►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing August 3, 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
2021-
and
this
is
the
arlington
county-
virginia
board
of
equalization
hearings.
There
are
four
cases
on
the
agenda.
The
first
case
is
rpc20010026
the
property
located
at
535
north
pollard
street.
We
have
mr
blake
warren
representing
the
owner.
Mr
warren,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
Sir.
B
B
It
is
currently
assessed,
or
I
should
say
it
was
initially
assessed
at
39
million
53
800,
which
is
402
000
a
unit.
The
county
is
recommending
a
value
following
our
first
level
appeal
filing
and
board
level
bill
filing
of
38
million
787
200
and
the
value
we're
requesting
from
the
board
today
is
32
million
in
2.
900.
birchwood
is
a
garden-style
apartment
that
was
originally
built
in
1982.
B
B
The
county
is
utilizing
the
effective
age
of
the
property
of
2005
and
classifies
it
currently
as
mid-rise
in
their
in
their
income
approach
to
follow.
B
If
I'll
direct
the
board
again
to
page
three
of
the
county's
response
and
memo
to
the
board,
you'll
find
the
apartment,
income
and
expense
summary
you'll,
see
in
column
d,
which
is
the
original
assessment
and
column
f,
which
is
their
revision,
that
their
test
column
they've
slightly
revised
their
gross
potential
income
down
just
ten
thousand
dollars
from
three
million
two
hundred
fifty
five
thousand
three
hundred
and
two
hundred
forty
five
thousand.
B
However,
the
actual
gross
potential
income
that
was
reported
at
the
property,
as
you
can
see
in
column
e,
was
three
million
two
hundred
and
thirty
eight
thousand
now
following
and
then,
if
you
go
further
down
here,
you'll
see
that
this
property
was
relatively
stable
with
regard
to
vacancy
the
county
was
initially
applying
and
is
still
applying
their
six
percent
market
vacancy
for
mid-rise
you'll
see
that
the
actual
vacancy
just
vacancy
increased
about
five
percent
from
one
percent
to
six
point.
B
Three:
six
percent
and
concessions
was
about
two
percent,
so
eight
and
a
half
percent
total
for
vacancy
and
collection
loss
in
you'll
see
in
columbia.
It
was
reported
in
2020
in
comparison
to
what
it
had
historically
been
reported
at,
which
is
closer
to
four
to
five
percent
in
prior
years.
B
That's
a
ten
thousand
decrease
in
total,
effective
gross
income,
where
you'll
see
that
the
actual
has
decreased
substantially
more
than
that
from
2019
prior
to
covid
at
three
million
one
hundred
and
seventy
thousand
for
the
effective
gross
income
decreased
to
two
million
nine
hundred
and
sixty
one
thousand
four
eighty,
which
is
a
decrease
of
approximately
six
and
a
half
percent.
So
again,
we
don't
think
the
the
county's
test.
Column
accurately
reflects
the
most
recent
reporting
year
and
considerations
for
covet
the
total
operating
expenses.
B
Again,
this
is
a
has
been
a
fairly
stabilized
property
dating
back
the
last
three
years,
starting
in
2018.
The
property
had
operating
expenses
of
33
a
little
over
1
million
in
2018
2019
of
32
percent,
1
million
18
000
and
then
most
recently,
1
million
and
11.703,
which
is
34
of
effective
gross
income.
The
county's
initial
valuation
used
a
operating
expense
ratio
of
33
percent
that
increased
just
slightly
by
0.25
percent
to
33.25
in
their
test
column.
B
So
again
we
don't
think
they're
they're
accurately
reflecting
the
the
cost
and
that
that
has
more
to
do
with
the
effect
of
gross
income
and
what
we
don't
believe
the
the
county
is
is
appropriately
considering
the
the
of
code
and
the
lost
revenue
in
2020..
B
Also
important
to
consider
is
the
actual
or
the
current
assessment
value
from
2020
or
from
2021
excuse
me
represents
a
one
percent
decrease
from
the
prior
year.
However,
the
actual
noi
you'll
see
is
is
actually
down
eight
percent
year
every
year
from
19
to
20..
B
So
again,
we
don't
think
that
this
value,
as
of
the
1
1
20
21
valuation
date,
is,
has
given
enough
consideration
to
the
hardships
that
this
property
experienced
in
2020
during
code
during
covid
and
specifically
to
the
effective
gross
income
in
the
operating
expenses,
and
we
would
ask
the
board
to
to
consider
to
give
additional
consideration
to
those
to
those
aspects
of
the
property
and
how
it's
currently
being
valued
chairman.
I
don't
know
if
there's
anything
else,
you
want
to
add
on.
C
Just
at
the
original
assessment
that
was
done,
I
think
they
did
a
pretty
good
job
seeing
the
three
year
average.
Then
they
learned
that
the
income
was
down
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
nine
point
four
percent,
and
with
that
information
dropped
the
noi
by
fourteen
thousand
dollars,
so
they
they
had
the
original
numbers
and
then
said:
wait
things
are
down
two
hundred
thousand
I'll,
give
you
a
fourteen
thousand
dollars
off
which,
looking
at
the
numbers
on
this
page,
three
obviously
miss
missed
the
mark
quite
a
bit.
C
So
that's
all!
I
have
sophie
mal's
on
the
phone
as
well
from
ditmar.
If
you,
if
you
all,
have
any
direct
questions
for
us
and
the
owner
she
can,
she
can
help
out
and
sophie.
I
don't
know
if
anything
you
want
to
add
on
this.
D
Yeah
jeremy
sophie-
and
I
are
both
here-
this
is
greg
greens
with
bitmore,
not
just
that
that
property
struggled
heavily
and
continued
through.
Now
I
mean
I
said,
that's
a
that
property
has
had
a
significant
vacancy
and
concession
issue,
so
I
mean
that
that
reduction
in
our
noi
is
is
what
we'll
see
plus
some
this
year.
So
I
don't.
D
With
the
revision.
C
E
In
the
past,
we
dive
deep
into
the
history
of
this
property
and
we've
proven
to
the
board
why
it's
been
classified
as
a
mid-rise.
That's
due
to
the
addition
that
was
done
in
2000
and
then
years
later,
they
demoed
the
three-story
garden
and
built
another
mid-rise
property.
That's
why
it's
classified
as
a
four-story
mid-rise.
E
The
effective
age
was
reduced
a
few
years
back
to
account
for
the
two
different
years
in
which
the
property
underwent
renovation
or
new
construction
for
this
property.
Mr
chicas
revisions
to
his
revenue,
based
on
the
information
that
he
received,
he
also
made
revisions
a
downward
revision
on
the
parking
revenue
and
the
other
revenue.
E
E
The
operating
expenses
were
increased
from
ten
thousand
four
hundred
eleven
dollars
per
unit
to
ten
10
457
dollars
per
unit.
The
noi
decreased
slightly
and
we
applied
the
5.25
cap
rate,
which
resulted
in
revision.
The
original
assessment
projected
about
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
less
than
the
2019
noi,
and
then
on
the
21
revision.
We
reduced
it
a
little
bit
further.
As
the
board
knows,
we
don't
just
take
the
I
e
that's
supplied
to
us
and
by
cap
rate
we
look
at
the
history
of
the
property.
E
You
can
see
from
18
to
19
the
noi
increased.
I
think
on
here.
It's
about
6.8
percent.
Again
we
use
the
lower
noi.
We
achieved
the
lower
inner
while
in
the
original
assessment
than
the
2019
numbers.
Yes,
due
to
higher
vacancy
than
in
the
past,
the
property
did
experience
a
downward
turn
in
the
noi.
I
think
it's
about
9.39.
E
We
followed
the
history
of
the
property
during
our
assessment
process.
That's
why
we
also
applied
the
six
percent
vacancy
instead
of
eight
point,
five,
four
percent-
that
the
agent
is
using
because
we're
sticking
with
the
guidelines
that
we
have
and
making
adjustments
where
we
can.
The
revised
assessment
that
we're
proposing
is
about
a
1.75
percent
decrease
from
the
2020
assessment,
and
we
believe
that
the
board
should
take
up
that
number.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board
members.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chairman.
This
is
for
the
county
and
I-
and
this
is
going
to
be
applicable,
I
think
in
all
four
cases
the
cap
rate
assumes
a
0.2
replacement.
E
F
Let
me
ask
the
applicant:
you
all
are
adding
to
this
particular
case.
Twenty
thousand
dollar
reserve.
Is
that
a
fictitious
number,
or
is
that
money
that's
actually
being
carried
over
into
the
next
year?.
C
F
If,
if
you,
if
there's
a
0.2
assumption
of
reserves
and
you're,
also
counting
20.,
aren't,
aren't
we
double
counting.
C
If,
if
you
were
to
believe
that
the
base
cap
rate
for
the
property
is
a
is
a
four,
then
yes,
we
don't
feel
the
cap
rate
of
a
base
of
a
4
would
be
appropriate
for
this
asset,
and
greg
can
expand
on
that
if
you'd
like
so
our
cap
rate
is
basically
the
market
cap
rate,
and
then
we
take
reserves.
Since
market
cap
rates
don't
play
a
fictitious
point,
two
percent
to
them.
A
G
Yeah
on
the,
if
you
look
at
the
I
guess,
the
plat
on
this
property,
it
looks
like
there's
a
single
family
lot
behind
it.
That's
included
in
the
parcel.
Is
that
being
assessed
as
well.
C
G
D
So
I'm
sorry
I
was
we
we
do.
There
is
a
single-family
lot
that
we
own
that's
adjacent
to
the
property.
I
would
ask
jeremy
or
blake
to
if
it's,
I
believe,
that's
assessed
separately,
but
I
I
don't
know
that
jeremy.
C
I
thought
it
was,
I
don't.
This
assessment
doesn't
consider,
I
don't
believe
and
again
I'll
defer
to
irving,
but
I
don't
believe
the
assessment
includes
anything
for
a
single
family
lot.
D
E
Okay,
the
property
was
tested
and
it
resulted
in
a
lower
noi.
We
applied
our
six
percent
vacancy
to
this
property,
which
is
in
line
with
how
we
valued
all
other
midrash
properties.
E
The
result
was
a
decreased
value
of
38
million
787
200,
and
we
asked
that
the
board
accepts
that
proposed
revision.
Just
and
that's
all
we
have
thank
you.
B
Yes
again,
following
the
the
test
revision
column,
you
know
they
saw
that
2020
income
was
down
from
2019
their
test
column
in
column,
f,
revised
the
income
just
slightly
down
ten
thousand
dollars.
You've
heard
greg
with
ditmar
testified
to
the
fact
that
this
property,
with
covid
in
the
aftermath
of
that,
is
going
to
continue
that
downward
trend.
B
When
you
see
the
the
revised
noi
of
the
county
and
it's
still
again
being
right
around
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
over
what
we
see
from
a
lot
the
county,
is
they
take
the
average
of
the
last
three
years?
And
you
know
if
there's
somewhere
in
the
in
in
the
mix
there,
you
know
that
they
think
that
satisfies
the
test
column.
B
Normally,
if
it
was,
you
know,
stabilized
property
with
you
know,
multiple
years
of
stabilization
that
might
might
work,
but,
as
we've
seen
with
covet
that
you're
following
and
what
we've
seen
with
greg
speak
to
with
the
future
of
these
and
concessions
expected
income
going
to
continue
to
trend
downwards.
I
think
you
gotta
you
gotta,
look
outside
of
just
that
three
year
average
and
see
where
this
property
is
headed.
F
First
of
all,
I
wanted
to
address
the
cap
rate,
which
is
based
upon
the
classification
of
this
particular
property
and
in
the
past
you
know,
I've
argued
that
it
that
it
it
should
be
a
garden
apartment.
F
But
you
know
at
this
point:
that's
a
thing
decided,
and
so
I
think
we
have
to
go
with
the
classification
as
a
mid-rise
to
me
after
looking
at
this
ahead
of
time
and
then
listening
to
the
the
presentation,
I
think
the
only
question
I
have
and
I
would
like
to
see
what
others
on
the
committee
think.
A
Okay,
you
know
I'll
just
say
I
I
too
thought
when
I
looked
at
the
revision.
I
thought
the
revision
didn't
go
quite
low
enough,
so
you
know
based
on
the
operating
year.
G
Yeah,
I'm
in
the
same
school
of
thought,
I
think
we're
on
the
same
track
there
using
column
a
at
least
for
this
year
and
then
taking
another
look
every
year,
as
we
probably
will
for
this
property
but
yeah
the
cap
rate
in
19.
We
actually
classified
this
as
a
garden,
but
then
the
county's
guidelines
were
further
clarified
and
kind
of
that.
Clear
line
was
drawn
at
four
stories.
G
So
that's
why
this
is
now.
G
So
I'm
on
board,
with
barnes
and
mary's
suggestion
using
the
county's
cap
rate
for.
H
Mid-Rise,
yes,
you
are
muted
mary,
but
let
me.
H
Sorry
yeah,
to
be
honest,
when
I
looked
at
the
case,
I
did
the
same
as
the
with
previous
apartment
complexes
that
we've
seen
you
know.
I
think
I
don't
really
think
that
these
apartments
that
are
managed
by
didmar
have
are
struggling
like
we,
we've
heard
you
know
looking
at
what
they
have
and
what
they
offer
I'm
just
looking
at
so
far.
They
only
have
like
three
apartments
available
coming
up
two
in
october,
one
in
september.
H
H
I
know
that
you
know
2020
was
lower
than
the
previous
ones,
but
I
think
looking
overall
at
the
noi,
the
egi
gpi,
you
know
I
think
everything
is
lower
than
what
it's
been.
So
I'm
okay
with
it,
I'm
okay
with
the
revised.
I
don't
see
why
we
need
to
make
any
further
changes.
I
I'm
a
I'm
okay.
I
was
okay
with
the
revised.
I
think
the
county
has
met
the
requirements,
for
you
know
equalization
with
other
properties
and
how
they
approach
this.
I
see
that
you
know
there's
there's
slight
differences,
but
that's
common
on
all
projects
or
all
properties.
I
A
Yeah
the
the
issue
like
I
said
you
know
I
think,
based
on
having
the
columnist
information
you
know,
the
building
is
is
pretty
stable,
but
I
mean
it
goes
up
and
down
up
and
down,
it's
not
going
down
a
ton,
but
I
think
it's
less
than
what
the
revision
is.
But
you
know
the
way
I
see
the
count
is
it's
three
to
three
and
it
would
tie
and
go
back
to
the
original
assessment,
which
I
don't
think
any
of
us
want
to
do
that.
A
You
know
so
for
at
least
to
get
the
the
revised
number.
If
we
can't,
you
know,
get
enough
votes
to
do
the
lower,
because
I
thought
the
37.
I
capped
out
the
operating
at
five
and
a
quarter
at
37,
138
6,
which
I
think
is
better.
But
if
there's
not
enough
consensus
for
that,
then
I
certainly
will
go
with
the.
G
I
had
the
same
number
as
you
and
and
kind
of
thinking
of
it
as
we
reduced
in
19,
and
we
were
up
right
about
38
and
you
know
definitely.
2020
was
a
more
difficult
period
and
how
this
building
recovers.
G
In
the
face
of
you,
know
the
challenges
it
has
plus
the
fact
that
there's
just
a
ton
of
new
apartments
online
in
boston
that
it's
going
up
against
that
are
newer
and
amenitized,
and
you
know
those
buildings.
You
walk
in
there
today
and
they're,
going
to
offer
you
two
or
three
months
free
rent
to
move
in,
so
I
think
that's
kind
of
what
they're
what
they're
dealing
with
in
the
competition
and
that
might
take
a
few
years
to
shake
out.
So
that's
that's
kind
of
where
I
think
the
the
headwinds
are
coming
from.
H
The
thing
is
that
I
don't
see
that
I
don't
see
that
they're
even
offering
one
month
the
free
rent
on
this
apartment
building.
You
know
I'm
just
looking
at
what
they
have
advertised,
but
they
have
on
their
website.
You
know
and
like
I
said,
they
only
have
two
apartments
coming
up
in
october
october,
17
october
22nd,
one
in
september
on
september
17th,
but
there's
nothing
else
available.
A
I
I'm
I
am
on
the
fence
with
it.
It's
I
don't
think
we're.
It
is
a
difference
and
we
don't
always
give
the
appellants.
We
want
them
to
prove
it
as
opposed
to
just
the
benefit
of
the
doubt.
I
don't
want
to
see
it
revert
back
to
the
original
assessment.
A
I
A
G
Sure
I'll
motion
reduce
assessment
to
37
million
138
600
based
on
operating
year,
2020
noi.
A
Okay,
so
that
is
mr
hoffman
and
second
by
mr
lawson.
All
in
favor
aye
opposed.
A
B
A
Okay,
so
it
is
five
to
one:
the
assessment
is
reduced
to
thirty
seven
million
one
thirty,
eight
six
hundred
and
that
is
based
on
the
actual
operating
year's
income
column
e
at
the
county
cap
rate
at
five
and
a
quarter.
A
B
Yes,
thank
you
I'll
direct
the
board
for
this
one
to
page
43
of
112
of
the
county's
response
memo.
This
is
our
summary
of
facts.
This
property
is
the
amelia.
It
is
consistent
of
one
tax
rpc.
It
was
originally
assessed
at
forty
four
million
three
hundred
fifty
nine
thousand
two
hundred,
which
is
four
hundred
and
almost
eleven
thousand
a
unit.
B
The
county
is
recommending
a
revision
of
forty
two
million
seven
hundred
hundred
ninety
nine
thousand
four
hundred
and
the
value
we're
requesting
from
from
the
board
today
is
39
million
444
600,
which
is
365
000
unit.
The
property
is
a
high
rise,
originally
constructed
in
2009
and
is
eight
stories,
high
houses,
108
units
and
a
mix
of
one
and
two
bedroom
units.
B
If
you
turn
to
page
three
we'll
find
our
income
and
expense
summary
sheet
again,
this
property,
as
well
prior
to
covent,
has
been,
for
the
most
part,
fairly
consistent,
the
county's
revision
you'll,
see
in
in
columns
f1
and
f2,
and
it
splits
out
the
apartment
and
commercial
income.
B
This
is
one
again
we'll
where
you'll
see
that
the
total
vacancy
and
collection
loss
that
was
reported
in
each
of
the
three
prior
years.
2020
was
fairly
consistent
at
four
and
a
half
percent
in
2017
4.16
percent
in
2018.
B
Five
percent
in
2019
and
then
most
recently,
you
see
it
jump
up
to
eight
percent
in
2020..
B
The
county,
in
their
initial
assessment,
is
using
five
percent
for
the
high
rise
that
doesn't
change
in
their
in
their
their
test
column,
which
again
you're
you're,
seeing
those
effects
reflected
in
the
effective
gross
income
which
in
2017
was
that
was
that
3
million
29
000
dropped
down
slightly
to
3
million
23
000
2018
3179
in
2019,
and
then
you
see
it
dropped
to
3
million
and
72
000
in
2020.
B
Egi
is
three
million
and
ninety
seven
thousand
oh
five,
seven,
which
is
twenty
four
thousand
dollars
higher
so
again,
one
that
we
don't
think
is
is
know
following
cove
and
is
being
enough
consideration
for
the
actual
vacancy
and
concession
loss
that
was
reported
at
the
subject:
property
the
same
with
the
operating
expenses.
This
is
a
property
that
has
been
fairly
stable.
The
last
couple
years.
B
Last
three
years,
operating
expenses
was
24
in
2018
26
in
2019
and
then
again,
26
in
2020.,
the
county
upon
their
revision
and
seeing
the
2020
financials
actually
decreased
their
total
operating
expenses.
B
From
26.2,
which
was
right
in
line
with
the
actual
reporting
year
and
dropped
it
down
to
25.85,
another
thing
to
point
out
here
is
with
regard
to
the
county's
valuation
and
test
column
of
the
the
retail
portion
of
this
assessment,
you'll
see
in
column
d2
that
their
initial
estimate
of
noi
was
159
440
and
following
the
submission
of
the
2020
financials,
which
showed
a
much
lower
total
noi
that
was
reported
of
just
119
000,
the
county,
revised
their
test
column,
f2
up
from
159
440
to
176
144
because
of
coba
the
the
ownership
had
to
offer
three
months
of
abatement.
B
There
was
a
significant
decrease
in
total
revenue
from
19
to
20,
because
of
that,
but
the
county
is
is
adjusting
the
actual
retailer
commercial
income
up
in
their
2020
estimate
or
the
2021
estimate
following
covid
and
loss
of
total
revenue
from
abatements
that
had
to
be
offered
for
for
these
tenants.
B
Those
are
the
two
main
things
is
with
regard
to
the
operating
expenses
and
again
the
the
county's
consideration,
their
test
column
following
the
the
submission
of
the
2020
finance,
financials
jeremy's.
Anything
else
you'd
like
to
add.
C
Yes,
if,
if
you
feel
there's
any
inconsistencies
with
what
we're
showing
here,
the
incoming
statements
or
rent
rules
versus
the
website,
for
example,
please
let
us
know
in
questions,
so
we
can
address
those.
Obviously
we
didn't
have
that
opportunity.
Last
time
greg
wants
to
talk
about
that
quickly.
Greg.
Do
you
want
to
speak
to
why
the
website's
showing
less
vacancy
than
what
the
rent
rules
might.
D
You
know
we're
anywhere
from
10
to
20
vacancy
honestly
and
most
of
our
properties
in
the
winter,
and
so
you
know
our
ownership
is
very
concerned
about
maintenance
of
false
rents
in
exchange
for
vacancies.
So
you
know
we're
very
occupancy
driven.
We
rented
specifically
at
birchwood
many
many
units
at
six
to
eight
hundred
dollars
lower
than
mark
what
we
would
consider
market
rent
in
the
rv
corridor
to
greg's
point
we're
chasing
minitized
buildings
that
are
leasing
up.
That's
going
to
be
the
case
this
year.
D
It's
not
like
there's,
not
deliveries
happening
right
now,
so
I
would
be
hesitant
to
look
at
what's
currently
available
because
there
were
so
many
gives
for
the
last
year
to
get
to
those
three
units
being
available.
So
I
don't
that's
not
a
real
reflection
of
our
performance
or
our
current
situation.
C
The
last
point
is
the
assessor
in
the
last
few
years
have
used
a
four
percent
market
vacancy
for
I'm
sorry,
four
percent
vacancy
rent
loss
and
collection
concessions
for
retail
covet
hit
properties
were
required
to
shut
down
for
months
and
they've.
Looked
at
the
numbers
and
after
the
fact,
they've
determined
the
correct
rent
loss
and
vacancy
rate
is
still
four
percent.
Absolutely
no
impact
on
retail.
It's
not
a
big
number.
It's
not
a
big
factor
here,
but
just
pure
common
sense.
C
I
think
we
all
realize
that
retail
is
not
as
strong
as
it
was
last
march.
I
don't.
I
really
don't
think,
there's
any
debate
on
that,
but
the
county
has
taken
the
position
that
it's
really
in
regards
to
vacancy
and
concessions.
It's
it's
the
same
and
actually,
in
this
situation
it's
actually
a
lot
better
than
it
was
prior.
Despite
that
the
retail
brought
in
142
000,
they
think
it
should
now
bring
in
221
000,
which
is
just
just
inaccurate.
I'm
sorry
211
000,
which
is
inaccurate.
C
So
that's
all
I
have
and
if
you
have
any
questions
regarding
what
you
see
on
the
the
site
or
anything,
please
let
us
know
in
questions,
because
I
I'm
not
allowed
to
talk
when
you
guys
are
deliberating,
which
is
why
I
meet
myself.
So
I
don't
get
slapped
on
the
wrist.
E
This
is
the
amelia
apartment,
I
think,
really
just
to
get
down
to
the
case.
The
biggest
difference
is
going
to
be
the
commercial
revenue,
so
as
pointed
out,
the
property
owners
reported
146
thousand
now
142
694
in
an
apartment,
not
apartment
retail
revenue.
Sorry,
let
me
slow
down
so
the
county
in
the
test
and
in
the
original
assessment
use
the
higher
retail
value
projection
of
190
900,
which
was
pointed
out
by
the
agent.
If
you
go
to
page
60
of
the
packet.
E
E
The
space
is
4150
square
feet
on
this
page.
I'm
sorry,
I
think
it's
actually
page
it's
page
60
of
71
of
the
appellant
page
100
of
112
of
the
whole
packet.
Sorry,
so
on
this
page
you
will
see
the
scheduled
charges
scheduled
monthly
charges.
You
also
see
the
scheduled
monthly
other
charges,
so
that
number
coincides
what
was
calculated
by
mr
cheekis
on
the
rent
roll
analysis.
On
page
six,
again
on
page
six,
you
see
that
mattress
warehouse
is
sweet,
3807
4150
square
feet.
E
It
shows
the
base
rent
per
square
foot
calculation
based
off
the
annualized
rent.
What
we
look
at
is
the
potential
gross
income
for
this
space
potential
growth
income
is
determined
by
the
rent
rate
that
is
charged.
Mr
warren
indicated
there
was
three
months
of
rent
abatement
given
to
this
tenant.
There
is
nothing
impacted
about
this
rent
abatement
that
I
saw
there's
nothing
in
the
packet
about
the
rent
abatement
that
mr
cheek
has
made
note
of,
and
it
never
came
up
in
the
discussion
that
we
had
for
this
case.
E
E
The
same
way
we
value
other
general
commercial
properties.
We
take
this
potential
rent
income
and
we
also
took
the
potential
pass-through
income
that
came
from
the
rent
roll
and
we
applied
four
percent
vacancy,
the
four
percent
vacancy
we
applied
to
13
expenses
and
came
up
with
our
retail
value.
E
Based
off
of
adjustments.
Mr
cheek
has
made
to
the
apartment
revenue
he
reduced
the
apartment
revenue
about
a
little
over
a
hundred
thousand.
When
you
look
at
the
revision
column
compared
to
the
original
assessment,
the
gpi
on
the
apartment
side
was
decreased
by
about
150
000
from
the
original
assessment
to
the
revised
number,
we
applied
the
5
vacancy
rate.
E
When
you
look
at
in
the
history
of
the
property,
it
has
been
pretty
stabilized,
total
vegas
in
collection
has
been
less
than
four
and
a
half
percent.
For
the
past
I
mean
for
almost
for
the
first
three
years,
2017
18
19.
It
did
increase
slightly
in
2020
again,
if
you
compare
our
gpi
and
we're
looking
at
total
gpi
compared
to
what
they
submitted
on
the
income
statement,
they
don't
divide
out
the
income
statements
with
apartment
on
one
form
and
a
commercial
on
a
separate
form.
They
combine
everything
together.
E
But
if
you
look
at
the
gpi
in
the
test,
we
are
about
a
hundred
thousand,
almost
a
hundred
thousand
less
than
what
they
reported
for
2020..
Our
egi
is
just
shy
of
what
twenty
five
thousand.
E
E
E
C
E
Off
the
rent
rate
alone,
the
gross
potential
for
retail
is
for
is
190
000
they're
reporting
about
47
200,
less
than
what
the
gross
potential
actually
is
in
the
ind
statement,
so
that
142
has
to
be
net
of
any
vacancy
or
rent
loss
in
the
first
place,
so
on
their
performance,
taking
142
694,
which
is
actual
net
number
and
then
still
applying
the
four
percent
basis.
To
that,
we
don't
believe,
that's
appropriate,
because
they're
already
factoring
in
any
kind
of
rent
loss
for
that
property,
that
retail
space.
E
A
G
For
the
appellant
yeah,
if
you
don't
mind
sharing-
or
maybe
you
want
to
just
kind
of
generalize,
but
what
kind
of
term
is
left
on
that
retail.
D
C
I
could
tell
you
that
chris
sent
us
an
email
and
he
asked
if
the
drop
of
revenue
was
rented
and
we
responded.
No,
it's
an
abatement
and
here's
the
amendment
to
the
lease
which
we
sent
him
on
7
15.,
the
lease
was
greg.
I
mean
I'm
reading
your
text,
why
you
just
tell
them
what
happened.
D
D
Yeah
they
reached
out
to
us
and
said
they're,
not
we're
not
paying
rent.
None
of
our
none
of
our
locations
are
paying
it's
like.
It's
190
matches
warehouse
stores,
we're
not
paying
around.
C
C
If
we
sent
that
we
sent
that
abatement
to
chris
on
7
15
after
he
requested
it,
okay.
G
E
From
a
apartment
standpoint
I
mean
we
really
don't
break
it
up
much
like
that.
We
look
at
proximity
to
metro.
We
don't
really
stratify
it
too
much
as
far
as
what
we
apply
from
terms
of
market
guidelines
by
market
it's
in
the
rv
corridor.
That's
what
we
look
good,
okay,.
E
Thank
you
again,
just
looking
through
the
packet,
I
don't
email
correspondence.
So
from
my
information
that
I
have
there's
no
discussion
about
the
rent
abatement.
E
E
E
Again,
the
ind
is
reporting
net
income,
they're
reporting
what
they
actually
received
so
they're,
already
discounting
any
rent
loss
or
vacancy
assumptions,
so
in
the
pro
forma
to
take
the
142
and
then
apply
to
four
percent
is
inappropriate
because
it's
already
been
deducted
and
what
they
reported.
E
B
Yeah,
as
jeremy
previously
just
stated,
I
was
in
discussions
with
chris.
He
had
asked
back
on
on
the
7th
or
the
7th.
What
was
the?
What
was
the
drop
in
revenue
of
17
and
a
half
percent
in
2020?
Was
it
rent,
deferrals
or
abatements,
and
we
responded
on
the
15th
with
the
actual
second
amendment
clause?
B
For
that
particularly
stated,
it
was
for
the
abatements
and
for
three
months
but
again
when
you,
when
we
submitted
this
most
recent
2020
income
for
the
commercial
portion
of
this
assessment,
it's
140
000
and
upon
learning
that
they,
the
county,
increased
their
their
income
from
you
know
the
183
egi
to
the
202
000
that
you
see
now.
B
So
that's
again,
one
of
the
big
differences
here
and
I
think
we
were
able
to
supply
that
information
in
a
timely
manner
to
chris
and
again
with
regard
to
just
the
the
total
revenue
and
and
income
for
this
properties
has
been
a
fairly
stable
property.
But
we
don't
think,
there's
been
given
enough
consideration
for
the
instability
of
the
property
and
what
you're
going
to
see
moving
forward
with
the
return
in
terms
of
you
know,
regardless
of
if
vacancy
looks
like
it's
it's
it's
stabilized
it
doesn't.
J
I
just
wanted
to
address
being
a
commercial
realtor,
it
just
stuck
with
me
the
discussion
of
retail
and
I'm
sure
it
went
down
big
player
like
that.
They
just
didn't
pay.
They
didn't
work,
they
weren't
open.
The
numbers
reported,
are,
I'm
sure,
accurate,
but
so
going
to
2019.
J
It
seems
to
me
that
the
department's
assessment
of
190
000
is
too
much
because
in
2019
it
was
171
and
then,
if
you
escalate
it
for
the
next
two
years,
2020
2021
by
probably
two
and
a
half
percent.
I
guess
I
could
have
asked
the
appellant,
but
it
doesn't
matter
standard
is
three,
but
a
heavy
hitter
like
this
is
probably
less
than
that.
The
the
170
171
000
becomes
about
181
000
for
2021,
but
there's
only
one
retail
space
they're
getting
a
four
percent
reduction,
so
it
for
vacancy
and
collection.
J
J
The
expenses
went
down
and
I
wasn't
quite
sure
why
that
would
be
because
the
vacancy,
although
collections,
might
be
down
the
amount
of
people
using
elevators
and
common
area
and
all
that
stuff
that
creates
these
expenses
had
really
changed
much.
So
I
in
in
the
back
of
my
mind,
is
saying-
and
I
was
saying
why
then
from
the
original
assessment
did
the
percentage
go
down
as
well
as,
of
course
the
income?
J
A
Right,
I
I
we'll
jump
in
I
mean
I
don't.
I
know
we
don't
like
to
jump
around
from
column
to
comma,
but
you
know
when
I
look
at
this
initially,
you
know
when
I
look
at
you
know
2017-1819.
Actually,
the
original
assessment
was
right
on
on
par
with
those
years.
A
Then
having
received
the
operating,
you
know,
income
information
for
2020.
The
revision
did
go
down.
Yes,
it's
it's
ironic
that
the
you
know
the
retail
went
up.
The
apartments
went
down,
you
know,
but
I
look
at
this.
I
don't
have
as
much
angst
on
this
as
I
did
on
the
previous
case.
I
look
at
the
difference.
You
know
it's
within
30
000
of
what
was
reported.
So
I
I
I'm
fine
with
the
revision
on
this
one.
I
don't.
F
A
B
G
H
Yeah
I
did
the
same
on
this
and
I
even
went
further
to.
I
did
three
separate
tests
in
different
ways
to
be
honest,
but
the
difference
that
it
comes
up
with
is
very
minimum
minimal
to
really
make
any
further
changes.
So
I'm,
okay
with
the
revised.
A
A
Okay,
all
right.
The
third
case
on
the
agenda
is
economic
unit
2900102a.
Mr
warren
has
asked
for
that
to
be
withdrawn
late
yesterday,
I
assume
there's
no
objection
from
the
county.
A
C
Before
we
start
that,
can
I
just
get
clarification
on
the
last
withdrawal
that
will
that
will
revert
the
assessment
to
the
revised
number?
Is
that
correct,
or
is
that
something
that
has
to
be
voted
on?
Because
the
revised
is
lower?
We
were.
We
were
at
the
position
to
accept
the
revised
number
on
the
last
case,
so
we're
in
agreement
with
the.
C
C
So
do
we
need
to
okay,
but
now
we
had
this
happen
before
now
that
the
board
has
commented
on
this.
We
had
one
of
those
where
we
accepted,
but
it
said
it
can't
be.
You
can't
override
the
board's
decision.
So
could
we
actually
have
that
previous
case?
We
don't
want
to
withdraw
we're.
Just
agreeing
we're
agreeing
with
the
county.
B
A
A
A
Okay,
so
I
will
move
to
accept
the
county's
revised
number
of
41
million
427,
even
for
this
economic
unit.
Do
I
have
a
second,
mr
lawson,
all
in
favor
of
accepting
that
all.
I
A
Okay,
so
it's
six
to
zero.
The
county's
revised
number
of
41
million
427
has
been
confirmed.
A
Okay,
the
again
the
fourth
and
final
case
is
rpc1401405a,
is
an
apple
on
north
stafford
street.
Mr
warren,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
B
Thank
you.
Our
summary
facts
can
be
found
on
page
101
of
181
for
this
property.
This
is
the
richmond
square
apartments
located
at
900
north
randolph
street.
It
is
comprised
of
five
tax
parcels
and
economic
one
economic
unit,
one
four
zero
one:
four
zero
five,
a
the
current
assessment
for
2021
was
127
million.
Nine
hundred
and
thirty
thousand
the
board
is
recommending
a
value.
B
Excuse
me,
the
county
is,
is
recommending
a
revised
value
to
the
board
of
124
million
six
hundred
and
eighty
thousand
three
hundred
the
requested
value
we
are
requesting
is
a
hundred
twelve
thousand
three
hundred
and
twenty
thousand
nine
hundred,
which
is
three
hundred
and
twelve
thousand
a
unit.
This
is
a
high-rise
mixed-use
department,
it's
located
in
the
ballston
virginia
square
submarket,
it's
19
stories
high
and
offers
a
mix
of
one
two
and
a
two
bedroom
units
as
well
as
street
level.
Retail.
B
B
B
Gross
potential
income
reported
dating
back
to
2017
was
9
million
839
000
that
increased
to
9
million
897
000
for
18
up
to
10
million
319
000
for
919
and
total
of
of
10
million
379
996.
B
So
it
rate
even
the
gross
potential
income
is
maintained.
It
stayed
relatively
flat
now
with
regard
again
to
the
vacancy.
What
you've
seen
is
in
prior
years,
dating
back
to
2017,
again
very
relatively
stable
vacancy
and
concessions
at
five
percent
for
from
basically
from
2017
to
2019
and
you've
seen
that
increase
vacancy
increased,
basically
from
three
percent
to
nine
percent
from
2019
to
2020
and
total
vacancy
and
collections
up
to
10.75
percent.
B
So
you've
seen
the
the
effective
gross
income
decrease
pretty
substantially
from
9.9
8
million
in
2019
to
9
million
263
000
908.
Now
in
the
county's
revised
test
column
that
you'll
find
on
the
columns,
f1
and
f2
they're
still
well
above
the
gross
potential.
B
Excuse
me,
the
the
effective
gross
income
for
this
property
of
you
know:
proc
they're,
approximately
at
nine
and
a
half
million
dollars,
nine
million
five
hundred
fifty
five
thousand
dollars
approximately
so
they're
still
well
above
250
thousand
dollars
above
the
effective
gross
income
for
this
property
that
was
reported
in
2020
prior
to
cobin
or
during
covet,
and
the
same
with
regard
to
the
operating
expenses.
The
county's
initial
estimate
used
a
combined
operating
expenses
of
28
for
both
the
retail
and
apartment
portions.
B
The
actual
operating
expenses
were
30,
almost
30
and
a
half
percent,
and
in
their
test
column
the
county
revised
that
upwards
slightly
to
29.78.
So
not
quite
there
again,
operating
expenses
have
been
fairly
stabilized
over
the
course,
the
last
four
years:
28
and
17,
29
and
18
and
28
again
in
2019.
B
again,
when
you
look
at
the
prior
one
and
and
looking
at
the
county's
test
column
and
it
being
fairly
aligned
with
regard
to
the
most
recent
reporting
year.
This
is
one
that
doesn't
quite
match
up
to
that.
B
You
look
at
the
the
final
noi
for
reported
for
2020,
which
is
six
million
four
hundred
and
forty
five
thousand,
which
again
is
down
from
seven
million
two
hundred
and
thirty,
eight
thousand
six,
seventeen
from
the
prior
year
you'll
see
the
county's,
revised
column
and
f1
and
f2
when
you
combine
both
the
commercial
and
the
part
portions,
the
revised
noise,
six
million
six
hundred
ninety
eight
thousand
seven
twenty
eight,
so
we're
approximately
still
two
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
dollars
above
in
the
test
column
after
they,
they
received
the
2020
financials
for
this
property.
B
So
that's
the
again
the
main
difference,
there's
a
there's,
a
large
gap
here
and
and
again
as
we've
talked
about.
Historically,
this
has
been
a
a
very
stabilized
property
and
if
2020
had
been
a
a
normal
year,
you
know,
I
think,
maybe
that
revised
test
column
would
be
supported.
However,
as
you've
seen,
the
the
substantial
decrease
in
total
revenue
total
noi
from
the
prior
year,
as
well
as
what
greg
has
has
previously
testified
to
with
regards
to
vacancy
and
total
revenue
what
they
expect
in
the
coming
years.
B
The
trend
that
we're
going
to
see
that's
been
caused
by
covet.
I
think
their
their
test
column
is
a
little
aggressive
jeremy.
I
don't
know
if
there's
anything
else,
you'd
like
to
add.
C
There
is,
then,
I
want
to
kick
it
to
greg
for
a
second,
but
17
and
18
are
very
stable,
there's
a
large
bump
in
19,
and
then
it
came
back
down
to
earth
and
20,
and
it
seems
like
that
19
is
being
given
as
much
weight
as
20
is.
The
the
big
issue
here
is
that
vacancy
collection
losses
are
up,
and
we
all
know
that
we
all
know
that
covet
had
impacts
but
greg.
If
you
could
speak
to
the
specifics
of
why?
D
Yeah
I
mean
this
property,
you
know
it's
got
a
it's
got,
360
units.
So
it's
you
know
it's
it's
a
fairly
large
property,
but
the
you
know
the
it's
in
a
space
in
between
as
a
lot
of
our
properties
are
the
you
know,
the
waycroft,
the
origin
jsol
a
lot
of
the
lease
ups
that
were
going
on
last
year,
all
these
deliveries
and
what
happened
was
covet.
D
So
there
was
a
massive
amount
of
move
outs
and
then,
as
we
spoke
to
earlier
for
me
to
get
any
kind
of
occupancy,
the
waycroft
was
offering
three
months
off
plus
free
parking
for
a
year.
Jason
was
offering
three
months
off
free
parker
for
a
year,
750
move-in
credit,
a
designer
credit
of
1500,
and
we
added
all
up.
D
The
value
that
we
had
to
provide
for
a
prospect
was
significant,
so
again,
you're
talking
units
that
might
have
been
in
the
1800
to
2100
range
for
one
bedroom
at
14.95,
with
concessions
and
so
rent
lost
concessions
and
vacancy
at
this
property,
specifically
one
of
the
hardest
hit
we
had
so
I
could
keep
going
about
the
competition
and
how
it
affects
all
these
properties.
But
this
one
specifically
was
very,
very
tough.
C
The
key
is
that
that's
the
new
normal,
so
what
happened
in
19
isn't
really
relevant
anymore
because
of
not
just
covet,
but
also
because
of
that
direct
competition
around
this
property.
So
it's
it's
not
just
a
look
everybody's
stuck
with
kovit.
It's
there's
a
new
normal
in
this
in
this
area
and
it's
immediate
sub
market
and
it's
a
media
sub
market
for
that
price.
Point
that
they
were
getting
in
2019
now
gets
you
so
much
more
and
that's
the
key,
and
we
can't
just
say
well,
but
you
got
that
in
19.
So
that's
all!
C
That's
that's!
What's
driving
this
and
that's
basically
what
the
assessor's
done
in
the
test
column.
There's
they're
saying
that
the
income
here
is
6.7
million
dollars
and
the
income
was
6.4
million
dollars,
and
next
year
it's
going
to
be
below
6.4
million
dollars,
we're
not
getting
back
to
7-2,
just
because
we
were
there
two
years
ago,
unless
something
catastrophic
happens
to
those
four
other
properties
and
kobe
disappears
tomorrow.
C
So,
but
that's
all
that
I
have
like
did
you
have
one
more
thing?
E
Yes,
ma'am,
thank
you.
So
when
we
value
this
property,
we
took
the
same
approach
that
we
normally
take
when
we
value
any
other
apartment
property.
We
look
at
the
three-year
history,
so
in
the
original
assessment,
yes,
we
did
look
at
2017,
18
and
19,
but,
as
you
can
see,
our
gpi
was
well
below
what
was
achieved
in
2019.
E
E
When
you
look
at
the
test
again,
our
we
made
some
revisions
to
the
apartment.
Rent
based
off
information
received
the
apartment
revenue
that
was
projected
for
the
original
assessment
was
reduced
by
about
twenty
thousand
dollars
based
off
the
information
that
mr
cheek
has
received.
E
The
combined
egi
is
reduced
slightly
based
off
this
information.
After
we
applied
our
five
percent
vacancy
to
the
apartment
and
forbes
invasive
to
the
commercial
component,
expenses
were
increased.
The
expenses
that
we
used
on
a
dollar
basis
is
much
higher
than
what
they've
achieved
in
the
last
four
years,
so
we're
not
focused
solely
on
the
percentage
expense
percentage.
We're
looking
at
the
actual
dollar
amount,
we're
at
2.8
million
or
a
little
bit
higher,
so
that's
higher
in
2020
higher
than
2019
higher
2018
and
higher
than
2017..
E
E
E
To
the
case
I
mean
we
could
talk
about
the
rent,
the
retail
rent,
that
they're
reporting
compared
to
what
they
actually
have
on
the
rent
roll,
which
was
provided
to
mr
chicas
via
email.
On
page
seven,
but
I
think
the
reduction
that
we're
proposing
is
a
reasonable
reduction,
and
that's
all
I
have
thank
you.
J
This
is
a
question
for
the
appellant
I
heard,
and
it
makes
sense
that
rents
went
down
in
2020
per
month
and
you
also
include
some
concessions
in
terms
of
renovations,
but
I
look
at
column
e
and
compare
it
to
a
b
and
c
and
it
looks
like
you
were,
you
know
modestly
healthy
up
over
one
percent.
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
comment
on
your
statement
that
things
were
way
off,
but
yet
the
bottom
line
is,
you
need
to
get
better
than
historically.
C
I'll,
let
me
start
on
that.
So
there's
two
ways
to
look
at
how
you
want
to
report
your
rents.
You
could
say
that
my
rents
are
two
thousand
dollars
a
month
and
I'm
getting
six
free
months,
giving
six
months
away
or
or
you
could
say
my
rents-
are
a
thousand
dollars
and
I'm
not
giving
any
rents
away.
If
you
do
the
first
option,
the
county
will
say:
okay,
your
rents
are
two
thousand
dollars,
but
everybody
gets
five
percent,
so
everybody
gets
five
percent
use
the
section.
C
The
second
option,
the
county
say:
okay,
it's
a
thousand
dollars.
Everybody
gets
five
percent.
So
the
number
that
really
is
the
most
important
here
isn't
the
gross
potential
number,
which
is
potential.
It's
if
things
change
it's
the
effective
gross
which
is
dollars
in
pocket,
so
our
dollars
in
pocket
went
from
nine
nine
to
nine
two.
C
So
that's
the
big
number.
The
big
number
is
the
egi
column,
which
is
how
much
money
did
I
actually
get
at
the
end
of
the
day?
First,
how
much
money?
If
everything
went
right
in
a
perfect
world,
could
I
potentially
get
and
those
are
the
differences
between
those
numbers?
I
don't
know
greg
or
so,
if
you
want
to
add
on
to
that,
but
basically
gpi
is
an
accounting
function
and
egi
is
dollars
in
the
bank.
D
D
H
D
On
you
guys
but
yeah,
I
will
say
that
that
property,
that
the
20
20
20
21
trend,
unfortunately
2019,
is
an
outlier
like
that.
Those
days
aren't
coming
back
this
property,
and
I
mean
I,
I
know
all
these
are
recorded.
So
we
just
play
this
back
next
year.
It
will
be
worse
next
year.
I
I
E
To
be
honest,
we
know
that
more
units
are
coming
online,
but
we
can't
really
project
how
they'll
impact
the
rest
of
the
existing
units
for
one
a
lot
of
them
aren't
completed
until
mid-year.
So
some
of
these
newer
properties
that
he's
referring
to
I
mean
we
go
out
and
expect
these
properties
throughout
the
year.
E
A
lot
of
them
were
valued
as
not
substantially
complete
but
partially
complete,
because
they're
still
under
construction,
so
without
being
able
to
predict
when
these
properties
will
come
online,
I
mean
we
can't
put
a
whole
lot
of
weight
on
how
many
units
are
going
to
come
to
the
market
during
2021.
E
We
also
can't
predict
you
know
how
many
people
are
moving
into
the
county
to
take
up
those
new
units
that
are
coming
online.
It's
a
assumption
that
only
people
that
lives
in
the
county
are
gonna.
Look
at
these
new
units.
When
that's
not
correct,
I
mean
people
moving
into
arlington
are
also
looking
at
these
units.
So
it's
not
necessarily
we
lose
one
because
they
got
one
type
situation,
how
they're
paying
it
out
to
be,
and
that's
the
best
way.
I
can
explain
it.
Sorry.
I
I
E
Okay,
so,
as
the
board
knows,
and
the
appellant
knows,
when
you
do
assessments
on
properties,
you
look
at
potential
gross
income.
So
that's
why
the
gpi
or
pgi
is
important,
because
once
you
have
that
number,
you
also
apply
the
vacancy
rate
to
that
and
the
vacancy
collection
rate
is
derived
off
of
the
potential
gross
income
number.
So
let
me
just
put
that
out
there,
because
there
was
some
discussion
about
how
to
report
these
numbers.
When
you
look
at
this
history,
I
mean
the
original
assessment.
E
The
test
sheet
is
less
than
what
they
reported
gpi
standpoint
19
in
2020.
E
Yes,
there
was
a
spike
in
2020
in
the
vacancy,
but
if
you
look
at
the
three
year
history
before
2020,
our
numbers
on
the
original
assessment
and
even
on
the
test
are
in
line,
we
don't
take
2020
and
just
apply
cap
rate
to
it
I
mean
that's,
not
the
assessment
process,
so
the
test
or
the
proposed
revision.
I
mean
it's
in
line
with
the
history
of
this
property
and
we
believe
that
the
revised
value
should
be
what
we're
proposing
to
124
680
300..
C
I'm,
mr
olivia,
you
don't
mind
mr
chipmunk,
okay,
the
obviously
coveted
had
a
major
impact
on
this
property.
The
the
three
year
average
is.
The
owner's
testified
is
completely
irrelevant
in
this,
because
the
market
has
changed
dramatically
when
this
property
was
one
of
the
better
properties
in
it
is
now
it
dropped
down
and
almost
a
full
class,
because
there's
so
much
more
for
the
prices,
they
were
charging
so
to
use
19.
But
the
fact
is:
19
was
the
anomaly.
C
If
you
look
at
the
four
year
history
that
19
was
some
a
year,
that's
not
coming
back
the
the
fact
that
last
year
we
you
can't
consider
co
bid
and
then
this
year
say
well,
we
see
covet,
but
the
three
year
average
there's
no
three
year
average
with
coped.
C
We
can't
average
how
many
cases
how
many
coveted
cases
there
have
been
in
the
last
three
years,
because
that's
not
going
to
give
a
true
picture
where
we
are
today
the
same
thing
in
this
apartment
building,
plus
those
new
buildings,
any
investor
on
a
valuation
date
is
going
to
say,
there's
five
new
buildings
directly
around
this
one.
That's
offering
this.
This
is
what
I
can
get
and
that's
what
we
have
to
do
in
the
county,
basically
playing
naive,
saying:
well,
we
didn't
know
the
true
impact
of
it,
so
we
couldn't
consider
it.
C
C
As
of
today
we
knew
things
are
worse
and
as
of
last
year,
we
knew
things
were
worse
so
20
next
year,
2020
is
going
to
be
the
better
of
the
two
years,
but
we
don't
need
next
year
to
see
that
we
can
look
at
the
2020
right
now
and
determine
that.
That's
a
good
good
figure
to
use
consistent
with
how
the
first
case
went.
Okay,.
G
I'm
looking
at
this
building
just
kind
of
like
the
first
case
for
today
where,
where
I
would
I
would,
I
would
look
at
the
2020
numbers
and
and
cap
that,
and
you
know,
come
up
around
120
million
use
that
for
the
year
and
see
how
things
go.
F
Yes
ma'am,
however,
you
can't
cap
the
operating
year
because
it's
not
broken
down,
and
so
what
I
did
greg
is.
I
took
the
the
apartments
and
I
added
back
the
hundred
thousand,
and
then
I
did
that
cap
and
ended
up
120
0
1
1
400,
because
I
think
I
think
just
like
you.
I
think
this
is
exactly
the
same
as
the
first
case,
and
the
county
did
a
great
job,
but
still
didn't
quite
go
far.
Enough
is
my
opinion.
A
Mr
yates,
wait.
I'm
sorry
can
I
just
back
up,
though
I
just
want
to
clarify
mr
lawson,
so
you
got
the
120,
oh
11
400,
and
then
you
added
the
1.4423.
F
No,
what
I
did
is,
I
took
the
g1
column
and
I
added
back
to
that
100
000.
and
then
I
applied
the
counter.
A
I
Unlike
the
first
case,
which
I
think
this
has
a
lot
more
merit
because
of
the
volume
of
new
units
coming
into
the
market
that
I
don't
think
was
accounted
for
and
I'm
sorry,
I
didn't
ask
exactly
how
many
units
that
was.
That's
now
entered
the
market
and
changed
those
dynamics,
but
I
I
I
think,
we're
on
the
right
direction
and
mary
I'm
interested
in
what
your
numbers
came
out.
A
Yeah,
my
mine
is
just
slightly
higher.
What
I
did
is
I
I
was
working
off
of
the
f1
and
f2
the
county's
revised
numbers,
and
I
actually
took
because
the
difference
between
those
combined
numbers
and
the
actual
it's,
I
think
the
appellant
said
it
was
like
252
000.
I
reduced
the
apartments
by
200
000
and
ended
up
at
like
six
three
and
change
and
then
capped
it
out,
and
when
I
added
back
the
retail
I
end
up
at
120
942,
even.
I
A
A
Well,
I
I
I
knew
you
would
be
the
one
that
would
say
where
to
me.
I
don't
care
where
it
comes
from,
I
mean
you
can
reduce
the
effective
gross
income.
You
can
reduce,
I'm
not
going
to
say
to
add
it
to
expenses,
but
to
me
the
bottom
line
is
the
bottom
line
and
that's
my
test
when
I
look
at
that
and
I
think
the
combined
not
looking
at
the
historical
and
certainly
not
looking
at
2019,
I've
got
the
original
assessment.
The
combined
noi
is
6.8,
the
actual
6.4
and
the
test
went
to
6.6.
A
A
I
guess
I
could
say
I
you
know
I'll
reduce
the
gpi
by
200
000.,
so
you
know
it
trickles
down.
But
to
me
you
know
whether
you
take
it
as
a
combination.
Off
of
you
know,
parking
other
rubs.
It
doesn't
matter
to
me.
I
just
thought
the
test
was
still
too
high.
That
was
so.
It
might
be
arbitrary,
but
go
ahead.
Mr
mats,
can
you.
J
Yeah
I'm
following
it
and-
and
I
like
mary's
analysis,
because
although
we
can't
pick
a
precise
number
and
defend
it,
we
can
look
at
the
overall
numbers
and
it
seems
to
me
that
the
the
gpi
or
egi
either
one
are
too
low
and
are
too
high
and
ought
to
be
reduced.
And
you
know
is
it
190,
000
or
210
000.
I
don't
know,
but
the
the.
J
Women
just
want
to
get
the
right
nomenclature.
The
the
vacancy
collections
were
extraordinary
for
a
quality
building
for
2020,
and
I
don't
think
that
we
should
just
wholesale
take
it.
I
certainly
support
the
guideline
from
the
county,
but
to
offset
that
big,
big
difference
between
the
guideline
and
the
actuals
in
2020,
I
think
the
income
ought
to
to
be
reduced.
I
wouldn't
take
it
from
parking.
The
same
amount
of
people
are
there,
it's
just
that
they're
paying
less
rent
right.
So
I
I
would
support
either
of
your
two
conclusions.
F
Yes,
I
I
like
mary's,
better
too,
I
experimented
with
about-
I
don't
know
five
different
ways
and,
having
listened
to
you,
madam
chairman,
I
think
your
analysis
using
the
county's
setup
is
probably
better
than
my
own.
So
I'll
I'll
go
with
with
your
figure.
A
All
right,
then,
I
will
move
to
reduce
to
120
million
942,
even
and
that
is
based
on
the
county's
test
column,
leaving
the
retail
alone
and
on
the
apartments
reducing
the
gpi
by
200
000,
and
so
that
portion
would
end
up
at
119,
499
7.
A
Join
a
second
okay
motion,
a
second
by
mr
hoffman,
all
in
favor
aye
opposed
okay.
So
it
is
five
to
one
without
mr
panoranda,
okay,
so
that
is.
E
What
was
the
no,
I
didn't
sorry,
commercial.
E
A
All
right
so,
and
that
was
six
to
one
okay,
so
that
completes
the
agenda.
I
just
want
to
ask
before
we
lose
the
mr
warren
and
mr
shitley
so
on
the
withdrawal
that
you've
asked
for
for
tomorrow.
Is
that
a
withdrawal
or
do
you
want
to
accept.
A
A
You
both
okay,
so
then,
just
for
the
rest
of
the
board
members
for
tomorrow
one
I
would
suggest
that
you
print
the
grids
out
because
they're
all
in
the
packages
sideways,
you
know
and
you'll
be
trying
to
read
them
on
your
computers,
but
both
the
first
case
from
mr
kinney
has
withdrawn
and
then
the
first
case,
which
is
number
two
on
the
agenda
for
mr
warren,
is
withdrawn.
So
we'll
just
have
items
three
and
four
on
the
agenda
for
tomorrow.