►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - September 16, 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
Is
wednesday
september
16
2020?
This
is
the
arlington
county,
virginia
board
of
equalization
hearing
the
first
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc0402085
at
3619.
north
nelson
street,
mr
james
govind
is
here
to
speak
on
behalf
of
his
property.
Mr
gobind,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
your
property,
sir.
All
right.
B
Good
morning,
members
of
the
board,
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
talk
to
you
I'll
talk
quickly
since
time's
limited,
and
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
to
react,
make
some
comments
about
the
county
statement.
That's
part
of
the
file
reaffirming
their
assessment
and
then
again
just
to
reemphasize
the
problems
I
have
with
my
property,
which
I
will
warn
some
relief
in
the
land
assessment.
B
So,
first
of
all,
in
terms
of
the
county
comments,
there's
one
comment
in
there
that
says
that
tribute
to
me
that
I've
said
that's
just
part
of
my
property,
the
ten
thousand
square
feet,
roughly
one-third
of
my
land.
That's
an
issue
for
me
that
it's
useless
and
should
not
be
valued.
That's
not
quite
correct.
I've
said
often
to
others
that
it
is
useless
given
its
nature,
there's
not
much.
B
I
can
do
with
it,
but
I've
not
said
it
shouldn't
be
valued
and
maybe
staff
took
that
in
a
different
way,
but
certainly
it
should
be
valid
as
part
of
the
assessment,
of
course,
and
I'm
just
making
a
statement
that
I
think
the
nature
of
that
the
condition
of
that
property
warned
some
reduction
of
the
assessment.
I
received
that's
all
I
intended
and
I
think
at
another
point
and
there's
a
county
statement.
It
says
that
the
2020
evaluation
is
a
corrective
evaluation,
I'm
not
sure
what
to
make
of
that.
B
It
could
imply
that
prior
assessors
and
so
on
made
mistakes
in
their
assessment.
I
could
like
to
believe
probably
not,
but
that
maybe
they
were
aware
of
the
condition
of
the
property
and
made
some
allowance
for
that.
B
I
don't
know,
but
I
provided
the
committee
with
this
table,
showing
I
looked
at
the
rate
of
assessment
increase
over
the
last
decade
and
provided
you
with
a
table
that
shows
that
I
had
the
highest
rate
of
increase
in
my
land
assessment
over
this
decade
at
56,
far
more
than
almost
all
the
other
14
properties
on
the
block,
except
for
two
150
one
was
at
48.,
so
maybe
it
was
intended
as
a
corrective
action.
B
In
my
view,
I
think
it's
an
over
overly
corrective
assessment
of
the
land
and
then
thirdly,
there
was
a
reference
comparing
my
property
to
two
adjoining
properties
and
made
the
statement
that
we
three
all
three
have
the
same.
Ditch
I
would
have
used
the
word.
Gully
but
they
use
the
word
ditch
and
our
rpa
designated
that
you
know
resource
protection
area.
I
guess
it
is,
and
that's
true
for
my
property,
one
of
the
properties-
I
don't
know
I've,
never
been
on
it.
I
can't
speak
to
it.
B
The
other
one
actually
joins
my
property
and
I
think,
there's
some
moderate
differences
between
us.
They,
I
don't
think
the
topography
of
their
parts
of
land
while
it
has
the
same
characteristics
not
as
severe
as
in
the
case
of
mine,
which
is
kind
of
a
basin.
B
They
have
a
little
bit
of
a
level
land
on
which
they
were
able
to
put
a
temporal
structure
there,
for
I
don't
know,
play
purposes
storage
purposes,
and
then
it
refers
to
one
ditch
for
all
three
properties.
Well,
in
my
case,
there
are
two
ditches.
There
are
two
major
gullies
on
my
property,
and
so
that
leads
me
to
the
discussion
about
the
condition
of
my
property
and
what
has
happened
in
essence,
I
considered
a
basin
that
has
two
sides
but
have
very
severe
slopes
of
land
down
the
basin.
B
The
third
side
has
a
somewhat
level
and
moderate
slope
to
it.
The
other
one
is
open
and
goes
through
the
other
properties
down
towards
the
end
of
the
block.
The
problem
is
that
there
are
two
major
gullies
that
have
developed
on
the
property,
which
I
feel
I
have
practically
no
control.
One
is
based
on
county
facilities.
There
is
a
storm
water
easement
there
alongside
it
as
a
sanitary
shore,
easement.
B
Unfortunately,
for
me
that
senate
storm
water
easement
opens
up
comes
on
ground
right
in
the
middle
of
my
property,
and
the
result
of
that
is
then,
as
the
water
comes
out
onto
my
property
over
the
years,
it
has
considerably
eroded
the
rest
of
my
land
and
that
that
little
pathway
so
much
so
that
I
cannot
cross
over
to
the
other
side
of
my
property
because
of
the
side
of
the
gully.
B
In
addition,
the
the
outer
rim
of
that
culvert
with
the
water
that
has
carried
it
underground,
has
broken
and
been
broken
up
for
years
and
years,
and
I've
not
been
aware
of
any
particular
effort
on
the
county's
part
maintained
that
area.
Alongside
of
it
is
a
sanitary
sewer
easement,
it
too,
a
portion
of
it
was
at
least
exposed
because
of
the
runoff
about
two
or
three
years
ago
there
was
a
spot
where
a
neighbor's
house
connects
to
the
sanitary
sewer.
B
B
B
I
don't
mean
to
overstate
it,
but
it
just
runs
down
that
area
and
dumps
itself
into
my
base,
and
so
when
there
are
heavy
rains
that
comes
in
and
of
course,
the
heavy
rain
hits.
My
part
of
the
property
too,
where
the
gully
is.
The
point
is
that
in
years
past
the
gully
was
small.
I
could
actually
cross
it
when
it
was
dry.
I
could
step
down
in
it
and
get
out.
If
that's
what
I
had
to
do
now,
it's
gotten
so
large.
I
cannot
and
will
not
do
that.
So.
B
In
effect,
these
two
gullies
have
cut
me
off
from
the
other
side
of
my
property,
which
I
can
only
reach
by
going
into
my
neighbor's
property
and
then
dealing
with
a
another.
B
Dead
of
winter,
not
when
there's
vegetation,
a
simple
reason
for
that
is
that
you
may
or
may
not
know.
This
area
is
well
known
as
a
kind
of
haven
for
copperheads
among
others,
and
some
have
been
cited
on
my
property,
I'm
not
going
to
wander
back
there
in
the
temperant
months
only
in
the
dead
of
winter.
B
That's
it.
I
don't
know
how
much
time
I
have.
I
would
like
to
make
one
other
general
statement,
and
that
is
despite
the
conditions
in
the
property
and
my
feeling
that
it's
overvalued.
I've
tried
to
be
a
very
good
steward
of
the
trees
on
the
property,
and
I've
done
a
number
of
things
over
the
years.
To
achieve
that,
first
of
all,
when
I
could
go
down
and
access
the
property,
I
would
go
down
and
pull
the
ivy
off
all
the
trees
that
are
down
there
to
keep
them
in
good
shape,
as
I
could.
B
Secondly,
I
hired
a
tree
company
to
come
and
access
the
trees
at
least
once
a
year,
sometimes
twice
a
year
for
some
years.
I
did
not
do
that
last
year,
but
I
did
that
for
many
years
to
check
the
trees
and
take
care
of
proper
action
and
then
on
a
third
occasion,
I
asked
one
of
my
neighbors
before
I
had
this
assessment.
The
company
come
out
if
they
had
any
concerns
about
trees
bordering
their
property.
They
pointed
out
one
tree
that
worried
them
a
bit.
B
B
Opera
trees
seem
to
be
very
weak
and
stormy
times,
and
I
was
concerned,
so
I
got
my
tree
company
to
put
in
a
cable,
brace
raising
a
big
part
of
that
tree
to
the
trunk,
which
is
on
my
property,
even
though,
if
there
were
any
damage,
I
guess
according
to
law,
they
they
would
have
to
suffer
the
liability
of
repairing
their
home.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
okay.
Miss
vitus
for
the
county.
C
Yes,
the
subject:
property
is
a
one-story
brick
home
that
was
built
in
1958..
The
home
has
three
bedrooms
and
three
baths
and
sits
on
thirty
thousand
three
hundred
forty
fifty
four
square
foot
lot
when
submitting
their
original
appeal.
The
appellant
felt
that
the
county
had
made
an
error
in
their
assessment
and
did
not
understand
why
their
land
value
had
increased
by
20.5
percent,
while
the
average
increase
of
surrounding
properties
was
4.18
percent.
C
The
appellant
also
feels
that
a
portion
of
their
land
is
unusual,
unusable
and
should
be
valued
differently.
An
inspection
of
both
the
exterior
interior
of
the
subject
property
was
conducted
on
january
31st.
Prior
to
the
inspection
we
did
not
have
a
sketch
of
the
home.
After
our
inspection
we
were
able
to
sketch
and
make
corrections
to
the
record
and
were
able
to
reduce
the
impedance
improvement
from
288
100
to
two
hundred
seventy
seven
thousand
six
hundred
the
reason
the
appellant
saw
such
an
increased.
C
C
C
The
appellant
argues
that
one-third
of
his
lot
is
unusable
and
encumbered
by
a
drainage,
jits
and
rpa
the
county
values
all
land
outside
the
base
area
or
average
home
site
the
same
way,
which
is
by
placing
a
minimum
value
of
seven
dollars,
a
square
foot
for
detached
unbuildable,
outlots
or
ten
dollars.
A
square
foot
for
unbuildable
access
land.
C
If
you
guys
would
look
on
the
memo,
you
can
see
a
small
graph
or
box
right
here,
which
case
you
can
see
how
the
subject
parcel
was
out
of
line
with
lots
of
comparable
sizes
in
his
neighborhood.
C
C
As
a
result
of
the
review,
we
determined
that
the
land
value
is
fair
and
equitable
and
recommend
that
the
revised
2020
assessment
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
D
I
got
one
for
the
board
or
not
enough
for
the
board,
rather
the
department,
so
it
sounds
like
we've
got
a
couple
of
recent
sales
in
the
neighborhood
based
on
kind
of
the
tear
down
value
of
the
house
and
so
we're
using
the
land
as
the
major
component
of
that
sale.
D
I
understand
there's
periods
of
time
when
home
construction
is
hot
prices,
get
high,
they
kind
of
spike.
What
would
you
say
to
the
landowners?
If
you
know,
let's
say,
there's
no
sales
for
a
few
years
down
the
road,
and
you
know
things
have
cooled
off
and
gotten
back
to
kind
of
a
normal
situation
on
land
development.
How
do
they
go
about
then
normalizing?
What
the
price
would
be
for
their
lot.
C
So
without
land
sales
we're
still
looking
at
like
other
sales
in
the
neighborhood,
our
current
assessment
is
conservative
in
comparative
to
those
land
sales.
I
mean,
like
I
said
across
the
street,
you
have
a
lot
that
is
only
slightly
larger
than
the
average
lot
selling
per
1.3
million,
but
our
land
sales
are
still.
You
know.
Our
land
values
are
still
below
that,
so
they
are
conservative
currently,
but
we
are
we
just
as
we
do
every
year,
we're
looking
at
our
analysis
and
going
from
there.
C
E
Excuse
me,
I
have
a
question
for
the
appellant
you
would
mention.
I
understand
that
there's
gullies
down
the
bottom
of
your
slope.
You
know
I
I
didn't
walk
around
your
backyard,
so
I
have
the
following
question.
You
had
talked
about
you
can't
get
from
one
side
or
one
part
of
your
backyard
to
the
other
part.
E
B
Gulley's
run
almost
through
the
middle
of
the
property.
You
know
10
000
square
feet
that
I'm
kind
of
emphasizing
here,
and
it
runs
right
down
the
middle
of
that.
So
I
cannot
get
across
those
gullies
to
the
other
side
and
separate
ten
thousand
square
feet
almost
in
the
middle
is.
B
Part
of
it
is
where
you
know
the
county
surfaces,
the
county
line,
surfaces
right
in
the
middle
of
the
property,
the
other
gulley
starts
at
the
other
end
and
runs
almost
all
the
way
across
until
it
joins
the
gully.
That's
been
formed
by
the
county
facility.
B
It's
the
storm
water
drainage
with
the
storm
water.
You
know
easement,
for
storm
water,
underground
flow,
which
surfaces
on
my
ground
and
right
alongside
of
it,
is
the
sanitary
sewage,
the
water
coming
out
of
the
underground
water,
drainage,
easement,
that's
causing
the
erosion.
B
Up
it's
a
concrete
culvert
that
opens
up
in
the
middle,
it's
underground
for
the
four
or
five,
probably
wherever
it
comes
from
robert's
lane
or
whatever,
but
then
it
opens
up
in
the
middle.
It's
an
open
pipe
in
effect
a
culvert,
and
it
just
dumps
the
water
publicly
on
by
land
the
surface
of
the
land
wow.
I
don't
know
why
it
was
cut
off
or
constructed
to
that
point,
but.
F
Yes
for
the
owner,
I
looked
on
the
county
rpa
map
and
didn't
see
where
your
property
was
impacted.
Do
you
by
chance?
I
have
something
you
can
show
me
that
that
shows
how
much
of
your
lot
is
impacted
by
the
rpa.
B
The
entire
ten
thousand
square
feet
that
I'm
trying
to
describe
to
you
that
I
feel
is
you
know
difficult
terrain
to
manage
to
own
was
an
rpa
and
then
the
rpa
stretches
up
almost
in
an
arc.
I
would
say
at
its
deepest
point
onto
my
established
lawn,
probably
15
18
feet,
perhaps
and
then
tapers
at
the
end.
So
it
comes
on
to
my
established
lawn
area
as
well,
so
it
covers.
C
There
is
actually
a
land
map
in
the
in
the
packet.
Do
you
have
that
mr
garvin
and
you
can
maybe
point
out.
C
So
this
would
be
the
front
of
your
house
and
then
this
would
be
the
back
and
if
I'm
correctly
remembering
so
about
this,
this
much
is,
and
it
runs
through.
The
rpa
runs
through
here
correct.
B
F
F
F
G
C
So
it's
not
a
very
common
thing:
we
because
we
do
value
land
outside
of
the
home
site
at
a
lower
discount,
so
it's
already
being
discounted
from
it.
So
again,
where
I
discussed
like
the
seven
dollars
a
square
foot
for
a
detached
out
lot
that
is
not
accessible
and
then
ten
dollars
a
square
foot
for
an
attached
accessible,
excess
land.
So
so
it
is
already
discounted.
G
G
H
Sure
good
morning
can
everybody
see
me
and
hear
me
hi.
My
name
is
derek
dubay,
I'm
the
residential
supervisor,
I'm
trusted
supervisor
and
to
elaborate
on
that
a
little
bit
whenever
we
make
an
adjustment
that
you're
speaking
about
mr
panorando,
it's
usually
something
that's
affecting
the
average
lot
size
or
the
base
lot
itself,
and
in
this
case
the
base
lot
in
that
neighborhood
is
15
000
square
feet.
H
If
you
have
something
impacting
that
actual
15
000
square
feet,
which
is
our
base,
then
that's
where
we
usually
will
go
into
an
influence
if
there's
a
huge
cliff
or
a
steeple
bean
actually
impacting
that
base.
But
if
we
have
something
that's
affecting
excess
land
and
we're
already
considering
it
excess
land,
then
we
will
not
make
an
adjustment
because
it's
all
considered
being
valued
at
a
minimal
value
as
it
is.
A
No
okay,
miss
vitus.
If
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up
for
us,
please.
C
Just
one
second,
I
would
like
to
reiterate
that
the
reason
that
the
appellant
sign
increased
to
his
land
value
was
due
to
the
parcel
being
equalized
with
similar
size
lots.
C
We
were
able
to
find
multiple
comparables
that
can
struggle
to
support
the
2020
assessment,
including
the
one
directly
across
the
street,
which
was
a
land
sale
which
was
a
smaller
lot
at
18,
354
and
sold
for
1
million
350
000.
and
again,
we
would
like
to
ask
the
board
to
confirm
our
the
revised
2020
assessment.
B
Yeah
I
understand
and
accept
that
the
30
000
square
feet
is
double
what
may
be
the
average
of
the
neighborhood,
but
I
would
still
maintain
that
a
sizable
portion
of
that
excess
land
is
practically
unusable,
except
to
look
at
it,
nothing
I
can
do
with
it
and
it
has
the
overarching
problem
of
being
designated
an
rpa,
and
then
I
had
another
point
I
wanted
to
make,
but
just
as
scheduled
at
the
moment,
oh
the
it
is
that
there
seems
to
be
no
acknowledgement
in
the
county
staff
in
the
reports
that
I've
read
unless
I've
forgotten
or
overlooked
it,
one
of
the
large
gullies
is
attributed
to
county
facilities.
B
There
is
no
acknowledgement.
The
a
substantial
part
of
the
problem
relates
to
county
facilities
that
have
come
onto
my
land,
created
the
erosion
that
that
blocks
me
from
at
least
that
access
on
that
half
of
the
property
to
the
other
side.
So
there's
county
liability
in
the
in
the
condition
of
that
property.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chairman
I'll,
go
ahead
and
start
off.
I
guess
my
law
firm
represents
a
lot
of
the
home
builders
around
the
county
and
they
look
at
the
value
of
lots
that
they're
going
to
build
a
house
on
very
differently
than
the
explanation.
We
just
got
about
oversized
lots.
What
what
builders
look
at
is.
I
can
build
a
house
that
I
can
sell
for
say,
2
million.
Therefore,
I'm
willing
to
pay
30
for
the
lot
value
and
what
they
look
at
is.
F
Can
I
put
a
nice
house
in
the
building
footprint
and
is
there
topography
issues
that
are
going
to
demand
retaining
walls
or
extra
expensive
construction
costs?
A
builder
doesn't
really
care
that
a
lot
has
extra
area.
F
F
they
they
put
very
little
value
on
the
fact
that
it's
big
I
looked
at
this
property
and
I
I
must
have
missed
on
the
on
the
rpa
map,
because
I
was
trying
to
figure
out.
F
Does
the
rpa
impact
the
building
envelope
that
a
builder
would
look
for,
and
it
doesn't
seem
to-
and
I
think
the
lot
is
not
suffering
from
you-
know
severe
topography
where
you
would
put
the
house
so
in
in
looking
at
what
I'm
familiar
with
lots
selling
for
the
builders
around
this
area,
even
though
the
owner
is
absolutely
right,
I
think
a
builder
would
probably
pay
for
this
lot
of
what
the
what
the
land
value
is.
F
F
Now
I'm
saying
that
without
seeing
the
topo
and
without
having
a
engineer
put
on
the
lot
where
the
rpa
limits
are
so
for
what
it's
worth,
those
are
my
thoughts.
D
Yeah,
I
agree
with
barnes
and
I
think
I
was
doing
some
quick
measurements
here
on
the
the
county
gis
site.
If
you
cut
the
square
off
the
back
of
the
property,
where
all
the
issues
are,
you
know
it's
about
ten
thousand
eleven
thousand
square
feet.
You
end
up
with
a
lot
that
is
slightly
larger
than
the
two
comparables
that
the
county
gave
us
as
far
as
sales
across
the
street
that
sold
for
over
a
million
and
another
one.
I
guess
over
900
000.
D
A
A
I
mean
there
may
not
be
utility
from
a
standpoint
of
construction,
but
there's
also
privacy.
There's
nobody
going
to
build
in
that,
and
that
does
have
some
value.
So
I
don't
think
that
we
can
totally
take
that
away
and
discount
it
and
say:
oh,
this
property
is
worth
the
same
thing
as
a
15
000
lot.
So
I
unfortunately
you
know.
I
I
hear
the
concerns
from
the
homeowner,
but
I
think
the
county
is
correct
on
the
assessment
you
know
at
under
900
000.
Mr.
G
E
I'll
take
a
little
different
tack,
although
I
absolutely
understand
and
agree
with
the
department's
position
on
slopes
and
culverts
down
at
the
bottom,
at
the
boundaries
of
large
lots
and
and
and
assessing
them
at
a
relatively,
very
small
value
per
square
foot
relative
to
the
base
area.
I
have
concern
with
the,
and
I
think
this
might
be
a
legal
term
or
close
to
it.
Barnes
can
correct
me,
but
the
public
nuisance
value
of
the
the
the
stormwater
runoff,
that's
not
at
the
edge
anywhere.
E
That's
in
kind
of
the
base
area
of
this
very
large
parcel
and
we
certainly
see
public
right-of-way
again,
my
I
hope
it's
I
don't
mean
this
to
be
derogatory,
but
the
public
nuisance
of
a
very
busy
street
permits
a
modest
discount
on
the
value
of
a
property
throughout
the
county,
and
I
think
this
public
nuisance
deserves
again
not
at
the
edge
somewhere
of
a
very
large
property,
but
in
the
base
area,
if
you
will
more
adjacent
to
the
house
than
down
the
hill
in
the
culvert
by
the
trees
that
that
also
deserves
what
the
county
I
think
usually
applies,
is
a
five
percent
discount
on
the
value
of
the,
and
I
don't
recall
and
and
as
far
as
you
can
correct
me
or
add
on
to
it
whether
it's
five
percent
of
the
total
assessment
or
five
percent
of
the
land
assessment
discount.
E
I
I
would
favor
that,
for
this
public
use
of
his
land.
F
Yeah
ken
that's
an
excellent
point:
what
the
county
does
when
it
either
condemns
an
easement
or
vacates
an
easement.
Is
they
take
the
square
foot
value
of
the
totality
of
the
property
and
for
the
area
impacted
by
easement?
They
discount
it
by
50,
and
so,
if
the
county
were
so
motivated
it
you
know
they
might
want
to
consider
doing
something
like
that
for
the
area
impacted
by
an
easement
for
that
excess
land.
F
G
Yeah
well,
I
was
asking
the
county
as
far
as
the
adjustments
or
discounts
that
they
apply
because
we've
seen
in
the
past
that
not
specifically
on
large
slots
like
this,
but
we've
seen
adjustments
made
based
on
slopes
based
on
just
extra
conditions
that
were
not
normal.
I
guess
to
any
lot
and
I
think
in
this
particular
case
we
have
a
lot
that
it's
pretty
much
split
in
the
back
like
the
felony
was
indicating
you
know
it's
if
you
could
walk
through.
G
G
So
I
think
I
agree
with
ken.
I
think
a
discount
would
be
warranted
that
you
know
it'll
be
difficult
for
us
to
know
about
right
now
how
much
of
that
land
or
specifically
the
you
know,
the
square
footage
to
either
make
the
adjustment
to
the
seven
dollar
per
square
foot
because
of
a
system
that
is
separated
or
landlord
or
just
keep
the
ten
dollar
rate.
But
I
would
agree
that
maybe
this
particular
case
for
this
year
and
this
a
lot.
I
think,
a
five
percent
discount
on
the
land.
G
I
don't
know
how
everybody
else
feels
about
a
discount,
but
I
think
in
my
opinion,
they
finally
made
it
a
compelling
case.
F
Yes,
jose,
I,
I
really
do
agree
with
everything
you've
said,
but
I
can't
ignore
the
fact
that
I
got
builders
paying
900
000
for
lots
in
this
neighborhood.
I
mean
not
not
this
exact
neighborhood
but
north
arlington
207,
and
this
is
what's
a
zoned
again.
F
Yeah
and
so
everything
you've
said
I
agree
with,
and
I
think
in
a
different
way,
with
a
different
size
lot.
I
would
be
with
you
and
ken,
but
I
think
the
bottom
line
is
that
this
can
be
sold
for
nine
hundred
thousand.
A
All
right,
I
know
what
I'll
make
the
motion
then
to
confirm
the
county,
the
revised
number
of
one
million
one,
seventy
seven,
four
hundred.
A
A
Okay,
the
next
case
on
the
agenda
is
one
five:
zero,
six
zero
zero
one
one
at
twenty
four
wilson
boulevard,
miss
eileen
gorman
is
representing
the
appellant,
and
mr
lawson
has
a
conflict
of
interest
and
will
not
be
discussing
or
voting
on
this
case.
Have
you
got
a
core
of
mary
with
or
is
for
a
forum?
Four
is
a
quorum.
Thank
you,
sir.
I
Good
morning,
madam
chairwoman,
members
of
the
board
and
county,
I
am,
this-
is
a
property.
It's
a
hyatt
place.
It
is
a
select
service
property.
It
was
constructed
in
2016
and
I'm
going
to
start
by
referring
to
the
county
summary
page,
which
is
not
numbered
in
my
package,
but
I
believe
is
page
three
and
on
that
page
I
just
want
to
start
with
the
the
proposition
that
there
are
a
lot
of
columns
on
this
page
and
it's
really
not
as
complicated
as
as
it
looks
the
none
of
us
disagree.
I
So
what
mr
chicas
has
done
is
he
has
taken
one
of
those
expenses,
the
interest
expense
out
of
the
various
years
on
income
and
expense
survey
forms
and
that,
at
least
for
me,
I
I
find
it
to
have
a
lot
of
columns,
but
I
think
we
should
focus
on
columns
a
which
is
a
which
is
the
first
year.
The
property
was
open
and
is
really
you
know
it's.
I
It's
only
a
partial
year,
column
c,
which
makes
that
adjustment
for
interest
payments
column
e
again,
which
makes
that
adjustment
for
interest
payments
and
column
h,
which
makes
the
adjustment
for
interest
payments
so
focusing
on
columns
a
for
16
c
for
2017
e
for
2018
and
h
for
2019,
at
least
for
me,
gets
rid
of
some
of
the
there's
just
a
it
makes
the
case
cleaner.
I
So
the
county
has
looked
at
the
assessment
and
made
a
revision
to
it,
which
is
in
column.
I.
So.
The
one
of
the
factors
about
this
property
is,
if
you
look
at
columns,
b
or
c
e
and
h.
So
what
you
find
is
the
income
from
2017
to
2018
went
down
by
almost
10
percent.
It
went
down
by
nine
point
three
one
percent:
the
net
operating
income.
If
you
look
between
num
at
2018
and
2019
column
e
and
h,
the
income
went
down
by
almost
10
percent.
I
We
have
a
trend
at
this
property
and
that
trend
is
declining
income
and
the
county
has
in
in
looking
at
the
assessment
in
column.
I
it
has
in
part
reflected
that,
but,
as
you'll
note,
the
county
is
still
10
greater,
approximately
10
higher
and
not
operating
income
in
column.
I
than
column
h,
which
represents
the
income
and
expense
survey
form
after
adding
back
the
interest
payment.
I
What
you'll
also
note
is
that
in
column,
h,
income
attributable
to
the
the
excuse
me,
the
expenses
are
approximately
300
000
less
than
the
actual
expenses
which
were
incurred
in
2019,
but
also
importantly,
there
and
the
expenses
in
column
h
are
61.8
percent
of
the
income
and
in
column
I
used
58.25
percent.
I
Now.
Why
is
that
important?
Well,
it's
important
one
because
it
understates
the
operating
expenses,
but
it
is
also
lower
than
the
select
service
operating
expense
percentage
in
the
guidelines
and
that
guideline
percent
is
60.4
percent.
So
the
county
has
reduced
expenses
by
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
from
the
actual
19
expenses
and
it
has
dropped
them.
You
know
considerably
below
the
the
selective
service
guideline
rate
of
60.4
percent.
Now
the
owner's
actual
expenses
are
slightly
higher.
I
The
other
thing
I
want
to
note
is
that
the
read
the
counties
they
did
use
the
guideline
rate
of
3.9
percent
and
that
the
reserves
of
this
property
is
chris,
and
I
have
talked
on
numerous
occasions
and
mr
chicas.
I
really
appreciate
your
willingness
to
to
meet
with
me
and
go
through
these
cases.
It's
been
very
informative
that
because
it's
the
reserves
amount
under
the
franchise
agreement
go
up
every
year
until
they
hit
a
maximum
rate.
I
So
while
the
actual
reserve
amount
was
3.4
percent
in
2019,
it
will
be
increased
in
2020..
The
3.9
percent
is,
is
much
more
in
line
and
is
appropriate
and
is
equalized
with
other
properties.
So
we
would
add
assessment,
and
you
know,
with
this
income
trend
going
downwards
about
10
every
year.
There
was
no
reason
to
think
that
that
would
change
as
of
january
1
2020
that
the
income
would
not
continue
to
go
down.
Nor
was
there
any
reason
to
assume
that
it
would
go
up
and
the
revision
in
column.
I
J
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning
board
members,
mrs
borman
again
we're
gonna
rely
primarily
upon,
I
believe
it's
page
three,
the
hotel,
motel
income
and
expense
summary
sheets
set
up
well
by
ms
borman.
This.
This
property
is
relatively
new
open
at
some
point
in
2016..
J
When
we're
looking
at
the
specifically
as
ms
borman
noted,
column,
c
e
and
h
the
reconstruction.
What
we're
looking
at,
at
least
in
the
eyes
of
the
county,
is
a
property.
That's
not
having
trouble
so
much
with
the
income
side
as
it
is,
is
establishing
where
they
are
in
their
ascendancy
of
being
a
new
property
with
their
operating
expenses.
J
8.757,
so
the
the
revenue
side
itself
is
actually
up
in
2019,
revenue
due
to
rooms
was
up,
2.7
percent
food
and
beverages
up
almost
51,
and
we
did
see
miscellaneous
down
about
54.
But
overall,
total
revenue
is
up
one
and
a
half
percent.
J
The
biggest
difference
between
18
and
19
wasn't
so
much.
The
increase
in
revenue
was
as
much
as
the
8
increase
in
operating
expenses
without
casting
aspersions
on
whoever's
filling
out
the
form.
J
One
of
the
things
mrs
borman
and
I
noted
is
that
I
believe
in
years
previous,
they
were
filled
out
by
pen,
which
is
fine.
It's
just
it's
an
indicative
of
someone,
maybe
who's
getting
used
to
the
forms,
as
opposed
to
fills
them
out
on
a
regular
basis.
J
So
we
noted
that
in
2019
they
started
to
fill
out
the
forms
using
a
computer
and
maybe
using
more
accounting
methods
associated
with
internal
documents,
because
the
departmental
expenses
increased
by
about
14
percent
and
these
weren't
items
that
we
felt
were
inappropriate
operating
expenses,
but
moreover,
things
that
did
not
show
up
in
year,
17
and
18..
J
So
really
what
I
found
this
case
boils
down
to
is
when
you're.
Looking
at
a
stabilized
history,
if
you're
looking
at
the
last
two
years,
obviously
you'll
get
a
bit
different
picture
than
if
you're
looking
at
the
last
three
years,
our
revision
column,
I
came
about
in
reflection
of
the
operating
year,
2019
zion
e
that
was
submitted,
and
we
noted
that
again,
we
didn't
feel
that
we
were
off
on
our
revenue
projection
as
much
as
we
were
a
bit
low
on
the
operating
expense
side.
J
When
we
looked
at
the
three
year
history,
we
did
smooth
that
out
and
projected
our
operating
expenses
a
bit
higher
to
just
over
58.25
percent,
a
very
modest
income,
projection,
increase
of
0.56
or
6
tenths
of
one
percent
very
much
in
line
with
last
year's
increase
of
1.5
percent.
J
J
I
think
the
board
is
familiar,
but
just
so
we
reiterate
that
fact.
The
county
uses
the
guidelines
in
lieu
of
information
that
we
receive
from
the
ownership,
either
in
ines
or
internal
documents.
Or
what
have
you?
So
we
don't
want
there
to
be
a
belief
that
we
just
apply
the
expenses
or
the
guideline
information
blindly.
J
This
is
used
in
lieu
of
information
that
we
don't
have
from
the
owners.
In
this
case,
we
received
guyanese
for
the
last
four
years,
so
looking
at
the
actual
operating
history
makes
more
sense
to
us,
given
that
again,
as
ms
bohrmann
noted,
the
operating
income
statement
included
3.4
for
reserve
for
replacement,
we're
happy
to
use
the
3.9
percent
that
was
implied
by
the
guideline
book,
but
in
regards
to
the
operating
expenses,
we
are
going
to
rely
upon
what
has
been
operating
historically
at
the
property.
J
So
again,
if
we're
looking
at
a
three
year,
average
17
18
19,
we
saw
that
the
property
operated
at
5
million,
158
or
again
58.9
percent
we're
at
five
one.
Five.
Four
fifty
eight
point
two
five
percent
very
much
in
line
again
with
that
the
operating
performance
of
the
last
three
years
and
very
much
the
same
thing.
If
you
look
at
the
three-year
noi
17,
18
and
19,
you
get
a
three-year
average
of
3.480
a
good
bit
above
where
we
are
projected
at
in
column.
J
I
so
again,
while
it
looks
like
there's
a
drop-off,
dramatic,
drop-off
in
decline
and
not
outbreak
income,
it's
more
to
do
with
the
property
as
properties
operating
expenses
being
stabilized,
where
you
can
see
again
looking
at
the
revenue
side,
they're
doing
a
fairly
stabilized
revenue
projection
across
the
board,
17
18
19..
J
So
again
we
do
believe
that
our
revenue
projection
on
the
revision
column.
I
is
very
much
in
line
with
the
property's
historical
operating
performance.
We
do
believe
that
again,
if
you
look
at
the
three-year
operating
history,
for
operating
expenditures
were
in
line
with
that
and
our
revision
and
that
led
to
a
net
operating
income.
That
again
is
in
line
with
a
three-year
operating
performance.
J
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Both
questions
from
board
members.
A
A
No
okay,
mr
chicas,
do
you
have
anything
else?
You
need
to
tell
us
about
this.
J
No
ma'am
again,
it's
really
just
a
matter
of
looking
at
the
three-year
history,
as
opposed
to
just
the
last
two,
given
that
it's
an
infancy
of
its
growth,
the
ascendancy
of
its
growth
projection.
J
We
do
believe
that
the
revision,
as
indicated
in
column,
I
should
be
confirmed
at
40
million
250
3
400..
Thank
you.
I
Three
years
on
its
statements,
so
I
think
that
that's
that's
pretty
clear:
the
decline
in
income
of
almost
three
or
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
per
year
in
terms
of
operating
expenses,
as
most
of
you
know,
when
a
building
is
new,
many
of
the
operating
expenses
or
many
of
the
repairs
and
maintenance
items
are
covered
under
builder's
warranty.
I
B
I
Warranty
so
that
is
obviously
significant:
the
consideration
of
actual
income,
as
mr
chica
said,
we're
certainly
happy
to
have
the
actual
income
considered,
which
would
be
the
amounts
in
column,
h
and
j
capitalized.
I
In
any
event,
the
expenses
exceed
are
at
60,
almost
62
percent,
and
the
county
is
58,
given
that
the
property's
expenses
are
at
approximately
62
percent
and
the
guidelines
are
about
60.4.
I
If
I
recall
correctly
that
there
is
no
reason
that
those
expenses
should
be
reduced
below
the
actual
amount.
In
terms
of,
I
think
that
the
evidence
is
clear.
The
projections
at
this
property
or
the
actual
income
at
this
property
has
declined.
I
A
Thank
you
just
among
the
board
members
now.
E
I
see
the
revenues
throughout
the
page
three,
it's
pretty
steady,
both
actual
other
than,
of
course,
the
first
part
year
actual
and
projected-
and
I
see
very
percentage-wise
very
little
difference.
Operating
expenses,
of
course,
is
indeed
a
different
issue,
and
to
me
I
mean
it's
a
fairly
new
property
and
some
years
are
going
to
be
bigger
than
others.
Some
are
going
to
be
relatively,
very
modest
because
it's
a
new
building,
I
don't
see
any
any.
E
D
Yeah
ken
I
was-
I
was
looking
at
that
too,
and
so
I
mean
a
lot
of
times.
We'll
do
the
three-year
average
instead
of
just
taking
one
year
and
cherry-picking
it
and
saying
this
is
what
the
building's
worth
based
on
one
year
and
I
did
the
three
year
average
noi
and
it
was
slightly
higher
than
what
the
department
had
in
their
revision.
D
So
I
think
that
that
chris
is
probably
where
he
needs
to
be.
G
No,
not
really,
I
agree
with
everything
I
did
it
pretty
much
the
same.
I
did
an
average
like
we
normally
would
do
the
three
year
and
the
same
as
you
know
what
mrs
borman
was
saying
to
focus
on
those
three
years
and
I
come
up
with
the
same
numbers.
The
mr
chicago,
the
expenses.
A
E
I
move
that
we
accept
the
county's
revised
assessed
value
of
40
million
250
3
400.
A
K
K
Sorry
column,
I.
A
A
I
A
Okay,
so
you
was
there
no
agreement
or
I
guess
you
offered
it,
but
miss
foreman.
You
didn't
originally
take
it,
so
we
need
to
vote
on
it.
I
guess
I
think
that
would
be
correct.
Okay,
all
right,
I
will
move
to
accept
the
agreement
to
the
county's
revised
number
of
31
million
127
400.,
and
I
have
a
second
by
mr
medskin,
all
in
favor
aye
aye
opposed.
Okay,
that's
five
to.
G
B
I
Madam
chairwoman,
I
have
a
question
concerning
a
case
that
was
heard
a
week
ago
and
I
think
irvin
is
on
the
phone
or
is
on
the
meeting.
I
There
is
no
that
building
is
on
a
separate
rpc
and
I
didn't
know
if
the
board's
minutes
needed
to
be
changed
to
reflect
that
or
if
the
needed
to
be
changed
to
reflect
that
that
there
was
a
building
that
is,
was
assumed
to
be
on
the
property.
That
was
not
in
fact
on
the
property.
A
Okay,
well
first,
I
would
say
with
meeting
two
times
a
week
in
multiple
cases,
I
have
no
idea
what
case
you're
actually
even
talking
about
so
I
think
it
would
be
more
appropriate
rather
than
just
to
try
to
discuss
this
openly
and
not
have
the
case
in
front
of
you
to
put
the
comments
in
writing
and
you
can
send
it
to
me
and
I
will
look
into
it
and
see,
but
the
actual
board
minutes
don't
reflect
any
description
of
the
property.
Just
discusses
the
vote.
So
the
short
answer
to
your
question
is:
no.