►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - September 30, 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
Five
four
three
two
one
good
morning
today
is
wednesday
september
30th
2020..
This
is
the
arlington
county,
virginia
board
of
equalization
hearing
the
first
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc
3402035
at
2461,
south
clark
street
mr
grant
steinhauser
is
here
on
behalf
of
the
appellant.
Mr
steinhauser,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
As
you
as
stated,
the
subject.
Property
is
known
as
century
center.
Two,
it's
a
class
b
c
office
building
at
2461
south
clark
street.
It
consists
of
roughly
201
313
rentable
square
feet
with
a
about
14
000
of
that
being
retail
space.
C
C
You
know
the
space
showing
available,
so
you
have
a
building,
that's
kind
of
going
through
a
transition
from
last
year
to
this
year
the
vacancy
increased
from
31.6
to
36.9
percent.
So
that's
about
five
and
a
half
percent.
C
D
C
C
My
income
approach
is
on
page
54..
You
can
see
the
actuals
from
2016
2017
and
2018
2019
left.
You
can
then
see
the
department's
original
assessment.
Next
to
that,
and
then
my
income
approach
there
on
the
right
you
can
see.
The
first
big
issue
was
the
square
footage.
The
assessor
was
using
235
460
square
feet
of
net
rentable
space
that
didn't
break
out
spaces
that
were
either
amenity
space
or
just
obviously,
non-rentable
spaces,
like
the
management
office,
for
example,
is
not
an
income
generating
space.
C
So
that's
a
little
over
twelve
twelve
thousand
five
hundred
ish.
That
breakout
is
in
the
top
right,
but
anyways
we've
only
applied
the
rents,
obviously
to
the
rentable
office
and
the
rentable
retail,
so
other
than
that
you
know
we
use
the
same
30
per
square
put
rate
as
the
assessor.
C
It
looks
like
he's
increased
that
on
the
test,
and
that's
going
to
be.
You
know
part
of
the
big
issue
here
today,
other
than
that
you
know
we're
using
pretty
much
all
the
same
income
streams
as
the
assessor,
the
assessor
used
850
per
square
foot
on
expenses.
If
you
look
at
actuals
it's
in
the
860
to
10
range,
these
aren't
even
stabilized
years,
so
we're
assuming
a
stabilized
expense
of
9.50
per
square
foot.
C
The
next
issue
is
the
cap
rate,
and
I
should
have
also
mentioned
this
is
century.
Two,
a
few
weeks
ago,
we
discussed
century
one.
These
two
are
obviously
right.
Next
to
each
other
same
owners,
it
would
have
probably
made
sense
to
just
talk
about
them
one
after
another,
but
that
wasn't
how
you
know
the
department
ended
up
reviewing
it.
So
no
worries
there,
but
it's
a
very
similar.
You
know.
Building
to
that
one.
C
I
talked
about
the
capri
extensively
during
that
one
I'm
not
going
to
as
much
now,
but
we
looked
at
sales.
We
looked
at
a
study
done
by
peter
corpez
directly,
for
you
know
the
county
to
use
at
the
board
of
equalization.
C
He
concluded
to
base
cap
rate
of
six
and
a
half
percent
there
aren't
any
sales
under
six
applied
rate.
Here
is
below
six.
It's
5.99.
It's
just
look.
You
won't
see
it
using
an
appraisal.
You
won't
see
that
used
anywhere,
especially
for
a
building
like
this
that's
half
vacant,
and
you
know
50
or
excuse
me,
40
years
old
or
something
like
that.
C
Pre-Renovation
next
we
made
below
the
line
deductions
just
the
standard,
the
same
model
as
the
county
for
the
space
that
was
vacant
as
of
1120.
The
assessor
had
underestimated
this
in
his
original
assessment.
C
C
It
was
that
was
known
a
full
year
in
advance
that
they
would
be
leaving
additionally,
gsa
and
wiley
laboratories,
which
had
been
there
since
2012
and
2009
left
in
on
february,
12th
and
january
31st.
Also,
both
well
known
in
advance,
lockheed
martin
exercised
a
lease
termination
clause
on
april
24th.
2019,
so
we
have
that
included
in
the
appeal
package,
so
you
know
obviously
they
were
leaving
and
that
was
well
known
before
the
date
of
value.
So
for
those
tenants
we
did
the
same
thing
except
we
didn't
take
a
rent
loss.
C
All
I
did
was
take
tis
and
leasing
commissions
for
spaces
that
were
obviously
becoming
vacant
and
well
known
before
the
data
value.
So
that's
another
23,
like
I
said,
and
just
the
ti's
and
leasing
commissions,
comes
to
3.9
million.
That
calculation
is
again
there
on
the
side
on
page
54.,
so
we
deducted
that
below
the
line,
as
well
as
a
caustic
cure
of
about
2.5
million,
which
is
for
structural
hvac
upcoming
renovations.
C
I
will
point
out
the
property,
the
last
appraisal
they
got.
It
was
appraised
for
42
million
500
000
and
that
that
summary
page
is
on
page
60
of
108.
C
Also
on
page
63
of
108,
you
can
see
the
stacking
plan
as
of
12
31
19.,
with
notes
so
anything
in
red.
They
were
already
well
aware
that
they
were
vacating.
That's
why
they're
highlighted
in
red,
so
lockheed
martin
wiley,
the
gsa
tenant,
will
also
point
out.
There
were
other
tenants
leaving
in
2020.
I
did
not
include
those
in.
I
did
not
include
ti
leasing,
commission
costs
for
those
tenants,
unless
I
was
assured
that
they
were
leaving
as
of
january
1st
2020..
C
So
we've
found
out
later
on
that
there
are
more
tenants
leaving,
but
I
did
not
include
those
additional
ones
for
below
line
deductions
for
those,
even
though
now
we
found
out
that
they
are
leaving
so
trying
to
be
as
fair
as
possible
here
page
64
of
108
is
the
letter
from
lockheed
martin
just
exercising
their
lease
termination
option.
C
We
also
just
in
case
anyone's
interested.
We
have
included
a
rent
roll
as
of
both
12
31
19
and
227
2020,
where
you
can
see
that
those
three
tenants,
I
said,
are
no
longer
there.
C
Okay,
yeah
kind
of
just
tying
it
back
to
the
test.
The
assessor
has
addressed
a
lot
of
the
things
I
mentioned.
It
looks
like
he's,
including
a
rent
on
the
management
office,
which
is
wrong.
There
should
be
no
income
there.
The
office
rent
was
increased
to
33.25,
with
no
breakout
for
vacant
space.
That's
confusing.
They
used
31st
century
one,
but
now
33.25
for
century
two,
and
then
the
assessor
has
an
account
for
any
of
that
additional
vacant
space
that
we
discussed
thanks.
D
Good
morning
board
as
the
appellant
stated,
this
is
the
case
for
century
two.
We
received
information,
I
need
information
from
the
owners
and
we
were
able
to
analyze
that
information
provided
to
us.
D
As
you
look
through
this
information,
there
is
no
indication
to
the
county
by
the
owners
that
devry
will
be
leaving.
I
took
it
upon
myself
to
do
another
google
search
of
devry
announcements,
leaving
in
the
crystal
city
area,
to
see
if
there
is
something
that
we
missed.
I
was
unable
to
locate
any
articles
whatsoever
about
the
variety
departing
this
building,
so
relying
upon
the
information
that
we
had
as
of
january
1
2020.
That
is
what
we
use
to
calculate
the
vacant
space
and
any
additional
vacant
space
coming
up.
So
I
have
a
rent.
D
Roll
in
this
packet
starts
on
page
four,
I
believe.
No
sorry
starts
on
page
six,
so
this
rent
roll
details,
the
retail
spaces
occupied
the
office
space,
is
occupied
the
other
spaces,
and
this
information
was
pulled
directly
from
the
rent
row
provided
in
the
ine
submitted
and
certified
by
the
owner.
As
you
can
see,
the
retail
space
average
rent
rate
is
30
square
foot.
D
The
office
space
average
is
35.37
cents,
a
square
foot
on
the
other
space
that
shows
the
management
office,
the
space
they
occupy
and
the
rent
that
they
attribute
to
their
space.
They
also
get
a
negative
recovery
rate
of
13.22
to
offset
any
rent
rate
that
they
consider
achieved
from
that
office
space.
This
number
is
used
because
that's
what
they
reported
on
their
rent
roll.
D
So
with
that
being
said,
I
did
do
two
tests.
One
test
is
based
off
of
the
new
information
with
the
vacancy
increasing
compared
to
what
we
used
on
the
original
assessment,
using
the
new
rent
rate
achieved
based
off
the
rent
roll.
We
did
allow
the
free
rent
as
we
do
with
other
office
buildings,
but
the
rent
rate
still
increased
from
thirty
dollar
square
foot
to
thirty
three
thousand
twenty
five
cents,
a
square
foot.
D
The
reason
why
we
did
not
apply
a
different
rent
rate
to
the
vacant
space
is
because,
as
you
can
see
again
on
page
six,
the
vacant
square
footage
that
is
highlighted
is
for
at
least
that
was
signed
to
itc
defense
corps.
They
signed
for
over
35
square
foot
closer
to
the
40
square
foot
range.
So
therefore,
based
off
this
new
lease,
we
use
the
same
33
and
25
cents
for
vacant
space
as
well,
because
we
would
use
the
new
leases
rent
rate.
D
It
would
have
been
a
higher
amount
after
you
take
in
consideration
free
rent,
the
peter
quarpak
study
just
to
comment
on
it
for
the
sake
of
it.
It's
just
that
it's
a
study,
it's
used
for
our
purposes,
to
determine
our
compared
to
our
cap
rate
analysis.
It's
not
something
that
we
say.
Oh,
this,
computer,
core
packs.
This
is
what
we
must
do.
D
This
has
been
discussed
with
the
board
before
the
board
is
very
familiar
with
the
peter
quarterback
study,
as
we
started
receiving
the
study
as
far
back
as
I
think
2007-2008
during
that
crisis,
with
a
lot
of
move-outs
due
to
brat,
that's
where
it
first
started.
D
So
the
study
is
something
that
we
use
for
a
time
period
and
we
no
longer
use
it.
That's
why
the
study
that's
referred
to
as
2019
and
not
2020,
because
we
didn't
get
a
study
in
2020.,
the
retail.
Oh,
I
reached
out
to
the
office
tenants
that
are
vacating
again.
If
you
look
at
the
indies
that
were
submitted-
and
I
slow
it
down
a
bit
to
get
you
those
pages,
so
it
starts
on
page
29.
D
D
When
you
look
at
page
35,
you
see
the
2017,
I
need
again
you
go
through
the
ine.
They
talk
about
estimated
income
due
to
vacancy
loss.
It
varies.
They
talk
about
asking
rent
varies
based
off
term
and
space.
They
report
that
they
report
no
information
about
anybody.
Vacating
soon,
no
footnotes
given
to
the
department
to
take
consideration.
D
D
The
stacking
plan
that
the
agent
has
is
what
was
provided
to
us
after
january,
one
by
the
agent,
not
by
the
owner.
So
again,
this
is
not
something
indicating
to
the
department
of
any
future
vacations
by
devry
and
even
the
fourth
tenant
that
he
referred
to.
So
it's
solely
based
off
the
information
that
we
have
that
we
did
not
take
the
variety
consideration
with
the
new
information
on
the
2019
ine.
However,
you'll
see
on
the
test
that
we
did
taking
consideration
the
vacation
of,
I
think
it
was
lockheed
and
social
solutions.
D
Social
solutions
they
indicated
was
terminating
their
lease
early.
They
actually
included
social
solutions
as
part
of
the
vacant
square
footage
on
their
rent
roll
on
the
2019
ine.
D
We
took
that
consideration
when
we
developed
our
below
the
line.
Deductions
on
the
test
sheet
so
with
the
new
rents
used
based
off
of
the
rent
roll
that
we
analyzed
on
page
six,
we
did
take
below
the
line
deductions
for
one
test.
It
was
86
777
square
feet.
The
way
we
got
to
that
number
numbers
that
we
considered
they're
looking
at
the
future
vacation
by
lockheed
131,
2020
and
they're.
Omitting
the
fact
that
they
have
a
tenant
coming
in
there
coming
in
the
building
on
2-1
2020,
which
again
is
itc
defense.
D
D
With
the
below
the
line
calculations-
and
this
is
all
referring
to
the
test
sheet
on
page
five-
the
assessment
shows
a
higher
value
and
we
confirm
the
assessment
at
sixty
million
six
hundred
fifty
two
thousand
nine
hundred.
Hopefully
I
didn't
lose
anybody
there.
I
tried
to
just
explain
how
we
looked
at
the
information,
how
we
did
below
the
line
calculations
and
what
things
we
considered
again.
D
We
did
consider
lockheed
vacating
early
because
of
the
letter
and
the
indication
on
the
2019
I
e,
as
well
as
social
solutions,
vacating
early,
which
was
indicated
indicated
on
the
2019.
I
need
anything
other
than
that
we
did
not
consider
for
right
now.
That's
all
we
have
I'm
more
than
happy
to
take
any
questions.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board
members.
E
Excuse
me
questions
for
both
but
more
for
the
appellant
first
in
in
the
department's
calculations,
columns
d
and
then
the
test
in
f
the
rentable
square
feet.
This
footage
went
down
a
little
bit
and-
and
I
think
the
appellant
mentioned
it
for
various
non-con
for
various
common
areas
that
weren't
rentable
and
weren't
going
to
create
income.
That
all
makes
sense.
But
in
again,
for
this
is
for
mr
steinhauser
in
column
g,
the
the
2020
update
from
the
appellant.
E
C
The
county
does
actually
account
for
that
in
their
test.
If
you
go
to
the
next
page
he's
basically
just
including
the
spaces
that
I
said
you
know
are
not
income
generating
he's,
including
that
within
the
total,
but
not
applying
a
rent
to
it.
So
you,
if
you
go
to
the
next
page,
you'll,
see
the
cleaners
fitness
center
conference
center.
Those
are
all
the
tenant
amenities
spaces
I
was
mentioning,
and
so
the
assessor
has
included
those
within
his
total,
but
he's
not
applying
a
rent
to
them.
C
So
it's
essentially
the
same
thing
so
we're
in
agreement
on
that.
What
we're
not
in
agreement
on
is,
you
would
not
apply
a
rent
to
the
management
office.
That
rent
is
abated,
100
percent.
So
I'm
not
sure
if
there
was
a
misinterpretation
somewhere
by
the
assessor
on
the
rent
roll,
but
the
the
management
office
doesn't
pay
rent
to
the
owner.
E
Okay,
so
this
234
000
versus
221
000
square
feet
is
interesting,
but
that's
not
the
the
the
true
space
test.
It's
the
81
000
below
it
because
again
in
g,
you
know
an
f.
It
has
81
000,
almost
82
000,
but
in
g
it
has
zero.
So
I
was
going
by
the
the
square
footages
above
that
as
the
leasable
square
footage.
But
if
you're
happy,
I
guess
I'm
happy,
I'm
looking
at
columns
f
and
g.
E
Overall
that
we're
happy,
I
got
to
be
happy.
Okay,
yes,
that's
it!
Next
question
is
the
in
column
g,
the
appellants
estimated
dollars
per
square
foot
for
operating
expenses
is
significantly
higher
than
anything.
That's
ever
happened
there
before
there's
something
we
ought
to
know
about
what
the
anticipation
is
in
2020
for
expenses.
C
The
assessor
essentially
went
through
and
took
out
expenses
that
had
that
had
been
reported
for
the
past
four
years.
So
when
I
was
looking
at
the
expenses,
they
were
10
12
per
square
foot,
9.98
per
square
foot,
902
per
square
foot
and
862
per
square
foot.
C
Basically
went
in
and
took
out
all
the
leasing
commissions,
which
historically
had
been
reported
in
the
ines,
and
now
the
assessors
are
saying
they
take
them
out
of
consideration
completely,
even
though
there's
a
lot
of
leasing
commissions
at
buildings
like
this
from
year
to
year.
So
all
I
can
say
is
my
rep
represents
a
stabilized
figure.
These
are
unstabilized
years.
E
E
Okay,
I'm
not
gonna,
okay.
The
last
question
is
below
the
line
and-
and
I'm
gonna
have
a
parallel
question
for
the
department
on
this
below
the
line
in
column
g.
He
talked
about
tenant
improvement
allowances
for
a
significant
amount
of
space
and
then
the
cost
to
cure,
which
you
called
renovations
so
is
that
more
tia
generally
is
sweet
or
rentable
space,
specific,
the
renovations,
more
common
area
and
all
that
stuff.
Is
that
why
you
have
two
of
them.
C
Yeah
really
there's
it's
much
more
than
2.5
million
that's
going
to
be
spent
to
renovate
this
building.
This
is
more
just
things
that
need
to
be
fixed
in
both
in
the
common
areas
and
just
major
mechanical.
I
think
there's
issues
with
hvac.
It's
an
old
building,
that's
kind
of
going
through
we'll
be
going
through
a
repositioning
within
the
next
couple
years.
Here.
E
Yeah,
okay,
good!
That's
what
I
figured
so
from
the
department.
Just
on
that
first
question
is
in
column,
f
below
the
line
you
didn't
make
any
allowance
for
tenant
improvement
costs
by
the
landlord,
which
normally
you
do
so
that
my
first
question
is:
why
not.
D
Yeah
we
did
take
out
ti,
we
didn't
and
so
also
to
clarify
the
in
this
column
we
added
the
cost
of
cure
to
indicate
to
the
board.
You
know
his
deductions
in
the
appropriate
manner.
We
didn't
want
to
leave
that
off,
but
we
don't
take
consideration
budgets.
D
E
So,
let's
let
me
go
back
to
mr
steinhauser,
then
I
either
misunderstood
you
misspoke
on
this,
because
it's
not
labeled,
it's
just
what
your
words,
the
3.946
million
below
the
line.
What
is
that
I
thought
it
was
for
ti's
and
apparently
it's
not
because
that's
above
it,
so
what's
that
3.9
again
for
please.
C
The
3.9
is
for
ti's
and
leasing
commissions
for
vacating
tenants.
It
can
be
it's
summarized
on
page
54.,
so
we
took
the
49
956
square
feet
for
devry
gsa
lockheed
martin.
E
C
E
Yeah,
okay,
it's
extra
special
stuff
so
department,
at
least
with
the
3.9
million
that
that's
over
and
above
the
the
two
large
tenants
that
you
knew
were
about
to
leave
early
in
2020.
E
D
D
We
did
not
consider
the
gsa
either
because
that's
february
12
2020.,
what
we
included
was
the
lockheed
because
on
the
2019
ine
and
with
the
production
of
the
letter
that
indicated
that
they
were
terminating
their
lease,
so
we
did
consider
the
lock
key.
But
as
far
as
the
other
tenants
I
mean
that's,
not
something
the
county
was
made
aware
of.
Yes,
the
agent
included
that
in
his
packet,
but
we
were
talking
about
communication
from
the
owner,
sure
number.
E
A
G
G
D
But
they
didn't
leave
january,
2nd
and,
as
he
just
stayed
a
few
minutes
ago
within
42
days
after
the
date
is
when
people
knew
so
again,
our
cutoff
of
january
1st,
which
has
always
been
the
case
and
that's
the
line
we've
drawn.
What
we've
done
in
the
recent
past
is
that
when
you
have
large
chunks
of
properties
leaving
that
make
announcements
well
ahead
of
time,
then
that's
something
that
we'll
consider.
D
Also
with
the
I
need
being
information,
that's
provided
to
us
for
the
2019.
I
need
what
I'm
referring
to
is
something
that
we
take
consideration.
When
we
look
at
the
appeal
packet
on
that
2019,
I
e
it
indicated
that
they
were
let
known
they
were
made
known
by
lockheed,
and
I
think
social
solutions
that
they
would
be
vacating
early.
Those
were
the
two
tenants
they
indicated.
Those
were
the
two
tenants
that
we
took
in
consideration.
D
D
It
makes
a
difference
because
it's
about
equalization,
I
mean
there
are
other
office
buildings
with
tenants
vacating
in
february
1st
january
31st.
We
still
consider
those
tenants
in
place
unless
they
also
let
us
know
ahead
of
time
on
the
ine
that
they
have
early
termination
notices
from
these
tenants,
then
we'll
take
consideration.
B
I'm
one
of
the
things
I'm
looking
at
is
whether
or
not
this
is
a
metro
or
a
non-metro
office
building.
So
I'd
like
to
hear
kind
of
the
appellant
and
the
department's
opinions
on
that,
given
that
it's
kind
of
right
out
at
the
half
mile
mark
kind
of
a
not
a
nice
walk.
B
D
B
Grant
do
you
have
any
opinions
on
the
metro,
proximity
for
this
office
property.
C
It's
exactly,
as
you
said
it,
it's
half
a
mile
walk,
so
I
mean
is:
is
the
cut
off
exactly
0.5?
I
would
say
it's
not
yeah.
D
C
A
F
Just
minor,
but
to
this
to
the
county
I
am
correct
in
the
vacancies
that
were
discussed
with
barnes
would
be
reflected
additional
vacancies
reflected
in
the
upcoming
year,
not
since
they
were
not
in
this
one.
D
D
So
we
did
make
changes
to
the
rent
rate
on
the
test
sheet,
bumping
that
up
from
thirty
dollars
square
foot
to
33.25
cents,
a
square
foot
we
deducted
below
the
line
for
the
excess
vacancy
based
off
all
the
changes
that
we
made
on
the
two
tests,
which
are
on
page
four
and
five,
the
test
results
were
a
higher
value.
So
therefore,
we
confirmed
the
assessment
of
sixty
million
six
hundred
fifty
two
thousand
dollars
six
six.
Fifty
to
nine
hundred,
I'm
sorry
didn't
mean
to
leave
that
off.
D
C
Yeah
thanks
just
to
sort
of
simplify
the
case
here.
You
have
a
property,
that's
you
know
getting
more
and
more
vacant.
Each
year
it
was
31.
Last
year,
physical
vacancy
37
this
year
with
another
23
moving
out
in
the
first
you
know
month
and
a
half
of
the
year.
The
assessment
should
be
going
down.
I'm
not
sure
how,
with
the
the
information
I
provided
on
appeal,
the
assessor
you
know
is
now
a
concluding
to
a
higher
value.
He
said
he
had
all
the
previous
years
ines.
C
What
I've
shown
him
is
that
all
of
these
tenants
were
leaving
the
building.
That
cost
has
to
be
captured
somewhere.
Just
because
the
assessor
didn't
know
from
his
previous
ies
on
one
120
doesn't
mean
a
buyer,
wouldn't
know,
as
of
one
120
doesn't
mean
the
market
would
know
as
a
1
120..
These
tenants
have
been
there
for
10
years.
You
don't
just
like
show
up
one
day
and
then
they're
not
gone.
It's
like,
oh,
I
guess
devry
left
today,
it's
known
well
in
advance.
Anybody
buying
this
building
would
account
for
those
costs.
A
G
B
Yeah
I
mean
just
went
back
looking
at
the
century.
One
case,
it's
kind
of
a
similar
situation,
high
level
square
footage,
this
one's
assessed
a
little
bit
lower
than
where
we
ended
up
on
century
one
just
a
litmus
test
to
make
sure
that
the
two
are
not
way
out
of
line.
I
would.
I
was
actually
willing
to
look
at
the
metro
issue,
because
I
I
kind
of
charted
out
a.
G
B
G
B
Take
a
hit
so.
H
B
Think
I
have
any
a
lot
of
support
on
that.
It
didn't
seem
like
it,
at
least
so
I
don't
know
you
know,
I
don't
think
it's
too
far
out
of
line
right
now,
other
than
looking
at
the
cap
rate.
B
Barnes,
you
can
probably
type
in
what
you're
gonna
say
and
then
one
of
us
can
read
it
out
to
you.
There
you
go
53
148,
800.
E
I
I'm
certainly
sympathetic
to
the
opening
words
of
the
appellant
that
this
is
a
downward
trend
over
several
years,
but
yet
the
assessment
doesn't
move
at
all.
That
seems
intuitively
sensible.
So,
but
I
don't
just
want
to
pick
a
number
out
of
the
sky
and
I'd
love
to
see
barnes
math
on
where
he
gets
53.
I
don't
know
if
it's
53
or
63
or
whatever,
but
I'd
like
to
see
the
math.
E
But
I've
been
looking
at
my
own
math
and
what
I
come
up
with
specifically
and-
and
maybe
this
is
inductive
reasoning,
but
I
look
at
what
is
it
line
one?
No
better,
the
egi,
where
you
know
the
test,
has
it's
significantly
more
in
line
one?
The
office
income
is
also
significantly
more
over
what
has
been
achieved
over
the
last
four
years,
so
it
doesn't
make
sense
with
me
with
the
declining
building
that
the
income.
E
And
over
individually
from
suites
and
overall,
if
effective
gross
income
should
continually
go
up,
so
I
keep
looking
for
numbers.
One
I
found
was
the
management
office
in
the
test
is
included
as
income
and
they
the
appellate
made
it
persuasive
case
that
that
is
abated,
they're,
not
paying
that.
I
have
no
problems
with
the
department's
views
on
operating
expenses
by
the
way.
So
somehow
it
seems
to
me,
we
got
to
get
it
below
what
last
year's
was
because
the
building
isn't
as
valuable
as
it
was
last
year.
E
Finally,
I
noticed
one
of
the
big
differences
that
the
from
the
appellants
assessment
versus
the
departments
is,
of
course,
the
cap
rate,
which
I
don't
think
that
was
brought
up
by
either
party.
But
but
I'm
of
course-
and
I
think
you
would
all
agree
in
favor
of
the
department's
equalized
cap
rate
for
this
building.
So
that's
an
issue
I'm
bringing
up
and
setting
down
all
at
the
same
time
so
somewhere
above
egi.
E
There
has
to
be
some
to
me
some
way
to
bring
this
more
fairly
down
to
to
to
the
trend
of
this
building,
and,
and
so
I'd
like
to
hear,
though,
what
barnes
has
to
say,
based
on
his
mathematics,.
E
E
So
I
I'm
I'm
confident
that
the
department
has
taken
those
below
line
dispenses
as
expenses
as
they
knew
it
and
again,
if
there's
not
official
word
from
the
large
tenants
that
they're
anticipating
moving
early
in
the
following
year,
then
I'm
I'm
certainly
on
the
county
side
that
they
should
not
keep
that
door
open
on
the
first
week
of
january
in
the
first
week
of
february.
1-1
in
this
case,
20
is
that's:
that's
cut
off
date.
Unless
there's
something
the
department
has
missed
and
they
didn't.
E
But
maybe
we
should
survey
the
rest
of
barnes,
in
my
judgment,
the
rest
of
barnes
comments,
and
maybe
you
can
call
in
to
can
he
call
into
you
mary
and
you
well,
here's
that
so
we
can
get
his
full
poor
understanding.
B
E
A
A
F
I
Well,
I
think
I'm
probably
going
to
be
the
only
one
that
is
not
really
in
favor
of
doing
any
reductions,
and
I
wanted
to
tell
you
ken.
I
think
you
really
need
to
take
a
look,
a
close
look
at
the
tests
that
the
county
has
done,
and
he
has
two
in
this
case
on
page
four
and
five.
I
I
think
he
does
consider
the
square
footage
that
is
not
used
for
rentable
purposes,
and
you
know
this
is
not
a
case.
It's
not
something
new.
I
I
So
we
don't
really
consider
that
you
know-
and
I
know
that
the
appellant
is
bringing
it
up,
but
and
if
you
do
that,
I
think
you're
actually,
assuming
that
that
space
is
going
to
be
vacant
and
it's
going
to
be
vacant
for
the
full.
You
know
future
for
purposes
of
the
assessment.
I
don't
really.
I
agree
with
the
county
the
way
they
did
it.
I
If
you
look
at
the
all
the
ironies,
another
parent
is
bringing
different
numbers
and
saying
well,
you
know
we
should
deduct
the
almost
12
000
square
feet
out
of
that,
but
I
think
the
assessment
the
way
it
is
right
now
for
this
year,
based
on
the
numbers
that
were
provided
or
were
available.
I
think
it's
correct
any
tests
that
we
do
and
I
think
any
changes
that
we
make.
You
know
I'm
not
really
in
favor
of
having
it
mixed
from
one
column
to
another
because
they
use
different
numbers,
different
square
footages.
I
It
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
just
to
you
know,
to
appease
something
or
to
make
it
nicer
to
just
bring
one
number
from
one
column
and
bring
the
other
one
from
the
other
and
I'll
say.
I
don't
think
it's
the
right
way
to
do
it.
H
B
I
had
58
million
just
using
the
county's
test,
column
and
and
and
the
appellants
below
the
line.
Deductions.
B
And
barnes
was
at
53.
with
a
number
of
things
that
he
had
written
down.
I
couldn't
really
follow
it.
F
B
B
A
B
E
A
A
Okay,
so
I
oh
yeah,
I
don't
think
I've
ever
done
this
in
in
my
history.
I
don't
like
the
process
of
how
you
got
to
it,
because
I
don't
you
know
the
the
deductions
below
the
line
are
based
on
square
footage
and
you
know,
what's
left
over.
A
I
Like
to
make
a
motion,
I
agree
if
you
wanted
to
make,
if
you
wanted
to
make
a
reduction
in
that,
I
think
you
should
recalculate
the
whole
thing,
but
it's
just
like
throwing
a
dart
to
a
number
that
you
know
looks
nice.
I
don't
think
it's
the
right
way
to
do
it,
but.
A
Okay,
but
at
this
point
we've
got
to
move
forward
so,
mr
gates,
would
you
make
an
motion
and
we'll
see
whether
it
carries.
E
A
So
that's
there's
four
opposed.
A
Pinaronda-
and
I
believe
mr
lawson
is
not
here,
but
there
is
a
quorum
and
there's
enough
to
do
it,
so
it
has
been
reduced
to
59.
A
B
A
I
A
C
I
I
just
have
one
question
just
so.
I
understand
the
decision,
so
I
I
understand
it
was
based
on
the
column
d
and
then
below
the
line.
Deductions
from
the
test,
but
the
county
did
two
tests
and
if
you,
the
one
that
was
picked,
I
think
was
the
one
on
page
four.
C
There
was
also
a
five
where
he
said
he
included
additional
information
that
he
like
as
of
1
120.
So
the
only
thing
difference
is
the
below
the
line
deduction
there.
So
I'm
just
is
it
that
we
took
the
2.6
below
the
line
instead
of
the
3.1.
Is
that
what
happened.
D
D
G
A
A
Okay,
can
you
carry
whatever
conversation
after
we're
moving
forward?
Okay.
The
second
case
on
the
agenda
is
economic
unit,
one
five
zero,
seven,
five,
one,
eight,
a
12
29
north
irving
street
mr
stravitsky
emailed
this
morning
and
asked
to
withdraw
the
case.
So
I
assume
there's
no
objection
from
the
county.
G
A
A
H
A
A
A
A
A
All
righty,
okay,
so
miss
foreman.
I've
got
you
there,
okay,
so
we'll
move
to
the
the
final
case
for
the
day.
It's
case
number
three:
on
the
agenda
economic
unit:
three:
four:
zero
one:
zero:
zero:
three
zero
at
1801
south
bell
street
miss
borman.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
J
Absolutely
and
thank
you,
madam
chairwoman,
this
is
a
property.
That's
board
heard
last
year,
it's
up
it's
owned
and
occupied
by
dna.
It's
located
at
1801,
south
bell
street.
So
it's
on
the
southern
end
of
the
national
landing
submarket.
The
property
consists
of
about
275
000
square
feet,
and
it
is
not
least
to
any
third-party
tenants.
J
Last
year
the
board
heard
this
case.
The
argument
that
I
had
presented
was
that
they
were
trying
to
lease
space
which
they
were
at
the
beginning
of
the
year.
J
They
pulled
the
space
from
the
market
and
because
it
was
not
listed
on
costar.
The
board,
as
I
recall,
opted
to
utilize
the
vacancy
rate
of
five
percent
and
the
assessment
was
affirmed
this
year.
I
am
in
for
another
reason,
and
I
think
that
if
you
can
look
at
on
mr
peralta's
page
2
of
109,
he
summarizes
the
appellant's
position
and
basically,
the
first
point
is
is
what
I'm
going
to
base
my
discussion
on
predominantly
today.
J
So
this
property
was
built
in
1968
and
it
is
considered
a
three-star
office
building,
it
is
older.
The
space
interior
space
is
in
need
of
significant
renovations,
which
the
owner
plans
to
undertake
on
a
floor-by-floor
basis,
which
is
why
they
pulled
the
space
off
of
the
market
was
so
that
they
could
renovate
a
floor
while
occupying
other
space.
J
J
Again
this
is
a
1968
building
and
it's
sort
of
difficult
to
prove
what
the
market
rent
would
be
by
presenting
a
rental
since
the
property
is
owner-occupied.
J
J
It
looks
basically
the
same
as
the
subject
property.
It
has
a
direct
metro
connection.
The
subject
property
is
across
the
street
from
a
metro,
but
so
this
other
building
also
has
a,
as
I
said,
a
direct
metro
connection,
and
so
we
said,
okay.
Well,
let's
look
at
what
the
county
did
for
this
building,
it
was
same
architect
was
built
within
a
year
within
a
block
of
each
other
and
what
did
the
county
use
for
rent
on
this
property?
J
So
the
county
used
32
dollars
per
square
foot
to
assess
this
property
originally
versus
the
35
on
the
building.
That
is
looks
virtually
identical
and
that
property
2001
south
2001
richmond
highway
was
appealed
this
year
and
and
the
county
looked
at
it
and
looked
at
the
rent,
roll
and
said:
okay
32
might
have
been
too
low,
but
we're
going
to
use
33.,
so
the
rental
rate
was
32
initially
and
then
they
used
33..
J
So
clearly
the
county
looked
at
the
market.
Looked
at
that
particular
building
and
said
that
is
a
reasonable
rental
rate.
Then
we're
going
to
move
up
just
north
of
the
subject,
property
to
251
18th
street
and,
as
you
go
from
the
south
to
the
north,
most
of
the
buildings
or
the
buildings
tend
to
get
newer.
So
these
are
the
original
old
crystal
city's
buildings,
including
1801.
J
250
118th
street,
was
built
in
1975.
So
it's
seven
years
newer
than
the
subject
property
and
this
building
the
county
looked
at.
We
appealed
it
and
the
original
assessment
was
based
on
33
dollars
per
square
foot
and
the
revised
assessment
was
based
on
33
dollars
per
square
foot.
So
you
now
have
two
buildings
within
a
block
in
less
than
a
block
of
the
subject:
property
of
similar
vintage.
Although
the
1975
building
is,
I
believe,
much
nicer.
J
The
subject
is
than
the
subject
and
those
two
buildings
after
review,
the
county
is
a
33
dollars,
a
square
foot
rent
versus
35,
used
on
the
subject
going
a
little
bit
further
north.
We
get
to
1225
south
clark
street.
This
is
a
1982
building,
also
designed
by
wg
with
a
conference
center.
It's
it's
a
very
nice
building.
It
is
of
a
different
class
than
than
the
subject
property.
In
fact,
it's
recognized
by
our
co-star
considers
it
a
four-star
building,
whereas
the
other
buildings,
the
1801,
is
considered.
G
J
1225
south
clark,
it's
it's
a
nice
building
and
it
has
fabulous
views.
It's
further
north.
It's
in
the
area
where
there
is
an
active,
at
least
there
was
an
active
retail
presence
on
the
street.
It's
right
in
the
the
middle
of
the
crystal
city,
renovation,
repositioning.
G
J
That
property
was
initially
assessed
at
32.
They
did
change
it
to
35.
that
building
and
the
subject
property
in
southern,
more
southern
crystal
city,
a
much
older
building
which,
with
less
amenities
and
internally
and
as
well
as
less
amenitization
outside
of
the
building,
should
not
have
the
same
rental
rates
applied.
J
Moving
up
to
the
next
comp
that
we
use
to
show
what
the
rental
rate
is
and
again,
obviously,
the
county
is
presumed
to
be
correct.
On
rental
rates.
On
these
other
buildings,
I
think
it's
very
unfair
that
a
rental
rate
on
an
owner-occupied
building,
that's
especially
old,
be
increased
to
such
a
large
extent
without
looking
at
at
the
surrounding
buildings,
so
1215
south
clark
street
was
built
in
1983.
J
It
was
completely
renovated
in
2002
and
now
that's
a
long
time
ago,
but
it's
still
better
than
a
1968
building
and
again
also
designed
by
wg.
J
In
fact,
all
of
these
buildings
were
and
that
building
is
considered
a
four-star
building
and
the
county
used
31.50
per
square
foot
to
assess
that
property
going
again
a
tiny
bit
further
north
and
the
other
comp
we
used
was
2001
12th
street
and
that
property
was
assessed
using
33
dollars
per
square
foot
and
that
was
appealed
and
the
county
again
used
33
dollars
per
square
foot
that
building
was
is
considered
a
four-star
building.
J
So
when
you
look
at
all
of
these
buildings
and
again,
if
you
go
further
south,
we
just
heard
you
just
heard
the
case
on
sentry
center
and
I
guess
in
the
initial
assessments,
from
what
the
appellant
in
that
case
said,
31
and
33
dollars
per
square
foot
were
used.
J
J
The
revised
used
on
those
others
was
3310
as
an
average,
the
building
located
at
2001
richmond
highway,
which
I
believe
to
be
the
most
similar.
In
fact,
if
you
say,
if
you're
familiar
with
the
properties,
they
they
look
very
very
similar.
2001
probably
has
a
better
street
access
due
to
the
offset
in
on
one
side
of
1801
south
bell.
Where
there's
a
where
the
road
goes
down,
and
you
can
see
two
sides-
it's
not
really
a
good
way
around
it.
J
I
think
that
the
rail
rate
used
here
of
35
per
square
foot
is
just
too
high,
based
on
a
comparison
of
those
other
assessments,
initial
rent
and
then
emphasized
even
more
by
looking
at
the
revised
or
the
final
rental
rates
used
on
the
on
the
same
buildings,
we
used
32
per
square
foot
if
you
average
out
again
all
the
revive
all
the
final
rental
rates
at
the
properties
you're
at
33.10.
J
32
63.,
I
think
32,
is
the
right
number
for
this
property.
It
is
certainly
supported
by
the
comps
that
I've
referenced,
and
that
is
predominantly
the
basis
of
our
case.
I
did
note
that
the
county
once
again
talks
about
a
tax
credit
that
was
or
incentive
to
expand
in
arlington
county.
J
I
I
don't
think
that
has
any
place
in
this
case.
That's
my
own
opinion
and
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
value
of
the
real
estate
and
it
it
it
probably
isn't,
but
it
doesn't
seem
fair
to
have
such
a
high
rental
rate
and
it
basically
takes
any
incentive
that
was
given
to
the
owner
to
to
stay
by
by
putting
the
rental
rate
way
above
market.
So
we
would
ask
that
you
reduce
the
assessment
using
a
rental
rate
of
32
dollars
per
square
foot.
J
H
Yes
good
morning,
thank
you
board
at
least
I'd
like
to
first
start
off
and
just
give
you
a
history
of
this
property
as
assessed
by
the
county,
I'm
in
2015.
We
assessed
this
property
for
42
dollars,
a
square
foot
in
2016
we
reduced
that
down
to
38
050
cents
per
square
foot
in
2017,
38
dollars
per
square
foot
and
now
in
2020
we're
assessing
this
property
at
the
33.35
dollars
per
square
foot.
H
As
miss
borman
has
stated
in
reviewing
this
property,
we
did
take
a
look
at
the
relevant
facts
of
the
case
and
we
did
consider
the
comparables
that
miss
foreman
just
pointed
out
to
you
in
depth
and
we'd
like
to
go
over
those
as
well
more
on
a
macro
level
versus
the
micro
level,
where
she
kind
of
broke
down
each
per
square
foot.
I
agree
with
everything
she
said
with
the
per
square
foot
that
she
did
note.
H
However,
when
comparing
the
subject
property,
we
are
looking
at
only
what
they
have
reported,
which
isn't
very
much.
So
when
we
look
at
the
I
e,
they
didn't
report
the
income
because
they're
owner
occupied,
so
the
uniqueness
of
this
case
has
to
rely
on
the
data
sets
that
we've
seen
in
the
sub
market
and
I've
outlined
that
outline
that,
in
my
write
up,
if
you
can
turn
to
page
three
of
the
packet,
I
go
over.
All
the
sub
market,
average
rents
and
co-star
estimates
that
at
38
046
cents.
H
H
What
is
absent
of
this
property
is
the
pass-throughs
and
parking
that
we
would
normally
see
and
which
would
attribute
to
the
overall
potential
income
of
this
property.
H
So,
although
you
know
miss
foreman
points
out
that
we're
only
at
30
we're
at
35
a
square
foot,
we
don't
attribute
any
parking
or
any
pass
through
income
to
this
property,
which
I
believe
would
make
up
that
deficit.
If
she's
saying,
if
the
market
average
is
33
we're
at
35,
I
believe
you
know
we
are
supported
in
each
of
these
comparables
that
that
she
points
out
just
to
go
over
briefly.
H
The
average
per
square
foot
as
assessed
for
2020
assessments,
including
all
five
of
these
comps,
is
at
three
hundred
fifty
dollars
per
square
foot.
The
subject
property
is
at
three
hundred
forty
dollars
per
square
foot
and
looking
at
the
effective
age
of
these
properties,
I
believe
we
have
only
one
property:
that's
older
than
the
property,
the
subject
property
by
a
year,
effective
age-wise.
H
This
property
was
renovated,
I
believe
in
the
appellant's
package.
She
did
mention
that
there
were
some
issues
with
hvac
when,
when
I
reviewed
this
property
just
recently,
I
did
see
that
there
was
a
renovation
completed
to
the
lobby
and
they
did
note
that
hvac
was
included
as
part
of
the
renovations.
H
So
this
property,
when
looking
at
each
of
the
comparables
or
comparing
it
to
the
comparables.
I
did
find
that
the
expenses
that
we
used
three
out
of
five,
we
use
lower
expenses
than
this
property
and
then
three
out
of
five
of
the
comparables
were
assessed
for
higher
than
this
subject
property.
We
did
note
that
the
the
two
grants
were
awarded
to
this
property.
Just
to
show
you
a
background
or
an
understanding
of
you
know
what
this
property
just
a
little
bit
about
the
background
or
the
history
of
this
property.
H
So
I'd
like
to
point
that
out
to
the
the
proper
the
board
members
as
well,
the
only
thing
out-
and
I
was
scouring
the
I
needs
to
find
out
if
there
was
any
indication
of
what
they
might
be
able
to
achieve
in
the
market,
and
I
did
note
on
the
2018
ine
page
70
of
109
in
this
packet
that
they
did
report
a
vacant
loss
of
a
million
686.
H
I'm
sorry
I
didn't
mean
to
report
or
speak
about
the
numbers,
but
if
you
turn
to
page
70
of
109
you'll
see
where
I
have
a
value
that
I
believe
they
indicated
as
what
they
would
have
lost
had
they
rented
out
the
the
property
or
the
vacant
square
footage
of
the
property,
and
that
is
also
included
in
my
write
up
as
well
on
page
three.
So
with
that,
I
asked
that
the
board
confirmed
the
case
and
open
up
for
questions.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Both
questions
from
board
members.
G
This
is
for
the
applicant
for
the
property
owner
reading
through
the
material
there's
a
claim
that
the
county
has
a
right
to
buy
the
neighboring
property
which
will
cut
off
your
hvac.
J
See
you
know,
I
think
that
I'm
not
going
to
base
my
case
on
that.
I
made
that
argument
last
year
to
the
board.
J
I
would
have
to
go
back
and
re-familiarize
myself,
but
there
is
something
to
do
with
the
the
planning
department
or
the
approvals
for
this
property
that
required
that
the
that,
if
the
park
was
changed,
that
the
that
they
could
buy,
that
property
I
believe,
for
a
park,
and
that,
since
that
is
where
this
property
gets
its
hvac
from,
I
think
that
it
would
be.
J
J
I
believe
that
all
the
parking
is
comes
from
the
neighboring
building.
I
don't
think
that
there
is
a
tremendous
amount
of
spaces
in
this
in
this
property.
I
will
also
endeavor
to
look
for
that
information
as
we
continue.
This
call
because.
J
It's
on
co-star.
I
think
that
I
can't
say
that
there
are
there
aren't
the
department's
worksheet
shows
no
parking
spaces
on
the
property,
and
I
can't
I
can't
affirmatively
state
that
those
doc
parking
spaces
do
not
exist.
My
understanding
is
that
those
parking
spaces
are
available
to
the
owner
of
this
property,
but
not
part
of
okay.
E
A
No
okay,
mr
peralta,
if
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up,
please.
H
Yes,
thank
you.
I
think
the
department
presented
a
case
where
you
really
have
to
look
at
the
the
sub
market
and
I've
shown
some
market
indicators
to
suggest
that
the
current
assessment
is
in
line
with
what
we've
assessed
other
properties
in
the
sub
market.
H
Again,
the
comparables
that
the
appellant
used
on
the
average
is
about
350
dollars
per
square
foot.
This
subject
property
is
assessed
at
340
dollars
per
square
foot.
We
do
see
that
there
were
renovations
made
and
reported
in
the
2019
incoming
expense
of
about
around
a
million
dollars
in
in
renovations
or
improvements.
H
The
county
did
not
inspect
this
property.
To
give
a
better
indication
of
those
renovations,
we
did
rely
on
co-star
to
suggest
that
there's
you
know
those
improvements
to
lobby
and
hvac
that
it
does
state
that
on
co-star
as
well
and
also
with
respect
to
the
board's
decision
last
year,
the
county
only
increased
this
assessment
by
less
than
one
percent
from
last
year.
So
we
asked
that
the
board
confirm
this
case
and
thank
you.
J
The
the
fact
that
the
assessment
did
not
change
or
changed
increased
one
by
one
percent
from
last
year
is
not
an
indication
of
fair
market
value
and
the
county's
discussion
concerning
a
reduction
in
rental
rate.
I
think
you
would
find
that
throughout
crystal
city
on
all
properties
and
that
it's
a
reflection
of
the
market,
the
32
that
we
use
per
square
foot
is
very
line
with
that
which
was
used
to
assess
the
other
properties
that
I
I
mentioned
and
went
through
in
great
detail.
J
The
revised
numbers
that
the
county
used
after
looking
at
the
market
and
looking
at
these
buildings
this
year
on
review,
was
33
dollars
and
10
cents
per
square
foot.
We
used
32..
This
building
is
further
south,
which
is
and
older
than
most
of
the
buildings.
It
is
away
from
the
streetscape
if,
as
mr
maskin
indicated,
that
he
would
rely
upon
200
spaces,
because
the
county
has
stated
that
at
this
point
in
time,
that
would
add.
J
J
That
is
certainly
much
more
indicative
of
this
older
building
than
than
the
amounts
that
that
the
rental
rates
that
the
county
has
used
and
as
for
you
know,
a
million
dollars
in
renovations.
Mr
peralta
mentioned
that
is,
they
are,
as
I
said,
holding
off
a
floor
and
trying
to
renovate
the
floors
because
they
are
had
not
been
renovated,
since
this
building
was
acquired
in
the
early
2000s.
J
So
I
think
that
the
rental
rate
used
by
the
counties
is
is
very,
very
high.
I
can't
disagree
with
adding
the
parking
at
270
000
to
the
32.,
but
35
is
way
out
of
line
for
this
building
and
the
operating
expenses
certainly
support
an
expense
rate
of
10.50.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you.
I
I
followed
all
of
that
and
I
think
everybody's
right,
but
I
come
to
the
appellant's
conclusion.
I
think
the
appellant's
case
for
a
comparable
based
on
comparables
of
32
is
perfectly
fine.
I
agree
with
the
department
bumping
it
up
some
amount
of
money
because
there's
some
legitimate
normal
cost
that
any
landlord
renting
out
space,
not
cost
income
would
include
so
I
said.
Okay,
then
the
margin
really
you
know
they're
both
right.
E
So
the
margin
is
three
dollars:
a
square
foot
times
275
206
square
feet,
which
is
about
825
000
additional
income
based
on
what
the
department
has
estimated
three
dollars
extra
for
the
for
parking
and
pass-throughs.
Now
we
can't
parking.
E
We
take
the
the
county's
guideline,
we
take
co-stars
amount
of
parking
spaces
and,
as
the
appellant
has
said,
it's
275,
000
or
so
of
income
not
accounted
for.
That
ought
to
be
in
a
bumped
up.
E
Rent
rate
last
one
is
past
throws
well,
we
can't
know,
because
if
you've
been
there
10
years,
a
tenant's
been
there
10
years,
a
pass-through
could
be
several
dollars
a
square
foot.
If
they've
been
there
one
year,
the
first
year,
it's
zero
dollars
per
square
foot,
so
you
know,
and
and
pastors
generally
go
up.
30
40,
50
cents
70
cents
a
year,
but
they
get
compounded
over
time.
So
we're
in
a
miasma
here
of
what
possibly
the
pass-throughs
could
be.
E
If
it's
just
a
dollar
which
I
think
is
very
low,
then
it's
an
extra
of
course
270
000
dollars
to
275
200.
So
you
add
up
the
the
foregone
parking
and
the
foreground
pass-throughs,
and
it's
about
about
525
000
versus
the
825
000
that
that
the
department
added
on
to
the
rents
the
three
dollars
a
square
foot
again,
but
I
think
passengers
are
higher
than
that.
So
all
of
a
sudden
we're
getting
very,
very
close
to
the
department's
estimate
of
what
how
we
should
bump
up
the
rent.
E
So
I
went
back
and
forth
on
this
several
times,
so
I
don't
think
we
have
enough
definitive
information
to
discount
the
department's
educated
estimate
that
they're
adding
on
again
three
dollars
a
square
foot
825
000
of
foregone
rent.
So
I'm
ended
where
I
began
that
it
seems
that
the
department
has
done
with
the
information
that
it
has
is
as
good
as
it
can,
because
again,
the
passages
could
easily
be
two
dollars,
a
square
foot
for
all
the
the
individual
tenants,
not
knowing
where
each
of
them
are
on
their
lease
term.
E
Finally,
for
the
the
green
space,
of
course,
the
county's
obligated
to
pay
fair
market
value,
and
so
there
may
be
a
cloud
if
somebody
were
to
buy
it,
because
who
knows
three
years
from
now,
the
county
may
pull
the
trigger,
or
three
months
from
now,
they're
going
to
get
at
least
what
they
paid
for
and
given
the
county
circumstances,
if
I
were
a
buyer,
so
they're
not
buying
some
big
parcel
for
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
anytime
soon,
especially
when
next
year's
real
estate
assessments
come
out,
given
coded
and
everything
that
we
know
about
every
tuesday
and
wednesday,
so
I
am
with
the
county.
G
Lawson
I
am
as
well
and
to
follow
up
on
what
ken
said.
That's
in
the
comp
plan
and
lots
of
parcels
are
shown
as
as
future
parkland
that
doesn't
come
into
play
unless
and
until
there's
a
development
proposal
and
there's
been
some
pretty
up
density
approvals
down
here
in
this
part
of
arlington.
Thank
you.
F
No,
I'm
sorry
again,
I
think
ken's
run
through
was
really
good
in
analyzing
that
and
I
was
already
at
the
county's
number,
but
I
think
he
really
clarified
it
and
took
a
lot
of
the
argument
out.
I
No,
no,
I'm!
Okay
with
a
current
assessment.
A
Okay,
so
it
is
unanimous
six
to
zero.
The
county
is
confirmed
at
93
million
746.
A
Thank
you
any
additional
business
from
board
members,
no.
I
A
G
A
Mary,
I
was
looking
at
geordie
boat
on
the
on
the
first
page.
You
couldn't
see
me,
though,.