Oklahoma County Board of Equalization adopts uniform valuation and approves fair-market values for 70 parcels

Eleanor Thompson, chair of the Oklahoma County Board of Equalization, opened a special meeting May 15 and led the board through contested property valuations, ultimately adopting a uniform per-square-foot income valuation and approving fair-market values for 70 parcels.

The board spent its early time on a technical dispute over per-square-foot valuation. An assessor’s office representative said the income-based valuation could support a $73.39 per-square-foot figure but that staff calculations produced $72.61 per square foot; the property owner had proposed $64.28 per square foot. "That is the value that we can depend on based on income," the assessor’s representative said, arguing that the taxpayer’s expense and cap-rate assumptions were out of line with typical parameters. Board members cited unusually high reserves and inconsistent backup documents from the taxpayer and favored the assessor’s $72.61 figure for uniform application.

After that decision the board moved through the agenda, taking motions, seconds and unanimous voice votes to set fair-market values for the items listed on the agenda. Notable outcomes included:

- BOE 122 (four buildings on Lincoln): board adopted a fair-market value of $1,780,000 after the assessor adjusted the vacancy assumption to 40%.

- BOE 127 (the former Tiffany property at 50th North West Highway): the assessor reduced an earlier estimate and the board set the value at $10,500,000, citing building condition, HVAC and elevator issues and reliance on older engineering reports that lacked updates.

- BOE 128 (two car washes): the assessor’s office valuation of approximately $2,056,480 was discussed; the board set the value at $2,056,490 and noted the absence of income (car-count) data from the taxpayer needed to refine an income-based valuation.

- BOE 129 (commercial parcel): the board set the fair-market value at $2,326,349 after rejecting the taxpayer’s much lower figure and noting that comparable sales used by the taxpayer were older and not fully persuasive.

Across the meeting the board repeatedly recorded unanimous voice approvals ("Aye") for motions to set values. Several items drew brief technical debate (expense ratios, cap rates, reserves, and the timeliness of submitted engineering reports), but most motions were routine approvals after the board applied the agreed valuation approach.

The board adjourned after completing the agenda. The assessor’s office was present throughout to answer technical questions; the transcript records no formal dissents or roll-call tallies by name beyond unanimous voice votes.

Votes at a glance (selected items named or discussed in the meeting): BOE 50 – $106,123 (approved); BOE 51 – $107,107,176 (approved); BOE 52 – $106,195 (approved); BOE 53 – $122,396 (approved); BOE 54 – $101,575 (approved); BOE 55 – $76,301 (approved); BOE 56 – $113,793 (approved); BOE 57 – $110,250 (approved); BOE 58 – $101,936 (approved); BOE 59 – $122,395 (approved); BOE 60 – $117,624 (approved); BOE 61 – $108,296 (approved); BOE 62 – $101,593 (approved); BOE 63 – $107,937 (approved); BOE 64 – $103,021 (approved); BOE 65 – $103,165 (approved); BOE 66 – $116,030 (approved); BOE 67 – $107,931 (approved); BOE 68 – $122,396 (approved); BOE 69 – $120,082 (approved); BOE 70 – $103,021 (approved); BOE 71 – $99,271 (approved); BOE 72 – $116,030 (approved); BOE 73 – $5,696 (approved); BOE 74 – $1,236,97 (approved); BOE 75 – $103,000 (approved); BOE 76 – $121,312 (approved); BOE 77 – $118,492 (approved); BOE 78 – $103,021 (approved); BOE 79 – $99,868 (approved); BOE 80 – $15,71 (approved); BOE 81 – $106,635 (approved); BOE 82 – $103,021 (approved); BOE 83 – $106,941 (approved); BOE 84 – $101,005,71 (approved); BOE 85 – $105,334 (approved); BOE 86 – $103,021 (approved); BOE 87 – $100,707 (approved); BOE 88 – $101,575 (approved); BOE 89 – $102,017 (approved); BOE 90 – $107,936 (approved); BOE 91 – $103,021 (approved); BOE 92 – $99,265 (approved); BOE 93 – $101,575 (approved); BOE 94 – $107,936 (approved); BOE 95 – $103,021 (approved); BOE 96 – $99,265 (approved); BOE 97 – $101,575 (approved); BOE 98 – $107,937,000 (approved); BOE 99 – $103,021 (approved); BOE 100 – $100,707 (approved); BOE 101 – $101,571 (approved); BOE 102 – $107,936 (approved); BOE 103 – $106,852 (approved); BOE 104 – $101,575 (approved); BOE 105 – $107,936 (approved); BOE 106 – $105,911 (approved); BOE 107 – $105,911 (approved); BOE 108 – $117,624 (approved); BOE 109 – $103,021 (approved); BOE 110 – $101,005.75 (approved); BOE 111 – $106,562 (approved); BOE 112 – $116,539 (approved); BOE 113 – $103,171 (approved); BOE 114 – $103,021 (approved); BOE 115 – $116,034 (approved); BOE 116 – $108,407 (approved); BOE 117 – $101,593 (approved); BOE 118 – $116,365 (approved); BOE 119 – $101,571 (approved); BOE 120 – $107,937 (approved); BOE 121 – $419,000 (approved); BOE 122 – $1,780,000 (approved); BOE 124 – $554,000 (approved); BOE 127 – $10,500,000 (approved); BOE 128 – $2,056,490 (approved); BOE 129 – $2,326,349 (approved). (Transcript contains numerous numeric transcriptions that were read aloud; some numerals in the record are imprecise in formatting and are reported above as read in the meeting.)

The board did not schedule further hearings during the meeting and adjourned after the final motions.