►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing September 14, 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
On
south
oakland
street
we
have
miss
suzanne
ross
for
the
owner
and
laurie
roskin
is
representing
the
county.
Mr
lawson
has
a
conflict
on
this
and
will
not
be
participating
in
the
case,
so
it'll
just
be
the
six
of
us.
So,
ms
ross,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
B
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
46
south
cleveland
mixed
use,
office,
retail
property.
It
was
built
in
1950
and
the
office
edition
was
built
in
1987..
It
contains
25
000
square
feet.
68
of
the
property
is
off
of
space
and
32
percent
is
retail
space.
B
B
The
average
rents
received
were
25.76,
including
the
vacant
space,
which
is
unit
101..
On
the
office
side,
one
tenant
lucy
hawkins
only
paid
half
their
rent
in
2020..
As
far
as
vacancy
expense
and
cap
rate,
we
use
the
arlington
guidelines
for
offices
and
that
analysis
is
on
page
five
developed.
So
we
used
vacancy
of
20
expense
rate
of
11.50
and
a
cap
rate
of
8.295,
which
developed
a
value
for
the
office
space
of
two
million
one
hundred
thirteen
thousand
one
hundred.
B
Then,
if
you
turn
to
the
retail
portion,
it's
on
page
five
again
the
gross
potential
based
on
actual
leases
in
place,
the
average
rental
rates
received
were
thirty
one
dollars
and
nine
cents.
This
property
had
a
lot
of
covet
abatements
in
the
amount
of
eighteen
thousand,
eight
hundred
and
ninety
five
dollars
samara,
hair
salon
received
abatements
for
may
in
june
of
2020,
and
the
amount
of
2
86
and
sally
beauty
supply
received
abatements
for
four
months
from
april
to
june.
B
In
the
amount
of
three
thousand
two
hundred
and
eighty
one
dollars
page
six,
we
again
use
the
arlington
guidelines
for
retail
space,
with
a
vacancy
of
four
percent
expenses
at
13
and
a
cap
rate
of
7.3,
which
developed
the
value
of
2
million
772
300.
B
again
the
subjects
and
office
retail
mixed
use,
property
that
was
affected
by
the
closings
that
occurred
in
2020
due
to
covet.
We
just
asked
that
the
county
considered
the
rental
abatements
the
total,
adding
the
retail
and
office
space
together.
We
are
requesting
a
value
of
four
million,
eight
hundred
and
eighty
five
thousand
seven
hundred.
C
And
thank
you
board
members
and
miss
ross.
First
of
all,
this
is
this:
property
is
considered
219,
which
is
mixed
office
commercial.
The
pcc
is
219.
C
and
that
those
that
particular
property
class
code
falls
under
the
general
commercial
guidelines
and
we
don't
use
a
a
mix
of
of
the
large
office
guidelines
with
the
general
commercial.
We
actually
develop
this
particular
property
class
by
itself.
C
You
will
note
that
I
have
made
made
a
note
of
the
covet
abatements
and
they
actually
came
to
a
total
of
twenty
nine
thousand.
Five
hundred
also
note
on
this
page
you'll
see
what
the
average
retail
rent,
which
came
to
thirty
two
dollars
and
ninety
cents,
a
square
foot
and
then
the
average
office
rent
was
27
dollars
and
60
cents.
C
Taking
that
information
and
going
to
the
test
page,
what
we
did
is
we
looked
at
the
average
rent
and
I
looked
at
the
covert
abatements
and
I
discounted
that
rent
by
a
dollar
and
18
cents
across
the
board,
and
that's
what
your
that's
the
result
that
you're
seeing
in
column
f
for
the
test.
However,
let's
go
back
to
column
d,
which
is
the
original
assessment.
C
C
Now,
if
you
take
a
look,
there's
two
columns
if
you've
noticed
for
the
2020
ine,
the
first
one
is
what
the
owner
submitted,
and
I
noticed
that
something
didn't
look
right
when
they're,
when
they're
stating
that
they
had
abatements
and
and
such
and
they
weren't
reporting
it.
And
I
also
looked
at
the
reported
revenue,
and
so
we
had
some
conversation
back
and
forth
in
email
and
we
got
some
corrections
made
and
so
the
column
e2
shows
those
corrections
in
the
reported
revenue
and
and
the
email
is
attached
to
this
case.
C
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board
members.
D
For
the
department
you
had
mentioned
that
this
is
a
special
classification.
C
So
when
I
analyze
when
I
analyze
so
first
of
all
in
the
property
class
code
219,
you
can
have
office
flip
back
and
forth
to
retail
okay.
So
we
have
a
separate
category
for
this
219,
which
is
mixed
office
commercial,
and
we
find
sometimes
that
those
spaces
will
flip
back
and
forth
okay.
So
we
have
a
specific
category
for
that
and
we
develop
the
guidelines.
Our
guidelines
are
based
on
all
of
those
similar
property
types,
so
we
don't
use
a
separate
cap
rate
for
the
office
or
the
retail.
B
A
A
C
B
B
A
F
It's
got,
it's
got
pretty
good
income
and
an
occupancy
historically
nothing's
really
shocking
me
is
this
being
an
over-assessed
property.
D
I
think
this
is
reasonably
consistent
with
what
we've
been
seeing
with
office
buildings,
namely
just
the
flat
line.
You
know,
students
flatline
a
little
bit
below
a
little
bit
above
they've
had
some
abatements,
but
they
haven't
had
massive
vacancies
and
that's
when
of
course,
office
buildings
fall
below.
So
this
seems
consistent
with
everything
that
we've
seen
this
year.
A
Yeah
no,
I
agree
the
to
the
last
point
that
the
miss
ross
made
about
that
they
filled
it
out
wrong.
I
I
guess
possibly
if
they
didn't
have
the
2019
number
in
there,
I
would
look
and
say:
okay,
maybe,
but
it
seems
like
it's
more
consistent
with
2019
and
if
that
was
the
case,
I
mean
there
was
more
than
enough
time.
A
G
Yeah,
I
agree.
I
think
the
assessment
is
generous
compared
to
what
we've
seen
in
many
cases
and
to
split
the
cap
rates
between
office
and
commercial
in
this
particular
property.
I
don't
think
it
would
be
equalized
with
other
properties
that
we
have
seen
in
the
county.
So
you
know
this
is
not
the
only
one
that
is
being
treated
that
way,
so
I'm
okay
with
it.
I
think
the
original
assessment
is
more
than
generous.
H
A
Okay,
all
right,
then,
I
will
move
to
confirm
the
county
at
six
million
six.
Eighty
to
four
hundred
mr
matskin
is
the
second
motion,
a
second
all
in
favor
opposed
okay,
mr
yates,
that
was
an
I
correct.
I
A
Okay,
so
that's
six
to
zero,
with
mr
lawson
abstaining,
the
county's
confirmed
at
six
million
six
hundred
and
eighty
two
thousand
four
hundred.
Thank
you
both.
C
A
J
G
A
A
A
A
A
L
Very
good,
madam
chairwoman,
members
of
the
board
good
morning
this
is
1621
north
kent
street.
This
is
at
the
easternmost
edge
of
roslyn.
It's
on
north
kent,
between
wilson
boulevard
and
19th
street
north.
This
property
was
built
in
1966.
It
was
assigned
an
effective
age
of
1973.,
this
property,
if
you're
familiar
with
this
edge
of
rosalind.
L
This
is
near
the
heart
of
rosalind,
but
when
you
go
down
to
kent
street,
it's
it's
cut
off
from
rosalind,
there's
no
through
pedestrian
walkway
to
get
onto
the
other
side,
to
get
to
lynn
and
get
to
the
rosalind
metro.
You
have
to
go
around
the
block.
So
when
you
go
to
this
property,
it's
it
feels
distant
from
rosalind.
L
L
Please
note
that
the
assessments
2021
noi,
is
also
more
than
double
the
actual
2020
noi
reported
at
the
property.
For
this
case,
the
county
used
the
income
approach
to
value.
We
did
a
similar
income
approach.
However,
we
would
like
to
modify
what
you
see
on
this
page,
five.
In
our
column
g,
we
would
like
to
update
our
cap
rate
to
reflect
the
county's
cap
rate
and
adjust
the
rent
loss
period
from
two
years,
as
is
currently
stated
down
to
one
year.
L
800
you'll
see
that
the
main
issues
in
this
case
are
the
vacant
office,
rental
rate
and
the
operating
expenses
for
the
vacant
office.
Rental
rate,
the
most
recent
leases
at
this
property
are
from
2019
the
county
used
two
of
the
2019
leases.
However,
there
was
a
third
2019
lease
that
was
not
included.
L
L
L
L
In
addition
to
the
2019
leases,
our
claimed
vacant
office
rental
rate
is
supported
by
the
lease
for
the
penthouse
of
this
building,
which
was
at
36.54
cents
per
square
foot.
As
of
the
date
of
value.
Now
this
is
the
penthouse
is
on
the
12th
floor
of
this
building.
The
majority
of
the
vacant
office
space
is
on
floors
two
through
five,
which
of
course,
do
not
have
the
penthouse
views
are,
do
have
some
views
that
are
obstructed
by
buildings
more
and
these
floors
will
command
lower
rental
rates
than
the
penthouse.
L
So,
to
reiterate,
this
building
was
constructed
in
1966
55
years
ago
and
has
not
undergone
a
major
renovation.
The
effective
age
year
is
1973.,
given
the
slowdown
and
leasing
velocity
in
arlington.
This
property
is
likely
not
going
to
be
one
of
the
first
buildings
to
lease
up.
The
layout
of
the
floors
is
outdated,
the
aesthetic
is
not
modern,
there's
no
floor-to-ceiling
windows
column
spacing
is
closer
than
many
tenants
desire,
and,
additionally
again,
this,
this
part
of
rosalind
is
isolated
from
really
the
beating
heart
of
rosalind
and
it
feels
cold.
L
L
This
is,
of
course,
at
a
building
that
has
been
an
average
of
45
vacant
over
that
time
frame
and
again,
if
we
we
are
to
assume
a
stabilized
income
stream,
we
must
also
assume
a
stabilized
expense
stream.
The
variable
cost
will
increase
as
occupancy
increases
to
75
stabilization
three
of
these
variable
cost
alone,
electricity,
janitorial
and
the
management
fee.
L
L
L
J
Yes,
thank
you
board
for
this
property.
This
property
is
actually
part
of
a
phase
development
site
plan
422,
and
this
is
the
first
case
that
to
be
heard
before
the
boe,
but
I
believe
the
agent
has
appealed
all
the
cases
that
are
part
of
this
pdsp,
which
the
board
will
hear
at
a
later
time.
J
Unfortunately,
due
to
scheduling,
we
would
like
or
prefer
to
have
all
these
schedule
at
the
same
time,
but
with
it
being,
I
think
I
have
a
little
more
than
30
seconds
when
it's
okay,
when
we're
looking
at
this
property.
I'd
like
to
note
that
in
years,
2018
2019
2020,
the
owners
have
reported
actual
income.
J
If
you
refer
to
any
of
the
income
and
expense
forms
that
are
provided
in
this
packet,
you'll
see
that
actual
income
was
reported,
not
at
a
hundred
percent
occupancy
for
the
ines
that
you
know
was
reported
for
these
2018
to
20
20
years.
So
at
first
glance,
the
board
would
see
that
the
gross
potential
for
this
property
is
maybe
at
50
percent.
Of
what
our
test
column
f
is
showing
or
40
about
46
percent
of
what
the
appellant
is
showing.
J
J
We
do
differ
in
the
amount
of
per
square
foot
rate
that
we
use
for
the
current
lease
spaces
and
the
vacant
spaces.
So
I'd
like
to
get
into
that,
it's
pretty
straightforward.
As
far
as
the
department
is
concerned,
we
take
all
the
leases
that
are
currently
in
the
property
and
we
find
out
exactly
what
the
average
rent
for
those
spaces
are.
J
We
deduct
the
normal
six
percent
across
the
board,
with
all
properties
in
arlington
and
that
six
percent
is
derived
from
the
pickup.
The
publications
we've
seen
and
actually
I've
taken
it.
A
step
further
in
most
recent
years
and
taken
exactly
what
the
owners
have
provided
me
as
far
as
their
leasing
concessions
and
broke
it
down
on
a
month-to-month
basis
and
the
six
percent
is
you
know
what
we've
seen
in
the
market
now,
if
that
should
change
in
the
future,
then
that
is
definitely
something
that
would
change
and
we'd
apply
across
the
board.
J
So
when
looking
at
the
2019
leases
again,
these
are
the
most
current
leases
that
we
have
in
the
property,
the
actual
information
that
was
provided
to
us,
and
so
we
did
look
at
that
and-
and
we
did
use
that
rate
minus
the
six
percent
of
course.
So,
if
you
refer,
if
you
need
to
refer
to
our
page
seven
of
122,
it
further
breaks
that
down,
and
it
shows
you
exactly
what
I've
used.
J
J
We
did
keep
the
expenses
the
same
as
we
had
in
the
original
assessment.
We
did
see
a
dip
in
the
expenses
reported
for
the
2020
income
and
expense
year
for
the
subject
property,
but
looking
at
the
the
past
years,
you'll
see
and
I'll
note
in
columns
a
b
and
c,
we
did
deduct
the
leasing
commissions
from
each
of
these
expense
years,
because
you
know
those
expenses
should
be
removed.
J
And
so
we
come
up
with
a
rate
of
about
you'll,
see
there
my
column
f,
I
don't
think
I
have
anything.
I
did
state
that
the
asking
rents
are
the
you
know,
the
rate
that
I
indicated
there
in
my
comments.
Section
comment
number
three
and
you
know
that
would
yield
a
higher
per
square
foot
rent
than
we're
using
in
our
test.
M
I
think
there
was
a
comment
made
about
the
expenses
that
we
use.
You
explained
to
the
board
that
we
removed,
at
least
in
commissions,
based
off
of
explanation
already,
given
several
times
when
we
have
office
cases
about
equal
treatment
of
expenses
when
you
analyze
a
cell
for
cap
rate
analysis
and
when
you
turn
around
and
value
the
property
for
assessment
purposes.
M
One
thing
also
to
point
out
is
that
we're
using
a
25
vacancy
you'll
see
in
2017,
the
vacancy
was
actually
around
21
on
this
property
and
the
expenses
were
nine
dollars
square
foot
2018,
the
vacancy
was
22
percent
for
this
property
and
the
expenses
were
nine
dollars
a
square
foot,
so
the
9.50
that
we're
applying
is
appropriate
when
you're
also
using
the
25
cap
rate
on
this
property-
and
that's
all
I
have
to
add-
I
think
that
should
be
considered.
A
E
K
The
status
of.
F
K
Life
plan,
it's
still
subject
to
four
point
markers
and
the
site
plan
itself-
requires
that
you
all
hear
me,
I
feel
like
I'm
reverberating,
you
can
hear
me:
okay,
okay,
the
site
plan
itself
requires
that
the
community
benefit
the
evaluated
at
the
time.
The
building
plans
are
submitted,
so
those
that
site
plan
and
that
density
has
not
vested
yet.
M
So
can
I
speak
to
that
yeah
please.
So,
of
course,
this
is
the
pdsp,
so
pdsps
have
a
longer
duration
to
actually
compete
complete
the
plan
because
of
the
amount
of
density
that's
involved.
M
Every
pdsp
has
to
bring
forth
an
individual
site
plan
for
the
different
projects,
so
during
2016
county
board
hearing
the
pdsp
was
approved.
The
zoning
was
also
changed
on
this
property
to
rosman
co
rousing,
which
is
10
far.
M
It
is
a
guideline
for
the
development
of
this
property.
The
total
site
for
this
property
is
over
300
some
thousand
square
feet.
They
brought
forth
the
request
to
only
use
238
000
square
feet
because
that's
what
they
owned
at
the
time.
The
total
density
approved
was
2.38
million
square
feet
of
far
after
or
during
the
process.
M
M
The
reason
the
psp
has
so
long
for
development
again
is
because
of
the
size
of
the
project,
but
also
during
these
years
there
can
be
changes
due
to
club
studies
or
sector
plans,
whatever
that
may
affect
the
different
plans
that
the
different
projects
they're
going
to
bring
forth.
This
property,
I
believe,
is
about
1.8
million
or
so
square
feet
of
office.
There's
two
potentially
two
apartment
buildings.
M
There
are
hotel
rooms
approved
in
this
psp
as
well,
and,
as
we
all
know,
over
time
due
to
the
market,
they
may
come
back
and
say:
hey.
Can
we
amend
this
psp
and
convert
hotel
to
apartments
or
hotels
to
office
which
we
saw
with
10
place
out
in
pentagon
city
and
even
recently,
with
metropolitan
park,
which
was
part
of
a
pdsp
approved
for
apartments
but
later
converted
to
office?
Because
that's
what
amazon
wanted
to
happen
for
them
to
buy
it?
L
K
K
So
in
this
case,
once
we
looked
at
this
property
and
we
used
the
cap
rate
that
the
county
used
and
we
use-
because
we
know
that
the
board
has
been
following
that
in
terms
of
guidelines
and
we
adjusted
the
deductions
below
the
line
to
be
a
one-year
deduction,
because
the
board
has
been
again
using
that
as
its
guideline,
we
came
up
with
a
value
that
is
greater
than
and
that's
the
value
mr
harmon
mentioned
is
greater
than
the
value
of
the
existing
density.
At
the
property.
A
No
okay,
mr
peralta,
if
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up
sir.
J
Yes,
thank
you
just
wanted
to
clarify,
I'm
not
sure
if
I
heard
her
correctly,
but
on
page
97
122
of
the
appellants
packet,
they
said
the
improvements
have
no
contributory
value,
so
I
I
believe,
miss
borman
said
that
they
weren't
arguing
that,
but
that
was
what
I
was
presented
for
this
case
when
looking
at
this
property,
what
we
didn't
mention
was
that
the
land
for
this
property
was
reduced
at
60
percent
of
what
the
market
is
based
on
what
we've
seen
in
arlington.
J
If
you
look
on
page
21
of
20,
122
you'll
have
the
spreadsheet
of
the
county
and
the
all
the
parcels
that
are
associated
with
this
pdsp
and
so
you'll
see
the
remaining
value
was
40
and
that's
what
we
attributed
to
this
property
for
the
the
land
portion
again
going
over
the
merits
of
this
case.
J
I
believe
that
you
know
the
the
per
square
foot
rates
that
we
did
use
are
justified
and
supported.
If
you
look
at
the
the
rent
roll
that
was
provided.
Thank
you.
L
Yes,
thank
you
so,
first
off
to
address
some
of
the
vacancy
rates
that
mr
bailey
mentioned
for
2017
and
2018.
I
did
pull
up
the
ines
that
correspond
with
those
years
and
vacancy
was
not
as
low
as
as
was
stated
they
in
2017.
It
was
21
2018.
It
was
reported
on
the
ine
at
48.2
percent,
so
it
has
been
high
vacancy
and
those
expense
rates
will
change
as
as
it
occupancy
increases
the
advertised
rate
that
was
mentioned
again.
You
know
that's
an
aspirational
rate.
L
It's
not
likely
to
bring
that
and
the
expenses
included
on
the
county's
test
page
on
page
five
do
not
include
leasing
commissions,
so
you
know
the
discussion
of
leasing
commissions
being
included
in
expenses
on
that
page,
they're
averaging
nine
dollars,
that's
without
leasing
commissions,
so
that's
you
know
further
supports
the
expense
rate
of
10.50
and
and
finally,
with
the
site
plan.
You
know
these
prop.
This
property
is
phase
three
of
that
site
plan.
No
work
has
started
on
the
other
phases.
Space
is
being
advertised
at
seven
years
for
lease.
L
So
that's
you
know
it
was
valued
as
an
income
producing
property.
Thank
you.
I
I
I
You
know
final
4.1
and
when
you
go
from
co
to
which
is
a
3.8
far
to
co
rosalind,
you
know
you're
going
to
a
10.
Far
now,
there's
formulas
a
county
has
used
utilized
in
the
past,
where
you
can
trade,
one
type
of
density
for
another
type
of
density.
I
We
had
no
commercial
at
pentagon
road,
so
we
traded
residential
units
for
commercial
density.
That's
done
all
the
time
and
it's
recognized
in
the
industry,
and
so
I
don't
think
you
can
say
that
the
phase
development
site
plan
is
not
vested
or
it
has
no
impact
or
whatever,
and
so
what?
What
I
guess
I'm
struggling
with
slightly
is
you
know
which
direction
do
we
go?
Do
we
go
with
income
or
do
we
go
with
you
know
the
fact
it's
been
upzoned,
I
don't
really
know.
I
guess.
I
Maybe
maybe
the
way
to
handle
it
is
is
to
go
with
the
county's
test
column,
recognizing
that
there
is
greater
value.
What
it
is
we
don't
know
because
it's
not
we
don't
have
the
final
4.1,
but
we
do
have
the
phase
development
and-
and
so
I
think
the
applicant
has
done
a
really
good
job
of
pointing
out
the
income
and
how
perhaps
that
should
go
down.
But
then,
overall
we
still
have
the
phase
development
site
plan,
which
has
increased
value
with
that
I'll,
be
quiet
and
hear
what
others
had.
A
Okay,
mr
maskin,
I
believe,
did
you
have
your
hand
up.
D
Yeah,
I
I
agree
with
barnes
analysis.
I
I
think
it's
it's
a
close
call,
but
it's
too
soon,
we've
seen
elsewhere
in
past
years
in
roslyn,
where
there
were
vacant,
decrepit
buildings
that
had
been
upzoned
significantly
and
evaluated
the
land
that
that
potentially
soon
to
be
much
more
valuable
land.
In
this
case,
I
don't
think
it's
it's
it's
fair
for
legitimate.
D
I
think
the
building
is
the
building
and
the
fact
that
there
there's
activity
going
in
the
background
and
make
it
more
valuable
sometime
in
the
future
that
we
don't
know
about,
because
it's
not
completely
baked
it
is
not
appropriate.
D
I
wanted
to
get
a
little
context
because
I
buzzed
around
this
building
for
many
years
as
a
leasing
agent
and
it's
it's
relevant.
I
don't
know
how
important
it
is
to
know
that
this
is
one
of
the
few
buildings
in
arlington
that
will
accept
short-term
leases
for
at
least
the
last
10
years.
Probably
longer
this
whole
redevelopment
process
has
been
bubbling
and
the
landlord
has
routinely
and
I've
seen
it
before.
This
is
not
inappropriate.
I'm
certainly
not
criticizing,
has
routinely
accepted
a
you
know.
Mr
harmon
said
seven
year
lease.
D
I
hear
a
three
or
five
year
lease,
but
there's
always
a
caveat
in
there
that
at
some
date,
certain
usually
about
18
months
out
or
so.
The
landlord
has
the
right
with
adequate
notice
to
stop
police
because
the
redevelopment
physical
redevelopment
would
have
started,
and
this
is
a
shaggy
dog
story.
It's
been
going
on
for
a
while.
D
So
all
these
numbers
to
me
make
a
lot
of
sense
by
avoiding
I'm
just
writing
my
notes,
oh
and-
and
that
includes,
for
instance,
which
is
our
our
our
standard,
one-year
lease-up
costs
in
particular
in
this
case,
although
if
somebody
signed
a
five-year
lease
from
wrestling
even
a
year
and
a
half,
the
landlord
still
would
have
paid
five
years
worth
of
real
estate
commissions.
D
But
again,
a
lot
of
these
are
very
short-term
cases
and
then-
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
the
vacancies
been
been
relatively
high
for
such
a
long
time,
because
a
lot
of
people
want
to
be
stable
office
users,
they
don't
want
to
to
bounce
around.
So
I'm
that's
a
long
way
of
saying.
I'm
I'm.
I
think
the
test
column's
a
very
good
representation.
G
Yes,
I
agree
pretty
much
with
a
summarized
statement.
I
guess,
as
far
as
the
test
column
being
used.
The
only
thing
I
would
question
is
the
are:
is
anyone
in
agreement
that
the
expenses
are
okay
or
are
they
low
compared
to
19
or
so
normally
n
year?
19
is
going
to
be
a
good
reflection
and
then
we
see
2020
coming
to
be
a
little
more
than
that,
but
in
this
case
it's
lower
go
ahead
again.
D
Well,
we
I
personally
raised
this
even
last
week
after
hearing
the
answer
to
that
a
couple
of
times,
but
finally,
it's
gotten
through
my
dura
and
that
is
that
we're
comparing
not
the
stabilized
gross
potential
income,
but
rather
a
stabilized
egi,
whatever
that
stands
for.
What's
the
e4,
I'm
sorry.
D
Which
includes
some
vacancy
in
this
case
25
vacancy
allowance,
so
we
are-
and
this
goes
directly
to
what
the
appellant
had
said.
You
know,
if
you
have
a
stabilized
income,
why
don't
you
have
stabilized
100
stabilized
operating
expenses,
and
the
answer
is
we're
not
comparing
stabilized
100
income,
but
rather
the
adjusted
for
vacancy
income
and
that
that's
what
regularizes
it
makes
it
same
took
me
a
while
during
the
presentation
to
remember
that
from
last
week
did
was
that
responsive
jose
or
did
I
go
up
yeah.
A
A
A
I
Yes,
I
think
that's
a
good
point
that
was
just
made.
You
know
this
isn't
a
situation
where
it's
zoned
co
and
its
office
and
the
owner
decides
okay,
we're
going
to
raise
it
and
we're
going
to
amend
the
site
plan
and
now
we're
going
to
go
residential,
we're
going
to
get
a
a
4.8,
far
we're
going
to
go
up
one
far
I
mean
this
is
a
case
where
you're
going
from
3.8
to
10-
and
you
know
that's
a
lot
of
density
and
it's
not
it.
I
You
know,
we
don't
know
the
cost
of
that
yet.
But
we
don't
know
exactly
what
it's
going
to
look
like.
It
has
to
be
designed.
You
have
to
go
through
about
a
million
to
a
million
five
hundred
thousand
dollar
process
to
get
that
established,
but
still
you're
going.
I
mean
you're
going
up
a
6
f.a.r
and
that's
huge
so
that
that's
why
I'm
comfortable
with
the
county
figures.
A
Okay:
okay,
it
sounds
like
everybody's
on
the
test,
so
anything
contrary
is
hogan.
No.
Okay,
then,
would
somebody
like
to
make
a
motion.
G
Yeah
I'll
go
ahead
and
move
that
we
reduce
the
assessment
to
the
revised
numbers,
23
million
961
300..
All
second.
F
A
Aye
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
It's
reduced
to
the
county's,
revised
number
of
23
million
961
300..
K
A
Okay
and
all
the
players
remain
the
same
for
the
final
case
on
the
agenda.
Rpc17001010.
A
L
L
This
is
one
of
the
two
half
moon
shaped
buildings
on
the
rosslyn
skyline.
Now,
if
you'd
be
so
kind
as
to
direct
your
attention
to
page
four
of
the
appeal
pack,
this
is
the
county's
test
page.
Please
note
that
the
value
in
the
county's
test
column
represents
a
7.4
percent
increase
over
the
2020
assessment.
L
This
property
has
been
chronically
vacant.
Over
the
past
four
years,
the
year-end
vacancy
was
32
in
2017
31
in
2018
and
28
each
of
the
past
two
years.
You'll
also
note
on
the
test
page
that
we
believe
the
rental
rate
assumed
by
the
assessment
for
both
leased
and
vacant
office.
Space
is
overstated
and
that
the
operating
expenses
are
understated
for
the
least
office
rental
rate.
We
believe
the
best
indication
of
value
is
the
base
rate
less
eight
percent
for
concessions.
L
As
I
previously
mentioned,
this
property
has
weathered
significant
vacancy
over
the
past
four
years,
and
this
rate
of
concessions
is
likely
necessary
to
attract
and
maintain
tenants,
updating
the
leased
office
space
to
reflect
the
reality
of
the
leasing
environment
and
the
11
concessions
in
2020
at
the
property.
This
reduces
the
leased
office
income
by
about
500
thousand
from
the
county's
test
column.
We
were,
we
used
eight
percent,
not
the
eleven.
We
feel
that
is
fair
for
the
vacant
office
rental
rate.
L
Again,
we
have
five
leases
that
began
in
2020
and
if
you
would
direct
your
attention
to
page
six
of
the
appeal,
this
is
the
county's
rent
roll.
The
tenants
highlighted
in
green
are
the
2020
new
office
leases.
Now
there
is
an
error.
One
of
these
leases
should
not
have
been
included,
as
it
was
a
2019
lease.
So
the
initial
academy
apparent
lease
is
from
2019.
L
Finally,
the
operating
expenses
at
the
property,
which
again
has
been
at
least
28
vacant
for
each
of
the
past
four
years,
have
averaged
11.36
per
square
foot.
Now
this
figure
does
include
leasing
commissions,
which
at
a
property
facing
chronic
vacancy,
such
as
a
subject
seeing
these
recurring
charges
year
after
year.
It's
important
to
consider
these
substantial
costs
as
expenses,
since
they
will
project
forward
and
project
to
be
continued
in
years
going
forward.
L
So
to
summarize,
this
property
again
has
operated
at
high
vacancy
for
at
least
the
past
four
years.
The
actual
noi
at
the
property
has
decreased
from
2019
to
2020
by
1.3
percent.
Yet
the
assessed
noi
increased
by
8.3
and
the
assessed
value
increased
by
7.4,
the
occupancy
barely
changed
from
the
2019
to
the
2020
ine
rent
roll.
It
was
just
under
380
000
square
feet.
In
both
years,
the
assessment
assumes
the
office
leased
space
rental
rate
increased
by
4.50
per
square
foot
from
the
2020
assessment.
L
In
fact,
actual
rents
in
place
only
increased
by
one
dollar
per
square
foot.
The
five
new
office
leases
in
2020
support
both
a
lower
occupied
office
and
a
lower
vacant
office
rental
rate
because
they
required
a
weighted
average
11
percent
concession
rate.
Finally,
the
actual
and
stabilized
operating
expenses
at
the
property
support
a
higher
operating
expense
rate.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
peralta,
for
the
county.
Please.
J
J
So
when
mr
harmon
speaks
to
the
noi
decreasing
over
the
years,
that's
not
I
mean
that's
that's
what
they're
reporting,
but
then,
when
you
actually
look
at
the
gross
potential
for
this
property,
you'll
see
that
it's
been
increasing
over
time.
As
you
see
from
2018
to
2020,
you'll,
see
the
figures
there
for
the
gross
potential
income
row
number
seven
increasing
over
time
when
looking
at
this
property
again
they're
reporting
the
actual
income.
J
So
when
you're,
looking
at
the
test
and
the
pro
forma
you'll
see
that
the
gross
potential
that
both
the
appellant
and
myself
in
our
test
column
have
shown
an
increase
over
time,
an
increase
compared
to
what
you
see
as
the
actual
income
reported
for
this
property.
In
addition
to
that,
what
you
see
as
miss
mr
harmon
pointed
out,
the
new
lease
is
on
page.
J
Page
six
of
the
rent
roll.
What
I
indicated
there
and
read
is
these
leases
have
commenced,
I
believe,
may
of
2020
and
with
such
they're,
not
reporting
the
extra
income,
the
operating
costs
or
real
estate
tax
that
they're
paying,
and
so
that
that
figure
should
be
included
as
well
or
considered.
J
If
we
were
to
look
at
this
property
as
stabilized
as
a
gross
potential
property,
as
the
department
has
asked
that
they
report
in
the
2020
ine.
So
when
you're
looking
at
this,
this
figure,
this
column
e
just
keep
that
in
mind,
because
what
this
is
not,
including
is
that
147
885
square
feet
of
potential
income
and
you'll
see
that
that's
included
in
both
the
appellants
column
and
the
test
column,
and
we
differ
by
about
four
or
five
dollars
per
square
foot
based
on
that
square
footage
that
is
vacant.
J
But,
as
you
see
again,
when
we
analyze
this
this
property,
as
well
as
the
other
properties
in
the
county,
we
take
the
the
rent
role
that
is
provided
we
analyze
it.
We
do
break
it
down.
Mr
harman
did
state
that
academy
parent
shouldn't
be
included,
but
the
two,
the
expansion
space
and
the
original
space
both
are
both
at
the
46
dollars.
J
I'm
sorry
at
the
same
rate
as
as
shown
in
my
rent
roll,
so
it
shouldn't
change
that
that
2020
projection
for
the
the
new
leases
that
were
commenced
of
as
of
may
2020
of
this
year.
J
J
As
you
see
there,
we're
about
maybe
two
dollars
more
than
what
they've
reported
and
even
the
most
recent
ine
suggests
that
there's
a
lower
expense
right
there,
and
I
understand
that
you
know
there's
some
vacant
square
feet
that
are
may
project
higher
if
those
tenants
were
in
place
but
believe
that
ten
dollars
is
more
accurate
versus
what
the
appellant
is
saying
at
eleven
dollars,
36
cents
that
hasn't
been
shown
in
previous
history
at
all,
and
so
when
looking
at
this
property
again,
when
you
compare
the
noise
of
the
history,
please
keep
in
mind.
J
Those
noise
do
not
include
some
of
the
potential
rent
that
could
have
been
captured
or
or
shown.
I
should
say
in
particular
when
you
look
at
2020,
there
is
concessions
of
about.
J
On
row,
row
10
there's
concessions
of
over
202
million
dollars
that
include
those
tenants
that
have
just
signed
in
2019-22.
Yet
there
is
no
potential
rent
that
is
being
reported.
So
to
me,
it's
its
actual
income,
minus
the
concessions
of
the
potential
rent
of
the
actual
rent
versus
the
potential
rent
that
you
see
in
column.
F,
irving.
Did
you
have
anything
before
we
finish.
M
M
Expenses
came
in
at
9,
00
square
foot,
our
test
and
original
assessment
we're
using
a
25
vacancy
and
a
10
square
foot
expenses,
so
we're
using
higher
expense
rates
than
a
comparable
year.
I'm
not
even
going
to
really
include
2020,
because
that
was
a
28
vacancy
and
they
reported
8.58
a
square
foot
for
expenses,
but
I
mean
some
of
the
expenses
could
be
low
due
to
covet,
but
2019
was
before
covet
and
it's
close
to
the
vacancy
rate
that
we
use
again
27
vacancy
we're
using
25
vacancy
and
a
dollar
higher
on
expenses.
M
As
far
as
leasing
commissions,
I
mean
that
keeps
being
mentioned,
but
again
it's
about.
If
you
don't
deduct
lease
a
commission,
that's
an
expense.
When
you
formulate
your
capitalization
rate,
then
you
don't
turn
around
and
deduct
that
as
an
expense
when
you
value
a
property.
So
we
continue
to
say
that
it's
inappropriate
to
include
the
leasing
commission
in
this
situation,
because
when
you
formulate
your
cap
rate
you're,
not
using
leasing
commissions
as
an
expense,
we
do
account
for
that
in
our
below
the
line.
D
For
the
department,
it's,
why
didn't
we
split
out
office
versus
retail?
I
mean
this
certainly
isn't
in
that
special
classification
like
46
self
glee,
because
the
cap
rates
are
different.
J
Usually
that's
reserved
for
spaces
that
are
larger
than
the
total
square
footage
of
the
property.
So
I
believe
it's
is
it
15
there
irving,
no.
M
We
we
just
don't
do
it
at
all
on
office
properties.
The
reason
we
do
it
on
apartments,
if
you
don't
recall
it
in
like
years
ago,
on
apartments,
we
used
a
single
cap
rate.
It
was
after
discussion
about
the
different
tax
rate
applied
to
commercial
space.
We
began
to
use
the
commercial
cap
rate
on
those
apartment
buildings.
When
you
look
at
the
office
building
again,
like
rob
said,
the
square
footage
of
retail
is
small.
It's
about
17
000
square
feet
on
this
500
000
square
foot.
M
Building
again
the
retail
gets
the
office
cap
rate
of
25
instead
of
the
general
commercial
cap
rate
of
4.
So
there
are
a
lot
of
different
offsets
there.
Yeah
we
just
valued
one
property.
D
J
Yes,
for
this
property
again,
we
treat
this
property
the
exact
same
as
the
other
properties
in
upon
review,
we're
looking
at
the
rent
roll.
J
The
rent
rates
that
we
included
in
the
test
column
are
exactly
what
we've
seen
in
this
particular
subject:
property
we
do
reduce
the
or
increase
the
vacant
square
footage
to
what
they
reported
in
2020
actually
decreased.
I'm
sorry,
the
original
assessment
we
had
a
higher
vacancy
square
footage
than
what
we're
testing
here.
J
We
do
ask
that
the
the
new
value
that
we
did
test
based
on
the
most
recent
information
be
be
approved
and
again
just
to
reiterate
the
expenses
that
we
propose.
The
ten
dollars
are
more
than
what
was
seen
in
the
history
of
this
property
and
we
also
allow
a
excess
vacancy
allowance
for
the
vacant
square
footage
as
well.
K
Actually,
I'm
going
to
just
take
a
quick
second,
and
then
mr
harmon
will
finish.
I
just
want
to
point
out
two
things
that
were
said
by
the
county
that
are
incorrect.
One
is
that
the
concessions
are
deducted
twice.
That
is
not
correct.
I
have
confirmed
that
with
the
owner.
The
income
and
expense
survey
form
state
that
concessions
on
page
96
state
that
concessions
are
not
included
or
deducted
on
lines,
io1
or
10.,
and
so
that
is
just
a
false
statement
and
we
have
confirmed
that
with
almost
all
of
the
owners.
K
L
Thank
you.
Eileen
I'd
also
like
to
point
out
that
for
the
vacant
office
rental
rate,
if
we
use
the
same
methodology
as
the
county
on
there,
I
believe
it's
page
six
and
we
use
actual
concessions
and
not
the
standard
six
percent
we
get
to
42.86
for
the
vacant
office,
rental
rate.
If
we
and
that's
not,
including
the
2019
academy
parent
lease,
if
we
do
include
that
2019
academy
parent
lease,
it
actually
skews
that
number
down
to
42.43,
so
you
know
we
were.
L
We
were
excluding
that
out
of
just
trying
to
be
above
board
and
keep
it
consistent,
but
it
does
if
we
do
include
that
it
does
work
in
the
opponent's
favor
to
get
the
20
the
vacant
office,
rental
rate
down
to
42.43,
based
on
using
actual
concessions
incurred
to
get
to
secure
those
leases.
L
G
I
I
This
is
in
the
plan,
but
nothing's
come
forward.
So
you
know
that's
the
comp
plan
or
the
general
land
use
plan
which
at
this
point
is
speculative
and
should
not
be
included
and,
listening
to
all
this,
the
one
thought
I
had
was
you
know
that
I
think
the
applicant
may
be
correct
that
we
should
allow
two
years
for
lisa
rather
than
one
year,
and
you
know
it
seems
like
this
is
just
pure
office.
It's
rosalind
people
are
working
at
home.
I
You
may
actually
have
tenants
wanting
less
space,
which
is
opposite,
and
so
you
know
the
one
thought
I
had
was
to
reduce
the
the
the
assessed
value
by
allowing
a
longer
period
to
lease
out.
I
came
up
with
235
326
900
I
adding
by
by
putting
in
the
two
years
and
using
the
property
owner's
figure
of
the
1336,
672
and
I'll
see.
If
anybody
agrees
with
that.
G
I
think
in
this
particular
case,
I
think
both
parties
have
agreed
that
only
one
year
should
be
used.
I
know
this
mormon
also
don't
mention
that,
but
all
to
the
last
point
that
mr
harmon
made
as
far
as
the
vacant
space,
I
think
that's
pretty
much
the
difference
in
my
opinion,
in
this
case
there's
a
difference
of
about
five
dollars
between
what
they're
asking
you
know,
and
I
thought
when
I
did
the
numbers
myself,
I
thought
the
42
dollar
rate
and
vacant
space
was
more
appropriate.
G
G
Point
I
did,
let
me
see
using
the
42
on
vacant
space,
I'm
just
going
to
summarize
the
numbers.
The
noi
that
I
come
up
with
is
16
one,
eighty
three
ten
dollars
so
the
final
value
after
deductions,
and
also
making
the
adjustment
on
the
deduction.
The
40
42
rate
comes
to
231
million
five,
seventeen
one
thirty
six,
which
is
lower
than
you
know,.
H
I
went
a
little
deeper
and
I
went
with
the
appellant's
real
rate
numbers
anyway.
I
brought
it
down
and
then
I
used
the
county's
expense
number,
which
I
think
is
correct,
but
I
came
out
with
a
the
indicated
total
value
of
224
758,
which
is
a
little
lower
than
jose's.
B
D
So
I
kept
scouring
the
numbers
to
find
out
if
there
was
anything
that
didn't
add
up
or
assumptions
weren't
weren't
completely
on
target,
and
I
came
up
pretty
much
where
jose
came
up-
that
that
the
vacant
space
ought
to
come
down.
Some
should
come
down
to
39,
probably
not
because
then
there'd
be
full
double
counting
of
the
concessions
that
were
provided
as
rolled
into
the
vacancy
and
concessions
25
off.
So
excuse
me,
so
I
was
more
comfortable
with
that.
Could
I
find
another
million
dollars
in
assessment?
A
A
Yeah
I
could
live
with
that.
I
mean
all
right,
so
mary
miss
hogan,
I'm
good
with
that
number
all
right,
I
don't
see
mr
hoffman.
E
Everybody's
frozen
on
my
screen,
but
I
can
hear
everything
that's
being
said:
I'm
okay
with
jose's
number
as
well.
A
A
Okay
and
miss
hogan
is
a
second
motion,
a
second
on
this
to
reduce
all
in
favor.
F
A
G
A
That
completes
the
agenda.
Does
anybody
have
any
business
either
or.