►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - July 13, 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
A
B
Thank
you.
As
most
of
you
know,
I
am
a
partner
at
a
boutique,
consulting
firm,
focusing
on
regional
mall
and
once
again
this
year,
we're
here
to
talk
about
boston
quarter,
which
I
know
you're
all
familiar
with:
363
000
square
feet,
approximate
mall
adjacent
to
a
macy's
which
anchors
them
all,
but
is
unowned
and
is
not
part
of
this
appeal.
B
The
two
parcels,
the
22
assessment
for
the
two
parcels
about
91.1
million
versus
a
board,
found
value
in
2021
of
85.5
million
primary
differences.
Again
this
year
are
income
and
capitalization
rate,
and
I
think
probably
the
easiest
way
to
start
is.
If
you
can
go
to
page
3
of
the
boe
memo
middle
of
the
page,
the
county
has
updated
the
theater
rent
from
1747
per
square
foot
last
year,
conclusion
of
market
value
to
22.48.
B
While
sales
at
the
theater
in
2021
ended
up
the
year
at
a
23
dollars
per
square
foot
significant
decline.
B
The
year
end,
2019
sales
at
the
theater
per
square
foot
were
73,
so
a
pre-covered
was
73,
a
foot
post,
copa
we're
still
in
2021
at
23
dollars
per
square
foot
and
even
at
73
dollars
per
square
foot
in
2019
at
a
22
rent,
the
occupancy
cost
was
about
38,
which
is
unsustainable,
so
the
2248
is
not
market
rent
for
the
theater.
It's
much
closer
to
the
17.
B
As
we
discussed
last
year,
the
bottom
of
the
page
miscellaneous
income
increased
from
87
to
879
000,
with
the
majority
of
that
being
the
reversal
of
bad
debt
in
the
expense
section
of
the
income
and
expense
statement.
So
that's
a
significant
increase
and
including
a
reversal.
An
accounting
reversal
of
bad
debt
to
a
stabilized
income
approach
is,
unfortunately,
just
not
proper
appraisal
methodology
and
then
other
income
at
the
bottom
of
the
page,
increased
from
13
000
to
111
000.
This
is
primarily
due
to
specialty,
leasing
or
temporary
tenants.
B
So
in
a
stabilized
income
approach,
as
you
guys
are
aware,
when
you're
concluding
that
market
rents,
market
vacancy
and
collection,
adding
temporary
tenant
income
to
that
is
duplicative,
I
understand
that
my
other
handout
came
separately
from
rosa
my
analysis.
So
I'd
like
to
go
there
next
page
18
of
my
appeal,
narrative
bottom
of
the
page,
just
want
to
go
over
a
few
of
these
pages.
I
hope
you've
had
time
to
review.
I
know
the
boe
handout
is,
is
quite
extensive.
B
We've
provided
lori
and
team
a
volume
of
information
they've
been
great
to
work
with
we're
just
still
at
a
pretty
big
impasse
here,
but
at
the
bottom
of
this
page
you
can
see
the
subject:
property
metrics,
the
noi
2019
3.2
million.
Again
this
is
unadjusted
just
pure
noi
you're
in
2020
2.9
million
year
in
21,
even
while
occupancy
has
gone
up
a
bit,
noi
still
declined
to
2.7
million
dollars
so
as
of
lien
date,
we're
looking
at
a
decline
in
noi
the
following
pages
page
20
is
a
calculation
of
our
market
rents.
B
B
They
came
out
of
bankruptcy,
thankfully,
for
the
subject,
property
renewed,
the
lease
in
april
of
2021
to
a
percentage
rent
in
lieu
are
essentially
a
percentage
rent
and,
as
you
can
see
there,
I
know
this
is
a
public
forum.
Don't
want
to
discuss
specifically
what
it
is,
but,
as
you
can
see
there,
the
sales
are
extremely
low,
and
this
is
a
material
impact
to
the
net
operating
income
and
below
that.
B
As
we've
talked
about
in
years
past,
the
leasing
team
is
trying
to
do
everything
possible
to
fill
some
of
these
cold
dark
shells
with
tenants,
and
fortunately,
this
year
they
were
able
to
secure
a
tenant
for
23
000
square
feet,
a
church
user.
Unfortunately,
the
rent
is
20
gross,
so
this
is
really
where
the
market
is
heading.
B
These
are
the
tenants
that
are
going
to
be
filling
up
the
spaces
of
this
property,
as
we've
talked
about
before
there's
a
lot
of
functional
obsolescence,
there's
just
much
much
too
much
retail
and
you
know
again
23
000
square
feet
to
build
out
for
a
church
user
at
a
mall.
It's
a
very
atypical
user,
but
they
needed
to
achieve
some
type
of
tenancy
within
the
suite
bottom
of
that
page.
There's
still
tenants
on
written
relief,
as
you
can
imagine,
is
still
struggling
from
a
post
covered
environment,
page
21,
here's
our
conclusion
of
market
rents.
B
You
know
we
can
talk
about
capitalization
rate.
I
know
there's
a
difference
here
as
well.
Again,
this
is
a
green
street
advisors
report.
Green
street
advisors
provides
capitalization
rates
for
each
and
every
shopping,
mall
regional
shopping
mall
throughout
the
u.s
for
boston
quarters.
Specifically,
they
allocate
a
10.7
capitalization
rate
to
the
property
page
29.
B
Here's
a
cushman,
wakefield,
mall
grading,
matrix
pretty
wide
range
of
capitalization
rates,
but
you
can
see
boston
lands
anywhere
between
a
b
minus
and
a
b
plus,
based
on
a
variety
of
different
metrics,
including
sales
per
square
foot
in
the
300
to
400
per
square
foot
range,
page
30,
some
comparable
sales.
You
know
the
appetite
for
this
product
for
regional
malls
is,
is
slim
to
none.
B
Everything
that
is
trading
is,
is
double
digits,
and
thus,
we've
concluded
at
a
10.75
capitalization
rate
on
page
30.,
page
31
cost
to
reach
stabilization,
there's
still
significant
vacancy
at
the
property.
B
It's
only
77
occupied
not
too
much
of
a
difference
here
with
the
county,
we're
at
about
12
million,
so
not
much
to
speak
about
and
differences
there
page
32
at
the
top
of
that
again
is
highlighting
the
noi,
but
here's
really
our
side-by-side
direct
capitalization
approach
from
the
taxpayer
and
the
county
and
we're
concluding
that
a
stabilized
noi
of
about
seven
million
dollars
sure
hope
this
gets
there
for
the
client,
the
counties
at
nine
and
a
half
million,
which
I
think
based
on
historic
trends.
This
is
the
third
year
you've
seen
me
here.
B
I
think
in
three
years
from
now
it's
still
not
going
to
be
a
nine
and
a
half.
I
really
hope
for
the
client.
It's
gonna
be
at
seven,
but
I
think
they
just
the
the
overshot
the
noise
significantly.
B
Our
capitalization
rates
are
obviously
different,
as
you
can
see,
and
a
total
concluded
value
for
the
taxpayer.
46.4
versus
the
93.3
from
the
assessor's
office
and
page
33
highlights
the
specific
line
items
in
the
miscellaneous
income
and
other
income
that
we
talked
about
previously
and
I'm
coming
up
on.
My
eight
minutes
so
appreciate
your
time,
and
I
ask
that
the
board
conclude
at
the
46.4
million
dollars.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you
board
members.
So,
basically,
yes,
we're
we're.
Looking
at
some
differences
here
of
the
income
and
some
vacancy
and
and
the
capitalization
rate
for
this
particular
property.
Mr
vinstrom
and
I
had
numerous
conversations
discussing
this
property
and
we
went
over
the
income
expense
statement
that
was
submitted
there.
C
The
owner's
financial
statement
and
I
had
a
lot
of
questions,
and
I
I
tried
to
get
a
clarification
on
a
lot
of
these
things
and
after
a
couple
of
discussions,
the
specif
specialty
tenants
that
was
considered
kiosks
and
so
we're
not
double
hitting
those
particular
tenants,
because
the
kiosks
are
not
a
they're
not
applied
toward
their
they're,
not
part
of
the
net
leasable
area,
and
so
that
was
used.
A
a
lump
sum
adjustment
was
made
for
that
when
reviewing
the
rent
roll.
C
I
try
to
determine
what
would
be
the
average
rents
for
this
particular
property
and
their
the
the
the
route
that
we
went
was
I
took
a
look
at.
I
broke
it
up:
food
court,
restaurant
retail,
major,
your
major
tenants,
which
are
the
larger
tenants
and
the
theater,
and
the
theater
is
showing
that
their
what
their
contract
rent
is.
C
Yes,
I
did
take
make
note
that
there
were
some
concessions
made
for
that
for
that
rent,
but
it
is
a
contract
rent
right
now
and
but
going
back
over
the
the
average
friends
for
each
one
of
those
categories.
C
I
excluded
the
ones
who
were
paying
percentage
rent
in
lieu
of
because
that's
kind
of
they're
they're
still
in
their
transitional
period.
Right
now,
and
so
that's
how
I
developed
the
average
rents
that
I
used
on
the
test
page
now,
the
major
tenants
I
I
use
the
most
recent
rental
rate.
It
should
have
been
a
little
bit
higher
than
what
I
I
put
in
the
test
column.
I
don't
want
to
state
any
numbers,
because
this
is
a
public
forum,
but
we
did
look
at.
C
I
did
my
best
to
separate
the
percentage
rent
and
those
who
are
paying
base
rent
and
if
you
note
on
the
summary
page,
I
did
not
because
I
used
the
average
rent
and
applied
it
to
the
full
net
leasable
area.
C
I
did
not
include
the
percentage
rent
if
you
note,
when
you
look
at
column
e2
and
compare
it
to
column
f
for
the
test.
Please
note
that
I
did
not
include
the
percentage
rent,
because
I
was
basing
this
on
the
base
rent.
C
Next
for
the
vacancy,
we
used
a
10
vacancy
rate
for
this,
a
stabilized
vacancy
rate.
We
do
recognize
that
this
mall
is
still
in
somewhat
of
a
leaf
lease
up
phase.
It
should
have
kind
of
gone
through
its
lease-up
phase
by
now,
but
covid
kind
of
put
a
wrinkle
to
that.
So
we're
looking
at
this
okay,
ten
percent
stabilized
vacancy,
and
then
we
gave
below
the
line
adjustments
for
that
lease
up
and
you
can
see
what
they
came
out
to
is
somewhere
in
the
neighborhood
of
10
million
plus.
C
But
once
again,
column
f
is
a
test
and
our
assessment.
We
believe
our
assessment
to
be
spot
on.
As
for
the
bad
debt,
when
we
look
at
the
bad
debt
we're
going
okay,
this
is
written
off.
This
is
this
is
gone.
It's
it's!
C
It's
an
abatement,
all
right,
they're,
never
going
to
collect
it
again
and,
like
I
said,
we
went
over
the
financial
statements
several
times
with
the
agent
to
get
clarification
and
I
did
send
an
email
out
earlier
and
I
asked
a
ridiculous
number
of
23
questions,
because
I
needed
explanation
and
only
the
first
five
were
answered,
and
so
it
required
numerous
conversations
with
them.
C
D
Hey
good
morning
board
members
just
wanted
to
kind
of
reiterate.
This
is
something
the
board's
seen
three
or
four
years
now.
Mr
benstrom,
as
he
explained,
has
been
very
forthcoming
as
far
as
being
available
to
meet
with
ms
raskin
and
and
offer
this
information.
As
laurie
did
note,
there
was
some
a
little
bit
of
confusion
remaining.
D
I
guess
with
some
of
these
lines
and
not
to
sort
of
use
it
as
an
excuse,
but
I
would
point
to
obviously
her
compendium
of
work
as
you
can
see
in
page
seven
there's,
essentially
a
roll
reconstruction
of
everything,
so
she's
taking
the
time
to
break
down
the
inline
to
major
retail.
D
She
inquired
about
some
of
the
temporary
tenants
to
figure
out
what
was
in
fact
a
stabilized
income.
What
was
appreciable
to
the
fact
of
this
property
went
through
obviously
major
renovations
and
then
essentially
opened
into
the
age
of
covid.
You
you
know.
One
thing
I
would
also
point
out
is:
this
is
somewhat
typical
of
a
property
that
we've
seen
commercial
across
the
spectrum.
D
If
you
will
and
that,
when
you
have
a
property,
that's
leasing
up,
you
are
going
to
have
a
year
or
two
of
tumultuous
income
you're
going
to
have
some
tenants
that
are
coming
in
that
are
paying
the
low
end
of
their
base
rate
for
their
expectation
of
their
10-year
12-year.
Whatever
lease
tournament
you're
going
to
have
less
cam
recoveries
and
things
like
that
as
the
property
ages
year
over
year,
those
numbers
tend
to
go
up.
Those
numbers
can
reflect
either
two
or
three
percent
increases
that
come
in
in
regards
to
the
base.
D
I
would
know
too-
and
I
believe
mr
benjamin
will
back
that
up,
but
the
the
tenant
that
they
recently
signed,
20
000
some
square
feet
for
grace
church
was
actually
has
a
provision
whereby
they
there's
like
essentially
a
kickout
clause,
so
if
they
find
a
more
tenable
tenant
that
can
come
in
there
and
pay
more
market
rates
and
they'll
be
able
to
replace
them
point
out
that
the
occupancy
increased
by
over
10
and
I'll
point
out
the
neighborhood.
You
know
this
is
something
that's
that's
literally
rife
with
people.
D
The
maxwell
572,
what
is
it
the
wadecroft
672
672
flats,
the
origin
jsol?
These
are
all
new
properties
that
are
well
leased.
All
surrounding
boston,
quarter,
boston
exchange
is
up
and
running.
We
made
a
visit
to
the
property
and
it
looked
like
pre-covered
days.
There's
people
everywhere.
D
We
do
agree
that
we
hope
this
all
translates
into
stabilized
income.
But
again,
it's,
moreover,
that
we
want
the
board
to
reflect
what
they
did
last
year
and
came
to
a
value
of
85
million,
and
this
is
a
fairly
modest
increase
of
just
about
6.6
percent
year
over
year
and
that's
based
on
again
all
the
success
they've
had
in
filling
up
that
10
percent
increase
in
occupancy.
So
we
hope
you'll
take
that
into
account.
D
Realize
lori
did
attempt
to
make
a
test
with
the
new
information
provided
and
indicated
an
increase,
so
we
do
recommend
a
confirmation
of
january
1..
Thank
you.
We're
available
for
questions.
E
I'm
out
of
practice,
this
is
for
the
county,
is
the
cap
rate
for
pentagon
city
mall,
the
same.
C
No,
no,
the
cap
rate
for
what
we
call
fashion
center
mall
is
8.05.
E
Okay
and
then,
for
I
guess,
for
the
county
again,
when
this
property
got
rezoned,
I
don't
know
maybe
five
six
seven
years
ago
it
was
a
total
redo
of
the
mall,
but
it
also
included
a
residential
tower
and
my
understanding-
and
you
know
I
wasn't
intimately
involved,
but
I
did
kind
of
keep
my
eye
on
the
zoning
and
the
the
the
justification.
I
guess
for
the
residential
tower
was
to
help
carry
them
all.
C
So
we're
looking
at
the
first
of
all
the:
how
does
the
mall
compare
to
other
similar
property
types
in
the
area,
we're
also
looking
at
the
health
of
the
neighborhood
and
that's
not
just
one
apartment
building
there
there
are
numerous
apartment
buildings
around
there
and
we're
also
looking
at
connectivity.
What
I
mean
by
connectivity
is
the
metro.
Okay,
how
can
you
can
you
move
around
this
city
quite
easily
from
this
location?
And,
yes,
you
can.
E
Okay,
that's
it
for
now,
madam
chair.
F
F
I
so
go
to
d.
First,
where
you
give
a
an
imputed.
This
is
to
offset
the
high
vacancy
rate,
of
course,
and
you
have
an
imputed
rent
per
square
foot.
That's
all
fine
and
you
and
it's
close
in
all
three
and
you
give
the
amount
of
square
footage
that
needs
still
to
be
rented
and
you
come
up
with
a
number
in
d
and
then
it's
a
much
lower
number
in
your
test,
because
the
square
footage
is
less
and
also
the
rent.
Imputed
rent
is
a
little
bit
less.
F
So
did
you
find
out
first
between
calculating
d
and
then
your
test
f
that
there's
more
there's
less
vacancy
than
you
had
originally
understood.
F
Okay
and
then
go
to
the
same
thing
on
on
g.
You
know
the
the
rents
are
the
same,
but
now
here's
a
much
greater
number
that
the
the
appellant
applies,
especially
relative
to
f
your
test.
Did
they
not
get
the
word
that
the
vacancy
has
gone
down,
or
I
guess
I
should
ask
that
question,
I'm
sorry
to
mr
benstrom.
B
B
Years,
it's
stabilized,
but
that's
probably
what's
driving
the
big
difference.
F
Okay,
okay,
another
question
then,
while
you're
on
the
hook,
mr
benstrom,
you
had
said
that
the
income
from
the
theater
was
up
to
twenty
three
dollars.
I
guess
that's
a
square
foot.
You
just
gave
a
number
of
twenty
three
dollars,
which
was
higher
than
last
year.
Less
covet
makes
sense,
but
is
not
a
sustainable
rate.
It
makes
sense
to
me,
but
then
you
assign
the
value
of
the
income
to
the
theater
back
to
last
year's
17.
B
F
B
F
B
B
F
F
B
B
C
F
I'll
ask
one
more
in
the
test
for
the
department:
why
did
the
expenses
go
down
below
what
they
achieved
in
an
off
year,
2021
and
below?
Of
course,
your
initial
assessment
in
column
d.
C
No,
no
so
it's
column,
e1
is
what
was
filled
out
on
the
incoming
expense
statement.
Okay
and
then
column.
E2
is
where
we
look
back
over
the
financial
statement
and
reconstructed
it
and,
if
you'll
note
the
expenses
at
the
bottom
of
the
column,
e2
versus
column
f,
our
test,
our
test
expenses
are
higher
than
what
e2.
C
C
Thank
you
once
again.
I
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
when
I
developed
the
rental,
the
average
rent
for
these
particular
properties.
I
looked
at.
I
excluded
the
the
tenants
that
are
still
paying
their
percentage
in
lieu
of
and
by
the
way
of
my
ad,
the
agent
did
submit
a
document
on
their
percentage
in
lieu
of,
and
I
noted
that
half
of
the
tenants
that
were
paying
percentage
in
lieu
of
base
rent
that's
going
away,
they're
starting
to
shift
back
into
their
paying
their
base.
C
C
Once
again,
we
used
a
stabilized
10
percent
vacancy
rate,
and
then
we
gave
below
the
line
adjustments
and
keep
in
mind
that
our
below
the
line,
adjustments
for
the
rent
loss,
the
the
tis
and
the
leasing
commissions
are
based
on
one
year,
because
this
is
an
annual
assessment
and
I'm
just
requesting
that
you
recommend,
I
recommend
column
d,
that
our
original
assessment
is
correct.
At
91
million
hundred
and
fifteen
thousand
seven
hundred.
Thank
you.
B
Sure,
thanks
and
I
do
appreciate
laura
and
chris's
time
on
this
property.
These
are
extremely
difficult
to
value.
I'm
trying
to
do
this
throughout
the
us
and
don't
disagree.
This
is
a
great
location.
The
issue
is
it's
363,
plus
or
minus
thousand
square
feet
of
regional
mall
and
yeah.
When
I
was
there
in
november,
the
restaurants
you
walk
down
to
that
lower
level.
The
food
court
and
the
restaurants
are
are
doing
well
and
that's
probably
about
45
50
000
square
feet,
but
they've
kind
of
reached
the
limit.
B
You
can't
put
restaurants
in
every
suite
on
this
on
this
particular
property.
So
the
challenge
is,
you
know
multiple,
but
but
really
the
challenges.
It's
retail
we're.
We've
talked
about
this
year's
past.
The
the
retailers
are
not
expanding.
They're
not
looking
to
enter
into
this
property,
especially
on
some
of
these
second
and
third
floor.
There's
functional
obsolescence
they
had
to
you,
know,
bring
in
a
church
to
build
23
000
square
feet.
So
there's
still
just
some
significant
functional
issues
with
this.
B
I
think
if
this
was
150
000
square
feet,
you
know
it'd
be
a
different
story,
but
there's
just
too
much
retail
gla
here
and
even
with
the
density
down
there
look
at
look
at
the
theater
sales.
Look
at
the
sales
of
the
of
the
inline
shops.
It's
it's
350,
a
foot,
it's
not
it.
They're,
barely
holding
on
you've
got
tenants
coming
and
going
going
through
bankruptcy.
B
A
E
Yes,
ma'am,
I'm
willing
to
kind
of
start
off.
I
live
right
there
and
I
go
there
all
the
time.
That's
where
I
do
the
vast
majority
of
buying
things
you
go
there
on
a
pretty
spring
day
on
a
sunday
afternoon
and
man
that
place
is
swapped.
E
Buses
show
up
and
unload
100
kids
at
the
same
time,
and
you
think
boy
things
have
turned
around
it's
thriving,
but
then
you
go
there
on
a
thursday
evening,
it's
dead.
So
you
know
one
of
the
reasons
I
asked
about
the
pentagon
city
mall.
Is
you
know
this
is
a
unique
we're
assessing
this
its
own
way.
No
other
property
is
being
assessed
this
way,
and
so
my
thought
was
and
having
studied
this
very
carefully,
you
know.
E
Maybe
we
don't
like
to
adjust
cap
rates,
but
maybe
in
this
particular
instance
it
would
be
justified
and
I
tinkered
with
with
adjusting
figures
here
and
there
and
so
forth
and
so
on,
and
so
what
I,
what
I
did
while
listening
to
the
presentation
is,
I
took
the
suggested
cap
rate.
10.75
applied
it
to
the
county's
assessment,
ended
up
at
75
179.
E
E
H
H
You
know
return
to
work
and
and-
and
I
think
the
biggest
headwind
they
have
right
now
is
that,
like
barn
said
that
thursday
traffic,
where
usually
that,
would
be
a
bunch
of
full
office
buildings
and
right
now,
it's
probably
30
percent
of
people
actually
at
their
desks,
going
out
to
lunch
and
going
shopping
on
their
breaks
and
all
that
so
I
would
I
would
I
I
think
our
rationale
was
good.
H
Last
year
we,
I
think
we
increased
the
the
lease
up
allowance
and
came
to
that
85
million
number,
and
I
would
just
I
would
support
holding
it
flat
for
the
year.
G
Yeah,
I
mean,
I
think,
we're
just
trying
to
find
a
justification
to
lower
the
value,
but
I
mean
looking
at
the
numbers
that
miss
raskin
worked
on.
You
know
these
are
real
numbers.
This
is
something
that
you
know.
That's
what
we
would.
We
would
have
done
anyway
to
look
at
averages
on
rents
and
expenses.
G
I
don't
see
you
know
why
we
have
to
make
an
adjustment
if
there
is
not
one
needed.
I
don't
see
how
you
know.
I
think
mr
asking
did
a
very
good
job
in
this
case.
There's
a
lot
of
information.
It's
a
unique
property.
It's
a
unique
way
to
assess
it,
but
even
at
you
know,
looking
at
the
columns,
e1
or
e2,
even
even
if
we
look
at
those
numbers
and
allow
for
the
vacancy
that
the
appellant
is
asking
for
the
20,
then
you
know
the
adjustments
below
the
line
wouldn't
be
justified.
G
So
if
we
do
that,
even
the
value
would
be
higher
than
what
the
county
has.
So
I
think
the
below
the
line
adjustments
are
proper,
the
proper
way
to
do
it,
but
you
know
I
looked
at
the
numbers.
I
looked
at
all
the
averages
and
I
I
don't
see
how
we
can
adjust
just
you
know,
try
to
find
a
way
to
lower
it.
I
don't
think
it's
okay.
I
E
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
you
know.
I
know
we
don't
ask
each
other
questions,
but
I
guess
I
would
say
assume
and
by
the
way
lori
did
do
a
good
job.
As
always-
and
I
compliment
her
on
her
great
work
but
assuming
all
the
figures
are
accurate
and
good,
don't
you
think
the
cap
rate's
out
of
whack.
F
Thank
you.
I
was
going
to
address
that
third,
but
I'll
do
it.
First,
it's
the
highest
cap
rate.
I've
ever
seen
all
the
years
I've
been
here
and
it's
a
quality
building
and
it's
it's
suffering
alternately
from
cobit
and
from
the
rise
of
etail
on
one
of
these
days,
we're
going
to
have
to
decide
which
one
it
is
kovid's
a
little
probably
a
little
bit
more
temporary
than
the
rise
and
continued
expansion
of
etail.
So
if
it's
the
former
next
year,
maybe
things
will
turn
out
okay
in
the
owner's
direction.
F
If
not,
then,
as
we
had
in
the
the
appellant's
write-up,
that
this
kind
of
property
is
is
nearing
obsolescence
other
than
for
personal
services
and
food.
So
I
so
far,
even
though
this
is
the
third
year
in
a
row
so
far
below
the
line,
deduction
seems
okay,
because
we're
in
flux,
but
soon
we'll
have
to
make
a
decision.
Is
this
you
know
or
the
department
will
is
this?
Is
this
not
a
trend
but
the
new
reality
and
and
next
year,
given
that
we
still
have
the
tail
end
of
covet?
F
Maybe
next
year
would
be
the
time
to
do
it.
On
on
on
cap
rate,
again,
it's
a
quality,
neighborhood
equality,
building,
quality,
landlord,
it's
as
high
as
I've
ever
seen
ever,
and
we
get
old,
decrepit
buildings
around
the
county
that
have
lower
cap
rates
than
this.
So
I
couldn't
possibly
justify
it.
Finally,
I
I
thought
jose's
comment
and
I'll
just
say
it
a
little
differently
that
we're
looking
for
a
reason
to
make
it
the
same
as
last
year
last
year.
F
Clearly,
for
the
this
property
was
worse
than
this
year
by
all
measures.
Subject:
objective
running
numbers
plus
just
we
know
that
things
aren't
as
dire
is
the
place
booming
no,
but
it's
clearly
not
the
same
as
last
year.
It's
better,
so
my
bottom
line
is
that
the
the
lower
of
the
two
assessments
by
the
department
is
what
I
would
favor.
F
F
But
that
sure
I'm
sorry,
I
didn't
comment
on
that.
We've
heard
that
as
appellants
positions,
many
many
many
many
many
times
and
the
response
is
what
what
laurie
already
mentioned.
We
do
this
year
by
year.
We
don't
assume
three
years
from
now
on
lease
ups
or
any
other
item.
It's
always
year
by
year
and
and
again,
if
covet
went
away
tomorrow,
this
lease
up
would
would
would
you
know
it
would
be
at
90
something
percent
by
december
31st
right
and.
F
That
right
next
year
would
be
different
yeah.
We
never
do
anything
multiple
years
again,
we
hear
it
all
the
time
and
I'm
sympathetic,
but
it's
year
by
year,.
A
Yeah,
I
would
myself,
I
think,
it's
a
unique
property,
a
unique
situation.
I
think
it
still
is
being
impacted
by
both
reasons,
the
e-tail
and
the
covet.
I
mean
I
would
tend
to
agree
with
mr
lawson,
mr
hoffman,
you
know
I
I
just
don't
see
it
going
up
to
91
million.
A
I
G
Yes,
mary,
can
I
make
a
suggestion
sure
if
an
adjustment
would
need
to
be
made
being
a
unique
property,
then
you
know,
I
think
what
barnes
suggested
maybe
making
an
adjustment,
because
it
is
the
only
property
with
that
cap
rate
making
an
adjustment
on
the
cap
rate
too,
and
I
did
one
on
9.5.
G
That
brings
the
value,
even
with
the
below
the
line,
deductions
to
86
million
744,
even
which
is
a
little
bit
higher
than
last
year,
but
you
know,
I
think,
in
order
to
either
compromise
or
make
an
adjustment
based
on
the
uniqueness
of
the
property.
Maybe
that
would
be
one
way
to
do
it.
A
H
That
sounds
good.
I
know
I
haven't
said
a
lot
on
this,
but
just
one
final
comment:
46
million
four
hundred
thousand
dollars.
H
G
A
We
go
okay.
Moving
along
to
the
next
case
is
rpc
one:
zero,
zero,
zero
one,
three
zero
three
g
and
it's
the
property
located
on
washington,
boulevard.
A
J
J
J
It
also
consists
of
about
two-thirds
of
the
parking
in
the
rear
of
the
building.
This
last
item
is
important.
Why
only
two-thirds
of
the
parking
in
the
rear
of
the
building?
This
economic
unit
does
not
include
parcel
two
10027
zero,
zero,
seven,
which
contains
the
middle
third
of
that
rear
parking.
That
parcel
is
separately
assessed.
J
However,
all
of
those
rear
parking
spaces,
including
those
on
the
parcel
ending
in
seven,
are
both
used
for
and
necessary
for
the
income
generation
at
the
shopping
center.
The
arlen
arlington
county
zoning
ordinance
requires
one
parking
space
for
every
250
square
feet
of
floor
area.
On
the
first
floor
of
a
building
in
this
case
that
equals
175
parking
spaces,
the
retail
property
would
not
be
able
to
operate
at
its
current
capacity
without
the
parking
spaces
contained
on
the
parcel
ending
in
7..
J
If
you
turn
your
attention
to
page
5
of
the
appeal
you
can
see
in
the
appellants
pro
forma
on
column,
f
that
we
have
made
a
deduction
to
account
for
the
separately
assessed
value
of
this
portion
of
the
parking
lot
now
to
help
understand
the
context
of
this
portion
of
the
parking
lot.
The
arlington
county
gis
map
accessed
via
the
county's
tax
page
provides
a
clear
view
which
I'd
be
happy
to
share
if
necessary.
J
On
the
county's
gis
map,
you
will
see
that
most
of
the
rear
parking
is
assessed
on
the
parcel
ending
in
13
and
consist
of
the
outsides
of
the
parking
lot.
If
you
look
on
the
gis
map,
this
portion
of
the
parking
lot
looks
like
a
gerrymandered
congressional
district
that
loops
around
the
parking
contained
on
parcel
7..
J
This
outer
portion
of
the
parking
lot
is
assessed
based
on
the
income
generating
ability
of
the
shopping
center.
Essentially,
the
county
acknowledges
that
this
outer
two-thirds
of
the
parking
lot
is
a
required
element
of
the
larger
economic
unit
and
is
necessary
to
generate
rental
income
from
the
retail
tenants.
J
J
This
portion
of
the
parking
is
clearly
in
the
middle
of
the
rear
parking
lot,
as
the
gis
map
shows
and
a
site
visit
this
week
proved
that
these
spaces
are
both
designated
for
and
used
by
customers,
employees
and
vendors
of
the
shopping
center
tenants.
A
portion
of
this
lot
is
also
used
as
excess
space
for
the
hardware
store.
J
J
If
any
of
you
have
driven
by
this,
this
shopping
center,
which
I'm
sure
you
have
you
know
that
washington
boulevard
at
this
portion
is
extremely
busy.
There's
very
limited
off
street
parking
right
on
washington
boulevard,
this
rear
parking,
lot's
essential
for
these
businesses
and
this
center
part.
The
parcel
7
is
a
part
of
that
parking
lot,
since
the
value
of
the
middle
third
of
the
parking
lot
is
derived
from
its
ability
to
generate
the
income
at
the
shopping
center,
yet
it
is
assessed
separately.
J
J
J
If
you
direct
your
attention
to
column
f
on
the
county's
test,
page
you'll
see
that
the
stabilized
potential
of
the
property
is
much
lower
than
the
assessment
column.
F
is
created
by
using
the
actual
rinse
in
place.
As
of
the
data
value,
actual
2021
pass-through
income,
the
county's
uniform
vacancy
and
collection
rate
of
16
and
the
actual
2021
operating
expenses
grown
by
5
to
account
for
the
record
inflation
of
both
goods
and
services.
J
Now
the
four-year
operating
history
reported
on
columns
a
b
c
and
e
of
the
county's
test
page.
Those
columns
do
not
stabilize
the
vacancy
at
the
property
in
a
uniform
manner.
If
we
apply
the
county's
uniform
vacancy
and
collection
rate
of
16,
the
stabilized
values
listed
on
page
72
are
what
we
get
for
2019.
J
J
Again,
if
you've
been
by
the
shopping
center,
which
I'm
sure
everybody
has,
that
parking
is
a
mess
there,
and
this
lot
is
clearly
designated
for
use
of
the
westover
shopping
center.
As
such,
the
parcel
ending
in
seven
is
double
assessed
and
a
deduction
is
necessary.
J
The
assessment
also
again
overstates
potential
income
and
understates
operating
expenses,
both
of
which
results
in
the
assessment
overvaluing
the
property.
I
want
to
emphasize
again:
this
property
was
initially
built
in
the
1930s.
It's
an
old
building.
It's
got
a
flat
roof.
It's
got
issues
that
re
recur
year
to
year.
The
2021
operating
expenses
are
above
the
2020
reported,
but
that's
largely
because
2020
we
saw
the
covid
mandatory
shutdowns
we
saw
limited
retail,
we
saw
limited
use.
J
J
C
Thank
you
board
members,
okay
for
this
pr,
for
this
particular
property.
We
do.
I
have
visited
this
site
a
number
of
times,
I've
driven
around
it
and
yes,
I
understand
the
parking
out
there
that
they
need
this
parking,
and
so
one
of
the
questions
I
did
ask
them
early
on
is
if
they
had
a
letter,
a
determination
about
whether
or
not
this
parking
is
required,
and
I
believe
that
this
is
we
determined
that
this
is
a
grandfathered
in
and
to
say
that
this
particular
property
has
no
value
outside.
C
Of
of
this
shopping
center
is
incorrect.
It
is
zoned
r6,
and
so
it
could
have.
If
you
were
to
close
off
the
parking
you,
you
know
you
could
put
a
house
in
there,
but
it
is
being
used
for
parking
for
this
particular
shopping
center.
So
we
recognize
that
now,
when
you
look
at
when
I
looked
over
the
rent
roll
there's,
absolutely
no
vacancy
being
reported
so
great
for
them,
they're,
they're,
keeping
all
of
their
tenants
in
place,
which
is
wonderful.
C
When
you
take
a
look
at
yes,
our
expenses
are
lower
than
what
they're
reporting,
but
at
the
bottom
line
there
take
a
look
at
our
noi,
it's
less
than
what
they're
reporting,
and
I
did
ask
the
agent
during
our
discussion
why
they
did
not
appeal
that
the
particular
parcel
ending
in
0
0
7.
That
is
that
vacant
lot
and
I
believe
the
response
was
something
about
the
the
owner
maybe
neglected,
to
include
it
or
or
what
I'm
not
sure
why.
C
C
Well,
once
again,
I
was
trying
to
find
that
out
and
there
is
no
letter
of
determination
as
to
stating
how
many
parking
spaces
are
required
for
this
shopping
center.
It
has
been
grandfathered
in
it's.
It's
was
built
in
the
1930s
and
I
did
ask
them
that
in
the
email
do
you
have
a
letter
determination
from
the
zoning
department
that
states
how
many
parking
spaces
are
required
for
this
particular
property
and
they
were
not
able
to
produce
anything
like
that,
and
I
even
contacted
the
zoning
department
myself.
They
don't
have
a
letter
of
determination
on
file.
D
D
Both
zero
zero
six,
in
fact,
zero,
zero
seven
is
also
part
of
this-
are
owned
by
the
same
entity
that
owns
westover
shopping
center.
So
we
would
point
out
that
it's
actually
upon
them
to
have
the
zoning
change.
They
know
that
this
is
a
residentially
zoned
property.
They
know
that
it's
been
used
as
a
parking
lot,
so
it's
really
incumbent
upon
the
owner
to
address
that
situation.
D
This
has
been
correctly
valued
by
the
residential
team
as
it's
an
r6,
it's
a
residential
property,
as
is
property
102706,
which
also
uses
some
of
its
property
to
use
and
force
the
parking
lot.
So
we
just
want
to
reiterate
that
they're
not
being
double
counted.
They're,
not
part
of
this
economic
unit
for
westover,
they're,
residential
properties,
valued
by
the
residential
team.
It
is
incumbent
upon
the
owner,
which
again
has
shared
ownership
of
west
shopping
center
to
change
that
zone.
E
Yeah,
I
have
a
quick
question
and
then
I
can
address
the
discussion
that
was
just
held.
There
was
a
really
bad
flood
what
one
year
ago,
two
years
ago,
something
like
that.
Did
that
impact
the
value
at
all,
and
I
guess
I'll
ask
both
the
county
and
the
owner,
because
I
know
that
there's
tremendous
damage
in
the
basement
for
some
of
these
tenants.
E
J
So
most
of
the
leases
there
aren't
any
recent.
There
is
not
any
recent
leasing
activity,
so
we
have
not
seen
that
show
up
and
I'm
not
aware
of
any
current
tenants
asking
for
some
sort
of
an
abatement
in
anticipation
of
future
water
related
events.
I
do
know
that
the
water
events
in
the
his
in
the
past
history
have
impacted
expenses
and
are
likely
to,
as
you
said,
continue
to
to
have
an
impact
in
that
area.
J
D
J
Yes
and
and
I'd
be
happy
to
discuss
that
it's
the
value
of
that
property
is
not
as
a
vacant
residential
land,
the
value
of
that
property,
as
is
as
an
integral
part
of
this
parking
lot.
If
you
pull
up
the
gis
map,
you'll
see
that
this
is
the
middle
of
the
parking
lot
nobody's
going
to
build
a
house
in
the
middle
of
the
parking
lot
behind
westover
shopping
center.
F
L
I
can
just
add,
mr
masking:
we
are
not
challenging
the
value
of
that
lot
or
how
it's
valued.
What
we
are
saying
is
that
the
income
generated
by
the
center
is
in
generated
in
part
by
that
lot,
so
to
capitalize
the
value
of
the
shopping
center,
without
accounting
for
the
value
of
that
lot
results
in
double,
counting
that
you
could
not
rent
this
center
without
having
parking,
and
so
it's
it's
part
of
the
overall
economic
unit.
We
don't
care
how
it's
valued.
L
L
F
C
C
A
A
A
D
C
D
Take
issue
with
the
fact
that
the
shopping
center
is
also
owned
by
the
owner
of
this
parcel
that
has
known
that
it's
been
used
for
residential
purposes
illegally
zoned
and
has
been
using
it
for
this
purpose.
We
also
point
out
that
again
that
rpc-006
has
an
actual
physical
house
on
that
property
and
is
being
valued
by
the
residential
team
and
also
has
a
portion
of
its
properties
used
as
the
parking
lot.
This
is
also
owned
by
the
rucker
company.
D
So
what
we
would
recommend
is
that
the
record
company
take
the
time
to
make
the
changes
through
the
legal
process
differentiate,
that
this
is
not
a
residential
zone
site
that
they
want
us
to
use
for
the
purpose
that
it's
used
for,
which
is
for
the
commercial
property
parking
lot.
And
then
we
can
add
it
to
the
economic
unit.
How
they're
going
to
address
the
single-family
house
that
again
has
half
of
its
backyard
as
a
parking
lot.
D
I
don't
know
they'll
have
to
have
that
rezoned,
which
is
probably
part
of
my
thinking,
is
why
they're
not
doing
this
because
of
the
costs
that
are
going
to
be
incurred
with
getting
land
records.
Being
altered,
so
I
think
it
should
be
done
legally
before
we
just
assume
that
it's
yes,
it's
been
used
as
a
parking
lot.
Theoretically,
we
all
agree
legally,
it's
a
single-family
zoned
house,
that's
being
vacant.
A
Okay,
let
me
okay,
let
me
ask
then
the
appellant:
why
don't
you
just
do
that.
L
The
parking.
A
L
E
Yeah
I
was
going
to
wait
till
discussion,
but
I
can
explain
what's
going
on,
if
you
would
like
for
me
to
do
it
now
sure,
okay,
here's
what's
going
on
the
the
back
of
this
parking
lot
is
grandfathered.
It's
been
there
forever.
You
haven't
had
any
tenant
turnover
in
a
long
time,
so
the
county
would
not
require
a
parking
tab.
E
The
if
you
were
to
you
know,
zone
it
or
go
in
for
a
use.
Permit.
You
have
to
bring
it
up
to
today's
code,
which
would
most
likely
be
impossible.
Now.
The
proof
that
this
area
is
used
and
required
parking
for
the
shopping
center
is
contained
in
the
use
permit
that
the
post
office
obtained
and
when
you
read
the
staff
report
you'll
see
that
they
calculated
the
required
parking,
utilizing
the
whole
rear
parking
lot,
as
well
as
the
parking
spaces
on
washington
boulevard.
E
The
parking
spaces
along
washington
boulevard
are
partially
counted
right
away,
partially
owned
by
the
rutgers,
and
so
the
the
you
know
to
get
a
determination
would
be
a
pointless
act.
It's
already,
you
already
have
a
county
acknowledgement
that
has
required
parking
due
to
the
use
permit
for
the
post
office,
and
so
with
that
I'll
be
quiet,
because
that's
the
explanation
of
what's
going
on
here.
I
F
I
I
do
have
a
question:
it's
maybe
the
same
question
the
owner,
the
ruckers
of
this
r6
zone,
property
they're,
getting
a
a
bill
for
that
right,
a
a
a
tax
bill,
okay,
great
and-
and
these
three
rpc
numbers
that
I
have
in
the
work
that
was
prepared
for
us
by
by
the
department
that
parcel
is
not
here.
It's
not
a
part
of
it.
F
These
three
rpc
numbers
are
the
entire
economic
unit
as
legally
constructed
by
the
department,
and
mr
chicas
is
saying:
yes,
it's
these
three,
and
only
three
so
there's
one
bill
for
the
fourth
one,
the
r6,
mostly
parking
lot
and
this
economic
unit.
So
I
don't
see
the
double
counting.
There's
one
bill
for
one
rpc
and
another
bill
for
three
rpcs
is
an
economic
unit
that
functionally
you're
using
the
fourth
one
as
part
of
the
economic
union.
God
bless
it's
grandfathered,
but
it's
not
redundant.
J
Yes,
I
do
have
a
response
to
that.
If
you
look
at
the
parcel
ending
in
1-0,
if
you
pull
this
up
on
the
county's
gis
map,
this
is
actually
just
a
road
that
an
access
road
that
cuts
between
the
parking
lot
and
the
rear
of
the
building
yeah.
This
is
also
similar
to
the
parking
lot
that
that
road
has
no
value
on
its
own,
absent
the
value
that
it
contributes
to
these
buildings.
J
J
Parcel06
also
makes
up
a
part
of
this
rear
parking
lot,
but
it's
not
making
up
as
much
of
that
personal
is
not
contributing
as
much
of
its
space.
It
does
have
a
residential
house
on
it,
but
about
half
of
the
lot.
If
you
look
on
the
gis
map,
is
the
parking
lot
so
rightfully
that
should
be
deducted
as
well.
J
You
know
you
may
want
to
address
it
this
year
and
deduct
half
of
the
property
value
would
probably
be
fair
half
of
the
land
value.
I'm
sorry,
if
not
I'm
sure,
that'll
be
on
appeal
next
year,
but
since
the
county
did
bring
that
to
the
board's
attention,
I
would
like
to
address
that
that
is
also
contributing
to
the
income
of
the
retail
property.
Thank
you.
C
Okay,
maybe
I
was
not
being
clear,
but
first
of
all,
I
just
wanted
to
note
that
they
did
not
appeal
that
particular
parcel,
so
no
change
or
anything
could
be
made
to
that
parcel.
However,
if
it
was
brought
into
the
economic
unit,
the
value
would
still
be
the
same
for
the
overall
economic
unit.
However,
it
would
reallocate
the
values
that
that
that
total
value
would
be
reallocated
across
four
parcels,
not
just
three,
so
that
would
mean
some
of
the
other
parcels
would
be
reduced.
C
Okay,
based
on
allocation
all
right,
so,
but
what
getting
back
to
the
value
of
the
property?
C
I'm
just
asking
you
to
confirm
column,
d's
noi,
which
is
showing
less
than
what's
being
reported
for
the
2021,
and
hopefully
I
explained
the
allocation
for
that
economic
unit,
and
if
you
included
that
other
parcel
chris
did
you
want
to.
D
Just
quickly
point
out
the
increase
in
effective
growth,
as
mentioned
I'm
sorry,
the
increase
in
operating
expenses
mentioned
by
the
parents,
but
there
was
no
mention
of
the
100
plus
thousand
gap
in
our
effective
gross.
Again,
this
is
a
property,
that's
highly
occupied,
in
fact
no
vacancy.
Yet
we
still
applied
the
the
guidelines.
D
J
Yes,
thank
you
so
from
our
discussion.
It
appears
that
we're
all
in
agreement
that
this
parcel
7
is
being
used
as
parking
for
the
economic
unit.
The
county's
contention
is
that
it's
correctly
addressed
by
appealing
the
residential
portion.
I
think
that
there's
two
ways
to
address
this:
we
can
address
it.
The
way
we've
chosen
to
or
you
can
appeal,
the
residential
portion.
It's
two
ways
of
getting
to
the
same
result
because
we
chose
one.
You
know
they
argue
that
the
other
is
appropriate.
J
This
parking
lot
is
part
of
the
economic
generating
ability
of
this
shopping
center.
Now
going
to
the
stabilized
potential,
the
county
mentions
effective
gross
income,
effective
gross
income
in
the
county's
test,
deducts
16,
uniform
vacancy
and
collection.
They
compare
that
to
a
fully
leased
property
without
deducting
any
vacancy
and
collection.
J
Two
hundred
twenty
dollars:
twenty
nineteen,
two
hundred
thirty
three
thousand
twenty
eight
dollars.
Obviously
they
dropped
significantly
in
twenty
twenty
that
was
largely
result
of
covet
shuttering
retail
establishments.
2021
stores
are
open
again.
Expenses
go
back
up
two
hundred
thirty
four
thousand
six
hundred
eighteen
dollars.
That's
just
over
a
thousand
dollars.
Difference
from
2019
expenses
have
been
pretty
consistent
throughout
the
past
four
years,
with
the
exception
of
the
covet
impacted
2020..
J
F
Two
things
one,
I
agree
fully
with
the
appellant.
The
expenses
in
column
d
are
much
too
low.
2020
was
an
aberration
and
I
would
accept
the
operating
year,
expenses
in
column
e,
it's
about
and
and
therefore
I
come
out
with
a
a
lower
assessment.
I
would
up
those
expenses
and
then
give
you
final
numbers.
If
you
wish.
Second,
this
parking
lot
canard,
I
mean
it's
being
charged
once
fortunately
to
the
same
owner
just
in
a
different
bill.
F
I
I
don't
get
at
all
that
they're
arguing
it
ought
to
be
in
the
economic
unit.
I
don't
get
that
they
should
appeal
it
in
order
to
get
relief,
but
I
don't
think
there's
any
relief
to
be
had
it's
on
the
value
of
it's
on
one
bill
and
not
another
and
that's
the
end
of
it.
So
that's
my
contribution.
F
E
E
The
the
post
office
use
permit
into
a
violation
and
if,
if
the
post
office
became
something
else,
you
could
not
pull
a
co
for
any
tenant
space
without
demonstrating
that
the
entire
center
has
enough
parking,
and
so
it's
just
factually
erroneous
to
claim
that
that's
not
part
of
the
required
parking
for
the
shopping
center.
I
mean
it
is,
and.
F
E
Now
you
just
made
a
suggestion.
I
don't
know
how
the
math
works
out,
but
I
think
you
know
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
if
we
can
fix
it
this
year,
but
next
year
they
have
to
put
this
lot
into
the
economic
unit
and
I'm
sure
the
ownership
can
provide
evidence
or
get
the
zoning
office
or
somebody
to
tell
them.
No,
this
is
required.
You
can't
you
can't
put
a
house
there
and
put
a
fence
up
and
then
end
up
in
the
parking
I
mean.
That's
just
so
you're,
probably
wrong.
F
E
F
A
So
just
to
follow
up
on
that,
mr
lawson,
so
what
you're
saying
is
then
the
6027
should
be
deducted
off.
I
Chase,
I'm
going
to
you
know
where
ken
you
were.
I
agree
with
the
expenses.
That's
that's
the
one
I
I
would
have
focused
on
more,
although
I
raised
the
parking
issue
initially
too,
but
I
think
the
expenses
are
wrong
and
I
did
ken
your
suggestion.
Moving
the
operating
year
of
2021
over
expenses
would
work.
G
Mary,
maybe
you
can
help
me
with
the
math,
I'm
not
I'm
not
sure.
I
should
have
asked
lori
in
this
one,
because
I'm
looking
at
column
d
and
I
think
the
gray
areas
are
the
base
rent,
if
I'm
not
mistaken.
G
G
G
A
G
G
G
G
A
So
that's
correcting
that.
Okay,
we
got
so
many
things
here.
Okay,
so
correcting
the
expenses
would
get
us
to
16
950
to
400,
correct.
G
A
E
E
G
E
It
can't
be
jose
because
you
have
to
you,
have
to
amend
the
glop.
You
got
to
go,
you
got
to
bring
it
up
to
code,
it's
impossible.
That's
been
looked
into
by
the
ownership.
I
Would
pull
over
the
column,
e
expense
number.
G
If
you
use
the
expenses
on
column
e
instead
of
the
what
the
department
has
I
come
up
with,
let
me
see
a
final
value
of
16
million
326
500.
That's.
F
Nor
is
it
including
the
change
you
made
to
vacancy
and
collection
the.
E
A
F
Okay,
so
what
is
your
number
again
just
say:
16,
what.
G
If
we
do,
what
mark
is
suggesting
just
using
the
expenses
from
column
e
from
the
original
assessment,
then
the
final
value
would
be
16
million
326
500.
G
A
G
A
H
H
You
don't
want
to
be
sued
by
the
united
states
post
office
because
you
took
away
the
parking
for
their
for
their
facility
right.
So,
if
you're
going
to
value
this
property
at
16
million
or
17
million
based
on
the
income
approach,
you
have
to
assume
that
that
income
goes
away.
If
you
take
out
the
parcel
with
the
parking
on
it,
so
it's
double
taxation.
G
I'll
go
ahead
and
move
them
mate
and
we
make
the
reduction
by
increasing
the
expenses
to
what
mystery
h
suggested.
To
last
year
I
mean
to
the
operating
number,
so
the
final
value
would
be
16
million
three
twenty
six
five
hundred.
I
A
Mr
yates,
okay,
all
in
favor,
I
opposed
okay.
So
it's
six
to
zero.
It's
unanimous,
the
assessment's
reduced
to
sixteen
million
three
twenty
six,
five
hundred,
it's
based
on
using
the
actual
expenses
from
column
e;
and
that's
it
okay.
Thank
you.
A
A
All
right,
I've
been
asked
my
board
member
to
take
a
break,
so
it
is
10
31
we're
going
to
take
a
five
minute
break
and
then
we'll
come
back
and
finish
up
the
last
case
if
everybody
can
turn
off
their
microphones
and
their
cameras.
That
would
be
great.
Thank
you.
A
A
M
E
C
Mary,
yes,
on
the
first
case,
boston
quarter.
What
was
the
vote
count.
A
Oh
there
he
is
okay,
all
right,
we've
got
everybody
back,
so
we
will
move
to
the
final
case
on
the
agenda,
which
is
rpc
three
two:
zero
zero:
two:
zero
zero
one.
The
property
is
located:
2508,
columbia,
pike,
it's
arlington,
village,
retail
and
mr
cowet
is
going
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
owner.
So
you
can
start
and
tell
us
about
your
property.
You
have
eight
minutes,
sir.
M
So,
as
you
mentioned
before,
the
subject,
property
is
arlington
village,
it's
a
small
about
1920,
19,
000,
20,
000
square
foot,
strip,
retail
center
on
columbia,
pike
and,
ultimately
I'll
try
to
keep
it
below
the
eight
minutes
and
much
shorter
than
the
earlier
ones.
It's
a
pretty
straightforward
case.
M
Ultimately,
if
turning
to
page
3
of
34
in
our
analysis,
you'll
see
just
the
basic
work
up
our
opinion
of
value
in
the
leftmost
column,
actuals
in
arlington
county
approach
on
the
right,
we
have
used
the
rent,
roll
to
derive
actual
projected
calendar
year,
2022
potential,
reverse
income
and
other
income
per
the
rental
provided
when
submitted
to
the
county.
M
We
then
apply
a
16
vacancy
and
collection
loss
to
both
the
other
income
and
the
gross
potential
income
for
just
the
base
rents
as
well.
I
know
this
isn't
standard
practice
with
the
county,
but
the
reason
we've
done.
This
is
basically
because
there
is
well
there's
only
six
percent,
roughly
of
the
property
right
now.
Vacant
29
is
slated
to
turn
over
by
the
end
of
this
year,
all
in
the
second
half.
M
So
if
somewhere
in
between
that
and
the
six
percent
does
in
fact
occur-
and
it
is
expected
to
for
some
tenants,
then
we
think
it's
a
reasonable
assumption
that
the
other
income
being
the
reimbursements
would
also
lose
16
of
the
of
their
cash
flows.
So
once
we
apply
the
16,
we
take
the
standard,
20
or
27,
rather
that's
used
by
the
county
and
then
apply
the
2
reserve
allocation.
M
If
you
turn
to
page
six
of
34
in
our
analysis,
you'll
see
a
standard
template
that
we've
drawn
up,
which
references
three
major
studies,
the
acli
4th
quarter,
2021
study
the
rerc
retail
study
from
fourth
quarter
2021
and
the
pwc
corp
has
investor
survey
from
fourth
quarter
2020
one,
and
when
averaging
many
of
these
numbers,
we
think
a
base
rate
of
seven
percent
is
a
lot
more
appropriate
for
this
property.
M
So
just
ask
that
you
consider
the
the
increased
upcoming
vacancy
expected
of
the
property
and
that
there
will
be
an
overall
a
prospective
buyer,
as
of
january
1st
would
likely
take
in
that
risk
by
increasing
the
cap
rate.
That's
pretty
much
the
crux
of
our
argument:
pretty
straightforward
and
I'll.
Let
miss
roskin!
C
Okay,
I
just
want
to
clear
up
really
quick
the
the
gray
shaded
areas
first,
because
I
think
jose
was
confused
in
the
last
case
and
I
couldn't
say
anything
at
the
time
the
16
shaded
base
16
of
the
vacancy
is
taken
from
the
base
rent.
It
is
not
taken
from
the
gpi
which
includes
pass
through,
and
the
same
thing
goes
for
the
expenses
when
we
developed
the
guidelines
this
year
for
the
expenses
and
vacancy,
we
excluded
the
the
pass-throughs,
the
other
miscellaneous
calculations
in
there.
C
So
if
you,
if
you
get
confused
an
easy
way
to
check,
is
to
go
back
to
let's
see
page
five,
which
is
the
worksheet
and
you'll
see
where
16
percent
of
vacancy
is
taken
only
from
the
base
rent.
And
then
you
calculate
your
expenses
from
that
number
and
we
do
not
include
the
pass
through.
Okay
enough
said
about
that.
C
If
you
take
a
look
at
our
historically
the
noi
all
right,
let
me
rephrase
that
if
you
take
a
look
at
column
d,
the
original
january
1
assessment
and
look
at
the
noi
from
that
column
and
compare
it
historically
to
columns
a
b
c
and
e,
it's
still
below
what
they're
reporting
and
that's
that's
pretty
much.
What
I
have
for
the
moment.
Thank
you.
E
E
A
C
Sure
I'll
just
reiterate
what
was
just
said
about
the
reserve
allocation
expense.
C
We
do
not
consider
that
for
this
particular
property
type-
and
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
that
our
noi
and
our
original
assessment
is
lower
than
anything
that's
being
reported
here
historically
for
2018
through
2021,
and
just
to
recap
that
the
gray
shaded
areas,
the
stabilized
vacancy
16,
is
taken
only
from
the
base
rent
and
the
same
thing
with
the
expenses
is
taken
only
from
the
base
rent
is
not
developed
off
of
the
gpi,
and
we
just
request
that
you
give
serious
consideration
to
column
d,
the
original
assessment
of
six
million
six
hundred
and
seventy
one
thousand
one
hundred.
M
Yeah
so
again,
we
we
don't
think
the
county's
analysis
is
really
all
that
unreasonable
here
and
do
appreciate
mr
askin.
Looking
at
everything
the
way
she
has
just
the
the
main
point
of
our
argument,
which
drives
the
two
major
appeal
arguments:
the
reserve
allocation.
Frankly,
we
could
forget
about
it's,
not
crucial.
We
think
just
looking
forward.
M
Obviously
the
the
occupancy
has
been
good
here
in
the
past.
So
yes,
the
the
county's
noi
is
lower
than
or
in
line
with
a
lot
of
historic.
M
You
know
year-end
noi
figures,
but
that
being
said,
there
is
probably
going
to
be
a
drop
off
this
year,
because
there
are,
you
know
almost
30
of
the
tenants
here
slated
to
have
their
lease
expire.
There
will
probably
be
the
ones
that
do
resign.
M
You
know
that
we
don't
know
with
the
structures
of
those
new
leases
or
extensions,
are
going
to
look
like
what
we've
seen
is
a
lot
of
the
reimbursements
have
gone
down
for
a
in
a
lot
of
other
retail
tenants
in
arlington
and
dc
for
re-upping,
and
we
also
just
look
the
as
they
consider
that
the
cap
rate
here,
7.3
or
6.15
base
seems
a
bit
low.
M
H
It's
I
mean
historically
very
stable
shopping
center,
well
located
pretty
low
valuation
as
far
as
any
potential
future
use.
I
think
the
center
next
door
sold
for
like
seven
million
dollars,
so
I'm
I
think
the
county's
pretty
much
spot-on.
F
Discussion
that
things
might
go
south
in
the
second
half
of
this
calendar
year,
if
they
do
we'll
see
about
it
next
assessment
period.
I
also
don't
agree
with
including
pass-through
income
is
a
base
for
deductions
of
all
kinds
and
finally,
the
the
the
cap
rate
to
echo
greg.
This
really
is
very
well
located.
The
the
columbia
pike
redevelopment
project
did
very
good
things
for
these
folks
and
and
has
made
it
or
assured
that
it
stays
stable.
So
I'm
in
full
agreement
with
the
county's
assessment.
H
They're
on
motion
to
confirm
the
county's
assessment
at
six
million
six,
seventy
one
one
hundred.
E
M
A
A
Thank
you.
That
concludes
thank.
A
Okay,
well
welcome
back
the
the
new
gran
puba
and
father.
K
Also,
I
I
spoke
with
rosie
yesterday
she
was
sending
information
out
on
payments
to
the
board
about
setting
up
direct
deposit
for
that.
A
Yep,
that's
that
was
on
my
little
list
here
to
talk
about
yeah.
Okay,
you
got
anything
else,
okay,
all
right,
so
that
was
just
the
last
final
thing
rosa
sent
out
stuff.
I
think
two
people
have
let
her
know.
You
just
need
to
let
her
know
yes
or
no.
If
you
want
the
direct
deposit,
I
mean.
Obviously
it's
a
lot
quicker
and
it's
you
know
easier.
You
don't
have
to
rely
on
the
mail
service
to
get
it
and
it's
cheaper
for
the
county.
A
We
love
saving
money
because
then
they
can
further
pass
that,
along
in
a
tax
reduction
to
its
citizens,
so
anyway,.