►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - July 7, 2020
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
Good
morning
this
is
the
Arlington
County
Board
of
Equalization
hearings
for
Tuesday
July
7th
2020.
The
first
case
on
our
agenda
is
an
economic
unit.
The
RPC
is
EU
to
eight
zero,
zero,
four
zero
to
a
1,000
South
Frederick
Street.
We
have
mr.
Nathaniel
root
and
mr.
John
Kinney
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
appellant
gentlemen.
I,
don't
know
who's
going
to
start,
but
you
can
tell
us
about
the
property.
C
Well,
that's
a
24%
increase
over
the
2019
assessment
for
a
total
of
seven
million
two
hundred
and
ninety
five
thousand.
These
properties
are
all
at
sixty
percent
of
median
income
or
below
the
Columbia.
Hills
property
actually
has
54
units
that
are
either
at
fifty
percent
of
median
income
or
forty
percent
of
median
income.
C
C
New
figures
may
be
higher
because
the
forty
percent
efficiency
would
be
at
eight.
Fifty
and
the
sixty
percent
efficiency
would
be
a
1275,
but
what
that
occurs
is
that
the
gross
rent
potential
was
being
overstated
by
two
hundred
and
five
thousand
four
hundred,
and
we
believe
in
this
particular
case
the
expenses,
the
operating
expenses
are
overstated
or
understated
by
over
10%
or
seventy
two
thousand
under
one
of
the
other
issues
that
we
have
on.
C
So
we're
really
discussing
the
difference
between
what
we
believe
was
the
actual
income
and
the
actual
expenses
during
last
year
and
the
how
to
treat
the
vacancy
allocation.
Our
feeling
is
that,
under
the
statute
that
it
needs
that,
since
the
property
needs
to
be
assessed
under
the
income
approach,
it
doesn't
say
stabilized
income
approach.
It's
basically
says:
income
art.
The
application
has
that
this
particular
property.
C
D
Morning,
board
I'll
be
representing
commercial
team
for
the
three
residential
multifamily
properties
that
we
have
owned
by
Apple.
Today,
this
property
is
Columbia
Hills.
As
mr.
Kinney
stated,
the
property
was
recently
constructed
in
2016.
They
finished
construction
in
2018,
around
October
I
believe
it
was.
We
were
able
to
go
out
during
that
time
period
and
do
a
interior
inspection
of
the
property
to
see
what
amenities
they
had
to
offer
and
what
the
overall
condition
of
the
property
was
2019
with
the
first
year
that
the
property
was
leasing
up.
D
D
D
This
page
states
the
vacancy
over
the
last
year
and
over
the
current
year
the
property
owners
breaks
up
the
entire
property
by
East
and
West.
So
page
three
thirty
two
reflects
the
information
for
Columbia
Hills
East,
so
to
Vegas
he
over
the
last
year,
which
would
be
2019
for
Columbia
Hills
East
was
two
percent
and
the
Vatican
C
as
the
January.
One
is
three
point:
one
percent,
if
you
go
to
page
334,
you'll,
see
the
same
information
provided
for
Columbia
Hills
West.
D
D
D
D
D
D
But
that
is
what
we're
asking
the
board
to
set
the
2020
assessment,
and
another
thing
to
point
out
again
is
that
the
difference
between
2020
and
2019
is
during
2019,
since
the
building
was
undergoing
Lisa
for
the
first
year,
which
is
common
for
new
construction,
our
newly
constructed
multifamily
property.
We
deducted
12
months
of
Lisa
on
this
property
in
2019,
so
that's
also
one
of
the
differences,
so
that
30
million
dollars
is
after
the
12-month
lease
of
deduction.
D
Some
of
the
things
to
point
out
is
that
if
you
look
at
the
overall
package
provided
by
the
appellant,
the
total
cost
of
this
building
was
89
million
for
$428,000.
A
fourth
bit
of
value
based
off
the
low
income
rents
of
36
million
I,
think
you
can
definitely
see
what
we're
taking
consideration.
Those
affordable
rents,
some
of
the
wrench
that
mr.
D
Kenney
corn
at
200
efficiencies
were
actually
higher
than
what
we
used
on
our
test
column,
not
by
much
but
I
mean
it
just
goes
to
show
that
we
are
looking
at
the
actual
rents
they
can
achieve
we're.
Looking
at
the
expenses
that
they're
reporting
to
us,
our
expenses
on
the
tests
are
much
more
in
line
with
what
they've
reported
to
us
and
it's
in
line
with
other
properties,
that's
owned
by
appalam
in
the
county,
especially
when
you
consider
that
this
is
a
brand
new
building.
A
E
E
C
E
D
E
D
Don't
refrain
from
stating
income
numbers
and
I'll
just
point
to
column,
F
line
item
18
is
the
total
operating
expenses.
So
if
you
look
at
column
a
and
column
F
together,
you'll
see
that
we're
very
close
and
again
when
they
state
that
we
under
projected,
we
didn't
have
2019
information.
When
we
made
these
projections,
we
had
column
C,
which
is
2018
partial
information,
because
again
they
begin
leasing
up
in
October
2018.
So
the
information
reflected
in
2018
the
column
2018,
which
is
common
c,
is
for
the
month
of
October.
Through
December.
D
We
made
our
projections
based
off
the
guidelines
and
of
affordable
housing,
and
that's
even
by
that
method,
you
could
see
that
we
were
still
pretty
close
to
would
they
achieve
2019.
The
test
goes
further
to
be
in
line
with
what
they
reported
for
2019,
because
there's
just
more
a
more
recent
data
again
right.
D
D
That's
affordable?
This
say
2016
such
as
this
property.
They
would
have
higher
expenses
than
a
new
market
property
built
during
the
same
time
period.
They
would
have
lower
rents
than
a
market
property
built
during
the
same
time
period,
and
that's
why
we
look
at
the
affordable
guidelines
which
is
derived
from
the
income
and
expense
form
submitted
by
all
affordable
housing
in
the
county.
D
Apple,
a8,
C
and
Wisla
housing
are
some
of
the
companies
that
operate,
affordable,
affordable
apartments
in
the
county
and
they
also
or
some
would
be
much
appreciated,
but
the
people
who
submit
a
hundred
cent
of
their
income
expense
form.
So
that's
why
we
do
stand
by
our
guidelines,
because
we
know
that
affordable
housing
properties
do
report
for
all
the
properties
that
he
and
I.
E
D
E
B
B
A
A
You
know,
with
the
actual
rents
and
and
I
can
see
where
you're
trying
to
stabilize
even
an
affordable
housing
complex,
but
this
is
really
the
first
year,
so
I
think
it's
in
a
year,
the
actual
income
that
they're
getting
probably
place
the
most
importance
and
the
most
realistic-
and
you
know
from
a
standpoint
of
you
know
where
mr.
Lawson
asked
earlier
well,
should
we
consider
that
if
that's
necessarily
the
case
moving
forward,
that's
how
we
do
assess
properties.
We
look
at
the
actual
income
reported
for
2019.
D
Think
we
kind
of
stated
why
we
did
it.
We
wouldn't
go
to
24%.
Oh,
if
you
look
at
their
irony
form
they
provided.
They
said
after
January
1
the
vacancy
was
around
3%.
So
when
we
look
at
the
information,
we're
projecting
for
2020
we're
not
looking
at
2019
anymore,
we're
using
2019
to
test
our
projection,
and
so
when
you
look
at
column
D,
you
made
a
projection
for
2020
potential
revenue,
2020s
potential
vacancy
in
2020
potential
expenses.
We
only
had
2018
and
go
out
further
again.
D
That
information
was
only
for
October
of
2018
to
October
me
to
December
2018,
so
it
wasn't
much
to
go
off
of
and
we
rely
more
so
on
the
guidelines
2019
was
submitted
to
us
this
year.
We
look
at
the
income
statement
from
2019
and
tested
that
against
our
projection
for
2020.
So
again,
the
vacancy
dropped
from
77
percent
in
2018
to
24
percent
in
2019.
So
our
projection
of
3
percent
in
2020
is
fair
and
again
that's
supported
by
their
own
information
provided
to
us
on
the
I
need
a
stated
day:
Columbia
Hills
East
Vegas.
F
I
thought
you
were
gonna,
ask
it,
but
it's
really
mr.
Bailey
brought
it
up
and
dropped
it
quickly
and
that's
on
the
vacancy
and
related
numbers
concessions
forgone,
read
it
somewhere.
It
stated
mr.
Bailey
brought
up
about
3%
for
the
entire
project,
but
those
figures
were
picked
up
entirely
and
I
think
exactly
from
2019
to
2020.
That
was
a
24%
plus.
How
come
to
me,
that's
the
big
number
to
look
at
in
the
disparity
between
columns,
F
and
G.
F
B
So,
okay
answer
that
John.
If
that
works,
sure,
though,
when
we
submit
the
ine
reports
and
when
we
submit
the
appeals,
we
don't
have
operating
data
on
20/20
at
that
point,
so
we
typically
are
appealing
based
on
a
year
lag.
I
think
this
is
answering
the
question,
so
we
don't
know
what
the
full
year
is.
Looking
like
like
outside
of
budget
budget
assumptions,
so
our
appeals
always
focus
on
the
the
previous
year.
So
we're
always
gonna
always
going
to
be
appealing
based
off
of
2019
valuation.
F
A
B
B
And
again,
it's
back
to
we're
appealing
based
for
2019
and
it's
based
on
my
understanding
with
how
taxes
are
assessed,
essentially
in
2020
you're,
paying
for
what
you
did
in
2019,
and
so
that's
why
we
appeal
based
on
full
2019
dollars.
And
if
that's
the
misunderstanding,
then
we
can
talk
about
that.
B
G
Okay,
I
actually
have.
B
B
G
Thanks
and
then
there
were
a
couple
lines:
there's
a
rent
concessions
at
$180,000
on
2019
I'd
like
to
understand
what
that
is,
and
then
also
both
the
Department
and
the
appellant
did
not
have
any
income
for
parking.
But
you've
got
another
income,
so
I
think
there's
200
more
or
less
spaces
is
the
sixty
nine
thousand
parking
or
was
that
something
else.
B
Sure
so
I'll
start
with
the
the
question
was
about
concessions.
So
what
happens?
Is
that
for
affordable
properties?
We
need
to
get
residents
in
in
order
to
get
the
tax
credits
by
a
certain
deadline,
and
that
makes
sure
that
the
properties
stay
solvent,
and
so
what
we'll
do
is
for
residents
that
don't
have
the
right
timing.
B
So
if
they're
at
least
goes
a
little
bit
like
a
month
or
two
longer,
we'll
give
them
a
concession
on
if
they
sign
the
lease
early
so
that
we
can
count
that
unit
as
occupied
the
in
terms
of
other
income,
I
I
would
have
to
double
check
on
that
one
I
don't
know
off
the
top
of
my
head.
That's
specifically
parking
related,
maybe.
D
We
double
check.
Well,
yes,
so
we
typically
don't
charge
affordable
housing
for
parking.
It's
our
understanding
that
a
unit
company,
not
a
parking
space,
comes
with
the
unit,
so
we
typically
don't
charge
or
even
see
parking
income
and
a
lot
of
affordable
housing.
We
note
a
how
many
spaces
they
have,
but
we
don't
attribute
any
actual
income
to
those
parking
space.
G
E
A
D
Okay,
as
we
stated
in
the
agent
estate,
this
case
comes
down
to
the
vacant
seat,
we're
comparing
the
vacancy
as
of
1:1,
which
is
around
3%
to
what
was
achieved
or
incurred
on
the
property
for
all
of
2019.
Something
to
remember
is
that
the
24%
may
report
for
2019
is
from
January
through
December,
so
it's
the
Lisa
period
vacancy,
it's
not
the
legacy
of
the
property
after
the
Lisa
and
even
at
the
ages
on
a
mission.
How
to
expect
this
property
to
form?
That's
why
we
use
the
3%.
D
We
use
the
2019
test
to
test
our
projection
based
off
of
that
2019
information.
We
made
adjustments
to
the
revenue
and
we
made
adjustments
to
the
expenses
and
we
came
with
a
lower
value
that
was
offered
to
the
appellant
of
36
million
four
hundred
and
fifty
three
thousand
the
first
year
at
least
I
was
actually
2019
and
that
assessment
did
take
in
consideration
that
it
was
under
his
first
year
at
least.
D
C
I
think
the
issue
is
not
only
the
vacancies
and
such
as
a
there
is
a
difference
in
the
income
being
in
this
case,
we
believe
it's
being
overstated
and
expenses
are
being
understated.
Our
position
in
terms
of
the
vacancies
and
such
was
that
it
is
that
the
statute
is
fair
in
our
opinions
fairly
clear,
that's
based
on
existed
on
the
formulas
used
so
for
2019.
C
We
had
that
vacancy
rate.
We
recognized
the
next
year
that
that
won't
be
there
or
most
likely
won't
be
there.
Of
course,
if
I
had
a
retail
property
in
the
beginning
this
year,
and
somebody
made
it
assumption
that
my
rents
would
be
the
same
this
year
as
they
were
last
year,
I
think
we'd.
All
you
know
recognize
that
things
can
change,
but
bottom
line
is
our
feeling
is
that
we
that
the
county
uses
the
2019
numbers
for
fixing
us
assessment,
and
in
this
case
they
have
been.
C
A
A
F
H
They
admitted
the
3%
is
affordable
is
their
number
and
they
knew
that
was
coming
and
they
knew
that's
where
they'd
be,
but
I
guess
and
my
mic
cut
out
I'm.
Sorry,
if
someone
to
answer
what
was
said
during
the
gap
I
slightly
had
or
my
speaker
concerning
concession,
what
what
was
that
about
I
kind
of
missed
that
answer,
that
was
one
of
the
questions.
I
wanted
to
ask
I.
H
G
A
Yeah
I
guess
where
I'm
at
on
this,
especially
since
this
is
the
first
year
and
we
obsess
based
on
the
previous
year's.
You
know,
income
and
expenses
and
I
think
in
this
case
we're
kind
of
in
a
quandary,
because
it
did
have
some
unusual
expenses
to
get
at
least
up
I.
Think
myself.
The
code
allows
us
to
consider
the
actual
income
and
expenses
I
mean
if
you're
comfortable.
A
What
I
did
was
I
took
the
actual
stated
income
from
the
appellant
and
but
then
I
used
the
3%,
because
I
think
that
does
kind
of
put
everybody
more
on
a
level
playing
field,
and
you
know
the
appellant
did
say
that
that
probably
is
the
stabilized
vacancy
for
them
and
I
think
in
today's
market.
Even
more
so
once
people
get
in
they're
not
going
to
be
moving
out,
I
mean
this
is
a
tough
time
to
be
relocating
to
new
apartments.
A
I
I
know
that
a
lot
of
times,
we
think
alike
and
we
work
numbers
almost
the
same.
Originally
I
thought
the
same.
You
know
used
in
the
actual
income
but
I'm
a
little
bit
in
the
line,
because
I
think
the
rents
that
were
used
by
the
county
were
appropriate
and
you
know
we've
done
this
many
times
we
use
the
actual
income
expenses.
I
I
A
I
A
A
You
know,
and
again
I
I
I
think,
2020
s
numbers
are
gonna
tell
a
different
story,
because
I
think
it
is
gonna
be
far
more
stabilized,
but
you
know
for
my
money:
I
think
that
we
should
be
looking
at
what
actually
was
done
in
2019
for
this,
since
it
is
the
first
year
Mary.
Can
you
repeat
the
map
number?
You
came
up
with
I'm
the
final
number
34
billion
to
44
800.
G
You
know
I
think
these
are
really
difficult,
because
there's
such
complicated
deals
with
the
covenants
and
restrictions
and
all
the
different
financing
and
everything
but
I
think
mr.
Bailey
did
a
really
good
job
of
kind
of
falling
apart.
The
essence
of
it
and
I
don't
even
really
see
how
anybody
could
argue,
or
at
least
has
made
a
compelling
argument
to
change
my
the
the
department's
recommended
value.
G
So
they
haven't
really
moved
me
that
the
value
of
this
property
is
significantly
less
than
36
million
dollars,
given
that
the
vacancy
is
where
it
is
and
nobody
seems
to
foresee,
a
future
where
this
building
is
not
full,
otherwise
I,
don't
think
that
would
be
continuing
to
build
these
properties.
Okay,.
E
Yeah
I
would
just
share
with
Greg
our
guiding
our
our
guiding
instructions
are
the
statute,
and
you
know
you
know
I
just
feel
like
we
have
to
go
with
actual.
When
we
can-
and
you
know
the
the
applicant
indicated
that
on
expenses
they
just
didn't
have
them,
because
the
county
required
the
filing
to
be
done
early,
and
so
when
they
do
get
the
actual
I
think
the
county
you
know
has
to
consider
that
and
in
statutory
interpretation
consider
doesn't
mean
think
about
it
and
then
ignore
you
have
to.
You
have
to
actually
utilizing
a
means.
E
You
go
with
the
statute,
you
you,
you
have
to
follow
the
statute
which
talks
about
actual
income,
actual
expenses,
and
so
you
use
the
income
approach.
But
when
you
get
done,
you
may
not,
you
may
be
under
market
because
remember
that
mark
of
marketability
of
this
is
impacted
by
all
the
covenants
and
restrictions
on
income.
And
so
you
know,
fair
market
value
really
doesn't
exist
with
an
affordable
project.
A
A
E
I
Well,
I
have
to
disagree,
I
don't
think
we
have
to
just
because
it
says
that
you
know
we
have
to
consider
it
and
I
think
the
county
does
look
at
that
point
and
they
do
that.
They
do
consider
it.
But
you
know:
yeah,
like
I
said:
I
was
a
little
bit
in
the
line,
but
I
think
I'm,
I'm,
okay,
with
a
revised
assessment,
as
it
is
right
now
all.
F
G
Would
say
one
thing:
actuals
that
I
think
the
cost
of
capital
on
this
project
was
like
1.5
percent?
Is
the
loan
and
we're
talking
about
financing
and
calf
rate
things
like
that
five
point:
five
point:
nine
percent
cap
rate
for
an
affordable
project:
that's
gonna
essentially
be
a
hundred
percent
full
with
below
market
rates
and
has
a
very
little
market
risk
of
a
non-recourse.
Assumable
loan
seems
a
little
high.
G
So
if
we're
looking
at
actuals
I
think
you
probably
want
to
be
looking
at
any
other
projects
like
this
that
have
traded
and
not
be
comparing
it.
You
know,
in
a
cap
rate
study
with
market
rate
properties
that
have
substantially
more
market
risk,
so
I
mean
I
would
expect
something
like
this
to
trade
below
a
five
cap
rate
if
it
was
actually
on
the
market.
If
that
went-
and
you
know
marketed
the
property
for
sale.
E
E
A
And
I
I
think
just
to
clarify
that
on
the
cap
rate,
I
mean
he
does
have
a
different
cap
rate
for
the
affordable,
as
opposed
to
the
market,
and
in
this
case,
as
mr.
Kinney
said
in
his
testimony,
they're,
not
questioning
the
cap
rate
I
mean
I.
Think
from
a
standpoint
of
Equalization.
I
would
not
want
to
move
the
cap
rate
for
this
affordable
when
all
of
the
affordable
are
at
the
five
point,
nine,
so
I'm.
Fine
with
that.
So.
H
K
I
A
K
A
C
C
2019
is
requested
initially
by
the
county,
was
sixty
four
percent
above
the
2019
assessment.
Under
their
revised
opinion,
it
still
represents
an
increase
of
three
million.
Ninety
four
thousand
one
hundred
their
original
request
was
for
four
million,
fifty
nine
thousand
two
hundred
again
in
this
particular
case.
We
believe
that
the
expenses
are
understated
by
sixty
two
thousand
three
seventy
five,
which
is
about
eighteen
percent
as
correlated
to
the
total
expenses.
C
It's
only
been
in
the
last
five
or
six
years
that
the
county's
made
an
effort
to
get
down
below
the
60%
medium
get
to
the
50%.
So
when
we're
using
an
average
we're
using,
not
necessarily
my
understanding
is
counties
not
using
an
average
of
the
40
50
and
60%
projects
they're
using
an
average
of
the
60%
and
as
I
try
to
indicate
last
time,
there's
a
great
deal
of
difference
between
the
income
achieved,
ona
60s
for
that
property
and
a
property
that's
next
between
50
percent
or
60
percent
or
40
percent.
C
In
this
case,
it's
between
50
or
60.
So
when
we
used
comparable
you're
using
higher
comparables
than
the
current
market
what's
happening
now
is
we're
deeply
subsidizing
these
units
and
that's
the
recount
ease,
request
and
Apple
and
the
other
nonprofits
are
more
than
willing
to
go
on
with
that.
They
see
the
need
for
this,
but
the
correlation
when
you're
using
statistical
averages,
needs
to
correlate
to
50
60
and
the
40
percents,
not
just
the
60
and
most
of
the
income
and
expense
information
they
receive.
C
Anything
are
on
the
older
properties
which
are
that
way
because
of
the
initial
affordable
housing
projects
in
the
county
were
not
at
40
50
and
60.
They
were
all
at
60
percent.
So
what
we're
asking
here
is
the
property?
Be
assessed
using
the
income
approach
and
the
actual
income
actual
expenses,
rather
than
using
some
standardized
formula
for
expenses.
D
This
property
is
a
property
that
we've
heard
over
the
past
two
years.
Apple
Westover
was
purchased
by
Apple
and
for
around
16
million
five
hundred
thousand
then
later
vacated
the
buildings.
These
buildings
were
market
buildings,
it
vacated
the
buildings
and
recorded
a
restrictive
covenant
and
which
they
recorded
another
deed.
D
For
around
nine
million
dollars
upon
them
buying
the
property
they
decided
to
renovate
the
property
based
off
of
the
tax
credits
that
they
received
and
to
be
in
performance
with
vhda
and
other
regulating
bodies
of
lawyers,
low-income
housing
properties
when
they
decided
to
vacate
the
building
and
renovated
property,
they
submitted
applications
for
a
rehab
as
emption
through
Arlington
County.
We
did
a
free
renovation,
inspection
of
the
property
to
ascertain
the
condition
of
the
building
and
what
work
was
going
to
be
done
during
this
inspection
as
well.
We
talked
to
mr.
methane
root
during
this
inspection.
D
The
board
heard
this
case
last
year
because
the
vacancy
shot
up
to
around
32
percent
of,
what's
showing
so
shot
up,
32
percent
in
2017
and
2018
and
shot
up
to
72
percent.
This
is
all
because
of
their
decision
to
renovate
his
property.
The
renovation
was
completed
last
year,
mr.
chicas
went
out
and
inspected
the
property
to
see
what
renovation
work
was
done.
What
changes
were
made
and
he
made
notes
of
this.
This
is
all
part
of
the
rehab
assumption
program.
D
Submitted
by
mr.
chicas
and
myself
to
determine
whether
or
not
this
property
is
qualified
for
a
rehab
exemption
based
off
the
work
that
they
did
and
the
condition
of
the
property
from
2000
19
when
they
applied
2018
when
they
applied
until
2019.
Last
year,
we
made
adjustments
to
the
effective
age
based
off
the
work
that
they
did
and
all
of
the
changes
that
we
saw
resulted
in
a
increase
in
the
value
that
qualified
them
for
the
rehab
exemption.
D
You'll
see
on
page
12,
we
had
a
2019
value
of
8
million,
528
and
I
think
that
date
is
actually
growing.
That's
the
post-renovation
that
in
pre-renovation
value
so
I
apologize
for
that,
so
the
pre-renovation
value
is
8
million.
Five
hundred
twenty-eight
thousand
the
closed
renovation
value
based
off
of
the
work
that
we
saw
and
the
income
and
expenses
the
income
information
we
received
was
10
million
three
hundred
seventy
three
thousand
five
hundred,
so
the
tax
abatement
award.
D
It
was
1
million,
eight
hundred
forty-five
dollars
and
five
1
million
eight
hundred
forty
five
thousand
five
hundred
dollars.
That
Bateman
is
in
place
of
eleven
years
and
just
like
other
rehab
exemptions
in
the
property,
it
begins
to
decrease
their
remaining
four
years
by
twenty
percent
the
twelfth
year,
forty
percent
thirteen
year
six
percent
to
14
year,
and
then
finally,
it
decreases
about
eight
percent
in
the
final
years
of
fifteen
years,
rehab
exemption.
So
this
information
was
communicated
to
the
owner.
D
D
D
This
was
communicated
by
the
appellant
that
some
work
was
still
being
performed
in
2019.
That's
why
the
Degas
is
so
high.
We
did
make
adjustments
to
our
expenses.
Upon
this
case,
we
felt
like
the
revenue
that
we
use
is
in
line
with
the
potential
income.
We
use
this
in
line
if
you
actually
compare
column,
F
and
column
G
on
page
four,
the
pro
forma
and
the
test
column
is
very
close
again.
This
case
comes
down
to
the
vacancy
they're,
using
to
14.7%
that
was
achieved
all
of
2019.
D
However,
the
agency
actually
dropped
due
to
those
units.
They
were
still
in
construction
being
completed.
They
reported
on
their
2020
I
need
as
a
January
1,
the
vacancy
was
about
7%.
So
again,
this
property
was
value
based
off
of
the
information
that
we
received.
We
took
in
consideration
the
renovation.
That's
why
the
effective
age
was
increased
to
1990
based
off
of
the
scale
of
the
work
they
did.
D
The
vacancy
and
thanks
to
cap
rate
use
last
year,
was
higher,
because
last
year's
assessment
did
not
take
in
consideration
any
of
the
renovation
work
that
was
performed
on
this
property.
We
say
that
property
the
property
last
year,
based
off
of
its
original
condition,
pre-renovation
this
year's
the
first
year
that
this
property
is
being
assessed
with
the
renovation
that
was
that
property
under
wind
gave
consideration.
Keep
that
in
mind.
D
A
Thank
you.
Okay,
I
have
a
question
for
you,
and
this
will
sway
me
on
where
I'm
going
with
this.
But
when
I
look
the
ine
summary
in
both
the
original
assessment
and
so
in
column,
D
in
column,
F,
you've
taken
the
rehab
exemption
off
of
that
and
then
the
final
value
are
those
two
values
correct
that
show
on
the
grid.
Yes,.
D
In
the
past,
what
we
used
to
do
is
we
would
create
a
whole
separate
parcel
for
to
hold
the
rehab
exemption.
It
was
a
dummy
parcel
due
to
some
changes
made
I
think
it
was
by
cold
or
whatever
we
have
to
show
the
total
value.
So
what
we
do
is
we
show
the
total
value
of
the
property,
and
then
we
make
we
put
a
street
that
says
that
the
rehab
exemption,
which
is
tax
exempt,
is
included
in
a
total
value.
D
A
D
A
A
D
G
G
I'm,
just
looking
at
2019
summit,
expense
information,
there's
a
management
fee
of
twenty
seven
thousand
five.
Eighty
nine
on
seven
hundred
and
seventy
eight
thousand
of
effective
gross
income,
which
I
calculate
to
be
about
three
and
a
half
percent.
Is
that
in?
Is
that
a
market
determined
rate
or
is
that
something
else
seems.
B
G
D
G
G
B
D
A
F
Questions
for
the
apartment,
first,
one
is
exactly
taking
off
with
what
mr.
Bailey
just
said.
You
see
the
actuals
is
seven
percent
and
we
in
the
last
case,
we'd
like
the
actual
we're
tending
towards
actuals,
but
you
put
in
your
test
in
column,
F,
three
percent,
which
I
think
it's
a
stabilized
value
for
such
properties
and,
of
course,
it's
exactly
what
we
use
for
the
last
case.
But
why
didn't
you
use
seven
percent
this
time
for
this
case.
D
D
So
the
first
assessment,
with
this
rehab
assumption
in
place,
the
value
should
be
no
less
than
what
it
was
before
the
renovation.
If
you're
following
me,
so
the
property
when
we
receive
the
application,
we
do
the
inspection,
the
base
values
based
off
of
the
tax
assessment
year.
They
apply
for
the
rehab
attention,
and
this
is
the
number
we
use
to
determine
if
the
value
was
increased
by
20%.
D
This
is
standard
for
rehab
exemption,
so
this
property
we
took
the
base
value.
We
calculated
the
new
value
based
off
the
changes
to
the
property,
any
rents
they
may
have
changed
and
to
be
operated
to
change
so
based
off
these
changes,
we
value
the
property.
So
we
have
the
pre-renovation
value
in
the
post-renovation
value.
We
take
the
post-renovation
improvement
value.
You
subtract
out
the
pre-renovation
improvement
egg,
which
is
also
called
the
base
value
to
determine.
If
that
20%
increase
was
achieved
on
this
property,
it
did
so.
D
F
D
You
brought
that
up.
Cuz
I
was
supposed
to
talk
about
that.
So,
if
you
go
to
page
5,
you
see
our
test
sheet.
We
break
out
one
bedroom,
50%
ami,
the
number
of
units
that
are
restricted
at
this
level
and
the
rents
today
pay
we
break
out
the
one-bedroom
60%
ami,
the
number
of
units
restricted
to
this
level
and
then
rinse
they
pay
so
you'll
see
on
the
test
sheet.
D
Okay,
this
property
experienced
high
vacancy
fourth
over
didn't,
say
two
years,
but
it
went
over
17
in
19,
because
partial
years
due
to
renovations
the
property
were
renovations
completed.
Last
year,
the
post
renovation
was
done
in
to
account
for
all
the
work
that
was
done.
There
is
no
way
this
property
should
be
valued
less
than
the
pre-renovation
value
cuz
the
amount
of
work
put
into
the
building
the
money
spent
put
into
the
building,
and
then
the
rents
have
changed
since
that
time
period.
D
Fordable
rents
have
increased
slightly
over
the
time
period
from
when
this
renovation
started
to
when
they
completed.
The
rehab
exemption
in
itself
is
a
concession
to
the
vacancy
that
this
property
incurred
during
the
time
period.
It's
a
15
year,
rehab
exemption
when
we
did
representin
calculation
we
used
stabilize,
and
we
think
this
test
is
appropriate.
Okay,.
C
You
we're
in
fundamental
disagreement
the
county's
statement
that
the
pre-renovation
value
of
the
property
has
to
be
higher
than
what
it
was
before.
Remember
that
affordable
rents
do
not
change
depending
on
the
nature
of
the
building
they
are
set
and
if
the
building
is
renovated,
the
rents
don't
go
up.
That
is
not
a
factor.
So
we're
not
we're
in
a
situation
that
we're
looking
at
income
and
the
income
is
how
this
needs
to
be
valued,
not
on
some
assumption
that
the
pre-renovation
cost
the
renovation
costs
after
innovation
have
to
be
higher.
C
That
which
is
what
would
be
the
company's
answer,
if
that
were
if
it
were
market
rate
building
and
understand
rents,
we
go
up.
Rents,
don't
go
up
up
in
this
case
they're,
basically,
and
once
we
have
the
rents
in
place,
that's
what's
determines
value.
Value
could
actually
go
down
below
what
the
renovation
value
is.
That's
very
standard
in
an
affordable
housing,
so
some
mechanism
that
says
you
have
to
be
higher
than
the
post-renovation
makes
no
sense
when
the
statute
is
very
clear.
We're
looking
at
income
income
is
not
affected
by
renovation
in
affordable
housing.
C
C
I
Well,
I'll
start
I
think
whether
changes
or
not
from
the
previous,
you
know
the
pre-renovation
and
post-renovation
and
I.
Don't
think
it's
too
relevant
at
this
point.
I
think
we're
looking
at
numbers
that
are
real.
That
are,
you
know,
according
to
the
guidelines
and
there
they
are
within
what
they
are,
whether
achieving
right
now
so
I'm
I'm,
not
against
the
numbers
that
the
county
is
using
in
the
revised
I'm.
Okay,
with
the
way
that
he
was
then,
when
the
final
number.
F
On
that,
Jose
search
your
opinion
that
the
three
in
the
last
case
and
he's
a
very
very
similar
case
is
way
beyond
ownership
that
we
use
the
three
percent
vacancy
rate,
not
because
that's
what
pretty
much
they
were
receiving,
but
rather
that's
the
guideline
and
therefore
you're.
Applying
that
same
guideline
in
this
case
is
that
right.
A
Yeah,
what
when
I
find
in
this
one
different
from
the
first
case,
is
that
the
the
rehab
exemption
I
mean.
Was
there
getting
the
credit
for
that
and
some
of
the
vacancy
is
because
they
were
doing
the
renovations
I
believe
if
my
notes
are
right,
that
14
percent
I
believe
mr.
Bailey
said
was
reported
at
7
percent,
so
it's
obviously
coming
down
as
the
renovation
was
finished
and
it's
leasing
up.
So
you
know
on
mine,
I'm
I
feel
okay
with
the
county's
revised
number
here.
A
I
H
E
A
couple
points
one
is
on
the
renovation:
I
think
that's
to
cover
cost
of
renovation,
not
vacancy
I'm,
not
a
hundred
percent.
Sure
of
that,
but
that's
been
my
understanding.
I'm
Greg
on
the
management
fee,
I
actually
thought
it
was
low
and
I'm
glad
I'm
not
in
the
management.
Is
this.
These
affordable
projects
I
think
actually
require
more
work
on
the
part
of
Management,
because
you're,
constantly
checking
rents
and
in
and
making
sure
people
you
know,
don't
don't
get
out
of
compliance
with
the
regulations.
K
A
A
So
it's
10:27
will
come
back
at
10:25
and
finish
this
last
case
forever.
All
right.
A
A
K
A
C
Gilliam
place
is
actually
divided
in
the
billion
place,
east
and
Gilliam
place
West
the
county
treats
us
and
treats
them
as
an
economic
unit,
but
I
think
I
will
show
that
they
technically
really
should
be
treated
as
separate
property.
For
a
number
of
reasons,
the
we
are
not
disputing
the
evaluation
of
Gilliam
place,
West
the
revised
evaluation,
we're
only
disputing
the
evaluation.
The
guild
Gilliam
place,
east
Gilliam
pays
East
was
in
Lisa
during
2019
Gilliam
place.
West
was
basically
stabilized
at
that
time.
C
Gilliam
place,
West
has
90
units,
they
are
all
at
60%
of
median
income
Gilliam
place.
East
has
83
units
they're
at
40,
50
and
60
percent
of
meeting
incomes
about
half
and
half
between
the
40
and
50%
units
and
the
60%
units.
All
the
units
are
restricted
for
60
years
and
they
began
a
Gillian
place.
East
began
leasing
in
late
2019.
C
What
we're
asking
is
that
Gilliam
place
East,
be
a
value
zhing,
the
actual
income
and
expenses
and
the
operating
expenses
and
the
operating
expenses
we
believe
were
understated
by
forty
seven
thousand,
eight
hundred
and
particular
case
Gilliam
place.
East
also
does
have
a
commercial
lease
and
I
think
a
little
history
on
that
is
helpful.
C
When
the
financing
of
this
property
was
being
contemplated.
The
lender
was
concerned
about
these
retail
spaces.
They
were
required
under
the
zoning.
Ordinance
they're,
not
happens,
normally
work,
but
they
agreed
to
effectively
guarantee
the
least
and
sublease
the
the
property
from
the
affordable
housing
operator.
In
order
to
assure
the
lender
that
there
would
not
be
a
negative
effect
from
the
retail
retail
leases,
because
it's
in
an
area
that
has
historically
been
difficult
to
lease
up
compared
to
some
of
the
other
areas
along
Columbia
Pike.
C
Basically,
there
was
because
a
bar
basically
paid
it.
In
2019
there
was
twenty
three
four
thousand
four
hundred
and
forty
seven
dollars
in
commercial
rent,
I
think
if
there
hadn't
had
been
the
sublease
there
wouldn't
be
any
rent
in
place.
At
least
one
of
the
places
is
rented
now
the
end
and
will
be
operating
soon.
The
other
place
is
rented,
but
not
not
paying
rent
to
to
anybody
so
effectively.
What's
happened
is
epi'
is
guaranteed
these
at
a
probably
below
market
rate,
but
it's
guaranteed
for
the
lender
purpose
and
it
can
sometime
in
the
future.
C
We
can
look
at
the
issue
of
what
the
rental
should
be,
but
this
was
done
solely
to
provide
the
lender
assurance
that
these
units
would
wait
down
the
affordable
project.
So
one
of
the
things-
that's
that's
interesting,
and
really
our
our
main
concern
here
is,
if
you
take
the
assessment
of
the
West
property
in
the
East
property,
and
you
look
at
them
now.
C
So
this
shows
some
of
the
problems
with
not
using
actual
rent
and
expenses,
and
that
is
where
our
disparity
comes
in
just
how
you
can
assess
East
beacon
with
a
larger
vacancies,
lower
income,
because
they
are
the
ones
that
have
the
40
50
and
60
percent
income
at
two
hundred
thirty,
seven
thousand
eight
hundred
and
fifty
one
a
unit
and
you
assess
West
at
118
322.
So
that
is
the
disparity
between
two
neighboring
properties
that
we
basically
don't
understand
and
our
contestants
thing.
Thank
you.
D
I
think,
first
for
clarification,
this
property
again
is
valued
as
one
project.
It
has
two
parcels
which
the
projects
it
on,
but
as
valued
as
one
project.
So,
if
you
look
at
our
page,
four
I
believe
it
is
no
page.
Five
you'll
see
the
test
sheet,
which
corresponds
to
the
test
column
and
on
page
four,
we
look
at
the
again
the
units
based
off
of
their
restrictions.
So
for
efficiencies
we
have
five
efficiencies
that
are
restricted
at
50%
AMI.
We
have
17
efficiencies
restricted
at
60%
ami,
we
don't
separate
out
by
building
east
or
west.
K
D
That
being
said,
this
property
was
treated
the
same
as
we
treat
all
new
construction
projects.
We
calculated
the
revenue
they
stopped
for
the
units
and
restrictions
and
the
rents
for
each
restriction.
Type
we
applied
to
three
percent
vacancy
for
stabilized
vacancy
and
expenses.
You'll
see
that
on
our
page
four
as
well.
This
is
a
new
building.
We
inspected
this
property
late
last
year,
Chris
chickens
and
myself
to
do
an
inspection
to
see
you
know
what
amenities
that
this
building
have.
What
finishes
that
the
building
have?
D
What
did
the
retail
space
look
like
and
things
of
those
nature
and
talk
to
whoever's
available
in
the
leasing
office
based
off
the
information
we've
added
to
products
for
2020?
Again,
it
is
a
brand
new
building.
It
began
leasing
up
in
2019,
but
the
first
four-year
lease
it
would
be
2020.
So
we
deducted
a
12-month
lease
up
deduction
below
the
line.
They
stopped,
this
building
being
a
brand
new
building.
We
applied
the
12-month
lease
up
reduction
to
the
residential
portion
and
the
commercial
portion.
D
So
looking
at
page
four,
we
receive
additional
information
from
the
owners,
which
is
the
2019
I&E.
You
can
see.
They
reported
actual
revenue
that
they
could
achieve,
I'm
assuming
for
one
building,
because
it's
pretty
low
compared
to
the
pro
forma.
If
you
look
at
line,
one
I
mean
call
me
in
line
one
in
column,
G,
the
building
reported
a
negative
in
a
while,
so
I
think
it's
obvious
why
we
wouldn't
used
the
actual
2019
information
to
Vegas
property.
D
We
did
make
increases.
No,
we
decrease
the
revenue
based
off
of
the
new
rent
matrix
that
was
supplied
to
his
body
on
her
with
the
2019
I
ain't.
He
we
reduced
the
residential
portion
based
off
this
new
information.
Again
we
applied
and
they
can
see
guideline
things
here:
3%.
We
need
to
apply
a
guideline
expenses
and
a
cap
rate
appropriate
for
this
building
flying.
You
can
see
on
page
four
in
each
column,
F
the
first
one
being
for
apartments
in
the
second
being
for
retail.
D
We
applied
the
guidelines
that
fit
that
use,
so
the
retail
guidelines
would
have
retail
Vegas
and
expenses
and
retail
cap
rate
and
coming
up
without
value
for
this
property,
we
offered
a
reduced
value
from
the
original
35
million
133
900.
It's
a
30
million
three
hundred.
Ninety
thousand
seven
hundred
the
owners
rejected
this
offer
and
that's
why
we're
here
before
the
board
faintness
pretty
much
all
we
have
for
this
property.
D
If
you
look
at
the
owners
package
and
again,
you
look
at
the
cost
that
they
said
to
the
builders
builder
and
then
our
income
approach
I
mean
we're.
Definitely
taking
the
old
income
rents
and
restrictions
in
place
of
the
total
cost
value
that
they
reported
in
the
packet
is
around
60
million
seven
hundred
fifty
eight
thousand
six
hundred
ninety
three
dollars,
and
here
we
are
using
an
income
approach
at
a
reduced
value
of
thirty
million
three
hundred
ninety
thousand
seven
hundred
dollars.
D
Gilliam
place
east
as
they
call
it.
The
vacancy
for
last
year
was
49
percent.
That's
report
on
it,
I
need
as
a
1-1
is
0%,
so
it
shows
how
quickly
the
affordable
properties
Lisa,
and
you
still
compare
that
to
the
12-month
deduction
that
we've
allowed
below
the
line.
That's
pretty
much
all
I.
Have
you
have
any
questions
I'm
here
to
answer.
A
D
A
A
B
B
A
G
G
A
B
B
K
K
B
K
E
F
Dovetail
on
that
for
the
Department,
the
$240,000
you
having
growth
potential
income
from
retail
set
to
based
on
estimated
or
average
rents
in
the
Columbia
Pike
corridor,
and
just
knowing
that
this
really
isn't
being
these
retail
spaces
really
are
being
used
for
traditional
retail.
Does
that
matter.
D
E
D
For
this
property,
we
value
did
the
same.
Do
they
all
new
construction
properties
in
the
county?
We
use
the
information
that
we
had
on
hand
to
develop
the
20/20
assessment.
We
apply
to
12-month
lease
up
deduction
to
the
apartment
portion
based
off
the
wrench
that
we
use.
We
also
apply
to
12
monthly,
so
deduction
to
the
commercial
portion
based
off
of
the
rents
that
we
used.
When
we
received
the
2019
ie,
we
made
adjustments
to
our
revenue
projections
based
off
of
the
rent
matrix
total
supply.
D
Again
we
apply
12-month
lease
of
deduction
below
the
line
based
off
of
this
rent
revenue
that
we
calculated
on
our
test
and
the
commercial
portion
wasn't
changed
but
again
to
12
month.
East
of
deduction
is
based
off
of
the
$30.00
square
foot
used
to
calculate
that
potential
retail
revenue.
We
believe
that
the
test
or
the
offered
reduction,
is.
D
C
You
subtract
out
two
million
dollar,
you
subtract
out
20,000
a
unit
or
1.6
million,
which
is
an
approximate
difference
between
the
reynolds
of
the
county,
showing
on
the
commercial
in
rental,
we're
showing
it
is
still
over
two
hundred
thousand
a
unit,
and
there
is
no
basis
for
assessing
one
that
is
operating
118
and
the
other
at
two
hundred,
which
is
based
on
speculation
on
what
the
rat
would
be.
In
this
case,
we
have
a
good,
comparable
right
next
door.
The
county
does
break
them
out
by
RPC.
So
you
can
look
at.
C
A
Thank
you,
sir.
All
right,
it's
just
among
the
board
members.
I
guess
I'll
just
initially
start
my
concern.
I
hear
what
the
appellant
is
saying
about
the
two
of
parcels,
but
the
parcels
are
combined
into
an
economic
unit.
It
sounds
like
and
that's
why
I
asked
initially
with
the
assessment
and
the
reduced
assessment
revised
assessment,
it's
somewhat
an
arbitrary
system
that
they
just
put
so
much
on
each
parcel,
but
it's
not
broken
down
that
way.
A
So
unless
they
were
gonna
split,
the
two
parcels
you
know,
and
then
we
were
strictly
looking
at
East
versus
West
I.
Think
that
there
would
be
more
of
an
argument
that
you
can't
compare
one
over
the
other
I
think
the
total
amount
is
for
both
and
so
I
I'm
struggling
with
trying
to
say
well,
one
half
is
done
well
and
one
half
isn't
I,
don't
know
what
of
other
people
think
about
that
yeah.
D
K
G
Looks
like
one
building.
It
feels
like
one
building
I
assume
somebody
goes
into
the
leasing
office
and
fells,
not
the
application.
They
don't
choose
their
unit,
they
kind
of
get
put
into
one
unit
versus
the
other,
and
so
it
sounds
like
they're
trying
to
fill
up
one.
You
know
legally
constructed
component
first
for
some
reason,
and
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
the
second
portion
of
the
building
is
less
valuable.
E
H
E
To
the
affordable
housing
and
as
part
of
the
deal,
the
rent
was
set
for
a
period
of
time,
I
think
on
the
other,
where
they
their
lease
until
the
nonprofit
you're
right.
That's
their
choice,
but
I
think
the
portion
leased
to
the
church
I
think
the
county
has
to
look
at
the
actual
arrangement.
You're.
G
A
Yeah
I
would
agree
on
this
when
I
look
at
the
appellant
pro
forma
I
mean
the
numbers
are
almost
identical,
I
mean
in
fact
they're
actually
slightly
higher.
If
you
look
at
the
GPI
on
line
seven,
there
are
a
couple
hundred
dollars
higher.
The
difference
here
is
that
they're,
you
know
looking
at
you
know
the
the
larger
vacancy,
but,
as
was
reported,
it
was
you
know
in
the
one
building.
It
was
forty
nine
percent
that
went
to
zero
to
zero
I
guess
as
at
one
one.
You.
H
A
I
I
feel
like
in
this
case
I
mean
you
know,
I'm,
always
the
first
one
to
jump
on
for
the
affordable
housing.
I.
Don't
think
the
case
is
made
here
that
I
look
at
what
the
revised
assessment
is
when
I,
when
I
take
the
appellant
number
in
column,
G
and
just
apply
the
three
percent
like
we
did
on
the
other
ones.
You
know
it
ends
up
a
testing
higher
than
the
county's
reduces
so
I'm
kind
of
struggling
with
that
I
mean
they
I.
A
Think
they're
in
agreement
on
these
expenses
are
high,
they're,
being
more
than
fair.
Looking
at
the
actual
expenses
they're
they're
given
higher
than
what
they're
projecting
and
higher
than
what
was
reported,
you
know.
So
in
this
instance
you
know
I,
don't
know,
I
seem
to
think
that
the
county
revised
number
is
a
good
one.
I
I
agree,
I
think
the
original
reaction
I
had
was
that
you
know
they're
just
trying
to
divide
Western
East
and
you
know
because
it's
a
little
more
convenient.
But
you
know
we're
gonna,
look
at
the
whole
thing
and
once
it's
reassessed
or
revised
or
appealed-
and
you
know
we
look
at
the
whole
thing-
not
just
partials
of
them.
I'm,
okay,
with
a
revised.
A
E
K
A
C
A
I
A
A
J
J
Right
I'm
on
the
call
today
about
2055
Wilson
Boulevard.
It
is
the
Brooklyn
bagel
sandwich
shop.
That's
right
across
from
the
courthouse.
This
tenant
has
been
with
us
going
on
21
years
now,
and
he
has
extensions
that'll.
Take
him
all
the
way
to
march
thirty.
First,
twenty
thirty
nine,
the
nature
of
his
lease
was
to
have
rent
increases
based
on
CPI,
so
we've
been
limited
as
to
how
much
we
can
increase
his
rent,
I
guess.
J
Seventy
three
thousand
eight
forty
two
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge,
we're
we're
a
small
company,
I
I
wish
I
knew
more
to
stay,
to
take
up
the
eight
minutes,
but
hum
I'm,
sorry,
I'm,
just
I'm
new
to
this
and
appreciate
any
assistance
and
help
you
might
be
able
to
give
me
here.
Okay,.
L
Basically,
we
we
went
out
inspected
the
property
this
year
earlier
in
the
year
and
just
to
get
a
good
understanding
of
how
the
premises
have
used
and
after
doing
it
after
the
inspection
and
reviewing
the
four
year,
history
of
the
department
feels
that
our
original
assessment
is
in
line.
I
will
not
disclose
any
numbers,
as
this
yo'ii
hearing
is
being
viewed,
live
on
the
internet.
But
when
you
look
at
column,
D
line
21.
This
assessment.
E
J
E
J
So
I'll
be
honest
with
you
and
I'm
sorry
to
share
bad
news.
My
father
owned
this
property
and
you
just
passed
in
February,
so
I
had
to
get
a
lot
of
this
information
over
to
mr.
Osteen
in
a
short
time,
while
we
were
unfortunately
mourning
and
grieving,
so
I'm
I
know
he's
been
sick
previous
years
and
he
had
issued
getting
the
paperwork
over
to
you
guys,
but
I'm
hopeful
being
the
next
generation.
I
can
stay
up
to
par
and
did
you
get
whatever
you
need?
Okay,.
K
J
F
You
don't
had
a
discussion
with
the
department,
mr.
Roskam,
and
she
gave
you
some
insights
on
how
they
do
stuff
in
terms
of
assessing
properties
and
you
by
definition,
because
you're
here
disagree
with
what
you
heard
and
have
set
your,
and
this
is
a
directly
related
second
question
or
a
question
one
a
then
you
set
the
value
of
your
property
I.
K
F
J
Appreciate
you
asking
that
so,
yes,
the
information
that
mr.
Rossman
gave
me
was
was
very
valuable.
It
was
new
to
me.
We
actually
managed
pretty
of
Maryland
as
well,
that
we
please
the
CPI
and
property
value
approach
based
on
other
properties
sold
around
it.
The
income
approach
is
something
new
to
me
and
unfortunately,
I
was
just
completely
unaware,
based
on
what
I
was
able
to
find
on
the
income
approach,
though
it
was
the
rental
amount,
divided
by
the
capitalization
rate,
which
is
how
I
came
up
with
the
973
842.
A
K
J
F
To
the
department
on
page
1
in
the
assessment
values,
the
2019
values
are
for
land
and
building
or
exactly
the
same
as
2020,
but
the
total
is
less
and
such
that,
so
what
you
missed
a
number
on
land
and
or
building
for
2019
but
and
I,
don't
need
to
know
what
those
numbers
are.
As
long
as
you
stand
by
the
total
in
2019
being
accurate,
is
that
right?
You.
L
F
And
I
know
that
in
commercial
you're,
not
of
course
assessing
separately
definitively
land
versus
building
you
just
divided
via
the
income
approach.
So
what
that
does
to
in
truth,
create
an
18
percent
assessment
increased
in
twenty
nineteen
to
twenty
about
eighteen
percent,
so
I'm.
Assuming
that's
why
the
appellant
is
here.
K
F
Not
knowing
that
that's
not
an
unusually
high
increase
for
retail,
especially
in
Arlington,
especially
low
on
the
metro
line
now
for
twenty.
Twenty-One
that
may
change
based
on
our
situation,
but
I
just
wanted
you
to
go
on
record
that
you
know
what
the
true
number
was
and
it's
become.
Thank
you
thank.
H
L
Again,
I'd,
like
you,
had
a
part
of
page,
that's
biggest
beautification
our
original
assessment.
When
you
hit
the
rent,
it
is
less
than
what
they're
reporting
for
2019
and
you
go
further
down
the
line
and
take
a
look
at
the
egi.
It's
considered
less
than
what's
being
reported
for
the
2019,
although
the
expenses
are
a
little
bit
less
than
what's
reported
for
nineteen,
it's
a
good
middle-of-the-road
number.
When
you
look
over
the
four
years.
L
J
J
I
guess,
I'll
end
today
by
just
asking
that
the
situation
with
Brooklyn
bagel
and
their
long-term
lease
just
seems
to
be
kind
of
unique
in
the
sense
that
we
don't
have
the
ability
to
grow.
My
biggest
concern
is
that
the
tax
payments
get
to
a
point
where
our
tenant
can't
pay,
and
then
we
lose
him
and
then
you
know
sure
life
goes
on
with
my
another
tenant.
J
J
F
Excuse
me
I
thought
the
one
that
wrap
up
from
the
department
had
all
the
right
points.
The
rent
is
lower.
The
vacancy
rate
is
up
even
though
it's
only
one
tenant,
the
operating
expenses
are
down
so
the
issue.
A
cap,
reissue
arlington
retail,
had
a
pretty
good
year
last
year
and
McCaffrey
fell,
and
so
the
value
goes
up
and
that's
no
one's
fault.
That's
the
way
it
is
in
our
atmospheric
mass
appraisal,
and
it
seems
therefore
that
this
is
a
an
equitable
and
fair
assessment.
Today,.
A
Yeah
I
would
agree,
I
mean
I.
Look
at
you
know,
unfortunately,
the
the
situation
that
brings
the
appellant
with
the
death
of
his
father,
although
very
sad
I,
don't
feel
with
the
burden
of
proof
on
the
appellant
that
there
was
any
case
made.
I
mean
when
you
look
at
the
estimate
that
he's
looking
at
the
972
that
creates
an
Noi,
that's
ten
thousand
below
the
assessment,
and
the
assessment
is
below
the
last
four
years,
so
I
mean,
if
anything
the
properties
under
assess.