►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing - September 15, 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
Good
morning
today
is
tuesday
september
15
2020..
This
is
the
arlington
county,
virginia
board
of
equalization
hearing.
The
first
case
on
the
agenda
is
an
economic
unit.
The
rpc
number
is
two
eu1501212:
two,
a
is
an
apple
thirty
one.
Fifty
twelfth
street
north,
mr
jeremy
chitlick,
is
here
to
present
for
the
appellant.
Mr
chitlik,
you
can
start
with
your
eight
minutes
and
tell
us
about
the
property.
B
Thank
you.
The
in
front
of
you
is
a
272
page
packet
that
I'm
sure
we've
all
read
front
to
back.
A
lot
of
this
is
forms
and
decisions
because
of
the
type
of
property
that
it
is.
It
has
a
lot
of
lots:
the
property
split
where
it
has
a
five
level
portion
and
a
high-rise
portion.
So
it's
a
mid-rise
high-rise
split.
B
Our
understanding
from
the
county
in
the
past
is
that
those
properties
you
call
the
property
what
the
tallest
floor
is.
So,
if
you
had
because
half
of
its
mid-rise
half
of
its
high-rise,
the
county's
position
is
it's
all
high-rise
which
we
dispute
a
bit.
But
the
the
main
issue
here
that
we
have
at
the
property
is
the
well.
You
know
what
let
me
just
go
to
page
three,
because
that's
kind
of
the
sums,
everything
and
I'll
show
you
what
happened
here.
B
There
is
a-
and
I
say,
page
three:
it's
actually
page
six
in
this
packet.
It's
a
side-by-side.
You
have
a
four-year
history
of
income
here,
but
what
the
assessor's
done
is
he's
pulled
out
what
he
thinks
it
should
not
have
been
included.
So
these
are
equity,
residential
properties.
Where
you'll
see
that
four
years
back,
the
expenses
were
17
and
then
19
and
in
both
those
years
they
didn't
actually
report
rubs
in
2017,
the
rubs
were
added
by
the
jurisdiction
and
then
in
18
and
19.
B
The
rubs
were
added
back
in,
but
then
the
expenses
were
actually
stabilized,
so
the
current
expense
rate
is
25.71.
In
the
most
recent
year
the
county's
original
assessment
used
20.75
they've.
Now
looked
at
the
information
and
said
you
know,
we
see
what
you
did,
but
we
don't
think
that
all
of
the
maintenance
and
repairs
should
be
included.
So
we're
going
to
pull
that
out
and
report
it
to
you
as
operating
expense
without
capex.
B
So
I'd
like
you
to
look
at
column,
d
and
column
g
and
note
that
those
are
not
what
was
submitted
on
the
income
and
expense
forms
that
is
instead
what
was
submitted
in
the
incoming
expense
storm
and
the
assessor
pulled
out
some
of
the
things
that
he
did
not
feel
that
were
appropriate.
Specifically
in
2018
he
pulled
out
13
000
of
information
of
expenses.
There
to
say
it
shouldn't
be
two
million
ninety-eight
thousand.
It
actually
should
have
been
two
million
eighty-five
thousand.
B
What's
painting
carpet
et
cetera,
you
have
to
realize
that,
although
we
are
used
to
looking
at
this
on
a
daily
basis
and
the
counties
are
used
to
looking
at
the
daily
basis,
owners
get
these
income
statements
that
are
three
or
four
pages
with
three
pages
of
instructions
and
it's
a
little
difficult
to
tell
what
should
go
in
what
box
and
when
somebody
owns
500
properties
across
the
country
and
they're
filling
out
500
of
these
in
300
different
jurisdictions.
B
Again,
it's
it's
pretty
difficult
to
say.
Is
this
decorating
expense?
Is
this
turnover
costs,
or
is
this
painting,
carpet,
etc,
and
because
the
county
has
determined
that
to
them
they
put
it
in
the
wrong
box
and
didn't
follow
the
directions
like
they
wanted
it?
It
should
not
have
been
included.
So,
yes,
things
shift
from
one
box
to
another
and
that's
what
happened
here
with?
Is
it
turnover
cost?
Is
it
painting
carpet
or
is
it
decorating
expense?
You
paint
you
paint
a
unit.
B
Are
you
decorating
the
unit
or
are
you
painting
it
because
the
last
tenant,
because
the
new
tenants
coming
in
well,
it's
kind
of
both
right
so
which
box
goes
under,
doesn't
make
the
expense
any
less
legitimate,
so
in
column,
f
is
the
actual
operating
that's
reported
on
the
ine
and
you'll
notice.
The
noi
was
7.16
million.
The
county
has
determined
that
some
of
those
expenses
shouldn't
have
been
included
and
the
actual
is
7.3
million,
so
they
were
originally
using.
Expenses
of
20
percent
saw
that
the
new
expenses
are
25.
B
They
made
some
adjustments
here
the
test
here
they
used
a
four
percent
on
the
test
when
the
original
six-
I
don't.
I
don't
know
why
that's
the
case,
but
the
end
result
here
is
a
value
decrease
by
the
assessor,
but
an
noi
being
used.
That's
150
000
higher
than
actually
be
achieved.
I
can
go
over
the
details
of
the
property,
but
I
know
you've
had
our
packet
for
some
time
and
and
we
do
a
pretty
good
job
of
laying
it
out.
B
So
I
apologize
if
you'd
prefer
me
to
do
that
and
if
so,
please
let
me
know,
but
the
details
of
the
property,
what
it
looks
like.
What's
their
pictures,
all
of
our
issues
are
are
highlighted
in
our
in
our
narrative,
which
we've
included,
which
is
pretty
detailed.
So
I
didn't
want
to
use
my
eight
minutes
to
go
over
that.
I
really
wanted
to
focus
on
the
merits
of
the
case
and
the
issues
that
we
still
disagree
with.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
mr
chica.
C
Good
morning
board
members
good
morning,
mr
schindler,
mr
warren,
what
we're
talking
about,
of
course,
is
the
clandon
apartments.
C
C
For
mr
chetlike,
we
did
include
extra
columns,
column
b
and
column
g
which
are
reconstructed
from
the
owner,
submitted
ines
minus
the
capital
improvements
that
we've
talked
to
ad
nauseam
this
year
and
years
previous
they're,
inappropriate
expenses.
That's
why
they're
listed
below
the
line
no
of
the
owners
that
we
know
of
attempt
to
use
them
above
the
line
as
annual
expenses.
So
we
expressed
that
to
ms
ross
and
mr
chitlik
in
expressly
asking
what
explicitly
spent
on
capital
improvements
and
what
was
spent
on
other
items.
C
We've
listed
that
in
the
packet
you
can
see
that
on
beginning,
I
believe
it's
on
page
144,
272
emails
that
mr
chitlick
was
included
on
as
well.
So
in
regards
to
the
mystery
of
why
there's
extra
columns
it
shouldn't
be.
The
columns
are
representative
of
the
operating
expenses.
Minus
capital
improvements
so
you'll
see
a
b
is
for
year.
1617
d
will
be
representative
of
the
year
2018
without
the
capital
improvements
and
year
g
will
be
representative
of
2019
again
without
capital
improvements.
C
When
we
look
at
the
property,
we
see
that
it's
performing
well.
Apartment
revenue
is
up
2.9
in
2019
gross
potential
incomes.
Up
2.7
vacancy
is
stable
at
3.2
percent
for
a
three-year
average.
You
include
concessions
that
raises
one-tenth
of
a
percent
to
3.3
percent
for
a
three-year
average.
Effective
gross
is
up
two
percent
in
2019
and
again
we
did
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
increase
in
expenditures
looks
like
three
years
in
a
row
now:
18
increase
in
17,
11
and
18,
and
another
12
19..
C
Even
with
that
increase,
we
noted
that
there
was
a
three
year
average
of
2.1
million
or
22.1
percent
of
effective
gross.
That's
again
as
long
as
you're,
using
the
columns
that
did
not
include
capital
improvements.
C
The
net
operating
income
was
down
eight
tenths
of
one
percent
in
2019.
When
we
look
at
our
projections,
columns,
e1
and
e2,
made
before
the
2019
information
was
provided
to
the
county.
We
can
see
and
again
the
board's
familiar
with
this,
we
underprojected
almost
across
the
board.
We
under
projected
gross
potential
income
by
156
000
one
and
a
half
1.6
percent,
we
underprojected
effective
gross
by
402,
000
or
4.2
percent.
C
We
did
under
project
operating
expenses
by
440,
000
or
some
19,
and
that
led
to
a
slight
overprojection
of
net
operating
income
by
37,
000
or
0.5
percent.
So
five
tenths
of
a
percent
difference
between
what
we
projected
for
joining
january
1st
and
what
came
out
in
column
g
once
the
capital
improvements
were
taken
out
so
pretty
much
spot
on.
We
did
test
the
new
information
again
as
the
board
is
familiar
with,
and
that
would
show
up
in
columns,
h1
and
h2.
C
It
really
was
a
fairly
straightforward
process
other
than
we
noted
there
was
some
slight
increases
on
the
revenue
side
due
to
the
rent
roll
that
was
provided
by
the
owner.
Mr
chitling
was
curious
where
the
four
percent
stabilized
vacancy
concessions
came
from.
That's.
C
Uptick,
if
you
will,
from
the
last
three
years
again
stabilized
at
3.2
percent
3.3,
if
you
include
concessions,
the
board
is
familiar
with
the
virginia
code
which
allows
you
all
to
consider
the
actuals
that's
going
on
at
the
property.
If
you
were
to
actualize
and
stabilize
the
vacancy
concession
over
three
years,
you
again
get
three
point.
C
Three
point:
three
percent:
we
rounded
up
to
four
percent
again
increased
the
operating
expenditures,
essentially
right
in
line
with
what
they
spent
in
2019
minus
the
capital
improvements
at
24.3
percent
of
egi
and
still
came
within.
I
believe
it
was
one
percent
of
our
original
assessment
january
1st,
and
so
the
test
value
didn't
indicate
a
revision,
but
rather
a
confirmation
of
our
original
january
1st
assessment.
C
We
do
believe
that
our
number
is
more
representative
of
what's
been
going
on
over
the
last
three
or
four
years
again,
especially
if
you
considered
the
inappropriate
expenses
expenses
that
were
included,
and
specifically
when
you
take
a
look
at
the
appellant's
pro
forma
column
high,
they
would
have
you
believe
that
the
net
operating
income
is
lower
by
700
000
than
anything.
That's
occurred
over
the
last
four
years.
C
C
So
that
being
said
again,
based
on
the
metrics,
where
we
underprojected
near
across
the
board
were
within
half
percent
of
what
was
achieved
in
the
operating
year
2019,
we
do
believe
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
139
million
55
900..
Thank
you.
E
Yeah
jeremy,
I
caught
you
said
you
thought
2018
column
d
expenses
was
off
by
about
13
000,
but
I
didn't
catch.
The
number
for
2019.
B
So
if
you
look
at
column
c,
he
took
the
actual
reported
expenses
were
2
million,
98
000
and
then
he
re
he
recreated
it
with
column
d
and
took
out
what
he
felt
was
the
capex.
So
he
took
out
13
000
in
column.
F,
the
expenses
were
two
million
four
hundred
and
seventy
eight
thousand
and
he
recreated
in
column
g,
and
he
took
out
a
hundred
and
thirty
three
thousand
dollars
all
right.
So
you
felt
the
two
million.
B
B
B
A
Okay,
mr
lawson.
B
B
The
original
thought
of
capital
is
something
that
is
done
to
improve
your
property,
so
capital
can
be
I'm
renovating
the
lobby,
because
once
the
lobby's
renovated
I
get
an
extra
five
dollars
per
unit
I'll
a
lot
of
owners,
although
say
capital
as
items
that
need
to
be
done.
So
if
you
need
to
re-point
some
bricking
out
front
or
things
like
that,
that
would
be
considered
capital
or
or
repair
roof.
That
would
be
considered
capital,
yet
you're
not
getting
more
because
your
roof
has.
B
F
B
I
don't
I
don't
know
what
he
deemed
allowable
and
not
allowable.
I
don't
know
why
he
removed
it.
I
could
tell
you
that
the
owner
reported
it
as
cost
associated
with
maintaining
the
property
year
over
year
and
he
determined
that
that
wasn't
acceptable.
So
I
can't
answer
what
was
allowed
and
what
was
disallowed
and
why.
C
Yeah,
mr
larson,
if
you'll
turn
to
page
40,
144
you'll
see
the
emails
that
go
back
and
forth
what
was
listed,
was
39432
miscellaneous
building
expense,
8575
and
exterior
repairs,
5986
and
amenities,
expense,
5700
and
procurement
allocation,
22,
300,
building
repairs,
seven
sixty
in
common
area.
C
Ninety
three
thousand
three
sixty
seven
turnover
costs
hundred
and
thirty,
two
thousand
nine.
Fifty
two
in
capital
costs,
twelve
thousand
seven
hundred
fourteen
and
casualty
costs
nineteen
thousand
dollars
in
pool
services
separate
from
1700
and
pool.
So
these
are
fairly
vague
responses.
So,
when
we
ask
for
follow-up
on
certain
categories,
we
respect
that
to
get
that
information
back,
but
in
regards
to
you
know
common
areas:
72
000,
miscellaneous,
36
000.
C
You
know,
I
think,
there's
a
difference
between
how
the
building's
reporting,
capital
and
annual
operating
expenditures
there's
just
so
many
different
ways
to
to
spend
this
money
and
they've
found
all
of
them.
Rather
than
line
item
them
and
tell
us
exactly.
What's
spent
it's
usually
just
grouped
into
a
larger
number.
So,
as
we've
explained
before,
capital
expenditures
are
not
an
annual
operating
expense.
Mr
chapman
just
testified
that
there's
a
return
on
expense
to
turn
on
investment
expectation
right.
C
That
the
owner
did
and
that's
why
they
used
to
align
these
below
the
line,
so
these
were
assigned
with
things
like
depreciation
amortization.
C
You
know
we,
we
brought
up
a
2015
honey
that
was
provided
by
the
ownership
earlier
this
year
and
we
were
admonished
for
that.
So
we
pointed
out
at
previous
attempts
that
these
things
were
listed
below
the
line
below
the
net
operating
income,
which
is
where
it's
appropriate.
B
Can
I
respond
to
that
barnes
sure
the
the
plain
naive
card
of
this
is
what
I
have
is
is
a
bit
frustrating
because,
as
most
of
us
have
been,
we've
been
dealing
with
these
for
four
years
and
the
county
has
asked
us
to
include
everything
on
these
forms
report
them.
First,
they
did
do
the
internal
forms
like
chris
mentioned,
and
he
didn't
point
out.
The
rubs
were
also
below
the
line
which
he
pulled
up,
which
further
supports
my
claim
earlier.
B
That
they'll
take
expense,
income
up
and
not
expenses,
but
then
it
was
told
put
it
on
the
form,
so
we
can
understand
it.
We
put
on
the
form.
Last
year
we
came
in
front
of
the
board
the
board
reduced
this
from
139
to
134
and
said:
look
we
need
to
see
more
than
one
year
of
this
drop.
We
now
see
two
years
of
the
drop
in
the
county's
basis
that
you
put
on
our
form,
but
we
don't
like
the
way
you
put
it
on
our
form.
B
If
you
look
at
that
email
that
he
just
referenced,
there's
11
questions
and
we
answered
it
with
great
detail
on
everyone.
So
him
saying
that
we're
ignoring
the
questions
or
we
didn't
get
him
when
he
needed
is
completely
false
in
the
paper
trails
right
there
in
front
of
you.
He
does
this
for
every
case.
Lately
of
here's
11
more
questions
tell
us
more
about
the
form
which
we've
been
answering
on
every
single
one.
So
it
went
from
you
gave
us
the
internal
form,
that's
below
the
line.
B
We
can't
include
it,
but
the
other
stuff
below
the
line
will
be
included
too
it's
on
our
forum,
but
we
don't
like
it
how
it's
on
our
form.
It's
only
been
on
our
form
for
one
year
to
now.
It's
it's
on
our
form.
We
don't
like
the
way
it's
on
our
form.
We
need
more
details
on
our
form
and
the
more
detail
you
provided
is
not
enough
detail,
but
the
fact
is
we're
25
percent
expenses
here,
which
is
just
in
line
with
every
other
property.
F
B
Fixing
the
lobby,
so
common
area
is
not
just
lobby
common
areas
of
the
area
is
hallways
elevators.
It's
everything!
It's
the
it's
not
just
a
lobby.
There
was
no
lobby
renovation
of
this
property.
This
property
is
actually
huge,
so
there's
a
large
amount
of
common
area,
so
thirty
eight
thousand
dollars
of
common
area
arrangements.
I
can't
tell
you
exactly
today
what
that
is,
but
I
can
tell
you
that's
in
line
with
what
that
cost
is
year
over
year
over
year
over
year.
So
that's.
D
B
C
G
G
And
that's
on
the
12
parcels
that
we're
talking.
A
H
I'm
not
sure
who
this
is
for.
So
let
me
give
you
the
background
and
I'll
lead
to
who
the
question's
for,
and
the
appellant's
original
eight
minutes
mentioned,
that
there
were
some
perhaps
disagreements
between
the
apollo
and
the
department
about
how
certain
costs,
which
column
or
line
item
they
ought
to
be
in,
but
talking
about
decoration
and
painting
and
whatnot,
but
nonetheless,
whether
it
was
in
the
wrong
section.
It
was
still
a
capital
improvement
item
or
a
a
maintenance
side
of
an
operating
expense
item.
So
you
get
to
the
bottom
line.
H
All
the
numbers
are
there
and
it
all
adds
up
to
be
the
proper
amount
of
money
that
ought
to
be
considered
to
reduce
the
the
egi.
So
I
guess
the
question
is
for
the
department
on
those
numbers,
although
the
I
hope
this
right
turn,
the
section
might
be
wrong:
it's
in
the
right
overall
operating
expenses
versus
capital
improvement
expenses.
H
Do
you
so
for
mr
tikis,
do
you
have
any
is?
Are
you
maintaining
and
I
guess
we're
going
back
to
the
little
set
to
we
had
just
before
mary
cut
it
off?
H
I'm
getting
in
our
hours
here,
do
you
have
this?
Did
you
have
disagreements
still
with
the
contention
from
the
appellant
that
the
sections
were
wrong,
but
the
overall
topic,
capital
improvement
versus
maintenance
is
still
legitimate,
encouraging.
C
Well,
I'd
say
it
a
different
way.
In
other
words,
what
we're
trying
to
find
out
are
these
are
appropriate
annual
operating
expenses
that
are
needed
for
the
upkeep
of
the
property.
The
way
it
sits,
or
these
things
that
are
done
to
enhance
the
property
either
add
a
live,
long
liveness
to
it
or
to
add
profitability
to
it.
So
there's
a
feeling
that
we
are
asking
too
many
questions
and
that
it's
it
gets
into
the
privacy
aspect,
I'm
not
sure
what
the
the
element
is
that
we're
too
inquisitive
about
what
these
expenses
are.
C
All
we're
trying
to
find
out
are
are
the
appropriate
annual
operating
expenses,
as
mr
chetlike
testified,
there's
a
a
instruction
booklet
that
goes
along
with
this
form
we're
open
eight
five
days
a
week,
eight
hours
a
day
everybody's
here
to
answer
any
question
in
regards
to
what
should
be
filled
out
on
these
forums,
so
all
we're
trying
to
figure
out
is
make
sure
that
all
owners
do
not
include
amortization
depreciation,
principal
interest,
capital
improvements,
things
of
that
nature.
C
C
So
the
idea
that
they're
listed
as
capital
costs
and
then,
if
we
ask
again
it's
too
onerous
for
them
to
break
down
further,
you
know
that
that
should
be
the
idea.
So
when
we
took
out
when
we
reconstructed
those
columns,
I
think
mr
chairman
even
pointed
out
that
he
believes
it's
a
fairly
modest
amount
that
we
took
out.
You
know
we're
not
here
to
manipulate
these
forms,
we're
here
to
clarify.
C
So
when
the
board
puts
out
information.
Excuse
me
when
the
county
puts
out
this
information,
it's
to
make
sure
that
you
understand
what
we're
looking
at
and
so
those
columns,
d
and
g
were
added
to
disclude
the
capital
improvements
which
are
not
an
annual
operating
expense,
modest
or
otherwise.
So
all
we
did
was
adjust
those
columns
to
show
you.
H
Let
me
follow
up
on
that.
Maybe
you've
helped
you
have
helped
me.
I
can
do
it
in
an
example:
common
area,
carpets
on
every
floor,
they're
five
years
old
and
their
their
reserve
fund
says
every
five
years
we
get
in
new
carpets.
Okay,
so
carpets,
of
course,
are
capital
expenses
because
they
last
more
than
a
year.
They're
also
enhance
the
look
of
the
property,
because
they're
brand
new
and
not
five
years
old,
I'm
just
using
this
as
an
example
sure
so
the
department
do
you.
H
C
So
in
your
exact
example,
we
would
consider
that
maintenance,
if
this
is
something
that's
done-
every
five
or
seven
years
and
there's
a
reserve
for
replacements
for
that
allotment.
If
we're
talking
about
we're
replacing
all
the
units
get
new
wood
floors,
there's
a
new
gym,
you
know:
there's
a
new
swimming
pool.
A
concierge
table
has
been
created
to
for
package
receipt
things
like
that.
Those
would
be
considered
capital
improvements.
But
if
we
have
something,
that's
something
that
mr
chipley
pointed
out
earlier,
we
believe
there's
a
difference
in
capital,
improvements
and
reserves
for
replacements.
C
These
owners
are
going
to
take
it
into
account
to
have
some
sort
of
reserves
replacements
to
take
care
of
items
that
are
going
to
be
replaced
every
couple
years.
But
if
we're
talking
about
something
whereby
we're
putting
136
000
of
capital
improvements
to
something
which
can't
be
explained,
that's
where
it
gives
us
pause.
B
Yeah,
I
I
think
so
to
confirm
what
chris
is
saying
is.
He
would
not
include
that
carpet
expense
as
an
expense
item,
because
he's
giving
us
20
basis
points
in
the
cap
rate.
Is
that
correct?
No,
I
didn't
say
that
I
know
you
didn't
say
that,
but
isn't
that
correct?
Isn't
the
replacement
reserves
he's
saying
that's
caption
and
replacement
reserve
which
we're
getting
in
the
cap
rate
so
that
carpet
expense
would
not
be
included
as
a
expense
item
in
the
income
statement.
C
No,
I'm
saying
that
there's
also
a
difference
between
if
we're
talking
about,
ripping
out
every
carpet,
that's
in
the
apartment
and
either
refurbishing
it
shampooing
it
things
like
that,
as
opposed
to
replacing
it
every
five
to
seven
years.
If
we're
talking
about
maintaining
it,
that's
again,
that's
an
annual
operating
expense,
we're
talking
about
replacing
it
every
five
or
seven
years
that
will
be
a
capital
expense.
H
F
C
No,
it
was
more
than
the
former
those
lists
as
a
capital
expenditure
if
they
felt
that
that
was
something
should
been
included.
They
can
explain
exactly
what
that
is
and
and
sort
of
make
their
case
for
why
it
shouldn't
be
included
as
an
annual
operating
expense,
but
it
was
listed
as
a
line
item
by
the
ownership,
so
that
was
taking
as
capital
as
capital.
H
C
Yes,
ma'am
we're
getting
into
the
weeds
a
bit
anyways
in
the
sense
that,
if
we've
seen
this
before,
if
we
were
to
make
a
correction
to
the
end
of
projection
on
the
operating
expenses,
we
would
ask
that
you
make
a
correction
to
the
under
projection
on
the
income
side,
the
revenue
side,
it's
almost
exactly
on
par
with
itself
440
000
under
projection
of
operating
expenses
of
403
000
under
projection
of
operating
income.
C
You
can
see
again
in
columns
h1
and
h2.
Even
when
we
bring
the
expenses
up
to
the
exact
amount
spent
in
2019
minus
that
capital
improvement,
it
still
would
call
for
a
confirmation
of
the
original
assessment
as
it's
within
one
half
percent
of
january
1st
assessment.
C
B
B
I
know
that's
not
seen
on
this
packet,
because
the
page
one
and
two
have
an
error
on
the
value
now
and
that's
when
the
incomes
in
the
last
three
years
were
seven,
seven,
seven,
five,
seven
three
there
was
a
downward
trend
dramatically
of
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
and
the
board
told
us
that
they
needed
to
see
more
of
a
trend
and
to
see
the
expenses
stay
at
that
rate.
Well,
now
it's
gone
seven,
one!
B
So,
the
last
four
years,
the
expenses
are
the
income's,
seven,
seven,
seven,
five,
seven
three
seven
one
in
the
but
the
boards
and
the
assessors,
ignoring
last
year's
reduction
of
134.7
million
and
reproposing
139
million.
So
last
year
we're
at
134.7
when
we
had
the
income
200
000
higher.
Now
we
see
an
additional
trend.
One
thing
I
want
to
point
out
about
capital
cost
which
the
county
will
never
give
us
credit
for,
is
if
a
tenant
destroys
a
unit.
You
keep
their
security
deposit.
That
security
deposit
goes
towards
other
income.
B
Yet
to
fix
that
the
county
says
no,
that's
capital,
we
can't
have
it
so
they
want
to
dig
in
as
deep
as
say.
What
is
that
capital?
You
need
to
also
dig
in
and
take
out
the
reciprocal
income
that
comes
with
it
for
the
county,
just
to
say
I'm
only
looking
at
expenses
and
nothing
else
is
completely
wrong
and
then
they
also
tell
us
that
everybody
gets
a
six
percent
vacancy
rate,
which
is
which
is
used
to
calculate
the
cap
rate.
B
But
here
he
basically
said:
look
our
noise,
fine,
because
this
is
where
it
is
his
noi,
when
you
add
up
column,
h1
and
h2,
is
about
7.3
million.
The
income
is
7.16
trending
downward
200
000
every
year.
If
you're,
looking
at
this
property
as
a
buyer,
you're
gonna
see
seven
seven,
seven,
five,
seven
three,
seven
one.
What's
next
year,
it's
probably
about
six
nine,
the
county
said
no,
it's
gonna
shoot
back
up
to
seven
three.
B
Well
now
we
know
it's
not
shooting
up
to
seven
three,
because
the
world,
where
we're
in,
but
even
as
the
beginning
of
the
year,
there's
no
way
to
justify
that.
So
last
year
we're
at
134
million
this
year
we're
we're
at
139
reduced
134
this
year,
we're
back
to
139
we're
in
a
much
worse
spot
than
last
year,
200
thousand
dollars
less
and
the
county
one.
It
would
take
us
back
to
134..
A
F
Yeah
I'd
like
for
my
colleagues
to
help
me
with
my
memory.
Didn't
we
have
a
case
recently
where
an
amended
statement
was
submitted
by
the
owner
clarifying
expenses
versus
capital,
or
am
I
misremembering.
I
F
I
guess
I
guess
the
point
is
that
if,
if
the
owner
put
it
in
the
wrong
place,
they
should
have
amended
or
filed
a
corrected
statement.
I
F
E
G
Yeah
I've
been
pretty
much
doing
some
numbers
with
both
the
expenses
I
think
the
vacancy.
You
know
we
tend
to
not
necessarily
look
at
the
guidelines
if
we
have
a
record
of
it
of
previous
years.
So
I'm
okay
with
that
by
the
expenses
yeah.
I
think
the
number
that
is
listed
on
the
reconstruction.
I
think
it's
much
closer
than
what
it
should
be.
H
Now
I
was
going
to
go
with
with
we
seem
to
have
an
unusual
amount
of
disagreement
on
expenses,
whether
they're,
annual
or
long
term,
above
or
below
the
line.
More
than
surprisingly,
we
normally
do
and
I'm
in
favor
of
splitting
the
baby
a
little
bit
per
greg,
hoffman's
suggestion
this
is
a
very.
This
is
an
unusually
tough
case.
I'm
not
sure
why,
because
it
fits
within
the
normal
parameters.
H
So
but
I'm
sympathetic
to
the
appellant's
various
appeals,
and
since
it's
and
I
know
it's
not
crystal
clear
and
therefore
we
ought
to
go
by
definition
with
the
department,
but
if
people
feel
sympathetic
as
well,
I'd
like
to
shave
a
little
off
per
again
greg's
suggestion,
because
that
is
a
solid
number.
Anybody
have
any
response
to
that.
If
not,
you
know
I'll
go
with
with
the
county,
because
again
it's
not
clear
and
they
get
the
benefit
of
the
doubt.
H
A
E
All
right
I'll
motion
reducing
the
assessment
to
138
393,
even
in
accordance
with
the
numbers
in
the
county's
test
column.
A
Okay
motion
in
a
second
by
myself,
I'm
all
in
favor
aye
opposed
unanimous,
it's
reduced
to
the
county's
test,
column,
138
million
393.
Even
thank
you,
mr
chitlick,
and
the
next
and
final
case
is
rpc.
14036
233
801,
north
monroe
street
and
mr
blake
warren
is
on
the
call
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
appellant.
Mr
warren,
you
can
start
with
your
eight.
D
Minutes,
thank
you.
Can
you
can
you
all
hear
me
yeah?
Okay,
so
this
is
the
virginia
square,
plaza
apartments.
I
would
like
to
direct
the
board
to
page
40
of
102,
which
is
our
summary
of
facts.
D
This
property
consists
of
one
rpc.
It's
currently
assessed
at
76
million,
489
thousand
or
339
951
a
unit.
The
county
has
recommended
no
change,
and
what
we're
asking
for
from
the
board
today
is
a
requested
value
of
70
million
569
500,
which
is
313
000
a
unit.
This
property
was
originally
built
in
1999..
D
It's
225
total
units.
It's
a
high
rise
in
the
bolston
virginia
square
submarket,
it's
as
you
can
see
on
the
map
at
the
bottom
of
page
40,
it's
in
very
close
proximity
to
the
virginia
square,
metro
and
the
merits
or
details
of
this
case
issues.
In
this
case,
we
can
find
on
direct
the
board
to
page
three,
the
apartment,
income
and
expense.
Summary
page.
D
There
were
two
issues
initially
when
we
filed
this
appeals,
one
was
the
overestimation
by
the
county
in
terms
of
the
gross
potential
income.
The
column
d
you'll
see
their
total
gpi
of
six
million.
263
836
was
higher
than
anything.
D
That's
been
reported
in
the
last
four
consecutive
years,
including
column
b,
which
is
which
is
the
most
recent
2019
reported
year
in
their
test
column
upon
seeing
that
the
2019
reported
income
at
six
one,
eight,
eight,
three,
five
five,
it
actually
increased
to
about
another
eight
thousand
in
the
county's
test
column
to
a
total
gpi
of
six
million
two
seventy
to
one.
Seventy
four,
so
there's
an
issue
here
where
both
both
the
initial
assessments
and
column
f,
the
test
column,
the
gpi
is
higher
than
anything.
D
That's
the
property
is
capable
of
achieving
in
the
last
four
consecutive
years,
and
continuing
forward
they've,
never
achieved
levels
of
of
income
that
high
at
the
property,
so
we're
asking
the
board
for
relief
there.
The
second
issue
was
with
regard
to
operating
expenses,
the
last
four
years
I
consecutive
years
of
operating
expenses
that
has
been
reported.
The
subject
property
was
in
2016
and
27,
31.77
percent
in
2017
30.89
in
2018,
and
then
most
recently,
32
percent
in
2019..
D
The
initial
assessment
used
a
operating
expense
ratio
of
30.5
percent
and
their
test
column.
They
did
revise
up
and
in
line
with
the
most
recent
reported
historicals
at
the
up,
the
property
at
32,
which
we
are
in
agreement
with
so
really
now.
What
it
all
comes
down
to
is
the
the
overestimation
still
after
seeing
the
2019
reported
income
at
the
subject,
property
of
6
million
272
174.
D
D
That's
really
all
I
have
jeremy,
I
don't
know
if
you.
B
Want
to
add
anything
on.
The
only
thing
I
want
to
point
out
is
the
cap
rate.
In
this
case,
when
you
take
out
the
20,
the
20
basis,
points
for
replacement
reserves
and
the
tax
rate,
the
assessor
is
essentially
using
a
4.1
percent
cap
rate
for
this
apartment
built
in
1999
and
I'd.
Ask
those
who
are
active
market
participants
if
they're,
seeing
anything
or
have
seen
anything
in
the
last
five
years,
stabilized
traded
at
a
four
cap
and
because
we
have
not
and
we've
we've
searched,
not
just
darlington
but
throughout
the
region.
B
One
of
the
reasons
you
can
justify
using
a
cap
rate
so
low,
is,
if
you
compress
the
noise,
which
this
happens
when
you
use
a
six
percent
vacancy
rate
across
the
board,
so
the
assessor
uses
a
six
percent
vacancy
rate.
It
produces
an
noi
a
bit
lower
a
lower
noi
versus
sale
produces
a
cap
rate
a
bit
lower,
which
is
fine,
but
then
starting
this
year,
which
we
I
have
not
seen
in
my
last
few
years
in
arlington,
the
test
column
has
abandoned
that
six
percent
vacancy
rate.
B
So
we've
gotten
the
understanding
that
everybody
gets
a
six
percent
vacancy
rate.
Well,
look
at
column
f,
we
lost
our
six
percent
vacancy
rate.
This
is
a
test,
not
a
reconstruction.
I
know
it
has
different
names,
but
this
is
a
test.
The
test
should
give
six
percent
vacancy
rate
because
equalization
the
board
of
equalization
everybody
every
apartment
built
in
1999
for
reassessment
got
a
six
percent
vacancy
rate.
B
B
I
know
equalization's
burned
us
a
lot
of
times
in
the
past
when
we
come
here
on
specific
cases,
but
in
this
one
it
absolutely
helps
us
because
again,
if
every
property
at
reassessment
received
every
high
rise
about
1999,
a
reassessment
received
a
six
percent
vacancy
rate
and
per
our
understanding,
and
this
is
a
company
that
represents
about
40
apartments
in
arlington.
Everyone
we've
seen
has
used
the
guideline
vacancy
rate,
but
we
get
here
the
test
that
abandons
it
and
we
think
that's
an
issue
and
that
takes
us
firmly
out
of
equalization.
C
Yes,
ma'am
just
to
start
with
that
last
note,
mr
chairman
has
a
problem
with
how
the
virginia
code
is
written.
You
should
obviously
take
that
up
with
richmond
or
his
representative
in
the
state
house.
C
So
for
starting
with
the
summer
sheet
again
the
board's
very
familiar
with
how
we
look
at
these
things.
Page
three
shows
a
four-year
income
and
expense
summary
sheet.
What
we
can
see
is
that
again
the
property
is
doing
well.
Apartment
revenue
is
up
two
years
in
a
row.
2019
is
up
a
half.
A
percent
parking
revenue
is
up
two
years
in
a
row,
2019's
increased
at
8.3
percent
gross
potential
incomes
up
two
years
in
a
row
year
over
year.
C
2019's
increase
is
1.4
percent
buildings
very
stable,
true
vacancies
stabilized
three
year
average
of
1.5
percent.
It's
virtually
nothing
even
when
you
include
concessions.
We
see
a
three-year
stabilized
vacancy
concession
of
3.4
percent.
Effective
gross
is
up
two
years
in
a
row.
Year
over
year,
2019's
increase
just
shy
of
four
percent.
C
We
did
see
that
operating
expenditures
ticked
up
approximately
7.6
percent-
that
was,
after
a
year
of
decline
in
2018.,
they
somewhat
smoothed
out
for
a
three-year
average
of
1.86
or
31.
31.6
percent
of
effective
gross.
C
We
saw
net
operating
income
increased
two
years
in
a
row,
2019's
increase
at
2.2
percent.
You
know,
mr
warren
had
pointed
out
a
lot
of
these
things
that
brought
him
consternation
was
the
idea
that
they've
achieved
revenues
never
seen
before,
but
that's
been
the
case.
A
couple
years
now
in
2016
gross
potential
income
was
higher
than
it
had
ever
been
2018.
C
Again,
as
mr
warren
noted,
it's
about
half
a
block
from
the
metro,
it's
in
a
lively
area
neighborhood
and
it's
performing
well,
when
you
look
at
the
county
projections
made
prior
to
receiving
a
2019
income
and
expense
form
you'll,
see
that
we
actually
over
projected
our
gross
potential
income
to
almost
75
500,
but
even
still
considering
that
we
used
to
stabilize
six
percent
guideline
vacancy
in
concession
and
the
property
was
running
at
approximately
1.95.
We
underestimated
the
achievable
effect
of
gross
by
180
000,
almost
three
percent.
C
We
did
under
project
operating
expenses
by
145
000
or
some
seven
and
a
half
percent.
But
again,
even
if
you
were
to
raise
those
to
the
exact
amount
to
the
penny,
spent
you'd
still
be
almost
35
000
shy
of
the
achievable
net
operating
income
and
again
the
the
four
million.
Ninety
two
that
we
projected
is
well
in
line
with
what's
gone
on
with
the
property
over
the
last
two
or
three
years,
especially
considering
that
we
underprojected.
C
When
you
look
at
what
was
achieved
at
the
property
in
2019
again
a
2.2
percent
increase,
we
did
run
a
test
and,
as
you
can
see
in
column
f,
the
board
is
very
familiar
with
the.
By
now,
we
used
the
exact
rent
roll
that
was
submitted
by
the
owner.
That's
how
we
were
able
to
get
a
projection
fairly
tight
to
projection
on
the
gross
potential
income.
C
We
use
the
three
year
average
that's
going
on
at
the
property,
which
again
is
more
than
generous.
Considering
it's
almost
twice
as
much
as
what
was
incurred
at
the
property.
Last
year
we
used
the
32
percent.
Operating
expense,
still
came
out
to
a
noi
that
was
actually
lower
than
what
was
achieved
last
year,
but
a
value
that's
higher
than
what
the
county
projected
for
january
1st.
C
A
Okay,
thank
you
both
for
all
three
of
you
actually
questions
from
board
members,
mr
lawson.
F
Yeah,
this
is
for
the
county.
Where
did
the
six
percent
come
from?
As
far
as
the
vacancy
that
the
you
know,
the
county
uses
six
percent.
Where
did
that
come
from
from
a
study.
C
Exactly
it
comes
from
the
income
and
expense
forms
that
are
turned
in
by
the
county
owners.
F
F
F
C
The
test
is
reflective
of
what's
going
on
historically
at
the
property,
so
in
other
words,
if
it's
in
their
benefit,
they
get
that
number
two
we're
just
showing
you
per
the
virginia
code
that
the
board's
allowed
to
consider
the.
G
C
B
But
barnes,
that's
if
you
look,
they
took
the
average
of
the
total
vacancy,
but
the
total
collections
have
been.
Concessions
have
been
170,
188,
130
and
34,
and
they
gave
us
zero
for
that.
So
they
didn't
add
vacancy
and
collections
together.
They
just
took
the
vacancy.
E
C
Yes
ma'am
so
again,
just
to
reiterate,
we
are
in
fact
including
true
vacancy,
as
well
as
concessions
that
are
listed
three
point:
nine
five
percent
and
seventeen
four
point:
three:
two
percent.
Eighteen,
at
one
point,
nine
five
percent
19
equals
an
average
of
3.41.
C
Again,
that's
almost
twice
as
high
as
what's
been
achieved
at
the
actual
property
in
2019.
Again
we
projected
our
income
based
off
of
the
information
supplied
by
the
owner
and
the
rent
roll,
and
that
test
value
came
up
higher
than
our
january
first
value
again.
Looking
at
our
junior
first
value,
we
underprojected
by
over
a
hundred
and
almost
180
000
of
achievable
income
due
to
the
extreme
vacancy
and
concession
occupancy
at
the
pr,
the
property.
C
So
if
we
were
to
make
a
change
to
the
operating
expense
and
get
that
more
in
line
with
what
was
incurring
at
the
property
in
2019,
we
ask
you
to
keep
in
mind
that
again,
any
projections
made
by
the
county
were
ahead
of
time
of
receiving
the
2019
ine.
So
adjustments
made
to
the
operating
expenses
we'd
ask
you
to
make
the
same
adjustments
to
the
income
side,
thus
the
confirming
76
million
489
000.
Thank
you.
A
D
Yes
again,
if
you
look
at
the
total
gpi
that
was
reported,
the
four-year
average
of
the
last
four
consecutive
years
would
be
six
million.
Ninety
thousand
eight
one
eight,
which
is
a
little
under
two
hundred
thousand
below
the
gpi
estimate
for
the
county's
test
column.
You
know
that
the
actual
gpi
reported
in
2019
the
most
recent
year
is
approximately
83
000
below
the
the
county's
test
column.
So
again
they
made
appropriate
adjustments.
D
We
believe
for
the
operating
expenses,
but
they're
still
overestimating
anything
that
property
has
been
capable
of
generating
over
the
course
of
the
last
four
years
as
evidence
here.
B
Yeah
we
we
came
to
the
county
and
said:
look
you
overshot
gpi
by
eighty
thousand
dollars,
and
you
understand
expenses
by
150
000.
We
have
an
adjustment
and
what
they
basically
said
is
yeah,
but
you
got
a
six
percent
vacancy.
Now
you
get
a
three
percent
vacancy
value
should
be
higher
by
giving
us
a
three
percent
vacancy.
We
become
out
of
equalization
because
every
apartment
like
this
in
the
county
is
getting
it.
We
say
this
isn't
correct
and
the
response
is
call
richmond.
A
Okay,
thank
you
I'll
start
because
I
feel
like
today,
we've
had
a
lot
of
nitpicky
very
childish
comments
going
back
and
forth
between
the
appellants
in
the
county.
But
that
being
said,
I
mean
the
the
appellant's
argument
now
that
you
know
that,
because
they're
not
getting
six
percent
they're
out
of
equalization,
that's
not
true.
I
mean
they
were
given
six
percent
in
the
initial
assessment
and
the
idea
for
the
guidelines
is
not
to
end
up
with
a
low
a
number
that's
lower
than
what
the
property
actually
produces.
A
So
when
they
did
the
test,
it
does
do
something
more
realistic
and
puts
it
down
to
the
3.41,
and
I'm
fine
with
that.
I
mean
when
you
look
at
the
bottom
line.
If
you
take
the
test
column
and
apply
the
six
percent
standard
vacancy,
it
ends
up
at
3.9
million,
which
is
lower
than
what
it
has
done
in
one
two
three
four
years,
it's
pretty
close
to
I'm
sorry
lower
than
three
years
and
pretty
close
to
one
of
the
year.
A
A
Are
the
numbers-
and
you
know
I'm
fine
with
the
original
assessment,
you
want
the
six
percent
it's
in
the
original
assessment,
if
you're
going
to
get
hung
up
on
that
one
point,
the
county,
you
know,
I
think
it's
a
little
high
on
the
test,
but
I'm
fine
with
the
original
assessment.
So
I'd
love
to
hear
what
other
people
think.
Mr
metzken.
H
In
this
case,
it
doesn't
make
sense,
because
it's
established
four
years
in
a
row
way
under
the
guideline.
So
when
I
originally
had
problems
with
it,
I
no
longer
do
and
a
lot
of
the
same
reasons
that
mary
just
mentioned.
I
also
wanted
to
mention
the
rent
rolls
going
up.
One
one
and
a
half
percent
from
year
to
year
is
not
at
all
unusual,
particularly
in
a
a
primary
premier.
H
It
turns
out
to
me
at
least
that
it
all
makes
sense,
and
I'm
I'm
in
favor,
of
keeping
what
the
the
department
has
proposed.
G
I
I
was
looking
I
I
agree
with
both
those
comments,
but
I
was
looking
at
the
apartment,
revenue
and
the
and
how
it
did
jump
in
the
assessment
a
little
bit
more
than
normal,
but
it
is,
but
I
can
see
how
the
county
came
up
with
it
and
it's
a
steady
there's,
a
steady
movement
there
and
it
was
a
reasonable
number.
I
mean
it,
could
it
be
a
little
bit
high?
Yes,
but
I
don't
think
I
don't
see
any
reason
to
change
the
entire
structure
of
the
deal
or
the
assessment
I
would
go
with.
A
A
Okay,
that
completes
the
calendar
for
today.
One
of
the
things
of
business
for
board
members
tomorrow,
there's
two,
mr
yates
and
miss
hogan,
is-
are
not
able
to
attend.
So
I
just
need
to
make
sure
that
everybody
else
is
going
to
be
here
tomorrow,
so
that
we
have
a
quorum.
B
A
Which
is
you
know
why
I
got
removed
from
that
agenda
totally.
Okay,
so
does
any
other
member
have
anything
else
that
we
need
to
talk
about?
We
got
the
quorum
for
tomorrow,
anything
from
the
county.
No
okay,
then.
I
believe
this
is
our
earliest
that
we
adjourn
at
9,
58
and
we'll
readjourn
tomorrow,
the
16th
at
9
a.m.