Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Valuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owners and Assessor Clash Over Quail Springs Mall Valuation, Board Debates Cap Rate
Summary
Quail Springs MA LLC asked the Oklahoma County Board of Equalization to cut the mall parcel’s valuation from the assessor's $49.65 million to the owner's $38.1 million, citing falling net operating income, high occupancy costs and worsening tenant health; the board and assessor sparred over whether the center is a B‑ or C‑class mall and which capitalization rate to apply.
Quail Springs MA LLC told the Oklahoma County Board of Equalization on May 4 that the mall parcel it owns should be valued at about $38.1 million, arguing an income‑based appraisal and a 17% base capitalization rate better reflect the center’s financial health than the assessor’s $49.647 million notice.
At a presentation that occupied much of the hearing, the company’s representative laid out an income approach showing an effective gross income of about $11.9 million, steep occupancy costs for inline tenants (about 18%), rising vacancies and a three‑year slide in net operating income. “Almost 56% of our tenants that are reporting sales are at risk,” the presenter said, summarizing a tenant heat map and tenant‑sales per‑square‑foot metrics that the owner said place the mall in Class C territory.
The assessor’s team disputed the owner’s classification and cap‑rate assumptions. Assessor staff said their computations rely on a different income proforma, market sale data and a lower capitalization rate that together produce a substantially higher value. A central point of contention was which cap‑rate range applies: the owner pointed to national Class C mall cap ranges that support a higher cap and lower valuation; the assessor and some board members argued local market and income figures could support a lower cap and thus a higher assessed value.
Board members and the assessor ran approximate recalculations live during the meeting. Depending on cap‑rate choices and whether the assessor’s income numbers or the owner’s were used, participants sketched potential settlement values ranging from roughly $41 million up to the assessor’s figure. One member described the mall as “on a respirator,” while others said adjustments to the assessor’s cap rate could plausibly reduce the notice toward an intermediate number; no final value was set at the meeting.
The board did not take a formal vote on Quail Springs Mall on May 4 and indicated it would continue reviewing the technical evidence and analyses before issuing a written decision. The discussion highlighted that valuation disputes for income‑producing commercial properties often hinge more on methodology — particularly cap rates and projected NOI — than on single comparables or permits.
