►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing September 29, 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
Is
wednesday
september
29
2021?
This
is
the
arlington
county
board
of
equalization
hearings.
We
have
five
cases
on
the
agenda
today.
The
first
case
rpc
one
one:
zero,
zero,
six,
zero
one,
five
at
67
lee
highway.
Mr
steinhauser
has
asked
to
withdraw
the
case
and
the
county
has
no
has
no
objections
to
that.
Is
that
true,
miss
ruskin?
That
is
correct?
Okay,
then
I'll
move
to
accept
the
withdrawal.
Do
I
have
a
second
okay
motion
in
a
second
by
mr
lawson,
I'm
all
in
favor,
hi,
okay,
it's
unanimous
six
to
zero.
A
B
A
Mr
lawson
and
all
in
favor
aye,
it's
unanimous,
okay.
The
third
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc,
one,
four,
zero,
five
one,
three
five,
six
at
801
north
glebe
road-
I
see
mr
jordan
harmon,
is
on
the
line
for
the
appellate.
So,
mr
harmon,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
Sir.
C
C
C
In
order
to
be
accurate,
this
is
to
account
for
the
fact
that
the
industry
again
does
not
expect
to
return
to
pre-2020
levels
until
2024
at
the
earliest
as
such,
without
the
below
the
line.
Deductions.
The
values
above
the
line
are
not
relevant
on
this
page.
You
can
also
see
that
actual
revenue
and
noi
at
the
property
decreased
from
2017
to
2018
and
again
from
2018
to
2019..
C
C
C
Now,
a
more
accurate
valuation
takes
into
account
actual
trends
experienced
at
the
property
understanding
that
the
county,
in
the
words
accepted
methodology,
does
not
consider
actual
2020
reported
income
and
expenses,
but
rather
looks
to
2018
and
2019
actuals.
We
can
project
that
this
property
should
be
valued
at
42
million
970
thousand
dollars.
C
C
C
Five:
five
percent
results
in
a
capitalized
value
of
sixty
three
million
seven
hundred
eighty
nine
thousand
dollars,
which
we
then
take
and
deduct
the
value
of
personal
property
at
the
three
million
two
hundred
forty
eight
thousand
five
dollars,
and
we
apply
the
county's
coveted
deduction
below
the
line
of
65
percent
of
revenue,
and
this
gets
us
to
a
value
of
45
million
dollars.
C
State
statute,
who
requires
that
properties?
Be
assessed
in
a
uniform
manner,
however,
in
this
case
the
assessment
is
not
uniform,
because
the
stabilized
potential
is
not
based
on
the
clear
trend
of
declining
revenue
and
noi
experienced
at
this
property.
This
property
had
declining
revenue
and
noi
from
2017
to
2018
and
again
from
2018
to
2019.
C
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chicas,
for
the
county.
Please.
E
Yes
ma'am,
so
this
is
the
second
week
in
a
row
where
we're
hearing
revised
values
the
morning
of
the
hearing,
which
is
disappointing,
considering
that
the
agents
have
had
this
case
for
nine
plus
months
now
and
have
had
internal
documents
from
the
owners,
which
probably
belie
the
confidence
of
their
conviction.
Here
they
went
from
a
value
of
32
million,
which
was
a
57
percent
drop
year
every
year
in
value.
E
E
E
We
did
in
fact
make
a
consistent
below
the
line
adjustment,
another
negative
65
percent,
which
caused
a
decrease
year-over-year,
32
percent.
E
The
original
opinion
of
value
by
the
representative
for
the
owner
was
negative,
57
year-over-year
and
that's
because
they
call
for
141
percent
deduction
again
year
over
year
from
what
the
operating
history
tells
you.
So
in
fact
they
took
a
two-year
deduction
for
an
annual
assessment.
That's
inappropriate.
E
We
believe
we've
talked
about
that
before
again
with
the
county's
consistency,
we've
made
adjustments
based
on
the
operating
history,
as
you
can
see
in
the
summary
sheets,
we've
done
this
all
year.
Long.
In
fact,
as
again,
you
look
at
the
summary
sheet.
You'll
see
that
the
opinion
of
value
by
the
net
operating
income
opinion
value
by
the
appellant
is
actually
higher
than
the
counties.
E
E
The
board
has
seen
this
20-plus
times
on
other
property
types,
because
we've
done
this
consistently
and
uniformly.
We
do
believe
that,
based
on
the
revision,
excuse
me
the
declining
operating
history
of
the
property.
We
do
believe
that
the
assessment
made
by
the
county
at
50
million
seven
hundred
ninety
thousand
two
hundred
was
done
prudently
and
should
be
accepted
at
that
value.
Anything
to
add
irving.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chairman.
This
is
for
the
applicant
between
17,
18
and
19.
It
looks
like
revenue
went
down
12,
plus
or
minus
each
year.
What
is
that
attributed
to.
C
So
that
that's
a
very
good
question,
mr
mr
lawson
eileen
and
I
have
we
were
researching
that
trying
to
come
up
with
an
answer.
We
were
curious
about
that
ourselves
and
eileen.
I
believe,
can
you
add
anything
to
that?
I
I
don't
know
if
we
found
a
final
answer
on
that,
but
it
is.
You
know,
curious
that
there
is
that
clear
trend
of
declining
noi
and
and
revenue
as
well.
D
I
think
mr
lawson,
this
property
is
ready
for
it
was
built,
I
believe,
in
2009.
jordan.
Can
you
check
that
and,
as
with
the
useful
life
of
any
hotel,
you
know
five
to
seven
years
for
ffa
it's
due
for
for
an
upgrade,
so
that
could
be
part
of
it.
There
are
the
the
hotel
is
not
positioned
to
as
a
typical
western
is
with
it's,
probably
not
as
nice
as
a
as
a
typical
western,
and
so
that
has
been
in
large
part,
the
reason
for
the
decline.
D
So
two
and
a
half
percent
of
that
you
know,
as
you
can
see,
from
17,
it
was
a
two
percent
reserve
and
then
that
bump
to
four
and
a
half
percent,
and
that
drives
quite
a
bit
of
this.
G
Excuse
me:
noi
is
a
key
constituent
to
all
of
this
assessment
process
and
you've
pointed
out
chris
that
you've
reduced
based
on
the
trend
for
2017
and
2020,
you've
reduced
revenues
and
whatnot,
but
the
noi
is
reduced
by
a
a
mere
shadow
of
what
the
trend
reductions
in
noi
over
recent
history
have
been.
G
So
I
guess
my
question
is:
why
didn't
the
noi
come
down
closer
to
the
trend?
In
your
opinion,.
E
So
again,
if
we're
looking
at
year
over
year,
I
can
see
that
the
the
idea
might
be
that
should
be
another
12
percent
loss.
But
again,
if
we're
looking
at
stabilization,
there's
no
other
way
to
cut
it.
If
you
look
at
a
three
year,
average
we're
quite
low
if
you
look
at
a
two-year
average
or
even
lower.
So
in
other
words,
we
do
follow
the
trend
down,
but
we're
not
going
to
take
the
idea
that
it's
it's
been
12
down.
So
it's
going
another
12
down.
E
That's
what
percent
doesn't
keep
up
with
the
downward
trend
in
the
income?
If
you
notice
the
income
is
actually
fairly
stable,
the
things
that
went
down
were
the-
and
this
is
again
in
2019
to
be
clear
things
that
went
down
where
food
and
beverage
went
down
by
over
a
million
dollars
and
miscellaneous
by
another,
almost
300
000,
but
room
revenue
actually
went
up.
So
if
you
look
again
across
the
board,
occupancy
was
stable.
E
It
actually
increased
three
years
in
a
row
revpar
jumped
around
from
you
know:
17
it
was
back
again
to
2019
levels
were
at
2017
levels.
So
I
think
it's
more
about
what
we're
talking
about
here,
where
there's
a
almost
six
hundred
thousand
dollar
increase
in
reserves
for
f
and
e
and
that
quite
hasn't
caught
up
with
the
that
drop
was
bigger
than
the
increase
in
revenues.
So,
in
other
words,
again,
if
you're
looking
at
stabilization,
we
wouldn't
just
drop
at
12
you'd.
C
And
if
I
may
address
that
as
well
sure
we
did
take
the
trends
and
we
smoothed
it
for
that
f
and
e
drop.
And
so
we
took
each
line
item
and
we
looked
at
the
change
between
2017
2018
and
then
again
18
to
19,
and
we
averaged
those
applied
them
to
the
2020
actuals
and
that's
where
we
got
a
nine
and
a
half
percent
decline
instead
of
the
twelve
and
a
half
percent.
So
that
kind
of
smooths.
C
For
the
f
and
e
increase
we
we
did
apply
the
four
and
a
half
percent
ffe
to
the
revenue
and
expenses
that
we
found
based
on
that
trend
and
that's
how
we
arrived
at
the
45
million
year.
G
Yeah,
I
I
I'll
I
started
sell
finish.
I
didn't
suggest
that
it
should
go
down
the
noi
12
or
so,
but
there
was
a
huge
gap,
certainly
percentage-wise
between
12
and
1.,
and-
and
I
appreciate
your
response
to
that-
but
don't
don't
think
that
I
was
expecting
a
12
noi
drop
for
the
assessment
value.
Thank
you.
E
Absolutely
and
again
just
want
to
point
out
that
it's
a
bit
disconcerting
to
be
looking
at
a
pro
forma,
that's
entirely
different
than
being
presented.
Today
again,
the
representatives
have
this
case
nine
plus
months
they've
known
they're,
probably
going
to
make
a
change
at
least
for
a
week
since
they
did
this
last
time
they
didn't
inform
the
department.
So
we
don't
know
what
numbers
they're
actually
working
with
other
than
what
they're
telling
us
over
the
teams
based
on
the
pro
forma.
E
They
called
for
a
57
drop
year
over
year
in
value
they've
changed
the
convictions
of
their
belief.
They
now
believe
that
it's
a
different
value,
we've
stayed
consistent.
We've
used
the
operating
history
to
show
that
there
is
decline
in
both
revenues
and
correspondingly
expenses.
We
did
capture
the
decline
in
overall
net
operating
income.
But
again,
please
do
the
math
look
at
the
averages.
What
the
property
has
been
achieving
stabilize
that
number
and
you'll
see
that
we're
actually
low.
E
A
C
Yes,
thank
you
and
the
county's
correct.
We
have
had
this
case
for
several
months
and
we
came
up
initially
with
a
valuation
methodology
that
we
believed
was
more
accurate
for
capturing
the
fair
market
value
based
on
what
we've
seen
at
the
board
cases
for
hotels
since
we've
had
to
adopt
a
different
methodology
and
what
we've
done
is
we've
looked
at
the
same
numbers
that
was
that
have
been
provided
to
the
county
that
the
county
provided
on
their
page
three,
and
we
just
looked
at
the
trend-
and
we
said
you
know
this.
C
This
one
percent
drop
doesn't
fully
capture
what's
happening
at
the
property
and
it
just
seems
rather
optimistic
to
see
that
it
would
get
back
to
those
levels.
This
property
has
seen
a
documented
history
of
decline.
There
is
nothing
as
of
january
1st
2021
that
would
make
us
expect
that
decline
to
stop.
If
anything,
we
should
believe
that
decline
will
accelerate
january
1
2021,
as
we
all
recall,
was
perilous
time.
295
000
new
cases
of
coveted
in
the
u.s
on
a
seven-day
moving
average
there's
nothing
there.
That
makes
us
believe
the
decline
would
not
continue.
A
Okay,
thank
you
now,
it's
just
among
the
board
members.
What's
everybody
think.
B
B
You
know
the
first
thing
that
I
would
say
is,
is
you
know,
I'm
a
person
that
often
presents
applications,
and
I
I
respect
that
the
applicant
has
altered
their
presentation
and
they
have
backed
off
on
what
they're
asking
for,
and
I
think
they've
done
that
in
reaction
to
what
they've
learned
by
presenting
several
several
applications
and
seeing
the
board's
thinking
and
so
forth,
you
know,
as
I
travel
around
arlington,
I
see
that
it
seems,
like
tourists
are
really
coming
back
in
force
and
looks
like
we're
getting
back
to
quasi-normal
here
in
arlington
and
the
hotel
that
is
in
my
building
has
you
know
very
high
figures
of
of
visitors.
B
I
can
just
tell
that
by
living
there
now
this
this
hotel,
it
does
a
lot
of
meetings
and
and
parties
and
stuff
like
that
and
their
ground
floor
is
huge
with
bars
and
restaurants
and
so
forth.
So
what
I
did
after
listening
to
to
this
presentation
as
kind
of
a
check.
What
I
did
is
is
is,
I
said:
okay,
let's
assume
it
continues.
The
trend
went
down.
B
12
percent-
and
I
did
that
figure
and
it
came
up
to
almost
ended
up
at
49
million
900
and
and
which
is
not
far
from
from
where
the
county
is
so.
I
guess
the
the
thing
we
have
to
wrestle
with
as
a
board
is:
should
we
use
the
15
million
figure
or
the
34
million
figure?
I
think
I
I
think
that's
really.
The
the
whole
case
is
is
which
do
we
use.
B
I
I
think
I
do
think
there
should
be
a
reduction
below
the
50,
I'm
just
not
sure
what
it
should
be,
and
maybe
the
12
is
too
aggressive.
Maybe
I
should
go
with
something
else,
but
if
I,
if
I
do
that,
I'm
going
to
be
where
the
county
is
so
anyhow,
those
are
my
thoughts
I
like
to
see
what
others
think.
G
The
the
the
county's
assessment
reduction
in
an
assessment
is
pretty
consistent
with
hotels
motels,
especially
you
know,
upper
line
that
we've
seen
due
to
coca
purely
in
this
case,
though,
there
really
is
a
trend,
a
downward
trend
at
this
property,
ms
borman
probably
highlighted
two
of
the
best
ones,
one
it's
lost
to
sheen
and
two.
It
pays
more
to
the
franchisor.
G
G
So
I
just
reduced
total
revenue
by
two
and
a
half
percent
and
which
and
and
left
expenses
is
a
percentage
of
it
and
all
that
jazz,
because
it's
not
a
lockstep
between
operating
expenses
and
and
revenue
income
and
just
reduced
the
noi
by,
like
you,
know,
a
little
over
half
a
million
dollars
and
then
just
brought
that
down
to
the
assessment
it's
actually
551,
000,
plus
just
just
by
following
the
trend
of
revenue.
H
I
mean
I'm
I'm
close
enough
to
where
the
county's
at
on
this
to
not
make
a
change
now.
I
would
acknowledge
it
17
18
19,
I
mean
a
lot
of
that
might
have
had
to
do
with
nsf,
leaving
there's
a
lot
of
travel
involved
in
grants
and
grant
applications
and
presentations
and
all
that
stuff
and
all
that
is
virtual.
Now
so
I
mean
until
the
government
gets
back
online
until
arlington
county.
You
know
some
of
those
businesses
get
up
and
running
around
boston
where
they're
gonna
get
some
corporate
travel.
H
That's
definitely
a
predominantly
corporate
travel
and
government
travel
as
opposed
to
leisure.
So
I
I
can
sympathize,
but
I
mean
50
million
is
a
pretty
low
valuation
for
this
building.
So
I'm
I
wouldn't
go
any
lower
than
that.
You've
got
a
buyer
at
50
million.
A
Okay,
I
would
agree
with
that.
Anyone
else.
I
I
I
agree
with
that
too.
I
I
empathize
with
the
idea
of
the
the
decline
and
it
is
coming
up
for
being
refit
the
building,
but.
I
J
Yes,
thank
you.
Well,
I'm
I'm!
Okay
with
the
county's
number,
I
think
the
you
know.
The
new
numbers
that
were
brought
in
today
by
mr
harmon
got
me
a
little
more
confused
on
where
we
should
go
to
be
honest,
and
it
was
a
a
little
bit
harder
to
follow
that.
But
you
know
based
on
what
we
have
on
the
documents
that
we
were
sent.
J
A
Okay,
well,
I
think
we've
got
a
majority
leaning
that
way,
so
I'm
ready
to
entertain
a
motion.
H
J
A
C
Yes,
thank
you
so
1651
north
oak
street.
This
is
the
residence
in
arlington
in
roslyn,
located
just
off
wilson
boulevard
at
17th
street
in
north
oak.
The
county's
test
is
on
page
three
of
the
appeal
pack
for
the
appellant
stabilized
value
in
column
g.
We
again
use
the
hospitality
industry
guidance
that
projects
a
return
to
stabilization
in
2024..
C
As
such,
our
column
g
values
are
based
on
projected
2024
income,
which
must
then
be
adjusted
below
the
line
to
discount
the
value
back
to
2021.
the
above.
The
line
figures
are
not
meant
to
stand
alone,
apart
from
the
below
the
line,
deductions,
and
here
again,
we
deducted
two
years
of
the
revenue
decline
that
the
property
actually
experienced
from
2019
to
2020..
C
C
C
at
a
minimum.
The
2019
expenses
should
be
used
for
the
occupancy
and
revenue
assumed
by
the
assessment.
The
operating
expenses
should
realistically
be
increased
for
inflation
at
three
percent
minimum.
This
results
increasing
the
2019
actual
operating
expenses
by
three
percent
results
in
operating
expenses
of
five
million
four
hundred
eighteen
thousand.
Eighty
six
dollars:
if
we
apply
those
expenses
to
the
county's
pro
forma
column,
this
will
more
accurately
capture
what
is
required
to
to
operate
a
hotel
at
eighty
one
occupancy
as
assumed
by
the
assessment
as
of
january
1
2021..
C
C
C
We
all
know
that
2021,
labor
and
material
costs
have
gone
up
from
2018
and
2019..
The
expenses
assumed
to
achieve
81.5
occupancy
at
the
property
are
simply
not
realistic
and
at
a
minimum,
the
2019
actual
expenses
should
be
used
and
those
should
be
grown
to
account
for
inflation
as
well.
Thank
you
and
eileen.
Would
you
like
to
add
anything.
E
As
you
can
see
in
the
summary
sheet,
this
property's
increased
its
revenues
three
years
in
a
row,
it's
stabilized
its
occupancy,
as
mr
armand
noted,
if
we're
using
it,
go
between
of
1819
right
around
81
percent
occupancy
again,
there's
a
lot
of
speculation
that
costs
go
up,
costs
go
up,
costs
go
up,
but
again,
if
you're
looking
at
the
operating
history,
you'll
see
that
that's
not
what's
been
indicated
in
the
operating
history,
the
costs
actually
went
down.
Operating
revenues,
revenues
went
up
from
1718
and
operating
costs
went
down
again.
E
They
increased
a
little
bit
19
by
but
less
than
what
they
went
down
the
year
before
again.
What
are
we
doing
here?
We're
looking
at
stabilization.
Look
at
the
property's
history.
Look
at
what
the
county
revised.
This
is
again
reverse
of
the
last
case
this
noise
increased
by
over
two
percent
each
year.
Our
noi
is
low,
also
look
at
column
e.
This
is
one
of
the
few
properties
in
the
county
hotel
that
actually
had
a
net
operating
income.
That
was
a
positive
number.
That's
a
well-positioned
property.
E
This
is
within
less
than
half
a
mile
of
roslyn
metro
adjacent
to
you
know
across
key
bridge
from
washington
dc,
it's
a
residence
inn.
So
again
it
was
less
afflicted
by
some
of
these
full
service
afflictions
like
worried,
about
corporate
space,
meeting
space,
etc.
E
These
are
are
essentially
efficiencies
where
the
pa,
the
tenants
don't
have
to
worry
about
interacting.
So
as
far
as
the
speculation
that
cleaning
costs
are
going
to
grow,
we've
seen,
in
fact
the
the
reverse.
If
you
visit
the
website
of
the
hotel
now
they'll
tell
you
they
do
not
clean
runes
every
day.
E
Specifically,
my
guess
is
to
not
only
keep
the
six
feet
distance
in
place,
but
also
to
cut
costs.
These
are
operators
who
are
looking
to
maximize
their
return
on
investment.
As
you
can
see,
the
net
upper
income
has
increased
every
year,
as
we've
done
time
and
time
and
time
and
time
again,
we
have
made
the
below
the
line
revisions,
making
accordance
with
again
the
the
theory.
As
of
january
1st
that
this
would
be
somewhere
in
between
2018
2019
levels.
E
We
made
that
revision.
We
did
a
sixty
percent
below
line
adjustment,
as
opposed
to
the
balance
124
percent
adjustment
below
the
line
again,
two
years
below
the
line
for
an
annual
assessment,
there
will
be
an
appropriate
adjustment
on
a
an
annual
assessment
they
asking
for
a
30
drop
year
every
year.
E
You
know
they
have
a
positive
net
operating
income
in
a
covered
year,
which
most
of
their
fellow
hospitalities
were
devastated,
based
on
the
fact
that
we've
done
this
revision
uniformly,
we've
done
this
prudently
again,
based
on
its
history,
we're
low
and
low
reflective
of
what
we
thought
as
their
january
1st,
and
not
what's
the
productivity
that
they've
had
this
year.
E
Given
that
we've
made
this
uniformly
adjustment
uniformly
below
the
line
done
repeatedly
throughout
the
year,
we
do
believe
that
our
vision,
again
reflective
of
a
20
drop
year
of
a
year,
in
spite
of
the
positive
net
upper
income
in
the
year
2020,
should
be
reflected.
So
we
believe
that
the
revision
of
48
million
523
400
should
be
confirmed,
anything
to
add
irvine.
C
E
Yes
ma'am
so
again,
looking
at
the
operating
history,
we
see
a
property,
that's
increased
its
revenues
year
every
year,
every
year
stabilized
its
operating
expenses
as
we
have
done
in
revision
column,
its
net
operating
income
is
increased
year
every
year
every
year.
Again,
if
we
look
at
colomey,
this
is
one
of
the
only
properties
and
hospitality
type
in
the
county
that
achieved
a
positive
net
operating
income
that
poses
well
for
the
future.
E
Looking
at
the
revision
that
we've
made,
we've
done
this
uniformly
prudently.
We've
done
this
consistently.
We
do
believe
that
the
revision,
the
48
million
523
400,
should
be
confirmed
again
signifying
a
20
drop
year
every
year,
even
though
the
history
would
contend
that
it's
actually
doing
doing
a
bit
better
than
especially
last
case,
we
do
believe
48
million
523
400
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
C
Yes,
thank
you.
First
I'd
like
to
address
that
each
property
needs
to
be
evaluated
on
its
own
merits.
I've
heard
the
county
state
many
times
this
case
compared
to
last
case
this
case.
Compared
to
that
other
case.
To
the
other
cases,
each
taxpayer
is
afforded
their
own
due
process
and
must
be
evaluated
as
as
on
their
own,
and
I
think
the
board
has
done
a
good
job
of
that,
but
I'd
just
like
to
throw
that
out
there
that
each
of
these
properties
is
a
separate
taxpayer
entitled
to
due
process.
C
Now
what
we
have
with
the
assessment
is
essentially
a
logical
theory
of
how
to
build
up
this
income
to
come
up
with
an
assessment.
Now,
with
the
presumption
of
being
correct,
we
work
within
the
parameters
of
the
thought
experiment
that
is
the
2021
experiment
or
2021
assessment.
I'm
sorry,
looking
at
that,
we
see
that
we
look
at
how
was
revenue
built
up.
It
was
built
up
on
2018,
2019,
occupancy
and
adr
levels.
Okay,
we
move
on.
This
is
a
january
1,
2021
assessment.
How
are
expenses
built
up?
They
were
built
up
using
2018-2019
expenses.
C
A
Okay,
thank
you.
It's
just
among
the
board
members.
G
Two
couple
of
things
one
is,
I
thought:
the
appellant's
rationale
on
operating
expenses
was
completely
reasonable,
based
at
the
presumed
occupancy
rate
such
that
we
calculate
you
know,
the
revenue
operating
expenses
would
go
up.
I
don't
know
about
three
percent,
so
much
as
the
excess
costs
for
covid
protection
safety
and
that
really
I
don't
know
that
that
was
really
come
up
that
clearly
before
in
in
other
cases,
but
it
nonetheless
it's
it's
reasonable
and
it's
knowable
and
it's
not
a
projection.
I
mean
really
on
january
1st
2021.
G
G
Oh,
I
I
just
made
operating
expenses
up
to
50,
it's
somewhat
arbitrary
and
it's
not
a
big
change.
It
reduces
the
the
bottom
line
by.
G
My
number
364
000
plus
and
it's
the
same
rationale
as
the
last
case,
just
smoothing
it
out
trying
to
be
a
little
bit
more
reflective
of
the
reality
of
it.
That's
one
two,
it's
good
to
be
said
once
again,
as
it
is
every
time
we
meet
that
we
do
not
project.
We
have
no
idea.
What's
going
to
happen
next
year
on
fall
off,
I
don't
care
about
the
restaurants
of
the
hotel
lobby.
That
says
it's
gonna
take
four
years,
because
the
sky
is
falling.
None
of
that
counts.
G
If
things
are
terrible
next
year.
I
expect
this
account
to
come
back
and
say
we
need
another
below
the
line
reduction
one
year
at
a
time.
I
think
we
on
the
board
certainly
all
agree
with
the
department
that
that's
overwhelmingly-
and
I
just
wanted
to
to
to
respond
to
that.
And
finally,
the
big
difference
between
the
appellants
number
and
the
the
department's
number
of
courses
in
that
two
year
versus
one
year
below
the
line
write-off.
The
rest
is
almost
marginal,
but
I
still
stand
by
the
marginal.
A
Decrease
of
again
364
000,
plus
just
to
reflect
the
additional
cost
of
operating
expenses.
Thank
you,
okay.
I
would
just
say
on
that:
I'm
fine
with
the
county's
revised
number
I
mean
when
I
look
at
it.
I
think
we're
splitting
hairs
on
the
expenses.
You
know
they
reduced
the
total
revenue
to
offset
it.
I
mean
they
have
actually
higher
expenses
in
the
original
assessment.
A
You
know
and
actually
kept
it
up
with
reducing.
You
know
the
total
revenue
and
using
a
percentage
of
that,
like
I
said,
I'm
fine
with
where
they
ended
up
in
the
revision,
but
interested
in
what
other
folks
have
to
say.
Mr
penaranda.
J
Yeah,
I'm
with
you
mary,
I
think,
bringing
to
I
mean
increasing
the
expenses
to
50
percent.
Can
I
think
you,
in
my
opinion,
would
bring
the
noi
a
little
bit
too
low,
and
so
I'm
okay
with
the
revised
assessment.
J
H
I
was,
I
was
following
ken's
same
line
of
thinking
and
I
think
it's
possible.
The
appellant
has
kind
of
shortchanged
themselves
and
what
they've
asked
for
on
operating
expenses.
Here,
just
I
mean
the
county's
guidelines
for
resident
suites
is
55.5
and
that's
before
reserves
they're
at
47.8,
which
was
you
know
right
around
where
they
were
in
2019
and
and
what's
happened
from
people.
I
know
in
the
hotel
industry
is
you
know
they
were?
H
They
had
35
occupancy
last
year,
which
means
they
laid
people
off
when
they
go
back
to
hire
those
cleaning,
crews
and
and
that
staff
they're,
not
there.
So
they're
subcontracting
out
room
cleaning
and
things
like
that,
and
that
always
has
a
premium,
that's
kind
of
going
on
across
the
industry.
So
I
just
think
they're
they
might
be
underestimating
where
they're
gonna
be
on
expenses,
and
so
I
would
I
would
support
50,
as
ken
put
it.
B
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chairman.
The
reason
I
asked
about
the
insurance
is
at
my
condominium,
which
is
a
high-rise
we
all
fainted
when
we
got
our
renewal
bill
for
our
insurance,
because
the
insurance
companies
are
now
panicked
over
what
happened
down
in
miami
with
the
building
collapse
and
our
insurance
literally
doubled
for
the
the
building.
B
As
far
as
the
expenses
we
gave
our
cleaning
crew
like
a
five
dollar
an
hour
raise-
and
I
saw
an
article
yesterday
in
arlington
now
well-paid
mage
is
leading
the
industry
at
20
bucks
an
hour.
So
I
guess
we're
gonna
have
to
give
them
another
raise
in
order
to
keep
them,
and
I
mean
it's
just
that
expenses
are
just
out
of
sight,
especially
with
employees.
B
I
G
Having
brought
it
up,
I
I
agree
with
mark
and,
and
I
redid
the
numbers
you
know
from
column
f
and
it's
I
revised
down
what
would
be
a
reduction
getting
up
to
50
occup
operating
expenses
and
it
would
be
a
reduction
in
200
a
little
over
218
000.
That's
a
very,
very
percentage-wise
percentage-wise
small
amount
of
money
for
a
mass
appraisal
situation.
A
Okay,
so
I
believe
then,
we've
swayed
back
so.
Okay,
just
I
think
you've
got
enough
votes
there.
So
would
somebody
like
to
make
a
motion?
G
I
move
that
we
accept
the
department's
revised
assessment
of
48
million
523
400.
A
A
Okay,
the
assessments
reduced
to
the
county's
revised
number
of
48
million
five
twenty
three
four
hundred.
A
A
C
C
C
You
can
see
here
that
noi
at
the
property
decreased
129
from
20
in
2020
from
2019
for
some
context
as
to
why
this
hotel
is
is
unique,
amongst
others
in
the
county
and
should
be
evaluated
according
to
its
unique
merits
and
not
based
on
you
know,
other
hotels
that
we've
seen
it.
It
does
merit
its
own
attention.
In
2019,
over
75
percent
of
the
revenue
at
the
property
was
a
result
of
business
travel.
C
C
C
Clearly,
a
lot
less
profitable
than
business
travelers
the
shift
to
less
profitable
bookings.
As
a
result,
this
results
in
a
large
loss
of
revenue.
However,
operating
expenses
are
not
affected
to
the
same
degree,
since
the
services
required
to
operate
a
hotel
are
largely
tied
to
occupancy
and
not
who
the
occupant
is.
C
C
Pre-Pandemic
bookings
were
made
an
average
of
60
days
before
the
stay
as
of
the
date
of
value.
This
figure
of
booking
days
before
this
day
had
fallen
to
an
average
of
five
days.
Clearly,
the
property's
business
government
group
and
airport
related
guests
have
declined
being
replaced
by
low
margin,
leisure
travel.
C
This
shift
to
less
profitable
leisure
travelers
is
likely
to
remain
over
the
next
few
years,
given
the
headwinds
faced
by
business
travel.
The
shift
in
to
online
virtual
meetings
for
businesses
is
seismic
and
will
have
a
measurable
effect
on
this
property's
operations.
This
is
a
new
normal
to
assume
business.
Travel
will
reach.
Pre-Pandemic
levels
is
highly
speculative
projected
business.
Spending
on
travel
is
down
as
of
the
date
of
value.
C
Finally,
this
property
is
next
to
national
airport,
which
further
impacts
the
potential
revenue.
Air
travel.
International
airport
was
down
79
percent
year
over
year
as
of
october
2020,
as
of
the
date
of
value,
any
assumption
of
a
return
to
normal
for
this
business.
For
this
property
based
on
business
travel
is
highly
speculative.
C
In
addition,
the
the
assessment
assumes
operating
expenses
based
on
a
percentage
of
revenue,
but
that
that's
misleading
because,
as
we've
just
discussed,
revenue
is
declining,
but
occupancy
is
not
necessarily
it's
the
type
of
traveler
we're
going
from
high
margin.
You
know
138
dollars
a
night
business
travelers
to
leisure
travelers
at
57
a
night.
This
is
a
huge
impact
revenue,
but
operating
expenses
are
not
going
to
decline
by
the
same
percentage.
The
assessment
uses
a
percentage
for
expenses
we
do.
This
is
not
accurate.
C
Well,
at
a
minimum,
we
should
use
the
2019
expenses.
So
in
sum,
this
property
is
unique
and
that
is
heavily
reliant
on
business,
travelers
and
airport
traffic.
Any
change
to
this
client
mix,
as
has
been
experienced
over
2020
greatly
impacts
the
potential
revenue,
but
again,
not
necessarily
the
expenses
which
reduces
noi
potential
at
the
property.
C
C
The
the
property
has
done
their
best
to
maintain
occupancy
and
maintain
foot
traffic.
However,
that
reduces
revenue
significantly
and
the
operating
expenses
should
be
accounted
for
at
the
occupancy
level,
not
at
the
revenue
level.
The
assessment
accounts
for
for
operating
expenses
as
a
percent
of
revenue,
but
when
that
revenue
dips
significantly
due
to
leisure
travelers
instead
of
business
travelers,
it
does
not
fully
capture
the
extent
of
operating
expenses.
D
Dude,
the
only
thing
I'll
add
is
that
historically,
this
property
had
a
lot
of
contract
business
with
the
airlines,
and
there
is,
there
was
no
contract
business
left
and
there
as
of
at
least
a
week
ago,
when
we
spoke
with
the
owner
that
contract
business
has
not
come
back
and
it
is
uncertain
if
it
ever
will.
E
Yes,
ma'am
so
again,
looking
at
the
summary
sheets,
as
we've
done
all
year,
30
plus
toes
that
we've
looked
at
and
treating
them
uniformly
and
to
kind
of
counter
what
mr
ahmed
said.
In
the
last
case,
we
look
at
each
property
individually,
but
again
as
mass
appraisal,
we
look
at
the
the
property
tax
uniformly,
as
we've
done
consistently.
E
On
that
note,
and
in
being
consistent
with
other
full
service
hospitality
property
types,
we
did
a
below
the
line
adjustment,
negative
65
percent.
This
is
fully
half
of
the
138
adjustments
made
by
the
pellets
again
just
too
aggressive
to
make
a
two-year
adjustment
on
a
one-year
annual
assessment.
E
They
are
asking
for
a
negative
66
percent
drop
year
every
year
in
value
again
just
far
too
aggressive.
Ours
is
much
more
in
line
with
what
we've
seen
year
round
all
year,
long
rather
at
negative,
39
year-over-year
drop
again
very
much
in
play
with
what
we've
been
doing.
Looking
at
the
idea
that
it'll
take
a
two
to
three
year,
return
as
of
january
1,
looking
at
2018
2019's
numbers,
as
you
can
see
in
our
column,
f
revision
we're
very
much
recognizing
the
increase
in
2018,
but
not
quite
at
2019
levels,
again
operating
expenses.
E
I
think
mr
harmon
misunderstands
how
the
county
addresses
operating
expenses
they're
not
applied
by
percentage.
The
percentage
is
simply
a
metric
looking
at
the
operating
expense
as
a
percentage
of
the
total
revenue,
and
I
would
note
that
we're
both
at
74,
so
it
makes
it
fairly
moot
again.
Mr
armand
noted
that
this
property
has
not
dropped
occupancy.
It
has,
in
fact,
if
you
look
at
17
18
19,
it's
dropped
at
least
what
three
three
point.
Two
percent
again.
He
attributes
that
to
mostly
business
travelers.
E
I
believe
they
had
some
metrics
to
to
provide
that,
but
moving
forward,
it's
fairly
speculative
to
assume
that
it
won't
be
the
case,
especially
considering
that,
if
we're
not
talking
about
as
of
last
week,
borman's
comments
of
talking
to
the
owner,
I'm
sure
the
board
has
seen
that
this
year,
airline
travel
has
been
a
record
pace
compared
especially
compared
to
last
year.
So
if
the
assumption
is
that
business
travelers
are
going
to
drive
the
revenue,
I
don't
know
why.
E
That
would
be
the
case
that
business
travelers
wouldn't
drive
the
revenue
in
arlington,
given
again
that
that
is
speculative
and
we
agree
we'll
rely
on
the
operating
history
as
we've
done
all
along
relying
upon
the
operating
history,
we
can
see
that
revenue
revision
is
well
within
the
range
of
18
and
19
again,
a
reflective
of
the
increase
from
18
to
19,
but
not
at
2019
levels.
Again,
our
operating
expenses
are
very
much
in
reflective
of
the
increase
from
18
to
19,
but
not
quite
at
19
levels.
E
We
do
believe
that
the
revision
noise
again
reflective
of
those
changes.
We
do
believe
that
our
negative
65
percent
adjustment
below
the
line
has
been
done
uniformly
and
prudently,
reflecting
a
39
drop
year
over
year,
much
more
in
line
with
what
we've
done
when
all
the
other
full
service
properties.
E
E
F
Oh
yes,
I
just
want
to
highlight
one
point.
I
think
that's
also
being
overlooked,
this
property
land
value.
F
If
you
look
at
page
one,
it's
14
million
dollars
and
the
agent
is
asking
for
a
value
of
in
the
original
co-forma
of
10
million
169,
so
they're
asking
for
this
property
value
less
than
what
the
land
value
is,
and
there
is
no
pro
forma.
I
think
chris
already
pointed
that
out.
Looking
at
the
original
pro
forma,
if
you
look
at
their
numbers,
is
actually
mirroring
2019
numbers,
they
simply
took
2019
numbers
applied
hour
cap
rate
and
then
made
their
deduction
of
two
rent
loss
or
revenue
loss.
F
Now,
if
you
take
their
numbers
and
apply
the
correct,
in
our
opinion,
correct
below
the
line
revenue
laws,
their
values
higher
than
ours,
I
mean
this
has
been
the
same
in
all
the
cases.
Honestly,
I
don't
know
what
happened
on
the
last
case,
just
being
honest,
but
if
you
look
at
the
pro
form
that
we
were
provided,
the
information
we
worked
off
of
their
number
would
be
higher
than
hours
if
they
use
the
same
one-year
revenue
loss
that
we
use.
F
I
think
that
should
be
considered
when
you
look
at
this
property,
especially
when
we
see
all
the
transactions
taking
place
in
this
area,
such
as
the
americana
which
sold
for
twice
what
we
had
it
assessed
for
residency
and
near
amazon
pin
place
was
valued,
was
bought
for
90
million
dollars
in
2019.
E
Ma'am,
we
just
asked
the
board
to
continue
to
view
these
cases
as
we
presented
them
uniformly
done
prudently.
We've
done
this
consistently
full
service
hotels
made
the
appropriate
adjustment
online.
We
do
believe
the
revised
value
of
18
million
372
900
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
C
C
C
By
looking
at
the
changing
mix
of
travelers
on
this
property,
we
believe
we've
done
that
we,
the
the
revenues
declining
in
2020
based
on
the
type
of
traveler
the
operating
expenses,
are
remaining
the
same.
The
outlook
is
not
as
good
as
2018-2019
now.
As
for
the
discussion
as
to
our
pro
forma
value.
Again,
that's
that
we
adopted
our
argument
to
what
has
happened
at
the
board,
so
all
of
the
effort
spent
discrediting
that
was
for
not.
We
are
not
going
based
on
that.
C
We're
going
on
the
assessment,
given
the
presumption
of
correctness
and,
as
a
final
note,
uniformity,
as
has
been
bandied
about
uniformity,
is
not
a
safe
harbor
to
assessments
in
excess
of
fair
market
value,
just
because
it's
applied
to
all
properties
if
a
property
is
valued
uniformly,
but
in
excess
of
fair
market
value.
Uniformity
does
not
protect
that
assessment
and
it
fair
market
value
is
the
final
driving
force
that
we're
after
here.
Thank
you.
G
Just
for
the
record,
I,
like
the
the
appellant's
closing
argument,
there's
a
lot
of
good
points
there
and
I'm
glad
to
hear
every
once
in
a
while
that
appellants
are
really
looking
at
it.
The
way
system
is
set
up
to
be
to
to
dispose
of
these
cases.
G
I
I
also
thought
that
during
the
eight
minutes,
the
appellant's
description-
and
I
guess
touched
on
it
in
the
last
minute
that
the
the
travel
mix
may
be
changing
in
this
hotel,
because
surveys
show
that
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
less
fly
in
business
conferences,
a
lot
more
zooming,
more
efficiencies
in
both
public
and
private
sector
organizations
who
pay
for
hotel
rooms
and
conference
rooms
and
airplane
flights.
G
But
we
don't
know
that
yet
I
mean
that's
what's
happening
since
1121,
but
of
course
we're
supposed
to
be
stuck
on
that
first
day
of
this
calendar
year.
So
once
again
we
can't
project,
we
can't
take
yesterday's
circumstances
and
apply
it
to
new
year's
day
this
year.
I
wouldn't
be
surprised,
however,
that
the
appellant's
observations
aren't
going
to
pan
out
and
next
year,
they're
going
to
be
back,
and
maybe
the
department
will
understand
this.
There'll
be
another
not
this
significant.
G
I
Now
I
also
do
hear
what
the
appellant's
saying
concerning
you
know
the
contract
mix
that
they're
not
going
to
experience
what
they
did
in
18
and
19,
and
it's
going
to
be
less
revenue,
but
I
can't
find
any
reason
any
anything.
I
could
hang
my
hat
on
to
try
to
calculate
what
the
adjustment
might
be.
The
appellant
didn't
give
us
that
in
their
in
in
their
numbers,
you
know
we
don't
have
a
projection
of
what
they
think.
I
B
B
I
I
think
that
the
applicant
is
probably
correct
that
there
is
going
to
be
an
impact
beyond
one
year
and
I
think
it's
speculative
to
say
next
year
is
going
to
be
terrible
and
I
think
it's
speculative
on
a
county's
part
to
say
the
opposite,
so
either
way
it's
speculation
as
to
what's
going
to
happen
next
year.
If
I
were
trying
this
case
as
a
judge,
what
I
would
expect
I
would
probably
be
hearing
from
both
parties
would
be
expert
testimony
by
hotel
consultants
or
or
hotel.
B
I
don't
know,
analyzers
of
travel
patterns.
It
seems
to
me
that
you
know
when
I
travel.
I
don't
want
to
stay
next
to
a
hotel.
I
want
to
be
away
from
the
airport,
but
the
night
before
I
come
back,
I'm
going
to
probably
want
to
be
at
the
at
the
hotel
and
I,
but
I
do
think
that
the
applicants
made
a
good
point.
I
I
I
don't
think
that
the
business
travel
is
going
to
come
back
it's
october
and
we're
still
in
zoom,
and
you
know
so
far
it.
It
is
getting
much
better.
A
Right
and
I'll
just
add
to
your
comment:
I
mean
it's,
it's
a
good
thing
or
not
a
good
thing,
but
you
know
the
fact
that
we
assess
every
year
that
we'll
take
that
into
account.
You
know
next
year,
you
know,
so
I
too
am
fine
with
the
county's
revised
number
anybody
else.
J
I
think
you'll
summarize
pretty
much
everything
and
I
yeah.
I
agree
with
everyone.
I
think
the
county's
revised
assessment
is
fair
and
regardless
of
what
a
hotel
has
as
a
target
market,
you
know
whether
they
have
businesses,
students
or
travelers
from
the
airport.
I
think
you
know
it's
that's
really
a
business
decision
and
I
think
you
know
the
numbers
are
showing
that
the
revised
assessment,
I
think
it's
pretty
fair
yeah.
G
A
As
of
okay,
it
sounds
like
we're
all
in
agreement.
Would
someone
like
to
make
a
motion.
A
J
D
F
D
A
A
All
right
that
completes
the
agenda.
Does
anybody
have
any
business
either
from
board
members
or
the
county
for
us?