Enter your text here.

Office Building - Property square footage listed incorrectly by the appraisal district for the past 31 years. 

Although this property had been previously represented by a reputable Property Tax Firm for years, we made no assumptions and verified every detail ourselves.

When we first began reviewing this property it was suspected to be incorrectly classified as a Class “A” building, and it was confirmed after our initial site inspection that the building was in fact, only a class B building at best.  As a marketing ploy, the landlord had placed a sign out-front stating “Class “A” like amenities”.  As is typical, the appraisal district appraiser did their annual drive by review when the sign was spotted and therefore subject property was put into a class “A” grade.  Additionally, during our initial property data review we discovered, through review of the blueprints for the building, that the square footage had been overstated by 10,000 SQFT.  Therefore, our hearing preparation included the square footage correction used in conjunction with the classification error, applied to all three approaches.  We presented the strongest argument, an Income Analysis, along with the square footage and classification evidence, photos and building blue prints, targeting a value of $1,975,000.  The preliminary  value was $4,604,607, which was reduced to $2,875,000. This reflected a value reduction of $1,729,607, a total tax savings of $41,510.  Furthermore, a previously pending lawsuit for two prior years, which are still pending, but have now gained additional strength with our identification of the square footage error.

A thirty-eight (38%) percent reduction of the assessed value.

Office Building - New construction with a partial completion as of January 1st, the percentage of completion had been significantly overstated.

An aggressive review of AIA documents and intimate site knowledge can results in significant tax savings.

The subject property is an office building and parking deck that had been under construction and only 70% complete on January 1st. When the initial valuation was conducted by the district, they estimated a 90% completion, which indicated a significantly higher value than the actual costs in place as of January 1st, which was only 70% complete.  Additionally, the AIA documents reflected many items such as plumbing, a/c components, etc., which had not been installed on the site as of the date of valuation.  Our argument utilized a review of the AIA Documents with a “fine toothed comb” as well as, a comprehensive site inspection, to determine true hard cost in-place as of January 1st.  Our aggressive cost analysis reflected an indicated value of $17,000,000 which we presented along with an Affidavit from the property owner to evidence the items listed on the AIA that were not in place as of January 1st. The appraisal district accepted our analysis, however, applied 15% for entrepreneurial profit, pushing the indicated and final value to $20,900,000. This resulted in a $6,000,000 reduction and a tax savings of approximately $144,021.

A twenty-two (22%) percent reduction of the assessed value.