Oklahoma County Board of Equalization hears $80M valuation appeal for Oklahoma City Outlets; assessor cites Jan. 1 mass-appraisal rules

The Oklahoma County Board of Equalization on June 24 heard an owner's appeal seeking a fair cash value of $80,000,000 for the Oklahoma City Outlets and related parcel accounts. The property's representative told the board the $80 million request is supported by a purchase-and-sale agreement, prior offers, and income and financial statements that produced a performance-derived value of about $76 million and an actuals-based figure near $81 million.

The owner's representative said, "80 million is going to be the midpoint between the income performer of 76 million and change and the actual financials of 81 million in change," and cited a purchase-and-sale agreement dated April 13 and due diligence by a buyer identified in the transcript as Lightstone. The representative said Lightstone's offer was the highest of three offers, with earlier letters of intent at about $75 million and $78 million.

The assessor's office told the board it used mass-appraisal techniques and must value property as of Jan. 1. "Our requirements are to value a property as of January 1st," an assessor staff member said, adding that appraisals or contracts dated after the valuation date inform the next year's roll but generally cannot change the current year's value. Assessor staff explained their income-based mass appraisal and provided parcel-level figures; the assessor noted that the sale had not closed and that a March Letter of Intent was unsigned at the valuation date.

A technical difference in the income approaches emerged as a key point in the hearing. Assessor staff and the owner's representative debated whether "secondary" or other nonstandard income should be applied before or after vacancy in the income-cap calculation. The transcript shows that treatment of secondary income produced about a $30,000 discrepancy in a line item and contributed to the differing income-cap results used by the parties.

Board members probed the documentary record. The presenter said the buyer had an offering memorandum and extensive documentation (the presenter said the offering package ran roughly 100 pages), and that buyers typically use prior-year rent rolls and multi-year models. The assessor asked whether a contract was signed as of Dec. 31 and emphasized that even a signed purchase agreement after Jan. 1 would normally affect the subsequent tax year rather than the current valuation.

The board proceeded through six related parcel dockets tied to the outlet property (listed in the transcript as BOE 190'195). The chair closed discussion on each docket pending the board's determination and said the board will convene Friday to render decisions; parties were told they would receive email or mailed notice of the outcomes.

The hearing record shows the central dispute is methodological (date of valuation and mass-appraisal consistency) rather than a disagreement about whether a buyer exists: the owner's representative presented a current offer and PSAs as evidence of market support, while assessor staff cautioned that valuation date rules and mass-appraisal practice limit the weight of post-Jan. 1 transactions for the 2026 roll.

Next steps: the board will meet Friday to finalize determinations on the six dockets; until then, the assessor's mass-appraisal numbers and the owner's requested $80 million valuation remain the competing positions in the record.