That
was
great
stuff
greg,
and
I
want
to
add
on
to
it
that
this
is
a
particularly
unusual
property,
given
that,
as
the
appellant
said,
and
I
fully
agree,
this
is
pretty
much
an
office
space,
but
guess
what
it's
being
used
as
a
retail
space
I
mean
gold's
gym
is
not
an
office
space
and
and
they
are-
and
it
is
a
triple
net
lease
and
most
office
users
if
gold's
gym
disappears
tomorrow
or
next
year,
are
not
going
to
be
on
a
triple
net
lease
they're
going
to
be
in
a
full
service
lease
and
there's
not
going
to
be
these
reimbursements
primarily
for
real
estate
taxes,
but
cam
and
other
stuff,
and
so
this
gets
to
be
even
more
complicated,
which
makes
me
even
more
wary
of
of
second
guessing
the
department
for
a
broad,
well
greg
said
it
best
summer
under
capitalized
undercap
rated.
F
If
that's
a
word,
some
are
over
cap
rated
and
we
got
one
county
and
we're
doing
mass
appraisal
just
like
we
do
for
residences,
and
we
have
to
make
some
for
equalization
case.
We
have
to
make
some
accommodations
among
the
various
buildings
and
their
particularly
tenanted
uses.
I
hope
that
makes
some
sense.
A
Oh,
it
makes
sense.
I
agree
I
mean,
and
and
also
I
mean
greg
what
you
had
said
like
there's
one
more
year
on
the
lease
we've
had
some
appellants
come
in
and
say:
oh
well,
we
only
have
one
more
year
on
the
lease,
so
we
want
to
lower
the
assessment
because
of
the
fact
that
it
is
going
to
come
up
for
renewal.
You
know,
and
they
may
or
may
not
be
there,
and
our
argument
has
always
been
well,
then
we'll
cross
that
bridge
when
we
get
to
it.
A
If,
for
some
reason
you
know
they
don't
renew
this
lease
and
it
goes
to
back
to
office
use
well,
then
the
rents
will
be
different
too.
So
again,
I
think
it's
like
the
cart
before
the
horse
to
see
you
know
what
in
fact
the
rents
will
be.
You
know
this
time
next
year
and
they
may
be,
you
know
quite
different
from
what
we've
got,
but
I
would
agree
with
ken
from
a
standpoint.
I
don't
see
how
to
change
the
cap
rate,
and
I
mean
based
on
not
having
the
2019
information.
A
F
And
I'll
add
next
year,
if
golds
goes
away
and
they're
returned
to
office,
they
are
going
to
have
massive
tenant
improvement,
allowance
and
and
brokers
commissions
in
front
of
them,
and
we'll
have
to
do
that
if
they
come
back,
we'll
have
to
take
a
look
at
that
below
the
line
as
we
normally
do,
and
that
would
be
legitimate
and
that
would
be
very
sympathetic
to
the
appellant
if
the
department
hadn't
done
that
up
front.
I
I
would
also
say
I
think,
and
I
was
looking
for
my
notes-
and
maybe
I
handed
them
in
last
year
or
something
so,
but
I
remember
there
was
a
professional
appraisal
that
tom
kalucci
submitted
on
this
property
and
and
and
there
was
a
lot
of
information
there
on
on
the
market
and
that
type
of
stuff-
and
I
remember
we-
we
did
reduce
the
assessment
to
like
430
dollars,
a
square
foot
or
something
like
that.
I
That's
where
we
we
got
the
2019
values
that
are
in
here
right
now
and
I
just
don't
see
a
lot
of
movement
in
prices
on
these
types
of
retail
condos
upward
movement
from
19
to
20..
So
I'm
kind
of,
like
leaning
on
the
fact
that
we
put
a
lot
of
thought
into
this
last
year.
I
know
we
got
to
re-hear
the
cases
every
year,
but
we
really
dug
into
it
last
year
and
and
we
came
up
with
the
value
and
just
being
involved
in
the
market
and
kind
of
understanding.
I
A
Right
but
greg.
I
would
ask
you,
though,
in
that
logic
and-
and
I
follow
that
logic,
but
when
you
look
at
the
noi
reported
for
16,
17
18
and
then
look
at
the
actual,
it
was
higher
than
what
we
were
anticipating
when
we
made
that
decision
this
time
last
year,.
A
I
I
E
I
I
You
know
money's
cheaper
a
year
later,
so
we'll
go
and
finance
the
heck
out
of
this
thing
and
and
and
pay
more,
but
I
you
know
I
I
would
I'll
just
tell
you
where
I'm
at
I'm
looking
at
2019,
I
would
freeze
it.
I
wouldn't
go
any
higher
than
19
and
you
know
next
year
with
fresh
eyes.
J
J
P
The
b-o-e
minute
should
be
in
the
packet
that
you
request
mark.
That
was,
we
put
the
minutes
in
the
packet.
P
We
looked
at
that,
remembering
that
your
what
your
request
was
sorry
the
camera's
not
on.
We
remembered
your
request
and
we
put
the
minutes
in
the
package.
You
all
increased
the
cap
rate
of
6.25
last
year.
That's
why
the
value
dropped.
It
wasn't
based
off
a
per
square
foot
rate.
It
was
a
change
to
6.25
percent,
which
we
are
using
now.
F
That
that
that
almost
gave
me
the
answer,
if,
if
the
board
felt
comfortable
enough
to
up
it-
and
I
assume-
was
a
quarter
of
a
point
last
year
based
on
our
discussion,
especially
greg's
about
the
length
of
the
lease
and
the
shakiness
and
whatnot-
that
I
would
feel
comfortable
bumping
this
one
up
for
this
property
and
it
addresses
the
some
cap
rates
for
some
properties
are
too
low.
Some
are
too
high.
F
A
Okay,
I
just
want
to
interject
one
thing
here
and
I
I'm
not
saying
not
to
do
it.
However,
when
you
come
before
the
board,
it
opens
up
the
whole
case
when
you
look
at
now
the
operating
income
and
you
look
at
the
the
track
record
that
we've
got
16
17
18
and
how
the
actual
assessment
is
understated
by
quite
a
bit,
if
you
bump
the
cap
rate
to
six
and
a
half
off
of
column
e,
which
is
the
actual
you
end
up
with
a
higher
value.
G
G
J
G
F
A
They
they
just
essentially
use
by
just
doing
basic
math.
They
use
the
the
number
under
e
of
just
the
office
retail.
A
Yeah,
no,
it
is
a
tricky
one.
But
again
that
being
said,
I
just
think
you
know
for
the
understated,
noi
and
the
low
I
mean
that
simple
test
of
using
the
higher
noi
and
a
higher
cap
rate
it
doesn't
justify
any
reduction.
A
C
A
Okay,
I'm
gonna
move
to
confirm
the
county's
tax
assessment
at
eight
million
one
thirty,
five.
A
A
A
H
All
right,
so
this
is
the
other
half
of
the
gold
space.
This
is
or
not
even
a
half
a
portion,
so
this
is
a
small
piece
of
it.
Under
the
single
under
the
same
lease,
the
county
has
assessed
it
at
a
million
eight
we're
con
saying
it's
a
million
three.
H
I
will
point
out
that
bush
construction
to
the
developer
manages
these
these
these
tenants
and
these
leases
and
does
not
charge
a
management
fee.
The
only
management
fee
here
is
the
imputed
management
fee
from
management
of
the
condominium.
So
that
is
why
the
noi,
compared
to
the
county
with
their
percentages
used,
is
lower.
H
So
if
I
talk
about
page
one,
two,
three
four
page,
four,
where
the
ine
summary,
I
once
again
point
out
that
the
the
base
front
on
here
these
are
triple
net
leases,
as
we've
discussed
on
the
other
rpc
and
the
base
rent
is
only
about.
Oh,
I
can't
even
say
numbers:
it
is
below
30.,
so
we're
using
a
43
and
we're,
including
reimbursements
here,
the
the
county's
using
43
dollars
a
square
foot
as
their
their
base.
The
increases
over
time,
the
assessment
since
2016
has
actually
increased.
H
K
K
The
rents
go
up
at
the
minimus
amount.
You
know
it's
like
a
two
percent.
The
tax
is
the
big
drive.
That's
the
big
annual
increase,
that's
probably
flowing
through
on
your
numbers,
although
I
am
not
as
familiar
with
them
as
you
all
are
in
terms
of
how
you
keep
score.
But
mary.
I
was
just
thinking
as
you
were,
making
your
comments
that
this
may
explain
the
question
you
were
trying
to
get
to
the
answer
to
get
to
the
bottom
of.
O
My
only
other
comment
is
that,
as
we
all
know,
last
year,
the
county
would
reach
for
a
50
increase
and
candidly.
My
sentiment
about
this
is
they
they
got
beat
back
to
about
an
eight.
So
now,
every
year,
they're
going
for
an
eight
until
they
get
their
50
and
by
every
year
they're
going
to
chip
away
and
try
to
get
us
for
another
eight
percent
increase
and,
as
david
said,
we
only
see
two
percent
increase
in
our
in
our
revenues
from
increased
rents.
O
A
L
My
apologies,
this
is
just
like
the
last
case.
I
wanted
to
point
out
that
once
again
we
only
compare
commercial
conversation
to
other
special
dominion
projects,
but
I
will
say
that
when
we
looked
at
the
rents
in
the
subjects
market,
I
also
looked
at
what
else
is
going
on
in
that
neighborhood?
L
Okay,
so
for
we're
talking
the
neighborhood
that
is
within
a
couple
blocks
of
the
metro,
clarendon
metro
station
and
the
retail
and
restaurant
rents
in
that
general
area.
You
know,
within
a
few
blocks,
run
between
48
and
54
dollars,
a
square
foot
for
office.
It
ranges
between
28
and
32
dollars,
a
square
foot
for
the
pcc
class
code
219,
which
is
mixed
office
and
commercial.
That's
analyzed
separately.
L
Those
rents
range
between
43
and
61
dollars,
a
square
foot.
So
when
you
take
a
look
at
the
rent
that
we
are
using
in
our
assessment,
it
tends
to
be
to
the
low
side
of
those
numbers
that
I
just
presented
to
you
and
I'm
talking
about.
These
are
rents
that
are
within
a
couple
blocks
of
the
clarity
metro
station.
We're
not
talking
boston,
we're
not
talking
about
courthouse
or
anywhere
else
within
clareton
metro
station.
L
Once
again,
we
equalize
the
entire
building,
so
we're
applying
the
same
rental
rate,
the
same
stabilized
vacancy
expenses
and
the
capitalization
rate
to
the
subject,
as
we
are
with
the
other
units
in
the
property.
I
also
want
to
remind
you
of
that
sale
that
is
within
the
subject:
building
it
sold
for
3.6
million
and
the
price
per
square
foot,
for
that
is
546
dollars
a
square
feet.
In
addition,
its
assessment
ratio
is
88
and
keep
in
mind
we
valued
it
the
same
way
as
we
did.
All
the
units
were
valued
equitably.
L
A
I
You
go
yeah,
I
just
had
the
you
mentioned.
The
different
rent
ranges
is
this,
because
this
is
separate
condominium
unit
from
the
other
one
that
we
just
saw,
but
it's
just
it's
the
same
tenant
is
this:
like?
Is
this
a
retail
use
right
now,
but
it's
probably
more
likely
to
be
in
office
use
in
the
future,
similar
to
the
other
one.
L
I
L
F
I
didn't
know
I
muted
myself,
sorry
for
for
2020,
you
assume
a
43
square
foot
triple
net,
because
it's
a
retail
space,
but
in
2019,
if
I
read
this
correctly
column
e,
it
was
31
and
40
cents.
Plus
pass-throughs
is.
F
I
This
might
be
a
dumb
one.
Why
would
the
per
square
foot
price
be
different
on
this
unit
than
on
unit
200?
Is
there
any
one's
better
than
the
other.
I
L
They
should
they
have
all
been
equalized,
I'm
not
sure.
Maybe
are
you
using
a
different
net
leaseable
area.
G
I
only
had
one
question
about
the
net
leasable
area
to
mispass.
Where
was
the
difference
from
the
previous
years
to
this
year?
I
noticed
that
it's
slower
now.
L
Okay,
we
did
not
change
it.
We
did
not
change
the
net
leasable
area
so
for
commercial
condominiums.
We
are
required
to
go
by
what
is
recorded
in
the
declaration
and
the
appellant
has
calculated
their
net
net
leasable
area
based
on
whatever
measure.
I'm
not
sure
what
it
is
is
not
to
say
that
it's
wrong,
but
the
county
is
required
to
go
by
what
is
in
recorded
in
the
declaration.
A
A
L
A
L
A
F
I
have
a
question
for
the
appellant
that
she
wrote
in
the
last
case
and
stated
in
this
case
that
there's
a
lesser
management
fee
that
would
otherwise
be
attached
to
this
space,
because
bush
is
just
doing
it
as
a
part
of
their
holdings
or
something
that
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
the
way
I
I
understand
that
and
I
appreciate
it,
and
I
don't
know
what
the
normal
fee
would
be,
whether
it
would
affect
stuff
or
significantly
or
not.
F
But
if
there
was
that
additional
fee,
then
it
would
be
that
amount
of
money
will
make
up
it
doesn't
matter
hundred
dollars
doesn't
matter
what
it
is,
is
added
to
the
gpi
gross
potential
income
and
then
deducted
as
an
expense.
So
that
amount
in
my
mind,
just
cancels
itself
out
in
order
to
get
to
the
noi.
Am
I
missing
something.
H
You're
missing
that
the
county
uses
a
full
service,
rent
per
square
foot,
so
they're
using
that
43
dollars
per
square
foot,
that
43
dollars
is
full
service
and
they
are
matching
it
with
a
20
expense
rate
and
that
normal
20
would
include
a
management
fee
and
in
the
appraisal
from
last
year.
The
management
fee
on
this
particular
property
additional
would
be
additional
five
percent
of
income.
H
O
We
we
did
at
one
time
go
out
and
get
a
price.
You
know
we
talked
to
jbg
and
at
that
time
smith
and
also
ackridge.
The
number
was
125
000,
plus
a
portion
of
a
property
manager.
F
And
that's
what
answers
my
question
before
that
I
thought
I
had
answered
myself
for
2020,
it's
a
full
service
and
and
for
2019
it's
a
net
lease.
So
my
question
the
department
is:
why
are
you
changing
your
calculations,
knowing
that
the
the
egi
is
lower
for
2020?
Why
aren't
you
being
consistent
on
you
know
like
you
were
in
2016,
17
and
18,
and
just
using
the
net
lease
amount
which,
by
the
way,
is
pretty
low,
31
and
40
cents
for
that
neighborhood.
L
So
to
equalize
we
were
looking
at
other
properties,
not
we
looked
at
commercial
condominium
project
and
we
do
have
some
that
are
renting
higher
than
the
rent
that
we
used.
Okay
without
disclosing
that
information
whatever
that
is.
There
are
others
that
are
reporting
a
higher
rent
and
commercial
condominiums
and
then
once
again
to
check
that,
to
you
know,
make
sure
are
we
in
line,
especially
for
this
area,
which
is
next
to
the
clarendon
metro.
L
We
looked
at
other
rents
of
the
freestanding
restaurants,
retail
office,
the
mixed-use
ones,
and
what
what
is
being
obtained
in
that
area
within
a
few
blocks
and
we're
on
the
low
side.
L
A
L
Please
thank
you
once
again.
I
just
want
to
remind
you
of
the
the
sale
that
has
occurred
in
the
subject,
building
at
546
dollars
a
square
feet
and
reference
referencing,
page
four,
which
is
the
summary
page.
Please
keep
in
mind
that
the
the
actual
revenue
is
you
want
to
exclude
the
pass-through,
take
a
look
at
the
revenue.
It
is
increasing
year
after
year
at
roughly
2.4
percent
or
two
and
a
half
percent,
but
it
is
increasing.
We
used
higher
expenses
than
what
they're
reporting
substantially
higher
than
what
they
are
reporting.
L
Take
a
look
at
our
noi,
it's
much
less
than
what
is
being
reported
from
even
back
in
2016
all
the
way
to
2019
and
that's
it.
Thank
you.
H
Sure
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
this
these
two
spaces
together
are
over
20
000
square
feet
of
space,
so
comparing
it
to
a
three
or
five
thousand
square
foot:
first
floor
restaurant,
and
as
mr
mr
as
one
of
the
the
board
members
pointed
out.
This
is
second
floor.
O
F
Go
ahead:
let's
let
us
discuss
the
last
statement
they
made.
This
is
a
sweetheart
deal
clearly
price
for
for
very
good
business
reasons
below
the
market
at
the
time.
But,
of
course,
there's
a
large
automatic,
well-known
quality
tenant
15
years
ago,
12
years
ago,
in
the
space,
so
maybe
they
deserve
to
break.
I
don't
I
I'm
positing
that
we
can't
price
this.
F
I
don't
know,
maybe
I
don't
know
their
income
for
good
business
reasons,
non-family
members
and
all
of
that,
like
we
do
in
residential,
the
rain
comes
lower
than
it
might
have
been
for
again
reasons
that
made
sense
at
the
time.
Do
we
want
to
accommodate
for
that
lower
income
but,
of
course,
both
in
this
rpc
and
the
one
that
we
just
made
a
determination
on
I
mean
the
numbers
are
the
numbers,
as
at
least
last
time
I
was
on
the
board.
F
We
often
said,
and
their
income
is
absolutely
lower
for
non
for
for
quality
reasons.
Can
anybody
respond
to
that?
Does
anybody
care
about
that,
or
are
we
just
doing
mass
appraisal?
This
is
pretty
much
what
stuff
spends
for
leases
for
in
this
immediate
neighborhood,
which,
by
the
way,
I
agree,
the
department
it
is
lower.
F
What
they
put
in
is
lower
than
quality
first
floor
space
immediately
nearby,
so
they
have
offset
to
some
extent
that
it's
second
floor
and
a
sweetheart
deal,
and
maybe
I'm
forming
my
question
better
for
us
now
is:
do
we
think
that
it's
low
enough,
the
the
department
has
put
in
their
figure
low
enough
to
accommodate
this
one,
these
two
combined
spaces
to
rpcs
that
I'm
going
to
dig
a
hole
deeper?
If
I
keep
talking.
A
However,
you
know
when
you
look
again,
just
like
you
said
the
numbers
are
the
numbers
and
when
you
look
at
the
actual
assessment
I
mean
you
had
asked
about
why
they
used
a
higher
amount
but
they're
looking
at
gross
potential,
and
then
they
adjusted
for
vacancy
the
expenses
are
much
higher
than
what's
being
reported
and
the
noi
is
much
lower
than
what's
been
reported
for
three
years
and
especially
you
know
when
you
look
in
four
year
and
add
in
2019.
I
Looking
at
the
rationale
that
the
department
used
a
mixed
office
and
commercial
market
rent
on
the
low
end
of
43
dollars,
but
then
use
the
cap
rate
for
commercial
condos,
I'm
I'm
just
curious
why
they
didn't
use
the
cap
rate
for
general
commercial
properties,
because
that's
what
I
would
I
would
have
valued
it
at
so
and
when
I
do
that
it
brings
it
down
a
little
bit.
I
don't
know
if
I
have
any
support
for
that,
but
I
would
look
at
that.
I
43
dollar
kind
of
sub
market
rent
that
the
department
is
using
when
you
subtract
expenses,
maybe
you're
at
maybe
it's
nine
dollars
in
expenses,
you're
at
34
net,
seven
percent
cap
rate
you're
right
about
where
we
were
in
2019,
pretty
close
to
it.
So
I
mean
that's
my
feeling
on
how
I
would
handicap
this
property.
A
G
I
think
it's
the
same
as
the
previous
case.
You
know
we're
looking
at
numbers
that
were
reported,
we're
looking
at
noise
that
are
there,
and
these
are
being
treated
the
same
as
you
know,
any
other
condominium
that
would
be
we'd
be
looking
at
if
he
was
all
general
commercial
he'd
be
different,
but
there
are
condos.
G
A
I
A
And
that's
using
the
the
assessments
noi.
I
That's
forty
three
dollars
gross
rent,
minus
nine
dollar
expenses,
so
34
net
times,
35.88
rentable
square
footage
at
a
seven.
A
A
A
Ken
has
a
second,
mr
metzken,
I'm
all
in
favor
aye
opposed
okay,
it
is
five
to
one
without
greg.
The
county
is
confirmed
at
one
million
eight.
Seventy
six
one
hundred.
H
H
We
have
one
two
three
tenants
that
are
third
party
and
two
owner
occupied
or
related
party
tenants,
the
space,
the
rental
footage
totals
we,
so
we
measured
the
via
boma
to
give
some
clarification
on
the
square
footage
that
we're
using
so
the
gross
number
versus
the
county
uses
the
net
number
so,
but
it's
economically
the
same
effect
if
you're
using
square
footage
in
commercial
real
estate,
depending
on
what
how
the
tenant
wants
to
to
measure
it
is
how
you
adjust
their
base
rent.
H
H
Currently
the
county
has
it
assessed
at
9.9
million
dollars.
They
are
using
one
comp
that
happened
in
october
on
the
space
up.
On
the
fourth
floor,
the
space
on
the
fourth
floor
is
under
7
000
square
feet.
That
deal
was
not
marketed
heavily
and
it
was
bought
by
a
government
contractor
who
specifically
wanted
that
space,
and
now
this
one
comp
is
being
used
for
for
this
entire
condominium,
and
in
this
case
you
have
20
000
square
feet
of
contiguous
space.
H
H
You
come
to
a
similar,
similar
amount
when
I
pull
out
the
real
estate
tax
assessment
income
and
the
noi,
and
I
put
in
a
three
percent-
very
management
fee.
I'm
sorry
a
two,
a
two
to
two
and
a
half
percent
of
cash
receipts
management
fee
I
get
to
an
noi,
that's
how
I
got
to
my
noi
of
540
000
on
page
four
column
g.
H
E
H
It's
investment,
whether
it's
retail,
whether
it's
office,
whether
it's
industrial,
is
short-sighted,
and
I
think
that
these
hearings
are
the
place
where
commons
say
other
reasons
in
the
review
process
with
the
county
and
the
fact
that
those
things
are
being
discarded
is
is
disappointing
at
best,
so
we
are
being
assessed
at
a
5.2
cap
rate
when
in
the
office
corridor
here
for
our
appraisal.
Last
year,
the
only
you
know
the
the
institutional
grade
transaction
was
only
at
a
6.25
cap
rate.
O
We
see
what
are
we
missing
about
ten
thousand
square
feet
on
fours.
O
Yep
and
we
have
a
vacancy
that
occurred
in
february
of
last
year
about
1900
square
feet,
but
then
that
was
compounded
by
the
vacating
of
tenant,
who
had
been
with
us
since
six
cmta,
and
that
number
was
how
many
square
feet
david
6.86.
H
At
this
point,
we
have
in
the
write-up
that
we
provided
in
our
board
of
equalization
application.
We
cite
the
vacancies
that
we're
now
looking
at
that
that
happened
in
the
last
quarter
or
in
early
2019,
which
is
reflected
in
the
2019
results
that
you
have,
and
also
just
gotten
worse
from
there.
So
at
this
point
in
the
building,
even
at
january
first,
we
only
had
one.
We
only
had
three
tenants
and
two
related
party
tenants,
so
we
are
have
a
huge
vacancy
at
this
point.
E
L
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
once
again.
Yes,
I
am
mentioning
I.
I
am
stressing
that
there
is
a
sale
within
the
subject.
Building
there
are
other
commercial
condominium
sales
throughout
the
county
and
when
we
base
the
cap
rate,
the
loaded
cap
rate
at
6.25,
we
looked
at
these
other
sales
and
they
support
the
6.25
loaded
cap
rate,
and
I
want
to
stress
once
again
the
rent
that
was
used
for
the
subject
when
we
were.
We
were
also
looking
at
rents
with
inside
the
condominium,
the
commercial
condominium
project
of
station
square.
L
We
also
looked
at
other
competing
commercial
condominium
units
that
are
close
by,
and
then
we
took
a
look
at
what
the
rent
would
be,
for
example,
more
so
for
the
mixed,
the
property
class
code
219,
which
is
mix
office
and
commercial,
we're
not
applying
separate
rates
when
we
value
those
we're
applying
one
rate,
which
is
a
blended
rate.
Okay,
so,
for
example,
for
this
subject,
we're
using
a
blended
rate
for
both
the
office
and
retail,
and
we
equalize
this
across
all
of
the
units
within
this
particular
condominium
project.
L
And
once
again,
I
just
want
to
stress
that
we're
looking
at
an
noi
that
is
much
lower,
we
gave
them
additional
expenses
much
higher
than
what
they
are
reporting
and
that
that's
pretty
much
it
unless
irving
would
like
to
submit
his
point.
P
No,
I
think
lori
covered
it
very
well,
it's
very
similar
to
the
last
two
cases.
If
you
look
at
this
summary
sheet
that
she's
provided,
as
she
indicated,
our
noi
projection
is
less
than
what
they've
been
reporting
the
cap
rate.
We
made
changes
from
what
we
had
last
year,
which
is
in
line
with
what
the
board
decided
last
year,
with
the
help
of
the
sales
that
we
had.
P
The
assessment
to
sales
ratio
on
the
sale
in
this
building
was
88.
The
price
per
square
foot
was
at
546
per
square
foot
and
even
with
the
sales
that
we
had
for
19,
a
lot
of
properties,
commercial
properties
that
we
have,
we
actually
reduced
the
commercial
condo
values
based
off
of
those
sales.
It's
just
that
these
properties
in
the
boston
corridor,
they're
the
ones
that
had
a
higher
assessment
to
sales,
a
lower
assessment
to
sales
ratio,
higher
price
per
square
foot-
and
I
mean
they-
saw
an
increase
such
as
this
property.
L
L
Yes,
based
on
the
sales
and
the
income
and
expense
data
that
we
have
on
those
sales.
F
And
so
the
deduction
is
that
condo
condominium
properties
are
more
valuable,
lower
cap
rate
than
commercial
office
buildings,
retail
that
are
just
for
lease.
L
P
Again,
if
I
can
address
that-
and
it's
also-
I
mean,
like
laura-
said-
it's
based
off
the
sale
but
we're
looking
at
not
just
the
cap
rates
based
off
income.
We
have
we're
also
looking
at
the
price
per
square
foot,
which
was
brought
up
quite
often
last
year
and
you
weren't
on
the
board.
But
even
last
year
we
included
these
sales
in
our
right
up.
Lori
did
with
the
price
per
square
foot,
because
last
year
was
the
first
year
we
went
to
the
income
approach.
P
This
year's
the
second
year
we
made
adjustments
where
we
increased,
the
general
commercial
condo
cap
rate
up
based
off
those
sales.
Medical
condos
of
those
sales
came
in
right
around
where
we
had
them
valued
and
therefore
we
didn't
make
a
change
to
those
medical
condos.
P
So
if
anything,
we
did
have
it
segregated
by
use
between
general,
commercial,
condo
and
medical
condo,
but
due
to
the
sales,
we
brought
that
cap
rate
up
for
general
commercial
condos,
and
now
it's
in
line
with
the
medical
condos
and
just
like
we
do
any
other
property
type.
Each
year.
We're
going
to
look
at
the
sales
that
we
receive
to
see
if
we
need
to
make
adjustments
to
the
cap
rates
based
off
these.
A
Okay,
any
other
questions,
no
miss
roskin.
If
you
would
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up,
please
thank.
L
You
once
again,
I
just
would
like
you
to
take
a
look
at
page,
the
summary
page
and
recognize
that
our
noi
is
less
than
what
they
are
reporting.
We
are
giving
them
additional
expenses
than
what
they
are
reporting,
and
this
information
is
based
on
the
data
that
we've
gathered
within
the
subject:
project
and
neighboring
commercial
condominium
projects.
Also,
I'm
done.
A
K
K
Cap
rates
are
created
is
what
would
somebody
who
was
disinterested,
pay
for
an
income
stream
and
you'd
have
to
have
it,
backed
by
like
the
federal
reserve
or
by
google
or
microsoft,
in
order
to
pay
out
a
five
and
a
quarter
cap
rate,
none
of
the
none
of
the
tenants
up
and
down
the
ros
and
boston
corridor
are
of
that
credit
ilk
unless
perhaps
it's
backed
by
the
federal
government.
So
it's
just
it's
an
artificially
created
cap
rate.
A
I
Yeah,
I
just
look
at
this
as
a
small
office
building.
I
You
know
just
the
the
the
con
the
fact
that
it's
a
condo
is
literally
just
a
it's
an
ownership
structure
that
was
created,
because
this
is
a
mixed-use
property
and
there's
no
way
to
have
a
fee,
simple
ownership
of
just
the
office
components
so
because
they
came
up
with
that
structure.
It's
just
it's
a
multi-tenant,
a
small
office
building,
so
I
don't
see
why
it
should
be
using
a
a
different
cap
rate
than
the
than
the
small
office
cap.
A
Right
what
I
did
thank
you.
What
I
did
on
this
was
the
same
logic
that
I
used
on
the
other
two
cases,
and
I
don't
have
them
all
open
in
front
of
me,
but
we
basically
had
pretty
stable
or
increasing
noise
on
those
other
two
on
this
one.
When
you
look
at
it,
though,
applying
the
same
logic
that
I
used,
you
know
on
the
previous
two
you've
got
income.
When
you
look
at
16
and
then
it
goes
down,
then
it
goes
up.
Then
it
goes
down.
A
So
I
think
even
more
so
is
a
reason
to
do
a
test
here
and
do
an
average
and
when
you
average
the
three
year,
leaving
out
2019
and
doing
it
in
this
particular
case
and
it's
the
same,
the
seven
percent,
which
is
what
I
used
as
a
cap
rate
to
test
on
the
other
two
cases
being
for
general
commercial
properties.
It
would
cap
out
at
nine
four,
oh
five.
If
you
use
the
four
year,
including
the
higher
income
for
2019,
it
caps
out
at
nine
four
three
one.
A
I
A
I
A
I
Yeah
I
mean
if
we
went
by
the
office
guidelines
2005
to
2009
metro,
it's
6.65
cap.
I
don't
really.
I
think
those
are
a
little
low
for
these
tiny
office
properties
because,
as
they
were
kind
of
pointing
out
in
the
last
couple
cases
operating
expenses
management,
all
that
stuff
is
relatively
higher
on
a
per
square
foot
basis
than
in
you
know,
100
000
square
foot
office
building.
I
F
So
you
want
you
want
to
grab
so
what
you're
saying
is
you
want
to
encapsulate
this
one
rpc
and
not
use
it
as
a
part
of
the
the
three
second,
three,
the
three
floors
of
commercial
office,
space
that
this
appellant
owns
as
not
such
a,
which
is,
I
don't
know,
60
000
square
feet
or
50
something
thousand
square
feet
which
isn't
a
micro
office
building,
but
certainly
isn't
a
big
high-rise.
Either
I
mean
you
you
just
this.
Is
it
it's
18
000
square
feet,
it's
small,
that's
it!
I
Yeah
I
mean
I've
been
over
there,
there's
nothing
when
you
walk
through
that
area.
That
screams.
This
is
an
this
is
an
office
property
from
like
a
traditional
office
building,
it's
a
it's
a
very
unique
kind
of
mixed
use
property.
So
I
think
that's
why
we
have
these
kind
of
carve
out
guidelines
for
general
use,
commercial
properties
and
small
office
buildings,
because
you
generally
get
a
little
bit
of
a
discount
on
a
sale
on
a
property
when
it
doesn't
quite
fit
the
box.
I
As
being
you
know,
textbook
office
or
textbook
retail,
so
I
mean
the
true
cap,
rate's,
probably
somewhere
between
seven
and
seven
and
a
half,
but
I'm
I'd
lean
towards
the
seven
and
a
half.
If
it's
going
to
kill
this
thing,
you
know
and
I'm
just
going
to
get
out
voted,
then
you
know
I
can
get
on
board
with
a
closer
to
a
seven.
A
A
Out:
nine
million
four:
oh
five.
E
G
A
Well,
and-
and
I
would
agree
with
you,
however,
the
same
test
and
the
logic
that
I
use
to
confirm,
the
other
two
is
this
logic,
so
I
I
don't
want
to
throw
that
out
the
window
and
just
say:
oh
the
county's
right
when,
if
that's
the
logic
that
we
use
to
confirm
two
cases,
you
know
in
a
test,
that's
my
reason
for
wanting
to
make
the
adjustment
to
this.
I
think
this
one,
it's
got
a
far
more
unstable
reported
income
and
I
don't
think
it
is
comparable
to
the
other
two.
G
I'm
sorry,
but
the
noi
is
still
lower
than
what
they're
reporting
for
2019
or
the
previous
years.
F
A
A
A
A
All
right
greg
can
you
live
with
that
all
right,
then
I'm
gonna
make
a
motion
to
reduce
the
assessment
on
this
property
to
nine
million
four
hundred
and
five
thousand
six
hundred,
and
that
is
based
on
using
the
three
year
average
of
income
at
a
seven
percent
cap
rate.
A
A
A
We
do
not
so
does
anybody
else
have
anything.
We've
got
other
folks
still
on
the
line,
so.