Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property Valuation Residential topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Homeowner says Feb. 2026 sale should set valuation; board to decide Thursday

Board of Equalization of Oklahoma County · June 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A property owner told the Oklahoma County Board of Equalization she paid $520,000 for 8813 NW 123rd on Feb. 27, 2026, and asked that price be used as fair market value; the assessor cited neighborhood comps and added value for a pool and cabana. The board did not decide at the hearing and will issue a written determination Thursday.

The Oklahoma County Board of Equalization heard an appeal on Monday from the owner of 8813 Northwest 123rd, who said she and her husband bought the home on Feb. 27, 2026, for $520,000 and asked the board to set that amount as the property’s fair market value.

"I purchased the property, my husband and I purchased the property on February 27th, 2026," the homeowner told the board, arguing the assessor’s 2026 valuation—initially $577,500, adjusted to $566,475—was significantly higher than the contract sale price.

The assessor's representative said the office relied on six comparable sales in the same neighborhood and noted the subject property includes a pool and a cabana, items the assessor values at $44,219 and $17,347 respectively. The assessor also explained that the office used an adjusted median of recent sales in calculating the county's figure.

Board members and staff emphasized hearing rules for appeals. The presiding official reminded the appellant that the board would not decide the case that day and would issue its decision by mail after meeting on Thursday. The Chair also told the appellant that evidence not presented to the assessor at the informal conference generally would not be considered unless the assessor did not object.

The board’s review focused on whether the assessor’s comparables and the adjustments for pool and cabana correctly reflect market value. The homeowner said the sale occurred in a new section of the Ponderosa addition and criticized the comparables used by the assessor as reflecting larger remodeled interiors and three-car garages, features she said her house lacks.

The board closed the hearing and will circulate a written decision after its Thursday deliberation.

What happens next: The board will convene Thursday to make a formal determination and will notify the appellant by mail.