Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Valuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Equalization debates whether $80 million sale price should change valuation of Oklahoma City Outlets
Summary
At a June 24 special meeting, the Oklahoma County Board of Equalization heard competing valuations for the Oklahoma City Outlets property after the owner submitted a pending purchase-sales agreement for $80 million. Assessors argued valuation must reflect mass-appraisal as of Jan. 1; the owner’s representative said offers and financials support lowering values to $80 million.
The Oklahoma County Board of Equalization on Wednesday heard arguments over whether a pending $80 million purchase offer for the Oklahoma City Outlets should alter the county’s mass-appraisal values for six parcels that make up the retail complex.
Board members Brett Town, Teresa Sers and Elanar Thompson were present for the special meeting called at 9:30 a.m.; the chair noted notice of the meeting had been posted June 16, 2026. The hearing centered on BOE items 190–195, account numbers that together represent the outlet property and its associated easements and roadways.
“We are not concerned with your taxes. Only the fair market value,” the chair said during preliminary remarks.
The property owner’s representative told the board the owner is asking the board to recognize a combined fair cash value of $80 million, based on a purchase-sales agreement signed April 13 and competing offers at roughly $75 million and $78 million. “80 million is going to be the midpoint between the income performer of 76 million and change and the actual financials of 81 million in change,” the representative said, noting the buyer (identified in the record as Lightstone) is in due diligence with a closing deadline at the end of July.
The assessor’s office presented a different view. An assessor’s speaker said the office used mass-appraisal techniques and year-end income data to value the economic unit and that state requirements direct assessors to value property as of Jan. 1 of the tax year. “Our requirements are to value a property as of January 1st,” the assessor said, adding that sales or offers occurring after that date are generally considered in the following year’s roll.
The parties walked the board through parcel-level math used to allocate a unitary value across six account numbers. Examples read into the record included BOE 190 (assessor: $2,623,688; owner: $2,472,000), BOE 191 (assessor: $5,943,630; owner: $5,600,000) and BOE 192 (assessor: $71,484,887; owner: $67,264,000). The representative said allocations were derived by square footage percentages; the assessor explained small methodological differences—particularly where “secondary income” is treated relative to vacancy—produce the observed valuation gap.
Board members pressed both sides on timing, documentation and inputs. The representative said transaction support included a purchase-sales agreement and financial statements (rent rolls and income), while the assessor said the office relied on mass-appraisal procedures and the data available as of Dec. 31 to set the Jan. 1 valuation.
No formal vote on a change was recorded at the meeting. The chair closed discussion of each BOE item in turn and said the board would meet Friday to make final determinations on the appeals.
What’s next: The board set a decision date for Friday; parties should expect written notice of any board action after that meeting.
