Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Valuation Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Avery at Moorpark valuation dispute: appraiser cites rising cap rates; board grants time to review new comps
Summary
At a contested hearing over the 312‑unit Avery at Moorpark, the applicant’s agent presented a third‑party appraisal arguing market cap rates rose since the 2022 purchase, lowering value; the assessor requested time to review additional comps, and the board continued the matter to July 20, 2026.
The Assessment Appeals Board heard opening presentations on June 22 in a contested valuation appeal for the 312‑unit Avery at Moorpark (Moore Park, LLC). The applicant’s agent introduced a recent appraisal concluding a value materially below the October 2022 purchase price, emphasizing cap‑rate increases since that acquisition as the central driver.
Agent’s case: cap‑rate movement Dylan Hoyes, agent for the applicant, told the board the appraisal team produced both an income approach and a sales comparison approach and concluded a value substantially below the 2022 purchase price. Hoyes said the pivotal issue is investor required return: "the most important thing to focus on here... is the cap rate," he told the board, presenting multiple industry reports (CoStar, Lee & Associates, Newmark, PwC) showing cap rates lifting 50–80 basis points since late 2022.
Assessor’s response The assessor noted the board had subpoenaed and received a JLL appraisal prepared for financing around the acquisition date and questioned whether that report — which used pro forma/stabilized assumptions and a 4.25% cap rate for a future stabilized income stream — was being compared to a different valuation scenario. The assessor asked the board to permit time to evaluate newly supplied supplemental comps and cap‑rate tables that had not been in the assessor’s prior files.
Legal and evidentiary issue: §441(d)(H) During the exchange, the assessor identified several supplemental cap‑rate/sales pages that had not been provided in the pre‑hearing exchange. Citing Revenue & Taxation Code §441(d)(H), the assessor sought a continuance to review those materials because they were newly submitted at the hearing.
Board action and next steps The board granted a continuance to allow the assessor time to evaluate the new information and reset the matter for a subsequent session on July 20, 2026 (to follow the board’s annual meeting). The clerk will notify parties of the precise time; the board encouraged parties to continue pre‑hearing exchanges to narrow disputed issues before the July session.
Why it matters If the assessor and appellant disagree on the appropriate capitalization rate or the income assumptions used for a large multifamily asset, the resulting difference in valuation can be tens of millions of dollars. The decision to grant a continuance reflects the board’s direction that assessors must have a reasonable opportunity to examine newly produced market evidence before a contested multi‑million‑dollar hearing proceeds.
Representative quotes - Dylan Hoyes: "The most important thing to focus on here... is the cap rate." - Assessor’s Office (on subpoenaed documents and timing): "Although requested, we were not able to provide specific information concerning the rent restrictions…We assume these are accurate and comply with the restrictions…" (summarizing appraisal caveats).
What to watch The July status date should show whether the assessor’s review of supplemental comps narrows the disagreement on cap‑rate selection and whether the parties can agree on a shorter hearing schedule or require the several‑day special hearing the applicant suggested.
