►
From YouTube: Board of Equalization Hearing August 10, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
D
E
Yeah,
thank
you
eileen
and
madam
chairwoman,
members
of
the
board.
Thank
you
all
for
meeting
with
me
today.
I
appreciate
your
time
and
consideration
on
this
case.
This
property
is
the
woodley
arms
apartments.
It
is
located
on
lee
highway,
just
east
of
glebe
road.
It
was
built
in
1960
and
has
an
effective
age
of
1960..
E
The
main
purpose
of
this
appeal
is,
if
you'd
be
so
kind
as
to
turn
to
the
county's
test
page
on
page
3
of
the
appeal
packet
you'll
see
that
the
property
saw
a
spike
in
vacancy
and
collection
in
2020,
the
total
vacancy
and
collection.
As
you
can
see
just
below
row,
10
on
page
three
went
from
six
percent
in
2018
six
percent
in
2019
up
to
11
in
2020.
E
E
The
assessment
only
went
down
by
2
percent
as
we're
all
familiar.
The
code
of
virginia
does
require
for
multi-family
properties
that
the
actual
gross
income
generated
from
such
real
property
and
any
result
in
loss
in
income
attributable
to
vacancies,
collection
losses
and
rent
concessions
be
considered
when
determining
fair
market
value.
E
E
E
E
E
A
F
Good
morning
board
today
we
will
be
discussing
the
view
for
woodley
arms
apartments,
pretty
sure
you're
already
on
page
three.
So
let's
just
stay
there.
You
look
at
the
history
of
this
property.
The
way
the
county
did.
You
can
see
that
the
property
was
stabilized
and
actually
showed
increases
in
gross
potential
income
and
effective
growth
income
from
2017
to
19.
F
F
So
for
this
problem
we
did
a
test.
As
you
can
see,
our
original
apartment
revenue
was
reduced
by
thirty
thousand
dollars.
It
actually
came
in
60
000
less
than
what
they
reported
for
2020.
F
F
F
There
was
a
dip,
but
then
they
increased
again
and
then
another
smaller
dip
from
19
to
20.
When
you
compare,
you
know
sorry,
because
you
know
what
the
test
column
when.
F
2019
there
was
a
dip
when
they
got
to
2020
that
original
assessment.
We
projected
an
actual
decline
in
noi
with
the
test
we
reduced
our
projected
ny
a
little
bit
more
based
off
the
information
that
we
received.
The
two-year
noi
average
is
around
880,
some
thousand
dollars.
You
see
that
the
test
column
came
in
lower
than
that.
F
We
apply
six
percent
to
this
property
because
it
is
a
mid-rise
property
with
a
year
built
to
1960,
effective
agent
1960.
So
therefore
they
received
the
highest
cap
rate.
For
that
category,
we
proposed
a
revision
bringing
the
2021
assessment
down
from
14
million
999
800
to
14
million
664
500.
F
Yes,
there
is
mention
of
virginia
code
3295.1,
which
says
you
shall
consider
actuals.
When
we
look
at
the
history
of
this
property,
we
do
believe
we
have
considered
the
actuals
mainly
based
off
the
revisions
that
we
made
again.
The
adjustment
to
the
apartment
revenue
is
60
000
less
than
what
they
reported
for
2020..
F
G
Yeah
mary,
this
is
barnes.
If
I
could
ask,
is
it
mr
hammond
hammond,
mr
harmon
harmon?
Okay,
I
can't
read
because
you're
you're
in
the
window,
your
name
is
in
the
window
and
I
couldn't
read
the
letters
normally
I
don't
get
into
this,
but
in
the
expense,
income,
expense.
Summary
that
your
client
submitted.
G
E
These
are
the
types
of
repairs
that
you
know
that
is
to
be
expected,
and
you
can
see
that
from
as
the
county
has
said,
the
three-year
operating
history
that
was
provided
on
page
three,
the
operating
expenses
this
in
2020
are
in
line
even
with
those
individual
line
items
possibly
being
a
bit
higher
than
expected.
E
You
can
see
2017
50
expenses,
2018,
54,
20,
1951
and
2020
is
at
53
percent,
so
those
individual
line
items
may
stick
out
this
year.
However,
I
I
you
know
I
I
can
follow
up
with
that
with
the
owner
and
see
what
specifically
they
did.
However,
I
I
think
that
with
a
property,
that's
60
years
old
without
any
major
renovations,
this
these
types
of
repairs
are,
are
to
be
expected
and
they
are
in
line
with
the
prior
three-year
operating
history.
G
Yeah
I
hear
what
you're
saying
on
the
the
I
guess
I'll
I'll
ask
the
county
this
when
a
when
an
apartment
building
replaces
carpets.
Is
that
an
expense
or
is
that
a
an
improvement?
But
how
does
a
county
typically
handle
that.
F
If
an
apartment
building
replaces
all
the
carpets
throughout
the
property,
then
that's
a
capital
expense
if
it's,
where
you're
doing
turnover
and
you
have
to
repair
or
replace
carpet
in
a
single
room
or
whatever
that's
turnover
cost.
So
we
laid
that
out
in
the
instructions
on
the
ine
honestly,
I
think
the
expenses
are
in
line
what
they
reported
over
the
years
right.
F
F
When
you
look
at
the
documents
provided
by
the
appellant
from
2019
to
2020,
only
two
units
had
their
rent
rate
changed
one
bedrooms
with
one
bath.
There's
27
units
they've
reduced
their
rent
by
eight
dollars.
Two
bedrooms,
one
bath
is
21
units.
They
reduce
their
rent
by
five
dollars.
So
that's
why
you
can
see
that
in
2020
they
actually
reported
a
higher
potential
apartment
revenue.
F
E
Yes,
thank
you.
So
I
understand,
and
I
can
see
so
first,
let
me
clarify
that
column
g
on
the
test
page.
It
says
appellant
pro
forma.
That
is
actually
the
2020
operating
results
that
were
reported
on
the
ine
and
provided
to
the
county,
so
the
gpi
is
higher
than
what
the
county
assessed
it
at.
However,
that
difference
doesn't
account
for
the
the
wide
golf
in
vacancy
and
collection.
So
you
know.
G
E
It
is
69
000
lower,
however,
the
vacancy
and
collection
is
more
well
above
that,
so
you
know
we
ask
that
the
11
vacancy
and
collection
be
applied
as
the
property
actually
experienced,
and
this
again
is
in
line
with
the
county
code
3295.1
and
that
a
copy
of
that
is
provided
for
you
on
page
35
of
the
appeal
packet,
I'd
like
to
also
state
that
you
know
mention
of
two-year
averages
were
made,
and
you
know
they
may
fall
in
line,
but
these
are
annual
assessments.
So
what
we're
operating
under
is
2020
had
an
11
vacancy
collection.
E
B
I
found
the
department's
treatment
of
this
property
very,
very
consistent
with
other
similar
properties,
meaning
multi-family.
B
Vacancy
went
up
unusually
high
for
obvious
reasons,
so
they
ended
up
reducing
from
recent
experience,
especially
in
a
stabilized
property
like
this
still
reducing
an
upward
trend
of
gpi
up
and
also
increasing
a
recent
trend,
a
little
bit
for
operating
expenses
and
then
overlaying
six
percent
vacancy
for
all.
So
I
mean
do
we
have
it
exactly
on
the
mark?
No,
we
never
know
that,
but
we
see
it's
going.
B
The
treatment
is,
is
appropriate
and
and
and
also
finally,
to
the
appellant's
last
notion
of
it's
a
one-year
assessment,
but
it's
still
an
overall
trend
in
order
to
make
the
one
year
assessment
to
wildly
change.
Assessments
from
year
to
year,
based
on
vicissitudes,
gets
a
little
scary,
but
it
can
also
be
accommodated
by
below
the
line.
Adjustments,
particularly
when
there's
something
extraordinary.
That's
happened
in
a
particular
property,
so
I
I
support
this
approach
and
the
resultant
amended
assessment.
G
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chairman.
As
everyone
knows,
when,
when
legislation
comes
out
of
the
general
assembly,
it's
everybody
who
has
an
opinion
shares
their
opinion
and
what
comes
out
of
legislation
is
often
not
very
clear
and
doesn't
give
us
really
great
direction
and
the
direction
we
have
from
the
general
assembly
is
that
the
actual
shall
be
considered
and
what
does
considered
mean?
Does
it
mean
yeah?
We
considered
it
and
we
chose
to
pay
no
attention
to
it,
or
does
it
mean
we
have
to
consider
it
and
do
exactly
what
it
is?
G
I
don't
know
what
it
means
exactly.
What
the
department
has
done
here
is
gone
with
the
six
percent,
which
is
their
you
know
their
standard
that
they're
using
throughout.
G
If
you
take
a
look
at
the
actual
operation,
then
compare
it
to
where
the
department
is
you're
off
by
about
600
000,
and
you
know
it
just
seems
to
me
that
when
you're,
when
you're
obligated
to
consider
something
you
can't
just
go
with
with
the
way
it's
always
been.
It's
always
been
six
percent,
and
so
I
think
I
think
that
some
you
know
I'll
use
the
term
consideration.
G
Some
consideration
should
have
been
given
to
that
higher
than
normal
vacancy
and
if
you
take
the
operating
year
and
go
ahead
and
apply
the
county's
cap
rate,
you
end
up
at
14
million
58
966.
G
A
Yeah
I'll
just
say,
I
certainly
can
see
where
you're
coming
from
on
that,
but
I
also
see
mr
maskins
point,
because
I
look
at
this
and
think
to
myself.
If
next
year,
I'm
just
going
to
throw
a
number
out
there,
you
know
the
noi
is
980
000..
Do
we
all
of
a
sudden,
then
take
that
pinpoint
and
say
all
right?
It's
an
annual
assessment.
We
increase
it
for
that.
A
A
Necessarily
because
then
we've
got
completely
absence
of
equalization
where
you
know,
because
these
guys
appealed
and
we
have
their
numbers,
that
we
just
took
their
numbers
and
changed
their
assessment,
and
it
throws
everybody
else
out.
So
I
I
based
on
that
would
lean
more
towards
mr
matskin
matkin.
G
H
I
I
think,
I'm
I'm
siding
with
the
county's
column
f
here,
just
because
they're,
it's
pretty
close,
but
they
gave
them
a
little
bit
more
on
the
expenses
which
I
think
is
probably
accurate
for
a
building
of
this
age,
and-
and
you
know
you
got
to
think
about
the
difference
between
six
percent
and
11
vacancy
in
a
small
building
like
this,
is
only
a
hit.
You
know
it's
five
units,
so
I
I
can
definitely
see
in
2020
people
move
five
people
decided
to
move
out
of
this
building.
H
If
it's
not
being
run
well
and
then
I
could
see
everybody
going
back
to
work
and
coming
back
and
going
back
down
to
zero
vacancies.
So
you
know
we're
not
talking
about
50
80
100
units
like
some
of
those
big
ditmar
buildings
that
we
reviewed
this
is
you
know
a
handful
of
people
made
a
decision
to
move
out.
So
I'm
okay
with
the
county.
C
C
C
When
I
do
also
a
three
year
average
for
the
past
three
years,
my
average
is
868
596.
so
and
the
count
is
still
a
little
bit
higher
than
that.
So
you
know
my
suggestion.
If
there
was
going
to
be
any
change
to
be
made,
you
would
be
pretty
much
just
to
increase
the
expenses
by
one
percent
to
53
percent,
which
gives
me
a
number
of
of
971
520.
C
It's
a
minor
reduction,
but
I
think
it
kind
of
reflects
the
numbers
that
we
have
as
far
as
equalizing
the,
and
you
know
using
the
averages
for
the
past
three
years.
I'm
not
sure
if
the
one
percent
reduction
would
be
warranted
in
this
case,
but,
like
I
said,
if
there
was
any
change
to
be
made,
that
would
be
my
only
suggestion
to
be
done.
C
I
know,
like
I
said
it's
a
minor
reduction
from
what
the
county
suggested,
but
that's
the
only
thing
that
I
see
that
it's
a
little
bit
off.
B
C
I
I
The
only
thing
that
really
stood
out
to
me,
I
like,
I
think
everyone
else
is
the
vacancy,
but
it
is
at
a
90
unit,
91
unit
building,
it's
not
a
lot,
and
that
does
reflect
the
year.
But
they're
sticking,
you
know
the
guidelines
in
which
which
is
applied
to
everyone
else.
Pretty
much
is
the
you
know
the
six
percent
and
I
came
up
with
the
county's
revised
number
as
being
acceptable.
G
Yeah,
mr
lawson
yeah,
I
know
we're
not
supposed
to
ask
questions
of
one
another.
I've
been
corrected
on
that.
It
would
seem
to
me
that
what
jose
proposed,
I,
I
think
my
proposal
I've
been
talked
out
of
and
I
think
what
what
jose
proposed
does
in
fact
give
quote
consideration
to
the
actuality
and
I
would
be
inclined
to
go
with
jose
with
jose's
proposal.
A
The
only
issue
I
see
with
it
is
it
may
be
the
running
average,
but
if
we're
looking
at
you
know
one
year's
information
jose
the
number
that
you've
got
for
expenses
of
971
520
is
certainly
more
than
the
one
year
as
reported.
So
it
just
seems
like
we're
adjusting
expenses
to
make
the
number
come
in
a
little
bit
lower
when
the
issue
is
really
vacant.
In
my
mind,
right.
C
Right,
it's
about
6
000
higher
than
the
three-year
average.
C
Because
I
come
up
with
a
53
is
9.75
971
520
and
the
three
year
average
for
the
past
three
years
is
965
407.
A
C
Don't
don't
take
me
wrong,
I'm
okay
with
the
revised,
but,
like
I
said,
if
there
was
any
change
to
be
made,
I
would
suggest
to
do
that,
but
if
the
majority
thinks
that
we
they're
okay
with
the
proposed
adjusted,
I'm
okay
with
it,
is
okay.
B
It
seems
that
none
of
us
wants
to
accept
column
d,
the
original
assessment.
Each
of
us
wants
to
tweak
down
a
little
bit
and
I'm
with
mary
on
her
assessment
of
adjusting
the
operating
expenses
to
get
it
and
hoping
that
we
don't
get
in
loggerheads
such
that
it
goes
back
to
the
original,
but
rather
perhaps
the
one
in
the
middle,
which
is.
A
B
But
re
remember
that
we've
seen
this
many
times
yeah
the
department
does
lower
gpi,
does
increase
operating
expenses
to
offset
to
an
extent
within
a
reasonable
range
that
unusual
vacancy
that
almost
everybody
faced
on
new
year's
eve,
2020
and
then
adds
six
percent.
And
of
course
we
can't
know
we
should
be
five
or
seven
or
but
we're
treating
everybody
equally,
so
I
mean
so
they
are
trying.
They
are
making
adjustments
beyond
just
the
vacancy.
A
Okay,
miss
hogan:
where
are
you
on
this.
D
I
I
like
jose
one
about
it,
so
I'll
go
with
that
number.
Mr.
H
Reduction
based
on
changing
the
expenses
with
the
average
I
could
see
where,
where
you
start
to
your
expenses,
are
going
to
start
to
creep
up
as
your
building
gets
more
vacant,
you
try
to
turn
units
and
you
try
to
fix
the
door
that
was
always
broken,
that
the
the
tenant
was
living
with
and
you
go
in,
and
you
do
things
that
are
going
to
push
that
number
up
from
the
average.
A
Okay,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
believe
we've
got
four
that
could
live
with
that.
I
because
I
don't
wanna,
have
somebody
make
a
motion.
I
mean
I
don't
agree
with
that
methodology
I
I
certainly
could
live
with
the
number,
but
I
don't
agree
with
the
methodology.
I
just
don't
want
it
to
revert
back
to
the
original.
I
J
A
To
one
and
it's
just
the
methodology
of
using
the
expenses
to
do
it,
but
otherwise
I'm
fine,
so
okay,
so
it's
reduced
to
14
million
358
900
based
on
increasingly
expensive
53.
A
A
A
K
K
K
Certainly
one
of
the
challenges
I
think
across
the
assessing
community,
and
indeed
the
commercial
real
estate
community
at
large
as
of
january
1st
2021,
was
how
to
value
hospitality
properties.
Obviously
kova
decimated
the
industry
and
the
2020
actual
income
and
expense
was
of
little
to
no
help
in
determining
the
appropriate
fair
market
value.
K
As
of
our
data
value,
what
we
did
is
we
looked
to
the
experts
in
this
particular
industry,
so
hvs
is
known
as
the
premier
valuation
company
when
it
comes
to
hotels,
and
so
they
released
several
different
studies
and
several
different
articles
regarding
how
to
value
hospitality
properties
in
in
the
age
of
covid,
and
we
were.
We
were
fortunate
in
that
they
drilled
down
to
address
some
dc
specific
issues.
K
I
think
by
all
accounts
was
a
pretty
healthy
year
for
the
dc
hotel
market,
and
so
the
era
that
we
think
exists
in
the
evaluation
methodology
employed
by
the
county
is
that
they've
only
adjusted
one
year.
So
they
basically
are
assuming
that
the
property
hotel
properties
will
rebound
to
pre-pandemic
levels
by
the
end
of
this
year,
which
obviously
is
not
the
case,
and
so
you
can
see
there
weren't
any.
We
didn't.
K
Additionally,
there
were
no
sales
to
go
off
of
in
2020,
so
what
we
we
chose
to
do
is
to
do
a
discounted
cash
flow
approach,
which,
according
to
various
investor
surveys,
is
how
the
market
would
indeed
treat
this
type
of
property.
As
of
our
data
value,
and
so
you'll
see
highlighted
there
on
page
3
of
66,
that
quote
from
rerc
their
fourth
quarter.
2020
survey,
which
states
that
investors,
looking
at
this
type
of
property,
are
doing
a
discounted
cash
flow.
K
Again,
we
were
able
to
look
at
a
an
article
authored
by
miss
leffett
of
hvs
and
basically,
what
she
had
done
is
forecasted
the
quote-unquote
return
to
a
normal
state
of
stabilized
noi,
and
you
can
see
those
various
changes
highlighted
in
that
table
there.
On
page
3
of
66
and
we've
used
these
adjustments
to
noi
in
our
dcf.
K
This
particular
property-
and
I
do
want
to
say
that
there
were
several
cases,
hotel
cases
where
we
were
able
to
come
to
a
meeting
of
the
mines
and
agreed
on
a
value.
This,
unfortunately,
wasn't
one
of
them.
K
The
operating
expense
ratio
employed
by
the
county
was
63.3
percent,
which
is
too
low
in
light
of
historic
operations
and
the
county's
own
guidelines
at
68.2
percent,
and
we
used
that
68.2
percent,
because
it's
its
guidelines
and
also
because
the
expenses
as
reported
on
the
ine
for
this
particular
property,
are
less
than
market
due
to
the
commingling
of
the
two
spaces.
So
they
share
some
expenses
with
the
condo
building
as
well.
K
K
We
looked
at
rarc's
fourth
quarter,
washington
dc
hotel
cap
rates,
which
we
think
better
reflects
the
market,
thinking
you'll
notice
in
the
counties,
direct
income,
capitalization
approach
that
they've
made
a
one-time
adjustment
equal
to
65
of
total
revenue.
Unfortunately,
that
doesn't
go
far
enough.
In
this
particular
instance,
this
hotel
experienced
a
decline
in
revenue
of
70
percent,
and
so
we
think
at
a
minimum
that
that
adjustment
below
the
line
should
be
increased
to
70
percent.
K
K
Our
terminal
cap
rate
is
100
basis
points
higher
than
the
rate
indicated
by
surveys.
As
of
our
data
value,
and
this
is
meant
to
account
for
the
additional
risk
and
was
also
the
method
prescribed
in
the
hvs
survey,
we
reconciled
our
two
approaches
to
value
to
an
opinion
of
27
million
or
175
thousand
dollars
per
key
again.
Here's
just
a
summary
of
the
assessment,
the
2021
guidelines
value
and
then
our
dcf.
K
On
this
page,
six
of
66
you'll
see
the
actual
2017
and
then
2019
and
2020,
and
you
can
see
that
the
operating
expenses
are
64.3
and
64.8
again
the
county
used
63.3.
We
think
that
guidelines
should
be
employed
at
68.2
county's
base.
Cap
rate
is
7.35
versus
our
7.8,
which
was
the
rarc
dc
estimate
for
first
tier
hotel
properties.
K
K
G
J
A
kind
of
a
revisitation
of
some
cases
reviews
we
did
approximately
two
or
three
weeks
ago
again,
echoing
mr
thompson's
comments,
hotel
industry
was
devastated.
We
know
that
the
county
tried
to
reflect
that
in
its
below
the
line
covet
adjustments,
we've
spoken
about
that
now,
I
believe
at
least
five
or
six
cases.
J
You
know
it's
really
just
a
difference
of
opinion,
as
mr
thompson
indicated,
one
driven
by
an
investor,
a
point
of
view
supported
by
a
discounted
cash
flow
analysis,
another
from
the
standpoint
of
mass
appraisal
for
property,
tax
valuation
and
supported
by
again
mass
appraisal
standards
we're
an
annual
assessment.
So
you
know
right
off
the
bat
one
of
the
things
mr
thompson
echoed
was.
J
J
There's
some
talk
of
the
disparity
in
the
cap
rates
and
I
think,
as
mr
thompson
noted,
relying
heavily
upon
the
rerc
fourth
quarter.
Report
is
something
that
came
out
in
late
december
early
january.
That's
not
something
we're
privy
to.
Obviously,
before
the
january
one
assessment
was
issued.
J
We
talked
a
little
bit
about
in
previous
cases
how
we
came
up
with
our
covet
adjustments.
We
do
believe
it
was
done
in
a
prudent
manner.
This
was
done
in
conjunction
with
ownership
response
to
our
partial
year,
ine
covidiene,
as
we
called
it
again.
As
we
remind
the
board,
we
did
make
a
below
the
line:
adjustment
of
negative
65
of
total
revenue
for
full-service
hotels.
J
As
this
one
is,
and
as
we
talked
about
because
we
are
mass
appraisal,
we're
looking
at
from
a
mess
appraisal
set
of
eyes,
we
can't
make
individual
adjustments
for
those
individual
revenue
drops.
We
talked
specifically
about
that
in
previous
cases
and
in
this
one
it's
echoed
again
and
that
mr
thompson
would
like
a
blow
line
adjustment
mirroring
what
the
property
actually
incurred
and
that's
a
negative
70
drop
of
revenue.
J
Obviously
again,
we
didn't
weren't
made
aware
of
that
until
sometime
march
april,
whenever
the
ines
came
in
and
we
knew
the
exact
amount,
but
even
then,
as
we
previously
stated,
because
again
we're
mass
appraisals,
we
can't
go
to
those
other
41
properties
and
adjust
all
of
them
to
the
actual
total
revenue
lost.
J
We
did
apply
that
below
the
line
adjustment,
negative
65
percent.
We
do
believe
that
was
done
in
a
prudent
manner.
It's
done
equitably
with
other
properties,
all
full
service.
All
select
service
received
us
adjustments.
J
J
We
are
an
annual
assessment,
we'll
see
what
happens
in
2021
and
continue
from
there.
It's
not
to
disparage
the
entirety
of
the
idea
of
a
dcf,
but
I
believe
we've
spoken
about
that
before
as
well.
That
has
not
done
well
in
the
eyes
of
virginia
courts
partially
because
of
the
idea
that
it's
it's
quite
literally
built
upon
assumptions
and
those
assumptions
we've
already
seen
this
year
have
been
broken
up.
J
Quite
frankly,
the
the
the
hvs
reports
that
came
out
at
the
beginning
of
the
year
have
obviously
been
altered
quite
heavily.
As
the
year
has
progressed,
things
have
changed.
The
vaccines
that
have
gone
out,
we're
still
relying
on
waiting
on
consumer
travel
to
to
not
only
buoy
corporate
travel,
but
you
know
if
corporate
trial
comes
back,
but
that's
something
to
keep
in
mind
with
this
property
as
well.
J
This
really
isn't
a
hotel,
that's
reliance
on
corporate
travel,
there's
only
some
3
000
square
feet
of
meeting
space,
so
this
again
is
is
more
your
transient
occupancy
someone
who's
stopping
by
who's
in
the
area,
and
it
should
be
noted
too,
with
the
close
of
the
holiday
inn
and
the
marriott
key
bridge.
This
is
now
the
closest
hotel
in
arlington
to
dc,
quite
literally
across
the
bridge.
It's
an
upper
up
scale.
The
property
is
detailed
by.
J
J
So
again
we're
not
we're
being
very
prudent,
because
this
is
a
property
that
we
know
won't
reach
2018
levels
but
in
fact
we're
even
below
2018
levels
and
again,
I
believe
that
should
be
noted
by
the
board,
so
we're
showing,
as
we
have
before
in
previous
hotel
cases,
that
we're
stabilized
property
we've
developed
this
below
the
line,
covid
adjustments
that
we
believe
is
fair
and
prudent,
again
applicable
to
all
other
properties,
full
service
or
select
service.
J
Again,
we've
reflected
the
negative
over
negative
22
percent
drop
year
every
year
and
we
again
believe
that's
just
too
aggressive
from
the
appellant
side
to
call
for
a
change
of
over
40
percent
drop
in
value
based
upon
one
year
again,
it's
an
annual
assessment,
so
we
do
believe
that
the
appropriate
way
to
value
this
is
the
way
we
have
direct
capitalization
of
the
income
approach,
stabilized
property
and
again
reflective
of
that
negative
65
percent
adjustment.
J
These
things
being
said
treating
this
property
equally
with
other
properties
like
it.
So
we
do
believe
that
the
county
should
be
confirmed
at
36
million
six
hundred
forty
six
thousand
four
hundred
anything
that
irving.
F
Yeah,
just
briefly
to
kind
of
go
back
to
the
statement
about
business
travel,
as
chris
indicated
like
this
property,
isn't
one
that
depends
on
conferences
or
utilization
of
the
immediate
space,
because
it's
small
media
space.
We
do
know
that
some
business
travelers
do
stay
at
different
hotels
because
of
proximity
to
their
clients.
So
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
make
that
statement
more
clear
about
what
we
meant
also
as
far
as
dcl.
Just
a
quick
touch
on
that.
F
As
the
board
knows,
we
don't
do
dcf
for
assessment
purposes,
conversation
with
others
surrounding
jurisdictions
in
virginia,
they
don't
use
the
dcf
approach
either
mainly
because
all
the
men
many
assumptions
that
you
have
to
make
when
you
do
a
dcf,
I
mean
we
make
a
few
assumptions
based
off
our
guidelines
to
value
these
properties
and
they're
contested
every
year.
F
So
I
can
imagine
if
we
did
a
dcf
with
the
numerous
assumptions
we
have
to
make,
how
many
more
cases
would
it
have,
but
we
also
have
a
court
case
that
was
with
arlington
county
versus,
I
think
like
marriott.
F
H
Is
this
for
the
appellant,
would
you
say
that,
what's
the
ratio
between
business
and
leisure
travel
at
this
location.
K
H
I
guess
just
follow
up.
The
food
and
beverages
looks
like
a
pretty
decent
amount
of
revenue,
so
there's
a
restaurant
or
a
bar
or
something
does
and
there's
that
bar
been
open.
A
No
all
right,
mr
chicas,
if
you
take
a
minute
to
wrap
up
sir.
J
Yes,
ma'am
so
again
in
continuation
with
how
we
treated
other
hotel,
full-service
hotels
this
year,
these
past
several
weeks.
We
do
believe
that,
to
take
into
account
anything
more
than
the
below
line
adjustment,
that's
been
applied
to
all
full
service
and
select
service
hotels
would
be
inappropriate.
J
J
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair
yeah,
just
a
few
quick
wrap-up
items.
Obviously
I
understand
it's
an
annual
assessment,
but
the
test
here
is
always:
what
is
the
fair
market
value
as
of
january
1
2021,
and
on
page
30
of
74
we've
got
from
rarc,
you
can
see.
Hotel
respondents
indicated
that
the
way
that
they're
valuing
properties
as
of
the
data
value,
is
through
a
dcf.
K
So
I
certainly
understand
the
county's
perspective
in
in
treating
everyone
equally.
But
what
I
didn't
hear
them
address
in
their
response
was,
if
they're
going
to
use
the
full
service
guidelines,
why
didn't
they
use
the
full
service
expenses
on
our
hotel
if
they're
going
to
treat
everyone
the
same
way?
So
I
would
ask
that
you
at
least
make
that
adjustment
in
increasing
the
expense
ratio
again,
because
the
expenses
reported
here
are
a
little
bit
underreported
due
to
the
co-mingling
of
the
building.
K
I
would
also
point
out
that,
yes,
you
know
everybody
across
the
country
is
struggling
with.
How
do
we
value
these
properties?
I
would
point
out
that
loudoun
county
in
virginia
they
reduced
all
of
their
assessments
on
hotels
to
land
value
only
because
of
the
uncertainty
and
the
difficulty
with
this
particular
asset
class.
H
I
mean
I
took
a
look
at
it,
a
different,
pretty
pretty
close
to
what
the
appellant's
pro
forma,
but
then
using
the
county's
cap
rate
and
taking
the
coveted
adjustment
out,
and
I
end
up
with
a
higher
value.
It's
like
30
37,
37
564..
H
So
I
don't
think
I
want
to
go
that
route,
I'm
interested
in
hearing
what
everybody
has
to
say,
but
I
think
the
county's
got
a
pretty
deep
reduction
here
for
one
year
for
a
fairly
prime
hotel.
So
I'd
like
to
hear
what
you
all
think.
B
Yeah
I
I
agree
with
that.
I
wrote
three
times
notes
on
guidelines
for
operating
expenses
and
where
I
came
out
at
and
I
get
feedback
from
anybody.
If
I
miss
the
mark
in
a
stabilized
property,
we
don't
necessarily
go
with
guidelines.
We
go
with
what
the
established
trend
is
so
as
opposed
to
as
opposed
to
vacancy
oftentimes
in
multi-family
or
hotels,
where
and
multi-family,
where
it's
again,
sometimes
they're
above
sometimes
or
below.
So
at
first,
I
didn't
I
questioned
myself.
Why
doesn't
the
guy?
Why
don't
we
use
guidelines
for
operating
expenses?
B
And
I
realized
no?
No,
this
is
stabilized.
This
is
legitimate
company's
dog.
Also,
the
department
has
has
treated
this
hotel,
just
like
others
and,
interestingly,
this
hotel's
noi
did
not
drop
these.
B
You
know
terrible
times
to
no
fault
of
their
own,
nearly
as
much
as
others
that
we've
seen,
but
yet
the
the
decrease
for
the
assessment
is
about
the
same.
And
finally,
I
would
challenge
the
owner
to
sell
this
statement
january
1st
2021
for
27
million
dollars,
given
that
the
the
kobe
I've
got
noise
outside,
I
apologize,
there's
nothing
I
can
do
about
it.
I'm
in
my
office
that
I
mean
coven,
although
is
not
going
away
as
quickly
as
we
had
hoped,
based
on
recalcitrance
of
the
population
nevertheless
does
have
an
end.
B
G
Yes,
excuse
me:
yes,
ma'am!
Thank
you.
You
know
I
wanted
to
to
speak
very
briefly
about
the
the
shared
expenses,
because
that's
a
situation
where
I
live,
and
the
expenses
that
we
share
are
the
garage,
the
loading
dock
and
then
the
roof
and
the
situation
that
we
have
is
the
hotel
pays
and
then
we
reimburse
and
I'm
not
necessarily
sure
that
an
adjustment
should
be
made
based
upon
that
without
more
evidence
of
that
other
than
just
saying.
Well,
we
share
some
expenses.
G
Therefore
it
ought
to
be
higher.
I
think
we
would
need
to
see
that
in
years
to
come,
demonstrate
it
a
little
bit
more
clearly.
I
think
the
only
question
that
I
have
after
analyzing
all
this
is
the
county
used
the
65
percent,
and
this
is
from
memory.
G
It
seems
like
that's,
been
disputed
with
several
cases
now
and
my
my
recollection
is
that
we
had
one
hotel
that
was
right
at
65,
and
then
we
had
a
couple
that
were
one
was
higher
than
70
one
was
around
70.,
so
I
think
that
the
only
question
that
I
would
have
is
should
we
should
we
up
the
65
percent
that
that
would
be
the
only
the
only
question
I
would
have
other
than
that.
I
think
what
the
county
has
done
is
fine.
H
Yeah
I
mean
on
the
expenses
that
was
my
initial
thinking
for
looking
at
the
appellants
pro
forma,
because
I
think
that
just
conversations
I've
had
with
some
hotel
operators,
it's
extremely
difficult
to
keep
to
2018
2019
budget
numbers
on
expenses
right
now,
they're
having
a
hard
time
getting
cleaning
crews-
and
you
know
housekeeping
staff,
so
they've
kind
of
turned.
A
lot
of
these
hotels
have
turned
to
outsourcing
that
which
gets
pricey.
H
So
you
know
I
could
see
that
expense
number
being
right
on
with
the
appellants
pro
forma.
But
then
you
know
if
you,
if
you
use
their
numbers,
you
still
come
up
with
a
higher
number
than
what
the
department
has
on
the
income
approach,
and
I'm
I'm
talking
about
taking
that
bottom
line.
8.7
million
out
of
the
equation,
because
once
you
look
at
it
from
a
pro
forma
basis
on
the
appellant's
numbers,
you
no
longer
get
a
lump
sum
reduction
below
the
line.
H
So
that's
why
I'm
okay
with
the
county,
but
I
do
think
the
expenses
are-
are
low
on.
H
H
I
We
did
adjust
one
of
them.
We
did
adjust
one
in
the
past,
based
on
the
covet
adjustment
being
higher
than
the
65
percent.
I
G
When
I
did
that
example,
when
I
did
that
math
and
I
made
the
the
I
took
the
20
2021
assessment
and
then
I
upped
it
to
70
and
it
went
to
36.015.669.
G
So
if
we
make
an
adjustment
kind
of
like
what
jose
said
last
case,
you
know
I'm
not
necessarily
sure
we
need
to
make
this
adjustment,
but
if
we
do
that
would
be.
You
know
one
suggestion.
C
Sorry
about
that,
I'm
not
too
inclined
to
make
any
changes
in
this
case,
I
think
for
purposes
of
equalizing,
with
how
other
hotels
have
been
assessed,
using
the
adjustments
below
the
line.
I
think
I'm
okay
with
it,
I'm
looking
at
all
the
other
numbers,
especially
specifically
noise,
and
compared
to
other
years,
I'm
okay
with
it,
and
I
think
the
65
adjustment
below
the
line,
I
think
it's
more
than
appropriate.
C
In
my
opinion,
you
know
more
than
that.
I
don't
see
why
you
know
this
assessments
are
made
year
a
year
so
to
apply
a
12-month
adjustment.
I
think
it's,
in
my
opinion,
the
right
way,
but
I'm
okay
with
this.
A
Second,
all
in
favor,
I
opposed
okay,
it's
unanimous.
The
counties
confirmed
that
36
million
646
400.
A
At
2800
potomac
avenue
mr
thompson
and
mr
steinhauser
have
sent
a
letter
of
acceptance
to
the
county,
accepting
their
revised
number.
I
assume
there's
no
objection
from
the
county.
That's
been
accepted.
A
All
right,
then,
because
of
the
late
hour
of
it,
then
I
will
move
to
accept
the
withdrawal
of
a
second
okay,
a
second
by
ms
hogan,
all
in
favor
aye,
so
that's
unanimous
that
withdrawal
is
accepted.
A
Okay,
any
other
business
from
the
county
or
the
board
members
in
regard
to
anything
but
the
schedule,
because
we'll
do
that
off
no
okay,
all
right,
then,
we
will
adjourn
here
at
and
re-adjourn
tomorrow,
8
11
at
9
00
a.m.
I
just
want
to
point
out,
though
rosa
did
send
out
some
corrections
to
the
folders
to
make
sure
when
you're
reviewing
it
there's
some
additional
information
put
in,
I
think
late
last
night
or
this
morning.