Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Distribution-warehouse valuation disputed as owner and assessor present competing analyses
Summary
At a June 8 Board of Equalization hearing, appellant Benjie Tompkins and county assessment staff sharply disagreed over the 2026 valuation of a newly built distribution warehouse at 5601 SW 13th (account R141987040); Tompkins cited tenant improvements and an effective rent of $5.70, while the assessor's income and cost modeling supported an $18 million value. The board deferred a decision to Friday.
A contested valuation for a newly built distribution warehouse at 5601 Southwest 13th drew a technical, data-heavy exchange at the Oklahoma County Board of Equalization’s special meeting on June 8.
Appellant Benjie Tompkins told the board he used an income-based approach that produced an indicated value near $14.7 million and asked the board to adopt that lower figure. “I’m using a $5.70 rental rate, as the base,” Tompkins said, describing a blended effective rent calculated after factoring tenant improvements and lease concessions. He detailed lease abstracts and change orders that, he said, show roughly $2.1 million in tenant improvements and concessions that reduce effective income for the property owner.
Assessment staff countered with a cost- and income-based analysis that produced a substantially higher valuation. The assessor’s representative said Marshall & Swift construction costs and the assessor’s market adjustments yielded an $18 million value and argued some tenant-improvement items are owner-specific and not part of the base building cost. “Using our actual income and market expense ratios, we believe that $18,000,000 is a good value for the property,” the assessor said.
Board members pressed both sides on the specific modeling choices driving the gap. Commissioners asked about lease terms, the amortization of tenant improvements, the treatment of concessions and effective rent, and management and reserve assumptions. Tompkins said the documented TI and free rent should be reflected in an effective-rent calculation; the assessor said market-based expense ratios and established cost methods supported the higher assessment.
Chair Eleanor Thompson told participants the board would consider the evidence and meet on Friday to render decisions and provide written notice. No formal vote was taken on the appeal during the June 8 meeting.
The hearing illustrated how differences in modeling — especially whether TI and tenant concessions are treated as owner costs on the expense side or implicitly included in rental rates — can materially change an asset’s assessed value. The board’s written decision, scheduled for Friday, will explain which approach it adopts for the 2026 assessment.
The Board of Equalization meeting packet and the parties’ submitted lease abstracts and change orders were referenced extensively during the hearing.
