►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - July 7, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
B
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
and
it's
good
to
see
you
all
again
and
it's
nice
that
things
that
seem
to
be
getting
back
to
semi-normal.
But
let's,
let's
continue
on
and
we'll
get
right
into
it.
Our
case
and
our
summary
of
facts
for
this
property
start
on
page
53
of
98..
B
I
can
get
to
it
myself.
So
this
is
the
crystal
towers.
It's
locate
located
1600
southeast
street.
It's
also
known
as
5915
street.
It
is,
or
the
original
assessment
in
2021
was
353
million.
900
16
600
the
county,
made
a
revision
or
is
recommending
a
change
to
the
board
of
a
value
of
352
million
590
to
700,
and
what
we
were
requesting
from
the
board
is
to
revise
further
revise
the
value
to
324
million
338
672,
which
would
be
355
000
a
unit.
B
The
crystal
towers
apartment
is
an
older
class
b,
three-star
high-rise
building
in
crystal
city.
It
was
originally
built
in
1968.
It
was
remodeled
in
in
the
early
2000s.
It
contains
912
units
and
is
over
12
stories
and
also
contains
over
9000
square
feet
of
retail.
B
The
main
issues
here
and
really
there's
there's
three
of
them
is
with
regard
to
vacancy
operating
expenses.
Well,
maybe
four,
I
guess
cap
rate
and
then
just
the
the
in
our
terms,
the
lack
of
consideration
for
last
year
in
the
pandemic
in
covid,
and
that's
reflected
reflected
in
the
actual
noi
that
was
reported
in
2020,
but
we
don't
believe
the
the
county
has
given
enough
consideration
to
that
fact.
B
B
You'll
see
we
don't
really
have
an
issue
currently
with
with
the
total
or
the
the
gross
potential
income.
We
do
have
an
issue
with
the
actual
vacancy
into
consideration
for
that.
B
In
the
current
assessment
in
the
revised
assessment
column,
you'll
see
that
vacancy
has
been
pretty
steady
and
this
has
been
a
fairly
stabilized
property
and
that's
reflective
also
in
the
noi
over
the
last
several
years
for
this
property,
but
vacancy
in
2017
was
4.6
3.62
in
2018
3.76
in
2019,
and
then
you
see
a
jump
and
not
surprisingly,
set
up
to
almost
10
percent
in
2020.
Now
the
county
is
still
using
their
five
percent
vacancy.
B
They
may
have
bumped
it
up
one
percent
from
from
the
prior
year,
no
real
consideration
for
the
impact
or
any
impact
that
cobit
has
had
on
the
subject.
Property
same
with
regard
to
operating
expenses.
Again,
it's
been
a
fairly
stabilized
property
in
2017,
6.4
million
6.7
million
in
2018
6.994
in
2019,
and
basically
the
same
number
in
2020
of
6.993.
B
Now,
in
the
test
column,
the
county
is
approximately
at
6.6
million
6.65
million
in
total
operating
expenses.
The
you'll
see
that
there's
been
a
number
of
reconstructed
calls
by
the
county
and
it
would
appear
that
the
county
we
provided
them
with
a
certified
ine
signed
from
the
owner
for
the
2020
income
and
expenses.
B
However,
I
didn't
talk
with
chris
about
this
property.
Specifically,
this
is
mainly
contact
through
with
rebecca.
B
I
would
assume
that
he
requested
a
detailed
internal
statement
after
seeing
some
of
the
the
internal
rubs
amounts
that
were
being
reported
for
2020
when
they
weren't
being
reported
in
prior
years,
and
that's
simply
because
a
different
management
team
took
over.
So
some
of
these
expenses
and
income
buckets
were
being
dropped
into
into
different
buckets
than
what
the
previous
management
company
was
doing.
But
what
chris
has
done
in
this
reconstruction
is
essentially
pulled
out.
B
Some
of
these
recurring
costs
which
he's
calling
capex,
but
they
recur
every
year,
so
the
the
county's
reporting
or
the
owners
reporting
these
as
internal
as
recurring
operating
statements,
and
this
is
for
typical
turnover
costs,
replacements
of
carpeting,
painting,
small
appliance
replacements,
as
these
properties
turn
over
the
the
properties
historically
reported
these
as
recurring
operating
expenses.
The
county
didn't
have
any
issue
with
it.
This
wasn't
appealed
in
last
year
in
2019,
but
the
county
didn't
have
any
issue
with
it.
In
2019,
when
again,
the
same
operating
expense
is
6.99.
B
Basically,
seven
million
dollars
was
reported
and
and
in
2018
slight
downtick
6.7
million.
This
has
been
a
fairly
stable
asset
and
and
then
just
in
terms
of
the
ny
again,
a
very
stabilized
property
until
you
hit
2020
when
you
hit
the
pandemic,
16
19.6
noi
in
2017,
20
million
81
000
in
2018
19.9
million
in
2019,
and
then
you
see
it
dropped
down
to
18.7
million
in
2020..
B
Now,
initially,
the
the
county
was
at
approximately
they're,
still
right
around
that
at
19.6,
19.7
million
in
their
original
and
they're
still
right
around
that
19.7
million
dollars
in
in
their
estimated
noi
for
the
property.
Basically,
the
only
changes
that
were
made
at
the
first
level
was
to
revise
the
retail
portion
of
the
income
and
load
in
the
crystal
city
bid
to
the
tax
rate,
which
resulted
in
the
the
kind
of
minimal
reduction
at
the
first
level.
B
So,
just
looking
at
this
case-
and
you
just
look
at
the
historical
actuals
that
reported
it
just
doesn't
seem
and
based
on
the
assumptions
the
county
is
now
making
specifically
for
our
par
for
apartments
this
year,
it
doesn't
seem
like
any
consideration
has
been
made
to
consider
the
impact
that
covet
has
had
on
the
on
the
apartment
market.
B
You
know
you
can
see
it's
reflective
in
the
actual
reported
ine
for
the
property,
where
it's
been
extremely
stable
for
the
prior
three
years
from
2017
to
president
the
night.
The
hit
hit
the
most
recent
year
2020.
It
drops
down
to
18.7
million
again
in
the
most
recent
year
when
it
was
stabilized,
it
was
at
20
million
dollars
and
the
county
in
their
original
and
revised
assessments.
Their
noi
has
trended
slightly
downward
to
19.7
million,
but
nowhere
near
that
actual
reported
ny
of
the
property
of
18.7
million.
B
Again,
I
think,
that's
reflective
of
you
know
the
counties
estimated
no
impact
on
on
occupancy
they're,
using
basically
the
same
stabilized
vacancy
that
they've
always
reported
their
their
retail
vacancy
has
not
changed
much
their
department
vacancy
has
not
changed
much
from
what
they've
used
in
prior
years,
and
their
cap
rates
have
not
changed
at
all
as
well.
B
B
You
can
find
on
our
page
of
the
packet
on
page
55
of
98
and
just
the
differences
in
apartment
cap
rates
for
national
cap
rate
studies
from
2019
through
2020
and
in
the
drops
you'll
see
in
the
cap
rate,
so
we're
just
again
hoping
that
the
board
considers
the
actual
operations
of
the
property
the
impact
covet
had
on
this
property
in
2020,
which
we
don't
feel
like
has
been
accurately
reflected
in
the
county's
current
assessment
for
2021..
Thank
you.
C
Good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
mr
warren,
mr
warren
actually
set
this
up
pretty
well
for
us
again.
As
the
board
knows,
we
do
rely
heavily
on
the
mixed
use-
income.
Expense
summary.
C
C
As
mr
warren
noted,
this
was
a
well-run,
managed
and
stabilized
property.
Prior
to
last
year,
we
saw
true
vacancy
have
a
three-year
average
of
3.7,
that's
17
through
2019,
even
when
you
include
concessions
again
very
stabilized.
Just
at
about
four
percent.
Three
year
average
we
saw
that
the
apartment
revenue
was
up
three
years
in
a
row
up
again
in
2020
by
about
1.8
percent.
C
You
did
see
that
the
gross
potential
income
was
also
up
three
years
in
a
row
up
one
and
a
half
percent
in
2020,
even
in
a
coveted
year,
the
the
biggest
difference,
as
mr
warren
noted,
was
the
jump
and
true
vacancy
and
concessions
in
2020
itself,
an
increase
of
almost
four
percent,
a
little
over
four
percent
for
true
vacancy
and
almost
six
percent.
For
when
you
include
concessions.
C
D
E
C
One
of
the
biggest
differences
we
have
on
this
property
is
the
interpretation
of
these
below
the
line
expenses,
what
we
call
capital
expenditures
or
capital
improvements.
The
board
is
fairly
familiar
with
this.
By
now
we
saw
this
last
week.
C
C
As
you
can
see
in
those
numbers,
what
we
do
is
we're
looking
at
a
stabilized
property
as
of
the
last
three
or
four
years.
Usually
when
we
have
the
2020
information,
we'll
rely
more
put
more
weight
on
years,
18,
19
and
20..
When
we
look
at
the
stabilized
numbers
from
those
years,
you
can
see
in
our
revision
that
we're
actually
below
the
three
year
average
for
effective
gross
and
we're
above
the
three
year
average
for
total
operating
expenditures,
again
exclusive,
excluding
the
capital
improvements
we're
below
the
three
year
average
for
noi.
C
What
this
really
is
is
again
about
stabilizing
the
property.
We
did
note.
Obviously
there
was
a
drop-off
in
value
in
2020,
but
I
would
note
that
we
also
started
the
year.
We
were
already
decreased
from
2020
before
revision
of
over
two
percent.
So
with
the
provision,
we
did
note
that
there
was
a
drop
off
in
value
from
2020
to
2021..
C
Three
years
in
a
row,
retail
was
essentially
flat
so
that
didn't
even
drop
off
it.
Just
it
stayed
flat
at
negative
point,
two
percent,
so
less
than
a
half
a
percent
change
from
2019
2019
to
2020.
C
We
do
believe
that
the
revisions
being
made
are
reflective
of
the
stabilized
nature
of
the
property.
I
do
believe
that
this
again
is
below
the
three-year
averages
that
we
solve
for
not
only
the
effect
of
gross,
but
also
for
the
excuse
me.
The
operating
expenses
are
actually
reflected
higher
than
the
three-year
average,
so
we
do
believe
that
the
revision
is
actually
prudent
at
a
value
of
352
million
592
700.
C
again.
This
is
well
positioned
property.
It's
within
a
five
minute
walk.
I
think
it's
two
tenths
of
a
mile
walk
to
the
crystal
city.
Metro,
stop!
Obviously
in
the
heart
of
what's
going
on
with
the
amazon
hq2,
it's
presented.
Well,
as
mr
warren
noted
they've
gone
through
some
renovations
over
the
last
years
and
continue
to
one
thing
I
would
note
just
to
sort
of
beat
the
dead
horse
is
the
capital
improvements
reflected
reflected
not
only
and
the
owners.
C
I
need
the
reflected
in
the
accrual
budget,
that's
where,
on
page,
I
believe
it
starts
87
of
your
packet.
So
you
can
see
some
of
the
things
that
are
being
listed:
boiler,
replacements,
capex,
washer
and
dryer.
These
aren't
annual
operating
expenses
these
again
by
nature,
things
that
come
up
every
five
years.
Seven
years
need
to
be
replaced
with
a
department,
the
size,
nine
or
twelve
units.
That
is
to
be
expected.
C
But,
as
mr
lawson
has
pointed
out
himself,
we
do
have
a
point:
two
percent
adjustment
made
for
capital
cap
rate
that
includes
reserve
for
replacement
allowance
and
in
this
case
it's
actually
much
more
generous
than
what
the
owner
themselves
allow.
They
listed
228
000
for
reserves,
replacement
or
250
dollars
a
unit
by
looking
at
the
value
of
352
million
500
down
to
2
700,
which
is
our
recommended
value
for
2021.
C
You
multiply
that
by
the
point
two
percent
for
the
reserves,
replacement
adjustment
and
you
get
a
value
of
seven
hundred
and
five
thousand
one
hundred
eighty
five.
You
divide
that
by
the
nine
hundred
and
twelve
units
and
you
get
a
average
unit
reserved
for
a
placement
of
773
dollars.
So
again,
that's
almost
three
times
as
much
as
what
the
owner
themselves
allow.
C
Ideas
that
they're
done
by
the
the
owner
themselves,
as
opposed
to
being
an
annual
operating
replacement
cost.
These
should
be
separated
from
the
annual
operations
of
the
property
things
that
are
done
to
keep
the
the
property
running
at
a
in
an
annual
fashion,
as
opposed
to
things
that
are
being
done
to
improve
the
either
the
lives
of
the
tenants
or
the
long
liveness
of
the
building
itself.
C
So
again,
given
that
we
did
reconstruct
out
the
capital
improvements
that
we
also
called
not
to
be
included
on
the
incredible
expense
forms,
we
did
a
reconstruction.
We
do
believe
that
the
reconstruction
supports
the
revision
that
was
made
and
offered
to
the
owner.
We
do
believe
that
that
supports
the
idea
of
a
stabilized
property
again
taking
into
account
the
year
2020,
but
also
the
years
18
and
19,
in
which
there
was
years
of
growth.
C
A
F
G
Thank
you.
I
I
have
an
easy
one
for
the
department,
the
appellant,
as
I
understood
the
appellant,
said
that
for
this
year,
the
covid
year,
2020,
the
cap
rate,
was
unchanged
for
multi-family
projects.
I,
of
course
have
what
the
cap
rates
are
for
this
year,
but
I
don't
have
them
for
last
year.
Are.
C
G
F
Thank
you,
madam
chairman.
I
was
looking
here
at
this
page.
I
think
it's
87
and
it
looks
like
one
of
the
debates
between
the
two
parties
is
furniture
and
fixture
replacement
and
appliance
replacements,
and
I
guess
my
question
for
I'll
ask
this
of
the
owner
first,
and
you
may
not
know
this,
but
on
on
the
income,
taxes
are,
how
are
they
handled
for
federal
income
tax?
Are
they
an
expense?
Are
they
capital
improvement,
appreciated.
B
I
cannot,
I
can't
comment
on
that,
just
because
I'm
not
sure
how
the
owner
and
now
the
new
management
company
has
typically
reported
that.
So
I
I
I
can't
say
to
be
honest,
I
I
can
tell
you
that
you
can
tell
that
there
was
a
change
in
some
of
the
reporting
just
some
of
the
buckets
and
where
stuff
was
being
dropped
when
the
management
company
changed
hands,
I
believe
midway
through
last
year.
Let.
F
Me
ask
chris,
mr
chicas:
how
how
do
you
understand
most
owners
to
handle
it.
C
Most
owners
are
gonna
handle
it
like
we
did
last
week
as
a
blow
the
line
adjustments.
You
know
we
do
hear
that.
That's
something
that
an
investor
should
take
into
account,
but
at
the
same
point
as
we've
gone
on,
you
know,
ad
nauseam
is
there
are
going
to
be
those
expenses
that
are
typical
of
an
ownership
as
opposed
to
the
property,
so
amortization
depreciation,
taxes
and
capital
improvements
would
generally
be
handled
as
a
below
the
line,
expense
and,
in
fact,
as
you
noted,
the
owners
did
that
themselves.
F
Know
I
wonder-
and
I
don't
know
the
answer,
but
I
wonder
I
mean
you
would
think
that
under
accounting
regulations
or
irs
regulations,
this
would
be
addressed.
B
Thank
you
and
if
I
could
just
respond
to
that,
even
even
if
we're
we're
using
the
reconstructed
noi
and
we're
assuming
some
of
those,
those
higher
expenses
should
be
taken
out
and
considered
capital
improvements.
We're
still
ways
away
that
reconstructed,
noi
of
19
million.
B
You
know
with
the
revised
operating
expenses,
is
well
well
off
what
this
property
is
historically
reported
and
where
the
county
is
currently
assessing
it
at
the
county's.
Basically
at
19.8
million
they
brought
it
down
from
you
know
what
it's
historically
been
at:
20
million
to
1980.,
so
we're
still
very
very
very
far
away
and
again,
I
think,
there's
a
couple
ways
you
can
address
that
you
can.
You
can?
You
know
address
that
in
the
operating
expenses
or
you
can
dress
it
in
the
cap
rate.
B
The
cap
rate,
mr
matkin
you're,
saying,
was
saying
that
you
know
asking
if
they
had
been
changed.
They
have
not
been
changed,
like
chris
said
from
the
prior
year
for
apartments,
but
a
lot
of
other
property
types
have
been
changed
due
to
coven.
Retail,
for
example,
went
up
30
basis
points
across
the
board
and
hotels,
at
least
all
the
ones
that
we
have
went
up.
100
basis
points
to
reflect
that
impact
to
coven.
So
there
there.
H
Yeah
ironed-
maybe
this
has
to
do
with
the
management
change,
but
it
went
it
parking.
The
parking
line
item
went
down.
100.
Is
that
now
just
loaded
into
a
different?
Is
it
in
the
apartment
income
and
that's?
Why
we're
not
seeing
it
there's
still
there's
still
parking
revenue
in
the
building
right.
It's
not
zero.
B
I'd
have
to
go
back
and
check
now.
Parking
revenue
across
the
board
for
apartments
took
a
significant
hit
in
2020
due
to
covid.
My
guess
is
that
they
we're
still
reporting
some
kind
of
parking
income.
I
don't
have
the
detail
in
front
of
me
or
what
bucket
that
was
dropped
in.
C
H
I'm
just
looking
at
miscellaneous
miscellany
per
ine,
it
looks
like
it
went
to
zero,
but
but
maybe
it's
in
line
one
now
under
apartment
income.
C
Yeah
yeah,
so
at
the
bottom
of
their
ie,
you
can
see
they
list.
D
C
A
Okay,
mr
metzken.
G
Thank
you
and
I
would
just
hasten
to
add
exactly
on
that.
How
much
less.
C
Yes,
ma'am
so
just
to
reiterate
to
mr
hoffman
parking
actually
increased
by
about
four
percent
from
553
up
to
575..
C
So
again,
even
in
covid
year
apartment
revenue,
increased
retail
revenue
increased
just
slightly
two
percent
parking
revenue
increased.
So
it's
really
again,
just
the
the
hitting
the
hammer
on
the
head
was
the
increase
in
true
vacancy
and
concessions.
We
do
believe
there's
a
burn
off,
obviously,
as
as
terrible
as
2020
was,
it
was
just
one
year
out
of
four
listed
here.
As
you
can
see.
In
the
year
17
18
19,
we
saw
increases
three
years
in
a
row.
C
We
did
stabilize
the
operating
expenses
to
exclude
capital
improvements.
Those
are
again
seen
in
columns
c
e
and
h.
You
take
that
three
year
average
we're
actually
above
the
three
year
average
for
operating
expenses,
we're
below
the
three
average
for
effective
gross
and
we're
below
the
three
year
average
for
net
operating
income.
C
The
net
operating
income
offered
by
the
appellant
has
never
been
achieved
at
this
property
prior
to
last
year.
It's
even
you
know
slightly
higher
than
last
year's
when
you're,
including
the
exclusions
for
capital
improvements.
So
we
do
believe
that
the
three-year
average
again
as
prudent
in
accordance
with
the
last
three
years,
we
do
believe
that
the
revision
should
be
confirmed
at
352
592
700..
Thank
you.
B
Yes,
so
again,
really
the
big
thing
here
is
is
the
consideration
for
and
the
impact
code.
I
know
we
go
through
this
this
process
year
in
and
year
out,
where
you
know
you
look
at
the
history
of
the
property
and
maybe
the
most
recent
year
you
have
a
down
year
and
the
county
works
at
stabilizing
that
property
and
and
that's
kind
of
what's
reflected
in
this
year's
it's
it's
that
it's
a
one-year
blip.
It's
only
going
to
impact.
B
It
was
only
impacted
last
year
and
from
now
on
we're
stabilized
again
everything's
fine,
and
I
don't
think
that's
what
what
you're
going
to
see
and
it's
not
reflective
in
the
rent
rolls
and
the
market
rents
that
we
provided
as
of
1
120
last
year's
valuation
date
and
this
year's
valuation
date.
If
you
turn
to
page,
I'm
sorry,
I'm
having
some
issues
here
but
page
54
of
98.,
we
have
a
little
graph
there.
B
Sorry
that
just
again
shows
that
the
market
rent
that
the
the
client
is
asking
for
and
the
difference
it's
basically
a
14
drop
from
last
year's
valuation
date
for
2020
1
120
and
this
year's
valuation
date
for
1
121..
B
This
is
not
going
to
be
a
one-year
blip
where,
where
everything
goes
back,
the
vacancies
completely,
you
know,
goes
back
down
to
three
percent,
and
you
know
they
are
stabilized
in
their
gross
potential
income.
I
think
what
they
found
out
and
what
they
found,
particularly
at
the
end
of
the
year,
and
what
you'll
find
with
when
we
present
some
of
these
ditmar
cases,
which
you
all
are
very
familiar
with.
Is
they
really
experienced
some
of
these?
B
These
apartment
property
owners
specifically
exp
difficulties
at
the
end
of
the
year
when
leases
were
rolling
over
they
weren't
able
to
renew
and
market
rents
have
started
to
to
kind
of
fall
off
of
a
cliff.
So
again,
this
is
not
a
one-year
blip
where
we're
just
going
to
stabilize
it,
not
take
any
consideration
for
covid,
where
you're
taking
consideration
for
for
covet
and
basically
every
other
property
type
in
the
county.
B
With
regard
to
cap
rates
and
vacancy,
like
you're,
seeing
in
the
hotel
and
and
retail
property
types,
where
they're
giving
great
consideration
for
the
impact
of
those
properties
and
not
considering
it's
a
one-year
blip,
but
I
mean
they're
using
the
same
exact
standard
market,
vacancy
and
market
cap
rate
market
expenses
that
as
they've
always
done,
and
basically
just
downward
trending
the
actual
noi
in
comparison
to
where
it
fell
off,
which
it
fell
off
very
substantially.
B
And
it's
not
just
going
to
bounce
right
back
up
to
their
stabilized
noi
the
following
year.
So
again
we're
asking
for
for
consideration.
We
either
be
in
the
cap
rate,
whether
it
be
and
recognize
the
higher
expenses
or
higher
vacancy,
which
we
again
don't
feel
is
being
properly
allocated
for
and
considered
in
the
2021
assessment
from
the
county.
Thank
you.
F
Okay,
I'll
go
ahead
and
throw
out
a
couple
thoughts.
It
seems
to
me
in
looking
at
what
happened
last
year
it
seemed
like
in
the
beginning
there
was
a
drop-off
in
residential
and
if
nobody
knew
what
the
heck's
going
on
everybody's
scared-
and
it
does
seem
like
rinse-
went
down,
it
does
seem
that
way
to
me,
but
it
also
seemed,
like
things
picked
back
up
towards
the
end
of
the
year
as
you
headed
into
fall
and
we
have
two
com,
it
seems
to
me.
F
We
have
two
competing
things
which
makes
this
a
really
hard
case.
On
one
hand,
you
have
factual
evidence
that
covet
had
an
impact,
and
we
can
look
at
the
figures
and
we
can
see
that
there
was
an
impact.
What
you
can't
measure,
though,
is
the
impact,
the
opposite
way
of
amazon,
and
you
know
we.
We
all
know
that
the
presence
of
amazon
has
increased
values.
But
how
do
you
quantify
that?
I
I
don't
know
so
anyhow.
F
These
are
a
couple
of
thoughts
that
I
have
and,
and
I'm
really
interested
in
how
my
fellow
board
members,
what
thoughts
they
might
have
because,
honestly,
for
me,
this
is
a
hard
one
to
decide.
Thank
you.
A
E
You
go
okay,
I'm
sorry.
I
hear
what
the
appellant's
saying
and
I'd
agree
that
the
impact
of
covid
is
probably
there,
but
at
the
same
time
it's
one
year,
and
I
think
my
feeling
is
when
I
went
over
this
earlier.
We
have
to
really
we
need
to
look
at
this
and
see
if
this
does
change
the
tech
or
the
history
of
the
building
the
trend
in
the
building.
E
G
Like
to,
I
was
thinking
the
same
thing,
you
know
perhaps
I'll
reiterate,
but
just
in
different
words
that
we're
in
mass
appraisal
we're
looking
at
trends.
We
often
look
at
stabilization
versus
up
and
down
every
year
and
try
to
look
for
the
longer
term
and
at
the
same
time,
not
project
for
the
future,
even
the
near
future,
and
so
I
I
echo
mark's
thoughts
that
we
know
there
was
an
impact.
G
The
value
the
assessed
value
of
the
building,
which
has
been
going
up
year
after
year,
has
gone
down
this
year,
less
than
some
other
similar
properties
that
we've
seen
this
year.
But
as
when
I
forgot
myself,
I
think
mr
cheek
is
it's
a
well-positioned
building
now
1900
jobs
at
amazon.
So
far,
is
that
gonna?
G
You
know,
make
crystal
city
the
the
high
point
of
global
economics.
I
don't
think
so,
but
nonetheless
the
trend
is
up,
and
I
I
I
I
I
mean
there
is
again
there
is
recognition
for
kobit,
but
it
I.
I
think
that
we
should
put
in
the
context
of
the
long
term
and
not
a
an
immediate
situation
for
this
and.
F
Yes,
ma'am,
sorry
to
interject
again,
you
know
if
this
building
we're
out
in
loudoun
county.
I
think
I
would
probably
go
with
the
owners
numbers,
but
you
know
you
look
at
it
and,
as
we've
heard
the
cases
the
you
know,
various
excuse
me.
Sectors
of
the
economy
have
had
different
magnitude
of
a
hit.
Hotels
were
really
whacked
office,
some
the
retail
quite
a
bit,
and
here
you
look
at
it
and
the
retail
is,
is
really
almost
like
an
afterthought,
and
you
have
you
know
where
it's
right
there
at
amazon.
H
Yeah
I
mean
I
was
on
the
fence
going
in,
but
if
I'm
on
the
fence,
I
gotta
side
with
the
county,
because
that's
the
burden
is
on
the
appellate
to
move
this
thing
further,
there's
already
a
reduction
the
county's
offered
right.
I
just
didn't
see
any
need
for
anything
further.
D
Yeah,
I
have
to
agree,
I
think,
in
the
past
we've
looked
at
this
building,
you
know
so
we
each
we
made
a
challenge,
but
I
think
for
this
year
you
know
there's
looking
at
all
the
income
and
expensive
statements.
I
have
to
agree
with
mr
chickas
that
a
lot
of
the
expenses
you
know
with
appliances,
carpeting
and
furniture,
I
think
they're,
you
know
they
should
be
considered
captain
not
just
regular
expenses.
D
So
I
was
convinced
on
that
part
that
I
think
you
know
the
county
is
correct.
I
was
trying
to
see
where
else
an
adjustment
could
be
made,
but
you
know
overall
at
all
the
numbers.
I
think
it's
pretty
much
more
stable
than
any
other
property
that
we've
seen
so
far.
You
know
you
know
I
expenses
and
also
I
have
you
know
I
I
have
to
agree
with
the
county.
I
think
the
revised
number
proper.
D
Yeah
I'll
go
ahead
and
move
that
we
confirm
the
revised
assessment
of
352
million
five.
Ninety
two
seven
hundred
a
second.
A
No
okay,
it's
seven
to
zero.
The
county's
confirmed
at
the
revised
number
of
352
million
592
700..
Thank
you,
mr
warren.