►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - September 2, 2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
It's
wednesday
september,
2nd
2020.
This
is
the
arlington
county,
virginia
board
of
equalization
hearing
the
first
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc13022024.
The
property
is
located
at
704
north
wakefield
street.
Mr
geotrio
is
here
to
speak
about
his
property,
and
you
can
begin,
sir,
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
B
Yeah
hello,
so
I
have
purchased
this
property
I
think
two
years
ago
and
at
that
time
I,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
the
assessment
was
like
in
700
750
and
then
the
purchase
here
it
went
up
like
25,
whatever
that
30
40
percent
and
my
argument
on
that
was
was
it
like
solely
based
on
like
the
purchase
price?
That's
what
we
follow
or
we
follow
any
other
comparison.
B
So
I
did
some
comparison
with
the
yeah
other
properties
and
even
the
property
that
is
mentioned
in
in
the
letter
that
I
have
received
that
I
think
our
ssr
has
used
like
1701
north
pokemon
pocomoke
street
rpc,
one
one,
zero,
four,
four:
zero,
zero.
Seven
I
mean
just
just
looking
at
that
property.
Also
like
I'm.
Seeing
the
comparative
value
no
doesn't
come
even
similar.
That
property
is
like
a
large
lot
and
then
so
many
other
things
and
then
dishwasher
and
washer
and
dryer
everything
inside
the
property.
B
But
for
mine
it's
a
million
something
that's
where
I
was
not
very
much
sure
like
why,
because
that
changes
like
so
many
things
in
our
calculation,
it
right
away,
bumped
up,
250
thousand
dollars
just
based
on
the
solely
based
on
the
sales
amount,
and
I
even
put
it
in
my
argument
when
I
appeal
I
requested
this
appeal
I
put
I
do.
B
I
could
not
find
out
that
email,
but
the
other
properties
in
that
similar
or
better
lot
property
in
that
line,
wakefield
line
it
has
like
very
lower
value
and
that
value
never
changed.
B
So
the
argument
here
is
like
as
soon
as
you
see
like
if
it
went
on
sale
for
that
much
amount,
you
just
match
that
assessment
with
the
with
what
you
think
is
the
assist
value
and
I
can
share
like
if
you
look
into
problem
rpc
one
one:
zero,
four,
four:
zero:
zero:
seven
you
will
see
and
if
you
do
the
comparison,
that
lot
is
way
bigger.
It's
exactly
the
same
structure.
B
A
Okay,
thank
you,
sir.
I
believe
mr
ulysses
is
on
the
line
for
the
county.
C
C
All
right,
thank
you,
everyone
for
taking
the
time
to
hear
this
case.
It's
an
interesting
case,
the
first
for
me
and
all
my
years
working
here.
In
this
particular
case,
no
inspection
was
conducted
due
to
covet
19.
C
Which
is
when
multiple
units
were
noticed
for
the
property
due
to
the
meters
outside
into
so
the
interior
info
was
obtained
from
mris
sales
listing,
which
was
minimal.
You
can
see
the
notes
on
page
17
and
18
in
the
notes
section
of
the
worksheet
for
the
property.
C
The
appellant
feels
that
they're
not
being
assessed
fair
and
equitably
when
compared
to
different
property
types.
This
is
regarding
the
appellant's
comp
that
is
actually
being
valued
as
an
apartment.
C
C
As
far
as
the
county
is
concerned,
the
record
on
file
is
not
as
accurate
as
as
up
to
date
as
the
subject:
property
appellant's
neighborhood
austria
ballston
increased
on
average
this
year,
six
and
a
half
percent
due
to
the
sales
that
occurred
within
the
analysis
period
and
within
the
neighborhood
prior
to
the
subject,
sales
date
back
in
2018,
the
information
on
file
was
outdated,
which
resulted
in
the
appellant's
property
getting
a
larger
than
average
increase
in
2019.
C
As
far
as
the
condition
is
reflected
on
the
property,
so
no
changes
were
made
to
the
record
this
year.
It
is
recommended
that
the
2020
assessment
be
confirmed
at
a
million
based
on
the
sales
comps
provided
of
other
similar
dwellings
that
have
multiple
rental
units.
C
D
This
is
for
the
appellant
you
mentioned
twice
about
laundry
facilities.
Do
you
not
have
them
in
your
in
your
residence?
No!
No,
sir,
do
you
have
a
hook
up?
You
know
plumbing
for
through
no
washer.
B
No,
it
doesn't
have
in
the
in
the
unit
it's
located
in
the
basement.
D
E
Yes,
okay
for
the
county
on
your
little
chart
here
where
you
have
the
subject:
property
and
other
properties
under
type
style.
I
see
a
two:
does
that
mean
two
units.
E
C
C
E
F
C
D
For
the
department
just
on
that,
because
we
see
of
course
comparable
for
coming
up
later
today,
I
noticed
that
all
the
information
is
exactly
the
same:
the
sale
date,
the
everything
and
at
first
I
thought.
Oh
there
was
a
typo
here.
You
made
a
mistake
and
then
I
see
that
the
lot
size
is
a
little
bit
different
and
and
is
it
the
same?
D
A
G
Yes,
I
had
a
question
for
the
appellant.
I
know
you
submitted
two
rpcs,
two
properties
as
comparables.
Do
you
know
if
those
are
divided
as
apartments,
because
when
I
looked
at
the
tax
records
they
look
like
you
know,
they're
classified
as
duplexes,
but
one
is
a
residence
with
five
bedrooms,
two
bathrooms,
the
other
one
doesn't
list
the
number
of
bedrooms
or
bathrooms,
but
it
doesn't
look
like
they're
really
classified
or
divided
the
way
that
your
buildings.
B
Are
no
sir,
I
did
not
go
inside
but
looking
into
from
outside
and
the
number
of
car
and
that
independent,
I
I
yeah.
No,
I
do
not
have
a
solid
answer
for
that.
I
could
not
look
into
inside,
but
that
was
my
assumption.
B
Okay,
but
the
rpc,
the
one
that
is
in
the
in
the
compound
on
page
three,
the
poco.
I
forgot
the
street.
I
do
not
have
in
the
screen
in
front
of
me:
the
800
000
valuation,
yeah,
800
000,
something
valuation,
that's
the
like.
That's
the
better
condition
property,
probably
if
you
want
to
comp
compared
to
both
700
and
700
for
wakefield.
G
G
H
B
C
The
county
stands
as
far
as
this
part.
These
properties
are
concerned
that
it
has
been
assessed
fair
and
equitably
when
compared
to
similar
properties
throughout
the
county,
based
on
its
2018
sales
price
changes
that
were
made
actualized
the
property's
current
situation,
that's
why
you
saw
a
large
increase
in
2819
as
far
as
the
assessed
value
for
2020
it's
in
line
with
the
neighborhood
adjustments
made
based
on
the
sales
analysis
for
the
year.
C
The
county
would
like
to
call
to
attention
the
fact
that
this
is
a
rental
income
producing
property
with
four
units.
That's
why
we
valued
it
or
with
less
than
four
units.
That's
why
we
value
it
with
this
manner
as
opposed
to
a
income
and
expense
approach,
and
then
the
county
also
looked
closely
at
its
2018
sales
price
of
a
million
dollars
which
is
close
to
its
2020
assessed
value.
C
As
a
result,
the
county
feels
that
the
2020
assessed
value
should
be
confirmed.
B
My
only
argument
would
be
like
just
based
on
the
sales
value
it
should.
It
should
have
a
little
bit
more
base
and
if
you
compare
it
with
with
the
page
three
assessed
value,
it
should
not
go
that
high
forty
percent,
just
based
on
the
sales
value
and
looking
at
the
window
outside
it.
It
should
be
a
gradual
increase
of
the
rapid
increase
right
away
with
the
sales
value.
A
G
I'll
go
ahead
and
start,
I
think
you
know
it
may
be
one
of
those
things
that
we
see,
sometimes
that
some
properties
are
just
assessed.
G
Undervalued,
I
mean,
but
you
know
I
was
trying
to
look
at
other
properties
also
and
look
at
the
comparables
that
the
property
owner
provided.
But
I
don't
really
see,
I
think,
they're
totally
different.
I
don't
think
I
don't
see
them
as
the
same
as
having
you
know,
four
or
three
units
as
rentals
inside
the
property.
G
A
D
Matkin
I'll
make
one
note
that
the
appellant's
property
went
up
a
third
as
much
as
the
neighborhood's
overall
average
increase
this
year.
D
So
it
appears
that
the
county
last
year
caught
up
from
under
assessments
and
has
and
is
going
lightly
on
this
appellate
this,
this
property
owner.
A
E
D
A
A
100.
miss
hogan.
Are
you
a
second
yes,
okay,
emotion
in
a
second
by
ms
hogan,
all
in
favor
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous,
the
county
is
confirmed
at
one
million.
Sixteen
thousand
one
hundred
moving
to
the
second
case
on
the
agenda.
This
is
rpc
one
three
zero,
two,
two:
zero
four,
three:
seven
hundred
north
wakefield
street,
mr
trio.
You
can
start-
and
you
have
eight
minutes
to
tell
us
anything
about
this
property
as
well.
C
Sorry,
but
for
this
case
same
arguments
as
the
previous
case,
I
would
just
like
to
call
it
attention
that
I
forgot
to
mention
in
the
previous
case
that
any
corrections
that
were
made
to
the
comps
will
be
reflected
in
the
following
year's
assessment.
C
During
this
process
in
comparing
properties
updates
were
made
to
the
comps
as
far
as
actualizing
the
records
other
than
that.
Every
all
the
details
are
exactly
the
same
as
the
prior
case
and
the
county
stands
at,
confirming
the
assessed
value
based
on
sales,
analysis
for
the
neighborhood
and
the
sales
price
of
the
comp
from
2018.
A
Okay.
Thank
you,
sir
any
questions
from
the
appellate
or
I'm
sorry
from
the
board
members.
Mr
matkin.
D
C
Based
on
the
exterior
inspection
that
was
conducted
during
the
sales,
verification
and
information
that
was
gathered
from
mris
as
far
as
interior
updates,
that
were
done.
If
you
look
on
page
17,
18
of
the
packet
in
the
notes
section
for
the
car
down
at
the
bottom,
you'll
see
descriptions
as
far
as
interior
updates
that
were
done
and
based
on
those
and
those
descriptive
characteristics.
Adjustments
were
made.
A
G
I
A
D
Yes,
I
ask
a
question
about
this.
What
misled
me
was
that
the
owners-
I
don't
know
who
this
is
a
question
for,
I
guess
the
department,
the
ownership
of
these
two
is
listed.
One
as
a
person,
one
is
a
a
corporation
is:
is
that
how
it
is
in
the
public
record,
the
appellate
bottom
and
different
guises
legal
guys.
D
J
E
Could
be
tax
planning
or
it.
D
D
A
A
F
Okay,
so
I'm
going
to
direct
the
board
to
page
38
of
93
of
the
boards
memo
and
that's
where
you'll
find
our
summary
of
facts.
This
is
the
birchwood
apartments.
We've
been
before
the
board
a
number
of
years.
F
This
is
a
property
that
is
right
off
the
north
pollard
street
to
the
north
of
glebe.
It's
currently
assessed
at
39
million,
480,
100
or
407
000
a
unit.
The
county
is
recommending
no
change
and
what
we're
asking
for
from
the
board
today
is
a
value
of
37
million
74
000,
which
is
382
000
a
unit.
F
F
Now
we've
had
a
number
of
cases
already
before
the
board.
If
you
recall
columbia
park
and
the
board
has
has
ruled
against
us
in
that,
so
we
still
are
in
strong
disagreement
with
that,
and
we
very
much
believe
that
this
property
should
be
viewed
and
the
properties
that
are
in
close
proximity
to
this
property
that
are
also
owned
by
the
same
ownership
group
and
one
that
we'll
be
discussing
right
after
this
thomas
court.
F
Thomas
place
as
well
as
henderson
park,
should
all
be
valued
as
garden
style
or
low
rise
and
not
mid-rise,
which
obviously
substantially
affects
the
guidelines
that
the
county
uses
to
value
that
property
with
regard
to
the
stabilized
vacancy
the
in
the
cap
rate
as
well
as
operating
expenses.
So
if
you
turn
to
page
three
of
the
the
county's
memo
response,
the
apartment
income,
ine,
summary
you'll,
see
our
column
f
is
our
pro
forma.
F
It
utilizes
the
most
recent
2019
reported
income
of
the
property
and
we're
using
the
actual
expenses,
which
is
excuse
me,
the
actual
stabilized
vacancy
that
was
reported,
the
property
of
2.76
percent,
which
is
right
in
line
with
the
three
percent
recommended
vacancy
for
a
garden
or
low
rise
apartment
for
the
county
and
then,
as
well
as
the
actual
operating
expenses
of
32.12.
F
F
The
operating
expenses
is
something
else
for
you
to
look
at.
You
know.
If
nothing
else,
we
would
ask
the
board
to
make
an
adjustment
to
appropriately
consider
the
operating
expenses
and
what
this
property
is
has
actually
operated
at
the
last
two
consecutive
years,
which
has
been
at
thirty
two
point:
one
two
percent
and
thirty
three
point
three,
three:
four
percent
in
2018
the
prior
year.
F
F
This
was
passed
six
to
one
in
favor
of
reclassifying
this
property
as
as
a
garden,
so
there
is
pressed
in
here-
and
that
goes
along
with,
with
all
the
other
cases
that
we'll
be
bringing
forth
this
year
and
as
we
have
in
prior
years,
that
have
dealt
with
this
this
specific
issue.
So
there
is
a
precedent
here.
The
board
has
agreed
with
this
this
issue
in
the
past
and
it's
still
a
very
pertinent
determining
factor
in
the
overall
valuation
of
the
property.
F
The
last
thing
I
know
that
the
county
had
had
justified
their
claim
for
the
property
being
classified
as
mid-rise
by
supplying
a,
I
guess,
an
internal
marketing,
flyer
or
marketing
flyer
that
was
printed
on
I'm
looking
at
the
thomas
court,
one.
This
is
on
page
14,
but
it's
around
page
13
or
14
of
the
packet
for
birchwood,
and
I
think
I
believe,
sophie
and
greg
with
the
ownership
are
here
and
they
can.
F
They
can
discuss
that,
but
internally,
the
the
ownership
use
this
as
a
garden
or
mid-rise,
but
I
don't
know
sophie.
Are
you
sophie
or
greg?
Are
you
here.
F
Trying
to
look
so
I
don't
know
if
they're
logged
in
as
of
yet
but
from
discussions
with
with
the
ownership
this
marketing
flyers
is
was
done
basically
by
their
marketing
department.
I
don't
know
where
they
pull
that
information,
but
internally
the
ownership
views
these
properties
and
all
the
ones
that
we've
discussed
previously
as
garden
or
low
right,
that's
how
they
view
them.
L
Absolutely
good
morning,
ma'am
good
morning
board
members
good
morning
blake
this
in
regards
to
the
mid-rise
multi-family
birchwood
apartments,
as
previously
indicated
by
mr
warren.
This
is
in
the
boston,
virginia
square
neighborhood.
L
L
2019
saw
increases
in
apartment
revenue
of
approximately
2.9
percent.
We
saw
increases
in
parking
revenue,
2.2
percent
and
though
other
revenue
or
miscellaneous
revenue
went
down.
That's
mostly
indicative
of
the
split
of
the
rubs
or
utility
reimbursement
which
went
up
about
six
thousand
percent.
But
again,
I
think
that's
a
bit.
L
In
that
it
was
under
reported
in
previous
years.
Overall
gross
potential
income
increased
by
2.9
percent
building
is
very
stable.
True
vacancy
is
down
in
2019
there's
a
three-year
average
of
2.1
percent
well-performing.
L
In
regards
to
occupancy,
when
you
include
concessions,
the
concessions
portion
was
also
down
in
2019
there's
a
three-year
average
there,
4.4
percent
for
the
for
the
property
as
a
whole,
effective
gross
increased
by
just
shy
of
five
percent.
Four
point:
nine
percent
for
2019,
that's
after
growth
in
2018,
as
well
as
indicated
by
mr
warren
operating
expenses,
did
tick
up,
but
very
slightly
just
over
one
percent
as
compared
to
2018.
L
We
noted
a
three-year
average
operating
expense
of
961,
000
or
31.4
percent
of
effective
gross.
These
metrics
caused
the
net
operating
income
to
tick
up
about
6.8
percent.
For
again
for
a
three
year
average
of
just
over
2.1
million
dollars,
the
two-year
average
is
2.083
million
dollars
so
again,
both
numbers
higher
than
what
we
projected
for
the
2020
year.
When
we
look
at
the
county
projections
in
column
d
as
a
compared
to
column
e,
we
see
that
we
under
projected
gross
potential
income
by
ninety.
Seven
thousand
three
percent
effective
gross.
L
L
The
board
seen
this
number
of
cases
this
year,
obviously
in
conjunction
with
the
virginia
code
which
allows
the
boards
to
consider
the
actuals,
if
you
were
to
make
an
adjustment
to
the
operating
expenses
to
get
them
more
in
line
with
what
was
reported
in
2019
we'd.
Obviously
ask
you
to
keep
in
mind
the
vast
underprojection
of
effective
gross
that
we
missed
out
on
due
to
the
stabilization
of
the
property
in
regards
to
the
property
classification,
as
noted
by
mr
warren,
these
weren't
internal
documents.
L
L
That,
in
conjunction
with
co-stars
listing
of
the
property,
is
a
four-star
mid-rise
apartment
with
four
stories
in
conjunction
with
the
appellant's
own
packet.
That
lists
the
properties
of
four
story.
You
can
see
that
on
page
38
of
93
and
in
coordination
with
freddie,
mac's
definition
of
a
garden
as
a
one,
two
or
three
story
apartment.
L
This
is
a
four
story
above
grade
very
clearly
much
very
similar
to
yesterday's
argument
over
the
application
of
effective
age
and
the
request
by
some
board
members
for
us
to
sort
of
take
our
medicine
and
move
on
with
that
conclusion,
that's
been
made.
We
do
believe
that
this
should
be
something
that's
set
forth
today,
going
forward.
L
L
The
owner
believes
it's
a
mid-rise,
as
stated
on
their
brochures
that
are
for
the
public
to
basically
advertise
their
businesses.
Co-Star
believes
it's
a
four
four-star
mid-rise.
Even
again
the
appellant's
packet
listed
as
a
four-story.
Bedrock.
Excuse
me
four
story.
We
believe
this
should
be
sort
of
taken
care
of
going
forward.
L
We'll
have
a
couple
more
cases
like
this
this
year,
where
we
have
other
four-story
properties
and
again
we
list
those
as
mid-rise,
given
the
under
projections
based
by
the
county
based
upon
comparison
to
the
2019's
income
and
expense
information.
L
L
L
D
F
I
think
our
basis
is
and
there's
a
lot
of
different
definitions.
So
you
know
fannie
mae,
freddie,
mac,
the
appraisal
institute
and
all
of
them
vary,
but
our
standard
definition
and
what
most
jurisdictions
in
this.
F
Regional
area
view
mid-rise,
as
is
four
or
excuse
me,
anywhere
from
five
to
nine
anywhere
from
one
to
four,
is
usually
viewed
as
a
a
garden
or
like
a
low
rise,
so
a
different
classification.
So
I
think
that's
what
we've
always
tried
to
argue
is
that
there's
a
distinction
between
garden
and
mid
there's
something
in
between
that
kind
of
a
low
rise
and.
F
That's
what
we've
seen
in
in
the
different
definitions
of
used
by
different
valuation
experts
and
jurisdictions
that
value
these
properties
and
and
that
buy
and
sell
these
properties
on
a
consistent
basis
and
the
board
has
has
pressed
in
and
agreeing
with
this
as
well.
So
we
have
the
board
last
year
agreeing
that
this
property
should
be
valued
as
a
not
as
a
mid-rise,
but
as
a
low-riser
or
garden.
F
So
again,
I
know
we
have
precedent
from
from
previous
cases
and
and
coming
specifically
from
columbia
park,
which
that
one
was
three
stories
with
a
basement,
an
egress
and
and
no
basement,
and
they
were
like
likely
fighting
an
uphill
battle.
But
again
the
the
ownership
used
this
property,
not
as
a
mid-rise.
L
This
building
property
is
performing
well
increases
in
gross
potential
of
almost
three
percent
increases
of
effective
gross
of
almost
five
percent,
and
even
when
allowing
for
an
increase
of
one
percent
in
the
net
operating
excuse
me
total
operating
expenses.
L
F
F
The
and,
if,
in
addition,
that
the
actual
operating
expenses
that
have
been
reported
at
this
property
for
the
last
two
years
have
been
are
higher
than
than
what
is
what
the
assessor
is
using
to
currently
value
the
property.
So
again,
the
the
ownership
classifies
this
as
a
garden
style.
F
I
think
it's
indicative
of
the
revenue
this
property
is
able
to
generate,
and
we
think
it
should
be
thusly
capped
at
at
the
county's
garden
style
cap
rates
and
not
the
cap
rates
that
are
classified
under
the
mid-rise,
as
well
as
the
the
metro
classification
which
pushes
it
down
another
another
25
basis
points.
This
is
also
10
basis
points
lower
than
what
the
property
was
was
capped
at
the
prior
year
as
well,
so
again,
based
on
that
information
and
based
off
the
this
again
as
a
stabilized
property.
F
E
Mr
lawson,
thank
you,
madam
chairman,
when
my
parents
nudged
me
out
of
the
nest
of
course,
my
first
home
away
from
home
was
a
garden
apartment
down
on
columbia,
pike
on
the
top
floor,
three
three
stories-
and
I
was
you,
know
19
at
the
time,
so
no
problem
going
up
down
those
steps
to
me.
E
The
important
thing
is
whether
it
has
an
elevator
or
not,
and
you
know
I
argued
very
strenuously
last
time
that
I
thought
it
should
be
a
garden
apartment,
because
there's
no
elevator-
and
I
think
you
know
having
or
not
having
an
elevator
is,
you
know,
is
very
dramatic
as
to
who
you
can
rent
to
and
so
forth.
Given
that
this
has
an
elevator
giving
that
I
did
not
win.
My
last
eloquently
argued
case.
I
think
that
I
gotta
go
with
the
county.
E
A
D
Thoughts,
mr
matskin.
Yes,
thank
you
two
things,
one
clearly
for
equalization
purposes.
The
county
has
a
defensible
definition
of
what's
garden,
what's
mid-rise
but
high-rise
by
significant
authorities
within
the
residential
financial
community.
So,
although
not
everyone
agrees
nonetheless
for
consistency,
I'm
with
the
county's
definition,
because
it
is
highly
defensible.
Second,
the
departments
mentioned
that
they
underestimated
both
income
and
operating
expenses,
and
I
noticed
that
the
the
bigger
underestimation
was
under
income.
D
So
if
they
had
done
a
test
and
and
and
reran
these
numbers,
the
noi
would
have
gone
up,
there
would
have
been
more
income
added
than
than
operating
expenses
deducted.
Finally,
why
was
it
that
the
board
last
year
considered
this
a
garden
and
not
a
mid-rise.
A
Okay,
I
can
speak
to
that.
There
was
confusion
over
this
in
previous
years
and
we
trying
to
make
the
break
between
three
and
four
floors.
I
believe
it
was
at
the
end
of
last
year.
Actually
after
we
had
done
it,
that
we
went
and
did
some
further
research
and
it
isn't
just
freddie
mac.
Fannie
mae
says
the
same
thing.
You
know
I
can't
speak
to
the
appraisal
institute.
I
could
look
it
up,
but
nonetheless,
you
know.
A
We
then
agreed
that
three
stories
and
under
that's
the
definition
and
accepted
the
county's
classification
of
garden
versus
mid.
A
In
addition,
the
fact
that
you've
got
an
elevator
on
this
one
even
makes
it
even
more
clear
you
know.
So
I
think
all
of
the
points
that
you
made,
including
you
know
if
the
actual
noi
was
higher
based
on
performance,
which
is
really
what
the
appellant
has
put
forth
in
column.
F,
the
assessment
would
be
higher,
so
I'm
I
agree
with
you
know,
mr
lawson,
that
I
I
would
vote
for
the
county's
value.
So
mr
yates.
J
Yeah
I
looked
up
the
file
from
last
year.
That's
what
I
was
doing
a
minute
ago
and
it
did
not
indicate
an
elevator
when
we
made
that
decision,
and
I
think
that
that
is
a
big
factor.
Would
you
repeat
that
you
you
blurred
out
yeah,
I'm
sorry
it.
I
was
looking
it
up
the
file
from
last
year.
In
my
notes,
it
did
not
indicate
an
elevator
and
that
to
me
makes
a
big
factor.
A
J
J
H
I
think
the
county
did
a
good
job,
trying
to
clear
up
the
standard
between
last
year
and
this
year,
because
we
did
have
this
argument
a
lot.
They
established
kind
of
a
clear,
bright
line
and
four
stories,
and
so
you
know
I'm
I'm
happy
to
apply.
E
H
Uniformly,
I
don't
think
there
should
be
looking
forward
at
the
cap
rate
study
next
year.
There
probably
doesn't
shouldn't
be
as
much
of
a
difference
between
cap
rates
for
a
for
a
garden
and
a
non-garden
there's
other
factors
at
play,
other
than
the
height
of
the
building
that
you
know
affect
the
cap
rate.
You
know,
I
think,
a
much
older
building
with
a
lot
of
deferred
maintenance
that
has
income
and
things
like
that
is
going
to
have
a
higher
cap
rate,
and
it's
not
not
going
to
matter
whether
it's
12.
J
H
Or
or
or
three
stories,
so
maybe
we
can
look
into
that
offline,
but
I
I
support
the
county
on
this
one,
based
on
the
fact
that
we
we
had
a
value
that
we
came
up
with
last
year
and
we've
had
a
very
modest
year-over-year
increase
from
last
year,
and
I
think
the
area
around
the
building
has
gotten
a
lot
better.
There's
a
lot
of
improvements
that
have
happened.
So
I
think
the
value's
going
to
continue
to
trend
upwards.
E
E
You
know
chris
has
done
a
great
job
of
justifying
the
the
value
of
this,
but
the
county
spends
millions
of
dollars
trying
to
preserve
market
rate,
affordable
on
one
hand
and
then,
on
the
other
hand,
they're
pushing
for
as
high
an
assessed
value
and
as
high
a
tax
taxable
situation
as
they
can,
and
you
know,
I
think
that
this
garden
versus
mid-rise
ought
to
be
resolved,
and
so
we
have
clear
precedent
going
forward
is,
is
what
I
submit.
A
G
Yes,
I
think
the
argument
again
about
the
mid-rise
or
garden
to
me
has
been
already
established
or
clarified.
You
know,
I
know
last
year,
the
previous
year
of
america,
the
elevator
status,
whether
that
makes
a
difference
or
not,
but
I
think
for
this
particular
assessment.
It
should
be
classified
as
a
mid-rise.
G
G
If
I
were
to
list
this
property
as
a
residential
condominium
unit,
I
would
list
it
as
a
mid-rise
and
I
also
ran
some
tests
on
the
numbers.
You
know
if
we
were
to
use
the
actual
numbers
like
the
appellant
is
suggesting
you
know.
I
came
up
with
a
value
of
over
40
million
dollars,
based
on
current
numbers
and
in
the
last
year
in
2019,
and
even
if
we
use
the
current
assessment
increase
the
expenses
like
he's
suggesting
we
will
also
have
to
adjust
the
vacancy
if
we
were
to
use
actual
numbers.
G
I
still
come
up
with
39
million
four
and
something
so
it's
really
tight
and
close.
So
I'm
you
know,
I
don't
see
where
we
can
make
any
further
changes.
E
A
F
Okay,
sorry,
I
don't
know
what's
going
on
my
phone,
but
I'm
going
to
do
it
through
my
computer
and
try
and
talk
about
how
to
extend
the
speakers
are
not
very
good.
A
F
So
this
is
the
thomas
court
apartments
been
pretty
close
proximity
to
the
property.
We
just
spoke
about
it
to
the
south
of
glebe.
It's
located
at
470
north
thomas
street,
one
rpc.
F
It's
currently
assessed
at
21
million
448,
000,
800,
800
and
the
county
is
recommending
no
change
and
the
value
we're
asking
for
today
is
20
million
650
to
900
or
421
000
units.
This
property
was
built
in
2012,
it's
49
total
units.
F
Again
it's
a
property
that
we've
brought
before
the
board
last
several
years,
due
to
the
classification
of
it
being
a
mid-rise
by
the
county,
which
we
believe
it
should
be
applied
as
a
low
rise
or
garden
that,
as
seen
on
page,
I
believe
birchwood
last
year
and
was
approved
by
the
board
at
a
vote
of
six
to
one
to
reclassify
that
as
a
garden
style
apartment.
So
again,
there
is.
There
is
precedent
here.
F
The
board
has
agreed
that
this
property-
and
I
don't
think,
there's
been
any
ambiguity
upon
the
the
elevator
situation
here.
There
is
an
elevator
in
this
property.
It's
it's
four
stories:
it's
it's
one!
Building
and
again
it's
in
that
bolston
metro
station.
It's
it's
within
a
a
mile
of
that
and
as
well
as
the
virginia
square,
gmu
metro
station,
so
turn
your
attention
to
your
p3,
which
is
the
apartment,
income
and
expense
again
we're.
This
is
a
a
again
a
stabilized
property.
F
It's
one
that
we
are
using
the
most
recent
reported
2019
income
and
expenses
and
then
applying
the
county's
assessment
guidelines
for
the
garden
style.
So
the
the
three
percent
vacancy
we're
actually
using
the
actuals,
because
it's
pretty
close
at
4.46,
which
was
reported
in
2019
and
then
the
actual
expenses
reported
in
2019
of
26.9
27.
F
It
seems
like
the
board
has
come
to
a
conclusion
on
the
classification
of
this,
these
types
of
properties,
as
I
mentarized,
but
we
would,
at
the
very
least,
want
to
have
the
board
take
consideration
to
the
actual
expenses.
The
evaluation
uses
an
operations
ratio
of
200,
354
000
as
well,
was
reported
in
both
2018
two
years
ago,
as
well
as
the
most
recent
year,
29
at
398,
000.,
991,
2018
and
then
most
recently,
448
000.
F
Assessment
guidelines
as
guard
style,
we
would
ask
that
a
proper
consideration
be
given
to
the
operating
expenses
and
how
this
the
accessibility
company
has
sort.
F
That
over
the
last
two
years,
the
final
thing
I
should
say
two
things
I
think
greg
is
on
the
line.
He
could
speak
to
the
the
flyer,
but
this
is
a
property
that,
along
with.
F
For
any
multi-family
apartment
in
the
county,
so
we've
included
a
list
of
those
assessment
comps
on
page
page
42
of
89..
F
You
know
you'll
see
the
majority
of
that
list
is
high-rise
apartment
towers
in
clarendon,
boston
roswell,
which
are
to
recognize
these
properties
being
classified
as
a
as
a
garden
style
greg.
I
don't
know
if
you're
on
the
line
now
and
can
speak
to
the
fact
we
had
previously
spoken
about
the
the
marketing
fire
the
county
had
provided
in
their
response.
Mamimo
that
listed
the
the
properties
as
a
mid-rise.
F
F
Again,
that's
our
case,
this
one's
a
little
bit
more
clear
in
the
in
the
fact
that
we
feel
that
the
the
county
is
underestimating
the
the
total
expenses
of
the
property
and
their
current
valuation,
and
as
well
as
when
you
look
at
this
one
on
a
per-unit
basis,
you
can
see
there's
there's
something
out
of
whack
with
how
this
is
being
assessed
compared
to
some
of
the
top
multi-family
towers
in
the
county.
Thank
you.
L
Yes,
ma'am
again
very
similar
to
the
last
case,
I
think,
without
putting
words
in
mr
warren's
math,
it
breaks
down
to
the
classification
of
the
property
against
extremely
similar.
This
is
a
mid-rise
built
in
2011
four
full
stories
over
grade.
He
even
has
some
parking
garage
which
is
under
grade
below
grade,
so
it's
very
modern
building
again
an
elevator
the
own
marketing
brochure
for
the
company,
which
is
again
an
external
document
available
on
their
website.
Rentbitmar.Com
lists
the
property
as
a
mid-rise.
That's
on
page
14
of
89.
L
co-star
lists
it
as
a
three-star
mid-rise
apartment
four
stories.
The
pellets
packet
lists
the
properties
of
four-story
building
on
page
38
of
89..
Again,
we've
gone
over
the
definitions.
This
is
the
freddie
mac
in
regards
to
the
property
itself.
Looking
at
the
summary
sheet
again,
metrics
all
up
for
2019
apartment
revenue
is
up:
6.8
percent
parking
revenue
at
4.1,
other
miscellaneous
revenue,
up
45
and
rubs,
or
utility
reimbursement
up
641.
L
Again,
that's
much
to
do
with
how
it
was
reported
in
previous
years,
as
opposed
to
an
actual
increase
of
that
amount.
The
property
did
see
an
uptick
in
vacancy
year
over
year.
Still
true
vacancy
has
a
three-year
average
of
3.6
percent
well
within
reason
for
a
property
of
this
type
again,
especially
considering
guidelines
of
5
percent
that
are
applied
by
the
county.
L
We
saw
effective
gross
income
up
three
years
in
a
row
year
over
year
every
year,
with
the
2018
increase
at
8.3
percent.
We
had
operating
expenses
that
were
in
fact
up
12.4
percent.
In
the
operating
year
2019
we
did
note
a
three-year
average
of
approximately
389
000
or
24.8
percent
of
effective
gross.
L
We
saw
noi
uptick
percent
6.8
2019
three
year,
average
of
one
point,
one:
seven,
seven
and
a
two
year
average
of
one
one:
seven:
nine.
L
L
The
board
is
allowed
to
consider
the
actuals
and
I
believe
the
appellant
essentially
makes
argument
for
us
if
you
were
to
take
column
f
and
apply
the
appropriate
5.4
percent
cap
rate
you'd
actually
get
a
value,
that's
higher
than
the
county
at
22
million
565
000.,
given
that
we
don't
have
a
third
party
appraisal
and
don't
recommend
a
increase
over
what
we
put
out
january
first.
We
do
believe
that
this
information
calls
for
confirmation
of
the
county
at
twenty
one
million
nine
hundred.
Ninety
one
thousand
six
hundred.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board
members.
E
Yeah,
this
is
for
chris
on
the
metro
versus
non-metro.
What's
the
distance.
L
No
ma'am
just
again
a
familiarity
of
the
board
with
this
under
projection
made
by
the
county.
In
reference
to
the
newly
received
information,
if
you
were
to
change
operating
expenses,
we
just
asked
you
to
keep
in
mind
the
actual
revenue
achieved
and
again
looking
at
the
appellants
column.
If
appropriately
capped
would
offer
a
value
higher
than
the
county,
would
you
believe,
21
million
991
600
should
be
confirmed?
Thank
you.
F
Yes
again,
we
did
use
the
actual
incoming
report
in
2019.
That's
on
the
basis
of
the
property
which
we
do
feel
strongly
about
should
be
valued
based
off
of
the
the
county's
guidelines
for
gardens
and
stabilized
vacancy
and
operating
expenses,
as
well
as
cap
rate,
which
is
which
is
obviously
higher.
Now,
even
with
that,
I
think
that
the
county's
under
reporting
of
the
operating
expenses
needed
to
be
taken
into
consideration,
like
chris
said
three-year
average,
is
25.
F
If
you
just
look
at
the
most
recent
two
years,
that's
26
percent
on
average
and
the
average
you
know,
three-year
effective
gross
income
is
pretty
close
to
where
he
his
original
estimate
was
at
one
million
five.
Forty,
two,
two
six
three
six
so
again.
F
Well,
are
we
very
very
strongly
agreed
or
just
created
this
problem
to
be
valid
as
a
mid-rise,
we're
hoping
that
the
the
county
will
give
some
consideration
to
the
historical
operating
expenses
over
the
last
two
years?
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you
now,
it's
just
among
the
board
members.
H
Oh
yeah,
I'm
looking
at
it
pretty
similar
to
the
last
case.
The
one
thing
that
gave
me
pause
was
the
400.
Almost
450
000
per
unit
seemed
a
little
high
for
this
type
of
building,
but
then
you
dip
into
the
unit
mix
and
it's
it's
all
larger
units.
These
are
92
percent,
two
and
three
units.
So
it's
a
little
bit
different
than
a
lot
of
these
other
apartments
that
the
appellant
put
forward
as
comps,
which
are
mostly
one
bedrooms
and
studios
or
one
beds,
plus
den.
So
I'm,
okay
with
the
county's
assessment
right.
G
I
agree,
I
think
it's
pretty
similar
to
what
we
had
in
the
previous
case.
You
know,
classification
is
right
and
the
income
that
the
county
is,
I
think
it's
a
little
low
but
yeah,
I'm
okay
with
it.
A
All
right,
any
other
different
opinions.
All
right
would
somebody
like
to
make
a
motion.
H
Sure
I'll
motion
to
accept
the
county's
assessment
of
21
million
991
600.
H
E
A
A
Okay,
I
believe
I
saw
mr
kinney
is
in
the
queue
yes
he's
here
there.
He
is
good
morning,
mr
kenny,
okay,
the
last
case
on
the
agenda
is
the
economic
unit
1704902a,
the
property
located
at
2025
fairfax
drive
and
mr
jonathan
kinney
is
here
to
represent
the
appellant.
Mr
kinney,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
I
Thank
you,
miss
dooley
and
members
of
the
board
of
equalization.
I
want
to
handle
a
few
preliminary
matters.
First,
we're
only
just
to
make
it
clear:
we're
only
appealing,
17-01700
the
county
and
setting
it
out
set
out
the
economic
unit,
but
because
of
the
fact
that
the
ownership
of
these
properties
are
different,
there's
some
overlap,
but
they're
different
parties
we're
only
appealing
the
one
which
concludes
the
unbuilt
building
in
this
in
the
site
plan.
The
others
are
historic
and
have
been
so
designated
by
the
owner
and
agreed
to
by
the
county.
I
The
county
portrays
and
it's
in
its
first
page,
the
difference
in
the
assessment
by
taking
the
economic
unit
of
18707
400
and
saying
the
appellants
that
indication
of
value
is
6
million
360..
I
The
actual
correct
difference
should
be
the
difference
between
the
005
property,
which
the
county
assesses
at
8
million
944
and
what
we
believe
should
be
assessed
at
around
six
million
three
hundred
and
sixty
thousand.
So
I
just
wanna
try
to
clarify
that
we're
our
differences
is
less
than
shown
on
the
county's
statement.
Just
to
help
clarify
that.
I
also.
I
I
also
need
to
address
a
statement
made
in
the
county
state
report
and
that
basically
says
this:
the
assessor
asserts
that
construction
began
in
the
fall
and
winter
of
19
2019
on
this
project
and
the
demolition
excavation
and
preliminary
shooting
majoring
were
done.
That
is
incorrect.
There
has
been
no
construction
on
this
property.
I
I
do
not
know
where
the
county
got
this
information
or
what
their
assertion
is,
but
I
need
to
make
it
very
clear
that
that
is
not
a
correct
statement
and
if
the
county
has
any
building
permits
that
were
applied
for
or
issued
that
we're
unaware
of
fine,
but
we
did
not
apply
for
anything
if
the
construction
started
nine
months
ago,
the
building
should
be
under
construction.
Now
it
is
not
under
construction
now.
So
I
just
need
to
address
that
which
I
think
is
inadvertent.
Incorrect
information.
I
Now
we
have
our
basic
difference
with
the
county
is
just
the
cost,
we're
portraying
this
site
as
a
difficult
one
to
build.
We
had
submitted
the
geotechnical
report,
which
shows
the
existence
of
rock
beginning
at
17
feet
to
27
feet
below
the
surface,
and
then
the
existence
of
a
hard
metamorphic
rock
beginning
at
32
feet
below
the
surface.
I
None
of
these
contracts
went
forward
because
of
during
the
due
diligence,
the
the
parties
under
the
contract
found
the
conditions
to
be
too
expensive,
so
they
all
dropped
the
contract.
There
were
signed
contracts
that
were
acceptable
to
the
owner,
but
were
dropped
because
of
the
conditions
on
the
site.
I
I
What
happened
is
we
went
back
in
and
this
was
something
was
actually
suggested
and
we
were
going
to
do
anyway
by
members
of
the
board
of
equalization
two
years
ago
that
we
go
in
and
try
to
get
the
parking
adjusted
that
was
achieved
in
june
of
this
year,
but
as
of
january
1st,
the
property
had
a
required
189
parking
spaces,
there's
104
units,
but
we
had
to
provide
for
parking
on
the
adjoining
joining
land.
This
required
four
levels
of
parking
which
put
us
into
the
hard
rock
and
raised
the
cost
of
construction
for
this
property.
I
The
applicant
in
this
case
has
provided
evidence
of
the
underground
condition
and
provided
actual
contracts
of
sale,
which
I
think
is
somewhat
unusual
in
terms
of
the
board
of
equalization,
none
of
which
went
to
settlement
and
all
of
which
were
terminated,
except
for
one
that
was
not
accepted,
were
terminated
during
the
due
diligence
period
and
none
of
which
were
as
high
as
the
county
assessment.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
mr
bailey.
M
Good
morning
board,
this
property
is
the
approved
site
plan
that
was
combined
with
the
wakefield
manor
courthouse
manor
tdr
development
rights
that
were
generated
based
off
of
those
two
apartment
complexes.
Wakefield
manor,
courthouse,
manor
being
preserve
historical
preservation,
the
I
want
to
apologize.
I
think
the
statement
about
the
construction
was
put
there
in
error.
So
we
have
we
this
property's
close
to
the
courthouse.
We
have
not
seen
any
work
to
this
property.
M
Any
work
along
that
road
will
be
attributed
to
the
gables
on
roth
project.
This
property
has
not
undergone
any
construction,
yet
the
information
provided
in
the
packet
about
the
owners
going
before
the
county
board
to
receive
an
amendment
was
basically
put
in
there
because
last
year,
in
the
prior
years,
where
we
heard
this
case,
there
was
always
conversation
about.
When
would
this
site
plan
in
and
what
are
the
owners
intentions,
especially
since
they
say
they
can't
build
the
property
and
they
haven't
been
able
to
sell
it.
M
M
M
The
site
plan
was
valued,
the
same
has
always
been
valued
and
which
is
consistent
with
other
properties
in
the
county
or
other
site
plan
projects
in
the
county.
We
look
at
the
density
that
is
approved
by
the
county
board
and
we
allocate
land
value
to
those
to
those
to
that
density,
whether
it's
gfa
for
commercial,
retail
or
commercial
office,
or
if
it
is
in
the
number
of
hotel
rooms
or
the
number
of
apartment
units.
This
project
is
approved
for
104
unit
apartment
building,
it'll
be
a
12-story
building.
M
We
apply
the
metro
area
land
rate
to
this
project
because
it
is
within
half
of
my
walking
distance
to
the
bosman
government
center
and
the
courthouse
metro
train
access.
So
the
assessment
was
confirmed
at
eight
million
nine
hundred
forty
four
thousand
dollars.
That
is
all
we
have
as
far
as
the
valuation
in
regards
to
the.
M
Lying
about
being
able
to
determine
the
cost
for
excavation,
we
don't
receive
that
type
of
information
from
owners
in
the
county.
So
what
we're
saying
is
that
we
can't
compare
the
costs
that
mr
kenny
is
saying
that
his
client
has
to
incur
to
build
the
underground
garage
to
say
the
gables
on
roth,
because
that's
information
that
we
don't
have
from
gables.
We
don't
know
how
much
they're
spending
on
these
things.
That's
not
something
that
they're
that
we've
been
provided
with
from
previous
or
even
current
site
plan
owner.
M
So
to
compare
apples
to
apples,
we
don't
have
sufficient
information
to
say
you
know.
This
is
an
area
that
needs
to
have
some
consideration
for
a
discount
based
off
of
the
topography
of
the
site.
M
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board
members,
mr
hoffman.
H
Yes,
I'm
just
reading
the
summary
of
the
site
plan
timing.
All
of
that.
I
wonder
if
mr
kenny
can
kind
of
explain
it
looks
like
we
had
a
zoning
administrator
action
that
extended
it
two
years,
then
we
had
a
board
action
that
extended
the
site
plan
for
three
years
into
2019,
and
then
there
was,
it
says,
general
assembly
an
additional
year
into
into
2020..
Can
you
kind
of
go
through
what
the
thinking
from
the
ownership
was
and
extending
that
an
additional
year
in
that
last
iteration.
I
It
wasn't
a
choice
of
the
ownership
that
legislation
passed
on
all
site
plan
projects
and
all
vesting
issues
in
the
state.
It
was
a
statewide
law
that
was
put
into
effect,
so
we
did
not
request
it,
but
once
it
went
into
effect,
it
extended
our
site
plan
and
then
we
went
back
in
for
a
further
extension
this
year.
The
county
added
additional
conditions
to
it,
but
they
also
reduced
the
parking
at
that
time
from
what
had
been
required
at
189
spaces
down
to
133
spaces.
H
H
All
right,
I
guess
I
I
had
a
question
for
mr
bailey
and
I
think
I
had
this
one
last
year,
but
it's
it's
just
to
kind
of
go
into
the
86
000
per
unit.
I
know
you
said
met
this.
Is
the
metro
land
book
value
I've
seen
comps
higher
than
that
I've
seen
comps
much
lower?
Can
you
just
kind
of
go
through
the?
M
So
I
mean
we
have
always
had
a
land
value
for
metro
and
none
metro
and
each
year
we
look
at
the
land
sales
that
occur
in
the
county
and
we
try
to
determine
the
existing
land
values
that
we
had.
Are
they
going
up
or
are
they
going
down
over
the
years
there
was
a
metro
non-metro.
M
There
was
some
correlation
between
the
two,
but
I
think
around
2018
we
saw
that
metro
was
metro,
values
were
higher
than
non-metro
values,
and
when
you
look
at
this
guidelines,
you
can
see
that
we
have
made
those
changes.
I
think
one
point:
metro
land
was
sixty
thousand
dollars
and
none
metro
was
fifty
thousand.
M
Then
we
moved
up
metro
land
to
around
seventy
thousand
and
non-metro
was
sixty
thousand
and
we
continue
to
move
up,
but
then
we
saw
that
we
needed
to
make
a
further
distinction
between
those
two
areas
based
off
the
sales
that
we
saw.
So
now
you
see
that
metro
is
86
000
per
unit
for
apartments,
and
none
metro
is
60
000
per
unit
for
apartments
and
along
with
that
non-metro
category.
M
We
also
lump
in
the
100
affordable
because
we
have
seen
some
affordable
land
sales
occur
in
metro
areas
that
were
much
less
than
the
86
thousand,
so
it
the
land
is
definitely
based
off
historical
numbers
and
we're
just
trying
to
see.
Should
we
go
up
or
down.
D
I
have
a
question
for
the
appellant,
this
reduction
in
required
parking
because
that
can
commit
going
to
permit
the
eventual
developer
if
there
ever
is
one
to
not
go
down
that
fourth
level
and
therefore
avoid
metamorphic
rock.
I
I
You're,
avoiding
that
would
be
higher
than
an
average
project,
but
it's
be
definitely
less
than
what
it
had
been
and
what
it
was.
As
of
january
1st,
because
of
those
two
levels,
apparently,
you
had
to
blast
the
rock
sure.
D
I
Yes,
we're
trying
to
get
a
evaluation
by
a
contractor
what
it
costs
to
build.
Now
what
the
difference
is,
we
have
a
preliminary
difference,
but
we're
trying
to
get
a
more
finalized
and
then
we
would
plan
to
go
out
to
bid
one
of
the
things
that
this
building
is
also
providing,
basically
a
number
of
parking
spaces
somewhere
in
the
range
of
40
for
the
other
buildings.
I
So
even
though
the
parking
was
reduced,
this
building's
providing
133
spaces
and
there's
only
104
units,
so
we're
basically
providing
about
40
extra
spaces
for
the
other
properties,
because
this
was
their
parking
was
one
of
the
two
parking
lots
for
the
other
property.
So
it's
still
going
to
be
somewhat
expensive,
but
it
is
going
to
be
significantly.
I
I
It
is
in
excess
of
twice
as
much
as,
but
I
think
it
was
like
2.2
or
2.3
more
expensive,
and
that
was
just
for
the
rock
and
the
blasting
and
and
that-
and
there
there's
also
a
somewhat
adjustment,
because
it's
a
tight
site,
it's
a
very
it's
one
of
the
smallest
sites
that
would
be
built
in
arlington,
although
it's
not
impossible
because
they
do
sites
like
this
in
dc.
M
Yes,
ma'am.
Thank
you.
M
The
reason
why
just
to
give
some
more
explanation,
even
though
we've
talked
about
it
before
the
property
is
combined
as
economic
units
because
of
the
site
plan
that
was
brought
forth
included
all
of
these
parcels.
So
in
order
to
value
the
total
site
plan
and
the
tdr,
we
combine
it
into
a
economic
union.
If
the
appellant
wants
us
to
break
out
the
site
plan
to
sit
on
its
own,
we
have
no
problem
doing
that.
M
The
county
has
been
more,
we've
been
more
reluctant
to
do
that
on
our
own,
and
we
ask
that
the
appellant
just
submit
a
letter
or
email,
and
let
us
know
that's
what
they
want
us
to
do,
and
we
will
do
that.
We
have
no
problem
doing
that
and
in
the
future
they
continue
to
contest
the
assessment
on
this
project.
M
They
can
bring
forth
just
one
parcel,
but
the
value
that
we
show
as
their
values
because
that's
what
they
put
on
application
and
our
system
just
puts
that
into
the
our
system,
transpose
that
to
the
document
based
off
what's
written
on
the
application,
but
we
believe
the
assessment
should
be
confirmed.
M
The
site,
planet,
equalizer
other
site
plans
in
the
county,
it's
a
metro,
accessible
site
and
again
we
believe
the
value
for
the
individual
parties
should
be
eight
million
nine.
Forty
four
and
the
total
value
of
the
economic
unit
should
be
18
million,
seven
hundred
and
seven
thousand
four
hundred
dollars.
Thank
you.
That
is
all
we
have.
I
I
will
just
as
a
point
of
clarification
again.
We
only
appeal.
We
appealed
in
the
name
of
the
owner
of
this
particular
lot,
not
in
the
name
of
all
three
of
the
owners.
They
have
different
ownership
and
yes,
we
would
definitely
like
this
to
be
treated
separately
because
it
has
to
be
judged
on
its
own.
We
did
present
evidence
on
the
geotech
situation
on
this
site,
which
is
different
than
most
sites,
and
we
have
presented
the
actual
contracts
that
were
received
on
this
property,
none
of
which
equate
as
high
as
the
county's
assessment.
I
D
Be
true
absolutely
right.
Okay,
then
this
is
just
among
us
now
right,
yeah.
So
what
I
unders,
then,
what
I
see
is
that
the
situation
as
of
1120
is
unchanged
from
119,
where
the
county
accept
accepted
the
county's
recommendation
or
assessed
value.
Now
something
has
changed
for
1
121,
but
we're
not
there
yet.
So
all
I
can
conclude
is
that
that
the
very
modest
increase
the
county
is
recommending
for
the
2020
tax
year
over
2019
tax
year
seems
to
be
reasonable
because
percentage-wise,
it
is
very,
very
modest.
Things
may
change
next
year.
H
F
H
Of
all
development
sites
throughout
the
county,
if
I
looked
at
this
as
a
builder
or
a
developer,
I
would
say
this
is
a
below
average
land
value
per
apartment.
H
Relative
to
you
know
the
county's
baseline
or
something
with
more
reasonable
standards.
Super
small
footprint
very
difficult
to
build
rock
you're
at
the
bottom
of
a
hill.
You've
got
you've,
got
ingress
and
egress
issues
with
construction
that
and
all
all
of
these
things
having
a
very
small
floor
plate
trying
to
do
concrete
construction
on
very
small
floor
plates.
All
of
those
translate
into
a
higher
construction
cost,
which
directly
translates
into
a
lower
land
value.
H
So,
looking
at
eighty
six
thousand
dollars
a
unit,
I
would
support
reducing
that
somewhere
between
sixty
and
eighty
six
and
I've
got
an
idea
of
where
I
would
look
at
where
would
where
would
head?
But
you
know
interested
in
hearing
what
everybody
else
has
to
say.
E
Yeah
ken
last
year,
it
failed
on
a
three
to
three
vote.
Is
my
recollection,
a
couple
of
things
I
reached
out
to
mark
silverwood,
who
was
a
contract
purchaser,
and
I
know
him
pretty
well
he's
not
a
client,
so
no
conflict
and
what
he
told
me
was
exactly
what
mr
kinney
and
what
craig
just
said
that
it's
a
enormously
expensive
site
to
develop.
E
E
So
it
didn't
go
forward
another.
This
is
a
client
of
mine,
but
I
wasn't
involved,
they
studied
it.
They
didn't
even
bother
with
a
letter
of
intent,
they
studied
it
and
they
thought
they
had
expertise
with
rock
and
concrete
and
underground
parking
and
they
passed
on
it.
For
the
same
reason-
and
you
know
I
know
we-
we
are
charged
with
equalization,
but
we're
also
charged
with
fair
market
value,
and
I
mean
the
evidence
is
overwhelming
that
it's
not
where
the
county
thinks
it
is
at
the
8
million
944.
E
You
have
two
contracts
at
a
lesser
value
that
didn't
proceed,
so
I
would
be
interested
in
changing
the
value
to
a
more
appropriate
level.
A
Okay,
I'll
jump
in
there
for
now
I
this
the
fact
that
it's
a
site
plan
makes
it
very
different
from
another
building
in
the
county
and
from
a
basis
of
equalization.
A
The
site
plan
was
amended
in
2020.
I
think
you
know
the
county,
then
is
going
to
have
to
address
that
amended
site
plan
and
come
up
with
a
new
value
for
2021,
but
that
was
not
the
case
as
of
january
1st.
So,
although
I
I
hear
what
you're
saying
mr
hoffman
and
mr
lawson
my
problem
is
we're
going
to
be
out
of
equalization
with
other
site
plans
and
again
the
policy
is
once
the
site
plan
is
issued.
That's
what
it's
assessed
on
whether
you
act
on
it
have
additional
information
or
not.
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
chairman.
That
may
be
the
policy,
but
the
policy
is
wrong
and
you
know
I've
done
dozens
of
psych
plans
and
to
say
all
site.
Plans
are
the
same.
Therefore
they're
all
equal.
It's
just
factually
incorrect.
E
Well,
the
site
plan
has
site
plan
conditions
and
you
can
have
a
required
parking
on
one
project.
That's
vastly
different
from
required
parking
on
another
project.
You
could
have
community
benefits
on
a
project
that
are
much
more
valuable
than
community
benefits
on
another
project
and
for
the
county
to
say.
Well,
if
you
got
a
site
plan-
and
you
got
this
many
units
we
assess
every
and
all
site
plans
at
this
exact
value
is
just
wrong.
E
Then
you
would
be
right.
But
when
you
go
site
plan
you
have
you
have
a
different
approval
for
every
property
and
every
property
is
unique,
and
so
the
county,
from
a
viewpoint
of
equalization,
can
say
we're
going
to
start
off
saying
that
each
unit
is
worth
this.
But
then
you
have
to
take
into
account
an
extraordinary
situation
which
exists
here.
E
H
Barnes
to
just
just
to
add
to
that,
if
you
looked
at
it
imagine
there
was
another
site
plan
this.
You
know
this
property
is
at
the
bottom
of
the
hill
half
mile
from
the
metro
station.
So
if
you
put
another
site
plan
for
an
identical
building
on
a
lot
that
was
halfway
up
the
hill
quarter,
mile
from
the
metro
station,
you
couldn't
argue.
H
Yeah,
and
that's
the
reason
why
I'm
asking
mr
bailey
what
the
kind
of
what
the
criteria
and
how
they
come
up
with
it.
And
it's
it's
an
average.
I
mean
it's
a
it's
a
appraisal.
It's
an
appraisal,
work!
It's
a
it's!
A
very
well
educated
average
of
various
projects
across
the
county,
but
what
the
talents
demonstrated
is
that
the
conditions
and
the
issues
with
this
site
are
way
in
excess
of
the
average
condition
for
a
development
site.
J
J
K
A
K
Hogan,
I
I
agree
with
you
mary.
I
mean
I
see
that
there
are
challenges
here
with
this
project,
but
I
think
from
a
standpoint
of
equalization
we've
got,
you
know.
The
site
plan
that
was
filed
is
what
we
have
to
go
off
of
and
next
year
the
county
can
look
at
the
changes
that
were
made
to
that
this
year
and
address
it.
Then,
okay,.
G
I
normally
would
agree
with
you
know
the
statement
that
the
site
plan
is
a
side
plan
and
that's
the
way
it's
going
to
be
assessed.
I
think,
in
this
case
mr
kenny
has
provided
more
information
that
we
normally
say.
Well,
you
know
we
don't
really
have
enough
from
the
talent,
but
I
think
in
this
case
we
do
have
some
more
information
and
I
think,
last
year
yeah
it
wasn't
just
a
confirmation.
It
was
like
mr
lawson
said
that
it
was
a
split
vote.
Three
two
three.
G
I
know
I
was
in
one
of
the
votes
that
was
in
favor,
of
making
a
reduction,
and
I
think
I
would
also
be
in
favor
of
doing
that
this
year.
Now,
I'm
not
sure
if
we
would
go
just
with
a
number
that
you
know
mr
hoffman
suggested
just
in
the
60s,
but
you
know
maybe
a
reduction
based
on
what
we
do
on
some
properties,
it
might
be.
A
10
reduction
on
per
unit
would
be
more
appropriate,
but
you
know
I
would
not
be
opposed
to
making
a
reduction
in
this
case.
D
I
I'm
on
the
fence
and
and
I'm
sympathetic
to
both
sides
of
this
issue.
What
would
get
me
off?
The
fence
is
if
there
was
some
empirical
defensible
reduction
criterion
cited
greg
said
he
had
some
in
mind.
I'd
sure
like
to
hear
it
or
them.
H
Well,
what
I
have
in
mind
and
is,
I
would
go
with
the
appellant
now.
If
I'm
not.
If
that's
a
losing
argument,
I
could
do
something
less,
but
sixty
thousand
sixty
one
thousand
a
unit
is
reasonable
for
a
site
like
that.
That's
kind
of
like
the.
H
Lower
end
for
arlington
development,
and
we
have
all
the
construction
issues
and
all
the
projects,
all
the
problems
that
we
have
with
this
site
to
take
into
account.
So
you
know
I
would
say
I
would
go
with
the
61
000
a
unit.
Now
there
was
something
else
I
was
going
to
say
about
this
site.
Oh
yeah,
would
I
appreciate
what
I
really
appreciate
with
the
case
that
mr
kenny
brought
forward?
Is
that
he's
demonstrated
that
this
this
owner
is
not
just
sitting
on
a
piece
of
land?
That's
that's.
H
H
The
the
buyers
walked
away
or
tried
to
renegotiate
the
price
based
on
the
the
site
conditions,
they've
spent
tons
of
money
on
engineering
and
and
investigations,
and-
and
so
it's
not
like
they're
just
sitting
on
this
land
and
don't
want
to
develop
it,
they
do
want
to
develop
it,
and
so
I'm
I
tend
to
want
to
side
with
them
on
on
what
they
believe.
The
value
to
be
because
they're
not
coming
in
here
and
saying
this
is
worth
you
know.
H
E
Greg
one
of
the
reasons
I
asked
john
mr
kinney
about
the
how
much
it
cost
a
parking
space.
Could
we
take
the
extra
parking?
That's
really
deep,
say
the
fourth
level
figure
out
what
that
cost
is
and
deduct
it
would
that
make
sense.
D
Just
just
fyi
I've
heard,
of
course,
all
parking
space.
The
construction
of
all
parking
spaces
aren't
equal,
of
course,
but
average.
What
I've
heard
from
from
developers
is
about
45
000
of
space.
This
lower
level
obviously
is
going
to
be
a
good
bit
more
than
that,
and
maybe
the
first
level
will
be
less.
Who
knows
so?
That
might
be
helpful,
but
I
I
yeah
I'd
feel
very
uncomfortable,
just
picking
a
number,
that's,
you
know
feels
kind
of
okay,
but
we
can't
attach
it.
D
To
anything
specific,
I
will
add
that
the
geotechnical
work
was
done
long
before
1120,
so
the
that
aspect
of
the
site-
hard
rock,
has
been
known
a
good
long
time
and
and
perhaps
the
cyclones
should
have
been
amended
long
before
1120-
to
reflect
that
that
one
difficulty
of
the
site.
A
Right,
I
would
agree
with
that
and
I
I
just
feel
like
I.
I
am
totally
sympathetic
to
mr
kenny's
argument.
I
think
that
those
are
actual.
You
know
additional
expenses
that
are
going
to
be
attributed
to
this
property,
but
the
fact
that
it
wasn't
amended
prior
to
if
we
act
on
it,
I
feel
that
it
puts
it
out
of
equalization
with
other
site
plans
and
we're
opening
the
door
for
anybody.
That
would
say.
Oh
now,
we
have
new
information,
but
we
haven't
notified
the
county
board
or
modified
a
plan
and
we
want
a
lower
value.
A
So
I
again
I'm
I'm
sympathetic
to
the
additional
cost,
but
it's
out
of
kilter.
That
being
said,
it
appears
you
know
instead
of
trying
to
convince
mr
matskin
on
what
the
cost
is.
I
believe
you
have
four
people
you
know.
So
that
being
said,
I
think
the
time
would
be
better
spent
in
trying
to
come
up
with
a
number
to
see
whether
you
can
pass
the
motion
yes
and
around
it.
G
The
reason
I
you
know
I
wouldn't
be
going
with
a
number
that
just
depends
provided
because
if
there
was
a
contract
or
a
an
offer,
an
actual
document
that
would
support
a
lower
value
to
that
level.
G
Nine
thousand
six
hundred
that
to
me
it's
more
than
reasonable
to
make
a
reduction
based
on
the
information
provided
and
sort
of
like
a
if
I
guess
like
a
settlement,
but
yeah
would
be
my
suggestion.
E
F
E
But
I
took
the
45
grand
and
I
took
the
189
spaces
divided
by
4,
for
the
four
levels
got
2
million
126
deducted
that
from
the
80
8944
I
ended
up
6
million
807,
and
I'm
I'm
wondering
because
that's
that's
what
the
applicant
did
is
he
got
rid
of
that
fourth
level
and
that's
what
added
the
extra
money
and
I
guess
I'll,
throw
that
out
and
see
if
I
can,
if
there's
any
support
for
it,
yeah
807,
750.,.
H
I
did
something
similar.
I
had
came
up
with
a
different
number
of
spaces,
but
I
was
also
using
45
000
and
I
was
slightly
higher
because
I
only
used
I
deducted
40
spaces.
Oh.
H
So
if
you
took
it,
it's
1.8
million
off
of
the
the
86
000
per
unit
number.
So
eight.
H
D
A
B
A
G
I
think
it's
too
loud
to
be
honest,
I
think
going
with
that
to
me
the
only
thing
that
they
want
was
demonstrated
as
the
site
itself
is
not
the
same
as
any
other
site
based
on
the
you
know
the
ground
and
the
difficulty
to
ingress
and
egress
and
all
that
stuff.
So
it's
not
really
the
parking
itself.
So
I'm
not
really,
I
think,
that's
too
low.
D
Parking
is
one
element
and
I
would
support
a
10
reduction
based
on
the
site
only
because
we
have
we
have
taken
non-specific
reductions
in
unusual
circumstances,
even
on
single-family
residential
and
made
accommodations.
We
couldn't
quite
me
arguing
for
quantification
constantly.
Okay.
This
is
not
quantifiable,
but
it's
a
reasonable
attempt
to
offset
these
unusual
conditions,
so
I
would
support
jose's
position.
H
A
G
I
made
a
reduction
of
ten
percent
to
the
value
of
per
unit,
so
instead
of
eighty
six
thousand
per
unit
would
be
seventy
seven
thousand
four
hundred.
G
Yes-
and
this
is
only
for
rpc
one-
seven-
zero
one-
seven-
zero
zero.
Five-
I
will
move
to
reduce
the
assessment
to
eight
million
forty
nine
thousand
six
hundred
based
on
the
ten
percent
reduction
to
the
per
unit
value.
D
A
Okay,
I'm
sorry
oppose.
We
have
mr
yates
miss
hogan,
mr
lawson
and
myself
okay,
so
the
motion
does
not
carry
it's
three
to
four,
so
the
county's
assessment
will
hold
at
the
total.
I
just
have
the
total
of
18707
400.
F
A
Yeah
three
to
four:
okay,
all
right,
any
other
business
from
board
members,
no,
no
anything
from
the
county.
Oh
I'm
sorry,
mr
lawson.
E
E
A
Thank
you
anything
else,
no,
nothing
from
the
county.
Okay,
we
stand
adjourned
at
10,
46,
we'll
readjourn
next
tuesday
morning
september,
8th
at
9am,
bye.