►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - October 27, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
B
Yeah
good
morning,
I'm
sorry,
my
colleague
is
supposed
to
be
presenting
this
case,
and
I
do
not
see
that
he's
here
if
a
different
petitioner
wanted
to
go
first,
that
would
be
great.
If
not,
I
can
try
and
do
my
best,
but
I
was
not
prepared
to
present
this
case
this
morning.
A
Okay
is
mr
warren
here.
A
Is
okay?
All
right,
then,
let's
move
for
the
sake
of
convenience
and
to
move
it
along
to
the
second
case
on
the
agenda.
Is
the
chica's
here.
D
D
A
C
Sorry
about
that
yeah
I'd
like
to
direct
the
board
to
page
45
of
86,
which
is
our
summary
of
facts.
This
property
is
an
office
property
located
at
1310
north
courthouse
road.
It
is
currently
assessed
at
134
million
388
100.,
the
assessor.
C
C
However,
in
our
memo
response
after
the
board
was
scheduled,
it
appears
the
county
is
now
recommending
a
value
higher
than
that
of
128
million
564
380,
which
is
a
little
peculiar
and
and
odd
in
terms
of
a
uniformity
and
equalization
standpoint.
In
most
of
these
cases
that
we've
heard
the
last
couple
of
years
when
the
county
has
recommended
or
given
us
a
withdrawal,
a
notification
for
a
reduction,
it's
the
same
value,
that's
presented
and
recommended
to
the
board,
but
in
this
case
it's
it's
different.
C
C
Now,
as
I
stated
before,
there's
two
the
county's
is
recommending
a
higher
assessment,
which
is
a
reduction
off
of
the
original
value,
but
still
higher
than
the
reduction
offer
notice
that
we
were
given
to
sign
prior
to
the
hearing
being
scheduled,
and
so
there's
two.
It
appears
that
there's
two
summary
sheets
and
we'll
be
referring
to
the
first
one,
which
was
based
off
of
the
lower
value
of
125
million
460
410,
which
can
be
found
on
page
six
of
86.
C
this
property.
The
original
assessment
increase,
represented
a
one
percent
increase
from
the
prior
year's
assessment.
However,
what
this
effectively
boils
down
to
is
vacancy.
This
property
experienced
a
number
of
very
large
tenant
vacancies
in
the
early
portion
of
2020,
and
you
can
see
how
it
impacted
the
total
revenue
in
2020
from
19
to
20
on
column,
c
and
e.
C
C
The
fdic
had
a
much
higher
per
square
footage.
It
was
approximately
70
000
square
feet
that
they
vacated.
So
again,
that's
the
majority
and
that's
what
this
case
is
really
going
to
boil
down
to.
C
C
the
county
in
their
test
column
did
not
revise
that
at
all.
They
kept
it
at
their
original
value
and
their
original
assessment
of
16
million
7
54
991.
Excuse
me
they
did.
They
did
lower,
I'm
just
small
writing.
They
did
lower
to
16
million
25
000
350.,
so
still
over
six
million
dollars
above
what
the
again,
what
the
property
was
was
able
to
achieve
in
terms
of
egi
the.
C
Difference
if
you
look
on
page
six
and
page
four,
which
is
the
two
summary
sheets
and
the
values
of
the
128
million
564
380,
that
the
county
is
now
recommending
in
comparison
to
the
125
million
460
410,
which
was
the
original
offer,
is
you
know
they
get
down
to
the
same
noi,
but
the
county
increased
their
cap
rate
from
six
point.
C
Eight:
five
to
seven
point:
excuse
me:
they
decreased
their
their
cap
rate
from
seven
point,
one
percent
to
six
point:
eight
five,
and
then
they
realized
that
the
actual
vacancy
was
higher
and
are
actually
taking
a
higher
discount
for
lease
up
below
the
line.
But
because
they,
what
essentially
it
looks
like
as
they
realize
that
the
vacancy
was
was
much
higher.
They
made
that
adjustment,
but
then
lowered
the
the
cap
rate
to
support
a
higher
valuation.
C
Again
the
bottom
line
and
the
noi,
if
you
look
at
what
this
property
reported
from
19
to
20
in
the
decrease
in
2019,
this
properly
reported
in
an
noi
of
11.175
million
dollars
and
in
2020
that
dropped
to
7.6
million.
The
county's
revised
test
is
estimating
the
noi
of
9
million
six
hundred
forty
one
thousand
five,
thirty
eight,
which
is
still
two
million
dollars
above
what
the
pro
this
property
was
able
to
achieve
in
2020.
D
Yes,
the
assessor
and
his
response
did
something
very
curious
that
I
haven't
seen
before
he
says
no
granted.
His
response
is
mostly
copy
and
paste
over
our
packet,
but
it
says,
as
of
11
20
21
valuation
date,
the
subject
property
is
54
vacant,
which
is
fact
we
all
agree
with
that.
But
then
he
says
the
assessor
has
estimated
the
actual
vacancy
of
the
subject
property
to
be
48.8
percent,
as
supported
by
co-star,
and
then
includes
a
co-star
report
from
october
4th
2021
and
he's
not
wrong.
D
As
of
october
1st
2021,
the
property
was
48.8
vacant,
but
as
the
valuation
is
54,
we
don't
think
it's
appropriate
to
use
what's
happened
in
october,
but
it
also
shows
you
that
in
10
months,
they've
filled
all
of
six
percent
of
space.
Yet
his
analysis
is
saying:
they're
gonna
be
able
to
do
it
in
a
year,
so
they
they
basically
have
two
months
to
knock
out
the
remaining
23
percent
that
it
would
take
to
get
to
his
vacancy
number.
D
So
because
of
that
because
of
using
48
vacancy
instead
of
the
original
54
in
these
two
tests,
his
lease
up
deduction
changes.
There
was,
it
was
10.3
million.
Now
it's
12.1,
it's
not
making
a
lot
of
sense
there.
So
we're
we're
again
working
off
the
test
on
page
six,
but
the
key
here
is
the
actual
noise
7.6
million
dollars,
the
income's
down
37
percent
because
of
the
pandemic,
and
it's
almost
exclusively
because
of
the
pandemic
and
expiring
leases
and
being
hard
to
lease
up
so
to
use.
D
Well,
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna,
put
more
weight
on
the
2019
and
then
what
happened
10
months
after
the
evaluation
date,
I
think,
is
some
dangerous
mixing
and
matching
that
we
had
last
year.
We
appealed
this
and
the
assessor
actually
said
you
know
what
the
building's
a
little
nicer
than
I
thought
and
a
little
bigger,
and
I
thought
so-
I'm
increasing
it
and
then
this
year
he
offered
us
a
number
and
then
then
went
back
afterwards
and
said
I
wasn't
able
to
inspect
it.
Well,
he
wasn't
anyone
inspected
by
his
choice,
not
ours.
D
He
decided
not
to
inspect
it.
He
has
been
in
the
building.
I
believe
we
were
there
together.
So
the
the
changes
are
a
bit
curious
like
excess
land.
Do
you
want
to
speak
to
that
real
quick,
because
that
was
the
one
other
point
that
we
had?
D
We
had
a
1.6
million
dollars
in
excess
land
calculation
that
we're
moving
off
of
otherwise
there'd,
be
a
double
count
and
and
he's
not
including
that.
So
that's
where
our
test
column
number
comes
from.
C
Correct
there's
this
there's
another
parcel
on
here
that
has
an
excess
land
that
would
normally
take
out
and
deduct
that
that
valuation
now
it
does
look
like
no
yeah,
it
looks
like
it
there.
I
don't
see
that
being
deducted
here.
D
G
Yes,
sorry
good
morning
board
for
this
case
the
original
summary
sheet.
Just
to
give
you
a
background
was
completed
prior
to
the
email
that
was
received
by
mr
warren
and
it
contained
information
that
was
necessary
just
to
figure
out
the
square
footage
of
the
property
asking
about
the
conference
center
and
fitness
center,
that
is
in
the
building,
but
not
allocated
as
part
of
their
total
nla
that
you
see
in
column
g.
G
So
the
the
new
column
f,
the
new
summary,
if
you
will,
we
did
catch
upon
reviewing
for
this
case
that
the
original
cap
rate
was
6.85.
That
shouldn't
have
changed.
You
know
we
did,
offer
the
covenant
with
the
higher
cap
rate
and
now
looking
back,
they
probably
should
have
taken
the
covenant.
But
you
know
upon
the
boe:
we
we
did
revise
that
and
added
the
extra
square
feet
vacant.
That
was.
G
That
was
responded
to
in
the
email
that
mr
warren
sent
after
the
initial
review
case
was
completed.
Looking
at
the
original,
I
mean
the
the
second
summary
sheet,
the
one
presented
before
the
boe.
G
We
did
find
that
when
looking
at
this
case,
we
only
had
the
two
years
of
summary.
I
need
iones
for
2019-2020
provided
by
the
appellant
and
the
owners,
and
it
wasn't
an
ine
that
was
on
our
form.
It
was
more
a
internal
sheet.
If
you
will,
we
did
request
2017
and
2018,
but
that
was
not
provided.
G
There
was
no
change
in
ownership.
They
just
simply
didn't
provide
it
to
us.
Nor
did
they
do
that
last
year
in
the
the
boe
case
last
year,
when
looking
at
this
case,
really
it
comes
down
to.
If
you
look
at
the
gross
potential
of
this
property
they're,
not
reporting
that
in
the
2019-2020,
I
need
statements.
G
We
added
the
vacant
square
feet,
income
and
the
retail
income
that
they
provided
in
their
column
g,
and
you
see
that
number
for
the
gross
potential
income
should
be
closer
to
18.2
the
county
and
their
retest
is
at
16
million.
G
You
know
less
than
what
they
should
actually
report
as
the
gross
potential
for
this
property
going
down
and
you'll
see
that
there's
a
difference
there
in
noi
what
they
actually
reported
in
2020
you'll,
see
in
2019
that
they,
the
noi,
reported
theirs
over
11
million
dollars
again
we're
at
nine
million
dollars
as
potential
gross
for
this
property
and
looking
at
the
expenses,
though,
we
did
talk
over
this
extensively
yesterday,
irving
and
I-
and
we
did
see
that
maybe
there's
a
increase
in
expenses
that
could
be
allotted
there.
G
We
did
see
that
the
2.9
that
the
appellant
is
projecting
at
eight
dollars
a
square
foot
is,
is
suitable
for
the
property.
The
difference
here
is
they're,
including
they're,
including
storage
square
feet
as
part
of
the
expenses,
but
they
do
not
include
any
of
the
fitness
center
or
conference
center.
The
extra
square
footage
that
we
would
have
provided
for
expenses,
so
we
would
just
go
with
their
2.9
figure,
just
give
the
board
an
idea
of
exactly
what
that
would
look
like.
G
We
did
compute
that
out
and
giving
the
expenses
at
2.9
the
final
value
with
the
excess
vacancy
below
the
line
remaining
the
same
would
be
at
122
609
500..
I
could
show
you.
I
could
show
the
board
exactly
how
that
you
know
computes
out
in
my
test.
G
I
do
have
that
if
needed,
I
don't
think
I
have
anything
else.
Urban
did
you
have
anything
else
to
add.
H
Yes,
just
to
touch
on
a
few
points
that
you
brought
up
in
the
discussion
about
expenses.
One
reason
why
we
believe
that
our
below
the
line
deduction
is
appropriate
is
because,
as
rob
stated,
we
account
for
the
fitness
center.
H
No,
we
we
take
out
storage
as
far
as
netflix,
but
everyone
we
do
our
below
the
line
discount.
That's
typical
with
how
we
treat
all
properties
in
the
county.
That's
why
our
calculation
below
the
line
is
more
appropriate
because
they're,
including
storage
in
their
vacancy
calculation,
for
the
excess
discount
for
lisa.
H
So
in
that
situation,
you're
applying
forty
four
dollars
a
square
foot
to
the
storage
space,
when
you
do
that
dfl
and
that's
why
we
believe
hour
below
the
line
in
the
test
column
is
more
appropriate
because
we
do
not
include
storage
in
that
below
the
line
dfl,
and
that
is
consistent
with
how
we
treat
all
office
properties
in
the
county.
We
remove
storage
from
our
vacancy
calculations
and
from
our
dfl
calculations.
G
Sure
you
want,
if
you
want,
I
can
share
the
screen.
If
that
helps.
A
Okay,
I
assume
there's
no
objection
from
the
appellant.
F
F
G
Okay,
so
the
all
the
numbers
before
caps
stay
the
same:
16
million
25
350
for
the
gross
potential
and
then,
as
you
see
that
we
we
kept
the
same
expenses
as
the,
and
this
is
the
final
value
here.
A
Before
we
get
into
a
bunch
of
questions,
I
I
have
a
simple
question
for
the
appellant.
Since
you
know
we
were
at
133,
then
at
128,
then
you
were
offered
125.
now
you're
down
to
122.
D
A
D
It's
it's
in
our
pack
and
you
re
you
recreated
it
in
our
in
our
test,
so
you
we're
not
sneaking
it
up
on
you.
There's
a
piece
of
land
that
sits
under
the
property
and
it's
being
taxed.
There's
there's
two
lots
there,
which
again
are
you
could
find
on
page
49
and
50.
D
D
If
you
look
at
the
test
column,
it's
the
far
right
column,
you'll,
see
you'll,
see
the
lease
up
deduction.
The
last
line
of
the
lease
up
deduction.
You
see
excess
land,
one
million
six,
sixty
eight
seven
hundred.
It's
actually
three
lots
that
sit
under
the
property.
D
D
Correct,
yes,
the
land
is
all
so.
This
assessment
is
for
the
entire.
D
F
A
I
I
I
H
I
know
it
is
not
treated
as
an
economic
unit
by
the
owners.
I
was
actually
looking
at
the
land
values
on
them
to
see
how
we
accounting
for
the
value
on
these
properties.
At
the
moment,
sorry.
I
I
D
Mary,
while
we
wait
the
next
case,
are
we
going
to
go
back
to
grant?
Or
would
you
like
us
to
continue
I'm
asking
because
the
owners
wants
to
know
because
we're
going
to
have
them
join.
A
We
would
go
back
to
the
original
order.
I
think.
D
G
The
appellant
is
adding
that
figure
to
the
the
total
amount.
H
No,
so
I
do
see
on
our
worksheet
for
one
of
the
smaller
parcels
that
it
was
the
original
building
that
was
there
years
ago
was
demolished
in
1989,
and
there
was
an
assemblage
with
113,
025
and
026
for
rezoning.
H
H
I
I
don't
see
any
association
of
the
parcels
that
he's
attaching
to
this
building.
Actually,
there
was
a
the
notes
in
the.
H
I
did
come
across
reference
to
parcel
one
one,
two
112,
actually
so
1803
112
that
it
said
was
in
association
with
this
property,
but
no
that's
not
what
he
attached
to
this
case.
The
smaller
parcel
that's
attached
to
this
case.
I
don't
see
any
notes
that
associates
those
parcels
with
this
property.
It
actually
says
that
parcel
18003-1112.
H
Our
garage
spaces
that
could
be
associated
with
this
property,
but
the
ones
that
he
attached.
I
don't
see
anything
in
our
system
that
says
that
they're
associated
with
18003
108.
A
He
was
saying:
zero:
zero,
three
zero,
two:
four:
zero:
two:
five
and
zero:
two
six.
H
D
They're,
the
same
owner,
the
land
that's
associated
with
the
property,
so
they
you,
the
income,
that's
being
produced,
is
for
the
entire
envelope
for
the
building
and
the
land
and
the
so
the
income.
That's
being
done
is
really
the
economic
unit,
income
right.
A
D
H
K
For
the
department
on
the
guidelines
on
page
28
that
general
office
buildings
effective
ages,
1990
to
94.,
the
cap
rate
should
be
6.95,
but
in
the
ie
summaries
of
6.85,
could
you
explain.
K
H
J
J
G
Yes,
yeah
the
same
as
the
appellant
2.914,
okay,.
H
So
jose
on
that
one
me
and
rob
was
talking
about
it
like
we
said
we
added
the
amenity
space
to
the
square
footage.
These
vacant
storage
or
the
storage
square
footage
is
around
seven
000
square
feet.
The
amenity
space
is
around
7
000
square
feet,
so
it
would
have
been
a
wash
and
that's
why
we
went
with
their
2.914
because
we
removed
the
storage,
but
we
include
the
amenity
space
and
we
apply
expenses.
That's
incurred
by
the
owner
to
those
amenities,
spaces.
Okay,.
H
H
If
you
look
at
our
public
website,
the
parcel
number
for
1320
courthouses
1800
3113,
this
property
that
we
are
talking
about,
is
actually
1310
north
courthouse
and
the
parcel
id
is
18003
108.,
so
that
million
dollars
should
not
be
deducted
from
this
building
because
it
is
attached
to
another
building,
rob
you
can
finish
up.
G
Yes,
so
for
this
property
again,
we
did
revise
it
once
again
to
include
more
expenses.
As
the
appellant
suggests.
We
asked
the
board
to
revise
the
the
value
to
the
million
122
609
500
figure
again.
The
gross
potential
for
this
property
is
closer
to
18.2
18.3
we're
using
16
million
and
the
appellant's
using
15.8.
A
D
I
just
want
to
mention
irving
mentioned
those
other
lots
and
real
quick
to
put
that
to
bed
and
understand.
It
sounds
like
the
ford's
made
a
decision
on
it,
but
the
three
lots
that
we're
talking
about
are
owned
by
mrp
that
one
other
lot
that
he's
talking
about
the
garage
lot
is
owned
by
metlife,
which
goes
with
the
metlife
building
next
door.
So
the
three
lots
that
we
have
are
the
same
ownership
as
our
building
and
our
use
for
our
building,
but
understand
the
processes
we
need
to
go
and
make
that's
an
economic
unit.
D
So
next
year
we
can
get
that
reduced.
But
the
number
that
rob
has
presented
were
we're
comfortable
with
the
expenses
originally
looked
a
little
bit
light,
but
that's
because
the
building
was
54
vacant,
so
taking
up
to
25
we're
going
to
have
higher
expenses.
So
assuming
that,
unless
you
shock
me
that
you're
not
going
to
give
us
that
vacant
excess
land,
we
can
live
with
the
number
that
represented.
A
Okay,
thank
you
all
right.
It's
just
among
the
board
members
I
mean
I'll
start.
I
mean
I
agree
with
the
one
part
that
the
appellant
just
said
that
if
these
three
lots
belong
with
this
property,
they
need
to
come
in
and
get
this
straightened
out
with
the
county
and
make
an
economic
unit
and
move
it
over
to
this
parcel.
So
I'm
fine
with
the
the
third
revised
number
from
the
county
that
he
just
gave
the
122
609
500.
What's
everybody
else
think.
L
J
A
Okay,
all
right.
That
being
said,
I'm
going
to
move
to
reduce
it
to
the
county's
recommended
number
of
122
million
609
500..
Do
I
have
a
second,
mr
matskin
as
a
second
all
in
favor
hi
host?
A
Okay,
it's
unanimous,
it's
reduced
to
the
county's
number
of
122
609
500
and
they
can
work
out
the
economic
unit
before
we
come
back
next
year.
B
Yes,
thank
you
good
morning
looks
like
leo.
Is
here
he's
ready,
so
he's
ready
to
do
the
case.
A
M
Great
thank
you
and
first
off
I'd
like
to
say
that
I
apologize.
I
had
some
technical
difficulties
this
morning,
but
I
appreciate
the
board
and
everyone
being
so
accommodating
with
the
schedule.
So
the
this
property
is
the
first
and
main
phase
of
the
retail
development
known
as
the
clarendon
crossing
or
market
common
clarendon.
M
M
In
our
analysis,
as
you
can
find
on
page
four
of
64
of
our
submission
or
three
of
180
on
the
assessors,
we
have
just
a
few
changes
that
we'd
like
to
make
the
first
being
the
retail
rent
rate
we
think
thirty
dollars.
A
foot
is
more
relevant
than
33
used
by
the
county
worth
noting
that
the
county
did
adjust
their
their
rental
rate
to
30
a
foot
which
we
very
much
appreciate
in
the
test,
the
the
updated
test.
M
So,
in
the
revised
analysis,
that's
no
longer
an
issue
the
same
with
parking,
recoveries
and
other
income.
We
use
the
actuals
reported
in
calendar
year,
2020
so
does
the
the
county
and
their
updated
test
so
again
that
that
should
hopefully
no
longer
be
an
issue,
the
first
and
main
or
the
third
and
main
issue
is
the
vacancy
and
collection
loss
which
we
like
to
note
is
16
to
end
the
year.
M
There's
a
major
suite
here:
that's
over
20
000
square
feet
that
was
vacated
before
the
end
of
the
year
was
supposed
to
be
jumping
joey's,
which
is
a
notable
indoor,
a
trampoline
tenant.
This
is
a
below
grade
space,
which
is
pretty
enormous
and,
according
to
ownership,
is
now
virtually
unleashable
because
of
the
effects
of
the
pandemic.
M
Suite
is
not
ideal
in
the
current
climate
with
the
the
airborne
pandemic,
so
we
think
the
the
market,
four
percent
vacancy
rate
is
just
frankly
far
too
low.
If
you
look
the
three
year
average
on
page
five
and
six
of
our
submission
see
the
three
year
average
is
actually
over
ten
percent
for
this
entire
suite
too.
So
this
isn't
a
new
issue.
M
It's
just
an
exacerbated
issue
because
of
the
pandemic,
but
four
percent
in
any
situation
is
below
each
of
the
past
three
years
of
vegan
city
and
that's
not
even
speaking
towards
the
the
collection
loss
that
they've
suffered
here,
that
it
was
almost
1.2
million
in
bad
debt
expenses
that
have
just
been
written
off
last
year.
So
we
asked
that
the
board
considered
an
updated
vacancy
collection
loss
adjustment
here.
M
The
final
issue
that
we
had
was
the
base
cap
rate,
the
base
rate
of
6.15
used
by
the
county.
Well,
we
think,
is
too
low.
That's
below
what
you
even
see
in
dc,
we
think
deserves
an
adjustment,
so
we
used
a
seven
percent
base
cap
rate
loaded
with
the
tax
rate
to
reach
our
final
indicated
value
of
81.618
million.
M
A
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
miss
roskin
for
the
county.
N
The
morning
board
morning
grant
and.
F
N
N
I
also
analyzed
the
rent
roll
here
and,
if
you
note
down
at
the
bottom,
I
took
a
look
at
I
separate.
I
broke
out
the
tenants,
okay,
tenants
that
were
less
than
ten
thousand
square
feet.
N
What
is
their
their
average
rental
rate,
and
you
can
see
that
at
the
bottom
there,
which
is
over
forty
dollars
a
square
foot
and
then
for
the
the
larger
tenants
it's
near
near
28
dollars
a
square
foot
for
anything
over
over
that
which
there
are
several
large
tenants,
and
I
came
up
with
an
average
rental
rate
of
more
than
33
dollars,
a
square
foot.
Now,
of
course,
I
excluded
the
management
office.
I
didn't
want
to
include
that
in
there.
N
So
if
we
go
back
to
our
summary
page
on
page
three
in
other
cases,
I
I
probably
should
have
done
it
here
and
I
didn't.
I
should
have
shown
an
extraordinary
assumption
because
note
that
note
that
this
owner
is
not
reporting
vacancy.
N
And
if
you
want
to
include,
if
you,
since
the
agent
wants
to
use
thirty
dollars
a
square
foot,
we
can
apply
that
to
the
vacant.
The
vacant
square
footage
at
32
000.
that
comes
out
to
about
985
000.
So
you
want
to
add
that
on
to
their
gpi
and
when
you
do
for
year,
2020
and
when
you
do
that,
that
brings
them
almost
in
line
with
our
egi
for
2000
for
our
january
1,
assessment
of
10
million
for
okay,
we're
comparing
the
egi's.
N
However,
we
went
in
and
took
a
look
at
what
were
the
abatements.
I
calculated
the
abatements
and
looked
at
the
average
rent
and
we
came
up
with
three
dollars
for
a
discount
on
those
abatements.
However,
due
to
the
excess
vacancy,
we
determined
that
we
should
use
thirty
dollars
a
square
foot.
So
if
you
look
at
column
f,
our
revised
column
use
thirty
dollars
a
square
foot
and
once
again
for
the
parking
and
storage
and
pass-through
and
miscellaneous,
we
use
the
actuals
that
they
have
there
and
then
looking
at
our
excess.
N
Not
as
our
expenses
excuse
me,
our
expenses
they're
a
little
bit
higher
than
2020..
So
we
came
up
the
revised
value
of
102
million
927
500..
N
We
believe
that
column
f
best
represents
the
current
condition
of
the
subject.
I'm
finished.
Thank
you.
H
So
I
wanted
to
add
a
point
so,
as
laurie
was
walking
you
through
how
the
owners
should
have
reported
gross
potential
income,
I
think
she
stated
that
we
were
looking
at
the
egi.
So
I
just
wanted
to
correct
that
part
when
she
was
saying
that
if
you
add
the
potential
revenue
for
that
vacant
space
to
what
they
reported
in
their
2020
ine
for
gpi,
it
would
be
around
10
million
700
000
or
so,
which
is
close
to
what
our
original
2021
assessment
had
of
10
million
eight.
H
H
So
again,
lori
made
adjustments
to
our
projected
income
for
the
property,
taking
consideration
the
cover,
19
abatement
that
was
given
to,
I
believe,
looking
at
the
rent
roll
analysis.
She
did
on
page
five.
Two
tenants
received
code
abatement
in
2020..
H
With
that
information,
she
made
adjustments
to
the
potential
rent
rate
for
this
property
to
account
for
the
covert
adjustment,
excess
vacancy
and
that's
how
we
got
to
the
thirty
dollars
a
square
foot
on
the
rent
rate.
Again,
if
you
have
any
questions,
you
know,
please
ask:
when
you
look
at
the
revised
noi,
I
mean
we're
lower
than
what
they
reported
for
2020
and
that's
the
year
of
covet,
where
they
had
these
rent
loss
and
covert
adjustments
done.
So
I
think
that
should
be
taking
consideration.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board
members.
O
Yeah,
how
much
of
the
jumping
joey
space
is
below
grade.
M
I
I
believe,
all
of
it,
so
that's
also
something
that
I
wanted
to
mention
that
so
jumping
joey's
did
have
a
lease
in
place.
It
was
moved
in
briefly,
if
at
all
for
maybe
a
month
or
two
and
it's
worth
noting
they
were
paying
15
a
foot
for
that
space.
M
So
again,
that
was
something
that
we
considered
in
our
assumption:
the
27
and
a
half
dollars
a
foot
that
would
be
assumed
for
the
the
space
over
at
ten
thousand
dollars
is
just
frankly
that
it's
almost
double
what
you
would
be
able
to
see
here.
That
was
a
pre-pandemic
negotiated
rate
so
that
that's
again
unachievable
in
the
future,
be
between
10
and
15
a
foot,
and
that
was
something
that
we
had
also
considered.
In
our
analysis,
it's
almost
all
below
grade.
K
Related
directly
to
the
first
question,
so
jumping
joey's
couldn't
sustain
itself,
did
they
offer?
Did
they
provide
a
buyout
to
the
landlord
or
we
just
went
away?
What
happened
in
terms
of
dollars.
M
So
there's
a
negotiated
settlement
just
a
fraction
of
their
original
agreed
upon
rent
but
they're,
paying
that
back
slowly
over
a
number
of
years.
I
can
find
this
exact
details
if
you'd
like,
but
there
was
none
of
it
that
was
scheduled
to
be
paid
in
2020
and,
I
think,
beginning
in
mid
2021
pay
it
back
slowly
but
again.
M
That
that's
what
we
have
adjusted
for
in
our
in
our
vacancy
rate,
so
we've
adjusted
the
the
retail
rate
down
to
30,
but
then,
on
top
of
that,
we
think
the
the
vacancy
rate
needs
to
be
more
than
four
percent.
As
the
egi
you,
you
can't
assume
thirty
dollars
a
square
foot
for
that
space
and
you
you
can
assume
that
that
space
would
be
listed
all
frankly.
So.
K
N
Rental
rate
of
30
dollars
a
square
foot
now
keep
in
mind
that's
an
average
of
all
of
the
units
together,
so
you're
talking
about
jumping
joey's
at
15,
and
it
would
be
crazy
to
try
and
run
to
that
30..
Keep
in
mind.
You
have
other
tenants.
This
was
an
average
of
all
the
tenants
together.
Okay,
and
on
top
of
that,
we
applied
the
discount
for
the
abatements
for
year
2020
and
we
even
lowered
it
further
due
to
the
excess
vacancy
and
I'd
like
you
to
keep
in
mind
that
column
f.
N
If
you
look
at
the
noi
is
about
roughly
200
000
less
than
what
2020
reported,
which
should
you
know
that
further
accounts
for
any
excess
vacancy
in
the
property,
and
we
ask
that
you
accept
that
revised
column,
f
value
of
102,
seven
927.
Five
hundred.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
mr
coit.
If
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up
sir.
M
Great
yeah,
thank
you
and
thank
you
laurie.
We
do
appreciate
the
announces
and
the
the
work
that
you
put
in.
We
appreciate
your
considerations,
but
also,
I
would
like
to
note
that
no
irving
mentioned
that
the
bad
debt
wasn't
listed
on
the
ine
forum
and
we'd
like
to
at
least
acknowledge
that
it
was
submitted
just
as
a
note,
and
we
have
included
they
don't
might
not
include
the
assumed
vacancy
loss
in
dollars
accounted
for,
but
they
always
submit
the
rent
roll
as
well
and
draw
attention
to
that
fact.
M
So
the
the
point
of
not
including
the
1.2
million
dollars,
which
was
a
direct
blow
line,
deduction
from
the
noi,
so
the
the
noi
that
you're
stating
there
is
inflated
because
of
the
uncollectible
rent,
but
that
wasn't
included
in
any
of
the
typical
line
item
expenses
just
because
the
owner
wanted
to
file
with
consistency
to
previous
years
in
previous
years.
M
This
has
been
a
nominal
expense
for
the
most
part,
and
now
that
it's
such
a
great
number,
they
they
weren't
exactly
how
to
put
it
in
because
they
didn't
want
to
deviate
from
previous
years
and
cause
any
confusion
with
the
reporting.
But
they
did
notice,
if
I'm
not
sure
if
the
the
board
has
access
to
the
filing,
but
on
right
after
the
rent,
roll
and
the
expenses
page.
M
On
page
six
of
19
of
the
submission,
there
is
a
list
for
the
the
bad
data
expense,
which
is
then
corroborated
with
other
forms
that
we
filed
too.
So
I'd
just
like
to
draw
attention
to
the
fact
that
the
noi
that
we
we've
listed
on
page
five
of
64
in
our
submission,
we
do
deduct
the
the
bad
debt
expense,
which
includes
a
mix
of
base,
rent
reductions
and
abatements
and
and
cam
reductions,
and
it's
6.5
million
when
also
done
so
that's
lower
than
the
counties
and
our
assumptions.
Even
thank
you.
O
I
mean,
I
think,
miss
roskin
did
this
math,
but
I
was
kind
of
doing
it
as
we
went
along
and
testing
a
couple
numbers
on
the
jumpy
joey
space.
But
you
know
I
think
it's
fair
to
discount
that.
But
even
if.
F
O
Put
it
in
the
rent
roll,
you
add
it
into
the
calculations
at
you
know:
five
dollars
a
square
foot
market
rate-
it's
it's
still
29.50
is
the
is
the
average
and
the
county's
using
30..
O
You
know
at
15,
which
is
what
jumping
joey
signed
the
lease
for
in
2020
or
what,
when
they
were
their
lease
was
commencing.
I
think
you
know
that
would,
if
you
put
15
in
it,
takes
it
to
30
55.,
so
the
county's
kind
of
right
in
there,
when
you
average
everything
out
together
and
discount
the
jumping
joey
space.
O
I
guess
the
only
other
thing
I
say
on
that
is
it's
below
grade
space.
It's
definitely
going
to
go
at
a
discount,
but
you
know
it's.
The
determination
was
february
of
this
year,
so
you
know,
give
us
a
give
us
a
year
on
the
market
vacant
and
and
and
come
back
and
tell
us
that
you
couldn't
clear
it
at
15
bucks,
a
foot
and
you
leased
it
at
seven
and
then
that's
that's
what
can
happen,
but
there
are
actually
deals
happening
for
this
type
of
space.
It's
it's!
O
O
A
Okay,
good
good
comments.
I
I
myself,
I
think
mr
roskin
did
a
great
job
on
the
revision.
I
think
the
numbers
right
in
line
with
the
last
three
years,
so
I'm
fine
with
that.
I
don't
know
what
other
folks
think
mr
ratzkin.
K
Yeah,
I
I
thought
a
lot
about
just
what
greg
said,
so
I'm
going
to
strike
that
for
my
comments
and
go
to
my
second
comment,
that
is
on
operating
expenses,
and
this
is
again
to
support
the
department's
final
conclusion
that
the
that
the
operating
expenses
are
based
on
dollars
per
square
foot
of
not
leaseable
area.
The
jump
in
joey's
space
by
definition
costs
the
landlord
little
to
nothing
to
maintain
in
terms
of
operating
expenses,
but
yet
that
square
footage,
which
is
again
two-thirds
of
the
total
square
footage,
is
still
included.
K
Of
course,
as
it
should
be,
but
it's
not
at
grade,
you
don't
have
to
shovel
sidewalks.
You
don't
have
to
figure
out
what
to
do
with
the
roof.
It's
all
that
just
there
and
to
me
it's
kind
of
a
a
bonus
22
to
square
foot
operating
expenses
so
that
that
pumps
up
I'm
sorry
reduces
the
ups.
It
reduces
the
noi
in
an
easy
way.
So,
with
the
averaging
of
the
income
and
the
average
down
of
the
income
average
up
of
the
expenses,
it
seems
to
be
a
pretty
square.
J
Yeah,
I'm
okay
with
the
revised
assessment.
I
think
you
know
overall,
looking
at
all
the
numbers,
the
egi
noise
are
lower
than
2019
2020
and
I
originally
thought
the
original
assessment
was
okay
except
the
expenses.
I
would
have
increased
that,
but
you
know
I'm
okay
with
it
and
I
don't
think
we've
seen
before
that
you
know
we're
going
to
be
deducting
uncollectible
debts
or
you
know
defaults
or
anything
like
that.
So
I
I
I'm
good
with
it.
L
A
Okay,
all
right,
then
I'll
move
to
accept
the
county's
reduced
number
of
102
million
927
500.
of
a
second.
A
A
Mr
warren
and
you
said,
we've
got
the
owner
here
as
well:
okay,
rpc
one
eight
zero,
zero;
three
one,
one
one:
the
property
on
north
beach
street.
Mr
warren,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes,
sir.
C
Thank
you
very
much,
I'd
like
to
direct
the
board
to
page
53
of
141
of
the
assessor's
response
memo.
This
is
the
cortland
towers
apartment.
It
is
consistent
of
one
tax
rpc.
It
is
originally.
It
was
originally
assessed
at
219
million,
968,
000
or
382
500
a
unit.
The
county
is
recommending
to
revise
that
value
down
to
199
million
158
300
is
the
proposal,
and
what
we
are
asking
from
the
board
today
is
a
value
of
170
million,
828
000
or
300
000
a
unit
297
000
unit.
This
property
is
a
high-rise
apartment.
C
It
was
originally
constructed
in
1989
at
17
stories
high,
it's
in
the
clarendon
courthouse
submarket,
it's
a
mix
of
one
two
and
three
bedroom
units
I'll
direct
the
board.
Now,
please,
to
page,
I
believe.
C
This
property
is
very
much
like
randolph
towers
that
we
had
discussed
previously
in
another
case
a
few
weeks
back
about
a
month
ago
and
I'll
leave
my
time
some
time
here
for
the
owner
to
discuss
that
the
situation
which
is
very
similar
to
what's
going
on
here.
But
this
property
has
experienced
a
high
amount
of
vacancy
over
the
last
two
years
in
2019
column
c
you'll
see
that
the
vacancy
was
reported
at
approximately
10
and
in
column
e,
which
is
the
2020
calendar
year.
C
The
property
reported
a
vacancy
of
22.3
so
well
above
the
the
5
market
vacancy
rate
that
the
county
applies
per
their
guidelines
for
high-rise
apartments
in
the
county
and
that's
obviously
had
a
severe
impact
on
the
effect
of
gross
income.
Effective
gross
income
reported
in
2019
prior
to
the
pandemic
was
fifteen
million
seven
hundred
fifty
thousand
that
dropped
to
thirteen
million
six.
C
Oh
nine,
two
fifteen
in
column
e
for
twenty
twenty,
the
column
d,
one
which
is
the
county's
initial
valuation
model
and
based
off
the
original
assessment,
had
the
egi
estimated
at
16
million
268
677
for
both
the
retail
and
the
apartment
components
combined,
that's
higher
than
the
egi
reported
in
any
of
the
last
three
years
by
a
pretty
significant
margin
over
over
almost
500
000
over
500
000,
more
than
2019,
which
is
much
higher
than
the
previous
two
years
again
that
that
egi
dropped.
C
Now
in
their
test
column,
they
did
revise
that
effective
gross
income
to
14
million
837
000,
but
that's
still
approximately
1.3
million
dollars
over
what
the
property
reported
in
effective
gross
income
in
the
most
recent
reporting
year
in
2020.
operating
expenses
is
another
issue.
This
property
reported
operating
expenses
dating
back
three
years
to
25.,
almost
25
and
a
half
percent
in
2018
26.2
in
2019,
and
then
most
recently
27
and
a
half
percent
in
2020..
C
The
the
historical
noi
as
you'll
see
in
the
county's
initial
assessment
was
12
million
52
000
well
above
anything
that
was
reported
each
of
the
last
four
years.
It
was
11.7
million
in
2017,
11.4
million
in
2018,
11.5
million
in
2019,
and
then
dropped
again
due
to
that
vacancy
at
9.85,
9
million
in
2020.,
the
county's,
revised
f1
column
and
test
column
has
a
revised
noi
combined
of
10.9
million,
which
again
is
still
1.1
million.
C
Above
what
was
actually
reported
in
the
most
recent
reporting
year,
the
original
assessment
increase
was
was
approximately
one
percent
increase
from
the
2020
final
assessment.
The
the
total
noi
experienced
the
20
decrease
from
19
to
20..
So
again,
if
you
just
look
at
the
actuals
look
at
the
actual
noi,
the
county
has
made
an
adjustment
in
their
test
column,
but
we're
still
well
above
where
the
property
actually
reported
noi
in
in
2020..
This
property
has
vacancies
similar
to
randolph
towers
and
it's
much
higher.
C
Now
there
there
have
been
and,
and
I'm
sure
the
county
will
stayed
in
their
time
that
their
some
of
these
units
were
were
in
the
process
of
being
modernized,
that's
correct
and,
as
we've
spoken
to
previously,
they've
had
to
do
that
to
keep
up
with
the
market
the
owner
contact
with
the
owner.
Our
greg
raines
is
here
to,
and
he
can
elaborate
a
little
bit
more
on
that
as
well.
P
Yeah
good
morning,
so
we
we
have
been
modernizing
these
units
cortland
towers
in
2020.
We
renovated
approximately
150
apartments.
However,
we
did
not
give
any
120-day
notices.
We
relied
on
the
natural
vacancy
of
the
units
based
on
the
lease
ups
locally,
the
lower
rents
being
offered.
P
We
had
to
offer
concessions
and
much
lower
than
typical
market
rent.
So
again
that
you
know
we,
we
basically
had
vacancies
that
we
had
naturally
and
took
advantage
of
the
time
to
do
the
modernization
of
the
units,
but
we
didn't
force
any
of
this
vacancy.
D
The
the
trend
was
there
in
2019,
where
things
were
getting
worse
and
we
came
to
the
board
last
year
and
did
get
a
reduction
in
and
said
that
and
we're
told
we
kept
saying
that
it's
getting
bad,
it's
bad
as
at
the
value
date
and
the
the
board
asked
to
see
it
and
wanted
to
see
it
for
a
year,
and
now
it's
there
for
a
year,
and
we
can
tell
you
that
2021
income
isn't
much
better.
So
you're
gonna
see
that
as
well.
D
The
the
actual
income
is
nine,
eight,
it's
being
valued
as
if
it's
eleven
and
it
to
get
from
nine
eight
to
eleven
is
going
to
cost
some
serious
money
and
there
is
not
serious
money
anywhere
included
to
do
that
in
any
kind
of
lease
up
deduction.
D
I
know
the
county's
position
is
we
only
do
lease
up
deductions
on
full
buildings,
but
to
get
it
building
from
25
vacant
to
four
percent
vacant
or
five
percent
vacant,
like
the
county's
saying
can
be
done,
is
going
to
cost
significant
money
and
that
should
be
captured
somewhere
we're
using
again
we're
using
essentially
column
e.
We
think
that's
a
a
good
representation
representation
of
the
building
as
of
the
valuation
date,
and
I
think
2021
is
going
to
continue
to
paint
that
picture,
as
did
the
end
of
2019
greg.
You
have
anything
else.
E
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning
board
members
we'll
start
there.
E
We
noted
in
page
31
of
our
packet,
the
appellants
acknowledged
in
2019
that
the
five
percent
increase
in
true
vacancy
from
2018
to
2019
was
caused
by
a
management
decision
to
monetize
their
units.
They
said
yes,
that
was
the
case.
So
let's
not
confuse
economic
vacancy
with
monetization
efforts
by
the
owner.
E
We
asked
that
same
question
again
for
the
2020
report.
How
much
of
the
reported
2020
vacancy
of
22.3
is
attributable
to
renovations
ongoing
at
the
property?
We,
they
replied
back
vacancy
equals
12
market
11
unit
modernization.
E
So
I
found
that
strange,
given
that
I
have
my
fingers
on
the
pulse
of
the
market.
Multi-Family
market,
especially
considering
we've,
had
some
51
appeals
this
year
and
again,
some
600
properties
that
I'm
responsible
for
so
I
took
it
a
opportunity
to
look
amongst
high-rise
multi-family
in
the
direct
vicinity
of
the
subject,
portland
towers,
so
we
looked
at
avalon
courthouse
place.
We
looked
at
courthouse
plaza,
which
we
heard.
Yesterday
we
looked
at
the
palatine
apartments.
We
looked
at
meridian
at
courthouse
commons.
E
True
vacancy
at
avalon.
Courthouse
was
at
five
point:
eight
percent,
true
vacancy
and
concessions
at
palestine
was
four
point.
Six
percent,
true
vacancy
at
courthouse,
which
we
heard
yesterday
was
four
point.
One
percent
now
interesting.
The
meridian
did
report
almost
10,
true
vacancy,
but
that
dropped
by
six
percent
this
year
alone.
So
again,
I
would
give
some
pushback
on
the
idea
that
the
cortland
towers
are
somehow
having
trouble
with
market
vacancy
in
an
area
that
is
not
again.
E
I
remind
the
board
too,
that
arlington
grew
by
14
since
the
last
census.
That's
over
a
hundred
thousand
people
in
the
county,
26
square
miles
even
less
in
the
north
side,
even
less
in
the
courthouse
clarendon
area.
So
I
would
get
pushed
back
to
the
idea
that
this
is
not
something
that's
going
on
with
the
market
as
opposed
to
just
at
this
property.
E
Correspondingly,
we
saw
growth
and
gross
potential,
so
all
of
the
elements-
retail
parking,
other
rubs,
4.4
and
17
1.3
and
18
6,
19
and
again
2.9
a
pandemic
year.
Another
way
to
look
at
that
is
over
the
last
four
years.
Apartment
revenue
alone
has
grown
by
10.5
percent,
just
apartment
revenue,
gross
potential
has
grown
by
10.5
percent
in
the
last
four
years
as
well.
E
Again,
this
kind
of
gives
evidence
to
the
idea
of
capital
improvements,
either
adding
life
to
the
property
itself,
long
liveness,
if
you
will
or
adding
the
potential
for
return
on
investment
again,
we
acknowledged
and
the
appellants
acknowledged
that
the
renovations
started
in
2019.
We
saw
an
uptick
of
five
percent
as
they
acknowledged
from
the
stabilized
four
percent
that
they
saw
in
17
and
in
18.
E
and
in
19
again
we
saw
increases
in
effective
gross
17
18
19..
We
did
see
a
drop
off
in
20
and
again
that
is
due
to
the
increase
in
vacancy
of
well
over
10,
but
again
that
matches
with
the
vacancy
that
was
reported
by
the
owner
as
due
to
modernization,
efforts
we'll
look
at
operating
expenses,
contrary
to
what
the
opponents
testified,
while.
H
E
Using
percentages,
if
you
look
at
the
actual
numbers,
we're
well
ahead
of
what
was
put
out
by
the
owner
from
4.2
million
projected
in
2021
down
to
3.9
in
our
vision,
which
is
still
180
000
higher
than
what
was
achieved
at
the
property
in
real
dollars.
E
So,
if
we're
looking
at
again
a
stabilized
picture,
I
think
it's
important
to
to
look
back
at
the
historical
operations
at
the
property
when
it
was
stabilized
in
17
and
18..
Note:
the
increase
in
income
year
over
year
every
year
of
a
year,
note
the
stabilization
up
until
the
time
of
modernization,
efforts
by
the
owner
note
in
our
revision.
E
We
wanted
to
make
efforts
to
go
through
the
rent,
roll
and
noted
there
are
17
line
items
that
cover
everything
from
one
bedrooms:
one
bedroom
modernized,
one
bedroom's
furnished
two
bedrooms:
two
bedrooms
modernized
two
bedrooms
furnished
note
the
extreme
difference
in
how
much
more
they
get
on
their
modernized
units.
This
is
definitively
a
return
on
investment
made.
Speaking
of
that
investment
made,
the
owners
reported
9.3
million
over
the
last
two
years
in
capex,
7.2
million
reported
for
2020
2.1
million
reported
for
2019.,
so
again
definitive
return
on
investment.
E
When
we're
looking
at
our
revision,
columns,
f1
and
f2,
please
note
that
our
potential
gross
income
is
2.4
million
dollars
less
than
what
was
reported
last
year,
2.4
million
dollars
less
than
what
was
reported
last
year.
We
have
to
do
that
to
get
to
a
stabilized
effect
of
gross.
That's
one
thing
that
the
pellets
didn't
talk
about
was
our
efforts
to
not
only
stabilize
the
property
but
note
the
increase
that
they're
getting,
but
after
they
have
to
squash
our
potential
to
get
to
a
stabilized,
effective
gross.
E
Please
note
that
operating
expense
number
is
higher
than
what
was
reported
that
the
by
the
owner
by
over
160
000.
Please
note
that
our
net
operating
income
is
very
much
a
stabilized
number.
If
you
want
to
look
at
18
1920,
if
you
want
to
look
at
just
19
and
20.,
our
number
is
stabilized.
It's
it's
accounting
for
the
increase
in
vacancy,
even
though
again
it
is
due
to
owner
mandated
changes
to
the
property.
E
E
H
H
I
know
many
board.
Members
are
familiar
with
artisan
code
2010
that
was
recently,
I
guess
say,
retired,
but
if
you
applied
before
their
code
was
retired
you're
in
this
program,
the
letter
was
sent
to
them
january
3rd
2018,
saying
that
you
do
qualify
for
this
program.
We
base
their
bottom
line
calculation
off
of
the
2017
assessment,
since
the
inspection
done
by
myself
was
in
2017,
so
their
base
value
for
that
year
was
based
off
an
assessment
of
187
million
six
hundred
eighty
six
thousand
dollars.
H
We
take
the
improvement
value
that
year
say
this.
Is
your
base
value?
You
have
to
increase
value
by
20
in
order
to
receive
any
kind
of
rehab
exemption.
Of
course,
part
of
this
program.
We
wait
for
the
owners
to
contact
us
when
they've
completed
all
these
renovations.
To
say:
hey
we're
done
with
the
renovation:
do
your
post
renovation
inspection
and
calculate
whatever
our
rehab
exemption
will
be.
We
haven't
received
that
notice
yet
because
they're
still
doing
renovations
part
of
the
program,
there
is
no
time
period
on
when
the
renovations
have
to
be
completed.
H
So
since
I
did
renovate
you
know,
renovate
inspect
the
property
2017,
I
am
familiar
with
the
condition
of
that
property
in
2017,
and
I
can
attest
to
the
fact
that
if
you
look
at
their
web
page
now
that
fitness
center
and
the
amenity
spaces
that
they
show
were
not
there
in
2017,
they
even
pointed
out
how
this
property
was
a
dark.
Dungeon
and
people
didn't
want
to
come
to
the
amenity
spaces.
But
if
you
look
at
the
property
now
it's
a
light
field.
H
H
So
this
increase
in
vacancy,
like
chris,
said
they
even
admitted
that
half
of
the
vacancy
that
they
experienced
is
due
to
modernization.
H
It's
been
in
the
plans
or
in
the
works
for
a
while,
and
so
we
think
it's
important
that
the
board
understands
why
we
approach
the
property,
the
way
we
did
in
the
test
and
how
we
consider
the
vacancy
the
gpi
is
much
lower
than
what
they're
reporting,
because
we
have
to
account
for
some
of
that
vacancy,
but
to
say
that
we
have
to
take
the
full
20,
some
percent.
H
L
Trying
to
zero
in
on
the
mic
to
the
talent
you
have
150
in
renovations
at
the
time.
How
long
does
the
renovation
take,
and
you
were
only
doing
it
on
units
that
were
being
vacated
and
their
tenants
moving,
but
how
long
did.
P
Yeah
we
only
natural
vacay
notices
the
units.
If,
if
everything
goes
right,
you
know
a
unit
would
take
three
weeks,
maybe
four
weeks
to
get
done
just
depending
on.
If
the
crews
are
in
order,
you
know
during
covenant.
There
was
a
time
where
we
had
some
work.
You
know
first
couple
of
months
of
cover.
We
had
some
work
stoppages
because
all
the
rules
that
got
put
into
place,
but
we
were
just
adding
vacants
during
that
time,
so
there
was
a
glut
of
vacants
for
them
to
knock
outs.
L
P
We
will
be
done
with
these
unit
renovations
this
summer.
We,
I
think
we
have
around
80
to
100
to
complete.
A
K
I
have
a
smaller
question
on
the
retail
space.
This
is
for
the
department.
The
appellant
has
never
reported
any
pass-throughs
in
that
small
retail
amenity
space,
and
there
probably
are
some
and
in
your
original
assessment,
you
assigned
a
figure
and
then
in
your
test
you
up
that
figure
by
42.
E
The
original
figure
comes,
they
have
a
fairly
loose
relationship.
It's
almost
like
a
handshake
agreement,
as
I
understand
it
with
their
retail
tenant.
That's
either
the
original
one
they've
had
and
they
intend
to
keep
it
that
way.
So
it's
essentially
the
same
rent.
I
believe
we've
used
historically,
and
it
was
just
a
matter
of
capturing
the
the
rest
of
the
pass-through
that
they
reported
for
2020.
They
reported
some
129
000
for
the
year
for
retail.
E
E
So
again,
we
spoke
a
lot
about.
What's
going
on
at
the
property,
there's
really
not
much
contention
on
operating
expense.
It's
the
gross
potential.
The
impedance
numbers
essentially
match
what
was
achieved
at
the
property.
You've
heard
us
say
that
mantra
before
one
year
does
not
assessment.
Make.
Please
look
at
the
stabilization
efforts
made
by
the
county.
Again:
2.4
million
potential
growth
squashed
by
the
county
to
get
to
an
achieved
stabilized
effect,
effective
gross.
E
Million
dollars
over
the
last
two
years
as
far
as
capital
improvements,
so
they've
added
nine
million
dollars
of
value
to
the
property.
Even
given
that
we've
recommended
a
revision
that
reflects
a
six
percent
drop
year
over
year,
much
more
in
line
with
reality
than
the
19
drop
year
of
the
year
that
the
opponents
are
requesting.
We
do
believe
that
the
revision
made
is
prudent.
It's
based
on
historical
operations,
again
2.4
million
dollar
under
projection
of
gross
potential.
E
C
Yes,
as
we've
previously
attested
to
there
is
a
significant
downward
trend,
starting
at
2019
into
2020
and,
as
greg
testified
to
is
expected
to
continue
pretty
dramatically
into
the
next
year.
It's
not
going
to
get
any
any
better.
C
These
monetization
of
some
of
the
units
was
was
done
to
again
remain
viable
and
competitive,
with
the
comparable
markets
or
comparable
properties
and
their
competitors
in
the
area.
The
the
counties,
attested
to
you
know
not
allowing
for
the
full
vacancy
that
was
reported
of
24,
but
they're,
not
even
allowing,
for
you
know,
25
of
the
vacancy
they've
just
used
their
5
percent
after
seeing
the
actual
vacancy
that
was
reported
in
2020
they've,
stuck
with
that
five
percent
and
and
have
not
adjusted
upward.
C
Even
though,
as
the
county
indicated,
we
reported
that
the
actual
market
vacancy
is
twelve
percent.
This.
P
Thanks
the
5
vacancy
that's
being
mentioned
in
the
area
is
off.
The
whole
market
was
11
to
12
vacant.
We
all
know
that
and
regarding
a
finance
emotional
appeal
for
this
year,
if
you
guys,
if
I
can
send
an
ine
that
shows
we're
a
million
dollars
down,
I'm
happy
to
sign
it.
So
it's
not
emotional,
it's
a
financial
fact.
That's
it.
C
Again,
as
the
board
board
has
mentioned
in
previous
cases
as
we
brought
forth
before,
the
these
properties
are
assessed
annually
and
again,
I
think
it's
important
to
look
at
what
the
the
property
did
in
the
most
recent
reporting
year,
which
is
vacancy
and
and
the
pandemic,
had
a
serious
effect
and
that
downward
trend
is
expected
expected
to
continue.
Thank
you.
O
I
think
the
county's
pretty
close,
the
one
thing
that
just
still
jumps
out
as
as
probably
off
a
little
bit
is
the
expenses.
Were
you
know
if
you
look
at
the
operating
year,
2020
we're
talking
about
over
20
vacancy
and
the
expenses.
O
Were
you
know
three,
three,
seven,
three,
eight,
you
know
that's
going
back
into
2018
expenses,
where
I
think,
if,
if
it
was
a
a
building
with
five
percent
vacancy,
it's
probably
going
to
be
closer
to
27,
which
is
you
know,
going
to
be
about
4
million
in
expenses.
O
So
just
given
that
19
was
4.1
million.
I
don't
think
anybody
believes
the
trend
has
been.
Expenses
are
going
down
in
any
of
these
other
properties.
So
I
would,
I
would
support
using
27
for
the
expenses
on
the
county
test.
K
If
it
takes
a
month
to
turn
over
and
vacant
season
during
the
renovation
period
are
are
relatively
higher
than
its
neighbors,
which,
by
the
way,
aren't
on
busy
streets,
both
north
south
and
east
west,
then
I
think
that
that
either
the
the
vacancy
and
concessions
dollar
number
needs
to
go
up,
or
maybe
more
cleanly,
based
on
craig's,
now
greg's
analysis
that
the
operating
expenses
might
ought
to
go
up
and
to
cover
that
as
a
wash
because
they're
also
viable.
K
But
again,
if
we
took
six
months
through,
you
know,
units
or
off
the
market
for
six
months,
then
of
course
there's
on
vacancy.
But
it's
not
much.
I
kept
thinking
about
you
know
if
they
didn't
renovate
the
unit.
How
long
would
be
off
the
market
as
vacant?
And
of
course
we
don't
know
that
it's
not
a
long
repair
time,
it's
very
short
and
they're
still
vacant,
even
when
doing
better.
So
again,
an
easier
way
is
maybe
support,
greg's
legitimate,
take
on
this
through
operating
expenses.
A
Well,
I
can
tell
you
where
I
went
on
this.
I
don't
know
whether
I'll
have
support
for
it,
but
you
know
my
problem
is
with
the
test.
I
think
it's
still
a
million
dollars
over
what
they
did
last
year,
and
so
you
know
I
tend
to
look
at
the
appellants
numbers
and
I,
like
the
appellant's
numbers,
I
think
they're,
in
line
with
how
it's
performing
right.
A
Now
it's
going
to
probably
be
a
couple
of
years
of
this
renovation
with
a
lower
income,
and
you
know,
we've
said
it
before
we
assess
every
year,
and
so
if
it
goes
back
up
next
year,
which
it
doesn't
sound
like
it's
going
to
it'll
go
back
up
next
year.
The
only
thing
I
disagreed
was
with
the
cap
rate,
so
I
took
column
g1
the
appellate
number
and
used
the
counties
5.45
and
then
subtracted
out
the
personal
property
and
added
in
the
retail,
and
I
end
up
at
179,
567
2.
L
F
J
O
I
think
the
problem
with
doing
what
you
did
there
is
that
the
vacancy
is
so
high
in
that
appellate
pro
forma,
that
you
know
a
market,
a
market
participant
looking
at
the
value
of
this
building
is
not
going
to
look
at
that
vacancy
and
cap
it
at
25,
long-term
vacancy
and
just
say
hey.
This
is
what
this
building
the
best
it's
going
to.
Do
it's
a
temporary
thing,
so
it
would
be
more
of
a
below
the
line,
deduction
that
would
probably
get
closer
to
the
county's
number.
O
Just
renovation
yeah,
you
know,
I
don't
think
that
the
the
view
of
the
arlington
county
multi-family
market
has
yet
gone
to
a
10
vacancy
factor
in
office.
Absolutely
it's
above
that.
If
you
ask.
F
O
Bank,
what
should
my
vacancy
and
collection
losses
be
because
I
want
to
finance
this
office
building
they're
going
to
be
like
well,
what
is
it
15,
20
percent
in
the
county?
So
but
for
multi-family?
It's
still
five
percent.
I
mean
that's
what
everybody's
using
that's,
what
buildings
are
being
valued
at,
so
I'm,
okay
with
not
adjusting
the
vacancy.
O
J
And
what
was
27
percent
of
that
27
percent
of
that
is
three
million
nine.
Seventy
two
eight
twenty
two
yeah.
J
So
the
value
on
the
apartments
that
I
come
up
with
is
one
ninety
seven
zero,
eight
679.
J
J
A
Know-
and
I
don't
want
to
have
it-
go
back
to
the
county,
so
the
original,
so
all
right
would
somebody
like
to
make
a
motion.
O
Go
greg
sure
all
right,
a
motion
to
reduce
the
total
amount
to
197,
808
500
and
that's
based
on
using
27
expenses
on
the
apartments.
D
D
A
Okay,
I've
been
asked
to
take
a
break.
It's
10
32,
so
we'll
take
five
minutes
if
everybody
shut
off
their
cameras
and
microphones
and
be
back
about
10
30
7
10
38..
Thank
you.
A
Yes,
ma'am
just
to
confirm
on
this
next
one.
So
did
you
both
agree
to
282041.
A
N
F
A
When
I
said
we're,
gonna
take
a
break
that
people's
cameras
went
off
off
off.
Before
I
even
finished
talking,
I
was
like
alrighty.
Okay,
we've
got
everybody
back
again
back
to
the
calendar.
In
fourth
case
on
the
agenda
is
economic
unit
340
1202
g,
the
2200
crystal
drive,
the
appellate
and
the
county
have
agreed
to
a
final
number
of
28
million.
204
100..
A
J
A
A
H
A
Okay,
all
right,
I
will
restate
my
promotion-
is
to
accept
the
reduction
of
the
county's
number
of
247
156
600.,
mr
matt
skinned,
you
still,
second,
okay,
all
in
favor,
aye,
okay,
that's
unanimous,
that's
reduced
and
then
the
last
one
rpc
economic
unit,
one
six,
zero
one:
zero,
zero!
Four,
oh
on
north
lynn,
street
I'd
get
a
signed
settlement
agreement
at
128,
320
400.
A
A
A
Chris,
okay,
before
the
board
members
jump
off,
do
we
want
to
set
a
date
for
the
wrap
up?
Can
we
do
it
next
wednesday?
Same
time
I
got
a
yes
from
mr
matskin.
H
A
I
Mary,
this
is
rick.
I
just
want
to
take
a
moment
and
thank
each
and
every
one
of
you
board
members
and
yourself
and
all
the
tax
reps
and
our
especially
our
appraisal
staff.
I
think
everybody
had
a
fine
year
this
year.
Everybody
was
represented
very
well.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
taking
on
this
service
for
the
county.
I
appreciate.
A
Thank
you
and-
and
I
just
really
wanted
to
say-
thank
you
also
to
rosa
I
mean
I
I
don't
know
how
struggled
all
of
these
cases
I
it
was
given
me
angst
for
the
last
six
weeks
of
how
we
were
going
to
do
all
these
cases
and
somehow
I
don't
know
where
they
went
to,
but
they
all
disappeared.
So
I
assume
you
got
a
lot
of
settlement
letters
in
there,
but
deidra
and
irving.
I,
like,
I
said
the
three
of
you,
the
balancing
of
these
last
few
weeks.
A
I
I
just
kept
looking
at
the
numbers
going.
Oh
my
god
we're
going
to
be
here
till
december
doing
these
cases
how
you
got
them
all
to
fit
into
the
schedule
and
then
to
have
the
last
three
settle
at
the
last
minute.
It's
just
like
alrighty,
because
I
was
a
little
worried
when
I
saw
six
on
the
agenda
for
the
last
day,
and
I
thought
oh
geez
we
have,
I
don't
think
we've
done
six.
A
If
we
did,
I
don't
know,
I
mean
it
was
very
rarely
that
we
did
six
and
I
thought
I
hope
we
get
done
by
noon,
but
I
guess
we'll
just
have
to
kind
of
hold
over
and
just
get
them
all
finished.
So
I
appreciate
but
rosa
you're,
always
on
the
back
side
of
it
and
don't
always
get
credit,
but
you
did
an
outstanding
job
this
year.
Thank
you.
She.