►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing October 26, 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
26
2021:
this
is
the
arlington
county
board
of
equalization
hearing.
There
are
five
cases
on
the
agenda.
The
first
case
excuse
me,
is
rpc
economic
unit,
one
eight
zero,
two
four
zero,
two,
a
the
property,
is
located
at
2250,
clarendon
boulevard.
We
have
mr
jeremy
chitlick
here
on
behalf
of
the
owner,
mr
chitlik,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
Sir.
B
All
right,
thank
you,
sue
ross
is
with
me
as
well
she's
on
the
screen.
I
don't
know
if
you
can
see
her
or
not,
but
she
might
chime
in
on
certain
points
here.
She
works
alongside
a
side
of
me
in
our
office,
so
I'm
just
gonna
skip
to
what
we
actually
call
page
three,
which
is
actually
page
five
of
the
packet,
which
is
the
side
by
side.
Here
the
property
is
2250,
clarinet
boulevard.
B
B
What
happened
in
this
case
is,
is
the
2020
income
came
out
and
it
was
a
drop.
This
property
has
a
sizable
amount
of
retail
and
and
the
rents
are
lower.
So
this
one's
unique,
it's
not
just
a
situation.
This
is
an
equity
residential
case.
I
know
we've
all
talked
about
the
expense
issues
there.
This
does
have
a
bump
in
expenses,
but
not
nothing,
really
overly
dramatic.
B
This
wasn't
one
where,
where
chris
asked
for
a
bunch
of
information
that
didn't
get
it,
he
got
everything
that
he
needed
when
what
was
asked.
But
this
one's
unique
in
that
the
gpi
that
the
assessor
used
is
extremely
overplated.
I
mean
the
the
incomes
over
the
last
the
gpis
column.
Seven
over
the
last
three
years
are
thirteen
point:
zero.
B
Thirteen
point,
three
thirteen
point:
four
and
now
thirteen
point
three
and
the
assessors
using
thirteen
million
four
forty,
two
nine
eighteen,
and
I
I
would
normally
say
we-
wouldn't
we
don't
blame
them
because
they
didn't
know
that
at
the
time.
But
that's
from
the
test,
the
original
they
were
using
13.5
higher
than
the
properties
ever
done
in
a
gpi
level
and
then
saw
that
the
gpi
is
13
3
and
dropped
it
essentially
to
the
2019
value
the
2019
gpi,
which
is
higher
than
the
17
higher
than
the
18
higher
than
the
20.
B
as
it
flows
down
you'll,
see,
if
you
add
up
the
two
column,
f's
you
get
to
a
number
of
of
12
million,
almost
12
million
nine.
I'm
sorry,
almost
12
million
eight,
when
the
actual
is
12
million.
B
So
on
this
case
that
the
total
noi
that's
being
used
is
nine
two
five
and
the
actual
was
eight
six
six.
I
understand
that
they
don't
like
how
we
reported
some
of
the
common
areas,
repairs.
If
we
were
in
the
building
we
could
we
could
if
we
were
in
the
boe.
Obviously
we
could
walk
over
and
see.
There's
nothing!
That's
happening
at
this
property,
that's
causing
an
increase
in
rents,
or
maybe
the
building
nicer.
In
fact,
you'll
notice
that
the
that
the
gpi
for
the
property
is
dropping.
B
So
if,
if
they're,
really
putting
in
all
this
money
every
year
and
renovating
the
property
to
make
them
nicer,
you
would
think
that
would
result
in
higher
incomes
when,
in
fact
the
incomes
are
dropping
year
over
year,
we've
talked
about
what
these
common
area
repairs
are
and
their
turn
cost.
They're
they're
not
updates
they're,
not
renovations,
they're,
not
permits
they're,
not
anything
major.
These
are
every
year
over
your
capital.
They
were
1.4,
1.1
and
1.8.
B
Those
are
normal
trends
over
the
last
three
years
I
understand
2017
was
different
but,
as
you
all
recall,
2017,
it
was
reported
differently
and
we
were
told
if
we
wanted
it
corrected.
We
need
to
report
it
correctly.
So
starter,
reporting
correctly
in
2018
and
2019
and
2020
and
you'll
see
that
those
expenses,
nothing
is
really
out
of
whack
32
percent
expenses
for
a
property,
that's
32
years
old
is
not
abnormal
at
all.
This
property
has
a
again
a
sizable
amount
of
retail.
B
So
I
was
gonna
say
that's
a
fast
eight
minutes,
but
I
don't
think
that's
the
buzzer.
So
that's
that's
what
we
have
in
this
case.
I
can
go
through
the
details.
B
I
know
you
all
have
a
211
page
packet
that
I'm
sure
you've
read
front
to
back
our
pages
in
there
or
our
analysis
is
in
there
that
talks
about
the
specifics
of
the
property
starting
on
of
the
packet
page
70
page
68
you'll
see
a
picture
of
the
property
again,
you
all
know
it
very
well,
since
it's
right
across
the
street,
from
where
we
used
to
meet
396
in
it's
a
b
class
high-rise
apartment
building
and
it
really
comes
down
to
the
income.
B
I
think
page,
what
we
call
page
three
but
page
five
of
the
packet
does
a
very
good
job
of
showing
that
the
assessor
just
missed
the
mark
on
this
one.
So
ask
that
you
consider
the
actuals
our
numbers
are
are
actually
a
bit
higher
than
the
actuals
just
by
about
a
hundred
thousand
dollars,
but
we'll
call
it
fifty
thousand
dollars.
But-
and
I
know
I
know-
our
cap
rate
argument
has
not
carried
all
that
much
weight.
B
But
if
you,
if
you
take
our
numbers,
our
appellant
numbers
with
the
accessories
cap
rate,
it's
a
it's
a
sizeable
and
reasonable
reduction.
So
that's
what
we
have
thank
you.
C
Good
morning
board,
I
will
be
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
department
for
this
case,
as
we
continue
on
the
summary
sheet,
which
is
page
five.
C
You
will
see
we
have
outlined
in
our
comment
section
at
the
bottom
of
the
page,
some
expenses
that
stand
out
to
us
have
we
pointed
out
with
these
properties
and,
in
particular
properties
owned
by
this
particular
appellant.
It
seems
that
we
always
have
to
ask
for
questions
about
these
line
items,
common
error,
repairs
and
miscellaneous
pairs.
C
This
is
not
new
for
this
year.
This
is
something
that's
been
going
on
for
the
past
few
years,
and
so
I
just
want
to
clarify
the
reason
we
ask
for
a
question
is
because
it
is
drill's
responsibility
to
protect
the
data
and
to
validate
the
data,
and
it
so
happens
that
the
particular
line
items
where
the
information
seems
to
increase
over
the
years
are
line
items
that
we
ask
for
more
specific
details.
C
When
I
say
we
ask
for
more
specific
details
on
our
instructions
attached
to
these,
I
needs
we
state.
Please
specify
this
is
not
a
category
for
appellants
to
just
dump
whatever
expenses
they
want
to
put
in
there.
This
is
a
category
where
we
say
we
know
that
combinatory
repairs
are
made,
but
we
need
to
know
what
you
consider.
Combinated
repairs.
Are
these
repairs
or
are
these
capital
improvements?
C
The
agent
just
stated
that
these
are
turnover
costs.
We
asked
the
board
to
do
what
we
couldn't
do
and
that's
get
the
answers
as
to
what
was
done
as
far
as
turnover
what
was
spent
as
far
as
turnover.
These
are
the
answers
that
we
see
when
we
ask
for
specific
details.
C
C
When
we
look
further
again
the
main
reason
for
the
increases
for
combinary
repairs
when
we
look
at
the
details
given
for
this,
there
are
no
details,
given
this
information
is
provided
by
the
appellate
themselves,
where
they
do
not
provide
any
information.
So
we
ask
that,
if
you
take
in
consideration
this
seven
hundred
thousand
dollar
increase
for
combinatory
repairs
at
least
get
the
details
as
to
what
was
done
for
these
common
area
repairs.
C
What
was
the
work?
What
was
the
work
that
was
done?
How
much
was
spent
and
then
analyzed?
Is
this
truly
a
repair
of
this
capital
expense?
I
think
other
than
that.
If
you
look
at
page
five,
our
apartment
rents,
I
mean
we
kept
it
at
the
2021
assessment
level.
C
We
didn't
make
any
changes
there,
we
adjusted
parkinson's.
We
adjusted
rub
some
and
you'll
see
that
on
the
test,
so
our
gpi
slightly
decreased
on
the
apartment
side.
As
far
as
the
retail
rents,
we
left
our
retail
rents
at
the
same
level.
After
doing
a
retail
rent
role
analysis,
that
information
was
provided
by
the
opponent
as
well.
I
think
it
starts
on
page
121..
C
You
can
see
that
they
get
about
58
000
a
month
for
the
occupy
space,
so
we
believe
that
the
retail
rent
rate
that
we're
using
is
reasonable
in
the
test.
We
did
remove
the
pass-through
calculation
for
the
retail
units.
That
was
a
change
that
you'll
see
on
the
column.
F,
revised
commercial,
we
increase
the
expenses
and
if
you
look
at
the
combined
expenses
in
the
test
column,
with
the
revised
column,
it
is
around
3.5
million,
which
is
in
line
with
2018
and
2019,
which
came
in
at
3.5
and
3.5.
C
The
2020
year
is
higher,
but
again
we
had
questions
about
the
miscellaneous
repairs,
as
chris
has
done
all
year,
he's
reached
out
to
the
appellate
about
these
issues.
I
myself
worked
this
case
and
I
did
not
send
an
email
because
chris
hasn't
been
successful
in
getting
the
answers
and
again
when
you
look
at
the
in
the
instruction
form
that
is
filled
out
and
which
is
also
attached
to
the
document
when
you
download
it
from
the
internet,
it
states
that
we
would
like
for
you
to
specify
what
are
your
common
area
repairs?
C
What
are
your
miscellaneous
repairs?
That's
not
provided
by
the
appellant
again.
This
irony
form
is
not
new.
We've
had
it
for
years,
we've
had
the
instructions
attached
for
years.
So,
in
our
opinion,
the
owners
just
choose
not
to
provide
that
detail
again.
We
ask
that
if
you
do
take
consideration,
2020
numbers
and
the
700
000
increase
in
miscellaneous
repairs,
just
get
the
details
verify
that
these
are
actually
valid
expenses.
C
C
That's
what
we
asked
the
board
to
vote
on
or
to
adopt
as
the
new
2021
assessment
value.
If
you
have
any
questions,
I'm
here,
thank
you.
C
This
property,
as
mr
chitley
stated
it
is
the
courthouse
plaza
which
is
owned
by
the
county.
The
land
is
owned
by
the
county.
The
lease
is
under
50
years
as
far
as
remaining
term,
so
we
have
to
allocate
two
percent
each
year
to
taxable
to
a
taxable
account.
So
I
think
on
the
let
me
double
check.
If
you
look
at
the
cover
sheet
page
one
parcel
parcel
eighteen:
zero,
zero,
four,
zero,
seven
one.
C
C
So
again,
I
should
have
correct
myself.
So
if
the
board
votes
on
this
revised
value,
the
total
value
for
the
property
would
be
the
combined
indicated.
Total
value,
which
is
line
21.
C
parcel
ending
in
071,
receives
the
tax
exempt
portion,
which
is
the
highlighted
red.
The
taxable
value
that
goes
to
040
and
0.66
is
what
I
just
quoted
as
the
136.
B
My
suggestion
would
be
once
we
get
to
a
final
value,
maybe
irving-
and
I
can
talk
afterwards
and
get
with
rosa,
to
say
here's,
the
part
of
this
that
comes
off
as
tax
for
not
taxable,
because
the
main
thing
that
we're
talking
about
here
is
the
total
value,
and
then
the
taxable
part
of
it
is
a
matter
of
fact
not
opinion.
It's
a
percentage
of
the
total.
B
If,
if
you're
comfortable
with
that,
yes,
then
we
could
just
and
okay
yeah.
A
A
E
I
have
a
question
for
the
appellant.
You
started
out
your
eight
minutes
with
saying
that
you
have
provided
all
information
that
was
requested
by
the
department
correct
and
in
the
department's
eight
minutes.
They
said
we
wanted
to
know
more
about
culinary
repairs
and
miscellaneous
repairs
because
they
seemed
higher
than
the
trend,
but
they
didn't
get
anything
right.
B
Right
but
then
you
heard
him
say,
but
on
this
one
I
didn't
ask
for
it,
because
we
never
respond
anyway,
and
I
have
sue
is
on
the
line
who
I'd
like
to
speak
to
this,
but
there
I
know
we've
had
cases
where
chris
has
said.
Look
I
sent
information
requests,
we
responded,
I
sent
a
follow-up
and
we
never
responded,
and
that
did
happen
admittedly
on.
I
believe
three
cases
this
year,
all
the
other
cases.
He
got
everything
that
he
needed
in
responses.
B
E
C
A
C
Yes,
so
for
clarification
as
far
as
this
total
value,
the
total
assessment
for
this
property
was
171
million.
372
thousand
three
hundred
our
proposed
reduction
is
to
drop
the
value
to
a
hundred
and
sixty
six
thousand
seven
hundred
and
fifty
eight
no
166
million
seven
hundred
fifty
eight
thousand
eight
hundred.
As
stated
in
my
opening
argument,
page
118
is
the
ind
form
you
will
see.
It
says:
miscellaneous
repairs,
specify
common
area
repair
specified.
There
is
no
specification
from
the
owners.
That
is
what
we
mean
by.
C
We
asked
for
this
information
and
was
not
provided.
We
go
above
and
beyond
in
the
review
process,
a
lot
of
times
and
email
the
agent
for
this
information,
but
this
information
should
be
provided
every
year
when
these
I
need
funds
submitted,
and
that
is
what
we're
asking
the
opponents
to
do.
So
we
made
a
reduction
based
off
the
information
that
we
had
the
board
had
all
this
information
on
page
five,
and
we
asked
that
you
accept
the
proposed
value
of
166
million,
seven
hundred
fifty
eight
thousand
eight
hundred
for
the
2021
assessment.
Thank
you.
B
Yes,
they
overshot
the
income
alone.
The
gross
digital
income
is
probably
by
110
000.
They
did
not
ask
a
single
question.
We
appealed
this
in
march,
we
sent
them
their
entire
appeal
packet
in
march
and
never
heard
a
word
from
the
county.
Nothing.
No.
This
number
looks
weird.
This
number
looks
off.
We
thought
this
was.
There
was
no
issue
because
you
know
the
the
1.8
million
looks
a
little
bit
high
as
greater
than
19,
but
it
looks
just
in
line
with
the
18.,
the
18.
It
was
1.4
million.
B
So
if
it
were
one
four
one,
six
one
eight
there'd
be
no
questions,
but
because
there
was
a
drop
in
19
all
of
a
sudden
there's
questions.
However,
the
question
was
never
asked.
We
do
not
fill
out
the
ine
this
I
e
goes
to
the
corporate
headquarters
and
somebody
a
corporate
fills
out
a
four-page
ine
and
does
it
for
500
properties
across
the
country
and
then
to
say
yeah,
but
they
did
it
wrong.
So
we're
not
going
to
consider
it
every
other
case.
B
They
send
us
an
email
and
say
explain
these
things,
and
I
understand
there
were
a
couple
cases
where
we
didn't
respond
to
their
liking,
but
that
shouldn't
be
held
against
us
irving
made
a
point
of
well.
We
never
respond
to
why
I
even
asked
that's
completely
false.
We
respond
all
the
time
and
chris
could
testify
that
in
future
cases
we
could
show
you
that
in
future
cases
today,
but
to
say
that
well,
they
know
we're
not
going
to
respond
to.
What's
the
point
is
completely
is
a
joke?
B
Really,
the
numbers
are
in
line
their
income
that
they're,
using
revising.
After
learning
that
the
income's
8.6
is
7.2
million
dollars,
I'm
sorry
9.2
million
dollars,
it's
just
not
supported
at
all.
We
last
year
we
came
in
said
things
are
bad
retail
is
bad,
cove
is
hurting
and
they
said
see
us
next
year.
Show
us
the
numbers,
we'll
hear
the
numbers.
If
the
numbers
go
back
up,
then
next
year
the
value
goes
back
up,
but
for
this
year
the
numbers
are
showing
8.6.
B
There's
no
reason
to
value
this
property
is
9.2
because
irving
didn't
like
something
he
got
back
in
march
and
decided
not
to
ask
this
question
again:
they've
had
this
entire
repeal
packet
in
front
of
them
for
seven
and
a
half
months
and
they've
done
nothing
about
it
and
and
and
just
to
say
well
we
don't
we
don't
trust
it.
We
don't
believe
it
again.
The
2019
number
was
1.6
there'd,
be
absolutely
no
questions.
They
didn't
mention
that
the
administrative
payroll
is
down
200
000,
some
of
the
other
numbers
are
all
down.
B
Utilities
are
down
forty
thousand
dollars.
Why
is
that?
Well,
it's
there.
The
numbers
are
there,
the
numbers.
Are
there
they're
promised
they're
certified
that
it's
the
whole
thing.
So
if
they
have
questions
asking,
but
don't
just
say
well,
you
wouldn't
answer.
So
why
bother
it's
like
me,
saying
I'm
not
going
to
answer
because
you're
not
going
to
change
it,
that's
not
how
it
works,
so
the
numbers
show
a
solid
reduction
should
be
given
here.
Thanks.
D
I
mean
I'll
start
on
the
easy
part.
I
think
I
would.
I
would
look
at
the
appellant's
pro
forma
for
commercial,
because
the
rent
rolls
there's
10
vacancy.
That's
existing,
that's
documented.
D
That
was
as
of
the
first
of
the
year,
and
I
would
say,
to
use
the
10
vacancy
would
probably
be
a
fair
assessment
of
the
retail.
D
On
on
on
column,
g,
commercial,
I
think
that
that
that
the
indicated
total
value
I
could
get
with
that
they're
using
the
right
cap
rate.
They've
just
changed
the
vacancy
to
10,
which
is
what
the
actual
vacancy
is
at
the
property
and
I
think
they
have
another
expiration
coming
in
21
and
it's
a
restaurant
and
who
knows
what
they're
going
to
do
so.
You
know,
I
think,
that's
fair.
D
I
mean
it's
a
it's
a
it's
a
change
of
about
500
000,
but
as
far
as
the
apartments
go
you
know,
I
I
think
it's
it
came
down
over
last
year.
I
don't
really
think
it
needs
to
come
down
much
more.
E
Greg
I'm
sympathetic
to
edging
this
noi
down
a
bit
and
evaluation
down
truly
because
that's
what
I
feel
and
but
I
always
got
to
have
a
number
that
makes
that's
dependable,
but
we
only
change
historically
for
sitting
here
increase
vacancy
rates
when
it's
a
long-term,
egregious
vacancy.
Do
we
abandon
the
guideline
and
go
to
something
higher,
bigger
and
thereby,
of
course,
reducing
the
noi.
E
D
E
F
Hey
good
morning,
well,
to
be
honest,
I
think
I'm
okay
with
the
revised
assessment.
The
way
it
is.
I
don't
think
this
is
new
for
the
appellants.
You
know
they've
been
instructed
many
times
to
provide
specified
information
on
the
expenses
and
it's
not
the
first
time
that
we're
seeing
this.
It's
not
the
first
time
that
we
are
dealing
with
this
issue
and
if
they
know
that
the
expenses,
especially
this
miscellaneous
stuff,
like
we
said
before
you
know
they
can
list
outside
repairs.
F
But
you
know
outside
repairs
could
mean
smaller
repairs
or
big
capital
expenditures,
and
I'm
also
with
the
opinion
that
you
know
if
we're
using
if
we're
doing
assessments
and
we
need
to
equalize
them,
we
need
to
make
sure
that
everybody's
treated
the
same.
I
think
we
should
keep
the
commercials
the
way
it
is.
I
don't
think
that,
like
you
know,
ken
is
mentioning
it's
not
something
that
is
going
to
be.
You
know
for
the
next
two
or
three
years
at
that
rate,
so
I'm
okay
with
the
assessment.
E
Thank
you
very
very
quickly.
On
the
expenses,
the
form
is
clear
and
I'm
sympathetic,
these
huge
land
owners
that
have
one
software
program
that
fills
out
tax
forms,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
what
I
I'm
convinced
that
what
the
county
is
asking
for.
You
know
you,
you
made
an
expense.
What
is
it
for
is
is
unreasonable
and
obviously
it's
pre-printed
excuse
me.
E
It's
provided
up
front
and
we
have
this
discussion
with
lots
of
big
landlords,
all
the
time
and
probably
small
landlords
too,
and
although
it's
a
good
courtesy
and
due
diligence
of
the
department
to
say
you
didn't
tell
us,
you
didn't
fill
out
all
these
sub
item
explanations.
Please
do
so
if
they
missed
one,
they
missed
one.
Nonetheless,
the
question's
there
and
it
seems
to
me
it's
on
the
the
the
land
of
the
property
owner
to
provide
reasonable
input
in
order
to
make
an
intelligent
assessment.
E
G
Well,
I
do
I
I'm
okay
with
the
revised
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
county
did
come,
not
32
percent,
but
they
did
come
down
on
their
number
a
little
bit
or
when
excuse
me
went
up
on
their
percentage.
I
was
more
curious
about
the
income,
but
I
don't
think
it's
that
far
off.
At
the
end
of
the
day,.
H
A
Opposed
okay,
it
is
five
to
one
without
mr
county's,
revised
assessment
of
166
million
758
800
is
confirmed
and
that's
before
any
of
the
exempt
property
portion
subtractions.
You
can
work
that
out.
B
B
All
right,
thank
you.
I
I
looking
at
this.
I
thought
this
was
good
news,
but
I
guess
maybe
it's
bad
news,
but
this
is
very
similar
to
the
last
case
where
we
submitted
it.
Information
there's
nothing
big
outstanding,
no
question.
This
is
a
different
ownership
group
and
instead
of
just
taking
calling
me
the
assessor
today
before
the
board
re,
calculated
column
up
and
said,
you
know,
you
included
65
000
too
much
so
we're
going
to
take
that
out.
B
The
numbers
are
there
of
column
e,
this
property,
so
to
understand
where
this
property
is,
while
the
last
one
sat
directly
across
on
the
metro
from
the
board,
this
property
sits
in
potomac
yards
we've
had
this
property
in
the
past,
the
property
faces
an
office
building
on
the
other
side
of
the
office.
Building
is
a
water
treatment
facility.
B
That's
not
metro
accessible,
it's
kind
of
next
to
it
as
a
development
site
and
you've
got
the
the
other
complex,
say:
that's
the
harris
teeter
in
the
past,
we
said:
look
the
incomes
hurt
by
this
there's
more
risk
and
they
say:
well,
you
bought
the
land
you
built
it
there
so
live
with
it,
but
they
bought
the
land
there
for
much
less
than
you
would
buy
the
land
somewhere
else
to
build
it.
So
it's
not
like
all
office.
All
apartment
buildings
once
built
are
worth
the
same
thing.
B
Yet
the
cap
rate's
the
same
as
if
it
was
the
property,
is
struggle
because
of
those
issues.
But
again
the
starting
recently
there's
been
a
lot
of
recreations
of
this
is
what
we
see.
We
don't
like
some
of
your
numbers.
We've
gone
through
the
appeal:
you
have
our
packet
there.
There
was
a
revision
done
by
the
assessor
that
gave
us
a
eighty
000
total
reduction
on
the
revised.
B
But
the
big
thing
with
this
property
is
it's
not
prime
location
for
arlington.
It's
actually
a,
I
think,
compared
to
arlington
it's
a
pretty
poor
location.
So
chris
asked
some
questions.
We
responded
to
them.
He
emailed
sue
so
who
responded.
We
appreciate
when
the
assessor
reaches
out
and
asks
questions
and
and
try
to
respond
when
we
can
and
typically
do.
It
makes
a
lot
harder
when
they
get
the
information
in
march.
B
Don't
ask
anything
and
then
come
beforehand
and
say
they
don't
believe
us,
so
there's
a
picture
of
the
property.
The
overhead,
I
think,
is
a
very
good
picture.
On
page
38
of
145
you'll
see
the
vacant.
Lots
to
the
north
to
the
east
is
the
parking
lot
for
the
airport,
but
that's
on
the
other
side
of
the
amtrak
tracks
in
the
metro
tracks
and
then
on
the
other
side.
Those
white
towers
and
those
things
you'll
see
is
the
arlington
waste
pollution
control
center.
B
This
is
the
one
for
you
and
I
think
that
the
numbers
are
showing
that
and
there
should
be
a
reduction
because
of
some
of
those
negative
factors
that
this
property
has,
that
none
of
the
other
properties
that
we're
talking
about-
or
I
think
that
the
board
is
seeing
in
front
of
them-
have
so
they're
running
as
officially
as
they
can.
B
But
the
numbers
are
there
and
you
see
it
and
I
think,
there's
an
added
risk
on
cap
rate
on
this
one
more
than
any
other
case
in
arlington
because
of
those
those
negative
factors,
and
that's
why
the
land
here
is
worth
less,
how
many
land
development
sites
in
arlington?
Do
you
have
that
just
sit
there
untouched
for
10
years?
It's
very
rare,
but
that's
because
there's
some
issues
with
this
land
site
and
those
should
be
those
should
be
counted
as
as
additional
risk
and
there
is
additional
risk
here.
B
So
ask
you
to
review
that
and
look
at
that,
and
let
me
know
if
you
have
any
questions.
I
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
mr
chitler,
my
name
is
ross,
so
we're
speaking
about
camden
potomac
yards,
we're
sure
that
board
members
are
aware
of
this,
as
mr
chet
looks
testified.
You've
seen
this
years,
I
think
last
three
or
four
years
at
least
we'll
start
with
the
land
issues
in
the
sense
that
it's
a
bit
disingenuous
showing
that
picture.
I
think
mr
chetlick
knows-
and
I
hope
the
board
is
aware-
this
property
has
been
heavily
developed.
I
This
site
has
been
heavily
developed
since
that
picture
has
been
taken,
there's
at
least
two
new
apartments.
The
clark
and
the
serb,
the
land
directly
north
of
that
is
already
as
part
of
a
phase
site
development
plan
and
again,
as
the
board
is
probably
aware,
just
south
of
this
is
where
the
new
virginia
tech
future
conference
center,
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
is
gonna,
be
so
I'd
say
it's
it's
actually
quite
well
located,
especially
again,
given
everything
that's
popped
up
around
it.
I
Lidl's
headquarters
is
across
the
street
from
it
they
bought
another
site
just
to
the
north
of
it.
Essentially,
every
land
that's
allocated
around
this
property
has
been
used
in
regards
to
the
property
itself.
As
we
saw
last
year,
this
property
increased
its
gross
potential
income
in
a
pandemic
year
and
that's
four
years
in
a
row
of
apartment
revenue
increases.
I
We
did
see
a
slight
uptick
in
vacancy
just
over
one
percent
increase,
but
again
very
much
stabilized
property,
less
than
five
percent
17,
just
over
five
percent
and
eighteen
and
under
four
percent
and
nineteen
again
stabilized
I'd.
Note
too
that
this
property,
if
you
look
at
operating
year,
17
18
19
expense,
is
very
well
stabilized.
I
As
mr
chitlik
noted
once
we
get
these
forms,
we
do
notice
an
increase
in
this
case
an
increase
of
86
percent
maintenance
repair
for
2020,
as
mr
chitlik
testified.
I
did
reach
out
to
ms
ross
asked
about
that
increase
of
over
500
000
in
hvac
repairs
and
was
told
that
this
was
for
a
line
item
of
electrical
and
ac
maintenance.
Just
over
460
000.
I
We
do
believe
that
that's
mostly
associated,
if
not
entirely,
associated
with
permits,
m21636,
which
is
the
replacement
and
installation
of
two
50
ton-
commercial
grade,
rooftop
units
for
heating
and
cooling.
Again
by
definition,
this
is
not
an
annual
repair.
This
is
not
a
something
that's
going
to
be
done
annually.
This
is
not
required
for
the
maintenance
of
that
issue
of
that
line,
but
actually,
with
the
replacement
of
and
again
that's
not
to
confuse
the
issue,
we
don't
feel
that
this
is
a
a
something
that
shouldn't
be
counted
per
se.
I
I
So
this
was
again
a
replacement
cost,
a
capital
expense,
as
we've
done
all
year,
as
we've
done
really
last
couple
years,
and
as
we've
talked
about
earlier
and
we'll
talk
about
in
coming
cases,
the
the
whole
point
of
getting
ines
is
to
be
able
to
discern
what
is
an
annual
operating
expense
and
what
may
be
a
a
non-allowable
operating
expense,
in
this
case,
a
capital
improvement.
I
We
do
believe
we
established
that,
as
you
can
see,
in
the
comments
field
and
in
column
f
of
the
summary
sheet,
we
did
reconstruct
that
with
stabilized
hvac
expenses
that
had
been
seen
in
years,
17,
18
and
19..
We
do
believe
that
was
prudent.
We
would
point
out
that
that
would
still
indicate
a
six
percent
increase
over
what
was
reported
for
the
subtotal
in
2019.
I
That
being
said,
the
resulting
net
outbreak
income
again
is
very
much
part
of
the
stabilized
effort.
As
you
can
see,
this
was
a
net
upper
income
increase
in
17,
18
and
19..
I
We
do
see
that
the
2020
drop
obviously
was
accounted
for
by
the
increase
slight
uptick
in
increase
in
vacancy
concessions
and
again
an
increase
in
operating
expenses.
We
just
asked
the
board
to
look
at
the
way
we
do
and
to
smooth
out
the
extraordinary
expense.
In
this
case
the
capital
improvement
of
almost
465
000.
For
again
a
two
ton
heating
and
cooling
rooftop
commercial
grade
tower.
So
that
being
said,
we
do
believe
our
revision.
I
Excuse
me
are,
in
this
case
it's
a
revision,
and
that
is
to
note
that
there
is
a
bid
rate
that
we
neglected
to
add
on
january
1.,
so
to
be
clear,
we're
using
the
term
revision
lightly
in
that
it's
again
a
difference
of
about
60,
000
or
so
excuse
me
yeah
just
about
but
again
we
want
to
highlight
and
be
make
sure
that
we
get
the
accurate
taxes
applied
to
this
property.
I
So,
given
the
fact
that
again,
looking
at
the
property,
if
you
look
at
what
the
county
put
out
for
the
year
21
excuse
me,
2021
assessment
you'll
see
that
we
underprojected
income
by
over
400
thousand
dollars.
We
underprojected
effective
gross
by
almost
300
000
and
again,
if
you
use
our
reconstructed
expenses,
we
did
under
project
by
almost
140
000,
but
that's
still
led
to
projecting
that's
much
in
line
with,
what's
been
achieved
at
the
property
and
almost
150
000
less
than
what
was
achieved.
I
If
you
use
column
f,
if
you
have
any
questions,
please
do
ask,
but
again
to
be
clear.
We
do
recommend
that
you
in
this
case
confirm
the
revision
of
135
586
100..
Thank
you.
We're
available
for
questions.
A
G
Often
on
properties
that
have
heavy
road
traffic,
other
things
that
do
impact
that
specific
location's
value
different
than
other
similar
properties,
with
the
railroad
lines,
the
in
other,
you
know
the
sewage
treatment.
Would
that
not
fall
into
that
kind
of
thought?
I
We
would
argue
different
industries
and
again,
if
you
look
at
the
income
line,
you'll
see
that
the
property
is
having
trouble
in
achieving
its
income.
In
fact,
it's
increased
it
year
over
year
over
year
over
year,
it's
stabilized,
so
you
would
think
that
there
would
be
an
impact
on
the
market
rents
it's
getting
or
on
its
occupancy
occupancy
stable,
if
not
dropping
short
of
last
year
and
again
apartment
income
has
increased
year
every
year
over
year
every
year.
G
I'm
sorry
would
the
thought
is
that
yes,
the
income's
there
but-
and
it
is
increasing-
I
agree
with
that.
Could
it
have
been
higher
if
it
had
a
different
location
and
that's
the
impact
of
the
percentage.
I
Yes,
sir,
I
think
we'll
know
better
and
I
don't
want
to
sound
as
if
that
we're
putting
it
off
to
another
year,
but
I
think
we'll
know
better
now
that
we
have
two
other
apartments
located
literally
adjacent
to
it.
We
have
the
clark
and
the
sur.
So
now
we
have
three
apartments,
some
900
units
or
more
that
we
can
actually
look
to
see.
Is
there
in
fact
a
impact
from
the
either
the
vre
or
the
water
treatment
plant?
Again,
it's
a
business
decision.
I
I
So
it's
tough
to
say
if
the
location
for
on
route,
one
is
a
benefit
or
location.
Next
to
the
water
treatment
of
vre
is
a
deficit.
C
And
just
to
add
a
little
bit,
we
will
also
have
to
see.
Is
it
the
proximity
to
the
metro
that
has
a
bigger
impact
on
the
property,
because,
right
now,
this
property
does
not
have
a
metro
cap
rate.
It
has
outside
metro
cap
rate.
So
when
we
look
at
the
sales
it
would
be,
is
it
lower
in
value
because
it's
not
close
to
the
metro
or
is
the
area
affected
by
the
water
treatment
plant?
C
We
haven't
had
many
cells
near
the
water
treatment
plant,
four
apartments,
because
for
a
while
this
has
been
the
only
apartment.
Next
to
it
has
been
the
condo
building,
but
we
do
have
two
new
apartment
buildings
in
the
area
and
we
can
have
more
data
based
on
that,
based
on
those
probably
being
built.
B
E
Yeah,
I
have
a
question
for
the
department.
I
want
to
avoid
all
this
water
treatment
stuff
I
mean
the
numbers:
are
the
numbers
that
it's
stable?
E
Maybe
if
they
built
it
closer
to
the
metro,
crystal
city,
metro,
stuff,
they'd
be
getting
bigger
numbers,
but
these
are
consistent
and-
and
I
think
they
wash
out
so
my
question
is
about
operating
expenses,
understanding
about
the
half,
a
million
dollars
that
appear
to
be
capital
improvements,
because
you
know
enough
to
make
that
determination
safely.
E
I
was
wondering
why,
in
your
revision,
you
edged
well
and
not
only
religion,
but
probably
from
the
average
of
the
last
several
years,
forgetting
about
the
half.
A
million
dollars,
you've
edged
down
a
bit
in
your
operating
expenses
down
to
2.1,
and
we
don't
have
any
constituent
numbers
here
in
g1.
Could
you
spend
a
couple
of
seconds
on
why
that
edge
down
in
your
revision,
yeah.
I
I
No
mr
miskin
yeah,
I
probably
complicated
things.
My
revision
is
actually
literally
the
same.
It's
just
the
addition
of
the
bid
column,
the
bid
tax,
so
there
was
no
revision
made
the
only
quoting.
I
So
column
f
is
a
reconstruction
of
2020,
but
the
quote-unquote
revision
that
I
made
is
the
is
the
same
2020
projection.
We
did
generate
one
it's
just
with
the
addition
of
the
bid
tax
yeah.
So
there
we
didn't
adjust
the
the
the
operating
expense
as
well.
In
fact,
what
I
was
saying
was
in
my
wrap
up
was,
if
you
it's
one
of
these
classic
things,
if
we
were
to
adjust
the
operating
expense
up
a
bit
we'd
ask
you
to
look
and
see
how
low
we
are
in
our
income
projection.
I
D
Yeah,
just
real
quick
for
the
appellate
it,
the
rent
roll,
shows
commonwealth
medical
center
expiring
january.
Did
they
move
out
at
the
end
of
the
year
or
are
you
aware
they
actually
still
in
the
building
or
did
they
move
out.
B
I
don't
know,
let
me
look,
I
believe
they
are
there.
They
are
still
there.
Okay,
yeah,
that
was
a
yeah.
That's
the
medical
space,
the
space
next
to
it
has
been
vacant
for
20
years,
but
yeah
they're.
Still,
there.
C
I
Yes,
ma'am
again,
we've
seen
this
property
before
we've
seen
increases
on
the
income
four
years
in
a
row.
Again
we
acknowledge
a
uptick
in
vacancy
and
concession,
but
again
year,
17
through
19
showed
at
the
stabilized
property
again
very
stabilized
operating
expenses.
17
through
19
2020
saw
a
23
percent
uptick.
I
We
were
able
to
isolate
that
as
a
near
460,
000
dollar
one-time
capital
improvement
for
cooling
and
heating
towers
at
commercial
grade.
We
did
reconstruct
those
out.
We
do
believe
that
our
revision
again
in
this
case
of
adding
in
the
bid
rates,
equate
to
a
value
of
135
million
586
100..
Thank
you.
B
Sure,
looking
at
this
on
the
common
sense
side
of
this
krista,
the
income's
up
the
income's
down
the
noise
down,
it
was
seven
seven
reported
with
seven
two.
Even
he
recreated
at
seven
six
then
comes
down.
There's
the
pandemic,
the
values
up:
five
million
dollars.
The
assessment
is
up
five
million
dollars.
The
assessment
was
21.9
million
in
18
24
million
in
19,
130
million
in
2020,
and
now
it's
up
to
135.5
million
dollars.
B
It's
up
five
million
dollars
from
last
year
with
the
noi
down
and
we're
in
a
pandemic,
his
expenses
that
he's
now
using.
I
know
he
said
well
my
revision.
I
didn't
actually
revise
it.
His
expenses
that
he's
using
are
lower
than
what
he
recreated
they're
lower
than
that
they
were
in
2019
they're.
Just
he's
he's
missed
the
mark
on
this
and
the
results
again.
Looking
at
on
a
common
sense
picture.
Is
this
property
worth
five
million
dollars
more
than
it
was
last
year
in
a
non-pandemic
year
with
the
ny
down?
B
The
answer
is
no,
but
when
we
add
on
the
pandemic
most
cases
we're
seeing
properties
have
been
reassessed
less
for
some
reason,
this
one's
higher,
the
other
factor
is
he
mentioned.
Well,
you
got
two
new
buildings.
Well,
that
means
there's
900
new
nicer
units
that
are
direct
competition
for
anybody.
That's,
like
you
know,
my
market,
where
I
want
to
live,
is
close
to
a
water
treatment
facility.
This
is
my
only
option.
Well
now
you
have
other
options
apparently,
and
those
options
are
going
to
be
nicer.
It
just
common
sense
side
of
this
shows.
E
First
thing
you
always
do
when
you
look
at
these
cases
is
to
see
what
the
department's
recommendation
is
needs
to
be
the
for
assessment.
These
would
be
last
year's
assessment,
and
I
think
this
is
the
first
apartment
building
I've
seen
where
there
was
an
increase-
and
I
said
well
clearly,
there's
by
definition
something
wrong,
because
not
so
water
treatment
plants
but
pandemic
and
people
living
in
basements
and
not
in
high-rise
apartments.
E
But
and
so
we
have
asked
questions
about
the
the
income
vis-a-vis,
the
operating
expenses-
and
this
is
really
is
an
incredibly
stabilized
property
and-
and
I'm
really
reiterating
really
quickly
that
the
externalities
around
that
building,
just
don't
count.
The
the
rents
are
the
rents
and
people
are
banging
them.
E
If
they
were
farther
north,
maybe
they'd
be
higher,
maybe
the
vacancy
rate
would
be
lower,
but
this
is
consistent
with
itself,
which
is
all
we're
worried
about,
and
the
final
thing
that
mr
chica
said
in
his
wrap-up
was
that
it
was
that
the
estimate
of
income
was
a
bit
low
and
admitted
that
the
estimate
of
the
operating
expenses
was
also
low.
We've
seen
this
many
times
they
tend
to
cancel
each
other
out.
So
surprisingly,
a
in
almost
a
three
percent
increase
in
this
one
case
seems
to
make
sense.
D
Yeah
I
mean
I
was
just
gonna
point
out
that
we've
seen
a
bunch
of
other
cases
that
are
a
little
bit
further
north
and
a
little
bit
further
away
from
the
water
treatment
facility
and
and
and
those
are
kind
of
in
the
mid
400s
per
unit
for
for
you
know
something
that's
20
after
the
2000's
construction.
So
there
is
already
a
pretty
significant
discount,
almost
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
unit
to
the
to
the
assessment
here.
G
F
I'm
okay
with
it
yeah
I
looked
originally
I'm
sorry.
I
looked
at
the
expenses,
but
you
know
doing
an
average
and
doing
giving
some
credit
for
that
extra
half
a
million
dollars
not
for
the
full
amount.
I
thought.
Maybe
the
expenses
should
be
increased
but,
like
ken
said
you
know,
I
think
the
income
itself.
F
A
A
A
H
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
Shawnee
apartments
is
mid-rise
apartment.
Like
you
said,
it's
700
south
courthouse
road.
It's
in
the
penrose
area
of
arlington
contains
85
units
and
it
was
built
in
1961..
H
H
We
use
the
actual
income
generated
by
the
property,
which
is
the
gross
potential
income
of
1.7
million
with
other
income
at
95
359.,
the
vacancy
and
collection
loss
of
the
property
is
reported
on
the
ine
survey
was
11,
I
mean
nine
nine
point.
Seven
percent
or
174
thousand
the
actual
expenses
were
it's
924
341.
H
the
subject
had
some
additional
expenses.
Understandably,
because
it's
a
60
year
old
building,
several
units
required
flooring,
repairs
and
countertop
glazing
in
order
them
to
get
them
ready
to
be
rented.
This
all
generates
an
noi
of
seven
hundred
and
eleven
thousand
three
forty
four,
which
is
the
actual
noi
provided
on
the
calendar
year.
Twenty
twenty
twenty
twenty
ine
survey,
the
counties
overstayed
at
the
noi
at
nine
hundred.
H
B
Sorry
I
put
myself
on
mute,
so
I
wouldn't
interrupt
the
the
county
said.
We
don't
believe
all
your
expenses,
so
they
took
them
out
again
and
said
your
actual
ny
is
878
thousand
but
then
tested
it
to
990
000..
So
the
reported
is
711
000.
I
believe
they
asked
the
questions
got
everything
they
needed
on
this
one
learned.
It
was
actually
878
and
now
we're
saying,
but
we're
going
to
call
it
990.
B
the
numbers
that
they
are
just
like.
I
mean
I've,
been
told
in
the
last
two
cases.
The
numbers
are
there.
We
got
to
use
them,
but
the
numbers
are
there
in
this
case
and
it's
pretty
glaring
and
the
assessor
has
ignored
them.
So
we
think
that
the
actuals
are
the
best,
and
I
I
understand
the
cap
rate
struggles
here,
so
the
the
711
344
is
really
what
should
be
used
as
the
noi
when
you're
going
through
your
your
analysis,.
I
So
this
was
not
one
of
those
where
we
asked
questions
and
got
everything
we
needed.
If
you
look
at
page
17
of
74
really
this
came
down
to
229,
000
of
decorating
and
or
turnover
that
was
listed.
I
I
do
give
mr
ross
credit
for
the
initial
questions
asked
that
we
did
get
responses,
but
again
on
page
17
within
about
an
hour
and
a
half
of
receiving
a
response
on
monday
september.
20Th
we
responded
back.
Can
you
please
ask
ownership
to
detail
how
229
000
was
spent
in
2020
on
turnover
and
did
not
hear
back
that
led
us
to
believe
that
everything
was
essentially
put
at
turnover,
which
would
equate
to
some
2700
a
unit,
and
this
is
kind
of
the
problem
with
trying
to
extrapolate
without
getting
information
back.
I
I
I
You
can
see
in
column,
17,
it's
what's
called
a
reconstruct
from
budget
comparison,
income
statement,
nothing
for
18
county
issued,
I
need
for
19
and
a
county
issued.
I
need
for
2020..
I
I
Effective
gross
increased
by
over
a
hundred
thousand
and
operating
expenses
were
very
stabilized
again
only
two
years,
but
that's
the
information
we
have.
We
received
2020,
and
we
saw
as
we've
seen
with
a
couple
of
these
cases,
large
increases
across
the
board.
There
were
drop-offs
in
revenue
to
be
sure
apartment
revenues
down
gross
potential
is
down.
I
Again,
obviously,
that
would
have
dropped
caused
a
drop
in
effective
gross
when
put
in
conjunction
with
a
drop
in
income,
but
it
was
again
these
expenses
that
290
percent
increase
in
maintenance
repair,
as
reported
compared
to
historical
reporting
that
sent
up
a
a
yellow
flag.
If
you
will
our
flag,
we
asked
about
it
again.
We
know
that
that
include
that
229
thousand
decorating,
we
just
would
have
preferred
a
little
bit
more
background
into
how
that
was
spent,
as
has
been
testified
by
the
balance.
I
This
property
is
listed
as
1961
effective
age,
but
I
would
ask
the
board,
if
you're
not
familiar
either
with
their
website
shawnee
apartments.com
or
a
co-star
when
you
look
at
the
apartments
that
are
being
presented,
and
I
get
that
there's
very
good
chance.
These
are-
are
either
model
units
or
show
units.
What
not,
but
these
are
clearly
not
1961
apartments
that
they're
advertising,
quartz
or
corian
counter
tops,
looks
like
42-inch,
cabinetry,
subway,
tile,
obviously
updated
appliances
again
that
betrays
a
effect
of
the
year
effective
age
of
almost
61
years.
I
So
let's
find
that
the
property
is
being
updated.
We
expect
that
to
keep
up
with
the
joneses
so
to
speak
or
with
market
averages,
but
we
just
want
to
know
what's
going
on
at
the
property.
I
might
ask
mr
bailey
irvin
to
speak
a
little
bit
about
it,
but
I
believe
this
is
a
property
that
is
owned
by
the
carruthers
that
are
doing
some
value
adds
across
the
county.
I
They
have
a
potomac
tower
property
that
is
currently
in
rehabilitation
for
tax
exemption
credits
from
the
county,
and
I
believe
this
is
another
property
that
they
actually
asked
us
ahead
of
time.
If
this
was
something
that
they
felt
was
something
that
would
be
beneficial
to
them
again.
This
is
a
almost
a
pure
value
at
play
in
that
this
is
something
with
shared
laundry
facilities,
a
very
small
facility
for
fitness
and
again
fairly
bare
bones
apartments.
I
C
I
think
you
touched
on
all
the
points
and
you
definitely
highlighted
that
these
units
have
been
updated,
or
at
least
the
ones
they
advertised.
I
think
this
property,
when
we
did
inspect
it
during
the
time
period,
had
parquet
floors,
as
you
can
see
what
they
advertise
now
and
that
is
not
parquet
floors.
To
give
a
little
bit
of
information
about
the
2018
ine,
there
was
a
partial
interest
sale
of
this
property
in
2018.
C
I
Just
briefly
start
interrupting
sir,
just
briefly
touch
on
again
in
our
reconstruction
you'll
see
that
we
did
in
fact
increase
our
projections
for
total
operating
income.
Excuse
me,
total
operating
expenses
well
ahead
of
what
was
reported
in
17
and
19,
but
again
more
in
line
with
the
reconstruction
that
we
added
for
column
f.
We
do
believe
again
that
the
resultant
noi
is
very
much
in
line
with
what
was
reported
for
17
and
19
and
again.
I
2020
is
much
more
reflection
of
the
increase
in
vacancy
the
slight
downturn
in
apartment
revenues
and,
again
large,
almost
35
percent
increase
in
total
operating
expenses,
given
that
it
even
by
the
owner's
own
residential
rent
roll,
this
property
will
be
99
occupied
as
of
january
16th
of
this
year.
So
it
basically
shows
you
that
the
stabilized
nature
of
the
property
is
much.
In
fact,
the
9.6
percent
proposed
by
the
penalties
is
higher
than
what
had
been
achieved
historically
and
definitely
higher
than
what
the
rent
roll
would
suggest.
I
I
I
No
ma'am
just
we
asked
the
board
members
to
take
in
part
the
reconstruction
we
did
the
questions.
We
asked
the
questions
that
weren't
answered
and
again
look
at
the
history
that
we've
been
provided.
We
do
believe
that
supports
a
revision
value
of
sixteen
million
five
hundred
twelve
thousand
two
hundred.
Thank
you.
H
Mr
ross,
I
would
just
like
to
mention
when
chris
I
do.
You
know,
when
chris
asks
additional
information
I
reach
out
to
the
client.
I
don't
even
have
a
chance
to
get
responses
back,
and
I
already
got
a
letter
that
they're
not
changing
it.
The
appeals
have
been
in
since
march
if
they
had
questions
some
clients.
Just
don't
answer
that
quickly.
H
B
And
I
mean,
even
if
you
recreate
it,
what
I
didn't
understand
from
anything
chris
said
now:
we
talked
about
how
basically
poor
the
property
was
and
how
this
owner
fixes
other
properties.
I
don't
know
how
that's
relevant,
but
even
if
you
use
that
his
column
f
is
an
noi
of
878
000
and
he's
using
990
000.,
we
have
no
idea
where
the
990
comes
from
again
appeals.
B
B
B
G
You
know
I'm
I'm
fine
with
the
counties
just
looking
at
the
noi.
Historically
as
it
progresses,
even
the
990,
it
is
declining,
but
it's
a
reasonable
decline
as
the
property
value
or
the
revenue.
E
I
this
is
an
incredibly
stabilized
property
and
the
assessments
down
regardless
assessments
down
about
ten
percent,
which
is
a
little
surprising,
the
opposite
of
what
I
saw
the
last
case
where
it
was
stable.
It
went
up
a
couple
of
points
I
I
take
seriously,
though
the
the
operating
expenses
should
be
higher
because
the
appellant
said
that
we
had
an
unusual
amount
of
turnouts
and
we'd
spend
a
quarter
million
dollars
and
turn
turnovers.
E
I'm
sorry
and
spend
a
quarter
million
dollars
doing
the
normal
stuff
that
we
just
have
to
do
after
people
live
there
for
a
while,
and
so
I
struggled
with
well
okay,
maybe
we
should.
I
don't
know
if
we
should
take
off
increased
suffering
expenses,
the
whole
228
000,
but
some
some
reasonable
percentage
of
that.
Because
I
mean
to
me
it's
clear:
it's
turned
over
it's
painting,
it's
decorating.
E
I
mean
this
is
normal
apartment
owner
behavior
in
order
to
keep
the
place
occupied,
but
then
what
I
find
is
it
goes
down
a
very
stabilized
property,
maybe
15.
E
That
seems
like
a
big
number
for
a
property
that
is
apparently
very
because
of
its
placement
in
the
housing
market.
Very
insulated
from
and
people
you
know,
moving
to
to
single
family
basements,
so
I
I
because
I'm
confused,
I
gotta
end
up
even
with
good
quality
arguments
on
both
sides.
Staying
where
we
are,
you
mean
the
amount.
I
guess.
Okay,.
G
E
Well,
17
17
2017
through
19
sure
it's
gone
up,
but
they
had
and
they
had
this
lump
sum
in
2020.
Apparently
unusual
amount
of
move
outs.
That's
why
I
didn't
think
you
know
we
should
add
on
the
whole
entire
move
out
decorating
package.
That's
why
I
said
vaguely
you
know:
half
I
don't
know
hundred
thousand
dollars,
because
this
is
an
older
property.
I
forgot
one
thing,
however,
and
I
think
this
is
what
made
my
mind.
The
cap
rate
is
a
gift
to
the
owner.
There's
no
way
in
the
world.
E
This
place
is
unimproved
forgetting
about
countertops,
but
mechanical
systems,
big
heavy
duty,
capital
items
as
well
as
the
common
area.
It
is
not
1961
building,
and
so
the
cap
rate
is
clearly
not
what
it
what
it
ought
to
be,
and
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
if
department
personnel
went
there
and
took
a
long
look
at
the
building
this
coming
year.
F
Yeah,
actually,
I
was
gonna
make
the
comment
which
ken
just
touched
in
his
last
comment.
Yeah,
I
looked
at
the
expenses
too,
but
I
think
this
building
is
really
getting
a
big
benefit
with
the
cap
rate.
I
just
you
know
I've
been
in
the
building.
This
is
not
a
1961,
effective
age.
F
The
lobbies
are,
you
know
you
walk
in
and
there
you
look,
they
renovated
as
well
as
the
apartments
there.
So
I'm
you
know,
I'm
just
convinced
that
maybe
the
county
should
take
another
look
or
do
another
inspection
and
revise
the
effective
age,
because
I
you
know
if,
if
that
was
increased,
I
know
the
cap
rate
would
be
much
lower.
So
I'm
okay
with
it.
A
Okay,
all
right
well
with
no
further
discussion.
Then
I'm
going
to
move
to
accept
the
county's
revised
number
of
16
million
512
200..
Do
I
have
a
second
okay
emotion
in
a
second
by
mr
hoffman,
all
in
favor
aye
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous
the
county's
revised
number
of
sixteen
million
five
twelve
two
hundred
has
been
confirmed.
A
I've
been
asked
to
take
a
break,
so
it's
1006..
So
if
we
come
back
about
10
11,
we
will
resume
and
do
the
final
two
cases.
I
would
just
ask
that
you
turn
off
your
microphones
and
your
cameras
during
the
break.
Thank
you.
A
A
Do
we
have
mr
chicas
back,
I
think
we've
got
yep.
We've
got
everybody
back.
Okay,
all
right!
Moving
along
to
the
fourth
case
on
the
agenda
economic
unit,
two
three
zero:
four
one:
zero!
Four,
a
at
nine
fifty
two
george
mason
drive
miss
ross.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
Please,
okay,.
H
This
is
this:
property
is
called
centro
arlington,
it's
a
six-story,
mixed-use
mid-rise
apartment
has
366
units
and
71
605
square
feet
commercial
space.
It
was
built
in
2009,
I
mean
2019.
H
H
This
property
had
unfortunate
circumstances
of
of
trying
to
lease
up
during
covid
the
leasing
began
in
september
2019..
H
H
For
the
expenses
we
use
the
arlington
county
guidelines
of
7864
unit.
Initially
we
had
increased
the
cap
rate
by
28
basis
points.
However,
we
we,
if
you
utilize
the
same
cap
rate,
that
the
counties
use
in
a
5.4.
It
develops
a
value
of
109
million
349
620
for
the
apartments.
H
I
did
want
to
note
that
the
actual
noi
for
the
apartments
was
four
million
one.
Two
two
sixty
in
which
was
reported
on
the
2020
survey.
Our
act.
Our
actual
analysis,
is
utilizing
a
higher
noi
of
5.7
million
for
the
commercial
space.
We
again
use
the
rent
roll
with
the
vacant
space
being
grossed
up
at
32,
a
square
foot
which
gives
us
a
gross
potential
of
1.9
million.
The
property
is
still
11
vacant
on
our
766
square
feet,
7
660
square
feet
still
vacant,
so
we
use
the
vacancy
rate
of
11.
H
We
utilize
the
same
expense
rate
and
cap
rate
as
the
county,
which
would
be
a
13
expenses
and
7
cap
rate,
which
would
bring
the
noi
for
this
commercial
space
to
1.1
million,
and
you
can
see
that
the
we
are
actually
I'm
sorry
we're
using
1.9,
but
the
actual
commercial
space
that
was
reported
was
1.1,
so
we're
actually
under
the
reported
noi,
both
on
the
apartment
side
and
on
the
commercial
side.
H
H
The
owners
have
indicated
that
they
again
are
offering
two
months
free
rent
through
the
end
of
2021
and
even
into
2022.
If
they
don't
lease
the
units
due
to
the
virus,
they
were
receiving
minimal
applications,
so
they
were.
They
indicated
that
they
may
have
to
provide
other
types
of
incentives
to
lease
the
space.
H
Considering
all
the
information
we
require,
we
provide
it
we're
requesting
for
a
change
to
the
value
of
129
million
eight
hundred
and
eighty
four
thousand
fifty
jeremy
did.
You
have
anything
bad.
B
B
If
it
still
needs
lease
up
on
that
date,
any
buyer
is
still
going
to
consider
it
and
there
are
situations
where
they
have
given
more
more
than
one
year.
400
army
navy
comes
to
mind
where
they
were
struggling
to
lease
it
up
and
the
board
granted
a
second
year
of
it.
B
You
say:
well,
we
can't
give
you
a
lease
up
deduction
this
year
because
you
got
one
last
year.
Yet
the
property
still
requires
lease
up.
So
a
lease
of
deductions
should
be
given.
The
most
telling
thing
is.
The
assessment
would
essentially
stay
exactly
the
same
if
this
building
becomes
fully
leased,
which
is
not
appropriate.
B
There's
added
cost,
there's
added
risk.
There's
added
everything
involved
in
order
to
get
from
where
it
is
today
to
column,
f,
really
column
b,
but
also
column,
f,
column.
F
is
really
a
best
case
situation.
If
everything
hits
like
it
would
and
we're
two
years
away
from
that.
So
when
we
come
into
cases
with
you
well
before
today,
when
we
come
into
cases
in
front
of
you
and
say,
hey
look
the
income's
down.
B
It's
often
well
give
us
we
need
two
years
of
it.
We
need
three
years
of
it
to
see
it.
Well,
how
could
we
possibly
be
assessed
as
if
this
property
is
fully
finished,
fully
stabilized,
fully
thriving
when
we
haven't
seen
it
yet
that's
what
the
lease
of
cost
deductions
for
and
that's
what
some
of
these
changes
that
the
assessor
hasn't
made?
That
needs
to
be
made.
B
That's
where
it
should
happen.
So
they've
made
some
adjustments
on
the
retail
side,
but
the
apartment
still
again
go.
I
know
you
went
to
the
website
last
one
check
it
out,
you
could
you
get
units
for
less
than
they're
asking
for
and
you
can
get
some
concessions
to
take
them.
B
I
Yes
ma'am
so
again,
this
is
one
where
we
reached
out
to
the
palance
to
ask
for
more
information
and,
unfortunately,
did
not
hear
back
at
least
not
to
effectuate
a
change
beyond
what
we
projected.
If
we're
looking
at
the
summary
sheet,
you'll
see
what
looks
strange
in
columns,
e1
and
e2,
and
that's
because
we
received
a
statement
of
income
now,
unlike
the
other
cases,
we're
here
today.
If
you
look
at
page.
I
26
of
152
you'll
see
that
I
actually
reached
out
to
the
appellants
on
march
16th
march
16th
some
six
months
ago
or
more,
and
I
said
well,
the
owners
intend
to
submit
county
ine
forms
for
the
retail
residential
components
quote
unquote.
All
I
found
in
your
pocket
was
packet
was
a
consolidated
statement
of
income,
so
I
wanted
to
be
sure
that
the
owner
preferred
our
trying
to
reconstruct
their
income
statement
numbers
into
our
forms
on
their
behalf,
didn't
hear
back,
and
then
I
responded
back
on
september
15th.
I
So
again,
some
six
months
later
essentially
saying
the
same
thing.
I'm
working
on
your
cases
that
it
came
across
this
from
the
spring.
Were
you
able
to
get
ins
from
the
owners,
or
should
I
just
reconstruct
reconstruct
what
you
gave
me
and
again
didn't
hear
back
so,
rather
than
even
reconstruct,
we
just
literally
put
in
what
you
see
in
columns,
e1
and
e2,
and
it's
strange.
It
indicates
no
vacancy
and
concessions,
no
collection
loss,
no
rent
loss.
I
It
indicates
expenses
that
don't
seem
to
line
up
to
anything.
It's
it
wasn't
very
illuminating
to
say
the
least.
It
makes
sense,
then,
that
neither
the
appellants
nor
us
used
it
in
our
reconstructions.
I
We
went
the
extra
step
of
actually
using
the
residential
rent
roll
supplied
and
went
through
all
366
units
to
recreate
what
you
see
in
columns,
f1
and
f2.
So
we
went
through
the
retail
rent
roll.
We
went
through
the
residential
rent
roll.
This
is
essentially
projection,
based
on
fact,
these
aren't
even
necessary
projections.
The
only
thing
that
we
didn't
have
quote
unquote
evidence
for
was
the
parking
which
we
projected,
but
at
a
very
reasonable
75
dollars
a
spot,
a
space
very
much.
I
It's
not
what
we
see.
We
see
that
less
than
half
that
and
dropping
we
see
no
concessions
being
offered
on
the
website.
We
see
less
than
one
percent
being
offered
as
a
total.
I
We
see
rent
increases
double
digits,
given
that
we
both
agree
that
we're
going
to
use
guideline
operating
expenses,
given
that
the
county
has
taken
the
time
to
actually
use
owner-supplied,
residential
and
retail
rent
roles
to
use
our
revision
projections,
given
that
we
stabilized
that
at
six
percent
per
guideline,
four
percent
for
the
retail
components
and
given
that
we
use
guideline
cap
rates
that
are
applicable
each
component.
So
we
do
believe
that
our
revision
at
147
million
723
700
is
prudent
and
fair
and
it
does
show
a
10
increase.
I
But
again,
this
is
a
property,
that's
essentially
in
its
second
or
third
year
of
ascendancy
of
growth,
which
we
would
see
if
we
actually
had
applicable
operating
statements
or
something
that
we
could
parse
and
make
sense
of.
Given
that
we
reached
out
twice
and
didn't
hear
back
from
the
owner's
representatives,
we
do
believe
that
this
revision
should
be
confirmed
at
147
million,
seven
hundred
twenty
three
thousand
seven
hundred
irving.
Anything
you
wanna
add.
C
No,
I
mean
I,
I
will
say
that
the
appellate
what
he
said
was
truthful.
We
have
taken
consideration
below
the
line.
Deductions
in
the
second
year,
other
properties,
lease
up.
We
tend
to
be
able
to
drive
that
deduction
based
off
the
income,
expense
form.
As
chris
stated,
if
you
look
at
the
information
provided
in
the
packet,
it
was
consolidated,
income
and
expense
questionnaire
income
statement.
C
They
didn't
even
really
break
out
the
components
of
the
expenses
too
much,
so
we
didn't
use
that
form.
We
just
made
the
best
projection
that
we
could
based
off
of
what
we
had
and
just
understanding
the
market
and
that's
the
best
we
can
do
in
these
situations
when
the
information
isn't
that
good.
A
H
B
A
I
No
ma'am
just
again
recognize
the
due
diligence
we
gave.
We
worked
through
the
residential
and
retail
rent
rolls.
We
believe
this
projection
is
accurate.
Other
than
that
we
use
kiting
guidelines
for
the
lack
of
information
we
didn't
have.
So
we
do
believe
the
revision
should
be
confirmed.
147
million
723.7.
Thank
you.
A
H
Okay,
just
that
the
the
company
is
a
whole
was
purchased
from
another
company
mid-year,
so
it
was
very
difficult
to
get
the
old
owner's
information
by
from
the
new
owners.
I
did
attempt
to
several
times.
It
wasn't
as
if
I
was
ignoring
chris's
request.
Also
as
of
january
1.
The
vacancy
was
17
that
may
have
changed
now
and
perhaps
the
new
owners
don't
have
on
their
website
that
they're
offering
concessions,
but
that's
what
I
was
told
that
they
were
offering
two
months
free,
rent.
B
And
when
a
property
is
that
vacant
to
use
four
percent
retail
and
just
for
retail
and
just
assume,
you
know
what
retail
is
going
to
come
back
and
four
percent
vacancy
for
property-
that's
17
percent
and
still
has
vacancy
issues
today.
It's
just
not
realistic,
pre-covered
postcode,
whatever,
but
a
a
post,
coveted
retail
vacancy
of
four
percent
when
it's
actually
17
really
needs
to
be
considered
somewhere
and
it's
not
being
considered
at
all
in
the
in
column.
E
Ask
the
last
thing
the
appellant
said:
threw
me
a
little
bit
for
a
loop.
I
was
understanding
that
the
apartments
were
17
day.
Evaluation
were
17
bacon,
but
I
heard
the
the
opponent
saying:
no,
it's
the
retail
that's
17
vacant
and
I
think
there
is.
There
is
one
space
there.
A
couple
thousand
square
feet,
that's
vacant,
but
I
don't.
I
don't,
and
it's
never
been
occupied.
E
So
now
I'm
a
little
bit
confused,
but
when
it
gets
to
the
ownership
went
over
and
you
know
we
get
a
lot
of
recriminations,
sometimes
that
we
don't
get
the
proper
data.
Well
I
mean
they
did,
they
got
what
they
got
and
the
department
had
the
educated
projections
on
and
what's
what?
But
so
I
I
you
know,
the
company
sold
the
building
sold.
You
know
the
date.
Is
there
or
it's
not.
So
I
I
ignore
that,
but
I
don't
ignore.
E
I
don't,
but
I'm
mystified
on
this
vacancy,
because
I
was
tending
to
think
that
we
ought
to
be
some
a
little
bit
of
a
a
bottom
line
deduction,
because
this
is
a
new
building
leasing
up
slowly
for
whatever
reason.
But
I
don't
know
what
the
17
percent
is.
If
it's
retail,
it's
no
big
deal,
but
there's
no
questions
and
answers
here.
So
we're
not
going
to
find
that
out.
So.
G
I
run
very
much
along
line
again,
I
thought
about
the
below
the
line,
but
the
fact
that
there,
I
think
the
county
did
a
good
job,
creating
the
numbers
based
on
what
they
were
given
and
hopefully
with
the
new
ownership.
They'll
provide
the
information
next
year
and
the
county
can
do
a
better
job.
Even
but
I'm
I'm
fine
with
revised.
F
Yeah,
I'm
okay,
with
the
revised
assessment
as
well.
I
haven't
seen
anything
that
the
management
is
offering
incentives.
The
only
incentive
that
I
knew
that
it
would
do
often
is
the
moving
fees
that
they
were
not
charging
and
they
were
also
offering
the
residents
to
give
them
a
credit.
I
think
50
or
something
to
bring
other
residents
to
the
building.
But
you
know
this
if
they're
offering
free
rent
again,
because
I
know
they
did
at
the
beginning,
then
you
know
that's
something
new,
but
I'm.
Okay,
with
the
revised
assistant.
A
Okay
motion
in
a
second
by
mr
gates,
all
in
favor,
I
opposed
okay,
the
assessment's
reduced
to
the
county's,
revised
number
of
147
million,
seven.
Twenty
three
seven
hundred.
A
B
Okay
sure
so.
B
So,
as
you
see
the
page,
three
here
is
a
little
bit
different
than
usual.
Again,
we've
got
a
situation
where
the
assessor
has
said.
You
know
what
I
don't
like
your
expenses,
I'm
recreating
them,
but
I
don't
like
them
for
2020,
but
I
also
didn't
like
it
for
19
hours.
It
didn't
like
a
for
18.,
so
he's
recreated
our
2018
expenses,
our
2019
expenses
and
our
2020
expenses,
and
just
said
so.
B
B
So
if,
if
this
owner
is
truly
spending
five
million
dollars
in
renovating
your
property
and
not
getting
an
additional
dollar
in
income,
then
either
equity
residential
is
a
very
poor
business
owner
and
you
might
want
to
short,
sell
their
stock
or
maybe
they're
not
actually
renovating
the
property.
Like
we've
told
chris
the
last
few
years
you
go
into
the
property,
the
property's
built
in
2003,
there's
not
major
renovations
going
on
at
this
property,
but
to
just
say
you're
doing
what
I've
asked
you
to
do,
you're
putting
on
our
so
so
far.
B
Here's
a
situation
where
we've
got
three
straight
years
of
reported
income,
how
they
want
it
reported
and
instead
of
just
saying
this
one
year,
is
a
one
year
bump.
I
don't
agree
with
it.
He
said
all
three
of
these
years
are
a
one
year
bump.
So
I
don't
agree
with
that:
I'm
pulling
it
all
back,
it
doesn't
quite
make
sense,
so
the
numbers
are
the
numbers.
B
As
we've
been
told
in
the
previous
cases,
the
numbers
the
numbers
were
in
the
ine,
the
income
was
four
four
five
two
and
then
again
the
page
three
is
a
little
missed
up:
five,
nine
we're
being
valued
as
if
the
income,
seven
million
dollars,
because
again
they
don't
they
don't
trust
the
numbers,
they
don't
believe
the
numbers.
So
it's
it's
a
little
frustrating
when
we
do
it
one
way
and
it's
you
got
to
do
it
our
way.
We
do
it
their
way
and
they
they
don't
like
it.
That
way,
they
ask
questions.
B
We
answer
them
and
it's
yeah,
but
we
don't
like
your
answers.
They
ask
questions,
we
don't
answer
them,
but
you
didn't
answer
our
questions.
It's
like
we're
trying
to
figure
out
a
way
here
to
to
get
what
he
needs,
but
again
this
isn't
a
one-year
bump.
This
is
a
three-year
history
of
it
and
I
think
the
big
driver
to
show
that
there's
no
major
renovation
here
is
that
the
gross
potential
income
of
the
property
is
flat
for
the
last
three
years
completely
flat.
I
mean
it's
literally,
eight,
nine,
eight,
nine,
eight
nine.
B
So
I
just
don't
see
the
the
justification
for
for
why
the
the
increase
here
and
why
it
why
to
really
throw
those
numbers
out.
So
that's
I
just
want
to
check
one
thing:
yeah
that
that's
pretty
much
what
I
have
here.
Our
opinion
value
is
based
off
of
the
the
historics
and
the
actuals
here
this
is
1800
oak.
It's
a
nice
property,
it's
certainly
a
high-rise.
That's
one
thing
we
can
all
agree
on
today,
but
the
numbers
are
there
and
they're
showing
it
it's
a
2003
build.
B
I
So,
on
page
64
of
211
you'll
see
an
email
from
the
appellant
mr
in
which
he
states
regarding
2019's.
Excuse
me
2018,
zionis
quote:
unquote:
we
removed
1.8
million
dollars
of
the
common
error,
repairs
which
were
above
and
beyond
typical
expenses
because
of
upgrades
done
so
that's
2018's
numbers
2019
and
that's
just
1.8
million.
That
was
above
and
beyond
2019.
We
asked
ms
ross
last
year,
189
increased
insurance
and
tax
subtotal.
What
happened
there?
I
They
said
they
would.
Let
me
know,
they're
working
on
obtaining
that
information
I'll.
Let
you
know
what
I
find
out,
then
I
asked
specifically
for
2019:
can
you
give
me
a
breakdown
of
what
was
spent
on
common
area,
exterior
pairs
of
1.526?
I
What
about
miscellaneous
repairs?
What
was
undertaken
at
the
cost
of
525
000.,
so
roughly
2.51
2
million
51
000,
just
in
2019,
miscellaneous
and
common
area?
I
We
heard
back
nothing
so
I
asked
this
year.
Can
you
say
basically
the
same
questions
again?
Can
you
obtain
a
profit
and
loss
statement
for
2019
and
2020
for
me
and
then
basically
another
breakdown
going
through
those
numbers
again
for
2020?
Can
you
please
give
me
a
breakdown
of
what
was
spent
on
common
area
for
342
271.?
I
I
I
did
get
a
breakdown
of
2020
in
that
it
was
noted
that
the
for
breakdown
of
miscellaneous
it
was
common
area,
so
we
asked
342
000,
specifically
what
was
spent,
they
replied.
142
000
was
spent
on
common
area
and
129
000
was
spent
on
recreational
area
of
the
miscellaneous
945
729
000
was
spent
on
unit
updates.
Now
we've
heard
this
literally
before
we
heard
this
last
year.
We
asked
that
this
time,
what
is
a
unit
update
entail?
I
We
did
not
hear
back
you'll
see
that
in
the
emails
I
believe
we
heard
back
last
year,
but
I
won't
put
words
in
the
opponent's
mouths,
but
I
believe
we
heard
back
that
it
is
the
non-reoccurring.
If
the
item
can't
be
repaired
after
a
number
of
years,
it's
replaced,
I
think,
last
week
it
was.
We
were
told
that
if
the
carpet
is
repaired,
a
number
of
times
you
might
put
in
vinyl
so
replacement
of
one
attribute
for
another.
I
Really
we
just
want
light
and
we
want
transparency.
What
does
a
unit
update
mean,
and
why
was
729
000
spent
on
it?
They
also
listed
turnover
cost
of
134
000,
in
addition
to
decorating
and
another
81
000
of
casualty
loss,
and
now
that
one
I
had
to
actually
look
up,
because
that
was
a
unique
expense.
We
don't
see
that
reported
by
any
other
owners,
as
defined
by
the
irs.
I
A
casualty
loss
can
result
from
the
damage,
destruction
or
loss
of
your
property
from
any
sudden,
unexpected
or
unusual
events
such
as
a
flood
hurricane
tornado,
fire
earthquake
or
volcanic
eruption.
Casualty
does
not
include
normal,
wear
and
tear
or
progressive
deterioration
again,
given
that
it's
not
a
normative
thing
applied
by
other
owners.
We've
never
seen
this
before.
I
That's
another
expense
that
the
opponents
are
correct.
We
would
exclude
from
a
reconstruction
of
allowable
expenses.
I
You
know.
We
literally
heard
that
this
morning
that
when
we
asked
questions,
we
get
answers,
but
you
know,
then
the
idea
was
well.
We
asked
too
many
questions,
and
so
at
what
point
do
we
get
enough
answers?
But
the
point
of
these
things
is
really
to
get
a
light
to
cast
light
illumination
on
what
is
going
on
with
these
properties.
Why
do
the
properties
expenses
increase
by
you
know?
572
percent
increase
in
2018
572
increase
just
in
subtotal
for
maintenance
and
repair.
I
Now,
as
the
opponents
acknowledged
in
their
email
and
is
included
in
the
our
boa
package,
at
least
1.8
million
of
that
was
above
and
beyond
what
was
expected
of
that
property.
That's
why
we
reconstruct
column
e
column
c,
that's
the
same
thing.
We
do
with
column
e.
It's
the
same
thing
we
do
on
the
separate
page.
We
have
to
have
a
reasonable
explanation
for
what
these
expenses
are,
so
that
we
can
determine
what's
an
annual
allowable
expense
and
what's
a
capital
improvement,
we've
done
that.
I
I
And
I
apologize
really
to
get
into
the
numbers,
I'm
trying
to
normally
y'all
know
me
as
very
number
based.
I
think
I
just
asked
you
to
look
through
the
due
diligence
that
we
do
to
try
to
get
these
answers.
If
you
look
at,
I
believe
it
starts
on
page
54
or
55,
there's
literally
five
or
six
pages
of
emails
back
and
forth.
I
Where
we
ask
a
question-
and
you
know
sometimes
we'll
say
what
was
the
common
air
repair
for
common
area
of
things,
you
know,
so
it's
a
rather
than
sort
of
illuminate
and
and
cast.
I
Let
there
be
no
doubt
of
what
these
expenses
are.
It
tends
to
be
things
we
have
to
ask
year
over
year
and,
as
mr
bailey
has
pointed
out,
these
are
things
that
we've
already
asked
on
the
initial
ine
statement.
So,
contrary
to
what
you've
heard,
it's
not
the
way
we've
asked
them
to
be
filled
out.
We
just
want
transparency,
given
the
lack
of
it.
We
do
believe
that
our
reconstructions
are
accurate
and
that
they've
excluded
inappropriate
non-allowable
expenses
of
capital
nature.
C
And
just
to
point
out
on
the
numbers
again,
the
actual
original
assessment
noi
is
lower
than
the
2019
reconstructed
number,
and
it's
in
line
with
what
the
2020
reconstructed
number
is
slightly
less.
So
it's
about
6.9
million.
When
you
look
at
our
original
noi
and
then
the
original,
the
reconstructed
2020
operating
year
is
around
6.9
million
as
well.
B
Yeah,
the
reconstructed
is
chris's,
take
on
what
the
owner
is
making
and
not
what
the
owner's
reporting.
So
again,
we
we
years
ago
came
in
with
internal
statements
and
they
said:
look
if
you
want
this
consider
put
in
our
form
we
put
on
their
form.
Mr
hoffman
just
asked
a
question.
I
thought
to
me
of
of
hey
what
is
these
numbers
and
chris
was
able
to
answer
it
because
he
asked
us
that
we
answered
it,
but
his
whole
eight
minutes
was
talking
about
how
we
never
answered
his
questions,
but
we
did
answer
his
questions.
B
The
the
reconstruction
of
three
years
year
a
year
and
now
he's
saying.
Well,
we
want
the
internal
statement.
The
same
statement
they
wouldn't
look
at
in
2016
is
what
they
now
need
in
order
to
make
this
thing
work
we're
complying.
I
understand
that
there
should
be
more
transparency.
There
could
be
more
transparency
and
we're
committed
to
do
that
and
get
that
there,
but
the
reconstructed
number
is
not
is
really
a
wild
guess.
You
have
three
years
of
actual
reported
here,
that's
showing
that
the
costs
are
higher.
We
told
you
in
15,
16
and
17.
B
B
It's
just
it's
a
bit
frustrating.
I
understand
it's
frustrating
for
chris
and
probably
for
you
all
that
it's
extremely
frustrating
for
me,
because
the
target
keeps
moving
and
it's
moving
back
and
forth.
Chris
asks
questions.
We
answer
him
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
he
claims
for
seven
minutes.
We
didn't
answer
the
questions,
but
as
he
answered
mr
hoffman,
we
did
answer
the
questions.
B
So
it's
just
the
the
numbers
here
show
that
a
reduction
is
is
absolutely
warranted.
We're
talking
about
a
410
000
per
unit
for
this
property
and
the
comparables
indicate
that
it
should
be
lower
in
the
350
thousand
dollar
per
unit
range.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
It's
just
among
the
board
members.
I
I
just
want
to
start
before
we
get
into
this
to
address
a
couple
of
comments
that
mr
chitlik
made.
A
I
know
historically,
there's
been
some
issues
here
about
filling
out
the
forms
we've
heard
about
this
and
a
lot
of
whining
going
back
and
forth
today
on
this
seems
good
that
we're
hitting
the
end
of
our
agenda
because
I
think
we're
patience
is
wearing
thin,
but
you
know
for
years
they
didn't
fill
out
the
forms,
and
now
you
are
filling
out
the
forms,
but
just
because
you
put
the
number
on
the
form
doesn't
mean
that
that's
the
absolute
truth.
A
This
we
see
this
all
the
time
on
folks
that
do
fill
out
the
forms
where
the
county
goes
through
and
says:
oh
we're
taking
that
off,
because
it's
a
capital
expenditure
we're
taking
this
off.
For
another
reason
you
know
so
just
because
the
the
farm
is
filled
out,
doesn't
mean
it's
gospel
and
that
that's
going
to
be
absolutely
we're
going
to
base
the
factors.
A
You
know
the
final
numbers
on
that
I
mean
and
you've
been
on
both
sides
of
the
aisle,
and
you
know
this
so
to
talk
in
your
presentation
to
say:
oh,
we
finally
did
what
they're
doing
and
now
they're
just
backing
it
all
off.
It
just
seems
you
know
quite
non-relevant
to
it,
but
that
being
said,
we'll
move
along
to
see
what
other
folks
have
to
say
on
the
case.
F
No,
I
agree
with
you
mary,
I
think
you've
said
it.
You
know
we
hear
all
the
time.
Always
you
know,
like
miss
ross
said
you
know
we
send
it
to
the
owner,
they
fill
it
out
and
then
we
try
to
clarify.
But
if
once
you
provide,
if
you
provide
the
information
more
specific,
it
doesn't
make
sense.
Then
yeah,
I
think
chris,
is
doing
the
right
thing.
You
know
and
just
because
you
put
external
repair
or
lobby
or
something
you
need
to
know
specifically
what
it's
for.
So
I'm,
okay
with
the
revised
assessment.
G
F
A
A
Okay,
I
just
want
to
alert
that
on
tomorrow's
agenda,
the
fifth
case:
it's
boe
number
332,
has
a
signed
settlement
agreement.
So
if
you
haven't
read
your
cases,
you
don't
have
to
read
that
one
so
we'll
be
down
to
the
five
cases
tomorrow.