►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - September 1, 2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
subject:
property
is
the
5500
apartment
building
it's
way
out
in
columbia,
down
columbia,
pike,
sort
of
in
the
southwest
corner
of
the
county?
It's
just
three
blocks
east
of
the
count
of
the
fairfax
county
line,
this
property,
current
assessment,
306
000
per
unit
or
71.6
million,
and
our
asking
value
is
61
million,
185,
000
or
261
000
per
unit.
B
My
appeal
materials
start
on
page
39
of
the
84
page
appeal
packet.
I
mean
we.
We
looked
at
the
county's
test
on
this
one
and
you
know
in
terms
of
estimating
noi.
You
know
we
don't
really
have
that
many
disagreements
with
the
county.
B
B
You
know
3.8
and
4
million
the
past
four
years
pretty
consistently
the
the
assessor
did
deduct
the
personal
property
value
which
we
had
asked
to
be
done
in
his
test.
So
there's
about
364
thousand
dollars
of
personal
property
here,
which
is
some
apartment
furnishings,
but
also
you
know,
fitness
equipment
lobby.
You
know
lobby
equipment,
other
things
of
that
nature,
and
so
that's
obviously
being
taxed.
You
know,
as
business
personal
property
is
at
a
five
percent
tax
rate
already,
so
the
assessor
has
appropriately
deducted
that
below
the
line.
B
The
biggest
issue
here
really
is
cap
rate,
probably
unfortunately
for
me,
but
the
property
you
know
is
right
now.
The
cap
rate
is
a
loaded
rate
of
five
and
a
half
percent
or
an
unloaded
rate
of
four
and
a
quarter.
You
know
this
building
doesn't
get
high
rents,
it
gets
rents
of
20.
I
think
the
assessor
is
using
2500
for
two
bedrooms
and
1600
for
one
bedrooms.
B
B
We
looked
at
three
recent
sales
in
the
county
park
at
pentagon
row
which
had
a
reported
cap
rate
of
four
and
a
half
percent
672
flats,
which
had
a
reported
cap
rate
of
4.7
percent
and
boston
place
which
had
a
reported
cap
rate
of
4.4
percent.
These
are
all
metro,
accessible
properties
that
are
far
superior
to
the
subject:
property
they
receive
rents
that
are
typically
50
or
more
higher
than
our
subject.
Property.
B
You
know,
the
location
of
our
property
is
definitely
inferior.
There
tends
to
be,
for
whatever
reason,
some
issues
that
with
the
bus
stop
in
front
where
they
there's
been
crime
and
things
like
that
in
the
past
several
years,
so
I
mean
we.
I
appreciate
the
county's
tests
where
they've
concluded
to
a
value
of
71
million.
Forty
thousand.
B
We
hope
that
you'll,
you
know,
switch
our
other
cases.
Take
a
look
at
those
comparables
that
we've
provided
for
cap
rate
support
as
well.
As
you
know,
all
the
number
of
surveys
rather
not
have
to
keep
going
to
court
and
settling
with
the
county
to
get
refunds,
and
just
you
know,
get
it
right.
The
first
time
if
possible,
but
you
know
that's
kind
of
where
we're
at
cap
rate-
is
the
biggest
issue
here.
Thanks.
C
Good
morning
board
good
morning,
grant
as
we
do
with
all
properties
upon
reviewing
the
appeal
for
5500
columbia
pike.
We
looked
at
the
most
recent
information,
which
was
2019
ine
compared
it
to
the
three
year
operating
history
we
had
when
we
backed
the
property.
All
this
information
is
located
on
page
four,
the
packet.
C
You
look
at
the
original
assessment.
We
did
not
deduct
the
ppt
value
for
this
property
during
department
hearing
me
and
mr
steinheiser
had
conversation
about
the
ppt,
and
what
did
it
cover
this
property?
We
agreed
had
some
furnished
units
and
to
be
consistent
with
how
we
treat
other
apartments
in
the
county.
If
there
are
furnished
units,
then
we
will
deduct
that
ppt
value
from
the
assessment.
C
Looking
further
at
the
information,
that's
provided,
as
mr
stein
has
pointed
out,
the
original
assessment,
whether
when
you
look
at
the
gpi,
the
egi
and
even
the
you
know
why
we're
pretty
close
to
what
they
achieved.
In
2019,
we
made
some
adjustments
to
the
rents
in
the
test.
C
C
So
the
test
I
mean
it
resulted
in
about
a
one
percent,
maybe
even
less
than
a
one
percent
reduction.
That's
why
we
decided
to
just
reduce
the
original
assessment
by
the
ppt
value,
and
that
is
the
offer
that
we
made
to
the
appellant.
Our
cap
rate
for
this
property
is
consistent
with
other
properties
in
the
county
that
are
mid-rise
or
high-rise,
with
a
you're
building.
E
C
So,
yes,
this
case
went
to
court
for
those
of
you
who
have
dealt
with
court
cases.
You
know
that
a
lot
can
go
into
a
decision,
but
those
court
cases
were
for
past
years
and
not
for
2019
or
2020
and
we're
here
discussing
2020..
C
If
the
appellate
field
they
need
to
go
to
court,
that's
their
right,
just
like
if
they're
right
to
go
before
the
board
and
we'll
deal
with
that
matter
when
that
case
comes,
but
as
far
as
the
2020
assessment
for
this
purposes.
We
believe
that
when
you
look
at
the
summary
sheet
on
page
four,
then
the
board
would
agree
that
the
reduction
suggested
by
the
county
is
fair
and
equitable,
and
we
ask
that
you
take
up
that
reduced
value,
and
that
number
is
on
page
one.
C
A
F
Lawson,
thank
you,
madam
chairman.
For
the
applicant.
You
say
it
went
to
court.
Was
there
a
order
entered
by
the
circuit
court
or
was
it
settled?
F
It
was
settled
okay
for
the
county
on
our
chart
that
we
were
given
2020
assessment
year,
commercial
market
analysis.
Where
is
the
cap
rate
set
out
on
your
chart.
C
C
No
page
seven
of
the
package
should
be
the
residential,
not
the
residents,
but
the
commercial
rent,
roll.
C
C
F
Yeah,
what
I
was
doing
was
looking
at
the
guidelines
and
trying
to
understand
or
or
see
where
you
got
the
five.
What
was
your
cap
rate
5.5.
C
G
For
the
appellant
you
had
mentioned
three
comparables,
that,
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
are
superior
to
the
subject
here
and,
of
course,
sold
at
lower
cap
rates.
G
B
It's
not
so
those
are
unloaded
cap
rates,
so
you
would
need
to
add
what
the
county
does
is.
They
add
both
the
effective
tax
rate
and
they
add
0.2
percent
for
reserves,
so
it
ends
up
being
like
just
like
1.22
percent.
So
for
it
to
be
comparable,
you
would
need
to
add
the
one
point,
two
two
percent
to
those
cap
rates
that.
B
So
these
ones
they
were
between
four
four
and
four
seven,
so
they
would
have
been
a
little
bit
yeah
in
the
5.7
to
six
percent
range
when
loaded
so
they're,
it's
actually
they're
higher.
So
our.
B
G
G
C
So
when
we
look
at
the
cells
that
are
listed
in
costar,
we
utilize
the
information,
but
we
also
compare
it
to
our
own
cap
rate
analysis
and
so
for
these
properties.
We
take
the
ine
information
that
we
have
for
these
properties
and
we
develop
our
own
cap
rate.
This
has
been
consistent
throughout
as
long
as
I've
been
in
arlington.
C
We
don't
just
rely
solely
on
costar.
We
look
at
the
information
that
they
provide
to
us,
and
so
when
we
took
these
sales
particularly
part
pentagon
park
at
pentagon
road-
and
we
did
a
base
cap
rate
analysis,
it
was
actually
much
less
than
the
4.5
the
thing
about
co-star.
Is
we
can't
verify
that
income
that's
used
by
co-star?
C
C
C
So
that
was
one
where
we
wouldn't
do
the
cap
rate
analysis.
We
would
just
look
at
what
co-star
reports,
but
we
look
at
the
sales
the
same
as
the
appellants
do
again.
We
use
what
we
have
in
co-star.
We
have
a
question.
We
ask
co-star,
you
know
how
do
you
get
to
that
cap
rate?
Was
it
actual
revealed
by
the
owners,
or
was
it
a
discussion
that
you
have
and
a
lot
of
times?
C
We
do
know
that
it's
based
off
discussions
and
as
far
as
the
you
know,
why
they,
you
they'll
even
note
in
their
write-up
of
those
cases
that
they
backed
into
the
noi
based
off
the
cap
rate
discussion
they
had
with
the
owner.
So
that's
another
reason
why
we
try
our
best
to
utilize
the
actual
income
that
we
have
from
those
properties
that
set
up.
A
Okay,
I
have
a
question,
mr
bailey,
and
I
apologize
if
you
said
this
in
your
presentation
when
I
was
writing
notes,
but
why?
What's
the
difference
between
the
71
238
8,
that's
on
page
one
and
the
test
of.
C
A
Oh,
I
see
okay,
okay
and
then
one
question,
I'm
not
sure
who
wants
to
address
this,
but
the
settlement
that
was
reached
as
a
result
of
the
court
cases
for
the
multiple
years.
A
B
It's
based
on
the
cap
rate,
the
appraisers
pro
forma
noi
was
right
in
line
with
what
mr
bailey
has
used
in
his
assessment.
The.
C
C
With
that,
because
working
on
a
few
court
cases
it
was
a
value
that
was
offered
and
they
accepted.
There
was
no
discussion
about
why
that
value
was
determined.
It
was
more.
So
this
is
your
value
from
the
appellant.
This
is
the
value
from
the
county
and
we
came
to
an
agreement.
There
was
no
discussion
about.
We
agreed
to
your
cap
rate,
or
you
agree
to
this.
It's
more
so
these
are
our
values
and
we're
gonna
agree
on
a
value
and
settle
that's
how
the
settlement
works.
G
Quick
question
for
the
department
on
page
three:
you
note
a
minor
difference
in
the
retail
space
in
the
building.
Is
that
not
squared
away
going
forward?
And
everybody
agrees
on
what
the
true
square
footage
is.
B
Yeah,
I
think
the
assessor
I
mean
yeah.
The
assessor
had
made
a
slight
adjustment
to
the
square
footage
in
his
test.
So
we
agree
with
that.
A
I
just
have
one
last
question:
I'm
not
even
sure
what
the
question
is,
but
you
know
for
the
county.
I
guess
I'm
just
concerned
that
with
the
settlement
when
I
look
at
the
difference
of
the
department
recommendation
from
15
from
73
million
to
65
69
million
to
65
72
million,
almost
73
million
to
65.,
you
know
and
now
we're
right
back
up
there
again.
A
C
Let's
see
how
this
so
the
best
way
to
explain
this
is
apprecia
assessments,
department,
hearings,
boe
reviews
are
based
on
mass
appraising.
Basically,
when
we
come
to
you,
we
speak
about
equality
as
far
as
how
we
treat
this
property
compared
to
others.
C
We
talk
about
the
guidelines
and
how
this
property
fits
into
a
certain
section
of
our
guidelines.
When
it
comes
to
court.
That
really
doesn't
matter.
I
mean,
unfortunately,
that's
the
truth.
When
you
go
to
court
again,
like
mr
steinhauer
stated
they
come
with
private
appraisals,
their
private
appraisal
is
not
based
off
mass
appraisal.
It's
an
independent
appraisal
when
you
hire
an
expert
witness
or
whatever,
like
the
county,
hydrogen
expert,
witness
they're,
not
looking
at
their
property
from
a
mass
appraisal.
Standpoint
they're,
looking
at
it
from
a
fee
appraisal
standpoint.
C
Those
are
some
of
the
differences
in
how
the
values
come
about
and
again
the
settlement
number
it
comes
down
to
give
and
take
oftentimes.
You
know
how
how
willing
are
each
party
to
to
meet
each
other
in
the
middle
and
who
gives
more
than
the
other?
I
mean
a
lot
of
times.
That's
what
it
comes
down
to
when
you
look
at.
C
C
That
goes
into
it
with
court.
That's
different
from
this
proceeding.
I'll
put
it
like
that,
so
this
case
should
be
judged
by
the
board
based
off
equalization
and
and
how
he
treated
this
property
compared
to
others.
I
mean
the
owner
wants
to
go
before
court.
I
mean
that's
their
right.
I
mean
it's
been.
We've
had
court
cases
where
the
board
has
sided
with
the
appellate,
but
the
appellate
still
went
to
court,
so
I
mean
whether
you
agree
with
them.
Now
is
not
going
to
stop
them
from
going
to
court.
It's
just
that's
a
right.
C
A
Yeah,
I'm
not
sure
that's
germaine
either.
Okay,
any
final
questions.
C
Again,
if
you
look
at
page
three
of
our
packet,
which
is
the
summary
not
page,
three
sorry
page
four
of
the
packet,
which
is
the
summary
sheet-
and
you
compare
the
three-year
operating
history
with
the
original
assessment
and
then
look
at
the
new
information
provided,
which
is
column
which
is
the
operating
year
2019.
C
The
original
assessment
within
was
within
reason
of
their
2019
number.
The
test
sheet
is
only
what
the
noise
only
a
few
thousand
less
than
the
original
assessment.
The
difference
mainly
is
that
we
deducted
a
ppt.
C
This
property's
test
value
was
within
one
percent
of
the
original
assessment
and
to
correct
the
issue
of
not
deducting
that
ppt.
In
the
original
assessment
we
did
that
and
reduced
the
value
that
reduced
value
is
71
million
238
800,
that's
the
value
that
we're
proposing
to
the
appellate
and
therefore
to
the
board,
and
that
is
all
we
have.
B
Yeah
sure
so
at
the
very
least
here,
what
we
will
hope
the
board
would
do
would
be
to
reduce
the
value
to
the
test,
which
is
71
million
40
300.,
it's
a
you
know.
Obviously
it's
only
a
minor
difference
from
what
the
assessor
has
said,
but
still
200
000.
It
makes
a
difference.
B
We
thank
the
assessor
again
for
acknowledging
the
personal
property
component
and
deducting
that
below
the
line
on
review.
We
really
hope
that
the
board
will
take.
You
know
a
close
look
at
the
cap.
B
Thinking
about
the
location
of
the
property
rents
that
this
property
is
achieving,
would
you
really
buy
this
property
at
a
4.25
base?
Cap
rate,
we
think
the
answer
is
no
based
on
all
these
other
sales
of
superior
properties
that
sold
in
the
four
and
a
half
to
four
point:
seven
percent
range-
and
again
you
know
the
the
owner
would
just
like
to
pay
taxes
on
the
market
value
of
the
property.
I
Penaranda
I'll
go
ahead
and
start,
I
think
you
know
pretty
much.
I
think
we
are
if
the
appellant
is
agreeing
to
a
number
that
was
already
that
the
county
already
came
up
with.
I
think
that's
the
number
that
we
should
go
with.
I
don't
think
that
we
should
put
any
weight
into
the
previous
years.
You
know
if
they
decided
to
go
to
court
and
you
know
seems
like
it
was
settled
just
based
on
the
value
amount,
not
necessarily
on
cap
rate
or
noi.
I
mean
all
the
years
to
be
assessed
at
65
million.
I
To
me
just
says:
okay,
let's
just
settle
on
this
number
and
then
we'll
go
on
you
know
to
the
next
years,
but
I
don't
think
has
anything
to
do
with
this
year's
assessment.
I
think
the
county
did
the
right
reconstruction
and
I'm
always
in
favor
of
going
with
that
number
because
it
was
done.
You
know,
I
think,
a
little
more
careful
looking
at
the
actual
numbers
from
the
2019
or
the
previous
years.
So
I'm
okay
with
the
final
number,
that
is
on
column
e
for
the
reassessment.
I
But
again,
I
don't
think
we
should
look
at
what
previous
years
did
or
what
the
court
did
in
either
this
case
or
any
other
case.
I
don't
think
it
has
anything
to
do
with
it.
J
Well,
jose,
I
agree,
I
would
take
the
county's
recommendation
on
this,
but
I
do
think
it
gives
the
county
pause.
I
mean
cap
rates
are
something
that
come
up
on
almost
every
case
and
I
think
it
gives
them
cause
to
take
a
harder
look
at
the
cap
rates
again
and
how
they
assess
it
and
compare
it,
but
I
will
go
with
county.
I
would
go
with
the
county
on
call
me
also.
A
A
I
have
a
little
bit
of
pause
over.
You
know,
as
as
mr
yates
said,
about
the
cap
rates
in
general,
but
from
a
standpoint
of
equalization.
All
of
those
properties
out
there
are
being
you
know,
assessed
at
these
cap
rates
so
to
take
this
building
out.
I
think
it's
going
to
take
it
out
of
equalization
with
the
other
properties
and
if,
overall,
a
cap
rate
adjustment
needs
to
be
done.
I
mean
I
think
the
county
needs
to
take
a
look
at
that,
but
I
would
agree
with
both
of
you.
F
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chairman.
You
know
in
a
court
case
there's
just
so
many
variables
and
you
know
maybe
the
the
judge
thought
the
county's
appraiser
wasn't
as
skilled
as
the
landowners
yeah
there's
just
so
many
variables
and
we
don't
have
a
a
judicial
order.
We
don't
have
a
decision.
F
I
remember
we
had
a
case
last
year
the
year
before
where
there
was
actually
a
court
order
and
it
basically
instructed
us
to
ignore
something.
I
can't
remember
the
details,
but
I
remember
we.
We
read
the
order
and
we
followed
the
order
in
in
that
case
you
don't
have
this
here
and
to
speculate
on
why
the
county
agreed
to
a
lower
value
is
kind
of
pointless.
You
know
they
could
think.
Well,
you
know
if
we
lose
this
case,
we're
going
to
have
a
really
terrible
precedent.
F
You
know,
who
knows
I
mean
there's
just
so
many
variables,
and
so
I
think
in
the
absence
of
direction
from
the
court,
we
have
to
go
with
the
county.
E
I
Our
own,
the
reduction
to
71
million
forty
thousand
three
hundred
four
hundred
sorry,
seventy
one
million
forty
thousand
four
hundred.
A
E
A
Again,
all
in
favor
opposed
okay.
It
is
six
to
zero
with
mr
huffman
not
being
here,
so
it
is
reduced
to
the
county's
test
column
of
seventy
one
million
zero.
Four
zero.
Four
hundred.
A
Thank
you.
Okay.
Moving
along
on
case
two
rpc,
one,
four:
zero:
three:
two:
zero
zero.
Five
at
3601
fairfax
drive,
mr
steinhauser.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
subject:
property
is
the
latitude
apartments
sort
of
in
the
virginia
square
area,
the
metro
located
much
better
location
than
the
previous
property.
B
E
B
When
I
took
a
look
at
income
in
mr
bailey's
test,
I
think
he
did
a
really
fair
job
of
analyzing,
the
rent,
roll
and
the
rents
as
well.
As
you
know,
the
other
income
streams.
So
I
really
have
no
issue
with
the
assessor's
income
at
all.
B
When
we
took
a
look
at
the
operating
expenses,
it
looks
like
the
assessor
is
using
22
percent.
You
know
between
last
year
and
this
year
was
you
know
between
22
and
24,
so
we
were
using
a
rate
closer
to
23.
B
B
You
know
again:
we've
used
a
higher
cap
rate
based
on
sales
that
we
looked
at
same
sales
that
I
really
had
mentioned
in
the
previous
case.
So
I'm
not
going
to
belabor
that
point,
although
the
same
cell,
comp
and
and
other
information
from
pwc,
rerc
etc,
is
all
included
in
our
appeal
package,
one
other.
B
The
only
really
the
other
appeal
issue
is
personal
property
component,
and
so
when
I
spoke
with
mr
bailey
at
the
first
level,
he
explained
to
me
that
they
would
be
willing
to
deduct
the
personal
property
for
the
last
case,
because
some
of
the
units
in
that
building
were
furnished
for
this
building.
There's
a
personal
property
component
as
well.
It's
266
000,
so
just
a
little
bit
less
than
the
previous
building
for
this
building.
B
There's
no
furnished
units,
but
there
is
model
furniture.
There's
fitness
center
equipment,
there's
leasing,
office
equipment,
there's,
lobby,
furniture,
there's
you
know,
computer
equipment
for
the
management
office
and
the
owner
pays
tax.
I
pay
the
five
percent
personal
property
tax
on
that
value,
which
is
266
000.
B
So
we
would
make
the
point
that
you
know
we're
doing
a
direct
direct
cap
analysis
and
we're
concluding
to
a
value.
That's
the
value
that
me
as
a
buyer,
I'm
gonna
pay
for
the
for
the
entire
property,
the
economic
unit
and
everything
inside
I'm
gonna
get
all
the
fitness
equipment,
I'm
getting
the
model
furniture.
I
don't!
B
I
don't
expect
the
you
know
previous
owner
to
take
all
that
stuff
when
he
leaves
so
to
speak,
but
so
mr
bailey
explained
to
me
that
they
that
their
policy
is
not
to
deduct
it
unless
it's
furnished
units,
and
so
I'm
not
accusing
him
of
applying
that
unequally
the
way
it
was
explained
to
me,
but
I
am
saying
that
policy,
I
think,
probably
needs
to
be
looked
at
a
little
closer.
B
B
So,
just
to
conclude,
I
think
mr
bailey
did
a
great
job
in
his
test.
We
have
no
issues
with
the
income.
We
would
ask
that
the
board
take
a
slight
look
at
the
expenses
and
see,
if
you
know
an
upwards
adjustment
to
23
percent
is
warranted
there
and.
Lastly,
we've
asked
that
the
the
board
deduct
the
personal
property
component
below
the
line
to
get
to
the
real
estate
only
value
thanks.
C
Yes
ma'am,
so
for
this
property
I
mean
it's
not
a
new
property
to
the
board.
We've
actually
heard
appeals
about
this
case
before
this
is
a
fairly
new
property
in
the
county,
the
latitude
located
over
by
in
virginia
square
boston
area.
C
C
If
you
look
at
page
four,
you
see
that
this
property's
gpi
has
increased
over
the
years,
starting
with
17
and
18.
1718,
with
the
largest
increase
of
17
with
the
first
year
lisa
18,
they
were
still
a
fairly
new
building,
so
the
vegas
it
was
a
little
bit
higher,
but
you
can
see
in
2019
that
the
vacancy
has
smoothed
out
or
reduced
decrease
greatly.
Sorry,
the
income
has
increased
over
those
years.
C
If
you
compare
the
original
assessment
and
the
test
assessment
test,
columns,
expenses
to
the
reported
expenses
for
2019
you'll
see
that
we're
actually
higher
from
a
dollar
standpoint,
we're
not
too
much
higher,
but
we
are
higher.
So,
therefore,
we
are
in
line
with
what
they
reported,
the
24
that
was
alluded
to
that
was
in
the
second
year
lisa.
C
That
number
was
that
percentage
number
was
high
because
the
vacancy
that
year
was
high.
But
if
you
compare
the
dollar
amount
in
2018
is
much
less
than
what
we
used
in
original
assessment
and
it's
less
than
what
they
reported
in
2019
again
about
the
ppt.
C
Yes,
we
stated
to
the
agent
and
to
the
board
on
several
occasions
that
if
that
business,
tangible
accounts
for
increased
value
and
rent
meaning
furnace
units,
then
we
deduct
that
ppt,
the
equipment
that
is
used
for
the
fitness
center
or
the
business
center,
or
even
the
model
unit
that
ppt
tax
is
deducted
as
an
expense
on
the
income
statement
under
insurance
and
tax,
we
have
a
line
item
that
says
business,
tangible
tax,
that's
the
taxes
they
pay
on
the
furnishing
equipment
that
they
have
in
the
business
center
in
the
lobby
area.
C
It
can
be
the
furniture
that
they
have
in
the
management
office,
for
example.
The
reason
we
don't
deduct
that
ppt
is
because
these
things
don't
add
to
the
value
I
mean
just
about
I
mean
every
single
high-rise
apartment
building
in
arlington
county
has
furniture
for
their
office
for
their
employees
to
sit
on.
I
mean
that's,
that's
just
part
of
the
business
that
doesn't
add
to
the
value
of
the
property,
though
that
doesn't
add
to
the
rent
that
you
achieve
so
again.
C
C
One
thing
that
I
didn't
point
out
on
the
last
case,
which
I
should
have
as
far
as
cap
rates
mr
steinhauser
did
provide.
You
know
sales.
I
think
one
of
them
was
boston
place,
that's
a
2018
sales,
it's
still
a
valid
sale,
but
a
sale
that
he
left
out
which
occurred
in
2019,
was
warwick
house
in
warwick
house.
We
saw
this
past
year
had
a
cap
rate
lower
than
what's
reported
by
the
city,
not
the
whole
ward
house.
I'm
sorry,
let
me
get
it
right.
C
C
E
C
We
look
at
all
the
sales
that
occur
in
accounting
between
a
certain
time
period.
We
look
at
co-star
data
and
then
we
try
to
formulate
our
own
cap
rate
from
the
income
statements
that
they
provide
to
us.
So,
yes,
you
have
sales
like
park
pentagon
that
had
a
co-star
4.5,
but
then
you
have
warwick
house
in
the
same
area
at
3.7.
C
C
The
property
has
reached
stabilization
when
you
look
at
the
income
and
expense
history,
that's
provided
on
page
four.
The
test
is
fair
and
reasonable.
We
made
adjustments
to
the
rents
on
the
apartment
side.
I
think
the
basis
for
the
reduction
was
based
off
of
changes
that
we
made
to
the
apartment
side.
C
C
I
think
that
is
a
about
a
four
percent
reduction
from
the
original
assessment,
and
that's
all
we
have
for
now
sorry
for
jumping
all
over
the
place.
With
my
cap
rate
information,
I
just
want
to
provide
like
additional
sales
information
that
we
did
look
at
and
compel
in
addition
to
what
the
appellant
provided.
F
Yeah,
this
is
for
the
county.
I
see
three
different
cap
rates
for
apartment.
I
see
I
take
off
my
glasses.
Sorry,
I
see
5.73
from
the
owner
in
the
test.
I
see
5.164
and
in
the
assessment
I
see
5.18
what?
What
should
it
be?.
C
So
this
property
has
affordable
component
and
per
virginia
code.
We
value
the
affordable
units
based
off
of
their
actual
rents.
They
get
the
average
yeah.
So
if
you
look
at
page
five
you'll
see
that
we
actually
apply
the
income
approach
to
each
section
and
then
we
have
to
compile
that
to
a
total
value.
F
G
Kind
of
a
minor
one
on
the
retail
space,
as
it
was
mentioned,
there
is
one
retail
tenant
and
I'm
confused.
Why
they?
Therefore
it's
pretty
well
known
what
they're
paying
there's
no
mix,
there's
no
vacancy
there's!
No!
Nothing
and
they've
been
there
the
last
couple
years,
but
in
column
e
versus
column,
g,
it's
you
know,
50
percent
higher
and
then
in
column
the
test
in
column.
F.
G
Then
it
goes
down
15,
20
percent,
I
mean,
isn't
it
so
that
for
the
department,
are
you
just
looking
at
the
rent
rate
and
multiplying
by
the
square
foot
and
that's
it,
and
where
does
the
your
test
come
from
and
and
I'll
just
quickly
after
that,
the
appellant?
How
did
he
well?
How
can
the
appellant
propose
that
it
went
down
a
third
from
2019
to
to
to
2020.
C
C
G
In
column
e,
it
was
together.
C
G
G
C
Okay,
so
for
this
property
we
received
2019
information
and
compare
that
to
the
two
years
operating
history
that
we
had.
We
made
adjustments
to
the
assessment
mainly
to
the
apartment
revenue
and
made
some
minor
adjustments
to
the
commercial
revenue,
but
the
main
of
changes
were
to
the
apartment
side
and
the
result
was
a
decrease
from
131
million
693
100
to
126
million
587.
C
That
is
the
revision
about
a
four
percent
deduction
reduction.
That's
the
revision
that
we
proposed
to
the
appellant
and
that's
the
value
that
we
asked
the
board
to
set
in
place
for
2020..
That
is
all
thank
you.
B
Yeah
thanks,
so
it
really
just
comes
down
to
two
issues.
We
think
the
assessor
did
a
great
job
with
the
income,
and
what
we're
asking
is
that
you
take
a
look
at
the
expense
ratio.
He
is
pointing
out
that
his
total
expenses
are
in
line
with
the
previous
with
the
operating
year
of
2019,
but
the
income
is
actually
higher.
It's
150
dollars
higher
eight
four
one,
four
one,
two
one
versus
eight,
two,
sixty
seven,
two
one.
B
So
obviously
you
know:
if
operating
expense
is
a
ratio
of
income,
you
know
we
would
expect
the
expenses
to
be
slightly
higher
and,
lastly,
we
wrest
that
the
board
deduct
the
personal
property
component.
I
think
it's
an
interesting
position
to
take
from
the
county
that
having
a
fitness
center
in
your
building
doesn't
add
any
value
or
none
of
the
rent
is
that
can
be
attributed
to.
You
know
that
amenity
space,
I
would
think
you
know
if
it
didn't
add
any
value.
B
They
would
just
put
more
units
there
rather
than
having
a
fitness
center
at
all.
So
we
asked
that
the
board
take
a
look
at
that
same
way,
that
hotels
are
treated
where
the
personal
property
is
deducted
and
the
personal
property
tax
is
deducted
in
the
income
approach
as
well.
Thanks.
A
F
I'll
go
and
throw
this
out
and
see
if
anyone
thinks
it
has
merit.
You
know
these
when
you
re-zone
your
property,
and
I
noticed
that
it
says
this
is
zone
c3
I
mean
c2
and
I
think
it
got
rezoned
to
co.
1.5
could
be
wrong.
I
I
didn't
look
it
up,
but
one
of
the
things
that
the
county
requires
is
a
percent
of
affordable
units,
and
you
know
there.
F
No
no
applicant
is
making
money
on
those
and
the
county,
usually
bonuses,
you
in
some
way
shape
or
form,
and
those
bonus
units
are
in
the
are
in
the
you
know,
market
rate
units-
and
you
know
I'm
just
throwing
out
there-
that
I
think
a
cap
rate
for
the
affordable
is
just.
F
I
think
it's
just
way
too
high,
because
you
know,
if
you
buy
these
units,
you're
going
to
pay
more
than
then
you're
going
to
get
in
in
rent-
and
you
know
it
says-
final
value,
2
million.
I
just
don't
think
it
approaches
anything
close
to
that.
I
don't
know
how
we
could
refigure
it,
but
I
I
think
that
in
all
honesty,
the
affordable
units
really
have
no
value.
A
A
A
The
test
for
the
commercial,
I
think,
is
too
high.
I
think
when
you
combine
those
two,
where
can
you
look
at
the
two
column
fs
the
noise?
G
On
that,
my
understanding
was
that
column
d
coming
off
2018
data
was
just
too
low
when
they
got
2019
and
that's
why
they
increased
the
rent
and
split
it
out.
G
A
A
It's
still,
I
mean
it's
6.57
too,
as
opposed
to
you
know
it
actually
performed
at
6.4,
so
it's
still
higher
and
higher
than
the
2018..
I
just
think
you
know
the
income.
Is
you
know
that
that's
being
used?
The
noi
between
the
two
parcels
is
still
too
high.
Based
on
the
2018
and
2019
reported.
I
mean
I
get
why
they
adjusted
it,
but
again
I
think
then
the
apartment
portion
should
have
gone
down
even
more.
G
A
A
You
know
and
then
it's
being
capped
out
differently,
so
you
know
if
in
fact
that
they
did
the
test
and
they
thought
okay.
The
apartments
is
now
more
in
line.
You
know
I'll
take
that,
because
it's
obviously
that
noise
got
to
go
down,
but
I
think
the
test
column
for
the
commercial
portion
is
still
too
high.
G
G
I
wanted
to
say
one
response
to
barnes
that
I
I,
although
affordable
units,
certainly
aren't
money
makers,
the
the
developer
and
owner
gets
a
whole
lot
more
money
making
units.
Of
course
that's
why
they
do
that,
so
I'm
not
so
sympathetic
to
what
barnes
was
just
suggesting
we
think
about.
So
I'm
on
mary's
side
in
that.
A
I
I
think
it's
really
close,
I'm
not
really
in
favor
of
making
any
other
changes.
I
think
the
county
did
a
good
job
reconstructing
again
yeah.
It
does
seem
a
little
bit
but
higher
than
we
would
like
to
see
based
on
other
years,
but
I
mean
you
can
see
that
it's
going
up.
I'm
not
really
too
concerned
with
this
one.
To
be
honest
and
yeah,
like
you
said,
I'm
not
really
in
favor
of
making
changes
based
on
different
columns.
F
Yeah
going
going
back
to
the
affordable
units,
there's
no
difference
between
a
cap
rate
for
a
developer
or
an
owner
like
this
one
versus
ahc
and
arlington
housing
corp.
When
they
do
a
project,
they
get
all
kinds
of
benefits
they
get.
You
know
under
market
financing,
the
county
gives
financing,
they
can
sell
credits
and
so
forth,
whereas
you
know
this
owner
would
have
to
get.
You
know
a
regular
commercial
loan
now
I'll
go
ahead
and
drop.
That
subject.
E
F
I
would
agree
with
you
on
the
on
the
suggestion
that
we
lower
it
a
little
bit
on
the
commercial.
J
A
Be
three
to
three,
and
so
it
revert
to
the
county,
so
I
I
don't
have
enough
support
to
lower
it.
I
B
A
Opposed
the
I
and
mr
lawson,
so
it
is
four
to
two:
the
assessment's
reduced
to
the
county
test
number
of
126.
A
A
Okay,
just
so,
you
know
we're
if
everybody's
okay,
we're
not
going
to
take
a
break
on
the
the
fifth
case,
we'll
go
to
that
right.
Now
that
case,
the
rpc13018058
at
660,
north
glebe,
the
appellant
has
asked
to
withdraw
the
case,
and
the
county
has
no
objection.
A
A
That's
yeah
55.50
columbia,
pike,
mr
warren,
if
you
want
to
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
your
property.
E
D
Okay,
so
again,
if
you
all
would
turn
to
page
42
of
112
our
summary
of
facts
for
this
property,
this
is
the
wild
park
apartment
complex.
It
consists
of
one
rpc.
It's
currently
assessed
at
97
million,
one
hundred
thirty
six
thousand
two
hundred
forty
two
000
units.
The
county
is
recommending
no
change,
and
what
we're
asking
for
from
the
board
today
is
a
total
value
of
88
million
25
900
220
000
a
unit.
E
D
D
C
D
It
right
now
of
1985,
which
puts
it
in
that
1980s
and
1989
bracketed
range
for
cap
rates.
D
If
you
turn
now
to
page
three
you'll
see
we'll
go
to
the
the
county's
ie
income,
expense,
summary
and
you'll
see
our
columns
our
requested
columns
pro
forma
for
those
final,
two
columns,
f1
and
f2
for
the
apartment
and
then
the
commercial.
D
We
are
basing
our
total
gpi
on
what
was
most
recently
reported
in
2019
and
then
deducting
the
county's
guideline
expenses
of
six
percent
for
the
apartments
three
percent
for
the
the
commercial
and
which
then
gets
us
down
to
to
the
operating
expenses.
That's
really
the
the
main
differentiator
here
between
our
requested
value
and
our
pro
forma
in
the
counties
is
with
regard
to
one
the
operating
expenses
and
what's
historically
been
reported
here
and
for
the
cap
rate,
which,
as.
D
Case
and
we've
brought
this
case
before
the
board
the
last
several
years
we've
had
issue
with,
so
you
can
see.
Historically,
this
property
is
operated
at
a
pretty
high
expense
ratio.
It's
never
been
less
than
34
percent
in
any
of
the
last
four
consecutive
years,
35
percent
in
2016
34
in
2017
37
in
2018
and
most
recently
37.5
in
2019.
D
The
county's
assessment
is
currently
applying
35.
As
you
can
see,
this
expenses
have
been
trending
up
in
each
of
the
last
three
years.
It's
been
at
37
percent,
very
stabilized
property,
and
what
is
additional
consideration
for
the
operating
expenses
from
35
percent
to
an
area
37,
which
is
which
is
right
in
line
with
what
has
actually
been
reported
here.
The
last
two
years
the
county
has
made
mention
of
you
know
we're
using
the
actual
reported
reserves,
the
50
000
the
unit.
D
Excuse
me
50,
000,
total,
that's
125
dollars
a
unit.
The
county
applies
that
in
their
their
total,
effective
cap
rate
of
point
two
percent.
Now
we
reported
that
above
the
line,
because
you
take
that
took
point
two
percent
in
the
county's
current
valuation
you're,
looking
at
total
reserves
of
18
500,
which
is
less
than
half
of
what
is
actually
reported
in
2019,
so
we're
using
the
actuals
and
then
the
last
has
to
do
with
the
cap
rate.
D
You
know
if
this
property
were
in
boston
and
was
sitting
on
top
of
a
metro,
it
would
be
assessed
at
a
5.35
and,
and
so
the
county
makes
deductions
for
to
the
cap
rate
for
properties
that
have
metro
access,
but
for
these
property
that
are
in
inferior
locations,
they
don't
increase
the
cap
rate,
so
we
are
are
effectively
using
the
cap
rate
and,
taking
that
point,
two
five
percent
we're
bumping
up
thirty
basis
points
to
six
percent
in
our
total
calculation,
as
in
the
first
case,
there's
no
there's
no
sales
to
support
the
county's
use
of
what
they're
applying
here.
D
On
a
base
rate,
you
know,
if
you
take
that
five
seven,
you
deduct
the
point
two
percent
for
reserves,
as
well
as
the
tax
rate
of
1.026
you're,
looking
at
a
cap
rate
effectively
base
cap
rate
of
4.475
percent.
There's.
E
D
Sales
in
south
arlington
to
support
that
that
rate,
so
we're
asking
for
consideration
again
for
the
total.
D
Expenses
as
well
as
the
cap
rate
jeremy,
I
don't
know
if
there's
anything
going
to
add.
L
Yeah,
just
that-
and
I
know
you
all-
are
I'm
sure,
tired
of
hearing
cap
rates
because
we
listened
to
their
earlier
hearings
and
the
first
hearing
you
heard
today
was
next
door
to
this
one,
and
one
of
the
cases
mentioned
was
flats,
which
is
the
case
we
would
just
withdrew
and
in
that
case
it
sold
at
a
5.7
5.92
cap
rate
once
you
load
it
and
put
the
20
basis
points
in
it.
L
This
property
is
a
5.7
cap
rate,
so
the
the
one
thing
and
again
I
understand
the
reluctancy-
often
to
change
this,
but
we
came
in
front
of
you
all
in
the
county
for
a
couple
years
and
said:
look
you've
got
to
break
this
up
between
metro
and
non-metro.
So
if
the
base
was
six,
we
said
metro's
got
to
be
less
and
non-metro's
got
to
be
higher.
So
what
do
they
do?
L
They
kept
the
bases,
six
and
said
okay,
but
if
it's
metro
is
thirty
percent,
thirty
baseball
is
better,
so
you
had
an
average
of
six,
and
you
said
the
metro
is
better,
so
that
becomes
a
5.7.
But
what
about
the
nine
measures?
Well,
those
are
still
six.
So
it
didn't
go
like
this
to
keep
the
average
at
the
same
place.
It
went
like
this,
but
it
doesn't
work.
It
doesn't
make
any
sense
and
they've
said
yeah,
but
we
looked
at
sales
and
the
sales
tell
us
we're
fine.
L
If
you
look
at
any
other
marketing
area,
a
base
cap
rate
of
a
four
and
a
half
anywhere
is
absurd.
The
vast
property
in
dc
just
sold
at
a
four
and
a
half
the
woodley,
the
second
best
department
in
the
region
and
this
property
is
they're
saying,
is
a
four
and
a
half
percent
percent
cap
rate
as
compared
to
a
brand
new
northwest
property
that
sold
for
nine
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
unit.
L
The
cap
rates
just
don't
make
sense,
and
we
think
that
there
should
be
some
kind
of
adjustment,
and
I
understand
each
year
at
the
boy
they
say
the
county
really
should
look
at
this,
but
whether
it's
the
attention
or
not
and
no
change
on
cap
rates
each
year
is
just
as
a
stamp
that
a
stamp
of
approval
to
them
from
our
understandings.
So
we
also
understand
that
this
might
have
to
this
issue
might
have
to
get
settled
in
future
years
and
hopefully,
when
it
does,
the
county
will
recognize
the
the
area
that's
being
occurred.
L
But
the
big
thing
here
is
expenses
expenses.
As
we
talk
about
trends,
expenses
are
two
seven,
two,
eight
five
three
one
and
about
three
four
and
account
is
using
two
nine,
so
we're
using
trend
on
income
which
we're
doing
the
income
is
eight
one,
eight,
seven,
eight,
nine,
nine
two
they're,
basically
taking
the
income
between
the
18
and
the
19
they're,
taking
the
expenses
between
the
17
and
the
18..
So
if
we
want
to
be
consistent
on
that,
let's
be
consistent,
the
really
the
difference.
L
The
reason
the
operating
expenses
are
higher
is
because
it
operates
at
a
two
percent
expense
vacancy
rate
and
the
county
is
giving
a
six,
but
they
give
everybody
six
percent
vacancy.
So
if
you
just
change
column
e
to
a
six
percent
vacancy
we're
going
to
show
that
a
very
reasonable
and
sizable
reduction
right
down
to
where
we
are
and
that's
where
our
value
comes
from,
so
the
biggest
fix
here,
I
believe,
is
changing
the
operating
expenses
to
a
number.
That's
you
expect
from
a
1964
high
rise
building
and
west
on
columbia,
pike.
L
M
All
right,
good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
mr
warren,
good
morning,
mr
shetlik
talking
about
wildwood
park
apartments
located
on
columbia.
Pike
has
been
mentioned
previous
we're
going
to
focus
on
the
mixed
in
mixed
use,
income
and
expense
summary
sheet.
I
believe,
on
page
three
of
our
packet
and
looking
at
the
operating
history,
it's
owned
and
managed,
I
believe,
by
dipmar
it's
performing.
Well,
we
see
three
years
of
apartment
revenue
increase
year
over
year
every
year,
2019's
increase
apartment
revenue
is
3.4
percent.
M
We
did
note.
Retail
is
down
two
years
in
a
row.
It's
a
very
modest
portion
of
the
overall
component,
just
about
1800
square
feet.
In
fact
it
brings
in
revenue
less
than
half
of
that
which
parking
brings
in
alone,
but
regardless
it
was
down.
1.7
in
2019
parking
was
up
almost
18
other
revenue
up
just
shy
of
10
and
the
rubs
or
utility
reimbursement
was
up
on
the
78
in
19.
that
led
to
an
overall
increase
of
gross
potential
income.
M
3.7
percent-
that's
the
third
year
in
a
row
of
revenue
increases
year
over
year.
Every
year,
property
is
very
stabilized
in
regards
to
its
vacancy.
They
don't
report
rent
loss
or
concessions,
so
you
can
see
the
vacancy
actually
dropped
just
about
1.8
percent
or
so
down
to
2.6
percent
gave
a
three-year
average.
M
True
vacancy
stabilization
of
3.5
percent,
we
saw
the
effect
of
gross
was
up
three
years
in
a
row
year
over
year
of
the
year,
just
shy
of
six
percent
5.6
percent
and
2019.,
as
noted
by
mr
shitlik
and
mr
warren
operating
expenses
did
tick
up
almost
eight
percent.
In
2019
we
saw
a
three-year
average
of
3.123
or
essentially
36
percent
of
effective
gross.
M
As
noted
by
mr
chitlik.
We
are
very
much
in
line
with
what
was
reported
in
2017
and
18,
as
obviously
we
didn't
receive
the
2019
I
e
until
march
of
this
year.
What
was
not
noted
by
mr
chetwick
was
that
we're
well
below
the
income
that's
being
achieved
at
the
property.
M
If
you
look
at
column,
d1
and
d2s
compared
to
column
e
you'll
see
that
we
underprojected
gross
potential
by
over
two
percent,
some
two
hundred
and
fourteen
thousand
dollars.
We
under
projected
the
effective
gross
by
almost
six
percent
as
over
half
a
million
dollars.
Five
hundred
twelve
thousand.
M
We
didn't,
unfortunately,
under
project
operating
expenses,
obviously
due
to
the
increase
in
2019,
so
we
did
under
project
operating
expenses
by
about
four
hundred
and
eight
thousand
or
twelve
percent,
but
all
those
metrics
combined
to
an
under
projection
of
the
net
operating
income
that
was
achievable
at
the
property
by
over
a
hundred
thousand
almost
two
percent.
M
The
virginia
code
allows
for
the
board
to
consider
the
actuals
that
are
being
achieved
at
the
property
itself,
and
so,
while
there's
been
made
mention
by
the
appellants
in
regards
to
adjusting
the
operating
expenses,
we
heard
no
mention
of
adjusting
the
revenue
streams
again,
given
that
the
property
is
done
well
and
achieved
greater
success
three
years
in
a
row
in
regards
to
income
levels,
if
you
were
to
adjust
the
operating
expenses,
we
obviously
ask
you
to
keep
in
mind
the
under
projections
made
by
the
county
in
regards
to
the
effective
gross
the
property
due
to
its
very
well
stabilized
vacancy
level.
M
That
being
said,
we
do
believe
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
the
97
million
136
thousand
dollars.
Just
a
brief
note
that
we
don't
touch
on
it
for
the
most
part
in
regards
to
it
being
an
appellant's
argument,
but
we
did
note
that
the
appellant
brought
the
reserves
for
replacement
above
the
line.
M
It's
reported
below
the
line
on
the
income
and
expense
questionnaire,
but
it
was
brought
above
the
line,
but
there
was
no
deduction
made
for
that
two
tenths
of
a
percent
for
the
reserves
replacement,
that's
included
in
the
cap
rate,
so
sort
of
a
double
dip.
If
you
will.
But
again.
That
being
said,
we
do
believe
that
the
total
value
of
97,
136
000,
should
be
approved
and
confirmed.
Thank
you.
M
G
M
If
one
were
to
make
a
change
to
the
operating
expense
that
occurred
with
a
growth
in
year
2019,
we
just
asked
you
to
keep
pace
with
the
revenue
that
was
also
achieved
in
2019,
based
on
the
under
projections
across
the
board
by
the
county.
We
do
believe
that
confirming
the
assessed
value
of
97
million
136
000
is
what
we
recommend.
Thank
you.
D
Yeah,
so
in
our
pro
forma
column,
f1
and
f2,
or
at
least
f1
for
the
apartments
we
are
taking
consideration
of
the
higher
income.
That's
reported
compared
to
the
county's
estimate,
we're
just
applying
that
six
percent
vacancy
that
all
high-rise
departments
get
in
the
county
as
well
as
then
taking
considerations
into
the
actual
stabilized
expenses
and
what's
been
reported
over
the
the
last
two
years.
So
I
think
we
are
taking
consideration
of
the
the
the
income
in
our
in
our
model.
And
again,
that's
that's
the
biggest
concern.
G
Okay,
shy
colleagues,
two
points
one
was,
I
did
absolutely
agree
with
the
appellant
on
the
operating
expenses.
It
seemed
out
of
whack,
but
then
the
department
pointed
us
to
the
income
and
and
the
the
dis
under
reporting
of
both,
and
I
see
that
it
more
than
offsets
the
under
the
income
under
reporting
more
than
offsets
the
under
reporting
of
operating
expenses.
So
I
think
that's
the
appellant's
benefit.
G
The
second
part
is,
we
do
certainly
see
in
very
stabilized
established
buildings
using
the
actual
trend,
stable
vacancy
percentage
rate
versus
the
guidelines
rate.
So
I
I'm
not
in
agreement
with
the
appellant
on
that
one.
It's
often
done.
C
G
Know
if
it's
the
majority,
but
it's
certainly
not
a
rarity,
so
I'm
on
the
side
of
the
department
in
this
case,
in
both
instances,
both
instances
of.
E
E
K
Case
and
I
just
wanted
to
compare
it
to
the
building-
that's
kind
of
on
the
next
block
over
which
is
almost
a
brand
new
building,
columbia,
hills
and
that's
that
was
41
operating
expenses,
and
I
think
that
building
was
built
in
like
2017
or
2016.
So
I
think
they're
doing
a
good
job
keeping
these
down.
Given
that
this
building
is
from
the
1960s.
A
A
F
Yeah
again,
I
think
this
is
ditmar
is
the
owner
of
this,
and
you
know
that's
kind
of
a
different
organization
than
the
norm
and
you
know,
like
ditmar,
has
their
own
plumbers,
their
own
electricians,
sometimes
they'll
even
work
for
third
parties,
and
so
I
think
dipmar
is
a
little
bit
of
a
victim
of
its
own
efficiency,
and
for
that
reason
I
do
think
maybe
they
ought
to
get
some
consideration
on
the
expenses.
F
Yeah,
I
think
you
got
to
do
both,
but
I
think
the
expenses
are
artificially
low
because
it's
titmar.
A
A
G
Would
take
issue
with
that,
though,
and
and
and
mark
said
it
right.
I
said
it
well
forget
about
the
revenue
for
a
second
just
their
vic
barnes
observation
they're,
a
victim
of
their
own
efficiency,
their
own
in-house
capacity
to
to
fix
things.
You
know,
I
would
say
that
a
a
a
dollar
saved
in
operating
expenses
is
not
a
dollar
loss
to
real
estate.
G
So
I
I
I've
known
people
back
in
the
day
when
you
could
just
deduct
all
interest
rates,
they
would
pay
their
credit
cards
late
in
order
to
accumulate
interest
and
pay
on
it,
and
I
would
say
well
your
tax
rate's
at
who
knows
25,
so
you're
paying
a
dollar
in
order
to
save
a
quarter.
I
don't
think
that's
a
good
option
and
I
I
support
ditmar's
taking
it
in-house
and
they
are
not
a
victim
of
their
their
circumstances.
A
A
F
Yeah
ken,
I
have
a
question
for
you,
given
this
columbia
pike,
do
you
think
that
merits
at
least
an
investigation
into
whether
the
cap
rate
for
a
columbia,
pike
apartment
should
be
different
than
the
cap
rate
for
a
lee
highway
apartment
and
the
reason.
C
G
That's
exactly
why
I
asked
that
question.
I
I
I
there
is
something
to
that.
I
think
I
don't
know
if
it's
and
it's
not
just
ethos
or
or
historical
muscle
memory,
but
but
rather
there
are
some
real
differences
in
public
schools
could
be
it
certainly
maybe
at
the
high
school
level,
that's
not
for
today.
Maybe
that's
for
the
county
to
look
introspectively
with
or
without
us,
in
off
off
hours.
G
Except
the
cost
of
taking
care
of
a
building,
regardless
of
zip
codes,
pretty
much
the
same,
except
for
ditmar
who's,
a
little
bit
more
efficient
ditmar
as
an
example,
so
there's
still
less
revenue
and
pretty
much
because
I
think
most
of
us
agree
having
operating
expenses
purely
as
a
percentage
of
revenue
is
missing
the
mark.
If
a
bunch
of
people
move
out
operating
expenses,
don't
go
down
because
they're
still,
they
have
to
take
care
of
the
common
area
and
the
roof.
So
well,.
I
No
well,
I
have
to
join
the
majority
of
the
consensus.
I
I
I'm
in
the
same
position.
I
don't
think
there's
any
change
that
needs
to
be
made
to
the
assessment,
and
for
that
reason
I
did
not
work
out
any
numbers.
In
this
case
I
looked
at
pretty
much
all
the
num.
You
know
gpi
egi
noi
and
I'm
okay
with
it.
I
think
it's
in
line.
D
our
summary
of
facts
page.
This
is
the
wildwood
towers
apartment.
It
sits
on
two
individual
tax
parcels,
one
actually
overlaps
into
fairfax
county.
You
can
see
that
that
land
is
appropriately
deducted
in
the
county's
current
assessment
valuation.
It's
currently
assessed
at
32
million
551
300
243
000
unit.
The
county
is
recommending
no
change
and
what
we're
asking
for
from
the
border
today
is
a
value
of
29
million
362
100,
which
is
219
000
a
unit.
This
is
a
high-rise
apartment.
D
Now,
if
you
turn
to
again
the
county's
apartment,
ind,
summary
page,
which
is
can
be
found
on
page
3,
you'll
see
the
historical
reportings
of
this
property.
The
assessment
increased
from
the
prior
year
in
2020
this
this
assessment
increased
11,
while
noi
just
increased
four
percent
from
from
2018
to
2019
in
our
test
column,
you'll
see
that
we
are
using
the
the
most
recently.
D
E
D
19302,
which
is
about
70
000
higher
than
what
the
county
is
estimating
for
total
operating
expenses
of
948
thousand
298.
so
again
similar
to
the
last
property.
This
is
a
property
that
we're
hoping
that
the
board
considers
the
the
actual
reported
expenses
which
are
higher
than
what
the
counties
currently
estimate
in
their
2020
assessment.
D
D
D
It
was
renovated
in
2004,
but
it
retains
all
the
same
structural
elements,
foundation,
exterior
design
and
materials,
but
the
county
has
applied
a
effective
age
of
2004
so
similar
to
the
property
just
being
demolished.
C
D
A
brand
new
building
built
up
in
that
year,
that's
how
it's
being
assessed
it's
being
assessed
on
a
2000-2009
cap
rate,
so
like
this
building,
was
effectively
built
from
the
ground
up
in
2009,
which,
obviously,
if
you
can
see
in
page
40
of
our
packet,
a
picture
of
the
of
the
subject
property.
This
is
not
a
2004
build
property.
D
The
board
has
agreed
with
us
the
last
several
years
and
has
adjusted
the
cap
rate
accordingly.
In
the
2019
boe
case,
the
effective
age
was
changed
from
the
2000
to
2009
range
to
the
1990,
to
1999.
E
D
Which
essentially
lowered
the
cap
rate
from
what
it's
currently
being
assessed
at
a
five
five
to
a
five
six?
And
you
know,
if
you
look
back
at
the
last
property,
we
were
just
speaking
about
wildwood
park.
That
property
also
was
built
in
1964
a
year
before
the
subject
property
we're
talking
about
right
now
renovated
in
2003,
and
it's
being
assessed
on
a
5.7
cap
rate,
which
puts
it
in
that
1980
to
1989
range.
So,
essentially,
that's
what
we're
asking
here
for
for
the
subject
properties
don't
apply
a
that.
D
This
property
was
was
newly
built
in
2004
when
it
was
renovated
and
to
give
you
an
idea
as
well.
You
know
this
sub
this
property.
It's
again
again,
it
sits
right
on
the
fairfax
count
county
line.
If
this
were,
you
know
that
county
line
was
200
yards
further
to
the
east
and
it
resided
in
fairfax
county.
The
fairfax
county
guidelines
would
indicate
a
base
cap
rate
of
five
and
a
half
percent,
and
then
you
load
their
tax
rate,
which
is
ranges
from
1.2
to
1.6
at
the
very
least
you're.
D
Looking
at
a
fully
loaded
cap
rate
that
they'd
be
valuing
this
property
at
a
six
point,
seven
percent,
which
is
obviously
well
below
the
five
point.
Five
percent
cap
rate
that
fully
loaded.
E
D
Rate
that
the
county
is
currently
using
to
value
this
property.
So
again,
this
is
a
stabilized
property.
It's
reported
very
stabilized
expenses
over
the
last
five
consecutive
years,
as
we've
shown-
and
I
think
the
cap
rate
continues
to
be
an
issue
year
in
year
out
and
we've
continued
to
argue
that
it
should
not
be
a
2004
built
or
effective
age
property.
L
The
cap
rate
was
changed
last
year,
as
blake
mentioned,
it
was
a
5-0
vote,
jose
made
the
the
recommendation
and
great
seconded
and
it
passed
5-0.
I
think
it's
passed
every
year
unanimously
for
the
last
few
years
on
changing
the
effective
age
of
the
property,
and
then
we
get
the
assessment
and
the
assessor
goes
back
and
says
we
don't
agree
with
that.
L
Something
I
want
to
talk
about.
Briefly.
Everybody
gets
the
cap
rate
they
get
in
in
the
argument
as
well,
but
the
income
is
different
in
north
arlington
for
south
arlington,
so
the
values
are
going
to
be
different,
which
is
true,
but
obviously
it's
a
risk
issue.
The
other
thing
everybody
gets
is
the
six
percent
vacancy
rate,
so
everybody
gets
the
six
percent
vacancy
rate.
Everybody
gets
that
cap
rate,
but
then
we
come
here
and
we
see
the
side
by
sides
and
they
say
well
the
bottom
line
on
this
one.
L
The
assessor
is
using
1.8
and
the
actual
is
1.9,
so
they're
you're
you're
getting
lucky
in
a
way.
So
that's
because
our
vacancy
rate's
one
percent
and
that's
where
we
differ,
so
everybody
is
not
getting.
Six
percent
vacancy
everybody's
getting
a
six
percent
vacancy,
but
on
this
case
you're
using
the
incorrect
expenses.
L
L
The
actual
is
1.9,
so
they
did
a
good
job
when
actually
that's
not
true,
because
we
would
need
to
stabilize
the
actuals
like
we
would
in
any
other
case,
if
we're
going
to
use
a
arlington
cap
rate,
and
in
this
case,
obviously,
by
doing
that,
you
would
use
a
6
vacancy
on
column
e,
instead
of
which
is
really
our
test
column.
One
last
thing
I
have
greg
and
sophie
on
the
phone
who
are
with
the
ownership.
I
don't
know
if
you
then
want
to
to
point
anything
out
on
this
property
greg.
L
And
if
you,
if
you
are
mentioning
something
you're
muted,
it
sounds
like
a
now,
but
what
it
comes
down
to
is
they're
treating
this
building
as
if
that
had
been
torn
down
and
rebuilt
on
the
exact
site
in
2004,
which
is
really
the
same
as
it
being
built
in
2009
when
actuality
was
built
in
1965,
and
I
think
the
best
evidence
of
that
is
truly
a
picture
of
the
outside
of
the
property.
L
In
some
of
the
case,
you
started
earlier
today
when
you
saw
a
2009
build
property,
and
then
you
see
the
outside
of
of
this
property.
You'll
see
it
is
not
the
same,
but
what
I'm
asking
you
to
do
is
look
at
the
actual
performance.
See
that
the
again
the
expenses
are
too
low
and
barnes
is
exactly
right.
It's
a
victim
of
their
own
success
in
a
way,
but
I
think
where
it
misses
the
mark
is
if
this
building
was
to
sell
and
you're
going
to
buy
it.
L
Are
you
going
to
be
able
to
run
it
at
the
same
expense
rate
that
that
ditmar
did
and
the
resounding
answer
would
be?
No.
We
couldn't
because
we
don't
have
our
own
plumbers
and
we
don't
have
all
of
those
extra
efficiencies
that
they
have.
So
what
is
the
true
market
vacancy
market
expense
for
the
property?
The
two
things
we
know
is
we
probably
aren't
going
to
be
able
to
get
the
rents
that
dipmar
gets
because
of
their
their
name
and
their
efficiency
and
and,
like
ken
mentioned
they're
known
for
upkeep
of
their
properties.
L
But
we
also
know
that
we're
not
gonna
be
able
to
run
the
same
operating
expense
that
they
do,
because
it's
gonna
be
much
more
expensive.
If
one
of
us
were
to
do
it
on
our
own,
so
we're
really
hitting
them
multiple
ways
and
penalizing
them
for
this
but
effective
age.
L
Then
please,
if
we're
going
to
take
a
look
at
the
noise,
please
please,
please
consider
the
vacancy
that
the
county
gets
to
everybody,
because
otherwise
we
become
out
of
equalization
because
we're
essentially
being
assessed
at
a
one
vacancy
and
everybody
else
in
the
county
is
being
assessed
at
a
six.
M
Yes,
ma'am
similar
to
less
property,
well-run,
well,
income
producing
property,
four
years
in
a
row
of
apartment
revenue
growth
year
over
year
over
year,
every
year,
2019's
growth
at
1.2.
M
Essentially,
everything
every
metric
was
up
retail's
flat,
but
that's
because
it
doesn't
change.
Essentially
ever
parking
was
up
15.
M
We
did
see
that
other
revenue
is
down
just
about
a
half
a
percent,
but
that's,
I
think,
mostly
due
to
a
breakup
of
the
utility
reimbursement
on
its
own
line,
as
mentioned
by
mr
chitlick.
M
That,
of
course,
leads
to
effective
gross
increasing
three
years
in
a
row.
2019
is
increased
at
4.6
percent
very
similar.
To
the
last
case.
We
did
note
there
was
an
uptick
in
operating
expenses
in
2019,
more
modest
than
the
last
case,
and
this
was
an
increase
of
just
about
5.2
percent,
still
looking
at
a
a
three-year
average
of
approximately
34
percent
of
effective
gross
or
981
000.
M
So
we
were
much
closer
in
regards
to
our
projection.
For
the
2020
year,
we
did
in
looking
at
columns
d
versus
e.
Again
we
underprojected
the
gross
potential
income
at
the
property.
By
about
thirty
nine
thousand.
M
We
heavily
under
projected
the
effective
gross
at
the
property
due
to
its
stabilized
occupancy,
so
we
under
projected
effective
gross
by
180
000
over
six
percent
and
again,
a
more
modest
under
projection
on
the
operating
expense
side
at
71,
000
difference
or
seven
percent,
but
that's
still
led
again
to
a
and
a
projection
of
over
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
on
net
operating
income.
M
M
If
we
were
to
look
at
the
averages,
the
net
operating
income
side,
you
can
see
that,
regardless
of
looking
at
17,
18,
19
or
just
18
and
19
we're
well
under,
what's
what's
been
going
on
at
the
property,
especially
if
you're
compared
to
the
appellant's
pro
forma,
the
net
operating
income
suggested
by
them
is
lower
than
anything
that's
been
achieved
in
the
last
four
years.
M
Again
we
make
mention
of
the
virginia
code
if
one
were
low,
the
board
members
are
allowed
to,
of
course,
consider
the
actuals
of
the
property.
If
the
opponents
would
like
you
to
consider
the
operating
expenses.
Obviously
we'd
like
you
to
consider
the
success.
That's
been
achieved
on
the
income
side
in
regards
to
three
years
in
a
row
of
growth,
on
the
gross
potential
side
and
on
the
effective
growth
side.
Again
due
to
its
stabilized
vacancy,
we'll
touch
on
the
effective
age
argument.
M
M
I
think
he
did
this
case
with
you
all
last
year,
he'd
made
mention
last
year
and
you'll
see
in
the
comments
section
of
our
three-year
summary,
the
owners
and
I'm
not
sure
if
it
was
mr
raines,
was
part
of
the
team
at
that
point,
but
the
owners
in
2004
took
out
a
rehab
tax
exemption
application
with
the
county,
so
rather
than
last
case
was
just
renovations
done
by
the
owner,
essentially
looking
for
a
return
on
investment,
this
was
to
also
take
advantage
of
a
tax
rehab
exemption,
a
partial
tax.
M
We
have
exemption
that
carried
on
for
I
believe,
14
years
just
ended
january
1st
of
this
year
by
the
owners
own
attestation.
They
spent
15.5
million
dollars
and
again,
as
mr
warren
and
sherlock
notes,
they
didn't
change
the
foundation,
but
to
do
so
would
would
be
to
change
the
entire
building
itself.
So,
if
you're
changing
the
foundation
at
that
point,
you
probably
wouldn't
be
tearing
it
down,
but
given
that
it's
built
as
a
commercial
property,
the
structure
itself,
the
outside
shell,
didn't
need
much
refrigeration,
but
that
15.5
million
dollars
essentially
covered
everything
else.
M
New
heating
ventilation,
air
conditioning
electrical
windows
updated
kitchens
bathrooms.
They
literally
changed
the
structure
of
the
units
from
one
bedrooms.
Excuse
me
from
studios
to
one
bedrooms:
they
updated
the
common
area,
fitness
center
game,
room,
social
room,
they
added
a
swimming
pool,
they
added
a
parking
garage
and
they
added
new
elevators.
So
this
wasn't
a
a
typical
renovations
where
you
might
touch
up
cabinets
and
counter
tops
in
the
kitchen.
This
was
essentially
a
new
building
with
the
existing
shell
kept
in
place.
M
This
was
extensive,
renovations
refurbishments
to
the
all
units.
I
believe
it
took
some
18
months
again,
as
mr
lawson
noted,
due
to
the
size
of
the
owner's
portfolio,
ditmar
was
able
to
move
residents
to
assist
their
property,
so
there
wasn't
much
pain
felt
on
the
revenue
side
for
the
company
as
a
whole,
but
the
building
essentially
was
treated
as
a
new
site,
given
that
there
were
no
units
that
were
left
untouched.
M
M
We
took
the
time
to
include
the
gross
potential
income
since
the
property
was
refurbished
in
2014.
Excuse
me,
2004
and
noted
without
surprise
that
every
year
saw
an
increase
in
the
gross
potential
income
that
sort
of
supports
its
own
contention,
that
capital
improvements,
or,
in
this
case
extensive
renovations
warrant,
a
return
on
investment.
That's
why
the
the
building
was
extensively
rehabbed
and
put
through
the
process
that
it
was.
M
M
C
Yes,
I'll
try
to
be
brief.
I
just
want
to
add
that
I
mean
each
year
that
this
case
comes
to
the
board.
The
county
provides
the
board
each
year
with
proof
or
as
much
information
as
we
can
as
to
why
the
effective
age
was
changed
to
what
it
was.
The
appellant
doesn't
provide
any
proof
as
to
why
the
effective
a
shouldn't
be
changed.
All
they
say
is:
oh,
it
was
built
in
1960
something,
therefore
the
effectiveness
should
be
changed.
C
That
is,
when
the
effective
age
was
changed
to
2004
based
off
the
work
they
did
as
the
article
states.
The
building
was
vacated
for
about
18
months
to
do
this
work.
That
worksheet
also
includes
three
year,
history,
which
I
believe
shows
them
reporting
negative
income
during
that
time
period
of
renovations
to
show
that
they
vacated
this
building
and
also
to
demonstrate
how
extensive
this
work
was.
The
previous
case.
They
also
applied
for
rehab
exemption.
During
that
time
period,
their
rehab
exemption
was
denied
because
they
had
already
it
was
determined.
C
They
had
already
started
work
before
the
pre-renovation
inspection
was
done,
so
they
did
attempt
to
have
rehab
exemptions
for
both
properties.
That
we've
heard
today
owned
by
ditmar.
Again,
we
do
all
we
can
to
research
renovations
and
changes
made
to
properties
before
we
even
worked
for
the
county,
we
feel
like.
C
J
Just
to
to
jeremy,
and
just
to
be
clear
and
sure
of
the
answer
they,
the
owner,
has
its
own
teams
to
do
plumbing
and
electrical
and
things
like
that.
But
those
costs
are
reflected
in
these
expense
line.
Items
is
that
corr.
That
is
correct.
L
J
But
I'm
as
I
would
assume
they
pass
on
their
their
full
cost
of
that
plumber,
their
their
their
expensive,
the
overheads,
the
whatever
else
may
go
into
that
plumber
right
right.
There,
efficiency,
there's,
not
a
profit
element
that
my
plumber
would
charge
right.
So
if.
L
L
F
L
We
we
were,
he
detailed
the
exact
same
thing
last
year,
this
was
reduced
by
the
department
in
2013,
2014
and
2015,
and
it's
been
reduced
by
the
board
of
equalization
in
16,
17,
18
and
19..
So
this
is
certainly
not
the
first
time.
You've
brought
that
up.
Our
position
is,
and
has
been
really
the
the
board's
position
has
been
unanimously
over
the
last
few
years
of
a
renovation.
No
matter
how
extensive
it
is
is
not
the
same
as
a
new
construction,
and
that's
just
the
fact,
and
actually
I
one
of
the
board.
L
Members
actually
said
that
last
year,
that
you
can't
treat
them
as
the
same
which
all
we're
doing
is
essentially
saying
that
a
2004
renovation
last
year,
what
the
board
said
is
a
2004
renovation
is
equal
to
a
five-year
earlier
1999
brand
new
build.
So
we
are
we're
very
aware
of
that.
We've
had
that
discussion
with
them
he's
had
that
discussion
with
you
he
mentioned.
I
have
new
information
that
they
looked
at.
We
haven't
seen
what
that
new
information
is
because
what
was
presented
today
was
exactly
the
same.
L
Actually
last
year
was
a
little
more
information
was
presented
to
the
board
in
terms
of
what
was
done.
So
this
is
not
new
information
in
any
way
I
mean,
and
four
years
have
been
going
by
where
the
board
has
pretty
much
unanimously
agreed
that
that's
not
the
correct
way
to
approach
it
and
the
county
continues
to
say
what
we
think
it
is.
L
M
Go
ahead,
chris
yeah,
it's
100
new
information,
and
that
this
was
a
article
that
we
found
on
washington
post
that
was
put
into
the
packet
was
previously
not
part
of
our
packets
presentation.
M
I
think,
as
mr
bailey
has
pointed
out,
so
what
we
try
to
do
is
add
to
this
information
each
year,
because
there's
a
obviously
dispute
over
the
appropriateness
of
that
effective
age
and
so
we're
trying
to
bolster
our
case
by
pointing
out
as
many
documents
as
we
can
to
that
note.
Last
year
we
included
the
attestation
from
the
owner
of
the
15.5
million
spent,
so
that
was
new
last
year.
M
This
article
is
new
this
year,
we're
just
trying
to
prove
our
points
into
why
we
believe
the
application
of
that
effective
age
is
accurate
and
the
way
we
do
that
is
through
public
documents
and
or
documents
from
the
ownership.
So
last
year
again,
we
added
that
document
from
the
owner.
This
year
we
added
a
washington
post
article.
F
I
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
the
applicant
knew
about
it
ahead
of
time
and
aren't
having
to
respond
to
that
without
advance
knowledge.
That's
all.
L
Oh,
it's
all
part
of
the
packet
yeah,
the
article
states,
the
wildwood
towers
renovation,
include
new
carpet
linoleum
bathroom
towel
floors,
stove,
vented
microwave
refrigerators,
fiberglass
single
piece
tubs
vanities
windows
blinds
washer
dryers.
That's
the
the
big
changes
that
is
not
the
same
as
tearing
down
a
building
and
building
a
new
building.
The
building
is
still
a
1960s
structure.
I
could
tell
you
our
office
building
at
7900
west
park
had
a
new
skin.
It
was
completely
renovated.
L
G
For
the
department
in
the
last
case,
which
is
similar
to
this
one
in
a
variety
of
ways,
you
it
was,
but
specifically
that
the
vacancy
was
very
established
vacancy
rate
was
very
established.
The
appellant
said
how
come
we're
not
getting
the
six
percent
guidelines.
Your
response
was
well,
we
know
what
the
vacancy
rate
is.
It's
pretty
consistent,
so
it's
two
plus
whatever
percent.
In
this
case,
however,
you
have
applied
in
a
very
stabilized
building
the
six
percent
guidelines
rate,
thereby
upping
the
the
operating
expenses.
Why
is
that.
M
You
may
just
be
mistaken,
mr
metcan.
The
six
percent
was
applied
in
the
last
case
as
well.
The
only
time
we've
ever
used
anything
below
guidelines
is
when
we
use
a
test
column
for
the
board
to
consider
the
actuals
as
the
virginia
code
states,
you
may
have
heard
me
mention
that
there
was
a
three
year
average
of
2.6
percent,
but
they're
still
getting
the
benefit
of
that
six
percent,
which
is
why
we're
we're
such
a
gulf
of
our
underestimation
of
the
effective
gross
income.
Mr.
L
If,
if
we
look
at
column
d,
what
the
information
he
had
at
the
time
was
a
b
and
c.
So
what
we
knew
in
column
d
is
that
the
gross
potential
was
2.8,
2.9
and
2.97,
so
he
used
2.967,
which
is
correct.
He
was
within
four
thousand
dollars,
three
thousand
dollars
of
the
actual,
and
then
he
had
he
gave
six
percent
which
he
gives
to
everybody,
and
then
he
had
the
expenses,
which
was
eight
point
873
954
in
nine.
L
So
on
the
bottom
line,
you
look
at
it
and
we
get
here
and
you
say:
okay,
his
noise
1.84,
and
if
you
look
at
the
actuals
it
was
one
seven,
nine
one,
eight
one,
seven
one,
eight
seven,
he
did
a
good
job,
but
if
you
actually
look
at
the
details
of
it
he's-
and
this
might
not
be
the
best
word-
but
this
is
the
one
I'm
gonna
use-
he's,
manipulating
the
numbers
to
get
to
the
no
one's,
because
that
six
percent
is
a
conscious
that
cap
rate
is
constant
for
them
now.
L
This
is
a
case
similar
to
the
last.
In
that
sense,
where
it's
not
similar
to
the
last
is
the
cap
rate
he
chose,
which
is
again.
This
is
going
to
be
the
fifth
year.
Hopefully,
the
board
agrees
that
they
have
changed
the
cap
rate.
If
again,
if
an
agreement's
in
place
and
the
county
just
keeps
saying
yeah,
but
this
was
really
renovated.
Here's
more
proof
that
it
was
really
renovated.
Last
year,
irving
actually.
A
K
M
Yeah,
absolutely
we'll
start
with
the
idea
that
we
don't
appreciate
the
idea
that
there's
an
insinuation
that
there's
manipulation
of
numbers
made
by
the
appellant.
The
board
is
very
familiar
with
our
work.
This
is
based
on
numbers
reported
by
the
owners.
If
you
look
at
the
operating
history,
you
can
see
that
this
is
a
property.
That's
been
achieving
success
on
the
revenue
side
year
over
year
every
year,
both
the
gross
potential
and
effective
growth
side.
So
they
had
the
idea
that
we
would
under
tax.
M
I
guess
is
the
the
charge
the
owner
to
the
disenfranchisement
of
the
arlington
citizenry
just
doesn't
make
sense,
it's
offensive.
M
What
we
do
is
we
look
at
the
histories
provided
by
the
owners
we
plug
in
these
numbers
year.
Every
year,
there's
been
no
dispute
over
the
correct
application
of
the
numbers,
as
reported
by
the
owners
as
certified
by
the
owners.
You
can
see
again
across
the
board.
We
under
projected
income
due
to
the
success
of
the
property.
M
We
understated
effective
growth
due
to
success
of
the
occupancy
at
the
property
and
while
we
under
projected
operating
expenses,
that's
only
one
compared
to
the
new
information
that
was
received
after
the
2020
assessment
was
put
out
when
you
look
at
the
averages
of
the
16
17
and
18
were
well
within
range
of
what
was
reported
by
the
owner.
There's
a
5
increase
in
2019,
which
led
to
what
appears
to
be
an
under
projection.
There's
no
manipulation
of
that
number
whatsoever
regardless.
M
If
you
were
to
correct
the
operating
expenses,
we'd
still
be
some
hundred
and
ten
thousand
dollars
shy
of
what
was
achieved
at
the
property
in
2019,
which
again
was
a
four
percent
increase
over
2018..
M
Looking
at
the
2020
numbers
as
projected
by
the
pellets,
it
projects
an
noi,
that's
lower
than
anything,
that's
been
achieved
in
the
last
four
years,
so
they're,
basically
ignoring
the
year-over-year-over-year
growth
in
regards
to
the
cap
rate
used.
We
believe
that
we've
made
our
point.
There's
been
extensive
renovation.
M
Mr
chitlip
took
time
to
mention
all
of
the
carpet
linoleum
bathroom
towel,
but
did
not
mention
the
conversion
of
efficiencies
to
one
bedrooms.
The
conversion
of
one
bedrooms
to
two
bedrooms,
which
were
structural
changes,
the
elevator
installed
the
electrical
upgrades,
the
heating
and
air
condition
upgrades
the
addition
of
a
pool
in
the
addition
of
a
parking
garage,
and
that
being
said,
we
believe
32
million
551
300
should
be
confirmed.
Thank.
L
Mary,
if
you
don't
mind
I'll
I'll,
wrap
up
the
difference
in
this
case
with
most
all
the
other
cases
where
chris
was
incorrect
in
his
closing
was
he
said
he
underprojected
expenses,
but
only
compared
to
the
new
information.
That's
where
this
case
differs.
He
underprojected
the
expenses
based
on
the
information
that
he
already
had
so
his
expenses
of
948
000
were
below
18
and
below
17..
L
So,
as
you
can
see,
he's
using
the
trend
on
gpi
to
take
it
up
to
use
almost
exactly
the
2018
income
number,
but
then
on
expenses
he's
using
an
average
of
the
last
three
years.
That's
where
we
have
an
issue,
it's
not
similar
to
the
last
cases
or
really
any
of
the
cases
we've
had
where
the
new
information
shows.
He
was
wrong
in
this
case.
It
is
that
the
old
information
shows
that
he
was
incorrect.
L
That's
the
fact
on
here.
If
that
six
percent
is
a
constant
which
it
is
in
the
reassessment,
then
he
has
used
the
below
expenses
that
are
below
actuals
and
indicated
a
value.
That's
just
not
supportable.
I
understand
the
noi
number,
but
when
you
consider
that
six
percent
as
being
a
constant
that
changes
that
below
the
line
and
a
line
number
and
then
of
course,
the
effective.
K
I
guess
I'll
start.
I
feel
the
same
kind
of
the
same
way
I
felt
about
this
last
year
that
kind
of
sign
up
with
the
appellant
on
the
that
this
is
a
1990
to
1999,
effective
age
building,
for
a
number
of
reasons
which
I
won't
get
into
because
we've
been
talking
about
this
one
for
a
while
and
then
I
would
also
point
out
that
you
know
the
cap
rate
for
last
year,
for
that
range
of
dates
was
a
5.7.
K
This
year
it's
a
5.6
there's
some
cap
rate
compression
still
going
on.
I'd
use
the
county's
numbers.
I
think
they
looked
good
as
far
as
projected
noi.
I
would
just
be
looking
at
adjusting
the
cap
rate
to
5.6.
G
I
I
was
not
in
on
this
last
year
and
I
was
wondering
what
the
cap
rate
change
was
all
about.
I
just
heard
it
I
agree
with
it
100
you
can't
bring
up
a
1965
building
with
massive
improvements
in
2004
to
a
2004
building.
You
can
certainly
bring
it
up
from
1965
or
75..
So
two
other
observations.
One
is
let's,
because
ditmar's
going
to
come
up
this
year
next
year
last
year
they
have
efficiencies
for
operating
expenses.
G
Let's
compare
ditmar
to
ditmar
and
not
to
other
lesser
owners
who
who
contract
everything
out
and
achieve
higher
expenses.
It's
to
me,
it's
apples
and
oranges,
dip
mars
costs
going
up
or
down
just
ditmar
properties
period
because
of
their
efficiencies.
And
second,
I
absolutely
agree
that
the
now
that
I
understand
the
vacancy
rate
issue
and
the
guidelines-
maybe
it
is
a
little
bit
skewed
because
the
revenue
was
under
reported,
but
absolutely
the
operating
expenses
were
under
under
not
reported
under
estimated.
Absolutely
the
operating
expenses
were
underestimated,
just
like
the
last
case.
G
Department's
overall
evaluation,
even
with
a
little
bit
of
skewing
of
the
six
percent
well
guidelines.
Last
thing:
it
was
also
brought
up.
All
this,
the
whole
building
were
in
fairfax
county.
The
cap
rate
would
be
different.
Well,
it's
not
in
fairfax
county
is
a
very
large
county.
Has
its
own
set
of
cap
rates
its
own
neighborhoods?
It's
that's
just
not!
It
was
brought
up.
I
just
want
to
address
it.
That's
just
not
at
all.
E
F
To
to
kind
of
share
a
slightly
different
thought
about
bitmar,
if
you,
if
you
and
I
formed
a
partnership
and
we're
going
to
buy
a
dipmar
property,
wouldn't
we
have
to
look
at
expenses
and
increase
them
somewhat
in
our
estimation,
because
we
don't
have
the
efficiency
of
detmar,
so
I'm
just
I'm
not
saying
that
I'm
going
to
go
there
on
this
case,
I'm
just
sharing
it
with
you.
On
the
on
the
age
of
the
building.
F
You
know,
a
government
is
a
little
different
than
than
a
private
person
and
the
government's
obligation
isn't
to
win
an
argument.
Their
obligation
is
to
do
what's
right
and
what's
fair-
and
you
know
at
some
point
I'm
going
to
respectfully
submit
to
chris
and
irvin.
You
know
quit
arguing
accept
that
there's
been
an
adverse
decision
and
move
on.
A
Okay,
greg
did
you
run
the
numbers
on
the
with
changing
the
cap
rate.
A
A
Done
a
test
we
would
have
a
different
number
and
especially
since
there's
the
argument
over
the
cap
rate.
But
that
being
said-
and
I
mean
I-
I
hear
the
appellant
use
this
argument
about
the
six
percent
every
year.
The
bottom
line
is
the
guidelines.
Aren't
there
for
you
to
underestimate
the
noi.
I
mean
when
you
look
at
what
the
appellant's
using
in
column.
F
it's
way
under
where
the
property
has
performed,
and
I
agree
with
the
county
100
there.
A
You
know
my
concern
is
if
you
actually
take
a
look
at
what
the
county
is
using
for
an
noi
to
basis
on
it's
it's
too
low.
I
mean,
if
you
want
to
do
a
test,
take
a
test
of
what's
in
column,
e
and
cap,
it
out
at
5.6
you're,
going
to
come
out
pretty
darn
close
to
where
it
is
right.
Now
you
know,
even
if
you
take
an
average
of
the
actual
assessment
and
the
actual
operating
income
for
2019,
you
know
it.
A
It
averages
out
of
you
know
just
under
1.9
and
that
caps
out
before
that
918
000
deduction
at
33.8.
So
I
don't
know
I
again,
I'm
I'm
having
concern.
I
agree
that
it's
not
a
2004
building
is
not
the
same
as
a
2004
renovation,
but
before
we
get
too
far
out
there,
I
think,
if
we're
going
to
change
the
cap
rate,
we've
got
to
look
and
adjust
and
do
our
own
tests
on
the
numbers
myself
and
I
think
we're
going
to
come
pretty
close
to
what
this
estimate
is.
A
So,
as
I'm
saying
just
be
careful
going
where
we're
going,
I
mean
the
noi
on
the
actual
assessment
is:
is
so
low
to
start
with
that
once
you
start,
you
know
to
use
the
appellants
word,
manipulating
the
numbers
you're
not
doing
anybody
any
favor.
I
mean,
I
think,
if
anything,
the
reason
that
there's
not
a
test
there
is
because
it
would
have
shown
for
a
higher
value
and
the
you
know
county
wasn't
going
to
do
that
without
having
to
have
the
requirement
of
an
appraisal.
But
I
don't
know
what
do
you
think
of
that?
K
I
just
had
one
more
equalization
comment
that-
and
you
know
when
I
look
at
as
a
developer
or
a
potential
property
purchaser.
If
I
look
at
the
two
properties,
we
got
the
one
we
just
did,
which
was
wildwood
park
and
then
wildwood
towers.
K
I
would
a
hundred
percent
of
the
time
pay
a
lower
cap
rate
for
wildwood
park,
which
has
three
acres
of
surface
parking
lot,
which
can
be
redeveloped
on
columbia,
pike
in
addition
to
the
income
stream
from
the
existing
towers.
So
but
the
way
the
county's
got
it
right
now
is
the
cap
rates
are
flipped,
there's
a
higher
cap
rate
for
wildwood
park
and
a
lower
cap
rate
for
the
building
because
of
the
effective
age.
So
I
don't
think
that's
that's
fair
from
an
equalization
standpoint.
I
Well,
I
like,
like
you
mary
last
year,
I
voted
to
change
the
cap
rate
but
yeah.
I
I
did
exactly
what
you
did.
I
looked
at
all
the
numbers
and
I
thought
from
the
beginning.
I
think
this
assessment
is
low.
I
I
So
you
know,
if
we're
going
to
do
that,
I
think,
like
you
said,
I
think
we
need
to
make
adjustments,
not
just
at
the
last
number,
because
that's
really
easy
to
do,
but
I
think
we
have
to
look
at
the
whole
thing,
so
I
think
for
this
year,
I'm
okay
with
it.
I
know
the
cap
rate
is
showing
us
with
an
effective
rate,
effective
age
of
2004,
but
overall
the
value,
I
think,
is
there.
So
I'm
okay
with
the
assessment.
The
way
it
is.
J
Yeah,
I
was
going
back
through
my
notes
on
this
too,
and
I
came.
You
know
I
thought
the
assessment
was
low
and
I
re
you
know,
and
they
didn't
run
a
test
because
of
it,
but
I
think
their
assessment
really
missed
the
mark
on
the
projections
and
but
they
can't
do
anything
much
about
that
without
the
appraisal.
I
did
not
go
into
the
cap
rate
analysis,
but
when
I
hear
your
numbers
and
I
can
see
yeah,
I
think
this
is
the
assessment.
J
They're
getting
is
a
good
one
for
them
and
they
should
consider
it
because
it's
low
anyway.
A
J
F
Yeah
after
hearing
all
this
discussion,
I'm
gonna
go
with
you
guys.
A
Yeah
all
that
being
said,
though,
I
believe
that
the
effective
age
should
be
adjusted
moving
forward
and
look
at
a
truer
noi
moving
forward,
because
I
think
if
we
don't,
then
we're
going
to
come
back
and
have
the
same
issue
this
time
next
year,
but
I
think
the
assessment
that
we
have
on
it,
even
if
we
adjusted
for
that
fact
that
I
think
is
done
incorrectly.
I
think
we
come
out
with
a
higher
number.
So
all
right,
I
agree,
mr
hoffman,
you
agree.