►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing October 5, 2022
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
All
right
good
morning,
this
is
the
Board
of
Equalization
meeting
in
Arlington.
Virginia
today
is
October
5th.
We
have
five
cases
on
the
agenda,
we're
going
to
start
with
case
number,
our
economic
Unit,
1602602,
A,
1800,
North,
Green
Street,
and
we
have
a
Mr
Jordan
apartment.
B
C
B
Okay,
thank
you.
Yes,
that
thanks
Eileen
I
was
on
the
wrong
property.
I
apologize
all
right,
1800,
North,
Lynn
Street
is
the
central
Place
Apartments
and
retail
shops
in
Roslyn.
This
is
located
at
Lynn
and
19th
Street.
This
property
was
built
in
2017.,
both
components,
the
retail
and
the
multi-family
were
appealed.
B
First
I'd
like
to
direct
your
attention
to
the
Drea
summary
page.
On
page
five
of
the
appeal.
Please
note
that
the
data
reported
for
2018
and
2019
is
the
combined
income
and
expenses
for
both
the
multi-family
and
the
retail
components
of
this
property.
Well,
2020
and
2021
columns
separate
the
income
and
expenses
attributable
to
each
component.
B
B
B
Now
the
county
requested
and
was
provided
with
a
copy
of
the
1231-2021
written
role
for
the
apartments.
You
can
see
this
included
on
the
appeal
in
edited
form
on
pages
7
through
12.
page
12
shows
a
total
annual
rental
amount
based
on
this
rent
rule.
This
is
close
to
what
the
county
used
on
the
drdea
test
in
column
F1.
On
the
summary
page.
However,
this
fails
to
account
for
the
concessions
required
to
secure
these
tenants.
The
2021
INE
survey
shows
that
concessions
were
4.6
percent
of
potential
rental
income.
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
Thanks,
Ford,
okay
with
central
place.
Yes,
we
looked
at
both
components,
both
the
apartment
and
the
retail,
and
we
did
do
just
a
small
reduction
on
the
retail
looking
at
the
rent
roll.
D
But
on
the
apartment
side,
the
income
that
we
used
yes,
I
did
I
did
have
the
opportunity
to
analyze
the
rent
roll
for
the
apartments,
and
we
used
just
a
very
modest
two
percent,
roughly
a
two
percent
increase
in
rent,
because
we
are
trying
to
protect
Ford
for
the
2022,
and
so
we
felt
that
the
income
is
very
reasonable
in
our
test,
column
F1
and
we
pretty
much
just
mimic
the
the
parking
and
the
other,
the
other
income
and
the
rubs
just
pretty
much
mimic
what
was
being
reported
for
2021..
D
As
for
the
expenses,
we
also
took
a
look
at
the
expense
and
we
thought
okay.
This
is
what's
reasonable
as
compared
to
the
2021.
A
F
E
The
rents
and
some
of
these
units
year
over
year,
can
you
give
us
like
the
maybe
the
trend,
I,
I,
guess
the
argument
is
down,
but
are
the
same
units
that
rented
in
2017
or
2019
I
mean
percentage-wise?
Are
they
renting
for
or
I
can
even
still
flat,
lower
two
percent
lower
three
percent?
What's
the
kind
of
the
average
Trend
going
on.
B
So,
on
a
unit
by
unit
basis,
I
do
not
have
that
deep
detail
for
you.
Mr
Hoffman
I
do
have
overall
potential
rental,
and
if
you
give
me
a
moment,
I
can
try
to
you
know
spot
check
a
couple
of
them
and
see
you
know
same
unit
what
it's
releasing
for.
Unfortunately,
I
do
not
have
data
on
individual
apartments
for
concessions,
so
it
may
not
be
a
complete
Apples
to
Apples
comparison,
but
let
me
see
if
I
can
gather
something
for
you
on
a
couple
of
unit
types
and
see
I.
C
I
actually
can
answer
the
question.
The
rental
potential
has
gone
down
approximately
five
percent
from
2019
to
2020
and
from
2020
to
2021.
D
Sure
so,
actually
I'm
looking
over
our
provision
page
and
comparing
it
to
the
rent
roll.
When
you
look
at
the
efficiency,
what
was
developed
with
the
efficiency
notice
I
only
bumped
it
by
one
dollar,
one
dollar:
okay,
when
you
go
down
the
line
to
the
bedroom,
let's
see
one
bedroom,
I
bumped
it
by
one
dollar,
again:
okay,
and
so
one
or
two
dollars
so
basically
I
rounded
it
up
to
even
numbers
all
right.
So
let's
say
if
it
was
1989
dollars
for
rent
that
I
bumped
into
1990.
G
D
We're
not
that
exact
in
the
department
Okay,
so
our
rent
that
we
used
for
column
F1
is
like
really
close
to
what's
being
reported
in
the
rental
and,
like
I,
said
our
take
a
look
at
our
expenses.
Our
expenses
are
in
line
with
2021.
D
other
than
that
I
I'm
finished.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
Mr
Harmon.
If
you
want
to
take
a
minute,
please.
C
Actually
I
mean
I
just
start.
If
I
could
ask
you
to
turn
to
page
the
board
package,
it's
page
62.
I,
don't
know
what
it
is
in
terms
of
the
PDF
you
have,
but
you
can
see
that
the
income
has
gone
down
about
five
percent
from
1990
2019
to
2020
and
another
five
percent
from
2020
to
2021,
and
that
is
the
total
potential
rental
income.
C
So
you
know
I'm
not
sure
how
Ms
roskin
is
is
deriving.
Her
numbers
I
think
that
you
know
in
terms
of
of
those
numbers,
it's
she's
looking
at
a
snapshot
in
time
that
doesn't
reflect
the
rents
that
are
actually
being
achieved
at
the
property
and
that,
once
you
do
look
at
the
actual
income
stream,
as
reported
on
the
certified
income
and
expense
survey
forms
as
reflected
on
page
62.
You
can
see
that
that
that
number
has
trended
downwards
and
the
difference
in
2021
or
the
2022
assessment
is
the
bottom
line.
C
Is
the
county
has
increased
the
noi
by
600
000,
and
the
assessment
is
a
seven
percent
increase
based
on
that
noi?
It's
a
noi
increase
of
seven
percent,
so
I
think
you
need
to
look
at
at
the
total
picture
and
not
just
at
the
one
item
Jordan,
we
might
have
a
little
time.
Do
you
want
to
add
anything.
B
A
E
The
only
reason
I
asked
that
question
about
individual,
just
like
kind
of
the
first
couple
years,
this
property
was
open,
there's
some
pretty
hot
numbers,
one
best
which
and
I
know
somebody
who
lived
there.
It
was
kind
of
like
the
exciting
new
place.
This
is
like
the
new
restaurant
open
in
the
neighborhood,
and
everybody
wants
to
go.
Try
it
out.
A
E
Were
getting
350
360
rents
on
one
bedrooms
and
then
you
I,
just
started
pulling
data
points
from
2020
to
2021
and
those
same
units
are
250
275,
a
square
foot
which
is
a
significant
drop.
So
that's
that's
where
I
just
have
an
issue
with
raising
the
assessment,
because
I
kind
of
see
the
dynamic
that
might
have
been
going
on
there.
G
That
Laurie
made
or
the
County
May
about
the
increase,
you
think,
is
just
a
little
too
aggressive.
I
E
H
G
E
A
Else
agree:
I
guess
well,
the
only
thing
I
did
is
I
went
back
and
I
looked
at
the
expenses
really
I
know
they
are
in
line,
but
originally
the
county
had
used
a
higher
rate
for
the
apartments
and
I
increased
that
by
just
about
the
same
amount
of
925
and
I,
come
up
with
a
lower
value.
A
A
A
I
would
prefer
to
you
know,
make
in
our
adjustment
that
way,
rather
than
going
back
to
students,
yeah,
okay,
yeah.
A
Sounds
good
all
right,
let's
go
go
ahead
and
move
in
that
we
reduce
the
assessment
to
208
million
108
and
100,
based
on
increasing
the
expenses
on
the
apartments
until
9
25.
G
A
Second,
okay:
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
by
Mr
Lawson,
all
in
favor
aye.
A
J
Right
I
can
see
everyone.
Thank
you.
Okay.
Moving
along
on
the
agenda,
the
next
case
is
rpc14051019
4420
Fairfax
Drive,
also
known
as
site
plan
number
331,
Mr
Harmon.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
B
Yes,
thank
you
so
4420
Fairfax
Drive.
This
is
currently
a
58
000
square
foot
office.
Building
it's
located
at
the
southeast
corner
of
Fairfax
Drive
in
North,
Vermont
Street.
It's
it's
right
at
the
intersection
of
Glebe
and
Fairfax
in
Austin.
Now,
if
you'd
be
so
kind
as
to
direct
your
attention
to
page
62
of
the
appeal
you'll
see,
this
is
where
we
outline
our
case.
B
This
property
is
valued
as
a
site
plan.
It
was
approved
in
2006
for
the
development
of
237
multi-family
units,
along
with
9
200
square
feet
of
commercial
space,
the
assessment
values,
the
property
as
a
development
site
and
applies
a
uniform
rate
of
86
000
per
unit
to
the
multi-family
portion
and
65
dollars
per
far
to
the
commercial
portion
to
arrive
at
the
assessed
value
of
just
under
21
million
dollars.
B
However,
this
property
has
not
moved
forward
with
the
development
because
it
has
not
been
financially
feasible
to
do
so.
It
has
not
been
financially
feasible
to
develop
this
site
at
any
point
over
the
prior
16
years,
largely
because
of
the
extraordinary
Community
benefits
and
Street
vacations
that
the
site
plan
requires
the
community
benefits
and
Street
vacations
required
by
the
site
plan
are
over
14
million
dollars
as
of
2019..
B
This
is
shown
on
page
74
of
UK,
this
in
fact
misstates
what
actually
happens
in
2019
with
the
site
plan
extension,
the
2019
extension
actually
increased.
The
community
benefits
from
11
million
dollars
to
the
current
level
of
14
million
dollars.
You
can
see
this
on
the
last
paragraph
of
page
67
of
the
appeal.
B
This
community
benefit
requirement
is
unique
for
this
property.
In
that
most
Community
benefits
are
not
assigned
a
dollar
value
on
the
site
plan
rather
list
items
that
the
developer
must
complete
in
order
to
earn
the
bonus
density
for
the
development.
These
can
take
the
form
of
landscaping,
widening
sidewalks,
installing
community
art,
and
often
a
dollar
figure
is
not
assigned
to
those.
Here
we
have
14
million
dollars,
spelled
out
in
the
site,
Now
by
misunderstanding,
how
the
community
benefits
were
adjusted
in
2019.
B
The
county
has
not
disputed
that.
14
million
dollars
is
the
actual
amount
of
community
benefits
required
by
the
site
plan.
As
such,
the
assessment
should
be
reduced
by
the
difference
between
the
actual
Community
benefits
required
by
the
site
plan
and
the
amount
the
county
believes
is
required,
which
is
to
say,
the
assessment
should
be
reduced
by
7.28
million
dollars
to
the
claim
value
of
13
million,
seven
hundred
five
thousand
nine
hundred
eighteen
dollars.
C
Just
put
the
difference
in
value
on
a
per
unit
basis,
the
the
extraordinary
Community
benefits
that
were
disputed
by
the
county
last
year
and
is
saying
that
the
assessment
was
fair
or
equal
to
thirty
thousand
seven
hundred
dollars
for
developable
apartment
unit,
and
that
is
the
reduction
that
we're
seeking,
because
that
is
not
a
uniform
or
typical
amount
of
community
benefits.
Thank
you.
J
Okay,
thank
you,
Mr
chicas,
for
the
county.
Please.
F
Yes,
ma'am
I
think
there's
already
been
some
statements
that
this
property
was
not
heard.
Last
year,
it
was
withdrawn
by
the
appellants
I
think
they're,
referring
to
2020's
appeal,
in
which
we
did
actually
misread
the
requirements
for
the
site
plan
approval.
But
I
would
note
too,
that
it's
still
being
misread
we've
heard
Community
benefits
set
at
least
eight
to
ten
times.
The
6.85
million
dollars
is
actually
required
for
an
additional
density
that
the
owners
ask
for.
So
it's
not
a
community
benefit.
F
It's
a
quick
pro
quo
to
get
the
units
that
they've
asked
for
and
the
additional
height
of
the
building
that
they
asked
where
they
had
to
contribute
money.
The
boards
heard
this
many
times
many
times.
In
fact,
you
heard
this
two
or
three
weeks
earlier.
Traditionally,
it's
not
a
a
buy
right.
If
it's
a
special
exception
site
plan,
4.1,
there's
going
to
be
quite
a
bit
of
back
and
forth
as
far
as
what
the
county
would
like,
and
what
the
developer
would
like
to
get
that
property
approved
in
regards
to
the
6.8
million.
F
It
is
actually
noted
in
the
most
recent
site,
Plan
Renewal,
that's
one
thing
that
was
also
not
noted.
The
site
plan
was
actually
set
to
expire.
This
December
31st
the
owners
went
to
the
County
Board
and
asked
for
an
extension
for
an
additional
three
years,
which
was
granted
at
the
time
of
that
granting
point
out
on
page
seven
of
the
most
recent
site
playing
which
will
be
your
page.
F
I'm
sorry
I'm
trying
to
find
it,
but
regardless
it
says
conclusion
staff
recommends
approval
of
the
amendment
to
the
cycling
condition
which
permits
the
county
to
relieve
the
developer,
the
obligation
of
partially
designed
and
construct
the
Boston
West
entrance
project
in
exchange
for
lead
gold
certification
and
a
cash
payment
equivalent
to
the
current
market
value
of
the
additional
density.
Now
the
additional
density
was
valued
at
6.85.
The
other
community
benefits
which
I
believe
the
opponents
are
noting,
are
Street
easements
Vacations.
So
it's
not
much
of
a
community
benefit.
F
It's
a
street
easement,
that's
needed
for
this
project
to
take
place.
So
again,
we've
seen
this
many
times
before.
In
fact,
the
board
has
heard
this
previous
case
and
has
confirmed
that
every
time
they've
heard
it
and
except
for
last
year's
withdrawal,
nothing's
changed,
except
for
an
amendment
to
extend
the
life
of
this
site
plan.
So
to
say
that
the
plan
is
onerous
and
is
not
able
to
be
fulfilled
with
the
mask
for
an
extension,
it
seems
disc
can,
you
know,
doesn't
doesn't
quite
match
up.
F
So,
given
that
again,
this
site
plan
has
been
remained
unchanged,
except
for
an
amendment
to
allow
the
developer
to
partially
relieve
themselves
of
the
street
easements
in
regards
to
paying
out
the
cash
equivalent
of
the
additional
density
and
Lead
gold
certification,
as
well
as
again
the
idea
that
they
asked
specifically
for
the
board
to
extend
this
plan
another
three
years.
We
do
believe
that
the
board
should
confirmed
the
site
plan
at
a
value.
E
C
The
office
is
currently
being
occupied
and
rented
it
is
being
rented
on
a
you
know,
with
the
termination
possibility.
E
Okay
and
then
there
was
a
there's,
a
note
about
a
site
plan
Amendment
or
something
to
allow
daycare
use
on
the
site.
Is
that
for
the
future
building,
or
is
that
the
current
building.
B
J
F
Yes,
ma'am
just
again
point
out
that
the
owners
ask
for
an
extension.
This
is
second,
if
not
third
extension,
that
they've
asked
for
they
have
the
amendment
in
2019.
That
would
allow
for
this
additional
density
contribution
of
6.85
million
to
be
paid
out
so
that
they
can
essentially
digest
themselves
of
the
obligation
that
build
towards
the
Boston
Metro
entrance.
F
The
counties
essentially
said
that
that's
taken
them
too
long,
so
we'd
like
to
proceed
without
them
again,
given
that
this
site
plan
was
set
to
expire
this
year,
the
owner
decided
to
ask
for
a
three-year
extension,
was
granted
they've
received,
lead
certification
Etc.
We
do
believe
the
site
plan
has
been
valued
with
Equity,
just
like
they
have
their
site.
Plans
been
valued
without
any
adjustments
made
for
these
quick
Pro
adjustments,
so
I
do
believe
that
the
original
assessment
should
be
confirmed
at
20
million
nine
hundred
eighty
one
thousand.
Thank
you.
J
All
right,
thank
you,
Miss
Borman
or
Mr
Harmon.
If
you
have
anything
to
conclude
in
a
minute,
please.
C
I
think
it's
very
important
to
note
that
getting
rezonings
in
the
county
is
expensive
and
so
agreeing
to
extend
a
site
plan
is
what
most
people
would
do.
The
owners
of
this
property
have
actually
marketed
it
on
a
number
of
occasions,
and
nobody
has
been
willing
to
purchase
it
for
what
they
could
cover
their
debt
on
the
property
for
Mr
cheek
has
mentioned
that
the
owners
could
buy
the
additional
density
at
the
site
for
the
figure
of
approximately
six
million
dollars.
That
said,
the
site
doesn't
have
that
density
associated
with
it.
C
C
So
I
think
that
you
know
the
last
couple
of
years.
This
has
been
a
difficult
property
to
get
your
arms
around
and
I
I.
It
was
withdrawn
last
year
it
was
withdrawn
because
we
didn't
have
a
great
understanding
of
the
of
the
costs
associated
with
purchasing
that
density.
But
at
this
point
in
time,
that
density
is
not
on
this
parcel
and
should
not
be
assessed.
G
Yeah
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
off
and
I'll
share
that
Colonial
Village
right
across
the
street
that
was
approved
with
a
very
similar
construction
of
an
entrance
into
the
Metro.
The
way
it
works
with
bonus
density
in
Arlington
is,
if
you
don't
want
that
bonus
density.
Well,
then,
you
don't
buy
it
and
the
county
is
pretty
much
the
seller,
so
it
it's
the
same
as
buying
from
you
know.
The
property
owner
and
the
county
gets
an
appraisal.
They
figure
out
what
it's
worth
a
square
foot.
G
E
G
The
property
owner
might
well
have
wanted
to
have
a
set
figure
rather
than
to
do
a
design
and
Implement
a
program
for
this
now
now.
The
one
thing
that
we
do
have
to
remember
is
that
the
this
site
plan
is
not
invested.
It's
something
that
the
applicant
can
use
if
they
choose
to.
If
they
don't
want
to
use
it,
then
it
can
expire
and
it's
all
over.
G
My
understanding
is-
and
it's
just
an
understanding,
I,
don't
know
if
it's
true
or
not.
My
understanding
is
that
this
property
owner
is
going
to
come
in
and
they're
going
to
try
to
lower
this
somewhat
and
some
other
developments
nearby
are
going
to
pick
up
on
it.
Like
I,
say:
that's
just
been
some
talk
by
the
staff.
I,
don't
know
if
that's
going
to
happen,
but
the
bottom
line
for
myself
is
that.
H
G
Think
until
they
let
this
site
plan
expire,
they're,
probably
going
to
utilize
it
and
the
County
charges
for
its
alleys
and
its
street
right
away
that
it
vacates
in
this
situation,
they've
charged
what
they
consider
fair
market
value
for
the
density,
so
I
think
it's
the
same
as
a
seller
sells
on
the
property.
It
takes
back
the
promissory
note
or
something
so
I,
I'm,
okay,
with
where
the
county
is.
J
Perfect
I,
just
from
a
Simplicity
standpoint
from
a
standpoint
of
Equalization,
the
bottom
line
is
it's
assessed
on
the
site
plan,
so
you
know
whether
they
purchase
the
additional
density
or
not,
or
you
know,
question
the
community
benefit
to
me.
The
value
is
based
on
the
site
plan.
If
they
aren't
going
to
utilize
it,
like
you
said
they
can
let
it
expire,
they
can
go
and
amend
it.
They
can
there's
other
options,
but
from
the
standpoint
of
Equalization
I,
don't
see
where
there's
any
room
to
move
from
the
value
that's
been
set.
G
J
J
B
J
C
Actually,
Madam
chairwoman,
if
I
might
interject,
this
property
is
valued
at
185
million
dollars
and
unlike
a
lot
of
properties
that
we
hear
that
have
a
number
of
different
tax
map
Parcels,
but
one
economic
unit.
This
parcel
of
property
has
one
parcel,
but
two
separate
valuations.
One
is
an
office
retail
board.
Building
that's
assessed
at
about
110
million
dollars
and
the
other
is
a
and
excuse
me
that
was
the
the
apartment
component
and
then
the
retail
components
about
60
million
dollars.
C
We
would
like
to
break
the
case
up
so
that
it's
clear
the
worksheet,
the
County's
test
sheet
has
like
14
columns
on
it
and
we
feel
like
it
would
be
much
easier
if
we
addressed
the
Apartments
first
and
then
the
retail
office
portion.
Second,
if
that's
okay,
with
the
board.
J
All
right,
just
due
to
the
fact
that
we're
getting
these
cases
so
late
and
there's
there
is
a
lot
of
information
on
this
grid
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
allow
that
we'll
do
the
questions,
but
it
will
be
all
voted
on
in
one
it's
a
combined
package.
So
thank.
C
B
Yes,
thank
you
so
3010
Clarendon
Boulevard
also
1210
North,
Garfield
Street.
This
is
a
mixed-use
244
unit,
multi-family
unit.
This
property
has
seen
declining
noi
over
the
past
four
years
on
both
the
multi-family
and
the
office
and
Retail
portions
apartment
potential
income
has
decreased
from
7.8
million
dollars
in
2018
to
only
7.1
million
dollars
in
2021.
B
B
If
you
direct
your
attention
to
the
Drea
summary
on
page
four
of
the
appeal,
you'll
see
that
they're
there
there's
a
lot
going
on
on
this
page
and
I
really
appreciate
your
attention
to
this
case.
As
we
explain
the
merits
of
the
appeal
based
on
the
operating
history
of
the
property
and
as
you
bear
with
me,
I'm
going
to
try
to
not
get
lost
out
not
get
bogged
down
in
this
summary
page
that
the
County's
provided
so
to
address
the
multi-family
portion,
I'd
like
to
refer
you
to
the
appellants
pro
forma
on
page
39..
B
I
know
that,
for
me
at
least
the
county
summary
page
is
a
little
difficult
to
keep
track
of
so
on
page
39.
Just
for
your
information,
the
Drea
test
on
the
multi-family
imputes
noi
at
just
under
5.7
million
dollars.
You
see
that's
down
from
the
initial
assessment
at
5.84
million
dollars
working
across
the
prior
three
years.
The
reported
income
reported
columns.
B
We
see
that
gross
potential
income
has
decreased
from
again
7.9
million
in
2019
to
7.8
million
in
2020
to
only
7.9
7.1
million
in
2021.,
the
2021
assessment
imputed
8.1
million
in
Gross
potential
income
in
the
year
since
the
last
assessment
gross
potential
income
decreased
by
over
six
hundred
thousand
dollars.
Yet
the
assessment
increased
by
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
over
the
prior
year
assessment.
B
B
We
see
the
declining
profitability
of
the
apartments
when
we
look
at
the
noi
achieved
over
the
past
three
years
as
well,
noi
dropped
from
5.8
million
dollars
in
2019
to
5.5
million
dollars
in
2020,
and
it
was
only
5
million
dollars
in
2021.
Yet
the
assessment
asserts
that
noi
should
be
5.7
million
dollars,
which
represents
a
150
000
increase
even
over
the
2021
assessment,
despite
this
property
being
less
profitable
on
January
1st
2022
than
it
was
one
year
prior.
B
This
is
simply
not
supported
by
the
operating
history
of
the
property.
Even
the
December
31st
2021,
rent
roll
that
was
filed
with
the
appeal
which
shows
actual
rents
being
paid
as
of
the
first
of
the
year,
shows
gross
potential
income
of
only
seven
million
sixty
three
thousand
dollars.
This
is
if
we
impute
rent
on
the
vacant
units
at
the
average
rental
rate,
despite
the
noi
decreasing
over
the
past
three
years,
showing
a
clear
Trend.
We
are
not
claiming
a
further
decrease
for
2022..
B
Rather
we're
just
ask
asking
that
the
2021
noi
be
used
to
assess
the
property,
as
the
counties
want
to
say.
Assessments
are
annual
if
the
income
increases
over
the
course
of
2022,
then
I'm
sure
the
county
will
assess
accordingly.
But
again
we
have
a
trend,
as
the
county
is
also
want
to
say.
One
year
does
not
assessment
make.
Here
we
have
three
years
declining
each
year.
B
C
F
No
we're
going
to
talk
about
this
entirely.
It's
it's
a
mixed
use,
property.
The
board's
seen
a
number
of
these
this
year
seen
these
last
week,
I,
don't
know
why
this
is
made
to
be
that
this
is
confusing,
or
you
know
this
is.
This
is
truly
something
you've
seen
all
throughout
the
year.
If
the
owner
wanted
to
have
two
different
evaluations,
they
could
have
gone
through
land
records.
Split.
This
up
had
a
land
condo
declaration
made.
F
In
fact
the
appellants
represent
owners
that
have
done
just
that,
in
fact,
I
believe
you
heard
the
first
case
today
was
split
up
that
way.
So
no
we're
going
to
be
presenting
this
the
way
it's
been
valued,
which
is
as
a
mixed
use,
property,
which
is
made
up
of
a
apartment
component
and
a
rental
and
I
think
they
did
that
purposefully
because
by
isolating
just
the
apartments
of
course,
you
ignore
the
success
of
the
retail
components.
We
don't
just
dispute
that
the
retail
side
has
gone
down
three
years
in
a
row.
F
I
think
there
was
a
misstatement,
but
it
was
Harmon
that
it
went
down
in
2019.,
apartment
rents
actually
went
up
in
2019.
Modestly,
they
went
up
so
we
did
see
two
years
of
decline.
We
did
note
that,
but
again,
because
this
is
a
mixed
use-
property
we're
looking
at
the
title
total
valuation.
What
is
the
total
gross
potential
income
and
in
doing
that,
as
we
noted
the
appellants
pointed
out
one
year-
does
not
an
assessment
make
now?
F
Looking
at
it
from
a
stabilized
point
of
view,
you
know,
let's
just
look
at
columns
e,
what
e45,
which
is
the
total
noi
for
2018.
I-45,
which
is
the
total
noi
for
2019
and
M45,
which
is
the
total
at
noi
for
2020..
You
can
see
again.
I
was
doing
quite
quite
well
very
stable.
Those
numbers
grew
in
2019
and
did
go
down
a
bit
almost
two
percent
2020,
but
essentially
to
where
they
were
in
2018..
The
biggest
drop
we
saw
was
in
2021.
again.
F
The
board
has
seen
this
numerous
times
this
year,
whereby
the
board,
the
owners
dropped
some
rents
to
fill
up
occupancy
and
take
care
of
what
they
would
feel
is
a
a
drop
in
income
due
to
lack
of
people
in
the
building.
If
you
will,
we
noted
that,
and
in
fact,
if
you
look
at
the
revision,
I
will
say
that
the
the
revision
made
on
the
growth
potential
for
the
apartments
was
a
bit
aggressive.
That
is
to
be
noted,
but
also
I
point
out
that
as
again,
the
board
has
seen
numerous
times.
F
This
property
is
nowhere
near
eight
percent
vacancy
and
concessions
doesn't
matter
if
you
look
at
it
as
a
total
of
vacancy
concessions
or
just
true
vacancy
they've,
been
averaging
somewhere
in
the
area,
four
and
a
half
percent.
If
we're
looking
at
the
true
vacancy
and
concessions
from
last
year,
it
was
approximately
six
and
a
half
percent,
but
that's
still
one
and
a
half
percent
lower
than
what's
being
offered
by
the
county
as
far
as
they
vacancy,
not
just
for
the
apartments,
the
retail
loans
getting
12
percent.
F
So
we
do
note
that
there
is
a
downturn.
We
asked
the
board
to
again
focus
on
the
effective
gross
income
at
the
property
which
again
is
down
below
years,
2020,
2019
and
2018..
That's
because
again,
we
do
note
that
what
was
achievable
at
the
property
continues
to
be
achievable,
even
if
they
chose
a
downturn
in
one
year
of
2021..
F
In
regards
to
the
retail
components,
we
would
note
that
their
largest
largest
appellant
excuse
me
largest
tenant
Trader
Joe's.
Is
there
through.
F
Again,
when
we're
looking
at
stabilized
numbers
our
projections
for
operating
expenses,
it
was
not
noted
at
all,
but
it's
over
a
hundred
and
ten
thousand
dollars
higher
than
what
was
achieved
last
year.
Operating
expenses
have
gone
down
three
years
in
a
row
again
because
we
stabilized
them
because
one
year
does
not
an
assessment
make
we
actually
increase
them
by
almost
three
and
a
half
percent,
because
we
do
realize
that
as
that
property
increases
and
again
the
residential
component
we
noted
was
at
97
occupied
as
of
January
1st.
F
So
we
do
believe
that
there
is
going
to
be
more
potential
to
increase
rents.
That
being
said,
we
recognize
the
downturn
in
effective
growths.
We
stabilize
that
over
the
last
30
years.
If
you
look
at
a
three
year
average,
if
you
look
at
a
two-year
average
in
regards
to
operating
expenses,
again,
it's
higher
than
it
was
achieved
in
2021
higher
than
it
was
achieved
in
2020..
So
we've
established
that
we've
stabilized
a
three-year
history.
F
when
we're
looking
at
the
overall
valuation.
We
did
note
that
it
was
almost
two
and
a
half
percent
decline
from
last
year's.
The
appellants
are
asking
for
12
and
a
half
births,
almost
12
and
a
half
percent
decline.
It's
just
too
much
again,
given
what
the
history
has
been
achieved
in
2018,
2019
and
2020..
Even
if
we,
as
we've
talked
about
put
more
weight
on
2021
and
less
on
2018,
we
still
would
have
to
acknowledge
2019
and
2020.,
given
that
we
did
so.
F
J
Okay,
thank
you,
questions
from
any
board
members,
since
the
appellate
did
not
discuss
the
retail
portion.
So
let's
just
try
to
keep
the
questions
on
the
apartments.
Does
anybody
have
questions
on
that
portion.
J
B
Yes,
thank
you.
So
retail
rental
rates
have
declined
by
seven
percent.
Over
the
past
year
alone,
office
rental
rates
have
declined
by
10
over
the
past
year.
These
are
based
on
the
most
recent
leases
signed
at
the
property,
if
you'd
be
so
kind
as
to
direct
your
attention
to
page
38
of
the
appeal
you'll
see
our
pro
forma
for
the
office
and
retail
space.
B
The
Drea
test
imputes
it's
on
page
on
the
summary
on
page
four
but
I'll,
explain
the
discrepancies
between
what
the
stabilized
potential
and
the
test
column.
This
is,
for
the
sake
of
your
eyes.
The
issues
with
the
Drea
test
for
the
office
and
Retail
portion
of
the
property
are
very
simple:
the
test,
column,
imputes
office
and
retail
rental
rate
at
a
weighted
average
In-Place
rents
they
make
no
deduction
for
concessions.
This
is
inconsistent
with
how
other
properties
are
valued
in
the
county.
B
The
test
column
does
not
acknowledge
12
000
square
feet
of
vacant
space
at
the
property
and
the
test
column
decreases
operating
expenses
from
the
12.61
cents,
initially
assessed
to
only
9.78
cents.
On
the
revision,
the
stabilized
potential
column
on
the
appellants
pro
forma.
We
use
the
actual
In-Place
leases
for
both
office
and
retail
space.
Then
we
deduct
the
County's
standard.
Six
percent
concessions
on
each
the
county
simply
uses
the
In-Place
rate
without
accounting.
B
This
is
incorrect.
It
is
not
similar
to
how
other
properties
in
the
county
are
treated.
You
can
also
see
that
the
county
imputes
the
vacant
office
space,
the
12
000
square
feet
of
vacant
office
space
at
the
lease
office
rate.
We
have
imputed
the
vacant
office
rate
at
48
dollars
per
square
foot,
which
is
consistent
with
the
most
recent
leasing
activity
at
the
property.
B
Finally,
the
assessment
initially
considered
operating
expenses
from
2018
and
2019.,
the
last
two
years
occupancy
was
stabilized
and
the
property
was
unaffected
by
the
pandemic.
The
initial
assessment
imputed
operating
expenses
at
12.61.
This
is
in
line
with
the
2018
and
2019
operating
expenses
on
the
test.
The
county
only
looked
to
the
2021
actual
operating
expenses
and
used
that
the
four-year
average
operating
expenses
are
11.13
per
square
foot.
Our
stabilized
column
grows
the
2021
rate
by
five
percent
to
account
for
the
increased
use
and
inflation.
B
As
a
final
note,
you
may
look
at
the
test
value
compared
to
the
initial
assessment
and
think
that
it's
a
pretty
good
reduction.
However,
this
reduction
is
primarily
due
to
the
county,
acknowledging
on
the
test
that
the
property
has
a
lease
in
place
for
ten
thousand
square
feet
for
99
years,
at
only
one
dollar
per
year.
This
lease
is
to
a
non-profit
and
it
was
required
as
part
of
the
site
plan,
approval
the
difference.
B
F
F
I
advise
mixed-use
worksheets.
So
again
we
value
this
as
a
mixed
use:
property
PCC
215
the
board.
Seen
this
many
times.
We
ask
that
the
board
look
at
this
as
a
total
property,
and
you
can
see
that
the
valuation
revision
made
is
reflective
of
conditions
at
the
property,
especially
considering
the
proper
profitability
in
18,
19
and
20..
Therefore,
we
do
recommend
revision
be
confirmed
at
170
million
584
100..
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you.
So
the
county
mentioned
on
the
multi-family
portion
that
eight
percent
uniform
vacancy
and
collection
is
generous
for
this
property,
since
they
didn't
reach
that
that
eight
percent
is
required
by
uniformity.
So
you
know
to
it
seems
that
they're
saying
well.
We
gave
you
more
on
this.
Let's
get
it
back
on
the
grants.
That's
not
how
assessments
are
supposed
to
be
made.
You
can
I
refer
you
back
to
page
39
of
the
appeal
you
can
see
the
three-year
operating
history
at
the
multi-family
portion
in
a
while.
B
It
goes
from
5.8
million
in
2019
to
5.5
million
in
2020.,
then
down
again
to
5
million
in
2021.,
the
county
can
split
hairs.
All
they
want
on
individual.
You
know
minutia
in
the
assessment.
The
bottom
line
is
that
noi
that
noi
is
precipitously
decreasing.
Yet
the
assessment
is
increasing,
something's
not
lying
out
there.
As
for
the
retail
and
office
portion,
the
accountant
did
not
deduct
make
any
deduction
for
concessions.
That's
not
uniform.
The
county
also
did
not
value
the
vacant
spaces
vacant
space
rather
as
lease.
Yes.
Thank
you.
J
E
To
the
revised
County's
number
a
little
bit
below
so
I'm
kind
of
curious,
if
anybody
else
saw
a
reduction
there.
A
Combine
you
know:
I
can't
break
through
the
whole
thing
and
I
think
you
know.
Looking
at
overall
I
mean
I
agree
totally
with
the
county.
Everything
is
being
alive
as
a
matter
of
fact,
I
think
the
NY
that
they
are
using
on
the
revised
I
think
it's
you
know
a
bit
lower
and
I
would
have
come
up
with,
but
so
I'm,
okay,
with
the
revised.
I
G
G
H
H
J
Yeah
no
I
I
agree
with
Mr
Lawson
on
that.
Does
the
retail
do
enough
to
make
a
part
I
I,
don't
know
if
you
look
at
the
difference
between
the
actual
and
E2
versus
F2,
it's
still
a
little
high
there.
For
me,
Mr
Hoffman,
you
had
your
hand
up.
Did
you
have
something
yeah.
E
I
was
just
saying
it
doesn't
help
that
we're
not
even
using
the
office
cap
rate
and
then
we're
saying
we
have
to
use
the
cap
rates
for
the
guidelines,
but
the
County's
picked
out
the
seven
caps
to
use
the
office
space
and
it
just
doesn't
seem
consistent.
That's
that's
kind
of
where
I
was
getting
at,
which.
J
E
At
this
there's
a
couple
of
mixed
use-
properties
like
this
in
the
county
and
there's
a
lot
of
them
across
the
country
and
you
can
derive
a
grocery
anchored
apartment
building
with
a
couple
of
floors
of
office
based
on
actual
transactions
and
I.
Think
that's
somewhere
around
a
six
and
as
far
as
the
noi
goes,
it's
like
I,
just
look
every
single
year.
This
thing
is
just
printing
10
million
in
noi,
so
we
could
split
hairs
and
this
is
going
to
be
9.9
eight
this
year.
Is
it
going
to
be
10.12
I?
E
H
E
E
J
J
Okay,
a
motion
and
a
second
by
Mr
Yates,
all
in
favor.
J
Opposed
so
it's
three
to
two:
without
myself
and
Mr
Hoffman,
the
assessments
reduced
to
the
County's
revised
number
of
170
million
584
100.
H
J
J
No
I
totally
understand
that
and
I
appreciate
that
you
did
that,
because
otherwise
it
would
have
been
a
worse
situation.
So
thank
you,
mister
Lawson.
Thank
you.
Okay!
Next,
on
the
agenda,
do
we
have
I
believe
we
saw
Mr
Warren
on.
J
H
Okay,
thank
you
board.
Thank
you.
Chris
I'd
like
to
direct
the
board's
attention
to
page
47
of
140,
which
is
our
summary
of
facts.
This
is
the
Quincy
Plaza
Apartment
Complex,
located
at
3900
Fairfax
Drive.
It
is
consistent
of
one
tax
rpt.
It
is
originally
theft
at
204
million
863
300..
The
county
is
recommending
a
revision
to
188
million
80
600..
The
property
was
originally
built
in
2005.
D
H
One
Building
21
stories
and
the
department
Community
consists
of
a
mix
of
one
two
and
three
bedroom
units
or
474
Market,
rent
units
and
25,
affordable
units
in
the
complex
I'll
refer
to
the
board
to
page
I,
believe
it's
three
they're
mixed
use
and
expense
summary
for
the
property.
The
original
assessment
value
of
204
million
represented
a
7.6
increase.
The
County's
recommended
revision
of
188
million
is
approximately
a
one
percent
decrease
from
the
2021
assessment.
H
However,
it's
important
to
consider
that
year
over
year,
the
net
operating
income
from
2020
to
2021
decreased
over
10
percent.
If
you
look
at
the
historicals,
the
historical
columns
dating
back
to
2018.
H
19
to
20,
which
are
found
in
columns
a
b
and
c
and
then
most
recently
in
2021
in
column
e
you'll,
see
that
the
the
gross
potential
rent
for
this
apartment,
complex,
dropped
dramatically
from
2020
to
2021
and
you'll,
see
that
in
2020
the
vacancy
was
higher
than
it
typically
had
been
at
five
percent
and
they
were
typically
offering
less
concessions.
H
H
As
of
the
valuation
date
and
continuing
this
year,
it's
going
to
take
a
long
time
to
to
slowly
get
back
up
to
those
rents,
and
that's
where
you
see
in
the
big
differences
currently
between
the
the
2021
reported
year
and
the
the
County's
test
column
gross
potential
rents
were
12.6
million
in
2021,
and
the
County's
revised
columns
are
still
almost
200
000,
above
that
at
12.8
million
and
gross
potential
income.
H
Similarly,
when
you
combine
the
the
revised
columns
are
in
F1
F2
and
F3
report,
a
total
gross
potential
income
of
14.877
million,
which
is
almost
nine
hundred
thousand
dollars
above
what
the
property
was
able
to
generate
in
most
recently
in
2021
the
same
for
Effective
versus
income,
there's
been
a
now
three-year
Trend
downward
trend
of
effective
gross
income
from
14.5
million
in
2019,
down
to
14
million
in
2020
and,
most
recently,
a
seven
percent
drop
to
13
million
11
000
in
2021..
H
The
the
County's
revised
test
column
is
approximately
700
000
above
what
was
was
most
recently
reported
in
2021.
The
the
property
is
a
stabilized
property.
It's
operated
at
expense,
expense,
levels
of
27
in
2019
26
in
2020
and
most
recently,
28
percent.
The
County
in
the
revised
column
is
using
a
an
expense
rate
of
27
of
effective
gross
income.
H
Similarly,
net
operating
income
has
been
on
a
steady
decline
dating
back
to
2019
at
10.5
million
in
2019
10.4
million
in
2020
and,
most
recently
9.35
or
9.36
million
in
2021..
The
the
counties
revised
combined
noi
set
that
at
10
million
dollars,
which
is
again
650
000
with
above
what
this
property
was,
was
able
to
generate
again.
H
This
is
this
is
a
a
little
bit
different
property
than
ones
we've
been
discussing
in
Prior
days,
Cortland
towers
and
Randolph,
which
have
had
some
higher
vacancy
due
to
some
of
the
renovations
of
those
units
to
maintain
their
rents
to
to
stay
up
in
the
market.
Here.
What
we're
seeing
is
is
a
higher
vacancy
and
large
concession
packages
and
lowered
rents
to
to
try
and
drive
that
occupancy
those
lowered
rents
are
are
continuing
into
the
future.
H
The
owners
with
ditmar
representatives
from
the
owner,
Sophie,
Mao
and
Greg
rains
are
here.
Greg
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
elaborate
anymore
on
on
the
situation
with
with
Quincy
Plaza,
as
well
as
the
next
case,
because
they
are
similar
in
in
kind
of
the
situations
they
said
in.
K
Yeah
thanks
Blake
I'll
yeah,
maybe
I'll
just
say.
The
story
is
very
similar
for
this
case
and
the
next
case
in
in
what
we
found
in
2020
obviously
started
the
year
in
2020,
with
normal
rents
and
and.
H
K
Fairly
stabilized
until
June
or
July,
I
think
that
the
the
residents
of
these
properties,
North
Arlington
young
professionals,
didn't
really
know
what
to
do,
but
at
both
of
the
properties
we're
going
to
hear
today.
Those
were
the
the
folks
that
got
out
of
town
and
so
that
that
vacancy
really
really
hit
between
you
know
set.
We
have
a
60-day
notice
requirement:
September
October
of
2020
through
April
May,
June
of
2021,
and
so
for
this
property.
K
We
had
50
real
vacants
at
the
end
of
the
year
with
another
50
upcoming
Virginia
Square
Towers,
the
next
property.
We
had
75
real
bakers
with
another
50
upcoming,
and
so
it
turned
into
a
lease
up
and
so
yeah.
We
we
again
with
detmar.
We
we
really
believe
in
occupancy.
We
don't,
we
don't
believe
in
vacancy
to
maintain
rent
integrity.
K
So
most
of
the
one
bedrooms
at
this
property
and
Virginia
Sports
hours,
rented
for
15.25
to
15.95,
with
a
concession
and
and
I
could
go
through
the
different
unit
types
and
and
the
amount
that
we
discounted.
But
the
point
is,
is
those
were
your
leases,
and
so
they
came
up
in
2022
this
year.
K
Did
we
get
rent
increases
absolutely,
but
we're
not
able
to
go
from
15.95
to
a
market
rate
of
24.95
without
absorbing
another
lease
up
or
crazy
expenses,
and
so
these
properties
specifically
will
take
a
long
time
to
come
out
of
what
was
a
real
trough
and
not
a
one-year
blip
that
you
can
just
jump
right
back
out
of
so
we're
this
year.
We
saw
we
said
last
year
that
this
year,
that
2021
was
going
to
be
worse
than
2020..
K
It
was
we're
saying
that
2022
is
not
going
to
be
as
good
as
2020
was
going
to
be
or
2019
was.
It
won't
be.
So
you
know
I
think
that
this
2021
valuation
can't
be
700
000
over
what
we
made,
because
we
think
we
could
have.
We
couldn't
that.
That's
the
real,
that's
the
real
number
and
we're
still
climbing
out
of
it.
F
Yes,
ma'am,
it's
funny
actually
I
thought
the
just
looking
at
Raw
numbers.
This
is
very,
very
similar
to
the
last
case,
especially
if
we're
looking
at
nois
18,
19
20,
very
stabilized
data,
wise
growth
in
19,
a
bit
of
a
downturn
in
21
2020,
but
again
less
than
one
percent.
The
the
downturn
we
saw
was
in
2021.
We've
seen
this
in
virtually
every
case,
we've
heard
this
year.
We
saw
this
in
the
previous
two
cases.
2021
was
a
bit
tumultuous
as
the
Mr
range
just
pointed
out.
F
They
lost
some
vacancy
and
wanted
to
fill
it
up,
so
they
lowered
rents
and
increased
concessions.
That's
essentially
what
I've
been
saying
all
year,
but
again,
as
was
pointed
out
in
the
last
case,
and
will
be
pointed
out
here
forever.
It's
it's
one
unit
is
not
an
assessment
make.
We
do
look
at
these
properties
as
stabilize
properties.
When
you
look
at
this
for
a
four-year
history
or
again,
even
Place,
more
weight
in
2021
Less
on
2018..
We
do
believe
that
again,
the
revision
is
reflected
of
what
happened
in
2021.
F
If
we
go
down
the
line
again,
you
know
it's
it's.
It
makes
sense,
and
it's
the
easiest
number
just
to
point
out-
is
the
gross
potential,
the
top
lines,
but
again
I
think
the
board
is
aware
that
we're
bit
constrained
with
the
idea
of
being
Mass
appraisal.
We
offer
guideline
vacancy
concessions,
so
eight
percent
gets
applied,
so
there
will
be
occasions
where
we
either
have
to
gross
up
that
gross
potential
to
get
to
the
achieved
effective
gross,
or
we
have
to
squash
or
depress
that.
F
In
fact,
we
made
that
mention
yesterday,
where
we
were
some
1.7
million
dollars
below
what
was
achieved
at
the
property.
Reverse
potential,
sometimes
we'll
get
higher,
sometimes
we'll
be
lower.
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
get
to
a
stabilized,
effective
gross,
apply
the
stabilized
operating
expenses
and
get
to
a
stabilized
NetApp
or
an
income
which
of
course
gives
us
the
overall
property
value.
F
When
we're
looking
at
this
property,
we
did
note
the
rent
roll.
We
do
again
believe,
as
we've
been
consistent
with
all
year
and
I
believe,
as
Mr
rains
just
pointed
out,
that
we're
asking
for
a
fairly
modest
increase
for
projections
of
rent
that
was
established
in
2021.
now,
one
two
percent
three
percent
seems
reasonable
as
far
as
an
expectation
for
it
rents
to
be
achieved,
especially
considering
the
rents
that
were
achieved
in
1819
and
20..
F
H
F
Parking
Revenue
was
given
away
with
some
amenity
or
concession
Revenue
takeaways.
If
you
will
so
again,
we
adjusted
other
income
and
utility
reimbursements
that
gave
us
a
stabilized,
effective
growth,
which
again
is
very
much
in
line
with
years.
19
20
21.
in
regards
to
operating
expense.
In
fact,
operating
expense
is
a
higher
projection
than
what
was
achieved
at
the
property
in
2021
it's
higher
than
what
was
achieved
at
the
property
in
2020.
F
very
much
in
line
again
with
the
last
three
years
of
stabilized
operating
history.
The
first
thing
I
mentioned
was
the
extremely
stable
net
operating
income
years,
18,
19
and
20..
Again
we
did
see
a
downturn
in
2021,
but
that
was
reflective
in
the
revision.
F
We
do
believe
the
revision
that
counts
for
that,
and,
in
fact,
as
was
noted
by
Mr
Warren,
we
recommend
a
decrease
from
last
year's
assessment
of
approximately
1.2
percent,
which
again
is
much
more
in
reason
with
what's
been
going
on
at
the
property
compared
to
the
appellants,
almost
10
percent
decrease
year
over
year,
given
the
Fairly,
stable
I,
should
say
very
stable
performance
of
the
property
18
through
20.
Given
the
downturn
that
was
reflected
in
the
revision
in
2021,
we
do
believe
that
the
revised
value
of
188
million
80
600
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
G
Yeah,
this
is
for
the
applicant
I.
Believe
I've
got
the
right
block
that
at.
E
G
G
G
G
K
F
Again,
just
point
to
the
stabilized
nature:
18
through
20,
again
reflective
of
the
downturn
in
2021,
we
agreed
appears
it
was
a
reflection
to
increase
occupancy
through
lower
rents.
We
do
believe
that
those
rents
will
increase
again,
even
with
them
modestly,
more
to
levels
19,
20
and
18..
F
H
Yes,
as
we've
previously
addressed,
large
successions
rents
were
lowered
to
drive
occupancy
to
this
property,
which
experienced
a
serious
decline
in
2021,
as
Greg
has
attested
too
it's
it's
not
a
a
one-year
blip
or
outlier
year.
It's
going
to
take
years
to
increase
backup
to
rental
levels.
The
property
was
operating
at
prior
to
prior
to
covid
is
also
Greg
is
a
test
of
two
in
Prior
appeals.
H
Is
it's
a
very
much
a
concession-driven
market
with
these
tenants,
signing
one-year
leases
and
and
and
seen
a
a
once,
their
their
term
is
expired,
seen
across
the
street
that
they
can
get
a
a
two-month
off
12
month
lease
concession
package?
It
doesn't
necessarily
promote
staying
occupancy
when,
when
you're
trying
to
increase
rents,
so
it
is
a
concession-driven
market.
H
It's
going
to
take
years
for
again
this
property
to
reach
a
stabilized
level
of
rental
income
and
increase
rent
due
to
the
levels
they
were
pre-code
and
we're
hoping
the
board
considers
that.
Thank
you,
okay,.
A
J
A
J
Mr
Yates,
that's
an
I!
Yes,
okay
opposed
okay.
So
it's
unanimous.
It's
reduced
to
the
County's
revised
number
of
188.080
600.
J
H
Okay,
thank
you
I'd
like
to
direct
the
board
to
page
53
of
154
of
the
County's
response
memo
to
the
board,
showing
our
summary
of
facts.
This
is
the
Virginia
Square
Towers
Apartment,
located
at
344
Fairfax
Drive.
It
is
consistent
of
two
tax
rpcs
and
the
original
assessment
for
2022
was
238
million.
947
200.
the
county
is
recommending
a
revision
of
210
million
957
500..
H
The
property
was
originally
built
in
2013
534,
total
units,
a
high-rise
in
the
Boston
Virginia
Square
sub
Market.
It's
one
building
and
13
stories
tall
again.
H
Moving
on
to
the
County's
mixed
use,
income
and
expense
summary
sheet
found
on
page
three,
the
original
assessment
value
represented
a
4.2
percent
increase
from
the
prior
years
2021
assessment.
Now
the
revised
assessment
is
an
eight
percent
decrease
year
from
from
the
2021
assessment
or
the
recommended
value.
However,
again
it's
important
to
note
that
year
over
year,
the
net
operating
income
for
this
property
from
2020
to
2021,
decreased
by
over
14
percent.
H
Again
looking
at
the
history
of
reporting
years
that
are
found
dating
back
from
2018
to
2021
columns,
a
b
c
and
e
you'll
see
that
again,
there's
a
large
decrease
in
Gross
potential
rent
from
2020
to
2021,
as
well
as
as
gross
potential
income
and
again
result
in
because
of
the
high
vacancy
that
you'll
see
reported
in
in
column
C
for
that
year
and
you'll
see
it
it
lowered
slightly
in
2021
very
similar
to
the
last
property
we
we
just
discussed
rents
were
lowered,
concessions
were
offered
to
to
drive
occupancy
to
that
property.
H
H
H
H
Again,
this
was
similar
to
last
property.
A
a
stabilized
property
23
in
2019
23
in
2020,
an
increase
to
28
and
a
half
percent
in
2021..
The
county
is
in
the
revised
test.
Column
is
using
an
operating
expense
ratio
of
25
and
a
half
percent
net
operating
income
again
a
three
year
downward
Trend,
a
significant
downward
Trend
in
net
operating
income
reported
in
each
of
the
last
three
years
in
2019,
12.5
million
11.7
million
in
2020
and
most
recently,
10
million
dollars
in
2021..
H
The
the
County's
total
revised
net
operating
income
in
their
test
column
of
11
million
is
approximately
1
million
dollars
again
above
what
this
property
was
was
capable
of
generating
in
the
most
recent
reporting
year,
similar
to
again
the
last
property.
This
property
experienced
a
large
number
of
turnovers
in
the
end
of
2020
and
also
in
the
beginning
of
2021.
H
Again
they
had
to
significantly
lower
rents
to
to
drive
occupancy
to
to
that
property,
and
it's
going
to
take
again
many
many
years
to
to
be
able
to
moderately
increase
those
rental
levels
to
achieve
that's
the
levels
that
they
once
were
Greg
and
Sophie.
I,
don't
know.
If
there's
anything
you
would
like
to
to
add
specifically
for
for
Virginia
Square
Towers.
K
Yeah
I
mean
not
not
much
different
than
what
we
said
last
time,
Blake
other
than
this
property,
more
than
any
of
bitmars
properties,
was
affected
by
really
high
turnover.
K
In
a
really
pretty
much
like
I
said
about
a
seven
month
window,
we
I
think
we
turned
over
270
units
out
of
530
in
2020
and
230,
something
in
2021,
but
like
400
of
those
were
in
that
six
month
stretch.
So
again
we
had
75
and
then
in
2020
we
had
75
totally
vacant
units
with
another
50
that
were
coming
up
that
were
not
rerunning,
and
so
you
know
it
was
a
true
Lisa
where
we
were
giving
free
parking
for
a
year.
15.95
14.95
one
bedrooms
concessions.
B
K
B
K
Either
I
said
fifty
percent
income
40
increase
the
other
thing
is
they
qualify
on
the
lower
rent
and
so
a
lot
of
times,
they're
not
able
to
pay
that
higher
rent,
and
then
you
have
turnover
all
over.
So
the
higher
expenses
and
the
lower
rents
do
not
go
away
after
one
year
or
two
years
it
takes
a
while
so
I
I
again
I
understand
that
we
can
pull
a
rent
roll
at
some
of
these
properties.
But
this
property
was
the
most
affected,
buy
covert.
F
Yes,
ma'am
so
again,
essentially
looking
at
this
property
from
the
stabilized
point
of
view
years,
18
through
21.
call
it
how
you
will
if
we
want
to
put
more
weight
on
2021,
see
it's
appropriate,
given
it's
the
most
current
year,
Less
on
2018,
we
still
have
to
look
at
the
years,
1920
and
2021..
F
You
know,
as
mraines
pointed
out,
this
one
may
be
a
little
bit
different
in
the
sense
of
a
bit
more
true
vacancy.
But
again
you
know
the
the
stories
and
the
fuel
is
the
same
in
the
sense
that
they're
still
doing
the
same
things:
they're
looking
to
increase
rent
increase
occupancy
through
lower
rents
and
or
concessions
biggest
difference
here
is
the
concessions
stayed
if
you
want
from
20
to
20
to
2021
and
increase
the
bet.
That
being
said,
we
still
look
at
this
as
a
stabilized
nature.
F
If
we
look
at
the
revised
mixed
use,
worksheet
that
we
provided
you'll
see
that
as
we've
done
consistently,
we
took
the
residential
rent
role
for
the
rents
that
were
achieved
in
the
year
2021
and
we
applied
a
fairly
reasonable.
Two
percent
increase
a
projection
made
for
the
year
2022..
Obviously,
that's
somewhat
based
on
the
idea.
F
We
know
that
the
property
will
be
94
occupied
and
again,
if
you
look
at
those
rents
that
were
achieved
in
years,
2018
2019-2020-
you
know
this
is
a
good
bit
below
all
those,
almost
a
million
dollars
less
than
what
was
achieved
in
2020..
So
we
are
reflective
of
what's
going
on
on
the
ground
and
in
fact
you
can
see
that
again
by
looking
at
the
effective
growth
that
we've
stabilized
in
our
projection,
that
would
be
a
hue
18..
F
That's
again,
what
some
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
below
2020's
number,
almost
a
full
1.3
million
dollars
lower
than
2019's
number
so
again,
very
reflective
of
what
happened
in
2021,
but
looking
at
a
big
picture
as
far
as
years,
2018
2019
2020
2021
again,
even
if
you
only
place
weight
on
2019-2020.
In
fact,
even
if
you
only
place
weight
on
2020
in
2021,
our
projected
effective
gross
income
is
essentially
spot
on
I.
Believe
it's
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
more
than
what
was
achieved
the
past
two
years,
but
lower
than
what
was
achieved.
F
The
last
three
years
same
thing
with
operating
expenses
operating
expenses
are
a
bit
lower
than
what
was
achieved
in
year
2021
but,
as
you
note,
with
the
yellow
highlight
that
was
somewhat
due
to
increases
almost
30
percent
for
maintenance
and
repair
12
for
sub
services
for
an
increase
of
12
year
over
year.
When
we're
looking
at
the
property,
that's
more
than
it's
been
achieved
by
almost
300
000
in
any
other
year.
F
So
again,
looking
at
a
stabilized
nature,
even
putting
more
weight
on
years
in
2020
and
2021,
we
came
up
with
our
projected
projection
for
operating
expenses,
which
I
would
note,
is
again
almost
170
000
higher
than
the
original
projection
going
down
to
an
opera
net
operating
income.
Again
very
much
in
line
with
what's
been
achieved,
some
700
000
less
than
what
was
achieved
in
2020
and
a
full
1.4
million
dollars
less
than
what
was
achieved
in
19..
F
Again,
there
was
a
downturn
in
2021
that
was
fairly
dramatic,
almost
14
percent,
but
you
could
argue
that
was
a
fairly
stabilized
property
years
18
through
20.,
because
we
do
look
at
this
as
a
stabilized
property.
We
believe
that
the
projection
made
by
the
county
was
appropriate,
I'm,
not
sure
if
this
one
noted,
but
we
did
note
that
this
was
an
eight
percent
decline
year
of
a
year
from
last
year's
valuation,
again
reflective
of
what
happened
in
calendar
year,
2020
but
reflective
of
years
1920
as
well.
F
We
believe
that's
more
in
line
with
the
performance
of
the
property,
as
opposed
to
the
almost
negative
17
to
year-over-year
recommendation
by
the
appellant.
You
know
we
would
point
out
I
think
the
board
is
aware.
This
is
a
well-located
property,
some
one
block
from
Virginia
Square,
Metro,
four
or
five
blocks
from
Clarendon
as
far
as
nightlife
and
what
the
the
you
know,
those
people
are
renting,
tend
to
want
to
go
out
and
do
we'd
reflect
the
increase.
F
The
occupancy
at
the
property
again,
which
was
what
the
property
was
trying
to
do
by
lowering
rents
in
the
first
place,
offering
concession
exploring
rents
tends
to
get
bodies
in
the
door.
We
basically
had
that
acknowledged
in
the
last
case,
I
think
it's
the
same
thing
here,
given
the
reflection
of
year
2021's
downturn,
given
the.
F
J
Okay,
okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board
members,
Mr
Lawson.
G
K
G
K
K
J
F
F
So
when
we're
looking
at
this
property
as
a
stabilized
nature,
again,
we
do
account
for
the
increased
vacancy
and
concessions
that
were
appeared
in
2021,
but
again,
we've
done
that
consistently
throughout
the
year.
Please
again
look
at
the
effect
of
growth
that
was
achieved
in
years,
1920
as
well
as
2021
you'll,
see
that
our
stabilization
as
well
in
well
in
effect
operating
expenses,
the
same
again
higher
than
what
was
achieved
in
2019
and
2020
in
given
the
reflective
30
increase
in
maintenance
repair.
F
H
Oh
yes,
just
regarding
the
parking
you
know,
the
prior
three
years
from
18
to
20
parking
income
averaged
roughly
to
450,
000
and
correct
Mr.
Chica
said
the
most
recent
2021
parking
Revenue
was
340
000,
so
so
over
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
decrease
in
parking
Revenue.
The
County's,
revised
column
has
a
parking
estimate.
H
Listed
of
four
hundred
thousand
so
again,
still
over
sixty
thousand
dollars
above
what
this
property
was
able
to
generate
in
parking
correct.
The
the
County's
recommended
revised
value
is,
is
approximately
eight
percent
lower
than
than
the
prior
Year's
value.
But
again,
looking
at
the
the
year
over
year
income,
this
property
almost
had
twice
that
decrease
twice,
that
amount
decrease
of
over
14
percent
in
net
operating
income
from
from
2020
to
2021.,
Greg
I,
don't
know!
If
there's
anything
else,
you'd
like
to
follow
up
with.
K
No,
no
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
everybody
saw
the
parking,
because
we
don't
I
mean
we're
not
hiding,
but
it
sounded
like.
Maybe
we
were
country,
but
we're
not
I
mean
it's
right
there
and
it
was
down
and
it's
another
thing
that
you
got
to
come
out
of
right.
You
can't
just
all
of
a
sudden
say
next
month
you
start
paying
parking,
it's
part
of
the
lease,
so
you
got
to
climb
out
of
that
too.
Okay,.
E
I
just
want
to
say
first
I
appreciate
not
charging
for
parking,
because
you
start
charging
and
they're
all
going
to
be
all
over
our
neighborhood.
So
keep
that
going.
And
then
you
know
just
my
my
gut
reaction
to
the
210
or
211
million
dollar
assessment
is
that
would
indicate
a
4.8
cap
rate
on
the
on
the
2021
actual
income,
which
I
don't
know
if
we've
seen
a
sale
that
aggressive
in
Arlington
other
than
some
real
outliers
that
were
like
1031
exchanges
and
that
was
kind
of.
F
E
On
a
couple
years
ago,
so
it
seems
high
to
me
you
know:
I
took
I,
took
a
look
at
the
2021
noi,
the
actual
noi
and
put
it
at
a
at
the
lowest
cap
rate
for
the
whole
project
at
5.15
and
it's
195
million.
So
that's
I
think
I'm,
that's
a
little
bit
about
what
the
appellant
was.
A
J
G
Yeah
I
did
something
a
little
bit
different
I
mean
just
you
know:
I
just
decided
to
take
the
visits,
Apartments
revision
and
half
the
parking
income
and
I
ended
up,
and
when
you
take
that
all
the
way
through
I
ended
up
at.
G
207.073-993
the
reason
I
did
that
is
I'm
actually
involved
in
a
probably
very
close
to
this
one
and
I
think
George
Mason
is
kind
of
probably
raised.
This
I
think
this
property
is
going
to
get
healthy
fast,
as
George
Mason
gets
going
and
their
project
there's
under
construction
gets.
G
E
G
Yes,
I
took,
is
it
F1,
F1
and
I
took
the
403
and
I
instead
of
using
403
I
used,
200
and
then
I
came
down
and
then
the
the
value
for
the
market
units
became
197,
178
893,
so
I
just
deducted
that
from
the
210,
210
million
ended
up
at
207
million
0.74.
I
Even
their
2021
was
the
340
343.
A
G
G
I
J
By
the
60k
okay,
we
have
a
motion
I'll
second
and
all
in
favor,
I,
post,
okay,
it's
unanimous.
It's
reduced
to
209
85
700
by
reducing
the
parking
by
60.