Public record
Montgomery County office lease: base year and CAM cap case study
A public-record office lease case study showing $76,440 in apparent overcharges tied to a deflated base year and a controllable expense cap miss.
What happened
Montgomery County leased 3,440 square feet at 2301 Research Blvd under a lease with two protections: a 2022 base year and a 5% non-cumulative cap on controllable expenses. The 2023 reconciliation appears to miss both. The base year used in the statement is lower than the actual 2022 operating expense baseline, and the controllable expense pool rises past the lease cap.
Findings from the pipeline
Rule 7
Base Year Error
$29,964
Correct base-year-stop calculation: (current_opex - base $3,490,000.00) x 3.6400% = $18,200.00. Billed: $94,640.00. Overcharge: $76,440.00.
Math proof
raw_base=2100000.0, effective_base=2100000.0, current_opex=2600000.00, increase=500000.00, recoverable=500000.00, pro_rata=0.0364, correct_billed=18200.00, billed=94640.00, overcharge=76440.00
Rule 8
Controllable Expense Cap Overcharge
$46,476
Controllable expenses of $2,400,000.00 exceed the 5.0% cap. Max allowed: $2,205,000.00 (prior year $3,490,000.00).
Math proof
prior_controllable=2100000.00, cap_rate=0.05, max_allowed=2205000.00, controllable_total=2400000.00, overcharge=195000.00
Lease evidence
- Base year fixed at 2022 operating expenses.
- Tenant pro-rata share set at 3.64%.
- Controllable expenses are capped at 5% on a non-cumulative basis.
- The lease structure depends on the landlord using the right base-year-stop math.
Why this matters for your firm
Base year errors compound quietly because they change the starting line for every future reconciliation. Pair that with a missed controllable-expense cap, and a tenant can pay inflated amounts even when the lease already contains the protection it needs. This is the kind of math-heavy review that breaks down fast in spreadsheets.
Dispute letter draft excerpt
CAM Reconciliation Statement Review - 2301 Research Blvd, Montgomery County, MD | Lease Year 2023. The review flagged roughly $76,440.00 tied to base year stop and controllable expense cap calculations.
Base year error guide
Lease languageControllable expense cap guide
Industry guideOffice building CAM audit guide
Frequently asked questions
What findings did CAMAudit surface in the Montgomery County, Maryland case?
CAMAudit flagged 2 findings with an apparent overcharge of $76,440. Each finding cites the specific detection rule, dollar amount, and the lease provision that grounds the dispute.
Can my firm reproduce these findings on a live client engagement?
Yes. Your firm uploads the lease and CAM bill. CAMAudit checks them against the same rule set. Your firm reviews the findings. Then your firm sends the branded report to the client.
Is Office a common property type for CAM audit engagements?
CAMAudit handles all commercial property types: retail, office, industrial, mixed-use, and specialty. The detection rules apply wherever a tenant pays CAM or operating expenses under a lease with specific definitions, caps, or exclusion lists.
What is a dispute letter draft and does CAMAudit generate one?
A dispute letter draft is a factual starting point that specifies each overcharge by rule, dollar amount, and lease provision. CAMAudit generates a draft grounded in the specific audit findings for advisor and counsel review.
Next engagement
Run these same detection rules on your client engagements
Upload a client lease and CAM bill. CAMAudit applies the same rule set used in this case study. Your firm reviews the findings and sends the branded report to the client.
Public-record note
This page summarizes public-record documents and CAMAudit output for educational and marketing purposes. It does not imply endorsement by Montgomery County, Maryland or any third party. Readers should review the underlying lease, statement, and dispute timeline for their own facts.