►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - August 30, 2022
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
Good
morning
today
is
tuesday
august
30th
2022.
This
is
the
arlington
county
board
of
equalization
hearings.
There's
three
cases
on
the
agenda
today.
The
first
case
is
rpc
one,
four:
zero:
three:
zero,
zero.
Three,
oh
the
point
at
north
cleave
road
is
mr
peralta
on
the
call
yeah
there.
He.
B
A
Okay,
I
understand,
and
mr
applebaum
is
on
the
call
that
they
asked
to
withdraw.
I
assume
that
you
have
no
objection
to
that.
C
D
A
A
C
A
A
3400
potomac
avenue
so,
mr
seinhauser,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this
property.
Sir.
D
D
I
delivered,
I
believe,
q4
2020
about
october.
If
everyone
could
go,
I
believe
it's
page
75
of
111
and
the
boe
memo.
That
is
where
my
appeal
materials
start
the
proposed
assessment
right
now,
170.6
million.
We
see
that
the
assessor
has,
you
know,
submitted
a
revised
value
of
162.7
million,
which
we
certainly
appreciate.
D
D
D
So
I
mean
it
was
a
discussion
we
had
last
year,
where
you
know
the
assessor
had
it
was
only
giving
essentially
a
one-year
sort
of
lease
up
deduction
or
you
know,
sort
of
timing
timing
and
we
were
estimating
it
to
be
closer
to
two
years.
Certainly
there
are
other
properties,
you
know
in
boston,
and
you
know
that
area
that
have
that
have
leased
up
much
faster
to
the
assessor's
credit
you
know,
but
for
this
property
you
know
the
proof
is
in
the
pudding
and
it
and
it's
it's
still.
D
You
know
over
50
percent
vacant
as
of
our
date
of
value.
Additionally,
there's
almost
17
000
square
feet
of
space,
for
that's
going
to
be
for
commercial
or
retail
use,
and
that
was
still
100
vacant
as
of
the
date
of
value.
D
So
there
it
is
a
big
year-over-year
assessment
increase,
but
we
just
think
it's
a
little
too
aggressive
the
main
issues
with
the
assessor's
income
approach,
which
can
be
seen
on
page
78
of
111,
comparing
our
rents
to
the
assessor's
revised
rents.
Really
just
the
only
sort
of
disagreement
we
still
have
is
on
the
two
bedroom
units.
The
assessor's
revised
approach
uses
thirty
six
hundred
dollar
rent
for
the
two
bedroom
units
we're
at
34.50.
D
We
have
evidence
that
I
will
get
to
on
pages
102
and
103
of
111,
which
show
all
of
the
two
bedroom
rents
currently
at
the
building,
and
they
are
at
you
know,
averaging
in
the
3
400
to
3
500
range
so
below
that
3
600
mark.
D
That
really
is
the
only
difference
you
know
it
makes
up
the
difference
in
our
pgi
for
parking
and
other
income.
We
are
now
on
the
same
page
as
the
assessor.
We
use
the
same:
eight
percent
vacancy
and
collection
loss
as
the
assessor
above
the
line
for
expenses.
D
We
were
using
ninety
five
hundred
dollars
per
unit
or
twenty
eight
and
a
half
percent
which
the
assessors
revised
the
numbers
is
very
close
to
that
within
a
hundred
thousand.
So
that's
really
no
longer
an
issue
so
really
sort
of
above
the
line.
The
only
issue
is
the
the
those
two
bedroom
units
the
rents
for
the
those
units
we
capitalize
our
noi
at
the
same
cap
rate
as
the
assessor
to
conclude
to
a
total
apartment
value
of
156
million
862
000..
D
There
is
I'm
sorry,
oh
okay,
there
is
nearly
one
million
dollars
in
personal
property
here,
so
they
are
paying.
They
are
filing
their
personal
property
return
last
year
and
they
pay
a
five
percent
personal
property
tax.
On
this
one
million
dollars,
which
can
be
seen
on
the
following
pages,
the
actual
items
starting
on
page
81
of
111,
but
we're
talking
tables,
you
know,
chairs,
surfboards,
loungers,
fitness
equipment
et
cetera,
et
cetera.
D
That's
you
know
through
all
the
common
areas
of
this
building
to
not,
you
know,
remove
it
in
this
instance,
when
we're
looking
for
real
estate.
Only
value,
we
think,
is
essentially
double
counting
and
double
taxing
that
value.
D
If
it's
not
being
deducted
here,
then
what
the
assessor
is
saying
is
if
this
property
sold,
none
of
that
stuff
would
be
included
or
that
he's
saying
that
it
would
actually
sell
for
a
million
dollars
higher
than
the
number
he's
putting
forward.
Assuming
that
stuff
would
be
included,
which
we
of
course
would
assume
you
know
that
would
be
included
in
the
sale,
the
commercial
value
where
the
assessor
has
put
forth
a
revised
number
of
three
million
eight
hundred
and
forty
three
thousand,
where
that
we're?
D
Okay
with
that
that
sort
of
you
know
fixes
an
error
that
was
in
his
original
approach
and
we're
okay
with
that
number
really.
The
last
big
issue
outside
of
the
rents
and
the
personal
property
is
certainly
some
sort
of
rent
loss
deduction
to
account
for
the
fact
that
you
know
it's
only
47
occupied,
so
we
think
you
know
clearly
there.
This
was
on
a
two-year
two
plus
year
case
to
lisa,
so
we're
at
least
one
year
still
away
from
you
know,
being
leased
out
of
market
occupancy.
D
So
we've
done
a
one-year
rent
loss,
deduction
of
12
million
992
7700.
the
assessor
is
doing
a
six-month
deduction,
but
we
think
sort
of
the
numbers
speak
for
themselves.
I
mean
eight
percent
occupied
last
year.
47
occupied
this
year,
clearly
we're
at
least
you
know
still
one
year
away
from
being
fully
stopped
at
this
building.
So
that's
how
we
get
to
our
value
of
147
million,
seven
hundred
and
twelve
thousand
or
four
hundred
and
ten
thousand
per
unit.
D
I
will
just
briefly
just
take
you
through
the
rest
of
the
support
that
business
personal
property
return,
as
I
mentioned,
starts
on
page
79
or
tuesday,
starts
on
page
80
and
goes
through
page
84.
D
and
lastly,
attached
to
the
the
clients
I
e,
you
can
see
all
of
the
leases
signed
at
the
building,
starting
from
the
very
beginning,
beginning
with
page
91,
as
well
as
the
concessions
that
were
granted
with
those
leases,
so
you're,
seeing
two
and
three
months
free
rent
pretty
regularly
here
as
well
as
you
know,
free
parking.
D
Lastly,
beginning
with
page
98
of
111,
you
can
actually
see
the
rents
in
place
for
each
of
the
unit
types.
So
page
98
is
studios
98
to
99
one
bedrooms,
not
100
page
101
is
a
one
bedroom,
plus
den
and
as
I
mentioned,
the
two
bedroom
units
are
on
page
102
and
103,
and
you
can
see
in
the
column
least
actual
those
are
the
actual
leases
in
place
for
those
unit
types.
So
you
know
feel
free
to
go
down
the
list
you're
going
to
see
mostly
3500s
3400s.
D
There
are
certainly
a
few
that
are
over
3
600
but
very
few,
and
we
think
you
know
that
the
average
points
to
a
number
much
closer
to
3450
rather
than
the
assessor
is
3
600..
D
That's
all
I
have
at
this
time.
I
will
open
it
up
to
questions
or
turn
it
over
to
chris.
F
F
This
is
now
the
third
large
300-plus
multi-family
to
open
in
this
area,
just
directly
adjacent
within
a
couple
hundred
feet
of
two
other
300
plus
units
very
similar
is
situated
with
efficiencies
one
and
two
bedrooms
both
of
those
are
currently
sitting
in
mid
single
digits
as
far
as
their
vacancy
we've
seen
this
before,
and
this
actually
alludes
to
a
little
bit
of
what
we
talked
about
last
week
of
why
it's
important
to
do
one
year.
F
Adjustments
on
an
annual
assessment,
I
would
tell
the
board-
I
think
mr
steiner
has
already
confirmed
that,
but
we
did
offer
this
property
full
one
year,
rent
loss
on
both
the
multi-family
residential
component
as
well
as
the
retail
component.
We
look
at
the
2021
numbers
that
were
achieved
at
the
property.
Again,
as
mr
stein
has
noted,
it
basically
began
lease
up
in
late
2020,
so
2021
was
its
first
full
year
as
far
as
being
exposed
to
the
market.
F
F
At
that
point,
that
tells
me,
based
on
my
experience
and
what
we've
seen
with
similar
properties,
that
at
one
year's
lease
up
would
not
be
appropriate.
F
We
did
offer
a
six-month
on
the
apartment
multi-family
side,
but
did
note
that
the
extreme
issue
they're
having
with
vacancy
on
the
retail
side
we
confirmed
not
only
was
the
vacant-
I'm
sorry
the
retail
component
vacant
as
a
genuine
one.
It
was
still
vacant
at
the
time
of
the
write-up.
So
we
did
an
adjustment
not
only
on
the
one
year's
rent
loss,
but
we
also
lowered
the
per
square
foot
rate
that
effectively
went
from
around
6.5
down
to
what
you
see
there
in
column
f2.
F
In
regards
to
our
adjustments
made
again,
we
do
feel
that
this
was
basically
pulled
from
the
rent
roll
that
was
issued
not
to
to
to
sort
of
poke
holes
in
in
mr
steinhauser's
approach,
but
as
far
as
two
bedrooms,
the
appellants
listing
two
bedroom
average
of
970
dollars.
Obviously
that's
lower
because
they're,
including
the
vacant
units,
but
they
do
suggest
that
the
market
is
at
3600,
and
that
is
what
we
went
with,
obviously
as
a
projection.
F
Those
things
may
change
throughout
the
year,
but
that's
what
the
importance
of
having
an
annual
assessment
is
we'll
see
2022's
numbers
next
march,
given
that
our
numbers
are
actually
fairly
close
to
each
other,
about
200
000
separates
our
gross
potentials,
we're
both
using
the
guideline
vacancy
of
8
percent.
F
Again
that
separates
us
just
about
200
000
on
the
effect
of
gross.
We
did
utilize
a
increased
operating
expense
projection
for
the
apartments
that
came
to
a
decrease
of
just
over
about
350
000.
Again,
as
we
noted,
we
did
make
adjustments
on
a
six-month
lease
up
for
the
apartment.
Multi-Multi-Filling
component.
F
We
did
a
full
years,
rent
loss
on
the
retail
component,
and
I
would
point
out
again,
I
know
mr
steiner
has
noted
it
was
actually
an
error
on
the
county's
part,
but
the
appellant's
opinion
of
value
on
the
retail
component
is
not
even
a
million
dollars.
So
that's
that's
shy
by
millions
of
dollars.
At
least
we've
talked
consistently
about
the
not
including
personal
property
on
multifamily
if
they
do
not
have
furnished
units.
We
appreciate
the
consistent
application
by
mr
steinhauser
on
this
issue,
but
I
think
we've
been
just
as
consistent,
if
not
more
so.
F
At
this
point,
mostly
projections
that
we
see
in
the
property,
I
would
point
out
too
again:
there
are
two
other
multi-family
mixed-use
multi-families
with
over
340
units,
each
within
hundreds
of
feet
of
this
property
and
they're
both
doing
quite
well
again,
single
digits
vacancy
mid
single
digit
they
can
see.
This
is
something
we
believe
will
be
achieved
by
this
property
if
not
by
year,
end.
Obviously
in
the
early
parts
of
next
year,
this
is
still
a
quite
an
active
time
for
lease
up
during
the
summer
periods.
F
Again,
it's
not
uncommon.
The
the
property
across
from
this
particular
property
was
at
66
percent
vacancy
in
2020,
and
they
decreased
that
to
12
percent
in
one
year's
time
and
again
are
now
at
single
digits.
So
it
takes
two
years
or
so
18
months,
but
that's
essentially
where
we
are
and
again
we're
recognizing
that
by
offering
an
additional
six
months,
which
is
fairly
unique
proposition
by
the
county.
F
Given
that
we
are
addressing
the
vacancy
on
the
multifamily
with
an
additional
six
month,
lease
rent
loss
deduction
and
recognizing
the
retail
component
with
a
full
year's
rent
loss
deduction,
we
do
believe
that
the
county's
revision
of
162
million
736
900
should
be
confirmed.
We
are
available
for
questions.
Thank
you.
C
Yeah
this
is
this
is
for
chris
chris,
the
this
is
a
luxury
unit.
Does
the
county
distinguish
between
market
like,
for
example,
if
you're,
just
like
you
know,
mid
market?
Does
that
lease
up
faster
than
a
luxury?
Would
it
would
seem
to
me
that
a
luxury
project
in
and
of
it
by
itself,
is
going
to
lease
up
a
little
slower
than
say
something
else
where
the
rents
are
a
little
more
in
line
with
the
market?
So
does
the
county
take
that
into
account
at
all?
C
A
G
F
G
F
Yes,
ma'am
again,
just
based
on
projections
made
off
of
what
we've
seen
based
in
these
surrounding
areas
of
very
similar
property
types.
We
do
believe
that
the
six
month
lease
up
adjustment
is
appropriate
on
the
multi-family
side.
Again
we
recognize
the
cratered
retail
component,
but
also
adjusted
that
with
not
only
lower
per
square
foot
rates,
but
also
a
full
year's
adjustment.
F
We
do
believe
that,
based
on
its
neighboring
similarly
equitably
comps
that
this
property
should
be
revised
down
and
confirmed
that
162
million
736
900..
Thank
you.
D
Yes,
thank
you
so,
first
just
to
point
out.
I
hope
that
the
board
heard
this
and
the
assessor
as
well
on
the
commercial
piece.
We
are
accepting
the
assessor's
revised
value
of
3.8
million,
so
we're
not
putting
forth
that
900
000
number.
D
But
the
the
three
issues
here
are
the
rents
for
the
two
bedroom
units
and,
what's
really
important
about
this,
the
chart
on
page
pages,
102
they're
marked
as
102
and
103
of
111
is
the
number
that
the
assessor
pointed
out,
which
is
the
average
monthly
lease
market
plus
additional
is
3627.,
that
is,
the
monthly
rent
plus
any
parking
amenity
fees,
pet
rent
etc,
which
we
account
for,
and
so
does.
D
Other
items
that
we've
accounted
for
in
our
our
other
income
calculation,
so
just
change
simply
changing
the
rent
from
3600
to
34.50,
makes
a
5
million
difference.
D
We
think
we've
put
forth
ample
information
to
show
it
will
take
at
least
another
year
to
lease
up
this
property,
so
we
have
a
12
month
lease
up
deduction
that
accounts
for
an
additional
six
and
a
half
million
in
value.
And,
lastly,
the
personal
property
really
is
an
issue
here.
You
know
it's
a
million
dollars,
they
pay
tax
on
it.
It
can't
be
both
personal
property
and
real
estate.
I
would
say
just
because
the
county
has
a
policy
of
doing
things.
A
certain
way
doesn't
mean
it's
necessarily
right.
D
It
may
just
mean
it
hasn't
been
challenged
in
court,
yet
because
it
isn't
a
big
enough
issue
to
warrant
that.
So
I
will
just
say
that,
and
that's
the
the
last
million
so
five
million
dollars
based
on
the
two
bedrooms,
six
and
a
half
based
on
that
additional
amount
of
rent
loss
from
six
to
12
months
and
a
million
dollars
based
on
the
personal
property.
C
E
Yeah
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
on
this
one,
the
I
think
the
revised
numbers,
in
my
opinion,
are
better
than
both
sides
that
are
putting
it
from
you
know
the
original
assessment
to
the
appellant
going
to
the
point
of
the
two
bedroom
rents
on
the
revised
assessment.
E
I
see
that
the
assessor
has
put
the
rate
of
34.59,
not
3600.,
so
I'm,
okay
with
that.
That's
pretty
much
what
I
was
looking
at.
The
rental
rates
used
on
the
you
know
the
one
bedroom
and
the
two
bedrooms
that
are
mostly
what's
more
in
the
building,
but
you
know
pretty
much
based
on
that.
I'm
okay,
with
the
revised
assessment.
C
C
So
if
an
adjustment
is
to
be
made
in
my
mind
it
would
be
the
lease
up
rate,
and
so,
if
assuming
anyone
else
agreed,
I
would
be
willing
to
lower
it
a
little
bit
due
to
that
lease-up,
speed
and-
and
you
know
I
also
looked
at
last
year-
was
140
this
year,
it's
162
and
obviously
it's
starting
to
pick
up
steam
and
and
lease
up
and
so
forth
and
so
on.
So
I
don't
think
162
is
a
crazy
figure,
but
I
do
think
that
the
lease
up
is
a
little
bit
it's
going
to
take.
C
I
just
think
six
months
may
be
not
enough
see
if
anyone
else
agrees.
G
I'm
fine
with
the
county
and
I
think
the
lease
up
rate.
I
you
know
when
I
tried
to
look
at
it.
I
think
that
the
county
gave
them
additional
time.
I
don't
have
it.
A
A
Okay,
excuse
me:
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second
by
mr
penaranda
to
accept
the
county's
revised
number
of
162-736-9
all
in
favor
aye
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
A
F
A
Okay
is
derek
still
on
or
no.
A
B
Yeah,
it
was
a
much
quicker
morning
than
I
was
expecting,
so
I
sent
mary
an
update
on
our
case
count
which
we
are
monitoring
daily.
The
case
count
currently
stands
at
103
pending
that
have
the
possibility
to
be
scheduled.
B
10
of
those
we've
offered
productions
on
so
we're
expecting
to
see
some
signatures
come
back
on.
Those
that'll
put
us
around
93
cases
with
a
capacity
of
84
after
september
13th
moving
forward.
So
we
have
closed
that
gap
of
our
case
count
compared
to
the
threshold
available
for
the
remaining
of
the
season.
But
that's
our
focus.
B
Each
and
every
week
is
just
the
volume
getting
the
cases
through
trying
to
fill
the
calendar
or
the
schedule
as
best
we
can
we're
being
very
proactive
and
communicating
with
the
agents
more
so
than
we
would
in
any
other
year,
just
trying
to
fill
that
schedule.
So
we
are
trying
to
keep
it
filled
if
we
can,
but
it
is
expected
that
cases
are
going
to
drop
off
with
signatures
and
acceptances
of
reductions.
So
we'll
try
to
keep
you
guys,
updated
and
posted
on
that
weekly.
A
Okay
right,
anybody
else
have
anything,
no.
A
G
I
went
by
the
county
the
other
day
trying
after
a
week
of
trying
to
reach
the
zoning
department,
and
I
was
surprised
almost
every
floor,
such
under
renovation
and
doors
closed
and
everything
else.
I'm
surprised
we're
going
to
have
meetings
inside
there.
B
G
B
It
is
there's
a
lot
going
on
there,
especially
you
know
right
as
soon
as
you
walk
in
the
lobby
is
completely
in
overhaul.
I
think
we
are
scheduled
in
the
second
room.
I
mean
sorry
the
second
floor
which
we've
gone
by
and
physically
looked
at,
and
that
seems
to
be
okay,
and
then
we
have
the
sixth
floor
available.
B
A
Okay,
okay,
all
right!
Well
then,
I
believe
that
concludes
everything,
so
we
will
stand
adjourned
here
at
well,
9
28
and
bring
it
during
tomorrow
morning
at
nine
o'clock,
so
see
you,
everybody
all
right!
Thank
you.