[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6222003,"mediaKeyId","3610879-0681efbec9842e68430e5270ca754418","parentId",3610879,"title","Tax agent disputes county increases on multiple Old Castle industrial sites, cites building quality and land allocations","audioSeconds",837,"startMs",4275000,"endMs",5112000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3610879-0681efbec9842e68430e5270ca754418&start=4275&end=5112","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3610879-0681efbec9842e68430e5270ca754418/thumbnail_4275000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6222003/Oklahoma-County/Oklahoma/Tax-agent-disputes-county-increases-on-multiple-Old-Castle-industrial-sites-cites-building-quality-and-land-allocations","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6222003-f866ad388948f4b96c31a9b7a87b8707/orig.mp4?Expires=1770656286&Signature=LLyb9C~AxXwSKpTlAV5A8EM9yyQWtJSQRcpNLy-BwZkFPedZk9GTDz56RS5Ln-4xMp0C5dXDJ-WBFuvTOaq3Rufvvuqyih9hOYMU9Bw44l0skYDsQGzq-9oozsUvaFSp39x09aIu17ynXhhHuJIjVfwBDTVAEd-9gI1rL22oFZchTlWA2GfI9OShegi~QbuU8ROCLpGiMWeKbXui5J9EkaiSdVVFw0HBbUJ~OKYBbmvW-C-F649VJl~xqzutfY2iraRMi5K7r-YAlY4OqYhtBoqj0MC4cvw38d~JHsuL0atRPkuHAPkPw4CnDc3vqzmSTf97rax~tJdjhOgUcAD6zA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oklahoma County, OK","date","2025-05-30T16:41:01.66Z","article","At a May 2025 special hearing of the Oklahoma County Board of Equalization, a tax agent representing Old Castle properties urged the board to lower assessments on several industrial parcels, arguing the county’s new valuation model overstated value by treating metal-shell manufacturing and storage buildings as higher-quality assets.

The agent (representing Pivotal Tax Solutions and identified in the hearing packet as the tax representative) presented evidence for multiple properties including a Sunny Lane site (listed in the record at roughly $3.96 million by the assessor, agent sought about $2.3 million), a South Broadway property (assessor’s income indicated value near $3.2 million; agent sought a lower value), an Old Castle site in Harrah (assessor reduced a $1.4 million-plus figure to $1.22 million; the agent asked the board to set fair market value around $700,000), and an Enterprise Avenue account (assessor near $1.415 million; agent requested about $800,000).

The agent’s central argument was consistent across properties: the buildings are predominantly metal-shell industrial structures intended for manufacture and storage, not high-quality concrete or block industrial buildings, and thus should not be compared without significant downward adjustments. \"These properties are not well maintained, and they're kinda used and abused,\" the agent told the board, noting that many Old Castle facilities are owner-occupied and seldom leased in ways that support higher market rents used in county models. The agent provided six sales and several lease comparables across the hearings and used cost and income analyses to argue for lower values.

Assessor staff replied that their income and comparable-sales analyses supported the current values and that the county’s land model and time-window adjustments produced medians that were defensible. An assessor representative said the county’s median for comparable steel industrial buildings after recent recalibration was just north of $70 per square foot and that market and income indicators supported the assessor’s adjustments. The assessor also noted the county’s land valuations are based on a 2016 sale in the area and acknowledged the land schedule may be updated after a focused land analysis.

The hearings included several technical disputes the board queried: whether building-size adjustments were applied as superior or inferior (the agent argued some of the assessor’s size adjustments were incorrectly signed); whether recent portfolio sales should be treated as multi-property sales or separated; and how to handle land-value versus building-value allocation when a site has unusually large acreage relative to the building footprint. In at least one case the board noted it had lowered a prior-year value during an earlier review.

None of the hearings produced an immediate board vote or final adjustment. The hearing officer closed each Old Castle matter and told the parties the board would finalize values at a subsequent meeting and issue written determinations.

Why this matters: Large commercial and industrial account valuations can move sizeable taxable values on the county roll; disputes over whether a shell metal building is equivalent to a higher-quality industrial building affect both assessed values and expectations for local commercial property taxes.

The board closed the Old Castle hearings and scheduled written determinations after staff and the tax agent submitted and clarified the comparative and cost data; no final changes were announced at the session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","BOE Special Meeting 05/28/2025","oneSentenceSummary","At Oklahoma County’s May 2025 Board of Equalization hearings, a tax agent challenged increased values on several Old Castle industrial properties, arguing county appraisals treated metal-shell manufacturing warehouses as higher-quality assets and did not sufficiently adjust for land allocation differences.","taxTitle","Oklahoma County, Oklahoma","taxId",2676,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6222008,"Owners and assessor dispute valuation of West Covell strip mall over income, expenses and capital items",649,2136000,2785000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3610879-0681efbec9842e68430e5270ca754418&start=2136&end=2785","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3610879-0681efbec9842e68430e5270ca754418/thumbnail_2136000.jpg","/articles/6222008/Oklahoma-County/Oklahoma/Owners-and-assessor-dispute-valuation-of-West-Covell-strip-mall-over-income-expenses-and-capital-items","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6222008-4631e902bd42e31548cabf24d9b16af9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770656286&Signature=BL84ri8YuasH6HaaJMwE-AOtkX9zjP1jlM8ST0PogQGut12QKYF4rU1UWCAxAQHT-ncxbuFRugMhJme-BFhJ1Wfcn3KD7ymnSsnePBRL5hAAKdBX1AQnooitO8iUajsrGs8FJPUCdtJdHsf5u0tNIwwrWustW9DwXe6ZWtBLX6zSf8MoeJgHhnml927a8LLT7XdzauN0XxFgtPs-7L~opCYzzgM77GM2tGHB7oRZnDaJy7GtIyBGKJAJb9SSK9kDCEeyEQXmdOVtHi2Gsp~g95MvTMEaqeazktKPx70XSjK7wWGIKheu2YszAfR7WkZDj-huwpPjvZsMzkT8FtMx1g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a May 2025 special hearing of the Board of Equalization of Oklahoma County, representatives for a property owner and assessor staff debated the market value of two adjacent commercial accounts—775 and 805 West Covell Road—centered on differences in income accounting, expense treatment and vacancy and cap-rate assumptions.

Tax agent Rafael (first name used in the transcript) told the hearing panel he and his client had submitted a profit-and-loss statement, rent roll and an itemized list of property improvements totaling $116,863 that the assessor had not fully reflected. \"It is our position that the expenses are actually a little higher than what the assessor's office has calculated, and it is primarily due to this itemization that I provided, for property improvements,\" Rafael said. He asked the board to accept an income-based valuation nearer to $973,926 (as presented in the evidence packet) rather than the assessor's higher figure.

Assessor representative Ralph explained the assessor's approach and why the office reached its figure. The assessor's hearing record showed the assessor began with a combined value near $2,031,988 and reduced it to $1,431,275 using an income approach that treated the two parcels as one economic unit and then split the total evenly between accounts. The assessor said the original hearing officer had used actual income and expenses and applied a 10% capitalization rate because of higher observed vacancy for the property; the assessor also reported that market unloaded cap rates for the submarket were lower (roughly 6.5%), which would reduce the loaded cap-rate estimate to around 7.8 percent.

A central technical dispute was whether the owner's profit-and-loss \"additional rent income\" items included property-tax recoveries that should be backed out of income for an income-capitalization analysis. Rafael said the owner removed property-tax recoveries from gross income but the assessor's informal analysis had not. Rafael also supplied a breakdown of $116,863 in property improvements and asked the assessor to accept at least some of those costs as expense items rather than reserves.

Other figures cited during the hearing: the rent-roll property-tax recovery totaled $31,337.52; the owner's gross income figure (excluding property-tax recovery) was $413,494 with expenses of $242,022; the assessor's gross income and expense figures were higher on income and lower on expenses, producing a higher value. The parties disagreed on vacancy (owner cited >20% in the rent roll; assessor pointed to earlier reports showing about 5% vacancy but accepted there were higher vacancy elements). The assessor representative said that if the assessor removed property taxes from NOI and used loaded cap rates, a split valuation would be about $1,274,000 per parcel under one reconciliation the parties discussed.

Board members and staff asked for clarifications and for a numerical reconciliation. The hearing concluded without a formal vote; the hearing officer said the owner would receive a written notice. Both parties agreed there were remaining items to reconcile (division of the improvement itemization between the two parcels and precise treatment of property tax recoveries), and staff flagged the need to compute final numbers before a written determination.

Why this matters: Commercial valuations commonly hinge on whether recoveries and owner-paid items are treated as income, operating expense or capital-improvement deductions; small differences in cap rate assumptions and in including or excluding property-tax recoveries can produce six-figure differences in indicated value.

The hearing was closed and the board said a written determination would follow; no final assessment change was announced in the meeting.","At a May 2025 Board of Equalization hearing, the owner’s tax agent and assessor staff debated the valuation of two adjoining West Covell Road commercial parcels over disagreements on income, expense treatment, the handling of property-tax recoveries and cap-rate selection.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6222013,"Homeowner challenges Oklahoma County valuation for duplex; assessor cites Dec. 31, 2024 effective date and comps",248,371000,619000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3610879-0681efbec9842e68430e5270ca754418&start=371&end=619","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3610879-0681efbec9842e68430e5270ca754418/thumbnail_371000.jpg","/articles/6222013/Oklahoma-County/Oklahoma/Homeowner-challenges-Oklahoma-County-valuation-for-duplex-assessor-cites-Dec-31-2024-effective-date-and-comps","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6222013-7f274a64eb9b0dfc99168e63adf0575d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770656286&Signature=LEBaOohNLsap79sup-eABSqWH2-e0mBcDs4aa-MYOAiFNLEo0UQ8rc-hSl0VTq2~QTtQjkAuU3ERMw8UYkK1n~HizNB27VPWfIVkdYj0hTJWeV4aeEZd-6G2BmnziFPnPc6sOAP~dnoD0qj1RMR5H2eJLb4pVMX6a1mWylZDKJn7BvvL2jVf2o3gWjSNqZnBsW5-IhsoUTVi0zN-kXUVMQI3XcL4gPenSbMkMR3F43FoiCiLlBOzv-Wj1Gzti~v-oiOjYGaofJHbHsCOvOxYedr5dBtgDkD1WOATdUj3XN29USyMb3T6g1tYn659uCHQYcN8VFcKmf1ioAvtRH~6gQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a May 2025 special hearing of the Board of Equalization of Oklahoma County, a homeowner whose property is listed on Avalon Lane disputed the assessor's market value for her duplex, arguing a neighboring duplex sale should lower her 2024 assessment. Hearing officer Eleanor Thompson told the owner the assessor's valuation is set as of Dec. 31, 2024, and that a sale occurring in 2025 cannot be considered for the 2024 tax year.

The homeowner said her property is a duplex with a 2024 addition and described the neighborhood and recent nearby sales as evidence she should be valued lower. \"Duplexes are unusual commodity, a little harder to sell, a little harder to market,\" the homeowner said during the hearing. She told the panel a neighboring duplex had sold for $400,000 and that that sale was the most relevant market comparison for her property.

The hearing produced technical details the board relied on in the discussion. Assessor staff said the effective valuation date for the tax year is Dec. 31, 2024. Thompson told the homeowner, \"So let me tell you that the valuation is as of 12/31/2024. Yes, ma'am,\" and explained a transaction from 2025 cannot be used to change the 2024 assessment this year. The homeowner acknowledged she may need to press the same argument in next year's review once the 2025 sale is on the books.

Assessment staff provided the appraisal work used to set the value. Staff reported two sets of comparable-sales analyses and said the assessor's mean indicated value was about $654,027 with a median about $654,003.85. Staff said the property's post-addition square footage is 4,270 and that the addition added 636 square feet to the dwelling. Assessor staff explained that the addition changes the property's effective age and increased the assessed value for this cycle. \"Because of the addition, it does change that effective age,\" an assessor representative said during the hearing. They also noted condition ratings and other adjustments applied in their analysis.

The homeowner also raised condition concerns: an older roof, a crumbling driveway, exterior paint and landscaping needs, and interior/bathroom counts that she said buyers would consider. She said she occupies one side and rents the other for $145.00 per week (transcript: \"$14.50\" stated), and she estimated that a buyer would take $50,000 to $60,000 off the asking price for the work needed.

The hearing did not produce a formal decision. Thompson said the homeowner would receive written notice of the outcome. \"So you'll probably get a letter from us probably Monday,\" she told the homeowner. The board closed the hearing with no motion recorded and no formal vote taken at the session.

Why this matters: The hearing illustrates two common limits in property-tax appeals: the requirement to use sales and market data as of the statutory valuation date and the weight county appraisers place on post-construction changes (effective age and square footage) when setting market value.

The board closed the hearing and said a written determination would follow; no final change to the assessment was announced at the meeting.","At a May 2025 special hearing of the Board of Equalization of Oklahoma County, a homeowner whose Avalon Lane duplex had been valued at about $654,000 contested the assessment, arguing a recent neighboring sale should lower her tax value, while hearing officer Eleanor Thompson and assessor staff responded that the valuation is set as of Dec. 31, 2024.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Tax agent disputes county increases on multiple Old Castle industrial sites, cites building quality and land allocations

Owners and assessor dispute valuation of West Covell strip mall over income, expenses and capital items

Homeowner challenges Oklahoma County valuation for duplex; assessor cites Dec. 31, 2024 effective date and comps