The Oklahoma County Board of Equalization on June 13 set fair-market valuations for multiple properties and denied a single tax-exempt claim during a roughly 9:30 a.m. special meeting.

The board voted to set the market value for a storage‑unit property (BOE item 122) at $4,056,200 after members debated competing income analyses, a proposed 50% expense ratio from the property owner, and a 25% vacancy assumption provided to the assessor. Board members said comparable sales supported a value higher than the owner’s revised $3.1 million figure but lower than the assessor’s original $4.8 million starting point.

The board also set the value for Southern Commons (BOE item 123), a Section 42 affordable‑housing complex, at $7,350,000. Members noted differences between the assessor’s analysis and the owner’s income approach, including a disputed treatment of tax‑credit sales and widely different expense and vacancy assumptions; the board said it would revisit the property in 2025 because it was coming online in 2024 and 2024 income did not reflect a full year of operations.

For several other contested parcels the board either affirmed or adjusted assessor figures. The board set fair market values at or near the assessor recommendations for: a 2.38‑acre parcel (BOE item 125) at about $1.78 million, an equipment storage/repair garage (BOE item 126) at $429,448, and a residential property (BOE item 130) at $520,500 after considering a 2020 appraisal and countywide appreciation since 2021.

On BOE item 128, involving a property that had an in‑house transfer of ownership, staff told the board the transfer did not remove the statutory cap on taxable value; the board agreed to reinstate the cap and set the fair market value at $810,700, noting that reinstating the cap would prevent a sudden taxable‑value spike for the owner.

The board considered a request for tax‑exempt status for a property used in part for social services (BOE item 137) and, after discussion of whether any part of the residence was separately segregated and used as an office, voted to uphold the assessor’s denial of exemption. Members said a segregated, separately identified office space and an application for division of property would be the usual path for a partial exemption; that was not present in this filing.

Votes on the motions recorded during the meeting were affirmative and effectively unanimous among members present. Several members flagged follow‑up work: the storage facility’s recent expansion and its effect on income and vacancy will be reexamined next year, and the Section 42 complex will be reviewed for 2025 values once a full year of operations is reflected in the income data.

The board completed eight contested items and adjourned; staff confirmed additional hearing slots on the next Monday and Tuesday for apartment cases and other matters.

Why it matters: Board valuations determine taxable values that feed into property tax bills and local revenue calculations. Changes to a property’s market value — and decisions about tax caps or exemptions — can materially affect owners’ tax liabilities and future county tax revenues.