►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing August 17, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Today
is
tuesday
august
17
2021.
This
is
the
arlington
county,
virginia
board
of
equalization
hearings.
We
have
three
cases
on
the
agenda
today.
The
first
case
is
rpc
34027
563.
The
property
is
located
at
2850
potomac
avenue
and
mr
steve
thompson
is
representing
the
owner
of
the
property.
Mr
thompson.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
Sir.
B
D
D
C
We
can
take
a
look,
I
don't
know
if
rick
wants
to
weigh
in.
Obviously,
if
the
idea
is
we
have
one
in
house
or
if
it's
a
matter
of
being
willing
to
accept
the
test
column,
I
don't
know
what
the
procedure
would
be
yeah.
I'm
I'm
interested
to
hear.
F
C
He
just
emailed
the
county.
Let
me
just
bring
this
up,
so
it
looks
like
there
is
an
email
from
the
ownerships
agents
dated
august
10th,
so
it
looks
like
they
did
accept
a
revised
value.
C
C
This
is
an
email
dated
august
10th
yeah,
almost
like
stated,
our
client
has
decided
to
accept
your
revised
valuation
for
the
site.
Please.
C
A
A
A
Rosie,
you
could
also,
can
you
text
mr
thompson
or
call
him
and
tell
him
he
can
call
in
if
he
can't
get
us?
Yes,
I
will.
G
A
A
B
B
Based
on
our
conversation
at
some
of
the
previous
cases
we
had
regarding
hotels,
it's
my
understanding
that
the
board's
intent
is
to
kind
of
hear
each
year
one
year
at
a
time.
So
my
arguments
regarding
a
discounted
cash
flow
approach,
I
think,
are
still
valid,
and
I
do
think
that
that's
the
way
the
market
would
value
the
property,
but
in
an
effort
to
try
to
narrow
the
appeal
issues
before
the
board.
Today,
I
want
to
focus
on
four
specific
issues.
B
The
first
issue
would
be
with
regard
to
the
expense
ratio
applied
by
the
county,
the
in
the
in
the
county's
test
column.
If
you'll
look
at
page
3
of
119,
they
actually
made
a
few
changes
with,
whereby
they
reduced
the
the
amount
of
the
reserves
from
4.5
percent
to
4.
B
B
If
you
look
on
page
58
of
119,
you
can
see
the
county's
three-year
operating
history,
the
reconstructed
values.
So
on
the
left
side,
that
was
what
the
owner
supplied
and
I
want
you
to
focus
in.
If
you
could
please
on
the
total
expenses
and
those
ratios
there,
so
the
county
took
a
look
at
what
the
owner
had
filed.
B
So
in
the
county's
assessment
this
year.
For
some
reason
they
reduced
that
operating
expense
ratio
down
to
70
percent.
We
think
it
should
be
at
least
75,
and
I
would
point
out
that
the
cost
of
labor,
particularly
for
hotels,
continues
to
increase
rather
dramatically
and
one
of
the
other
issues
that
makes
the
expense
ratio
even
more
erroneous.
In
this
case,
is
we
don't
know
if
the
food
and
beverage
and
meeting
revenue
will
ever
recover
for
this
particular
hotel?
B
B
The
second
issue
has
to
do
with
the
county's
covet
adjustment
in
this
particular
assessment,
the
county
adjusted
for
65
total
revenue,
which
is
not
sufficient
for
year
one.
This
particular
property
suffered
a
decline
in
total
revenues
of
71.5
percent,
and
we
believe
at
least
that
figure
should
be
used
as
the
below
the
line
adjustment.
B
With
regard
to
the
cap
rate
this
year,
the
county
lowered
their
or
increased
their
rates
slightly,
but
there
were
no
sales
from
within
the
county
from
which
to
derive
cap
rates.
Therefore,
we
looked
at
the
rerc
survey
for
washington
dc
specific
and
it
noted
the
lowest
possible
rate
and
again
this
is
taking
into
account
first-tier
properties,
including
the
city
proper,
and
the
lowest
rate
was
7.5.
B
The
county
used
seven
point
three
five
percent,
so
it's
a
minor
difference,
but
we
do
think
that
in
the
in
the
absence
of
sales,
using
the
lowest
possible
cap
rates
for
dc
is
quite
conservative.
We
would
ask
you
to
do
the
same.
B
B
So
again,
just
to
summarize
the
issues
are,
the
expense
ratio
is
too
low.
The
covet
adjustment
doesn't
take
into
account
the
full
impact
of
the
decline
in
revenue
here.
Cap
rate
is
unsupported
by
sales.
Therefore,
we
must
look
at
the
surveys
and
then,
lastly,
the
cost
to
care
adverse
conditions.
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chicas,
for
the
county,
sir.
Yes,
man
good
morning,
board
members
mr
thompson.
This
property,
we're
talking
about,
as
mr
thompson
pointed
out,
is
the
ritz
carlton
unique
property,
and
then
it's
essentially
the
most
luxurious
hotel.
The
county
has
those
who
aren't
even
necessarily
familiar
with
the
property
itself
know
the
name
carries
a
lot
of
cachet,
but
much
like
every
other
hotel
that
we've
seen
this
year.
That
is
a
full
service.
C
The
county
has
treated
it
the
same
way
in
that
we've
given
a
blow
the
line,
deduction
of
negative
65
percent
of
total
revenue,
and
that
is
again
in
parity
with
all
the
other
full
service
hotels,
not
only
that
you've
heard,
but
that
did
not
appeal.
C
This
called
for
a
negative
twenty
three
percent
year-over-year
adjustments
from
last
year's
assessment.
Again,
as
we've
heard
many
times
from.
F
C
Myself,
this
is
prudent,
it's
fair
and
it's
equitable,
not
only
with
other
properties,
but
again
with
those
properties
that
didn't
file
the
appellant,
as
we've
seen
with
other
agents
for
owners
of
some
of
the
property
types
was
just
a
bit
too
aggressive
in
calling
for
a
72
drop
in
revenue,
which
would
call
for
a
negative
48
drop
year
over
year,
and
that's
just
too
aggressive
for
one
year's
drop
in
revenue
and
again,
as
mr
thompson
noted,
this
is
really
a
matter
of
speculation
as
far
as
how
quickly
this
property
will
recover
as
you've
seen
and
as
we've
done
on
previous
hotel
cases
with
the
full
service,
we
did
make
a
revision
much
more
in
line
with
2018's
numbers
that,
rather
than
2019s
our
noi
projection
is
lower
than
2019
a
bit
higher
than
2018
again
in
conjunction
with
how
we
treated
the
other
full
service
properties
in
the
county.
C
We
do
believe
that
the
negative
65
adjustment
below
the
line,
in
addition
to
again
a
revision
from
january
1's
numbers,
was
made
prudently.
It
was
done
in
fairness
with
other
property
types
and
again
much
like
the
other
properties
confirmed.
We
do
believe
this.
One
should
be
so
as
well
directly
to
address
some
of
mr
thompson's
concerns.
C
As
the
board
knows,
the
guidelines
are
just
that
they
are
to
guide
us
for
those
properties
that
have
no
historical
operations
to
rely
upon.
Although
this
property
did
sell
in
2017
for
105
million,
so
we
only
had
a
partial
year.
We
did
get
2018's
numbers
in
2019,
as
the
board
can
see
and
as
they've
heard
in
previous
years.
The
reason
why
this
property
is
reconstructed
was
that
they
were
including
ground,
rent
payments,
that's
not
an
allowable
expense
in
the
department's
eyes,
much
like
amortization,
interest,
appreciation,
etc.
C
C
So
when
you
look
at
the
actual
reported
total
operating
expenses
and
again
column
c
and
e
you'll
see
that
they
match
up
nicely
as
far
as
what
we
have
projected
for
column
h
same
thing
with
the
ffd
reserves,
while
again
historically
they've
reported
four
percent.
The
guidelines
do
call
for
four
and
a
half,
but
the
guidelines
are
to
be
used
in
lieu
of
historical
operations
to
rely
upon,
because
we
know
that
the
property
is
historically
reported,
four
percent.
C
That,
in
fact,
is
what
we
use
in
our
revision
again,
given
that
our
vision
matches
up
with
what
was
reported
by
the
owner,
not
including
the
not
allowable
ground
lease
payments,
given
the
reflection
of
the
negative
65
percent
of
total
revenues
that
was
done
in
accordance
with
other
full
service
hotels,
given
the
appropriate
negative
23
percent
drop
year
over
year,
that's
more
in
line
with
one
year's
drop,
as
opposed
to
the
appellants.
Almost
50
percent
drop
off
in
value.
C
C
No
ma'am
just
we
asked
the
board
to
keep
in
accordance
with
the
way
the
other
hotels
have
been
valued
throughout
this.
B
C
And
recognized
that
65
percent
of
load
line
adjustments
and
confirmed
the
property's
revision
at
89
million
953
600..
Thank
you.
A
C
B
Yeah,
just
two
more
brief
comments.
Looking
at
the
county's
reconstruction
on
page
three
of
119,
one
item
I
forgot
to
mention
is
that
they
increase
miscellaneous
revenue
from
their
column
f
to
column
h
from
one
percent
to
two
percent,
which
is
entirely
unwarranted.
As
I
mentioned,
this
sort
of
food
and
beverage
and
conference
revenue
may
never
come
back.
Mr
chica's
referenced
that
he
was
looking
at
column
d
for
the
expense
for
his
to
be
in
line
with
his
column.
B
So
you
can't
say
that
this
is
you
know
the
most
luxurious
hotel
in
the
city
and
give
and
account
for
that
revenue,
but
then
not
account
for
the
cost
to
get
that
revenue.
So
luxury
hotels
are
historically
much
more
expensive
to
operate.
B
And
again
I
didn't
hear
them
addressed
why
they
reduced
the
reserves
from
4.5
to
4,
and
we
would
just
ask
you
to
take
a
look
at
the
actual
operating
expenses.
The
county's
own
reconstruction,
which
again
is
on
page
six
of
119,
shows
that
they
have
removed
the
ground
lease
and
they're
still
showing
75
percent
output
inspectors
and
then
the
last
item
was
just
the
cost
to
chair
around
3.6
million.
That's
all
I
have
thank
you.
I
I
don't
I
don't
know
if
you
can
see
my
face.
This
is
my
third
device,
I'm
not
in
a
good
place
here,
but
you
can
hear
me.
This
is
an
extraordinarily
stable
property.
I
Of
course,
kovit
upset
that,
but
in
general
and
historically,
and
it
appears
that
the
department
kept
with
that
tradition-
and
I
don't
want
to
because
it's
so
stable.
I
don't
know
how
important
or
relevant
the
the
percentages
are,
rather
than
the
absolute
expenditures
and
the
given
the
columns,
the
rows
above
the
line
where
the
department
followed
through
on
each
and
every
income
and
expense
item
and
then,
of
course,
below
the
line
reduces
significantly.
I
I
found
it
generous
actually
because
in
real
life,
if
the
the
revenue
had
stayed
at
the
level
that
it
had
been
and
probably
would
have
without
covet,
which
they
put
in
because
of
covid
the
expenses
and
the
f
e
reserves
would
surely
go
down
because
of
so
many
fewer
actual
guests,
but
but
they
kept
those
deductions
up
consistent
with
the
proposed
revenue.
Finally,
the
and
and
and
and
therefore
giving
the
a
cost
break
or
an
assessment
break
to
the
the
owner.
I
Lastly,
the
cap
rate
is
well
known
where
it's
deduced
from,
and
I
I
can't
imagine
anybody
can
parse
from
a
regional
perspective,
a
0.15
percent
difference
in
cap
rate
from
arlington
versus
a
metropolitan
area.
So
I
thought
this
was
a
very
solid
piece
of
work.
J
J
The
only
question
that
I
have
is
is
the
covet
adjustment
enough
and
and
from
memory
looking
at
these
hotel
cases
that
we've
had
the
best
situation
that
I
can
remember
with
a
hotel
was
a
was
something
like
63
percent
and
it
seemed
like
most
of
the
hotels
were
over
this
over
65.
J
G
G
G
I
You
know
a
good
bit
10
or
more,
however,
and
so
I'm
sitting
here
thinking
well,
can
we
make
a
an
exception
for
this
one
and
not
the
ones
we've
already
seen
at
this
board
hearing
these
board
hearings,
but
also
those
that
we
just
never
saw.
But
then
I
came
up
with
well.
We
don't
know
what
the
rest
were,
that
we
never
saw.
I
G
A
Okay
and
mr
maskin
is
a
second
all
in
favor,
aye
opposed
okay,
it
is
six
to
zero.
The
county's
revised
number
of
89
million
950
3
600,
is
confirmed.
E
E
And
she
actually
did
accept
the
meeting
because
we
had
emails.
A
All
right:
well,
it
is
9
25,
so
the
instructions
do
say
to
get
on
before
your
case
is
hard,
so
we
will
go
ahead
and
hear
this
without
the
appellant,
so
miss
roskin.
If
you
would
tell
us
about
the
property,
please,
okay,
thank
you.
H
This
property
is
located
in
westover
on
on
11th
street
north.
It's
an
apartment,
a
garden
apartment,
style
property.
I
did
go
out
and
inspect
this
property
with
the
owner
and
determined
that
our
records
were
incorrect
in
reporting
the
number
of
units
that
they
have.
We
had
10
one-bedroom
units,
but
upon
respection
inspection
noted
that
it
actually
has
nine
one-bedroom
units
and
two
efficiency
units.
H
H
So
this
property,
we
valued
it
on
the
market
approach,
which
is
a
hundred
and
eighty
thousand
per
unit,
and
the
purpose
of
column
f,
which
is
the
test
column,
was
to
show
based
on
on
the
correction
of
the
number
of
units,
what
the
value
would
be
using
our
guidelines
and
that
would
have
been
one
million
nine
hundred
and
sixteen
thousand.
But
as
noted
the
current
2018,
I'm
sorry,
2021
assessment
is
one
million
eight,
which
is
less
than
if
I
had
made
the
correction.
H
H
It
does
show
up
on
the
apartment
sale
list
in
the
guidelines.
However,
there
have
been
a
number
of
garden
style
sales
that
have
occurred
since
then
more
recent,
and
I
did
provide
three
sales
just
for
brevity
purposes.
H
However,
there
are
several
more
in
on
the
list
that
would
continue
to
support
the
180
000
per
unit,
and
the
test
column
is
based
on
180
000
for
nine
units
per
nine,
each
one
of
those
and
then
a
hundred
and
forty
eight
thousand
for
each
efficient
efficiency,
and
that's
how
I
came
up
with
the
one
million
nine
hundred
and
sixteen
thousand
in
column
f.
However,
we're
just
asking
you
to
confirm
the
2021
assessment
at
one
million,
eight
hundred
thousand
I'm
finished.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board
members.
J
A
J
Yeah,
this
is
for
the
county,
I'm
trying
to
remember
two
or
three
years
ago,
the
county
board
amended
the
zoning
ordinance
and
created
areas
of
the
county
that
are
zoned
r,
a
ra-818.
I
think
this
is
re-1426
as
areas
where
you
can't
raise
apartments
and
build
in
their
place.
Townhouses
in
your
analysis
of
sales.
Has
that
impacted
values.
Much
in
your
opinion,.
H
We
we
have,
there
are
sales
in
westover
in
this
area.
I
don't
have
a
listing
of
their
zoning
type,
it's
not
on
the
sales
page,
but
there
are.
They
are
located
in
westover,
and
so
I
feel
that
they
have
the
same
influence.
The
same
effect,
so
their
sales
are
are
at
221
000
per
unit.
H
J
H
Okay,
the
one
that
the
lowest
one
at
181
000
per
unit
was
january,
2019.
H
J
Thank
you.
The
reason
I
asked
the
question
was:
there
was
a
lot
of
testimony
by
property
owners
that
this
was
going
to
devastate
values
and
they'd,
have
trouble
getting
loans,
etc,
etc.
So
I
was
just
curious
what
the
department's
analysis
of
that
situation
was.
Thank
you,
madam
chairman,.
A
No
okay,
mr
roskin,
if
you'd
like
to
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up,
please.
H
Pretty
simple
we're
just
asking
that
you
confirmed
the
2021
assessment
at
1.8
million
will
more
likely
make
the
correction
to
the
number
of
units
for
this
coming
year's
assessment.
It
was
currently
at
10
units,
but
in
fact
it
actually
has
11
units
and
that's
all
thank
you.
Okay,.
J
County's
assessment
is
fine,
I'd
be
willing
to
go
ahead
and
move
that
we
set
the
assessed
value
at
the
county's
recommended.
One
million
eight
hundred
thousand.
A
J
A
County
is
good.
Thank
you,
okay,
thank
you.
The
only
thing
I
just
want
to
let
the
board
members
know
there
is
no
hearing
on
tuesday,
the
24th
of
august.