Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owners, Assessor Clash Over Fair‑Market Value of Southern Commons Low‑Income Apartments
Summary
At a May special meeting of the Oklahoma County Board of Equalization, property representatives and the assessor’s office disputed how to value Southern Commons, a Section 42 (low‑income) multifamily complex; the board took no final vote and said it will issue a decision Friday by mail.
The Oklahoma County Board of Equalization heard competing valuations Wednesday for Southern Commons (BOE No. 123), a Section 42 low‑income multifamily property. The property owner’s agent asked the board to set fair‑market value at about $5.82 million (roughly $55,000–$60,000 per unit); the assessor’s office recommended a valuation around $8 million based on its income analysis.
The dispute centers on which income streams and cap rate to use. Agent Jake said the property’s actual income is negative and that his pro forma, based on the subject leases and a market expense ratio, supported the requested value. “This property owner is providing a service to the community and providing [low‑cost] housing to those who can't afford it,” Jake said, arguing that increasing value while income has declined would be unfair and “disincentiviz[ing] other individuals from providing services to the community.”
Assessor representative Brian Tigrity said the assessor used the property’s rent roll, occupancy and a 55% expense ratio to calculate an $8 million value, applying a 5% vacancy and a 6.25% cap rate for their income analysis. Tigrity told the board that his office’s appraiser “did a deep dive” and confirmed unit mix and current rates with the property manager. The assessor’s agent said the assessor’s evidence came from the owner’s financial documents and a separate income analysis.
Board members questioned differences in vacancy, expense ratios and cap rates. The agent reported a 4.1% vacancy on the property’s financials; the assessor used 5% vacancy and 55% expenses. Jake said his cap‑rate support is lower than the assessor’s 7.75% market cap; Tigrity said the assessor’s cap rate was 6.25% for its analysis. The board chair, Eleanor Thompson, reminded both sides that the board conducts an appellate review and will consider only information that was provided to the assessor at the informal hearing unless the assessor agrees to accept new evidence.
The board did not render a decision at the hearing. Thompson closed the hearing on BOE No. 123 and told parties the board will make its decision Friday and notify them by mail.
