Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Equalization reduces or settles several commercial valuations; agrees mutual values for two Coca‑Cola sites
Summary
The Oklahoma County Board of Equalization on June 15 heard multiple commercial property appeals—citing deed restrictions and large signage in one case—and set mutual‑agreement fair market values for two Coca‑Cola distribution properties while deferring decisions on other contested valuations to a Thursday meeting.
The Oklahoma County Board of Equalization on Monday heard contested commercial valuation appeals and recorded two negotiated, mutual‑agreement values for Coca‑Cola distribution properties.
Chair Elanor Thompson explained the appeals process at the start of the BOE session and said the board would take testimony, hear the assessor’s presentation and issue decisions after deliberating later in the week. "We are going to determine the fair market value of your property," Thompson said, noting the board typically issues written decisions following the hearing.
Town & Country parcels (BOE 159): A property owner representative appealed account R156458050, arguing that perpetual deed restrictions placed by a prior owner and a very large plaza sign owned by Anony's TV & Appliance have materially depressed the marketability and highest‑and‑best use of two corner parcels. The owner recounted a 1983 lease‑restriction clause that "runs with the land in perpetuity" and said brokers recently walked away after seeing the sign. The assessor presented a land‑sales approach that treated the larger parcel as one economic unit and, after adjustments for asphalt and comparable sales, proposed a reduced informal valuation in the mid‑$300,000s; the owner agreed to "consider" an offer of $325,000 as the hearing closed. The board left that matter open for decision on Thursday.
120 North Rockwell (BOE 161): The owner argued for a substantially lower value (several proposed approaches produced values between about $5.2M and $6.1M) citing sustained vacancy (owner reported 40–59% vacancy across the year) and modified‑gross leases that reduce net income available to buyers. The assessor countered with a market income approach and lease‑up adjustments that produced estimates in the $6.7M–$7.9M range depending on lease‑up costs and cap rate assumptions. Board members asked for additional review and deferred the decision to Thursday.
Mini‑storage facility (BOE 164): The owner presented vacancy and income statements showing roughly 60% occupancy and argued that oversupply in the nearby market and higher expenses justify a valuation near $2.3M. The assessor used rent‑roll and market comp data, applied higher expense ratios and cap rates because of local oversupply, and placed the value notably higher (around $3.9M–$4.35M). The board took testimony and will issue a written decision after considering the records.
Mutual agreements reached: Two contested Coca‑Cola distribution site appeals were resolved by agreement. Taxpayer representative Chris and the assessor negotiated down from initial informal values; the board accepted motions to set fair market values by mutual agreement at $5,824,700 for BOE 176 and $7,300,000 for BOE 177. Motions to set those values were moved, seconded and approved on the record.
On procedure and timing, Thompson noted decisions are mailed after the board meets on Thursday and that because Friday is a holiday, appellants should expect mailed decisions early next week.
What’s next: several matters were held for written decision after the board reconvenes for deliberation on Thursday; the Coca‑Cola mutual agreements were recorded on the docket.
