Everybody to the Carson City Board of Equalization.

It's February 24th.

Beautiful windy day.

It's 911 a.m.

I'd like to go to item agenda one, call to order and determination of quorum.

Chair Block.

Here.

Member Bureau.

Member Leonard Ray.

Member LePyre.

Member Sonata.

A quorum is present.

Great, thank you for that.

Number two is swearing in witnesses and staff.

Thank you, Chair.

For the record, this is Mihela Niagos, Deputy District Attorney.

Will all witnesses that will testify today stand and raise their right hand?

Do each of you swear or affirm the testimony you will give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury.

For the record, I note that all witnesses have answered in the affirmative.

Thank you.

Okay, we're on to item number three public comment.

The public is invited at this time to provide comment on any topic that relates to a matter over which this public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power, including any such matter that is not specifically included on the agenda as an action item.

No action may be taken on a matter raised during this period for public comment.

Do we have any public comment?

If you'd like, if you could come and sit up at the chair, hit the button and state your name for the record.

Change the sign.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

My name is Patricia Cook.

Good morning.

I am Patricia Cook, and together with John Benkirt, we own the property at 1654 Wellington West.

We are here to share our experience as Wellington Crescent property owners in support of Mr.

Chang's appeal.

Second.

Do we need to is this public comment or do we need to go to the action item first?

It is she can present public comment on a matter that is on the agenda or uh within your jurisdiction.

Okay.

Okay.

Wellington Crescent is a small and distinct subdivision with approximately 56 parcels.

The subdivision is largely developed with only two vacant lots remaining, one of which sold for 475,000, and the other is a raw one-acre parcel that remains undeveloped.

There are no future phases planned and no pipelines of new lots entering the market.

Because of this limited inventory, the number of transactions in Wellington Crescent is very low compared to other Westside neighborhoods.

Vacant land rarely comes on the market, and improved properties also have long holding periods, often remaining unsold for years.

These costs are mandatory and ongoing, and they are in addition to the property taxes we pay.

While areas such as Plantation Drive or Cagorno Way receive county services for things like road repair and general maintenance, Wellington Crescent owners pay directly for all of these infrastructure services themselves.

Because of the small size of the subdivision, the limited number of sales, and the POA obligations, Wellington Crescent behaves like its own small market rather than as a part of the broader west side market.

One or two vacant land sales, particularly when using a single high-price sale like 475,000, cannot reliably represent the true value of all lots.

We respectfully submit that these unique characteristics, private infrastructure costs, limited inventory, and low turnover should be considered in the evaluation of land values for Wellington Crescent.

Without proper adjustment, the 47% increase applied to our subdivision does not reflect actual market conditions or economic realities.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much.

Do we have any more public comment at this point in time?

Come on up and state your name for the record.

Yes.

Okay, my name is Patty Winningham.

I'm located at 2653 Wellington South.

Um I'd like to add to the previous comment that yes, our property tax went up 47, or our value of our land went up 47.29%, but the structure on the assessed statement went down, which does not make sense because we built a very large RV garage in 24.

So why does the land value go up 47%?

Yet the structure went down.

It absolutely makes no sense.

Thank you.

Great, thank you very much.

Sir, would you like to come on up?

Still alive.

What they said.

I retired some time ago from uh high tech.

And one of the things I learned was that my bosses did not like surprises.

And uh I've uh come to understand that.

Um when I got my new property assessment, I thought uh that this adjustment 47 percent uh seem time, but we just bought the property in 2324, and I thought that it was a result of uh the change in price.

But the the property had been on the market for some time uh and uh sold for below asking price, it just didn't seem to substantiate uh that kind of an increase, but I'd missed the appeal period, so uh that just had to be something I guess I thought I could uh I'd have to accept, except I have this opportunity here to uh uh address you.

But like other people, I can't understand the rationale for such a large increase because we do not draw on the same amount of city services that other developments do, other uh city properties require, uh, especially this last week.

Uh I'm sure we paid a lot for snow removal that the city uh didn't have to do.

Uh and uh I just uh wanted to say that uh this was a surprise.

I and as a uh retired uh person on a fixed income, we don't like surprises uh to uh that impact us, and I would just ask the uh the board that uh they take this into consideration and uh please uh no more surprises.

Thank you very much.

Do we have any more public comment?

Come on up, sir.

State your name for the record and my name's button my my live now.

Okay.

So my name is Michael Fry.

I live at 2733 Wellington South.

And um the first question I have is w who who why did that 47% come up?

What's the reason for that?

And two is uh like that other gentleman was talking about, we're on fixed incomes for you know, a lot of us are because we're retired, and when you generate some kind of an issue like that, how in God's name are you expected to have everyone cover these kinds of costs when you have these kind of uh when you implement something like this?

So um I guess my question is what was the rationale for the 47 percent?

And then where does that three percent hike ever apply that we were supposed to adhere to that I thought?

So those are the two questions.

Anyone else in the public is come on up, Mr.

Mr.

Chair, before we continue with public comment, can you ensure that everyone signs in to the public comment sheet?

Yeah, there's a sheet.

Yeah, before you just mission.

Good morning, Chair members and members of the board.

My name is Catherine Flynn.

My husband, Darren Flynn, and my five children live at 2777 Wellington South of Carson City.

Assessor's parcel number 007 37105, located within Wellington Crescent subdivision.

We are here to respectfully confess the 47% increase in our 2026 to 27 land assessment, which appears to have been uniformly applied across all parcels within the Wellington Crescent community.

Under NRS 361.227, taxable value must reflect the full cash value of the property, considering current market conditions.

As of the lien date in this case, July 1st, 2025.118 also requires that land value assess values be supported by comparable arms length sales data and not by general indexing alone.

In our case, we can speak from personal experience about these market conditions.

Throughout most of calendar year 2025, we made multiple good faith efforts to sell our homes.

It was listed twice on the MLS that had to be withdrawn both times due to lack of higher activity and insufficient offers relative to the list price.

Despite professional marketing efforts and pricing aligned with nearby comparable properties, the home simply did not sell.

Underscoring that actual market demand and value in the area did not justify any large increase in underlying land value.

The pattern in our neighborhood supports this experience.

Based on Carson City assessment data and MLS records, there were no vacant land sales in Wellington Crescent and no material increase in land to total value ratios across similar west side subdivisions.

Applying a 47% uniform land adjustment lacked support under NAC 361.1365 and NAC361.137, which require that land that cost or land factor revisions be backed by objective, verifiable market analysis filed in the assessor's reappraisal documentation.

Excuse me, I'm a little nervous.

By contrast, the data we've reviewed indicates that market market appreciation during 2024 to 25 was closer to 5 to 10 percent, consistent with broader citywide residential trends.

Thus the current assessment's underlying land factor applied without individualized valuation evidence appears excessive and inconsistent with NRS 361.333, which mandates equitable treatment of similarly situated parcels.

Pursuant to NRS 361.355, we respectfully and truly respectfully request the Board of Equalization to adjust the land component of our assessed value to bring it into conformity with verified market evidence and Nevada standards for fair, uniform, and supportable assessment practices.

Thank you very much for your time, attention, and continued service to ensure Carson City assessments reflect both fairness and factual market reality.

Great, thank you so much.

And for those that you did speak, just to remind you to sign that sheet on the way out, sir, if you'd like to come up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Rick Aronson.

I live at 1718 Wellington West in the Wellington Crescent neighborhood.

I bought my property in 2019.

I want to express my total support for Mr.

Chang and Ms.

Stannerson's Sky Castle Trust's appeal of this year's land assessment rate increase.

This increase does not just affect Mr.

Chang and Ms.

Stannerson.

The assessors' land rate increases affect all homeowners' land assessments in our Wellington Crescent neighborhood.

My first year land assessment was 63,000.

My second year, it only increased 3%.

Third year, it increased 10%.

Fourth year, it increased 14.7%.

Fifth year it only increased 5%.

Sixth year, it decreased 2.3%.

Last year saw no increase.

The rate change was flat.

And now in 2026, the assessment has my land value increased 47.3%.

That's a 36% increase over the entire first six years combined and equals a 96% increase in seven years.

Mr.

Chang and Ms.

Stanerson have done their homework, as you will hear shortly in their statement.

I sincerely hope that you will take notice and that you will consider re-evaluating the assessor's work for the 2026-27 valuation year and consider reassessing our land values lower in line with similarly adjusted increases or decreases of the last seven years.

He will also point out the assessor has taken much smaller lots for use as comparable lots to properties in Wellington Crescent and has excluded pertinent information such as significantly lower assessment increases for similar properties in neighborhoods adjacent to Wellington Crescent.

The points he will make regarding our residents belonging to and paying dues to a property owner's association for the purposes of maintaining neighborhood roads and drainage, snow removal, neighborhood gates, and lighting upkeep are not insignificant when compared to adjacent neighborhood properties which rely on city funding for the same services.

Adjacent neighborhood properties should have higher land assessments, not lower due to their benefiting of those city services that Wellington Crescent property owners do not enjoy.

It is apparent the land assessment increases levied upon the owners of properties in Wellington Crescent are significantly higher than the assessments levied upon comparable properties in adjacent neighborhoods.

This should not stand.

This should be corrected.

I implore this board to do the right thing, find in favor of Mr.

Chang and Ms.

Stannerson, and to provide relief to all Wellington Crescent property owners by reviewing and correcting the assessor's work for the 2026-27 valuation year to legitimate justifiable assessments.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Anyone else wish to come up and speak?

At this point in time.

Okay, now we're done with public comment.

Anybody online or anything?

Anyone calling in?

Um let's see here.

Now we're up for possible action approval of minutes from the February 18th, 2025 meeting.

Make a motion to approve the moment the minutes from the February 2025 meeting.

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second.

Any discussion on the on the motion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none.

Motion carries.

Now we're up to item five for discussion only.

Let's see here.

Is this where we're due orientation?

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

Let's see here.

Okay, so it's item five for discussion only, Car City Board of Equalization Member Orientation Assessor Kimberly Adams, Deputy District Attorney Mahela Niagos.

Um Good morning, Mr.

Chair, board members.

Um, and members of the public.

For the record, my name is Mihela Niagos.

I think you did a very good job pronouncing my name.

I would like to take a moment to walk you through a brief refresher on open meeting law in Ethingsing Government.

Uh so what is open meeting law or sunshine laws?

You will find the Nevada revised statutes, Chapter 241.

And basically the requirement is for transparency in all government actions.

All public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business.

So your actions and deliberations must be taken openly.

When does uh open meeting law apply?

It applies to all public meetings of the public bodies in Nevada, including the Board of Equalization.

A meeting requires a quorum and deliberation or action.

So what are those things?

A quorum is um uh typically a simple majority.

So in your case, there are five board members, and um a simple majority would be three members.

So if you have a minimum of three members present, then there is a quorum.

It also requires deliberation, which means to collectively examine weigh and reflect upon the reasons for or against an action.

And an action means the majority of the members present.

For example, if you have three or four members present, if you have three members present, you have to have two vote members' vote in the affirmative for a motion to pass.

There are situations which constitute a meeting that are not readily apparent.

So that is something that you want to take into consideration.

For instance, if you have electronic communications between a quorum, that can constitute a meeting.

So if you want to reach out to one member individually instead of replying to all members, that's that is an available option to avoid having a quorum and having a discussion.

There's also something that is called serial communications or walk-in quorums, which can also constitute a meeting, is just talking to members individually with the same concept of deliberation and taking action.

There are also require um other requirements of a public meeting.

Open meeting law requires a notice and an agenda.

If action, if actions are for action, you have to denote that they are for possible action.

And also we've just seen an example of public comment periods and restrictions.

Moving quickly to Nevada ethics laws, you would find that in NRS chapter 281.

Nevada ethics law is implicated when you are a voting member of a board or commission.

And you have to think of whether you have certain commitments in private capacity.

And if those exist, you make sure that you're in compliance with ethics laws.

And those are children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, parents, siblings, nieces and nephews, grandparents, uncles, aunts, grand-greatparents.

Also, do you take an action that influences an employer and employee relationship, or someone with whom you have a substantial continuing uh business relationship, or something that is some uh substantially similar.

This is kind of a catch-all uh provision, like if you serve on a nonprofit board of directors, that is substantially similar to an employment, for example.

So, bottom line is that you cannot benefit from that relationship.

And if you're in a situation where you feel that your commitment in a private capacity influences your decision, um there are requirements of disclosure and abstention.

Uh Navada Commission on Ethics provides some tips uh for compliance related to commitments in a private capacity.

And I just wanted to run through those quickly.

Um I think those are good tips to take into account.

When you serve in a in a board, you may want to create and maintain a list of all your commitments that you have in private capacity and carefully review agendas prior to the meeting or other documents before you make a decision or take an action in your public capacity for commitments in private capacity.

And um always if you have any questions, consult with your deputy district attorney.

I am yours today before you take action.

If you believe that you may have that commitment in a private capacity, because I can help you prepare a disclosure and discuss your situations when an abstention is necessary.

Thank you for your attention.

And let me know if you have any questions.

You can also reach me privately as well.

Fantastic.

Kimberly.

Good morning.

Happy Tuesday.

Yeah.

Um I just want to thank all of the board members for being here today, and I appreciate the changes that we made as far as uh how the board packets are delivered to you.

We are um at the direction of the Board of Supervisors trying to streamline these processes throughout the meetings and have them more uniform.

So I I thank you for the growing pains this year uh with the packets, and hopefully we will make a few little tweaks for next year, and we won't have the technical difficulties we had this year.

So thank you.

Uh staff, I'm gonna introduce Sheena Nelson, our praiser, Bianca Gallia.

I'm not gonna do it.

Galeana, okay.

Shannon Silva, my chief deputy assessor, and again, Kimberly Adams, Carson City Assessor for the record.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

1000 to 1070 East William Street, APN 002-123-07, and 1100 to 1150 East William Street, APN 002 123-08, case number 2026-000 31.

So I think what we should do first here from the appellant.

Thank you, Jed.

The uh appraiser, Sheena will identify the property and then Perfect.

I don't see the appellant here because it was a stipulation.

Right.

Thank you.

If you could run us through the process.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair, Board of the Member Board members, thank you for being here.

My name is Sheena Nelson for the record, property appraiser, Carson City Assessor's Office.

You there, Jed, case number 2026 000031 is identified as APN 002-123-07, located at 1000 1050 and 1070 East William Street, and APN 002-123-08, located at 1100 and 1150 East William Street.

Combined, these parcels consist of four office buildings with a total of 117,248 square feet of gross building area.

However, the assessor's office is aware, as was confirmed by the petitioner, that the state is in the process of vacating many of its leases, thus resulting in a higher than typical vacancy percentage for those properties.

So after reviewing the information provided by the appellant, uh the assessor's office and the petitioner agreed to a stipulated reduced taxable value of $2,862,716.

That is for APN 002-123-07 and $2,718,04 for APN 002-123-08.

That is a reduction of 1,595,436 total taxable value for the 2627 fiscal year.

Great, thank you so much.

Now I'd like to entertain a motion.

So when do these state offices, how soon do they plan on vacating?

Some of them have already vacated.

Other than that, there are five expected vacancies in the next fiscal year, 2728.

Okay, thank you.

Make a motion to approve the value stipulation for case number two zero two six zero zero zero zero three one.

I seconded.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Any discussion on the motion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, motion carries.

Now chairman, yes, Chairman Block.

Just a clarification for Mahela.

Do we need to have the motion specifically give the dollar amounts?

Or is the motion heard sufficient?

It is sufficient as long as it's clear on the record.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now the item 6B.

Let's see here.

For possible action, hearing discussion and possible action on review and approval of stipulation agreement for Carson Southgate LLC 4219 and 4287 South Carson Street, Assessors Parcel Number APN 009-125-22.

And for 4209 South Carson Street, APN 009-125-24, case number 2026-000029.

Over to the assessor's office.

Sheena Nelson for the record, property appraiser, Carson City Assessor's Office, case number 2026-000029 as identified as APN 009-125-22, located at 4219 and 4287 South Carson Street, better known as the Big Five Big Lots building.

And APN 009-125-24, located at 4209 South Carson Street, better known as Hobby Lobby.

APN 009-125-22, that's the big five, is approximately 41% vacant due to the departure of big lots in late 2024, early 2025.

Due to the vacancy of a major tenant, the landlord has reduced the rent for big five until which time they're able to fill that vacancy.

For APN 009-125-24, Hobby Lobby was uh vacant prior to Hobby Lobby occupying that space.

That building was vacant from late April 2024 to early April 2025 due to the departure of Burlington Coat Factory.

In addition, approximately 15% of that gross building area is not occupied by Hobby Lobby and is unleasable due to lack of access.

So after reviewing the information provided by the appellant, uh the assessor's office and the petitioner agreed to a stipulated reduced taxable value of 4,704,806 for APN 009-125-22 and $6,075,592 for APN 009-125-24.

That is a reduction of $1,268,086 total taxable value for both parcels there for the 2627 fiscal year.

Great.

Anyone on the board have any questions for the assessor's office?

I'd like to entertain a motion.

Make a motion to approve the value value change stipulation for case number two zero two six zero zero zero zero two nine.

We have a motion.

We have a motion and a second.

Any discussion on the motion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, hearing none motion carries.

All right.

So now we're on to uh item 6C that we heard a little bit about earlier.

And it is for possible action hearing discussion and possible action on review and on petition for review of assessed valuation of Sky Castle, REV, the revocable living trust, dated 922 of 22.

Richard Chang and Gretchen M.

Standerson, did I get close?

Um trustees at 1686 Wellington West, assessors parcel number APN 007-371-09, case number 2026-000028.

Um let's see here.

So I think as we go, we'll uh we'll have the appellant state their case.

We'll have the assessors give their evidence and then we'll go back to the appellant.

Is that how you guys would like to do it?

And I also wanted to remind everyone that witnesses have been properly sworn, and uh you are reminded that you are under oath prior to this they.

Okay, and so should we also state that the the public comment that was associated with this item?

We don't need to hear that again, or are we going to entertain them too?

It is within your discretion.

Oh, still subject to the three minutes.

Because usually it's it's uh um usually during this process that we're in now that all the public comments would have happened.

So it's kind of a little bit backwards this time.

Um, so if we've already heard what we've already heard, I don't think we need to hear again, but uh um I know taxes are emotional, so everybody take a deep breath and just relax.

We're we're just volunteers here to see if we can help you out.

And so there you have it, and uh give us your evidence or your appeal.

Um I do have some supplementary excuse me, Chairman Block.

Um appraiser uh Chief Deputy Assessor Silva needs to identify the property first, and then the petitioner will uh state his case.

So sorry to interrupt.

See what happens when you do this once a year.

Um from the assessor's office.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair, members of the board.

My name is Shannon Silva, Chief Deputy Assessor of Carson City Assessor's Office.

The subject property is parcel number 007-37109, located at 1686, Wellington West in the Wellington Crescent Subdivision, which is a private gated community consisting of custom-built homes on primarily rectangular one-acre parcels.

It's an improved residential lot with a 4,057 square foot home built in 1999.

The taxable value of the land is 353,500 with improvements valued at 808,759 for a total taxable value of 1,162,259.

The market neighborhood consists of the subdivisions Wellington Crescent, Kensington, Longview, and Adams Estates, which are all within the same geographic vicinity with custom built homes on non-subdividable parcels.

The appellant is appealing the assessor's determination of land value.

Okay.

Any other adjustments, Kimberly?

I think you could go ahead, folks.

Supplementary documentation.

No, it on the table in the back.

So is this in addition to what's already in our packets as far as exhibits and everything else?

Um, if you'd like to continue on.

Good morning, Chair, uh members of the board.

My name is Richard Chang, and I'm pairing with my wife here, Gretchen Standerson, on behalf of the Skycastle Revocable Living Trust for the property at 1686 Wellington West.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to our appeal and for the time you devote to ensuring fairness and equity in our property tax system.

We will focus on three core points.

Number one, Wellington Crescent received a 47% land increase while directly comparable one-acre parcels received 8%.

Number two, required adjustments for POA burden lot size and market decline were not documented despite NAC requirements.

Number three.

First, on terminology.

My appeal is directed at the full cash determination of 353,500, from which both values flow.

The core question is whether that full cash value is legally and economically justified.

Second, on vacant land methodology, NAC 361 spot 1179 describes the general sales comparison approach, but it does not override NRS 361 spot 227182.

In fact, NRS 361 spot 227 expressly distinguishes between valuation of vacant land and vacant and valuation of improved land.

Improved land must be valued consistently with the use of its improvements.

I'm not suggesting NAC 361 Spot 1179 contradicts the statute, only that it must be applied in a way consistent with NRS 361 Spot 227.

I'm not disputing the assessor's authority to use mass appeal, mass appraisal, vacant land sales or the permitted look back period.

My appeal is about how those tools were applied to our parcel, the selection and adjustment of sales, the stratification of properties, and the resulting allocation of value to our land.

Point one, unequal stratification and 47% versus 8% increases.

Under NAC 361 spot 11795, properties must be stratified into appropriate groups by location, zoning, use, and other relevant characteristics, so that similarly situated parcel properties are treated consistently.

On the West side, that did not occur.

Please refer to exhibit three in the handout.

The properties on Plantation Drive and Cagorno Way increased by 8.4%.

Properties on Brush Street, Alfred Way, and Winnie Lane increased by roughly 10 to 21 percent.

Wellington Crescent parcels received increases of 47 to 47.29%.

All of these parcels share single family residential zoning, similar access utilities views, and topography, the same highest and best use as West Side Home sites, limited recent vacant lot sales and availability of vacant lots.

In the assessor's exhibit B, Book 7, the West Side areas are shown on the platbook.

Please refer to Exhibit 1 in the handout.

The four areas used to support the 47% increase for Wellington are highlighted.

Areas number 37, number 25, number 28, and the new development number 67.

By contrast, areas number 18 and number 19, Cagorno Way and Plantation are directly across Ash Canyon with one acre parcels and similar characteristics, yet they received only an 8% increase.

So the basic question is what justifies a roughly 38.88 percent higher increase for Wellington Crescent compared to directly comparable one-acre parcels just across Ash Canyon.

The appraiser's response states that eight vacant land sales were used and the allocation method applied.

One of those sales was a one-acre Wellington Crescent parcel that sold for approximately 475,000 on April 8th, 2024.

In a subdivision with only about 56 parcels and only one remaining vacant lot, a single high transaction can disproportionately influence the indicated base lot value.

And it does not explain why that methodology or that level of increase was applied only to Wellington and not to plantation or cagorno, which are essentially the same type of property.

NAC361 Spot 117951 requires sufficient strata so that all property types are appropriately represented and treated uniformly.

If the methodology used for Wellington is correct, it must be applied uniformly to similarly situated parcels.

If it is not applied uniformly, that is a stratification problem under NAC 361 Spot 11795.

No evidence in the record shows that Wellington Crescent constitutes a distinct economic stratum that justifies more than double, or in some cases five times the increase applied to nearby similar parcels.

Point two.

The assessor's response indicates that vacant land sales from Adams Estates, Kensington, and Longview were used to establish base lot values.

While these areas were roads and related infrastructures are maintained by the county.

Wellington Crescent is different.

Please refer to page two exhibit five in the handout.

We are the only private property owners association on the West Side.

Our community collectively owns our streets, street lights, and road signs, and we are responsible to the middle of the street on our frontage.

Residents pay an annual POA fee of about 1,100 today, which funds road maintenance, resurfacing, and repairs, snow removal, street lighting, street signage, and traffic control.

We pay full county property taxes, including services we do not receive in our subdivision.

We also pay POA dues to provide those same services privately.

That is a real ongoing financial burden that a rational buyer will factor into what they're willing to pay for at Wellington Crescent ought.

More importantly, that $1,100 POA amount is not fixed.

Under our governing documents, the POA may increase dues whenever necessary to fund road work, snow removal, or capital projects, and any increase becomes a mandatory deed recorded obligation on every current and future owner.

In other words, it's an open-ended potentially rising private infrastructure cost that comparable county service parcels simply do not bear.

Under NEC 361 Spot 117952A2, the assessor must suggest sales prices for differences in location and governmental restrictions, and under NEC361 Spot 1188-1B2, adjustments are required for differences in locations and economic characteristics that affect value.

The assessor's response does not show any adjustment for the POA burden.

By valuing Wellington Crescent land at the same rate as county service land, the valuation ignores this documented ongoing private infrastructure cost that inflates the base lot value for Wellington parcels.

Point three.

Please refer to exhibit two in the handout.

The assessor indicates that eight vacant land sales were analyzed to develop a $375,000 base lot value, and that 0.65 acre Adams estate lots were combined with one acre parcels to derive that figure.

Smaller lots almost always sell at a higher price per square foot due to diminished marginal utility.

And NAC361 Spot 1188 expressly requires adjustments for differences in physical characteristics and size.

Our parcel is a fully improved one-acre non-subdividable home site with no incremental development potential.

The assessor's response does not show any worksheet with a downward size adjustment, excess land adjustment, or recognition that our one-acre lot already has horizontal infrastructure in place.

While the smaller vacant lots do not, that omission pushes the indicated value for Wellington Crescent higher than it would be if those adjustments were properly made.

On market conditions, the assessor states that sales from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2025 were analyzed and that more weight was given to recent sales.

NAC 361 spot 11882A requires documented mathematical adjustments for market conditions.

Simply, giving more weight to certain sales is not a substitute for actual time adjustments.

Please refer to exhibit 4 in the handout.

During the relevant period, Carson City home prices declined by about 13.3% year over year as of December 2025.

While our land value was increased 47.29%, and the improvement value on the same parcel declined.

The assessor's own records show land at 240,000 in 2024, 2025, 240,000 in 2025-2026, and then 353,500 in 2026 to 2027.

Using sales from the earlier period when land was still at 240,000, the response does not explain why those same sales now justify a 47.29% increase.

Here, values in the broader market declined, yet Wellington Crescent land alone was sharply increased.

Without negative time adjustments to the older sales, the indicated land value overshoots actual contributory value in a declining market.

The record does not show any documented negative time adjustments.

This leads to a larger statutory issue under NRS 361 spot 227.

First, in a cooling market, it is not economically consistent for land to appreciate sharply, while the improvement on that land deep same land depreciates, absent a change in lawful use or utility, which did not occur here.

Second, the assessor's written statement that the allocation method was used due to scarcity of land in this neighborhood shows that she effectively priced our home, our improved home site as if it were scarce, speculative vacant land.

NRS 361 spot 2271A permits all potential uses for vacant land, but subsection 1A2 requires improved land to be valued consistently with the use of its improvements.

Our parcel is improved with a long-standing single-family residence.

It must be valued as an improved single-family home site rather than land primarily influenced by speculative vacant land pricing.

While vacant land sales can be used as comparable data, they must be adjusted to reflect the actual constrained use of improved property.

Without those adjustments, the 353,500 land component exceeds the land's real contributory value to the improved property in a declining market and risks violating the full cash value use ceiling in NRS 361 Spot 2275.

In conclusion, in our requested action to summarize, NRS 361 spot 227182 requires improved land to be valued consistently with the use of the improvements.

NEC 361 spot 11795 and NAC 361 spot 1188 require proper stratification and documented adjustments for vacant to improved differences, POA infrastructure costs, lot size, and market conditions.

Those adjustments are not shown in the record for Wellington Crescent.

If this methodology were correct, it should apply uniformly.

Yet comparable one-acre parcels on plantation in Cagorno received 8% increases, while Wellington Crescent parcels were raised by 47%.

No clear economic reason is documented for that disparity.

The central issue in this appeal is not whether land values increased, but whether Wellington Crescent alone increased by 47%, while directly comparable one-acre parcels increased 8%.

A disparity the assessor the assessor's response does not explain.

Under NRS 361 spot 227 and NAC 361 spot 11795, our property has been improperly stratified, insufficiently adjusted, and overvalued.

I respect respectfully request that the board correct the land value for this parcel under NRS 361 spot 357 by adopting either the prior 2025-2026 assessed land value of 84,000 or a uniform percentage increase consistent with similar situated west side parcels, such as 91,056, which is an 8% increase like a Gorno Way in plantation, similar one-acre lots.

Uniform assessment is a central principle of Nevada property taxation.

And that stratification and adjustment rules in NAC 361, spot 11795 exists to ensure that similar properties do not receive materially different treatment without clear documented justification.

Thank you, Chair and members, for your consideration of this appeal.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Do any of the board members have some questions for the appellant for clarification?

I have a question.

Okay.

It was stated that there's no other uh private roads on the west side, and I believe there is on King and Longview.

Isn't there a west side of Longview and North Side of King?

States, I think is a private.

Sorry, thank you.

Uh Kimberly Adams for the record assessor.

Um Bianca, do you recall what book that is off the top of your head?

Book seven.

Are you speaking of Kings Canyon estates?

And Longview and King's Canyon Road.

That is not a uh well, in general, it's not a private.

However, there are smaller homes.

It's not gated.

Yeah.

I know they're not gated, but they do have private streets.

Yes, they do.

Yep.

Okay.

And private walks.

And private walks.

Okay.

And so does the new development, the Adams development is also gated.

It's gated.

It's gated.

Okay.

But I believe that street is city.

Am I correct?

I'm almost there.

Yeah, I think that one in the city.

Yeah.

Mo doesn't like that.

Sorry, I'm at the mercy of technology.

I do have one comment to the gentleman.

Um very well done.

Thank you.

I'm a real estate agent, so I can follow you very well on all these numbers.

I do have a question though.

When we go to value, um, homes in Wellington are going to be higher priced per square foot than Cogorno or Plantation.

That's an older subdivision.

It's still on septic.

Um, it doesn't have views.

So those are not, it's kind of apples and oranges when we go out and do you know evaluation on land value.

Just saying.

I appreciate your question.

We actually have friends that live over there, and uh we've seen their homes, and um, we actually have the exact same views.

I mean, we look back up to Ash Canyon.

Um, there's no material difference.

Um we're all both one-acre lots.

Well, I used to live on plantations, so I'm very familiar also.

So they're very nice homes.

They're very foundation.

Yeah.

It is very nice.

But having a private gated community in itself creates a higher value to specific buyers.

They like that.

So it makes your property a little bit more valuable, is what I'm trying to say.

I think that's a good thing.

Which is good, by the way, when you want to go on the market.

Yeah.

Yeah, and that's an opinion.

However, as I stated in my oral argument here, um, I believe that you know this is a fact that we're our POA, and as a POA, we do have additional cost, and we have assessments and such.

And I do hear that, and I'm I will be asking, does that come into consideration?

I that's what I was wondering.

Um at this point, should Kimberly did you find I Adams Estates is definitely a private uh roadway.

The new development that Silver Oak has, the multifamily development that's also private.

Um as far as on the west side, I don't see any others that are private, and again Wellington Crescent is the only gated um subdivision within Carson City.

Well, you have Quell Park down.

Uh but that's but that's not on the west side.

Yes, yes, yeah, but not residential.

Or will be, yeah, yeah, will be.

Okay, so should we go to the assessors portion of this?

It might answer some of our questions before we even get there.

So we'd like to hear from the assessor's office.

How you came about this.

Okay.

So uh Shannon Silva for the record, Chief Deputy Assessor.

Um I'd like to start.

I'd love.

Can you hear me?

Okay.

Okay.

Shannon Silva for the record, Carson City Chief Deputy Assessor.

Uh, I'd like to start by stating uh, as the appellant did point out, um there's that distinction between the accessible and taxable value on his um uh application or his appeal form.

He did utilize assessed values rather than taxable values uh in the taxable value portion, just so that you are aware.

Um the 123735 indicated on his appeal form is the assessed value.

The taxable value is the 353,500.

Uh the appellant property sold uh for one point one million eight hundred and sixty-five thousand on September 29th, 2022.

Uh the sales date falls within the statutory allowable sales date range, and therefore it is included in the analysis uh that determined the allocated land value for this neighborhood.

Uh land was valued uh uh determined doing sales and market analysis.

Vacant land sales were first considered as required by statute, uh, and then the allocation method was used in combination with available land sales per NAC 361119.

Um there were eight vacant land sales as stated by the appellant in the market area during this time frame.

Uh three sales occurred within the last 15 months of the statutory lien date and were the most comparable in parcel size and property age, uh, one being in Wellington, one in Longview, one in Kensington.

Uh vacant sales land comparison was a performed using the mass appraisal technique as required by NAC 361-1179 and 11795.

This did result in a base lot value of 375 375,000, which we'll find in exhibit two on page 40.

Utilizing a cost per square foot from the sales comparison analysis indicated the land value would be 399,000.

However, we will typically uh utilize base lot values when we're dealing with subdivision neighborhoods.

Additionally, in exhibit two on page 41, you'll find a sales comparison approach of vacant sales using the most comparable vacant sales to the subject property.

The subject land value is $812 a square foot, which is $2.70 a square foot less than the average uh 1082 a square foot of the comparable sales.

Because of the potential for higher selling prices resulting from the scarcity of vacant land in this neighborhood, in accordance with NAC 361119, the allocation method as prescribed by NAC 3611204 was analyzed and deemed to be the most appropriate method to determine the land value in this area.

That analysis can be found in exhibit three on page 48.

An allocation percentage of 28% was applied to the sales based on the analysis in exhibit four on page 54.

This percentage fell in the middle of the historical range established from the inception of Wellington Crescent subdivision to date.

The allocation approach produced a median land value of 353,500 with an average value of 368,060.

The total taxable value of sold properties compelled to the compared to their sales prices of the improved sales in the subject neighborhood average 33% below market value.

Additionally, a sales comparison approach of improved sales is provided using the most comparable improved sales to the subject property to further show that the taxable value of the subject property does not exceed market value.

You'll find this on exhibit five on page 56.

When we a review was done on the appraiser's work, and it was determined that the land value were required to mark to value land value based on its market value.

It was discovered that for several years that the land values were not increasing as the market was increasing, and that's why there's such a substantial increase this year to this market because that was adjusted to reflect what the statute requires to be at market value of the land.

The improvement value of $808,750, which is not in dispute, was determined using the cost approach of all of the property improvements utilizing the Marshall and Swift costing manual as it existed on January 1st of the current fiscal year, which is required by statute.

A formula is applied using the replacement cost new less straight line 1.5% depreciation per year based on the year built of the structure.

This is known as the RCNLD or placement cost new less depreciation.

And it's calculated in accordance with 361-227 and NAC 361128.

NRS 361-227 sub-5 requires that computed taxable value of any property must not exceed its full cash value.

The taxable value is lower than the market value, therefore, economic obsolescence was not implied to the applied to the improvements.

An itemized breakdown of property components is shown on the Marshall and SWIFT reports in exhibit F, pages 59 through 61.

And applicable statutes and administrative codes are on page 62 through 66 for your reference.

When utilizing the allocation method, we do build depreciation back in so that we're not overinflating land values as a result of our straight line depreciation versus a market depreciation on the improv on the improvements.

Using the current market evidence and the time frame allowed per NAC, our office has conclude concluded that both the land value and the total taxable value does not exceed the full cash value as required by NRS 361-227.

The assessor's office has included a sales comparison analysis of recent geographically and characteristically similar vacant land sales and allocation analysis of the same, utilizing improved sales.

All methods produce total values higher than the current taxable value, do not exceed full cash value, and support the 353,500 established site value.

Therefore, the assessor's office recommends that land value remain the same.

Chairman Block, if I could just add the appellant discussed other comparable properties.

Ash Canyon, Ormsby, Winnie Lane.

We have those properties in a different market area for our analysis.

An allocation method was done on those properties as well, and that supported a increase to their value up to 255,000.

So the same methodology was used to a similar neighborhood.

We don't consider those properties in that neighborhood as comparable to the subject property.

Additionally, public comment has discussed the property tax cap.

So the property tax cap is a cap on the amount that the property taxes can increase from one year to the next.

It is not a cap on the amount that the assessment can increase or decrease from one year to the next.

The costing for those improvements are mandated by a national estimator program called Marshall and Swift.

When we do mass appraisal in the state of Nevada, we are not allowed to take into consideration homeowners' associations, what services they pay for or do not pay for.

That that analysis is not brought into when we do appraisal for adval arm tax purposes.

A fee appraiser may look into those, or our a real estate agent study market value will look into those.

Another item that was brought up are the tax rates and what property taxes pay and the services that they get back.

That is also not part of our valuation under the law.

We are not allowed to take that in consideration.

And we're here for questions.

So the the three percent is on single family, the eight percent is on commercial, and that's basically what you would be paying in effect on your property taxes each year, would be the same.

That is correct.

So it's so it's that's where the cap is the out of pocket, not the assessed valuation.

That is correct.

As long as it is their primary residence, they have turned in their property tax cap claim form, and they are receiving that 3% cap, and there has been no new construction, meaning they didn't put on an additional garage, they haven't added any other site improvements for that first year, they are eligible for that 3% cap.

So even if the valuation increased, their property taxes are capped at that 3%.

And I just want to highlight that you said that's for primary residences.

If I own a single family house that's an investment property, that's going to be taxed at an 8% rate.

Correct.

It cannot exceed 8%.

So Kimberly, you you were just talking about those other neighborhoods.

Does Cagorno and Plantation fall into those neighborhoods that you were referencing that you don't think are similar to the Wellington Crescent?

We have several properties on Kings Canyon Road, Ash Canyon, Longview, Brush, Alfred, North Winnie Lane, Freedom Court, all generally all the other ones in that area that are one acre or above that fall into that alternate neighborhood.

Online it would show up as book seven, one acre northwest.

And again, that same allocation was was done on those properties, and that supported a value of 255,000.

Thank you.

Okay, question.

Just to clarify, so why are those properties considered a different area than Wellington?

I mean, it is the same area, sort of.

Based on our analysis for the 2026-2027 fiscal year, and the comparable sales in those different neighborhoods, those are not as similar as Wellington Crescent.

I think because of the custom homes, some of the other ones are may not be as custom.

There's a lot of variables that go into determining those neighborhoods.

Now when we dig into it further this next year, we may decide maybe we don't need to separate them out.

That may be in two years from now, three years from now.

It just depends on what market data we have to determine which neighborhood best fits for those comparables.

You may have something more to add, um, Shannon.

Yeah, uh, Shannon Silver for the record, as as Colette pointed out, you know, they are also those uh a lot older neighborhoods.

Uh Corgonio neighborhood is about 20 years older than the the neighborhoods that we have in this neighbor in this area.

So that is some something we also take into consideration because the the market takes that in consideration.

The older a home is the more maintenance is going to require.

Why the the huge jump in one year?

Is that all based on the Adams development?

No, what that is based on is a um basically a review was done of staff's work.

It was determined during that review that the uh Wellington Crescent Kensington Longview Adams subdivision over the years they were not increasing to remain at market value like they should have been.

And uh once we discover that that correction was made and it happened to be during this year.

Um with the tax cap in place, when we do find those errors, we uh we correct them knowing that it's not going to have an effect on the taxpayers' uh taxes, but it does ensure that we are in compliance with statute.

Would that also be consistent for the other subdivisions like Kingston Park?

Um because there are other right by Wellington, did their taxes go up as well based on their land values?

Pretty much uh most of the tax, most of them did go up, some of them did remain the same.

Um it a lot of it depended on the analysis that was done by the appraiser who did those various areas.

Uh this one, when I when I looked at it, discovered that the allocation percentage that was being used was an allocation percentage that was more suitable to uh track home subdivisions.

Uh it was a 20% analysis that compounded over several years, resulted in that value being significantly less than it should have been.

Uh and like I said, uh in my the 28% allocation that we used was a current allocation that was done.

I did compare that historically within the crescent Wellington Crescent, uh, and it did fall right in the middle range of what was typical for that subdivision.

Uh the highest, I believe at one point was 34%, the lowest was 24%.

Uh the current is at 28%, and that was the percentage that I went with.

And I and I just want to clarify, I understand this.

I just want to I want to clarify that on land value, your taxable amount is what someone would pay on an open market for that land.

Correct.

Yes.

No depreciation.

No.

Thank you.

And and you can also apply online.

Um we have a uh a place on our website where you can proper properties that are receiving the 8% cap receive that form every year.

Properties that are currently on the 3% cap receive it when the property changes changes ownership.

Uh if there's some type of change, like if somebody puts it in a trust, it will trigger that form to be sent out.

Um if there's something going on in legislature that could potentially affect that tax cap, we we may send them out to everyone in the entire county.

So that's been living in the same spot for 26 years.

There's no reason to change the form.

I mean, no, no, if if nothing's changed, but to clarify of what tax cap you're on, go to Carson City.gov.

You can find it all online there.

So that's what it but it does get mailed out.

Absolutely.

Yes, absolutely.

So we will break the value of the landless rate by the last half correct.

The out-of-pocket money is based the cap is based on the out-of-money pocket expense.

That 47% liability not to have it.

Is that carrying on each year?

So the the tax cap does carry on each year.

So if this got appraised appraised land value went from 300,000 to 10 million dollars, the three percent cap from you paying 4500 this year only gets raised three percent next year.

Next year, potentially next year.

So that's kind of an outlandish um scenario, but that's just to your out-of-pocket expense of what you are paying in tax, not assessed valuation, but in tax is that 3% cap.

And that's why 40% absolutely by our legislature forever.

And if it changes hands, it becomes a rental property, then it goes up to 8%, and that's by the Nevada legislature.

So we've got that.

So if I'm if I may, Mr.

Chair, in properties that are older, uh, such as you know, built in the 70s, 80s, 90s, the tax cap went into place in 2005.

That set the base for the cap.

The cap stays with the property, not with the owner.

So as properties change hands, that cap stays in place.

So your property may be valued at a million dollars, but your taxes may only be based on 400,000.

Because that cap has been in place for so many years, there's a huge protection there.

You will you could potentially see that increase of 3% until the point where the assessed valuation and that capped value that results in those taxes become equal.

And just for my clarification, the 47% increase was on assessed valuation.

Taxable.

Taxable valuation, not based on the tax cap amount of yes.

So we'll go back to the appellant.

Yeah, hi, Chair.

Um more comments, you're gonna have to come out of the same reference.

Yeah, Chair, I just want to uh button up some of the uh comments that were made uh post uh argument here.

Um I've addressed this in my speech.

Uh I do recognize the distinction between the assessed value and the taxable value.

And my appeal is directed at the full cash value determination of 3535.

Uh I'm not specifically stating the 1237 25, of which both values flow.

So you take the 353535 at 35 percent, and then you'll get the 123,725.

Okay, that we are square.

Uh as far as the uh the comps that were used.

The assessor used comps in Adams Estates, Adams Estates is a point excuse me, is a 0.65 acre lot in real estate.

If you take a smaller lot and you compare it to a one-acre lot, we're at a disadvantage.

The square footage, dollar square footage is usually tend to be always higher for smaller lots.

It's because of the marginal value of the the actual usable space.

So it tends to be higher.

So this is not apples to apples.

It's more like apples and oranges.

Uh furthermore, the assessor states that Cogorno and a few other areas are 20 years older than us.

It's 20 years older than us warrant.

Does it warrant a six percent multiple six percent higher?

Six times higher than Wellington Crescent.

Eight percent.

They got eight percent across the street.

We're at 47%.

Does that really warrant eight times multiple?

Uh eight uh rather six times multiple on eight percent.

We're right next door to each other.

And um there's some distinct differences, but we we look at each other and you know we have the same views.

We have the same views.

So materially, is it different?

Believe the answer is no.

Materially is not different.

If I may um had the values in this neighborhood been increasing as they should have over the past several years, that increase would have been more in line with what was in that other neighborhood.

It was just the a result of over the years those values not increasing as they should have that resulted in such a huge increase during this one year.

And that was to get everything back to where it is supposed to be.

So um one last thing from me.

Um I just want to point out there's a discussion about property taxes.

We're not discussing, I'm not discussing property taxes, discussing the the value assessment of the land value.

So I were fully aware of the three percent cap that came out in 2005 by the Nevada state legislator.

It was AB 489, and that was passed.

It was not passed by voters or go.

At some point in the future, the state can decide at any time they can change this.

They can raise it, they can amend it, they can adjust it.

So please bear that in mind.

Absolutely, that's why we call it the legislature.

Um we have a uh some public comment.

You'd like to come up, state your name for the record.

You can pull the cherub if you want to.

I would just like to ask the assessor.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

My name is Rick Aronson.

The assessor is stating that the properties in Wellington Crescent have not been increased.

The land assessments increased over the last several years.

And that's why there's this huge jump of 47% on our land assessments.

And she stated that the properties across Ash Canyon in these somewhat older neighborhoods, they have continually been increased incrementally over the last several years.

My question is those small increments over the last several years, do those add up to 47%.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Garrett, you have a question.

I'm gonna I'm gonna make some comments and some observations, and then I'll make a motion and we can have some discussion.

So I definitely think the 47% is where the heartburn lies.

A lot of the heartburn lies is that big jump.

And I'm I'm happy to hear staff say that that should have been increased, because it should have been increased in 2024, should have been increased in 2025 and increased in 2026, which would have not led to a 47% jump in in what you're looking at for taxable value on the land.

But the comps, when I look at the comps, I mean you have a comp in your own subdivision, your own subdivision that sold just two years ago for 475,000 dollars.

The assessor has you at 353,500.

In in your handout, you state that the market has gone down 13%.

Um in my day job, I I sell real estate as well, but I'm also the president of Sierra Nevada Realtors, where you pulled some of this data from.

And I report this data.

I'm gonna go do that later today, actually.

Um we did not decline by that much.

Single family homes in Carson City went up 2% last year.

So our median home price is 540,000.

I don't think the comparables that you have here include all property types for the type of property that you guys are dealing with.

And you guys live in, in my opinion, the nicest neighborhood in Carson City.

It's a great neighborhood, great location.

Uh, my grandfather was the original land developer of that neighborhood.

My dad built several homes in that neighborhood, so know the neighborhood well.

But 475 is your own comp and the city's at 353,500.

Even if, and let's say the market went down 20%.

I did some math.

If it went down 20% in the last two years, that would be $95,000.

And I again I'm gonna put on the record, the market has not gone down 20% in the last two years in any way, shape, or form.

That would be a minus of $95,000.

So if I start at 475 and take 95,000 off of there, I'm now at $380,000, which is still higher than what the city has you at.

I make a motion to deny the appeal.

Um for case number, let me find it real quick.

Before you make the motion, uh, really quickly, I just wanted to make sure that we have all the um evidentiary um presentation done.

And I know that the appellant um had one uh supplemental um exhibit that he presented this morning.

And um, if we could for the record mark that as exhibit F.

So appellance evidence, it goes A through F.

And assessor's evidence is marked one through six.

Perfect.

Okay, yeah, I make a motion to deny um a change in valutation for land value for case number two zero two six zero zero zero zero two eight.

Can we make one more comment?

Are we done with comments?

No, we're gonna do discussion, but someone has to second a motion or not second the motion.

Hang on.

Um we have a motion.

Once we have a second on the motion, then we can have discussion on the motion.

So do we have a second?

I'll second the motion.

Okay, Mary seconds the motion.

Now, is there any discussion on the motion, Colette?

Yes, I'd like to say something.

This is a hard pill to swallow.

I I understand.

I'm right there.

I I so get it, and I wish there was a remedy, a compromise.

I really do.

However, for whatever reason, until Adams, I think Adams is what triggered this valuation to go up.

And I hear your argument that they're not quite an acre lot, but in reality, as a sales agent, people are preferring the smaller lots, and they will pay more for that smaller lot than they will for the acre at this right now as this market stands, because they don't want the as you well know, the maintenance of an acre.

So I wish there was another remedy, but with the market moving up, and for those of you who might be putting your house on the market, there is a big need right now for inventory.

So your homes are going to be more.

I never heard the statements that houses weren't selling.

There's many variables for that, market trends, but we're gonna see something different here coming into spring.

We have a lack of inventory, so it's gonna push that value even up higher.

So, in a sense, even though this is a really hard pill to swallow, and I am so right there with you.

So um hopefully next year you'll be more protected, and you won't see such a huge uh increase.

But the good news is is that your properties are worth a lot of money.

Thank goodness for that, and they are very special.

And I know you're gonna you're shaking your head, but um I get that they had no other way to go because if we didn't have the Adams sales, I think this would have been a different story.

That's my opinion.

Okay, any more discussion on the motion.

So and just bear with us.

Um we'll talk after the motion after however this goes.

So we have a motion, we have a second, no more discussion on the motion with the board.

Um do I need to let the appellate appellant have a comment on our motion.

You don't have to, but it's in your discretion if you'd like to give him up another one.

Um I don't think it's gonna make a difference, but sir, if you'd like to um make your comment.

I guess the final comment is just fairness.

You know, we're just looking for equality, you know, as far as like the one sale of 475 in Wellington Crescent.

That's one that's one sale.

It's gonna it's gonna skew a lot of the the valuation.

And I just want you know and that and that does happen.

I mean, regardless of what's the same.

Adams estates is a PUD.

We're a POA.

There's a distinct difference.

And I clearly there wasn't any consideration for that, and there should be.

Um we have a lot of cost burden.

Well, I think that a lot of that is based on state statute.

A lot of what the illustrious 63 do over on Carson Street.

Um, there's unintended consequences, and that's and it's and it's pretty tough when it doesn't go to a vote for the people.

Um, so I appreciate your comments.

You have one final question.

Yes, um, so while we are required by statute to look at vacant land sales first, these values were not set based on those vacant land sales because of the fact that when we looked at the vacant land sales, looked at the improvements, we did have the potential in a mass appraisal situation of being over market in a lot of these homes.

That is why we went with the allocation and why it does have a lower land value because those those vacant sales were not the sales that were used to establish the values.

Okay.

With all that said, I'd like to uh um all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye, aye, any opposed hearing none motion carries now.

When is the state board of equalization?

You can appeal this to the Nevada State Board of Equalization.

Um, and their meetings are usually in March.

Uh thank you, Chairman Block, uh Kimberly Adams, Carson City Assessor.

The deadline to appeal to the state board is March 15th.

Um there were applications or the petitions for that are on the department taxation website.

They schedule those meetings.

They could go all the way through September.

Uh we don't have any any uh purview as far as their scheduling goes.

Now you have till the 15th of March.

I would I would recommend that you do that.

I know you're going to do that.

I can see the look on your face.

It's it's not happy, and and uh um we encountered that, but really from all of us up here, we do appreciate all of you that showed up and all of you that made public comment because sitting on that side is not as easy as sitting on this side.

And everybody's emotions are up and everything else, and this seems kind of daunting.

Um so I do appreciate that, and you know, do your appeal.

But thank you very much for looking at this information and doing something and making comments and letting the assessor know.

Because when people just get mad and they stomp their feet and they don't do anything, it doesn't accomplish anything.

So thank you very much for sh for coming.

Sure.

Why don't we take a break for like three minutes?

Hearing, discussion, and possible action on review and on petition for review of assessed valuation of Keith and Karen L.

Schaeffer, 5195 Gentry Lane, Assessor's Parcel Number APN 010-263-04, case number 2026-00027.

I'd like the assessor's office to um introduce the item.

Ladies and gentlemen of the board, thank you for your time today.

I'm Bianca Galliano, property appraiser um with the Carson City Assessors Office for the record.

Um the subject property parcel number 010-263-04 is located at 5195 Gentry Lane and is located on the south end of Carson City, south of Prison Hill.

The parcel was purchased on September 13, 2021 for 225,000 and was vacant land at that time.

The resident was residence was then built in 2023, which consists of a 2435 square foot home and a 1,485 square foot basement, in addition to 1,057 uh square foot touched garage.

The taxable land value is 170,000.

The improvements are valued at 706,269 for a total taxable value of 876,269.

Thank you.

Uh property owner, um, and kind of representing my wife as well, Karen.

Um appreciate you giving us some time, uh Chairman Block and members of the board.

I hope this is not a waste of time.

I I get I I get the math, I get the statutes, I understand, but I do have to tell you it was quite a learning curve for us to understand um assessed value, taxable value taxes.

And I I want to express our gratitude to uh the assessor's office and their staff for helping us through that process and and and get to get some understanding of um how our values were established and how our property was taxed.

Just a little bit of history, very short.

We purchased the property as was talked about in 2021.

It was uh the last vacant lot on Gentry Lane in the subdivision just underneath uh prison hill, and just about every other house in that area had been built about 40 to 45 years ago, somewhere between 35 and 40 years ago.

It was a beautiful lot.

We looked at it 20 years ago, just about bought it, decided not to kids were in school, wanted to be close to some school stuff, and it still never sold, and so when it got time for us to build our forever home, we said, hey, let's build this little house up here so the kids can come back and grandkids come back.

Um we're not naive.

We we did some math, but probably back in the 2019, 2021, 22 time frame on you know what operating cost, holding costs, you know, what our costs would be to get into a home as opposed to buying another home in town, and and we we knew that there was going to be a leveling up of what the tax bill would be relative to what we were used to in a home that we had been in for 20 years, and uh it was a different part of town and and comparatively, and so we had run some numbers and figured, well, you know, if it's uh you know two times what the rest of the neighbors pay, it's what it's gonna be.

And we we knew that there was going to be a leveling up of what the tax bill would be relative to what we were used to in a home that we had been in for 20 years, and uh it was a different part of town and and comparatively, and so we had run some numbers and figured well, you know, if it's a you know two times what the rest of the neighbors pay, it's what it's gonna be.

Long story short, when we got to the end of construction, it was gonna turn into the final uh final inspections and closing, which was kind of in between any time for us to petition any kind of assessed value.

We got a number that was kind of in the 10,000, 12,000 dollar range for taxes on our private home.

Now that's just the tax bill, that's not the assessed value.

We worked with the uh the assessor who is that we had worked with, and he said, Hey, what did you think about that?

And I said, That's that's a lot higher than we thought.

Um, but we understood the assessed value.

We said, hey, we will want to maybe petition this at some point in time.

Um, whenever we could, we said, well, let's wait until we get the tax bill to see what it is.

It was just kind of a verbal, this is what we think it might be.

Um, we got our tax bill, it wasn't quite that, but it was still fairly high.

Um, and we said, ooh, we need to petition that.

But by the time we got our tax bill, it was already too late.

You know that time frame.

We didn't know at the time, you know.

It's like we'd get a we get some circular in the mail in November that says your assessed values are this, this is not a tax bill, and you you put that away, and and we didn't know the time frame there, and that you get it in November, middle to late sometime, but you have till January to petition, and so that that ship had sailed for that tax year.

So we had paid the end of the fiscal year for the construction time, it it went up three percent the next year tax bill.

Um, and then we said we we just really should try to petition this and just see if we can understand how we got to this assessed value.

Um this for, and I'm guessing we're in the 2627 year valuation time frame.

Um our hope was that we could kind of reboot that value so that going forward that you know we know it's gonna go up a maximum of three percent per year, but we didn't want to get into a hey, three percent on a ten plus thousand dollar tax bill is a whole lot different than the three percent on a six or an eight or a nine or the rest of our neighbors are in the three and a half to four thousand dollar range.

Um so we just tried to synthesize that in our mind and say how how does this work in a subdivision?

How are the values assessed?

Is our value can it be, you know, the Marshall and Swift cost of replacement, independent of the neighborhood that it's in and all of that stuff.

And I don't agree with I don't agree with with the science and the law.

So I'm I so I'm not saying that the assessor has done anything wrong.

Um we understand where they get their values.

Um, but I do want to bring to light a couple of things just for the purposes of making this not a wasted time for us here when it gets to the time of a motion to be very specific.

Um I understand that we're not petitioning the tax dollar amount, and so I have to petition the valuations.

So we looked at the valuations, and this all boils down to a couple of things.

One main one was the quality of construction of the home, was identified as a quality construction construction for.

Um so uh I wanted to push back a little bit on the fact that hey, I know how this house is built, I I know what the valuation is, and on several items we're more in the quality three.

There were some that were in four, and then a couple maybe just based on the pitch of the roof, but it's comp shingles, it's not tile, it doesn't have plastered walls and smooth, it's uh orange peel texture.

I is as we started to finish the home, we were getting down to the it let's do this, let's do this.

And so quality of construction does become a very real metric to evaluate this on.

And I kind of evaluated that I could say this was in a 3.4 to 3.5 quality based on a uh Marshall and Swift 3.5 quality valuation.

I know what it costs me to build the structure.

I know what the land is valued at.

Um so just in conclusion, kind of to get to the end of it, I I can I can understand and I can make basis for quality of construction for that home based on what it is to be in the 500, and as is stated in here, is pretty close, although I could I can understand it being a little higher, but a 561 800 as opposed to the value of the improvement of being 7057, which is different than the number that she just said a second ago.

She said 706, but I think that's what the assessment is in the in the printed assessment.

Yeah, that's the building value, but what is listed in here in the motion is different, and I think that we get to a motion value different than what was in the assessed value.

So yeah, she said that the assessed value is 706, 269 for the structure and 170 for the lot.

Whereas in the motion, um they're proposing 705, 767 with 170 for the lot.

I believe that was um Bianca Galliano for the changes to the square footage and the corrections.

Yeah, I yeah.

And there's a lot behind this, and we don't need to drag you through through that.

But yeah, there were some fine-tuning of of square footages, didn't amount to much.

Um, but I was kind of interested.

It's it was like if I'm gonna do a petition, then I need to have the assessor come take a look at the house.

So they come and look at the house and they walk away and they go, it went up.

And I went, holy cow, you're kidding me.

It's like so we counted every brick, every square inch of rock on the front, every step.

Um, we went to the basement and said it's a finished basement.

Um, but it it has air, so we're gonna add some out for air.

That we resolved that.

That's not part of where we're at now, but it was just little things like we had them come over and it came back as well.

If you have us come over, it went up.

And that that was that was not that didn't feel good.

Um the other thing that kind of came out that that I would like to add to this, because I know that in my petition statement, it was based on error and square footage and quality of construction, and that's kind of where we were at.

And I know that my quality of construction calculated number in the matrix is significantly different than the stated value, but from the assessor in the quality four versus the quality 3.5.

But I do believe, and I'm sorry, but I do believe that in a real estate market that you can go to a neighborhood and say the structure itself can be deducted based on the neighborhood.

Like you can't just say, hey, this house in Wellington Crescent that is 950,000 for the structure is going to be 950,000 some other place in town if it's a 40 something year old subdivision with depreciated homes.

Um, I know that that's not how the law works and how the Marshall and Swift works, and I think that in the philosophy, they they make the adjustment in the cost difference between homes in different communities on the land value, not on the replacement value.

Um, but I do believe that a high assessment and a high high tax value will be a detriment to resell and resell value compared to the other lots in my home.

So just to give you a good idea, every house up and down my street, average price per square foot.

Um there have only been one or two that have tried have done any improvements that have modified their date, their depreciation date, right?

They made some improvements to their home.

There are some actually on the street that look as new as ours, and and they're carrying an assessed tax value of what it would be of round the four or five thousand dollar, but because of the abatement, they're only in the $3,500 range.

Um so the depreciation still helps them to some degree, even though they look as new as our home.

Mature landscaping and all the fences and everything, and we have yet to finish our landscaping, and we're afraid to do it, to be quite honest with you.

We're afraid to put one more dollar into finishing and making this a nice home in the neighborhood.

If every time we turn around, it's gonna go up another few dollars in tax.

So our petition is that we feel like given with consideration for the age of the community, that not the community, the actual neighborhood and the street that we're on, um, that we're asking for um this consideration that would make our tax bill about 9100, which is still a 2x multiplier on what the assessed tax value would be of the rest of the the neighbors.

Um that we're asking for this consideration that would make our tax bill about $9100, which is still a 2x multiplier on what the assessed tax value would be of the rest of the the neighbors.

So that's kind of where we're at and where we went and took it to a quality scenario.

Oh, the one other thing I want to add, just for your edification, do you like you've not find this fun to consider?

Because I agree.

I agree with I want to argue a different point, but I agree both sides.

I I agree that there are people out there that would look for a lot that isn't connected to city sewer.

But when they came and looked at the lot and said, Oh, you have a septic.

Well, that's another assessed value because it's an improvement to property.

But there are several homes in the subdivision that are now connected to sewer.

And I'm like, are there val are their property values higher than ours?

Every one-acre lot in that subdivision is valued at $170,000 for this coming fiscal year.

Whether they're now on septic or have recently been put on septic, because about half of that subdivision has now been put on septic and half of gentry, two houses away from us.

We actually pumped the brakes on construction because we thought they were going to get to us, and I wasn't gonna have to put in a ten thousand dollar septic tank.

But they didn't get there, so just two houses down, but all of the lots are valued at 170,000.

I board member Bureau, you said, hey, you know, in the last one of the last items, that hey, these lots over here are not the same value because they have septics.

Well, if that's true, we can't have it both ways.

And so I in my recommendation, I would recommend that the property value be value at about 163.

That was the subtraction of the septic value that was added, and the the structure value be at around 562.

And uh well, I'm and like you say, there's gonna be depreciation and everything else.

And true.

One one comment I have to say to you, don't be afraid of doing your landscaping.

It might go up, but you know where I live, and my property taxes are low in 150-year-old house.

I know, I know we get the but our office, our office got a reboot, right?

Right?

Yeah, because it's all new construction.

I work at resource constantly now now you now the property taxes for Bruce are quite a bit higher, I'm sure, with the brand new building.

Gary, do you have some comments?

Yeah, um, a couple things that that stand out to me.

Um 170 on the property value.

I I think is low.

I think that's low.

I mean, you paid 225 for it five years ago, so I think we all could agree that that's probably a little low.

Um, would you sell your house for 732,000 today?

I don't think that's the issue.

Well, well, market value, which is where we're gonna get assessed value from.

No, I appreciate that.

Hang on, I appreciate hang on a second.

Everybody wants their assessed valuations and their property taxes to be absolutely the lowest possible until they go to sell that house.

Um I remember talking to Jim Bagwell about that when he was in front of this years ago, but no, I wouldn't sell my house for that little, you know.

But and so it's kind of the uh, you know, yes, you know, the point taken, no, he probably wouldn't.

But you know, just perfect.

And then I'll I'll make a motion to deny um the change in value for case number.

Yeah, Kimberly, yeah.

We need to they need to present their case.

I'm sorry, my appraisers have worked so hard on this, and I I even if it's just for practice.

And and Garrett being new on the board, your youthful experience is I thought that's okay.

No, it's all good.

Yeah, thank you.

All right, ladies.

Bianca Galliano for the record.

Um, so I'll go ahead and present now.

Thank you.

A vacant uh land sales comparison analysis was performed as required by NAC 361 point 1179 and 11795, which is gonna be exhibit one.

Um, resulting in one cell that is most similar to the subject property in size, however, inferior due to topography.

There were four total vacant land cells in this market area during the time this time frame.

Uh one property sold twice within this uh statutory lien date and is 0.63 acres smaller than the subject, and one is one acre larger and subdividable.

Um, because of the potential for higher selling prices resulting from a scarcity of vacant land in this neighborhood, in accordance with NAC 361.119, the allocation method as prescribed by NAC 361.1204, was also analyzed and was deemed the most appropriate method to determine land value.

The allocation approach produced a land value of 170,000.

It's gonna be exhibit J, page 81 and 82.

Um, additionally, we did um also complete a sales comparison approach of improved sales, and it is provided using the most comparable improved sales to the subject property to further show that the taxable value of this subject property does not exceed market value.

You will find this in exhibit K, page 83.

The appellant is appealing the value of improvements in the quality class.

The most weight given was given to comparable one through three with an indicated average cost per square foot of 372, 372 dollars.

The subject total taxable value per square foot is 223 dollars and 54 cents.

The current taxable value 876,269 does not exceed the indicated market value.

And then the assessor's office determined using current market evidence in this time frame as allowed per NAC that the taxable value does not exceed full cash value as required by NRS 361.227.

Uh, we have also um assessor's office has also included data to support the quality class and the improvement value for the subject property, as well as land data with recent geographically and characteristically similar uh vacant land and improved sales using multiple valuation methods.

All sales are higher than the current net taxable value and support both the land and the improvements value for this subject.

Um therefore the assessor's office recommends the current taxable remain as is, apart from the changes to correct the value associated with the size errors and to assess the property escaping taxation that was discovered.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Does anybody have any questions?

Yeah, I have a question.

Okay, Mary.

Um I'm curious about the issue of the septic versus the sewer.

Did he really get an increase in his assessment because he had a septic?

So a septic is added.

Um we value it as site improvements.

Um there is an NRS, and I will uh defer to Sheena Nelson here.

She can help answer this question regarding the septic.

Uh I can't cite Sheena Nelson for the record.

I can't cite that NRS that she just spoke of, but yes, septic tanks are taxable.

Um there is an NRS regarding that, so it has to be added on there.

Um yes, plainly to answer your question.

Okay, yes.

Justin's last comment.

In our world, it's the opposite, just so you know.

So if you're on Sue, are you on sewer or septic?

Really, I thought everybody had to hook in up there.

There is no sewer in front of our property.

Oh, yet.

God, a years ago, I thought it was already run.

Okay.

So all I'm speaking to, and I apologize.

I'm sorry, I did not mean to interrupt you.

No, we I learned something.

But that's not how we look at it.

I just in our field, it's actually in reverse.

So I I can provide further comment if you prefer.

No, that's okay.

Okay.

Learn something.

I I was just speaking to the difference in lots that are connected to cities facilities versus lots that are not in that land value.

And I've got plenty of clients who would first thing I'll say is do we have city utilities, or we got to bring them to the bring them to the site, bring them to the project?

It's a little bit different with homes, right?

There are a lot of people that would like to be on septic and not on city sewer.

So Chairman Blockett.

Yeah.

Go ahead.

Sorry, Keith.

Chairman Black, uh, if I could just add Kimberly Adams with the Carson City Assessors Office.

Any improvement to the property is subject to taxation.

NRS 361 and NAC361 provide specific improvements that are exempt from taxation, but unfortunately, having a septic tank is not.

It is considered a improvement to the land and therefore subject to taxation.

I I hate to use this comparison, but it's I feel a good one.

If you are to put a flagpole on your property and you uh put that flag bow flagpole in concrete and it's affixed to your land, we also have to include that in the assessment.

It is also subject to taxation.

So there's very few items or improvements that you do to your property that are not subject to taxation.

Solar is one of them.

That one is not taxable.

However, we do have to have it on the assessment roll.

You just aren't charged uh tax on that improvement.

So unfortunately, when we're looking at that, if there is a septic tank, if there's a well, um fencing, swimming pool, if you have an in-ground hot tub, um all sorts of things.

We there's there's a cost, and we have to add that to the assessment roll, and it's subject to taxation.

And if you it is included in your packet, NRS 361.077 section 3A, specifically states public sewage system septic tank or air conditioner septic takes or other facilities to human waste, nor any property installed constructed and used, it's not included in that exemption.

So unfortunately, we have to tax them.

Year years ago, there was uh a couple that uh they had two properties on medical parkway, and they got the zoning changed from residential to commercial so they could sell it for a million instead of 400,000, and uh they had a septic tank on the other on their other lot that was connected, and so rather than spend the money to take that sue that septic out, they were here for four or five hours and and they they they did appeal it, but um it sometimes it doesn't make sense, but you know, and and emotions get involved in this, and taxation is very emotional.

So with enough about me.

Garrett, you have a you Gary, I'd like to entertain a motion.

Um I'll make a motion to um deny the change of value um for case number.

I just had it up.

It's 2026 027 okay.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

I second.

Second, do we have Mr.

Chair?

Can I make a comment, please?

Yes, I was gonna ask you.

With regard to the new construction um versus leaving the value the same, uh, can you address that in your motion as well?

Whether we're to leave the value as currently is or to add that new construction that was found during the site visit.

And the other corrections to the uh square footage is that decrease the value a little bit, but then there's a little bit of new value.

That's the difference in the proposed motion and the uh values that are in the body of the um discussion.

I will I I will do better reading this time.

So Garrett's gonna amend his motion.

I am in my emotion and I move to maintain the assessor's office 2026-2027 fiscal year valutation of the subject property, apart from the changes to correct the value associated with the size airs and to assess the property escaping taxation, APN number 010-263-04, resulting in an improvement value of 7057 taxable land value with no change of 170,000 for a total taxable value of 875 767,000 dollars.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second I second?

What second do we have any conversation?

Any comments on the motion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, seeing none.

Motion carries.

Keith, thank you so much for coming.

Thanks, guys.

Um, the state of the house, gorgeous house.

Oh, thank you.

Appreciate that.

State Board of Equalization is May 5th or March 5th for the appeal.

I I put these folks through a little bit of work, and so I thought I ought to come and just say hi.

I didn't bring donuts or sandwiches.

I appreciate all the work that they're doing, and I get it.

But uh worth the truth.

Having been an owner builder myself, uh, you have my condolence.

Depreciation is gonna help you at some point.

It'll take a little while, but it's gonna help you.

I I can't I'm not very buying.

I can't even I can't even, I don't even qualify.

I do qualify for a historic tax deferment, but it does nothing for me because of all the depreciation because of things the money puts so old.

But uh well, thank you.

Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you, Keith.

Okay, now on to item seven.

Uh is there any public comment?

Uh I guess Denny didn't decide to come this year.

Denny French.

Um he's been missing, I think, for a while, hasn't he?

He was at the open space.

Yeah, he was at the board retreat on Friday.

Okay.

Um good.

Yes.

Yeah.

He's still keeping up the fight.

Yes.

Um, I'd like to make some public comment.

I just thank you, everybody at the assessor's office, the district attorney's office, um, everybody that puts time into it.

I know some of this is your job, but I know how much work it takes, and and uh you got off light this year, and uh for not as light as last year, but uh um some years are just absolutely grueling.

But uh I know that they had to put those those glass things up in the offices because people get a very emotionally attached to taxes.

And so, you know, I really appreciate your efforts, and it's not an easy job by any stretch, and then when you get to here it it uh I think that was the biggest uh public comment we had on an item here at the Board of Equalization.

So thank you guys very much.

Thank you.

Um and thank you again for the growing pains this year.

Hopefully, we can streamline it even further next year.

And if there's anything that we can do better, you you you I sound like a broken record.

Just let us know.

Let us know how I really liked the system when I accessed it from my own computer at home.

It was fantastic.

I I I like it a lot better than having all the paper.

I really do stick.

That's good to hear.

Good to hear.

And and give out my contact information.

And and and for growing pains with this, it's been pretty pretty minimal.

I mean, in 2008, when we had four binders that were this high.

Yeah.

Um going through all the stuff, and uh, you know, we didn't we didn't have any any quarrels in here, verbal altercations in here.

So anyway, um, thanks everybody for coming.

Hopefully, we see you next year.

I don't know if I can do year 19, but who knows?

Um, so uh item number eight for possible action to adjourn.

Do I have a motion?

So moved.

Make a motion to adjourn.

And there's a motion and second.

Second.

And we have a second.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

See opposed, seeing none.

Thanks for coming.