Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Development Valuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers, assessor clash over Oak Phase 1 valuation; board to rule after review
Summary
At a protracted appeal hearing, owner representatives and the county assessor disagreed over valuation methodology for the new Oak Phase 1 multifamily project — the assessor recommended about $93 million using cost approaches, while the developer argued for a higher unit‑based market figure; the board said it will issue a written decision.
The Oklahoma County Board of Equalization heard extended testimony and technical exhibits in a contested valuation for Oak Phase 1, a newly built mixed‑use/multifamily development, with the assessor recommending a blended, cost‑weighted valuation near $93 million and the owner asking the board to consider a per‑unit market approach.
Owner and developer representatives emphasized project positioning and recent construction costs and asked the board to use a unit‑based indicator near $247,000 per unit to reflect market expectations for the finished asset. "We're only asking for 247,000 in unit," the owner's representative told the board.
Assessor staff and appraisers countered that Marshall & Swift cost figures, contracted pay applications and local sales comparisons point toward a blended indicator near $93,000,000 and cautioned that Marshall & Swift outputs must be reconciled with actual contractor pay applications and labor content. "We feel that 93,000,000 would be at least what it would sell for," assessor staff said during the hearing.
Why it matters: A board ruling on this large development will set a substantial local assessment base with implications for the property owner and for county tax revenues. Because the project was still in lease‑up and partially unfinished on the statutory valuation date, parties disputed whether to weight cost, sales or income approaches more heavily.
Evidence and dispute: Owner representatives (with contractor documents and a certified letter from Derek Garber) argued pay applications and a general‑contractor contract should be given weight and that certain line items (labor, overhead, A&E) may not have been separated in the county’s Marshall & Swift files; assessor staff said those costs are reflected in the contractor’s pay application totals even if not separately line‑itemized.
Board next steps: The board will issue a written decision on the matter (members said they planned to rule Wednesday and mail the parties the outcome).
