08/08/2024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

$2,000/month for all unit even though over half are 2 and 3 bedroom units. The petitioner's support for the rental rates is from 1/2024, way past the valuation date. The PA testified that the petitioner's evidence on page 15 supports 6% vacancy and page 35 of their evidence supports 5% not the 10% used. The PA noted that the petitioner used an incorrect tax rate. The petitioner did not include a Sales approach and all the sales (presented by the PA) point to over $200,000 per unit. The petitioner stated that the total sale price for properties such as the subject include "bricks and sticks" and tangible personal property and the intangible personal property (the workforce and business value). The PA used their (assumed) sale price for the subject ($362,456/unit) and it is the biggest outlier in the data. Page 6 of the PA's evidence shows a total of $122,000,000 for both properties. The total area of the 2 properties is 608,440 SF or $200.51 SF. Multiply that by 250,000 gross SF (based on the SF shown on the Costar summary on page 6 of the PA's evidence) and you get $50,127,500, before the COS deduction and this shows the value is significantly lower. Their (the petitioner) rental data may be newer, but is telling what the property and submarket are renting for. The $2,094 per month is for a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units. The PA testified that the CoStar writeup for the subject was incorrect. No other new information was presented or discussed during rebuttal by either party. Special magistrate's analysis and finding of facts: The actual income and expenses for the subject property were not provided. Based on the information presented by both parties, the blended rental rate used by the PA of $2,308 per unit per month appeared to be too high. The petitioner's blended rental rate of $2,000 per month per unit was based on data as of January 1, 2024 not January 1, 2023. However, it did show that the market rent declined over 2023. In addition, the evidence presented showed that vacancy increased from the beginning of 2023 to the beginning of 2024. The 5% vacancy rate used by the PA appeared too low and the 10% vacancy rate used by the petitioner appeared too high. Both parties used a 4.5% deduction for concessions. The percentage estimate of expenses at 28.5% and 29% was similar. Both parties included reserves and the petitioner included the non -ad valorem tax of $7,850 but the PA did not. Both parties used a base cap rate of 5.5% and loaded it for the tax rate. Both parties deducted the tangible personal property (TPP) of $1,299,407. -47-