►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing October 19, 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
Today
is
Wednesday
October
19th.
This
is
the
2022
or
I'm
sorry
October
19
2022
at
the
Arlington
County
Board
of
Equalization
hearing.
There
are
four
faces
on
the
agenda
today.
The
first
base
is
RPC
one:
six:
zero,
zero,
five,
zero
zero
one;
the
property
located
at
1501,
Langston,
Boulevard,
Mr,
Grant
steinhauser,
is
asked
to
withdraw
this
case.
I
assume
Mr
Peralta.
There's
no
objection
from
the
counties.
No.
B
A
Okay,
so
then
I
will
move
to
accept
the
withdrawal.
Do
I
have
a
second
and
second
by
Mr
metzkin,
all
in
favor
I
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
That
case
is
withdrawn.
The
second
and
third
have
accepted
settlements,
so
the
next
case
on
the
agenda.
Do
we
have
Mr
Warren.
A
No
problem
and
then
so
that
RPC
is
one
eight
zero,
zero,
three
one:
zero
eight
at
1310,
North,
Courthouse,
Road,
so
Mr
Warren.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
Sir.
C
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
board.
Thank
you.
Rob
I'd
like
to
direct
the
board's
attention
to
Paige
I
guess
in
the
County's
memo
response,
page
170
of
217.
and
if
you're
just
looking
at
our
package,
it's
page
3
of
48
again
it's.
This
is
our
summary
of
facts
for
this.
This
location,
it's
1310,
North,
Courthouse,
Road,
it's
consistent
of
one
tax
rpt.
C
It
is
currently
assessed
at
126
million
976
400.
The
county
is
recommending
no
change
to
the
board
and
the
value
we
were
asking
for
from
the
board
was
a
value
of
120
million
474
100..
That
has
been
altered
slightly
based
on
the
back
and
forth
conversations
that
we've
had
with
the
county
and
the
vacancy.
As
of
the
the
valuation
date,
our
revised
value.
C
C
This
property
has
has
had
problems
significant
problems
with
vacancy
over
the
course
of
the
last
three
years
in
2019
there
was
92
452
square
feet
of
vacant
space
25
vacant
vacancy,
and
it
has
continued
to
downtrend
from
there
in
2020,
there's
187
320
square
feet
of
vacant
space,
and
now,
most
recently,
148
000
148
000
square
feet
of
vacant
space.
C
The
gross
potential
income
you'll
see,
has
been
down
downtrending
significantly
due
to
the
vacancy
each
of
the
last
three
years:
13.9
million
in
2019,
10.1
million
in
2020,
and
then
most
recently,
7.9
million
the
revision
value
that
we're
asking
for
today,
and
you
can
see
the
the
County's
test
column.
C
One
of
the
the
differences
here
compared
to
our
original
pro
forma
is
with
regard
to
a
GFA
lease
that
was
signed
on
the
third
floor
for
28
961
square
feet.
That
was
in
the
end
of
2021.
C
Now
it
wasn't
on
the
rent
roll
that
we
had
provided,
because
that
lease
has
not
commenced.
We've
been
informed
that
GSA
has
not
been
given
authorization
to
commence
through
with
that
list
and
the
fit
out
so
right
now
it
sits
in
a
shell
State.
C
So
if
you
look
at
the
at
the
County's
test
column
on
page
five,
you'll
see
that
they're
assuming
177
107
of
bacon
space
in
their
pro
forma
for
gross
potential
income
at
forty
dollars
a
square
foot
but
then
are
not,
including
that
in
their
their
red,
Lots,
TI
and
leasing
commissions
assumptions
below
the
line.
C
The
one
million
nine
hundred
eleven
thousand,
essentially
that
we're
asking
for
is
two
years
worth
of
rent.
So
again,
if,
if
the
the
soonest
that
GSA
would
be
able
to
commence
their
lease
at
this
space,
if
they
were
given
the
go-ahead
today
to
commence
the
fit
out
would
be
early
2025
so
for
at
least
the
foreseeable
over
two
plus
years.
This
property
is
not
going
to
receive
rent
on
that
space.
C
So
we're
acknowledging
that
in
the
in
the
dfl
and
asking
the
county
and
the
board's
consideration
for
this
space
and
the
lot
the
Lost
rent
for
that
lease,
that
lease
signed
substantially
lower
than
the
vacant
space
of
the
vacant
assumption
for
rent
a
rental
rate
of
forty
dollars,
a
square
foot
it's
signed
for
for
33
dollars,
a
square
foot.
C
B
Yes,
thank
you.
As
Mr
Warren
stated,
the
property,
as
of
the
first
of
the
year,
submitted
a
rent
roll
that
did
not
include
the
new
tenant,
the
GSA
Elise.
B
B
B
As
you
know,
we
would
look
at
the
property
as
of
the
first
of
the
year
to
include
that
tenant
still
in
the
space
But,
we
would
deduct
that
below.
We
would
add
that
back
below
the
line
to
give
them
excess
vacancy,
because
we
know
that
in
the
future
they
would
be
vacating
the
property
again.
This
subject.
Property
is
the
complete
opposite
of
that
we
would
State
the
vacancy
as
of
the
first
year
as
we
did.
B
B
What
we
didn't
exclude
is
that
33,
000
or
so
square
feet
that
we
saw
on
co-star
it's
attached
to
the
case,
showing
what
leases
those
were,
and
we
asked
the
board
to
consider
the
original
assessment
of
125
307
700,
which
isn't
too
far
off
from
what
the
new
revised
value.
If
I
understand
correctly,
is
125
million
65
000.,
that's
all
I
have
thank
you.
C
E
Let
me
go
ahead
and
ask
a
couple:
questions:
I
think
Mary
got
frozen
out,
yeah.
A
C
And
I
should
have
just
clarified
that
I
just
realized,
so
in
our
initial
appeal
package,
this
included
a
another
parcel
that
had
a
vacant
land
parcel
on
it.
So
when
I
read
that
off
our
summary
of
fact,
the
126
976
400
it
was
including
that
parcel
that
parcel
has
already
been
completed
in
our
final
review.
So
I
should
not
have
I
I
misspoke
there
and
I
apologize.
I
was
I,
was
deducting
the
land
value,
Parcel
Plus
the
main
parcel
here
from
that
1.9
million
dollar
figure
for
the
Lost
rent.
C
C
They
have
not
received
the
federal
approval
approval
like
for
the
funding,
yet
they
don't
know
when
that's
coming
in.
If
it's
going
to
come
in,
because
a
lot
of
the
GSA
approval
process
has
kind
of
been
stalled
and
delayed
at
this
time,
they
don't
know
when
it
could
be
approved
or-
or
you
know
in
the
future.
If,
if.
F
E
C
That
was
that
was
my
assumption.
Now
we
do
include
the
we
have
the
lease
the
full
lease
document
in
here.
We
just
got
this
fairly
recently
last
week.
I
have
not
had
a
chance
and
it's
a
large
document
to
peruse
the
entire
thing.
So
I
don't
know
I'm
I'm,
guessing
they're
it
explicitly
States
in
there
I
don't
know
off
the
top
of
my
head.
C
D
They
you
know
it's
a
cheap,
it's
a
three-party
thing
right,
executive
branch,
legislative
branch
and
the
landlord
or
the
supplier.
Okay,
question
for
for
the
appellant
I
had
never
heard
of
I
assume
this
was
always
owner
occupied
I,
never
heard
of
any
space
being
available
there
before
I
looked
on
co-star
the
other
day,
there's
no
spaces
available.
D
C
You
know
I
I,
do
believe
they're
actively
marketing
the
the
property
for
lease.
Now
there
was
a
renovation
done
on
Floors,
eight
and
nine,
which
contributed
to
some
of
the
the
vacancy
there.
C
Now
that
has
been
finished
it's
in
in
according
to
the
owner.
He
believes
that
the
true
kind
of
Market
rent
for
the
building
would
be
34
to
36
dollars
a
square
foot
with
the
exception
of
489,
because
of
that
renovation
and
they're
asking
you
know
anywhere
from
40
to
41
a
square
foot
for
that.
But
the
rest
of
the
building
is
still
of
older
quality
older
build.
But,
to
my
knowledge
they
are
I
mean
they've
been
trying
to
actively
you
know
lease
the
space.
Okay.
D
C
Again,
I
misspoke
on
that,
because
I
was
including
the
second
land
parcel
that
is
not
under
this
appeal
anymore.
We
actually
that
was
resolved,
so
it
should
be,
and
it's
listed
on
the
front
page,
the
125
million
307
700
minus
the
1.9
million
one.
G
C
One
nine
one,
nine
one,
one,
four,
two:
six
for
the
rent,
that's
basically
just
thirty
three
dollars
a
square
foot,
which
is
the
rate
this
lease
was
signed
at
of
the
28
961
square
feet
for
the
two
years,
and
that's
just
deducting
from
the
125
million
307
700
would
get
you
123,
96
300.,
so
I
I
apologize
for
initially,
including
the
land
parcel.
That's
no
longer
under
this
review
or
appeal.
D
H
Steve
Helen
you
had
mentioned
the
in
your
presentation.
The
space
for
GSA
is
currently
in
Shell
space.
C
C
They've
just
got
our
correspondence
with
the
owner
says
that
it's
in
a
demoed
state
currently
right
now.
A
Okay,
any
other
questions,
Mr
Hoffman,
so.
I
I
B
B
And
if
I
remember
correctly,
Mr
Warren
had
stated
that,
as
of
the
first
or
in
their
renewed
valuation,
the
estimated
vacancy
was
similar
to
what
I
have
at
148
000.
E
B
Yes,
even
if
we
were
not
to
include
or
even
if
we're
to
include
this
GSA
lease
below
the
line,
as
I
stated
in
my
opening
the
on
page.
B
11
of
217,
you
see
the
leases
that
were
signed
for
this
property,
August
2022
for
16786
at
forty
four
dollars,
a
square
feet:
June
22
for
10,
000,
298
at
46.50
per
square
foot
and
another
lease
on
the
eighth
floor,
June
2022
4251..
So
at
least
when
compared
to
these
new
leases,
we
have
a
surplus
of
2
374
square
feet
that
we're
crediting
the
the
property
in
the
test.
Column.
B
I
think
that
with
negate
you
know
any
thoughts
about
crediting
GSA
towards
the
subject:
the
the
new
sublease
rent
again
in
Suites
100,
they're,
sublease
square
footage
on
the
first
and
second
floor
of
19706
square
feet
and
again
on
the
second
floor
of
7
500
square
feet
for
a
total
of
27
206
square
feet
and
again,
that
is
also
included
in
the
147
000
square
feet.
I
credited
for
the
property.
B
C
So,
just
in
response
to
the
new
leases,
there
were
two
new
leases
that
were
signed
on
the
eighth
floor,
that
that
renovated
space
that
were
at
40
to
42
a
square
foot.
However,
there's
any
every
other
New
Leaf
that's
being
signed
there,
there's
a
the
McLean
Bible
Church,
which
is
on
the
first
floor,
16
171
square
feet.
They
signed
at
least
at
33.50
GSA.
They
signed
that
lease
on
the
third
floor
for
the
28
000
square
feet
at
33
dollars
a
square
foot.
C
So
again,
it
kind
of
goes
to
the
point
that
the
owner
was
making
that
only
only
the
renovated
spaces.
On
that
four
eight
and
nine
are
demanding
that
that
kind
of
rent.
C
Again
they
have
no
confirmation
when
or
if
the
GSA
will
receive
approval
for
the
federal
funding
for
that
space
and
right
now
it
sits
as
vacant
the
lease
has
not
commenced
and
again
the
very
earliest.
We
were
told
that
if
they
were
to
get
a
approval,
as
of
today
that
that
rent,
or
that,
that
least
would
commence,
would
be
the
early
portion
of
2025.
A
Okay,
thank
you
both
okay,
it's
just
among
the
board
members
where's
everybody
on
this.
I
I
Why
there's
a
difference
in
the
rain
if
the
GSA
is
paying
32
68
a
square
foot
I,
don't
know
that
you
can
say
that
rest
of
the
building
is
is
worth
forty
dollars.
A
square
foot.
A
D
2022
leasing
activity
was
good
for
the
landlord,
but
that's
not
within
our
purview
that
just
doesn't
matter
at
all,
and
also
the
department
had
mentioned
that
when
the
opposite
case,
when
tenants
have
announced,
after
the
date
evaluation
they're
going
to
leave
to
get
that
space
below
the
line.
I
know
that
we've
been
in
many
many
conversations
saying
it's
not
over
till
it's
over.
It's.
E
D
Done
until
it's
done,
it's
hearsay-
we
did
have
a
case
I
think
last
week
the
week
before,
where
actually
the
paperwork
was
signed
in
advance.
That
was
different
versus
an
announcement
so
I'm
not
taking
either
of
those
seriously
or
not
seriously
I'm,
not
including
that
in
my
conclusions,
is
it
better,
a
more
accurate
way
to
say
it.
D
I
I
think
120
based
on
the
history
of
this
Building,
123
million
dollar
figure
seems
high,
but
the,
but
the
appellate
makes
a
case
for
that
and
I
would
tend
to
to
to
agree
with
with
that
number
and
not
the
higher
original
number.
That's
what
I
have.
E
C
H
I
change
I
just
to
see
if
I
change,
the
TI
excuse
the
ti-370
to
90
dollars,
and
we
took
it
up
to
four
eight
five.
Four.
H
D
B
B
E
H
B
A
I
Motion
to
reduce
to
123
million
583
200,
based
on
the
the
rate,
reducing
the
rate
for
breaking
space
to
38
over
the
177
000.7
square
feet.
A
E
H
A
A
Okay.
Next
on
the
agenda
is
RPC
3201903a
at
1301,
South
Scott,
Street,
Mr
Warren
has
asked
to
withdraw
that
case.
I
assume,
Mr
chicas.
There's
no
objection.
A
Then
I
will
move
to
accept
the
withdrawal.
Do
I
have
a
second
Mr.
Hoffman
is
the
second
all
in
favor
of
the
withdrawal,
I
opposed.
Okay.
That
case
has
been
withdrawn
and
the
final
case
on
the
agenda.
We
had
Mr
chicas
and
Mr
Warren.
This
is
for
rpc15007058
at
2000,
North
Adams,
Street,
Mr
Warren.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
Sir.
C
Thank
you
very
much.
I'll
start
on
page
38
of
119,
which
is
our
summary
of
facts.
Again.
This
is
the
park
Adams
Apartment
Complex,
located
at
2000,
North
Adams
Street,
one
tax
RPC.
C
It
is
or
originally
assessed
at
51
million
five
hundred
nineteen
thousand
the
county
is
recommending
a
revision
of
47
million
seven
hundred
fifty
nine
thousand
six
hundred.
This
is
an
older
property
originally
built
in
1960
200
units,
a
mid-rise
apartment,
building,
one
building
and
six
stories,
but
I
redirect
the
board
again
to
page
three,
the
County's
Department
income
and
expense.
Summary
you'll
see
the
prior
four
years
of
income
and
expense
reporting,
along
with
the
County's
original
and
revised
assessments.
C
C
The
the
gross
potential
rent
and
gross
potential
income
you
can
see
have
been
experiencing
a
three-year
downward
Trend
and
in
the
County's,
revised
test
column
you'll
still
see
that
for
the
total
apartment,
gross
potential
apartment,
rent
they're
still
approximately
350
000
higher
than
what
the
county
was
able
to
generate
in
2021
and
the
gross
potential
income
again
is
roughly
three
and
a
half
350
000
higher
than
what
was
reported,
similar
to
other
properties
that
we've
discussed
in,
as
in
yesterday's
case,
concessions
have
been
on
the
rise
following
covid
to
again
keep
vacancy
down
three
thousand
dollars
reported
in
in
rental
concessions
in
2019
that
jumped
to
31
000
in
2020
and
then
most
recently,
154
000
in
2021,
with
with
the
vacancy
of
4.25
reported
in
in
2021,
the
effective
growth
income
year
over
year.
C
For
for
the
again,
the
prior
three
years
has
been
on
the
on
the
decline.
The
County's
revised
test
column
at
again,
4.6
million
is
approximately
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
above
what
this
property
was
able
to
achieve
in
2021.
the
the
operating
expenses
for
this
property.
The
last
five
years
have
been
36.6
percent
in
2018
38
and
a
half
percent
in
2019
36.27
in
2020,
and
then
most
recently
45
in
2021,
the
County's
revision
it
is,
they
did
make
an
upward
revision
to
their
their
operating
expense
ratio.
C
C
Similarly,
noi
has
been
on
the
decline,
the
last
three
years:
three
million
in
2018
2.9
Million
in
2019,
3
million,
a
slight
increase
in
in
2020
to
2.99
million
and
then
down
2.362
million
in
2021.
the
counties
revised
noi
that
they're
calculated
for
their
revision.
Again,
it's
approximately
300
and
or
actually
it's
quite
a
bit
higher,
almost
400
000.
Above
what
again
what
this
property
was
able
to
generate
in
noi.
C
So
again
we're
asking
for
consideration
for
what
this
property
was
able
to
generate
most
recently
in
2021
in
the
2022
assessment.
That's
all
I
have
thank
you.
F
Good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
Blake
again
fairly
well
summarized
by
Mr
Warren.
You
know
this
property
is
very
similar
to
other
ones.
We've
looked
at
previously
again,
I
think
we
just
look
at
it
a
little
bit
differently
as
far
as
the
appellants
in
the
county,
we're
looking
at
this
as
a
stabilized
value
again
incorporating
all
years
as
we've
talked
about
consistently
when
the
2021
numbers
come
in,
we
tend
to
place
more
weight
on
that
and
less
on
2018,
but
we're
still
looking
at
a
four-year
operating
history.
F
Gpi
was
essentially
on
point
three
years
in
a
row
changing
within
one
of
just
about
one
percent
of
each
other,
from
18
to
19,
19
to
20,
effective
growths
again
within
about
one
percent
of
each
other,
even
with
the
increase
of
19
and
again
about
a
one
percent
decrease
in
20,
but
again
within
one
percent
of
2018's
number
and
same
thing
with
the
operating
expenses.
This
led
to
a
stabilized
net
operating
income
from
years
18
through
2020..
Again,
as
we've
seen
fairly
consistently
this
year,
there
were
some
ripples
in
occupancy.
F
The
natural
tendency
for
ownership
is
to
lower
rents
and
increase
concession.
It's
literally
what
we
saw
at
this
property
rents
went
down,
concessions
went
up,
and
by
quite
a
bit
you
can
see
concessions.
18,
19
and
20
were
less
than
one
percent.
F
In
fact,
just
over
a
half
percent
in
2020,
they
grew
to
over
three
percent
in
2021.,
as
we've
said,
consistently
and
I
believe
the
board
is
accepted,
concessions
tend
to
burn
off
their
temporary
measures,
free
rent
for
amenity,
free
parking,
Etc,
that's
designed
to
increase
occupancy,
as
we
pointed
out
in
the
comments
below
you
can
see
that
worked.
Occupancy,
grew
to
96
percent,
fairly
modest
25
basis
points,
but
still
that's
what
they
were
designed
to
do.
F
Concessions
and
lower
rents,
as
you
can
see
in
our
projections
made
in
our
revision,
projection
made
for
apartment
revenue
is
lower
than
what
was
achieved
in
19
and
20
and,
in
fact,
is
just
barely
one
percent
over
what
was
achieved
in
2018.
and
so
highly
achievable.
Very
moderate
projection
made.
Most
importantly,
though,
is,
as
we've
said,
consistently
is
the
gross
potential
income
projections
are
really
going
to
be
modified
by
the
guideline
vacancy
that
we
use.
Eight
percent
vacancy
is
essentially
something
that
hasn't
been
occurring
at
this
property.
F
They
got
close
last
year
at
7.6,
but
if
you're
looking
at
again
at
the
last
four
years,
even
last
three
years,
they've
averaged
right
around
four
and
a
half
percent,
so
eight
percent
is
something
we
use
in
all
of
our
mid-rise
and
high-rise
that
was
applied.
In
this
case,
we
do
look
to
achieve
a
stabilized,
effective
growth.
I
think
you'll
see
that
we
did
that
again,
very
modest
projections
made
it
looks
like
a
large
increase
from
last
year,
but
again
lower
than
what
was
achieved:
18,
19
and
20,
and
by
a
good
bet.
F
So
again,
nothing
has
changed
to
this
property
to
indicate
that
this
would
not
be
achievable
again,
three
years
out
of
four:
it's
done
this
affecting
growth.
When
we
looked
at
operating
expenses,
of
course,
we
didn't
yet
have
2021's
numbers
I
would
point
out
that
they
did
increase
by
a
good
bit
almost
15
14
and
across
the
board.
Everything
was
essentially
up
by
almost
10
percent
award.
F
Again,
we
look
to
smooth
that
out.
I
did
speak
with
Mr
Warren
in
regard
to
some
of
the
expenses
that
seemed
out
of
whack,
but
there's
nothing
that
caused
us
to
to
call
for
reconstruction
or
remove
any
of
these
that
we
would
deem
inappropriately
just
all
increased
some.
We
do
at
a
a
a
tribute
to
this
increase
in
occupancy,
namely
about
a
hundred
thousand
in
leasing
commissions.
F
This
property
is
fairly
aggressive
as
far
as
rewarding
their
leasing
team.
If
you
will
to
keep
that
occupancy
up
so
again,
those
things
tend
to
work
hand
in
hand,
regardless
with
the
increase
in
operating
expenses
in
2021.
We
did
note
that,
but
obviously
we
did
note
that
the
operating
expenses
decreased
by
almost
two
percent
in
2020.
So,
as
we've
done
again
all
year
as
we
do
with
the
income,
we
stabilize
the
operating
expenses
and,
in
fact,
increased
them
by
quite
a
bit,
it
was
50
000
from
our
projection
made
in
January
1.
F
again
just
shy,
forty
percent
of
operating
expenditures
very
much
in
line
with
the
last
two
years
very
much
in
line
the
last
three
years
and
again,
even
higher
than
the
last
four
years
as
stabilized
nature
goes.
These
changes
we
made
for
the
effective
growth
and
operating
expenditures
indicated
a
stabilized
net
operating
income
and
I
was
projected
by
the
four
County
in
column
F.
We
do
believe
that
again,
this
is
indicative
of
the
performance
of
the
property,
especially
when
you
consider
years,
18,
19
and
20.,
as
indicated
by
Mr
Warren.
F
This
is
actually
decreased
from
last
year's
value
is
indicated
by
the
county.
We're
projecting
a
negative
five
percent
change
year
over
year,
much
more
in
line
with
what
we
believe
was
a
one-year
downturn
as
opposed
to
the
appellant's
request
of
a
near
negative
25
percent.
So
we
believe,
that's
too
drastic.
The
revision
made
by
the
county
we
believe
is
accurate.
We
asked
the
County
Board
to
confirm
our
revision
of
47
million
7596.
Thank
you.
E
B
C
Jump
well,
I
think
why
you've
seen
the
jump
in
the
actual
operating
expense
ratio
is
because
obviously,
income
was
so
down.
When
you
look
at
the
actual
figure
1.9
million-
it's
not
too
much
out
of
line
of
what
had
been
reported
in
previous
years.
When
there
was
more
of
a
stabilized
income
in
2019,
there
was
total
operating
expenses
of
1.8
million.
Now
that
dropped
a
little
bit
in
2020.
C
But
again
what
we
saw
was
was
an
increase
in
expenses,
materials,
Contracting
costs
for
for
third-party
vendors,
and
that's
why
you're
you're,
seeing
those
increases
really
across
the
board
for
all
the
properties
that
we've
we've
brought
to
the
the
board
this
year.
So
yeah
I
think
that
that
operating
expense
ratio.
That
45
is.
E
F
Yes,
ma'am
again
just
ask
the
board
to
focus
as
we
invest
all
year.
I
do
look
at
the
four
years.
Again,
obviously,
2021
showed
a
drop,
but
we'd
argue
that
years,
18
through
20
were
very
consistent
at
all
levels:
groups,
potential,
effective
growth
and
operating
expenses
which
led
to
a
stabilized
netop
and
the
income.
We've
recognized
the
downturn
in
2021
but
again
asked
the
board
to
recognize
the
stabilized
years,
18
through
20,
and
confirmed
the
revision
of
47
million
7596.
Thank
you.
C
Yeah
and
just
to
so
quickly
wrap
up.
We.
We
would
hope
that
the
board
consider
the
the
again
the
the
the
County's
vision
and
test
column,
which
does
not
seem
to
have
give
consideration
to
the
the
downturn
experience
in
in
2021.
What
you'll
see
is
the
2022
gross
potential
income,
much
higher
than
the
property
was
ever
able
to
achieve
in
18
and
19
prior
to
covet
and
in
2020
and
then
in
their
revision.
C
Basically
in
line
with
with
those
prior
three
years
and
and
not
much
consideration
to
the
downturn
in
2021
again,
we
asked
the
board
to
consider
that
you
know
rents,
although
concessions
may
burn
up
again.
This
is
a
a
very
much
a
concession-driven
market
that
those
rents
aren't
just
going
to
jump
back
up
to
to
back
up
30
40
to
the
stabilized
rent
that
they
were
able
to
achieve
in
Prior
years
to
covet.
Thank
you.
H
I
I
think
the
eight
percent
in
vacancies
offsetting
some
of
the
concessions
and
I
do
understand.
The
issue
concessions
but
I
also
looked
at
the
expenses,
and
you
know
I
think
like
the
prior
case
is
a
couple:
we've
had
2020,
they
got
a
little
more
conservative
and
the
expenses
dropped.
H
If
you
take
it
back
to
2019
it's
more
in
line
and
a
lot,
you
know,
you've
got
a
10
percent
difference
between
21
and
20
in
the
expenses
it's
line
by
line
almost
so
I'm
thinking
the
you
can
say
above
the
line
or
egi
I'm
fine
and
expenses
may
be
a
little
adjustment,
but
I
think
they
just
were
spending
money
that
they
go
back
on
previously,
which.
J
J
A
Okay,
anyone
Lawson
yeah.
E
What
I,
what
I
did
in
this
case
as
many
is
I,
looked
at
you
know
the
Assumption
of
increase
in
rental
income,
the
County
May
and
I
tinkered
around
with
it
quite
a
bit
and
decided
that
that
was
a
fair
assumption
and
then
I.
Look
at
the
expenses
and
I
I.
E
Think
if,
if
we're
going
to
make
an
adjustment,
I
think
that
Chris
made
of
might
have
estimated
the
increase
in
expenses
a
little
low
and
I
would
be
willing
to
make
a
slight
adjustment
in
the
expenses
up
in
them
a
little
bit.
If
anyone
else
agrees.
E
I,
based
on
this
game,
it's
it's
gone.
It
goes
back
to
like
yeah
yeah,
and
so
you
know
it's
1845
versus
1827
and
we
know
everything's
gone
up
due
to
inflation
and
I.
Think
you're,
probably
around
I
mean
you
know.
This
is
Barnes
guessing
but
well.
I
was
thinking
around
1
million
nine
hundred.
A
I
Would
I
would
buy
I
think
2020
is
an
abnormal
year
21,
it's
kind
of
trying
to
get
back
on
expenses
and
they
probably
overshot
it
because
they
were
going
in
but
bananas.
You
know
Purell
dispensers
everywhere
and
hands-free
faucets
and
things
like
that,
so
the
last
real
year
was
2019
and
to
say
that
22
is
going
to
be
less
than
2019.
I
mean
what
do
you
know
that
cost
less
than
2022
than
you
did
in
2019
yeah.
I
Yeah
anything
English
guilts,
maybe
so
I
would
yeah
I
would
say
if
you
took
that
up,
10
or
more
just
to
deal
with
inflation
can.
H
D
E
A
Okay,
let
me
ask
this
question
then:
so
we
have
a
as
far
as
increase
in
expenses.
We've
got
a
no
from
Jose
and
Ken
so
Mark.
Where
are
you
because
if
you're
not
gonna
go
into
it,
there's
no
sense
them.
Even
you
know
running
the
numbers,
because
it's
going
to
split
and
revert
back
to
the
original
yeah.
I
H
You
you
went
over,
so
you
went
it's
almost
that's
a
hundred
thousand.
I
J
D
I
In
the
context
of
everything
else,
yeah
I
mean
everything
else.
I
was
looking
at
was
the
same
units
that
went
vacant
in
2020
and
were
released
in
2021
were
released
at
rates
20
lower.
C
C
I
But
today
is
October
of
2022.,
but.
D
Especially
relative
other
buildings
like
this
that
are
stable
and
established
and
they
got
black
last
year
no
question
the
department
said,
as
they
often
do
appropriately
and
put
more
for
look
at
four
years
more
weight
in
the
most
recent
year.
That's
precisely
what
they
did
and
came
out
with
five
and
a
half
percent
decrease,
which
is
right
in
the
zone
of
similar
buildings,
experiences
and
valuation
for
2021..
Right,
just
don't
see
anything
unusual
about
this
I
think
the
way
the
other
the.
H
Register
going
up
from
what
what
the
counties
projecting
I
think
the
the
concessions
offsetting
in
the
vacancy
and
as
far
as
expenses
I
think
that's
something
that
we're
going
to
see
next
year.
How
is
it
across
the
board
10
higher
for
everybody,
but
I?
Don't
know
that
we
do
it
here,
I,
I,
just
I,
don't
think
the
building's
value
has
gone
going
down
at
this
point.
A
D
I
move
that
we
accept
the
Department's
revised
valuation
of
47
million
759
600
dollars.
A
E
I
counted
votes
in
favor
before
I
voted.
Oh.
A
F
A
A
G
A
That
today,
and
then
do
I
dare
ask
FDIC
is
that
coming.
A
I
A
heads
up,
I
have
something
on
the
25th
and
if
I
could
be
virtual,
I
could
probably
maybe
miss
one
case
and
then
be
able
to
catch
the
rest
of
them.