Harrison County panel denies multiple property tax appeals, accepts several withdrawals

Harrison County property tax appeals board members accepted withdrawals for several parcels and denied appeals for multiple apartment properties after questioning the evidence presented by appellants' representative during a hearing.

The board accepted the withdrawal of a group of parcels that O'Connor and Associates' representative, "Miss Randy," said the appellant had removed from the list of contested parcels. The board then heard evidence and arguments on several other appeals, ultimately denying appeals for at least two apartment properties and approving the board's acknowledgement of written withdrawals.

The hearing mattered because it resolved owners' challenges to the county assessor's 2025 valuations, decisions that affect individual taxpayers' assessments and the county tax roll. Board members repeatedly pressed the appellants' representative about the source documentation underpinning income-based valuations, and some appeals were denied after the board found the submitted materials insufficient for changing assessments.

Miss Randy, representing O'Connor and Associates for multiple appellants, told the board she was withdrawing a group of parcels and then proceeded to present income-based analyses for several properties that remained on the docket. For one set of six self-storage parcels listed under Bearkat Self Storage LLC, she said she treated the six parcels as a single economic unit because the owner provided one combined 2024 profit-and-loss statement: "these are 6 different properties... I'm basing it as 1 economic unit," she told the board. She reported that the combined 2024 market value was $1,227,194 and the 2025 value $1,352,068, and that her income approach (using the 2024 P&L and a 7% cap rate) produced an opinion of value of $1,120,000 for the six parcels combined. The board then allowed the withdrawal of those parcels when counsel and the representative agreed to remove them from the contested list.

Board members questioned the representative about documentation underlying those income statements. One board member, identified in the transcript as Tim, pointed out that the owner had borrowed $2,400,000 to acquire the self-storage property in 2024 and asked whether the board should consider that purchase financing when evaluating the owner's claimed income and the resulting valuation: "they did borrow $2,400,000 in order to buy the property. So they at least paid $2,400,000 for the property," Tim said. Miss Randy replied that she had used only the 2024 profit-and-loss statement provided by the owner and that she did not have purchase-price documentation or insurance coverage for the properties in the hearing packet.

For an apartment property listed as Mississippi Apartments Investment LLC (listed in the hearing as 101 Hamilico Street), Miss Randy presented a 2024 income analysis that yielded an opinion of value of $770,000 using a 7% cap rate; the county's 2024 valuation shown in the packet was $812,293 and the 2025 valuation $859,425. The board repeatedly noted that the appellant had provided only a one-page P&L without supporting bank records, details on expenses, or the property's insurance policy — items the board had requested in advance. After discussion, a motion to deny the appeal for the Mississippi Apartments property was made and approved: "Motion to deny the appeal on the Mississippi Apartments on 101 Pemba Cove," the transcript records; the board voted in favor.

The board took the same course on additional apartment appeals. For Dillon Apartments (listed at 3103 Eighth Avenue) Miss Randy again relied solely on the owner's 2024 P&L; her income approach result was $2,050,000 while the board noted the purchase price documents and insurance had not been produced in that hearing packet. The board moved and voted to deny the appeal for that property. A motion based on similar reasoning was subsequently made and approved for a related apartment entry identified in the transcript as Village Apartments, LLC (address listed during the hearing). The motions and votes recorded in the transcript were procedural — typically "Motion. Second. All those in favor? Aye." — with no individual vote names recorded in the audio excerpt.

Votes at a glance - Motion to notice receipt of written withdrawals for a list of parcels submitted by O'Connor and Associates: approved (motion, second, "Aye"). - Motion to allow withdrawal of the six Bearkat Self Storage LLC parcels (as represented by Miss Randy): approved (motion, second, "Aye"). - Motion to deny the appeal for Mississippi Apartments Investment LLC (listed in the hearing as 101 Hamilico Street / referenced later as 101 Pemba Cove): approved (motion, second, "Aye"). - Motion to deny the appeal for Dillon Apartments (3103 Eighth Avenue): approved (motion, second, "Aye"). - Motion to deny the appeal related to Village Apartments, LLC (address given in the hearing): approved (motion, second, "Aye").

Board members emphasized that appeals based solely on a single-page profit-and-loss statement without supporting documentation — bank statements, invoices, insurance coverage or purchase documentation — leave the board with limited evidence to overturn or materially change the assessor's valuations. As Tim summarized during questioning, comparing income-based valuations to market- or cost-based data and to evidence such as insurance coverage can help the board evaluate whether an income approach is valid for an income-producing property.

The hearing concluded after the board entered the examiner's exhibit into the record and approved the motions noted above. Several parcels were recorded as withdrawn and several apartment appeals were denied for lack of sufficient supporting documentation.