[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6187356,"mediaKeyId","5070889-062f17d13262c57db44c037ad452ddc3","parentId",5070889,"title","Sheraton Hotel Valuation Dispute Centers on Treatment of Food‑and‑Beverage Income and Management Fees","audioSeconds",1461,"startMs",2072000,"endMs",3533000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5070889-062f17d13262c57db44c037ad452ddc3&start=2072&end=3533","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5070889-062f17d13262c57db44c037ad452ddc3/thumbnail_2072000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6187356/Oklahoma-County/Oklahoma/Sheraton-Hotel-Valuation-Dispute-Centers-on-Treatment-of-FoodandBeverage-Income-and-Management-Fees","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6187356-5deead4feeff5e5d6d4ee39c736feabb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771046550&Signature=mzU~D-9YIn1XfdkkU6roYpgOZVFlI8Wepeb8mwwnoGikc2kSolQ76j-se6u-HhPFjetdh9W4WYpNPAc8YDcJwQYXQ8~EJ89M5uZGKELDcLnriIP04xBZ-2PVhCjGZ2ufWcwC1xLgP7LT-lJIDkSfrnpI1OxE0ONfuiZCgNkqwQRS8q74qF4qUNIqV96mCcHlpGQh9fbjXLcdgpKbcbv5xDwFUOWJTIn-l8m4Q0qq1Pib8jFl~b8qWpsEc6vBPMgu-1av4ky6He7Cd3edAfXs~pfaQOhy1MawfYBwEQ99kr4Gh72LNe6nSjbgwyWfdQKuulnbui~0TbAUg09zwUzaBA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oklahoma County, OK","date","2025-06-24T03:52:24Z","article","The Board of Equalization reviewed an appeal concerning the Sheraton (account 0113485), a 396‑room hotel, at its June 23 hearing. The assessor’s consistent 2023–24 valuation for the property stood at $29,547,680 for 2024; the owner sought a valuation of $21,099,639, contending the assessor’s income approach improperly included food‑and‑beverage profit and that the hotel’s restaurant and banquet spaces should be valued as leased real estate rather than as operating business income.

The dispute is consequential for hotel taxation because including food‑and‑beverage net income materially raises net operating income and thus indicated value. The owner’s representative said the proper method is to separate out hotel room revenue (a property‑type rent) from the food‑and‑beverage business and then assign lease‑value rents to the restaurant/banquet spaces. The representative reported valuing those spaces at $35 per square foot, using a 9.5% capitalization rate, producing about $1.5 million for the restaurant spaces alone, and said, “I did not include that part because I said that’s a business.”

Assessor staff said they follow a commonly used hotel valuation framework (Rushmore approach) that treats management fees, royalties and food‑and‑beverage activity as part of the hotel’s operating statement and therefore part of the income approach. The assessor walked the board through the property’s 2023–24 operating statements and noted that total operating revenue and EBITDA increased year to year; staff said management fees are paid to a hotel management company (Crescent) that provides staffing and operational services and thus appear on the operating statement. The assessor also provided a line‑by‑line reconciliation and emphasized the office’s view that the food‑and‑beverage contribution to NOI cannot simply be removed as an unrelated business profit.

Assessor staff quantified the impact in their materials: within the assessor’s income analysis the net operating income was $3,392,364, of which $1,572,807 was attributable to food‑and‑beverage activity. Board members queried both sides about how to extract intangible components (brand, reservation systems, franchise relationships) and noted litigation history in other jurisdictions over the Rushmore approach. Both parties acknowledged the issue is complex and contested nationally; the board deferred a final determination and will issue a decision after reviewing the submitted financials and valuation workpapers.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","BOE Special Meeting 06/23/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Equalization reviewed an appeal concerning the Sheraton hotel, a 396‑room property, at its June 23 hearing; the owner and assessor disagreed over whether food‑and‑beverage income and management fees should be included in the income approach.","taxTitle","Oklahoma County, Oklahoma","taxId",2676,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6187362,"Oklahoma County BOE Hears Appeal Over Valuation of Neighborhood Walmart on South Seymour Road",45,283000,328000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5070889-062f17d13262c57db44c037ad452ddc3&start=283&end=328","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5070889-062f17d13262c57db44c037ad452ddc3/thumbnail_283000.jpg","/articles/6187362/Oklahoma-County/Oklahoma/Oklahoma-County-BOE-Hears-Appeal-Over-Valuation-of-Neighborhood-Walmart-on-South-Seymour-Road","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6187362-e218ff8b4d347634a13df64c922cb110/orig.mp4?Expires=1771046550&Signature=Ld0jsXjH0asei5JL5BiJx17-9pzm10nSEGBs-j-cfqXUAAgUWVVDkgA9sPD4VPUzv0zWhU6G9uuxPbYZHMX0698i52YIyih4Isc~YUb3l4hfCFciUOJPerU7v9zHl1a-COh0C6atXJKUWeiYpL2C1hCium90ZjiRQSClDMHCbmKxQZzHnlRzYOPWXlKat2CnXB8nHodcGRyIKEg7xhFcnyTmHK-tqUdBL6wBAEtYO1tqdLJFxiqtMKC6VpgM2vmj49DGGukymp83f5c91WmqHYL5nrvDk-L~jvAnUukA7U4DzrF9pVRVHTAMRXoek0GlYtDVwnI4OHSejQWeddnEBg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Equalization of Oklahoma County heard an appeal June 23 over the assessed value of a neighborhood Walmart at 4900 S. Seymour Road, account R154243. The assessor reduced the valuation during informal review from $5,265,121 to $4,860,360; the property owner asked the board to lower it to $3,600,000 based on sales and equity comparables.

The matter matters because neighborhood retail assessments set tax bills for large commercial parcels and because the appellant argued the property is being treated inconsistently with similar neighborhood markets in the county. The owner’s representative said comparable neighborhood markets in Oklahoma County are being assessed at about $74 per square foot on average and that, “if you look at an equitable assessment … the value would come out to a little above $3,000,000.”

In oral presentation the appellant’s representative told the board they relied on two approaches: an equity‑comparison set of eight neighborhood markets in Oklahoma County and sales comps included with their filing. The representative emphasized that the subject is leased by Walmart rather than owner‑occupied, and argued lease terms and tenant credit are personal property or contract rights that should not inflate the real‑property assessment: “you can’t look to the tenant Any value that’s attributed to the the lease itself is a tangible personal property. So if we’re just assessing the real property itself, this should be assessed identically To the end To all the others.”

County staff and assessor’s office witnesses responded that the assessor had reviewed renovations and sale history, had initially increased value based on a building permit and subsequent improvements but later reverted to last year’s value after further review. The assessor’s representative said the office found evidence of a long‑term, 20‑year absolute triple‑net lease and that sale prices tied to such leases must be discounted in their analysis: “it was a long term triple net lease … but, again, we discounted that, to, quite a degree.” The assessor also noted there was a 2021–22 sale and that the office treats triple‑net sale information “with a grain of salt” unless annual rent information can be backed out and converted to an income capitalization analysis.

Board members asked whether prior litigation or court rulings involving similar Walmart properties affected the office’s approach; staff replied most litigation involved Sam’s Clubs and Supercenters rather than neighborhood markets. The parties disputed adjustments for age and size among comparables; the appellant said the property, built in 2015, should align near the upper end of peer neighborhood markets even at the appellant’s proposed value.

No formal decision was made at the hearing. The board said it intended to issue a decision soon but left the timing open, telling parties it might meet Thursday or Friday to decide and that the appellant would be notified by mail.","The Board of Equalization of Oklahoma County heard an appeal June 23 over the assessed value of a neighborhood Walmart at 4900 S. Seymour Road, account R154243.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6187353,"Applicant and Assessor Disagree on Gross‑Income Calculation for Senior Homestead Freeze Application",411,3651000,4062000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5070889-062f17d13262c57db44c037ad452ddc3&start=3651&end=4062","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5070889-062f17d13262c57db44c037ad452ddc3/thumbnail_3651000.jpg","/articles/6187353/Oklahoma-County/Oklahoma/Applicant-and-Assessor-Disagree-on-GrossIncome-Calculation-for-Senior-Homestead-Freeze-Application","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6187353-8cd2a1fd5543dfdba3ef380e6bc84311/orig.mp4?Expires=1771046550&Signature=XRnnIvgNLkaEay8l7gk9iAMqiTpk20C~xLSGrsQOrgDyFswJIczy3bG0uibkPNNvtzRAQaM2gZWBM21GFH02NuDS6ZathCj~Xci~s54mbvFpKlvmkVVBgOl788rbUfSrbDywHTRda8lkvhOoXHEe43NfJRRf7hhs4Sg152QUzx5pKCpyFMnC24yUS-CF1RM~HgSTzVVjqRuAVnxuGGZ5ro-xAffmBvVMim6BJV5tZeip2xI6a1N4tdjALcOEgbBvKeMiKgGnZibI0g9t1sPna-LOloAT9F~EJjyBimHKjnGGyH0osoRI8GeHg1fqDmMMDCYzT1yPChfn5jcxbvnbFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Brooks Wright appeared June 23 before the Oklahoma County Board of Equalization seeking a senior homestead valuation freeze. Wright said his 2024 federal tax return showed total gross household income below the statutory threshold because business startup losses resulted in a negative total on his return and that he therefore qualified for the freeze. Assessor staff (Homestead/Exceptions) said Wright’s application listed an IRA distribution of $300,000 that pushed gross household income above the threshold the office uses for 2025.

The issue matters because the homestead freeze exempts qualifying seniors from valuation increases if household gross income falls below the statutory limit; how gross income is calculated is determinative of eligibility. Wright told the board he had startup losses from opening an Ace Hardware store and that those losses produced a negative total on his federal return: “I opened a Ace Hardware store … that's where my losses came from.” He said his total gross household income for the year was below $85,000 on his federal return.

Homestead staff explained the office applies the statutory definition of gross household income, which counts gross amounts ‘‘regardless of source’’ and before deductions. Staff advised that the 2025 income limit for the freeze is $89,500 and pointed to the Oklahoma Constitution and state statute language that require counting gross receipts and distributions. Staff told the board they received the applicant’s form on Feb. 24, 2025, and reported finding a $300,000 IRA distribution listed on the application; that distribution is included in the office’s gross‑income calculation and was the basis for denying the freeze in preliminary review.

Board members examined the tax filings and asked whether the losses are startup costs or capitalized assets and whether distributions should be treated as income for the year. The applicant said the losses were actual startup expenses paid out of savings/IRA funds and that the business would be expected to generate income in future years. The board paused the item for additional review and said the applicant would be notified when a decision date is set.","Brooks Wright appeared June 23 before the Oklahoma County Board of Equalization seeking a senior homestead valuation freeze, presenting a 2024 federal return he said showed total gross household income below the limit due to startup losses.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6187359,"Board Hears Dispute Over Valuation of Poe Road Warehouse; Parties Differ on Asset‑management Expense Treatment",764,1002000,1766000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5070889-062f17d13262c57db44c037ad452ddc3&start=1002&end=1766","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5070889-062f17d13262c57db44c037ad452ddc3/thumbnail_1002000.jpg","/articles/6187359/Oklahoma-County/Oklahoma/Board-Hears-Dispute-Over-Valuation-of-Poe-Road-Warehouse-Parties-Differ-on-Assetmanagement-Expense-Treatment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6187359-0ac105d6d7e5e9ad1679dd23040a51f4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771046550&Signature=UOwKQxgrzSBFeEzFgdTfiQROHZUAfq2gg3NyNQn6uX6U8DcsWkJ1LRiNF9uKv2L694Mu8VMfmCU~BGWSXeTCL~C0yMvW-B9488od0GSgZ-oNLeRjp1PzKVLJEi0uPIPSGLJp~BQE~N6UR6X35zy36C7PcixPmQWIE5uCFdRvFHd6MvkttTvazKy5tIrcwIkXow-jvdHXQGyxYu1jZ8ALpotxskA3Hz-k7bOhb6Ii7mHGUxOUedBo42l1BFHZAsCU-Mjf4UXTgdpLyv718PI~2XtvySJdW5hu0M-vVNbYHgvCksj9g4W-Of5dYY8Tb6zvp9aK17AfqKyqJ2iOLQSw-g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Equalization reviewed an appeal June 23 concerning account number 140828497, a warehouse property at 8711 Poe Road. The assessor began the income‑approach valuation at $40,159,571, lowered it to $35,759,000; the owner sought a valuation of $25,049,746. A central disagreement centered on whether an asset‑management fee should be counted as an operating expense in an income capitalization approach.

The dispute matters because including or excluding asset‑management costs materially changes net operating income and therefore indicated market value under the income approach. The owner’s representative said the asset‑management fee is a real, recurring operating expense for a property with multiple high‑profile tenants such as Amazon and HomeGoods and should be included: “I think it’s an operating expense. I think I think the property does have to be managed … it is expensive.”

Assessor staff responded that the office treats asset‑management fees as financial rather than operational expenses, comparable to debt service, and therefore not allowable on their income statements for valuation: “the office’s opinion is that asset management fee … shouldn’t be an allowable expense. It’s a financial expense. It’s not an operational expense. It’s like debt service.” Staff also explained their comparable‑sales adjustments are based on total transaction value rather than per‑square‑foot metrics, and that some sales comps were carried over from prior cost guidance; differences in how size and quality adjustments were applied were a major point of contention.

Both sides discussed the choice and adjustment of comparable sales. The owner argued smaller buildings sell at higher dollar per square foot and that several of the assessor’s adjustments moved the comparable in the wrong direction; staff said their system makes total‑value adjustments (not per‑square‑foot) and that one comp’s age/quality required a significant positive adjustment. Both parties said they relied on submitted appraisal materials, and staff said they had reviewed a building permit and renovation but had pulled back an increase after review.

No final vote was taken. Board members asked follow‑up questions and signaled they will consider the submitted materials before issuing a final decision; the hearing was left open for later decision and notification by mail.","At the June 23 BOE hearing, property owner and assessor clashed over valuation adjustments and whether an asset‑management fee is an allowable operating expense for a large warehouse at 8711 Poe Road. Assessor reduced its preliminary valuation; owner seeks a substantially lower value. The board postponed a decision.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Sheraton Hotel Valuation Dispute Centers on Treatment of Food‑and‑Beverage Income and Management Fees

Oklahoma County BOE Hears Appeal Over Valuation of Neighborhood Walmart on South Seymour Road

Applicant and Assessor Disagree on Gross‑Income Calculation for Senior Homestead Freeze Application

Board Hears Dispute Over Valuation of Poe Road Warehouse; Parties Differ on Asset‑management Expense Treatment