►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - August 26, 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
Good
morning
today
is
wednesday
august
26
2020,
and
this
is
the
arlington
county
board
of
equalization
hearing
the
first
case,
we're
going
to
hear
is
actually
the
second
on
the
agenda,
which
is
rpc
one
four
zero,
four,
eight
187
3807
wilson,
boulevard
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
appellant,
is
mr
blake
warren.
Mr
warren,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
C
B
If
you
turn
to
page
I'm
on
page
110
168.,
it's
our
summary
of
facts
that
we
submitted
along
with
our
appeal.
This
is
the
amelia
apartments.
It's
located.
816
north
oakland
street
consists
of
one
taxable
parcel
and
for
2020
it
was
initially
assessed
at
45
million
543
600
and
was
subsequently
reduced
by
the
assessor
of
the
county
to
44
million
395
700.
And
what
we're
asking
for
from
the
board
today
is
a
value
of
42
939
000..
B
Now
this
property
was
originally
built
in
2009.,
it's
108
total
units,
it's
a
mid-rise
property
consisting
in
one
building
and
eight
stories
tall,
it's
a
mix
of
one
and
two
bedroom
units
like
similar
or
very
much
like
some
of
the
the
last
couple
of
appeals
that
we've
brought
forth
to
the
board
this
year.
B
Initially
this
property
was
filed
and
filed
last
year
as
well.
It's
been
the
same
issue.
The
last
couple
years
has
been
due
to
the
operating
expenses
and
the
county
underestimating
the
total
operating
expenses
for
this
property,
and
that
was
our
initial
case
this
year.
So
if
you
look
at
what's
historically
been
reported
here
over
the
last
four
years,
specifically
the
last
two
years,
20
in
16
19
in
2017,
24
in
2018
and
then
most
recently
26.35.
B
Initially
the
original
assessment
for
the
multi-family
portion
of
this
apartment,
the
county
was
applying
an
operating
expense
ratio
of
21
and
in
their
revised
column,
and
you
can
see
an
f1
and
f2,
combined
with
both
the
retail
and
the
apartments
they're
applying
26.2
for
total
operating
expenses,
which
is
right
in
line
with
what
was
reported
in
2019.
Most
recently,
however,
similar
to
some
of
the
previous
cases.
We've
had
this
year,
where
the
county
has
appropriately
adjusted.
We
think
for
operating
expenses,
they've
subsequently
increased
their
gross
potential
income.
B
And
what
we're
seeing
here
now
in
their
adjusted
column,
is
a
gross
potential
income
and
an
egi
that
is
higher
than
anything.
That's
ever
been
reported
at
the
subject
property
so
just
for
the
apartment
rent-
and
this
is
just
historically
dating
back
from
2017
apartment-
ran
up
2.87
million
to
down
to
2.82
million
in
2018
and
then
2.952
million
in
2019..
D
B
E
B
See
that
you
know
what
was
combined
reported
for
both
the
apartments
and
the
retail
portion
of
the
property
was
3.286
million
for
the
effective
gross
income,
and
the
county
is
now
at
3.37745.
B
So
again,
while
we
think
they
made
an
appropriate
adjustment
for
the
operating
expenses
and
where
this
property
has
been
trending
with
their
with
their
operations,
and
you
know
where
we
expected
to
continue
the
trend
in
the
future.
The
county
is
now
bumping
up
their
their
revenue
estimates
above
what
anything
that
this
property
has
ever
reported.
B
So
obviously,
given
the
current
situation
and
where
we
are
now,
I
don't
expect
that
to
trend
higher
for
the
next
year
and
I
don't
think
the
the
owner
would
expect
that
either
if
anything,
it's
it's
trending
down
significantly.
B
So
again,
we
were
fine.
I
think
they
were.
They
were
very
close
in
their
initial
estimate
for
for
gpi
it's
just
their
test.
Column
is
now,
above
again
with
anything.
That's
been
reported,
so
they've
fixed
the
the
operating
expenses,
but
we
think
missed
the
mark
on
their
revised
test
column
for
total
revenue,
and
that's
it.
Thank
you.
F
Good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
blake
we'll
stay
on
the
page
three
of
the
summer
sheet,
showing
the
historic
operating
performance
of
the
property
year.
16-19,
specifically
looking
at
what
went
on.
In
the
year
19
we
saw
apartment
revenue
increased
by
four
and
a
half
percent.
F
It
was
up
16
17
and
it
was
down
slightly
in
18
that
may
have
been
due
to
some
concessions
or
some
of
the
tightening
of
the
vacancy
as
the
vacancy
dropped
off
a
bit
from
17
to
18.,
but
again
up
in
2019
at
49
percent
retail
revenues
up
three
years
in
a
row,
2019
increase
of
4.3
percent
parking's
up
5
in
total
gross
potential,
is
up
4.2
percent
again
up
in
1617
down
about
a
half
percent
point.
F
Six
percent
and
eighteen
and
up
again
four
point:
two
percent
nineteen
buildings
fairly
stable,
stabilized,
true
vacancy
at
four
percent.
Looking
at
an
average
of
year
17
through
19.,
when
you
include
concessions,
it's
still
stabilized
at
4.1
again
years,
17
through
19.,
effective
gross
income
is
up
4.8
percent.
F
As
mr
warren
noted,
the
expenses
went
up
quite
a
bit
in
18
at
almost
25
percent
and
again
in
19.
At
about
17.
F
F
we
did
note
in
some
of
the
conversations
with
the
owners
that
some
of
these
expenses
were
what
we
would
consider
one
time
bump.
If
you
will,
you
can
see
on
page
28
of
168
there's
emails
between
myself,
blake
and
sophie
with
ditmar
that
talked
about
a
20
000
leasing,
commission,
that
was
a
one-time
payment
to
renew
the
mattress
warehouse
lease
that
is
their
one
retail
tenant,
and
then
there
was
a
ten
thousand
dollar
charge
for
a.
I
believe:
it's
an
internal
processing,
some
sort
of
a
processing
system
that
they
use.
F
This
was
for
a
property
management
system
expense.
So
these
are
really
things
that
we
don't
expect
to
be
annual
operating
expenses.
Even
still
you
just
exclude
those
and
you'd
still
be
right,
around
800,
000
or
so
for
the
2019
year,
which
is
still
quite
a
bit
of
an
increase
over
over
2018..
F
F
F
They
had
a
three-year
average
of
just
over
700
000
or
23
percent
of
effective
gross.
Again,
obviously,
that's
trending
upwards,
as
we
can
see
in
18
and
19.
But
again,
given
our
revision,
you
can
see
that
we
allowed
for
that,
and
then
some
net
operating
income
was
also
up
again.
It
was
up
in
1617
down
a
bit
in
18
due
to
that
25
percent
increase
in
expenses,
but
it
was
up
again
in
19
at
1.1.
F
When
we
look
at
the
revisions
that
were
made
by
the
county
and
reflection
of
the
the
information
received
for
the
2019.90,
we
can
see
that
we
projected
a
fairly
modest
growth
on
the
rental
side
and
to
explain
that
a
bit
mr
warren
mentioned
that
these
were
numbers
that
never
been
achieved,
but
with
respect
the
apartment.
F
We
take
the
time
to
go
through
that
rent,
roll
and
differentiate
the
the
unit
types
and
come
up
with
the
numbers
that
we
do
and
we
can
see
that
there
is
a
pretty
easily
projection
for
2.5
growth
on
the
apartment
revenue
alone.
As
we
mentioned
earlier,
the
retail
tenant
signed
a
new
lease.
Obviously,
there's
expectation
that
that's
going
to
grow
you'll
see
that
we
took
the
time
to
present
a
retail
rent
roll.
F
I
believe
that's
on
page
four,
so
you
can
see
the
details
in
regards
to
that
new
lease
that's
signed,
so
we
have
a
projection
based
on
reality
of
increase
in
rental
revenue
of
approximately
9.6
percent.
F
So
again
that
led
to
a
fairly
modest
growth
potential
income,
projection
of
2.8
percent
that
led
with
a
stabilized
five
percent
vacancy,
which
again
is
a
bit
higher
than
what's
been
occurring
at
the
property
itself,
projection
for
effective
gross
of
one
point:
three:
six
percent
to
one
point:
four
percent
and
a
modest
increase
on
total
operating
expenses
again,
even
considering
the
one-time
bump
of
30
000
or
so
in
the
2019's
reported
expenses.
F
So
it's
still
projected
to
go
up
just
side,
one
percent
and
again
a
fairly
modest
projection
for
that
operating
of
1.6.
F
B
B
G
Okay
for
the
county-
and
this
this
may
be
a
question
that
I
should
already
know.
The
answer
to
the
the
statement
by
the
applicant
is
that
you
properly
adjusted
expenses,
but
then
you
jacked
up
income
when,
when
you,
when
you
make
your
adjustment,
do
you
do
that
after
you
get
the
actual
income
income
expense
statement,
or
do
you
adjust
prior
to
that?
You
adjust.
F
F
That's
correct,
mrs:
we
use
the
rent
rules
to
achieve
the
projections
that
we
make,
but
again
seeing
as
they're
based
on
the
actual
rent
rolls
being
achieved.
Okay,
that's
pretty
on
point.
F
Yes,
ma'am
again
we're
pursuing
two.
Mr
lawson's
question.
These
changes,
revisions
that
we
made
in
f1
and
f2
are
reliant
on
the
owner,
submitted
information
regards
to
rent
roll
for
the
residential
one
can
retail
component.
That
being
said,
we
believe
our
fairly
modest
projections
on
income,
as
well
as
the
increase
in
expenses
over
what's
ever
been
achieved
for
the
operating
expenses,
call
for
a
confirmation
of
our
revision
of
44
million
395
700..
Thank
you.
B
Yes
again,
we
felt
we
feel
that
you
know
we
initially
again
filed
this
appeal
based
on
an
expense
issue.
That's
been.
We
felt
that
the
county
is
historically
underreported
at
this
subject:
location
in
their
test
column.
You
can
see
that
we
felt
that
they
appropriately
accounted
for
that
that
issue
and
that
discrepancy
based
on
what
was
most
recently
reported
in
2018
and
2019
and
again.
B
This
is,
in
their
test
column
they've,
subsequently
adjusted
their
revenue,
which
was
very
much
in
line
with
what
was
mostly
recently
reported
to
go
above
and
beyond
anything.
That's
ever
been
achieved
here.
Mr
chicas
made
the
statement
previously
that
it's
not
unreasonable
for
property
such
as
the
subject
that
that's
a
very
stabilized
property
to
achieve
revenue
above
the
previous
year
in
a
stabilized
property.
B
Finish
this
is
one
year
if
any
to
consider
the
fact
that
with
covid
and
and
you
know,
people
losing
jobs,
people
not
able
to
work
that
you
know
people
in
in
rent
default
that
this
property
is
likely
not
to
achieve
revenue
goals
higher
than
what
they've
ever
achieved
previously.
G
A
I
I
actually
would
disagree
with
you.
I
mean
I
I
I
see
that
yes,
they
did
increase
that.
But
when
you
look
at
the
actual
noi
I
mean
even
before
they
had
the
2019
numbers,
I
mean
the
original
assessment
was
right
in
line
when
they
did
the
test.
Yes,
in
fact,
they
may
have
increased
ex
the
income,
but
they
also
increase
the
expenses
and
when
you
look
at
the
noi
that
they
did
on
that
revision,
I
think
it's
right.
A
G
A
G
I'm
also
fine
with
it.
You
know,
I
think
it's,
I
think
exactly
what
you
said,
madam
chairman,
that
that
it
is
logical,
in
my
opinion,
to
go
for
that
modest
increase
in
revenue.
A
Okay,
hold
on
one
second,
mr
yates,.
H
H
I
Yeah
good
morning,
I'm
sorry,
you
can't
see
me
and
I
can't
raise
my
hand
right
now,
but
yeah,
I
think
you
know.
Sometimes
we
get
this
appeals
that
they
only
want
us
to
look
at
one
specific
number,
but
you
know
we
all
know
throughout
the
years
that
once
an
appeal
is
filed
and
the
whole
case
is
going
to
be
reviewed
the
whole.
I
You
know
the
numbers
are
going
to
be
looked
at
and
I
think
the
county
has
done
what
they
normally
do
and
I
think
it's
they've
done
a
good
job
also
in
this
case
that
you
know
that
we
have
to
look
and
that's
one
of
the
things
that
I
personally
look
at
all
the
rent
rolls
to
see
if
they're,
in
line
with
what
the
county
has
used-
and
I
you
know
I'm
okay
with
reconstructed
numbers.
I
So
with
the
current
value
I
mean
with
the
revised
value.
A
Okay,
okay,
so
it
actually
would
be
a
a
reduction
to
accept
that.
H
A
A
A
A
A
J
This
property
is
a
holiday
inn.
It
was
built
in
1971,
it
is
a
budget-minded
full-service
hotel
due
to
its
age.
It
has
smaller
rooms
and
would
be
typical,
etc.
The
property
has
had
needs
a
little
bit
more
maintenance
than
other
properties.
Mr
chicks
and
I
met
a
number
of
times
about
the
property,
and
I
want
to
say
thank
you
to
him
for
taking
the
time
to
look
at
it.
J
Now
to
their
credit,
they
did
come
back
and
review
their
initial
assessment
and
derived
a
revision
which
appears
in
column
f.
J
So
so,
where
does
that
primarily
come
from
and
that
primarily
comes
from
operating
expenses,
so
the
county
did
adjust
and
and
the
board
adjusted
last
year
operating
expenses
up
by
mr
paronda's
motion
to
71
and
the
county
this
year
did
increase
in
their
test
to
73
in
terms
of
operating
expenses.
J
The
actual
expenses
over
the
last
two
years
have
have
been
significantly
more
well,
not
significantly.
They've
been
about
74
and
the
owners
of
this
property.
Again,
it's
fairly
old.
It
requires
additional
work
that
other
properties
don't
necessarily
require,
and
in
going
to
the
74,
it
is
believed
that
it
will
continue
at
a
73.9
percent
operating
expense
ratio
moving
into
the
future.
J
Our
appeal
is
based
on
the
actual
income
that
was
earned
at
this
hotel
lodging
facility
property
in
2019,
and
that
is
a
little
bit
higher
than
what
was
earned
in
2018.
J
It
is
obviously
the
future
is
not
great
for
this
property,
but
we
do
agree
that
january
1
is
the
date
of
value,
and
so
we
won't
focus
on
any
covid
related
issues,
but
do
believe
that
the
2
million
for
the
number
reported
in
column
g
is
the
number
that
should
be
used
for
expenses
or
for
income.
J
F
Thank
you
man,
so
again,
looking
at
the
property,
we're
live
primarily
upon
page
three,
the
income
and
expense
summary,
and
what
we're
going
to
see
is
the
borders
familiar
with
how
I
look
at
the
properties
we'll
start
with
the
top
lines
and
right
off
the
bat
we
see
that
occupancy
ticked
down,
2.9
percent,
and
yet
even
with
the
occupancy
going
down
average
daily
rate
increased
by
12.25.
F
Everything's
up
across
the
board,
metrics
are
up
so
room
revenue
got
5.9
food
and
beverage
up
to
miscellaneous
is
up
just
out
of
a
half
percent.
Four
tenths
of
one
percent
and
total
revenue
is
up
four
point:
nine
percent,
given
a
three
year
average
of
approximately
eleven
point:
eight
three:
five,
eleven
million,
eight
hundred
thirty
five
thousand.
F
As
ms
borman
points
out,
the
expenses
did
increase
quite
a
bit
about
five
percent
in
2019.
I
would
differ
with
her
a
little
bit
and
and
that
primary
driver.
I
did
note,
there's
approximately
a
hundred
and.
F
About
a
hundred
and
seven
thousand
dollar
increase
in
payroll
administration,
which
does
make
sense
in
regards
to
positions
being
filled,
and
while
that
would
remain
that
wouldn't
necessarily
be
considered
one-time
bump,
because
again,
obviously,
if
that
position
is
kept,
that
payroll
will
stay
the
same,
but
I
noted
the
primary
driver
was
actually
a
almost
250
000
increase
in
management
fees
and
associated
franchise
fees,
as
the
board
has
heard
previous
to
this
case,
there
is
a
correlation
between
the
success
of
the
property
and
the
corresponding
fees
associated
with
that
success.
F
Most
of
these
fees
are
based
on
a
percentage
of
either
gross
revenue
or
room
revenue
and
component
with
some
other
metric.
So
there
is
a
corresponding
increase
associated
with
the
operating
expenses
because
of
the
success
of
the
revenue
side.
F
F
F
F
In
light
of
that,
we
did
make
a
revision,
as
you
can
see
f,
and
what
we
did
was
essentially
look
at
the
averages
that
had
been
going
on
with
the
property.
We
noted
that
there
was
an
increase
in
16
increase
in
17,
and
then
it
dropped
off
in
18
and
then
came
back
10
to
19..
F
Looking
at
the
property
itself,
we
saw
that
the
owner
had
submitted
some
ines
for
capital.
Excuse
me
listed
capital
improvements
on
their
2018
ime
of
about
1.2
million
and
another
1.45
million
on
the
2019.
I
name
for
capital
improvements.
F
The
property
website
actually
also
confirmed
this
and
that
they
list
renovations
in
2018
and
2019.,
not
entirely
sure
what
those
renovations
were.
I
couldn't
find
corresponding
permits,
but
that
would
at
least
explain
the
drop-off
in
revenue
in
2018
and
essentially,
what
I'm
getting
at
is.
It
appears
that
that
was
a
bit
of
an
anomaly
and
the
growth
was
fairly
consistent,
16
17
and
19..
F
Given
the
increase
in
expenses,
we
did
want
to
note
that,
obviously,
the
real
world
expenses
being
incurred
by
the
property
owner,
so
we
did
revise
those
as
well
quite
a
bit
up
from
where
we
had
projected
the
original
operating
expenses.
For
january.
F
We
look
at
the
revenue
side.
We
projected
an
increase,
very
modest,
less
than
nine
thousand
dollars.
It's
not
even
one
tenth
of
one
percent,
but
we
did
bring
the
operating
expenses
back
into
align
with
what's
going
on
over
the
last
three
years.
Even
if
we
were
to
discount
2016
looking
at
17
through
18
excuse
me
17
through
19,
we
see
a
three-year
average
of
8.5
million
or
again
72
percent
of
our
revenue.
F
We
went
to
73
and
again
a
good
bit
higher
than
what
was
achieved
in
1718
and
again
slightly
less
than
what
went
on
in
19,
but
we
do
expect
some
sort
of
smoothing
out
over
the
three
years
that
have
been
incurred
that
led
to
a
projected
net
operating
income,
a
projection
of
approximately
4.8
but
again
very
much
in
line
with,
what's
going
on
historically
at
the
property,
when
you
look
at
the
three-year
average
of
2.593
we're
actually
lower
than
that
average.
F
Given
the
revision
based
on
the
operating
history
of
2019,
which
was
actually
up
across
the
board
revenue
up
operating
expenses
up
and
importantly,
net
operating
income
up,
we
do
believe
our
revision
is
in
line
with
the
historical
operating
performance.
That
being
said,
we
believe
the
county
should
be
confirmed.
The
revision
should
be
confirmed
at
thirty
million
one
hundred.
Eighty
thousand
five
hundred.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
questions
from
board
members.
A
F
No
just
again
looking
at
the
operating
performance,
given
the
increases,
we
do
believe
that
our
revision
is
in
line
at
thirty
million
one
hundred.
Eighty
thousand
five
hundred.
Thank
you.
A
J
Briefly,
yes,
just
in
terms
of
the
renovations
and
capex,
that's
the
board,
may
remember.
Last
year
we
were
in
talking
about
cracks
in
the
building
and
the
board.
You
know
we
presented
evidence
to
the
board
about
cracks.
That's
what
the
majority
of
those
renovations
were:
repairing
of
structural
issues,
cracks
and
structural
issues
as
related
to
the
parking
structure
in
terms
of
the
increase
in
expenses.
J
It's
right
in
line
at
the
74
percent.
Three
point:
nine
percent-
I
will
differ
with
mr
chicas
in
terms
of
the
franchise
and
management
fees,
are
actually
almost
identical.
It's
just
that
181
000
in
franchise
fees
was
listed,
separated
out
under
marketing
last
year,
so
those
expenses
are
almost
identical.
J
We
are
not
asking
for
kova
to
be
taken
into
consideration,
but
we
certainly
don't
think
that
the
performance
of
this
property
is
going
to
improve
in
2020
and
at
the
time
that
mr
cheek
has
reviewed
this
case.
We
don't
see
any
reason
why
he
would
have
increased
the
or
in
excess
of
the
actual
noi
for
preparing
the
review
of
the
2020
assessment.
Thank
you.
I
Let
me
start
mrs
dooley,
I'm
sorry.
I
wasn't
trying
to
ignore
you.
I
was
just
I
had
my
microphone
off,
but.
I
I
have
yeah
like
last
year.
I
reviewed
this
case
and
I
know
that
the
expenses
were
adjusted
but,
and
I
tried
to
look
at
pretty
much
all
the
numbers
the
same
as
last
year
and
I
think
for
this
year
I
am
okay
with
what
the
county
has
done.
I
think
that
73
is
appropriate
looking
at
both
years.
Not
just
you
know.
If
we
have
numbers
from
previous
years,
we're
not
going
to
be
ignoring
them.
I
C
C
Log
season
started
this
morning
and
because
I
had
questions
about
that,
but
it
was
he
bumped
it
up
reminiscent
to
2019
numbers,
but
not
so
much
that
it
would
be
completely
separate
from
16
through
18..
So
you
got
a
happy
middle
ground
and
I
very
much
like
the
revision.
A
I
H
A
Thank
you.
It's
unanimous.
A
A
K
K
A
Okay
and
you're
willing
to
accept
that.
Yes,
I
am,
I
am
okay.
Thank
you.
I
assume
that
ms
churchill
you're
okay
with
that.
Yes,.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Any
comments
from
board
members.
I
Then
this
is
jose.
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
move
that
we
accept
a
revised
assessment
to
438
800.
B
A
She
did
not
okay,
so
on
this
property,
this
is
the
northern
property
they
were
alerted
their
appellant
or
their
agent
has
been
moved
back
and
forth
between
several
people,
but
they've
been
sent
emails
and
it's
on
the
schedule.
So
we're
going
to
hear
this
without
an
appellant.
G
L
D
L
Was
an
error
on
the
the
list?
I
briefly
managed
to
get
a
hold
of
catherine
corteau
after
numerous
attempts
to
contact
her
and
she
sent
me
a
one-page
document
which
I
believe
is
attached.
Let's
see.
L
Let
me
find
it,
I
think
it's
page
33
of
the
case,
which
is
her.
Her
whole
appeal,
and
we
talked
about
this
now-
I've
researched
a
bunch
of
news
articles
about
nordstrom.
You
know,
stores
closing,
which
ones
are
closing
and
such,
and
I
found
a
couple
of
news
articles.
One
of
them
said
that
some
arguments,
16
stores,
will
be
closed.
L
Only
one
is
in
the
state
of
virginia
and
that's
down
in
richmond,
so
this
store
is
not
in
danger
of
being
closed
at
this
time
she
also
sent
they
have
a
lease
that
does
not
expire
until
the
year
2080
and
additionally,
I
wanted
to
add-
I
know
covet
is
not
part
of
this
discussion,
but
I
wanted
to
add
a
couple
of
things
that
nordstrom
is
reporting
in
the
news
and
one
of
the
things
they
said
was,
but
while
kevin
19
was
has
led
department
stores
to
file
bankruptcy,
nordstrom
officials
say
they
are
in
a
strong
financial
position,
we're
entering
the
second
quarter
in
a
position
of
strength,
adding
to
our
confidence
that
we
have
sufficient
liquidity
to
successfully
execute
our
strategy
in
2020
and
over
the
longer
term.
L
Another
news
article
that
states
there
is
not
to
say
the
company
is
packing
it
in
when
it
comes
to
mall
based
stores.
L
They
are
crucial
for
brand
building
and
supporting
e-commerce,
says
nordstrom
and
led
the
ceo
notes
that
all
of
the
company's
department
stores
are
in
a
so-called
a
malls,
a
class,
a
malls,
the
centers
with
the
highest
end
tenants
in
general.
We
feel
good
about
our
locations
and,
once
again,
this
particular
store
is
not
on
the
chopping
block.
L
Obviously
nordstrom
owns
a
lot
of
their
stores,
so
I
went
to
costar
trying
to
find
something
that
would
be
comparable,
but
the
best
I
could
find
was
around
90
000
square
feet.
This
particular
store
is
225
000
square
feet,
but
the
best
I
can
find
for
rent
was
between
hold
on
a
second.
L
L
37
to
45
dollars
a
square
foot,
that's
for
an
88
000.,
so
I
looked
up
a
nordstrom
on
co-star.
That's
in
maryland,
and
co-star
suggests
that
the
rent
for
that
should
be
24
to
29
dollars.
A
square
foot
for
this
property,
we're
only
using
11.25
cents,
a
square
foot,
it's
pretty
low,
it's
in
a
premium
location,
we're
talking
this
is
this
is
as
good
as
it
can
get
we're
in
the
close
to
dc
mall.
L
L
So
I
did
find
another
store.
That's
within
the
general
area
and
it's
about
170
000
square
feet
and
its
rent
is
40
percent
higher.
I
don't
want
to
name
names,
but
its
rent
is
40
percent
higher
than
what
we
are
using.
L
L
I
apologize
flipping
through
multiple
screen
screens
yeah
at
fashion
center
mall
we're
using
a
7.25,
but
for
nordstrom
we're
using
8.5.
L
We
feel
that
our
assessment
at
22
million
328
thousand
is
very
reasonable.
Thank
you.
C
L
C
It
seems
like
a
very
generous
in
their
direction
percentage
number,
so
you've,
given
them
a
break
on
the
proposed
rent,
absent
any
input
and
also
the
proposed
expenses.
Okay,
thank
you.
A
Okay,
I
have
a
question
ms
roskin,
and
you
know
how
I
feel
about
when
appellants
don't
do
provide
ines,
but
on
the
the
appellant
did,
make
a
comment
in
the
write-up
that
it
shows
about
the
sale
of
the
nordstroms
out
of
dulles
that
only
sold
for
5
million.
L
L
Questions
go
ahead,
I'm
sorry,
no
I'm
saying
is
that
we
did
reach
out
and
and
discuss
that
sale
and
it
was
the
people.
Well
said
it
was
a
below
market
sale.
It
would
that
whole
shopping
center
was
having
trouble.
L
M
Didn't
we
have
a
in
arlington
an
anchor
sale
a
couple
years
back
with
macy's
in
boston,
I'm
just
trying
to
think
if
there
are
any
comparables
in
this
county,
maybe.
L
That's
none
that
I
deserving.
D
The
boston
was
actually
listed
for
sale
this
year,
that's
this
year
that
it
was
listed
for
sale,
it's
being
advertised
as
a
possible
development,
and
then
maybe
you
could
be
sold
back
to
the
owners
of
that
mall
as
well.
D
M
A
Okay,
okay,
I
I
just
want
to
clarify
miss
ruskin,
so
they
have
not
provided
ine
statements
for
the
previous
three
years,
just
the
pro
forma
correct.
So
mr
millman,
I
I
just
wanted
to
clarify.
Doesn't
the
virginia
statute
say
that
if
they
don't
provide
ines,
they
can't
even
argue
against
the
assessment
anyway,.
E
A
L
Just
a
really
brief
thing,
like
I
said,
I
researched
in
costar
in
the
nordstrom
in
in
maryland,
showed
that
average
rent
for
that
would
range
from
24
to
29
a
square
foot
and
we're
using
11.25
cents
a
square
foot,
and
that
this
property
is
not
on
the
chopping
block
for
store
closures
of
nordstrom.
I'm
finished.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you,
okay,
it's
just
among
board
members.
I
mean
I
I
just
will
start
by
saying
the
burden
of
proof
is
unappellate.
They
haven't
provided
information.
I
don't
think
the
assessment
is
wrong
and
the
only
pro
forma
statement
that
the
appellant
has
given
for
2020
puts
it
at
less
than
half
of
what
it's
assessed
at.
I
think
that's
absurd.
I
mean
I'm
not
even
sure
why
we're
hearing
it
all
right.
G
I
just
wanted
to
share
that
when
we
did
the
zoning
down
there
for
pentagon
row,
one
of
the
things
that
came
to
our
attention
is
that
dozens
of
tour
buses
show
up
and
let
you
know,
customers
off
at
this
mall,
and
you
know
I
I
myself
don't
want
to
go
on
a
tour
to
a
shopping
center,
but
apparently
thousands
of
people
do
and
we
couldn't
figure
out
what
to
do
with
the
buses.
G
The
second
thing
is,
you
know
we
tried
to
buy
costco
and
what
we
learned
is
that
that's
the
I
think
second
highest
revenue
generating
costco
in
the
entire
country,
so
I've
got
a
you
know.
My
personal
experience
confirms
what
lori
has
said
that
this
is
just
as
good
as
it
gets.
I
I
D
I
My
audio,
but
I
wanted
to
just
if
you
can
hear
me
I
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
I'm
okay,
with
the
current
assessment
that
I'm
in
favor
of
just
keeping
the
way
it
is.
I
don't
think
the
fella
did
much
to
present
the
case
in
this
particular
appeal.