Woods County Equalization Board denies Redline protest, upholds assessor valuation on pipeline

At a Woods County Equalization Board meeting, the board voted to deny a tax protest filed by Redline and accepted the county assessor’s valuation of a pipeline associated with a gas well, the board announced during the hearing.

The protest centered on whether the pipeline should be taxed as county personal property (assessed to the pipeline owner) or treated as part of the producer’s wellsite subject to gross production taxation. Redline’s attorney argued the line is necessary for production and that taxing it separately would constitute double taxation; county representatives and the board questioned ownership history, easements and whether prior owners had been consistently taxed.

Redline’s attorney, Wyatt Swender, told the board the company views separate taxation of the line as unfair, calling it “an additional tax, a double tax.” Board members and other participants probed records and evidence about when Redline acquired the line, prior owners’ tax treatment and whether the line was installed under leases or by recorded easement. A county participant summarized the board’s fact-gathering approach: “We’re just gathering information here.”

During the hearing the board examined documentation the parties provided, including a copy of a 1002A filing and an increased-density notice (order number 238308) that were discussed as part of the record. Participants also discussed historical production and ownership: a representative cited the well’s original production as “823 a day” (unit not specified in the record) and said records show the line and associated facilities date back to the 1980s and were picked up by Redline after a series of ownership changes. The parties gave conflicting acquisition years for Redline: testimony referenced both 2019 and 2022 acquisitions.

Board members repeatedly asked whether the line was laid under the lease (in which case it may not appear in county easement records) or under recorded easements; several participants said the line may have been installed under leases because a landowner refused an easement. The board discussed the practical effect of that history on the assessor’s ability to locate and assess such lines, and whether non‑operator owners were billed through joint-interest or division-order accounting in earlier years.

Redline’s attorney said the county commission and tax commission’s definitions and prior rulings were relevant and indicated the company intended to ask a district court for a de novo review if necessary. The board acknowledged that hearings before the Equalization Board may be reviewed by the district court and said its record and findings would be available for attorneys if the case proceeds.

After discussion, a member of the Woods County Equalization Board moved to deny Redline’s protest and to accept the assessor’s valuation of the pipeline. Another board member seconded the motion; the board called for a voice vote and recorded verbal ayes. A board member stated, “We accept the assessor’s line value here.” The motion carried and the protest was denied.

The board did not provide a written tally of individual votes during the meeting record. Board members and staff said they would document the hearing and gather further evidence (records of easements, ownership and prior tax bills) for the record in case the matter is litigated.