►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing October 5, 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
Today
is
tuesday
october
5th
2021.
This
is
the
arlington
county
board
of
equalization
hearing.
We
have
four
cases
on
the
agenda.
The
first
case
is
rpc3505034.
The
property
located
at
1401,
south
joyce
street
ms
suzanne
ross
is
here
representing
the
owners
of
the
property.
Ms
ross,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
B
B
If
you
turn
to
page
five,
you
can
see
our
side-to-side
analysis.
Our
gross
potential
income
is
the
actual
year-end
2020
or
9
million
633
688,
with
parking
at
345,
334
and
rubs
at
178
598..
B
So
our
estimated
gross
income
is
10
million.
157
620
the
county
is
slightly
overstating
the
estimated
gross
income
at
10
million
528
600.
vacancy.
We
use
the
guidelines
from
the
county
of
5
expenses.
We
also
use
the
guidelines
for
high-rise
apartments
built
in
2003
or
7
898
per
unit.
The
county
is
using
7
762
per
unit.
As
far
as
the
cap
rate,
we
made
an
adjustment
to
the
cap
rate
based
on
on
covit
to
we
increased.
It
28
basis
points
to
a
5.57
which
result
in
an
adjustment
to
the
value
to
127
million
21
200..
B
If
you
don't
make
that
adjustment
to
the
cap
rate
and
utilize
the
county's
cap
rate,
that
would
derive
a
value
of
133
million
744
460.-
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
this
property
is
now
18
years
old
and
would
be
considered
a
second-tier
property
compared
to
all
the
new
new
product
in
the
market.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Okay,
we
have
mr
chicas
for
the
county.
C
Speaking
of
1401
south
joyce,
again
as
the
board
is
very
familiar,
we're
going
to
be
focusing
primarily
on
the
summary
sheet
in
looking
at
this.
You
can
see
that
the
county's
net
operating
incomes
projection
is
not
only
you
know
over
150
000
lower
than
what
was
achieved
in
last
year's
pandemic
year,
it's
actually
lower
than
2019,
and
it's
barely
above
what
they
achieved
in
2017..
C
C
We're
all
fairly
aware
those
concessions
tend
to
burn
off
actually
within
the
year
that
they're
given
again,
these
tend
to
be
amenity
fees,
parking
fees
etc,
but
operating
expenses
dropped
by
almost
seven
percent.
Again
we
over
estimated
by
over
160
we've
seen
this
plenty
of
times
before.
If
we
were
to
make
adjustments
anywhere
we'd
like
you
to
make
them
across
the
board.
C
In
this
case,
I
just
don't
see
any
way
that
the
adjustment
can
be
made
and
again
we're
below
almost
a
160
thousand
dollars
below
last
year's
noi
and
again,
more
importantly,
we're
below
2019's
noi.
We
did
project
a
a
modest
decrease
year
over
year.
That
was
obviously
before
we
had
the
2020s
information,
but
looking
at
the
appellant's
numbers,
they're
actually
calling
for
a
decrease
year
over
year
of
over
11
percent,
their
noise
not
matched
with
anything
over
the
last
four
years,
whereas
again
ours
is
lower
than
the
last
two
years.
C
Given
that
we
are
considerably
lower
than
not
only
last
year's
2020s
numbers
but
2019's
numbers,
we
do
believe
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
a
value
of
141
million
240
500.,
anything
tad
irving.
No,
we
are
available
for
questions.
Thank
you.
E
A
quick
one
for
the
department
there's
only
one
number,
that
of
all
the
whole
array
in
the
summary
sheet
that
I
had
a
question
on,
and
that
is
the
other
income
in
column
d,
where
it's
percentage-wise
significantly
more
than
what
well
that
that
history
than
the
trend.
C
Yeah,
we
may
have
spoken
about
this
before
mr
mitzkin.
It's
it's
kind
of
the
limitations
of
our
system,
our
valuation
system.
So
we
don't
have
a
line
item
for
rubs.
So
if
you
take
those
two
numbers
that
are
reported
in
2020-
and
you
add
them
up,
you'll
see
that
again
we're
actually
lower
than
what's
projected.
So
you
may
be
familiar
too
when
normally
when
we
do
revisions
our
test
sheet,
since
it's
essentially
in
excel
we're
able
to
make
line
items
for
rubs,
and
things
like
that.
C
So
we
ask
you
to
consider
the
other
is
incorporating
not
only
other
income
but
actually
the
utility
reimbursements.
Okay,.
C
Yes,
ma'am
again,
we
ask
you
to
look
upon
the
operating
history
of
the
property.
We
did
note
that
income
is
essentially
flat,
but
operating
expenses
dropped
if
you
were
to
stabilize
the
property
you'd
see
that
we're
still
low
and
again,
more
importantly,
not
only
are
we
lower
than
2020s
numbers
we're
lower
than
2019s.
B
Just
that
we
were
asked
that
the
board
look
at
the
actuals
and
based
on
the
county's
guidelines
that
they
use
for
other
properties.
I
know
chris
is
very
thorough,
and
but
when
I
look
at
the
income
and
expense,
I
come
up
with
different
noi
different
expenses.
I
know
that
arlington
county
takes
some
items
out,
but
I'm
not
quite
sure
which
items
so
we're
not
kind
of
we're,
not
really
lining
up.
So
what
I
see
is
we
are
in
line
with
what
the
noi
was
for:
20,
20,
20.,
okay,.
A
F
Yeah
well
good
morning,
I
don't
you
know,
I
can't
really
see
how
we
can
make
any
changes
at
all.
You
know,
like
miss
ross
said
we
look
at
the
actual
numbers,
2019
2020
they're,
all
above
the
numbers
that
the
county
used.
So
you
know
I'm
I
couldn't
see
where
I
could
make
any
change
at
all.
I
think
every
assessment
is
more
than
fair
in
this
case.
G
A
A
A
B
A
I
So
and
again
I
apologize
that
we're
unable
to
get
this
taken
care
of
a
little
bit
before.
J
Today
but.
A
L
Thank
you,
madam
chairwoman.
Members
of
the
board
rob
good
morning.
This
is
2011
crystal
drive
located
at
crystal
drive
and
20th
street
south
in
crystal
city.
It
was
28
vacant
as
of
year
in
2020,
which
is
the
highest
at
any
point,
going
back
to
2017
and
has
an
additional
22
percent
of
lease
space
rolling
in
2021..
L
L
The
vacant
office,
rental
rate
assumed
by
the
assessment
you
can
see,
is
41.80
per
square
foot.
However,
2020
leases
all
signed
pre-covered
were
at
a
weighted
average
rental
rate
of
39.97
per
square
foot.
New
leases
are
the
most
probative
indicator
of
what
the
property
can
command
for
rent.
These
pre-covered
leases
are
at
a
lower
net.
Effective
rental
rate
than
the
county
has
assumed
in
the
assessment.
L
L
L
Looking
at
the
historical
item,
it
appears
that
the
property
has
been
near
75
occupied
over
the
past
few
years.
However,
it
has
not
been
physically
occupied
at
that
rate,
because
conservation
international
has
not
occupied
the
5th
floor,
which
consists
of
43
498
square
feet
since
the
first
quarter
of
2018..
L
This
skews
the
operating
expenses
reported
lower
conservation,
previously
leased
two
floors
of
the
property,
but
agreed
to
a
blend
and
extended
amendment
in
january,
2018,
which
decreased
their
occupied
space
by
half.
They
vacated
the
fifth
floor
in
the
first
quarter
of
2018
and
this
fifth
floor.
Lease
expires
in
november
of
2021
since
the
fifth
floor
is
listed,
as
least
on
the
rent
roll,
but
it's
not
actually
out
occupied
the
vacancy
rate
and
operating
expenses
are
both
understated.
L
L
as
such,
the
43
500
square
feet
on
the
vacant
on
the
fifth
floor
should
be
recognized
in
the
dfl.
To
summarize,
2020
leases
support
a
lower
value
for
the
vacant
office.
Rental
rate,
when
we
correct
the
vacant
office,
rental
rate
to
reflect
actual
2020
leases,
which
were
all
signed,
pre-covered
potential
rental
income
is
206
000
less
than
the
assessment
states.
L
A
That
was
a
no
okay,
all
right
questions
from
board
members.
J
I
would
thank
you
good
morning
board
good
morning,
eileen
good
morning,
good
morning,
jordan.
Oh
this
property.
We
looked
at
the
the
vacancy,
which
is
the
main
issue
for
this
for
this
case.
J
Looking
at
this
case,
we
did
see
that
the
averages
for
the
lease
space
were
44.64
cents
and
the
new
leases
were
close
to
that
average
as
well.
If
you
look
at
the
comments
section
on
the
summary
page
retail
for
this
property,
we
did
value
at
what
was
given
for
the
one
lease
the
one
space
retail.
J
When
looking
at
the
overall
property,
we
did
see
that
the
gross
potential
income
was
not
captured
in
the
original
2020
ine
and
if
you
see
between
columns,
e
and
f,
what
the
county
prepared
is
just
an
estimate
of
what
that
should
look
like
or
would
look
like
if
we
use
the
appellant's
pro
forma
numbers.
J
You'll
see
that
in
2017
to
2019
that
the
rate
was
much
lower
than
what
we
proposed.
We
did
keep
that
in
our
test
that
same
dollar
per
square
foot
and
we
came
up
with
a
value
noi,
that's
lower
than
what
we've
seen
in
the
most
recent
2020
ine
and
looking
back
further
in
2017
2018.
J
Our
number,
our
noi
and
in
column
f,
is
lower
as
well.
We
did
see
a
dip
in
2019,
but
then
looking
at
the
the
load
of
line
deductions,
what
we
did
is
actually
mirror
what
we've
done
in
the
past.
As
far
as
looking
at
properties
that
are
having
significant
vacancies
in
the
future
above
the
line
we
kept
it
at
25
but
below
the
line.
We
did
capture
the
smithsonian
on
there
as
far
as
vacating
in
this
year.
J
2021,
we
did
not
see
that
the
the
other
tenant
that
mr
harmon
had
pointed
out
vacating
in
november
of
this
year.
We
didn't
recognize
that,
but
I'm
looking
at
what
the
noi
and
actually
what
we
actually
took
below
the
line
deductions
as
well
beyond
that
noi
that
I
described
before
being
lower
than
the
original
2020
ine.
J
J
Yeah
about
over
6
million
in
excess
vacancy
deductions
for
that
vacancy
and
pending
vacancy
for
this
property
irving,
did
you
have
anything
else
to
add?
Oh.
H
Yes,
I
would
like
to
speak
on
the
difference
between
smithsonian
and
conservative
easement.
You
know
conservative
lieutenant.
So
as
rob
stated,
we
looked
at
the
information
that
was
provided.
If
you
look
at
the
document,
you'll
see
that
page
67
of
the
packet
is
the
2019
rent
roll
that
has
this
tenant.
There's
some
notes
about
tennis
with
an
asterisk
that
state
that
it
may
be
in
bankruptcy
or
may
be
moving
out.
H
So
with
that
information,
we
look
to
our
first
page
that
I
need
to
look
to
see
if
there's
anybody
vacating
early
or
any
information
about
it
smithsonian,
we
had
an
article
that
we
got
last
year,
so
we
knew
ahead
of
time
the
smithsonian
was
leaving
as
far
as
the
tenant
in
question
that
has
at
least
expired
in
november.
H
There
is
no
information
provided
to
us
that
that
tenant
was
not
physically
in
the
space.
As
of
2019.
Looking
through
the
document
to
see
any
information
provided
by
the
appellant
about
this
to
see,
if
it's
something
for
us
to
consider,
I
didn't
see
any
information.
It
just
simply
states
that
they're
leaving
november
30th
2021..
H
So
again,
as
we've
always
stated,
we
look
to
the
inds
that
are
provided
to
us
and
any
information
that
we
can
gather
from
news
articles,
co-star
articles
globe,
street
articles,
whatever
about
future
tennis
tennis,
they
came
to
space
and
again
the
tenant
conservation
international.
H
H
We
believe
that
was
the
difference
in
how
we
treated
these
two
tenants
based
off
the
information
that
we
had
well
before
january
1,
2021
and
again
we
knew
smithsonian
was
leaving
as
of
last
year
when
we
were
valuing
the
property.
We
didn't
take
that
consideration
during
the
assessment.
So
that's
one
reason
why
we
made
the
change
during
the
test
and
that's
pretty
much
it
I
mean
if
you
have
any
questions
we're
available,
but
that's
my
wrap-up
or
rant
thank.
E
Sorry
just
clicking
the
wrong
unviewed
outline.
I
have
two
questions.
One
for
the
appellant
conservation
international
hasn't
been
occupying
for
a
long
time,
but
am
I
correct?
They've
been
paying
rent
on
the
fifth
floor
since
they
moved
out.
L
E
Yeah,
yeah
and
and
that
trends
down
your
your
historic
operating
expenses,
because
you
have
a
lot
more.
D
E
On
that
directly,
following
up
on
that
for
the
department
irving
said
that
they
had
no
definitive
exterior
mutual
third
party
information
that
indeed
they
would
that
same
tenant
would
be
leaving
in
november
of
this
year.
Maybe
you
have
two
questions
on
that.
If
you
had
a
wall
street
journal
article
talking
about
a
shakeup
of
the
corporation
or
who
knows
what
would
you
have
then
increase
the
below
the
line?
Deductions
to
to
account
for
the
lease
up
costs
for
that
full
floor
in
this
session.
H
I
think
we
probably
yeah
we
would
give
it
some
consideration.
Yeah
I
mean
we
think
the
tournament
at
least
has
an
impact,
but
we
probably
would
have
gave
it
some
consideration.
I
mean
the
difference
again
on
this.
One
is
also
I'm
sorry.
I
can't
pull
up
this.
H
All
right
smithsonian,
they
were
going
to
be
there.
What
april
30th
of
this
year,
like
that's
when
they're
at
least
ended
and
also
indication
from
the
agent
that
they
use
free
rent
to
account
for
the
four
years,
maybe
four
months
in
this
year,
whereas
conservative
internationally
and
they
were
going
to
be
in
pretty
much
the
whole
year
january
through
november.
So
we
think
that's
also
another
difference
between
smithsonian
vacating
and
conservation
international.
H
E
And
this
year
right
right,
I
I
underst,
I
understood
that
and
you
would
have
taken
you
said
some
consideration
if
you
knew
definitively
that
they
were
going
to
stop
paying
rent
on
november
30th,
but
yeah.
H
Maybe
would
have
took
consideration
that
especially
me,
like
I
said
my
first
time
and
then
reading
through
the
packet
hearing
about
them.
Vacating
this
suite
in
2018
was
just
now
when
they
said
it.
So
I
think
that
has
an
impact
on
how
we
would
consider
this
problem
and
treated
this
property,
knowing
that
they
were
out
as
of
2018
physically
and
then
being
told
that
they
would
not
renew
the
lease
in
2021.
Yes,
we
would
have
taken
that
into
consideration.
E
So,
but
not
a
full
nissa,
because
it's
only
one
month's
foregone
rent-
I
guess
which
leads
to
my
second
question.
D
It
has
not
been
advertised
as
available
as
of
the
expiration
of
the
of
the
lease,
so
I
do
believe
that
there
is
public
information
out
there
that,
certainly
if
it
had
showed
that
that
space
was
leased,
although
vacant
the
county
would
have
considered
that
information
looking
forward
and
again,
we
are
not
asking
that
the
rent
not
be
considered
just
that
the
cost
to
release
the
space
be
considered
like
the
market
would
look
at
it.
E
Well,
thank
you.
That's
what
I
was
trying
to
get
at
if
it
irving
keeps
talking
about
consideration,
is
that
a
full
seventy
dollars
ti
and
six
percent
commission
and
a
full
vote
as
if
they
moved
out
as
an
example
on
this
past
year's
day
or
would
have
been
some
percentage,
given
that
it's
only
a
month's
worth
now.
H
We
would
we
wouldn't
do
the
percentage
we
would
have
took
in
the
square
footage
and
considered
that,
as
far
as
comment
about
being
advertised
on
co-star
as
rob
states
in
his
write-up
and
shows
on
the
summary
sheet,
he
uses
co-star
to
ascertain
what
the
actual
vacancy
is
at
the
property.
So
as
of
1-1
based
off
co-star,
he
used
a,
I
believe,
lower
vacancy
amount
than
what
they're
reporting
because
of
his
information
from
costar.
H
D
I'm
sorry,
let's
keep
going.
It's
not
exactly
correct,
so
vacant
and
least
are
two
different
things
on
costar
one
is
available
and
one
is
occupied
and
I
think
that
what
mr
peralta
looked
at
was
at
least
not
what
was
available
and
again.
If
you
look
on
co-star
and
I'm
sure
mr
hoffman
probably
is
you
can
look
at
the
fifth
floor
and
you
can
see
that
it
is
vacant
and
available
for
lease
as
vacant
and
was
available
for
lease
for
the
last
33
months.
K
Yes,
this
is
for
either
the
county
of
the
applicant.
What
is
land
density.
K
Okay
for
the
county,
I've
seen
the
same
figures
for
a
while
below
the
line,
the
tenant
improvements,
less
rent
loss
and
it's
been
pretty
consistent.
K
Due
to
I
don't
know,
just
general
impact
of
covet
at
what
time
are.
Are
you
all
going
to
take
another?
Look
at
that
70,
a
square
foot
and
the
one
year
to
you
know
and
the
one
year
deduction,
and
I
think
the
reason
I
ask
this.
I
think
the
applicant
does
have
a
little
bit
of
a
point
that
it's
taken
longer
now
than
it
was
a
couple
years
ago.
K
Yeah
as
far
as
getting
the
leases
signed
as
far
as
getting
it
built
out
as
far
as
getting
someone
in
paying
rent
most
leases
that
I
see
are
contingent
upon
the
co,
be
an
issue,
that's
when
they
start
paying
the
rent
and
it's
taken
longer
to
get
that
accomplished
nowadays.
So
I'm
just
kind
of
curious.
When
is
the
department
going
to
look
at
at
their
policy
regarding
those
two
things
and
perhaps
reevaluate.
H
And
I
think
the
board
members
and
rob
can
attest
to
this.
Our
ti
actually
has
changed
over
the
years.
We
use
different
ti
based
off
rent
rate,
because
we
know
that
everybody
doesn't
get
the
same
ti
amount.
Typically,
if
you're
paying
higher
rent
you
get
higher
ti.
So
we
do
have
a
ti
of
70
square
foot.
We
also
have
one
of
110
square
foot
which
have
been
used
on
different
properties,
even
cases
that
came
before
the
board.
We
do
annual
assessments,
we
review
our
policies
annually.
H
I
think.
As
far
as
ceos
and
and
things
of
that
nature,
I
build
out
time
we've
taken
the
consideration
leases
based
off
commencement
for
the
most
part.
H
We
in
the
past
would
say
that
we
look
at
lisa's
base
off
at
least
date,
and
the
board
and
agents
didn't
agree
with
that
and
they
felt
like
we
should
look
at
move-in
dates.
So
I
think
that
kind
of
answers,
your
question
about
how
we
treat
vacant
space
that
is
held
up
by
cos.
I
mean,
if
they
don't
have
a
ceo,
they
don't
have
commencement
date,
they're
treated
as
vacant
for
the
most
part,
but
it's
annual
review,
annual
review
of
our
policy
and
review
of
the
assessments
does
that.
J
Yes,
thank
you
for
the
original
assessment.
Again
I'd
like
to
remind
the
board
that
we
only
had
the
2019
ine
for
this
property
when
assessing
for
2021..
So
if
you
compare
column
c
and
column
d,
what
they
reported
for
noi
and
what
we
have
for
our
noi,
which
resulted
in
our
value
for
the
original
2021
assessment.
J
J
The
2020
ine
noi,
when
in
27
2018
precovid,
the
noi
reported,
was
much
higher
than
what
we're
projecting
and
what
we
originally
had
in
the
assessment
going
forward
again
when
comparing
what
the
appellant
has
projected
as
the
income
for
this
property
between
columns,
e
and
f
you'll,
see
again
the
estimated
gross
potential
for
this
property,
given
those
given
that
income
that
was
projected
and
compare
that
to
what
we
projected
for
our
gross
potential
income
in
column,
f
and
we're
under
stating
that,
in
addition
to
that,
we
do
look
forward,
we
did
see
that
the
smithsonian
was
vacating
again,
we
went
over
what
was
happening
with
the
other
tenant
and,
like
the
the
board
members
said
it's
one
month
shy
of
what
we
have.
J
They
are
still
paying
rent
in
the
property
looking
back
and
and
reminding
myself
of
what
happened
with
the
stafford
property,
even
though
they
vacated
the
property
physically
and
they
were
still
paying
rent.
We
we
treated
that
that
tenant
the
same
way
we're
doing
we're
doing
here
in
the
test
column.
So
we
asked
the
board
to
really
pay
attention
and
take
that
into
consideration.
L
Yes,
thank
you
so
to
reiterate
the
three
three
issues
on
appeal
here:
the
vacant
office
rental
rate
is
supported
by
2020
leases.
The
county's
number
is
derived
by
taking
a
six
percent
deduction
from
the
face
rent
of
those
leases
for
concessions.
The
actual
leases
had
13
concessions
that
results
in
the
39.97
figure
that
we
used.
L
The
conservation
international
has
not
occupied
the
fifth
floor
since
2018
they
have
leased
it,
but
not
occupied
it.
Now.
This
is
significant
again
because
that
affects
operating
expenses
if
we're
using
vacancy,
as
if
they're
they're
not
vacant.
However,
in
reality
they
are
that
drives
down
artificially
drives
down
the
reported
operating
expenses.
If
that
floor
were
occupied,
the
reported
operating
expenses
would
be
higher
as
such,
the
operating
expenses
should
more
appropriately
be
at
nine
dollars.
L
E
I
have
three
comments:
the
first
one's
very
quick
response
to
the
the
appellant
there's,
no
question
the
the
the
costs
are
skewed
down
because
of
the
vacancy
and
an
artificial
vacancy,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
in
column
d
the
the
department
has
accounted
for
that
and
and
taken
a
larger
number
per
square
foot.
I
don't
know
if
it
should
be
20
cents
more
or
50
cents
more,
but
it's
more
than
has
been
reported.
E
The
first
one
is
that,
when,
as
an
example
in
this
conservation,
international
space
has
been
advertised
as
available
but
they're
paying
rent.
That
certainly
happens
a
lot
and
everybody's
treated
it
appropriately.
The
income's
been
been
accounted
for,
and
it
is
a
little
scary
that
nobody
in
three
years
has
has
taken
up
the
mantle,
but
there,
as
miss
borman,
said,
there's
a
big
difference
between
being
available
and
being
vacant.
E
So
that's
all
to
me
at
canar,
it's
it's!
It's
it's
leased!
It's
producing
revenue,
fewer
people
are
flushing
toilets
and
using
the
elevator.
Maybe
that
affects
operating
expenses,
but
it's
there's.
No
there
there
this
happens
all
the
time.
If
somebody
wanted
to
come
in
and
take
the
fifth
floor,
then
this
particular
tenant
would
be
gone
but
they're
paying
rent
and
that's
the
end
of
it
period.
Second,
on
on
that
is
an
intent
improvement
allowance.
E
I
listened
eagerly
to
the
given
take
between
the
appellate
and
the
department
and
what
irving
says
is,
of
course,
true.
Some.
E
E
More
importantly,
it's
often
affected
by
the
length
of
the
lease
meaning
the
total
amount
of
money
that
the
landlord's
going
to
get
over
time,
not
just
the
dollars
per
square
foot.
So
it's
really
all
over
the
place.
E
On
the
other
hand,
barnes
notion
that
the
supply
chains
longer
the
county
doesn't
takes
too
long
to
inspect,
and
all
this
kind
of
stuff
really
does
make
the
case
that
the
the
department
has
to
continue
to
assess
what
the
pro
the
stereotypical
tenant
improvement
allowance
is
in
the
county,
which
again
is
way
over
way,
disparate
among
tenants
and
again,
not
necessarily
small
or
large,
expensive
inexpensive.
It's
just
a
shotgun
approach.
I
don't
know
how
they
do
it,
but
god
bless
them
that
they
do
it
every
year.
But
again,
that's
a
canard.
E
A
A
I
think
you
know,
as
the
county
stated
it's
done
annually,
I
mean
if
they
were
to
go
mid-year
right
now
and
say:
oh
it's
lower
on
these.
It
would
kind
of
throw
everything
out
of
black
from
a
standpoint
of
equalization
and
the
flip
side
of
that
is
if
they
found
out
that
it
was
actually
you
know,
numbers
should
increase,
they
would
never
come
back
and
say:
oh
we're
going
to
increase
them
now.
So
I
think
that
there's
some
standardization
you
know
to
that.
A
But
when
I
look
at
this,
I
I
think
you
know
I'm
okay
with
the
original
assessment.
When
I
look
at
you
know
when
not
having
access
to
the
2020
income
information,
I
think
mr
peralta
did
a
really
good
job
at
coming
up
with
the
value.
But
then
I
I
went
a
few
steps
further.
I
took
the
test
and,
if
you
look
at
the
test,
the
effective
gross
income
they're
pretty
neck
and
neck
between
the
test
and
the
appellate.
A
So
even
if
you
looked
at
the
point
that
mr
harmon
was
making
that
you
know
the
fact
that
there's
no
occupancy
on
the
fifth
floor
actually
drives
the
expenses
down.
So
even
if
you
moved
in-
and
I
did
a
quick
mary
p
dooley
test
on
this,
I
took
the
county's
effective
gross
income
and
then
used
the
four
million
dollars,
the
nine
dollars
a
square
foot
expenses
and
that
ends
up
capping
out
at
150..
A
I
I'm
with
you
mary,
I
I
did
the
same
thing
with
nine
nine
dollars,
because
I
think
it's
justified
yeah,
but
when
you
do
it,
you
just
end
up
with
a
higher
value
and
then
just
as
a
comment,
if
you're
gonna
try
to
kind
of
claim,
improvements
need
to
be
done
to
a
space
right.
It's
dated
it's
old,
give
us
a
below
line
deduction
for
ti.
I
The
ti
is
too
low
anything
along
those
lines,
snap
a
photo
of
the
space
or
do
something
to
kind
of
show
us
that
it's
decrepit
old
condition
the
burden
is
on
the
appellant.
You
know,
because
I
go
to
gensler's
website
and
it's
like
there's
this
beautiful
conservation
international
build
out.
That's
like
one
of
the
best
tenant
improvements
projects,
I've
seen
in
a
long
time,
so
there's
plenty
of
tents,
they're
going
to
move
into
that
and
say
just
give
me
a
couple
months:
free,
rent
and
I'll.
I
Take
it
as
is,
or
you
know,
for
not
for
70,
but
for
15
ti
or
something
along
those
lines.
So
that's!
That's
all.
F
I
pretty
much
did
a
similar
test
as
the
one
you
did,
but
not
using
the
expense
amount.
I
used
increased
vacancy
that
the
appellant
is
requesting
by,
and
you
know
it
comes
up
with
a
deduction
of
about
13
million
631.
F
F
I
think
the
current
assessment
is
more
than
fair.
I'm
okay
with
it.
A
K
Yes,
ma'am,
you
know,
I
made
the
points
that
I
made
earlier
and
yet
we
have
a
interesting
situation
here,
where
the
test
is
way
higher
than
the
actual
assessment,
and
so,
if,
if
you
do
what
I
had
suggested
and
you
deduct
it
from
the
test,
you're
still
right
about
where
the
assessment
is,
and
so
while
I
do
think
that
that
the
applicant
has
some
good
points
given
the
particular
situation
here,
I
I
don't
end
up
lower
than
the
assessed
where
the
assessment
is.
K
I
do
think,
though,
that
when
we
look
at
the
operating
year
that
that's
not
going
to
be
the
same
next
year,
maybe
maybe
they'll
get
lucky
and
they
will
lease
it
up,
but
it
does
seem
like
the
office
leasing
right
now
is
just
very
stagnant,
so
I'm
I'm
likewise.
Okay
with
the
original
assessment.