►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing September 27, 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
For
27
2022,
this
is
the
Arlington
County
Virginia
Board
of
Equalization
hearings.
We
have
six
cases
on
the
agenda.
The
first
case
is
RPC
20010026
and
535
North
Pollard,
and
we
have
Mr
Blake
Warren
and
Mr
Jeremy
chitlick
representing
the
owners.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
B
Thank
you
very
much.
Ford
I
would
like
to
direct
you
your
attention
to
page
39
of
137
of
the
County's
response
memo
and
it
shows
our
summary
of
facts.
This
is
the
Birchwood
Apartments
located
at
525
to
545
North
College
Street,
and
it
is
consistent
of
a
single
tax
RPC.
B
The
original
2022
assessment
for
this
property
was
39
million.
263
400.
the
county
is
recommending
a
revised
value
of
36
million.
One
hundred
seventeen
thousand
six
hundred
the
property
was
originally
built
in
1982.
B
There
was
in
addition
added
in
2000,
it's
97
total
units.
It
is
a
multi-family
apartment,
complex
located
in
the
Boston
and
Virginia
Square
sub
Market.
It's
one
building
four
stories
and
sits
on
2.67
Acres.
The
community
offers
a
mix
of
one
two
and
three
bedroom
units
and
is
located
four
blocks
from
the
Virginia
Square
in
in
George
Mason
Metro
station
and
six
blocks
from
the
Boston
Boston
metro
station,
I'd
like
to
now
direct
the
board's
attention
to
page
I.
B
Think
it's
three:
that's
the
counties,
2022
apartment
summary
and
historical
INE,
which
shows
the
actual
reported
income
expenses
for
the
prior
four
years
from
2018
to
most
recently.
2021
this
property,
the
original
assessment
value
of
39
million
263
400,
represented
the
six
percent
increase
from
the
prior
year.
Now
the
County's
revised
test
column
represents
a
2.7
percent
decrease.
However,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
actual
noi
that
was
reported
year
over
year
from
20
to
21
is
actually
a
14
decrease
year
over
year.
B
Now,
just
looking
at
the
historicals
for
the
past
three
years,
you'll
see
a
a
three-year
downward
Trend
in
the
total
apartment,
GPA
GPR
from
2
million
nine
hundred
eighty
seven
thousand
eight
hundred
in
2019
to
down
to
two
million
981
000
in
2020
and
most
recently,
two
million
796
000
in
2021,
the
the
County's
test
column
on
column.
F.
B
They
revised
it
down,
but
it's
still
a
hundred
and
ninety
thousand
dollars
higher
than
what
was
actually
reported
in
most
recently
in
2021.
The
county
has
also
included
a
a
rent
roll
analysis.
On
page
six,
it
goes
from
six
to
seven,
showing
the
average
unit
rents
for
the
one
bedroom,
one
bedroom
and
den
two
bedrooms.
Those
are
all
lower
than
the
County's
revised
worksheet
that
can
be
found
on
page
five.
B
If
you
took
those
averages
and
used
those
averages
in
the
County's
new
test
column,
it
would
result
in
a
gross
potential
rent
of
two
million
eight
hundred
ninety
five
thousand
six
hundred
twelve
so
again
around
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
below
what
the
County's
revised
test
calling
is
showing
effective
gross
income
has
been
down
year
over
year,
again
we're
showing
a
downward
Trend
each
last
three
years
from
3.17
million
in
2019
2.96
million
in
2020
and
most
recently,
2.49
million
in
2021..
B
That's
472
000
higher
than
the
County's
test
column
in
F
of
the
in
their
revised
test.
Column
of
2962
771.
operating
expenses
in
2019
was
32
percent
of
effective
gross
income
34
in
2020
and
most
recently
43.
B
The
County's
revised
test
column
uses
a
operating
expenses
of
38
noi
each
of
the
last
three
years
again
we're
seeing
a
large
downward
Trend
2.15
million
in
2019
at
1.95
million
in
2020,
and
down
to
1.426
million
in
2021,
which
is
again
around
480
000
higher
than
the
County's
revised
test
column
used
to
calculate
their
revised
value
of
36
million
117
600..
So
again,
those
are
kind
of
fact.
B
The
case
and
kind
of
what
we
laid
out
the
last
time
we
spoke
here
and
what
we
discussed
in
last
year's
assessment
that
you
know
covered
was
not
a
one-year
blip,
we're
seeing
a
significant
downward
Trend,
that's
expected
to
continue
into
the
future
and
we're
hoping
that
the
board
considers
this.
Thank.
C
C
This
one
is
a
2000
built
in
2000
mid-rise
building
that
has
basically
four
years
of
declining
income
and
or
three
years
of
declining
income
after
a
year
that
was
essentially
flat
and
it's
at
404
000
per
unit,
which
is
is
quite
aggressive
as
compared
to
the
other
ditmar
properties
and
again,
the
assessor
to
the
analysis
on
the
rent,
roll
and
then
used
higher
numbers
across
the
board
to
show
that
the
income
at
the
property,
the
gross
potential
income,
is
225,
000
higher
a
great
grains,
is
on
as
well,
if
Greg
from
Birchwood
anything
you
want
to
discuss
here.
C
The
we
just
kind
of
hit
on
the
fact
that
the
reporter
rents
are
down
in
the
noi
went
from
one
nine
to
one
four
and
that's
not
because
of
getting
manufactured
vacancy
like
we
was,
was
claimed
last
week.
Anything
you
want
to
talk
about
on
Birchwood.
D
Not
I
wasn't
I
wasn't
in
the
room,
so
I
didn't
hear
everything,
but
yeah
I
mean
that
that
property
just
had
an
issue
staying
occupied,
low
rents.
You
haven't
climbed
out
of
that
hole
at
all,
and
higher
expenses,
like
we
saw
last
week
across
the
board,
so
now
same
same
story.
E
E
The
other
error
is
due
to
column
e
the
operating
year,
2021
I'm
not
familiar
with
how
ditmar
reports
their
vacancy
when
they
submit
their
Ines
and
so
I
incorrectly
inputted
the
vacancy
wrong.
So
if
you
subtract
out
on
column
e,
244
thousand
and
five
dollars
from
the
the
vacancy
or
remove
it,
let's
put
it
that
way.
That's
going
to
increase
the
egi
and
the
reported
noi
and
I'm
not
going
to
State
them
on
this
open-air
environment.
You'll
have
to
do
the
math
yourself
and
I
apologize.
E
As
for
this
property
we're
just
knowing.
Yes,
we
did
a
rent,
roll
analysis
and,
and
we
were
projecting
what
would
the
rent
be
for
January,
1
2022
and
that's
what
we
displayed
in
the
column
f,
our
our
vacancy
that
we
used
is
pretty
much
in
line
with.
E
What's
being
reported
and
looking
at
our
expenses,
we
used,
we
pretty
much
tried
to
use
the
same
expenses
that
were
being
reported
for
January
for
2021,
and
hence
you
the
reduction
that
we
came
up
with
was
36
million
one
hundred
and
seventeen
thousand
six
hundred.
Please
note
that
the
agent
is
including
20
000
in
their
replacement
reserves.
E
We
already
account
for
that
in
our
cap
rate,
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
note
of
those
items.
Chris
is
there
anything
that
you
would
like
to
offer
any
comment.
F
Yeah,
sorry
about
that,
essentially
just
kind
of
echoing
what
Ms
roskin
just
reported.
Unfortunately,
she
isn't
quite
aware
with
ditmar's
I
would
say
unusual
way
of
reporting
their
INE
vacancy,
where
they
report
a
total
number
and
then
essentially,
you
have
to
back
it
out.
So
the
total
number
reported
for
the
first
line
of
vacancy
is
the
entire
amount.
The
amount
list
of
front
loss
and
concessions
then
has
to
be
backed
out
of
that
amount.
F
Unfortunately,
double
dipped
if
you
will
and
essentially
added
twice
and
I
I,
don't
believe,
you'll
hear
any
dispute
from
that
from
the
agents.
So
essentially
the
egi
was
squashed
a
bit
and
the
noi
as
well.
Importantly,
though,
and
and
I
apologize
we're
going
to
kind
of
go
off
all
over
the
place
here.
What
are
the
notes
as
far
as
rent
potential?
You
know,
we've
talked
about
this
in
every
case
we've
had
so
far
this
year
the
rent
roll
is
showing
the
rents
as
of
January,
December,
31st
I.
F
Think
it's
logical
and
We've.
We've
grown
these
rents.
In
every
case,
we've
heard,
and
modestly
we're
talking
one
percent
at
two
percent
very
much,
what's
achievable,
based
on
the
historic
performance
of
the
property
and
again
just
based
on
logic
of
what
we've
seen
over
the
years
and
what
they've
achieved.
So
we
don't
assume
that
the
rents
will
stay
static
as
of
December
31st
2021.
We
do
believe
that
those
would
grow
and
that's
what
we've
done
virtually
every
case.
You've
heard
this
year.
F
I
would
also
point
out,
and
it's
something
that
went
over
very
quickly
was
the
operating
history.
Ms
Raskin
was
quite
generous
in
fact,
suggested
and
projected
a
Opex
that
was
higher
than
what
was
achieved
in
2021
2021's
number
was
50
000
or
so
higher
than
what
was
achieved
and
entered
the
other
four
years.
As
you
know,
what
we
tend
to
do
is
stabilize
those
numbers
and
look
at
them
over
a
three-year
period.
F
When
2021
comes
on,
we
place
more
weight
on
2021
and
less
on
2018.,
regardless
that
still
probably
was
a
bit
more
aggressive
than
necessarily
would
have
been
so
ask
you
to
take
that
in
account
as
well,
but
looking
over
again
at
the
history
of
the
property.
Looking
again
at
the
unnaturally
low
nois,
as
seen
in
column
e,
we
do
believe
that
the
revision
offered
by
the
county
is
appropriate
at
36
million
117
600..
Thank
you.
G
Yes,
I
have
one
for
Lori.
The
in
your
note,
you
have.
The
county
has
included
0.2
percent
in
the
cap
rate
for
replacement
reserves.
How
much
would
that
end
up
being
as
far
as
dollars.
F
Have
to
go
yeah
if
I
can
get
that
for
you,
so
essentially
you're
going
to
take
the
value
indicated.
36
117
600
multiply
that
by
0.2
you're
going
to
get
72
235,
which,
as
you
can
see,
is
obviously
assumes
a
much
higher
rate
than
is
assumed
by
the
owner
and
then
obviously
quick
math.
You
can
divide
that
by
97
and
get
the
per
unit
so.
G
It's
about
so
you're
giving
pretty
much
everyone
that
has
Apartments
they
like
in
this
particular
Apartment
project,
you're
you're,
assuming
a
reserve
of
72
000..
That's
correct!
Okay!
Okay!
Thank
you.
H
E
Well,
I'll
attempt
to
make
it
a
comment
about
this
and
then
I'll.
Let
Chris
make
sure
that
I
did
it
right
when
they
report
their
vacancy,
they
put
a
total
number
at
the
top
and
then
they
go
and
Break
It,
Out
Below,
so
basically
they're,
doubling
it
okay
and
I
didn't
realize
this
was
how
ditmar
reports
their
vacancy.
So
really
the
vacancy
is
twenty
thousand
one
hundred
and
seventy
nine
dollars.
E
The
concessions
are
two
hundred
ten
thousand
and
forty
five
dollars
and
then
there's
another
breakdown
of
concession
of
thirty
three
thousand
nine
hundred
and
sixty
dollars.
So
that
comes
out
to
a
total
of
two
hundred
sixty
four
thousand
one
hundred
and
eighty
four
dollars
and
that's
what
the
agent
is
reporting.
Also
they
basic
they're
backing
it
up.
It's
just
I'm
not
familiar
with
ditmar
and
how
they
fill
out
our
form
and
didn't
realize,
didn't
recognize
that
the
way
they
put
the
numbers
in,
let's.
H
Put
it
down
you
stand
by
your
column,
F,
though
right
you're,.
E
F
H
I
G
I'd,
like
for
the
applicant
to
respond
to
that,
because
the
the
reason
I
say
that
is
I'm
looking
at
this
whole
chart
and
we've
had
total
VC
and
vacancy
every
year,
and
so
I
wonder
if
what
the
County's
saying
is
in
fact
accurate.
I
like.
C
For
the
application
response,
yep
our
column,
G
and
her
column
e
would
be
the
same,
but
she
she
put
our
vacancy
in
twice.
So
if
you
took
our
column,
G
and
added
the
20
000
and
replacement
reserves
back
our
column,
G
and
her
column
e
would
be
the
same
numbers.
C
E
C
Is
we're
not
we're
not
saying
we
want
double
vacancy,
we
didn't
ask
for
double
vacancy,
it's
just
our
Colony.
So
if
you
want
to
know
what
colony
should
read,
it's
column
G
but
they're
not
giving
us
the
20
000
reserves.
So
you
add
it
back
and
that's
the
the
true
noi
that
should
have
been
reported
in
19.
E
C
C
A
C
Using
in
column,
f
is
225
000
higher.
So
what
they're
saying
is
you?
You
are
rents
your
apartment,
rents,
which
you
can
see
in
column
e,
which
is
actually
reported.
We
think
you
can
actually
get
higher
than
that.
We
think
you
can
get
higher
than
what
you
got
in
2020..
We
didn't
get
you
can
get
in
2019,
but
on
the
next
page,
where
you
go
to
the
rent
world
to
see
the
rents,
it's
because
they're
using
rents
higher
than
the
property
can
achieve.
That's
the
big
difference
in
the
case.
C
Yes,
we
are
going
to
the
cap
rate
issue,
which
is:
is
it
a
mid-rise
that
is
low
rise?
We
didn't
bring
it
up,
we've
lost
it
enough,
but
it's
still
a
real
issue
that
could
take
place
that
we
go
forward.
The
big
difference
in
this
case.
Basically,
if
you
took
their
cap
rate
and
applied
it
to
column
G
and
gave
their
replacement
reserves
back,
that
would
be
capping.
Column
e
if
they
had
done
calling
me
correctly.
Okay,
okay,.
A
E
E
You
need
to
remove
the
two
hundred
and
forty
four
thousand
and
five
dollars
that
will
increase
your
egi
by
two
hundred
and
forty
four
thousand
five
dollars,
and
it
also
increases
the
noi
by
two
hundred
and
forty
four
thousand
and
five
dollars
I'm
not
going
to
State
what
the
amount
is,
but
I'm
going
to
rely
on
you
to
do
the
math.
So
whatever
you
see,
the
noi
in
column
e
add
two
hundred
forty
four
thousand
and
five
dollars.
Thanks.
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
gentlemen.
If
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up
so.
B
And
I
think
I
I
we're
not
really
contesting
that
there
was
an
an
error
on
on
Colony.
If
you
look
at
what
was
reported
on
the
income
and
expense
survey,
it's
included
on
page
123
of
169..
It
backs
up
kind
of
what
Lori
said.
B
It's
egi
would
be
2.73
million
instead
of
2.489
and
then
noi
would
be
1.67
million,
which
is
basically
the
difference
that
Lori
discussed
now,
even
comparing
those
two
and
in
the
county,
the
County's
revised
test
column
at
2.73
million,
we're
still
230
000,
it's
kind
of
still
230
000
higher
than
what
was
actually
reported
for
egi
in
in
2021
and
similarly
230
000
Plus.
For.
C
B
At
1.6
million
compared
to
the
counties,
1.9
million-
so
again,
it's
still
substantially
higher
than
what
the
the
property
was
able
to
achieve
in
2021
we're
showing
this
continued
downward
Trend
expenses
are
rising,
while
rents
cannot
keep
up
so
again.
We're
hoping
that
the
board
considers
the
the
actual
most
recent
2021
financials
we're.
C
Worried
about
you,
where
did
I
know
I
have
about
1.6.
1.67
is
what
the
noi
comes
to
and
calling
me
if
they've
done
it
correctly,
but
they're
still
applying
1.9
1.89
to
the
assessment
on
the
property
to
get
to
a
value
of
over
400
000
per
unit
for
this
property.
G
Yeah
I'll
go
ahead
and
share
my
thought
and
see
if
anyone
agrees,
I
I
think
you
know,
I
know
that
that
rental
rates
have
been
going
up
and
I
think
covet
has,
has
actually
generated
an
increase
in
rents
and
demand
for
residential
rental
units
and
and
so
I.
Don't
necessarily
agree
that
covet
has
had
this
dramatic
impact
on
the
on
the
residential
rental.
G
However,
I
look
at
it
and
we've
gone
from
27
96
to
29.87
and-
and
you
know,
let's
just
I
mean
you
take
a
screenshot
of
the
rental
situation
of
a
ditmar
or
any
any
project
and
you're
going
to
have
year-long
leases
that
have
to
expire
and
so
I.
Just
wonder
and
and
I
guess,
I'm
going
to
throw
out
there
I
think.
Maybe
the
the
jump
and
anticipated
income
is
too
high
and
I'll
see.
If
anyone
else
agrees.
J
I'm
sorry
Barnes,
but
look
at
it
and
compared
to
2019
and
2020.
on
what
the
apart
the
rental
income
was
and
the
GPI
I
I.
I
Yeah
I
mean
I
thought
initially.
Maybe
the
rental
rates
were
a
little
high
on
the
counties
part,
but
then
you
go
back
and
if
it
it's
above,
the
rent
roll
on
January
1st
average.
I
But
then
you
get
that
eight
percent
vacancy
credit
and
they've
only
got
two
vacant
units
on
that
date.
So
effectively
you're
they're,
actually
below
they're
they're,
rent
per
square
foot.
On
average,
the
county
is
a
little
bit
below
what
the
actual
rent
roll
shows.
So
I'm,
okay,
with
the
County's
reduced
number.
K
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
share
pretty
much
What
Mr
Hoffman
just
said
you
know:
I
looked
at
the
rental
rates
that
they
are
getting
and
I
think
what
the
county
used
to
reconstruct
that
the
revision
you
know,
I,
don't
really
see
that
they're
out
of
line
or
I
think
they're
pretty
much
what
they're
getting
so.
You
know
looking
at
just
the
rental
rates,
which
makes
the
gross
amount
that
they're
getting
I
I'm.
Okay
with
it
I'm
fine
with
the
revision.
J
I'll
make
a
motion
to
accept
the
reduce
the
revised
numbers
of
the
value.
A
Thank
you.
Okay.
The
the
next
two
cases
Mr
roskin,
has
said
that
we'll
hear
them
together.
Obviously
we'll
have
to
vote
on
them.
Separate.
Is
that
does
the
appellant
agree
with
that.
A
Perfect
all
right,
so
the
the
next
case
are
RPC
17026013
and
zero.
One
four
Mr
Warren.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
if
you
need
to
take
a
little
bit
longer,
we'll
certainly
give
you
some
latitude
since
we're
hearing
both
of
those
at
once,
but
we'll
start
the
timer
at
eight
minutes
and
see
how
that
works
out.
B
Okay,
thank
you
very
much,
I'd
like
to
direct
the
board
to
page
56
of
169,
which
is
our
summary
of
facts
for
this
property.
These
are
the
16
Quinn
Apartments,
located
at
1726,
1730,
16th
Street,
north
north,
it's
consistent
of
two
rpcs
and,
as
we
just
stated,
the
owner
reports
these
on
one
survey
and
treat
them
as
one
economic
unit,
so
we're
fine
with
with
them
both
being
heard.
At
the
same
time,
the
2022
assessment
currently
is
one
million
595
100.
B
the
board
or,
excuse
me,
the
county
is
recommending
a
value
revision
down
to
one
million
four
hundred
and
twenty
five
thousand.
These
are
older,
Apartments,
originally
built
in
1940
eight
total
units.
They
are
garden
style
apartments
in
the
Roslyn
sub,
Market,
two
total
buildings
and
each
of
them
two
stories
two
stories
and
sits
on
a
quarter
of
an
acre.
B
The
eight
unit
apartment
community
consists
of
two
bedroom
apartment
units,
all
eight
of
them
I'd
like
to
direct
the
board
again
to
the
County's
2022
apartment,
summary
and
historical
IED,
summary
sheet
I.
Believe
it's
located
on
page
three,
the
original
value
of
one
million
five.
Ninety
five
100
was
a
three
and
a
half
percent
three
point:
six,
two
percent
increase
from
the
prior
year.
The
county
test
column,
is
now
representative
of
a
nine
percent
decrease
in
the
prior
year.
B
However,
it's
it's
important
to
note
that
the
actual
noi
at
the
property
that
was
reported
in
most
recently
in
calendar
year,
2021
decreased
77
from
the
prior
year.
As
you
can
see,
the
the
gross
potential
rent
for
the
property
has
remained
pretty
stable
each
of
the
last
four
years.
This
one
really
struggled
with
vacancy.
In
the
most
recent
year,
experience
calendar
year
vacancy
of
14
and
then
as
of
11
2022,
the
property
was
twelve
and
a
half
percent
vacant.
B
B
B
B
Again,
that
increase
is
up
substantially
in
no
large
part
or
no
small
part
due
to
obviously
the
the
very
high
vacancy
there
that
was
reported
operating
the
net
operating
income
for
the
past
three
years
has
been
on
a
steady
decline
as
well
a
hundred
thousand
in
2019
down
to
97
000
in
2020,
and
then
it
drops
to
22
600
in
in
most
recently
in
2021.,
the
County
heads
not
increase
their
vacancy
rate
they're
still
using
a
seven
percent
vacancy
rate
in
in
their
revised
test
columns
and,
in
addition,
they're
using
a
45
expense
rate.
B
We've
trended
that
up
and
then
and
used
a
stabilized
rate
of
55
for
column
G
and
the
appellants
pro
forma.
B
D
Yeah
I
mean
this
one
I
mean
it's
important,
but
I
kind
of
wanted
to
touch
on
so
last
year.
In
these,
in
these
cases
you
know
we
had
seen
a
decrease
in
our
rents
and
our
occupancy
Revenue
noi
started
seeing
increases
in
expenses
for
the
2020
year
and
very
very,
very
consistently
by
this
board.
We
were
told
that
we
understand
next
year's
going
to
be
worse,
we're
hearing
you,
we
see
it
on
the
rent,
roll,
but
that'll
be
taken
care
of
next
year.
D
That'll
be
looked
at
next
year,
that'll
be
next
year's
noi
and
then
you'll
that
that's
that's
the
the
time
where
this
this
covid
effect
is
reflected,
and
then
we
get
to
this
year
and
it's
like
well,
we
don't
really
think
it
seems
like
Cove
is
over
I
mean
I.
Think
I've
heard
that
that
covet
was
a
good
thing
for
rentals,
and
maybe
that's
true.
If
we
look
back
over
a
10-year
20-year
30-year
deal,
I
don't
know,
mortgage
rates
are
up,
that's
great
for
rentals.
D
What
any,
however,
you
want
to
say
that,
but
we
we
had
to
listen
last
year,
every
case
that
2021
would
be
looked
at
for
2021
and
now
it's
being
looked
at
like
well.
Look
at
2017.,
look
at
2018,
look
at
2019
and
the
rents,
they're
they're,
cheap
rents,
they're
they're,
going
to
get
back
to
those
they're,
but
that's
that's
not
where
we're
at
and
so
I
just
I
guess.
Maybe
I'm
I
don't
understand
how.
Last
year
every
hearing
was
next
year
will
be
dealt
with
next
year.
D
There's
got
to
be
a
two-year
Trend
when
you
see
a
two-year
Trend
20
20
down
2021
down,
but
now
you're
saying
well,
but
it's
going
to
go
back
up,
but
last
year
we
it.
It
just
seems
like
we're:
we're
hearing
a
different
solution
or
different
answer
than
we
heard
last
year
very
consistently
and
and
I
I'm
I.
D
Don't
understand
how
that's
Equalization,
if
every
one
of
our
properties
that
we've
brought
forward
has
shown
a
lower
noi
than
you're
saying
we
had
and
you
you
continue
to
say
that
it's
fine,
whereas
last
year
was
the
opposite.
So
I
just
don't
and
I
get
to
this
16
Quinn.
We
could
talk
about
it
specifically,
but
that
was
what
the
conversations
were
every
hearing
last
year
and
now
it's
totally
different.
C
All
right:
well,
we
don't
need
to
hammer
that
home,
but
obviously
put
that
out
there.
It's
probably
more
relevant
for
last
case
than
the
rest
of
them
today
and
the
season
than
16
Quinn,
because
it's
small
but
you've
got
you
have
this
on
16
Quinn
again,
we've
got
a
small
downward
Trend
we're
not
talking
about
the
biggest
case
in
the
world,
but
there's
not
a
lot
of
units
here.
So
it
does
affect
it
pretty
good
and
open
any
questions.
If
you
have
them.
E
Okay,
first
of
all,
this
is
really
simple.
With
this
particular
case,
you
know,
take
a
look
at
our
columns,
F1
and
F2.
This
is
our
vision,
for
both
of
these
properties
take
a
look
at
what
we
use
for
income,
it's
in
line.
In
fact
it's
actually
less
than
what
they
reported
for
2021..
Now
our
vacancy
is
seven
percent
and
they
are
reporting
something
more,
but
we
believe
that
is
due
to
them
taking
offline
a
couple
of
units
so
that
they
can
remodel,
or
you
know,
renovate
the
property.
E
E
Okay,
so
the
owner
owner
has
reported
Capital
Improvements
as
a
reoccurring,
expense,
and
if
you
look
below
that
comment,
you'll
see
where
I
broke
out
those
expenses
and
you
can
make
a
comparison,
take
a
look
at
2018
what
the
reporting
for
maintenance
and
repair
looking
at
19
it
dropped.
Look
at
20..
It's
still
less
than
2018
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
2021,
it's
three
times
the
amount.
Okay
and
the
same
thing
goes
for
the
other
expenses
that
I
listed
before
this
is
a
renovation
all
right,
so
our
income
is
in
line.
It's
fine.
E
The
expenses
that's
I
mean
our
vacancy
is
stabilized
vacancy
that
we're
using
for
our
for
all
Garden
Apartments
and
but
we
fill
out
our
expenses.
What
we
use
for
expenses
are
in
line,
take
a
look
at
the
history
and
that
the
owner
is
just
reporting
they're
they're,
including
their
Capital
Improvements,
in
a
as
a
reoccurring,
expense.
Now,
I
am
going
to
reserve
the
rest
of
my
time
for
Chris
to
make
a
brief
comment.
Thank
you.
F
Yeah,
we
just
wanted
to
note
I
think
the
board
understands
and
we
want
to
try
to
explain
as
adequate
news
we
can
to
Mr
Reigns.
You
know
the
the
difference
between
a
fee
appraisal
and
avalorum
mass
appraisal.
Property
tax
is
going
to
be
that
the
adage
that
we've
talked
about
so
many
times
one
year
does
not
an
assessment
make.
You
must
look
at
this
property
in
a
stabilized
nature.
F
That
means
that
we're
not
going
to
just
look
at
the
last
year
and
capitalize
it
as
some
of
these
agents
will
do
it's
inappropriate.
You
must
look
at
what
the
potential
of
that
property
is.
You
bring
into
real
life
knowledge
of
the
sort
of
what's
going
on
the
the
battle
plan,
a
few
of
what's
going
on
at
that
time
and
yes,
it
is
appropriate
to
bring
in
things
like
covid
and
and
people
staying
at
home.
You
know
I
think
the
board
will
quickly
note.
This
property
has
been
historically
amazingly
stable.
F
As
far
as
occupancy
they've
averaged
two
percent
vacancy
and
Concession
loss
from
2018
to
2019
to
2020..
It
was
only
in
2021
to
receive
this
disruption.
Obviously,
as
we
note
it's
going
to
be
felt
in
a
property
that
has
eight
units,
any
change
is
going
to
be
a
large
change.
But
again,
when
we
look
at
this
historically,
we
can
see
that
the
effective
growth,
the
gross
potential
and
the
effective
growth
grew
four
years
in
a
row.
F
The
operating
expense
we
do
acknowledge
did
also
grow
three
years
in
a
row
well,
four
years
in
a
row,
if
you
count
2021s
but
again
at
a
very
slow
pace,
differences
of
some
six
thousand
dollars
a
year.
Again,
we
caught
that.
We
noted
that
and
stabilized
it
in
our
revisions.
But
again,
as
the
board
has
also
noted,
we
don't
include
Capital,
Improvements
and,
and
things
like
that,
things
of
the
nature
of
400
percent
increases
should
alarm
strip
catch
our
attention
and
should
cause
questions
to
be
asked.
F
Ms
roskin
did
ask
the
owners
the
questions
and
received
a
notification
that
essentially
these
were
Capital
Improvements.
We
don't
dispute
the
idea
of
a
property,
especially
an
auto
property
needing
repair,
but
again,
we've
done
a
good
job.
I
believe
we've
done
a
good
job
of
trying
to
stress
the
annual
repair
and
maintenance
from
those
that
are
allocated,
reserves,
replacement
or
Capital
Improvements.
The
annual
repaire
annual
repair
and
maintenance
at
this
property
is
very
much
in
line
with
with
Ms
roskin's
revision,
as
you
can
see
in
columns,
F1
and
F2.
F
F
The
OPAC,
the
GPI
projections
is
low.
It's
essentially
spot
on
with
what
they
did
and
that's
again,
given
that
years,
18
19,
20,
21
all
grew
so,
given
that
we've
essentially
accepted
the
idea
that
rents
will
increase
at
least
modestly
one
percent
two
percent,
we
do
believe
that
the
revision,
as
captured
in
columns
F1
and
F2,
should
be
confirmed
at
a
million
425
000..
Thank
you.
E
I,
just
really
want
to
reiterate
that
we
feel
like
columns.
F1
F2
portray
the
proper
value
for
the
property
this
year
at
1
million
425
000,
and
just
to
recognize
that
column
e
they're
reporting,
85
percent
in
expenses,
and
this
brought
my
attention
so
I.
Once
again,
I
I
broke
out
the
expenses
that
were
being
reported
down
at
the
bottom
and
you
could
see
that
they
are
reporting
an
increase
of
three
to
four
hundred
percent
higher
than
any
preceding
year.
E
B
B
You
know
the
actual
vacancy
again
that
was
reported
in
2021
was
14
we're
using
a
10
vacancy
rate,
we're
acknowledging
that
this
property
experienced
substantial
above
Market
vacancy,
but
the
the
county
is
not
acknowledging
that
at
all
they're,
just
saying,
okay
stabilized,
just
like
everything
else
and
we'll
use
our
seven
percent
guidelines,
the
same
thing
with
the
the
operating
expenses
we're
not
using
in
our
column,
G
requested
expense
ratio,
the
actual
expenses
of
124
000
or
85
percent
we're
using
a
stabilized
rate
of
55
percent
to
acknowledge,
as
Greg
has
stated
previously.
B
Some
of
these
increased
costs
due
to
the
labor
costs
and
and
payroll
increases
needed
to
maintain
the
property.
So
again,.
B
The
actuals
here
we're
acknowledging
the
impact
that
the
vacancy
has
had
on
this
property
as
well
as
again
these
this
trend,
you're
seeing
of
overall
expenses,
Greg
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
add
anything
else
to
that
before
we
wrap
up.
C
A
Okay,
all
right,
it's
just
among
the
board,
then,
where
is
everybody
on
these.
G
Yeah
I
thought
I
would
just
share
or
point
out
that
the
zoning
of
this
is
already
6
15.
and
that
the
Zoning
for
this
eventually
is
going
to
yield
a
much
different
development
than
what
is
in
front
of
us
right
now
and
just
just
on
a
buy
right.
G
I
think
you
could
probably
achieve
either
two
or
three
more
units
through
a
use,
permit
process
or
Not
by
right,
but
through
a
use
permit
process,
you
could
probably
increase
or
add
on
at
least
a
couple
of
units
when
you,
when
you
look
at
the
per
unit
value
eight
units
and
the
assess
assessment
is
one
million
Five
Sixty,
seven,
that's
right
at
200
a
unit,
so
I
don't
see
anything
wrong
here.
H
Excuse
me
for
a
couple
of
different
reasons:
I
agree
with
what
Barnes
just
said.
This
is
pretty
steady
state
stuff.
Apparently,
reportedly
the
owner
did
what
rumors
do,
and
that
is
upgrade
some
apartments
a
little
at
a
time.
It's
a
prudent
business
practice
and
it's
such
a.
They
only
took
a
couple
of
Apartments
offline,
but
there's
only
a
little
more
than
a
couple
totals,
so
the
percentage
look
big,
there's
no
reason
to
carry
on
that
percentage
of
vacancy
out
into
the
future.
H
Based
on
this
prudent
business
practice
so
inflating
the
vacancy
allowance
later
for
what
they
did
prudently
in
2021
doesn't
seem
to
make
much
sense
to
me.
I
also
saw
the
income,
the
county
didn't
even
bump
up
the
income
two
percent
it
was
marginal,
was
a
small
fraction
of
one
percent
and
and
inced
up
very,
very
little,
the
operating
expenses
again
showing
a
very
vacant,
a
very
stabilized
property.
H
H
It
does
I
think,
therefore
reflect
a
bit
slow
down
of
covid,
but
no
certainly
nothing's
falling
off
the
cliff.
So
I
I
like
the
revision,
as
is.
K
You
know
I
agree
with
what
changes
said.
Originally
I
looked
at
the
vacancy,
but
you
know
we're
only
looking
at
a
property
that
has
eight
units,
so
anytime
you're
going
to
have
two
units
like
and
it's
like
25
of
it,
and
it's
not
going
to
be
all
the
time
you
know
and
the
county
is
using
the
seven
percent,
which
is
an
equivalent
of
having
one
unit
taken
all
the
time,
so
I'm
I'm
totally
okay,
with
the
revised
assessment.
A
H
Mr
Metzger,
thank
you
I'm
sorry,
Jose
reminded
me
of
one
other
thing
in
years
past,
when
it
was
full
up,
the
owner
got
the
benefit
of
a
standard
vacancy
rate
which
was
higher
than
the
actual
vacancy,
and
now
this
year
it's
lower
and
but
the
the
overall,
the
owners,
like
many
owners,
has
gotten
the
benefit
of
just
standard
Mass
appraisal,
write-offs,
if
that's
the
right
word
for
vacancy,
so
I
still
think
it's
very
fair.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
Mr
matskin
is
the
second
all
in
favor,
aye
opposed
okay,
that's
unanimous!
That
is
reduced
to
the
County's
recommended
number
of
seven
twelve
500
and
on
the
second
unit
ending
in
RPC
014
Mr
penaronda
has
motioned
to
accept
the
712
500
as
the
County's
revised
number
for
that
unit.
Mr
metzkin.
Do
you
second,
that
okay,
just
to
keep
it
consistent
all
in
favor
all
right?
Okay,
so
that
too
is
reduced
to
the
County's
recommended
number
of
the
7
12
500..
Thank
you.
A
B
Thank
you
I'd
like
to
again
start
on
page
37
of
213,
which
is
our
summary
of
facts.
37-13
of
the
the
County's
response
memo.
This
is
the
Henderson
Park
Apartments,
located
at
4301
North
Henderson
Road.
It
consists
of
one
packed
RPC.
It
is
currently
assessment
2022
at
31
million
728
100.
B
and
the
county
is
recommending
a
revision
to
30
million
492
700..
The
property
was
originally
built
in
2012..
It
is
a
multi-family
apartment,
complex
66,
total
units
in
the
Ballston
Virginia
Square
sub
Market,
one
building
and
and
four
stories
tall
again
kind
of
talked
about
this.
B
B
The
property
is
located
south
of
Glebe
North,
Glebe
Road
and
the
intersection
of
North
Henderson
and
from
there
I'll
direct
the
board,
please
to
page
three,
which
is
again
the
the
County's
2022
apartment,
income
and
expense.
Summary
the
2022
recommended
value
of
30
million
492
700
is,
is
a
3.7
decrease
from
last
year's
2021
final
assessment
value.
However,
again
year
over
year,
from
20
to
21,
the
actual
noi
reported
decreased.
B
Decreased
eight
percent
from
the
prior
year
gross
potential
rent
for
for
the
apartments.
If
you
look
at
the
Historical
gross
potential
rent
at
2.33
million
in
2019,
increased
slightly
in
2020
to
2.371
million
and
down.
You
know:
170
000
to
2.2
million
in
column
e
for
the
county
year
2021.
B
B
The
county
again
has
included
a
rental,
a
rent,
roll
analysis
on
page
six
and
seven
of
their
response,
showing
the
average
rent
provided
in
the
1
2022
rent
roll,
the
the
average
of
those
rents
have
annualized
would
calculate
to
Total
Rental
income
of
2
million
281
000
o44,
which
is
again
significantly
lower
than
than
the
two
million
350
200
that
the
county
is
using
in
their
their
revised
test
column.
B
B
For
the
effect
of
gross
income
operating
expenses,
again,
we've
seen
an
elevated
level
over
the
course
of
the
last
three
years,
28
in
2019
27
in
2020
and
most
recently
29
in
2021,
the
county
increased
their
expenses
from
27
to
28
and
a
half
percent
and
again
on
a
ratio
basis.
It's
still
not
the
actual
report.
Expenses
we've
been
seeing
an
increase
as
we
discussed
in
operating
expenses
year
over
year
and
we'll
continue
to
see
it
in
the
foreseeable
future.
E
B
Operating
income
again
we're
experiencing
a
three-year
downward
Trend,
1.75
million
in
2019,
1.7
million
in
2020,
and
then
most
recently,
one
million
564
000
in
column
e
and
for
calendar
year
2021.
That's
approximately!
You
know
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
higher
than
what
the
County's
test
column
revised
test
column
is
estimating
in
in
their
revision
of
30
million
492
700.
B
So
again,
we're
hoping
the
board
considers
the
the
actual
trend
of
this
property
over
the
last
three
years
and
and
the
effects
of
Covenant
had
on
on
both
gross
potential
income
and
the
net
operating
income.
The
total
income
that
this
property
is
able
to
to
generate
I.
C
Just
want
to
say
one
yeah:
this
is
the
perfect
case
of
what
Greg
talked
about
in
the
last
case.
If
you
look
at
column,
seven
and
let's
just
focus
on
column,
seven
for
a
minute,
which
is
a
gross
potential
income,
the
growth
potential
income
was
two
three
two
four
and
two
five
in
2018,
2019
and
2020.,
and
last
year
came
in
it
said.
Look
this
25
is
is
an
inflated
number.
C
Things
are
getting
worse
getting
worse,
so
that
came
true
and
it
dropped
at
2.3,
basically
back
to
2018
levels,
the
assessor
saying
no,
we
looked
at,
we
revised
it
and
their
revision
is
higher
than
18
it's
higher
than
19
and
it's
higher
than
21..
It's
basically
using
what
happened
in
2020..
Remember
in
2020
people
weren't
allowed
to
leave
their
Apartments.
They
didn't
they
didn't
in
transporting
ourselves
back
to
that
time.
C
They
then
went
out
and
there
was
an
influx
of
new
properties
coming
online
and
people
moving
and
other
amenities
and
rents
dropped,
and
we
know
that,
like
that
I'm,
not
that's,
not
controversial,
I,
don't
think,
and
here
we
are
we're
showing
it
to
you
and
we
say:
look
now:
the
gross
potential
income
is
2.345
billion
and
they
assessing
no.
But
but
we
know
things
are
going
to
go
back
up
because
things
were
good
before
then,
so
we're
going
to
use
two
and
a
half
million
which
just
doesn't
match
it.
C
Just
doesn't
even
with
only
a
5.7
vacancy
in
Colony.
The
noi
reported
here
is
1.56
the
Assessor's
using
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
higher
than
that
for
a
value.
That's
480
000
per
unit
kind
of
back
to
the
test
that
Greg
ran
last
week.
Does
it
make
sense
things?
Go
up
things
go
down,
I,
get
that
point
I'm
not
going
to
spend
this.
C
The
most
recent
income
produces
the
value
of
1.5
million
in
nanoi,
1.5
million,
so
I
don't
understand
how
we
could
possibly
value
it
at
1.6
Plus,
seeing
what
the
trend
is
anybody
any
investor
coming
in
here
is
going
to
say:
okay,
it
was
one
seven
else,
one
five
there's
a
downward
Trend
here,
there's
more
risk,
not
well.
C
Let's
just
assume
it's
going
to
go
right
back
up
because
it
isn't
and
it
hasn't,
and
if
you
want
Greg
to
talk
about
what
we're
seeing
for
22,
you
can
I,
don't
think
it's
relevant
because
last
year
we
said
we'll
see
it
when
we
see
it.
But
if
you
want
him
to,
we
could
talk
about
that.
If
there
is
an
understanding
that
everything's
back
up
and
everything
is
great,
coveted
was
good
for
Reynolds.
We
could
go
into
that
and
if
you
want
that,
please
ask
the
question
and
and
reggaetopy
can
address
that.
E
You
so
yes,
I,
did
a
rent
analysis
of
this
particular
property
and
we're
we're
projecting
for
January
1
2022,
because
we're
always
living
in
the
the
past.
We've
only
have
historical
data,
so
take
a
look
at
com
F.
Yes,
we
did
project
for
January
1.,
but
also
take
a
look
at
at
the
vacancy
that
we
used
it's
substantially
higher
than
what
they're
reporting,
in
fact
it's
higher
than
what
they've
reported
for
the
last
three
years.
E
Well,
I'm,
sorry
yeah
for
the
last
three
years
to
four
years,
and
we
also
were
pretty
generous
with
our
expenses
that
we
used.
In
fact,
if
you
note
column
F,
our
expenses
are
higher
than
what's
being
reported
in
column
e,
but
what
I
did
do
with
that?
E
The
the
reason
for
using
the
expenses
that
I
did
is
I
took
a
look
at
the
the
last
three
years
and
I
said
okay,
what's
going
on
here,
so
we've
got
one
year,
it's
a
little
bit
higher
a
little
bit
lower
and
that's
how
I
came
up
with
the
expenses
at
the
28.5
percent.
We
feel
that
the
the
the
revised
value
of
30
million
four
hundred
ninety
two
thousand
seven
hundred
is
very
fair
and
Equitable
for
this
property.
F
F
Agent
for
the
owner,
it's
as
if
we
didn't
just
speak
exactly
how
we
look
at
these
and
again,
the
appeal
is
made
to
just
focus
on
Call
Of
Me,
just
focus
on
2021.
Don't
worry
about
the
other
years
or
worry
about
them,
but
just
pick
out
the
years
that
show
a
decline.
We
don't
do
either
one.
We
look
at
a
four-year
history.
We
display
whatever
the
owner,
displays
to
us.
If
we
have
a
objection
to
certain
items,
we
ask
about
them.
F
We
single
them
out
and
we
reconstruct
columns
without
them,
in
this
case,
there's
very
little
to
argue
about
we're
actually
looking
at
a
stabilized
property
and
I,
wouldn't
say
that
we
see
the
same
things
in
regards
to
year
over
year
over
year
declines
in
growth.
In
fact,
if
we're
looking
at
the
same
sheet,
primarily
the
summary
sheet
page
four
GPI
Grew
From
19
to
20
the
year
of
covet
now
as
I
recall
covet,
it
was
a
little
bit
different
than
the
appellants
do.
F
F
When
we're
looking
at
this
property
stabilized,
we
can
see
that
they
actually
did
grow
vacancy
in
2020,
true
vacancy.
By
about
my
calculation,
I
think
it's
four
percent
that
dropped
again
almost
by
half
in
2021.
we've
seen
this
literally
this
year.
We've
seen
this
across
the
board.
What
do
departments
do
to
increase
occupancy?
They
lowered
rents
and
they
increased
concessions.
When
you
lower
your
rents,
you
make
it
a
more
attractable
feature
to
move
in.
F
You
know,
but
again,
given
what
we've
seen
of
the
history
of
this
property
rents
actually
grew
from
18
to
19
and
again
from
19
to
20.,
so
they
did
drop
in
2021.
But
again,
if
we're
looking
at
a
stabilized
nature,
Ms
raskin's
revision
is
spot
on
again.
Please
note
that
we
offer
apply
a
guideline
vacancy
Vapor
sense
prior
to
year,
2020
in
which
they
did
increase
concessions.
They
were
nowhere
near
six
percent.
So
eight
percent
is
overly
generous,
but
again
is
applied
as
where
ad
Valore
and
property
tax
for
Mass
appraisal
purposes.
F
As
Miss
Raskin
pointed
out,
the
provision
projection
name
for
Opex
is
higher
than
what
has
been
achieved
at
the
property
in
the
last
two
years,
higher
than
the
three-year
average
and,
in
fact,
higher
just
shy
of
the
three-year
average
and
higher
than
the
last
two-year
average.
So,
even
if
we're
asked
and
tasked
with
the
idea
of
okay
well,
look
at
the
most
recent
history
way,
2021
more
heavily
when
you
look
at
21
2020
to
2021
we're
well
above
that
average
and
we're
well
above
what
either
year
reported
for
Outbacks.
F
F
So
again,
if
you
look
at
the
three-year
history
and
average
up
at
that,
noi
out
were
lower
than
that
and
higher
than
the
two-year
again
indicating
that
we
do
believe,
as
we've
said
stressed
all
year,
that
we
do
believe
there
will
be
an
increase
in
rents
achieved,
especially
given
that
they
are
at
I
believe
a
two
percent
three
percent
vacancy
and
we're
playing
eight
percent
and
again
just
looking
at
the
as
I
think
the
agents
have
caught
it.
The
smell
test
or
you
know,
is
it
reliable
test?
F
Miss
ruskin's
revision
is
a
four
percent
drop
year
over
year.
The
appendants
are
asking
for
21
in
one
year's
time.
It's
just
not
keeping
with
the
stabilized
nature
of
what
we
do.
That
being
said,
we
do
believe
that
the
revision
is
appropriate
and
we
ask
that
the
board
consider
the
revised
value
of
30
million
four
hundred.
Ninety
two
thousand
seven
hundred.
Thank
you.
H
everything
seems
stable,
but
I'm
thinking,
perhaps
that
the
asking
rents
somewhere
at
the
end
of
2021,
I
guess,
went
down.
I,
don't
see
a
comparison
between
the
last
two
years
of
asking
rents
for
one
bedrooms
and
two
bedrooms
and
all
that
stuff.
Do
you
guys
have
that
or
are
they
steady?
Did
they
go
down?
They
go
up
this
obviously
for
the
appellant.
C
So,
there's
a
analysis
that
the
county
did
that
says:
there's
only
one
bedroom,
a
single
one
bedroom
unit
in
the
in
the
building,
and
at
least
for
one
thousand
seven
hundred
ninety
five
dollars.
That's
you
can
see
on
the
County's
Page
Six.
C
They
then
take
that
space
and
and
apply
1
825
for
it.
So,
yes,
there's
a
single
unit.
It's
released
somebody's
renting
it
for
1
795,
but
they
could
get
one
thousand
eight
twenty
five.
So
that's
what
we
have
there
there's
the
analysis
that
we
were
talking
about
is
the
one
that
starts
on
page
six,
where
the
county
said.
These
are
the
rents
in
place,
contract
rents
in
place
for
the
units,
and
these
are
the
averages
but
then
took
about
a
hundred
dollars
more
per
unit
than
the
average
that
you're
seeing
there.
F
This
about
exactly
yes,
sir
we've
essentially
talked
about
that.
You
know
we'd,
like
you
to
view
this.
The
way
we
do
that's
this
historical
document.
This
ended
December
31st.
This
is
a
snapshot
of
what
they
achieved
from
January
1st
2021
through
December
31st
2021..
We
use
this
because
it's
the
only
furnish
we
have.
We
don't
have
the
current
Year's
2022.
So
we
use
this
to
extrapolate
out.
F
We
do
believe,
as
we've
done
consistently,
that
this
property,
as
is
now
well
occupied,
will
have
a
a
better
chance
of
increasing
the
rents
Again
by
Modest
one
or
two
percent
by
using
the
same
numbers.
The
appellants
just
did
we're
suggesting
that
they'll
increase
that
rent
by
thirty
dollars.
That
seems
fairly
modest,
given
what
we
believe
has
occurred
in
the
actual
year.
A
Okay,
Mr
chica
or
I'm;
sorry,
Ms
roskin.
If
you
have
any
final
comments
well,.
E
No
I
just
want
to
reiterate
that
we
feel
a
column.
F
is
a
very
reasonable
revision
for
the
subject
once
again,
we're
we're
using
a
percent
which
is
for
vacancy,
which
is
much
more
than
what
was
achieved,
the
property
in
2021,
also,
our
expenses
are
higher
than
what
they're
reporting
and
we're
just
asking
for
the
revision
of
30
million
four
hundred.
Ninety
two
thousand
seven
hundred.
Thank
you.
B
Yes
again
to
repeat
similar
to
last
year,
when
we
were
here
talking
about
19
and
20,
talking
about
the
decreases
in
noi
decreases
in
income
asking
for
the
county
to
consider
that
this
is
going
to
continue
to
go
down
downward
trending
and
the
county
had
it
had
it
experiencing
an
upper
Trend,
a
rebound
from
covet
again
now
this
year,
we're
showing
that
three-year
Trend
for
for
most
of
the
the
get
more
properties,
not
just
in
2020.
B
Now
in
2021,
and
now
the
county
is
again,
you
know
taking
assuming
this
property
is
going
to
increase
dramatically
year
over
year
when
it
didn't.
Last
year
and
and
again,
as
we've
stated,
some
of
these
issues
are
going
to
be
continued
to
be
experienced
in
in
the
form
of
having
off
our
increased
concession
package,
to
get
people
in
the
door
and
and
back
to
a
vacancy,
as
well
as
the
increased
cost.
B
That
Greg
has
spoke
to
Greg
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
close
with
anything
specifically
about
this
property.
A
Okay,
all
right:
okay,
it's
just
among
the
board
members!
Then
what
do
we
think
Mr
matskin.
H
Well,
I
I'll
start
out
the
way
Barnes
often
does
see
what
your
reaction
is
to
something
the
the
revised
INE
the
county
presents
is.
It
shows
a
very,
very
stable
property
over
time,
the
one
and
and
therefore
it
all
makes
sense
to
me,
except
that-
and
this
is
why
I
asked
the
question
before
about
it:
asking
rents
go
down
last
year,
perhaps
between
from
the
year
before
accounting,
for
that
six
percent
drop
in
rental
income.
H
That's
the
only
thing
that
stands
out
to
me
is
that
six
percent
rental
income,
the
the
the
department
once
again-
and
this
is
reasonable
to
me-
say
well-
we're
assuming
the
rents
are
going
to
go
up.
One
percent-
maybe
a
little
bit
more,
but
in
this
case
from
last
year
it's
up
six
percent,
but
it's
only
one
year,
so
I'm
going
back
and
forth.
You
know
one
year
doesn't
make
a
three
or
two
or
four
year
trend,
but
it's
it's
noticeable.
There
there's
some
allowance
for
the
shake-up
of
covid.
H
That
is
appropriate.
So
the
question
is
a
3.7
decrease
proposed
by
the
county.
Is
that
the
appropriate
number?
You
know
because
again,
I'm
sorry,
I
know
I'm,
torturing
this,
but
otherwise
their
numbers
are
very
stable
over
time.
So
I
don't
know.
Does
anybody
see
a
a
blip
because
they
got
the
the
owner
got
whacked
in
2021
for
income,
or
does
this
all
make
sense
over
time
they
certainly
didn't
get
whacked
in
the
gloom
and
doom
that
we
have
here
sometimes
due
to
cope
that
I
gotta
shut
up
now.
Thank
you.
G
Lawson
yeah
Ken
I'll
I'll
share
my
analysis
for
what
it's
worth.
What
I
looked
at
was
column,
G,
Top
Line.
You
know
the
rental
income
of
2
million
207
and
then
the
county
has
it
going
up
to
2
million
three
hundred
fifty
and
that's
an
increase
of
about
140
divided
by
66
units.
Each
unit
has
to
go
up
with
rental,
to
221
divide
that
by
your
12
months,
the
rental
income
for
each
unit
has
to
go
up
by
176
dollars
per
month,
which
is
pretty
aggressive.
G
But
then
what
I
did
is
I
looked
at
vacancy
because
I'm
thinking
you
know
well,
if
you
have
empty
units
and
you
rent
them
well,
then
that's
going
to
take
up
some
of
that
Gap
and
and
the
actual
rental
I
mean
the
actual
vacancy
is
2.49
and
when
I
look
at
past
years,
the
vacancy's
been
low.
So
this
is,
you
know,
pretty
occupied
now
in
the
in
the
revision
that
the
county
did.
They
have
eight
percent
vacancy
and
the
difference
is
140
000
and
so
to
me,
it's
a
wash.
K
Sorry
about
that
yeah,
that's
pretty
much
the
same
thing:
I
did
I
looked
at
the
rental
rates
and,
but
you
know,
I
totally
agree
with
Barnes.
That
I
think
it's
a
wash
the
vacancy
that
the
county
is
using
this
very
generous
and
if
I
were
to
redo
these
numbers
I
would
have
even
used
a
lower
number
on
the
expenses.
I
wouldn't
have
gone
more
than
28,
based
on
the
previous
years
and
based
on
the
average.
You
know,
I
think
28
and
a
half
is
more
than
generous
than
the
county
use.
G
A
Motion
in
a
second
by
Mr
Lawson,
all
in
favor,
bye
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous,
the
assessment's
reduced
to
30
million
492
700
based
on
the
County's
revised
numbers.
A
B
Thank
you
very
much.
I
would
like
to
direct
the
board
to
page
four
of
145.,
which
is
our
summary
of
facts
for
this
property.
This
is
the
Thomas
Court
Apartments,
located
at
470
North
Thomas
Street
one
RPC
currently
assessed
at
originally
stuffed
at
22
million
996
600.
B
The
county
is
recommending
a
value
of
20
million,
one
hundred
and
twenty
six
thousand
two
hundred
again
I'd
like
to
now
direct
the
county
or
the
board
to
the
County's
Department
INE
summary
located
on
page
three,
the
original
assessment
value
for
this
property
of
22
million
996
600
was
an
eight
percent
increase
from
the
prior
years.
2021
assessment.
Now
the
test
column
value
the
rev.
The
revised
value
of
20
million
126
200
is
a
5.4
percent
decrease
again
actual
engine
wire
that
was
reported
in
2021.
B
Most
recently
was
12
decrease
year
over
year
from
2020
to
2021.
Now
so
again,
the
the
is
making
revisions.
We
don't
think
it's
it's
nearly
enough
to
combat
the
trend
that
we're
seeing
year
over
year
over
year
now,
for
the
last
three
years,
the.
B
Historical
gross
potential
rent
for
this
property
was
pretty
stable
in
2019
and
2020
1.63
million
in
2019,
1.636
million
in
2020
and
you'll
see
that
drops
down
almost
130
000
to
1.5
million
in
2021
column
e.
The
County's
revised
column
has
a
revised
gross
potential
rent
of
one
million
five
hundred
ninety
six
thousand,
which
again
is
about
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
higher
than
was
most
recently
reported.
The
county
again
provided
a
rent,
roll
analysis
on
Page
Six,
showing
the
average
rents
per
unit
type.
B
And
if
you
were
to
annualize
that
that
those
average
rents
you
would
get
to
a
gross
potential
rent
of
one
million.
Five
hundred
fifty
two
thousand
one.
Fifty
two,
which
is
again
below
the
County's
revised
test
column
for
for
gross
potential
rent,
effective
gross
income
you'll
see
a
three-year
downward
Trend
again,
one
million
667
thousand
in
2019
1
576
000
in
2020,
and,
most
recently
down
to
one
million
three
hundred
and
sixty
five
thousand
in
2021..
B
The
County's
revised
test
column
estimates
egi
at
1.552,
Millions,
almost
200
000
above
what
the
county
was
or
what
the
property
was
able
to
generate.
Most
recently
in
2021.
operating
expenses,
this
property
operated
at
27
expense
ratio
in
in
2019,
28
I
think
increased
to
28
in
2020
and
most
recently,
thirty
four
point.
Four
percent,
the
County's
revised
test
column
uses
a
revised
expense
ratio
of
30
percent.
B
No,
why
again
we're
seeing
a
three-year
downward
Trend
1.218
million
in
2019
1.133
million
in
2020
and
down
to
895
000
512,
most
recently
in
2021
again
we're
almost
200
286
000,
the
County's
noi
estimated
in
column
F
their
test
column
above
what
the
property
was
able
to
to
actually
generate
most
recently
in
in
2021.
B
again
we're
hoping
the
county
considers
the
trend
that
all
these
these
properties
have
been
experiencing
in
terms
of
their
rent,
their
expenses
and
the
net
operating
income
achieved
over
the
last
three
years.
Greg
and
Sophie
I,
don't
know,
there's
anything
else,
you'd
like
to
add
specifically
about
this
property.
This
is
again.
This
is
another
property
that
that
kind
of
classifies
as
mid-rise
we're
not
going
to
get
into
that
today.
B
Although
we
we
do
think
it
is
still
a
very
pertinent
issue,
because,
basically
classifying
this
is
mid-rise
because
it
has
has
an
elevator
and
and
would
change
the
value,
essentially
five
to
six
million
dollars
value
in
an
elevator
five
to
six
million
dollars.
If
this
was
to
be
used
in
value
to
buy
the
county
based
on
their
their
Garden
Garden
style
apartment
guidelines
for
for
these
types
of
properties,
so
again
we're
hoping
that
the
board
considers
the
actual
Trend
of
this
property.
B
The
increased
expenses-
that's
trending
in
their
in
their
analysis
on
this
one.
Thank
you.
E
You
I
hate
to
say
this
again.
This
is
another
instance
where
there's
an
error
in
column
e
with
the
vacancy
once
again,
I'm
not
familiar
with
how
ditmar
reports
their
vacancy,
and
so
you
need
to
remove
98
515
dollars
from
that
vacancy,
which
is
going
to
increase
once
again,
your
egi
and
your
noi
by
98
515
I'll.
E
Let
you
do
the
math
on
that
and
that's
in
column
e,
so
basically
for
comf
our
revision
all
right
once
again
we're
we're
trying
to
project
here
for
January,
1
2022
and
we're
looking
at
historical
data.
And,
yes,
we
did
get
a
chance
to
take
a
look
at
the
new
information,
we're
we're
using
a
higher
vacancy
rate
than
what
they're
reporting
and
what
was
at
eight
percent.
Excuse
me
at
eight
percent
versus
their
7.6
percent
and
look
and
our
expenses
are
in
line.
E
We
feel
that
the
revised
assessment
of
20
million
126
200
is
very
reasonable
for
this
property.
When
you
take
a
look
at
the
Historical
information,
even
looking,
if
you
wanted
to
discard
2018
and
just
look
at
2019
in
the
trend
for
2000
to
20
to
2021,
we
feel
that
column
f
is
very
reasonable
and
once
again,
I'll
ask
Chris
if
he
wants
to
contribute.
Thank
you.
F
Yeah
just
kind
of
hammer
home
what
we've
been
talking
about
again.
This
is
very
similar
to
the
prop
dreams.
We've
heard
today,
very
similar
to
properties
you've
heard
all
year.
F
You
know
we'll
keep
saying
it,
because
I
I'm
not
sure
that
the
message
is
received,
at
least
by
the
the
propellants
in
there
and
the
ownership
one
year
does
not
an
assessment
make.
We
are
going
to
look
at
all
of
the
years
presented
in
a
four-year
history
and
that's
how
it's
always
going
to
be
it's
next
year
is
going
to
be.
F
We
lose
18
and
it'll,
be
19
through
22
and
that'll
continue
to
be
the
way
that
that
stabilized
assessments
we've
viewed,
given
that
we
do
believe
that
there's
a
little
bit
of
misstatements
by
the
appellants,
in
the
sense
that
this
isn't
a
year-over-year-of-year
trend.
Again,
if
we're
looking
at
the
Historical
operating
GPI,
the
GPI
increased
1819
19
to
20.,
it
dropped
in
2021.
So
if
there's
any
Trend,
that's
one
year
out
of
the
last
four
went
down,
the
other
three
went
up
same
thing.
F
A
similar
thing,
I
should
say,
with
effective
growth,
effective
gross
increase
from
18
to
19..
It
did
drop
in
2021
and
you'll
note
that
the
biggest
reason,
of
course,
is
the
vacancy
increased
by
essentially
doubled,
went
up
to
almost
eight
percent,
as
Miss
Raskin
noted.
Unfortunately,
there
is
an
error
listing
for
column
e,
and
that
should
be
done
in
the
area
of
two
percent.
F
Again,
if
you
look
at
the
rent
roll,
there
are
only
one
vacancy
noted,
as
of
January
1st
2022
highly
stabilized
property
in
regards
to
its
ability
to
fill
up
when
we're
looking
at
the
rents
again,
there's
some
comment
made.
You
know
the
projections
are
too
wild.
If
you
look
at
the
projection
made
by
the
county
in
column,
F
line
one
it's
below
it's
barely
above
what
they
achieved
in
2018,
it's
below
what
they
achieved,
the
19
that's
below
what
they
achieved
in
2020..
F
So
again,
looking
at
historical
data,
it's
very
much
in
reason
to
project
that
they'll
go
up
two
or
three
percent
based
on
the
fact
that
they've
now
stabilized
their
property
at
two
percent
vacancy
again,
as
Ms
Raskin
noted
looking
at
the
operating
expense.
If
anything
again,
Ms
Ruskin
was
aggressive
in
her
revision
for
operating
expense
projection.
It's
4,
000,
shot
less
than
four
thousand
are
shy
of
what
they
achieved
in
2021
and
that's
higher
than
they've
achieved
over
the
last
four
years
so
again,
rather
than
even
stabilize
it.
F
She
went
right
for
that
that
number
essentially
allowing
for
the
idea
of
growth
based
on
what
they've
done
historically
same
idea
when
looking
at
the
history
of
the
property
with
regards
to
the
net
operating
income.
If
we're
to
look
at
it
as
an
average
we're
spot
on
and
again
the
only
way,
you
could
look
at
that
and
say
well
that
you
know
the
trend
is
down
is
by
only
isolating
year,
2020
and
2021.
We
believe
that's
inappropriate.
F
We've
asked
the
board
again
to
look
at
the
history,
we're
fine
with
the
idea
of
placing
more
weights
on
2021
and
less
weight
on
18,
but
still
we
ask
you
to
bring
into
your
thoughts
and
ways
of
reasoning.
Is
years
1920
and
2021.
again,
based
on
the
projections
made
by
the
county.
We
do
believe
that
Ms
raskin's
five,
almost
five
and
a
half
percent
decrease,
is
more
in
touch
with
the
reality
of
a
situation.
What
occurred
in
actually
21
and
well
above
25
decrease
as
projected
by
the
impellent.
F
A
H
G
So
dollars,
how
many
would
it
be
the
replacement
on
this
particular
project.
E
Okay,
once
again,
we
feel
that
our
income
is
very
reasonable
and
column
F
our
revision
and
once
again
we're
giving
a
greater
vacancy
a
stabilized
vacancy
than
what
they're
incurring
at
the
moment
and
our
expenses
are
in
line
with
the
2021
and
much
higher
than
what
is
being
reported
historically,
and
so
we
feel
that
column,
F's
revision,
revised
value
of
20
million
126
200
is
a
very
reasonable
revision
for
the
subject
and
once
again,
I'm
just
pointing
out
column
Eve.
E
B
Yeah,
so
we
acknowledge
the
County's
effective
gross
income
total
and
that
can
be
recognized
if
you
look
on
page
97
to
145,
which
was
the
appellants
and
owner's
INE
survey
that
was
submitted.
The
effective
gross
income
is
approximately
one
million
463
000,
which
is
again
still
is
above
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
above
the
the
County's
revised
test,
column
and
apps,
and
the
the
noi
as
reported
on
page
98
of
145,
is
994
000.
B
again,
almost
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
below
what
the
the
county
is
currently
estimating
in
their
their
revised
test
column,
again,
we're
not
hoping
that
the
board
is
just
considering
a
one
year,
but
we
are
hoping
that
the
board
is
is
looking
at
the
trend
that
this
property
has
been
operated
under
in
terms
of
the
effective
growth
income
expenses,
increasing
expenses
and
the
again
the
downward
trending
net
operating
income.
B
For
for
this
location
and
again,
we
feel
that
that
is
not
being
appropriately
recognized
by
the
county
in
the
current
assessment
or
their
current
revised
assessment.
Thank
you.
I
I
mean
we
voted
to
reduce
slightly
last
year
to
the
21,
278
and
I.
Think
nothing's
really
happened
that,
in
my
opinion,
would
reduce
the
value
further
from
from
where
it
stood
a
year
ago.
It
seems
like
a
a
very
stable
property
areas
of
monetized.
You
get
the
non-metro
cap
rate,
but
realistically
people
could
get
to
Metro
and
there's
a
lot
of
jobs
within
walking
distance
mid-rise
living
in
a
high-rise
area
that
appeals
to
a
lot
of
people
and
having
big
units
with
lots
of
parking
on
site.
I
H
Well,
I
agree
with
everything
Greg
said,
and
yet
the
assessment
has
gone
down
for
the
revision.
Almost
five
and
a
half
percent,
which
I
think
is
legitimate,
I
mean
things
were
a
little
bit
scary
last
year
and
and
and
this
owner
and
many
many
apartment
apartment
building
owners
didn't
do
as
well
as
they
would
like,
and
certainly
hadn't
done,
as
well
as
they
had
in
the
immediate
prior
years
and
I.
H
Think
the
the
Congress
revised
assessment
shows
that
too
many
poems
forget,
though,
of
course
that
when
things
get
better
the
the
trend,
a
downward
Trend
also
drags
the
increase
of
Assessments
back
farther
than
they
would
had
things
been
going.
Well,
let
me
state
that
differently.
The
looking
at
things
over
multi-years
now
is
not
a
good
idea,
because
last
year
was
relatively
far
down,
but
if
next
year
or
this
year
is
relatively
far
up,
it's
not
going
to
balloon
the
assessment.
H
So
sometimes
they
owners
get
the
benefit
of
long-term
thinking,
and
sometimes
they
don't.
But
this
is
relatively
stable
in
a
5.4
percent.
Decreases
is
I
think
appropriate.
One
other
thing
if
I
could
just
read
my
writing.
H
This
seems
very
appropriate
for
a
very
oh,
oh
I
wanted
to
thank
the
appellant
for
not
revisiting
the
the
contentions
that
we
had
last
year
in
the
year
before
about
what's
a
mid-rise
and
what's
a
a
garden
style,
they
mentioned
that
they're
not
going
to
fight
it
and
I
appreciate
that,
because
I
think
we've
established
appropriately
the
board
and
the
the
department
on
what
is
a
mid-rise
and
what
isn't
and
and
let's
just
I'm
glad
we
got
past
that.
Thank
you.
A
I
I'll
make
the
motion
to
accept
the
County's
reduced
number
of
200
million
126
200.
I'll.
A
A
B
Thank
you,
I'm,
going
to
start
on
page
71
of
162,
which
is
our
summary
of
facts
for
this
location.
This
is
the
Dolly
Madison
apartments
located
at
2300
24th
Road
South
consistent
of
one
taxable
RPC
the
current
assessment.
Now
this
is
what
we
have
on
our
our
original
assessment
that
we
have
here
of
89
million
263
100,
that's
including
the
rehab
exemption,
so
the
I
guess
the
full
market
value
that-
and
this
is
what
the
county
lists.
B
In
page,
one
is
110
million
455
700
and
they
are
recommending
a
revision
down
to
102
million
255
300..
This
is
an
older
property
that
was
originally
built
in
1967
and
most
recently
renovated
in
2007
362
total
units,
a
high-rise
apartment
in
the
knock
sub
Market
one
building,
12
stories
and
4.35
Acres
consists
the
of
a
mix-up
of
one
two
and
three
bedroom
apartment
units
and
from
there
I'll
direct
the
board's
attention
again
to
page
three,
which
is
the
apartment,
income
and
expense
summary
sheet.
B
The
original
assessment
value
of
110
million
was
a
3.7
increase
from
the
prior
year.
However,
the
County's
test
column
of
102
million
255
300,
represents
a
four
percent
decrease
from
the
2021
assessment.
Again
when
you're,
comparing
that
to
the
actual
noi
from
20
to
2021
the
actual
noi
year
over
year,
decrease
from
20
to
21
was
13.
B
B
The
gross
potential
rent,
the
Department
again,
is
experiencing
a
three-year
down
downward
Trend
in
in
apartment
rent
from
8.26
million
in
2019,
eight
million
8.1
million
in
2020
and
most
recently,
7.8
million
in
2021.
The
the
counties
revised
gross
potential
rent
for
the
apartment
of
8.365
million
is
approximately
565
000
higher
than
what
was
actually
reported,
most
recently
again
in
in
2021.
B
the
effect
of
gross
again
on
a
three-year
down
downtrend
from
19
to
21,
8.8
million
down
to
8.1
million
and
now
most
recently,
7.7
million.
The
counties
revised
test
column
for
egi
of
8.3
million
is
570
000
higher
operate
expenses
30
in
2019
31
in
2020
and
36
in
2021.
B
The
test
column
is
using
a
32
percent
and
again
they're
they're,
approximately
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
below
what
was
actually
reported
in
column,
e
of
2.76
million
noi
again
a
three
year
downward
trend
from
from
six
point,
two:
six
million
down
to
5.65
million
and
now
most
recently,
4.9
million
the
counties
test,
column,
estimates
and
net
operate
an
income
of
5.6
million
so
again
we're
almost
seven
hundred
thousand
dollars
above
what
this
property
was
actually
able
to
to
generate
most
recently
in
2021..
B
Now
this
is
one
as
well
where,
where
the
county
and
we've
contested
contested
this
over
the
years,
the
county
applies
an
effective
age
of
a
2007
cap
rate
of
5.5
percent,
effectively
saying
that
the
building
was
when
it
was
renovated
in
2007
was,
was
raised
and
built
from
the
ground
up
and
not
renovated.
B
So
we
think
a
more
appropriate
cap
rate
would
be
in
the
1980
to
1989
effective
range
so
again
acknowledging
that
the
property
was
renovated,
but
you
know
acknowledging
also
that
the
property
has
the
same
foundations
materials
as
a
1960
build
all.
That
being
said,
this
is
a
a
in
terms
of
just
looking
at
the
net
operating
income
on
this
one
for
the
three-year
Trend
and
where
we
are
in
in
2021
most
recently,
the
actual
reported
income
in
comparison
to
Italian
the
County's
test
column.
B
There's
a
big
gap
here
of
almost
700
000
in
income,
happy
to
take
the
the
Ford's
questions,
I,
don't
know
if
Greg
or
Sophie.
You
want
to
add
anything
additionally
here
prior
to
wrapping
up.
B
And
with
that
we'll
defer
to
to
the
county.
A
Okay,
questions
from
board
members.
F
This
will
actually
be
my
case.
Oh.
F
Thank
you,
man,
yeah,
so
I
think
the
board
is
fairly
familiar
with
this
appreciate
Mr
Warren's
summation
for
the
most
part,
we
view
it
a
little
bit
differently
in
regards
to
again
its
potential.
As
the
board
knows,
we
do
look
at
its
potential.
F
You
know
one
of
the
things
I
thought
was
unique.
With
this
one
and
you'll
see
on
page
foreign,
six
of
162
is
the
rent
roll
that
we
reconstructed.
Now
we've
been
consistent
in
talking
about
our
thoughts,
our
projections,
if
you
will
and
again
modestly
projecting
one
two
percent
increases
based
on
what
we
understand
at
the
marketplace,
I'd
ask
the
board
to
note
these
aren't
grown
at
all.
These
are
pulled
directly
from
the
rent
roll
as
of
December,
31st,
2021.
F
and
I.
Did
that
somewhat
purposefully
in
the
sense
that,
when
we're
looking
at
what
that
potential
is,
this
is
essentially
again
stating
what
they
have
already
achieved.
If
you
will
so
this
is
a
proof
positive
of
what
they're
actually
getting
I
believe
these
rents
are
going
to
grow
and
again
the
reason
I
do.
F
That
is
not
so
much
to
be
a
smart
ass,
as
it
is
to
kind
of
point
out
that,
if
anything,
my
projection
is
low
again,
if
you
follow
the
same
logic
that
we've
used
historically,
which
is
that
this
is
almost
assuredly
going
to
grow
one
two,
three
percent,
so
that
projection
you
see
in
column,
F
line,
one
is,
is
literally
from
the
rent
roll.
The
rest
of
the
income
is
very
much
stabilized
data
that
we've
seen
how
we
do.
F
We
look
at
the
history,
what
they've
achieved
parking,
the
utility,
reimbursements
and,
of
course,
other
miscellaneous
income.
The
county
is
the
board.
Members
are
familiar
with
our
application
of
the
guideline
vacancy
and
Concession
again.
I
would
note
ask
the
board
to
note
as
well
that
the
the
vacancy
has
not
been
an
issue
at
this
property
and
in
fact,
as
we've
talked
about
previously,
this
vacancy
is
now
down
to
three
percent,
as
we
saw
in
years
previous
and
on
properties.
F
Previous
mostly
by
this
owner,
you
apply
a
greater
amount
of
concessions
and
drop
your
rents,
and
traditionally
your
occupancy
is
going
to
grow.
F
That's
what
we
saw
in
year,
2021
the
occupancy
went
down,
concessions
went
up
and
rents
went
down
accordingly,
we
do
believe
again,
as
we've
stems
consistently
that
at
a
three
percent
vacancy
that
it'll
be
easier
for
them
to
increase
rents
and
again,
given
that
my
projection
is
but
no
increase
at
all,
you
can
kind
of
do
the
math
and
see
that,
if
anything,
again
we're
probably
low
our
effective
growth
is
very
much
in
line
with
what's
been
achieved
at
the
property,
especially
considering
the
drop
in
2021,
but
again
the
increase
in
2019.
F
Looking
at
operating
expenses.
Again,
the
board
is
familiar
with
us
stabilizing
that
number
we
don't
match
dollar
for
dollar
with
what
they
report.
We
do
ask
questions.
If
there's
anything,
that's
unusual
or
strange,
you
know,
as
you
can
see,
with
the
highlighting
and
percentage
increases
year
over
year.
I
did
note.
The
biggest
increases
were
to
janitorial,
which
is
a
little
unusual
but
again,
given
that
it's
got
up
four
years
in
a
row
we'll
see
where
that
continues
to
go
increases
to
property
and
insurance.
F
That's
not
that
unusual
to
what
I've
seen
again
this
past
year
or
two
either
due
to
covid
or
restructuring.
Many
properties
are
increasing
their
insurance
again,
not
that
unusual
I
did
notice
the
12
increase
in
admin.
The
only
real
number
that
stuck
out
to
me
was
advertising
again
to
me.
That
goes
hand
in
hand
with
the
idea
of
advertising.
Your
your
available
units
more,
it
appears
to
have
worked.
They
lowered
their
vacancy
number
and
increased
their
occupancy.
F
My
point
of
bringing
that
up
is
to
see
if
that's
something
that
would
be
a
stabilized
number.
If
that's
something
that'll
drop
off
generally
speaking,
you
don't
want
to
spend
more
than
you
need
to
to
get
bodies
in
the
door.
If
the
advertising
worked,
it
may
stick
around
it.
May
not
all.
That
being
said,
you
can
see
that
we
did
apply
a
fairly
generous
increase
from
our
January
one
projection
in
column,
F
that
led
to
the
noi
projection
made
so
again
in
summation.
F
The
projections
made
on
the
income
level
are
in
line
with,
what's
been
achieved
historically
or
derived
directly
from
the
rent
roll,
with
no
increase
made
for
apartment
Revenue
projection
we're
using
guideline
vacancy
and
Concession
well
above,
what's
been
achieved
historically
at
that
property
and
again
operating
expenses
are
in
line
just
to
touch
on
I,
really
hope
we're
not
revisiting
this
again,
especially
given
that
the
the
properties
enjoyed
you
know,
13
years
or
so,
of
the
rehab
exemption.
But
we
believe
we
covered
this
last
year
to
cover
our
bets.
F
We
did
include
all
of
the
documentation
that
the
ownership
submitted
to
the
county
in
regards
to
the
amount
of
work
that
they
wanted
to
do,
and
the
scope
of
renovation
I
believe
that
begins
on
page
31,
but
I
will
highlight.
Obviously
one
of
the
summation
is
at
page
42,
where
they
list
that
they
will
spend
46
million
dollars
on
the
renovation.
Yes,
we
agree
that
the
foundation
was
not
renewed,
a
report
or
what
you
will.
F
But
again,
any
of
those
who
have
experience
in
commercial
real
estate
know
that
that's
almost
literally
physically
impossible
to
replace
a
foundation
and
nothing
else.
So,
in
a
sense,
what
we've
argued
is
that
that
46
million
dollars
went
into
everything
else,
so
please
do
read
over
that
documentation
and
listing
of
all
the
elements
that
were
changed
and
replaced
or
updated
or
added.
F
I
should
say,
given
that
we
do
believe
that
the
revision
applied
in
column
f
is
appropriate,
I
believe
Mr
Warren
touched
on
it,
but
I'll
note
again:
our
revision
calls
for
four
percent
decrease
year
over
year.
The
appellants
are
asking
for
20.4
percent
decrease.
It's
not
in
touch
with.
What's
going
on
sort
of
on
the
ground,
especially
not
in
touch
with.
What's
going
on
as
far
as
the
stabilized
property,
we
do
believe
that
the
revised
value
of
102
million
255
300
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
F
No
man,
just
you
know,
I
talked
a
lot
I
apologize.
Please
try
to
keep
all
that
information
in
mind.
Note
that
the
again
projections
made
or
without
any
growth
and
operating
expense
is
much
in
line
with
what's
been
reported.
Thank
you.
B
They
respond
on
the
the
vacancy
the
county
that
had
indicated
that
vacancies
has
not
really
been
an
issue
here
because
of
the
concession
package.
B
We
concession
packages
that
are
that
are
being
offered
to
tobacco,
that
space-
and
that's
that's
true
but
there's
also
I-
think
we
need
to
take
into
account
is
how
that
impact,
I
think
I
think
Chris
had
had
indicated
this
interactarian
that
to
offer
those
conception
packages
and
backfill
that
space
and
then
the
tenants
don't
typically
leave,
often
and
and
Greg
testified
to
the
opposite
of
that
fact
is
what
you
were
seeing
now.
B
Is
these
tenants
jumping
from
from
building
to
building
for
the
newest
consecutive
concession
package
each
year
and
you're
kind
of
seeing
that
here?
If
you
look
at
column
A
in
2018,
they
offered
a
pretty
substantial
concessions
of
270
000,
with
total
vacancy
of
four
percent,
that
vacancy
dropped
to
one
point:
eight
seven
percent
the
following
year,
so
maybe
there
was
a
little
bit
of
that
where
they
stayed
at
least
for
for
the
short
term.
B
But
what
you're
seeing
now
is
is
large
concession
packages
needing
to
be
to
be
provided
to
again
backfill
a
continuously
vacating
tenant
base,
251
000
in
in
2020
at
7.35,
and
that
increased
is
pretty
substantially
to
420
000
in
in
2021
and
you're
still
sitting
at
eight
and
a
half
percent
vacancy
again
the
revised
effective
gross
income,
it's
570
000
higher
than
the
counties
test
column
here
and
actual
noi
experience
in
a
significant
downward
Trend
in
overall
net
operating
income,
and
what
this
property
is
able
to
generate
is
almost
seven
hundred
thousand
dollars.
B
Seven
hundred
thousand
dollars
below
what
the
county
is
currently
estimating
in
revised
column,
apps.
A
H
Every
case
we've
heard
today,
I
guess
appropriately,
is
that
the
appellant
suggests
that
the
the
department
doesn't
take
seriously
enough
for
weight
enough.
The
2021
income
rent
income,
because
these
are
all
very,
very
similar
cases
and
the
county
responds.
Well,
we
don't
go
one
year,
we,
you
know,
we
don't
agree
with
the
the
appellants
projection
for
2022,
just
taking
over
the
achieved
income
from
2021.
We
smoothed
it
out,
we
average
it
take
it
over
time,
but
we
take
seriously
that
you
know.
2021
is
a
little
unusual
because
of
covet.
H
So
I
did
that
in
this.
In
this
case,
though,
the
different
than
the
other
is
the
income
projected
I'm,
sorry
in
column,
F
revised
is
actually
higher
than
anything
that
they've
achieved
before
this.
H
This
apartment,
so
I
did
average
it
out
and
then
plus
it
up
a
little
bit
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
that
created
a
deduction
of
265
000
for
the
income
in
the
revision
and
again
it's
higher
than
the
average
of
the
four
years
2018
through
2021
inclusive,
but
still
not
nearly
as
high
but
200
as
I
said,
265
000
less
than
what
is
in
column.
F
so
I
kept
that
and
took
off
the
rehab
exemption.
H
All
that
kind
of
good
stuff
and
well
I
got
the
noi,
then
is
5
million,
359
and
change,
and
the
assessment
for
the
rehab
is
about
97
million
500
a
little
less,
but
then
I
kept
it
out
to
76
million
374.
H
G
G
But
what
was
your
figure
Kent.
H
No
well
before
the
exemption,
97
437.
H
A
See
what
other
folks
have
before
we
start
agreeing
or
disagreeing?
Okay,
Mr
panoronda.
K
Yes
and
the
previous
two
cases
that
we
saw
I
think
the
county
has
been
generously
using
the
vacancy
and
the
expenses.
You
know
the
36
expenses
that
they
had
last
year.
I,
don't
think
it's
reflective
of
anything
that
has
happened
before
you
know
from
2014
to
2018
I
think
there
were
between
24
27.
K
They
went
up
to
29
30
31,
but
so,
if,
if
I
were
to
use
the
expenses
based
on
the
history,
I
would
have
used
31
and
I
think
that
the
vacancy
that
the
county
used
at
eight
percent
is
you
know
both
numbers
to
me
in
my
opinion,
are
generous
and
the
income
that
is
reflected.
If
you
look
at
the
E,
the
GPI,
you
know
it's
what
they
achieved
in
2019,
so
I'm,
I'm,
okay,
with
the
revised
assessment
I,
think
it's
a
generous
number.
A
G
Yeah,
the
the
the
the
the
the
increased
rent,
though,
is
like
500,
and
it
just
seems
to
me
that's
a
little
bit
aggressive
on
the
part
of
the
county
to
to
assume
it
will
go
up
that
much
so
I
guess
this
is
the
one
time
where
I
might
go
with
the
lowering,
but
it
looks
like
I'll
be
out
voted.
A
A
The
assessments
reduced
prior
to
the
exemption
to
102
255
300,
based
on
the
County's
recommendation
that
completes
the
agenda.
Does
anybody
have
any
business.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Mr
Lawson,.
G
Okay,
I've
got
to
be
out
in
Fairfax
first
thing:
if
I
do
get
finished
early
enough,
could
I
join
the
meeting
virtually
here
in
my
office.
It
would
save
probably
a
half
an
hour.
A
G
A
People
so
I'll
just
put
on
here
that
you'll
be
late,
but
you'll
be
virtual.