►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - August 24, 2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
Just
to
note
that
mr
lawson
has
a
conflict
and
will
not
be
voting
on
this
case,
so
we
have
four
board
members
that
will
vote,
which
is
the
quorum.
So
I
don't
believe
mr
branham
is
here
because
he
asked
to
withdraw
so
I'm
gonna,
let
miss
roskin,
explain
what
the
situation
is.
Ms
roskin
turn
your
microphone
on.
Please.
B
That's
the
first
okay,
so
basically
he
was
just
checking
to
make
sure
that
this
evaluation
was
not
being
double
counted
on
a
couple
of
other
rpcs,
and
so
I
confirmed
that
the
it's
not
being
the
parking
garage
income
and
expenses
are
not
being
considered
in
the
office
partner,
which
is
rpc14049014.
B
A
And
so
it
stands
at
the
eight
million
seven.
Ninety
two,
eight
hundred
okay,
all
right!
Well,
that
being
the
case,
I
will
vote
to
allow
the
withdrawal.
Do
I
have
a
second,
mr
hoffman
is
the
second
all
in
favor.
C
D
A
A
And
opposed
no
okay,
so
that
would
be
four
to
zero.
It's
unanimous,
that
is,
the
withdrawal
is
allowed.
Thank
you.
Miss
ruskin.
A
The
property
at
1321,
south
elm
street
and
the
appellant
has
sent
additional
information
to
all
of
the
people
to
all
the
board
members
yesterday
afternoon.
So
make
sure
that
you
have
that
in
front
of
you,
and
so,
mr
wright,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
Sir.
E
Sure,
thank
you
well,
the
subject
property
is.
It
is
a
current.
It's
currently
under
construction,
it's
a
part
of
amazon's
hq2
plan
in
arlington,
county
virginia
and
and
basically
what
our
our
argument
today
is
is
on
equity
of
the
land
valuation.
E
The
improvement
valuation
is
is
just
an
apportionment
based
on
the
assessors
cost
approach
for,
for
the
you
know,
totality
of
the
improvements
which
we're
not
there's
no
complaint
there.
So,
basically,
we've
looked
at
a
number
of
comparable
assessments
for
land
value
compared
to
our
land
assessment
and
therefore
have
come
to
evaluation
different
than
the
in
seeking
correction
or
based
on
equity.
Do
you
have
our
analysis
in
front
of
you?
E
I
mean
our
pack,
our
new
packet
in
front
of
you,
or
can
we
share
that
on
the
screen
or
no
okay?
So,
if
you're
looking
at
page
two,
you
can
see
there's
a
map
of
what
the
the
plan
developments
should
look
like
this
is
a
metropolitan
park.
There's
a
plan
for
about
two
million
square
feet
of
space
there
page
three
is
is
how
the
property
looked
once
all
of
the
demolition
was
completed.
Then
page
four
is
a
picture
of
the
property
under
development.
E
As
of
august
2021,
page
5
of
31
is
a
rendering
of
what
we
believe
what
you
know.
We
we
expect
the
property
to
look
like
once
complete
and
that
expected
that
is
expected
to
be
completed
in
2023
page
six
is
a
is
our
summary
of
our
position.
As
I
mentioned,
there
are
two
parcels
that
make
up
6.24
acres
of
land,
which
is
our
which
is
the
basis
of
our
appeal.
E
E
We
believe
that
the
land
valuation
should
be
closer
to
55
million,
which
keeping
the
improvement
value
the
same
at
156
million
we're
requesting
a
total
value
of
211
close
to
211
million
dollars.
E
Now
page
seven
is
our
uniformity
analysis
where
we
looked
at
more
than
20
office
locations
in
the
arlington
county
area
and,
as
you
can
see,
there's
multiple
properties
that
for
land
valuation
ranges
from
63
dollars
to
three
hundred
and
twenty
six
dollars
a
square
foot
of
land
where
the
median
val
the
average
the
average
was
about
two
hundred
and
two
dollars
a
square
foot
and
the
median
was
two
hundred
and
three
dollars
per
square
foot
of
win
and
that's
basically
what
we
apply
that
median
value
to
to
our
land
area
for
the
pr
for
the
property
which
brings
us
to
for
eight
for
for
parcel
ending
at
842.,
25
million,
seven
hundred
and
eighteen
thousand
for
parcel
indian,
eight,
four:
three:
that's
29
million
six
hundred
and
seventy
six
thousand
for
a
total
of
the
55
million
395
000
in
total
land
value.
E
Again,
that's
203
dollars
a
square
foot.
The
assessment
currently
has
a
value
at
514
dollars
a
square
foot.
Again
we
kept
the
improvement
value
the
same
to
bring
us
to
a
total
for
the
economic
unit,
total
value
of
211
million
dollars,
669
000.
E
E
However,
I
would
like
to
note
that
these
prop
these
purchases
were
off
market
through
some
of
the
landlords
that
we
deal
with
in
the
area
such
as
jbs
jbs
and
and
these
weren't
on
market
necessarily
all
of
these
weren't
on
market
transaction.
E
This
was
a
assemblage
and
for
the
purposes
of
building
this,
this
you
know
a
headquarters
in
this
targeted
area.
So
I
wouldn't
consider
these
purchase
prices
as
market
transactions
to
develop
a
value,
and
you
know
I
believe
it's
it
is
that
the
property's
land
valuation
should
be
in
and
with
within
equity
of
other
properties
in
the
area
and
and
as
you
can
see,
you
know
we're
currently
the
land
valuation
of
you
know
the
subject:
property
is
at
515
per
square
foot
of
land
well,
at
the
height
of
some
of
these
properties.
E
It's
at
326,
and
but
the
median
and
average
is
close
to
203
dollars
a
square
foot
the
following
page
on
page
eight
basically
shows
you
know
where
these
assessment
comps
are
in
comparison
to
the
subject
property,
as
you
can
note
that,
where
the
subject
property
is,
is
that
is
not
directly
next
to
the
to
the
metro
line
similar.
E
You
know
similar
to
you
know
where
you
know
crystal
city
is
or
pentagon
city
is
that
you
know
there's
some
walking
that
you
would
have
to
do
when
we
developed
these
spaces
there
and
and
so,
and
it's
it's
not
a
totally
developed
area
as
compared
to
where
these
comparable
properties
are
and
then,
after
that,
we've
included
all
the
assessment
information
for
each
of
those
properties.
E
Just
for
you
for
the
record,
but
overall,
as
I
mentioned,
you
know,
this
is
a
a
property,
that's
under
construction
and
and
we
we
just
we're
just
trying
to
work
on.
You
know,
work
with
the
county
on
a
going
forward
basis
and
ensuring
that
you
know,
as
the
development
is
completed
and
and
going
forward,
that
we
have.
You
know
correct
a
correct
valuation
on
the
property
and
and
that
the
property
is
in
equity,
of
similar
surrounding
properties.
E
And
so
again
our
requested
value
is
211
million
dollars
based
on
the
land
valuation
for
correcting
it
within
equity,
from
515
dollars,
a
square
foot
to
203
dollars
per
square
foot.
A
Okay,
all
right,
thank
you
and
for
the
county,
mr
peralta.
F
Yes,
good
morning
board
for
this
property.
F
It
was
inspected
in
december
of
21
by
irving
bailey
construction
at
that
point
was
at
30
percent
based
on
the
inspection
and
included
the
excavation,
the
concrete,
the
floors
of
rough
framing
and
exterior,
covering
and
windows
on
the
first
and
second
floors.
F
Basically,
for
the
2022
assessment,
we
costed
out
this
property
based
on
that
30
percent
and
the
values
of
the
the
land
and
improvement
were
allocated
accordingly.
F
If
there
is
an
issue
with
the
land
which
there
is
not,
the
total
value
would
stay
the
same,
and
it
would
just
revert
to
that
moment
value
but
including
the
square
foot
aspect
of
the
property.
It
is
equitable
among
other
office
properties,
whereas
it's
65
per
gfa
and
for
this
property.
As
you
see
on
my
page
2
of
76
there's
a
paragraph
there
that
kind
of
describes
exactly
what
the
exact
gfa
is
for
this
property.
F
I
believe
phase
six
office
gfa
is
898
687
and
retail.
Gfa
is
twenty,
seven,
eight,
seven.
Ninety
eight
phase,
seven
and
eight
of
the
office.
F
Is
one
million
one?
Eighty
three,
eight,
seventy
nine
square
feet
and
retail
gfa
is
forty.
One
thousand
six
sixty
seven
square
feet
for
a
total
gfa
of
two
million
one.
Fifty
two
one
eleven
and
parking
space
is
about
a
thousand
nine
thirty
three.
So
if
you
factor
that
total
gfa
times
the
sixty
five
dollars
square
foot,
I
mean
65
dollars.
You'll
come
up
with
how
we
how
we
value
the
land
land
in
arlington
is
not
based
on
per
square
foot.
F
It's
again
based
on
the
the
density
on
the
gfa
of
65
square
foot
with
that,
unless
chris
has
anything
else
to
add
done
with
my
presentation.
G
I
appreciate
rob
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
it's
it's.
I
think
it's
just
a
difference
of
how
it's
being
looked
at.
Mr
wright
is
essentially,
I
believe,
valiant
based
off
the
lot
size,
which
is
how
he
gets
that
50
515
a
square
foot
as
the
board,
I
hope,
is
familiar.
We
value
based
off
of
the
gfa
that
was
approved.
You
can
actually
see
a
better
breakdown
of
that
on
page
five
of
76,
where
they
show
the
approved
office
of
two
million.
G
Eighty
two
thousand
five
sixty
six
again
at
sixty
five
dollars,
a
square
foot
and
69
545
square
feet
of
retail
again
at
65
dollars
a
square
foot.
This
is
equitable
with
all
other
office
properties
that
are
metro,
accessible,
retail
again,
that
are
metro
accessible,
so
the
65
is
100,
equitable
with
all
other
property
types
that
are
similar
to
this
one.
Given
that
that
we
do
have
that
equitable
land
rate,
we
do
believe
that
the
land
is
again
valued
correctly
and
in
equity
with
other
similar
property
types.
G
So
we
do
believe
that
that
value
should
be
confirmed
at
296
million
161
800..
Thank
you.
H
I
guess
for
mr
peralta,
we
usually
when
it's
kind
of
mid-construction
the
palette
will
submit,
like
you
know,
end
of
year,
construction,
draw
request
or
some
sort
of
breakdown
from
the
contractor,
showing
what
was
spent
just
to
kind
of
validate
the
cost
approach.
Did
you
get
anything
or
was
there
any
discussion
about?
You
know
what
the
what
the
construction
cost
through
december
31st
were.
H
E
Well,
no,
our
issue
wasn't
cost
of
the
building
at
this
point
and
it
was
it's
basically
based
on
the
land
valuation.
So
that's
why
we
didn't
provide
it,
but
at
the
same
time
well,
I
would
be
answering
another
question.
H
Okay,
yeah
and
I
just
one
follow-up
I
just
and
it.
H
Yeah
I
mean
we've
got
a
couple
of
different
square
footage,
but
it's
roughly
2.1
million
square
feet
of
office,
building
that's
being
put
on
this
land,
you're
kind
of
looking
at
this
through
the
square
footage
of
land.
But
did
you
do
any
analysis
on
the
the
building
square
footage
that
could
actually
be
built
on
that
land.
E
No,
I
I
simply
based
it
on
the
equity
of
what
land
values
are
on
other
properties
compared
to
the
subject
property
and
even
if
you're,
considering
it
based
off
the
gfa
at
the
time
that,
as
of
the
date
of
valuation,
there
wasn't
two
million
square
foot
of
land
on
the
property
for
us,
for
them
to
establish
this
65
per
square
foot
and
and
it
because
and
the
reason
why
it's
important
to
note.
E
That
is
that
you
know
as
we
are
developed
and
that's
why
I
don't
have
any
square
footage
on
my
in
my
analysis,
because,
as
we
are
as
we're
developing
these
properties,
you
got
to
understand
that
covet
did
occur
and
you
know
one
thing
that
we
also
know
is
that
the
office
market
in
that
region,
there's
a
large
and
probably
in
most,
you
know,
metro
areas.
You
know
we
have
a
lot
of
obsolescence.
E
You
know
due
to
vacancy,
and
so
there
are
changes
and
and
they're
midwashed,
I'm
not
necessarily
made
able
to
speak.
There
may
be
some
potential
changes
and
plans
totally
for
this
project,
so
you
know
we're
looking
at
projected
square
footage
versus
what's
actually
there.
So
far,
and
so
that's
one
thing
that
I
will
be
careful-
you
know
about
establishing
value
on,
what's
planned,
to
be
developed
at
the
property,
because
plans
do
change
especially
office
market.
E
I
Yeah
this
is
for
the
county.
What's
he
what's
he
far,
I'm
sorry,
I
mean
what
yeah.
What's
what's
the
what's
the
far
of
this,
it's
17,
something
like
that.
I
F
What
do
you
mean
by
yank
from
open
space?
Is
it
used
to
develop
some
of
the
well.
I
There
could
be
like
a
park
dedicated
to
the
county,
but
some
of
the
density
from
that
park
could
have
been
placed
into
the
building.
That
happens
to
be
on
this
site,
and-
and
I
guess
what
I'm
asking
is
the
county's
not
double
assessing
property?
Are
they
because
you're,
you
have
a
17
far
if
you
just
look
at
this
property
and
it's
co
2.5,
which
won't
yield
that
much
density,
so
the
density
has
to
be
coming
from
elsewhere
within
metropolitan
place,
and
so
what?
What
I'm
asking
is
some
of
that
density?
G
E
G
A
Okay,
other
questions,
mr
matt's,
can
I
can't
see
you
so
do
you
have
any
questions?
Well,
I
I
I.
C
Thank
you,
you
cannot
see
me.
I
have
a
question
for
the
department
and
it's
really
just
a
reality
check.
My
understanding
is
that
on
commercial
properties
like
this,
that
you
have
the
total
property,
in
this
case
an
economic
unit
assessed
based
on
age
and
location,
metro,
accessibility
and
all
this
kind
of
good
stuff,
and
you
come
up
with
a
total
figure
and
then
you
again
for
this
kind
of
property
or
you,
you
said
you
assigned
the
land
at
just
65,
for
a
square
foot
and
what's
left
is
the
improvement
and
so
the.
C
If
that's
correct,
then
the
the
differences
in
land
values
that
the
appellant
showed
us
in
their
follow-up
piece
is
really
a
function
of
other
similar
buildings
having
lesser
improvement
value,
because
the
land
value
stayed
the
same.
So
it
appears
that
the
land
value
is
a
percentage
or
a
portion
of
the
total
amount
is.
Is
it
changes
from
time
to
time?
But
in
fact
it's
really
the
same.
If
you?
If,
if
and
only
if
you
assess
a
land
separately,
which
you
do
not,
I
hope
that
wasn't
too
tortured.
C
G
The
biggest
difference
is
the
biggest
difference
is
when
you're
valuing
a
site
plan
versus
a
cost
approach
versus
income.
With
the
cost
approach.
You
really
do
have
two
separate
portions.
You
have
the
land
which
again
is
very
straightforward:
it's
the
approved
density
and
not
the
lot
size,
but
the
approved
density
times,
65
dollars
a
square
foot
and
then
for
the
improvement
you
have
the
replacement
cost
new,
less
depreciation.
So
in
this
case
we
do
a
marshall
swift
of
two
22-story
buildings
lead,
certified,
elevators
plumbing,
etc.
G
We
come
up
with
a
total
value
and
then,
as
rob
alluded
to
come
last
december,
irving
went
out
and
estimated
the
total
completion
at
about
30
percent.
So
we.
C
G
The
total
of
of
the
replacement
cost
of
new,
less
depreciation
scale
that
back
to
30,
and
that
is
the
improvement
in
a
normal
situation.
You
are
correct.
If
we
have
income
approach,
where
you
have
a
total
value,
once
you
have
land,
that's
established,
the
rest
is
allocated
towards
the
improvement,
but
in
this
scenario
it
is
going
to
be
unique
in
that
we're
looking
at
an
improvement
value
based
off
the
cost
approach
and
the
land
which
is
going
to
be
based
off
of
the
density
that
was
approved
by
the
county
board.
C
And
when
it
gets
to
be
100,
the
improvement
is
100
completed
then
that
apparent
cost
of
land
per
square
foot
per
square
yard
will
lower,
because
the
improvement
value
will
increase.
G
C
G
Land
will
stay
the
same
so
again.
The
only
time
there
will
be
an
allocation
change
is
once
it
switches
to
the
improvement,
but
in
which
case
the
land
will
still
be
the
same.
The
difference
will
be
is
whatever
is
left
of
the
total
amount
between
the
total
value
and
the
land
which
again
is
fixed
at
sixty
five
dollars
a
square
foot
times.
That's
that
approved.
C
C
F
F
Sorry,
the
the
value
of
the
land
is
equitably
assessed
with
other
office
properties
in
the
county
at
sixty-five
dollars
a
square
foot.
We
ask
that
the
board
confirmed
the
case
based
on
the
equity
alone,
and
that
number,
I
believe,
sorry.
F
The
land
for
the
property
is
at
139
million
eight
eighty
seven
two
hundred,
but
the
proposed
total
is
two
hundred
ninety
six
million
one
sixty
one
eight
hundred.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
you
can
take
a
minute
now,
sir,
and
make
your
concluding
comments.
E
Sure
if
we
go
back
to
page
7
of
31,
the
page
label
7
of
31,
which
is
our
uniformity
analysis,
as
we
noted
this
property
is
currently
under
construction,
and
the
assessor
has
only
established
about
30
percent
of
value
on
each
of
the
improvement
value
and
so
which
brings
the
building
total
values
to
143
million
and
153
million,
which
is
in
line
with
basically
already
completed
value.
But
this
is
at
30
percent.
E
This
is
at
30
percent
of
its
value,
it's
already
well
above
or
just
at
the
value
of
some
of
these
completed
buildings.
Now
I
do
understand
that
this
property
will
be
a
new
facility
and,
and
there
is
should
be
some
disparity
and
value
once
it's
complete,
but
to
see
that
the
disparity
already
that
exists
is
that
you'll
have
a
property.
That's
a
hundred
and
twenty
eight
thousand
square
feet.
E
Simulx
is
smaller
than
many
of
these
properties
here
listed
and
at
30
of
its
construction
value,
it's
already
equally
or
above
many
of
the
assessment
values
of
these
properties
at
30
of
its
construction.
So
I
would
like
the
board
to
consider
that
and
understanding
when,
when
you
make,
the
decision
is,
that
is
what
the
property
is
assessed
at
in
totality
at
30
of
its
valuation.
A
I
Yeah
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
off.
This
area
of
the
county
metropolitan
park
has
significant
public
parks,
and
the
article
that
was
included
in
our
package
is
talking
about.
There's
a
lot
of
planning
commission
discussion
about,
you
know:
will
the
park
be
welcoming?
Will
it
be
active
public
access,
easement,
so
forth,
and
so
on
and
I've
been
involved
in
before
I
went
on
this
board?
I
I
was
involved
in
appeals
for
other
large
site
plans,
where
you
have
a
whole
area,
development,
pentagon,
city
and
and
some
others,
and
the
county
typically
does
do
this
properly
and
you
you
have
a
total
overall
parcel
and
then
you
you
in
that
parcel.
You
have
areas
that
are
open
areas
that
are
public,
and
then
you
concentrate
your
building
into
building
parcels,
and
this
has
a
17
far,
which
is
really
high
and
and
I
guess
they
did
a
good
job
getting
that
approved.
I
I
H
Yeah,
I
was,
I
was
gonna
answer
it
earlier,
but
I
don't
think
I'm
supposed
to
talk
when
they're
doing
the
back
and
forth
but
barnes.
I
think
it's
an
eight
far
based
on
just
these
two
land
parcels.
H
So
if
you
take
the
the
the
2.1
million
square
feet
and
the
land
area
is
271
000.,
so
it's
an
it.
H
It
comes
out
to
it
just
about
an
eight
far
and
the
question
is
at
an
eight
65,
a
square
foot
that
the
county
thinks
is,
you
know
reasonable
and
the
appellant,
if
you
go
with
their
number
of
203
dollars
per
square
foot
of
land,
that
equates
to
about
25
bucks,
an
far
foot
which
is
very
low,
and
so
then
kind
of
the
last
gut
check
I
have
here
is
that
page
seven
of
the
packet
which
the
appellant
was
pointing
to
the
uniformity
analysis.
H
So
take
a
couple
of
these
data
points
like
crystal
part,
three,
the
first
one
on
the
list,
if
you
normalize
it
to
an
eight,
far
they're,
actually
higher
on
the
land
per
square
foot
of
land
price.
So
like
the
first
one
on
the
list
is
a
five
far.
So
if
you
made
it
an
eight
and
you
put
the
building
square
footage
to
what
you
could
yield
on
an
eight
far,
it
comes
out
to
521
dollars
a
square
foot
of
land.
H
So
I
think
the
county's
pretty
close
there
and
in
fact,
they're,
probably
a
little
bit
conservative
on
the
on
the
value
of
the
the
subject.
Property.
C
To
the
appellant's
latest
piece.
H
I
H
Mean
I'm
I'm
good
with
what
the
county
has
if
anything,
they're
they're
a
little
bit
low,
because
I
think
the
progress
irving
probably
was
conservative
on
estimating
progress.
I
go
out
there
right
now,
and
I
say
you
know
it's.
Eight
months
later
the
total
assessment's
138
dollars
a
square
foot
right.
They
put
that
just
into
the
earth
work
right.
H
To
confirm
confirm
the
county's
assessment
of
296
161
800,
a
second.
A
Okay,
a
motion
is
second
by
mr
lawson.
All
in
favor,
aye
opposed
can
say,
die
okay.
That
will
be
unanimous.
It's
six
to
zero.
The
county's
confirmed
at
296
million
161
800..
Thank
you.
D
A
Okay,
all
right
so
on
the
next
case.
Let
me
just
pull
this
up
the
next
case,
rpc14017016.
A
Mr
peralta
noticed
on
his
on
the
grid
page
that
the
numbers
outside
of
the
test
column
were
incorrect,
so
I
didn't
want
mr
harmon
or
mrs
barman
to
waste
time,
comparing
that
they've
already
are
aware
of
that.
So
if
any
of
the
board
members
are
looking
at
that
the
numbers
in
the
column
are
calculated
correctly,
it's
just
that
the
per
square
foot
items
to
the
right
of
that
column
are
incorrect.
A
J
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chairwoman,
members
of
the
board
good
morning.
This
is
the
arlington
square
office.
Building
it's
at
the
corn
intersection
of
glee
road
in
fairfax.
J
J
The
dreas
test
is
on
page
four
of
the
appeal
and
the
appellant's
pro
forma
is
on
page
40..
If
you
direct
your
attention
to
the
rent
roll
on
page
6
of
the
appeal
you'll
see
that
the
three
most
recent
office
leases
at
the
property
are
for
cmta,
the
american
society
of
pension
professionals
and
the
cedar
group.
J
These
three
leases
have
a
weighted
net,
effective
rent
of
33.27
per
square
foot,
which
supports
our
claim
value
of
34
per
square
foot
on
the
vacant
office
space.
Next,
on
the
drea
test.
On
page
four
of
the
appeal
we
see
that
operating
expenses
are
assessed
at
eight
dollars,
16
cents
per
square
foot.
J
J
Next
utilities
in
2021
were
one
hundred
ninety
four
thousand
five
hundred
dollars
or
two
dollars.
Forty
eight
cents
per
lease
square
foot
stabilizing
this
expense
by
the
excess
vacancy
adds
another
sixty
six
thousand
six
hundred
dollars
or
forty
seven
cents
to
per
square
foot
to
the
operating
expenses.
J
J
J
J
J
J
Page
30
of
the
wilks
artist
board
book
shows
the
office
absorption
as
of
the
third
quarter
of
2021.
According
to
arlington
economic
development.
Year-To-Date
absorption
at
this
point
for
arlington
was
negative,
seven
thousand
square
feet.
This
is
forty
seven
thousand
fewer
square
feet
least
than
the
year
prior.
J
J
J
J
The
federal
government
has
widely
adopted
work
from
home
policies,
as
you
can
see
in
articles
on
beginning
on
page
18
and
22
of
the
board
book.
Clearly,
given
the
lack
of
demand
for
office
space
and
the
ongoing
adoption
of
work
from
home
policies
one
year,
lease
up
is
not
adequate
to
reach
stabilized
occupancy
at
this
property.
J
J
Next,
the
assessment
again
applies
a
70
per
square
foot
tenant
improvement
allowance.
This
rate
is
not
appropriate,
given
the
condition
of
the
vacant
space
at
the
property.
Mr
peralta
and
I
toured
this
property
in
october
of
last
year,
where
we
saw
that
the
fourth
and
fifth
floors,
comprising
over
41
000
square
feet,
were
in
shell
condition.
J
J
To
summarize,
the
assessment
overstates,
the
market
rent
that
can
be
in
can
be
anticipated,
based
on
the
most
recent
leasing
activity
at
the
property.
The
assessment
understates,
the
operating
expenses
that
will
be
incurred
at
stabilized
occupancy
and
also
does
not
apply
a
uniform
operating
expense
rate
to
this
property's
peers
in
the
neighborhood.
J
Finally,
the
assessment
understates
both
the
time
to
reach
stabilized
occupancy
and
the
resulting
tenant
improvements
required
to
reach
stabilization,
as
such
taxpayers
respectfully
request,
the
assessment
be
reduced,
as
outlined
in
the
appeal.
Thank
you
and
eileen.
Do
you
have
anything
you
would
like
to
add.
F
Yes,
good
morning
for
this
property,
if
you
look
at
the
history
of
this
property,
you
see
that
before
covid
2018,
they
had
a
gross
potential
income
that
was
less
than
what
they're
reporting
in
2020
and
2021.
F
now
keep
in
mind.
They're,
not
reporting
any
vacancy
income
in
these
signees.
So
our
projections
are
a
little
bit
more
in
our
test
column
and
also
in
the
palace
pro
forma.
So
if
you
look
at
the
gross
potential
of
this
property,
the
county
has
at
5.4
million,
and
this
is
based
again
on,
including
that
the
vacancy
square
feet
that
isn't
accounted
for
and
the
income
attributes
to
that.
F
If
you
see
between
columns
e
and
f
the
the
county
kind
of
impeded,
a
side
note
there
to
kind
of
illustrate
if
we're
using
the
appellant's
pro
forma
numbers
for
the
vacant
square,
footage,
the
gross
potential
income
plus
the
actual
income
that
was
reported
in
2021
column
e,
would
be
a
gpi
of
5.5
million
980
5.598
682
as
compared
to
column,
f
and
column
g,
5.4
and
5.3.
F
F
Looking
at
that
vacant
square
footage
over
the
years
you
see
that
this
property
has
improved
upon
its
vacancy
in
2018,
is
a
108
0436
square
feet
vacant
and
currently
we're
at
57
425
moving
down
towards.
They
can
see
again,
we
included
25
vacancy
for
this
property
because
it
fell
within
that
frame.
As
far
as
the
square
footage
as
of
the
date
of
valuation,
I
believe
we're
at
42
percent
vacant.
F
F
Now,
looking
at
the
expenses
of
this
property,
you
see
that
it's
pretty
level
throughout,
even
in
2018,
they
were
at
a
higher
expense
rate,
with
a
higher
vacancy
square
footage
at
100
8436,
as
I
noted
earlier,
currently
they're
at
again
at
eight
dollars,
a
square
foot
million
one
zero,
eight,
seven,
oh
seven
for
2021
the
county's
test
included
a
million
one
45
707,
so
slightly
higher
than
what
they
reported
in
2021,
giving
somewhat
credence
to
what
the
appellant
has
mentioned,
that
you
know,
cost
has
increased,
but
even
before
covid
they're,
pretty
level
with
the
expenses
at
eight
dollars
in
2018,
seven
dollars
in
2019,
seven
dollars
and
2020
and
eight
dollars
again
in
2021.
F
So
with
that
the
county
concluded
that
the
original
assessment
was
supported,
given
that
the
change
in
value
in
our
test
was
higher
than
what
we
originally
had.
F
Speaking
towards
the,
I
guess,
the
office
rental
rates,
if
you
take
a
look
at
the
county's
rent
roll
and
that's
on
page
six
of
63
you'll,
see
that
the
the
rents
are
there
and
they
include
rents
that
range
from
39.50
to
44
dollars
and
21
cents
supplied
by
the
the
rent
roll
in
the
2021
assessment
and
2021
ine.
F
So
with
that,
we
asked
that
the
board
confirmed
this
case
at
39,
38
million
297
600..
Chris
did
you
have
anything
to
add.
G
Just
briefly
wanted
to
touch
on
something
that
was
spoken
about
earlier
in
regards
to
two-year
blue
loan
adjustment.
Again,
I
think
we've
talked
about
this
before
in
the
sense
that
we're
an
annual
assessment.
We
look
at
these
properties
annually.
Every
year
every
year
is
looked
at
independently,
so
to
give
a
two-year
adjustment
on
an
annual
assessment
just
seems
inappropriate.
G
G
G
So
we
believe
that
the
operating
expenses
projected
by
the
appellant
is
just
too
aggressive,
especially
given
the
last
four
years
that
are
illustrated
on
the
summary
sheet.
That
being
said,
we
do
believe
the
test
confirms
that
the
general
win
assessment
should
be
confirmed
at
38
million
297.6.
Thank
you.
I
Yes,
I
just
have
a
really
quick
one
for
the
applicant.
Let's
see
go,
let
me
go
to
your
page.
40
there
you're
talking
about
parking
income,
it
says
the
assessed
parking,
the
assumed
parking
income
is
in
excess
of
actual
parking
income
and
then
you
have
other
income
and
then
it
says
the
assumed
other
income
is
in
excess
of
the
actual
parking
income.
I
mean
that
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
me.
Do.
Is
it
something
else.
K
I
K
J
C
Yes,
thank
you.
Okay,
the
appellant
I
didn't
understand
the
it
seemed
to
me
double
counting.
You
have
a
vacant
building
relatively
vacant
building
because
of
covet
and
but
you're.
This
is
all
I'm
sorry.
This
is
all
about
operating
expenses
that
you
were
normalizing
it
to
a
75
occupancy
rate
and
therefore
the
dollars
per
square
foot
based
on
expenses
should
go
up.
It
seemed
to
me
it
was
double
counting.
C
Perhaps
you
could
go
over
that
again,
how
you
go
from
eight
or
eight
dollars
and
fifty
cents
a
square
foot
up
to
almost
ten
dollars
a
square
foot?
Yes,
sir.
Absolutely
one
last
thing.
Excuse
me:
in
the
prior
years
before
kobit
it
was
at
seven
dollars
and
it
was
occupied.
I
understand,
by
by
a
factor
of
more
than
75
percent,
but
now
you're
normalizing
at
75.
J
Okay,
I'd
like
to
address
the
first
part,
the
second
part
of
your
question
first,
so
the
drea
test
page
does
not
show
occupants
or
vacancy
at
this
property.
So
if
you
go
to
page
40
of
the
appeal,
our
pro
forma
does
show
year
in
vacancy
and
urine
vacancy
at
the
end
of
2019
was
45.5
percent
2020
42.4
vacant
2021
43.6
vacant.
So
this
property
has
not
had
stabilized
vacancy
at
75
occupancy
for
some
time.
J
J
We
need
to
do
that
same
same
methodology
to
the
operating
expenses.
If
we're
going
to
assume
75
percent
of
the
property
is
is
occupied,
then
we
have
to
also
assume
that
75
of
the
property
is
generating
operating
expenses.
They're
using
lights,
you
know,
restrooms
are
being
used.
There's
trash
is
being
collected,
so
what
the
county
has
done
is
they've
taken
the
2021
actual
expenses
of
77.90
per
square
foot.
J
So
if
we
grow
that
you
know
we,
we
have
to
account
for
that
additional
20
stabilized
occupancy,
and
that's
that's
where
we
get
the
10
and
that's
also
in
line
with
again
neighboring
properties
in
this
in
this
sub
market,
you
can
see
addresses
of
neighboring
properties
and
what
they
were
assessed
at
for
operating
expenses.
On
page
40
of
the
appeal.
A
A
C
F
Yes,
just
again
looking
at
this
property,
if
this
property
were
not
to
lease
up
the
57
425
square
feet
of
office
space,
it
would
still
yield
similar
results
as
far
as
expenses
are
concerned
for
this
property,
if
the
the
board
were
to
credit
this
property
expenses
not
incurred,
I
think
that
it
would
be
improper
to
do
so.
F
I
guess
looking
at
the
overall
rental
income
for
this
property,
you
see
that
in
column
e
there's
a
figure
there
for
the
actual
income
that
is
achieved
on
this
property
for
the
office
space,
lease
of
three
million
three
hundred
fifty
five
thousand
eight
thirty,
three,
the
counties
in
their
test
and
as
well
as
the
pro
forma,
the
appellant
already
discount,
that
actual
income
received
of
about
a
difference
of
three
hundred
forty
six
thousand
six
hundred
thirty
five
dollars,
so
we're
accounting
for
some
of
the
the
income
adjustment
there
in
our
test
as
well.
F
So
we
believe
that
you
know
just
to
start
off
when
we're
developing
the
the
value
for
this
property.
We
are
giving
a
discount
so
to
speak
and
adjusting
those
figures
based
on
the
rents
that
are
actually
in
place.
F
This
column,
test
f,
is
a
accurate
depiction
of
what
this
property
would
yield.
Had
it
been
fully
occupied
and
given
so
we
do
allow
for
the
adjustments
below
the
line
and
the
value
in
this
test
actually
showed
an
increase.
So
we
asked
the
board
to
confirm
the
original
assessment
at
38
million
297
600..
Thank
you.
J
J
So
if
we're
going
to
credit
income
not
earned,
we
also
need
to
credit
operating
expenses
related
to
that
earning
that
income
that
were
not
spent
so
just
growing
the
2021
up
actual
operating
expenses
when
this
property
was
57
vacant,
just
growing
that
figure
by
3.3
percent
does
not
account
for
a
fully
stabilized
property.
J
J
Again,
this
doesn't
even
consider
space
available
for
sublease.
This
is
just
new
office
space
lease
the
ti's
need
to
be
a
hundred
dollars.
This
is
in
shell
condition.
It
needs
to
be
fully
built
out
as
new.
J
It's
not
we
toured
the
property
in
october
of
last
year
and
saw
that
it
was
in
shell
condition,
as
such
ti
should
be
a
hundred
dollars
per
square
foot.
So,
just
to
summarize,
the
ten
dollars
per
square
foot
operating
expenses
are
supported
by
both
grossing
up
the
actual
operating
expenses
to
a
stabilized
occupancy
level.
J
A
H
Yeah,
I
think
it
needs
to
come
down.
It's
just
a
matter
of
how
it
gets
calculated
out.
I
got
a
couple
ideas,
but
I'll
hear
you
know
what
everybody
else
has
to
say,
but
the
you
know
nine
to
ten
dollars
in
operating
expenses
in
the
rb
corridor
is
totally
what
we're
seeing
so
to
say
that
it's
going
to
be
the
same
price
that
it
was
in
2018.
H
You
know
look
at
the
cost
of
anything
right
where
it's
gone
so
and
you
know
I'm
looking
at
I'm
looking
ahead
to
the
next
case
and
it's
like
the
county
put
in
an
assessment
at
ten
dollars,
a
square
foot
for
another
200
000
square
foot
office.
Building
that
they're
going
to
be
arguing
in
a
few
minutes,
so
10
seems
reasonable
to
me
nine
to
ten
dollars.
A
square
foot
seems
reasonable,
yeah.
A
C
But
ken,
let
me
let
me
interject
on
that.
What
that
means
is
that
a
hundred
dollars
that's
two
and
a
half
years
of
rent.
I
mean
this
is
40,
something
you
know
dollars
a
square
foot
or
it's
actually
a
little
less.
So
it's
at
least
two
and
a
half
years
of
rent
to
accommodate
somebody.
Now,
if
it's
a
20-year
lease
yeah
sure
no
problem,
but
it's
not
going
to
be
20,
and
it's
probably
in
this
office
environment
not
going
to
be
10..
I
think
the
landlord
do
well
if
they
got
five.
C
Successor
of
this
tenant,
so
I
I
I'm
I'm
not.
I.
I
understand
the
concept.
It's
it's
shell.
There
are
no
walls,
you
know,
there's
no
sink,
there's
you
know
and
amenities,
but
you
know
that
just
doesn't
make
rational
sense.
From
my
point
of
view
representing
a
tenant,
a
landlord
is
going
to
laugh
at
me.
You
want
half
the
income
to
be
spent
to
accommodate.
So
you
know
the
effective
income
is
whatever
19
dollars
a
square
foot
in
balsam.
That's
just
not
going
to
work,
so
I
I
I
don't
support
that.
A
Okay,
let's
go
ahead
and
hear
from
mr
hoffman
of
where
he's
the
numbers.
H
L
A
I'm
sorry
mark
okay.
Well,
let
me
just
interrupt
here
so,
let's
find
out
from
the
other,
because
we
know
where
you
guys
are
on
that.
Mr
penaronda
and
mr
lawson.
Are
you
okay
with
mr
hoffman's
number,
or
do
you
want?
Do
you
need
something
lower,
because
if
there's
not
enough
votes,
there's
no
reason
to
even
discuss
this?
D
I
I'm
the
same,
I
think,
on
the
you
know,
on
tenant,
build
out.
You
know
if
it's
a
mom-and-pop
tenant
yeah.
I
think
the
landlord's
going
to
force
some
of
that
cost
back
on
them.
But
when
you're
talking
about
you
know
100
000
square
feet
in
a
large
office
building,
I
think
that
tenants
are
probably
going
to
force
that
back
to
the
landlord.
I
H
That's
why
I
figured
you'd
be
checking
my
math
and
you
usually
get
a
better
number
here.
I
used
1
400
620
as
the
expenses.
D
Okay,
the
expenses
that
I
come
up
with
is
one
million
three
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
two
forty
at
ten
dollars
exactly
I'm
using
the
same
square
footage
that
is
on
column
f.
If
you
divide
the
expenses
time,
you
know
by
850,
you
come
up
with
135
1024
square
feet.
D
A
H
H
A
A
H
K
J
Yes,
thank
you
4501
north
fairfax.
This
property
is
directly
adjacent
to
the
property
we
just
discussed
even
closer
to
the
intersection
of
glebe
and
fairfax.
J
J
Now,
if
you'd
be
so
kind
as
to
direct
your
attention
to
page
four
of
the
appeal,
you'll
see
the
drea's
test
page
here,
you'll
see
that
operating
expenses
were
initially
assessed
for
2022
at
ten
dollars
per
square
foot,
then,
on
the
test,
column
dropped
to
only
nine
dollars
per
square
foot
again
this
test
page.
What
it
does
not
show
is
the
vacancy
rate
and
same
argument
as
the
pr
prior
case,
since
we
are
assuming
a
75
stabilized
occupancy
for
income.
So
too
must
we
consider
75
stabilized
occupancy
for
expenses.
J
The
only
year
shown
for
which
occupancy
was
close
to
stabilized
was
2018
when
operating
expenses
were
9.26
per
square
foot,
but
this
number
is
artificially
deflated
because
51
000
square
feet
that
were
lease
were
physically
vacated
in
july
of
2018..
So
that's
26
percent
of
the
in
la
that
was
not
occupied
for
roughly
half
the
year
growing
the
2018
rate.
J
J
Secondly,
physical
occupancy
has
been
low
across
the
office
sector.
We
discussed
this
previously
with
the
castle
card
office.
Swipes
dc
metro
area
was
at
36
percent
physical
occupancy.
As
of
at
the
end
of
the
year,
2021
we've
provided
the
data
in
the
arlington
county
board
book
supporting
that
low
physical
occupancy.
J
Since
interstate,
since
one
of
the
tenants
had
vacated
51
000
square
feet,
the
result
was
only
71
000
square
feet
that
were
occupied
in
2021,
the
janitorial
expenses
per
occupied
square
feet.
Square
foot
was
two
dollars:
32
cents
in
2021.
J
J
This
grows
total
operating
expenses
by
283
000
when
we
gross
it
up
to
the
stabilized
occupancy,
as
we
have
done
with
the
income,
the
management
fee,
another
2.14
cents
per
occupied
square
foot,
which
works
out
to
a
165
000
dollars
in
additional
operating
expenses
when
applying
that
rate
to
the
excess
vacancy
just
stabilizing.
For
a
few
of
these
vape
variable
cost
alone
gets
us
above
the
ten
dollars
per
square
foot
in
operating
expenses.
J
J
The
assessment
uses
one
year
of
lost
rent
again
in
its
lisa.
For
all
the
reasons
stated
in
the
prior
case,
leasing
from
velocity
decreased
in
2021
from
2020
was
at
negative
697
000
square
feet.
Absorption
through
three
quarters.
J
Work
from
home
depressing
office
demand
arlington
suffering
from
a
outsized
lease
from
outsized
leases
from
the
federal
government,
which
has
adopted
work
from
home
policies.
Two
years
of
lease-up
costs
are
more
reflective
of
the
current
market.
J
J
J
Additionally,
the
former
space
of
another
tenant
at
over
fifteen
thousand
square
feet
is
still
built
out
for
that
former
tenant
and
will
likely
also
need
to
be
demolished
and
rebuilt
as
well.
Combined.
These
three
spaces
make
up
eighty
eight
thousand
seven
hundred
square
feet
of
area
that
needs
to
be
demoed
and
white
boxed.
J
K
I
do
I'm
just
going
to
explain
the
difference
between
the
110
and
the
on
this
case,
and
the
100
on
the
last
case
is
that
the
space
here
also
needs
to
be
demolished
before
so.
That
is
why
there
is
a
difference
and
then,
as
it
relates
to
the
cost,
to
put
a
tenant
in
place,
we
have
found
that
the
majority
of
our
landlords
are
not
breaking
even
on
their
leases
until
almost
five
years
after
the
lease
has
started
so
the
tenant
build
out,
leasing,
commissions,
etc.
K
K
The
fact
is,
you
know
the
county
assesses
every
year
and
a
landlord
or
a
potential
purchaser
is
not
going
to
assume
the
space
is
going
to
lease
up
in
one
year
when
in
fact,
we
have
over
24
months
on
average
time
on
market,
and
we
have
negative
absorption.
The
county
assesses
every
year
and
if
the
situation
changes
it
can
be
addressed
next
year,
but
at
this
point
two
years
in
lost
rent
should
be
deducted
from
the
capitalized
value.
F
Yes,
thank
you,
this
property.
F
We
somewhat
mirror
all
the
the
rental
income
in
our
test
column,
with
respect
to
the
pro
forma
that
the
appellant
is
suggesting
as
well.
It
does
come
down
to
expenses
and
tis
when
we
look
at
the
expenses
overall
in
the
the
county
on
the
average,
my
guidelines
suggest
and
the
ines
that
were
submitted,
suggest
on
average
it's
about
nine
dollars,
a
square
foot
across
all
areas
and
nine
dollars
is
what
we
used
here
in
this
test
column.
F.
F
When
we're
looking
at
this
property,
I
believe
the
appellate
is
suggested
that
they
will
incur
demo
costs
for
the
spaces,
but
they
have
not
yet
the
difference
between
this
property
and
last
property
that
last
property
was
in
shale
condition.
You
know
we
don't.
We
can't
determine
exactly
what
the
new
tenant
may
or
may
not
want.
With
respect
to
that
space.
F
In
looking
at
the
reports
that
I've
received
before
making
the
guidelines
for
office,
we
do
see
that
there
are
some
okay.
There
are
some
cases
where
seventy
dollars
a
square
foot
is
appropriate.
I
believe
the
case
that
was
supposed
to
be
heard
today
was
seventy
dollars,
a
square
foot,
and
that
gives
the
understanding
that
that
is
accepted
on
some
leases
as
well,
and
that
doesn't
mean
that
all
leases
will
receive
110
dollars
per
square
foot
like
the
the
appellant
suggests.
F
So
I
asked
the
board
to
take
that
in
consideration
and
given
our
tests,
we
do
ask
that
the
board
confirmed
the
original
assessment
at
58
million
165
400..
Chris
did
you
have
anything
to
add.
H
F
Let's
see
yeah,
it
should
be
based
on
effective
age.
A
six
say,
six
point:
eight.
H
And
I
guess
if
it
is
effective
age,
if
you've
toured
these
properties,
you've
been
in
the
lobby
or
whatever?
Is
there
anything
fundamentally
different
between
the
two
buildings?
Like
you
know,
one
has
high
ceilings
and
the
other
one
is
built
in
the
80s
or
something
like
that
or
are
they
from
from
a
leasing
perspective?
Are
they
pretty
similar.
G
Yeah,
I
I
can't
speak
to
the
inspection
and
just
as
far
as
how
the
cap
rates
would
be
configured
yeah
they're
part
of
the
guideline,
but
they
should
be
based
upon
either
again
effective
age
and
then
proximity
to
metra
and
or
if
they're,
in
the
bid.
Okay,
it
looks
like
this
may
have
just
been
rounded.
It
looks
like
it
should
have
been
if
I'm
reading
this
correct
six,
eight,
nine
five,
six,
seven,
nine
five
and
I
think
it
was
just
rounded
up
to
six
point.
Eight.
G
D
A
D
F
Well,
basically,
because
the
other
properties
are
assessed
the
same
way,
meaning
looking
at
the
reports
of
the
market
analysis.
We
found
that
with
the
properties
that
are
rented
out
less
than
forty
five
dollars
a
square
foot,
seventy
dollars
was
appropriate
for
the
properties
that
are
renting
at
a
higher
rate.
They
would
attribute
110
dollars
a
square
foot
for
the
ti's.
F
You
know
the
the
market
analysis
and
the
reports
that
I
I
review
before
doing
the
guidelines
kind
of
kind
of
dictates
that
if
you
will,
unless
in
the
ines
they're
reported
as
such
with
each
lease,
we
ask
that
information
on
the
rent
rolls
to
see
if
we
can
decipher
if
there
should
be
an
adjustment
based
on
you
know
the
ines
that
we
received
in
the
prior
year
so
based
on
what
we
found
and
what
we
reviewed
and
analyzed
70
was
appropriate.
K
K
K
So
the
guidelines
do
provide
for
a
much
higher
rate
than
the
70
dollars
per
square
foot
on
on
new
space,
without
a
consideration
of
the
the
rent
that's
being
achieved
at
the
property.
Also
just
like
to
point
out
that
the
guidelines
for
a
number
of
years
have
had
that
same
break
point
in
terms
of
rent
and
we're
not
in
the
same
market
that
we
were
pre-2020.
K
So
the
fact
that
those
guidelines
have
not
changed
is
probably
not
correct,
but
in
this
case
again
I
think
we
can
rely
on
the
new
space
guidelines,
because
that's
what
we're
looking
at
is
we're
going
to
be
building
out
from
show.
I
I
A
Okay,
all
right,
nobody
else
all
right,
then
excuse
me,
excuse.
C
Me
mary,
I
actually
I
do
have
a
question
that
I
I
missed
very
quick
for
the
appellant
you
had
mentioned
that
you
saw
some
data
that
these
days
it
takes
about
five
years
on
average
for
break
even
on
leases.
After
all
the
expenses
it
takes
to
accommodate
a
tenant.
I
I
would
very
much
love
to
see
that
data
wherever
you
got
that
information
from
you.
K
Know
how
to
find
it.
Thank
you
that
is
from.
I
I'd
be
happy
to
share
that
with
you
in
private,
not
online,
but
that
data
is
from
an
analysis
of
actual
leases
that
have
taken
place
and
it's
it's
unfortunate,
but
it's
true
and
again.
We
would
be
happy
to
share
that
with
you
in
private,
but
not
in
a
public
forum.
C
F
Sure
I'd
love
to
see
that
information
as
well
in
private.
F
F
F
We
ask
that
the
board
consider
that,
just
based
on
the
the
based
on
equalization,
no
other
property
is
afforded
that,
given
the
excess
vacancy,
whether
it
is
in
shell
condition
or
not,
you
know
I
given
the
information
that
could
suggest
that
it
should
be
higher.
I
I'd
be
more
than
happy
to
analyze
that
information
and
make
adjustments
for
next
year.
Thank
you
anything
else.
Chris.
G
No,
I
think,
rob
summed
it
up.
Well
again,
if
you
were
to
look
at
any
deviation
as
far
as
operating
expenses,
you
can
see
the
column,
d
and
column
g
are
virtually
aligned
just
for
the
exception
of
a
one
year,
rent
loss
allowance,
our
rent
loss,
is
actually
higher,
41
dollars
a
square
foot
in
column
d,
but
it's
one
year
it's
an
annual
assessment,
it's
appropriate
to
look
at
each
year.
We
do
believe
that
the
column
f
confirms
our
original
assessment,
but
again
keep
that
in
mind.
G
J
Yes,
thank
you.
So
column
d
does
have
ten
dollars
per
square
foot
in
operating
expenses.
This
is
dropped
to
nine
dollars
per
square
foot
in
column
f
with
the
dreas
test.
So
if
we
have,
you
know,
apply
the
ten
dollars
per
square
foot
to
bring
that
number
down.
That
is
supported
by
both
the
actual
operating
history
of
this
property.
J
It's
supported
by
similar
properties
in
the
in
the
same
neighborhood
as
well.
I'd
like
to
also
direct
your
all's
attention.
If
you
have
the
office
guidelines
available
from
the
arlington
county
guidelines,
this
is
on
page
29
of
the
guidelines.
You'll
see
that
the
ti's
are
outlined
here,
it
says:
tenant
improvements
is
seventy
dollars
for
renewal
leases
less
than
forty
five
dollars
and
one
hundred
fifteen
dollars
for
new
buildings
or
buildings
with
renewal
leases
above
forty
five
dollars
per
square
foot,
this
property's
vacant
space
is
built
out
for
prior
tenants.
It's
not
in
usable
condition.
J
J
The
guidelines
show
115
dollars
for
that
we're
only
asking
for
110
and
as
of
the
date
of
value,
those
demo
costs
have
yet
to
be
incurred.
Again.
The
data
supports
a
greater
lease
up
period
as
well,
and
we
ask
that
the
the
value
be
reduced
as
outlined
on
the
appeal
and
eileen.
Do
you
have
anything
you'd
like
to
add.
K
The
space
is
in
the
process
of
being
demoed,
so
it's
not
speculative.
As
jordan
said,
the
space
is
not
suitable
for
occupancy
and
just
like
to
re-emphasize
the
two
years.
Any
potential
purchaser
is
not
going
to
assume
that
the
property
is
going
to
lease
up
in
one
year
and
that
they're
going
to
look
at
actual
market
conditions.
K
L
Well,
I
concur
with
the
county's
point
as
far
as
the
lease
up
period
being
one
year,
they'll,
look
at
we'll
look
at
it
again.
I
understand
that
I
think
that's
probably
correct.
L
I
commend
the
appellant
in
looking
at
the
you
know
the
the
regs
on
what
we're
doing
here
with
the
one,
the
110
or,
as
he
said,
115
for
new
space
over
that
price.
I
did
not
pick
that
up,
but
I
agree
the
the
you
you
cannot
and
I've
just
been
through
this
with
a
project.
L
You
cannot
do
that
at
seventy
dollars.
It's
not
possible,
so
I
I
put
that
out
there
and
as
far
as
can
as
far
as
what
it
takes
to
recoup
that
money
or
how
long
tenant
management's
going
to
rent
a
property
for
that's
a
decision
they're
going
to
make
going
forward,
but
the
cost
is
the
cost
of
doing
the
work.
L
H
And
similar
to
the
last
building,
I
think
it
needs
to
come
down
a
little
bit
and
they
should
probably
be
for
the
sake
of
equity.
I
don't
see
a
huge
difference
between
the
two
buildings
other
than
this
subject
has
a
little
higher
vacancy,
but
it
also
has
the
glebe
road
frontage,
which
gives
it
much
better
ground
floor.
Retail
they've
got
the
bank
in
there.
They've
got
a
fedex
get
those
that
are,
you
know,
so
I
think
it
kind
of
balances
out,
so
they
should
probably
be
in
the
same
neighborhood.
C
Okay,
thank
you.
I'm
not.
I
mean
I'm
just
looking
the
ines.
They
have
12
years
difference
in
effective
age,
and
that
goes
into
a
different
decade
and
therefore
different
see.
I
don't
have
it
in
front
of
me
the
guidelines,
but
I
I'm
betting
that
that's
why
the
the
cap
rates
are
different
because
they're
a
different
decade.
C
Second,
probably
good
idea
for
the
county
to
to
consider
these
ti's
for
a
brand
new
building
versus
an
additional
lease
in
in
terms
of
building
costs
are
skyrocketing.
C
I'm
talking
for
next
year,
of
course,
also
in
that
regard,
it
could
easily
be
that
tenants
are
gaining
the
leverage
over
landlords
for
the
near
term
because
of
a
virtual
office
space
in
cobit,
and
lord
knows
what
and
perhaps
they
the
tenants
are
going
to
start
to
get
during
this
year,
2022
and
next
year
and
foreseeable
future,
better
deals
with
with
too
many
office
buildings.
So
I
mean
that
dynamic
ought
to
change.
I
bet
I
I
don't
know
I
mean
get
into
this
one
year
two
year
lease
up.
C
I
see
it
as
a
double
counting,
if
you
don't
keep
it
at
one
year.
Another
one
is
that
going
back,
I
keep
hearing
from
the
appellant
that
no,
these
spaces
have
to
be
demoed,
they're,
not
usable,
I
mean.
Was
there
motorcycle
maintenance
on
the
sixth
floor
of
this
building?
You
know
that
that's
very
qualitative.
It's
a
an
intelligent
business,
a
common
business
decision
by
the
landlord
to
start
all
over
again,
but
I
I've
never
been
in
a
place
that
had
to
had
to
be
gutted
to
just
cement,
floors,
ceilings
and
walls.
C
It's
prudent,
but
it's
not
required.
Finally,
we
I
want
to
echo
what
mr
peralta
said
about.
We
don't
know
what
the
build
up's
going
to
be,
what
if
it's
a
full
open
plan
when
it's
a
call
center,
you
know
versus
a
law
firm
that
needs
lots
of
mahogany
and
glass
walls
and
kitchenettes
and
all
kinds
of
great
stuff.
C
I
mean
we're
doing
mass
appraisal
here
and,
as
I
said
at
the
beginning,
maybe
70
is
starting
to
be
too
low
now
and
we
should
maybe
see
something
higher
last
year,
but
we're
in
this
year,
so
that
just
doesn't
count
and
finally,
I've
also
well.
I've
already
asked
about
the
five-year
I
mean.
I
I
just
can't
imagine:
landlords
are
now
waiting
five
years
to
break
even
given
that
leases
are
shrinking
in
length
and
a
lot
of
leases
are
less
than
five
years.
I
may
have
something
else,
but
that's
enough
for
my
time.
D
No,
I
was
just
going
to
make
a
comment
as
far
as
the
I
think
you
know
to
be
consistent.
I
thought
that
increasing
the
expenses
would
be
the
proper
way
to
do
it.
On
this
case
also,
I
also
tested
based
on
just
increasing
the
ti's
instead
of
the
expenses,
because
in
the
previous
case
I,
like
I
mentioned,
you
know,
we're
gonna
do
one.
I
think
the
other
one
should
stay.
The
other
portion
should
stay,
so
they
both
come
up
with
almost
the
same,
very
close
value.
D
a
little
bit
lower,
but
I'm
I
would
be
okay
by
just
increasing
the
expenses,
as
we
did
in
previous
case.
A
A
D
D
The
amount
would
be
56
million,
420
200,
based
on
increasing
the
expenses
to
10
square
foot.
Okay,.
A
Okay,
it's
unanimous
the
assessments
reduced
to
fifty
six
million
four
twenty
two
hundred
based
on
increasing
expenses
to
ten
dollars.
J
J
J
J
This
column
is
not
the
result
of
generally
accepted
appraisal
practice
and
is
a
case
study
in
just
picking
and
choosing
data
points
in
search
of
a
final
value.
Column
e2
is
an
amalgamation
consisting
of
the
actual
2021
reported
figures,
2018
figures,
appellant
pro
forma
figures
and
counting
guideline
rates.
J
This
approach
contains
several
errors.
Primarily
this
reconstructed
column,
double
counts.
Income
on
space
that
vacated
during
2021
and
the
reconstructed
column
also
does
not
include
concessions
on
occupied
space
or
actual
concession
concessions,
as
such,
this
column
should
not
be
considered
in
the
evaluation
of
this
property.
J
J
J
J
Next
note:
the
pass-through
income
assessed
at
this
property
is
85.
000,
compare
this
to
the
actual
prior
year,
2021
pass-through
income,
which
was
negative
77
000.
J
Now
this
came
up
in
in
the
first
case
that
we
heard-
and
this
is
an
issue
because,
as
in
that
case,
the
county
adopted
the
actual
prior
year,
pass-through
income.
In
this
case
they
did
not
they're
overstating
pass-through
income
in
a
non-uniform
manner,
with
other
office
properties
in
the
county
for
other
properties,
as
we
saw
earlier,
the
pass-through
income
from
the
prior
year
is
used
in
the
county
test
column.
J
J
J
J
To
summarize,
the
most
recent
leasing
activity
at
the
property
required
nearly
10
in
concessions
and
resulted
in
a
net
effective
rental
rate
of
36.35
per
square
foot.
If
we
apply
this
same
concession
rate
to
in-place
leases,
we
come
up
with
a
weighted
average
rental
rate
of
41.9
cents
per
square
foot.
J
F
Yes,
thank
you
for
this
case.
What
you'll
see
in
in
column
e2
I'd
like
to
speak
to
that
in
previous
cases,
I've
alluded
to
exactly
what
I
demonstrated
here.
It
it's
in
response
to
what
I've
been
receiving
the
ines,
so
the
ines
that
are
reported
in
these
cases
today
that
you
heard
before
the
board,
they're
they're
only
reporting
the
actual
income,
and
so
in
order
to
give
the
board
a
better
indication
of
what
this
off
this
property
should
achieve.
F
Based
on
the
gross
potential
income,
the
county
myself
has
illustrated
that
in
column
e2,
whereas
when
we're
looking
at
the
actual
income
reported,
I'm
just
copying
every
line
item
from
the
operating
year,
2021
to
in
column
e
to
column,
e2,
and
what
I've
done
is
also
included
the
agent's
estimate
of
value.
I
I
don't
agree
with
that
estimated
value,
but
as
a
point
of
reference,
we're
looking
at
the
one,
the
one
bullet
point
there
of
the
2
million
574
998,
which
is
the
agent's
estimate
for
the
vacant
space
on
the
property.
F
As
you
compare
e2
to
column
f,
what
you'll
see
is
the
county
does
address
some
of
the
concessions
that
the
appellant
has
noted
and
they're.
Saying,
though,
double
counting
we're
double
counting
the
income
with
a
tenant
that
previously
has
left
the
property,
but
in
all
actuality
we
have
a
delta
of
534
857
between
what
they
actually
reported
and
what
drea's
test
column
f
is
actually
showing
as
the
gross
potential
for
the
property.
F
This
just
gives
you
an
idea.
If
you
look
down
on
row
7
for
gross
potential
income,
you
see
that
they're
reporting
column
e
9.4
million
in
gross
potential,
but
that
isn't
accurate.
If
you
include
the
again
the
vacant
space
so
by
illustrating
in
column
e2,
we
find
that
that
figure
is
closer
to
12
million
based
upon
the
actual
information,
actual
income
provided
and
the
agent's
estimate.
F
But
then
you'll
see
that
in
column,
f,
drive's
gross
potential
income
is
lower
than
that
number
again,
based
on
the
concessions
that
the
the
county
took
in
consideration
and
the
rents
that
are
in
place
and
what
we
perceive
the
the
rents
are
going
to
be
for
the
vacant
space
of
seventy
thousand.
Eight
thirty
nine
square
feet.
F
If
you
look
at
line
five,
we'll
address
the
stabilized
pass-through
income,
the
appellant
in
their
column
g
reported
a
negative
77
thousand
for
the
potential
gross
of
this
property.
To
you
know
just
looking
at
that
figure
alone,
and
I've
done
this
on
other
cases,
because
I've
seen
this
and
addressed
this
at.
That
number
is
a
net
number
that
they're
reporting,
and
so
that's
not
the
actual
income.
F
They
receive
it's
more
of
a
net
number
and
I
believe
that
that
concessions
or
whatever
rent
loss
or
vacancies,
should
be
shown
at
lines
eight
through
ten
as
more
of
a
concession
or
a
reimbursement
sort
of
speak,
so
that
the
way
it
was
reported
led
me
to
that
85
000
figure
where
I
just
took
you
know
the
four
years
the
negative
77
000
dollars
into
consideration
and
came
up
with
that
stabilized
85
000
pass-through
income
property.
F
If
it
were
to
lease
up
the
70
0839
square
feet
of
vacant
space,
you
would
assume
that
once
stabilized
it
would
accrue,
you
know,
pass
through
income
of
of
greater
than
85
000
per
year
and
you'll
see
in
in
the
history
of
this
property
in
2019
and
2020
in
particular,
they
gross
236
000
557
in
2019,
177
944
in
2020,
and
now
to
see
the
a
negative
number.
I
just
didn't
think
it
was
appropriate
when
estimating
the
potential
gross
property
potential
gross
of
this
property.
F
Now
this
property
has
similar
vacancy
as
the
last
property
or
the
the
last
two
properties.
You
know
this
property
is
pretty
stabilized
as
far
as
expenses
are
concerned,
we're
at
9.75,
and
we
do
afford
some
vacancy
allowance
below
the
line
based
on
the
square
footage
that
we
saw.
As
of
the
data
value
with
that,
I
believe
chris
has
something
to
mention.
G
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate:
I
think
it's
something
the
opponent
mentioned
twice
actually
in
regards
to
the
column
g,
which
is
essentially
taking
the
newest
leases
that
they
had
discounting
for
concessions
and
then
applying,
if
I
recall
correctly,
applying
that
nine
percent
discount
to
leases
that
already
in
place,
which
is
how
they
came
up
with
a
forty
one
dollars,
a
nine
cents
per
square
foot
average.
I'm
not
sure
why
that
would
take
place,
given
that
these
are
leases
that
are
in
place.
These
are
already
structured.
G
Typically,
leases
are
going
to
increase
two
or
three
percent
a
year,
so
they
actually
applied
a
negative
depressive
mark.
If
you
want
to
get
down
to
41.99
cents,
a
square
foot,
which
is
why
their
office
number
is
quite
a
bit
lower
than
what
was
achieved
in
the
operating
year,
2021
as
seen
in
column
e
in
regards
to
the
column
e2.
This
may
be
uncommon
for
office
properties,
but
I
know
you've
seen
reconstructions
on
the
apartment
side.
G
G
The
idea
that
it's
going
to
be
to
the
cent
what
they
incurred
last
year
is
not
necessarily
believable,
given
that
we
did
go
through
the
numbers
in
the
test
column
f.
We
do
believe
that
in
this
case,
actually
operating
expenses
are
much
more
in
line
with
what's
been
reported.
Historically,
we
do
believe
that
the
revision
offered
at
91
million
45
052
is
appropriate,
and
we
asked
the
board
to
confirm
that.
Thank
you.
I
Yeah,
this
is
for
the
county,
I'm
totally
confused
and
I
apologize
over
the
tenant
improvements.
How
much
vacant
space
is
there.
F
The
result
it's
the
residual
of
we,
we
allocate
twenty
five
percent
below
before
capitalization,
so
the
figure
that
you
see
for
our
vacancy
of
25.,
okay,
correct
all.
F
Yes
again,
we
stabilized
the
the
income,
as
mr
sheikas
has
pointed
out.
In
our
test
column,
we've
looked
at
the
history
of
this
property
and
we
believe
that
the
test
column
is
more
accurate.
Depiction
of
you
know
what
we
can
value
this
property
for.
Originally
we
had
the
assessment
slightly
higher,
but
we
believed
that
the
assessment
based
on
the
expenses
based
on
the
the
market
rent
and
the
the
vacancy
of
the
property,
we
believe
the
value
should
be
91
million,
45
100,
I
believe,
for
this
property.
J
J
Those
are
indicative
of
where
the
the
current
market
is
for
this
property.
The
most
recent
leases
are
most
indicated,
indicative
of
that
pass-through
income
is
not
treated
uniformly
with
other
properties
in
the
county.
We
saw
this
during
the
discussion
of
4401
fairfax
just
earlier
today
we
brought
it
up
on
appeal:
the
county
made
the
adjustment
in
the
test
column
on
that
property.
Here
they
have
not
done
that.
They've
not
treated
this
property
uniformly
with
other
properties
in
the
county
and
as
such
that
that
figure
should
be
reduced
to
the
2021
rate.
J
K
I
just
want
to
point
out
the,
as
mr
harman
said,
the
the
rent
on
the
new
lease
was
36.35
and
that
information
has
been
provided
and
in
column
f.
The
county
uses
39
per
square
foot
on
vacant
space
which
results
in
a
substantial
overstatement
of
the
potential
income
at
the
property
and
again
just
because
I
think
it's
a
little
confusing.
C
Thank
you.
I,
on
the
the
pass
through
some
a
negative
pass
through,
if
this
were
journaled
correctly
means
that
tenants
are
getting
rebates
from
the
landlord
and
I
think
the,
but
indeed
it
was
another
kind
of
concession
and
mr
peralta
accounted
for
that.
C
So
if
there
is
some
bait
and
switch
between
two
cases
ago,
and
this
one
that
the
in
accounting
for
for
pass-throughs
that
the
appellant
alleges,
I'm
I'm
not
seeing
it,
it
seems
it
just
shows
up
elsewhere
with
a
different
line
on
them,
but
in
the
same
column.
So
so
I'm
satisfied
with
that.
I'm
not
satisfied
that,
although
I
certainly
believe
that
the
the
last
large
tenant
moving
upstairs
is
booking
effectively
at
a
much
slower,
a.
E
C
Of
then
than
what
were
had
experienced
over
time,
that
attests
to
perhaps
again
the
power
switching
to
tenants,
but
we
don't
know
who
this
one
tenant
is
how
very
strong
the
tenant
is
all
done,
betting
that
it
is,
and
maybe
this
rent
rates
will
start
to
change,
but
we
can't
do
with
one
tenant
in
one
year.
C
We
need
to
have
a
trend
like
we
do
for
so
many
many
decisions
that
this
board
makes
and
finally
on
the
operating
expenses
you
know
at
first,
I
just
thought
well,
this
is
too
close.
You
know
975
995.
well,.
C
Either
could
be
right,
but
again
since
they're,
as
the
department
pointed
out,
there's
a
below
the
line
adjustment
that
it
kind
of
in
a
way
effectively
increases
the
operating
expenses,
I'm
good
with
what
they've
done.
I
Yeah
I
tinkered
around
with
different
things
and
and
looks
to
me
like
the
test
is,
is
appropriate.
D
Yeah,
I
was
gonna
say
I'm
okay
with
the
revised
assessment.
I
think
that's
more
in
line
and
you
know
even
the
noise
lower
than
anything
else
that
they've
had
in
previous
years.
So
I'm
okay
with
that.
D
A
A
Okay,
so
it's
five
to
one:
I'm
opposed
the
assessment's
reduced
to
the
county's
revised
number
of
91
million
zero.
Four
five
one
hundred.
K
Thank
you
board.
If
I
could,
I
don't
believe.
There's
ever
been
an
instance
where,
and
maybe
there's
been
one
where
I
have
misrepresented
or
we
have
misrepresented
to
the
board.
What
an
item
is-
and
I
can
tell
you
that
the
concessions
were
not
included
in
the
pass-through
income,
that
was
the
actual
pass-through
income
and
it
is.
K
It
is
very
troubling
to
have
to
defend
the
numbers
that
we
have
on
submitted
and
that
our
clients
have
sworn
to
or
certified
on
the
income
and
expense
survey
form.
So
I
would
just
like
to
note
that
and
that
that
77
000
is
in
fact
a
rebate
to
the
client
and
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
700
000
or
so
reported
in
column
e,
that
reflected
actual
concessions.
K
So,
if
there
ever
is
a
question
about
whether
there
is
something
actually
reported,
I
would
greatly
appreciate
it
if
you
could
ask
about
it
during
questions
so
that
we
have
a
chance
to
address
it.
Thank
you.
K
A
Okay,
that
completes
the
agenda.
Excuse
me
for
today
is
there
any
other
business
for
the
county
in
the
county?
No
okay,
then
we
will
stand
adjourned,
I'll,
ask
the
members
to
stay
on
just
about
scheduling,
but
we
will
adjourn
here
at
10,
55
and
re-adjourn
next
tuesday
august
30th
at
9
9am.
Thank
you.
Thank.