►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing August 18, 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
B
Thank
you
very
much
I'd
like
to
direct
the
board's
attention
to
page
48
of
133
of
the
county's
response
memo
which
will
show
our
our
summary
of
facts
for
the
property.
This
is
the
virginia
square
towers.
It's
comprised
of
two
individual
rpcs.
B
One
is
just
a
nominal
value
of
a
hundred
dollars.
The
current
combined
assessment,
or
the
initial
combined
assessment
excuse
me-
was
243
million
375
600,
which
is
455
760
a
unit.
The
county
has
recommended
a
revision
following
our
first
level
appeal
to
232
million
370
400,
and
the
value
we're
asking
for
before
the
board
today
is
a
value
of
211
million
545
500..
B
The
subject
property
was
originally
built
in
2013.
It's
13
stories
high.
It's
a
534
unit,
high-rise
apartment
that
consists
of
one
two
and
three
bedroom
units.
528
of
those
units
are
our
market
units
and
six
affordable
units
in
in
this
building.
B
It
is
in
that
virginia
square
ballston
submarket,
it's
it's
in
close
proximity
to
the
virginia
square
metro
station.
If
I
can
direct
the
board's
attention
now
to
page
five
of
133,
which
again
is
going
to
show
the
the
mixed
use,
income
and
expense
summary
sheet,
you'll
see
the
historical
operations
of
this
property
dating
back
to
2017
and
and
really
what
jumps
out
at
you
is
the
year
over
year,
difference
from
19
to
20.
B
In
total
revenue,
total
revenue
egi
dropped
almost
a
million
dollars
year
over
year
from
19
to
20,
from
16
198
391
to
15
million
282
220.
B
Now
you
can
see
the
the
main
reason
for
this
is:
is
the
increase
in
vacancy
this
property
had
been
historically
pretty
stabilized
dating
back
to
2017.
B
One
point:
seven
point:
three
percent
reported
vacancy
in
seventeen
two
point:
two
and
a
half
percent
and
eighteen
and
almost
three
percent
of
nineteen
total
vacancy,
including
concessions
almost
six
percent
and
seventeen
four
and
a
half
percent
and
18
and
three
and
a
half
percent
in
19..
You
saw
that
increase
and
jump
to
almost
9.36
percent
in
in
2020,
so
you're,
seeing
a
a
very
large
decrease.
B
Again,
that's
still
approximately
400
000
above
what
was
actually
reported
at
the
subject
property
in
2020.
So,
although
the
the
county
did
make
a
revision
to
account
for
the
decrease
in
revenue
from
last
year,
we
don't
think
that
enough
consideration
was
taken
and
we're
still
quite
a
ways
off
with
regard
to
total
income.
B
Again,
this
property
has
been
fairly
stable
over
the
last
three
years
in
2018
21
total
operating
expenses
23
in
2019
and
most
recently
23.37
in
2020.,
the
county
initially
was
estimating
total
operating
expenses
of
21.3.
B
They
revised
that
up
slightly
to
22.74,
but
again
we're
still
approximately
120
000
away
from
what
was
actually
reported
in
the
most
recent
reporting
year
in
2020.
B
You'll
see
in
our
our
our
pro
forma
column,
we
were
taking
actual
reserves
that
were
reported
in
the
ind
survey
in
2020
of
a
hundred
thousand
dollars.
The
county,
making
note
makes
note
that
that
reserves
is
is
considered
in
the
cap
rate
in
that
base,
cap
rate
of
0.2
percent
and
then
you'll.
B
Look
at
the
actual
noi
reported
over
the
last
three
years,
11.7
in
2017
12.18
in
2018,
12.48
million
in
2019,
and
then
you
see
it
drop
down
to
11.7
million
after
the
revisions
in
in
their
revision
column,
the
the
county
has
adjusted
their
total
noi
from
12.673,
initially
to
12
119,
so
12
million
119,
000
15..
So
again
we're
still
a
around
400
000
difference
above
and
we
don't
think
feel
like
enough.
B
Consideration
was
taken
to
to
the
the
total
revenue
and
production
drop
this
property
saw
in
in
in
large
case,
to
the
pandemic
last
year.
You
know
the
total
assessment
increase
year
over
year
from
last
year
was
four
percent,
but
actual
noi
decreased
nine
percent.
Now,
in
the
test
column
it
says
six
percent,
but
that's
I
don't
see
where
that
it
might
be
a
miscalculation
error,
but
the
total
noi
decrease
year
over
year
was
nine
percent.
B
You
know
one
last
thing
to
point
out
is
you'll
see
in
in
2019.
This
property
was
assessed
at
211
million.
Excuse
me
215
million
125
700,
and
you
know
that
year
that
reporting
year
in
2018
they
reported
total
revenue
of
15
million.
Four
hundred
and
three
thousand
two
hundred
you
know
that's
still
above
what
was
recently
reported
in
2020
at
fifteen
million
two.
Eighty,
two,
two
twenty
and
and
you'll
see
again
total
noi
reported
in
that
year,
2018
of
12
million
188
630.
B
The
the
the
value
that
we're
requesting
of
211
million
is
very
much
in
line
with
the
215
million
dollar
assessment
from
2019,
whereas
that
that
actual
noi
reported
in
in
the
18
year
that
was
being
used
to
calculate
the
19
assessment
was
again
well
above
almost
500
000
above
what
was
most
recently
reported
in
2020.
So
I
don't
think
we're
far
off
or
or
you
know,
hyper
aggressive
with
our
with
our
requested
value
here.
B
C
Just
that,
as
blake
mentioned,
the
noi
dropped
nine
percent,
and
if
we
accepted
the
test
column,
that
would
be
a
reduction
in
value
of
about
a
half
of
one
percent.
Greg
raines
is
on
the
call,
the
owner
of
the
property
greg
anything
you
wanna
to
mention
why
this
one
is
is
a
little
special.
D
Yeah,
thank
you,
jeremy.
This
property,
more
than
any
property
in
our
portfolio,
was
hit
not
by
covet
blip
but
really
really
crushed
on
revenue
expenses
as
well
as
surrounding
lease-ups.
D
D
We
kept
that
going,
and
I
know
this
doesn't
maybe
matter
today
through
february
and
until
last
month
could
not
catch
the
occupancy
at
this
property,
so
this
year
we're
a
million
dollars
down
from
last
year.
This
is
not
a
trend,
I'm
sorry.
This
is
not
a
one
year
digression
and
then
we're
going
to
have
a
pop-up.
D
I
don't
know
how
to
stress
more
that
this
property
will
be
fatigued
from
covid
for
years
to
come
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
about
that.
But
I
know
in
the
past
hearings
we've
heard
well
look
at
your
website.
There's
no
vacants,
there's
no
vacants,
because
we
rented
everything
at
half
price
plus
concessions.
D
C
And
even
without
this,
even
without
this
year's
revenue,
just
focusing
on
the
2020
revenue,
that's
what
we're
asking
you
to
look
at
in
the
2020
revenue
is,
like
we
said,
750
000
down.
So
if
you
use
the
2020
revenue
with
the
knowledge
that
next
year
only
gets
worse-
and
I
know
we'll
tackle
next
year
when
next
year,
but
last
year
you
might
recall
on
this-
we
said
our
value
went
from
215
to
233
and
things
are
getting
really
bad
and
we
said
well
we'll
see
that
if
we
see
that
next
year,
we'll
make
an
adjustment.
E
Good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
mr
warren,
mr
shitlock,
this
is
in
regards
to
virginia
square
towers,
as
we've
heard
a
bit
of
speculation
last
couple
minutes
in
regards
to
what's
going
to
happen
in
2021,
but
again
as
we
focused
previously
it's
on
historical
operating
performance
as
we
can
see-
and
I
believe
it's
not
necessarily
misspoke-
that
mr
warren,
mr
misspoke,
but
2020
actually
went
up
by
the
point.
Six
percent
for
gross
potential,
so
rents
have
gone
up
three
years
in
a
row.
E
Gross
potential
has
gone
up
three
years
in
a
row,
including
again
the
pandemic
year.
As
we
all
agree,
the
biggest
difference
was,
of
course,
a
six
percent
increase
in
vacancy
and
concessions
in
2020..
This
is
not
the
first
property
we've
seen
in
fact,
I
believe
every
property
we've
seen
has
seen
this
occur.
E
This
was
not
isolated
here
to
virginia
square
towers
and
it
was
not
definitely
isolated
to
arlington,
but
what
we've
seen
is
again
a
property
that
vacancy
has
crept
up
from
approximately
1.7
to
about
2.9
in
2019,
but
still
an
average
of
about
2.4
percent.
Even
if
we
were
to
include
20
20
a
year,
that
would
still
include
an
average
of
4.1
percent
very
much
in
line
in
fact
lower
than
the
county's
guideline
at
five
percent
concessions.
E
Concessions
actually
decreased
year
over
year
over
year
and
then
increased
again
in
a
big
way
in
2020.
But
again
this
is
something
we've
seen
with
regularity
in
a
in
a
year
in
which
properties
are
trying
to
fill
up
their
occupancy.
E
I
believe
the
owner
just
testified
to
that
that
they
essentially
increased
concessions
to
increase
occupancy.
This
is
a
management
decision,
and
it's
not
one
taken
alone
again,
because
we
saw
this
spike
in
vacancy
concessions
by
six
percent.
We
saw
a
decrease
in
effective
gross,
and
that
was
the
first
time
it
dropped
in
over
four
years
again
this
property
stabilized.
It
was
doing
well
year
over
year,
it's
one
block
from
the
metro.
Operating
expenses
actually
went
down
four
percent.
E
In
this
case,
mr
warren
did
misspeak
because
he
neglected
to
include
with
our
revision
the
columns
for
retail
and
they
committed
affordable.
So
in
fact,
our
revision
operating
expenses
within
four
thousand
dollars.
E
What
was
reported
last
year
so
very
much
on
par
with
what
the
properties
reported
if
you're,
looking
as
a
percentage
of
effective
gross,
if
you're
looking
as
a
percentage
of
the
last
three
years,
if
you're,
looking
as
an
average
of
the
last
three
years,
we're
all
over
it
again,
noi,
as
would
make
sense,
is
down
given
that
effective
gross
is
down.
But
again,
this
is
due
to
a
six
percent
increase
in
vacancy
and
concession
when
again
you're.
E
Looking
at
as
a
three-year
average,
this
property
increased
its
noi
three
years
in
a
row
up
through
2020,
in
which
case
it
in
fact
dropped.
Six
point
one
nine
percent
you
heard
twice
mentioned
it
was
nine
percent,
but
I
welcome
the
board
members
to
do
the
math
between
columns
e
and
column
c
and
you'll
see
that
it
was
actually
a
decrease
of
six
point,
one
nine
percent
and
not
nine
percent.
Regardless,
it's
a
decrease.
So
there's
no
way
to
explain
that
other
than
again
a
increase
of
six
percent
vacancy
concession.
E
If
we're
looking
at
the
property
historically
and
in
a
stabilized
way,
as
we
have
done
consistently,
you
have
to
again
look
at
it.
As
this
was
a
one
dip
over
four
year
span,
we
did
in
fact
call
for
a
revision
which
is
in
fact
a
decrease
year
over
year
from
last
year,
we
see
that
the
appellants
also
call
for
a
decrease,
but
a
much
greater
one
they're
asking
for
a
decrease
of
almost
10
percent
year
over
year.
We
just
don't
believe,
that's
in
fitting
with
what
occurred
in
a
pandemic
year.
E
E
We
believe
at
least
historically
again
based
on
stabilization,
that
this
property
has
a
value
based
on
the
revision
of
232
million
370
hundred.
We
noted
and
as
mr
raines
testified,
that
the
occupancy
has
actually
decreased
year
over
year
from
2020
to
what
is
there
at
the
property.
Now
again,
you
know
I
don't
want
to
to
sound
dismissive,
but,
as
mr
children
noted,
we
don't
know
what
the
numbers
are
now
until
we
get
them
sometime
march
of
next
year.
E
The
numbers
we
use
are
the
ines
that
we
get
submitted
every
year
now,
once
we
get
those
numbers
we'll
be
able
to
make
adjustments
for
that
next
year's
assessment,
but
based
on
the
history
based
on
the
stabilization
of
this
property,
based
on
its
increases
in
value
17-19
and
again,
based
on
the
acknowledgement
of
a
six
percent
increase
in
vacancy
and
concession
in
2020,
we
do
believe
that
our
revision
that
was
made
is
made
in
accordance
with
the
history
of
the
property.
E
It's
prudence,
fair.
We
do
believe
that
the
property
should
be
valued
at
232
million,
370,
400.
irving,
anything
ted.
G
E
No,
you
did
not
hear
that
sir.
They
do
include.
It
is
really
just
a
reference
to
for
some
reason.
The
the
propellants
believe
that
the
in
decreased
year
over
year
is
nine
percent.
So
I
was
just
highlighting
that
if
you.
G
Okay
and
then
in
the
prior
years
they
did.
You
just
show
it
as
a
summary,
but
then
you
broke
it
out
because
there's
three
different
cap
rates
to
get
your
talk,
okay,
great
exactly-
and
the
second
question
I
have
is:
generally
we
see
this
all
the
time.
This
is
standard
that
you
have
a
guideline
in
this
case
vacancy
and
collections
rate,
and
you
apply
it
to
all
similar
properties.
G
If,
if
the
property
experienced
in
the
priority
or
something
lower,
you
nonetheless
usually
just
keep
that
guideline,
because
it
evens
out,
you
know
next
year,
maybe
higher
and
you're
after
lower,
and
it
even
tends
to
even
out
somewhat
over
time.
But
is
there
some
case
again
in
this
case
vacant
season
collections,
where
the
number
is
so
high
relative
to
the
guideline,
which
I
guess
is
kind
of
the
median
for
the
county
or
something
that
you
would
take
something
below
the
line
off.
E
We
wouldn't
necessarily
adjust
below
the
line.
Numbers
can
a
lot
of
times.
What
we'll
do
is,
if
we
see
a
in
this
case,
a
vacancy
in
concession
that
would
be
so
out
of
whack
of
what
was
reported
historically,
that
it
would
cause
a
dramatic
drop
in
effective
gross.
We
may
have
squash
our
gross
potential
rents
a
bit
to
get
to
a
effective
gross.
E
That
would
be
more
in
line
with
what
had
been
achieved
historically
but
and
mr
bailey
can
speak
if
I'm
out
of
speaking
of
the
term,
but
as
far
as
like
a
below
the
line
adjustment.
Generally,
that's
done
on
new
new
construction,
where
there's
a
lease
up.
E
G
Okay,
well,
the
adjustments
may
not
below
the
line
but
on
on
income,
but
my
real
question
was
what
difference
between
your
guideline
and
what
they
achieved
in
the
past
year.
Given
this
is
an
unusual
past
year,
would
you
start
to
look
closely
at
adjusting
that
income
level.
E
Yeah,
that's
what
I
don't
want
to
sound
based.
I
just
don't
know
in
my
time
I've
never
had
a
property
where
the
vacancy
was
so
out
of
whack,
again
short
of
a
first
year,
potentially
second
year,
lease
up
on
a
new
building
where
we've
had
a
property
that
was
so
out
of
whack
with
guideline
vacancy
concessions
that
we
had
to
make
an
adjustment.
F
I
mean,
as
far
as
below
the
line
adjustment
like
chris
said
we
do
that
on
new
construction,
maybe
first
or
second
year.
I
think
what
ken
was
asking
is
he's
asking.
Is
there
a
threshold
to
how
far
the
vacancy
reported
exceeds
the
guidelines
for
us
to
start
making
rent
adjustments?
Is
that
what
you're
asking
ken
that's.
F
I
think
we
said
I
think
chris
even
said
that
he
did
that
on
this
property
as
well.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
if
you
look
at
the
gpi,
I
mean
our
gpi
is
less
than
what
is
recorded
for
2020..
F
When
you
look
at
chris's
test
columns
in
columns,
f1
f2
f3
combined,
it's
about
300,
some
thousand
dollars
less
than
what
they
reported
for
2020..
So
I.
F
This
already
stated
in
the
opening
remarks
is
that
he
made
adjustments
to
the
gpi
based
off
of
their
higher
reported
vacancy
collection
and
rent
loss.
A
All
right,
I'm
just
going
to
jump
in
here
as
well.
There's
no
doubt
this
is
a
great
building,
great
location.
What
not!
But
I
guess
I
I'm.
A
I
want
to
better
understand
from
the
county's
perspective
like
we're
talking
as
if
like
column
e
is
some
ridiculous
number
that's
way
off
from
before
it
almost
matches
column
a
and
if
the
difference
between
a
and
e
were
what
we
were
looking
at
here.
I'd
be
fine,
but
there
is
a
400
000
difference,
408
and
change
difference
between
what
it
actually
achieved
for
2021
and
we
do
assess
annually.
I
guess
I'm
you
know.
In
other
cases,
we've
seen
a
difference
of
30
000.
A
I
think
we
were
up
to
like
40
000
12
000,
but
four
hundred
thousand
that's
a
pretty
significant
difference
with
you
know
equating
out
to
millions
of
dollars.
So
you
know
I
I
just
would
like
to
hear
more.
Mr
chicas,
why
we're
looking
at
the
stabilized
numbers
when
this
was
a
difficult
year?
I
mean
by
evidence
of
what
they've
reported
for
2021.
A
E
Speak
so
anecdotally,
but
I'd
be
willing
to
bet
near
every
part.
You've
heard
was
virtually
the
same
and
that
we've
seen
I
mean
this
is
basically
my
my
same
spiel
I
make
for
all
my
cases
because
we
see
three
years
of
growth.
We
saw
a
vacancy
and
concession
increase,
we
saw
a
decreased
effect
of
growth
and
in
fact,
a
lot
of
these
also
saw
a
decrease
in
operating
expenses,
and
so
what
we've
done?
Historically,
what
we've
done
this
year
is
look
at
the
properties
as
a
stabilized
unit.
E
What
we've
definitively
said
is
we're
not
going
to
just
capitalize
one
year
and
that's
essentially
what
we
would
do
if
we
said
okay,
they
made.
You
know
the
noi,
that's
reported
in
column
e.
What
we
do
know
is
that
they
increased
their
noi
and
18.
They
creased
it
again
in
19
and
they
would
have
increased
it
again
in
20
if
they
hadn't
increased
their
vacancy
and
cancer
sessions
by
6.
E
E
If
one
person
were
to
look
at
this
over
four
years
and
say
what
is
the
value
of
that
property,
I
think
they'd
be
remiss
to
say
it's
eleven,
seven
based
on
that
noi,
because
we
have
the
previous
three
years
to
denote
that
in
fact
it
increased
the
trend
was
up,
it
wasn't
flat,
it
wasn't
down
it
wasn't
it
could
be,
should
be,
maybe
it'll
go
up.
It
did
go
up
three
years
around
in
fact
four
years
ago,
if
we
go
back
to
sixteen,
but
we
know.
E
But
that's
what
our
job
is
to
do
is
to
provide
a
stabilized
value
at
fair
market
value.
So
we
we
definitively
don't
believe
that
based
off
of
last
year
did
value
drop
by
according
to
the
appellant
nine
percent,
then,
and
we
don't
believe
it
dropped
six
percent,
we
again
did
call
for
a
year-over-year
decrease,
even
if
it's
a
minute
less
than
one
percent.
We
recognize
that
it
had
a
down
year,
but
again
we
also
recognize
big
picture
four
year
average.
E
I
Yeah,
greg
probably
be
the
best
to
answer
this
or
maybe
like,
but
is
you
mentioned
this
property
suffered
more
kind
of
proportionally
than
some
of
the
other
ones
in
your
portfolio?
Is
there
is
there?
I
Would
you
put
a
structural
reason
on
that?
Is
it?
Is
it
student
housing?
Is
it
corporate
housing?
Is
it
the
higher
price
points?
You
know
the
university
not
having
in
person
classes?
Something
like
that
I
mean.
Can
you
just
give
some
color
on
why
you
think
this
one
is,
is
getting
hit
harder
than
some
of
the
other
ones,
yeah.
J
J
The
you
know
the
the
younger
corporate
worker
were
the
first
ones
to
be
told.
You
don't
need
to
be
here
anymore,
and
so
we
had
a
mass
exodus.
Basically,
between
june
and
october,
also
the
two
bedrooms
of
someone
in
you
know
the
two
bedroom
units
that
one
person
was
told
to
go
home.
They
gave
their
vacate
notice
and
maybe
that
other
person
tried
to
find
a
cheap
one
bedroom,
but
we
could
not
fill
the
twos
without
basically
pricing
them
as
a
one.
J
So
yeah
it
was
corporate
student
housing
to
a
degree
just
because
george
mason
beat
virginia
tech.
You
know
down
the
street
all
of
the
above
from
a
reason
why
that
building
was
hit
harder
but-
and
I
think
price
point
has
a
little
something
to
do
with
it
right
I
mean
you
know
when
you
move
down
from
375
a
square
foot
down
to.
J
You
know
that
everybody's
down
at
270,
then
all
of
a
sudden
everybody's
attractive
compared
to
what
you
were,
whereas
if
you
were
a
building
that
was
already
at
270,
you
moved
down
to
240.
Maybe
you
don't
have
the
same
same
hit.
It's
just
that
property.
By
far
and
that's
the
thing
is
I
understand
chris
it
it
is
the
same
for
all
of
our
properties,
but
it
was
not
the
same
for
all
of
our
properties.
J
This
property,
if
you
guys
have
heard
of
me
in
all
these
hearings,
this
was
by
far
the
worst
and
the
unfortunate
part.
Is
I
unders.
You
know
I.
I
understand
that
we
don't
look
forward,
but
we
keep
saying
the
word
blip
and
blip
to
me
implies
that
there's
a
future
where
it
does.
It
goes
reverse
right,
like
it's
a
blip
meaning
it
comes
back
up,
but
that's
not
happening.
So
I
don't.
I
hate
calling
the
blip
and
I
think,
by
default,
we're
saying
it's
going
to
correct
itself.
J
This
property
has
years
ahead
of
it,
where
this
trend
will
be
corrected,
but
this
year
comes
now,
it's
not
that
in
last
year
was
factual.
It's
it's!
It's
11
what
what
it
was
is
what
it
was,
and
I
I
I
understand
trends,
but
this
property
is
going
to
have
a
trend,
the
wrong
way
and
and
the
structure
of
the
makeup.
There
will
be
difficult
to
catch.
E
Yes,
ma'am
to
madam
chairwoman's
points
again,
we
did
recognize
the
loss
in
overall
value
from
that
19
to
20..
Again,
as
irvin
pointed
out,
we
did
depress
the
gross
potential
rents
in
our
vision
by
well
over
300
000,
to
get
to
a
effective
gross.
E
That's
well
in
line
with
the
last
three
years
reported
18,
19
and
20,
counting
in
the
good
years
and
last
year,
our
total
operating
expenses
are
on
points
we're
within
four
thousand
dollars
of
what
was
reported
last
year,
we're
on
top
of
the
three
year
average
we're
on
top
of
the
effective
gross
percentage
average,
and
in
point
of
fact,
this
property
has
increased
its
gross
potential
by
over
1.2
million
dollars.
In
the
last
four
years,
it's
increased
its
effective
gross
by
over
540
000
over
the
last
four
years.
E
You
know
we
do
understand
mr
ann's
point,
but
again,
speculation
as
far
as
projections
moving
forward
based
on
the
historical
operating
percentage
performance
of
this
property.
We
do
believe
that
our
revision
that
incorporates
a
year-over-year
decrease
should
be
confirmed
at
232
million
and
370
000.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you
yes,
and,
as
greg
has,
you
know
previously
spoken
of
the
the
trend
that
we're
seeing
just
this
one
year
trend
so
far
is
not
going
to
be
just
a
one-year
trend,
a
drop
in
almost
eight
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
noi
from
12
and
a
half
million
to
now,
11-7,
that's
going
to
be
a
trend,
that's
going
to
continue
into
the
future.
B
Their
their
revenue
is
down,
as
he
stated
over
seven
figures
this
year,
currently
so
to
be
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
again
above
what
was
most
recently
reported,
we
think
is,
is
not
giving
the
property
enough
consideration
for
the
2021
assessment.
B
B
B
B
You
know
that
jumps
up
to
to
the
243
million
in
in
2021.
The
proposed
assessment
of
232
million
is
just
slightly
below
that
that
2020
initial
assessment,
whereas
you're
again
you're
seeing
the
actual
noi,
which
is
from
the
most
recent
reporting
years
over
eight
hundred
thousand
dollars
below,
but
we're
still
basically
at
the
same
assessment
level
of
the
2020
assessment.
I
You
know
I
I
I
would
I'm
inclined
to
go
with
the
appellant's
pro
forma
and
and
the
county's
cap
rate.
We've
done
it
in
a
couple
other
cases
and
it
kind
of
gets
you
a
value,
that's
higher
than
slightly
higher
than
2019
but
lower
than
2020,
and
I
kind
of
feel
like
that's
where
the
property
is
performing
right
now
and
kind
of
to
the
comments
that
we
can't
speculate
what's
going
to
happen
going
forward.
I
Well,
that's
exactly
what
a
cap
rate
does
it's
a
shorthand
for
a
discounted
cash
flow,
which
is
a
speculation
of
what's
going
to
happen
in
the
future
to
put
a
present
value
on
a
building?
So
we
do
it
all
the
time
on
every
single
case,
and
you
know
the
evidence
right
now
is
kind
of
pushing
the
fact
that
they
might
be
dealing
with
the
structural
issue
at
this
property.
G
The
follow-up
on
that
exactly
in
column
g1
do
they
include
the
affordable,
affordable
units,
because
that
would
a
different
cap
rate.
You
know
I.
I
had
a
lot
of
problem:
adding
up
columns,
subtracting
them,
comparing
them
to
one
size,
fits
all,
but
to
follow
on
greg's
notion,
just
because
it
seems
perhaps
according
to
the
appellant
to
be
a
special
case.
G
K
Yeah,
I
don't
believe
that
in
a
profit
situation
such
as
this,
where
you
have
a
handful
of
affordable
units
that
are
required
by
the
zoning,
I
I
doubt
that
the
property
owner
distinguishes
between
the
two,
because
you're
going
to
have
the
same
maintenance,
the
same
elevator,
the
same
everything,
and
so
my
guess
is
to
my
colleague
that
probably
they
just
lump
it
all
into
one
and
don't
distinguish
the
county.
Does
it,
I
think,
probably
because
of
the
statute.
G
A
Right
what
I
did
I
did
similar
to
what
greg
did.
I
took
the
the
appellant's
number
and
the
the
difference.
I
don't
know
greg
if
this
is
what
you
did,
but
it
reduced
it
by
like
408
000
657..
I
took
that
off
of
the
market
because
I
assumed
the
other
two
categories
were
the
same
and
capped
that
out.
I
got
224
435
3.
L
M
Sorry
about
that
yeah
I
have
to
agree
with
the
county
in
this
case,
the
income
that
they
reported
is
much
higher
than
what
the
county
is
using.
Even
the
vacancy,
I
think
the
the
county
is
using,
is
a
little.
You
know
more
in
favor
of
the
appellant
when,
when
you
look
at
the
overall
numbers,
it's
true
that
the
noi
at
the
bottom
is
higher
than
what
the
appellant
has
or
what
they
reported.
M
But
the
only
thing
I
did
in
this
case,
to
be
honest,
is
just
increase
the
vacancy
to
six
percent
to
allow
the
apartment
side,
which
is
I
mean
it's,
it's
a
minor
change,
but
in
my
opinion,
it
brings
up
the
noi
a
little
more
in
line
overall
with
what
they
what
they
had
in
2020.
M
M
The
value
would
bring
it
down
to
229
301
281,
but
you
know
I
don't
really
feel
that
just
taking
a
number
and
just
dropping
it
by
the
difference
is
you
know
an
appropriate
way
to
do
it
again
to
me,
that's
really
combining
columns,
you
know
to
whatever
is
more
convenient,
and
you
know
I
just
don't
agree
with
doing
that.
K
What
what's
your
number
I
mean,
I'm
sorry,
how
you
say:
what's
your
number.
M
By
increasing
the
vacancy
on
the
apartment
side,
the
vacancy
number
is
948
371
instead
of
790
000.,
so
the
final
value
on
the
apartment
side
would
be
221
million,
439
981,
and
then
we,
when
we
add
the
value
on
the
affordable
units
and
the
retail.
A
A
K
Six,
I'm
inclined
to
go
with
jose.
Would
that
make
us
three
to
three.
A
H
A
Right
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous
six
to
zero,
it's
not
as
much
as
I
would
have
said,
but
I
will
go
with
it.
It's
a
assessments
decrease
to
229
381
300,
based
on
increasing
vacancy
to
six
percent
on
the
apartments.
A
Okay,
in
the
effort
of
time,
we'll
move
right
along
to
the
next
case:
rpc32024002
the
property
located
2324th
road
south.
Mr
warren,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
Sir.
B
B
It's
original
assessment
was
114
million,
339
thousand
nine
hundred
three
hundred
and
sixteen
thousand
seven
hundred
a
unit.
The
county
is
recommending
a
revision
to
108
million
one.
Fifty
eight
three
hundred
and
the
value
we're
asking
for
from
the
board
today
is
93
million
17
300,
which
is
257
thousand
666
a
unit.
This
property
is
an
older
high-rise
apartment
building
located
at
2324th
road
south
it's
12
stories.
It
was
originally
constructed
in
1967..
B
Now
it
says
361
units
you'll,
see
when
we
get
to
the
mixed
use,
income
and
expense
summary
sheet
that
the
county's,
revised
column
f
does
not
include
a
retail
section,
and
that's
because,
through
the
course
of
this
and
the
first
level,
informal
hearings
and
discussions
that
we
had
with
chris,
the
retail
portion,
which
was
approximately
1500
square
feet,
has
been
converted
into
another
apartment
unit
and
you'll
see
his
his
apartment
units
have
have
increased
from
361
to
362.,
so
it
is
now
362
unit
apartment
complex,
it's
a
mix
of
of
one
two
and
three
bedroom
units,
it's
located
in
the
noc
submarket.
B
If
you
turn
now
to
page
five,
I
guess
I
believe
it's
five,
which
is
where
you'll
find
the
mixed
use,
income
and
expense
summary
sheet
you'll
see
that
the
differences
in
historical
operations
of
the
property.
The
first
thing
we'd
like
to
point
the
the
board's
attention
to
is
with
regard
to
the
gross
potential
income
of
the
apartments
over
the
last
several
years
again,
this
has
been
a
stabilized
property.
Historically
you'll
see
in
2017,
reported
total
apartment
gross
potential
income
of
7.8
million
increased
to
7.9
million
in
2018.
B
8.267
million
in
2019,
and
then
you
see
that
drop
down
to
eight
million
one
hundred
thousand
in
most
recently
2020..
B
The
original
assessment
estimated
gross
potential
income
well
higher
than
than
any
that's
been
reported
in
the
last
four
years
of
almost
eight
and
a
half
million
there
were
buys
column
did
bring
that
down
more
in
line
with
what
was
actually
reported
in
2020,
but
we're
still
30
000
higher
as
you'll
see
in
column.
F,
the
gross
potential
income
again
you'll
see
is
a
decrease
of
approximately
200
000
from
the
prior
year.
B
The
revised
column
is
approximately
twenty
thousand
dollars
higher
and
then,
with
regard
to
the
vacancy,
this
is
again
a
property
that
experienced
a
a
big
uptick
in
overall
vacancy
compared
to
prior
years
at
four
and
a
half
percent
the
the
total,
including
concessions
vacancy
and
concessions
in
2020
of
7.61.
B
Now
that
that
doesn't
represent
a
a
excuse,
me
seven
point
three:
five
percent,
which
is
a
pretty
big
increase
from
the
2019
reporting
year
of
two
percent,
so
the
the
total
estimated
gross
gross
income
report
at
the
subject-
property
in
2020
of
eight
million
one
hundred.
Fifty
two
thousand
seven,
forty
eight
is
still
you
know
approximately
almost
almost
two
hundred
thousand
or
it
is
a
little
over
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
above
what
the
county's
revised
column,
revised.
B
Effective
gross
income
is
for
this
property
of
eight
million
three
seventy
four
sixty.
So,
although
there
were
changes
made
and
they
dropped
down
about
300
000,
we
don't
think
there's
again
enough
consideration
given
to
how
the
property
actually
performed
in
the
most
recent
reporting
year.
Now,
with
regard
to
the
operating
expenses,
the
county
was
initially
using
28
operating
expense
ratio.
B
This
property
has
historically
over
the
last
several
years,
operated
at
27
in
18,
most
recently
at
29
of
19,
and
you
see
it
jump
up
to
30.6
percent
in
2020.,
the
the
counties
did
revise
up
to
29,
but
we're
still
about
one
1.63
percent
away
from
what
was
actually
reported
and
approximately
you
know
almost
a
an
80
000
difference
in
total
operating
expenses
with
this
is
one
also
that
you'll
see
with
regard
to
the
cap
rate,
the
county,
and
we
brought
this
before
the
board.
In
prior
years.
B
The
county
is
using
an
effective
age
of
approximately
2000
2010,
which,
which
equates
to
a
5.5
overall
cap
rate.
In
their
analysis.
This
is
a
property
that
again,
we've
we've
brought
to
the
board
in
prior
years,
it
was
renovated
in
2007
and
so
their
their
effective
age
of
2000.
2010
is
essentially
saying
that
the
property
was
raised
and
and
rebuilt
and
brand
new.
B
As
of
the
renovation
date,
the
property
still
retains
most
of
the
structural
components
of
a
1967
building
and
which
is
why,
in
prior
years,
and
the
board
has
agreed
with
us
in
in
prior
years,
appeals
that
it
was
inappropriate
to
list
an
effective
age
of
the
cap
rate,
an
effective
age
for
the
property
based
on
the
cap
rate
that
would
essentially
label
labeled
a
brand
new
building.
B
Following
the
renovation,
we
are
using
a
5.7
base
cap
rate,
which
equates
to
a
1980
to
89
build,
which
is
essentially
saying
the
building's
20
years.
The
the
renovations
brought
the
the
effective
age
up
by
20
years.
So
again,
we
feel
that
the
the
cap
rate
that's
being
applied.
The
base
cap
rate
based
on
the
effective
age
is
inappropriate
by
the
county
and
then.
B
With
regard
to
the
the
assessment
increase
year
over
year,
the
assessment
increased
four
and
a
half
percent
from
the
2020
assessment.
However,
the
the
actual
noi
decreased,
approximately
10
from
the
prior
year.
So
again,
when
you
look
at
that
the
trend,
this
is
a
property
that
we
expect
the
trend,
the
downward
trend
to
continue
the
actual
reported
noi
in
2020
at
5
million
655
525.
B
You
know
we're
still
approximately
300
000
above
what
was
actually
reported
and
that's
what
the
county's
using
in
the
revised
column.
So
we
don't
think
enough.
Consideration
has
been,
has
been
given
to
this
property
in
in
the
the
proposed
revision
by
the
county
jeremy.
I
don't
know
if
there's
anything
else,
you'd
like
to
add.
C
Yeah
for
most
of
these
cases,
a
question
was
asked
before.
For
most
of
these
cases,
the
way
these
have
been
handled
is
we've
been
using
the
the
operating
year,
2020
income
as
the
driver.
Now,
unfortunately,
that
didn't
carry
for
the
last
case
with
the
last
minute
turn,
but
for
the
most
part
work,
the
board
has
been
giving
a
lot
of
weight
to
column
e.
I'm
gonna
kick
it
to
greg
one
more
time
just
to
see.
If
there's
anything
he
wants
to
add
on
this.
J
Jeremy,
this
this
property,
the
location
of
395,
where
kind
of
where
it's
at
a
lot
of
different
structural
factors
as
far
as
the
turnover
there
military
gig
workers,
so
we
had,
we
did
have
a
lot
of
turn
at
this
property,
good
amount
of
concessions
and
yeah
I
mean
I
mean
to
me
the
2019
year
is
going
to
be
the
blip
we
talk
about
in
this
couple
years.
It's
just
a
little
frustrating
in
general,
because
we,
these
properties,
are
on
a
decline.
J
This
property
is
in
the
same
boat
as
far
as
this
year's
worst.
So
I
I
guess,
that's
not
gonna
carry
any
weight,
but
I
do
hope
next
year,
when
we
see
two
negative
years
back
to
back.
That
is
the
trend
that
we
all
honor
as
far
as
the
effective
age.
That's
always
frustrating
too,
because
we've
plotted
this
tax
credit
and
we
don't.
We
don't
agree
to
move
the
effective
age
up.
That
far
I
mean
that's.
That's!
That's
not
true.
A
E
Yes,
ma'am
again
very
much
similar
to
last
case
and,
and
I
want
to
push
back
to
y'all,
it's
very
similar
to
virtual
every
case.
We've
heard
we're
looking
at
this
as
a
stabilized
property
when
we're
looking
at
the
historical
operating
performance.
What
we
see
is
that
2020
was
a
downturn.
E
I
don't
think
we
use
the
word
blip
and
again
we're
trying
not
to
even
use
it
as
a
hiccup,
a
one-time
thing,
whatever
you
want
to
say,
because
we
look
at
these
as
a
stabilized
property.
So
when
we
have
four
years
of
history
to
call
upon
17
through
20,
we
see
that
in
fact
the
property
was
increasing
its
revenues,
17
18
and
19..
E
They
did
go
down
in
2020
and
to
point
of
fact,
this
property
was
heavily
stabilized,
decreasing
its
vacancy
and
concessions
from
3.6
and
17
to
1.8.
So
I
cut
it
in
half
in
two
years
time
and
that
increased
again
by
over
five
percent
in
2020..
This
is
seen
across
virtually
all
multi-family
in
the
county
in
the
country.
E
But
again
we
made
revisions
to
reflect
that
what
we
noted
was
looking
at
again,
a
property
that
had
shown
a
trend
of
increasing
revenues.
We
saw
that
there
were
in
fact,
also
increasing
operating
expenses.
E
We
covered
that
by
increasing
our
operating
expense
for
the
year
to
not
only
reflect
the
average
of
the
last
three
years,
which
were
to
include
double-digit,
increases
in
18
and
again
and
19.,
but
we're
all
over
it
as
far
as
a
percentage
of
effective
gross.
E
So
again
we're
reflecting
not
only
the
increase
in
expenses,
but
the
overall
trend
of
increasing
effective
gross
prior
to
2020.,
as
mr
warren
did
note,
so
we
did
reflect
in
column
f
that
there
are
now
a
is
now
an
additional
two
bedroom.
We
got
rid
of
the
retail,
obviously
overall,
that
was
a
plus
for
the
property
and
that
the
two-bedroom
income
for
the
year,
vastly
I
think
by
some
three
300
percent
over
the
retail
that
was
reported
very
small
amount
of
retail.
So
it's
kind
of
negligible
anyways.
E
Now
this
is
pure
residential.
Again
we
reflected
that
in
column.
F,
if
you
again
note
that
the
trend
at
the
property
with
the
effect
of
gross
we're
all
over
the
average
of
the
last
three
years,
if
you
want
to
use
17
to
19,
if
you
want
to
use
18
through
20.
again,
this
is
being
reflective
of
the
downturn
from
2020..
E
E
Again,
there
was
a
dip,
and
that
would
be
natural
in
the
year
in
which
the
vacancy
concessions
increased
almost
five
or
six
percent,
but
again
as
far
as
looking
at
stabilized
property
or
as
a
trend,
this
was
a
downturn
from
what
was
historically
been
done
at
the
property.
When
we're
looking
at
the
revision
column.
I
would
note
that
this
is
in
fact
I
believe,
mr
warren,
mr
chitlick
believe
this
was
an
increase
year
over
year,
but
last
year
was
109
million
395.
E
If
we're
looking
at
as
a
year
over
year
change,
ours
is
again
a
bit
more
reflective
in
a
negative
1.13
year-over-year,
whereas
the
appellants
are
again
calling
for
just
too
aggressive
of
a
change
at
negative
15
year-over-year.
Essentially,
all
they've
done
is
kept
the
2020
operating
year.
So
there's
not
much
introspection
done
there.
It's
essentially
just
offering
a
cap
rate
on
top
of
what
was
reported,
but
by
doing
that,
you're,
not
again
giving
any
prevalence
or
weight
to
the
three
previous
years
and
that's
the
point
of
a
stabilized
property.
E
This
wasn't
a
one-time
issue,
but
if
we're
looking
at
it
as
a
four-year
history
than
it
appears
to
be,
given
that
we
did
reflect
the
decrease
in
revenue
year-over-year,
given
that
we
did
reflect
the
decrease
and
affect
our
gross
year
over
year,
given
that
we
did
in
fact
increase
as
a
percentage,
our
operating
expenses,
and
given
that
we
did
revise
downward
the
noi.
E
E
E
So
it's
somewhat
semantical
to
say
that's
2007
versus
2
000..
We
understand
that,
but
I
believe
the
board
was
an
agreement
that
it
was
somewhere
in
the
2000s
based
on
the
multi-million
dollar
spence
on
the
project
and
the
renovations
that
were
completed
and
again
important
fact.
The
fact
that
they
received
almost
32
million
dollars
in
rehab
exemptions
this
year
alone.
As
that
property
winds
down
irving.
F
Anything
dead,
yeah,
this
rehab
exemption
is
expiring,
so
the
original
exemption
amount
thing
was
around
58
million,
but
the
point
is
we
provided
the
board
with
documentation
submitted
by
the
owners
back
in
2006
when
this
renovation
was
a
rehab
exemption,
was
applied
for
on
page
33
is
the
beginning,
I
think,
of
a
three-page
document
submitted
by
the
owners
detailing
everything
that
they
would
do
with
this
building
the
first
time
this
case
was
brought
up
and
the
effective
agent
was
contended,
we
didn't
have
this
documentation
included
and,
yes,
the
board
did
reduce
the
effective
age
after
that
year.
F
K
K
Okay,
because
you
you
have
column
g2
by
showing
some
retail
and
the
county,
does.
C
Not
right
so
g1
shows
361
units
and
then
a
thousand
square
feet
of
retail,
where
the
county
originally
had
you
see
d1
and
d2.
Well,
after
conversations
and
and
going
back
and
forth
column
f
shows
362
units,
so
column
e
shows
you'll,
see
seventy
two
thousand
dollars
worth
of
retail
and
calling
me
for
the
operating
year,
because
the
conversion
happened.
Mid-Year
well,.
K
B
B
Include
it
because
it
was
past
the
deadline
date.
So
after
we
submitted
all
our
package,
we
began
discussions
with
chris
chris
inquired
about
it,
and
then
we
found
out
through
sophie
and
greg
that
that
space
had
actually
been
converted.
So
if
we
could
go
back
and
resubmit
that,
but
again
once
we're
past
the
deadline.
E
Yes,
ma'am
so
again,
based
on
the
historical
operating
performance
of
the
property,
the
revision
that
was
made
by
the
county
it
recognizes
the
drop
in
revenue
recognizes.
The
increase
in
vacancy
concessions,
recognizes
the
increase
in
operating
expenses
and
the
decrease
in
net
operating
income.
Again,
this
is
a
decrease
from
last
year,
but
again
is
in
recognition
that
this
is
a
stabilized
property,
but
four
years
of
historic
operating
performance.
E
B
Yes,
the
county
has
has
reiterated
that
they
assess
the
the
subject
property
as
a
stabilized
property,
and
if
you
look
at
column
f,
I
think
that's
that's
pretty
apparent.
You
know
it's
it's
very
much
in
line
with
the
17
18
and
19
noise,
but
doesn't
seem
to
to
give
any
consideration
to
the
most
recent
reporting
year
and
the
instability
that
this
property
and
and
just
the
overall
market
has
had
regarding
last
year
and
as
the
the
owners
testified.
B
What
we
expect
moving
forward
to
be
a
downward
downward
trend
and,
as
mr
hoffman
previously
pointed
out,
you
know
you
can.
If
you're,
just
gonna,
assess
this
property
based
off
of
stabilized
noi.
To
then
consider
the
the
impact
last
year,
the
instability
and
the
risk
factor
involved.
You
would
either
you
know,
take
a
below
the
line
adjustment
for
what
the
trend
is
you're,
seeing
moving
forward
or
give
consideration
to
to
the
cap
rate,
but
the
county
has
not
made
any
consideration
for
those.
B
It
appears
that
they're
just
assessing
this
property
as
a
stabilized
property
and
2020
was
just
a
blip
and
we'll
just
look
at
the
three
years.
Previous
to
that.
So
again,
I
think
we
have
to
look
at
the
most
recent
reporting
year
and
what
the
owner
has
has
testified.
Moving
forward
is
going
to
be
the
trend
moving
forward
for
this
property.
That's
going
to
take
a
number
of
years
to
pull
out
of
it's
not
just
a
one-year
blip.
A
I
I
think
it
would
make
sense
to
me
if
this
thing
were
assessed
closer
to
the
2019
value,
I'm
trying
to
dig
in
kind
of
into
the
rent,
roll
and
look
for
trends
and
try
to
see
which
direction
things
are
going
and-
and
I
don't
really
have
a
good
support
for
that,
because
just
data
points
you
know
it
looks
like
if
you,
if
you
signed
a
lease
in
march
through
july,
you
got
a
really
good
deal,
but
then,
if
you
slam
the
lease
towards
you
know
the
end
of
2020,
it
was
kind
of
back
towards
the
historical
rates.
I
G
I
just
keep
spreading
through
my
head
what
mr
chica
said
two
cases
ago.
Looking
at
the
picture
note
all
the
time.
It's
trends
we
know
2020
is
odd,
but
I'm
finding
that
the
county
is
smoothing
is
decreasing
value,
certainly
not
as
much
as
the
true
decrease
in
income
and
activity.
In
many
many
many
many
many
properties,
but
they
are
accounting
for
it
over
the
long
term.
The
long-term
trend,
and-
and
you
know
it
continues
downward
the
next
year
and
year
after
year
after
it'll,
continue
to
tread
down
there
lightly.
G
A
Right,
I
I
agree
with
what
you've
just
said.
Mr
math
can
my
only
problem
is
you
know
we
sat
and
looked
at
these
properties
last
year
and
said:
oh,
you
know,
we've
got
a
lot
of
stabilized
properties
and
kovit's
going
to
impact
them
and
we'll
deal
with
coven
next
year.
Now
we're
looking
at
the
coven
numbers,
it
has
has
impacted.
A
You
know
these
properties
and
we're
saying,
but
it's
we're
looking
it's
pretty
stabilized,
so
it's
almost
like
not
giving
weight
to
it.
So
I
I'm
just
struggling
with
the
annual
assessment
of
we
put
off
that
we're
going
to
consider
stuff
and
then
we
don't
consider
it.
But
mr
lawson,
you
had
your
hand
up.
K
Yeah
I
was
going
to
share
kind
of
my
thinking.
I
think
the
applicant's
wrong
in
a
way
and
I
think
the
county's
wrong
in
a
way.
I
think
you
know
the
county's
talking
about
well
stabilized,
and
this
is
a
blip
and
all
that
I
mean
if
you
ever
had
a
reason
to
lower
assessed
values.
K
K
My
experience
has
been
right
now
this
market
can't
be
any
hotter
and
so
the
reason
I
went
the
way
I
did
the
last
case
was
I
I
think
it
was
a
one-time
deal
in
this
particular
one.
K
G
Thank
you
what
you
said
mary,
I
you
know,
I
look
at
last
year's
assessment
and
on
a
variety
of
these
cases,
to
include
certainly
this
one
and
the
revised
assessment
is
one
percent
less
well.
You
know
that
doesn't
satisfy
me
as
even
though
I
want
to
smooth
out
1
is
not
a
big
drop,
but
then
I
got
to
remember
that
the
original
assessment
is
based
on
an
ignorance
studied
ignorance
of
no
covenant
impact
in
2020.
Now,
all
of
a
sudden,
the
drops
are
five
and
six
and
seven
percent
the
original
assessment.
G
Now
that
starts
to
get
to
be
the
downward
trend.
That
is
accepting
the
reality
of
a
worldwide
pandemic,
not
fully
not
for
one
year,
but
it
is
a
meaningful
drop.
So
I
wanted
to
add
that.
I
Yeah,
I
was
thinking
because
I
didn't
really
put
a
number
or
a
process
to
my
my.
I
just
had
a
high
level
thought
to
start
this
off,
but
maybe
looking
at
it
the
way
jose
proposed
last
round,
which
is
take
the
vacancy
to
six
percent
instead
of
five
as
the
county
has
it
and
come
up
with
a
number
there,
just
recognizing
that
the
struggles
of
the
property
and
I'm
I'm
working
on
that
math
right
now.
I
don't
know
if
anybody's
already
done
it,
but
just
bear
with
me.
M
Well,
I
don't
feel
as
strong
in
this
case
as
I
did
on
the
previous
one,
but,
like
I
said
maybe
last
week,
if
there
was
any
change
that
would
be
made,
you
know
that
would
be
the
way
to
maybe
go,
and
I
already
worked
out
the
numbers
on
that.
I
don't
you
know
we
can
compare
if
you
want
to
do
that
great,
but
yeah.
M
By
increasing
the
vacancy
to
six
percent,
I
come
up
with
an
noi
of
five
million:
eight
sixty
five
twelve,
so
the
final
value
will
be
106
million,
554
764.
M
So,
like
I
said,
I
don't
feel
that's
as
strong
as
the
previous
case,
but
I
think
it's
because
of
the
things
that
you
know
you
guys
mentioned.
I
think
you
know
I
would
be
okay
going
with
that.
G
We
made
the
exception
for
it
again
for
a
unique
property,
sounds
good
and
voted
for
it.
Now
we've
got
a
lesser
property,
but
we
still
make
that
concession.
N
N
G
I
All
right
I'll
I'll
make
this
motion
if
I
may
reduce
to
106
554
800,
based
on
the
vacancy
being
at
six
percent
on
the
county's
column,
app.
H
F
H
A
Five
to
one
without
mr
metzken,
the
assessment's
reduced
to
106
million
five.
Fifty
four
eight
hundred
based
on
increase
in
the
vacancy
to
six
percent.
Q
Good
morning,
madam
chairwoman,
members
of
the
board,
today
jordan,
hold.
A
Q
R
Yes,
good
morning,
madam
chairwoman,
members
of
the
board,
thank
you
for
your
time
today
and
your
consideration
of
these
cases.
This
property
is
2500,
wilson,
boulevard,
it's
located
between
clarendon
and
courthouse
metro
stations.
It
was
built
in
1986
and
it's
been
assigned
an
effective
age
of
1986.,
this
property
as
you're
going
down
wilson
boulevard
or
clarendon
boulevard.
R
It's
it's
two
blocks
east
of
the
whole
foods,
so
this
section
as
we're
familiar
with
the
whole
foods
kind
of
acts
as
a
de
facto
end
of
clarendon
and
the
start
of
a
little
bit
of
a
dead
zone.
Until
you
get
into
the
courthouse
business
district,
this
property
had
a
large
tenant
cambridge
in
2019.
They
had
occupied
59
of
the
building
they
left
early
in
2019
and
since
then
the
property
has
suffered
significant
vacancy.
It
was
at
61.5
percent
in
2019
and
it
ticked
up
a
percent
to
62.5
percent
in
2020..
R
You
can
see
this
on
the
appeal
packet
at
page
145.,
that's
the
hour
pro
forma.
It
lists
those
vacancy
rates.
The
retail
at
this
building
has
been
75
vacant
since
at
least
2018..
The
current
retailers
are
a
bank
in
a
hearing
center.
This
location
again
is
somewhat
challenged
based
on
its
physical
space
between
it's.
R
After
that
whole
foods,
and
it's
before
you
get
to
the
courthouse
business
district,
it's
kind
of
a
pass-through
area
and,
if
you're
familiar
with
it,
if
you've
walked
there
on
on
a
weekend,
you
don't
see
a
whole
lot
of
pedestrian
traffic
in
this
area.
R
R
R
R
If
you,
if
you
would,
please
now
direct
your
attention
to
page
seven
of
the
appeal
packet,
this
is
the
county's
rent
roll
I'd
like
to
direct
your
attention
to
the
the
office
tenants
listed
on
this
rent
roll,
the
the
second
from
the
last
one
there's
a
tenant
in
a
cac
listed
in
suite
315
leasing,
7626
square
feet
at
45
dollars
per
square
foot.
R
We
believe
that's
an
error
and
that
that
tenant
did
vacate
in
2020
that
space
that
same
suite
and
that
same
square
footage
was
taken
over
on
january
1st
of
2021
by
this
new
lease
at
42.39
face
room.
R
J
R
Line
with
our
pro
forma
rate
of
39
per
square
foot
for
vacant
office,
which
we
believe
is
what
this
property
can
commands,
based
on,
both
the
the
new
lease
that
began
january,
21st
2021,
with
a
net
effective
rate
of
38
dollars,
20
cents
and
correcting
the
error
on
the
rent
roll.
By
putting
this
new
lease
in
place
of
the
former
release
of
nacac,
which
results
in
a
not
effective
for
it
lower
than
the
assessed.
We
believe
that
the
vacant
office
space
should
be
assessed
at
39
dollars
per
square
foot.
R
E
R
Space
again,
as
I
said
at
the
top
of
this
case,
the
retail
space
has
been
75
vacant.
We
believe
you
know
this
is
due
to
the
the
location
of
the
property.
It
is
in
that
section
in
between
clarendon
courthouse
that
doesn't
have
a
ton
of
foot
traffic.
It's
if
you
look
on
a
map,
it's
somewhat
echo
distance
between
the
two
metro
stations.
So,
while
it's
it's,
you
know,
has
access
to
both
it's
close
to
neither
the
property
does
front
wilson
boulevard.
R
R
Now
the
assessment
has
assigned
a
vacant
retail
rate
of
44.25
per
square
foot.
We
believe
24
is
more
appropriate.
We
base
this
rate
on
the
2020
guidelines,
which
this
is
at
the
low
end
of
the
2020
guidelines,
and
we
we
had
assumed
that,
due
to
covid's
effect
on
the
retail
sector,
that
the
guidelines
would
would
go
down
for
20
2020.
So
that's
what
how
we
came
up
with
24
for
the
vacant
retail.
R
R
If
you
look
at
the
historical
operating
expenses,
they've
averaged
10.64
cents
over
the
past
couple
of
years,
and
the
past
two
years,
of
course,
is
when
cambridge
had
left.
So
that's
that's
why
they
differ
from
the
two
years
prior
to
that.
So
this
this
is
the
operating
expense
at
a
building
that
is
only
37
and
a
half
percent
occupied,
meaning
it's
62.5
vacant
in
2020
61.5
vacant
year
in
2019.
R
If
we
are
to
assume
a
stabilized
occupancy
of
75,
the
op-ex
will
will
rise
due
to
due
to
the
variable
cost.
Specifically,
if
we
look
at
only
electricity,
janitorial
and
management
fee,
the
overall
operating
expenses
will
increase
by
88
cents
per
square
foot
if
you're
at
75
occupancy
versus
50
today
or
I'm
sorry
versus
37.5.
R
Today
and
additionally,
the
the
2020
operating
expenses
were
skewed
lower
due
to
the
covid
related
work
from
home
policies
enacted
throughout
much
of
the
county.
R
So
those
are
where
we
dispute
the
assessment,
and
I
would
also
like
to
make
note
of
the
comments
at
the
bottom
of
the
county's
test.
Page
again,
that's
page
five
of
the
appeal
packet,
the
sale
price
in
december
of
2018-
that
was
you
know
two
years
prior
to
the
date
of
value
and
the
rents
in
place
at
at
the
time
were
over
four
dollars
more
per
square
foot.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration.
P
Yes
board.
Thank
you
for
having
us.
L
P
For
this
property
2500
wilson
boulevard,
this
property
went
through
a
renovation
and
they
spent
about
7.4
million
in
a
renovation
to
include
fitness
center
conference
center
lounge
elevators,
bathroom
common
corridors,
the
atrium,
elevator
lobbies,
hvac
air
handlers,
the
facade
repairs
in
the
roof,
some
of
the
spaces
actually
were
spec
spaces
on
the
third
and
fourth
floors
on
the
third
floor
is
about
four
thousand
one
hundred
three
square
feet
and
the
fourth
floor
was
up
to
six
thousand
seven
hundred
twenty
three
square
feet,
like
mr
harmon
pointed
out
this
property
sold
in
2018
for
31
million
nine
hundred
thousand.
P
So
originally
our
noi
and
the
2020
assessment
was
about
418
000
less
than
what
they
reported
in
2019
and
that's
the
reason
for
the
increase
in
2021
upon
review.
We
did
find
that
spaces
became
vacant,
and
so
we
made
the
adjustment
and
upward
adjustment
for
those
vacant
spaces.
P
Two
of
those
vacant
spaces
which
I
didn't
address
to
the
the
appellant
the
agents
to
the
vacant
spaces
did
increase
and
their
vacant
spaces
on
the
rent,
roll
from
2019
and
then
again
in
2020.
They
did
increase
of
about
2
856
square
feet
from
last
year
this
year
from
2019
to
2020,
rent
roll
again
upon
review.
P
We
did
see
that
in
the
operating
year
of
2020,
they
don't
report
a
an
income
for
the
gross
potential
of
the
vacant
space,
so
you'll
see
in
columns
fng
that
the
department
and
the
appellant
do
show
that
income
for
that
vacant
space.
However,
we
do
differ
on
this
vacant
square
footage
the
county.
Has
it
somewhat
broken
down
differently
than
the
appellant?
P
I
would
like
to
note
that
the
operating
20
operating
year,
2020
overall
square
footage
should
be
103
0804,
which
the
department
and
the
appellant
have
somewhat
I'm
not
sure
exactly
where
the
appellant's
coming
with
the
extra
square
feet.
But
when
looking
at
the
rent
roll,
the
county
did
find
that
there
were
two
rents
in
place
that
most
recent
at
of
about
two
to
three
dollars
more
than
what
the
county
and
the
appellant
have
in
their
pro
forma.
P
As
far
as
what
we
project
for
the
vacant
space
in
looking
at
the
overall
expenses
of
this
property,
the
county
looked
over
the
the
history
of
this
property,
it's
sort
of
all
over
the
place,
but
we
did
try
to
figure
out
exactly.
You
know
what
the
operating
expenses
would
be
for
this
property
as
stabilized.
P
We
do
see
that
we're
in
line
with,
I
guess
the
most
stable.
If
you
will
property
operating
year,
2017
where
it
was
about
seven
eight
seven
point:
eight
percent
vacant
versus
you
know
more
recent,
where
we
actually
allocated
a
little
more
in
excess
vacancy
for
the
original
and
the
test.
Columns
for
the
department
overall
you'll
see
an
extra
column
or
extra
box.
P
If
you
will,
in
the
operating
year
2020
where
the
county
took
it
upon
themselves
to
kind
of
visualize
help
visualize
and
illustrate
what
we
feel
that
if
this
ine
form
was
filled
out
correctly,
that
the
noise
should
show
something
similar
to
what
we
have,
whether
you
take
the
department's
projected
income
for
the
vacancies
versus
the
the
vacant
space
income
of
the
appellant.
P
So
with
that,
we
do
feel
that
the
test
does
show
an
a
better
indication
of
the
market
value
for
this
property,
where,
if
you
compare
what
precovet
noi
for
this
property,
you'll
see
that
that
figure
is
in
column
c
and
where
we'll
well
below
that
we're
about,
I
believe
about
400
000
below
that,
and
on
top
of
that,
we
do
allocate
for
the
extra
vacancy
that
may
have
that
that
kovid
may
have
caused.
So
in
addition
to
being
400
000
lower
than
what
they
reported
in
2019.
P
F
We
still
got
eight
minutes,
I'm
sorry
do
we
still
have
eight
minutes
remaining
all
right.
Sorry,
just
to
make
a
correction
on
the
2017
rob
stated:
it
was
seven
percent
vacant.
It
was
actually
18
vacant,
but
I
think
it
still
supports
his
argument
because
at
18
vacant
the
property
operating
expense
was
10
dollars,
we're
using
25
vacancy
and
our
operating
expense
for
the
test
is
at
9.75
and
we
think
that's
more
appropriate
than
eleven
dollars
used
by
the
appellate
in
column
g.
K
Yeah,
this
is
for
the
owner.
How
long
has
that
rental,
that
retail
kind
of
fronts,
if
you're,
looking
at
the
face
of
the
building
it's
on
the
right
and
on
the
back?
How
long
has
that
retail
been
empty?
K
R
We
have
going
back
to
at
least
2018
all
of
the
current
vacant.
Retail
has
been
vacant,
and
that
was
a
little
bit
lower
prior
to
2018,
because
the
bank
had
a
slightly
larger
lease
on
the
first
floor.
They
gave
back
some
of
that
square
footage.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
was
the
space
you're
speaking
of,
but
the
current
vacancy
at
75
has
been
at
least
since
2018.
I
Yeah,
when,
when
you
look
at
the
listing
for
lease
online,
it's
like
spec
suites,
available
august
2020,
I'm
guessing,
maybe
all
those
didn't
get
built
out
last
year
or
what
is
the
status
I
mean
it
says
the
fourth
floor
is
all
spec
suites.
But
if
there's
not,
I
can't
really
tell
if
it's
actually
a
spec
sweep
that's
done
or
if
it's
a
partial
build
or
what
the
status
of
that
is.
R
L
P
Yes,
thank
you
again
for
this
property.
We
did
look
at
the
history
of
the
property.
We
did
try
to
make
a
better
illustration
of
what
this
property
would
project
based
on
the
most
recent
ine
again,
when
the
property
did
sells
about
86
percent
occupied.
P
Now,
I'm
not
trying
to
put
words
in
in
the
appellant's
mouth
or
anything
like
that
or
try
to
speculate.
But
you
know
when,
when
this
property
was
purchased,
these
renovations
were
made
to
the
property,
so
I'm
not
sure
exactly
if
the
renovations
had
a
factor
with
the
renovations
made,
but
I
did
see
that
in
some
other
properties
where
the
vacancy
did
drop
based
on
the
renovations
made
to
the
property-
and
you
know
infusing
about
7.4
million,
it's
inappropriate
as
renovations.
P
I
did
note
on
the
record
that
this
property's,
effective
age
would
change
the
department's
in
the
process
of
developing
guidelines
behind
that.
So
I,
like
the
board,
take
that
in
consideration.
Thank
you.
R
Yes,
thank
you.
So
when
the
property
sold
again,
cambridge
occupied
59
of
the
building
the
they
were
known
to
be
vacating
at
the
time
of
sale.
So
I
believe
that's
that
was
considered
by
the
current
owner
and
while
we
don't
have
the
7
million
improvements
in
front
of
us
to
to
verify
we,
I
wouldn't
imagine
that
that
was
part
of
it.
They
had
plans
to
re-let
it
at
similar
rates
to
cambridge
or
higher
at
the
time
of
sale.
R
Rinse
in
place
average
had
a
weighted
average
of
47.82,
currently
they're
down
at
43
dollars
and
and
obviously
the
the
leasing
activity
that
was
planned
has
not
happened,
cambridge
being
in
the
property
for
partial
year
2019
also,
it
explains
why
2019
noi
was
higher.
I
know
that
2019
ny
was
pointed
out
as
a
barometer
for
the
current
assessment.
However,
that
number
is
not
reflective
of
what
the
property
can
currently
bring
as
it
is.
R
P
I
Actually
agree
with
everything
the
appellant
has
in
column
g
running
down
as
far
as
gross
potential
office
rents
vacant
space,
what
it
should
be
valued
at
for
both
the
retail
and
the
office,
the
25
vacancy
rate
rate
and
the
11
operating
expenses.
I
think
all
that's.
I
I
This
would
take
this
property
value
way
below
market
value,
currently
assisted
249,
a
square
foot,
and
I
think
if,
if
seven
million
dollars
of
improvements
were
made
and
the
building
was
leased
up,
that
it
would
sell
in
excess
of
the
the
difference
there.
So
I'm
actually,
okay
with
the
county's
assessment.
K
Lawson,
yes,
I
bank,
at
this
bank,
and
so
we
also
represented
the
ownership
of
this
building
and
there's
a
a
couple,
significant
problems
that
I'm
aware
of
just
because
I'm
there
all
the
time
and
one
of
those
problems
is
that
the
parking
excuse
me.
I
got
allergies
this
morning
I
apologize.
The
parking
revenue
has
just
plummeted
and
the
retail
space.
K
The
reason
I
asked
about
it
is
it
was
a
vietnamese
restaurant
that
was
there
and
the
lady
complained
to
me
for
several
years
that
all
I
do
is
work
to
pay
rent.
I
don't
make
a
dag
on
penny,
so
she
left-
and
I
mean
it's
just
it's
just
lousy
retail
space,
the
the
renovation
that
was
done.
Frankly,
I
don't
even
know
why
they
did
it
it's.
I
guess
they're
going
to
try
to
market
differently
up
in
the
upper
floors
in
the
lobby.
K
They
they
put
in
a
bunch
of
stuff
that
nobody
ever
uses,
and
I
doubt
anyone
ever
would
they
had
a
security
guard
that
was
there
full
time
and
he's
gone
the
the
two
things
I
saw
and
I
what
I
did
is
I
took
the
county
test
and
I
I
don't
know
if
I'll
get
any
support
for
this,
but
I
made
two
adjustments.
K
One
was
I
I
went
and
added
or
I
took
away
the
actual
parking,
so
the
income,
the
parking
income
I
lowered
up
above
and
then
below
the
line.
I
took
the
county's
40,
a
square
foot,
rent
loss
and
I
multiplied
that
by
1.5
and
the
reason
I
I
did
that
was,
I
don't
know
what
they're
going
to
ever
do
with
that
space
on
the
ground
floor,
that's
towards
the
back
of
the
building.
It
has
no
visibility.
K
It's
kind
of
recessed
in
and
where
I
ended
up,
was
at
23
million
847
I'll
go
ahead
and
make
that
300..
K
So
those
are
those
are
the
things
I
did
and
again
you
know
just
because
I'm
pretty
familiar
with
the
building-
and
I
don't
know
if
I'll
get
any
support
for
that.
G
I,
as
it
happens,
I'm
very
familiar
with
the
building
too.
I
sit
a
hundred
feet
away
and
I'm
in
it
at
least
once
a
week.
I've
had
clients
move
in
there
and
it
is
the
downward
trend
and
we've
been
talking
the
last
several
cases
about
trans
big
pictures.
G
Allergies,
but
I
didn't
do
themselves
any
favors
in
e
by
not
giving
it
appears
a
full,
accurate
accounting
based
on
the
county
guidelines
and
how
to
account
I
mean
the
numbers
are
very,
very
small
relative
to
everything.
G
So
I'm
not
exactly
sure.
I
think
a
shame
on
me.
I
didn't
ask
this
at
the
opponent,
but
I
think
a
good
ine
for
2020
would
have
made
the
case
that
barnes
and
I
think
at
least
that
there's
a
downward
trend
and
we
ought
to
attend
ourselves
to
it,
but
we
can't
go
on
what
on
speculation
and
what
the
appellant
should
have
done
or
might
have
done
still.
G
Having
said
that,
the
department
does
show
a
modest
downward
trend
on
p.s
that
the
the
the
retail
space
that
barnes
decried
around
the
back,
which
is
really
on
barton
between
martin,
wilson
and
clarendon,
ought
to
become
office
space.
I
mean
there's
just
no
question:
they
could
at
least
has
nice
office.
Space
it'll
never
release
his
retail,
but
therefore,
unfortunately,
because
of
the
in
my
judgment,
deficient,
I
need
for
2020.
I
got
to
go
with
what
the
county
has
to
do.
A
Yeah
I'll
jump
in
as
well,
I
mean
I
look
at
the
downward
trend.
When
I
look
at
you
know
three,
two,
two
five
and
then
to
two
one.
That
is
a
downward
trend
to
me.
When
you
look
at
the
revised
number,
I
don't
follow
the
logic
of
mr
lawson's
number.
A
The
parking
you
know
was
reduced
from
260
280
up
in
there
280
to
31,
so
I
see
the
downward
there
and
I'm
not
okay
with
doing
a
one
time,
one
and
a
half
adjustment
on
the
bottom
for
one
and
a
half
years
for
the
rent.
So
I
I'm
I'm
okay
with
the
county's
number.
H
O
I
I'll
motion
that
we
confirm
the
county's
reduced
test
column
number
of
twenty
five,
eight
thirty,
three
four
hundred.
A
Q
But
I
would
like
the
board
to
admonish
the
county
and
ask
that
they
keep
to
information
only
in
the
package.
A
lot
of
the
money
that
was
spent
at
this
property
was
on
planters
and
plants
and
that's
not
an
improvement
to
the
real
estate
so
and
furniture.
So
I
just
would
ask
that
the
board
caution
the
county
and
request
that
they
only
include
information
that
is
in
their
package.
A
Okay,
so
noted
mr
peralta,
just
if
you
would
keep
that
in
mind
in
your
upcoming
testimonies,
yeah.
P
Okay,
I
usually
keep
an
email
that
I
did
respond
sent
to
the
appellant
and
they
responded.
That's
usually
in
the
case
that,
for
some
reason
it's
not
in
this
case,
but
it
did
acknowledge
the
renovations
there.
Q
A
Money:
okay,
all
right,
we're
going
to
take
a
five-minute
break;
it's
10
37!
So
if
everybody
would
come
back
and
that
would
be
what
you
think
I
could
do
basic
math,
the
12..
Thank
you
chase,
I'm
really
just
at
a
loss
at
10
42..
Thank
you.
If
you
turn
your
cameras
and
microphones
off
too,
please
thank
you.
A
Okay,
I'm
looking
for
is
mr
peralta
back.
A
Okay
and
mr
yates
yep,
we
got
everybody
back.
Okay,
all
right.
Moving
along
on
the
agenda,
we
are
moving
to
rpc
one
four:
zero:
five,
nine
zero.
Three
four.
The
fourth
case
on
the
agenda
property
is
located
at
4200,
wilson
boulevard.
Mr
harmon,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
R
R
This
is
a
four-year
span
of
significant
vacant
vacancy
challenges
at
the
property.
If
you
turn
to
page
78
of
the
appeal
packet
you'll
see
our
pro
forma
and
across
the
bottom
of
that
graph,
you'll
see
the
vacant
percent
year
end,
it's
been
2017,
49.6,
2018,
49.6,
2019,
50.1
percent
and
then
year
in
2020
49.6.
R
So
this
this
property
has
suffered
significant
vacancy.
It's
it.
It
does
have
one
tenant
throughout
that
most
of
that
time
and
it's
the
federal
government.
So
that's
the
only
tenant.
It's
had
taken
up
about
50
of
the
property,
the
other
50
has
been
vacant,
and
we
look
at
this
property
and
and
wonder.
Why
is
it
a
challenge
to
lease
up
if
you've,
if
you
I'm
sure
you've
been
down
to
the
boston
corridor,
boston
quarter,
I'm
sorry
and
walked
past
the
entrance.
You
probably
didn't
even
notice
it.
It's
it's
very
narrow.
R
It's
sandwiched
in
between
a
cvs
and
I
believe
it's
ted's
bulletin
on
the
other
side.
So
the
the
narrow
lobby
is
not
a
great
curb
appeal
from
wilson
and
you
know
a
lot
of
class.
A
tenants
do
look
for
the
impressive
entryway
to
bring
clients
to
the
floor.
Plans
are
also
relatively
narrow.
If
you,
if
you
see
a
an
outline
of
them,
they're
they're
impacted
greatly
by
the
elevator
space
and
just
kind
of
narrow
space.
There's
also
no
on-site
parking
at
the
building.
R
They
do
advertise
leasing
space
from
a
garage
across
the
street
that
is
accessible
via
flyover,
but
any
of
us
who
have
gone
that
route.
Understand
that
that's
not
as
desirable
as
having
an
in-building
parking
garage.
R
They
have
an
image
of
you
know
one
of
the
instagram
walls
where
it's
these
massive
wings
painted
on
a
wall,
and
you
can
stand
in
front
of
it
and
take
pictures
in
front
of
it.
You
know
you're,
not
gonna,
you're,
not
gonna,
see
some
necessarily
some
legacy
fortune
500
companies
looking
at
that,
as
as
a
perk
and
now,
if
you'd
kindly
direct
your
attention
to
page
four
of
the
appeal
packet.
R
This
is
the
county's
test
page
looking
at
the
test
column
in
our
pro
forma
column,
you'll
note
that
we
do
not
differ
much
on
effective
gross
income,
but
we
do
differ
on
the
operating
expenses
in
the
dfl.
The
discount
for
lease
up
on
this
test.
Page
I'd,
also
like
you
to
direct
your
attention
to
the
three-year
operating
history
at
the
property.
R
You'll
see
that
over
2018,
2019
and
2020
that
noi
has
been
consistently
at
or
near
2.5
million
dollars.
That
is,
that
is
a
documented
three-year
trend
and
it
is
significantly
lower
than
the
county's
test,
and
you
know
granted.
It
is
not
a
stabilized
property,
but
that
that
is
a
trend,
and
we
have
three
years
of
it
going
back
so.
R
Now
for
the
operating
expenses
we
believe
the
operating
expenses
assume
body
assessment
do
not
adequately
reflect
the
actual
operating
expenses
that
the
property
will
incur
at
a
stabilized
occupancy.
The
current
occup
operating
expenses
have
averaged
7.22
cents
per
square
foot
over
the
past
three
years,
and
this
is
at
a
50
occupied
property.
R
You
know
that
that
just
barely
covers
the
actual
operating
expenses
of
a
50
occupied
building.
It
does
not
take
into
account
an
additional
50
occupancy,
which
would
be
the
75
stabilized
as
such.
The
7.22
per
square
foot
average
operating
expenses
over
the
past
three
years
and
the
725
assumed
by
the
assessment
do
not
adequately
reflect
the
expenses
once
it's
at
75
stabilized
occupancy.
R
R
R
R
This
property
again
has
been
50
vacant
since
at
least
2017.,
while
the
county
guidelines
do
call
for
one
year,
one
year
of
rent
loss.
We
believe
this
property
is
is
a
prime
example
where
a
higher
amount
of
rent
loss
is
appropriate.
It's
been
you
know.
One
year
of
rent
loss
clearly
doesn't
cover
the
four
years
that
this
property
has
experienced.
R
Additionally,
the
vacant
space
at
this
property
should
be
assigned
shell
condition
because
67
625
square
feet
are
in
shell
condition
and
the
tenant
improvement
allowance
should
be
assigned
110
dollars
per
square
foot
instead
of
the
70
dollars
per
square
foot
that
the
test
case
assigns
based
on
it
being
in
shell
condition.
R
So
again,
this
property
has
been
50
vacant
over
the
past
four
years.
It's
it's
been
unable
to
lease
its
space.
It's
you
know.
We
discussed
some
of
the
issues
that
the
property
has.
You
know
it's
it's
nice
to
work
near
them
all,
but
not
necessarily
at
the
mall.
R
P
Yes,
thank
you
for
this
property.
The
department
doesn't
have
much.
P
P
But
if
you
take
the
vacant
space
income
of
the
appellant
and
use
that
with
the
noi
reported
for
the
2020
ine
you'll
see
that
there's
a
a
difference
there
of
about.
It
should
be
about
3
million
more
than
what's
shown,
I'm
sorry
about
500
000,
more
than
what's
shown
in
the
noi
report
for
2020..
P
When
you
look
at
the
overall
expenses
of
this
property,
contrary
to
what
stabilized,
how
we
view
stabilized
stabilized
property,
where
the
vacancy
is
much
lower
stabilized,
we
see
that
overall,
this
property
has
had
somewhat
the
same
vacancy
over
the
years
and
by
looking
at
this
property
as
it
is.
Currently,
we
do
see
that
the
expenses
that
we
used
in
our
test
and
the
original
are
supported.
P
P
That
asks
for
the
scope
and
cost
of
this
renovation,
to
which
I
haven't
received
the
response.
Now.
Forgive
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
didn't
receive
a
sponsor
as
of
today,
and
I
looked
at
tried
to
look
at
what
the
renovations
were.
P
Unfortunately,
I
did
not
get
a
chance
to
inspect
this
property,
but
I
would
have
leaned
on
the
coast
the
cost
and
scope
response
from
the
appellant
to
kind
of
determine
what
that
effect
would
be
on
the
effective
age
of
this
property
and
looking
at
the
major
differences
between
the
test
column
and
the
appellants
column,
we
do
see
that
there's
a
difference
in
cap
rate,
the
the
sales
that
the
county
did
review
do
support
the
current
cap
rates
that
are
allocated
toward
different
sub
markets
and
the
bid
rates.
P
So
we
do
feel
that
this
cap
rate
is
supported
when
looking
at
this
property.
Even
further
as
of
today,
I
looked
at
costar
and
the
the
current
vacancy
in
the
property
is
about
fifty
four
thousand
six
hundred
fifteen
square
feet,
of
which
ten
thousand
seven
hundred
seventy
two
square
feet
was
leased
in
2021.
So
if
we
were
to
make
a
a
change
in
the
excess
vacancy
calculations,
then
I'd
ask
the
board
to
actually
take
that
into
consideration
as
well.
P
Although
you
know
we
are
looking
as
a
one
one,
so
I
I
retract
and
take
that
back.
That
is
all
I
have
for
now.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board
members.
G
H
R
G
Okay,
great
great,
you
want
to
be
getting
facts
right,
spread
the
department
on
this
issue,
the
the
70
square,
foot
per
tenant
improvement
allowance
for
just
normal
built
out
offices,
and
you
have
to
change
a
wall
here
and
upgrade
the
kitchen
up
there.
It's
generous
it's
a
good
amount
to
take
off,
but
for
a
cool
dark
shell,
especially
in
this
case,
because
it's
such
a
large
percentage
of
the
building.
P
P
Only
information
I
did
have
is
the
the
pictures
that
co-star
had,
but
if
the
appellant
says
it's
in
show
condition,
then
you
know
I
am
at
liberty
to
agree.
G
What
was
that
in
the
the
appellant's
appeal
package
to
you
a
couple
of
months
ago,
how
significant.
P
I
don't
believe
so
I
mean
that
the
pell
can
speak
today,
I'll
I'll.
I
can
review
their
comments
shortly,
but
I
believe
it's
very.
I
don't.
I
don't
think
it's
there,
but
I
can
check.
Q
Mr
mexican,
we
requested
that
110
dollars
be
used
in
the
you
know,
based
on
the
new
building
guidelines,
because
the
property
of
the
shell
condition
I'm
trying
to
get
to
our
page.
I
don't
know
if
we
specifically
called
it
out.
Q
We
do
have
it
in
there
as
shell
condition
on
the
appeal
package,
which
is
on
page
78
of
104.
We
mentioned
that
it
should
be
110
because
of
the
shell
condition.
R
P
P
K
Yes,
for
the
owner
explain
the
parking.
How
does
that
work
so.
R
This
building
does
not
have
its
own
parking,
it
does
have
access
to
park,
a
parking
garage,
a
separate
property
across
the
street
and
if
you've
been
down
wilson,
it's
it's
one
of
those
flyover
bridges
that
you've
seen
it
was
parked
on
quincy,
for
you
know
on
the
ground
for
months,
and
we
were
all
wondering
what
is
that?
Where
is
it
going
and
then
they
put
it
up
and
they
light
it
up
at
night?
K
R
I
don't
have
anything
speaking
to
that
directly
from
what
I've
seen.
I
assume
it
is
the
latter
of
what
you
described
where
you
know
they've
come
the
the
building
owner
has
contracted
with
the
parking
garage
to
you
know
a
lot
x
amount
of
spaces
which
can
then
be
purchased
by
the
tenants.
But
again,
that's
that's
my
understanding,
based
on
nothing
that
I've
seen
directly.
That's
they
do
advertise
that
as
parking
eileen.
Would
you
like
to
add
something.
P
Yes,
thank
you.
I
guess,
for
this
property,
this
building
is
situated.
Where
you
know
tenants
can
live,
work
and
play
in
arlington.
If
you
will,
I
think
it's
a
neat
location,
but
aside
from
that,
looking
at
the
income
of
this
property
we're
looking
at
overall,
the
the
difference
here
between
the
appellant
and
the
county
is
mainly
the
expenses,
the
cap
rate
and
the
adjustments
below
the
line.
As
you
noted
mary,
there
is
a
correction.
P
It
is
ninety
dollars
per
square
foot
that
we
allot
for
ti's
and
considering
that
shell
space
again,
the
expenses
are
well
supported
with
the
history
of
this
property
and
we
asked
the
board
to
consider
the
test.
Thank
you,
oh
also,
in
addition
to
that,
the
renovations
of
this
property,
which
I
I
guess
weren't
discussed
as
far
as
the
scope
and
the
cost
is
concerned,
will
in
fact
change
the
effective
age.
Had
I
have
that
information?
R
Yes,
absolutely
thank
you,
so
the
bolston
quarter
renovations
was
mentioned
as
a
possible
detriment
to
occupancy
at
this
property.
I
I
lived
in
the
area
at
the
time.
I
still
do
just
on
the
other
side
and
it
those
were
completed
in
early
2019.
So
we
have
two
full
years
after
construction
for
lease
up
and
without
any
impedement.
Due
to
that
and
nothing's
happened,
the
the
shell
space
does
make
up
78
of
the
vacant
space.
R
Now
I
I
did
notice
that
90
was
used
on
the
county's
test.
However,
that
doesn't
compensate
for
if
you're
wanting
to
take
a
proportional
amount.
78
percent
of
the
vacant
space
at
110
and
22
at
70
gets
you
to
101
per
square
foot
in
tenant
improvement
allowance.
So
you
know
I
don't
understand.
Our
110
is
based
on
the
guidelines
new
space
building,
nothing
to
do
with
the
the
lease
rate,
but
the
new
space
rate
in
shell
condition.
So
we
think
that's
most
appropriate.
R
R
So
yeah
and
the
the
actual
operating
expenses
are
have
been
at
725
on
average
over
the
past
three
years
or
or
right
around
there,
and
once
you
lease
up
another
you're
talking
going
from
50
occupancy
to
75,
that's
another
50
of
the
building
being
used
than
is
currently
being
used.
That's
another
fifty
percent
amount
of
people
coming
in
then.
Currently
those
operating
costs
are
not
going
to
remain
where
they
have
been
over
the
past
four
years.
Thank
you.
I
I
was,
I
was
running
numbers,
but
I'll
wait
because
I'll
just
speak
first,
I
guess
I
think
again
the
appellants
column
is.
It
seems
to
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
me.
I
don't
agree
with
the
cap
rate.
I
think
we
need
to
go
with
the
guidelines
and
the
cap
rate,
but
given
that
this
is
essentially
a
predominantly
a
shell
with
an
old
skin
on
it
on
an
air
rights
above
a
shopping
mall,
I'm
inclined
to
go
with
something
very
close
to
the
appellant.
I
I
just
I
have
an
issue
with
the
cap
rate,
so
I
need
to
run
that
calculation.
G
So
I
was
just
running
some
numbers
and
just
increasing
only
the
increase
in
the
less
ti
below
the
column,
space
and
increasing
it
by
the
11
difference
between
90
and
I
rounded
100,
because
we
can't
possibly
get
you
know
so
definitely
say
101.4
cents
or
whatever.
G
So
what
what
that
did
was
reduce
the
the
test
column
of
40,
49
million
plus
by.
G
428
131,
I
would
reduce
that
from
the
so
would
we
I
can
do
the
math,
but
something
like
49
400,
000
kind
of
because,
because
again,
this
is
very
unusual.
How
much
shell
space
are
there?
I've
never
seen
this
before,
and
I
wanted
to
attend
to
that
versus
just
taking
numbers
from
this
column
or
that
column,
because
this
is
a
property,
that's
not
doing
well
and
trying
to
get
a
lower
rate.
A
Okay,
I
did
the
same
thing
I
did,
but
I
went
the
whole
110
for
the
full
amount
and
it
it
ends
up.
It's
it's
not
a
huge
difference,
but
it
is
a
decrease
to
49.005
400.
K
Yes,
I'm
going
to
let
someone
else
do
the
math,
but
I
thought
there
were
two
strong
points
made
by
the
applicant
and
on
page
two
they
say
if
we
are
to
assume
a
stabilized
occupancy
rate
when
determining
the
potential
income
at
a
property.
So
too
our
way
to
assume
a
stabilized
expense
rate,
so
I
think
the
expense
rate
has
to
go
up
as
well,
and
the
second
point
is
when
it
comes
to
building
anything
right
now
is
is
just
so
difficult.
K
K
M
Yes,
I'm,
I
guess
pretty
much
in
between
barnes
and
the
adjustment
for
the
ti's,
and
I
mean
I
agree
with
you
mary.
I
think
in
this
case,
because
it's
pretty
much
all
new
space
in
my
opinion-
and
it's
still
shell,
that
110
it
wouldn't
be.
M
Out
of
the
you
know
out
of
range
to
allow,
but
I
did
also
look
at
the
what
barnes
is
doing
as
far
as
the
expenses
it
is.
It's
been
steady
as
far
as
the
numbers,
but
I
think
you
know
considering
that
it's
been
vacant
for
so
long.
I
don't
know
I
I
did
increase
the
expenses
by
50
cents
to
7.75.
M
Which
makes
an
adjustment
to
an
noi
of
3
million
88
886
816,
which
sort
of
puts
you
know
in
between
both
the
appellant
and
the
county
and
then
to
the
below
the
line
adjustment
on
ti's.
With
that
you
know,
I
would
be
fine
going
with
a
100
or
110
either
one.
G
A
question
for
jose
and
barnes
on
the
operating
expenses.
This
has
been
stabilized
vacancy,
therefore
stabilized
occupant
operating
expenses.
If
the
vacancy
the
vacancy
reduces
the
operating
expenses,
are
going
to
go
up
just
as
the
appellate
claims
that's
clear
and
and
acceptable,
but
on
january
1st
it
hasn't
gone
up.
It's
january.
1St
2020
is
just
like
january
1st,
2021
and
january
1st
2020.
I
I
wouldn't
fool
with
the
operating
expenses
in
anticipation
of
this
building,
getting
better,
which
I
hope
it
does
so
I
I
support
mary's.
A
Right,
I
think
the
argument
there,
though
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
anybody
but
they're,
using
gross
potential
up
at
the
top,
as
opposed
to
I
mean,
if
you
take
a
look
at
actual
versus
gross
potential,
so
they've
increased
the
the
potential
income,
so
what
they
appellant
is
arguing
is
then
you
should
increase
the
expenses
to
go
along
with
it.
G
G
I
know
only
vaguely
losses.
2018
still
know
you
know
what
would
we
have
gotten
from
vacant
office
space?
So
you.
A
I
H
I
It
I
mean
the
income
reflects
a
75
occupied,
building
and
and
and
the
expenses
are
being
used
on
historically
50
percent
vacant
buildings.
So.
H
A
O
I
You're
lucky,
if
you
can
get
110.
absolutely
you're
lucky
you
found
you
found
a
contractor
dumb
enough
to
commit
to
that
number.
That's
that's
just
the
market!
We're
in
I
mean
we're
we're
going
back
to
january
1st,
but
that's
the
trend
for
sure.
A
M
M
N
H
H
A
Opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous
six
to
zero.
It's
reduced
to
forty
seven
million
seven
sixty
six,
one
hundred
based
on
increasing
the
tis
to
110
a
square
foot
and
increasing
the
expenses
by
50
cents
to
750..
A
Okay,
thank
you,
rpc
one,
four:
zero:
four:
five:
zero:
zero:
two:
the
property
located
at
40
40
fairfax
12.,
mr
harmon.
If
you
want
to
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property,
sir.
R
Yes,
thank
you.
So
this
property
is
located
on
fairfax
drive
it's
in
between
quincy
and
randolph.
It
was
built
in
1966.
It
was
assigned
an
effective
age
of
1981,
putting
its
effective
age
at
40
years.
I'm
sure
everyone
who's
been
down,
fairfax,
either
driving
or
walking,
has
noticed
this
building
it's
for
me,
it's
kind
of
an
eyesore.
It's
the
large
black
cube.
It's
got
the
marymount
university
signage
on
the
front.
R
R
It's
it's
a
block
block
and
a
half
from
the
boston
metro
station,
which
also
puts
it
that
close
to
the
boston
bus
transfer
station.
The
vacancy
has
been
at
least
35
over
the
past
four
years.
R
We
do
have
two
lease
amendments
to
support
the
thirty
four
dollar
per
square
foot:
rental
rate
for
vacant
office
they're
both
listed
on
the
county's
rent
roll,
which
is
appeal
packet,
page
seven,
you'll
see
there
that
enteros
signed
an
expansion.
They
went
from
6794
square
feet
to
27
624
square
feet.
That's
a
an
expansion
of
20
830
square
feet
that
took
place
at
the
end
of
2020
the
face
rent
on
that
expansion.
Space
was
38
and
50
cents
per
square
foot.
R
This
comes
down
to
a
net
effective
rent
of
34.52
cents
per
square
foot
based
upon
10.3
percent
of
the
term
being
free
rent.
This
rental
rate
was
signed
at
the
end
of
2019.
It
was
pre-coveted
and
it
was
favorable
to
the
landlord
they
had
leverage
over
a
captive
tenant
who
was
locked
into
their
initial
lease
of
60
about
6
800
square
feet
through
2031.,
so
that
tenant
in
terrorists
was
locked
into
this
space.
The
landlord
had
leverage
over
them.
It
was
signed
pre-covered.
R
We
believe
that
a
net
effective
run
of
34-52
was
probably
high
for
that
time
and
it's
definitely
high
for
the
data
value
january.
First,
the
other
lease
that
was
amended
was
ibi
international.
They
reworked
their
lease
to
give
up
about
20
percent
of
their
lease
space,
and
by
doing
so,
they
they
also
reduced
their
face
rent
and
they
got
an
additional
five
months
of
free
rent.
R
It
appears
from
the
amendment
that
this
tenant
was
in
in
some
trouble
and
needed
to
rework
it
in
order
to
to
stay
in
the
building
and
maintain
their
lease.
So
you
know
the
landlord
did
give
some
concessions.
However,
we
believe
that
3850
face
and
3603
net
effective
are
also
skewed
in
the
landlord's
favor.
R
The
landlord
was
not
not
able
to
attract
any
new
tenants
in
2020.
So,
if
you
take,
you
know
the
two
amendments
and
you
look
at
them
and
you
consider
the
factors
under
which
they're
signed
as
being
in
the
landlord's
favor.
We
believe
that
a
a
rate
of
34
per
square
foot
for
vacant
office
space
is
appropriate.
R
We
we
also
question
the
operating
expenses.
We
believe
those
are
under
counted,
so
the
operating
expenses
at
the
subject
have
averaged
ten
dollars
per
square
foot
over
the
past
three
years.
This
is
despite
not
being
a
stabilized
occupancy.
If
you
look
at
the
appellant's
pro
forma
power
pro
forma,
which
is
on
page.
R
It's
on
page
37
of
the
appeal
packet
you'll
see
that
this
property
was
62.8
vacant
in
2018,
46
vacant
in
2019
and
35.6
vacant
in
2020..
2020
expenses
are
also
an
outlier
because
of
the
covid
related
epidemic.
Now,
you'll
notice
that
the
operating
expenses
reported
in
2020
did
not
dip,
as
we
would
have
expected
based
on
the
rest
of
the
market.
This
is
probably
we.
R
We
think
due
to
the
the
fact
that
this
property
does
have
some
physical
therapy
tenants
in
it,
and
my
understanding
is
that
physical
therapy
did
see
an
increase
as
everybody
was
working
from
home,
and
so
they
moved
up
a
lot
of
their
elective
procedures
in
order
to
to
take
care
of
some
issues,
but
we
believe,
based
on
the
historical
average
three-year
average
of
ten
dollars
per
square
foot.
We
believe
that
ten
dollars
is
appropriate
for
operating
expenses
for
the
stabilized
column.
R
R
So
that's
that's
what
we
believe
again.
It's
the
vacant
office
space.
We
we
believe
that
the
most
recent
activity
on
the
leasing
front,
the
two
amendments
that
went
into
effect
in
2020
reflect
the
rate
of
thirty
four
dollars
per
square
foot.
We
believe
that
hockey
operating
expenses
based
on
historical
actuals
support
ten
dollars
a
square
foot.
We
believe
that
this
shell
condition
of
the
vacant
space
supports
110
dollars
per
square
foot
for
tenant
improvement
allowance.
A
Okay,
I'm
sorry
thank
you,
mr
bailey,
for
the
county.
Please.
F
Okay,
good
morning
board,
I
think
on
this
case,
if
you
look
at
our
page
three
summary
sheet,
you'll
see
that
we
are
pretty
close
to
what
the
appellant
is
proposing
in
column
g
as
far
as
office
of
rent
revenue
and
gpi,
and
even
the
egi.
F
F
We
provided
the
board
with
what
that
average
rent
rate
was
for
those
two
spaces,
and
the
number
below
that
38.52,
which
was
quoted
by
the
appellant,
is
what
we
propose
is
the
net
effect
of
rent
after
you
consider
the
six
percent
expenses
now
six
percent
expensive
six
percent
free
rent
deduction
that
the
county
makes
on
all
their
office
properties.
F
When
you
go
to
page
four
you'll
actually
see,
however,
that
the
office
vacant
rent
rate
was
actually
a
lower
amount,
so
we
use
slightly
higher
than
the
six
percent
free
rent
on
this
property.
That's
after
taking
consideration
all
the
leases
that
were
signed,
I
think
we
are
still
about
a
dollar
fifty
cents
higher
than
the
appellant,
but
we
believe
this
is
reasonable
because
we
apply
to
six
percent
free
rent
to
all
properties
in
the
county.
F
Most
importantly,
I
wanna
talk
about
the
expenses,
though
so
the
expenses
that
are
being
reported
by
the
appellant
they
include,
I
believe
they
included
leasing
commissions.
That's
why
we
rely
on
our
columns
a
b
and
c.
When
we
talk
about
the
rent
expenses,
you
can
see
that
the
expense
reported
by
this
property
are
below
eight
dollars
a
square
foot
for
three
out
of
the
four
past
years.
F
We
use
eight
dollars
in
their
original
assessment
on
the
test
we
use
8.25
cents.
I
think
it's
important
to
point
out
that
this
property
was
built
in
1966,
the
last
sold
in
2014.
F
I
think
they
also
stated,
if
you
just
do
a
quick
search
and
co-star
that
renovation
was
done
in
2014..
Our
effective
age
for
this
property
is
1981.
F
That
puts
it
in
line
with
the
property
we
just
heard,
and
in
that
case
they
were
using
8.50
for
expenses
on
that
property.
Again
we're
8.25
cents
is
our
test
column.
The
last
property
net
leaseable
area
was
176
000
square
feet.
This
probably
185
000
square
feet.
So
that's
why
again
similar
effective
age
similar
size.
We
believe
that
the
expenses
are
in
line
with
one
another.
F
We
did
allow
below
the
line
deductions.
It
actually
was
an
adjustment
to
decrease
the
amount
of
below
the
line
deductions
because
this
property
has
experienced
lisa
over
the
past
four
years.
2017
per
I
need
the
vacancy
was
about
40
percent
2018
per
the
appellant
in
the
ind.
The
vacancy
was
62.79
percent
2019
per.
I
need
the
vacancies
46
and
then
here
we
are
in
2020
the
vacancy
is
36
percent,
so
this
property
has
experienced
the
lease
of
over
the
past
four
years.
F
F
F
T
I
use
we
use
70
square
foot
on
this
property.
There's
no
mention,
unlike
the
last
case,
about
any
shale
condition
on
this
property.
That
was
not
part
of
the
discussion.
So
that's
not
something
that
was
considered.
This
is
my
first
time
hearing
about
it
and
especially
the
rationale
for
them
using
the
110..
F
F
I
can't
find
a
page
now,
but
I
went
over
it
just
to
make
sure-
and
it
did
not
mention
shell
condition
so
page
37
is
where
they
speak
to
the
discount
for
lisa,
and
it
simply
states
that
the
assessment
failed
to
adequately
account
for
the
cost
required
to
lease
the
above
market
vacant
space
at
the
subject.
By
soon
attending
improvement
allowance
of
only
70
in
order
to
attract
credit
worthy
attendance
in
attendance
market
property
owners
are
required
to
provide
substantial
ti
allowances.
F
That
is
all
so.
That
is
all
for
my
argument.
If
you
have
any
questions,
I'm
here
to
answer
them.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
questions
from
board
members.
L
H
Q
I
believe
that
they
are
we're
not
physically
present
for
most
of
the
year,
but
in
accordance
with
the
guidelines
from
the
virginia.
I
don't
know
if
they're
going
to
pick
back
up
this
year
or
not,
I
would
assume
that
they,
they
would
start
having
more
occupancy
more
physical
occupancy.
My
understanding
is
the
building
was
15
physically
occupied
throughout
last
year.
Okay,.
G
A
good
question
for
the
appellant-
and
this
is
this
question
I
neglected
to
pour
in
on
the
last
case,
look
at
columns,
df
and
g
and
the
egr.
The
main
sub
totals
are
reasonably
are
consistent,
they're
reasonably
close,
these
are
all
prospective
numbers,
but
abc
and
and
e,
which
are
supposed
to
be
actual
numbers.
G
Those
subtotals
that
I
refer
you
know
to
gpi.
Egi
noi
are
much
much
less.
I
don't
I
just
don't
understand.
Q
As
we
all
know,
gross
potential
is
an
unknown
because
in
this
market
the
you
know
you
could
have
150
in
tis
and
basically
you're
buying
up
your
rental
rate,
or
you
could
have
10
of
your
term
as
free
rent
in
which
your
rental
rate
goes
down,
or
you
could
rent
space
potentially
using
seventy
dollars
per
square
foot,
in
which
case
you
would
have
a
lower
rental
rate,
so
the
county
doesn't
want
us
to
speculate.
The
link.
The
income
and
expense
survey
forms
require
certification.
Q
The
owners
are
not
going
to
certify
to
a
potential
income
when
they
don't
know
what
it
is.
Basically,
if
they
did,
they
would
be
certifying
to
a
speculative
number
that
nobody
knows.
So
the
reason
those
numbers
are
lower
in
the
effective
gross
is
that's
what
it
was
exact
exactly
what
was
achieved.
You
also
can
notice
that
the
actual
income
is
substantially
lower
over
a
million
dollars
lower
than
what
is
used
in
in
column.
F,
and
you
know,
the
actual
income
is
really
what
matters
you
know.
Nobody
cares
about.
Q
K
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
share
that.
We
lost
electric
here
at
the
building
and
I
did
not
hear
the
first
few
minutes,
so
I
intend
to
abstain.
F
Oh,
yes,
I
think
again,
this
case
really
just
comes
down
to
the
difference
in
the
expense
rate.
That's
used.
One
thing
I
want
to
point
out:
the
appellant's
2020
expenses
includes
leasing
commissions,
whereas
our
information
provided
on
the
summer
sheet
does
not.
So
we
again
believe
that
the
depiction
that
we
have
on
our
summary
sheet
of
the
actual
history
of
the
expenses
is
more
accurate
and
they've
reported
less
than
eight
dollars
less
than
7.75
to
be
more
accurate.
F
Three
out
of
the
past
four
years,
our
original
assessment
used
eight
dollars
square
foot,
the
test
used
8.25
cents,
a
square
foot
as
far
as
expenses,
the
case
we
just
heard
they
used
8.50
for
that
property
in
their
pro
forma,
and
it's
very
similar
to
this
building.
As
far
as
an
effective
age,
standpoint
and
size
standpoint,
when
you
factor
in
that
our
original
office
rent
was
almost
five
dollars
less
than
what
the
test
used
and
the
appellant
uses
that
factors
in
why
the
test
came
in
higher
and
we
confirmed
the
assessment
53
705.
R
Yes,
thank
you
so
as
to
this
shell,
space
costar
does
have
marketing
materials
that
show
a
video
and-
and
they
explain
it
publicly-
that
there
are
two
full
floors
in
shell
space
condition
so
that
that's
a
large
part
of
why
we
believe
that
the
shell
space
should
be
valued
at
110
per
square
foot.
As
for
the
vacancy,
there
has
been
lease
of
activity
absolutely.
R
However,
those
new
leases
that
new
newly
addish
that
additional
square
footage
that's
been
leased,
has
been
at
a
lower
rate
than
historically
achieved.
That's
how
we
got
to
the
34
dollars
per
square
foot
for
vacant
spaces.
We've
seen
those
two
2020
amendments
come
in
lower
than
rinse
in
place,
so
that's
you
know
that
that
needs
to
be
taken
into
account.
Yes,
vacancy
has
been
going
down,
but
so
have
the
the
rental
rates.
So
this
property
has
been
offering
some
discounts
in
order
to
attract
tenancy
as
per
the
operating
expenses.
R
Yes,
this
property
did
see
significant
leasing
commissions,
and
these
are
much
larger
than
many
other
properties
that
we've
seen.
So
that's
part
of
why
they're
included
in
operating
expenses.
If
those
are
removed
from
operating
expenses,
you
do
still
have
a
four
year
average
of
seven
dollars:
16
cents
for
a
property,
that's
not
stabilized!
R
If
we're
gonna
do,
if
we're
going
to
assume
stabilized
occupancy,
we
should
assume
stabilized
operating
expenses
as
well
and
with
this
property,
it's
tough
to
compare
to
the
prior
property,
the
ballston
quarter,
because
the
boston
quarter
doesn't
have
any
outdoor
space,
it's
above
the
mall.
It
doesn't
have
any
expenses
related
to
a
parking
garage
as
we
discussed
it
doesn't
have
sidewalks
to
keep
clean
and
landscaping
and
security
as
much
on
the
ground
level.
So
I
don't
think
that's
the
best
property
to
compare
it
to
this
property
will
likely
see.
A
I
I
was
thinking
that
I
mean
it
is
kind
of
the
difference
between
this
building
and
probably
the
last
two
is
those
marymount
leases
are
very
good
puts
it
puts
a
nice
anchor
in
the
building.
I
It's
still
got
high
vacancy,
so
you
know
I'm
kind
of
interesting
what
everybody
thinks
about
that,
but
I
I
I
agree
with
the
rate
for
vacant
space
is
probably
should
be
lower
in
this
building,
just
kind
of
understanding
that
market
and
the
dated
buildings
that
are
out
there
and
and
what
you
can
realistically
ask
thirty
four
dollars
sounds
right
to
me.
M
No,
no,
I
was
just
actually
trying
to
see
what
everybody
else
right
now
to
be
honest,
I'm
just
torn
between
going
to
the
ti
expense
of
110
on
the
vacant
space,
but
in
all
honesty,
I'm
okay.
With
the
revised
I
mean
with
the
original
assessment,
because
the
revised
would
be
much
higher
and
if
we
were
to
adjust
the
ti
rate
to
the
revised
assessment,
danny
would
lower
below
the
original
assessment
a
little
bit.
G
G
And
I
mean
I
I
I
did
fill
with
increasing
the
ti
to
because
it's
not
the
shell,
isn't
such
an
extreme
percentage
of
the
overall
vacancy
as
the
last
building,
but
still
it's
significant
and
I
just
arbitrarily
simply
go
to
90,
maybe
100,
but
it's
pennies
off
the
assessment
from
the
revised
value
and
the
test
value,
I'm
I'm
just
I
just,
but
I
can't
I
can't
I
want
my
intuition
without
any
any
hard
data
points
to
push
to
somebody
can
help.
I
like
that.
I
Yeah,
I
think
it's
probably
fall.
The
truth
falls
somewhere
in
between
70
and
110.
You
know
everybody's
kind
of
getting
the
70
on
existing
as
built
space.
It's
really
hard
to
go
in
and
assess
you
know.
Is
this
move-in
ready?
Is
this?
I
G
G
Amount
and
and
certainly
support,
greg's
notion
of
a
lesser
value
to
each
vacant
space.
I
would.
O
Yeah,
I
agree,
I
agree
with
the
I
I
still
think
ti's
are
low
and
I
I
agree
with
the
idea
of
the
the
vacant
space
rate.
I
so
I
you
know
greg,
did
you
run
numbers
or
with
that
plus
the
ti
or
you're
not
interested
in
the
ti?
I
think
it's
too.
I
think
it
should
be
more.
M
Yeah,
I'm
just
trying
to
see
if
greg
is
working
out
all
the
vacancy
at
25.
Also
on
the
new
number.
Are
we
just
deducting
the
rate.
M
L
P
H
I
M
H
M
G
M
I
I
Yes,
I'll
revise
it
so
that
the
final
reduction
is
to
52
million
586
once
200.
A
Okay
motion
by
mr
motioned
by
mr
hoffman,
second
by
mr
penaronda,
all
in
favor
hi
opposed
ken.
What
are
you
are
you
opposed?
Are
you
for.
A
Oh,
he
didn't
have
his
hand
up
okay,
so
that
is
five
to
zero.
Without
barnes
it
was
a
state
abstaining.
The
assessment
is
reduced
to
52
million
five.
Eighty
six,
two
hundred
based
on
adjusting
the
vacant
space
rental
rate
to
thirty
four
dollars
and
the
ti
below
the
line
to
ninety
dollars.
A
Okay,
I
have
a
couple
things
just
so
there's
no
hearing
next
week,
so
we'll
readjourn
on
wednesday
and
then
unfortunately,
the
last
case
on
yesterday's
agenda,
which
was
mr
awadallah.