Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oklahoma County Board of Equalization approves valuations for 10 properties, including mall and hotel settlements
Summary
At a May 8 special meeting the Oklahoma County Board of Equalization voted to set fair-market values on 10 properties — including a $41.119 million valuation for a shopping center and a $2.725 million hotel settlement — and discussed procedural changes to speed future hearings.
The Oklahoma County Board of Equalization voted on May 8 to set fair-market values for 10 properties during a special meeting that began at 9:30 a.m. The board approved motions for each item, with members voting in favor on each motion.
Most immediately contested was a commercial appraisal for a shopping-center property (BOE 42). Committee members debated competing cap-rate calculations and distant comparables before moving to set the fair-market value at $41,119,000. "I felt like the assessor could have even gone up a little bit more...so I would probably lean more towards the 41,119,000," said a committee member, who moved the valuation. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
Smaller but notable outcomes included BOE 46 (Dustin Smith), where the board set the fair-market value at $419,500 after discussion of neighborhood schools and interior configuration; the Bridal Williams Trust in Nichols Hills (BOE 43), set at $1,977,500; and a hotel valuation (BOE 48) settled by mutual agreement at $2,725,000.
Other decisions included: BOE 44 (commercial property) set at $2,300,000; BOE 23 (Max Wolfie) at $270,500; BOE 30 (Five Family Trust) at $692,303; BOE 47 (engineer/acreage) at $526,000; and BRE 49 (a converted former gas station) at $136,000. Each motion was moved, seconded and approved by the board during the session.
Board members described the factual bases for decisions as a mix of purchase-price adjustments, assessor recalculations, owner-provided comps and condition-related modifiers. For example, the board discussed whether recent exterior repairs and added improvements should be reflected in the valuation for one property and whether new-construction comps were appropriate for another. In several cases members noted a wide range between owner and assessor positions and chose compromise figures.
Toward the end of the meeting, members discussed scheduling and procedural efficiency for handling a docket of roughly 70 cases next week. A staff member proposed reading only the internal R number (and the VRE number) on the record rather than full addresses to speed hearings; the chair asked that a spreadsheet be circulated to all members to support the process.
The meeting adjourned after a motion to adjourn was seconded and approved. The board indicated it expects to continue hearings the following week, dependent on whether the Monday docket of 70 cases can be completed.
