►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing June 29, 2021
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
A
B
No,
we
did
change
the
value
at
the
review
level,
but
yeah.
We
have
no
objection
for
the
withdrawal.
A
A
Okay?
So
that's
six
to
zero,
because
no
jose
at
this
point,
so
the
withdrawal
is
accepted.
Okay,
I
see
mr
mcintosh,
okay.
A
C
C
C
It's
94
036
square
feet
in
that
rental
area,
and
this
building
was
heard
and
appealed
along
with
3003
washington,
boulevard,
their
same
owner,
similar
tenant
mix
and
well-occupied
new
building.
That
appeal
was
made
at
the
first
level,
and
the
real
issue
is
is
relates
to
the
expenses.
C
You
know
the
actual
net
operating
income
for
calendar
year
2020
was
3.7
million
dollars,
but
that
included
about
633,
000
and
rent
concessions
that
were
burning
off
over
the
course
of
2020,
so
that
income
will
go
up
for
2021
based
on
those
concessions
from
those
new
leases
burning
off.
If
you
were
to
simply
take
that
and
that
operating
income
from
2020
and
and
capitalize
it
at
a
base
of
a
six
plus
the
taxes
you
get
to
about
52
million
dollars,
the
current
assessment
is
63
194
800..
C
It
was
increased
from
57
million
284
458
in
tax
year
2020..
That
was
a
significant
increase
and
one
based
on
this
environment.
I
don't
believe
warranted
given.
Given
the
pandemic
and
given
the
income
losses
that
were
occurred
in
the
property
during
calendar
year,
2020,
there
were
about
205
000
in
losses.
Those
losses
are
continuing
today
as
well.
C
C
I'm
sorry
3003
washington
boulevard,
which
is
directly
next
door
and
abutting
the
property,
the
assessor
used
and
that's
right
in
front
of
you
here.
The
assessor
revised
the
expense
rate,
as
you
can
see,
highlighted
in
yellow
mr
peralta
used
11.35
in
his
income
analysis
and,
as
you
can
see
in
2020
that
building
the
expenses
were
11.54
in
2020.,
so
that
was
the
adjustment
they
made
for
the
budding
building
owned
by
the
same
owner.
C
And
so
when
we
get
back
to
when
we
come
back
to
the
subject
property,
the
assessor
used
8.98,
as
you
can
see
over
here
and
the
axles
were
10.18
in
2020
and
expected
to
increase
for
calendar
year
2021.,
and
so
the
only
thing
we
did
in
our
analysis
was.
We
took
all
of
the
assessors
assumptions
and
we
adjusted
his
expense
rate
from
898
to
1135
and
kept
everything
else
the
same
and
that
generated
a
value
of
59
million
dollars
or
630
a
foot.
C
C
There
were
four
comparable
sales
in
wilson
boulevard,
two
on
wilson,
one
on
randolph
street,
I'm
sorry
three
on
wilson,
these
are
all
class,
a
newly
built
or
newer,
newer,
built,
constructed
class,
a
office
buildings
that
sold
at
566
a
foot,
five
22,
a
foot
473
a
foot,
so
the
preponderance
of
the
sales
appears
to
be.
You
know
you
know
the
highest
end
at
566,
a
foot
and
with
lease
rates
very
similar
to
what
the
subject
property
is
generating.
C
So
then
the
question
you
might
ask
is:
why
is
our
property
at
six
hundred
dollars
a
square
foot
and
perhaps
it
has
to
something
to
do
with?
Potentially
the
cap
rate?
That's
used,
so
we're
not
arguing
cap
rate,
we're
just
arguing
in
the
assessor's
analysis
if
they
use
a
reasonable
expense
rate
that
it
would
generate
a
value
of
59
million,
59.7
million
or
630
dollars
a
foot,
and
that
summarizes
our.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
mr
peralta.
B
Yes,
good
morning
board
good
morning,
mr
mcintosh,
just
reviewing
this
this
property,
I
I
did
for
the
2021
assessment,
look
at
the
individual
leases
in
detail
and
if
you
look
at
the
assessor's
worksheet
you'll
see
that
each
individual
tent
was
listed
there
and
assigned
a
per
square
foot
rent
based
on
the
rent
roll
that
we
had
at
the
time.
B
When
looking
at
upon
review,
I
did
look
and
consolidate
those
rants
for
office,
retail
and
and
vacant
square
footage
just
to
go
in
line
with
what
the
the
appellant
has
listed
there
for
his
pro
forma.
I
did.
I
didn't
know
that
he
did
make
a
change
with
his
pro
forma.
I
I
do
see
now
that
he
did
change
the
he
did
change
his
estimate,
I
believe
for
the
board,
and
he
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
the
I
I
do
see
now.
B
That
is
mainly
the
expenses
that
he's
he's
talking
about
11
56
per
square
foot.
When
we
look
at
the
history
of
this
property,
you
see
that
I
believe
the
test
and
the
original
was
consistent
with
what
was
reported
in
the
history.
B
B
Looking
at
2020,
we
do
see
that
there
are
concessions
that
the
appellant
has
mentioned
will
burn
off.
So
when
we
stabilize
this
property
in
the
test,
we
only
account
for
the
five
percent
of
the
vacant
space
for
vacancy
and
rent
loss.
B
When
we
look
at
the
overall
change
from
20
to
21,
I'm
sorry
2020
to
21
assessment,
the
main
difference
there
was
again
in
the
2020
assessment,
the
vacancy
that
we
accounted
for
was
about
5.1
percent,
so
that
yielded
a
10
vacancy
that
we
use
for
that
assessment.
B
B
B
It's
I
believe,
24
years
older
than
the
subject
and
at
the
time
had
81
occupied
when
the
sale
occurred.
B
I
believe
that's
all
I
have
for
now.
Thank
you.
A
C
D
I
have
one
for
each
party,
the
easier
one
for
the
department
in
the
test.
From
from
the
original
assessment
to
the
test,
you
increased
pass-throughs.
D
D
From
2020,
yes,
and
that
you
just
took
their
number
good,
okay,
thank
you
for
for
the
appellant.
You
mentioned
a
couple
times
that
the
real
issue
is
operating
expenses,
and
so
I
look
at
line
18
columns,
e
and
g,
meaning
the
department's
test
and
your
final
pro
forma
and
the
department
is
a
little
over
0.4
percent
higher
in
expenses
than
you
report.
That's
not
much
of
the
difference.
Could
you
elaborate.
C
So
let
me
go
back
to
share
screen
for
a
second.
The
expenses
are,
let's
see
here,
total
expenses.
C
C
C
Yes,
yeah,
okay,
original
assessment
and
yeah;
okay.
C
A
E
Yeah
I
mean
without
getting
into
any
tenant
names.
You've
got
a
number
of
tenants
in
the
building.
I
just
wanted
to
note
generally
for
the
appellant.
Was
you.
E
Rent
loss
and
some
rent
concessions
in
the
financials.
It
was
any
of
that
rental
abatement
agreement
or
a
deferral
type
of
coven
arrangement
with
any
of
the
larger
tenants.
Yes,.
C
Primarily
with
sorry
I'm
getting
to
primarily
urban
compass,
the
owners
agreed
to
a
50
base,
rent
reduction
for
a
number
of
months,
they're
they're
they're,
also
to
date
about
almost
a
hundred
thousand
in
arrears
as
well,
so
they
are
working
with
the
various
owners,
so
salon
loss,
orange
theory,
fitness,
namaste.
C
All
of
those
are
are
well
the
the
retail
namaste
closed
in
november
of
2020,
so
that
tenant
is
gone.
There
are
and
then
urban
compass
again
a
50
percent,
rent
reduction
and
they're
still
in
arrears
and
as
well
as
salon
lofts
and
orange
theory.
Fitness
the
owner
baited
two
months
about
forty
eight
thousand
dollars
for
orange
theory,
fitness.
So
some
of
those
abatements
are
content,
are
still
in
delinquency,
and
so
yes,
those
are
those
are
the
items.
D
Two
questions
for
you,
the
first
one
you
talked
about
abatements
but
they're
in
arrears,
so
you
really
mean
postponement.
Not
forgiveness.
Is
that
right.
C
D
Okay,
great,
that's
what
I
thought
you
said
the
other
one
was
we
didn't
get
on
to
the
cap
rate?
Why
is
yours,
ten
percent
higher
than
the
counties
based
on
what.
C
Well,
I
I
am,
I'm
gonna
go
back
to
the
share
screen
for
a
quick
second.
C
Six
percent
came
from
the
c
cbre
office
market
cap
rate
and
I
went
into
they
didn't
have
one
specifically
for
yes,
they
did
I'm
sorry,
so
core
pwc
cap
rate
study
showed
a
rate
of
six
to
eight,
with
an
average
of
6.6
based
on
the
fourth
quarter
of
2020.,
and
that's
typically,
as
you
know,
that
number
is
without
taxes,
and
so,
if
we
simply
applied,
you
know
that
six
percent,
plus
the
taxes.
C
Going
to
get
you
two
minutes,
but
that
you
know
we're
really
focusing
in
on
this
analysis
here
addressing
the
cap
rate
and
looking
at
their
original
analysis.
As
you
can
see,
the
expenses
are
really.
The,
I
believe,
are
the
issues,
the
main
issue
and
the
cap
rate
at
six
and
a
half
based
on
their
model.
C
I
don't
want
to
get
it
didn't
want
to
get
into
arguing
capri,
necessarily
because
the
way
they
develop
their
cap
rates
is
different
than
what
we
rely
on
in
the
in
the
marketplace,
which
is
orpaz
and
some
of
the
other
surveys
that
tend
to
look
more
forward
against
those
sales.
While
the
departments
I
have
found
tend
to
look
at
older
income,
data
against
newer
sales
can
sometimes
generate
cap
rates
that
aren't
necessarily
reflective
of
where
the
market
is
headed,
but
that
that's
all
thank
you.
B
Yes,
thank
you.
I
I
don't
see
currently
the
orange
theory
on
the
rent
roll
unless
they
they're
under
a
different
name.
I
know
ken
had
asked
about
that
or
greg
had
asked
about
some
tenants
that
were
receiving
some
kind
of
abatements
when
looking
at
a
page
six,
I
I'd
ask
the
board
to
focus
in
and
and
take
a
look
at
that.
It
shows
a
very
detailed
comparison
of
what
they're
receiving
in
the
2020
rent
roll
versus
what
we're
using
in
the
test
column.
B
So
if
you
look
on
that
third
column,
it
has
a
per
square
foot
rate
for
the
tenants
and
then
the
far
right
column
is
the
average
that
the
the
county
used
in
the
af
in
the
test.
As
far
as
an
average
per
square
foot
per
rent
space
office,
retail
and,
in
particular
the
the
tenants
that
did
show
a
a
concern
for
the
appellant,
we
did
note
exactly
what
was
being
abated
and
taking
off
for
our
tests.
So
please
just
take
a
minute
to
review
that
when
you
make
your
final
decision.
C
Yeah,
I
don't,
I
don't
have
anything
further
to
add
to
to
the
case.
I
I
I
believe
the
sales
are
are
the
other
sale
mr
peralta
mentioned
on
wilson.
That
was
not.
That
was
a
lower
rent.
I
understand
that
was
a
lower
rent,
but
if
you
look
at
the
other
sales
as
well,
if
you
look
sorry,
if
you
look
at
the
other
at
the
other
sales,
there's
nothing
in
the
in
in
the
600s
out
there.
C
33101
wilson,
I
think,
is
a
good
sale
built
in
2004
566,
a
foot
class,
a
getting
49
rents.
Ninety
percent
lease-
currently,
that's
all.
E
I'm
I
think
I.
E
Appellant
say
that
the
630th
square
foot
was
fair,
even
though
the
application
was
for
52
393..
So
I'm
inclined
to
support
that.
I
think
just
making
the
changes
to
the
expenses
11.35
actually
seems
low
to
me
for
a
property.
That's
trophy
building
like
that.
So
I
think
I
think
that's
a
reasonable
estimate
of
what
the
expenses
are
going
to
be
going
forward.
E
D
E
E
Just
given
the
way
costs
have
gone,
cleaning
has
gone
covered
supplies.
Everybody's
got
purell
everywhere,
that's
kind
of
across
the
board.
So
when
you're,
looking
at
the
value
of
a
building
and
using
a
cap
rate
and
an
income
approach,
you're
actually
pulling
future
earnings
forward
and
you're
coming
up
with
the
present
value.
So
you
have
to
look
at
what
the
future
expenses
are
going
to
be
as
well.
E
D
E
That's
an
increase
of
two
million
dollars
over
the
year
of
cobit,
where
we
have
four
four
tenants
that
are
now
under
deferral
agreements
and
possibly
may
not
even
come
out
of
the
other
end.
So
I
think
that's
pretty
generous,
well
that
that
goes.
D
D
You
think
perhaps
we
ought
to
take
another
look
in
and
revise
that
number
downward,
because
I
feel
uncomfortable
saying
you
know
if
the
appellant
says
no,
our
our
expenses
are
pretty
good
over
time,
we're
stabilized.
We
know
what
we're
doing.
We
have
pretty
high
tax
rate,
a
tendency
rate
to
to
just
I
mean
your
logic's
okay,
but
we're
going
forward
and
that's
a
scary
thing,
as
opposed
to
looking
currently
and
backward
at
the
again
the
the
burning
concessions
right.
Maybe
we
should
take
that
down
a
bit.
A
E
E
E
D
Well,
I
mean,
usually
you
know
I
he
didn't.
We
don't
know
what
the
concessions
were.
There
were
three
months
in
a
five-year
lease
as
an
example,
but
it
you
know
I
certainly
feel
comfortable
reducing
it
by
you
know
20
per
year
as
an
example,
we
don't
really
know.
But
again
it's
a
given
number
that's
already
exists
versus
something
going
forward
on.
The
operating
expenses
side
was
barnes
going
to
weigh
in
on
this
discussion.
F
Yeah,
I
was
just
going
to
say
I'm
following
up
on
your
thought.
Ken
it
looks
like
income
was
the
the
difference.
Not
expenses
and
the
the
test
is
5
193.
The
assessment
is
like
500,
I
mean
5
million
and
the
operating
year
is
even
lower
and
the
appellant
presentation
is
lower.
F
So
I
think
the
the
county
has
been
too
aggressive
in
income
rather
than
a
discrepancy
in
the
expenses,
and
you
know
I
do
think
it
should
go
down,
but
I
would
do
it
based
on
income
rather
than
expenses.
D
F
F
E
Yeah
it's
a
little
lower
than
what
I
had,
but
it's
it's
still
pretty
it's
a
pretty
big
bump
from
what
they
paid
for
this
building
in
2015..
E
A
D
F
F
A
Okay,
we
have
a
motion.
Do
we
have
a
second
okay?
We
have
a
motion
in
a
second
by
mr
matskin,
all
in
favor,
okay
opposed,
that's
it
okay!
So
it's
six
to
zero.
The
assessment
is
reduced
to
58
million
741
800,
that's
based
on
taking
the
2020
actual
with,
as
reported
by
the
appellant
and
used
in
the
county's
cap
rate
of
655.
A
H
A
H
Good
morning,
the
subject
again
is
at
2600
crystal
drive
crystal
city:
it's
a
a
property
that
has
a
multi-family
there's
a
parking
garage
as
well
as
a
little
bit
of
commercial
space
as
well.
H
This
building
has
412
units.
It
has
a
a
large
percentage,
279
units,
a
70
percent
of
the
building,
are
efficiency,
studio,
type
and
also
one
bedroom.
So
the
mix
there
is
a
little
bit,
I
guess,
tilted
towards
those
types
of
units.
So
when
you're
looking
at
a
whole
per
price
per
unit,
this
building
has
a
slightly.
H
It
has
a
has
the
effect
of
throwing
that
off
a
bit,
but
here
the
issue
essentially
for
us
is
is
the
actual
income
that
this
property
is
generating.
H
We
took
a
look
at
the
actual
income
and
expense
forms
and
charted
those
here.
The
income
is,
for
the
most
part,
been
slightly
affected
due
to
covid,
and
so
the
parameters
that
we
use
are
based
on
the
actual
2020
income
and
expense
forms.
H
We
use
the
vacancy
of
nine
percent
and
also
expenses
of
about
26.
H
We
also
adjusted
the
cap
rate
here
to
include
0.43
cents
for
the
business
improvement
district,
which
increased
the
cap
rate
slightly
and
when
we
looked
at
the
actual
income
and
expense.
Our
indicated
value
for
the
economic
unit
is
43
million
863
125.
H
So
let
me
get
into
that
information
here.
You
can
see
that
on
our
green
page,
which
is
kind
of
a
an
income
summary-
and
we've
charted
this
here
for
you
and
you
can
see
the
difference
between
our
model
and-
and
this
is,
I
guess,
on
the
boe
packet
page
49.
H
Ours
is
a
different
number.
So
I'm
sorry,
I
don't
have
the
exact
numbers
here,
but
it's
green
and
yellow
and
we
have
a
comparison
between
the
actual
income
and
the
department's
income
and
expense
survey.
Now,
through
the
course
of
our
discussions
between
ourselves
and
mr
chicas,
it
came
out
that
some
of
the
expenses
that
were
discussed
perhaps
were
used
as
capital
expenditures
and
thus
really
shouldn't
be
considered
as
actual
operating
expenses.
H
And
so
you
know
rather
than
debate
whether
or
not
those
are
actual
expenditures,
or
I
mean
capital
expenditures
or
actual
operating
expenses.
H
I
would
tend
to
go
back
to
the
page
three
of
the
boe
submission
by
the
county,
which
is
the
the
numerous
income
and
test
pages
the
large
spreadsheet,
and
I
I
would
stipulate
to
the
fact
that
that
the
column
g
prepared
by
mr
chicas,
the
operating
year,
2020
reconstructed
without
capital
improvements
is
you
know,
is-
is
a
fair
representation
of
the
the
actual
performance
and
removing
those
debatable
expenses.
H
H
So
that
would
really
be
our
revised
estimate
of
value
based
on
the
review
that
we've
done
previously,
based
on
the
actual
document
submitted
and
then,
after
speaking,
with
mr
chicas
about
the
expenses
and
whether
or
not
those
are
a
proper
expenses
to
include
using
column
g
with
the
county
cap
rate
does
have
an
indicated
value
of
156,
492
851,
and
so
that
would
be
our
revised
targeted
value
here
for
the
apartment
portion
on
the
on
the
commercial
portion,
we
did
use
the
actual
income
and
expenses
again
they
came
out
to
be
a
little
bit
below
the
county
numbers.
H
Our
our
noi
was
about
seventy
thousand
and
fifty
dollars.
Seventy,
oh
forty,
nine
and
I
believe
the
county
number
was
eighty
nine
thousand
604,
so
we're
requesting
you
know
the
actual
performance
specifically
because
of
the
situation
in
the
market,
and
we
feel
like
these
numbers
are
appropriate
based
on
you
know
the
current
performance
and
the
indicated
value
there
so
again,
using
a
slightly
revised
cap
rate
for
the
business
improvement
district.
Our
value
is
953
957
for
the
commercial
portion
and
that's
again
back
in
our
green
worksheet
area.
H
But
again,
thank
you
very
much,
and
so
we
would
revise
our
our
requested
value
up
to
156
492
851
on
the
com,
the
apartment
side-
and
you
know,
I
think,
we're
we'll
just
you
know-
stick
with
the
current
requested
value
of
953
for
the
957
for
the
commercial
portion
based
on
the
actual
income
and
expenses
the
last
year,
and
there
wasn't
a
question
there
as
far
as
expenses
and
what
was
appropriate.
So
thank
you
very
much
and
I'll
I'll
stand
down
at
this
point.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
mr
chicas
for
the
county.
G
There
we
go
good
morning
board
good
morning,
mr
aidan,
a
bit
of
housekeeping
we're
hoping
this
won't
occur
too
often,
but
this
case-
and
in
fact
the
next
case
was
in
that
period,
where
we
were
still
doing
a
test
column.
So
we
do
want
the
board
to
note
that
we
are
now
recommending
the
revision
which
is
showing
up
as
a
test
column
at
161
million
178
900.
G
So
please
note
that
we
appreciate
mr
raiden's
being
forthright
in
regards
to
the
dispute
over
whether
or
not
capital
improvements
are
a
necessary
annual
operating
expense,
as
the
board
knows
by
now.
We
do
not
believe
that
we've
gone
over
that
in
a
number
of
cases,
it's
echoed
by
our
income
and
expense
questionnaires
which
ask
the
owners
to
not
include
capital
improvements
in
the
subtotals,
but
actually
list
them
below
the
line.
G
G
When
we
are
looking
at
stabilization,
it's
important
to
note
that
this
property
is
is
doing
well
was
again
was
not
immune
to
the
effects
of
covid.
Last
year.
I
would
note
apartment
revenue
itself
increased
by
about
one
and
a
half
percent
in
2020.
the
biggest
difference
and
affected
the
gpi
was
the
cratering
of
the
parking
which
essentially
went
down
by
half
over
50
percent.
G
The
true
vacancy
was
fairly
steady
in
years,
17
to
19
at
approximately
4.9
percent.
Of
course,
that
did
see
an
increase
just
by
about
what
three
percent,
or
so
in
2020,
that's
true
vacancy,
but
there's
also
a
large
increase
in
the
amount
of
concessions
that
were
offered.
This
is
fairly
typical
of
what
we've
seen
with
the
reports
that
we've
received
in
the
sense
that
owners
are
obviously
anxious
to
keep
the
tenants
in
place
and
so
a
lot
of
times
we'll
offer
either
parking
discounts,
amenity
fees
being
waived,
etc.
G
G
When
we're
looking
at
again
operating
expenses,
please
do
note.
We
believe
that
columns,
d
and
g
should
be
recognized
as
they
are
exclusive
of
capital
improvements.
So
if
we're
looking
at
a
three-year
average,
in
this
case
columns
b
d
and
g,
we
see
a
three
year
average
of
upex
of
2.836
million
and
in
fact,
in
our
column,
h1
h2.
G
We
do
want
to
note
that
in
our
revision
it's
essentially
been
agreed
upon,
at
least
in
column
g,
that
it
does
indicate
a
revision
down
to
161
million
178
900
in
regards
to
questions
of
capital
expenditures,
those
were
discussed
with
the
agent
on
page
26
and
27
of
the
packet,
but
again
based
on
the
stabilized
history
and
inclusive
of
columns
b,
d
and
g.
We
do
believe
that
the
revision
is
fair
and
equitable.
G
E
Yeah,
mr
rayden,
it
looked
like,
I
guess:
2020
parking
basically
got
cut
in
half
from
the
year
before.
Is
that
predominantly
kind
of
like
visitor
parking
commercial
parking
like
nearby
or
are
these
residents
that
are
not
paying
for
parking
anymore?.
H
You
thank
you.
It's
a
combination
there.
It
was,
you
know,
parking
income
due
to
residential
commercial
folks,
using
the
parking
garage
and
just
in
general,
with
you
know,
covet
the
parking
revenue.
Just
you
know,
saw
a
big
decline
and
that's
you
know
issues
like
this.
This
is
the
reason
why
we
would
lean
more
towards
the
most
recent
year
performance
as
opposed
to
the
prior
three,
which
are
more
of
a
normal
situation.
H
You
know
this
was
kind
of
an
extraordinary
year.
So
that's
why
we're
leaning
more
towards
the
most
recent
2020
g
column,
column,
g,.
A
A
F
Thank
you.
This
is
for
the
county
this.
This
has
come
up
before,
where
we're
in
a
special
taxing
district
hasn't
the
county
agreed
that
the
cap
rate
should
be
adjusted
slightly
for
that
circumstance,.
F
F
I
had
read
that,
but
I
wasn't
sure
quick
question
for
the
owner.
The
I
saw
somewhere
about
employee
rental
discounts.
How
are
you
handling
that
just
less
income.
H
G
Yes,
ma'am
just
to
sort
of
hit
on
mr
hoffman's
point
to
the
lessening
of
parking
revenue.
Please
note
that
the
the
department
did
in
fact
note
that
in
its
revision
and
so
while
it's
showing
an
increase
from
the
actual
2020,
it's
still
some
300
000
drop
off
of
the
years,
17
18
19..
G
H
Thank
you
very
much
and
and
again
I
think,
we're
both
in
agreement
that
the
value
is
to
some
extent.
Above
you
know
the
appropriate
valuation
here
again
we're
leaning
more
towards
what
we
see
in
year.
End
2020.
We
understand
it.
You
know
it
is
a
special
circumstance,
but
that's
the
reason
why
you
know
we
have
the
opportunity
each
year
to
to
look
at
the
values
and
again
we
would
in
in
light
of
the
the
current
situation
that
occurred
in
the
last
year.
H
As
that
we
we
look
more
towards
the
the
year-end
2020
information,
as
opposed
to
the
prior
three
years,
but
again
we're
both
in
agreement,
the
county
and
our
position
that
the
value
is
a
little
bit
higher
than
it
should
be,
and
you
know
mr
chicas
has
offered
that
revision
there
and
again.
We
just
feel
that
the
2020
income
should
be
should
be
considered
high
more
highly
than
the
than
the
prior
three.
Thank
you.
D
Just
on
the
taking
off
on
the
accounts
very
less
point,
the
department
of
its
test
really
has
taken
the
income
down
just
a
little
bit.
It's
pretty
stabilized
building
in
a
pretty
good
neighborhood,
with
lots
of
buzz
because
of
amazon,
and
this
seems
appropriate
to
me.
It
kept
looking
at
the
spike
in
the
appellant's
2020
operating
expenses
carrying
over
a
dollar
per
dollar
in
the
2021
pro
forma,
but
I
think
that's
taking
care
of
between
the
appellant
and
the
department
on
removing
some
capital
improvements
that
were
mistakenly
putting
in
put
in
there.
D
So
they're
the
operating
the
fairly
large
operating
expenses
reported
and
depended
on
by
the
appellate
really
do
go
down
to
the
history.
So
it
all
kind
of
makes
sense
to
me
and
makes
the
test
look
even
stronger.
E
Yeah
I
mean
the
biggest
thing
that
jumped
out
to
me:
was
it's
stable,
but
the
parking
was
just
such
a
big
swing
and
I
think
the
department's
test
column
kind
of
handled
that
well,
which
is
you
know,
on
january-
we're
probably
looking
at
a
return
but
not
full
swing
by
the
end
of
2021.
So
there's
probably
still
going
to
be
a
reduction
in
parking.
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
ever
go
back
to
600k,
but
I
think
900
is
probably
a
good
way
to
split
the
difference.
So
I'm.
A
F
F
A
Okay,
I
just
got
mr
metzken
solution,
a
second
to
reduce
to
the
county's
number
161
170
8
900.,
all
in
favor
aye
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous!
It's
reduced
to
the
county's
reduced
number
of
161
178
900.
B
A
H
Yes,
good
morning,
members
of
the
board,
you
know
we
had
the
opportunity
to
discuss
this
property
with
mr
chikas
very
recently,
and
he
has
presented
to
us
a
a
revised.
I
guess
county
test
model
which
takes
into
account.
I
think
the
issues
that
are
affecting
this
property
and
equitably
and
fairly
comes
up
with
a
a
value
and
so
and
and
this
property
here.
H
I
I
think
that
you
know
the
value
that's
put
forward
by
mr
chicas
here
is
is
is
appropriate
and
this
is
and
I'm
referring
to
the
most
recent
document
that
may
have
been
submitted
within
the
last
24
hours.
If
I'm
not
mistaken-
and
this
is
what
we
it's
column
f1
and
f2
is
what
I
have
here
and
mr
chicas,
if
you
want
to
chime
in
here
on
this,
one,
feel
free.
G
Yes,
so
yes,
just
like
the
last
case
again,
we
are
hoping
this
will
be
the
last
of
these.
But
again,
as
the
board
knows,
we
were
in
a
period
where
we
were
only
offering
tests.
We
did
revise,
recommend
a
revised
value
of
69
million
77
000
and
I
believe,
without
putting
words
into
mr
reagan's
amount,
that's
accepted
by
the
appellant.
A
A
Yes
yep,
all
right,
then
I'll
move
to
accept
the
county's
test
of
69077.,
okay,
okay,
I
already
got
miss
hogan.
Thank
you.
F
A
Favor
aye
all
right.
Okay,
it's
unanimous.
The
county's,
revised
number
of
69
million
77
000
has
been
accepted.
All
right.
A
A
Okay,
that
completes
the
agenda.
The
only
other
business
I
have.
I
just
want
to
give
you
a
heads
up
in
case
anybody's
traveling
over
fourth
of
july,
will
not
be
any
hearing
on
tuesday
july
6th.
So
if
you
want
to
take
a
nice
long
extended
period
and
not
have
to
sign
in,
I
just
want
to
give
you
a
heads
up
rather
than
wait
till
tomorrow
in
case
you're.
Trying
to
make
any
plans
is.