Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Residential Assessments topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Arlington BOE unanimously confirms three residential assessments after inspections and limited evidence from appellants

Arlington County Board of Equalization · June 9, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Arlington County Board of Equalization heard three residential appeals on June 9, 2026, confirmed the assessor’s 2026 valuations in each case (unanimous votes), and instructed owners that interior evidence or photos may be submitted for future cycles; one assessment had been reduced after a county inspection.

The Arlington County Board of Equalization confirmed the assessor’s 2026 valuations in three residential appeal hearings on June 9, 2026, voting unanimously in each case.

In the first appeal for 3619 North Vernon Street (RPC03 04601 013), appellant Mr. Rabinowitz told the board he and his spouse purchased the property in April 2022 and that the appraisal for 2026 rose “roughly 10%” — about $300,000 — year‑over‑year. He told the board the home is plumbed for an elevator (a shaft exists) but that an elevator has not been installed, and that some of the 2022 sale price reflected buyer‑requested customizations rather than market value. “When I saw the appraisal come in for this cycle, it increased roughly 10% year‑over‑year,” Rabinowitz said.

County appraiser Mr. King told the panel an exterior inspection was performed and that interior details came from the submitted new‑construction plans and the 2022 sales listing; the department believed the listing’s indication that the property had an elevator warranted including an elevator valuation this year and recommended confirming the assessment at $3,191,000. Board members asked how the county treats features it has not verified by interior inspection; staff said that if an owner demonstrates a feature is not present the valuation would be removed. After brief deliberation, the board moved to confirm the assessor’s value and the motion passed unanimously.

The board then heard RPC 24001015 (109 South Fillmore Street). Appellant Mr. Davies objected to several of the comparables in the original record as not being similar to his single‑story or 1.5‑story house and said the property’s frontage on Fillmore/Walter Reed creates a traffic‑related impact that should affect the land value. “The revised value of 798,000 seems much more reasonable,” Davies said, and he questioned whether the county’s -5% busy‑road adjustment adequately reflected the property’s orientation and driveway access.

County staff (Ms. Kunja) reported an interior and exterior inspection on April 17, 2026 and described updating records; she said quality was changed from good to average plus and the assessment was reduced from $867,800 to $798,300. Kunja referenced the county’s busy‑road study (14 data points) and explained the -5% economic‑obsolescence adjustment is applied to both land and improvements for homes on that corridor. After asking whether the -5% adjustment is applied consistently along South Fillmore, the board approved a motion to confirm the revised assessment of $798,300 unanimously.

In the final residential appeal (RPC 13046064, 209 North Evergreen Street), the appellant was not present. County staff (Ms. Burke) described a renovation and inspection that resulted in an effective age consistent with major work completed in 2025 and emphasized that assessments reflect market value as of Jan. 1, not construction cost. With no owner evidence presented, several board members said the department’s sales‑analysis supported the recommendation. The board confirmed the county’s 2026 assessment at $2,148,200 by unanimous vote.

Across the three appeals, board members repeatedly told owners that interior access, photos, or other verifiable evidence are the primary means to secure adjustments between assessment cycles; staff said they will accept such evidence and consider adjustments in future cycles. All three confirmation motions passed with no recorded opposition.

The board adjourned at 9:58 a.m. and planned to reconvene in person on Wednesday, June 10 at 9:00 a.m. for commercial BOE hearings.