Arlington BOE confirms county property assessments after five appeals

The Arlington County Board of Equalization on June 23 heard a full docket of five appeals and, after presentations and questioning, confirmed the county's 2026 assessments in each case.

Michael Litman, representing owner Frank Litman, opened the hearing arguing that the 2026 assessed value of $2,625,100 for 6019 22nd Road North exceeded fair market value and asked the board to reduce it to $2,375,000. "The subject home is assessed at $2,625,100. We are asking the board to reduce it to $2,375,000," Litman said, citing a cluster of recent comparable sales in the $2.25'$2.35 million range. County appraiser Miss Vitus responded that the county's inspection and comparison to a recent 2025 sale supported the assessment and recommended affirming $2,625,100. After board questions about the timing and weight of comparables, a motion to confirm the county assessment passed 3' 2.

At 2901 Wilson Boulevard, appellant Blake Warren challenged the county's income-capitalization approach for a mixed-use property and argued the county used too-low cap rates and improperly attributed parking revenue from an adjacent parcel. Warren said capitalizing the parking revenue pushed the value higher, and modeled a lower value when that revenue was reduced. County staff (Rosskin and colleagues) said the county's January 1 valuation included both revenue and expense items for the parking and that the neighboring lot is separately assessed; they also pointed to local sales that supported the county's cap-rate assumptions. The board unanimously affirmed the county's assessment at $10,845,600.

Appellants representing Park View Apartments (an 82-unit building) and two larger multifamily properties pressed similar themes: that the county's models understated recurring operating expenses, excluded some routine replacements as capital items, and used cap rates that were too low for the current market. For Park View, appellant Mr. Price requested a reduction to roughly $27.56 million, arguing the county omitted recurring expenses (appliance and fixture replacements, flooring and other items) that should be treated as operating costs. County staff said they had reconstructed prior years to remove previously capitalized replacement reserves and that, after testing, the county's January 1 model remained supported by the data. The board confirmed the county's $29,520,000 assessment unanimously.

For a 314-unit high-rise (economic unit 1601803A / 1800 North Oak Street), the appellant again sought higher expense allowances and a higher cap rate, citing national and local cap-rate publications. The county said the property's historical GPI and EGI trends showed increases and noted some unexplained 2025 maintenance line items in the appellant's materials. After deliberation the board voted 3' 2 to confirm the county valuation at $149,209,200.

At the final docketed case, a 188-unit mixed-use property at 2201 North Ping Drive, the appellant requested a valuation of roughly $89.5 million (vs. the county's $108.12 million), principally by increasing expense allowances and lowering commercial gross potential income. County staff reviewed the 2025 INE (income/expense) data, ran test columns, and said the county's approach was consistent with recent sales and internal cap-rate development. The board confirmed the county figure.

The hearing also included one procedural announcement: the board will allow withdrawal of BOE case RPC1405904A (North Glee Road) and reconvened in person June 24 for continued business. The session adjourned at 10:38 a.m.

Votes at a glance

- RPC10001061 (6019 22nd Road North): Confirmed at $2,625,100 (vote 3' 2). - RPC15066019 (2901 Wilson Boulevard): Confirmed at $10,845,600 (unanimous). - RPC35005002 (Park View Apartments): Confirmed at $29,520,000 (unanimous). - Economic unit 1601803A (1800 North Oak Street): Confirmed at $149,209,200 (vote 3' 2). - RPC18038025 (2201 North Ping Drive): Confirmed at $108,123,300 (unanimous).

What to watch

- Multiple appellants raised the same two themes: that (1) the county's expense models exclude recurring replacement costs the owners treat as operating expenses, and (2) the county's cap rates may understate market risk. County staff responded with reconstructed test columns and local sales data to support their assumptions. The board generally deferred to the county's January 1 models or split narrowly where members found the appellant's evidence partially persuasive.

The board will reconvene in person June 24 at 9:00 a.m.