Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oklahoma County Board of Equalization Hears $80M Valuation Claim for Oklahoma City Outlets; Assessor Cites Jan. 1 Valuation Rule
Summary
At a June 24 special session the Oklahoma County Board of Equalization heard a property owner representative argue an $80 million fair market value for the Oklahoma City Outlets based on a purchase agreement and income figures; the assessor maintained mass-appraisal valuation as of Jan. 1 and the board deferred its decision to Friday.
The Oklahoma County Board of Equalization on June 24 heard competing valuations for the Oklahoma City Outlets, where a property owner representative asked the board to set an allocated fair-cash value of $80,000,000 for the property and the assessor urged valuation based on mass-appraisal methods and the Jan. 1 statutory valuation date.
The board convened at 9:30 a.m.; the Chair conducted roll call naming Brett Town, Teresa Sers and Elanar Thompson as present and confirmed the meeting notice was posted June 16. The hearing opened with the board taking BOE item 190 (account 2111050) separately and reviewing a packet with parcel maps and per-parcel 'before' and 'current' values.
The property owner representative told the board the $80 million figure is supported three ways: an income-based performance estimate of about $76 million, actual financials near $81 million, and a purchase and sale agreement the representative said was dated April 13. "My total is going to be 80 million flat," the representative said, explaining they allocated the purchase price across parcels by square footage and asked the board to adopt that allocated total as fair cash value.
The assessor responded that the assessor's office used mass-appraisal techniques based on rent rolls and year‑end financials as of the valuation date. "Our requirements are to value a property as of January 1st," the assessor said, noting that a sale or signed agreement after that date ordinarily affects next year's roll. The assessor said the office's income-based mass appraisal produced a different number (reported in the hearing transcript as "84,909") and emphasized that the appraisal date determines which transactions or incomes the office may consider for the current tax year.
The exchange turned to modeling details: the assessor and staff explained that one analyst treated secondary (nonstandard) income before vacancy while the other treated it after vacancy; both sides said they used similar cap rates and a 5% vacancy assumption but the placement of secondary income in the calculation accounts for much of the variance between the income‑performance and the assessor's mass-appraisal results.
Board members and staff asked for supporting evidence, including rent rolls and fuller financial documentation. The property representative said the offering memorandum and longer rent-roll histories exist and that buyers commonly use prior-year information and internal forecasts during due diligence. Participants also noted prior assessed values (the transcript references a 2025 assessed value near $92,244,883 for context).
After discussion the Chair closed BOE 190 for the day and moved through BOE items 191–195, applying the same allocation argument to the related parcels. The Chair said the board's decision day is scheduled for Friday and that participants would be notified. The meeting concluded with the Chair entertaining a motion to second and calling for a vote on next steps.
What happens next: The board deferred a final determination to its formal decision day on Friday; the assessor and the property owner representative indicated they had provided or could provide more detailed documentation for the record prior to that vote.
