Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Valuation Section42 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board questions valuation of 70‑parcel Section 42 development; decision deferred
Summary
At a May 11 Oklahoma County Board of Equalization hearing, the county assessor and a taxpayer representative presented competing income‑based valuations for a 70‑parcel Section 42 low‑income housing development; the board flagged expense ratios as the main disagreement and set final decision for a later meeting.
The Oklahoma County Board of Equalization on May 11 heard competing valuations for a 70‑parcel Section 42 (low‑income housing) development and deferred a final decision after members flagged differences in expense assumptions and requested updated documentation.
Taxpayer representative Tim, appearing by phone, told the board his income analysis—based on a gross potential rent of $925,004.40, a 7.5% vacancy factor and $497,001.26 in total operating expenses—yields a net operating income of $359,008.31 and, at an overall cap rate of 7.842%, a total property valuation of $4,473,803 (about $63,911 per unit), which Tim said he then allocated across 70 parcels.
The assessor's office representative described a different workup. The assessor reported using an income approach as well but with different adjusted rents and expense assumptions that produced a higher total value (the assessor estimated roughly $7.5 million overall, about $73.39 per square foot, or about $95,747 per unit in their model). That assessor representative said the office switched from a sales comparison approach to an income approach for Section 42 properties and adjusted multifamily market parameters to account for the program's rent and management constraints.
Board members focused their questions on the drivers of the discrepancy: the expense ratio and reserves. The tax agent attributed most of the gap to higher expense assumptions used by the assessor (the taxpayer's revised worksheet showed higher total expenses on some runs), while the assessor said the two sides were close on cap rate and vacancy but differed primarily on expense percentages and the treatment of tax/real‑estate expense and reserves. The taxpayer indicated one earlier estimate was revised upward (from about $4.4 million to roughly $6.7 million) after updated rent/support figures were provided, but that revised sheet had not been in the board's original packet.
The panel asked for the updated income worksheet; the assessor's office agreed to provide the revised pages for the record. The chair closed the hearing on BOE case 50 and said the board would consider the matter for final decision at meetings scheduled later in the week (Wednesday and Friday mentioned in the hearing). Members also noted a mapping/street‑name discrepancy affecting a parcel listed as Thomas Lane (also referenced as Thurman Lane) and agreed to reconcile parcel data before issuing a final valuation.
No final valuation or formal vote on BOE 50 was recorded at the May 11 session; the board scheduled follow‑up and will issue a written decision after reviewing the revised evidence.
Quotes from the hearing include Tim's summary of his income model: "We're using an overall cap rate of 7.842% ... and that gives us an overall value of the property for $4,473,803," and the assessor's office representative stating, "I am able to support $73.39. The current value is at $72.61." The hearing record shows the two sides agree on procedures but remain in dispute over the expense assumptions that drive the valuation gap.
The board also proceeded through the administrative task of opening and closing many BOE accounts (reading R‑numbers and square footage for dozens of parcels) before adjourning.
