Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Valuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clay County assessor and property representative dispute value of Savannah West Apartments
Summary
At a Clay County hearing, a property representative and the county assessor presented sharply different valuations of Savannah West Apartments, citing differing cap rates, a 2021 appraisal and recent market comparisons; no formal decision was recorded.
A Clay County assessor and a property representative presented conflicting valuations of Savannah West Apartments during a county hearing, with the representative saying the complex is worth about $180,000 per unit and the assessor citing a December 2021 appraisal that valued the property at $51.3 million.
The discrepancy emerged as the property representative described the site as "an apartment complex located at 8901 North Chestnut" built in 2016 with one- and two-bedroom units and attached garages, and said the client purchased the property in 2021 "as part of a 1031 exchange." The representative said she used recent income and expense statements and a 7.28% capitalization rate to calculate a value of about $180,000 per unit.
Why it matters: the two valuations differ by millions and rest on different cap-rate assumptions and data sources presented to county assessors, which the assessor said are inconsistent with market appraisals and industry data the county uses for assessments.
During the hearing, Mike Jacoby, Clay County assessor, said the property (identified in county materials as Savannah West Apartments) has 201 units and was appraised at $51,300,000 on Dec. 29, 2021. Jacoby said that appraisal corresponds to about $255,002 per unit in county materials and that the county’s current assessment shows a per-unit value around $209,330. Jacoby said the cap rate used for financing in 2021 was 4.26%.
Jacoby cited sales-comparison and appraisal data in the hearing packet, saying the packet’s 16 market sales produced an average cap rate of 4.8% and a median cap rate of 4.6% from 12 cap-rate observations. He also told the panel that a set of Class A apartment appraisals dated 2023 or newer showed an average cap rate of 5.28%.
The property representative said the complex is about 92% occupied and provided a rent roll and income-and-expense statements; she told the panel average lease rents range up to roughly $2,000 for a two-bedroom unit. She also said the 2021 purchase price was $50,000,000 and that the buyer obtained a Freddie Mac loan at about 3.25%.
Jacoby criticized the representative’s valuation, saying it would imply the property lost roughly 30% of its value in three years — a decline he said is inconsistent with the county’s sale and appraisal data. He also referenced Trepp (financial data for properties that report to the Securities and Exchange Commission) in the packet, which he said includes the $51.3 million appraisal.
Discussion, direction and decision: The transcript records a back-and-forth with county staff asking for supporting appraisals and clarification of cap-rate calculations, but it does not record a formal vote or final determination during the hearing. The exchange focused on data sources (owner-provided income statements and rent roll versus county appraisals and market comp data) and on differing cap-rate assumptions used to convert income to market value.
No formal action or vote was documented in the transcript excerpt provided. The hearing included questions from hearing participants about location, vacancy and rent breakdowns; the property representative supplied occupancy and rent-range figures but did not provide a copy of the 2021 appraisal that county staff said they had requested.
Taper: County staff indicated the 2021 appraisal was present in county materials and that they had asked repeatedly for the owner’s appraisal; the transcript ends after the representative confirmed occupancy and rent-range figures and thanked the panel.
