►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing October 18, 2022
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
Tuesday
October
18
2022.
This
is
the
Arlington
County
Board
of
Equalization
hearings.
We
have
four
four
cases
on
the
agenda
today.
The
first
case
is
RPC
35004007.
This
property
is
600,
Army,
Navy,
Drive
and
Mr.
Grant
steinhauser
is
here
on
behalf
of
the
Appellate
Mr
steinhauser.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
subject
property
is
known
as
Lincoln
Place,
it's
two
Office
Buildings
located
on
one
RPC.
They
total
511
487
square
feet
of
rentable
space.
It
is
home
to
the
the
DEA
headquarters,
so
single
tenants.
They
occupy
a
hundred
percent
of
the
building.
B
B
Ultimately,
you
know
we
had
made
the
case.
You
know
they
were
either
going
to
leave
or
they
were
going
to
sign
a
new
lease
and
it
was
going
to
require
a
major
renovation
at
this
property.
That
is
ultimately
what
happened,
and
so
there
was
150
million
dollar
renovation
that
took
place.
B
It
started
in
late,
2019
and
wrapped
up
in
late
2021,
and
so
the
new
lease
has
now
effectively
started
in
2021,
so
it
was
on
a
holdover
for
the
Pro
from
the
prior
lease
through
those
construction
years
and
now
the
new
lease
has
has
started
so
now
that
we're
all
up
to
speed
my
appeal
materials
start
on
page
40
of
369
here
and
I
am
gonna.
B
Just
take
the
opportunity
to
share
my
screen
because
you
know,
as
you've
likely
noticed,
the
assessor
has
made
some
adjustments.
B
There
we
go
so
this
is
going
to
be
our
income
approach
on
the
far
left.
This
is
the
County's
original
income
approach.
Here
there
was
a
revision
and
then
there
was
a
second
where
Vision.
The
second
revision
is
what
was
submitted
to
the
Boe,
so
the
original
assessment
was
essentially
last
year's
agreed
upon
value
of
299
392
600.
However,
last
year,
as
the
assessor
had
said
in
Prior
years,
they
said
they
would
not
account
for
any
of
the
Capital
Improvements
at
the
building
until
they
were
actually
spent.
B
So
we
had
made
the
case
for
many
years.
You
know
a
buyer
would
account
for
these
types
of
costs
before
they
were
spent.
The
county
said
well,
the
lease
is
on
hold
over.
We
don't
know
if
the
construction
is
actually
going
to
happen
this
and
that
so
they
said
we'll
account
for
them
when
they
are
spent.
So
last
year,
as
of
1
121,
there
were
83
million
in
capital,
spend
it
expenditures,
and
so
that
is
essentially,
this
is
the
agreed
upon.
You
know
this
was
a
signed
agreement.
B
This
didn't
go
to
the
Boe
last
year
and
that's
how
the
value
became
216..
It
was
a
299
minus
83
in
actual
spend,
so
this
year
we've
put
together
something
similar
there
are.
There
were
a
few
issues
such
as
you
know,
past
HVAC
pass-through
income
was
way
less
than
it
was
in
the
prior
year.
So
that's
something
that's
been
corrected.
No
longer
an
issue,
parking
income
wasn't
an
issue
either
until
the
assessor
actually
changed
it
to
a
higher
figure.
B
We
don't
know
why
this
is
the
same
number
that
the
assessor
used
last
year
and
I
should
just
take
actually
one
step
back.
The
rent
that
the
assessor
is
using
is
based
on
the
new
lease.
So
everything
about
the
original
assessment
was
is
based
on
the
new
lease,
so
we're
we're
in
agreement
with
that.
Even
the
square
footage
is
higher
on
the
new
lease
we're.
B
Okay,
with
that
we're
using
the
rent
from
the
new
lease
which
is
higher
than
the
old
than
the
oldies,
the
parking
is
spelled
out,
Inc
very
clearly
in
the
new
lease,
it's
exactly
three
million
three
hundred
and
thirty
six
thousand
three
hundred
and
that's
the
parking
income
for
15
years.
The
assessor
agreed
with
that
last
year,
however,
not
for
some
reason
now
they're
using
a
higher
figure.
Yes,
when
you
look
at
actual
parking
from
prior
years,
it
was
a
higher
figure.
It
used
to
be
4
million
and
some
change.
B
B
Hopefully,
the
assessor
can
clarify
that
for
us,
but
there
is
no
additional
operating
expense
or
real
estate
tax
reimbursement
going
forward
next
year,
because
this
year
is
the
base
year
and
it
include
the
rent-
is
inclusive
of
all
of
those
costs,
so
this
should
be
zero.
So,
lastly,
just
for
above
the
line,
our
we're
using
seven
dollars
per
expenses
that
that
was
the
rate
that
had
been
used,
you
know
before
Renovations
that's
about
what
the
property
had
done.
B
B
A
lot
of
those
expenses
have
sort
of
drifted
into.
You
know
the
capital,
expense
and
the
building
hasn't
been
fully
occupied.
They've
had
to
you
know,
utilize
Swing,
Swing
space
and
such
so
ultimately
we're
at
a
capitalized
stabilized
value
of
277
million
440.,
the
assessors
at
291
256.,
so
I
mean
we
are
14
million
dollars
apart.
It's
not
huge
on
a
percentage
basis,
but
we
think
they're.
You
know
some
pretty
pretty
obvious
things
here
that
could
be
addressed.
B
The
really
the
big
thing
here
and
the
most
troubling
thing
in
my
opinion,
is
that
the
the
assessor
has
a
failed
to
account
for
the
capital
spend,
as
they
said
they
would
in
Prior
years
as
they
did
last
year
they
spent
58
million
three
hundred
and
twenty
three
thousand
and
sixty
six
dollars
in
2021
to
complete
the
renovation.
Again,
the
assessor
had
always
said
in
Prior
years.
We
will
account
for
the
spending
once
it's
spent.
Well,
you
know
they
accounted
for
it
last
year.
B
We
appreciated
that
we
signed
the
letter.
We
didn't
go
to
the
board
accepted
their
number,
and
now
here
we
are
this
year
and
the
assessor
is
saying
we're
giving
we're
going
to
give
you
zero
dollars.
You
know
to
account
for
Capital,
spend
I,
don't
know
why
the
the
sudden
change
of
heart,
I
mean
I,
have
an
idea.
Why?
But
you
know
I'll
let
the
assessor,
you
know
clue
Us
in
on
that,
but
it
is,
it
is
pretty
troubling.
B
The
building
owner
certainly
understands
moving
forward.
The
the
value
is
going
to
be
closer
to
this
280
290
and
higher,
but
they
would
at
least
like
you
know,
being
that
this
is
they
spent
58
million
in
capex
that
last
year
they
would
like
it
to
be
accounted
for,
as
the
assessor
said,
they
would
so
just
to
quickly
go
through
the
rest
of
the
appeal
package.
B
Page
50,
the
the
numbers
are
pretty
small
here:
I
believe
it
is
the
54th
page
of
the
appeal
package.
That's
the
support
for
the
the
54
million
dollar
figure.
B
B
B
B
The
annual
rent,
the
total
annual
rent,
shall
be
23
million,
28
549.46
payable.
At
this
rate,
the
total
annual
rent
includes
the
cost
of
the
included
parking
of
three
million.
Three
hundred
and
thirty
six
thousand
three
hundred
and
operating
cost
base
base
real
estate
taxes,
amortized
TI
and
amortize
psac.
So
just
over
23
million
you
could
see
in
ours
we're
using
23.1
million
the
assessors
at
23.8,
so
Mr.
B
Sorry
about
that!
Well,
that's
all
right!
Yeah
so
I
mean
that's
really
the
case
right
there.
It's
there.
We
have
a.
We
know
exactly
what
the
rent's
gonna
be
for
15
years,
it's
easy
to
model
the
income
based
off
of
the
lease
Amendment
and
the
Assessor's
failure
to
deduct.
B
You
know
a
large
58
million
dollars
in
in
capital
spend
when
that
is
exactly
how
they
said
they
would
address
it
in
Prior
years.
That's
how
they
addressed
it
last
year
and
then
they
failed
to
do
that
this
year.
C
Yes,
thank
you
for
this
case.
We
did
look
at
the
amendment
or
the
the
new
lease
and
in
Prior
years
we
were
actually
generous
in
in
affording
the
Capital
spend
for
this
property.
It
was
a
decision
made
with
the
prior
management
to
to
do
so.
C
As
you
know,
with
other
cases,
we
don't
account
for
Capital
spend
with
respect
to
deducting
it
below
the
line.
The
reason
being
for
this
case
is
because
the
new
lease
took
into
effect.
We
did
account
for
the
change
in
effective
age.
As
miss
Mr
steinhauser
noted,
150
million
dollars
was
spent
in
renovating
this
project.
C
C
The
difference
between
the
agent's
number
and
last
year's
assessment
is
about
almost
3
million,
so
if
they
spend
150
million
dollars,
we
would
expect
this
property
to
increase
in
value.
Now
it
didn't
increase
dollar
for
dollar
as
much
as
they
spent
as
much
as
Mr
steinhauser
said
they
spent
when
looking
at
this
property.
Again,
we
found
that
the
new
lease
and
the
actual
income
that
was
reported
in
the
most
current
year
2021
is
slightly
higher
than
what
they
projected
they
would
receive.
C
Now,
that's
due
to
the
a
blend
of
the
old
lease
and
the
new
lease,
and
that's
in
fact,
what
we
did
in
our
column
F,
we
kind
of
Blended
it
to
to
account
for
the
the
income
they
did.
They
did
receive
as
you
notice
in
Prior
years,
the
gross
potential
income,
as
well
as
the
net
operating
income,
is
higher
than
any
of
the
original
assessment
in
column,
D
and
also
in
column
F.
C
The
only
difference
in
column
e,
with
with
the
noi
there
is
I
noted
that
they
don't
account
for
the
instead
of
payments
at
Arlington.
County
is
giving
through
the
EDI
Grant
and
that's
how
it
comes
up
to
the
dollar
figure
per
square
foot
in
our
Row
one.
As
you
see
in
column,
F
Row,
one,
the
same
amount
is
given
just
as
the
appellant
has
stated
in
their
pro
forma,
so
we're
we're
the
same
figure
there
with
respect
to
the
parking
income.
C
As
I
noted,
it's
a
blend
of
what
they
actually
reported
and
what
they
actually
are
contracted
for
in
the
coming
years.
C
I
may
mention
this
to
Mr
steinhauser
when
I
was
actually
doing
the
review
and
we
talked
about
it
and
he
said
he
was
okay
with
it.
Then
today
he's
not
okay
with
it.
So
that's
kind
of
taking
me
back,
but
then,
when
you
look
at
the
rest
of
the
figures
here,
the
storage
is
as
reported
pastors
as
reported,
and
then
the
other
figure,
the
three
the
378
000
is
again
an
average
of
all
prior
years
to
account
for
the
the
other
income
that
they
would
receive
going
forward.
C
There
is
more
in-depth
detail
in
the
actual
lease
further
down
in
the
packet
I'll
refer
to
that,
maybe
in
my
wrap
up,
but
for
now,
as
far
as
the
going
down
and
looking
at
the
nois
of
this
property
I
think
the
original
assessment
was
a
good
assessment
compared
to
what
was
reported
and
then
in
the
revision.
We're
we're
decreasing
it
more
and
we're
in
line
with
what
they
actually
reported
again.
C
D
C
In
line
with
what
the
the
projected
income
should
be
for
this
property
again,
I'd
like
to
reiterate
that
150
million
was
spent,
the
the
county
increased
the
assessment
only
by
83
million,
the
appellant
believes
that
it
should
only
be
3
million
added,
with
a
new
Amendment,
a
new
lease
for
this
property.
Thank
you.
E
Yeah
Grant
on
the
you're
talking
about
page
eight,
when
we've
got
the
lease
there's
a
commission
credit
that
goes
to
the
government
and
it's
I,
guess
it's
a
ren
abatement
it
could
be
applied
to
the
first
year
of
rent.
Is
that
accounted
for
anywhere.
B
I
actually
do
not
believe
that
we
have
accounted
for
that,
but
it's
it's
listed
right
on
the
same
page,
it's
for
4.7
million
dollars
and
I
believe
in
the
schedule.
That's
on
the
page
right
below
that.
So
page,
nine.
E
All
right
so
I
mean
it
looks
like
the
the
portion
to
the
to
the
probably
the
landlords,
Brokers
getting
paid
cash
and
then
there's
a
portion
that
the
GSA
gets
as
a
rent
credit
and
that's
probably
going
to
eat
into
the
income
for
2022.
E
right
and
then
I
guess.
My
other
question
is:
is
there
remaining
catback
spend
in
22.?
That's
gonna,
you
know,
that's
still
obligated.
There's
there's
that
cash
allowance
in
paragraph
five
that
they
talk
about
and
it
looks
like
they
used
most
of
it,
but
there's
some
left
as
of
the
November
execution
date
here.
So
is
it
safe
to
assume
that
that
amount
is
kind
of
what's
left
to
turn
over
to
the
government
at
some
point,
2022
after.
B
F
Yes,
thanks
I
figured
it
out
two
questions
for
for
the
Department
one.
You
addressed
that
I
didn't
understand
so
I'll.
Take
that
or
maybe
you
can
describe
a
little
bit
differently
on
the
parking.
You
said
that
the
the
higher
number
than
the
appellant
showed
us
as
the
contracted
rent
was
a
blend
of
contracted
rent
and
what
they
actually
paid.
If,
if
I'm
not
quoting,
you
I
know
I'm
very
close
in
2022,
they
are
going
to
pay
that
figure
that
he
showed
the
3.3
million
plus.
C
F
C
It's
a
blend,
but
going
forward
beyond
the
the
base
year.
You
would
expect
some
pastors
to
be
paid
I,
don't
assume
it
would
be
zero,
but.
F
A
Okay,
I
just
want
to
follow
up
to
the
county
on
the
question
on
the
parking,
so
I
I
see
that
you,
you
know
what
you
just
said
was
that
you're
looking
at
historical
too,
but
if
the
new
agreement
is
a
set
amount?
Why
wouldn't
you
use
the
new
agreement.
C
Well,
in,
in
other
cases
again,
this
renewed
in
April,
2nd
of
2021,
so
in
looking
at
the
blend
of
it
and
it's
something
that
was
agreed
upon
with
Grant
and
myself,
while
I
was
doing
the
case-
and
he
said
he
would
be
okay
with
that.
So
I
went
ahead
and
did
it
that's
completely.
C
Not
no
that's.
A
All
right
well
since
there's
a
little
disappearancy
between
the
two
of
you.
If
we
do
have
an
agreement
and
a
contract
that
X
number
of
dollars
is
going
to
be
paid
in
2022
moving
forward
15
years,
regardless
of
what
you
thought
somebody
agreed
to
do
you
see
that
would
be
reasonable
to
use
that
amount.
C
If
we
refer
to
the
actual
lease
it
there
is
a
clause
that
shows
an
increase
in
it.
For
some
reason,
my
computer
crashed
with
that
document.
I
wasn't
able
to
add
it
to
the
actual
case,
because
it's
very
lengthy
and
it
required
a
a
special
I
guess
link
if
you
will
that
Grant
sent
to
me,
but
fortunately
it's
not
on
there,
but
it's
quite
lengthy,
it
does
say:
there's
increases
involved
with
respect
to
parking.
If
I
remember
correctly,.
E
Rob
you
know
I'm
going
back
through
some
of
the
old
notes
from
the
other
cases
I'm
trying
to
remember
if
there's
another
building
in
Arlington
office
building,
that's
assessed
that
569
dollars
a
square
foot
or
higher,
or
is
this
the
most
valuable
office
building
in
Arlington
County
right
now,
based
on
the
per
square
foot
assessment.
E
Can't
remember
I
think
we
had
a
case
in
the
high
Force.
Maybe
it
was
a
another
GSA
lease,
but
I
I,
don't
remember
anything
over
500.
That's
what
I'm
trying
to
go
back
and
look
at
it
just
seems
like
I.
Don't
want
to
be
too
far
out
of
Equalization
with
other
GSA
least
long-term
occupied
Office
Buildings,
especially.
D
C
Well,
just
to
give
you
an
idea,
like
Mr
steinhauser,
stated
we're
using
the
same
amount
similar
at
the
299.
C
The
only
difference
there
was
that
they
backed
out
the
Capital
Improvements,
so
they
signed
off
and
said
hey.
This
is
a
reasonable
amount,
but
just
give
us
the
credit.
So
this
year
you
know
what
we
saw
was
the
the
the
Capital
Improvements
for
this
year
was
mainly
soft
costs
and
management
fees.
A
C
Yes
again
for
this
property,
just
like
I
stated
they
signed
the
Covenant
of
the
total
value
for
this
property.
The
only
difference
again
was
that
the
Capital
Improvements
were
deducted
below
the
line
this
year.
We
didn't
account
for
that
again.
It
was
mainly
a
soft
cost
of
about
48
million
in
management
fees,
for
the
difference
to
account
for
the
Capital
Improvements
that
Mr
steinhauser
is
stating
in
their
pro
forma
again.
The
difference
in
assessment
from
last
year
this
year
was
about
83
million.
C
The
Asian
believes
that
there
should
only
be
a
three
million
dollar
difference
from
last
year
this
year,
with
a
new
contract
with
150
million
renovation
costs
put
into
the
building.
That's
all.
Thank
you.
B
Certainly
so
just
to
answer
Mr
Hoffman's
question
this:
these
are
all
the
office
buildings
in
Crystal
City,
the
lowest
assessment
per
square
foot
was
207,
the
highest
was
4
14.,
ours
is
at
594,
so
certainly,
if
you're
looking
at
Equalization
this
one's
nowhere
close
to
any
other
building
in
the
area,
it
we've.
Obviously
we've
addressed
the
parking
piece.
There's
nothing
in
the
lease
that
talks
about
increases
to
the
parking
income.
I
have
no
idea
where
Mr
Peralta
is
pulling
that
from.
B
He
seems
to
think
this
is
some
sort
of
big
joke.
This
is
not
a
joke.
This.
This
property
has
been
assessed
too
high
for
a
very
long
time.
It's
gone
to
court.
You
know
what
happens
at.
What's
happened
at
court
and
the
county
has
had
to
pay
a
lot
of
interest
back
on
those
refunds
for
the
assessments
that
were
too
high.
So
for
this
to
keep
happening
again
and
again
is
very
troubling.
B
You
have
a
lease
Amendment.
We
know
what
the
income
is
going
to
be.
We
know
what
the
capital
spend
was
really
asked
the
county.
You
know
to
enroll
our
value
of
219
million
thanks.
A
Okay,
thank
you
all
right.
It's
just
among
the
board
members
I'll
just
start
on.
The
parking
gives
me
a
little
bit
of
angst.
I
think
that
I
I
understand
that
there
was
no
length
and
it
was
a
lengthy
agreement
and
it
can't
all
be
in
there.
But
if
we
are
in
agreement
that
the
first
amount
is
you
know,
as
as
indicated
from
the
appellant
I
mean
we're
all
in
agreement
to
that,
and
if
it
does
go
up-
and
that
is
the
case
we
assess
every
year
and
I.
A
Think
it'll
give
the
county
a
chance
to
take
a
look
at
that
again
and
come
up
with
it.
And
if
it's
not,
then
we
won't
have
that
issue.
But
that
being
said,
I
mean
what
I
did
is.
I
took
the
difference
of
the
341
000
from
the
parking
income
and
just
left
everything
else
the
same
on
the
test
and
kept
it
out,
and
it
comes
out
at
283.006
600
but
interested
what
other
people
come
up
with.
C
G
I
wish
I'd
known
about
the
court
case
earlier.
I
would
have
asked
about
it.
I
I
tinkered
around
with
a
bunch
of
figures
and
I'm
anywhere
from
288
million
to
281
million
and
Mary
I.
Think
perhaps
you
suggested
a
decent
compromise.
You
know
Greg
Greg
keyed
in
on
the
price
per
square
foot
and
that
does
I
I
mean
that
kind
of
surprised
me
and
I
wonder:
I
wonder
how
we
could
be
so
off
on
this
one
building.
E
I
got
I
got
the
info.
I
was
looking
for.
So
to
me,
the
best
comp
is
the
DARPA
building
and
on
Randolph
Street
in
Boston,
fully
leased
Federal
agency
long-term
lease
bought
by
Boyd
Watterson.
We've
got
a
sale
comp
in
2021
it
it
sold
for
554
dollars
a
square
foot
and
it
is
assessed
at
553
dollars,
a
square
foot
and
that
is
I.
Don't
know
what
was
That
Built
Barns
2010,
something
like
that.
E
Yeah
they're
about
I,
think
I
mean
that's
a
that's
a
very
new
modern
facility,
so
I'd
get
uncomfortable.
If
this
one
was
too
much
higher
than
that
and
and
I
I
had
already
come
up
with
a
number,
that's
a
little
bit
lower
than
what
you
said.
Mary
and
basically
I
took
grants
the
Excel
that
he
had
up
there.
E
His
final
number
before
the
deductions
was
277
440
681
and
that
I
think
pretty
accurately
took
all
the
least
amounts
right
at
least
parking
rate
least
I
mean
everything
was
there's
no
Phantom
Other
income
coming
from
somewhere
that
you
know
not
sure
where
it's
coming
from
those
are
all
accurate
numbers,
so
I'm
inclined
to
go
with
those
and
then
I
gave
them
two
credits
below
the
line,
which
are
landlord
obligations
that
must
be
met
after
the
date
evaluation
right.
E
So
that's
a
that's
a
that's
a
liability
to
the
landlord
the
cash
allowance
that
was
remaining,
which
was
three
and
a
half
million,
and
some
change
and
the
which
the
tenant
can
use
at
any
time
for
anything
right.
E
E
A
H
I
would
prefer
to
make
adjustments
based
on
the
numbers
that
we
have
rather
than
going
by
square
footages.
You
know
we're
doing
comparisons
pretty
much
so
going
to
a
different
type
of
evaluation.
H
In
my
opinion,
the
main
difference
that
we
had
to
begin
with
in
this
case
is
the
credit
that
the
appellant
is
asking
below
the
line,
and
you
know
I
think
they
already
took
that
credit
last
year,
I'm
I
agree
with
the
county
that
this
year
shouldn't
be
applied,
but
you
know
I'm
I
would
rather
go
with
the
parking
adjustment
that
you
made
I
think
that's
an
appropriate
number
to
to
change
so
I'm,
okay,
with
the
number
that
you
came
up
with
Mary,
okay,.
F
And
yes,
thank
you.
I
I
agree
with
Marion
Jose
and
I
wanted
to
add
that
looking
at
the
pass-throughs
generally
pastors
kick
in
on
the
anniversary
of
Elise
or
in
this
case,
lease
extension
date,
so
it
is
believable
there
would
be
pass-throughs
now,
I,
don't
know
the
contract.
76
000
seems
for
a
a
lease
value.
This
big
to
be
reasonable,
for
you
know,
April
through
December
of
2022,
so
I'm
back
to
only
parking
I
would
be
interested
to
know
more
about
these
couple
below
the
line.
F
Deductions
that
Greg
mentioned
that
I
hadn't
at
all
considered.
But
to
me
the
the
final
big
difference
is
giving
that
the
income
through
history
is
pretty
much
the
same.
The
expenses
are
pretty
much
the
same.
The
big
difference
is
the
update
in
the
cap
rate
clearly
has
lowered.
So
that
explains
a
lot
of
the
big
jump.
The
unprecedented
this
year
jump
between
the
two.
So
this
this
kind
of
all
makes
sense
to
me
with
the
again
the
change
that
Mary
and
Jose
proposed.
That's
it
Mr.
A
D
Yeah
I
I
think
the
the
Greg's
analysis
was
good
and
I
were
he's
addressing
the
other
that
doesn't
no
one
explains
I.
Think
the
other
numbers
are
real
I
I
hear
we
got
three
people
on
on
which
you've
come
up
with
Mary,
but
I
like
where
Greg
went
and
I
think
it's
I
think
it's
more
true.
A
D
A
Mr
Lawson.
G
Yeah
I've
been
listening
to
the
dialogue
and
very
interesting
points
are
being
made
and
I
wonder
if
some
of
my
colleagues
might
be
willing
to
as
a
compromise,
take
Mary's
283
million
and
then
do
the
below
the
line.
Deductions
that
Greg
suggested
because
I
I
think
based
on
everything
I've
heard.
You
know
there
are
concessions
in
the
lease
and
they're
not
being
accounted
for
and
maybe
as
a
compromise.
That
would
be
a
solution
that
everyone
could
live
with.
A
Okay,
Mr
Hoffman
Could
you
just
for
the
because
Mr
mathkin
had
asked.
Could
you
just
go
over
what
the
two
below
the
line,
adjustments
that
you
made.
E
Aj
paragraph
five
additional
cash
allowance
it
it
stipulates
how
much
has
been
spent
and
Grant
said
this
is
executed
in
November
I'm,
taking
him
as
at
his
word,
I,
don't
think
they
spent.
You
know
the
balance
in
late
November
early
December,
so
the
cash
allowance
has
a
remaining
balance
of
three
five
five,
two
four:
seventy
six,
forty
all
right,
which
may
be
used
by
the
government
throughout
the
remaining
lease
term.
E
So
I
took
that
number
and
put
the
paragraph
below
it.
There's
a
commission
which
is
split
and
then
there's
a
component
of
the
commission.
That's
a
million
seven
forty,
five,
nine
ten
forty,
which
is
a
credit
that
shall
be
credited
to
the
rental
portion
of
the
annual
rental
payments
due.
So
that's
I
took
that
number
and
the
3552
and
took
that
off
the
bottom
line.
E
D
A
D
G
E
Agree
but
the
pass-throughs
the
issue
with
taking
a
pass-through
income,
just
assuming
that
there's
going
to
be
an
increase
in
expenses
ever
based
here,
is
that
you
also
have
to
you're
getting
it
passively
because
you're
getting
increased
expenses.
E
A
All
right
so
I
just
wanna,
because
we
certainly
can't
have
a
split,
because
the
split
goes
back
right
to
the
original
County.
So
Mr
penron
I,
know
where
you
are.
H
A
Okay,
so
Mr
Yates
can
you
live
with
the
277,
which
is
Mr
Hoffman's
two
adjustments
below
the
line,
I.
E
Hold
on
a
second
Barnes
and
Marco
with
me
at
272,
then
the
question
is
Mary.
Are
you
with
me
or
Ken?
Are
you
with
me
I.
F
Wanna
I'm,
sorry,
you
can't
see
me
but
Mary
I've
done
this
six
seven
times
on
your
bottom
line
of.
H
F
283
or
whatever
you
had
I
have
286
154,
800
and
I
just
deducted
341
000
441
from
column,
F,
noi
of
19493
and
so
I
get
and
I
kept
I
get
191
340.
A
F
I
mean
I
from
your
number
Mary
I
would
certainly
support
taking
off
the
two
below
the
line
that
Greg
mentioned,
but
not
at
this
lower
177
But
like
everyone
else,
I,
don't
want
it
to
stay
where
it
is,
but
I
would
deduct
minus
the
one
the
283
number.
A
F
E
My
if
I
can
add
one
more
thing,
we're
basically
taking
everything
that
the
appellant
has
put
forward
to
us
and
accepting
it,
because
it
does
appear
to
be
true.
In
fact,
if
you
review
the
lease,
so
we've
accepted
everything
that
they've
taken.
The
only
dispute
we
have
is
taking
58
million
dollars
that
was
spent
in
2021
and
deducting
that
from
the
value
of
the
building,
which
I
think
is
fundamentally
wrong.
E
So
we're
not
accepting
that,
but
instead
we
found
two
other
items
which
are
liabilities
to
the
landlord
which
will
come
out
of
future
cash
flow
which
we're
deducting
from
the
bottom
line.
Value
of
the
building,
which
is
fundamentally
correct,
so
I
think
we
have
valid
logic
here.
E
If
they're
going
to
take
this
to
the
Circuit
Court,
that's
fine!
If
that's
what
they
want
to
do,
but
at
least
this
board
will
have
pretty
Sound
Logic
and
it's
reasoning
and
we're
not
speculating
on
a
single
thing.
Everything's
laid
out
in
the
lease.
A
Okay,
so
just
to
clarify
Mr
Lawson,
you
can
live
with
the
272.
E
E
Right
then,
I'll
move
to
reduce
the
assessment
to
272
million
142
300.
E
A
E
F
A
Four
to
two
and
that's
about
Mr
panaranda
or
Mr
matskin,
the
assessments
reduced
to
272
million
140
to
300..
A
I
Thank
you
very
much.
Can
you
can
you
all
hear
me
all
right?
Okay,
I'd,
like
to
direct
the
board's
attention
to
page
38
of
109,
of
the
County's
response,
memo
and
package
that
we
received,
which
includes
our
submitted
appeal,
information
and
sporting
evidence
on
page
38
of
109
is
our
summary
of
facts.
This
is
the
Bennett
Park
apartment
located
at
1650,
Wilson
Boulevard.
It
is
comprised
of
two
tax
rpcs.
I
Those
are
new
for
2022,
the
the
2022
assessment
year.
This
property
previously
was
on
a
single
tax
ID.
However,
the
office
portion
of
this,
this
property
was
sold
off
in
2021,
and
this
was
the
rezone
and
re-parceled
for
2022
for
the
remaining
apartment
portion
of
the
of
the
building
that
was
retained
by
the
the
current
owner.
I
The
current
assessment
is
92
million,
seven
hundred
and
thirty
thousand,
and
that's
a
five
percent
increase
from
the
prior
years.
2021
assessment
for
just
the
apartment
portion,
which
was
88
million,
189
900.
and
the
the
board
or
excuse
me,
the
county
in
the
response,
is
recommending
no
change
following
our
appeal
for
the
2022
assessment,
the
property
was
originally
built
in
2005.
It's
224
units
mid-rise
apartment
in
the
Roslyn
sub
Market.
I
It's
about
a
half
mile
from
the
Roslyn
Metro
station,
again
like
to
now
direct
the
board
to
I,
guess,
page
three,
which
is
the
County's
mixed
use,
income
and
expense
summary
this
property,
and
we
have
submitted
the
income
and
expense
statements
for
the
prior
three
years.
As
you
can
see,
it
has
been
fairly
stable
in
terms
of
the
gross
potential
rent
for
the
apartments
6.9
million
in
2019
7
million
in
2020,
seven
million.
I
Eighty
thousand,
most
recently
in
2021,
the
county
in
the
original
assessment
had
estimated
the
most
potential
rent
of
7.2
million
and
then,
after
after
seeing
our
our
submission
of
the
2021
income
and
expense
actually
increased
that
to
from
7.2
to
7.34
million
again
after
seeing
that
the
the
actual
gross
potential
rent
increase
just
marginally
about
one
percent
to
seven
million.
Eighty
thousand
now
similar
to
some
of
the
other,
the
cases
that
we
brought
forth
for
for
other
ownership
groups.
I
I
The
assessment
in
the
original
assessment
had
an
effective
gross
income
of
7.3
million
that
was
below
what
was
actually
reported
of
7.6
million
in
the
2021
reporting
year
and
then
upon
review
of
that
that
statement,
the
County's
Tech
column,
is
now
higher
than
what
was
actually
reported
at
7.626
million.
I
So
again,
the
the
counties
adjusting
their
their
gross
potential
income
up
to
basically
alive
with
actuals
for
for
the
effective
gross
income
which
we're
fine
with.
If,
if
then,
the
corresponding
expenses
are
also
considered
that
were
reported
in
2021
for
the
operating
expenses
again,
this
property
has
been
fairly
stable
at
36
percent.
Reporting
operating
expense
is
2.7
million
in
2019,
at
2.66
million
in
2020,
and
then
most
recently,
2.9
Million
in
2021.
the
County's
revised
test
column.
I
I
So,
in
the
revised
test,
column
they're
increasing
their
their
gross
potential
income
and
effective
gross
income
to
align
and
go
above
what
was
actually
reported
in
2021,
but
not
doing
so
for
the
operating
expenses
again,
the
County's
noi
in
their
revised
test
column,
is
approximately
a
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
dollars
above
what
was
actually
attainable
at
the
property
and
reported
in
2021..
I
The
the
last
thing
is
that
we've
seen
kind
of
all
these
previous
cases
that
we've
we've
heard
and
seen
before,
and
if
you
look
on
the
first
page
of
the
analysis
and
it's
because
I
guess
of
the
the
RPC
split
and
the
rezoning
following
the
sale
of
the
the
office
portion,
that
we
don't
have
a
historical
assessment
of
this
property
for
the
apartment
portion,
but
the
County's
revisions
have
all
for
2022
when
we've
seen
similar
properties
experience
this.
This
downturn
in
2021.
I
In
you
know,
eight
percent
drop
in
noi
from
the
prior
year
that
the
the
2022
revised
or
test
column
assessment
actually
being
below
the
2021
final
value.
And
what
you're
seeing
here
is.
Is
this
value
still
again,
five
percent
ahead,
noi
decreased
by
by
eight
percent?
I
That's
values
is,
is
substantially
higher
than
the
88
million
that
was
assessed.
This
property
was
assessed
in
2021
and
and
substantially
higher
than
the
85
million
85.7
million
dollar
assessment.
This
was
assessed
in
the
prior
year
before
that
in
2020..
So
again,
we're
we're
asking
for
the
board
to
consider
the
2021
assessment
in
in
their
the
2021
income
in
consideration
for
the
2022
assessment.
Thank
you.
A
All
right,
thank
you
and
Mr
cheek
is
for
the
county.
Please.
J
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning
board
good
morning,
Blake
this
morning,
actually
summarized
it
well.
We
are,
of
course,
speaking
about
Bennett
Park
Apartments,
as
Mr
Warren
noted.
This
was
split,
I
believe
it
was
two
years
ago
at
the
request
of
the
owner,
in
which
case
the
office
portion
of
retail
went
to
another
parcel.
So
this
solely
focuses
on
the
market
and
committed
affordable
units.
J
As
Mr
Warren
noted,
we
did
look
at
the
comparison
of
2022's
original
real
property
assessment
to
the
newly
received
2021
information,
and
this
one
is
a
little
bit
more
familiar
or
similar
to
last
year's
cases
where
we
saw
a
fairly
large
under
projections
made
by
the
county.
You
can
actually
see
that
we
under
projected
gross
potential
by
about
77
000,
underprojected,
effective
growth
by
over
300
000
and
as
Mr
Ward
noted,
we
did
under
project
operating
expenses,
but
I
would
obviously
point
out
that
they
grew
by
almost
10
percent.
J
So
almost
300
000
jump
from
last
year
that
did
lead
to
an
over
projection
on
the
net
operating
income
side.
But
again,
as
the
board
is
familiar,
we
do
look
at
the
newly
received
information
and
we
grow
the
rent
roll
to
look
at
a
stabilized
value.
J
Credit
Mr
Warren
for
noting
that
the
apartment
Revenue
actually
increased
three
years
in
a
row,
including
last
year's
just
shy
of
one
percent
growth
that
led
to
an
overall
gross
potential
that
shranked
by
about
the
the
same
amount
just
shot
at
one
percent
vacancy
again
as
strong
less
than
three
percent,
and
this
again
is
stabilized
property.
In
that
way,
you
know
the
the
biggest
difference
we
have,
of
course,
is
where
the
the
board
the
county,
applies.
Guideline
vacancy
concessions,
that's
essentially
double
what
they've
been
achieving
at
the
property.
J
The
last
three
years
we
weren't
able
to
get
2018
zione
so
for
19,
20
21,
you
can
see
the
county
is
essentially
adjusting
that
vacancy
and
Concession
by
double
what
they've
received
historically.
So
we
do
need
to
make
adjustments
on
the
gross
potential
to
get
to
an
achieved,
a
stabilized,
achievable,
effective
gross
income,
I
hope
the
board
will
agree
and
our
test
column.
J
J
If
you'll
note
again,
we
projected
them
almost
150
000
higher
than
what
was
achieved
in
2020
again,
some
90
000
higher
than
what
was
achieved
in
2019..
We
don't
match
dollar
for
dollar
with
what
is
produced
in
the
most
current
year,
but
at
the
same
point
we
do
look
at
stabilizing
that
number
you
can
see.
We
grew
it
quite
a
bit
from
our
projection
made
for
January
1.,
again
very
much
in
line
with
the
history
of
the
property.
J
Obviously,
once
we
make
those
changes
that
affects
our
net
operating
income
again,
you
can
see
that
we
did
adjust
the
netapping
income
based
on
the
adjustments
we've
made
to
stabilized
effective
growth
and
operating
expenses,
and
that,
of
course,
did
indicate
a
increase
without
a
third
party
appraisal.
We
don't
recommend
the
increase,
but
we
do
recommend
that
this
be
used
as
confirming
our
regional
assessment
for
those
that
are
familiar
with
the
property.
J
It
is
well
located
less
than
a
half
a
mile
walk
to
Rosslyn
Metro,
and
this
is
a
one
of
the
sort
of
the
higher
end
apartment
multi-families
that
we
have
in
the
county.
I,
don't
think
the
owner
would
argue
that
they
actually
call
themselves
a
century
luxury
multi-family.
So
you
can
see
the
expenses
are
in
line.
Our
adjustments
are
in
line
again
the
effective
gross
projection
income
of
0.3
percent
and
that
still
led
to
a
confirmation
of
the
original.
We
do
ask
the
board
to
confirm
the
property
at
92
million.
E
I
E
F
Thank
you,
I'm.
A
little
I
need
a
little
straightening
out
here.
1600
has
some
retail
on
the
first
floor
and
office.
Upstairs
1650
has
retail
on
the
first
floor
in
apartments.
Upstairs
we,
of
course,
as
a
year
or
two
ago,
segregated
the
apartments
at
1650.
where's
is
the
retail
below
those
apartments
now
assigned
to
the
RPC
of
next
door.
The
office
building
is
that
how
that
works?.
J
I
That
retail
is
still
there.
We've
we've
been
going
back
and
forth
with
some
of
these
with
Chris.
The
last
several
days
on
on
the
reporting,
most
specifically
this
year
for
2021,
for
this
particular
client,
is
the
any
retail
income
was
actually
reported
in
the
line
item
for
the
survey
under
the
apartment.
So
we
have
been
trying
to
extract
that
and
get
them
detail.
I.
Don't
think
this
is
one
that
Chris
had
had
requested.
F
G
Yeah,
that's
for
Blake
Blake.
Are
there
any
condo
fees.
G
G
I
J
Absolutely
and
just
we
try
to
bring
illumination
specifically
to
Mr
mitzkin's
Question.
We
we
we're
not
in
dispute
of
where
the
retail
is
actually
being
allocated
or
valued.
It
is
on
parcel
two
one
zero.
So
that's
where
the
office
is
being
valued
as
well
again,
we
believe
that
we've
tested
this
property.
With
the
newly
received
information,
we'd
asked
the
board
to
focus
on
the
vast
under
projections
made
a
gross
potential
and
especially
that
effective
gross.
J
Again,
we
tested
that,
with
the
new
information,
a
very
reasonable
0.3
percent
increase
at
the
effect
of
gross
very
much
in
line
with,
what's
been
achieved.
Historically,
in
fact,
lower
than
2020.
again,
we've
increased
operating
expenses
higher
than
2019
higher
than
2020
very
much
in
line
with
the
historical
nature
and
being
stabilized.
We
do
believe
that
the
test
confirms
that
value
of
92
million
730
000..
Thank
you.
I
Yeah
just
to
wrap
up,
you
know
the
the
two
big
issues
here
with
regard
to
the
gross
potential
income.
I
Again
when
you,
when
you
look
at
the
county
test
column
of
almost
approximately
8.3
million
dollars
in
their
test
column,
combined
for
F1
and
F2,
substantially
higher
than
anything
that's
been
reported
and
that
the
property
has
been
capable
of
generating
in
in
terms
of
gross
potential
income
for
in
any
of
the
prior
three
reporting
years
again,
the
the
properties
vacancy
has
remained
fairly
stable,
and
you
see
that
that
much
larger
concession
number
they
had
to
push
that
to
maintain
that
occupancy
and
and
again
what
the
counties
appear
to
have
done
is
over
projected
with
the
the
gross
potential
income
in
order
to
provide
the
county
with
and
apply
that
their
standard,
eight
percent
Market
vacancy
rate
to
come
in
line
with
with
what
was
actually
reported
in
2021.
I
If
you're
going
to
do
that,
we
would
request
that
the
county
consider
much
more
the
actual
operating
expenses
that
were
reported
in
2021,
which,
again
the
difference,
is
about
100
125
000.
Thank
you.
G
Yeah
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
first
of
all,
I
mean
these
rents
are
no
like
for
the
three
bedrooms
you
got
to
make
67
000
a
year
in
rent.
That's
that's
huge!
So
what
I
look
at
is
you
know?
How
much
is
it
going
up
based
how
much
is
Chris
making
this
go
up?
G
What
are
the
rents
per
unit
and
what's
the
vacancy
and
and
I,
don't
see
anything
wrong,
I'm
willing
to
listen
to
what
other
people
think,
but,
but
looking
at
it
and
I
try
but
I
I,
just
don't
see
a
way
to
lower
it.
Based
on
the
facts
of
this.
E
I
mean
I
felt
the
same
as
Barnes.
The
only
thing
I
thought
to
look
into
is:
if
they're,
you
know,
we
got
parking
income
if
they
don't.
If
the
property
doesn't
actually
own
those
spaces,
do
they
end
up
having
to
pass
it
through
to
some
other
owner
or
how
that
works,
but
I
don't
think
we
have
enough
information
to
really
make
a
reduction
based
on
that
so
I'm,
okay,
with
the
assessment
as
well.
D
H
Sorry
about
that
I'm
with
Mark
I
did
the
same.
You
know
I
looked
at
the
expenses
and
maybe
give
them
a
little
bit
of
the
benefit
on
that.
But
I
don't
really
see
that
there's
really
a
big
difference
in
that
so
I'm,
okay
with
the
originals.
D
I'll
make
a
motion
to
accept
the
County's
assessment
number
okay,.
A
A
K
K
K
K
This
is
likely
due
to
both
the
property's
location
on
the
south
side
of
50
and
the
fact
that
it
is
now
13
years
old,
also
contributing
to
the
lower
noi
in
2021
is
that
the
property
cut
expenses
in
2020
due
to
the
uncertainty
of
the
pandemic
or
dire
predictions
regarding
the
multi-family
Market.
Many
owners
in
the
county
cut
expenses
and
deferred
maintenance
in
2020.
Just
as
this
property
did,
that
has
the
effect
of
increasing
the
2020
noi.
K
The
assessment
has
failed
to
acknowledge
the
decrease
in
noi
at
this
property
and
has
imputed
an
noi
that
is
21
percent
higher
than
the
2021
reported
in
Li.
Now,
looking
at
the
apartment
income,
we
see
that
in
2020
the
property
reported
I'm,
sorry
2021,
the
property
reported
total
potential
rental
income
of
3.2
million
dollars.
This
value
is
supported
by
the
rent
Matrix
submitted
with
the
2021
INE,
which
is
on
page
76
of
the
appeal,
the
revised
assessment,
imputes
rental
income.
K
2021
operating
expenses
per
unit
increased
over
ten
thousand
dollars
per
unit
and
even
the
County's
reconstructed,
2021
column
reports
operating
expenses
at
eighty
four
hundred
dollars
per
unit,
so
even
for
argument's
sake.
If
we
use
the
County's
reconstructed
operating
expenses
for
2021,
what
we
have
is
operating
expenses
that
averaged
eighty
four
hundred
dollars
in
the
three
years,
not
including
the
outlier
year
of
2020..
K
The
assessment
again
is
only
at
8
162
dollars
per
unit,
despite
both
the
operating
history.
At
the
property
and
the
effects
of
historic
inflations
inflation
over
the
course
of
2021.,
as
such,
the
taxpayer
request
that
the
assessment
be
reduced
to
reflect
the
actual
potential
rental
income
of
three
million.
Two
hundred
thirty
one
thousand
dollars
and
the
operating
expenses
be
increased
to
eighty
four
hundred
dollars
per
unit
to
align
with
the
reported
operating
history
of
the
property.
Thank
you
and
Eileen.
Do
you
have
anything
you'd
like
to
add.
J
Yes,
ma'am
again
well
sunrise
by
the
appellants
looking
at
the
property.
Again,
we
just
look
at
these
a
little
bit
differently.
They
tend
to
want
to
heavily
rely
upon
2021's
numbers
and
capitalize
it.
We
look
at
these
as
a
stabilized
property,
as
we
should.
We
have
more
property
tax,
we're
looking
at
the
last
three
years
again,
we've
kind
of
talked
about
this
ad
nauseam
in
regards
to
how
we
do
it.
That's
because
we
do
it
reliably
and
consistently
all
the
time.
J
Once
we
get
that
new
2021
information,
we
start
to
put
more
weight
on
that
Less
on
2018,
but
of
course,
we're
still
going
to
look
at
the
four
years
of
stabilized
history
when
we
do
especially
looking
at
what
we
tend
to
do
is
look
at
the
effective
growth
because,
of
course,
that's
already
been
treated
by
vacancy
concessions
and
rent
loss,
and
we
can
see
years
18
through
20.
J
It
was
very
stabilized,
essentially
the
same
number
year
over
year
over
year,
as
we've
seen
again
consistently,
we
saw
a
drop
in
2021,
as
the
opponents
noted
vacancy
ticked
up
just
a
little
bit
over.
One
percent
and
concessions
grew
by
about
double
almost
three
times.
J
You
know
some
of
these
smaller
things,
rent
loss
increased
by
almost
three
times,
but
again,
that's
fairly
unusual
for
this
property,
so
these
are
sort
of
things
that
we
think
aren't
necessarily
indicative
of
the
property
itself
as
opposed
to
sort
of
blips
in
time
when
we're
looking
at
this
as
a
stabilized
nature,
of
course,
as
we
did
last
case,
as
we've
done
in
every
case,
you've
heard
this
year
we're
looking
at
stabilized
effective
growth.
J
We
do,
of
course,
have
to
grow
the
gross
potential
to
get
to
an
effective
growth,
but,
of
course,
I
would
also
point
out
that
our
group's
potential,
while
higher
than
2021,
is
actually
lower
than
2020,
2020,
2019
and
2018.
so
again,
very
achievable,
as
far
as
what's
been
done
historically
same
thing
on
effective
growth,
so
we're
actually
quite
a
bit
lower
than
what's
been
achieved.
Historically,
one
could
even
say
we're
a
bit
generous
in
a
four
percent
projection
based
off
what
they've
done.
J
I
asked
the
board,
especially
those
who
like
to
take
with
the
numbers,
to
look
at
the
last
three
years,
effective
gross
specifically
the
last
two
years,
so
we're
lower
than
what
they've
achieved
at
the
property
in
regards
to
operating
expenses.
You
know
point
to
the
comments.
The
the
biggest
reason
we
saw
40
growth
in
operating
expenses
was
due
to
some
Capital
Improvements
non-recurring
operations,
as
they
call
them
facade,
painting
Etc.
J
We
removed
that
as
we've
done
again,
consistently
and
historically
with
regards
to
reconstructions
of
those
operating
expenses
that
can
be
considered
not
annual
or
needed
for
the
income
stream
to
be
maintained
and
noted
that
the
adjustment
made
and
revision
column
G
is
actually
again
very
much
spot
on
we're
lower
than
what's
been
achieved
at
the
property
historically
in
regards
to
net
operating
income,
but
we're
very
much
on
par
with,
what's
been
achieved,
the
last
three
years.
J
Specifically
again,
if
you
look
at
the
last
two
years,
given
that
we
did
note
the
newly
found
2021
information
again,
given
that
we
did
reconstruct
out
those
expenses,
we
deemed
Capital
expenditures
brought
the
operating
expenses
much
more
in
line
with,
what's
been
achieved.
Historically,
we
do
believe
that
our
revision
and
value
of
40
million
686
100
should
be
confirmed.
J
I
would
note
this
is
actually
a
negative
four
percent
drop
from
last
year's
42.3
42.3
million
assessment
and
again
much
more
in
touch
with
what's
going
on
at
the
property
in
regards
to
looking
at
one
year's
time
in
in
four
years,
as
opposed
to
the
appellants
indicated
total
value,
which
apparently
is
a
21
drop
year
over
year.
Given
that
we
do
believe
that
the
revision
is
accurate,
we
asked
the
County
Board
to
I'm
sorry,
the
Board
of
Equalization,
to
confirm
our
revision
of
40
million
686
100..
Thank
you.
G
Yes,
this
is
for
Chris
Chris
on
at
the
bottom
of
the
income
and
expense
summary.
You
have
comments
and
I
can't
read
some
of
it.
Maybe
it's
the
way
this
printed,
but
it
looks
like
you
threw
it
out
as
being
I.
Guess
a
capital
Improvement.
What
exactly
was
that
spit
on.
J
A
Okay,
Mr
Harmon
any
final
comments
in
your
minute
to
wrap
up.
K
Yes,
thank
you.
So,
looking
at
the
four-year
history
of
this
property,
we
see
that
it's
trending
Down
Chris
potential
income
has
decreased
from
2019
to
2020
and
again
from
2020
to
2021..
The
assessment
has
grown
this
income
instead
of
the
three-year
trend
of
decreasing.
It's
grown
gross
potential
income
by
six
percent
same
with
effective
gross
income.
That's
been
decreasing
year
over
year
for
the
past
three
years.
If
we
stabilize
the
expenses
in
2020
to
take
into
account
the
decreased
spending.
So
if
we
stabilize
those
expenses,
we
see
a
four-year
decrease
in
noi.
K
This
property
is
not
as
profitable
as
it
was
back.
In
the
day
it's
trending
downward
you
get.
The
assessment
represents
even
above
the
stabilized,
the
reconstructed
column,
the
assessment's
157
thousand
dollars
higher
than
that
operating
expenses
have
averaged
8
400
dollars
per
unit
over
the
three
non-pandemic
years
shown
on
the
summary
page.
K
A
Okay,
thank
you.
It's
just
among
the
board
members
now
where's
everybody
on
this.
G
Yeah
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
off
and
share
my
thoughts.
It
seems
to
me
that
the
question
is:
has
the
county
predicted
too
much
of
an
increase
in
rent
and
I?
G
Look
at
the
expenses
and
it
seems
like
that's
a
one-year
one-year
anomalyty
and
that's
why
I
questioned
the
county
about
what
what
that
thrown
out,
238
000
was,
and
so
in
in
my
thinking,
I
I
think
the
expenses
suggested
by
the
property
owner
are
too
high,
I
mean
it's
30,
32
27
and
then
it's
42
and
that's
that
I
think
is,
is
a
one-year
extra
maintenance,
painting
and
so
forth
and
then
I
look
at
the
amount
that
has
gone
up
and
the
the
rental
assumed
by
the
county
and
I.
A
Yeah
I
guess
I
mean
I'll
jump
in
here
behind
you,
Mr
Lawson.
You
know,
I,
look
at
this
and
I
think
you
know
that
the
numbers
have
gone
down
slightly
when
you
and
I
look
at
the
adjusted
column
where
the
county
took
on
column,
F
and
reconstructed
it,
and
so
these
are
by
the
counties
numbers
from
a
standpoint
of
taking
out
the
expenses
that
don't
apply,
and
you
look
at
that
bottom
line
number
versus
what
the
previous
three
years
were.
A
It
is
lower
than
what
the
County's
got
it
reassessed
at
you
know,
I
mean
it's
not
quite
as
low
as
what
the
appellant
is
choosing
and
so
to
me.
I
almost
look
and
see
that
the
reconstructed
column
F
by
the
county
is
really
a
pretty
decent
compromise
between
the
two
parties
of
the
noi
based
on
what
happened
in
2021.
A
H
I
did
look
at
the
expenses
on
previous
years
and
I
did
an
average
pretty
much
for
the
four
years,
not
on
percentages,
but
on
the
amounts
and
I
used.
A
34
expenses
on
instead
of
32.5
and
I,
come
up
with
a
final
value
of
39,
781
or
782,
even
by
increasing
the
expenses,
and
that
that
would
really
bring
up
the
per
unit
rate
to
about
almost
8
500.
A
E
I
mean
the
only
thing
that
expenses
are
generally
going
to
be
higher
with
the
130
units
versus
at
400
unit
building.
So
when
you
compare
it,
it
should
be
kind
of
on
that
higher
end
of
the
spectrum
and
so
I
I
I.
Think
Jose's
approach
is
good.
H
G
Question
yeah
Jose
do:
do
you
think
that
they
jump
in
anticipated
rental
income
is
too
high,
or
are
you
okay
with
that
I
I
thought
it
was
a
touch
eye.
H
I'm,
okay,
with
it
I
think
the
rates
are
okay,
based
on
what
we've
seen
yeah
I
looked
at
that
also
but
I'm.
Okay,
with
that
number.
G
H
G
000
more,
which
is
over
a
hundred
per
month
per
unit
that
seemed
a
little
aggressive
to
me.
H
Based
on
previous
years,
you
know
I'm,
okay,
with
it.
H
G
E
I
I
noticed
that
you
know
was
that
let's
get
this
building
full
because
we
got
another
one
across
group
50
that
we
need
to
fill
up
as
well.
And
let's
just
put
put
people
in
these
buildings
if
they
might
have
got
a
good
deal
because
they
bumped
back
up
to
250
a
square
foot
the
next
year.
A
H
Sure
I'll
go
ahead
and
move
the.
We
reduce
the
assessment
to
39
million
seventy
two
thousand,
even
based
on
increasing
the
expenses
to
34
percent.
A
A
K
K
The
Drea
summary
is
on
page
four
of
the
appeal
note
that
noi
at
this
property
has
decreased
by
nearly
15
percent
in
2021
to
just
under
2.6
million
dollars,
the
assessment
imputes
noi
at
over
2.9
Million
dollars
or
14
higher
than
the
2021
noi
last
year.
Vacancy
collection
and
concessions
were
nearly
13
of
gross
potential
income.
K
This
is
an
increase
from
2020
when
it
was
9
of
GPI
the
assessment
only
impudes
vacancy
collection
and
concessions
at
eight
percent,
which
undercounts
the
property
what
the
property
has
experienced
by
5
percent.
Next,
the
assessment
only
imputes
operating
expenses
at
six
thousand
ninety
dollars
per
unit.
K
K
K
K
So
using
2020
as
a
base
year
for
cons
comparison,
any
all
expenses
are
going
to
look
higher
because
2020
was
artificially
low
due
to
owners
conserving
cash
due
to
the
pandemic.
K
Second,
there
is
an
explanation
of
these
expenses.
That's
noted
and
provided
on
pages
27
and
28
of
the
appeal.
These
expenses
are
correctly
included
as
operating
expenses,
to
name
a
few
of
these
expenses
included.
There
are
turnover
costs,
common
area,
maintenance
and
repair,
alarm,
repair,
elevator
repairs,
leaks
and
Remediation,
and
plumbing
supplies.
K
K
L
Thank
you,
so,
first
of
all,
I'd
like
to
draw
your
attention
that
we
took
a
look
and
noticed
that
the
concessions
and
the
vacancy
were
higher
than
the
stabilized
vacancy
rate
that
we
used,
which
was
eight
percent.
L
As
for
the
expenses,
the
we
believe
that
these
expenses
are
exceptionally
high
and
when
you
want
to
make
a
consent
comparison.
Yes,
2019
is
a
partial
year.
However,
you
can
go
back
and
compare
18
and
2020
for
expenses,
and
20
was
much
higher
than
2018,
but
what
I
did
is
I
looked
at
that
and
I
said:
okay,
let's,
let's
do
an
average
for
the
three
the
three
years,
and
so
that's
how
I
came
up
with
the
one,
almost
1.4
million
for
operating
expenses.
L
The
other
thing
I'd
like
to
bring
your
attention
to
this
property
just
sold
in
2019
for
55
million,
and
also
note
that
in
column
F,
our
revision
is
only
a
couple
of
thousand
higher
than
the
2021
assessment,
so
I
I'm
open
for
questions.
Thank
you.
A
G
Lawson
for
the
applicant
is
this
building
structural,
concrete.
L
Once
again,
I
just
want
to
reiterate
that
the
property
did
sell
for
55
million
back
in
2019,
and
we
did
take
into
consideration
the
higher
vacancy
and
adjusted
the
rent
for
that
and
I
believe
that
we,
the
expenses
that
we're
using,
are
very
reasonable
for
common
math
I
did
an
average
felt
that
the
2021
expenses
were
exceptionally
High,
especially
if
you
compare
them
to
the
2020
expenses.
Thank.
K
Thank
you,
so
the
2019
sale
co-star
shows
that
that
sold
with
a
cap
rate
of
only
4.66
percent
that
results
in
an
noi
of
2
million
563
000,
which
is
right
in
line
with
what
the
property
reported
in
2021,
which
was
2.577
million
dollars.
Now
the
big
issue
here
is
the
expenses
you
can
see.
The
the
assessment
has
imputed
them
at
six
thousand.
Ninety
dollars,
2020
again
the
year
that
expenses
were
cut
and
maintenance
deferred.
K
2020
expenses
were
six
thousand
fifty
three
dollars,
so
the
assessment
is
essentially
using
the
2020
expense
rate
that
was
artificially
depressed
due
to
the
pandemic.
2021
is
much
more
indicative
of
what
this
property
will
operate
at
going
forward.
Those
expenses
were
just
under
seventy
two
hundred
dollars
per
unit.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
It's
just
among
the
board
members
where's
everybody
on
this
one.
D
H
Yes,
using
the
same
rationale
that
I
used
in
the
previous
case
that
I'm
okay
with
the
expenses
I,
think
it's
a
little
bit
more
generous
than
it
was
in
the
previous
case,
and
you
know
the
vacancy
collections
I
think
like
Miss
Ruskin
mentioned
they're
really
made
up
with
the
lower
range
that
she
used
in
the
reconstructors.
So
I'm,
okay
with
it.
F
Yeah
I
just
I
I
I,
like
the
appellants
closing
arguments,
I
looked
harder,
it's
creative,
but
it
seems
to
me
if
if
expenses
were
a
little
bit
lower,
preserving
cash
as
he
described,
then
they
would
be
once
the
pandemic
calmed
down
a
little
bit
and
the
rent
rolls
did.
Okay,
it
didn't
crash.
They
made
up
for
it
in
2021.,
so
I
trust
that
that's
what
they
spent,
but
it
was
in
part
laid
over
from
2020.
F
G
The
reason
I
asked
about
structural
concrete
is
I
noticed
how
high
the
repairs
were,
and
sometimes
it's
just
a
whole
lot
harder
to
fix
things
if
you're
dealing
with
concrete,
such
as
you
have
to
replace
a
riser
pipe
or
you
know
a
drainage
pipe
or
something
like
that,
it
can
get
really
expensive
really
fast.
So
if
we
put
that
aside,
that
it
was
deferred
maintenance
and
now
they're
catching
up
I'm,
also,
okay,
with
the
county.
F
A
A
No
okay,
then
we
will
stand
adjourned
here
at
10,
31
and
reconvene
tomorrow
morning
at
9
00
a.m,
and
it
is
an
in-person
meeting
for
the
board
members.