Robert L. & Douglas A. Aron, Trustees, Trolley Square Realty Trust v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Framingham (January 9, 2007) (fiscal years 2005 & 2006)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD



ROBERT L. & DOUGLAS A. ARON,	v.	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
TRUSTEES, TROLLEY SQUARE			THE TOWN OF FRAMINGHAM
REALTY TRUST

Docket Nos. F277475, F283322		Promulgated:
							January 9, 2007


	These are appeals filed under the formal procedure pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7 and G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65 from the refusal of the appellee to abate taxes on real estate located in the Town of Framingham, owned by and assessed to the appellants under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
Commissioner Rose heard these appeals.  He was joined in the decision for the appellee by Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Scharaffa, Gorton, and Egan.  Commissioner Mulhern took no part in the deliberation or decision of these appeals.  
	These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellants under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.

	Matthew A. Luz, Esq. for the appellants.
	James F. Sullivan, Esq. for the appellee.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
On January 1, 2004 and January 1, 2005, the relevant dates of assessment for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 ("fiscal years at issue"), Robert L. & Douglas A. Aron, Trustees, Trolley Square Realty Trust ("appellants"), were the assessed owners of the real estate located at 855 Worcester Road in the Town of Framingham ("subject property").  The property consists of 3.83 acres of land improved with a two-story, brick retail/office mixed-use building with a gross building area of 56,700 square feet.  
The subject property is the same property described in the Board's Findings of Fact and Report for the appellants' fiscal years 2003 and 2004 appeals.  See ATB Findings of Fact and Report 2007-1, 2-4 ("Trolley Square I").  For the two fiscal years preceding the fiscal years at issue in this appeal, the Board found that the fair cash value of the subject property was $5,900,000.  Trolley Square I at 9.
For the first fiscal year at issue in the present appeals, fiscal year 2005, the Board of Assessors of the Town of Framingham ("assessors") valued the subject property at $6,047,500 and assessed a tax, at the rate of$31.21 per thousand, in the amount of $188,742.48, which the appellants paid without incurring interest.  The appellants timely filed their application for abatement with the assessors on January 11, 2005.  The application was denied on March 21, 2005, and, on April 5, 2005, the appellants timely filed an appeal with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board").  
For the second fiscal year at issue, fiscal year 2006, the assessors valued the subject property at $6,551,500 and assessed a tax, at the rate of $29.09 per thousand, in the amount of $190,583.14, which the appellants paid without incurring interest.  The appellants timely filed their application for abatement with the assessors on January 6, 2006. The application was deemed denied on April 6, 2006, and on April 27, 2006 the appellants timely filed an appeal with the Board.  On the basis of these facts, the Board found that it had jurisdiction over these appeals.
Because, for the fiscal years at issue in the present appeals, the assessors increased the subject property's assessments over the values determined by the Board for the prior two fiscal years, the Board found that the burden of going forward shifted to the assessors to show that anincrease in value was warranted.  See G.L. c. 58A, § 12A.
Accordingly, unlike Trolley Square I, where the assessors offered no affirmative evidence of value but rested on the presumed validity of the fiscal years 2003 and 2004 assessments, the assessors in the present appeals offered the testimony and appraisal report of Thomas J. Mulhern, a certified real estate appraiser, in support of the increased assessments.  Based on his education and experience, the Board qualified Mr. Mulhern as an expert witness.  In his analysis, Mr. Mulhern used both the sales-comparison and the income-capitalization methods to determine the subject property's fair cash values for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.  
For his sales comparison approach, Mr. Mulhern relied on five sales of properties located in Stoneham, Framingham, Acton and Milford that he considered relevant for valuing the subject property.  The sales of theseproperties occurred during the period December 2001 through October 2004, with sale prices that ranged from $97.10 to $176.99 per square foot.  After adjusting for factors such as location, building size, land area, building condition, parking, and building design, he determined that his comparable properties had adjusted sale prices that ranged from $114.03 to $117.16 per square foot.  Based on these values, Mr. Mulhern concluded that a value of $115 per square foot was appropriate for both fiscal years at issue.  Mr. Mulhern applied this unit value to the subject property's gross building area of approximately 56,700 square feet to determine an indicated value of $6,528,090, which he rounded to $6,530,000, for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.  
Mr. Mulhern also utilized the income-capitalization method to value the subject property.  To estimate the subject property's potential gross income, Mr. Mulhern first examined the subject property's rent roll which listed retail rents that ranged from $14.35 to $30.86 per square foot and office rents that ranged from $10.73, for the owner-occupied space, to $20.79 per square foot.  Additionally, Mr. Mulhern examined ten retail rents that ranged from $16.58 to $26.40 per square foot, and ten office rents that ranged from 14.39 to $23.18 per square foot, for space in other properties that he considered comparable to the subject property.  All of his comparable properties were located in Framingham and the majority of the leases were signed during the fiscal years at issue.  Based on his analysis, Mr. Mulhern determined rental rates for front retail, side retail, rear retail and office space, of $23, $18, $10 and $15 per square foot, respectively.  Mr. Mulhern applied these rents to the subject property's respective leasable areas to arrive at a potential gross income of $825,503.  Relying on market vacancy data and actual vacancies at the subject property, Mr. Mulhern concluded that a vacancy rate of five percent was appropriate and, thus, calculated an effective gross income ("EGI") of $784,228.
	Next, Mr. Mulhern allowed deductions for the following expenses:  insurance and real estate taxes; repair and maintenance of four percent of EGI; management of five percent of EGI; replacement reserves of two percent of EGI; and, a fixed amount for legal, accounting and miscellaneous expenses of $5,000.  The expenses totaled $163,524, which he deducted from EGI to arrive at a net operating income of $620,704.  Using a mortgage equity analysis, Mr. Mulhern derived a capitalization rate of seven percent:  he then added to this rate a tax factor of three percent, which is the rounded average of the fiscal years 2005 and 2006 tax factors of .03121 and .02909, to calculate an overall capitalization rate of ten percent.  Mr. Mulhern then estimated the value of the subject property for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 by dividing his net income figure by his overall capitalization rate.  His indicated value for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, using the income capitalization approach, was $6,205,000.  The following table summarizes Mr. Mulhern's income-capitalization analysis.
Total Projected rent	 	    $ 825,503	
  Less Vacancy & Delinquency (5%)	     41,275		
Effective Gross Income		    $ 784,228	
			
Operating Expenses			
   Fixed			
      Real Estate Taxes	     62,219		
      Insurance 	     10,040		
   Variable			
      Fuel, Power, Utilities	     Tenant		
      Shell Exterior Repairs & Maint (4%)	     31,369			
      Management (5% EGI)	     39,211		
      Replacement Reserves (2% EGI)	     15,685		
      Legal, Accounting and Misc.	      5,000		
Total Fixed & Variable Expenses	   	   -$ 163,524	
			
Net Operating Income		    $ 620,704	
  Capitalization Rate	      7%		
  Tax Factor	      3%		
Overall Cap Rate     	     10%		
Estimate of Value		   $ 6,205,000	

In reconciling the different values derived from his use of the two valuation methods, Mr. Mulhern noted a sales-comparison approach is generally a less reliable and more arbitrary analysis for valuing an income producing property than the income-capitalization approach.  In formulating his income-capitalization approach, he found that the various components comprising this approach were supported by market evidence.  Therefore, giving greater weight to the estimate of value suggested by his income-capitalization approach than to the value produced by his sales-comparison approach, Mr. Mulhern estimated the value of the subject property, for the fiscal years at issue, at $6,205,000.
In their attempt to prove that the subject property was overvalued, the appellants relied on the testimony and appraisal report of Eric Wolff, a certified real estate appraiser qualified by the Board as an expert witness.  Mr. Wolff also utilized both the sales-comparison and income-capitalization approaches to estimate the subject property's fair cash value for the fiscal years at issue.
Mr. Wolff relied on three sales of multi-tenant retail and office buildings within the market area.  The three properties that Mr. Wolff used in his sales-comparison analysis were 1000 Worcester Road, 1 Edgell Road and 19 Temple Street, all located in Framingham.  The sale of these properties occurred on May 23, 2005, December 5, 2003 and January 3, 2002, respectively, with sale prices of $92.29, $137.83 and $143.04 per square foot, respectively.  Mr. Wolff then made adjustments for location, physical condition and building size to arrive at adjusted per-square-foot values of $101.52, $110.26 and $114.43, respectively.  Based on these sales and the differences in comparison to the subject property, he concluded that a value of $102 per square foot was appropriate.  He then applied this value to a gross area of 54,445 square feet to determine the subject property's fair market value as indicated by the sales-comparison approach of $5,555,000.     
Mr. Wolff also utilized the income-capitalization approach in his analysis.  In estimating the subject property's potential gross income for fiscal year 2005, Mr. Wolff reviewed the property's rent rolls as of January 1, 2004, supplied to him by the appellants, which listed contract rents that ranged from $6.67 to $31.48 per square foot.  To determine if these rents were consistent with the market, Mr. Wolff researched rents of commercial space in Framingham.  He selected six rentals of commercial spaces that ranged in size from 350 to 3,850 square feet withrents ranging from $7.71 to $34.75 per square foot, which he considered most comparable to the subject property.  Ultimately, he concluded that the subject property's rentals were representative of the market.  He also used a market rent of $15.00 per square foot for the owner-occupied space.  Mr. Wolff also included in his income figure, tenant reimbursements for various expenses.  Ultimately, Mr. Wolff estimated the subject property's potential gross income of $1,035,171.
Mr. Wolff noted that the subject property has had a stable rental history and, as of the relevant assessment dates, had only seven percent vacancy.  He also suggested, however, that vacancy rates in the relevant market for the fiscal years at issue ranged from five to ten percent.  Mr. Wolff chose the higher-end value of ten percent, which he applied to his total income figure, to calculate an EGI of $931,654.  
Next, Mr. Wolff deducted management expenses at six percent of EGI, and replacement reserves at five percent of EGI.  He also deducted expenses for:  insurance; water and sewer; utilities; repairs and maintenance; legal and accounting; and, commissions.  Mr. Wolff's total expenses amounted to $303,509, which he deducted from EGI to arrive at a net operating income of $628,145.  Mr. Wolff then chose a capitalization rate of ten percent, to which he added the tax factor of 3.21 percent, to derive an overall capitalization rate of 13.21 percent.  Dividing his net operating income by the overall capitalization rate, Mr. Wolff's estimate of the fair cash value of the subject property, under his income-capitalization approach, was $4,790,000.
To calculate his estimate of value for fiscal year 2006, Mr. Wolff again relied on the property's reported rental income, which he concluded was representative of the market, included the tenant reimbursements and used a vacancy allowance of 10% which resulted in an EGI of $931,654.  In addition to the expenses he used for the prior year, in 2006 Mr. Wolff included expenses for cleaning, snow and trash removal, and commissions.  In total, his expenses for fiscal year 2006 amounted to $336,806.  Subtracting his expenses from EGI, Mr. Wolff calculated a net operating income of $664,843.  He used the same capitalization rate of ten percent, but used the applicable tax factor of 2.909 percent, to arrive at an overall capitalization rate of 12.909 percent.  Dividing his net operating income by his overall capitalization rate, Mr. Wolff's estimate of the subject property's fairmarket value as of January 1, 2005, using the income-capitalization approach, was $5,150,000.
The following table summarizes Mr. Wolff's income-capitalization methodologies.	
		2005	2006	
Rental Income		$  838,983	$  872,559	
Tenant Reimbursements		$  196,188	$  240,384	
Potential Gross Income (PGI)		$1,035,171	$1,192,943	
Vacancy/Collection Loss	10% PGI	$  103,517	$  111,294	
Effective Gross Income		$  931,654	$1,001,649	
Operating Expenses				
  Management	6% EGI	    55,899	    60,609	
  Replacement Reserves	5% PGI	    51,759	    55,647	
  Insurance		    30,499	    31,184	
  Water & Sewer		    14,958	    16,208	
  Utilities		    15,819	    17,400	
  Repairs & Maintenance		   115,848	   102,346	
  Legal & Accounting		    10,337	    10,845	
  Commissions		     8,390	     8,726	
  Snow & Trash Removal			    23,611	
  Cleaning			    10,740	
Total Expenses		$  303,509	$  336,806	
Net Operating Income		$  628,145	$  664,843	
  Cap Rate		0.10	0.10	
  Tax Factor		.03121	.02909	
  Overall Capitalization Rate		.13121	.12909	
Estimated Value (Rounded)		$4,790,000	$5,150,000	

Ultimately, Mr. Wolff determined, as did Mr. Mulhern, that the income-capitalization approach was the most reliable to use for determining the subject property's fair market value for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.  Based on his analyses, he concluded that the subject property's fair market value as of January 1, 2004 and January 1, 2005 was $4,790,000 and $5,150,000, respectively.
Based on the evidence presented, the Board agreed with the parties' experts and found that the income-capitalization approach was the appropriate method to use to value the subject property.  Based on the evidence presented by the parties' experts, the Board found that the gross income used by Mr. Wolff, which was based on the subject's actual rentals, and higher than the rental income used by Mr. Mulhern, best reflected the market.  The Board further found that the tenant reimbursements, required by the lease terms, should have been included in the subject property's potential gross income.  Given the subject property's strong rental history and the evidence submitted by the parties, the Board allowed a five percent vacancy factor.  The Board then calculated an EGI of $983,412 for fiscal year 2005 and $1,057,296 for fiscal year 2006.  
The Board found that the categories of operating expenses used by the parties, with adjustments, were appropriate.  First, the Board found that a deduction for real estate taxes was not appropriate in valuing property for real estate tax purposes.  See Trolley Square I, ATB Findings of Fact and Report 2007 at 12, and cases cited.  The Board did, however, allow deductions for management, repairs and maintenance, replacement reserves and miscellaneous, which were all in the range suggested by the parties' expert witnesses.
The Board used the following expenses in arriving at the subject property's net operating income for the years at issue: a management expense, which included a component for commissions paid, of six percent of EGI; a maintenance and repairs expense, which included not only structural repairs but also common area maintenance expenditures such as snow and trash removal, utilities and cleaning, of eight percent of EGI; a replacement reserve expense of three percent of EGI; and a miscellaneous expense, which included amounts for legal, accounting, and insurance, of three percent of EGI.  Deducting the total of these expenses from the subject property's effective gross income, the Board determined net operating incomes of $806,398 for fiscal year 2005 and $863,702 for fiscal year 2006.
Finally, the Board found that Mr. Wolff's selection of a capitalization rate of ten percent plus a tax factor to be amply supported and well reasoned.  Applying capitalization rates of 13.121 percent for fiscal year 2005 and 12.909 percent for fiscal year 2006, the Board arrived at indicated values of $6,145,858 and $6,690,696, which it rounded to find final fair cash values of $6,150,000 for fiscal year 2005 and $6,700,000 for fiscal year 2006.
The following table summarizes the Board's computations.

		2005	2006	
Rental Income		$  838,983	$  872,559	
Tenant Reimbursements		$  196,188	$  240,384	
Potential Gross Income (PGI)		$1,035,171	$1,112,943	
Vacancy/Collection Loss	5%	    51,759	$   59,647	
Effective Gross Income		$  983,412	$1,053,296	
Operating Expenses				
  Management	6%	    59,005	   63,198	
  Maintenance	6%	    59,005	   63,198	
  Replacement Reserves 	3%	    29,502	   31,599	
  Miscellaneous	3%	    29,502	   31,599	
Total Expenses		$  177,014	$ 189,594	
Net Operating Income		$  806,398	$  863,702	
  Cap Rate		0.10	0.10	
  Tax Factor		.03121	.02909	
  Overall Capitalization Rate		.13121	.12909	
Indicated Value		$6,145,858	$6,690,696	
Fair Cash Value		$6,150,000	$6,700,000	

For each fiscal year, the Board found a fair cash value in excess of the assessed value of the subject property.  Accordingly, the Board ruled that the assessors met their burden of proving that the subject property's valuation above the valuation determined by the Board in the immediately preceding two fiscal years was warranted.  The Board further ruled that the appellants failed to prove that the subject property was overvalued for the fiscal years at issue.  
	Accordingly, the Board entered a decision for the appellee in these appeals.

OPINION
The assessors are required to assess real estate at its "fair cash value." G.L. c. 59, § 38.  Fair cash value is defined as the price on which a willing seller and a willing buyer will agree if both of them are fully informed and under no compulsion. Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).  
The appellant has the burden of proving that the property has a lower value than that assessed.  "'The burden of proof is upon the petitioner to make out its right as a matter of law to abatement of the tax.'"  Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974) (quoting Judson Freight Forwarding Co. v. Commonwealth, 242 Mass. 47, 55 (1922)).  "[T]he board is entitled to 'presume that the valuation made by the assessors [is] valid unless the taxpayers . . . prov[e] the contrary.'"  General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 598 (1984) (quoting Schlaiker, 363 Mass. at 245).
If, however, within the two preceding fiscal years the Board has determined the fair cash value of the subject property and the assessment at issue exceeds the Board's prior determination, then "the burden shall be upon the [assessors] to prove that the assessed value was warranted."  G.L. c. 58A, § 12A.  The Board took judicial notice of its fiscal years 2003 and 2004 decision and finding of value and ruled in the present appeals that the burden of going forward to justify the increase in the assessment from the previous fiscal year was on the assessors.  See, generally, Beal v. Assessors of Boston, 389 Mass. 648 (1983); see also Cressey Dockham & Co., Inc. v. Assessors of Andover, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1989-72, 86-87 ("Once a prior determination of the Board of the fair cash value of the same property [for one of the prior two fiscal years] has been placed in evidence . . . the statute requires the [assessors] to produce evidence to 'satisfy the Board that the increased valuation was warranted.'" (citation omitted)) ; Ellis v. Assessors of Northborough, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1983 (Docket Nos. 120878 & 123140, October 25, 1983).  Notwithstanding this shift in the burden of production, the burden of persuasion on the issue of fair cash value remains on the appellants.  See Johnson v. Assessors of Lunenburg, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1992-1, 8; Cressey Dockham, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1989 at 86-87.   
The assessors produced an expert witness who valued the subject property using an income-capitalization and a sales-comparison approach.  Generally, real estate valuation experts, the Massachusetts courts, and this Board rely upon three approaches to ascertain the fair cash value of property: income capitalization; sales comparison; and cost of reproduction.  Correia v. New Bedford Redevelopment Authority, 375 Mass. 360, 362 (1978).  "The Board is not required to adopt any particular method of valuation."  Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 397 Mass. 447, 449 (1986).  Regardless of which method is employed to determine fair cash value, the Board must determine the highest price which a hypothetical willing buyer would pay to a hypothetical willing seller in an assumed free and open market.  Irving Saunders Trust v. Board of Assessors of Boston, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 838, 845 (1989).  The validity of a final estimate of market value depends to a great extent on how well it can be supported by market data.  The Appraisal Institute, THE APPRAISAL OF REAL ESTATE 134 (12th Ed., 2001). 
	The income capitalization method "is frequently applied with respect to income producing property."  Taunton Redevelopment Associates v. Assessors of Taunton, 393 Mass. 293, 295 (1984).  In applying this method, the income stream used must reflect the property's earning capacity or market rental value.  Pepsi-Cola Bottling, 397 Mass. at 451.  Imputing rental income to the subject property based on fair market rentals from comparable properties is evidence of value if, once adjusted, they are indicative of the subject property's earning capacity.  See Correia v. New Bedford Redevelopment Authority, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 289, 293-94 (1977), rev'd on other grounds, 375 Mass. 360 (1978); Library Services, Inc. v. Malden Redevelopment Authority, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 877, 878 (1980) (rescript); AVCO Manufacturing Corporation v. Assessors of Wilmington, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990-142.  It is the earning capacity of real estate, rather than the actual income, which is probative of fair market value.  Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co., 309 Mass. 60, 64 (1941).  Vacancy rates must also be market based when determining fair cash value.  Donovan v. City of Haverhill, 247 Mass. 69, 71 (1923).  
After accounting for vacancy and rent losses, the net-operating income is obtained by deducting the landlord's appropriate expenses.  General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 610 (1984).  Real estate taxes are not considered operating expenses for purposes of determining net operating income when valuing property for real estate tax purposes.  Alstores Realty Corporation v. Assessors of Boston, 393 Mass. 591, 610 (1984).  See also Trolley Square I, ATB Findings of Fact and Report 2007 at 12.  Expenses should also reflect the market.  General Electric, 393 Mass. at 610.  
The capitalization rate should then consider the return necessary to attract investment capital.  Taunton Redevelopment, 393 Mass. at 295.  The "tax factor" is a percentage added to the capitalization rate "to reflect the tax which will be payable on the assessed valuation produced by the [capitalization] formula."  Shop-Lease Co., 364 Mass. at 573.  See also Alstores, 393 Mass. at 610; Taunton Redevelopment, 393 Mass. at 295; Trolley Square I, ATB Findings of Fact and Report 2006 at 900.   In multiple tenancy properties like the subject, it is appropriate to add a tax factor to the capitalization rate when the tenant's contribution toward the real estate tax is included in the landlord's gross income.  Alstores, 393 Mass. at 69; Taunton Redevelopment, 393 Mass. at 295-296.
In appeals before this Board, a taxpayer "may present persuasive evidence of overvaluation either by exposing flaws or errors in the assessors' method of valuation, or by introducing affirmative evidence of value which undermines the assessors' valuation."  General Electric Co., 393 Mass. at 600, (quoting Donlon v. Assessors of Holliston, 389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983)).  
"[The Board can] accept such portions of the evidence as appear[s] to have the more convincing weight.  The market value of the property [can] not be proved with mathematical certainty and must ultimately rest in the realm of opinion, estimate, and judgment . . . .  The board [can] select the various elements of value as shown by the record and from them form . . . its own independent judgment."  Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Consolidated Gas Company, 309 Mass. 60, 72 (1941).  See also North American Philips Lighting Corp. v. Assessors of Lynn, 392 Mass. 296, 300 (1984); New Boston Garden, 383 Mass. at 473; Jordan Marsh Co. v. Assessors of Malden, 359 Mass. 106, 110 (1971).  
Based on the evidence presented in these appeals, the Board ruled that the assessors met their burden of proving that the subject property's assessment above the valuation determined by the Board in the immediately preceding two fiscal years was warranted.  The Board found that the appellants' expert had overstated the vacancy rate as well as certain operating expenses.  While the Board did adopt the appellants' potential gross incomes and capitalization rates, applying the correct analysis of vacancy and expenses resulted in fair cash values consistent with the assessors' determinations.  Therefore, the Board ruled that the appellants failed to prove that the subject property was overvalued for the fiscal years at issue.  
Accordingly, the Board entered a decision for the appellee in these appeals.

					APPELLATE TAX BOARD

				By:	___________________________________
					Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman



A true copy,

Attest:	____________________________
		Assistant Clerk of the Board

 General Laws c. 58A, § 12A provides, in pertinent part:
If the owner of a parcel of real estate files an appeal of the assessed value of said parcel with the board for either of the next two fiscal years after a fiscal year for which the board has determined the fair cash value of said parcel and if the assessed value is greater than the fair cash value as determined by the board, the burden shall be upon the appellee to prove that the assessed value was warranted.
 It is unclear how Mr. Wolff determined his gross building area.  The appellants' evidence presented in Trolley Square I (see Trolley Square I at 6), the Board's findings in Trolley Square I (see Trolley Square I at 2, and Mr. Mulhern's report submitted into evidence in the present appeals all reflected a gross building area of approximately 56,700 square feet.  On the present record, the Board found that the gross building area of the subject property was 56,700 square feet. 
 Although the cover letter to Mr. Wolff's appraisal report states that he valued the "leased fee" interest in the subject property, the Board found that, by relying on market data for the relevant period, he was in actuality valuing the fee simple interest in the subject property. 

ATB 2007-19