Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Valuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner representative and assessor disagree on Autumn Creek Villas valuations; board defers decision
Summary
Taxpayer representative argued Autumn Creek Villas (two phases of Section 42 senior housing) should be valued at a markedly lower per‑unit amount based on owner income analysis; the assessor held that market income and a 7.75% cap rate support a valuation near $1.44–$1.65 million and said the county imputes vacancy and normal expense ratios. The board will issue written determinations Friday.
The Oklahoma County Board of Equalization heard appeals for Autumn Creek Villas (BOE #150 and #152), two phases of a Section 42 senior‑housing development, from a taxpayer representative who appeared by phone.
The representative, Darren, said phase one has 30 units and that the owner’s income analysis and rent roll produced a negative net operating income; he asked the board to reduce the assessor’s notice value to roughly $500,000 (the agent earlier referenced $623,000 and then $500,000 as requested figures). "This is a section 42 low‑income housing property. We applied a 9% cap rate and that brings us to a negative value," Darren said about the owner's submitted workup.
Assessors responded that their income approach used market imputations (including a 5% vacancy assumption for Section 42 properties and a 7.75% cap rate) and that after adjustments they had an indicated value on the order of $1.4M–$1.6M; the assessor noted management fees, property taxes and expense ratios were significant drivers and removed certain management fees from the owner’s pro forma to illustrate sensitivity. "If you use a 7.75 cap ... that puts it at 99,000," the assessor said when walking through unit and cap calculations.
For phase two (22.8 acres and a different unit count), the representative again relied on a 9% cap and asked for a lower per‑unit value; the assessor noted the income approach had not separately valued excess land and that including excess land would alter the comparison.
The board closed both hearings and said it will decide Friday and notify parties by mail; no change in valuation was announced in the May 27 record.
