Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Valuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owners, assessor clash over valuation of 312‑unit Moorpark apartments; board hears lengthy cap‑rate debate
Summary
The board heard competing appraisals for the Avery of Moorpark (312 units) for the 01/01/2024 lien date. The applicant (Ryan LLC) argued a $114 million value driven by higher cap rates; the assessor recommended a $126.53 million value. The board recessed for closed deliberation; no decision announced.
The Ventura County Assessment Appeals Board heard lengthy testimony July 20 in a contested appeal over the market value of the 312‑unit Avery of Moorpark apartment complex for the Jan. 1, 2024 lien date.
The applicant’s agent, Dylan Hoyes of Ryan LLC, presented an appraisal concluding a market value of $114,000,000, arguing cap rates have expanded since the property’s 2022 sale and that the income approach (higher cap rate) should carry greater weight. Hoyes cited industry reports and CoStar analytics to show cap‑rate expansion and a decline in market pricing since the 2022 purchase.
Assessor staff, led by appraisers Joe Phillips and Josh Currier, presented a separate appraisal. The assessor’s office used both the sales comparison and income approaches, gave more weight to comparable sales and selected a 4.2% capitalization rate, reconciling to a recommended enrollment of $126,532,000 as of Jan. 1, 2024. The assessor emphasized a recent arm’s‑length sale of the subject property (Oct. 19, 2022) and argued that some of the candidate cap‑rate comparables presented by the applicant differed materially in location, unit size, quality and regulatory context (rent control), reducing their reliability as direct comparables.
The two sides extensively cross‑examined one another on methodology: the applicant challenged the assessor’s inclusion of common area square footage in the assessor’s “average unit size” calculation and criticized the assessor’s adjustments to comparable sales; the assessor disputed the applicant’s selection of cap‑rate comparables drawn from markets with different rent‑control regimes and demographic profiles. Both sides agreed the primary remaining difference was the cap‑rate selection and the relative weight to place on the income approach.
The board heard closing arguments from both parties and recessed to deliberate. Chair Sisk said the board would take the evidence under consideration and deliberate in closed session; members were told a decision would be provided at a later time. No final board determination was announced at the July 20 meeting.
The hearing record includes detailed exhibits from both parties, county appraiser reconciliations, and multiple pages of CoStar and other market data submitted by the applicant and assessor. The board indicated it would return with a decision after deliberation.
