►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing August 4, 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
Good
morning
today
is
wednesday
august
4th
2021.
This
is
the
arlington
county
board
of
equalization
hearing.
There
are
four
cases
on
the
agenda.
We'll
start
with
the
first
case,
which
is
rpc
one:
five:
zero:
seven,
zero,
zero,
zero
six,
mr
jonathan
kinney
was
representing
the
agent
or
the
owner
rather
and
has
asked
to
withdraw
the
case.
I'll
move
to
accept
the
withdrawal.
Do
I
have
a
second
okay
and
miss
hogan
has
a
second
all
in
favor
of
accepting
withdrawal.
B
A
Okay,
it's
unanimous
seven
to
zero.
The
second
case
also
has
been
asked
to
be
withdrawal.
That
is
rpc.
Excuse
me,
economic
unit,
zero,
five,
zero.
Five,
two
three
is
an
apple
at
2110,
north
monroe
street.
Again
I'll
move
to
accept
the
withdrawal.
Do
I
have
a
second
second
miss
hogan
again,
all
in
favor,
I
proposed
okay,
again
withdrawn
seven
to
zero.
The
third
case
on
the
agenda
has
not
been
asked
to
be
withdrawn.
That
is
rpc
one
four
zero,
three
six
two
three
three
property
is
located.
A
C
Thank
you
very
much
I'll,
please
direct
the
board
to
page
38
of
107,
which
is
our
summary
of
facts
about
this
property.
It
is
the
virginia
square
plaza
apartments
located
at
801
north
monroe
street
one
tax
parcel.
C
It's
currently
assessed
at
76,
446
100.,
the
county
is
recommending
a
value
to
the
board
of
74
490,
four
thousand
five
hundred
and
the
value
that
we're
asking
for
the
board
today
requested
from
the
board
today
is
68
million
six.
Ninety
seven
nine
hundred,
which
is
three
hundred
and
five
thousand
a
unit.
C
The
virginia
square
plaza,
is
a
nine-story
apartment.
Building
it's
located
in
the
ballston
virginia
submarket,
originally
built
in
1999
225
total
units
and
offers
a
mix
of
one
two
and
three
bedroom
units.
C
Please
direct
the
board's
attention
to
page
three,
the
apartment,
ine,
summary
you'll
see
column
d,
which
is
the
county's
original
assessment,
along
with
column
half,
which
is
the
county's,
revised
or
test
column,
and
and
following
that
that
test
column
and
the
revision
and
the
recommended
value
we're
very
close
between
the
county
and
and
the
petitioner
on
this
one.
C
Really
the
the
one
remaining
issue
is
with
regard
to
the
operating
expenses.
Now
one
thing
with
this
is
that
there
is
a
if
you
take
a
look
at
the
vacancy.
It's
been
again
a
very
stabilized
property,
as
many
of
these
properties
have
been
there.
We've
brought
forth
to
the
board
this
year.
Tow
vacancy
in
2017
was
four
percent,
also
four
percent
in
2018,
actually
two
percent
in
2019,
and
then
you
see
this
jump
again
up
to
five
percent
in
in
most
recent
year,
reporting
year
2020.
C
We
don't
feel
as
given
consideration,
at
least
that
with
regard
to
the
the
vacancy
and
issues
and
that
were
caused
by
the
pandemic
last
year.
All
of
these
buildings
in
these
property
types
last
year
were
being
assessed
using
a
six
percent
market
vacancy
last
year.
Did
that
drop
to
a
five
percent
this
year?
Now
again
with
the
test
column,
our
main
issue
is
not
with
the
the
county's
estimated
revenue,
but
with
regard
to
the
the
operating
expenses
operating
expenses.
C
If
you
take
a
look
at
the
historicals
again,
it's
been
a
very
stable
property
32
in
2017
31
in
2018
and
32
percent
in
2019,
and
it
jumps
to
33.81
almost
34
most
recently
in
2020.,
the
county
has
revised
their
expenses
up
to
from
31.6
to
33.25.
C
However
again,
and
we
still
have
a
you
know,
small
gap-
and
this
is
a
year
again
where
we
talked
about
this
yesterday,
where
normally
with
a
you
know
a
normal
year
non-covered
year.
This
is
again
a
stabilized
property.
C
We
would
agree
with
with
coming
up
with.
You
know,
an
average
expense
ratio
over
those
three
years,
but
last
year,
obviously
wasn't
anything
that
that
was.
C
Could
be
considered
a
normal
year,
a
lot
of
instability
and,
as
greg
spoke
on
yesterday,
instability
that
that
we
can
project
that's
going
to
impact
this
property,
for
you
know
not
just
this
year,
not
just
next
year,
but
probably
potentially
many
years
down
a
few
into
the
future,
so
we're
asking
for
the
board
for
for
additional
consideration
for
the
actual
operating
expenses
that
were
incurred
in
2020..
D
Good
morning
board,
starting
with
this
property
virginia
square
plaza,
you
can
see
that
on
the
original
assessment
we
were
below
the
2020
gpi.
We
apply
that
five
percent
vacancy
rate,
which
is
pretty
close
to
what
they
achieved
in
2020.
D
I
think
they're
reporting
five
point:
fifteen
percent
of
the
egi
used
by
the
county
or
assumed
by
the
county
based
on
our
calculations,
still
came
out
lower
than
what
they
reported
for
2020.
the
expenses.
When
we
looked
at
the
expenses,
we
saw
the
increase
in
2019
on
the
original
assessment
compared
to
year,
17
and
18.
So
we
projected
a
little
bit
higher
than
giving
more
weight
to
2019.
D
Mr
cheek
has
received
the
2020
information
and
increased
his
expenses
even
more
on
the
test.
We
looked
at
the
expense
rate
per
unit,
we're
not
focused
on
the
expense
rate.
I
mean
percentage
rate,
we're
looking
at
the
actual
dollar
amount.
2017
you'll
see
the
expenses
are
8
149
per
unit
2018,
the
expenses
were
eight
thousand
twenty
one
dollars
per
unit
and
in
2019
it
increased
to
eight
thousand
six.
Twenty
nine
per
unit
on
the
test,
mr
cheek
has
increased
expenses
to
eight
thousand.
D
The
actual
test
is
very
close
to
what
they
achieved
in
2020
again,
we've
said
throughout
the
ble
process
and
department
here,
and
we
we
don't
just
simply
take
the
20
20
information
applied
cap
rate
to
it.
We
look
at
the
history
and
we
did
give
way
to
the
2020
information
that
we
received.
That's
why
mr
cheekis
is
recommending
a
reduced
value
of
74
million
494
500.
D
again
this
property
has
been
very
stabilized,
as
you
can
see
by
the
history.
They
tend
to
be
much
less
than
the
actual
vacancy
that
we
use.
Even
by
mr
warren's
admission,
we
did
reduce
our
vacancy
rate
from
six
percent
to
five
percent.
Six
percent
was
used
to
value
this
property
last
year,
but
you
can
see
in
2019
the
information
reported
a
vacancy
of
1.95
percent,
so
we
treat
this
property
the
same
as
we
treat
all
other
properties.
Applying
a
guideline.
D
A
E
Good
matskin,
I
have
a
a
a
quick
question
for
the
development.
You
made
an
argument
that
I
hadn't
heard
before
that
intuitively
makes
sense,
and
that
is
during
covid.
Operating
expenses
go
up,
we
don't
know
significantly
or
modestly,
but
certainly
there's
extra
cleaning
going
on
of
common
areas
and
and
that
might
account
for
your
colony
cost
increase,
which
the
department
has
been
somewhat
sensitive
to.
Is
there
any
other
costs
due
to
covet
that
impact
operating
expenses
going
upward.
C
Obviously,
the
cleaning
is
a
big
one.
You
know
all
the
the
sanitation-
and
you
know
most
of
these
properties.
They
all
have.
You
know
the
hand
sanitizer
available.
I
know
sophie,
you
could
probably
think
sophie
now.
I
don't
know
if
you
can
speak
more
on
some
of
the
additional
costs
in
addition
to
the
cleaning.
F
Yeah,
so
this
is
greg
rains
with
ditmar
hey.
Thank
you
good
morning
we
yeah
there's
extra
cleaning,
but
the
bigger
cost
is
the
labor.
There
were
requirements
that
moved
in
and
out
for
suggestions
from
different
cdc
or
locally.
So
any
thank
you
to
virginia
replies
that
for
an
instance,
but
you
know
just
globally.
Fitness
centers
had
to
have
an
attendant
to
check
temperatures,
to
have
a
form
filled
out,
saying
there
wasn't
any
covert
restrictions,
any
any
preventive
maintenance
that
we
that
we
did.
F
So
if
you
went
into
you,
we
go
into
all
of
our
units
three
or
four
times
a
year
for
filter
changes
as
an
example,
we
would
have
to
put
on
the
proper
pp
e
go
in,
remove
all
of
it.
Take
the
filter,
the
booties
the
hand
gloves
the
masks
put
them
all
in
a
bag
separately.
F
Take
those
out
also
had
to
have
a
person
in
the
hallway
to
make
sure
that
all
of
that
was
being
done
properly
and
they
could
take
the
ppe
and
discard
of
it
properly.
So
really
it's
you
know.
If
you
have,
this
probably
doesn't
have
a
pool,
but
just
give
you
guys
examples
for
your
other
cases.
F
If
you
have
a
pool
that
had
to
have
a
physical
attendant,
that
was
not
lifeguard,
so
there's
a
lot
of
personnel
that
was
added
from
a
maintenance
and
a
client
service
standpoint
that
wasn't
really
based
on
service
as
much
as
it
was
based
on
safety.
B
Yes,
thank
you,
ken.
That
was
a
great
question.
I'm
gonna
kind
of
follow
up
on
it
and
ask
greg
greg.
I
go
into
one
of
your
buildings
quite
a
bit
to
visit
a
friend,
and
I
see
signs
posted
that
if
anybody
refers
a
tenant
they
they
get.
I
think
it's
500
bucks,
something
like
that
and
it
seems
like
maybe
that's
also
an
expense
to
try
to
attract
new
tenants.
F
F
I
got
one
roommate
moving,
I'm
moving
out,
you
know,
can,
can
I
get
the
referral
fee
to
move
in
plus
we're
given
two
months
off,
so
you
know
we
sophie
kind
of
tracks
that
as
far
as
referral
fees
versus
concessions,
I
I
would
she
even
know
better
than
eyes
exactly,
but
we
definitely
paid
more
referral
fees
this
year
and
they
grew
based
on
the
level
of
banks.
The
property
was
feeling
yeah.
A
Okay,
any
final
questions:
no
okay,
mr
bailey,
if
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up
sir.
D
Oh
yeah,
I
think
mr
cheeks
did
a
great
job
with
information
he
received
and
therefore
both
the
revised
value
of
74
million.
D
494
500
just
to
take
my
time
to
comment
on
their
referral
fee.
D
I
think
that's
part
of
the
concession,
that's
something
that
should
be
listed
on
the
ine
asking
sessions,
as
you
can
see,
compared
to
2019
their
vacancy
collection
loss
increased
from
1.95
to
5.15,
so
that
would
explain
the
500
referral
and
whatever
other
concessions
they're
offering
that
barnes
reference.
D
As
far
as
the
attendance
I
mean,
we've
done
inspections
of
property.
This
year
I
haven't
seen
any
attendance
beside
pools
or
in
fitness
centers
taking
temperatures.
So
that's
something
new
to
me.
D
D
When
you
look
at
the
columns
you
can
see,
there
was
an
increase
in
janitorial,
so
that
would
explain
the
increase
in
supplies
for
cleaning
maintenance
and
repairs.
There
was
an
increase
of
24.28
percent
that
explains
the
filter
changes
and
whatever
else
that
was
explained
by
mr
rayne,
and
we
did
take
all
that
consideration
when
we
increased
our
expenses
and
therefore
we
think
the
value
of
74
million
494
500
should
be
accepted
by
the
board.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you
again
I'll
just
reiterate.
I
mean
again
we're
close
on
this
one
following
the
the
county's
revised
test
column,
which
chris
did
in
column
f
and
really
it
just
comes
down
to
the
actual
total
operating
expenses.
You
know
greg
mentioned.
You
know
one
of
the
reasons
being
the
increased
cost
for
for
cleaning
supplies
and
personnel
caused
by
covid,
and
I
also
spoke
to
yesterday.
C
Just
regarding
you
know,
this
was
a
stabilized
property
last
year
was
anything
but
a
stable
year,
and
it's
it's
something
that
it's
not
just
going
to
be
a
one
year
blip
and
we're
back
up
and
running
to
just
normal
operations
the
next
year.
This
is
going
to
be
a
year's
process,
so
we're
hoping
the
board
considers
the
actual
operating
expenses
that
were
incurred
in
the
most
recent
reporting
year.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you
both
okay,
it's
just
among
the
board
members.
What's
everybody
think.
G
Sorry
I
accidentally
closed
my
my
sheet,
but
it
looked
like
the
county's
revised
column.
I
guess
column
f,
I
don't
have
it
in
front
of
me
anymore.
It
was
was
pretty
much
the
same
as
the
2021
pro
forma,
except
for
that
reserve
amount
of
a
hundred
thousand.
So
you
know,
I
think
if
you
use
the
2020
operating
year
and
you
cap
that
number
it
actually
comes
out
higher
than
what
the
county
is
at
right
now.
G
A
E
Yeah,
I'm
on
the
same
trend.
I
capped
out
the
the
appellant's
pro
forma
at
the
the
universal
cap
rate
in
the
county
for
such
buildings,
and
it
came
out
to
a
little
less
than
a
little
more
than
two
million
dollars
less
than
the
county's
revised
change
versus
the
almost
four
million
that
they
probably
was
asking
for
so
we're
getting
closer.
E
I
saw
I
thought
mr
chika's
column
d
assessments
without
the
2020
was
very
sensitive
to
copen,
bumping
up
vacancies
and
concessions
a
good
bit
to
actually
almost
equal
what
they
indeed
were.
I
buy
strongly
the
operating
expenses
increases
than
encoded,
and
I
was
thinking
in
my
head
while
listening
to
the
appellant's
description,
which
I'm
sure
is
extremely
realistic,
that
maybe
we
gotta
keep
it
up
at
the
2020
level.
But
of
course,
all
things
being
equal
operating
expenses
change
year
from
here.
A
Remediation,
so
I
I
like
the
revised
number
as
well:
okay,
anyone
else.
H
H
G
A
G
Yeah
I'll
motion
to
accept
the
county's
reduced
assessment
at
74
million
494
500.
C
Thank
you
I'll
direct
the
board
to
page
41
of
104,
which
is
our
summary
of
acts.
This
is
the
thomas
court
apartments
located
at
470
north
thomas
street.
One
taxable
rpc
currently
assessed
at
22
million,
407
thousand
nine
hundred,
which
is
four
hundred
fifty
seven
thousand
unit.
C
C
It
is
in
close
proximity
to
both
the
bolston
and
virginia
square
metro
stations
I'll
now
direct
the
county
or
excuse
me
the
board
to
page
three,
the
apartment,
income
and
expense
summary.
C
Now,
with
regard
to
this
property,
I'm
similar
to
the
last
property,
we
do
feel
in
the
in
the
revised
test
column
that
the
county,
although
they
bumped
their
expenses
up
slightly,
did
not
come
up
to
quite
what
was
reported
in
2020,
which
we
would
hope
the
board
would
take.
The
most
consideration
too,
and
then
in
addition
to
this
one,
we
feel
like
the
again,
the
the
you'll
see
the
total
egi
in
the
revised
test
column.
C
Although
came
back
down
to
close
proximity
of
what
was
actually
reported
in
2020,
which
was
one
million
five
hundred
seventy
six
thousand
nine
fourteen,
the
revised
test
column
shows
one
million
five
hundred
ninety
five
thousand.
We
would
ask
for
additional
consideration
for
the
actual
income
that
was
reported,
you'll,
see
again
that
this
property
in
terms
of
vacancy
historically
had
been
pretty
stabilized
now
dating
back
to
2017.
C
He
was
eight
and
a
half
percent,
four
percent
four
and
a
half
percent
in
2018,
again
four
and
a
half
percent
of
2019,
and
then
you
see
following
code
that
it
bumps
up
to
almost
10
percent
this
most
recent
year
here
the
county
is
classifying
this
as
a
mid-rise
they're
using
a
six
percent
market
vacancy
rate
again,
as
as
greg
has
testified
to
just
yesterday,
you
know
you're,
seeing
not
only
an
increase
in
the
vacancy,
but
a
lot
of
those
rates.
C
You
know,
although
they
may
be
signed
and
we're
getting
filled.
Some
you
know
midway
through
the
year,
we're
being
forced
to
be
signed
at
below
market
rates.
So
again,
this
is
a
property
where,
when
the,
when
the
county
does
these
revision
costs
they
take
the
the
prior
three
years
of
stabilized
operations.
C
You
know
in
a
normal
year
we
would
be,
I
think,
fine,
with
the
county's
test
column.
However,
again
as
greg
has
spoken
to
previously,
you
know,
last
year
was
was
not
a
stabilized
year
and
we
can
expect
this
to
be
the
start
of
a
downward
trend.
So
again,
I
think
the
the
column
e
should
be
a
starting
point
or
a
basis
point
for
the
2021
assessment.
C
The
noi,
as
you
can
see,
for
this
property
dropped
approximately
seven
percent
from
the
prior
year
from
19
to
20,
and
meanwhile
the
the
county's
assessment
increased
two
percent.
So
again,
although
we
feel
like
the
the
county's
close
on
their
column,
f
we're
just
asking
for
additional
consideration
with
regard
to
the
effective
gross
income
and
a
small
increase
to
be
more
in
line
with
the
apple
actual
operating
costs
of
the
property
that
were
reported
in
2020.
D
For
this
property,
I
think
mr
chicas
took
a
lot
of
what
was
reported
22
into
consideration.
You
look
at
first
off
line,
one
which
is
department
revenue.
The
original
assessment
apartment
revenue
was
lower
than
what
was
reported
in
2019
and
lower
than
what
was
reported
in
2020.
D
Our
apartment
revenue
on
the
test
is
47
476
dollars
less
than
what
they
reported
in
2020.,
the
six
percent
vacancy
was
applied,
they're
using
the
9.65
vacancy,
so
we're
slightly
higher
than
what
they
reported
in
2020,
but
we
are
significantly
lower
than
what
we
originally
had
in
the
2020
assessment.
D
D
He
used
a
higher
expense
rate
on
the
2021
of
assessment
than
in
2020
assessment,
and
then
with
the
test,
he
increased
it
slightly
higher
than
that
going
from
hundred
seventy
six
dollars
per
unit
to
eight
thousand
seven
hundred.
Ninety
four
dollars
per
unit,
the
resulting
noi
when
you
compare
the
revision
to
the
original
assessment,
is
almost
a
fifty
thousand
dollar
drop
in
noi.
D
D
I
think,
like
the
board,
did
on
the
last
case.
If
you
look
at
the
actual
2020
that's
reported,
the
value
would
be
much
higher
than
what
the
appellate's
asking
for.
D
D
C
E
Masking
I
have
a
question
for
the
appellant
you,
I
think
I'm
right,
you
have
three
very,
very,
very
similar
buildings
on
that
block
on
north
thomas
street,
this
being
one
of
them.
Maybe
it's
four.
I
think
it's
three
and
they're
all
four
stories
they
all
seem
to
have,
which
is
something
discussed
later.
They
seem
to
have
just
administrative
and
parking
and
non-residential
uses
on
the
first
floor,
but
I
was
wondering
why
this
one
of
the
three
is
being
appealed
and
not
the
other.
Two
and
again,
maybe
it's
three:
did
the
county
do
something
different.
C
E
D
Yes,
so
this
property
is
point
six
miles
away
from
the
boston
metro.
We
do
not
use
the
metro
cap
rate
on
this
property,
that's
reflected
in
the
original
assessment,
as
well
as
our
proposed
revision
with
the
information
provided.
Mr
chicas
determine
the
value
of
the
proposed
revision
should
be
21
million
578
3
800.
We
ask
that
the
board
accept
this
revision.
A
C
Yes,
thank
you.
Although
we
we
feel
that
the
column
f
was
was
appropriate.
We
just
don't
think
it
went
far
enough.
With
regard
to
the
consideration
of
the
the
total
operating
expenses.
Mr
bailey
had
mentioned
that
their
revised
column
shows
you
know
approximately
3
000
drop
in
in
noi
from
their
original
assessment.
You
know
the
actual
dollar
amount
drop
year
over
year
from
19
to
20
was
almost
double
that
at
close
to
90k.
C
You
know.
In
addition,
I
know
mr
bailey
has
mentioned
that
you
know
when
they're
valuing
properties
they're
not
so
much
looking
at
the
expense
ratio,
but
the
dollar
amount
that's
applied
in
those
operating
expenses
and
their
their
revised
column,
which
shows
a
revised
value,
which
was
just
a
five
five
thousand
dollar
increase
from
their
original
assessment.
425
425
000
in
their
original
it
increased
to
430
000..
C
You
know,
that's,
that's
almost
14
000
below
it
was
actually
reported
in
2020
and
18
000,
which
was
reported
below
the
2019..
So
the
most
recent
two
full
calendar
reporting
years.
You
know
the
actual
dollar
amount
was
was
above
the
the
total
operating
expenses
that
the
county
is
using
in
their
in
their
test
column.
Again
we're
just
we're
asking
for
consideration
of
the
actual
operating
costs
in
the
most
recent
reporting
year.
A
B
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chairman,
I'll,
share
some
thoughts
here.
The
first
thought
that
I'll
share-
and
I
guess
I'm
kind
of
maybe
giving
a
little
unsolicited
advice
to
ditmar.
Is
you
know
on
this
issue
of?
Is
it
a
garden
apartment?
Is
it
not
a
garden
apartment?
Is
it
mid-rise?
B
B
B
I
asked
the
question
about
distance
from
the
metro,
not
not
because
I
thought
we
were
applying
the
metro
cap
rate,
but
rather
I
was
thinking
about
walking
distance
and
you
know
these.
These
are
in
order
to
get
to
the
metro.
You've
got
to
go
around
boston
common,
and
so
you
either
go
to
the
right
or
the
left,
but
it's
actually
a
little
further
than
the
actual
distance,
which
might
account
for
the
greater
vacancy.
B
My
thought
is-
and
I
don't
know
if
the
rest
of
the
board
would
agree
with
this
or
not.
My
thought
is
that
the
you
know
county
again
did
a
really
good
job.
I
don't
think
they
went
quite
far
enough,
and
so
I
took
column
f
and
I
dropped
it
by
19
000
dropped
the
noi
by
19
000..
I
ended
up
with
21
221
925.
B
I
I
don't
know
if
anyone
would
agree
with
my
thinking
on
this,
but
you
know
for
what
it's
worth.
I
wanted
to
share
that
with
the
board.
B
What
I
did
is,
I
said,
I'm
sorry.
I
took
the
operating
year,
1
million
576,
914
and
versus
the
the
column
f1
1595,
and
I
just
I
didn't
do
it
exactly,
but
I
figured
the
difference
between
those
two
figures
was
19.
B
I'm
sorry
I
just
dropped
it
by
19
000.,
so
that
would
be
one
million
one
hundred
forty
five
nine.
Eighty
four.
H
A
B
Yes,
ma'am.
I
took
the
164
984
and
subtracted
19
000.
H
Yeah
normally
doing
doing
it
that
way,
you
would
have
to
adjust
the
number
on
the
expenses
also,
but
what
I
did
is
to
make
it
a
little
more.
I
guess
a
straight
shot.
H
I
pretty
much
increase
the
expenses
to
28
and
it
gives
me
an
noi
of
1
million
149
25
dollars
lit
slightly
higher
than
yours,
but
you
know
I'm
using
the
same
column
just
by,
because
I
think
in
this
case
I
think
the
numbers
show
that
the
expenses
may
be
slightly
lower
than
you
should
have
been,
even
though
the
income
above
is
lower.
But
the
agi
shows
that
you
know
it's
pretty
much
in
line.
So
that's
the
only
thing.
B
You
know
jose
the
reason
I
I
didn't
change.
The
expenses
was,
it
kind
of
seems
to
me,
like
the
expenses
are,
what
they
are
and
whether
you
have
a
high
vacancy
or
a
low
vacancy.
The
expenses
are
what
they
are
and
don't
change
just
because
you
have
a
higher
vacancy,
but
you
know
again,
I'm
I'm.
I
would
be
willing
to
go
with
with
your
proposal.
A
H
Sure
I'll
move
that
we
reduce
the
assessment
to
21
million
two.
Seventy
eight
two
hundred
and
that's
based
on
increasing
the
expenses
on
the
revised
assessment
to
28
percent.
A
Thank
you,
a
motion,
a
second
to
reduce
all
in
favor
aye
opposed;
okay,
it's
unanimous.
It's
reduced
to
21
million
278
200
based
on
the
county's,
revised
column
and
increasing
the
expenses
to
28
percent.
A
Okay,
does
anybody
else
have
any
business?
Mr
matskin.
A
Okay,
so
do
I
so
we'll
do
that,
so
no
other,
nothing
from
the
county.