►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - August 5, 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
2020
the
first
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc.
It's
an
economic
unit,
it's
different
than
what's
listed
on
the
agenda,
but
economic
unit,
170040,
h
and
the
property
is
located
at
1533
clarendon
boulevard.
Ms
suzanne
ross
is
going
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
appellate
miss
ross.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
B
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
This
is
centro
arlington.
It's
a
six-story
mixed-use
building
located
at
950,
south
george
mason
drive
and
barcroft
area
submarket.
There
are
366
units
and
71
605
square
feet
of
commercial
space.
The
property
just
opened
in
2019
and
began
releasing
the
apartments
in
september,
and
the
commercial
space
began
leasing.
B
B
sorry,
therefore,
there's
no
year-end
income
expense
infrared
information
available.
If
you
turn
to
page
six,
we'll
see
you
side
by
side.
I'm
sorry.
C
B
Now,
julian
hello,
yes,
yes,
you
can
hear
me
okay,
I
should
see
back
again
if
you
look
turn
to
page
six.
You'll
see.
B
You
can
hear
me:
okay,
okay,
yeah.
Okay,
if
you
turn
to
page
six,
you'll
see
a
side-by-side
presentation
of
our
analysis
in
the
and
the
counties.
The
property
itself
is
offering
concessions
of
two
months:
free,
rent
on
all
new
rents
and
any
new
renewals
through
at
least
the
end
of
2020.
B
The
county
has
overstated
the
gross
potential
income
at
two
mil
two
thousand
one
hundred
ninety
five
dollars
per
unit
per
month,
or
nine
million
six
hundred
forty
thousand
one.
Forty
all
the
other
assumptions
in
our
presentation
comes
directly
from
the
arlington
county's
2020
guidelines,
since
there's
no
income
and
expense
available.
We
use
the
five
percent
vacancy
seven
thousand
one
111
per
unit
in
expenses
and
a
5.4
percent
cap
rate.
For
some
reason,
the
county
underestimated
the
expenses
at
7,
000
and
six
per
unit.
B
Preliminary
estimate
of
value
is
99
million,
shot
456
7721.
So
what
we
did
was
we
made
a
deduction
below
the
line
to
account
for
lisa
for
18
months.
As
previously
mentioned,
the
property
was
very
very
early
into
the
initial
lease
up
process.
As
of
the
valuation
date
and
the
owners
had
indicated,
it
will
not
reach
full
stabilization
for
at
least
18
to
24
months.
B
So
we
made
a
deduction
of
12
million
589
404,
which
was
calculated
based
on
18
months
of
the
gross
potential
income,
so
the
8.3
million
plus
half
of
8.3
million
the
county
did
make
a
deduction
also
for
lease
up.
However,
they
only
accounted
for
one
year,
which
does
not
merely
is
it
nearly
adequate
consideration,
considering
the
expected
stabilization
date
of
the
property
as
far
as
the
commercial
space,
which
is
right
below
that
sorry,.
A
Ms
ross,
can
I
just
interrupt
one
second,
because
I'm
getting
texts
from
a
couple
members.
I
actually
called
the
other
case
and
there's
just
confusion.
Obviously
you
know,
I
think
everybody
is
clicked
over,
but
you
are
actually
presenting
second
case
on
the
agenda,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
everybody
is
on
the
same
page.
B
A
Yeah
this
is
940
south
george
mason
drive.
I
actually
called
the
1533
clarendon
boulevard,
which
is
why
there's
some
confusion.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
everybody's
on
the
case
that
you're
discussing
so
I
apologize,
that's
okay,
so
you
know
to
in
fairness
that
if
you
need
a
few
more
minutes,
just
to
kind
of
you
know
restate
what
you're
saying
I
just
want
to
make
sure
everybody's
singing
from
the
same
sheet
here:
okay,
okay,.
A
B
I
guess
what
we'll
go
back
to
is
page
six,
just
to
show
the
side-by-side
presentation
perfect.
Thank
you.
Okay,
the
pro
the
apartment
portion,
the
property,
as
I
mentioned,
is
offering
concessions
of
two
months
free
rent
on
all
new
rents,
as
well
as
any
renewals
through
the
end
of
2020..
B
The
concessions,
as
I
mentioned,
are
listed
on
the
subject's
website
and
are
also
advertised
on
the
side
of
the
building.
If
you
drive
by
the
gross
potential
income
in
our
analysis,
was
calculated
by
using
the
average
rents
per
unit
that
they've
already
rented
minus
two
months,
free
rent
for
a
total
of
eight
million
three.
Ninety
two,
nine
thirty
six,
the
county
has
overestimated
the
gross
potential
at
nine
million
six.
B
Forty
one,
forty,
the
all
the
other
assumptions
are
based
on
the
county's
2020
guidelines,
which
is
the
five
percent
vacancy
seven
thousand
one
hundred
eleven
per
per
unit,
expense
rate
and
a
five
point,
four
percent
cap
rate
for
some
reason
again
the
county
under
us.
You
can
get
the
expenses
of
7006
per
unit.
Our
preliminary
estimate
of
value
is
99
million
450
6720
from
that
we
made
a
below
the
line.
B
Use
up
deduction
for
18
months,
as
previously
mentioned,
the
property
is
very
early
into
the
initial
lease
of
process
of
evaluation
date
and
the
owners
had
indicated
that
will
not
reach
full
stabilization
for
18
to
24
months.
So
he
made
a
deduction
of
12
million
589
400,
which
was
calculated
based
on
18
months
of
the
gross
potential
income.
B
The
county
did
also
make
deduction,
however,
for
only
one
year,
which
doesn't
give
nearly
adequate
consideration
to
the
expected
stabilization
date
for
the
property.
As
far
as
the
commercial
space,
which
is
right
below
the
multi-family,
the
gross
potential
income
comes
directly
from
the
rent
roll
and
we
gross
up
the
vacant
space
at
21.50.
B
A
square
foot
foot,
which
was
the
most
recent
lease
amount
signed
all
other
assumptions
again
come
from
the
2020
of
arlington
guidelines
with
a
three
percent
vacancy
13
expenses
and
a
70
cap
rate.
This
resulted
in
a
preliminary
value
of
20
million
eight
hundred
navy.
Again
we
used
an
eighteen
month
deduction
of
two
million
six
hundred
and
one
thousand
five
hundred
thirty
two,
which
was
based
on
the
gross
potential
plus
six
months
of
the
gross
potential.
This
resulted
in
an
estimated
value
for
the
commercial
space
of
18
million
307
350..
B
A
You,
okay,
thank
you
ma'am,
mr
chicas,.
E
Good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
ms
ross
so
yeah.
This
is
a
bit
unusual
in
that
it's
a
true
projection.
This
is
something
that
has
no
history
whatsoever.
It
just
basically
opened
its
doors
in
the
fall
of
2019,
so
I
think,
as
miss
russ
notes,
this
is
pure
projection
on
both
the
parts
the
county
and
the
appellant.
Where
we
differ
is
a
couple
different
areas,
one
starting
with
the
gross
potential.
E
We
noted
in
the
appellant's
own
packet,
page
92,
138,
the
owner's
unit
availability,
detail,
submission
list,
the
building's
total
monthly
potential.
I
don't
believe
that's
confidential
information,
but
at
the
same
point
I
just
assume
you
all
confirm
that
yourself.
In
fact,
you'll
see
it
in
the
comments
section
of
our
summary
page
page
three,
it
lists
a
monthly
gross
potential
income
of
just
over
eight
hundred
thousand,
which,
when
you
extrapolate
out
to
the
year,
comes
out
to
a
gross
potential
for
the
property
as
apartment
component.
E
We
would
note,
too,
that
we
did
in
fact
give
a
full
year's
deduction,
even
though
again,
this
building
was
leasing
up
in
the
last
three
months
of
2019,
and
by
that
same
unit
available
to
detail,
I
believe
I
counted
135
tenants
out
of
366,
so
approximately
37
percent
of
the
building
was
already
leased
up
as
of
january
1st.
E
But
again,
the
county
gives
a
full
12-month
deduction
as
a
standard
on
all
new
multi-family
properties.
During
that
lease
up
period,
because
it's
an
annual
assessment,
we
do
believe
that
a
18th
month
deduction
is
inappropriate,
as
it
would
essentially
add
on
six
months
that
is
not
being
incurred
by
the
property.
E
E
Ms
ross
also
made
mention
of
what's
going
on
currently
and
that
there's
two
free
months,
two
months
of
free
rent
which
is
being
applied
by
the
building,
but
to
use
their
own
words,
as
is
indicated
on
page
63
of
138,
that's
currently
being
offered.
So
if
this
is
current
as
of
the
submission
of
the
packet
as
of
april,
that
would
be
something
that
occurred
after
january
1st.
E
E
In
regards
to
the
rent
role
for
the
retail
components,
we
did
request
a
more
detailed
rent
roll
analysis,
but
to
our
own
discredit.
That
was
something
we
asked
for
late.
That
was
just
something
I
asked
for
on
the
28th
of
july.
E
The
reason
we
asked
is
two
reasons:
if
you
notice
this
is
on
page
93
of
138,
the
rent
roll
lists
base
rent
only
so
in
other
words
it
doesn't
list
cam
or
pass-throughs
that
are
passed
on
from
the
owner
to
the
retailer
and
obviously
that
would
be
income
that
would
be
achievable
by
the
property
itself,
and
we
also
noted
that
the
21.50
per
square
foot
rate
that
was
being
offered
was
quite
low
and
is
surely
indicative
of
again
either
free
rent
or
some
sort
of
a
baited
rent.
E
E
So
we
don't
believe
that
the
retail
rent
that's
being
projected
by
the
appellant
is
necessarily
indicative
of.
What's
going
to
happen
at
the
property
again
using
guidelines
near
across
the
board.
We
are
at
five
percent
vacancy
on
the
component
for
multi-family
three
percent
vacancy.
E
On
the
retail
side,
we
did
underproject
a
bit
on
the
per
unit,
expense
of
the
multi-family
side,
but
that's,
unfortunately,
just
a
math
error
in
our
part,
whereby
we
use
the
total
operating
expense
of
the
entire
property
and
then
divided
by
the
number
of
units,
as
opposed
to
just
isolating
the
apartment
component
alone
and
then
dividing
by
the
number
of
units.
But
even
still,
I
believe
the
guideline
calls
for
seven
thousand
one
hundred
eleven
dollars
a
unit
we're
at
seven
thousand
and
six
and
again
this
as
its
peer
projection.
E
We
can
state
fairly
positively
that
this,
this
operating
expense
isn't
going
to
be
incurred
in
this
first
year,
because
obviously
there's
a
large
section,
that's
vacant,
given
that
we
believe
that
we
underprojected
based
off
of
the
owner's
own
gross
potential
for
the
project
for
at
least
the
apartment
component
and
again,
given
that
we
believe
that
a
12-month
deduction
is
appropriate
in
an
annual
12-month
assessment.
F
Same
question
for
department
and
appellate
department,
retail
only
what
dollars
per
square
foot
for
base
rent
did
you
insert
to
get
your
total
number.
E
We
recognized
the
larger
tenant,
I
believe
it's
a
harris
teeter
because
they
took
up
so
much
of
the
space
that
was
available.
So
it's
basically
rough
counters,
almost
75
percent
of
that
space.
They
got
a
bit
lower
per
square
foot
rate-
I'm
not
positive.
I
don't
know
if
ervin's
online,
if
I'm
able
to
to
express
that
rate
per
square
foot
rate,
but
I
can
tell
you
that
they
received
one
per
square
foot
rate
and
then
the
other
three,
the
the
components
received,
another
base
rate.
That
was
the
same.
E
G
F
G
Disclose
what
it
says
on
the
commercial
sheet,
I
mean:
that's
just
really
our
projections,
it's
not
like
actual
numbers.
Because
again
so
we
looked
at
harris
teeters
in
the
area
thing
we
talked,
we
actually
talked
to
lori
because
she
does
value
the
grocery
stores,
and
so
we
looked
at
her
analysis
of
all
the
harris
teeters
in
the
county
and
we
used
26
dollars
a
square
foot
on
this
harris
teeter
based
off
of
the
market
data.
E
F
Exist:
okay,
that
that
tells
me
a
lot
one
quick
question:
you
have
disparate
square
footages
for
the
retail
space.
Are
you
gonna
this
year
decide
on
what
the
total
is
for
next
year?.
E
Exactly
yeah,
that's
one
of
the
reasons
we
ask
for
the
more
detailed
rent
rolls
in
general,
either
through
boma
or
whoever
they
use.
As
far
as
measuring
out
that
square
footage,
it
tends
to
change
a
little
bit
if
they
sign
new
tenants
in
this
time
period,
because,
of
course
with
build
out,
they
may
change
the
exact
square
footage.
E
But,
generally
speaking,
what
we
want
to
do
is
try
to
get
the
most
information
current
information
as
possible,
so
once
we
get
that
rent
roll
from
the
owner
we'll
be
able
to
adjust
that
for
january.
First.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
lawson.
H
This
is
for
the
applicant
if
I
want
to
visit
the
retail.
Where
do
I
park.
I
D
E
Yeah,
to
be
fair,
I
I
won't
put
the
onus
on
ms
ross.
I
know
the
county
saw
that
y
hotel
had
been
operating
in
another
boston
building
and
I
think
they
have
made
plans
to
take
up
a
number
of
units,
but
I
don't
believe
that
the
the
partnership
was
consummated
but
again,
I'm
not
entirely
sure.
I
Okay,
I've
been
in
that
grocery
store
the
parking
garage
and
I
saw
signage
and
everything
that
said
hotel
entrance
hotel
lobby
and
it
was
pointing
me
in
that
direction
and
I
didn't
go
investigate
or
anything,
but
it
looked
like
there
was
some
hotel
activity
going
on
in
that
building.
So.
G
G
Looking
at
the
website
you
put
in
y
hotel
central
arlington,
it
comes
up.
950.
South
george
mason
drive
ask
for
your
arrival
date.
Your
departure
date.
I
J
Yeah
I
had
one
to
for
the
parent
actually
by
miss
ross
by
taking
a
reduction
in
income
from
the
top.
You
know
the
two-month
concession
then
you're
taking
the
guideline
vacancy
of
five
percent
and
then
you're
requesting
18-month
deduction
from
the
bottom.
Don't
you
think
that's
excessive
for
to
calculate
the
value
in
this
property.
B
No,
I
do
not
because
the
property
just
started
leasing
up
right
a
few
months
before
the
date
of
valuation
and
those
unit
available
availability
details
that
chris
mentioned
was
an
optimistic
projection.
I
knew
that
when
you
file
a
board
hearing,
you
have
to
have
the
income
and
expense,
so
I
had
them
provide
what
they
had
projected
back
in
2019,
which
obviously
with
covet
and
everything
did
not
occur.
A
All
right,
mr
huffman.
I
Yeah
one
more
question
for
the
appellant:
do
you
have
any
data
you
didn't
file
last
year,
when
I
was
on
the
board,
this
would
have
been
in
2018,
but
what
was
the
final
cost
of
the
project
to
build.
E
Yes,
ma'am
so
essentially
without
hammering
home
that
idea,
the
unit
availability
unit
availability
detail
is
actually
dated
as
of
january
1st
2020.
E
So
we
do
believe
that
should
be
considered
when
looking
at
the
january
1st
2020
assessment
and
not
to
jump
on
mr
lawson's
point
of
underground
parking,
but
it
should
be
noted
that
there
was
no
other
revenue
source
projected
by
the
county
in
regards
to
the
parking
income:
miscellaneous
income,
utility
reimbursement,
income,
other
income.
E
So,
given
that
we
underprojected
based
off
the
owner's
own
unit,
availability
detail
for
the
projection
for
the
year
and
based
on
a
one
years,
lease
up
deduction
which
is
given
across
the
board
for
all
new
projects,
multi-family
projects,
we
do
believe
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
a
134
million.
Six
thousand
five
hundred.
Thank
you.
B
Yes,
I
just
wanted
to
mention
again
that
the
subject
just
began
leasing
at
the
end
of
2019
again,
the
unit
availability
detail
that
chris
keeps
mentioning
was
an
optimistic
projection.
The
actual
rate
rents
in
place
should
be
considered
which
we
provided
chris
mentioned.
He
underestimated
the
expenses.
Yet
we
should.
We
should
go
with
the
higher
income.
It
doesn't
seem
quite
fair
to
go
with
the
higher
income
and
the
lesser
expenses.
This
is
a
perfect
candidate
for
using
their
guidelines,
because
there's
no
income
and
expense
available.
A
H
Yeah,
let
me
share
my
thought
and
I
guess
I'll
run
it
up
the
flagpole
and
see
if
anyone
salutes
and
I'd
also
like
to
ask
a
couple
of
my
colleagues
if
they
can
remember
from
the
past.
What
I
thought
in
reviewing
all
of
this
is
that
I
I
do
think
that
the
strongest
point
that's
made
by
the
applicant
is
the
time
for
lease
up,
and
so
what
I
did
is
is
looked
at
18
months,
lease
up
for
the
commercial
and
I'll
I'll
share.
H
I
mean
this
commercial
looks
pretty
tough
to
me
when
I
did
pentagon
row.
H
You
know
the
applicant
fought
with
chris
zimmerman
almost
to
the
death
in
order
to
have
some
surface
parking
and
when
you,
when
you
put,
you
know,
somebody's
going
shopping
and
you
tell
them
they
got
to
go
into
an
underground
garage
it
just
it's
just
not
as
easy,
and
so
I
looked
at
a
18
month,
lease
up
and
then
on
the
residential.
H
I
was
thinking
a
more
appropriate
figure
might
be
15,
and
so
I
tinkered
with
the
figures.
I
came
up
with
136
623
300
and
I
guess
my
question
for
my
colleagues
is
before
coronavirus
weren't.
We
weren't
we
going
beyond
a
year
for
lease
up
for
new
projects.
That's
that's
my
recollection,
but
I
could
be
erroneous
in
this.
I
Well,
I
think
one
of
the
issues
with
lease
up
is
when
you
have
a
hotel
operating.
You
have
to
commit
to
give
them
certain
number
of
rooms
for
a
certain
amount
of
time,
and
you
can't
lease
those
during
that
period.
That's
the
deal
with
wyatt
hotel,
so
you
know
it
provides
you
income.
I
When
you
have
a
lot
of
units
like
366
units,
you
basically
you'll,
take
100
or
150
of
them,
and
you
would
say
for
18
months.
You
can
book
these
as
hotel
rooms
and
we
won't
lease
them.
You
get
the
remaining
units,
all
leased
up
and
stabilized,
and
then
you
release
the
hotel
back
to
the
apartment
building,
so
I
mean
that's
a
strategic
plan
that
they
implemented.
I
don't
think
it
reduces
the
value
of
the
property.
I
At
all
I
mean
the
the
the
big
thing
I
that
jumps
out
at
me
is
the
county's
about
300
000,
a
unit
on.
I
I
A
F
Apartments
are
doing:
no,
I'm
never
mine,
I've
got
conflicting
notions,
so
let
me
go
to
the
retail
I
just
I
thought
I
saw
a
big
hole
in
the
income
and
the
disparate
projections
for
retail
income,
and
once
I
heard
the
the
supposed
base
rents
per
square
foot,
I
realized
that
no
they're
very
forgiving
to
the
appellant-
and
I
am,
I
certainly
don't
think-
the
department
over
projected
the
income
from
the
retail
by
any
stretch-
and
I
had
personal
professional
insights
to
the
retail
there.
So
I'm
way
more
than
comfortable
on
that
part.
J
No,
I'm
I'm
okay
with
the
assessment.
The
way
it
is,
I
think
the
department
did
what
it
normally
does,
especially
on
projects
that
that
are
new.
Like
these,
you
know
they,
you
don't
necessarily
have
the
whole
income
for
the
whole
year,
so
you
are
going
to
use
guidelines
and
we're
going
to
use
numbers
that
are
appropriate
as
far
as
the
rents-
and
I
don't
see
anything
you
know
excessive
on
that,
and
you
know
by
taking
the
two-month
conversation
from
the
top
to
me.
It's
incorrect.
J
The
county
is
already
given
the
allowance
of
12
months
rent.
You
know
all
the
numbers
to
me
fall
in
line,
so
I'm
okay
with
it.
Okay,.
H
A
Another
committee-
I'm
sorry,
mr
yates,
or
miss
hogan,
any
final.
No,
I'm
fine
with
the
county.
F
I'm
sorry
just
one
quick
thing
as
of
january
1st,
as
we
heard
more
than
a
third
of
the
apartments
were
already
leased
up,
seems
to
be
another.
Does
that
mean,
and
then
so,
therefore,
the
appellant's
asking
for
an
18-month
lease
up
for
three-quarters
of
of
two-thirds
of
the
apartment
building
that
seems
overly
generous.
D
E
I
I'll
motion
to
confirm
the
county's
assessment
at
134
million
6
500.
A
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
and
mary
hogan
is
that
you
yeah,
second,
is
the
second
all
in
favor
to
confirm
the
county.
A
A
Okay,
moving
now
to
the
original
first
case
on
the
agenda
economic
unit,
one
seven:
zero,
zero:
four:
zero
h
at
fifteen
thirty,
three
clarendon
boulevard,
miss
ross.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes.
B
B
If
you
turn
to
page
five
you'll
again
see
a
side-by-side
presentation
of
our
analysis
in
the
county.
We
utilize
the
actual
calendar
year.
In
e
analysis,
I
mean
I
need
the
gross
potential,
the
actual
2019
income
of
7.8,
7.8
million
per
room
and
board
472
975
for
food
and
beverage
and
295
286
for
miscellaneous
income.
The
county
is
overstating
the
total
gross
potential
of
this
30
year
old
building
at
8.7
million.
B
We
provided
a
snapshot
of
three
years
worth
of
gross
potential
income
and
the
subject
has
never
had
a
high
as
8.7
million
in
the
past
three
years.
That's
shown
on
page
four
and
the
full
ines
are
included
in
the
agenda.
B
B
The
assessor
is
estimating
a
replacement
reserve
of
3.9
percent,
which
is
under
a
underestimating
the
actual
replacement
reserves
which
were
514
645,
as
opposed
to
341
798
used
by
the
county.
We
agree
with
the
county's
cap
rate
of
8.33
percent.
A
deduction
of
personal
property
was
applied
of
the
same
as
the
counties
of
539
511..
B
B
Further
adjustments
would
need
to
be
considered.
We
did
take
that
deduction
of
return
on
and
of
ff
e,
which
is
the
furniture,
fixtures
and
equipment
or
turn
on
the
spip,
which
is
knowledgeable
workforce
and
the
brand
premium
which
is
like
you
would
probably
you
would
go
to
a
marriott
before
you'd
go
to
bubba's
motel,
taking
the
business
enterprise
value
consideration
that
would
develop
a
value
of
26
million
970
000..
B
A
E
Absolutely
yeah
so
just
to
start
on
the
first
note,
I'm
not
sure
if
miss
ross
is
referring
to
a
different
property's,
2019
assessment,
but
last
year's
assessment
was
actually
35
million,
76
400,
so
it's
still
an
increase,
but
it's
reasonable.
Considering
the
property's
growth
year
every
year,
we'd
note
that
room
revenue
increased
6.3
in
and
even
with
a
drop
in
food
and
beverage
revenue
and
miscellaneous
revenue.
E
The
total
revenue
is
up
3.5
percent
and
that's
the
third
year
in
a
row
that
that's
been
achieved
in
that
same
sense,
operating
expenses
are
actually
down
four
point:
nine
percent.
In
2019
we
did
note
there
was
a
three-year
operating
expense
average
of
57.2
percent.
I
will
note
that
the
county
is
at
58.
I
apologize.
This
is
in
reference
to
the
summary
page
3
in
your
packet.
E
When
we
look
at
the
projections
made
by
the
county
before
we
receive
the
2019
ine,
we'll
see
that,
though,
we
did
in
fact
over
project
total
revenue
by
175
000.
We
also
over
projected
operating
expenses
by
over
400
000.
E
We
under
projected
ffne
by
approximately
172
000,
but
that
also
led
to
an
under
projection
of
the
net
operating
income
by
over
53
000,
given
that
we
underprojected
on
the
grossly
over
under
projected
on
operating
expenses
and,
of
course
under
projected
on
a
net
operating
income
that
actually
increased
by
18,
almost
18
percent.
E
We
do
believe
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
39
million
545
7.
for
what
it's
worth.
We
did
test
the
new
information,
as
you
can
see
in
column
f,
but
that
also
led
to
a
projection
that
was
under
projecting
the
net
operating
income
and
in
fact
the
difference
was
some
300
000
and
change
from
our
january
1st
projection.
So
we
do
believe
that
the
column
d
should
be
confirmed,
which
again
is
a
value
of
39
545
700..
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thanks
to
both
of
you,
questions
from
board
members.
H
How
do
you
value
that,
like,
for
example,
you
know
you
could
have
a
building
owned
by
a
pharmacy
president?
H
If
you
have
a
a
building
occupied
by
say,
a
pharmacy
miss
preston's
pharmacy,
wouldn't
some
of
that
be
business
enterprise
because
of
mr
preston's.
He.
H
B
Well,
I
understand,
after
I
put
my
presentation
together,
that
arlington
county
doesn't
really
consider
consider
the
business
value.
But
if
you
just
look
at
the
pro
forma,
we're
asking
for
thirty
million
three
hundred
five
thousand
six
hundred
as
opposed
to
thirty
nine
five,
forty
five
seven
hundred,
which
is
what
the
assessment
is
currently.
B
F
For
the
appellant
one,
one
quick
question:
the
amount
online
well,
its
total
operating
expenses
in
column
g
is
more
than
10
percent
higher.
B
F
B
F
Okay,
I'll
just
move
up
closer
on
column
g
total
operating
expenses,
the
the
absolute
dollar
amount.
I
I
don't
believe
so
much
in
in
percentages.
The
absolute
dollar
amount
is
more
than
10
percent
higher
than
any
expenses
in
the
last
some
years
that
this
property
has
occurred.
Do
you
ever?
Can
you
provide
a
rationale
that
significant
jump
given
how
fairly
stable
they
were
in
the
last
couple
of
years.
B
I
Sorry
about
that
I'll
ask
the
county.
You
know
2019,
it's
kind
of
like
a
nice
increase
in
noi
over
17
18..
Was
there
any
reason
you
could
figure
out?
Why
that
you
know
they
got
that
boost
in
noi.
Is
that.
E
E
There
was
a
larger
jump
in
revenue
in
19
and
the
expenses
went
down.
I
think
you
saw
a
larger
increase
in
the
nanowire
in
19
than
you
would
have
in
19.
I
Okay,
my
experience,
usually
operating
expenses,
only
go
one
way
over
time
and
but
it
looks
like
they
went
down
significantly
in
2019.
I
I
F
For
the
county,
one
last
question
in
column:
f
in
the
test.
F
The
this
is
room,
revenue
went
up
relatively
significantly.
There
was
a
bump
in
2019
over
the
prior
three
years
of
a
significant
amount,
but
then
you
bumped
it
up
noticeably
above
that
in
your
test.
What
was
the
rationale
for
that?
Please.
E
F
E
Yeah,
it's
fairly
modest
again,
it's
a
reflection
again.
If
you're
looking
at
a
snapshot
from
16
through
19
the
room
revenue
increased
in
17.,
it
did
see
a
dip
in
18
but
again
increased
by
over
six
percent
in
19.,
given
that
three
out
of
those
four
years
there's
an
increase.
So
we
see
no
reason
to
believe
that
there
wouldn't
be
an
increase
in
20
and
again
project
low
just
to
stay
on
that
conservative
side.
E
Yes,
ma'am
again,
given
that
we
underprojected
grossly
excuse
me
underprojected
on
revenue,
but
over
projected
grossly
on
excuse
me
overprojected
on
revenue,
but
also
again
grossly
overprojected
on
operating
expenses,
which
led
to
an
under
projection
of
the
achievable
net
operating
income
that
again
climbed
by
almost
18
percent.
We
do
believe
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
39
million
five,
four
five.
B
Yes,
I
don't
think
there's
that
this
property
is
being
accessed
as
a
30
year
old
property.
It's
being
assessed
more
like
a
four
or
five
star
property.
In
my
initial
package
that
I
provided,
I
provided
the
competitive
set
when
I
was
reviewing
this
yesterday.
Two
of
the
competitive
set
actually
are
being
demolished
because
they're
older
the
subject's
actually
being
assessed
more
like
the
hilton
garden,
which
is
a
four
store,
a
four-star
hotel
and
is
only
18
years
old,
not
30
years
old.
I
It
seems
like
kind
of
an
odd
data
point,
so
I
just
did
a
three
year
average
on
noi,
17,
18
and
19,
and
I
come
out
with
something
slightly
lower
than
what
the
county
had,
but
I
think
that
the
test
the
test
is
pretty
good
too.
As
far
as
kind
of
smoothing
out
those
data
points.
So
I'm
I'm
interested
in
what
everybody
else
thinks.
J
Yeah,
I
just
have
one
question
for
the
applicant
miss
ross.
What
value
do
you
have
for
last
year
on
this
property?
Because
you
mentioned
twice
that
it
was
a
33
increase.
J
Based
on
the
numbers
on
this
property,
also,
I'm
okay
with
the
county-
I
don't
see
where
anything
was
excessive.
I
think
the
expenses
that
were
provided
or
they
were
given
were
more
than
a
little
bit
more
than
a
little
bit
more
generous
than
they
should
have
been,
but
I'm
okay
with
it.
I
don't
see
where
we
can
make
any
change
or
adjustment.
F
I
I
thought
the
test
was
pretty
good.
It
was
real
good.
I
thought
the
original
column
d
was
good.
The
test
is
better
and
it
comes
up
with
over
12
increase
from
2019
to
2020,
and
that
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
based
on
what
we've
seen
other
hotels,
I
don't
want
to
get
in
that
it's
30
years
old
or
three
years
old,
but
that
seems
like
quite
a
big
jump
and
so
I'm
gonna,
while
we're
discussing
I'm
still
gonna,
look
for
some
number.
That
perhaps
is
out
of
whack
that
created
that.
I
Yeah
ken,
if
you
use
my
approach
of
just
taking
a
three
year
average
on
the
noi,
it's
a
36
million
580
to
900..
So
it's
it's
still
an
increase
over
19,
but
it's
not
12.
It's
it's
a
lot!
Less.
A
Mr
huffman
is
your
three
year:
2017
18
and
19.
A
F
Yeah
that
makes
me
feel
that's
objective,
reasonable
calculation
that
derives
a
bottom
line
number.
That
is
more
realistic.
I
think,
based
on
our
experience
of
hotels
and
less
increases
this
year,.
H
H
I
remember
when
this
went
up
so
I've
been
around
for
a
while,
so
I'm
I
would
be
willing
to
support
greg's
proposal.
A
Yeah,
I
can
also
support
that.
I
think
it's
an
increase
over
last
year,
which
you
know
I
think
there
should
be.
Not
quite
you
know,
to
the
county
test.
I
think
that's
a
little
aggressive
or
but.
B
Okay,
yeah:
I
can
get
behind.
I
All
right
I'll
motion
to
reduce
the
value
based
on
a
three-year
average
noi
net
of
personal
property
deduction
it'll
be
36
million,
582
900..
I
A
Okay
motion
is
second
by
mary
hogan.
All
in
favor
aye
opposed
okay,
so
it
is
five
to
two,
and
that
is
without
mr
yates.
K
J
A
Okay,
six
to
one
then
without
mr
penaranda
that
the
assessment
is
reduced
to
thirty
six
million
five
eighty
to
nine
hundred,
and
that
is
after
the
deduction
of
the
personal
property.
Thank
you
miss
ross.
Thank.
A
A
C
I
just
want
to
make
sure:
okay,
pretty
straightforward
page.
Three
of
our
analysis
would
be
page.
48
of
78
is
our
summary
of
facts.
This
is
the
marriott
crystal
gateway
located
at
1700
richmond
highway.
It
is
comprised
of
two
individual
tax
parcels:
zero,
seven,
zero
zero.
It
is
currently
assessed
at
or
original.
C
Last
year,
that
was
a
went
down
slightly
from
the
from
last
year's
final
value
of
159.87
871..
C
A
revision
was
made
at
the
first
level
by
the
county,
249
million
eight
288
seven
hundred
and
our
initial
value
for
this
property
is
114
million.
Eight
hundred
ninety
two
thousand
property
was
originally
built
in
1982.
D
C
The
operating
expenses
for
this
property
have
averaged
around
73
and
a
half
percent
or
73.75
over
the
last
two
years
from
2018..
Most
recently
in
2019
reported
73.68
percent.
C
The
revised
value
or
test
column
provided
by
the
county
did
take
into
consideration
of
that
fact,
raising
it
from
72
to
73
and
a
half.
However,
in
doing
that,
they
also
increased
their
revenue
estimate
in
their
test
column,
so
you'll
see
in
column
d,
their
original
test
column.
They
were
estimating
total
revenue
of
57
886
543.
C
So
obviously,
what
was
most
recently
reported
was
around
600
000
below
the
original
revenue
estimate
by
the
county
in
their
revision.
In
their
test
column,
they
subsequently
increased
that
to
58
130
278.
C
So
you
know,
based
on
the
last
couple
years,
this
property
has
been
down
returning
in
revenue,
that's
gonna
to
obviously
continue
given
that
the
current
environment
we're
in
now
and
especially
with
the
hospitality
market,
basically
taking
a
the
brunt
of
this
code
and
the
impact
are
back
again,
you
can
expect
a
downward
trend
the
following
year,
so
we
believe
that
the
revision
column
or
the
test
column,
although
appropriate,
for
estimating
the
most
recent
operating
history
for
the
expenses.
C
We
don't
feel
the
the
increase
from
the
original
revenue
estimate
from
57
886
to
58
130
up
to
58-130
was
justified.
It
should
have
not
been
increased,
should
have
been
decreased
and
that
the
you
know,
I
don't
think,
there's
any
justification
for
for
increasing
that
revenue
in
the
test
column.
So
that's
that's.
Basically,
it
we're
we're.
C
Basically,
on
the
on
the
adjustment
that
was
made
to
the
operating
expenses,
but
disagreement
given
the
the
operating
history
and
then
the
the
downward
trend
that
we're
going
to
go
into
and
have.
E
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chicas.
E
Yes,
ma'am,
unlike
the
last
property,
we
just
don't
see
a
downward
trend
and
that's
indicative
of
the
idea
that,
even
though
occupancy
ticked
down
point
three
percent
or
three
tenths
of
one
percent
in
2019,
the
average
daily
rate
increased
by
7.72
cents,
with
the
subsequent
increase
in
revenue
per
available
room
by
over
five
dollars,
five
dollars
and
41
cents
in
2019,
and
you
can
basically
see
that
again
on
page
three
of
a
summary
sheet:
16
17,
18
19.
E
Although
again
there
was
a
slight
dip
in
occupancy,
it's
it's
still
roughly
around
78,
and
yet
the
average
daily
rate
has
increased
three
out
of
those
four
years
and
again,
with
a
sub
subsequent
increase
in
the
revenue
prevailable
room,
we
saw
the
property
had
a
room
revenue
increase
in
3.7
in
2019
and
again,
even
though
there
was
a
decrease
in
food
and
beverage
and
miscellaneous
revenue,
total
revenue
increased
by
2
percent
in
2019.
E
There
was
an
increase
in
operating
expense
by
approximately
1.3
percent
in
2018,
but
we
did
note
again
a
three-year
average
of
72.5
percent
with
the
county
at
73.5
percent.
So,
as
mr
warren
noted,
we
did
in
fact
recognize
that
increase
and
made
an
adjustment
in
column
f
to
reflect
that
and
even
more
generous
than
what
was
reported
in
the
year
2019.
E
As
you
can
see
in
the
comments
section
and
as
we've
talked
about
previous
in
regards
to
the
applicability
or
using
capital
improvements
as
an
expense,
2018
and
2017.
The
property
spent
near
32
million
dollars,
essentially
on
what
you
could
call
a
gut
job
in
the
hotel
industry
in
that
there's
renovations
to
the
guest
rooms,
bathrooms
conference
rooms,
lobby,
hvac,
sprinkler
system
door,
locks
and
the
building
exterior
even
to
the
property's
puerto
coshere,
which
is
essentially
the
driveway.
The
large
colonnaded
driveway,
where
guests
arrive.
L
E
That
would
account
for
the
downturn
in
2018.
I
think
mr
hoffman
was
asking
a
previous
case
about
why
there
might
be
an
increase
or
decrease
over
year
over
year.
You
can
see
that
the
rooms
that
were
affected
as
far
as
not
being
necessarily
available
for
rent
caused
a
decrease
in
room
revenue,
and
that
was
the
only
time
out
of
the
last
four
years,
in
which
case
that
happened,
there
was
a
downturn
subsequent
to
the
net
operating
income,
because,
even
though
revenues
were
down,
expenses
were
actually
up,
which
is
usually
converse.
E
There
should
be
some
sort
of
causal
relationship
between
those
two,
but
regardless
you
can
see
that
after
they
spent
that
money
on
capital
improvements,
they
got
rewarded
so
that,
even
though
their
occupancy
went
down
the
room
revenues
went
up.
E
E
When
we
look
at
our
test,
you
can
see
that
the
county
did
over
project
total
revenues,
but
again
made
a
modest
increase
as
far
as
room
projections
of
one
point:
five
percent.
E
This
is
well
well
less
than
half
of
what
the
increase
was
in
2019
again
on
the
conservative
side,
but
still
allowing
for
the
growth.
That's
going
to
happen
when
you
have
a
hotel,
that's
been
spent
32
million
on
on
refurbishments.
If
you
will,
we
did
over
project
operating
expenses
by
532,
000
or
1.3
percent.
E
We
also
ever
projected
on
the
ffe
by
about
43
000,
and
it
led
to
an
overprojection
on
the
net
operating
income,
but
by
2.4
percent,
but
again
almost
half
of
what
was
achieved
in
2018's
growth
of
4.2
percent,
given
the
upward
trajectory
of
the
property,
given
the
32
million
spent
on
the
property
as
far
as
refreshing
near
every
aspect
of
its
of
its
property,
we
do
believe
that
the
county's
revision
of
149
million
288
700
should
be
confirmed.
Thank
you.
E
C
Based
on
an
imputed
franchisee
of
four
percent,
or
excuse
me
of
six
point,
four
percent,
which
is
listed
in
the
county's
assessment
guidelines
for
hotels,
their
their
hotel
guidelines
for
hotels
is
for.
C
Is
you
know
6.4
so
again,
if
you're.
C
This
methodology
uniformly
for
all
hotels
that
that
are
reporting
franchise
fees,
and
you
should
do
it
also
for
properties
that
that
are
not
reporting
franchise
fees.
H
You
know,
let
me
ask,
is
it
a
one-time
charge,
is
it
a
yearly
charge?
What's
the
deal
on
it.
E
C
It
would
be,
it
would
be
an
annual
charge
if
there
was
a
franchisee
agreement
and
the
opener
can
agree
to
go
with
an
independent
management
company
and
you
know
be.
D
E
H
E
Well,
essentially,
we
we
do
not
support
that
adjustment
for
the
primary
reason,
as
both
mr
warren
and
you
are
suggesting,
is
that
this
is
not
a
expense.
That's
been
incurred
by
the
owner.
It's
been
imputed
by
the
appellant
and
to
to
note
specifically
when
the
guidelines
mention
franchise
fees.
As
is
noted,
that's
included
in
total
expenses.
So,
in
other
words,
that's
a
a
breakdown.
E
That's
a
metric,
if
you
will
showing
that
of
the
total
expenses
of
ines
that
we
receive
of
properties
that
pay
franchise
fees,
that's
6.4
percent
of
the
total
expenses,
so
we
believe
to
impute
that
expense
line.
It
would
be
the
same
thing
as
the
county
imputing
an
income
line,
that's
not
attributable
to
revenue
source.
C
And
just
onto
that
and
the
the
reason
we
do
impede,
that
is
because
any
purchase
of
the
property
could
be
subjected
and
put
this
under
a
franchise,
and
that
would
come
into
consideration
of
their
their
fair
market
price.
The
property
now.
C
What
we
did
say
initially
is
that
you
know,
given
the
actual
historical
operating
cost
of
the
property,
we
were
in
agreement
with
the
adjustment
that
was
made
to
the
county's
test
column.
However,
what
we
weren't.
C
F
F
But-
and
it
doesn't
seem
to
have
appeared
in
years
past
that
figure.
So
I
I'm
and
I
did
it
so
I'm
understanding
that
now.
F
And
it's
it.
It
seems
to
me
that
this
is
relevant
to
the
operation
of
the
property.
Without
it,
revenues
would
probably
be
less
and
all
kinds
of
different
stuff
would
happen.
So
I'm
trying
to
form
a
question.
So
I
guess
in
the
department,
are
you
saying
the
french
fries
franchise
fees
are
just
distributed
within
the
normal
operating
expenses
under
expenses
in
your
various
columns,
and
this
is
in
in
essence,
double
counting
and
then
I'll.
Ask
a
similar
question.
The
appellant,
hopefully
I'll,
be
able
to
hear
an
answer.
E
Yeah,
I
appreciate
that
mr
mitzkin
for
clarity-
I
won't
put
words
in
mr
warren's
mouth,
but
to
be
clear-
that
franchise
fee,
that's
being
imputed,
is
not
being
incurred
by
the
owner
of
this
property.
E
There
is
a
franchise
feed
line
listed
on
the
expenses
of
the
hotel,
ine
and
that's
line
number
25
e25,
that's
under
the
management
subtotal,
because
there
are
properties
that
do
in
fact
incur
franchise
fees,
but
those
are
ones
that
have
a
franchise
fee
agreement
in
place
with
the
flag,
essentially
by
including
that
imputation
of
two
point
to
almost
2.5
million.
It
would
essentially
be
suggesting
that
the
total
operating
expenses
were
over
445
million
dollars,
which
has
never
been
incurred
by
this
property.
E
So
what
we
were
trying
to
make
clear
was
that
it's
simply
a
metric.
That's
that's
how
the
6.4
was
used
by
mr
warren
is
that
the
guidelines
suggest
that
again
of
the
properties
would
that
turn
in
income
expense
forms
six
point:
four
percent
of
total
expenses
is
franchise
fee,
but
again
this
property
does
not
incur
that
expense,
so
it
should
not
be
allowed.
D
A
Warren's
explanation,
mr
warren
we'd
love
to
hear
you
respond
to
that.
Can
you
turn
your
camera
on
mr
warren.
B
D
F
C
Okay,
I'm
sorry
so,
and
hopefully
you
can
hear
me
yes,
sir,
in
just
very
response.
It
is
our
belief
that
if
you're
going
to
include
a
franchise
fee
for
in
your
methodology
and
in
your
guidelines,
you
should
take
it
for
all
properties
to
uniformly
assess
that
property.
Now
what
we
are
conceding
and
what
we
were
trying,
I
was
trying
to
explain
and
maybe
did
a
very
poor
job
of
it
initially
was
given
the
actual
historical
operation
operating
costs
that
have
been
reported
at
the
subject
property.
C
We
are
in
agreement
with
the
county's
text,
column
for
the
73
and
a
half
percent
expense
ratio
applied.
What
we
are
not
in
agreement
with
is
the
revenue
adjustment.
I
think
a
perfect
indicator
of
what
this
the
value
should
be.
A
Okay,
mr
warren,
the
question
is
about
the
franchise
fee,
so
you
can
do
your
wrap-up
on
the
other
items
during
your
wrap-up.
Do
you
have
anything
else
to
say
about
the
franchise
fee.
C
This
is,
this
is
a
property
that
we're
just
reviewing
on
behalf
of
the
owner
for
the
first
year.
K
E
Absolutely
yeah
so
justin
and
sort
of
the
falling
on
the
tail
end
of
that
argument.
Mr
warren
would
like
the
board
to
recognize
the
guideline
metric
of
6.4
for
franchise
fees,
but
the
guideline
for
full-service
hotels
also
lists
total
expenses
at
69.7
percent,
so
it
seems
to
be
picking
and
choosing
where
the
metrics
apply
and
benefit
the
owner.
E
E
Given
that
we
did
look
again
at
the
2018's
newly
received
information,
we
do
believe
that
our
overprojections
on
operating
expenses
and
ffe
allowed
for
a
modest
increase
projection
of
net
operating
income
of
2.4
percent.
Well,
in
line
with
the
property,
that's
been
heavily
rehabilitated
at
32
million
dollars
of
capital
improvements.
A
E
C
C
C
C
C
That
have
happened
occurred
in
this
area,
but
probably
the
most
relevant.
This.
This
property
right
now
is
currently
assessed
at
213
000,
a
room,
the
the
high
country
sold
for
73
million
or
185
000
in
november
of
19..
I
think
that's
the
most
comparable
comp
to
this.
A
Product,
thank
you
all
right,
it's
just
among
the
board.
I'll
start,
I
mean
from
a
standpoint
of
adding
that
on
this
year
from
a
standpoint
of
equalization,
it's
built
into
the
actual
operating
expenses
and
I
would
not
feel
comfortable
taking
a
deduction
for
it
for
this
property,
because
I
think
it
would
take
it
out
of
equalization
with
all
the
other
properties.
I
mean,
if
you
add
that
back
into
the
appellants
number
he's
within
three
thousand
dollars
of
the
2019
reported
in
e.
H
Oh,
I'm
sorry,
I
didn't
know
who
you
had
called
on.
You
know
there
has
to
be
a
management
fee
and
I
tinkered
around
on
the
internet.
Looking
at
you
know,
if
I
open
a
marriott
hotel,
you
know
what
is
my
franchise
fee
and
I'm
just
I'm
just
I
mean
there
has
to
be
one
somewhere
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
it
isn't
taken
somewhere
else
such
as
in
you
know
the
management.
Maybe
it's
an
incentive
fee.
H
I
I
don't
know
there
has
to
be
one,
and
so
I
I
guess
in
the
absence
of
of
submitting
it
on
the
part
of
the
you
know,
on
the
expense
sheet,
I've
got
to
go
with
mary
and
and
consider
what
the
county's
done
as
being
okay.
I
Yeah
barnes
mr
office,
I
was
looking
in
there
too
on
the
incoming
expense
that
was
submitted
by
ashford
and
there's
a
pretty
large
under
management.
You
have
a
base
fee
and
an
incentive
fee,
and
that
numbers
is
huge.
So
I
mean
that's
on
top
of
management
salaries
and
everything
like
that.
This
is
just
fee,
so
I
think
buried
in
there
somewhere
is
probably
a
franchise.
I
I
Yeah,
I
mean,
I
think
it's
in
the
ine
which
ashford
prepared.
I
think
that
the
their
their
tax
agent
has
got
a
different
story,
but
but
this
is
the
this
is
the
ine
from
the
owner.
K
J
Discussion,
yeah.
Well,
I'm
okay,
with
the
county's
revision
on
the
assessment
I
think,
using
one
year
specifically
and
trying
to
pick
you
know
2019
as
a
basis
to
try
to
lower
the
value.
I
don't
think
it's
important
by
using
the
same
rationale
that
the
board
used.
In
the
previous
case,
you
you
know
doing
an
average
of
noise
for
the
past
three.
D
J
A
Okay,
all
right,
then,
I
will
make
a
motion
to
accept
the
county's
revised
number
of
149
million
288.7.
K
H
A
Okay,
it's
unanimous.
The
county's
revised
number
has
been
confirmed
at
149
288
7.,
okay,
before
we
take
a
break,
mr
warren,
I'm
not
sure
why
your
camera
doesn't
work,
but
I'd
like
to
see
during
the
five
minutes,
if
you
could
get
it
to
work,
miss
taurus.
I
think
that
we
need
to
let
appellants
know
moving
forward.
This
meeting
is.
A
And
always
has
been
a
meeting
that's
held
in
person,
so
their
cameras
need
to
work.
Part
of
the
presentation
is
looking
at
them
hearing
them
looking
at
body
language
and
it's
difficult
when
you've
just
got.
You
know
a
circle
up
there
with
a
imaginary
person.
So
moving
forward,
I'd
like
to
see
all
of
the
appellants
visual
on
the
screen
when
they're
presenting,
so
it
is
10
16,
let's
take
a
five
minute
break
and
we'll
be
back
and
hear
the
final
two
cases.
Thank
you.
E
L
D
E
E
E
C
E
A
A
A
Mark
is
back
okay,
jose.
D
A
I'm
here,
okay,
thank
you,
mary
hogan
is
back
so
I'm
waiting
on
ken
and
gray.
Oh,
I
see
greg.
C
A
E
J
A
C
I'll
go
back,
we
just
upgraded
our
software
to
microsoft.
Teams
too,
so
it
might
be
something
to
do
with
our
ic
moving
forward.
So
we'll
get
that
fixed.
A
C
A
C
Yeah,
so
this
property
is
actually
located
directly
to
the
south
of
the
last
property.
We
spoke
about
the
the
crystal
gateway
missile
city
at
the
1800
jefferson
davis
highway.
One
tax
parcel
that
comprises
the
current
2020.
D
C
100
that
was
subsequently
revised
by
the
county
to
69
million
45
000,
our
value
of
40
million
570
thousand
the
business
enterprise
approach.
I
know
there's
been
precedent
in
prior
years
that
that
is
an
unacceptable
methodology
that
the
county
has
not
considered
that
appropriate.
C
Given
that
fact
we're
willing
to
concede
that
fact-
and
you
know,
based
off
of
the
direct
cap
value
from
2019-
would
get
you
to
a
value
of
68
million
407
200.
So
that's
what
we're
requesting
from
the
board
today.
C
This
is
an
older
hotel
as
well.
It's
built
originally
built
in
1984.
It's
full
service,
220,
total
rooms.
It
has
one
dining
option
in
a
bar.
It
also
has
a
fitness
studio
and
outdoor
space.
C
In
space,
if
you
turn
back
to
page
three
of
the
the
county's
recommendations,
award,
you'll
see
the
hotel
income
and
expense
summary.
C
The
initial
issues
that
we
brought
forth
with
our
first
level
appeal
was
with
regard
to
the
county's
room
and
food
and
beverage
revenue
estimates
for
the
original
2020
assessment,
the
operating
expenses.
So,
following
that
revision,
we're
in
agreement
with
the
revision
made
to
revenue,
however,
the
county
has
adjusted
now
total
operating
expenses
to
fall
below.
K
C
Was
reported
in
2019,
so
their
original
assessment
had
an
estimate
of
nine
expenses
which
was
adjusted
down
to
eight
million
seven
hundred
fifty
eight
thousand
six.
Ninety
six
in
a
test
column
and
what
was
actually
reported
in
2019
was
eight
million
eight
hundred
and
seventy
thousand
one
seventy
two.
So
about
a
hundred
and
twenty
thousand
dollars
below
what
was
actually.
C
This
property
has
seen
subsequent
drop
in
occupancy,
which
we've
seen
really
across
the
board.
C
Might
be
the
lone
exception?
It's
been
pretty
stable,
however,
again
that's
going
to
continue
next
year.
I
know
the
county
has
recently
sent
out
income
expense,
questionnaires
detailing
and
asking
for
the
impact
of
covid,
which
I
think
is
really
good,
but
and
what
you're
going
to
see
here
is.
Is
this
particular
property
last
time
that
we
had
checked,
I
don't
have
july,
but
revenue
was
down
then
from
budget.
C
So
this
is
a
property
that
before
covid
was
experienced
downward
trend
and
occupancy,
and
certainly
you're
going
to
see
that
impact
the
following
year
as
well
again
we're
asking
for
a
small
adjustment
to
to
operating
expenses
in
the
county's
test
column
now,
and
given
that
if
you
look
at
it,
58
407,
200
or
311
000,
and
that's
all
we
have
today.
E
Yes,
ma'am
so
again,
sort
of
echoing
a
bit
of
mr
warren's
comments
and
what
we've
seen
in
previous
hotels,
the
occupancy
did
in
fact
tick
down
almost
3.3
percent
in
2019.
E
But
again,
even
with
that
downturn,
the
average
daily
rate
increased
by
over
nine
dollars
and
revenue
increased
by
almost
two
dollars
in
2019,
so
they're
actually
doing
better
with
less.
If
you
will
river
excuse
me,
room
revenue
was
up
2.2
percent,
but
food
and
beverage
and
miscellaneous
revenue
were
down
which
actually
caused
a
decrease
year
over
year
0.4.
So
four
tenths
of
one
percent
decreased
from
2018,
so
fairly
stabilized
18
to
19.
E
Expenses
also
dropped
again,
there's
usually
a
causal
relationship
between
operating
expenses
and
revenue
that's
achieved,
so
there
was
expectation.
The
operating
expenses
would
be
down.
They
were
down
2.7
percent.
In
2019
we
noted
a
three-year
average
17-18-19
with
the
operating
expense
average
of
56.7
percent
and
you'll
note
in
our
revision
column
the
counties
at
58
so
well
above
the
three-year
average,
regardless
of
all
of
the
downturns
in
food
and
beverage
and
miscellaneous
revenue
and
total
revenue.
E
Because
again,
the
operating
expenses
dropped
at
a
rate
faster
than
the
revenue.
The
operating
income
is
actually
up
4.5
percent
in
2019,
given
that
we
were
a
bit
overzealous
on
our
projections
previous
to
receiving
the
2019
income
expense
questionnaire,
we
did
make
a
revision,
as
you
can
see
in
column.
F.
E
We
did
under
project
operating
expenses
by
1.3
percent,
but
again
that
follows
that
the
operating
expenses
have
gone
down
in
19,
so
again
about
half
of
what
occurred
in
2019,
but
still
again
well
above
the
three
year
average
of
56.7
percent.
With
the
county
of
58,
we
underprojected
ffe
and
over
projected
net
operating
income
by
three
tenths
of
one
percent.
E
So
again,
a
very
modest
increase
projection
of
point
three
percent:
after
a
increase
of
four
point:
five
percent
at
the
property.
Given
these
changes
to
the
projections
made
by
the
county,
we
do
believe
that
the
revision
should
be
confirmed
at
69
million
45
000..
Thank
you.
A
I
I
have
a
question
I'll
just
ask
mr
chikas
your
argument,
and
we
hear
this
on
both
sides
from
both
sides,
and
I
tend
to
always
lean
towards
the
number
and
not
the
percentage.
You
talked
about
that
your
58
was
below
the
59
and
58
what
the
average
was
for
the
past
three
years
on
expenses.
E
That's
correct,
but
again,
I
think,
without
being
argumentative,
the
percentage
is
accurate
because
again
it's
a
percentage
of
revenue.
So
if
you're
doing
that
same
math
of
the
averages
of
expenses,
you'll
note
that
the
average
for
income
is
about
740
000
higher
than
what
we
projected.
E
H
For
the
county
we
have
comment.
Agent
makes
deduction
for
return
on
of
ffe
and
return
on
of
spip.
What
do
those
abbreviations
stand
for.
E
E
In
other
words,
it's
a
reflection
of
the
business
enterprise
valuation,
but
it's
you
know,
sort
of
more
of
a
theory.
If
you
will.
A
No
okay,
mr
chicas,
have
you
taken
a
minute
to
wrap
up
then.
E
Yes,
ma'am
so
again
in
reflection
of
the
very
modest
downturn
and
revenue
and
operating
expenses
in
year
19,
we
did
modify
a
projection
for
the
year
2020,
given
again
that
we
under
projected
revenue
in
accordance
with
under
projecting
operating
expenses.
We
do
believe
that
our
very
modest
projection
for
increase
in
net
operating
income
of
0.3
is
well
in
line
with
the
increase
of
over
4.5
percent
in
year
2019.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chicas,
mr
warren,
if
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up,
please.
C
Yes
again,
this
property
has
experienced
a
downward
trend
over
the
last
three
years
in
occupancy
pretty
substantially
from.
D
C
In
85
percent,
before
revenue
subsequently
has
has
fallen
as
well
and
will
continue
to
fall
from
17
million
to
15
to
15
1526
to
15
2.
again,
we
think
the
adjustment
made
to
the
the
revenue
was
was
appropriate
in
the
county's
test
column.
However,
their
adjustment
to
operating
expenses
now
puts
the
operating
expenses
roughly
120
000
dollars
a
of
what
was
was
actually
reported
most
recently
in
2019
again.
C
Given
those
factors,
I
think
we
believe
an
adjustment
should
be
made
to
to
the
total
operating
expenses
to
the
2020
assessment
value.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you
both
gentlemen.
Okay,
it's
just
among
the
board.
I
mean
I'll
start
based
on
what
I
had
asked.
Mr
chikas,
you
know
I
did
have
some
pause
initially
about
the
operating
expenses.
I
think
when
you
look
at
percentages,
they
don't
always
tell
you
a
true
case,
so
I
went
ahead
and
did
my
own
test
and
increase
the
expenses
to
59.
A
However,
when
I
bring
it
down-
and
you
know
after
subtracting
for
the
personal
property,
I
end
up
lower
than
last
year's,
and
I
don't
think
that's
in
fact
the
case.
So
you
know
now
I'm
kind
of
leaning
more
towards
the
test
and
think
that
that
is
reasonable.
I
mean
if
it
the
noi
continues
to
drop.
I
mean
you
know,
the
problem
is,
it
seems
to
be
up
and
down
up
and
down.
You
know
it's
pretty
close
to
the
2019
reported
numbers,
so
my
vote
would
be.
I
would
be
all
right
with
the
revision.
J
J
A
Okay,
mr.
I
Hoffman
yeah
I'll
go
with
it.
The
only
thing
that
stands
out
to
me
and
there's
there
could
be
reasons
for
this
is
just
because
we
saw
the
last
case
and
it's
like
marriott
on
the
block.
Next
door
is
213
000
a
key
and
for
some
reason
this
one
is
314
000
a
key,
so
you
know
room
rates.
Adrs
in
line
expenses
are
way
different,
and
so
I
guess
it's
just
runs.
It
comes
down
to
the
operation
of
the
hotel
and
where
the
different
income
streams
are
coming
from
and
what
the
costs
are.
I
So
it's
it's
a
little.
You
know
my
shorthand
check.
I
I
don't
see
why
it's
that
far
off,
but
from
an
from
a
you
know,
income
approach.
I
think
the
logic
is
fine.
I
A
J
A
All
right-
and
I
will
second
that
motion
in
a
second
by
mary
dooley,
all
in
favor,
aye,
aye,.
A
Okay,
it's
unanimous
the
assessments
reduced
to
68
105
900,
based
on
increasing
expenses
to
58.5.
F
M
F
J
A
A
Can
see
you
now?
Okay,
all
right!
The
last
case
of
the
day
is
rpc
34027
563
2850
potomac
avenue
the
residents
in
in
arlington
capitol
view.
So,
mr
steinhauser,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
your
property.
M
Yeah.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
As
you
said,
the
property
is
the
residence
in
capitol
view.
It's
a
325
key
hotel
and
it
was
built,
I
believe,
2011..
You
know
I
I've.
I
think
I
you
know,
noted
our
objections.
Sort
of
to
you
know
the
county's
stance
towards
kovid
19
and
just
in
general,
to
hotels
this
year.
That
being
said,
you
know
I've
seen
the
assessor's
revision
and
I
I
think
you
know
he's
done
he's
done
a
pretty
good
job.
M
You
know
sort
of
re-estimating,
you
know
the
income
and
expenses
there.
You
know
we
think
the
cap
rate
should
be
higher
for
select
service
or
I
guess
this
is
resident
suites.
But
it's
sort
of
the
same
thing.
M
And
I'm
aware
that
that
it's
not
going
to
be
changed
at
this
hearing,
so
all
that
being
said,
you
know,
I
think
my
objections
have
been
noted,
but
I
appreciate
mr
chica's
work
here
and
I
think
the
revision
you
know
is
pretty
good
for
the
purpose
of
this
hearing.
Thanks.
A
Alrighty,
mr
chicas,
do
you
have
anything
else
to
add.
E
H
I'm
sorry
I
clicked,
but
it
didn't
turn
it
turn.
The
microphone
on
for
the
purpose
of
this
hearing
explain
what
that
meant.
H
Is
it
because
we
aren't
willing
to
change
cap
rates.
D
A
I
would
assume
that
we
don't
need
a
wrap-up
from
either
party
from
the
board
members
yeah
all
right.
Well
then,
with
no
discussion,
then
I
will
move
to
accept
the
county's
revision
of
the
75
million
802
100.
A
D
A
In
favor,
aye
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
It
has
been
reduced
to
the
county's
recommended
amount
of
75
million
802
100.
A
You,
mr
seinhauser,
okay,
is
any
other
business
from
any
board
members
or
from
the
county.