►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - September 29, 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
Is
tuesday
september
29
2020?
This
is
the
arlington
county,
virginia
board
of
equalization
hearing
the
first
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc32024002
at
2324th
road
south
in
arlington,
and
mr
blake
warren
is
here
on
behalf
of
the
agent.
Mr
warren.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
B
Yes,
so
I'll
direct
the
board
to
page
64
of
138,
which
is
our
summary
of
facts
for
this
property.
This
is
the
dolly
madison
apartments.
It
is
currently
assessed
at
109
million
395
500,
which
is
300
000
a
unit.
The
county
is
recommending
no
change
and
the
value
we're
requesting
from
the
board
today
is
85
million
385
600,
which
is
236
000
a
unit.
B
This
is
an
older
property
in
south
arlington.
It
was
originally
built
in
1967
and
renovated
between
2007
and
and
on
going
into
early
2009,
most
recently
361
total
units
and
a
high-rise
mix
of
one
two
and
three-bedroom
units.
B
It
retains
even
following
the
renovation,
all
the
original
structural
elements,
exterior
design,
materials
and
foundation.
However,
the
the
county
is
treating
it
as
an
effective
age
of
2007
so
effectively
that
after
renovation
as
if
the
building
was
was
raised
and
rebuilt,
so
that's
that's
always
been
the
the
main
issue
here.
The
board
has
agreed
with
us
in
in
prior
years.
B
There
is
a
2018
board
decision
in
which
the
the
county
and
excuse
me,
the
board,
agreed
with
that
and
subsequently
decreased
the
effective
age,
I
believe
to
the
10-year
gap
preceding
that
which,
in
effect
then
increased
the
cap
rate
and
that's
really
what
this
case
comes
down
to.
If
you
turn
to
page
three
you'll
see
the
mixed
use,
income
and
expense
summary
sheet,
the
the
operating
history
or
the
operating
expenses
has
always
been
an
issue
here,
as
well
as
you'll
see
in
dating
back
to
2016.
B
The
property
was
at
26
operating
expenses
25
in
2017,
most
recently
27
in
2018.
Excuse
me
and
now
most
recently,
29
in
column
e1
for
for
year
in
2019.,
so
the
actual
operating
expenses
you'll
see
of
2
million
559
850
is
actually
approximately
450
000
above
the
county's
estimate
for
for
operating
expenses.
B
Now
you'll
see
on
the
previous
page.
In
the
assessor's
memo
and
notes
section
that
they
did
under
project
the
total
gross
potential
income
by
approximately
341
thousand,
but
they
also
underprojected
operating
expenses
by
448
000..
So
a
hundred
thousand
gap
here,
where
they're
they're
under
projecting
the
operating
expenses
in
comparison
to
the
gross
potential
income.
But
again
the
the
biggest
issue
here
is,
with
regard
to
the
cap
rate,
we're
applying
an
effective
age
in
the
1980s
and
1989
range,
which
would
essentially
make
this
1967
building
20
years.
B
Which
is
then
increasing
that
cap
rate
applied
from
the
five
five
to
the
five
seven.
Now
we
also
added
30
basis
points
for
the
properties
location
in
south
arlington
and
recognizing
that
the
the
risk
profile
of
a
property
in
south
arlington
is
not
the
same
as
as
property
on
top
of
the
metro
in
the
bolston
virginia
square
corridor.
B
The
last
issue
is
with
regard
to
the
county,
did
not
provide
a
test
here
as
you'll
see,
so
we
don't
see
any
adjustments
made
for
the
the
higher
in
that
gap
of
100
000
between
the
the
under
projection
of
the
gross
potential
income
and
the
in
the
operating
expenses.
B
The
last
thing
that
you'll
see
is
is
we
are
using
the
actual
income
that
was
reported
on
at
the
subject:
property
for
the
commercial
and
we're
getting
down
to
a
value
using
the
county's
commercial
guidelines
of
three
percent
vacancy
and
expenses,
as
well
as
cap
rate
of
seven
percent,
to
get
down
to
our
final
value
for
the
commercial
portion
of
210
000,
which
is
slightly
less
than
the
298
400,
that
the
county
is
currently
s
commercial
portion
of
this
property.
So
those
are
the
basics
again.
B
This
has
always
come
down
to
the
effective
age
following
the
the
renovations
in
2007,
which
in
prior
years,
the
board
has
agreed
with,
and
we're
asking
for
the
board
to
consider
this
again
for
the
2020
assessment
value.
Thank
you,
jeremy.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
add
anything
on.
C
A
D
What
we're
looking
at
is
a
property
that's
been
doing
well
year.
Over
year,
apartment
revenue
is
up
two
years
in
a
row.
2019's
revenue
increase
was
4.5
percent
parking
revenue
is
up,
13.4
percent
retail
is
down
year
over
year.
Other
revenue
is
up,
23
percent
rubs
or
utility
reimbursement
was
up.
Almost
340
percent
gross
potential
incomes
up
two
years
in
a
row,
2018's
increase
at
6.3
percent
extremely
stabilized
building
vacancy
is
a
three-year
average
of
less
than
one
percent
point
nine
tenths
of
one
percent.
D
Even
when
you
add
in
concessions
which
have
been
going
down,
I
believe,
went
down
almost
three
percent.
Last
year
vacancy
and
concessions
as
a
three-year
average
of
three
percent,
that's
led
to
an
increase
in
the
effective
gross
income.
Three
years
in
a
row
year
over
year,
every
year,
increase
2019's
increase
was
eight
over
eight
percent,
as
noted
by
mr
warren.
Operating
expenses
did
tick
up.
D
Sixteen
percent,
even
still
there's
a
three
year,
average
of
2.2,
say
2.25
or
26.9
percent,
say:
27
percent
of
egi
net
operating
income
increased
by
5
percent
over
5
in
2019.
D
Unfortunately,
the
county
under
projected
heavily
across
the
board,
so,
as
noted
by
mr
warren,
we
underprojected
over
340
thousand
dollars
short
of
what
was
achieved
at
the
property
for
gross
potential
income
due
to
the
extreme
stabilization
we
underprojected
effective
gross
by
almost
700
thousand
dollars,
so,
as
noted
by
mr
warren,
even
if
we
were
to
match
the
2019's
operating
expenses,
you
know
we
were
short
440
000,
but
even
if
we
were
to
match
that
to
the
penny,
we
would
still
be
short,
243
thousand
dollars
well
over
a
quarter
of
a
million
dollars
short
of
the
achievable
net
operating
income
at
the
property.
D
It's
pretty
clear-cut
in
regards
to
what
we've
seen
before
of
the
board's
actions
again
in
regards
to
the
virginia
code
statute
says
the
board
can
consider
the
actuals.
If
we
were
to
again
consider
the
actual
operating
expenses,
we
would
hope
you
would
consider
the
actual
vacancy
concessions
that
are
going
on
at
the
property
and
adjust
the
under
projection
made
by
the
county.
D
In
regards
to
mr
warren's
contention
over
the
effective
age,
I
won't
put
words
in
mr
bailey's
mouth,
but
I
believe
this
was
mostly
settled
last
year.
In
regards
to
the
extreme
amount
of
paperwork
that
was
provided
by
the
county
to
the
board
members,
you
can
see
that
begins.
I
believe
on
page
29..
D
D
Attestation
of
a
46
million
330
000
renovation,
cost
expectations
of
well
over
500
dollars.
Post
renovation
rent
increases
amongst
our
units,
listing
of
improvements
to
include
fire
alarm
systems,
hvac
plumbing
risers,
all
new
mechanical
equipment,
boilers,
chillers
pumps,
associated
piping
health
club
game
room,
swimming
pool
top
lot,
putting
green
four
pipe
hvac
system.
D
They
even
did
exterior
facade
enhancements
to
include
decorative
roofing
landscaping,
exterior
lighting,
limited
access,
entry
system,
additional
parking
garages,
enhancement
of
the
green
area
walkways
porticos
entrance
drives.
They
rebuilt
an
existing
garage
and
then
add
a
third
level
to
a
new
garage,
limited
rental
storage
areas,
again
fire
alarm
system.
D
So
it's
tough
to
argue
with
the
contention
that
this
wasn't
built
new
but
as
opposed
to
built
it
new.
This
was
essentially
brought
down
to
its
shell
and
and
46
million
dollars
was
put
into
it,
as
the
owner
has
seen.
The
return
on
investment
we've
seen:
year-over-year
growth,
fair
stabilization
amongst
the
operating
expenses,
obviously,
except
for
the
11
increase
last
year
and
16
increase
this
year
regardless.
D
We
feel
that
we
made
that
case
last
year.
The
board
agreed
with
the
county
any
unanimous
vote
that
this
was
in
fact,
a
property
that
had
been
renovated
to
the
point
where
the
rents
that
are
being
achieved
at
the
property
are
representative
of
a
property.
With
this
effective
age.
The
board
has
said
this
themselves.
D
The
the
the
tenants
in
the
area
are
smart
enough
to
to
realize
what
they're
paying
for
you
know.
We
didn't
hear
this
year
that
they
are
looking
at
395,
but
that's
also
because
half
of
the
building
is
looking
at
a
golf
course.
So,
as
far
as
again,
the
extreme
rental
increases
across
the
board
apartment
income
up
year
over
year,
heavily
stabilized
building
vacancy
below
one
percent
net
operating
incomes,
achieving
five
percent
growth.
D
We
do
believe
that
this
is
again
a
clear
example
where
we
just
not
projected
again
not
to
beat
a
dead
horse,
but
even
if
you
were
to
go
ahead
and
adjust
for
every
penny
of
that
operating
expense,
that
the
county
unit
projected
on
that
would
still
leave
243
000
under
projection
on
the
net
operating
income
and
that's
echoed
by
the
appellant's
own
pro
forma.
They
list
a
net
operating
income
of
five.
D
Just
over
5.1
million,
which
is
over
one
million
1.1
million
less
than
what
was
achieved
at
the
property
last
year,
so
we
don't
believe
that
that's
a
reliable
opinion
estimate
of
opinions.
So,
looking
again
back
at
columns,
d1
and
d2,
it
was
pretty
obvious
to
the
department
that,
when
making
a
test,
anything
would
have
been
washed
out
in
regards
to
making
adjustments
to
the
effective
operating
expenses.
Given
how
low
we
were
on
the
projections
for
effective
gross
and
gross
potential.
D
E
E
E
Yes
109
395
500,
that's
the
total
value
and
then
the
rehab
exemption
is
deducted
from
that
and
that's
how
you
get
to
the
67
million
that
he
just
quoted
for
you.
So
that
was
correct.
Just
want
to
make
sure
there's
no
confusion
on
that
part
also.
I
know
chris
went
over
the
list
of
renovations
that
happened
at
the
property.
One
thing
we
definitely
want
to
point
out
because
it's
often
stated
that
no
structural
changes
were
made.
E
But
if
you
look
at
page
29
you'll
see
that
a
lot
of
units
were
converted
from
one
bedroom
to
one
bedroom
plus
den
from
two
bedroom,
two
baths
to
two
bedroom
plus
den.
They
have
a
three
bedroom
plus.
Then
it
was
added
during
this
renovation.
So
all
of
these
things
were
pointed
out
to
emphasize
the
structural
renovations
that
also
took
place
at
this
property,
and
if
you
have
any
questions,
we're
more
than
welcome
to
go
over
this,
this
information
was
provided
in
2019.
E
A
G
On
the
screen,
just
move
for
some
reason,
a
quick
question
for
the
appellant
on
that
page
29.
I
looked
at
it
before,
and
I
listened
to
mr
cheekis
and
neither
in
either
case
did
I
find
where
it's
mentioned,
that
all
or
some
or
none
of
the
units,
individual
apartment
units
were
renovated
as
new
cabinets
new
floors
knew.
What
lighting
is
that
the
case
were
they
all?
Is
that
part
of
the
46
million
dollar
upgrade
or
not.
C
Greg
raines
is
on
the
phone
right
now
sophie
now
they're
from
the
ownership,
so
they
can
tell
you
exactly
the
details
of
what
was
renovated
from
the
from
the
owner's
mouth.
So
greg.
Are
you
there.
H
Hey
jared,
can
you
hear
me
yes
yeah,
so
for
the
renovations
that
we
did?
We,
you
know
new
flooring,
it's
the
same
carpet
that
we've
always
had.
I
mean
we
haven't
done
any
new
flooring
in
the
building
outside
of
normal
flooring.
Turnover
cabinets
are
the
cabinets
that
were
there.
The
countertops
were
placed
with
a
accordion
which
was
kind
of
popular,
then
so,
and
the
only
thing
you
know
I
I
know
we're
talked
about
the
effective
age
and
the
tax
the
tax
exemption
we've
talked
about.
H
Before
I
mean
it's
an
incentive
to
rehab
the
property
and
grow
higher
rents,
and
I
so
I
don't
you
know
I
mean
we,
it's
appreciated,
but
I
mean
the
investments
put
in
the
property
to
receive
it,
but
when
we
fill
out
and
still
today,
when
you
fill
out
that
application,
nothing
that
we
say
says
that
we're
going
to
make
the
effective
age
a
new
building,
because
the
building
itself
is
the
brick
building
that
looks
like
it
was
built
in
the
60s
so
to
say
that
it's
a
2009
build.
H
D
C
D
Thank
you
absolutely
yeah.
On
page
29,
it's
filled
up
by
the
ownership
quote.
Unquote,
apartments
will
be
provided
with
new
washers
dryers
kitchen
appliances,
including
microwaves,
cabinets
and
countertops
vanities,
and
tops
plumbing
fixtures,
electrical
fixtures,
heating
and
air
conditioning
convectors
trim
and
doors,
upgraded
electrical
service
carpet
and
pad
bath
towel
and
kitchen
flooring,
drywall
and
paint
mirrors
and
hardware.
H
E
Okay,
great,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
If
I
made
just
right
quick,
if
you
look
at
page
28
at
the
very
top
of
page
28
of
that
document
from
ditmar
it
states,
the
plan
is
to
renovate
lease
and
occupy
dolly
madison
towers.
Over
24
month
period,
all
units
will
be
vacated
and
construction
and
renovation
will
be
fully
underway
february.
19,
2007
and
completed
early
2009,
so
this
building
was
completely
vacated
to
do
this
renovation
as
well.
I
I'm
scared
to
ask
now
gonna:
ask
the
appellant
only
did
the
windows
get
replaced.
H
I
I
E
No,
the
policy
is
that
we
look
at
the
scope
of
work
that
is
undertaken
by
the
developer,
the
development
or
the
renovation
of
this
property
started
in
2007..
E
E
What
is
the
scope
of
work
as
far
as
rna
units
being
converted
from
one
bedroom
to
one
bedroom
plus,
then
et
cetera?
We
take
in
consideration
the
scope
of
work,
the
budgeted,
the
the
cost
values
that
they
give
us
for
the
work
being
done.
E
When
we
decide
on
changing
the
effective
age
of
the
property,
there
have
been
several
petit,
not
petition
applicants
actually
who
did
not
qualify
for
rehab
exemption,
because,
although
they
put
money
into
the
building,
it
did
not
really
add
value
to
the
building
or
change
the
condition
of
the
building,
and
they
would
come
back
and
say
well,
we
spent
you
know
5
million
to
10
million
dollars,
it's
like
yeah,
but
you
didn't
really
make
any
improvements
to
the
property
that
extends
the
life
of
the
building.
E
So
we
can
take
in
consideration
rent
increases
if
any
occurred,
but
the
fact
that
the
building
itself,
the
condition
of
the
building,
didn't
change.
The
effective
age
doesn't
change.
So
your
cap
rates
stayed
the
same
and
so
with
a
building
like
this,
where
it's
100
renovated,
where
they
empty
out
the
whole
building.
E
That
interior
work
was
taken
consideration
by
the
agent
that
agent,
the
appraiser,
who
expected
that
property
post
renovation
and
this
effective
age
2007.
If
completion
was
2009
so
they
started,
they
did
treat
it
similar
to
how
we
treat
new
construction
like
even
though
new
construction
is
completed
in
2017,
we
go
off
the
year
that
they
break
ground,
which
could
be
2015.
A
E
F
J
J
D
Yes,
ma'am
again,
we've
gone
over
the
renovations
at
the
building,
to
quote
the
owners
themselves.
The
purpose
of
the
renovation
is
twofold:
to
one
correct:
the
functional
and
physical
obsolescence
present
in
a
40
year
old
building
and
two
to
reposition
the
property
for
higher
market
rents,
available
new
and
upgraded
apartments
in
an
amenity,
rich
community.
D
We
believe
we've
made
our
case
in
regards
to
the
43
million
dollars
that
was
well
spent,
the
owners
seeing
return
of
investment
and
then
some
again
apartment
revenue
is
up.
Almost
five
percent
gross
potential
is
up
over
six
percent.
D
Effective
gross
is
up
over
eight
percent
net
upbringing
comes
up
over
five
percent
again
looking
at
the
inner
projections,
even
if
the
board
were
to
make
an
adjustment
to
the
operating
expenses,
we're
still
seven
hundred
thousand
dollars
shy
of
the
effect
of
gross
and
over
two
hundred
and
forty
thousand
dollars
shy
of
the
achievable
net
operating
income.
Now
this
is
a
property.
That's
done
well
year.
Over
year,
looking
at
the
appellant's
net
upper
income,
it's
well
over
a
million
dollars
shy
of
what
was
achieved
last
year.
D
B
Yes,
as
we've
previously
discussed,
it
comes
down
really
to
the
effect
of
age.
That's
being
applied,
there's
been
precedence
in
prior
years
with
this
particular
property
in
which
the
the
board
has
agreed
to
adjust
the
effective
age
tier
below
to
the
1999
or
1990
to
1999,
effective
age,
which
we
feel
at
the
very
least,
is
more
in
line
with
the
renovations
that
have
been
performed
in
this
property
which,
as
the
county
recognizes,
have
been
significant,
but
it
doesn't
make
it
a
brand.
F
C
And
now,
and
as
you
can
see,
although
there
was
extensive
renovation
done,
renovating
a
property
and
building
a
property
ground
up
is
completely
different.
I
think
any
developer
would
agree
with
that
statement
and
just
to
call
the
same
as
a
tear
down.
That's
not
appropriate.
He
mentioned
that
the
rents
are
higher
and
after
they
did
this
well
we're
using
those
rents
we're
using
all
of
the
post
renovation
income.
It
becomes
down
to
the
cap
rate
of
the
effective
age.
G
I
started
out
being
very
jaundiced
saying
this
can't
possibly
have
an
effective
age
of
the
date
of
it's
very
extensive
renovation,
and
then
I
got
convinced
during
the
conversation
that
no
this
is
real
extensive.
I
mean
this
is
inside
now,
but
I'm
back
to
where
I
began
with
the
question
to
our
resident
developer.
G
I
I
mean
I
would
I
would.
I
would
probably
say
that
the
cap
rate's
too
low.
F
J
J
J
A
G
Yeah,
it's
new
as
the
renovation.
That's
right,
we're
13
years
down
the
road.
J
A
Right
but
we're
looking
at
the
2020
assessment
and
and
and
I
get
what
you're
saying
I
mean
there's
just
a
part
of
me
that
I'm
struggling
in
2018-
I
think
we
agreed
with
the
appellate,
but
we
didn't
have
all
of
the
information
of
what
was
done,
but
it
sounds
like
pretty
much
other
than
just
the
shell
of
the
building.
Everything
has
been
renovated.
So
when
I
look
at
it
as
of
today,
I
say:
okay,
you
know
it's
a
13
year
old
building
because
it
still
has
an
older
exterior.
A
A
You
know
you
may
not
like
how
it
got
there,
but
based
on
the
income
that
it
has,
and
of
course
I
mean
mr
chitlik
said
well,
you
know
we're
using
the
higher
rents.
Well,
of
course
we
should
be
using
the
higher
rents.
It's
been
renovated.
That
was
the
whole
idea
to
renovate
it
and
to
get
the
rents
you
know
higher
than
what
the
previous
level
was
prior
to
the
construction.
So
I
don't
know
I'm
I'm
kind
of
struggling
with
this.
I
mean
I
agreed
in
2018,
but
I
think
the
information
that
we
got
last
year.
J
J
But
it
is
it's
a
13
year
old
building
or
more,
but
it's
you
know
the
adjustment
takes
it
weight
it
to
adjust
it
based
on
the
cap
rate,
is
taking
it
much
more
if
it
was
where
we've
looked
to
cases
where
it's
a
one-year
move
or
two-year
move,
we've
done
it,
but
this
is
more
than
one
year.
Adjustment
in
the
age.
K
Mary,
this
is
barnes.
Okay,
mr
lawson,
yeah.
Here's
here's
a
thought.
You
know
the
building
code
changes
and,
for
example,
where
I
live,
we
only
have
three
elevators
and
if
it
were
a
newer
building,
we
would
have
had
four.
That's
a
quality
of
life
thing.
Another
thing:
that's
changed
through
the
years
from
the
time
this
got
built.
To
probably
the
effective
age
is
the
height
the
distance
between
floor
and
ceiling,
and
through
the
years
that's
been.
K
What's
the
word,
you
now
have
more
distance
and
that's
in
order
to
you
know,
create
more,
you
know
more
efficient,
hvac,
electric
and
so
forth.
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
looking
at
the
definition
of
effective
age
and
after
all
that
time
I
really
didn't
get
much
guidance.
I
I
would.
I
would
say
that
the
bottom
line
is
it's
not
the
same
as
a
building
built
at
the
later
year.
But
it's
closed.
That's
I
don't
know
what
that
does
to
the
cap
rate,
but
that's
my
analysis.
K
I
Yeah,
I
mean
part
of
the
reason
I
was
asking
that
accountant
about
the
policy
was
that
why
this
was
a
2007
versus
just
calling
it
a
2000
and
then
remove
the
argument
entirely.
It's
going
to
be
the
same
cap
rate,
so
yeah
kind
of
what
you're
getting
at
mark
is
where
you
know,
if,
even
if
we
feel
this
is
a
2000
building,
it's
still
the
same
cap
rate
that's
being
used
by
the
guidelines.
So
I
would
I
would
keep
it
there.
I
kind
of
agree
with
mary
if
it's
somewhere.
J
I
Range,
it
might
not
be
a
2009,
but
it
might
be
a
2003
and
that
doesn't
change
the
value
so
yeah
I
could.
I
would
leave
it
the
way
it
is.
L
L
You
know
taking
some
people
over
there
and
it
obviously
looked
like
a
brand
new
building
brand
new
lobbies.
Everything
was
renovated.
Everything
was
pretty
much
like
a
brand
new.
The
old
building
yeah,
like
greg,
said,
I
think
you
know,
even
if
we
continue
to
argue
for
another
half
an
hour
on
this.
I
think
the
effective
age
is
the
same
right
now
as
the
2000
the
year
2000.
So
I'm
okay
with
effective
age,
I'm
okay,
with
the
assessment.
The
way
it
is
yeah,
okay,.
A
All
right
well
without
any
other
discussion,
then
I
will
move
to
confirm
the
county
to
the
amount,
after
the
tax
exemption
of
67
million
10
200..
Second,
okay
motion
in
a
second
by
mr
matskin,
all
in
favor
aye,
all.
J
F
B
So
I'm
going
to
direct
everyone
to
again
page
40
of
93,
which
is
our
summary
of
facts
for
this
property.
This
is
the
henderson
park
apartment
complex
on
4301,
north
henderson
road.
It's
currently
assessed
at
31
million
696
200,
which
is
480
000
a
unit.
The
county
is
recommending
no
change
to
the
current
assessment.
B
They've
also
provided
no
test
column
as
you'll,
see
on
page
three
of
their
historical
income
and
expense.
Summary.
The
value
that
we're
requesting
from
the
board
today
is
29
million
320
800,
which
is
444
000
units.
This
is
a
property
that
was
originally
built
in
2014.
It's
66
total
units,
a
garden
in
the
balsa
virginia
square
submarket.
B
This
is
a
property
that
is
in
close
proximity
to
some
of
the
other
properties
that
we've
discussed.
Regarding
classification
issues
with
regard
to
thomas
place,
birchwood
and
thomas
park,
we
contend
and
strongly
believe
that
these
properties
should
be
considered
a
low
rise
or
garden
and
not
mid-rise,
based
on
the
levels
of
four
stories.
B
As
indicated
by
the
the
county's
assessment
guidelines
for
2020
you'll,
see
on
page
three,
the
apartment,
income
and
expense
summary
the
county
again
has
provided
no
test
column
here,
the
operating
expenses
has
historically
been
higher
than
what
the
county
has
been
willing
to
consider
in
their
2020
assessments
dating
back
to
2017,
total
operating
expenses
reported
were
23.5
26,
most
recently
in
2018,
and
then
this
year,
2019
at
28.
B
The
current
2020
assessment
is
applying
a
25
expense
ratio,
which
is
approximately
120
000
below
what
was
actually
reported
in
2019
again,
there
was
no
test
column
provided
to
check
that
operating
classes
for
the
most
reported
financial
year.
The
the
noise
in
both
our
pro
forma
and
the
assessors
are
similar
when
you
do
get
down
to.
B
B
B
B
The
only
five
star
properties
in
the
county
that
are
assessed
on
a
higher
per
unit
basis
are
the
lion
place
at
clarendon
at
750,
000
unit,
the
beacon,
clarendon
627
and
the
bartlett
at
534
000
a
unit.
So
again
when
you're,
comparing
this
property
to
the
best
properties,
top-rated
properties
in
all
of
arlington
you'll
see
that
you
know
per
unit
basis.
The
assessment
is
is
out
of
line
and
again
we
feel
like
the
biggest
reason.
Why
is
the
current
classification
classifying
this
as
a
mid-rise
in
a
garden?
B
That's
all
I
have
jeremy.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
add.
C
Yeah,
the
the
one
thing
I
do
want
to
point
out
is
the
expenses,
and
I
know
the
county
often
says,
and
they
they
did
in
the
last
case
of
well.
Look
at
the
operating
expenses
and
mark
asked
a
great
question,
which
is:
why
did
you
six
percent
in
the
original
assessment,
and
the
answer
to
that
is
because
the
guidelines
indicate
that
they
use
that
for
everybody,
so
everybody
gets
a
six
percent
of
the
original
assessment
or
in
this
for
the
mid-rises,
everybody
gets
a
five
percent.
C
But
then,
when
we
provide
our
income,
they
don't
use
the
five
percent
unless
they
test
it.
So
if
they
were
to
test
this,
they
would
use
two
hundred
two
million
four
hundred
ninety
five
thousand
gpi,
with
a
five
percent
vacancy
and
and
expenses
probably
close
to
690
000.
Even
if,
if
you
don't
just,
if
you
don't
agree,
that's
what
we've
seen
in
a
lot
of
cases
they
when
they
don't
test,
they
say:
look
at
the
operating.
Compare
the
noise
we're
lower
on
the
noi
you're
in
good
shape.
C
C
We
didn't
want
to
withdraw
it,
but
when
you
compare
this
building,
the
the
real
key
here
is
not
just
the
components.
It's
the
final
assessment
and
a
final
assessment
for
a
property
like
this
close
to
500
000
is
extremely
out
of
black
and
and
another
reason
why
this
is
brought
to
your
attention
to.
Although
you
might
like
the
components
of
the
way
they
got
there
we'd
ask
you
to
at
least
consider
the
value
and
does
the
value
pass
the
taste
test
which
we
feel
it
doesn't.
So
that's
that's
the
case.
D
Yes,
ma'am.
What
we're
looking
at
today
is
henderson
park
per
the
ownership.
It's
a
luxury
mid-rise
66
units
we've
gone
over
this
ad
nauseam
in
regards
to
freddie
mac's
definition,
co-star's
definition,
the
appellant
zone,
definition
of
a
four-star
build-
excuse
me
four-story
building,
so
we
filled
that
argument
as
a
bit
moot
in
looking
at
the
performance
of
the
property.
We
can
see
that
every
metric
was
up
in
2019
partner
revenue
up
four
and
a
half
percent
parking
revenue
up
over
three
percent.
D
Other
revenue
up
over
23,
almost
23
percent
and
utility
reimbursement
rubs
up.
623
percent
gross
potential
income
is
up.
6
percent
and
you'd
note
that
the
two-year
average
18-19
is
higher
than
our
2020
projection,
as
well
as
the
three-year
average
2.4818
is
higher
than
our
2020
projection,
similar
to
last
property.
Very
well
stabilized
building
vacancy
is
a
three-year
average
of
0.7
and
less
than
one
percent
through
your
average
for
vacancy,
were
you
dethrone
concessions?
You'll
see
a
three-year
average
of
three
point
three
percent
again.
D
This
is
something
that
in
fact,
is
dropping
year
over
year
over
year
over
year,
as
the
building
again
stabilizes,
as
we've
seen
with
that.
The
conversion
to
that
is
the
effective
gross
income
is
up
6.7
percent
again
looking
at
the
projection
made
by
the
county
versus
either
two
year
or
three
year,
average.
D
The
county
is
low
again,
as
mr
chitlick
and
mr
warren
pointed
out,
expenses
did
go
tick
up
15
after
11
increase
last
year
we
see
a
two-year
average
of
644
000,
a
three-year
average
of
610
000
or
26
percent
of
effective
gross
net
operating
income
is
up
3.6
percent
and
again,
if
you
were
to
look
at
a
either
a
two-year
average
1.717
or
three
year,
average
1.729
either
way
the
county
is
well
below
either
average.
D
D
Even
if
you
had
every
penny
and
then
some
project,
a
extra
percentage
point
or
two,
you
would
still
leave
a
gap
under
projection
gap
of
36
200
on
the
net
operating
income.
This
is
a
building
that
has
been
fairly
stable
when
looking
at
the
revenue
side.
When
looking
at
the
operation
side,
we
end
up
projecting
across
the
board.
D
D
in
regards
to
just
one
of
the
metrics
mr
warren
noted,
which
was
the
per
value
per
unit
value.
We
believe
that's
a
little
bit
misleading,
given
the
fact
that
henderson
park
has
66
units
and
the
next
smallest
has
116,
but
regardless,
if
you
were
to
extrapolate
and
use
the
appendage
value
of
444
255
a
unit
that
would
be
the
eighth
most
valuable
on
the
list
as
opposed
to
the
fourth.
So
not
much
of
a
change
in
regards
to
the
two
value
quotes.
D
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
from
board
members.
G
G
H
Mid-Rise
is
a
building
that
has
amenities
that
would
compete
with
buildings
that
are
up
to
eight
or
nine
stories.
I
think
you
guys
are
at
eight
stories.
Currently
these
buildings
are
not
amenitized
to
go
chase
the
same
rent
as
what
we
would
consider
a
mid-rise
property
they're
positioned
as
far
as
location
and
their
side
suggests
that
their
garden
stock.
H
I
H
There
is
some
surface
parking
yeah.
Let
me
I
can.
F
I
Okay,
I
guess
what
I'm
getting
at
is.
These
are
larger
units
there's
no
living
units
on
the
ground
floor,
you
have
three
levels
of
apartments
and
then
there's
looks
like
a
lobby
and
then
some
parking,
that's
underneath
the
three
levels
is
that
correct
right.
G
A
D
D
Unfortunately,
the
county
did
unproject
across
the
board.
If
we
were
to
adjust
the
operating
expenses,
we'd
ask
you
to
adjust
the
course
potential
and
effective
gross
and
cancel
out
that
under
projection
of
36
000
for
the
achievable
net
operating
income
at
the
property.
That
being
said,
we
believe
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
31
million
696
200..
Thank
you.
B
Yes
again,
this
comes
down
to
a
classification
issue.
We
strongly
feel
that
this
probably
should
be
classified
as
a
garden
and
subjected
to
the
county's
garden
rates
greg,
I
think,
had
information
regarding
a
recent
appraisal
as
well
that
had
been
performed
on
the
property
greg.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
talk
on
that
for
a
moment
to
close.
H
Yeah
sure
I
mean
again
when
we
get
into
the
mid-rise
and
garden
style
conversations
it's
really
just
because
of
what
jeremy
and
blake
have
expressed
and
is
the
per
unit
value
of
the
property.
The
overall
value
of
the
property
is
just
not
in
line
with
the
market,
so
those
are
the
conversations
we
have
to
have
to
move
the
cap
rate.
This
property
was
just
appraised
at
26
and
a
half
million
dollars
from
a
third
party.
C
This
this
property
last
year
was
reduced.
Jose
made
the
motion
to
29.5
million
it
passed
on
a
six
to
one
vote
and
the
rationale
is
a
classified
as
a
garden
style
for
the
county
using
a
three
percent
vacancy
and
a
24
expense.
This
is
different
than
the
other
ones,
and
a
lot
of
that
has
to
do
with
the
point
that
greg
pointed
out
that
the
first
floor
is
almost
all
parking,
not
units.
C
So
that
is
a
big
differentiator
between
this
and
all
the
others,
the
assessment's
up
about
a
little
over
two
million
dollars
and,
as
you
can
see,
there's
a
downward
trend,
that's
basically
stabilized
in
the
expense,
the
income.
So
what
the
assessor
knew
was
income
of
one,
eight
one,
seven
one
six
and
he
still
took
the
value
up
over
two
million
dollars.
I
Yeah
we'll
look
at
this
as
the
garden
style
like
we
did
last
year,
and
you
know
I
think,
there's
issues
with
how
the
cap
rates
are
derived
to
begin
with.
Would
you
say
for
consistency's
purpose?
I
would
stick
with
the
garden
classification
on
this
and
maybe
look
at
how
we
why
there's
a
50
basis
point
difference
in
cap
rate
and
why
we're
constantly
having
this
argument
when
there.
I
Factors
playing
into
this-
you
know
the
huge
gap
in
the
cap
rate
between
these
two.
G
I
found
the
argument
of
amenitizing
gardens
versus
typical
mid-rises
to
be
pretty
surprisingly
compelling,
and
I
was
certainly
going
to
echo
greg-
and
this
has
come
up
before
about
just
four
stories
versus
some
difference.
On
the
first
floor.
G
If
it's
something
to
send
the
underground
or
it's
not
fully
tenanted,
or
in
this
case
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
parking
and
only
a
few
tenants-
and
I
think,
we've
already
agreed
that
before
this
cycle
next
year,
that
we'd
like
to
have
a
conversation
with
the
department
on
maybe
fine-tuning
the
differentiation
between
garden
versus
mid-rise
beyond
simply
stories,
and
so
where
I
was
dead,
set
opposed
to
classifying
this
as
a
garden
change.
Given
the
dominance
of
non-tenanted
space
on
the
first
floor
and
the
amenities
and
I'm
where
greg
is.
A
A
So
I
mean
ideally,
if
you
take
the
appellance
column
and
cap
it
out
it,
it
does
come
in
higher.
If
that's
the
test
that
they
needed
is
32
million.
You
know,
so
the
issue
really
comes
down
to.
Is
this
a
gardener?
Is
this
a
mid-rise?
It's
not
about
the
noi,
and
I
just
think
I
agree
with
greg
and
with
ken
you
know
the
definition
has
been
clarified.
We've
been
in
agreement,
it's
you
know
four
stories,
that's
the
cutoff.
A
A
G
I
I
No,
no,
a
garden
and
the
way
I
was
looking
at
it
was
just
using
the
appellant's
pro-forma
numbers
because
I
think
they've
been
pretty
pretty
fair,
giving
themselves
only
a
you
know
three
percent
vacancy
rate
and
I
think
that's
a
fair
number
versus
going
in
and
and
just
applying
the
new
cap
rate
to
the
county's.
L
Yeah,
I
think
one
of
the
factors
that
we've
not
considered
last
year
or
any
on
any
other
property
is
how
the
parking
is
distributed,
because
now
I
think
that
having
the
parking
underground,
I
think
it
makes
a
difference
to
even
though
there's
you
know,
because
most
in
thai
properties,
you
don't
really
have
anything
underneath
it's
just
three
stories,
and
sometimes
you
would
have
four.
L
That
depends
how
it's
built,
and
I
know
that
last
year
we
did
make
the
reduction
based
on
that
classification,
but
based
on
what
we've
seen
this
year
and
all
the
other
buildings,
I
think
the
county
is
doing
it
properly.
L
G
I
brought
up
that
exact
same
argument
a
couple
weeks
ago
on
another
property,
where
it
wasn't
very
clear
that
it
was
garden
or
mid-rise
and
I'm
waffling
a
lot
now.
Thank
you
jose.
K
Yes,
ma'am.
Thank
you.
You
know
in
our
mind,
the
term
garden
is
what
got
built
in
1940
and
you
know
colonial
village
buckingham.
K
You
know
the
three
stories
you
walk
up,
no
elevator
surface
parking
and
that's
just
that.
Don't
exist
anymore.
No
one's
going
to
build
that
anymore,
and
I
you
know
it
seems
to
me
that
our
classification
of
garden
just
doesn't
fit
for
anything
recently
built,
and
I
I
kind
of
agree
with
ken
I'd
like
to
fine-tune
our
definitions
so
that
we
do
properly
address
a
product
such
as
this.
But
until
that
happens,
I
think
we
got
to
stick
it
in
garden.
F
L
That,
I
think
I
don't
think
we've
seen
in
previous
years
is
also
how
the
owners
consider
this.
I
know
for
appellate,
you
know,
for
assessment
purposes,
they're
coming
up
with
with
the
argument
of
having
this
classified
as
a
different
type
of
property,
but
in
all
their
marketing
information,
the
brochures
and
everything
that
they
provide.
They
even
classify
it
as
a
mid-rise.
K
A
Aye
opposed
okay,
so
that
is
no
mr
lawson
and
no
mr
hoffman
and
mary.
Oh
and
I
don't
see
you
okay!
Oh
sorry,
I'm
just
raising
my
hand.
Okay.
So
it's
four
to
three.
Thank
you.
So
the
county
is
confirmed
at
31
million
696
200.
A
Okay,
the
next
case
on
the
agenda
is
rpc14043031.
3900
fairfax
drive,
mr
warren.
You
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
this.
A
C
B
B
It
is
consistent
of
one
rpc,
the
current
assessment
of
197
million
200,
300
or
395
thousand
unit.
The
county
is
recommending
no
change
and
have
provided
no
test
column.
Our
requested
value
is
184
million,
681,
800
or
370
000
a
unit.
This
is
a
high-rise
in
the
boston
virginia
square
sub-market.
It
was
originally
built
in
2005
and
it's
499
total
units.
It's
a
mix
of
one
two
and
three
bedroom.
B
474
of
those
units
are
our
market
rent
units.
There
are
25,
affordable
units
at
the
property
referencing
back
now
to
page
3
and
the
county's
mixed
use,
income
and
expense.
Summary.
B
Gross
potential
income
in
comparison
to
what
was
reported
in
2019
by
425
000,
but
then
again
in
addition,
they've
also
under
projected
operating
expenses
by
eight
hundred
and
forty
nine
thousand
seven.
Fifty
four,
so
there's
approximately
a
four
hundred
thousand
dollar
gap
where
they
under
reported
operating
expenses
in
comparison
to
the
gross
potential
income,
the
property
was
capable
of
generating,
as
of
as
at
the
valuation
date,
the
county
has
provided
no
test
column
in
their
current
assessment,
you'll
see
on
column
d2,
which
is
for
the
affordable
apartments
in
the
25
units.
B
They
are
applying
the
affordable
market
vacancies
for
their
guidelines
of
three
percent
in
comparison
to
six
percent
for
the
market
and
then
as
well
as
28
for
operating
expenses,
but
you'll
see
that
they're
still
using
the
same
5.28
cap
rate
that's
being
applied
to
the
market,
d1
column
for
the
the
market.
Rent
units
of
474
units
per
their
guideline,
the
affordable
guideline,
expense
for
2005,
effective
age
would
actually
be
six
percent.
B
We
need
to
cap
that
out
since
they're
using
you
know
the
affordable
and
vacancy
rate,
as
well
as
its
operating
expenses.
It
would
make
sense
to
also
use
the
the
capitalization
rate
indicated
by
the
guidelines
would
change
that
value
from
the
seven
million
six.
Seventy
eight
four
hundred
to
six
million
seven,
fifty
seven,
oh
one,
six!
B
This
is
a
property
that
increased
four
percent
from
last
year's
assessments.
As
you
can
see,
noi
has
been
pretty
stable.
It's
a
very
stabilized
property
and
the
income
from
18
to
19
increased
just
marginally
about
half
a
percent.
F
B
Again,
the
the
actual
assessment
from
19
to
20
increasing
four
percent.
So
the
really
the
the
big
thing
is
again.
We
don't
feel
when
you
take
a
look
at
the
historical
operating
expenses
at
this
property
dating
back
in
2018
at
25,
the
county's
initial
assessment
for
the
the
majority
of
the
market,
apartments
at
474
units
they're,
applying
to
23
fast
forward
to
what
was
provided
to
them
in
2019
of
27
operating
expenses
and
again
the
county
did
not
provide
a
test
column
for
that
information.
B
G
C
C
Just
want
to
point
out
the
income,
the
noi
for
16,
17,
18
and
19
is
basically
10
5
10,
5,
10
5
and
10
5.,
it's
relatively
flat,
there's
a
little
fluctuation
there.
In
those
same
four
years,
the
value
has
been
185
million,
191
million
189
million,
and
now
we're
up
to
197
million
we're
up
almost
8
million
from
last
year.
When
you
can
see
the
noi
has
been
totally
flat
this
entire
time
and
there's
nothing.
That's
changed
whether
in
the
18
from
17
to
18
or
from
18
to
19.
C
That
would
indicate
that
increase
is
justified.
Yes,
I
do
realize
that
the
and
chris
is
gonna.
I
know
in
his
response
he's
probably
going
to
read
the
increases
in
the
columns,
as
he
goes
down
to
the
right
of
column
e
and
yes,
the
egi
is
up
three
point:
eight
seven
percent:
well,
the
operating
expenses
are
up
fourteen
point
three
percent
and
when
you
look
at
it,
the
egi
is
up
about
five
hundred
thousand
and
the
operating
expenses
are
up
about
500
000.
C
Again,
the
noi
is
up
forty
thousand
dollars
from
last
year,
which
is
seventy
thousand
dollars
less
than
it
was
two
years
ago
and
eighty
thousand
dollars
less
than
it
was
three
years
ago,
but
we're
still
seeing
an
eight
million
dollar
bump,
and
when
we
ask
him
about
this
at
the
first
level,
it's
well.
I
looked
at
the
actuals
and
it
there's
no
reason
for
it.
The
cap
rates
aren't
up
the
property,
didn't
move.
There
was
no
renovation,
there
was
no
work
done.
It's
the
same
story
so,
and
we've
talked
about
these
before.
C
C
I'm
sorry,
23
is
a
bit
of
a
misstep,
but
there
actually
is
in
column
d2,
which
we
pointed
out.
The
first
level
wasn't
corrected.
There
is
an
actual
cell
error
which
he's
in
the
caf
apartments
he's
using
the
base,
5.28,
which
I
believe
he
might
be
willing
to
admit
that
it
should
be
corrected
which
which
corrects
it
by
about
a
million.
C
H
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chicas.
D
Yes,
ma'am
we're
talking
about
quincy,
plaza
apartments.
Jeremy
knows
me
pretty
well.
First
thing:
I'm
going
to
point
out
is
how
well
the
property
is
doing.
Apartment
revenue
is
up
four
years
in
a
row
year.
Over
year,
every
year,
every
year
2018's
increase
was
2.7.
D
We
did
see
retail
revenue
drop
three
years
in
a
row,
and
that
was
down
6.3
percent
parking
revenues
up
four
years
in
a
row.
2019's
increase
is
8.6
percent.
We
did
see
a
drop
in
other
revenue
of
almost
54
percent.
That's
because
utility
reimbursement
or
rebs
revenue
increased
by
557
percent
gross
potential
income,
as
noted
by
mr
chitlick
up
four
years
in
a
row
year
over
year
over
year
over
year,
growth
2019's
increase
was
over
three
percent
vacancies.
D
Incredibly
stable,
three
percent
average
is
one
point:
five
percent,
even
when
you
include
concessions.
There's
a
three
year
average
of
two
point:
seven
percent
effective
gross
has
been
up
three
years
in
a
row.
2019's
increase
was
almost
four
percent.
Operating
expenses
did
tick
up
14.3
percent.
D
Again,
the
board
seen
this
before
we
under
projected
across
the
line
under
projection
of
425
000
gross
potential,
was
2.9
percent
864
000
effective
gross
six
percent,
shy
of
what
was
achieved
and
again,
the
849
thousand
dollar
gap
in
our
projection
for
operating
expenses
and
what
was
reported
in
19,
but
that
still
led
to
another
projection
of
the
operating
income
of
14
000
less
than
one
tenth
of
one
percent,
as
mr
chetlike
noted
very
stabilized
property,
ten,
five,
ten
five,
ten
five
ten
five,
the
county's
below
that,
regardless,
if
you're
looking
at
a
two
year
average
or
three
year
average,
the
counties
is
low,
not
as
low
as
the
projection
made
by
the
appellants
and
their
9.8
million.
D
But
again,
looking
at
the
county's
numbers
were
well
in
line
with
what's
going
on
at
the
property,
if
anything
we're
just
low,
we
missed
the
the
increases
year
over
year
every
year,
so
again,
as
the
boards
heard
ad
nauseam
per
the
statute
and
the
virginia
code,
if
you
one
were
to
make
changes
to
the
operating
expenses,
we'd
ask
you
to
obviously
keep
the
operating
revenue
in
line
as
well
and
account
for
those
increases
a
bit
of
a
mia
cope
on
our
part.
It's
more
a
type
of
graphical
error
than
an
actual
physical
error.
D
The
board
is,
I
think,
familiar
with
these
mixed-use
properties.
What
you
see
on
the
summary
sheet
is
actually
representation
of
a
mixed-use
worksheet.
That
was
our
fault
that
we
did
not
include
that
in
the
packet.
I
can
email
it
to
those.
If
mr
billy
says
that's
okay
or
rosa,
says
that's
okay,
but
on
the
actual
worksheet
itself,
we
do
account
for
the
cap
rate
of
the
mixed
committed,
affordable
at
six
percent.
D
What
you
see
the
5.28
is
essentially
the
milled,
which
is
what
shows
up
on
the
worksheet
the
actual
worksheet
itself,
that
is
in
the
packet,
but
not
the
mixed
use
worksheet.
So
the
value
itself
is
is
accurate
at
196
million
278
900.
D
It
just
shows
up
as
5.28
on
our
three-year
summary
sheet,
but
we'll
be
recommending
a
confirmed
confirmation
of
196
million
270
900,
but
again,
based
on
our
under
projections
across
the
board
near
half
a
million
dollar
under
projection
on
gross
potential
income
over
three
quarters
of
a
million
dollar
under
projection
on
effective
gross
and
operating
expenses
led
to
an
under
projection
at
a
well-stabilized
property.
D
We
do
believe
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
a
value
of
196
million
278
900..
Thank
you.
A
A
K
Thank
you,
madam
chairman.
This
is
for
chris
chris
in
the
last
case
that
we
heard
a
four-story
project
very
few
amenities
in
this
one,
there's
a
bunch
of
amenities,
I'll
read
it
real
quickly.
K
Fitness
center
outdoor
swimming
pool
business
center,
residential
lounge
game
room,
theater,
room,
here's
my
question
for
you:
when
you
have
a
project
with
a
bunch
of
amenities,
does
it
make
sense
to
have
a
larger
reserve,
rather
than
your
standard
that
you
apply,
because
because
in
in
all
these
cases
and
the
underlying
theme
of
the
reserves-
and
I'm
just
wondering
shouldn't
shouldn't
a
project
with
a
lot
of
amenities,
get
to
have
a
higher
reserve,
especially
a
an
owner?
And
there
was
an
owner
like
like
dipmar
that
owns
them
for
decades.
K
You
know
it
would
seem
like
they
would
want
to
build
up
a
reserve
so
that
when
it's
time
to,
for
example,
redo
the
fitness
center
that
they
could
easily
do
that,
the
money's
right
there,
it
hasn't
been
distributed
to
owners
and
they
don't
have
to
go
in
for
financing.
Does
that?
Does
that
make
any
sense?
Or
does
it
not.
D
Yes,
or
no,
sir-
in
other
words,
I
would
point
out-
and
we
were
remiss
to
point
out
that
henderson
park
lists
the
same
amenities-
I'm
quoting
their
own
website-
game
room,
fitness
center,
business
center,
residential
lounge
theater.
So
in
other
words,
I
think
when
the
owners
build
these
projects,
they
keep
these
expenses
in
mind.
In
other
words,
there
is
a
expense
to
pay
to
for
revenue
to
make,
in
other
words,
without
putting
words
in
mr
raine's
mouth.
I
believe
he
had
said.
D
That's
essentially
the
idea
between
a
mid-rise
and
a
in
a
garden
or
anything
else
is
the
amenities
that
can
be
offered.
So
I'd
like
to
believe
that,
when
quincy
plus,
this
is
approximately
what
15
years
old
that
this
was
built
with
the
amenities
in
mind
that
would
attract
the
rents
that
they're
getting
so
as
far
as
a
long
answer,
if
you
will
yes,
I
think
they
should
get
credit
for
that,
but
I
don't
think
that's
a
a
function
of
the
government.
I
think
that
the
owners
themselves
should
keep
a
reserves
replacements.
D
C
Parts
it's
listed
below
the
line
because
that's
where
the
that's,
where
they
put
it,
they
say
below
the
line,
they
say:
here's
our
ine
and
they
put
reserves
below
their
line
for
us
to
fill
it
out.
So
we
don't
have
it
below
the
line.
We
have
to
fill
out
the
box
reserves,
which
is
a
box
that
they
put
below
the
line
they
is
in
the
county,
so
to
say:
well,
it's
a
below
the
line
deduction
it's
only
because
the
county
puts
it
below
the
line,
not
because
the
owner
does.
A
I'm
gonna
ask
the
question
for
the
appellant:
it's
been
stated
several
times
pretty
stable
building.
It
seems,
like
you,
know,
ten
five
across
the
board
yet
you're
using
in
your
test
and
your
actual
appeal,
9.8
million
so
you're
like
700,
000
shy.
So
I
I
get
the
argument
that
you're
using
that
it's
gone
up
quite
a
bit,
but
I
mean
from
a
standpoint
of
just
justifying
the
noi.
C
Okay,
you
did
this,
I
didn't
do
this,
which
is
opening
a
can
of
worms.
So
please
don't
blame
me
for
this,
but
just.
C
That's
what
I'm
doing
the
county's
cap
rate
is
ridiculous.
It's
completely
unsupportable
to
use
a
four
cap,
which
is
the
base
cap
rate
on
this
to
then
take
a
20
basis,
point
reserve
and
then
add
a
tax
rate
to
it,
we're
using
a
5.28
cap
which
is
unheard
of
in
the
market,
but
one
of
the
reasons
they
get
there
is
because
they're
giving
everybody
a
six
percent
vacancy,
which
is
compressing
the
noise.
C
So
what
we
did
is
we
looked
at
this
on
an
equalization
type
standpoint
to
say:
here's,
our
actual
gross
potential
income
here
are
our
actual
expenses,
we're
taking
the
same
six
percent,
no
vacancy
that
everybody
else
is
using
and
then
applying
the
assessor's
unsupportable
cap
rate
to
again
stand
equalization
to
get
us
to
our
final
number.
So
the
way
we
got
to
our
numbers
using
actual
gross
potential,
actual
expenses
and
then
two
market
numbers
counties,
market
numbers,
market
vacancy,
because
everybody
gets
six
percent
and
market
cap
rate
because
everybody
gets
this
5.2
percent.
C
So
that's
how
our
numbers
come
about.
If
we're
not
saying
that
this
property
is
going
to
achieve
an
noi
of
9.56,
but
we're
saying,
if
you're
going
to
use
a
cap
rate,
that's
150
basis
points
below
what
a
true
market
cap
rate
would
be
you're
going
to
have
to
use
a
market
vacancy
which
is
a
little
bit
higher
than
what
the
true
market
vacancy
is
because
you're
looking
at
this
historically
the
vacancies,
what
three
six
four
three
one,
seven
and
two
seven
the
true
vacancy
here-
is
probably
around
three
and
a
half
percent.
C
The
county
is
giving
us
six,
but
the
county
is
giving
everybody
six.
The
other
thing
the
county's
giving
us
is
a
ridiculous
cap
rate
but
they're
giving
everybody
a
ridiculous
cap
rate.
So
if
we
can,
if
we
come
into
these
hearings
and
say
we
have
to
use
the
cap
rate
that
the
county
uses,
we
never
the
cap
rates,
don't
get
changed
because
of
you
know
what
a
base
cap
rate
of
before
is
the
lowest
base
cap
rate
of
any
property
in
the
mid-atlantic
region.
That
doesn't
make
any
sense.
C
D
This
man,
as
we've,
seen
with
other
cases
today
and
early
this
year,
unfortunately
county
underprojected
heavily
across
the
line.
This
is
a
building.
That's
gone
up.
Revenue-Wise
four
years
in
a
row,
heavily
stabilized
property
occupancy
is
up
four
years
in
a
row.
Stabilized
vacancy
and
concession.
Effective
gross
is
up
three
years
in
a
row
as.
D
The
properties
have
essentially
been
around
ten
five
last
four
or
five
years.
The
county
is
low.
If
you're
looking
at
a
two
year
average
or
a
three
year
average,
the
county
is
low,
so
we
do
believe
any
adjustments
made
to
operating
expenses
should
also
be
made
to
the
heavily
underprojected
revenue
side,
thereby
we
believe
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
196
million
270
900..
Thank
you.
B
Yes,
as
chris
stated,
the
county
did
underproject
gross
potential
income,
but
they
also
under
projected
operating
expenses
by
twice
that.
So,
although
they
under
projected
gross
potential
income
by
425
000,
they
also
under
projected
operating
expenses
by
849
000,
and
what
we're
asking
for
is
consideration
of
those
expenses,
as
the
owner
has
indicated,
costs
continue
to
increase
year
over
year
at
this
property,
and
none
of
this
is
really
being
tested
out
because
there
is
no
test
column.
B
C
Year,
at
194
million
it
was
reduced
at
the
board
hearing
289
million
again
nothing's
changed
to
the
property.
Like
chris
said
it's
up,
0.3
percent
the
value
of
this
property
has
been
very
stable.
The
income
has
been
extremely
stable.
If
you
look
at
the
history
of
the
property
since
2014,
it's
been
between
190
million
and
191
million
is
where
it
ended
up
and
this
year,
for
some
reason
we're
up
to
197
million
with
no
change
in
the
cap
rate,
no
change
in
the
market,
no
change
in
the
property.
C
A
A
I,
while
I
agree
with
the
appellant
that
you
know
just
the
value
going
up
at
such
a
high
amount.
I
think
that's
you
know
an
accurate
statement.
I
don't
think
the
argument
presented
did
anything
to
support
it.
You
know
to
try
to
back
into
it.
We've
seen
this
before
in
years
past,
where
you
know,
we've
said
that
without
the
county
backed
into
something
on
a
test,
the
lack
of
the
test,
I
mean
they
keep
one
to
bring
up,
there's
not
a
test,
I
mean.
A
Basically,
if
the
county
did
a
test,
it
would
be
a
higher
assessment.
So
I
think
that's
the
reason
for
the
lack
of
test
you
know,
but
it
it
does.
Give
me
pause
when
I
look
at
this
all
things
remaining
equal
when
you
look
at
this,
is
it
can't
get
much
more
stable
than
this
building
and
to
see
this
go
up
from
189
million
to
197
million?
I
think
that
is
a
pretty
big
jump
for
a
very
stable
building,
even
though
the
numbers
support
it.
G
I
thought
that
the
operating
expenses
were
a
little
bit
off.
I
think
that's
at
the
age
of
this
building.
They
should
start
appropriately
trending
up
and
what
I
did
just
a
simple
math
problem.
I
went
between
the
the
2018
and
2019,
which
was
much
greater
operating
expenses
and
just
averaged
them
and
and
to
apply
them
to
2020,
and
that
was
the
different,
the
average
of
the
two
and
again,
maybe
I
could
have
done
it
three
years
or
four
years,
but
just
the
last
two
years
as
an
exercise
424
500.
G
Well,
I
capped
it
out
at
about
eight
hundred
and
four
thousand
dollars
less
after.
I
capped
out
the
entire
building
and
and
raised
the
the
operating
expenses.
So
I
would
have
brought
it
down
from
the
96
million
dollar.
G
The
196
million
dollar
would
have
brought
it
down
805
000
in
assessment.
After
again,
using
that
average
bringing
again
I
know,
I
made
a
mismatch:
bringing
bringing
up
the
county's
estimate
of
the
operating
expenses
again
to
make
it
an
average
between
2018
and
2019.
What
it
does
once
again,
more
succinctly
brings
down
the
assessed
value
by
805
thousand
dollars.
A
G
I
didn't
print
this
one
out.
I
missed
this,
so
I'm
having
to
use
the
screen
in
real
time.
I'm
sorry,
I'm
going
back
between
screens
generally
I
print
everything
out
and
make
my
notes
and
do
my
my
arithmetic,
but
now
I
did
it
in
real
time.
So
it's
a
little
bit
more
difficult.
So
I
just
redo.
Well
I
I
know
it's
not
the
noi
in
column.
D2
is
not
correct.
It's
not
197,
but
it's
196,
something
because
of
the
the
cap
rate
for
affordable
units.
G
So
I
just
deducted
the
196
figure-
and
I
know
that's
not
exactly
right
by
803
977,
which
reflects
a
higher
than
what
the
department
used
for
operating
expenses
and
lower
than
what
the
appellant
used
and
again
and
again
that
product
is
the
average
between
2018
and
2019,
which
is
a
significant
bump
in
the
appellant's
reported
operating
expenses,
and
I
just
kept
it
out
at
the
5.28.
A
G
Well,
I
don't
have
the
196
number,
so
chris
chicas
has
it
so.
G
I
I
upped
the
the
departments
in
column,
a
total
operating
expenses,
I'm
not
in
d2
in
d1.
I'm
sorry
and.
G
G
L
Yeah,
I
pretty
much
have
the
same
feeling
that
you
know
I
think
we're
dealing
with
a
property
that,
even
though
the
nli
the
egi
I
mean
the
the
noise
are
really
matching,
and
this
should
be
pretty
much
stable
and
we
should
have
a
value
close
to
what
it
was
last
year,
maybe
with
a
small
increase.
L
What
I
did
is
actually
increase
the
expenses
on
the
apartment
side
of
the
market
apartments
to
24
percent,
which
you
know.
I
think
it
gives
me
a
number
close
to
what
the
average
would
be
on
the
none
two
year
by
three
years.
L
This
I
I
deleted
that
it
was
like
three
four
something
three
four
seven
eight.
But
by
doing
that,
I
the
noi
would
be
90.
I
mean
966467
for
that
portion
by
capping
that
at
the
same
cap
rate
I
come
up
with
183
77
000
for
the
apartment
side
and
then,
when
I
add
up
everything
together,
I
come
up
with
a
total
value
of
193
million
865.
L
A
L
And
I
think
that
increase
it's
a
little
more
reflective
of
you
know
what
their
income
and
is
going
up
year
after
year.
J
A
I
A
L
Yeah
I'll
move
that
we
reduce
the
assessment
to
193
million
865
000.
Even-
and
this
is
by
reducing
the
cap
rate
on
the
affordable
portion
to
between,
by
increasing
the
cap
rate
to
six
percent
and
also
increasing
the
expenses
from
the
apartment
market
to
24.
A
A
second
okay,
emotional,
second,
by
miss
hogan,
all
in
favor,
post,
okay,
it's
unanimous!
It's
reduced
to
193
million
865,
even
and
that's
based
on
increasing
the
cap
rate
on
the
affordables
to
six
and
increasing
the
expenses
on
the
market
to
24.
A
L
A
A
Okay,
moving
along
to
the
fourth
case
on
the
agenda,
this
is
economic
unit,
three,
five:
zero:
zero,
two
zero:
four:
a
on
army
navy
drive,
400
army
navy
drive
and
mr
warren
will
again
present
on
behalf
of
this
owner.
B
Thank
you.
If
I
can
direct
the
excuse
me,
the
board,
please,
to
page
78
of
328
of
the
assessor's
memo
response.
You'll
find
our
summary
of
facts.
So
this
is
the
altair
apartments
located
at
400,
army
navy
drive
it's
consistent
of
five
individual
rpcs.
B
B
I
don't
know
if
there
was
an
error
made
in
the
original
assessment
or,
if
that's
just
the
the
now
new
revised
value
but
you'll
see
that's
that's
the
discrepancy
and
why
we
have
264
listed,
as
that
was
the
original
assessment,
but
now
you'll
see
in
column
d,
it's
the
262
million,
which
is
what
we'll
be
discussing.
Our
requested
value
for
2020
is
233
million
158
700,
just
516
000
a
unit.
B
This
is
a
recently
constructed
property
in
late
2018..
It's
451
total
units
consisting
of
two
separate
towers.
The
north
and
south
tower
20
stories
two
buildings,
and
this
has
been
peeled
in
prior
years.
This
property
is
in
that
crystal
city,
national
landing,
submarket,
it's
right
off
the
inter
the
interchange
of
i395
and
round
one
there
again.
This.
B
This
property
was
appealed
last
year
and
last
year
and
you'll
find
that
on
page,
the
the
decision
on
page
45
of
328
the
board's
decision
to
reduce
the
initial
assessment,
and
that
was
based
on
assuming
a
two
years
lost
rent
again.
This
is
a
property
that
had
initially
completed
construction
and
just
began
leasing
in
in
late
2018.
B
So
as
of
the
119,
the
county
was
applying
just
a
one-year
loss
rent
deduction
at
that
point
in
time,
vacancy
was
extraordinarily
high
at
the
property
and
the
board
decided
to
agree
upon
a
two-year
lost,
lost,
rent
deduction
so
fast
forward
another
year
and
the
vacancy
at
the
properties
is
still
very
high,
especially
in
the
north
tower.
B
B
They
were
not
expected
and
we
we
discussed
this.
I
believe
in
last
year's
board
case
to
reach
full
stabilization
until
late
2020
of
this
year
now
with
cova,
that's
obviously
thrown
things
into
an
additional
whack
as
of
right
now,
vacancy
is
still
extraordinarily
high
in
that
north
tower.
I
believe
it's
52.
B
Right
around
50
percent
vacant
still
more
than
halfway
through
the
year,
the
county
in
their
column,
d,
you'll,
see,
is
not
taking
into
account
any
sort
of
lost
rent
deduction
for
stabilization
again
as
of
1120.
There
was
still
significant
vacancy
issues,
even
the
south
tower.
It
was
above
market
vacancy
of
the
six
percent,
and
the
north
tower
was
well
well
in
advance,
but
the
county
is
essentially
currently
valuing
this
property,
as
if
it
was
a
fully
stabilized
property
very
similar.
B
To
the
last
case
we
just
discussed
quincy
quincy
plaza,
which
is,
for
you
know,
been
a
stabilized
very
low.
You
know
vacant
property
for
the
last
six
or
seven
years
consecutively,
but
as
of
1120,
you
would
assume
that
this
is
the
same
thing.
The
property
is
the
excuse
me,
the
county's
income
valuation
is
assuming
you
know,
100
of
gross
potential
income
and
then
not
taking
any
deduction
for
for
excess,
excess
vacancy
of
the
property,
and
not
considering
that
this
is
not
even
close
to
a
stabilized
property.
B
As
of
the
valuation
date,
the
assessment
increased
35
from
the
prior
year.
You
know
the
actual
noi
that
you'll
see
reported.
There
was,
and
that's
in
columns,
e1
and
e2
was
a
little
under
seven
million
dollars,
and
the
noi
being
estimated
in
the
current
assessment
is,
is
in
excess
of
13.5
million
13
million
636
0
34..
B
Now.
One
reason
which
we
just
stated
is
with
regards
to
why
it
increased
so
so
much
from
35
percent
from
the
prior
year
is
with
regard
to
the
counties
not
including
a
any
kind
of
discount
fully
set
for
the
vacancy.
But
the
other
reason
is
that
the
county's
cap
rate
that's
being
applied
to
this
property
and
their
income
model
decreased
substantially
from
the
prior
year.
This
is
a
property
that
sits.
B
Right
at
a
half
mile,
it's
not
under
a
half
mile
per
the
county's
guidelines
for
a
metro
cap
rate
property.
Last
year,
the
county
valued
this
property
on
the
non-metro
cap
rate,
and
this
year,
they've
decided
to
apply
the
metro
cap
rate.
So
you
know
this
cap
rate
that
you're
seeing
and
if
you
turn
to
page.
B
If
you
turn
to
page
82,
you'll,
see
a
map
of
the
property
in
its
relation
to
the
pentagon,
city,
metro
station
and
there's
a
bunch
of
different
options
here
in
in
terms
of
the
walking
distance
and
you'll
see
that
at
no
point
is
this
under
a
half
mile,
so
we
would
still
contend
that
the
county
should
be
appropriately
applying
the
non-metro
cap
rates
to
this
property.
B
B
So
there
are
two
other
multi-family
proper
properties
in
in
this:
the
same
sub
market,
the
crystal
city,
national
land,
landing
that
were
built
after
2010
that
are
rated
as
five
star
by
costar.
The
crystal
city
loss,
which
was
built
in
2010.
That's
currently
assessed
at
368
000
a
unit
and
then
the
crystal
flats,
which
is
a
newer
property
which
was
built
in
2017,
that's
assessed
at
376
000
units,
both
of
which
are
obviously
well
below
what
this
property
is
currently
assessed.
B
B
B
So
again,
all
those
properties
that
are
in
that
corridor
as
well
are
within
the
half
mile
the
metro,
the
altair
is
in
the
beginning
of
lease
up.
They
won't
reach
stabilization
until
the
end
of
this
year,
and
so
we
very
much
feel
if
you're,
if
you're,
if
you're
gonna
assess
this
as
a
fully
stabilized
property,
then
you
have
to
take
consideration
and
adjustments
to
the
gross
potential
income.
B
This
property
is
capable
of
generating
the
the
owner
decreased
market
rents
on
the
north
tower
and
expecting
total
gpi
to
decrease
30
000
a
month
starting
in
january
9
of
2020,
so
their
their
total
gross
potential
income,
as
at
the
beginning
of
the
year,
was
at
least
360
000
less
than
what
the
county
is
currently
estimating
their
their
current
reforecasting
projections
are,
at
the
end
of
july,
were
500
000
less
than
the
beginning
of
the
year.
B
So
if
no
adjustments
going
to
be
made
and
you're
going
to
assume
100
gross
potential
income,
then-
and
an
allowance
has
to
be
made
below
the
line
for
the
excess
vacancy
and,
if
you're
not
going
to
allow
for
excess
vacancy,
then
the
county's
gross
potential
income
needs
to
come
down
dramatically.
D
Yes
ma'am,
so
this
is
the
altair,
mr
warren,
and
I
spoke
a
good
bit
about
this.
This
building
it's
a
little
bit
unique
and
that
it's
owned
and
operated
as
one
entity,
but
they
somewhat
distinctly
note
that
they're
sort
of
separate
properties
as
well.
D
The
north
tower
has
its
own
website
visit
altairnorth.com
or
something
like
that.
The
south
tower
is
still
has
a
lot
of
amenities
and
a
lot
of
the
same
common
areas,
obviously
as
the
north
tower,
just
not
quite
as
the
outfitted
to
the
nines.
If
you
will,
as
the
cell
tower
is,
I
believe
mr
warren
noted
that
in
his
initial
eight
minutes
the
north
tower
is
having
a
bit
of
hard
time
with
lisa
as
compared
to
the
south
tower.
D
D
I
won't
put
words
mr
warren's
mouth,
but
I
believe
the
the
idea
behind
it
was
that
the
ownership
was
shooting
for
the
moon.
If
you
will
in
trying
to
achieve
some
of
these
higher
rents,
five
figure
rents
on
some
of
the
two
and
three
bedrooms
in
the
north
tower.
They
realized.
Obviously
that
was
a
bit
aggressive
and
have
re-established
a
new
plan.
D
D
So
as
far
as
accessibility,
it's
done
very
well,
we
didn't
find
any
external
influences
that
would
have
prevented
lisa
irvin,
and
I
noted
that
the
whitmer,
which
is
a
couple
blocks
away
located
off
of
pentagon
city
metro,
leased
up
and
it's
an
initial
year.
In
fact,
I
believe
it
won
some
award
for
the
fastest
lease
up
in
northern
virginia,
obviously
different
buildings,
but
at
the
same
point
they're
both
high
line
or
luxury
high-rises,
both
in
that
national
landing
area,
both
obviously
again,
metro
accessibility,
both
well
amenitized.
D
So
it's
really,
in
our
opinion,
just
a
matter
of
the
north
tower,
specifically
again
shooting
for
the
moon
in
regards
to
trying
to
achieve
as
high
as
a
rental
rate
is
as
possible.
What
we
looked
at
with
the
when
we're
looking
at
the
summary
page
as
compared
to
the
january
first
assessment.
D
First
and
foremost,
you'll
note
that
in
d
column
d,
we
only
list
one
column,
453
units
remiss
as
we
were,
we
did
not
count
the
17
committed,
affordable
units.
Mr
warren
pointed
that
out
to
me,
we
did
make
that
correction
for
perpetuity
going
for
2021.
D
D
We
applied
the
applicable
guideline
vacancy
and
concession
per
unit,
expense
rates
and
the
applicable
cap
rate,
and
we
did
come
up
with
a
final
value,
indicated
final
value
that
was
higher
than
the
january
first
assessment.
D
I'm
hoping
mr
warren
noted
that
we
did
in
fact
test
a
below
the
line,
deduction
for
the
extreme
vacancy
or
lease
up.
One
thing
to
note:
that's
a
differentiator
between
the
county
and
the
appellant
is
the
board.
I
believe
knows
the
county
offers
a
lease
up,
an
initial
one-year
lease-up
deduction,
one
time
and
that's
in
its
initial
year.
As
mr
warren
noted,
the
the
county.
Excuse
me
the
board,
I
believe,
added
two
years
last
year
and
the
appellant
would
like
an
additional
year
this
year.
D
So
that
would
be
three
years
of
lease
up
and
a
two
year
span,
which
obviously,
at
least
as
far
as
a
math
problem,
doesn't
make
sense
to
us
it's
an
annual
assessment.
It
should
be
looked
at
on
an
annual
basis,
so
an
additional
lease
up
of
one
year,
just
wouldn't,
would
bring
it
out
of
equity
with
other
property
types,
similar
property
types,
as
you
saw
earlier
this
year,
the
property
in
south
arlington
that
was
in
its
initial
year
as
well,
that
we
actually
heard
you
heard
earlier
this
year.
D
D
Obviously
again,
they
are
having
a
vacancy
issue.
We
used
to
stabilize
6,
and
then
we
increased
our
operating
expenses
by
some
hundred
and
hundred
and
thirty
thousand
dollars,
or
so
again
well
above
the
per
unit
guideline
for
operating
expenses
and
yet
still
came
out
to
a
value
that
was
higher
than
the
january
first
assessment
I'll.
Let
mr
bailey
wrap
this
up,
but
if
you're
looking
at
column
g
you'll
note
that
the
noi
is
the
exact
same
as
the
counting,
the
real
difference
is
the
cap
rate.
D
The
the
penalty
is
5.44
as
opposed
to
5.19
and
again
they
used
a
entire
year's.
An
additional
year's
lease
up
adjustment
after
two
years
had
already
been
accounted
for
last
year.
So
that's
the
biggest
difference
between
these
the
two
opinions
of
value.
D
The
the
dependents
do
believe
that
the
net
upper
income
would
be
a
good
bit
higher,
basically
double
what
you
see
was
reported
in
year.
2019,
it's
just
a
matter
of
how
you
get
to
the
total
value.
We
believe
an
additional
in
this
case.
A
third
year
would
be
inappropriate
and
even
again
after
testing
the
new
information
and
making
it
below
the
line,
deduction
of
3.6
million.
We
still
came
up
with
a
value
that
was
higher
than
the
january
first
projection.
D
E
Yes,
I
just
want
to
comment
on
the
additional
lease
up.
So,
as
chris
stated,
policy
has
been
that
we
give
all
new
construction
the
same
amount
of
time
of
below
the
line
discount.
In
the
past
we
did
a
six
month
lease
of
deduction
due
to
board
hearings
and
just
changes
in
the
market.
We
increased
that
to
a
12
month
below
the
line
adjustment.
E
E
We
do
second
year
below
the
line,
deductions
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and
this
property
due
to
the
number
of
units
and
the
continued
issues
leasing
up,
because
the
two
towers
are
different.
I
think
when
we
did
the
inspection
after
the
construction
of
the
property,
they
actually
told
us
that,
like
one
tower,
is
their
luxury
tower
in
the
other
tower.
I
think
the
south
tower
is
the
tower
where
they
put
all
the
affordable
units
and
lower
tier
units.
E
E
So
we
treat
this
as
one
property
type.
They
share
parking
garage
and
I
think
the
first
six
floors
and
then
it
splits
off
into
towers,
and
we
said
we
would
give
them
below
the
line
deduction,
but
chris
did
analyze
the
rents
that
they
are
achieving.
The
rents
from
the
initial
assessment
were
based
off
of
marketing
information,
so
the
rents
that
he
used
on
the
test
are
actually
from
the
property
owner
themselves.
So
that's
the
reason
why
the
test
revenue
is
much
higher
because
we
have
more
accurate,
rent
information
and
based
off
his
calculations.
E
It
would
have
resulted
in
a
increase.
I
also
wanted
to
point
out
if
I
can
right
quick.
The
first
page
has
a
value
of
264
as
the
value.
When
you
look
at
that
chart
of
values
broken
out
by
a
parcel,
it
shows
two
six,
four
seven.
Seventy
seven
seven
hundred
that
number
is
not
correct.
As
chris
stated,
we
are
confirming
that
two
sixty
two
seven
thirty
six,
seven
hundred
with
that
confirmation,
we
would
have
to
make
some
adjustments.
E
So
if
you
were
to
confirm
we
would
have
to
have
rosa
correct
those
values
on
each
individual
parcel.
I
just
want
to
point
it
out.
So
there's
no
confusion.
E
I
think
that's
all
I
have.
This
is
a
metro
property
based
on
the
map
that
blake
submitted,
there's
two
routes
that
are
half
a
mile
walk
to
the
metro
station.
If
you,
google,
right
quick,
there's
three
routes,
one
is
.4
miles
to
the
metro
station,
the
other
2.5
miles
to
the
metro
station.
That's
the
reason
for
the
metro
cap
rate.
L
Yeah,
mr
bailey,
I
know
you've
clarified
a
little
bit
on
that
difference
between
the
first
page
of
264
million
777
and
the
value
that
you
were
asking
us
to
confirm.
I
know
russ
and
I
would
be
probably
going
crazy
if
you
don't
clarify
that,
because
I
know
the
orders
are
going
to
come
up
different
now
on
page
10,
I
know
there's
a
different.
What
are
the
differences?
There's
a
2
million
2
million
40
000
approximately
of
an
allocated
improvement
value
exactly.
Where
does
that?
Where
does
that
go
I
mean?
E
E
So
that
extra
2
million
it
doesn't
go
to
anything
honestly.
I
think
it
was
an
issue
to
get
there
with
the
land,
so
the
land
had
some
override
values
left
in
there
which
reduced
the
land
value.
E
L
So
that
amount
will
be
deducted
from
the
land
values
on
all
the
parcels.
I
guess
when
we
get
the
orders.
E
We'll
go
through
and
look
at
each
individual
parcel.
One
of
the
issues
that
we
run
into
with
the
economic
unit
is
the
calculation
of
land
right
at
the
parcel
level.
So
what
happened?
One
of
the
parcels
was
reduced
to
a
hundred
dollars
because
I
think
it's
a
it.
Is
a
street
parcel.
So
we
took
the
value
from
that
and
allocated
that
to
the
parcel
four
five.
K
Yes,
ma'am,
this
is
for
the
county.
The
distance
would
seem
to
be
a
factual
issue
either
it
is
or
it
isn't,
over,
half
a
mile.
What
was
it,
how
do
you
determine
that?
Do
you
measure
it?
How
is
that
determined.
D
So
we
use
google
maps
and
they
have
a
locking
feature.
So
if
you
just
punch
in
the
address
of
the
subject
property
in
this
case,
400
army
navy
drive
and
then
you
can
look
at
the
local
metro
stops
in
this
case
pentagon
city
and
then,
when
you
draw,
when
you
ask
it
to
give
you
directions,
it
gives
you
three
routes,
there's
a
point:
five,
which
takes
nine
minutes,
a
point
four,
which
takes
eight
minutes
and
a
point
four
which
takes
excuse
me
point
five,
which
takes
eleven.
K
Sans
car
and
the
big
block
fern
is
founded
by
fern
army,
navy,
eads
and
12th
street
when
that
gets
done,
you're
going
to
be
able
to
cut
right
through
that
huge
block.
So
if
let's
say
you
have
a
future,
is
that
taken
into.
E
C
D
E
E
Maybe
that's
an
updated
map,
but
I
did
the
I'm
looking
at
it
as
well.
Yeah.
I
Yeah,
usually
before
the
project's
finished,
I
guess
the
county
does
an
estimate
of
cost.
You
know
if
it's
fifty
percent
of
the
construction
is
done.
They
go
fifty
percent
of
the
total
cost.
E
I
E
B
E
D
D
They
were
privy
to
that
before
they
submitted
their
profoma,
and
yet
they
still
use
the
county's
projections
of
13.6
million
noi.
Really,
the
only
difference
is
the
below
the
line
adjustment
of
full
year
lease
of
deduction
versus
a
appropriate
deduction
that
will
be
made
for
the
excess
vacancy.
Since
this
is
its
second
year,
not
its
initial
year,
there's
an
adjustment
that
should
be
made
to
the
cap
rate
as
in
that
they
used
a
cap
rate.
D
That's
some
25
26
basis
points
25,
basically
higher
than
the
county,
but
again
they
believed
that
the
noi
that
was
projected
by
the
county
is
accurate.
It's
just
a
matter
of
what
you
do
below
the
line.
The
county
does
believe
that
a
an
additional
in
this
case
third
year
would
be
inappropriate
and
that
the
test
showed
that
the
projection
made
by
the
county
were
actually
underprojected
based
upon
the
rents
that
are
being
achieved
at
the
property
in
2020..
C
I'm
actually
going
to
close
here
so
last
year
the
value
was
213.4
million
that
was
brought
to
the
board.
The
board
reduced
it
to
196.4
million
based
off
of
a
three
to
two
vote,
saying
we're
not
going
to
take
one
year
lease
up
we're
going
to
take
two.
C
So
last
year
we
said
it's
going
to
take
us
two
years
to
lease
this
thing
up,
we're
a
year
later
and
we're
saying
it's
going
to
take
us
a
year
to
lease
this
thing
up
another
year
to
lease
it
up
and
the
county
say
you
can't
have
three
years.
You
got
two
years
last
year,
last
year
we
got
the
lease
up
for
19
and
for
20
and
this
year
we're
just
asking
for
the
lease
up
for
20..
The
value
has
gone
up
from
that
time.
C
70
plus
million
dollars
we
talked
about
chris-
has
mentioned
many
times.
This
is
a
luxury
property
and
we
agree
yet
he's
using
a
vacancy
sorry,
an
expense
rate
on
the
assessment
of
19,
a
19
expense
rate
for
for
a
luxury
property.
When
guidelines
were
percentages,
it
was
23
for
a
brand
new
high-rise.
Now
we
use
a
range.
C
You
would
think
with
all
the
amenities
and
all
the
luxury
that
this
property
has
in
order
to
get
to
that
rent.
The
19
is
nowhere
in
the
acceptable
range
and
not
something
that
we
we're
agreeing
with.
So
the
19
should
be
closer
to
23,
which
is
a
more
county
accessible,
but
the
saying
we're
getting
three
years
is
incorrect.
A
Okay,
thank
you
now,
it's
just
among
the
board
members.
What's
everybody
think.
G
G
J
G
So
it's
just
purely
based
on
huge
vacancy
factor.
We
need
to
have
a
lot
of
lease
of
costs.
We
still
have
a
significant
vacancy
factor
and
it
could
be
that
the
the
landlord
is
missing
the
mark
on
the
rent,
the
rent
rate,
and
I
think
the
appellant
agrees
with
that.
I
mean,
as
has
stated
that
so
is
the
question:
do
we
want
to
because
the
landlord's
overestimated
the
value
of
the
building
based
on
results?
G
K
Yeah.
Thank
you.
Madam
chairman
ken.
I
was
looking
at
comments
about
this
project
and
it
seemed
like
there
were,
like
50,
50,
split,
most
wonderful
experience.
I
ever
had
most
horrible
experience
I
ever
had,
and
it
seems
like
from
from
looking
at
what
people
are
saying
that
the
slowness
of
ren
up
might
be
inadequate,
staffing
and
adequate
training,
something
there
seems
to
be
something
amiss
down
there.
K
K
I
I
just
kind
of
broadly
always
have
trouble
when
there's
no
history
going
and
pushing
pushing
the
envelope
on
the
assessment,
because
we.
I
Fact,
if
we
wait
another
year,
there's
going
to
be
a
we'll
get
another
id
and
we'll
actually
have
some
stabilized
performance
to
look
at.
So
you
know,
if
you
take
the
pro
forma
rents
that
they
get,
maybe
for
the
first
50
percent
of
the
units,
the
last
fifty
percent.
Maybe
they
can't
push
the
rents
as
much.
They
start
offering
more
concessions.
I
A
F
G
K
You
know
it's
interesting.
None
of
the
comments
said
anything
about
the
importance
of
metro,
because
that's
what
I
was
looking
for.
I
was
looking
for
something
in
you
know
the
information
supplied
by
the
landlord
you
know
within
a
quarter
mile.
You
know
something
like
that
and
I
saw
very
little.
In
fact,
I
saw
nothing
on
it
on
on
the
metro
proximity
to
metro.
K
We
also
have,
in
the
zoning
ordinance
a
reduction
for
parking
if
you're
within
a
certain
distance,
and
what
zoning
requires
is
a
measurement
by
an
engineer
and
they
do
it
as
the
crow
flies
not
as
walk,
and
so
I
I
agree
that
it's
a
metro
project.
I
think
the
landowner
has
to
demonstrate
with
engineering
or
something
if
they
want
to
make
the
argument
that
it
should
not
be
considered
metro
going
back
to
greg
craig.
It's
your
thought,
go
with
the
counties
and
go
with
the
county's
figures,
but
for
the
underlying
deduction.
A
Right
so
I
I
did
the
quick
math
on
that
I
mean
I
guess
two
things
one
in
the
comment
to
mr
lawson.
I
mean
we've
used
google
maps
before
so
I'm
fine
with
that.
In
fact,
I
think
historically,
that's
really
the
way.
We've
always
looked
at
that,
but
so
greg.
If
I'm
checking
your
math
so
you're
taken
from
the
262
736
7
minus
the
17
365
560.,
so
I
get
245
371
140.
I
L
Well,
I
agreed
that
some
deductions
should
be
made,
but
I
wasn't
really
going
with
full
year
because
I
don't
think
it
was.
You
know
a
building
that
was
really
having
a
lot
of
trouble
or
was
fully
vacant
or
like
in
some
situations
that
we
would
see.
So
I
wasn't
really
looking
at
the
full
year
deduction.
L
A
A
L
G
J
A
F
G
Will
vote
I
for
any
of
the
two
motions.
I
All
right,
mr
hoffman
yeah,
the
motion
would
be
that
I'm
making
is
to
reduce
the
assessment
to
2
million
245
million
371
100,
based
on
the
county's
column,
f1
and
f2,
with
the
lease
up
deduction
of
17
million
and
change.
F
A
F
A
D
I
D
Wrote
did
I
misspeak
that,
okay,
it
just
said
73.
and
that's
taking
the
counties,
column
d,
minus
the
below
the
line,
17
365.
G
L
D
A
L
L
A
B
Yes
I'll,
please
direct
the
board
to
page
39
of
87,
which
is
our
summary
of
fax.
This
is
the
maxwell
located
at
650
north
glebe,
it's
consistent
of
one
rpc.
It
is
currently
assessed
at
59
million
or
initially
sets
at
59
million
419
500
or
357
000
a
unit.
B
I
believe
the
county
further
response
had
recognized
failure
to
include
the
pulse
and
bid
rate
which
reduced
the
assessment
to
58
million
907
200,
and
that's
the
value
that
they're
recommending
and
we
are
requesting
a
target
value
from
the
board
of
57
million
928
900
or
348
000
unit.
This
is
a
newer
property
was
built
in
2015.
B
It's
a
163
unit,
mid-rise
apartment
with
ground
floor
retail.
It's
is
located
in
that
that
ballston
submarket,
if
you
turn
to
page
3,
you'll,
see
the
county's
mixed
use,
income
and
expense
summary
sheet.
This
is
a
property
that
we've
appealed
in
prior
years,
mainly
due
to
the
historically
high
operating
expenses
that
this
property
is
run
at,
and
that
mainly
has
to
do
with
the
the
total
unit
size
and
the
maintenance
and
repair
maintenance
and
payroll
being
higher
on
a
per
unit
basis.
B
The
county's
current
estimate,
when
you
combine
both
column,
d1
and
d2
for
the
apartments
and
retail
component,
is
at
4.67
million
for
the
total
gpi,
which
is
obviously
well
in
advance
of
anything.
That's
ever
been
reported
over
the
last
four
years
of
the
subject:
property
and
that's
really
the
main
issue.
With
the
current
assessment,
the
total
effective
gross
income
is
4.44
million
and
the
county
is
applying
operating
expenses
of
30.
B
Now,
that's
right
in
line
with
with
the
historical
operations
of
the
property
at
31,
in
2016
33
in
2017,
30
in
2018,
and
then
most
recently
30
in
2019..
So
the
biggest
issue
here
is
with
regard
to
the
gross
potential
income
and
that's
what
we're
requesting
the
county
to
take
a
closer
consideration
too.
With
regard
to
the
2020
assessment
jeremy,
I
don't
know
if
there's
anything
you'd
like
to
add.
C
I'm
just
to
point
out-
and
this
was
in
the
all
the
board
decisions.
I
know
it
came
up
in
the
discussion.
How
did
we
get
to
the
value
the
board?
The
board
decision
from
last
year
is
in
the
packet
it
passed
on
a
6-0
vote
to
reduce
the
assessment
based
off
increasing
expenses
to
31
percent.
This
was
last
year.
So
again,
this
is
one
where
the
board
reduced
the
assessment.
Last
year,
the
county
then
kind
of
pumped
it
back
up.
So
we
went
from
55
million
to
59.4
we
saw
about
it
close
to.
C
I
guess
it's
about
an
eight
percent
increase
4.3
million
dollars
higher
than
last
year's
board
decision,
which
was
to
increase
the
expenses
to
31
percent
and
doing
the
same
in
column.
F
still
gets
us
a
little
bit
higher
than
last
year's
number
but
again
slots
it
kind
of
kind
of
nicely
considering
how
the
property
is
doing.
D
Speaking
about
the
maxwell
focusing
on
page
three,
the
three-year
mixed
use,
income
and
expense-
summary
sheets
and
looking
at
the
property,
we
see
the
apartment
revenues
up
over
two
percent
2019
retail
revenue
has
been
up
three
years
in
a
row.
2019's
increase
was
two
percent
parking.
Revenue
is
down
one
point:
eight
percent:
oh,
the
revenue
is
up
seven
point:
five
percent
gross
potential
incomes
up
two
point:
three
percent
in
2019
vacancy
is
a
three
year
average
of
four
point:
two
percent.
D
D
When
you
include
concessions,
vacancy
inconcession
is
a
three-year
average
of
5.6
and
down
three
years
in
a
row
due
to
that
effective
gross
has
been
up
three
years
in
a
row
year.
Over
year
over
year,
2019's
increase
was
4.6.
Percent
operating
expenses
are
up
3.7
percent
in
2019,
and
we
saw
the
net
upper
income
increase
four
years
in
a
row.
2019
excuse
me:
2019's
increase
was
just
shy
of
five
percent,
a
little
bit
different
than
what
the
board
has
seen
in
most
cases
this
year.
D
The
board
actually
excuse
me,
the
county.
Actually,
over
projected
in
most
metrics,
we
over
projected
the
gross
potential
income
by
120
000,
2.7
percent,
effective
gross
by
just
shy
of
twenty
thousand
or
point
four
percent,
four
tenths
of
a
percent,
and
we
over
projected
operating
expenses
by
fifty
seven
thousand,
six
hundred
or
four
point
four
percent-
and
this
led
to
an
under
projection
of
net
operating
income,
some
38
000
or
1.2
percent,
with
the
2019
income
expense
questionnaire
that
we
received
from
the
owner.
We
did
test
that
information
in
columns,
f1
and
f2.
D
As
you
can
see,
using
the
rent
rule
that
was
a
submitted
by
the
owner.
We
did
tighten
up
our
projection
on
the
revenue
side
again
still
called
for
a
slight
increase
in
apartment
revenue
of
eight
tenths
of
one
percent.
D
But
following
the
trend
on
the
parking
decline,
we
did
in
fact
call
for
a
revision
downward
on
parking
revenue
and
overall
gross
potential
income.
We
projected
would
increase
by
about
seven
tenths
of
one
percent.
D
We
noted
the
decreasing
vacancy
and
concession
we
used
considered,
still
use
the
guideline
five
percent
and,
in
fact,
came
out
with
the
effect
of
gross.
That
was
about
one
and
a
half
percent
shy
of
what's
been
achieved.
The
last
four
years.
D
We
stayed
on
that
30
percent
threshold
as
far
as
operating
expenses
again
higher
than
what
has
achieved
at
the
property
in
2019
and
even
still
came
up
with
an
noi
that
was
lower
than
what
was
projected
for
january
1st,
given
the
projection
the
overprojections
made
by
the
county,
but
importantly,
the
other
projection
made
by
the
count
in
regards
to
the
net
operating
income.
The
increase
is
four
years
in
a
row
on
the
revenue
side,
the
stabilized
occupancy,
the
decreasing
amount
of
vacancy
and
concession.
D
We
do
believe
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
a
value
of
58.9072
and
per
mr
warren's
note.
We
do
want
to
make
that
clear.
The
original
assessment,
columns,
d1
and
d2
that
cap
rate
is
not
inclusive
of
that
.045
boston
bid
rate.
So,
as
you
can
read
in
the
comments,
were
you
to
add
that
0.045
to
columns,
d1
and
d2,
you
would
come
up
with
a
value
of
58
million
907
two,
and
that
is
what
we're
asking
the
county
to
excuse
me
the
board,
to
confirm.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
I
think
the
case
that
was
referred
to
the
board
was
2018,
not
2019,
right
where
it
was
reduced
based
on
operating
expenses.
D
C
Can
I
say
something
that
might
speed
this
up?
We
can
live
with
the
test
column
if
the
test
column
wasn't
offered
at
the
first
level,
or
we
wouldn't
wouldn't
be
here.
The
number
that
was
offered
at
the
first
level
was
between
the
assessment
and
the
test
column.
So
if
we
had
been
offered
the
test
column,
we
would
have
just
accepted
and
been
done
so
that
we
can
live
with
that
number.
I
C
E
C
A
No
okay,
all
right,
mr
chicas,
if
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up,
please.
D
Yes,
ma'am
again,
this
building
is
in
the
ascendancy
of
its
commercial
life.
If
you
will
it's
gone
up
in
value
of
four
years,
gpi
excuse
me
egi
and
noi.
D
The
operations
are
stable,
the
building
itself
is
being
stabilized.
As
far
as
occupancy
increases
vacancy
decreases,
concessions
are
going
down,
the
county
did
over
project
on
the
gross
potential,
but
underprojected
on
operating
income.
We
do
believe,
based
on
its
history
and
based
on
the
under
projection,
made
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
a
valley,
58
million
907
200..
Thank
you.
A
All
right
and
thank
you,
mr
warren.
B
Yes,
just
to
reiterate
what
jeremy
just
said,
our
initial
issue
was
with
the
gross
potential
income.
However,
we
would
be
willing
to
accept
the
the
county's
revised
text
column
of
58
million
262
800..
A
A
A
L
Yeah,
I'm
okay
with
the
revised
assessment.
I
know
the
county
made
the
revision
based
on
the
error
they
made.
You
know
it's
okay
with
the
55907
for
them,
but
as
we've
done
in
the
past,
you
know
even
if
it's
half
a
million
difference
in
value,
I
think
it's
worth
correcting
based
on
the
revised
numbers.
So
I
think
we
should
go
with
the
test
and
you
know
the
county
came
up
with
their
number
on
the
test
and
the
appeal
and
is
a
okay
with
it.
So
I'm,
okay
with
it.
J
L
A
Okay
motion
in
a
second
by
mr
lawson,
all
in
favor
aye
aye
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
It's
reduced
to
58
million
260
to
800.
A
Okay,
I
believe
that's
it
for
today.
Anybody
else
have
any
business,
no,
no
okay!
We
will
adjourn
today
here
at
11,
34
and
return
tomorrow
morning
at
9
00
a.m.
Hi
everyone
all.