►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - September 8, 2020
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
Funny
this
is
the
arlington
county
board
of
equalization.
Hearing.
We've
got
a
very
long
agenda
today,
so
we're
going
to
try
to
move
through
these
at
a
pretty
quick
pace.
The
first
case
on
the
agenda
is
economic
unit.
One
1704
902
a
is
in
apple.
It's
2025
fairfax
drive
it's
the
property
known
as
wakefield
manor
apartments,
the
site
plan
417..
A
A
A
The
motion
was
made
by
mr
penaranda
and
motioned
by
seconded
by
mr
maskin
on
zero
one
rpc17017,
zero,
zero
five
to
reduce
the
per
unit
price
from
eighty
six
thousand
to
seventy
seven
thousand
four
hundred
per
unit,
and
there
was
a
hundred
and
four
units
that
will
be
reducing
the
assessment
from
eight
million
nine
forty
four
to
eight
million
forty
nine
thousand
six
hundred
we've
got
a
motion
in
a
second
on
the
table.
This
is
just
for
voting
purposes.
All
in
favor,
we'll
say
I
I
opposed
I
and
I
okay.
A
The
vote
now
is
five
to
two,
with
the
opposition
of
ms
dooley
and
miss
hogan,
the
assessment
for
rpc
one,
seven:
zero
one:
seven,
zero
zero
five
has
been
reduced
to
eight
million
forty
nine
thousand
six
hundred
and
rose.
If
you
can.
Oh,
mr
kinney
is
on
the
line
so
he's
aware
of
it.
A
D
Everyone
can
see
me
and
hear
me
this
morning,
great
so
I'll
make
this
brief.
Since
I
know
the
board
has
a
long
agenda
today.
The
subject
property
is
the
telus
apartments.
D
D
We
appreciate
the
assessor's
work
at
the
first
level
on
this,
with
a
revised
value
of
450
000
per
unit
or
about
114
million.
We
would
still
point
out
that
this
is
a
6.1
percent
increase
over
the
previous
year
and
I
I
think
that
the
assessment's
a
little
too
high.
If
you
look
at
the
noise
of
the
previous
years,
my
appeal
materials
start
on
page
42
of
92,
but
I
don't
think
I
need
to
walk
you
through
page
by
page
for
this
one.
D
You
can
really
just
look
at
the
test
page
on
page
four
and
the
appeal
really
comes
down
to
two
specific
issues:
the
retail
rent
that
the
assessor
is
using
is
too
high.
You
look
at
the
second
column.
F
he's
using
five
hundred
and
fifteen
thousand
dollars
if
the
retail
rent
has
never
been
that
this
high
at
the
at
this
property.
D
If
you
look
at
columns
a
b
c
and
e,
it's
been
between
350
and
430
000.,
I'm
not
sure
if
potentially
the
assessor
is
double
counting
the
pass-throughs
by
including
it
within
that
figure,
but
the
pass-throughs
are
actually
included
in
the
other,
slash
pass-through
miscellaneous
income
of
125
000
there,
so
that
might
be
what's
happening
there.
D
Secondly,
the
assessor's
apartment
rent
is
still
slightly
high,
nothing
major,
but
at
least
by
about
50
seventy
five
thousand
dollars.
I
would
point
out
that
the
assessors
combined
noi
is
five
million
nine.
Eighty
five
six,
eighty
two
that's
higher
than
all
four
of
the
previous
years.
The
three-year
average
is
five
million
seven
hundred
and
twenty-four
thousand
the
four-year
average
is
five
million
six
hundred
and
eighty
thousand.
D
D
Lastly-
and
this
really
is
you
know,
it's
kind
of
surprising
that
the
assessor
is
taking
the
stance
not
to
deduct
personal
property,
you
know
if
you
go
to
page
50
of
92
you'll,
see
the
2019
personal
property
statement
here,
and
they
have
382
thousand
dollars
of
assessed
personal
property
by
the
county.
It's
assessed
at
382
thousand,
it's
mostly
furniture,
there's
lobby
furniture,
there's
a
game
room
here.
I
think
there's
pool
furniture,
so
it
can't.
D
You
know
we're
trying
to
find
the
total
value
of
the
property
here
via
direct
caps
approach,
but
the
assessment
is
for
the
real
estate
only
so
you
it
can't
be
both
personal
property
and
real
estate.
You
have
to
to
deduct
the
personal
property,
and
only
in
order
to
get
to
the
real
estate
only
value.
D
Other
than
those
things,
that's
really
it
we
feel
this
hester's
income
is
high,
the
cap
rate
is
high
and
we
think
that
personal
property
should
be
deducted
below
the
line.
Thank
you.
E
Good
morning,
everybody
so
for
this
property,
I
want
to
again
thank
mr
steinhauser
for
being
able
to
get
the
owners
to
provide
us
with
the
ine
history.
During
the
department
hearing
we
discuss
how
we
have
received
any
ine
history
from
this
property
owner
since
the
very
beginning
of
when
they
were
constructed.
So
thanks
to
mr
steinhauser
for
getting
the
information
for
us
based
off
the
information
that
they
did
provide
to
us,
we
were
able
to
create
our
summary
sheet,
showing
the
operating
history
for
2016
all
the
way
to
2019,
and
so
just
to.
E
E
If
you
go
to
page
11
of
the
packet
you'll
see,
this
is
the
commercial
rental
analysis
that
we
do
for
properties
such
as
these
and
you'll
see
that
we
have
these
spaces
that
are
at
least
at
the
top.
There
are
three
spaces
that
are
leased.
One
space
is
3
650
square
feet.
Another
space
is
1925
square
feet.
The
third
space
is
six
thousand
two
square
feet.
This
came
from
the
information
provided
by
the
owner.
E
E
Four,
you
look
at
the
information
on
page
four,
you
can
see
that
we
made
about
a
300,
some
thousand
dollar
adjustment
to
the
net
operating
income.
As
we
received
the
previous
three
years
operating
history,
we
were
able
to
get
her
well.
We
were
able
to
project
the
expenses
better.
Once
we
had
this
information
because
you
can
see
that
the
expenses
increased
from
the
original
assessment
to
the
test
assessment,
we
also
received
information
on
the
ine
about
the
actual
rent
rates.
So
we
made
adjustments
to
the
rental
rates.
E
E
E
I
and
he
actually
provided
a
rent
range
of
all
of
their
units,
and
that
is
what
we
looked
at
when
we
tested
the
apartment
revenue
and
this
information
can
be
seen
on
page
55
of
the
packet
you
see
they
have
their
studios.
There
were
46
studios,
134,
one
bedroom
units,
15,
one
bedroom,
plus
dens
44,
2
bedrooms,
15,
2,
bedrooms
plus
dens,
and
they
provide
the
square
footage
and
they
also
provide
the
rent
range
of
what
they're
asking
for
these
units.
E
E
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Both
questions
from
board
members,
mr
lawson.
B
This
is
for
the
county.
How
come
you
don't
deduct?
This
has
come
up
before.
How
come
you
don't
deduct
personal
property
on
a
project
of
this
nature,.
E
So
again,
we've
deducted
personal
property
well,
first
of
all,
the
taxes
that
they
pay
on
that
personal
property
is
deducted
as
an
expense.
So
that's
something
that
we
have
constantly
stated.
Another
thing
is
when
we
have
deducted
personal
property
taxes,
it's
because
a
unit
is
being
offered
to
renters
as
a
furnished
unit.
So
therefore,
their
personal
property
is
adding
to
the
value
through
the
income
stream.
E
A
statement
I
made
last
week
and
it
may
have
came
off
the
wrong
way,
but
in
the
arlington
market,
high-rise
properties
near
metro,
they
every
new
building
we
see
has
a
business
center.
Has
a
leasing
office
has
a
gym
and
oftentimes
the
gym
equipment
is
probably
it
can't
be
leased,
so
we're
trying
to
determine
what
part
of
what
personal
property
is
actually
adding
value
from
a
income
standpoint
to
that
building
in
this
market.
E
Okay,
I
got
it.
Thank
you
yeah.
Sorry,
I'm
trying
to
explain
the
best
way
I
can,
but
we're
just
looking
at
it
and
what
we've
said
is.
If
you
have
furnace
units
available
to
renters,
then
that
furniture
is
added
to
that
rental
income.
In
that
situation
we
deduct
personal
property.
F
Well,
I
have
a
question
for
the
department.
It
was
mentioned
that
there
are
four
retail
spaces
in
the
building
three
or
least,
and
have
been
leased
for
a
while
and
one
isn't
and
I
buy
that
building
all
the
time
that
one's
never
been
leased
ever
so
it's
at
least
five
years
on
the
market
without
being
leased.
At
what
point?
Do
you
write
it
off
below
the
line
or
write
it
off
entirely
or
somehow
not
included
fully
in
the
gross
potential
income.
E
Well
again,
if
you
ever
do
this
is
the
first
time
we've
received
any
kind,
any
income
expense
statement
for
this
building.
So
this
is
the
first
year
we've
actually
seen
how
that
commercial
space
is
actually
operating.
E
I
think
the
same
as
with
any
other
case,
we'll
continue
to
look
at
it
and
see
what
adjustments
need
to
be
made,
but
that
cam
that
was
referenced
is
not
being
included
in
that
gross
potential
for
the
revenue
for
their
commercial
space.
If
you
look
at
our
rent
analysis,
you'll
see
that
if
you
include
the
vacant
space
with
the
occupy
space,
at
that
average
rate,
that's
where
the
515
comes
from
the
515
does
not
include
the
pass-through.
F
No,
I
understand
that
I
I
meant
okay,
the
base
rate.
It's
it's
never
created
any
base
rate.
If
this
were
year,
one
or
two
I'd
say
sure
I
mean
it's
available
and
you
ought
to
include
it
it's
potential,
but
now
it's
five.
Does
it
take
ten
years
or
do
you
not
include
that
ever
the
space
is
the
space,
it
has
potential
income
and
it
gets
taxed
period.
There's
no
wrong
answer.
I
just
want
to
understand
yeah.
E
And
we'll
continue
to
look
at
it
as
we
always
do
I
mean
this
is
like
I
said.
I
appreciate
the
agent
for
getting
this
information.
This
is
the
first
year
we've
seen
the
first
year.
We
seen
any
information
on
the
subject.
So
what
you're
stating
about
the
five
years
never
being
leased?
That's
not
something
that
we
actually
saw
and
because
we
didn't.
F
G
E
Okay,
when
you
look
at
the
information
that
was
provided
by
the
appellant
looking
at
page
10,
you
look
at
the
rent,
roll
analysis,
sorry
page
11,
the
rent
roll
analysis
I
mean
even
the
occupy
space's
annual
rent
was
40
000
higher
than
what
the
appellant
is
using
for
his
projected
gross
potential
retail
rent
revenue.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
steinhauser.
If
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up,
please.
D
Yeah
thanks
the
issue
really
is
the
retail
rent?
As
pointed
out,
the
assessors
515
000
is
significantly
higher
than
any
of
the
four
actual
years,
which
range
from
350
to
436.
D
D
The
cap
rate
is
an
issue
and
the
personal
property
is
an
issue
and
we
would
contend
it
doesn't
matter
if
it
adds
value
or
not
to
the
property,
even
though
it
does
here,
it
can't
be
both
personal
property
and
real
estate.
You
can't
tax
it
as
both
real
estate
and
personal
property.
You
have
to
deduct
the
personal
property
to
get
to
the
real
estate.
Only
value
thanks.
G
I
guess
you
know
I'd
be
interested
in
the
legal
opinion
from
barnes
on
on
the
whole
personal
property
thing
does
seem
like
double
taxation,
if
they're
getting
a
tax
bill
for
fitness
equipment
and
then
that's
being
factored
into
the
value
of
the
property.
B
G
G
Go
ahead,
mr
I'm
just
following
up
on
that:
should
it
be
considered
real
property
instead
of
personal
property,
then.
B
Well,
we're
looking
at
it
from
the
income
production,
not
I
mean,
obviously
it's
personal
property
and
not
real
estate,
because
it's
not
a
fix
to
the
building,
but
when
you're
looking
at
it
from
an
income
viewpoint,
I
mean
you
can't
have
a
lobby
with
nothing
in
it.
It's
kind
of
the
way
I
look
at
it,
so
I
think
it's
you
know
like
like
a
hotel
room.
B
F
I'll
just
add
quickly
that,
of
course,
the
taxes
paying
on
personal
property
become
excuse
me
become
an
expense
they're
taking
off.
So
it's
not
complete
double
taxation.
It
is
a
deductible
item,
but
I
I'd
love
to
see
what
other
taxing
jurisdictions
do
about,
that.
It
seems
to
make
sense
the
way
it
was
presented
to
us,
but
I'd
love
to
know
if
there's
a
consensus
among
the
public
appraisal
community
on
that-
and
I
I
had
one
other
thing
I'll:
let
it
go,
I
think
it
was
it
was
already
covered.
Thank
you.
A
Yeah-
and
just
I
mean
on
that
same
topic
years
ago-
I
don't
know
what
year
it
changed
years
ago.
It
was
deducted
below
the
line
and
then
the
county
made
a
decision
to
not
deduct
it
with
the
thought
that
the
taxes
paid
were
expensed
so
again,
if
this
is
something
that
they're
going
to
revisit,
they'd
have
to
revisit
for
all
of
the
properties
across
the
county.
F
That
that
that
was
my
item
that
I
erroneously
thought
had
been
addressed,
I
I
I
thought
five
years
of
just
walking
in
and
seeing
a
cold
dark
shell
for
retail
space
is
enough
time
for
it
to
not
be
so
much
a
potential
income
earner,
but
the
county
didn't
know
that
the
appellant
hadn't
been
in
for
keeping
the
county
up
to
date
that
it's
a
wasting
asset
and
I'm
I'm
comfortable
keeping
it
as
a
potential
income
earner
this
year,
but
the
appellant
would
be
advised
not
by
me
to
bring
that
up
next
year,
if
indeed,
it's
not
leased.
F
G
Yeah
I
mean
I
was
just
going
to
say
if
I
propose
to
to
a
bank
or
a
lender,
to
finance
a
retail
project.
Right
now-
and
I
said
you
know
we're
going
to
assume
3
vacancy
in
this
strip,
mall
that
I
want
to
build,
and
the
next
thing
the
bank's
going
to
say
is:
what's
the
market
vacancy,
and
I
I
I
don't-
I
don't
know
it
just
seems
like
from
my
personal
observation
that
the
retail
vacancy
in
this
county
is
a
little
bit
higher
than
three
percent
I'm.
G
B
Greg
at
some
point
I
think
the
property
owner
ought
to
go
in
to
amend
the
requirement
that
that
be
retail
we
had,
I
think
it
was
1555
wilson
or
one
of
those
buildings,
and
we
had
kind
of
below
the
ground
retail
and
we
ended
up
converting
that
to
another
use.
I
think
it
was
residential,
that's
something
that
I
think
the
you
know
at
some
point.
The
property
owner
ought
to
take
it
into
their
own
hands
and
do
something.
F
H
Well,
talking
about
this
particular
case,
I
think
you
know
the.
Maybe
the
retail
vacancy
may
not
be
appropriate
overall,
but
I
think
in
this
case,
looking
at
all
the
numbers,
I
think
it's
a
I'm
okay
with
it.
The
rental
rates
that
are
the
county
is
using
are
totally
lined.
I
don't
see
where
the
noi
or
the
income
itself
is.
H
You
know
out
of
whack
and
I'm
okay
with
all
the
numbers
of
the
revised
numbers.
I
don't
really
see
where
we
can
make
any
adjustments.
I
think
the
noise
are
totally
appropriate.
B
A
I
J
A
B
Mary
we're
having
internet
problems
all
over
the
county.
I
understand
because
of
the
school.
A
Okay,
he's
back!
Thank
you!
Okay,
mr
matskin,
I
I
couldn't
see
your
vote,
which
were
you
yay
or
nay,
on
the
last
case,
you're
on
yeah.
A
Okay,
so
the
vote
will
go
six
to
one
with
mr
hoffman
disagreeing:
okay,
rosie!
You
have
that
for
the
minutes.
A
A
J
J
Package,
what
you'll
see
is
the
rental
for
the
subject
property
and
that
process
and
shows
the
entire
rent
goal
for
the
entire
property,
and
it
indicates
the
market
rent
for
the
units
on
page
55.
What
you'll
see
is
the
potential
rent,
the
weighted
average
of
potential
rent
for
all
of
the
units
at
the
property.
As
of
the
end
of
the
year,
you
can
see
that
number
is
245.
J
That
is
very
close
to
the
number
that
we
have
in
our
stabilized
potential
column
of
ten
million
nine
seven
one,
two
fifty
so
our
rental
number
is
based
on
a
potential
income
based
on
leases,
actually
in
place
and
or
market.
As
of
the
beginning
of
the
year,
the
county
has
looked
at
it
and
revised
its
assessment
to
reflect
370
units.
J
However,
the
income
that
it
is
using
is
substantially
greater
than
what
can
actually
be
achieved
based
on
the
rent
roll.
We
also
took
a
look
at
the
a
rent
matrix
that
was
provided
to
us
at
year
end
and
looking
at
that
rent
matrix.
We
end
up,
at
a
rental
rate,
a
gross
potential
rent
of
10
million
900
thousand
dollars.
J
So
we
believe
that
the
rate
that
the
county
used
in
both
its
original
assessments,
based
on
the
wrong
numbers
of
units
and
the
revised
assessment,
is
significantly
greater
than
that
which
can
be
achieved
in
our
stabilized
potential.
We
used
a
five
percent
vacancy
rate.
I
was
reviewing
the
guidelines
this
morning
and
realized
that
we
should
have
used
a
six
percent
vacancy
rate,
given
the
the
guidelines
at
the
property,
and
so
I
would
like
to
make
that
change
at
this
point,
which
would
reduce
the
gross
effective
income
potential
to
10
million
to
62
215.
J
J
However,
we
do
recognize
that
that
is
in
excess
of
the
county's
guideline
rate,
which
is
somewhat
lower:
six
million
six
thousand
nine
hundred
and
forty
five
dollars
per
unit.
We
capitalize
that
value.
We
use
four
point:
five
percent,
there's
again,
just
like
the
last
appellant.
We
believe
that
the
county's
rate
is
is
too
low,
but
in
the
spirit
of
not
beating
the
dead
horse,
we
changed
that
and
are
using
the
same
rate.
J
The
county
used
weighted
average
rate
of
4.172
percent
with
combining
both
income
streams,
which
works
out
to
a
capitalized
value
of
144
million,
87
000
and
then
deducting
one
year's
lost
rent
brings
it
down
to
133
169
900..
So
again
we
looked
at
the
actual
rent
roll
in
place
to
come
up
with
a
gross
potential
income.
J
We
use
the
six
percent
vacancy
rate
to
come
up
with
this
number
now,
which
is
the
the
guideline
rate
for
high-rise
apartments,
and
we
believe
that
the
expenses
are
reasonable
as
as
put
in,
but
if
you
put
them
in
at
7000
per
unit.
J
J
In
terms
of
the
assessment,
I
will
reference
that
I
don't
understand
how
mr
chicas
did
the
arrived
at
his
2020
revised
value.
It
appears
that
that's
on
the
first
page,
it
appears
that
he
added
an
amount
in
for
the
affordable.
He
valued
that
at
four
seven,
seven,
three
three
hundred
his
income
approach,
values
that
at
three
seven
seven,
oh
nine
forty-
and
we
would
ask
that
that
if
you
look
at
mr,
is
his
revised
numbers
that
that
is
the
number
you
use.
J
J
I
actually
can't
read
it
if
it's
a
9
or
8
472,
so
the
total
value
would
be
using
his
revised
numbers
would
be
one
forty
one,
five,
thirty
four
twelve.
However,
we
do
think
that
the
number
that
we
have
at
137,
429
800
more
accurately
represents
what
can
be
achieved
at
the
property
and
is
in
accordance
with
section
58.1
3295.1
that
talks
about
looking
at
actual
income
shall
be
considered
now.
J
I
know
we
have
negative
income
here,
because
the
property
was
in
lease
up,
but
certainly
it's
not
going
to
be
able
to
earn
more
than
it
generating
in
relationship
to
it,
its
rent,
roll.
Thank
you.
K
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
mrs
borman,
looking
at
gables
point
14.
K
Essentially
what
we're
talking
about
here
is
peer
projection,
given
that
the
property
is
open
approximately
six
months
in
2019's
operating
year,
the
board,
the
county
would
direct
the
board
to
focus
upon
the
three
year
summer
sheet
in
conjunction
with
the
rent
roll,
as
indicated
by
miss
borman.
I
believe
that's
on
page
54
of
84.,
as
noted
by
ms
borman,
the
county
did
erroneously
value
the
property.
That's
having
395
units
on
january
1st,
appreciate
miss
borman
and
correcting
that
information.
For
us
she
provided
us
the
rent
roll.
K
As
you
can
see,
on
page
54.,
one
of
the
things
we
noted
and
the
major
difference
between
our
opinion
of
value
and
ms
borman's
will
be
the
use
of
the
rent
roll
and
the
use
of
the
average
of
the
rent
roll.
One
thing
that
we
need
to
note
here
with
this
rent
roll
is,
it
lists
all
370
properties,
and
that
includes
39
committed,
affordable
units.
K
Obviously,
those
committed
affordable
units
brought
down
the
weighted
average
quite
a
bit,
and
so
it
should
be
isolated
as
they
are
constrained
by
income
requirements
in
the
county,
and
it
also
also
obviously
weighs
down
the
market
valuation
as
well.
The
market
component
you'll
note
too
that
on
page
55
of
84,
they
list
two
models
as
having
zero
value,
as
they
were
being
used
as
models
at
the
time,
but
obviously
they
have
gross
potential
income
projections
behind
them,
especially
considering
one
of
them
is
the
second
largest
unit
that
they
offer.
K
We
took
the
time
to
break
down
those
331
market
units.
Apart
from
the
39
committed,
affordable
units,
I
correctly
placed
them
in
columns,
f1
and
f2,
as
was
applicable
for
their
use
again
being
either
market
or
committed
affordable.
We
went
ahead
and
applied
the
guideline
vacancy
and
concession
amount
for
the
market
at
six
percent.
Three
percent
for
committed,
affordable
in
lieu
of
a
a
one
year
of
historical
operating.
K
K
530.
Excuse
me:
141
million
530
400
and
mr
bailey
can
correct
me
from
wrong,
but
I
believe
the
last
part,
miss
borman
noted,
was
a
difference
in
our
original
assessment
and
where
we
inadvertently
forgot
to
include
the
improvement
value
for
the
text.
Exact,
parcel
and
that's
explained
on
page
one,
I
believe-
might
big
page
two
where
the
parcel
was
initially
kept
off.
K
It's
on
page
three
excuse
me,
but
that
had
a
value
of
two
million
one
hundred
seventy
five
thousand
three
hundred,
and
so
that
should
equate
for
the
difference
and
what
you
see
on
the
internet,
page
of
143
million
and
change
143
757
versus
the
actual
math,
which
is
141
million,
530
400.,
based
upon
again
using
pure
projection
for
this
property,
but
based
upon
ours
being,
we
believe,
a
bit
more
accurate
in
the
sense
of
separating
the
market
components
from
the
committed,
affordable
and
then
isolating
those
so
as
to
not
mess
with
the
weighted
average
of
the
entire
project.
K
K
A
E
Just
to
clarify
mrs
borman
stated
that
that
parcel,
which
has
the
improvement
value
added
as
chris
stated
for
low
income,
it's
not
for
the
low
income,
it's
for
the
transitional
housing
building.
I
think
it's
that's
the
building
owned
by
the
county.
It
was
part
of
the
site
plan.
It's
the
smaller
five-story
building
that
sits
on
the
corner,
so
that
is
completely
tax
exempt.
E
That's
why
it's
valued
on
cost
approach,
because
this
is
a
transitional
housing
building
owned
by
the
county,
the
so
the
low
income
units
and
their
value
would
be
on
parcel
170240.
E
That's
where
all
the
rental
units
are
valued
and
then
the
17024034
is
the
transitional
housing
value
and
again
that
value
is
determined
through
the
cost
approach,
because
it's
not
income
producing
property.
A
E
K
E
F
One
quick
one
for
the
appellant
you
didn't
break
out
as
the
county
did
affordable
versus
market
rate
units
is
the
2019
ie
submission
a
weighted
average
of
those
incomes
and
cap
rates.
J
I
B
K
The
cap
rate
that
is
used
for
any
of
the
committed
affordable
will
be
the
same
regardless
if
it's
used,
100
or
otherwise.
So
that's
why
we
break
out
that
component,
so
it
has
its
own
cap
rate.
B
H
This
is
for
mr
chickas,
if
the
value
that
was
the
improvement
value
that
mr
bailey
says
it's
for-
for
transitional
housing
for
parcel
ending
zero,
three
four,
the
two
million
one,
seventy
five,
three
hundred,
if
that
was
included
the
total
value,
the
original
assessment
would
have
been
a
lot
higher,
wouldn't
wouldn't
that.
K
H
K
H
J
I
A
Are
we
done
with
questions
from
board
members?
Okay,
okay,
mr
chicas?
If
you
would
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up,
please.
K
Yes,
ma'am
so
again,
just
ask
the
board
to
recognize
the
county's
effort
to
disassociate
the
committed,
affordable
units
from
the
market
rate,
to
give
a
more
accurate
value
for
each
component.
That
was
done
in
columns,
f1
and
f2.
They
each
have
their
own
deductions
if
you
walk
through
the
guideline
book
and
they
each
have
their
own
value,
which
make
up
a
total
value.
In
this
case,
the
revision
revised
value
of
141
million
530
400,
we
believe,
should
be
confirmed
and
revised.
Thank
you.
J
Looking
at
the
actual
weighted
average
rent
roll,
the
rents
that
would
be
generated
or
what
we
are,
what
we
showed
on
our
stabilized
potential
column
and
the
looking
at
the
rent,
roll
and
just
and
ignoring
the
weighted
average,
it
would
be
lower
than
the
10
million
nine
one.
Seven
two,
fifty
using
a
six
percent
vacancy
rate
results
in
a
gross
effective
income
of
10
million
262
215
and
using
seven
thousand
dollars
per
unit
results
in
noi
of
seven
million
six.
J
I
appreciate
mr
chikas
attention
to
detail
and
splitting
out
the
units,
but
once
you,
if
you
use
a
weighted
average
in
the
stabilized
potential,
there's
zero
difference
in
in
the
results,
but
one
does
result
in
an
noi
that
is
overstated,
whereas
the
one
provided
by
the
taxpayer
results
in
an
noi
that
accurately
reflects
the
property's
potential.
Thank
you.
F
That
weighted
average
10.5
percent
of
all
the
units
are
committed,
affordable
and
in
the
breakout
of
the
department.
We
have
five
point
cap
rate,
only
I'm
talking
about
five
point:
nine
versus
five
point.
One
five
and
the
impeller
of
course
uses
five
point:
five.
If
you
weight
down
the
the
the
lower
cap
rate,
515
and
and
weighted
by
10,
should
be
at
5.9.
F
You
don't
get
5.5
that
the
the
opponent
is
presented,
but
rather
something
closer
to
5.25.
You
know
bringing
up
the
lower
cap
rate
because
ten
percent
or
a
higher
cap
rate.
So
I
like
the
way
the
department
is
very
clear
and
I
haven't
done
the
math,
but
it's
certainly
doesn't
go
from
five
fifteen
to
five.
Fifty
because
10
and
a
half
percent
are
a
higher
cap
rate
rated.
F
So
I'm
not
trusting
the
the
cap
rate
that
the
appellant
has
used
and
again
I
didn't
have
the
time
to
get
the
exact
number,
but
it's
not
anything
intuitively
close
to
5.5.
A
In
addition,
I
mean
many
of
us
who
have
been
on
the
board
advocated
for
years
to
do
this
to
actually
break
them
out.
So
just
the
fact
that
the
county
does
this.
Now
I
mean
this
is
something
that
we've
asked
for
for
years,
so
I
am
not
in
any
way
looking
to
go
back
and
weight
them
and
put
this
more
to
a
subjective
measure.
I
think
this
is
you
know
it
breaks
it
up
nicely.
A
B
Yes,
ma'am,
the
only
thing
that
I
would
like
to
you
know
maybe
keep
in
mind
and
look
at
towards
the
end
here.
You
know.
I
still
think
that
a
low
mod
unit
in
a
you
know
otherwise
market
project.
B
I
think
the
cap
rate
should
be
adjusted
and
the
reason
I
say
that
is
you
know.
I
know
they
got
bonus
density
but
that's
taxed
on
it
on
its
own,
but
they
don't
have
the
benefit
of
lower
tax
rates.
I
mean,
excuse
me,
lower
interest
rates
and
other
governmental
programs
that
encourage
it.
So
I
nothing
on
this
case
today,
but
I
do
want
to
look
at
that
towards
the
end
of
the
year.
Thank
you.
A
G
I
just
one
thing
I
couldn't:
I
want
to
make
sure
I'm
on
the
on
the
right
page
here.
There's
three
buildings
on
this
site
and
two
of
them
are
market
rate
and
one
is
combined,
committed,
affordable
and
transitional
housing.
G
Is
that
correct?
Is
that
what
you
guys
took
away
from
this?
I'm
just
looking
at
the
the
map
of
this
site
and
there's
it
looks
like
there's
three
buildings.
One
of
them
is
owned
by
the
county
I
heard
and
it's
not
being
taxed,
but
then
there's
a
there's,
4.7
million
in
assessed
value
for
one
of
the
rpcs.
A
I
believe
so
I
you
know
that
issue
hasn't
come
up
from
either
party,
so
I
assume
I
mean
I'm
only
looking
at
the
total
number
of
units,
the
331
and
the
39,
I'm
not
sure
what
buildings
they're
all
in
and
since
that
was
not
an
argument
brought
up
from
either
side.
I
have
to
assume
that
that
portion
is
it's
allocated
out
properly.
B
Yes,
ma'am
last
comment:
shouldn't
we
at
least
go
to
the
test.
I'm
sorry
shouldn't.
We
at
least
go
to
the
141
530
400..
B
H
A
A
All
right
any
further
discussion.
No
all
right,
then
I'll
move
to
reduce
it
to
the
county's
revised
number
from
the
test
at
141,
530
400.
A
A
J
J
The
taxpayer
is
looking
for
a
value
of
214
million
dollars,
213,
basically,
nine
in
reviewing
the
assessment,
the
county
made
a
number
of
in
their
their
written
comments,
a
number
of
notes,
one.
It
indicated
that
it
over
you
know,
goes
through
all
the
various
line
items
and,
as
the
board
is
often
points
out,
it's
the
noi
that
really
matters,
and
in
going
through
all
the
line
items
the
the
one
that
struck
me.
J
The
most
is
that
drea
overstated
the
achievable
noi
at
the
property
by
561
thousand
dollars
or
five
percent
the
county,
and
that's
a
significant
number.
J
The
county
went
back
and
reviewed
the
rent
role
and
then
some
expense
survey
form
that
was
provided
by
the
taxpayer
and
despite
the
fact
that
they
overstated
the
noi
by
more
than
half
a
million
in
the
original
assessment,
they
went
back
and
looked
at
the
the
2019
ine
and
said
we
are
going
to
increase
the
noi
took
by
a
million
two
hundred
and
thirty
two
thousand
dollars
over
the
actual
nli
at
the
property.
J
J
It
results
in
a
value
of
213
million,
923
700
and
basically
the
county
has
overstated
the
noi
in
the
initial
assessment
by
over
five
hundred
thousand
dollars,
and
you
can
break
it
down
any
way
you
choose,
but
the
the
bottom
line
is
is
that's
what
happened
despite
the
fact
that
they
used
more
than
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
greater
noi
at
this
property,
the
county
increased
it
in
their
test
by
a
million
two
to
a
value.
I
I
Assessment
and
at
the
end.
J
J
Really
weird:
okay,
thank
you.
Basically,
it's
just
that
the
income
is
substantially
less,
that
the
code
provides
that
actual
income
shall
be
considered
and
that
confession
shall
be
considered
and
in
looking
at
that
and
using
the
county's
cap
rate,
a
value
that
is
significantly
lower
than
the
2020
assessment
of
24
is
derived,
and
that
number
is
213
923
700..
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chicas.
K
Yes,
ma'am,
so
not
to
confuse
the
issue
too
much,
but
the
code
cited
by
ms
borman.
K
58.1-3295.1
specifies
that
the
board
shall
consider
the
actuals
being
received
at
the
property
in
regards
to
the
residential
component,
only
not
the
retail
component
and
that's
significant,
because
that's
really
where
the
point
of
conjecture
lies
between
the
appellant
and
the
county.
K
K
We
were
presented
with
the
idea
the
evidence
that
almost
40
percent
of
that
retail
was
taken
by
a
company
that
actually
never
took
possession.
Excuse
me
40
of
that
24
524
square
feet.
So
what
we
did
was
we
looked
at
the
information,
separated
the
two
components
that
retail
from
the
residential
and
saw
that
the
residential
is
doing
quite
well.
This
is
a
new
property,
a
highline
property.
If
you
will
upper
luxury,
if
you
will
or
near
luxury
it's
it's
located
on
the.
J
K
They're
in
roslyn
it's
across
the
bridge
from
georgetown.
So
as
far
as
being
a
prime
location,
that's
done
well.
Lease
up
has
con
taken
very
little
time.
Basically
came
online,
some
point
2017
by
2017
to
2018.
It
had
cut
its
vacancy
by
almost
some
45
percent
and
then
another
four
percent
property
here
in
2019
and
essentially.
K
January
1st
2020
with
the
ine
listing
about
approximately
six
percent
of
vacancy,
so
we
looked
at
the
rent
role
in
regards
to
the
residential
side
and
noted
again
that
the
two
years
in
a
row
of
uptick
in
apartment
revenue
had
no
issues
projecting
forward
for
another
year
of
rental
revenue
increase.
K
We
saw
that
there's
increases
on
the
parking
side
increases
on
the
miscellaneous
revenue
side,
increases
on
the
utility
reimbursement
side.
Of
course,
potential
income
increased
two
years
in
a
row,
almost
three
percent
in
2019
and
again
this
is
almost
entirely
due
to
the
residential
component
being
the
driver
for
that.
The
board
is
familiar
with
how
we
do
rental
projections,
especially
again,
given
that
this
is
still
in
its
initial
lease
up
stage.
K
If
you
will
three
years
into
its
infancy,
we
did
note
upon
a
retail
rent
roll
analysis
that
the
building
was
able
to
capture
per
square
foot
rates
that
were
quite
quite
aggressive,
you'll
see
those
listed
on.
I
believe
it's
page,
four
of
our
packet,
let
me
find
out
for
sure
page
five
of
our
packet
you'll
see
the
the
per
square
foot
rental
rates
that
they
were
getting.
K
K
Obviously,
as
the
board
again
is
aware,
even
though
the
facts
on
the
ground
are
showing
40
percent
vacancy,
we
need
to
project
what
that
potential
would
be
if
it
were
100
occupied,
and
to
do
that.
Of
course,
we
did
this
map
that
you'll
see
on
page
four
of
the
packet
124
pages,
which
led
to
column
f2.
K
As
ms
borman
noted,
that's
still
a
quite
a
bit
of
an
increase
over
what
actually
occurred
in
calendar
year
2019,
but
that
is
again
the
difference
between
a
40
drop-off
in
revenue,
potential
revenue
on
the
retail
side
versus
100
percent
potential
revenue
projection
made
based
off
the
facts
on
the
ground
versus
what
we're
getting
with
the
rent
roll.
K
So
again,
column
f1
is
representative
of
the
successful
residential
component
and,
again
that's
reflective
of
what
the
rent
rolls
showed
us.
What
we're
able
to
define
again
incorporating
the
guideline
vacancy
and
concession
six
percent
and
then
make
an
adjustment
for
the
low
projection
on
the
operating
expenses.
As
of
january
1st,
again,
given
that
they're
still
in
the
infancy
of
lease
up,
we
did
make
adjustments
for
that
increase
for
operating
expenses.
K
As
the
board
is
familiar,
we
do
not
recommend
a
increase
with
a
third
party
appraisal,
so
we
did
come
back
to
our
original
assessment
and
believe
that
again,
at
least
based
on
the
low
projections
made
for
the
residential
side
and
the
fact
that
this
was
obviously
before
we
had
the
information
regarding
the
40
vacancy
on
the
retail
side.
That.
I
K
E
K
No
again
just
based
on
the
information
that
we
tested
and
that
did
indicate
a
higher
value
than
what
we
came
out
january
1st.
So
we
do
believe
january.
1St
value
of
224
million
527
600
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
J
A
F
Very
quickly,
I
I
sure,
wish
the
appellant
community,
the
taxpayer
community,
if
texas
enables
its
its
appeals
to
breaking
out
different
components
of
mixed-use
buildings,
because
incomes
are
different.
F
Vacancies
are
different,
cap
rates
are
different
and
they
can
only
assist
themselves
in
their
appeals
if
they
can
compare
their
apples
to
the
department
of
real
estate
assessments
appeals.
I
I
can't
I
listen
carefully
to
this
appellants,
like
the
last
one,
their
their
appeals,
but
I
can't
wait
things
back
and
forth
and
make
an
intelligent
decision
or
an
objective
is
a
more
objective
decision
than
we
can
by
just
lumping
numbers
together,
whereas
the
department
does
break
them
out
and
their
their
comments
do.
A
Yeah
I
agree.
Additionally,
I
mean
the
appellant's
argument
in
the
opening
statements
that
the
county
over
assessed
by
you
know
a
half
a
million
dollars.
I
mean
that's,
not
really
an
accurate
statement.
I
mean
they
didn't,
have
the
2019
figures
when
they
did
that
assessment,
so
it
was
based
on
a
projection.
So
you
know
I
would
disagree
there
and
I
think
to
be
honest,
based
on
what
the
property
should
do.
You
know
I'm
okay
with
the
original
assessment.
I
think
it's
you
know
the
test,
I
think
was
possibly
a
little
aggressive.
A
K
A
E
We
wanted
to
postpone
this
one
due
to
some
ongoing
conversation
about
the
pdsp,
we're
trying
to
get
some
more
info,
concrete
facts
on
the
case
on
both
sides,
so
she's
working
with
her
client
and
we're
working
with
cphb
on
the
matter.
E
We
were
hoping
to
get
the
case
postponed
and
we
also
feel
like
it's
best
to
hear
the
other
cases,
this
with
other
rpcs
that
are
part
of
this
pdsp
all
on
the
same
day,
as
the
issues
at
hand
are
the
same
on
those
cases
as
well.
E
E
So
we're
just
trying
to
get
concrete
facts
on
this
one
parcel,
which
is
a
by-right
parcel.
It's
a
by-right
parcel
that
was
purchased
from
the
commonwealth
of
vdot.
E
There's
disagreements
about
whether
or
not
that
parcel
has
density,
and
so
we're
trying
to
get
the
experts
who
worked
on
the
pdsp
to
give
us
information
on
what
is
the
actual
case.
E
And
that
was
one
thing
that
did.
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
her,
but
that
was
part
of
part
of
the
conversation
where
she
was
gonna
get
determination
from
zoning,
and
so
that's
another
reason
I
want
for
wanting
to
delay
it
because
we
don't
know
for
one.
I
don't
know
if
that
process
has
been
started
and
then
how
long
that
process
will
take.
We
just
believe
is,
in
the
best
interest
of
everybody
for
her
to
have
the
opportunity
to
reach
out
to
zone
and
have
zone
and
provide
us
with
that
determination.
Letter.
A
Okay,
rosa:
do
we
have
a
slot
on
another
day
to
be
able
to
move
this
to
what
what
date
were
you?
Thinking
of,
I
would
have
to
look
at
the
agenda
of
the.
I
don't
care
if
it
goes
to
the
end
of
october
at
this
point,
but
I
I'm
just
asking:
is
there
a
slot
available?
Yes,
there
will
be
yes,
okay,.
A
Okay,
so
that
being
said
is
where's
the
board
on
this.
Are
you,
okay,
with
accepting
the
request
for
postponement.
H
A
I
would
suggest
you
get
it
done
timely
because
we
don't
intend
to
go
over
the
deadline.
That's
the
reason
for
the
double
meetings.
Okay,
do
we
need
a
motion
to
do
that.
I
A
A
A
A
Okay,
at
this
time
before
we
start
with
mr
warren,
we'll
take
a
five
minute
break.
It's
10
15,
so
we'll
be
back
here
about
10
20
and
pick
up
the
final.
A
A
A
A
C
A
Do
we
have
greg
reigns
on
the
call.
A
You
I
can
see
you
and
hear
you,
okay,
moving
along
on
the
agenda.
The
next
two
cases,
rpc20010026
and
20013009,
were
previously
heard
on
wednesday
september,
2nd
due
to
technical
difficulties.
Mr
reigns
from
ditmar
was
unable
to
testify
and
there
was
remaining
time
on
the
appellant
side,
so
I'm
going
to
allow
in
individual
cases.
In
the
first
case,
mr
rains,
to
have
three
minutes
to
speak
to
the
property.
The
county
will
have
three
minutes
to
respond
to
that.
We'll
have
questions
wrap
up
and
we
will
revoke
these
two
cases.
A
L
You
in
the
hearing
last
week
and
one
from
columbia
park
earlier,
it
does
seem
that
the
board
has
come
to
maybe
the
county
in
general,
just
the
garden
style
versus
mid-rise
argument.
You
know
on
a
minor
point.
I
think
the
county
referenced
some
of
our
advertising
collateral.
As
as
a
defense
of
why
you
know
it's
a
mid-rise
versus
a
garden
style.
You
know.
K
L
We,
you
know
our
marketing
and
I
can
show
you
pictures
of
units
that
would
blow
you
away,
and
then
you
get
the
unit.
You
know
we
have
to
market
the
property
the
best
of
our
ability,
so
the
mid-rise
on
our
marketing
is
just
our
marketing
team.
That's
not
me
putting
the
cap
rate
classification
on
any
marketing,
but
that's.
L
Of
wanted
to
say
that
you
know
four
stories
versus
nine
stories
when
it
comes
to
arlington.
Multi-Family
project
is
massively
different,
there's
different
amenities,
larger
amenities
and
when
we
use
these
cap
rates
for
garden
style
apartments,
which
this
is
we're
putting
into
a
trophy
building
classification
as
far
as
unit
value
and
that's
just
not
achievable,
and
so
over
the
past
three
years,
we've
argued
this
garden
style
argument,
just
as
the
only
mechanism
to
get
these
cap
rates
to
a
point
where
we
could.
We
don't
we're
still
not
happy
with
the
cap
rate.
L
We
don't
feel
the
property
or
the
unit
value
is
there,
but
that's
the
that's
the
mechanism
that
we
use,
because
they
are
garden
style
units
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
but
now
we're
saying
okay.
These
are
mid-rise
buildings
and
so
for
columbia
park.
Thomas
court
and
this
particular
property
birchwood
we're
putting
the
unit
values
to
a
place
where
there's
no
substantiation
in
the
market,
and
I
just
think
that
the
board-
you
know
as
we
move
forward
into
next
year
and
beyond.
L
We
have
to
get
away
for
a
garden
style
unit
off
metro,
near
metro,
to
be
moved
off
of
these
cap
rates
that
you
know
when
they're
loaded
they're,
just
not
they're,
not
achievable,
so
I
just
you
know
I
I
the
the
difference
between.
L
We
have
to
formulate
a
way
to
get
this
done
properly
or
we're
going
to
have
to
pursue
it
further,
because
I
can't
I
just
can't
the
unit
values
moving
up
with
these
cap
rates.
Are
we
can't
continue
to
have
the
rates
the
the
values
of
these
units
grow
to
a
point
where
the
appraisals
aren't
seen.
So
that
was
that.
I
L
It
I
agree,
I
really
do
appreciate
you
guys
making
time
for
us
to
to
speak.
Last
week
I
was
trying
to
say
something,
but
I
couldn't
get
off
from
you
so
and
appreciate
the
work
y'all
are
doing,
but
that's
that's
what
I
wanted
to
go
over.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chicas.
K
Yes,
ma'am
with
respect
for
mr
reigns.
Essentially,
what
you
just
heard
was
was
all
subjective.
It's
all
anecdotal.
What
we
presented
to
the
board
was
all
objective
again
using
the
owner's
own
advertising
brochure,
it's
list
as
a
mid-rise
freddie
mac
list.
The
properties
four
stories
to
nine
is
a
mid-rise
only
in
fact,
one
two
and
three
is
garden
co-starlets
as
a
four-story
mid-rise
and
even
again,
the
appellant's
own
paperwork
lists
the
property's
four
stories
which
we've
equated
as
a
mid-rise
per
guidebook.
K
K
You
know
opinion,
be
it
anecdotal
or
otherwise,
so
we
believe
that
the
this
property
and
the
next
one
should
be
confirmed
as
the
mid-range
properties
that
they
we
have
shown
that
they
are.
Thank
you.
B
A
M
Just
the
precedent
had
been
set
in
the
past
as
well
to
call
these
all
gardens,
so
the
precedent
now
is
to
call
them
back
to
mid-rise,
but
it's
not
like.
This
has
historically
always
been
a
mid-rise
property
in
the
past
two
years
it
was
actually
a
garden
property,
and
then
this
year
it's
back
to
a
mid-rise.
The
question
I
guess
to
ask
is
whether
it's
a
gardener
mid-rise
when
you
unload
the
cap
rate,
with
both
the
tax
rate
and
the
20
20
base.
M
Point
replacement,
reserve
you're
at
a
five
cap
rate,
a
sub
five
cap
rate,
which
the
the
thought
of
one
of
these
properties
selling
at
a
sub
five
cap
rate
is
a
bit
ridiculous,
and
I
know
mr
hoffman
in
the
past
has
looked
at
price
per
units
as
a
comparison
and
I'd.
Ask
that,
in
your
deliberation,
to
compare
this
on
a
price
per
unit
to
the
other
properties
and
say:
is
this
property
truly
comparable
to
the
price
per
unit
assessments
of
other
properties
and
hope
that
that
occurs?
M
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Okay,
it's
just
among
the
board
members.
I
believe
mr
lawson
has
made
his
comment.
Other
folks,
mr
hoffman.
G
I
still
view
this
as
a
garden
style
apartment,
and
I
know
last
week
when
we
reviewed
it,
we
were
trying
to
maintain
the
consistency,
given
that
the
counties
now
defined
a
one
to
three
story:
a
four
to
eight
story
and
a
nine
plus
story
category
and
it's
a
pretty
bright
line.
They've
created
there.
But
I
just
I
I'm
I'm
sympathetic
to
the
appellant's
argument
that
this
doesn't
belong
in
a
category
with
trophy
highly.
G
Buildings
on
metro
corridor
and
that
cap
rate,
I
think,
regardless
of
the
number
of
stories
a
cap
rate
of
5.75,
seems
fair.
F
I'll
add
on
that
for
a
moment,
and
I
have
another
point
with
mass
appraisal.
Unfortunately,
I
don't
think
we
can
get
exact
property.
You
know
60
000,
plus
properties
in
the
county.
We
can't
get
it
down
to
the
fine.
You
know
four
stories
in
metro,
that's
one
cap
rate
and
seven
stories.
Not
a
metro
is
another
cap
rate,
it's
a
little
sloppy,
but
I
think
that's
the
the
essence
of
mass
appraisal
as
long
as
we
don't.
On
the
other
hand,
if
they
said
well,
all
apartments
are
certain
cap
rate.
F
That
would
be
the
other
end
of
the
spectrum.
So
I
I
don't
think
it's
perfect,
but
I
am
comfortable
with
it
because
that's
how
it's
done
in
an
urban
environment.
Second,
more
importantly,
we
talked
a
lot
about
stories,
but
we
didn't
talk
about
parking
and
a
hallmark
of
garden.
Apartments
tends
to
be
overwhelmingly
surface
parking,
whereas
this
and
mid-rise,
and
certainly
high-rise,
it's
underground
parking
and
protected
parking,
and
this
apartment
has
both
of
those
gated
underground
apartments.
So
to
me
that
surely
takes
it
out
of
the
garden
and
into
the
mid-rise
classification.
C
Yes,
I
I
we
have
to
draw
a
line
somewhere.
The
counties
come
up
with
reasonable
reasons.
Why
they've
drawn
the
line-
and
I
guess
the
one
question
I
would
have
to
the
county
or
to
think
about.
C
We
have
a
lot
of
these
come
up
at
the
four
stories
or
some
partly
look
below
grade
or
not,
but
four
stories
if,
if
the
county
considered
looking
in
the
future
into
the
into
five
stories,
if
that
might
make
the
difference
where
the
line
gets
drawn,
a
little
more,
it's
not
as
gray
as
this.
All
these
mid
or
mid-rise
garden
apartment
unknowns
seem
to
fall,
and
it's
not
unknown
it
is.
It
is
definitely
within
their
guidelines
and
that's
that's
my
only
point.
C
A
Well,
I
think
any
time
that
you,
you
know,
draw
a
line
between
the
number
of
floors.
You're
gonna
have
an
issue.
If
you
go
to
five,
then
it's
gonna
be
well.
What
happens?
I'm
six.
I
think
it
just
opens
a
can
of
worms.
I
think
the
the
industry
standard
from
the
standpoint
of
you
know
fannie
mae,
freddie
mac
do
say
you
know
that
this
split
is
between
three
and
four.
So
you
know
I
know.
A
A
If
we're
treating
these,
you
know,
there's
a
difference
between
garden
and
there's
a
difference
between
mid-rise
that
this
clearly
falls
in
the
mid-rise
and
should
stay
in
the
mid-rise
I'm
sympathetic
to
the
appellant,
because
I
certainly
think
there's
differences
just
like,
I
think,
there's
differences
when
you
go
between
the
maximum
level
of
mid-rise
and
go
to
a
high-rise,
you
know
and
you
get
caught
in
the
same
argument.
There
we're
only
one
floor
off,
you
know.
So,
from
a
standpoint
of
equalization,
we've
got
to
pick
something
the
county's
picked
it.
You
know
from
an
equalization
standpoint.
C
A
H
Yeah
I
mean
we've
already
touched
this
point
for
so
many
other
buildings
and,
like
you
said,
fannie
mae
freddie
mac,
I
myself
would
consider
this
a
mid-rise.
If
I
were
to
list
it
as
a
condominium
and
ken's
point
of
you
know
parking.
I
think
that
even
makes
this
case
even
stronger
to
consider
it
as
a
mid-rise,
because
there's
I've
never
seen
a
garden
project
with
that
parking
underneath.
H
But
you
know
I
I
think
we're
clear
on.
What's
the
mid-rise
and
you
know
you
can't
really
ignore
what
the
appellant
or
the
owner
or
the
rest
of
the
community
considers
this
building.
As
you
know,
they
advertise
it.
They
promote
this
as
a
mid-rise
and
that's
the
marketing
technique.
They
use
to
be
able
to
get
the
rent,
so
I
don't
see
how
we
can
make
the
change
now,
just
for
assessment
purposes,.
H
A
Okay,
I'm
sorry
with
somebody
like
to
make
a
motion.
If
there's
no
further
discussion.
C
A
A
You're
opposed
yes,
so
the
vote
is
changed
six
to
one
with
no,
mr
hoffman,
but
the
county
is
confirmed
at
the
39
million
for
80
100..
A
L
Thank
you,
mary,
and
you
know
I
I
understand.
I
think
mr
warren
presented
some
non-anecdotal
trophy
value
buildings
last
week
on
this
property.
So
I
I
apologize
for
me
thinking
what
I'm
saying
is
objective,
and
maybe
it
is
a
little
bit
of
subjectivity
to
it,
but
I
don't
think
it's.
I
think
it's
pretty
objective
that
the
the
value
per
unit
on
this
property
and
on
the
last
one
was
out
of
line
with
sales
or
values
in
the
area
per
unit.
L
It's
way
off,
and
so
that's
I
mean
to
me
that's
objective
because
I
know
the
comps
and
I
know
the
sales,
the
other
thing
you
know
and
we
and
as
we
get
down
to
you,
know
really
equalizing
these
units.
You
know,
we've
said
that
it's
story
based,
but
in
the
last
case
we
talked
about
surface
parking.
L
We
talked
about
the
management
marketing
and
again,
we've
had
a
case
this
year,
where
we
market
it
as
garden
style.
It
has
surface
parking,
it
has
below
grade
fourth
floor,
but
it
was
so
it's
the
floors.
That's
the
delineation
point
and
I
do
think
that
one
of
the
board
members
had
a
good
point
about
a
fifth
floor
and
I
think
that's
one
again.
These
have
to
be
learning
processes,
because
these
aren't
gonna.
These
do
not
achieve
the
values
that
a
mid-rise
would
at
eight
stories.
L
You
have
to
have
a
line
but
to
me
we're
using
height
of
building
to
define
these
properties
when
it's
not
height
of
building
and
and
if
it
was
truly
that
objective
in
surface
parking
and
non-elevator
and
garden
style,
marketing
mattered,
then
columbia
park
would
be
not
a
mid-rise,
but
now
it
is,
and
so
I
think
we're
we're
moving
the
needle
based
on
floors,
where
that's
the
only
thing
we're
looking
at
and
it's
off,
and
so
we
need
to
look
at
these
permanent
values
and,
like
I
said,
I
know
blake
last
time
when
this
building
was
presenting
properties
with
associated
values.
A
M
L
M
Yeah,
I
was
just
going
to
say:
I
mean
the
view
at
liberty.
Center
4,
000,
wilson,
boulevard
on
the
corner
is
in
the
same
neighborhood
as
this
property
is
obviously
a
high-rise
property
with
a
huge
number
of
amenities
and
is
assessed
lower
per
unit
than
the
subject
property
and
then
the
maxwell,
which
is
the
same
mid-rise
low
rise
about
the
same
floor
height,
but
a
much
nicer
property
with
more
amenities.
Washer
reit
building,
is
assessed
at
over
a
hundred
dollars
per
unit
less
than
the
subject
property.
M
So
I
just
if,
if
you
could,
please
consider,
I
know
we
talk
about
equalization.
I
one
thing
I
want
to
stress
is
the
the
default
on
mass
appraisal
is
not
an
excuse
for
incorrect
assessments,
and
if
we
now
that
we're
at
this
level
we're
able
to
dig
in
a
little
bit
deeper
to
the
specific
property
and
when
you
look
at
the
specific
property,
you
put
it
next
to
the
cops
and
say
does
this
make
sense,
and
this
greatly
fails
that
test.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
mr
chicas
yeah.
K
I
think
it's
just
to
reiterate
that
point.
Is
that
we're
starting
to
get
into
a
fine-tooth
comb
where
it's
it's,
the
appellants
and
the
owners
don't
want
to
be
judged
by
the
floor
height
but
by
the
number
of
units,
but
by
the
number
of
units
per
floor
height,
but
that
is
surface
parking,
but
that
has
an
elevator
that
is
near
metro
access.
So
if
it's,
if
it's
applicable
and
beneficial
to
the
owner,
then
that's
what
they
would
like
incorporate
into
the
decision.
K
K
You
know
they
took
the
time
to
talk
about
the
liberty
building,
which
has
hundreds
of
units
compared
to
thomas
court,
which
has
49
units.
K
Obviously,
the
per
unit
value
is
going
to
be
higher
on
a
building
that
has
hundreds
of
units
as
compared
to
excuse
me,
it
would
be
lower
as
compared
to
thomas
court,
which
has
49
units
so,
regardless
of
the
total
value
being
much
lower
when
you're
looking
as
a
per
unit
value,
it's
going
to
be
higher
because
you're,
you
can
it's
something
that
has
you
know:
100
200
units
less
so
again
we're
back
to
what
makes
a
mid-rise
apartment.
And
that's
really
was
the
point
of
this
talking
point
today.
K
The
guidelines
have
set
out
that
four
to
eight
stories
is
a
mid-rise
freddie.
Mac
backs
that
up
fannie
mae
backs
that
up
co-star
backs
that
up
the
appellant's
own
packet
max
that
up
the
owner's
marketing
brochure
backs
that
up.
So
the
the
argument
may
be
what
is
applicable
for
that
cap
rate.
That's
within
the
2011
tier,
if
you
will
for
the
mid-rise
apartments,
but
it
shouldn't
necessarily
be
amongst
whether
or
not
mid-rise
is
applicable
or
not,
because
we've
proven
that
objectively.
K
1325
peer
street
sold
in
october
of
2019
for
reported
4.01
percent
cap
rate,
552
000
a
unit,
and
that
sounds
high,
but
it
also
only
had
19
units
so
again
on
a
building.
That's
less
units
you're
going
to
get
a
higher
per
unit
valuation,
given
the
fact
that
the
thomas
court
performed
year
over
year,
better
than
2019
than
it
did
in
2018
metrics
across
the
board.
K
Given
that
it's
a
bid
rise
and
all
the
metrics
we
proved
and
that
we
underprojected
across
the
board
for
gross
potential
income,
effective
gross
income
operating
expenses
and
net
operating
income.
We
do
believe
that
the
property
should
be
confirmed:
21
million
991
600.
Thank
you.
B
Yeah
I
apologize
from
before
I'm
getting
overwhelmed
with
all
these
messages
from
the
school.
This
is
for
the
property
owner
at
how
many
floors
do
you
have
to
abandon
stickville.
B
L
L
A
B
L
We've
had
appraisals
on
the
property
from
a
you
know,
trust
standpoint.
You
know
when
for
the
families,
but
you
know
that
that
we
will
be
doing
one.
I
mean
honestly
we'll
be
doing
one
now,
because
we
we
just
think
this
is
way
out
of
line,
but
we.
L
But
I
don't
I
don't
you
know
we
didn't
to
be
honest
with
you.
We
didn't.
We
thought
that
this
would
kind
of
be
what
we
did
in
the
past
and
we'd
be
able
to
get
to
a
garden
style
classification,
so
this
year
this,
but
this
number
will
be
much
more
than
our
appraisals,
but
we
have
had
them,
but
we
haven't
turned
them
into
the
county.
G
Okay,
we
usually
don't
put
too
much
weight
if
it's
for
the
purposes
of
something
else,
you
know
trust
exactly
yeah.
That's
why
yeah.
G
Yeah,
but
I
was
thinking
since
we're
quoting
fannie
mae
and
everything
with
the
garden
definitions
that
if
there
was
ever
something
that
was,
you
know,
a
hud
or
an
agency
lender
within
with
an
appraisal
that
might
be
relevant.
K
No,
I
mean,
as
stated,
we
believe
the
property
is
performing
well
year
over
year,
specifically
in
regards
to
2019's
metrics,
everything
was
an
uptick.
We
believe
we've
established
the
properties
of
mid-rise,
the
applicable
cap
rate
was
utilized,
and
so
we
believe
that
county
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
E
I
want
to
also
add
I
mean,
because
we're
not
just
relying
on
fannie
mae
and
freddie
mac.
You
know
that
does
support
the
mid-rise
classification.
We
also
looked
at
the
appraisal
institute.
Fifth
edition
dictionary
real
estate
appraisal,
which
stated
mid-rise
apartment
buildings,
multiple
unit
dwellings
range
from
four
to
nine
stories
tall.
This
is
on
page
126
of
that
book.
It's
also
part
of
the
email
dated
august
28
2019
to
the
board
members.
M
Yeah,
if
you
don't
mind
really
quick
chris
threw
out
a
sale
just
now,
which
is
1325
north
pier
street,
which
I'm
glad
he
did
because
ditmar
is
the
one
that
actually
sold
that
and
he's
right.
It
did
sell
for
a
big
number,
but
it's
a
19
unit
apartment
building
that
sold
for
8.6
million
dollars.
M
So
you
have
to
test
what
you're
doing
you
can't
just
say:
look,
I
got
a
guidebook,
I
applied
it
and
what
it
says
is
what
it
says,
even
if
what
it
says
doesn't
make
sense,
because
although
it's
mass
appraisal
nasal
requires
testing
to
make
sure
that
it's
accurate
and
that's
what's
being
missed
here
by
the
county
in
their
analysis
again,
I
beg
that
mr
hoffman
will
look
at
the
comparisons
here
and
say:
does
450
000
per
unit
make
sense
for
this
49
unit
apartment
building?
That
is
a
four-story
building?
G
So
I
did
look
at
the
unit
per
unit,
price
or
or
assessment
rather
last
week,
when
we
heard
this
case,
and
I
ended
up
making
the
motion
to
confirm-
and
I
think
it
was
because
drilling
into
the
actual
unit
mix
it
turns
out.
This
building
is
like
92
percent
two
and
three
bedroom
units
so
per
unit.
I
wouldn't
I
wouldn't
want
to
try
to
equate
it
to
another
building,
that's
a
bunch
of
one
bedrooms
or
studios
and
ones.
G
So
there
is
a
difference
there
in
the
ability
to
generate
income
on
those
large
units
and
then
my
other
point
and
reason
why
I
was
pretty
supportive
of
confirming
the
county's
assessment
here
is
that
it's
they're
using
the
non-metro
cap
rate,
which
is
a
little
bit
higher
and
I
think,
a
little
bit
closer
to
reality
at
5.4
instead
of
5.15
for
the
last
property
we
just
saw.
So
I
I'd
still
support
confirming
the
county.
F
Thank
you.
I
wanted
to
refine
one
thing
that
I
said
on
the
last
case,
which
is
still
certainly
relevant
to
this
case.
That's
on
mass
appraisal.
What
I
absolutely
did
not
mean
to
imply
is
that
four
stories-
that's
it's
mid-rise,
there's
no
discussion.
I
think
the
the
department
and
ultimately,
if
it
comes
here,
the
board
ought
to
ought
to
consider
unusual
cases
if
the
fourth
floor
is
semi-underground.
F
If
the
fourth
floor,
if
the
the
main
building
is
assessed
on
the
second
floor
because
of
a
a
hill
or
or
there's
unusual
circumstances
concerning
ada
compliance,
so
I
I
don't
think
the
bright
line
is
immutable.
F
I
I,
but
I
think,
all
things
being
equal,
there's
nothing
unusual,
that
mass
appraisal
is
good
enough
and,
finally,
I
was
very
sympathetic
to
the
appellant's
point
of
view
that
a
much
nicer
building
the
liberty
in
this
case
ought
to
be
assessed
per
unit
at
more
dollars
because
it's
clearly
a
superior
building
in
all
ways
to
the
this
particular
case.
But
I'm
really
appreciative
that
mr
hoffman
dug
in
and
found
more
particulars
on
what
it,
what
is
a
unit
and
and
what
therefore,
should
be
its
evaluation.
So
thanks
very
much.
H
Well,
the
only
new
point
that
we
heard
today
is
the
per
unit
value,
and
I
think
all
of
these
buildings
you
know,
are
reviewed
once
they
are
appealed.
I
think
the
county
does
review
them,
they
retest
them,
and
you
know
they
may
not
put
it
as
another
column
when
it
doesn't
really
apply
or
they
don't
think
that
it
would
make
a
difference.
But
you
know
everything
is
valued
based
on
the
income
approach,
so
I
don't
think
the
per
unit
value
is
really
applicable.
H
If
we're
going
to
be,
if
we're
going
to
start
doing
that,
I
think
we're
going
to
be
all
over
the
place.
You
know
the
number
of
units,
the
type
of
units
a
lot
of
buildings,
have
more
efficiencies
than
one
bedrooms
or
two
bedrooms,
so
I
don't
think
that
would
I
think
it
would
just
take
us
at
all
out
of
control
really
on
the
way
the
values
are
assessed.
So
I'm,
okay
with
the
current
assessment.
B
Yeah
I'd
be
interested
in
greg's
opinion
on
this
craig.
Is
there
much
difference
in
your
opinion
when
you
go
from
stick
hill
to
say,
concrete
structural,
concrete.
L
We
see
that
you
know
in
our
ability.
We
don't.
A
Okay,
any
further
comments.
C
G
A
A
I
Okay,
so
this
is
the
randolph
towers
apartments.
It
is
consistent
of
one
rpc.
It's
currently
assessed
at
a
total
value
of
200
million
609
600
394
000
a
unit.
The
county
is
recommending
no
change
to
the
original
assessment.
However,
they
are
showing
a
reduction
in
their
test
column,
but
are
not
advising
a
change
because
of
the
it
doesn't
fit
outside
that
three
percent
change
or
variance.
I
However,
you
know
with
appropriate
200
million
their
revised
test
column
of
196
209
700.
At
the
very
least,
we
would
wish
the
board
to
consider
our
value
requested
value.
Today
is
193
million
176
900.
This
property
was
originally
built
in
1986,
it's
509
units,
a
21-story
high-rise.
I
If
you
turn
to
the
county's
page
3,
the
mixed
use,
income
and
expense
summary
you'll
see
the
report
reported
historical
financials
at
the
property,
and
what
this
really
comes
down
to
is
the
total
income
that's
being
projected
by
by
the
economy
in.
I
The
prior
year
increase
when
you're
looking
at
what
was
actually
reported
in
2019.
This
value
increased
13
from
the
prior
year.
It
was
initially
assessed
at
177
million
416
600
in
2019
before
it
increased
to
the
200
million,
but
over
that
same
time
frame
that
same
period,
the
actual
noi
only
increased
two
percent.
This
is
a
property
that,
over
the
last
several
years,
has
been
going
through
a
moderate
modernization,
effort
of
their
existing
or
older
units
through
2018
and
2019,
and
into
2017
as
well.
I
But
you
can
see
that
it's
reflective
in
what
they've
been
capable
of
actually
generating
historically
over
the
last
at
least
three
years,
and
what
they've
actually
reported
in
terms
of
egi
13.6
million
in
2017
13997
in
2018,
and
then
this
is
just
for
the
apartment
portion
13113
for
for
2019
combined.
It's
14
1,
2,
0,
8,
8
1..
I
So
when
you
combine
that,
if
you
combine
column,
d1
and
d2
you're,
seeing
just
in
column,
v1
just
the
apartment
side
for
the
the
total
egi,
but
once
that's
combined
with
the
retail,
the
county's
estimate
of
total
egi
at
15
million
89
261
is
well
in
excess
of
what
this
property
is
capable
of
generating
the
last
several
years
as
it's
gone
through
it's
it's
modernization,
efforts
of
staying
competitive
in
the
market
and
being
able
to
maintain
the
rents
with
with
their
competitors
in
this
marketplace.
I
So
that's
really
the
the
biggest
issue
here
again,
our
value
requested
value
of
193
million
176
900,
we
believe,
is
indicative
of
what
the
property
is
capable
of
generating.
I
As
of
the
valuation
date,
the
120
valuation
date,
the
county's
test
column,
although
it
doesn't
fall
within
that
that
three
percent
change
you
know,
you're
still
talking
about
a
four
million
dollar
decrease
the
current
assessment
that
that
you
know
that
matters
just
because
it
doesn't
fall
within
that
three
percent
variance
at
the
very
least,
we
wish
the
board
to
consider
the
the
county's
test-
column,
jeremy-
I
don't
know
if
there's
anything
like
that.
M
Yeah,
just
the
the
assessment
history
here
in
17
is
165,
and
then
it
went
up
to
174
and
now
it's
up
to
177
and
again
last
year
and
now
we're
200
million.
So
13
increases
this
increased
23
million
dollars
from
the
year
prior
and
greg
gregor
sophie.
Do
either
of
you
want
to
add
anything.
M
Yeah,
so
I
mean
the
county,
the
county's
using
an
noi
of
10.9
million
and
the
actual
is
10.7,
and
I
know
in
the
past,
we've
been
burned
by
look
at
three-year
averages
or
four-year
averages
and
the
noise
ten
million
nine
seven
ten,
five
ten
seven
and
they
said
okay,
let's
use
ten
nine,
so
they're
they're
too
high
they're.
M
They
have
missed
the
mark
on
this
one
on
the
noi,
which
has
has
burned
us
in
the
past
in
some
cases,
but
it
looks
like
it's
kind
of
gonna
most
likely
help
us
on
this
one,
so
I
think
our
pro
forma
in
column,
g1
and
g2.
I
know
we're
often
told
that
it's
way
too
aggressive.
It's
not
in
this
case
at
all.
M
K
Yes
ma'am,
so
the
can
we
be
primarily
relying
upon
the
mixed
use,
income
and
expense
summary
page
three
and
looking
at
the
property.
The
board
is
familiar
with
how
we
look
at
these
properties
isolating
each
component
if
you
will
looking
at
it
apartment
revenues
up
three
years
in
a
row
year
over
year,
every
year
increase
2019's
increase
at
2.3
percent.
K
Retail
is
also
up
three
years
in
a
row
year
over
year
over
year,
with
the
2019
increase
at
6.1
percent
parking
is
also
up
in
2019
at
two
percent
and
though
other
income
is
down
again.
We
talk
about
this.
It's
mostly
attributable
to
a
break
up
of
the
utility
reimbursement
of
roughs,
which
increased
about
three
percent.
K
Excuse
me,
92
percent.
Overall,
we
saw
an
increase
three
years
in
a
row
for
gross
potential
income,
2019's
increase
of
1.5
percent
and
even
with
the
management
induced
vacancy,
which
increased
from
12.7
to
13.2
percent,
the
property
saw
an
increase
in
effective
gross
income
two
years
in
a
row
with
2019's
increase
that
just
shot
one
percent,
as
would
make
sense,
given
the
again
management
induced
vacancy
at
the
property.
In
order
to
modernize
their
units,
we
saw
a
decrease
in
operating
expenditures.
K
K
We
saw
that
we
did
unfortunately
under
project
gross
potential
and
come
by
about
245
000,
just
about
one
and
a
half
percent,
and
due
to
the
large
increase
in
vacancy,
we
did
over
project
the
effect
of
gross
almost
970
000
or
6.6.9
percent.
We
did,
which
is
unusual
for
the
county.
We
over
projected
the
operating
expenses
again
based
on
the
previous
year,
16
17
18..
K
So
we
over
projected
just
about
six
hundred
thousand
dollars
for
operating
expenses
and
those
three
metrics
led
to
a
over
projection
of
the
net
operating
income
at
about
370,
000
or
3.4
percent,
not
totally
off
kilter
again,
considering
that,
even
with
the
large
fluctuations
and
management
induced
vacancy,
the
property
still
increased
its
net
operating
income.
Two
years
in
a
row
with
2019's
increase
at
2.2
percent,
the
board
is
familiar
with
our
work.
K
We
did
perform
a
test
on
the
newly
received
information,
as
you
can
see
in
columns,
f1
and
f2,
recognizing
that
there
was
a
stabilization
in
the
property
as
of
junior
1
2020,
I
believe
they're
back
down
to
about
six
percent.
We
did
reflect
on
what
was
going
on
with
the
property
for
2020
and
noted
that
again
we
underprojected
the
gross
potential
income
by
about
840
000
and
yet
that
still
led
to
an
overprojection
of
effective
gross.
By
about
four
hundred
thousand
still
keeping
in
line
with
the
three
year
average
of
operating
expenses.
K
We
over
projected
by
about
eight
percent
and
that
led
to
an
net
operating
income
projection
of
about
1.3
percent,
again
very
much
in
line
with
what's
going
on
at
the
property
in
years,
2018
and
2019,
which
saw
increases
of
8.6
and
2.2
percent
respectively,
as
noted
by
blake,
mr
warren,
we
do
not
offer
these
revisions
that
they're
within
three
percent
of
the
original
projections
made
by
the
county.
It's
a
reasonable
threshold.
K
K
Yeah
so
again,
just
reiterating
what
blake
talked
about
the
owners
put
in
approximately
7.2
million
dollars
over
the
last
two
plus
years
management
choice
to
basically
not
release
tenants
as
they
leave
as
they
turn
over
and
take
advantage
of
the
occupancy
and
renovate
and
modernize
their
units.
We
can
see.
K
It's
a
direct
return
of
investment
that
we're
seeing
year
every
year,
given
the
metrics
that
we've
talked
about.
Given
the
reasonable
test
within
three
percent
of
the
original
2020
assessment,
we
believe
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
200
million
609
600..
Thank
you.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you,
questions
from
board
members.
G
Yeah,
I've
got
two
for
the
county;
one
was,
I
guess,
the
last
inspection
was
2017
and
I
I
wasn't
clear
on
when
the
modernization
project
was
finished,
where
it's
still
ongoing
and
kind
of
rolling
those
things
as
people
move
out.
K
That
was
for
the
county,
mr
hoffman
yeah,
so
mr
warren
and
mr
reigns
and
this
child
might
be
able
to
speak
better
too.
That
I
would
note
that
we
noted
the
occupancy
increased
from
four
point.
Six
percent
seventeen
to
twelve
point
say:
seven
percent
eighteen
and
an
increase
to
thirteen
point
two
and
nineteen.
K
But
I
believe
I
noted
that
it's
back
down
to
six
percent
as
of
january
first,
and
I'm
not
sure
if
I
inquire
with
mr
warren
there's
one
or
two
of
these
cases
that
we
inquired
you
know
where
they
were
at
in
the
modernization
process.
But
it
seemed
to
me
that
this
was
smoothing
back
out
to
normal
occupancy
levels.
G
Yeah,
okay,
can
I
mean,
can
the
appellant
speak
on
that?
Are
you?
Are
you
basically
done
with
all
the
major
rehab
work
at
this
point.
M
L
Yep,
okay
from
the
unit
modernization
standpoint,
we're
we're
still
moving
through
those.
So,
like
mr
chica
said,
if
you
know
sometimes
it's
based
on
it's
more
we're,
not
forcing
move
outs,
so
we're
slower
as
far
as
the
amount
of
units
we're
doing
like
per
month,
but
it
is
still
under
it
is
still
going
on.
We
have
about
200
apartments
left
to
do.
Okay,.
G
K
Normally,
those
are
pulled
directly
from
the
rent
rolls,
so
it
could
just
be
anomaly
and
what
rents
they
were
able
to
achieve.
Okay,.
G
K
Those
are
the
modernized
units
or
something
yeah,
but
normally
we
would
also
break
that
down
if
we
didn't
on
this
one,
because
they
tend
to
be
pretty
good
about
explaining
if
it's
a
furnace
unit,
a
modernized
unit,
a
modernized,
furniture
unit
etc.
L
E
L
The
furnace
units
urban,
the
furnace
units,
do
not
have
to
look
at
the
unit.
Specifically,
I
don't
I
wouldn't
know.
On
top.
The
furnace
units
can
move
to
different
unit
types
based
on
demand
if
it
was
a
furnace
unit
for
3
300
and
yes,
that
would
be
that
would
be
in
line.
M
M
L
C
Yes,
the
to
the
appellant
in
most
of
my
questions
related
to
the
renovations
have
been
answered,
but
how
long
is
a
unit
off
market
and
what
kind
of
renovations
are
being
done?
And
you
have
about
200
left
to
do
so.
You've
done
about
300.
L
Yes,
sir
yeah,
we
we're
basically
we're
not
we're
not
moving
walls
or
anything.
It's
you
know,
counters
cabinets,
flooring,
light
fixtures,
everything,
but
it's
not.
You
know
we're
not
moving
walls
changing
bathroom
unit,
layouts
we're
not
doing
any
of
that
it
takes.
L
You
know
between
two
and
a
half
to
three
weeks,
if
fully
on
it,
so
the
vacancy
you
know,
by
the
time
the
crew
gets
in
there
to
the
time
they're
done
to
the
time
it
comes
back
on
market,
it's
probably
looking
slightly
less
than
a
month,
and
then
you
know
we
have
to
rent
it.
So,
but
you
know
from
a
from
a
work
standpoint
about
a
month.
K
Yes,
ma'am
again,
we
talked
about
the
success
of
the
property
increases
in
apartment
revenue.
Three
years
in
a
row
increases
in
retail
revenue
three
years
in
a
row,
parking's
up
rubs
utility
reimbursements
up
and
again,
even
though
vacancies
also
up
that's
not
due
to
market
influences,
as
opposed
to
the
management
induced
desire
to
modernize
their
units.
K
And
again
we
pointed
out,
even
while
the
property
is
undergoing
double-digit
vacancy,
the
effective
growth
still
increased
year
over
year,
2.2
and
18
to
just
shy
of
one
percent
2019
again
doing
more,
with
less
even
making
adjustments
for
overestimating
the
operating
expenses
by
almost
600
000,
you
would
still
come
up
to
a
overprojection
of
the
county
on
the
net
opportunity
income,
but
still
within
three
point
four
percent
of
what
was
achieved
last
year,
which
in
itself
is
a
two
point,
two
percent
increase
over
year
every
year.
K
We
do
believe
that
the
january
1st
assessment
should
be
confirmed
at
200
million
609
600..
Thank
you.
M
Again
I'll
jump
in
chris
mentioned
that
the
ny's
up
year
over
year,
again
at
2.2.19,
he's
right.
The
assessments
of
23
million
dollars
from
last
year's
board
of
equalization
reduction,
actually
a
little
bit
more.
The
assessment
grew
by
13
on
this,
which
is
the
only
percentage
he
didn't
share
with
you
as
he
went
down
the
list
and
last
year
the
board
of
equalization
made
the
change
and
the
reason
for
the
change
which
is
included
in
the
packet.
So
you
know
I'm
not.
Making
this
up
was
that
they
increased
the
operating
expenses
of
the
property.
M
So
last
year
the
assessment
and
it
passed
on
a
five
to
one
vote,
and
hopefully
we
get
jose
on
our
side.
This
time
was.
The
rationale
was
increasing
the
expenses
on
the
apartment
side
at
28
percent.
That's
what
in
again
a
five
to
one
vote
now.
28,
obviously
is
higher
than
we've
seen
the
last
two
years,
but
that's
what
the
market's
indicating
a
building
is
it's
going
to
cost
more
to
operate
a
building
he
wants
to
stabilize
the
vacancy
all
the
way
down.
M
Well,
as
more
people
come
in,
the
expenses
are
only
going
to
rise,
but
the
income
is
up
2
and
the
assessments
up
13
and
that
is
causing
us
a
lot
of
heartburn
on
this
case.
There's
no
justification
for
it
and
that's
the
one
thing
that
chris
accidentally
left
out
of
his
explanation
of.
Why
are
we
up
so
high
again
we're
at
ten
million
nine,
seven,
ten,
five
and
now
10
7,
and
they
want
to
use
10,
9
and
said
hey
the
cap
right
here
is
a
standard
done
finished.
M
Building
when
you
saw
as
mark
asked
the
question
and
it
was
answered,
this
building
was
only
half
done
as
a
valuation
date,
so
you
have
to
look
at
a
half
finished
building,
and
maybe
that's
where
you
can
throw
a
couple
basis.
Points
on
the
cap
rate
and
say:
is
somebody
going
to
buy
a
building
made
construction
like
this
or
are
they
going
to
pay
the
same
as
they
would
if
it
was
done,
because
the
county
is
valuing
the
property
as
if
the
construction
was
completely
finished?
M
And
it's
not,
and
I
say,
construction
and
it's
modernization?
That's
not
some
huge,
crazy
walls
move
tear
it
down
turn
one
bedroom's,
a
two-bedroom
kind
of
thing,
so
I'm
surprised
I
haven't,
got
beep
going
yet
so
I'll
stop.
F
I
too
thought
that
in
the
test
that
the
operating
expenses
were
too
low,
based
on
not
only
the
last
four
years,
including
2019,
but
also
because
it's
a
bit
higher,
but
also
the
the
the
no,
let
me
stop
there,
but
I'm
sorry
now
I
lost
my
chain
of
thought.
G
I
mean
it
does
seem
like
a
big
jump
you're
over
here
and
that's
the
obvious
to
me.
We
reviewed
this
case
every
year
and
last
year
we
were
at
177
and
now
it's
200
and
I
was
trying
to
dig
into
whether
or
not
there
was
a
huge.
You
know,
completed
project
and
all
of
a
sudden.
Now
it's
reopened
and
the
performance
is
just
dynamite,
but
it
doesn't
sound.
Like
that's.
The
case
sounds
like
they're,
just
kind
of
rolling
refreshing
rooms
as
they
go.
G
I
B
F
Thank
you
like
to
go
back
to
the
point
I
missed
and
then
go
to
just
what
barnes
and
greg
brought
up.
I
thought
the
I
I
noticed
in
the
appellants
2020
projection
that
the
the
operating
expenses
the
proposed
operating
expenses
are
even
less
than
the
department's
test
in
f1.
F
So
I
said
well,
if
the
appellant
thinks
they're
too
high,
then
I'm
going
to
think
I
mean
our
yeah
are
too
high
based
on
what
their
projection
is,
then
I'm
gonna,
just
let
it
go
on
the
increase.
I
was
horrified
to
see
that
the
the
the
the
department's
assessment
of
value
was,
you
know
13
higher
than
last
year,
and
then
I
thought
well,
of
course
it's
an
improving
building.
The
exterior
was
improved
a
couple
years
ago.
F
You
know
curb
appeal,
really
massively
changed
and
now,
of
course
the
interior
is
changing
as
well,
and
so
then
I
went
to
the
test
and
saw
that
it
was
about
10
and
a
half
10.6
percent
higher
from
2019,
which
is
at
the
high
range
of
any
comparable
building
increase
that
we've
seen,
but
it's
not
quite
as
egregious
as
way
out
of
the
box
13.
A
F
J
A
That
are
being
reported.
I
mean
the
test
is
certainly
better
than
the
original
assessment,
but
I
do
still
have
the
angst
that
mr
hoffman
was
talking
about.
It
just
seems
like
this
building
is
going
up
at
a
really
large
amount,
and
I
can't
tie
it
to
anything
I
mean.
Is
it
reasonable
to
assume
you
know
that
in
the
test
that
it's
gonna,
you
know
generate
200
000
more
than
the
previous
year,
based
on
the
last
two
years?
I
would
say
yes,
but
I
I'm
really
struggling.
C
A
Right
but
and
again
I'm
not
disagreeing
with
you.
I
think
what
the
county
looked
at
is,
if
you
look
in
column
c
in
2018,
then
versus
and
they
were
doing
renovations
and
then
in
2019.
You
know
it
went
up
approximately
200
000,
it's
about
the
same
200
000
that
it's
assuming
it's
going
to
go
up.
So
I
I
follow
the
logic
I
just
don't
follow.
H
H
H
So
you
know
I
do
like
you
know
computing
averages,
but
I
think
for
this
year
what
the
county
used
originally
at
27
on
the
apartments
is
more
appropriate.
H
H
Four
five
value
would
be
181
million
717
615,
if
we
add
the
retail
value
to
that,
I'm
coming
up
with
193
million
700
000
even-
and
I
think
that
brings
it
up
in
line
with
pretty
much
with
you
know
what
the
penalty
is
requesting,
maybe
a
little
bit
higher,
but
you
know
I
think,
that's
really
one
way
to
go
in
this
case.
H
I
don't
know
what
everybody
else
would
think,
but
that
would
be
my
way
to
resolve
it.
I
think
it
is
a
little
bit
of
a
offside.
I
guess
if
we
were
looking
at
a
soccer
game,
but
I
think
in
this
case,
based
on
the
past
ex
amount
of
expenses,
I
would
feel
comfortable
increasing
to
27.
A
Yeah
I
I
did
something
a
little
differently.
I
took
the
the
actual
operating
income
and
subtracted
out
from
2019
the
test,
column,
f2
and
then
just
took
the
difference
there
and
I
end
up
capping
out
at
699,
which
is
essentially
your
your
number.
So
it's
coming
at
it
from
two
different
sides
and
two
different
numbers.
I
mean
I.
B
G
I
was
gonna
say
I
like
I
like
jose's
rationale.
I
think
yours
is
good
too,
but
it's
essentially
the
same
number,
so
yeah.
J
H
A
Okay,
I
will
second
that
motion
in
a
second
by
myself,
all
in
favor
aye
aye
opposed
ken,
is
opposed.
Okay,
six
to
one
with
no,
mr
madsen.
Okay,
the
assessment
is
reduced
to
193
million
700,
even
based
on
increasing
the
expenses.
A
Okay,
interesting,
the
two
different
tests
came
up
with
it's
pretty
similar.
Almost
dollar
for
dollar
amounts;
okay
last
case
rpc22011159,
5551
columbia,
pike,
mr
warren,
if
you'll
tell
us
about
the
property.
M
And
mary,
really
quick
before
we
get
on
that
the
ppt
value
I
don't
think,
was
removed
out
of
either
your
value
or
jose's
of
six
hundred
and
one
thousand
nine
twenty
one
which
would
be
appropriate
since
furnished
departments.
A
Okay,
mr
warren.
I
Okay,
so
this
is
the
barton
place
apartments,
it
is
one
rpc.
It's
currently
assessed
at
six
million,
eight
hundred
thirty
seven
thousand
three
hundred
two
hundred
and
thirteen
thousand
six
sixty
six
a
unit.
The
county
is
recommending
no
change,
however,
in
their
test
column
they're,
showing
a
reduced
or
revised
value
of
six
million
five.
Ninety
three
two
hundred
the
value
we're
requesting
today,
and
if
you
see
in
our
summary
of
facts,
it
was
initially
five
million
one.
I
Ninety
two
one
hundred,
however,
after
discussing
this
property
with
chris
and
some
of
the
questions
that
he
had
regarding
the
the
income
that
was
submitted
in
2019,
we
did
revise
that,
and
that
is
indicative
of
column
g
in
the
page
three
of
the
apartment.
Ine
summary
there
was
some
inaccurate
reporting
that
we
have
since
amended
and
submitted,
and
so
that
has
amended
our
requested
value
to
five
million
seven
forty
nine
two
hundred
for
this
property.
I
This
is
a
property
that
was
originally
built
in
1984
32,
total
units.
It's
a
it's
located
right
off
the
columbia
pike
in
the
columbia
heights
submarket
and
it
is
a
garden
style
apartment.
The
assessment
for
this
particular
property,
similar
to
the
last
property.
We
were
just
discussing
increased
three
percent,
however,
from
the
prior
year
from
18
to
19,
the
actual
noi
decreased,
seven
percent
and
that's
actually
after
the
the
adjusted
and
amended
inev
was
submitted
so
again
based
off
of
what
was
actually
reported.
I
The
income
is,
is
decreased
on
this
particular
property
most
recently,
and
the
value
is
still
increasing
up
three
percent.
The
county
did
a
good
job
of
estimating
in
their
their
potential
income
of
the
property
and
effective
gross
income.
I
Expenses
historically-
and
this
is
over
the
last
four
years-
you
can
see
in
2016
property
reported
29.48
27.43
in
2017
26.04
in
2018
and
then
most
recently,
33.57
operating
expenses
in
2019..
I
The
county's
guide
for
operating
expenses
now
is
is
a
range
based
on
the
per
unit
basis.
However,
if
you're
looking
at
the
guy
from
last
year,
they
would
have
applied
a
34
percent
expense
ratio
to
this
property
for
its
effective
age
and
property
type
you
can
see
in
the
test
call
and
the
county
did
adjust
their
operating
expenses
applied
initially
from
28
to
31.
I
But
again,
that's
that's
still.
The
biggest
difference
between
the
appellant's
pro
forma
and
requested
value
of
5
million
749
200
and
what
the
county's
revised
test
column
is.
Is
that
31
they
did
bump
their
their
operating
expenses
up
slightly
to
coincide
with
what
was
actually
reported,
but
it's
still
an
overestimate
on
operating
expenses
and
that's
what
we're
hoping
the
county
will
will
consider
in
the
2020
revised
assessment.
M
Yeah,
if
we're
going
to
use
an
average,
if
we're
going
to
use
an
average
of
sorry
of
operating
expenses,
then
we
should
do
the
same
for
gross
potential
income
he's
using
gross
potential
income
higher
than
the
property's
ever
achieved,
an
egi
that's
directly
on
top
of
column
e.
Coincidentally,
even
though
I
was
using
a
higher
market
expense
rate
of
three
percent,
so
he's
right
on
top
of
the
2019
egi,
but
then
taking
what
appears
to
be
an
average
or
a
three
year
average
on
operating
expenses.
I
So
the
last
thing
I
was
going
to
include
was
on
page
41
of
145.
We
have
included
a
sales
comps
grid
and
these
are
properties
that
transacted
from
late
17
through
the
first
of
one
120
of
the
valuation
date,
and
that
you
can
see
the
average
and
median
sales
of
these
class
b
and
class
c
properties
in
arlington,
the
average
sales
price
of
195
000,
a
unit
median
being
182
or
183
000
units
and
again
the
the
subject.
Property
is
currently
assessed
at
roughly
214
thousand
a
unit.
L
No
just
a
building
at
that
age,
and
it's
just
it's
a
bear
to
maintain,
so
I
mean
I
think
that
we
have
to
see
the
trend.
Is
the
trend
on
this
one.
M
Yeah
operating
costs
are
up
and,
as
as
it's
been
pointed
out
in
prior
cases,
nobody's
keeping
our
operating
expenses
lower
in
the
denmark
because
they
have
so
many
efficiencies
that
other
companies
wouldn't
have
that
the
true
market,
big
operating
expense
for
a
property
like
this,
would
be
dramatically
higher
than
33
percent.
I
mean
really.
The
old
guidelines
were
yeah,
it'd,
probably
be
in
the
40s,
and
the
old
guidelines
would
support
that.
Yet
it
got
rid
of
the
old
guideline
percentage
and
said:
here's
a
range
so
in
a
way
not
in
a
way.
M
In
fact,
the
owner
is
being
penalized
for
for
reporting
extremely
efficient
operating
expenses.
So
saying
that,
yes,
you
told
us
it's
33
and
a
half
percent.
We're
gonna
use
your
egi
within
a
thousand
dollars.
However,
those
expenses
are
pretty
high.
We
think
you
can
shave
fifteen
hundred
dollar
fifteen
thousand
dollars
off
those
expenses,
but
keep
the
egi
exactly
the
same
and
the
other
way
it
would
go
up
dramatically
higher.
If
you
took
away
some
of
those
efficiencies.
K
Yes,
ma'am
and
looking
at
the
property,
we
noted
that
the
proper
revenue
was
up
percent
in
2019.
As
mr
czech
noted
looking
at
a
three-year
average,
we
saw
an
average
of
584
thousand.
K
We
noted
parking
revenue
was
up
nine
percent,
the
revenue
up,
14
and
rubs
or
utility
reimbursement
up
534
course.
Potential
income
is
up
1.7
percent
three
year
average
of
595
000
very
well
occupied
stabilized
building.
K
True
vacancies
is
three
year
average
of
one
point:
four
percent
these
metrics
led
to
a
increase
in
the
effective
gross
income
of
one
point:
six
percent
in
2019
three
year
average
again
at
587
000.,
as
noted
by
mr
chitlik
and
mr
ain's
and
missed
one
operating
expenses
did
tick
up,
but
I
believe
mr
reigns
use
the
word.
The
trend
is,
the
trend.
Trend
was
actually
down.
16,
17
and
18..
K
K
Obviously,
if
one
were
to
look
at
a
smooth
at
three
year
average,
it
would
come
much
closer
to
what
was
achieved
in
the
year
16
through
18
at
an
average
three
year,
average
of
170
000.
When
we
look
at
the
most
recent
years,
17
18
and
19.
K
K
I'm
not
sure
I
believe
mr
warren
misspoke
in
the
sense
that
column
f
of
our
summer
sheet
is
actually
the
revision.
It's
not
a
test
column.
In
this
case
the
board.
We
would
recommend
to
the
board
that
you
go
with
column
f
and
that
we
did
increase
our
operating
expenditure
projections
based
on
what
we
found
with
2019's
information.
K
But
we
still
believe
that
the
projections
made
for
gross
potential
income
are
very
modest
again,
considering
a
3.7
percent
increase
in
17
1.7
percent
increase
in
2019,
given
the
building's
stabilized
occupancy
that
the
projection
of
1.8
percent
for
gross
potential
income
is
very
modest
and
in
line
with
the
last
three
or
four
years
again,
given
that
we
use
a
stabilized
three
percent
guideline
for
vacancy
and
the
building's
at
approximately
1.4
percent.
K
That
obviously
calls
for
an
increase
in
effective
gross
but
very
modest
point
two
percent,
two
tenths
of
one
percent
increase
and
again
looking
at
a
three
year
average
for
operating
expenses
of
170
000,
we're
quite
a
bit
above
that
at
31
of
effective
gross.
L
K
Increase
in
projection
for
net
operating
income
of
four
percent,
much
in
line
with
what
went
on
at
the
property
in
2016,
17
and
18
and
in
fact
again
good
but
below
the
three
year
average
of
416
000..
K
So
modest
projections
across
the
board
in
our
column,
f
led
the
county
to
come
up
with
a
value
of
six
million.
Five
hundred
ninety
three
thousand
two
hundred
and
we
request
that
the
board
confirm
that
amount.
A
B
Lawson,
thank
you
for
the
county.
The
footnote
says
agent
makes
ten
thousand
dollar
deduction
for
reserve
for
replacement,
whereas
the
county's
cap
rate
assumes
a
you
mean
two
percent
not
point
two
percent.
K
C
C
Is
this
something
that
can
you
explain
that
and
is
it
something
that
you
expect
to
continue?
I
mean
what
what's
this,
the
big
impact
in
these
two
that
bumped
your
expenses
so
much.
L
The
janitorial
that's
really
also
kind
of
a
sub
category.
We
you
try
to
maintain
those
entrances
in
the
common
areas.
With
our
as
barnes
has
noted,
we
have
a
lot
of
manpower
in
arlington,
so
we
can
usually
run
folks
over
there
and
and
clean
the
common
areas
and
pick
up
the
trash
with
one
of
our
other
properties.
L
L
For
that
reason,
and
what
was
the
other,
the
subcut
we,
we
actually
had
hvac
issues
in
about
30
of
the
units
with
the
last
in
2019,
so
we
were
sitting
we're
doing
a
lot
of
work
with
hvac
systems,
and-
and
so
we,
you
know,
that's
why
that
category's
up.
C
You
expect
these
categories
to
continue
to
be
higher
yeah.
L
The
janitorial
100
will
stay
where
it's
at
and
the
you
know
like
the
reason
I
said
to
bear
to
maintain.
We
had
a
lot
of
hvac
issues.
L
Last
year
we
had
a
two
or
three
bathrooms
where
we
actually
had
to
take
the
tubs
out,
because
the
subfloor
was
an
issue,
and
you
know
once
you
get
into
that
age
of
a
building
and
and
actually
having
them
to
maintain
more
than
just
re-glossing
a
tub
or
re-glossing
a
countertop,
and
you
actually
have
to
start
removing
things
because
of
the
the
you
know
just
the
age.
It's
just
that
those
kind
of
things
are
more
and
more.
The
roof
has
been
an
issue.
L
You
know
it's
just
you
know
it's
just
an
old
building
and,
like
I
said
we
have
buildings
across
the
street
that
probably
hurt
this
build.
It
helped
it
from
an
efficiency
standpoint.
We
heard
it
from
an
expense
standpoint.
We
we
don't
try
to
drive
our
expenses
up
in
order
to
save
some
tax
dollars.
We
really
try
to
maintain
our
properties
as
efficiently
as
possible,
so
we'll
pull
from
a
property.
L
When
we
can
it's
just
labor
market
and
everything,
you
know
we
just
weren't
able
to
take
from
wildwood
park
or
wild
towers
or
columbia
park
down
the
street
and
bring
over
that
labor.
So
you
know,
we've
had
to
hire
that
out,
it's
just
it's
just
and
like
when
I
said
it
should
be
in
the
40s.
You
know
we
talked
about
a
lot
of
our
owner
colleagues
and
garden
style
units
of
this
ilk.
You
know
you're
talking
40s
and
some
50s
up
the
street.
So
you
know
34
is
awesome.
38
would
be
awesome.
L
C
K
Yes,
ma'am
again
sort
of
following
along
with
mr
yates's
questions
that
we'd
recognize
the
increase
in
operating
expenditures,
the
31
increase
in
2019,
but
I
think
the
board
members
do
have
to
look
at
how
the
property's
been
operating
historically
again,
three
year
average
prior
to
this
past
year
of
160
000
or
some
27.75
of
effective
gross.
K
K
That's
been
achieved
at
the
property
again,
a
very
stabilized
building
at
1.4
percent
we're
using
three
percent,
and
it
should
be
noted
that
the
appellant's
also
using
three
percent
so
they're,
using
actuals
for
income
on
the
growth
side,
guidelines
for
the
vacancy
concessions
and
then
actuals
for
operating
expenditures,
but
that
led
to
a
net
operating
income.
That's
lowered
by
twenty
thousand
dollars
than
anything
that's
been
achieved
in
the
last
four
years.
K
Again,
our
revised
value
has
a
operating
income.
That's
indicative
of
the
last
three
years
and
well
below
the
last
three
years.
Net
operating
income
average,
so
that
being
said,
we
believe
that
the
revision
should
be
confirmed
at
six
million
five
hundred.
Ninety
three
thousand
two
hundred.
Thank
you.
A
M
They're
using
trend
on
the
gpi
to
justify
using
a
gpi,
number
or
even
effective
gross
number
higher
than
the
property
has
achieved
in
the
last
four
years,
but
then
saying
that
they
won't
use
that
same
metric
for
the
operating
expense.
Even
the
owners
here,
testifying
that
operating
expenses
are
higher
and
should
be
dramatically
higher
than
even
what
they're
reporting
or
with
the
noi,
so
we're
gonna.
Look
at
trends.
Look
at
the
last
look
at
the
trend.
Four
point:
four
hundred:
twenty:
six:
four:
thirty!
Are
they
now
three?
M
Ninety
two
he's
using
408,
where
he's
basically
using
trend
average
and
average,
which
doesn't
work.
If
we
want
to
use
average,
we
can
but
again
we're
missing
the
mark.
I
think
greatly
for
this.
The
janitorial
expense
in
2018
was
982
dollars.
It's
up
to
10
000..
That's
not
some
crazy
fluctuation
percentage-wise,
it's
of
a
thousand
percent,
but
it's
up
a
thousand
percent
from
basically
nothing
and
blake
or
greg.
You
want
anything
in
the
last
20
seconds.
M
B
Yeah,
thank
you,
madam
chairman.
The
only
thing
I
noticed
that
I
thought
might
need
adjustment
was
the
reserve,
and
you
know
this
is
a
small
project
and
it
looks
like
with
the
0.2
percent.
It's
120
100
about
120,
which
doesn't
make
any
sense.
So
all
I
did
is
I
took
the
10
000
and
took
the
county
revision
deducted
that
and
I
ended
up
at
six
million
four
hundred
and
thirty
one
nine
nine
hundred.
So
I'm
just
curious
if
others
think
that's
a
legitimate
exercise.
A
All
right
I'll
jump
in
here
I
I
don't
like
that
method.
I
you
know,
I
think
that
that's
opening
a
can
of
worms
from
a
standpoint
of
you
know
looking
at
how
we
respond
to
reserves.
I
I
would
say,
though,
on
this
property,
I
think
in
the
test
column.
I
agree
with
the
appellant.
I
think
when
I
look
at
the
revision
and
the
gpi,
I
mean
there's
no
way
when
you
look
at
historically
what
the
property
is
performed
at
for
16,
17,
18
and
even
in
its
highest
year
of
19.
A
You
know
to
end
up
at
the
the
408.
I
think
that
that's
still
too
high
what
I
did
just
to
kind
of
do.
My
own
test
I
went
back
to-
and
I
know
jose-
doesn't
like
picking
from
one
column
to
another,
so
I'm
not
going
to
pick.
But
when
I
go
to
the
original
assessment,
I
think
that's
certainly
more
in
line
with
the
egi
of
what
the
property
could
perform
at
over
several
years
and
then
I
increased
the
expenses
to
33.
F
I
followed
all
of
that
and
appreciated
it
line
by
line,
but
then
I
look
at
the
noise
that
have
been
achieved:
vis-a-vis
the
projection
for
2020
and
all
of
a
sudden,
the
county's
not
out
of
line
and
somehow
the
I
don't
know
what
the
word
is
inflated
line
items
don't
cause
an
inflated
noise.
So
maybe
I
need
to
take
another
minute
and
figure
out
why
that
is
I'm
sure
they
didn't
make
an
addition
error,
but
the
the
noi
is
by
no
means
out
of
line.
A
B
A
C
A
Right
and
I
think
the
appellant
you
know
gave
a
reasonable
answer
for
not
being
able
to
you
know
they
have
efficiencies
because,
let's
face
it,
they
have
a
lot
of
units
when
you
look
at
across
the
county,
but
they
weren't
able
to
pull
some
of
those
folks,
and
I
would
certainly
think
moving
forward.
That's
going
to
be
even
more
of
a
trend
of
you
know,
janitorial
and
having
to
keep
areas
cleaner
or
whatnot.
So
you
know,
I
tend
to
you
know
lean
towards
the
appellant
on
this
one.
F
Are
you
suggesting
just
except
column,
g.
A
A
You
know-
and
you
know
I
think,
that
they
have
created
an
argument
for
why
their
expenses
have
increased.
I
didn't
go
quite
as
high
as
to
what
the
operating
year
was.
They
were
198,
I'm
at
194,
so
I
leaned
a
little
bit
on
the
air
of
caution
there,
but
you
know
I
think
that
that's
more
reasonable,
it's
a
slight
increase
over
last
year,
but
I
think
it's
more
reasonable
for
what
the
property
is
actually
doing.
A
H
Yeah,
I
think
that
even
you
know
looking
at
the
noise
what
they
where
they
are,
and
I
think
just
looking
at
that
number.
I
think
it's
okay,
but
I
think
we
have
to
recognize
a
little
bit
more
on
the
expense
side.
So
I
wasn't
really
looking
at
the
original
assessment.
I'm
looking
more
like
you
know
what
like,
as
I
said
before,
whenever
there's
a
revision,
I
like
to
look
at
those
numbers
better,
because
I
think
they're
more
in
line
of
what
they
actually
get
reported.
H
I
did
not
go
to
33.
I
went
to
32
percent
on
the
expenses
on
that
column
and
that
brings
to
189
580.
H
A
H
A
As
far
as
normally,
I
would
agree
with
you
there,
I
just
think
that,
under
the
revised
assessment
I
look
at
the
gpi
of
what
they're
using
and
the
appellant
makes
a
very
valid
point
here.
It's
you
know
higher
than
anything
the
property
has
done
in
the
last
four
years.
F
B
A
G
G
Greg
yeah.
A
G
G
A
F
I
can
go
to
either
two
of
your
revisions
mary's
or
says:
I'm
just
feeling
a
little
uncomfortable.
How
stable
this
building
is
that
we
have.
I
I
I
guess.
Therefore,
let
me
revise
that
I'll
go
with
jose's,
because
the
mary's
decrease
in
2019
would
be
larger,
of
the
two
and
and
I
don't
see-
and
maybe
it
deserves
a
decrease
because
operating
expenses
have
permanently
gone
up,
but
I
don't
I
uncomfortable
with
the
depth
percentage-wise
of
mary's
proposed
decrease,
so
I'm
favoring
this
face.
B
I
just
wanted
to
share
with
ken
again.
You
know,
I
think
we
have
a
little
bit
of
a
dipmar
as
a
victim
of
their
own
efficiency
and
as
the
build
as
this
building
has
aged
and
the
size
of
it
and
so
forth.
They've
just
gone
to
kind
of
where
everyone
else
is.
So
that's
that's
why
I'm
going
with
mary
in
this
case
just
wanted
to
share
that.
A
I
H
A
A
Okay.
Thank
you,
gentlemen.
A
Okay,
does
any
of
the
board
members
have
any
additional
business.