►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing July 28, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
B
A
A
Okay,
all
right
well,
while
we're
waiting
we'll
go
ahead
with,
as
everyone
knows,
from
the
email
yesterday
on
case
two
in
case
three,
so
they
have
been
asked
to
be
withdrawn
by
mr
warren.
I
assume
that
there's
no
objection
from
the
county.
A
D
A
Opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous
that's
accepted,
and
then
the
third
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc15007058
property
located
at
2000.
North
adams
street
also
has
been
asked
to
withdraw
move
to
accept
the
withdrawal.
Do
I
have
a
second,
mr
lawson
was
in
there
first,
okay,
all
in
favor,
okay
opposed
it's
unanimous.
That
is
also
the
withdrawals
also
accepted.
Do
we
have
miss
foreman
back
nah,
yes,
she's,
trying
to
log
in.
E
A
C
A
A
E
Okay,
good
morning
board
good
morning,
chris
I'll
direct
the
board
to
page
38
of
100
of
the
board
response
package
that
we
got
from
the
county.
It's
again
our
summary
of
facts:
this
is
a
property
that
we
have
in
the
past
appealed,
but
it
was
part
of
the
wellington
apartments.
E
There
has
been
some
new
construction
there
and
now
there
are
three
rpcs
that
are
attributed
to
the
new
construction
at
the
site,
which
is
called
the
trove
at
1201
south
ross
street.
E
So
the
current
2021
assessment
for
this
property
and
that's
encompassing
of
three
individual
tax,
rpcs
or
tax
parcels,
is
a
hundred
and
ten
million
two
forty
seven
seven
hundred
combined
for
all
three
of
those
rpcs,
which
is
two
hundred
and
seventy
five
thousand
dollars
a
unit,
and
the
value
requested
from
the
board
today
is
a
value
of
91
million
922
000..
E
This
is
a
property,
that's
located
just
south
of
columbia,
pike
right
on
on
columbia,
pike
and
right
behind
it's
situated
where
the
the
wellington
is
it's
right
off,
of
south
washington
boulevard
and
in
the
i395
interchange.
It
is
new
construction.
E
It
was
recently
built
in
2020
and
has
401
total
units
and
is
a
mid-rise
in
south
arlington
property
offers
a
mix
of
studio,
one
two
and
three
bedroom
units
in
on-site
amenities,
business
center,
fitness
center
laundry
facilities,
playground,
roof,
terrace
that,
with
a
pool
there
was
a
supplemental
notice
issued
for
full
construction
by
arlington
county
that
was
effective
as
of
10-1
2020
for
the
end
of
2020
and
the
subject
property.
As
of
the
1-1
2021
valuation
date
was
in
the
beginning
stages
of
lisa.
E
If
you
turn
to
page
3,
you'll,
see
again
in
the
the
county's
apartment,
income
and
expense
summary,
because
it's
new
construction
you'll
see
that
obviously
there's
not
a
lot
of
historical
data
to
to
work
from
the
couple
of
the
issues
here
is,
as
you
can
see
in
in
column
d
or
excuse
me,
column
e,
which
is
the
most
recent
reported
year.
It's
not
a
full
year
of
reporting
income,
as
we
previously
stated,
it
was
in
the
very
initial
stages
of
lisa.
E
As
of
the
1
121
2021
valuation
date,
and
you
can
see
it
was
a
negative
noi
in
2020.
So
our
pro
forma
is
based
off
of
an
income
stream
that
we
used
and
calculated
based
off
the
existing
leases
as
of
the
101
2021
valuation
date,
and
then
the
market
rents
for
the
vacant
units
as
listed
and
indicated
on
the
rent
roll
as
a
1-1
2021.,
so
you'll
actually
see
that
our
apartment
and
gpr's
is
actually
slightly
higher
than
the
counties
at
that
top
line.
E
E
However,
we
are
taking
consideration
of
the
actual
concessions
you'll
see
on
page,
let's
see
page
40
of
100
that
we've
included
a
little
snippet
that
was
cut
directly
from
the
property
website
for
this
property
and
as
of
the
valuation
they
they
were
offering
two
months
free,
rent
on
a
12-month
lease
or
three
months,
free
rent
on
a
16-month
late
on
a
16-month
lease
and
according
to
the
owner,
their
average
newly
signed
was
exceeding
two
months
in
free
rent
concessions.
E
Overall,
the
county
is
again
estimating
this
property
is
fully
stabilized
above
the
line
just
using
their
six
percent
market
vacancies
and
taking
into
consideration
that
this
property
again
was
in
the
very
initial
stages
of
lease
up
and
in
the
concessions
that
are
currently
in
place
and
the
gross
potential
income
potential
of
that
property.
As
of
the
valuation
date,
the
operating
expenses
that
the
the
county
was
using
at
32.64.
E
We
used
in
our
analysis
as
well
and
stabilized
that
you'll
see
that
the
actual
operating
expenses
reported
for
the
partial
year
was
117
percent
0.78,
which
which
contributed
that
negative
ny
as
the
property
was
just
in
the
initial
lisa
cap
rate.
As
you've.
Seen
for
many
of
our
our
cases
this
year,
we
are
estimating
28
basis,
point
increase
to
the
county's
current
cap
rate
overall
cap
rate,
that's
being
applied
of
5.4.
E
You
can
find
our
cap
rate
support
again
on
page
that'll,
be
on
page
41
of
100,
in
which
we
we
show
the
prior
two
years
of
rerc's
apartments.
Investor
survey,
cap
rate
studies
in
2019.
E
The
change
between
2019
to
2020
the
mean
difference
between
26
basis
points,
the
median
30
basis
points.
We
took
right
in
the
middle
of
that
at
28
basis,
points
for
the
the
risk
factor
and
overall
consideration
for
for
covet
the
prior
year.
The
county
is
deducting
one
year's
lost
rent,
as
is
typical,
and
I
guess
per
their
guidelines
for
properties
that
are
in
initial
lease
up.
They,
the
the
county,
doesn't
give
any
consideration
to
the
fact
of
when
initial
lease
up
began
again.
E
This
this
property
began
at
least
up
in
the
end
of
2020,
not
in
the
beginning.
If
this
property
were
had
been
issued,
a
supplemental
notice
in
february
of
2020,
it
would
be
receiving
the
same
one
year
lost
rent
deduction
below
the
line.
As
the
subject
property,
which
again
a
supplemental
notice,
was
issued
as
of
october
of
2021
near
the
end
of
the
year
we've
seen
in
the
border
set
of
president
in
prior
years
that
you
know
consideration
of
extraordinary
lease
up.
Considerations
could
be
and
should
be
considered.
E
We've
brought
cases
before
the
board,
where
the
board
has
agreed
that
the
one-year
loss
trend
deduction
was
not
enough.
Given
the
status
of
the
property
as
of
1-1
and
issues
with
lease
up
now,
this
property
again
had
just
begun
initial
lease
up
in
at
the
end
of
2020.
E
It's
due
to
covid
is
not
expecting
to
lease
up
to
stabilization
until
may
of
2022,
and
that's
why
we
are
taking
consideration
that
fact
and
deducting
17
months
of
rent
below
the
line
in
in
our
current
analysis.
So
those
are
the
main
differences
with
regard
to
the
the
gross
potential
income.
The
property
is
capable
of
generating,
as
we've
previously
discussed
in
in
prior
years,
cases
arlington
and
we've
seen
this
with,
with
a
little
bit
more
cases
that
we've
previously
brought
the
apartments
are
very
concession,
driven.
E
It's
not
something
that,
after
stabilization
has
been
achieved,
that
that
will
go
away,
especially
with
covet
now.
Jeremy's
talked
about
this
in
prior
years
cases
this
year
that
in
2020
you
know
people
were
were
in
their
houses,
not
moving
until
the
very
end
of
the
year.
E
Essentially,
when
stuff
started
to
open
back
up
and
it's
caused
a
giant
issue
with
the
lease
up
of
this
property
and
again
it's
going
to
take
a
much
longer
to
reach
stabilization
and
we're
just
hoping
that
the
county
or
the
board
will
consider
that
fact
in
their
current
assessment
of
the
property.
Thank
you.
F
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
mr
warren,
I
think
we've
already
done
one
of
these
this
year.
You
know
this
is,
in
a
sense,
a
pure
projection
based
opinion
of
value.
F
Unfortunately,
there's
no
history
to
call
upon
as
there's
not
an
operation,
as
mr
warren
stated
got
a
late
start
in
lease
up
and
then
obviously
he
started
lease
up
in
a
covered
year,
as
mr
warren
already
noted,
we're
actually
a
little
bit
low
on
the
gross
potential
income,
and
this
is
in
regards
to
the
three
year
summer
sheet.
F
I
apologize
for
not
stating
that
earlier
we
rely
heavily
upon
the
three-year
income
and
expense
summary
sheet
and
again
looking
at
the
differences
in
columns,
d
and
f
you'll
see
that
our
projection
is
lower
by
over
half
a
million
dollars.
The
biggest
difference
really
in
summation
is
going
to
be
how
we
treat
the
first
year
deduction.
F
As
you
can
see.
In
the
comments
section,
the
comment
field
and
as
mr
warren
testified
previously,
the
county
is
going
to
do
a
standard
one-year
deduction
made
up
of
the
one
year's
gross
potential
income.
This
is
done
in
equity
with
other
new
properties.
It's
it's
a
stabilized
way
of
treating
these
properties
to
make
sure
that
they
are
valued
the
same
way.
F
I
think
we've
touched
on
that
before
as
well.
You
know
to
mr
warren's
credit.
You
did
note
that
we've
done
there
have
been
cases
before
where
the
county
has
recognized
extreme
vacancy
and
made
adjustments,
but
that's
done
in
its
second
year
and
beyond.
In
its
first
year,
we
make
a
one-year
deduction
equatable
to
the
first
year's
gross
potential
income,
and
we
deduct
that
below
the
line.
If
next
year
the
the
pellet
comes
before
us-
and
they
say
you
know
we're
still
having
trouble
we're
we're
in
the
30
40.
F
That
may
be
an
adjustment
that
we
can
make,
but
that
would
still
be
above
the
line
and
that
would
be
handled
through
the
application
of
rents,
which
would
of
course
affect
the
effect
of
gross,
but
to
in
this
case,
they're
they're,
essentially
applying
two
months
free
rent
to
those
units
that
are
vacant
at
the
time
of
the
assessment
and
then
an
additional
rent
loss
for
all
units.
F
So
I
think
it's
leading
to
a
valuation,
that's
lower
than
the
potential.
That's
there
again,
it's
clouded
given
its
first
year
and
given
that
there's
no
operation
history
behind
it
operational
history
behind
it.
But
given
that
it's
a
standardized
evaluation
again
made
off
projections
made
off
of
guidelines
with
a
standardized
one-year
deduction
made
we're
an
annual
assessment.
The
the
deductions
made
should
be
annual
12
months
and
that's
what
was
done
here
again,
the
appellant
we
believe
just
overreached
by
adding
you
know,
17
months
of
rent
loss
beyond
the
12
month
calendar.
F
That
being
said,
we
do
believe
that
the
value
of
110
million
247
700
should
be
confirmed,
irving.
Anything
ted.
B
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
make
a
correction,
so
it
doesn't
have
so
much
to
do
with
this
year's
assessment.
But
when
a
new
construction
is
completed,
we
do
the
one-year
rent
loss
in
the
first
year
on
the
second
year.
If
there
is
still
some
lease-up
issues
high
vacancy,
we
do
make
a
second
below
the
line
adjustment
based
off
of
that
issue
that
they're
encountering
so
again
it
doesn't
have
anything
to
do
with
the
2021
assessment.
B
F
And
just
to
reiterate,
so
that
would
be
for
extreme
vacancy
issues
that
that
may
not
be
able
yeah.
So
I
know
we're
still
addressing
this
issue
as
of
january
1st,
but
co-stars
are
pointing
that
vacancies
down
almost
45
percent
this
year
alone.
So
we
ask
the
board
to
let
the
process
play
out
again.
F
This
is
they're
not
even
a
full
year
into
to
lease
up
and
if
co-stars
are
accurate,
they've
already
taken
up
45
of
that
vacancy
hall
of
83
that
they
reported
again
to
reiterate
it's
an
annual
assessment.
We
asked
that
the
board
recognized
the
annual
rent
loss
deduction
below
the
line,
as
has
been
done
standardized
by
the
county,
and
recognize
again
that
the
appellants
asked
for
months
beyond
the
12-month
calendar
again
for
an
annual
assessment.
That
would
be
inappropriate,
something
that
we
would
handle
on
the
2022
assessment.
Thereabouts
again.
F
A
Okay,
thank
you
both
questions,
mr
matskin.
G
This
is
for
the
appellant
in
this
complex,
and
maybe
it's
different
among
the
three
buildings
do
tenants
reimburse
or
the
landlord.
E
You're
talking
about
utilities,
I
believe
I
believe
I
I
don't,
I
believe,
they're
paying
the
utilities
on
their
own,
but
I'd
have
to
go
back
and
check
that
confirm.
G
E
A
H
Just
something
to
clarify
for
the
county,
because
I
was
looking
at
they're
the
two
existing
buildings
that
are
the
wellington.
Do
they
have
the
same
rpc
number.
I
F
The
trove
is
listed
as
32
of
1903a.
The
wellington
we
have,
I
believe,
is
pc
yeah.
B
B
Yeah,
so
the
county,
whenever
properties
under
construction,
the
county
tried
to
go
out
and
view
that
property
throughout
the
construction
period.
Last
year
we
went
and
inspected
the
property
and
determined
that
it
was
significantly
complete,
and
so
therefore
that's
why
the
rehab
not
rehab.
The
supplemental
assessment
was
issued
last
year
based
off
of
that
information
that
we
had.
B
H
J
A
Mr
warren,
were
you
able
to
get
that
answer
to
mr
matskin's
question.
E
Unfortunately,
not
I
believe
the
tenants
are
responsible
for
the
utilities,
but
again
I'd
have
to
get
final
confirmation.
I
can't
make
that
distinction.
E
F
Yes,
man
and
it's
not
to
counter
mr
warren's
assertion
about
the
utilities,
but
I
will
point
out
in
the
2020
ie
they
do
report
rubs,
which
again
is
the
ratio
utility
billing
system,
which
would
lead
me
to
believe
that
the
building
actually
pays
the
utilities
and
then
charges
the
tenants
for
their
share
pro
rata.
F
Basically,
it's
either
going
to
be
based
on
the
size
of
the
unit
or
whatnot,
but
they
did
report
rob's
income
in
2020.
Even
for
that
limited
time
they
reported
income
again.
That
being
said,
pure
projection
based
value
opinion,
we
follow
the
guidelines,
we're
actually
less
gross
potential
income
than
the
appellants.
Are
we
use
the
guideline
operating
expense
per
unit
that
is
called
upon
by
the
guidelines?
F
The
difference
really
is
going
to
be
is
the
applicability
of
the
one
year's
lease
of
deduction,
as
would
be
applicable
for
a
annual
assessment.
The
appellants
are
asking
for
17
months
of
lost
rents
and,
again,
importantly,
are
asking
for
above
the
line
concession
for
those
vacant
units,
but
also
then
applying
that
another
deduction
below
the
line
for
lost
rent
so,
in
a
sense,
double
dipping
on
some
units.
F
We
do
believe
that
one
year
deduction
is
appropriate
and
in
that
sense
we
do
believe
that
the
value
of
110
million
247
700
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
E
Yes,
just
to
re
reiterate,
this
is
obviously
a
new
property.
It
was
an
initial
lease
up.
The
county
is,
is
applying
just
a
six
percent
vacancy
collection
and
concessions.
When
you
can
see
the
actual
concessions
were
two
percent
in
vacancy
was
over
83
percent
84,
almost
85
percent
in
the
in
the
partial
year,
reporting
year
after
it
was
completed,
we
don't
think
that's
been
reflected
again
in
the
below
the
line
deduction
per
the
the
owner.
E
This
property
is
going
to
take
in,
in
partial
reason,
due
to
the
recent
construction
near
the
end
of
the
year,
an
initial
lease
up,
just
starting
as
a
1
1
2021,
as
well
as
as
the
impacts
of
of
covid
people
not
being
able
to
tour
properties
until
the
the
very
end
of
the
year
being
stuck
in
their
homes
that
it's
going
to
take
a
much
longer
time
period
to
lease
this
period
up
lease
this
property
up
than
is
standard,
and
that
has
been
typically
used
by
the
county
as
a
deduction
for
a
below
the
line
apartment
to
for
consideration
of
the
property
being
at
least
up
and
not
stabilization.
E
And
finally,
just
one
last
thing
again,
I
know
it's
the
counties
and
it
has
been.
We
recognize
that
it's
been
the
county's
distinction
to
to
deduct
just
one
year's
law
of
lost
rent
blow
a
line,
but
there
has
been
president
sent
by
the
board
that
in
extreme
cases
of
vacancy
and
in
instances
where
the
lease
up
period
by
the
owner
has
it's
going
to
take
longer,
and
in
this
case
we
hope,
we've
shown
you
that
that
the
board
has
deducted
more
than
one
year's
lost,
rent.
K
Okay,
excuse
me
I'll
go
ahead
and
share
my
thought
on
this.
I
agree
with
chris
that
I
think
when
you
look
at
the
the
appellant's
pro
form,
I
do
believe
there's
a
case
of
double
dipping
and
I
I
think
the
this
whole
entire
case.
It
rises
or
falls
upon.
K
Should
we
give
a
one
year
lease
up
deduction
or
longer-
and
you
know
ditmar
is
a
machine
when
it
comes
to
running
these
things,
and
you
know
if
you're
ever
going
to
deviate
from
the
one-year
standard.
K
You
know
what
could
be
more
extraordinary
situation
than
than
dealing
with
the
covet,
where
everyone's
locked
up
in
their
homes
and
and
you
know,
nobody's
out
and
about
much
so
you
know
my
own
feeling
and
I'll
see
if
anyone
else
agrees
with
this
is,
I
think
we
should
take
the
county
assessment
where
they
come
up
with
the
indicated
value
of
120
million
526,
but
then,
instead
of
deducting
the
10
million
deduct
of
14
million,
and
that's
that's
what
I
I
think
would
be
a
fair
situation
in
this
case.
Thank
you.
G
Masking
I
was
thinking
about
that
through
a
lot
of
the
presentation
myself
exactly,
but
then
I
realized
that
we're.
Although
it's
it's
certainly
possible
that
there'll
be
an
extraordinary
lisa
during
covet.
We
don't
know
that
we're
on
the
the
position
of
speculating
in
all
kinds
of
ways
does
this
come
up
for
us
about
speculating
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
and
I
I
I
certainly
agree
with
the
appellate
that
there
are
from
time
to
time
where
we
do
take
an
extraordinary
lease
up
period
in
egregious
cases
where
there's
a
history
of
egregious.
G
Deduction
below
the
line
production
for
apartments,
but
this
is
by
definition,
not
a
history
of
it.
It's
just
something
that
we
think
intuitively
might
happen
or
not,
and
I
I
gotta
go
with
the
department
that
we'll
see
if
it's
happened
or
not
a
year
from
now
and
if
it
has
and
and
intuition
makes
sense,
then
they'll
get
another
the
line
deduction.
G
Second,
as
far
as
I
can
tell
that's
what
we
do,
but
that's
speculating.
G
The
other
part
was
that
I
was
asking
about
utilities
and-
and-
and
mr
chicas
gave
the
answer-
so
it
isn't
particularly
relevant,
namely
that
there's
less
expenses
for
a
lightly
tenanted
building
utilities
now
accepted,
except
I
guess
that
the
now
they
think
about
it.
The
they're
still
common
area
utilities
that
whether
there's
one
person
or
100
occupancy
still
has
to
be
paid
by
the
landlord
and
we've
gotten
the
guidelines
operating
expenses
for
a
building.
That's
nowhere
near
chewing
up
expenses
as
if
it
were
100
occupied.
G
So
there
seems
to
be
to
be
an
appropriate
break
for
the
landlord
here
that
nobody
brought
up,
and
I
I
I
think
the
owners
should
regale
in
that.
So
I'm
I'm
staying
on
the
side
of
the
suggested
assessment.
D
I
was
looking
at
a
little
bit
different,
but
then
I
I
do
agree
with
ken
that,
in
going
with
the
county
concerning
the
extending
or
increasing
the
12-month
period,
it's
an
unknown-
and
I
know
from-
and
I
was
just
sitting
here
thinking
about
it
from
a
personal
side-
I
have
two
kids
that
stayed
at
home
last
year
after
college
and
their
offices
were
not
open,
but
as
of
21,
both
of
them
have
now
are
moving
out
and
have
apartments
and
their
offices
are
open.
D
So
I'm
not
sure
the
extended
period
is
true
or
not,
and
I
think
we
should
stick
with
the
county
guidelines
in
this
and
that
with
the
12
months,
because
anything
beyond
12
months
is
just
a
guess
on
our
part
and
I'm
not
sure
it's
going
to
pan
out
that
way,
we'll
see.
But
that's
just
it.
It's
a
guess,
and
I
think
we
should
stick
with
the
county's
number
for
the
12
months.
H
You
know
the
issue
I
have
with
12
months
being
the
guideline
regardless
of
the
property
size,
is
that
we
all
know
that
you
can't
lease
up
a
thousand
units
in
12
months.
If
this
is
a
100
unit,
building
it'll
be
full
in
12
months,
100
sure.
So
it's
really
more
on
is
the
pace.
Realistic
and
you
know,
we've
been
looking
at
some
projects,
including
our
own,
which
are
in
lease
up
of
similar
size
and
kind
of
the
the
the
most
aggressive
case
you
could
justify
on
a
pro
forma
basis.
H
H
D
H
H
You
know
a
12
month,
rent
below
the
line
on
something
like
that,
just
like,
if
I'm
doing
800
units
in
roslyn
that's
going
to
take
two
and
a
half
years.
G
I
think
that's
a
really
high
quality
point
that
that
the
department
needs
to
dwell
on
over
the
next
six
months
until
we
start
another
round
or
eight
months.
Having
said
that,
I'm
wondering
out
loud
and
I
don't
have-
none
of
us
have
enough
time
to
do
the
numbers,
but
of
course,
a
larger
building
like
this
401
units
versus
a
small
building.
Your
your
example.
Eight
units
below
the
line
deduction
is
a
very
large
number
because
there's
so
many
units
that
may
not
pan
out
it
may
all
be
ratio.
G
H
Yeah
ken,
the
other
thing
that
kind
of
jives,
with
the
numbers
I
have
you
know
floating
around
in
my
head-
is:
if
you
take
that
deduction
you're
at
263
000,
a
unit
which
is
probably
right
around
cost
right,
I
mean
cost
to
build
all
in
and
that's
kind
of
where
you
that's,
usually,
where
you
finish
up.
You
know
you're,
not
you're,
starting
your
lease
up.
What's
your
value,
your
property,
it's
essentially
cost
so
it
it
makes
sense
to
me.
G
J
Yes,
thank
you.
Well,
I
appreciate
mr
hoffman's
numbers.
I
think
it's
a
little
more
like
handset,
it's
a
little
bit
of
speculating
on
what
how
many
units
are
being
rented.
I
don't
think
this
is
a
case
of
excessive
vacancy.
In
my
opinion,
at
the
beginning
of
the
year
they
were
offering
you
know
up
to
three
months
of
free
rent.
J
Now
they
are
up
to
one
month
of
free
rent,
so
I
I
believe,
they're
renting
fairly
in
a
in
a
good
at
a
good
pace.
You
know
compared
to
other
units,
even
the
prices
that
they
have
to
begin
with.
I
think
a
little
bit
below
some
of
the
other
apartment
build
buildings
in
the
area.
So
I
don't
again.
I
don't
think
this
is
a
case
of
an
excessive
vacancy
and
I
think
one
year
of
free
rent
I
mean
one
year
of
rental.
Concession
is
appropriate.
J
A
J
A
Opposed
okay,
so
that
would
be
five
to
two
and
that's
without
mr
lawson
and
mr
hoffman.
A
A
Thank
you
I
believe
I
saw
miss
is
back
on
there.
She
is
okay,
all
right.
Moving
to
the
first
case
on
the
agenda
rpc14049014,
the
property
is
located
at
901
north
stewart
street
this
mormon.
You
can
start
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
L
Thank
you
at
this
property.
It
was
built
in
1989
and
it
is
located
in
ballston.
Unlike
the
case,
you
just
heard.
We
have
a
lot
of
years
of
history
and
I
would
like
to
direct
the
board's
attention
to
page
78
of
122.,
which
is
in
fact
the
first
page
of
our
case.
Despite
the
fact
that
the
package
says
it
starts
on
page
30.,
we
actually
start
on
page
78
and
with
regard
to
that
case,
to
the
case,
we
do
have
a
substantial
income
history
at
this
property.
L
As
you
can
see,
we
have
four
years
shown
and
the
noi
before
real
estate
taxes
has
been
four
million
dollars.
Two
million
three
three,
eight
four
six,
our
stabilized
number
is
five.
Six.
We
have
some
differences
with
the
county
in
terms
of
how
the
income
is
treated.
We
do
include
leasing
commissions
as
an
operating
expense.
The
county
does
not.
L
You
will
also
see
on
page
78
of
122
that
we
also
included
the
average
leasing
commissions
on
an
annual
basis,
but
with
a
three-year
trailing
average,
so
it
is
substantially
greater
than
the
amount
that
was
incurred
in
2020.
L
We
have
income
of
4-6
and
the
county
actually
increased
the
net
operating
income
that
it
used
in
its
test.
So
I
think
it
would
be
a
good
thing
to
look
at
at
why
they
did
that
and
to
go
forward
that
way.
So
in
their
test,
the
county
increased
the
rental
rate
by
65
cents.
It
looked
at
leases
in
place
and
took
a
six
percent
deduction
for
concessions.
L
In
reviewing
this
case,
we
actually
went
back
and
we
did
a
analysis
looking
at
all
leases
in
the
building
and
found
that
the
average
concession
at
the
property
was
eight
percent
and
as
a
result,
that
is
the
number
that
we
used
and
you
can
see
that
the
concessions
in
2020
and
2019
were
over
a
million
five.
In
2019
and
almost
two
million
dollars
in
2020.,
so
we
did
in
fact
reflect
the
actual
concessions
and
the
stabilized
potential
in
terms
of
a
percentage
base
at
eight
percent,
which
would
be
amortized
over
the
term
of
the
leases.
L
The
other
area
that
changed
in
the
county's
test
and
in
which
we
disagree
substantially,
is
in
income
on
vacant
office
space.
The
county
does
include
a
lease
analysis
in
its
worksheet.
It
was
a
mr
peralta
did
it
and
the
problem
with
that
lease
analysis
and
using
what
shows
is
2020
start
dates
on
the
leases
is
as
follows,
and
all
of
them
that
have
been
used
so
the
2
6
labs
lease
was
signed
pre-covered
in
january
of
2020.
L
The
systems
tech
lab
systems,
tech
space,
while
it
shows
a
2020
deal,
2020
start
date,
was
actually
signed
in
2019.
So
again,
pre-covered
there
were
two
leases
that
were
signed,
postcoded
and
one
had
started,
and
one
had
not.
As
of
january
1
2020,
one
tech
solutions
was
signed
in
april
of
2020
and
its
net
effective,
rent
on
that
space
is
36.87
and
when
I
say
net
effective,
I'm
only
deducting
free,
rent,
free
rent
is
equal
to
8.95
of
that
lease.
L
So
if
you
take
the
rental
rate
and
deduct
8.95
on
an
annual
basis,
you
end
up
at
a
rental
rate
of
36.87.
We
used
37
in
our
for
vacant
space.
There
was
also
an
eighth
floor
space
signed,
which
didn't
start
until
2021
and
that
rent
at
that
space
is
37.43
after
deducting
free
rent.
L
Again
it
is
over
eight
percent
in
terms
of
rental
concessions
over
the
term
of
the
lease
eight
point,
six
nine
8.69
to
be
precise,
so
part
of
the
difference
is
you
know
the
is
in
terms
of
what
should
be
used
to
to
derive
the
rental
rate
on
vacant
space
and
what
should
be
used
to
derive
the
rental
rate
on
vacant.
L
L
Unfortunately,
they
used
a
number
of
leases
that
were
signed,
pre-covered
and
one
as
early
as
2019..
So
I
think
the
37
dollars
per
square
foot
on
vacant
space
is
much
more
accurate.
The
next
area
that
is
an
issue
is,
in
our
opinion,
is
in
operating
expenses.
L
Now
the
county
changed
their
operating
expenses
and
they
actually
increased
them
somewhat
to.
I
believe
it's
ten
dollars
right
around
ten
dollars
per
square
foot.
The
actual
operating
expenses
at
this
property
historically
have
been
much
greater,
and
if
we
look
at
the
operating
expenses
over
the
term
of
the
last
four
years,
the
average
is,
you
know,
closer
to
two
million
five
or
two
million
nine
two
million
five
in
2020.
L
We
can
see
that
they
have
consistently
over
the
last
four
years,
been
quite
high,
and
that
also
appears
on
page
78.
They
were
481
000
in
one
year,
a
million
eight
in
2018,
almost
700
000
in
2019
and
in
2020
over
600
000..
So
this
is
an
expense
that
the
owner
incurs
and
it
is
something
that
the
county
deducts
below
the
line
as
a
cost
to
of
tenancy
and
but
it
only
deducts
it
on
space
that
is
in
excess
of
the
vacancy
threshold.
L
Finally,
the
cap
rate
that
the
county
used
and-
and
I
am
going
to
get
into
this
just
a
little
bit-
I
I
you
know
it's
stunning
to
me
in
our
board
book
that
we
provided
to
you.
We
included
some
information
about
cap
rates
and.
L
There's
a
blocked
off
cap
rate
showing
a
going
in
cap
rate
for
office
of
7.3
as
of
the
end
of
the
third
quarter
2020
and
on
page
70,
the
same
criteria.
First
tier
third
quarter
was
six
point:
five
percent
the
county
kept
the
cap
rate
the
same
from
prior
to
covet
and
and
through
kovid.
L
Now,
unlike
apartments,
you
know,
I
can
tell
you
that
we
are
seeing
a
contraction
in
much
space
and
you
know
we
don't
believe
that
offices
are
going
to
be
as
strong
in
the
future
as
they
had
been
in
the
past
and
there
should
be
a
cap
rate
adjustment.
A
B
All
right,
thank
you
for
this
property.
Mr
peralta
did
his
rent
roll
analysis,
which
is
provided
in
the
package.
If
you
turn
to
page
six
of
the
packet
you'll
see
the
leases
that
he
observed
that
came
straight
from
the
rent
roll.
He
did
an
analysis
to
determine
the
average
of
base
rents
in
place,
and
then
he
applied
our
guideline,
six
percent
free
rent
deduction,
and
that
is
how
he
determined
what
he
would
use
on
his
test.
B
I
think
really
just
to
get
to
the
point
of
this
case.
In
my
opinion,
the
biggest
difference
is
going
to
be
some
of
the
income
that
we
utilize,
which
came
from
the
ine.
You
will
see
on
our
test
sheet
that
we
accounting
for
the
real
estate
taxes-
that's
reported,
that's
being
reimbursed
to
the
owner,
as
well
as
the
operating
expenses
that's
being
reimbursed
to
the
owner
in
our
test.
That
came
straight
from
the
column
e
2020
operating
year.
B
The
appellant
did
not
use
that
in
her
pro
forma.
Well,
I'm
mistaken,
I'm
sorry
she
did
using
a
performer,
it's
listed
as
pass
through.
So
that's
my
mistake.
B
I
think
mr
peralta
broke
it
up
to
be
consistent
with
the
2020
I
need
the
revenue
did
increase
slightly
from
the
original
assessment,
but
again
it's
based
off
of
the
rent
roll
analysis
on
the
document
provided
by
ms
peralta.
On
page
six,
we
apply
six
percent
free
rent
across
the
board,
we're
consistent
in
how
we
apply
that
with
not
only
the
office
but
also
the
vacant
office
and
the
retail
space
based
off
the
rent,
roll
analysis,
the
office
rent
and
the
retail
rent
was
much
higher
than
what
we
projected
on
the
original
assessment.
B
Then
you
don't
do
that
when
you
do
the
assessment
based
on
the
information
that
we
had
looking
at
publications
and
this
in
costar
leasing
commissions,
are
not
treated
as
an
expense
in
these
cap
rate
formulations.
So
therefore,
should
not
be
done
on
the
assessment
side.
It
says:
iwao,
you
can
deduct
leasing,
commissions
and
even
tenant
improvements,
but
you
must
do
it
to
the
sales
that
you
analyze
as
well.
So
therefore
you're
going
to
increase
your
expenses
and
your
sales
analysis,
which
will
reduce
your
noi,
which
will
result
in
a
lower
cap
rate.
B
B
B
He
went
off
of
the
information
on
the
rent
roll
submitted
so
when
he
took
the
new
releases,
which
he
called
a
2020
lease
average
to
come
up
with
what
is
the
vacant
office
rent
rate
and
we
can't
use,
we
use
all
the
newest
leases
if
those
leases
were
signed
in
2019,
but
on
the
rent
road
they're
only
listed
as
starting
in
2020,
then
that's
what
we
go
off
of
he
notated
each
tenant
and
indicated
what
year
the
lease
started.
B
B
B
B
If
you
look
at
just
2019
and
2020
alone,
the
amount
of
space
at
least
up
during
that
time
it
was
27
332
square
feet,
that's
a
change
from
23.8
vacant
to
11.87
vacant
in
one
year
alone,
and
we
think
that's
something
that
should
be
considered
about
this
property.
Yes,
the
pandemic
has
been
has
had
an
impact
on
everybody
in
the
country,
different
property
types,
but
this
property
here
vacancy
has
actually
decreased
over
this
pandemic
period.
B
I
G
I
I
had
during
mr
bailey's
comments
one
question
on
my
mind
totally
and
he
addressed
it
in
his
last
comment
and
I
still
am
missing
something
and,
and
that
is
column
e.
She
chose
a
33
percent
vacancy
rent
loss,
concession
total,
which
is
actually
a
little
bit
less
than
the
prior
three
years,
the
percentage
number,
but
in
the
column
b
and
f
the
original
assessment
in
the
test,
it's
less
than
half
of
that.
B
Yes,
so
over
the
years
the
vacancy
did
decrease.
If
you
look
at
specifically
the
vacancy
line
item
you'll
see
that
decrease,
it
went
just
look
at
17,
18,
19
and
then
2020
on
the
vacancy
line.
Number
nine
only
you'll
see
that
decrease
in
vacancy
that.
So
that's,
of
course,
what
I'm
saying
as
far
as
I'm
least
enough.
B
So
if
you
look
at
as
the
vacancy
went
down
from
17
to
20
20,
the
concessions
began
to
increase
in
those
same
years.
Those
concessions
are
the
free
rents
that
were
given
to
the
new
tenants
and,
as
we
stated
when
we
look
at
free
rent,
we
look
at
the
base
rent
of
the
leases.
The
average
base
rental
leases
and
we
apply
six
percent
free
rent
deduction
that
six
percent
is
given
to
all
tenants.
B
So
even
tenants
that
had
the
concession
burned
off
throughout
this
assessment
process
still
received
that
six
percent
free
rent
deduction.
So
that's
the
difference
they're
showing
the
upfront
free
rent,
whereas
we're
at
we're
prorating
it
over
the
life
of
the
least
with
the
six
percent
deduction.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chairman.
This
is
for
for
the
property
owner.
Where
is
parking
income?
Where
does
that
come
from?
How
do
they
earn
that.
L
They
have
like
most
or
many
commercial
buildings,
they
have
a
operator
and
an
agreement
and
the
parking
income,
an
agreement
with
tenants
who
can
lease
a
certain
number
of
spaces
or
pay
for
daily
spaces,
and
that's
that's
how
it
comes
in.
I
can
tell
you
that,
for
example,
in
our
office
building,
we
there's
a
parking
operator.
We
pay
a
certain
amount
per
month
and
the
parking
up
you
know
it
gets
passed
through
to
the
income
stream
for
the
building.
L
C
L
K
Okay,
next
question
retail:
what
what
retail
does
the
office
have.
L
L
As
of
most
of
the
leases
in
this
building
and
others
were
converted
to
during
when
everything
was
shut
down
to
percentage,
rent
or
rent
abatements
with
the
term
being
like,
if
you
got
abatement
for
five
months,
the
lease
would
extend
for
an
additional
five
months
at
this
point
in
time
as
of
january.
One
all
of
the
leases
that
I
mentioned
are
still
on
a
per
square
foot
basis.
L
Yeah
and
it's
a
great
question,
this
is
one
of
the
only
buildings
where
I
have
not
seen
everything
or
a
lot
of
the
leases
converted
to
eight
percent
of
gross
sales.
That
the
information
I
have
here
is
that
it's
still
us
based
on
a
per
square
foot
basis.
H
B
Cap
rate,
we
don't
do
that
on
office,
one
of
the
reasons
why
the
retail
space
also
received
the
vegas
the
office
vacancy.
So
in
this
situation,
the
retail
income
is
receiving
the
15
vacancy
they're
also
receiving
the
10
10
per
square
foot
expenses.
Whereas
on
the
general
commercial
guidelines
they
will
receive
four
percent
vacancy
13
expenses
to
go
with
that
7.3
cap
rate
difference.
So
that's
why
we
don't
break
it
out.
B
E
A
I
have
a
question
for
the
county.
Mr
bailey.
I've
been
trying
to
do
this
without
talking
numbers,
but
when
I
just
look
generally
at
the
noi
just
as
a
quick
test,
even
adding
back
the
lease
commissions
just
to
kind
of
see
where
it
is
from
the
columns,
you
know
and
then
then
take
a
look
at
column
e
and
if
you
add
back
the
least
commissions,
you
know
you're
around
five
eight,
which
I
look
at
the
original
assessment
seems
high.
A
B
B
B
A
B
Thing
that
we
want
to
look
at
is
also
the
concessions
that
they
are
reporting
for.
2020
is
also
a
reason
why
your
noi
would
be
much
lower
than
what
we
used
in
assessment
is
the
treatment
of
that
free
rent
so
with
free
rent,
if
they're
we're
applying
six
percent
free
rent
deduction
on
the
rent
rate,
where
they're
reporting
the
free
rent
for
that
year,
all
up
front.
I
B
Mean
I
wanted
to
respond
that
so
when
you
look
at
like
I'm,
gonna
go
back
to
the
concessions,
because
if
you
look
at
concessions
I
mean
it's
20
of
the
office
revenue.
That's
been
reported
there,
so
that's
20
in
concessions
that
they're
reporting.
So,
of
course,
that's
going
to
be
resulting
in
a
lower
noi
because
they're
reducing
the
gross
potential
income
by
20,
I
mean
so
the
way
we
treat
free
rent.
We
look
at
the
amount
of
months
offered
over
the
life
of
the
lease
and
we
determine
what
that
percentage.
Is.
B
We
also
looked
at
publications
that
also
had
information
about
what
is
the
average
free
rent,
the
information
we
had?
We
at
one
point
it
was
eight
percent.
We
reduced
it
down
to
six
percent,
so
we're
reducing
the
gross
potential
rents
by
six
percent
to
calculate
the
gross
potential
income
for
the
office.
So
if
you
look
at
page
six
again,
you'll
see
that
our
average
rents
I
mean
the
average
rents.
Are
there.
D
My
question
was
more
along
the
lines.
Is
you
tied
your
first
response
along
the
lines
of
the
change
in
the
decrease
in
vacancy
and
the
vacancy
decreasing
is
tracking
and
it's
running
parallel,
which
I
am
assuming.
Concessions
were
built
into
the
prior
years,
the
same,
but
so
the
noi
would
also
be
tracking
along
that
same
line
as
the
vacancies
coming
down
the
nios
and
I
and
I
and
I
oh,
it's
going
up.
B
B
You
know
why,
because
that
concessions
is
doubling
over
the
years,
the
concessions
that
are
reporting
is
doubling
over
the
years.
That
concession
is
three
months:
rent,
it's
gonna
burn
off,
and
it's
just
the
way
we
recognize
free
rent.
We
recognize
with
a
six
percent
deduction,
they're
reporting
it
up
front.
I
mean
that's
really
the
difference.
D
I
G
B
So
again,
we're
still
deducting
six
percent
free
rent,
one
of
the
differences
between
the
agents
pro
forma
and
hours.
She
stated
she
used
eight
percent
free
rent.
So
therefore
I
mean
you
don't
see
concessions
on
her
column
either
she
used
15
the
same
as
we
did.
It's
just
that
she
used
a
higher
free
rent
deduction
than
we
did.
We
use
the
six
percent
that
is
applied
to
all
hope
all
office
properties
applied
it
to
office
vacant
office
and
retail.
B
She
used
eight
percent.
That's
why
her
rent
rate
is
slightly
less
than
hours
so
again
we're
both
treating
free
rent
the
same.
No
we're!
Not!
Yes,
we
are
because
you
said
you
use
eight
percent.
We
did
six
percent
we're
both
deducting
free
rent
as
a
percentage
from
their
base
rent.
So,
therefore,
our
application
of
free
rent
is
the
same.
It's
just
a
different
number.
G
B
Oh,
yes,
we
bagged
this
property
consistently.
How
we
value
office,
we
do
not
believe
leasing
commissions,
should
be
considered
as
an
expense.
The
building
has
increased
occupancy
over
the
past
four
years,
especially
from
2019
well
from
2018
to
2019,
with
a
huge
increase
in
accuracy
and
another
substantial
increase.
B
Obviously,
from
2019
to
2020.,
we
apply
six
percent
for
free
rent
to
the
base
rent
calculation,
which,
if
you
look
at
page
six,
is
over
forty
four
dollars
a
square
foot
for
this
office
property,
so
that
supports
the
rent
rate
that
we
use
when
calculating
the
gross
potential
office
revenue
on
the
test
sheet.
B
That's
also
the
explanation
as
to
why
it
increased
from
the
original
assessment
to
the
test
column
because
of
this
rental
analysis,
the
expenses
we
use
the
higher
than
what's
been
reported
for
the
past
four
years
based
off
of
the
test.
We
believe
the
assessment
should
be
confirmed
at
88
million
787
300..
Thank
you.
L
I
think
that
we
have
a
very
good
income
history
for
this
property
and,
whether
you
add
leasing
commissions
or
you
don't
add,
leasing
commissions
as
a
as
an
expense,
the
value
the
assessment
was
derived
using
income,
that
is
a
million
seven
figures,
a
million
dollars
greater
than
what
has
been
earned
in
the
last
four
years.
L
The
test
is
even
more
egregious
than
that,
and
the
counties
made
a
lot
about
vacancy
coming
down
at
this
property,
and
you
know
that
is
is
true,
and
why
has
it
come
down?
It's
come
down
because
the
off
the
owner
has
met
the
market
and
in
meeting
the
market.
L
It
is
a
requirement
at
this
building
that
you
give
eight
percent
in
concessions,
so
we
did
take
eight
percent
from
the
rent
in
our
stabilized
potential
and
in
our
stabilized
potential
on
vacant
space,
we
looked
at
the
only
lease
that
was
signed
and
in
the
building
in
2020
and
that
worked
out
to
a
rental
rate
of
and
87
and
we
used
37.
L
So,
even
if
you
were
to
use
six
percent,
that
rental
rate
on
vacant
space
would
be
38,
but
the
biggest
thing
is
this:
the
vacancy
has
been
factored
into
the
reduction
in
vacancy
rate.
The
actual
rent
potential
of
this
property
is
different
than
what
the
county
has
used
and
the
actual
income
speaks
volumes,
as
the
county
is
very
fond
of
pointing
out.
L
Assessments
are
done
annually
and
if
the
income
ever
gets
anywhere
close
to
the
number
that
the
county
is
projecting,
the
owners,
I'm
sure,
would
be
very
happy
to
see
their
building
that
much
more
valuable,
and
the
only
other
thing
I'll
point
out
is
that
I
need
you
to
wrestle.
Please
sure
concessions
now
are
not
all
front
loaded.
In
many
instances
there
there
are
quite
a
bit
up
front,
but
they
continue
on
throughout
the
lease
years.
Thank
you.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chairman,
I'll,
go
ahead
and
start
off
and
share
some
knowledge
that
I
have.
I
live
at
this
project
and
it's
we
have
something
called
the
mutual
and
that
is
made
up
of
the
hotel,
the
residential
condominium
and
the
office
building,
and
I'm
on
the
board
there
at
the
of
the
residential
and
so
we're
constantly
interacting
with
both
the
hotel
and
the
office
and
it
was
set
up.
This
was
set
up
very
bizarrely
by
mr
checky
when
he
did
this
project.
K
One
of
the
things
that
impacted
this
project
was
the
bridge
over
wilson.
Boulevard
was
removed
when
boston
common
was
renovated
and
that
knocked
down
foot
traffic
during
the
the
time
of
the
pandemic.
When
you
went
down
into
the
lobby
area,
you
could
see
that
tivoli
was
actually
closed
for
a
while.
Then
they
reopened.
They
got
two
employees
in
the
morning.
They
used
to
have
five.
K
I
K
K
It's
it's
much
better
now,
and
so,
when
I
reflect
upon
this
and
and
I'm
not,
you
know,
I
thought
about
I've
done
like
10
different
ways
of
figuring
it.
All
I
can
say
is
there's
no
way.
The
value
of
this
has
gone
up.
16
it
just
it.
Just
cannot
have
been,
and
I'm
not
sure
what
we
do
do
we
go
with
actual.
K
Do
we
go
with
last
year
and-
and
I
don't
know,
madam
chairman-
maybe
you
had
an
idea-
that's
a
little
better
than
any
of
them
that
I've
come
up
with,
but
I
just
wanted
to
share
those
thoughts.
I
think
that
the
assessment's
too
high,
but
I'm
not
exactly
sure
how
to
fix
it.
Thank
you.
A
A
15.52
percent
and
regardless
of
how
you
get
to
the
noi
numbers,
the
noi
numbers,
just
don't
work
for
me
from
a
standpoint
of
you
know
what
they
capitalize
out.
I
mean
I
look
at
and
looking
in
column
e
and,
as
I
said,
I
added
back
the
lease
commissions
and
capped
that
out
and
it
caps
out
at
82
4525.
A
D
I
went
through
and
analyzed
it
and
tried
to
look
at
the
changes
year
to
year
on
the
on
various
line
items
and
when
you
reach
the
test,
it's
just
out
of
whack.
I
I'm
I'm
sorry
to
say
that
to
the
county,
but
it
just
doesn't
line
up
across
the
board
on
it
and
you
I
understand,
taking
the
concessions
and
shifting
that
around
a
little
bit,
but
I
don't
see
the
number
getting
to
where
the
county
has
it.
A
G
G
There
aren't
any
concessions,
but
the
vacancy
stays
level,
and
I
know
that
the
department
has
said
several
times.
Well,
we
have
a
six
percent
deduction
for
that.
I
just
again
somebody
helped
me
here.
I
just
see
15
for
vacancy
rent
loss
of
concessions
when
it
used
to
be
in
the
mid,
30s
and
higher
in
the
past,
including
right.
A
G
Broken,
I
just
see
one
number
that
goes
down
at
the
bottom,
which
is
much
lower
than
what
was
achieved
in
2020
right
and
I
somebody's
that's
what
I
said
to
me:
it's
very
straight
and
I've
gotten
some
explanations
and
I'm
just
not
getting
of
how
we
get
there
from
here.
It
seems
vacancy
did
better,
because
concessions
went
up
generally
they're
very,
very
front
loaded.
Could
you
get
a
free
rent
at
the
very
last
month?
I
guess.
But
generally
there
are.
You
know
renovatements
up
front,
so
I
that's
where
so.
G
I
agree
that
this
intuitively,
not
intuitively,
historically
based
on
what
we've
seen
so
far
in
these
several
months,
that
this
building
right
on
top
of
metro
when
metro
was
off
95
shouldn't
have
increased
by
this
much.
So
I
agree
with
that.
So
I'm
trying
to
find
a
figure
to
prove
or
to
support
the
feeling
that
we
tend
to
have
that's
where
I
get
it,
that
there
are
gonna,
be
concessions
in
there,
thereby
lowering.
You
know
why.
K
J
A
G
Well,
of
course,
last
week
the
week
before
I
asked
about
you
know
how
come
the
appellants,
the
column
g
then
track
so
directly
with
the
accounting's
assessment.
The
answer
is
well
because
it's
done
after
it
and
they
just
take
the
county's
numbers
with
some
exceptions,
so
I
I
I
guess
that
makes
sense.
They've
taken
the
test,
but
just
tweaked
a
couple
of
things
which
does
not
include
concessions.
Interestingly,.
G
A
J
Well,
thank
you,
yeah.
What
I
wanted
to
say
is
that
you
know
again.
I
don't
really
like
to
take
numbers
from
here
and
take
just
to
make
it
easier.
Just
put
a
cap
rate,
those
numbers
look
fine,
but
except
that
I
don't
think
they
really
go
along
with
what
the
actual
rents
are
the
building
is
receiving.
J
You
know,
I
think
the
county
did
a
good
job,
except
that
one
of
the
things
that
we
have
to
consider
is
that
the
noi
had
to
be
more
than
6.6
million
6.1,
maybe
last
year
to
come
up
with
the
value
that
we
had
for
last
year
and
what
I
did
is
I
went
back
pretty
much
to
redo
the
numbers
on
the
reconstructed
numbers
from
the
county,
but
I
used
37
for
the
vacant
space
and
based
on
the
expenses
and
concessions.
What
I
did
is
I
increased
the
expenses
to
12
instead
of
10..
J
You
know
for
the
vacant
space
of
37
and
the
expenses
of
12,
I
come
up
with
an
noi
of
5.5
million
822
hundred,
which
brings
me
to
a
final
value
of
82
million,
seven
thousand
yeah,
seven
thousand,
even
in
my
opinion
I
think,
that's
a
little
more
fair
to
get
to
a
value,
and
we
justify
you
know
the
numbers
more
than
just
picking
what
looks
good.
G
Thank
you.
I
like
your
this
is
for
jose.
I,
like
the
point
of
mixing
and
matching
numbers,
is
a
dangerous
path
to
take,
but
I'm
not
so
sure
you
didn't.
Generally.
I
agree
with
you,
so
this
is
unusual
that
I'm
gonna
counter.
You
know
that
the
numbers
for
making
office
that
the
county
used
are
based
on
leases
that
started
in
2020
and
and
it's
true
their
new
one
was
negotiated
before
that
before
cobit.
So
maybe
that
could
make
the
case
the
appellant's
case,
but
the
the
operating
expenses.
G
You
know
if
it's
forty
one
8.41
in
2020
and
it
goes
to
twelve
dollars
and
twenty
twenty
one,
I'm
having
a
tough
time
swallowing
that-
and
I
I
just
can't
agree
with
that-
that's
just
way
too
arbitrary.
It's
pretty
stable,
building
and
and.
D
A
G
J
A
I
think
to
just
to
kind
of
comment
on
what
ken
just
said.
The
bottom
line
is
the
bottom
line.
How
we
get
to
the
noi,
I
mean
you
might
have
angst
over
the
expenses
or
what
not
you
know
how
we
got
to
it.
I
mean
you've
got
three
different
numbers
so
far
put
out
there.
You've
got
greg
and
barnes
using
the
appellant's
5.6
number.
A
You
know
mine
using
the
column
e,
adding
back
a
lease,
because
that
would
be
not
removing
the
lease
commissions
from
the
actual
noi.
You
know
that
comes
back
at
five
point.
Eight
four,
eight
five,
eight
five,
four
and
jose
is
at
five
eight,
two
two.
So
the
idea
is,
I
think,
everybody's
in
agreement
that
it
seems
high.
You
just
gotta
come
to
terms
with
where
you
are
on
it,
because
if
we
don't
come
to
terms
with
it,
it
goes
back
to
the
county's
6.3.
A
H
Yeah
I
mean
I'd.
Go
I'd,
go
with
your
rationale,
mary.
I
think
it
should
go
a
little
lower,
but
in
order
to
kind
of
be
fair
and
come
to
an
agreement,
I'd
I'd
support,
yours,
the
other.
The
only
other
thing
on
expenses
is,
you
know
if
you're
looking
at
2020
expenses,
that
was
probably
a
mostly
empty
building.
H
A
D
Mr
gates,
no
I
I
can
I
I
could
go
either
of
those
yours
or
what
jose
has,
because
I
do
think
at
the
end
of
the
day.
It's
the
bottom
line.
You
know
I
I
was
a
little
larry
jumping
into
12
expenses
but
greg.
I
I
know
you're
on
the
front
line
of
this.
So.
A
E
A
H
D
A
A
G
I
think
this
is
okay
for
for
publication.
I
agreed
with
the
bottom
line
in
this
last
case.
Okay,
that's.
A
Yeah,
no
we're
good
on
that.
Mr
bailey,
you
were
saying
something.
B
So,
on
the
apartment
earlier,
there
was
the
comment
about
24
units
with
at
least
up
in
12
months.
One
thing
that
we
didn't
point
out,
but
just
to
kind
of
go
along
with
greg
said
the
property
started
at
least
in
february
last
year.
So
what
for
us
to
give
the
12
month
lease
up?
B
They
had
260
units
that
were
actually
vacant,
so
the
12
month,
lease
up
is
actually
more
than
what
they
should
have
received,
because
you
support
me
just
sorry.
12
month,
lease
up
is
more
than
what
they
should
receive
because
they
started
leasing
up
in
february
of
last
year.
It
was
indicated
that
a
supplement
was
issued
in
october.
That's
because
that's
when
we
determined
that
it
was
substantially
completed,
but
probably
actually
did
have
a
lot
of
activity
throughout
the
pandemic,
not
just
in
february,
even
in
august
november
and
beyond.
K
Oh
okay,
mr
bailey,
so
let's
say
it
ends
up
that
that
the
applicant's
right
the
county
was
wrong.
Do
you
all
retroactively
go
back
to
the
prior
year
and
adjust.
B
What
do
you
mean
retroactively?
We
would
find
out
that
they
were
right
and
we
were
wrong
in
2022
if
they
find
appeal
during
that
process.
We
will
see
what
the
vacancy
is
at
that
time
period
and
if
it
is
a
substantial
amount,
we'll
allow
another
below
the
line
deduction
to
no.
K
B
K
D
No,
I
was
just
gonna
ask
you
know,
mr
bailey.
If
the
idea
of
doing
it,
based
on
a
certain
volume
per
month
of
lease
up,
I.e
the
24.,
I
mean
that
that
kind
of
accounts
for
the
issue
of
the
size
of
a
building,
be
it
a
hundred
unit,
ver,
400
or
600
unit
building,
I
mean
that
seems
as
a
guideline,
maybe
a
little
more
appropriate.
B
Consider
that
oh
yeah,
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
something
I
mean.
As
we've
always
said,
we
consider
everything
with
the
information
that
we
have.
So
I
mean
we
have
that
information,
that's
something
that
we
can
actually
analyze.
We
don't
receive
that
type
of
information
we
don't
receive.
This
is
how
many
units
we're
leasing
up
per
month.
This
is
actually
me
greg.
Bringing
it
up
was
one
of
the
first
times.
I've
heard
somebody
speak
more
so
today.
A
Okay,
anything
else,
I
no
okay.
I
have
a
couple
things
next
week
on
wednesday
august
4th
the
first
case
from
mr
kinney
has
withdrawn,
so
I
just
want
to
give
you
a
heads
up
so
that
you
don't
go
and
prepare
and
read
the
case.
So
if
you
just
make
a
note,
it's
rpc15.
A
On
north
highland,
so
again
it's
the
only
one
with
mr
kinney.
So
if
you
just
make
a
note
of
that
that
way,
you
don't
spend
time
doing
that
and
then
the
only
other
thing
we
don't
have
the
details
of
this
worked
out
yet.
But
I
just
want
to
give
you
all
a
heads
up
that
the
county,
with
the
emergency
order
being
removed
from
the
governor,
we
have
to
go
back
to
in
person,
so
we're
looking
at
trying
to
put
something
together.
A
A
That
would
be,
as
of
the
september
hearings,
so
just
kind
of
giving
you
a
little
heads
up
on
that
if
it
works
out,
as
is
you
may
just
like,
maybe
one
of
the
hearings
a
week,
you
would
have
to
be
in
person
and
because
there's
only
seven
of
us,
it
might
be
like
and
then
one
week
of
the
month,
you
might
have
to
do
two
just
to
kind
of
make
it
balance
out
to
rotate
everybody,
but
so
I'll
have
more
on
that,
probably
in
the
next
week
or
this
you
know
the
week
after,
but
I
just
want
to
give
you
a
heads
up
that
that's
where
it's
moving
towards,
because
of
you
know
the
emergency
order
expiring.
A
Where
the
appellants
will
still
be
virtual,
so
it's
going
to
be
a
very
small
if
there's
only
four
or
five,
maybe
six
people
in
the
room,
distance
it
and
whatnot.
So
but,
like
I
said,
we'll
have
more
on
that.
I
just
don't
want
to
wait
till
it
gets
worked
out
and
then
spring
it
on
you
and
go
oh
in
two
weeks
we're
going
back
to
in
person.
So
it's
just
kind
of
a
little
heads
up
there
all
right
anything
else
from
anybody.
A
A
Right,
which
is
why
I
I
keep
pressured
and
you
know,
trying
to
get
everybody
to
get
them,
get
them
in
there
as
soon
as
we
can
get
them,
because
you
know
we
still
have
quite
a
bit
on
the
agenda.
You
know,
and
especially
if
these
go
back
to
in
person,
I
think
it's
gonna
be
very,
very
difficult.
I've.
You
know
heard
from
several
of
you
about
trying
to
meet
three
times
a
week
in
october.
So
I
I
believe
I
speak
for
almost
everybody.
A
Everybody
here
works
so
three
times
a
week
would
be
a
lot
to
be
doing
so
we're
trying
to
push
them
as
fast
as
we
can
to
the
agenda,
and
I
know
the
county's
working
hard
at
trying
to
settle
them
so
that
they
don't
even
come,
but
so
we'll
see
so
we'll
have
like.
I
said,
a
better
update
on
that
next
week
or
the
week
after
so,
okay.