►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - August 18, 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
Morning
it
is
tuesday
august
18
2020,
and
this
is
the
arlington
county
board
of
equalization
hearing.
The
first
case
today
is
rpc15078025
1200
north
irving
street.
Mr
sean
raiden
is
here
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
appellate.
Mr
raiden,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes.
B
Good
morning,
members
of
florida,
I
hope
everyone's
doing
well
good
morning
chris
government's
doing
well.
We
are
speaking
about
the
beacon
it's
a
multi-family,
with
retail,
located
at
1200
north
irving,
187
units.
B
You
know
the
the
main
issue
that
we're
dealing
with
this
year
is
really
just
it's.
The
income
and
the
issues
that
we're
seeing
is
that
the
county
is
just
not
quite
their
models,
just
don't
they're
overestimating
the
amount
of
income
that
these
this
property
is
generating
on
the
retail
and
the
multi-family
portion.
So
that's
why
we're
here?
B
Why
don't
we
go
ahead
and
discuss
basically
our
model,
so
we
found
that
when
we
were
looking
at
the
apartment
income,
the
noi
last
several
years
and
lower
than
the
county,
the
retail
same
thing-
we
just
aren't
reaching
that
level.
So
we
put
together
some
information
for
you.
We've
got
the
financials,
we've
got
them
all
charted
out
on
our
spreadsheets
and
you
can
see
how
the
income
is
just
not
quite
up
to
the
specifications
here
by
the
county.
B
I've
also
discussed
just
a
general
point
of
view
regarding
the
cap
rate
that
the
county
is
using.
It
does
appear
to
be
a
little
bit
low
by
all
means:
we've
gone
through
all
the
local
publications,
all
the
trade,
publications
or
cap
rate,
and
the
3.8
cap
rate
that
we're
using
here
just
is
just
appears
to
be
a
little
bit
low,
but
we
did
not
really.
B
When
we
put
together
this
package,
we
made
an
adjustment
for
we
added
50
basis
points,
but
you
could
also
look
at
these
cap
rate
publications
and
see
that
probably
50
basis
points
is
in
order
from
the
3.8
to
a
4.3
would
probably
be
appropriate.
So
I've
provided
all
of
the
major
publications
so
that
you
could
take
a
look
at
that
copyright
issue
as
well
all
right.
So,
let's,
let's
go
ahead
and
move
into
our
our
pro
formas
here,
so
what
we
did
on
the
apartment.
B
Again,
we
looked
at
the
actual
rent
roll
and
we
took
a
full
market
rent
for
for
our
stabilized
model.
You
can
see
the
actuals
are
on
the
left
and
then
we
used
other
income.
We
used
average
the
last
two
years
vacancy
last
two
years,
five
percent
last
two
years
on
los
lease
and
our
stabilized
model
came
out
with
a
5.3
on
the
income
and
we
went
down
used
expensive
again
last
few
years
again,
we
did
make
an
adjustment
for
over
1950
basis
points.
B
So
once
we've
gone
through
our
model
here,
using
a
the
same,
if
we
were
to
use
the
same
cap
rate
that
the
the
county's
using
the
3.8
we've
got
indicating
a
76
million
76.195
million,
if
used
a
4.3
cap
rate,
which
is
what
the
publications
are
showing
are
in
our
indicated
value-
is
69
million
452.
B
So,
let's
move
over
to
the
retail
portion.
That's
on
the
apartment
portion,
the
retail
portion
again,
the
actual
income
is
just
well
below
the
models
that
the
county
is
using.
If
you
look
at
the
models
here,
actual
income
of
337
631
last
year
again
and
there's
also
expenses
here
of
200
and
1000.-
not
all
the
expenses
are
passed
through
they've.
You
know
the
they've
also
accrued
a
good
amount
of
expenses
here,
the
actual
noi
for
the
last
two
years
well
below
what
the
county
has
we're.
B
Looking
at
136,
000
552
in
2019,
177
899
in
2018.
So
again
we
used
an
average
here.
Many
of
these
data
points
and
came
out
with
an
noi
of
about
170
08.96,
and
this
is
just
what
they've
generated
in
the
last
couple
years.
It's
similar
to
what
they've
generated
if
we
use
the
same
seven
cap,
not
even
not
making
an
adjustment
here
on
on
this
cap
rate,
we
come
out
with
a
value
of
about
two
point:
four
to
two
million
441
365
on
the
commercial
portion.
B
So
again
you
can
see
just-
and
this
is
on
our
our
the
green
pages
here,
the
page
five
we're
discussing
the
commercial
portion
and
again
just
well
below
what
the
county
has
in
their
models.
B
I've
got
some
articles
here.
This
is
mainly
related
to
so
we
can
kind
of
skip
through
that.
Knowing
from
previous
experience
that
kova
is
really
not
something
that
we're
going
to
discuss
today
and
that
be
an
issue
for
next
year.
But
there
are
some
articles
here
about
the
covent
effect
on
on
retail
and
apartments
and
we're
skipping
through
those
articles,
and
some
financials
are
on
page
24,
30.
B
and
near
the
back.
I've
got
the
articles
on
cap
rate,
and
that
starts
on
page
43,
which
we
have
the
pwc
regional
apartment
market
cap
rate
for
mid-atlantic
four
cap
to
6.79
5.13
is
the
average
on
on
pwc
the
the
cbre
report
for
washington
dc
showing,
and
this
is
class
a
this-
is
the
top
the
top
market,
the
top
multi-family
apartments,
and
they
have
a
cap
rate
of
4.25
to
4.75.
B
Then
we
have
the
irr
report
next
on
page
45
they're
showing
east
region
5.4
national
average
5.28
for
class
a
if
you
were
to
consider
this
south
region
and
5.36.
B
So
you
see
those
are
in
the
fives.
We
have
the
rerc
report
for
apartment,
multifamily,
dc,
first
tier,
which
is
your
your
best
quality
assets.
We're
talking
again
4.8
for
washington
dc
and
then
the
markets
and
military
multi-family
investment
forecasts
for
dc,
where
they
discuss
low
five
percent
zone
here
for
for
the
2020
cap
rate
and
that's
circled
here
for
you.
That's
on
page
47.,
that's
my
last
report,
so
you
can
see
compiled
all
the
major
reports
for
you.
B
B
C
Good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
sean
we
are
in
some
agreement
about
the
projections
made
based
upon.
What's
going
on
with
the
property
it
did
sell
in
2017
for
98
million
dollars
to
the
current
owner.
Obviously,
a
lot
of
that
was
based
on
the
principle
of
anticipation,
which
is
essentially
the
backbone
of
the
income
approach,
and
just
as
the
idea
that
the
value
is
really
based
off
of
future
benefits.
This
is
a
new
project,
a
lively
area
in
clarendon,
it's
a
mixed
use.
C
It
has
retail
and
apartment
component,
essentially
in
our
three-year
summary,
I'm
going
to
direct
you
to
focus
on
our
revision,
as
obviously
we
did
make
some
changes
to
the
assessment
based
on
the
2019
information
that
we
received.
C
We
believe
that
we're
fairly
spot
on
with
the
apartment
side,
in
the
sense
that
you
can
see
by
looking
at
true
vacancy
there's,
a
two-year
average
of
6.2
percent-
excuse
me
4.5
with
vacancy
and
concession
having
an
average
of
6.2
percent,
so
the
building
is
doing
a
fairly
good
job
of
stabilizing
itself.
As
far
as
occupancy,
there
was
an
uptick
in
2019,
that's
mostly
due
to
concessions,
which
of
course
go
hand
in
hand
with
solidifying
the
occupancy
base,
the
the
primary
difference
we
had
and
what
we
saw
was
the
retail
projection.
C
C
We
noted
that
the
largest
tenant
was
essentially
not
meeting
its
gross
potential
we
reached
out
to
the
to
the
agent.
Those
emails
can
be
found
on
page
23
of
132
and
found
that
the
that
particular
tenant
was
a
restaurant.
That
was
having
some
trouble
in
its
initial
year,
anecdotal
or
otherwise.
C
Even
still
when
we're
looking
at
what
we
do
in
the
office
is
a
is
a
true
gross
potential.
Hence
the
the
that
name
gross
potential
income.
So
we
did
make
an
adjustment
to
the
rental
rate
per
square
foot
rate
that
we're
using
for
the
property,
as
you
can
see
in
column,
h2,
to
project
that
a
good
bit
down,
but
again
still
expecting
that
the
pass-throughs
that
are
associated
with
the
rent
roll
that
was
included
would
be
achieved.
C
So
the
apartment
side,
h1,
we
feel
is-
is
fairly
spot
on
with
the
trends
that
are
going
on
at
the
property.
You
know
there
was
a
modest
downturn
in
apartment.
Revenue
of
approximately
two
tenths
of
a
percent
retail
was
actually
up
about.
13.6
percent
parking
was
up.
Eight
percent
pass-throughs
were
up
rubs
or
the
utility
reimbursements
were
up,
so
the
sky
isn't
necessarily
falling
as
it
may
be
projected
by
the
agent.
The
total
gross
potential
income
is
up
about
a
half
percent.
C
The
effective
growth
did
go
down.
It
took
down
about
1.2,
but
again
we
think.
That's
mostly
due
to
the
concessions
which
increased
by
two
percent
operating
expenses
up
two
percent
in
2019.
They
had
a
two-year
average
of
just
shy
of
1.6
million
or
25
percent
of
the
effective
gross,
and
again
there
was
a
downturn
in
total
net
operating
income
by
approximately
2.3
percent.
But
again
it
makes
sense
when
you
give
that
the
operating
expenses
went
up
and
effective
gross
went
down.
C
C
We
look
at
that
average
and
it's
a
good
bit
higher
than
what's
been
projected
by
the
agent.
The
agent's
noi
projection
is
actually
lower
by
some
300
000
in
the
lowest
year
that
the
income
was
achieved.
C
So
we
we
don't
believe
that
that's
a
very
fair
projection
going
forward
effort
to
use
that
information,
whereas
our
revision,
we
made
sure
that
we
were
in
line
with
the
operating
expense
averages
that's
going
on
at
the
property,
our
average
operating
expense.
Actually,
we
projected
an
increase
of
2.2
percent
and
a
fairly
modest
gross
potential
increase
of
1.6
that
did
call
for
a
overall
increase
at
the
property,
approximately
3.3
percent.
C
But
again
we
do
believe
that
would
follow,
given
that
the
property
is
stabilizing
the
area
that
it's
in
and
it's
not
a
typical
situation
where
you
have
a
tenant
not
paying
rent
for
one
year
again,
that's
a
management
decision.
So,
while
we
understand
it,
it
should
not
necessarily
impact
the
gross
potential
of
the
project,
especially
given
that
they
are
at
least
signed
tenant.
C
Given
all
that
information,
we
do
believe
that
the
revision
offered
in
column,
h1
and
h2
91
842
300,
should
be
confirmed
as
fahrenheit.
Thank
you.
D
B
Okay,
I'm
sorry
I
my
computer.
I
could
not
hear
you
very
well.
Can
you
say
that
one
more
time
sorry.
B
So
let
me
see
here
when
you're
speaking
of
loss
and
rent,
you
know,
essentially
what
we
found
was
that
they
are
giving
some
additional
concessions.
They
are
not
quite
the
market.
Rent
that
they
are
projected
is
not
really
what
they
are
receiving.
B
So
it's
a
combination
of
concessions
of
lower
rent
being
offered
for
tenants
and
some
vacancy
that's
upticked
a
little
bit
that
led
to
the
overall
loss
of
rent
income
this
year
and
we
kind
of
went
to
a
stabilized
model
where
we
use
the
rent
roll
the
full
market
on
the
bottom
of
the
rental
to
come
up
with
our
income
and
that's
how
we
did
it.
But
you
know
it's
generally,
that's
that's
what
we've
seen.
B
It's
a
combination
of
lower
rent
and
and
actual
concessions
like
free
rent
for
two
months,
or
something
like
this.
That's
led
to
that
number.
C
And
so
you
can
actually
see
that's
one
reason
why
we
made
these
adjustments
in
column
b
and
g
from
their
accrual
budget
is
there's
a
line
item
that
says,
rent
achieved
and
then
gain
or
lost
the
lease
and
essentially
will
either
be
in
parentheses,
to
to
show
you
that
it's
a
loss
or
a
positive
number,
but
effectively
if
you're,
looking
at
the
actuals,
that's
what's
represented
in
column,
d
and
g
and
that's
why
there's
such
a
difference
in
column
f
and
is
that
it's
showing
the
potential
and
then
it's
showing
what
they
actually
receive.
D
E
C
And
so,
when
you
look
at
the
average
of
18
and
19,
you
come
up
with
a
much
different
number
if
they
were
able
to
achieve
that
number
listed
in
column
f,
you
know
we
wouldn't
be
near
as
argumentative
as
far
as
what
they
can
achieve,
but
what
they're
actually
achieving
is
represented
in
column,
d
and
g
and
that's
again
even
a
two-year
average
is
well
above
what
the
appellant
suggests
they
can
make.
Even
with
that
loss
to
lease.
B
Okay,
3.8
3.8,
oh
yeah,
that's
the
the
3.8
is
the
county
cap
rate.
When
you
add
in
the
tax
rate
it
comes
to
it's:
it's
3.8,
plus
the
tax
rate
and
the
0.2
reserve
1.350,
the
total
cap
rate
being
5.150.
F
B
So
well,
the
total
cap
rate
is
a
5.15
that
includes
the
county
taxes
plus
their
reserve.
So
the
actual
cap
rate
being
used
here
unloaded
is
a
3.8.
B
And
then
we
add
in
tax
rate,
you
don't
count
the
real
estate
tax
in
the
model
and
add
it
back
at
the
bottom.
So
so
the
cap
rate
that
the
county's
using
3.8
found
it
to
be
based
on
the
industry
publications,
and
these
are
things
that
anybody
looking
to
purchase
here
would
be
looking
at
in
the
market.
They
are
all
above
3.8
there's
none
that
even
dip
into
three,
and
so
that
was
the
reason
why
we
felt.
C
Yes,
yeah
it's
essentially,
mr
lawson
is
what
it
is
as
far
as
the
the
rates
that
we
include
are
loaded
with
effective
tax
rate.
We've
seen
that
before
we
post
our
cap
rates
in
the
guidelines
that
are
presented
to
the
owners
and
agents
with
anyone
who
requests
them,
they
are
broken
down
by
a
property
type
they're
broken
down
by
metro
accessibility.
G
And
I
might
want
to
add,
we
also
had
two
sales
occur
in
the
county
that
were
below
3.8
one
cell,
and
this
was
even
published
in
costar.
We
had
one
cap,
rated
3.6
and
the
cap
rated.
I
think
three
have
it
right
here
ground.
We
have
two
cap
rates
at
3.6
and
these
were
sales
that
occurred
in
the
county
within
the
last
year.
C
Yes,
ma'am
again
not
to
beat
upon
the
agent,
but
just
looking
at
the
projections
made
in
the
columns,
we
believe
they're
they're
way
too
generous,
as
far
as
under
projecting
near
across
the
board,
under
projecting
on
gross
potential
by
almost
three
percent
under
projecting
on
the
average
of
effective
gross
by
over
ten
percent
and
again
looking
at
what
they've
achieved
years,
16,
17
and
19
that
ny
is
just
far
too
low
for
the
projections
by
the
property
itself
and
looking
at
our
revisions,
we
do
take
into
account
again
the
stabilized
apartment
side,
multi-family
side
and
again,
while
we
take
into
consideration
the
retail
and
adjusting
our
potential
per
square
foot
rental
rate
downwards.
C
B
Thank
you
and
you
know
again,
while
we
do
appreciate
the
efforts
that
that
chris
has
made
in
the
revision
that
they
put
forward
really
on
the
commercial
side,
the
actual
income
that
they
are
generating
is
just
well
below
even
the
modified
numbers.
I
mean
again
noi
of
136
and
it's
a
very
real
situation
where
a
tenant
couldn't
afford
to
pay
the
domain.
B
The
main
tenant
restaurant
couldn't
afford
to
make
rent,
so
they
had
to
waive
their
rent
and
move
it
to
the
end
of
the
leasing
four
plus
years
from
now,
so
they
they
could
have
the
opportunity
to
stay
in
business,
and
so
this
is.
This
is
the
actual
income
that
these
guys
are
getting
on
the
retail
side.
B
And
that's
you
know
what
we
projected
here:
it's
well
below
the
numbers
put
forward
by
the
county,
and-
and
that's
essentially
where
we
are
it's
just
the
numbers
aren't
just
quite
there,
the
apartment
side
again,
I
I
will
concede
that
they're
much
closer
in
that
regard,
but
really
on
the
retail
side.
It's
it's
a
different
story
and
a
more
difficult
story
for
the
owners
here.
B
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
to
bring
it
in
front
of
you.
A
F
Yeah,
thank
you,
madam
chairman,
I'll,
throw
this
out
and
see
if
anyone
agrees.
It
seems
to
me
that
the
the
apartment
side
is
fine,
but
the
retail.
You
know
this
is
kind
of
off
the
main
drag
and
you
know
I
know
how
popular
clarendon
is,
but
this
is
kind
of
at
the
end
as
you
head
towards
martian
boulevard
and
you're
back
on,
I
think
it's
13th
street
and
I
would
think
the
retail
would
struggle
a
little
bit
back
there.
H
I
I'd
like
to
key
off
on
that.
I
was
thinking
about
that
myself,
but,
of
course,
the
average
price
that
the
department
is
using
at
forty
dollars.
A
square
foot
presumably
triple
nut
reflects
that
it's
towards
the
end
of
clarendon
a
little
bit
off
the
beaten
path,
because,
if
you're
in
downtown
clarendon,
so
to
speak,
it's
significantly
rents
are
significantly
significantly
higher.
H
I
also
thought
that
the
retail
in
the
department's
test,
which
came
down
didn't,
seem
to
meet
the
historic
retail
income
shown
by
the
opponent
over
the
last
several
years,
and
then
the
department
explained
that
you
know
there's
rent
concessions
and
rent
deferrals
and
that
this
is
really
a
gross
potential
income
based
on
the
leases,
regardless
of
deferrals
and
so
all
of
a
sudden.
The
decrees.
H
I
I'm
I'm
with
both
of
you
guys,
but
my
initial
thinking
was
the
same
as
barn
multi-family
looks
fine
retail
514
dollars
a
square
foot.
Our
office
is
right
over
there
and
and
I'm
just
constantly
seeing
those
businesses
cycle
in
and
out
and
change,
change
signs
and
change
names
and
it's
like
they're
still
trying
to
get
in
the
groove
on
that
strip.
The
big
problem
having
a
obviously
if
you're,
walking
there
from
there
and
you've
got
to
cross
the
busy
street
to
get
there.
I
So
a
lot
of
people
don't
end
up
going
out
that
far
so
you
know
is
46
or
45
the
long-term
rent.
I
mean
this
thing
may
may
still
yet
stabilize
into
the
30s
with
the
tenants
that
do
survive
and
stay
on
long
term.
I
So
I
was
just
trying
to
think
of
a
way
to
reconcile
that,
and
I
kind
of
I
was
just
looking
at
the
what
the
actual
rent
collected
was:
514,
159
and
and
capping
that,
and
I
end
up
with
about
7.3
million
for
the
retail
component,
which
is
about
600
000
lower
than
the
department's
appraisal.
But
what
we
may
have,
there
is
kind
of
a
long-term
structural
vacancy
issue
or,
or
you
know,
a
downward
trending
rent
issue
that
is
kind
of
yet
to
fully
stabilize
and
materialize.
I
So
I'm
just
trying
to
look
for
a
fair
way
to
accommodate
for
that.
If
I
was
buying
the
property
I'd
look
at.
What's
it
performing
at
right
now
and
not
speculate
on
what
the
empty
spaces
are
going
to
do
because
you
may
fill
one
of
those
and
then
one
of
the
other
tenants
is
going
to
go
under
because
they're
they're,
just
they're.
I
New,
I
think
jimmy
johns
has
been
there
for
a
while,
but
other
than
that
everybody
else
has
really
had
a
tough
time
staying
in
business.
J
Yes,
I
think
we
all
agree
that
the
apartment
side
is
fine
and
my
first
incline
was
to
try
to
see
about
making
any
adjustment
to
the
retail,
but
I
think
that
you
know
we
see
that
just
because
you
have
a
tenant
that
is
having
trouble
or
you
have
a
bad
tenant
that
you
make
accommodation
for.
I
don't
think
it's
justification
to
just
lower
the
value
on
a
property.
J
I
think
what
the
department
did.
You
know,
and
it's
clearly
explained
by
the
appellant
that
there
was
a
refer
deferral
on
the
rent.
So
I'm
okay
with
the
revision
on
the
assessment.
I
think
it's
probably
done
and
I
don't
see
why
we
should
make
any
just
additional
adjustments
just
because
you
know
we
feel
that
it's
a
little
bit
high.
I
don't
think
it
is,
I
think
it's
my
opinion
is.
Is
this
was
to
be
a
building?
That's
going
to
be
stabilized,
you
know,
because
you
can
get
a
tenant
anytime.
J
We
don't
know
it's
like
anything
else.
You
know,
but
we
have
to
count
on
what
the
potential
income
is.
So
I'm,
okay
with
the.
J
Like
to
see
a
little
production
on,
and
I
think
I'm
fine
with
the
way
you
came
up
with
that.
D
I'm
fine
with
the
county,
I'm
I
I
do
have
some
that
I
know.
No
one
else
has
seen
it
that
I
on
the
apartment
side,
but
I
mean,
I
think,
they're,
showing
a
sizeable
amount.
Now
you
know
almost
600
000
in
the
apartments
is
a
concession
losses
that
really
does
take
away
from
what
the
potential
is
there.
If
that's,
what
is
really
continually
being
achieved,
and
that
seems
to
be
the
number
but
the
you
know.
A
Revision
and
mr
metzken,
where
are
you.
H
H
I
H
I
mean
you
know
and
could
especially
this
year
2020,
which
we'll
worry
about
next
year.
Could
they
drop
a
bit
sure,
but
that's
then
this
is
now
and
and
and
greg's
reformulation,
as
a
percentage
of
the
valuation
is
tiny.
It
is
almost
a
rounding
error,
although
we
always
want
to
be
fair
and
take
the
best
numbers
we
can.
H
A
Okay,
I
agree
with
you
there.
So,
mr
lawson,
you
had
one
final
comment.
A
H
Well,
I
didn't
click
hard
enough.
Sorry,
it
was
right
there.
I
I
moved
that
we
reduced
the
published
valuation
for
this
property
to
91
million
eight
hundred
and
forty
two
thousand
three
hundred
dollars.
A
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
good
morning.
Everybody.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
everyone
can
see
me
and
hear
me
well
this
morning,
great
so
the
subject
property
is
le
meridien
arlington
right
down
in
rosland.
L
The
current
assessment
is
51
million,
579,
7700
or
335
000
per
key,
making
it
the
third
highest
assessment
per
key
for
any
hotel
in
arlington
right
now.
This
is
our
first
year
representing
this
property,
and
this
owner
really
had
been
their
own
worst
enemy.
In
terms
of
you
know
that
the
reporting
of
their
ines
in
2017
and
2018
they
had
missed
entire
expense
departments.
They
had,
you
know
just
incorrectly
calculated,
very
easy
things,
so
we
were
able
to
sort
of
work
with
them
to
submit
an
amended.
L
I
need
in
2018,
and
then
you
know
a
proper
ine
in
2019,
and
so
I
wanted
to
thank
mr
chicas
for
kind
of
you
know
working
with
us
through
that
process,
and
then
you
know
in
his
column,
f
his
revision.
I
think
he
really.
You
know
he
did
take
that
into
account.
So
you
know
we
definitely
appreciate
that.
I'm
rather
than
sort
of
just
go
through
my
appeal
package.
As
I
typically
do,
you
know
I'll
just
note.
L
Obviously
you
know
our
our
objections
to
the
treatment
of
hotels
this
year
based
on
cove,
19
and
cap
rate,
and
then
just
I
won't
go
any
further
into
it.
This
this
case
today
really
kind
of
boils
down
to
one
thing
and
it's
the
replacement
reserve.
L
The
county
uses
4.5,
which
is
based
on
all
19
full-service
hotels,
submitting
their
income
and
expenses
statements
every
year,
so
your
lender
is
either
going
to
give
you
a
four
percent
or
five
percent
reserve,
typically
we're
seeing
more
and
more
five
percent,
because
four
percent
just
isn't
cutting
it
anymore,
just
to
kind
of
put
that
into
perspective.
L
You
know
right
now:
it's
about
390
000
in
reserve.
When
they
renovated
this
building
in
16,
they
spent
five
million
dollars
to
renovate
it
or
about
33
000.
You
know
per
key,
so
you
know,
that's
typically
has
an
eight
year
useful
life,
that's
the
industry
standard,
you
know
it
would
take
them.
I
think,
almost
12
years
at
the
current
pace
of
reserves
to
to
have
enough
money
to
renovate.
So,
if
you're
buying
this
hotel,
you
would
never
underwrite
this
hotel
with
a
three
percent
reserve.
L
It
would
definitely
be
between
four
and
five
percent.
So
I
understand
mr
chica's
position
he's
you
know
used
the
the
owner
submitted,
the
ines,
that's
what's
on
the
ines
and
he
typically
starts
with
the
county
guidelines
amount,
which
again
is
four
and
a
half
percent
and
then
adjusts
to
what
they
actually
report.
L
It's
just
in
this
case.
It's
so
drastically
different
than
anything
we've
seen.
I
you
don't
see
below
a
four
percent
on
any.
You
know
full
service
hotel
in
dc,
alexandria,
fairfax
anywhere
that
it's
obvious.
You
know
either
somehow
the
the
rest
of
this
reserve
is
floating
to
the
top
sort
of
at
the
reit
level
here
or
it
is
some
sort
of
special
financing
deal.
So
that's
really
the
the
one
issue
here
and
hopefully
you
know
it
can
be
addressed
thanks.
C
Ma'am,
as
we've
seen
looking
at
metrics
the
hotel
industry,
one
of
the
primary
sources
that
essentially
all
properties
will
look
at
is
their
occupancy
average
daily
rate
rev
cars,
revenue,
prevailable,
room,
occupancy,
ticked
down,
nine
tenths
of
10
2019
and
yet
the
average
daily
rate
increased
by
approximately
nine
dollars
in
2019..
C
Subsequently,
revenue
prevailable
room
also
increased
by
almost
six
dollars.
Five
point:
eight
one
percent
five
point:
eight
one
in
2019
we
saw
room
revenue
increase
about
about
three
three
point:
five
percent
and
although
food
and
beverage
was
down
two
point,
four
percent
miscellaneous
plummeted
to
thirty
two
percent
in
2019
and
that
dragged
down
total
revenue
by
approximately
a
half
percent,
usually
again,
there's
a
correlation
between
the
operating
expenses
and
the
revenue
achieved
at
the
property.
C
So
we
did
see
in
line
with
the
decrease
in
revenue,
there
was
a
drop
in
total
operating
expenses,
but
approximately
1.1
percent,
and
then
what
we
looked
at
was
the
noi
also
actually
increased
by
seven
tenths
of
one
percent
in
2019..
C
C
C
So
total
revenue
is
approximately
12.9
million
through
your
average
and
operating
expenses,
three-year
average
of
8.122
or
63
percent,
and
they
led
to
a
three-year
average
of
the
noi
4.510.
C
As
you
can
see,
and
the
three-year
summary
column
f,
we
did
make
a
revision
based
again
on
fairly
robust
projections
previous
to
receiving
the
2019
information
in
column.
F,
we
did
make
revisions
and
again
a
very
modest
increase
of
less
than
one
percent
of
revenue
increase
for
our
total
revenue
and
in
conjunction
with
that,
we
did
project
an
increase
in
total
operating
expenses
and
I'll
note,
that's
well
above
the
three-year
average
63
we're
at
64.25.
C
That
did
call
for
a
increase
projected
increase
in
the
noi
of
just
under
one
percent.
But
again,
when
you
look
at
the
three-year
average
at
the
property
were
far
below
that
average
over
the
three
years,
but
still
call
for
an
increase
over
2019,
which
again
was
an
increase
over
2018.
C
Appreciate
mr
steinhauser's
remarks,
you
know
we
do
work
with
the
appellants
and
the
owners
to
to
make
sure
that
this
is
a
fair
and
reasonable
projection
of
market
value.
As
of
january
1st,
as
mr
jones
noted,
we
do
rely
upon
the
information
that's
received
and
when
we
note-
and
I
don't
believe
you
would
argue
with
me
on
this-
but
when
we
see
that
there's
a
reserve
that's
higher
than
what
the
county
uses
as
a
stabilized
guideline
metric,
we
use
that
as
well.
C
So,
if
it's
in,
if
it's
five
percent
six
percent,
whatever
is
reported,
we
may
look
into
it,
but
we
use
that
number
as
that's
what's
been
achieved
at
the
property.
Historically,
in
this
case
nothing
reported
for
17
and
then
18
and
19
is
3.1.
C
So
we
did
adjust
our
projection
to
match
that
as
that's
what's
been
incurred
by
the
property
owner,
not
to
confuse
the
subject.
But
you
know,
one
thing
that
mr
steiner
might
be
correct
about
is
that
there
may
be
a
different
area
whereby
the
owners
reserving
money
set
aside
for
capital
improvements,
because
typically,
what
I
found
with
my
experience
is
that
the
reserves
for
ffa
are
just
that
fixtures,
furnishing
and
equipment,
meaning
soft
goods
and
hard
goods
which
are
on
their
own
schedule.
C
It
may
be
every
three
years
to
five
years
for
soft
goods,
which
will
be
your
linens,
towels,
etc.
Hard
goods
would
be
some
of
the
furnishings
you'll
find
in
your
room,
tvs,
door,
locks,
etc.
So
it
could
be
that
they,
they
just
have
a
a
structured
contracted
rate.
That's
a
little
bit
lower
for
the
hard
and
soft
goods,
and
then
they
may
keep
a
separate
account.
C
But
it's
not
you
know
whatever
is
is
given
to
us.
As
far
as
that,
information
on
the
income
and
expense
form,
we
basically
transpose
onto
the
numbers
that
you
see
in
front
of
you,
given
that
we
did
revision
across
the
board
in
column,
f,
very
modest,
projection
increase
for
total
revenue,
while
also
allowing
a
projection
increase
for
total
operating
expenses
and,
again,
a
very
modest
less
than.
J
C
Percent
increase
in
noi,
even
though
it's
again
historically
much
lower
than
their
average.
Now
we
do
believe
that
our
revision
should
be
accepted
at
48
million
546
500..
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Both
questions
from
board
members,
mr
lawson.
F
Yeah,
this
is
for
chris
and
the
county
first
chris,
you
know
I
just
want
to
say
you
do
a
really
good
job,
both
in
presenting
this
and
explaining
it.
But
my
question
for
you
is
this:
isn't
it
isn't
it
the
owner's
discretion,
how
much
reserve?
F
So
you
know
in
past
years
say
they
did
3.1,
but
this
year
they
decided.
You
know
we're
kind
of
short
on
reserves.
We
better
up
it
to
4.5.
Isn't
that
the
owner's
call.
C
I
would
answer
that
in
two
ways,
in
the
sense
that
there's
usually
a
contract
or
some
sort
of
agreement
place
with
the
franchisor,
because
again
it's
their
name
on
the
building.
They
want
to
have
a
certain
level
of
status
or
or
something
that
the
clients
are
expecting
when
they
go
there.
But
on
top
of
that,
it
is
definitively
the
owner's
discretion
as
far
as
money
that
they
believe
would
help
to
increase
their
return
on
investment.
C
You
know
there's
an
idea
of
keeping
up
the
joneses,
but
then
there's
also
an
idea
of
setting
yourself
apart
from
the
others,
so
the
nicer,
the
hotel
generally
you're,
going
to
expect
a
higher
room
rate
and
much
more.
What
we
see
with
the
the
upper
luxury
like
ritz
carlton
and
those
the
meridian
is
a
interesting
name
and
that
it's
not
you
know,
I
think
people
set
it
aside
from
your
typical,
marriott
or
or
reach
and
see
high
regencies
things
like
that,
so
it
has
its
own
panache
or
its
own
sort
of
status.
C
H
I
have
a
question
for
the
appellant
in
your
in
column
g
when
you
reworked
your
numbers,
I
find
the
total
operating
expenses
both
in
absolute
and
in
relative
terms,
to
be
higher
than
anything.
That's
ever
happened
before.
Could
you
explain
but
no
constituent
parts
to
the
bottom
line?
Could
you
explain
that
a
little
please.
L
Yeah,
I
I
think
we're
basically
sort
of
using
an
average
between
the
guidelines
and
the
actuals,
so
the
actuals
like
chris
has
has
used,
are
closer
to
64,
64
and
a
half,
but
if
you
use
the
guidelines
you're
actually
at
69.7,
so
call
it
70..
So
we
were
just
kind
of
using
an
in-between
because
you
know
sometimes
we're
relying
only
on
the
guidelines.
It
seems
like
sometimes
until
we're
only
on
the
actuals,
sometimes
we're
using
something
in
between.
L
So
it
was
really
just
kind
of,
I
guess
a
creative
way
to
look
at
it.
I
didn't
bring
up
the
operating
expenses.
You
know
in
my
eight
minutes
for
a
reason,
really
the
main
issue
here.
You
know
that
I,
like
the
board
to
look
at,
is
the
reserves
for
this
high-end
luxury
hotel.
That
mr
cheek
is
referred
to.
H
C
Yes,
ma'am
so
again,
based
on
the
history.
Through
your
averages
that
talked
about
based
on
the
new
information
received
in
2019,
the
ine,
we
did
make
a
revision
in
column.
F
again,
I
believe
it's
very
modest
projections
going
up
less
than
one
percent
revenue
matching
with
the
increase
in
total
operating
expenses,
which
are
higher
than
three
year
average,
regardless,
if
you're,
looking
at
the
number
or
the
percentage
and
again,
a
very
modest
projection
up
on
net
operating
income,
which
again
is
much
lower
than
the
three
year
average.
C
L
Yeah,
thank
you
again.
You
know
we're
we're
grateful
to
mr
chicas
for
his
work
sort
of
at
the
first
level.
Our
main
issue
here
really
is
the
reserves.
L
L
You
know
at
the
current
pace
you
know
of
about
four
hundred
thousand
per
year
it's
going
to
take
12
years
to
have
enough
money
just
to
for
five
million
dollar
renovation,
which
is
what
they
spent
last
time
they
renovated.
So
with
inflation
you
know
maybe
six
million
in
eight
years
or
so
we're
talking.
You
know
it
would
take
15
years
to
reserve
enough
money,
so
the
industry
standards
really
between
four
and
five
percent.
L
It's
pretty
clear
here,
there's
like
there's
a
there
are
reserve
monies
at
the
corporate
level
that
aren't
floating
to
the
property
level,
and
so
we're
really
just
asking
the
board
to
take
that
into
consideration.
Again.
It's
it's!
It's
a
minor.
You
know
four
four
and
a
half
percent,
but
it
does
make
a
one
to
two
million
dollar
difference
on
the
value.
H
I've
been
this
whole
time,
fooling
with
just
that
reserved
for
ffme
number,
because
that
was
the
account
appellant's
case,
which
he
iterated
and
reiterated,
and
I
didn't
come
up
with
a
several
million
dollar
difference.
I
came
up
with,
and
somebody
checked
my
mac,
I've
done
it
five
times
or
more,
it
seems
trivial,
but
it's
still
legitimate
and
that's
why
we're
here
I
changed
the
reserves.
H
Therefore,
I
accepted
everything
in
column
completely,
as
is-
and
I
came
up
with
a
reduction
of
twenty
six
thousand
five
hundred
and
seven
six
dollars
in
ffe
reserves
and
capped
that
out
and
then
reduced
because
nobody
talked
about
value
of
personal
property
either
and
came
up
with
a
reduction
of
about
335
000
in
the
column,
f,
valuation.
E
M
H
I
Yeah
ken
I
was
looking
at
the
same
thing
I
mean
I
I
think
you
got
to
be
at
four
or
above
I
think
that's
a
valid
point,
and
I
just
I
used
four
percent
because
I
went
back
and
looked
at
some
other
properties.
I
I
Maybe
it's
two
three
then
four
long
term
right
over
the
the
course
of
a
new
building
as
it
gets
older.
So
I
think
four
was
fair.
So
and
again
I
used
the
test
column
as
well
and
came
up
with
47
million
128
500
as
the
total.
That
was
my
math.
H
I
Totally
changed
the
reserves
for
f
and
e
at
four
percent.
It
was
509
222.
E
J
J
Yeah,
but
I
think
that's
a
bit
high,
you
know
based
on
what
they
reported
but
yeah.
I
was
looking
also
at
four
percent
and
I
think
that's
really
a
reasonable
amount.
To
so
look
I
mean
I
was
looking
at
three
and
a
half
percent,
but
I
thought
it
was
just
very
minor
and
you
know
considering
a
hotel
of
this
caliber.
I
guess
I
think
four
percent
is.
J
I
let
me
see
I
came
up
with
final
value
after
a
personal
property
of
47
128
446.
same
number,
yeah,
okay,
yeah.
E
F
F
Yes,
ma'am,
I'm
I'm
on
board.
I
was
actually
going
to
go
a
little
further
at
my
building
that
I'm
a
part
owner.
We
usually
end
up
with
reserves
at
about
10,
so
I
was
going
to
go
a
little
further,
but
I'm
I'm
good
with
what
greg
proposed.
I
Motion
to
reduce
the
assessment
to
47
million
128
500,
based
on
the
county's
test
column,
increasing
the
reserve
allowance
to
four
percent.
A
Okay
motion
and
a
second
by
mr
panoranda,
all
in
favor
aye
hi
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous,
the
assessment's
reduced
to
47
million
128
500.
and
mr
chicas
did
you
get
the
rest
now?
Yes,.
C
A
A
E
A
Rosa
was
miss
ross
on
yes,
yes,
I
am
oh
okay.
I
couldn't
see
you
okay.
Thank
you
all
right.
I
believe
we've
got
everybody
back,
okay
resuming
then,
with
the
third
case
on
the
agenda.
It's
economic
unit,
one
eight,
zero,
two,
four
zero:
a
is
it
apple,
2250,
clarendon
boulevard,
miss
ross.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
K
K
K
Basically,
the
expenses
again
is
our
only
issue.
Our
requested
change
to
the
assessment
is
135
million,
eight
hundred
and
seventy
six
thousand
seven
hundred
and
twenty
in
our
packet.
We
did
have
a
discussion
about
the
county,
not
adjusting
the
sixteen
percent
for
the
remaining
on
the
land
lease,
but
I
talked
to
chris
in
april,
and
the
county
did
correctly
adjust
that
so
there's
no
issue
there.
K
Also
on
page
five,
we
did
an
exercise
just
to
show
that
the
assessed
values
too
high
for
this
31
year
old
property.
We
pulled
all
the
class
five-star
apartments
that
were
built
in
2010
or
later
and
just
for
a
competition.
The
subject's
assessed
at
432
364
unit,
it's
much
older
and
inferior
to
every
single
property.
Yet
it's
assessed
higher
than
half
of
the
classified
properties
that
we
provided.
We
also
provided
sales
that
occurred
in
2018
and
2019,
with
the
average
sale
price
of
377
600
in
unit.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chicas.
This
man.
C
Looking
at
the
property,
this
again
we'll
be
primarily
relying
on
our
summary
sheet.
I
believe
it's
your
page
three,
and
what
we're
looking
at
here
is
the
column
e,
which
is
the
operating
year.
2019
we
can
see
the
room
revenue
is
up.
2.2
percent
retails
down
3.7
parking
revenue
is
down
half
a
percent,
other
revenue
up
100
percent,
but
then
again,
I
think
that's
just
a
way
of
sort
of
how
the
numbers
are
accounted
for,
rubs
or
utility
reimbursements
down.
C
C
If
you
were
to
include
concessions,
the
the
vacancy
inconcession
is
also
stabilized
at
the
three
year
average
of
three
point:
four
percent:
the
effect
of
gross
has
increased
three
years
in
a
row.
2019's
increase
was
approximately
one
percent
and
we
actually
noted
the
operating
expenses
ticked
down
by
half
percent
that
still
gave
a
three-year
average
of
3.370
million
or
26.3
percent
of
effective
gross
net
operating
income
was
up
one
and
a
half
percent
and
had
a
three-year
average
of
just
shy
of
9.45
million.
C
When
we
look
at
the
projections
made
by
the
county
in
columns
d1
and
d2,
we
will
note
we
over
projected
gross
potential
income
by
just
shy
of
9
900
or
point
zero,
seven
percent.
We
underprojected
effective
gross
by
almost
three
hundred
and
forty
thousand
or
two
point:
six
percent.
We
underprojected
operating
expenses
by
over
three
hundred
thousand
or
eight
point
six
percent,
and
we
under
projected
net
operating
income
by
thirty
six
thousand
or
point
four
percent.
Four
tenths
of
one
percent
we've
seen
this
before.
C
If
you
were
to
make
an
adjustment
to
account
for
the
under
projection
of
operating
operating
expenses,
obviously
we'd
ask
you
to
keep
the
grossly
under
projected
effective
gross
as
well,
and
that
the
county
used
a
stabilized
six
percent
in
the
properties
again
right
around
3.3,
which
makes
them
a
wash,
which
is
why
we're
so
close
on
the
net
operating
income
projection
that
we
made
you
can
see
in
column,
in
between
columns,
d1
and
d2
again
within
0.4
percent
of
what
was
achieved
and
still
very
much
in
line
with
the
three-year
average
when
you're
looking
at
17,
18
and
19..
C
C
C
The
the
reason
for
the
deduction
is:
this
is
a
ground
lease.
That's
less
than
50
years
remaining
as
the
county
does.
On
these
types
of
properties,
a
tax
exempt
portion
was
created,
a
parcel
was
created
to
represent
that
revisionary
amount
that
increases
by
two
percent
every
year,
and
so
it's
essentially
as
easy
as
looking
at
that
as
the
tax-exempt
parcel
increases,
the
taxable
portion
decreases,
so
the
tax
burden
to
the
owner
essentially
goes
down.
As
that
taxable
deduction
parcel
goes
up.
C
We
wanted
to
to
make
clear
and
that's
what
we're
showing
here
on
columns,
f1
and
f2,
that,
while
the
the
assessment
remained
the
same
at
171
357.3,
the
taxable
value
actually
decreased
down
to
143
940
100.,
I'm
hoping
that
was
understood.
But
obviously,
as
you
all
know,
I'm
here
for
questions.
I
believe
irving
is
still
on
for
questions.
C
So,
if
there's
anything
unclear,
do
please
ask
us,
but
again
to
be
clear
based
on
the
under
projections
made
to
the
effector
gross
and
even
one,
including
the
under
projection
of
operating
expenses,
we're
spot
on
with
the
net
operating
income.
In
fact,
we
projected
low
and
again
very
much
in
line
with,
what's
been
achieved
at
the
property
as
a
three
year
average.
So
while
we
believe
the
revision
should
be
confirmed,
we
do
believe
that
you
should
understand
that.
That's
really
calling
for
the
revision.
Excuse
me,
the
assessment
should
be
confirmed.
C
We
want
you
to
use
that
column,
f1
and
f2,
which
explains
the
taxable
and
tax
exempt
portion
that
you
see
in
columns,
f1
and
f2,
so
the
we
call
for
the
the
assessment
of
171
3573
to
be
confirmed
as
fair
and
equitable.
Thank
you
anything
from
you,
irving,.
G
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
follow
up,
because
it's
not
really
reflected
that.
Well
on
the
summary
sheet
that
original
assessment
of
171
that
chris
quoted,
it
also
includes
the
tax
exempt
parcel.
So
the
original
assessments
taxable
value,
so
the
burden
to
the
owner
was
147
million
297
600.
G
again,
as
chris
stated,
that
percentage
deduction
was
incorrect
and
we
needed
to
update
that.
So
the
revised
taxable
value
to
the
owner
is
now
reflected
on
the
summer
sheet
at
the
143
number.
That's
about
a
close
to
a
4.4
million
dollar
reduction
based
off
of
the
reallocation
of
value,
and
I
just
want
to
clear
that
up
again
the
taxable
portion
is
parcel
071.
G
So
again,
when
you
look
at
the
original
worksheet
on
page
six,
you
can
look
for
the
rpc
number
ended
at
0.71
and
you'll
see
the
original
tax
exempt
portion
was
too
low.
So
I
think
that's
all.
I
wanted
to
clear
up
for
the
board
like
he
said.
If
you
have
any
questions,
we're
more
than
happy
to
answer
them.
A
A
A
Okay,
all
right,
thank
you.
Other
questions
from
board
members.
A
G
I
don't
oh
dang,
I
have
to
lease.
Let
me
see
it
might
be
a
ground
lease
payment,
but
if
it
is
it's
not
being
reported,
I
mean
because
it's
not
it's.
G
Yeah,
I
do
know
it
was
a
62-year
ground
lease
by
virginia
code.
Once
it
the
lease
is
below
50
years,
then
we
have
to
allocate
two
percent
of
that
value
to
the
taxes
entity
and
going
back
to
the
county
department
to
handle
the
lease.
There
is
no
extension
with
this
lease
agreement.
I
think
that
is
kind
of
consistent
with
a
lot
of
the
county's
ground
leases.
C
Yes,
ma'am
yeah
I'll
try
to
keep
this
as
succinct
as
possible,
essentially
that
the
board
seen
this
before
we
underprojected
near
across
the
board.
So
we
don't
believe
that
there,
any
corrections
should
be
made
to
the
operating
expense
without
again
taking
the
effective
gross
into
account.
C
So,
given
that
we
believe
the
numbers
are
accurate,
it
was
really
just
a
matter
of
correcting
the
tax-exempt
deduction
from
14
to
16,
which
is
seen
in
columns
f1
and
f2.
That
being
said,
we
do
believe
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
171
million
357
300
now,
with
the
taxable
portion
being
143
million
940
100..
Thank
you.
K
Sure
I
just
wanted
to
again
mention
that
the
expenses
have
remained
stabilized
at
about
80
800
per
unit
for
both
2018
and
2019,
and
the
county
is
only
using
7
800
per
unit.
J
Plain
and
simple:
I'm:
okay
with
the
county's
revision.
I
think
I
don't
see
any
numbers
that
are
out
of
whack
and
I
think
the
corrections
that
they
made
as
far
as
the
16
you
know
for
the
taxable
amount,
I'm
okay
with
that.
D
H
H
Is
it
on
page
two?
Is
it
a
a
summary
of
of
value
set
by
boe
lines,
one
two
and
three?
Who
can
answer
that?
I
guess
mr
chicas,
what
was
the
total
amount
last
year
that
they
paid
on.
C
We'd
have
to
figure
out
the
portion,
those
texts
exempt,
but
that
we
should
be
able
to
do
because,
essentially
it's
just
the
allocation,
the
total
value
minus
that
taxes
on
porcell,
so
the
basically
the
first
page
you
can
see
the
2019
value
for
071
was
22
965,
so
it
looks
like
the
taxable
portion
was.
H
141.,
zero,
okay.
So
it's
a
minimal
increase
because
the
the
the
tax,
the
deduction
increased
by
two
percent-
okay.
F
You
know
this
was
a
long
time
ago,
but
my
recollection
is
that
the
the
rent
paid
under
the
ground
lease
is
adjusted
or
it
doesn't
exist
or
something
due
to
the
county
offices,
and
you
know
I
just
can't
remember
what
the
deal
was.
It
was
quite
a
while
ago-
and
I
was
just
a
law
clerk,
but
I
I
think
the
county
offices,
the
county,
got
its
offices
in
lieu
of
ground
ground
rent.
I
think,
but
I
I
wouldn't
swear
to
that.
I
I
A
All
right,
then,
I
will
move
to
accept
the
county's
revised
number
correcting
the
text
exempt
portion
in
column,
f1
and
f2
for
a
final
value
of
the
tax
about
143,
940
100.
I'll.
Second,
a
motion
in
a
second
by
ms
hogan,
all
in
favor
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
It's
the
county's
reduced
number
of
143
940.
G
A
K
Okay,
the
reserves
at
clarendon
center
is
located
at
3000
north
washington
boulevard,
it's
a
class
b
mid-sized
apartment
in
2002,
with
252
units
and
14
089
square
feet
of
retail,
we're
not
again
not
contesting
the
retail
portion.
If
you
turn
to
page
five
of
our
appeal
package,
you'll
again
see
a
side-by-side
analysis.
Again.
This
is
equity
residential,
so
there
are
main
different
slides
in
the
expense
category.
A
Thank
you,
okay.
Thank
you,
mr
chicas.
C
Yes,
ma'am,
so
again
we
rely
heavily
upon
the
three-year
summary
sheet.
I
believe
that's
page
three
similar
to
the
last
case,
the
the
building's
doing
well.
Apartment
revenue
is
up
2.9
percent,
even
with
retail
being
down
almost
eleven
and
a
half
percent
parking
revenue
is
up.
Other
revenues
up
utility
reimbursement,
rubs
is
up.
C
C
Even
again
when
you
include
concessions
vacancy
and
concessions
stabilized
at
the
three
year
average
of
2.5
percent,
effective
gross
is
up
three
years
in
a
row.
17
18,
19.
19's
increase
is
3.4
percent
three
year
average
of
just
shy
of
9.1
million.
C
Again
we
did
note
operating
expenses
ticked
up,
but
slightly
1.7,
there's
a
three-year
average
of
two
million.
Seventy
six
thousand
or
twenty
two
point.
Eight
percent
of
effective
gross
and
net
operating
income
is
up
just
shy
of
four
percent
in
2019,
3.9
percent
increase
three
year
average
of
just
over
seven
million.
C
C
C
For
that
purpose,
you
know,
I
guess
just
to
illustrate
making
a
change
to
try
to
catch
up
with
some
of
those
expenses
and
the
expense
average.
We
did
the
test
in
columns
f1
and
f2.
C
We
actually
underprojected
again
effective
gross
about
about
half
a
percent,
and
even
when
we
take
into
account
that
the
three
year
average
for
operating
expenses,
we
actually
over
projected
by
one
percent
higher
than
has
been
achieved
at
the
property
in
the
last
four
years
and
still
came
out
with
a
net
operating
income
lower
than
what
was
achieved
in
2019.
C
And
it's
not
to
to
beat
upon
that
point.
But
as
we've
talked
about
before
in
this
here
virginia
code,
58.1
3295.1
empowers
the
board
to
consider
the
actuals.
C
As
the
revision.
The
test.
Excuse
me,
the
test
comes
to
a
value,
that's
higher
than
the
january
one
assessment,
and
we
do
not
call
for
that
unless
we
have
a
third
party
appraisal,
we
do
believe
all
these
factors
point
to
a
confirmation
of
the
assessment
by
the
county
of
128
million
226
800..
Thank
you.
A
H
C
We
do
believe
that
under
projections
across
the
board
of
gross
potential,
effective
gross
and
operating
expenses
led
the
county
to
underproject
the
net
operating
income
by
almost
four
percent,
giving
its
history.
Given
the
averages
that
we've
spoken
about,
we
do
believe
that
the
assessment
is
low,
but
we
don't
call
for
an
increase,
given
that
we
don't
have
a
third
party
appraisal.
K
K
F
Yeah
I'll
go
ahead
and
and
start
I'm
okay
with
the
county.
I
think
it
may
actually
be
a
little
under.
E
J
I
think
it's
even
if
the
re,
even
if
the
I
mean
with
the
revised
numbers,
even
with
that
I
think
the
count
is
low
but
yeah,
I'm
okay
with
the
original
assessment.
A
A
All
right
well
with
no
further
discussion,
then
I
will
move
to
confirm
the
county.
F
I
H
So
I'm
finding
that
I
have
to
go
because
I
print
it
out
and
make
notes
on
the
first
several
pages
of
each
appeal,
and
I
can't
read
it
on
the
paper,
because
the
numbers
are
so
tiny,
so
I
go
and
bring
it
up
on
my
screen,
of
course,
during
the
session
and
I
have
to
expand,
expand,
expand
till
I
can
read
the
numbers,
but
then
the
columns
to
the
right
of
the
left,
because
all
of
them
in
the
array
are
so
big.
H
E
K
H
Okay,
I'll
be
fewer
words,
the
the
the
way
we're
presented
I'll
give
you.
H
Just
as
in
just
as
an
example,
this
one.
H
The
beacon
has,
I
don't
know,
a
dozen
columns
or
more,
and
so
in
order
to
get
them
on
a
normal
page
like
that
that
the
numbers
are
so
tiny,
though,
without
at
least
for
me,
without
a
a
a
looking
glass,
I
can't
read
them
so
because
I
I
print
them
out
to
make
notes
and
compare
column
to
column
line
to
line.
H
H
C
Mr
metzken
one
thing
the
county
does
and
the
board.
M
Exactly
we
used
to
do
it
as
a
courtesy
when
we
were
doing
in-person
meetings
for
some
of
the
summary
sheets,
but
right
now
I
can't
make
that
alteration
like.
I
have
to
make
sure
that
all
the
pages
are
straight
as
much
as
I
can,
but
I
don't
think
I
can
change
any
fonts
to
make
them
bigger.
A
Can
do
this
off
line
please.