►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing July 20, 2021
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
Tuesday
july
20th
2021,
this
is
the
arlington
county,
virginia
board
of
equalization
hearing.
There
are
five
cases
on
the
agenda.
The
first
case
is
rpc
economic
unit,
3501
102h
property
located
at
1700
richmond
highway.
We
have
mr
blake
warren
and
mr
jeremy
chitlick
representing
the
owners.
Mr
warren.
I
believe
you
can
go
ahead
and
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
If
you,
if
the
board
would
please
turn
to
page,
I
believe
it
is
53
of
110
of
the
boards
or
the
memo
response
package
from
that
from
the
county.
You'll
find
our
summary
of
facts.
This
is
the
marriott
crystal
gateway.
It's
located
1700
richmond
highway.
It
was
originally
assessed
at
101
million.
Seventy
seven
thousand
eight
hundred
it's
144
thousand
a
room
for
2021..
B
B
B
The
the
property
is,
is
in
close
proximity
to
the
crystal
city
metro
station,
as
I'm
sure
all
of
you
realize
and
if
you've
heard
any
cases
regarding
hotels
this
year
for
the
2021
assessments,
hotels
were
just
absolutely
crushed
last
year
due
to
covid
total
revenue.
At
this
subject,
property
for
2020
decreased
a
total
of
79
year-over-year
from
2019.
B
A
total
of
45
million
139
128
dollar
drop
from
in
the
county's
current
2021
assessment
model
for
the
subject.
They
are
estimating
a
stabilized
total
revenue
of
57
million.
Ninety
five
thousand
five,
eighty
eight,
which
is
just
a
hundred
and
seventy
thousand
dollars
below,
was
actually
reported
in
2019
you'll,
see
that
this
property
was
fairly
stabilized.
Looking
at
page
four,
the
the
ine
summary
sheet
from
2017
to
the
most
recent
reporting
year
in
2020,
58
million
400
000
in
2017,
56
million
in
2018
57
million
in
2019.
B
And
then
you
see
the
big
drop
due
to
cove
in
in
the
lockdown
of
12
million
in
2020..
B
It
is
also
important
to
note
that
the
the
county
is
estimating
higher
total
miscellaneous
income
of
2
854
779,
which
is
approximately
141
466
above
what
was
reported
in
the
most
stabilized
reported
in
your
year
of
2019
before
the
pandemic.
B
There's
really
in
these
cases
for
except
for
for
one
of
them.
We
have
five
hotel
cases
to
present
to
you
today.
These
are
going
to
be
basically
come
down
to
one
thing:
one
main
issue
across
all
of
them
and
it's
with
regards
to
the
county's
adjustment
below
the
line
for
covid
their
adjustments
currently
for
2021
that
they're
recommending
it's
with
regard
to
the
reserves,
so
the
actual
reserves
that
have
historically
been
reported
at
the
subject
property
of
the
last
several
years
is
five
percent
of
gross
revenue.
B
If
you
see
in
column
d,
a
reserve
rate
of
4.5
percent,
that's
been
revised
to
5
in
column,
f,
their
revision
column,
and
that's
that's
the
change
that
you're,
seeing
now
the
counties
below
the
line
adjustment
for
covid
of
37
million
one
hundred
twelve
thousand
one
thirty
two
that
is
calculated
based
on
their
guidelines
and
you
can
find
that
in
there
in
their
guidelines
and
you
can
find
it
in
our
page
at
least
7
50
page
57
of
110
you'll
see
a
clipping
of
the
guidelines
for
the
coba
19
adjustments
and
for
full
service
hotel,
which
this
property
is
they're,
taking
a
below
the
line,
deduction
of
65
percent
of
the
total
revenue
estimated
and
that's
how
they're
calculating
that
37
million.
B
So
while
we
feel
the
the
county
overall
methodology
of
of
consideration
for
covid
and
the
impact
it
had
on
2020
is
correct
in
in
stabilizing
a
an
income
approach
and
then
taking
adjustment
below
the
line
you
know
similar
to
to
you
know
what
we
see
with
other
properties
is
when
we
appeal
for
a
current
year
assessment,
we
provide
the
most
recent
information
and
their
estimation
of
65
percent
is
is
just
below
what
the
actual
lost
revenue
was
for
this
property
we've
shown
evidence
in
the
2020
profit
and
loss
statement,
survey
that
was
submitted
and
certified
by
the
owner
that
the
actual
loss
revenue
from
19
to
20
was
in
fact
45
million.
B
So
we're
actually
we're
asking
the
board
take
consideration
to
that
fact.
The
other
main
difference
is
with
regard
to
the
cap
rate.
The
the
county
did
increase
their
cap
rate
from
2019.
B
Excuse
me
from
2020
to
2021
in
2020
they
were
using
an
8.04.
The
2021
assessment
is
being
calculated
using
a
cap
rate.
That's
50
basis
points
higher
8.54.
B
B
Our
our
cap
rate
that
we're
using
right
now
is
actually
200
basis
points
above
what
was
used
in
the
2020
assessment,
and
that
is
supported
by
rerc
reports
that
we've
supplied
from
the
change
in
19
to
20
we're
seeing
anywhere
from
from
80
to
100
basis
points
increase.
B
This
is
not
a
one-year
blip
where
these
properties
are
going
to
be
back
up
and
running
and
fully
stabilized
as
you'll
see
next
year,
when
we,
when
we
supply
the
2021
profit
and
loss
statement,
you
know
I
know,
traveling
has
opened
back
up
and
and
personal
vacations
have
really
picked
up,
but
I
think
what
you're
seeing
is
is
business
travel
has
changed
and
it's
going
to
be
a
change
that
you're
going
to
see
impacted
in
the
future,
with
these
kind
of
hybrid
models
of
a
lot
of
employers,
employing
a
work
from
home
strategy
and
and
we're
not
seeing
as
much
business
travel,
and
I
don't
think
that's
gonna
pick
back
up
at
any
point
soon.
B
So
again,
the
main
consideration
here
that
we're
hoping
the
board
considers
is
the
actual
lost
revenue
that
we've
supplied
in
the
2020
profit
and
loss
in
comparison
to
the
2019.
The
county
has
made
an
adjustment
for
65
of
lost
revenue,
but
again,
what
we're
actually
here
and
able
to
show
you
when
we
go
through
the
appeals
process
is
what
was
the
actual
loss
revenue,
so
we're
hoping
the
board
gives
consideration
to
that
fact.
Jeremy,
I
don't
know
if
there's
anything,
you
want
to
add.
C
The
only
reason
the
hotel
did,
12
million
in
revenue
is
because
it
was
open
for
two
and
a
half
months
before
the
real
covet
impact
was
felt.
So
if
you
calculate
that
you'll
see
that's
essentially
two
and
a
half
months
worth
of
normal
operations,
and
then
they
were
just
decimated
for
the
rest
of
the
year
and
that's
where
it
was
as
of
january
1st.
C
C
I
think
that
would
make
some
sense,
but
we
were
very
aggressive
or
not
aggressive
at
all
with
our
income
and
the
reason
we
was
because
we
figured
the
higher
income
would,
if
you're
going
to
use
that
higher
income
you're
going
to
have
to
use
much
higher
risk,
which
is
why
our
cap
rate's
higher
and
the
county
essentially
accepted
our
higher
income
but
said,
but
we're
still
going
to
use
the
lower
risk
of
the
lower
cap
rate.
So
it's
kind
of
they
took
one,
but
not
not
the
whole
part
of
the
argument.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chicas,
for
the
county.
Please.
D
Good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
mr
burn
good
morning,
mr
chitlik,
we
are
talking
about
crystal
gateway,
marriott,
essentially
surmised
nicely
by
mr
warren.
We
do
believe
this
was
a
property
that
was
fairly
stabilized.
As
you
can
see.
In
the
comments
section
of
our
summary
sheet,
the
owners
spent
over
32
million
dollars
on
renovations,
guest
rooms,
bathrooms
conference
rooms,
obviously
expecting
a
healthy
return
on
investments,
given
its
placements
across
the
street,
from
the
metro
and
approximately
one
block
away
from
amazon
hq2.
D
D
D
If
we
use
guideline
f
and
e,
and
then
we
see
that
historically
they've
operated
under
a
different
number,
we'll
generally
switch
to
that
different
number.
If
it's
in
their
favor
so
again
we're
as
the
same
noi
in
our
vision,
as
is
the
appellant
again,
as
mr
warren
noted,
it's
really
a
difference
of
some
150
basis,
points
for
the
cap
rate
and
then
a
larger
covid
adjustment
below
the
line.
D
We
want
to
highlight
the
fact
that,
obviously
making
a
150
basis
point
adjustment
to
covet
to
account
for
covid,
but
then
also,
you
know,
adding
almost
eight
million
dollars
of
below
the
line
adjustment
caused
the
year-over-year
assessment
to
drop
by
over
50
percent,
which
we
just
believe
is
a
bit
drastic.
D
None
2020
not
withstanding.
Ours,
we
believe,
was
a
more
reasonable
35
percent
drop
year
over
year,
again
representative
of
what
happened
in
a
one
time.
One
one
year
deal
as
mr
chitwick
pointed
out
in
the
first
three
years:
three
months
of
the
year,
they
were
actually
doing
quite
well.
D
D
We
do
believe
that
they
were
on
their
way
to
them
again
in
2020.,
given
that
what
we
saw
in
2020
was
a
devastation
to
the
hotel
economy,
not
just
this
particular
property.
We
do
believe
that
using
the
broad
swath
metrics
that
we
use
in
this
case
again
negative
65
for
all
full
service.
All
select
service
makes
more
sense
in
a
mass
appraisal
standpoint.
D
If
you
were
to
look
at
this
as
a
fee
appraiser,
it
might
make
more
sense
to
isolate
one
component
and
one
year's
drop
in
revenue
as
the
appellates
did.
But
again
we
do
believe
that
making
that
adjustment
as
well
as
150
basis
points
to
the
cap
rate
without
a
support.
I
know
they
mentioned
re-rc,
but
I
don't
believe
vari
rc
mentioned
150
basis,
point
edition,
as
mr
warren
did
note,
we
already
had
accounted
for
that
somewhat
in
a
50
basis.
D
Points
edition
from
2020
to
2021.,
we
did
account
for
the
bid,
hence
the
0.043
cap
rate.
On
the
revision.
D
Again,
we
did
delay
a
below
the
line
adjustment
of
a
negative
65
percent
of
the
stabilized
revenue,
and
we
believe
that
the
revision
of
97
million
685
700
is
prudent.
It's
fair
and
most
important,
it's
equitable
with
all
the
full-service
properties
that
face
the
same
dire
circumstances
that
the
appellants
did
again.
This
is
35
drop
year
over
year.
We
do
believe
this
is
fair.
It's
prudent
and
warranted
irving.
Do
you
have
anything
to
add.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chairman.
This
is
for
mr
warren.
F
In
your
column,
g
you've
done
two
things:
you've
upped
the
cap
rate
and
up
the
the
covet
adjustment.
Isn't
that
double
dipping.
B
I
mean
I
don't
think
so.
The
the
county's
done
the
same
in
in
their
column
as
well.
They've
increased
the
cap
rate
for
the
risk,
but
then
they've
also
taken
a
blow
the
line
deduction
for
the
the
lost
revenue
as
well.
I
realize
our
cap
rate
probably
looks
aggressive,
especially
based
off
of
the
support
that
we've
we've
acknowledged,
and
I
know
it's
it's
difficult
to
get
cap
rate
movement
at
the
board
when
it's
the
board
of
equalization
and
a
cap
rate,
that's
equalized
across
all
property
types.
B
I
think,
what's
what's
really
important
about
our
column
g?
Is
that
covert
adjustment
below
the
line
again
the
county
when
they're
doing
mass
appraisal?
You
know
they
they
before
they
had
any
of
the
the
final
full
year.
2020
calendar
year,
p,
l
statements
said:
okay
for
all,
first
full
service
hotels,
we're
going
to
take
a
little
adjustment
of
65
percent
of
the
revenue.
B
But
again
as
we
come
in
here
with
you
know,
apartments
and
other
things
as
we
go
through
the
appeals
process,
we're
able
to
provide
the
most
updated
information.
What
we've
been
able
to
to
show
them
is
that
the
actual
lost
revenue
year
over
year
from
19
to
20
is
it's
not
37
million.
It
was
45
million,
so
so
we're
really
hoping
that
the
board
takes
into
consideration
that
that
lost,
rent.
F
Let
me
let
me
expand
upon
upon
this,
that
the
cap
rate
is
the
cap
rate,
exists
to
to
reflect
risk,
and,
and
but
the
risk
is,
it
seems
to
me-
is
addressed
by
the
covet
reduction
and
so
the
it
seems
to
me
as
one
or
the
other.
Not
both
the.
C
Cap
rate
is
a
product
of
the
risk
going
forward
based
off
the
income
that
we're
using
the
coba
deduct.
Deduction
that
we've
taken
is
really
just
the
factual
loss
from
column
e.
That
is,
the
the
absolute
number
of
what
is
lost
from
column
e,
to
get
us
to
the
difference
between
essentially
column
e
and
column
f.
So
one
is
the
factual
loss
from
the
past
that
we're
using
looking
forward.
The
other
is
the
risk
associated
with
using
a
essentially
a
12
million
noi
on
a
property
that
just
lost
two
million
dollars
as
a
go
forward.
C
F
Madam
chairman,
I'm
probably
focusing
in
too
much
detail,
but
we
got
four
cases
that
are.
It
seems
to
me
almost
precisely
the
same,
and
I
think
that
what
we
do
on
this
will
direct
what
we
do
on
the
others.
But
again
I
I
contend
that
the
athlete
you
know
we're
taking
into
account
covid
was
a
really
bad
year.
Okay,
we
got
all
that
revenue
went
down,
we've
addressed
the
loss
of
revenue,
but
the
risk
going
forward
isn't
necessarily
based
upon
that
one-year
drop
in
revenue.
So
what
what
I'm
struggling
with
is?
Why
do
both?
G
So
I
guess
I'm
asking
the
department
to
confirm
that
the
65
for
full
and
select
service
hotels
that
you're
using
as
a
deduction
below
the
line
is
based
on
information
that
you
got
before
you
got
the
whole
massive
in
input
from
those
affected.
Hotels.
D
Or
not
that
that
is
correct,
mr
mitch,
can
you
have,
as
as
we've
said
before,
the
guidelines
obviously
have
to
be
printed
and
compiled
sometime
in
november
december,
so
any
information
we
get
in
april
march
or
april
of
2021?
Is
you
know
four
or
five
months
removed
from
these?
The
guys.
G
Just
to
expand
almost
to
nauseam
it's
just
not
possible
to
get
the
best
data
based
on
the
inputs
from
the
various
target
hotels,
you
just
kind
of
do
what
you
got
to
do
like,
like
usual
correct,
yeah.
Okay,
thanks.
H
I
Right
yeah,
I'm
just
curious,
because
this
is
kind
of
a
strange
layout
of
this
building.
The
the
square
footage
I've
got
on.
One
of
the
county's
sheets
is
500
000,
more
or
less,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
that
included,
garage
square
footage
or
if
that
was
just
paul
hotel
square.
D
Footage
yeah:
to
be
honest,
I
do
not
know
if
you're
talking
about
you're
you're,
referencing,
the
worksheet
itself,
the
2021
commercial
property,
worksheet.
D
You
know
without
trying
to
sort
of
pass
it
on
to
to
others.
It's
just.
It
depends
on
how
this
information
is
when
those
remarks
are
put
in
it
makes
reference
to
total
area
phase
one,
so
I'm
just
not
sure
yeah.
I
don't
know.
I
D
Yes,
ma'am
just
kind
of
hopping
on
what
mr
austin
has
spoken
about.
You
know
we
do
believe
in
a
sense
that
adding
150
basis
points
as
well
as
a
full
accounting
of
the
difference
between
2019
and
2020's
numbers.
Do
quote,
unquote
account
for
a
double
dipping.
D
If
you
were
to
just
take
the
below
the
line
adjustment
from
the
appellant
but
use
the
county's
cap
rate,
which
again
is
applied
equitably
to
all
full
service
hotels,
you
would
end
up
with
the
number
21
million
dollars
higher
than
what
the
appellate
suggests
and
I
think
that's
again,
not
prudent.
That's
how
you
get
over
50
percent
a
year
over
year
adjustment.
D
We
do
believe
that
the
negative
65
percent
total
revenue
adjustment,
which
equated
to
a
35
percent
drop
year-over-year
again,
is
more
prudent,
equitable
with
other
full-service
hotels
and
fare
for
the
one-year
adjustment
that
corona
was
covered.
Was
that
being
said,
we
do
believe
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
the
wise
valley
of
97
million
six
hundred.
Eighty-Five
thousand.
E
One
of
the
things
also
to
add,
since
cap
rate,
has
been
the
subject
of
discussion
during
this
case.
The
appellant
continually
points
out.
The
rarc
document,
which
we
also
looked
at
rerc,
is
the
national
publication
of
na
segmented
by
hotels.
Only
we
also
looked
at
pwc
publication,
which
has
the
hotel
market
broken
out
by
hotel
tight,
similar
to
how
we
value
hotels.
E
If
you
look
at
what
we
looked
at
in
pwc,
they
have
an
actual
section
about
full
service,
lodging
a
section
about
luxury
upper
scale
lodging
and
a
full
a
section
about
selective
service
logic.
These
are
some
of
the
pages
in
which
we
discuss
what
we
reviewed.
Rather
when
we
determined
to
increase
our
cap
rate,
we
looked
at
rerc,
but
we
also
looked
at
pwc,
which
again
has
a
section
dedicated
to
each
hotel
type
and
not
just
lump
all
hotels
into
one
category,
and
you
definitely
disagree
with
the
200
basis.
B
However,
the
county
has
increased
their
their
cap
rate
by
50
basis
points
for
the
risk
profile
of
the
property
moving
forward
and
then
added
a
deduction
below
the
line
for
their
estimate
of
lost
rent
during
during
coven
and
again,
what
we
would
direct
the
the
board
to
is
the
actual
loss
rent
that
we've
provided
in
the
most
recent
2020
p
l,
which
is
approximately
eight
million
dollars
more
at
45
million
139
128.
B
So
asking
at
the
the
board.
Consider
the
the
most
up-to-date
information
consider
consideration
of
the
lost
revenue
for
2020.
C
What
mr
lawson
mentioned
was:
is
it
a
double
dip
to
either
take
the
deduct
and
the
cap
rate?
We
don't
feel
it
is,
but
we
also
don't
feel
that
the
county
did
either
of
those
things
because
they
didn't
take
the
true
deduct.
Now
that
they've
learned
at
the
first
level
that
the
deduction
had
been
45.1
million,
they
still
only
use
the
37.1
million.
They
originally
used.
G
Where
he's
very
frustrated
about
concerning
the
very
low
vaccination
rates
for
the
people
that
he
worries
about
professionally
and
he
called
kovid
a
natural
disaster
happening
in
slow
motion,
and
that
stuck
with
me
for
that
kate,
for
that
instance,
but
also
for
this
case
and
and
the
subsequent
cases
that
turning
on
a
dime
in
mass
appraisal
in
an
urban
area
like
this
with
lots
of
density,
is
just
not
possible.
G
I'm
as
sympathetic
as
I
am
to
this
and
and
other
appellants,
especially
hotel
appellates,
because
they
were
so
much
more
devastated
than
pretty
much
anybody
else.
I
I
I
gotta
go
with
the
elements
of
mass
appraisal
that,
based
on
the
information
as
an
example
that
the
assessor
had
in
december
and
not
in
january
february,
we've
got
to
go
with
the
best
guess
being
sensitive
to
dramatically,
but
maybe
not
necessarily
as
dramatic
as
it
turned
out,
loss
of
revenue
and
and
the
opposite.
G
You
know
increasing
the
capacity
we
just
can't
do
all
this.
I'm
thinking
in
this
slow
motion
vein,
I'm
thinking
for
next
year,
when
we're
sitting
here,
there's
still
going
to
be
a
deduction
below
the
line.
G
2021
is
not
a
polar
opposite
of
2020
by
any
means,
still
very,
very
slow,
first
third
or
certain
of
the
year,
and
probably
two
thirds
are
going
to
be
slower
and
we're
gonna
have
to
do
this
exercise
again,
and
the
the
various
hotel
owners
and
other
commercial
properties
are
gonna
have
to
just
bear
with
the
process
that
they
can't
be
tailor
made
for
their
individual
legitimate
uses
as
a
as
a
commercial
one,
one
related
point
as
a
commercial
realtor,
I
pay
a
lot
of
attention
to
office
use
and
users
and
their
behaviors,
and
I
thought
the
appellants
point
that
good
chance
that
business
travel,
hotel
stays
is
not
going
to
come
back
anytime,
maybe
ever
to
the
level
that
it
was
in
2018
or
19..
G
The
jury
is
still
out
on
that,
but
call
after
paul
after
paul
says.
Certainly,
there's
gonna
be
a
lot
less
office,
at
least
for
people,
a
lot
more
sharing
a
lot
more
virtual
and
and
that's
going
to
lead
over
to
visiting
customers
and
members
of
congress
and
so
forth,
and
so
this
is
going
to
play
out
for
a
while.
I
don't
think
we
can
fix
this.
This
year,
all
at
once
with
perfect
information.
Thank
you.
F
B
F
You
know
both
the
applicant
and
the
county
for
presenting
this.
So
clearly
I
mean
our,
it
seems
to
me.
Our
sole
decision
is
is
the
bottom
line?
Is
a
below-the-line
deduction
adequate
period?
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
the
only
thing
we
decide
here
today
and
what
we
decide
on
this
will
carry
forward
to
the
next
at
least
three
cases.
F
F
J
Yes,
go
ahead,
barnes,
you
know
I
was,
I
understand
the
appellant's
position
concerning
the
eight
million
dollars,
but
are
we
prepared
to
now
go
through
and
adjust
the
county
on
every
hotel
or
all
these
because
they
picked
a
date?
J
They
picked
a
number
and
was
that
they
thought
was
accurate
and
would
have
to
look
at
each
every
one
of
these
projects
or
properties
and
and
make
that
same
kind
of
adjustment.
At
this
point
it
is
there's
an
equalization,
that's
in
existence,
and
it
will
reflect
next
year
again
when
we
look
at
it.
Based
on
this
year's,
I
do
understand
the
appellant's
position
with
with
that.
You
know
that
additional
8
million-
but
I
think-
and
this
is
you
know
from
an
equalization
standpoint-
I
don't.
F
But
but
mark
it
isn't
I
mean,
I
think
it's
somewhat
incumbent
upon
the
ownership
to
decide.
You
know
this
is
just
not
right
what
the
county's
done,
and
so
I
don't
think
it's
necessarily
up
to
us
to
go
and
fix
every
hotel.
That's
in
this
situation.
I
think
it's
up
to
the
owners
to
bring
it
forward
and
say
whoa
time
out,
the
county,
estimated
65
were
actually
at
80
and
therefore
an
adjustment
should
be
made
here.
F
You
know
and-
and
I
live
at
a
hotel-
it's
a
shared
building,
hotels
below
us
and
for
I
don't
know,
ten
months
last
year,
nine
months
last
year
that
parking
lot
was
empty
and-
and
I
can't
imagine,
any
investor
buying
any
hotel
for
anything
to
be
honest,
and
yet
we
can't.
We
can't
do
that.
G
I'd
like
to
expand
on
mark's
point
just
a
bit
about
equalization,
that's
what
was
in
the
back
of
my
mind.
I
didn't
voice
it.
He
did,
but
it
wouldn't
for
today,
if
we
reduce
this
one
to
apparently
what
the
income
loss
was.
We
could
certainly
finish
that
today,
with
the
other
related
cases,
because
they're
so
very,
very
much
the
same.
G
What
I'm
concerned
about
is
I'm
making
this
up
and
just
make
my
point:
last
week's
hotels,
next
week's
hotels
and,
more
importantly,
the
hotels
that
did
not
appeal
now,
all
of
a
sudden,
we
have
different,
you
know
if
you
appeal,
if
you
squeak,
you
get
in
this
case
a
legitimate
relief,
and
if
you
don't
you
don't
I
don't
know
that.
That's
the
way
we
ought
to
do
it.
We
need
to
treat
everyone
the
same.
G
If,
if
the
assessor
makes
a
real
mistake
on
an
impeller
clearly,
we
should
should
remediate
it,
but
not
for
a
whole
class
of
of
facilities
as
as
sympathetic
as
I
am,
I
think
it's
just
once
again
going
to
take
place
over
a
couple
of
years.
Lastly,
of
course,
the
the
the
assessment
has
gone
down
by
more
than
a
third.
It's
not
that
they're
getting
no
relief.
G
F
I
think
ken
and
then
I'm
gonna
drop
it.
Madam
chairman,
I'll
just
make
one
more
comment.
I
I
think
that
maybe
it's
because
I'm
a
lawyer
I
don't
know,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
if
you
have
an
assumption
in
the
mass
appraisal
and
that
assumption
is
not
right,
then
we
can't
say
well:
we've
got
to
equalize
and
even
though
there's
a
mistake,
we're
going
to
honor
that
mistake
and
that's
going
to
be
where
we
end
up.
F
H
H
But
I
think
you
know
that
was
the
question
that
mr
masking
asked
and
yeah
and,
like
all
the
other
guidelines,
you
know
they
come
from
numbers
that
are
reported
and
what's
available
at
the
time
to
pro
you
know,
to
produce
the
guidelines.
H
I
don't
think
that
we
can
and
I
don't
think
the
assumption
that
the
county
is
making
like
mr
lawson
says
that
you
know
they're
incorrect,
it's
just.
H
I
don't
think
the
penalty
is
saying
that
they're
incorrect
they're
just
saying
you
know
for
this
year
we
would
like
to
use
the
actual
below
the
line.
The
deduction
number,
but
you
know
we're
using
stabilized
numbers
and
to
just
pick
and
choose
what
numbers
we're
going
to
use
for
a
particular
case.
I
don't
think
that's
the
right
way
to
do
it.
I
don't
think
we've
done
it
before
and
I
don't
think
we
should
start.
H
I'm
convinced
that
the
guidelines
that
the
account
is
using
are
based
on
numbers
that
they
obtained
and
they
came
up
with
a
percentage
that
it
should
be
appropriate
for
each
category.
So
you
know
I
don't
I'm
I'm
okay
with
the
revised
assessment.
The
way
it
is,
I
think
the
cap
rate
is
proper
for
all
the
full
service,
hotels
and
the
percentage
of
deductions.
H
You
know
what
they
came
up
with
this
year
and
to
make
a
deduction
based
on
egypt
appeal
just
for
this
year,
based
on
actual
numbers.
I
don't
think
it
would
be
equalizing
to
to
the
rest
of
the
hotels.
So
I'm
okay
with
it.
I
I
would
support
a
reduction.
The
way
barnes
has
come
up
with.
I
think
that's
fair
on
this
particular
property.
I
think
for
hotels,
you
probably
I
could
get
behind
the
county's
cap
rate.
I
think
others
that
are
not
in
amazon
right
at
their
back
door
are
probably
not
going
to
get
the
type
of
investment
treatment
that
that
this
one
would.
I
So
if
this
was
outside
of
that
neighborhood,
I
would
probably
support
the
the
appellant's
cap
rate,
but
I
know
that
there's
some
embedded
value
in
bristol
city
that
the
investment
community
sees
as
well,
which
is
supported
by
you,
know
the
one
or
two
sales
that
we
have
americana
hotel.
I
wish
the
county
would
go
outside
and
look
at
more
sales,
but
there
really
weren't
a
lot.
So
there's
not
there's
not
much.
You
can
do
there.
So
I'd.
C
J
J
J
I
Yeah
I
mean
mark,
I'm
probably
more
aggressive,
I
mean
I
would.
I
would
actually
support
the
full
appellants
proposal
with
the
cap
rate
increase
and
everything
the
only
issue
I
have
with
that
is,
then
you
start
falling
significantly
below
replacement
cost.
So
I
think,
there's
a
there's
a
backstop
on
the
value
that
you're
not
going
to
get
all
the
way
down
to
68
in
in
any
kind
of
orderly
sale,
somebody's
going
to
pick
that
up
for
a
lot
higher,
but
if
this
was
actually
marketed
property.
I
I
Right
and
if
you
want
to
look
at
this
property
is
actually
a
really
good
example,
because
I
believe
it
sold
in
2006
for
a
hundred
million
dollars
right
and
and
at
that
time,
hotel.
I'm
I'm
probably
I'm
going
off
memory
here.
I
So
don't
quote
me
entirely,
but
you
know:
hotel
cap
rates
were
probably
around
seven
or
eight
and
between
that
that
time
in
2009
they
jumped
up
to
12
and
a
half,
and
it
took
four
or
five
years
to
get
back
down
below
that,
and
you
know,
as
as
as
the
the
government
kind
of
supported
lending
and
borrowing
and
all
that
for
the
next
decade
you
know
hotel
cap
rates
ended
up
going
down
into
the
sixes
and
some
of
them
even
into
the
fives
on
some
transactions
so
but
it
took
a
while.
I
So
there
was
a
four
five
year
period
where
you
know,
if
you
looked
at
it
on
paper,
the
the
owner
of
this
property
was
underwater.
I
I
Differently
than
the
capital,
the
assessments
never
never
went
down.
So
I
don't
really
know
how
that
why
that
didn't
track.
But
you
know
that's,
that's
you
know
over
a
decade
ago,
so
not
really
up
for
discussion.
A
Right
yeah,
my
only
concern
with
taking
the
you
know
the
appellant's
number
below
the
line.
Now
you've
got
an
adjusted
noi
and
you're
taking
it
from
a
lower
number.
I
mean
just
doing
quick
math.
A
If
you
took
the
original
assessment
and
took
that
same
number,
I
mean
you're
off
by
like
four
million
dollars,
which
I
don't
mean
to
sound
like.
Oh,
that's,
not
a
lot
of
money,
because
that
is
a
lot
of
money,
but
I
I
don't
feel
comfortable
doing
it.
I
I
think
the
revised
assessment
that
the
county's
done.
It
seems
more
fair
and
more
equalized,
and
you
know
the
65.
That
is
substantial.
F
J
A
I
guess
looking
at
you
know
where
it's
been.
I
think
mr
mats
can
make
the
point
I
can
get
back
to
it,
but
I
mean
the
original
assessment
is
dropping
from
nearly
150
million
to
97
million.
I
mean
that's
a
substantial
drop
for
a
one
year
and
I
realize
we're
going
to
go
back
and
look
at
this.
I
mean
the
appellant's
number
of
68
million.
Like
mr
huffman
said,
I
think
that's
far
too
low
I
mean.
Even
if
there
was
a
buyer
out
there,
they
would
not.
A
You
know
they
would
pay
more
than
68
million.
So
you
know
at
this
point
when
I
listen
to
the
the
two
sides,
I
would
think
that
the
97
million
is
more
reasonable.
J
Mary,
what
do
you
think
about
using
the
county's
cap
rate,
but
with
the
adjusted
noi
or
with
the
adjusted
number?
Excuse
me,
not
the
noi,
with
that
other
8
million
in
there
the
45.
I
And
I
would
say
the
county's
cap
rate
only
because
of
the
location
of
that
property.
That's
probably
justified.
G
Other
classes
of
real
property
that
we
look
at
and
I'm
thinking
particularly
apartment
buildings
and
vacancy
and
collection,
which
had
some
dramatic
twists
and
turns
this
year,
not
like
hotels,
income
but
still
dramatic.
We
have
guidelines
based
on
the
best
information.
The
county
could
gather
late
last
year
and
some
of
them
did
pretty
well
thinking
one
last
week
and
actually
came
in
under
the
guideline
for
vacancy
collection,
but
nonetheless
they
got
that
benefit
and
others
come.
You
know
percentage
points
as
as
a
percentage.
G
The
whole
thing
double
digit
additional
vacancy
and
collection
above
the
county
guideline,
but
we
don't
tailor
it
for
that
and
and
in
part,
because
covert
heard
of
them,
but
because
people
went
home
who
lived
in
paris,
basements
and
whatnot
during
the
year.
I
I
I
it
just
scares
me
to
take
individual,
dramatic,
one-off
changes
as.
G
People
already
said
before:
what
about
those
affected
properties
that
didn't
complain?
They
all
of
a
sudden
get
complains
the
wrong
word.
I
apologize
appeal.
I
didn't
mean
complaint
that
they
don't
get
the
benefit
of
this
one
off.
That
throws
things
way
out
of
whack.
I
you
know
we
might
as
well
just
do
everyone
individually
and
have
a
team
of
4
000
assessors
doing
all
this
stuff
on.
You
know
new
year's
eve
every
year
when
we,
whenever
the
the
ies
come
in,
I
I'm
very
as
sympathetic
as
I
am
I'm
very
uncomfortable,
with
picking
choosing.
F
Let
me
ask
chris
how
many
full
service
hotels
are
in
the
county,
10
12.
D
D
Yeah,
that's
18
that
was
yeah
as
of
january.
First
18,
full
service.
J
G
We're
cherry
picking
the
the
appellants
that
get
in
its
classification-
and
I
don't
mean-
and
not
the
others-
it's
too
bad.
It's
not
a
big
number
of
these
kinds
of
hotels
that
in
february
or
march,
given
that
they
have
nothing
else
to
do
early
in
the
year
the
staff
couldn't
have
gone
back
and
just
looked
at
the
actual
decreases
and
compared
against
their
their
educated
guesstimate
before
the
2021
entertainment,
but
they
didn't.
A
Yes,
they
could
it's
not
like
single-family
houses
where
there's
30
000
of
them
to
go
through.
You
know
it's
a
small
number,
but
they
didn't
this.
We
got
what
we
got
okay,
so
I'm
going
to
throw
some
numbers
out
there,
just
so
everybody's
singing
from
the
same
sheet.
So
if
the
difference
is
8
million,
26
996
that
would
make
depending
on
where
people
are,
the
county
is
obviously
at
97
685
700,
the
appellant's
at
68
732..
A
H
Again,
like
ken
was
saying
I
mean
I'm
not
really
comfortable,
making
an
extra
deduction
based
on
just
this
particular
case.
We
we're
gonna,
see
that
some
of
the
other
hotels,
you
know
they
have
no
complaint
on
the
below
the
line.
Deductions
so
just
to
satisfy
one
particular
case.
I
don't
think
it's
proper
to
just
start
picking
numbers
from
one
to
the
other.
You
know
I
think,
if
we're
going
to
stabilize
it,
we
should
use
some
of
the
guidelines
if
it's
necessary.
H
H
So
again,
I'm
okay
with
the
revised
assessment,
I
think,
like
you,
pointed
out
the
value
itself,
you
know
dropping
from
almost
150
million
from
last
year
to
this
year.
It
reflects
what
the
hotels
have
done.
So
again,
I'm
okay
with
the
revises.
A
A
A
A
So
you
got
one
there
because
you
know
like
I
said
this
is:
if
we're
not
in
agreement,
it's
going
back
to
the
original
assessment
so
and
I
don't
think
any
of
us
want
to
do
that.
So.
A
D
A
Opposed
hi,
so
it's
no
greg
and
no
farms.
So
it
is
five
to
two.
The
county's
revised
assessment
of
97
million
685
700,
confirmed.
C
Real
quick
before
we
start-
and
I
I
wanna
confirm
with
irving,
but
I
believe
in
all
these
cases,
column
f
is
the
revised,
not
a
test
that
was
done
at
the
first
level,
just
if
that
makes
any
difference
with
your
voting,
because,
as
you
made
the
comment,
if
we
don't
agree,
it
goes
to
the
original,
and,
I
believe
column
f
on
all
of
these
is
is
the
new
actual
assessment.
Is
that
correct.
D
Just
yeah
these
are
the
recommended
revisions
from
the
county.
D
A
C
I'm
going
to
start
this
one
quickly
and
then
kick
to
blake.
As
stated,
the
the
county
made
the
assumption
that
65
loss
is
correct
for
covid
and
now
that
they've
gotten
the
income
statements
they're
going
to
realize
that
it
appears
on
all
19
full
service
hotels.
That
number
was
too
low.
C
Although
we're
seeing
cases
where
the
value
dropped
by
40,
it
seems
dramatic,
the
income's
down
90
and
the
market
is
completely
on
its
head.
A
comment
was
made:
if
there
was
a
buyer
they'd
pay
more
than
this,
but
the
fact
is,
there
is
not
a
buyer.
These
properties,
it's
not
properties,
aren't
selling
because
there's
a
lack
of
buyers
out
there
there's
a
lack
of
interest
in
buying
a
asset
with
all
the
questions
and
in
order
to
buy
those,
it
would
take
cap
rates
that
we
haven't
seen
since
2010..
C
That
are
going
back
to
the
banks
that
are
foreclosing
and
then
either
being
run
going
to
auction
or
they're
figuring
out
what
to
do
with
them
they're
going
into
receivership.
C
So
in
a
case
like
this,
where
we,
what
we
do
on
an
apartment
building
is
point
out,
you
get
the
2020
information
and
we
use
the
2020
information
and
that
2020
information
is
then
made
to
make
a
change
at
the
board
of
equalization.
That's
new
information.
What
what
luckily
hasn't
happened
is
said.
Well,
we
can't
use
new
information
because
then
all
these
appeals
that
use
the
2020
we'd
have
to
go
back
and
fix
all
the
2019..
C
C
Now
this
isn't
as
dramatic
those
last
one,
the
losses,
weren't
12.1
million,
the
losses
were
13.6
million,
and
maybe
if
we
saw
that
in
the
first
one
it
said
well,
it's
a
one
and
a
half
million,
that's
not
as
big
of
a
pill
to
swallow
as
compared
to
if
they
were
all
eight
million.
I
understand
that
it
is
a
big
swallow,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
that's
the
correct
way
to
value
these
properties.
That's
the
correct
thing
to
do
now.
C
This
one's
also
crystal
city
which,
as
mr
hoffman
put
it
out,
gets
the
bump
from
from
the
amazon
effect,
but
we're
talking
about
the
amazon
effect
that
happens
in
years,
two
through
twenty
and
we're
looking
two
to
three
years
in
the
future.
But
in
this
we
can't
look
what's
happening
in
2021
for
the
losses
that
the
hotel's
incurring
and
what
the
new
norm
looks
like
the
new
norm
on
hotels.
I
think
we
can
all
agree
is
that
the
2021
income
will
not
look
anything
like
the
2019..
C
Yet
the
income
being
used
on
this
property
is
1500
more
than
the
2019
income,
and
it's
so
how
the
property
did
in
2019.
We're
saying
that's
how
we're
going
to
do
in
21,
but
we're
going
to
lose
65
percent
of
the
income,
even
though
we
lost
75
percent
of
the
income
last
year
and
the
risk
associated
with
that
is
about
10
more
or
about
8,
more
risky
than
it
was
the
year
prior,
because
50
base
points
might
seem
like
a
lot.
But
when
you
go
from
an
8
to
an
8.5,
that's
a
very
small
change.
C
Fairfax
county.
We
saw
hotels
go
down
by
over
50
across
the
board.
In
some
situations
we
had
a
hotel
that
went
from
160
million
to
60
million
we're
seeing
that
everywhere,
because
the
hotel
market
has
been
decimated
just
to
say
I
took
65,
that's
what
I
use
for
everything.
I
now
see
that
that
number
is
wrong.
C
Historically,
when
we
have
numbers
that
are
wrong
with
resenting
new
information,
the
board
has
been
overwhelming,
overwhelmingly
willing
to
say,
hey
this
number's
wrong.
Let's
make
the
change,
I
I
don't
understand
a
reluctancy
to
say
this
number
is
wrong,
but
we
can't
make
a
change
because
then
the
other
people
that
didn't
appeal
don't
have
the
right
to
get
a
change.
Now
this
owner
appeals
in
the
next
donor
appeal,
the
next
turner
appealed
and
I'm
sure
we're
not
the
only
five
of
the
nineteen
like
I
said,
all
nineteen
of
them
are
going
to
appeal.
C
Unless
they're
sleeping
behind
the
wheel
and
they've
already
lost
the
property,
they
don't
really
care
what
happens
to
the
taxes.
So
that's
my
soapbox,
my
first
soapbox
of
2021.,
potentially
my
last
book
is
mary
knows
probably
not
but
I'll.
Take
it
a
blank
to
talk
to
the
details
of
the
case,
but
what
it
comes
down
to
is.
I
think
we
all
universally
agree
that
the
65
percent
isn't
correct.
It's
just.
C
Can
we
change
it
or
should
it
or
can
you
change
it
or
should
it
be
changed,
and
I
think
this
is
another
example
to
show
the
last
case.
Wasn't
just
a
cherry
pick
this
case
and
if
you
want
to
fast
forward
to
the
next
case
into
barnes
question,
what
about?
Is
it
only
full
service?
Well,
we
have
a
courtyard
that's
coming
up
in
a
couple
cases,
and
that
was
off
too.
So
it's
all
the
hotels
are
all
on
the
65
percent.
We
have
no
support
of
why
65
percent
was
picked,
but
they
said
it's
65.
C
We
put
it
in
our
guidelines.
So
that's
what
it
is.
Unlike
normally
the
guidelines
come
from
everybody's
ines
come
together.
We
get
to
rent
rolls,
we
got
income
statements
and
they
say
these
all
came
together
and
it
gave
us
a
five
percent
vacancy,
so
everybody
gets
five
percent
vacancy.
That's
what
the
guidelines
are
for
here
are
the
guidelines.
They
said
we're
going
to
pick
65
percent
put
it
in
the
book,
there's
nothing
that
supports
that
65!
C
B
C
No,
this
is
the
crystal
city
embassy
suites.
Oh,
this
is
embassy
suites.
B
Okay,
yeah
and
again
this
is
going
to
be
the
same
issue.
It's
it's
really.
The
below
line
deduction
the
county's
65
of
12
million,
the
actual
loss
was
13.6
million
from
19
to
20..
It
was
1.6
million
in
total
revenue
and
represented
73
percent.
The
next
case
will
be
78
percent
there's
one
case,
that's
kind
of
in
line
with
that
65
percent-
and
I
can
tell
you
you
know
we
have
five
properties
for
them:
a
full
service.
That's
almost
25
percent!
B
That
you'll
see
that.
Excuse
me,
80
of
those
those
full
service,
hotels
of
the
25
total
full
service.
Hotels
in
the
property
are
well
above
that
that's
65
threshold.
So
I
don't
know
what
what
other
owners
are
reporting,
but
I
I
can
tell
you
I.
We
have
a
lot
of
properties
that
we
review
in
in
surrounding
jurisdictions
in
fairfax
county
in
prince,
william,
I
haven't
seen
anything
below.
B
B
So
what
I
think
you'll
see
is
is
the
county
had
said
that
you
know
they're
basing
their
65
revenue
deduction
based
off
mass
appraisal,
the
information
that
they
received
prior
to
to
your
end,
but
we've
got
four
out
of
five
properties
here
of
the
the
again
44
total
hotels,
18,
full
service,
hotels
that
are
well
above
that
65
threshold
night.
B
I
would
imagine
I
I
can't
imagine
that
you
know
if
you
took
the
average
of
all
those
that
the
lost
revenue
would
be
65
just
based
off
of
what
we're
presenting
here
in
these
five
cases,
which
is
showing
preponderance
that
the
the
loss
revenue
is
well
beyond
that
65
lost
revenue.
So
again,
that's
the
the
main
issue.
In
this
case,
the
revision
column
is
again
all
they
changed
from.
The
original
assessment
was
the
reserves.
Historically,
it's
been
reported
five
percent.
B
Originally
it
was
at
3.9
percent,
but
really
what
it
comes
down
to
again
is
the
lost
revenue.
Actuals
are
73
counties
using
65,
which
calculates
you
know
the
difference
between
the
actuals
and
their
estimate
is,
is
approximately
you
know
almost
2
million
10.8
million.
B
I
might
be
referencing
the
wrong
one:
sorry
13.6
million
to
12
million.
So
about
a
million
and
a
half.
B
And
that's
all
I
have
to
present.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chicas,
for
the
county.
Please.
E
I'll
start
out
on
this
one,
so
I
wanted
just
to
speak
to
our
process.
As
we
stated,
we
looked
at
the
transit
accuracy,
taxes
that
we
always
received
to
try
to
gauge
where
property
our
properties
were
performing.
We
didn't
use
any
of
the
ind
information
that's
being
presented
for
this
year,
meaning
what
we
received
as
of
january
january
march
of
2021.
E
E
We
looked
at
the
star
reports,
taking
consideration
accuracy
for
the
different
hotel
types
in
arkham
county
and
again
the
tlt
reports
based
off
the
information
we
had.
We
developed
this
65
for
this
hotel
segment
and
we
also
have
different
deduction
rates
for
other
hotel
segments.
There
keeps
being
they
keep
referencing
like
we're
incorrect.
E
Estimate
because
it's
based
off
the
information
that
we
had
so
there
is
no,
the
appellant
is
not
proving
incorrect
or
flawed.
Rather,
there's
no
flaw
in
our
assessment
approach,
we're
not
using
incorrect
information
because
we're
using
information
that
we
have
again
we're
uniform
in
our
approach.
E
That's
something
that
should
be
considered,
especially
when
you
talk
about
equalization.
The
uniformity
is
the
fact
that
we
apply
65
below
the
line
deduction
to
all
of
these
full
service
hotels.
E
Another
thing
that
I
want
to
talk
about
again.
I
know
that
it
came
up
about
the
cap
rate
and
we
talked
about
pwc.
One
of
the
things
I
did
do
is
go
back
and
look
at
pwc
2019
publication,
which
we
had.
If
you
have
fourth
quarter
pwc
publication,
they
don't
have
a
hotel
section
in
there,
so
the
third
quarter
is
the
best
station
for
2020..
E
When
you
look
at
2019
third
quarter
compared
to
2020
third
quarter,
the
cap
rate
and
full
service
actually
went
down
by
13
basis
points
for
a
limited,
mid
scale
and
economy
section.
The
cap
rate
went
up
by
35
basis
points
luxury,
upscale,
lodging
increased
by
78
basis,
points
and
selective
service
increased
by
19
basis
points
for
average
of
all
pwc
cap
rates
of
a
30
basis
point
increase
on
the
hotel
station.
E
So
I
think
that
more
than
supports
our
increase
on
a
hotel
cap
rate
for
full
service,
that
was
a
50
basis,
point
increase.
Again.
We
wanted
to
point
out
that
we
looked
at
pwc
and
re-rc
and
if
you
look
at
rerc's
third
quarter
comparisons,
the
average
cap
rate
increase
was
actually
50
basis
points,
that's
taking
consideration
national
first
tier
investor
surveys,
east
region,
first
tier
east
region,
second
tier
east
region,
third
tier
and
the
washington
dc
market.
E
So
again,
I
think
that
supports
our
cap
rate
change
the
sales
that
we
had.
We
did
not
use
because,
as
greg
pointed
out,
it
was
residents
in
in
pentagon
city
and
the
americana,
which
were
high
sale
prices
well
above
the
original
assessed
value
of
those
properties
other
than
that
we
didn't
have
any
hotel
sales
to
go
off
of
so
I'll.
Let
chris
talk
more
about
this
property,
so
I
don't
take
up
too
much
of
his
time.
D
Thank
you,
irving,
yeah,
so
again,
just
sort
of
jumping
on
what
everyone's
talking
about.
Essentially,
what
mr
chitlik
would
like
us
to
do
is
take
the
information
that
we
received
in
april
and
then
revisit
the
guidelines
that
were
published
and
put
out
in
october
november
and
adjust
all
full
service
types.
Otherwise,
what
he's
suggesting
is
look
at
each
individual
cases
that
presented
to
you
we've
added
the
included
a
negative
65
percent
adjustment
below
the
line.
On
the
last
case,
the
percentage
of
total
revenue
is
79
below
the
line
adjustment.
D
D
D
When
we're
looking
at
the
property,
the
again
the
appellants
mirrored
our
numbers
column
for
column,
we
did
again
adjust
the
ffne
as
historically,
they
reported
five
percent.
We
were
at
four
and
a
half
percent.
As
of
january
one
we
did
adjust
that
and
again.
The
biggest
difference
is
150
basis
points
on
the
cap
rate
and
a
73
percent
adjustment
by
the
appellant
below
the
line.
It's
compared
to
our
65,
which
again
is
equalized
with
other
full
service
types.
D
You
know
looking
at
the
the
numbers,
we
do
believe
that
the
revision
should
be
confirmed
at
39
million
895
800.
again,
given
the
same
same
information
we
used
on
the
last
case.
We
do
believe
this
is
very
much
in
line
again
following
the
the
standards
that
we
put
forth
the
mass
appraisal,
the
idea
that
the
value
put
forth
by
the
appellant
doesn't
make
ours
incorrect.
It
just
makes
it
another
opinion
of
value.
We
just
believe
it's
too
aggressive,
so
the
county
should
be
confirmed
that
the
revised
value
of
39
million
895
800..
A
Okay,
thank
you
before
we
go
to
questions
from
the
board.
I
just
want
to
read
something
from
our
manual
just
to
clarify
some
of
the
comments
that
were
made
last
time,
but
the
board
is
free
to
act.
Whether
or
not
a
specific
complaint
has
been
made.
In
fact,
the
board
has
the
duty
to
correct
known,
erroneous
assessments,
even
though
no
complaint
has
been
made,
a
board
has
the
power
in
the
obligation
to
correct
those
erroneous
groups
of
assessments
to
achieve
equality
and
uniformity
of
taxation
under
58.1
3379.
A
Such
an
equalization
does
not
require
an
application
by
any
aggrieved
property
owner,
but
the
property
owner
must
be
given
notice
to
whether
or
not
it's
been
increased
or
decreased.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
everybody
understands
that
before
you
ask
your
questions,
but
just
because
somebody
has
an
appeal
doesn't
mean
it
won't
be
fixed
or
that
you
don't
have
to
necessarily
fix
something,
because
the
rest
of
the
group
would
not
be
affected.
So
questions
from
board.
A
D
No
ma'am
just
again
in
accordance
with
the
last
case,
in
accordance
with
how
we've
valued
all
the
mass
appraisal,
hotels
and,
specifically,
in
this
case,
full
service,
we
do
believe
the
revised
value
of
thirty
nine
million
eight
hundred
ninety
five
thousand
eight
hundred
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
C
So
so
they
keep
talking
about
the
third
quarter.
Pwc.
That
report
also
states.
The
lodging
industry
has
been
severely
impacted
by
coveted
19
and
will
be
in
recovery
mode
for
at
least
the
next
two
years.
It
says
on
the
exact
same
page,
where
they're
talking
about
how
basically,
how
rosy
the
cap
rates
are
this.
This
really
comes
down
to
exactly
really
what
mary
mentioned.
C
If,
if
we
agree
that
it's
not
correct,
we
should
change
it
and
chris
one
thing
that
he
didn't
do
on
this
one,
which
is
the
first
time
I've
ever
seen
him
do
it
is
he
doesn't
show
the
percentage
drops
in
column
e
next
to
it.
He
always
shows
the
drops,
but
in
case
you
were
you're
wondering
it
dropped.
73
percent,
the
total
revenue
dropped
73
from
the
year
prior,
usually
there's
a
negative
number
there
and
shows
that
he
did
in
the
last
case,
but
he
doesn't
do
it
on
the
next
four.
C
Yes,
the
value
is
down
from
the
prior
year,
but
not
down
anywhere
near
the
amount
that
the
property's
down
and
as
the
report
that
they're
relying
so
much
on
shows.
This
is
not
a
one-year
thing;
this
is
a
two-year
thing
and
anybody.
We
all
know
that
already
we
are
more
than
halfway
through
2021
and
we
know
that
things
aren't
back
to
where
they
were
in
19.
Yet
the
value
the
noi
being
used
here
is
higher
than
the
2019
value.
A
C
I
I'm
I'm
I'm
more
okay
with
this
county
assessment
on
this
one
than
the
previous
case,
just
because
it
is
fee,
simple
land,
it's
a
straightforward
building.
It
is
immediately
adjacent
to
land
that
sold
for
about
twice
the
price
of
what
the
assessment
of
this
property
is
an
older
hotel.
So
I
you
know,
I
think
I
think
that
gives
some
reliability
to
the
39
million
dollar
estimate
that
it's
that
it's
probably
over
market
for
the
value
of
that
land.
G
I
want
to
make
two
two
quick
points
for
us.
One
is
that
I
thought
as
usual,
but
even
more
than
that,
the
arguments
from
both
parties
were
really
very
impressive
and
professional.
On
my
for
one
and
I'm
sure
I
share
your
feelings,
appreciate
that
and
second
I
keep
thinking
about
the
next
level
of
appeal.
This
is
a
small
number
of
fairly
deep
pocketed
appellants,
both
who
are
active
and
those
who
could
be
potential
appellants
based
on
mary's
reading
that
everybody
is
involved.
G
Even
if
you
don't
appeal-
and
perhaps
a
judicial
remedy
at
the
next
level
is
the
way
they
might
want
to
make
their
their
case
because
they
haven't-
as
I
repeat
from
last
time,
haven't
made
it
to
me
as
a
board
member,
but
they
do
have
further
appeal
options.
J
That
doesn't
allow
us
to
just
pick
a
a
number
that
we
would
adjust
the
county's
number
with
it.
You
know
the
county
used
65
percent
based
on
the
information
they
had.
I
feel
a
little
bit
better
that
about
that.
J
F
Yes,
ma'am.
Thank
you
yeah.
I
was
just
gonna
share
with
ken
that
you
know.
If
anyone's
going
to
go
to
court,
I
imagine
they
would
wait
two
more
years
because
then
they
could
go.
F
A
J
I
You
the
motion
would
be,
I
guess,
to
confirm
the
county's
reduced
assessment
at
39,
895
800.
H
A
A
A
A
Oh,
you
are
okay,
oh
you
needed
to
talk
to
click
up
there,
skin
I'm
here
as
well.
Mr
chit,
like
okay,
perfect,
we've
got
everybody
back.
Thank
you!
Everyone!
Okay.
The
third
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc36016004
property
located
at
1800
richmond
highway.
Mr
warren,
if
you
want
to
start
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
B
Yes,
so
this
is
the
the
full
service
hotel,
the
the
westin
crystal
city,
that
I
thought
was
on
the
docket
for
the
fourth
case-
and
this
is
the
one
that
of
the
four
full
service
hotels
of
the
five
that
we're
bringing
forth
to
the
board
today
reported
the
lowest
loss
in
revenue,
which
was
65
percent,
and
you
know
the
actual
loss
of
revenue
is-
is
a
little
bit
above.
B
The
65
estimate
from
the
county,
so
actual
loss
revenue
from
19
to
20
was
98
25
618,
which
is
65,
and
the
county's
revised
assessment
they're
using
nine
million
seven.
Forty
six
four.
Ninety
five,
which
is
sixty
five
percent
estimate,
the
total
revenue,
this
property,
as
the
others
they're
they're
in
close
proximity
to
each
other,
as
well
as
the
crystal
city,
metro,
station
or
pentagon
city
metro
station
and
the
current
assessment
or
recommended
assessment
by
the
county
is
53
million.
B
This
one
is
a
little
bit
different
in
that
this
is
the
only
one
you'll
see
from
the
other
four
hotel
cases
that
will
bring
forth
today
that
the
county
was
trending
in
their
original
assessment,
much
higher
on
their
their
total
revenue
and
and
noi
was
was
trending
up
for
the
2021
assessment
initially,
which
we
felt
was
incorrect
and
and
what
we
felt
to
use
in
our
column.
G
was
the
most
recent
stabilized
reporting
year
of
2019
and
you'll,
see
that
reflected
in
column
g.
B
The
county
agreed
and
made
revisions
in
column
f
to
reflect
the
lower
income
that
was
reported
in
that
year
and
again,
the
only
difference
or
then
those
are
the
main
differences
that
were
then
reflected
in
in
the
revised
assessment
that
you'll
see
at
53
million.
B
In
addition,
in
additional
support
to
our
current
assessment
value
there,
our
packet
included,
let's
see
if
I
can
find
the
page
number
included.
A
third
party
appraisal
that
was
completed
and
the
valuation
date
is
for
the
c
fee,
simple
value
as
of
june
30th
of
2020,
and
that
can
be
found
on
page.
B
B
So
we
asked
the
board
to
take
this
information
into
consideration
of
their
2021
assessment
for
the
subject,
property,
which
again
falls
in
line
with
our
requested
value
of
forty
four
million
nine
hundred
twenty
six
thousand
five
hundred
again.
This
is
one
where
the
the
total
loss
revenue
is
in
line
with
the
county's,
revised
projection,
initial
and
revised,
and-
and
I
guess,
the
the
equalized
loss
revenue
amount
that
they've
applied
uniformly
in
their
evaluation
of
all
hotel
assets,
at
least
for
full
service
hotels
in
the
county.
B
C
Thank
you.
I
want
to
point
something
out
here,
because
the
big
conversation
has
been
equalization
and
making
things
in
line,
and
all
of
these
properties
today
are
very
close
to
each
other.
First,
the
crystal
gateway
marriott
assessed
at
000
per
key.
The
embassy
suites
153
000
per
key,
the
marriott
courtyard
crystal
city,
150,
1
000
for
key
the
doubletree
108
000
per
key,
and
then
this
one
255
000
per
key
over
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
more
per
room
than
the
others,
and
after
getting
the
information,
went
back
and
try
to
figure
out.
C
The
result
is
that
this
property,
with
its
competitive,
set
at
star
report,
its
peers,
are
the
ones
we're
looking
at
today.
So
we
can
actually
look
at
those
values,
although
we
still
feel
those
values
are
over
assessed.
This
property
is
assessed
at
over
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
more
per
room
than
all
of
those
other
subject.
Properties
and
the
income
doesn't
support
it
because
the
income
is
330
000.
Last
year,
this
property
doesn't
perform
so
much
better
than
all
those
places,
all
those
other
ones.
C
Furthermore,
if
you
look
at
the
crystal
gateway
marriott,
the
rev
car
was
151
and
adr
was
194
in
2019
and
the
subject
is
141
and
173.,
so
the
crystal
gateway
marriott
actually
does
better.
They
get
an
extra
twenty
dollars
a
night
as
compared
to
the
subject
property.
Yet
the
subject
property
is
assessed
almost
50
50
percent
higher
than
the
other
property.
So
we
talk
about
in
equalization
uniformity,
keeping
things
in
line
well,
this
property
is
such
a
high
outlier
as
compared
to
the
other
ones
that
there's
no
justification
for
it.
C
C
C
You
look
at
the
individual
hotel's
performance
and
see
how
it
does
and
then
use
something
in
line
with
the
actual.
That's
what
the
county
does.
That's
what
we
do.
That's
what
the
board
of
equalization
has
historically
done.
We're
asking
for
that
same
thing
in
that
coveted
adjustment
below
the
line.
The
reason
I'm
harping
on
it
is
because,
because
barnes
is
exactly
right,
I
mean
in
three
years
every
one
of
these
ends
up
in
court
because
they're
wrong
and
they're
wrong
next
year.
C
So,
while
it's
being
saved
now,
it's
it's
going
to
be
a
headache
for
not
you
all,
but
for
us
and
for
the
county
for
sure
so
we'd,
obviously
much
rather
get
it
right
at
a
step
like
this,
but
then
and
as
ken
pointed
out,
we
have
that
vehicle
in
the
future,
which
we'll
be
sure
to
use
when
the
property's
oversets,
but
on
this
property
we
talk
about
equalization
in
line.
How
does
it
compare
to
others?
C
I
see
no
justification
to
change
the
effective
age
on
this
one
to
2009,
when
we
just
showed
you
two
cases
before
and
the
next
two
cases
where
they
use
the
effective
agents
in
line
is
the
same
as
the
year
built,
even
though
those
properties
have
been
renovated.
Last
few
years,
both
the
comments
on
the
last
few
properties,
one
had
32
million
dollars
a
renovation
and
the
other
had
10..
So
that's,
I
think
the
error,
but
either
way
I'd
love
to
have
some
type
of
explanation
from
the
county.
C
I'm
not
going
to
hold
my
breath
that.
Why
is
this
property
worth?
The
others
are
worth
150
a
key
and
equalize
and
in
line
with
each
other,
why
is
this
one
255
000
per
key
it
doesn't
make
it
doesn't
make
it.
I
think
it's
70
higher
the
assessment
of
this
one
as
compared
to
those
so
I'd
love
to
love,
to
get
an
answer
to
that,
because
the
owner
asked.
E
D
Yeah,
it's
interesting
to
us
as
well,
because
we
were
never
asked
that
question
during
the
department
hearing
that
was
held
in
mr
warren.
So
if
the
owner
was
curious
as
to
why
they
should
just
ask
us,
so
we
can
inform
mr
chitlick.
The
effect
of
age
has
no
bearing
on
hotel
valuations
whatsoever.
D
So
we'll
keep
that
short
and
simple
in
regards
to
this
case
and
how
it
relies
upon
the
others.
Much
like
we
talked
about
the
below
the
line.
Deduction
by
the
appellant
is
all
over
the
place.
In
this
case,
it
actually
happens
to
align
perfectly
with
the
county
at
negative
65
percent
of
total
revenue.
D
We
would
point
out
in
the
three-year
summary
sheet
that
the
appellant's
number
ny
is
actually
higher
by
almost
120
thousand
dollars.
Projected
then,
is
the
counties
now
the
county's
again
looking
at
the
historical
operations
of
the
property
and
feels
that
the
revision
is
much
more
in
line
again,
prudent,
fair,
not
quite
achieving
2019's
numbers,
but
more
so
in
the
2018
realm.
D
We
just
don't
agree
with
theirs
again:
they're
going
for
a
34
drop
year
over
year,
ours
is
at
22
year-over-year,
again
much
more
prudent
in
line
with
similar
property
types
again,
with
all
the
full
service
properties,
hotels
that
we
have
in
the
county.
They
got
a
negative
65
percent
of
total
revenue
again
that
matches
with
the
penalties
number.
This
one
is
really
just
a
matter
of
150
basis
points
that
the
opponents
added
to
their
cap
rate.
D
We
do
believe
that
was
added
incorrectly,
there's
no
support
for
that
rerc
or
otherwise.
As
we
pointed
out
in
the
previous
cases
this
morning
we
already
added
50
basis
points
as
of
january
1st
of
the
new
year.
So
we
do
believe
our
cap
rate
is
equitable
and
fair.
D
E
D
A
I
Huffman
yeah,
you
know
I
went
into
that
appraisal
because
I
thought
it
was
a
very
well
done
appraisal
very
comprehensive,
and
I
just
wanted
to
ask
the
appellant
there's
a
capital
expense
projected
at
16
million
if
you
could
kind
of
get
into
what
that?
What
that
is
what
the
kind
of
pressing
needs
of
the
the
buildings.
That's
structural
issues
is
that
mechanical
where's,
that
16
million
dollar
figure
coming
from.
B
Unfortunately,
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
information
on
that.
That's
something
I
was
trying
to
get
confirmation
on
prior
to
this
hearing
and
we
were
unable
to
do
so
on
exactly
what
those
renovations
cost
for
it's
reportedly
going
to
be
over
the
next
two
years
and
in
that
like,
as
you
were
saying,
the
appraisal
is
deducting
that
16
million
in
consideration
of
the
value.
B
But
I
cannot
get
into
specifics
because
I
just
haven't
gotten
confirmation
from
the
owner.
Unfortunately,
as
a
hearing
date.
G
I
have
a
question
for
the
department
in
four
of
the
five
cases
today.
The
department's
revision,
revised
total
revenue,
is
identical
to
the
appellant's
2021
estimation.
Ine
estimation:
this
is
the
fifth
one
you
revenue
is
actually
lower
than
there
it's
not
by
big
numbers,
but
it
stands
out
because
it's
one
of
five
that's
different.
Could
you
explain
that?
Please.
D
D
The
difference
in
the
three
previous
cases
was
that
the
ffe
was
actually
revised
upward
to
reflect
the
historic
operations,
so
their
numbers,
their
performance,
come
out
sometime
in
march
or
whenever
they
submit
their
applications,
so
they
actually
are
matching.
Our
numbers
just
happens
to
be
the
difference
in
the
capital.
Disagree.
A
No
okay,
mr
chicas,
if
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up
sir.
D
Yes,
ma'am
so
again,
as
we've
seen
in
the
previous
cases,
there's
really
been
a
difference
in
the
cap
rates
as
opined
by
the
appellant
and
the
county
in
this
case,
we're
both
at
a
negative
65
percent
adjustment
of
total
revenue.
It's
really
that
150
basis
points
that
were
added
without
support
by
the
appellants.
D
C
Yes,
so
I
pointed
out
in
the
opening
that
the
properties
assessed
a
hundred
thousand
a
key
more
than
all
the
comparables,
which
we
also
appealed
today
and
chris
responded
with
well,
they
didn't
ask
us
that
at
the
first
level,
if
they
had
I'd,
be
happy
to
explain
why-
and
I
got
my
pen
ready
to
hear
the
explanation
and
then
he
just
went
on
to
the
next
topic.
He
never
told
us
why
this
property
would
be
assessed.
A
hundred
thousand
more
than
any
of
the
neighboring
properties.
C
In
fact,
the
property's
adr
and
rep
are
lower
than
the
marriott
they're
built
around
the
same
time.
The
marriott
is
recently
renovated
and
this
property
is
assessed
a
hundred
thousand
per
key
more
than
those
properties.
So,
if
there's
ever
an
equalization,
we
talk
about
well.
If
we
use
65
deduction
of
total
here
and
other
ones
we
use
70,
it's
at
equalization,
equalization
should
be
taxes
paid
in
assessed
value
and
the
taxes
paid
in
assessed.
Value
on
this
property
are
70
higher
than
a
property.
C
They
compete
directly
with
the
westin
and
the
marriott
are
right
next
to
each
other.
Essentially
they
compete
with.
Why
would
one
be
paying
taxes
60
70
higher
than
the
other
one?
And
it's
because
of
the
assessment
you
see,
the
actual
expenses
of
the
property
was
79
percent.
The
county
is
using
58
on
this
property
on
the
marriott
they're
using
74
expenses.
So
that's
mostly
where
it
comes
from.
I
thought
chris
would
lay
that
out
and
explain
it,
but
this
property
should
not
be
100
and
11
000
more
per
key
than
the
direct
comp.
I
I
just
you
know
the
county's
doesn't
have
a
with
with
office
buildings
and
whatnot.
We
have
effective
age
that
feeds
into
the
cap
rate,
and
it's
kind
of
odd
that
the
hotel
process
doesn't
include
that.
That's
probably
why
we
see
kind
of
these
differences
in
per
key.
I
You
end
up
with
possible
major
capital
expenses
that
could
be
affecting
the
value
of
the
property.
I
just
don't
know
it.
The
I
tried
to
go
through
that
appraisal
in
the
in
the
application
to
figure
out
what
it
was.
You
know
I'd
be
willing
to
do
a
below
the
line
deduction.
If
there
was
something
like
you
know,
we've
done
in
the
past
there's
a
major
structural
issue
in
the
garage
it
needs
to
be
repaired.
I
That's
that's
why
it's
different
from
another
property
across
the
street,
but
there
was
nothing
that
really
called
out
what
this
was.
So
I
I
I
don't
have
really
enough
to
move
me
to
to
try
to
make
a
change
from
where
the
county's
at
right
now.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chairman.
Mr
hoffman.
Sometimes
the
the
hotel
company
under
the
franchise
agreement
requires
modernization
every
five
years
whatever,
and,
and
so
you
know
just
speculating
what
the
you
know,
what
the
future
capital
improvement
is.
You
know
it
could
be
new
signs
it
could
you
know
who
knows
you
know
this
is
to
everyone's
surprise.
Maybe
this
this
is
one
where
I
thought
the
county
was
right
on.
J
A
A
Okay
next
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpg-34027026.
The
property
is
located
at
2899
27th
street
south.
This
is
warren.
If
you
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
B
Thank
you.
Yes,
this
is
the
courtyard
crystal
city
it.
The
original
assessment
is
41
million
277
415
the
county
is
recommending
a
revised
value
of
39
million.
600
hundred
this
property
was
originally
built
in
1989.
It's
272
total
rooms,
it's
a
courtyard,
so
not
a
true
full
service.
Hotel,
select
service,
hotel
and
you'll,
see
again,
as
we've
been
talking
about
decreases
in
total
revenue
caused
by
kovad
year
over
year
from
2019
that
this
property
experienced
a
2020
decrease,
total
of
10
million
882,
344
or
78.
B
The
county
is
again
adjusting
for
65
percent
below
the
line
in
their
in
their
covert
adjustment,
and
so
there's
approximately
a
two
million
dollar
difference
between
the
county's
adjustment
below
the
line
and
and
the
petitioners
and
the
in
the
actuals,
the
the
actual
revenue
total
total
amount
of
revenue
that
can
be
pinpointed
to
a
loss
year
over
year.
B
This
was
a
property
prior
to
cover
that
was
stabilized.
We
were
in
agreement
with
the
county's
initial
or
same
as
the
revised
column
f,
their
estimates
for
revenue,
total
and
total
expenses.
This
is
one
where
they
again
adjusted
their
reserves
rate
from
3.9
percent
to
five
percent,
which
was
the
actual
historical
reporting
of
reserves
in
prior
years,
and
that's
the
difference
from
column
d
to
f
is
with
regard
to
reserves.
B
Again,
we
would
hope
the
board
considered
the
actual
lost
revenue
that
was
experienced
in
2020
and
that's
that's
the
main
difference
between
the
the
pounds
case
and
ours.
C
The
only
the
only
other
thing
to
add
is
that
this
is
a
like,
like
said
a
select
service
hotel
and
assessed
higher
than
the
full
service
marriott
that
we
previously
discussed.
C
You
would
think
the
one
that
gets
200
a
room
would
be
more
valuable
and
I
think
that
at
least
would
love
to
hear-
and
I
know
it's
not
my
call
but
would
love
to
hear.
Why
would
a
select
service
hotel
be
value
more
valuable
than
a
full-service
hotel?
C
That's
located
in
the
same
location
that
performs
better
but
either
way
the
actual
noi
here
is
again
a
negative
we've
seen
an
enormous
drop
in
revenue
from
13.8
to
just
under
3
million,
and
again
for
really
for
five
out
of
five
cases
now
granted
the
last
one
was
very
close,
but
they
were
still
low
by
a
couple
like
a
hundred
thousand
dollars.
The
65
percent
is
not
getting
it
and
here's
proof
that
it's
not
just
getting
in
on
the
full
service.
It's
also
the
select
service
they've
missed
the
mark.
C
I
under
also
understand
that
you've
all
have
made
a
determination
on
whether
that
should
be
reduced
or
not,
and
and
it
will
take
further
further
look,
but
I
do
think
it's
important
to
at
least
understand
our
select
services,
hotels
worth
more
than
full
service
hotels
guidelines
would
indicate
they
aren't
cap
rates
higher
here
than
a
full
service.
The
room
revenue's
lower
than
the
full
service.
The
adr
is
lower
than
the
full
service.
The
rev
car
is
lower,
yet
the
value's
higher.
D
Yes,
ma'am,
so
in
continuing
with
sort
of
the
problem
with
the
appellants
trying
to
peg
a
below
the
line,
adjustment
is,
is
we're
back
to
an
80
percent
of
total
revenue
adjustment
loss
in
a
again
125
basis,
point
jump,
so
it
darkens
back
to
that
first
case
of
of
making
it
inequitable
amongst
the
similar
property
types.
D
As
mr
chetlike
warren
pointed
out,
this
is
a
select
service
type.
As
the
board
knows,
select
service
received
the
same
negative
65
adjustment,
as
did
the
full
service.
According
to
the
information
we
had
when
the
guidelines
were
developed
and
again
it's
a
similar
thing,
whereas
the
adjustment,
the
appellant
makes,
would
call
for
a
44
drop
in
value
year
of
the
year.
D
Just
too
aggressive,
ours
is
again
a
negative
29
percent
drop,
much
more
in
line
with
the
other
properties.
What
we've
already
heard
today,
again
prudent,
fair
equitable
with
the
negative
65
drop
with
the
increase
of,
I
believe,
is
75
basis
points.
As
of
january
1st
for
select
service,
we
do
believe
that
the
revision
should
be
confirmed
at
39
million
600
300.
D
So
again,
just
based
on
the
numbers
that
we're
looking
at
the
appellant
has
mirrored
our
numbers
from
top
to
bottom.
It's
just
the
additional
125
basis
points
and
15
percent
increase
in
covet
adjustment
below
the
line.
D
A
Okay,
mr
warren
or
mr
chitlik,
if
you
have
anything
in
the
last
minute,.
C
Yeah,
I
still
can't
figure
out
why
a
select
service
hotel
is
more
valuable
than
a
full-service
hotel
that
does
better.
They
both
have
a
negative
noi.
He
hasn't
answered,
he
hasn't
responded.
He
hasn't
explained
that
and
I
think
in
equalization,
that
is
a
very,
very
large
factor.
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
keep
hammering
that
home.
I'm
hoping
that
eventually
he'd
tell
us,
but
again
the
revenue
is
less
the
cap
rates
higher.
C
They
both
are
producing
a
loss
so
which
would
you
rather
own?
Would
you
rather
own
a
full-service
crystal
city
marriott
or
a
courtyard,
because,
according
to
the
assessor,
the
courtyard's
more
valuable-
and
I
think
that's
plain
error
and
he
hasn't
told
us
why
that
would
be
the
case.
That's
not
typically
the
case
in
any
county.
I've
ever
ever
worked
like
anything
else.
I
think
we
got
another
10
seconds.
B
No,
I
mean
again
we're
using
the
actual
lost
revenue.
It's
information
that
is
prior
to
the
the
lean
date
prior
to
evaluation
date
and
in
other
property
types.
It's
it's
you
know
considered
and
we're
not
we're.
You
know
this
is
the
actual
reported
losses
for
each
of
these
properties.
They
vary
yes,
but
all
of
them
have
been
above
the
65
percent.
That's
been
applied
to
all
the
hotel
properties
in
the
county.
A
Okay,
all
right,
it's
just
among
the
board,
then,
where
is
everybody?
Mr
matskin.
G
I
too
have
been
illuminating
on
the
apparent
differences
in
different
kinds
of
properties
and
key.
You
know
evaluation
per
key.
I
think
in
the
last
case,
and
I'm
going
to
apply
it
to
this.
One
I
think
mr
chiclet
was
checked,
was
just
right
that
the
operating
expenses
were
different
in
the
last
case,
and
I
went
through
all
five
and
in
some
cases,
significantly
different,
meaning
significantly
lower,
so
we're
assessing,
of
course,
we're
basing
on
noise.
What's
an
noi,
it's
a
a
gross
estimation
of
profitability.
G
The
last
case
was
more
highly
profitable
because
in
large
part,
probably
not
exclusively,
their
operating
expenses
were
less.
I
don't
know
if
they're
more
efficient
or
they
have
better
behavior,
guests
or
whatever,
but
I
think
the
the
numbers
add
up
and-
and
that
explains
it
in
this
case,
where
there's
an
apparent
disconnect
between
a
lesser
type
of
property,
select
service
versus
full
service.
G
I
also
saw
that
the
operating
expenses
were
less
than
some
of
these
full
service
establishments,
and
it
could
be,
and
therefore
I
not
being
a
hotelier
certainly
could
mean
that
this
is
more
valuable
for
room,
because
it's
more
profitable
that
that
I'm
I'm
guessing
at.
But
it
makes
sense
and
again,
I'm
deriving
it
from
the
last
case,
where
it's
very
clear.
So
I'm
feeling
as
comfortable
as
I
can
be
with.
F
Yes,
thank
you
ken.
I
agree
with
what
you
just
said
and.
B
F
Income
success
depends
upon.
You
know
the
the
the
reservation
system
that
the
hotel
throughout
the
country
has,
and
it
could
be
that
you
know
I
forget
which
one
this
is,
but
you
call
them.
This
is
mary,
you
call
marriott
and
they
say
hey,
you
got
someone,
you
know
and
they
send
you
to
this
location.
That
could
have
a
lot
to
do
with
it
and
it
could
be
that
full
service
is
full
service,
but
it's
also
very
expensive
to
run
it
as
full
service.
F
Where
I
probably
am
going
to
diverge
from
your
opinion
is
I
do
think
we
should
go
with
the
actual
actual
adjustment
that
the
applicant
is
suggesting,
lowering
it
to
37
588
600,
for
the
reasons
expressed
before,
and
I
won't.
I
won't
repeat
those
reasons.
I
Yeah
I
mean
I
just
echo
barnes's
comments
on
the
reservation
system,
because
I've
had
it
explained
to
me
by
marriott
themselves
the
kind
of
synergies
that
exist
when
you
have
a
courtyard
and
a
residence
inn
and
the
the
way
they
do
reservations,
there's
there's
they
end
up
being
one
of
the
most
valuable
flags
to
have
in
the
industry.
H
Well,
just
like
the
first
case,
I
know
we're
talking
about,
you
know,
numbers
and
I
think
both
the
appellant
and
the
county
are
in
the
same
line.
I
mean
the
same
numbers
are
on
both
column,
f
and
g.
H
It's
pretty
much
the
same
as
the
first
case.
You
know
we're
looking
at
what
the
below
the
line
deduction
would
be
in
the
cap
rate,
and
I
don't
think
we
are
really
necessarily
looking
at
these
hotels
per
room
value
because
there's
a
value
done
based
on
the
income.
You
know,
I
know
for
market
purposes
would
be
a
different
thing,
but
I'm
okay
with
the
assessment.
The
way
it
is
with
the
revised
number.
H
G
I
move
that
we
accept
the
department's
revised
assessment
of
39
million
six
hundred
thousand
three
hundred
dollars.
A
Okay
motion
in
a
second
by
mr
penaranda,
all
in
favor
aye
opposed
okay,
it's
four
to
two
and
that's
without
mr
hoffman
or
mr
lawson
and
miss
hogan
had
to
step
out
of
the
meeting
so
she's
not
voting.
So
it's
a
fortitude
vote
to
confirm
the
county's
revised
number
of
39
million
600
300.,
okay,.
B
A
B
Late,
sorry
about
that,
thank
you.
This
is
the
the
crystal
city
doubletree
hotel.
This
is
another
full-service
hotel
in
crystal
city.
It
is
comprised
of
one
economic
unit,
but
six
excuse
me:
five,
six,
individual
tax
parcels
now
the
initial
assessment
that
we
had
was
69
million
one
one.
Eight
seven
hundred,
I
know
the
the
county's
memo
their
first
page
has
it
at
68
235
100.
So
I'm
not
sure
where
the
discrepancy
is
therefore
we're
missing.
B
This
is
a
another
older
hotel
built
originally
built
in
1973..
It's
a
mid-scale
full-service
hotel,
627,
total
rooms
similar
to
again
the
last
four
cases
that
we've
discussed
here.
B
If
you
look
with
regards
to
the
deduction
that's
being
implemented
below
line
for
coven,
the
county
is
applying
their
full
service
guidelines
of
65
estimated
of
total
revenue.
The
first
case
that
we
discussed
here,
which
was
a
full
service
hotel
we've
we've
reported
that
the
actual
lost
revenue
from
19
to
20
was
78.
B
The
next
hotel
was
73.
That
was
also
a
full-service
hotel,
the
property
that
we
just
discussed.
B
The
select
service
courtyard
was
78,
and
now
this
one
you'll
find
that
the
actual
2020
or
2019
to
2020
loss
in
revenue
was
75
percent
or
27
million
909
thousand
eighty,
eighty
two
so
all
of
these
well
above
the
65
percent,
that's
been
applied
uniformly
to
all
hotels
in
the
county
and
we've
showed,
with
the
exception
of
one
that
was
right
at
65
percent,
so
100
000
over
the
the
the
total
amount
applied
for
the
western
crystal
city
that
these
four
remaining
hotels
were
well
in
excess
of
65.
B
Again,
the
I
think
the
only
difference
here
that
was
made
in
the
county's
revised
column
f
is
everything
stayed
the
same
with
regards
to
revenue,
expenses
and
reserves.
B
Is
that
they've
added
the
the
bid
rate
in
for
the
cap
rate
again,
the
main
difference
here
is
with
regard
to
the
deduction
below
the
line.
The
county
is
applying
a
deduction
below
line
24
million
263
699
and
we
are
requesting
the
board
deduct
the
actual
reported
loss
and
revenue,
which
was
27
million,
909
882
and
again,
that's
really
the
basis
of
the
case.
C
There
appears
to
be
an
error
in
the
calculation
if
you
take
on
page
one,
if
you
add
up
all
of
those
parcels,
that's
on
page
one,
it
totals
sixty
nine
zero,
four
four,
eight
hundred,
which
is
what
we
had,
but
on
page
three.
It
shows
that
it's
actually
the
current
assessment,
68
235
100..
C
So
just
as
a
point
of
clarification,
I
went
further
into
to
make
sure
that
that
front
page
is
correct,
but
there's
something
weird
going
on
with
the
numbers
on
on
how
this
went
to
pdf
or
something
starting
on
page
20,
where
it's
just
a
bunch
of
scrambled
letters,
so
it
doesn't,
it
doesn't
allow
that
it
might
not
matter,
because
the
recommendation
is
correct
at
28
201
200..
C
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out
that
it
appears
there's
there's
an
error
on
their
page.
We
think
there's
a
bunch
of
errors
on
their
page
four,
but
that's
one.
I
think
we
could
agree
to
as
being
here
on
the
page.
Four
again,
you've
seen
you've
seen
now,
25
of
the
full
service
hotels
in
the
county
and
you've
seen
that
all
of
them
are
the
65
percent
is
not
enough.
C
I
also
realize
that
you've
decided
on
three
of
those
that
it's
enough
for
this
purpose,
but
it's
still
not
enough
and-
and
the
facts
show
here-
that
it
shouldn't
be
a
24.2
million
dollar
deduct.
It
should
be
a
27.9
million
deduct
and
with
the
new
information
that
was
granted
that
was
gained
via
the
appeal
you
now
have
that
at
your
disposal.
C
I
also
realized
that
it
only
takes
one
of
you
to
flip
in
order
to
actually
win
one
of
these,
so
I've
got
a
little
more
optimism,
but
the
numbers
are
there.
You've
now
seen
enough
of
them.
Five
of
them
to
show
the
number
they
used
is
not
enough.
Therefore,
it
should
be
adjusted
just
like
on
any
other
line
on
the
income.
The
only
difference
is
normally
on
the
lines
of
income.
Those
are
supported
by
all
the
ines.
C
The
county
gets
this
65
for
the
guidelines,
which
just
appears
to
be
just
a
number
that
was
picked
kind
of
out
of
the
blue.
It
doesn't
have
any
support
of
why
they
picked
65
there
weren't
income
statements
to
say
we're,
seeing
that
the
properties
have
lost
65
percent
of
revenue.
So
that's
uniform,
they
just
pick
65
and
I
think
now
well,
I
think
you're
now
learning,
but
they
learned
back
in
april
that
that
65
wasn't
enough.
C
Oh,
like
like
said
it's
the
same
case,
but
it's
not
a
huge
difference
here.
It's
it's
3.7
million,
but
it's
it's
an
error.
That's
got
to
be
fixed
and,
unfortunately,
for
everybody
involved.
I
think
it'll
eventually
be
fixed
later
down
the
road,
if
not
not
today,
but
it's
something
that
has
to
be
fixed
because
it's
just
flat
out
wrong.
It's
plein
air.
D
Yes,
as
mr
chitlik
has
pointed
out,
this
is
our
fifth
case
of
the
day,
representing
some
percentage
of
the
full
service.
Hotels
and
you've
confirmed
all
of
them.
We
hope
that
you'll
do
the
same.
This
is
case
is
very
much
the
same
as
the
others.
Columns,
f
and
g
they're
aligned
until
you
get
to
the
150
basis,
point
jump
by
the
appellant
and
the
75
percent
drop
in
total
revenue.
D
That
equates
to
almost
a
a
47
million
drop
year
over
year
in
value.
It's
49
year-over-year,
that's
too
aggressive,
as
we've
seen
with
the
other
four
cases,
as
we've
seen
with
all
full-service
and
select
service
hotels
in
the
county.
They
received
mass
appraisal
methodology,
in
this
case
a
negative
65
percent
to
total
revenue.
D
D
E
Add
no,
I
think,
you're
explaining
it
well,
nothing
further
to
say.
D
Yeah,
it's
again,
it's
just
a
matter
of
the
verb.
It's
used,
you
know
it's,
it's
just
we're
wrong
or
it's
an
error.
You
know
I
won't
speak
for
the
entire
county,
but
I
I
find
it
offensive.
D
These
are
opinions
of
value,
obviously
they're
they're
made
at
the
time
with
the
information
we
have
as
we
suggested.
What
mr
chillick
would
like
is
for
us
to
take
the
information
we
gathered
in
april
or
may,
or
whenever
the
people
filed
and
then
readdressed
the
guidelines
that
were
done
uniformly
for
the
entire
county
in
november.
D
In
this
case,
this
is
the
point
of
the
review.
Is
the
appointment
can
offer
their
opinion
of
value?
However
different
it
is
from
the
opinion
of
the
county.
In
this
case,
we
just
believe
they're
overreaching
49
drop
year
every
year
is
too
aggressive,
and
that's
really.
The
reason
why
we
go
for
uniformity
is
that
of
the
four
cases
we've
seen
so
far.
I
believe
at
least
three
of
them
have
had
different
adjustments
below
the
line.
D
D
Now,
when
we're
using
mass
appraisal
standards
in
this
case
that
negative
65
percent
drop.
Now
we
do
that
uniformly
and
that's
what
we've
seen
with
the
other
four
cases
today
and
we
believe
that
should
be
upheld
on
this
revision
as
well.
We
do
believe
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
68
million
200
1200..
Thank
you.
D
Year
over
year,
that's
an
assessment
right
and
to
be
clear,
that's
what
the
appellant
is
required
requesting
our
assessment
drop
is
thirty
percent.
Thirty
percent!
That's
the
word
in
this.
Thank
you.
That's
it.
D
Ma'am
again,
in
accordance
with
the
other
four
cases
we've
heard
today,
in
accordance
with
the
mass
appraisal
methodology,
we've
applied
the
negative
65
percent
below
the
line
adjustment
uniformly.
This
again
is
number
four
of
five
cases:
five
of
five
cases.
I
should
say
that
we've
done
this,
the
others
were
upheld
and
and
confirmed.
We
do
believe
that,
using
that
same
line
of
reasoning
that
this
should
be
confirmed
as
well
at
68
million
200
1200..
A
C
The
this
is
mr
jayla,
the
it's
jeremy,
I
don't
know.
I
said
that
we
mentioned
he
said:
that's
too
aggressive
to
go
as
far
as
we
did.
He
didn't
mention
that
the
income
is
down
the
the
group.
The
revenue
was
down:
74.5
percent
of
the
property
in
the
inc,
the
noi,
the
owner,
used
to
take
8.2
million
to
the
bank
and
now
they're
cutting
a
check
for
2.6
million.
That's
a
big
difference
from
income
producing
property
to
a
property;
that's
losing
2.6
million
dollars.
C
He
he
took
offense.
He
was
offended
by
me
saying
his
assessment's
wrong.
I
didn't
mean
to
offend
anybody.
I
think
that
the
way
they
did
it
was
incorrect
and
that's
not
a
personal
attack
on
chris.
Just
like
it's
not
a
personal
attack,
he
doesn't
agree
with
my
opinion
of
value,
but
they
made
a
mistake
and
I'm
not
saying
they
need
to
go
into
every
property
and
say
it's
not
65
percent.
C
I'm
saying,
if
you're
going
to
take
below
the
line
of
deduction
use
the
actuals,
just
like
you're,
using
the
actuals
to
form
your
revenue,
your
expenses,
your
your
your
f
and
e
deduction,
they're,
not
using
a
mass.
This
is
the
expenses
we're
applying
to
everything
they're
looking
at
a
three-year
history
and
saying
the
expenses
that
I
should
use.
Is
this:
that's
all
we're
asking
to
do
the
exact
same
thing,
but
do
it
below
the
line
where
you're
saying
I'll
do
that
for
the
revenue
I'll,
do
it
for
the
expenses
I'll?
C
F
Thank
you.
Madam
chairman,
I
went
and
looked
at
the
charles
e
smith
case
that
the
supreme
court
decided
and
it's
in
the
package
that
we
received
from
wilkes
artists,
and
in
that
case
the
court
said,
the
preference
for
uniformity
of
assessments
must
stop
short
of
assessment
at
greater
than
fair
market
value.
F
Article
10,
section
2
of
the
constitution
of
virginia,
protects
all
taxpayers
from
assessments
in
excess
of
fair
market
value.
The
court
then
says
when
a
taxpayer
is
able
to
show
that
actual
rents
and
expenses
are
ignored,
or
given
only
token
consideration
in
the
informing
an
assessment
he
will
have
carried
his
burden
of
overcoming
the
presumption
of
correctness.
F
So
you
know
again
I
go
back
to
what
I
argued
in
the
very
first
case
this
morning.
I
think
we
should
go
with
the
below
the
line,
deduction
of
the
actual
drop
in
revenue,
and
in
this
case,
and
I'm
going
to
probably
be
alone
with
this,
I
would
come
up
with
64
million
657
100.
G
I
don't
know
how
that
could
possibly
apply,
given
how
few
sales
there
are
and
how
open
the
market
is,
how
up
in
the
air
I'm
sorry
the
market
is
for
hotels
in
particular,
it's
a
it's
a
nice
aspiration,
but
I
I
and
I
agree
with
it,
but
I
can't
imagine
it
applies
that
we
know
what
the
fair
market
value
these
things
are,
which
is
why
I
assumed
the
county
bumped
up
in
each
case
the
capital.
But
again
this
isn't.
G
H
Well,
yeah,
I
think
you.
H
Points
that
are
made
are
very
valid,
but
I
don't
think
we
can
deviate
from
the
role
that
we
have
that
we
have
to
equalize.
You
know
we
have
to
make
sure
that
pretty
much
every
other
property
that
is
similar
to
this
it's
treated
equally,
and
I
also
wanted
to
point
out
something
that
mr
chitlik
said
that
there
were
errors
in
the
numbers.
H
I
went
back
to
the
first
page
to
all
the
rpcs
on
this
economic
unit
and
the
numbers
that
are
there
are
correct
it.
It
adds
up
to
the
68
million
201
200.,
so
I'm
not
sure
what
the
difference
was
when
mr
chitlick
added,
but
I
checked
both
of
twice
actually
the
numbers
that
are
there
and
they
are
correct.
H
But
in
this
case
I'm
okay,
as
the
previous
cases,
with
the
revised
assessment.
A
I
I
mean
I
would
support
the
reduction
that
barnes
proposed
and
just
kind
of
make
the
comment
that
hotel
market
is
probably
more
volatile
than
other
real
estate
classes,
including
apartments
office
and
whatnot.
So
as
a
board
and
as
as
as
a
the.
I
H
I'll
go
ahead
and
move
that
we
confirmed
the
revised
assessment
of
68
million
201
200.
A
A
No
okay,
then
we
stand
adjourned
at
11
10
and
we
will
reassure
tomorrow
morning
at
9.
00
am
thanks.
Everybody.