►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - June 30, 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
Good
morning
today
is
wednesday
june
30th
2021,
and
this
is
the
arlington
county
board
of
equalization
hearing.
There
are
six
cases
on
the
agenda.
The
first
case
is
an
economic
unit.
Rpc
eu
six
29622
seven
g
is
in
george.
The
property
is
located
at
4115
campbell
avenue
and
mr
ross
lichtenhouse
is
presenting
for
the
owner.
Mr
the
house,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
Sir.
C
B
B
Ahead
and
thank
laurie
for
the
time
that
she
spent
working
and
reviewing
this
information,
I
know
that
the
assessor's
office
was
was
swamped
this
year
and
she
took
a
considerable
amount
of
time
to
review
this
in
detail.
But
we
still
feel
that
there's
some
issues
outstanding.
B
It
was
absolutely
crushed
during
the
pandemic.
The
original
assessment
was
about
104
million
dollars.
That's
since
been
revised,
our
our
requested
value
is
66.6
and
I'll.
Take
you
very
briefly
through
the
position
and
the
request
here
on
page
number
page,
four
of
the
narrative
that
I
provided
talk
about
covet
impact
again,
which
most
of
you
guys
are
are
intimately
familiar
with,
but
this
tendency
in
particular
we
had
about
1.7
million
dollars
in
receivables
outstanding
as
of
the
end
of
the
year,
so
that's
uncollected
rent
and
there
were
a
number
of
abatements
offered.
B
There
were
some
lease
revisions
that
were
taken
into
consideration:
some
move
from
baser
into
percentage
rent
to
try
to
assist
tenants
to
keep
as
many
lights
on
as
possible,
there's
still
a
tremendous
amount
of
outstanding
rent,
much
of
which
either
some
of
it
will
be
collected.
B
Much
of
it
will
not
be
collected
and
if
tenants
are
viable
and
able
to
stay
in
the
property
through
lease
expiration,
and
we
feel
that
a
renewal
is
viable
in
many
cases
that
rent
will
be
offered
as
a
as
a
concession
for
that
lease
renewable
if
that
renewable
is
achievable.
B
But
generally
speaking
aside
from
that
outstanding
rent,
the
vacancy
of
this
property
has
continued
to
increase
year
over
year
our
office
tower.
I
will
remind
you
that
there's
a
retail
component,
that's
street
level
on
both
sides.
We've
got
an
office
tower
with
a
parking
garage,
some
surface
parking
behind
that
office
tower
even
leading
up
to
covid
vacancy
was
increasing,
and
at
the
time
of
this
data
valuation,
the
vacancy
in
that
office
tower
was
approximately
30,
and
that's
noted
in
the
in
the
bottom
of
page,
four
going
to
page
five.
B
In
addition
to
the
outstanding
rent,
we
had
a
million
dollars
in
rent
abatement
that
was
offered
to
tenants
in
2020
and
again
that
was
to
help
them
work
through
the
burden
of
declining
sales
which
I've
outlined
in
that
following
section.
I
think
that.
C
B
This
is
important
to
note,
because
this
is
indicative
of
where
leases
lease
rates
and
lease
terms
are
going
to
be
headed
at
this
property,
barring
any
any
significant
change
which
many
folks,
I
think,
will
agree
that
that
we're
seeing
a
permanent
shift
in
the
retail
environment,
our
overall
sales
retail
sales
for
tenants
at
shirlington
declined
over
31
from
2019
to
2020,
and
I've
outlined
some
of
the
tenants
in
there.
Some
significant
tenants
to
just
show
you
what
those
retail
sales
declines
were
that
has
continued
into
21.
I'll.
Tell
you
across
the
entire
retail
portfolio.
B
If
there
is
a
quote-unquote,
we
do
not
expect
for
that
to
happen.
Until
about
2024..
We
also
took
a
look
at
capitalization
rates
and
lauren.
I
did
have
a
discussion
about
this.
We
feel
that
the
capitalization
rate
utilized
by
the
department
doesn't
reflect
the
risk
profile
of
this
retail
asset,
especially
the
the
mixed
use
component,
having
an
office
in
a
retail
component,
and
so
we
have
we've
requested
a
change
to
that
that
retail
cap
rate
and
file
that
follows
on
through
page
six
and
page
seven.
B
And
then,
if
you
get
to
page
eight
of
our
narrative
you'll
see
where
I've
shown
the
actual
noi
reported,
and
I
think
that
this
is
really
a
keystone
piece
to
our
request.
Here.
You
know:
we've
seen
significant
double-digit
declines
in
reported
net
operating
income
at
this
property
over
the
last
three
years,
so
the
decline
was
already
very
prominent.
Covid
was
effectively
a
nail
on
the
coffin
in
terms
of
the
viability
of
some
of
the
tenants
and
from
2020
the
2020
assessment
to
2021
so
19
through
20
calendar
year.
B
That
was
a
36
decline
in
noi,
and
so
following
on.
Following
along
to
the
to
the
next
section,
there
you'll
see
that
our
summary
analysis
of
how
we've
revised
the
direct
capitalization
analysis,
using
the
guidelines
that
arlington
county
offers,
we've
increased
the
vacancy
rate
to
20
percent
for
the
retail
25
to
office,
and
that
reflects
the
reality
of
the
situation
and
that
reflects
the
new
normal
at
this
property.
B
We
have
recently
submitted
to
arlington
county
a
property
improvement
plan
where
we
expect
to
have
to
inject
about
15
million
dollars
in
improvements
to
the
property
and
I'm
not
talking
about
tenant
spaces.
I'm
not
talking
about
adding
square
footage.
I'm
talking
about
amenitizing
the
space,
improving
the
facade,
improving
the
common
areas,
some
which
are
even
outside
the
boundary
of
the
property
itself,
because
we
realize
that
what
what
we've
seen
hemorrhaging
at
the
property
over
the
last
couple
of
years,
which
again
was
accelerated
as
part
of
covid.
B
E
Thank
you
board
members.
As
you
know,
every
year
I
struggle
with
this
property
going
through
the
rent
roll
reviewing.
You
know.
E
To
give
you
an
example,
since
2012,
since
I've
taken
on
this
property
and
I've
reviewed
their
rent
role,
they
report
a
number
of
tenants
that
don't
belong
to
this
particular
property.
The
rpc
ending
in
270,
I'm
sorry
the
economic
unit
ending
in
27g,
and
so
I
have
to
review
through
this
and
try
to
exclude
the
tenants
that
don't
belong
and
take
a
look
at
the
rent
roll.
E
So
I
closely
looked
at
the
rent
roll
this
year
and
mr
the
agent
and
I
went
back
and
forth
on
a
number
of
emails
and
phone
conversations
to
review
what
concessions
were
being
given
for
this
property,
and
I
came
up
with
some
and
after
going
over
all
the
tenants
and
identifying
which
ones
have
not
paid
rent
or
they're
paying,
maybe
they've
switched
to
percentage
rent.
E
We
came
up
with
a
number
for
discounted
rent.
I
mean
for
concessions
and
divided
that
by
214
000,
which
is
the
net
leasable
area
of
all
of
the
the
retail
and
the
office,
and
we
applied
a
discounted
rate
of
four
dollars
and
forty
cents
to
both
the
re,
the
office
and
the
retail
rent.
E
As
you
can
see
in
column
f
for
the
revised
worksheet
to
account
for
the
the
the
excess
over
the
four
percent
that
we
allow
for
stabilized
vacancy
once
again,
this
we've
also
had
discussions
in
the
past
with
the
agent
and
they've
stated
that
they've
tried
very
hard
to
separate
the
income.
E
The
expenses,
the
the
concessions
they've
tried
hard
to
separate.
You
know
the
the
other
rpcs
that
are
being
reported
on
this
rent
roll
that
do
not
belong
and
but
they're
still
being
mixed
in
when
we
reviewed
the
the
income
and
expense
statement,
I'm
still
finding
those
other
properties
mixed
in.
E
So
on
the
summary
page,
if
you
take
a
look
at
the
bottom
of
each
operating
year,
2017
18,
19
and
20
below
where
it
says,
total
operating
expenses,
I
estimated
what
they
would
be
based
on
the
net,
their
contributing
net
leasable
percentage
for
this
property
and,
as
you
can
see,
we
reconstructed
using
column,
f
and
then
offered
a
reduction
of
89
million.
Seven
hundred
thousand
and
change.
E
F
I
just
can,
I
add
something.
Sorry,
so
I
just
want
to
add
that
the
agent
mr
lichtenhouse
pointed
out
that
he
separated
out
the
components
of
the
property
and
attributed
vacancy
to
each
one
of
those
components,
whereas
what
laurie
has
done
is
looked
at
the
total
net
lease
for
area
for
the
property,
as
she
does,
with
every
other
property
type
similar
to
this
and
apply
one
vacancy
rate.
So
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out
as
well,
and
if
you
look
at
page,
I
think
seven
you'll
see
the
rent
roll.
F
That
laura
is
referring
to
because
she
did
go
through
and
do
a
rent
rent
roll
analysis.
It
shows
all
of
the
tenants
listed
on
the
ine.
She
highlights
the
vacant
units
as
well
as
she
highlights
the
spaces
that
are
reported
on
this
incoming
expense
form,
but
do
not
belong
with
this
incoming
expense
form.
So
that
further
supports
her
page
five,
where
she
pulls
out
some
of
the
expenses
because
they
are
attributed
to
other
tenants
that
are
located
in
the
adjacent
property.
F
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
the
board
members
and
I'll
just
start
miss
ruskin,
and
I
apologize
because
I
was
doing
some
math
and
you
might
have
said
this
in
your
testimony
and
if
I
missed
it,
if
you
could
just
clarify
the
difference
in
the
cap
rate
that
you
used
from
the
original
assessment
versus
the
revision.
E
E
G
First,
one
for
the
department
generally
when
we
have
a
mixed-use
building
or
in
this
case
series
of
buildings
where
the
first
floor,
so
typically
in
arlington,
is
retail
and
the
upstairs
is
office
or
multi-family
or
whatever
you
break
out
different
columns.
For
no
other
reason,
because
the
cap
rates
are
different
for
retail
versus
thought
in.
E
This
case
office,
but
here
you
have
it-
is
there
a
reason
for
that?
Okay,
so,
first
of
all,
this
is
not
mixed
use.
In
this
sense,
it
does
not
include
any
apartment.
E
Right
so
when
you
look
at
our
guidelines,
I
used
the
guidelines
mixed
office-
commercial,
which
is
pcc,
219,
okay
and
the
stabilized
vacancy
rate
for
that
property
class
is
four
percent.
Okay,
and
so
those
were
the
guidelines
that
I
used
for
this
and
we
only
use
one
cap
rate
for
the
property
class
219..
G
I
I
I
guess
I
wasn't
aware
that
maybe
it
really
is
always
multi-family
versus
retail.
That's
why
I
split
them
up.
So
thank
you
for
reminding
me
another
question,
I'm
guessing
on
columns
e
and
f
your
departments,
columns,
ena,
where
you
thought
better
about
it.
You
kept
the
income
because
this
potential
income
pretty
much
the
same
but
significantly
lowered
in
your
revised
worksheet
the
conceptions
and
the
vacancies
significantly
lowered
it.
I
was
wondering
what
you're
thinking
was
there.
E
Okay,
so
the
average
rent,
first
of
all,
when
I
reviewed
the
rent
roll,
the
average
rent
came
to
and
fifty
cents
a
square
foot
for
the
office
and
forty
four
dollars
and
thirty
cents,
a
square
foot
for
the
retail.
E
So
when
I
had
numerous
conversations
via
email
phone
call
departmental
hearing
with
the
agent,
we
managed
to
go
through
each
one
of
the
tenants
and
find
out
who
is
getting
a
rent.
You
know
a
concession
for
the
year
2020
and
so
what
I
had
come
up
with
and
after
I
totaled
that
all
up
and
used
the
net
leasable
area
of
214
000,
because
that
does
not
include
storage.
E
G
Well,
but
though,
I'm
not
sure
meaning
rows,
one
and
two
they're
just
modest
well.
E
These
ines
are
a
mix
of
a
couple
of
properties
that
don't
belong,
and
so
what
is
the
rp?
The
economic
unit
29?
Let's
see
where
is
it
economic
unit,
2900803a.
E
Their
information
gets
reported
on
this,
and
so
what
I
do
is
I
go
through
the
rent
roll
and
I
try
to
separate
that
out
and
I
review
how
much
rent
they're
getting
and
I
go
okay.
This
is
what's
the
average
for
these
particular
tenants
that
belong
with
this
particular
property
on
the
rent
roll.
If
you
notice
that
there's
dark
gray
lines,
that
means
that
they
don't
belong
there
they're
not
part
of
this
economic
unit,
and
so
I
had
to
extrapolate.
What
is
what
is
the
rent
they're
getting
and
that's
how?
E
So
when
I
calculated
the
expenses,
I
based
it
on
a
net
usable
area
and
they're
contributing
the
percentage.
If
you
look
underneath
the
on
the
summary
page,
underneath
the
operating
years
you'll
see
below
the
total,
where
I
did
an
estimate
of
what
is
the
contribution
of
this
particular
property
is
82.5
percent
for
year,
17
and
you're.
E
Because
the
concessions
when
I
reviewed
they
actually
give
a
detailed
list
of
concessions,
they
broke
that
out
in
great
detail.
They're
still
reporting
other
tenants
that
don't
belong
with
this
property
in
those
concessions,
and
that's
why
I
went
back
with
the
agent
and
we
went
through
all
the
tenants
that
we're
getting
concessions
for
the
year
2020.
I
calculated
that-
and
I
I
you
know,
I
know
they're
reporting.
E
I
can't
say
it
on
this
because
we're
being
recorded,
but
in
in
column
e
they're
reporting
a
number
for
vacancy
and
rent
loss.
Well,
I
went
through
and
identified
how
much
of
that
rent
loss
was
for
the
year
2020,
and
then
I
divided
it
by
the
net
least
full
area,
and
I
came
up
with
a
discounted
rate
of
4.40
and
I
applied
that
to
both
the
office
and
the
retail
and
that's
how
I
was
able
to
give
them
the
excess
vacancy
concession
over
the
four
percent
stabilized.
F
The
concessions,
the
concessions
that
laurie's,
referring
to
ken
and
to
the
rest
of
the
board
members
to
help
you
follow,
is
on
page
79
of
the
packet,
it's
probably
easier,
just
to
type
in
the
number
79
and
go
to
that
document.
But
that's
the
list
of
concessions
and
it
does
break
out
which
tenants
receive
these
concessions.
So
that's
what
she.
G
G
A
E
What
I,
what
I
believe
in
my
understanding
with
the
agent
is
that
he
stated
that
he
went
through,
and
I
probably
believe
that
he
did
this
with
the
income
and
they
tried
their
best
when
they
reported
it
on
the
income.
Expense
statement
for
2020
probably
did
their
best
to
separate
that,
but
they're
still
when
I
reviewed
their
rent
role
and
their
concessions
and
historical
conversations
with
the
financial
manager
who
fills
out
this
form
there's
still
elements
that
are
being
mixed
together
with
that
other
economic
unit,
and
this
one
so
they've
told
me
in
the
past.
A
I
understand
that
what
I'm
just
trying
to
get
at
is,
I
mean
because
it
just
appears
on
the
surface,
that
in
the
revised
worksheet
that
you
came
in
and
adjusted
for
expenses,
but
not
you
didn't
take
away
the
additional
income
from
that
unit.
But
what
you're
telling
me.
A
C
C
E
When
you
say
I
took
out
those
expenses,
what
I
did
was
because
they
don't
show
they
don't
show
all
of
their
expenses.
I
would
think
that
that
would
be
like
a
400
page
document,
what
they,
what
I
did
was
to
calculate
based
on
net
leasable
area,
what
this
particular
property,
the
subject-
property
its
percentage,
because
if
you
notice
across
the
top
I
I
include
the
netlisable
area,
that's
being
reported
on
the
rent
roll,
but
what's
really
attributed
to
this
property,
and
so
I
calculated
it
at
82,
roughly
82
and
a
half
percent.
E
A
B
A
A
B
Everything
that
is
included
in
that
ine
is
only
specific
to
that
economic
unit.
So
all
the
supporting
concessions
that
she's
talking
about
all
of
that
reconciles
to
the
ine,
so
there's
nothing,
there's
nothing
being
reported
in
the
ine
that
we
sent
in
for
use
for
this
particular
assessment.
That
includes
anything
else
other
than
that
economic
unit,
because
two
years
ago,
laura
and
I
went
through
this
issue.
So
what
is
submitted?
B
B
And
matching
now
the
huge
list
that
aggregates
everything
across
multiple
economic
units
yeah
we
go
through
that
and
reconcile
because
that's
what
goes
on
the
ines.
I
just
want
to
be
clear
about
that.
There's
nothing!
That's
reported
to
the
county!
That
is
for
anything
other
than
this
economic
unit,
the
supporting
documents,
yes,
but
that
includes
everything,
and
then
we
tie
it
out
to
the
ine.
E
Okay,
as
I
said,
I,
I
reconstructed
their
rent
roll
that
they
submitted
for
the
year
2020,
and
I
came
up
with
an
average
rent
for
the
office
of
four
dollars
and
fifty
cents,
a
square
foot
and
for
the
retail
I
came
up
with
an
average
of
forty
four
dollars
and
thirty
cents,
a
square
foot.
We
had
numerous
conversations
with
the
agent.
E
You
can
see
that
there's
emails
that
are
attached
to
this
case
that
shows
that
we
went
through
and
discussed
the
the
concessions
that
were
being
given
to
the
tenants,
and
I
was
able
to
come
up
with
four
dollars
and
40
cents
for
a
discount,
and
I
applied
that
to
the
rent.
As
for
the
expenses
like,
I
said,
there
are
even
in
the
rent
in
the
2020
income
and
expense
statements.
E
B
Yep,
so
I
understand
that
this
has
been
made
somewhat
confusing,
but
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
the
actual
noi
that
we've
reported
specifically
for
this
economic
unit
only
related
and
reconciled
to
the
tenants
in
this
economic
unit
is
3.4
million
dollars,
which
is
down
from
5.4
million
dollars
the
year
before,
and
7.8
million
dollars
the
year
before
that.
A
I
mean
I
certainly
can
understand
where
the
appellant
is
saying.
You
know
to
consider
this.
It
would
be
very
helpful
because
I
think
when
you
look
at
the
grid,
the
2017
18
and
19,
it's
including
additional
income
additional
expenses
I
mean
had
the
appellant
given
the
same
information
for
the
historical
years.
That
would
be
certainly
easier
to
follow,
but
I
mean
where
I
struggle
just
on
the
surface,
to
look
at
take
cobit
out
of
it
for
the
first.
You
know
part
of
this.
A
If
you
just
look
at
the
noi
on
line
21
and
just
look
at
the
the
decrease
of
where
it's
going
and
then
look
at
what
the
actual
numbers
are
regardless
of
kobit,
it
just
seems
that
the
test
column
seems
high.
Then,
when
you
put
covet
into
it
it
you
know
I'm
struggling
with
that,
but
I
realize
that
columns
a
b
and
c
have
additional
incoming
additional
expenses.
A
So
you
know
I
I
don't
know
I'm
at
a
loss
on
this
one,
I'm
very
interested
in
what
other
people
have
to
say
on
it.
A
I
I
So
I
don't
think
it's
been
reduced
enough,
but
you
know
this
is
one
of
those
situations
where
long
term
it
could
be
okay,
but
definitely
having
a
struggle.
A
couple
of
years
here.
J
Yes,
this
I've
gone
in
this
case
through
the
documents
that
we're
presenting
you
know
the
rent,
roll
and
everything,
and
it
was
a
bit
difficult
to
try
to
follow
the
numbers
from
the
columns
a
b
and
c
and
compared
to
what
was
provided
for
this
year.
You
know,
I
have
to
say,
I
think,
miss
raskin
did
a
great
job,
compiling
pretty
much
everything.
J
All
the
information-
and
I
think
summarized
in
page
seven,
which
I
mean
to
me,
gave
me
a
more
clear
understanding
of
why
the
changes
were
made
so
to
add
additional
deductions.
I
would
have
to
have
something
really
solid
for
me
to
just
say:
hey.
This
is
where
it's
at,
and
you
know
this
percentage
is
the
one
that
should
be
used.
So
I'm
not
really
convinced
that
for
this
year
any
other
change
should
be
made.
I
mean,
I
think
she
did
a
great
job,
compiling
all
the
numbers,
I'm
okay,
with
revised.
A
Yeah,
I
guess
jose,
I
would
you
know,
agree
with
you,
but
my
my
concern
is
the
columns
a
b
and
c,
and
if
we
known
now
for
years
that
there
was
additional
income
and
expenses
put
in
there,
I'm
surprised
that
they
weren't.
You
know.
We
see
this
all
the
time
reconstructed
and
you
know
those
additional
fees
taken
out
of
there.
But
if
you
just
compare
apples
to
apples,
I
mean
the
noi,
regardless
of
covid,
has
been
decreasing
on
this
property.
J
A
J
Yeah
to
me
I
think
this
is
you
know:
we've
had
we've
already
had
these
cases,
you
know
the
past
couple
years
and
stuff,
but
you
know
a
couple
years:
the
balance
withdrew
the
cases
and
you
know
last
year
we
didn't
go
through
this
and
this
is
a
reduction
from
last
year,
so
I'm
sure
that
they
had
gone
through
the
numbers
and
somehow
there
was
an
agreement
that
you
know
some
of
the.
I
guess
tenants
were
there
that
shouldn't
have
been
there.
I'm
not
like.
J
I
said
I'm
not
really
convinced
that
any
other
change
I
mean
I
would
have
to
have
really
good
justification
to
not
just
compare
the
numbers
from
last
year
to
this
year.
You
know
previous
years.
I
think
the
parents
were
okay
with
it
and
there
were
numbers
that
maybe
were
there.
They
shouldn't
have
been
there
or
you
know
it's
hard
to
tell.
H
I
think
the
big
discrepancy-
and
I
think
the
problem
here
is
that
the
appellant
saying
they
included
those
other
units,
they
dropped
them
out.
H
A
H
A
I
Column
f,
revised
county
worksheet.
The
one
thing
that
jumps
out
to
me,
just
kind
of
not
in
line
with
reality,
is
that
four
percent
vacancy
rate
vacancy
and
collection
loss
rate.
So
I
just
ran
some
numbers
to
see
kind
of
where
it
would
come
out
and
if
I
take
the
appellant's
vacancy
and
collection
line,
10
and
use
that
which
is
11
instead
of
the
4.
I
It
takes
the
noi
to
about
5.8
million,
which
kind
of
looks
like
if
you
go
17,
18,
19
and
kind
of
follow
that
trend.
It's
kind
of
in
line
with
that
trend
there,
and
and
without
really
getting
too
far
away
from
the
county's
adjustments
and
worksheet,
so
that
I
mean
that
comes
out
to
79
836.
A
G
I'm
I'm
in
my
asthma
situation
so
I'll
keep
it
brief.
They
the
department,
said
that
columns
a
through
c
represent
additional
economic
units
and
that
absolutely
does
not,
and
I
find
the
decrease
in
revenues
to
be
certainly
less
than
the
17
100
minus
83
in
income
and,
more
importantly,
this
is
the
question
I
asked
before
about:
rent
concessions
and
rent
loss
and
and
rent
concessions
in
column
e
is
totals
to
more
money
than
the
decrease
in
income.
G
My
understanding
was,
these
concessions
were
in
column
e,
attributable
to
a
property,
not
in
this
economic
unit,
and
it
was
taken
out
in
column.
F,
I'm
hoping
somebody
can
follow
me,
so
I
I
I
the
numbers
don't
add
up
to
me.
I'm
particularly
I'm
going
back
to
it
seems
to
me
the
appellant
given
all
of
their
interchange,
the
appellant
and
the
department
should
have
gotten
should
not
be
this
diametrically
opposed.
G
No,
it's
not
in
there.
I
had
to
fare
it
out.
Yes,
it
is
in
there
we've
already
fared
it
out,
but
I
agree
the
numbers
enough:
don't
reflect
relative
to
columns
a
through
c
this
removal
of
this
error
property.
That
numbers
don't
seem
to
come
down
enough
and
particularly
as
mary,
you
started
out
the
noi.
They
were
very
close
percentage-wise
and
that
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
if
17
according
to
the
department
was
removed.
G
So
I
I'd
like
to
get
some.
I
think,
therefore
this
must
be
over
taxed
over
assessed,
but
I
can't
come
to
a
number
of
what
that
might
be.
So
maybe
greg
could
reiterate
what
he
said
so
that
the
numbers
that
he
did
find
because.
H
Let
me
through
something
when
I
ran
the
percentages
and
tried
to
adjust
it.
It
was
off
by
about
one
point,
roughly
1.1
million
and,
and
that
put
it
back
in
line-
that's
still
more
than
the
appellant,
but
you
know
that
I
can't
be
sure
those
numbers
are
right
if
those
same
percentages
apply
historically
and
I
carry
it
all
forward.
H
J
One
suggestion
that
I
would
make
in
this
case
I
know
most
of
you
feel
that
it
should
be
decreased
further,
and
you
know
something
to
me
that
at
least
we
can
justify
based
on
what
we
have
from
the
previous
years,
is
by
increasing
the
expenses
to
maybe
35
percent
from
the
revised.
J
By
doing
that,
let
me
see
I'm
coming
up
with
the
final
value
of
about
84
507
000,
and
you
know
the
amount
of
expenses
would
be
about
3
million
321,
which
is,
I
think
you
know
it's
justifiable
to
be
able
to
compare
to
previous
years
and
the
current
operating
2020.
J
A
J
C
J
Would
bring
us
down
to
final
value
of
83
million
206
931
932.
A
G
A
C
C
A
Opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous,
the
assessment's
reduced
to
83
million
206
900,
based
on
increasing
the
expenses
to
36
on
the
revised
worksheet.
A
Okay,
I
believe
mr
chicas
is
here
there.
We
go
very
briefly
on
the
second
case,
rpc26026128.
A
G
A
Okay:
okay,
we
got
mr
hoffman
seconding
that
I'm
all
in
favor
aye
aye
opposed
okay,
so
that
is
reduced
to
the
county's.
Revised
number-
my
apologies.
I
don't
have
it
up.
A
Yes,
I
said
that
yeah,
so
the
revised
number
of
7
million
535
700.
A
Okay,
the
third
case
on
the
agenda:
do
we
have
miss
borman.
A
L
I
will
thank
you
very
much
board
and
madam
chairman
woman
and
members
of
the
board,
so
I
want
to
just
take
a
quick
second
to
go
back
to
january
1
2021,
which
is
obviously
the
date
of
value,
and
I
just
want
to
reflect
on
on
where
everybody
was.
Where
were
you
on
january
1?
Where
were
you
on
december
31st
and
what
was
going
on
in
the
world?
L
We
had.
I
provided
you
with
a
package
of
information
and
I'm
just
going
to
go
through
a
brief
summary
of
where
we
stood
in
terms
of
the
virus
on
january
1..
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
last
year
you
never
at
least-
I
don't
think
you
did
ever
heard
me
mention
the
coronavirus
or
the
pandemic
in
my
cases,
but
as
of
january
1,
this
year
we
have
in
arlington.
Now
we
have
november
a
statement
that
the
cases
were
surging.
L
We
have
cnn
reporting
the
december
as
the
deadliest
month
in
the
history
of
the
u.s.
We
have
health
and
science
also
reporting.
That
december
was
shaping
up
as
the
deadliest
month.
We
have
governor
northam
imposing
additional
mandates,
including
reduction
in
social
gathering,
stay-at-home
order
continued
limit
on
dining
establishments,
etc.
L
It
was
also
the
day
that
deaths
peaked
in
virginia
at
111.
On
december
30th,
there
were
5239
cases
reported
in
virginia
and
the
account
the
state
passed,
5
000
in
terms
of
fatalities.
L
So
the
other
thing
that
was
happening
is
we
were
working
at
home,
or
most
of
us
were,
and
also
in
that
package.
You
know
arlington
ranked
as
the
number
one
place
to
work
from
home,
and
that
is
just
a
tremendous
thing
in
terms
of
showing
that
we
have
a
tremendously
professional
white
collar
workforce
that
can
in
fact,
work
from
home
on
page
38
of
that
information,
there's
an
article
from
costar
that
predicts
that
office
leasing
will
lag
as
firms
downsize
on
page
40.
L
Jpmorgan
is
allowing
people
to
work
from
home
and
then
there's
a
list
that
begins
on
page
50
of
a
number
of
companies,
including
including
stalwarts
such
as
nationwide
insurance,
upwork
siemens
base
camp
schroeder's,
jp
morgan,
again,
pinterest
verizon,
deutsche
bank
and
and
many
others
that
are
allowing
people
to
work
from
home
and
state
farm
is
on
that
list
as
well.
L
So
what
did
that
mean
for
as
of
january
1?
Well,
we
had
quite
a
number
of
interesting
metrics
again
that
show
on
page
this
is
on
page
62
of
our
submission
to
you
and
in
that,
what
you
can
see
is
that
historic
leasing
in
arlington
county
is
down
and
has
been
down
since
2013..
L
Touring
was
reduced
tremendously
year
over
year
and
finishing
out
in
december,
at
about
less
than
38
percent,
also
in
terms
of
background
for
office
on
page
64,
what
you
see
is
a
seven
day
moving
average
of
sub
lease
additions
to
the
market.
Now
I
know
the
board
has
been
loath
to
consider
sublease
space
in
terms
of
rent
and
that
sort
of
thing,
but
it
adds
to
the
supply
in
the
market,
and
what
you
see
is
that
sublease
space
being
added
daily
in
northern
virginia
was
over
6
600
square
feet
of
space.
L
We
also
included
on
page
67,
some
information
about
cap
rates
and
the
difference
in
the
cap
rates
between
2019
on
first
tier
properties
and
2020
went
up
by
8
80
basis
points.
Yet
the
county
is
using
the
same
cap
rate
in
its
in
its
cases
so
now.
Turning
to
this
particular
property.
L
L
and
what
you
see
is
that
the
income
went
down
from
2019
2008
went
from
it
went
down
by
almost
a
half
a
million
dollars.
If
you
look
at
the
column
d,
you
see
that
the
original
assessment
was
based
on
an
income.
That's
over
a
million
one
hundred
thousand
dollars
higher
than
this
property
has
achieved
in
any
of
the
last
four
years,
as
shown
on
the
county's
workbook.
L
The
other
thing
that
you
see
is
that,
from
the
dre
assessment
on
column,
d
to
column,
f,
the
county
actually
increased
the
rental
rates
from
d
to
f.
Now
I
believe
this
is
an
effort
to
back
into
and
support
the
assessment
and
part
of
the
reason
I
think
that
is,
there
was
no
new
leasing
at
this
property.
L
Actually,
in
2020
there
were
some
leases
that
took
occupancy
in
2020,
but
they
were
deals
that
had
been
signed
previously,
so
the
county
had
basically
the
information
to
support
its
assessment
or
to
support
the
rental
rates
that
it
used.
As
of
january
1st,
we
in
our
appeal
we
use
those
same
rental
rates
because
we
didn't
think
there
was
enough
of
a
difference
to
argue
about.
L
Unfortunately,
the
county
has
come
back
in
its
test
and
bump
the
rental
rates
up.
So
I
want
to
get
into
those
rental
rates
and
I'm
going
to
revise
our
request
for
reduction.
We
had
originally
requested
a
reduction
to
82
million
five.
We
are
now
requesting
a
reduction
to
78
million
475
and
here's.
Why?
L
Who
makes
up
the
tenants
at
this
property,
the
first
one
and
largest
tenant?
Is
you
owe
clarendon
everybody?
Euro
clarendon
is
a
co-working
tenant.
Uo
clarendon
had
a
number
of
different
locations
throughout
washington
dc,
they
stopped
paying
their
rent
mid-year
and
they
the
owners
of
this
building,
cashed
their
letter
of
credit
in
december.
They
were
done
now.
L
L
The
owners
have
received
zero
rent
on
that
space
to
date,
and
in
order
for
them
to
they
don't
expect
to
get
any
rent
really
for
24
months,
but
the
rent
once
they
do
get
it.
They
anticipate
keeping
them
in
that
space
at
33.96.
L
If
I
could
just
have
a
couple
of
more
minutes
since
it's
my
first
case
of
the
year-
and
I
did
want
to
provide
some
background
I'll,
be
very
brief,
though,
but
if.
L
L
C
K
Okay,
thank
you.
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
the
state
of
the
office
market
as
of
january
1st,
as
ms
borman
has
stated
in
her
eight
minutes,
but
we
went
over
our
guidelines
for
office
in
the
boe
briefing.
So
if
there's
any
questions
with
respect
to
what
mrs
borman
has
stated,
I
reserve
that
for
questions
from
the
board.
K
But
I
do
want
to
clarify
in
2021
the
assessment
we
did
find
that
there
was
55
940
square
feet
vacant
and
now
I
know
that's
not
noted
there
in
the
top
of
column
d,
but
it
I'd
like
to
note
that
we
did
find
that
there
was
lisa
of
you
know
from
19
to
20
and
you'll
see
that
in
all
actuality
there
was
a
difference
there
in
column
e
to
what
we
assessed
in
column
d,
and
so
we
made
that
correction
in
our
test
column.
K
I
I
would
like
to
report
or
speak
about
the
previous
history
of
this
property.
As
you
note
there
in
line
1b,
this
will
help.
I
actually
frame
the
mindset
of
the
board,
because
you
will
see
this
in
later
cases
as
well,
where
the
vacant
square
footage
income
is
not
being
reported
as
asked
in
our
ine
statement,
so
it
it
sort
of
gives
a
a
different
picture
if
you
will
than
what
we're
presenting
as
our
21
assessment
or
our
test.
K
So
I
highlight
it
in
yellow
just
to
kind
of
pinpoint
that
and
make
the
board
see
that,
and-
and
hopefully
it's
more
apparent
in
later
cases
as
well.
K
So
if
you
go
across
on
line
1b
you'll
see
where
the
county
had
put
a
value
for
that
vacant,
sp
vacant
square
footage
across
the
board
and
the
appellant
as
well
in
her
column
g
has
a
an
amount
there
for
the
vacant
space.
K
Her
vacant
space
per
square
foot
rate
is
the
same
amount
per
square
foot
rate
that
the
county
use.
In
the
original
assessment.
We
use
the
same
average
across
the
board
in
all
with
the
vacant
office
with
the
least
office
and
with
the
the
retail
space
so
across
the
board,
the
same
per
square
foot
rate
in
the
test.
We
found
more
information
to
show
you
know,
there's
variations
in
that
rant
with
respect
to
the
miscellaneous
square
footage
that
mrs
borman
had
pointed
out
that
she
didn't
understand
where
that
came
from
that.
K
That
is
a
customary
thing
I
do
when
I
analyze
the
rent
roll
of
the
property's
office
properties.
I
take
out
those
particular
square
footages
that
don't
have
a
per
square
foot
rate
associated
with
them
in
the
rent
roll,
and
I
therefore
asked
miss
bormann,
particularly
about
those
per
square
foot
rates
for
those
particular
tenants
and
you'll
see
a
breakdown
in
my
rent
roll
analysis.
I
believe
on
page
six
and
it
shows
those
miscellaneous
square
footages
that
I
I
pull
out
a
lot
of
times.
K
You'll
see
that
there
is
conference
center
space
or
management
space
that
I
pull
out,
because
there's
no
rent
associated
with
that
and
to
me
it
doesn't
show
what
the
current
state
of
the
lease
space
in
the
office
is.
K
I
did
see
that
miss
foreman
and
I
were
similar
in
the
retail
per
square
foot
rate.
We
do
differ
about
maybe
about
a
dollar
or
so
with
our
per
square
foot
rate
again
with
every
other
office
property.
K
I
go
through
the
rent
roll
and
we
see
exactly
what
the
the
rent
is
being
achieved
for
this
property.
Now
I
understand
miss
borman's,
pointing
out
that
you
owe
clarendon
is
a
an
issue
that
she
believes
should
be
addressed
after
going
through.
K
K
We
have
an
open
dialogue,
conversations
back
and
forth
and
I'm
open
to
anything
that
she
has
to
offer.
I
I
learned
about
you,
oh
clarendon,
a
few
days
ago
after
I
submitted
all
the
documentation
and
I've
been
willing
to,
you
know
make
adjustments
as
needed.
As
you
see
in
the
next
case,
we
did
make
an
adjustment
based
on
new
information
that
I
received,
or
maybe
information
that
wasn't
discussed
when
we
went
over
these
these
reviews.
K
So
in
looking
at
this,
this
case
I
mean,
I
believe
the
test
is-
is
a
a
better
indication
of
what
you
know.
We
see
here
in
this
property.
One
thing
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
is
different
from
I
guess
cases
you've
seen
in
the
past
is
line.
7A
is
pass-throughs
that
I've
indicated
as
of
1-1
2021,
and
that's
due
to
you
know
just
looking
at
the
rent
roll.
You
know
we're
only
as
good
as
the
information
we
receive
so
when
looking
at
this
particular
rent
roll.
K
I
did
see
that
there
was.
You
know
pass-throughs
due
as
of
the
first
of
the
year
and
did
note
that,
and
I
did
make
a
calculation
based
on
that
information.
K
If
you
see
on
our
rent
roll
analysis,
I
do
break
that
down
and-
and
hopefully
you
can
follow
my
math
and
so
the
the
one
one
projection
for
pass-through
income
is
noted
there
at
the
bottom
in
a
box
pass-through
calculations.
What
I
called
it
you
have
the
office
pastors.
You
have
the
retail
pastors
as
a
1-1
and
then
I
subtracted
out
what
was
reported
in
2020
to
just
give
you
a
projection
of
what
I
see
the
property
would
achieve
in
2021
I'll
rest
for
now.
Thank
you.
J
Yes,
this
is
to
mr
peralta
on
the
on
column.
F,
the
test
line,
two,
a
miscellaneous:
where
did.
C
K
K
Okay,
it
doesn't
say
in
the
test
at
the
breakdown,
but
in
the
analysis
of
the
rent,
roll
and
that's
page
six,
you
can
see
where
I
pulled
out
if
my
computer
allows
me
to
see
it.
Give
me
one
second.
F
He
puts
a
box
around
the
square
footage
of
those
spaces
and
you
can
see
below
that
box
is
the
total
of
25
971
square
feet
and
that
should
match
the
number
on
the
test
sheet
which
he
used
to
calculate
the
miscellaneous
square
footage
rent.
So
again,
I
think
he
pointed
out
earlier
in
his
discussion
that
if
there
is
some
discrepancy
on
the
rent
roll,
that's
provided
where
they
show
up
tenant,
but
they
don't
show
the
tenant's
square
foot
rate.
Then
he
will
pull
that
out
separately
and
do
calculations
that
way.
L
If
I
could
address
that
briefly,
you
know
on
those
three
suites,
mr
polter
seems
to
think
that
those
are
all
in
occupancy
and
that
those
rents
were
negotiated
in
2020..
L
First
off
association
for
unmanned
vehicles
is
not
in
the
building
and
has
not
even
started
build
out
yet
they're
supposed
they're,
hopefully
going
to
start
in
august.
So
that
is
square
footage.
That
is
not
even
there.
H
L
K
You
know
the
on
page
40
of
the
rent
roll
submitted
for
2020.
It
has
unmanned
association
as
a
new
lease
that
started
as
1
1
2021
and
then,
in
addition
to
that.
Speaking
to
ms
forman's
point,
I
I
do
use
a
reduced
rent
for
that
vacant
space,
the
normal
six
percent.
A
G
I
have
two
for
the
opponent.
The
first
one
is
in
the
first
half
of
your
remarks.
You
talked
about
the
various
large
corporations
that
permitted
work
from
home
and-
and
I
don't
know
the
corporations,
but
certainly
that's
the
trend
that
I'm
sure
your
your
information
was
correct,
but
you
didn't
come
to
a
conclusion
because
of
all
that
work
from
a
home.
How
does
that
affect
this
case?
Specifically.
L
Sure,
well,
I
think
that
it
affects
this
case
in
many
ways,
and
the
rent
rule
that
was
submitted
to
the
county
as
part
of
their
income
and
expense
survey
form
clearly
indicates
that
you
owe
clarendon
had
vacations
had
gone,
that
the
rent
for
them
was
written
off
and
that
the
they
had
cast
their
letter
of
credit,
but
they
were
gone
and
as
a
result
of
that,
I
think
it's.
You
know.
That
is
something
that
relates
very
much
to
this
case
in
terms
of
what
is
happening
to
the
office
market.
L
All
those
people
who
used
to
cram
themselves
into
these
co-working
spaces
are
working
from
home,
so
that
is
one
way
that
this
reflects
this
case,
another
way
that
it
reflects
or
impacts
this
case
is
that
the
cap
rate
as
a
result
of
the
working
from
home,
as
is
also
in
our
our
package,
shows
that
the
cap
rate
has
gone
up
80
basis
points
overall
from
the
market.
In
this
case,
you
have
people
that
are
not
attending
work.
L
You
have
companies
that
are
downsizing
companies
that
are
subleasing
their
space,
so
the
owners
of
office
buildings
are
competing
with
their
tenants
to
attract
tenants.
I
also
showed
you
that
the
number
of
tours
of
properties
was
reduced
and,
if
you're,
not
touring
properties,
the
number
of
leases
you're
going
to
sign
are
also
going
to
be
reduced.
L
L
That's
correct,
expand
on
that
sure,
so
actual
physical
occupancy
at
the
property
was
about
10
to
11
percent
during
2020,
and
so
cleaning
costs
were
way
down.
You
know
that's
about
a
dollar
a
foot,
maybe
more
electricity
costs
were
way
down
because
there
weren't
tenants
in
the
space
you
know
just
having
the
elevator
not
go
up
and
down
as
much
or
you
know,
90
percent
less
than
it
would
if
the
property
was
occupied.
L
All
of
those
factors
not
having
to
heat
cool
have
lights
on
change.
Toilet
paper
have
cleaning,
the
expenses
are
very
low
at
this
building
and
what
we've
seen
is
that
at
other
buildings,
but
yet
we're
stabilizing
the
income
stream
at
this
property
at
75
occupied,
and
so,
if
that
were
the
case,
the
operating
expenses
would
be
substantially
more.
And
if
you
look
anyway
that
I
think
that
answers
your
question.
But
if
not,
please
ask
me
for
clarification.
L
G
L
L
L
If
you
look
just
at
page
four,
you
can
see
that
the
income
has
the
test
and
the
original
assessment.
The
income
exceeds
the
highest
income
at
this
property
by
over
a
million
dollars,
a
million
two
hundred
thousand.
In
terms
of
the
test,
I
mean
it
clearly
the
test
is
broken
because
it
is
not
reflective
of
anything
that
has
been
achieved
at
this
property
or
that
a
market
participant
would
anticipate
to
be
achieved
at
this
property.
I
have
not
added
a
discount
for
lisa.
I
have
just
said
this
is
what
the
rent
is.
L
This
is
what
the
income
is,
and
you
know
the
assessment
is
not
supported
by
the
actual
income
and
it's
not
supported
by
future
income.
My
point
about
lease
up
is
yeah.
The
market
is
really
slow.
Demand
is
down.
We
should
not
be
imputing
pre-covered,
rent
on
vacant
space,
and
that
is
my
that
is
my
takeaway
or
what
I
would
like
you
to
have
be
the
take
away
from
what
I've
said.
L
K
D
Sorry
I
had
a
quick
one
for
the
department,
but
we
didn't
break
out
retail
on
the
cap
rate,
but
I
think
it
doesn't.
Retail
have
a
different
gap
rate.
K
Not
for
the
small
office,
I'm
sorry,
the
the
retail
standalone,
I
believe
or
actually
john
commercial
does
have
a
different
cap
rate,
but
not
not
in
office
properties.
F
For
office
most
office
builders
have
retail
already
on
the
ground
floor.
It's
pretty
consistent
throughout
the
rv
corridor,
the
sales
that
we
analyze.
We
look
at
the
income
as
a
whole
for
these
property
types
when
we
develop
our
cap
rate,
and
we
also
see
that
when
these
properties,
trade,
that
component
is
not
backed
out
to
develop
a
different
cap
rate.
So
therefore,
we
use
the
same
cap
rate
for
office
as
we
do
on
the
office
building.
The
cap
rate
is
applied
to
the
entire
building,
as
well
as
the
vacancy,
as
you
may
notice.
K
Yes,
thank
you.
Looking
at
this
property,
we
did
see
that
many
ages
began
conducting
virtual
tours
last
year.
We
do
see
that
tours
have
increased
in
2021.
K
You
know
our
guidelines,
you
know,
look
at
rerc
our
sales
and
pwc,
so
our
sales
with
respect
to
the
cap
rate
have
shown
that
you
know
our
the
sales
support.
What
we
have
currently
for
our
guidelines
for
the
office
market
in
looking
at
this.
This
case,
in
particular,
I
believe,
miss
borman-
is
stating
that
our
original
office
income
is
much
greater
than
what
is
reported
in
the
history
as
well
as
in
the
most
current
2020.
K
If
you
take
a
moment
to
sort
of,
you
know,
look
at
her
columnar
line,
one
her
figure
in
column
g
is
similar
to
what
we
have
in
our
test
column.
When
you
add
the
line
1-
and
you
add
line
2a-
that
miscellaneous
square
foot
income
that
jose
had
asked
about
previously
in
the
questions,
so
that
income
is
similar-
I
mean
it
it's,
this
very
slight-
maybe
20
30
000,
less
than
more
than
miss
foreman,
has
shown
in
her
column
g,
so
that
income
we
believe
is
is
is
pretty
accurate.
K
With
respect
to
how
mrs
borman
looks
at
that
income,
the
only
difference
is
we're
about
a
dollar.
Yes,
I'm
sorry
we're
about
a
dollar
per
square
foot
higher
in
our
vacant
square
footage,
and
I
went
through
exactly
why
that
is
the
case
and
a
final
note.
Looking
at
the
expenses
overall,
we
are
very
generous
with
respect
to
what
has
been
reported
in
the
history
post,
covid,
I'm
not
post
code,
but
in
the
current
2020
and
previous
to
covet
in
the
history
of
this
property.
K
You
know
I
should
have
probably
estimated
75
cents
lower
than
what
I
did
and
the
property
was
renovated
in
2016..
Thank
you.
L
I
So
I
could
spare
the
details
of
kind
of
I've
got
two
major
issues
I
have
with
the
county's
assessment,
but
just
to
kind
of
skip
to
the
bottom
line
of
where
I,
where
I
landed,
is.
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
last
year's
assessment
and
then
make
accommodation
for
the
loss
of
a
32
or
39
000
square
foot
tenant
that
went
belly
up,
which
is
a
major
hit
to
the
value
of
that
building.
So
I
made
it
below
the
line
of
a
deduction
from
last
year's
assessment.
I
It's
not
something
that
we
do
a
lot,
but
I
I
can
state
with
100
certainty
that
building
is
not
worth
more
than
it
was
a
year
ago
because
of
jan
wants.
So
I
know
that
for
a
fact,
so
I'm
going
to
go
off
last
year
because
we
reviewed
this
case
and
we
confirmed
the
county's
estimate
of
value
at
91
million.
So
we
felt
pretty
good
about
it
on
jan
1
of
2020
and
on
jan
1
of
2021.
I
don't
think
this
was
in
nearly
as
good
of
shape.
A
G
I
I
do
agree
with
that,
intuitively
it
can't,
if
it's
worth
more,
certainly
not
worth
nine
plus
percent
more
so
looking
at
numbers,
and
although
the
appellate
talks
a
lot
about.
G
Lots
of
leases
and
people
aren't
working
there
and
there's
going
to
be
downsizing,
all
of
which
might
be
true.
I
it's
prospective
and
I
look
at
their
column
g
and
in
a
lot
of
ways.
It
very
much
reflects
common
math
the
test
in
a
lot
of.
C
G
And
I
decided
that
I
was
looking
for
a
number
that
maybe
was
out
of
whack
in
order
to
defend
my
intuition.
The
only
thing
I
really
came
up
with
and
it's
not
a
huge
difference-
is
the
egi
where
it's
the
appellant
is
projecting
2021
of
less
than
a
half
a
percent
smaller
egi.
But
I
ran
that
all
through
and
and
substituted
that's
line
13
and
substituted.
G
The
appellant's
line,
protein
egi
for
the
test
egi
and
came
out
with
a
350,
almost
4,
000
lesser
and
kept
that
out
and
came
up
with
the
number
of
95
million
a
little
less
than
95
and
a
half
million.
It's
still
an
increase,
but
it's
a
defensible
number
and
it's
not
an
increase
of
what
the
test
calls
for
my
contribution.
A
And
mr
huffman,
could
you
just
go
over
just
so
that
we
have
something
to
compare?
What
was
your
below
the
line
adjustment.
I
837
square
feet
and
our
guidelines
are
usually
a
year
rent
loss
plus
some
ti
and
leasing
commissions.
So
I
have
the
year
rep
loss
at
45
dollars
a
square
foot.
The
ti
is
on
the
lower
end
at
70
and
the
leasing
commission's
based
on
a
five-year
deal
at
six
percent,
which
is
13
so
45,
plus
70
plus
13,
is
128
dollars
a
square
foot
times
the
square
footage
of
the
uo
lease
and
that's
about
just
under
5.1
million
5099
136.
A
Yeah,
I
just
want
people
to
have
something
to
compare
other
comments.
J
Yeah
mr
hoffman
tell
me
again
where
the
adjustment
that
you're
making
is
coming
from.
I
Yeah,
I
I
I
if
I
start
from
this
year,
it
comes
up
a
little
too
high
of
value.
It
just
doesn't
intuitively
make
any
sense
to
me.
So
what
I'm
looking
at
is,
I
know
I
know
that
last
year
we
reviewed
this
case
in
detail
and
we
came
to
a
number,
an
assessment,
and
I
know
that
intuitively
it
should
probably
be
lower
since
they
lost
15
of
their
occupancy
in
in
that
period
of
time.
J
Okay,
the
thing
is,
I
mean
we
have
the
numbers
that
they
reported,
and
you
know
I
think
they're
fine
and
I
know
that
most
of
the
leases
don't
expire
for
a
few
years.
You
know
most
of
them
are
2026
2029
2030..
J
I
know
that
a
lot
of
times
you
know
we
feel
like
we
should
do
something.
We
should
make
a
change,
but
I
don't
want
to
go
with
feelings.
I
would
prefer
to
go
if
you
decide
to
that.
You
know
if
everybody
agrees
that
this
should
be
going
down.
Maybe
we
should
use
the
appellant's
noi
and
just
cap
it
to
the
correct
percentage
that
it
should
be
kept.
I
mean
it's
to
lower
some
a
little
bit
lower
than
last
year,
but
you
know
not.
J
G
J
D
A
And
using
the
665
capri.
C
H
C
A
All
right
now,
a
second
all
in
favor
of
that
reduction.
A
Opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous!
It's
reduced
to
90
million
668
600,
based
on
using
the
appellants
column
g
and
capping
it
out
at
the
county
cap
rate
at
6.65.
A
K
A
K
A
C
A
Okay,
unanimous,
it's
reduced
to
the
county's
test,
number
of
67
million
250
for
900..
Thank
you
miss
and
mr
peralta.
A
A
A
A
A
M
Can
you
all
hear
me
this
is
tom?
Yes,
sir,
I'm
never
sure.
A
C
A
Okay,
we
have
everybody
back.
Okay.
The
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
case.
Number
five.
It's
economic
unit,
one
two:
zero
zero,
two
zero
two
g
is
in
george,
the
property
located
at
6013
wilson,
boulevard,
also
known
as
dominion
hill
shopping
center.
Mr
tom
calucci
is
representing
the
owner,
mr
kalucha,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
Sir.
M
Okay,
I'm
not
sure
I'll
need
the
full
eight
minutes.
M
Basically,
we
had
talked
to
the
department
extensively
about
this,
my
client
and
myself,
and
I
think
that,
although
the
department
has
offered
some
level
of
reduction,
we
felt
that
it
didn't
really
quite
go
far
enough.
Given
the
sort
of
the
history
of
this
property,
this
property
hasn't
been
appealed
in
the
past
and-
and
I
I
think
it
it's
sort
of
what
I
call
a
victim
of
assessment
creep,
where
the
owners
don't
focus
on
it.
M
Obviously,
the
the
catalyst
to
focus
on
it
was
the
tough
time
that
they
experienced,
along
with
other
owners.
Obviously
you've
been
talking
about
it
for
the
last
hour
and
a
half
been
impacted
by
covin.
Obviously,
there
were
certain
types
of
businesses
and
certain
types
of
properties
that
were
more
acutely
affected
by
the
covid
crisis
than
others.
For
instance,
hotels
were
devastated
by
covey
small.
M
What
I
call
neighborhood
shopping
centers
like
this
particular
center,
were
devastated
by
a
covet
only
because
they
do
not
have
large
national
tenants
that
are
able
to
either
defer
rent
or
sustain
rent
during
an
extended
period
of
downtime.
M
These
are
all
non-credit
mommy
poppy
business
owners.
So
what
happens
in
situations
like
this
is
if
the
rent
isn't
collected,
especially
if
it's
been
a
tenant
that
has
been
a
tenant
that
has
been
paying
the
rent
or
a
good
part
of
the
rent
in
the
past.
M
It
really
doesn't
make
much
sense
for
the
landlord
to
sort
of
kick
him
out
on
the
street
because
number
one
you
would
have
a
tough
time,
leasing,
releasing
that
that
property
again
and
secondly,
the
business
owner
I
mean
just
take
a
dry
cleaner,
for
instance,
and
I
can
make
my
own
my
own
example
I
used
to
spend
about
150
a
month
on
dry
cleaning.
I
think
in
the
last
year
I
probably
spent
a
total
of
20,
so
there
are
certain
businesses
which.
M
You
know
just
struggle,
and
I
think
these
are
the
types
of
businesses
and
so
significant
rent
concessions
were
granted
and
significant
rents
were
written
off.
These
were
not
these
were
not
deferred.
M
They
were
abated
and
there's
a
big
difference,
because
when
you
abate
it,
that
means
you'll
never
get
it
back,
but
in
in
sort
of
simple
terms-
and
I
can
want
to
point
out
to
this-
would
be
page
58
in
your
package
and
as
noted
by
the
department
in
building
my
economic
model,
I
did
not
use
calendar
year
2020,
because
calendar
year,
that
would
not
have
been
fair
because
calendar
year,
2020,
as
we
all
know,
was
an
aberration
because
of
the
effects
of
coving.
M
But
if
you
look
at
what
I
call
exhibit
three
exhibit
three
shows
the
operating
history
of
the
property
from
2017
all
the
way
through
2020..
M
And
if
you
look
at
the
net
operating
income,
the
net
operating
income
on
this
property
went
from
a
high
of
roughly
six
hundred
and
twelve
thousand
dollars
in
2017.
M
And
then
there
has
been
a
sort
of
a
slide
from
there.
After
with
the
predominant
income
noi.
If
you
look
at
2018
2019,
it
was
slightly
under
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
and
of
course
2020.
We
all
know
it
falls
off
the
cliff
because
of
coding
okay.
So
if
you
look
then
look
at
exhibit
4
of
mine,
which
is
on
your
page
60
of
your
package.
M
M
So
if
you,
if,
if
you
look
at
my
model,
you
know
you
see
the
gross
potential
and
then
you
see
the
vacancy
and
collection
loss
which
tracks.
In
fact
those
spaces
are
still
vacant,
that's
historical
vacancy,
which
is
considerably
above
what
the
county
uses,
and
then
I
use
the
county's
cap
rate.
I
I
use
the
expenses
based
on
actuals
and
then,
when
you
look
at
that,
you
get
an
noi
of
509
000..
M
So
if
you
compare
that
five
hundred
and
nine
thousand
dollars
with
exhibit
three
where
you
have
612
497,
473
and
263,
that
would
appear
to
be
what
the
a
reasonable
noi
for
this
property
would
be.
M
And
then
we
capped
that
using
the
county's
capitalization
rate
to
get
to
a
value
of
just
under
seven
million
dollars.
Six
point
six
point:
nine,
seven,
seven,
and
then,
on
top
of
that,
I
added
a
covid
adjustment.
M
Again,
I
just
took
a
percentage
of
the
value
that
wasn't
very
scientific,
but
the
county
really
did
not
make
any
allowance
for
covin.
So
if
I'm
using
2019
numbers,
which
are
pre-coded
numbers,
the
county
really
has
made
no
adjustment
or
taken
has
not
taken
into
account
that
we
had
vacancy
and
collection
loss
and
again
look
at
exhibit
three.
On
page
58,
we
had
actual
vacancy
collection
loss
of
just
under
six
hundred
thousand
dollars
on
this
property
for
2020..
M
So
if
you
took
the
the
model
noi
at
509
and
got
a
just
a
seven
million
dollar
valuation,
some
adjustment
must
be
take
making
taken
for
covet.
Now
you
might
not
agree
with
my
adjustment,
but
I
noted
in
and
I
had
reviewed
a
number
of
work
papers
for
hotel
properties,
and
I
noted
that
the
county
for
hotel
properties
made
a
one-time
adjustment
in
valuation
based
on
coding,
because
those
properties
were
very
hard
hit.
M
No
adjustment
has
been
made
for
this
type
of
retail,
which
has
been
equally
hard
hit.
So
I
would
respectfully
request
that
the
valuation
for
this
property
be
reduced
to
somewhere.
M
Either
seven
million
dollars
or
slightly
less
than
that,
based
on
a
coveted
adjustment,
but
on
the
best
day
it's
worth
seven,
even
doing
it
the
way
the
county
does
it
on
on
a
good
day,
it's
worth
seven,
not
counting
the
covet
adjustment.
A
E
E
I
have
to
reconstruct
the
these
ines
every
year
and
what
we
did
this
year
is.
We
took
a
look
at
what
is
the
rent
that
that's
being
achieved
for
this
property
and
looking
at
the
occupied
units?
Now
I
excluded
the
two
units
that
are
vacant
right
now,
but
looking
at
the
occupied
units,
we
came
up
with
an
average
of
39.72
cents,
a
square
foot,
that's
the
average,
and
then
we
had
further
discussions
about
who
is
getting
or
who
was
not
paying
rent
during
the
year
2020..
E
And
so
after
going
back
and
forth
with
the
agent
the
owner,
I
came
up
with
a
deduction
of
9.93
that
I
applied
to
the
income
so
in
column.
F,
we
I
I
estimated
what
is
the
average
rent
and
then
looking
at
the
concessions
or
the
abatements
that
were
given
for
the
year
2020..
E
I
discounted
that
by
9.93
a
square
foot
and
so
we're
using
a
a
much
lower
rent
to
account
for
that
excess
vacancy
and
the
concessions
that
are
being
given
to
these
tenants
and
then,
once
again,
the
the
expenses
are
in
line.
E
As
for
a
coveted
adjustment,
our
coveted
adjustment
is
basically
it's
factored
into
the
cap
rate
and
we
did
change
the
cap
rate.
We
went
from
seven
to
seven
point
three
percent
from
last
year
and
just
make
aware
just
like
to
make
you
aware
that
looking
at
the
appellants
column,
they're
asking
for
a
substantially
higher
number
in
expenses
than
what
is
being
reported
year
after
year,
and
yes,
I
understand
that
he
looked
at
the
2019
for
income.
E
But
once
again,
like
I
said
I
I
looked
at
what
was
being
reported
on
these
2020
ines
because
think
about
this.
There's
a
lot
of
appellant
or
not
appellants,
but
there's
a
lot
of
owners
out
there.
That
chose
not
to
appeal
their
assessment,
so
we're
not
looking
at
their
2020,
I
needs,
but
those
who
appeal
we
are
looking
at
their
2020
imes
and
we
are
showing
it
in
here
as
column
e.
E
So
I'm
looking
at
the
history
and
what's
going
on
what
happened
with
2020,
even
though
we
didn't
have
it
last
year,
when
we
value
the
property,
we
are
looking
at
it
now
and
we
made
an
adjustment
and
that's
what
column
f
is
there
for.
Thank
you.
F
And
one
of
the
things
to
point
out
is
that,
like
lori
said
every
property
we
value,
we
use
the
2019
ind
information
along
with
2018
and
2017..
If
the
owner
submitted
a
2020
covet
covert
ine.
We
also
utilize
that
to
assist
help
us
with
the
2021
valuation
when
the
appellant
appeals
and
provides
the
2020.
F
I
need
that
allows
us
to
take
consideration
of
what
they
experienced
in
2020
and
that's
how
laurie
came
up
with
the
discounted
rent
rate
in
her
test
column,
just
to
speak
on
the
covert
adjustment,
hotels
report
trends,
accuracy,
tax,
the
fact
that
department
is
allowed
to
see
that
information.
F
We
also
look
at
str
reports
to
see
what
the
occupancy
rate
is
for
these
property
types
that
allows
us
to
make
an
adjustment
for
that
property
type
for
20
of
the
impact
of
covet
19
and
20
20..
This
property
type
does
not
fit
in
the
category
where
we
get
that
type
of
information
and,
as
laurie
stated
oftentimes.
F
The
inds
supplied
by
these
owners
are
even
difficult
to
go
through
because
we
have
to
go
through
the
expenses
and
make
sure
that
the
appropriate
expenses
and
everything
are
reported,
so
this
property
type
did
not
receive
a
below
the
line,
covert
19
adjustment.
What
we
did
we
looked
at
publications
to
see
how
cap
rates
were
moving
based
off
of
sales
that
occurred
in
2020,
and
that
is
the
resulting
adjustment
based
off
of
cova
19..
A
Okay,
thank
you,
questions
from
the
board
which
I'm
going
to
just
start
with,
hopefully
an
easy
one,
but
you
know
miss
ross.
Can
you
know
you
had
said
that
you
know
we're
not
looking
at
the
operating
information
from
2020
because
other
people
didn't
have
that.
A
But
that
being
said,
just
looking
at
the
history
of
a
b
and
c
and
the
noise
reported
and
again
this
is
you
know
not
a
a
property
that
has
come
before
us,
but
logic
would
tell
me
that
just
looking
at
those
three
numbers,
you
know
to
see
the
original
assessment
I
mean
it
doesn't
even
seem
like
the
effect
of
or
the
potential
effective
cope.
It
was
even
considered
there.
E
Okay,
so
once
again
I
make
my
best
attempt
at-
and
it
is
my
interpretation
because
this
owner
does
not
fill
out
our
ine
statement.
He
submits
these
grids
and
I
showed
you
on
the
rent
roll
analysis
that
I
try
to
go
through,
and
I
actually
call
this
particular
owner
every
year,
okay,
back
in
september,
when
we're
starting
to
enter
in
the
ines
or
analyze
everything
I
actually
call
this
owner
repeatedly
every
year
to
try
and
get
clarification
of
what
he's
putting
down
in
this
I
e.
E
So
this
is
my
best
interpretation
and
during
our
departmental
hearing
I
tried
to
explain
to
him.
I
said
these
numbers
are
not
adding
up.
Can
you
please
explain
more,
and
he
told
me
that
it
was
my
job,
not
his,
and
so
this
is
my
best
interpretation.
Okay
of
this
history.
Looking
at
a
b
and
c,
yes,
it
is
projecting
up.
And
yes,
I
was
looking
I
actually
when
you
look
at
column
d.
E
E
So
that's
column,
d,
column
e,
like
I
said
I
sat
down
with
both
the
agent
and
the
owner
and
we
went
over
which
tenants
they
were
receiving,
which
tenants
were
getting
rent,
abatements,
okay
and
so,
once
again,
we
don't
do
below-the-line
adjustments
for
general
commercial,
but
we
can
adjust
the
income,
the
rent
and
that's
what
I
did
so.
I
looked
over
their
rent
roll
and
I
came
up
with
the
average
of
the
39
and
change
for
the
average
rent.
E
G
I
have
one
for
the.
I
was
wondering
why
the
total
operating
expenses
as
a
percentage
went
up
so
significantly
higher
than
than
all
of
the
history,
including
2020.
M
Mr
madsen,
that's
just
simply
based
on
actual
actual
expenses,
so
I
mean
I
don't
know
I
mean
I
can't
give
you
the
answer
to
the
question,
but,
but
I
think,
what's
missed
here
is
on
the
rent
roll.
You
have
to
remember.
The
rent
roll
is
a
snapshot.
It's
static
as
of
january
1.
That
was
the
rent
roll.
So
it
says
that
somebody's
paying
you
know,
they'll
go
through
the
leases
and
that's
the
contract
rent
on
the
leases.
M
But
with
these
types
of
tenants
who
are
mommy
poppy
tenants,
no
matter
what
it
says
on
the
lease
and
and
that
an
exhibit,
if
you
look
at
again
exhibit
three
over
a
period
of
four
years.
That's
what
actually
has
come
through
the
turnstile,
so
you
can.
You
can
model
a
rent
roll
which
is
static
in
time,
but
what
comes
in
with
these
types
of
tenants
is
what
is
actually
received.
M
So
again,
if
you
look
at
exhibit
three
that
shows
you
every
single
year,
what
actually
came
in
the
turnstile-
and
I
guarantee
you
if
you
look
at
the
rent
roll,
the
rent
roll,
would
indicate
higher
lease
rates
but
having
higher
lease
rates
and
collecting
them
or
collecting.
All
the
pass-throughs
are
two
different
things,
especially
with
this
class
of
tenant.
M
You
got
mommy
poppy
people
who
who
pay
what
they
can
pay
or
and
and
and
the
landlord
wants
them
to
stay
in
business,
because
otherwise
there'll
be
nobody
there,
and
I
think
the
department
has
underestimated
vacancy
this
center.
Typically.
A
I
Yeah,
it
was
mentioned
a
couple
times.
I
don't
think
the
number
was
stated,
but
what?
What
was
the
amount
forgiven
of
rent
in
2020.
M
D
E
Okay,
so
the
amount
of
rent
that
was
forgiven
that
we
had
calculated
was
less
than
what
the
agent
has
quoted
and
then
I
came
up.
I
determined
what
is
the
average
length
of
lease,
and
this
is
how
I
came
to
my
discount
of
using
9.93
cents,
a
square
foot
once
again.
Column
f
is
a
result
of
reviewing
the
rental,
the
current
occupied
tenants
and
the
concessions
that
were
given
for
2020.
E
And
the
expenses
that
are
being
reported,
reported
and
once
again
not
all
of
the
numbers
that
are
being
reported
in
these
income
and
expense
statements,
add
up
correctly.
E
M
Okay,
again,
I'm
gonna
direct
your
attention
to
exhibit
three
on
page
58,
and
that
shows
actually
what
has
come
in
for
a
2017,
18,
19
and
20..
So
that's
what
actually
came
through
the
turnstiles.
M
If
you
look
at
the
department's
columns
a
b
and
and
c,
you
see
varying
noise
there,
but
then
the
final
reconciliation,
the
department
uses
a
an
noi
of
709
and
why,
in
a
declining
market,
with
all
of
the
issues
with
kovid,
would
the
noi,
when
we
even
buy
the
department's
calculation,
never
surpassed
653?
M
And
if
you,
if
again,
if
you
look
at
exhibit
three,
it
would
be
closer
to
500.
In
any
event,
that's.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Now,
it's
just
among
the
board
members.
I
I
would
just
before
we
start
our
discussion.
I
would
suggest
to
mr
kaluchi
that
he
might
want
to
explain
to
his
borrower
ernest
borrowers.
I'm
sorry
his
the
owners
that
you
know
the
response
of
you
know
that
it's
the
county's
responsibility
to
figure
out
the
ines
is
risky,
because
the
burden
of
proof
is
on
the
appellate.
A
Miss
ruskin,
as
she
stated,
has
done
her
best
job
to
try
and
pull
the
numbers
together
in
years
past.
They
have
not,
you
know,
appealed
the
case,
but
it
makes
it
very
difficult
if
the
forms
aren't
filled
out,
you
know,
and
it
ends
up
that
the
county's
got
to
make
the
best
determination
of
what
those
numbers
are.
G
I
look
at
the
revised
worksheet
and
I
see
that
the
potential
rents
decreased
by
25
9.90
and
the
cap
rates
increased
regarding
covid
and
then
taking
just
the
standard.
You
know
rent
loss
because
the
other
two
numbers
account
for
a
much
sign,
more
significant
rent
loss
and
I'm
get
surprised
that
the
noi
is
so
high.
G
I
think
this
is
a
reiteration
of
what
others
have
said.
So
I
look
for
something
to
regularize
to
to
bring
the
noi
down,
because
intuitively
retail
didn't
do
very
well
january,
1st
2021.
and.
I
I'm
I'm
kind
of
falling
in
line
with
the
use
of
the
column
g.
I
don't
agree
the
code
adjustment
at
1.4
million
below
the
line.
I
think
that's
probably
too
heavy,
given
that
the
rent
forgiven
was
only
you
know,
550
or
less
so
that's
kind
of
where
I'm
looking
at
the
20.
I.
I
J
J
C
J
C
I
I
mean
just
one
general
comment
that
just
kind
of
seems
weird
to
me
is
that
that
we
just
did
the
case
with
federal
realty
in
village
at
sherlington,
and
that
was
like
300.
The
county.
Has
it
in
330
dollars
a
square
foot,
and
this
is
assessed
at
463
dollars,
a
square
foot
I
just
maybe
it's,
because
the
size
is
smaller,
but
you
know
villager
charlington
higher
rents,
better
place,
making
it's
a
whole.
I
You
know
complex
under
control
by
a
single
management,
and
you
know
you
got
much
higher
caliber
tenants,
and
this
is
literally
mom
and
pops
on
the
long.
You
know
along
the
road
not
much
else
here,
no
anchor,
there's
no
grocery
store,
so
it
just.
It
seems
weird
that
it
would
be
that
much
higher
than
on
a
person
just
on
a
per
square
foot
basis.
A
Yeah,
that's
a
good
point
from
the
standpoint
of
equalization.
I
don't
know
I
I'm
you
know
generally
don't
like
to
pick
a
a
price
point
out,
but
you
know
greg.
I
I
tend
to
agree
with
you
on
the
2019
of
capping
out
the
noi
of
that
at
the
7-3,
and
I
mean
I
think
the
burden
of
proof
again
is
on
the
appellate
and
then
the
income
may
be
lower,
but
with
you
know
the
lack
of
not
filling
out
the
forms
and
not
wanting
to
fill
out
the
forms.
A
H
H
C
C
J
Yeah
again
I
mean
I
didn't,
go
back
and
retest
the
other
two
years.
You
know
2017
or
18,
but
I
think
like
in
any
case,
you
know
I
again
like
the
previous
case.
I
don't
want
to
go
with
what
we
feel
should
be.
J
I
do
have
a
heart
and
do
have
a
feeling
feelings
also,
but
the
thing
is
that
those
noise
to
me
are
not
really
reflective.
I
mean
they're.
I
don't
think
that
they're
accurate
and
just
by
the
testimony
that
we
got
you
know
the
owner
is
not
really
being
too
cooperative.
I
guess
to
provide
the
information
to
the
county
to
work
with
him.
You
know
to
just
tell
him:
well,
you
figure
it
out,
and
I
know
mr
kulucci
has
tried
to
do.
J
You
know
come
up
with
these
numbers
based
on
actual
numbers
from
last
year,
but
I
don't
think
that's
reflective
also
what
the
value
should
be
well
based
I
mean
based
on
that,
I
can't
really
go.
I
have
to
go
with
a
revised
assessment.
I
don't
see
where
we
can
make
any
change.
H
H
A
I
could
go
either
way,
but
again
it
does
come
back
to
the
burden
of
proof
is
on
the
appellant
and
the
the
lack
of
information
from
the
appellant
could
push
me
right
back
over.
You
know,
right
to
where
you
are.
Mr
penaranda,
do
I
think
it's
high
yeah.
I
still
think
it's
high.
H
C
J
G
H
A
M
M
It's
just
a
question
of
how
the
county
interprets
the
information,
so
I
don't
want
to
you
to
believe
that
this
owner
doesn't
submit
information
because
they
submit
a
ton
of
information
and
the
county
just
takes
it
and
manipulates
it
the
way
they
want
to
manipulate
it.
And
then
you
guys
just
say:
oh
well,
it's
not
reliable,
but
you
know
that
exhibit
on
the
last
one
was.
You
know
right
on
every
dime
that
came
in,
but
anyway,
so
we'll
just
accept
the
county's
revised
assessment
on
this
one.
E
Yes,
this
is
the
same
owner
and
once
again
I
took
the
same
steps
with
this
property,
as
we
did
with
the
prior
property
that
was
discussed
and,
like
I
said,
we
did
look
at
the
concessions
we
we
talked
over,
what
concessions
were
given
and
we
took
that
into
account
and
we
reduced
the
rent
rent.
E
Excuse
me
and
just
ask
that
you
accept
column
f,
also
and.
E
E
It's
not
about
manipulation.
It
is
how
does
that
information
fit
into
the
income
and
expense
statement
that
we
mailed,
or
that
we
asked
the
owners
to
fill
out
every
year
and,
like
I
said
with
this
owner,
I
call
them
up,
and
I
ask
them:
is
this
how
we
interpret
looking
at
page
85
of
the
packet?
If
I
can
give
you
a
moment
to
take
a
look
at
it.
E
M
A
Say
I
think
this
is
different
from
the
prior
case.
You
know
when
I
look
at
this,
and-
and
at
least
the
revised
to
me
makes
more
sense
from
a
standpoint
of
the
reductions
as
opposed
to
you
know.
I
didn't
feel
that
way
on
the
first
case
and
had
I
had
more
information
from
the
appellant,
you
know
I
I
could
have
had
a
different
decision
on
the
outcome,
but
I
mean
this
one
seems
more
in
line.
G
I
I
I
appreciate
that
the
department
used
the
exact
same
rationale
and
this
one
and
the
last
one
and
some
other
purely
retail
uncommercial
situations
by
reducing
rent
by
the
expected
amount
of
rent
loss,
the
average
rent
per
square
foot,
columns,
f
and
g
are
very,
very,
very
much
the
same
other
than
like
the
last
case.
The
appellant
significantly
percentage-wise
increase
the
operating
costs
absent
that
they
they
come
in
very
much
in
tandem.
And
finally,
like
the
last
case,
I
don't
see
any
failures
in
in
the
department's
logic
or
numbers.
A
J
J
I
agree
with
miss
roskin,
it's
not
as
clear
as
we
see
in
a
lot
of
the
cases,
and
so
it's
I
don't
think
it's
just
a
matter
of
manipulating
numbers.
I
think
and
that's
the
reason
I
was
just
testing
the
previous
case.
You
know
to
see
where
the
noi
could
have
fallen
into,
because
it
didn't
make
sense,
but
yeah
I
mean
both
parties
agree
in
this
case
that
the
number
on
the
number
of
the
revised
assessments-
I'm
okay
with
it.
C
A
Okay,
that's
unanimous
the
county's
revised
assessment
of
13
million
seven
fourteen
seven
hundred
has
been
confirmed.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
pilot.
Thank
you,
mr
roskin.
Thank
you,
everyone.
Okay,
does
anybody
have
any
other
business.
A
No,
I
just
will
remind
everybody.
We
won't
meet
on
tuesday
july
6,
so
hopefully
you
all
have
a
nice
long
fourth
of
july
weekend,
and
then
we
will
adjourn
here
at
11,
18
and
reconvene
next
wednesday
july
7th
at
9am.