Taxpayer and assessor clash over vacancy adjustments at French Market Mall; decision deferred

A dispute over how to account for vacancy at French Market Mall left the Oklahoma County Board of Equalization without a decision today as the board said it will issue a written ruling after its May 1 meeting.

Zachary Whitaker, the taxpayer—onsultant appearing by phone, told the board the shopping center was about 50% vacant at the valuation date and that buyers would apply lease-up costs and absorption risk when valuing such a property. He said he converted that difference into a lease-up deduction of approximately $5,530,000, which reduced his income-approach indicated value to about $13.3 million. Whitaker summarized the methodological point: "If the property is 50% vacant in the same market, no rational buyer would buy the top or would pay the same price that they would for [a] stabilized asset," and urged the board to apply lease-up adjustments consistent with appraisal standards.

Rafael, representing the assessor's office, said the assessor used market-derived inputs and a fee-simple approach and that market vacancy rates should govern. He said his office had used a market vacancy assumption higher than typical for the submarket (he said he used 15% for this property) and that, based on market indicators and a 2024 sale of Penn Crossing Shopping Center, the assessor's fee-simple indicated value for the parcel was $19,418,800. Rafael said one direct comp could not alone govern a market value and that the assessor had adjusted the appellant's income figures downward to reflect market norms.

The two sides also discussed leases signed after the valuation date: a Hobby Lobby lease was cited by Whitaker as evidence the property was stabilizing; assessor staff said the lease's timing relative to Dec. 31, 2024, affected whether it could be used to value the property on the valuation date. Whitaker said lease documents had been provided to the assessor and were included in the appellant's packet.

Board chair Miss Thompson closed the hearing without issuing a decision and told the participants that the board will meet May 1 to issue a written ruling: "We will make our decision next Thursday, May 1, and we will notify you by mail of our decision." No vote was recorded at the hearing.

Ending: The case exposes a recurring appraisal-method question for commercial assessments: whether and when to apply lease-up (stabilization) deductions when a property's vacancy rate materially exceeds market norms. The board's written decision will state which inputs and dates it treated as controlling for the valuation.