►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Meeting | July 5, 2023
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
A
B
I
certainly
will
not
take
eight
minutes.
This
is
a
a
town
home
in
a
neighborhood
that
has
lots
of
town
gnomes
and
lots
of
sales.
So
there's
lots
of
evidence
that
can
both
support
the
Assessor's
case
and
the
on
our
case,
the
if
you
go
to
page
30
of
the
the
board
package.
B
Basically,
what
we're
our
contention
is
is
that
the
owner
deals
that
they've
overpaid
for
the
property
they've
had
numbers
issues
with
the
property
since
they've
owned
it,
including
insulation
issues,
Plumbing
issues
and
Outlets
that
don't
work
they
overpaid
for
the
property
on
page
30.
What
our
contention
is
is
not
necessarily
sales
but
all
the
other
properties
within
the
neighborhoods
that
are
under
assessed
from
the
property,
although
the
property
does
have
upgrades
even
the
assessor.
B
If
you
look
at
this,
the
property
is
assessed
at
roughly
600
and
24
dollars
per
square
foot
and
all
these
properties
are
kind
of
like
for
like
except
there's
in
townhouses
and
Center
units.
The
the
property
is
a
center
unit.
B
It
was
bought
for
600
000
being
assessed
for
five
six.
Two
all
the
other
properties
listed
here
are
being
assessed
under
under
that
property.
The
the
assessor
has
presented
the
Spore
cases,
two
of
which
are
in
townhouses
I'm,
not
sure
why
comparing
the
ends
to
these
centers.
But
if
you
look
at
all
the
center
units
that
are
presented
in
the
the
equity
comparables,
they
are
all
much
lower
than
the
then
the
pellets
property.
B
So
we're
not
asking
for
a
significant
reduction,
just
a
slight
reduction
to
do
more
in
line
with
those
equity
comparables.
That's
it.
C
Good
morning
board
Andrew
King.
Here
again,
this
was
a
case
that
tressivitis
worked
on,
but
I'll
be
presenting
for
her
2824
South
Mead
street
is
a
two-story
Center
unit
townhome
with
three
bedrooms,
two
bathrooms
and
a
finished
basement.
It
was
built
in
1983,
has
an
effective
age
of
2010
and
a
quality
of
average,
plus
the
department
reached
out
to
the
agent
multiple
times
to
conduct
inspection,
but
did
not
hear
back.
We
proceeded
proceeded
with
the
case
using
our
own
records
and
the
recent
sales
listing
for
the
property.
C
The
property
did
sell
in
the
analysis
period
in
July
2022
for
600
000
and
was
using
the
analysis
for
the
neighborhood
from
viewing
the
photos
and
the
notes
from
the
listing.
The
property
had
a
kitchen
renovation,
updated
bathrooms,
replacement
windows
and
new
floors
in
2020,
along
with
a
new
roof
and
a
new
HVAC
system
within
the
past
10
years,
which
brings
the
effective
age
up
during
the
sales
inspection
on
the
property
and
is
higher
than
the
other
units
in
the
analysis.
But
this
property
is
extensively
renovated
compared
to
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood.
C
As
the
2022
sales
listing
said,
it
is
it's
truly
in
TurnKey
condition.
Everything
has
been
down
this
unit.
Any
issues
with
the
property
were
not
brought
up
to
us.
They
could
have
been
shown
during
the
inspection,
but
we
weren't
aware
of
them,
so
they
didn't
have
any
impact
on
our
assessment
for
this
year.
C
The
comp
sheet
shows
over
the
past
few
years
that
these
units
are
selling
for
about
the
subject.
Properties,
total
2023
assessment
and
the
current
assessment
is
still
38
000
off
from
the
recent
sales
price,
so
taking
into
account
the
lack
of
inspection,
the
extensive
Renovations
done
to
the
property
over
the
past
10
years
compared
to
the
units
and
the
recent
sales
price
of
six
hundred
thousand
dollars.
The
department
recommends
a
confirmation
of
the
2023
assessment
of
562
thousand
dollars.
Thank
you.
D
Metzger
for
the
Department-
these
are
very
similar
properties,
albeit
you
know,
with
some
upgrades
and
and
whatnot,
and
therefore
effective
ages
are
very
but
the
the
but
again
they're
similar,
very
similar.
The
neighborhood
increase
was
a
little
over
six
percent
from
last
year,
but
the
subject
is
well
over
10
percent.
Is
that?
Because
you
found
out
upgrades
and
therefore
increase,
the
effective
areas?
Is
that
where
that
comes
from.
C
D
C
Yeah,
so
this
would
have
been
part
of
the
sales
inspection.
This
was
done
in
2020
and
we
hadn't
been
there
in
quite
some
time
before
that.
So
when
it
was
visited
in
2022,
it
got
the
ding
from
all
the
updates
having
to
the
property,
and
then
it
also
got
the
compounded
with
the
sales
changes
for
the
year.
C
There's
about
a
six
point
difference
it's
it's
rolled
into
the
depreciation
and
everything
it's
just
another
factor
to
use.
But
if
you
look
at
the,
if
you
look
at
these
sales
analysis
sheet
on
page
business
thing
on
page
18,
you
can
see
that
Center
units
have
an
LM
of
100
and
and
units
have
an
LM
of
116.
So
it's
about
a
six
point.
Difference.
C
Sure
so
we
weren't
able
to
do
an
inspection
on
this
property.
So
any
of
these
inconveniences
or
changes
that
would
have
been
brought
up
by
the
appellant
could
have
been
brought
to
our
attention.
Then.
C
But
looking
at
the
the
recent
listing
the
property,
we
can
see
that
the
property
is
extensively
renovated
compared
to
some
of
the
other
units
in
the
neighborhood,
which
does
affect
the
EA,
which
does
affect
the
final
Improvement
value
on
that
and
the
recent
sales
price
is
hundred
thousand
dollars
is
a
strong
indicator
that
a
higher
assessment
is
required
for
this
property,
and
the
department
recommends
a
confirmation
of
the
23
assessment
of
562
thousand
dollars.
Thank
you.
B
Again,
I
just
don't
think
that
the
end
townhouses
should
be
compared
those
sales
with
the
the
center
units
and
if
you
look
at
the
the
center
units
that
have
been
provided,
those
those
values
are
down
at
five,
four,
seven
and
five
four
zero.
So
they
justify.
You
know
the
lower
requested
value
from
the
appellant.
D
A
A
A
Okay,
next
case
of
agenda
is.
H
Thank
you.
So
I
am
a
officer
with
the
company,
not
a
third
party
representative,
to
describe
the
property.
It's
origin,
Ballston
Apartments.
The
property
is
basically
located
at
the
corner
of
4100
Wilson
Boulevard
and
700
North
Randolph
Street
in
Arlington
Virginia.
The
property
consists
of
406
units,
it's
broken
down
between
sufficiency,
one
bedroom
and
two
bedroom
apartments.
It's
a
majority
bee
made
up
of
one
bedroom
apartments.
H
H
H
The
County's
current
valuation
is
189
million
87
900.
the
taxpayer
is
making
a
request
that
the
value
be
reduced
by
14
percent
to
162
million
232
thousand
dollars.
Even
when
we
look
at
the
valuation
difference
between
the
County's
valuation
and
out
of
the
taxpayer,
it
is
not
an
income
issue,
it
is
an
expense
ratio
issue
and
what
does
that?
What's
that's
been
driven
by
is,
if
you
look
at
the
features
of
this
property,
it
was
built
and
designed
to
be
not
just
a
residence
but
basically
a
residence
and
work
at
home
type
of
facility.
H
You
have
24
7
package
acceptance
for
those
that
have
to
receive
packages
at
home
or
have
them
shipped
out.
You
have
as
far
as
controlled
access.
If
for
those
that
are
lucky
enough
to
get
a
garage
parking
space,
that's
controlled
access
to
the
garage.
Pardon
me
I
apologize.
You
also
have
access
control
with
residents
for
for
the
residents,
and
you
have
bike
storage
and
a
bike
repair
area
again
everything's
there
that
you
need.
You
have
on-site
management
and
maintenance.
Obviously,
that
would
be
expected
with
any
property
this
size.
H
It
is
a
100
smoke-free
property
and
then,
if
you
go
up
to
the
third
floor
and
and
so
first
of
all,
first
floor
and
second
floor
are
taken
up
by
the
basically
the
service
unit
and
the
reception
area.
This
type
of
thing,
elevators
you
go
to
the
third
floor,
all,
but
basically
all
but
60
16
of
that
floor.
84
of
that
floor
is
taken
up
by
amenities.
What
amenities
are
on
that
floor?
H
It
includes
a
fitness
center
with
what
they
call
a
techno,
gym,
cardio
and
weight
equipment.
It
has
three
Studios.
It
features
a
nexocyst
system,
Peloton
bikes,
it
has
Fitness
on
demand
and
an
outdoor
Fitness
deck.
It
also
includes
a
work
lounge
with
open
study
areas,
and
it
also
includes
enclosed
pods.
H
Now,
when
we
have
these
things,
these
These
are
sorry,
that's
not
all
the
amenities
we
also
have
rentable
lounges
and
which
are
99
of
the
time,
is
open
to
this
full
public,
very
suddenly
they
get
private
rentals
and
then.
Finally,
if
you
go
up
to
the
top
floor
of
the
property,
you
have
a
dog
wash
area.
You
have
a
dog
workout
area
which
we
have
to
maintain
constantly.
It
has
a
rooftop
pool
and
it
has
baffles
around
it,
so
it
can
be
open
the
majority
of
the
year
to
our
residents.
H
The
bottom
line
is
this:
property
was
not
designed
to
just
be
a
work,
be
at
home
during
the
night
off
to
work
during
the
day
and
then
come
back
at
night.
This
property
was
Desert
designed
to
be
both
a
your
residence,
but
also
your
place
of
work
and
the
majority
of
our
our
people
that
are
residents
there
use
the
facility
as
a
work
from
home
facility.
H
Of
course,
while
this
helps
Drive
Revenue,
it
does
not
come
without
expense,
and
that
is
where
we,
the
county
and
the
taxpayer,
have
a
bit
of
a
variance
again.
If
you
get
down
to
effective
gross
income,
our
variance
is
very
minor
under
three
percent.
H
However,
this
property
has
historically
had
a
higher
operating
ratio
which
was
expected
by
us
as
a
builder
and
owner
operator.
However,
the
county
is
only
using
a
24.24
percent
expense
ratio,
which
I
realize
fits
within
the
apartment
guidelines
for
a
building
of
this
age.
H
However,
their
guidelines
we
do
have
to
look
at
the
individual
property
and
what
it
takes
for
this
property
to
drive
revenue
and
the
actual
operating
expenses
on
this
building
run
in
the
area
of
over
40
percent
and
always
have,
and
this
property
is
fully
stabilized
and
since
being
fully
stabilized,
we
have
tried
to
cut
our
expenses.
It
dropped
from
52
percent
to
45
percent,
and
now
we
feel
like
we've
kind
of
Hit,
the
bottom
at
40
percent
yeah.
I
Thank
you
board.
Good
morning,
good
morning,
Mr
Colt
tiska,
the
the
agent
has
described
this
property,
did
a
fabulous
job.
My
supervisor
and
I
had
the
opportunity
to
inspect
this
property
this
year
and
it
is
beautiful.
It's
very
nice
inside
there
are
a
lot
of
amenities
for
the
tenants
of
this
property.
Just
a
quick
side,
note
I
know
when
you
stand
outside,
you
see
retail
on
the
first
and
second
floor.
I
That
is
not
part
of
this
property
that
belongs
to
the
mall,
so
we're
looking
at
strictly
residential
for
this
particular
property
valuation.
The
location
is
great.
We
have.
The
metro
station
is
only
two
blocks
away.
You
have
a
plethora
of
restaurants
to
go
to
you've
got
Target,
you
have
the
grocery
store,
that's
only
Harris
Teeter,
it's
only
two
blocks
away.
So
there's
a
lot
of
amenities
in
this
area
and,
yes,
you
could
lock
yourself
up
in
your
apartment
and
never
leave.
I
This
is
a
wonderful,
complex
but
and
and
I
understand
that
the
hn
brought
up
the
issue
of
limited
parking,
but
once
again,
you've
got
a
lot
of
you've
got
the
the
Metro.
That's
two
blocks
away.
You
have
plenty
of
access
to
I
apologize
buses.
Bus
stops,
okay
in
the
area
within
a
couple
blocks
of
it.
So
there's
this
was
basically
designed
for
a
tenants
that
are
are,
can
walk,
okay,
they
don't
necessarily
have
to
have
a
car
to
live
here.
I
So
as
we
look
at
the
summary
sheet,
which
I
think
is,
unfortunately,
I,
don't
have
a
page
number,
but
you,
the
summary
choose
right
after
it's
like
page
four
I
think
or
five.
When
you
take
a
look
at
the
rents
that
are
being
reported
year
after
year,
the
the
year
for
2022,
you
can
see,
there
is
a
pretty
strong
recovery
there
and
also
for
the
parking
and
the
other.
I
So
overall,
your
GPI
has
done
an
awesome
job
of
recovering
from
covid
and
when
you
make
a
comparison
to
our
January
1
valuation
and
their
current
vacancy
rate
we're
spot
on
we're
reporting,
basically
the
same
as
what
they're
reporting
and
what
it
comes
down
to
are
the
expenses.
Now
for
the
January
1
assessment,
you
see,
our
expenses
are
just
a
little
bit
less
than
what's
being
reported
for
the
2022.
I
But
when
you
look
at
the
history
for
Gen
for
2019
through
2021,
our
January
1
expenses
are
very
reasonable,
but
what
it
comes
down
to
the
reason
why
we
didn't
do
a
test
for
this
property
is
look
at
the
noi
per
January.
1
noi
is
substantially
less
than
what's
being
reported
for
in
comparison
to
their
2022..
I
I'm
finished
I'm
open
for
questions.
Thank
you.
F
Lawson
yeah,
this
is
for
Lori
Lori
I,
see.
Once
again,
we
have
a
operator
of
a
residential
facility
indicating
that
they
should
have
a
replacement
account.
F
Do
you
think
that
time
will
come
when
the
county
might
might
want
to
consider
in
your
assessments
of
of
providing
for
a
replacement,
account
or
other
than
just
hotels,.
I
It
is
actually
considered
in
the
cap
rate,
and
it's
also
stated
in
our
guidelines.
Okay,
so
it's
0.2
percent
is
baked
into
the
calorie.
A
D
Question
for
the
appellant
you
would
mentioned.
Excuse
me
40
operating
expenses
level
and
you
said
30
years
35,
but
it
could
be
40.
I,
don't
see
those
numbers
anywhere
on
the
the
ime
sheet
on
page
three,
what
were
you
referring
to
or
what
did
I
miss.
H
Yes,
so
what
we've
done
is
we
had
submitted
the
the
all
the
spreadsheets
for
the
assessor
and
I'm?
Sorry,
if
that's
not
in
your
packet,
but
we
what
we
did
is
we.
We
said
that,
while
our
actual
operating
expenses
are
40,
we
want
to
show
that
the
taxpayer
is
being
reasonable
here
at
a
generated,
35
percent,
assuming
we
can
somehow
continue
to
cut
expenses
on
this
property.
H
The
county
and
I
are
in
full
agreement
on
the
income
side
and
we
have
done
a
very
wonderful
job
of
recovering
the
income,
but
the
reason
we've
been
able
to
recover
the
income
is
because
of
the
expenses
that
we
put
in
this
building.
What
we
do
to
get
this
property
fully
occupied
the
services.
We
provide
the
facilities
that
are
involved
and
that
cannot
change
without
impacting
the
overall
revenue.
And
so
what
I'm
saying
is
our
actual
income
is
40
or
excuse
me,
our
actual
expense
ratio
is
40
percent.
G
H
D
I
Oh
I
think
originally
I
think
originally
when
he
was
mentioning
expenses,
he
was
including
taxes
real
estate
taxes.
So
whereas
we
don't
include
that,
because
that
is
built
into
our
cap
rate,
okay,.
I
Sure,
once
again,
we
feel
that
our
January
1,
the
column
D,
is
very
reasonable.
As
you
go
down
the
line,
our
the
rents
that
we
used
are
less
than
what
they're
reporting
for
2022
our
vacancy
is
spot
on.
I
Compared
to
what
they're
reporting
you
look
at
our
expenses,
they
might
be
a
little
bit
low,
but
you
know
when
you
compared
it
to
the
last
three
years
of
19
through
2021
is
very
reasonable,
and
even
if
you
were
to
take
a
look
at
the
2022
or
what
the
agent
is
for
the
agent
column,
okay,
the
the
expenses
that
he's
showing
there.
In
that
particular
scenario,
our
noi,
is
still
substantially
less
than
their
two.
Their
2022
are
reporting,
and
so
we
believe
that
our
January
1
assessment
is
correct.
Thank
you.
H
Thank
you,
Miss
Rustin,
and
our
in
agreement
that,
basically
it's
the
expense
ratio
is,
is
high
and
that's
all
we're
asking
for
is
that
there
be
the
recognition
that
the
actual
way
to
operate
this
property
to
generate
the
higher
Revenue
that
it
recognizes
the
only
way
you
can
do,
that
is
by
the
expenses
we
put
forward
and
we'll
continue
to
have
to
put
forward
into
into
the
future,
and
therefore
we
are
in
agreement
that
that
the
income's
about
right,
but
the
expense
ratio,
is
what's
a
a
challenge
not
being
argued,
but
it
should
be
noted
that
a
5.15
loaded
cap
rate
is
not
reality
for
2023.
H
there's,
just
we've
looked
at
this
and
and
that,
as
a
loaded
rate
is
extremely
low.
Everybody
knows
what
the
feds
have
done.
Anybody
who's
trying
to
get
a
project
forward
knows
that
that
that's
just
not
reality,
but
we
know
that
the
county
stands
solid
on
on
the
cap
rate,
but
the
expense
ratio
should
be
at
least
noted.
Thank
you.
A
D
F
Yeah,
you
know
it's
interesting
county
is
pushing
for
Less
parking
spots
yeah
and
how
advocate
yeah?
It's
not
worth
as
much
because
you
can
give
us
the
park
here,
but
I
live
right
there
in
is
plenty
of
them.
F
F
K
No
I'm
I,
agree,
I,
think
everything
that
was
said
is
I'm.
I'm,
okay
with
it
I
think
the
expenses
that
repellent
is
providing
is,
of
course,
and
it's
on
page
43,
which
includes
all
taxes
and
other
fees.
So
but
overall,
looking
at
the
noi
I
think
that
you
know
yeah,
the
expenses
may
be
a
little
low,
but
the
income
is
also
low.
A
L
I
think,
but
if
you're
going
to
look
at
the
market
cap
rate
and
the
market
would
also
look
at
the
operating
year,
22.
probably
escalated
forward
if
I
run
kind
of
those
numbers.
The
way
I
see
it.
The
lower
cap
higher
cap
rate,
but
with
some
escalated,
rents
and
I
ended
up
at
193
million,
so
I'm
in
public
county
right.
F
A
Okay,
all
in
favor
aye
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
The
county
is
confirmed
at
189
million
87
900..
Thank
you
both.
A
M
A
M
Thank
you
just
beginning
on
page
two
of
31
of
my
appealth
mission.
We
just
have
a
quick
summary
of
all
of
our
appeal
issues.
So
the
subject
property
built
in
1964
is
the
neighborhood
commercial
strip
shopping
center,
located
off
of
Lee
Highway.
It
has
49
304
square
foot
of
rentable
space
and
we
used
an
income
approach
to
Value
the
property
using
the
2023
Arlington
commercial
guidelines
so
beginning
on
page
four.
We
have
our
analysis
here.
M
Our
evaluation
on
the
left,
the
County's
valuation
on
the
right,
and
we
have
four
major
appeal
issues
here:
the
first
we
use
in
that
leasable
area
of
forty
nine
thousand
three
hundred
four
square
foot,
just
a
bit
below
the
counties
at
forty
nine
thousand
five,
forty
six,
this
49
304
figure
was
reported
on
the
tax
year
2023
ine
and
is
consistent
with
what
was
reported
in
tax
year
2020.
M
Thank
you
as
well,
so
just
slightly
under,
but
we
think
it's
important
to
correct
here
and
then
our
second
appeal
issue
here
we
use
a
retail
rent
of
51
per
square
foot
as
compared
to
the
Assessor's
59.
55.75.
Excuse
me
to
calculate
this.
On
page
five,
we
have
our
rent
roll.
We
just
take
an
average
of
the
In-Place
rents
here
and
then
include
their
two
vacant
spaces.
M
We
use
a
market
rent
of
65
per
square
foot
and
when
we
take
a
weighted
average
of
the
in
place
rents
with
the
market
rent
here
for
the
vacant
spaces,
we
do
reach
an
average
rent
per
square
foot
of
54.97
and
then
further
from
there.
We
do-
and
this
is
a
gross
rent.
So
you
know
no
leasing
costs,
no
commission.
So
we
subtract
six
percent
for
concessions,
and
then
we
conclude
to
a
rate
of
51
per
square
foot
and
I
just
want
to
make
note
here.
M
I'm
sure
the
the
county
will
will
touch
on
this
in
there
remarks,
but
they
did
perform
a
test
where
they
use
and
the
average
asking
rents
to
calculate
their
PGI
in
their
response
of
66.6-
and
this
is
just
you
know
not
not
how
it
should
work.
We
do
want
to
make
note
of
the
In-Place
tenants
here.
You.
G
M
Of
the
space
is
occupied
with
in
place
rents,
so
we
do
use
those
in
place,
rents,
Plus,
Market,
rent
to
calculate
our
potential
gross
income,
and
then
we
use
the
the
same
vacancy
and
collection
loss
of
13
as
the
county.
This
is
in
the
the
2023
Arlington
commercial
guidelines,
so
we
have
no
response
of
that
and
then
finally,
our
expenses,
the
assessor,
is
a
a
little
low
here.
They
use
11.2
percent
of
the
egi
12,
and
you
know
in
2022
at
the
subject
property.
M
J
M
We
just
use
the
the
15
that
is,
you
know,
published
in
the
guidelines
for
a
neighborhood
center,
so
we
just
revert
back
to
that
and
we
just
capitalized
this
at
the
the
guideline
7.3
loaded
rate-
and
we
do
conclude
to
our
indicated
value
of
27
million,
343,
000.
M
G
M
Of
income
and
expense
information,
and
then
we
just
have
the
the
INE
submission
further
on
in
our
package,
so
yeah.
So
with
that,
that's
that's
all
for
me.
Thank
you.
All.
M
N
Good
morning,
everyone
again
we're
talking
about
Ryan
Lewis
shopping
center,
which
is
located
south
of
the
Interstate
66.
Next
to
this
third
round
on
and
off
ramp
Again
Properties
classified
as
PCC
214,
which
is
a
neighborhood
center.
It
was
built
in
1964
and
renovated
in
2009.
N
The
total
non-teasable
area
we
have
on
our
records
is
49
546
square
feet,
and
there
are
currently
90
units
total
and
about
266
263
open
parking
spaces.
The
zoning
is
ra8,
no
transfer
on
the
property
were
noted.
In
the
past
five
years,
I
inspected
the
exterior
of
the
property
in
April
2023.
N
That
the
agent
disputes
the
income
and
expenses
is
right.
There
we
perform
the
analysis.
We
looked
over
the
2019
2022
INE
surveys
in
the
2022
I,
initiated
by
the
influence
reported,
an
actual
income
and
Omega
D
vacancy
and
the
2023
proforma
the
apple
and
projected
his
actual
income
and
applied
to
stabilize
vacancy
and
based
on
our
analysis
of
2023
Rancho.
The
physical
vacancy
was
noted,
advice
of
nine
percent.
G
N
A
few
minutes
and
he
will
be
able
to
explain
this-
he
also
has
more
insight
in
regards
to
the
pastor.
We
had
an
issue
with
Astro,
as
you
can
see
on
the
summary
sheets.
The
pastor
went
down
significantly
from
from
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
to
106
000
we
reached
out
to
the
email,
and
we
asked
some
questions:
we're
not
able
to
open
the
explanation
at
that
time.
N
N
Words,
two
of
the
tenants,
Giants
and
CVS
paid
the
base
rent
and
based
on
the
rental.
We
thought
they
were
receiving
a
percentage
rent,
but
we
were
able
to
clarify
that
the
another
seating
percentage
rent
the
2022
operating
expenses
included
188,
883,
Capital
expenditures
due
to
the
relocation
of
storm
culverts
we
had
to.
N
O
O
President
indicated
we
were
a
bit
aggressive
on
our
initial
test.
We
did
go
back
and
do
a
bit
more
a
thorough
look.
As
far
as
the
rents
in
place.
We
did
note
that
giant
takes
up
approximately
45
percent
of
the
total
space.
Obviously
their
rent
in
place
is
a
good
bit
less
than
the
others.
So
we
didn't
want
that
to
bring
down
that
rental
rate
average
for
the
other
tenants
that
are
getting,
you
know,
20
30,
sometimes
forty
dollars
more
sixty
dollars
more
than
a
giant.
O
So
we
did
look
to
isolate
that
the
tenant
itself.
We
did
note
as
Michelle's
work,
did
as
well
the
large
increase
in
operating
expenses.
Again,
if
you
look
historically
19
20
21,
they
went
down
approximately
six
percent
in
2020
and
then
another
four
percent
2021
shot
up
84
in
2022,
as
noted,
primarily
that
was
due
to
cat-backs
spent
on
the
relocation
of
storm
Culvert
drains
again,
almost
the
definition
of
capital
expenditure.
O
But
even
when
we
look
again
at
the
reconstructed
year,
there's
still
a
51
percent
increase
in
utilities
and
150
percent
increase
in
maintenance
and
repair.
So
those
are
the
things
we'd
want
to
see
smoothed
out
year
over
year
to
to
know
that
that's
going
to
be
the
new
stabilized
number.
O
Primarily,
though,
we're
focusing
on
the
idea
that
the
original
assessment
was
fair
and
Equitable
by
looking
at
the
rents
in
place
again
for
those
who
are
familiar
with
this
property,
it's
very
well
located
in
between
the
exit
for
Spout
Run
Parkway
from
66,
as
well
as
jadube
Parkway
from
Sprout
run
isolated
retail.
Essentially,
it's
the
only
one
around
there,
big
name,
tenants
again:
giant
CVS
and
large
Arlington
institutional
tenants,
BGR
Italian
store
even
big
wheel
bikes.
As
Miss
McCraw
noted,
it's
very
well
occupied
at
approximately
95
percent.
O
Please
note
again
that
the
County's
offering
13
percent
stabilized
vacancy
concession,
so
essentially
some
eight
percent
over
what's
actually
being
achieved
at
the
property.
Again,
though,
we're
going
to
focus
on
page
109,
which
shows
a
base
rent
that
you
can
see
annual
rent
is
indicated
in
bold
at
that
final
Blue
Line.
Obviously,
we
can't
read
that
line
as
it's
confidential,
but
we'd
ask
you
to
and
then
note
that
that
number
does
not
include
prospective
rents
for
the
two
tenants
that
are
vacant,
so
that
is
not
a
true
gross
potential.
O
You'll
note
as
well
that
that
base
rent
indicated
is
actually
more
than
what
they
said
they
received
last
year
by
almost
a
hundred
thousand
and
again
that's
before
the
gross
potential
for
the
two
tenants
not
in
place.
O
Please
note
as
well
on
page
109
you'll
see
a
large
escalation
that
was
to
take
place
in
2023
for
the
Italian
store,
you'll,
see
a
escalation,
that's
due
to
take
place
for
CVS
and
Giants.
Those
will
be
reworked,
obviously
for
2024,
but
the
Italian
stores
kicked
in
this
year.
That's
not
picked
up
in
that
gross
potential
rent,
that's
shown
on
page
109.
So
again,
that's
a
low
number,
that's
been
achieved
in
2022.
It
doesn't
match
up
with
the
rents
that
are
in
place
and
contracted.
O
When
we
asked
about
pastors.
The
biggest
reason
was
is
of
almost
a
400
000
drop-off
historically
from
2019
to
2022.
It
took
a
lot
of
time
and
extrapolation,
but
we
did
go
back
some
six
years
to
draw
relationships
between
the
tax
levies
for
the
property
and
the
subsequent
real
estate
tax
that
was
passed
through
to
the
tenants.
We
did
the
same
thing
with
the
operating
expenses
that
are
detailed
and
then
passed
through
as
cam
common
area
maintenance.
We
did
note
that
I
I
you'll
agree
as
well,
though.
O
Regardless
of
what
column
you
use
are
reconstructed,
F
or
column
e.
Those
rents
went
up
quite
a
bit
at
least
20
percent.
Over
what
was
reported
in
2021,
there
will
be
a
response,
a
responsive
relationship
to
the
pastors
that
have
collected
on
the
common
area
maintenance.
So
we
do
believe
that
that
projection
made
by
the
county
of
as
you
can
see
in
the
column
is
actually
lower
than
what
will
be
achieved
this
year,
based
on
historic
Tendencies.
O
Due
to
the
relationship
between
what's
reported
and
then
what's
received
the
subsequent
year
and
then
finally
we're
looking
at
the
original
assessment,
you
see
that
approximately
three
percent
increase
or
what
was
reported
for
the
year
2022
all
those
factors
we
do
believe
supports
the
original
confirmation
of
31
million
221
600..
Thank
you
all.
A
Right,
thank
you.
Sorry,
questions
from
board
members
and
I'll
start
this
McCall
two
things:
why
did
you
not
go
for
the
free
VOE
hearing
with
the
county
to
address
these
issues.
M
I,
we
just
believe
that
we
had
all
of
our
appeal
issues
noted
on
our
submission,
and
some
of
the
questions
came
after
the
this
informal
hearing,
I
believe
was,
was
scheduled
and
we
did
make
every
effort
to
to
provide
the
county
with
with.
G
M
Unfortunately,
but
yeah,
we
just
believe
that
our
appeal
issues
were
were
highlighted
in
our
packet.
Initially.
A
Okay
and
secondly,
the
explanation
that
Mr
chickens
just
gave
about
the
drop
in
the
pass-throughs.
M
That,
yes-
and
that
was
one
of
the
the
questions
that
was
reached
out
to
us
and
the
owner-
did
not
get
back
to
us
in
time.
We
just
the
past
two
years.
The
county
in
their
initial
pro
forma,
did
use
tax
year,
2022,
so
2021
calendar
year
data
of
one
164
000
and
then
again
this
year,
160
000
we
use
in
our
performance.
So
they
were
consistent
with
the
past
two
years,
all
in
the
160
000,
and
we
did
not
obtain
any
clarification.
L
Yeah
I
think
we
talked
about
last
year
that.
F
L
Of
the
anchor
tenants
term
and
how
there's
a
couple
years
left
and
now,
there's
I
think
there's
less
than
a
year.
So
have
you
got
any
indication
on
what
what
renewal
terms
could
be,
or
you
know
a.
K
M
I
have
not
received
any
renewal
expectations
for
the
anchor
tenant
from
the
owner.
L
M
I
would
imagine
it
would
continue
on
and
escalate,
but
again
I
I,
don't
want
to.
You
know
ruminate
too
hard
I'm,
not
the
owner
here,
but
we
we
have
not
been
given
any
clear
renewal
expectations
or
you
know
an
idea
of
what
the
new
lease
terms
would
be
here.
L
Chris,
what
do
you
see
anchor
grosser's
renting
for
in
Arlington
County.
O
A
Awesome
yeah
for
the
applicant.
F
There's
a
dispute
over
how
many
square
feet
are
leasable,
at
least
at
least
a
Valeria.
Has
your
fate?
Was
your
figure
determined
by
an
architect
and
certified
by
the
architect.
M
I
believe
this
is
a
Bulma
standard
that
this
was
a
point
last
year
and
we
clarified
with
the
owner.
They
I
think
re,
maybe
had
a
re-new,
Obama
and
determined
that
the
49
304
square
foot
is
is
what
is
accurate
at
the
time
and
we
had
confirmed
that
again
this
year.
M
So
it
is
a
slight.
It's
only
about
you
know,
200
square
foot
off,
but
we
just
used
what
the
owner
has
reported
for
the
past
two
years.
A
N
N
M
Thank
you
so
much
yeah
again
I
just
want
to
you
know,
say
how
in
our
in
our
performer,
we
did
want
to.
M
As
accurate
as
possible,
with
the
with
the
performance
of
the
property
we
used
in
place,
rents
with
a
market
rate
of
65
to
you,
know
calculate
our
PGI
and
then
again
with
the
expenses,
we
did
just
use
the
2023
Arlington
commercial
guidelines
for
a
neighborhood
center
of
of
15
here.
So
just
those
those
two
are
the
major
discrepancies
here
and
we
tried
to
you
know,
use
actual
performance
alongside
the
guidelines.
So
thank
you.
F
F
Did
it
help
them
respond
to
questions
from
the
county
and
I?
Guess
you.
A
D
I
saw
that-
and
this
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
reconstruct
it.
2022
results,
Incredibly
Close
to
the
initial
assessment
of
County
and
both
right
and,
if
you're
off
point
one
the
other
by
0.1
percent.
Well,
we
just
saw
that
to
mass
appraisal.
I
like
this.
A
lot.
L
L
D
D
We
accepted
the
Department's
initial
assessment,
31
million
two
hundred
twenty
one
thousand
six
hundred
dollars.
F
A
J
A
P
P
We
were
not
understanding
the
rules
and
we're
predicating
it
on
our
loss
of
income,
and
so
now
that
I've
I've
talked
it
through
with
the
county.
I
understand
paragraph
one
is
out,
however,
paragraph
two
refers
to
the
and
my
term,
the
headwinds
of
our
industry
and
the
lockdown,
and
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
is
share
a
screen.
If
that's
permissible,
is
that
permissible?
Yes,.
A
P
A
P
P
P
So
if
you
look
at
line
seven
column,
columns,
f
and
g,
the
two
the
prior
year
and
this
year,
they're
both
the
24
million
dollars
because
of
the
4.1.2
approval
and
the
by
definition
down
lower
on
line
18
I
put
in
the
Fannie
Mae
rates.
It
appears
that
you
all
use
September
1st
of
every
calendar
year
as
an
inflection
point,
and
it
was
the
interest
rates
were
2.87
in
2021
and
then
went
to
5.55
in
2022,
and
literally
our
industry
went
into
lockdown
our.
P
P
So
it
is
our
contention
that,
just
by
definition,
the
evaluations
for
2022
and
2023,
albeit
they're,
both
predicated
on
the
4.1.2,
that's
approved
for
400
units,
it
it
can't
be.
The
value
of
this
ground
is
dramatically
less
and
we
would
even
contend
that
we
asked
I
believe
for
a
five
million
dollar
reduction.
The
upon
review
again
of
my
own
work.
P
Now,
understanding
the
rules
that
our
land
value
would
be
closer
to
17
million
dollars,
Seventeen
five,
based
on
what
the
industry
theoretically
would
one
of
the
six
percent
cash
on
cash
return
and
I'm,
not
even
sure,
that's
financiable.
So
my
point
is
that
just
by
definition,
2022
and
2023
cannot
be
the
same,
and
it's
not
just
my
problem.
It's
a
universal
problem,
not
just
an
Arlington
County
problem.
It
is
a
universal
problem.
So
that's
my
comment.
P
There's
one
other
comment:
I
would
make
also
is
in
reviewing
all
the
documents
which
were
so
well
prepared
by
you
all.
The
streetscape
improvements
did
not
mention
that
we
under
the
4.1.2
have
to
relocate
all
the
utilities
on
Greenbrier
street.
We
have
to
take
them
underground
and
the
cost
of
that
is
six
million
dollars
and
so
that
by
also
definition
in
its
pure
sense
would
be
a
diminutive
factor
in
the
valuation
but
I'm
not
even
going
there
today.
A
O
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning,
Mr
Benson
good
morning,
so
we
did
actually
speak
a
couple
times,
I
believe
it
was
last
week.
It
may
have
been
two
weeks
ago,
so
Mr,
Benson
and
I
are
fairly
well
familiarized,
with
what
was
going
to
go
on.
O
I
basically
did
inform
him
that
in
all
intensive
purposes
our
hands
were
tied,
as
the
board
has
heard
many
times
before
years.
Previous
and
probably
we'll
be
here
again
this
year,
once
a
site
plan
is
vested,
if
you
will
in
approval
by
the
County
Board.
That
is
how
the
property
is
valued
until
one
of
essentially
three
things
occurs.
O
O
Mr
Lawson
probably
is
more
familiar
with
this,
but
for
the
other
board
members
there's
what's
called
a
footing
to
grade
permit
if
that
is
not
issued.
In
other
words,
if
there's
not
some
sort
of
a
positive
forward
momentum
towards
the
project,
this
properties
use
permit
will
expire
in
November
of
this
year.
Now
that
can
be
thwarted,
if
you
will,
by
extension,
requested
by
Marion
Park,
Marion
Pike
West,
and
then
of
course,
it's
the
county
board's
decision.
O
If
that
plan
does
expire.
Of
course,
we
would
revert
back
to
the
income
approach
to
the
applicable
number
of
units
at
the
site
being
used
for
multi-family
purposes,
and
then,
of
course,
that
third
alternative
would
be
as
if
again
there
is
some
positive
momentum
made.
O
You
know
either
demolition
permit
for
the
existing
improvements
or
some
sort
of
permits
filed
towards
again
the
construction
of
the
new
approved
mid-rise
development,
but
other
than
that
we
are
constrained
by
the
approval
that
4.1.2
we
would
note
and
and
I
do
mean
that,
while
we
feel
for
the
appellant,
we
would
note
and
I
think,
as
we've
told
the
board
before
the
county
is,
is
quite
prevalent
as
far
as
approvals
and
requests
for
approval
for
redevelopment.
Already
this
year,
there's
been
four
projects
approved
for
redevelopment.
O
All
of
them
involve
multi-family
in
2022.
There
was
four
projects
approved
for
redevelopment.
Two
of
those
four
have
begun
towards
the
shovel
ready
projects
on
2021.
There
was
five
approved
for
multi-family
and
all
all,
but
one
has
been
started,
work
towards
Redevelopment,
so
even
the
one
that
has
not
started
took
out
a
demo
permit.
In
the
first
quarter
of
this
year
we
talked
a
little
bit
about
sales
13
sales
of
multi-family
in
the
county.
Again
it
speaks
to
the
viability
of
multi-family
itself.
O
Even
more
so
is
the
idea
that
one
of
these
site
plans
actually
sold.
The
RCA
was
purchased
as
a
shovel
ready
project
and
is
now
under
Redevelopment.
They
took
out
a
demo
permit
earlier
this
year,
took
down
the
Skywalk
and
have
started
demolition
of
the
property.
So
we
are
quite
literally
tied
in
the
idea
that,
once
that
approval
comes
in,
we
do
believe
that
the
value
reflecting
the
density
that's
approved
for
the
land
is
applicable
and
correct.
O
There
is
no
improvement
on
that
property,
so
we
do
believe
that
again,
the
land
density
that's
been
approved
and
supported
by
all
the
sales
and
all
the
activity
of
more
Redevelopment
calls
for
confirmation
of
our
original.
So
we
do
believe
that
the
original
value
of
24
million
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
D
Mr
mask
I,
have
a
question
for
the
Department
I
want
to
I.
Think
I
understood
you,
but
I
want
to
be
clear.
It
was
an
almost
an
uncertainty.
J
D
Of
times
an
unprecedented
unprecedented
interest
rate
hikes
from
over
the
last
18
months,
or
so
you
have,
as
you
always
do,
assess
the
value
of
This
Land
Based
on
the
approved
amount
of
density
that
it
can
can
support.
D
Are
you
telling
me
that,
in
recent
sales
of
similar
kinds
of
properties,
this
unprecedented
interest
rate
hike
didn't
really
affect
the
value
per
unit
per
square
foot?
However,
you
calculated,
but
that's
a
sales.
O
Supporter
I
maintain
24.,
if
anything
again
we're
we're
well
well
on
the
low
side
of
50
000,
a
unit
I'm.
Sorry,
sixty
thousand
a
unit
again
even
that
site
plan
sales,
supported
131
000
a
unit
and
some
of
the
sales
of
the
established
properties
supported
eight
hundred
and
five
thousand
dollars
a
unit.
G
A
P
It's
no
it's
a
market
rate
of
307
units
and
93
affordables.
P
P
No
vhd
what
it
was
vhd
I
think
it's
now
called
Virginia
Housing
Finance.
They
do
market
rate
as
well
as
tax
credit
deals,
and
we
were
in
serious
discussion
with
them
to
do
a
hybrid
of
both.
So
it
was
not
just
an
affordable
housing
program.
P
In
my
humble
opinion,
zero
I'm
not
being
facetiously
when
you
run
the
math,
the
the
noi
produced
by
the
affordables
versus
the
cost
to
build
those
affordables
is
actually
a
negative.
But
it's
all
part
and
parcel
of
the
overall
I
think
it
would
be
appropriate
at
this
time
that
I
would
say
I'm
not
sure
on
the
comps
I'm,
not
questioning
them,
but,
as
you
pointed
out,
the
the
location
of
them
and
whether
it's
Amazon
money
or
or
whatever
it
might
be.
P
That
is
supporting
that
I'm,
not
sure
it's
a
Level
Playing
Field,
but
we
are
we'll.
P
L
A
P
F
Yeah,
what
what
would
you
estimate
a
townhouse,
a
raw
townhouse
on
site
plan
approved
not
4.1,
but
civil
yeah,
so
civil
Cyclone
improved.
P
Oh
wait
a
minute.
First
of
all,
my
answer
of
the
quantity
includes
an
adjacent
parcel,
so
this
would
be
60
townhouse
sites
and
I
would
say
somewhere
between
Roth
300,
000.,
I
haven't
I,
haven't
worked
that
number,
so
it's
I
could
be
high.
I
could
be
low,
but
I'm
sorry
square
footage
of
this
site.
E
O
Yes,
ma'am
just
hopefully
across
on
the
board.
Please
try
not
to
speculate
too
much
on
prospective
townhouse
values
as
opposed
to
what
was
valued
January
1,
Visa,
V
cycling
that
was
approved
and
done
in
uniformly
with
other
site
plans.
Speaking
of
land
values.
Again,
we
did
verify
plenty
of
properties
that
sold
on
Columbia,
Pike
and
neighborhood
of
450
000
units
500
426
000
units.
Again
it
is
tough
to
find
and
isolate
these
Garden
style.
I'm.
O
P
Sir
I
believe
I've
I've
said
all
of
I
I'm
prepared
to
speak.
To
so
I'd
be
glad
to
ask
to
answer
any
more
questions.
All.
G
G
G
A
E
F
Be
here
right,
I
I
have
to
share
something:
I
tried
to
sell
a
site
that
was
developable,
multi-family
and
I
went
to
every
developer
in
town,
including
that
guy
and
they
nobody
wanted
to
buy,
and
they
told
me
that
the
industry's
crazy,
we
can't
get
loans,
we
they
require
so
much
investment
and
ended.
G
F
This
is
worth
the
60
000
per
unit
you
have
Market
I
was
I,
was
just
getting
ready
to
calculate
how
much
we
have
seven
times.
60
is,
but
but
I
do
think
that.
G
L
G
G
D
Listen
to
your
original
assessment.
Take
that
into
account
with
the
original
assessment
being
now
three
years
old
to
me
that
it
might
have
been
right
then,
but
with
the
interest
rate
in
Heights,
percentage-wise
can
can
not
interest
rate.
I
thought
interest
rates
would
affect
reflect
the
diminution
of
the
value
of
this
land
because
of
its
finance
and
the
ability
right,
I.
D
F
Something
sales
filled
out
projects,
not
sales
of
no.
D
F
E
F
G
B
A
A
A
A
G
K
No
I'm,
okay
with
the
car
with
the
county.
The
way
it
is
I
think
you
know,
like
you,
said,
I
think
everything
is
being
created.
The
way
that
we've
always
done
it
and
and
I
agree
with
Mr
chickens,
I
think
the
even
the
value
of
60
000
per
unit
I
think
it's
slow,
so
I'm,
okay
with
it.
L
It's
going
to
be
a
4-2,
but
I'll
speak
my
piece
site
plan,
4420,
Fairfax,
Drive
plus
or
minus
250
high-rise
apartment
units
in
Boston
sold
for
11.2
million.
So
that's
47.
G
L
L
F
L
L
G
F
Is
you
don't
have
calms
because
people
hold
their
property,
don't
sell
it
from
the
for
the
tremendous
discount
over
the
tremendous
loss
they
just
hold
it
and
wait
for.
L
G
G
A
A
Q
Good
morning,
everyone
good
morning
Chris
be
fairly
brief.
Today,
it's
the
47
room,
Econo
Lodge
hotel
at
The,
Intercept
on
the
south
side
of
66
right
at
Route,
29.,
Chris
and
I
had
a
fair
amount
of
Paramount
May
overstated
Chris
back
and
forth
after
the
initial
appeal
was
filed,
and-
and
we
do
appreciate
him
taking
another
look
at
it
and
and
recommending
a
reduction.
Q
If
you
look
at
page
four
of
the
Boe
package,
memo
is
probably
the
most
probative
document
where
we
can
see
the
Department's
revised
analysis
contrasted
with
the
taxpayers
analysis
we're
fairly
close
on
many
of
the
parameters.
I
would
just
argue
for
one
issue
and
that's
the
reserve
for
replacement
initially
had
a
reserve
included
in
their
expenses,
but
then
on
the
revision
they
omitted
deleted.
Q
Taking
a
reserve
for
deduction
I
mean
I
mean
whether
an
owner
is
is
actually
funding
a
reserve
account
which
I
believe
in
this
case
they
are
not,
irrespective
of
that
any
appraiser
determining
of
C
simple
value,
you're
going
to
deduct
a
reserve
for
replacement,
particularly
in
the
context
of
a
Hospitality
asset.
Q
Q
using
the
County's
capitalization
rate
of
nine
and
a
quarter
I'm
at
a
little
under
3.6
million
three
million
five
hundred
eighty
seven
thousand
six
hundred
dollars.
So
again,
our
our
numbers
are
not
that
far
off
the
one
issue
I
would
have
would
be.
We
still
need
to
deduct
a
reserve
for
replacement
and
deducting
results
in
that
value,
just
under
3.6
million
dollars,
but
again
I
appreciate
Chris's
back
and
forth
that
we
could
have
during
the
appeal
process
and
him
taking
a
look
at
it
and
recommending
a
production.
Thank
you.
O
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning
Matt,
we
did
speak,
he's
easy
to
work
with.
We
always
appreciate
that
we
really
don't
dispute
what
was
just
said.
O
You
know
what
I,
what
I
want
the
board
to
sort
of
try
to
rationalize
and
think
differently
is
that
what
Matt
just
spoke
about
Mr
Andrews
just
spoke
about
is
accurate
when
you're
looking
at,
especially
if
you're
looking
at
comparables
you're
saying
this
one
versus
that
one,
it
makes
sense
to
use
these
sort
of
imputed
Market
projections.
O
O
So
when
we
looked
at
that,
as
noted
by
Mr
Aaron's
far
original
We
noted
that
this
is
not
an
expense
that
he's
actually
occurring
incurring,
and
so
when
we
look
at
direct
cap,
the
income
approach
we're
looking
at
in
the
years
income
stream
and
then
capitalizing
that
so
when
we're
doing
that,
it
seems
inappropriate
to
impute
a
number
that
would
artificially
lower
the
net
operating
income
to
a
number.
That's
not
being
incurred
again.
It's
it's,
not
I.
Don't
want
to
Cloud
things
again.
If
we're
looking
at.
O
How
would
you
compare
it
to
another
limited
Service,
Econo,
Lodge
Etc?
It
makes
sense,
especially
if
they
are
incurring
one
to
equalize
those
two
things
as
we
spoke
about
with
Mr
Aarons
and
our
revision
of
column
f.
One
of
the
things
I
wanted
to
note
is
that
while
we
didn't
include
a
ffne
reserve,
we
did
in
fact
inflate
the
projected
operating
expense
to
within
I.
Believe
it's.
O
95
of
what
they
spent
in
2019.,
so
in
other
words,
we
noted
that
they,
you
know.
Another
way
to
think
about
is
that
the
FFN
reserve
and
the
total
operating
Reserve
is
the
entire
operating
expense
that
is
needed
to
incur
that
income
Stream
So,
if
you
separate
the
two
or
if
you
include
them
as
one
lump
sum,
this
is
kind
of
what
I
expressed
Mr
Aaron,
seeing
as
that
there
was
no
four
percent
being
incurred
by
the
property
owner
for
the
last
four
years.
P
O
I
believe
it's
six
percent
of
what
was
achieved
in
2019.,
focusing
back.
We
want
to
again
rationalize
that
the
entire
industry
itself
is
on
an
upswing.
You
know
that,
based
on
the
stats
we've
talked
about
in
every
Hotel
case,
we've
heard
this
year.
We
know
that
Airline
reservations,
gate
receipts
are,
passengers
are
up.
We
know
that
occupancy's
up,
we
know
average
daily
rates
up,
we
know
rep
far
is
up
one
of
the
reasons.
O
You've
heard
me
say
that
in
general,
I
don't
like
to
make
revisions
this
year,
based
on
the
information
we
have,
and
especially
based
on
the
2022
documents
we
receive
after
data
valuation,
which
to
me
furthers
the
idea
that
we
are
actually
low.
If
anything,
this
one
stands
out
as
Mr
hands
noted.
This
is
not
in
your
traditional
Hotel
lineup
location-wise,
with
our
other
hotels
that
we've
seen.
This
is
essentially
right
on
the
border
of
Falls,
Church
I
will
argue.
O
Obviously,
I
still
think
it's
well
placed
it's
right
off
of
66
on
Fairfax
Drive,
since
literally
the
exit
off
of
66
as
you
approach
DC
and
it's
within
about
a
half
mile
talk
of
is
Falls
Church
Metro.
So
again
does
well
for
tourism.
Things
like
that
and
again,
especially
for
those
budget
conscious
Travelers,
who
don't
want
to
come
into
downtown,
quote,
unquote,
Arlington
and
stay
on
Richmond
Highway
or
Roslyn
Etc.
O
We
did
make
a
revision
downward,
noting
that
again,
our
vision
and
column
f
is
actually
within
approximately
10
of
the
revenues
retrieved
so
again
only
90
percent
of
what
was
achieved
in
2019
and
a
full
80
percent
of
what
was
achieved
for
net
operating
income.
Moreover,
I
would
point
out
that
this
is
only
a
5.2
percent
increase
year
over
year.
As
you
note
in
column
e,
this
is
a
property
that
increased
its
noi
by
almost
100
percent
year
over
year.
Our
increase
is
calling
for
a
5.2
percent
increase
year
over
year.
O
I
would
note,
too,
that
I
appreciate
Mr
Aaron's
concern
as
far
as
again
using
Equity
argument,
if
you
will
to
include
that
ffe
on
top
of
the
aggressive
operating
expense
projection
made
by
the
county.
But
if
you
do
that,
if
you
take
exactly
what
was
suggested
as
the
revision-
and
you
simply
include
that
four
percent,
you
would
actually
then
be
calling
for
a
negative
7.8
percent
decline
year
over
year
for
a
property
that
increased
its
Neto
net
operating
from
about
96
percent
yeah.
O
All
this
being
said
again,
we
do
believe
that
we've
accounted
for
the
ffne
by
including
them
essentially
inflating
the
operating
expense
projection
May
for
the
revision
in
column.
F
again,
as
you
compare
that
to
what
was
achieved
in
2019,
you
can
see
that
again
we're
within
approximately
94
of
what
they
spent
in
in
2019.
So
again,
we
believe
we're
covered
there.
When
you
look
at
the
revision
made,
we
do
believe
that
it's
prudence
and
again,
especially
given
that
it
points
to
a
5.2
percent
increase
year
over
year.
O
Given
that
reflection
and
the
revision
offered,
we
do
believe
the
county
should
be
confirmed,
that
of
value
four
million
68
100..
Thank
you.
D
D
D
Offsetting
balances
that
perhaps
total
offering
expenses
being
too
high
because
he
imputed
a
guideline
four
percent
reserves
for
FF
e.
My
question
is
to
you,
given
that
you
did
a
test,
you
know
we're
kind
of
saying.
Well,
this
went
up
that
went
down.
You
could
have
given
real
numbers.
Four
percent
of
this
is
so
many
dollars
again.
O
I
wouldn't
say
necessarily
a
special
case.
Again.
It's
we
rely
based
on
history.
That's
provided
provided
for
us.
So
in
this
case,
if
you
look
at
the
comment
field,
you'll
see
that
we
didn't
actually
get
the
ionies
for
21,
22
or
2019.,
so
to
Mr
Aaron's
credit.
He
did
provide
those
at
the
time
of
the
appeal
we
reviewed
those
for
the
review
for
the
2023
assessment.
We
noted
at
that
time
there
was
no
reserves
made.
We
asked
for
clarifications
from
Mr
Aaron
from
the
owner
took
a
little
bit.
O
Get
that
to
us
in
fact,
I
think
we
got
it
after
the
revision
was
already
made
regardless.
We
still
would
stand
by
that.
It's
it's
still
kind
of
how
you
get
there
Mr
matskin.
So
if
you
would
prefer
to
take
that
four
percent
and
then
reduce
the
operating
expense,
that'd
be
okay
with
us
too.
We
don't
think
you
should
double
dip.
If
you
look
at
the
original
projection
made
for
the
operating
expense-
and
you
add
that
four
percent-
it's
almost
doubles-
what
they
actually
achieved
in
2022..
O
L
L
Gone
up,
I
mean
in
column
G.
In
the
summary
it's
going
up
to
like
73.
Q
O
Yes,
ma'am
so
again
relying
heavily
upon
the
reported
history
of
the
property.
Looking
at
the
summary
sheet,
I
would
ask
the
board
to
again
reflect
on
the
idea.
That's
based
on
our
previous
projection
for
January
1.
We
did
make
revision
down
as
explained
to
Mr
matskin,
to
the
board
members.
If
you'd
like
you
could
still
incorporate
that
four
percent.
Just
don't
add
it.
On
top
of
the
revision,
that's
already
been
offered.
If
you
to
do
that,
you
would
then
be
calling
for
a
negative
7.8
percent
increase.
O
Q
F
Because
I
think,
while
this
donor
may
not
have
taken
it
this
year
and
if
they
sell
it,
whoever
they
sell
it
to,
probably
if
you
want
to-
and
maybe
they've
done
it
in
years
past,
we
just
had
our
big
argument.
The
last
case
about
Equalization,
and
so
this
isn't
I
mean
you've
got
to
give
them
their
reserve
on
the
test.
A
F
A
G
J
L
D
G
D
L
A
A
F
G
D
G
F
E
D
In
fact,
the
the
test
is
a
lower
percentage
of
a
a
greater
a
smaller
income
than
the
original
assessment
right.
Yeah
well
I
mean
the
department
said
it,
but
I'm
not
seeing
it.
Maybe
that's
why
I
couldn't
find
it
just
telling
and
again
that's
why
I
asked.
Why
didn't
you
just
break
it
out,
given
that
you
went
to
the
trouble
appropriate
trouble.
F
A
A
K
Yeah
I
mean
originally
I
thought
the
value
would
bring
it
lower
than
the
last
year,
but
I
think
you
know.
Most
of
you
are
in
agreement
that
the
reserve
should
be
there.
I
did
the
numbers
based
on
the
revised,
as
you
did,
and
I
came
up
with
the
same
numbers
that
you
did
nothing
wrong.
I.
A
F
F
A
G
A
Okay,
the
final
case
on
the
agenda
is:
do
we
have
missed
there?
We
go.
A
I
have
the
message:
can
you
pull
the
message?
Okay,
wait.
Let's
call
the
case
first,
so
less
cases
rpc18064006
at
2608,
Third
Street,
so
everybody
pulls
it
up,
and
this
is
what
Mr
Farhad
just
said
he's
here
for
the
case
at
2608,
3rd
Street,
North
I
have
no
further
arguments
or
comments
past
the
points
that
were
highlighted
in
the
original
filing
an
appeal
to.
A
G
J
All
right,
good
morning
board,
this
is
a
this
property
is
a
two
and
a
half
story:
vinyl
and
big
veneer
siding
home.
It
has
eight
bedrooms,
six
full
baths
and
two
and
a
half
baths.
The
year
belt
and
effective
age
is
2015
and
the
quality
is
excellent.
Minus
Finnish
square
footage
is
4610
with
1723
square
foot
of
finished
basement
space.
J
To
summarize
our
balance
issues
they
purchased
their
home
for
one
1.5
million
and
they
appealed
their
assessment
and
the
amount
was
reduced
1.6,
which
is
an
amount
that
is
still
higher
than
their
proposed
assessed
value
of
one
one
million
575
000.
their
parents
basis
of
appeal
this
year
stems
from
the
fact
that
they
believe
the
previous
owner,
who
had
six
tenants,
allowed
the
assist
value
to
go
up
to
1.8
million,
which
is
in
2021
from
588
000
in
20
2013..
J
They
also
believe
that
this
is
what's
depressing,
depriving
them
from
paying
the
correct
amount.
They
also
had
other
areas
of
concern
which
have
been
listed
in
the
Boe
I'm
right
up
on
page
two.
The
appellant
did
not
provide
any
comps,
but
the
department
used
three
comps
in
their
review
of
this
Boe,
which
can
be
found
on
page
four
of
the
packet.
J
The
appellants
neighborhood
50
60
57
Clarendon
has
a
total
of
770
dwellings
and
the
total
living
space.
The
total
living
space
of
the
appellants
property
is
the
third
largest
in
the
neighborhood.
The
property's
quality
is
inferior
to
other
homes
in
the
neighborhood
that
were
built
around
the
same
year
and
had
the
similar
size.
J
J
J
Additionally,
as
a
result
of
last
year's
review,
a
negative
20
rdf,
which
is
a
residential
desirability,
Factor
adjustment
for
the
Improvement
value,
is
already
in
place
for
the
unusual
layout
of
the
home
and
as
a
result
of
the
review,
the
inspection
and
the
information
submitted.
It's
a
Department's
opinion
that
the
assessment
is
fair
and
Equitable,
so
we
recommend
the
board
to
confirm
the
current
assessment
of
one
million
seven
hundred
and
31
700..
Thank
you.
D
I
have
a
question
for
the
Department,
of
course,
that
last
comment
that
you
made
about
the
20
percent
desirability
Factor
discount
is
that
I've
never
seen
that
before
I
mean
you've
gone
in
and
decided
it's
laid
out
poorly
in
some
fashion,
and
so
you
division
should
have
Improvement
assessment.
J
Yes,
it's
a
factor
that
we
do
apply
to
properties
that
have
unusual
layouts.
J
D
A
You
you
have
to
walk
through
a
bedroom
to
get
to
a
bathroom
yeah.