Industrial owner cites tenant bankruptcy and lease‑up costs to lower valuation; assessor cites rent roll and cost approach

Raleigh Simmons and a representative told the Oklahoma County Board of Equalization on June 22 that their industrial/distribution property (192,200 sq ft; built 2022) suffered a large rent loss after a major tenant filed for bankruptcy and subtenants were locked out, producing lease‑up costs and a reduced effective income that should lower the Dec. 31, 2025 market value.

“We have…a lease‑up of $1,189,000…which brings up to that value of $16,701,000,” the property representative said, describing pro formas that applied a market vacancy and then a lease‑up deduction tied to the tenant‑related losses. The representative said the tenant in question (identified in evidence as JHL Inc.) had occupied roughly 129,580 sq ft and that eviction/lockout occurred in April 2026; the representative asked the board to account for the resulting rent loss and stabilization costs.

The assessor responded that the assessor’s rent roll and records for the valuation date (Dec. 31, 2025) showed occupied area and no vacancy. The assessor presented a cost approach (Marshall & Swift) that produced about $17.9M and reviewed local sales and CoStar rental-rate data that produced an income approach near $18.2M. The assessor also said it had used a pro forma and sale documents supporting an overall value near $7.4M for the earlier RV-park example and similarly relied on sale/pro‑forma evidence here.

Parties differed on whether the appellant’s rent‑loss/INE document had been supplied to the assessor prior to the informal review. The appellant said the INE showed a rent loss of $798,606 and an indicated NOI that would imply a value around $8.8M based on a particular pro forma; the assessor said it had not received or had not included some of those documents in its informal valuation and cautioned about unresolved legal proceedings that might change outcomes.

The assessor said it would consider a lease‑up adjustment and indicated willingness to look at a value near $17,262,000; the appellant said it would stand on the requested $16,701,257. The board did not decide June 22 and scheduled a decision for Friday; parties were advised the board would send written notice by mail.