►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - September 9, 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
Wednesday
september
9
2020,
and
this
is
the
arlington
county
board
of
equalization
hearings.
The
first
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc
for
an
economic
unit,
3400
7020,
23,
richmond
highway
and
mr
grant
steinhauser
is
here
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
appellant,
mr
steinhauser,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
B
B
Century
center
office
building-
and
this
is
gonna-
be
one
of
my
little
bit
longer
cases,
so
I'll
do
my
best
to
get
through
it
are.
I
would
ask
that
everyone
flip
to
page
65
of
121,
which
is
where
my
appeal
materials.
B
B
B
B
First
off
the
assessor's
vacancy
allowance
was
too
low
they're
using
15
when
the
property
was
actually
physically
34.38
vacant.
As
of
the
date
of
value.
So
for
the
guidelines,
the
25
vacancy
and
collection
loss
should
have
been
applied,
which
was
updated
in
the
test,
but
there
were
also
many
other
changes
made
in
the
tests
that
ultimately
concluded
to
not
very
much
of
a
reduction
at
all
where
we
were
essentially
agreeing
with
the
assessor
that
a
thirty
dollar
per
square
foot
rate
for
both
the
office
and
retail
was
reasonable.
B
The
most
recent
lease
here
was
signed
at
I
think,
32.50
or
so,
and
majority
of
the
space
is
vacant.
I
should
also
point
out
of
the
the
total
building
387
000
square
feet,
of
which
44
000
square
feet
is
retail.
A
lot
of
that
is
interior,
retail
as
well,
which
obviously
goes
for
a
much
lower
rate,
then
than
the
exterior
retail.
B
We
were
again
agreeing
with
the
assessor
on
expenses
at
9.50
per
square
foot,
but
what
we
were
looking
at
it
had
been
between
anywhere
between
eight
and
ten
the
past
four
years.
So
again,
knowing
that
we're
estimating
a
stabilized
expense,
we
thought
950
was
fair.
It
looks
like
the
assessor
has,
since
you
know
downgraded
that,
but
we
again
were
agreeing
at
9.50.
B
Big
issue
here
is
cap
rate
the
assessor,
although
this
building
was
built
in
1971,
the
assessor
is
treating
this
one
as
as,
if
it's
in
1988,
so
I'm
not
sure
how
that
effective
age
calculation
worked,
but
essentially
they're,
applying
a
5.9
percent
base
rate,
a
total
rate
of
7.09
percent,
whereas
if
they
were
actually
applying
the
prior
to
1975,
effective
age
rate,
they
would
be
applying
a
rate
of
8.29.
B
So
I
mean
it's
a
massive
difference.
It's
120
basis
point
difference.
When
we
look
at
sales
in
the
county,
as
well
as
the
core
paz
survey,
which
I'm
going
to
walk,
you
walk
the
board
through
today.
All
the
sales
are
around
six
and
a
quarter.
Six
and
a
half
with
sort
of
a
max
of
seven.
B
B
So
again
we
applied
to
seven
percent.
We
made
the
proper
lease
of
deductions
below
the
line
using
the
county's
exact
model.
If
you
see
their
tests,
you'll
see
that
the
rent
loss,
ti's
and
leasing
commissions
that
we
use
for
the
vacant
space
are
the
exact
same
as
the
county.
B
What
we
did
differently
than
the
county
is
we
deducted
leasing,
commissions
and
tis
for
space
that
the
owner
knew
as
of
january,
1st
2020
that
the
tenant
was
leaving
and
that's
summarized
on
page
71
of
121.,
so
you
have
to
devry
university
and
it
was
the
majority
of
that
space
was
actually
their
nursing
school.
B
Suite
300
was
vacating
36
907
square
feet
as
of
january
31st
2020,
I
spoke
with
the
asset
manager
yesterday
she
said
they
had
known
that
that
defry
was
leaving
for
for
a
full
year
in
advance,
her
the
department's
own
policy
this
year,
which
mr
bailey
eloquently
quoted
in
a
case
earlier
this
year,
boe
case
number
186
alston
place
office.
B
Avalon
bay
was
going
to
vacate
that
space.
They
were
still
physically
in
the
building
as
of
1120,
but
it
was
known
that
they
were
going
to
be
leaving
so
the
county
allowed
for
leasing
adjustments
by
the
way
of
commit
leasing,
commissions
and
ti's
below
the
line
for
that
space.
Why
do
we
do
that?
Because
that's
how
the
market
reacts
and
there's
direct
evidence
of
that?
You
have
arlington
tower
which
sold
last
year
for
57
million,
yet
it
had
been
assessed
at
87
million
at
the
time.
B
B
Lastly,
we
deducted
a
three-year
capital
plan
below
the
line.
This
is
money's
first,
structural,
hvac
and
roof
that
is
planned
to
be
spent
in
the
next
three
years.
We
discounted
that
to
present
value
and
that's
4.4
million,
so
that's
kind
of
how
we
get
to
our
value
of
69
million,
616,
000
or
180
per
square
foot.
You
have
massive
near-term
rollover
on
top
of
a
building,
that's
35
percent
vacant.
B
This
this
group
gets
annual
appraisals.
The
property
was
appraised
as
of
jan
june
30th
2019
or
60
million
700
000.
So
we're
even
still
above
that
that
can
be
seen
on
page
74.
B
A
quick
uniformity
analysis
on
page
73
shows
four
other
sort
of
old
office
buildings
in
that
area
that
are
assessed.
You
know
in
the
150
to
250
per
square
foot
range,
so
the
current
assessment
for
this
one
287
per
square
foot
and
we're
at
180
per
square
foot.
B
B
This
is
a
study
that's
done
by
the
county's
expert.
They
pay
mr
corpaz
to
do
this
study
each
year
and
he
looks
at
office
cap
rates
or
of
office
sales
and
derives
cap
rates.
B
And
if
I
might
just
kind
of
finish
up
here
on
page
96
of
121,
you
can
see
the
actual
sales,
every
single
sale
of
a
property
of
an
office
in
arlington.
B
It's
lines,
one
two:
five:
six,
ten
twenty
and
twenty
nine
there's
only
one
that's
below
a
six
and
a
half,
it
was
water
view
tower,
which
is
a
single
ten.
At
least
six
hundred
thousand
square
feet
to
deloitte
brand
new
building,
that
was
a
5.4
all
the
other
sales
are
six
and
a
half
to
seven
and
those
are
base
rates.
B
C
Okay,
thank
you.
Just
going
over
the
the
case
says
the
appellant
has
stated.
Originally,
we
were
at
thirty
dollars
a
square
foot
for
this
case,
given
the
information
we
had
in
2018.
C
C
Now
the
major
difference
between
our
column,
f
and
the
appellants
column
g
is
that
they
view
the
leases
in
place
at
thirty
dollars
versus
when
we
retested
we're
at
thirty
three
dollars
for
office
and
thirty
five
dollars
for
the
retail,
and
that
information
is
supported
through
our
rent
roll
analysis
that
we
conduct
on
every
case.
For
this
particular
case,
the
office
leases
were
at
35.29
and
retail
averages
are
37.17
like
with
every
case.
I
include
the
analysis
as
part
of
a
packet.
C
So
if
you
turn
to
the
the
next
page
is
the
test,
and
then
after
that
is
the
the
rent
raw
analysis,
I'm
looking
at
that
analysis,
we
did.
C
Separate
the
leased
office
versus
the
vacant
office
and
vacant
retail,
and
you
see
our
our
lines
column
our
rows
sort
of
line
up.
That's
why
I
broke
up
the
appellant's
pro
forma
somewhat.
He
used
30
for
all
spaces,
and
you
know
I
separated
out
so
the
the
board
can
see
exactly
where
we
differ.
C
We
did
making
correction
with
the
vacancy.
I
think
the
appellant
eye
in
agreeance,
with
in
agreement
with
the
square
foot
vacant
at
133,
309
square
feet
and
we
did
take
the
below
the
line.
Deductions,
as
you
see,
is
a
somewhat
a
mirror
image
of
exactly
the
rent
lost,
ti
and
leasing
commissions,
as
as
the
appellant
has
stated
in
addition
to
that,
the
appellant
is
deducting
about
12
million
in
excess
deductions
for
2020
vacating,
tenants
cost
to
cure,
and
the
subsidiary
lot
of
the
other
parcel
associated
with
this
economic
unit.
C
C
Believe,
that's
all
I
have
for
now.
I
guess
with
respect
to
the
expenses,
I'm
sorry
with
expected
expenses.
Originally
we
were.
We
were
overestimated
at
the
the
original
assessment
there
in
line
item
18
you'll
see
across
the
board
that
the
history
of
this
property
has
shown
that
it
is
well
under
eight
dollars,
a
square
foot,
so
we
underes
over
estimated
in
the
original
assessment
and
then
in
the
test.
C
D
I
wanted
to
speak
to
the
co-star,
not
co-star
corps
report.
The
court
pass
report
is
a
study
that
was
provided
to
the
three
jurisdictions
in
northern
virginia
annually.
This
is
a
study
that
we
utilize
the
same.
We
utilize
pwc
rerc
and
any
other
information
that
we
can
get.
D
One
thing
to
point
out
is
that,
although
this
is
a
study
done
primarily
for
this
area,
we
don't
rely
solely
on
the
core
packs
report.
Again,
it's
just
a
tool
to
help
us
with
our
market
wrench
office
guidelines.
Basically,
we
had
a
core
pack
study
for
apartments.
At
one
point,
we
discontinued
that,
as
you
can
see
the
2019
core
packs
that
was
provided,
because
there
is
no
2020
core
path
study.
We
don't
have
that
study,
we're
not
ordering
that
study
from
him
anymore.
D
One
of
the
things
that
we
do
is
we
compare
our
cap
rate
analysis
to
any
publication.
That's
provided
one
thing
that
we
feel
strongly
about
is
the
fact
that
we
have.
I
need
information
from
the
actual
owners
when
they
sell
their
properties,
so
we
use
this
income
expense
information
to
derive
our
cap
rate
study.
This
is
confidential
information
that
we
are
privy
to
that.
A
lot
of
publications
aren't
privy
to
such
as
the
corpax
study
and
things
like
that
core
packs,
even
states
in
that
first
page.
D
He
did
no
analysis
on
the
income
expense,
so
we
did
not
perform
any
of
the
analysis
necessary
to
confirm,
reported
income
expenses
or
to
estimate
an
noi
estimate
or
the
market
value
any
specific,
real
property
located
in
any
of
the
three
jurisdictions.
So
again,
that's
a
difference
between
our
cap
rate
analysis
and
the
publications.
D
Even
the
quarterback
study
mean
we
have
the
income
expense
information
that
we
utilize
to
derive
our
cap
rate.
So
I
just
want
to
put
that
out
there
to
make
sure
everyone's
clear
corpax
was
an
expert
witness
on
a
court
case.
I
mean
in
this
situation
that
study
is
just
merely
a
study
that
we
utilize
for
guidance.
E
I
guess
for
the
county,
so
one
of
the
points
from
the
appellate
was
the
effective
age.
What
exactly
differentiates
a
1971
building
from
a
1988,
effective
age
building.
C
C
C
Yeah,
sorry,
it
was
1971
to
1988..
So
that
was
a
difference
of
what.
C
E
Yeah
I
mean
they
enlarge
the
windows.
Did
they
put
in
a
new
rooftop
terrace
or
you
know,
new
mechanical
systems,
modernize
the
elevators,
the
lobby-
that
that's
the
kind
of
answers
I'd
be
expecting,
but
I
just
I
haven't
heard
any
other
than
what's
the
difference
between
the
number
1988
and
1971.
D
D
D
D
We've
always
said
we're
very
conservative
when
it
comes
to
commercial
property,
a
lot
of
office
buildings
are
renovated
and
we
don't
even
get
a
chance
to
go
win
them.
We
rely
on
what
co-star
knows.
We
rely
on
past
appraisers
judgment
again,
we'll
try
to
find
the
notes
for
you,
but
what,
besides
the
year
that
the
product
was
built,
the
appellant
provided
the
reason
for
it
not
to
be
an
effective
agent
1988.
D
B
F
F
B
The
the
vacant
square
footage
is
on
the
rent,
roll,
that's
reported
each
year
and
I'm
not
sure
if
you
got
a
chance
when
we
were
looking
at
my
income
analysis
on
page
69,
but
I
think
I
pretty
clearly
showed
that
there
was
131
709
square
feet
of
vacant
space
as
of
119..
F
Which
was
my
next
question,
I'd
like
to
hear
the
department's
opinion
of
those
three
large
numbers
that
you
mentioned,
that
up
to
about
12
million
dollars
and
vis-a-vis
the
appellants
reference
of
prior
department
acceptance
of
very
early
months
known
vacancies
would
affect
in
prior
years,
below-the-line
write-offs.
As
of
one
one
of
the
current
assessment
year.
F
C
Well,
we
didn't
account
for
it
in
our
test
for
this
property,
we
did
account
for
exactly
what
the
what
the
agent
thought
would
be
the
square
foot
vacant.
I
did
indicated
in
the
in
the
row
that,
in
the
pro
forma
of
the
the
appellant
we
agree
at
133
000
square
feet,
the
below
the
line
adjustments.
We
didn't
feel
that
this
this
property
had
the
same
issues
as
the
prior
properties.
D
I
think
one
thing
we
did
explain
on
some
of
the
other
properties
that
we
knew
well
ahead
of
well
ahead
of
time
about
these
tenants
exiting
these
buildings.
You
mentioned
avalon
bay,
I
mean
we
had
knew
about
a
year
ahead
of
time
that
avalon
bay
was
moving,
and
not
only
were
they
moving
that
they
were
one
of
the
tenants
who
pre-leased
in
the
building
down
the
street
at
4044
wilson,
which
was
recently
constructed.
D
So
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
took
that
into
consideration,
because
we
knew
well
ahead
of
time
that
these
tenants
were
moving.
I
think
the
same
situation
happened
with.
D
D
D
Oh,
so
I
mean
on
these
instances
where
we
take
the
future
vacation.
Consideration
is
where
we
know
well
ahead
of
time,
usually
a
big
announcement
or
something
like
that
and
the
owners
come
to
us
and
say
you
know
we
have
this
large
chunk
of
space
about
to
vacate,
because
this
thing
is
going
elsewhere.
D
That
is
something
that
happened
with
again
avalon
bay,
and
I
think
mr
ross
even
stated
that,
like
one
thing
with
that
is,
we
were
valuing
avalon
bay.
Also
in
the
different
project
too,
like
that
happens
at
times
like
we
know,
this
tenant
is
vacating,
so
you
look
to
where
they're
going
and
we
make
adjustments
there
as
well.
So
I
really
don't
know
all
the
details
of
this
one.
D
Besides
what
was
stated
today
about
the
variety
vacating
in
the
future-
and
I
mean
what's
been
consistent-
is
that
we
as
a
1-1
2020,
if
you're
there,
we
value
as
being
there.
F
A
A
C
C
C
Okay,
when
we
retested
the
the
property,
we
did
make
the
adjustments
above
the
line
with
respect
to
the
office
and
retail
rents.
C
Going
over
my
notes,
I
believe
the
gsa
did
sign
a
lease
in
2019
and
it's
noted
there
I
believe
in
the
rent,
roll
analysis
and
then
so,
with
the
considering
concessions,
that's
a
little
over
the
the
thirty
dollars
per
square
foot.
I
know
in
the
test
we
did
do
thirty
dollars
per
square
feet
for
the
vacant
space.
C
We
are
seeing
that
the
the
test
was
lower.
We
understand
that
the
expenses
were
overestimated
in
the
original
and
even
in
the
test,
but
we
do
stand
by
the
test
results.
As
far
as
the
value
is
concerned,.
C
The
appellant
has
understated
the
income
somewhat
with
respect
to
what
the
original
the
I'm
sorry,
the
average
office
rents
are
concerned,
we
do
ask
that
the
property
was
renovated
in
2009
and
we
it's
not
an
original
condition
and
we
asked
the
board
to
take
that
into
consideration.
B
Yeah
thanks
property
was
built
in
1971
35
vacant.
As
of
the
value
date
and
everything
I've
shown.
You
shows
that
at
least
55
plus
percent
was
you
know
available
for
lease
at
that
time.
B
It
was
well
publicized
that
devry
university
was
leaving
a
full
year
in
advance,
so
in
january
of
2019
the
owner
knew
this.
You
don't
just
leave
a
36
000
square
foot
space
with
a
day's
notice.
They
moved
to
1400
crystal
partly,
which
is
in
arlington,
that
new
lease
is
on
the
books
that
assessment's
going
up
same
with
the
gsa
tenant
the
joint
strike
fighters.
I
believe
20
000
square
feet,
they're
also
moved.
B
So
we
really
think
the
the
board
should
look
at
the
cap
rate
here.
The
lease
up
costs
for
those
tenants
that
we're
leaving
in
the
first
42
days
of
the
of
the
new
year
and
this
building,
just
in
general,
it's
going
to
be
completely
repositioned,
probably
within
the
next
three
to
four
years.
You
look
at
the
rent
roll,
I
mean.
Almost
all
the
tenants
will
be
gone
by
2022
2023.
B
There
are
a
few
that
will
that
are
staying
longer.
It's
really
just
kind
of
a
hodgepodge
of
tenants
on
the
stack
plan
without
a
bunch
of
full
floor
tenants,
the
building
has
issues
and
it
needs
to
be
assessed
as
such
that
it
shouldn't
be
increasing
each
year.
It
should
be
going
down
before
it
ultimately
goes
back
up.
Thanks.
F
Thank
you
I'll
start
off.
First,
in
my
judgment
in
the
department's
favor,
they
were
very
generous
in
the
income
by
lowering
it
more
than
what
it
achieved
and
the
the
vacant
space
they
valued
less
than
they
were
achieving
in
tenanted
space,
so
the
overall
gpi
is
lower
than
it
could
have
been.
F
In
the
same
token
expenses,
they
were
very
generous
in
taking
off
more
than
what
it
had
been
achieving.
I
think
most
of
us
agree
that
we
don't
go
by
percentages
of
income,
but
rather
by
absolute
expenditures
over
time
and
some
kind
of
trend,
if
we're
lucky
enough
to
have
it
so
they're,
very
generous
in
those
three
ways.
F
F
To
I,
I
I'm
at
sea
about
what
to
do
about
this
devry
vacancy
one
month
after
the
beginning
of
the
year.
You
know
the
date
of
assessment
is
the
date.
I'm
of
evaluation
is
the
date
of
valuation
1120,
but
the
same
time,
I'm
confident
that
the
landlord
knew
more
than
30
or
60
or
90
days
in
advance,
just
like
the
other
cases
that
irving
had
mentioned
in
other
high-profile
vacancies
where
the
department
was
forgiving
because
they
were
known
in
large
and
in
advance.
F
E
Okay,
I
agree
with
ken
it's
appropriate
to
look
at
that
devry,
at
least
below
the
line,
given
that
it's
kind
of
right
at
the
end-
and
you
know
the
way
we'd
look
at
leases-
would
be
if
you're
188
180
days
out
from
expiration
there's
a
chance
of
renewal.
Maybe
it's
50
50,
but
there's
some
chance.
If
you're
90
days,
it's
probably
less.
If
there
are
30
days,
it's
probably
really
low
and
if
you're
you
know
four
weeks
from
renewal
and
and
nothing's
been
signed,
it's
probably
zero.
E
So
just
the
fact
that
the
the
technical
lease
expired
on
january
31st
versus
december.
I
don't
think
that
changes
the
value,
the
actual
market
value
of
the
building.
You
know
by
four
million
dollars
to
the
which
is
effectively
what
it
does.
It
increases
the
value
by
four
million,
for
at
least
that's
essentially
gone.
E
So
I
would
support
changing
that
below
the
line.
If
you
do
it's
a
slight
increase
still
over
2019,
so
I
I'm
not
sure
how
we
do
it,
but
I
would
go
even
further.
Maybe
we
could
freeze
it
to
2019
values
and
and
just
kind
of
keep
it
flat.
G
G
I
took
off
the
4870,
which
was
20
fake
80
and
the
3
million
302,
and
ended
up
right
at
100
145.
So
I
would
be
inclined
to
just
leave
it
where
it
was
last
year.
J
I
think
ken
and
greg
are
more
experts
in
commercial
leases,
so
I
would
support
going
with
the
deduction
that
they
are
suggesting
with
the
4
million,
for
I
mean
870.,
I
think
you
know
each
particular
property
has
their
own
issues,
and
I
think
in
this
case,
since
they
already
knew
that
this
was
going
to
be
a
probably
a
factor
that
is
going
to
be
affecting.
A
Value
so
one
second,
so,
mr
huffman
doing
that
I
came
up
with
103-4477.
E
G
J
E
Motion
sure
I'm
a
motion
to
reduce
the
assessment
of
103
447
700,
based
on
the
devry
vacancy
below
the
line.
A
Okay,
so
a
motion
in
a
second
by
mr
panoranda,
all
in
favor.
I
A
A
A
C
A
You
thank
you,
second
case
is
rpc35001008,
and
this
is
401
12th
street
south
and
again,
mr
seinhauser.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
B
Yeah.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
subject:
property
is
the
lenox
love
apartment,
a
1991
class
b
apartment
building
located
in
the
crystal
city,
submarket
386,
tonal,
total
units
here,
77
of
which
are
affordable
units.
They
also
have
square
feet
of
rentable
retail
commercial
space
379
parking
spaces.
B
I
would
ask
that
the
board
flipped
to
page
41
of
83,
where
it's
just
sort
of.
B
B
So
we
had
that.
We've
corrected
that
in
the
unit
mix
and
we
used
all
the
same
rents
as
the
assessor.
We
also
corrected
parking
and
other
income
to
reflect
2019
actuals,
as
the
assessor
typically
does.
B
I
would
point
out
it
was
a
new
asset
manager
for
this
property
this
year,
and
so
they
essentially
reported
rubs
reimbursement,
so
utility
reimbursement
and
as
well
as
you
know,
that
reimbursable
utility
expense,
whereas
the
previous
owner
had
only
ever
reported
the
net
utility
expense.
So
the
non-reimbursable
piece
it
shouldn't
have
any
ultimate
effect
on
the
noi,
but
in
case
when
the
board
is
reviewing
the
actual
income
and
expense,
you
see
that
pop
out
just
so
you'll.
B
B
B
Lastly,
we're
using
a
higher
cap
rate
based
on
sales-
I'm
not
gonna,
go
into
that
too
much
and
on
the
next
page,
you'll
see
our
our
commercial
analysis
and
really
this
is
sort
of.
Besides
the
unit
count
piece,
this
is
really
the
biggest
issue.
B
B
Again,
yeah
the
biggest
issues
here
were
really
sort
of
the
easy
ones:
net
rentable
area
on
the
commercial
space
unit
count
on
the
office
space,
correcting
some
minor
things
with
the
other
income.
That's
how
we
concluded
our
value
of
about
99.3
million
or
257
000.
B
The
assessment
has
gone
up
year
over
year
here,
four
percent-
eight
percent
four
percent-
and
you
know
in
the
owner's
perspective
kind
of
tying
this
back
to
the
test
sheet.
You
know
their
noi
fell
year
over
year
here
by
you
know
about
160
000,
so
they're
they're
wondering
why
you
know
when
they
come
and
present.
You
know,
give
the
income
and
expense
and
present
it
to
the
assessor.
B
D
Yes,
ma'am.
Thank
you.
With
this
property,
we
took
a
look
at
the
new
information
that
was
provided,
as
mr
steinhauser
pointed
out,
the
owners
or
the
management
team
on
is
responsible
for
completed
ine.
This
year
reported
rubs.
D
You
can
also
see
that
the
utility
expenses
are
higher
as
well,
so
those
two
go
hand
in
hand.
Utilities
were
around
100
and
say
80
000
a
year
for
three
years,
and
then
it
jumped
up
to
about
500
some
thousand
in
2019
again,
that
coincides
with
the
reporting
of
the
rubs
the
I
need
to
first
point
out
that
the
assessment
had
a
few
errors
in
it
with
the
cap
rate,
but
that
was
because
this
property
is
in
the
national
landing
area
and
now
received
the
national
landing
bid
rate.
D
So
those
cap
rates
for
national
landings
should
be.
D
It
should
be
7.04
on
the
commercial
side
on
the
original
assessment,
as
well
as
on
the
test
assessment
that
was
left
off
and
I
apologize
the
rents
we
used
were
derived
from
the
ine
form,
just
to
speak
to
the
original
assessment
compared
to
the
revised
assessment.
The.
D
2019
ind,
which
showed
us
the
2018
income,
expense
information
listed
58
market,
affordable,
may
not
market
for
affordable
efficiency
units.
They
listed
14,
two-bedroom
one-bath,
affordable
units.
So
that's
why
the
original
assessment
used
those
numbers
in
our
calculation
of
the
rental
income
for
affordable
and
the
rental
income.
That's
a
market
rate,
so
that
was
changed
due
to
the
new
ine
form
being
supplied
in
2019.
D
D
D
If
you
look
at
the
expenses,
the
expenses
were
in
line
with
what
the
history
has
shown
us,
but
then
again
in
2019,
they
begin
to
report
actual
utilities
because
they
also
reportedly
offset
in
rubs
the
admin
expense
increased.
By
about
almost
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
from
2018
to
2019.
D
We
asked
the
agent
about
some
of
the
line
items
in
the
admin
expense
category.
In
particular,
and
for
miscellaneous
admin,
they
included
some
loan
fees.
It
wasn't
a
huge
amount,
but
I
mean
the
loan
fees
should
not
be
included.
That
is
something
that
we
removed.
You
can
see
that
in
the
comments
section
on
page
four
of
the
summary
sheet,
it
was
about
68
000
that
was
removed,
and
that
was
per
conversation
with
the
agent,
the
property
insurance
increased
by
130
000.
D
D
And
then,
if
you
just
look
at
the
history
of
the
property
over
the
four
years,
the
average
four-year
average
of
expenses
around
2.4
million,
the
three-year
average
is
still
around
at
2.4,
but
much
higher
than
I
mean
a
little
bit
higher
than
a
four-year
average,
and
all
of
that
is
detailed.
In
the
comments
section
of
the
summer
sheet,
we
increase
the
expenses
to
account
for
increase
it's
much
higher
than
what
they've
averaged
over
the
past
four
years
and
higher
than
what
they
averaged
over
the
past
three
years.
D
We're
trying
to
gradually
increase
our
expenses
based
off
of
how
they're
reporting
now
so
with
them
recording
rows.
We
do
expect
the
expenses
to
be
somewhat
higher,
but
as
far
as
some
of
the
higher
costs
in
admin
I
mean
right
now,
it's
just
a
one-year
jump
and
we
honestly
would
like
to
see
if
this
would
be
a
continuing
thing
or
just
a
one-time
increase.
D
So
we
did
a
rent,
roll
analysis
as
well,
and
we
made
adjustments
to
the
commercial
rent.
The
commercial
space
is
100
leased
again
should
have
had
the
big
cap
rate
in
there,
but
either
way
it
goes.
The
test
was
much
higher.
We
don't
recommend
the
test.
What
we
do
recommend
is
that
the
board
confirms
the
original
not
confirmed,
takes
the
original
assessment
and
applied
the
bid
rate
to
the
cap
rate.
So
I
did
some
math
with
me
you're,
more
than
welcome
to
double
check
it,
and
I
have
a
value
of
114
million.
D
A
F
Okay,
an
absence
of
curiosity.
I've
got
two
two
questions
for
the
appellant
and
I'm
comparing
columns,
e
and
f
what
happened
in
2019
and
how
it
got
translated
to
your
projections
for
2020.
F
in
in
in
the
apartment
income
for
2019,
you
reported
from
2016
to
2019
the
apartment
income
went
up
fairly
steadily
and
particularly
2018
to
19.,
but
you
and
and
in
the
test,
the
apartment
took
the
2019
figures
with
a
very
minor
minor
increase,
but
in
column
f,
your
2020
you're,
the
appellant's
2020
assessment.
You
went
back
to
the
2018
rates.
B
F
Okay
and
the
other
one
is
on
others
again.
These
are
small
numbers,
but
percentage-wise
they're,
very
large,
again
columns
enough
and
other
where
it's
kind
of
going
along.
It's
not
much
in
some
years.
It's
nothing,
then
all
of
a
sudden
in
2019.
It
goes
way
up.
F
The
department
use
that
for
their
test
and
then
for
your
projection.
2020
went
way
down
again.
Something
particular
happened
in
2019
and
skewed
this.
B
B
So
in
my
analysis,
I
kind
of
I
kept
it
that
same
way
and
just
had
sort
of
done
it
based
on
the
net,
whereas
the
assessor
in
his
test
he's
taking
the
actual
utility
reimbursement,
including
it
as
income,
and
then
is
also
said
that
he's
including
that
as
a
a
higher
expense
as
well.
So
in
mine,
I
was
not
so
you
could
add
the
375
000
to
mine
as
income,
but
it
would
also
increase
my
expenses
by
375.
A
Questions,
no
okay,
everybody's
squared
away
with
what
mr
bailey
suggested.
Okay,
so
we
go
to
wrap-ups
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
okay
all
right!
Thank
you,
mr
bailey.
If
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up,
please.
D
Yes,
ma'am,
as
you
can
see
the
original
assessment
and
we
focused
down
on
the
noi.
You
see
that
the
noi
and
the
original
assessment
in
2019
reported
noi
were
within
about
30
000
of
one
another.
So
very
close.
The
original
assessment
was
that's.
Why
we
believe
that's
a
better
indicator
of
the
value
we
just
want
to
correct
the
bid
rate
being
excluded.
D
That
was
an
error
on
our
part
and
something
that
will
be
corrected
with
this
assessment
and
going
forward
so
after
the
board
reduce
the
assessment
to
114
15
114
million
15
200,
based
on
the
correction
of
cap
rate,
and
that
is
all
we
have
for
today.
Thank
you.
B
Yeah,
thanks
so
sort
of
in
our
opinion,
in
the
test,
the
assessor
has
sort
of
taken
the
full
income
at
the
property,
but
not
the
full
expenses.
B
You
can't
just
take
a
three
or
four
year
average,
without
adjusting
those
columns,
a
b
and
c
for
the
utility
reimbursement
that
we
were
talking
about.
So
really
it's
more
more
like
two,
six,
two,
six,
two,
seven
three!
So
yes,
it
is
an
increase
year
over
year,
but
it's
not
as
drastic
and
you
can't
it's
not
it's
apples
and
oranges.
You
can't
take
a
three
or
four
year
average
of
the
expenses,
but
apply
the
full
amount
of
utility
reimbursement
as
income.
B
Secondly,
we
really
hope
that
the
the
board
will
take
a
close
look
at
the
second
e
column.
The
commercial
test
which,
as
you
can
see,
indicates
a
1.1
million
dollar
reduction.
That
was
a
significant
part
of
the
appeal
and
something
the
owners
you
know
they
wanted
the
square
footage,
obviously
to
be
corrected
there
and
the
assessor
did.
D
A
Okay,
thank
you
both
it's
just
among
the
board
members.
What's
everybody
think.
A
E
I
think
it
looks
pretty
good
at
114.
not
really
motivated
to
reproduce
this
one.
J
Yeah,
I
was
gonna
say
I'm
okay,
with
the
current
assessment,
with
the
way
it
is,
I
think,
increasing
the
revenue
on
the
test
and
then
going
back
backing
down
all
the
numbers
yeah.
It
will
be
increasing
more
than
the
114..
J
Like
mr
bailey
pointed
out.
I
think
the
noi
shows
that
it
is
consistent
and
I'm
okay,
with
the
proposed
reduction
to
you,
know
adjusting
the
cap
rate.
I
J
E
I'll
I'll
move
to,
I
guess,
reduce
the
county's
assessment
to
the
recommended
value
from
the
county
of
one
fourteen
fifteen
thousand
two
hundred.
J
A
A
A
And
I
guess
mr
bailey
and
mr
peralta
are
gone
now
for
the
rest
of
the
day.
Okay,
we'll
do
one
more
before
we
take
a
break.
The
third
case
on
the
agenda
is
for
an
economic
unit,
zero,
five,
zero,
five,
two
zero
three,
a
twenty
one,
ten
north
moore
street
and
mr
blake
warren-
is
here
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
appellate.
H
Okay,
so
I'll
direct
you
to
page
63
of
139
of
the
assessor's
memo
response
and
you'll
see
our
summary
of
facts.
This
is
the
cherry
hill
apartments.
It
is
comprised
of
three
rpcs
and
it's
being
valued
under
one
economic
unit.
The
current
assessment
for
2020
is
49
million
764
200,
which
is
535
000
a
unit.
H
The
county
is
recommending
no
change
currently,
but
their
test
indicates
a
value
of
48
million
609
100
and
the
value
we're
requesting
from
the
board
today
is
value
of
41
million
684
300..
This
is
a
newly
constructed
property
in
2019.
It
started
leasing
back
in
2019,
it's
93
total
units
what
we
would
consider
a
garden
style.
This
is
in
the
same
vein
of
the
thomas
court
henderson
park,
thomas
place,
bitmore
properties
that
we've
discussed
over
the
last
few
years,
and
that
is
one
of
the
issues.
H
L
L
H
It
sits
in
the
in
the
maywood
sub
market
now,
if
you
turn
to
page
three,
which
is
the
apartment,
income
and
expense
summary.
Obviously
this
is
a
a
newly
built
property.
So
there's
not
a
a
very
long
history
to
look
back
at
here
regarding
the
actual
operations
of
the
property.
H
H
We
formulated
our
gpi
based
off
of
and
you
can
find
it
on
page
65
of
the
package
and
it's
the
box
below
so
this
box.
Up
top
that
you
see,
is
actually
the
assessor's
gpr
that
was
used
in
the
2020
assessment
and
what
we
did
was
take
the
basically
the
average
unit
unit
sizes
and
rents
and
average
that
out
and
we're
coming
in
very
close
to
what
the
county
is
estimating
for
for
the
current
gpi
and
potential
rent
at
the
property.
H
So
if
you
look
at
our
columns
for
income,
we're
very
closely
aligned
what
what
this
comes
down
to,
though,
however,
is
the
expenses
you'll
see
in
column
d,
the
county
is
estimating
egi
of
three
million
five
hundred
seventy
nine
thousand
eighty,
eighty
five,
which
is
actually
lower
than
a
little
bit
lower
than
what
we
are
estimating
at
three
million
six.
Seventy
four
seven,
twenty
four.
H
H
Thousand
dollars
compared
to
the
what
I
assume
to
believe
is
the
county's
stabilized
operating
expenses
for
the
property
for
the
entire
year.
So
that's
that's
a
big
issue
as
this
property
leases
up
to
market
levels
and
it
it
was
as
of
the
1
120
assessment,
you
know
it's
unreasonable
to
assume
that
for
2020,
this
property
is
going
to
continue
to
operate
at
a
total
of
689
thousand
100
and
total
operating
expenses
for
the
entire
year.
H
If
you
annualize
those
expenses,
we
come
to
the
actual,
the
actual
eight
months
worth
of
680
000.
If
you
annualize
that
over
the
course
of
12
months,
you
get
to
a
little
over
a
million
one
million
twenty
thousand
nine
twenty
one.
You
can
see
that
we're
using
twenty
seven
percent
in
our
pro
forma
column,
which
is
a
little
under
a
million
dollars.
Nine
hundred
ninety
two
thousand
one
seventy
six
and
how
we
got
to
that
was
taking
some
of
these
properties
that
we
thought
were
very
comparable.
H
That
ditmar
also
owns
that
are
in
the
same
ilk
and
again
these
are
the
thomas
court
thomas
place
henderson
park,
and
you
can
see
in
on
page
66
of
139
that
these
properties
over
the
last
two
years
have
reported
at
least
27
percent
in
operating
expenses
over
the
last
two
years.
So
henderson
park
was
at
27
in
2019,
thomas
court,
27
thomas
place,
27
and
birchwood
was
a
little
higher
at
32.
H
So
I
think
stabilizing
it
at
27
is,
is
very
fair
and
again,
as
we've
stated
before
in
some
of
these
dipmar
cases,
and
the
board
has
made
mention
of
it-
is
that
ditmar
can
be
at
times
a
product
of
their
their
own
efficiency.
They
run
already
at
very
low
expense
levels.
So,
although
the
county
in
their
test
column,
did
increase
their
expenses,
they
increased
it
by
about
a
hundred
thousand
to
22.
H
I
think
I
still
think
that's
far
far
too
low,
based
on
what
this
property
you've
seen
over
eight
months
in
2019,
you've
seen
the
very
comparable
properties
that
they
own
in
the
county
that
run
at
much
higher
operating
expense
levels
that
it
can.
You
can
expect
this
to
operate
at
a
far
higher
level
than
22
percent
again,
as
is
evidenced
by
the
comps
that
ditmar
already
owns
as
well.
As
you
know,
those
actual
partial
year
operations.
H
You
know
at
535
000
a
unit,
and
this
is
for
a
property
that,
as
of
1
120,
it
was
stabilized,
but
it
was
leasing
that
throughout
all
of
2019
and
the
county
is
making
an
adjustment
for
one
year's
lost
rent
below
the
line,
so
even
including
that
and
taking
that
deduction
of
one
year's
lost
rent
at
535
000
units-
that's
the
third
highest
assessment
on
a
per
unit
basis
for
any
of
the
five-star
properties
located
in
arlington
county.
H
So
I
think
just
looking
at
that
test,
they're
taking
a
one-year
loss,
rent
deduction
and
at
535
000
a
unit.
It's
way
in
excess
of
where
this
property
should
be
assessed
on
a
per
unit
basis,
and
I
think
that
the
biggest
determining
factor
here
is
you
can
look
at
it
in
the
actual
operations.
What
were
reported
over
that
partial
year
for
eight
months
is
with
regard
to
the
operating
expenses,
so
we're
asking
for
the
county
for
some
relief
with
regard
to
the
operating
expenses
for
this,
this
property
for
the
2020
assessment.
Thank
you.
M
Hey
good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
mr
warren,
similar
to
yesterday,
and
we
were
talking
about
a
true
projection.
We
have
another
one
here.
This
is
cherry
hill
apartments,
newly
built
in
2018.
M
They
did
start
lease
up
in
2019,
as
indicated
by
mr
warren
there's
some
things
we
know
about
the
property
and
then
there's
some
conjecture
or
things
that
we're
speculating
on
with
the
property.
When
we
looked
at
column
d,
obviously
that
was
in
lieu
of
the
2019
ied
that
we
received,
partially
or
otherwise.
Obviously
the
information
was
helpful.
M
We
did
look
at
testing
that
information
in
column
f.
We
used
the
rent
role
and
that
comes
into
play
in
regards
to
what
we're
talking
about
with
things
that
we
know
per
the
rent
roll
in
the
income
and
expense
form
that
was
submitted.
We
know
that
the
property
is
fully
leased
up,
100
occupied
and
whether
again
that's
a
testament
to
the
neighborhood
to
dipmar
to
the
property
itself
regardless.
M
We
know
that
the
gross
potential
income
should
be
essentially
spot
on
because
that's
derived
from
the
rent
roll
itself
very
little
speculation
in
regards
to
other
income
and
rubs
utility
reimbursements.
As
that's
essentially
spot
on
with
what
was
reported
in
six
months,
seven
months
of
2019's
calendar
year,
so
if
anything,
those
numbers
are
low
in
regards
to
parking.
Obviously,
again
that
is
a
bit
of
a
projection,
but
based
on
six
months,
seven
months
of
parking
revenue
achieved,
it
should
be
fairly
easy
for
that
property
to
achieve
the
number
projected
by
the
county.
M
Given
that
they'll
have
an
additional
five
months
and
a
hundred
percent
occupancy
to
do
that
with
we
see
that
again,
the
county
applied
five
percent
guideline
vacancy
concession
adjustments
and
that's
again,
considering
that
the
property
is
100
leased
up.
So
the
under
projection
for
effective
gross
income
is
is
obviously
apparent
there
where
we
get
into
some
conjecture
as
far
as
what
will
the
property
incur
for
operating
expenses
is
just
that.
M
We
do
know
that
mr
warren's
pointing
that
out
that
the
original
projection
made
by
the
county
of
689
thousand
was
low.
Obviously,
in
light
of
the
seven
months
of
reporting
for
the
year,
but
again
in
lieu
of
not
having
any
other
information,
I
don't
think
it
makes
sense
to
compare
it
to
other
properties
that
will
have
different
issues.
Different
unit
counts,
different
sizes
of
the
units.
M
M
So
what
we
looked
about
fell
upon
to
the
guideline
book
guidelines
suggested
that
for
a
mid-rise
as
this
property
is
four
stories
above
grade,
that
would
be
the
approximate
seven
thousand
one
hundred
eleven
dollars
per
unit.
The
county
is
actually
above
that
either
way
for
the
original
projection.
We
are
at
seventy
four
hundred
dollars
a
unit.
In
our
test
column,
we
came
out
to
just
shy
of
8
600,
a
unit
or
22
percent
of
effective
gross.
M
The
board
has
seen
us
do
this
before
in
regards
to
using
guidelines
in
lieu
of
actual
operating
performance
metrics
that
we
can
call
upon
there
aren't
any
with
this
property
we
will
receive
one.
Obviously,
for
the
2020
year
in
the
early
part
of
2021.,
that
being
said,
we
do
believe
that,
although
it's
within
three
percent,
the
county
test
is
obviously
a
bit
more
reflective
of.
M
What's
going
on
with
the
property,
given
again
our
low
projection
made
for
the
operating
expenditure,
the
board
knows
that
we
don't
make
changes
that
are
within
three
percent
of
the
original
january.
First
real
property
assessment,
but
they
are
there
illustrative
of
the
fact
that
we
did
make
adjustments
to
the
information
that
we
received
newly
after
the
january.
First
assessment
went
out
so
they're
there
for
your
consideration.
M
We
do
believe
that,
based
on
the
information
we
had
at
the
time,
the
cabinet
should
be
confirmed
at
49
million
764
200,
but
again
the
total
operating
expenditure.
L
M
We
projected
based
off
that
new
information
with
the
ine.
Obviously
the
county
has
tested
that
information
and
column
f
as
well,
so
we
do
believe
county
should
be
confirmed
at
49
million
764
200..
Thank
you.
E
For
the
appellant,
I
don't
know
if
you
had
this
information,
but
is
there
a
you
have
any
idea
what
the
cost
to
build?
This
was
because
we're
pretty
high
on
it
per
unit
assessment
right
now,
I'm
just
wondering
if
the
cost
was
significantly
below
that.
N
The
cost
to
build
the
building
in
total,
not
land,
because
the
building
was
already
there.
The
cost
of
the
structure
itself
was
about
35
million.
E
A
E
N
No,
absolutely
not.
I
mean
I
I
you
know
we,
we
are
a
big
believer
in
amenities
and
and
we
do
try
to
minimize,
even
in
small
spaces
where
we
can,
but
you
know,
you're
talking
about
three
quiet
rooms,
a
fitness
center
and
a
small
community
room.
So
I
mean
I
don't
I
mean
it's
it's
what
we
could
get
into
the
lobby
to
attract
tenants,
but
it's
nothing
near
a
class,
a
building
and
a
corridor
or
it's
just
not
it's
not
even
in
that
competitive
class.
L
M
Absolutely
again,
considering
the
column
d
was
formed
with
no
information
whatsoever.
We
received
column
e.
The
seven
months
of
2019's
operating
year
did
test
that
information
and
found
that
we
were
a
bit
low
on
the
projections
made
on
the
revenue
side
again,
considering
that's
100
occupied
and
given
the
rent
roll
as
offered
by
the
owner
themselves,
we
did
make
an
adjustment
on
the
operating
expense
side.
M
M
H
Yes
again,
really,
the
main
issue
here
is
with
regard
to
the
the
operating
expenses
and
even
with
the
the
test,
column
and
f,
we
feel
is,
is
far
too
low.
You
know
you
look
at
what
was
reported
that
partial
year
for
eight
months
at
680
000,
if
you
annualize
that
you're
a
little
over
a
million
dollars.
H
So
I
think
our
our
stabilized
expense
ratio
of
27
or
a
little
under
a
million
dollars
of
992
000
is
more
than
fair,
especially
considering
some
of
the
the
very
comparable
comps
that
that
ditmar
also
owns
that
run
at
right
around
these
levels
as
well
again.
H
These
are
properties,
and
we've
discussed
this
again
that
they
can
be
a
product
of
their
own
efficiency
most
of
times
their
operating
expenses
are
much
lower
than
than
other
properties
in
the
market,
so
at
22,
we're
still
not
even
close
to
where
we
feel
is
a
very
conservative
and
low
operating
expense
adjustment
of
27
for
a
stabilized
property
and
again,
when
you
look
at
that,
that
assessment
value
comp
page
on
page
67
right
now
on
a
per
unit
basis
and
that's
with
a
one
years-
loss
rent
reduction.
H
While
this
property
was
was
leasing
up
in
2019,
it's
now
assessed
at
the
third
highest
assessment
on
a
per
unit
basis
in
the
entire
county.
So
again,
given
what
was
actually
reported,
we
have
almost
eight
months
now.
We,
I
think,
that's
more
than
enough
evidence
to
prove
that
this
is
going
to
run
higher
than
800
thousand
in
stabilized
expenses
over
the
course
of
the
year
moving
forward.
Thank
you.
I
don't
know
greg
if
you
want
to
add
anything
else,.
G
I
think
that
the
that
the
owner
has
carried
their
burden
of
proof
on
the
expenses-
and
I
mean
you
have
very
comparable
projects
that
they
can
point
to
that
are
also
fairly
new,
and
I
think
we
should
go
with
the
the
expense
at
the
level
of
the
27
curious.
If
others
agree
with
that
or
not.
E
I
do
and
and
also
mainly
because
we
don't
have
years
and
years
of
operation
to
look
at
so
it's
a
little
bit
early
to
judge
and
try
to
figure
out
what
this
is
going
to
be.
I
don't
think
anybody's
going
to
know
better
than
the
actual
owner
when
we
start
reporting
actuals
every
year
in
the
ines.
We.
E
Going
forward,
but
I
think
it'd
be
a
shame
to
get
put
this
in
the
top
three
properties
right
off
the
bat.
I
F
C
A
Okay,
I
mean
I,
I
just
happened
to
take
the
appellance
column
g
and
just
kept
it
at
the
5.4
and
come
up
with
49
676
815
before
the
the
lisa
deduction.
G
A
K
A
J
Panorando,
I
think
I'm
going
to
probably
to
support
that.
I
was
not
really
in
favor
of
increasing
the
expenses,
because
I
think
it's
the
first
it's
the
first
year,
but
I
think
the
first
year
most
projects
are
going
to
have
more
expenses
than
unstabilized
year
coming
up,
but
I
think
I'm
probably
going
to
be
the
minority
and
based
on
that
this
is
a
new
construction.
I
will.
I
will
go
with
that.
A
H
A
Opposed
okay,
so
it's
unanimous
it
is
reduced
to
forty
five
million
eight.
Ninety
four:
that's
based
on
the
appellant's
lng
column
using
the
5.4
percent
cap.
A
A
L
L
L
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Okay,
there
we
go
okay,
and
we
have
mr
warren
perfect.
Okay,
fourth
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc20012002
461
north
thomas
street,
mr
blake
warren
is
representing
the
appellant.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
H
Okay,
thank
you.
Yes,
this
is
the
thomas
place
apartments,
I'm
on
page
40
of
91
or
sax.
Again,
it
is
consistent
of
one
rpc.
The
current
2020
assessment
for
this
property
is
17
million,
320,
600
or
524
thousand
almost
525
000
a
unit.
H
The
county
is
recommending
no
change
and
they
have
provided
no
test
column,
and
what
we
are
asking
for
from
the
board
today
is
about
sixteen
million
twenty
seven
thousand,
eight
hundred,
which
would
be
four
hundred
and
eighty
five
thousand
six.
Ninety
one
a
unit.
This
is
a
property
that
was
originally
built
in
2009
33,
total
units
in
the
bolston
virginia
square,
submarket
again,
as
we've
discussed
previously,
this
is
a
property
that
we
would
classify
as
a
garden
style
or
low
rise.
The
county
has
classified
this
as
a
mid-rise.
H
We
know
where
the
the
board
stands
with
regards
to
the
classification
of
this
property.
Although
we
still
firmly
disagree
on
page
three,
you'll
find
the
apartment,
income
and
expense
summary,
and
basically
what
this
this
comes
down
to,
and
it's
it's
been
a
very
similar
argument
for
some
of
these
other
cases
that
are
consistent
is
with
regard
to
the
operating
expenses
and
the
county's
estimate
used
in
their
2020
assessment.
L
H
Using
an
operating
expense
ratio
of
24,
which
is
well
below
what
was
actually
reported,
most
recently
in
2019,
as
well
as
2018.
H
H
Their
current
24
operating
expense
applied
is
5.3
or
close
to
70
000
below
what
was
actually
reported
in
2019
again.
Finally,
when
you,
when
you
look
at
this
compared
to
the
top
properties,
five,
the
five
star
rated
properties
in
the
county,
you
can
see.
G
H
At
clarendon
center
at
750
000
at
the
beacon
of
clarendon
at
627
000
in
the
partly
at
534
000
a
unit,
this
property
sits
right
behind
those
properties.
So
again,
just
on
a
per
unit
basis.
We
think
that's
that's
in
excess
of
of
what
this
property
would
sell
at
in
fair
market
transaction
and
again,
when
looking
at
the
actual
operations
historically
of
this
property,
it's
historically
run
above
the
estimate
of
24
for
operating
expenses
that
the
county
is
is
currently
using
to
value
the
property.
That's
all
I
have
greg.
A
M
Yes,
ma'am
again
the
board's
fairly
familiar
with
these
properties.
By
now
this
is
a
mid-rise
by
most
accounts,
the
owners
marking
brochures
states
of
co-star
state,
so
the
appellant
packet
listed
as
a
four-story
property.
So
I
think
we
moved
on
from
the
classification
of
its
type.
So
when
we're
looking
at
the
three
year
summer
sheet
and
looking
at
the
performance
of
the
property,
the
board
has
seen
these
before,
where
we
underprojected
across
the
board.
In
regards
to
our
january
1st
2020
real
property
assessment.
M
In
regards
to
the
received
2019
ine
sometime
in
march
or
april
of
this
year,
we
saw
that
the
property
itself
has
been
doing
fairly
well.
Apartment
revenue
was
up
five
percent
2019,
three
average
of
one
million
two,
fifty
five
gross
potential
incomes
up
4.3
percent
in
2019
three
average
of
one
point:
three,
two
four
true
vacancy
has
been
gone
down
three
years
in
a
row
three
year,
average
of
four
point.
M
Eight
percent,
with
last
year's
low
of
2.5
percent,
has
a
two-year
average
of
3.1
percent
to
get
indicative
of
the
declining
vacancy
at
the
property.
M
Due
to
that
effective
grosses
have
been
up
two
years
in
a
row
increased
year
over
year,
2019's
increase
was
5.5
percent,
as
talked
about
a
good
bit
by
mr
warren.
The
operating
expenses
did
tick
up,
6.8
percent,
but
not
quite
as
high
as
last
year's
22.8
percent
and
2017
is
9.5
percent.
M
So
we
saw
a
three-year
average
of
319
025.2
of
effective
gross.
We
saw
an
increase
in
net
operating
income
of
five
percent
exactly
so
when
we're
looking
at
the
property.
One
of
the
things
mr
warren
talked
a
good
deal
about
was
the
operating
expense
increasing
in
2018
and
2019,
but
at
least,
as
I
recall,
didn't
make
mention
of
the
income
increase
as
well.
It's
a
revenue
side
as
you've.
Seen
with
our
projections,
we
underprojected
across
the
board
gross
potential
income.
M
We
underprojected
by
thirty
seven
thousand
eight
hundred
dollars
or
two
point:
eight
percent.
We
underprojected
the
effective
gross
by
sixty
nine
thousand,
eight
hundred
or
five
point
three
percent
and
again,
while
it's
true,
we
underprojected
the
operating
expenses
by
fifty
four
thousand
or
some
fifteen
percent.
Those
three
metrics
led
to
an
under
projection
of
the
net
operating
income
by
almost
sixteen
thousand
or
one
point.
Six
percent
we
talked
about
this
before,
whereby
for
board
was
to
make
adjustments
to
the
operating
expense
that
you
still
would
need
to
catch
up.
M
As
far
as
the
revenue
increases
of
five
percent
over
five
percent
of
effective
gross
revenue
increase
at
the
property,
thus
making
any
change
in
operating
expenses
a
bit
moot
and
that
there
would
still
be
some
16
000
on
the
gap
that
we
were
under
projecting
the
net
operating
income
by
one
of
the
things
too,
I
noted
in
mr
warren's
wrap
up
of
the
per
unit
value,
even
if
you
were
to
take
the
value,
as
indicated
in
column.
F
that
uses
the
higher
cap
rate
of
six
percent.
M
You'd
still
come
up
with
a
value
of
485
000
per
unit,
which
would
still
be
the
third
highest
on
this
list
that
was
provided
by
the
appellant.
So
it's
a
bit
tricky
when
you're
talking
about
these
smaller
properties
that
only
have
33
units.
Obviously,
the
per
unit
value
is
going
to
be
much
higher
than
it
would
be
on
something
with
hundreds
of
units.
M
But
that
being
said
again,
looking
back
at
our
projections
as
compared
to
what's
going
on
at
the
property
not
only
in
operating
year,
2019
but
historically
we're
behind
the
curve,
the
the
board
is
allowed
to
consider
the
actual
performance
of
the
property
according
to
virginia
code.
But
again,
if
you
were
even
to
take
column,
f,
the
opponent's
pro
forma
and
correctly
cap
it
at
5.5
percent,
which
is
applicable
to
the
mid-rises
of
this
year,
you'd
get
a
value,
that's
higher
than
the
counties
by
almost
160
000.
M
So,
given
the
fact
that
we
underprojected
across
the
board,
given
the
fact
that
adjustment
made
to
the
operating
expenses
should
be
done
in
conjunction
with
adjustments
made
to
the
under
projection
of
effective
gross
income,
we
do
believe
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
a
value
of
17
million
320
600..
Thank
you.
A
M
H
Yep
not
much
to
add
other
than
what
I've
already
said,
we're
just
hoping
the
board
takes
into
consideration
the
last
two
reported
years
of
operating
expenses
at
the
subject
property.
H
I
know
chris
had
mentioned
that
in
a
pro
forma,
a
target
value
of
16
million,
27
thousand
800
would
come
out
to
485
000,
which
would
still
make
it
the
third
or
the
fourth
highest
assessed
property
in
the
county.
I
think
that's
just
a
test
of
we're
not
trying
to
be
unreasonable
here,
but
you
know
the
difference
of
525
000
to
485
000
might
seem
slight.
H
We're
still
still
would
be
on
a
per
unit
basis,
the
fourth
highest,
but
that
relief
is,
I
think,
well
warranted
in
this
case,
and-
and
you
know
we're
not
far
off
on
the
total
numbers
here,
but
that's
all
we
have
unless
again
gregor
or
sophie
has
anything
else
to
add.
N
Yeah
thanks
blake
yeah.
I
just
want
to
mention
this.
This
again,
you
know
is
in,
for
all
intents
and
purposes
of
garden
style
property.
Not
just
you
know.
We.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
cognizant
of
how
we're
looking
at
these
properties
this
year
and
moving
forward,
but
I
think,
like
you,
said
we're
not
that
far
off
on
some
of
these
things.
So
hopefully
the
board
sees
it.
Those
expenses
are
are
again,
I
think
you
know
we're
kind
of
penalized.
N
Sometimes
the
26
27
expense
ratio
is
very
good
and
that's
where
we're
going
to
be
so
the
24
22
days,
yeah,
it's
just
that
that
property
as
it
ages
will
become
more
expensive
to
maintain,
and
so
those
expense
percentages
will
be
there
or
higher.
Thank
you.
G
Okay,
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
and
I'll
see.
If
anyone
agrees,
you
know
again
on
the
issue
of
mid-rise
versus
garden,
I
think
that's
something
that
the
county
should
look
at,
because
I
think
I
think
the
categories
in
which
they're
putting
these
properties
aren't
appropriate.
G
E
Thanks,
I'm
also
okay,
with
the
county
on
this
one,
just
based
on
the
bottom
line.
Noi,
I
think
it's
in
line
with
the
performance
has
been
stable
and,
as
mr
chica
said,
if
we're
going
to,
if
we're.
A
Yeah,
I
agree
with
you
on
this
one
I
mean,
because
actually
the
appellant's
numbers
in
column
f
do
take
into
consideration
the
higher
income
and
the
higher
expenses,
and
I
mean
the
bottom
line
on
this.
This
is
you
know.
A
Looking
at
the
cap
rate
of
the
garden
versus
you
know
the
mid
the
mid-rise
I
mean
because
if
you
cap
out
the
appellant's
column,
obviously
it
would
go
up
to
a
little
bit
higher
than
the
original
assessment,
so
I
think
that
that
noi
is
probably
more
in
line,
but
at
this
point
you
know,
I
agree
with
you
both
at
the
original
assessment.
I'm
fine
with
that.
J
Yeah,
I'm
okay
with
it.
I
did
several
things.
You
know
several
ways.
Even
I
even
did
an
average
of
income
expenses
noi
and
I
mean
the
lowest
adjustment
that
I
come
up
is
a
difference
of
about
forty
thousand
dollars,
and
this
has
been
so
I'm
okay
with
the
way
the
assessment
is
right
now.
I
A
A
And
mr
chicas,
although
we're
not
finished
with
you
yet
have
I
seen
mr
branham
on
the
line.
P
Sean
sean
gray
in
the
front-
oh
okay,
mr
I'm,
going
to
be
providing
the
information
on
these
two
problems.
A
P
P
They
are
experiencing
a
decline
like
no
one's
ever
seen,
and
this
property
originally
built
in
81
renovated
in
in
2011,
it
is,
is
having
a
difficult
time.
In
fact,
many
of
the
competing
properties
and
local
properties
have
actually
had
to
close
because
of
colvin
situation.
We're
talking
about
the
courtyard,
the
residence
inn,
marriott
crystal
gateway.
P
Residents
capitol
view
marriott
crystal
city,
all
of
them
closed
for
some
period
of
time,
or
are
still
closed
because
of
this
situation.
You
know
the
property
is
currently
operating
occupancy
and
it's
it's
a
difficult
time
for
these
folks.
P
The
only
business
really
that
they're
they're,
the
only
business
that
they
have
right
now
is
actually
a
couple
flight
crews
contracts
with
some
airlines
and
things
of
this
nature.
That's
that's.
You
know
providing
a
little
revenue
that
they
have
they're
operating
with
the
staff
at
20
of
their
current
the
previous
levels.
P
P
Let's
see
down
86.5
in
the
competitive
sentence,
it's
down
90.8
just
struggling
situation.
The
average
daily
rate
down
55.4
the
rev
bar
for
this
subject
is
down
94,
so
you
know
they're
only
making
10.
P
Next
to
nothing
for
these
folks,
so
you
know
it's
a
difficult
time.
I
I
know
that
ford
has
heard
information
about
covet
before
and
we
just
wanted
everyone
to
see
hear
personally
the
struggles
that
these
folks
are
having,
and
I
just
wanted
to
be
able
to
information
about
their
difficulties,
and
you
know
typically
with
assessments.
You
know
you
will.
P
And
value,
and
with
this
current
situation,
that's
you
know,
started
in
2019.
P
P
And
with
the
difficult
situation-
and
they
weighed
very
seriously
actually
closing
the
hotel,
but
you
know
again,
they
were
fortunate
enough
to
have
a
couple
small
contracts
to
flight
folks
that
was
extremely
diminished
as
well,
but
anyway
they
were
able
to
stay
open
and
we
just
wanted
to
be
able
to
share
some
of
the
difficulties
that
they
were
having
again
only
making
about
ten
dollars
per
available
room
and
just
having
a
difficult
time
of
it
through
the
effects
of
the
copen19.
P
A
M
Yes
ma'am,
so
we
relied
fairly
on
the
three-year
summary
sheet.
On
page
three
and
looking
at
the
performance
of
the
property,
we
saw
the
occupancy
actually
ticked
up,
4.3
percent
in
2019
now
that
actually
led
to
an
average
daily
rate
going
down
approximately
1.72,
but
that
actually
led
to
an
increase
in
the
revenue
prevailable
room
with
almost
six
dollars.
So
I
have
five
dollars
and
88
cents
again
a
sign
of
success
at
the
property
in
regards
to
its
occupancy
uptick
room
revenue
was
up
5.5
in
2019,
all
metrics
were
up.
M
Food
and
beverage
was
up.
5.7
in
2019,
miscellaneous
revenue
was
up
two
years
in
a
row.
2019's
increase
of
3.9
percent
total
revenues
up,
5.5
percent
operating
expenditures
are
also
up
4.5
percent
and
that
operating
income
was
up
almost
8
percent
7.8.
M
Exactly
when
we
look
at
the
county's
information,
the
projections
made
and
for
january
1st
in
column
d,
compared
to
what
we
saw
reported
for
operating
year,
2019
again,
unfortunately,
under
projected
across
the
board
under
projected
total
revenue
by
almost
a
1.5
million
dollars.
3.3
percent.
Now
we
underprojected
operating
expenses
by
just
over
a
million
dollars
at
3.4
percent.
M
We
over
projected
the
reserves
for
f,
that's
the
replacement
for
reserves
and
that
led
to
an
under
projection
of
the
net
operating
income
by
619,
000
or
4.8
percent
no
test
was
warranted
in
the
sense
that
much
like
last
case.
If
the
county
excuse
me,
the
board
fell
compelled
to
make
adjustments
for
the
under
projections
on
the
operating
expenses
they're
more
than
delayed
by
the
under
projections
on
the
income
side,
regardless,
if
you're
looking
at
an
average
or
individual
year.
M
Given
that
again,
we
did
underproject
on
the
revenue
side,
as
well
as
on
the
operating
expense
side
that
led
to
more
than
a
half
a
million
dollar
under
projection
of
net
operating
income.
We
do
believe
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
a
value
of
144
million.
Six
hundred
thousand
four
hundred.
Thank
you.
A
K
Thank
you
yeah.
I
could
just
marry
this
rick
miller
if
I
could
just
jump
in
also
yes
just
for
a
second
here,
we
all
recognize
the
problems
that
hotels
are
having
in
2020,
that
is,
after
the
effective
date
of
the
assessment
and
those
numbers
and
everything
will
be
considered
for
the
2021
assessment.
So
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear
that
you
know
all.
K
A
Okay,
thank
you,
bob.
Okay,
any
questions
from
board
members.
F
For
the
appellant,
since
you
made
no
reference
to
your
reworks
of
noi
and
estimated
value
as
we
see
in
columns
f
and
g,
could
you
tell
us
specifically
right
now
what
your
estimated
your
estimate
of
value
is
for
this
current
year.
P
A
M
Yes,
ma'am
again
the
the
board's
seen
this
before
we
underprojected
across
the
board.
If
we
look
at
averages
either
two
year
or
three
year,
we're
still,
you
know
more
than
half
a
million
dollars
shy
of
what
was
achievable
at
the
property
for
the
net
operating
income.
M
So
any
adjustment
made
to
the
upwards
as
far
as
trying
to
match
up
with
their
operating
expenses
should
be
done
in
coordination,
with
an
increase
in
the
revenues
that
we
under
projected
on
as
well.
M
P
Yes,
thank
you
again.
I
just
again
wanted
to
share
with
the
ward
and
the
folks
from
the
assessment
office
again
the
struggles
that
you
know.
The
ownership
here
in
the
hotel
is
going
through
again,
if
you
just
the
the
rev
part,
being
used
this
year,
12
they're
at
10.
P
So
it's
incredible
difference
here,
just
an
extremely
difficult
time
for
this
property.
Again,
they
struggled
with
closing
barely
staying
afloat,
and
I
just
wanted
to
to
make
it
make
everyone
aware
of
their
situation
and,
yes,
we're
hoping
for
you
know
all
of
this
to
be
considered
in
this
year.
However,
I
understand
the
points
that
the
folks
have
made
and
we
just
wanted
to
share
again
with
you.
The
situation
at
the
property
currently.
A
And
the
difference
in
performance
that
is
versus
versus
what's
been
used
in
the
past.
Thank
you
so
much.
Okay,
thank
you
both
okay,
it's
just
among
the
board
members.
A
I
mean
I'll
start.
I
you
know
I'm
very
sympathetic
to
the
struggles
that
this
appellant
is
happening,
but
you
know
I.
I
think
that
there's
multiple
folks
across
the
county
that
are
suffering
from
the
same
struggles-
and
I
think
these
you
know
certainly
will
impact
in
next
year's
assessment,
but
as
of
the
first
of
the
year,
I
don't
think
that
this
is.
A
You
know.
The
information
that
was
provided
is
relevant
to
this
year's
assessment.
I've
said
it,
you
know
before
earlier
this
year
there
is
taxpayer
assistance
through
the
treasurer's
office,
four
pounds.
You
know
if
they
need.
You
know
interest-free
money
to
pay
this
and
they
can
pay
back
over
time.
So
I
I
think
that
that
might
be
some
place
that
this
appellant
could
look
at.
But
for
me
I'm
fine
with
the
original
assessment
so
go
ahead.
Mr
lawson.
G
G
But
you
know,
as
you
said,
madam
chairman,
our
obligation
is
to
establish
the
value
as
of
january
1..
All
of
this
came
subsequent
and
you
know,
given
that
I'm
okay
with
the
county.
F
Very
quickly,
I
find
the
appellante
department
absolutely
agree
across
the
board
on
the
numbers,
the
expenses,
the
revenues
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
So
it's
a
cap
rate
issue
and
the
appellant
did
bring
up
to
us
why
the
cap
rate
ought
to
be
a
little
higher
than
what
the
the
department's
guidelines
suggest.
Therefore,
I
I
feel
compelled
to
go
with
the
department's
calculation.
A
All
right,
then
I'll
go
ahead
and
move
to
confirm
the
county
at
144
million
six
hundred
thousand
four
hundred.
F
A
Okay
motion
in
a
second
by
mr
matskin,
all
in
favor
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
The
county
is
confirmed
at
144
million
six
hundred
thousand
four
hundred
okay.
The
final
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc.
Three
two
on
south
clark
street
before
mr
reagan
starts:
I'm
just
gonna.
Let
everyone
know
mr
lawson
has
a
conflict
on
this.
It
will
not
be
participating
in
this
hearing.
So
we'll
just
be
the
six
of
us.
P
P
And
I
don't
know
what
happened
to
the
appeal
of
that
one.
This
one
was
set
for
today.
We
had
originally
thought
that
both
rpcs
would
be
set
on
the
same
day
so,
and
the
only
issue
that
this
one
could
possibly
have
is
that
in
the
calculation
of
the
larger
parcel,
this
smaller
parcel
should
be
deducted
from
the
value
because
it's
would
be
included
in
the
income
valuation.
So
we
really
don't
have
any
issue
per
se
with
this
valuation,
I'm
just
we
kind
of
wanted
them
to
be
heard
on
the
same
day.
P
O
They
were
never
put
together.
It
turns
out
that
when
you
look
at
page
three
with
the
site
plan,
it's
this
particular
parcel
is
one
of
19
parcels
that
are
used
for
density
to
support
the
entire
pdsp,
not
just
the
clark.
A
O
No,
the
this
parcel
plus
the
other
18.
No,
I
have
appealed,
oh
so
that
I
know
of
none
of
those
other
18
parcels
are
being
appealed.
Is
that
what
you're
asking
me
yeah.
P
So
the
information
I
have
was
that
572
and
573
were
all
part
of,
what's
known
as
the
clark
property
at
3400
south
clark
street.
I
don't
know
about
the
other
18,
but
when
we
filed
our
appeals
for
the
board
and
the
first
level
we
filed
572-573,
that's
34027
572-573
together.
That
was
the
information
that
we
had,
that
they
were
two
pieces.
So
if
it
at
all
possible,
we
would
like
this
one
to
be
heard
with
the
other
piece
572.
A
P
A
On
one,
second,
all
right,
just
for
board
members,
how
do
you
feel
I
mean
it
to
me?
It
makes
sense
that
they
would
be
heard
together,
yeah.
A
O
So
it
depends
on
the
appraiser
okay,
it
is
not
scheduled.
No,
we
did
request
that
it
be
heard
on
the
same
time
with
the
other
case,
but
we
were
under
the
impression
that
we
needed
to
fill
up
today's
schedule.
A
I
A
Okay,
then,
I'm
gonna
ask
to
have
this
removed
from
today
and
put
this
with
the
other
particle
and
just
in
case
somebody
thinks
that
this
has
to
be
done
by
vote,
so
I
will
move
to
postpone
it
to
do
both
together.
Do
I
have
a
second
second?