►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - August 12, 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
I
appreciate
it
and
just
to
clarify
it's
a
22nd
street
just
for
for
the
record
or,
if
that's
important,
to
clarify
so
good
morning.
Everyone
very
appreciative
of
your
time,
certainly
in
this
environment
and
the
challenges
that
it
presents
and
certainly
getting
on
zoom
calls
or
team
calls.
I'm
sure
is,
is
no
exception
to
to
to
dealing
with
these
challenges.
I'll
keep
my
kind
of
eight
minutes
brief.
B
I
don't
think
I
need
to
to
belabor
the
point
in
looking
my
at
my
2020
proposed
assessment,
which
was
based
off
of
a
january
2020
value
or
a
number
that
came
up.
B
I
was
you
know
most
concerned
about
a
6.3
increase
to
the
prior
year
and
it
was
previously
closer
to
eight
percent
prior
to
that
first
round
of
appeal,
and-
and
so
I
wanted
to
ensure
by
going
through
this
process,
that
the
baseline
quote-unquote
baseline
was
reset
to
be
reflective
of
what
I
felt
to
be
consistent
with
market
activity
in
the
neighborhood.
B
Only
in
one
instance
in
the
prior
10
years
did
did
my
property
assessments
kind
of
go
backwards,
and
at
that
time
it
was
roughly
a
2.7
percent
decrease
to
the
prior
year,
and
so
I'm
very
mindful,
especially
in
this
current
environment,
to
ensure
that
the
baseline
is
a
is,
is
what
I
feel
to
be
appropriate,
and
certainly
you
guys
will
make
that
determination
as
well
in
in
in
coming
up
and
deriving
a
value
and
an
annual
expense
that,
I
think,
is
kind
of
appropriate
to
that
point.
B
And
so,
as
noted
by
the
assessor,
who
whom
I
had
an
opportunity
to
meet
in
person
and
and
I'll
just
say,
you
know
very,
very
respectful,
very
informed
and
so
very
appreciative
of
his
time,
and
I
had
a
chance
to
meet
him
right
before.
I
think
everything
shut
down
as
well.
You
know
he
in
his
reports.
B
He
noted
sales
activity
in
2020,
which
I'm
prepared
to
speak
to
as
well
and
and
noted
that
that
will
influence
the
2020
assessment,
and
so
I'd
like
to
have
a
conversation
for
purposes
of
this.
You
know
conversation
today
that
the
2020
assessment
is
impacted
and
is
influenced
by
2019
and
prior
sales
activity,
and
I
I
think
that's
the
crux
of
my
conversation
argument.
B
You
know
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
today,
that
comparable
transactions
in
my
community
for
comparable
properties
reflect
the
activity
prior
to
in
that
january.
2020
assessment,
and
I
know
it's
a
little
bit-
you
know
I
don't
know
if
you
kind
of
pick
and
choose
based
on
what
what
is
compelling
and
not
compelling
everything
is,
is
kind
of
factored
into
that,
but
that's
kind
of
what
I'm
prepared
to
discuss
and
engage
with
in
in
back
and
forth.
B
If
there's
a
back
and
forth
opportunity,
I'm
not
familiar
with
boe
process,
certainly
in
in
the
in
virginia
or
rather
arlington,
and
so
I'm
again,
please
please
correct
me
if
I,
if
I'm
incorrect,
if
there's
an
opportunity
to
engage
in
discourse,
I'm
happy
to
do
that.
If
it's
my
eight
minutes
and
then
you
know
the
the
the
board
will
kind
of
deliberate
and
make
a
determination.
A
B
Yeah,
okay,
so
I
guess
the
the
only
kind
of
final
parting
thoughts
that
I'll
mention
before
deferring
back
to
to
you
and
the
and
the
board
in
looking
at
2019
activity
and
prior,
which,
which
I
had
attached
to
my
appeal,
you
can
very
kind
of
clearly
see
the
what
I
feel
to
be
a
little
bit
of
a
disconnect
between
the
assessed
values
and
activity
again
up
until
that
point,
with
the
benefit
of
2020
activity
which,
for
I
think
everyone's
benefit
has
been
robust
in
this
market.
B
Certainly
low
interest
rates
have
driven
that.
I
think
we've
seen
a
lot
more
activity,
a
lot
more
comparables
which
which
the
assessors
provided
and-
and
I
I'm
prepared
to
speak
to
those
those
assessments
as
well
and
I'd.
You
know
be
remiss
if
I
didn't
call
out
the
fact
that
he
referenced
sales
dates.
I
think
in
the
future
I
see
10
30,
20,
20
and
9
16
20
20..
B
Both
dates
haven't
occurred,
yet
I
presume
that's
a
typo,
but
but
I
did
want
to
call
out
that
you
know
of
those
assessments
future
assess
future
sorry
future
activity
that
he
provided
a
the
rpc
one.
Six:
zero,
zero,
five,
zero
five;
six,
that's
a
two
one:
six
seven
north
pierce
street
is
the
same
model
and
same
muted
property
in
this
neighborhood
and
it
looks
like
he
is
also
missing.
B
Another
property
transaction
which
occurred
in
most
recently
in
may
15th
on
may
15th
again
for
same
model,
same
corner
unit
as
mine
is,
and
that
activity
was
a
1
million
85
000
transaction.
So
that
is
all
to
say
to
kind
of
wrap
this
up
for
my
speaking
portion,
I
I
feel
like
the
current
proposed
assessment
of
one
mill.
Approximately
one
million
one
hundred
eighteen
thousand
is
is
high.
A
C
Yes,
good
morning,
actually,
after
receiving
the
request
from
mr
so
to
review
his
assessment,
I
set
up
an
inspection
date.
I
went
to
the
property
just
to
verify
the
property
record.
There
were
some
changes
I
have
to
make
after
the
inspection.
Basically,
I
remeasure
the
basement
area,
the
lower
level.
That
was
a
correction
that
we
made
to
his
assessment.
C
Also,
we
we
noticed
that
the
unit
has
no
fireplaces.
We
also
removed
that
from
the
record
this
all
this
inspection
was
made
in
march.
C
That's
2020.,
so
like
the
homeowner
mentioned
right
before
everything
stopped,
so
it
was
one
of
the
last
inspections
I
made,
and
so
as
a
result
of
the
corrections
I
made
to
the
record,
I
proposed
a
reduction
on
the
original
2020
assessment
and
that
was
submit
to
to
mr
so
for
for
his
approval.
That
was
a
reduction
proposed
by
me
to
the
department
referring
to
to
the
comparables
that
he
mentioned.
I
want
to
show,
if
I
don't
know,
if
it's
possible
to
show
as
like
is
rosa
or
deidre
well.
C
This
is
the
unit
that
we
that
mr
suit
owns
the
subject.
This
is
a
corner
unit
corner
lot
unit
I
mentioned
to
the
owner
that
actually
being
in
a
corner
lot
or
at
the
end
of
the
block.
Actually
I
mean
this
kind
of
units.
The
corn,
the
engine
is
actually
historically
are
being
sold
higher
than
center
units
or
units
that
actually
have
two
other
units
on
both
sides.
C
If
we
go
to
the
next
to
the
next
slide,
I
will
show
one
of
the
comparables
I
provide
to
the
homeowner.
This
is
a
recent
cell.
This
is
a
cell
that
from
july
31st
to
2019..
C
These
two
units
are
corner
units,
the
they
don't
have
any
premium
or
any
adjustment
for
views
that
basically
similar
floor
plan
are
very
very
similar
to
each
other
and
in
this
unit
that
the
one
comp
number
one
sold
for
one
million
one
hundred
and
fifteen
thousand
dollars
recently
in
2019.
That
was
this.
This
cell
was
part
of
the
analysis,
so
this
unit,
this
cell,
was
used
as
a
part
of
the
analysis
for
2020.
C
As
you
see,
the
square
footage
is
identical.
The
number
of
bedrooms
and
bathrooms
is
very
similar.
It's
almost
identical.
The
only
difference
is
that
the
subject
has
an
additional
heart
value
in
the
basement.
That
actually
is
a
it's
a
feature
that
has
to
be
considered
as
a
as
an
additional
two
to
the
cost.
C
In
that
support
to
the
current
valuation
you
see,
the
assessment
of
both
units
for
2020
are
almost
the
same,
very
similar,
similar
units,
similar
locations,
similar
features,
the
assessment
is
almost
identical,
so
this
is
a
support
that
the
sales
value,
the
analysis
was
done.
All
the
sales
was
worth
review
and
our
analysis
of
our
final
proposed
valuation
is
supported
by
the
by
the
sales
that
we
review.
C
This
is
the
comp
number
two
that
this
unit
was
actually
point
out
by
the
owner.
He,
this
cell
was
actually
from
2018,
and
this
unit
actually
is
slightly
different.
The
floor
plan
is
similar,
but
this
is
a
center
unit.
Actually,
you
have
two
neighbors.
You
have
two
units
in
each
side
of
wind
all
we
know
so.
C
Historically,
these
units
sell
for
slightly
sell
for
lower
prices
compared
to
the
corner
units.
You
have
to
consider.
If
you
have
a
corner
unit,
you
have
the
possibility
to
have
you
know
a
bay
window,
additional
windows
and
the
upper
floors.
You
have,
you
know
more
light
coming
from
one
of
the
sides
of
the
I
mean
from
the
corner
side
of
the
unit,
so
this
unit
tend
to
be
more
attractive
to
buyers.
C
That's
why
there's
a
small
difference
between
the
assessment
of
center
units
and
the
assessment
of
corner
units
and
the
sales
price.
Again
it
was
from
2018,
so
this
assessment
was
adjusted
in
2019
and
then
was
adjusted
again
in
2020.
That's
why
you
see
that
difference
so
just
to
wrap
up
my
my
my
presentation.
C
I
all
the
sales
were
the
occur
during
the
analysis
period,
war
review.
The
analysis
was
done
in
a
proper
manner
and
the
adjustments
that
were
proposed
for
2020
are
sustained
as
supported
by
the
sales.
So
I
write
my
recommendation
to
the
department
is
to
to
confirm
the
the
revised
value,
the
reduction
I'm
proposing
for
for
the
assessment,
and
I
consider
that
that
reduction
and
that
new,
revised
value
is,
is
supported
by
recent
sales
in
the
in
the
neighborhood.
C
D
For
the
applicant
in
your
package,
you're
talking
about
other
units
that
have
good
views
of
or
have
views
of
the
river
and
georgetown
are
what
explain
a
little
bit
about
the
views.
Are
they
you
know
like
on
the
third
floor?
If
you
crown
your
neck,
you
can
barely
see
it
or
are
they
really
good?
You
know
I'm
just
trying
to
get
a
a
sense
of
what
the
view
is.
Yeah.
B
I
know,
that's
sorry,
should
I
answer
that
or
do
you
have
any
other
questions.
B
I'll
go
ahead
and
answer
so
to
to
answer
that
directly
and
mr
yavar's
aerial
image
actually
was
helpful,
but
these
the
units
actually
abut
and
not
my
unit,
unfortunately,
unfortunately,
depending
on
the
conversation,
actually
it
but
gw,
parkway
and
and
whether
you're
on
the
ground
floor
or
the
top
level.
You
have
views
of
of
the
potomac
of
of
of
georgetown
university,
so
so
pretty
impressive
views
and
those
those
units
are
also
much
larger
than
mine
as
well.
B
B
A
Okay,
mr
hoffman.
E
Yeah
for
the
for
the
county,
I
was
looking
at
unit
1501,
which
is
the
other
end
unit
on
the
same
stick
of
towns
and
that
property
is
assessed
at
1
million
69
600..
E
So
I
guess,
could
you
explain
the
difference
in
the
two
because
from
the
outside
they
look
identical
they're
just
on
opposite
ends
of
the
of
that
row
of
townhouses.
C
C
H
Metzken,
I
have
a
question
for
mr
sued.
You
had
mentioned
towards
the
end
of
your
remarks
that
the
county
department
had
missed
two
sales,
comparable
sales
that
that
suggested
that
your
property
was
overpriced,
but
I
didn't
get
the
date
or
time
frame
of
those
two
sales
that
you
mentioned.
Could
you
yeah.
B
Yeah,
that's
great,
it's
a
great
point
and
a
great
segue
to
the
the
prior
question.
So
1501
22nd
street,
which
is
the
unit
that
that
was
just
in
question,
occurred
on
may
15th
same
model
corner
unit
of
this
year
of
this
year
of
2020
for
whatever
that's
worth,
and
that's
that
goes
a
little
bit
against
of
what
I
what
I
previewed
earlier,
but
that
sale
price
was
one
million
eighty-five
thousand
dollars,
and
so
it
wasn't
included
in
the
recent
transactions
from
mr
yavar.
C
Yes,
so
after
reviewing
the
assessment
for
2020
for
the
property,
the
discussion,
my
recommendation
after
making
the
corrections
to
the
records
and
making
the
updates
necessary,
my
recommendation
to
the
board
is
to
revise
or
to
confirm
the
revised
valuation
at
one
million
one
hundred
eighteen
thousand
and
four
hundred
dollars
for
the
year.
2020.
B
Sure,
thank
you
again.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
just
to
to
address
one
point
related
to
the
two
recent
transactions
that
mr
yabara
referenced
during
his
his
time,
in
both
instances,
at
least
with
the
corner
unit
up
the
street,
which
had
a
slightly
higher
purchase
price
or
sale
price.
Rather,
I
do
want
to
call
out
and
note
that
it
has
a
larger
lot
size
and
it
has
three
fireplaces
where
my
unit
has
one
are.
B
None
rather
and
the
other
recent
transaction
has
a
fireplace
as
well
and
so
again
to
to
put
a
bow
on
it,
and
let
you
guys
continue
on
with
your
day.
My
intent
is
not
to
request
a
particularly
egregious
or
significant
decrease
in
assessment
value.
I
think
the
prior
year,
2019
assessment
is
appropriate
in
line
of
recent
comparable
transactions
from
a
nominal
value
and
impact
to
me
again,
I'm
not
asking
for
a
significant
reduction.
B
A
F
Well,
I'll
I'll
go
ahead
and
start.
I
know
this
is
the
neighborhood
that
we've
seen
in
the
past
and
we've
asked
the
department
to
take
a
closer
look,
because
I
recall
they
were
many
differences
between
the
units.
You
know
in
the
back
and
the
ones
that
faces
the
river
and
I
think
they
did
a
good
job
when
they
did
revised.
F
I
think
most
of
the
recent
sales
are
going
to
affect
probably
next
year's
assessment,
but
you
know
most
of
the
sales
that
are
being
brought
up
are
current
for
this
year,
except
you
know,
there
were
comparables
that
the
department
provided,
but
I
don't
really
see
based
on
just
a
few
sales
for
from
their
recent
to
make
any
changes
to
it.
H
I
think
the
appellant
did
exactly
the
right
thing
and
appealed
and
got
his
the
logistics,
the
details
of
his
property
straightened
out
and
now,
given
the
relevant
sales
of
very
similar
properties,
all
of
whom
have
the
exact
same
land
value,
which
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
I
think
his
base
now
has
been
reset.
I
mean
these
are
very
tightly
controlled.
Is
one
half
bath
downstairs
equal
to
three
fireplaces?
Rarely
used
upstairs,
I
don't
know,
but
this
is
pretty
close
relative
to
the
value
of
the
places.
H
H
D
Thank
you.
You
know,
I
know
how
important
the
view
is
and
at
iwo
jimo
as
you
go
up.
The
hill
above
the
monument
you'll
see
the
projects
that
were
planned
in
such
a
way
that
that
each
each
level
had
a
view
towards
the
city.
It
seems
like
from
from
what
I've
read
and
analyzed
that,
if
there's
any
inequity
here,
it
could
be
that
the
units
with
the
view
may
be
underpriced,
I'm
I
think
the
county
did
a
good
job
and
they
did
listen
and
they
did
adjust
it.
D
So
I
think
it's
now
at
the
proper
level.
Thank
you.
D
E
Just
going
through
I
mean
my
biggest
concern
was
equalization
with
1501,
because
it's
so
similar
exact,
same
size,
bedrooms
bathrooms
on
the
same
street.
Everything
and
I
thought
it
was
out
of
line.
But
now
I'm
looking
at
the
pictures-
and
I
mean
it's-
what
the
the
county
noted-
that
it's
it's
basically
a
totally
redone
kitchen
and
master
bathroom.
So
I
could
see
that
supporting
you
know
forty
or
fifty
thousand
dollars
in
difference
in
valuation.
You
could
easily
spend
that
much
on
a
full-blown
kitchen
renovation.
I
D
A
You
a
second
okay,
miss
hogan
is
a
second
I'm
all
in
favor.
A
Opposed
okay,
it
is
unanimous
the
county
is
confirmed
at
the
revised
number
of
one
million
one
hundred
and
eighteen
thousand
four
hundred.
Thank
you,
gentlemen.
A
A
K
Okay,
so
did
you
turn
to?
I
know
the
county's
memo
included
both
our
first
and
second
level
appeal
packages,
so
I'm
just
referencing,
which
is
basically
the
same
package,
but
first
page.
K
Me
page
2755.,
and
it's
just
our
summary
of
facts
for
this
property.
This
is
the
marriott
courtyard
crystal
city.
Again,
yes,
located
at
2899
27
street
south,
it's
one
taxable
parcel.
K
Currently
the
original
assessment
came
out
at
58
million
131
500
and
was
subsequently
revised
by
the
county
down
to
56
million
thousand
three
hundred,
and
the
value
that
we
were
asking
for
originally
in
our
affordable
package
was
forty
six
million
nine
hundred
and
fifty
eight
thousand
now
from
the
last
few
weeks,
and
doing
these
and
we've
done
a
couple
of
similar
properties
for
this
client.
K
The
methodology
that
we've
been
applying
of
deducting
an
imputed
franchise
fee
has
has
not
been
recognized
by
the
the
county
of
the
board,
and
so
we
are
conceding
that
fact.
But
what
I'll
show
you
is?
What
is
the
value
that
we
would
be
willing
to
accept,
which
is
approximately
the
the
2019
direct
cap
value
which,
if
you
direct
cap,
that
value
on
column
e
on
page
three
of
the
summary
ie
summary
would
put
the
value
after
deducting
the
1.466
for
personal
property,
at
55
million
354
700.
K
So
initially
again,
this
is
a
select
service,
property,
272,
total
rooms,
one
building,
14
stories
tall.
It's
the
closest
metro
access
is
the
crystal
city
metro
station,
it's
about
a
16
minute,
walk
0.8
miles
away,
and
our
initial
issues
with
this
property
were
with
regard
to
the
county's
estimate
for
operating
expenses
due
to
what's
been
reported
there
historically
and
then,
most
recently
in
2019.
K
Now,
following
the
county's
review
and
reductions
of
the
56
million
43
300,
we
believe
they've,
given
proper
consideration
to
the
operating
expenses,
revising
that
from
59.8
to
61,
which
is
right
in
line
with
what
was
actually
reported
in
2019
and
in
prior
years,
as
well
as
the
reserve
for
replacement,
which
this
property
has
always
reported.
Five
percent
for
reserves
in
the
county
has
has
revised
that
to
five
percent
in
their
expense
column.
K
K
If
you
see,
in
the
original
column
d
assessment
room
revenue
of
11.8
increased
to
11.9,
what
was
actually
reported
was
right
on
at
11,
798
696.,
the
food
and
beverage
revenue
which
actuals
in
2019
was
reported
at
1.215
million.
The
original
assessment
was
right
on
it
at
1.223
and
that
actually
went
up,
2
000
to
1.225
in
the
test
column
and
then,
additionally,
the
miscellaneous
revenue.
The
original
assessment
was
at
543
678,
which
seemed
to
fall
in
line
with
the
three-year
average
from
2016
to
2018..
K
That
was
subsequently
increased
again
higher
than
what
was
reported
in
2019
was
reported
in
2019,
was
867
thousand
644
and
that
increased
in
the
county's
test
column
from
880
659.
So
the
county's
revised
total
revenue
estimate
went
from
3.6
million
to
roughly
14
million
and
what
was
actually
reported
was
13,
881
585.
K
You
know
what
what
it
looks
like
is.
The
county
is,
is
taking
heavy
consideration
to
the
actuals,
especially
with
regard
to
food
and
beverage
and
miscellaneous
at
you
know
the
one
two
two
five
and
eight
hundred
eighty
thousand.
You
know
if
you
look
at
a
four-year
average
of
food
and
beverage
you'd
be
at
1.159
miscellaneous
revenue
that
four-year
average
from
2016
to
2019
would
be
641
000
and
the
four-year
average
for
total
room
revenue
would
be
11.7
million,
so
it
looks
like
they're
they're
using
actual.
K
So,
if
you're
going
to
use
axles
for
the
food
and
beverage
and
the
miscellaneous,
I
think
they
were
right
on
on
their
room
revenue.
So,
at
the
very
least,
I
don't
think
the
room
revenue
reported
should
be
a
hundred
thousand
hundred
and
fifteen
thousand
dollars
higher
eighteen
thousand
dollars
higher
than
what
was
reported
in
2019.
K
And
again,
that's
that's
our
case.
Is
it's
really
with
regard
to
an
over
adjustment,
we
feel
like
in
the
total
gross
potential
income
in
the
county's
test
column.
J
Good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
blake
essentially,
as
mr
warren
points
out
and
as
the
board
is
vastly
familiar,
the
way
that
the
assessments
are
derived
is
from
historical
precedence.
In
this
case,
our
2020
projection
was
made
without
the
2019's
information
and
then
looking
at
that
when
we
received
this
2019
ie
and
most
specifically
when
the
property
requests
a
review
of
assessment.
That
opens
the
books
for
a
second
look.
J
We
did,
of
course,
underestimate
total
operating
expenses
as
well,
which
led
to
a
overestimation
on
net
operating
income,
but
I
think
one
thing
that's
important
to
note
and,
as
we
noted
in
our
summary
sheet
comments
is
that
there
was
a
rather
large
renovation
that
took
place
in
the
2018
year
for
the
owner.
Some
8.5
million
were
spent
on
renovations
to
the
property,
and
that's
is
essentially
why
you
saw
a
dip
in
2018's
numbers
when
you're
looking
at
this
year.
J
That's
obviously
indicated
by
the
drop
in
occupancy
and
indicated
in
the
drop
in
subsequent
revenue
sources
across
the
board
post
res
renovations,
as
we've
seen
and
talked
about
before.
The
whole
point
of
capital
expenditures
is
to
get
a
return
on
investment
and,
and
they
did
occupancy
was
up.
One
percent,
1.1
percent
average
daily
rate
was
up
over
seven
dollars.
J
J
We
know
that
this
was
mostly
due
to
an
increase
in
administrative
and
general
expenses.
The
we
couldn't
break
down
and
to
our
discredit.
We
didn't
ask
for
a
line-by-line
item,
they're,
essentially
a
lumped
in
together
in
one
line
item,
but
we
noted
that
that
was
the
brunt
of
the
increase
from
18
to
19..
J
But
again,
as
mr
warr
noted,
a
three-year
operating
average
of
approximately
8.2
million
or
61.3
percent
and
following
suit
the
net
operating
income
increased
by
over
15
percent,
we
did
a
test
and,
as
indicated
by
mr
warren,
there
were
increases,
but
I
would
also
point
out
that
they're
extremely
conservative
in
the
sense
that
we
estimated
room
revenue
ticking
up
by
one
percent
food
and
beverage
by
less
than
one
percent
miscellaneous
by
about
one
and
a
half
percent
for
a
total
of
one
percent
increase
of
total
revenue,
and
that
again
is
after
a
year
of
8.5
percent
increase.
J
After
again,
8.5
million
dollars
spent
on
renovations
to
increase
that
revenue
source
we
did
adjust.
Total
operating
expenses
to
61
percent
increased,
subsequently
increased
the
reserves
for
ffd
the
reserves
for
replacement
that
ticked
back
up
to
the
average.
As
mr
warren
noted
a
5
and
again,
a
fairly
conservative
estimate
projection
of
one
point:
two
percent
growth
of
net
operating
income,
which
again
follows
a
year
in
which
it
increased
by
fifteen
percent.
J
Given
that
we
do
believe
that
the
column
f,
which
is
our
revision,
should
be
confirmed
at
56
million
43
300..
Thank
you.
H
K
Expense,
that's
our
that's
our
imputed
franchise
fee,
which
we've
said
because
of
you
know:
we've
left
the
last
few
weeks
and
the
board
and
the
county's
not
recognized
that
evaluation
methodologies
were
conceding.
That
fact,.
L
K
K
That
would
be
the
value,
essentially
the
direct
cap
without
that
imputed
franchise
fee,
and
that's
perfectly.
H
J
We
appreciate
mr
warren's
rethinking
of
the
knocking
out
of
the
imputed
franchise
fee
and
appreciate
the
new
value
opinion
of
55
350
46
676,
but
we
also
believe
that's
essentially
projecting
that
there
will
be
no
growth
whatsoever
in
2020,
as
this
is
based
off
of
the
2019
year
and
again,
considering
that
there's
growth
across
the
board,
six
percent
room
revenue,
almost
15
food
and
beverage,
eight
and
a
half
total,
even
considering
an
increase
in
total
operating
expenses,
the
property
increased,
its
net
operating
income
of
15
and
again
that's
in
line
with
16
and
17.
J
K
K
However,
again,
our
main
issue
is
for
their
test
column,
column,
f,
they're,
adjusting
you
know
from
what
I'm
hear
from
the
from
the
county
and
chris
is
that
they're,
basically
disregarding
2018,
because
of
what
happened
with
the
the
renovations
and
taking
more
of
a
consideration
to
what
was
actually
reported
when
the
property
was
stabilized
in
16
and
17.,
but
their
test
column
seems
to
be
placing
all
the
emphasis
on
the
most
recent
reported
year,
2019,
which
is
fine,
but
you
know
those
averages
for
miscellaneous
revenue
and
food
and
beverage
income
are
much
lower
that
when
it
was
stabilized
back
in
1617,
that
was
actually
reported
in
in
19
and
they're,
actually
in
their
test
column,
using
revised
values
that
are
in
excess
of
what
was
actually
reported
and
what
what's
ever
been
reported.
K
A
D
Thank
you.
I
don't
know
if
I'm
gonna
add
a
whole
lot.
You
know
this
is
one
where
you
could
kind
of
go
either
way.
It
seems,
and
you
know
chris
has
done
a
really
great
job.
D
So
has
the
applicant,
I
guess
I'm
kind
of
leaning
towards
going
with
the
applicant
on
this
one.
D
It's
a
modest
reduction
and
the
reason
that
I'm
thinking
of
going
for
the
applicant-
and
I
may
not
be
there
yet
is
it
seems
like
the
county-
has
made
some
assumptions
that
I
don't
think
necessarily
are
are
what
are
assumptions
that
should
have
been
made
so
for
whatever
it's
worth
I'll
see.
If
anyone
else
agrees
with
this,
but
I'm
kind
of
leaning
towards
the
applicant.
H
The
one
not
quite
1.2
increase
for
this
year
is
less
than
other
comparable
buildings
less
than
full
service,
but
but
nice
well-placed
lodgings
that
we've
seen
so
far
in
our
hearings,
and
so
that
seems
believable,
and
I
took
seriously
the
applicant's
suggestion
that,
if
you're
going
to
take
the
the
miscellaneous
in
food
beverages
directly
from
2019,
you
ought
to
take
the
revenue
from
2019,
and
that
would
close
that
one
almost
that
1.2
percent
gap.
H
M
M
E
Yeah,
I
was
just
gonna
say
I.
I
think
that
the
difference
between
what
the
appellant
proposed
on
the
fall
today
and
the
county
is
it's
only
like
six
or
seven
hundred
thousand
dollars,
it's
pretty
close
to
where
I
wouldn't
really
normally
be
looking
to
make
a
reduction
unless
they
pointed
out
something
that
was
technically
wrong.
So
I
I
think,
I'm
okay
with
the
county
and
also
just
from
the
standpoint
of
you,
know
the
kind
of
the
three
hotels
that
are
right
in
that
block
right
there.
E
This
is
already
the
lowest
on
a
per
key
basis
value,
so
I
I'd
worry
about
dragging
it
down
any
further.
It's
really
just
going
to
create
a
whole
equalization
issue
with
the
other
two
hotels.
So
they're
already,
you
know
the
other
two
that
we
reviewed
were
298
000,
the
key
and
233
000
a
key,
and
this
one's
206
000
a
key
as
assessed
and
it's
been
renovated.
So
I'm
assuming
the
rooms,
are,
you
know,
kind
of
standards
with
that
eight
million
dollar
renovation.
E
F
Well,
not
in
opposition,
I
think
I
you
know.
I
agree
with
most
of
the
comments
I
think
using
just
one
year
to
you,
know,
2019,
just
to
put
an
assessment
and
just
to
make
it
easier
or
you
know,
satisfy
the
appellant.
I
don't
think
it's
right,
because
I
mean
we
made
reductions
before
or
half
a
million,
even
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
when
it's
appropriate,
but
I
don't
think
in
this
case
I
mean
I
don't
see
a
reason
to
make
any
further
reductions.
F
G
G
A
Okay
motion
and
second
by
mary
dooley,
all
in
favor,
aye
aye,.
K
A
Opposed
okay,
all
right,
it's
unanimous!
The
revised
number
of
56
million,
oh
43
hundred.
D
A
K
Yes,
so
this
is
and
I'm
on
page
again,
starting
on
our
summary
fax.
This
is
starting
actually
on
page
171
of
254
of
the
county's
board
response.
But
this
is
the
columbia
park
apartments.
It
is
comprised
of
four
total
rpcs
or
their
taxable
accounts.
It's
currently
assessed
at
thirty
seven
million
seven
hundred
fifty
seven
thousand
one
hundred,
and
what
we're
asking
for
from
the
board
today
is
a
value
of
thirty
three
million
four
hundred
and
fifty
four
thousand.
K
K
It's
six
total
buildings
and
four
total
stories
now
there's
an
issue
in
the
in
the
response
that
we'll
bring
up
here
very
shortly.
But
if
you
turned
out
against
page
three,
which
is
the
apartment
I
need
summary,
the
county
recommended
is
recommending
no
change
at
the
border
after
following
our
first
level
appeal
this
property
and
initially.
K
However,
you
know
now
it's
gone
above
I
mean
they
were
right
on
the
actual
reporting,
egi
and
well,
I
guess
total
egf.
We
still
don't
have
an
issue
it
really.
What
this
is
coming
down
to
now
is
they
did
adjust
their
gpi
higher
the
total
gross
potential
income
to
roughly
50
000
higher
than
what
was
reported
in
2019.
K
However,
you
know
that's
also
higher
than
anything
that's
been
reported
in
the
last
four
consecutive
years
for
this
property,
so
this
property
has
never
operated
at
gpi
level
3.728.
K
However,
the
real
issue
is
with
regard
to
the
county's
reclassification
of
this
building.
From
a
garden
or
low
rise
to
now
a
mid-rise
and
in
their
test
column,
it's
subject,
it's
consequently
subjecting
it
to
a
much
lower
cap
rate
of
5.7
percent.
K
The
county's
justification
for
this
on
the
previous
page
two
in
their
analysis,
is
that
costar
listed
as
a
mid-rise
property
in
four
four
stories.
Again,
this
property
has
always
been
valued
and
classified
as
a
garden
and
low-rise
it's
a
much
older
property.
It
has
no
elevators
throughout
all
six
of
those
buildings
and
all
of
these
these
are
properties
that
are
basically
graded
on
a
hill.
K
So
if
you
come
up
from
columbia,
pike
on
either
side
of
those
buildings,
one
side
on
on
wakefield,
which
is
where
the
columbia
park
park,
apartment
signage,
is
in
the
front
office
or
from
the
excuse
me,
the
the
south
buchanan
street
entrance,
where
there's
another
three
buildings
that
face
that
property
they're
all
slanted
on
and
graded
on
it
on
a
hill.
K
You
cannot
walk
in
to
the
fourth
floor
from
the
from
the
front
now,
there's
a
walkout,
basically
basement
level
entry
that
you
can
walk
out,
but
I
mean
five
of
those
six
buildings.
I
know-
and
I
believe
the
sixth
one
as
well-
you
know
it's
basically
a
three-story
with
a
basement
level,
but
the
proper
of
the
the
county
by
reclassifying
these
as
as
mid-rise,
is
basically
valued
on
the
same
cap
rate
as
a
nine
story
apartment
complex
with
an
elevator
again,
these
do
not
have
any
elevators.
K
You
cannot
access
the
front
of
these
apartments
through
the
the
fourth
floor,
and
so
we
take
issue
with
the
the
reclassification
which
substantially
impacts
the
the
cap
rate
that
this
is
being
applied
on,
so
the
numbers
that
go
into
the
test
column
and
what
was
actually
reported.
K
We
don't
really
have
an
issue
with
from
you
know
in
terms
of
the
total
revenue
when
we
get
down
to
egi
and
the
total
popex.
K
But
you
know
that
makes
a
huge
difference
if,
if
the
correct
cap
rate
was
being
applied
to
the
6.2,
instead
of
the
5.7
for
a
garden
of
low
rise,
we'd
be
looking
at
a
value
in
the
in
the
county's
test
column
of
36.2
million.
So
again,
that's
the
real
issue.
Sophie,
I
believe,
is
on
the
line
and
she
might
be
able
to
speak
about
the
the
number.
K
I
think
that
I'm
pretty
sure
all
every
single
one
of
these
properties
has
that
grading
issue,
because
it
sits
on
that
a
very
steep
hill,
as
you
lead
down
to
columbia,
pike
and
again,
there's
no
no
elevators
in
any
of
these
buildings,
and
we
would
classify
these
as
a
low
rise
or
a
garden.
So
I've
got
enough.
K
K
I
This
greg
rains
with
denmark
company
thanks
guys
so
yeah
this.
These
buildings
are
all
at
a
substantial
grade.
They
all
do
have
egress
in
the
back,
which
is
the
entrance
to
the
basement.
There
are
units
on
that
level
that
are
subterranean
with
windows
facing
the
egress
side,
no
windows.
On
the
other
side,
you
enter
in
the
front
of
the
building
to
three
levels
up.
I
This
has
always
been
a
three-story
building
with
a
basement,
and
they
are
you
know
what
you'd
expect
from
a
1960s
1970s
build
down
in
south
arlington
brick
buildings
with
the
kind
of
stairwell
entrances
in
the
front.
So
definitely
nothing
at
mid,
regardless
of
how
we
frame
this.
The
cap
rate
that
we're
applying
to
this-
and
this
is
the
reason
that
we
have
to
argue
about
it,
but
the
cap
rate
is
just
erroneous.
I
The
cap
rate
is
not
applicable
to
these
properties
in
that
location
with
their
age,
so
I
think
the
classification
back
to
garden
kind
of
fixes
that,
but
the
cap
rate's
really
the
issue
and
it's
just
too
low.
Thank
you.
J
Yes,
ma'am
we've
seen
this
prior
to
this
year.
Excuse
me
earlier
in
this
year,
where,
upon
review
of
assessment,
we
did
note,
as
mr
warren
noted
himself.
Co-Star
classifies
these
as
a
three-star
mid-rise
apartments
labels,
the
story
levels,
four,
no
mention
of
a
three-story
with
basement
on
the
appellant's
own
packet,
page
74
254.
He
notes
it's
a
four-story
building,
as
we've
talked
about
again,
we've
classified
these
properties.
One
to
three
is
garden.
Four
to
eight
is
mid-rise.
Nine
plus
is
high-rise
without
putting
words
in
the
board's
mouth.
J
I
think
we
made
mention
that
yes,
the
older
properties
this
was
built
in
1962
generally
are
not
going
to
have
elevators,
but
we
also
heard
you
all
mention
that
that
should
be
rectified
through
rents,
so
maybe
the
the
owners
can
speak
to
that
themselves
as
far
as
how
the
rents
are
cheaper
and
the
lower
floors.
But
regardless,
if
you
look
at
google
maps,
you
can
see
that
there
are
full-size
windows
on
all
floors.
The
windows
don't
become
daylight
or
basement
windows.
J
On
the
on
the
first
floor
and
in
fact,
on
the
side
units,
they
have
full-size
slider
doors
that
to
go
outside.
So
in
the
back
they're
the
exact
same
as
every
other
floor,
they
have
the
balcony
a
patio
set
up
with
a
full-size
slider
the
same
as
the
other
floors
in
regards
to
revenue,
unlike
the
last
case
apartment
revenues
up
two
years
in
a
row.
J
Other
revenue,
in
fact,
two
years
in
a
row
with
2019's
increase
at
1.5
percent.
Other
revenue
was
up
21,
2019.,
rubs
or
utility
reimbursements
up
two
years
in
a
row,
2018's
increase
at
five
percent
gross
potential
income
has
been
up
three
years
in
a
row,
so
every
year,
upon
year,
upon
year,
it's
done
better
2018's
increase
was
2.1
percent.
True
vacancy
is
extremely
stabilized,
three-year
average
of
1.4
again
a
very
popular
building,
regardless
of
what
we're
calling
it.
Vacancy
and
concessions
are
also
stabilized
with
a
three-year
average
of
2.3
percent.
J
There
was
an
uptick
in
operating
expense
of
7.7
percent
in
2019,
and
we
noted
that
was
mostly
attributable
to
maintenance,
repair
payroll
which
shot
up
40
000
in
administrative
payroll,
which
went
up
69
000
in
2019
still
led
to
a
three
year,
average
1.4
million
or
38.6
percent
of
effective
gross,
and
we
did
note
that
the
net
upper
income,
mostly
due
to
the
operating
expense
increase,
was
down
3.7
percent.
J
We
did
a
test.
We
did
note
that
again,
based
primarily
on
the
success
year
over
year.
Over
year
every
year
we
did
call
for
a
modest
increase
in
gross
potential
income
about
1.2
percent.
J
Again
they
actually
got
the
benefit
of
using
stabilized
five
percent
for
mid-rise
and
again,
that's
quite
a
bit
higher
than
their
stabilization
of
approximately
two
point,
three
percent,
so
that
actually
led
to
an
under
projection
of
effective
gross.
We
did
go
ahead
and
give
them
the
benefit
of
the
seven
percent.
Seven
point:
seven
percent
increase
in
operating
expense
and
had
a
projection
for
total
operating
expenses
of
thirty
nine
percent
of
effective
gross
and
actually
called
for
a
decrease
in
the
net
operating
income.
J
Very
modest
point:
one
percent
one-tenth
of
a
percent,
but
given
that
the
mid-raise
does
have
an
applicable
cap
rate,
5.7
percent
for
an
effective
age
of
1985
1982,
it
actually
called
for
an
increase
over
the
january
first
assessment.
As
the
board
again
is
well
aware,.
I
J
A
Okay,
thank
you
both
for
all
three
of
you,
questions
from
board
members.
E
Okay,
I
don't
think
we
saw
this
case
last
year,
so
this
is
the
first
time
I've
seen
so
maybe
you've
addressed
this
issue,
but
for
the
county
has
this
always
been
or
how
long
has
this
been
a
1982,
effective
age
building
and
and
how
do
you
determine
whether
something's
at
1962
or
1982,
effective
age.
J
Yeah,
that's
a
good
question.
Stefan,
I
can't
speak
to
that
myself,
I'm
trying
to
find
a
worksheet,
obviously
without
being
defensive,
it's
entirely
subjective
on
the
nature
of
the
appraiser
who's.
J
Looking
at
the
property
again,
that
seems
like
a
modest
increase
over
the
original
year
built,
but
my
guess
is
that
was
due
to
permits
that
can
be
changed
even
without
a
permit,
if
there's
a
site
inspection-
and
we
note
that
there's
been
improvements
over
the
last
in
this
case,
what
60
years,
but
again,
even
with
the
effective
year
1982
that
still
would
put
the
project
at
well
over
40
years
or
thereabouts,
old
and
again,
I
think
that's
reflective
of
the
rents
that
it's
able
to
achieve,
but
I
can
look
and
see
if
I
can
find
information
on
the
worksheet
itself.
J
I
E
J
We
changed
them
as
we
note
them.
If
this
I
can't
speak
to
this
case
last
year,
as
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
something
I
did
or
if
they
even
had
a
review
last
year.
But
what
will
happen
is
upon
review
is,
is
essentially
a
second
look,
a
fresh
look
from
when
it
was
appraised
assessed
in
the
latter
part
of
last
year.
So
in
this
case
I
noted
the
appellant
called
it
a
four-story.
When
I
looked
at
co-star
and
noted
they
called
it
a
mid-rise
four-story.
J
I
looked
at
google
maps
and
noted
four
stories
and
so
made
a
change.
I
think
it's
without
casting
aspersions
on
the
appellant.
We
don't
look
to
benefit
the
county
either
way
we
apply
what's
applicable.
So
in
this
case,
as
I
noted,
even
though
they
would
get
a
five
percent
increase
for
effective
growth.
So
that's
what
happens
with
mid-rise
and
the
same
thing
is
with
the
effective
age
of
1982.
They'd
get
a
5.7
cap
rate,
so
we
make
the
change
with
the
changes
warranty.
H
Okay,
that's
this
year,
why
not
this
year?
Okay,
a
similar
question
for
the
appellant,
the
lowest
level,
where
it's
the
buildings
kind
of
some
of
them
are
buried
underground
in
those
buildings.
J
Ma'am
again,
as
we've
seen
earlier
this
year,
and
we
do
make
changes
where
they're
warranted
the
county
took
the
time
to
differentiate
the
the
styles
of
apartment
buildings
in
the
county
between
garden,
mid-rise
and
high-rise.
J
F
K
So,
first,
just
to
with
regard
to
the
property
and
the
financials,
you
know
on
an
upward
trend
and
gpi
increasing.
If
you
just
look
at
the
noi
from
last
year
to
this
year
and.
L
K
Noi
in
2018,
decreased,
11
or
excuse
me,
two
percent
from
the
prior
year
and
the
original
2020
assessment
increased
11
in
that
same
time
frame.
So
again,
the
main
issue
here
is
with
regard
to
reclassifying
this
as
a
garden
style
and
decreasing
the
cap
rate
from
six
two
to
five:
seven,
that's
a
five
seven
loaded
cap
rate
for
a
three
star,
a
three-story
apartment
with
with
a
basement
and
no
elevators
and
1960
build
in
south
arlington.
K
You
know
unloaded
that's
a
4.6
cap
rate.
There
are
no
sales
that
you're
going
to
find
anywhere
that
are
going
to
support
a
a
4.6
cap
for
a
1960
original,
build
three-story
with
a
basement
and
no
no
elevator.
So
again,
there
are
no
sales
to
support
that.
I
think
you
know
if
you
just
look
at
the
building,
it's
pretty
obvious
that
this
is
not
a
mid-rise.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Okay,
it's
just
among
the
board
members.
E
To
me
it
it
looks
like
a
garden
apartment,
it
smells
like
a
garden
apartment,
it's
a
garden
apartment
and
it's
always
been
a
garden
apartment
and
it
always
will
be
a
garden
apartment
now.
The
only
issue
for
me
is
the
question
I
asked
about.
E
The
effective
age
is
whether
or
not
to
use
the
1969
or
the
1982
and
and
change
the
cap
rate
any
further,
but
I
think
we're
we
should
be
debating
between
a
6.2
and
a
6.4
cap
rate,
and
I
would
just
add
one
other
thing:
the
appellant
didn't
bring
it
up,
but
I
think
they've
made
this
case
before
on
similar
properties.
E
But
if
you
take
the
they're
asking
rents
for
one
two
and
three
bedroom
units
and
you
adjust
them
for
free
parking,
they're
right
on
they're,
actually
right
on
the
sixty
percent
ami
table
for
committed,
affordable
apartments.
E
E
So
you
know
I
just
take
that
into
consideration
that
this
this
property's
got
to
compete
against
much
newer
buildings
that
are,
that
are
serving
basically
the
same
renters
and
just
because
they
don't
have
a
covenant
in
place.
It
doesn't
mean
that
they're
drastically
higher
valued
for
that
income.
A
Okay,
I
just
want
to
jump
in
here
I
mean
I,
I
see
what
you're
saying
you
know
and
I
would
say
normally
I
mean
that
they're
competing
for
higher
rents,
well,
their
rents
are
reflected,
and
so
that's
what's
being
kept
out.
You
know
my
concern
and
I
think
both
sides
have
acknowledged
the
issue
is:
is
it
a
garden
or
is
it
a
mid-rise?
A
Normally
I
would
say:
oh,
I
would
go
with
you
greg
and
say:
okay,
it's
a
garden,
but
I
struggle
with
this
that
there's
four
stories
on
the
back
and
there's
four
stories
that
are
being
rented
and
there's
lots
of
other
1960
builds
no
elevators
that
are
considered
mid-rise.
So
that
argument
doesn't
hold
water.
For
me,
you
know
the
issue
is
okay,
so
on
the
back
side
they
have,
you
know
no
balconies,
they
have
patios
well,
some
people
would
like
that.
A
A
You
know
they're
renting
four
stories
and
so
typically
like
I
said
I
would
lean
more
towards
a
garden,
but
on
this
I
I
just
really
think
you've
got
four
stories
of
rentable
space.
If
it
was
three
stories
in
the
basement
was
laundry
facilities
and
storage.
Well,
then,
I
would
say
I
think
it's
a
garden,
but
if
it's
four
stories
of
rentable
apartments,
that's
pretty
stabilized,
you
know
I
I
would
lean
more
towards
it
being
a
mid-rise.
D
Yes,
ma'am.
Thank
you,
madam
chairman,
under
both
the
zoning
ordinance
and
the
boca
code,
or
excuse
me
the
building
code.
This
building
is
a
three-story
with
a
basement
and
as
far
as
living
space
in
the
basement,
it's
the
same
as
a
single-family
house.
D
You
know
less
desirable
than
a
normal
story,
and
so
in
my
mind
you
know
this
is
a
garden
apartment
and
not
a
not
a
mid-rise.
D
The
second
comment
that
I
wanted
to
share
is
you
know
again.
This
is
ditmar
and
when
you
go
to
looking
at
expenses
and
income
and
so
forth,
this
is
probably,
if
not
the
most
efficient,
one
of
the
most
efficient
owners
of
real
estate
in
arlington
as
far
as
efficiency
and
provide
maintenance
and
so
forth,
and
I
think
you
know
my
own
analysis,
I
think
it
is
a
garden
and
I
think
the
value
of
what
I
did
is.
I
took
the
applicant's
expenses
and
I
came
up
with
35
million
655
403.
M
Well,
at
first
I
looked
at
it
and
the
board
did
the
last
two
years
go
below
the
recommended
number
and
that's
on
the
on.
You
know
shown
on
page
four,
but
excuse
me
page
two
when
I
also
I
looked
at
the
property
and
they
have
windows.
Well,
it's
a
third
floor
entrance.
M
M
H
F
Yeah,
I
have
to
agree,
I
think
I
mean
depends
on
what
side
of
the
building
you
look
at
it.
It's
gonna
be
three
or
four,
but
I
don't
think
it's
the
same
as
having
a
house
with
a
basement.
You
know
most
basements
are
underground
with
either
very
little
window
to
look
out
or
you
know
not
really
full
windows
or
an
entrance
from
like
these
buildings.
F
Now,
comparing
this
to
a
condominium
building,
if
I
were
to
list
this
one
unit
in
the
building,
I
would
list
it
as
a
mid-rise
because
of
the
building
itself,
and
there
are
many
buildings
that
are
listed
that
way
or
condominiums
you
know.
Park
spring
is
one
of
them
that
has
pretty
much
a
similar
situation.
F
So
I
I
agree,
I
think
you
know
in
the
past,
we've
considered
three
stories
as
a
garden,
but
I
think
this
is
more
like
a
four
story,
so
I'm
okay
with
the
accounting
I
mean
it's.
If
we
were
to
use
that
cap
rate,
of
course
it
would
increase.
So
you
know
I
don't
see
that
we
would
need
to
do
that.
I
think
the
assessment
the
way
it
is
for
this
year.
I'm
okay
with
it.
G
No,
I
I
agree,
I
think,
if
I
was
with
ken
in
the
beginning,
I
think
I
thought
it
was
gonna
be
it
should
be
reclassified,
but
I'm
fine
with
the
way
it
is.
D
Yes,
ma'am,
I
I
think
you
all
are
ignoring
the
definitions
in
both
the
zoning
ordinance
and
the
building
code,
and
you
know
I'm
not
on
the
side
of
the
applicant,
but
I
think
you've
got
to
recognize
that,
under
both
the
zoning
ordinance
and
under
the
building
code.
This
is
three
stories
in
the
basement
and
you
know
that's
what
it
is.
That's
what
the
you
know.
Legal
definition
of
this
of
these
structures
is
thank
you.
A
And-
and
I
can
certainly
appreciate
that-
maybe
the
legal
definition,
but
it's
four
stories
of
rentable
space
and
that's
what
I
would
go
with.
I
would
think
you
know
fannie
mae
would
look
at
this
as
a
mid-rise.
Freddie
mac
would
look
at
it
as
a
mid-rise
again
if
it
was
three
stories
and
storage
and
laundry
and
other
non-rentable
space
in
those
basements.
I'm
totally
with
you
and
would
say
it's
three
stories
of
rentable
space,
it's
a
garden,
but
I
don't
think
it's
the
case
in
this.
Mr
yates,
barnes.
M
If,
if
and
this
is
going
back
to
designing
this
back
in
the
60s
early
60s,
but
if
that
did
not
have
a
ramp
going
into
a
third
floor
entrance
to
split
the
difference,
a
little,
if
that
had
been
steps
going
down
to
that,
fourth,
that
lower
level
then
stairs
going
up
to
the
upper
levels.
Would
you
could
still
consider
to
the
basement?
Because
the
windows
would
have
been
the
same.
D
K
D
One,
it
was
level
and
you
you
came
in
on
the
lowest
level
and
then
walked
up
what
what
the
here's,
what
the
zoning
ordinance
says
for
a
basement,
a
story
partly
or
wholly
underground,
and
then
it
talks
about
how
you
measure
height,
and
you
know
so
in
my
mind,
this
is
a
three-story
with
a
basement
whether
it's
living
or
whether
it's
facilities-
and
you
know
I
know-
I'm
not
going
to
win
this
argument,
but
I
really
do
think
that
we
need
to
come
up
with
a
consistent,
clear
guidance
to
these
property
owners.
D
H
I'm
glad
that
barnes
read
that
definition
and
it
occurs
to
me
that
the
rentable
space
on
the
lowest
level
is
not
underground.
By
definition,
it's
at
grade
the
other
part
of
the
building
is
underground,
but
that's
not
rentable,
so
I
I
I'm
really
again.
I'm
glad
got
the
definition
in
it.
E
I
mean
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
his
work
towards
a
delineation
between
different
product
classes
that
the
county
came
up
with,
probably
in
response
to
the
board's
request
to
divide
the
properties
up
into
mid-rise
garden,
because
they're
trading
at
different
capitalization
rates
in
the
market,
and
so
we
don't
want
to
confuse
a
high-rise,
400
unit
institutional
grade,
building,
that's
going
to
trade
at
the
lowest
possible
cap
rate
with
something
like
this,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
the
number
of
stories
is
super
relevant
going
forward,
and
maybe
we
want
to
look
at
it.
E
Next
year
we
looked
at
it
last
year
and
I
think
the
county
tried
to
draw
a
brighter
line
between
garden
and
mid-rise,
because
there
was
that
fuzzy
area
in
the
three
to
four
stories.
So
the
department
said
four
stories
is
mid-rise
and
three
stories
is
is
garden,
but
I'm
not
really
sure
that
the
market
cares
about
that.
As
far
as
cap
rates,
one
of
the
things
that
that's
going
to
drive
a
lower
cap
rate
is
going
to
be
number
of
units
right.
E
We're
gonna
use
a
higher
cap
rate
for
the
for
the
larger
building,
which
doesn't
make
any
sense,
it's
really
more
about
cost
of
capital
and
for
these
buildings
that
are
kind
of
below
200
units.
You
know
when
you
see
equity,
residential
and
in
the
big
complex
on
route
50,
where
it's
you
know,
600
plus
units
they've
got
access
to
capital
that
is
gonna
is
gonna,
push
the
cap
rate
down
and
it
doesn't
matter
if
it's
a
three-story
building
or
a
four-story
building
or
a
six-story
building.
E
So
we
gotta
look
at
that,
because
it's
gonna
get
more
and
more
relevant
as
we
go
through.
You
know
difficult
times,
and
some
of
these
smaller
properties
are
going
to
be
in
a
little
bit
harder
to
stress
than
the
than
the
bigger
ones.
So
I'm
just
making
that
comment.
I'm
outnumbered
here
with
barnes.
It
sounds
like
on
the
on
the
cap
rate,
so
I'll
yield
the
rest
of
my
time.
A
F
K
A
A
Okay,
I
assume,
based
on
the
hour,
we
can
keep
going
and
do.
The
fourth
case
is
that
all
right
with
everybody,
okay,
all
right,
we
will
call
the
fourth
and
final
case
on
the
agenda,
which
is
rpc
one
four
zero
one,
one
zero
one,
six,
twelve,
eleven
north
glebe
road-
and
I
believe
I
see
mr
mitchell-
I
don't
know-
is
brett
on.
N
N
The
vast
majority
of
the
retail
income
comes
from
an
enterprise
or
in
the
past,
has
come
from
an
enterprise
rent-a-car
franchise
that
lease
was
for
about
two
hundred
and
sixteen
thousand
dollars
a
year.
So
that's
about
eighty
percent
of
the
commercial
or
retail
income
generated
that
you
see
in
the
departments.
N
Summary
analysis
on
page
3
of
55
of
their
boe
memo
216's
about
80
of
270.
that
enterprise
franchise,
their
lease
expired
shortly
after
date
of
value
in
april
2020.
N
So
as
of
the
date
of
value
that
that
particular
income
stream
was
at
high
risk
of
of
not
being
renewed,
the
office
space
needs
that
enterprise
office
space
would
need
to
be.
N
Updated
and
now
that
we
are
in
the
year,
2020,
of
course,
their
leasing
prospects
for
that
space
are
very
challenging
based
on.
What's
happened
in
the
market,
but
that's
a
quick
aside.
That's
not
the
main
point
of
our
appeal
here:
the
original
assessment
overshot
the
revenue
estimate
for
this
property
by
32,
so
so
really
kind
of
overshot.
It
rather
aggressively
with
a
total
revenue
projection
of
about
6.2
million.
N
N
Ninety
two
after
we
appealed
and
in
preparation
for
this
hearing,
the
department
in
column
g,
as
you
can
see
on
their
submission,
did
a
test
analysis
as
they
typically
do
and
drops
the
revenue
to
a
figure,
that's
more
in
line
with
the
actual
performance
of
the
subject
and
also
drop
the
operating
expense
projection
to
a
number,
that's
more
in
line
with
the
history,
but
still
reached
an
noi
before
ff
e
of
about
the
same
figure
in
the
test.
Their
noi
before
ff
e
is
one
million
nine.
Thirty,
seven,
eight
forty
seven!
N
So
you
know
made
some
adjustments,
but
more
or
less
came
out
of
the
same
place
at
the
end
of
the
day
at
the
bottom
of
the
analysis,
and
our
primary
concern
at
this
point
is
that
that
noi
projection
of
about
a
million
nine
and
a
half
whether
we're
talking
about
the
original
or
the
test
analysis
is
still
a
good
deal
higher
about
12
or
13
percent
higher
than
the
three
year
average
of
the
subject's
actual
noi
before
f
and
e,
and
that's
imputing
the
retail
income
for
2018,
even
though
it
was
not
reported.
N
So
if
we
use
noi
before
ff
for
2017
of
a
million
833
for
2018
of
a
million
476
and
for
2019
of
a
million
eight
twenty
eight,
the
three
year
average
we
get
is
a
million
seven
twelve
and,
as
I
said,
the
department's
still
coming
in
at
about
a
million
nine
four
or
nine
six.
And
so
that's
our
primary
concern.
We
feel
like
that,
warrants
an
adjustment
still
in
our
requesting
that
the
board
make
that
adjustment.
N
I
performed
we
performed
our
own
test
in
advance
of
this
memo
and
I'll
just
talk
you
through.
I
did
not
submit
that
in
writing,
but
if
we
just
take
the
subject's
average
revenue
over
the
prior
three
years,
that
figure
would
be
4177
or
178,
and
if
we
stabilize
that
at
a
65
operating
expense
ratio
and
then
use
the
same
reserves,
cap
rate
and
personal
property
deduction
as
the
department
did,
the
assessment
indicated
would
be
15.4
million
give
or
take.
N
Alternatively,
if
we
just
took
that
average
three-year
average
of
the
noi
before
ff
e,
that
I
just
mentioned-
of
a
million
712
and
used
the
same
reserves,
cap
rate
and
personal
property
as
the
department,
the
value
indicated
would
be
18.4
we
feel
like
either
of
those
would
would
be
certainly
more
supportable
than
the
current
assessment.
N
And
I
will,
I
guess,
close
by
noting
that
the
assessment
did
jump
significantly
this
year
up
to
20.5
million,
whereas
last
year
was
at
18.1
and
had
kind
of
been
between
15
and
18,
and
a
half
million
every
year
since
2014.,
our
requested
value
was
11
million,
840
279,
based
on
using
what
we
felt
was
an
equalized
operating
expense
ratio
with
similar
properties,
primarily
the
comfort
inn
pentagon
and
the
hotel
pentagon,
which
I've
previously
discussed
before
the
board.
But,
alternatively,
the
two
test
values
that
I
mentioned
here
we
feel
like
are
supportable
as
well.
J
This
man,
members
of
the
board,
mr
mitchell,
again
without
being
offensive.
The
reason
we
had
such
wild
projections
was,
we
did
not
receive
income
and
expense
questionnaires
from
the
owner
for
the
last
seven
years.
J
So
in
that
case
in
lieu
of
income,
we
use
guidelines
across
the
board
and,
as
you
can
see
in
the
guidelines,
that's
basically
how
we
came
up
with
column
e,
it's
96
room
revenue
for
limited
service,
two
percent
for
food
and
beverage,
two
percent
for
miscellaneous
71.1
percent,
total
operating
expense,
four
percent
for
reserves
for
ffa
upon
appeal.
We
did
get
quite
a
bit
of
cooperation
from
the
store
a
lot,
mr
mitchell,
so
we
did
receive
the
ines
for
years,
17,
18
and
19..
J
J
We
went
ahead
and
made
a
correction
on
behalf
of
the
owner,
which
has
resulted
in
column
d,
as
he
shorted
himself
on
the
sub
subtotal
for
departmental
total
by
about
some
200
000
or
so
so.
We
corrected
that
on
his
behalf,
which
led
to
an
increase
in
total
operating
expenses,
but
we
did
note
that
the
while
commercial
income
was
reported
for
2017
and
2019.
It
was
not
reported
in
2018.
J
We
did
reach
out
to
mr
orlov
on
may
22nd
2020
as
evidence
on
page
19
of
55.
request
that
information
in
his
defense.
I
know
he
was
swamped
as
where
most
lawyers
and
agents
in
this
area
with
the
cases,
so
we
did
not
hear
back
in
regards
to
that
to
that
income
source.
But
we
do
appreciate
mr
mitchell
imputing
that
in
his
explanation,
as
that
should
be
an
income
source,
as
indicated
in
year
17
and
in
year,
19.
J
approximately
270
000,
or
so
we
did
note.
We
wanted
to
do
a
test
column
based
on
the
receipt
of
the
income
and
expense
questionnaires,
which
would
make
sense.
Given
that
again,
we
were
using
solely
guideline
for
a
projection
for
the
january
1st
assessment,
and
we
did
note
that
even
again
consider
taking
in
consideration
the
large
growth
in
revenue,
approximately
14.7
14.8
percent
for
total
revenue
in
2019.
J
We
projected
a
very
modest
1.2
percent.
Again,
we
took
into
account
the
three-year
average,
as
mr
mitchell
noted
for
total
operating
expenses
and
again,
that's
including
the
correction
that
we
made
in
column
d
and
came
up
with
our
operating
expenses
indicated
in
in
column
g
of
61.5
percent.
J
We
do
believe
it's
important
to
note
just
so.
There
is
clarity
when
we
talk
about,
even
though
the
column
says
total
operating
expenses,
you
really
have
to
add
in
that
reserves
replacement
four
percent,
that's
indicated
in
line
35
of
column
g,
so
you
get
a
true
total
operating
expense
as
the
income
and
expense
form
indicates.
J
Again,
if
you
were
to
take
into
consideration
a
true
three-year
noi
average,
as
mr
mitchell
did,
I
believe
he
came
up
with
the
same
number
I
did
approximately
1.7
million
or
so
which
is
again
in
line
with
not
only
the
projection
that
was
made
based
off
of
guidelines,
but
based
off
of
the
newfound
information
with
the
received
income
and
expense
forms
and
again
either
way,
they're
they're
low
compared
to
what
was
achieved
in
19
20,
almost
a
24
increase
in
net
operating
income
for
that
year.
J
Given
again
the
the
projections
made
that
were
still
under
achieved
noi
and
the
test
which
actually
would
call
for
an
increase
which,
again,
as
the
board
knows,
we
don't
call
for
unless
there's
a
third
party
appraisal.
We
do
believe
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
20
million
495
700..
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Both
questions
from
board
members,
mr
lawson.
D
N
D
That's
okay,
you
lost
enterprise.
Wasn't
there
a
tattoo
removal
business
there.
K
D
Okay
for
the
county,
chris,
the
only
thing
I
saw
that
that
I
am
going
to
question
you
on
is
on
your
test
column.
Total
operating
expenses
seems
really
low
to
me
compared
to
other
columns
and
compared
to
what
the
applicant
is
contending.
J
So,
as
we
explained
in
my
wrap-up,
essentially,
what
you
have
to
do,
mr
barnes
is
incorporate
that
reserves
for
ffe
into
that
number
to
get
a
true
total
expense,
as
that
ffa
is
not
a
expense.
That's
incurred
by
the
owner.
He's
got
a
true
three-year
average
of
two
two
point:
seven
three:
when
you
add
in
our
reserves
to
that
you
get
a
number,
that's.
J
J
Well,
the
the
operating
expense
as
displayed
will
be
representative
of
the
insurance
and
tax
departmental
expense
and
unallocated
are
undistributed.
But
again
you
you
have
to
include
that
reserves
for
ffe,
as
our
income
expense
form,
does
to
get
a
sense
of
the
true
total
operating
expense
which
will
result
in
the
true
net
operating
income.
D
J
Yes,
ma'am
again,
based
on
the
projections
that
were
solely
made
up
of
guidelines
in
column
e,
we
did
a
test
with
the
newly
received
income
and
expense
forms
and
again
across
the
board.
While
we
saw
a
modest
increase
in
revenue,
we
did,
as
just
related
to
mr
lawson,
actually
gave
a
more
a
higher,
I
should
say
expense
rate
than
was
achieved
over
the
last
three
years.
J
As
far
as
a
average
of
the
three
years
again,
we
did
call
for
an
increase,
but
because
we
do
not,
we
do
believe
that
the
january
1st
assessment
of
20
million
495
700
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
N
Yes,
thank
you.
I
I
do.
I
I've
I've
tried
to
cover
this
in
a
prior
hearing.
I
do
feel
that
it's
not
an
appropriate
apples
to
apples
comparison
to
compare
the
historical
operating
expense
and
noi
before
ff
e,
both
of
which
are
numbers
before
reserves
with
the
department's
test
analyses
after
reserves,
regardless
of
even
if
the
owner
is
not
reporting
an
actual
reserves,
deduction
on
their
ine.
It's
appropriate
valuation
methodology.
N
As
of
the
data
value
or
as
of
any
given
data
value
for
an
income
producing
property
like
this
to
impute
a
market
level
of
reserve.
That's
how
any
buyer
would
come
in
and
evaluate
the
income
stream
looking
forward
that
they
could
hope
to
sustain
property.
So
we
feel
like,
if
you're,
going
to
compare
the
department's
numbers
to
the
properties
historical
you
have
to
do
before
and
before,
and
then,
if
you're
going
to
compare
historical
to
the
departments,
you
have
to
then
impute
the
four
percent
market.
D
Well
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
and
see
if
anyone
salutes.
I
think
this
is
an
example
of
why
you
should
submit
your
income
and
expense
statements,
because
I
mean
the
county's
initial
assessment
was
way
out
of
whack
and
so.
B
D
Landowner,
who
probably
purposefully
decided
not
to
submit
him
did
himself
no
favors.
The
only
thing
I
see
is,
I
think,
on
the
test
column.
I
think
our
expenses
are
a
little
light.
That's
I've
just
been
curious.
If
any
of
my
colleagues
look
at
it
the
same
way.
E
Yeah
I
mean
I
was
going
to
say
something
similar
where
I
I'd
like
to
try
to
maybe
give
some
sort
of
allowance
for
releasing
the
enterprise
space
like
we
would
if
this
was
an
office
building,
but
I
I
don't
know
even
know
what
square
footage
to
a
lot
to
it,
because
I'm
going
to
rent
rolls.
So
you
know
it's
hard
to
do
that
if
we
had
the
rent
roll
in
front
of
us
or
the
or
the
appellate
could
confirm
that.
E
You
know
that
the
chiropractor
takes
up
two
thousand
square
feet,
and
this
you
know
there's
four
thousand
left
and
it
needs
to
be
improved
and
commissions
need
to
be
paid.
Then
you
know
we
normally
do
we'll.
Allow
that
those
adjustments.
I
don't.
I
don't
really
have
that
information,
so
I
don't
want
to
arbitrarily
pick
a
square
footage.
That's
vacant.
A
Yeah
good
point,
mr
matskin.
H
Yeah,
I
had
a
note
just
on
what
greg
said
that
for
next
year
they
ought
to
keep
themselves
alive
for
below
the
line
deduction
if
the
overwhelming
percentage
of
their
relatively
small
commercial
space
stays
vacant.
I
also
wanted
to
go
back
to
barnes
notion
of
the
operating
expenses
being
a
bit
low.
H
That
was
the
very
first
note
I
made
to
myself
when
I
read
this
the
other
day
and
then
I
looked
at
the
absolute
numbers
as
opposed
to
the
percentages,
and
I
like
absolute
numbers,
a
whole
lot
better,
because
if
you
know,
if
you
double
the
room
rate
as
an
example,
it
certainly
doesn't
mean
you
double
the
operating
expenses.
It's
to
me,
it's
very
simple,
so
I
looked
at
the
absolute
numbers
and
saw
that
actually
they
were
kind
of
in
line
with
the
historical
experience.
H
F
Well,
I
I
agree
with
mr
pataranda.
I
agree
with
pretty
much
all
the
comments.
I
think
chris
has
done
a
good
job
and
you
know
using
what
he
had
available
and
even
if
we
were
to
fool
a
little
bit
with
the
expenses,
it's
not
going
to
make
that
much
of
a
difference.
I
think.
H
A
I
thought
you'd
say:
okay,
okay,
do
any
board
members
have
any
additional
business.
Mr
matthew.
H
I
wanted
to
go
back
a
case
or
two.
I
wrote
down
almost
verbatim
what
greg
offered
on
how
to
determine
what's
a
garden
versus
a
mid-rise
and
the
county,
the
department
did
us
a
favor
in
recent
years
about
craig's
word
of
bright,
drawing
a
bright
line
between
what
is
mid-rise,
what
is
garden
and
and
based
on
his
comments,
meaning
that
the
the
logistics
behind
the
individual
building
elevators
slope,
stairs
blah
blah
blah.
H
I
think
not
this
year
I
mean
we
have
guidance
and-
and
I
think
we
should
stick
to
it,
and
I
think-
and
I
support
the
decision
we
made
on
that
one
appellant's
case,
but
I
think
for
next
year
we
ought
to
take
a
look
and
maybe
the
bright
line
is
too
bright.
Maybe
we've
got
a
obviously
with
the
department
consider
other
kinds
of
conditions
and
and
circumstances
that
would
delineate
a
four-story
building
one
way
or
the
other
and
see
if
we
can
come
up
with
some
consensus.
That
makes
this
feel.
D
M
Can
I
misspell,
I
think,
greg,
had
a
good
point
in
the
fact
that
there
is
a
difference
based
on
the
number
of
units
and
how
they're
looked
at.
M
I
mean
he
drew
a
line
at
200
and
the
smaller
garden
apartments
are
the
smaller
even
as
we're
calling
the
mid-rise
at
this
point
at
that
element,
number
of
you
floors.
There
is
a
difference,
and
that
does
drive
that
cap
rate
yeah.
So
that's
a
good
point
that
it's
it's
not
just.
If
you
only
get
you
know,
we've
looked
at
one
complex
of
that
18
or
building
that
18
units
in
it.
That's
a
big
difference
from
one
that
has
400.
A
Right-
and
I
just
want
to
say
I
mean
I
think,
the
definitions
are
well
and
good
for
different
departments,
but
just
like,
when
you
look
at
a
residential
appraisal,
a
residential
appraisal
for
lending
is
different
than
a
residential
appraisal.
That's
done
for
tax
assessments,
and
I
mean
our
job
is
to
equalize,
and
if
the
county
comes
up
with
parameters,
our
job
is
to
make
sure
that
they're
equally
applied
across
the
board.
E
Yeah
totally
think
we
need
to
be
consistent
year
over
year
right
like
we're
not
going
to
go
in
and
redefine
something
today
and
then
everything
we
review
after
it
changes.
So
I
would
say
it's
a
good
idea,
ken
to
talk
to
the
department,
maybe
at
a
wrap-up,
about
how
to
frame
the
cap
rate
study
for
next
year,
so
that
it
sets
us
up
to
be
very
fair
in
how
we
do
things.
E
I
really
you
know,
I'm
I'm
agnostic
to
whether
or
not
that
property
gets
reduced
or
or
what
I
just
want
to
be
fair
right
and
what
I
see
in
the
market
right
now
is
this
growing
disparity
between
projects
that
qualify
for
super
low
capital
costs
and,
and
those
are
generally
hud
right.
E
So
we
really
just
need
to
get
the
because
whoever
does
the
cap
rate
study
needs
to
frame
it
out
right
and
next
year
it's
going
to
be
really
obvious,
especially
sales
are
going
to
be
a
little
wacky,
there's,
probably
going
to
be
fewer
sales
and
there's
going
to
be
some
disparity
between
the
different
properties.
So
I
think
it's
good
for
wrap
up
we'll
deal
with
it.
L
Yes,
I
just
wanted
to.
I
was
going
to
talk
to
barnes
about
the
ra
8
18
comment
that
he
made
and
looking
at
zoning
I
mean
the
actual
maximum
height
is
40
feet
or
four
stories.
So
in
regards
to
that
I
mean
that
ra818
is
qualified
for
mid-rise.
As
referring
back
to
that
last
case.
I
know
you
kept
saying
three
stories
over
basement,
but
it
just
says
four
stories
and
that's
it.
H
To
on
on
barnes,
I
want
to
underscore
what
he
said
we
ought
to
bring
in
zoning
and
maybe
some
other
elements
of
county
department
to
see
how
they
figure
out.
You
know
mid-rise
versus
versus
garden
department,
in
our
discussion,
whether
it's
wrap
up
or
next,
you
know,
or
spring
training
next
year,
whatever
it
turns
out.
Let's
make
sure
it's
just
not
the
two
of
us
in
our
echo
chamber.
A
Right,
okay,
any
other
business
from
board
members,
anybody
from
the
county,
any
additional
okay
rosa.
Can
you
confirm
we
are
scheduled
for
tuesday,
the
18th?
Yes
ma'am,
18
and
19.?
Okay.
So
then
we
will
adjourn
today's
meeting
here
at
10,
39
and
re-adjourn
next
tuesday
august
18th
at
9am.