►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing October 13, 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
It's
october
13
2021.
This
is
a
arlington
county,
virginia
board
of
equalization
hearings
and
we
have.
The
first
case
is
rpc35005031.
A
And
do
we
have
mr
david
schindler
representing
japan
all
right
if
you
want
to
start
your
with
your
eight
minutes,
mr
schindler,
and
then
we'll
go
with
the
county?
Okay,.
B
A
B
Okay,
on
on
page
46
of
the
box
file
is
my
income
approach,
the
property,
and
basically
this
is
the
recap
of
what
we've
been
following
with
the
county
for
the
last
several
years,
mid-america,
I
say,
acquire
the
property,
but
we
acquire
the
property
via
merger
with
post
properties.
The
property
is
now
actually
called
maa
national
landing,
but
these
are
the
final
things
that
have
been
done
over
the
last
four
years
and
also
did
a
performance
at
the
beginning
of
the
year.
Follow
my
income
questionnaire
and
basically
the
property
has
been
very
consistent
through
20.
B
and
really.
What
was
the
key
factor
for
this
year
was
the
the
gross
potential
rents
for
this
year
have
dropped
off
significantly,
and
I
will
get
to
get
later
on
in
the
presentation
that
this
is
just
not
just
mid-america
properties,
this
basically
the
entire
market.
So,
basically,
if
you
look
at
the
income,
recapture
you've
got
17
18,
19,
20,
p
l's.
I
used
a
four
and
a
half
cap
rate.
This
is
what
I
reported
to
the
county
on
my
income
approach.
B
I
did
have
a
conversation
with
chris
yesterday.
I
have
to
do
a
little
more
research,
but
initially,
basically,
if
you
look
at
the
performance,
you
have
that
11
million
7
15,
basically,
is
our
projected
gross
performance
based
on
the
january
1,
rent
roll
from
that
I
deducted
you
know
a
typical
or
the
average
vacancy
collection
loss
added
back
the
other
income
and
looked
at
the
expenses
using
roughly
the
same
ratio
which
got
265
million
dollars.
B
B
Roll
and
rents
had
responded
some
coming
back
up
after
the
first
of
the
year
and
they've
continued
to
do
so,
but
basically
I
thought
180
million
dollars,
based
on
the
assumption
that
rents
would
continue
to
improve
and
they
have,
which
is
a
good
thing,
but
as
with
one
one,
this
is
the
snapshot
of
where
we
were
so.
Although
my
income
approach
was
165
just
for
tempering,
how
was
things
going
to
act?
Actually,
when
I
transpire
it
was
gonna,
be
165.,
I'm
an
in-house
person.
B
I've
been
with
mid-america
for
about
15
years
through
a
merger
we
used
to
have
outside
counsel
help
with
on
this
cases.
I've
been
doing
this
for
30
some
odd
years,
so
you
know
not
saying
every
place
but
been
a
lot
of
places.
One
of
the
things
that
really
kind
of
confused
me
a
little
bit
was
on
the
capex,
and
I
want
to
perform
more
actual
income
and
also
the
way
that
the
questionnaire
works.
B
One
of
the
questions
I
have
with
chris
yesterday
was:
every
company
has
a
capex
policy
and
how
we
spend
things
and
how
we
capitalize
it
and
the
conversation
was,
you
know
we're
doing.
We
do
well
furniture,
not
for
sure,
but
carpets
every
year
it
kind
of
went
through
that
process
of
all
the
money
we
spent
and
the
capex
policy
by
company
company
various,
but
we
don't
have
a
threshold.
B
So
if
an
asset
cost
is
carpet
thousand
dollars,
rather
being
an
operating
expense,
it
goes
into
capital
and
in
talking
with
chris
and
I'll
get
to
the
end
of
the
question
here
was
talking
with
chris.
It
was
basically
we
throw
these
things
in
the
capital
we
reported
like
last
year
we
spent
2.12
million
dollars,
21
million
dollars
on
capital
expenses,
but
never
really
reclassed
any
of
those
expenses
or
capital
expenses.
B
As
actual
expenses
conversation
issue
was
well
anything
that
basically
maintains
the
rent
loss
is
not
a
major
renovation
project
but
ongoing
expenses
that
that
that
can
be
taken
as
an
expense
I'll
get
to
the
the
number
here.
So
so,
basically,
the
performer
was
we're
gonna
go
to
that
11
million
seven.
Fifty
eleven
million
seven
eleven
seven
hundred
thousand
dollar
evaluation
come
down
and
say
it
was
get
my
screen
here
then
on
page
it
would
be
50
that
was
page
46
on
page
55
of
it.
B
Basically,
that's
my
rent,
roll
and
basically
the
page
4
55
is
you'll,
see
the
actual
the
market
rent
of
976
240,
multiply
it
by
12.
That's
how
I
get
to
11
million
seven
now
again
apartments.
Basically,
we
sign
leases.
It
takes
12
months
to
burn
off
where
our
actual
rent.
At
that
point
time
we
were
receiving,
was
a
million
eighty
six
thousand
dollars
so
you're
pushing
about
13.2
million
dollars
on
the
actual
rents.
If
you
analyze
it
that
way,
the
next
one
is
the
rent
roll
for
march.
B
I
mean
that
march
february.
Again
that
is
going
to
be
page
64.
in
the
market.
Rents
are
now
at
a
million.
40
are
actual,
and
I
can't
really
read
that
right
now,
but
I
think
it's
the
main
84.
So
the
actual
didn't
change
much,
but
our
course
potential
was
going
up.
Tennis,
I
didn't
go
with:
11
million
of
these
165
million
dollar
indicated
value
being
the
performer
just
saying:
hey
it's
going
up,
which
is
good,
page
58.
B
I
guess
it
is
my
page
57,
so
plus
plus
eight
pages
of
the
page
65,
basically
to
look
at
what
was
going
on.
I
took
the
rent,
roll
and
basically
identified
the
november
and
december
moving
rents
and
how
those
actual
rents
were
in
comparison
to
what
the
market
was
so
on
that
rent
roll.
Basically,
I
took
out
all
the
november
december
minutes,
so
those
market
rents
were
fifty
six
thousand
eighty
dollars
and
we
were
actually
on
our
side
leases.
We
were
getting
53
0800,
so
basically
we
get
95
percent
of
our
asking
rent.
B
The
next
rent
rolls
that
the
march
one
that
basically
says:
okay,
our
rents,
have
increased
to
56
000
potential,
but
now
we're
still
getting
52,
000,
134
or
92
percent
of
our
rent,
saying,
although
our
rest
have
gone
up,
we're
not
getting
what
we're
getting
there.
This
basically
is
the
unit
mix.
This
is
the
same
schedule
that
I
used
when
I
supported
income,
basically
saying
hey
our
gross
potential
based
on
our
january
rents
is
11
million
714
880.,
the
next
page
we're
not
next
page.
The
this
goes
to
the
capex.
B
The
capital
expenditures
that
I
want
to
get
into.
These
are
our
actual
expenses
that
were
capitalized,
do
not
hit
the
p
l.
So
basically,
we
spent
2.1
million
dollars
that
would
capitalize
expenses
for
the
year
after
looking
at
the
form
talking
to
chris
and
actually
some
sorting
and
filtering
on
this.
B
Basically,
after
the
fact
saying,
okay
of
these
expenses
that
were
out
there,
I
mean
this
is
several
pages
of
what
they
are,
which
of
these
things
would
be
qualified
based
on
a
ongoing
capitals,
expense
that
ought
to
be
considered
as
an
expense
the
way
the
county.
Does
it
saying
hey
these
things
are
going
to
reaper
every
year,
also,
look
back
at
19,
18
and
17..
In
2019
we
spent
2.6
in
2000,
18,
well,
yeah,
it's
18.
We
spent
2.1
in
2017,
which
is
our
first
year.
B
We
only
spent
843
thousand
dollars
in
capitalized
expenses.
Basically,
this
process
goes
on
and
on
this
way
the
maa
handles
our
business.
If
it's
more
than
one
year,
it
goes
as
a
capital
expense,
not
that
so
what
I
did
is
I
looked
at
my
descriptions
on
these
things
decided,
you
know,
are
these
things
that
are
a
on
ongoing
expense
that
keeps
our
income
stream
coming
in
and
basically
that
number
came
up
to
658
000..
B
So
basically
now
say
I
misreported
or
under
reported,
but
of
these
capitals
expenses.
Those
numbers
should
have
been
pushed
back
on
to
the
expense
approach
showing
hey.
This
is
what
our
actual
the
way
that
arlington
county
does
the
income
evaluation.
This
is
what
our
our
true
expenses
should
have
been.
I
know
I
don't
have
it
somebody
beefing.
A
Yeah,
that's
a
sign
that
your
eight
minutes
is
up,
mr
schindler,
but
if
you
can
go
ahead
and
wrap
it
up.
B
B
B
That's
showing
hey,
here's
where
we
are
and
here's
where
everybody
else
is
and
I'm
not
saying
every
property's
got
different
unit
mixes
and
and
and
they
do
different
rents
and
I'm
not
saying
a
per
unit
is
right
way
of
doing
it.
So
the
approach
that
I
use
is
a
gross
rate
multiplier
saying
if
everybody
had
full
occupancy,
here's
the
tax
value
or
here's
the
sales
price.
Here's
my
grm,
it's
an
asset
test
of
like
where
we
are
in
equity.
B
So
one
thing
I
said
divided
by
get
to
about
basically
value
of
a
17.06
multiplier,
taking
the
comps
do
the
same
thing
I
get
to
15.83
and
I
guess
in
conclusion-
and
then
conclusion
here
is:
if
I
took
the
658
put
that
as
an
expense
of
the
capital
expenses
that
should
have
been
in
operating
expenses,
I
get
back
to
the
value
of
about
196
on
a
four
or
five
cap
rate
and
the
supplement
pages.
B
Basically,
everything
beyond
that
or
is
a
combination
of
hey
here's,
the
rent
history
of
not
just
our
property,
but
all
those
comps
showing
hey
everybody's
rents
have
gone
down
our
rents
from
q419
to
q420,
we're
down
15
percent
and
the
2-1
of
20-21
we're
down
16,
and
that
trend
runs
through
with
all
properties.
C
Good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
so
again
we
are
speaking
about
post
pentagon.
Road
apartments
fairly
well
stabilized
again,
as
the
board
is
very
familiar
with.
My
presentations,
will
rely
heavily
upon
the
summary
sheet.
C
In
fact,
there
was
a
a
drop-off
in
2020,
as
mr
schiller
pointed
out,
renton's
rents
tightened
up
a
bit,
there's
a
drop-off
in
revenue
just
about,
in
fact
at
exactly
one
percent,
but
again
that
was
after
three
years
of
increases
across
the
board,
we'll
move
down,
of
course,
to
look
at
vacancy,
not
only
true
vacancy,
but
vacancy
and
collection
concessions
we'll
see
that
again,
very
stabilized
property,
as
opposed
to
yesterday,
where
we
saw
a
lot
of
increases
in
2020.
C
This
property
actually
technically
went
down
only
five
tenths,
five,
one
hundreds
of
percent.
But
again,
if
you
want
to
say
it
stayed
stable,
that's
fine!
But
again
because
of
the
drop-off
in
gross
potential,
there
was
a
drop-off
in
effect
of
gross
given
that
they
stayed
stable
as
opposed
to
increase
their
occupancy.
C
Again,
looking
at
operating
expenses
very
stable,
this
is
what
we'd
like
to
see
as
far
as
not
extreme
jumps,
one
way
or
the
other.
Looking
from
17
to
20.,
again
very
stabilized
property.
We
did
note,
as
we
go
top
to
bottom,
that
again,
based
on
the
drop-off
in
income.
We
were
a
bit
high
on
our
initial
projection,
but
again,
as
the
board
knows,
this
was
based
off
of
the
previous
years.
Looking
historically,
our
projection
made
sense.
C
We
did
make
revisions
to
not
only
the
income
but
also
increase
the
operating
expense
projection
that
the
county
made
again
based
on
2020
levels,
we're
very
much
in
line
with
not
only
historics
the
historical
operating
performance,
but
specifically
the
last
two
years
in
three
years.
C
When
we
look
at
this,
as
would
fall
in
line,
the
net
operating
income
also
came
into
line
and
that
we
made
adjustments
again
decreasing
our
projection
to
income
and
increasing
our
projections
to
operating
expense
that
brought
the
noi
down
fairly
significantly
from
our
genuine
one
projection,
but
again
very
much
in
play
with
what
they've
achieved.
Historically,
we
do
believe
that
the
revision
recommendation
of
210
million
one
hundred
eighty
three
thousand
four
hundred
should
be
confirmed
as
fair
excuse
me
should
be
confirmed
anything
to
add
irvin.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chickas.
Any
questions
from
other
board
members
at
this
time,
mr
huffman.
E
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
if
this
is
part
of
the
national
landing
or
the
crystal
city
bid,
make
sure
we
got
the
right
cap
rate.
E
And
then,
while
we're
looking
at
that,
I
think
that
was
that
was
all
I
have
for
now.
C
E
F
Yeah,
this
is
also
for
chris
on
the
general
information
tax
sheet.
It
says
additional
owners
street
retail
link.
Are
they
still
involved
in
this?
I
I
thought
they
no
longer
were.
C
They
are,
sir.
This
property
is
fairly
unique
in
that
it's
one
parcel
two
owners,
and
so
what
that's?
What
today's
about
this
first
component
is
going
to
be
handled
these
via
the
residential
handle
with
mr
schindler
and
their
representation.
Next
up
will
be
the
retail
component
handled
by
representative
for
the
federal
street
realtor.
F
Oh,
so
federal
realty
still
owns
the
commercial.
G
It's
a
good
question
for
the
appellant.
Actually,
two
questions.
First,
one
is
you
talked
a
good
bit
about
how
your
company
expense
costs
operating
costs
differently
than
the
county.
Wants
you
to
capital
improvements,
long-term
segregated
from
ongoing
maintenance
to
make
sure
the
place
is
rentable
you.
You
recognize
that
a
couple
times
that
make
all
makes
sense
to
me,
but
I
look
at
the
columns
for
2020
the
various
the
operating
expenses
through
well.
Certainly,
what
is
that
h?
G
I
j
and
k,
which
is
only
a
projection,
are
very
very
close,
and
I
was
wondering
if
this
reconstruction
column
j
was
your
reconstruction
or
the
departments,
but
nonetheless,
coming
back
to
the
beginning,
the
operating
expenses
haven't
changed.
You
know
in
the
road
down
the
bottom,
so
how
did
you
account
for
changing
those
capital?
G
B
I
understand
yes,
I
mean
basically
this.
What
I
did
on
this
income
model
is
basically
of
our
our
income
questionnaires
that
we
reported.
So
basically
we
take
our
financials
and
report,
it
so
they're
using
what
we
gave
them,
and
I
say
they
did
anything
wrong.
I
mean
chris
did
a
good
job
like
don't
get
me
wrong,
but
what
I'm
doing
is
well.
We
had
outside
representation,
then
looking
at
you
know
our
expenses
based
on
what
we
returned
are
very
stable.
It's
been
very
it's
good,
that's
good
for
a
property.
B
Obviously
we
like
to
have
more
and
more
noi,
but
expenses.
Our
expenses
are
the
reason
why
I'm
saying
that
that
658
is
something
that
we
missed.
You
know
we
basically,
as
a
company,
you
know
again
it's
a
company
policy,
accounting
policy.
It
says
you
know.
If
we
replace
carpet,
we
don't
expense
it
for
make
ready
it's,
because
it's
got
a
potential
life
of
more
than
a
year.
It
goes
into
a
capital
expense.
B
We
didn't
report
any
of
those
expenses,
our
income
questionnaires.
So
rereading
the
income
questionnaire,
saying
hey,
you
know
this
is
capitalist.
This
is
painting
this
is
carpet.
This
is
vinyl
plumbing
electrical,
anything
that
we
did
to
basically
maintain
that
property.
We
didn't
report
and
it
looked.
B
Right
and
if
I
went
back
to
the
17
and
that's
why
I
was
going
back
with
like
the
the
19
18
17,
the
capital
expenses
reported,
basically
not
in
the
you
know,
as
an
expense
operating
expense.
In
2018
we
spent
2.6
million
dollars
in
capitalized
expenses.
We
didn't
include
that
in
our
form
in
2018
we
spent
2.4
million
dollars.
We
didn't
quit
any
of
that
in
our
form.
Just
looking
at
19
or
2020
rather
and
saying
hey,
these
were
things
that
we
spent
that
should
have
been
reported
as
a
operating
expense.
B
We
did
so.
We
spent
two
million
dollars
last
year,
the
year
before
was
2.6
the
year
before.
That
was
a
a
2
million
before
that
was
840
thousand
dollars.
I
mean
now
second
final
minute
return,
but
doing
for
me
now,
but
we
we
with
outside
advice,
didn't
really
look
at
the
forum
and
file
correctly.
So
basically,
what
I'm
saying
is
hey.
B
B
G
A
Well,
let
me
stop
here
for
a
minute,
mr
masking,
I
think,
you're
looking
at
the
commercial
part,
we're
dealing
with
the
apartment
portion
right
now,.
G
E
Hoffman
did
you
chris?
Did
you
get
a
kind
of
a
conclusion
on
the
bid.
C
A
Okay,
if
we
don't
have
any
other
questions,
we'll
go
to
rap
apps,
mr
chikas,
if
you
want
to
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up.
C
Absolutely
yeah
and
and
just
hopefully
not
to
further
cloud
it
but
actually
bring
transparency,
but
mr
schindler
is
accurate.
What
we
talked
about
last
night
was
the
the
difference
between
annual
operating
expenses
necessary
to
ensure
a
income
stream,
and
then
those
that
would
be
considered
capital
expenditures.
C
We've
talked
about
that
a
lot
this
year,
things
that
would
add
life
to
the
property
or
or
have
an
expected
return
on
investment.
C
You
know,
whereas
what
we
talked
about,
mr
schindler,
is
making
sure
that
he
incorporates
things
that
are
associated
with
turnover,
so
carpeting
painting.
You
know
if
there's
there's
issues
with
the
the
countertops
every
couple
years.
You
know
that
would
be
considered
turnover,
what
we
call
decorating
and
I
think,
there's
just
a
issue
with
previous
representation
sort
of
jamming
it
all
into
capex.
So
we
just
asked
him-
and
this
was
good.
This
was
what
we
want
with
talking
with
owners
and
representation,
is
making
sure
that
they
understand
our
forms.
C
We
understand
what
they're
doing
and
there's
transparency
in
both
ends
so
again,
just
to
quickly
wrap
up.
Looking
at
the
summary
sheet,
we
have
a
stabilized
property
income
increases
in
18
and
19.
again
we
did
note
the
downturn
of
one
percent
in
2020
that
was
associated
again,
even
though
it's
very
stabilized
property,
both
true
vacancy
and
vacancy,
and
concessions
17
through
20..
C
I'd.
Ask
the
board
to
note
that
we
did
make
revisions
downward
on
income.
We
made
revisions
upward
on
operating
expenses,
we're
very
much
in
line
with
what's
been
reported,
both
historically
and
again.
Just
looking
at
the
last
two
and
or
three
years,
whichever
you
wait
more
heavily
our
noi
recommendation.
Revision
is
very
much
in
line
with
what's
been
achieved.
Historically,
we
do
believe
that
the
revision
of
210
million
183
400
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
A
B
Okay
again
I
mean
chris
has
been
great.
First
of
all,
he's
been
very
good
to
talk
with.
I
appreciate
the
conversation
now
learn
a
little
bit,
obviously
as
they
go
along
in
life.
I
guess
I
go
back
to
the
the
equity
analysis
of
saying:
hey
our
growth
rate
multiplier.
B
You
know,
I
don't
know
whatever
else
reports,
but
obviously,
if
everybody
else
had
been
including
those
those
ongoing
capital
expenses
as
an
operating
expense,
their
valuation
would
be
lower.
So,
basically
by
me
under
reporting,
my
expenses
to
a
certain
degree,
the
way
the
form
is
created
that
throws
it
off
when
I
adjust
it
for
basically
that
658
the
valuation
basically
comes
back
to
about
196
million
dollars
using
the
county's
cap
rate,
and
if
you
look
at
whatever
happened
to
everybody
else
in
the
county
on
this
past
year,
on
reappraisal,
pretty
much
everybody
stayed
the
same.
B
B
Take
it
from
an
operating
income
use
the
same
cap
for
the
county
I
get
back
to.
Basically,
the
same
value
was
last
year,
grm
of
the
the
15
16
or
15.8,
whatever
it
falls
in
line
and
saying
that
equity
is
the
best
way
of
doing
it,
it
all
depends
on
what
people
report.
I
think
over
reported
with
that
correction.
Basically,
I
would
fall
in
line
with
how
everybody
else
is
being
valued
and
how
they
reported.
Basically,
a
correction
going
forward.
B
Obviously,
and
I
will
almost
include
my
fixed
asset
schedule
with
the
delineation
of
what
is
true
capital.
What
is
my
direct
decorating
cost
for
things
that
ought
to
be
included
in
there
lesson
learned
for
me.
E
Yeah
I
mean
I
always
appreciate
it
when
the
owners
of
the
property
come
on
and
kind
of
explain
their
thought
process.
So
thank
you
for
that.
I
think
we
do
have
kind
of
under-reported
operating
expenses
and
that's
more
of
an
accounting
function.
I
kind
of
I
understand
the
problem
I
think
going
forward.
Maybe
it's
in
just
how
to
fill
out
the
ine
forms
from
the
county
to
to
avoid
that.
E
But
I
I
mean
the
way
I
look
at
it
is:
we've
seen
a
lot
of
properties,
similar
age
apartments
that
are,
you
know,
pushing
30
expenses
and
this
one's
you
know
22
23
24..
So
I
would
support
adjusting
the
opex
on
the
the
county's
test
column
to
24
percent.
A
Okay,
mr
matson.
G
Just
clarification
on
that
greg
is
that
to
account
for
the
unassigned
expenses
that
are
still
in
capital
improvement,
yeah.
E
It's
still,
I
mean
the
the
I
got:
a
total
of
10
million
856
noi
and
and
it's
still
a
four
percent
increase
over
last
year's
assessment.
But
you
know
the
total
number
I
came
up
with
was
206
782
400.
A
Okay
and
that's
based
on
increasing
the
on
the
revised
to
24
yeah.
A
Well
I'll
go
ahead
and
give
you
my
thought:
it's
it's
very
hard.
You
know
when
numbers
are
reported
and
a
lot
of
times.
We
see
that
you
know
we
tell
the
palace.
I
think
you
know
you
next
time.
I
guess
you
need
to
report
correctly,
but
you
know
when
we
look
at
the
overall
picture
throughout
the
years
what's
been
happening.
I
don't
think
that
the
county
is
wrong
in
the
numbers
that
they
came
up
with.
A
You
know
yeah
one
of
the
one
of
the
things
that
we
also
need
to
look
at.
You
know
when
an
appellant
brings
the
case.
We
need
to
take
a
closer
look
rather
than
just
the
you
know,
dismiss
and
everything.
So
I'm
I'm
in
between
you
know
I
would.
I
would
support
making
the
change.
If,
because
I
think
it's
justifiable,
you
know
the
just
because
you
don't,
I
guess,
make
the
right
entry.
Sometimes
you
get
punished
so
yeah.
A
That
was
the
first
thing
I
looked
at
also
at
the
expenses
I
didn't
go
to
24,
but
I
think
you
know
it
has
they've
had
24
in
past
years,
so
I'll
be
okay
with
it.
Okay,.
F
Yeah,
I
think
I'm
going
to
go
along
with
greg's
suggestion.
F
Many
years
ago
I
was
the
person
who
did
the
land
use
case
for
this.
That's
why
I
was
asking
about
street
retail
inc,
and
originally
it
was
going
to
be
all
all
done
by
by
federal
and
then
post
came
along
and
and
my
understanding
and
it's
been
a
long
time.
But
the
setup
was
that
I
think
the
expenses
on
this
particular
retail
component
are
probably
higher
than
most
because
you
have
it.
It's
not
like
a
high
rise
where
you
have
the
residential
and
then
ground
floor
retail.
F
Here
you
have
the
whole
thing
spread
out
over
many
hundreds
of
feet
and
it's
always
been
my
understanding
that
the
the
maintenance
of
that
and
divvying
up
who
takes
care
of
the
common
area
and
so
forth,
probably
is
a
little
bit
higher.
So
I'll
go
along
with
greg's
suggestion.
A
E
Sure
I'd
motion
to
reduce
to
2
206
million
782
400
with
the
rationale
using
the
county's
test,
column
and
24
operating
expenses.
A
Do
we
have
a
second,
mr
lawson?
Okay,
all
in
favor,
aye,
okay,
the
motion
and
the
reduction
passes,
so
it
is
reduced
to
206
million
782
400,
and
that
is
a
unanimous
decision.
Thank
you.
I
I
I
From
coming
on
late,
so
that
was
for
the
first
item
on
the
agenda
and
what
about
the
retail
portion.
I
I
All
right
calling
the
second
case,
then
rpc35005031
same
property,
1101,
south
joyce
and
ross.
I
believe
I
see
you
on
if
you
want
to
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
portion
of
the
property
and
the
retail.
J
Yes,
ma'am
thanks
ms
dooley,
so,
as
you
all
aptly
pointed
out,
this
is
the
retail
portion
of
that
same
property,
and
I
think
that
mr
barnes
comments
earlier
related
to
the
apartment
piece.
It
is
somewhat
complicated.
It
is
spread
out,
it's
not
your
traditional
high-rise.
Over
retail.
I
I
believe
the
board
is
familiar
with
this
property.
J
I'm
sure
it's
been
some
time
here,
the
the
gist
of
this
appeal.
Obviously,
we've
talked
about
the
impacts
of
covid
to
retail
and
we've
discussed
that
ad
nauseam,
but
in
this
particular
case
for
this
analysis-
and
I
know
that
the
board
has
got
the
information
that
we
provided
in
front
of
them.
This
really
boils
down
to
what
is
going
into
the
formula
that
derives
effective
gross
income.
J
Are
the
market
rent
assumptions
our
vacancy
and
collections
and
then
covet
related
concessions
and
abatements.
So
if
you
could
follow
along
in
our
analysis
to
page
three
you'll,
see
a
summary
of
values
currently
or
the
original
assessed
value
was
156
million
through
chris's
our
conversation
over
a
period
of
many
months
and
some
a
different
look
at
the
analysis.
I
believe
chris
is
coming
at
141
million
dollars,
but
we
are
advocating
today
that
the
value
of
this
property
is
truly
95
million.
264
200
I'd
like
to
get
into
the
details
of
why
that
is.
J
But
I
do
want
to
reiterate
the
point
that
this
really
boils
down
to
what
goes
into
deriving
effective
gross
income,
the
expense
assumption,
as
well
as
the
cap
rate.
There
is
some
variability
there,
but
but
given
the
current
state
of
the
market
as
well
as
as
the
property
itself,
those
are
really
not
the
main
factors
that
are
driving
the
difference
in
value.
For
us,
this
is
a
296
000
square
foot,
retail
property.
That's
a
mix
of
some
large
anchor
tenants.
J
Some
junior
anchor
tenants
a
significant
portion
of
retail
space,
both
at
first
level
and
mezzanine
in
the
courtyard
and
then
a
bunch
of
inline
retailers
that
run
the
gambit
of
of
traditional
retail
food
beverage
lifestyle
fitness.
Following
on
to
page
four.
I
want
to
get
into
some
of
these
factors
that
are
impacting
our
effective
gross
income
and
the
first
thing
that
I
want
to
point
out
very
prominently
there.
J
If
you
look
at
the
ine
surveys
that
have
been
reported
over
the
years
about
mid
page
on
page
four
in
2020,
the
ine
survey
that
was
submitted
to
represent
year
end
2019
operations.
That
noi
was
approximately
10.1
million
dollars
in
2021.
The
ine
survey
that
was
submitted
representing
year
in
2020
operations
was
7.9
million
dollars.
J
That's
a
22
drop
in
net
operating
income
from
year
in
19
to
year
in
2020,
and
I
would
also
point
out
that
even
our
year
in
2019,
which
represented
pre-covid,
that
was
still
down
eight
percent
year
over
year.
So
yes,
there
are
some
very
prominent
acute
covet,
related
impacts
to
the
property,
but
this
property
has
struggled
and
the
operations
and
the
income
and
expenses
that
have
been
supported
to
the
county
reflect
that
as
well
going
down
to
covet
impact
starting
at
the
bottom
of
page.
Four.
J
I
do
want
to
point
out
that,
as
of
year
in
2020,
the
amount
of
outstanding
rent
that
was
due
across
the
entire
tenancy
of
the
property
was
approximately
2.2
million
dollars.
And
that's
representative,
if,
if
you
were
to
look
at
the
revised
noi
that
the
the
department
is
using,
I
mean
that's
effectively.
25
percent
of
of
that
that
total
income
that's
being
reported.
So
we
were,
we
had
2.2
million
dollars
in
rent
outstanding
as
of
2020
and
more
than
1.3
million
dollars
of
that
rent
was
outstanding
for
more
than
160
days.
J
So
it's
a
massive
it's
a
massive
ar
delinquency
that
had
been
booked
as
of
year
in
2020,
and
even
assuming
that
we
recover
even
a
portion
of
that
that
again
further
impacts
operations
at
the
property
which
again,
we
feel
supports
a
reduction.
A
smaller
issue,
which
I
believe
chris
has
addressed
in
his
revised
numbers,
although
maybe
not
totally,
our
our
parking
income-
was
cut
in
half
from
year
19
to
year
in
2020,
as
you
can
imagine,
fewer
folks
visiting
stores,
fewer
folks,
visiting
offices
less
need
to
pay
for
parking.
J
J
If
you
look
at
the
reported
vacancies
on
the
ine
survey,
they
fluctuated
anywhere
from
16
to
9
over
the
last
five
years,
most
recently
as
of
year
in
2020
physical
vacancy
again,
this
is
physical.
Vacancy
was
nine
percent.
If
you
look
at
economic
vacancy
again,
the
delinquencies
the
amount
that
was
abated,
the
concessions
that
were
offered
were
about
20
economic
vacancy
as
of
the
date
of
valuation-
and
I
do
want
to
point
out
because
this
has
been
an
issue
that
chris
and
I
have
discussed
over
the
years.
J
J
That's
a
30
000
square
foot
vacancy
now,
again,
that's
not
relevant
to
the
date
of
valuation,
but
it
does
speak
to
the
continued
struggles
that
this
center
has
had,
and
it's
certainly
indicative
of
that
decline
in
value
even
pre-covid,
going
into
where
we
are
today
following
along
to
concessions.
I
do
again.
J
I
do
want
to
reiterate
that
we
have
significant
economic
vacancy
here
in
addition
to
physical
vacancy,
a
lot
of
concessions
and
abatements
were
offered
as
a
result
of
of
cobit
I'm
following
along
to
page
seven,
reiterating
the
risk
profile
of
this
property
and,
again
speaking,
further
to
the
concessions,
the
abated
rent
and
the
overall
declining
nature,
our
retail
sales
decline
over
there,
which
is
a
marker
for
health
of
the
tenancy.
The
retail
sales
over
there
across
the
board,
from
19
to
20
declined
approximately
35
percent.
That
impacts
the
tenant's
ability
to
pay
rent.
J
It
impacts
their
ability
to
keep
the
lights
on,
and
so
we
have
a
significant
number
of
tenants.
I
would
say
more
than
20
that
we
still
consider
at
risk
in
the
current
environment
following
on
to
capitalization
rate.
I
do
want
to
touch
on
this,
although
this
is
not
the
most
contentious
issue
because,
frankly,
in
all
fairness,
trying
to
derive
a
capitalization
rate
for
a
large
retail
shopping
center,
like
this
in
the
midst
of
covid,
is
difficult.
At
best
we
arrive
based
on
our
market
research,
it's
seven
and
a
half.
J
I
believe
the
department
has
arrived
at
7.3,
so
I
will
concede
that
a
20
basis
point
difference,
you
know,
could
you
could
you
testify
that
that
is?
You
know
absolutely
where
the
cap
rate
needs
to
be
no,
but
the
seven
and
a
half
percent
is
what
we
are
seeing
in
our
studies,
ones
that
we've
commissioned
ourselves
across
the
entire
federal
portfolio,
as
well
as
what
we're
seeing
in
the
market,
and
it
does
make
a
difference
that
20
basis
points.
And
then
I
want
to
conclude
with
saying.
J
If
you
go
to
page
10,
I
want
to
conclude
with
looking
at
the
actual
noi
again
that
was
reported.
We've
seen
significant
declines
year
over
year
and
we're
asking
the
board
to
please
consider
the
fact
that
even
the
revised
noi
that
the
department
is
utilizing
to
derive
this
most
recent
assessment
is
still
significantly
above,
where
the
actual
noi
is,
and
if
you
look
at
it
dollar
for
dollar.
J
In
comparison
to
what's
been
reported
over
the
years,
the
revised
noi
itself
is
only
equivalent
to
what
was
reported
as
of
year
in
2019
in
our
ine
almost
to
the
penny,
it's
where
it
was
in
year
in
2019
before
covid
before
any
of
these
impacts,
and
so
we
don't
feel
that
the
valuation
itself
revised
or
not
accurately
reflects
the
impact
both
in
market
conditions
and
actual
realistic
operations
at
this
property,
and
then
I'll
point
you
to
page
11,
which
goes
through
a
detailed
analysis
of
exactly
how
we
got
to
our
95.2
million
dollar
number
and,
as
you
can
see,
most
of
this
boils
down
to
what
goes
into
effective
gross
income,
and
we
can
talk
market
rates.
J
I
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
mr
chicas,
for
the
county.
Please.
C
Yes,
ma'am,
that
was
farewell
surmised.
C
We
would
just
echo
mr
liquinellis
viewpoint
that
it
really
does
kind
of
come
down
to
effective
gross,
but
I
would
point
out
in
looking
and
again
I'm
assuming
the
board
members
are
looking
at
our
construction
summary
sheets.
C
When
looking
at
our
column,
j
revision,
we
did
in
fact
take
2020's
rent
loss
and
concessions
into
accounts
and
you'll
note
that
by
looking
at
a
million
dollar
under
projection
of
what
was
achieved
last
year,
so
even
in
2020's
pandemic
year,
we're
projecting
a
million
dollars
below
that
and
note
that
the
appellant
is
as
well
the
problem
with
that
the
appellant
doing
is
that
then
he
also
adds
back
the
rent
loss
and
concessions
that
we
account
for
in
our
projected
gross.
C
So
there's
shorting
rubs
by
almost
600
600
000
what
was
reported
and
then
keeping
everything
else
fairly
in
line
other
incomes
down
a
little
bit.
So
the
board
is
familiar
with
how
we
do
account
for
effective
gross
and
that's
by
squashing
the
potential
gross
to
get
a
achievable,
effective
gross.
That's
been
done.
Historically,
we
did
apply
guideline
four
percent
to
get
to
that
revised
effective
gross
number.
C
I
would
note
that
we,
our
expense,
is
actually
a
good
bit
higher,
almost
200
and
200
000
or
so
higher
than
the
appellant's
number
operating
expense
projection.
Again,
that's
based
on
what's
been
reported
historically
again,
as
the
board
is
familiar
and
as
we've
done
uniformly
with
all
these
property
types,
we
do
not
recognize
the
the
line
items
for
tis
and
leasing
commissions
again
with
our
leasing
commissions,
that's
built
into
the
cap
rates
that
we
use
when
we
formulate
our
cap
rates
each
year.
C
C
You
know.
Normally
we
wouldn't
bring
that
discussion
into
play,
but
the
idea
is,
as
we've
noted
and
as
you
can
see.
Historically,
this
property
is
actually
tightening
up
its
occupancy
into
a
great
deal:
2017
approximately
19
vacant
2018,
approximately
13
vacant,
2019
10.5,
and
then
even
tighten
it
up
in
a
pandemic
year.
C
We
noted
they
signed
leases
at
least
three
two
leases
and
I
believe
at
least
one
execution
of
a
renewal
in
the
pandemic
year.
Again,
that
is
probably
being
honest,
is
going
to
favor
the
tenant
in
that
way
and
that
they
probably
were
able
to
get
favorable
lease
terms.
C
But
at
the
same
point
again,
this
is
a
property,
that's
leasing
up
in
a
in
a
pandemic
year,
mr
lichtenhouse
noted
that
their
office
tenant
is
scheduled
to
leave,
and
while
he
doesn't
want
that
to
affect
the
january
1st
assessment
as
as
reviewing
it,
we
noted
that,
just
two
days
ago
there
was
an
article
from
washington
business
journal.
Talking
about
that,
the
property
is
now
fully
occupied
by
the
first
half
of
2022.
C
300
000
square
feet
fully
occupied,
that's
a
dream.
They
are
going
to
have
an
issue
if,
in
fact,
the
flear
leaves
but
again
we're
talking
about
future
changes,
so
we'll
refocus
on
january
1,
at
which
point
they
were
7
vacant
and
moving
towards
occupancy
and
stabilization.
C
So
again,
as
mr
lucknow
pointed
out,
it's
really
a
difference
in
the
effect
of
gross.
We
handle
it
by
squashing,
a
potential
gross.
Excuse
me
potential
income
by
over
a
million
dollars.
Please
again
recognize
that
we
stabilize
effective
gross
that
way,
we've
done
so
historically
again,
our
operating
expense
projection
is
higher
than
that
of
the
appellant,
and
we
do
believe
that
a
revision
which
is
a
revision
downward
by
again
over
a
million
dollars
well
over
a
million
dollars,
is
accurate,
141
million
51
700.
D
D
So
the
vacancy
amounts
that
chris
provided
you
all
with
the
owners,
did
not
report
vacancy
loss
for
this
property
during
that
time
period.
So
when
you
look
at
the
noi
in
2017,
18
and
19
is
for
a
building
in
2017.
That's
almost
20
percent
vacant.
That's
the
actual
noi
that
they
received.
When
the
building
was
13
vacant,
they
received
the
actual
noi
of
11
point.
They
reported
11
million.
We
were
reconstructed
that
it
comes
out
about
11.6.
D
So
the
comment
was
made
that
our
original
assessment
is
almost
in
line
with
the
noted.
Revised
assessment
is
in
line
with
what
happened
in
2019.
Well,
2019.
The
office
tenant
only
paid
rent
for
about
a
few
months.
I
think
if
you
look
at
the
actual
lease
that
was
provided
on
page
127
of
the
packet,
you
will
see
that
they
show
a
discounted
rent
rate
of
less
than
16
square
foot.
D
But
then,
if
you
look
at
the
2020
ime
on
page
111,
you'll
see
that
the
office
rent
is
actually
over
forty
dollars
a
square
foot,
so
we're
comparing
how
we
value
the
property
and
why
our
test
column
is
reporting
a
higher
office
rent.
When
you
compare
it
to
the
2019
number
2020,
they
finally
reported
vacancy
loss,
but
I
think
it's
important
just
to
understand
why
our
projections
are
higher
than
what
they
showed
in
the
past,
because
they're
not
reporting
gross
potential
numbers.
D
We've
often
talked
about
this
on
office
cases.
Time
and
time
again,
the
actual
office
tenant
signed
their
lease
may
8,
2018
and
they're
supposed
to
at
least
doesn't
expire
to
october
31st
2028.
This
is
the
same
office
tenant
that
they're,
saying
gonna
vacate
the
property
in
the
future.
I'm
pretty
sure
there'll
be
some
kind
of
lease
termination
that
we'll
have
to
talk
about
in
the
future.
D
But
the
point
is
this:
is
a
tenant
that
just
started
paying
rent
in
20,
late
2019
and
that's
not
being
reflected
in
the
information
provided
by
them
on
columns
enf.
C
And
just
briefly
one
thing
I
want
to
note:
the
owner
actually
tried
to
get
an
amendment
to
the
site
plan
to
potentially
rearrange
the
realty
with
harris
teeter
in
place.
They
did
back
off
of
that
amendment
change
because
of
neighborhood
association
sort
of
uprising.
If
you
will
so
they
are
in
place,
44
000
square
feet
for
at
least
the
next
five
years
again,
they
signed
three
new
leases
in
a
pandemic
year
for
over
28
000
square
feet
for
10
plus
years.
C
F
J
F
J
I
I
don't
know
the
mechanics
if
it
was
to
technically
if
it
was
a
site
plan.
I
assume
it
is,
but
I
I
would
imagine
that's
related
to
flir,
which
is
the
office
tended
in
question.
Yeah.
G
I
have
a
question
for
the
appellant
concessions.
How
you
book
it
here
versus
the
department
is
a
big
difference.
What
are
the
nature
of
the
concessions
that
that
are
so
relatively
large
in
2020
and
projected
for
2021?
Are
there
renovatements,
upfront
or
long-term
something
else.
J
J
These
are
categorized
concessions
and
abatements
related
to
either
deferred,
rent
or
fully
abated,
rent
related
to
covid,
so
as
opposed
to
kicking
tenants
out,
which
is
never
the
best
solution,
reducing
rent,
allowing
them
to
forgo
paying
rent
in
some
cases
using
that,
as
a
quote,
unquote,
more
traditional
concession,
if
they
were
to
renew,
is
one
strategy.
J
That's
been
that's
been
taken
in
some
cases,
it's
simply
just
deferring
rent
and
then
at
others,
it's
debating
it
outright
or
converting
base,
rent
or
I'm
sorry
doing
percentage,
rent
in
lieu
of
base
rent
and
so
all
of
the
concessions
and
abatements
you're
seeing
are
not
related
to
tenant
improvements,
not
related
to
leasing
commissions,
because
I
do
understand
and
agree
with
chris
and
and
know
that
they
do
not
include
that
as
part
of
their
calculation.
But
that
is
not
what
these
are.
C
Yes,
ma'am,
so
just
to
kind
of
hop
on
that.
We
would
like
the
board
to
look
at
pages.
I
believe
it's
25
and
26
of
the
packet.
We
asked
specifically
about
the
these
things,
mr
mitzkin,
and
in
fact
we
asked
specifically
about
that
who
is
on
abatements.
Essentially
we
talked
about
this
before
abatement
is
going
to
be
equal
to
rent
loss.
Deferrals
will
be,
we
hope
to
get
that
back
either
through
adding
turn.
C
You
know
months
to
the
term
or
whatever
and
again
this
is
as
of
january
one.
So
we
noted
there
are
31
38
tenants
we
asked
specifically,
who
was
you
know,
getting
the
percentage
rent
in
the
base
rent
who
was
getting
delays
and
deferrals,
and
we're
told
there
are
six
tenants
that
have
percentage
rent
and
that
would
be
through
at
least
september
of
this
year
and
then
five
had
not
received
an
agreement
at
the
time
of
our
our
email
this
june.
C
C
So
again,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
clear
that
not
that
mr
lincoln
house
has
been
evasive
by
that,
but
by
no
means
was
a
large
majority
of
the
tenancy
asking
for
help
asking
for
deferrals
or
asking
for
abatements
at
least
not
that
was
reported
to
us,
given
that
we
do
believe
that
the
county's
revision
as
reflective
of
that
again,
a
million
dollars
under
what
was
projected
our
projection
is
a
million
dollars
under
what
we
achieved
last
year
in
the
pandemic
year.
We
fully
accounted
for
that
as
okay.
C
J
Russell,
I'm
sorry
I'll
try
to
address
these
in
reverse.
I
was
afraid
that
chris
would
bring
up
that
washington
business
journal
article
simply
because
it
paints
a
much
prettier
picture
than
the
reality.
The
reality
of
the
situation
is
yes,
we
put
tenants
in
to
keep
the
lights
on,
but
it
was
done
at
a
considerable
cost.
J
The
amount
of
concessions
offered
in
capital
expended
to
get
those
tenants
in
as
well
as
the
rents
represented
on
average
over
the
last
year
and
a
half
a
15
decline
in
the
amount
of
rent
that
was
being
achieved
in
those
spaces
prior
to
this
space
is
being
leased.
Some
of
them
were
temporary.
Some
of
them
were
done
on
percentage
in
lieu
of
base,
but
again
it
was
to
get
lights
in
because
anytime,
you
have
dark
spaces
that
creates
this
kind
of
this,
this
kind
of
death
march
into
oblivion,
for
a
property.
J
So
it's
best
to
get
those
leased
up,
even
if
you
have
to
do
it
at
considerable
cost.
One
thing
I
do
want
to
point
out
the
last
lease
that
we
did
the
very
last
lease
that
we
did
before
the
pandemic
hit
was
for
planet
fitness
that
was
done
at
a
rent.
That
is
eight
dollars,
a
square
foot
less
than
the
revised
rent,
that's
being
used
by
the
department.
J
Actually,
I'm
sorry,
it's
more
than
that,
and
we
had
to
spend
almost
30
a
square
foot
in
tis,
and
so
yes,
leases
are
being
done,
but
they're
they're
considerably
lower
rates
than
what's
being
assumed
in
this
particular
pro
forma.
So
again,
we
would
ask
the
the
the
board
to
look
at
both
the
impacts,
the
reality
of
the
situation
and
the
fact
that,
regardless
of
this
discussion
of
how
you
get
to
noi,
our
noi
reported
is
still
significantly
less.
J
What
was
earned
is
significantly
less
than
even
the
revised
net
operating
income
and
all
the
things
that
I
have
touched
on,
I
believe,
help
explain
that
and
illustrate
it,
and
we
would
ask
that
you
guys
make
revisions
accordingly.
That
are
more
in
line
with
the
realistic
operations
of
the
property,
as
well
as
what
is
actually
going
to
happen
in
the
future.
Based
on
the
trajectory
of
this
property's
performance,.
F
Yeah,
let
me
share
a
little
bit
of
background
if
I
could,
when,
when
the
tompkins
family
sold
their
interest,
I
think
it
was
the
jbg.
My
firm
ceased
its
involvement
with
pentagon
city.
Before
that
we
had
done
an
analysis
of
pentagon
row
and
it
was
not
as
successful
as
the
federal
realty
had
hoped
and
in
our
analysis
we
figured
out
a
couple
of
things.
F
One
was
that
second
floor,
retail
just
doesn't
work
and
the
office
is
now
on
the
second
floor
and
you
have
a
situation
where
you've
got.
I
can't
remember
40
000
square
feet
of
office
or
whatever
it
is,
and
that's
it,
and
so
you
have.
You
have
retail,
you
have
this
little
bit
of
office,
and
then
you
have
the
residential
up
above,
and
so
we
were
contemplating
what
to
do
with
that.
That
was
subsequently
handled
by
another
firm
that
came
along
after
myself.
F
F
You
have
the
the
residential
on
the
other
side
of
choice,
and
then
you
have
wide
open
green
space
and
the
thought
that
k
fritz
had
was
to
not
not
the
whole
entire
length
but
to
start
gradually
add
some
retail
on
the
other
side
of
joyce
or
offices
that
would
generate
activity
and
that
did
not
come
about
before.
I
was
no
longer
involved.
F
The
the
point
I'm
sharing
with
the
board
is
their
challenges
existed
before
coving,
and
so
now
you
have
covet
and
in
addition
to
the
fact
that
there's
some
challenges
anyway,
with
this
massive
amount
of
retail-
and
so
I
thought
about
you
know
what
what
should
we
do
here
and
the
suggestion
that
I
have,
which
my
colleagues
may
or
may
not
agree
with,
is
to
just
take
the
actual
apply
the
county's
cap
rate
and
I
came
up
with
123
275
500
and
I
don't
know
if
any
of
my
colleagues
will
agree
with
that.
G
First,
barnes,
the
actual
what
you
said:
take
the
actual
input
and
apply
the
county's
cavalry.
F
G
Okay-
okay,
okay,
to
know
that,
of
course,
oh
and
I
have
an
independent
comment
extending
my
time
I
was
I
I
had
to
keep
questioning
myself,
given
the
challenges
of
retail
in
general
throughout
the
country.
G
When
do
you
expect
retail
projects
to
do
worse,
because
retail
in
general
is
doing
worse
everywhere
in
the
country
in
the
world,
maybe,
and
and
and
when
you
just
take
off
something
below
the
line
because
of
excessive
vacancy
in
this
case,
as
the
colon
has
described,
the
vacancy
just
square
foot
vacant
versus
occupied
is
not
so
bad,
but
at
a
but
at
a
cost,
with
concessions
and
higher
ti
and
all
kinds
of
stuff
that
maybe
the
landlord
wouldn't
have
pursued
five
years
ago,
and
so
I
it
seems
to
me,
although
11
plus
assessment
from
last
year
to
this
is
certainly
the
right
direction.
G
G
He
heard
office
buildings,
you
know
who
knows
it
changes,
but
none
of
it's
happened
that
this
is
continues
to
be
in
decline,
and
I
I
would
favor
some
decrease
in
even
the
decreased
reconstructed
value
that
the
department
has
has
presented
to
us
in
column
I
and
column
on
j
and
so
far
the
the
only
empirical
decrease
that
I
could
come
up
with
what
barnes
suggested.
H
No,
I
was,
could
you
repeat
that
last
statement,
please.
G
I'm
feeling
that
it
ought
to
go
lower
than
eleven
percent
plus
lowercase,
but
I
hate
just
intuiting
say:
oh
fifteen
field
trying
I
wanna
get
some
and
I've
said
this
many
many
times
and-
and
I
know
you
all
agree,
some
some
specific.
What
should
change
such
that
in
this
case
there
should
be
a
decrease.
Sometimes
if
you
say
it
should
be
an
increase
and
and
and
barnes
it
seems
reasonable.
G
Just
take
what
their
trend
is
with
the
proper
cap
rate,
but
I'm
wide
open
to
some
particular
number
being
altered
in
would
favor
nothing
not
anywhere
close
to
95
million
dollars,
but
more
than
11
plus
percent
decrease
that
the
the
test
suggests.
E
Yeah
I'm
with
barnes.
I
think
the
actuals
that
have
been
reconstructed
are
kind
of
a
middle
ground
of
the
way
the
appellant
sees
it
and
the
way
that
it's
historically
performed
so
going
with
the
actuals
is
kind
of
a
safe
way
to
use
real
data
to
value
this
property.
I
A
Well,
the
only
thing
that
I
thought
that
you
know
to
me
was
more
convincing
is
the
the
vacancy
itself.
You
know
now
that
they're
using
the
guidelines,
but
I
thought
maybe
increasing
the
vacancy
percentage.
A
A
A
Well,
I
I
did
that
it's
six
percent
based
on
previous
years
also,
but
the
final
number
that
I
came
up
with,
would
be
138
million
113
200,
which
still
a
substantial
reduction.
You
know
from
the
original
assessment.
H
E
Yeah
I
mean
I'm
with
barnes
is
on
on
the
number
just
because
I
know
that
we're
going
to
get
another
look
at
this
next
year
as
well
and
right
now,
I'm
just
looking
at
the
most
recent
performance-
and
this
is
not
the
appellant's
produced.
It's
kind
of
the
reconstruction
reconstructed
version
with
things
like
ti
and
leasing
commissions
taken
out.
So
you
know
it's
not
the
rosie's
picture.
E
I
I
H
H
A
Okay,
I'll
go
ahead
and
move
that
we
make
the
reduction
in
this
assessment
to
138
million
113
200
and
that's
based
on
increasing
the
vacancy
to
six
percent.
On
the
revised
assessment.
I
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
all
second,
all
in
favor,
I
opposed
okay,
so
that
is
four
to
two
and
that's
without
greg
and
barnes,
so
that
was
reduced
to
138
million
113
200,
based
on
increasing
the
vacancy
to
six
percent
from
the
revised
assessment.
I
Okay,
do
we
have
miss
ross
and
mr
chitlik.
E
You
know
what
I
can
stick
around
my
my
10
o'clock
kicked
out
to
tomorrow.
I
E
I
F
Yes,
ma'am.
I
just
wanted
to
to
share
before
we
vote
on
this,
that
I
actually
thought
the
county's
assessed.
Value
was
low
and
I
know
that
you
know
we
always
look
at
it.
Should
we
reduce-
and
on
this
case
in
the
next
one,
the
thought
had
actually
crossed
my
mind
that
perhaps
this
was
a
situation
where
the
county
was
too
low
and
we
might
want
to
think
about
an
increase.
I
Okay,
well
just
fyi
on
that,
without
paying
for
a
full
appraisal,
we
cannot
increase
it
based
on
the
new
statute.
So
that's
not
even
an
option.
So
that
being
said,
I
will
move
to
accept
the
withdrawal
for
34020232.
Do
I
have
a
second.
I
F
I
Mr
lawson
motion
in
a
second
all
in
favor
aye
opposed
okay,
six
to
zero
motion
is
agreed
to
the
withdrawal.
The
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
rpc
economic
unit,
one
five
zero
one,
one,
two
one,
two,
a
at
thirty
one,
fifty
twelfth
court
north,
mr
chitlik.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
Sir.
K
All
right,
thank
you,
sounds
like
it
was
a
good
idea
to
withdraw
those
last
cases,
because
I
don't
think
I
would
have
had
barnes's
vote.
K
So
this
property
is
the
clarendon
apartments
we
worked
with
chris
at
the
first
level
and
he
has
a
done
a
revision
which
looks
pretty
good,
there's
just
two
issues
left
expenses
and
classification
of
capitalization
rate.
I
want
to
point
something
out
and
I'm
glad
mr
schindler
went
first
today
him
and
I
actually
spoke
a
couple
times
this
past
week
about
the
cases.
K
What
he
did
in
his
case
is
where
the
capex
wasn't
brought
over
is
exactly
what
this
owner
did
three
years
ago
and,
as
many
of
you
will
recall
in
great
lengths,
we
were
told
look
if
you
want
it
done
that
way.
You
need
to
start
putting
it
on
the
income,
expense
form,
and
that's
what's
been
done
in
this
case
in
the
next
case.
However,
what
the
assessor
did
is,
I
don't
think
those
should
be
there,
so
I
actually
recreated
and
call
them
cne
and
took
what
I
think
should
be
removed.
K
K
The
assessor's
expenses
are
still
a
bit
low
he's
at
2.2.
So
that's
really
the
one
of
the
issues
of
they
said.
We've
done
exactly
what
the
county's
asked
us.
What
the
board
has
asked
us
year
over
year,
we've
finally
seen
a
situation
where
we
have
three
years
now
of
the
reconstructed,
correct
expenses.
K
This
really
you'll
really
see
this
on
the
next
case.
So
now
that
it's
there,
the
county's
going
back
and
saying
well,
you
know
what
I
don't
think
you
should
have
included
all
this
stuff
and
how
you
reported
it.
So
this
morning
we
saw
someone
say,
look
I
I
didn't
report
it
correctly.
I'm
sorry
I'll
start
reporting
correctly
again.
We
were
in
the
same
place.
We
are
now
reporting
it
correctly
and
we're
seeing
a
situation
where
the
county
says
yeah,
but
we
don't
like
the
way
you
put
it
on
our
form.
K
The
the
final
thing
is
the
capitalization
rate
and
and
of
the
what
feels
like,
probably
for
all
of
us,
the
hundreds
of
cases
I
bring
in
front
of
you
a
year.
It
I'd
never
really
bring
up
capitalization
rate.
This
one
is
a
bit
different
because
it's
a
classification,
half
the
building
is
a
low-rise.
Mid-Rise,
property
and
half
is
a
high
rise,
so
we're
we're
blending
the
cap
rate
a
bit
on
the
apartment
side
to
a
5.53.
K
The
the
county
has
just
taken
a
5.25
and
said
no,
because
the
tallest
point
of
the
building
is
high-rise.
All
of
it
must
be
high-rise,
which
I
don't
think
is
correct.
It's
it's.
K
What
that
means
is
if
you've
got
a
really
small
build
thing,
and
then
you
have
one
tall
piece
tower
there,
and
the
entire
building
is
valued
the
same
as
a
building
that
is
100
percent,
a
12,
15,
20
story
building,
so
the
low
rise
portion,
as
you
see
from
the
guidelines,
the
garden
and
the
mid-rises-
have
different
expense
rates.
K
Different
vacancies,
different
cap
rates,
so
because
we're
really
focusing
mostly
on
actual
for
all
of
the
other
factors,
we're
accepting
the
the
high-rise
components,
but
for
the
capitalization
rate,
we
think
this
should
be
a
bit
of
a
blend
just
if
you're
curious,
our
packet.
If
you
have
a
chance
to
look
at
it,
is
on
page
243,
and
I
say
that
because
it's
a
358
page
packet,
because
of
all
the
lots,
our
analysis
is
about
111
pages,
but
that's
mostly
information
for
all
of
the
different
lots.
K
If
you're
looking
for
an
allocation,
I
guess
this
might
be
if
a
reduction's
done
that's
on
page
248,
of
where
we
think
our
reduction
should
be
taken,
but
the
basically
25
actually
28
basis
points
for
for
a
blend
and
the
cap
rate
change
and
then
about
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
expenses.
In
addition
to
what
chris
has
already
done,
which
again
we
appreciate
and
and
the
test
column
is
what
we're
looking
for.
So
for
once,
I'm
done
a
bit
early
and
available
for
questions.
C
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning,
mr
chubbuck,
we
are
speaking
about
the
planet
apartments.
You
know,
we've
gone
back
and
forth
on
this,
we'll
go
back
and
forth
on
this
today
and
specifically
in
the
next
case
and
whatever
other
cases
are
presented
by
this
owner.
Because,
specifically-
and
in
contrast
to
the
last
case-
and
specifically
in
contrast
to
yesterday,
there's
just
no
transparency
when
it
comes
to
asking
for
what
a
breakdown
of
these
operating
expenses
are
for
once.
C
In
fact,
this
year
they
excuse
me
last
year
in
2018,
the
owner
did
in
fact
say
that
this
was
catbacks.
They
literally
called
it
capex
and
you'll
note
in
our
comments
section,
they
included
turnover
costs
which
they
actually
incorporate
in
two
different
ways.
They
have
turnover,
and
then
they
have
decorating.
We've
gone
over
this
with
mr
chitlik,
specifically
last
year,
miss
ross
as
well
and
asked
them
to
pass
this
on
to
the
owner.
The
fact
is
is
that,
yes,
there
can
be
semantical
differences
between
what
are
turnover
costs.
Are
they
decorating?
C
Are
they
turnover?
Are
you
know
whatever
they're
called,
but
again
we
specifically
spoke
with
mr
chitlik
and
that
we
consider
anything
related
to
the
turnover
when
a
a
tenant
leaves
if
there's
painting,
if
there's
carpeting,
that
needs
to
be
cleaned.
If
there
is
cabinetry
that
needs
to
be
cleaned
or
replaced
due
to
destruction,
kids,
painting
on
the
walls,
etc.
Those
are
turnover
costs.
Those
are
going
to
be
the
annual
operating
costs
needed
to
keep
the
income
stream
coming
anything.
C
That's
related
to
capital
expenditures,
improving
the
long
liveness
of
the
property
itself,
including
expecting
return
on
investment.
Fitness
center
lobby
renovations
recreational
areas,
things
like
that
would
be
considered
a
capital
expense,
an
ownership
expense.
Those
are
not
appropriate
annual
operating
expenses,
but,
moreover,
it's.
The
idea
is
that
when
we
ask
the
agents
or
their
ownership
for
clarification,
we
would
expect
a
answer.
Clarification,
transparency.
C
So
while
we
can
have
a
different
opinion
on
subjective
things,
we'd
like
to
agree
on
those
things
that
are
are
factual
and
that's
really
been
the
the
crux
of
a
lot
of
the
cases
we
have
in
this
ownership
group,
touching
back
on
the
classification
of
the
property,
as
mr
bailey
has
done,
as
you
can
see.
In
the
background,
this
is
not
a
mid-rise
property.
Let's
stop
the
silliness,
it's
some
13
plus
stories.
It's
huge!
It's
right
on
clarendon!
It
can't
be
missed.
C
It
actually
is
attached
to
the
other
portion
of
the
the
portion
by
what's
called
ports
crochet,
it's
essentially
a
fancy
driveway,
as
you
can
see
in
the
picture,
this
is
a
physical
entity
of
the
property
that
can
coordinates
the
the
the
lower
portion
side
with
the
high
rise
again.
I'm
hoping
this
really
is
not
a
point
of
contention.
C
That
being
said,
this
was
a
long-winded
answer
to
get
here.
If
you
look
at
the
summary
sheet,
you'll
see
that
we're
actually
very
close
we're
within
forty
thousand
dollars
of
each
other's
opinion
of
net
upper
day
income.
That's
pretty
good
for
the
the
two
parties
working
today.
It's
the
cap
rate.
We
ask
you
to
recognize
the
county's
cap
rate.
We've
used
it
uniformly.
C
C
Again,
we
do
believe
that,
based
on
the
revision
based
on
the
appropriate
reconstruction
and
an
exclusion
of
capital
expenditures,
as
defined
by
the
owner
themself,
we
do
believe
that
the
years
18,
19
and
20
show
revision
that
was
made.
It
was
made
appropriately
again
very
much
in
par
with
the
appellant's
numbers,
almost
almost
key
to
key.
C
E
Yeah,
thank
you
all
the
amenities
in
this
building.
Are
they
all
accessible
to
all
the
residents
or
is
there
a
component
that
where
hey
you
live
in
the
low
rise
portion,
you
can't
use
the
fitness
center.
G
G
C
Now
again,
because
they're
informed
yearly
and
we
get
those
forms,
we'll
look
year-to-year
changes,
that's
why
we
take
the
time
to
show
the
percent
changes
year
over
year.
We'll
take
the
time
to
show
if
there's
upswings,
both
up
and
down.
So
if
something
changes
more
than
10,
either
way.
Generally
they'll
call
us
a
flag
to
us
to
ask
further
questions
that
there's
something
that
seems
amiss
in
general.
C
J
C
C
So
again
that
was
in
that
first
case
not
to
differentiate
this
one,
but
it's
a
matter
of
once
we
get
the
information
we
can
then
differentiate
between
what's
appropriate
expense
and
what's
not,
as
we
talked
about
in
the
comments
we
did
allow
for
annual
turnover
costs,
even
though
they
break
it
up
by
turnover
and
decorating
it's
just
when
they
definitely
definitively
stated
as
capital
expenditures.
We
do
not
include
them.
G
E
For
the
appellant,
I'm
just
curious,
the
the
package
says:
there's
320
parking
space
garage
on
this
property
is:
is
this
up
pretty
under
utilized
or
is
it
full?
What's
the
situation?
We've
heard
a
lot
about
parking
in
kobe
and
all
that.
K
Well,
parking
in
kovit
is
is
a
situation,
that's
really
affecting
people
that
for
retail,
because
they're
not
driving
into
going
this
property,
has
almost
no
retail.
So
it's
not
really
as
effective.
It's
really
for
the
apartment,
owners
and
and
the
apartment
owners
are
using
the
spaces.
I
don't
have
the
exact
amount
of
how
many
are
empty
and
how
many
are
occupied
right
now,
but
parking
yeah
parking
is
getting
crushed
in
office
buildings
at
retail,
but
it's
not
really
in
apartments,
because
people
still
aren't
giving
up
their
cars,
even
though
they're
not
going
anywhere.
I
C
Yes,
ma'am
again,
I'm
hoping
we've
made
our
point
clear.
As
far
as
the
delineation,
between
appropriate
and
inappropriate
expenses,
we
took
the
time
to
reconstruct
years,
2018
2019,
as
mr
madsen
pointed
out,
we're
very
much
in
line
with
each
other
about
40,
000
difference.
It's
really
again,
as
mr
pointed
out
in
his
opening
remarks.
The
difference
of
is
that
property
that
you
saw
on
your
screen,
a
high-rise
or
mid-rise
or
low-rise,
as
they
would
call
it
it's
a
high-rise
all
day.
C
It's
been
categorized
that
uniformly
all
year,
the
appropriate
cap
rate
is
5.25.
If
that
was
applied
to
the
opponent's
numbers
again
within
40
000
of
our
estimate,
revision
you'd
be
within
less
than
700
000
difference
after
capitalization
we're
in
agreement.
We
hope
that
the
board
sees
that
the
property
is
in
fact
a
high
rise
and
they
go
with
our
revision
and
confirm
our
value
of
138
million
one
hundred
twenty
seven
thousand.
One
hundred
thank
you.
K
Yeah,
we
heard
a
lot
of
chris's
presentation
about
how
we
weren't
responsive
to
his
questions
regarding
the
expense
breakup,
but
then
said
he
has
no
issues
with
our
expenses
at
this
property.
There
really
wasn't
much
of
a
question.
Irving
showed
a
picture
of
the
a
picture
of
the
property
from
the
side,
and
I
can
do
that
as
well.
Here's
the
property
from
from
the
other
side,
yeah
there
is
the
main
focus
of
the
high
rise,
but
then
we've
got
this
whole
section
here.
That
goes
all
the
way
around.
K
That
is
strictly
the
mid-rise
portion
of
the
property.
So
I
don't,
I
think
it's
I'm
not
saying
it's
a
mid-rise,
I'm
saying
it's
a
blend
and
that's
why
we
blended
the
cap
rate.
It's
not
100
high-rise,
it's
not
100
low
rise,
but
the
expenses.
I
think,
as
chris
said,
it's
not
really
an
issue
at
the
property.
So
what
when
I
say
it's
not
an
issue.
What
we
submitted
is
not
an
issue.
He
thinks
what
we
submitted
correct
and
accepted.
K
He
just
took
a
number
about
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
less
than
the
actual,
which
is
trended
up
and
has
trended
up
because
of
what
we've
talked
about
over
the
years.
So
that's
all.
I
have.
F
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chairman,
for
the
applicant.
I
just
wanted
to
share
with
you
that
a
bully
I'm
a
believer
in
precedent,
and
I
guess
it
was
three.
Four
years
ago
I
made
the
exact
argument
that
you
did
that
when
you
have
a
property
like
this,
that's
part
high
rise
and
part
mid-rise.
You
should
blend
the
cap
rate
and
I
got
out
voted.
F
I
can't
remember
if
it
was
five
to
two
or
six
to
one
or
or
whatever,
and
so
I
consider
that
to
be
a
you
know,
thing
decided
and
in
order
to
be
consistent,
follow
the
president.
We
have
to
go
with
the
high-rise
cap
rate.
H
I
G
I
I
G
E
Yeah,
I
thought
I
thought
the
the
revised
138
number
was
okay
from
the
department.
I
mean
I'm
just
looking
at
the
noi
year
over
year
and
it's
like
seven
six,
seven,
three,
seven,
four,
seven,
two:
seven
three
last
year,
seven
three,
the
revised
column.
E
Just
under
seven
three
I
mean
I
don't
see
a
picture
of
any
kind
of
declining
market.
You
know,
I
think
this
property
is
going
to
have
some
competition
on
the
next
couple
years.
E
The
you
know
the
parking
might
be
preferable.
It
might
be
actually
a
good
thing
that
they're
parked
as
they
are,
because
some
of
the
other
properties
are
like
you
know,
one
parking
space
for
every
five
units
and
some
of
the
buildings
that
are
being
built
over
there
so
and
just
kind
of
as
a
as
a
recent
company.
I
think
the
building
next
door
just
sold
and
for
a
crazy
number,
so
there's
still
capital
market
demand
in
that
in
that
area,.
A
No,
I
agree,
I
think
the
revised
I
think
the
revised
assessment
is
proper.
In
my
opinion,
I'm
good
with
that.
I
Okay,
all
right!
Well
then,
if
there's
no
other
discussion,
then
I
will
move
to
it.
Accept
the
reduction
from
the
county
to
138
million
127
100..
Do
I
have
a
second.
I
Okay,
it's
unanimous.
It
is
reduced
to
the
county's
revised
number
of
138
127
100..
I
Before
we
move
to
the
sixth
and
final
case,
I've
been
asked
to
take
a
five
minute
break,
so
it's
10
35,
so
everybody
would
turn
off
your
cameras
and
microphone
and
be
back
here
at
10.
40.
that'd
be
great.
I
I
K
All
right,
thank
you,
so
the
property
of
sheffield
court
we've
had
this
property
in
front
of
the
board
over
the
last
few
years.
It
is
37
buildings
over
14
acres
built
in
1942.,
and
one
of
the
questions
about
this
property
last
year,
which
the
board
agreed
on,
I
believe
unanimously
was
that
this
property
is
a
little
more
expensive
to
upkeep
than
your
typical,
either
garden
style,
apartment
or
high
rise.
K
It
has
a
single
lobby
or
has
some
common
area
again
very
similar
to
how
mr
schindler
explained
it
this
morning
in
the
past,
as
in
2014
through
2017,
the
owner
reported
all
expenses,
anything
that
was
considered
turn
cost
or
anything
they
could
possibly
call
a
repair
to
a
unit,
whether
it
changed
the
rent
or
not
got
sent
below
the
line
and
not
included,
as
did
rubs,
so
rubs
were
not
included
and
all
those
changes
were
not
included
well,
starting
in
2018,
after
lots
of
conversations
with
the
board
and
the
assessor
changes
started
to
be
made
where
those
expenses
were
correctly
captured
and
then
rubs
were
brought
up
above
the
line
as
well,
so
you'll
notice
from
column
a
to
column
b.
K
The
rubs
went
up,
but
then
the
expense
reporting
went
up
as
well
again
37
buildings
over
14
acres.
This
is
not
your
typical
common
apartment
building,
they
call
themselves
courthouse
location,
but
I
think
most
people
at
least.
I
think
everybody
on
this
board
has
been
a
part
of
these
hearings
in
the
past
and
and
know
the
location
pretty
well,
but
it's
just
off
50,
a
very
large,
almost
sprawling
campus
of
these
garden
style
apartments
over
these
37
buildings.
K
What
it
really
comes
down
to
you'll
see
that
the
assessment
and
the
egi
were
really
just
about
the
same
spot.
We
don't.
We
don't
really
have
an
issue.
There,
you'll
notice,
that
our
actual
noi
is
higher
than
what
the
assessor
is
using
and
that's
that's
a
bit
of
a
misstep
on
our
part,
the
operating
expense
once
going
through
it.
We
have
to
file
these
back
in
april,
operating
expense
going
through
it
talking
to
the
owner
about
what's
included
in
this.
This
is
common
area
repairs,
common
area,
maintenance.
K
Chris
asks
the
question
for
every
single
equity
case.
He
says
what
is
included
in
common
area
and,
as
you
can
imagine,
the
owners
of
these
publicly
traded
companies
don't
have
a
list
of
just
the
same
categories
that
the
assessor
has.
They
have
a
list,
much
more
extensive
and
they
have
to
put
it
in
certain
buckets
so
included
in
that
is
miscellaneous
building
expense,
and
this
is
sent
to
chris
every
year
for
each
of
these
properties,
exterior
repairs
and
paints
when
there's
a
pool,
pool
changes,
amenity,
expense,
procurement,
allocation
building,
repairs,
common
area
and
recreational
area.
K
Now,
building
repairs
are
different
than
capex.
Building.
Repairs
are
just
very
small
changes
like,
for
example,
the
one
I
just
read:
you
was
from
liberty,
towers,
there's
1.7
million
in
common
area,
the
building
repairs
was
50
grand
if
it's
a
large
building
expense,
it's
a
renovation,
it's
not
included.
K
You
know
these
properties.
These
are
not
renovated.
Very
nice
spectacular
units.
These
are
garden
style.
This
is
kind
of
the
last
really
affordable
piece
of
non-affordable
housing.
In
really
this
section
of
arlington,
it
is
it's
an
option
for
people
to
live.
They
can't
afford
to
live
in
a
place
like
liberty,
tower
or
or
the
clarendon,
but
want
to
be
in
that
area.
K
This
gives
them
something
where
they
don't
have
to
qualify
on
an
income
basis.
So
it's
not
low-income
housing,
but
it's
an
affordable
option
for
folks
in
in
arlington.
So
I'd
ask
you
to
look
really
at
the
historical
expenses
and
you'll
see
that
there's
a
ramp
up
absolutely
in
expenses,
but
41
operating
expenses
is
not
out
of
the
norm
at
all.
K
In
fact,
when
the
guidelines
were
expenses,
the
garden
style
expenses
were
below
above
40
and
then
they
changed
it
to
a
per
unit
basis,
which
is
a
range
from
like
3
000
to
20
000,
which
doesn't
really
teach
us
much.
So
the
expenses
on
this
property
again
we're
talking
597
units
over
37
buildings
in
14
acres
about
1942..
K
K
There
really
isn't
anything
like
this
in
north
arlington
and
for
the
rents
that
they
are
able
to
achieve,
which
is
our
impressive
numbers
which
we're
all
using
there's
a
lot
of
upkeep
there's
a
lot
of
turnover,
there's
a
lot
of
maintenance,
as
david
said
earlier,
when
a
tenant
leaves
a
building,
they're,
no
longer
cleaning
the
carpet
they're
now
replacing
the
carpet
ten
years
ago,
you'd
clean
the
carpet
you'd,
have
it
professionally
steamed
and
then
somebody
else
would
come
in.
K
But
now,
if
you're
saying
look,
I
want
two
thousand
dollars
for
an
apartment,
you're
not
coming
in
there
with
stained
carpet,
because
when
you
walk
into
this
empty
unit,
all
there
is
is
the
carpet.
That's
the
first
thing
you're
going
to
notice,
so
the
cost
the
ability
to
turn
the
carpet
quickly
on
this
many
units
when
you
have
this
many
properties
in
arlington
like
equity,
does
is,
is
something
that
they
do
for
for
all
of
their
turn.
So
I'd
ask
that
you
look
at
column
e.
I
apologize
for
for
the
misstep
in
column.
K
F
really.
Originally.
This
was
kind
of
a
cap
rate
argument
which
I'm
not
going
to
bring
up.
I
understand
where
cap
rates
sit
and
how
strong
the
county
is
and
their
position
with
cap
rates,
but
I'd
ask
that
there
may
be
a
revision
to
the
operating
expense.
The
operating
expense
is
four
million.
Now
it's
up
to
five
too,
even
if
chris
wants
to
throw
all
of
that
out,
which
is
apparently
what
he
wants
to
do
and
say
you
know,
and
I'm
not
giving
you
any
of
that
capex.
K
I'm
gonna
use
a
number
for
maintenance
or
repairs
below
column
b
below
column
c
below
what
the
board
did
last
year
for
column
c.
I
I
think
that
you're
under
reporting
and
under
utilizing
those
numbers,
so
everything
is
really
in
line
except
there's
a
drop
in
utilities
and
a
small
bump
in
janitorial
about
forty
thousand
dollars,
but
the
big
change
there
is
the
the
difference
in
maintenance
or
repairs,
which
is
because
this
property
is
extremely
expensive
to
maintain
and
repair
so
70,
plus
you're
70
years
old.
K
At
this
point
over
that
again,
37
billion
to
14
acres
so
open
for
questions
when,
when
you
have
them.
C
Yes,
ma'am
so
just
to
briefly
touch
on
last
case
mr
bailer
pointed
out-
and
I
was
I
missed-
not
pointing
it
out.
The
cap
rates
are
the
same
for
high
rise
and
mid-rise,
so
the
blend
that
mr
chitlik
wanted
would
have
been
the
same
cap
rate,
there's
no
difference
in
high-rise,
mid-raise
cupboards
in
regards
to
sheffield
court.
C
You
know
we
heard
a
lot
about
what
I'm
about
to
tell
you
in
in
mr
chitlik's
eight
minutes,
but
it
really
can
be
surmised
by
the
pages
22
23
24,
and
these
are
the
emails
that
were
ignored
by
the
ownership
both
last
year
and
this
year
you
can
read
those
you
can
read
the
comments
field
in
our
summary
sheet
or
you
can
just
use,
as
I
think
the
opinion
is
used
before
the
quote:
unquote
smell
test.
C
Looking
at
the
operating
expenses
reported
in
2017
and
then
look
at
what
they
reported
in
2020,
that's
a
100
percent
increase
in
four
years.
Does
that
seem
logical?
Does
that
seem
reasonable?
We've
heard
that
this
is
a
property
that
takes
a
lot
to
maintain,
but
3.6
million
dollars
in
three
years
for
miscellaneous
repairs.
Not
one
penny
of
which
has
been
explained
to
us
over
four
four
different
requests
on
the
ie.
It
asks
for
explanation:
we've
even
encouraged
those
owners
to
feel
free
to
incorporate
a
separate
sheet
itemizing
those
numbers.
C
You
saw
that
in
previous
cases,
with
different
owners
giving
us
an
itemized
line,
item
delineation.
What
is
these
costs?
You
saw
that
in
the
first
case,
again,
there
are
some
costs
that
we
want
to
look
through
so
that
we
don't
incorporate
672
thousand
dollars
of
smart
gadgets
for
an
annual
operating
expense
again,
not
to
confuse
it
with
this
case.
C
You
know
we're
not
a
parent
badgering
their
kid.
What
they're
doing
with
their
allowance
money,
the
burden
of
proof,
is
on
the
the
appointment
to
tell
us
that
we're
wrong
when
we
ask
for
that
explanation,
we'd,
like
that
information,
given
you
know,
mr
chipley
pointed
out
that
we
asked
this
on
all
equity
properties
and
point.
In
fact,
we
didn't
own
the
last
property.
We
didn't
send
an
email,
because
those
expenses
didn't
seem
extraordinary
in
2020,
but
a
52
increase
in
maintenance
and
repair
subtotal,
one
subtotal
52
increase.
C
You
know
it's
gone
up,
273
percent
in
four
years:
that's,
if
that's
not
unusual,
it
should
be.
And
again
all
that
pointed
to
us
was
well.
What
is
that?
What
did
you
spend?
What
did
you
was
that
a
annual
expense
was
that
a
turnover
expense,
as
mr
chitler
pointed
out,
but
then
I
noted
on
their
2020.
C
I
need
that
they
included
another
300
000
of
turnover
costs
last
year,
so
they've
accounted
for
turnover
with
turnover
costs,
call
it
decorating
call
turnover
and
call
it
what
you
will,
but
what's
that
other
303
million
dollars,
or
so
that
they
spent
and
when
we
asked
the
questions
we'd
like
an
answer.
C
C
There's
increases
to
electrical
for
ampage
circuits,
replaced
fixtures,
again
interior
alterations,
a
new
lights
denoted,
sprinkler
heads,
it
sounds
like
work
to
a
fitness
center
and
that
this
one
reads:
water,
closets,
one
urinal,
one
drinking
fountain,
two
floor
drains:
five
water
pipes,
floors
lower
level
one
and
two.
It's
just
a
shame
that
we
have
to
go
to
this
extent
to
find
out.
What's
going
on
with
the
property,
transparency
would
be
appreciated.
We
get
it
with
almost
all
other
owners.
C
C
C
So
again,
even
though
we
didn't
get
response
to
the
huge
increase
over
27
percent
year
over
year,
the
appellant,
under
their
own
cognition,
used
a
lower
number
that
was
much
more
reasonable,
with
what
was
achieved
still
not
anywhere
near
in
comparison.
What
was
achieved
in
2017,
but
again
what
was
achieved
you
know.
Hopefully
this
wasn't
confused
the
point,
but
mr
chipmunk
brought
up
the
idea
again
of
sort
of
a
tit
for
tat,
with
the
idea
that,
since
rubs
was
brought
up,
capital
expenses
should
be
brought
up.
C
That
was
the
only
items
that
were
located
on
the
form
the
internal
operating
statement
that
they
previously
had
given
us
was
strategic
business
incentives,
property
taxes
and
capital
expenditures.
So
again
there
is
no
cost
offset
for
rubs.
Rubs
is
a
very
commonplace
utility
reimbursement.
We
see
it
on
other
properties,
it's
not
exclusive
to
this
owner.
There
is
no
cost
offset,
it's
simply
another
revenue
stream.
So
please
don't
get
that
confused
again,
it's
really
a
matter
of
does
it
seem
reasonable
that
these
expenses
have
gone
up
over
two
million
dollars
in
four
years.
C
C
Is
it
reasonable
over
800
000
of
common
area
and
exterior
repairs
without
one
explanation
again,
looking
at
the
pro
forma
by
the
propellant,
who
again,
I
think,
had
more
information
when
he
filed
this
appeal
than
we
did
at
that
time?
Put
out
a
value
that's
higher
than
ours
again,
if
you
apply
the
appropriate
cap
rate
for
the
gardens
so
again
to
to
reiterate,
we
don't
disagree
with
the
idea
that
it
can
be
more
expensive
to
run
a
multi-parcel
garden
property
such
as
this.
C
C
Information
from
the
owner
puts
the
burden
on
the
owner
to
tell
us
that
we're
wrong.
We
do
believe
that
the
revision
of
excuse
me,
the
confirmation-
should
be
upheld.
I
said
again,
especially
considering
that
capping
the
appellant's
performa
gives
you
a
value
higher
than
ours.
Anything
dad
irving.
D
I
think
it
was
pointed
out
that
this
property
is
about
70
some
years
old.
But
if
you
look
at
our
worksheet
and
the
summary
sheet,
you
see,
our
effective
age
is
1970.
This
property
has
undergone
a
lot
of
renovation
in
the
years
since
it
was
built.
Even
if
you
look
at
the
website,
you'll
see
that
they
advertise
new
renovated
models
with
very
nice,
updated
kitchens
with
shaker
cabinets,
quartz
countertops,
the
bathrooms
have
been
renovated,
I
believe
as
well.
D
They
talk
about
a
renovated
fitness
center,
and
I
believe
that
was
one
of
the
questions
that
chris
might
have
had
this
property.
When
was
the
fitness
center
renovated?
They
said
the
fitness
center's
been
renovated,
but
again
those
pictures
are
available
on
this
property's
website.
D
For
you
to
look
at,
and
you
can
clearly
see
that
a
property
of
this
size,
similar
to
say,
colonial
village
in
north
arlington,
this
one
is
much
more
up-to-date
and
in
better
shape
than
colonial
village
on
the
other
properties
that
would
be
similar
to
this
property
would
be
say,
fill
more
gardens
on
columbia,
pike
if
you're
talking
about
size
of
garden
properties.
But
again,
this
property
is
much
more
up-to-date
than
those
property
types
and.
C
Just
to
reiterate,
we
see
that
in
the
sorry
to
catch
officers.
Just
to
reiterate,
we
see
that
if
you
look
at
the
income
stream,
it's
gone
up
four
years
in
a
row,
17
increased
18
increase,
19
increase,
20
increase,
effective
gross
increased
in
17,
18,
19
and
20..
It's
a
stabilized
property.
Nobody
disagrees
with
that.
We're
pointing
out
that
this
money
that
the
owner
is
putting
into
the
property
is
being
received.
If
you
will
in
higher
rents
it's
it's
fully
occupied.
It's
stabilized,
you
know.
So
it's
it's
really
just
a
matter
of.
C
Are
these
appropriate
operating
expenses?
If
they
are,
why
aren't
they
being
told?
Why
aren't
we
being
told
what
they
are?
There
should
be
transparency,
and
that
being
said,
we
do
believe
that,
based
on
the
summary
sheet,
that's
in
front
of
you
all.
We
do
believe
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
131
million
467
900..
Thank
you.
I
Okay,
thank
you
now
we're
at
questions
from
board
members
and
and
I'll
start.
Mr
chit,
like
the
the
question
that
I'm
sure
everybody
wants
to
ask:
why
doesn't
the
appellant
provide
the
information
that's
been
requested?
It
would
make
it
so
much
easier.
K
I
agree
so
chris
asked
the
question
on
every
basically
every
one
of
the
equity
cases
he's
mentioned.
I
didn't
ask
it
last
case,
but
he
did
the
years
prior.
That
said,
I'm
not
including
any
of
that,
as
you
saw
and
decided
to
reconstruct
those
columns.
He
asked
what
is
included
in
the
common
area,
repairs
of
what's
included
in
the
recreational
area,
and
the
answer
is
the
same
for
everyone.
K
We
give
them
a
breakdown
of
exactly
what
which
is
miscellaneous
building
expenses,
exterior
repairs
and
paint
if
there's
a
pool,
the
pool,
amenity,
expense,
procurement,
allocation,
the
building,
repairs,
the
common
area,
repairs
in
the
recreational
area
and
then
the
other
column
is
turnover
cost
unit
update
if
there
is
any
which
is
again
and
this
one
is
200
000
and
it's
8
000
of
it
and
then
tenant
constructions.
So
we
do
do
that.
We
give
it
to
him
and
everyone,
and
then
he
comes
back
with
another
round
another
set
of
okay.
How
about
so?
K
Can
you
basically
give
me
a
breakdown
of
this
sub
breakdown
of
this
sub
breakdown,
which
we
provide
him,
and
we
have
these
conversations
with
him
throughout
the
year.
We
didn't
give
it
to
him
on
this
case.
I
understand
that,
but
that
was
after
he
asked
six
times
a
sixth
follow-up
on
the
previous
case,
and
it
was
the
exact
same
answers.
C
Yeah,
that
was
a
three-minute
answer
for
what
you
just
heard.
He
didn't
provide
it,
so
he
told
you
that
they
do
provide
it
all
emails
from
the
from
both
ms
ross
and
mr
chitlik.
If
there
are
any
associated
with
this
property
are
in
this
property
properties
appeal,
you
can
see
that
we
asked
the
questions
in
2020
they
answered
specifically
and,
in
fact
a
bit
of
smart
ass.
On
my
part,
I
said
you
answered.
Quite
specifically,
please
answer
these
questions,
no
response.
I
then
informed
them
this
year
with
after
the
ine,
which
requested
information.
C
K
I
C
G
Question
for
the
appellant:
this
is
a
I'm
going
to
assume
for
a
moment
that
both
parties
are
in
100
agreement
with
operating
expenses.
Everything
is
happy
holding
hands
come
by
my
question
for
the
appellant.
Is
this
isn't
the
best
of
cases?
G
K
Well,
chris
actually
mentioned
some
of
those
items
when
he
was
going
through
it
new
sprinkler
heads
new
lights,
new
ampage
in
the
buildings
again
each
one.
Each
time
you
hear
new
sprinklers
new
amp,
it's
not
in
one
building,
it's
in
37
buildings,
so
there's
37
of
these
every
one
of
these
is
multiplied
by
37..
K
He
mentioned
the
lobby
is
being
redone,
there's
37
lobbies.
So
it's
not
a
situation
of
you
have
to
do
these
one
things
and
nobody's
paying
more
rent,
because
big
advertisement,
guys
we
just
put
new
sprinkler
systems
in
all
those
things,
as
david
mentioned
in
the
first
case,
are
improvements
that
do
not
change
the
level
of
rent
that
you're
achieving.
So
those
are
things
that
are
done
to
the
property
to
maintain
the
current
level
of
the
property,
not
increase
rent.
K
Now,
if
you're,
if
you're
blowing
something
out
and
you're
building
a
new
building,
obviously
that's
going
to
change
things,
but
if
you're,
just
maintaining
by
taking
systems
putting
new
new,
chillers
and
boilers
those
kind
of
things
now
those
are
capital
costs
because
you're
amortizing
them,
but
those
aren't
increasing
the
rents
but
new
sprinkler
systems,
new
piping.
All
those
things
are
extremely
expensive
to
do
and
are
need
to
be
done
over
this
14-acre
facility.
So
it's
exact
exasperated.
K
K
It's
basically
taken
over
the
term,
so
you're
not
doing
all
37
buildings
at
one
time,
but
these
are
some
of
the
examples
of
the
permits
that
he
pulled
and
I'm
mentioning
that
the
things
that
are
being
done,
that
he's
talking
about,
are
not
being
captured
at
the
building
at
all
they're,
not
increasing
any
rents,
and
I
think
that
that
should
be
considered
these
operating
expenses
again.
This
is
a
publicly
traded
company
that
has
to
report
on
their
10k
certain
things.
These
aren't
just
they
threw
everything
in
those
numbers.
K
F
Yeah,
I
have
a
question
for
the
owner
and
one
for
the
county
for
the
owner.
Why
did
you
add
sprinklers.
K
I
didn't
add
sprinklers.
Chris
was
going
through
the
list
of
items
that
were
done
at
the
building.
He
mentioned
new
ampage,
new
lights,
new
sprinkler
heads
and
I'm
just
saying
all
of
those
things
that
he's
mentioning
are
not
including
specific
rents.
I'm
not
saying
that
those
sprinkler
heads
are
included
in
the
three
million
dollar
number,
I'm
just
going
through
the
list
of
things
that
he
mentioned
to
update
this
property
or
not.
F
The
sprinkler
the
sprinkler
system
already
existed.
All
that
was
added
was
the
the
things
that
up
in
the
ceiling
is
that
correct.
K
F
C
That
you
know
this
is
their
property.
I
would
say
it's
probably
consistent
for
their
properties.
We
do
get
a
fair
amount
that
impute
that
number.
So
I
don't
know
if
they're
using
a
quote-unquote
industry
average
right
irving
may
be
able
to
speak
to
that
better.
C
But
as
far
as
this
particular
property,
it's
nothing
that
I
consider
out
of
the
source.
D
E
Yeah,
I
don't
know,
I
guess
the
county
probably
best
to
answer
this,
but
irving
d.
Are
you
aware?
Are
there
any
kind
of
historical
covenants
or
restrictions
or
housing
conservation
overlay
districts,
or
anything
like
that
that
that,
on
this
property
that
might
affect
its
value.
D
No
there's
no
rent,
rent
restriction
covenants
on
this
property-
I
think
barnes
probably
has
some
information
about
it
because
he
was
shaking
his
head
as
well,
but
no,
we
don't
have
any
affordable
units
in
this
property
or
rent
restrictions.
D
C
Yes,
ma'am
so
again,
I
think
this
has
happened
in
a
previous
case
where,
the
morning
of
the
hearing,
we
start
to
hear
responses
to
what
some
of
these
expenses
are
again.
We
just
think
it's
not
helpful.
It's
abstinence
on
the
owner's
part.
You
know
it's
kind
of
a
crass
way
of
looking
at,
but
we
said,
don't
don't
reward
bad
behavior.
C
If
there's
no
transparency,
the
burden
of
proof
is
on
the
owner
to
tell
us
that
we're
wrong.
We've
asked
specifically
about
over
4.4
million
dollars
in
miscellaneous
and
common
exterior
repairs
or
four
years
and
heard
nothing.
C
That's
that
you
know
that
can't
happen.
You've
heard
the
contrast
with
multiple
owners
this
year,
some
40
other
cases
where
we
get
full
transparency,
even
if
there's
a
disagreement
on
if
it's
an
appropriate
expense.
We
get
the
answer
all
that
being
said
again,
based
on
the
pro
forma,
the
submitted
by
the
the
appellant.
C
If
you
were
to
cap
that,
at
the
appropriate
6.3
rate,
you
get
a
a
value
higher
than
ours,
as
indicated,
we
do
believe
based
on
the
erratic
reporting
based
on
the
performance
based
on
the
pro
forma
that
we
have
in
front
of
us.
The
county
should
be
confirmed
at
131
million
four
hundred
sixty
seven
thousand
nine
hundred.
Thank
you.
K
Yes,
so
from
2012
to
2014,
the
property
was
assessed
between
112
and
114
million
dollars,
and
then
they
started
getting
the
internal
income
and
expense
forms
and
said:
wait.
Look
at
this
now
we're
going
to
bump
it
up
to
140
million
range
and
we
said:
look
this
property
can't
really
operate
at
a
25
expense
rate
or
22
expense
rate
and
hear
all
the
things
they
say.
If
it's
not
our
form,
we're
not
going
to
consider
it.
So
we
started
putting
on
the
form
in
2018
and
they
said:
okay,
that's
just
one
year
on
the
form.
K
Let's
see
wait
until
we
see
it's
a
trend,
because
your
maintenance
repair
went
from
800
000
to
202.1,
there's
no
way
that
can
be
so
then
we
now
have
three
years
of
history
showing
that
the
property
is
extremely
expensive.
To
maintain
now
I
say
extremely
expensive,
not
outside
of
the
line.
41
again
is
within
arlington's
county
guidelines
for
garden
style
apartments
back
when
they
produced
a
percentage
number
and
now
we're
up
in
the
140
130
million
dollar
range
because
of
the
gotcha
they
found
in
2014..
K
Not
much
has
changed
as
the
property
since
that
time,
at
least
the
the
quality
or
anything
of
the
property
that
caused
that
giant
jump.
So
now,
they're,
saying:
okay,
you
are
doing
our
form
you're
doing
everything
we
ask,
but
you're
not
answering
our
questions
through
the
way
we
want
again
they
ask
the
same
question
for
the
same
thing
on
everyone,
what's
included
in
this
box
and
we
give
them.
These
are
the
10
things
that
are
included
in
the
box
on
every
single
one,
and
then
we
get
another
email
what's
included
in
this
box.
K
These
are
the
same
things
10
things
that
are
included
in
the
box
every
time
and
after
a
while
becomes
look
chris
we're
getting
it
to
you,
but
every
time
we
get
it
to
you,
you
just
use
it
to
then
recreate
like
we
did
in
the
last
case
the
old
income
would
say
you
know
what
I
don't
want
to
include
any
of
these
things.
So
the
last
one
you
got
his
answer
and
he
went
back
and
says:
okay.
E
I
think
the
county
and
the
appellant
are
left
are
like
two
percent
off
like
three
million
dollars,
so
I've
never
heard
as
contentious
an
argument
over
two
percent.
The
one
thing
I
want
to
point
out:
I
don't
know
how
it
affects
this
property.
That's
why
I
asked
about
covenants
and
maybe
barnes
can
chime
in
on
that
housing
conservation
district.
That
was
being
proposed
a
couple
years
back.
E
But
when
you
look
at
the
the
rent
rolls
and
the
rents
being
achieved
at
this
property
they're
lower
than
the
60
percent
ami
committed,
affordable
units
that
are
in
the
2021
table.
So
to
me,
that's
affordable,
housing.
E
There
there's,
I
guess,
there's
not
a
covenant
in
place,
but
it
also
says
that
you
know
this
this.
This
property
is
a
disadvantage
because
they
don't
get
all
the
tax
benefits.
All
the
financing
benefits.
E
They
don't
have
a
steady
stream
of
applicants
coming
in
looking
for
available
units,
so
I
know
it's
very
hard
to
build
60
ami
units,
and
you
know
if
you
look
at
efficiencies
they're
charging
almost
two
hundred
dollars
below
what
that
unit
would
cost
in
a
in
a
napa
or
you
know,
affordable
project
in
a
one
bedroom
about
fifty
dollars.
Sixty
dollars
difference
where
the
the
60
ami
table
is
higher.
E
So
to
me,
I
think
there
may
be
an
argument
to
be
made
that
the
cap
rate
should
be
more
reflective
of
a
commanded,
affordable
apartment
and
with
that
I'll,
just
leave
that.
G
Okay,
I
wasn't
gonna
say
this,
but
I'll
I'll
start
where
greg
ended.
I
don't
maybe
you're
looking
at
apartment
rates,
but
we
can't
have.
You
know,
committed,
affordable
cap
rates,
the
same
as
open
market
cap
rates.
I
mean
it's
just
I
don't
see
how
you
could
get
there
from
here:
one's
restricted
by
law
and
one's
open,
the
market
rules
and
the
markets
the
market.
G
What
what
I
was
going
to
say
was
or
initially
was
this
pretty
stable
property
and
it's
relatively
affordable
to
its
location,
easy
access,
not
easy,
because
it's
so
big
but
relatively
easy
to
metro
and
certainly
easier
50
going
places
and
and
it's
been
stable,
and
I
find
that
with
all
the
contention
and
operating
expenses.
Nonetheless,
the
county
has
placed
in
its
column
d
assessment
about
an
operating
expense,
pretty
consistent
with
the
prior
two
years
reporting.
G
Now
it's
I'm
gonna,
take
a
leap
of
faith
and
say
that
the
20
meaning
2019
2018.,
the
2020
operating
expenses
go
up,
as
I
mentioned
before,
about
22,
and
that
can
happen
from
year
to
year,
especially
an
important
property,
and
it's
not.
What
I
was
horrified
was
that
there
was
what
I
understood
initially
was.
There
was
an
introduction
of
splinter
sprinkler
systems,
but
it's
not
it's
maintenance
of
sprinkler
heads
which
do
need
to
be
changed
out
from
time
to
time
and
why
not?
G
In
2020
I
mean
you
know
it
happens,
and
but
given
that
there
was
some
real
money
spent
and
I'm
going
to
assume
again
on
appropriate
maintenance
stuff.
That
doesn't
mean
that
it's
going
to
stay
at
that
level
next
year
and
the
year
after
and
if
it
does,
then
the
county
ought
to
take
that
very
seriously
because
we're
starting
a
trend.
G
Finally,
the
defense
of
the
appellant
on
being
recalcitrant
now
giving
the
fine
line
definition
of
operating
expenses,
because
it
did
so
many
times
in
other
places,
doesn't
move
me
every
every
case
is
unique,
even
if
the
owner
is
not
unique
and
the
county
wants
to
understand
this
stuff
and
the
this
very
large
owner
accounts
in
a
different
way.
That's
okay,
but
they
have
to.
If
they're
going
to
appeal,
provide
the
data
the
way
the
county's
software
system
can
digest
it.
I
Okay,
I'll
jump
in
also
behind
mr
metzken,
I
mean
I
agree
with
everything
you
said
and
greg.
I
see
your
point,
but
I
also
I
agree
with
mr
matskin
that
you've
got
affordables
that
are
you
know,
under
the
restraint
of
legally
binding
terms,
that
they
can
and
can't
do,
and
you
know
when
the
county
sets
their
guidelines
and
looks
at
different
types
of
apartments.
I
You
know
they
look
at
ranges
of
rents
and
this
is
on
the
lower
end
because
it's
an
older
building
and
it
doesn't
command.
I
would
agree
with
you
if
the
county
under
line
seven
of
gross
potential
was
saying
that
oh,
it
should
be
18
million
dollars.
You
know
based
on
performance,
so
you
know.
I
think
that
they're
in
line
with
the
gross
potential
off
of
it
and
what
the
property
is
actually
achieving.
So
you
know
I
would
not.
I
You
know,
agree
with
your
position
on
looking
at
changing
it
to
you
know:
affordable
housing
rate.
You
know
again.
That
being
said
with
what
mr
matkin
said,
you
know
I
I'm
fine
with
the
lack
of
the
additional
information
from
the
appellant.
You
know
I
feel,
like
the
burden
of
proof
is
on
the
appellant.
You
know
if
they're
saying,
oh,
I
provided
it.
I
didn't.
I
think
they
need
to
sit
down
and
kind
of
go
through
this
with
the
county
and
kind
of
clarify,
and
I
think
mr
metzken
brings
up.
I
You
know
a
third
and
final
good
point
that
you
know
if,
in
fact,
that
the
money
that
was
expended
on
say,
for
instance,
the
sprinklers
that
may
not
be
done
again,
and
I
think
that
we're
going
to
have
to
take
a
look
at
I
mean
if
next
year
we're
looking
at
5.2
million.
Well,
then,
maybe
that
is
the
case
that
the
expenses
you
know
are
there,
but
historically
with
what's
been
provided
I
don't
see
the
justification
of
increasing
it.
H
H
F
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chairman,
you
know
greg
and
I
are
gonna
have
to
have
a
conversation
offline
about
affordable
housing
there.
The
industry
has
pleaded
with
the
county
for
years
on
what
I'll
call
market
rate
affordable,
barcroft
this
project,
several
others
and
we've
asked
for
a
recognition
that,
when
we're
providing
this
valuable
service,
we
ought
to
get
a
break
on
taxes.
F
So
far
the
county
board
has
chosen
not
to
do
that,
and
so
you
know
based
on
that.
I
I
don't
think
you
know
we
should
take
that
into
account.
The
criticism
of
affordable
housing
programs
is
often
when
you
implement
it.
The
rents
go
up
the
the
the
deal,
though
from
the
county
viewpoint
is
yes,
that's
true,
but
it's
not
going
to
get
converted
to
towns.
F
It's
not
going
to
get
raised
and
rebuilt
it's
going
to
last
for
30
years
40,
whatever
the
length
of
the
time
is
so
it's
it's
not
an
easy
issue
to
analyze,
but
the
bottom
line
here
is
that
there
should
not
necessarily
factor
in
the
fact
it's
providing
market
rate,
affordable
housing
into
our
decision.
Today
there
has
been
a
ordinance
amendment
to
the
zoning
ordinance
that
certain
affordable
projects
cannot
convert
the
townhouse
by
right.
They
have
to
go
through
the
site
plan
process.
F
The
county
is
in
the
process,
allegedly
in
the
process
of
coming
up
with
some
policy
guideline
to
how
that
can
be
accomplished
so
far.
That
hasn't
happened
so,
based
on
after
all,
that
bloviating,
I'm
okay,
with
where
the
county
is.
E
And
just
to
clarify
I'm
actually,
okay
with
the
county
too.
We
reduced
it
last
year,
and
this
is
going
down
another
10
million
dollars
from
last
year
a
lot
of
that
based
on
expenses.
E
I
just
think
that
that's
where
I
wanted
to
hear
from
barnes
is:
if,
if
there
was
an
active
obstacle
to
development
on
the
site
based
on
some
district
or
overlay
that
that
that
could
affect
the
value
down
the
road,
you
know
when
you
start
to
get
values
that
are
very
low
on
the
per
unit
basis,
and
you
have
projects
next
door
or
across
the
street
that
are
going
for
you
know
twice
the
density
or
three
times
the
the
height.
E
Then
you
start
to
look
at
the
land
value
more
than
you
look
at
that
the
old
buildings
that
are
falling
apart.
So
I
mean
that's
how
I'm
looking
at
these
properties.
So
that's
where
I
just
want
to
clarification,
but
I'm
actually,
okay
with
the
number
okay.
A
Yeah,
well,
I
just
wanted
to
share
also
that
I
wanted
to
well,
I'm
I'm
okay
with
the
county,
and
you
know
to
the
point
of
going
with
a
different
cap
rate.
You
know
based
on
affordable.
I
think
it's
just
it
not
only
would
be
unfair
to
other
property
owners,
because
you
know
we're.
We
have
to
treat
properties
equally
and
we
would
have
to
pretty
much
divert
to
seeing
all
the
other
other
properties
that
are
in
the
same
situation,
and
I
think
this
one
pretty
much
is
in
the
like.
A
You
know
it
could
mean
just
a
painting.
It
could
be
changing
the
whole
thing,
so
it's
yeah.
I
can
see
why
the
county
would
request
more
specific
details
and
they
are
responding,
but
I
don't
think
they're
responding
properly
but
yeah
I
mean
this
is
so
close.
I'm
okay
with
the
county.
G
Very
final,
I
I
want
to
just
recognize
the
landlord
is
investing
in
keeping
this
property
up
and
not
abandoning
and
not
waiting
for
it
to
be
torn
down
and
and
cash
out
and
at
the
exact
same
time
that
they're
spending
some
money,
the
assessed
value
is
going
down
year
over
year.
I
I
Okay,
mr
panoranda
is
the
second
all
in
favor,
aye
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous
six
to
zero,
the
county's
confirmed
at
131
467
900..
Thank
you,
gentlemen.
Thank
you
board.
I
For
today,
does
anybody
have
any
further
business
from
either
the
board
or
the
county.
I
I
just
wanted
to
point
out.
I
I
have
not
had
time
to
read
the
two
emails
I
got
yesterday,
but
obviously
there
was
a
complaint
about
the
county.
Talking
about
information,
that's
not
in
the
packages
during
the
hearing
yesterday
and
I'll.
Take
a
look
at
that,
but
I
just
want
to
if
you
could
just
maybe
talk
to
your
folks
to
make.
D
Sure,
yes,
ma'am
no
problem.
I
think
I've
seen
the
same
emails.
F
D
We
actually,
I
think
we
did
present,
that
to
the
agents
asking
that
they
separate
the
parcel
into
two
different
parcels
of.
If
you
should
be
familiar
with
market
commons,
when
they
sold,
they
split
that
property
into
two
individual
properties
with
avalon
bay,
owning
the
apartments
and
regency
only
the
retail,
so
that
has
been
presented.
Maybe
we'll
offer
that
suggestion
again
yeah,
I
think
pentagon
road
is
a
condo
too.
At
least
they
had
is.