►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Meeting | September 6, 2023
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
A
B
Yes,
good
morning,
everyone,
this
property
here,
water
parks,
Tower,
was
built
in
1989.
It's
362
unit,
high-rise,
apartment
building,
that's
located
in
Crystal,
City,
sub
Market
of
Arlington
and
for
our
argument
this
morning
is
all
of
our
assumptions.
Come
from
directly
from
the
calendar
year,
2022
ine
and
as
we
see
on
our
page
six
of
our
packet,
the
the
expenses
have
been
historically
high
for
this
property.
B
Here
in
2022,
it
was
just
above
3
million
2021,
it
spiked
up
to
5.2,
and
it
has
stayed
at
about
the
five
five
million
Mark
and
calendar
year
2022..
B
So
for
our
analysis,
we
are,
we
are
using
the
actual
calendar
year,
2022
expenses,
and
that
and
that's
that's
where
our
difference
is
with
the
the
County's
assessment
here.
They
they
have
a
revision
of
3.7
million
dollars
in
and
expenses,
and
we
just
think
that
there
needs
to
be
more
accounted
for
when
it
comes
to
expenses,
which
brings
our
value
to
116
million.
Seven
hundred
twenty
two
thousand
three
hundred
dollars.
C
Yeah
so
I
haven't
historically,
these
are
have
historically
been
two's
cases
that
have
been
presented
to
the
to
the
board
here.
But
again,
this
has
always
come
down
to
the
the
total
expenses.
Again.
This
is
an
older
property,
as
we've
discussed
with
with
some
of
the
other
apartments
in
the
area.
I
present
most
of
the
ditmar
cases
and
as
we've
presented
there
and
shown
there
is,
is
that
you
know
expenses
have
been
on
the
rise
the
last
few
years.
C
You
know
the
Contracting
prices
for
for
companies
that
don't
have
all
this
have
have
the
internal
Workhorse
like
like
a
bit
more
again.
Those
expenses
are
on
the
Rise
and
it's
it's
really
being
exasperated
with
kind
of
today's
market.
Today's
Capital
Market,
with
the
rising
interest
rates
and
inflation
and
so
again,
I
think
what
you'll
see
here
is.
C
You
did
see
income
similar
to
to
a
lot
of
other
apartments
in
the
in
the
in
the
county
increase
from
from
their
prior
Year's
performance
following
covid,
and
these
expenses,
if
you
compare
them
to
operating
near
2021
or
actually
down
in
in
number
and
percent
in
2021,
total
operating
expenses
were
5
million,
284
201,
which
is
47
of
egi
and
now
you're,
seeing
it
again
at
4.9
million
and
41,
which
is
we
believe
right
in
line
with
a
property
of
this
this
age
and
condition,
and
again
that
the
increasing
costs
were
seen
to
operate
these
types
of
properties,
and
that's
it.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
Ms
roskin,
for
the
county.
Please.
D
Good
morning
board
members
Blake
and
Justin,
okay
I.
Basically,
this
property
was
inspected
earlier
this
year
in
June,
and
both
Justin
was
available,
the
property
manager
and
the
hood
mechanic,
and
we
walked
through
the
entire
property.
D
Upon
inspection,
we
determined
that
a
number
of
things
have
been
renovated.
A
special
in
the
past
five,
the
past
two
to
five
years,
and
those
Renovations
include
common
areas:
Fitness
rooms,
Community
rooms,
the
mail
center,
major
renovation
of
the
pool
they
even
added
a
large
Courtyard
barbecue
area.
That's
pretty
nice
as
a
matter
of
fact,
and
also
the
units
are
being
renovated
upon
turnover
and
those
renovation.
Renovations
are
not
just
paint
and
floor,
but
the
renovating
new
Cabinetry
and
appliances
and
the
kitchens
and
bathrooms.
D
So
this
building
has
also
elevators
have
been
updated.
Some
there
are
a
number
of
electrical
permits
and
mechanical
permits
that
have
been
taken
out
in
the
last
couple
years
for
this
property.
D
So
that's
what
made
me
the
reason
why
I
looked
into
these
permits
and
I
asked
questions
about
the
renovations
is
when
you
go
back
to
the
summary
page
and
you
look
at
the
expenses
that
are
being
reported
for
the
last
two
years.
The
year
2021
and
2022
you'll
notice
that
the
maintenance
has
gone
through
the
roof.
I
mean
it's
like
triple
what
they
were
normally
reporting
and
so
last
year,
when
they
appealed
this
assessment,
I
sent
an
email
and
I
asked
hey.
D
Can
you
explain
what's
going
on
with
the
common
area,
repairs
that
are
being
shown?
If
you
look
at
the
little
Grid
at
the
underneath,
the
summary
page,
you
could
see
the
little
grid
where
I
broke
it
out
for
2019,
2021
and
22.
common
area,
repairs,
decorating,
miscellaneous
I
asked
him
what's
going
on
here,
and
there
was
no
response.
So
this
year,
I
asked
again
and
I
I
even
put
in
the
same
comments
that
I
had
from
last
year's
email
and
I
asked
them
twice
this
year.
What
is
going
on
with
these
expenses?
D
Are
these
Renovations?
They
don't.
If
they
are,
they
do
not
belong
in
your
typical
annual
operation.
You
know
maintenance
of
the
building,
and
so
we
believe
that
those
numbers,
some
of
those
expenses
that
are
being
reported
for
2021
and
2022,
do
not
belong
in
the
INE
there.
D
Those
are
renovation
costs
and
also
the
the
other
thing
that
we
took
a
look
at
is
we
noticed
that
the
rubs
for
2022,
if
you
notice,
they're,
substantially
higher
than
what
was
being
reported
for
2019
through
2021.,
the
same
thing
with
the
utilities
they're
substantially
higher,
and
that
was
like
you
know
what
is
going
on
here
and
what
we
think
is
happening
is
that
for
2022
they
are
now
properly
reporting
the
correct
rubs
and
the
same
thing
for
the
utilities,
and
they
were
not
doing
that
in
years
past.
D
So
what
I
did
is
I
took
a
look
and
I
I
actually
ran
a
little
test
with
the
expenses
I
grossed
up
the
utilities
for
2019
20
and
21
I,
actually
grossed
those
up
to
nine
hundred
thousand
for
2019
I
grossed
up
2020
to
925
000
and
I
grossed
up
2021
to
950
000,
just
to
try
and
equalize
and
see
you
know
what
the
bottom
line
would
be:
I
also
removed
the
2
million
from
2021
I
removed
the
2
million
in
the
in
the
maintenance
expenses
that
are
reported
that
we
believe
are
due
to
Renovations
and
I,
also
for
2022
I
removed
1.1
million
from
the
maintenance.
D
D
So
in
my
test,
column
I
actually
used
a
higher
number
than
3.6
million.
The
other
thing
I
just
wanted
to
make
note
of
I,
made
a
correction
to
the
land
valuation.
It
was
not
balanced
evenly
between
the
two
sites
and
that's
basically,
all
I
did
was
just
balance
it
out
between
the
two
properties
and
I
made
a
correction
of
before
the
the
land
was
the
the
eighteen
thousand
was
being
valued
at
I.
D
Think
it
was
60
dollars
a
square
foot
when
it
should
have
been
valued
at
sixty
five
dollars
a
square
foot.
This
property
is
well
within
a
half
mile
of
mass
transit
other
than
that,
if
I'm
open
for
any
questions.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you,
questions
from
the
board,
just
miss
Ruskin.
Can
you
just
recap
for
the
record
why
the
cap
rate
changed.
D
Oh,
it's
due
to
the
renovations,
the
extensive
Renovations.
Nobody
had
been
out
to
this
property
in
10
years,
and
so
whenever
it's
our
policy
that
we,
we
would
not
change
the
cap
rate
for
Effective
age
unless
we've
gone
out
and
inspected
the
property
and
upon
inspection.
E
Yeah
this
is
for
like
or
or
yeah
or
Justin.
Is
it
possible
or
do
you
know
if
your
client
bought
utilities?
E
Sometimes
you
could
buy
utilities
for
like
two
three
years
at
a
set
price?
Do
you
know
if
that
was
done,
and
that's
why
the
big
jump.
C
I
I,
don't
I,
don't
have
any
information
on
that
I
think
it
it
kind
of
correlates.
With
with
what
you're
seeing
you
know
with
the
higher
GPI
GPI
reported
for
the
actual
rent.
C
You
know
this
total
apartment
rent
went
up
from
10
1
to
1085
from
2021
to
2022,
so
I,
don't
think.
It's
any
surprise
that
you
utilities
and
then
the
the
offsetting
corresponding
rubs
for
those
utilities
also
went
up
along
with
that
as
well.
F
Just
saw
that
for
one
quick
moment
so
it
could
be
just
have
a
higher
occupancy
lately
than
you
had
historically.
F
Great
second
follow-up
question
is
to
take
more
than
one
word:
where
did
in
column
G,
the
cap
rate
is
400
basis
points
or
so
higher
than
than
Kyle
map.
We're
I'm,
sorry
that
doesn't
really
matter.
How
did
you
determine
your
cap
rate.
C
So
part
of
our
cap
rate
was
one
where
we're
using
the
effective
age
that
was
in
the
original
assessment
of
1989,
which
then
was
changed
by
the
county,
as
Lori
just
spoke
to
upon
their
review
and
then
the
appeal
of
the
property
that
dropped
that
that
increased
or
decreased
the
cap
rate
by
10
basis
points
because
they
changed
the
effective
age
from
1980
to
1989
to
99
to
1999.
C
F
C
Then
and
then,
like
rerc,
has
a
Washington
DC
market
area.
B
G
Thank
you,
I
had
one
for
Mr,
rosskin
I
noticed
that
in
some
of
these
cases,
when
you
do
revisions
that
you
are
reallocating,
the
value
on
land
and
I
know
we
talked
on
you
know
in
reference
to
another
case.
Also
in
the
past,
we've
kept
the
land
of
value
the
same
except
you
know
when
we
make
any
reductions
we
it
goes.
It
reduces
the
Improvement,
but
now
the
land.
G
Why
are
you?
Reallocating
land
passes.
D
D
Actually,
it
needs
to
be
corrected
and
so
I,
basically
I
split
the
value
between
the
two
lots,
because
you
have
two
buildings:
okay,
on
on
this
economic
unit
and
so
I
split
that
value,
and
then
I
had
also
noticed
that
the
the
garden
land
rate
for
the
adult
parcel
was
not
being
valued
correctly.
The
land
rate
for
that
was
60
a
square
foot
when
it
should
have
been
65.
So
all
I
did
was
a
correction.
Yes,
it
did
increase
the
land
a
little
bit,
not
much,
but
it
did
increase
it.
A
little.
A
D
Sure
so,
basically,
this
property
has
undergone
a
major
renovation,
and
that
is
the
reason
why
we
decreased
or
changed
the
cap
rate
and
once
again
the
expenses
I
was
reviewing.
D
How
can
I
determine
what
is
a
reasonable
rate
for
expenses
and
I
came
after
I
had
grossed
up
the
utilities
for
the
years
2019
through
2021
and
removed
the
that?
What
we
believe
are
what
we
believe
are
renovation
expenses,
including
the
expenses
that
do
not
belong
there.
I
came
up
with
an
average
rate
of
3.6
million
for
the
expenses,
but
obviously
I
use
something
a
little
more
when
you
see
it
in
column
f,
and
so
we
ask
that
you
accept
the
revision
for
column
F
at
147
million
64
800.
B
Ma'am,
thank
you
all
again,
as
we
mentioned
before,
the
expenses
have
have
increased
dramatically
after
2022
after
2020,
due
to
higher
contracts,
higher
bills
and
also
just
quickly
mention
about
the
renovations
the
renovations
didn't
occur
recently
here.
These
are
Renovations
that
occurred
previous
in
previous
years
that
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
increase
in
expenses
this
year
or
last
year.
B
So
we
would
just
like
to
you
know
the
the
actual
expenses
incurred
in
calendar
year,
2022
to
be
accounted
for,
and,
as
I
mentioned,
our
our
value
is
is:
is
the
116
million
seven
hundred
twenty?
Two
thousand
three
hundred?
Thank
you.
A
You
know
I
I,
think
the
test
is
fine.
Okay,
especially
when
you
look
at
the
noi,
it's
certainly
in
line
with
the
operating
here
you
know.
So,
let's
say
income
is
a
little
lower
and
the
expenses
are
higher,
or
vice
versa.
That
means
that
just
give
me
X
the
issue
that
I
have
and
the
fact
that
the
county
did
an
inspection
in.
E
A
Now
we're
going
to
change
the
cap
rate
and
that's
not
information
that
they
had
in
January
I
mean
if
they
did
it
last
year.
I'd
have
no
problem
with
it
at
all,
but
I
think
the
Cambridge
should
go
back
to
the
engine
cap
rate
to
be
equalized
with
other
properties
that
were
assessed,
which
it's
not
a
huge
change,
but
it
brings
into
144
466.
E
Yeah
I'll
share
a
couple
thoughts,
I
agree
with
you.
If
our
attorney
representing
Property
Owners
I,
wouldn't
let
the
county
anywhere
nearby
building,
if.
E
F
E
Yeah
and
come
up
with
the
expense
per
unit
and
I,
don't
know
if
this
happened
or
not
but
utilities
a
lot.
Sometimes
these
high-rises
buy
utilities,
they
sign
a
contract
and
they
have
a
set
price
for
like
two
three
years
and
then
it
pops
up.
So
that
could
be.
You
know,
I,
don't
know
that
it
is,
but
that's
the
reason
for
it,
and
so
I
agree
with
you,
madam
chairman,
I,
think
we
should
go
with
that.
The
prior
cap
rate
and.
C
F
You
know
they
had
an
opportunity
to
say
why
is
it
bouncing
up
and
has
nothing
to
do
with
Capital
Improvements,
it's
because
of
whatever,
since
it's
the
appellants
responsibility
to
determine
glaring
issues
and
having
it
and
I'm
back
only
to
agreeing
to
the
lower
cap
rate
for
sure.
H
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
Echo
everybody's
comments.
I
think
Lori
did
a
good
job
and
honestly,
at
this
location,
with
all
the
amenities
in
the
neighborhood
that
have
come
in
and
walkability
Transit
water
views,
I
think
they've
got
an
Olympic-sized
swimming
pool
at
this
property,
which
is
unheard
of
in
Arlington
408
000
a
unit
actually
seems
a
little
bit
low
now
that
it's
been
renovated,
so
yeah
I'm
fine
with
the
assessment.
I
I
was
suspect
for
the
maintenance
changes
and
the
utility
I
I
think
I
concerned.
The
utility
is
too
much
of
a
leap,
but
I
don't
understand
why
it's
jumped
I
mean
the
leap
being
that
they
had
a
contract,
because
it's
two
years
in
a
row,
it's
the
same
occupancy's
up,
because
the
occupancy
hasn't
changed.
That
much.
I
Maybe
when
they
did
some
of
these
Renovations
and
things
changed
common
areas,
whatever
elevators
but
I,
don't
know
it's
funny.
Yeah
yeah,
I,
I,
don't
know.
But
there's
that's
the
inconsistency.
You
have
a
problem
with
as
far
as
the
data
when
they
inspected
it.
I
I
have
a
feeling
if
they
expected
it
on
the
first,
they
would
have
found
the
exact
same
or
exact
same
Renovations.
Absolutely.
A
I
I
I
I
can
go
with
the
reduction,
I
mean
I
I'm,
not
that's
not
where
I
was
gonna
go
but
I
think
it's
legitimate.
Let's
make
them
well.
The
county
is
accountable
that
if
you're
inspect
it
now,
it
goes
into
next
years.
I
E
A
Then
I'm
going
to
move
to
reduce
the
assessment
to
144
million
466
400,
based
on
the
county
test
column,
going
back
to
the
5.49
cat
rate.
A
second
second
motion,
a
second
by
Mr
Lawson,
all
in
favor
I
opposed
five
to
one.
It's
without
Mr
Hoffman,
okay,
the
assessment's
reduced
to
144
million
466
400.
A
J
Great,
thank
you.
So
this
is
a
a
retail
Center
and
it's
anchored
by
Harris,
Teeter
and
the
rest
are
commercial,
condos,
retails
and
there's
some
apartment
properties
or
units
above
it.
But
that's
separate
from
this
unit.
J
There
are
six
Parcels.
The
aggregate
assessment
is
32
million
749,
a
thousand
we're
coming
in
in
aggregate
at
29
million.
One
hundred
and
ninety
thousand
two
hundred
I'm
gonna
go
into
reasons
why
that's
the
right
assessment,
and
actually
it
really
probably
should
be
lower.
So
it's
really
a
conservative
ask
here
before
I
keep
going.
Does
everyone
have
my
packet?
It's
53
Pages
just
want
to
make
sure
everyone's
following
along.
J
J
The
assessment
really
is
bumped
up
considerably
over
the
last
couple
years
it
was
27
or
28
million
in
2021,
and
then
last
year,
29
and
a
half,
and
even
this
year,
32.7
so
like
an
11
increase
just
over
the
last
year,
and
that's
been
going
up
kind
of
year
over
year,
the
last
few
years
which
it
which
is
crazy,
because
the
owner
has
been
trying
to
offload
or
sell
this
property
the
last
few
years
and
has
had
zero
success
and
I'll
go
into
some
more
details
in
that
in
a
little
bit,
you
can
see
on
the
lower
left.
J
You
know
in
you
know,
per
offering
memorandum.
The
value
is
closer
to
22
and
a
half
million.
They
received
a
bid
pre-covered
for
25
million
that
didn't
even
go
through
and
then
again
our
income
approach
is
coming
in
around
the
29
million.
So
that's
we're
using
that
higher
number
for
our
for
our
evaluation.
So
if
you
flip
to
page
three,
this
is
indeed
our
income
approach.
I'll
just
highlight
the
differences.
J
We've
used
a
lower
Market,
rent,
42
dollars
per
square
foot
as
opposed
to
the
county
coming
in
higher
like
45
and
a
half,
and
that's
because
the
most
recent
lease
signed
in
2022
came
in
at
that
exact
forty
two
dollars,
a
foot
and
and
really
there
was
even
a
a
lease
that
came
in
in
2023
for
Less
at
forty
dollars
a
foot,
so
you
can
see,
there's
very
much
a
trend
downwards
and
hence
why
we're
using
that
42
dollars
and
the
Harris
Teeter
we
kept
the
same.
But
there's
a
that.
J
That's
really
the
Crux
of
this
case
that
Harris
Teeter
that
lease
goes
through
2027,
so
I
understand,
there's
still
a
few
years
left,
but
the
the
reason
they
haven't
been
able
to
sell
it.
They
the
owner,
is
because
there's
a
lot
of
risk
that
Harris
Teeter
is
not
going
to
renew
and
their
sales
have
been
declining
year
over
year.
J
You
can
see
lower
down
the
the
County's
using
a
5.95
give
or
take
base
cap
rate,
not
loaded
base
and
we've
used
about
a
50
or
60
basis
points
higher
at
six
and
a
half
and-
and
a
lot
of
that
is
explained
one
in
the
surveys
that
I'll
get
to
in
a
second
and
two
that
risk
that
with
Harris
Teeter
and
and
then
the
corresponding
risk
that
they
haven't
been
able
to
to
sell
the
property,
to
the
dismay
that
that
they'd,
rather
that
they
would
have
liked
to
so
that's
driving
a
lower
noi,
the
the
rent,
2.24
million
versus
the
2.3
that
the
county
has
I'm
using
round
numbers
and
then
that
cap
rate
difference
again
is
is
driving
the
R
value
of
29
million
versus
32.7
million.
J
If
you
flip
to
page
five,
here's
an
email
from
the
owner,
you
can
see
I
boxed
it
off
I'm,
not
going
to
read
everything
of
this,
but
I
want
to
read
some
our
biggest
challenge
with
value
is
the
grocery
anchor
Harris
Teeter
declining
sales
and
remaining
lease
term,
ending
20
November
2027,
without
a
commitment
from
theater
to
extend
there's
risk
to
the
value
our
internal
assumptions,
assume
of
current
value
of
26.9
million.
We
do
not
have
an
updated
external
evaluation.
J
We
did
have
an
Loi
at
29.5
million
in
2021
that
was
two
years
ago,
but
it
didn't
make
its
way
to
contract
because
of
the
Harris
Teeter
risk
described
above
that
was
in
2021,
with
rates
at
zero
percent
and
now
they're
pushing
you
know
well,
above
that
five
percent.
You
know
we
feel
strongly
that
the
county
value
of
32.7
million
is
grossly
overstated.
J
Page
six
and
seven
six
is
the
rerc
cap
rate
you
can
see.
This
is
Washington
DC,
which,
arguably
is
a
is
a
more
you
know:
favorable
prestigious
Market.
You
can
see
seven
to
seven
point.
Nine
percent
are
the
base
cap
rates
for
for
power
centers
and
on
page
seven
this
is
the
PWC
survey
coming
in.
J
This
is
kind
of
where
we're
using
our
six
and
a
half
base
cap
rate
that
range
from
5.25
all
the
way
to
7.5
probably
could
be
using
a
higher
cap
rate
to
be
honest
other
than
that,
if
you'll
flip
all
the
way.
These
are
just
financials
and
rent
rolls
after
that,
if
you'll
flip
all
the
way
Page
to
page
31,.
J
This
is
the
offering
memorandum.
I
was
alluded
to
Before
from
CBRE.
J
You
can
see
those
much
higher
cap
rates,
ranging
between
eight
and
nine
percent,
again
we're
using
six
and
a
half
and
the
corresponding
values
between
21
and
24
million,
much
much
lower
than
where
we're
coming
in
at
page
45
and
46.
And
please
stop
me
if
I'm
going
too
fast.
J
Here
you
can
see
that
they
acquired
it
for
a
you
know.
This
was
back
a
few
years
ago,
but
nonetheless,
it's
still
relevant.
They
acquired
it
for
at
a
7.25
base.
Cap
and
they've
been
trying
to
sell
it.
You
know
Max
bid.
No
more
than
26
and
a
half
million
I'm
on
page
45
46
is
an
Loi
they
had
for
25
million.
J
The
point
is
all
of
these
that
they're
trying
to
sell
it.
All
of
these
indications
of
sale
are
far
less
than
the
32.7
million
dollars
that's
assessed
for
and
on
top
of
that
they
can't
even
close
the
sale.
All
these
buyers
keep
backing
out
because
of
it's
not
desirable
on
the
risk
that
I
talked
that
I
just
spoke
to
Miss
roskine's
review,
I
I
kind
of
glanced
at
that
I
think
she
does
an
updated
income
approach.
J
The
income
is
far
higher
than
the
actual
2022
income
I'm,
not
sure
how
she's
getting
to
that
both
the
original
value.
The
original
assessment,
where
I
think
she
used
a
2.34
million
dollar
noi,
is
too
high
and
then
the
updated
noi
I
think
gets
into
above.
2.4
million
is
also
way
too
high.
The
actual
noi
was
closer
to
2.2
and
that's
with
her
lower
cap
rate
I'll
stop
there
but
happy
to
address
any
questions
if
I
moved
over
anything
a
little
too
quickly.
Thank
you.
D
D
So,
if
you
noticed,
I
did
not
include
a
test
column
for
this
property
probably
could
have
included
a
reconstruction
column
for
2022
and
note
that
they're
reporting
actuals
their
gross
receipts.
Okay,
what
they've
actually
received
they
have
had
some
vacancy
there
and
if
you
also
notice
they're,
not
reporting
any
vacancy
now
I
did
find
on
the
2022
INE.
That
was
reported.
Let's
see
that's
on
page
54
of
your
packet
I'll.
Allow
you
to
go
to
that
for
a
moment.
D
So,
on
page
54
of
the
packet,
they
are
reporting
near
the
bottom
for
2022,
approximately
130
000
for
vacancy,
but
they
did
not
include
that
in
the
INE
statement
in
their
reported
numbers.
If
you
go
to
the
next
page
or
well,
not
the
next
page,
their
income
statement,
they
don't
show
the
130
000
in
vacancy.
D
Let
me
go
back
to
the
summary
page,
so
really
the
gross
the
gross
amount
that
they're.
When
we
value
these
property,
we
look
at
a
gross
potential.
What
would
if
you
had
all
the
units
occupied?
What
would
be
that
gross
potential?
So
that's
what
you
see
in
column,
D,
all
right
column
e,
does
not
show
that
they're
2022..
We
then
proceed
and
we
added
in
pass
through
I
also
gave
them
nine
percent
for
vacancy
in
column
e.
D
It's
only
showing
two
percent
but
which,
when
you
factor
in
that
hundred
and
thirty
thousand,
it
actually
came
out
to
six
percent.
Okay,
so
that's
still
less
than
what
we're
using
for
a
stabilized
vacancy
rate
of
nine
percent
and
then
looking
at
their
expenses
in
column
D,
our
original
assessment,
the
expenses
we
used
are
much
much
higher
than
what
they
reported
so
and
I
understand
that
they've
had
a
couple
of
attempts
that
people
purchasing
but
who's
who's.
D
Try
who
I
haven't
seen
any
active
listings
currently
for
this
property,
so
I
have
no
idea
if
the
owner
is
really
actively
marketing
this
property
for
sale
and
as
to
the
Harris
Teeter.
D
That
least
doesn't
expire
until
2027
the
end
of
2027,
and
on
top
of
that
they've
got
six
six
five-year
renewal
options
to
extend
that
lease
they
also
have
to
the
the
tenant
has
to
give
a
nine-month
notification
if
they
want
to
cancel
the
lease,
but
that's
something
we'll
address
as
we
get
closer
to
2027
right
now,
we're
addressing
2023.
that's
four
years
from
now
four
years.
Okay,
in
the
meantime,
I'm
still
waiting
to
see
listings
or
find
anything
that
shows
that
the
owner
is
not
able
to
to
get
the
value
to
get
the.
D
You
know
that
they're
not
able
to
sell
so
effectively
I'm
asking
you
to
confirm
the
original
assessment
at
32
million,
32
million
seven
hundred
and
forty
eight
thousand.
Thank
you.
E
It's
for
the
applicant,
the
residential
units.
Are
they
individually
owned
or
are
they
owned
in
Mass
by
100.
J
.
good
question.
J
E
D
The
average
commercial
condominium
project
in
the
county
is
between
a
thousand
and
I'm
gonna,
say
ten
thousand
square
feet,
and
so
there
are
only
two
properties
in
the
county:
two
commercial
condo
properties
in
the
county
that
have
something
substantially
more,
which
this
one's
at
80
82
000,
and
so
we
used
a
higher
cap
rate
that
matches
with
the
retail
cap
rate.
D
It's
also
the
same
cap
rate
we
use,
for.
We
have
a
couple
of
properties
in
the
county
that
have
anchor
grocer
tenants
and
it's
the
same
cap
rate
that
we
use
for
for
those.
D
You
once
again,
I
did
not
show
a
test.
I
didn't
think
it
was
necessary
I'm.
Looking
over
our
original
assessment,
we
grow
we're
using
gross
potential.
We
gave
nine
percent
vacant
stabilized
vacancy,
which
the
subject
is
only
experiencing
six
percent
when
you
factor
in
the
amount
that
I
had
mentioned
earlier
and
we're
giving
a
much
higher
number
in
expenses,
we
believe
the
original
assessment
is
fair
and
Equitable,
and
we
ask
that
you
confirm
it
at
32
million
seven
hundred
forty,
eight
thousand
well.
Actually,
it's
749
000
when
you
round
up.
J
So,
just
on
that
comment
about
expenses,
I
mean
you
can
see
the
county
or
Miss
Ross
kind
has
expenses
I,
think
of
a
512
000
and
we
used
486.
The
actual
expenses
you
can
look
at
the
financials
that
are
included
are
586
000.,
so
much
much
higher
than
both.
What
I'm
using
you
know,
the
the
applicant
is
using
as
well
as
what
the
the
County's
using
so
I.
J
Don't
know
what
they're
saying
what
the
comment
is
that
these
expenses
are
too
low,
they're
much
higher
it's
on
page,
24
and
25
of
of
of
our
submission.
So
I
would
encourage
the
board
to
look
at
that,
because
it's
586
000
could
be
coming
in
much
higher,
it's
resulting
in
a
lower
noi
and
that's
on
top
of
all
the
risk
with
the
Harris
Teeter.
J
E
I'll
share
some
thoughts.
Some
questions,
I
did
is
a
commercial
condom.
Idiom
is
often
at
the
mercy
of
the
homeowners,
and
the
homeowners
can
do
things
like
decide
that
we're
going
to
clean
the
garage
door
in
your
business
hours
and
therefore
your
customers
can't
come
into
the
garage
things
of
that
nature,
and
so
it
is
a
a
problem,
a
commercial
economy
you
can
get.
It
could
be
a
diversity
like
I,
say,
of
the
residential
owners,
but
the
cap
rate
was
increased
in
this
case.
B
E
A
F
About
this
apparent
disparity
between
reported
operating
expenses,
the
department
has
in
column
the
E
versus
what
was
pointed
out
on
page
54
in
the
back
at
74
000
difference.
It
caps
out
to
her
fairly
large
number
of
million
dollars
of
assessed
value.
F
A
H
Yeah
I
mean
the
the
it
looks
like
the
Harris
Teeter
runs
a
little
low
relative
to
the
market,
which
I
think
probably
helps
probability
of
renewal.
The
initially
I
think
going
up
three
million
from
2022
when
cap
rates
have
gone
up
and
really
not
a
lot
has
changed,
seems
excessive.
H
There's
one
new
lease
signed,
I
I,
think
you
know.
If
I,
if
I
put
a
value
on
that
lease,
you
know,
I
came
to
around
31
million,
so
I
mean
I.
Do
I
would
I
would
support
a
little
bit
of
a
reduction
here.
F
Thank
you.
Thank
you
that
the
estimated
post
income
for
2023
was
too
high.
The
income
from
those
all
those
spaces
went
up,
six
percent
from
2021
to
22
and
5
from
22
to
23..
So
we've
seen
that
the
County's
assessment
is
in
line.
It's
surprising
that
they're
going
up
that
high,
maybe
there's
percentage
rent
because
I
can't
imagine
any
retailer
agreeing
to
six
percent,
but
with
percentage
right
it
would
work.
But
nonetheless
it
is.
A
I
Yeah,
the
rent
rolls
go
out
or
look
good.
The
county
did
give
it
more
vacancy
than
the
actual,
even
I
I'm
just
I,
just
don't
I
think
it
balances
out
very
nicely.
E
A
E
A
A
His
email
indicates
that
on
the
Dolly
Madison
he's
in
agreement
with
the
revised
number
I,
don't
know
how
that
word
feels
about
that.
If
you
want
to
hear
the
case,
don't
hear
the
case,
it's
a
reduction
from
the
original
by
myself
built
the
original
was
fine
bye.
What
is
the
board
monitor.
F
A
Right
all
right,
then
Mr,
chicas
and
Mr
Warren.
Did
you
just
hear
that.
C
A
Will
just
do
something
briefly
on
this,
so,
okay,
so
so
on
case
three
RPC
32024002
at
2300,
24th,
Road,
South,
Mr
Lauren.
You
can
start
and
tell
us
about
this
property
briefly,.
C
C
C
But
the
reason
this
did
take
the
last
decade
and
if
you
guys
recall
this
is
a
property
that
we've
had
serious
issues
and
we
brought
up
for
the
last
five
years
and
sometimes
successfully
the
board
has
argued,
but
it
has
to
do
with
the
effective
age.
There's
an
abatement
on
this
property
following
Renovations
that
took
place
in
2007,
and
you
know,
following
that,
those
revisions,
the
county,
moved
their
effective
age
to
2007,
as
if
the
property
was
completely
raised
and
built
Anew,
which
it
is
not.
C
It
retains
the
similar
foundations
and
structures
facade.
C
So
that
was
the
that
was
the
remaining
issue
regarding
this
with
was
with
regard
to
the
effective
age
and
the
cap
rate
and,
however,
after
discussions
with
the
with
the
the
owners,
although
they
are
in
very
Stern
disagreement
with
the
County's
use
of
a
you
know,
assuming
this
was
originally
just
built
in
2007
following
those
Renovations
and
that
it
should
not
get
a
2007,
effective
cap
rate
for
Effective
age,
and
we
had
argued
successfully
I
think
dating
back
to
like
2018
that
it
should
be
a
1980
or
1989
some
somewhere
between
when,
when
the
property
was
originally
built
and
when
the
renovations
took
place,
they
they
recognized
that
the
board
has
has
not
recognized.
C
That
fact,
I
think
in
the
last
four
years,
and
so
we
we
came
to
an
agreement
and
and
decided
to
agree
with
the
the
counties
proposed
revisions.
K
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
Blake,
essentially,
as
the
board
knows,
we'll
want
to
do
looking
at
the
summary
sheets.
We
did
note
the
revisions
I'm.
Sorry
the
changes
pointed
out
in
the
2022
INE.
We
did
propose
revision
a
bit
more
tightly
in
tune
with
what's
gone
on
historically
at
the
property,
specifically
in
this
case,
increasing
our
projections
for
Effective
growth,
but
also
hand
in
hand
increasing
our
projections
for
operating
expenses,
as
Mr
Warren
noted
we're
almost
hand
in
hand
with
our
noi
projections.
K
K
K
We
do
believe
that
a
revision
accurately
reflects
what's
going
on
at
the
property
again
in
a
stabilized
nature,
point
out
that
obviously
some
200
000
below
what
they
reported
noi
for
2022,
again
again,
seeing
that
we're
both
in
agreement
near
dollar
for
dollar.
K
With
our
noi
projections,
we
do
ask
the
board
to
confirm
our
agreed
upon
revision
of
94
million
9483,
which
would
be
inclusive
of
the
tax
exemption,
so
in
other
words,
as
Mr
Warren
noted,
the
actual
assessment
will
go
from
108
1429
down
to
105.5446
and
that's
what
we
ask
you
agree
with
the
proposed
revision.
Thank
you.
K
Sure
yeah,
you've
kind
of
heard
our
mantras
once
a
year
does
not
assessment
make.
We
are
looking
at
the
stabilized
history
of
the
property
and
you
can
see
that
the
increase
is
almost
23
percent
above
what
they
achieved
in
2021.
So
while
we
do
believe
it's
achievable
and
of
course
we
back
that
up
with
looking
at
the
rent
roll
that
was
supplied
as
well,
which
we
appreciate
we
were
able
to
come
up
with
a
stabilized
value.
K
You
can
also
see
if
you're
looking
at
the
noi,
even
though
we
were
low,
we
were
some
300
000
lower
than
what
was
reported
for
operating
expense.
We
do
take
that
same
due.
Diligence
go
through
those
numbers
make
sure
that
we
are
in
line
with.
What's
being
reported,
we
were
not
so
we
did
make
adjustments
upwards
for
Effective
growth,
as
well
as
our
operating
expense,
which
indicated
a
revision
down.
F
And
I
just
mumbling
the
same
thing.
We
remember
this.
This
is
going
to
be
a
question,
but
I
have
to
introduce
my
question
that
that
that
we
have
the
same
discussion
about
the
effective
age.
How
does
it
get
to
be
brand
new
when
it's
substantially
updated
and
I
I
just
had
in
front
of
me,
but
we
didn't
seem
to
I'm
asking
the
question:
is
we
didn't
seem
to
lower
the
recessed
value
last
year?
Based
on
that
questions?
F
E
J
F
F
K
E
B
E
They
agreed
last
last
night
to
to
the
compromise,
and
so
you.
B
G
That's
where
I
am
I
agree
with
you
I
think
it's
you
know
whenever
there's
a
chance
that
they
will
come
up
with
those
numbers
and
go
down
there.
E
G
A
A
Thank
you,
okay.
The
next
case
on
the
agenda
is
this.
One
gives
me
even
more
concern
than
the
last
one
RPC
one
four:
zero:
four:
three:
zero:
three
one
at
thirty:
nine
hundred
Fairfax
Drive
Mr
Warren.
If
you
mentioned
that
you'll
take
the
counties
revised
number,
but
according
to
what
I
see
the
revised
number
is
higher.
C
C
We
had
afforded
this
but
Chris
so
in
kudos
to
Chris
too.
So
this
is
one
that
we
filed
an
appeal
on
because
maybe
just
give
you
a
little
a
very
quick
brief
synopsis
or
background
on
this
is
last
year
this
was
filed
to
appeal
at
2022
for.
A
C
H
K
Yes
ma'am,
so
essentially
what
had
occurred
was,
as
Mr
Warren
was
trying
to
explain.
Was
the
owners
had
expressed
a
desire
to
meet
with
the
county
this
past
Friday?
Obviously
we
had
a
long
weekend.
The
earliest
we
were
able
to
meet
was
Tuesday.
Yesterday
we
did
meet
with
the
ownership,
but
with
Mr
Warren,
they
presented
a
mended
INE
request
filing
request
for
their
2022
information,
essentially
isolating
a
a
line
item
and
their
retail
component.
We
did
agree
to
that
change,
made
a
revision
based
upon
that
amended.
K
I
need
change,
which
was
approximately
four
hundred
and
sixty
thousand
dollars
lower
than
the
original
assessment.
A
Right
well
without
the
information
we
can't
make
a
decision,
so
Mr
Warren
you've
got
cases
coming
up
on
September
13th.
C
A
B
A
K
A
So
I'm
gonna
just
to
make
the
record
clear,
I'm.