►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing October 12, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
B
Thank
you.
The
property.
C
B
It
background
go
ahead:
the
property
is
a
228
unit,
four-story
mid-rise
apartment
building,
built
in
2013..
It's
located,
basically
on
the
corner
of
glebe
and
29.
B
The
current
assessment
excuse
me,
is
116
million
94
000.
We
are
requesting
104
million
251
000.
The
basis
of
that
is
an
income
approach,
obviously
similar
to
the
county,
our
basis
for
our
gross
potential
residential
income.
We
we
took
a
look
at
the
second
half
of
2020,
most
recently
signed
leases.
We
think
that
that's
the
best
indication
of
market
rent
that
we
could
be
taking
a
look
at
given,
given
the
current
situation
as
of
the
first
of
the
year,
the
property
had
a
significant
vacancy.
B
As
of
1121..
It
was
the
occupancy
was
87,
so
13
vacant,
25
percent
of
the
leases
turned
over
in
the
last
six
months
of
the
year.
Obviously,
at
reduced
rents
there
was
some
concessions
being
offered,
but
they
were
limited
in
nature.
We
we,
we
were
reducing
rents,
though,
however
same
same
concept,
concession
has
just
reduced
rent
right.
B
So
again,
our
our
gross
potential
income
or
revenue
was
7
million,
341
420,
as
opposed
to
the
county's
7.7
million,
we're
in
line
on
the
parking
income
and
and
miscellaneous
and
rubs
other
income.
The
county
was
a
little
bit
higher
than
what
we
are
are
projecting
in
our
income
approach
about
15
000
higher,
so
our
pgis
are
about
I'm
sorry.
Our
adjusted
pgis
are
about
400
000
off.
We
use
the
vacancy
of
8.
B
Obviously
the
occupancy
was
lower.
As
of
the
first
of
the
year.
You
know
the
the
other
big
issue
obviously
is
bad
debt
and
people
not
paying
we're
running
at
about.
You
know
three
to
four
percent:
have
an
economic
impact
from
that
as
of
the
first
of
the
year,
and
obviously
that's
continuing
into
and
through
2021
our
expenses
we
utilized
about
seven
1.777
million.
I
think
the
year
prior
in
2020
was
one
million
seven
sixty
six.
B
So
we're
a
little
bit
above
that,
obviously,
when
you're
projecting
expenses,
they
should
be
a
little
bit
higher.
The
the
the
following
year,
cap
rate,
no
difference
and
our
subsequent
value
is
104
million
251..
B
Just
a
couple
things
to
point
out.
The
2020
noi
or
I
should
say
our
projected
noi
in
our
income
approach-
is
about
5.6
million,
as
opposed
to
6.2
million
from
the
county.
The
2020
noi
was
5.9
million.
B
Roughly
our
2021
budgeted
noi
was
about
is
about
4.9
million
dollars
based
on
our
reduced
rents
and
occupancy
levels,
and
that
debt
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
So
again,
there's
a
significant
difference
based
on
what's
actually
occurring
and
what
the
county
is
projecting
and
based
on
based
on
those
those
facts.
We'd
appreciate
the
adjustment
to
104.2.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
mr
chicas,
for
the
county.
Please.
D
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning
board
members
come
on
mr
conklin,
we're
talking
about
going
to
north,
we'll
be
relying
upon
the
income
and
expense
summary
sheet.
I
believe
it's
page
three
of
your
packets.
D
If
we're
looking
at
this
property
again,
obviously,
as
the
board
knows,
we
repeated
that
nauseam.
We're
looking
at
stabilization,
not
just
one
year
one
year
does
not
an
assessment
make.
D
If
we're
going
to
look
again
as
a
stabilized
property,
especially
if
we're
looking
at
the
last
three
years
more
heavily
than
four
years
17
18
19,
we'll
look
and
see
that
the
effective
gross
that
the
county
projected
is
actually
a
little
bit
lower
than
what's
been
achieved,
the
last
three
years
again,
not
just
2020
but
again,
counting
in
18
and
19..
D
D
As
mr
conklin
noted,
the
opex
did
increase
just
shy
of
5,
but
I
wouldn't
necessarily
agree
with
the
statement
that
it
tends
to
go
up
every
year.
In
fact,
it
dropped
to
19
by
about
three
and
a
half
percent,
so
we
did
stabilize
the
operating
expense,
as
you
can
see
in
revision
column
f.
D
We
did
note
that
again,
our
income
is
very
much
in
line
with
stabilized
numbers.
We
looked
at
the
rent
roll
that
was
provided
by
the
owner.
D
We
do
appreciate
their
contention
that
more
weight
should
be
placed
on
the
second
half
or
even
the
fourth
quarter
of
the
lease,
but
again
obviously
with
an
annual
assessment
that
would
short
the
other
nine
months
of
the
year.
So
we
did
look
at
the
entire
rent
roll.
We
did
play
that
out.
As
far
as
our
revision
column,
you'll
note
that
the
gpa
actually
increased
just
slightly,
but
it's
still
a
decrease
from
last
year.
Our
effective
gross
projection
is
very
much
in
line
with,
what's
been
achieved.
D
Last
three
years
we
increased
our
operating
expense
projection
by
almost
50
000
yen.
I
would
note
that
again,
column
e
is
described
directly
from
the
submitted
owner
submitted.
I
need
role,
I
any
questionnaire,
so
there's
no
reconstruction
at
all
on
this
on
this
summary
sheet.
Excuse
me
so
again
with
our
revision.
We
did
note
the
increase
in
operating
expense
based
on
what
we
projected
january
1..
D
We
did
make
a
revision
downward
to
the
noi.
I
would
note
that
the
year
over
year,
this
is
actually
reflective
of
an
almost
three
and
a
half
percent
drop
from
last
year's
value,
as
opposed
to
the
appellant's
opinion
of
almost
13
year-over-year.
We
just
believe
that's
a
bit
too
aggressive
again,
considering
what's
been
going
on
historically
at
the
property
noise,
especially
if
you
were
to
look
at
the
stabilized
history
of
this
property.
I
believe
you'll
agree
that
our
revision
is
warranted.
It's
prudent,
it
does
call
for
a
three
and
a
half
percent
decrease.
D
We
do
believe
that
this
information
calls
for
a
a
confirmation
of
a
revised
value
of
115
million
217
600.
irving,
anything
ted.
D
If
you
have
any
questions
we're
available,
thank
you,
okay.
Thank
you.
B
As
of
the
1st
of
2021,
it
was
13
vacant.
D
Yes,
ma'am
so
again
just
to
reorient
the
board
members
columnist
exactly
as
was
reported
by
the
owner,
and
so
it's
not
to
push
that
issue,
but
it's
just
a
matter
of
literally
what
was
vacant
on
the
first
13
versus
what
was
vacant
over
the
years
6.46,
as
reported
by
the
owner.
D
Again,
there
was
an
uptick
in
vacancy
in
2020,
but
that
was
after
three
years
of
dropping
vacancy.
This
property
is
fairly
well
stabilized.
We
do
believe
that
noi
indicates
that
the
revision
made
by
the
boar
by
the
county
is
prudent.
It's
39
drop
over
a
year.
We
do
believe
that
the
revised
value
of
115
million
217
600
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
B
Sure,
thank
you
just
a
just
a
a
an
obvious
point.
You
know
the
county's.
Looking
at
three
year,
historical
where's,
the
property
been
it's
really
where's,
the
property
going
and
obviously
based
on
the
rent
decline.
The
fact
that
these
rents
are
they're
not
going
away
they're
going
to
be
a
burden
on
the
property
for
some
time
in
terms
of
its
relation
to
its
its
prior
operating
history.
So
any
purchaser
would
be
taking
a
look
at
that
again.
Just
to
point
out,
the
2020
noi
was
5.9
million.
B
Our
budgeted
noi
is
sub
5
million.
So
obviously
there's
an
impact.
You
know
moving
forward
and
it's
going
to
take
some
time
to
ever
to
come
back
to
that
stabilization
point
and
the
county
is
utilizing
6.2
and
we
stabilized
it
at
5.6.
B
So
it's
obviously
you
know
it's
not
like
we're
we're,
saying
it's
going
to
be
sub
5
forever
or
or
you
know,
for
for
five
years.
It's
just
we
don't
think
the
county
has
been,
you
know
is
not
reflecting
what's
actually
occurring
or
going
to
occur
at
this
property.
Thank
you.
G
I
guess
I'll
start,
I
mean,
I
think
it's
it's
pretty
good.
I
mean
the
only
thing
I
that
kind
of
I'd
consider
looking
at
is
operating.
Expenses
were
a
little
bit
higher
in
2020
as
actuals
than
what
what's
being
used
in
the
test,
and
that
was
with
you
know
a
little
bit
more
vacancy,
so
I
I
think
that
it
might
actually
be
closer
to
2020.
H
Yes,
good
morning,
yeah,
I
did
look
at
the
expenses
also,
but
overall
you
know,
I
don't
think
the
account
is
just
looking
at
three
years.
I
think
they're.
You
know,
like
we've
done
with
many
cases
this
year,
we're
also
looking
at
what
happened
last
year,
which
was
a
crucial
year
for
many
properties.
H
H
Yeah
I'll
go
ahead
and
move
that
we
reduce
the
assessment
to
the
revised
value
of
150
million.
Two
seventeen
six
hundred
I'll.
I
A
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Okay,
next
up
is
rpc
one
four
zero,
five
one:
zero
one:
nine
and
forty
four
twenty
fairfax
drive
mr
foreman
you're
asking
to
withdraw
this
case.
A
All
right
I'll
move
to
accept
the
withdrawal.
Do
I
have
a
second
miss
hogan
with
a
second
all
in
favor
accepting
the
draw.
I
I
opposed.
Okay,
that's
unanimous!
That
is
withdrawn.
Okay.
The
third
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc35003840.
A
K
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chairwoman,
members
of
the
board
chris
good
morning,
520
12th
street
south.
This
is
the
bartlett
apartment
building
in
pentagon
city.
This
economic
unit
consists
of
apartments
in
retail.
I
will
only
be
discussing
the
apartment
portion
today
as
that,
as
it
makes
up
the
vast
majority
of
the
economic
unit
and
is
where
the
assessment
is
most
largely
an
error.
K
The
primary
issue
on
appeal
for
the
apartment
building
is
the
deduction
for
vacancy
and
collection,
rent
loss
and
rent
concessions,
if
you'd
be
so
kind
as
to
turn
your
attention
to
page
32
of
the
appeal
pack.
This
is
the
appellants
pro
forma
for
the
apartment
building.
Here
you
can
see
that
vacancy
and
collection
was
9.95
of
gross
potential
income
in
2020
and
has
averaged
7.3
over
the
past
two
years,
rent
loss
in
2020
was
1.33
and
has
averaged
right
around
one
percent.
K
Now
this
is
an
annual
assessment.
Our
appeal
relies
on
the
actual
income
and
expenses
reported
by
this
property,
just
as
any
prudent
assessment
is
required
to
do.
If
you
now
turn
your
to
page
five
of
the
appeal
pack,
this
is
the
county's
test,
page
first,
on
this
page.
As
a
note
column,
g
labeled
appellate
pro
forma
2021
does
not
accurately
represent
what
is
on
appeal
here.
This
column
is
a
stabilized
pro
forma
that
was
provided
on
the
combined
apartment
and
retail
portions
of
the
property.
K
We
also
provided
a
pro
forma
for
the
apartment
portion
only
that
was
not
included
on
the
test
page,
that
is
included
in
the
appeal
pack
on
page
32..
So
when
considering
the
appellants
pro
forma,
I
ask
that
you
disregard
column
g,
which
is
a
combined
pro
forma
and
not
what
I'll
be
discussing
today.
I
ask
that
you
consider
the
pro
forma
listed
on
page
32,
which
is
for
the
apartment
building
alone
on
the
county's
test.
K
Page
you'll,
see
that
the
county's
summary
of
actual
income
and
expenses
acknowledges
the
high
losses
due
to
vacancies,
collection
and
concessions
on
columns,
c1
and
e1.
These
are
the
actual
reported
incoming
expenses
for
the
property
in
2019
and
2020.
K
K
K
Alternatively,
if
we
use
the
2020
actual
reported
income
and
expenses
at
the
property
capitalize
at
the
county's
rate,
the
apartment
value
decreases
by
over
30
million
dollars
from
the
county's
test
column.
To
summarize,
actual
losses
must
be
considered
per
virginia
statute,
which
again
is
listed
on
page
34
of
the
appeal
pack.
K
K
If
we
follow
the
statute
and
give
consideration
to
actual
vacancy
and
collection
losses,
we
get
a
value
that
is
43
million
dollars
lower
than
the
revised
assessment
using
the
2020
actual
rate.
If
we
use
the
two-year
average
2019-2020
that
reduces
the
county's
test
column
by
26
million,
the
county
has
only
applied
the
guideline
rate
of
5
vacancy,
but
this
guideline
rate,
as
has
been
discussed
previously,
is
just
that.
It's
just
a
guideline.
K
J
I
do
so
one
of
the
issues
with
this
property,
as
it
relates
to
vacancy
and
concessions
and
rent
laws,
is
that
it's
sandwiched
between
two
active
construction
zones,
so
the
property
currently
has
penn
place
to
the
south,
which
is
under
construction
and
will
be
under
construction
until
at
least
the
end
of
2023
and
to
the
north
side
to
the
on
the
other
side,
it
has
400
army
navy
drive,
which
is
under
the
alcor
construction
site,
that
is,
for
the
altair
and
once
those
two
construction
sites
are
are
once
the
site,
the
amazon
site
on
the
to
the
south
is
completed,
then
we're
going
to
have
the
amazon
site
where
the
helix
is
to
the
north.
J
So,
basically,
what
you
have
here
is
a
property.
That's
going
to
be
in
the
middle
of
a
construction
zone
for
the
next
five
years,
and
the
impact
that
it
has
had
is
that
the
tenants
that
were
on
the
south
side
all
asked
to
be
moved
to
the
north
side,
and
they
had
to
have
you
know
with
people
working
from
home
and
that
sort
of
thing
there's
been.
You
know
extra
noise.
J
You
know
you
have
the
beep
beep
beep
of
the
construction
all
day
long
and
as
soon
as
the
what
property
to
the
south
is
completed
and
the
helix
is
constructed
on
the
north.
People
that
are
now
in
the
north
side
are
either
going
to
move
out
or
want
to
be
moved
to
the
south
side.
So
again
you
have
a
property,
that's
going
to
be
plagued
by
vacancy
over
the
next
years.
J
D
Yes,
ma'am
so
again,
we'll
be
relying
heavily
upon
the
summary
sheet,
as
displayed,
I
believe,
on
your
page
three
and
we'll
start
right
away
with
the
appellant's
performa
column.
I
think
there's
some
misstatements
by
mr
harmon
and
that
he
believes
his
pro
form
was
misrepresented,
but
on
page
32,
as
he
claimed
his
apartment
pro-formas.
D
If
you
go
to
page
32
you'll
note
that
it's
simply
a
regurgitation
of
our
assessment
for
2021
and
the
actual
2020
as
reported
by
the
owner.
So
the
only
pro
forma
that
was
put
out
by
the
propellant
is
the
stabilized
potentials.
Seen
on
page
31,
even
easier.
You
can
just
represent,
look
at
column
g
on
the
summary
sheet
and
again
the
biggest
problem
with
doing
the
looking
at
an
assessment.
D
The
way
the
appellants
would
like
you
to
is
is
simply
that
they
believe
that
this
value
properties
dropped
in
value
by
24
in
one
year.
D
That's
based
on
one
year's
assessment.
Now,
while
we
agree
that
you
shall
consider
these
things,
we
also
believe,
as
we
said
in
this
last
case,
as
we've
said
all
year.
As
we
said,
the
last
13
years,
one
year
does
not
an
assessment
make
when
we're
looking
at
a
stabilized
property.
You
should
be
looking
at
multiple
years,
so
that's
why
we
provide
four
of
them.
I
noted
that
mr
harmon
spoke
only
the
last
two
years.
If
you
noted
to
go
back
three
years,
you'll
see
that
the
properties
actually
did
better
at
that
point.
D
This
is
essentially
still
a
fairly
new
property.
It's
six
years
old
and
it's
my
it's
ginormous.
This
is
700
units,
that's
something
that
was
not
mentioned
by
the
appellants
as
well.
Nearby
is
the
acadian
millennium
at
met
park,
those
two
together
equal
this
size
unit
alone.
This
has
a
some
30
000
square
foot
whole
foods
that
mr
harmon.
D
To
talk
about
today,
we
want
to
talk
about
it
because
we
noted
that
our
retail
valuation
was
low
as
projected
compared
to
what
the
owner
provided
again.
Even
in
a
coved
year.
We
do
agree.
They've
had
some
vacancy
issues,
but
again,
if
you're
looking
at
it
in
a
long
view,
at
least
three
years,
as
opposed
to
just
the
last
two
years
as
the
appellants
would
like.
We
believe
that
you'll
see
that
the
vacancy
dropped
from
almost
12
percent
and
17
down
to
just
shy
of
four
percent
18..
D
So
an
eight
percent
drop
in
one
year
they
were
definitely
headed
toward
stabilization,
would
be
our
guess,
three
three
point:
seven
percent
and
eighteen.
It
did
jump
to
four
point:
six
percent,
but
again
four
point:
six
percent
of
699
units,
that's
something
that
most
property
owners
would
dream
of.
We
did
see
an
uptick
in
2020,
but
again,
just
as
we
saw
in
the
last
case
and
as
we've
seen
all
year,
there's
an
uptick
almost
across
every
property
multi-family
in
the
county.
Very
few
properties
did
not
receive
an
uptick
in
vacancy.
D
I
would
note
again
it's
very
much
in
line
the
concessions
that
they
offered
went
up
by
about
one
percent
from
2019's
levels
and
again
the
biggest
driver
was
their
rent
loss.
That's
something
that's
fairly
unusual
for
arlington
fairly
unusual
for
that
the
mid-tier
luxury
line
that
this
property
represents
as
far
as
occupancy
and
tenants.
D
So
we
do
believe,
as
we've
seen,
that
these
concessions
and
rent
loss
would
be
something
like
burn
off
as
opposed
to
be
held
in
perpetuity
or
that
something
that
the
owner's
planning
for
especially
again
giving
that
historically,
it's
not
something.
That's
affected
their
bottom
line
and
again
as
we're
looking
at
the
properties
around
ms
borman
noted
that
speaking
for
the
tenants
that
they're
not
going
to
want
to
live
there
because
of
all
the
construction
that's
going
on
around
them.
D
But
I
noted
that
both
the
millennium
and
acadia
actually
had
increased
their
occupancy,
not
only
historically
but
this
year
and
those
again
are
within
walking
distance,
they're
meters
away
from
the
bartlett.
So
I
find
it
very
speculative
the
idea
that
the
tenants
at
one
property
are
going
to
want
to
leave
while
they
occupy
the
buildings
right.
Next
door
for
all
the
down
the
talk
we've
heard
of
the
property
and
its
location,
you
know
the
flip
side
of
that.
D
Of
course,
it's
in
national
landing,
it's
across
the
street
from
amazon's
headquarters,
it's
across
the
street
from
amazon's
other
headquarters.
It's
amazon's
landlord.
This
is
owned
and
operated
by
the
the
same
company.
That's
working
with
amazon
on
their
pen
place
and
national
landing
millennium
park
projects.
D
It's
located
next
to
pentagon
city,
it's
walking
distance
to
the
metro.
Again,
we
look
at
this
property.
Historically,
we
do
see
that
they've
had
some
issues,
but
at
the
same
point,
if
we're
looking
longview
and
to
include
2017
and
2018
as
opposed
to
just
2019
and
2020,
we
can
actually
see
that
they
were
in
fact
stabilizing
from
2017
to
2019.
D
As
mr
harmon
noted,
you
shall
consider
these
effects
and
we
believe
we
have
we'd
ask
the
board
to
note
that
in
our
revision
our
projected
gross
income
is
almost
nine
hundred
thousand
dollars
lower
than
what
was
achieved.
Last
year,
why
do
we
do
that
to
get
a
effective
growth,
that's
more
in
line
with,
what's
been
stabilized
and
what's
been
achieved
at
the
property.
D
So,
if
you're
to
look
at
it
again,
big
picture
you'll
see
that
our
expenses
we
increased
from
our
projection
for
2021,
we
decreased
our
projections
for
effective
gross,
but
very
much
in
play.
Our
noi
is
very
much
in
play
with
what's
been
achieved.
Historically
again,
especially,
I
asked
the
board
to
look
at
column
b
in
2018.
D
That's
not
a
a
pie
in
the
sky.
This
is
something
that
was
achieved
within
three
years.
Four
years
of
its
opening
granted,
the
operating
expenses
have
increased,
but
the
board
has
no
excuse
me.
The
county's
noted
that
we
made
adjustments
to
our
per
unit
projection
for
operating
expenses
as
well
as,
overall,
we
did
tighten
our
projected
income
projection
based
again
on
the
increase
in
vacancy
in
2020,
and
we
do
believe
that
our
revision
that
we
made
is
warranted.
It's
a
six
percent
drop
year
over
year.
D
E
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
so
we
have
year
built
to
2015
that's
when
they
broke
ground
on
this
property
first
year,
lisa
was
actually
2016
and,
as
chris
stated,
this
property
is
two
699
units.
I
think
we
heard
this
case
before
the
board
2017.
They
were
still
going
through
a
initial
elisa
period.
E
So
it's
not
four
years
of
stabilized
property.
What
you
actually
see
in
2018
is,
after
three
years
the
property
reached
stabilization
and
when
you
look
at,
like
chris
pointed
out
in
2017,
they
were
still
going
through.
Lisa
noi
was
less
than
what
they're
asking
for
in
the
pro
form
this
property
again
first
year,
lease
of
2016
2017,
still
going
through
lisa
due
to
the
size
of
the
property
2018,
is
indicative
of
this
property
being
stabilized
2019.
E
There
was
a
slight
decrease
overall
for
the
property,
but
the
adjustments
made
by
chris
in
the
revision
definitely
taking
consideration.
What
happened
to
this
property
in
2020,
as
he
stated,
the
gpi
and
the
test
is
less
than
what
they
reported
for
2020..
E
The
egi
is
in
line
what
they
reported
for
2020
and
we
are
stabilizing
this
property.
We're
not
focused
solely
on
2020,
but
we
want
to
point
out
the
comparisons
of
what
we
did
taking
consideration
in
that
test.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
everybody
knows
broke
ground
2015
first
year
renting
was
2016.,
so
stabilization
was
reached
in
2018
for
this
problem.
C
J
It's
I
mean
the
the
dare
is
a
very,
very
large
apartment
property
and
penn
place
is
going
to
be.
You
know,
that's
the
14
acre
site
that
includes
the
residence
inn
that
was
purchased.
I
think
maybe
it's
11
acres.
It's
it's
incredible!
It's
it's
very
disruptive
to
tenants
and
it
is
going
to
be
very
disruptive
for
a
number
of
years
to
come
and
once
penn
place
is
built
out.
J
Then
you've
got
the
helix,
so
it's
it
is,
while
in
at
some
point
in
time
having
those
buildings
up
and
occupied
will
be
a
benefit
to
this
property.
At
this
point
in
time
and
for
the
next
for
the
immediately
foreseeable
future,
it
is,
it
is
going
to
hamper
both
living
there
and
getting
there.
G
I'm
just
I
want
to
make
sure
I'm
correct
that
everything
in
the
appellants
packages
related
to
the
apartments.
You
don't
have
any
issue
with
the
cap
rate
for
the
whole
foods
or
any
retail.
J
I
we
yeah
that's
interesting.
I
think
that
you
know
it's
such
a
small
portion
of
the
assessment
that
we
really
just
focused
on
the
the
apartments
which
we
feel
like
is
the
bigger
issue.
In
this
case,
it's
hard
greg
when
you're
in
eight
minutes.
G
Okay,
if
you
felt
like
that
the
seven
point
three
is
okay
for
the
whole
foods
lease.
Yes,.
D
Yes,
ma'am
and
that's
not
to
beat
a
dead
horse.
We
actually
someone
agree
with
ms
borman
that
the
retail
is
a
smaller
component,
but
that
is
to
point
out
that
all
42
000
square
feet
are
occupied
again,
that's
a
dream
scenario
for
most
property
owners.
This
includes
39
000
square
feet
for
whole
foods.
That's
leased
up
through
30
2036.,
a
pure
bar,
a
coffee
shop.
These
are
things
these
tenants
want
and
again
are
making
it
very
easy
for
them
to
find
an
apartment.
There,
we've
talked
about
again
looking
this
property.
D
Historically,
we've
talked
about
what
it
did
in
one
year's
time
dropped
vacancy
by
eight
percent
in
one
year
again,
essentially
its
second
year
of
lease
up.
We
do
believe
it's
well
positioned,
it's
well
amenitized!
It's
well
run
its
neighbors
directly.
Next
to
it,
millennia
and
katie
are
both
very
much
stabilized
under
five
percent
vacancy
each
whitmer
right
next
to
the
metro,
a
couple
blocks
away
under
three
percent
vacancy
building,
this
monetized
this
well
positioned.
D
We
do
believe
that,
based
on
this
stabilized
history,
that
the
revision
is
accurate
and
again
a
six
percent
drop
year
over
year
is
much
more
reflective
of
reality
at
a
24
drop.
We
do
believe
that
the
revised
value
of
332
million
482
200
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
K
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chica
seems
to
be
of
the
mindset
that
we
cannot
evaluate
these
parcels
separately,
the
I'm
sorry,
not
the
parcels,
but
the
portions,
the
apartment
and
the
retail
separately.
He
keeps
going
back
to
combining
them.
In
fact,
statute
requires
that
we
assess
them
separately
and
consider
them
separately.
That's
what
we've
done
here.
We
found
the
one
with
the
larger
air.
The
apartment
building,
the
response
to
the
vacancy
and
collection
not
being
adequately
considered
was
well
look
at
the
2020
assessment.
It
went
down
from
that.
K
That's
presuming
that
the
2020
assessment
is
perfectly
accurate.
We
are
not,
you
know,
that's
that's!
Quite
a
leap:
we've
relied
next,
we've
relied
on
two
years
of
income
and
expenses,
because
the
most
recent
reported
income
and
expense
is
most
probative
of.
What's
going
on
at
the
property,
mr
chicas
relies
on
2018,
which
has
been
stated
as
the
high
water
mark.
This
was
a
brand
new
property
just
now
getting
leased
up
in
2018..
K
Additionally,
those
are
the
years
when
this
was
delineated
and
it's
most
accurate,
because
it's
most
recent,
the
the
amazon
effect
is
years
away.
It's
negative
at
this
point
at
this
point
because
of
all
the
construction
that
will
be
considered
on
an
annual
basis
and
any
any
increase
attributable
to
that
will
be
reflected
at
that
point.
K
With
this
we
have
levers
on
this
assessment
that
we
can
adjust
what
mr
chicas
has
done
in
his
response.
He
mentions
income.
You
know
he
made
slight
adjustments
here
and
there
that's
really
trying
to
disguise
the
the
main
issue.
The
main
issue
here
is
vacancy
and
collection
was
not
adequately
considered.
K
Yes,
you
can
drop
income
by
a
little
bit,
but
if
it's
not
getting
to
the
resultant
noi
to
fully
reflect
that
vacancy
and
collection
loss,
it's
not
good
enough.
It's
just
hiding!
You
know.
It's
just
manipulating
the
numbers
to
make
it
look
like.
We
did
consider
vacancy
and
collection
when,
in
fact,
you
know
the
resultant
noise
tell
the
story,
so
we
do
believe
that
this
property
has
a
history
of
declining
noi,
high
vacancy
and
collection
and
as
such
per
the
statute
should
be
considered.
Thank
you.
C
C
However,
I
think
we
need
to
distinguish
you
know
a
building
going
up
versus
an
entire
project.
I
was
recently
hired
by
the
rotin
rotundo
condominium
out
out
in
tysons
and
boro
is
being
constructed
next
to
it
and
when
boro
is
done,
it's
going
to
probably
add
some
value,
but
in
the
meantime,
they're
dealing
with
dynamiting
they're
dealing
with
the
construction
noise
they're
dealing
with
inability
to
get
in
and
out
of
their
project
and
they've
got
they
had
to
battle
over
nighttime
construction,
and
so
they
hired
me
and
I
worked
with
the
applicant.
C
We
got
a
whole
bunch
of
proffers
done,
which
will
protect
them,
and
my
thinking
and
I'll
see
if
anyone
agrees
with
this.
My
thinking
is
that,
with
the
magnitude
of
a
construction
project
of
this
nature,
I
think
there
are
some
tenants
that
are
going
to
pass
on
this
particular
building
and
go
live
elsewhere
until
this
is
built
out-
and
this
is
probably
the
biggest
project
in
arlington
in
a
whole
lot
of
years.
H
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
find
out
barnes.
How
did
you
come
up
with
that?
Well,
I
guess
we
can
discuss
that,
but.
C
Jose
what
I
did
and
I
wasn't
exactly
sure
how
to
go
about
it,
but
I
took
on
page
31
there's
a
figure
for
operating
expenses,
5
million
453
471,
and
I
took
the
county's
revision
and
substituted
it
for
the
579
and
they
did
the
subsequent
math.
C
G
Yeah,
I
was
just
kind
of
going
along
your
line
of
thinking
barnes.
Do
you
think
the
value
would
go
up
if
the
project
stopped
across
the
street.
G
I
mean,
I
think,
a
lot
of
the
value
in
that
building.
It's
not
in
the
next
two
to
five
years
of
operation,
and
that's
not
what
the
market
looks
at.
That's
why
the
the
financing
on
it
has
a
five-year
interest-only
period
is
because
there's
recognition
that
the
value
of
that
property
is
being
created
through
the
construction
project
across
the
street.
C
Very
good,
I
agree
with
that,
but
the
the
experience
that
the
owners
of
the
rotunda
is
that
there
has
been
a
chill
in
the
ability
to
sell
those
units
and
there's
no
doubt
when
it's
all
said
and
done,
it'll
be
more
valuable.
But
in
the
meantime
you
got
to
deal
with
all
the
hassles
and
I
think
it
does
impact
some
value.
G
Yeah
and
just
in
in
when
you're
talking
about
hq2,
the
capital
markets
can
look
past
a
five-year
construction
period.
That's
they're!
Not
that
short-sighted!
You
know,
that's
that's
why
they
they're
holding
on
to
this
property.
That's
why
they've
got
a
long-term
agency
loan
on
this
property
right.
They
had
no
problem
closing
financing
in
july
of
2020,
which
reflects
the
opinion
that
freddie
mac
thought
it
was
stabilized
enough
to
put
a
10-year
loan
on
it.
F
My
video's
not
working
well
with
my
audio
okay,
go
ahead.
Okay,
thank
you.
I
was
sympathetic
with
barnes
point
of
view,
but
mr
chief
has
pointed
out
that
the
immediate
neighbors
were
not
experiencing
significant
vacancies,
which
which
lends
to
the
fact
that
this
is
a
great
location
and
a
great
building
and
a
great
environment.
F
The
long-term
value
was
there
because
penn
place
is
so
wonderful
and
amazon
is
so
wonderful.
I'm
not
sure
that
this
is
now
the
opposite
of
what
I
just
mentioned:
we're
not
looking
at
long-term
value,
we're
looking
at
the
value
as
of
1
1
20.
and
what's
the
circumstance
there
smoothed
out
for
mass
appraising.
F
H
Yeah,
I
did
a
little
bit
different
than
what
you
did
barnes.
I
I
recognize
and
I
think
it's
a
big
project-
and
I
you
know,
like
ken
just
said,
we
have
to
look
at
the
value.
What
was
you
know
at
the
beginning
of
the
year
and
I
did
increase
the
vacancy
not
much,
but
instead
of
five
percent
on
the
apartment
side,
I
increased
it
to
six
percent,
and
by
doing
that
I
come
up
with
a
final
value.
H
H
So
but
I
am
sympathetic
I
think,
for
this
year
to
give
the
extra
allowance.
I
guess
going
a
little
bit
from
what
you
know.
The
guidelines
indicate.
A
A
I
I
didn't
the
value
historically
has
been
going
down.
I
think
in
the
market,
this
property.
While
I
do
understand
the
the
construction,
the
you
know-
increased
vacancy
and
rents,
I
think
in
the
market
people
are
going
to
look
at
this
property
or
buyer
would
look
at
this
property
as
its
location
and,
what's
going
on
around
it?
Yes
right
now,
it's
down
or
the
impact
is
showing
it
going
down,
but
I
don't
think
a
buyer
is
going
to
look
at
it
that
way.
I
This
is
a
good.
This
is
a
great
location,
and
it's
a
and
the
what's
going
on
in
the
construction
is
an
asset
to
this
property
going
forward.
I
I
think
the
county
is
pretty
close.
I
A
Okay
and
mr
hoffman,
you
agree
with
that.
G
A
All
right,
miss
hogan:
where
are
you
on
it?
I'm
not
fine
with
the
county?
Okay,
because
I
I
just
wanna
I
I
can
live
with
the
county's
revised
number
as
well.
I
just
didn't
want
to
get
a
motion
out
there
and
have
it
fail
and
then
it
would
revert
back
to
the
original
county's
number
and
I
think
everybody's
in
agreement
that
at
minimum
the
revised
number
is
better.
So
that
being
said,
would
somebody
like
to
make
a
motion.
A
A
A
Fine,
okay!
So
it's
five
to
two
and
that's
without
mr
lawson
and
mr
matskin,
so
the
county's
revised
number
of
332
million
482
200
is
confirmed.
J
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chairwoman,
members
of
the
board
and
chris
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
the
county
included
information
in
its
case.
That
was
not
included
in
the
appeal,
and
that
is
mentioning
of
vacancy
rates
at
other
properties.
We
have
since
looked
up
those
vacancy
rates
and
don't
agree
that
they
were
accurately
reported
by
the
county,
and
would
ask
that
the
madam
chairwoman,
that
you
remind
the
county
that
it
should
keep
its
information
to
that
in
the
board
package
when
it
throws
that
sort
of
information
out
there.
J
A
Noted
you
can
re
address
it
in
your
final
wrap-up.
However.
Okay.
That
being
said,
we're
going
to
move
on
to
the
next
case
on
the
agenda.
Do
we
have
mr
steinhauser
on.
A
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
subject:
property
is
5500
columbia,
pike,
it's
a
234
unit
apartment
building
with
about
7
500
square
feet
of
retail
space.
L
I
I've
been
told
by
the
county
that
they
have
a
revised
revised
number
so
after
kind
of
taking
a
closer
look
at
that
for
the
purpose
of
this
board.
Hearing
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
accept
that
number.
L
D
Yes,
ma'am
so
just
to
be
clear
to
to
sort
of
expand
upon
what
mr
steiner
was
speaking
about
is
we
did
air
in
not
including
a
personal
property
deduction
for
furnished
units
that
are
at
the
property?
We
did
realize
our
error.
We
did
make
a
revision
down
to
71
million
two.
Fifty
two
eight,
and
I
believe
that
is
what
mr
steinhauser's
accepted.
A
Seventy
one
two,
fifty
two,
eight
yes
ma'am.
Okay,
any
discussion
or
objections
from
any
of
the
board
members.
A
No
all
right,
then,
I
will
move
to
confirm
this
revised
number
of
71
million
250
to
800,
so
a
second
okay,
second
by
mr
lawson,
all
in
favor
opposed.
Okay,
that's
unanimous!
The
revised
number
of
71
million
250
to
800
is
confirmed.
A
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
subject,
property
is
the
telus
apartments.
It
contains
254
apartment
units
and
approximately
thirteen
thousand
five
hundred
square
feet
of
retail.
L
L
So
moving
right
along,
you
can
just
see
a
quick
property
summary
report
on
page
53
and
54
from
costar
kind
of
shows.
The
asking
rents
of
all
the
various
types
of
units
also
shows
costars.
You
know
numbers
on
where
the
rents
were
year
over
year,
which
you
can
see.
L
You
know
between
9
and
13
reduction
or
decreases
year
over
year,
and
also
where
vacancy
rates
are
which
at
the
current
building
is
about
eight
percent
and
as
well
as
the
market,
which
is
again
an
increased
year
over
year.
L
If
everyone
wants
to
flip
to
page
57
of
102.,
this
is
sort
of
the
meat
of
our
analysis,
our
income
approach.
We
have
our
valuation
on
the
left
and
the
counties
on
the
right.
L
The
biggest
h
issue
here
really
was
the
rents
and
I
think,
that's
sort
of
one
of
the
main
thing
the
assessor
did
address
at
you
know
with
his
revision.
So
we
appreciate
that,
but
just
to
sort
of
flesh
that
out
there
was
a
you
know,
a
13
to
15
percent
year-over-year
decline
in
market
runs
at
this
building,
especially
this
one
has
a
predominant,
predominantly
efficiencies
in
one
bedrooms,
and
we
felt
those
were
actually
hit
harder
than
some
of
the
larger
units.
L
L
Yeah,
I
won't
be
beat
the
dead
horse
too
much.
The
assessor
did
do
a
you
know,
pretty
good
job
of
you
know
reducing
their
pgi.
We
have.
We
got
a
difference
of
about
750
000
here
and
I
think,
with
the
revised
numbers,
it's
closer
to
250
000.
So
thank
you
to
the
assessor,
for
you
know,
making
those
changes.
L
We
did
reduce
the
parking
income
slightly
as
well,
and
I
think
the
assessor
did
too
so
no
issue
there.
We
use
a
higher
other
income
and
I
think
the
assessor
did
that
as
well.
We're
using
just
you
know
a
five
percent
vacancy
in
collection
loss
because
that
that
goes
with
the
guidelines.
It
doesn't
the
guidelines,
don't
give
any
room
to
go
up
or
down,
though
we
think,
maybe
in
the
future.
That
needs
to
be
instituted.
When
you
know
this
building,
for
example,
was
eight
percent
vacant
and
had
collection
loss.
L
You
know
you
should
be
able
to
sort
of
flex
it
up
or
down.
We
went
with
five
percent
again
because
that's
what
the
guidelines
say-
and
you
know
hopefully
that
those
issues
will
be
addressed
in
other
areas.
L
Probably
the
biggest
issue
are
the
is
the
operating
expenses,
the
assessor
disallowed,
a
bunch
of
the
expenses
from
the
petitioners
ine
statement.
So
you
know,
unfortunately,
for
me,
when
the
board
goes
back
to
look
at
the
test
sheet.
The
expenses
are
going
to
appear
lower,
but
you
know
I
guess
some
of
those
were
disallowed.
L
We
still
felt
like
even
looking
at
with
the
disallowed
expenses
it
still,
the
assessor's
numbers
seemed
low.
They
actually
lowered
their
expense
figure
from
what
they
used
in
the
original
assessment,
so
we
would
hope
the
board
and
take
a
look
at
that
cap
rate
is
an
issue
here
as
well.
We
don't
feel
like
a
sub
4
cap
rate
is
supported
whatsoever,
but
we
know
how
that
argument
goes
as
well.
So
I've
also
deducted
the
business
personal
property
here.
No,
these
aren't
furnished
units.
L
I've
made
this
case
for
all
my
apartments
and
I
will
continue
to
that.
It's
an
economic
unit.
The
value
of
the
personal
property
adds
to
the
to
the
rents
that
they're
able
to
achieve
with
all
the
amenities
that
they
have
and
if
those
are
taxed
separately,
then
they
should
be
deducted
from
the
income
value
here
to
get
the
real
estate
only
value.
L
We
had
no
issues
with
the
the
retail
assessment,
except
we
thought
the
assessor's
net
rentable
area
was
was
too
high.
It
should
be
13
039
square
feet.
L
L
One
thing
I
would
like
the
asset
board
to
take
a
close
look
at
here,
page
61
of
102..
We
actually
have
a
summary
of
the
last
25
new
leases
signed
at
the
building.
You
can
see
what
the
new
lease
rent
is.
L
L
Even
with
the
second
chart,
the
last
25
renewals,
you
can
see
they're
taking
a
loss
on
renewals
as
well
as
the
concessions
were
going
up
and
up
and
up
at
the
end
of
the
year,
even
on
renewal
leases.
L
L
As
well
as
our
additional
cap
rate,
surveys,
etc
and
the
incoming
expense,
so
just
to
tie
that
all
back
to
the
test
sheet,
I
we
appreciate
the
assessor's
revision
to
his
pgi.
It's
much
closer
to
what
we
were
using.
It's
still
a
little
bit
higher,
but
it
was
a
big
change.
L
D
Yes
ma'am:
this
was
summarized
fairly
well,
but
mr
steinhauser
again
the
telus
over
in
the
courthouse
area,
relying
fairly
heavily
on
our
summary
sheet
again,
mr
steiner
summarized
it
correctly
in
that
the
biggest
difference
here
is
going
to
be
the
operating
expenses.
D
D
We
want
to
keep
those
distinct
things
like
amortization,
in
this
case
asset
management
fees,
partnership
fees,
really
anything
that's
not
necessary
for
the
annual
income
stream
to
be
achieved.
We
are
going
to
strip
away.
We
do
this
uniformly
for
every
property
that
we
see.
If
there's
a
questionable
expense,
we'll
ask
about
it
team's
credit.
Mr
steinhauser
gave
us
every
information.
We
asked
for
there's
emails
to
support
this
in
the
packet.
D
As
far
as
the
breakdown
now,
as
I
understand
it,
we
didn't
get
a
reconstruction
of
2019
because
there
is
a
employee
who
had
switched
at
the
company.
We
didn't
want
to
beat
that
dead
horse,
as
we
saw
there
was
reconstructions
in
2018
and
2020..
D
Also
going
to
contain
some
of
these
asset
management
fees
and
or
partnership
fees
that
we
would
consider
inappropriate.
But
again,
I
think
the
point
that
we
wanted
to
be
to
make
was,
if,
again,
you
look
at
a
from
a
stabilized
point
of
view.
You
see
year
17,
you
see
the
reconstruction
of
18,
you
see
the
reconstruction
of
20.,
that's
where
we're
going
to
be
basing
our
revisions
upon
the
operating
expenses
that
are
necessary
for
the
annual
income
stream
are
included,
those
that
we
deem
inappropriate
or
not.
D
That
being
said,
we
did
perform
a
revision,
as
mr
steiner
noted,
we
did
make
a
revision
bolt
to
our
projected
gross.
This
is
much
more
in
line
to
get
a
stabilized,
effective
gross
again
the
increase
in
vacancy
much
like
last
case
much
like
the
first
case.
Much
like
many
cases,
you've
heard
this
year.
There
was
an
uptick
in
vacancy,
but
that
was
after
years
of
a
decrease.
So
nobody
wants
to
hear
that
this
is
only
going
to
be
one
year.
D
D
you'll,
see
that
our
revision
reflects
that
we
did
make
a
revision
adjustment
to
our
operating
expense,
as
mr
steiner
noted.
But
again
that
was
much
more
to
be
in
concert
with
what
was
reconstructed
for
years.
2018
in
2020,
again,
2019,
we
believe
is,
is
probably
a
little
bit
high,
but
we
still
included
that
year
in
our
reconstruction.
D
Again,
following
the
same
logic,
we
made
a
revision
downward
to
our
noi
projection.
I
would
note
that
year
over
year,
this
is
a
downward
revision
of
two
over
two
percent,
again
reflective
of
what
happened
in
the
year
2020,
but
we
do
want
you
to
to
be
reflective.
Also
of
the
stabilized
nature
of
this
project,
this
property-
you
can
see
the
income
stream.
You
can
see
the
vacancy
concession.
This
is
stabilized
property.
D
Again
we
did
make
adjustments
to
that
squashing,
the
gross
bits
until
rent
to
get
to
an
effective
gross.
That's
stabilized,
based
on
those
metrics
based
on
the
vision
downward
from
year
over
year,
based
on,
we
believe,
being
a
bit
more
prudent
revision,
as
opposed
to
the
appellants
over
20
percent
drop
year
of
year,
which
we
believe
is
just
too
aggressive.
D
E
No,
I
think,
like
you
said
just
please,
look
over
the
comments
section
and
understand
what
expenses
were
removed
for
the
reconstruction,
some
of
the
expenses
highlighted
in
the
comment
section
where,
like
sales
tax,
which
was
added
as
an
expense
and
things
of
that
nature,
this
is
consistent
in
our
approach
with
all
property
types.
C
Yeah,
this
is
for
the
county.
There
was
a
notation
that
the
retail
space
is
off
by
450
square
feet.
A
is
that
accurate
and
b
doesn't
make
any
difference.
D
So
I
noted
mr
steiner
said
that
if
you've
noticed
my
rent,
retail
rent,
roll
actually
has
a
square
footage
of
13
049.
So
I
believe
that's
got
to
be
derived.
If
that's
not
in
here,
it
must
be
part
of
the
rent,
roll.
A
D
You'll
see
my
rent,
roll
and
then
right
below
that
you'll
see
the
rent
roll
detail
from
the
management
and
I
believe
those
numbers
do
equal.
Thirteen
thousand
forty,
nine
okay.
Thank
you.
F
For
the
appellant,
I
wanted
to
know
if
you
consulted
with
your
client
on
the
the
revised
operating
expenses
that
that
the
department
has
brought
up
a
couple
of
times
that
they've
taken
out
of
your
historical
operating
expenses.
L
This
is
the
first
year
that
it
was
an
issue
that
it
was
brought
up
to
be
my
by
mr
chicas
and
yeah
I'll,
certainly
relay
that
to
them,
so
that
they
can
report
them
correctly.
Moving
forward.
G
D
Not
on
this
one,
mr
hoffman,
as
we've
talked
about
historically,
when
we
have
furnished
units,
we
will
apply
that
below
the
line.
All.
D
Yes,
ma'am
and,
and
just
to
sort
of
reiterate
what
mr
made
skin
was
getting
at
again
to
mr
sanders
credit.
There
was
no
hiding
of
these
numbers.
Everything
was
out
in
the
open.
We
asked
about
them,
they
reported
them.
We
actually
appreciate
that.
That's
what
we're
looking
for
with
the
relationship
with
their
owners
and
their
agents
is,
is
just
transparency.
What
is
this
number?
Here's,
what
the
number
is
and
then
giving
us
the
option
to
decide.
Is
that
inappropriate
or
appropriate?
D
D
That
being
said,
the
reconstructions
point
to
revision
that
is
prudent
and
appropriate
of
111
million
five
hundred
and
forty
one
thousand
four
hundred
again
a
over
two
percent
drop
over
last
year.
Now
we
asked
the
board
to
confirm
that
value
hundred
eleven
million
five
hundred
forty
one
thousand
four
hundred.
Thank
you.
L
Yeah
thanks,
it
sounds
like
the
big
issue.
Here
is
definitely
operating
expenses,
even
looking
at
the
assessor's
reconstructed
operating
expense,
figure
of
239
0146.
L
So
it's
still
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
less
than
the
reconstructed
figure
from
2020,
and
that
might
sound
like
you
know,
I'm
talking
about
you
know
it's
a
small
number
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things,
but
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
at
a
five
percent
cap
rate
we're
talking
about
two
million
dollars
in
value.
So
at
the
very
least
you
know
we
would
hope
the
board
would
consider
you
know
increasing
the
expenses,
maybe
back
to
what
the
assessor
was
originally
using,
or
at
least
you
know,
by
a
hundred
thousand
dollars.
L
I
think
we're
you
know
we're
mostly
on
the
same
page
with
the
other
issues,
but
you
know
they're
way
below
what
they
expected
to
get
when
they
built
this
property.
You
know
10
years
ago
or
so
so
you
know,
obviously
any
any
that
they
can
get
they'll
be
happy
to
take
thanks.
A
Okay,
thank
you
all
right.
It's
just
among
the
board
members!
I'll
start
on
this
I
mean
I'm
sympathetic
to
what
the
appellant
just
brought
up
about
the
expenses.
But
when
I
look
at
the
noise
and
you
look
at
where
the
county
is
on
the
revised
number
they're
below
by
200
000,
what
the
county
or
what
the
appellant
actually
reported.
A
G
I
think
that
2020
numbers
is
retail
and
apartments
and
then
and
then
to
the
counties
a
little
bit
above
it
in
their
revised
number.
G
So
they're
actually
a
little
bit
above
the
top,
the
total
being
five
eight
reconstructed
and
and
if
you
look
at
columns
h,
it's
like
five,
almost
five,
nine,
so
they're
about
a
hundred
thousand
above
last
year's
actuals
in
the
in
the
revision.
G
Total
and
and
to
that
point
I
was
kind
of
thinking
that
that
I
I'd
I'd,
rather
I'm
I'd
like
it
to
go
back
closer
to
2020
the
actuals
just
because
I
don't
really
see
the
the
performance
this
year.
Having
improved,
I
mean
now,
I'm
obviously
looking
10
months
into
the
year,
but
probably
more
optimistic
now
than
we
were
in
january.
H
Well,
not
really,
I
don't
I'm
okay
with
the
revised
assessment
and
based
pretty
much
based
based
on
the
extra
expenses
that
the
parents
included.
You
know
that
are
noted
in
the
at
the
bottom
of
the
summary.
I
think
that
makes
a
difference.
You
know
if
it
was
just
without
any
other
extra
expenses
included
in
the
total.
I
think
I'll
be
inclined
on
making
an
extra
allowance
on
the
expenses,
but
I'm
okay
with
it.
I'm
okay,
with
the
revised.
A
G
Real
quick
and
I
know
we're
in
a
rush
here-
I'm
going
to
just
point
it
out,
but
it
just
seems
odd
that
the
cap
rate
on
this
property
is
lower
than
the
cap
rate
for
the
bartlett
on
both
the
retail
and
the
apartments.
It
just
seems
odd
to
me.
I
think,
that's
something
we
should
look
at
the
guidelines
next
year.
A
Yeah
I
didn't
either
thank
you.
Okay,
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
move
to
accept
the
count
as
revised
number
of
a
reduction
of
a
hundred
and
eleven
million
five
forty
one
four
hundred
a
second
okay
motion
is
second
by
miss
hogan,
all
in
favor
aye.
All.
C
A
C
I'm
sorry
I
was
in
favor
of
the
county's
revised
figure.
Okay,.
A
So
it's
six
to
one
without
mr
hoffman,
the
county's,
revised
number
of
111
541
400
is
confirmed.
A
H
All
right
we're
going
to
continue
with
the
final
case
of
the
day.
This
is
the
economic
unit
1419070.
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
The
subject
property
is
an
office
building,
it's
known
as
one
virginia
square
located
at
3601
wilson
boulevard,
I'm
going
to
ask
everyone
to
flip
to
page
86
of
165
in
their
boe
memo,
and
that's
where
my
appeal
materials
begin
about
120
000
square
foot,
building
it's
been
vacant
for
nearly
four
or
I
think
yeah
four
years
now,
and
it
was
a
hundred
percent
vacant.
On
january
1st,
2021.
L
This
is
again
our
income
analysis,
you'll
see
the
actuals
from
the
prior
four
years,
2017
2018,
2019,
2020
and
then
you'll
see
the
assessment
following
that
and
then
our
opinion
of
value
for
this
to
the
right
so
start
off.
By
saying
we
appreciate
you
know
the
original.
You
know
the
movement
on
the
assessment
after
we've,
you
know
we
did
the
site
inspection
with
the
county
and
they
went
ahead
and
reduced
their
rent.
L
Our
point
there
was
that
the
asking
rent
you
know
is
right
around
40,
and
so,
if
we're
applying
a
six
percent
concession
as
the
county
does
and
their
guidelines,
you
know
the
rent
should
be
37.60
based
on
a
40
per
square
foot
rent
and
I
believe
they
agreed
with
that
and
they
went
ahead
and
made
that
change.
So
thank
you
to
the
county
for
doing
that.
L
The
additional
issues
that
we
had
are
one
the
operating
expenses.
Last
year
alone,
the
expenses
were
6.78
again,
this
building
is
100
vacant.
I
we
inspected
the
building.
You
know
the
hvac
is
barely
on.
If
on
at
all
on
many
of
the
floors.
L
Obviously,
the
staffing
levels
are
are
much
lower
than
what
they
would
be
if
the
building
was
occupied,
so
we
chose
a
stabilized
expense
figure
of
825
per
square
foot
which
again
is
supposed
to
represent.
You
know
the
fact
that
we're
using
a
25
vacancy
and
collection
loss
here,
so
you
know
we're
supposed
to
be
estimating
stabilized
expenses.
L
The
county
is
using
seven
dollars
per
square
foot.
Second
issue:
we.
You
know
I've
discussed
this
for
prior
cases,
but
we
feel
the
cap
rate
is
too
low
for
office
counties.
At
5.7
we
looked
at
sales.
We
looked
at
surveys,
we
thought
6.25
was
closer
to
abnormality.
L
The
county
is
using
70
per
square
foot
for
this
one
when
we
spoke
with
both
the
property
manager
during
the
site,
inspection
for
which
mr
peralta
was
present
for
and
then
also
a
conversation
I
had
with
the
broker
at
the
building
eric
mclaughlin,
they
said
they're
looking
at
upwards
of
125
dollars
per
square
foot
in
ti's,
so
70
is
completely
out
of
the
question.
L
We
used
a
hundred
dollars
per
square
foot
because
the
county
sort
of
has
a
lower
and
a
higher
number
100
is
the
higher
number
and
we
think
at
the
very
least,
that
should
be
applied
here
again.
That
information
was,
you
know,
was
also
reiterated
by
the
property
manager.
You
know
on
our
site,
inspection
with
the
county.
L
That's
in
addition
to
you
know
probably
two
years
worth
of
free
rent
on
a
10
year
lease.
So
I
mean
a
six
percent.
Concession
really
doesn't
cover
that
either.
But
you
know
we've
used
the
six
percent
concession
we
think.
At
the
very
least,
you
know
a
higher
the
higher
ti
allowance
should
be
applied
here.
So.
L
A
big
difference,
we're
talking
about
a
difference
of
you,
know
2.7
million
dollars.
Lastly,
we
deducted
the
2020
capital
spend,
which
included
you
know
some
modernization
of
the
lobby
and
and
common
spaces.
L
We
have
the
office
guidelines
in
there,
which
show,
I
think
they
actually
go
up
to
110
dollars
for
on
ti's
for
newer
buildings,
so
I
might
have
missed
a
boat.
There
should
be
110.
L
And
then
just
you
know
additional
articles
etc
the
income
and
expense,
but
to
tie
it
all
back
to
the
test
again
we're
thankful
to
the
assessor
for
his
the
movement
that
was
made.
You
know
on
the
rental
rate,
we
believe
the
expenses
should
be
higher
based
on
a
stabilized
number
and
the
most
important
issue
we
think,
is
the
ti
allowance,
which
we
think
should
definitely
be
higher
than
70..
L
M
Thank
you
with
this
project.
We
did
look
at
co-star
and
saw
that
the
rents
were
at
forty
four
dollars
a
square
foot.
We
did
make
the
reduction
in
looking
at
this,
what
they
proposed
for
the
gross
potential
of
this
property
in
2020
they're,
actually
using
a
39
per
square
foot
figure
and
that's
not
an
actual
number,
that's
what
they
projected
they
would
receive
in
2020
again,
this
property
is
100
vacant.
M
M
we're
valuing
this
property
at
a
fraction
of
that
about
32
of
that
value
we
captured
in
the
retest,
so
we
dropped
from
the
original
assessment
of
32
million
to
now
28
million
958
000..
M
Again,
when
looking
at
this
property,
we
did
see
that
there
was
a
you
know.
We
we
did
project
the
expenses
overall
in
the
last
few
years,
they've
been,
you
know,
projecting
about
three
and
a
half
four
dollars
over
the
last
three
years.
The
most
recent
expense
rate
was
significantly
higher
with
the
prior
with
the
project
100
vacant.
M
So
we
did
feel
that
the
original
expense
rate
was
used
in
the
test
and
we
think
that's
a
a
good
estimate
of
the
expenses
for
this
property.
Given
the
age
and
you
know
given.
B
C
M
Of
this
property
upon
review,
we
did
find
that
they
did
some
improvements
to
the
property
they
spent
about
1.5
million
dollars
in
renovations,
based
on
the
the
permit.
That
was
pulled.
That's
the
estimate
there
on
this
permit
for
the
conference
center
and
the
fitness
center
on
the
lobby
level.
M
If
you
refer
to
my
co-star
pages,
beginning
on
page
10,
you'll
see
further
down
the
pictures
that
show
the
renovations
of
that
fitness
center
and
conference
center,
and
you
know
just
looking
at
this
overall
from
overall
perspective.
Last
year,
we
were
at
the
same
assessment
that
we
assessed
it
for
this
year
and
that's
with
not
accounting
for
the
renovations
or
the
improvements
done
on
this
property.
Again,
the
1.5
million
dollars.
M
M
We
believe
that
this
assessment,
the
original
assessment,
was
fair.
Given
you
know,
we
we've
assessed
it
last
year.
There
was
no
appeal
this
year.
It
was
an
appeal,
but
they
made
a
renovation
to
the
property.
So
I'm
not
understanding
that
the
thinking
behind
appealing
this
year
versus
you
know
with
no
renovation.
M
I
believe
that
the
assessment,
the
actual
effective
age,
should
increase,
given
the
renovations.
I
know
it
is
the
lobby
level
is
the
fitness
center
and
conference
center,
but
we
believe
that
that
would
generate
more
value
for
the
property
and
attract
more
tenants
in
the
marketplace.
M
I
think
that's
all
I
have
for
now
irving.
Do
you
have
anything.
C
C
L
No,
I
actually
asked
the
property
manager
that
exact
question
myself.
If
they
were
holding
out
for
a
full
building
tenant,
he
told
me
they
certainly
are
not.
You
know
they
would
just
get
somebody
in
you
know
one
of
the
floors,
two
of
the
floors
you
know
whatever,
but
it's
like
the
deals
that
you
know
the
tenant
brokers
are
coming
forward
with
are,
you
know,
are
end
up
being
like
net
negatives
for
them,
the
concessions
that
they're
asking
for
are
so
high.
H
All
right,
thank
you.
Any
other
questions,
mr
masking.
F
One
for
each
party,
the
appellant-
I
noticed
the
trend
of
total
operating
expenses
from
2017
to.
L
Yeah,
admittedly,
this
is
my
first
year
representing
this
building,
so
I'm
not
as
familiar
with
the
prior.
You
know
17
18
and
19
expenses.
I
know
that
it's
been
vacant
100
vacant
all
four
of
those
years,
but
I'm
not
sure
you
know
about
the
the
the
jump
from
the
column
c.
To
call
me,
I'm
not
sure.
L
L
F
F
But
it's
been
100
vacant
for
a
while
when
when
do
you
be
on
below
the
line,
deduction
and
say
well,
this
is
just
let
me
let
me
start
over
just
a
moment.
The
25.
Let
me
ask
you
a
question
for
the
department.
I'm
sorry,
the
25
above
the
line
vacancy
allowance
just
refresh.
M
C
L
F
L
H
Okay,
I
only
had
a
question
for
mr
peralta
considering
that
the
building
is
empty.
Would
you
not
allow
a
higher
number
for
ti's?
H
I
know
we've
seen
in
other
buildings,
where
you
know,
I
guess,
in
shell
condition
that
the
ti
would
be
higher
than
the
70
figure.
M
Right,
my
understanding
there
was
a
a
few
sweets
and
grant
you
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
they
were
going
to
be
leased
out
as
spec
units.
I
think
they
were
left
from
what
I
understand
and
remember
from
the
previous
tenant
and
they
were
going
to
be
rented
out
as
such.
Is
that
correct
frank,
not
completely.
L
The
top
two
floors
were
gutted
completely
to
shell,
and
I
think
they
left
floors
two
and
three
just
that
would
build
out
from
the
prior
tenant
they've
just
left
it
there.
Oh
and
they
you
know
it's
like.
Maybe
they
can
get
somebody
in
that
will
take
it
as
is,
or
you
know,
with
minimal
improvements,
but
they're
also
ready
to
gut
that
too,
if
needed,.
H
M
Thank
you.
I
I
did
point
out
that
the
property
was
purchased
40,
61
million
in
2011.
since
then,
just
going
through
the
assessment
2012
is
we
valued
at
47
million
2013
51
million
2014
56
million
2015
was
59
million
right
now,
as
of
2020
2021.
We're
valuing
this
property
at
32
million
one
hundred
fifty
four
thousand
we're
following
what
we
believe
the
the
owner
has
projected
for
this
property.
We
believe
there
is
like
somewhat
of
a
floor
to
suggest
you
know
this.
M
This
property
has
decreased
in
value
upon
the
purchase
price
of
about
40.
You
know
32
percent,
given
that
you
know
that
test
figure
that
we
came
up
with
for
the
reduction.
We
just
asked
the
board
to
take
that
into
consideration
when
looking
at
the
actual
co-star
advertisement
for
this
property.
They're
advertising
at
forty
four
dollars
square
feet
we're
using
the
3760
per
square
feet
and
if
there's
any,
you
know
deductions
for
the
load
of
line
for
ti's
for
expenses
that
we
believe
that
would
be
a
wash.
L
H
L
I
I
hope
the
board
understands
a
purchase
price
from
10
years
ago,
when
they
had
a
full
tenant
in
place
in
the
building
is
entirely
and
completely
irrelevant.
At
this
point,
you
know
10
years
down
the
road,
the
building's
completely
empty.
The
market
is
completely
different
and
the
reason
the
assessment
needs
to
go
down
is
because
the
market
has
deteriorated,
deteriorated
for
office
buildings
with
large
vacancy
spaces
like
this
they're
having
an
impossible
time
trying
to
lease
it
up
spoke
to
the
broker.
We
spoke
to
the
property
manager.
L
The
guidelines
do
allow
for
an
up
to
110
dollar
per
square
foot
ti
allowance.
We
applied
100,
even
though
both
again
the
broker
and
property
manager
made
it
clear,
they're,
basically
they're
willing
to
go
up
to
125
or
that's
what
they're
going
to
have
to
give.
You
know
to
get
tenants
in
the
building.
L
So
that's
really
the
big
issue
and
we
hope
that
the
board
will
take
a
close
look
at
the
ti
allowance.
Thanks.
C
Yeah
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
and
throw
my
thinking
out.
First,
I
want
to
compliment
the
county
and
the
applicant
for
this
case.
In
the
last
case,
it
was
very
you
know,
very
good
job
of
presenting
the
information
I
kind
of
have
mixed
feelings
on
one
hand,
jose
asked
the
question,
which
was
exactly
what
I
was
thinking,
which
is
that
I
think
the
the
ti
should
go
up
from
the
70,
and
I
know
ken
ken
educated
us
a
couple
meetings
ago
about
how
ti
is
negotiated.
C
It
could
be
all
over
the
place,
but
I
do
think
that
that
you
know
the
world
has
changed
a
little
bit
with
office
and
they're,
just
not
that
many
office
seekers
around
right
now
and
we
have
an
awful
lot
of
vacant
space
and
will
probably
be
that
way
for
a
while
and
on
the
other
hand
every
once
in
a
while.
You
have
a
owner,
a
property,
that's
just
stubborn,
and
they
they
want
what
they
want.
C
C
So
my
suggestion
and
and
I'll
see,
if
any
of
my
colleagues
agree
with
this,
what
I
did
was
took
the
county
figure
of
the
28
958
and
I
bumped
up
the
ti
to
the
hundred
dollars
a
square
foot
and
ended
up
at
26,
344
276.
F
H
F
And
therefore
agreed
with
how
the
county
approaches
it,
I
want
to
back
off
from
that
in
this
one
unique
case,
this
thing's
not
only
100
vacant
but
has
a
history
of
100
vacancy
and.
F
Going
to
have
to
not
especially
after
experience
the
last
couple
years
not
depend
on
trying
to
get
a
fairly
good
fit
for
the
first
and
second
floors
as
currently
sold
out
and
applying
20
or
40
square
foot
to
accommodate
new
tenants,
but
really
go
down
the
shelves
they
got
to
do
something
fancy
I
mean
this
is
just
nuts.
I
I
honestly
think
it'll
go
hot
it'll
it'll
be
a
lot
higher
than
that.
I
think
this.
This
was,
it's
had
a
long-term
tenant.
This
was
not
built
out
for
the
general
market.
It's
20-year-old
billy,
I
mean
there's,
it's
gonna.
Take
some
work.
G
Mr
huffman,
I'm
just
running
the
numbers
I
think
I
came
might
be,
have
come
to
about
the
same
thing
that
barnes
had,
but
I
just
want
to
double
check.
C
H
In
the
meantime
I
wanted
to
let
you
know
I
did
the
same.
I
mean
I
wasn't
really
convinced
that
you
know
we
should
increase
it,
but
you
know
considering
that
some
part
of
the
building
is
in
shell
condition
and
you
don't
know
what
kind
of
tenant
you're
going
to
be
getting.
H
So
I
you
know
I
I
can
understand
why
the
owner
would
be
just
holding
on
and
not
really
shelling
the
whole
thing
at
this
point,
but
for
this
area
I
think
you
know
I'm
willing
to
accept
the
hundred
dollar
ti,
but
the
number
that
I
came
up
with
a
little
bit
different
than
barnes.
So
I
don't
know
what
number
did
you
come
up
with
greg.
J
H
Yeah,
I'm
okay
with
it,
so
if
any
of
you
want
to
make
a
motion
based
on
that,
I
think
we're
all
in
agreement.
I
think
we
have
a
go.
G
Okay,
yeah,
I
saw
your
number
was
off
by
about
20
000,
maybe,
but
I've
got
a
motion
to
reduce
to
26
million
364
300
and
that's
based
on
using
the
county's
test
column,
with
the
added
ti
at
a
hundred
dollars
a
square
foot.
A
second.
H
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
by
mr
huffman
and
a
second
by
mr
lawson
to
reduce
to
26
million
to
364
300,
all
in
all,
favor
against
nine,
so
it
is
five
to
zero.
The
reduction
is
passed
and
that's
all
for
this
case.
Thank
you.
H
H
Do
we
have
any
other
business
new
businesses
from
board
members
or
anything
pending?
No,
no.
D
D
The
same,
the
bartlett
gets
the
national
ending
bid,
so
they
get
that
0.043
to
both
retail
and
residential.
H
If
that's
all,
then
we're
going
to
adjourn
it's
10,
39
and
we'll
see
everybody
tomorrow.
Hopefully,.