►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing October 19, 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
21-
and
this
is
the
arlington
county-
virginia
board
of
equalization
hearing-
there
are
six
cases
on
the
agenda,
but
before
we
start
that
I'm
going
to
move
to
make
a
motion
to
reconsider
rpc
14051016
that
was
heard
on
june
30th.
Do
I
have
a
second
to
accept
that
motion.
A
A
A
Okay,
so
I
will
re-motion
to
accept
the
withdrawal,
which
was
actually
a
decrease
for
the
county's
recommended
number
of
65
million
979
900..
Do
I
have
a
second
for
that.
C
D
A
A
F
A
E
H
H
Rpc181015,
let
me
know
when
it
runs
right
in.
I
can
disagree.
H
Great,
so
thank
you,
the
the
subject.
Property
is
phase
two
of
four
of
the
market
com
and
clarendon
development,
also
known,
as
I
believe
now,
clarendon
crossing
and
it's
a
shopping
center
situated
in
the
courthouse,
clarendon
submarket.
H
It
was
originally
built
in
2001
and
contains
this
specific
phase
contains
roughly
twenty
thousand
three
hundred
square
feet
of
leaseable
space
and
our
initial
analysis.
The
assessor.
We
don't
have
too
many
issues
with
the
assessed
analysis,
they've
used
an
income
approach,
we've
as
well.
If
you
look
at
page
four
of
our
analysis,
you
can
see
the
breakdown
between
the
dera
and
our
analysis
here,
and
what
we've
done
is
taken.
H
H
We
found
it
to
be
more
genuine
and
disingenuous
to
use
a
lower
rent,
because
the
actual
rents
in
place
do
average
about
65
a
foot
with
this
we
also
did
adjust
the
parking,
recoveries
and
other
income
which
were
all
overstated.
Given
the
pandemic,
the
parking
income
of
the
property
is
not
going
to
be
able
to
achieve
what
it
was
in
the
past.
This
is
just
a
fact
now.
H
Everybody
knows
that
there's
not
as
much
demand
to
park
and
as
much
demand
to
go
into
brick
and
mortar
stores.
Now
so
with
that,
in
conjunction
as
of
the
data
value,
the
the
parking
income
is
worth
considerably
less
the
recoveries.
Obviously
we
just
use
the
actuals
as
well,
and
then
other
income
the
same
so
ultimately,
our
total
potential
gross
income
comes
to
what
the
above,
but
above
what
the
dira
has
allowed.
H
What,
where
we
initially
really
stuck
to
differ
here,
though,
is
the
vacancy
and
collection
loss.
The
market
four
percent
rate
used
by
the
assessor
is
far
too
low.
We
use
a
15
rate
and
the
year
ends
2020
vacancy
at
the
site
was
14.6,
so
we
think
the
15
rate
is
not
all
that
far
off
from
what
the
reality
of
the
situation
is
here.
As
the
data
value,
we
have
the
the
height
of
a
pandemic.
Obviously
retail
it
is
virtually
illegal
for
certain
businesses
to
operate.
H
You
cannot
have
enough.
You
cannot
have
as
many
people
physically
in
the
vicinity
of
the
of
the
the
this
retail
spaces.
You
used
to
be
able
to
that.
That
being
said,
on
top
of
that,
there's
also
a
suite.
That's
vacant,
that's
causing
the
actual
vacancy
to
be
15.
Here,
that's
why
we
use
the
15
and
that
doesn't
even
go
to
touch
the
uncollectible
bad
debt
reserve,
which
is
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
for
the
past
year.
H
So
it
seems
like
going
forward.
There's
only
going
to
be
more
and
more
issues
with
rate
abandonment
of
random
payments
and
rent
referrals
for
10
minutes
to
live
here
and
finally,
we
have
adjusted
the
expenses
upwards.
We
use
an
18
rate
of
the
effective
gross
income,
whereas
the
assessor
uses
a
15
rate.
It's
worth
noting
that
the
year
and
20
expense
ratio,
actual
expense
ratio
was
17.8
percent
the
three
year
average
expense
ratio
was
17.1.
H
So
we
believe
that
a
rate
with
somewhere
in
the
range
of
17
to
18
is
is
far
more
reasonable
here
and
then.
Finally,
we
we've
adjusted
the
cap
rate
upwards,
which
is
there's
always
a
winning
argument
here,
but
we
think
that
the
the
base
rate
of
6.15,
basically,
which
is
used
by
the
county,
is
just
too
low
here
and
there's
vacancy
there's
known
chronic
collections
issues
here,
the
egi
and
the
noi
are
not
going
to
be
where
they've
been
able
to
be
in
the
past.
H
So
I
think
it's
not
unreasonable
that
in
the
middle
of
the
pandemic,
in
the
height
of
a
pandemic,
as
of
1-1
of
this
year,
the
the
base
cap
rate
will
be
bumped
up
to
seven
percent.
So
once
you
take
all
the
adjustments
that
I've
said
before
we
use
that
arrive
at
our
resulting
value,
16.658
million-
and
I
think
that
about
covers
it
unless
grant-
has
anything
else
to.
E
I
You
board
thank
you,
grant
and
leo
I'd
like
to
direct
you
first
briefly
to
the
rent
roll
analysis.
That's
found
on
page
six
of
the
packet,
and
I
wanted
to
show
you
that
I
did
an
analysis
of
the
rent
roll
and
I
came
up
with
an
average
square
foot
when
you're,
excluding
the
the
vacant
unit
and
the
atm,
and
the
reason
why
I
excluded
the
atm
is
because
that's
revenue
being
reported
elsewhere,
not
in
the
base
rent.
I
But
if
you
take
a
look
you'll
see
underneath
that
I
come
up
with
an
average
price
per
square
foot,
I'm
not
going
to
announce
what
it
is,
but
you
can
obviously
see
what
it
is.
Let's
go
back
to
the
summary
page,
which
is
on
page
four
of
the
appraisal
of
the
a
packet
and
I'd
like
to
explain
some
of
the
numbers
that
are
in
this
summary
report
that
you
don't
normally
see
more
specific
to
the
green
numbers
that
are
in
green.
I
So
what
I'm
trying
to
do
is
show
you
that
this
owner
does
not
they
report
actuals.
They
do
not
report
vacancy
in
their
income
and
expense
statements.
So
I
wanted
to
display
what
it
should
look
like:
okay,
if
they
did
report
vacancy
okay
and
so
the
numbers
in
green.
Those
are
an
extraordinary
assumption
and
I
base
those
off
of
the
average
rental
rate.
As
you
can
see,
it's
posted
to
the
right
of
the
amount,
and
then
it
was
subtracted
out
under
vacancy
and
collection.
I
Our
egi,
for
our
original
assessment
is
still
lower
than
what
they're
reporting,
even
if
they
reported,
if
they
did
this
proper,
if
they
properly
reported
the
vacancy
and
the
gross
potential.
Now,
yes,
our
expenses
are
exceptionally
low.
So
that
leads
me
to
column
f.
I
did
a
retest
and
in
column
f.
I
used
the
average
rent
that
was
developed
on
the
rent,
roll
analysis
and
next
I
used
the
the
actual
miscellaneous
or
garage
parking
income.
I
Now
on
the
incoming
expense
statement
on
the
addenda
page,
they
stated
they
had
approximately
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
uncollectible
reserves.
Now
we
don't
discount
for
this,
because
that's
that's
a
pass-through
that
was
never
collected.
Okay,
we're
using
the
actuals
and
not
a
gross
potential,
so
column
f
does
show
a
higher
value
than
our
original
assessment.
But
I've
told
like
I
said
I
wanted
to
test
using
any
using
the
average
rent
and
there
were
no
rent
abatements.
I
There
is
one
tenant,
that's
deferring
rent,
but
that's
being
collected.
In
fact,
it's
almost,
I
think
they've
almost
paid
it,
so
there
were
no
discounts
made
to
that
average
rent
and
I'm
open
for
questions.
Thank
you.
B
So
what
laura
is
saying
about
her
column
e
on
the
summary
sheet,
with
the
extraordinary
assumptions
that
she
made
we're
trying
to
show
that
if
this
property
or
this
owner
rather
reported
the
actual
vacancy
loss
for
the
vacant
spaces
on
his
property,
then
the
gpi
would
be
higher
than
what
was
used
in
the
original
assessment,
and
it
would
be
in
line
what
was
used
in
the
test
assessment
on
their
ine
for
2020.
They
reported
no
vacancy.
B
As
laura
stated,
our
original
assessment
has
a
lower
egi
than
what
was
reported
for
2020,
so
we're
trying
to
make
that
clarification
as
to
why
the
extraordinary
assumptions
were
put
in
there
is
to
show
that
the
gpi
we
used
is
not
not
gpw.
The
gpi
we
calculated
is
not
out
of
line
with
this
property
even
for
2020.,
also
when
she
guided
you
to
the
rent
roll.
B
The
purpose
of
that
was
to
show
that
the
actual
rent
rates
were
over
65
a
square
foot.
So
when
you
look
at
the
rent-
and
you
see
the
rent
rates
that
we
used,
it
is
in
line
with
what
they're
actually
achieving
at
this
property,
and
it
is
pretty
close
to
what
the
agent
is
also
using
when
you
look
at
their
pro
forma,
our
retail
potential
rent
is
slightly
higher
than
theirs,
but
I
would
say
it's
pretty
much
in
line.
C
C
So
to
me
it
looks
like
you're
about
a
hundred
grand,
maybe
a
little
more
than
a
hundred
grand
wrong
on
that
particular
figure.
Am
I
missing
something.
B
I
I
went
back
through
the
ines
and
looked
up
the
vacancy
and
and
determined
what
their
average
rental
rate
was,
and
so,
if
you
notice
the
very
first
line
vacant
retail
in
green,
that's
what
they
should
have
reported
for
for
re
for
rent
and
then
because
it's
vacant,
and
then
you
subtract
it
out
for
vacancy.
That's
what
I
was
trying
to
show
you
to
display
that
our
gpi
is
still
less
than
what
they're
reporting.
B
It
is,
and
so
what
we're
doing
is
we're
showing
that
the
gpi
again
when
you
look
at
this,
when
you
look
at
2017
and
2018,
there's
no
vacancy
loss
reported
2018.
We
showed
that
there's
2960
square
feet
reported
as
vacant,
but
they
don't
report
any
vacancy
loss.
2019
the
same
2960
square
feet
of
space
is
vacant.
They
don't
report
vacancy
laws.
I
believe
lori
had
this
case
last
year
or
she
got
some
information
from
the
ind.
B
They
essentially
report
the
egi
as
the
gross
potential
income.
So
for
2019
they
reported
the
gross
potential.
Income
is
1.9
million
and
some
change,
which
is
also
what
the
egi
is.
As
you
stated,
our
2021
assessment,
the
egi
is
about
200
000
less
than
what
they
reported
in
2019.
Actually
so
we
were
much
lower
in
2021's
projection
when
we
only
had
the
2017,
18
and
19
information.
I
J
I
We're
report,
first
of
all,
we're
using
what
the
average
rental
rate
should
be:
okay
and
then
we're
using
our
stabilized
vacancy
rate,
which
we
apply
to
all
properties
of
this
nature
and
keep
in
mind.
I
did
not
discount
the
rent,
because
there
were,
there
were
no
tenants
where
they
had
rent
abated
right.
B
No,
it's
four
percent
for
resale
strips.
This
is
the
location
on
clarendon
that
has
the
t-mobile
and
everything.
This
is
not
the
area
where
the
barnes
and
noble
is
in.
B
I
Sure,
once
again,
we
felt
that
our
in
column
d,
our
egi,
was
much
lower
than
what
they
were
reporting
for
their
year
2020.
But
then
I
looked
down
at
our
expenses
and
noted
that
they
were
substantially
low
so
column.
The
purpose
of
column
f
was
to
look
at
what
is
the
average
rental
rate
that
was
reported.
I
There
are
no
abatements
and
we
used
our
stabilized
vacancy,
and
I,
if
you
note,
I
did
increase
the
expenses
to
to
something
that's
more
than
the
2020
and
it
still
showed
a
higher
value
than
the
original
assessment.
So
we're
asking
that
you
confirm
the
original
assessment
column
d
of
20
million
700
331
900..
Thank
you.
A
H
Great
yeah,
thank
you.
I
know.
I
appreciate
that
lauren
irving,
that's
it!
We
don't
disagree
with
most
of
what
you're
saying
actually,
and
that
was
what
what
I
said
actually
in
the
initial
statement
that
we
are
fine
advocating
for
the
higher
rental
rate.
We
are
fine
using
the
actual
income.
H
We
do
think
there
should
be
a
slight
upward
adjustment,
at
least
to
the
vacancy
and
collection
loss,
because,
as
you
mentioned,
if
we
are
using
the
income
as
of
the
data
value
which
is
6566,
then
we
should
also
consider
the
fact
that
this
was
14
vacant
at
the
time.
But
ultimately,
as
you
mentioned
just
now,
lori
the
noi
egi
can
be
whatever
wants
the
noi
figure.
That
is
a
fact,
and
that
is
below
what
the
dra
has
projected
here.
H
The
noi
figure
is
1.45
million
before
any
bad
debt,
expense
which
they
did
have
real
bad
expense,
but
we
have
just
our
whole
analysis
is
based
on
making
the
the
two
numbers
congruent
the
the
year
end
2020
and
which
is
closer
to
what
you'd
actually
see
in
reality
now
versus
what
the
dra
has
so
yeah.
I
think
there
should
be
a
more
of
an
upwards
adjustment
to
the
expenses
to
at
least
17
or
18
percent.
K
Thank
you
yeah
I'd
kind
of
like
to
take
some
numbers
from
d
and
mix
them
in
with
some
numbers
from
f
and
come
up
with
something
that
that
maybe
is
more
reflective
of
reality.
But
I
think
that's
disingenuous
f
is
probably
a
better
guide
and
you
know
the
department
policy
is
to
not
go.
J
J
That's
not
a
bad
number
and
I
think
it
does
balance
out
and
it
probably
reflects
more
of
what
the
market
value
is
without
the
adjustment
of
expenses.
K
Yeah
just
to
add
first,
I
agree
with
mark
I'm
glad
I
thought
of
it
and
didn't
add
that
about
the
noise
and
second,
of
course,
a
much
lower
rent
rate
in
column
d
could
reasonably
offset
the
low
the
perhaps
too
low
operating
expenses
in
column
d
as
well.
So
there's
a
washer.
L
Yes,
thank
you
yeah.
The
first
thing
that
I
thought
is
you
know
doing
in
the
reconstruction
that
maybe
the
expenses
were
a
bit
low,
but
you
know
even
at
20
you
know
not
18
19,
even
at
20,
the
value
of
the
assessment
comes
higher
than
the
original
assessment.
So
I'm
okay
with
the
original
right
now.
J
I'll
make
a
motion
to
accept
the
20
million
731
900
nd.
L
A
A
Okay,
I'm
sorry
unanimous,
then
seven
to
zero.
The
county
is
confirmed
at
twenty
million.
Seven
thirty
one.
Nine
hundred!
Thank
you
all
right!
Do
we
have
mr
peralta
and
mr
tucci.
F
E
I'm
here
sorry,
I
didn't
mean
to
interrupt,
but
do
I
have
one
more?
I
believe
I
have
one
more
case.
You.
A
Do,
unfortunately,
the
agenda
was
changed
and
actually
mr
chucci
should
have
gone
first
and
so
we're
gonna.
Do
him
and
then
we'll
come
back
and
you
do
have
one
more.
A
G
Sure,
michael
tucci,
on
behalf
of
the
federal
deposit
insurance
corporation,
the
owner
of
this
property
with
me,
is
john
farrell
from
cushman
and
wakefield
as
well.
G
The
src
component
evaluation
component
of
the
assessment
is
set
by
a
settlement
agreement
that
was
entered
into
about
eight
years
ago
in
settlement
of
litigation
with
arlington
county,
so
that
it's
a
formula
and
we
don't
have
any
issue
with
the
way
that
the
county
has
applied
the
formula
in
its
reduced
assessment.
So
I
will
only
talk
about
the
office
component.
Now
the
700
000
square
feet
of
of
office
space,
it's
there.
G
I
will
note
that
the
assessment,
despite
the
pandemic,
did
not
make
any
material
changes
to
the
rent
or
the
cap
rate
that
applied
the
year
before,
which
is
kind
of,
in
our
view,
a
bit
of
a
fantasy.
But
I'm
going
to
focus
on
three
specific
areas
of
the
assessment
that
we
think
are
demonstrably
wrong
and
need
to
be
corrected
at
this
level.
The
first
thing
is
the
the
property.
Although
it's
office
building,
it
does
have
two
retail
spaces
that
front
on
fairfax
drive.
One
is
a
711.
G
G
G
So
while
the
county
does
include
this
in
its
retail
space
and
applies
a
value
to
it,
the
value
is,
is
really
zero
and
when
you
subtract
out
the
cosy
rent,
which
was
152
910
from
the
retail
portion
of
the
assessment,
you're
left
with
the
rent,
just
for
the
7-eleven,
which
is
94
380
and
that's
the
number
that
should
be
used
with
respect
to
the
retail,
because
there
is
no
foreseeable
demand
for
this
cozy
space.
G
The
second
area
that
we
disagree
with
with
the
county
is
with
the
vacancy
and
collection
loss
the
county
uses.
You
know
the
obviously
income
approach,
but
this
is
owner-occupied
property
and
it
implies
a
market
rental
rate
which,
as
I
said
earlier,
is
number
one
it's
too
high,
but
in
this
in
in
trying
to
construct
a
market
here
it
then
for
the
vacancy
and
collection
loss
it
uses
some.
It
uses
a
non-market
vacancy
and
collection
loss.
You
can't
sort
of
have
it
both
ways.
G
In
our
view,
you
can't
try
to
imply
a
market
rent
and
not
imply
a
market
vacancy
and
collection
loss,
and
we
provided
the
county
with
data
that
shows
that
data
that
was
compiled
by
cushman
and
wakefield.
That
shows
in
the
fourth
quarter
of
2020,
the
vacancy
in
the
clarendon
courthouse
corridor
was
19.8
percent.
G
That's
a
far
cry
from
the
5
percent
that
the
county
allows
in
our
calculations,
we've
been
somewhat
conservative
and
used
15,
and
that
is
like
I
said
it's
it's
conservative,
but
that
is
an
adjustment
that
needs
to
be
made
to
the
county
in
order
for
their
methodology
to
to
to
ring
true,
if
we're
going
to
use
market
rents,
we
got
to
use
market
vacancy
and
collection.
G
The
third
area-
and
this
is
from
the
ines
that
were
filed
by
the
fdic
there's-
been
deferred
maintenance,
capex
on
the
property
of
three
million
nine
hundred
fifty
one
thousand
and
two
hundred
and
sixteen
dollars
in
the
prior
year,
which
needs
to
be
a
bottom
line.
Reduction
from
the
assessment.
G
Taking
those
adjustments,
mr
farrell
has
calculated
using
everything
else
that
the
county
has
used
using
the
county's
rent
rate
using
the
county's
cap
rate,
which
are
inaccurate.
I
think
we
could
all
say
and
using
the
county's
expense
rate.
Those
three
adjustments
result
in
a
reduction
of
about
36
million
dollars
to
this
assessment.
Mr
farrell.
E
G
M
Yes,
the
can
everyone
hear
me.
The
the
exact
number
would
be
158
570
163,
based
on
the
three
modifications
that
michael
just
mentioned,.
G
And
at
a
minimum
we
believe
that
that
is
the
correct
assessment
for
the
office
portion.
Again,
as
I
stated
earlier,
we
accept
the
county's
number
on
the
src,
which
I
don't
have
in
front
of
me,
but
I'm
sure
mr
peralta
will
say
what
it
is.
So
those.
F
Yes,
good
morning
board
good,
no
sorry,
good
morning,
mr
tsuchi,
mr
pharaoh,
this
property
just
like
to
start
off.
I
didn't
receive
any
supporting
documents
for
this
property
with
respect
to
the
office
portion.
F
The
information
mr
tucci
presented
today
did
present
his
case
and
and
went
over
the
figures
that
he
believes
should
be
for
the
office
portion.
I
did
receive
an
email
after
the
packet
was
completed,
and
that
was
dated
october
7th
of
this
year,
and
so
with
that,
I'm
just
going
to
go
over
the
three
points
that
he
pointed
out
with
respect
to
rent.
F
We
are
using
actual
rents
that
they
provided
in
the
2020
ine.
If
you
look
in
columns
e
and
e1,
those
rents
were
were
used.
F
When
I
did
the
test,
as
you
see,
compared
to
the
original
assessment
in
column
d,
our
retail
figure
that
mr
appointed
mr
tucci
pointed
out
is
actually
the
the
retail
figure
that
we
used
in
the
original
assessment
that
is
line
two
or
row
two,
that
figure
compared
to
what
they
reported
slower
than
their
2020
figure
and
then
so,
when
we
did
the
test,
we
just
used
our
original
21
figure.
For
that
test
and
that's
lower
than
what
they
reported
there,
I'm
not
sure
exactly.
F
F
Now
with
that
cosi
vacancy
in
bankruptcy,
we
did
use
a
five
percent
vacancy
that
when
you
include
the
cosi
retail
space,
which
is
3158
square
feet.
That's
still.
You
know
under
that
five
percent
threshold
that
we
use
when
valuing
this
property,
as
well
as
other
properties
in
the
county,
with
deferred,
with
respect
to
deferred
maintenance
that
mr
tucci
mentioned
that
was
not
considered.
F
We
didn't
have
that
information
to
to
make
that.
I
guess
take
that
into
consideration
again.
This
is
the
first
I've
heard
about
it.
F
The
letter
did
have
a
much
larger
figure
than
what
mr
tucci
mentioned
today,
but
again
we
only
concentrated
on
what
was
pointed
out
and
had
the
supporting
documents,
and
so
we
reduced
the
lodging
portion
using
the
calculation
that
was
agreed
upon
in
the
courts
and
if
you
turn
to
the
lodging
portion
page
of
the
packet
you'll
see
that
we
used
a
the
highest
room
rate
that
was
indicated
there
and
it
yielded
a
a
value
much
less
than
what
we've
used
in
the
original
assessment.
F
So
we
made
that
adjustment
and
you'll
see
that
figure
that
total
figure
there
in
column
f1
at
the
bottom.
With
that
irving
did
you
have
any
anything
else
to
add.
B
I
just
want
to
reiterate,
like
you
said,
once
you
take
cosy
vacancy
into
consideration,
it's
less
than
0.01
vacancy
for
this
building,
we're
using
5
for
this
project,
the
property
in
our
records
and
the
way
we
valued.
It
is
based
off
of
original
condition.
B
We
haven't
taken
into
consideration
any
capital
improvements
or
any
of
the
deferred
maintenance
that
they're
reporting
that
and
how
it
impacts
the
value
or
the
longevity
of
this
building.
So
therefore,
we
feel
like
the
cap
rate
we
applied,
is
appropriate
because
again
we're
applying
it
to
a
property
that
we
consider
to
be
built
in
1990
or
around
about
that
time.
I
think
other
than
that
I
mean
that's
all
we
have
we
here
for
questions.
K
A
J
To
the
county,
if,
if
you
had
been
provided
the
information
concerning
the
deferred
maintenance,
how
would
you
have
considered
it?
It's
three
million
dollars
of.
B
Usually,
when
we
hear
about
capital
improvements
or
deferred
maintenance,
I
mean
we
always
ask
you
know
what
is
the
work
that
was
done,
we'd
like
to
get
a
detail
accounting
for
it,
so
we
can
consider
how
that
affects
again.
The
longevity
of
the
building
and
possibly
effective
age
increases
with
that
information.
J
Is
that
something
that
the
fact
that
is
not
figured
into
this
year?
Is
it
something
you
would
they
would
be
able
to
rectify
and
include
in
going
into
next
year?.
B
J
F
J
N
Yeah
for
the
county,
I
didn't
see
any
parking
income
in
the
potential,
but
it
looks
like
there's
1249
parking
spaces.
Is
that
correct.
F
We
go
off
what
they
report.
We've
been
using
actuals
with
other
office
properties,
so
we
didn't
include
that
in
are
you
referring
to
the
other
line?
Item
five,
I
believe
row
five.
N
F
Well,
the
the
the
property
is
owner
occupied,
I'm
not
sure
if
they
charge
parking
or
not.
That
would
be
a
question
for
the
appellant.
B
N
B
Also,
we
go
off
of
actual
income
reported,
I
mean
oftentimes
property
owners
will
lease
out
their
parking
space
with
a
parking
garage
to
a
private
company
and
there's
some
revenue
shared
there.
So
we've
gone
off
of
what's
actually
reported
again.
We
do
that
on
all
office
properties
because
that's
what's
reported
to
us
is
actually
not
gross
potential.
N
Okay,
I
had
a
couple
other
questions
if
I
could
just
run
through.
M
N
G
Think
there's
some
minor
income.
It
would
be
reported
in
the
ines.
N
Okay
and
then
you
know,
this
is
kind
of-
I
heard
it
through
the
grapevine.
I
don't
know
if
there
was
a
county
inspection
in
the
facility,
but
I
I've
heard
that
there's
a
kind
of
a
large
cafeteria
commercial
kitchen
component
to
this
property
is
that
true.
G
N
A
And
then
just
a
follow-up
on
mr
hoffman,
mr
chucci,
can
you
speak
to
the
question
of
the
parking
income.
G
There
there
is
no
parking
income,
because
the
parking
garage
is
for
the
exclusive
use
of
the
fdic
employees.
The
space
is
also
a
little
bit
odd
in
that
you,
if
you're
familiar
with
the
property,
there's
a
giant
food,
that's
like
right
behind
it
and
the
parking
garage
actually
extends
and
fdic
owns
the
ground.
Where
the
giant
food
is
it's
a
separately
taxed
parcel.
The
parking
garage
actually
extends
underneath
the
giant
food.
So
part
of
those
1200
spaces
are
not
even
part
of
this
parcel
they'd
be
with
the
giant
parcel.
K
I
did
for
the
appellant
what
I
read,
and
he
and
then
subsequently
heard
is
that
there
was
outreach
made
to
you
to
your
client
in
march
for
additional
information
and
that
information
arrived.
As
I
recall,
rob
said,
october
5th
or.
K
G
G
No,
it
was
actually
the
vacancy
analysis
for
the
courthouse
clarendon
court.
K
Okay,
fair
enough
fair
enough
yeah,
which
is
public
information
and
they
have
that
stuff.
But
on
your
your
points
of
contention,
was
there
an
interchange
between
the
two
of
you
between
when
you
applied
for
analysis
and
two
weeks
ago,
or
so.
K
F
I
I
didn't
receive
any
with
respect
to
what
mr
tucci
is
saying.
I
did
have
the
ines
that
were
supported.
I
spoke
to
or
emailed
christine
mc
milliken
back
and
forth
about
supporting
information
that
was
march
march.
25Th
worksheets
were
mailed
out
because
mr
tucci
had
mentioned
he
didn't
have
the
worksheets
to,
I
guess,
provide
supporting
information
with
respect
to
his
his
packet
on
march
25th.
I
got
an
email
from
mr
tucci
saying
that
no
meeting
was
necessary
with
respect
to
this
case
and
then
october
7th.
F
I
received
an
email
showing
a
breakdown
of
the
office
portion
that
I
I
did
input
into
my
spreadsheet
after
the
fact
for
the
purposes
of
this
boe
hearing-
and
I
can
share
that
with
the
board
if,
if
the
board
pleases
but
other
than
that,
I
didn't
receive
any
email
transmission.
F
G
G
G
A
G
I'm
happy
to
discuss.
You
know.
I
didn't
know
that
it
was
necessary.
I
thought
that
our
points
were
pretty
pretty
pretty
straightforward.
G
I
can
see
from
the
county
standpoint
if
they
didn't
get
this
for
some
unknown
reason
I
mean.
Maybe
there
was
an
email
gremlin
why
they
think
that
they
weren't
provided
the
information
and
just
went
forward,
but
that's
just
not
the
case.
I
have
the
email
showing
that
the
information
was
provided.
We
thought
that
was
what.
A
A
Okay,
so
assuming
that
it
was
sent-
and
they
didn't
receive
it
if
this
was
in
april-
and
here
we
are
in
october-
was
there
no
question
in
your
mind
that
possibly
we
should
reach
out
and
see
whether
an
agreement
was
made?
Did
the
information
make
sense?
Is
there
any
kind
of
reduction.
G
I
would
have
thought
the
county
would
have
been
asking.
We
were
to
be
honest
with
you
from
the
april
time
frame
until
october,
we
didn't
get
any
communication
from
the
county
other
than
the
reduction
based
on
the
formula
that
was
in
the
for
the
src.
That
was
it.
That
was
all
that's
our
entire
communication.
A
G
This
hasn't
been
an
unusual
course
of
conduct
between
the
fdic
and
the
county
over
the
last
four
or
five
years.
To
be
honest
with
you,.
A
F
Yeah
in
september
3rd
we
reached
out
so
we
exercise
our
due
diligence
to
just
follow
up
and
just
make
sure
I
did
put
this
on
the
back
burner
just
to
just
give
them
time-
and
you
know
actually
go
through
the
case
thoroughly
with
respect
to
the
settlement
agreement
to
make
sure
there
was
no
other
clauses
in
there
with
respect
to
office,
but
did
follow
exactly
to
the
t
with
respect
to
the
lodging
portion
again,
the
three
points
that
mr
tucci
presented
today.
F
I've
explained-
and
I've
mentioned
exactly
how
the
county
treats
the
100
percent
occupied
owner-occupied
space.
We
do
use
a
five
percent
vacancy
and
that
more
than
includes
the
cosy
bankruptcy,
the
bankruptcy
and
vacancy
again.
F
Our
bottom
line
is
that
we
looked
at
the
lodging
portion
only
we
kind
of
inferred
what
the
office
noi
income
would
have
been
based
on
the
figures
that
he
included
in
his
packet
and
in
his
packet.
We
didn't
have
any
information
that
was
included
in
there.
We
did
have
the
applicant
the
application
itself,
which
I
include
in
the
boe
memo
verbatim
as
to
what
mr
tucci's
points
of
contention
were,
and
we've
addressed
that
in
the
case
today.
Thank
you.
G
Sure
you
know,
I
think
I've
said
what
what
needed
to
be
said
here
today.
You
know
I
I
wish
I
had
known
that
mr
peralta
didn't
have
the
information,
and
you
know
I'll,
follow
up
more
diligently
in
the
in
the
future,
but
we
assumed
that
the
county
had
everything
that
it
needed.
G
If
you're
going
to
imply
a
market,
rent
you've
got
to
imply
a
market
vacancy
collection,
collection,
loss
component
and,
as
far
as
the
cosy
space
is
concerned,
you'll
note
that
the
retail
is
called
out
separately
with
a
a
dollar
amount
and
that
dollar
amount
is
just
not
it's
not
accurate.
This
great
property,
the
cozy
property,
has
been
vacant
since
january
2020
and
it
is
remains
vacant.
A
N
Yeah
I
mean
there's,
there's
some
validity
to
a
a
factor
on
the
on
the
vacancy,
whether
you
call
it
vacancy
or
inefficiency,
but
anytime
you
gotta,
build
a
suit
or
a
single
tenant.
Large
campus,
I
mean
none
of
that
stuff
is
as
efficient
to
the
market
as
it
is
to
that
that
original
user.
So
you
know,
we've
had
situations
where
headquarters
campuses
go
for
much
less
on
the
market
when
when
they
are
put
on
sale
because
they're,
just
not
as
efficient,
not
set
up
as
a
multi-tenant.
N
J
N
Yeah,
it
makes
it
difficult
to
sell
it,
but
it's
you
know,
but
it's
still
value.
It's
cost
too.
If
you're
looking
at
it
from
a
cost
side,
it's
probably
in
excess
of
what
the
assessment
is.
A
Okay,
you
know
I'll
just
say
I
mean
I,
I
I'm
struggling
with
the
whole
crossing
of
information
or
lacking
of
crossing
of
information.
As
the
appellant
is
aware.
This
certainly
has
been
to
court
several
times
and
the
burden
of
proof
is
on
the
appellant.
I
mean
if
the
information
was
sent
now
it
I
believe
mr
tucci's
testimony
was
it
was
sent
to
mr
peralta
and
also
mr
bailey.
So
that's
saying
the
two
people
didn't
get
it
I
you
know,
I
don't
know
what
happened
and
you
know
he
referenced
the
email
gremlins.
A
I
don't
know
where
the
information
is,
but
the
burden
of
proof
is
on
the
appellate.
I
think
to
wait
seven
months
and
not
question
whether
the
information
got
there
or
not.
I
I
question,
you
know
the
fiduciary
relationship
there
and
certainly
whose
interests
were
not
looked
at,
but
you
know
I
think
it's
difficult.
A
If
they
don't
have
the
information
you
know
to
consider
the
information
and
to
get
it
at
this
last
minute.
I
you
know
I'm
struggling
with
this.
I
think
both
mr
yates
and
mr
often
have
brought
up
other
points.
You
know
of
other
potential
sources
of
income
that
could
even
make
it
higher.
So
you
know
again
I
just
kind
of
defer
back
to
the
county
and
I'm
fine
with
the
assessment.
A
A
C
Yeah,
I
guess
I'm
gonna,
be
I
voted
here.
I
I
you
know.
I
live
right
here
and
walk
past
here,
pretty
much
every
day
and
I'm
familiar
with
the
tenant
that
went
bankrupt
and
I
think
it's
going
to
be
very
difficult
to
rent
that
space.
C
The
five
percent
that
the
county
applies
to
me
is
applicable
to
the
office
and
when
you
have
office
of
this
magnitude,
there's
going
to
be
a
great
difficulty,
shifting
tenant
space
all
around
and
try
to
keep
it
at
100
percent
occupancy.
C
In
a
prior
career,
I
used
to
move
departments
around
the
first
virginia
bank
headquarters,
and
that
was
always
a
shuffling
exercise
and
we
always
had
areas
that
well,
we
would
just
use
for
storage
because
you
know
eventually
we
would
put
someone
in
there.
I
think
the
point
is
that
an
owner
occupied
is
is
difficult,
so
I
myself
would
reduce
it
by
the
amount
of
the
the
loss
of
the
tenant
and
the
revised
is
199.
C
I
would
be
at
five
197
six,
eight
hundred,
but
I
don't
think
I'm
gonna
get
support
with
that.
K
Yeah,
I
feel
compelled
to
to
respond
to
that
because
it
was
adjust
us,
I
mean
you're,
always
doing
good
calculations.
I
always
appreciate
it,
but
remember
this
is
31
or
200
square
feet
out
of
200
and
something
thousand
square
feet
owner
occupied
I
mean
nobody's
there,
I'm
sure
there
wasn't
a
lot
of
classes
being
held.
This
is
a
screwy
time
for
fdic,
just
like
everybody
else,
but
they
own
it.
It's
their
choice
to
not
assemble.
K
It's,
not
the
marketplace
telling
them
it's
rather
good
common
sense
that
they
didn't
gather
in
the
bulk
of
the
the
residents,
the
office
space,
the
cafeteria
and
cosy's
just
an
add-on.
I
might
add,
I
mean
it's
a
corner
retail
space
right
across
from
a
metro.
We
can
get
this
pandemic
calm
down
a
lot.
I
think
it
would
be
a
rentable
space.
It's
not
too
big.
The
eight
ten
thousand
twelve
thousand
square
foot
restaurants
in
in
my
experience
are
very,
very
tough,
sells,
but
not
something
this
this
economical.
K
I
and
I
hope
they.
I
live
not
far
away,
and
I
hope
that
they
do
rent
it
out
soon
as
soon
as
things
come
down.
But
it's
it's
not
a
material
problem
for
this
large
building
and
now
for
multi-family
retail.
Of
course
we
separate
out,
but
we
don't
in
this
case,
so
I'm
on
the
county
side
in
this
regard,.
J
You
know
just
to
get
it
off
the
table.
The
only
other
thing
that
crossed
my
mind
is
is
the
lodging
it's
it's
not
public
and
it
would
face
if
it
were,
it
would
face
the
same
considerations
that
other
hotels
have
and
their
discounting
of
by
the
county,
but
this
is
not
public.
L
Yeah
I
mean
we've,
we've
seen
this
building
for
many
years
and
you
know
years
ago
mark
this
was
actually
the
way
that
the
lodging
part
was
assessed,
and
I
think
that
was
part
of
the
settlement
that
they
had
that
they,
you
know,
came
to
the
agreement
that
it
was
going
to
be
treated
as
a
lodging
instead
of
as
a
hotel.
L
But
you
know,
I
think
the
reporting
is
not
the
first
year
that
it's
been
not
handled,
I
guess
properly
because
you
know
years
ago.
Actually
I
was
part
of
a
motion
to
increase
the
value
in
this
building
because-
and
I
guess
that
prompted
some
litigation
and
stuff
like
that.
But
you
know
I'm
okay,
with
the
revised
assessment
that
the
county
has
based
on
the
information
that
they
had
at
the
time-
and
I
don't
really
see
like
mark
says
you
know
where
any
change
could
be
made
at
this
time.
C
Yes,
ma'am,
the
only
thing
I
wanted
to
say
is:
I
don't
necessarily
fault
either
party
on
the
lack
of
communication.
I'm
a
lawyer.
I
do
this
stuff
and
I
just
for
myself
want
to
say
that
my
practice
is
very
similar
and-
and
you
know
you
just
assume-
an
email
has
has
gone
through.
C
I've
had
to
scold
some
of
my
employees
on
occasion
you
know
every
now
and
then
you
just
got
to
pick
up
the
dang
phone.
You
know,
did
you
get
it,
but
I
don't
necessarily
fault
either
side
and
I
don't
think
based
on
the
circumstances
and
the
past
history.
This
is
necessarily
a
situation
where
they
felt
there's.
You
know
it's
not
like
the
first
time,
so
I
don't
necessarily
think
they
either
side
felt
like
they
had
to
discuss
it.
That's
all
I
wanted
to
say.
A
Okay,
I
don't
want
to
belabor
the
point,
but
I
think
if
information
was
sent
back
in
april
to
reduce
this,
you
know
significantly
and
especially
based
on
the
dynamics
of
this
case
over
the
past
years,
with
the
burden
of
proof
on
the
appellant.
I
don't
think
it's
unrealistic
to
ask
the
appellant
to
call
to
find
out.
You
know,
what's
the
status
of
this,
it's
you
know
we're
talking
six
seven
months
later
and
then
it
gets
put
in
an
agenda
and
then
says:
oh
wait.
A
A
G
A
A
I
apologize,
but
I've
had
a
request
from
one
of
the
board
members
to
take
a
five-minute
break,
so
we'll
be
back
in
five
minutes
to
pick
up
your
case.
It's
1001
so
about
1006.
If
everybody
can
be
back,
that
would
be
great
and
then,
if
you
shut
off
your
camera
and
your
microphones
in
the
interim,
please
thank
you.
A
A
A
E
Sorry
about
that,
thank
you.
The
subject.
Property
is
lion
village
shopping
center.
It
is
a
48,
499
square
foot
center,
obviously
lion
village,
not
a
metro
area,
but
off
of
lee
highway.
E
My
appeal
materials
start
on
page
69
of
the
boe
memo,
so
I'll
just
give
everyone
a
quick
chance
to
flip
there,
and
then
I
will
begin
current
assessment.
34
million
198
600
our
estimated
value,
26
million,
110
800.,
so
just
sort
of
in
general.
This
is
not
a
property
owner
that
appeals
their
property
very
often.
The
reason
that
they
appealed
it
this
year
is
that
you
know
of
their
of
the
nine
tenants
that
they
have
at
this
property.
E
Three
of
them
were
having
such
extreme
issues
with
payment
that
you
know
the
owner
is
pretty
sure
they
would
be
leaving.
One
of
them,
you
know,
had
actually
exercised
a
termination
option,
which
was
the
we
are
wireless
verizon
carrier
store
two
others.
You
know
their
spaces
are
essentially
listed.
You
know
if
they
were
able
to
get
tenants
to
replace
them
because
they
hadn't
been
paying
rent.
So
that's
the
reason
that
this
owner
is
appealing
this
year.
E
They
thought
you
know
by
giving
this
sort
of
information
to
the
county
through
the
mid-year
ine
that
was
actually
requested
of
them,
the
coveting.
They
really
thought
the
assessment
would
have
been
reduced
more
than
just
by
one
percent.
The
assessment
is
only
one
percent
lower
than
it
was
last
year.
You
know
for
with
a
non-covet
assessment,
with
none.
E
Issues
you
know
existing
at
the
property,
so
really
the
only
thing
they
saw
that
changed
was
a
30
basis.
Point
increase
to
the
cap
rate.
Everything
else
looked
very,
you
know
almost
identical
to
prior
years.
If
the
the
pleases,
the
board,
please
flip,
to
page
75
of
143.
E
E
E
Three
of
the
nine
tenants
had
issues
that
was
big
wheel,
bikes,
they're,
422
square
feet,
they're
already
months
a
month,
so
they're
you
know
they
don't
it's
not
even
like
they
have
a
lease
in
place
through
2021.
Their
lease
had
actually
expired
in
2019
and
that
tenant
was
just
under
forty
thousand
dollars
behind
in
rental
payments,
which
is
not
expected
to
be
recovered.
E
They
expect
to
release
that
space.
The
owner
expects
to
release
that
space
for
35
dollars
per
square
foot,
the
pre,
the
prior
rent
for
that
space
45,
so
obviously
there's
a
big
reduction
there.
The
second
space,
hi-hat
cleaners,
1986
square
feet
also
already
month
to
month
this
tenant.
Also,
this
tenant
was
behind
by
almost
seventy
five
thousand
dollars
did
to
leave
as
well
that
space
is
expected
to
be
released
for
forty
dollars
per
square
foot
and
high
hat
cleaners
was
paying
64.
E
E
So
if,
if
the
board
wants
to
flip
to
page
76,
I've
outlined
what
the
rent
roll
you
know
looked
like
with
all
of
those
tenants
in
place
at
the
top,
and
then
I've
also
outlined
a
new
rent
roll
a
perspective,
rent
roll
as
of
12
31.
Twenty,
you
know
with
those
three
vacant,
those
three
spaces
as
to
be
vacant,
and
you
know
the
the
correct
potential
gross
income
or
potential
rents
applied
to
those
spaces
which
are
considerably
less
than
what
the
owner
had
been
getting
from
the
prior
tenants.
E
A
Mr
steinhacker,
your
microphone
just
has
gone
off.
E
E
Okay,
perfect
the
county's
using
three
percent
vacancy
and
collection
loss.
I
mean
we
know.
E
We
know
that
just
one
tenant
had
exercised
an
early
termination
option
right
there.
Four
percent
of
the
building
and
two
tenants
were
months
to
month
expected
to
leave
and
that's
another
12
of
the
building.
So
how
can
a
three
percent
vacancy
and
collection
loss
capture?
You
know
the
actual
operations
at
this
building
if
it
was
100
occupied
as
it
had
been
in
the
past
again,
you
would
just
have
no
argument
here
from
the
owner.
E
However,
that's
not
the
go
forward
outlook
here,
based
on
everything
that
happened
in
2020,
we're
using
15,
which
may
seem
high,
but
it's
really
it's
more
reflective
of
the
actual
market
vacancy
and
the
considerable
amount
of
collection
loss
at
this
property.
There
was
over
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
collection
loss
at
this
property
alone
in
2020.
E
So
that's
the
second
big
issue.
The
third
issue
is
cap
rate.
We
didn't
feel
like
a
30
basis.
Point
increase
was
really
enough
by
the
county,
and
we've
used
a
seven
percent
base
rate,
which
is
about
85
basis
points
higher
than
what
the
county
is
using
again.
That's
supported
by
cap
rates,
cap
rate
studies
that
we've
attached
in
this
appeal
package,
so
three
main
issues,
rent
vacancy
and
collection
loss
and
cap
rate.
E
E
All
of
these
shopping
centers
are
are
also
anchored
by
giant,
I
believe-
and
so
it's
similar
to
the
one
that
we
have
and
also
similar
vintage
old
old
shopping
centers.
The
average
is
about
350
or
yeah
about
350
dollars
per
square
foot
on
the
assessments
with
a
range
you
know
of
200
to
460.,
and
our
assessment
at
our
property
is
705
dollars
per
square
foot.
E
The
rest
of
the
appeal
package
is
mostly
just
support.
You
know
we
have
the
cap
rate
surveys
as
discussed.
We
have
the
income
and
expense,
so
I'm
not
gonna
go
dig
into
those,
but
I
will
just
point
out
I
copy
and
pasted.
E
A
Okay,
thank
you,
miss
roskin,
for
the
county.
Please.
I
This
okay,
looking
at
the
original
assessment,
when,
when
I
started
putting
this
summary
page
together,
I
thought
well,
maybe
it's
hi,
I
don't
know,
let's
make
sure
we
test
this
out,
so
I
went
through
the
income
and
expense
statement
and
I
noted
a
number
of
abatements.
I
I
That
will
show
you
the
average
rental
rate
that
I
developed
from
the
tenants.
It
also
shows
you
the
total
covet
abatement
to
the
base
rents,
so
taking
that
average
rental
rate
we
applied
that
in
column
f
and
using
our
stabilized
vacancy
of
three
percent
note
that
the
egi
is
less
than
what
they
reported
for
2020..
I
So
then
we
looked
at
the
expenses
and
we
thought.
Okay,
the
the
expenses
that
we
used
in
the
original
original
assessment
is
really
not
realistic.
We
took
a
look
at
what
was
happening
for
the
year
2019
and
2020..
I
I
When
you
take
a
look
at
our
egi
and
you
look
at
also
the
noi,
our
noi
is
still
substantially
less
than
what
is
being
reported
for
2020.,
I'm
open
for
oh,
and
I
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
also
that
the
abatements
came
to
a
discount
of
three
dollars
and
thirty
cents,
which
was
applied
to
the
average
rental
rate
which
was
tested
in
column.
F,
I'm
open
for
questions.
Thank
you.
I
B
Just
one
thing
right,
quick:
it
was
stated
that
we
received
a
covet.
I
need
from
this
tenant.
I
just
went
through
our
database.
We
did
not
receive
a
kova
19
ine
from
this
tenant.
We
received
the
2019
ind
and
the
2020.
I
need,
but
not
the
code,
that
I
need
that
we
requested
mid-year
last
year.
We
have
no
copy
of
that
in
our
system
at
all.
E
Yeah
thanks
a
couple
things.
So
when
we're
talking
about
office,
we
have
a
vacancy
scale
that
ranges
all
the
way
to
25.
We
we
talk
about
six
percent
for
concessions
off
of
you
know.
Whatever
listed
rents,
are
we
talk
about
tis?
We
talk
about
leasing,
commissions
and
for
some
reason,
for
retail.
E
E
The
assessor
is
still
using
the
rents
from
those
prior
tenants
in
their
calculation
of
pgi
for
the
building,
which
I've
already
said,
they're
expecting
to
get
rents,
30
percent
lower
than
those
values
not
to
mention
they're
gonna,
have
to
give
a
bunch
of
free
rent,
not
to
mention
that
they're
going
to
have
to
give
a
ti
package
because
these
spaces,
most
of
them,
you
know
they've,
had
the
tenants
have
been
there
for
you
know
15
20
years,
and
so
these
aren't.
E
These
are
the
types
of
costs
that
aren't
really
being
taken
into
consideration
whatsoever
and
on
top
of
all
that,
they're
only
using
a
three
percent
vacancy
in
collection
loss.
You
know
this
owner
is
staring
at
upwards
of
15
percent
vacancy
at
this
building
as
of
1
121,
and
they
don't
feel
like
that's
being
taken
into
consideration
whatsoever
by
the
county.
So
they
really
hope
that
the
board
will,
you
know
we'll,
take
a
close
look
at
this
and
you
know
any
relief,
you
know
will
certainly
be
accepted.
L
Oh
yeah
I'll
start.
I
guess
with
a
couple
notes
that
I
know
mr
steinhauser
is
indicating
that
those
three
tenants
that
are
you
know,
maybe
leaving
or
on
a
month
to
month,
may
be
paying
lower
rents
right
now.
But
you
know
I'm
familiar
with
the
shopping
center.
I've
been
dealing
with
some
people.
L
So
I
think
that
you
know
they're
trying
to
keep
up
with
the
rents
that
they
were
getting
before
and
I
understand
you
know
that's
pretty
much
what
a
landlord
would
do,
but
I
think
part
of
the
negotiations,
I
think,
is
what
is
affecting
maybe
some
of
the
vacancy.
L
So
I
I
don't
have
any
problem
with
the
assessment.
I
think
the
county
did
a
good
job
in
it,
based
on
the
information
and
the
rental
average
rates
that
they
have.
So
I'm,
okay
with
it.
J
I'm
sorry
jose:
do
you
think
they
will
get
the
rinse
thereafter
or
more.
L
To
be
honest,
I
think
they're
gonna
have
to
flex
a
little
bit
because
I
I
know,
there's
interest
in
it,
but
you
know
knowing
what
previous
tenants
were
paying
and
what
other
spaces
are
charging.
I
don't
think
they're
going
to
be
getting.
You
know
in
the
60
range
that
they're
trying
to
get.
J
L
Right,
but
I
think
some
of
the,
if
you
look
at
the
rents
that
they're
getting
from
other
tenants,
you
know
I
don't
blame
them
from
trying
to
get
that
amount.
Yeah.
I
think
part
of
the
vacancy,
in
my
opinion,
is
based
on
that.
K
I
wanted
to
address
that
before
now:
it's
better
adjusted
now,
that's
all
prospective.
I
mean
you're
right
landlords
want,
don't
want
the
rents
to
start
swirling
down
the
drain.
It's
reasonable
and
they're,
probably
gonna
have
to
negotiate,
but
that's
all
after
one
one
21.-
and
I
I
I
don't-
I
don't
you
know-
maybe
it'll
come
up
next
year.
K
I
was
looking
more
at
the
at
the
and
I've
done
it
16
times
at
the
operating
expenses
and
thought
that
the
test
was
very
good,
except
that
the
operating
expenses
perhaps
were
too
high,
based
on
the
average
of
2020,
19
and
18.
K
and
and
then
I
came
out
with
a
reduction
of
260,
I'm
rounding
268
000
from
the
noi
reported
in
in
the
test.
Column
f,
but
I
I
I've
gone
back
and
forth.
I
mean
it
just
to
keep
the
trend
up,
but
then,
of
course,
2020
is
all
of
a
sudden
lower
from
17
18
19..
So
I
didn't
know
what
to
make
of
it.
Why
were
they
so
cost
effective
in
2020
relative
to
the
prior
couple
of
years,
but
I'll
just
throw
it
out
there?
K
If
you
want
to
take
an
an
average
of
the
2020
in
the
two
prior
years,
it
would
be
a
reduction
again
in
the
noi
of
268
000.
K
A
Yeah
I
I
guess
I
would
just
say
that
you
know
based
on
the
original
assessment,
I
mean
because
I
think
that
when
you
look
at
what
they
were
using,
I
mean
I
think,
as
mr
meth
can
said.
A
lot
of
this
is
information.
That's
going
to
happen
in
2021,
but
if
you
look
at
where
they
were
both
from
egi
and
noi,
I
mean
it's
certainly
below
what
was
actually
reported
for
2020.
So
I'm,
okay
with
the
original
assessment
on
that.
C
Yes,
ma'am.
I
wanted
to
share
that.
I'm
also
okay
with
the
assessment
and
jose
what
could
be
going
on-
and
I
don't
know
this,
but
it
could
be
that
the
landlord
is
starting
to
aim
towards
redevelopment
and
that
could
be
in
the
cards,
and
that
could
be
a
reason
for
the
increase
in
vacancy,
and
then
you
also
have
some
landlords
that
would
rather
keep
space
empty,
then
lower
their
rents.
I'm
familiar
with
a
couple
that
do
that.
G
K
A
A
Okay,
mr
penaranda,
all
in
favor
aye
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
The
county's
confirmed
at
34
million
198
600.
A
Along
to
the
fifth
and
final
case
on
the
agenda
economic
unit,
two
five
zero
zero,
seven
one,
two,
a
at
nine
eleven
south
scott
street,
mr
chitlik,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
Sir.
O
All
right,
thank
you.
It's
it's
interesting,
though.
One
of
the
days
where
I
go
last
is
a
case
where
I'm
not
gonna
use
all
my
time,
and
you
all
can
hold
me
to
that
chris
and
I
agree
on
just
about
everything
in
this
case,
except
for
one
factor,
the
original
assessment
used
income
of
4.7.
O
We
asked
for
4.56
he's
using
4.56,
so
we're
right
in
the
same
place,
this
property
was
inspected
in
2017.
It
was
valued
as
a
garden,
the
no
real
question
there.
It
was
reduced
by
the
assessor
in
2018.
O
It
was
reduced
by
the
board
in
2019.,
I'm
sorry
it
was
reduced
in
which,
by
the
assessor
in
2018,
then
withdrawn,
it
was
reduced
by
the
board
in
2019,
and
then
it
was
reduced
by
the
assessor
again
in
2020
and
then
again
withdrawn,
and-
and
this
is
all
after
the
2017
inspection
this
year,
the
assessor
said
we
did
an
inspection
in
2017
and
I
now
noticed
the
building's
four
stories
and
I
no
longer
want
to
call
it
a
garden.
O
This
is
now
a
mid-rise
apartment,
and
I
know
we
have
all
been
together
where
we've
talked
about.
Is
that
mid-rise
is
a
garden,
but
there's
been
a
difference
in
all
of
those
cases
and
all
of
those
cases
for
were
for
a
different
client
but
they're
all
for
apartments
with
elevators
in
them
the
elevator
apartment
buildings
and
is
it
a
three-story?
Is
it
a
four-story?
This
is
a
walk-up
garden
style
apartment
building,
there's
no
dispute
there.
O
I
don't
there's,
there's
no
dispute
on
the
walk-up
nature
of
it,
but
and
in
some
of
chris's
pictures,
there's,
there's
eight
different
buildings,
but
there's
16
different
pods
inside
of
those
and
in
some
of
them,
because
it's
on
columbia,
pike
that
goes
up
the
hill.
O
If
you
look
at
my
page,
21
201
is,
is
the
page
in
the
packet,
my
page,
one
you'll
see
a
picture
of
the
front
of
the
building
and
it's
a
split
level.
You
walk
up
some
steps
and
then
you
go
down
to
the
ground
floor
and
your
your
window
is
even
level
to
the
ground,
so
you're
actually
below
ground,
and
then
because
it's
on
a
hill,
you
walk
out
the
back.
Now
the
county's
position
has
become
this
year.
Of
no
four
stories
doesn't
matter.
O
Four
stories
is
mid-rise,
so
what
they're
saying
is
that
a
four-story
mid-rise,
a
four-story
walk-up
without
an
elevator,
has
the
same
cap
rate
and
same
factors
as
an
eight-story
property
with,
however,
many
units
that
has
an
elevator
it's
completely
different
product,
the
the
county's
position
had
always
been
what
garden
is
elevator
non-elevator
four
stories.
Then
it
went
to
three.
This
property
has
always
been
a
garden
style
apartment,
and
anybody
looking
at
the
outside
of
the
property
would
say:
well,
that's
a
garden.
That's
a
walk-up
apartment
building.
O
The
county
has
valued
this
as
a
mid-rise
apartment
now,
but
originally
is
valued
and
has
for
the
last
20
years
as
a
garden
style
apartment
building,
and
now
they
said.
Okay,
we
tested
it
you're
right.
Our
income
was
about
150
000
too
high,
but
our
cap
rate
was
also
50
basis
points
too
high,
because
now
we
think
it's
a
mid-rise
instead
of
a
garden
and
that's
why
their
value
is
actually
higher.
O
So
if
they
use
the
new
income
with
the
original
cap
rate
that
they
used,
the
value
would
be
a
reduction.
So
this
is
not
your
standard
for
stories.
That's
it
put
blinders
on
all
four
stories
of
mid-rise
and
for
the
county
to
say:
well,
we
value
all
four-story
buildings
as
as
mid-rise
you
can
see
that's
incorrect
because
they
valued
this
four-story
building
as
a
garden.
If
I
didn't
appeal
this
building,
they
would
value
it
as
a
garden
and
the
original
assessment.
The
assessment
on
the
rolls
that
I
use
as
a
garden.
O
So
this
is
an
idea
of
the
equalization
by
keeping
it
as
a
garden,
it
would
be
out
of
equalization
to
move
it
over
to
a
mid-rise.
I
you
very
very
rarely
hear
me
argue
cap
rate
and
it's
almost
always
a
capric
classification.
O
So
I'm
going
to
stick
to
that,
but
show
I
believe,
the
6.2
that
they
originally
used,
although
is
still
a
bit
low,
is
the
correct
cap
rate
for
the
classification
of
again
a
walk-up
apartment
building
without
an
elevator
look
at
the
picture
on
page
201.
There's
no
dispute
there
in
my
eyes,
and
there
has
never
been
a
dispute
with
a
county
after
the
2017
invest
inspection
because
in
1819
and
20
they
continue
to
reduce
this
and
continue
to
call
it
a
garden-style
apartment.
O
So
that's
like
I
said,
I'm
not
going
to
use
all
my
time.
So
that's
what
I
have.
D
Good
morning
board
members
come
on
mr
chitlip,
so
not
unusual,
despite
the
nefarious
accusation
that
we're
somehow
switching
here,
mid-year
you've
seen
this
earlier
this
year
with
the
lion
village,
I
believe
we're
fallible.
We
have
four
appraisers,
including
a
supervisor
for
thousands
of
parcels.
This
is
going
to
happen
and,
unfortunately
it
may
happen
again
in
the
future,
if
anything
is
just
embarrassing,
as
opposed
to
again
nefarious
or
somehow
looking
to
change
an
assessment
based
on
this
one
factor.
D
The
facts
are
it's
a
four-story
property
again
this
has
been
echoed
by
co-star,
it's
echoed
by
the
appellant
and
his
own
write-up.
They
call
it
a
four-story
property
there's.
There
is
absolutely
no
differentiating
that
it's
somehow
three-story
or
it's
five-story,
it's
four-story
property.
We
all
agree
on
that
as
we
agree
on
that.
We
know
that
we
use
a
different
cap
rate
for
that.
D
This
has
been
again
something
we've
done
consistently
and
uniformly.
Every
time
we
find
that
error.
If
you
will
in
in
fact
this
isn't
subjective
where
we
can
agree
or
disagree
on
on
what
kind
of
operating
expenses
they
should
be.
Maintaining
it's
it's
a
physical
fact,
there's
there's
four
objective
stories.
D
That
being
said,
if
we
look
at
the
summary
sheets,
as
mr
gently
pointed
out,
we're
actually
low
across
the
board
again.
This
is
something
you've
seen
before.
With
a
lot
of
the
cases
brought
by
the
appellant
we're
low
on
gross
potential
income,
we're
low
on
effective
gross
income,
we
are
low
on
operating
expenses,
but
again
that's
after
a
fifty
fourteen
percent
jump
year
over
year
and
again
that
would
lead
to
a
net
operating
income
projection
of
less
than
half
a
percent
difference
than
what
was
achieved
in
2020.
D
again.
Looking
historically,
we
see
that
this
property
has
done
quite
well.
It's
achieved
income
increases
in
17,
18,
19
and
again
and
20
in
the
pandemic
year
over
almost
one
half
percent,
very
stabilized.
In
fact,
vacancy
true
vacancy
dropped
three
years
in
a
row
17
through
19
and
vacancy
and
concessions
when
considered
together
also
dropped
to
three
years
in
a
row.
D
We
did
see
a
bit
of
an
increase
a
little
over
one
point,
true
vacancy
and
just
over
one
point
vacancy
and
concession
in
2020,
but
again
compared
to
what
we
saw
with
many
of
the
properties,
that's
very
solid,
again,
staying
very
much
in
average,
true
vacancy
of
almost
two
percent
less
than
what
the
county
uses
as
a
guideline,
we
did
note
that
we
were
below
what
the
operating
expenses
were
reported.
D
I
would
note
and
you'll
see
in
the
packet
similar
to
some
of
the
other
cases
we
have
with
the
appellants
we
did
reach
out
and
then
ask
about
these
various
amounts
spent
again
with
some
of
these
properties.
They
tend
to
get
crammed
into
miscellaneous
and
or
common
area.
We
asked
about
that
specifically.
Unfortunately,
we
didn't
hear
back
until
actually
last
thursday,
a
week
after
last
week's
hearing,
we
heard
we
heard
back.
Finally,
so
it
wasn't
unfortunately
available
for
this
case
as
the
packets
were
already
prepared,
but
we
appreciated
the
information.
D
Nonetheless,
I
would
note
that
we
did
a
test
of
the
information
we
tested,
the
rent
roll
provided.
We
tested
the
2020
information
again
pre
response
to
these
questions
asked
and
did
note
that,
even
with
a
increase
to
operating
expense
and
again,
a
decrease
of
effective
gross
which
was
even
below
where
we
were
january
1st,
this
would
call
for
an
increase
assessment.
As
noted
the
building
is
a
mid-rise
mid-rise
cap
rate
is
50
basis
points
lower
than
what
was
used
on
january
1st.
D
As
again
the
board
is
aware,
we
don't
recommend
a
increase
without
third
party
appraisal.
This
one
tends
to
be
much
more
common
sense
in
the
sense
that
we've
seen
this
before
just
a
month
or
two
ago,
in
lime,
village,
we
had
this
exact
same
issue
where
we
noted
our
initial
categorization
of
january.
1St
was
incorrect.
Again,
this
property
is
four
stories
all
day.
D
We
do
believe
that,
based
on
the
income
history
again
increasing
four
years
in
a
row,
effective
gross
increasing
four
years
in
a
row,
15
operating
expense
increase.
That
was,
unfortunately,
it
would
be
verified
in
time.
For
this
presentation,
ask
you
to
look
at
the
averages.
Ask
you
to
look
at
any
way
you
want
to
carve
this
up.
D
If
you
only
look
at
19
and
20,
if
you
look
at
18,
19
and
20,
if
you
want
to
bring
in
17
any
which
way
you
carve
this
up,
we're
low,
our
projection
is
low
and
it
still
is
actually
almost
a
six
percent
drop
year
over
year
from
last
year
and
again
that's
what
the
performance
that
it
did
in
a
pandemic
year.
That
being
said,
we
do
believe
the
property
should
be
confirmed
at
75
million,
eight
hundred
ninety
five
thousand
seven
hundred,
and
I
believe,
irving,
like
a
word.
D
B
Just
to
discuss
the
classification
of
the
property,
if
the
board
actually
looks
at
page
seven
of
the
package,
you
will
see
the
assessment
worksheet
at
the
top
right
corner,
says:
property
class.
It
has
312,
which
is
mid-rise
and
311,
which
is
garden.
So
after
last
year's
case
we
made
we
went
in,
we
changed
the
classification
to
mid-rise.
Unfortunately,
we
have
to
make
that
adjustment
in
two
areas,
so
one
area
was
chained
to
312..
B
One
area
was
chained
to
311.,
that's
where
the
error
occurred,
and
so
in
our
system,
this
product
was
still
valued,
as
I
mean
not
value,
but
classified
as
311..
The
automated
population
of
our
guidelines
to
this
property
was
311
again,
which
is
garden.
I
can
admit,
I
made
a
mistake.
My
name
is
on
it,
I'm
the
one
who
valued
it,
and
I
have
no
problem
pointing
that
out.
I
thank
chris
for
doing
his
due
diligence
and
finding
this
error
when
he
reviewed
this
case
in
actuality.
B
We
can
increase
this
assessment
because
it
was
an
error,
in
fact
in
which
how
we
value
this
property.
We
don't
need
an
appraisal,
because
the
error
was
that
this
property
was
classified
as
mid-rise
should
have
been
valued
as
mid-rise,
so
we
in
fact
can
increase
the
value
on
this
property
2017
chris
did
not
inspect
this
property.
B
This
property
was
assigned
to
an
appraiser
brian
ho,
who
is
no
longer
with
the
department
and
actually
left
in
2017,
so
to
say
that
chris
inspected
this
property
in
2017,
and
he
knows
or
classified
it
as
garden,
then
is
incorrect
as
well.
So
I
want
to
point
that
out
to
make
sure
that
there
is
no
confusion
about
anything
that
we
stated
in
this
case.
As
far
as
the
classification
of
this
property
who
inspected
this
property,
we
actually
have
pictures
which
chris
went
out
and
took
we
start
on
page
145
of
the
package.
B
You
can
see
that
it's
four
stories.
It
is
no
different
than
what
we
discussed
when
we
had
denmark
cases
earlier
this
year,
which
are
four-star
with
elevators.
We
stated
that
these
properties
are
mid-rise
because
they're
four
stories
and
the
elevator
no
longer
has
an
impact.
We
have
three
rides
three-story
properties
with
elevators
that
are
valued
as
garden,
because,
again
it's
three-story
properties
and
our
garden
properties
are
one
to
three
stories.
B
Mid-Rise
are
four
to
eight,
I
believe,
but
that's
also
included
on
our
guidelines,
which
are
public
and
published
to
our
webpage.
So
now
mr
chitlick
is
saying
that
oh,
it's
a
it's
a
walk-up,
I
mean
when
he
had
the
denmark
properties.
He
said.
Oh,
there
are
four
stories
of
their
garden
and
he
disregarded
the
elevator
issue.
Now
he's
saying
that,
since
it's
a
walk
up
is
definitely
a
mid-range,
I
mean
it's
definitely
a
garden.
We're
consistent
with
our
argument.
Four
stories
is
a
mid-rise,
and
that
is
all
I
have
to
say.
B
D
No
ma'am,
just
to
reiterate
again,
regardless
of
the
idea
of
the
cap
rate,
look
at
the
historical
operating
performance.
It's
gone
up
four
years
in
a
row.
It's
very
stabilized,
effective
gross
up
four
years
in
a
row
we
did
have
questions
on
operating
expenses.
They
weren't
responded
to
until
last
week.
We
do
believe
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
75
million
eight
hundred
ninety
five
thousand
seven
hundred.
Thank
you.
O
Yeah
chris
kept
mentioning
lion
village.
I'm
sorry,
I'm
not
prepared
to
speak
to
that.
That's
not
a
case
that
I
represent.
I
wasn't
at
that
board
hearing,
so
I
don't
know
exactly
what.
If
this
is
the
same
as
that
or
not,
I
am
going
to
share
a
picture.
That
is
the
first
picture
on
co-star.
Just
so
you
can
see
it
on
my
screen.
The
difference
here
is
you
walk
up,
and
then
these
units
on
that
first
floor
are
actually
below
grade.
O
The
window
line
is
the
ground
level,
so
you
are
below
grade
there,
so
it
the
building
like
this
building
is
really
a
three
plus
a
basement.
It's
quite
different
than
just
your
standard
walk-up.
The
reason
this
is
different
than
the
denmark
properties
is
because
again
those
are
elevator
buildings
you're
in
the
elevator.
It
doesn't
really
make
that
much
of
just
whether
you're
going
on
the
fourth
floor
or
the
seventh
floor.
This
is
a
pure
walk-up
apartment.
O
Basically,
what
what
they're
saying
is
if
this
floor
wasn't
here,
the
property
would
have
50
base
points
higher
cap
rate,
but
because
this
floor
is
here,
this
property
becomes,
in
this
case
about
six
million
dollars
more
valuable,
plus
the
income
attributed
to
that
it's
a
less
risky
proposition.
Now,
because
this
floor
exists,
which
is
just
factually
incorrect,
it
just
doesn't
doesn't
make
sense.
I
I'm
not
saying
that
they
made
a
mistake
on
purpose
or
they
did
a
bait
and
switch.
O
The
fact
is
that
the
property
was
valued
as
a
garden
style
and
now
as
valued
as
they
mid-rise
chris
asks
for
the
information
we
got
him.
The
information
he's
had
it,
so
he
did
a
test
column,
the
test
column
uses
lower
income
and
the
lower
income
supports
a
reduction
in
value
to
stay
consistent.
O
It
would
the
only
reason
it's
higher
because
they
then
went
and
changed
the
cap
rate
up
and
said.
We've
made
a
mistake
which
I
understand,
everybody
makes
them,
but
I
think
that
this
wasn't
really
a
mistake.
I
think
they
just
reclassify
the
building
again.
This
is
a
walk-up
apartment
without
an
elevator
and
most
of
the
buildings.
Our
first
floor
is
below
grade.
K
This
is
not
the
first
or
second
time
we've
heard
about
this
gray
area
between
garden
and
mid-rise,
because
it's
on
elevator
and
partially
underground
the
county
stepped
up
and
said
we're
going
to
make
this
very
clear,
four
and
above
four
for
a
couple
of
stories
above
his
mid-rise
and
three
below
his
garden
period.
That's
the
end
of
it.
K
I
certainly
sympathize
with
landlords,
saying
yeah,
but
there's
there's,
as
I
mentioned
already
a
gray
area,
and
it's
not
that
clear,
and
we
hear
this
of
course
excuse
me
also
on
cap
rates
relative
to
affected
ages.
So
if
it's
2000
it's
discount
rate,
if
it's
effectively
in
1999,
it's
a
different
cap
rate
and
in
a
big
building,
it's
millions
of
dollars.
K
The
department
I
support
the
department
making
a
very
clear
and
simple
determination
if
enough
landlords
or
even
one
landlord,
is
uncomfortable
with
that
than
I
as
a
taxpayer,
not
as
a
board
member.
I
would
support
going
to
court
and
see
if
there's
some
another
accommodation
that
ought
to
be
applied
to
these
third
time
and
lastly,
gray
areas,
but
absent
that
it's
very
clear
policy
is
well
known
and
we
ought
to
stick
with
it.
C
Yes,
I
agree
with
ken
on
this.
You
know
if
you
know
I,
I
think
this
ought
to
be
a
garden,
but
what
I
think
is
not
really
relevant,
because
that
issue
has
been
debated
and
it's
been
decided
and
it
went
the
other
way,
and
so
you
know,
like
ken
says
you
either
go
to
richmond
or
go
to
court,
but
right
now
we
have
to
be
consistent
and
right.
Now
this
is
a
mid-rise.
L
Not
much
more
to
say,
to
be
honest,
I
think
we've
dealt
with
this
issue
and
yeah.
I
think
it's
clear
that,
in
my
opinion,
the
assessment
is
correct
for
this
property.
L
L
A
All
right
opposed:
okay,
it's
unanimous
the
county's
confirmed,
but
75
million
eight.
Ninety
five
seven
hundred
married.
K
L
O
A
B
Yes,
so
on
the
worksheet
and
on
the
first
page,
as
far
as
the
totals
of
the
parcels,
it's
actually
75,
895
600
and
I
know
jose-
is
kind
of
particular
about
that.
So
I
was
wondering:
can
you
confirm
the
value
to
be
75
895
600,
as
opposed
to
the
700.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
The
minutes
will
reflect
that
properly.
Okay,
that
completes
the
agenda
for
today.
Thank
you
to
all
the
parties
does.
L
Anybody
mary
before
we
go,
I
just
wanted
to
go
back
to
the
case
that
we
had
on
the
with
mr
tucci,
the
fdic
just
I
know
we
made
the
motion
to
the
revised
assessment,
but
it
would
be
a
reduction
I
just
wanted
to
for
the
minutes
to
reflect
that
that
it's
a
reduction
to
this.
A
It
was
a
reduction
from
okay.
Let
me
see
here.
L
A
A
All
right
does
anybody
else
have
anything
any
other
board.
Members
of
the
county,
mr
lawson.
C
Yeah,
thank
you
I
just
wanted
to
share.
You
know
I
interact
with
the
county
all
the
time,
not
this
department,
but
others
and
with
covid
and
offices
not
being
open.
Sometimes
it's
really
difficult
to
interact
with
the
government
and
you
know
we're
hearing.
Well,
I
did
send
it
well,
I
didn't
get
it.
I
did,
and
you
know
my
own
practice.
Often
I
hand
deliver
stuff
and
I
just
wanted
to
share
that
that
right
now,
it's
just
a
little
more
difficult
to
interact
with
government
than
it
used
to
be.
That's
it.
A
B
So
permiss
torres,
we
will
definitely
be
completed
as
far
as
hearings
next
week.
I
think
we
actually
had
a
few
more
reductions
come
in,
so
some
of
the
agendas
originally
prepared
are
being
reduced
as
far
as
number
of
cases,
so
no
issues
with
any
cases
not
being
heard
this
year.
A
Excellent,
okay
and
I'm
trying
from
a
standpoint
of
to
the
board
members
that
when
I'm
getting
the
withdrawals
at
what
I'm
trying
to
send
them
to
you
as
fast
as
I
get
them,
because
I
know
you
know
this
is
back-to-back.
You
know
12
cases
to
review
each
week
so
as
I
get
them
I'll,
send
them
to
you.
So
you
know
hopefully
will
save
you
some
time
if,
in
fact
that
happens,
so
the
only
thing
I
have
is
for
tomorrow,
which
I
think
has
been
sent
out.
A
The
the
sixth
case
case
number
209
they've
signed
an
agreement
so
as
you're
reviewing
cases
today,
you
only
actually
have
five
for
tomorrow,
so
okay,
so
I
believe
that
that
completes
the
agenda
and
all
the
comments
for
today.
So
we
will
stand
adjourned
at
10,
52
and
reconvene
tomorrow
morning
at
9
a.m.