►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing June 23, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
B
A
A
B
C
Property
good
morning,
thank
you
board
members
for
your
time
today
and
for
this
opportunity
to
present
our
case.
Essentially,
I
think
our
case
is
based
on
the
fact
that
our
house
is
not
assessed
equitably
with
similar
properties.
C
Our
total
assessment
increased
12.6
percent
over
last
year.
The
improvement
assessment
alone
increased
16.8
percent,
while
houses
in
our
neighborhood
decreased.
I
mean
for
improvement
assessment
by
up
to
5.
I
don't
think
this
is
supported.
We
haven't
made
any
improvements
to
our
house.
In
the
last
year.
C
Our
and
anyway,
we
haven't
been
able
to
really
get
a
definitive
answer
on
why
we
we
warrant
this,
this
nearly
17
assessment
increase
in
our
improvement
assessment.
Additionally,
it's
been,
the
the
entire
process
is
the
first
time
we've
had
to
navigate
this
process
and
it's
the
criteria
are
not
very
clear
as
to
what
comparable
means.
C
When
I
did
my
research
to
find
comparables,
I
use
the
basic.
You
know
real
estate
definition,
which
takes
a
lot
of
factors
into
account,
including
number
of
bedrooms,
bathrooms
square
footage.
C
Other
things
like
that,
and
I
found
I
presented
several
homes
that
I
thought
were
comparable.
C
My
husband
spoke
with
the
appraiser
and
was
informed
those
many
of
those
factors
do
not
factor
in
and
we
don't.
We
don't
even
know.
We
don't
know
what
what
formulas
are
used,
but
I
also
want
to
to
talk
about
that
that
conversation,
my
husband
had
with
the
appraiser.
C
C
C
In
addition,
the
appraiser
informed
my
husband
that,
in
order
to
appeal
to
the
board
of
equalization,
he
had
to
rescind
his
appeal.
Luckily
he
didn't
think
that
sounded
sounded
correct.
So
he
didn't
do
that
and
that's
probably
why
we're
appearing
before
you
today
and
and
finally,
no
appraiser
has
come
to
make
a
physical
assessment
of
our
property.
We
received
a
letter
on
april
13th
saying
that
we
would
be
contact
contacted
to
schedule
a
visit,
but
we
were
never
contacted.
C
Let's
see
we
did.
We
did
a
little
historical
research
on
the
assessments
on
our
house.
We
purchased
the
house
in
may
of
2015
and,
as
we
understand
it,
the
previous
owner
had
made
some
substantive
improvements
to
the
house
and
you
can
actually
see
in
the
history
of
our
assessments
that
from
2015
to
2016
assessment
increased
from
one
for
the
improvement.
C
The
improvements
assessment,
I
should
say
for
the
for
the
structure:
163
600
to
300
4300,
which
is
about
86
increase,
and
we
assume
that
that
accounted
for
whatever
improvements
the
previous
owner
made.
C
I
I
I
I
don't
I
mean
I
I
guess
I'm
I'm
done.
I
I've
presented,
I
presented
what
we
consider
to
be
comparables.
Our
our
lot
is
large,
but
our
house
is
old
and
not
that
big
we've
looked
at
houses
that
are
slightly
smaller,
but
their
improvements.
Assessments
are
far
less
than
ours:
we've
looked
at
houses
that
are
only
that
are
that
are
much
much
larger,
maybe
1500
square
feet
larger
and
assessed
at
the
same
rate
as
ours.
B
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
ulysses,
for
the
county.
Please.
D
Okay,
good
morning
board
glad
to
see
everyone
is
adjusting
well
and
still
managing
to
complete
the
task
at
hand.
Today's
case
I
present
before
you
is
just
a
simple
matter
of
the
property,
getting
its
record
updated
to
reflect
what
is
currently
there
for
this
case,
the
subject
property
was
not
physically
inspected,
but
rather
virtually
inspected
due
to
interior
information
obtained
from
the
2015
sale
as
it
sits.
The
subject
property
is.
E
E
D
As
it
sits,
the
subject,
property
is
one
and
a
half
story,
framed
house
with
three
bedrooms.
Three
baths
finished
basement
with
an
in-ground
pool
the
subject.
Property
was
originally
built
in
1938,
but
has
an
effective
age
of
1998
and
a
quality
of
good
minus
the
appellant
feels
their
property
should
not
have
gotten
an
increase
when
compared
to
properties
that
receive
just
the
normal
neighborhood
adjustments
that
did
not
have
any
updates
done
to
the
to
their
property
record,
like
the
subjects
record
received
this
year.
D
At
this
time,
the
county's
mass
appraisal
methodology
was
explained
to
the
opponent
and
what
adjustments
to
the
record
were
noted.
The
noted
adjustments
made
in
2020
to
the
subject
property
were
an
effective
age
increase
and
a
quality
adjustment
to
correctly
reflect
the
current
condition
of
the
property,
and
it
was
equalized
with
other
similar
properties
in
the
neighborhood
comps,
provided
by
the
appel,
have
property
records
that
are
not
as
updated
as
a
subject
or
are
totally
different
house
types
such
as
one
and
a
half
story
versus
split
level.
D
Also,
most
of
the
comps
provided
by
the
appellant
are
not
sales
comps
they're,
just
assessment
comps,
the
appellant's
best
comp
is
800
south
quincy
street,
but
even
that
is
a
significantly
smaller
lot
and
a
significantly
smaller
improvement.
Appellant's
neighborhood
alcove
heights
increased
on
average
about
6.9
percent
due
to
sales
that
occurred
within
the
analyst
period
and
within
the
neighborhood
properties.
Grade
and
effective
age
appear
in
line
with
the
neighborhood
in
current
condition.
No
changes
to
the
record
were
made
stemming
from
the
review
other
than
updating
the
bedroom
count,
which
was
explained
to
the
parent.
B
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
questions
from
board
members.
F
Yes,
good
morning,
this
is
to
the
appraiser.
Mr
ulisi,
can
you
tell
me
what
are
the
updates
that
you
made
to
the
record
specifically
for
last
year,
because
I
think
from
you
know,
looking
back
at
the
assessments
from
2015
to
2016,
there
was
a
big
adjustment,
so
I'm
assuming
that
it
was
adjusted
after
the
sale.
D
The
adjustments
recorded
in
last
year
were
the
effective
age
was
increased
60
years
and
the
quality
was
dropped
from
very
good
plus
to
good
minus.
This
can
be
seen
on
the
actual
subjects
worksheet
down.
In
the
note
in
the
comments
section,
and
you
can
see
the
history
of
the
changes
up
to
the
property
there.
G
Yeah,
this
is
for
the
county.
If,
if
the
jumping
assessment
was
due
to
the
improvements,
why
is
the
land
assessment
so
much
higher
than
the
comps.
D
There's
a
size
adjustment
for
the
subject:
they
have
15
000
square
foot.
Land
versus
the
comps
are
more
in
the
the
basic
land
rate
for
that,
for
that,
neighborhood
is
five
five
hundred
seventy
five
thousand.
D
H
I
want
to
continue
that
question
a
little
bit
in
a
different
way.
The
land
value,
just
just
the
appellance
land
value,
went
up
a
bunch
from
last
year
to
this
I've
never
seen
percentage-wise
such
a
large
increase.
I
don't
want
to
compare
it
to
the
neighbors
or
the
comparables
you
provided
did
something
happen:
land
sales-
I
guess
in
alcoba
heights-
or
this
neighborhood-
that
created
this
large
year-over-year
value
increase
in
land.
D
H
D
Thank
you
correct.
You
can
see
that
in
the
county's
comps
from
2020,
the
land
went
from
520
to
575,
so
it's
about
55
000
increase
across
the.
D
B
I'm
sorry
thank
you
just
to
clarify
on
that
point,
though
the
neighbors
abutting
it
and
adjacent
to
it,
they're
all
in
the
sixty
four
six
hundred
and
forty
four
thousand
six,
forty
nine
eight,
those
all
went
up
the
same
amount.
G
D
It
was
generated
due
to
our
mass
appraisal
methodology
as
far
as
adjustments
for
the
average
land
value
given
land
sales
throughout
the
county
and
then
adjust
it
accordingly.
D
D
Not
specifically
large
narrow
lots,
but
we
focus
on
just
land
sales
in
general,
whether
they're
long
round
or
any
shape.
We
just
focus
on
land.
I
Yeah,
I
got
my
hand
up.
Okay,
I
think
we're
kind
of
nibbling
at
this
this
issue,
and
maybe
maybe
it's
real
or
not,
but
I
think
my
concern
and
I'll
ask
you
if
this
is
accurate,
is
if
you
get
a
neighborhood
where
you
know
a
handful
of
houses
are
bought
at
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
and
they're
either
torn
down
or
they
pop
the
top,
and
they
do
a
major
renovation,
and
then
they
sell
in
that
year
for
a
million
five
th.
I
Is
that
pushing
up
the
base
land
value
on
other
houses
that
are
not
necessarily
tear
downs
that
are
kind
of
your
more
modest
homes
on
large
lots
is
that
is
that
unfairly
affecting
them,
because
there's
a
couple
of
large
properties
that
were
sold
at
a
high
price
tag,
and
I
guess
if
I
can
frame
that
as
a
question
for
the
county,
if
I
was
to
tear
down
a
house
in
alcova
heights,
I
bought
the
land
for
500
000.,
I
tore
it
down.
I
I
bought
it
and
I
built
a
two
million
dollar
mansion
up
in
there.
Is
that
going
to
affect
the
land
value
of
the
other
properties
in
the
neighborhood.
D
Sale
in
there,
no,
we
would.
We
would
look
at
the
first
sale,
the
tear
down
and
use
that
as
the
land,
the
two
million
dollar
sale
would
just
be
a
regular
depending
on
the
extent
of
it
would
just
be
a
regular
open
market
sale
for
an
improvement,
a
property
with
an
improvement
on
it.
I
J
I
can
provide
more
input
on
the
the
land
questions
that
are
going
on
as
well.
My
name
is
derek
dubay
and
I'm
a
supervisor
of
the
residential
appraisal
staff.
So
we
do
study
land
across
the
county.
We
look
at
land
sales,
specifically
in
each
section
of
the
county,
north
south,
all
across
the
county,
depending
on
size.
It
doesn't
matter
to
us.
We
do
monitor
the
actual
land
sales,
which
are
the
tear
downs
that
we
see
mostly,
and
we
also
monitor
our
location
multipliers,
which
are
based
off
the
cost
approach.
J
So
in
this
neighborhood
it
had
a
multiplier
of
108
percent,
which
is
over
a
hundred
percent,
meaning
that
we're
actually
increasing
the
improvement
values
to
try
to
meet
our
total
values
in
comparison
to
the
ratios
on
the
actual
sales.
But
in
this
neighborhood
we
did
have
land
sales
and
we
did
have
land
data
to
follow,
and
we
also
look
at
land
sales
and
surrounding
neighborhoods
as
well.
So
we
don't,
we
don't
run
averages
and
we
don't
increase
people's
land
rates
just
based
off
of
the
ratios
alone.
J
We
actually
do
monitor
the
land
sales
themselves
and
use
those
to
make
our
increases,
and
in
this
neighborhood
the
base
rate
was
at
520
000
and
we
weren't
seeing
any
land
sales
come
in
at
520
000
and
we
then
looked
at
our
location
multiplier
and
saw
that
we
were
actually
you
know,
increasing
our
improvement
values
due
to
that
differential
in
the
land
rate.
So
we
did
make
a
jump
to
the
land
rate
in
this
neighborhood.
I
Okay,
I
guess
I
guess
derek
my
my
only
point
and
I'll
leave
it
at
this.
Is
that
it
you
don't
get
the
full
650k
land
value
if
you've
got
a
300
000
home
on
the
lot
because
nobody's
selling
it
for
650k.
J
That's
not
what
we
would
consider
in
our
land
rates.
We
would
actually,
we
actually
did
look
at
the
land
sales
themselves.
You
know
to
base
our
increases
off
of
so
if
we
hadn't,
if
we
had
a
whole
section
of
just
normal
sales,
with
no
land
sales
at
all,
you
would
probably
see
much
more
modest
increases
in
the
land
rate
in
in
keeping
our
ratios
in
line
and
keeping
our
location
multipliers
in
line,
if
that,
if
that
makes
sense,
okay.
B
No,
then
mystery
lissie.
If
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up
sir.
D
Sure,
let's
see
as
it
stands,
it
is
recommended
that
the
2021
assessment
be
confirmed
at
977
900,
based
on
the
fact
that
no
changes
that
influence
value
were
made
to
the
record
per
the
review
and
the
appellant
hasn't
provided
any
sales
comps
to
indicate
a
change
in
value.
977
900
can
be
confirmed
as
fair
and
equitable
based
on
the
sales
analysis
that
was
done
for
the
neighborhood.
C
Please
you
sure
I
just
wanted
to
respond
to
the
claim
that
we
didn't
provide
any
sales
comps.
Our
case
is
based
solely
on
equitable
assessments
in
our
neighborhood,
so
we
focused
on
the
assessments
in
our
neighborhood.
We
compared
our
house
to
similar
lot
size
and
similar
structure,
property
or
attributes
and
yeah.
I
I
just
don't
think
that
a
17
increase
in
our
improvements
assessment
was
supported.
We
didn't
make
any
improvements
to
our
structure.
C
I
I
Yeah
I
mean
it's
tough.
I
could
see
an
issue
here
with
just
kind
of
a
big
increase
year
over
year
and
trying
to
reconcile
that
as
a
homeowner.
That's
you
know
it's
like
the
same
as
getting
a
bill
for
a
thousand
bucks
that
you
don't
know
what
it's
for.
So
you
know
I
can
definitely
sympathize.
You
know
I've
seen
sales
of
similar
homes
in
the
neighborhood
that
are
kind
of
in
that
900
000
to
a
million
dollar
range.
I
I'm
not
sure
876
is
the
right
number,
but
from
an
equalization
standpoint
I
mean,
I
guess
my
only
I
don't
really.
K
I
Good
logical
rationale
right
now,
because
it's
a
large
lot
they're
explaining
what's
going
on
with
the
land
land
sales,
I'm
I'm
kind
of
torn
here,
I'd
love
to
reduce
it,
but
I
don't
have
a
way
to
do
it.
My
only
thought
was,
you
know
the
pool
is
in
there
and
I
don't
know
how
you
put
a
value
on
a
pool
without
inspecting
it
because
sometimes
they're
negative
values.
I
If
you
ask
me,
as
far
as
the
home
value,
then
they've
got
22
100
on
the
worksheet
for
a
pool,
and
you
know
having
not
seen
it.
I've
seen
pools
in
arlington
that
are
obviously
need
to
be
torn
out
and
replaced
so
without
putting
eyes
on
it.
It's
kind
of
hard
to
just
throw
a
number
at
it,
so
I'd
be
willing
to
reduce
the
full
value.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chairman,
you
know
I
I
I'm
a
land
use
guy,
and
so
it
seems
like
these
land
values
are
kind
of
being
done
in
a
vacuum,
and
you
got
to
look
at
the
zoning
and
I
I
looked
at
the
neighborhood
and
I
think,
a
builder
if
he
were
to
buy
a
lot,
would
have
a
hard
time
putting
in
a
two-car
garage,
which
is
what
all
builders
want
because
of
the
narrowness
of
the
lot.
G
And
so
I
I
think
the
the
the
13
is
just
too
aggressive
in
this
from
in
this
particular
block
of
lots.
H
I
want
to
revisit
something
that
jose
brought
up.
I,
when
I
did
my
research,
I
didn't
go
back
to
the
sales
price
so
say:
did
you
tell
us
that
in
2016
there
was
a
significant
increase
based
on
the
sale
and
apparently
the
the
department's
due
diligence,
because
what
I
heard
is
in
2020
there
was
a
significant
catch-up,
namely
you
know,
30
years
effective
age
addition
and
negative
quality.
F
I
was
guessing
that
it
was
based
on
the
information
that
they
received
on
the
condition
of
the
house,
which
is
normally
what
the
county
does
sure,
but
other
than
that
I
mean
the
house
looks
in
really
good
shape.
The
pool
seems
to
be
a
quality,
build
pool.
I
don't
think
that
you
know
just
picking
a
something
a
way
to
reduce.
It
would
be
just
to
pick
on
the
pool,
because
I
think
you
know
some
pools
here.
F
Don't
have
any
value
or
detract
from
the
value
of,
but
in
my
opinion
it's
a
you
know:
quality
build
pool
but
yeah.
That
was
the
only
thing
that
I
noticed
on
the
assessment
values
to
your
question.
H
I
don't
want
to
catch
up
twice
and
that's
a
significant
increase
from
2015
to
16,
but
of
course
we
don't
know
why
and
the
assessments
more
than
the
sales
purchase
price,
so
I
met
c.
Okay.
Thank
you.
B
Right
now,
I
would
just
like
to
jump
in
on
the
on
the
land
assessment.
I
don't
find
the
land
assessment
to
be
too
high
to
mr
lawson's
point.
I
know
a
lot
of
times
he
wants
to
get
into
if
a
builder
buys
it,
but
we're
not
assessing
it
on
what
would
happen
down
the
road
we're
assessing.
What's
on
the
existing
property,
you
know
and
when
I
look
at
there's
a
lot
of
different
neighborhoods
in
south
arlington
that
6
000
r6
that
you're
in
the
600
000
for
the
land.
B
I
mean
that
is
the
cost
of
land.
You
know
even
in
south
arlington,
so
you
know
the
fact
that
this
is
15
000
square
feet.
I
don't
find
the
649
outrageous,
you
know
and
to
say
like
well,
you
can't
use
the
property,
but
you
know
that
property
was
there
when
they
bought
it.
I
mean
it's,
you
can
use
it.
For
you
know
privacy,
as
you
said,
gardens
pools,
I
mean
other
things.
It
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
be.
Buildable
to
you
know,
have
any
kind
of
utility
or
enjoyment
of
it.
B
L
L
L
The
other
thing
is,
is
you
know
I'm
looking
at
the
equalization
which
is,
and
I
you
know
I
tend
to
look
at:
what's
the
market
value
and
how's
it
really,
comparing
all
the
houses
to
the
land
on
that
street
they're,
it's
comparable.
L
I
mean
it's.
There's,
I'm
not
seeing
anything,
that's
out
of
a
line,
the
county's
argument
that
they
did
the
adjustment
because
of
the
effective
age
and
that's
what
took
place
this
last
year
because
it
was
still
being
reflected
at
the
original
age
that
gives
some
logic
why
they
did
a
what's
almost
a
60
000
boost
in
value
of
the
house
this
year,
just
the
effective
age
change.
It
was
incorrect,
that's
what
I'm
hearing
them
say,
but
the
the
actual
improvement
had
taken
place
back
in
obviously
1516.
E
L
They
didn't
change
the
effective
age
back
then
that
was
an
error
on
their
part.
Yeah
they
left
it.
They
did
this
massive
improvement
to
the
house,
doubling
the
house
assessment,
but
never
changed
the
effective
age
which
goes
into
that
calculation
and
it
didn't
get
done
so
they
caught
that
this
year
yeah,
I
agree.
Sorry,
it
they
screwed
up
and.
G
F
I'll
tell
you,
I
don't
have
any
problem
with
the
land
assessment.
In
this
particular
case
honestly,
I
wish
the
owner
had
provided
better
comparables,
not
just
the
assessment
on
that,
because
if
you
know
I
looked
at
the
assessment
values
on
the
land
or
those
comparables
and
they
all
they're
all
in
line,
you
know
they
all
have
the
base
land
values,
575
and
the
larger
lots
of
the
adjustments
the
same
as
the
appellants.
F
So
the
land
value,
in
my
opinion,
is
equally
applied
to
all
the
properties
provided
from
the
department
and
from
the
owner.
The
the
only
reason
I
don't
like
the
comparables
provided
by
the
owners
are
because
the
houses
are
totally.
I
mean
they're
different,
different
styles
colonials,
as
opposed
to
this
one
and
a
half
story
style.
F
So
you
know
if
the
adjustment
was
based
on
the
effective
age,
it
does
make
sense
that
the
increase
is
going
to
be
there.
So
I
don't
really
see
how
we
can
make
any
adjustments.
You
know
the
only
thing
that
the
owners
provided
and
really
the
burning
of
proof
is
on
them
is
the
comparables
that
I
don't
really
see
that
they're.
That
good.
I
Okay,
yeah,
like
you
just
mentioned
burden
of
proof,
and
so
I'm
not
necessarily
gonna
make
this
case.
But
maybe
this
is
a
suggestion
for
next
year.
This
block
in
particular.
I
know
one
of
the
homeowners
and
and
she's
lived
there,
her
whole
life
and-
and
these
are
long
flat-
lots
that
are
very
prone
to
flooding
and
in
fact,
she's
gone
to
the
county.
I
Multiple
times
and
said,
can
you
put
a
storm
line
in
here
or
a
connection
or
some
sort
of
drain,
and,
and
they
basically
said
you
know
if
you're
willing
to
pay
25
000
we'll
do
it.
So
that's
that's
anecdotal
evidence,
but
you
know
you
want
to
come
in
next
year
and
demonstrate
that
you've
got
issues
with
your
lot
and
maybe
there's
an
adjustment
to
the
land
that
we
can
make.
We
just
don't
have
the
we
don't
have
any
evidence
that
we
can
use
right
now
to
kind
of
justify
that,
but.
G
Yeah,
this
will
be
my
my
final.
This
will
be
my
final
covet
and
jose.
What
I
wanted
to
share
with
you
is
that,
in
my
experience,
the
builders
look
at
a
building
lock
and
they
don't
care.
If
it's
got,
you
know
15
000
square
feet
what
they
care
about
is
they
want
a
building
lot
if
it's
way
oversized,
they
may
add
a
little
bit
of
value,
and
so
when,
when
I'm
looking
at
the
comps,
then
the
reason
I'm
keep
harping
on
this
and
I
apologize
for
it.
G
F
Right,
that's
the
main
thing
I
was
looking
at
you
know:
are
they
assessed
equally
to
other
properties
in
the
area,
and
you
know
they
are
whether
they're
going
to
be
used
for
building
new
homes
in
the
future
or
not.
I
mean
we're
really
not
looking
at
that.
I
understand
how
your
you
know
could
apply
that
to
see
what
the
value
should
be,
but
you
know,
unfortunately,
we
don't
see
that,
and
we
I
mean
we
haven't,
asked
the
county.
F
B
Okay,
second
by
mr
penaronda,
all
in
favor
to
confirm
the
county.
Hi
opposed.
I
B
E
B
It
is
five
to
two
and
that's
without
mr
lawson
and
mr
hoffman.
The
county
is
confirmed
at
977
thousand
nine
hundred
dollars.
B
K
Okay,
it's
interesting
that
the
previous
case
focused
on
land.
I
thought
it
was
going
to
be
focused
on
the
house,
primarily
because
that's
a
good
transition
to
our
case,
which
is
totally
on
the
land
component
of
the
assessment
there.
K
The
reason
that
we,
the
basis
for
our
appeal
to
the
county
as
well
as
to
the
board,
is
that
there
was
no
clear
relationship
either
in
comparable
size
or
in
its
location
relative
to
traffic
considerations
and
other
factors
as
to
why
our
lot,
which
is
the
smallest
in
terms
of
square
footage
in
our
immediate
neighborhood,
but
has
exactly
the
same
assessment
as
many
of
the
other
larger
lots,
and
not
only
that,
but
it
has
a
comparable
assessment
to
three
lots
that
border
us
to
the
rear
that
are
nearly
70
or
75
percent
larger
this.
These.
K
K
But
in
any
case,
the
comparative
analysis
that
we've
done
indicates
that
we
should
have
at
least
as
far
as
the
land
assessment,
which
is
about
you
know.
65
percent
of
the
total
assessment
should
be
reduced,
based
on
the
lot
size
and
based
upon
our
location
in
the
cul-de-sac.
K
Now
we
realize
that
nothing
can
be
done
in
the
short
term,
because,
by
the
way,
speaking
of
short
term,
we've
looked
at
comparables
in
terms
of
land
assessment
for
the
last
10
years,
which
is
on
on
the
website
from
the
real
estate
assessment
website
and
we've
seen
that
this
disparity,
if
you
will,
has
existed
for
the
last
10
years.
At
least
this
is
what's
being
published
online
and
we
realize
that
nothing
can
be
done
in
the
short
term
to
correct
any
past
disparities.
K
But
we
proposed
some
kind
of
relief
in
the
form
of
a
slight
reduction
in
our
2021
land
assessment,
based
upon
the
comparative
size
of
just
looking
at
the
the
the
relatively
smaller
lots
within
the
cul-de-sac
itself,
not
looking
at
our
our
large
lot,
neighbors
to
the
rear
and
we're
proposing
a
reduction
in
the
land
assessment
component
of
just
six
percent
for
2021..
K
As
I
say,
we're
aware
that
we're
not
we're
looking
at
something
that
may
that
the
county
may
be
aware
of
this
disparity
and
and
we're
confident
that
will
be
appropriately
addressed
in
due
course.
K
B
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
mr
ulysse,
for
the
county.
Please.
D
All
right
last
resident
case
of
the
year,
I
think,
let's
dive
into
it.
Okay,
for
this
case,
no
inspection
was
conducted
for
the
review,
given
the
2009
interior
inspection
for
a
boe
case
handled
by
mr
bailey,
and
the
homeowner
is
not
contesting
an
error.
In
fact,
nor
have
any
updates
been
done
to
the
property
per
the
homeowner.
Also,
her
county
records,
no
permits
seem
to
have
been
pulled.
D
The
option
to
submit
interior
picks
was
offered
and
the
picks
provided
support.
The
information
on
file,
the
virtual
inspection
confirmed
all
the
information
on
file.
That
being
said,
the
subject
is
a
two-story
brick
house
over
basement
with
four
bedrooms:
two
two
fixed
bathrooms
and
two
three
fixed
bathrooms
and
a
basement
garage.
D
It
was
built
in
1975
with
an
effective
age
of
1985
and
a
quality
of
good
plus.
The
appellate
wants
to
contest
land
value
in
a
manner
not
conducive
to
county
mass
appraisal
practices.
The
county's
land
valuation
process
was
explained
to
the
appellant
as
far
as
how
every
neighborhood
has
an
acceptable
size
range
and
those
properties
in
the
neighborhood
that
fall
outside
the
that
size
range
receive
a
percent
adjustment.
It
was
also
explained
to
the
appellant
that
the
county
assesses
what
is
currently
there,
not
the
property's
future
potential
use.
D
All
comps
presented
by
the
appellant
are
reflecting
adjustments
that
fall
in
line
with
the
county
guidelines,
including
the
subject
comps
on
stafford
and
taylor
street
are
getting
size.
Adjustments
subject
included
he's
getting
a
negative
one
size
adjustment
there
are
also
smaller
comps
provided
and
the
comps
on
george
mason
drive
are
receiving
an
outside
influence
adjustment
for
being
on
george
mason.
D
The
appellant's
neighborhood
park
ridge
increased
on
average
seven
percent
due
to
sales
that
occurred
within
the
analysis
period
and
within
the
neighborhood
properties.
Greater
and
effective
age
appear
in
line
with
the
neighborhood
in
current
condition.
No
changes
were
made
to
the
record
in
reviewing
the
sales
comparable
within
the
neighborhood
and
the
comparables
provided
by
the
department.
No
further
adjustments
to
the
record
are
needed
and
the
2021
assessment
should
be
confirmed
as
fair
and
equitable.
G
Very
quickly
for
the
county,
you
don't
do
a
negative
adjustment
for
lot
value
based
on
it
being
a
corner
lot.
Do
you,
okay,
that.
B
K
K
There
could
be
other
factors
such
as
being
in
a
cul-de-sac
and
so
forth,
but
we're
on
the
corner
right
at
the
on
the
busy
part
of
8th
street
and
south
stafford
we're
on
the
corner
of
the
cul-de-sac
and
it's
the
smallest
physically,
the
smallest
lot
in
the
cul-de-sac,
as
well
as
the
smallest
lot
in
all
the
comparables
that
are
mentioned.
I
think
12
comparables
that
we've
mentioned
that
are
within
one
to
two
block
of
our
house.
K
Yet
we
receive
the
same
assessment
for
the
land
itself
as
all
the
other
homeowners,
including
the
three
houses
to
the
rear,
which,
as
I
said,
are
70
larger
in
their
lot
than
they're
on
south
taylor
street.
So
that's
that's
our
argument.
Our
argument
is
that
there's
a
disparity
between
the
assess
the
assessed
value
of
the
land
and
the
size
of
the
land.
Basically,.
H
Thank
you,
okay
for
the
department,
same
questions
we
had
in
the
last
case.
Are
there
raw
land
sales,
meaning?
I
don't
know
there
any
raw
land
here
anymore,
but
tear
downs
based
on
which
you
decided
the
department
decided
to
increase
fairly
significantly
land
value
in
this
neighborhood.
H
You
don't
have
to
give
me
addresses,
but
I
mean:
did
you
have
a
meaningful
number
of
land
sales
such
that
you
adjusted
land
large
to
a
more
significant
extent
than
we
normally
see
less
than
in
the
last
case,
but
more
than
we
normally
see,
and
if
not,
how
did
it
adjust
up?
You
know
where
it
is.
What's
my
number
almost
11.
H
D
Those
are
the
weighted
ones.
If
there
are
no
sales
in
those
particular
neighborhoods,
then
we
have
to
go
outside
that.
D
D
K
Yes,
I'm
sorry,
I
do
believe
that
there
will
be
adjustments
in
the
near
future,
we'll
probably
get
a
negative
one.
I
would
hope
that
we
would
get
one
for
2021
just
purely
based
on
the
size,
if
not,
that
no
other
factors
are
involved
because
we're
being
assessed
at
the
same
rate
as
much
larger
properties.
K
As
far
as
the
land
is
concerned,
the
land
being
you
know,
in
our
case
65
percent
of
the
total
ss
value
we
would
appreciate
just
for
this
year,
as
as
a
recognition
that
we've
been
over
assessed
on
the
land
for
the
last
10
years,
at
least
a
a
modest
reduction
of
about
6
in
the
land
value,
only
not
in
the
total
assessment,
but
just
the
land.
G
You
have
a
it's
lengthy,
fronting
on
8th
street,
which
is
going
to
allow
you
to
put
a
house
on
and
two-car
garage.
You
have
your.
You
have
double
frontage,
so
you
have
two
front
yard
setbacks,
but
then
you
have
a
brake
on
your
side
and
rear,
and
I
mean
the
value
is:
is
in
the
lot
and
not
the
size,
and
I
think
the
assessed
value
is
fine.
L
I
think,
what's
missing
in
the
explanation
to
the
appellant
is
that
it
is
it's
for
a
single
law.
You
can
build
one
house
on
it
and
you
can
build
one
house
on
the
lots
behind
him
that
are
larger.
It's
still
for
a
single
lot
and
the
larger
lots
behind
him
and
the
other
lots.
There
is
some
adjustment
by
square
footage.
L
L
I
Yeah
I
mean
when
you
look
around
the
neighborhood
that
cul-de-sac
and
the
area
I
mean
it's,
it
there's
a
lot
of
similar
sized
lots.
So
it's
not
like
it's
the
only
small
one
in
the
neighborhood,
the
next
door.
Neighbor
is
like
64
square
feet,
larger,
which
I
think
the
county's
pretty
much
their
opinion
is
that's
insignificant.
I
It's
got
the
base
the
same
base
rate
on
the
lot,
so
I
don't.
I
think
you
know
it's
a
it's
a
from
an
equalization
standpoint.
It's
in
line
with
the.
B
I
F
Yes,
I
have
to
agree,
I
mean
I
actually
have
to
disagree
with
the
property
owner,
because
the
land
values
have
increased
gradually
since
2012.
You
know
in
2012
it
was
at
376.
F
B
Yeah,
I
I
agree
with
you,
mr
penranda,
and
disagree
that
the
where
the
appellant
said
it's
been
over
assessed
for
you
know
numerous
years.
I
I
think
it's
as
you
said,
gradually
gone
up
and
the
sales
support
it.
So
any
other
opinions.
G
B
Okay,
all
right.
The
third
case
is
rpc
one,
four
zero,
four,
four
zero:
two
two:
the
property
is
located
at
40,
75,
wilson
boulevard,
ms
eileen
borman
is
here
on
behalf
of
the
owners
and
just
before
I
just
want
to
clarify.
I
understand
that
you
spoke
with
mr
peralta,
and
there
was
a
new
test
done
that
everybody
agreed
to.
B
M
Basically,
I
am
comfortable
with
the
amounts
proposed
in
the
revised
worksheet,
which
is
87
180
181.
M
B
G
Yes,
ma'am,
sorry
to
ask
this:
the
point
was
made
in
the
in
the
appeal.
Given
that
metro
was
shut
down.
Maybe
there
ought
not
be
the
bump.
You
know
how
we've
we
distinguish
between
metro
and
non-metro.
Did
the
county
find
any
merit
in
that
argument?
G
I
B
M
M
B
Thank
you
all
right.
It's
just
among
the
board
members
is
everybody.
Okay,
with
accepting
the
county's
new
revised
numbers,
yes
yeah!
Well,
it's
just
as
simple
as
can
be
here.
Okay,
then
I'll
motion
to
accept
the
revised
assessment
of
87
180
200.,
a
second
okay,
second
by
ms
hogan,
all
in
favor
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
The
new
revised
number
of
87
million
180
200
has
been
confirmed.
B
The
fourth
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc14030050
at
3701,
fairfax
drive,
ms
foreman.
I
understand
you
would
like
to
withdraw
this
case.
That
is
correct.
Okay,
so
I
will
motion
to
accept
the
withdrawal.
Do
I
have
a
second?
Oh
I'm
sorry,
wait!
I'm
sorry!
Mr
peralta!
I
assume
you
don't
have
any
objection
to
that.
B
Okay,
all
right,
so
the
motion
is
on
the
table
to
allow
the
withdrawal
a
second,
mr
matskin,
all
in
favor
of
accepting
withdrawal.
B
Mr
lawson,
okay,
it's
accepted
unanimously
that
case
has
been
withdrawn.
Thank
you,
miss
foreman.
Thank
you
board.
Members
have
a.
A
B
N
B
B
Yes,
we
can
okay,
so
we're
going
to
move
to
k-6
on
the
agenda,
which
is
an
economic
unit,
the
rpc
starting
1702,
405
h,
and
it's
on
north
courthouse
road.
Mr
dover,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
your
property,
sir.
E
At
the
first
level,
the
assessor's
office
reduced
the
property
to
39
million
180
200
and
our
analysis
indicates
further
reduction
is
warranted.
Thus,
we
are
here
today
with
an
assessment
data
value
of
1
121.
E
The
next
page
is
just
an
area
of
where
the
property
is
located
and
all
the
parcels
included
in
that
economic
unit.
Page
four
is
a
picture
of
the
hilton
garden,
so
we
know
what
asset
we're
talking
about,
or
my
page
numbers
are
a
little
different
than
yours.
Sorry,
that's
page
144.,
I'm
sure
you
all
know
strangers
to
what
the
pandemic
has
caused
to
the
hotel
industry.
E
E
I
highlighted
an
interesting
paragraph
that,
even
as
of
this
revenues,
have
fallen,
65
percent
in
northern
virginia,
specifically
the
market
that
our
hotel
is
in
and
obviously
where
arlington
is
in
addition
to
that,
one
big
thing
is
that
lenders
have
little
to
no
interest
and
further
exposure
and
lending
on
these,
which
obviously
impacts
leverage
and
cap
rates
and
here's
an
instance
of
where,
in
the
what's
considered
desirability
matrix
lenders
are
considering
the
subject
type
anywhere
from
cautionary
to
rejecting
entirely
increasing
the
risk
profile
of
the
subject's
asset
type.
E
In
addition,
this
is
another
thing
from
a
big
lending
pool
the
cmbs
talking
again
how
hot
this
industry
is.
Troubled
and
lenders
want
out
and
they're
willing
to
walk
away
from
large
sums
of
money
here
and
star
report
down
talking
going
to
take
at
least
possibly
two
three
years
to
get
trading
back
to,
even
where
we
were
from
all
the
leading
sources.
E
For
sake
of
time,
I'm
gonna
it's
it's
just
I
don't
want
to
be
overly
redundant.
One
thing
I
do
want
to
highlight
for
the
record
is
the
executive
order
from
the
governor
of
virginia
impacting
the
subject
property
where
they
were
forced
to
close
a
portion
of
the
hotel,
meaning
the
restaurant
and
bar
in
this
facility.
So
the
government
of
virginia
forced
this
property
owner
to
close
portion
of
their
asset
dramatically,
reducing
and
impacting
specifically,
that
particular
food
beverage
and
other
operating
income,
so
then
getting
to
the
meat
and
potatoes
so
to
speak.
E
What
we
can
see
here,
total
revenue
down
over
8.1
million
dollars
or
almost
80
percent
noi
before
real
estate
tax
down
nearly
4.5
million
dollars
or
over
a
hundred
percent
from
its
with
levels
previously
to
covet
this
property,
and
one
of
the
main
crux
of
where
we
disagree
with
the
assessor
is
how
expenses
should
be
applied
and,
of
course,
cap
rate
of
risk.
E
Previous
to
covet.
This
was
a
lean
mean
machine
was
running.
Very
lean,
very
effective
management,
lower
expenses
than
market
would
typically
see
for
a
hilton
garden,
inn
and,
of
course,
covet
just
through
a
wrench
and
everything
year,
ending
2020
the
most
recent
income.
As
of
the
assessment
date,
you
can
see
it's
a
negative
noi,
so
we
tried
to
work
within
the
guidelines
and
the
kind
founds
of
also
how
the
assessor
was
looking
at
select
serve
hotels
throughout
arlington
county.
E
E
65
percent
of
total
revenue
adjustment
for
kobe's
impact
brings
us
to
an
indicated
value
of
real
property
as
of
january
first
of
30
million
eight
hundred
and
seventy
three
thousand
two
hundred
rounded
the
next
page
is
an
income
comparison
that
really
gets
down
to
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
where
we
differ.
E
You
can
see
the
department,
the
assessor's
office,
total
revenue
is
10362,
rounded,
actual
income,
barely
over
2
million,
our
pro
forma
10
million
264
rounded,
and
then
here
we
get
to
the
situation
operating
expenses
with
reserves.
The
department
is
only
using
59.5
percent,
actual
expenses
were
113
percent
and
their
own
guidelines
state
that
the
expenses
should
be
63.1
percent,
inclusive
of
reserves,
so
they're
out
of
line
with
their
own
guidelines,
and
if
you
provide
the
guidelines
to
this,
which
is
what
our
yellow
column
is
doing,
making
the
deductions.
E
That's
how
you
derive
our
value
of
30
million,
so
within
their
own
methodology
and
guidelines
and
uniformity.
What
I
find
interesting
is
the
department
is
using
everything
in
their
guidelines,
except
for
expenses,
so
they're
following
their
guidelines,
pretty
much
to
the
letter
of
the
law,
except
for
expenses
which
we
find
interesting.
E
So
we
would
ask
that
if
you
agree
with
the
assessor's
cap
rate,
their
their
expenses
should
go
up
in
line
with
their
guidelines.
If
you
agree
with
our
cap
rate,
then
there
can
be
some
understanding,
maybe
what
the
expenses,
but
either
way
it
supports
a
reduction
south
of
where
we
are
currently
at
not
to
mention
the
most
recent
income
is
destructive.
The
following
pages
is
just
market
cap
rate
support
from
the
leading
industry
resources.
E
One
thing
I
would
like
to
point
out
is
the
sales
that
we
isolated
in
key
markets
of
virginia,
and
these
are
pre-covered
sales
and,
as
indicated,
obviously,
the
market
is
applying
a
risk
metric
upwards
from
pre-covet
to
post-cova
type
cap
rates.
We
believe
our
8.75
is
very
well
supported.
We
also
looked
at
it
on
equity.
Wise
here
are
five
comparables:
the
homewood
suites
roslyn,
hilton
garden,
inn
shirlington,
courtyard,
crystal
city,
courtyard,
arlington,
rosslyn
and
hyatt
place.
E
E
What
I
find
interesting
is
the
green
line
is
what
we're
requesting
and
we're
a
quest
we're
requesting
approximately
160
000
per
room,
which
would
bring
us
right
in
line
with
where
the
remaining
comps
are,
and
in
addition
to
that,
one
thing
that
the
taxpayer
really
wanted
to
isolate
is
the
homewood
suites
roslyn
is
built
in
2016
and
the
hyatt
place.
Arlington
courthouse
is
built
in
2015.
E
They
both
arrive
in
land
very
closely
to
the
160
000,
a
room
being
fair
and
equitable
as
of
the
assessment
date
and
taking
into
account
the
extreme
pain
and
suffering
that
hoteliers
and
hotel
taxpayers
are
still
experiencing
from
the
massive
covet
impact.
The
following
pages
are
just
the
detailed
backup
of
the
hearing
income
statements,
the
department's
first
level
decision,
along
with
the
original
assessment
notices.
E
So
again,
to
summarize,
we
we
looked
at
the
income
from
multiple
points.
We
did
not
just
take
into
account
the
horrible
performance
of
of
covet.
We
also
looked
at
equity
of
the
subjects
biggest
competitors
in
the
marketplace.
E
If
not
and
again
the
cap
rate,
there
appears
to
be
ample
market
support
that
upward
adjustment
for
risk
to
the
subject's
cap
rate
as
of
january
1st,
is
warranted
in
the
marketplace.
I
know
this
is
a
complex
case,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions,
and
that
concludes
my
initial
presentation.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
B
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
chicas,
for
the
county.
N
As
kevin
mr
dover
pointed
out,
you
know
this
is,
I
believe,
our
first
hotel
of
the
year
in
regards
to
looking
at
the
covet
effect
as
the
board
is
familiar
by
now.
While
we
do
rely
upon
the
guidelines
to
help
just
that
guide
us.
N
We
don't
have
year
2017
to
to
call
upon,
but
in
years
18
and
19
we
saw
increases
in
the
average
daily
rate
we
saw
increases
in
occupancy
and
subsequently
an
increase
in
revenue,
prevailable
room,
rep
part.
It's
well
positioned.
It's
about
a
four
minute,
walk
from
courthouse.
Metro,
it's
off
of
route
50,
so
accessibility
to
dc
is
is
prime
what
we
look
at,
of
course,
with
mass
appraisal
and
in
general
appraisals
in
general
stabilization.
N
N
We
did
our
year
averages
and
looking
at
what
was
achievable,
but
also
what
is
what
should
I
say,
predictable
in
the
sense
of
only
having
two
years
to
call
upon.
We
did
want
to
have
a
bit
of
prudence
in
the
sense
that
we
do
believe.
2021
will
have
a
dramatic
increase
in
revenue,
not
only
because
of
obviously
the
decrease
in
2020,
but
because
of
again
its
position
where
it
sits
and
how
it
is
being
run
in
years,
2018
and
2019..
N
We
did
make
adjustments
to
call
that
you
know
won't
achieve
2019's
stabilized
numbers,
but
it
should
be
in
between
18
and
19,
based
on
again
what
we've
seen
anecdotally
in
the
year
2021
to
date,
we
do
believe
again
looking
at
the
revenue
it's
below
18
19's
achievement,
but
higher
than
18
expenses
are
very
much
in
line
with
years,
18
and
19..
N
I
think
it's
important
to
note
as
18
and
19
and
as
you
can
read
in
the
comments
section,
the
the
numbers
were
reconstructed
to
remove
real
estate
taxes
because,
of
course,
that's
the
goal
of
ad
valorem
property
taxes
to
find
the
tax
tax
due
so
in
withdrawing
the
taking
out
the
real
estate
taxes
in
columns
b
and
c,
we
can
see
that
the
operating
expenses
were
at
55.5
and
55.4
percent,
respectively
18
and
19..
N
So
our
revision
number
is
square
upon
what
they've
been
achieving
in
those
two
years.
18
and
19..
Our
opinion
of
value
for
net
operant
income
again
is
very
much
in
line
more
than
18
less
than
19..
N
If
the
board
is
not
familiar
by
now,
we
talked
a
little
bit
about
addressing
what
we
call
covet
effect.
That's
essentially
looking
at
the
difference
in
revenue
between
2020
and
2019
in
regards
to
the
transit
occupancy
tax
or
room
revenue.
So
we
did
apply
a
negative
65
percent
of
total
revenue
adjustment
below
the
line.
As
you
can
see
demonstrated
in
column
f,
we
did
use
the
cap
rates
that
are
afforded
to
selective
service,
all
those
that
are
in
selective
service.
N
You
know,
I
won't
try
to
counter
everything
mr
dovert
said,
but
in
regards
to
looking
at
it
in
comparison
to
high
place,
I
did
pull
up
high
places
worksheet
and
noted
that
they
actually
are
a
bit
smaller.
They
have
a
168
rooms,
I
believe.
So,
while
they
are
select
service,
they
have
168
rooms
comparable
to
the
appellant
which
is
193.,
so
25
rooms
is
going
to
make
a
difference,
of
course,
in
room
revenue
and,
most
importantly,
in
value
per
key.
N
So
the
high
place
is
approximately
190
000
a
key
and,
as
mr
dover
noted,
I
believe
the
appellate
now
is
at
100,
203,
000
or
so
key.
So
it
would
make
sense
that
could
be
a
higher
value
based
on
the
fact
that
they're,
a
larger
property,
they
have
more
rooms
to
rent
and
more
rooms
to
achieve
revenue
upon.
N
We
do
believe
that
again,
we
are
prudent
in
the
sense
that
we
don't
think
they'll
get
back
to
2019
in
this
year,
but
more
so
than
18
again,
given
that
there
were
increases
in
occupancy
average
daily
rates
again,
they're
positioned
well,
geographically,
all
those
things
being
said.
We
do
believe
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
a
value
of
thirty
nine
million
one
hundred
eighty
thousand
two
hundred
thank
you.
B
H
H
Okay,
great
the
cap
rate
you
apply
is
consistent,
but
so
then
follow
up
with
total.
This
is
from
the
guidelines.
Total
expenses
before
reserves,
55
and
a
half
percent-
is
that
from
the
guidelines,
or
is
that
from
the
history
of
this
property.
H
Correct:
okay,
just
it's
just
coincidental,
okay!
So
then
for
the
appellant
following
up
directly.
Excuse
me
so
the
the
appellant's
63.1
operating
expenses
versus
the
county's
55.5,
just
for
clarification,
the
county
is
not
aggregating
their
guidelines
they're
going
based
on
history,
so
I
just
wanted
to
in
real
time
point
that
out,
so
that
that
that
could
explain
the
the
difference
of
your
two
opinions.
I
Just
I
think
I
know
the
answer
to
this,
but
I'm
gonna
ask
anyway:
did
we
look
outside
the
county
for
any
hotel
sales
during
this
analysis
period,
because
I
don't
see
any
sales
and
the
guidelines
that
are
comparable.
N
No,
we
did
not.
Traditionally
we
don't.
We
talked
a
little
bit
about
this
and
the
department
briefing
we
do
look
upon
them
for
information,
but
not
necessarily
to
guide
our
our
guidelines
because,
of
course,
we're
doing
assessments
within
the
county
alone.
So,
while
we
do
confer
with
our
colleagues
in
fairfax
falls
church
alexandria,
we
don't
use
sales
outside
of
the
county
to
influence
our
cap
rates.
G
G
Yeah,
thank
you.
You
know.
First,
I
want
to
compliment
both
you
guys.
I
mean
I
was
dreading
the
first
hotel
and
you
know
after
hearing
you
and
and
examining
the
material.
I
I
think
both
you
did
a
great
job
and
you
made
a
mess
a
little
more
comprehensible
to
myself.
G
G
E
Great
question,
sir,
and
I
appreciate
the
kind
words
these
are
troubling
challenging
times
and
I
know
christopher
and
his
team
did
the
best
they
could
and
and
they're
pretty
dang
good
throughout
the
northern
virginia.
But
to
answer
your
question,
I
do
believe
that
adjustment
they
made
is
is
fair
and
and
appropriate,
and
I
would
like
to
just
add
one
point
that
I
I
understand
the
board's
point
of
not
moving
from
the
cap
rate
to
consider
equitability.
E
So
if
that's
the
case,
one
thing
I
would
like
to
just
state
for
the
record,
then
I
would
argue,
if
you're
going
to
stick
with
that,
then
the
select
service
expense
ratio.
That's
also
on
that
guidelines
should
be
applied
in
lockstep
with
that
and
then,
if
you
do
that,
and
the
numbers
run
through,
you
would
support,
still
support
a
value
of
34
million,
seven
hundred
thousand
rounded,
and
so,
if,
if
the
board
needs
to
stick
to
the
cap
rate
for
equal
ability
well,
the
fact
is.
E
This
is
a
select
service
use
code
in
arlington
county
and
the
guidelines
state
that
for
that
use
code,
inclusive
of
reserves,
they
would
use
63.1
percent.
Yet
the
assessor
is
only
using
59.5,
in
other
words,
in
good
times,
this
hotel
is
being
punished
for
having
extremely
effective
management
and
lower
expenses
than
the
market
and
in
bad
times,
they're
being
punished
for
saying.
Well,
hey
we
had
a
horrible
year.
Our
expenses
were
113
this
past
year
and
you're
still
not
making
an
adjustment
to
your
own
guidelines.
E
G
Me
ask
you
this
expenses,
didn't
expenses,
go
down,
didn't
you
have
less
employees,
didn't
you
have
less
activity
and
less
expenses
in.
G
A
G
G
E
E
Right
now
of,
are
you
leisure
or
are
you
business,
and
this
relied
heavily
on
business
and
other
people
coming
to
the
district
and
arlington,
and
that
has
basically
evaporated,
and
that
has
not
really
come
back
and
unless
the
worker
starts
coming
back
to
the
office
and
all
this
talks
about
that?
The
big
driver
of
this
is
still
suffering
so
the
capital
out
there
and
the
hotel
markets
are
not
looking
at
this.
The
same
way
as
leisure
travel,
saying,
yeah,
leisure
might
come
back
in
a
year
or
two
years.
B
I
Yeah
for
the
appellant,
just
kind
of
rough
ground
numbers.
What
what's
the
if
you
took
2020-
and
you
said
next
year's
going
to
be
exactly
the
same.
What
would
be
the
the
bottom
line?
Loss
of
that
hotel,
including
tax
cost
of
taxes.
E
All
right:
well,
let's
look
at
what
the
taxes
are.
This
year
says
because,
as
as
christopher
pointed
out,
we
removed
the
property
tax
to
get
to
an
avalorum
base,
so
2020
taxes.
E
Were
I'm
I'm
going
to
the
income
statement.
E
Yes,
sir,
there
you
go
look
at
that,
and
so
basically,
if
you
take
our
middle
page
of
2020,
of
a
negative
200
and
some
thousand
dollar
loss
or
almost
300
000
and
take
five.
What
is
that,
let's
just
round
it
and
call
it
a
little
over
eight
hundred
thousand
negative
noi
if
it
was
to
stay
if
it
was
to
stay.
I
N
Yes,
ma'am
so
just
to
try
to
quickly
point
out
this
kind
of
gets
misconstrued.
Sometimes
the
guidelines
are
there
to
guide
us,
but
they're
not
applied
in
a
blanket
way.
N
In
fact,
I'll
point
to
the
guidelines
point
out
that
reserves
for
select
services
should
be
3.9
percent,
and
yet
the
county
is
offering
four
percent
in
its
revision.
The
guidelines
point
to
room
revenue
being
90
percent
of
the
total
value.
Excuse
me:
total
revenue,
food
and
beverage
of
five
percent
of
total
revenue
and
parking
and
other
at
five
percent,
we're
at
89
six
and
four
we're
looking
at
this
as
a
stabilized
property,
historical
they've
been
reporting
operating
expenses
at
55.5,
55.4
we're
at
55.5.
N
We
are
looking
at
a
stabilized
property,
hence
column
f.
We
do
believe
that
this
scene
has
been
arrived
at
in
a
prudent
fashion
again,
assuming
that
we're
back
to
2018
between
2018
2019
levels,
we
do
believe
that
the
county's
made
appropriate
adjustments
says
negative
65
percent
of
total
revenue.
This
is
obviously
a
large
drop
from
the
2020
value.
We
do
believe
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
39
million
180
200..
Thank
you.
E
Yeah
again
commend
everyone.
This
is
a
complicated
issue,
but
I
don't
think
this
pen,
this
property,
should
be
penalized
in
good
times
for
effective
management
and
below
market
expenses
and
then
be
penalized
again
for
not
having
the
guidelines
applied.
If
the
board
needs
to
stick
to
the
cap
rate
of
the
guidelines,
then
I
think
they
should
stick
to
the
expenses
of
the
guidelines.
If
not,
I
think
we
fully
support
it.
There's
an
increase
in
risk
for
this
type
of
asset
and
its
demand
drivers
and
the
cap.
E
The
base
cap
rate
should
be
higher
than
what
the
assessor's
office
is
using.
In
addition,
lastly,
they
say
they
communicated
with
other
northern
virginia
jurisdictions,
but
we've
appealed
in
arlington,
d.c,
fairfax
and
loudon,
and
all
of
them
are
seeing
25
30
40
50-plus
percent
declines
in
values,
year-over-year
acknowledging
the
suffering
of
hotels
and
we're
not
out
of
line
with
that
and
again.
I
understand
the
complexity,
and
I
appreciate
everyone's
time
and
the
questions
and
attention.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
I
mean
I'll
I'll
say
one
really
good
point
appellant
made
and
I
think
we
need
to
emphasize
this
in
looking
at
other
cases
as
we
go
forward:
business
versus
leisure
classification,
that's
a
that
was
a
huge
story
in
2020
and
in
early
2021,
of
which
hotels
are
going
to
come
back
versus
which
may
never
come
back,
and
so
the
investment
market.
The
sales
market,
is
going
to
reflect
that
when
we
finally
do
see
some
comps
right
now
we're
kind
of
working
off
no
comps.
So
it's
it's
difficult.
H
A
quickie
and
a
little
bit
more
significant
for
the
quickie
is
that
I
was
very
impressed
by
the
appellant's
presentation
in
a
lot
of
ways,
so
anything
that
I
say
or
way
I
vote
has
nothing
to
do
it
takes
that
into
account.
H
The
the
longer
one
is
that
we,
this
has
been
brought
up,
although
this
is
the
first
hotel
we've
had
some
multi-family
properties
come
before
us
and
who
and
those
properties
have
also
suffered
because
of
covet
in
significant
ways,
but
the
touchstone
that
I
brought
out
of
those
discussions
in
past
weeks
is
that
we're
looking
at
a
trend.
There's
no
question
that
that
this
is
the
copen
experience
is
extensive,
but
we're
looking
at
stabilization
looking
over
long
term
and
if
it
turns
out-
and
of
course
I
hope
this
isn't
the
case.
H
This
is
a
property
that
what
what
greg
just
referred
to
was
long-term
injury
because
of
its
clientele
base,
then
that
will
show
and
the
the
the
value
the
accessibility
will
significantly
drop
far
more
than
it
has.
But
we
can't
go
one
year
to
the
next
based
on
acts
of,
I
guess
their
acts
of
god
force
them.
To
short-
and
so
we
can
only
partly
step
it
and
not
take
into
account
all
of
the
spine-wrenching
ugliness
that
cobia
put
on
these
owners,
we
have
to
give
it
a
trend.
We
and
I'll
say
it
differently.
B
G
Yeah
ken
I'll
be
interested
in
your
opinion
and
greg,
and
I
guess
everybody
I
guess
the
fundamental
question
we
have
to
decide
today,
which
will
then
carry
over
to
every
hotel
case
is
going
to
be.
If
you're
going
to
throw
away
the
actual
numbers.
G
Do
we
have
to
use
all
the
guideline
numbers
and
you
know
the
county's
saying
yeah
we're
going
to
use
all
the
guideline
numbers
but
for
expenses,
and
so
I
guess
the
fundamental
question
we
have
to
answer
and
I'm
not
exactly
sure
which
way
I'm
going
to
go.
Is
you
know,
do
we
do
do
we
apply
the
guidelines
universally
or
not.
H
When
we
don't
when
it's
all
over
the
place,
then
we
have
to
rely
on
a
broader
context,
namely
the
guidelines
drug
from
countywide.
So
I
that
that's
my
response
to
barnes
very
good
question.
G
A
B
Yeah,
were
you
finished
I'd,
mr
okay?
No,
I
agree
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
something
that
we're
gonna
have
to
look
at
from
a
standpoint
of
just
procedurally
how
we're
going
to
move
forward.
You
know
I
get,
as
mr
metzken
said,
you
know
we're
trying
to
stabilize
them
yet
we're
not
using
all
of
the
guidelines,
but
I
think
part
of
where
the
county
is
trying
to
make
up,
for
it
is
then
that
65
percent
reduction
below
the
line,
so
we
can't
lose
sight
of
that
that
they
did
make
an
adjustment
there.
L
B
It's
it's
a
it's
a
tough
one,
and
I
think
this
is
something
we
should.
You
know
definitely
spend
time
on,
because
this
sets
the
precedent
for
the
rest
of
them
on
what
we
do
moving
forward.
So
I
think
everybody's
got
to
be
very
comfortable
with
what
we're
doing,
and
I
think
mr
lawson's
point
is
a
good
one.
You
know
for
that,
for
what
this
is
going
to
do
for
the
cases
coming
behind
it.
I
I'm
doing
some
kind
of
shorthand
math
as
an
investment
sale
of
kind
of
how
I
view
this
and
and
I'm
I
apologize
to
you,
but
I'm
using
miss
borman's
data
that
she
provided
us
on
the
hotel
market,
because
I
think
you've
got
some
of
the
same
references
here.
These
are
this
is
the
rerc
real
estate
cap
rate
guides
and
investment
return
guides
and
kind
of
the
way.
I
view
this
at
coming
into
end
of
2020
evaluation
date.
I
2021
nobody's
really
got
a
vaccine,
yet
nobody
really
knows
what's
going
on
with
the
hotel
market,
that's
that's
our
valuation
date
right.
So
an
investor
and
the
reason
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
sales
is
probably
because
of
the
uncertainty
there.
But
you
know
using
these
guidelines
an
investor's,
probably
gonna.
Look
at
that
property
and
say
I've
got
two
to
three
years
of
similar
losses
right
today.
I
It's
probably
a
different
story,
maybe
they're
thinking
it's
one
to
two
years,
but
if
you
lost
800
000
in
2020,
you're,
probably
going
to
lose
800
000
again
in
21
and
you're
going
to
lose
800
000
again
in
22.,
23,
you're,
probably
ramping
back
up.
Maybe
you
get
50
of
the
normal
noi
and
24
you're
back
to
where
you
were
in
19..
I
So
if
I
look
at
kind
of
a
discounted
cash
cash
flow
on
that
and
plug
in
a
reasonable
rate
of
return
based
on
these
tables,
I
mean
I'm
coming
at
up
to
a
31
32
million
dollar
sales.
That
actually
makes
sense.
So
I
think
I
mean
the
way
I'm
looking
at
it
is.
I
I
think
that
the
county's
gone
down,
which
is
good,
but
I
think
they
probably
haven't
gone
down
enough,
given
the
valuation
date
of
january
one,
and
so
I
would
support
a
further
reduction
this
year
and
and
look
jan
1
2021
is
a
lot
different
from
jan
1
2022.
I
This
is
like
unprecedented,
so
normally
we
sit
here
and
we
go.
We
don't
want
to
make
giant
reductions
based
on
one
year's
data,
but
the
stock
market
did
that.
You
know
a
lot.
A
lot
of
things
did
that,
as
far
as,
if
you
take
a
point,
a
data
point
in
time
and
you
try
to
put
evaluation
on
something,
that's
what
we're
actually
been
asked
to
do.
So
I
would
support
a
reduction
down
in
that
32
31
32
million
dollar.
F
B
G
Yeah,
just
just
for
the
the
sake
of
you
know,
thinking
this
through.
I
took
the
app
the
appellants
number
and
then
I
took
the
county
cap
rate
and
ended
up
at
34
699,
and
you
know
I
I
guess
where,
where
I
am
is,
is
I
kind
of
think
maybe
we
ought
to
go
with
the
guidelines,
given
that
they're
just
no
real
figures
available
and
you
know
greg,
I
I
hear
what
you're
saying
I
think
I
would
be
more
at
like
the
34
million
699
range.
I
F
Yeah
well,
to
make
a
point
on
the
decisions
that
we're
going
to
be
making
in
the
future.
You
know,
I
don't
think
I
don't.
At
least
I
don't
recall
a
year
that
you
know
we
made
a
decision.
Okay,
this
is
the
way
we're
going
to
do
it
for
all
cases,
and
you
know
we
look
at
each
case
individually.
F
F
I
wouldn't
be
opposed
to
going
with
the
guidelines
on
the
expenses
in
this
case
because
of
the
uncertainty
that
we
are
seeing
in
a
lot
of
the
hotels,
at
least,
for
I
mean
last
year,
was
a
particular
year
for
everybody
for
all
businesses,
and
so
I
don't
think
that
just
looking
at
numbers
from
previous
years
would
be
okay
to
use
it
in
this
case.
F
So
I
did
the
same.
I
used
the
guidelines.
I
came
up
with
a
number
a
little
bit
higher
than
mr
lawson.
The
final
number
that
I
came
up
with
using
the
guidelines
and
expenses
is
34
million
920
200
around
in
it
I
use
the
same
reserves.
I
use
the
same
personal
property
number
and
I
use
the
same
65
below
the
line
deduction.
What
was
the
percentage.
F
Oh,
the
expense
number
is
6
million
134
260.
F
F
F
So
from
the
revision
column,
they
use
the
same
reserves:
four
414,
seven,
the
same
number
of
personal
property
values;
seven
thirteen
two,
eighty
three
and
the
same
below
that
the
line
deduction
of
six
million
seven
thirty
five,
two
fifty.
B
I
just
want
to
jump
in
and
say
one
thing
about.
I
think
what
mr
hoffman
was
saying
about.
We
don't
know
what's
going
to
happen
this
year
next
year
down
the
road
I
mean,
that
is
all
uncertain.
I
think,
and
that's
a
good
reason
why
we
do
assess
every
year,
one
of
the
resources
that
the
appellant
used
in
his
testimony
earlier
was
the
virginia
business
and
they
just
came
out
today
saying
that
hotels
for
may
of
this
year
reported
187
increase
over
last
year.
B
So,
hopefully
you
know
we're
going
to
see
some
of
this
starting
to
come
back.
I
mean,
I
think,
that
this
is
a
different
market
here,
but
it'll
be
interesting
to
see,
but
I
certainly
think
you
know
a
reduction.
I
could
live
with
the
reduction
that
you're
talking
about
there,
but
I
just
want
to
caution
that
we
don't
know
how
long
this
is
going
to
be
and
who
knows
if,
in
the
fall
we
have
another
outbreak
of
this.
This
could
you
know
all
bets,
could
change
you
know
and
it
could
plummet
again.
B
F
G
A
Hello,
I
apologize
for
being
online
before
I
was
trying
to
call
him
and
leave
him
a
message,
and
I
forgot
myself,
but
no,
I
called
him
and
left
him
a
message.
He
was
aware
because
he
accepted
the
invitation,
but
no
response.
Okay,.
N
Yes,
ma'am
this
one
will
be
a
good
bit
easier.
What
we're
going
to
talk
about
here
is
how
the
the
county
values
properties
that
have
approved
site
plans.
I
do
believe
that
the
board
is
aware,
but
just
to
reiterate,
the
county
board
approved
site
plan
number
76
on
october
17
2020,
and
this
called
for
the
conversion
of
what
we've
been
known,
as
I
guess,
technically
still
known
as
arlington
court
suites
to
convert
from
a
170
187
room
residence,
suite
style
hotel
to
180
room
multi-family.
N
This
is
actually
a
reconversion
if
you
will
again
in
the
sense
that
it
started
its
life
as
a
apartment
and
was
converted
to
hotels
at
some
point
long
ago
and
again
has
now
been
approved
to
convert
back
to
a
multi-family
again,
as
the
board
is
aware,
once
that
site
plan
comes
into
play,
it
adds
quite
a
bit
of
value
and
that
it's
transferable
and
otherwise
it
can
use
it
the
way
it
is
now
we
did
value
the
property
based
upon
the
approved
site
plan,
which
was
again
180
rooms
at.
I
believe.
N
N
So
we
did
value
the
land
based
on
the
density
that
was
approved
by
the
county
board,
again
180
room
multi-family
and
the
existing
improvements
were
valued,
be
the
cost
approach,
depreciated,
of
course,
to
reflect
their
age.
That
being
said,
we
do
believe
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
30
million
eight
hundred
ninety
five
thousand
nine
hundred.
Thank
you.
B
Okay,
thank
you,
questions
from
the
board
I'll
just
I
have
one
an
easy
one,
but
just
curious
mr
chicas,
based
on
the
fact
that
other,
like
hotels,
other
industries,
other
properties,
were
looking
at
the
fact
of
the
impact
they're
covered.
Is
there
and
I
know
our
general
practices
if
there's
a
site
plan,
we
assess
it
based
on
the
use
of
the
site
plan
is?
N
Yeah
no
ma'am
yeah,
it's
irving,
if
he's
on,
he
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
essentially
when
the
site
plans
are
approved,
they
have
three
years
to
enact
that
site
plan.
So,
within
that
time
cycle
we
do
value
via
the
site
plan
and
again
we'll
make
adjustments
as
it
goes.
If
the
site
plan
is
not
and
enacted.
N
Of
course,
we'd
switch
back
to
an
income
approach
if
the
the
property
was
torn
down
and
rebuilt,
we'd
switch
to
a
cost
approach
and
then
again,
once
it's
back
open
in
operation,
we
switch
back
to
income
approach
but
again
upon
precedence.
We
only
value
based
on
what
was
approved
by
the
county
board
at
the
time
of
the
approval,
in
this
case
in
time
for
january
1..
So
long
long
answer
no.
O
And
just
to
follow
up
with
what
chris
is
saying,
this
cycle
was
actually
brought
before
the
county
board
october
of
last
year.
So
during
the
midst
of
cove,
it
is
when
they
voted
on
the
approval
of
the
site
plan.
So
that's
the
indication
that
the
owners
plan
to
move
forward
with
the
apartment
conversion
they
could
have
held
off
the
the
hearing
or
the
approval
by
the
county
board.
O
We
also
lost
with
two
major
hotels
during
coven
in
roslyn,
there
was
actually
a
video
of
one
of
the
buildings
being
demolished,
and
another
property
was
already
closed
for
the
majority
of
the
summer
and
they
indicated
that
they
would
be
moving
forward
with
that
conversion.
So
that
is
the
holiday
inn.
What
is
it
the
days
in
rosalind
and
then
how
is
it
getting
the
other
name?
What
is
it
the
holiday
inn
and
days
in
in.
N
The
holiday
inn,
rosalind,
was
imploded
and
then
marriott.
N
Way
as
well
marriott's
going
to
do
a
similar
deal
where
they
are
going
to
keep
their
existing
improvements
less
than
the
amount
of
hotel
keys
and
then
add
a
condo
and
an
apartment
component.
But
for
this
year
it's
again
much
more
equivalent
with
the
red
line
and
the
holiday
in
roslin,
which
we
actually
heard
before
the
board
last
year.
I
On
the
site
plan
yeah,
you,
you
guys,
put
86
000
a
unit
to
the
land,
right,
correct,
correct
and
then
and
then
basically,
the
balance
is
on
the
existing
structure
and
everything
the
garage
and
everything
the
lot.
That's
there,
the
improvements
to
the
land.
I
Yeah,
okay
and
then
I
I
guess
I
have
a
couple
questions
on
the
site
plan.
Are
there
any
conditions
that
we
should
know
about
like
affordable
units,
workforce
housing
units?
Anything
like
that.
N
No,
not
to
my
knowledge,
it's
it's
gonna
go
back
to
essentially
studio
apartments.
There
was
a
small
requirement
by
the
board
to,
I
think,
adjust
their
parking
spaces,
but
I
believe
that
I
was
actually
down.
N
G
G
G
Yes,
thank
you.
I
I
really
don't
have
any
problem
with
the
assessed
value.
The
you
know,
the
appeal
says
what
should
have
been
evaluated
as
a
hotel
and
it
takes
time.
You
know
the
county
board
approved
it,
but
then
you
got
to
pull
your
building
permits
and,
and
that
was
taking
a
very
long
time
during
covet.
G
So
is
why
is
there
well,
let
me
ask
this:
what
were
they
operating
it
as
a
hotel
on
january?
One
or
or
do
you
know.
N
N
N
They
were
operating
as
a
hotels
of
january
1st,
but
they
had
a
site
plan
in
place.
We
erroneously
tried
to
value
them
as
an
existing
hotel
with
the
site
plan
density
valley
in
the
land,
and
we
were
actually
remiss
on
that
and
we
corrected
ourselves
in
conjunction
with
the
appellants,
pointing
that
out.
So
we
did
in
fact
revise
our
opinion
of
value
to
reflect
only
the
site
plan
that
was
approved,
and
that
was
confirmed
by
the
board
as
well.
G
Yeah,
I
guess
the
point
and
of
course
the
applicant's
not
here
to
make
his
case,
but
I
guess
the
point
I
would
make
is
is
all
that's
fine,
but
you
got
to
factor
in
the
conversion.
In
other
words,
it's
a
hotel
and
it
doesn't
instantly
become
an
apartment.
You
have
to
go
through
expenses,
you
have
to
take
it
takes
time
and
so
forth,
and
and
I'm
not
seeing
that
taken
into
account,
but
again
the
applicant's
not
here
to
make
his
case.
O
I
think
one
thing
we
can
point
out,
and
hopefully
it
clears
it
up
when
we
value
this
property
valued
off,
we
value
the
building
off
of
cost
and
what
we
valued
it.
We
valued
it
as
shell
to
be
exact
because
they're
not
they're,
not
demolishing
this
building.
I
don't
even
think
they're
making
a
whole
lot
of
changes
to
the
exterior.
What
they're
doing
is
just
going
back
to
how
it
was
when
it
was
first
built
again.
O
Chris
pointed
out
this
property
was
an
apartment
building,
they
underwent
conversion
to
a
hotel
or
actual
resident
suite
type
hotel,
so
larger
hotel
units
or
rooms
and
now
they're
converting
back
to
apartments
because
they
feel
like
that's
the
most
profitable,
that's
most
profitable
for
them,
and
they
prefer
for
this
property
to
be
an
apartment.
Again,
we
understand
that
there
are
some.
O
There
will
be
some
work,
there
do
need
to
be
permits
pulled,
but
as
far
as
permits,
the
county
actually
had
installed
or
implemented
an
online
process
quite
some
time
ago
to
help
developers
and
homeowners
not
working,
I'm
just
I'm
just
saying
like
so
the
fact
that
the
building
our
building
was
closed.
Last
year
there
was
still
a
means
to
apply
for
permits:
they've
done
digi
they
digitized
their
system
long
ago
to
allow
you
to
submit
plans
instead
of
having
to
come
in.
O
So
we
as
we
do
with
other
site
plans
that
are
approved
in
the
county
once
that
convert
once
that
site
plan
is
approved,
we
recognize
that
that
density
has
been
approved
for
that
site.
That's
why
we
value
the
land
as
apartments,
because
when
that
probably
goes
to
the
market,
I
mean
that's
where
they're
selling
as
well.
So
that's
something
that
you
have
to
consider
too.
I
mean.
G
L
N
B
You
know
to
your
comments,
mr
lawson,
it's
it's
funny
once
you
can
wrap
your
hands
around
the
whole
concept
of
when
somebody
gets
a
site
plan.
It's
assessed
at
that
for
years.
I
just
have
always
said,
but
wait
a
second.
What
if
it
takes
five
years
and
it
you
know,
and
it
never
materializes,
but
I've
been
told
many
times
that
you
know
it
doesn't
matter.
You
know
they
know
it
when
they
apply
for
the
site
plan
that
that's
what
it
will
be
assessed
at
so
from
a
standpoint
of
equalization.
B
You
know
to
me
it
doesn't
matter
whether
it's
a
hotel
going
to
apartments
or
an
office
going
to
you
know.
Whatever
use
the
site
plans
issue
it's
assessed
on
the
site
plan,
I
mean
whether
it's
fair
or
not
it's
equalized
and
that's
how
the
county
does
it
and
I
think,
historically,
that's
kind
of
what
we've
done,
regardless
of
permitting
or
anything
else.
So
as
much
as
I
struggle
with
it,
it's
it
seems
like
it's
a
equalized
process,
so
I
don't
know.
What's
everybody
else
think
I
agree.
I
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
the
the
county's
put
a
fair
number
on
the
existing
structure.
I
just
cautioned
if
we,
if
you
get
into
older
buildings
on
some
of
the
other
cases
where
there's
redevelopment,
that
you
can't
be
quite
as
generous
because
usually
they
require
a
lot
more
work
to
get
them
up
to
code
and
everything.
But
this
building
was,
is
you
know
in
pretty
good
shape
structurally
as
far
as
I've
seen,
so
I'm
good
with
it.
H
G
I
B
Mr
lawson,
okay,
all
in
favor
aye.
F
B
B
The
only
piece
of
business
I
have
there
was,
I
got
an
email
and
a
texture
on
the
email
that
rosa
sent
out
from
the
about
the
commercial
team
and
just
to
clarify.
So
basically,
you
know
when
cases
come
before
us
and
the
county
has
done
a
test
and
it's
within
their
thresholds.
Historically,
they
have
not
reduced
the
assessment.
Now
they're
going
to
go
ahead
and
offer
that
reduction
to
the
appellant
that
may
lessen
some
of
the
cases
that
we
hear.
I
guess
if
somebody
thinks
that
they'll
get
a
better
deal.
B
They'll
still
continue
to
come,
but
that
they
are
going
to
go
ahead
and
open
up
that
3
threshold
and
if
it
goes
down
slightly
they're
going
to
offer
the
reduction.
So
I
think
that's
certainly
more
than
fair
on
the
county's
part,
but
that
just
kind
of
clarifies
what
that
was.
Does
anybody
else
have
anything
else
to
talk
about
or
need
county-wise
board-wise?
B
No,
no,
no,
all
right!
Okay,
then
we
stand
adjourned
well,
10,
54
and
we'll
be
back
next
tuesday.
The
29th
9
a.m.
All
right
thanks.
Everybody
bye,
bye,.