Kingfisher County commissioners met in executive session with the county’s lawyers Monday to discuss Kingfisher Wind’s district court appeal of its 2016 property tax assessment.

The county lawsuit, which has been consolidated with a similar lawsuit filed in Canadian County, challenges the valuations of both county assessor’s offices of the wind farm that straddles the county line.

The case is set for nonjury trial June 17 before District Judge Paul Hesse in Canadian County District Court.

What’s At Stake

Kingfisher County Assessor Carolyn Mulherin originally assessed the wind farm turbines and other assets within the county at a fair cash value of $321,381,200 for 2016 ad valorem tax purposes.

At a subsequent protest hearing before the Kingfisher County Board of Equalization, the board accepted an altered fair cash value presented by the assessor’s office of $275,839,357 and denied the wind farm’s protest.

Kingfisher Wind is arguing for a fair cash value of $169,331,000 or less.

For the wind farm’s turbines and other taxable assets located south of the county line, Canadian County Assessor Matt Wehmuller originally assessed a fair cash value of $157,476,788 for 2016 tax purposes.

At a subsequent protest hearing, the Canadian County Board of Equalization accepted an increased fair cash value presented by the assessor’s office of $182,164,150.

Kingfisher Wind is arguing for a fair cash value of $84,666,000.

The Kingfisher Wind tax appeals are among a number of others filed by wind farms across the state, with the net effect of tens of millions of dollars in tax payments that could be going to schools are instead being held in escrow awaiting court decisions.

Protests are ongoing in Comanche, Dewey, Garfield, Grant and Kiowa counties.

Expert Challenged

While the commissioners’ meeting with the county’s attorneys Monday was closed to the public, it’s likely that the flurry of pretrial motions filed April 26 by the Oklahoma City law firm representing Kingfisher Wind was among the topics discussed.

The most potentially damaging of these, if granted by Hesse at a June 17 hearing preceding the trial, is a motion to exclude the expert testimony of Jerry L. Wisdom.

Wisdom’s company Total Assessment Solutions Corp (TASC) is the consultant contracted by Kingfisher, Canadian and a number of other counties to aid in property assessment for tax purposes.

As the consultant most used by counties throughout the state in wind farm assessments, Wisdom has become something of a lightning rod for attacks by the industry, alleging in comments to the media that he is both unqualified to make those valuations and biased against wind energy.

Kingfisher Wind’s 20-page motion to exclude Wisdom’s testimony challenges his experience as related to oil and gas properties rather than wind farms.

The wind farm argues that TASC is contracted with both counties for the express purpose of consulting on oil and gas valuations, with no mention of wind energy.

According to a footnote in the motion, Kingfisher Wind alleges that Wisdom’s specific training related to wind farms is limited to one two-hour online course through the International Association of Assessing Officers titled “Wind Farms 101,” a basic course about the components of wind farms.

The motion also challenges Wisdom’s methodology and alleged lack of understanding about basic accounting principles, which Kingfisher Wind allege fall short of accepted standards of a professional appraisal.

Specifically, the wind farm alleges that Wisdom’s property appraisal does not comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

Kingfisher Wind also alleges that comments Wisdom has made in news articles indicate a bias against the wind industry, which the wind farm argues is a violation of his ethical responsibility to be objective.

The wind farm’s motion also cited three other cases, one in Kansas and two in Colorado, where courts excluded either Wisdom’s appraisals or his expert testimony or both.

All three of those cases involve oil and gas property, rather than wind farms.

Presumably, no Oklahoma court has blocked Wisdom’s testimony to date.

Other Motions

Other motions filed April 26 by Kingfisher Wind to be ruled on prior to the trial include requests for the following:

• to exclude expert rebuttal testimony (court deadlines allegedly not met);

• to exclude documents or deposition testimony from Apex Clean Energy Inc., the wind farm’s builder (allegedly requested too close to scheduling deadlines);

• to exclude testimony of Thomas Douglas Brydon of the Oklahoma Tax Commission (allegedly irrelevant)

• to find the wind farm’s federal and state production tax credits and investment and sales contracts are intangible personal property exempt from taxation.

County’s Response

Formal written responses to the motions on behalf of Kingfisher and Canadian counties are likely pending, but a March 10 article in the Oklahoman quoted Wisdom, “the appraisals are based on the amounts wind companies paid for their equipment, wind farm sales and other acceptable appraisal techniques and data,” (speaking about his wind farm appraisals in general and not specifically about Kingfisher and Canadian counties.)