Board will decide Friday on appeal of 1920 house valuation after owner says $5,000 asbestos-siding work triggered cap removal

Clark Wong, who identified himself as the representative and manager for AL Royalty Holdings, told the Oklahoma County Board of Equalization on May 19 that he paid $5,000 for a house at 2009 Northwest 14th in 2011 and later spent about $4,922 in 2021 to cover deteriorated asbestos siding.

"I spent $5,000 covering up this siding," Wong said during the hearing, arguing the work did not amount to a substantial improvement that should change the property's fair market value enough to remove the tax cap. "I paid $5,000 for it in the year 2011," he also said when asked about purchase price.

The assessor's office told the board that it reduced an initial $150,000 estimate to $144,000 during the informal process and that staff had calculated a new-construction value and an effective-year change tied to the 2024 reported remodel. The assessor's representative explained the county assesses fair market value, not taxable value, and that when "you make substantial improvements, it's as though you built it later than that," which lowers the effective age and can remove the taxable-value cap.

The assessor reported prior assessed market values of $106,000 for 2024, $94,000 for 2023 and $74,000 for 2022 and said staff used 2024 comparable sales and an effective year built of 1951 after the remodel. Wong disputed the assessor's characterization of the scope and cost of improvements and questioned how the assessor defines "substantial" or "major" improvements under Title 68. Wong said he was required by his insurer to cover the siding and that the property remains structurally and functionally old in many respects (old plumbing, multiple roof layers, concrete block foundation).

Board members reviewed discrepancies in square footage between Wong's statements and the assessor's record (the assessor referenced gross living area figures the assessor used to compute per-square-foot values) and questioned whether the owner had provided photos and cost documentation during the assessor's informal review. The assessor said photos were provided after the initial appeal stage; Wong said he submitted cost documentation but had difficulty getting it into the assessor's file during informal review.

Chair Helen Hart Thompson told Wong the board would close the hearing for that account and include it in the board's Friday consideration. "We'll meet on Friday and make our decision on valuation," she said. The board said it will notify the appellant by mail.

The board emphasized that it considers only the fair market value at appeal and that taxable-value caps are governed by separate statutes and rules. Wong pressed the board to restore the taxable cap on the account, saying he feared being penalized for making repairs required for insurance and habitability; the assessor and board clarified the legal distinction between market value and taxable value and how new-construction credits and remodel percentages affect caps.

The hearing record shows the assessor placed a 2024 new-construction value and remodel percentage on the property (the assessor cited a $41,500 new-construction value at 30% in one line of the record) and that the owner provided documented costs of roughly $4,922. The board will issue a written determination after meeting Friday and will mail the decision to the appellant.