►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - June 22, 2022
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
Today
is
wednesday
june
22nd
2022.
This
is
the
arlington
county,
virginia
board
of
equalization
hearings.
There
are
five
cases
on
the
agenda.
We're
going
to
start
with
the
fifth
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
rpc
one:
seven:
zero,
zero,
five,
zero,
two
zero:
the
property
is
located
at
1550,
wilson
boulevard.
The
appellant
has
asked
to
withdraw
within
the
10
days
and
there
is
no
objection
from
the
county.
A
A
Five
to
zero.
That
case
has
been
withdrawn
from
the
docket
okay.
Moving
back
to
the
remaining
items,
the
first
and
I
believe,
we've
got
there.
We
go
miss
ruskin
rpc35005031,
the
property
is
located
at
1101,
joy
street
and
mr
ross
lincoln
house
is
here,
and
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
Sir.
Thank.
B
You
chair
julie,
so
we
submitted
some
information
to
the
board,
which
I
hope
you
have
in
your
possession
at
the
time
of
filing
a
little
bit
complicated
here,
although
probably
not
unique,
in
the
sense
that
we
submitted
this
information
before
I
think,
lori
had
had
a
chance
to
fully
dive
into
the
first
level
appeal,
which
is
completely
understandable,
given
the
volume
of
appeals
that
they're
dealing
with,
we
did
have
some
discussions
and
laurie
had
offered
some
suggested
revisions,
which
we
do
appreciate
and
lori
is
always
very
thorough
in
her
research,
and
there
were
just
a
couple
areas
where
we
felt
we
could
not
come
to
terms
in
terms
of
the
overall
valuation,
which
is
why
we
decided
to
continue
our
board
appeal.
B
But
the
subject
of
this
appeal
is
the
property
formerly
known
as
pentagon
row
recently
rebranded
as
west
post
as
the
I'm
sure.
The
board
is
intimately
aware
from
past
years
of
review.
This
is
part
of
a
larger
mixed
use,
development,
the
apartments
which
I
believe
are
still
owned
by
post
and
then
the
retail
portion,
which
is
owned
by
federal
realty.
This
is
focused
exclusively
on
the
commercial
retail
component
of
the
property,
on
the
information
that
we
provided.
B
We've
got
some
property
data
and
a
review
of
the
issues
of
appeal,
and
I
want
to
distill
this
down
into
basically
two
major
points
and
and
addressing
this
in
the
context
of
of
a
suggested,
revised
valuation
which
I
assume
lori
will
still
present
on,
but
maybe
not,
but
the
gist
of
where
we
ended
up
is
that
our
gross
potential
rental
income
for
this
property
over
the
past
years,
as
well
as
the
net
operating
income,
have
come
in
significantly
below
the
actual
values
and
numbers
that
have
been
used
by
by
the
county.
B
In
particular,
our
gross
potential
income
for
this
valuation
was
12
and
a
half
million
dollars
versus
the
county's
revised
13.8
and
our
reported
net
operating
income
over
the
years
was
last
year
year
in
2021,
8.4
million
and
then
the
year
before
7.9.
Obviously,
a
lot
of
that
is
is
covered
driven.
B
B
There
were
a
significant
seven
figures
worth
of
concessions
that
have
been
offered
and
continue
to
be
offered
over
the
last
couple
of
years
to
keep
tenants
in
place
and
then
two
which
I
would
say,
is
probably
the
more
objective
in
our
mind
or
in
my
mind,
in
terms
of
evaluation
that
is
related
to
the
overall
vacancy.
B
The
the
county
is
using
a
five
percent
vacancy
in
their
model
we
used
seven.
The
reality
of
the
situation
is
that
both
physical
and
economic
vacancy
exceed
even
the
seven
percent
and
within
the
county's
guidelines
it
permits
a
valuation
for
retail
and
mixed
use,
meaning
office
and
retail
they're,
even
above
the
seven
percent.
I
believe
in
the
guidelines
for
retail
commercial
vacancy
assumptions
can
reach
as
high
as
13
percent
for
neighborhood
centers
16
percent.
B
This
retail
property
has
a
significant
office
component,
and
this
takes
me
back
to
the
two
main
issues
here:
the
concessions
as
well
as
the
overall
vacancy
one
of
the
major
sticking
points
for
us
in
terms
of
achieving
what
we
think
is
a
mutually
acceptable
resolution
of
the
value
is
the
fact
that
the
signature
office
tenant
here
fleer,
that's
flir,
vacated
the
property
in
2021,
leaving
a
significant
hole
in
the
rent
roll,
and
it's
going
to
be
very
difficult
and
challenging
to
lease
up
in
this
environment.
B
B
So
we
have
a
discrepancy
in
noi
discrepancy
and
gross
income,
but
when
you
really
get
down
to
it,
the
two
main
differences
are
the
concessions
that
were
offered
and
the
and
the
actual
vacancy
at
the
property,
and
so
that's
really
where
the
differences
lie
today,
we're
aligned
on
the
capitalization
rate,
I
think
we're
aligned
pretty
closely
on
the
expenses.
B
I
think
we're
slightly
higher
but
won't
nitpick
that,
given
the
stabilized
nature
of
the
property,
so
it
really
comes
down
to
actual
vacancy
and
actual
concessions,
and
these
are
very
real
problems
for
the
property.
B
And
so
we
would
ask
that
the
board
would
please
consider
the
fact
that
you
know
we
are
asking
for
a
slightly
higher
vacancy
on
a
stabilized
number,
which
frankly,
is
less
than
the
actual
vacancy
achieved
and
again
the
fact
that
we
have
you
know
a
30,
000
plus
square
foot
office
tenant,
which
is
really
a
challenging
two-floor
office
space
that
was
converted
for
retail,
that
vacated
mid
to
late
21..
B
That's
going
to
be
a
very,
very
significant
challenge,
and
certainly
going
to
impact
the
valuation
of
the
property
as
of
january
1st
2022,
and
then
to
summarize
the
value
that
we
are
the
value
that
we
were
requesting
at
this
time.
For
the
board's
consideration
is
approximately
115
million
dollars
versus
the
proposed
assessment,
which
was
a
hundred
and
roughly
157,
and
then
the
revised,
or
at
least
offered
prior
to
the
board
hearing
of
approximately
139.
B
So
it's
about
a
24
million
dollar
delta.
But
again,
given
the
vacancy,
the
concessions
and
the
pressure
on
leasing
and
the
fact
that
we've
lost
income
due
to
those
concessions
and
the
fact
that
some
of
our
anchor
tenants
have
converted
to
percentage
rent,
we
feel
that
it's
a
necessary
adjustment
and
our
requested
value
equates
approximately
388
dollars
per
square
foot
which,
for
a
mixed
office,
retail
property
like
this,
we
feel
is,
is
fair
and
relevant
in
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
market.
C
I
want
to
bring
your
attention
first
before
I
dive
into
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
this
particular
property.
I
want
to
remind
you,
if
you
see
any
gray,
shading
okay,
you
see
look
in
column
f,
where
you
see
the
gray
shading
over
the
base
rent
and
then
you
see
off
to
the
side
gray
shading
over
the
vacancy.
It
says
five
percent
face
and
thirty
four
percent
base.
I
just
wanna
remind
those
who
did
not
hear
it
or
those
who
did
and
those
who
may
not
have
heard
it.
C
We
changed
the
way
we
applied
the
vacancy
and
expenses
this
year.
When
I
developed
the
guidelines
in
years
past,
the
vacancy
was
als,
always
developed
off,
of
the
gpi.
C
Instead,
this
year,
it's
being
developed
off
of
the
base
rent
strictly
the
base
rent,
and
that's
why
you
saw
a
substantial
increase
across
the
board
for
vacancy,
and
I
did
the
same
thing
also
with
expenses.
So
I
am
not
applying
expenses
or
vacancy
to
parking
miscellaneous
percentage
pass
through
our
other.
We
actually
we
use
the
actual
for
those
okay
and
then
we
apply
vacancy
and
expenses
to
the
base
rent.
Okay.
Enough
of
that,
I
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
what
that
gray.
C
Shading
refers
to
okay,
looking
at
column
f,
so
when
we
applied
the
five
percent
vacancy.
First
of
all,
the
on
the
comments
below
you'll
note
that
I
I
noticed
that
the
retail
is
4.75
percent
vacant
the
office,
even
though
nobody
is
in
that
office
space.
C
Now
that
is
something
we'll
deal
with
for
next
year,
2023,
but
as
of
january
1,
2022
flear
is
paid
up
to
date
for
the
entire
year
on
their
rent.
So
we
do
not
consider
it
vacant.
Okay.
So
looking
at
the
vacancy,
though,
when
I
looked
at
the
concessions,
I
I
took
a
look
at
all
the
abatements
that
the
owner
was
offering
the
some
of
the
tenants
so
because
we
don't
do
below
the
line
adjustments
here.
C
What
I
can
do
is
lower
the
rent
and
I'm
still
using
the
stabilized
vacancy
of
five
percent,
but
I
did
go
up
and
I
lowered
the
retail
rent
by
3.62
cents,
a
square
foot
only
to
the
retail
net
lisa
blue
area,
not
the
office,
and
you
and
you'll
see
those
notes
in
the
bottom
of
the
comments
here.
C
The
average
retail
rent
is
stated
down
below,
I'm
not
going
to
say
what
it
is,
but
I
did
discount
it
by
three
dollars
and
62
cents
and
that
shows
in
the
gray
shaded
area
when
you
go
down
the
line
and
you
take
a
look
at
column
f
and
you
compare
our
noi
to
what's
being
reported.
C
We're
lower
than
what's
being
reported,
also
make
note
that
well,
actually
that's
pretty
much
it
for
right.
Now,
I'm
open
for
any
questions.
Thank
you.
E
For
the
department
you
made
mention
because
this
was
a
question
of
mine
and
you
kind
of
answered
it
now,
I
want
to
know
what
why
you've
posed
the
answer.
No
concession
allowance
below
the
line
I
mean
is
that
that's
clearly
a
departmental
policy.
What's
that
about.
C
So
that
that's
typical
for
general,
commercial,
okay,
general
commercial,
is
a
lot
of
freestanding
smaller
properties
and
those
below-the-line
adjustments
when
you're
you're
using
ti's
the
rent
loss
the
what
is
it
the
five
year,
six
percent
concessions,
those
are
all
developed
with
big
office,
okay,
keeping
in
mind
big
office,
all
right.
C
We're
talking
large
square
footage,
there's
lots
of
data
for
that,
but
there's
very
little
data
that
is
reported
in
the
the
ines
or
elsewhere,
and
so
what
we
do,
if
you
will
for
for
a
lack
of
a
better
way
to
say
it.
The
work
around
is
instead
of
giving
below
the
line
adjustments.
Then
what
I
do
is
if
it
exceeds
the
stabilized
vacancy
that
we're
using,
then
I
can
go
up
and
I
can
adjust
the
rents,
and
so
that's
what.
E
E
C
Okay,
so
first
of
all,
I
do
include
a
rent
roll
in
the
packets
on
page
seven
and
I
developed
the
average
rent,
which
I
made
note
of
on
the
summary
page
at
the
bottom
line.
And
then
I
went
over
with
ross
through
emails
and
discussion
and
came
up
with
the
tally
of
the
abatements
that
were
given
okay.
E
Yeah
I
I
I
wanted
to
hear
the
process-
I
kind
of
guessed
at
it,
but
I'd
rather
hear
it
can.
I
have
a
follow-on
question
for
the
appellant
in
column
g.
Well,
all
the
columns
except
for
d,
which
you
know
the
department
had
to
figure
out
on
its
own,
but
everything
that
the
the
appellant
has
reported
column,
g,
miscellaneous
storage,
there's
a
a
goodly
amount
of
money
in
there
each
year,
except
for
2022
words
zero.
Can
you
explain
why
it
went
from
you
know
to
that
low
to
zero.
B
Yep,
mr
maskin,
I
admittedly
that
the
column
that
you're
referring
to
I
don't
have
that
information.
Is
that
a
is
that
a
county
document
no.
E
C
So
colony
is
your
2009
e
from
the
owner.
Column
g
is
from
the
agent
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
ross,
but
I
followed
your
pro
forma
and
that's
how
I
plugged
it
into
column
g
that
I
don't
believe
I
mean
if
I
missed
it,
I
missed
it,
but
I
don't
believe
you
included
the
that
storage
number
in
your
pro
forma.
B
Yeah
I
mean
I'm
looking
at
the
I
ine
that
was
submitted
for
year
in
21,
which
was
included
in
the
information
that
we
provided.
No
storage
income
was
reported,
4
21..
I
can
go
back
and
look
for
20
and
see
what
that
amount
was.
I
mean,
we've
got
office,
rent
retail,
rent
garage
and
then
pass
through
and
percentage
so,
but
I
don't
see
any
storage
income
that
was
reported
on.
E
That
lorry
column
excuse
me
ross.
What
ross
is
referring
to
is
what
you
have
presented
as
column
e,
that
comes
from
the
appellant,
and
there
is
a
good
number
in
there.
A
F
E
B
Ms
dooley,
can
I
just
offer
a
finer
point
on
that:
the
difference
between
the
I
and
e
information
that
was
submitted
and
I
think
the
reconciliation
that
laurie
did.
The
primary
difference
there
is
are
the
concessions
that
were
line
items
in
the
survey
and
I
think
that's
a
point
of
of
contention
for
us,
because
our
actual
noi
that
was
reported
on
the
I
e
to
the
county
for
year
in
21
was
approximately
8.4
million
and
a
lot
of
what
is
driving
that
almost
exclusively
what's
driving.
B
That,
I
think,
is
the
or
the
concessions
that
were
reported,
which
again
do
impact
the
bottom
line.
Okay,
all
right.
A
C
You
once
again
just
want
to
reiterate
that
the
five
percent
vacancy
is
taken
from
the
base
rent,
not
from
the
gpi,
the
same
thing
with
the
expenses
and
once
again
like
I
said
we
don't
do
below
the
line
adjustments,
so
I
can't
adjust
the
rent
and
that's
what
I
did
in
this
case.
C
I
I
looked
at
the
rent
roll
analysis
that
I
provided
and
determined
what
the
average
rent
was
for
the
retail
and
also
the
total
abatements
that
were
given
to
the
tenants
and
I
divided-
that
by
the
retail
network,
and
that's
how
I
came
up
with
three
3.62
discount
and
that
was
applied
to
the
retail
rent
and
just
note
that
in
column
f,
our
revised
column,
our
our
noi,
is
about
50
000,
less
than
what's
being
reported
in
column
e,
the
2021
ine,
I
am
finished.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
lipkinhouse.
If
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up,
sir.
B
Thank
you
and
I'll
address
those
in
reverse.
I
I
do
disagree
with
lori
in
terms
of
the
ine.
I
think
the
only
way
that
you
get
to
a
slightly
a
slightly
higher
noi
number
is
by
excluding
the
deductions
that
we
reported
for
concessions
and
abatements.
B
Those
are
very
real
numbers
and
we
broke
those
out
and
that's
I,
as
in
as
in
indigo
11
on
the
ine.
So
our
reported
noi
is
actually
less,
but
you
would
consider
it
more
if
you
were
to
disregard
concessions
and
abatements
that
were
offered,
which
again
are
very
real
operational
concerns
and
looking
at
the
county's
revised
analysis,
I
mean
to
boil
this
down
to
a
few
simple
changes.
B
I
mean
if,
if
you
were
to
address
the
concerns
that
we
have
around
vacancy
and
and
I
do
I
do
take
issue
with
the
fact
that
you
know,
although
flear
had
furniture
in
the
space
and
yes,
they
are
obligated
and
we're
working
on
lease
termination.
Truth
of
the
matter
is
anyone
that
buys
a
property
is
going
to
look
at
that
and
say
well.
I've
got
30
000
square
feet
of
office
space
which
there
will
be
no
income.
B
Coming
in
after
I
buy
it,
and
I'm
going
to
have
to
backfill
that,
so
that
is
that's
not
something
that
that
can
be
disregarded
even
as
of
the
january
1st
2022,
even
though
there's
the
nuance
that
they
have
furniture
and
they'll
pay
rent
for
for
the
remaining
year,
but
I
do
appreciate
lori
indicating
that
they'll
address
that
as
well
for
the
2023
valuation,
but
looking
at
the
overall
analysis
to
solve
for
all
of
this,
we
would
ask
for
a
higher
vacancy
amount
and
even
the
county's
own
guidelines
for
market
and
stabilized
vacancy
for
these
properties
are
still
even
higher
than
what
we're
using
in
our
own
analysis.
B
So
all
things
being
equal,
you
know
you
can
look
at
how
everything
ties
in
and
reconciles
from
an
income
and
expense
perspective.
But
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
vacancy
that's
being
used
in
the
county's
analysis
is
simply
not
high
enough
and
does
not
recognize
both
guideline
direction,
as
well
as
what's
actually
happening
in
the
property
at
the
property
and
in
the
market.
So
we'd
ask
for
the
board's
consideration
there.
A
G
Huffman
yeah,
I
remember
this
case.
I
I
thought
I
thought.
Last
year
we
did
a
good
thing,
taking
it
down
to
138
or
whatever
it
was
kind
of,
took
a
hard
look
at
it.
I
think
they've
done
some
improvements.
I
mean
target
is
a
real
step
up
since
then,
and
just
kind
of
going
through
everything
lori
did
I
mean
I
I'd,
take
my
hat
off
that
it
was
a
great
it's
hard
to
analyze
these
properties,
but
I
think
the
county's
done
a
great
job.
G
I
looked
at
this
a
number
of
different
ways
and
I
really
couldn't
get
below
140
million
kind
of
independently
trying
different
things
and
using
the
actuals
from
the
appellant
and
kind
of
what
I
you
know,
feel
our
appropriate
cap
rates
for
for
the
location
and
for
the
for
the
tenants
on
the
roster,
so
at
139
it
seems
very
reasonable
to
me.
A
E
Matkin,
I
would
just
add
the
the
flair
vacancy
issue
is
a
non-issue
because
they
paid
accelerated
rent.
They
paid
a
termination
fee
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
rent
that
they
owed
and
the
meaning
that
it
brought
out
the
rent
payments
past
january,
1st
2021
2022,
and
so
given
that
we're
pretending
that
what
does
it
look
like
on
that
date
for
a
new
buyer?
E
Knowing
that
you
know,
flair
is
not
going
to
be
paying
rent
later
the
money's
in
the
bank
already-
and
maybe
this
will
be
an
issue
for
next
year,
as
laurie
had
already
mentioned.
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
that.
G
Sure
a
motion
to
confirm
that
the
county's
reduced
assessment
of
139
million
one
of
earth,
139
million
36
900.
A
Okay,
second,
all
in
favor
aye,
mr
y.
Okay,
all
right,
it's
unanimous,
the
county's
reduced
number
of
139.036
900
has
been
confirmed.
A
B
D
A
Okay,
all
right
moving
along
to
the
second
case
on
the
agenda
rpc
or
the
economic
unit,
two
three:
zero:
zero,
seven
one,
one
g
on
south
oakland
street,
mr
heim.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
H
Hi
good
morning,
thank
you
so
much
for
taking
the
time
to
hear
the
case.
So
I'd
just
like
to
start
by
saying
so.
This
property
40
is
actually
located.
46,
south
glebe
road.
It's
a
multiple,
multiple
parcel
property
built
around.
It
contains
both
office
retail
built
around
1950
and
the
main
things
that
were
happening
this
year
was
first
of
all.
H
We
wanted
to
agree
as
well
with
what
laurie
did
and
we
really
appreciate
the
offer
for
a
reduction,
but
we
just
felt
that
the
expenses
were
very
high
this
year
and
we'd
appreciate
a
little
bit
more
consideration
on
that
end
and
when
we
were
looking
through
it,
we
did
agree
with
lori
that
some
of
the
expenses
should
have
been
taken
out
as
to
the
amount
it
looks
like
the
amount
laurie
had
originally
take
taken
out
from
the
revised
assessment
was
about
140
000
from
the
expenses,
and
we
felt
that
part
of
that
should
have
been
included.
H
So
what
we
did
is
we
took
out
in
taking
out
the
hvac
repairs,
the
major
hvac
repairs
of
64
000,
which
you'll
see
detailed
on
page
25
of
the
boe
memo
and
the,
as
well
as
the
major
tenant
allowance
improvements
of
30
883,
which
is
on
that
same
page
as
well,
even
though
I
think
they
should
be
included,
but
we
discluded
them
even
with
that.
We
come
to
an
expense
of
and
fifty
cents
per
square
per
square
foot,
and
that
yields
an
assessment
that
is
lower
than
the
revised
of
six
point.
H
H
So,
according
to
the
guidelines,
it
would
be
important
to
note
that
this
could
be
classified
as
the
small
office
slash
general
commercial,
which
is
code
213,
as
opposed
to
what
it's
classified
now
as
a
219,
which,
understandably,
would
reduce
the
guideline
for
vacancy.
But
it
would
increase
the
expense
that
would
be
allowed
to
be
used
to
9
to
17
and
10
and
50
cents
falls
into
that
line
as
well
as
because
the
effective
age
of
this
property
is
well
over
50
years.
H
It
was
built
in
1950,
as
indicated
on
the
worksheet
that
was
submitted.
The
cap
rate
should
be
adjusted
with
that
classification
to
9.05,
as
opposed
to
7.3.
C
Yes,
this
property
is
a
mix
of
office
and
commercial.
In
this
case,
we
use
the
guidelines
for
219,
which
is
mixed
office
commercial.
C
C
The
cap
rate
for
that
property
class
is
7.3
percent
and
once
again,
I
just
reminding
you
that
we
used.
C
We
applied
a
stabilized
vacancy
of
18
to
the
base
rent
not
to
the
gpi,
and
we
applied
35
percent
expenses
to
the
base
rent
again,
this
property
is
experiencing
a
physical
vacancy
6.2
percent
and,
I
believe,
that's
an
office
unit,
and
but
basically
we
took
the
the
we
looked
at
what
the
average
rent
was
for
this
particular
property,
applied
it
in
column
f,
which
is
the
revision
number
that
we
submitted
and
the
once
again,
as
noted
on
page
25
in
the
email
I
did
ask.
C
C
So,
after
removing
all
of
those-
and
we
feel
that
column
f
is
a
a
good,
a
good
revision.
Please
note
that
the
noi
is
substantially
lower
than
what's
being
reported
and
no
rent
discounts
were
given
to
this
property
yeah.
No
rent
discounts
were
given
to
this
property-
that's
pretty
much
it
for
now.
I'm
open
for
questions
all
right.
G
Yeah,
are
these
leases
all
triple
net?
It
looks
like
the
county's
got
enlisted
as
triple
net.
I
just
want
to
know
if
the
appellant
can
confirm
that.
G
H
I'm
saying
let
me
clear.
H
Looks
like
sorry,
I'm
just
confirming
it
looks
like
not.
All
the
rents
are
actually
triple
net.
Let
me
see
if
I
can
confirm
which
ones
for
you
are
triple
net
and
which
ones
are
not.
H
So
so
lucy
the
rent
on
the
rent
roll,
as
you
can
see,
lucy
hawkins,
so
that
is
actually
gross.
That
is
not
triple
net.
E
Thank
you.
I
I've
done
business
in
this
building
my
unders
as
I
recall
when
it
could
have
changed
the
retail
our
triple
net
leases,
but
the
office
are
full
service
minus,
I
think
janitorial
or
some
minor
thing,
but
real,
but
utilities
and
real
estate
tax
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff
is
part
of
the
base
lease
rent.
E
Isn't
that
right?
So
I
mean
it's
a
mix
that
which
is
why
we
have
a
special
category
for
this.
Maybe
mr
roskin
can
add
on
to
that.
C
C
E
C
That's
what's
being
reported
by
the
owner
and
I
had
to
reconstruct,
but
that's
the
information
that
I
was
given.
C
Okay,
once
again,
I
did
not
use
any
rent
discounts
on
this
particular
property.
C
We
are
using
an
18
vacancy
rate
on
the
base
rent,
only
not
the
gpi,
and
basically
I
went
through
and
and
confirmed
with
the
owner
and
the
agent
on
the
expenses,
and
I
was
looking,
I
was
comparing
them
to
what
was
being
reported
for
the
last
couple
of
years
and
even
during
your
covid
year
of
two,
your
your
hard
on
covet
year
of
2020,
something
was
off
on
the
expenses,
and
so
I
got
clarification
on
those
and
the
owner
actually
stated
on
a
lot
of
them
that
they
were
upgrades
or
replacements,
which
is
a
capital
improvement
which
does
not
belong
into
the
expense
line.
H
Yeah,
so
this
property
is
also
older.
So
when
you
do
look
at
those
specific
expenses
that
the
owner
did
detail
about,
if
your
diagnostic
work
for
the
hvac
seems
something
that's
very
recurrent,
that
would
happen
every
year.
I'm
filling
up
cracks
in
the
parking
lot
for
the
aid
description.
H
That's
also
very
important
parking
lot.
Repair
is
great.
That's
something!
That's
not
once
in
every
20
years.
That's
something
that's
more
recurring,
as
well
as
the
legal
fees,
the
ground
maintenance,
the
major
landscaping
tree
plant,
removal
trimming
hedging,
that's
something!
That's
constantly
happening,
that's
not
something
that
you
know.
That
happens
once
in
a
very
long
time
that
you
should
just
take
out,
as
well
as
the
extermination
and
the
alarm,
monitor
monitoring.
H
You
could
see
that
the
annual
recovery
per
area
for
the
entire
property
is
two
dollars
and
13
cents
per
square
foot,
which
is
very
low
compared
to
the
rent
of
almost
28
dollars
a
square
foot.
So
I
don't
think
the
the
pass
through
is
as
high
as
would
be
expected,
and
that's
also
considering
that
the
property
is
a
lot
older
and
has
a
lot
more
of
these
more
routine
expenses
that
wouldn't
be
considered
pass-through
that
was
explained
in
the
expense
line
items.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
your
time
really
appreciate
it.
G
I
mean
I
think,
laura's
had
to
do
a
lot
here
to
kind
of
reconstruct
and
fit
this
into
what
we're
used
to
seeing
it's
probably
not
not
very
easy,
given
that
they're
pretty
abnormal
lease
structure
for
an
office
building,
so
I
mean
to
me
it
looks
like
pretty
fair
evaluation.
A
I'm
trying
to
get
back
to
the
the
right
page
here,
so
it
would
actually
be
a
reduction.
G
Somebody
want
to
make
a
motion:
okay,
I'll,
make
a
motion
to
confirm
the
county's
reduced
assessment
at
six
million
two.
Fifty
three
two
hundred.
I
A
Okay,
it's
unanimous
it's
reduced
to
the
county's
revised
number
of
six
million
two.
Fifty
three
two
hundred.
Thank
you
both.
A
A
J
Thank
you
hopefully
hi
everybody.
Thank
you
for
your
time
today.
Hopefully,
everybody
got
the
submission
that
we
sent
to
the
county
ahead
of
the
appeal.
J
Like,
like
the
board
mentioned,
this,
is
a
retail
parcel
at
2881
crystal
drive.
This
retail
section
of
this
property
is
actually
part
of
the
residence
in
marriott
capitol
view.
Today,
we're
only
discussing
the
retail
section
of
this,
the
property
was
purchased
in
july
2021
as
part
of
a
multi-property
sale.
J
The
allocated
purchase
price
at
the
time
the
sale
was
the
county's
assessment
and
our
main
issue
with
this
one,
which
is
summarized
on
page
two
of
our
submission,
is
essentially
that
the
property
is
100
vacant
and
a
cold
dark
shell.
It's
completely,
you
know,
there's
no
improvements
inside
whatsoever
and
there
is
no
adjustment
made
by
the
county
to
account
for
this.
J
J
However,
we
believe
that
there
still
needs
to
be
some
type
of
adjustment
to
account
for
the
fact
that
this
property
is
again
100
vacant
and
a
cold
dark
shell.
So
you
know
if
somebody's
was
buying
this
property
as
of
the
date
of
valuation,
they
would
have
to
make
some
type
of
adjustment
to
the
to
account
for
the
fact
that
they
would
need
to
completely
fit
the
space
for
a
new
tenant,
which
obviously
has
a
lot
of
cost
associated
with
that.
J
We-
and
in
this
analysis
we
essentially
agree
with
the
county
above
the
line
aside
from
the
square
footage
discrepancy
which
was
addressed,
and
then
our
only
following
adjustments
are
one
the
base
cap
rate
we
use
the
cap
rate
based
on
which
is
on
page
seven,
the
rerc
washington
dc
first
tier
investment,
property,
neighborhood,
retail
and
power
center
rates
of
about
7.0
to
7.1
percent,
and
then,
additionally,
on
page
nine,
the
pwc
retail
cap
rate
is
7.17.
J
So
that's
why
we
use
that
rate.
We
felt
that
the
6.039
rate
used
by
the
county
was
a
bit
low
for
a
property.
That's
again,
you
know
it
has
a
lot
of
risk
associated
with
it.
As
you
know,
there's
currently
no
leasing
prospects
and
it's
going
to
be
a
long
road
before
they
get
a
tenant
in
there
and
paying
rent.
J
The
only
additional
adjustment
that
we
made
was
the
discount
for
lease
up
below
the
line.
We
understand
that
the
county
model
or
the
county
guidelines
don't
necessarily
allow
for
this.
However,
we
felt
that
you
know
demonstrating
it
this
way,
just
to
kind
of
quantify
the
expense
associated
with
this
was
the
best
way
to
do
it.
So
essentially,
our
calculation,
for
that
is
on
page
four.
J
We
assume
tenant
improvements
of
a
hundred
dollars
per
square
foot,
which
is
supported
by
the
pwc
survey.
On
page
eight,
the
range
for
washington
dc
is
60
to
150
per
square
foot.
The
average
is
98.13,
we
went
with
around
100.
J
We
also
use
the
we
assume
the
original
market
rate
from
the
county
analysis
which
I'll
get
to
in
a
second
a
60-month
lease
term
discount
rate
in
line
with
pwc,
which
is
again
on
page
nine,
and
we
take
the
present
value
of
the
rent
loss,
lease
commissions
and
ti
allowance,
which
comes
to
about
half
a
million
dollars
deducted
below
the
line.
Again,
you
know
we
understand
that
this
is
not
necessarily
allowed
within
the
county
guidelines.
However,
we
we're
just
showing
this
to
demonstrate.
J
You
know
the
impact
on
the
value
that
it
has
for
potential
buyer
and
we
believe
it's
still
relevant.
It
should
be
considered.
J
Additionally,
one
point
that
I
would
like
to
make
is
that
we
received
the
boe
memo
with
with
the
department's
revised
incoming
workup,
and
we
would
just
like
to
point
out
that,
for
whatever
reason,
the
rent
was
increased
by
50
cents
per
square
foot,
so
it
was
originally
as
it
is
stated
in
our
analysis,
dollars
and
10
cents
per
square
foot.
J
But
then,
if
you
look
at
the
boe
memo,
the
second
point
on
page
two
under
drea,
the
retail
rate
was
updated
from
38.10
cents
per
square
foot
to
38
and
60
cents
per
square
foot,
apparently
based
on
similar
local
property
types.
We
felt
that
you
know
this
increase,
especially
considering
that
this
is
a
cold
dark.
J
Shell,
definitely
wasn't
you
know
it
doesn't
really
make
sense
to
us
and
if
anything,
we
feel
that
there
should
be
a
downward
adjustment
to
that
rent
to
account
for
the
fact
again
that
this
this
is
a
cold
dark.
Shell,
concrete,
no,
not
fitted
whatsoever
for
a
tenant,
and
you
know
for
them
to
find
a
tenant
outfit.
It
get
them
in
there
paying
rent,
that's
going
to
cost
money
and
take
time.
J
So
again,
that's
why
we
feel
that
while
we
don't
necessarily
expect
any
adjustments
below
the
line,
we
feel
that
at
least
you
know
that
rent
should
be
brought
down
to
below
the
original
county
number
and
definitely
should
not
have
been
increased
by
50
cents
per
square
foot.
We
didn't
really
put.
We
initially
were
agreeing
with
the
market
rents
with
the
county,
so
we
didn't
really
put
much
thought
or
research
into
the
market
rents.
However,
on
page
10,
I've
included
a
you
know,
crystal
city
retail
sub
market
report
from
costar.
J
I
know
this
isn't
as
good
as
a
real
lease
comp,
but
as
we
have
highlighted
on
page
10,
the
general
retail
market
rate
is
36.8
cents.
So
you
know
the
county
was
basically
on
the
money
originally
and
then,
for
whatever
reason
decided
to
increase
that
slightly
and
then
also
on
page
13
under
rent
there's
a
kind
of
just
a
little
highlighted
point
where
they
mentioned
that
retail
here
runs
around
35
dollars
per
square
foot.
J
C
Thank
you,
gordon.
Okay.
Obviously
you
don't
see
a
history
here
for
ines
and
that's
due
to
the
unit
being
vacant
since
its
construction,
and
so
when
I
take
a
look
at
the
rent
for
this
property,
how
I
came
up
with
the
rent
for
this
particular
property?
Yes,
it's
it's
a
a
cold
dark
shell,
so
I
was
like
okay.
What
what
can
I
do
here
and
I
looked
around
some
neighboring
properties
and
I
came
up
with
a
couple
of
them.
C
Looking
at
their
ines,
I
had
one
that
reports
an
average
rent
of
38.06
60
cents.
Excuse
me
per
square
foot
foot
now
that
building
was
built
in
the
1960s
and
it
was
renovated
in
2006
and
it's
a
much
larger
net
leasable
area.
C
and
90
cents,
a
square
foot,
and
that
was
built
in
1991
and
that
is
a
similar
size
net
leasable
area
to
the
subject
so
with
column.
F,
I
looked
at
the
neighboring
rents
and
I
go.
Okay
are
ren's
on
track
here.
Well,
I
looked
at
him.
I
said:
okay,
you
know
what
the
the
low
rent
that
I
have
is
38.60
square
foot,
so
I'm
gonna
use
that
and
keep
in
mind
we're
still
applying
a
13
stabilized
vacancy
rate
to
the
base
rent.
C
Only
and
although
they're
not
reporting
anything
else
and
we
they're
they're
not
reporting
any
expenses,
but
I
use
16
expenses
for
the
property.
The
cap
rate
is
re.
Looking
using
the
retail
cap
rate
at
7.15
percent-
and
this
also
particular
property
participates
in
the
crystal
city
bid
and
so
added
on
to
that
7.15
percent
is
a
crystal
city
bid
tax
rate
of
0.043,
hence
the
cap
rate
being
7.193,
and
I
also
want
to
bring
up
that
once
again.
C
G
Other
questions
yeah
just
one
more
time,
can
you
the
5
75
7
45
below
the
line?
That's
kind
of
you've
got
that
as
a
combination
of
concessions
and
ti
to
get
to
stabilization.
Is
that.
A
C
I
just
want
to
reiterate
that
it
did
sell
for
2.3
million,
which
was
the
2021
assessment,
that
the
agent
did
tell
me
that
that
it
was
part
of
a
portfolio
sale.
That's
what
I
determined
through
co-star
and
other
news
articles
other
than
that
there
wasn't
any
other
information
on
that
particular
sale.
And
so
once
again
I
had
to
go
look
around
at
neighboring
properties
and
there
aren't
a
whole
lot
of
new
retail.
C
But
because,
once
again
we
don't
do
below
the
line
adjustments.
We
can
use
a
lower
rent.
I
went
with
the
38.60
cents,
a
square
foot
which
was
fairly
low
for
that
area
and
used
and
came
up
with
a
revised
value
of
one
million
nine
hundred.
Ninety
four
thousand
two
hundred
for
column
f,
and
I
just
recommend
that's
the
number
you
go
with.
Thank
you.
J
Sure,
thank
you.
I
would
just
like
to
point
out
that
you
know
one.
This
is
again
an
allocated
purchase
price
for
that
property.
It
was
part
of
a
larger
multi-hotel
sale.
They
weren't,
you
know
they
just
kind
of
slapped
the
assessment
on
the
application
and
this
retail
parcel
was
kind
of
just
you
know
a
part
of
those
hotels
and
it
wasn't
a
major
driver
to
that
portfolio
or
that
sale.
J
Additionally,
I'd
like
to
point
out
that
I
can
only
assume
that
you
know
the
comparable
rents
that
are
being
presented
by
the
department
are
not
cold,
dark
shells
and
that
they,
you
know,
while
it
does
have
some
indication
of
you,
know
what
rents
what's
happening
in
the
market.
It
doesn't
really
speak
to.
You
know
how
long
those
leases
have
been
in
place,
whether
or
not
there's
been
escalations,
and
I
think
that,
and
it's
not
very
clear
when
those
leases
were
signed.
J
Obviously,
market
conditions
in
recent
years
have
definitely
affected
demand
for
retail
space
and
the
risk
associated
with
leasing
out.
You
know
a
space
like
this
and
outfitting
a
space
for
a
new
tenant.
J
So
we
just
feel
that
you
know
those
those
rents
that
were
presented
by
the
department
are
not
necessarily
going
to
indicate
what's
going
to
happen
at
the
subject,
and
also
just
the
general.
You
know
sentiment
that
the
rents
were
originally
38.10
per
square
foot
and
that
was
not
allegedly
not
acknowledging
any
type
of
dark
shell
space.
That
was
just
a
market
rent
that
was
originally
applied
to
the
assessment
and
then
in
consideration
of
the
space
being
a
cold
dark
shell,
it
was
increased
by
50
cents
per
square
foot.
J
We
just
feel
that
that,
at
the
very
least
should
remain
the
same
as
the
original
rent
that
was
applied,
if
not
be
reduced
to
you
know,
to
make
up
for
that
difference
for
that
575
000
that
we
can't
deduct
below
the
line
between
you
know
the
original
rents
and
where
they're
coming
in
at
and
additionally,
we
do
very
much
appreciate
the
you
know
13
vacancy
being
applied.
J
However,
of
course,
this
property
is
100
vacant
and
had
no
income,
since
it
was
constructed,
so
we're
not
asking
for
a
higher
vacancy
rate,
but
you
know
this
does
have
to
be
accounted
for
in
some
way.
So
you
know
we
feel
that
while
we
appreciate
the
13
vacancy
rate,
we
don't
see
that,
as
a
point
to
of
you
know
to
defend
that.
This
is
above
what
it
should
be.
It's
definitely
if
anything
below
what
it
should
be.
G
All
right
so
I
mean
I
had
trouble
even
finding
where
the
retail
entrance
to
this
building
is-
and
I
think
it's
because
it's
at
the
end
of
the
hotel
and
and
part
of
a
larger
master
plan
that
hasn't
been
fully
built
out
yet
so
I
don't
think
the
retail
environment
exists
yet,
and
and
and
so
they're
going
to
have
a
challenge,
leasing
this
for
a
while,
at
least
until
that
that
legal
lot
gets
gets
developed
right
now,
it's
just
a
big
parking
lot.
G
So
it's
kind
of
a
retail
desert,
and-
and
so
I
mean-
I
think,
the
about
I,
with
the
way
I
looked
at
it
was
you're.
Probably
gonna
need
a
hundred
fifty
dollars
in
concessions
to
get
somebody
in
that
space
and
he's
got
110.
G
E
I
was
thinking
along
those
lines,
but
I
I
was
also
liking
it
at
first,
when
laurie
explained
that
there's
a
vacancy
rate
reduction
there's
a
an
expenses
reduction
when
in
fact
there
are
no
expenses,
there's
no
vacancy.
I
kept
thinking
about
a
prior
case
today
up
in
pentagon
city,
where
there
was
lots
of
concessions
and
the
vacancy
and
the
and
the
operating
deductions
were
there
plus
a
reduction
in
rent,
which
I
asked
your
bond.
She
explained
where
she
got
that
number.
E
E
I
just
took
an
arbitrary
number
of
10
and
thereby
reducing
retail
income
by
10,
and
then
I
kept
it
all
out,
and
I
can
give
you
a
number
if
you're
interested,
so
I
kept
everything
in
place
but
reduced
the
rent,
because
this
is
such
a.
E
A
challenge
because
it's
a
cold,
dark
shell-
and
I
and
I
agree
with
greg-
I
mean
110
dollars-
that
they
put
below
the
line,
is
certainly
very
optimistic.
150
or
more
is
probably
what
it's
going
to
take.
A
E
E
A
million
seven
hundred
and
thirteen
thousand
three
hundred
and
thirty
three
dollars
and
again
that's
simply
by
reducing
the
two
hundred
and
two
thousand
proposed
rent
by
ten
percent
and
then
capping
it
out
of
course,
okay,
so
I
just
reduced
it
directly
from
the
nry
and
okay.
I
got
it.
Okay,.
F
Question
to
that
so
really
you're
looking
at
the
this
location
and
its
difference
compared
to
what
the
rents
that
were
used
in
her
comp,
you
know
you're
saying
this
is
a
tougher
location
to
get
rented.
Therefore,
it's
probably
not
going
to
drive
the
rents.
That
lori
was
able
to
find
you
talking
to
me.
Yes
is
that
is
that.
E
Yeah
38
it's
cheap
for
for
retail.
You
know
getting
closer
to
the
metro
in
the
200
blocks.
2000
blocks
kind
of
thing,
so
sure
I
mean
her.
Her
presumption
of
38
dollars
is
not.
F
I
Well,
the
only
thing
I
did
to
be
honest
is
just
I
you
know.
The
only
difference
that
I
saw
from
the
original
to
the
revised
is
the
square
footage,
so
I
just
followed
the
same
rate
that
laurie
had
to
begin
with.
You
know
the
38
dollars
and
10
cents,
so
it
makes
a
minor
difference
in
the
assessment
that
the
the
revised
year,
but
I
didn't
think
that
anything
else
would
be
because
I
mean
we
don't
know
what
rents
are
really
going
to
be
getting
in
the
conse
what
the
concessions
are
going
to
be.
I
I
know
it's
the
heart
right
now.
It's
a
shell,
but
you
know
we've
seen
this
before
and
we
don't
really
necessarily
make
conversations
below
the
line
on
things
like
this,
but
even
though,
with
that
change
I
mean
it
makes
a
minor
difference.
It
comes
to
1968.
I
400.,
I
thought
the
revised
assessment
was
okay.
G
I
just
say
I
can
live
with
ken.
I
think
I
think
I
think
that's
a
good
analysis,
but
also
looking
at
the
sales
records
that
the
county
has
right
now.
G
There's
no
note
that
this
was
a
portfolio
sale
or
not
an
arm's
length
transaction,
and
I
think
they
need
to
go
and
look
at
that
for
all
of
these
properties
that
were
involved
in
this,
because
this
comp,
these
comps,
could
really
throw
throw
off
a
lot
of
other
commercial
condo
property
owners
and
when,
when
blackrock
buys
a
huge
portfolio
from
jbg
that
they
don't
they're,
not
negotiating
the
2.3
million
in
an
arms
length,
transaction
they're
coming
up
with
a
big
lump
sum
number
and
then
they're
just
allocating
it
for
convenience
based
on
on
some
agreed
upon
rationale,
so
they
don't
care.
G
If
it
would,
I
mean
they
could
have
put
10
million
on
there.
You
know
as
far
as
they're
concerned,
so
there
needs
to
be
some
sort
of
note.
If
we're
going
to
use
these
for
our
studies
for
next
year,.
A
So
that
comes
out
to
about
34.75
a
square
foot
for
rent
ken
is
that.
E
E
I
move
that
we
change
the
assessed
value
to
a
million
seven
hundred-
thirteen
thousand
three
hundred
thirty
three.
I
guess
it
would
be
300
dollars,
rounding
it
off.
A
A
Or
you
can
just
be
on
it
there
you
go:
okay,
alrighty,
the
fifth
and
final
case
for
the
day
is
rpc1801405g.
A
K
Well,
I
think
I've
been
before
you
a
few
times
here
recently
over
the
years,
but
so
I
will
make
this
very
brief.
I
didn't
have
an
opportunity
really
to
go
through
the
package
that
came
in
late
last
week.
I
took
the
time
this
morning
and
I
would
have
to
say
that
yeah
we
there
was
a
mistake
made
in
our
numbers,
and
so
the
20
million
does
seem
to
be
an
accurate
depiction
of
the
value
at
this
time.
K
It
says
it's
only
three
stories:
it
is
four:
we
have
a
retail
level
and
then
three
levels
of
office
above,
if
you
count
goals
is
office,
if
you
will,
which
should
could
be
swift's
office
that
you
know
if
the
opportunity
ever
erodes
but
right
now,
it's
a
discounted
rent.
The
only
other
thing
I
would
say
is
in
that
same
narrative.
It
says
the
commercial
condo
units
share
190
parking
spaces.
K
K
And
the
only
other
thing
I'll
say
when
it's
good
for
you,
I
would
like
to
review
the
the
calculations
that
will
perform
to
derive
the
value.
There
are
some
air
addition
errors
on
the
rent,
roll
analysis,
but
it's
insignificant,
but
I
think
in
terms
of
accuracy
and
clarity,
it
would
make
sense
to
do
that.
So
I
don't
want
to
waste
any
of
your
time
today
and
I
appreciate
it.
C
Just
to
reiterate
again,
the
gray
shading
that
we
apply
vacancy
only
to
the
base
rent
and
the
expenses
only
to
the
base
rent,
not
to
the
gpi.
Okay.
Moving
on
with
that,
so
I
did
have
a
discussion
with
mr
viola
by
both
both
by
phone
email
teams.
We,
we
discussed
at
length
this
particular
property
and
just
to
give
you
a
little
background
note
on
this
particular
property.
C
It
is
commercial
condo
and
because
there
are,
there
are
five
units
owned
by
this
particular
entity
which
mr
viola,
it
has
a
share,
an
interest
in
it.
C
We
created
an
economic
unit
out
of
this
property
because
of
its
large
size.
There
are
only
two
commercial
condominium
units
in
the
the
county
that
we
did
this,
for
we
don't
do
it
to
any
of
the
others,
because
they're
substantially
smaller
and
what
this
allowed
for
him
is
to
use
the
cap
rate
for
219,
which
is
the
office
mixed
commercial
at
7.3
percent.
C
Now,
when
I
I
analyzed
the
rent
I
came,
and
and
after
some
discussion
with
all
of
the
abatements,
the
dis,
let
me
say
the
abatements
that
the
owner
was
giving
to
the
tenants.
I
came
up
with
a
discounted
rent
to
the
retail
for
11.44.
C
I
actually
discounted
that
retail,
the
retail
rent
by
eleven
dollars
and
forty
four
cents
a
square,
but
I
wanted
to
say
that
again
I
wanted
to
stress
that
as
compared
to
what
the
average
rent
is-
and
you
can
see
that
on
page
seven
in
the
rent,
roll
analysis
and
so
after
applying
those
those
discounts,
heavy
discounts
and
using
the
18
stabilized
vacancy
and
the
expenses
which
are
in
line
with
the
last
two
years
of
what's
being
reported,
column,
f's
revision
of
20
million,
800
and
7
500
is
in
there
it's
reasonable.
C
Just
another
minor
note
on
this
with
commercial
condos,
we
have
to
use
the
net
leasable
area
that
is
recorded
in
the
declaration,
so
you
will
see
a
difference
there.
If
you
look
at
the
top
of
the
columns
in
each
one,
the
different
square
footages
that
are
used
and
note
that
I
did
not
change
mine,
usually
you'll,
see
that
I
will
adjust.
You
know
when
I
read
through
ines.
C
C
I
just
want
to
reiterate
that
column
f,
we
failed
that
the
nry
is
right
in
there
and
that
we
recommend
that
revised
value.
Thank
you.
K
Yes,
obviously,
because
of
the
past
couple
of
years,
you
know
there
has
been
a
lot
of
distress
in
terms
of
what
we're
dealing
with
with
our
retail
tenants
and
we've
had
to
make
some
significant
concessions.
We
are
hopeful
that
will
change.
You
know
we
have
one
tenant.
K
That
has
really
been
a
drag
for
many
years,
lpq,
slash
apq,
but
we
are
looking
forward
to
perhaps
a
a
more
robust
type
of
operation
on
the
corner
of
the
property
that
could
be
rents
as
high
as
20
a
foot
more
so
that
could
enhance
the
value.
On
the
other
hand,
I
will
say:
we've
been
trying
to
negotiate
with
some
of
our
tenants
to
do
a
purchase,
which
is
what
the
was
envisioned
for
the
project
to
begin
with.
K
K
A
E
I
just
wanted
to
add
just
for
the
record
that
in
column
g
there's
no
pass-throughs
reported
when
it
there
was
a
pretty
steady
stream
of
pass-throughs.
Now
I
guess
maybe
that's
part
of
the
concessions
to
the
tenants,
but
if
we
added
in
the
historical
amount
of
pass-throughs
it
gets
awfully
close.
The
g,
the
egi
get
I'm
sorry.
Gpi
gets
awfully
close
to
the
test
column,
so
I
don't
know
where
the
error
is,
but
it
all
seems
to
make
sense
to
me
or
if
there
is
an
error.
A
Okay,
any
other
discussion.
All
right.
I
will
move
to
reduce
the
assessment
to
the
county's
revised
number
of
20
million
807
500
seconds.
Okay,
a
motion,
a
second
by
mr
penaranda,
all
in
favor
aye
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
It's
reduced
to
the
county's
revised
number
of
20
million
807
500..
A
Okay,
that
completes
the
agenda.
Does
anybody
have
any
business
that
we
need
to
discuss
or
a
journey?
A
Okay,
just
I
if
the
board
members
would
stay
on
after,
because
I
have
said
something
for
next
week
that
I
want
to
talk
about
so
then
we
will
stand
adjourn
now
at
10,
12
and
re-adjourn
next
tuesday
morning
at
9
am
thank
you.