►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing October 26, 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
Good
morning
today
is
Wednesday
October
26
2022.
This
is
the
Arlington
County
Board
of
Equalization
hearing.
There
are
four
cases
on
our
agenda
today.
The
first
case
is
RPC
14013022
at
4601,
Fairfax
Drive,
Mr,
Grant
steinhauser
is
here
representing
the
owner,
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
Boston
one
office
building
at
4601,
North
Fairfax
Drive.
It
was
built
in
1985
class
B
office
building
in
the
Boston
center.
It's
approximately
238
000
square
feet
of
rentable
space
and
was
physically
16.32
vacant.
As
of
January
1
2022..
B
The
big
issue
at
this
property
is
that
you
have
a
GSA
tenant,
which
is
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security,
as
the
anchor
tenant
occupying
approximately
32
percent
of
the
building.
B
B
This
has
been
extremely
public.
There's
been
lots
of
articles
about
it
and
the
owner
is
a
100
sure
that
this
tenant
is
leaving
they
have.
As
a
result.
They
have
tried
to
sell
this
property,
so
everyone
could
please
click
to
page
165.
B
Of
the
Boe
memo,
I,
don't
see
the
page
numbers,
but
if
you're
in
Adobe
or
something
just
the
165th
page,
it
should
be
a
jol
summary
of
initial
offers
from
February
2nd
2022
on
the
next
page.
Is
the
status
update
it
talks
about
the
offering
memorandum
that
launched
on
October
27th
2021.
They
contacted
66,
200,
qualified
individuals,
89
confidentiality
agreements,
etc,
etc.
They
had
three
written
slash
verbal
offers,
which
can
be
summarized
on
page
167..
B
It
was
the
owner's
intent
to
actually
accept
the
original
offer
that
was
made
and
they
accepted
the
first
one
because
the
buyer
fell
out.
They
accepted
the
second
one.
The
buyer
fell
out,
they
accepted
the
third
one.
The
buyer
fell
out
currently
they're
trying
to
still
trying
to
sell
this
property
and
they
haven't
gotten
any
any
additional
offers
outside
of
the
low
40s
So.
B
That
obviously
creates
a
huge
issue
here,
as
the
property
is
assessed
for
over
76
million
dollars,
a
massive
difference
than
what
the
property
you
know
would
sell
for
on
the
open
market.
You
look
through,
you
know,
sort
of
the
valuation
provided
you
know
in
the
in
the
in
the
OM
by
jll.
You
know
you
can
see
the
in
the
leasing
assumptions.
The
renewal
probability
on
the
GSA
is
is
marked
as
zero
percent,
and
you
know
that's
perceived
to
be.
B
You
know
one
of
the
biggest
reasons
why
this
building
is
selling
for
you
know,
or
it
would
sell
in
the
40s
or
low
50s,
there's
a
massive
amount
of
lease
up
costs
that
has
to
be
counted,
accounted
for
by
any
type
of
buyer,
so
sort
of
bringing
that
back.
You
know
to
our
to
our
income
analysis
and
we
also
provided
an
appraisal
that
the
the
property
owner
had
had
done
by
valbridge
Associates.
That
starts
on
page
72,
and
you
can
see
the
indicated.
Value
is
52
million
in
that
appraisal.
B
And
so
just
tying
back
to
sort
of
how
we
addressed
it
in
our
income
approach,
which
can
be
seen
on
page
55.,
we
thought
most
of
the
assessors
income
assumptions
were
Fair.
We
use
a
slightly
higher
expense
ratio,
we
use
the
higher
cap
rate.
I
wish
you
feel
supported,
and
we
do
try
and
account
for
some
of
that
lease
up
cost,
which
is
likely
well
north
of
20
million.
We've
only
accounted
for
it
looks
like
TI's
and
leasing
commissions
at
a
total
of
9.3
million.
B
If
you
look
at
the
about
the
jll
broker's
opinion
of
value
and
the
and
the
appraisal,
the
lease
of
costs
are
really
well
over
20
million,
but
obviously
some
of
that
needs
to
be
discounted
back
to
it
to
present
value.
So
this
assessment
is
obviously
an
issue.
It's
significantly
higher
than
the
owner
is
able
to
get
for
the
property.
In
fact,
they
told
me
to
tell
the
county
if
they
think
it's
worth
76
million
dollars,
they
could
have
it
for
76
million
dollars
or
75
or
74
or
whatever.
The
proposed
assessment
is.
B
This
is
an
issue
we've
seen
in
other
assessments.
Other
properties
that
have
sold
I
think
Arlington
center
was
one
that
sold
in
the
50s
50
million
dollar
range
and
was
assessed
in
the
70
million
dollar
range
and
it's
sort
of
the
Assessor's
inability
to
account
for
future
release
of
costs
in
their
model
that
is
causing
this
issue.
B
I
know
that's
a
lot.
I
could
go.
I
could
talk
about
this
one
for
a
long
time,
but
I
think
I
hit
most
of
the
main
main
facts
and
I'll
I'll
rest
at
this
time.
B
C
Yes,
thank
you
good
morning
for
this
case.
We
did
look
at
the
points
that
Mr
steinhauser
had
pointed
out.
As
of
the
data
valuation,
we
have
38
863
square
feet
vacant
on
the
property
and
that's
not
including
the
GSA
tenant
lease
that
Mr
steinhauser
pointed
out.
We
did
some
digging
actually
and
looked
at
that
new
campus
that
they're
proposing
for
consolidation.
C
It
looks
like
that
they're
having
issues
with
funding,
so
the
proposed
date
that
I
see
in
a
news
article
is
2026
proposed,
moved
in
they're,
seeking
more
funds
and
the
Congress
hasn't
appropriated
the
funds
that
they
need.
So
we
do
see
that
this
lease
may
be
extended.
D
C
Optimistic
that
tenants
can
be
placed
in
in
the
next
three
years
or
under
contract
to
have
a
lease
on
the
property.
C
C
C
It's
a
medical
building
built
in
1988,
173
814
square
feet,
sold
in
July
2021
and
is
at
288
per
square
feet
at
76
percent
least
the
project
that
for
the
DHS
has
been
like
a
decade
long
project,
there's
some
reservations
with
the
Park
Service
saying
that
the
the
property
will
hinder
some
resources
and
may
affect
future
amendments
in
DC,
so
they're
having
some
issues
with
the
the
project.
C
So
it
is
the
County's
determination
that,
as
valued
originally
also
with
the
test
or
the
revision
at
75
million
187
300
is
a
reasonable
assessment.
Given
the
comps
that
we
see,
given
the
likelihood
that
they
may
have
to
extend
the
lease
and
we're
pretty
optimistic
that
they
may
find
a
tenant
within
the
next
three
years,
you
know
we
see,
you
know,
leases
come
and
go.
C
We
can't
really
foretell
the
future
as
far
as
you
know
what
might
happen
with
this
property,
but
we
do
see
the
sales
that
that
show
significant
bracketing
for
this
property.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
E
I
have
two
questions
around
the
the
periphery
of
this
major
issue.
First,
one
is
for
the
I,
don't
know
who
could
answer
I'll
ask
the
department,
but
it
may
be
the
opponent's
a
better
respondent.
The
the
effective
year
is
1985
is
built
in
1985..
There
have
been
no
marked
upgrades
at
all
in
this
place
and
35
years.
E
Okay,
I'm
guessing
that
the
the
cap
rates
too
too
high
but
I,
don't
know
that
the
other
question
for
the
appellant
absolutely
is
in
Collins
a
B
and
C
are
those
actual
those
numbers
actual
income
and
don't
account
for
vacancies.
E
They're
actuals,
so
where
is
the
county?
Any
column?
E
f
f
is
also
accounting
for
four
go
unrest.
Okay
I
mean
that
that
makes
the
egi
stick
out
a
little
bit,
but
it's
appropriate.
Thank
you.
F
C
It
was,
it
was
part
of
the
co-star
report
alluded
to
the
the
sales
in
the
area.
It.
D
F
On
oh
wait
is
this
at
25
or
26
of
214.
G
F
C
Paige
yeah
it's
on
page
26,
but
it
doesn't
have
them
listed
there.
Some
reason.
F
B
The
first
I've
I've
heard
anything
about
them
and
I
also
don't
see
them
in
the
in
the
Assessor's
Boe
memo.
So.
F
Okay
and
you've
included
the
whole
appraisal
for
the
county
to
be
able
to
review
in
your
packages.
Yes,
okay,
thank
you.
That's
all.
C
Sure,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
The
appraisal
is
a
least
fee
appraisal.
It
says
that
on
the
actual
appraisal,
it
doesn't
account
for
the
full
bundle
of
Rights
in
a
fee,
simple
appraisal,
so
I
would
actually
discount
or
not
take
that
in
consideration.
As
far
as
market
value
again,
if
it
was
a
fee,
simple
appraisal,
it
would
come
up
with
a
different
value.
C
So
I
don't
think
that
it's
relevant
for
this
case
again
we're
talking
about
the
GSA
lease
that
is
three
years
from
now,
and
you
know
given
how
it's
been
going
with
that
project.
It's
been
a
decade-long
project,
Congress
hasn't
given
the
the
funds
needed
and
I
think
that
they'll
indefinitely
have
to
extend
the
lease.
As
of
the
data
value,
you
know
we're
capturing
it,
as
is
at
38
863
square
feet
vacant.
We
did
come
up
with
a
different
value
than
initially.
C
We
asked
that
the
board
confirm
the
75
million
187
300..
Thank
you.
B
Yeah,
absolutely
so
I
mean.
Obviously
the
big
issue
here
is
that
you
know
fair
market
value
is
supposed
to
be
what
a
property
would
trade
for
On
the
Open
Market
willing,
seller,
willing
buyer
I
mean
this
property
went
to
Market
it
was.
It
was
advertised
by
one
of
the
largest
brokerage
firms
in
the
area.
They
brought
it
to
every
Institutional
Investor
in
the
area
they
received
a
summary
of
offers.
We
provided
the
summary
of
offers.
It
was
over
20
million
dollars
below
what
the
proposed
assessment
is
was
the
highest
offer.
B
B
The
assessor
hasn't
given
any
weight
to
that
at
all,
which
it's
extremely
confusing
to
us.
That's
really
the
biggest
issue.
I
mean
we've
just
had
a
court
case
where
the
GSA
tenant
was
actually
staying
in
the
property,
but
there
were
going
to
be
lease
up
costs
for
them
to
stay
and
the
and
the
expert
witness
that
the
county
put
forward
accounted
for
lease-up
costs
below
the
line,
even
though
they
were
still
in
the
building
the
same
thing
here,
except
we
know
that
they're
actually
leaving
gotta
be
a
better
way.
A
H
I'll
I'll
share
what
I
do
know,
there's
another
building
that
has
the
same
situation
with
GSA
leaving
and
that's
down
in
Rosalind,
and
my
daughter
has
that's
her
expertise.
That's
all
she
does
and
she
says
that
this
relocation
is
absolutely
going
to
happen.
She
said
it
is
behind
schedule,
and
so
she
said
what
what
GSA
will
do
is
they'll,
just
simply
condemn
and
so-
and
she
says
that
causes
huge
problems
for
property
owners
and
they're
actually
starting
to
go
to
court
on
some
of
these
in
some
of
these
instances.
H
But
GSA
will
they
need
six
more
months
and,
let's
say
the
landlord's
released.
They
just
condemn
the
six
months
and
it's
caused
a
lot
of
problems,
but
she
said:
that's
that's
what
they're
doing
you
know.
This
is
one
of
the
few
instances
where
it
seems
like
you
know.
The
owner
always
goes,
you
know,
indicates
a
lesser
value.
Knowing
that
there'll
be
a
compromise,
maybe
somewhere
in
between
on
this
one
I
just
think
it's
worth
the
value.
H
The
54
900,
54
million
900.
I,
think
that's
an
accurate
figure.
E
H
And
I
know
about
PSA:
GSA
is
going
and
so
is
insight.
That's
Rick
hausler.
E
I
mean
this
is
going
to
happen.
I
I
buy
it.
We
don't
know
the
future.
If
this
was
going
to
happen
this
calendar
year
after
the
data
value,
I
would
still
give
it
big
weight
and
put
a
lot
of
money
below
the
line
for
lease
up
costs,
because
it's
a
big
chunk
of
the
building,
which
already
has
vacancy
issues.
E
But
it's
not
this
year,
it's
not
next
year,
it's
not
the
year.
After
probably
it
isn't
the
year
after
and
I
I'm
on
the
Department's
side.
E
Three
years
is
a
long
time
to
lease
up
now
they're
going
to
have
lease
up
costs,
but
all
buildings
have
lease
up
costs,
there's
always
churn,
but
not
as
big
chunks,
but
they
got
three
years,
maybe
four
up
to
four
years
to
absorb
it
and
they're
gonna
have
to
pay
commissions
and
TI,
and
all
this
good
jazz
that
they
know
and
love
and
I'm,
just
I
I
would
like
to
be
sympathetic
and
I
do
provide
some
weight
to
the
market.
What
the
free
market
says
this
thing
is
worth
but
I'm.
E
You
know
if,
if
we
just
said
what
the
free
market
says
it's
worth,
then
we
would
need
assessors.
Would
we
we
just
have
every
building
every
year,
go
up
for
sale
and
see
what
people
get
and
the
highest
bid
is
the
assessment
and
I
just
don't
think
that's
what
the
legislature
intended
they
said,
give
some
what's
what's
the
word
influence
on
some
free
market
value,
but
not
that's.
H
J
H
D
K
I'm
I'm
with
Ken
I
think
this
is
something
that
you
know
for
purposes
of
Equalization.
With
looked
at
this
issue
before
and
even
with
buildings
that
have
less
time
leftovers,
you
know
and
we
haven't
really
considered
any
deductions
below
the
line
for.
D
K
Years,
it's
three
years
and
like
like
simply
in
the
past,
used
to
say
you
know
anything
can
happen,
they
can
re-rent
it.
They
can
sell
it.
They
can,
but
at
this
point
to
give
a
credit
or
to
just
go
with
the
offers
that
they
received
based
on
a
GSA
leads
I,
don't
I
don't
really
buy
it.
To
be
honest,
I
think
this
is
just
too
long
of
a.
H
H
It's
two
things:
Ken,
like
we
had
a
property
in
Fairfax
and
Water
Authority
made
it
known
I'm,
going
to
condemn
this
property
and
So
my
poor
guy.
He
couldn't
he
could
at
least
every
tenant.
Well,
the
Water
Authority
is
going
to
condemned
I
would
at
least
right.
F
I
mean
next
year,
this
building,
without
a
doubt,
is
worth
below
50
million
dollars
on
January
1st,
that's
three
months
from
now.
Without
a
doubt,
they
have
no
buyer
and
they
got
the
best
brokerage
firm
out
there
listing
it
and
hammering
the
phones
and
trying
to
find
somebody
that
can
raise
the
money
to
buy
this
building
from
them.
At
you
know,
48
47
million
or
whatever
Grant
said,
was
kind
of
like
the
last
offer
they
considered
so
I
have
no
problem
going
to
the
appraisal.
E
J
J
But
I'm
very
sympathetic
to
the
to
do
to
the
appellant,
but
I
just
don't
know
what
to
do
and
I
hate
to
say
it.
But
what's
going
to
happen
is
it
will
sell
and
it
may
sell
at
that
48
or
45
even
yeah,
and
then
we're
going
to
look
at
this
thing
and
say:
okay,
here's
what
the
market
said
it's
worth,
then
the
county
is
going
to
sit
there
and
say
yeah.
Here's
where
the
rents
and
numbers
are
so
they're
going
to.
J
H
I
D
H
F
Yeah
I
mean
at
least
they
put
the
cops
in
here.
You
can
look
at
them
right.
The
sail
pumps
are
on
page
123,
124
125,
126,
127s,
128,
129
130.
They
got
a
picture,
they
got
the
address
they're
in
Arlington
County
right
I
mean
you.
Can
you
can
do
your
homework
and
go
through
these
sales
times?
If
you
don't
buy
the
the
Appraiser's
opinion
of
value,
you
could
just
look
at
the
comps
and
make
your
own
opinion.
E
F
It's
nice,
it's
tall,
it
just
happens
to
be,
or
no
buyer
at
50
50
54
million
dollars.
So
where
does
the
buyer?
Where
does
the
market
intersect
right,
price
right,
I,
I?
Think
as
of
January
1,
the
best
bet
is
probably
to
go
with
the
appraiser
as
of
next
year.
I
mean
that
buyer
might
be
40
million
if
there
is
one
or
that
just
might
just
see
this
property
up
at
auction.
K
Well,
in
the
past,
we
never
consider
any
changes
to
the
assessment
based
on
offers.
You
know
we've
had
properties
done,
so
you
may
have
listed
it
before
they
have
taken
them
out
of
the
market,
we're
interested
in
and
but
based
on
offers
we
haven't
made.
We
never
made
a
decision,
we
only
made
decisions
based
on
sales
and.
F
K
It's
only
for
the
least
part
of
the
where.
F
H
Think
they
mean
the
ability
at
least
have
to
others.
Yeah
yeah,
see
I,
think
Jose,
I
think
you're
right,
except
that
this
is
the
government
this
time
and
we
know
for
a
fact,
it's
going
to
leave
and
we
know
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
lease
that
space
because
no
one's
going
to
lease
it
because
they
don't
know
when
they're
going
to.
J
E
E
I
I'm
not
I,
don't
know
that
I'm
all
that
optimistic,
that
they're
going
to
absorb
and
get
up
to
95
vacancy
anytime.
But
that's
that
that's
part
of
the
deal.
It's
part
of
our
calculation
again
I
see
the
the
appraisal
and
the
offers
as
an
influence
and
again,
why
I'm
trying
to
get
numbers
to
tell
me
it's
60
something
million
but
I
can't
in
good
conscience.
Do
it
so
and.
E
A
J
E
Get
a
number
that
would
reduce
the
the
I,
don't
see
how
to
get
the
bottom
line.
I
don't
know
how
to
get
there
because
they've,
the
the
Departments
up,
the
total
expenses
they've
reduced
the
expected
vacant
office
square
footage
per
square
foot
from
what
they're
actually
achieving
today
and
the
department
seems.
J
J
F
Yeah
I
mean
it's
not
a
it's,
not
a
seven
cap
on
on
in
place
income
with
with
taxes
excluded
from
operating
expenses.
That's
not
realistic!
Anyway.
What
would
you
see.
F
F
All
right,
there's
also
one
thing:
one
point
is
the
report,
unfortunately,
is
February
2nd
2022
on
from
jll.
But
if
you
look
at
the
dates,
this
thing
was
launched
in
October
and
and
they've
been
kind
of
receiving
rolling
offers
since
December
of
last
year.
So
you
know
I
think
a
court
would
probably
consider
this
valid.
As
of
January
1.
The
fact
that
these
honors
were
kind
of
enhanced
by
January
1.,
even
though
the
report
is
dated
February
7.
E
A
To
follow
up
what
Greg
had
just
said,
if
he
took
the
County's
revised
column,
let
me
see
what,
on
it
f
and
use
the
nine
percent
cap
rate.
It's
59
million
314.
J
E
A
F
A
E
A
H
Let
them
rule
what
what
is
this
value?
Mary
the
appraiser
used
a
cap
rate
of
8.5
and
that
comes
out
to
62.
80
803-505.
Why
don't
I
throw
Apache
if
there's
any
support
for
that
figure.
H
H
H
F
D
D
E
F
We
would
have
just
because,
because
the
County's
cap
rate
study
is
older
than
the
appraisers.
K
D
H
K
E
A
long
time,
but
tempered
by
the
fact
that
these
guys
may
be
unable
to
lease
anything
because
it
can
say,
isn't
ready,
yeah,
that's
that's
the
other
side.
I
agree
with
everything
you
just
said
because
that's
the
first
thing
I
said
right,
but
it's
really
not
three
years
effectively
for
marketing
at
least
purposes.
It's
not
it's
really
only
probably
one
year
or
so
you
know,
until
the
Congress
funds
and
how
to
build
their
building
and
all
this
good
stuff.
So
maybe
that
could
make
us
feel
a
little
bit
more
righteous.
All.
A
Okay,
do
I
have
a
second
on
that
motion,
a
second
by
Mr
Huffman,
all
in
favor,
aye
opposed
okay,
so
it's
five
to
one
and
that's
without
Jose.
The
assessment
is
reduced
to
62
million
803
500,
and
that
is
used
in
the
County's
test
number
and
a
cap
rate
of
eight
and
a
half
percent.
Honestly.
A
B
D
A
Next
up
we
have
Mr
Harmon
and
the
Sprouts.
The
next
case
is
rpc14048012
at
4201,
Wilson,
Boulevard
and
Mr
Harmon.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
L
L
If
you'd
be
so
kind
as
to
direct
your
attention
to
page
four
of
the
appeal,
you
will
see
the
Drea
summary
page
you'll
notice
on
this
page
that
the
four-year
operating
history
lists
negative
noi
for
three
of
the
past
four
years
and
very
low
noi
for
the
fourth
year.
This
is
because
the
property
has
been
largely
vacant
over
the
past
four
years,
anywhere
from
81
percent
up
to
94
vacant.
L
Now,
looking
at
the
test
column
in
the
appellant,
Pro
format
column,
we
can
work
our
way
down,
starting
at
the
top.
First,
please
note
that
the
two
columns
differ
on
effective
gross
income
by
less
than
five
hundred
thousand
dollars.
This
being
the
case,
we
don't
contest
the
County's
revised
effective
gross
income.
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
The
landlord
obligations
associated
with
the
Koch
Institute
lease
total
more
than
25
million
dollars
for
tenant
build
out
alone.
Portions
of
this
lease
are
provided
beginning
on
page
89
of
the
appeal
on
page
94.
The
tenant
Improvement
allowance
required
by
this
lease
is
shown
to
be
over
25
million
dollars.
L
This
is
money
that
the
owner
is
contractually
obligated
to
spend.
As
of
the
data
value,
the
full
amount
of
build
out
was
outstanding.
This
build
out
is
separate
from
the
tenant
improvements
included
on
the
dfl,
since
this
space
is
not
considered
vacant.
As
of
the
data
value,
a
potential
purchaser
valuing
the
property.
As
of
the
data
value,
knowing
that
this
lease
is
in
place
would
deduct
the
outstanding
owner
obligations
for
the
tenant
improvements
below
the
line.
L
L
The
tenant
Improvement
allowance
be
increased
to
110
dollars
per
square
foot
to
reflect
the
recent
leasing
activity
at
the
property
requiring
greater
than
this
intended
improvements
and
the
condition
of
the
vacant
space
being
in
raw
shell
condition
outstanding
owner
obligations
of
25
million
dollars
related
to
the
coke
lease
required
to
build
out
tenant
improvements.
We
request
that
that
be
deducted
below
the
line
and
lost
Revenue
due
to
the
cochlease
not
beginning
until
October
of
2023
of
over
11
million
dollars
also
beat
the
deducted
below
the
line.
M
Just
like
to
point
out
that
that
the
finding
of
the
coke
Leaf
is
considered
a
major
victory
for
this
property
and
the
fact
that
it
doesn't
start
till
2023
has
no
impact
on
this
owner's
ability
to
lease
additional
space,
because
there
is
so
much
vacant
space
at
the
property.
So
I
don't
believe
that
it
should
be
viewed
in
any
way
negatively
that
the
owner
made
the
decision
to
hold
off
and
sign
a
lease
that
started
in
2023
for
a
tenant
of
this
size.
M
It
is
not
atypical
to
have
a
space
that
is
at
least
so
far
into
the
future.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you
for
this
property.
We
did
look
at
the
new
lease
in
question
because
it
was
brought
up
to
us
a
future
lease
in
2023.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
we
did
account
for
it
before
capitalization.
So,
if
you
take
a
look
at
our
column,
F
versus
the
appellons
column
G
we're
at
41
a
square
foot
similar
to
what
the
the
Pelon
is
saying
for
the
leases
in
place.
Now,
if
you
look
at
my
page
six,
it
has
the
breakdown
of
all
the
rents
in
place.
C
This
is
excluding
the
co-please,
so
the
rents
in
place
average
about
forty
five
dollars
and
38
cents.
The
test
or
the
revision
has
the
benefit
of
the
new
lease.
Yet
you
know,
leases
in
a
place
are
much
higher,
so
this
is
like
a
10
deduction
from
their
normal
six
percent
for
the
leases
in
place.
We
do
see
that
you
know
the
co-tenant
is
listed
separately.
We
did
our
best
to
try
to
break
everything
down,
just
as
the
the
appellant
did
in
their
pro
forma,
just
to
give
a
little
more
clarity.
C
As
far
as
you
know,
what
you
know,
rents
are
are
being
achieved,
and
what
do
we
see
as
far
as
the
revision
is
concerned,
so
we
pretty
much
mirror
what
they
have
with
the
exception
of
retail
is
slightly
higher
because
the
the
retail
is
actually
higher.
C
You
know,
that's,
including
the
most
recent
2021
lease
with
El
Rey,
the
rent
roll
showed
28
dollars.
The
agent
provided
a
full
detail
of
the
El
Rey
lease
at
61.10.
C
So
we're
actually
capturing
again
at
52.30
for
the
overall
retail
on
this
property
from
last
year.
This
year
we
have
the
property,
has
undergone
undergone
significant
change
as
far
as
redevelop,
Renovations
I
think
the
board
a
lot
of
the
board
members
were
here
for
that
there
was
a
lease
that
was
set
to
expire
two
three
years
from
the
date
of
valuation,
and
we
did
account
for
that
below
the
line.
Just
to
give
you
a
background
history,
because
that
they
they
had
the
entire
building.
C
At
that
point
now,
with
this
property
from
last
year
this
year
they
did
lease
up
space
and
it
is
supposed
to
lease
or
I
guess
the
the
new
lease
is
supposed
to
commence
in
2023.
C
The
county
is
capturing
all
of
what
it's.
What
is
the
current
condition,
as
of
the
first
of
the
year
at
475
156
square
feet
vacant,
so
that
coke
lease
is
actually
included
in
that
25.
If
we
didn't
know
about
the
cochlease,
this
property
would
still
be
assessed
at
25
before
capitalization,
and
then
the
residual
again
would
be
taken
off
below
the
line
now
what's
different
about.
This
is
again
this
actual
new
lease
is
much
lower
than
what
the
rents
have
have
shown
in
the
rent
roll.
C
So
we're
again
we're
capturing
it
before
capitalization,
not
below
the
line,
because
you
know
in
other
instances
where
we
see
that
a
tenant
is
leaving.
We
would
do
the
same
thing.
What
is
the
the
vacant
square
footage
as
of
the
first
of
the
year,
and
can
we
make
adjustments
below
the
line
based
on
the
tenant
leaving
or
coming
in?
C
So
in
this
instance,
we
did
make
adjustments
accounting
for
the
tenant
coming
in,
if
you,
if
and
if
we
look
at
the
allowed
square
footage,
it's
slightly
different
from
the
calculation
of
the
the
appellant
again,
we
differ
on
the
square
footage
vacant,
I,
believe
there's
some
storage
or
other
space,
that's
included
in
their
calculations
with
respect
to
expenses
at
seven
dollars
a
square
foot.
C
C
We
understand
that
they
may
get
higher
expenses,
but
you
know,
as
of
2021
they're
reporting,
six
dollars
a
square
foot,
you
know
every
year
we
can
assess
and
look
at
that
differently.
If
they,
you
know,
show
an
increase
in
expenses.
We're
happy
to
do
so
as
well.
C
It's
merely
what
was
the
vacancy
as
of
the
first
year,
and
then
we
deduct
out
the
the
coke
lease
and
believe
that
is
all
I'm
open
for
questions
for
now.
Thank
you.
Sorry.
H
On
summary,
see,
let
me
go
to
it:
I
apologize
on
your
operating
year,
2021.
H
C
Right,
correct,
the
leasing
leasing
commissions
were
removed
in
expenses.
That's
that's
how
we
do
it
at.
As
far
as
when
looking
at
the
sales,
the
the
leasing
commissions
are
deducted.
H
Okay,
so
my
question
now
for
the
owner
is
Jordan
is
that
is
the
leasing
commission,
a
one-time
payment
or
spread
out
throughout
the
life
of
the
lease.
M
I,
honestly,
I'm,
really
not
sure
I
will
I
will
I
will
say
that
the
you
know,
in
addition
to
the
coke,
obviously
there's
a
lot
of
other
space.
That's
going
to
need
to
be
leased,
so
there
will
be
a
tremendous
amount
of
leasing
Commissions
in
the
future.
M
We
did
not
deduct
those
below
the
line
and
we
did
not
reflect
them
in
the
rent
on
cope
below
the
line
was
only
the
outstanding
tenant
improvements
as
of
January
1
and
the
rent
loss
attribute
to
the
start
date,
so
the
leasing
commissions
are
not
considered
in
the
taxpayers.
Analysis.
H
H
M
Think
that
you
know
we
have
always
argued
that
leasing
commissions
should
be
considered,
but
the
county
has
and
the
board
has
not
been
using
leasing
commissions,
so
I
had
thought
we
had
deducted
leasing
commissions
from
our
column.
I'm,
not
sure
you.
L
Didn't
we
did
so
Mr
Lawson
that
eight
dollars
and
fifty
cents
in
column
G
that
does
not
include
leasing
commissions,
that
is
based
on
the
sub
market
and
the
adjacent
neighboring
properties?
What
they've
reported
in
operating
expenses?
They
were
I
believe
we
submitted
four
neighboring
properties
on
our
appeal
and
I
can
get
the
page
number
for
you,
but
they
ranged
from
9.42
cents
per
square
foot
all
the
way
up
to
nearly
twelve
dollars.
A
square
foot.
L
They
they
do
not.
We
do
know
that,
and
the
2021
expenses
reported
were
keep
in
mind.
The
property
was
80
vacant
that
year,
so
we're
we're
imputing
income
as
if
it's
only
25
vacant.
We
need
to
impute
operating
expenses
as
if
it
is
also
only
25
vacant.
So
that's
why
it's
higher
we've
we've
grossed
it
up
to
be
reflective
of
a
stabilized
property
in
this
sub-market.
How.
L
M
Mr
Lawson,
if
I
could
just
clarify
as
well
if,
on
page
58
of
the
appeal
is
the
taxpayers
pro
forma
and
you
can
see
that
the
expenses
in
2021
are
at
3769.
M
And
if
you
look
at
page
100
of
the
appeal,
the
expenses
are
5
million
two.
So
our
analysis
does
not
include
the
leasing
commissions
and
Jordan
is
absolutely
correct.
That
we
believe
850
is
the
very
bottom
of
the
amount
that
could
be
would
be
incurred
to
operate
a
building
at
75
occupancy,
it's
probably
much
closer
to
950
or
10..
H
H
E
F
Yeah
just
Jordan,
you
touched
on
the
difference
in
square
footage
for
operating
expenses.
You've
got
585,
750
Rob's
got
570,
735
I.
Think
so
there's
a
difference
of
like
15
000
square
feet.
Can
you
just
maybe
explain
again
to
the
board
because
I
think
that's
significant,
you
know
I've
been
in
the
building
and
there's
a
big
Atrium
with
plants
and
things
and
I
think
it's
really
easy
to
probably
miscount.
What's
got
to
be
the
landlord
maintain
spaces,
and-
and
so
you
just
explain
kind
of
what
that
15
000
square
foot
difference
is.
L
Yes,
sir,
absolutely
so
of
that
15
000
square
foot
difference,
almost
thirteen
thousand
of
it
is
related
to
a
conference
center.
This
property
signed
many
new
leases
in
2021
and
as
part
of
those
new
leases,
they
required
this
large
conference
facility.
I
I,
don't
believe
it's
all
one
room
I,
believe
it's
a
few
conference
rooms,
but
it's
all
on
one
floor
and
it
looks
you
know
it's
a
very
nice
conference
facility,
so
that's
13
000
of
the
difference.
Okay,
the
remaining
difference
is
the
fitness
center.
L
E
E
C
C
We
would
actually
increase
the
vacancy
calculation
below
the
line,
so
we
give
them
added
rent
loss,
tis
and
leasing
Commissions
in
this
case,
Coke
is
coming
into
the
building,
so
we're
deducting
from
what
we
had
on
the
first
of
the
year,
so
that
the
opposite
of
what
we've
seen
this
year
so
with
the
coke
lease
coming
in
we're
deduct
we're
removing
that
from
the
calculation
because
they
are
actually
leased
they're
coming
into
the
building,
but
they're
actually
getting
the
benefit
in
addition
to
that
before
capitalization
in
the
rents
that
we're
using.
C
So
when
you
look
at
the
the
projected
numbers
again,
it's
a
10
decrease
from
our
normal
six
percent.
L
E
Sure,
okay,
now
again,
thank
you
for
the
appellant
two
very
late
questions.
How
much
you
alluded
to
there
is
some
vacant
space
in
the
building.
That
is
really
raw.
Just
look
around
it's
a
bunch
of
cement
how
what
square
feet
out
of
the
total
square
feet?
Is
that
we're
not
counting
Coke,
I
trust
so.
L
There
it
it's
almost
all
of
it:
Mr
matskin
there
is
out
of
the.
Let
me
see
the
total
vacant,
so
total
vacant,
including
Coke,
was
475
as
of
the
first
of
the
year.
If
we
take
Coke
out
you
get
to
100
or
I'm,
sorry,
you
get
to
200
the
excess
vacancy
above.
The
25
allowance
is
about
150
000
square
feet,
as
you
can
see
on
the
dfls
of
that
150
000
square
feet
of
vacant
about
144
000
is
in
raw
shell.
Okay,
only
5700
has
been
built
down
at.
M
I
E
You
and
and
oh
actually,
that
that's
reciprocal
of
my
other
question,
that's
exactly
what
I
wanted
to
know.
Thank
you.
E
On
that
for
for
operating
expenses
calculations,
how
many
in
this
for
the
Department,
how
many
square
feet
you
have
three
nine
nine
five
million!
How
many
square
feet
is
that
at
seven
dollars.
C
C
Thank
you.
This
property
had
undergone
a
significant
amount
of
renovation.
I
was
looking
for.
The
actual
dollar
figures
spent
to
say
that
that
the
vacant
spaces
and
show
condition
I
I,
don't
recall
that
during
the
inspection
you
know
this,
this
project
has
been
in
the
process
of
you
know,
leasing
space,
and
they
have
done
so
successfully
this
year
in
2021
and
for
the
project
to
only
increase
about
24
based
on
the
entire
renovation
and
the
the
influx
of
leases.
C
There's
the
entire
office
portion
has
been
leased
at
72
477
square
feet
and
with
the
addition
of
coke,
that's
a
another
significant
amount
of
lease
in
place
to
give
you
an
idea:
the
sister
property
we're
valuing
at
46
dollars
for
leases
in
place
and
then
comparable
with
the
vacant
office
per
square
foot
at
36
dollars
a
square
foot.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
L
The
income
is
based
on
the
leases
in
place,
we've
provided
I
believe
seven
or
eight
of
these
leases
in
the
appeal.
Those
are
beginning
on
page
63
of
the
appeal.
Yes,
the
neighboring
property
May
lease
up
for
more
this
property
has
the
least
what
was
used
by
the
assessment.
That's
what
was
used
by
US.
We
don't
disagree
on
the
income.
The
issues
are
the
operating
expenses
at
seven
dollars
per
square
foot.
The
county
has
used
2021
actual
as
justification
for
that
low
rate
2021.
L
This
property
was
only
20
percent
lease
if
we're
valuing
it
as
if
it's
75
percent
leased.
Those
expenses
need
to
go
way
up.
We've
provided
neighboring
properties.
What
they
reported
in
2021
operating
expenses.
It
again
ranged
from
mid
nine
dollars
upwards
to
almost
twelve
dollars.
A
square
foot.
Seven
dollars
for
this
property
is
just
not
feasible.
L
The
vacant
space
is
in
raw
shell
condition,
limited
lighting,
limited
VAV
boxes,
no
floors,
no
or
I'm;
sorry,
no
walls,
No
Ceilings,
and
if
I
may
Madam
chairwoman,
just
briefly,
I
have
two
more
summary
points
very
quickly.
The
property
with
the
coke
lease
has
not
been
accounted
for.
Anything
below
the
line
they
did
account.
We
did
account
for
the
rent
abatement
above
the
line.
L
H
Good
idea
this
what
I
did
I
lived
there,
so
I
walked
those
bridges
all
the
time
and.
H
H
So
what
I,
what
I
threw
out
is
taking
their
expenses
to
column,
to
column
f
using
the
5
million
ninety
and
then
upping
the
build
out
cost
to
110
and
I'm
reliant
on
Mr
yates's
math
on
that
I
ended
up
at
150
million
988
300.
J
C
J
H
J
H
H
F
H
H
F
I
D
D
J
F
F
D
D
F
E
I
I
K
I
didn't
go
as
far
as
eight
I
went
to
750
and
the
110
on
the
TI's,
because
I
thought
that
750
was
a
little
more.
K
A
Okay,
we
have
a
motion,
a
second
by
Mr
Gates,
all
in
favor
I
opposed
okay.
That
assessment
is
reduced
to
153
104
800.,
based
on
increasing
expenses
to
750
and
TI
below
the
line
at
110..
A
M
M
D
G
E
G
A
G
Okay,
you
got.
Can
you
all
hear
me
all
right?
Okay,
I'd
like
to
direct
the
board
to
page
38
of
121..
Again,
this
is
our
our
summary
of
facts
about
the
property.
This
is
the
Maxwell
Apartments.
It's
located
at
650,
North,
Glebe
Road,
it's
consistent
of
one
tax
RPC!
It's
was
initially
assessed
at
59
million,
seven
hundred
twenty
three
thousand
six
hundred
the
county
is
recommending
a
revision
of
55
million
628
200..
G
It's
a
newer
property
originally
built
in
2015
163
total
units,
a
mid-rise
in
the
Boston
sub
Market
property
is
located
right
across
the
street
from
the
Boston
quarter,
shopping
mall
in
the
capitals
IcePlex
on
North
Glebe,
I'll
direct
the
board
now
to
page
three,
which
is
the
County's
mixed
use,
income
and
expense
summary
sheet.
The
original
assessment
value
represented
an
increase
of
3.2
percent
above
the
prior
Year's
assessment,
which
was
57
million
896
000..
G
The
revised
assessment
that
the
county
is
recommending
of
55
6
represents
a
four
percent
decrease
from
the
prior
year.
However,
year
over
year,
the
actual
noi
at
the
property
has
decreased
by
18
from
2020
to
2021.
the
gross
potential
income
in
the
County's
test.
Columns
found
on
on
test
columns,
F1
and
F2-
you
can
see-
are
approximately
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
higher
than
what
that
property
was
reported
in
2021.
G
The
GPI
at
the
property,
the
the
that
test
column,
which,
in
the
Assessor's
column,
F1
and
F2,
combines
for
four
million
697
241
was
eight,
was
higher
than
the
the
actual
gross
potential
income
that
the
property
was
able
to
achieve
in
any
of
the
last
four
consecutive
reporting
years
on
columns
a
b,
c
and
E1
with
regard
to
the
effect
of
gross
income.
G
This
County's
test
column
is
still
approximately
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
higher
again
than
what
the
property
reported
in
2021
and
the
operating
expenses
are
178
000
below
what
the
property
reported
in
most
recently
in
2021
this
property.
G
If
you,
if
you
take
a
look
and
it's
going
to
be
more
noticeable
with
the
with
the
next
property,
but
some
of
these
properties
that
we've
discussed
with
this
with
this
current
owner
in
previous
cases,
you'll
find
that
they
really
tightened
up
on
their
operating
expenses
that
were
reported
in
2020
during
during
the
pandemic,
and
expenses
really
increased
the
following
year
and
materials,
cost
of
Labor
vendors,
third-party
contractors,
everything
costs
more
and
with
inflation
that
is
expected
to
continue
into
the
future.
G
So
that's
one
of
the
reasons
you're
going
to
see
a
a
much
larger
jump
from
2020
to
2021
and
in
many
cases
in
the
the
case,
some
of
them
that
we've
already
discussed
and
the
one
following
this
case
immediately.
It's
going
to
be
a
much
more
noticeable
in
that
18
and
19.
Those
expenses
were
much
higher
and
2020
was
much
much
lower.
The
actual
expenses
reported
in
2021,
where
38.37
percent
1
billion
578
085
again
that's
around
178
000
above
what
the
county
is
estimated
in
their
in
their
test
column.
G
Historically,
this
property
has
reported
operating
expenses
of
around
30
percent.
Now
at
38.37
that
does
look
high
expenses,
as
we've
discussed
were
higher
because
costs
were
higher.
But,
additionally,
if
you
compare
that
to
more
of
a
stabilized
year
like
in
2019
prior
to
that,
the
the
21
expenses
would
represent
approximately
a
35
operating
expense
ratio.
G
So,
in
line
with
what
has
been
reported
in
in
Prior
years,
the
net
operating
income-
again
it
was
a
the
2021
net
operating
income
was
an
18
decrease
over
what
was
reported
the
previous
year
in
2020
and
right
now,
the
County's
revision,
their
net
operating
income
represents
a
a
a
figure.
That's
400,
000
again
above
what
the
property
was
able
to
achieve
most
recently
in
2021..
G
So
again,
I
think
one
of
the
main
differences
here
is
with
regard
to
one
of
the
main
issues
still
remaining
based
on
the
County's
revision
and
recommended
reduction
to
55
million
is
with
regard
to
the
operating
expenses
we
think
2019
was
was
a
really
a
down
year
for
for
this
owner
in
particular,
as
we
stated
previously,
they
really
tightened
up
on
expenses,
and
what
you're,
seeing
now
in
2021
is
expenses
are
on
the
rise
and
that's
expected
to
continue
in
the
future
and
we're
hoping
that
the
county
gives
consideration
to
that
fact.
N
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning
board
good
morning,
Blake
speaking
again
about
the
Maxwell
fairly
well
summarized
by
Mr
Warren,
well,
located
adjacent
to
other
mid-use,
fairly
new
built
properties,
we'll
talk
about
that
in
a
minute
again
across
the
street,
from
Boston
within
a
half
mile
of
Boston
Metro
so
again,
well
located
when
we
are
looking
at
this,
the
board
is
familiar
with
how
we
look
at
these
we're
going
to
summarize
a
look
at
the
summary
sheet
and
look
at
this
as
a
stabilized
property.
N
Again
we
display
four
years
as
we've
said
consistently
all
year,
when
we
get
the
new
2021
information,
we
tend
to
place
more
weight
on
that
a
little
less
on
the
2018
year.
Still
looking
this
as
a
stabilized
property,
I
think
that
again
well
as
well
summarized
by
Mr
Warren.
We
look
at
this
a
little
bit
differently.
Looking
at
years,
18
19
20
for
gross
potential.
We
saw
growth
year
over
year
every
year
for
effective
growth.
Very
stabilized
we
saw
growth
in
2019.
N
Difference
in
2020
is
numbered
by
less
than
two
tenths
of
a
percent,
and
operating
expenses
were
actually
very
well
stabilized.
If
you
look
at
again
18,
19
and
20.,
so
we
disagree
with
the
idea
that
there
was
an
increase
or
a
decrease
for
covid.
You
know:
we've
kind
of
disagreed
with
that
narrative
for
the
most
part,
I.
Think
conventional
wisdom
is
that
most
owners-
these
are
for-profit
institutions
or
most
Pro
owners
are
going
to
spend
only
the
amount
of
money
they
need
to
to
get
the
income
stream
coming
in
I.
Think
that's
essentially
pointed
out.
N
In
years,
18,
19
and
20..
We
did
see
increases
almost
across
the
board
and
all
the
subtotals
listed
for
2021
64
increase
for
maintenance,
repair
at
18
for
admin,
35
for
sub
services
and
42
for
insurance
and
tax.
When
we
start
to
go
through
those
Insurance
on
tax
makes
a
little
bit
of
sense.
Obviously,
since
covet
and
even
before,
we
have
seen
increases
in
property
insurance,
especially
for
some
of
these
properties
that
have
multiple
excuse
me,
owners
who
have
multiple
properties.
N
They
have
increased
that
line
that
tends
to
make
sense
some
Services,
you
know
that's
gone
up
a
bit,
but
it's
also
gone
up
year
over
year
every
year
those
can
Encompass
things
such
as
Exterminating
Landscaping
Etc.
So
again
we
see
some
of
that
as
being
fairly
reasonable,
the
ones
that
we
called
to
speak
with
Mr
Warren
about
and
be
after
the
owner
was
specifically
maintenance,
repair
and
admin.
We
noted
near
fifty
thousand
dollars
in
expenses
related
to
water
damage.
N
They
did
report
that
so
it
was
all
in
the
board,
but
it's
again
that's
not
an
annual
expense.
So
we
would
ask
the
board
to
sort
of
smooth
that
out
and
look
at
that
as
a
stabilized
nature,
that's
again
about
25
000,
a
water
extraction,
25
000
or
so
for
repair
of
the
fire
prevention
system
used,
which
I
assume
caused
the
water
damage.
N
We
also
noted
there's
approximately
77
000
in
leasing
bonuses,
leasing,
commission
bonuses
that
ties
in
obviously
to
the
vacancy
vacancy
did
drop.
Approximately
one
percent,
whether
or
not
that's
going
to
continue
year
over
year
over
year
should
be
C.
In
other
words,
as
we
talked
about
Let
each
year
come
and
then
we
address
it
as
that
comes
now.
This
isn't
something.
That's
necessarily
been
a
expense
line
item
for
the
owner.
Previously
it's
at
least
not
to
the
extent
where
it
raised
our
eyes
eyebrows.
N
So
again
we
listed
about
77,
000
or
so
of
leasing
commissions.
That
may
not
be
an
annual
expense,
but
if
they
are
reported
next
year
they
become
normative
and
become
annualized
regardless.
When
we
look
at
this
property
as
a
stabilized
nature,
we
did
note
that
very
similar
to
other
properties
that
you've
seen
this
year.
There
is
a
decrease
in
rent
and
an
increase
in
occupancy.
Please
note,
too,
that
the
biggest
increase
in
vacancy
and
Concession
in
2021
were
concessions.
I
think
we've
made
the
case
that
those
tend
to
be
used
to
fill
occupancy.
N
N
Please
note
that
in
our
projection
of
course,
we
did
look
for
a
stabilized,
effective
growths,
because
we
offer
a
stabilized
vacancy
and
Concession
of
eight
percent
much
higher
than
has
there
been
achieved
before
last
year
at
this
property
so
again
we're
using
stabilized
effector
growths.
We
did
note
the
increase
in
operating
expenses
in
2021,
but,
as
we've
just
broken
those
down,
we
believe
that
you
know
at
least
a
hundred
thousand
hundred
twenty
thousand
or
so
might
not
necessarily
be
an
annual
expense.
N
Again,
we
note
and
ask
the
board
to
note
years,
18,
19
and
20
very
stabilized
operating
expense.
Please
note
that
we
did
increase
our
projection
to
amount
higher,
almost
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
higher
than
what
was
achieved
in
18,
19
and
20.
Again,
we
don't
watch
dollar
for
dollar,
regardless
what
happens
with
the
most
recent
report,
we're
looking
at
a
stabilized
operating
expense
that
led
us
to
a
stabilized
net
operating
income.
N
Again,
please
note
that
our
projection
is
lower
than
what
has
been
achieved
at
the
property
in
1819
and
20..
That,
of
course,
is
because
we
took
an
account
2021's
18
drop.
We
do
believe
that
again,
if
you
look
in
the
summer
sheet,
you'll
agree
that
18,
19
and
20
was
a
very
stabilized
year,
a
set
of
three
years.
So
that
being
said,
we
did
recommend
a
revision,
as
was
noted
by
Mr
Warren.
N
It's
almost
a
four
percent
drop
from
last
year's
value,
again
recognizing
the
drop
in
value,
but
we
do
believe
this
is
one
year
out
of
four
and
the
property
has
the
potential
to
get
right
back
where
it
was
18,
19
and
20..
As
we
noted,
the
property
is
again
stabilized
96
percent
and
to
denote
that
the
appendant's
recommended
value
is
actually
22
percent
drop
year
over
year.
We
just
think
that's
too
much
of
a
drop
hit
for
one
year's
reflection.
Note
too
that
I
mentioned
location.
N
The
board
heard
earlier
this
year,
an
adjacent
property-
that's
also
a
mid-rise
built
within
two
years
of
this
one.
It
has
10
more
units,
but
actually
is
at
433
000
a
unit.
So
almost
100
000
more
than
this
property
is
so
all
these
points
being
made.
We
do
believe
that
the
revision
that's
been
offered
should
be
confirmed
at
a
value
of
55
million
six
hundred
twenty
thousand
two
hundred.
Thank
you.
H
Ownership
for
like
how
am
I,
why
is
legal
in
accounting,
so
high.
G
What
they've
been
reported
on
this
property?
It's
I
I,
don't
have
specifics
on
on
why
certain
line
items
are
high,
but
it's
been,
you
know
fairly
stable
the
last
four
years
and
then
did
experience
that
increase.
We
do
think
that
the
2019
expenses
were
were
tightened
over
what
they
normally
would
have
been
and
we
would
kind
of
contest.
G
You
know,
obviously
what
Chris
had
said
that
or
we
would
get
past
what
Chris
had
said
about
2019
saying
that
you
know
you're
going
to
try
and
spend
the
least
amount
of
money
possible
to
maintain
and
manage
that
property.
And
you
know
that's
that's
what
the
owner's
reporting
for
2021.
That's,
why
you're
seeing
an
increase
in
2021,
but
regarding
the
actual
specifics
of
individual
line
items,
I
I
can't
give
you
an
answer.
N
Man
just
again
the
reiterate
again,
we
saw
increases
on
the
gross
potential
three
years
in
a
row.
Prior
to
last
year,
we
saw
a
stabilized
effector
growth.
Prior
to
last
year,
we
saw
a
very
stabilized
operating
expenses,
three
years
in
a
row,
and
we
saw
a
steady
stabilize
that
operate
income.
We
did
project
a
stabilized,
effective
growth.
We
did
increase
operating
expenses
to
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
higher
than
what
was
achieved
in
18,
19
and
20..
You
do
believe
our
revision
is
accurate,
especially
again
on
given
its
reference
to
a
neighboring
property.
G
G
I
think
we've
we've
over
over
the
cases
that
we've
provided
with
with
this
ownership
group
and
previous
ownership
groups
in
the
past
that
expenses
are
on
the
rise
inflation's
on
the
rise
and
they
are
expected
to
continue,
and
so
we're
hoping
the
board
gives
additional
consideration
to
the
Future
cost
to
maintain
and
operate
these
properties.
F
I
think
Chris
has
got
it.
I
didn't
see
anything
really
worth
diving
into
and
and
really
the
only
thing
that
might
have
affected
the
last
couple
of
years
and
or
in
the
last
year
the.
D
F
E
Echo
Chris,
it
thought
Chris
has
got
it
even
more
detailed
than
usual.
You
know
all
the
right
spots.
I
also
think
the
appellant
is
more
than
much
more
than
likely
correct
on
increasing
operating
expenses
and
I
expect
to
see
these
buildings
show
that
next
year,
but
we're
we're
sitting
here
at
1122,
and
it's
too
soon
to
do
that
and
I
again
do
expect
it
next
year.
Finally,
the
the
proposed
decrease
from
last
year,
four
point
plus
percent-
is
Right
In
the
Sweet
zone
of
what
we
see
for
similar
buildings
in
similar
locations.
D
E
A
Okay
motion
a
second
by
Mr
Hoffman,
all
in
favor,
I
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
The
County's,
revised
number
of
55
million
6
28
200
is
confirmed
yeah
and
moving
on
to
the
last
case
on
the
agenda
RPC
3200-806a
at
1850,
Columbia
Pike,
Mr
Warren.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this.
This.
G
Group,
thank
you
very
much.
I'll
First
Direct
the
board
to
page
75
of
159..
Again.
This
is
our
summary
of
facts.
This
is
the
Wellington
Apartments
located
at
1850,
Columbia
Pike.
It
is
consistent
of
three
tax
rpcs,
which
combine
for
the
initial
assessment
of
160
million.
Seven
hundred
and
six
thousand
the
county
is
recommending
a
revision
of
156
000
90
156
million
98
000..
This
is
an
older
property.
It
was
originally
built
in
1960.
It
was
renovated
in
2007,
711,
total
units
and
six
stories
high.
G
The
property
is
located
in
South
Arlington,
it's
just
off
of
Columbia
Pike
and
it's
in
very
close
proximity
to
the
Washington
Boulevard
and
the
I-395
interchange
again,
I'll
direct
the
board
to
page
three,
the
County's
mixed
use,
income
and
expense
summary
sheet.
G
G
The
counties
revised
test
column
for
gross
potential
income
is
still
three
hundred
and
forty
thousand
dollars
higher
than
what
again
this
property
was
was
able
to
achieve
most
recently
in
2021
again
that
15
million
387
000
338
gross
potential
income
figure
estimated
by
the
county
in
their
in
their
revised
test
column,
is
higher
than
any
achieved
in
any
of
the
last
four
years
in
terms
of
gross
potential
income
reported
for
for
columns
a
b
c
and
e,
the
the
actual
certified
income
expenses
that
were
reported
at
the
subject,
property,
the
effective
gross
income
is
experiencing
a
three-year
consecutive
decrease.
G
The
County's
revised
test
column
is
approximately
230
000
higher
than
the
actuals
that
were
reported
most
recently
in
2021
and
and
then
the
operating
expenses.
I
know
we
talked
about
the
the
last
property,
but
it's
very
more
apparent
here
when
comparing
2020
to
2021
and
then
the
prior
years
prior
to
code,
but
when
the
property
was
stabilized
prior
to
the
pandemic,
operating
total
operating
expenses
reported
in
2021
was
43
or
6
million
49
667.,
which
is
a
25
increase
from
the
prior
year.
G
Again,
if
you
look
at
2020,
it
was
about
four
hundred
thousand
dollars,
almost
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
below
what
was
reported
the
previous
year
prior
to
covet
in
2019
kind
of
reflecting
that
sentiment
that
they
tightened
up
during
the
lockdown.
And
then
you
saw
a
obviously
a
big
increase
the
next
year.
Again,
these
costs
and
materials,
the
the
cost
to
maintain
and
operate.
This
building
are
increasing.
G
We
expect
that
to
maintain
and
hold
into
the
future
and
the
counties,
revised
assessment
or
operating
expense
ratio
is
35
or
35.86
below
36
percent
and
it's
950
000
below
the
actual
operating
expenses
that
were
reported
at
the
subject
property
most
recently
in
2021,
the
revised
expenses
of
the
county
at
35.86.
That's
really
below
what
this
property
and
historically
been
able
to
achieve
prior
to
covet
and
stabilization,
with
the
exception
being
2020.
G
When
expenses
dropped
in
in
2019,
they
reported
operating
expense
expenses,
5.4
million
38
that
dropped
down
to
5.3
million
or
36,
and
a
half
percent
in
2019.
D
G
Then
the
34
during
2020
and
then
back
up
to
43
the
6
million
in
2021..
The
counties
revised
operating
expenses
of
5.1
million
are
are
significantly
lower
than
any
that
have
been
reported
in
three
out
of
the
last
four
years,
the
exception
again
being
being
2020..
G
G
Net
operating
income
experience
at
15
and
a
half
percent
decrease
from
2021
or
experience
a
year-over-year
difference
from
2020
to
2021.
The
noi
was
was
down
15
15
and
a
half
percent,
or
one
and
a
half
million
dollars
lower
than
what
was
reported
in
2020..
The
County's
revised
test
column
estimates
a
total
noi
that
is
approximately
1.2
million
dollars
higher
than
again
what
this
property
was
able
to
achieve
in
in
2021
again,
I.
G
Think
if
you
look
at
this
property,
the
the
most
glaring
difference
when
you're
looking
at
the
the
County's
revised
test
columns
with
regard
to
the
operating
expenses,
and
we
hope
that
the
county
takes
the
board,
takes
additional
consideration
to
the
actual
expenses
moving
forward.
Thank
you.
N
Yes,
ma'am,
so
this
one's
a
little
unusual
and
I
hope
Blake,
we'll
speak
to
this
as
well.
The
I'm,
sorry
Mr,
one
Mr
Warren
reached
out
to
the
county.
Yesterday
you
know
approximately
12
o'clock
or
so
to
to
kind
of
go
over
some
of
the
questions
we
had
had
regarding
some
of
the
line
items,
one
of
which
was
actually
piggybacking
on
Mr
Lawson's
questions
from
last
time,
which
seemed
to
indicate
a
legal
and
accounting
increase
of
over
a
million
dollars
to
their
credit.
They
did
reach
back
out.
N
Unfortunately,
it
was
yesterday
and
I
sort
of
more
Fuller
understanding
that
it
was
a
misattribution
to
not
go
to
legal
and
accounting,
but
actually
to
be
attributable
to
leasing
commissions.
N
That
being
said,
we
did
have
to
essentially
take
a
second
second
look
at
these
numbers,
so
I
do
have
updated
numbers
for
you,
I,
don't
know
if
that's
that's
appropriate,
but
obviously
per
Mr,
Warren's,
essentially
last
statement.
You
know
we
want
to
play
fair
if
these
are
leasing
commissions,
you
know
these
are
normative.
We
included
them
on
the
last
case,
I
think.
What
we
try
to
make
clear
is
that
we
want
to
see
these
established
year
over
year
over
year
in
2020,
the
leasing
commission
was
78.
000.
N
last
year
was
350.,
that's
a
huge
huge
increase.
If
it's
attributable
to
again
trying
to
get
bodies
in
the
in
the
building
and
that's
going
to
become
an
annual
expense.
Then
that's
something
that
we
would
have
to
look
at
and
smooth
out
and
something
we
would
do.
When
we
get
2022's
numbers.
Considering
we
got
2021s,
we
initially
had
discounted
that,
which
is
why
you
saw
a
reconstructed
column,
so
long
story,
short
I've
added
those
back,
so
I
have
a
number.
N
So
the
the
new
revised
value
to
be
152
million,
70,
26
200.,
so
one
five,
two
seven,
two
six
two
hundred
and
now
it's
essentially
did
by
increasing
the.
N
So
we
didn't
touch
the
income
and,
if
I,
if
I
met
I'd
like
to
sort
of
take
back
that
this
last
minute,
if
I
made
for
my
regular
comments,
yes
ma'am
so
again
we're
looking
at
this
again
as
a
the
same
way,
we
have
every
other
property
the
same
way.
We
just
did
as
a
stabilized
nature.
N
Again,
we
just
look
at
this
a
little
bit
differently.
We
do
believe
years.
18,
19
and
20
were
fairly
stabilized.
Excuse
me
very
stabilized.
If
we're
looking
at
gross
potential,
if
we're
looking
at
effective
growth,
even
the
operating
expenses,
this
is
actually
a
fairly
unusual
one
of
the
operating
expenses
dropped
year
over
year
every
year
you
know
again
we
give
pushback
on
the
idea
that
that
the
owners
dropped
due
to
covid.
You
know
if
we
go
back
to
listen
to
some
of
the
comments
we've
made
last
year.
N
Some
of
these
arguments
were
actually
that
expenses
went
up
in
covet
due
to
obviously
utilities
increase
and
the
more
bodies
in
the
building.
More
often,
obviously
there
is
increases
for
janitorial
for
some
of
the
things
you
needed
to
deal
with
coven
as
far
as
hand,
gel
sanitation
masks
Etc.
So
regardless
we
did
note
that
the
operating
expenses
went
down
three
years
in
a
row
and
they
came
back
gangbusters
almost
25
increase
in
2021..
N
You
know
a
lot
of
this
again
was
attributable
to
admin
expense,
which
increased
by
almost
63
percent
and
again,
the
largest
second
largest
increase
was
insurance
and
tax.
As
we
said
in
last
case,
insurance
and
tax
makes
a
little
bit
more
sense.
Given
that
again,
the
property
owners
are
a
little
bit
more
risk
adverse
after
covid
dealing
with
the
Force
Major
Etc
they're,
looking
to
shore
up
their
property
values
through
insurance.
That
makes
sense
the
property
admin
expense
again
increased
by
63
percent.
N
You
know
we're
kind
of
going
over
old
territory
in
the
sense
that
this
was
essentially
attributable
to
a
large
increase
in
legal
accounting
and
just
to
step
back
a
minute.
You
know,
while
there
there
was
a
correction
of
the
legal
and
accounting
memo
that
it
was
actually
350,
000
was
attributable
to
leasing
commissions.
I
would
still
point
out
that
legal
accounting
was
reported
at
336
000
in
2020
and
that
jumped
to
682
000
in
2021,
still
100
increase.
N
You
know
normally
that
could
be
somewhat
attributable
to
either
some
sort
of
actions
taking
against.
You
know
the
eviction
process,
but
they
can
also,
of
course,
be
involved
with
owner's
plans.
As
far
as
some
of
the
things
going
on,
potentially
with
the
Trove,
you
know
they
separated
two
plus
years
ago,
so
we
would
hope
that
there'd
be
no
further
attribution
as
far
as
legal
fees
or
anything
associated
with
that
sister
project,
but
regardless
they
did
increase
over
100
percent
long
story
short
again.
We
looked
at
the
effective
growth
as
a
stabilized
nature.
N
Again,
I
would
please
point
out
to
the
board
when
looking
at
this
as
a
stabilized
property,
and
please
note
that
this
projection
for
Effective
growth
is
less
than
what
was
achieved
in
2020
less
than
what
was
achieved
in
2019..
In
fact,
it's
barely
over
what
was
achieved
in
2018,
ten
thousand
dollars
higher
very
minus
one
point:
seven
percent
increase
again.
N
Unfortunately,
your
sheep
won't
show
that,
but
my
revision,
my
second
revision,
reflects
an
increase
to
operating
expenses
to
a
total
of
5.3
million,
again
some
600
000
higher
than
500
000
higher
than
what
was
achieved
in
2020
higher
than
what
was
achieved
in
2019.
So
while
we
do
reflect
in
the
25
increase
in
2021,
we
believe
that
it
was
a
large
increase.
N
That's
essentially
attributable
to
350
000
of
leasing
commissions,
and
you
know
300
000
increase
to
legal
and
accounting,
so
if
that
becomes
normative,
that
would
get
smoothed
out
in
years
to
come
regardless.
We
do
believe
that,
with
this
stabilized
effective
growth
and
increase
to
operating
expenses,
that
gave
us
a
stabilized
net
operating
income
of
just
shy
of
9
million,
which
indicated
a
value
again
of
152
million
726.2,
again
apologize
for
the
nature
of
having
to
use
these
new
numbers.
N
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Both
questions
from
board
members,
Mr
Lawson.
H
Sorry
kid:
what
what
happened
in
2017
2018!
They
says
that
it
was
renovated
where,
where
units
added.
G
Units
were
not
added,
they
just
went
through
an
extensive
renovation.
The
values
were
a
little
bit
different
back
then
too,
and
Chris
can
probably
attest
to
this
as
well,
but
that,
on
that
location
it
was
also
that
was
before
the
Trove
was
built,
and
so
there
was
a
large
land
valuation
or
land,
because
it
was
zoned
to
build
and
approved
to
build
that
Trove
building,
which
is
now
there.
G
So
both
of
those
properties
are
Parcels
because
it
was
just
land
were
attributed
to
one
economic
unit
and
since
then,
since
the
Trove
had
been
built,
there
are
now
three
individual
parcels
and
separate
economic
units
for
the
trobe
in
the
Wellington.
So.
N
May
I
speak
to
that
Mr,
Lawson
uh-huh
sure.
Yes,
that's
exactly
what
happened.
Essentially
it
was
you
know.
Part
of
the
process
to
get
the
Trove
approved
was
that
the
Wellington
would
have
to
take
on
97
committed,
affordable
units
which
they
agreed
to
wait.
E
For
the
appellant,
this
is
even
more
relevant
now
that
we
found
out
about
the
committed,
affordable
houses
in
columns
a
b
and
c
apartment
income.
E
G
It
would
have
been
most
likely
whenever
the
zoning
was
approved,
I'm
not
sure
I'm.
G
E
Yeah,
but
it's
all
about
income
I
want
to
know
you
know
the
apartment,
income
comparing
columns
a
through
Ceta
to
to
Ian
and
the
G's
and
I
want
to
know
if
it
were
double
counting
or
not,
but
maybe
that's
surrounding
air.
So
let
me
go
to
the
second
one.
E
What
is
other
column
seven?
What
is
that
for?
Because
it's
percentage-wise
of
all
income,
it's
a
big
number
for
the
Appellate.
G
E
G
It
wouldn't
be,
it
wouldn't
be
reported
in
the
other.
What
had
been
reported
and
we've.
This
is
not
effective
of
this
property
as
well,
but
me
and
Chris
have
gone
back
and
forth
this
year.
They
did
have
some
of
the
retail
rent
like
ground
floor.
Retail,
for
some
of
these
properties
were
reported
in
the
gross
potential
rent,
but
we
were
able
to
separate
that
out,
but
the
other
income
should
not
should
not
include
the
affordable
units
that
should
all
be
included
in
the
apartments
I.
E
N
So
the
problem
with
the
2022s
is,
as
Mr
Warren
alluded
to
at
one
point,
this
was
valued
with
a
second
component
of
the
true,
so
the
value
we
show
is
220
million
eight
twenty
six.
E
N
Yes,
ma'am
so
again,
I
hope
the
board
is
familiar
with
our
the
way
to
look
at
these
as
a
stabilized
nature,
put
a
bit
more
weight
on
2021
Less
on
2018.
When
we
do
that
again,
we
had
a
very
modest
projection
projection,
effective
gross
income
of
1.7
percent,
again
very
much
in
line
lower
than
what
was
achieved
in
1920.
Barely
what
was
achieved
in
2018.
N
we've
revised
the
operating
expense
again
we're
up
to
a
total
of
37.3
percent
of
effective
growth,
5.3
million
again
taking
into
consideration
the
new
information
as
of
yesterday
but
again
I
do
call
the
board
to
have
that
same
dubiousness,
but
looking
at
it
as
a
four-year
average
of
this
increase,
the
over
100
increase
for
legal
accounting
and
well
over
100
increase
for
leasing
commissions,
whether
or
not
those
will
stay
year
to
year.
N
G
Yes,
and
so,
as
Chris
stated-
and
it's
a
it's
a
testament
to
him
that
he
did
take
another
look
at
this
after
after
we
had
been
reviewing
this
and
realized
that
the
way
this
was
coded
and
I
had
sent
over
a
detailed
breakdown
of
those
expenses
that
there
was
a
misalignment
of
not
the
numbers
per
se,
but
the
actual
line
item
expenses
of
what
these
buckets
were
being
attributed
to
so
again,
I
would
thank
the
the
county,
the
department
and
Chris
for
for
taking
that
into
consideration
and
and
would
again
just
ask
the
county
to
consider
the
expenses
and
the
counties
revised
recommended
value
of
152
million
726
300..
A
E
Were
too
low
and
now
they're
not
so
my
only
other
piece
of
angst
is
how
can
be
pretty
stabilized
building?
You
know
year
to
year
little
tweak
here
and
there
it
happens,
go
up
and
assessment,
24
and
I
keep
looking
at
the
revisions
and
I
was
hoping.
Maybe
some
numbers
were
left
out
in
Prior
years
and
really
the
appellant
was
paying
too
low
of
tax
before,
and
this
is
the
right
amount,
but
I'm
not
finding
that
either.
So
anybody
can
school
me
on
why
24
increases
Justified,
I
I
love
to
hear
it.
E
D
H
My
guess
is
that
the
affordable,
committed
units
were
probably
already
market
rate
affordable,
and
so
that's
why
they
did
it.
This
way
and
I
didn't
pay
a
whole
lot
of
attention
when
this
came
through
the
County
board,
but
I
think
your
legal
and
administrative
and
accounting
were
probably
high,
because.
D
H
Quite
clear,
I
guess,
I
guess
they're
going
to
in
the
future
have
to
keep
their
eye
on
the
affordable
because
there'll
probably
be
a
Divergence
I
think
probably
now
they're
very
close.
But
if
they
have
a
lot
of
say
50
percent
of
median
income
versus
70,
then
those
the
discrepancy
will
get
much
greater
in
the
future.
Yeah.
K
Increase
I'm,
okay
with
it
I
think
the
new
number
that
Chris
came
up
with
I
think
it's
more
of
a
reasonable.
You
know
the
first
thing
I
look
at
is
the
rental
rates
of
the
oh
yeah
and
they're
much
lower
than
what
they're
really
getting
you
know.
Studios
are
getting
between
1500
1560
town
is
using
147
14
25
yeah
one
bedrooms
the
same
about
150
dollars,
two-bedroom
three
to
four
hundred
dollars.
D
K
A
E
A
Right
and
then
okay,
so
we
will
Azure
now
at
10,
58
and
re-adjourn
tomorrow
for
our
final
hearing
in
person.
Welcome
back
pardon
me,
nothing
I'm,
sorry,.