►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Meeting | September 19, 2023
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
Tuesday
September
19
2023..
This
is
the
Arlington
County
Board
of
Equalization
hearings.
We
have
five
cases
on
the
agenda
and
we
have
six
members
here
for
Quorum.
The
first
case
on
the
agenda
is
RPC
35005026
at
1400
South
Haynes
Street,
this
Spillman.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
Then.
B
Thank
you
very
much.
May
I
please
the
board.
My
name
is
Lindsey,
Spillman
and
I'm
here
today,
as
the
authorized
agent
for
the
property
owner
and
the
subject,
property
is
the
Nordstrom
department
store
at
Fashion,
Center
mall,
and
we
submitted
materials
to
the
board
and
did
have
some
back
and
forth
with
the
appraiser.
Regarding
the
subject
property,
as
noted
the
subject
property,
it
has
a
area
of
225
870
square
feet,
I'm
going
to
refer
really
to
where
the
main
differences
are
in.
B
What
the
appraiser
has
prepared
versus
what
the
property
owner
has
submitted,
because
there's
really
just
a
small
point
of
difference
between
the
two.
So
as
I
as
I
noticed,
we
submitted
and
prepared
both
an
income
approach
and
a
sales
comparison
approach
in
connection
with
the
petition.
As
noted
in
the
materials
with
the
that
were
provided,
the
subject.
Property
is
subject
to
a
one
dollar
a
year,
ground
lease.
So
there
is,
no,
you
know
per
square
foot
rent
that
was
utilized
by
either
the
appraiser
or
the
property
owner.
B
So
we
had
to
look
to
determine
what
the
market
was
so
on
page
66
of
the
materials
that
contains
the
property
owners
Pro
formal.
So
as
I
mentioned,
the
property
owner's
income
approach,
utilizes
most
of
the
same
inputs
as
the
Drea's
income
approach,
the
two
points
where
they
vary
and
the
first
is
the
most
significant.
Is
the
market
rent
the
property
owner
utilized
ten
dollars
a
square
foot
as
opposed
to
the
appraiser
utilizing
a
thirteen
dollar
per
square
foot.
B
The
vacancy
and
collection
loss
also
differs
just
very
slightly
property
owner
utilized
five
percent,
whereas
the
appraisal
Department
utilized
four
percent.
So
again,
the
capitalization
rate
utilized
by
the
parties
was
the
same.
I
will
note,
it
looks
like
it
says,
9.5
in
our
approach,
but
it
really
was
the
same
9.4.
It
looks
like
my
spreadsheet
just
rounded
up,
so
we
use
the
same
capitalization
rate
and
we
use
the
same
percentage
expenses.
B
B
I
hope
everyone
understands
the
difficulty
since
we're
valuing
more
of
a
regional
Mall
property.
There
are
only
so
many
regions,
and
only
so
many
Regional
Mall
properties,
which
is
why
we've
had
to
expand
the
radius
past.
What
you
might
normally
like
to
do
when
you're
trying
to
value
a
retail
property
again
trying
to
get
as
close
as
possible
to
the
same
type
in
the
same
setting,
given
the
unique
characteristics
of
these
types
of
retail
properties.
B
So
we
included
those
four
comparables
information
about
those
lease
rates
is
publicly
reported
by
the
CTL
pass-through
trust,
so
those
are
available
online
and
that's
where
we
obtained
those
we've
also
included
a
Target
in
Oxen
Hill
Maryland
that
rented
for
8.95
cents
a
square
foot
again.
You
know
it's
outside
of
the
state
of
Virginia,
wanted
to
include
another
comparable
in
the
DMV.
B
We
did
select
a
rental
rate-
that's
above
that
range
of
comps,
recognizing
this
particular
area
that
it
has
strengths
and
the
strengths
of
this
particular
property.
So
we.
B
Concluded
to
a
rental
rate
of
ten
dollars
per
square
foot
triple
net,
we
used
a
vacancy
rate
again
of
five
percent
expense
ratio
of
22
percent
of
effective
gross
income
and
a
capitalization
rate
of
9.5
and
I
I.
Take
that
back
you,
the
county,
is
9.4.
We
use
9.5
so
again,
very
very
close.
B
There
we've
also
included
data
supporting
the
vacancy
rate
and
capitalization
rate,
but
again
those
are
very
close
to
what
the
appraiser
is
using
and
when
that
performance
completed
with
the
ten
dollar
square
foot
Market
rental
rate,
we
come
to
a
round
evaluation
conclusion
of
17.6
million
or
78
dollars
per
square
foot.
B
We
also
I'll
just
note
if
I
didn't
see
any
specific
reference
to
the
rental
comps
on
which
the
appraiser
was
relying
if
I
know
there,
if
there's
income
or
expense
information
is
confidential,
that
can't
be
shared
that
that
may
be
part
of
this,
but
there
was
nothing
specific
in
the
packet
to
the
extent
there's
co-star
information
about
peer
properties.
B
Those
only
had
estimated
co-star
events,
which
tend
to
be
as
I'm
sure
everyone
knows
a
little
bit
all
over
the
place,
but
no
specific
rental
comps
that
we
identified
we've
also
prepared
a
sales
comparison
approach
that
begins
on
page
67.
B
B
These
sales
range
from
27
a
square
foot
to
sixty
six
dollars
a
square
foot
again.
We
think
it's
important,
because
these
are
in
malls
and
they're
they're
different
than
traditional
other
types
of
retail
or
freestanding
retail,
because
the
mall
is
kind
of
its
own
malls
are
kind
of
their
own
entity
at
this
point
to
include
these
other
stores,
so
we
again
concluded
to
value
in
the
sales
comparison
approach
above
that
range
at
70
dollars
per
square
foot.
B
So
again,
the
income
capitalization
approach
was
7.8,
7.6
million
the
sales
comparison
approach
was
15.8
million
and
we
reconciled
to
a
value
conclusion
of
16.9
million,
which
is
75
dollars.
A
square
foot
I
did
just
want
to,
in
my
short
time
here
note
on
Drea's
comps
within
a
35
mile
radius.
Those
are
provided
on
page
7
of
98.
Those
are
six
comps
from
CoStar
I'll.
B
I
will
note
that
in
looking
at
these
comps,
it's
our
property
owner's
position
that
those
although
they're
in
the
same
Regional
area,
they
are
simply
not
comparable
to
the
subject:
Mall
property
the
first
or
have
sale
conditions
that
would
make
them
not
good
sales.
For
comparing
to
the
subject.
The
first
two
both
indicate
that
their
sale
conditions
for
redevelopment,
the
second's,
a
retail
movie
theater,
although
that
might
be
in
a
mall-
that's
not
really
comparable
to
a
mall
property
and
again
both
were
selected
for
redevelopment,
so
there
would
be
other
factors
motivating
those
purchases.
B
The
third
is
a
BJs
and
again
that
would
be
freestanding
retail.
It's
about
half
the
size
of
the
subject,
property
and
anyone
who's
who's
been
to
them
all
versus
the
BJ's
would
not
necessarily
compare
those
two
types
of
property,
even
though
they
both
fall
into
the
general
category
of
retail.
The
fourth
is
a
a
Lifetime
Fitness
again,
that's
a
health
club
and
would
not
necessarily
be
comparable
to
a
mall
property.
Also,
it's
indicated
on
the
sale
condition
that
that's
a
sale
lease
back.
B
You
know
I
mean
not
that
so
there
may
be
other
underlying
factors
affecting
that
transaction
and
then
the
fifth
and
the
sixth
are
both
multi-tenant
retail.
So
those
have
multiple,
smaller
inline
tenants,
I
believe
they're,
both
grocery
anchored
typically
we'd,
see
a
significantly
higher
rents
for
those
smaller
inline
tenants
and
then
anchored
by
the
groceries,
which
are
both
in
this
case.
The
the
largest
are
around
50
000
square
feet.
They
offer
the
largest
tenant
significantly
below
our
subject
property
in
its
current
state.
B
A
E
E
The
issue
the
agent
is
bringing
up
is
so
so
the
agent
provided
to
perform
us
for
2023,
one
Performance
Based
on
capitalization
approach,
which
provided
for
Market
Value,
Estimate
of
17
million
six
hundred
thousand
dollars,
and
the
second
one
was
based
on
sales
approach
which
produced
the
value
of
15.8
million
dollars
and
they
reconciled
value.
For,
for
that,
property
was
16.9
million
dollars,
which
is
equivalent
of
75
dollars
per
square
foot.
E
The
the
appointments
provided
a
couple
of
comparables
on
the
first
one
sales
comparables,
the
first
one
was
Nordstrom
Dallas,
which
sold
in
November
2018
for
five
million
dollars
and
I
attached
the
article
in
my
Boe
packet.
According
to
the
Nordstrom
spokesman
paragraph
four
of
that
article,
they
decided
to
close
the
doors
in
that
particular
location,
so
they
could
provide
better
services
at
the
five
other
locations
within
DC
area
and
Fashion
Center
at
Pentagon
was
one
of
those
locations.
E
They
have
over
350
stores
nationwide
and
the
management
monitors
the
performance
of
each
location
and
they
decide
which
ones
to
close
and
which
areas
to
consider
for
the
new
stores.
It's
an
ongoing
cycle.
How
about
this
Nordstrom
at
Fashion
Center
has
been
operating
since
1989
or
I
believe
1990..
E
The
second
comparable
is
jcpenning
in
Charlottesville
that
sold
in
2020
for
4.5
million
dollars,
but
this
property
is
located
over
100
miles
away
from
Arlington.
Then
you
have
Nordstrom
Short
Pump,
also
located
100
more
than
100
miles
away
from
Arlington.
Then
you
have
JCPenney
at
Dallas
which
sold
in
August
2022
for
5.65
million,
and
that
one
was
the
part
of
portfolio
sale
which
included
five
properties,
and
then
you
have
Lord
and
Taylor
with
salt
in
February
13
2023
for
eight
million
dollars,
and
this
sale
will
be
considered
an
hour
2024
valuation.
E
We
have
also
provided
six
comparables.
We
narrowed
down
the
geographical
area
to
35
mile
radius
from
the
courthouse
building.
We
had
we
excluded
foreclosures
and
portfolio
sales
and
the
the
average
sales
price
per
square
foot
was
well
the
the
sales
price
per
square
foot
range
between
153
dollars
and
322
dollars.
E
We
have
also
run
coaster
analytical
report
for
the
same
comparables,
which
indicated
an
average
rent
per
square
foot
to
31
dollars
in
our
2023
valuation,
we
applied
only
thirteen
dollars
per
square
foot
and
our
assessment
per
square
foot
is
only
104
dollars.
The
Nordstrom.
E
These
reports,
generated
by
co-star,
indicates
triple
net
lease
to
be
at
37
and
62
dollars
per
square
foot
and
finally,
the
second
anchor
store
at
the
same
location
Macy's
is
also
assessed
at
13
dollars
per
square
foot
and
we
apply
the
same
vacancy
rate
and
the
same
operating
expenses
ratio
which
is
20
20
22
percent,
therefore
drag
recommends
confirming
the
subjects
2023
assessments
at
23
million,
three
hundred
ninety
thousand
five
hundred
twenty
one
dollars.
Thank
you.
F
E
I
narrowed
it
down
to
include
the
Fairfax
County
Prince,
William
and
Loudoun
County,
specifically
going
back
to
the
principles
of
real
estate.
It's
location,
location
and
I.
I
truly
believe
that.
E
That
we,
we
should
narrow
down
by
the
location
we
have
different
demographics
than
Charlottesville
has
or
short
pump,
and
our
comparables
are
more
represented
representative
to
the
subject
this
this
this
particular
location
hasn't
been
underperforming.
Evidently
it's
been
operating
since
1999,
so
it
was
important
for
me
to
narrow
down
the
okay.
F
That's
a
good
answer
for
the
applicant:
how
long
is
the
ground
lease
how
many
years
are
remaining
on
the
ground
lease.
G
I
do
for
the
Department
the
the
13
per
square
foot,
rent
assessment
for
the
two
anchors
at
Fashion
Center.
How
does
that
compare
with
what
they're
actually
paying
did
I
read
somewhere
was
ten
dollars.
The
square
foot.
E
I
am
not
sure
how
much
they
pay
we
have
not
well.
We
have
not
received
the
INE
surveys
for
Macy's
either.
D
H
If
I
can
respond,
miss
Mr
mask
and
they're
reporting
ten
dollars
a
square
foot,
but
that's
not
what
they're?
You
know
it's
a
one
dollar
ground
lease
we
haven't
received.
I
needs
for
the
last
four
years,
so
we
don't
actually
know
besides
the
ground
lease
that
they're
receiving
for
one
dollar
we're
providing
an
estimated
13
per
square
foot
as
a
what
we
feel
to
be
a
conservative
dollar
per
square
foot
for
this
property.
Okay,.
G
The
last
question
is
on
the
the
JC,
the
Lord
and
Taylor
sale,
it's
after
the
the
evaluation,
as
everybody
knows,
but
it
was
negotiated.
You
know
during
the
evaluation
period,
so
I'd
like
to
give
it
a
little
bit
of
weight.
What
was
the
dollars
per
square
foot?
What
is
the
eight
million
dollars
equate
to.
E
I
will
have
to
get
back
to
you
on
that
one.
What
is
the
square
footage.
B
I,
do
we
have
that
as
66
dollars,
a
square
foot
and
included?
Oh
it's
in
the
back
here
at
page,
96
of
98
has
the
co-star
printout
for
that
comparable.
A
Done
finished,
okay,
thank
you
and
just
for
the
county
Michelle.
When
was
the
last
time
you
got
an
INE
from
the
appellant.
B
I
I
don't
have
a
reason
why
they
weren't
submitted
in
the
prior
years
as
we've
we
just
submitted
this
year
since
it
is
subject
to
a
ground
lease.
The
income
and
the
income
information
would
be
the
business
income
from
the
store
and
since
we're
valuing
the
real
estate
here
that
wouldn't
provide
any
additional
information
about
the
value
of
the
real
estate.
Since
it
is
subject
to
that
ground
lease.
In
this
case,
it's
not
as
though
they're
paying
you
know
a
particular
rental
amount.
Each.
B
You
know
each
year
on
a
per
square
foot
basis
to
the
landlord,
which
is
often
typical
for
these
large
Mall
anchors.
All.
I
Sorry,
do
you
have
any
sales
annual
sales
for
this
location.
E
E
I
B
Yes,
and
we
we
certainly
are
not.
This
is
not
arguing
that
there
it's
not
still
an
operating,
store
and
I
think
what
I'd
point
out
is
for
all
the
comparables
that
we
utilize
were
well
above
those
I
know,
I
noted
that
the
department
is
saying
that
the
Nordstrom
at
Dulles
was
a
closing
store
and
and
I
agree.
That
store
did
close,
that
sold
for
thirty
four
dollars.
B
A
square
foot
we're
ultimately
coming
to
a
value
conclusion,
more
than
double
that,
so
just
to
the
to
the
extent
that
we
we
do
recognize
as
an
open
up
an
operating
store,
but.
I
And
you
said
you,
you
I,
think
you
answered
about
the
ground
lease
you're,
also
unaware
of
the
term
that
remains
on
the
groundlase.
B
I,
don't
have
that
information
with
me
today,
but
I
could
Pro
could
provide
that
if
the
board
would
like
that
information
it'd
be
helpful
to
that
yeah.
D
C
Okay,
so
we
have
always
known
that
there's
been
one
dollar
per
year,
ground
lease
for
this
property
and
we
we
don't
get
consideration
to
the
ground
lease.
So
in
the
past
they
did
submit
I
needs,
I
think
the
last
time
they
submitted
was
back
in
2015
and
they
would
only
submit
business
information
they've
never
submitted
because
they
don't
pay
rent,
they
own
the
building
themselves
and
they
do
pay
a
dollar
per
year
to
Simon
and
Simon
who
own
the
the
mall
and
there's
an
exchange.
C
They
have
an
agreement
where
there
there's
some
maintenance
and
stuff
that
Simon
and
Simon
takes
care
of
for
them.
It's
part
of
the
the
synergistic
environment,
with
the
two
anchor
stores
and
the
mall.
So
basically,
we
are
very
conservative
on
that.
Rent
and
we've
looked
at
co-star
and
I
believe
annetta
provided
breakdown
of
the
rents
and
they
support
something
much
higher
than
what
we're
using.
Thank
you.
A
C
A
E
So
again,
going
back
to
basic
principles
and
real
estate
evaluation,
location,
location
location.
Why
the
Nordstrom
and
Dallas
location
Clause
it
doors
in
2017
the
management
decided
to
remain
its
operation
and
Fashion
Center
at
the
Pentagon
and
for
other
newbie
locations,
and
we
asked
the
board
to
confirm
the
subjects.
2023
assessment:
that's
23
million
three
hundred
ninety
thousand
five
hundred
twenty
one
dollars.
Thank
you.
B
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
The
property
owner
is
in
agreement
with
most
of
the
income
inputs
that
the
board
used.
Again,
we
aren't
contesting
the
expenses
or
the
capitalization
rate,
but
we
are,
we
would
like.
The
sport
to
consider
is
that
we
have
provided
actual
lease
comps
for
the
subject
Market.
What
the
county
has
provided
are
all
estimates
from
co-star
there's,
not
a
single
reported,
actual
lease
comp,
so
the
Citrus
co-star
Gathering
data.
B
We
believe
the
information
we
have
provided
supports,
reduction
in
value
for
the
applicable
tax
year
and
would
request
finding
of
the
value
of
16
million,
900,
000
or
75
dollars
a
square
foot
for
the
applicable
tax
year.
Thank
you
all.
A
F
Yeah
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
before.
I
went
on
this
board,
some
of
you
that
have
been
on
for
a
while,
Jose
and
Ken
and
Mary.
F
Remember
that
I
used
to
present
Appeals
and
most
of
my
appeals
were
owner
occupied
real
estate,
in
particular
Preston's
Pharmacy,
because
I
I
remember
when
I
did
that
how
how
hard
it
was
to
present
a
owner
occupied
tax
appeal,
because
the
the
system
that
has
been
set
up
by
the
county
is
one
way
and
yet
owner
occupied
is
different
and
so
you're
trying
to
put
a
you
know
what
is
it
a
square
peg
into
a
round
hole
and
when
it's
owner
occupied
it's
just
you
just
look
at
life
differently.
F
For
example,
you
know
myself
and
my
partners
who
have
businesses.
Excuse
me
here
in
my
building.
We
have
a
whole
section
of
the
floor
where
we
store
stuff
and
if
we
were
paying
rent
to
someone
we
would
not
do
that.
We
would,
you
know,
get
rid
of
the
old
files
or
we'd
have
off-site
storage,
or
we
would
do
something
different,
and
so
it's
it's
just.
It's
just
really
hard
I
think
for
owner
occupied,
and
you
know
the
question
you
know
you
we
haven't.
F
We
haven't
seen
income
expense
statements
because
they're
not
really
applicable,
and
so
what
I
did
in
thinking
this
through
I
think
that
ten
dollars
is
probably
more
accurate
than
the
13,
but
there's
No
Vacancy,
and
so,
if
we're
going
to
have
a
lower
rent
because
an
owner
occupant
is
going
to
do
things
that
a
tenant
occupant
would
not
do,
then
I
don't
think
we
should
have
a
vacancy.
F
D
A
Where's
I
don't
know
my
my
initial
reaction
prior
to
you
speaking
was
you
know,
I
I,
agree
and
I
certainly
understand
the
idea
of
an
owner
occupant,
but
I.
Look
at
this
and
I
think
you
know.
The
only
other
thing
that
you
look
at
then
is:
if
it
wasn't
owner
occupied
what
would
be
a
potential
rent
that
the
building
would
bring
in
and
I
I.
Think
13
is
conservative
for
the
location,
so
my
initial
thought
is
I'm.
Okay,
with
the
original
assessment
interested.
What
other
folks
have
to
say:
Mr
Hoffman.
I
Yeah
I
kind
of
felt
the
same
way.
You
know
if
I
was
presenting
this
case
as
representing
the
owner
and
the
occupant
I'd
probably
come
in.
If
I
was
trying
to
paint
the
picture
that
this
was
a
kind
of
a
Dying
retail
scene
in
the
dying
retail
sub
Market
in
Arlington,
and
this
this
is
kind
of
a
part
of
it.
I
You
know
part
of
a
mall,
that's
that's
getting
shuttered
I
would
show
the
other
stores
that
are
shuttering
in
the
fashion
center,
and
you
know
kind
of
paint
that
picture
and
I
would
I
would
definitely
come
on
with
sales.
I
From
my
from
my
client
that
showed
declining
sales,
I
I,
none
of
that
evidence
available
today.
All
we
have
is
Short
Pump,
there's
a
closed
store
and
in
Dallas
there's
a
there's,
a
distressed,
sale
or
or
Dulles
Town
Center,
and
we
kind
of
know.
What's
going
on
out
there
and
and
at
least
comp
from
Oxen,
Hill
and
I
mean
if
you've
ever
been
to
Oxen
Hill
versus
Arlington.
I
D
I
Not
really
convinced
so
just
I
don't
see
the
evidence
that
this
this
is
a
problem
store
or
a
problem
location,
especially
when
you
see
Kimco
across
the
street,
just
growing
up
apartment
buildings
on
their
land.
That
are,
you
know,
20
stories
tall,
you
know,
I'm
just
I'm
not
buying
it
I
think
it
should
be
higher.
Greg
Craig.
F
Let
me
ask
you
this,
though:
let's
say
that
this
this
building
gets
vacated,
they
do
close
the
store
down.
Who
are
you
going
to
lease
to.
F
I
Up
it,
it
would
be
pretty
easy
to
paint
the
picture
when
you
looked
at
the
sales
that
that
Costco
does
across
the
street
that
if
you
come
in
here
with
your
operation,
whatever
it
may
be,
Ross
Marshalls
what's
left
right.
What's
not
there
right
now,
TJ
Maxx,
they
would
crushing
that's
it.
I
mean
I
mean
Pentagon.
City
is
the
best
performing
Mall
in
the
region.
F
I
G
You
I
just
like
to
chime
in
that
I
don't
want
to
play
and
we
rarely
do
a
what-if
scenario
a
year
or
two
or
five
from
now
I
I
bought
Barn's
notion
was
actually
quite
appealing,
but
I
hadn't
thought
about
it.
I
had
thought
about
it
that
way,
but
I
realized
that,
in
my
mind,
Greg's
argument
that
the
evidence
isn't
really
there
and
I
thought
the
same
thing
about
what
are
the
sales?
Is
this
a
declining
property
or
not?
G
We
don't
know
so,
and
finally,
thirteen
dollars
a
square
foot
really
is
quite
conservative.
Could
we
plug
in
10
sure,
but
it's
either?
One
is
a
whole
lot
less
than
than
a
very
nice
anchor
and
a
very
nice
Mall
could
command
so
I'm
I'm
comfortable
with
with
the
assessment,
as
is
okay.
J
No
I
personally
agree
with
everything
that
Mr
Hoffman
said
and
I
think
the
thirteen
dollars
the
square
foot
is.
You
know
very
conservative,
I'm,
okay
with
it.
D
F
A
E
K
Hi
I'm
on
for
Mrs
steinhauser
I'll
be
presenting
the
case
today.
K
I
am
both
cases
are
actually
part
of
the
same
economic
units.
E
A
We've
got
Miss
roskin,
okay,
so
moving
along
to
because
they
are
two
separate
rpcs.
So
we'll
start
with
the
first
RPC
14051022
900
North
Taylor,
so
Mr
Gomez.
Why
don't
you
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this.
K
Okay,
so
this
RPC
is
actually
part
of
the
router
building
that
you
see
in
my
packet,
rpc-022
represents
only
the
third
and
fourth
floor
of
the
building,
with
a
assessed
value
of
11
million
114
600
and
we're
coming
in
at
eight
million
700
713
992.
K
K
We
feel
like
there
have
been
no
significant
changes
in
the
market
that
would
warrant
such
an
increase
at
this
property,
and
it
raises
the
question:
what
changed
in
the
property
from
the
1-1
2022
data
evaluation
that
would
lead
an
investor
to
pay
18,
nearly
19
more
for
the
property,
as
of
1
1
2023,
if
I
could
just
direct
everyone
to
page
six
of
my
appeal
submission
just
to
speak
a
little
bit
more
in
regards
of
the
senior
living
sector
in
the
healthcare
property
that
this
property
type
has
been
facing
since
coronavirus.
K
Obviously,
the
senior
living
sector
was
decimated
by
by
covid.
If
I
could
just
read
a
couple
of
a
couple
of
points
from
here,
you
know
these
this,
this
property
type
was
Ill
prepared
for
covet
and
the
impacts
that
it
would
have
on
its
residents
obviously
had
huge
impacts
on
occupancy.
As
you
know,
there
were
massive
declines
on
the
onset
of
covid-19,
which
was
caused
by
the
debts
in
the
facility
due
to
covid
or
other
cases.
K
K
We
know
the
elderly
were
at
a
huge
risk
of
covid,
so
a
property
type
like
this
was
was
greatly
impacted
and
not
surprisingly,
labor
increased
labor
labor
costs
increased
a
significant
amount,
a
huge
chunk
of
the
Opex,
given
the
fact
that
there
were
a
lot
more
risks
involved
with
working
at
property
types
like
this,
which
led
the
departure
rate
to
be.
K
You
know
to
be
a
huge,
huge,
huge
problem
for
for
property
types
like
this
and
in
order
to
adjust
these,
these
property
types
had
to
pay
a
premium
for
for
their
labor,
which
inevitably
increased
their
their
operating
expenses.
Other
factors
like
inflation
as
far
as
food
in
August
22,
were
11
higher
than
they
would
be
again
just
having
great
impacts
on
the
profitability
and
income
of
sites.
K
Like
the
one
we're
speaking
on
today
and
then
back
to
some
of
our
main
points,
the
assessment
increased
by
just
below
12
from
2018
to
2022.
We
understand
that
you
know
this
is
this
is
being
assessed
based
on
cost
and
so
there's
no
recoveries
that
are
necessary
here,
because
there
were
no
discounts
throughout
covid,
but
with
that
we
do
expect
bigger
jumps
with
sites
that
did
it
did
received
it
receive
these
discounts
such
as
hotels,
but
not
with
property
types
like
this
there's
not
we.
K
We
can't
find
a
reason
for
there
to
be
nearly
a
19
increase
year
over
year
on
a
parcel
like
this
and
obviously
from
an
equalization
standpoint.
K
The
client
did
see
some
some
concern
with
what
an
increase
like
this,
as
we
did
not
have
any
other
sites
that
we
did
not
see
any
other
Healthcare
sites
that
in
in
Arlington
County.
That
saw
increases
such
as
the
one
that
this
lot
in
increased
this
this
last
Saw
onto
a
to
my
cost
approach
here.
Some
of
my
some
of
my
main
points
here
would
be
the
report
date.
K
The
report
was
run
I
believe
as
of
10
of
October
of
2022.
We
ran
on
a
report
date
of
January
of
2023
closer
to
the
data
valuation,
and
you
know
just
a
better
capture.
What
was
going
on
in
the
market?
As
of
that
date,
the
effective
age
remained
unchanged
from
tax
rate
2022
I
provided
the
Assessor's
worksheet
from
texture,
2022
and
tax
year.
2023,
this
effective
age
again
was
left
unchanged
and
we
do
appreciate
upon
review
of
the
memo
submitted
by
the
assessor.
K
We
do
appreciate
them,
taking
a
second
look
and
making
adjustments
to
to
some
of
our
concerns,
but
we,
we
are
still
in
disagreement
with
keeping
the
taxi
2023
value
with
confirming
that
that
value
we,
you
know,
we've
run
our
approach
here,
arriving
at
a
depreciated
cost
for
the
improvements
of
5,
629
892
and
then
added
the
land
value
back
into
this
value,
to
arrive
at
our
Target
value
of
a
million
713
992.
K
and
back
on
page
too.
Sorry
about
that.
We
do
include
the
numbers
that
the
assessor
submitted,
but
we
apologize
as
we
did
not
take
away
the
20
that
they
have,
that
they
have
subtracted
from
from
their
numbers.
I
do
have
the
actual
the
actual
numbers
here
and
I'm
happy
to
share
my
screen
if
need
be,
but
these
are
just
the
the
numbers
submitted
on
the
Assessor's
worksheet,
but
they
are,
they
do
not
account
for
the
20
that
they
took
out.
K
Ours
does
not
take
out
a
20
either,
but
I
believe
that
would
they'll
be
all
again
happy
to
share
my
screen.
That
was
if
the
actual
Improvement
values
were
confusing.
Anybody.
C
So,
first
of
all,
I
wanted
to
explain
that
for
healthcare
facilities
Draya
in
in
the
county,
we
treat
them
all
the
same
way
and
we
use
the
Marshall
and
Swift
cost
estimator.
So
we
we
value
them
based
on
the
cost
approach
and
not
the
income
approach.
The
big
reason:
why
is
we
do
not
get
adequate
data
to
support
an
income
approach
so
with
that
said,
first
of
all
for
this
particular,
let's
see
this
is
the
one
ending
in
zero.
Two,
two.
Okay,
this
is
floors
three
and
four.
C
Only
for
this
property
we
actually
went
out.
We
got
a
chance
to
inspect
the
this
site.
We
inspected
from
floors,
five,
all
the
way
down
into
the
parking
garage
and
upon
speaking
with
the
property
manager
we
found
out
from
the
property
manager.
They
stated
that
this
property
undergoes
a
refresh
every
five
years
and
I
have
plenty
of
permits.
C
So
you
can
see
some
of
the
permits
that
are
attached
to
the
internet,
page
that
I
that
I
upload
to
this
packet,
but
basically,
in
the
last
five
years,
they've
replaced
all
of
their
Air
Handlers.
Complete
replacement,
they've
modernized,
all
nine
elevators
and
they've
done.
Some
electrical
updating,
they've
replaced
surfaces
on
the
roof,
they've
done
an
entire
facade,
repointed
updating
of
the
entire
building,
and
this
also
included
the
patio
and
balcony
areas
and
also
on
the
inside
every
five
years.
C
They
do
a
refresh
of
carpeting
and
paint
and
if
there's
any
wallpaper,
which
I
don't
recall
seeing
wallpaper,
but
they
they'll
replace
the
carpets
and
the
paint,
and
so
the
property
is
in
really
good
condition
and
they
do
this
every
five
years.
So
it's
been
maintained
very
well
now:
I
reviewed
the
appellants
cost.
Estimates
and
I
want
to
point
out
that
they
used
a
cost
estimate
category
for
low-rise,
assisted
living,
and
this
low-rise
assisted
living
is
for
only
three
stories
or
less
I'm.
C
A
d,
a
level
classic
class
D.
Excuse
me
a
Class
D,
whereas
ours
is
using
a
Class.
A
cost
estimates
for
this
property.
There's
a
very
big
difference
there.
C
As
for
the
20
deduction,
the
purpose
of
the
20
percent
deduction,
it's
actually
written
in
the
Declaration
and
it
accounts
for
your
stairwells,
your
elevators,
because
those
are
are
common
areas
that
are
also
used
by
the
independent
living
for
floors,
five
through
21.,
and
so
that's
why
we
deduct
the
20.
For
that,
let's
see
so,
for
this
particular
floors.
Three
and
four
we
did
not.
C
In
fact,
the
the
cost
estimate
came
in
at
a
little
bit
slightly
higher,
roughly
50
000
higher
than
the
original
January
1
assessment
when
I
went
through
and
made
any
adjustments,
any
corrections,
this
property
and
also
I
I,
displayed
that
the
depreciated
costs.
If
you
want
to
include
land,
it
came
out
to
188
dollars
a
square
foot:
that's
that's
low!
Without
land,
it's
136
dollars
per
square
foot
for
the
construction
cost.
C
As
for
why
the
the
property,
the
value
increased,
it
comes
down
to
construction
costs,
they've
gone
through
the
roof,
as
many
of
you
well
know,
and
that's
why
we
had
the
big
increase
from
in
the
last
year
or
so
and,
let's
see
I
believe
that's
it
I'm
open
for
questions.
G
This
property
is
a
little
different
than
most
similar
facilities,
because
it's
a
condominium.
The
the
residences,
therefore
are
not
owned
by
the
owner.
With
that
caveat
for
the
Department,
could
you,
but,
of
course,
what
we're
talking
about
here
is
common
areas
that
are
not
condominium
that
are
owned
by
the
owner,
so
I'm,
hoping
there's
some
complementarity
here.
This
almost
nine
percent
increase
for
this
common
area
owned
by
the
property
owner
directly.
How
does
that
compare
with
increases
in
other
common
areas
owned
by
the
respective
Property
Owners
throughout
the
county,
for
similar
facilities.
C
C
All
right,
sorry
about
that.
As
for
other
you're
asking
about
common
areas,
can
you
read.
G
This
this
memory
care-
you
know
extra
additional
care
are
owned
by
the
property
owner,
just
like
the
lobby
or
the
parking
lot
or
whatever
so
I
was
hoping.
You
could
compare
it
to
other
similar
facilities
where
the
the
property
owner
owns
all
of
it,
including
the
residences.
You
know,
I'm,
not
talking
about
comparable
price
valuation
increases
from
last
year
to
this
or
from
2021
to
2022..
C
C
So,
first
of
all,
this
is
done
on
the
cost
approach
where,
if
there
are
other
buildings
in
the
county,
where
they
have
multiple
owners,
I'm
I'm
trying
to
think
of
one,
that's
not
a
health
care
facility,
I
think
there's
one
in
Roslyn,
where
you
have
a
hotel
on
a
couple
of
floors
and
then
you
I
think
you
have
apartment
an
office.
So
you
have
multiple
owners
there.
Okay,
that's
all
done
on
the
income
approach,
which
is
a
different.
It's
a
different
valuation
from
the
cost
approach.
G
Excuse
Me
Maybe,
I
mucked
it
up
and
I,
don't
want
to
take
all
the
air
out
of
this,
but
in
in
it's
one
of
the
street
here
Goodwill
God
Godwin,
you
know
that's
owned
by
a
property
owner.
The
whole
thing
is
quote:
common
area
Godwin
house
on.
G
C
G
So
I
would
not
no,
no
that's
the
one
at
Bailey's
Crossroads,
there's
one
on
on
Pershing
Pershing,
just
just
passed,
George
Mason!
C
A
I
Yeah
Lori
is
the
parking
garage
was
191
970
square
feet
in
the
Marshall
and
Swift
estimator.
Do
you
have
any
idea
how
much
like
how
many
spaces
that
is
parking
spaces
roughly.
C
I
asked
that
question
in
an
email
and
they
did
not
respond
the
property
manager.
She
could
not
give
me
a
definitive
answer.
She.
She
thought
it
was
maybe
a
hundred
per
floor,
but
she
was
not
sure,
but
that
question
was
never
answered.
I
did
ask
and
it
was
never
answered.
Okay,
Mr
Yates.
L
C
She
would
not
give
us
well,
let's
see
the
entire
facade
balcony
era
is
from
2016
and
then,
when
I
go
and
look
up
at
the
permits,
there
was
yes
that
coincides
with
it
and
then
there's
2000
yeah
2015
2017,
and
she
said
it
took
a
couple
of
years.
So.
C
It
was
not
last
year,
no,
but
the
last
time
I
inspected,
the
property
I
think
was
2012.,
and
so
we
brought
these
this.
All.
This
updating
was
brought
to
our
attention
this
year
and
so
I
updated
the
record.
L
So
the
effective
age
that
was,
you
know
the
two
2005
was
moved
up
to
2005.
When
was
that
done
when.
D
C
Once
again,
the
essentially
the
big
increase
has
to
do
with
construction
costs
is
everyone
knows
the
construction
costs
have
gone
through
the
roof
yeah.
Once
again,
this
this
property
is
undergone.
A
major
updating
like
I,
said,
they've
modernized.
All
the
elevators
they've
replaced
all
the
air
handlers.
C
They've
replaced,
carpets
and
paint
inside,
and
they
they
every
five
years
they
go
through
and
they
do
any
major
updating
they
need
to
do,
and,
and
the
carpets
and
paint
obviously
are
replaced
from
wear
and
tear,
and
once
again,
I
wanted
to
remind
you
that
the
cost
estimate
that
the
agent
submitted
was
for
a
low-rise
property,
three
stories
or
less.
This
cost
estimate
the
one
that
I
am
using
is
based
on
a
mid
to
high-rise
building.
C
Even
though
it's
only
two
floors
I
had
to
use
the
cost
estimator
for
a
mid
to
high-rise,
building,
Class
A
and
once
again
the
20
deduction,
that's
actually
written
in
the
Declaration
and
it's
associated
with
the
common
areas.
So
I
subtract
that
cost
out
because
of
elevators
stairwells
Etc
that
are
used
by
everyone
in
that
building
and
I
just
request
that
you
confirm
the
current.
Is
you
just
confirmed
the
current
assessment
for
the
property
at?
K
Definitely
so
we
want
to
point
out
that
these
hires
can
higher
construction
costs
do
not
necessarily
raise
the
fair
amount
increase,
the
fair
market
value
of
the
property,
the
income
stream
at
this
property
still
struggling
due
to
covid.
K
Again,
we
have
not
seen
increases
as
high
as
we've
seen
on
this
one
and
other
properties
that
other
costs
approaches
that
we
received
in
Arlington
that
we've
looked
at.
The
improvements
that
are
being
done
are
not
necessarily
increasing
income
at
the
property
either.
It's
just
kind
of
to
keep
the
property
competitive
in
an
aging
property
competitive
in
today's
market,
and
there
are
still
more
fixes
that
need
to
to
happen.
K
We
did
talk
to
the
property
manager
and
she
let
us
know
that
they
are
fixing
some
things
as
needed
as
they
break.
For
example,
the
plumbing
needs
to
get
done,
and
it's
currently
getting
done
again
on
a
necessity
basis
as
it
is
as
it
is
breaking,
and
we
do
concede
that
our
category
may
have
been
on
the
low
side.
K
A
Okay,
thank
you
both
it's
just
among
the
board
members,
Mr
Yates.
L
What
I'm
hearing
is
we're
raising
this
based
on
and
I,
understand
and
fully
agree
with
Rising
construction
costs,
but
this
work
was
done
back
in
the
teens
late
teens.
It
isn't
work,
that's
being
done
more
recently
and
raised
and
and
I
understand,
raising
that
effective
age,
but
it's
it's
not
based
on
current
construction
costs,
which
is
not
applying
to
what
was
done.
F
Yeah
I'll
make
a
couple
of
points.
One
is
that
maybe
I'm
wrong
in
this,
but
if
we're
gonna,
do
the
cost
approach?
Isn't
isn't
things
like?
You
know,
covid
and
impact
and
things
of
that
nature?
Aren't
they
irrelevant?
If
aren't
we
just
simply
looking
at
what
would
it
cost
to
build
this?
F
A
second
time
and
there's
there
was
a
change
in
the
building
code,
where
you
can
stick
build
up
to
eight
stories
now
vis-a-vis
what
used
to
be
six
stories
and
now,
all
of
a
sudden
in
Arlington,
a
lot
of
the
developers
have
found
that
the
magical
height
is
eight
stories
and
it's
actually
causing
some
issues,
because
now
it's
starting
to
block
more
views
and
so
I
I
think.
If,
if
we're
going
to
use
the
cost
approach,
then
I
think
we've
got
a
under.
F
You
know,
I
think
we've
got
to
go
with
what
Lori
is
is
stressing,
which
is
that
you
know
this
is
a
high
rise.
It's
not
a
low
rise,
how
you
rebuild
it?
If
there's
a
casualty
loss,
I,
don't
know
because
it's
up
in
the
air
this
this
condo
unit's
up
in
the
air,
but
it
would
cost
what
she's
estimating
to
rebuild
so
that's
kind
of
where
I
am
okay.
I
I
These
are
hard
properties
to
evaluate
and
I
see
why
we
use
the
cost
approach,
but
I
think
you
got
to
balance
it
like
if
this
was
a
if
this
was
a
new
site
and
the
costs
had
risen
to
what
we've
got
in
the
estimator
right
now,
I
just
I,
don't
think
that
project
goes
forward
right,
I
think
I
think
you
declined
to
build
it
at
that
point.
So
you
know
the
pellen
mentioned
that
the
income
stream
is
struggling.
I
I,
don't
really
have
any
information
on
the
income
stream.
I
I
have
a
hard
time
evaluating
that
statement.
I,
probably
it's
probably
true,
but
you
know
I'm
kind
of
stuck
with
either
going
back
to
2022
or
maybe
meeting
in
the
middle
somewhere
between
22
and
23's
estimate.
I
just
don't
know
how
to
get
there
think
about
it.
Some
more
okay.
A
I'll
jump
in
here
too
I
I
kind
of
feel
the
same
way.
I
look
at
this,
and
this
is
a
unique
property,
because
this
is
the
place
that
if
you
want
to
stay
in
Residence
here
in
Arlington,
where
you'd
have
to
go
to
get
those
types
of
options,
you
know
the
I,
don't
believe
that
there's
anyplace
else
that
has
that
in
Arlington
proper.
A
You
know,
I,
look
at
this
Mr
Yates
from
a
standpoint
of
just
saying:
well,
the
cost
of
construction
is
up,
so
we've
got
to
increase
this.
It's
you
know
not
to
reiterate
what
you
know.
Both
you
and
Mr
Hoffman
said
you
know,
I'm
with
you
on
that
I
mean
from
a
standpoint:
I
looked
at
it
as
I.
Think
the
con
or
the
county
is
too
high.
The
appellant's
too
low
and
I
did
similar
to
what
Mr
Hoffman
just
suggested
average.
A
The
two
and
it
comes
out
of
10,
240,
700,
nice
and
neat
and
easy
I'm
gonna
suspect.
Mr
Panorama
is
not
going
to
like
an
average
of
that,
but
I
I,
just
think
I
I
think
one's
High
one's
low
and
it's
a
cost
approach.
I.
Just
don't
think
we
can
use
the
cost
dollars
of
new
to
assess
this
property,
so
okay
and
somebody
else
had
their
hand
up
in
between
Mr
matskin.
Yes,.
G
Thank
you,
I'm
sympathetic
with
all
of
that
personally,
but
where
I
came
down
was
on
the
side
of
the
Department's
assessment.
For
two
reasons.
One
is
that
this
is
an
update
physical
scan
over
10
years
from
10
years.
Remember
a
couple
years
ago,
when
the
county
got
around
to
retail
establishments
on
the
yellow
line,
assessments
are
going
up
100
and
more,
and
there
was
a
big
flap
about
it
socially
and
politically.
So
all
of
a
sudden,
you
know
under
nine
percent,
doesn't
seem
as
big
after
10
years
and
second
they
indeed
so.
G
We
capture
the
updates
and,
of
course,
the
cost
doing
a
cost
approach,
cost
of
reconstruction
or
building
new
counts,
so
at
first
I
was
a
little
shocked
at
the
increase.
But
the
more
I
listened
to
the
Department's
point
of
view.
The
more
I
favored
it
okay.
J
I
agree,
I
mean
I,
think
you
know
there
are
ways,
that's
one
of
the
reasons.
There's
way
there
are
different
ways
to
evaluate
property.
You
know
the
statements
for
Mr
Gomez.
Don't
really
compel
me
to
make
any
change.
J
I
know
he's
heard
that
you
know
there's
no
other
increase,
but
we
don't
have
any
evidence
of
any
other
property
that
has
you
know
similar
situation
like
this
and
just
to
make
a
reduction
based
on
feelings
that
you
know
that
yeah
we
feel
it's
a
bigger
an
increase,
you're
right
I'm,
not
in
favor
of
doing
that.
I
think
the
department
isn't
has
the
correct
information
in
this
case
and
I
don't
see
any
way
to
make
a
change.
Okay,.
F
Yeah
I'll
be
very
brief.
Art
Walsh
and
I
got
the
Zoning
for
the
artist
facility,
which
was
going
to
be
built
on
olderly
Highway,
and
you
know
this
then
covet
came
and
the
the
owner
of
of
that
facility
ended
up
selling
it
because
the
cost
was
just
so
great.
F
Mccaffrey
has
picked
it
up
and
they're
going
to
continue
with
this
use,
which
I
understand,
has
actually
totally
recovered
from
coven,
and
this
is
the
only
facility
being
built
in
Arlington
in
something
like
the
last
30
years
and
yeah.
That's
another
example
of
you
know
the
cost
that's
gone
up
and
and
what
what
McCaffrey
has
done
is
they've
are
going
to
file
a
site
plan
amendment
to
reduce
the
cost
of
construction
that
some
of
the
things
that
artists
agreed
to
so
I
I.
F
A
L
A
I
mean
that's
the
only
reason
that
I
could
lean
back
to
it.
You
know
possibly
the
increases
should
have
been
slightly
higher
in
those
three
years,
so
this
one
wouldn't
be
so
you
know.
Maybe
they
got
a
break
for
three
years
and
now
it's
kind
of
catching
up.
So.
A
Thank
you.
Moving
to
the
next
case
joined
to
the
property
RPC
one,
four:
zero.
Five,
one:
zero.
Two
three
same
building:
Mr
Gomez!
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
on
this
property.
K
Thank
you,
okay,
so
for
Lot
23.
So
now
we're
looking
at
the
first
and
second
floor
of
the
same
building
along
with
the
three
garage
three
floors
of
garage
spaces.
So
we
did
reach
out
on
behalf
of
Mrs
roscon
to
the
property
owner
regarding
the
amount
of
parking
spaces,
but
the
property
owner
did
not
get
back
to
us,
but
again
a
lot
of
the
same
arguments
here,
as
in
the
previous
case.
So
this
lot
actually
increased
nearly
24
year
over
year
from
last
year's
value.
K
Again,
any
changes
that
were
made,
you
know,
have
been
made
kind
of
just
to
keep
the
property
competitive
in
in
the
market,
and
you
know
some
of
them
were
done
several
years
ago
and
essentially
are
due
for
some
more
some
more
improvements
over
the
next
over
the
next
couple
of
years.
K
Excuse
me,
but,
as
I
mentioned
previously,
it
is
a
lot
of
the
the
the
same
arguments
from
the
previous
case.
They
are
part
of
the
same
economic
unit,
just
looking
at
two
different
floors
and
the
parking
we're
coming
in
at
a
total
value
of
12,
810
773
and
that's
through
using
our
R
cost
approach
and
then
adding
the
County's
Fair
land
value
back
into
into
that
cost
approach.
Again.
K
This
kind
of
increase
we
feel,
is
unwarranted
year
over
year,
hard
to
say
that
a
investor
would
pay
an
additional
24
to
rebuild
this
property
this
year.
Considering
what
we've
mentioned
previously-
and
this
again
is
a
disproportionate
increase,
we're
talking
about
the
other
one
that
was
a
significant
increase
already
at
18,
and
this
one
we're
talking
about
even
greater
increase
of
24,
which
you
know
we
we
don't
want
to.
K
You
know,
beat
on
the
dead
horse,
but
just
want
to
stress
that
the
effect
of
age
is
too
low
here
and
that
a
buyer
will
not
pay
an
additional
24
to
build
it
as
of
11
2023.
K
They
will
not
pay
24
more
than
they
would
have
in
1-1
2022.
again.
These
Renovations
are
just
upkeep
kind
of
just
to
maintain
the
income
stream
of
the
of
the
property
and
do
not
necessarily
add
value
to
the
property.
It's
just
keeping
it
competitive
in
in
the
market.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you
Ms
roskin,
for
the
county.
Thank
you.
C
Okay,
basically,
this
is
the
same
argument:
okay,
because
we're
we're
looking
at
floors,
one
and
two
and
the
the
parking
garage
also
so
once
again,
after
speaking
with
the
property
manager,
major
updates
have
been
done
to
this
property.
C
I
wanted
to
point
out
one
thing,
and,
and
yes
this
is
a
very
old
sale.
It
is
old,
it
was
2017.,
but
the
the
previous
case
you're
referring
to
it
as
lot022,
but
it's
basically
unit
two
three
floors,
three
and
four,
and
this
particular
parcel
sold
together
for
55
million
in
2017..
Now,
when
I
was
looking
I
added
up,
both
the
values,
January
1
assessment,
values
and
I
came
to
31
million.
C
That's
substantially
less
now,
I
I
not
going
to
say
that
this
property
is
worth
55
million
right
now,
because
we're
not
using
the
income
approach
on
this
all
right,
but
I,
don't
believe
that
this
property
has
dropped
that
much
in
value
once
again,
we're
using
the
cost
approach
for
this
property.
C
Also,
I
wanted
to
point
out
that
the
cost
estimate
that
the
agent
used
is
for
a
low-rise
assisted
living
class,
D
property
and
for
their
parking
garage.
The
cost
estimate
was
based
on
an
above
above
grade
parking
and
in
Marshall,
and
Swift
I
actually
used
the
mid
to
high
rise
category
Class
A
for
this
property
and
for
the
underground,
the
category
for
underground
parking,
Class
A
when
I
valued
the
parking,
which
is
a
separate
cost
estimate,
cost
estimate
number
760..
C
So
as
for,
like
I,
said
the
last
time
I
inspected,
this
property
was
2012..
I
was
not
aware
in
the
last
10
years
of
all
these
updates
that
have
occurred,
you're
going
well,
you
know
why
did
it?
Why
did
I
apply
all
these
updates
now?
Well,
that's
because
we're
just
learning
of
it
now
all
right.
C
If
I
had
known
about
it
in
the
past
10
years,
I
probably
would
have
made
changes,
but
because
of
this
inspection,
I
felt
that
it
was
necessary
to
make
updates
to
the
cost
estimate,
and
we
feel
that
the
the
the
updated
the
total.
Let
me
look
at
the
total
here:
I'm
not
going
to
give
you
a
brick.
The
total
cost
at
20
million
251
900,
that's
depreciated.
Total
costs
is
fair
and
Equitable
for
this
property.
C
Once
again,
I'll
point
out
that
the
for
this
particular
RPC,
the
depreciated
costs
come
out
to
which
includes
land
86
dollars
a
square
feet.
Why
is
that
different
from
the
other
one
when
the
other
one's
a
little
higher?
Well,
it
has
to
do
it,
there's
more
square
footage,
okay
and
then
depreciated
cost
without
land
came
out
to
75
dollars
a
square
foot
I'm
open
for
questions.
Thank.
A
I
Yeah
I
didn't
get
a
chance
to
ask
on
the
last
one
but
Mr
Gomez,
you
know
it
it
keep.
You
mentioned
income
stream
on
both
properties.
K
It's
a
lot
tougher
to
super
tough
to
do
that.
We
have
to
strip
that
out,
obviously
due
to
the
business
value
that
comes
with
valuing
an
income
stream
such
as
the
one
for
this
property.
We
do
agree
with
the
with
the
county
using
the
cost
approach,
but
do
feel
that
there
should
be
some
consideration
to
to
the
income
stream
taking
hits
from
from
external
factors
such
as
as
covet
again.
K
It's
super
tough
to
put
an
exact
real
estate
value
on
the
income
stream
here,
considering
that
there
are
business
value
that
there
is
business
value,
that's
attributable
to
some
of
the
income
on
that
would
be
on
this.
That
would
be
used
to
consider
this
property
has.
K
Yes,
I
would
I
would
say
so
again.
We
do
not
have
those
numbers
and-
and
they
have
to
be,
you
know
they
have
to
be
adapted
to
exclude
any
business
value.
But
again
when
we're
looking.
I
K
K
I
Okay,
I'm
trying
to
help
you
out
did
you
tell
the
did
the
owners
tell
you
that
the
income
stream
has
decreased,
but
they
did
not
share
the
numbers
with
you.
I
C
Thank
you
once
again,
This
Record
has
been
based
on
our.
My
recent
inspections
is
how
the
last
one
was
in
2012.
Based
on
the
recent
inspection
we
made
updates
to
the
cost
estimate
and
once
again,
I
want
to
point
out.
Our
cost
estimate
is
based
on
a
mid
and
high-rise
property
and
parking
underground,
whereas
the
agent
is
using
a
cost
estimate,
that's
for
a
a
low-rise
Class,
D
property
and
above
ground.
C
So
there
are
two
very
different
cost
estimates
that
you're
trying
to
make
a
comparison
to
and
just
requesting
that
you
give
serious
consideration
to
the
cost
estimates
that
I
presented
before
you
and
I
recommend
that
you
confirm
the
current
assessment
at
20
million
251
900.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
K
Yep
so
once
again
just
want
to
reiterate
that
there
was
a
disproportionate
increase,
even
when
looking
at
lot
zero.
Two
two
to
zero.
Two
three
there
was
an
18
to
18.6
increase
in
lot
zero
to
two
and
a
24
23.6
percent
increase
in
lot
0.
in
lot
zero.
Two
three
again,
these
Renovations
were
were
done
into
teens
again
we're
here,
we're
looking
at
three
levels
of
of
garage
space.
K
So
a
lot
of
the
renovations
that
we
had
spoken
about
in
the
previous
case
were
talking
about
carpets
and
things
like
that
again
want
to
reiterate
that
that
is,
that
is
just
upkeep
to
keep
the
property
competitive,
but
it's
not
necessarily
applicable
to
the
three
three
floors
of
garage
space
that
are
included
within
this
lot
again.
That
sale
once
again
does
include,
does
consider
the
income
value
from
before
kovid
and
inevitably
does
have,
does
have
some
business
value
included.
K
So
we
feel
that
that
was
that
is
not
representative
of
what
the
property
what
this
line
would
sell
for.
As
of
11
2023.
Thank
you.
F
Yes,
ma'am
I
think
from
the
Viewpoint
of
Equalization.
We
should
limit
the
increase
to
the
same
percent
as
the
last
case.
I
did
that
and
I
came
up
with
19
million
three
hundred
and
thirty
two
thousand
six
hundred
dollars.
G
Like
to
extend
that
thought,
a
bit
we've
just
agreed
that
the
county
properly
assessed
the
common
area
on
the
fourth
and
fifth
floor,
with
an
increase
of
under
nine
percent.
I,
see
no
reason
why
the
common
area
on
the
first
and
second
floors
shouldn't
be
increased
by
about
that
amount
as
well.
The
finished
areas
finished
area
in
the
same
building.
We
don't
know
the
exact
finishings,
but
it's
HVAC
and
carpet,
and
all
this
good
stuff.
G
G
Knowing
that
the
there's
probably
more
square
footage
in
the
parking
lot
than
the
first
and
second
floors
common
area
in
the
first
and
second
floors,
or
maybe
it's
about
the
same
I
guess
I,
deduced
and
I
just
therefore
apply
to
five
percent
increase
over
the
20
20
one
assessment,
the
2022
assessment
and
came
up
with
a
figure
of
17
million.
Two
hundred
two
thousand
eight
hundred.
A
Okay,
I'll
jump
in
now,
I
may
have
been
somewhat
sympathetic
to
that,
but
I
I,
don't
know
I,
look
at
this
and
think
the
burden
of
proof
is
on
the
appellant.
The
appellant
didn't
provide
any
evidence
to
show
why
the
county
is
wrong.
I
mean
we
don't
have
income
information.
A
When
you
look
at
this
again,
this
is
a
property
that
is
pre
stayed
pretty
flat
from
20
to
22,
and
now
the
county
is
catching
up
on
some
of
these
and
I
know
the
appellant
said.
Oh,
these
are
Renovations
that
happened
a
while
ago.
Well,
it
probably
should
have
been
increased
higher
several
years
ago
and
we
wouldn't
have
such
a
high
jump.
So
I
myself
right
now,
don't
have
a
problem
with
the
assessment
Mr
Gates,
you
had
your
hand
up
turn
your
microphone
on.
Please.
L
I'm
sorry
about
that,
I
was
looking
at
the
fact,
initially
that
it's
a
25
jump
from
from
2021.
and
I
just
thought
where
historically
been
flat.
I
am
buying
Lori's
argument,
though,
that
this
should
have
been
a
more
steady
increase,
because
historically,
it's
been
flat
up
until
21
it
started
moving.
22S
really
would
have
started
moving,
but
anyway,
I
and
I
I
was
initially
I
was
like
I
liked,
hearing
barnes's
suggestion,
but
yeah
I
do
think
it
is
probably
a
catch-up
yeah
Mr.
A
G
Thank
you,
no
I
agree
with
the
ketchup
notion,
but
the
department
didn't
suggest
in
any
way
why
this
ketchup
is
almost
triple
with
the
last
purely
finished
area.
Ketchup
was
catch
up,
not
the
Tomato
product
and
I
I
stand
by
and
I
get
swayed
a
lot
by.
My
colleagues
on
this
board,
but
I
stand
by
my
rationale
that
the
finished
area
ought
to
go
up
like
the
other
finished
area
in
the
last
case
and
unfinished
area
ought
to
go
up
much
less
than
that,
and
it's
not
the
appellants.
J
Yeah
I
mean
I
agree
with
what
you've
said.
I
think
this
is
a
case
again
like
the
previous
one
that
you
know,
numbers
are
catching
up:
2015
the
property
was
valued
at
14,
less
than
14
and
a
half
million
2022
is
16
and
less
than
16
and
a
half
million.
So
you
know
the
numbers
have
been
low
because
the
property
wasn't
inspected
since
2012,
and
now
it's
really
an
actual
number
that
we
have
based
on
the
coast,
approach
and
I.
J
I
On
Mary
on
this
one
I
agree
with
you.
Looking
at
the
cost
estimate,
I
think
it's
still
probably
a
little
too
low
on
the
parking
garage
I
think
it
was
under
15
million
the
size
of
that
garage.
I
One
of
the
things
that
happened
is
you
know
people
would
look
at
underground
garages
for
years
at
you
know:
35
000,
maybe
Max
40
000
a
car
and
that's
just
jumped
up
so
much
because
Underground
Construction,
just
being
probably
the
most
expensive
thing
you
can
do,
is
dig
a
big
hole,
especially
with
other
buildings
around
it,
and
and
it's
jumped
up
a
lot
so
I
could
see
where
there'd
be
a
little
bit
of
a
disproportionate
increase
if
you're,
just
looking
at
percentages
so
I'm.
Actually,
okay,
with
the
with
the
assessment.
A
Okay,
Mr
Lawson
briefly.
I
A
I
A
Yeah
yeah,
okay,
that
being
said,
then
I'm
gonna
move
to
confirm
the
county.
A
Okay,
so
it's
four
to
two
and
that
is
without
Mr
matskin
and
Mr
Lawson,
okay,
so
the
assessment
is
confirmed
and
unfortunately
I
just
lost
it.
I
can't
receive
it.
Can
somebody
give
me
the
number
please.
A
Okay
and
I
assume
Mr
chicas.
You
don't
have
any
issue
with
that.
No
man,
okay,
anybody
on
the
board
have
an
issue
with
that.
F
A
A
M
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much,
I'd
like
to
please
direct
the
board
to
page
50
of
194,
which
is
our
summary
of
facts
for
this
property.
This
is
Courtland
Powers.
It's
consistent
of
one
tax
RPC.
It
was
initially
assessed
at
230
million
462
900.
The
county
is
currently
recommending
a
revision
to
229
529
400,
and
that
was
due
to
the
PPT
deduction
below
the
line.
M
After
after
it
was
capitalized,
which
was
which
was
omitted
from
the
County's
original
assessment
and
had
had
always
been
there
in
previous
years,
so
something
that
we
pointed
out
the
county
of
knowledge
and
they
are
now
appropriately
deducting
that
that
PPT
assessment
value
from
the
real
estate
portion
of
the
property,
our
requested
value
of
211
million
564
700
that
that's
it's
slightly
different
than
what
is
found
on
or
it
is
different.
That's
what
is
found
on
column
H
in
the
County's
mixed
use,
income
and
expense
summary.
M
A
lot
of
those
figures
are
are
off
than
what
is
provided
in
our
pro
forma
Target
value,
which
is
found
on
page
56
of
194..
Now
I'll
direct
the
board,
please
back
to
that.
Just
mixed
use,
income
and
expense
summary
sheet
upon
filing
this
appeal
and
reviewing
it.
The
county
did
create
a
test
column
which
resulted
in
a
lower
noi
that
noi
for
the
apartments
went
from
12
million,
470
and
40
dollars
to
12
million
429
and
560..
M
M
This
is
a
property
that
was
was
toured
and
inspected
by
the
county
back
in
June
and
and
following
that,
the
County
in
the
revised
test
column
appears
to
have
changed
the
effective
age
based
on
that
that
inspection
so
and
what
you'll
see
is
then
in
column,
G1
and
G2,
which
is
where
the
the
revision
is
taking
place.
M
They
have
reverted
back
to
the
original
assessment,
which
includes
the
original
noi
for
the
apartments
and
a
capitalized
noi
and
valuation
for
the
commercial
space,
and
that's
another
point
of
contention
as
well
is
that
there
is
no
commercial
space,
so
just
reverting
back
to
the
cap
rate
applied.
This
is
very
similar
to
a
case
that
we
heard
back
that
the
board
decided
on
back
on
September
6
for
Water
Park
Towers.
M
It
was
EU
three
four
zero,
zero,
two
zero
three,
a
similar
case
in
which
the
the
property
was
inspected.
It
was
an
apartment.
M
The
county
decided
that,
following
that
inspection,
a
a
decrease
in
the
effective
age
was
warranted
and
a
decrease
in
the
cap
rate
by
10
basis
points
and
the
board
ruled
in
that
instance
that
the
test
column
should
be
used
or
capitalized
based
on
the
original
cap
rate,
which
was
10
basis
points
higher
so
again,
given
that
the
the
board's
pressed
in
that
in
that
decision,
in
that
case,
we
are
requesting
that
the
board
confirm
the
original
cap
rate
that
was
used
in
the
original
assessment,
which
is
5.45
and
not
five.
M
Three
five.
Now
again,
regarding
the
the
retail
space
again,
this
property
was
inspected
back
in
June.
There
is
no
more.
There
is
no
longer
a
retail
component
here.
There
was
a
a
deli
and,
and
they
vacated
it
was
at
least
Deli,
but
that
the
last
leased
commercial
space
vacated
in
March
of
2022
you'll,
see
in
column
e
there's,
23
828
listed
for
the
retail
income
right
below
the
apartment
GPI
4
500
of
that
was
was
for
that
Deli
and
again
it
vacated
in
March
of
2022.
M
The
remainder
of
that
was
actually
hvc
usage
and
should
have
been
reported
in
miscellaneous
income.
So
the
only
the
only
commercial
rent
that
was
reported
was
through
March
until
the
deli
vacated.
As
of
the
valuation
date
for
1
1
2023,
there
was
no
more
commercial
space
there.
At
least
commercial
space,
I
should
say
there
still
is,
and
we
saw
it
on
the
inspection
with
Chris
a
a
like
a
snack
shop.
But
it's
it's
purely
vendor
driven
it's
it's
not
a
lease
space.
M
It's
a
it's
a
pure
amenity
for
the
the
the
residents
at
the
apartment.
The
income
goes
directly
to
the
vendor,
it's
restocked
by
the
vendor.
Specifically,
so
again,
it's
there's
no
more
retail
components.
So
we
would
ask
the
board
to
remove
the
commercial
component
valuation
from
the
current
assessment,
which
is
one
million
six
hundred
fifty
four
thousand
nine
hundred
and
again,
you
know
just
picking
column
app
which,
if
you,
if
you
look
at
that
the
county
again
did
not
use
that
in
their
revision.
M
If
you
cap
that
at
the
original
cap
rate
of
5.45,
you
come
to
a
value
initial
value
of
228
065
and
65
228
million
sixty
five
thousand
four
eighty
six
deduct
the
nine
hundred
thirty
three
thousand
five.
Ninety
eight
for
PPT
gets
you
to
a
value
of
227,
131
900
and
again.
That
would
be
it
because
again,
there
is
no
commercial
retail
component.
M
Now
the
actual
noi
that
the
county
was
using
in
their
revised
in
their
Revision
in
that
test,
column,
which
they
ended
up
not
using,
was
12.429
Million,
that's
still
about
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
higher
than
the
actual
noi
that
was
reported
at
the
subject:
property,
the
the
actual
expenses
in
that
test
column
of
4
million
one
hundred
ninety
eight
thousand
is
around
fifty
five
thousand
dollars.
M
Fifty
six
thousand
dollars
below
the
actual
expenses
reported,
most
recently
in
2022.,
so
again
we're
asking
the
board
to
consider
the
the
most
recent
financials
at
this
at
this
location
and
also
consider
the
test
column
and
capitalize
at
the
the
County's
original
capitalization
rate
of
5.45.
Thank
you.
N
This
man
good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
Mr
Warren,
surmised,
quite
well,
by
Mr
Warren,
really
we'll
make
this
easy
for
you
all.
When
you're
looking
at
the
summary
sheets,
I
think
you
can
agree
that
it's
not
there's
not
real
disagreements
on
income,
expense
stream
numbers.
It's
the
cap
rate
we've
already
discussed
this
earlier
this
year.
N
We
have
a
different
viewpoint
on
it
than
the
board
members
and
and
some
of
the
property
owners,
in
the
sense
that,
while
this
valuation
is
as
of
January
1,
we
are
taking
some
information
that
happened
previously.
In
other
words,
the
Ines
that
we
receive
in
March
of
this
year
from
last
year,
so
their
new
information
and
so
would
be
a
visit
to
the
property
as
Mr
Warren,
noted
and
I.
Don't
think
the
owners
would
contend
against
that.
This
is
all
work.
N
That's
been
done
over
the
last
four
years,
or
so
some
17
million
dollars
has
been
spent
on
Renovations
really
top
to
bottom.
All
units
have
been
renovated.
Common
area
has
been
renovated,
they're
actually
even
progressively
for
them
putting
in
a
pickleball
court
and
placing
their
indoor
pool.
So
they
are
very
much
aware
of
common
area
amenities
and
what
people
want
we
can
see
by
way
of
the
2022
INE
that
the
renovations
worked
very
well
GPI
up,
8.5
percent,
effective
gross
is
up.
31
percent
and
noi
is
up
41
percent.
N
We
knew
that
the
previous
years
obviously
had
been
depressed
by
the
lack
of
all
the
units
going
to
Market.
If
you
will
so,
there
was
no
real
gross
potential
that
has
been
Illustrated
last
couple
years.
We
do
feel
2022
is
more
in
line
with
the
potential
that's
available
at
this
property,
especially
given
the
renovations
made.
I.
N
Also,
don't
think,
there's
really
any
argument
that
the
10
years
that
we
added
from
89
to
99
was
anything
but
reasonable
again,
reflecting
not
only
the
money
spent
but
the
condition
of
the
property
upon
the
visit
that
we
all
made
together.
Again,
it's
really
just
a
difference,
a
Viewpoint.
We
believe
that
the
cap
rate
should
become
10
points
lower
based
on
the
renovations
that
we've
recognized,
that
we've
anticipated
over
the
last
four
years.
We've
heard
this
property
the
last
four
years
made
mention
specifically
about
the
exorbitant
vacancy
they
were
reporting.
N
22
in
2020
18
2021,
but
we
knew
again
that
was
essentially
owner
mandated
that's
fallen
down
to
six
percent
I
believe
it
says
five
percent,
as
of
January
one
again
highly
stabilized
and
was
well
amenitized
and
it
all
makes
sense
our
Viewpoint
again
on
lowering
the
effective
age.
Excuse
me,
the
cap
rate
by
increasing
the
effective
age
follows
with
what
I
believe
the
residential
team
does,
in
the
sense
that
if
there
is
a
inspection
of
the
property
there
is
improvements
to
the
property
have
been
found
upon
an
inspection.
N
They
make
changes
to
the
record
that
reflect
it.
As
of
that
date,
because
again
we
go
back
to
January
1.
We
do
believe
that
that
should
be
reflected
as
as
well
again,
these
aren't
the
improvements
that
have
been
made
over
the
last
seven
months
of
this
year.
They
were
made
prior
to
January
1,
we're
just
now
reflecting
them.
That
being
said,
we
don't
don't
disagree
with
the
math
Mr
Warren
presented
in
regards
to.
N
If
you
were
to
take
the
test
column
and
apply
the
the
cap
rate
of
5.45
again,
we
do
believe
that
5.35
5.35
is
prudent
again.
The
10-year
adjustment
made
for
the
amount
of
improvements
that
they
did
to
the
property
again
is
very
prudent
and
I
also
point
out
that
the
cap
rate,
as
appointed
by
the
appellant,
is
the
highest
one.
That's
available,
it's
it's
a
vintage
1970s
building,
so
not
only
recognizing
the
year
built
of
1989.
they're,
actually
going
further
back
than
that.
N
That
being
said
again
in
agreement,
you
know
you'll
note
that
our
noi
is
actually
lower
than
the
noi
posited
by
the
Penance.
Our
Opex
is
higher
than
that
projected
by
the
pellets.
Again,
it's
just
a
difference
of
that
40
basis
points.
We
do
believe
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
our
proposed
value
of
229
million
529.4.
N
But
again,
if
you
were
going
to
go
with
the
Revision
in
column,
F
the
testing
column
F,
we
do
agree
with
the
math
that
was
provided
by
Mr
Warren
Miss
Kelly.
Did
you
want
some
comments?
I.
H
Did
I
just
wanted
to
just
bring
home
some
points
that
we
made
last
week
regarding
effective
age,
that
we
do
look
at
three
categories
of
adjustments,
one
being
tenant
improvements,
and
that
would
be
large
for
large
modernizations
of
leash
units
and
then
for
renovations
to
common
areas,
an
exterior
facade
and
there
would
be
lobbies,
conference
rooms,
bathrooms
parking
garages,
Etc,
and
that
would
be
5
five
to
ten
years,
and
in
this
case
we
did
increase
the
effective
age
by
10
years.
H
Due
to
the
massive
amount
of
renovations
to
this
property
is
17
million
just
wanted
to
bring
that
point
to
the
point.
Thank
you,
foreign.
F
L
G
O
O
Yeah,
the
the
convenience
store
or
the
deli
was
was
we
did
a
site
plan
amendment
to
change
that
to
four
Apartments,
so
the
last
occupancy
date
of
the
deli
was
in
March
of
22.
the
place
that's
open
now
was
basically
80
to
100
square
feet.
It's
run
by
Aramark
and
it's
coffee
snacks
things
like
that
and
they
stock
it.
They
don't
they
don't
pay
rent.
We
just
they've
been
up,
but
we
also
don't
buy
the
food
right,
so
they
just
run
that
for
us.
O
Will
be
no,
what
blank
was
saying:
is
our
HR
s
and
rents,
rent
space
force
to
put
their
air
handlers
and
stuff
for
the
building,
and
our
accounting
folks
put
that
into
retail
versus
miscellaneous.
L
G
M
A
N
Ma'am,
yes,
sir,
no,
the
so
essentially
G1
and
G2
are
the
same
as
the
original
assessment.
It's
just
the
application
of
the
personal
property.
So
there
was
no
reflection
of
that.
The
the
column,
F1
or
I
should
say:
F
reflects
the
579
units
and
no
retail.
A
N
Just
again
to
reiterate
again
looking
at
the
nois
the
bottom
line,
if
you
will
we're
actually
lower
tests
than
the
the
appellants
are,
our
projected
Opex
is
actually
higher
again.
We
do
believe
that
the
10
years
is
modest
and
should
be
reflected
based
on
the
amount
of
capex.
That's
been
put
into
this
building
the
last
four
years.
We've
recognized
that
and
again
it's
just
the
difference
of
40
some
basis
points,
but
we
do
believe,
that's
relevant
and
should
be
applied.
N
M
Yeah
again,
column
H,
which
is
our
our
appellant
pro
forma.
A
lot
of
those
figures
are
wrong
and
not
reflective
of
what
was
submitted,
we're
using
the
actual
operating
expenses
from
2022,
which
is
again
55
000
higher
than
than
what
the
county
was
using
or
estimating
in
their
test
column.
M
Again
it
comes
back
down
to.
There
is
no
more
retail
component
here
that
value
should
be
extracted
and
as
and
we
do
not
feel
that
the
the
cap
rate
should
have
been
changed
and
and
effective
age
changed.
That
reflected
a
10
point
decrease
in
the
cap
rate
from
545
to
535..
Again,
if
you
use
the
original
cap
rate
on
the
County's
test
column,
that
test
column
is
just
for
the
apartments,
it's
reflective
of
no
retail
component
and
you
capitalize
it
at
5.35.
M
You
get
to
a
value
to
228,
65,
046
minus
the
PPT,
or
a
total
value
of
227
131
900.,
again,
the
the
noi,
that's,
that
is
in
the
County's
test
column,
which
is
reflective
of
the
the
gross
potential
income
found
on
the
rent
roll
Matrix,
which
is
on
page
five,
and
it's
still,
you
know
a
hundred
thousand
dollars.
Above.
E
I
I
mean
I
was
doing
some
calculations
on
the
summary
sheet
and
I
think
I
I,
maybe
I'm
getting
this
wrong.
But
if
you
look
at
the
County's
column
C
on
the
apartments
and
you
take
that
noi,
that's
there
and
divide
it
by
the
cap
rate.
I
don't
get
the
same
number
as
the
as
the
228
808
you
get
like
230.
I
A
I
A
L
I
I
mean
my
point.
The
reason
I
was
doing.
The
calculations
is
I
think
that
the
the
retail
does
need
to
be
I
mean
they
file
the
site
plan.
Amendment
they've
changed
the
use.
I've
seen
this
in
other
buildings.
There's
one
right
here
that
just
opened
across
the
street.
That's
got
a
Monumental
Market
in
it
and
they're
not
paying
taxes
on
that
as
retail
space
so
and
I.
Think.
I
If
there
is
any
income,
it's
going
to
be
pretty
minor,
you
know
it'll
be
like
we
did
really
well
on
sales
and
here's
five
thousand
dollars
for
the
year.
That
kind
of
thing
so
I
think
it
over
time
it'll
move
into
other
income.
I
So
the
way
I
was
looking
at.
It
was
just
putting
5000
on
other
income
right
right
now
and
then
I
came
up
with
a
number
that
was
I
gotta.
Do
it
again
here
very
slightly
lower
because
I'd
be
taking
the
retail
away.
F
I
A
N
A
I
A
J
Yeah
I
kind
of
agree
with
Mr
Warren
in
this
case
I
think
the
test
column
is
more
reflective.
It's
still
showing
the
579
units,
and
you
know
using
the
cap
rate
of
545
I
came
up
with
exactly
the
same
numbers
that
Mr
Warren
came.
You
know
deducting
the
933
598.
A
J
Okay,
I'll
move
that
we
reduce
the
assessment
based
on
the
test
column
and
the
final
value
would
be
227
million,
131
900
and
that's
by
increasing
the
cap
rate
of
2545.
A
A
The
agenda,
thank
you,
so
any
other
business.
A
If
the
board
members
would
stay
on,
we
just
got
to
work
out
some
additional
dates
for
October,
but
we
will
go
ahead
and
adjourn
now
at
10
44.,
we'll
reconvene
tomorrow
morning
in
person
for
the
board
members
at
9
A.M
on
the
20th.
Thank
you.