►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - August 19, 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
A
B
Thank
you,
since
I'm
new
to
presenting
to
arlington
county
just
a
quick,
brief
background,
I'm
a
partner
at
a
boutique
property
tax,
consulting
firm,
our
primary
specialty
is
regional
shopping
malls
throughout
the
united
states,
and
this
is
why
we
are
discussing
this
morning.
The
boston
quarter,
mall
359,
975
square
foot,
regional
mall,
which
is
anchored
by
a
macy's
which
is
unowned
and
the
macy's
is
not
part
of
this
appeal.
It's
just
the
359
975
square
feet.
B
The
property
is
currently
undergoing
a
significant
redevelopment
and,
as
of
the
january
1st
lean
date,
the
property
was
70
occupied
with
only
58
percent
in
line
occupancy
primary
differences.
Today,
the
income,
the
cap
rate
and
the
cost
to
reach
stabilization
due
to
the
vacancy
on
page
three
of
the
assessors
or
the
boe
handout.
B
Our
total
rental
income
is
not
too
different
from
the
counties,
we're
at
12.26
million
versus
11.907
million
lines,
two
and
three
of
the
counties,
so
the
county
is
about
2.6
percent,
less
than
our
rental
income,
where
we
differ
is
a
couple
places.
Other
income
line
item
number
five
of
one
million,
two
hundred
forty
three
three.
Ninety
eight.
B
This
number
ties
to
the
income
and
expense
statement,
and
I
believe
it
is
entirely
comprised
of
accounting,
adjustments
of
straight-line
rental
revenue
and
amortized
leased,
inducement
costs
and
the
the
significant
portion
of
that
being
the
straight-line
rental
revenue,
which
is
about
1.21
million
and
just
real
quickly
straight
right
line.
Rental
revenue
is
an
accounting
adjustment.
A
great
example
is
the
fitness
operator
at
the
property
they
signed
a
15-year
lease.
B
So
pursuant
to
generally
accepted
accounting
principles,
this
is
a
straight
line
in
the
income
and
expense
statement
that
has
been
provided
and
so
in
year.
One.
The
the
difference
is
a
hundred
and
fifty
two
thousand
dollars
the
difference
between
the
twenty
eight
eighty
six
and
the
thirty
three
twenty
seven.
Conversely,
if
we
were
looking
at
year,
fifteen
of
this
lease,
the
adjustment
would
be
a
negative
166
000,
because
by
year
15
it's
38
dollars
and
the
average
rent
is
33.
B
line.
7
pass-through
income
of
617
thousand
dollars
in
property
tax
recovery
is
included
in
this.
I
know
this
has
been
a
topic
of
discussion
now
this
year.
With
with
the
board,
however,
line
20
appears
to
exclude
the
1.6
million
dollars
of
property,
tax
expense
and
the
capitalization
rate
isn't
fully
loaded.
It's
only
loaded
for
the
bid,
in
my
opinion,
that
capitalization
rate
should
be
fully
loaded
if
we're,
including
the
617
668
dollars
in
tax
recovery,
where
I'd
like
to
go
to
next
is
page
126.
B
This
demonstrates
our
market
rents.
So
for
the
co-anchor
category,
the
regal
cinema,
we
agreed
with
the
assessor's
original
analysis
of
twenty
dollars
and
fifty
cents.
However,
the
assessor
adjusted
it
to
twenty
two,
fifty
based
on
the
rent
roll.
This
is
an
older
lease.
It's
been
trending
up
in
speaking
with
the
leasing
team
at
the
property
2050
as
of
january
1st
2020
they
would
be
lucky
to
get.
B
That
is
what
he
stated
every
other
category
for
market
rent
that
we
concluded
at
were
based
on
the
recently
signed
and
recently
executed
leases
at
the
subject
property.
These
leases
are
actually
executed
in
2017
and
2018,
in
my
opinion,
a
much
stronger
marketplace
in
the
regional
shopping
mall
market.
We've
all
seen
the
articles,
the
issues
in
retail,
the
bankruptcies,
etc.
These
were
founded.
These
leases
were
executed
in
2017
and
2018,
and
these
tenants
moved
in
in
2018
throughout
2019
into
the
renovated
center.
B
So
an
example
of
how
we
concluded
that
markle
market
rent
is
the
major
category.
If
you
scroll
down
to
page
127,
you
can
see
the
fitness
operators
signed
rounded.
At
29,
a
foot
a
large,
a
restaurant
tenant
signed
a
28,
our
conclusion
of
market
rent.
There
was
28.85,
and
that
goes
on
through
each
category
of
retailer
that
we
concluded
at
market
rent
based
on
the
recently
signed
leases
at
the
property
again
phil
those
should
have
been
discounted.
This
is
a
conservative
approach
january.
1St
2020
is
a
lot
different
than
lisa
signed
in
2017
and
2018.
B
Page
128,
we
agreed
with
the
10
stabilized
vacancy
and
collection
loss.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
very
difficult
to
get
to
90
occupancy
again,
I
feel
that's
a
conservative
number.
We
differed
a
bit
on
the
expenses.
We
just
went
with
a
10
non-recoverable
and
management
expense
as
opposed
to
adding
the
recoveries
and
the
expenses
the
property
wasn't
stabilized
and
as
of
year
end
2019.
You
can
see
they're
only
recovering
44
of
the
actual
expenses.
B
B
They
they're
a
consulting
firm
that
advises
on
regional
shopping
malls
for
wall
street.
The
subject
property
is
anticipated
upon
stabilization,
to
do
approximately
three
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
per
square
foot
in
inline
sales,
a
big
metric
in
understanding
the
risk
with
respect
to
regional
malls.
B
By
january
1st
2020
they
were
doing
212
dollars
per
square
foot
and,
as
you
can
see,
green
street
pegs
is
set
at
11
capitalization
rate.
Page
133
is
a
cushman
and
wakefield
mall
grading
matrix.
This
would
just
based
on
sales
set
this
mall
in
a
b
category,
with
an
eight
and
a
quarter
to
ten
percent
capitalization
rate.
Again
we
concluded
at
a
conservative,
nine
percent
capitalization
rate.
I
think
this
there's
extreme
amount
of
risk
to
this.
The
regional
shopping
mall
market
was
under
extreme
to
rest
january
1st
2020.
B
Clearly
this
is
pre-covered,
but
it
was
already
very,
very
challenged
and
with
109
000
square
feet
to
absorb,
there
was
a
significant
amount
of
risk
as
a
lean
date.
Page
135
is
our
cost
to
reach
stabilization
again,
109
000
square
feet.
If
we
look
at
a
market
vacancy
of
10,
we
need
to
stabilize
just
about
83
000
square
feet.
B
We
did
a
conservative
approach
of
a
three-year
cost
of
reach
stabilization.
Unfortunately,
I
think
it's
going
to
take
a
lot
longer.
We
all
know
the
mall
tenants
are
not
expanding
and
it's
going
to
be
challenging.
So
we
took
a
rental
loss,
a
triple
net
recovery
loss,
leasing,
commissions
and,
of
course,
tenant
improvements.
B
Page
136
is
our
direct
capitalization
approach
of
92.5
million
is
our
conclusion:
138
91.7
million
for
discounted
cash
flow
analysis
and,
finally,
on
page
141,
our
final
conclusion
and
we
request
the
board
to
reduce
the
two
parcels
to
92
million.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
miss
roskin.
C
C
Looking
at
our
page
three
or
the
summary
page
of
the
report,
so
we
reconstructed
the
incoming
expense
statements
to
get
a
better
idea
of
what's
going
on
with
this
particular
property
because
it
was
being
remodeled
and
is
going
through
a
lease
of
stage.
And
so,
if
you
look
at
our
revised
column,
f
revised
worksheet.
We
feel
that
this
is
a
good
representation
of
the
value
of
the
property.
C
We
took
a
look
at
the
average
rental
rate.
It
was
emailed
to
you
this
morning.
It
was
cut
off
in
the
report,
so
I
don't
know
if
you
can
see
it
but
near
the
bottom.
You'll
note
what
the
average
rental
rate
was
for
the
the
tenants
when
you
exclude
the
when
you
exclude
the
cinema,
we
looked
at
that
rental,
that
average
rental
rate
and
we
use
something
less
than
less
than
that
because
of
the
higher
vacancy,
and
we
do
recognize
the
vacancy
is.
As
of
january
1,
it
was
30.3
percent.
C
We
referred
to
the
pwc
mall
cap
rates
and
they
were
reporting
a
6.84
and
when
you
add
on
our
tax
rate
of
1.151,
we
came
up
with
7.99
for
a
cap
rate
and
then
yes,
boston
quarter,
participates
in
the
it's
in
the
boston
bid,
tax
rate,
and
so
that
is
an
additional
.045
added
to
that
cap
rate.
So
we
feel
that
our
cap
rate
is
very
representative
of
this
subject,
especially
with
the
type
of
mall.
The
tenants
that
this
particular
mall
is
going
after.
C
A
lot
of
the
tenants
have
a
tendency
to
be
this
boutique
type
tenants,
something
that's
different
than
what
you
see
at
fashion
center
mall,
keep
in
mind
fashion
center
mall.
That
is
a
totally
enclosed
mall.
Whereas
and
then,
if
you
want
to
look
at
something
else,
that's
lesser
than
boston
quarter,
it's
an
outdoor
venue
which
is
the
market
commons,
but
that
that
is
even
something
different
than
the
boston
quarter.
C
However,
I'm
going
to
that's
pretty
much
what
I
have
to
say,
I'm
going
to
leave
it
open
for
irving
to
make
any
additional
comments
for
the
rest
of
my.
D
D
We
give
information
about
the
mall
cap
rate
in
which
we
use,
and
we
referred
to
pwc,
because
this
is
a
publication
that
we
were
able
to
get
sufficient
information
from,
and
so
actually
the
third
quarter
of
2019
showed
that
class
b
plus
cap
rates
was
7.03,
and
so
that
is
what
we
relied
upon,
even
though
this
mall
was
renovated
over
the
past
few
years,
where
they
took
a
outdated
mall
and
brought
it
up
to
date
by
tearing
off
the
roof
on
a
portion
of
it
to
have
a
somewhat
open
floor
plan,
they
still
do
have
a
lot
of
them
all
that's
under
roof.
D
The
property
was
valued
based
off
cost
approach
in
the
past
few
years,
due
to
this
renovation,
even
last
year,
when
they
had
completed
renovation,
we
didn't
have
much
rent
information
or
leasing
information
on
the
subject,
so
we
continue
to
value
it.
On
the
cost
approach
last
year,
due
to
that
over
2019,
we
received
more
information
about
tenants
that
were
assigned
in
2017
and
18.,
tenants
that
moved
in
in
2018
in
early
parts
of
2019,
as
well
as
tenants
that
were
signed
in
2019
and
expected
to
move
in
in
2020..
D
What
we
gathered
was
that
most
of
the
tenants
were
entertainment
tenants
most
of
the
tenants
that
have
signed
a
restaurant.
You
have
true
food
kitchen,
you
have
the
boston
hall,
boston,
quarter,
food
hall
that
opened
up
early
on.
You
have
the
fitness
center.
You
have
a
bowling
alley,
but
what
we
don't
see
are
the
retail
stores,
and
that
was
something
that
was
presented
to
the
agent
during
the
department
hearing
with
most
malls.
You
know
you
can
get
an
idea
of
what
direction
they're
going
in
based
on
the
tenants
that
they
signed.
D
Boston
mall
was
a
mall
that
had
a
foot,
locker
and
other
well-known
stores
before
they
did
the
renovation,
but
since
they
reopened
all
of
the
retail
tenants
have
been
small,
boutique
tenants,
and
so
that
was
a
question
to
the
agent.
What
direction
is
this
mall
going
in?
You
know
what
tenants
are
they
reaching
out
to
to
try
to
sign,
and
that
was
information
that
we
couldn't
get.
I
mean
we
even
noticed
that
they
compared
this
mall
to
a
mall
in
silver
springs.
D
I
can't
remember
the
name
of
it,
but
that
mall
has
a
burlington
coat
factory,
tj,
maxx
and
other
discount
stores
that
we're
familiar
with,
and
I
asked
the
agent
you
know-
are
these
tenants
that
this
mall
is
going
out
there
or
are
they
going
after?
You
know
bigger
names
that
occupy
spaces
such
as
tyson
corners
and
fashion
center?
D
So
without
that
type
of
information,
we
tried
to
look
at
what
they
had
in
place,
as
well
as
what
is
the
retail
rent
for
retail
stores
in
the
boston
area
in
general
and
go
with
a
more
conservative
number.
I
think
the
rent
rate
that
we're
using
is
very
low
compared
to
comparable
shopping
centers
such
as
market
commons
and
fashion
center
is
probably
even
lower
than
what
you'll
see
at
pentagon,
road,
which
actually
does
have
discount
stores
such
as
dsw
and
other
discount
retailers
like
that.
D
So
we
were
very
conservative
in
our
approach
as
far
as
the
rent
rate
lori
did
use
or
account
for
the
pass-throughs
that
they
reported.
As
we
stated
before,
we
don't
project
the
pass-throughs.
We
go
off
of
what
is
actually
reported
to
us
and
we
feel
like
that's
the
best
way
to
handle
that
income
and
again
the
cap
rate
is
a
hundred
percent
tax
load.
If
you
take
that
six
point,
nine
you
take
that
7.03
percent,
which
is
class
b,
plus
mall
reported
by
pwc
third
quarter
2019.
D
E
This
I
have
one
for
the
applicant
and
one
for
the
county
for
the
applicant.
Is
it
now
an
established
fact
that
macy's
is
going
to
close.
E
D
I
think
it
does,
if
anything,
that
the
tax
value
impacted
the
the
benefit
that
they
received.
They,
it
was
a
tiff
yeah,
so
the
the
tax
value
and
I'm
not
sure
how
long
that
runs.
But
I
know
that
is
something
that
was
paid
attention
to
over
the
years.
The
assessed
value
of
this
property
and
the
tif
there
were.
They
were
connected.
F
Yeah
for
the
county,
you
said
2018,
you
use
the
cost
approach
and
I
I
I
think
I
remember
it
was
pretty
close
to
being
finished
as
far
as
construction
goes
did.
Can
what
was
the
cost
at
that
point?.
G
C
C
C
F
All
right
and
then
I
guess
just
a
minor
question.
You
had
8.3
as
the
as
the
final
cap
rate
that
the
county
used
is
that
8.25
rounded
up
from
the
guidelines
or
is
it
I'm
trying
to
do
the
math
and
follow
along
make
sure
that.
C
C
Well,
on
our
worksheet,
it's
showing
8.3.
F
Okay,
so
that
is
the,
as
you
said:
that's
the
pwc
number,
plus
the
the
tax
rate
plus
the
bid
rate
for
boston,
and
it
comes
out
to
8.30.
C
Well,
it
can't,
if
you
want
the
exact
number
it
came
out
to
8.226.
We
used
8.3.
F
H
I
have
a
question
for
the
department.
As
of
january
1st,
there
was
significant
space
still
to
be
leased
up.
Why
and
we
certainly
see
that
in
in
office
buildings
that
are
in
transition
and
temporarily
take
some
costs
for
lisa
below
the
line
here
you
haven't.
Could
you
explain
why.
C
First
of
all,
we're
not
using
below
the
line
adjustment.
Okay,
and
at
the
time
we
were
going
on
the
best
information
that
we
had.
We
assumed
that
it
was
being
leased.
H
D
So
on
that,
one
thing
that
we
have
done
with
the
retail
is
that
we've
tended
to
lose
use
a
more
conservative,
rent
rate
with
office
and
yeah
with
office.
We're
able
to
get
more
information
about
tenant
improvements
and
free
rent
information
such
as
that,
but
with
retail
we
don't
have
as
detailed
information.
So
how
we
treat
that
is.
We
will
discount
the
rent
rate,
essentially
taking
a
deduction
off
the
rent
rate,
to
account
for
any
lease-up
costs
and
that's
been
consistent
with
how
we've
treated
general
commercial
properties.
C
You
okay,
once
again,
when
we
got
the
the
newer
information
we
updated
the
we
used
that
updated
information
and
we
followed
along
with
that
in
column.
F,
we
lowered
the
rent,
something
less
than
what
we
found
when
we
analyzed
the
rent
roll
and
we
included
all
the
pass-throughs,
the
the
other
revenue
that
was
being
reported
line
by
line,
as
you
note
in
column
f,
and
we
obviously,
we
increase
the
expenses
for
this
property.
Keep
in
mind.
Our
cap
rate
is
loaded
and
yes,
I
apologize.
C
I
used
the
wrong
number
earlier,
but
we
looked
at
the
pwc
and
the
cap
rate
was
7.03,
you
add
on
the
tax
rate
and
the
bid
rate,
and
we
ended
up
using
8.3
percent
for
capitalization
rate,
and
we
feel
this
is
very
representative
of
the
subject
property
done.
Thank
you.
D
Time
no
man
I
mean,
I
think,
laurie
pretty
much
nailed
it
on
the
head,
I
mean
we
made
considerable
adjustments
to
the
assessment,
bringing
the
original
2020
assessment
down
from
155
million
to
119
million.
For
essentially
what
is
a
brand
new
property
based
off
all
the
work
that
was
done
to
this
mall.
Again,
we
use
the
best
information.
D
We
had
it's
hard
to
honestly
see
what
direction
this
mall
is
going
in
as
far
as
customer
base,
they're
trying
to
attract
or
even
tenant
base
that
they're
trying
to
track
based
off
of
the
current
rent
roll,
but
we
relied
upon
the
current
rent
roll
in
the
surrounding
areas
for
our
rent
rate.
D
B
Sure
thank
you.
So
I
felt
I
addressed
where
this
mall
was
going.
This
is
january
1st
2020.
This
is
regional
shopping
malls.
You
guys
have
read
all
the
articles
they're
trying
to
get
any
tennis.
They
can
at
this
point
guys
january
1st
2020.
B
granted
it's
pre-coveted,
but
it
is
a
very,
very
challenging
environment
in
regional
shopping
malls.
You
guys
have
seen
all
of
the
bankruptcies
that
have
occurred.
The
prime,
the
majority
of
retail
bankruptcies
are
impacting
regional
shopping,
mall
tenants
from
forever
21
to
the
smaller
inline
tenants
to
pay
less
shoe
stores
to
the
anchor
department
stores.
B
To
now
you
know
the
sears
of
the
world,
the
jcpenney's,
the
macy's,
it's
a
very,
very
difficult
environment,
and
that's
why,
with
a
hundred
and
nine
thousand
square
foot
of
leasing
left
to
do
significant
amount
of
risk,
so,
unfortunately
there
is
no
great
answer
they're
trying
to
attract
any
tenants.
They
can,
and
I
felt
that
I
communicated
that
with
respect
to
the
core
paths.
I
just
pulled
up
the
pwc
report.
Sorry,
the
pwc
mall
report
for
b
plus
classifications
of
their
sales
per
square
photo
from
400
to
524..
B
So
this
small
has
never
been
a
b
plus
it
won't
be
a
b
plus
just
to
remind
you.
It
performed
at
212
dollars
per
square
foot
a
year
in
2019,
so
a
b
plus
cat
classification
for
this
mall.
While
it
is
a
redevelopment
well,
it
does
look
great
because
they
poured
the
significant
revenue
into
it.
Unfortunately,
it's
never
going
to
be
a
b-plus
mall.
This
was
underwritten
in
a
much
different
period
of
time.
2015
was
when
the
board
approved
this
project
much
different
time
in
retail,
and
it's
been
extremely
challenging.
B
So,
with
that
the
significant
risk
associated
with
this
property,
the
cap
rate
needs
to
be
adjusted
and
again
cost
to
reach
stabilization.
I
do
not
fail,
was
accounted
for
in
their
their
rental
rates.
Thank
you.
H
I'll
I'll
start,
I
had
three
points
that
I
wrote
down
over
and
over
again
before
first
columns,
f
and
g,
the
noise
are
almost
identical,
they
agree
completely.
So
the
point
one
is
the
cap
rate,
which
of
course,
the
appellant
just
left
off
with
it
occurs
to
me
that
on
1
120
this
is
still
a
fairly
new
mall
and
it
was
ginning
up
and
it
had
and-
and
it's
mostly
restaurants-
and
I
don't
know
that
their
economics
are
the
same
or
completely
different
from
traditional,
more
retail.
H
You
know
good
sold
kinds
of
of
establishments,
so
it
could
be
his
case.
That
b,
plus,
which
I
thought
of
the
lowest
of
the
three
we
were
offered
was
very
generous-
may
be
too
conservative,
but
and
this
year,
unfortunately,
because
of
code,
it
isn't
going
to
give
us
any
more
information,
because
everybody
is
hurting
in
place
retailers,
so
I
don't
know
where
to
go
from
there
and
therefore,
since
we
can't
have
anything
definitive,
I
side
strongly
with
the
department,
the
other,
the
other
issue
of
below
the
line.
H
H
We
don't
know
but
again,
there's
nothing
definitive
to
say
that
their
percentage
decrease
in
the
average
rent
is
deficient,
so
I
still
have
to
go
with
them
and
and-
and
those
are
my
three
so
I'm
I'm
come
to
the
conclusion
with
some
strange
times
in
a
new
project
that
we
have
to
stay
with.
The
revised
evaluation
of
the
department.
F
The
the
county's
column
f
is
good.
I
think
it's
missing
one
thing
which
is
more
of
the
stabilization
costs,
and
I
don't
I
don't.
I
don't
think
the
full
amount
that
the
appellant
presented
was
the
17
million
cost
of
civilization.
F
I
look
at
that
as
I
think
that
was
the
amount
to
get
to
95,
but
the
county's
given
a
10
vacancy
allowance,
so
I
mean
the
way
I
saw
it
was
half
of
that
would
get
you
to
to
90
and
then
you've
got
the
10
vacancy
allowance
in
there
and
when
I
did
that
I
came
up
with
about
110
million.
F
D
H
Greg
I
I
like
that
rationale,
except
that
the
department
says
that
they've
discounted
the
rents,
and
so
we
have
to
add
load
them
back
up,
I
think
to
maybe
experience
rents
in
order
to
take
your
approach
again.
I
was
a
very
big
one
on
below
the
line.
I
thought
that
was
extremely
appropriate,
but
then
we
have
to
go
through
the
rent
rolls
once
again
in
order
to
accommodate
what
I
share
with.
You
is
a
pretty
good
idea.
F
E
E
I
was
involved
in
a
whole
bunch
of
meetings
that
were
held
between
the
ownership
and
neighboring
citizens
and
so
forth,
and
the
reaction
was
very
negative
to
this
proposal
and
I
actually
reached
out
to
the
owners
and
said
you
know
you
might
want
to
rethink
this,
and
you
know,
for
whatever
reason
boston
has
had
issues
with
has
had
issues
with
their
retail,
and
I
think
the
old
mall
was
really
struggling.
E
The
the
they
also
got
a
break
from
the
county,
and
yet
with
all
that
it
before
the
covet,
they
were
way
behind
on
their
expectations
on
how
this
would
lease
up,
and
you
know
I
know,
we're
very
reluctant
to
change
the
county's
cap
rate
due
to
the
equalization
that
we're
charged
with
you
know
in
my
thinking.
E
This
is
a
unique
property,
there's
nothing
like
it
in
arlington,
and
I
I
agree
with
an
awful
lot
of
what
the
applicant
suggested
and
I
think
we
should
even
go
further
than
what
greg
suggested,
but
I
would
go
with
greg
if
there's
no
other
support
to
a
greater
lowering.
Thank.
F
Just
one
other
comment
on
the
cap
rate,
because
we
we
do
have
different
cap
rates
and
the
guidelines
for
the
different
malls
and
there's
not
a
lot
of
malls
in
arlington.
So
I
would
feel
really
uncomfortable
if,
if
like,
this
was
the
one
that
was
the
lowest
cap
rate
in
arlington.
F
F
What
we
have,
which
is
more
residential
and
more
commercial
office,
that's
being
built
and
occupied
around
that
immediate
vicinity,
it's
just
in
a
transition
right
now.
This
is
going
to
be
an
a
plus
mall,
it's
b
b,
plus
now
only
because
it's
in
a
transition
phase,
but
we're
going
from
an
era
when
traffic
counts
were
really
important
to
now.
F
How
many
people
are
there
during
the
daytime
in
office
jobs
and
how
many
people
are
living
upstairs
from
the
mall
that
are
going
to
go
down
and
frequent
it
and
spend
money
and
what
their
incomes
are.
So
I
think,
as
the
as
the
apartment
buildings
fill
up
as
the
office
space
fills
up,
it's
going
to
continue
to
do
well,
so
I'm
comfortable
with
the
county's
cap
rate.
In
short,.
A
Okay,
mr
hoffman,
can
you
just
walk
back
through
what
you
had
done
and
how
you
got
to
this
one
time
I.
I
F
233
or
232
of
the
package,
which
is
mr
benstrom's
analysis
of
cost
to
reach
stabilization
and
he
comes
up
with
the
net
present
value
of
17
million
583
0.92
and
that's
to
reach
95
percent
occupancy.
A
Okay,
others
comments.
J
Well,
the
county
took
into
consideration-
and
this
is
to
some
of
ken's
comments,
the
the
discounting
for
the
lease
up
concessions
and
things
in
their
calculation
of
the
rent.
Do
you
think
it
was
deep
enough?
J
J
F
A
J
F
You
know,
I
think,
that
it's
a
little
tricky
when
we
don't
have
a
couple
years
of
stabilized
history,
even
if
it's
not
stabilized.
If
it's
you
know,
if
it's
going
to
be
a
couple
years,
noi
with
with
continued
vacancy,
but
this.
E
H
Oddly
enough,
I
live
a
five
minute
walk
away,
so
it's
personally
an
asset
to
me,
but
and
having
said
that,
I
don't
know
how
deeply
you
discount
the
rent
in
order
to
get
it
down
to
as
an
example,
110
million,
I'm
feeling
uncomfortable
that
we
don't
have
anything
definitive
and
the
key.
During
this
keyword
transition
phase
the
thing
is
new:
it's
a
modern
style.
H
Personally,
I
don't
want
to
go
shopping
out
in
the
rain.
I'd
rather
be
inside,
but
apparently
I'm
once
again
out
of
the
mainstream
people
like
this
kind
of
setup,
and
it's
not
an
accident.
That's
why
the
developer
picked
it
and
with
some
input
from
the
county
to
have
public
spaces
gathering
spaces
which
should
help
in
the
long
term.
So
as
much
as
I'd
like
to
to
agree
to
just
lower
it
somewhat
reasonably.
H
E
That's
because
you
and
I
are
older
and
you
know
we
like
the
enclosed
ball,
the
target
market
when
they
redid
this
was
young
people
and
the
the
thing
that
makes
me
believe
more
relief
should
be
in
the
cards
is
the
fact
that
before
covid,
this
was
way
below
their
expectation
of
fill-up,
and
you
know
again,
I
kind
of
go
back
to
the
the
reason
why
I
shared
my
concern
with
the
ownership
was
there's
so
much
retail
in
boston,
and
you
just
can't
there
aren't
enough
retail
on
earth
to
fill
these
places
up.
E
So
you
got
the
mall
and
you
got
office
buildings.
You've
got
you
know
everybody.
You
know,
the
county
board
wants
ground
floor
retail
everywhere,
and
you
know
on
the
west
side
of
glebe
road.
It
just
doesn't
seem
to
ever
work,
and
so
I
I
feel
like
there
was
so
much
competition
out
there
that
they
just
aren't
able
to
fill
it
and
they
aren't
able
to
command
the
rents
that
otherwise
they
might
command.
That's
you
know
for
what
it's
worth.
That's
my
thinking.
K
Well,
initially,
I
felt
the
same
as
ken
that
you
know
the
county
I
think
did
appropriately.
You
know
they
made
the
reduction
on
the
range
to
be
able
to
stabilize.
I
wish
we
could
do
a
below
the
line.
Deduction
like
we
do
with
the
you
know,
office
spaces,
but
I
don't
normally
tend
to
be
in
favor
of
making
any
changes
to
cap
rates,
but
this
is,
I
think,
a
particular
mole.
K
It's
not
something
that
we
can
say
you
know
they're,
two
or
three
similar
or
equal
in
the
county
or
close
by,
but
you
know
looking
at
the
cap
rate
that
is
being
used
for
just
macy's,
which
is
higher.
I
wouldn't
be
opposed
to
making
a
change
to
the
cap
rate
to
what
the
appellant
is
requesting
at
nine
percent,
and
I
think
that
brings
us
pretty
much
close
to
what
greg
is
suggesting
without
having
to
make
the
changes
to
below
the
line
deductions.
K
I
think
for
this
year,
based
on
the
vacancy
that
the
mall
has
and
the
situation
that
you
know,
which
is,
I
think,
particular
you
know-
I
wouldn't
be
opposed
to
doing
that.
You
know
this
is
just
a
suggestion
to
be
able
to
reach
some
consensus.
H
Jose
you
mentioned
macy's,
which
is
of
course
a
separate
property.
Is
there
cap
rate
nine
at
nine.
K
It's
nine
and
a
half.
A
A
K
I'll
go
ahead
and
move
that
we
make
a
reduction
on
this
property
to
110
million
fifty
six
thousand
one
hundred
based
on
increasing
the
cap
rate
to
nine
percent.
Second,.
I
A
Opposed
no
so
it
is
unanimous.
The
assessment's
reduced
to
110
million
o
66
100.
C
Madam
chair,
may
I
ask
what
noi
was
used.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
All
righty
moving
to
the
second
case
on
the
agenda:
rpc,
it's
an
economic
unit
as
well:
three,
eight
zero,
five
zero
two
g
is
in
george
2901,
south
glebe
road,
and
we
have
miss
rebecca
miller
here
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
appellate,
so
miss
miller.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
A
L
Do
you
want
to
skip
to
to
skip
a
case
to
blake's,
and
then
we
can
come
back
to
rebecca
when
she
calls
in?
Are
you
okay
with
that
or
any
any
of
the
next
questions?.
A
A
Here
you
come
yep,
I
gotcha.
Okay,
there
you
go
so
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes,
sir.
I
Okay,
so
this
is
the
hilton
embassy
crystal
city
and
if
you
turn
to
page
35
of
63
you'll
get
to
our
summary
of
facts.
It's
located
on
1300
richmond
highway.
It's
in
close
proximity
to
a
number
of
the
other
hotels
that
I've
presented
here
in
recent
weeks,
the
crystal
gateway
and
the
marriott
crystal
city.
I
It's
currently
of
the
original
assessment
for
2020
was
60
million,
681
600
or
227
000,
a
room
that
was
subsequently
revised
by
the
county
and
recommended
to
the
board
at
a
value
of
58
million
496,
which
is
219
000
a
room
and
our
initial
requested
value
was
42
million
407
thousand
now,
as
in
prior
cases
that
we
presented
and
as
you'll
see
on
the
county's
ine
summary
page
and
our
column
g,
we
were
deducting
an
imputed
franchise
fee
and
have
completed
that
point
so
by
taking
that
out
and
capping
and
not
including
that
that
imputed
franchise
fee
expense
would
get
you
to
a
requested
target
value
now
of
55
million
448
000,
that's
what
we're
requesting
from
from
the
board
today.
I
So
this
is
a
property
that
was
originally
built
in
1985.
It's
267
total
rooms
full
service.
I
Again,
it's
within
close
walking
distance
about
the
eight
minute
walk
point,
four,
a
little
less
than
a
half
mile
away
from
the
crystal
city
metro
station,
and
this
is
a
pretty
straightforward
case.
If
we
turn
back
to
page
three
and
the
the
hotel
ine
summary
page,
what
this
case
really
comes
down
to
is
operating
expenses,
so
we're
okay
with
the
the
county's
initial
and
revised
total
revenue
estimates
for
the
property
which
are
in
line
with
what
was
reported
in
2019.
I
Now
the
the
actual
operating
expenses
have
been
increasing
each
of
the
last
three
years.
You
know
dating
back
to
2016
you'll,
see
that
the
total
operating
expenses
was
66
and
a
half
dropped
down
slightly
to
66
in
2017
up
to
67
in
2018
and
most
recently
69.29
in
2019.,
the
county's,
revised
column
f
did
take
into
consideration
that
increase
in
expenses
and
bump
their
estimated
expense
rate
from
67
to
68..
I
I
So
what
was
actually
reported
in
2019
is
right
in
line
with
with
the
county's
own
guidelines
and
and
you'll
see
that
noi
is
trending
down
each
of
the
last
three
years
as
well,
from
5.6
million
in
2017,
5.2
million
in
2018
and
most
recently
4.8
million
in
in
2019..
So
again,
all
we're
asking
for
is
is
additional
consideration
to
the
the
actual
operating
expenses
and
where
this
property
is
trending
and
again
by.
I
A
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
mr
chicas.
M
Good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
blake
again
as
the
board
is
familiar,
we
primarily
are
going
to
be
looking
at
our
summary
page,
the
hotel,
motel
summary
sheets
on
page
three
as
again
familiar
with
how
we
present
our
properties
we're
looking
at
what's
going
on
with
the
property
and
not
only
the
most
recent
year,
but
historically
over
the
last
three
years.
M
You
can
note
room
revenue
is
down
just
about
1.1
percent,
one
tenth
of
one
percent,
but
very
much
actually
just
a
little
bit
low
of
its
three
year,
average
of
about
16
million,
seven
hundred
thousand
food
and
beverages
up
almost
11
10.6
in
2019,
again
fairly
on
par
with
its
three-year
average
of
965
000
or
thereabouts.
M
Miscellaneous
revenues
up
three
percent
three-year
average
of
1.2
million
again
pretty
much
on
on
par
with,
what's
been
achieved.
Historically
and
total
revenue
is
up
just
shy
of
one
percent
at
seven
tenths
of
one
percent
in
2018,
again
with
a
three-year
average,
approximately
18.9
million,
as
blake
noted
operating
expenses
did
tick
up
4.2
percent.
M
But
I
think
it's
important
to
note.
That's
that
the
most
they've
achieved
in
the
last
four
years.
So
when
you
take
a
look
at
the
three
year
average,
it's
actually
a
bit
lower
at
about
12.7
million
or
67.4
percent
of
total
revenue.
M
The
owner
doesn't
list
items
by
line,
it's
basically
a
grouping
of
the
subtotal,
so
we're
not
sure
exactly
what
caused
the
increase
in
room
expenses
into
our
food
and
beverage,
but
it
does
make
sense,
given
the
the
large
increase
in
food
and
beverage
revenue
that
there
would
be
a
corresponding
expense
associated
with
that
food
and
beverage
now.
In
that
same
token,
I
would
think
there
would
be
a
little
bit
less
of
an
increase
in
the
departmental
expenses
attributed
to
room
as
the
room
revenue
actually
ticked
down.
M
But
I'm
not
sure
exactly
what
line
item
caused
those
things
there
was
also
an
increase
in
the
personal
property
or
business,
tangible
checks
of
approximately
80
000.
For
those
who
aren't
familiar,
that's
essentially
something
that
goes
up
and
down
over
a
number
of
years,
but
the
first
year
being
the
highest
amount.
That's
going
to
be
reported,
as
this
is
due
to
depreciation
of
the
personal
property
goods
that
are
reported
to
the
treasurer's
office,
so
we
don't
expect
that
to
maintain
a
value
of
80
000
over
the
next
couple
years.
M
That
led
us
to
the
net
operating
income
which,
as
blake
noted,
was
down
in
2019
by
almost
eight
percent.
As
you'll
note
in
the
comments
and
as
reported
by
the
owner
of
the
property
in
the
2018
year,
10
almost
10
million
dollars
were
spent
on
renovations
to
the
guest
rooms
and
bathrooms.
G
M
You
saw
a
decrease
in
that
you
can
also
see
there's
a
decrease,
but
approximately
one
and
a
half
percent
or
so
of
occupancy,
so
again,
a
correlation
between
the
money
that
was
spent
on
the
property
and
the
revenues
achieved
at
the
property,
as
we've
seen
earlier
cases
this
year
again,
there's
a
fair
chance
that
in
a
normal
year,
you
would
see
a
uptick
the
following
year
of
the
capital
improvements
as,
of
course,
there's
an
expectation
of
return
on
investment
in
regards
to
occupancy
and,
if
not
occupancy,
then
at
least
the
average
daily
rate.
M
When
we
looked
at
the
newly
found
newly
received
2019
income
and
expense
questionnaire,
we
did
put
out
a
revision,
as
blake
noted,
that
is
seen
in
column,
f,
very
modest
projections
across
the
board,
less
than
one
percent
in
all
categories
of
revenue
sources,
leading
to
essentially
a
total
revenue
projection.
That's
near
identical
to
what
was
achieved
in
this
past
year
again,
if
we're
looking
at
a
three-year
average
for
the
expense
side,
you're
at
12.7
million.
M
We're
just
shy
of
that
at
six
to
eight
percent
of
total
revenue.
Again,
while
we
believe
that
there
would
be
some
correlation
between
increases
in
the
food
and
beverage
and
room
expenses
that
one
time
spike
in
the
personal
property
should
be
smoothed
out
in
2020
going
forward
for
the
next
four
or
five
years.
M
So
that
would
account
for
the
difference
there
just
about
twenty
thousand
dollars
shy
of
the
three
year
average.
As
far
as
our
projected
projection
for
net
operating
income,
you
can
see
that
the
properties
had
not
achieved
less
than
five
million
dollars
over
the
last
three
years
prior
to
this
year.
But
again
that
makes
sense,
given
that
the
revenues
were
down
or
constrained
at
the
very
least
due
to
the
renovations
and
a
four
percent
increase
in
expenses.
M
But
we
do
believe
that,
given
the
the
expectation
of
a
increased
revenue
flow
due
to
the
renovations
that
the
noi
that
was
achieved
in
2019
is
a
bit
of
an
anomaly.
So
a
projection
upward
back
into
the
5
million
range
on
the
net
operated
income
very
much
in
line
with
the
three
year
history
three-year
average
noi
of
5.2
million.
We're
quite
a
bit
below
that.
M
A
Okay,
mr
chicas,
anything
else
you
need
to
tell
us.
M
I
Yeah
so
just
response
to
the
previous
renovation,
so
there
had
been
renovations
done
in
the
last
year
so
and,
as
you
can
see,
it
hasn't
really
negatively
impacted
occupancy
significantly
down
from
you
know,
one
percent
the
prior
year
and
as
you
can
see,
revenue
is
pretty
stable
as
well
over
the
course
of
that
time
and
then
just
also
a
comment
regarding
the
fixed
expenses
and,
as
you
can
see,
they're
they're
up.
I
You
know
three
up
to
335
000
from
232
000
a
year
ago,
which
chris
mentioned
would
be
just
a
one-time
bump.
Now
these
are
due
to
some
of
the
replacement
of
ffe,
because
they've
been
fully
depreciated.
So
last
year,
if
you
looked
at
this
assessment,
they
were
deducting
a
total
personal
property
allowance
below
the
line
of
2.6
million,
that's
up
to
4.2
million
this
year
and
that's
again
because
of
the
some
of
the
renovations,
this
new
ffme
that
has
not
been
fully
depreciated.
I
So
it's
not
going
to
be
just
a
one.
Bump
year
you
went
from
last
year
which
you
had
ffa
in
there.
That
was
fully
depreciated
that
needed
to
be
replaced
to
now
brand
new
ffd,
which
will
slowly
be
depreciated
over
time.
So
that's
not
just
a
one
bump
one
year
bump
of
cost
you're
gonna
see
it's
gonna
be
higher
now
it'll
be
lower
likely
than
than
it
was
this
year
as
it
depreciates,
but
but
not
a
it's,
not
a
one-year
blip
and
higher
fixed
expenses.
I
These
are
fixed
expenses,
they're
going
to
be
at
this
level
for
for
the
foreseeable
future,
with
those
new
replacements
in
there.
So
that's
that's
it.
H
Two
points
the
department's,
I
think,
they're
telling
department
rationale-
is
that
the
noise
are
smoothing
out
and
very
consistent
over
a
number
of
years
is
very,
very
compelling
to
me,
although
all
the
constituent
parts,
except
for
the
franchise
fee
suggests
that
anyway,
but
it
turns
out
that
it's
a
very
consistent
number,
so
I'm
very
comfortable
with
it,
and
the
last
note
that
the
appellant
made
about
the
you
know
whether
it's
a
one-time
bump
fully
partially
for
the
the
personal
property
write-off
below
the
line
is,
is
a
reasonable
one
and
if
we're
back
here
with
them
next
year,
we'll
have
to
take
a
look
at
that.
H
F
Yeah,
I
think
I
mean
just
I'm
okay
with
the
revised
number
as
well
just
to
be
short,
but
and
on
a
per
key
basis,
equalized
with
some
of
the
other
properties
in
that
sub
market.
It's
kind
of
on
the
lower
end,
219
000
a
key,
so
I
think
it's
fair
with
the
other
properties
and
I
think,
location
wise.
I
mean
this
is
going
to
be
a
dynamite
location
long
term.
So
there's
not
there's
not
a
lot
of
prevailing
headwinds
against
this.
K
Thank
you.
I
pretty
much
agree
with
ken
and
greg.
I
think
the
county
did
a
very
good
job.
I
know
mr
chickas
has
been
very.
I
have
to
commend
him.
I
think
he's
been
great
at
doing
these
reconstructions
and
the
assessments
two
coincide
with
the
actual
market,
and
you
know
I
don't
really
see
where
we
can
make
any
further
adjustments
in
this.
I
think
the
revised
assessment
is
appropriate
based
on
the
noise
from
the
past.
You
know.
K
E
A
Okay,
our
second
promotion,
the
second
by
mary
dooley,
all
in
favor,
aye,
aye,
opposed
okay,
reduced
to
the
county's
recommended
number
and
the
test
of
58
496
100..
A
O
O
So
it
is
unclear
why
this
has
changed
for
tax
year
2020..
Please
refer
to
my
page
four
for
detail
on
the
expense
guidelines
for
tax
year
2019
and
tax
year
2020..
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
subject
operated
at
an
expense
ratio
of
16.4
for
a
total
expense
amount
of
approximately
416
thousand
dollars
in
calendar
year
2019,
which
can
be
seen
in
detail
in
the
assessor's
memo
or
on
the
reported.
I
need
survey
because
of
the
facts
of
the
guidelines
as
well
as
actual
expenses.
O
The
county
representative
told
me
during
a
phone
discussion
that
arlington
guidelines
are
only
intended
for
properties
that
do
not
submit
income
and
expense
surveys,
and
for
that
reason,
changing
the
expense
ratio
to
20,
isn't
justified
just
based
on
guidelines
as
a
question
to
the
board.
Does
that
make
sense?
What
if
we
have
a
case
study
of
20
retail
centers,
all.
C
You,
madam
chair,
okay,
with
this
particular
property
in
the
years
past,
they
did
not
submit
income
and
expense
statements
and,
yes,
we
would
have
followed
those
guidelines,
the
for
this
particular
property.
C
However,
we
do
have
when
we
valued
this
property
for
2020,
we
did
have
a
2018
to
look
upon,
and
so,
when
you
look
at
the
original
assessment,
we
feel
that
when
you
refer
down
to
the
noi
of
line
d21-
and
you
compare
it
to
the
2019-
which
we
did
not
have
at
the
time,
but
if
you
compare
it
to
the
2019
noi
they're,
very
close,
very
close,
we
are
still
believe
that
our
original
assessment
for
the
2020
assessment
is
supported
and
using
the
expense.
Although
the
expenses
are
at
12.
C
When
you
take
a
look
at
the
last
two
years
that
12
percent
is
supported
with
the
new
information.
One
of
the
things
that
I
did
ask
for
during
the
departmental
hearing
I
requested
some
detailed
information
on
some
of
the
expenses
that
they
were
reporting,
because,
if
you
notice
for
the
admin,
expense
and
the
services,
they
were
substantially
higher
this
for
2019
than
they
were
in
the
last
two
years,
and
I
did
not
get
that
information
from
her
until
after
this
report
was
prepared.
C
E
Yes,
thank
you.
This
is
for
the
county.
Where'd
you
get
the
12
percent,
it
would
seem
like
you
would
go
with
either
the
16
from
2019
or
20
percent.
C
C
and
last
year
when
they
appeal
appeared
before
the
board.
I
requested
historical
ine
information
and
they
did
not
give
it
to
us,
except
for
the
2018,
and
I
had
to
ask
again
this
year
and
they
finally
gave
me
the
2017
income
and
expense
information
for
this
appeal
in
2020.
C
H
A
question
for
the
department:
you
mentioned
that
after
you've
done
your
work,
you
then
got.
This
is
what
I
flagged
myself.
You
got
the
rationale
and
why
under
expenses,
maintenance
and
and
repairs
and
admin
expenses,
spiked
so
significantly
in
2019
over
the
history,
but
you
didn't
tell
us
what
the
appellant's
rationale
was
for
that.
Could
you
tell
us.
C
C
Like
I'm
sorry,
it's
hard
to
read
parking
lots,
sweeping
pressure
washing
they
put
it
under
one
line
instead
of
breaking
it
out,
amongst
other,
you
know,
other
expenses
that
they
were
reporting
for
2018
and
19
to
make
an
a
good
comparison.
H
Oh
you're
you're
putting
streets
parking
lot
sweeping
under
admin
expenses.
C
H
H
Is
your
conclusion
that
you're
not
so
sure
that
the
the
all
the
total
operating
expenses
the
constituents
are
all
precise
and
accountable.
C
O
Yes,
so
the
administrative
costs-
and
I
wasn't
aware
that
she,
you
know,
didn't
like
my
answer,
but
it's
the
cost
associated
with
operating,
managing
the
property,
that's
being
reported
at
the
property
level.
So
it's
summed
up
into
one
line
item
on
ie.
You.
A
O
Where
the
owner
submitted
the
ine
survey
under
penalty
of
perjury,
so
we
are
not
lying
about
any
of
the
expenses
that
would
be
illegal
and
against
better
judgment,
and
so
you
know
I
had
emailed
her
last
week
with
the
information
after
I
read
the
memo
she
provided.
O
As
far
as
last
year's
appeal,
when
she
mentioned,
we
didn't
provide
income
statements,
we
always
provide
two
years
of
income
statements,
sometimes
three
years
in
all
of
our
appeal:
packets,
that's
pretty
standard,
and
in
this
year
I
provided
three
years
of
income,
and
I
think
I
even
provided
her
a
calendar
2016.
O
My
memory
serves
me
correctly
so
four
years,
and
so
that's
you
know
all.
I
really
have
to
say
to
that.
A
C
So,
once
again,
when
we
valued
this
property
january
1
2020,
we
did
have
the
2018
to
refer
to,
and
so
we
we
feel
that
our
bottom
line,
the
the
noi,
is
very
close.
It's
if
you
want
to
compare
it
to
2019,
it's
only
within
a
couple
thousand
dollars.
If
you
compare
it
to
2018
it's
within
a
couple
thousand
dollars.
So
when
you're
comparing
the
noise,
we
feel
that
this
property
is
properly
assessed
at
thirty
million
four
hundred
and
sixteen
thousand
nine
hundred.
Thank
you.
O
As
previously
stated,
the
property
operated
at
an
expense
ratio
of
16.4
percent
in
calendar
2019..
If
nothing
else,
changing
the
expense
ratio
in
the
model
to
16
would
result
in
a
value
of
29
million
34
400.
but,
as
stated,
the
guidelines
state,
the
expense
ratio
should
be
20
and
we
believe
strongly
that
that
rate
should
be
used
based
on
equalization.
O
G
A
Okay,
thank
you.
It's
just
among
the
board
members
now
I
mean
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
on
this
and
I
think
the
county
is
spot
on
here
I
mean,
regardless
of
the
increase
in
the
expenses,
the
noi
are
all
totally
in
line
with
the
information.
I
think
the
appellants
numbers
are
a
little
bit
low
in
column
f,
so
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
the
assessment.
F
I
agree
with
you,
mary,
and
I
just
want
to
point
out
when
I
hear
that
expense
line
items
like
power
washing
and
sweeping
of
the
parking
lot
ticked
up
year
over
year,
and
I
also
know
that
there's
a
big
construction
project
going
on
across
the
street.
I
view
that
as
temporary,
and
so
I
I
think
time
will
tell
if
it
if
that
remains
the
normal
over
the
next
couple
years,
then
we
can
look
at
it,
but
I
think
I
think
the
county's
doing
a
pretty
good
job
of
pulling
the
property.
I
K
Well,
I
agree
with
both
comments.
I
think
you
know
just
looking
at
the
performance
from
previous
years.
The
noise
are
just
totally
level
making
a
change
based
on
expenses
just
for
one
year.
I
don't
think.
Like
the
previous
case,
I
don't
think
that
would
be
the
way
to
do
it.
I'm,
okay
with
the
county.
A
Okay
motion
in
a
second
by
mr
gates,
all
in
favor
aye,
all.
I
A
Proposed:
okay,
it's
unanimous!
It's
the
county's
confirmed
at
30
million
for
16
900..
Thank
you,
mr
miller.
Okay,.
O
O
A
K
K
G
G
G
A
L
All
right,
thank
you.
This
case
is
an
interesting
one,
because
I
think
chris
and
I
pretty
much
agree
for
the
most
part.
There
was
one
thing
where
I
noticed
on
the
test
column,
which
I
believe
is
actual
actually
an
error
and
if
corrected,
would
get
us
to
an
acceptable
value,
and
let
me
start
by
pointing
out
where
I
believe
that
error
took
place.
L
If
you
look
at
page,
three
you'll
see
the
three
year
history
and
then
the
assessment
and
then
the
2019
a
test
and
the
pro
forma,
typically
on
the
test-
and
I
say
typically
because
I
went
back
and
pulled
all
the
memos
that
we've
received
so
far
this
year
when
the
county
is
actually
testing,
it
they're
stabilizing
the
vacancy,
so
they're
using
the
market
vacancy
that
they
apply
to
every
property.
So,
for
example,
in
this
property,
you'll
notice
in
column
d,
they
use
a
six
percent
vacancy.
L
They
learn
that
the
ex
the
vacancy
historically
had
been
lower
than
that,
but
they've
applied
six
percent
to
all
properties
of
this
vintage
in
style,
but
on
the
test
they
used.
3.9
percent
and
again
I
went
back
and
pulled
these
other
properties
where
we
received
a
test.
You
don't
receive
a
test
on
every
property,
but
our
properties
where
we
receive
a
test
and
on
those
properties
they
were
stabilizing
the
vacancy
at
six
percent.
L
L
That
number
is
kind
of
the
middle
ground
between
where
we
are
and
where
the
the
assessment
is.
So
I
think
that
is
a
reasonable
figure
now
I'll
continue
in
case.
You
don't
agree
that
that's
the
correct
correction,
so
you
can
make
your
own
conclusion,
but
the
the
property
is
a
high-rise
property
in
on
crystal
place.
L
We
have
the
history
here,
and
this
is
an
equity
residential
property
like
the
rest
of
them
are
today.
So
when
you
focus
on
that
page
3,
please
note
that,
yes,
there
was
an
expense
bump
in
2018
and
2019,
and
we've
all
been
around
long
enough
even
this
year
to
understand
why
that
is
and
you'll
also
notice
that
there's
a
gpi
bump
in
2018
and
2019.
the
gpi
bump
is
because
of
the
rubs
you'll
see.
L
L
So
what
this
really
comes
down
to
his
gross
potential
income
is
a
bit
high.
He
was
originally
using
five
million
eight
hundred
and
eighty-five
thousand,
which
was
higher
than
any
of
the
last
three
years.
He
then
learned
that
his
expense,
the
actual
income,
was
five
million,
eight
hundred
sixty
three
thousand,
so
he
was
only
high
by
about
twenty
two
thousand,
which
considering
the
numbers
is
quite
impressive
and
then,
when
he
retested
he
said
you
know,
you
know
what
I
was
high
by
about
twenty
thousand,
but
let's,
let's
make
myself
high
by
sixty
thousand.
L
So
that
was
a
bit
of
a
an
overstep.
I
believe
on
the
test
column,
the
five
point:
nine
million
a
gpi
is
higher
than
the
properties
has
ever
achieved
and
you'll
see
there
with
a
four-year
history.
So
when
chris
did
a
really
good
job
of
predicting
what
2019
would
be?
He
was
right
on
the
number,
but
of
course
he
then,
for
some
reason
made
the
adjustment.
L
I
don't
know
why
that
adjustment
was
made,
but
but
it
was
so
that
adjustment
there
with
the
the
test
to
get
the
correct,
gpi
and
then,
of
course,
the
correction
of
vacancy,
which
I
believe
is
plein
air,
all
properties
that
we've
received
test
columns
on
have
taken
the
stabilized
vacancy,
but
for
some
reason
this
one
did
not
receive
the
same
treatment.
L
M
Chicas,
yes,
ma'am.
Looking
at
the
property,
we
see
apartment
revenues
up
year
over
year,
every
year,
three
years
in
a
row
with
the
2019's
increase
of
two
and
a
half
percent
for
a
three-year
average
of
just
over
five
million.
The
gross
potential
income
revenues
up
three
years
in
a
row
again:
17
up
18
up
19.
M
M
Looking
at
the
effective
gross,
which
is
also
up
three
years
in
a
row,
2019's
increase
was
one
and
a
half
percent.
I
gave
a
three-year
average
of
approximately
5.4
million.
M
We
did
note,
as
mr
chipper
pointed
out,
the
operating
expenses
essentially
smoothed
out
from
18
to
19,
with
an
increase
of
just
just
about
seven
tenths
of
one
percent,
gave
us
a
three-year
average
of
1.6
million
or
29.4
percent
of
effective
gross.
M
M
When
we
look
at
count
column
d,
this
is
on
page
three
of
our
three-year
summary.
We
can
see
there's
some
under
projections
over
projections
made
prior
to
receiving
that
2019
ine.
M
We
did
over
project
gross
potential
income
by
about
twenty
two
thousand
or
four
tenths
of
one
percent,
but
we
under
projected
effective
gross
by
about
a
hundred
twenty
thousand
or
2
percent.
M
We
did
under
project
operating
expenses
by
about
224
000
and
we
over
projected
noi.
Consequently,
by
about
100
000
or
2.7
percent,
to
address,
what's
going
on
with
column
f,
as
the
board
is
very
familiar
by
now.
What
we
do,
if
we're
not
offering
a
revision,
is
we
can
test
that
new
information
to
see
where
we
are
with
the
new
information?
M
The
rents
that
were
projected
are
actually
pulled
directly
from
the
rent
roll
provided
by
the
owner.
So
what
we
did
was
looked
in
our
test
column
to
see
where
they
were
headed,
and
you
can
see
that
it's
actually
very
modest
projection
of
0.9
percent
increase
well
under
the
1.4
increase
in
2017,
the
2.2
increase
in
18
and
the
2.5
percent
increase
in
2019.
M
that
led
to
an
overall
projection
of
just
under
1
on
the
gross
potential.
The
reason
we
use
the
stabilized
three-year
average
of
3.9
percent
is,
as
the
board
is
familiar.
The
virginia
code
empowers
the
board
members
to
look
at
actual
numbers,
what's
been
achieved.
Historically,
what
was
achieved
last
year,
even
if
you
were
compared
to
2019's
number
you'll,
see
that
it's
actually
a
higher
amount
of
vacancy
and
concession
than
what
was
achieved
in
the
2019
year.
M
We
did
look
at
the
three
year
average
and
in
fact,
projected
a
bit
higher
than
what
was
achieved
in
the
last
four
years
at
30.75
percent
of
effective
gross,
but
still
very
much
in
line
with,
what's
going
on
with
the
average
at
the
property
that
led
to
an
increase
of
approximately
half
a
percent.
What
was
going
on
with
the
property
last
year,
but
falling
back
to
column
d?
M
M
The
stabilization
of
the
vacancy,
the
effective
gross
is
up
three
years
in
a
row,
and
net
operating
income
is
up
three
years
in
a
row.
So
that's
why
that
column
is
labeled
test,
as
opposed
to
revision.
We
do
believe
that
the
property
should
be
confirmed
at
73
million
317
thousand
four
hundred.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
questions
from
board
members.
E
M
Not
at
all
sir,
when
we're
going
over
the
metrics,
if
you
noted
the
property
is
heavily
stabilized
with
true
vacancy
at
3.4
percent
and
vacancy
in
concession,
through
your
average
of
3.9
percent.
So
3.9
was
gathered
from
the
historical
operating
performance.
E
I
I
know
what
you
did
and
I
understand
what
you
did
and
you
quoted
the
code
section
but
you're
not
looking
at
the
past
you're
looking
at
the
future.
You
know
for
this
coming
year.
What
will
the
vacancy
be?
And
if
you
don't
go
with
the
guideline,
it
seems
to
me
that
you're,
just
guessing
and
and
you're
throwing
it
out
of
equalization
if,
in
other
instances,
you've
in
the
test
you've
gone
with
the
six
six
percent,
but
in
in
the
test.
E
M
If
we're
performing
a
revision,
which
essentially
is,
is
derived
from
the
test
and
that's
something
we
offer
the
appellant,
we
do
normally
use
the
guidelines,
but
for
the
purposes
of
this
test,
this
was
for
the
board
of
equalization
hearing
and
again
following
the
virginia
code,
which
empowers
the
virginia,
the
board
members
to
use
the
actuals.
We
use
the
three-year
average
of
what
was
going
on
at
the
property.
M
So,
rather
than
pick
and
choose
what
was
helpful
to
the
county,
we
use
the
actual
revenues,
the
actual
expenses,
the
actual
vacancy
and
concession
to
arrive
at
a
actual
noi
and
not
to
be
argumentative,
sir.
But
I
would
obviously
point
to
the
the
future,
as
essentially
predicated
upon
the
past
performance.
So
it's
not
a
wild
projection
based
on
the
four
years
that
we
see.
L
L
E
Yeah
but
again
the
the
question
is,
you
know
the
applicant
has
said
that
in
other
tests
that
they've
looked
at
you've
gone
with
six
percent.
L
L
D
Barnes,
if
I
made
for
one
minute,
we've
had
cases
this
year,
where
chris
has
displayed
the
same
test
columns
on
his
summer
sheet.
I
mean
we
had
cases
yesterday
where
he
used
the
actual
historical
vacancy
and
again
it's
because
of
the
virginia
code
3295.1,
which
is
he
has
stated
before
each
of
his
apartment
cases.
A
L
M
Absolutely
so,
looking
at
the
property
again,
that's
doing
well,
three
years
in
a
row
of
increases
in
apartment
revenue,
three
years
in
a
row
of
increases
on
gross
potential
income
heavily
stabilized
at
the
less
than
four
percent
three
year
average
of
3.9
percent
for
vacancy
and
concession
effective
gross
up
three
years
in
a
row:
net
operating
income
up
three
years
in
a
row.
We
do
believe
that
the
projection
made
for
2.6
increase
is
reasonable
and
that
that
we
believe
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
73,
317
400..
L
Yes,
the
three
years
in
a
row
I
think,
is
smoke
and
mirrors.
We've
talked
about
this
on
every
one
of
these
cases.
We've
been
instructed
to
change
the
way
we
report.
We
did
so
in
18.
We
did
so
in
19
and
they
still
are
holding
on
to
17.
the
the.
I
agree
with
what
mary
said
that
we'll
see
things
stabilized
and
they'll
use
it,
but
historically
vacancy
has
always
been
used
to
guidelines.
Just
as
cap
rate
has
we're
using
a
base
cap
rate
here
on
this
property
in
1988
as
a
4.29
base.
L
L
Just
on
this
case,
every
column
f,
I
have
has
a
stabilized
expense
vacancy
rate,
but
if
he's
saying
no
column
d
is
correct,
he
learned
that
the
last
two
years
of
expenses
were
1.7
million
and
1.7
million
he's
saying
no
1.5
is
still
the
correct
expense
to
use,
and
on
top
of
that,
as
he
stated
his
column
d
over
column
e,
he
was
a
little
bit
high
on
the
gross
potential
income
and
then,
when
he
tested
it,
he
increased
it
by
another.
Sixty
thousand
dollars,
which
again
doesn't
make
any
sense.
L
If
he's
going
to
test
it,
he
should
test
it
with
the
information
he
has
he's
relying
on
three
year
average
for
the
expenses,
but
he's
not
using
the
three-year
the
most
recent
looking
forward
he's
using
that
on
the
gpi,
but
he's
not
using
that
on
the
operating
expenses,
and
I
and
this
one
I
can't
figure
out
why
I
sent
him
an
email
this
morning
saying
I
think
he
just
made
a
a
calc
error
on
the
vacancy
and
if
we
correct
that
we're
in
the
same
place
and
but
I've,
I
have
not
seen
a
case
done
up
like
this.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
It's
just
among
the
board
members.
I
just
will
say
in
the
county's
defense
what
the
appellant
just
said.
I
mean
on
the
original
assessment.
A
He
did
not
have
column
e's
numbers,
so
I
think
that
you
know
the
expenses
that
he
used
in
column
d
were
certainly
in
line.
If
you
were
really
waiting
b
and
c
more,
you
know,
but
that
being
said
I
mean
I
have
seen
where
it's
not
the
guideline
over
in
the
test
column
when
it
is
stabilized
and
the
bottom
line
is
I
look
at
the
noi
and
I
mean,
even
if
you
throw
out
column
a
and
you're
looking
at
b
and
c,
I
mean
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
it
is
on
that
trend.
A
Yes,
the
the
test
you
know
is
a
little
bit
lower,
but
I
certainly
don't
believe
that
it's
going
in
the
direction
where
the
appellant
has
it
in
column.
G,
mr
yates,.
J
E
Thank
you,
madam
chairman.
My
asking
the
question
doesn't
indicate
my
answer
or
the
way
I'm
going
to
end
up.
You
know
I
wanted
to
question
chris
and,
and
he
satisfied
me,
but
I
did
question
him
pretty
pretty
intensely
well,
I
guess
the
only
question
I
have
at
this
point
is:
should
we
go
with
the
test
value.
H
Was
thinking
about
that
because
the
in
the
in
column,
math,
the
apartment
income
increase,
was
modest
and
and
and
the
department
had
mentioned,
that
relative
to
history
and
and
and
so
I
was
thinking
well
that
offsets
a
a
too
low
whatever.
That
means
vacancy
rate,
and
so
it
comes
up
the
same.
H
But,
and-
and
so
one
off
sets
the
other
the
guidelines,
but
you've
made
the
case
because
I
couldn't
remember-
I
remember
certainly
on
garden
apartments.
We
really
often
use
even
the
original
assessment
of
the
original.
You
know,
column
d,
the
guideline
for
vacancy
rate
and
sometimes
it's
much
lower
and
and
and
and
garden
apartments,
especially
those
that
are
very
affordable,
tend
to
be
filled
up
a
lot
of
the
time,
but
they
still
get
the
benefit
of
the
higher
guideline
vacancy
rate.
But
I
do,
I
trust
the
two
of
you
saying.
H
No,
we've
looked
in
the
past
and
it's
not
so
strict
and
and
stabilized
to
stabilize,
but
I
kind
of
like
the
offset
of
the
lower
income
and
lower
vacancy
rate
operating
expenses
to
come
up
with
the
the
test.
Column
f
number.
Having
said
that,
it
doesn't
there.
It
doesn't,
however,
reflect
the
noi
doesn't
reflect
the
every
four
years
data
that
we
have
increased.
F
K
K
If
we
were
to
do
an
average
on
the
expenses,
I
come
up
with
29.5,
approximately,
maybe
a
little
lower
than
that.
So
even
at
that
rate,
the
the
value
would
be
73
million
57
000.
So
I
think
the
expense
percentage
that
mr
chick
is
used
in
the
reconstruction
is
a
little
bit
more
generous.
So
I'm,
okay
with
that,
going
with
a
revision.
K
A
A
A
Okay,
a
motion
in
a
second
to
reduce
all
in
favor.
A
Opposed
opposed,
okay,
so
six
to
one
with
no
mr
metzken,
it's
reduced
to
the
county's
revised
number
of
71
million
760
200.
A
Thank
you.
Okay.
Moving
along
the
longest,
we've
been
on
the
schedule
to
the
fifth
case,
rpc35011009
at
590
15th
street
south
mr.
L
Chitlik
sorry,
I
just
had
to
meet
myself
because
we're
running
long.
I
know
we're
not
late
but
we're
running
long.
I
I
want
to
remind
talk
about
something
quickly,
which
is
how
equity
residential
is
reporting.
This
case
in
last
case,
in
the
next
case-
and
I
say
that
because
when
we
focus
on
three
year
averages
we
were
instructed
by
the
assessor
and
the
board
and
really
everybody
to
change
the
way
it
was
reported.
If
we
want
fair
consideration
and
that's
what
was
done
for
calendar
year,
18
and
calendar
year
19..
L
So
when
you
see
an
increase
in
expenses
like
you
do
in
this
case
or
the
last
case
for
calendar
18,
and
you
see
it
for
calendar
year
19,
you
realize
that's
not
just
because
the
property
became
more
expensive
to
run.
It
is
that
they
are
now
reporting
the
way
the
county
has
instructed
us
to
report,
and
I
understand
that
it
takes
time
to
stabilize,
but
we
have
two
years
of
that
now.
In
addition,
the
numbers
that
we're
reporting
are
still
below
at
or
below
guidelines.
L
So
it's
not
like
we're
saying:
hey,
look,
we're
a
high
expense
property
here.
It
is
it's
here's
why
we're
now
more
closer
to
the
average?
No
better
example
than
this
case,
and
when
you
look
at
the
operating
expenses
that
the
assessor
used,
he
knew
that
they
were
1.2
1.3,
one
point
basically
1.5
and
he
said
okay
I'll
take
an
average
of
that
I'm
going
to
use.
L
What's
essentially,
1.425
he's
now
learned
that
the
19
operating
expenses
are
1.57,
so
he's
about
140
000,
light
on
the
operating
expenses
of
the
property,
and
if
you
look
at
the
three
year,
average
he's
right
in
line.
However,
I'd
ask
that
on
these
cases
you
look
more
at
a
two-year
average
to
see.
Is
he
more
in
line,
or
is
this
more
correct
because
you
know
from
testimony
and
looking
at
numbers
and
being
on
the
board
and
hearing
everything
that
you've
seen
that
the
18
and
19
for
this?
L
These
properties
are
different
than
every
other
property
that
you
see
where?
Maybe
it
is
a
5
10
20
year,
stabilized
reporting
all
equally.
So
when
the
county
says,
I'm
gonna
look
at
a
three
year
average
on
expenses,
what
they
won't
do
is
take
a
three
year
average
on
income
because,
as
they
know,
the
three
year
average
of
income
would
not
include
the
rubs
for
2017.,
so
they're
correct
and
it's
appropriate
to
not
use
the
three
year
average
on
income,
because
again
they
would
they
would
take
the
2017
without
rubs.
L
Then
average
it
with
two
years
over
up.
So
what
they
do.
Is
they
look
at
the
most
recent
years
for
the
income
and
really
the
2019
and
say?
How
was
that?
Was
I
online,
and
is
it
correct
in
this
case
they
determined
that
they
were
if
you're,
looking
just
at
the
20
at
the
analysis,
you're,
seeing
that
the
column
c,
which
is
all
they
had
at
the
time,
was
6.1
million
and
they
were
using
noi
of
about
6.4
million.
L
Now,
knowing
after
the
fact,
you
know
what
they
were
actually
right,
they
projected
that
correctly,
because
now
they
have
the
2019.
Their
actuals
are
in
line
with
the
2019..
However,
they
didn't
make
the
same
concessions
when
it
comes
to
the
operating
expenses.
They
saw
that
the
income
was
6.1,
the
gross
potential
and
the
expenses
were
1.48.
L
L
I
I'd
ask
that
when
you
hear
three
year
average
said
over
and
over
and
over
again
that
you
think
back
to
all
the
conversations
that
we
had
either
where
I
was
told
that
if
we
want
fair
consideration,
this
client
better
start
reporting
it
the
way
it
needs
to
be
reported
and
they
did,
and
they
did
that
last
year
and
they
did
that
this
year,
but
to
still
penalize
them
by
saying
three
year:
averages
on
incomes
and
expenses.
L
I
think
is
greatly
is
a
total
injustice
to
them,
especially
when
you're,
comparing
how
these
properties
are
assessed
to
like
properties
in
the
county,
so
that
that's
really
what
I
have
on
this,
this
property
is
it's
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
per
unit
and
it's
a
it's
a
lost
property.
It's
three
stories,
four
stories:
it's
not
a
high-rise
property
like
a
lot
of
the
ones
in
pentagon
city.
This
is
one
of
the
first
nice
different
properties
in
pentagon
city.
L
But
obviously,
since
that
happened,
there's
been
a
dramatic
change
and
shift
in
what
is
going
on
in
that
area.
This
is
a
force,
four-story
property,
so
it's
being
treated
a
bit
differently
than
your
typical
high-rise
apartment
building.
So
that's
what
I
have
I'd
ask
you
to
look
at
the
most
recent
operating
expenses,
which
are
the
big,
the
big
issue
in
this
case,
and
and
I
do
question
why
chris
wouldn't
retest
it,
knowing
that
his
operating
expenses
were
low
by
150
000.
M
Yes,
ma'am
so
similar
to
last
case.
Property
is
performing
extremely
well
three
years
in
a
row
of
continued
growth
apartment
revenue
up
three
years
in
a
row.
2018's
growth
is
the
highest
in
the
last
four
years
at
4.3
percent.
M
We
have
parking
revenue
that
was
down
by
approximately
five
percent,
but
other
revenues
up
about
twelve
and
a
half
percent
rubs
utility
reimbursement
up
three
and
three
and
point
four
percent
that
led
to
gross
potential
income
up
three
years
ago,
again,
17
18,
19.
M
19's
increase
again
the
largest
in
the
last
four
years
at
4.3
percent
growth.
We
look
at
the
vacancy
stabilizing,
it's
gone.
True.
Vacancies
gone
down
three
years
in
a
row.
True
vacancy
is
that
three
year,
average
of
3.5
percent
vacancy
and
concession
when
you
include
rent
concessions,
is
down
two
years
in
a
row
again
stabilized
with
a
two-year
average
of
four
percent.
Excuse
me,
three
or
three
year
average
of
four
percent
that
led
to
effective
gross
also
increasing
year
over
year
over
year.
M
Again,
no
surprise
2019's
increased
the
highest
over
the
last
four
years
of
4.3
percent.
We
look
at
the
noi,
which
has
been
up
two
years
in
a
row
even
with
the,
which
is
funny,
because
it's
the
same
two
years
that
the
operating
expenses
have
increased
per
mr
chip.
M
M
So
for
mr
chipley's
claim
that
we
didn't
test
to
increase
the
operating
expenses
if
we'd
done
so,
obviously
we
would
have
looked
to
see
the
stabilized
performance
of
the
property
increased
the
effect
of
gross
income
projection
as
well,
given
that
we
underprojected
across
the
board,
given
the
performance
of
the
property
year
over
year
every
year.
M
A
A
No
okay,
mr
chicas,
anything
else.
You
need
to
tell
us
no
ma'am,
okay,
mr
chitlik.
L
G
L
I
think
on
these
cases,
although
the
county
does
typically
take
a
three-year
average,
it
needs
to
be
understood
that
the
reporting
is
differently
the
last
two
years,
but
not
because
they
decided
they
wanted
to
report
differently,
but
because
they
were
instructed
to
do
so
by
the
county.
So
using
expenses
at
23,
when
the
last,
when
18's
expenses
were
25
percent
and
19's
expenses
were
over
25
percent.
When
guidelines
are
indicating
they
should
use
higher
than
what
they're
using,
I
think
is
missing
the
mark,
but
the
the
consistency
of
relying
on
three
or
average.
L
On
these
cases,
I
don't
think,
is
a
fair
way
to
approach
this
by
the
county
side,
especially
after
the
instructions
they've
given
us
to
correct
the
errors
that
have
been
made
in
the
past
and
their
acceptance
of
our
correctness,
corrections
of
those
errors,
so
there
is
no
three
year
average
use
for
the
gross
potential
income
of
these
properties.
L
A
A
You
know
differently,
so
that
we
would
have
a
more
accurate
look
at
their
expenses,
but
you
know
when
I
take
the
two
numbers
in
I
mean
throwing
out
16
and
17,
and
just
looking
at
18
and
19,
and
you
take
the
the
totals
from
column,
d1
and
d2.
E
I
agree
with
you
mary
I
wrote
down
after
I
reviewed
this.
I
don't
quite
follow
what
the
gripe
is
and-
and
I
I
hear
the
presentation
by
the
applicant-
and
I
just
I
just
don't
see
the
gripe
at
least
on
this
one-
I
don't
maybe
on
others,
it's
going
to
be
more
obvious.
A
K
Yeah,
I
agree,
I
think
you
know.
Sometimes
we
hear
cases
that
we
when
they
want
to
make
a
change
based
on
the
performance
of
one
year.
K
In
this
case,
it
wouldn't
be
convenient
to
make
the
changes
based
on
2019
by
looking
at
the
past
two
years,
and
I
think
you
know
I
would
have
looked
at
a
little
higher
noi
even
based
on
just
you
know,
2019
and
like
you,
I
did,
but
I
did
averages
for
three
years
two
years
and
I
don't
think
it
would
have
come
to
any,
maybe
a
little
bit
lower
on
a
three-year
average,
but
I'm
I'm
comfortable
the
with
the
assessment.
The
way
it
is
right
now.
H
I
thought
mary's
analysis
was,
is
compelling
so
and
the
noise
coming
out
just
a
tad
lower
than
2019,
and
so
my
question
is:
why
is
the
the
assessed
value
going
up
over
four
percent?
Is
it
a
cap
rate
issue?
Is
the
cap
rate
change
from
last
year?
To
this?
I
wish
I
had
thought
of
that
during
question
and
answer.
K
H
Guess
I
mean
I,
I
can't
imagine,
there's
a
multiplication
mistake
made
here,
but
that's
maybe
what
this
whole
case
is
really
about
that
the
county
did
well,
and
cap
rates
felt
okay.
O
E
L
All
right,
thank
you.
So
this
case
is
actually
quite
different
than
the
other
cases.
The
this
one
was
not
reported
correctly.
They
reported
11.7
percent,
seven
percent
operating
expenses,
which
is
down
from
the
745
thousand
dollars
in
operating
expenses
they
used
last
year,
the
county
tested
it
and
when
they
tested
it
they
came
up
much
higher.
But
one
of
the
reasons
is
on
this
property
they're
using
a
zero
percent
vacancy.
L
So
in
the
original
assessment
it
is
a
six
percent
vacancy
and
then
a
20
operating
expense.
Skyline
expenses,
as
you
know,
would
be
dramatically
higher
than
that,
and
then
they
said
you
know
what
let's
go
ahead
and
test
this.
They
tested
it
as
17
operating
expenses
with
a
zero
percent
vacancy.
So
our
opinion
of
value
here
is
to
use
the
correct
guideline
operating
expenses.
L
In
the
earlier
case,
lori
told
rebecca
before
we
came
to
the
hearing
that
look,
you've
submitted
income
and
since
you
submitted
income,
you
no
longer
qualify
for
using
the
guidelines.
You're
now
going
to
use
your
actual
well,
this
property
clearly
there's
an
issue
with
the
submitted
operating
expense
which
we're
going
to
correct
going
forward,
but
using
expenses
that
are
so
low
and
completely
unsupportable,
I
think
is-
is
a
miss
of
a
mark.
L
If
we
came
in-
and
I've
said
this
before,
if
we
came
in
with
80
operating
expenses
for
four
straight
years,
I
don't
think
chris
would
say:
hey
it's
80,
that's
what
we're
going
to
use
they're
going
to
stabilize
it
and
typically
when
they
stabilize
it,
they're
going
to
stabilize
it
to
guidelines
so
using
a
17
op
x
here
with
a
zero
percent
vacancy,
I
think,
is
completely
missing
the
mark
on
how
this
property
should
be
valued.
L
Our
operating
expenses
being
used
are
based
off
of
the
guidelines
in
lieu
of
actuals,
so
we've
taken
the
guideline:
we've
taken
the
operating
expenses,
the
gross
potential
that
there's
no
dispute
there,
the
vacancy
this
is
a
1986
building
in
crystal
city
at
six
percent
and
a
cap
rate
of
a
five
point:
four
nine
percent.
L
Typically,
the
cap
rates,
the
cap
rates-
are
unsupportably
low
and
that's
not
something
I'm
gonna
get
in
my
soapbox
to
talk
about,
because
I
know
it's
not
something
that
we
changed,
but
one
of
the
ways
that
it's
supported
is
that
the
noise
are
often
compressed
because
the
vacancy
is
being
used
to
the
vacancy
being
used
is
typically
on
the
higher
side.
So
if
you
use
a
six
percent
vacancy,
you
can
get
away
with
a
five
and
a
half
percent
cap
rate.
L
But
if
then,
if
you
drop
your
vacancy
to
zero
percent
and
still
say
well,
it's
a
five
and
a
half
percent
cap
rate.
You,
you
clearly
have
a
bit
of
an
issue
there,
so
our
guidelines
are.
Our
expenses
are
seven
thousand
six
hundred
forty
one
dollars
per
unit.
L
The
assessor's
guidelines,
I'm
sorry,
the
assessor's
expenses
are
4
500
per
unit,
so
the
arlington
county
guidelines
for
a
high
rise
apartment
building
built
in
1986,
is
7
641
per
unit,
and
that's
what
we've
incorporated
here,
which
is
1.2
million
dollars
so
to
test
it
with
no
vacancy,
I
think,
is,
is
just
to
say,
hey
look.
I
got
a
history
and
this
is
what
it
is
clearly
there's
an
issue
with
what
was
reported
that
again
we
need
to
clean
up,
but
just
to
say,
hey,
that's
how
it's
reported.
L
That's
what
we're
going
to
use,
I
think
is,
is
incorrect
and
in
lieu
of
actuals
you
would
use
guidelines.
We've
used
guidelines
here
and
that's
where
our
value
comes
at
54
million.
Previously
one
of
the
questions
asked
was
why
the
increase
on
the
last
case
is
a
cap
rate.
It
wasn't
cap
rate,
they
used
a
higher
income
and
lower
expenses.
Despite
the
expenses
coming
up
higher,
this
property
is
seeing
a
four
million
dollar
increase
over
the
last
year,
which
was
a
three
million
dollar
increase
of
the
year
prior.
L
So
this
property's
gone
up
seven
million
dollars
since
2017
the
income's
relatively
stable
since
then,
so
we're
seeing
a
rather
large
increase
year
every
year,
and
it
seems
because
again
the
the
there's
no
question
of
the
gpi.
The
gpis
are
right
on
top
of
each
other.
Obviously
he
used.
Originally,
it
was
3.5
3.7
3.8
he
used
3.97.
L
It
was
3.95.
He
was
right
on
top
of
it.
So
there's
no
dispute
there
he's
using
a
six
percent
vacancy
again
on
the
original
assessment,
no
dispute
there,
but
then
he's
using
a
4
500
operating
expense,
which
is
where
the
dispute
comes.
But
then,
when
you
test
it,
he
takes
away
that
vacancy
completely
and
then
drops
the
operating
expenses
to
lower
than
what
they
were
in
2018.
Even
though
2018
was
clearly
dramatically
too
low,
there
is
no
utility
cost.
There
is
no
sub
janitorial
cost.
The
property
has
utilities,
the
property
has
janitorial
expenses.
A
M
Ma'am,
I
think
mr
chipwick
kind
of
oversells
under
delivers,
especially
on
this
property,
given
that
this
is
a
very
unique
situation
in
that
this
is
a
master
lease
that
was
essentially
signed
over
to
oakwood.
M
Hence
why
the
reporting
operating
expenses
are
so
different
from
other
properties,
let
alone
equity
properties.
You
can
see
that
again.
Historically,
mr
chidwick
used
the
word
guidelines
in
lieu
of
actuals.
The
actuals
were
received
in
16
17,
18
and
19,
and
the
actuals
pointed
to
a
property.
M
That's
gone
up
in
revenue
three
years
in
a
row
and
will
continue
to
do
so
under
the
terms
of
the
lease
in
place,
increases
the
five
point:
six
percent,
seventeen
three
point:
three
percent
and
eighteen
and
two
point:
eight
percent
nineteen
now
there's
no
vacancy
because
again
that's
to
be
incurred
by
the
the
leasi
in
this
case,
oakwood,
not
equity.
M
M
When
you
look
and
compare
to
what
the
county
did,
we
underprojected
gross
potential
income
by
just
shy
of
two
thousand
dollars,
essentially
nothing
five,
ten,
five
one
hundreds
of
one
percent,
but
we
also,
of
course
under
projected
the
effective
gross,
because
we
did
in
fact
apply
a
six
percent
guideline
vacancy
in
concession
when
there
is
none
we
over
projected
operating
expenses
by
two
hundred
and
eighty
again
very
much
in
line
with
what
was
received
in
the
years
2016
through
18..
M
M
M
M
A
Okay,
thank
you
questions
from
the
board.
I
I
I
really
feel
I
only
have
comments
on
this,
but
I
I'm
going
to
jump
in
here
and
ask
a
question
of
the
appellant,
but
I
want
a
very
brief
answer
because
again,
I'm
not
sure
why
we're
here
in
this
case,
but
for
the
appellant,
do
you
actually
believe
in
your
column
g
numbers
that,
regardless
of
what,
whether
we're
using
guidelines
or
actuals
or
whatever
that
your
number
comes
in
a
million
dollars
less
than
what
was
reported
in
2019?
L
Okay,
because
we're
here
to
value
the
the
apartment,
building,
not
the
business,
that's
operated
inside
the
apartment
building
and
the
county
appears
to
have
decided
that
they're
going
to
value
the
actual
business
operations
of
the
apartment,
building,
not
the
actual
real
estate
in
their
job.
L
L
And
we
believe
the
answer
is
yes,
so
it
should
be
valued
as
an
apartment
building
not
as
a
business
operated
inside
you're,
not
going
to
value
boston
mall
earlier,
based
on
the
number
of
sales
by
macy's
you're,
going
to
value
it
on
what
the
real
estate's
worth
and
we're
asking
you
to
treat
this
apartment
building
the
same
way
value.
It
is
what
the
real
estate's
worth
in
a
lieu
of
actual
operating
expenses.
You
would
need
to
use
guidelines.
A
I
asked
and
answered
okay
any
other
questions
from
board
members.
M
L
L
If
this
property,
this
real
estate,
does
it
have
utilities,
does
it
have
janitorial
and
if
so,
shouldn't
that
be
included
in
the
assessment,
and
my
position
is
yes:
if
it's
not
reported,
if
they
were
again,
if
they
reported
utilities
of
20
million
dollars,
you're
not
going
to
use
that
you're
going
to
stabilize
it
if
they
use
report
utilities
as
zero,
we've
all
been
around
real
estate
long
enough
to
know
you
do
pay
utilities
that
needs
to
be
included
in
this
case.
It's
not
so
I
will
I'll
sit
back
and
take
what's
coming.
Thank
you.
A
E
All
right,
madam
chairman,
I'll
start,
I
think
this
is
under
the
category
of
sometimes
you
don't
file
an
appeal,
because
I
think
next
year,
you're
going
to
get
an
up
in
your
assessment.
I
think
this
is
under
assessed.
E
Yeah
I
tinkered
with
the
figures
and
I
I
came
up
with
hot
figures
higher
than
54.
one
of
the
one
of
the
things
that
I
did
is
I
threw
in
the
vacancy
of
3.9,
not
the
6.0,
but
I
used
3.9
and
I
ended
up
with
50.
Was
it
58
something?
G
A
You
know
I
I
agree,
I
mean
I,
I
hear
what
the
appellant
is
saying
as
far
as
you
know,
don't
base
it
on
who's
in
there
doing
it
and
on
the
real
estate,
but
what's
being
generated
off
it
speaks
for
itself,
it's
very
stable.
I
don't
believe
even
if
you
adjust
for
those
two
issues
that
the
appellants
arguing,
it's
not
a
million
dollars
off
the
noi
to
you
know
adjust
for
those
two
things.
You
know
I
don't.
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
the
county.
K
Yeah,
normally
on
this,
you
know
any
case
that
we
have
apartments.
I
look
at
the
rent
rolls
and
you
know
when
I
went
back
to
all
the
pages.
Of
course,
there's
no
rent
rolls
because
it's
a
master
lease
everything
is
leased
to
oakwood,
so
there's
a
guaranteed
stream
of
income
and
you
can
see
year
after
year.
K
I
mean
we
don't
know
the
terms.
You
know
we
don't
know
the
escalation
clauses
that
they
have,
but
the
income
itself
is
going
up
year
after
year.
So
I
think
the
county
did.
You
know
a
favor
really
by
putting
the
vacancy
there
and
yeah.
I
agree.
I
think
the
full
value
of
this
property
is
under
assessed,
but
I'm
okay
with
the
current
assets.
The
way
it
is.
F
Yeah
I
mean
I
just
I'm
just
running
some
math
and
I
think
that
if
I'm
looking
at
this
correctly,
oakwood
is
probably
paying
below
market
towards
the
end
of
their
lease
term,
and
so,
when
you
get
to
that
expiration
date,
the
decision
is
either
oakwood
renews
and
they're
going
to
pay
more
or
or
you
fill
this
up
and
make
it
a
apartment
building.
You
know
traditional
apartment
building
and
in
in
that
case,
it's
going
to
go
more
towards
the
guideline
rents,
which
are
significantly
higher
than
what
the
county
is
using.
So
I'm.
G
B
A
L
You
greg
oakwood
oakwood
renewed
last
year,
just
a
heads
up
for
when
we
get
to
it.
A
F
A
Business
from
members,
no
anything
from
the
county
staff,
no
just
jose
you
weren't
on
earlier,
but
the
on
june
orders
need
to
get
to
the
treasurer's
office
by
the
end
of
the
week.
So
I
think
you
sent
the
corrections
to
rosa
she's
going
to
send
them
back
to
you.
We
need
to
get
those
signed
and.