►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing October 6, 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).
A
Wednesday
october
6th
2021-
and
this
is
the
arlington
county-
virginia
board
of
equalization
hearing,
there's
four
cases
on
the
agenda.
The
first
rpc
is
one:
seven:
zero,
zero
one,
zero
one
one
property
located
at
1000,
wilson
boulevard.
I
understand
miss
foreman
and
mr
harmon
that
you
want
to
withdraw
this
and
accept
the
county's
number.
A
The
miss
barman,
the
original
number
correct,
yes,
okay,
all
right,
then
I
will
move
to
accept
the
withdrawal.
Do
I
have
a
second,
mr
madsken
is
the
second
all
in
favor
I
opposed
okay,
it
is
unanimous
six
to
zero.
The
withdrawal
is
accepted.
The
second
rpc
is
three
four
zero.
Two,
four
three,
four
one.
This
property
is
located
at
1480
crystal
drive
and
mr
harmony,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
Sir.
C
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chairwoman.
Members
of
the
board
chris
good
morning,
1480
crystal
drive,
is
the
crown
plaza
national
airport
hotel.
This
property
is
part
of
a
select
group
of
hotels
in
the
county
because
of
its
reliance
on
business,
travelers
and
airport
traffic.
It
is
a
fly
to
hotel
and
not
a
drive
to
hotel.
The
property
relies
on
airline
traffic,
airport
staff
and
airport
business.
Travelers
noi
at
the
property
decreased
131
in
2020
from
2019
for
some
context
as
to
why
this
hotel
is
different
from
others
in
the
county.
It
should
be
evaluated
as
such.
C
This
property
again
caters
to
business
travelers.
We
have
the
2019
and
2020
data
from
the
property
on
occupied
room
nights
and
revenue
generated
from
each
category
of
guests.
At
this
hotel
in
2019,
over
69
percent
of
the
hotel's
occupied
room
nights
were
business
travelers.
This
fell
to
52
percent
in
2020.
C
At
the
same
time,
leisure
traveler
traveled
through
third
party
aggregators,
which
is
the
least
profitable
segment
with
an
adr
that
is
only
45
percent
of
the
adr
of
business.
Travelers
increased
from
two
percent
of
room
nights
in
2019
to
17
of
room
nights
in
2020.
This
is
over
an
850
percent
increase.
C
This
shift
in
type
of
traveler
decreases
revenue
while
requiring
the
same
expenses
per
occupied
room
night.
Revenue
from
business
travel
in
2020
was
at
an
adr
of
122
and
58
versus
54.55
cents
for
third-party
aggregators.
However,
the
expenses
required
for
each
of
these
types
of
travelers
remains
the
same.
C
This
also
reduces
revenue,
while
maintaining
expenses
based
on
occupied
room
nights,
the
shift
to
less
profitable
bookings
results
in
a
large
loss
of
revenue.
However,
again
the
operating
expenses
are
not
affected,
since
the
service
is
required
to
operate
a
hotel
or
tied
to
occupancy
and
not
the
type
of
guest.
C
The
clientele
at
this
property
is
shifting
from
higher
higher
margin,
business
travelers
to
lower
margin,
aggregator
travelers,
we
look
at
the
actual
time
of
booking
provided
by
the
client.
Pre-Pandemic
bookings
were
made
an
average
of
60
days
before
the
stay
during
2020
and
as
of
the
date
of
value,
this
figure
has
fallen
to
an
average
of
five
days.
C
Clearly,
this
property's
type
of
traveler
that
patronizes
the
property
has
shifted.
This
shift
again
is
to
less
profitable
leisure
travelers
and
is
likely
to
remain
over
the
next
few
years.
Given
the
headwinds
faced
by
business
travel,
the
shift
to
online
virtual
meetings
for
business
is
seismic
and
will
have
a
measurable
effect
on
the
property's
operations
to
assume
business
travel
will
reach
pre-pandemic
levels
in
2021
or
shortly
thereafter
is
highly
speculative.
C
The
decreased
revenue
but
steady
operating
expenses
created
by
the
shift
and
type
of
traveler
leads
to
a
much
lower
noi.
The
county's
test
column
has
revenue
lower
than
2018-2019
at
the
average
2018-2019
occupancy
of
71
percent,
while
imputing
expenses
as
a
percentage
of
revenue
based
mirroring
the
same
2019
operating
expense
percentage
of
revenue.
C
C
D
D
Given
the
information
that
the
county
had
at
the
time
it
made
the
assessment
and
given
the
information
that
it
used
when
comparing
he
they
had
18
and
19
when
they
made
the
21
assessment,
but
yet
they
reduced
the
operating
expenses
substantially.
As
mr
harman
has
said,
the
operating
expenses
of
this
property
are
not
going
to
change
based
on
the
type
of
guest.
D
The
other
thing
I
just
want
to
touch
on
is
previously.
Mr
bailey
has
mentioned
two
sales
at
the
in
arlington.
One
of
them
is
the
sale
of
amazon
that
completed
the
11.6
acre
site.
D
D
So
I
think
it's
somewhat
disingenuous
to
hear
that
the
other
thing
I'd
like
to
mention
in
addition
to
the
expenses
which
clearly
should
be
much
higher,
is
the
fact
that,
as
a
percent
of
appeals,
you
know
mr
chicas
mentioned
last
week
that
30
the
county
had
heard
30
board
cases
on
park
on
hotels,
there's
only
44
hotels
in
the
county
of
those,
I
would
say
at
least
75
percent-
have
appealed.
D
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chikas,
for
the
county.
Please.
E
Yes,
ma'am
good
morning
board
members,
mrs
borman,
mr
harmon.
Just
to
start
there,
this
property
filed
last
year
filed
in
2018.
I
think
it
fires
files
in
perpetuity
almost
all
of
our
hotels,
follow
every
year.
So
I
don't
think
that
has
any
standing
on
2020
or
beyond
it's
just
again.
It's
a
metric
of
looking
at.
E
Are
and
their
propensity
to
file
to
the
board
or
to
for
review?
So
it's
not
that
strange
that
all
of
them
filed
in
2020
can
possibly
have
irving,
look
and
see
how
many
filed
in
2019,
if
that's
for
some
reason,
something
the
board's
interested
in
so
again
we're
looking
at
crown
plaza.
The
board
is
very
familiar.
E
E
The
county
did
make
an
adjustment,
as
noted
by
ms
borman,
mr
harman,
noting
that
the
decrease
in
revenue,
as
well
as
the
decrease
in
noi
we
matched
not
only
the
decrease
in
revenue,
but
are
very
much
in
in
play
with
what's
been
going
on
at
the
property,
we
heard
the
word
speculation
repeatedly
and
then
they
use
speculative
comments
about
what's
going
to
happen
with
expenses.
E
We
think
it
makes
much
more
sense
to
look
at
the
operating
history
as
portrayed
in
this
summary
sheet,
and
this
is
what's
been
achieved
at
the
property.
There's
no
speculation
needed
when
you
look
at
the
total
revenue.
If
you
take
the
time
to
look
at
averages
over
the
years,
17
18
19,
with
20,
essentially
being
an
informational
wash
year,
17,
18
and
19
showed
that
the
county
is
actually
low
on
revenue.
Taking
a
look
at
operating
expenses,
17,
18
and
19
you'll
see
that
the
county
is
actually
high
on
operating
expenses.
E
You'll
take
a
look
at
the
operat
net
operating
income
for
17,
18
19
you'll,
see
that
the
county
again
is
low.
We've
made
this
adjustment
uniformly.
We've
made
this
throughout
the
year
of
full
service
and
select
service
got
a
negative,
65
percent
of
total
revenue.
This
is
reflective
of
the
tnt
numbers
that
were
reported
to
the
county.
E
E
We
did
call
for
31
drop
year
over
year
and
I
would
note
for
what
it's
worth
this
property
was
purchased
24
years
ago,
25
million
750
000.
E
So
the
idea
that
the
appellants
believe
it's
dropped
below
what
it
sold
for
24
years
ago,
based
off
of
one
year,
I
think,
would
be
disheartening
even
to
the
owner,
whom
we
actually
met
with
last
year
around
this
time.
E
E
As
far
as
population
and
tourism
set
records
in
2018
and
again
in
2019
for
those
visiting
arlington
county,
there
was
some
anticipation
that
that
record
would
be
broken
again
in
2020.
Obviously,
kova
changed
that
dramatically.
E
I
would
note
again:
we've
done
this
change
uniformly,
with
a
negative
65
percent
of
total
revenue
has
been
uniformly
with
all
the
other
full
service
and
select
service
properties.
We
did
make
an
adjustment
which
reflected
in
a
negative
31
adjustment
year
every
year.
That
being
said,
we
do
believe
the
revision
of
28
million
179
000
should
be
confirmed,
irving.
Anything
ted.
F
I
guess
I'll
speak
to
the
two
hotel
sales
that
was
mentioned.
The
reference
to
those
two
sales
was
because
of
the
last
case
in
which
the
appellant
asks
for
the
property
to
be
valued
less
than
the
land.
So
that's
why
I
mentioned
these
two
sales,
because
clearly
these
two
sales
were
purchased
for
their
land.
F
They
were
well
above
what
the
property
was
assessed
for,
and
that
was
the
reason
why
those
cells
were
mentioned.
That
was
also
stated
during
that
particular
hearing
as
to
why
I
was
mentioning
those
two
cells,
and
I
also
informed
the
board
that
earlier
in
the
year
in
boe
briefing
and
during
that
case,
that
we
did
not
use
those
sales
to
adjust
land,
we
chose
to
wait
to
see
if
we
see
any
more
sales
coming
in
and
we
do
have
two
sales
that
came
in
this
year,
so
hopefully
that'll
help
us
for
2022..
D
Yes,
in
fact,
there
have
been,
there
are
no
contracts
as
of
january
1
2021
and
there
are
currently
no
contracts.
But,
yes,
a
number
of
the
rooms
released
out
to
at
least
one
airline
at
the
that
operated
out
of
national
is
jetblue.
G
For
the
applicant,
I
have
two
quick
questions.
First,
one
is,
you
might
have
said
this
and
I
just
didn't
capture
it.
There's
less
business
travel
this
this
past
year
and
but
visitors
travel
who
pay
less
per
night,
wasn't
as
nearly
affected.
G
D
Jordan
can
get
that
for
you,
you
have
it.
C
D
Mr
matt,
if
I
can
just
clarify
that
and
and
make
sure
of
something
now,
that
is
in
fact
what
happened,
and
that
is
why
the
income
is
down
so
low
in
2020
and
the
operating
expenses
as
well.
I
think,
though,
what
I
want
to
be
sure
of
is
that
the
drea
revision
is
based
on
the
figure
jordan.
What
would
71
000
rooms,
71
percent
groomsbe,
so
the
drea
figure
is
not
based
on
an
occupancy
of
38
000.
G
Yeah,
you
know,
which
is
what
you
in
case
you
made
about
office
buildings,
but
that
leads
me
directly
to
my
second
quick
question
on
operating
expenses,
the
the
the
test
column
f
shows
about
a
one
percent
decrease
in
operating
expenses
from
2019.
G
So
in
your
appeal,
you're
talking
a
lot
about
how
operating
expenses
ought
to,
you
know
stay
up
even
if
revenue
goes
down
because
it's
based
on
occupied
and
and
I'm
assuming,
but
I
just
don't
see-
I
I
didn't
you
were
emphasizing
that
and
I
don't
see
very
very
little
difference
between
what
the
county
estimated
and
what
your
actuals
were.
Historically,
you
know
last
several
years
and
of
course,
they've
been
growing
over
time.
D
Well,
the
difference
between
10
million
655
and
10
million
793
is
a
substantial
difference.
10
million
655
is
what
is
in
column
f
for
expenses
and
10
million
793
is
what
is
in
column
c,
for
example,
that's
about
two
and
a
half
percent
yeah.
If
you
capitalize
that
amount,
that's
over
a
million
jordan.
What
was
that
number
that
you
said.
G
E
Yes,
ma'am,
mr
mitzkin,
I
would
point
out
mr
harmony
and
mrs
borman
talked
about
the
expenses,
but
not
about
the
income
again
they're
calling
for
a
higher
income
than
the
county
is
so,
while
they're
calling
for
a
higher
expenses,
they're
calling
for
a
higher
income.
E
Just
look
at
the
column
if
you
take
their
number
their
noi,
you
take
the
indicated
cap
rate
which
they're
not
arguing,
and
then
you
take
the
below
the
line
adjustment.
Then
you
take
an
appropriate
one-year
adjustment.
Their
value
is
actually
higher
than
the
counties.
So
it's
as
we've
said
all
year.
It's
a
matter
of.
Is
this
a
one-year
adjustment
or
two-year
adjustment
or
an
annual
assessment?
Let's
use
a
one
year
adjustment.
E
If
we're
going
to
do
that,
then
it
makes
more
sense
to
look
at
the
reflection
that
the
county's
made
in
the
revision
we're
lower
than
the
average
for
revenues
we're
higher
than
the
average
for
expenses
we're
lower
than
the
average
for
noi.
We've
reflected
the
downturn
in
revenue.
We've
reflected
the
downturn
in
ny,
we've
been
uniformly
accurate
and
reflecting
this
below
the
line
adjustment.
We
do
believe
that
the
negative
31
year-over-year
reflection
should
be
confirmed
in
the
revision,
the
value
of
28
million
179
000..
Thank
you.
C
Yes,
thank
you
so
I'd
like
to
to
center
on
what
the
argument
here
is.
Mr
chicas
keeps
referring
back
to
our
our
pro
forma
column,
which
was
submitted
at
the
beginning
of
the
year.
The
county
has
since
made
a
revision.
We
have
also
revised
our
arguments
based
on
that
revision.
It
is
disingenuous
to
say
the
county
gets
a
second
fight
at
the
apple,
but
we
do
not.
So
that
is
what
the
arguments
here
today
have
been.
C
If,
if
you
recall
I
I
was
speaking
to
expenses
in
the
test
column,
I
was
not
speaking
to
support
of
a
two-year
deduction
below
the
line.
So
the
the
argument
is
expenses
in
the
county's
revised
test
column
are
not
high
enough
to
accurately
reflect
the
occupancy
assumed
by
the
county's
test
column.
Now,
as
to
speculation,
mr
chica
spoke
to
us
using
specul
speculation
on
revenue
and
expenses.
C
G
G
We
do
it
on
office
spaces,
all
the
office
buildings
all
the
time,
because
there's
a
lot
more
of
them
that
appeal
than
hotels
and
at
first
I
was
a
little
flummoxed,
because
you
know
revenues
not
only
occupancy
down,
but
the
dollars
per
room
is
down
even
more
and
so
overall,
but
I
realized
where
I
started:
no,
no
we're,
assuming,
as
as
I
was
given,
71,
and
so
then
I
look
at
column,
f
and
all
of
a
sudden.
G
I
see
that
the
adjustment
is,
of
course,
as
per
usual
below
the
line,
but
the
the
assumptions
we
have
based
on
recent
years,
because
we
don't
know
yet
whether
2020
is
an
anomaly
or
a
new
trend,
particularly
for
airport
hotels,
as
we,
in
other
words,
are
there
going
to
be
fewer
higher,
paying
office,
fly-in
conference
business,
we
don't
care
what
we
pay
guess,
or
is
it
going
to
be
more
tourists
who
are
on
much
more
of
a
conscious
budget?
G
We
don't
know
yet,
so
it
seems
to
me
that
the
test
is
a
worthy
attempt
to
regularize
trends
until
we
find
out
if
there's
a
new
trend.
So
I'm
I'm
in
the
position
where
I
was
last
week
in
the
last
airport
hotel
that,
although
things
look
bleak,
we
don't
quite
yet
know.
G
B
Yeah,
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
disagree
with
ken
just
a
little
bit.
Can
I
I
I
think
that
that
the
the
you
know
the
issue
is
below
the
line.
I
agree
with
you
on
that.
I
agree
with
mr
chicas
and
the
county
has
selected
the
the
65
for
one
year
and
I
guess
you
could
say
well.
It
should
be
more
than
one
year
or
you
could
say
the
65
is
not
appropriate.
B
What
I
have
noticed
or
seen-
and
I
think
we
can
take
this
back
to
january-
1-
is
yes,
the
pandemic
is
still
out
there,
but
what
I
have
seen
reported
quite
a
bit
is
even
if
the
pandemic
ceases,
the
employees
just
don't
want
to
go
back
to
work
and
they
want
to
continue
to
be.
You
know
in
their
home
and
as
I
look
at
the
screen,
I
think
everybody
except
for
maybe
myself,
is
in
their
home
rather
than
their
office,
and
you
know
I
think
you
know
it's
speculative.
B
It's
going
to
work
out.
It's
only
one
year,
it's
speculative
it'll
be
two
years.
It's
speculative,
you
know
everything's
speculative,
and
so
I
think
we
have
to
make
kind
of
an
educated
guess,
and
I
think
that
that
perhaps
the
adjustment
that
would
be
appropriate,
it
is
below
the
line
and
I
don't
think
we
should
go
to
two
years,
but
I
think
the
65
is
probably
inadequate.
A
Agrees:
okay,
just
to
clarify
I'm
in
the
office.
I've
worked
in
for
20
years
and
I
believe,
marcus
as
well
and
greg.
B
H
Well,
I
I
think
the
county
has
done
like
because
you
know
with
all
the
other
hotels,
a
good
job
is
reconstructing
this.
You
know
everything
that
we're
looking
at
based
on
this
summary
sheet
is
lower
than
2019
it's
lower
than
what
the
the
appellant
is
proposing
and
just
to
take
one
number
just
expenses
just
to
transfer
to
you
know
I
agree
with
mr
chickas.
We
would
have
to
take
the
income
into
in
consideration.
H
Also,
we
can't
just
take
one
number
because
it
looks
better
or
we
make
it
better
and
for
purposes
of
equalizing
every
other
hotel
that
we've
seen
or
we've
had
as
a
an
appeal.
I
think
the
65
percent
you
know
was
used
and
I
think
we
have
to
continue
with
that.
I,
in
my
opinion,
is
an
appropriate
number,
so
I'm
okay
with
the
revised
assessment.
I
don't
see
any
problem
with
it.
A
Yeah,
I
I'm
just
going
to
jump
in
arrow,
real,
quick
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
you.
You
know
I
tend
to
agree
with
you.
I
know
that
there's
a
project
journey
that
the
airport
has
right
now
they're
getting
ready,
they're
already
using
it,
but
they're
unveiling
the
new
security
checkpoint,
the
new
concourse
they've
added
a
new
airline
to
the
airport.
You
know,
so
it
is
very
speculative
of
what
this
year's
numbers
are
going
to
look
like.
So
I
tend
to
lean
towards
the
county's
revision,
but,
mr
gates,
you
had
a
comment.
I
I
They
also
said
the
airlines
are
packed.
They
just
don't
have
as
many
planes
flying,
but
it's
it's
not
that
they
don't
have
the
contracts
they're
still
using
the
hotels
just
the
same
and
the
same
ones.
He
said
that
they
always
contracted
with
anyway.
Just
a
note.
A
J
Yeah
sorry,
I
had
to
call
in
earlier
because
my
network
went
down
so
I
was
on
the
cell
phone
listening,
but
I'm
okay
with
the
county.
I
just
think
90
000
a
key,
pretty
good
location,
pretty
good,
concrete
structure.
J
Pretty
good
long-term
trajectory
for
the
area,
you
could
take
three
four
years
and
say
you're
going
to
lose
a
million
million
and
a
half
a
year
and
add
all
that
up
and
you're
still,
you
know
under
120
000
a
key
coming
out
of
this
thing
in
2024
2025.
So
you.
J
High
level,
I
think
this
is
something
that
the
owners
are
holding
on
to
and
they're
gonna
they're
gonna
ride
it
out
and
they've
got
a
good
property
and
the
assessment's
probably
low.
If
you
ask
me.
G
A
A
Okay,
it's
five
to
one
with
the
exception
of
mr
lawson,
the
county's
revised
number
is
confirmed:
28
million
179
000
even.
A
C
E
D
A
E
H
Before
I'm
sorry,
mary,
I
think
this
is
really
not
a
withdrawal
they're
asking
for
a
reduction.
The
account
is
asking
for
a
reduction
to
the
revised
assessment.
A
A
A
A
A
Okay,
mr
panoranda,
all
in
favor,
okay,
that's
unanimous,
we'll
accept
the
county's
revision
on
that.
Okay.
Well,
that
certainly
completes
the
agenda
quite
quickly
here
this
morning.
Is
there
any
other
business
from
either
board
members
or
the
county.