Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Oklahoma County BOE hears multiple valuation appeals; Ramada by Wyndham set at $2.725 million
Summary
The Oklahoma County Board of Equalization heard six property appeals May 5, 2026, and agreed by motion to set the Ramada by Wyndham hotel’s fair market value at $2,725,000. Several other taxpayers challenged the assessor’s choice of comparables and were told the board can only consider evidence presented at the informal assessor hearing.
The Oklahoma County Board of Equalization heard six property valuation appeals May 5, 2026, and moved to set the fair market value of a Ramada by Wyndham hotel at $2,725,000 after the assessor and the property owner agreed to that figure.
Chair Eleanor Thompson opened the special meeting at 9:30 a.m. and arranged the agenda to hear a phone participant first. The board reviewed appeals for single-family and rural parcels as well as commercial property, taking testimony from owners and the assessor’s staff before adjourning with decisions to be mailed Friday.
Why it matters: The board resolves disputes over county-assessed market value, which determines taxable values for the coming year. Owners pressing appeals said some assessments rose sharply and asked the board either to adopt lower values or to take additional evidence; the assessor’s staff defended their methods and grid-based comparable selection.
Case outcomes and key exchanges
Ramada by Wyndham (BOE 48) — agreed value Tom Shannon of the assessor’s office explained the assessor’s income-based approach for valuing the Ramada by Wyndham and described the office’s expense and cap-rate assumptions. After comparing the assessor’s income analysis and available sales, the assessor’s office offered a recommended fair market value of $2,725,000. The property owner accepted the assessor’s offer and a board member moved to set the value at $2,725,000. The motion was seconded and approved with one abstention; the board recorded the fair market value for the year as $2,725,000.
Owner complaints about comparable selection and late evidence Several residential and rural property owners challenged the assessor’s choice of comparables. In one case the caller, Brian, representing the 5 Family Revocable Trust, argued the assessor omitted two 2025 neighborhood sales and relied on nearby new-construction comps; the assessor’s staff replied that the board reviews value as of Dec. 31, 2025, and that some sales or data uploaded after the informal review could not be used without agreement from the assessor. “I would appreciate the board considering that by Friday,” the caller said when urging the board to adopt his adjusted per‑square‑foot calculation.
At least one rural owner (BOE 47) pressed a different objection: he said the assessor’s selected comparables were in Oakdale/Edmond school‑district areas that command higher prices than the property’s Spencer/Oklahoma City school district. He told the board he had compiled local comps and a map he said demonstrated the assessor’s selection bias. The assessor’s staff explained the county uses market‑territory grids and that some adjustments to quality and effective age drove the assessed value downward at the informal stage. The board repeatedly told owners the BOE functions as an appellate body and generally may only consider information submitted to the assessor during the informal protest period unless the assessor agrees to accept new material.
Process notes and next steps Board members and staff reiterated process constraints: owners must provide evidence to the assessor at the informal protest so assessor staff can evaluate and, if necessary, respond before the BOE hearing. The board said decisions on today's hearings will be finalized Friday and mailed to the parties. For the Ramada by Wyndham, the board recorded the agreed value immediately.
Quotes that illustrate the meeting Tom Shannon, assessor’s office: “We would do 2,725,000.” Property owner (rural appeal): “Not a single one [of those comparables] should be used.” Caller (5 Family Trust): “I would appreciate the board considering that by Friday.”
What the board did not do The board did not accept new evidence presented only at the BOE hearing without the assessor’s agreement. Several petitioners were told they could raise their evidence with the assessor and, if still unresolved, raise it again at next year’s appeal cycle.
The board is scheduled to issue written decisions Friday; parties will be notified by email and mail.
