B26_SQA_25Q0416-A1_QA_(FINAL)_0001.pdf

RFQ Attachment #1 Questions and Answers

Solicitation – 140D0425Q0416

Question No. Question Government Response

1 From what I understand two land areas, both measuring .63 of an acre are needing to be appraised to facilitate an exchange, correct?

Yes, that is correct.

2 Is this anticipated to be accomplished via two different Before and After appraisals? No. No before/after analysis is required for either. See below.

3 Or is the appraiser simply to be instructed via a hypothetical condition, that each .63-acre parcel already exists?

A hypothetical condition permitting you to consider each of the 0.63-acre parcels is its own larger parcel.

4 If this is the case, it appears that one of the .63-acre parcels will not have developed road access. Is this also correct?

Somewhat. A reasonable seller would likely grant access if he or she were to sell the 0.63-acre portion of the property. As such, it is reasonable for the appraiser to consider that in his or her analysis.

5 If this is the case, are we instructed to appraise them based upon their .63 acre configuration as to what current zoning regs would allow?

Yes.

6 (With context) I understand the exchange rules require the valuation to only consider the exchange areas in the larger parcel analysis. In looking at the information, it appears there is a chance that one or both of these, as a standalone parcel, may be similar to are meant that might not be buildable etc. If that is the case, is that the scenario they should be valued under? For example, on its own, the parcel going to the government doesn’t have access and has an irregular configuration, and it would appear the exchange rules would require it to be appraised under that situation, but I may not be reading that correctly. I’m not sure if that question makes sense, but if you have any feedback it is appreciated.

Both of the tracts should be appraised as though they are their own larger parcels. It is only the federal tract, though, that requires formal legal instruction from the Solicitor’s office, allowing for the use of a hypothetical condition.

Whether or not either or both parcels lack developability should be addressed in the appraiser’s analysis for each parcel, respectively, relative to each parcel’s physical and legal characteristics.

With regard to the non-federal tract which would be conveyed to FWS, on the surface it appears the property (as a standalone) would lack access; however, in typical market conditions, it is reasonable that a seller would grant legal access if they were to segregate and sell off a portion of the parent tract. As such, it would be acceptable for the appraiser to consider that in his or her analysis.