Tulare County appeals board tables Amazon Visalia assessment; requests more data

The Tulare County Assessment Appeals Board on July 21 tabled an appeal by Amazon Services LLC of a 2023 supplemental assessment for a Visalia industrial property and asked staff to supply further analysis before the board reconvenes on Aug. 21.

The board took the action after hearing a three-part presentation: Amazon’s representative presented a multi‑approach appraisal that placed the property’s market value at about $134 million; county appraisal staff, represented by Assessment Services Director Steve Wise, recommended sustaining the assessor’s supplemental building valuation near $175 million; and the board held a closed-session review before requesting additional supporting materials.

Amazon’s representative, who identified themself as Norikim, told the board the subject site at 8817 West Weibra Avenue in Visalia is a single‑tenant distribution building of roughly 1.1 million square feet and was “built in October 2022.” Norikim said the county’s base assessment for the building portion was about $175 million and the combined assessed value about $182.9 million, and presented cost, income and sales‑comparison approaches that, in his opinion, supported a market value near $134,000,000. “When people are here to buy at the time of this building, it should be $134,000,000 not a $183,000,000,” Norikim said.

Steve Wise, the county’s assessment services director, reviewed the assessor’s methods and data. He said the assessor used both a Marshall & Swift cost estimate and the owner‑reported construction costs, as well as a discounted cash‑flow income analysis based on the 15‑year lease that Amazon provided. Wise reported the applicant’s reported total construction cost at $169,352,742 and said the assessor’s estimate of real property costs (after excluding off‑site improvements and classifying mechanical equipment as personal property) was $156,502,967. The assessor then applied an estimated developer profit of 10% and reconciled cost and income approaches; Wise summarized the assessor reconciliation by saying, “we recommend sustaining the supplemental assessment value that was originally estimated, $175,000,000.”

The two sides produced materially different results. Amazon’s cost‑approach building value was described at about $124,000,000 (plus the parties’ agreed land value near $8,000,000, producing roughly $132 million on that approach); Amazon’s income and sales approaches produced values in the mid‑$120–$135 million range and the appraiser’s reconciled opinion was $134,000,000. The assessor’s income approach, using a 4.25% cap rate and the lease terms, produced a higher total property value (county staff reported a total property value of $192,884,262 and a new‑construction value after deducting land of about $184,603,262) and the assessor maintained the supplemental building value near $175,000,000.

Board members said they needed additional information to reconcile the differences. In closed session the board asked staff to provide: a clear breakdown showing whether the owner‑reported construction cost included developer profit and overhead; comparable‑sales support (even if comparables are smaller, with appropriate adjustments); an explanation for the difference between the assessor’s Marshall & Swift cost base and the owner’s reported costs; clarification on whether the property’s in‑use date differs from the city final permit date; and an explanation of the income approach timing (the board asked why the assessor’s discounted cash flow produced a higher result than the first‑year net operating income would suggest). The board also noted a prior nearby Amazon facility (identified in the hearing as “F82”) had been assessed at roughly $120 million when completed in 2021, a fact members said they wanted reconciled with the current assessment.

The board moved and seconded a motion to continue (table) application number 202300226 regarding assessment number 077120038 until the Aug. 21 meeting so members could review the additional materials. The motion passed with the board chair announcing, “It’s been moved and seconded that we wait until we get some more information and we will reconsider this at our August 21 meeting.” County staff agreed to provide the requested materials to the clerk (Jocelyn) for distribution before the next hearing.

No final valuation decision was made at the July 21 meeting; the board explicitly characterized the action as a continuance pending receipt and review of the additional analyses.

The board’s request for further comparable sales and a line‑item cost breakdown aims to reconcile the largest unanswered items the parties identified: differences in Marshall & Swift base costs versus reported construction costs, the treatment of developer profit, and divergent cap‑rate/income conclusions between the parties.

The matter will return to the board’s Aug. 21 calendar with the expectation that staff will circulate the additional documentation in advance so members can review it prior to the hearing.