Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property Valuation Industrial topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Owner disputes assessor’s $2.7M valuation for new 34th Street warehouse; board hears cost and vacancy evidence

Board of Equalization of Oklahoma County · June 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The owner of a 2024-built warehouse that has remained vacant asked the Board of Equalization to accept construction invoices showing a build cost of about $1.5 million. The assessor countered with a Marshall & Swift–based cost approach supporting a $2.7 million building value. The hearing closed with the board indicating it will make a determination after further review.

The Oklahoma County Board of Equalization heard an appeal Monday from the owner of a warehouse on 34th Street who said the building—completed in 2024—has been 100% vacant and that original construction invoices show a build cost near $1.5 million.

The owner told the board the structure was intended for basic storage, had limited finishing and had been marketed widely but remained unleased. "It was built in 2024 ... the owner says the building costs less to build because most of it is all rental space and there's no common area," the owner said.

Assessor staff reviewed the build documentation but relied on Marshall & Swift cost data and county cost modeling, concluding a building value of about $2.7 million (roughly $73 per square foot) when entrepreneurial profit and typical soft costs are included. The assessor noted Marshall & Swift and standard cost guides often require adding soft costs and a return to reflect what a buyer would pay.

Board members asked for clarification of bid versus completed cost, commission and whether the contractor’s bill reflects final completion; the assessor said the county’s review produced a roughly $2.7 million building value while acknowledging owners’ documents appeared to show lower direct construction spend. The hearing closed after the board and staff said they would review the contractor documents, interior photos and the county models before issuing a decision.

What happens next: The board indicated it will continue its review and make a written determination following additional document review; no final valuation was recorded on the transcript.