►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - August 4, 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
B
Good
morning,
thank
you
very
much.
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
come
in
and
talk
to
everybody
on
this
rainy
morning,
so
we're
talking
about
2611
richmond
highway,
also
known
as
airport
plaza
office.
Part
two,
the
main
issue
here
is
these
folks
have
been
struggling
for
years.
I
I
know
we've
been
here
before
to
talk
about
this
property.
You
know
the
issue
really.
Is
you
know
a
difficult
time
with
vacancy?
B
This
building
is
in
a
difficult
spot
here
at
the
end
of
the
crystal
city
office
area.
Here,
just
you
know
like
the
most
southern
tip
and
it's
you
know
it's
a
difficult
building
to
reach
and
they've
had
a
hard
time,
leasing
up
and
it's
you
know
been
just
difficult
for
these
owners.
You
know,
noi
and
income
continues
to
be
a
problem
and
that's
also
compounded
with
covet
19.
B
But
you
know
we
don't
really
need
to
even
discuss
that,
because
I
mean
the
issues
here
really
with
the
income
and
with
the
the
vacancy
here.
It's
been,
it's
been
quite
difficult
for
ownership.
B
So
what
I've
put
together
on
page
four
of
my
packet
here
is
here
is
essentially
the
last
two
years
of
income
2018-2019.
I
also
have
the
assessor
model
here
and
we
have
a
discount
for
lisa.
So
what
we've
done
is
we
tried
to
put
a
stabilized
market
analysis
for
you
on
the
left-hand
side?
So
the
way
we
did
it
was
we
used
2650
for
both
the
occupied
space
and
the
vacant
space.
B
That's
it's
actually
70
vacant,
as
of
1
120,
so
again,
very
difficult
year,
as
you
can
see
in
the
actual
2019
column
right
in
the
middle
of
my
page
four,
you
know
their
noi
was
negative
last
year.
So
again
you
know
it's
it's
going
downward
the
value's
going
down.
B
So
you
know
we're
trying
to
reflect
as
close
to
a
market
valuation
as
we
could
here
on
the
left.
So
again
I
used
2650
as
the
rent
here
for
both
the
occupied
and
vacant.
We
have
additional
retail
income
here,
which
we
kept
the
model
from
the
county
for
the
additional
income.
We
have
parking
income
as
well
same
as
the
the
county
model.
B
We
came
down
with
a
potential
gross
income
of
5
million
592..
We
use
the
25
vacancy,
which
is
the
the
county
model.
Here
again,
you
know
70
vacant
71,
essentially
percent
banking.
We
came
down
using.
We
actually
used
similar
to
the
actual
expenses
here
at
9
25.
This
is
the
actual
expense
and
we
came
to
an
noi
of
two
million
four.
Oh
five,
eight,
seventy
nine
again
we're
in
the
negative
this
year,
but
come
to
an
noi
of
two
four.
Oh
five,
eight.
Seventy
nine.
B
Now
there
have
been
some
discussion
about
cap
rates
and
different
things.
B
B
So
you
know
we
had
originally
requested
a
value
of
20
million
388
100
here
for
the
board
and
I'm
suggesting
that
that
may
be
too
aggressive,
based
on
the
cap
rate
that
we
used
so
again,
if
we
use
the
7.34
and
keeping
all
the
else,
the
same
our
indicated
values,
24
million
610,
046.
C
Good
morning
board,
as
I
stated
I'll,
be
representing
this
case
for
rob
peralta.
If
you
can
please
go
to
page
three
of
the
boe
packet
you'll,
see
the
summary
sheet
there.
C
Well,
we
have
laid
out
the
three-year
operating
history-
the
original
drea
assessment
for
2020,
the
2019
operating
history
that
we
received
this
year
around
march,
the
revised
value
that
was
presented
to
the
agent
and
their
client
and
then
the
pro
forma
provided
in
the
boe
appeal
this
property,
as
you
can
see,
by
the
way
ms
peralta
has
laid
it
out-
has
experienced
some
high
vacancy
over
the
years.
But
you
can
see
that
starting
in
2017
that
vacancy
began
to
trickle
down
some.
C
I
think
the
agent
even
pointed
out
that
the
vacancy
was
85.
Then
it
dropped
down
to
79
percent
and
in
2019
it
was
at
70.
So
we
see
that
some
lease
of
activity
is
going
on
in
this
property.
The
noise
continuing
to
show
a
show
that
is
negative.
That's
due
to
the
high
vases
that
they
are
reporting-
and
I
mean
that
is
expected
also
with
such
a
high
vacancy.
C
But
you
can
see
that
the
negatives
are
decreasing.
As
well
and
eventually,
it'll
turn
to
positive,
hopefully
with
a
lot
of
activity-
that's
been
going
on
in
this
area,
with
the
moving
of
amazon,
metro,
opening
new
stations
in
this
area
and
with
other
institutions
such
as
uva
and
virginia
tech,
announcing
construction
of
new
campuses
in
the
near
area.
C
This
property,
hopefully,
will
change.
But
as
far
as
the
numbers
are
concerned,
mr
peralta
took
a
look
at
the
rent
roll
that
was
provided
with
the
ine
statement,
and
that
is
located
on
page
seven
of
the
packet.
He
took
the
time
to
break
down
the
tenants
that
are
in
place
the
rents
that
they
are
paying
and
he
did
a
weighted
average
of
these
leases
in
place.
C
I
believe
he
was
unable
to
get
any
information
for
and
therefore
did
not
include
it
in
this
calculation
of
his
weighted
average,
and
he
also
lists
these
spaces
that
are
vacant.
Along
with
the
total
vacant
space
of
136
thousand
704
square
feet
again,
that
is
much
less
than
the
150
3
000
that
they
reported
last
year.
C
Increased
the
vacancy
from
the
initial
assessment
and
therefore
increased
his
below
the
line
deductions.
The
original
assessment
was
thirty
million
five
hundred
sixty
two
thousand
four
hundred
dollars
and
his
recommendation
is
twenty:
eight
million
hundred
seventy
one
thousand
five
hundred
dollars,
something
that
we
wanted
to
point
out.
This
property
was
appealed
last
year,
as
stated
by
the
agent,
the
department
did
a
review
and
reduced
the
assessment
down
to
twenty
nine
thousand
twenty
nine
million
eight
o
two.
Five
hundred
again,
you
can
see
that
the
revised
value
for
2020
is
28
million.
C
C
The
department
believes
that,
due
to
the
analysis
that
we
did
the
adjustments
to
the
vacancy
of
the
property,
the
revision
should
be
confirmed
by
the
board.
Again,
that's
28
million
171
500,
and
we
are
here
for
any
questions
that
you
have.
I
mean
I
think
one
thing
to
also
point
out
is
just
in
regards
to
this
property.
Again,
we
understand
that
it
does
have
high
vacancy,
but
it
also
is
doing
better
than
it's
done
in
the
past.
C
When
we
take
that
consideration,
we
don't
believe
that
the
the
improvements
we're
making
I
mean
the
improvements
they're
making
are
being
blown
out
of
proportion
by
our
assessment.
C
C
Also
is
we
have
the
property
as
essentially
being
flat
from
an
assessment
standpoint,
whereas
there's
a
difference
of
opinion
by
the
agent
of
almost
nine
million
dollars
from
last
year
to
this
year
for
this
property
type,
and
that's
another
reason
why
we
believe
that
the
assessment
is
more
accurate
and
should
be
confirmed
by
the.
That
is
all.
A
D
Yeah,
I
guess,
for
the
appellant,
it
appears,
mr
bailey's
talking
about
kind
of
improvements.
Year-Over-Year,
and
it
does
appear
like
there's.
A
leasing
strategy
in
place
is
that
the
owner's
approach
right
now
is
to
kind
of
lease
up
and
improve
the
property
and
gradually
decrease.
The
vacancy
is
that
the
strategy.
B
For
sure
I
mean
obviously
vacant
space
is
just
you
know,
hurting
the
property,
but
of
course
they
want
to
lease
it
up
as
much
as
possible
and
and
they
have
leased
it,
you
know
they
have
increased
the
vacant.
B
The
occupied
space
for
this
year,
you
see
in
the
no
the
noi
being
negative,
so
what
they're
doing
is
they're
giving
away
free
rent,
they
are
putting
in
a
lot
of
concessions,
and
things
of
this
nature
just
to
you
know,
entice
folks
to
to
lease
up,
and
so
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
the
noi
has
continued
to
to
drop.
So
even
though
they
did
increase
some
leasing,
you
know
for
for
year,
end
19,
the
the
noid
actually
dropped
from
the
prior
year.
B
F
F
I
have
one
for
the
department.
F
C
With
these
cases
we
reduce
it,
but
if
there's
a
boe
appeal,
then
we
can't
really
put
it
on
the
book,
because
the
owner
has
the
right
to
come
before
the
board
and
then
whatever
the
board
decide
goes
on
the
book,
so
it'll
be
a
reduction
to
our
request.
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
how
we've
handled
it.
We
weren't
able
to
reduce
it
at
department
level
before
they
filed
a
boe.
C
G
Can
you
see
me
yes,
yeah?
Okay,
great,
I
have
two
questions.
First,
for
the
appellant
you
had
made
mention
that
the
9.25
cents,
a
square
foot,
is
an
actual
expense
in
2019
reported
6.25.
I
believe
it
is
so
is
the
actual
first
year
to
date,
2020
or
or
what.
B
I
had
that
number
as
925
being
the
actual
expenses,
so
it
may
be
a
mistake
in
the
spreadsheet
perhaps,
but
that
was
the
number
that
I
had
in
here.
In
my
analysis,.
B
G
Okay,
fair
enough
for
the
department,
a
question
you
assign
on
line
three.
Let
me
look
across
retail
office:
yeah,
okay,
oh
no!
No!
Okay!
No!
I
I
got
it!
I
I
looked
across
incorrectly.
I
have
no
question
for
the
department.
Thank
you.
D
Yeah,
I'm
I
was
looking
on
co-star
at
this
property
and
there's
a
bunch
of
pictures
of
a
really
nice.
It
looks
like
a
recent
build
out
and
it's
titled
excel
space
and
I'm
not
sure,
maybe
that's
since
january
one,
but
I
don't
see
an
excel
space
lease
or
I
don't
see
any.
How
is
that
that
space
reflected
on
the
income
and
expense
reports?
Is
there
income
for
that
space
or
is
it?
Is
it
just
a
spec
build
out
that's
empty.
B
I
have
to
say
that
I'm
not
familiar
with
that
space
that
may
have
been
something
that
that
came
after
2020.
is
it.
Is
that
like
a
co-working,
except
is
that
excel?
Is
that
some
type
of
building
amenity?
Perhaps
then
yeah.
D
B
I
think
that
that
that
may
be
a
new
building
amenity
and
I
haven't-
and
I
can't
really
speak
to
how
that
that
amenity
works.
B
I
don't
know
if
excel
is
a
company
that
is
leasing
out
like
a
weak
work,
or
is
it
something
that
the
building
put
together?
As
you
know,
like
a
you
know,
an
amenity
for
for
for
folks
that
are
leasing
space
that
might
need
like
additional
conference
room
or
some
additional.
D
D
B
No,
the
the
model
is
based
on
just
purely
26.50
rent
for
occupied
and
vacant.
B
There's
the
additional
income
is
based
off
of
the
department's
model
and
that's
really
not
factored
into
it.
We
have
parking
some
other
other
income
that
the
same
as
the
department
model,
but
no
that's
not
included,
but
what
is
included
is
the
actual
income
that
has
the
negative
noi
for
2019.
C
As
we
stayed
in
that
opening
remark,
we
see
that
the
property
is
making
some
improvements
in
this
reducing
this
vacancy.
It
has
a
decrease
about
15
percent.
Over
the
last
three
years.
The.
C
Test
column
or
the
revised
column
actually
is
the
number
that
we're
suggesting
to
the
board
that
value
is
28
million
171
500
again,
you
can
see
not
only
in
the
vacancy
shown
that
the
property
is
doing
better,
but
also
in
noi
the
ny
is
reporting
negative,
but
from
18
to
19.
There
has
been
significant
improvements
in
the
noi
and
is
expected
to
be
above
zero
within
the
coming
years.
C
B
Yes,
thank
you
again
and
while
the
leasing
has
increased
a
bit,
revenue
hasn't
really
come
around
yet.
D
I
think
that
we
looked
at
this
case.
Last
year
we
did
a
slight
reduction
to
around
150
or
160
dollars,
a
square
foot
and
and
there's
the
department's
recommending
a
modest
improvement.
This
year
looks
like
there's,
been
some
pretty
serious
investment
and
improvements
in
the
building,
and
none
of
it's
reflected
on
as
far
as
future
income
in
the
pro
forma
right
now.
So
I
would
support
a
modest
increase
in
the
assessment
that
the
department's.
A
D
I
don't
think
this
property
is
quite
in
the
tailspin
that
that
the
appellant
is
making
it
out
to
be
otherwise
they
wouldn't
be
investing
in
the
interiors
and
putting
I
mean
from
these
pictures,
they
put
a
hundred
dollars
a
square
foot
into
the
sixth
l
spit
easily
and-
and
I
just
doing
some
more
searching,
it
looks
like
it
opened
in
november
with
the
grand
opening
ceremony.
So
maybe
it's
a
related
company
and
they
don't
have
a
lease,
but
there's
something
that
that's
being
held
back
here.
G
What
would
be
the
the
objective
criteria
used
to
increase
it,
and
is
it
increasing
from
the
30
million
or
the
28
million,
but
as
this
is
for
greg
for
all
of
us,
but
based
on
what
greg
said,
but
it
seems
that
the
potential
may
be
there,
the
the
landlord's
doing
the
right
thing,
but
as
of
1120
hasn't
the
landlord
or
the
owner
building
owner
hadn't
realized
the
hope
full
gain
in
any
significant
way.
G
And
maybe
this
2020
is
the
pivotal
year
with
amazon
coming
in
and
with,
hopefully,
the
investment
paying
off
over
time.
And
so
I
didn't.
I
thought
that
getting
into
the
potential
based
on
what
they've
done
is
not
the
prime
criteria.
But
rather
what
is
the
the
actual
situation
there
on
one
one?
And
the
answer
is
it's
pretty
bleak,
and
so
the
below
the
line
vacancy
and
ti
and
investments
and
brokers
commissions
seems
to
make
sense
for
this
year.
G
But
it's
the
third
year
in
a
row
where
things
are
not
at
all
productive
in
this
building,
and
so
the
the
other
reason
to
look
for
2021
and
if,
if
and
when
this
building
owner
comes
back,
is
to
see
what
the
situation
is,
because
four
years
is
a
real
good
trend
and
have
to
start
making
real
adjustments
above
the
line
if
things
do
not
improve
significantly
going
from.
You
know
what
mr
bailey
said
from
80
to
70
percent
or
so
over
the
last
year.
F
I'll
go
with
it
yeah
I
think
the
I
thought
the
expenses
was
the
one
of
the
main
factors,
but
you
know
looking
at
what
they
have
already
reported,
which
is
a
typo.
I
think
it's.
The
amount
of
635
is
correct,
based
on
the
full
amount
and
the
square
footage,
but
I
think
the
numbers
that
the
department
is
using
them
to
revise
the
assessment.
You
know
27
square
foot
and
the
vacancy
and
the
deductions.
I
think
I'm
I'm
fine
with
that,
and
this
is
actually
a
reduction
from
last
year.
F
G
A
Okay
motion
and
a
second
by
mr
mattskin,
all
in
favor
aye
aye
aye
aye
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
The
assessment
is
reduced
to
the
county's
revised
number
of
28
million
170
1
500.
A
H
Good
morning
and
apologies
for
the
technical
difficulties
earlier.
H
We
will
we'll
strive
to
make
efficient
use
of
everybody's
time
here.
We're
certainly
not
going
to
need
eight
minutes.
We
attempted
to
lay
out
our
conclusion
from
our
appeal
using
a
transparent
analysis
that
was
tied
directly
to
objective
data,
and
the
appeal
was
rejected
with
some
qualitative
assertions.
H
One
of
the
comparables
we
used
was
materially
larger.
The
remaining
ones
are
all
quite
similar,
so
if
we
exclude
the
much
larger
land
and
we
utilize
the
remaining
ones,
the
implied
value
of
the
land
is
including
the
improved
value
assigned
by
the
county
is
a
fair
value
of
one
million.
H
Six
hundred
and
twenty
nine
thousand
five
hundred
and
eight
dollars
and
as
it
turns
out
all
of
the
comparables
utilized
by
the
county,
were
smaller
with
one
exception,
which
was
quite
similar
in
size
and
if
we
utilize
that
one,
the
implied
fair
value
of
the
house
with
the
land
and
accepting
the
county's
improvement
is
extremely
similar
to
the
analysis
using
our
comparables
one
million
six
hundred
and
thirty
nine
thousand
four
hundred
and
five
dollars.
H
So
we
believe
that
the
range
1.63
to
1.64
million
reflects
a
reasonable
conclusion,
incorporating
the
data
we
identified
and
that
the
county
identified
we
acknowledge
reaching
these
determinations
is
complex,
any
set
of
locations
can
suggest
somewhat
different
results,
and
so
we've
attempted
to
avoid
quibbling
at
the
margin,
we're
relying
on
data
and
incorporating
meaningful
elements
of
the
county's
perspective,
and
we
believe
that
the
data
demonstrates
a
value
of
about.
1.64
million
represents
a
fair
assessment
of
the
value
of
the
property
at
hand.
I
Yes,
good
morning
board,
my
name
is
derek
dubay,
I'm
a
residential
supervisor
and
I
went
and
viewed
the
property
in
june
of
this
year.
I
did
an
interior
and
exterior
inspection.
I
did
receive
the
information
submitted
by
mr
mr
minkov
on
the
case,
and
I
was
able
to
review
that
the
subject.
Property
is
a
two-story
2700
square
foot
house
built
in
2003
with
an
ea
of
2003,
and
the
quality
is
excellent.
I
So
I
went
and
looked
at
the
comparables
that
they
were
reviewing
and
I
looked
at
comparable
sales
in
the
recent
analysis
period
and
I
felt
that
the
the
sales
that
they
were
reviewing
and
breaking
down
a
price
per
square
foot
had
older
qualities
and
and
larger
land
values
and
anytime.
You
look
at
a
a
property
that
has
a
larger
lot
size
and
break
it
down
a
percent
value.
I
It
gives
you
a
smaller
per
square
foot
valuation,
but
the
way
that
we
do
our
values
is
on
a
per
home
site
basis
and
the
home
site
value
in
this
neighborhood
is
950
000
for
all
of
the
lots
in
the
neighborhood
and
we
go
up
or
down
depending
on
the
size
of
the
law
itself.
So
we
don't
do
it
on
a
per
square
foot
basis.
I
D
For
derek
the
lot
value
the
home,
the
base
lot
value
is
950
for
the
neighborhood
and
the
subject.
Property
is
959
500.
So
what
was
the
9500
adjustment.
I
J
Okay,
thank
you
for
the
applicant.
What's
behind
your
lot,.
H
So
we
are
abutted
partially
by
a
neighbor's
house
and
then
so
sort
of
to
the
side
and
back
is
a
neighbor's
house.
Otherwise
there
is
a
a
narrow
strip
that
I
guess
people
use
to
drive
in
and
park
separating
us
from
backyards
that
face.
I
think
north
beach.
D
J
Right,
I
I
I
was
wondering
if
that
was
being
utilized,
you
know,
do
any
of
the
lots
have
garages
facing
the
alleyway
or
is
it
too
small.
J
I
Sure
in
review,
in
the
case,
the
subject-
property
increased,
3.9
percent
for
this
year
and
the
average
neighborhood
increase
was
5.3
percent,
so
they're
below
that
average,
and
also
the
county
average,
was
4.3
percent.
So
I
felt
like
their
increase
for
this
year
was
in
line.
It
was
actually
all
on
the
land
which
was
applied
to
everybody's
lot
in
the
neighborhood
on
that
base
rate
and
in
reviewing
comparable
sales
and
comparables,
provided
I
felt
like
their
current
assessment
was
in
line
and
that's
all
thank
you.
G
D
I
mean
there's
definitely
some
value
in
having
a
larger
lot.
The
county
put
9
500
on
it,
which
I
think
is
pretty
consistent
practice.
This
neighborhood
there's
a
lot
of
6
000
square
foot,
lots
so
I'd
be.
D
About
trying
to
get
out
of
that,
950
000
range
just
throwing
off
everything
in
terms
of
equalization.
You
know
the
appellate
brought
forward
a
case
that
said
that
there
was
something
unusual
about
the
lot
or
you
couldn't
build
a
house
on
it
because
there's
a
you
know,
rpa
or.
H
D
Some
you
know
some
issue
with
the
lot,
but
it
seems
to
be
in
line.
In
fact,
this
barnes
is
alluding
to.
I
think
the
alley
could
ultimately
be
an
additional
value
to
the
house.
You
know
if
they
ever
decided
to
put
a
garage
or
something
back
there.
They
would
have
another
access
point.
So
I'm
fine
with
the
county's
assessment.
J
Yes,
we
represent
a
lot
of
the
single
family
house.
Builders
and
one
of
our
clients
is
very
active
in
this
neighborhood
and
what
they
look
for
is
you
know
the
shape
of
the
lot,
the
width
of
the
lot,
whether
it's
a
corner,
lot
and
topography,
and
looking
at
this
lot,
it's
about
as
good
as
you're
going
to
get
and
it's
it's
got
plenty
of
width.
It's
got
it's
not
a
corner.
J
Lot
doesn't
really
have
a
double
frontage
because
of
the
alley,
and
we've
been
finding
lots
going
in
in
this
part
of
line
village
or
in
lyon,
village
right
at
about
9
50.,
we've
even
seen
some
higher,
and
this
is
the
one
industry
that
does
not
seem
so
far
knock
on
wood
to
be
impacted
by
the
virus.
J
F
Yeah
I
mean,
I
think
the
county
is
assessment-
is
pretty
fair
compared
to
everything
else
that
you
know
it's
in
the
neighborhood
and
the
area.
Other
homes
have
been
assessed
pretty
much
the
same,
even
looking
at
all
the
online
valuation
methods
that
are
available,
you
know
zillow
trulia,
realty
track
and
everything
else.
All
of
them
are
much
higher
than
this
assessment.
F
You
know,
ranging
from
1.79
to
2
million
or
but
you
know
normally,
we
don't
even
consider
that,
but
that
just
shows
that
the
value
is
there
and
just
to
clarify,
also
greg
that
this
property
does
have
a
garage.
I
mean
a
double
garage
in
the
back,
so
yeah.
It
is
a
good
value
to
have
the
alley
in
the
back,
but
I'm
okay
with
the
assessment.
F
F
I'll
go
ahead
and
move
that
we
confirm
the
assessment
at
1701
300..
All
second.
A
Opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous,
the
county's
confirmed
at
one
million
seven
hundred
and
one
thousand
three
hundred.
A
Thank
you,
mr
minkow.
Okay,
moving
back
to
case
three
on
the
agenda,
mr
raiden
is
your
camera
on.
B
No,
it's
not
sorry.
I
have
it's
disabled
for
security
reasons,
not
pretty
the
board,
though,
but
just
in
general.
A
L
J
One
of
my
best
friends
and
clients
is
a
tenant
here.
They
own
the
green
pig,
bistro
restaurant
and
before
his
son
was
running
it,
but
I
think,
given
the
current
situation,
scott
harlan
has
now
become
really
involved,
and
I
don't
think
this.
This
will
not
impact
my
ability
to
fairly
evaluate
the
value
of
this
property,
but
I
do
want
to
disclose
that
there
would
be
an
indirect
impact
on
a
client
and
friend.
A
A
B
Thank
you
so
much
so
jojo
flats,
it's
a
mid-rise,
retail
and
apartment
building
in
the
clarendon,
slash
courthouse
sub
market
built
in
2007..
You
know
it's.
It's
got
an
apartment
aspect
and
we're
not
really
we're.
Okay,
with
the
evaluation
methodology
for
the
apartment
portion,
we're
really
discussing
here,
the
retail
portion.
Now
I
included
a
lot
of
information
regarding
cobit
19
again,
because
we
weren't
sure
how
it
would
be
considered
in
this
year.
B
As
you
can
see,
they
are
receiving
quite
a
few
requests
for
abatement
and
such
for
2020
and
I've
included
some
emails
and
some
you
know
documentation
from
the
ownership
here.
B
But
again
I
understand
that
that's
not
really
an
issue
for
this
year,
and
so
just
looking
at
the
actual
data,
I
think
we
can
still
see
that
the
actual
income
is
below
what
the
the
county
model
and
so
I'm
on
page
seven
of
my
original
paperwork
submitted-
and
I
don't
know
the
page
number
of
the
the
major
packet
that
the
county
put
through.
B
But
it's
in
my
page,
seven,
the
green
sheet,
which
has
the
income
here
for
the
last
three
years
against
the
assessor's
income
and,
as
you
can
see,
the
noi
has
continued
to
well
to
decrease
and
you
can
see
that
it's
been
below
the
the
county
model
for
the
last
several
years.
So
what
we
did
here
is
we
built
a
stabilized
model
here.
On
the
left
hand,
side
which
we
use
35.50
is
similar
to
what
the
county
has.
B
Here
we
have
the
pass-throughs
or
other
income
here
about
217
457,
our
potential
gross
income,
three
percent
vacancy
and
our
expense
percentage
is,
as
you
can
see,
it's
about
16
percent
slightly
above
what
the
county
has.
We
did
increase
the
cap
rate
again
for
covet
related
issues
that
we've
demonstrated
here
are
affecting
the
property.
However,
if
you
use
our
originally
in
our
in
our
department,
seven
cap,
similar
to
the
county,
our
indicated
value
then
becomes
nine
million
nine
hundred
thirty
five
thousand
seven
eleven.
B
So
that
really
is
our
requested
value.
At
this
point,
it's
it's
nine
million
nine.
Thirty,
five,
seven,
eleven!
That's
with
our
stabilized
model,
using
the
assessor
county
cap
rate
of
seven
percent,
and
that's
that's
our
valuation.
There,
based
on
the
the
performance
of
the
subject
being
slightly
below
the
county
model
and
utilizing
that
that
model
with
the
county
cap
rate
of
the
seven
cap.
A
L
Good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
mr
rayden
speaking
of
zosa
flats,.
L
By
the
appellant
it
is
in
fact
a
mixed-use
multi-family.
When
looking
at
metrics,
we
noted
that
apartment
revenue
was
up
1.3
percent
in
2018
retail
revenue.
Also
up
but
3.3
percent
in
2019
pass-through
revenues
was
up,
2.3
percent
parking
revenue
was
up,
5.3
percent
and
utility
reimbursement
or
rubs
was
up.
Essentially
100
percent
in
2019
gross
potential
income
is
up.
1.6
percent.
True
vacancy
was
up
about
three
tenths
of
one
percent.
L
It's
essentially
stabilized
at
approximately
four
and
a
half
percent
four
point:
seven
percent:
the
effect
of
gross
has
been
up
now.
Two
years
in
a
row,
2019's
increase
was
1.4
percent.
L
We
did
note,
the
operating
expenses
did
tick
up,
but
again
that
point
six
percent,
so
six
tenths
of
one
percent
in
2019,
the
three-year
operating
expenses,
a
percentage
of
effective
gross
have
an
average
of
twenty
point.
Three
six
percent
and
note
the
counties
at
twenty
point.
Three
eight
percent
net
operating
income
has
increased
two
years
in
a
row.
2019's
increase
was
at
1.6
percent.
L
As
we
look
at
the
projections
made
by
the
county
before
we
received
the
2019
income
expense
information.
I
will
point
out
that
the
county
underprojected
gross
potential
income
by
approximately
eighteen
thousand
nine
hundred
dollars.
We
under
projected
effective
gross
by
thirty
five
thousand
eight
hundred
dollars.
We
under
projected
operating
expenses
by
fifteen
thousand
six
hundred
dollars
and
that
led
to
an
under
projection
of
noi
by
approximately
twenty
thousand
two
hundred
dollars.
L
A
G
Two
questions
for
the
appellant.
The
first
one
is-
and
I
was
going
to
ask
this
in
the
last
case,
but
it's
still
relevant.
You
of
course
discussed
this
case
with
department
personnel
before
you
came
here
today,
right.
G
B
Reed,
yes,
thank
you.
We've
discussed
the
matter
via
email
and
things
of
this
nature.
I
don't
know
if
we've
actually
had
actual
conversations
per
se
on
this
property.
This
was.
G
Really
you
had
interchange,
my
question
was:
did
not
the
effect
or
non-effective
covid
virus
come
up
in
any
of
your
interchange?
The
last
couple
of
months.
B
No,
we
we
didn't
know
how
necessarily
how
the
county
was
considering
it
and
then,
when,
once
we
heard
from
the
ownership
of
the
building
about
the
requests
and
troubles
they
were
having
in
early
2020,
you
know
we
wanted
to
present
that
information
to
the
board.
We
did
not
know
if
that
was
going
to
be
so.
G
B
Yeah
we
we
use
the
actual
income
that
we
are
provided,
and
that
indicated
a
decrease
in
the
the
year-over-year
performance
and
the
the
information
here
is
what
what
I
charted
for
you.
Our
information
shows,
can
decrease.
L
Yes
ma'am,
so
given
the
year-over-year
operating
performance
increasing,
we
do
believe
that
the
under
projections
made
by
the
county
would
call
for
a
confirmation
of
the
county's
value
of
71
million
29
000..
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you
and
you
know
opposite
what
mr
tikas
has
stated.
We
believe
the
performance
of
the
retail
portion
here
has
shown
that
it's
not
as
strong
and
we've
been
able
to
show
that
the
income
is
actually
decreased.
Based
on
the
information
that
we
put
forward
here,
and
it
is
our
belief
that
the
assessment
should
thereby
correspond
with
their
performance
indicating
a
value
of
about
9.9
million.
B
Five
million
thousand
seven
eleven,
and
that
is
our.
A
D
I
mean
I
just
I
just
doing
a
three
year:
average
17,
18
and
19.
I
came
up
with
756
000
net
income
for
the
retail
property
kind
of
seven
cap
is
10
million
800.,
so
it's
a
little
bit
lower
than
what
the
county
had
for
retail.
But
I
think
that's
I
don't
know.
I
didn't
want
to
go
back
four
years,
because
that's
a
little
bit
long,
we
usually
just
see
the
three
years
prior.
So
that's
how
I
looked
at
it
rather
than
try
to
guess
it.
Next
year.
G
I
see
this
all
looked
consistent
to
me
and
appropriate.
I
even
noticed
that
the
department
estimated
a
decrease
in
the
rental
retail
income,
but
I
also
noticed
a
unwarranted
small
but
still
telling
decrease
in
the
department's
work
on
operating
expenses
pretty
consistent
high
one.
This
is
retail
only
of
course
a
high
135,
136
137,
but
yet
in
the
department's
work
for
this
year,
it's
115.
G
A
Right
and
I
don't
certainly
want
to
speak
for
the
county,
but
I
believe
that
mr
chicas
did
say
that
they
underestimated
the
operating
expenses,
I'm
assuming
that
had
they
done
a
further
test
that
it
would
have
increased.
G
A
Yeah,
I
don't
feel
as
compelled
on
this
as
I
have
in
other
cases.
It
is
slightly
higher
on
the
retail,
but
I'm
guessing.
If
you
did
an
average
on
the
other
for
total
income,
the
apartments
might
be
slightly
high.
I
don't
know
I
I
don't.
I
don't
feel
a
need
to
make
an
adjustment
hoping
to
hear
anybody
else.
F
Well,
I
thought
if
any
adjustment
would
need
to
be
made
would
be
on
the
expenses
on
the
retail
but
yeah.
I
think
it
would
be
minor.
The
only
thing
I
did
is
I
increased
it
to
15
instead
of
13,
which
comes
to
133
141
on
expenses,
which
is
a
little
bit
closer
to
where
their
actuals
are.
J
I
guess
if
you,
when
you
file
an
appeal,
I
don't
think
you
can
say
my
appeal
is
only
on
commercial
or
if
it's
a
single-family
house.
My
appeal
is
only
on
the
improvements
I
mean
once
you
open
it,
don't
you
open
it
to
everything,
yes,
and
and
given
that
I'm
okay
with
where
the
county
is.
A
D
D
Are
paying
for
them?
So
it's
really
it's
kind
of
irrelevant
in
my
book.
A
A
B
A
A
E
Great,
thank
you.
So
this
property
is
right
across
from
the
county
office
building
it
is
where
summer's
restaurant
is
there's
a
very
old
office
building
there.
The
board
has
heard
this
case
over
the
last
three
years.
E
E
This
property
is
assessed
as
commercial
property,
which
is
is
somewhat
unfair
in
as
much
as
over
half
of
the
space
is
an
independent
office
building
with
and
it's
on,
a
number
of
different
parcels.
E
So
the
county's
guidelines
indicate
a
vacancy
rate
or
their
assessment
used
a
vacancy
rate
of
four
percent
on
this
property.
When
you
look
at
the
total
potential
rental
income,
the
appellant
used
in
their
pro
forma,
a
vacancy
rate
of
15,
the
history
at
the
property,
is
in
2016,
the
vacancy
was
19
2017
19
and
a
half
2018
22
and
20
19
almost
34,
and
that's
all
set
forth
in
the
bottom
line
of
block
sort
of
blocked
out
space
on
page
27
of
161,
which
is
our
board
appeal.
E
The
income
at
the
property,
the
weighted
average
rent
on
existing
office
is
25.51.
We
use
27
on
the
vacant,
which
is
the
rental
rate.
The
county
used,
the
weighted
average
rent
on
the
leased.
Retail
is
nine
dollars
a
square
foot
and
we
used
35
on
the
vacant
retail,
which
is
what
the
county
used
and
then
there's
storage,
space
of
about
2
000
square
feet
and
we
used
11
dollars
per
square
foot
similar
to
the
county.
E
So
the
big
difference
in
potential
income
in
terms
of
the
total
gross
potential
is
in
in
the
rental
rate,
for
the
occupied
retail
in
the
occupied
office,
the
pass-through
income
we've
shown
is
19
000.,
the
county
used
11..
E
One
of
the
items
that
you'll
see
is
that's
very
different
from
the
county
is
other
income
and
that's
51
748,
and
that
includes
some
license
fees
and
those
license
fees
are
paid
by
the
the
gym.
That's
at
the
property,
so
the
county
did
ask
for
leasing
information
on
that
space.
It
was
not
provided
because
it
is
a
license
agreement
and
it
is
not
a
typical
lease,
but
the
income
for
the
space
is
in
fact
included
in
the
stabilized
potential
column,
as
well
as
the
2019
column.
E
As
I
said,
we
used
a
15
vacancy
rate
and
that
compares
to
the
10
vacancy
rate,
which
was
adopted
by
the
board.
Last
year
operating
expenses
I
mean
the
buildings
were
old,
it's
like
a
1935,
1940
building
and
the
office
and
expenses
are
high.
The
owners
really
aren't
doing
a
lot
to
improve
this
property
because
it
is
a
redevelopment
site.
E
They
are
leasing
it
on
a
month-to-month
basis.
At
present
time
they
don't
have
additional.
They
don't
have
any
plans
to
develop
it.
Currently,
at
least
as
of
the
first
of
the
year,
from
what
I
understand
that
would
only
change.
E
It
would
only
push
off
current
activities
would
only
push
off
any
plans
to
redevelop
that
space
at
this
point,
because
the
property
was
assessed
as
general
commercial,
the
county
used
a
seven
percent
cap
rate.
That's.
E
It's
somewhat
unfair
to
the
to
the
record
owner,
because
if
this
was
assessed
as
an
office
property,
the
cap
rate
would
be
8.25
for
half
of
the
building
and
if
it
was
assessed,
so
that's
that's.
Certainly,
you
know
somewhat
unfair
to
the
owner
to
use
a
7.7
percent
cap
rate
when
over
half
of
the
property
is
a
separate
and
indistinct
office.
Building
the
cap
rate
last
year
was
a
725.
E
We
find
no
justification
for
reducing
that
cap
rate.
The
other
thing
that
happens
here
when
you
look
at
a
property
that
is
assessed
as
the
mixed
commercial.
That
is
also
unfair
to
this
asset.
Is
that
there's
no
discount
for
lease
up
on
vacant
office
space,
so
that
would
seem
to
be
wrong
as
well
and
taking
all
those
factors
into
consideration
and
using
on
the
deductions
page
which
is
set
out
on
our
appeal
on
page.
I
think
it's
28
of
your
package.
E
E
There
are
no
plans
in
place
to
redevelop
it
just
like
the
county
assesses
property
that
is
approved
for
redevelopment
at
that
rate,
as
it
existed
on
january
1,
this
property
did
not
have
that
potential
on
january
1
and
so
for
uniformity's
sake.
It
needs
to
be
assessed
using
the
income
approach
to
value
now
using
an
actual
income
approach
to
value
that
projects.
What
could
happen
at
this
property?
E
a
land
value
here
is
not
shown
on
ms
roskin's
page,
who
has
spent
time
with
me
to
work
through
this
case,
and
I
appreciate
and
thank
her
for
that,
and
so
our
appeal
amount
is
actually
the
land
value
you
could
say,
okay,
so
it
should
be
the
land
value
plus
the
income.
That
would
be
fine.
Again.
E
Last
year,
the
board
adopted
the
county's
methodology
and
increased
vacancy
to
10
to
reflect
vacancy
at
the
property
and
probably
somewhat
to
account
for
the
office.
I
mean
if
this
was
an
office
building
only
and
assessed
only
as
an
office
building,
the
vacancy
rate
on
that
portion
would
be
25
percent,
so
by
slotting
it
into
this
commercial
category,
the
owner
is
being
treated
in
a
manner
that
is
not
uniform
and
is
is
being
penalized.
E
The
rents
used
by
the
county
are
are
too
high
and
the
operating
expense
is
slightly
too
low.
The
vacancy
rate
is
is
incredibly
low
and
I'll
just
point
out
on
the
county's
summary
sheet.
It
shows
that
we
used
a
vacancy
rate
of
13
and
it
just
shows
one
gross
income
figure,
gross
potential
income
figure,
the
actual
gross
potential
income,
as
reported
on
our
appeal,
is
very
different
and
our
15
is
only
taken
off
of
the
rents,
so
it
is
truly
a
15
figure.
Is
that
a
beep?
For
me,
my
time.
A
A
M
You
board
thank
you,
eileen
for
being
present
today,
this
property
once
again
we're
looking
at
this
property
as
of
january
1
2020,
and
we
are
looking
at
this
and
we
are
in
the
understanding
that
it
is
looking
to
be
redeveloped
exactly
how
it's
going
to
be.
M
Redeveloped
is
still
questionable,
however,
the
when
we
look
at
this
property
we're
going
okay,
so
the
management
has
made
a
decision
to
let
the
the
tenants
their
leases
to
lapse
if
you
will
or
go
into
a
month-to-month
basis,
so
that
when
it
comes
time
to
redevelop,
it's
easy,
for
you
know
the
tenants
to
vacate
so,
but
we're
still
in
this,
this
transitional
phase
and
so
we're
looking
at
this
property.
M
What
are
rents
in
this
area
and
so,
first
of
all,
we're
treating
this
as
a
property
class
code
219,
which
is
mixed
office
commercial,
and
so
I
took
a
look
at
our
analysis
and
found
a
couple
of
properties
that
are
all
within
three
blocks
of
metro
stations,
clarity,
metro
and
the
subjects
courthouse
metro
station,
and
when
I
looked
at
those
the
the
properties
had
an
average
rent
of
forty
nine
dollars.
M
M
What
is
office
rent
going
for
in
this
area
and
once
once
again,
we
use
something
less
for
the
subject
than
what
is
being
achieved
in
this
market
at
28
to
29
dollars
a
square
foot
and
for
we
did
the
same
thing
with
the
retail
and
in
this,
the
subject's
neighborhood
we're
getting
retail
in
the
area
of
about
43
to
45
dollars
a
square
foot,
and
if
you
look
at
the
original
assessment,
we're
definitely
using
something
less
than,
and
so
when
we
assess
this
property,
obviously
we
don't
get
for
general
commercial.
M
M
Other
and
yes,
we
do
recognize
that
there
is
a
high
percent
vacancy
with
this
property,
but
that
is
a
management
decision
as
they're
slowly
getting
rid
of
tenants
for
redevelopment,
and
although
I
know
that
one
of
the
tenants
has
a
licensing
agreement,
however,
several
of
the
tenants,
if
you
look
on
page
three.
M
M
And
I'll
read
out
the
first
sentence,
but
it's
the
second
sentence.
I
want
you
to
focus
on
drea
has
noted.
Majority
of
the
leases
are
changing
from
long
to
short
term
and
or
month
to
month,
and
then
the
next
sentence
I'll.
Let
you
read
that
and
I
don't
want
to
disclose
it
over
the
inter
over
this
broadcast.
M
So
basically,
yes,
we
did
take
into
account.
To
recap:
we
did
take
into
account
the
high
vacancy
and
we
did
that
by
lowering
the
rents
for
both
the
office
and
the
retail
and
we're
just
asking
you
that
the
board
accept
the
original
assessment
and
I'm
finished.
Thank
you
all.
G
I
have
a
question
for
the
appellant
you
mentioned
twice,
that
the
department
is
assigning
a
10
vacancy
rate
and
on
the
ine
summary
it's
three
per
it's
four
percent,
so
you're
giving
them
more
credit
than
they
appear
to
have
warranted.
E
G
Thanks
can
I
can
I
follow
up
on
that
same
tenor
with
the
department
you
mentioned,
and
it's
well
known
that
a
lot
of
vacancy
is
due
to
management
decision.
Is
that
why
you've
in
anticipation?
Sometime
of
you
know
of
redevelopment,
therefore,
the
department
keeps
the
vacancy
rate
at
the
I've
forgotten
this.
The
standard
that
you
have
for
these
kinds
of
buildings,
four
percent
and
didn't
go
upwards
to
the
10.
That
was
changed
last
year,
because.
M
M
Okay,
so
keep
in
mind
the
vacancy
rate.
We're
using
is
a
stabilized
vacancy
rate
for
all
of
the
219
property
class
right.
G
M
And
then
a
way
to
a
way
to
account
for
the
higher
vacancy,
because
we
don't
do
below
excuse
me,
we
don't
do
below
the
line
adjustment.
We
can
go
back
to
the
top
and
look
at
the
rents
and
we
lowered
the
rents.
So
that's
how
we
account
for
the
excess
vacancy.
B
D
The
the
basically
the
whole
block
is
owned
by
the
same
owner,
except
there
might
be
there's
one
building,
that's
owned
by
the
county.
Is
that
correct,
that's
correct,
so
are
they
actively
blocking
the
development
by
by
being
in
that,
in
that
one
building,
that's
kind
of
in
the
way
or
is
there?
Is
there
any
history
on
that
that
you
could
share
with
us
because
other
than
that
one
little
spice
strip,
it
seems
like
this
is
a
pretty
cut
and
dry?
M
For
hold
on
just.
C
We
don't
have
any
information
on
that
as
far
as
the
situation
between
zoning
or
cphd
and
the
owner
at
this
time,
we
could
probably
provide
that
at
a
later
date,
but
at
this
moment
we
don't
have
any
information
on
it.
We
just
know
that
there
was
plans
to
redevelop
this
site.
You
know
those
plans
were
halted
and
everything
that's
going
on
with
the
property
is
accurate
to
our
knowledge,
based
on
what
ms
roskin
has
discovered
through
her
site
inspection,
as
well
as
looking
over
the
information
that
we
have.
D
M
You
once
again,
I
just
want
to
reiterate
that
the
market
rents
in
this
neighborhood
are
between
44
and
49
dollars,
a
square
foot,
that's
combined
retail
and
office.
M
When
you
look
at
the
subject
on
our
original
assessment,
we're
using
something
less
than
that
substantially
less
than
that,
and
although
we
are
using
a
four
percent
vacancy
stabilized
vacancy
rate,
we
did
adjust
some
of
those
rents
to
accommodate
the
the
higher
vacancy
for
the
subject
property,
and
we
just
asked
that
you
confirmed
the
original
assessment
at
seven
million
five
hundred
and
seventy
one
thousand
four
hundred.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
E
At
the
property
that
have
been
generated,
both
in
the
short
term
and
historically
have
been
very
low.
If
you
recall
this
property
is
across
the
street,
it's
the
kind
of
place
that
might
have
belinda's
or
or
bob's
bail
bonds
in
the
spice,
or
you
know,
divorces
offered
on-site
kind
of
thing.
It's
has
it's
a
terrible
office.
Building,
it's
very
old,
it's
very
cut
up,
it's
very
small
tenant.
E
It
has
is
not
comparable
to
other
properties
in
the
market.
The
county
made
a
big
deal
about
using
rents
that
are
lower,
but
in
fact
the
rents
that
are
being
generated
at
the
property
are
significantly
lower
than
the
amount
the
county
used
and
have
been.
This
property
was
a
plan
to
be
redeveloped,
it
determined
was
determined,
it
was
not
financially
feasible,
it
is
on
hold
for
the
time
being
and
there
are
no
plans
in
the
immediate
future
to
redevelop
this
site.
E
Although
that
could
change
the
vacancy
rate
used
by
the
county
is
you
know
they
use
five
percent
on
restaurants?
We
have
summer's
restaurant
here.
They
use
the
lower
rate,
they
use
five
percent
on
small
office.
We
have
a
13,
000
square
foot
off
fifteen
thousand
square
foot
office.
Here
they
used
a
lower
rate.
E
Vacancy
rate
is
higher
and
we
think
that
the
cap
rate
is
too
low,
given
the
type
of
property
that
it
is
and
that
the
vacancy
rate
is
clearly
too
low.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you
both
okay,
it's
just
among
the
board.
J
J
J
J
Co
and
you're
in
the
courthouse
plan,
which
gives
you
a
bonus,
and
so
just
tinkering
with
a
you
know.
What
density
would
this
property
yield?
I
came
up
with
about
27
000
square
feet
of
commercial
and
about
103
residential
units,
and
that
could
be,
I
could
be
off.
It
depends
upon.
Design
depends
upon
a
whole
lot
of
things.
J
So
then,
when
you
start
looking
at
well,
what
is
raw
ground
unzoned
raw
ground
worth
out
there
in
the
marketplace,
and
I
think
it
depends
upon
you
know:
what
do
you
need
to
pay
the
county
for
their
land
and
if,
in
fact,.
J
So
you
know
with
a
whole
lot
of
talking
on
my
part
kind
of
coming
at
it
from
a
different
direction.
I
think
broke.
I'm
I
personally
am
okay,
where
the
county
is.
A
K
You
know,
and
I
and
the
county
has
gone
close
to
a
lot
of
you
know
with
the
guidelines,
which
is
not
what
is
actually
taking
place
on
the
property
most
you
know,
perhaps
you
know
really
it
isn't.
I
guess,
but
the
county's
doing
it
the
best
they
can
at
this
property.
J
Yeah,
our
obligation,
though,
is
fair
market
value
and
the
county
is
using
the
income
approach.
I
look
at
it
more
from
the
you
know:
what
is
the
land
worth
when
you
sell
it
or
when
you
go
to
develop
if
you
join
venture
or
whatever-
and
you
know
I'm
okay
with
where
the
county
is.
J
D
Yeah
I
am
too,
I
looked
at
it
a
different
way,
but
I
I
came
up
with
the
value
just
over
eight
million
from
a
redevelopment
approach.
You
know
with
the
existing
zoning
and
not
assuming
that
you're
going
to
get
the
co
which
again
that
adds
value
by
completing
that
process.
So
just
on
feed
three
seven
stories:
ten
percent
open
space
you've
got
roughly
a
220,
000
square
foot,
office,
building
and
very
low.
D
At
50
a
foot
in
land
and
then
you
know,
take
the
worst
case
scenario
and
you
have
to
pay
the
county
100
a
square
foot
because
they're
difficult
to
work
with
or
whatever,
then
I'm
still
over,
eight
million
for
that
for
the
residuals.
So.
J
There's
a
parking
greg
on
your
analysis
was
the
parking.
C3
requires
a
whole
lot
of
parking
and
you're,
probably
going
down
three
four
stories.
J
G
As
impressed
as
I
am
with
the
two
analyses
of
what
it
might
be
worth
and
why-
and
I
I
that's
all
speculative
and
guess
what
we
have
an
accomplished
owner
of
this
property-
who
can't
figure
it
out
so
and
that's
why
it's
sitting
the
way
it
is,
and
so
I
would
feel
uncomfortable
without
even
a
site
plan
proposal,
let
alone
an
actual
site
plan
approval
waiting
for
development
to
go
in
that
direction.
G
G
Yeah
the
rents
are
low,
but
they're
low
for
a
reason,
they're
not
in
investing
much
in
the
buildings
and
and
it's
short-term
leases,
and
therefore
it's
unstable
for
tenants
and
they're
not
going
to
invest
a
lot
of
their
time
and
money
if
they
know
that
they
could
be
bounced
in
in
six
weeks
or
six
years
or
six
months.
So
I
don't
see
the
the
trade-off
of
low
vacancy
and
low
rents.
I
think
the
rents
are
probably,
if
anything,
a
little
bit
high
for
these
pro
various
properties,
but
I'm
willing
to
accept
them.
Certainly.
G
But
I
would
like
to
go
back
to
therefore
the
analysis
of
a
10
and
not
four
percent
vacancy.
The
analysis
that
that
the
board
came
up
with
last
year
and
and
therefore
lower
the
the
operating
increase,
the
expenses
and
lower
the
noi
that
sixty
thousand
dollars
or
so
and
come
up
with
a
lower
assessed
total
of
six
million.
Two
hundred
and
seventy
eight
thousand
dollars.
G
Five
hundred
just
based
on
again
buffing
up
the
vacancy
not
to
the
actual
amount,
because
it's
owner's
choice
but
at
least
to
a
little
bit
more
realistic
amount.
A
I
I
take
a
different
approach
to
this.
You
know
I
look
at
this
and
I
don't
want
to
go
down.
The
path
of
this
has
the
potential
to
be
redeveloped,
and
we
should
be
looking
at
that.
I
mean
we've
already
got
enough
issue
when
we
have
a
site
plan,
that's
actually
approved
and
not
being
used
and
the
equalization
of
that
policy.
A
So
I
don't
really
want
to
look
at
what
it
could
be
down
the
road
I
think
miss
roskin's
done
the
best
she
could
based
on
the
market
out
there.
It
is
a
decision
that
the
owner
is
making
not
to
offer
long-term
leases
or,
to
you
know
lease
it
up.
A
K
The
appellant
would
not
sell
it
for
ten
percent
over
the
what
they
propose.
The
value
be
correct,
yeah.
J
F
Yeah,
I
have
to,
I
think,
concur
with
everybody
else.
You
know
I
was
looking
at
pretty
much
the
numbers
as
we
did
before,
not
considering
like
you
said,
you
know
what
could
be
done
until
because
we
don't
normally
do
that
until
there's
actually
a
plan,
a
site
plan
that
is
already
approved
and
everything
is
in
place.
F
F
I
think
it's
reasonable
to
assume
that
the
value
is
there
and
based
on
on
the
numbers,
I'm
okay
with
it.