Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Property Valuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BOE reviews valuation methods in two Crunch Fitness property appeals; decisions deferred
Summary
Agent Blair Princi told the Oklahoma County BOE that income-capitalization and purchase-plus-improvement methods support lower values than the assessor’s figures on two commercial gym properties; the assessor defended its income and sales-based analyses; the BOE deferred rulings to a later decision meeting.
At a June 17 teleconference, the Board of Equalization of Oklahoma County heard appeals for two commercial properties occupied by Crunch Fitness, where the parties disputed whether fair market value should be based on the recent purchase price plus documented improvements or on an income-capitalization approach.
Blair Princi, who identified herself as the agent for the owner, told the three-member board that for BOE case 145 (8400 Northwest Expressway) the purchase price in March 2024 was $3,025,000 and county records show roughly $1.2 million of improvements. Princi said she combined the purchase-plus-improvement total and an income approach to arrive at an opinion of value of $4,000,000. She said the county’s own income worksheet produced a value close to $3,863,001, and she used an average of the two methods to support her $4 million figure.
For the separate appeal identified as BOE case 146, Princi presented an income approach for a larger, roughly 49,000-square-foot property using $10.25 per square foot triple-net rent, 5 percent vacancy, 10 percent expenses, standard management and reserve allowances and an 8.5 percent cap rate to arrive at an income-indicated value of about $4,000,007.68. She said the permit for improvements on that property listed about $1.5 million.
An Oklahoma County Assessor's Office representative told the board the assessor had run pro forma income analyses and, for the second property, calculated an income-indicated value of $5,483,001.71 that supported the current valuation on the rolls. For the first property, the assessor said an income-indicated approach produced roughly $3,863,001.39. The assessor also said sale prices and the county’s valuation of improvements were included in the roll values.
Board members pressed both sides about the evidence each used: Princi said actual, tenant-specific improvements (mirrors, gym flooring, tenant finishes) may not carry to a hypothetical new owner and therefore should be weighed with income indications; the assessor said market parameters and more-relevant recent sales supported the office’s conclusions. Princi said she had lease comparables and Costar rent ranges to support the rent assumptions.
No final rulings were announced; the BOE told the parties it would meet the following day to issue decisions and that any determinations would be mailed in writing.
Ending note: The hearing illustrated a recurring BOE issue —whether to prioritize recent sales plus recorded improvement costs or an income-capitalization analysis when valuing specialized commercial properties.
