Hello.

Uh are you here to hear appeals?

Yeah, come everybody, anybody that's going to come in front of this board, please move down to the front row.

That way we don't have to wait for you to get down here when we're ready to go.

Please.

Tammy Campa.

Here.

Patrick Eckert.

Here.

Kristen Lowe.

Here.

Okay.

Um, we got a possible action adopt the agenda.

In a motion.

So moved.

Cast your votes.

Oh, where's our votes at?

Which one do I have for last?

Okay.

Motion carries.

Okay.

Okay, great.

Thanks, Pat.

All right.

A section for public comment if there is any prior to starting the meeting.

Okay.

Let's swear in the petitioners and the members of the uh assessor's staff, please.

Anybody that's gonna testify today.

Is anybody testifying in the audience?

Can you stand and raise your right hand, please?

That's all right.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give during the course of this hearing is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

So help you gone.

Yeah.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Um from our famous district attorney, good morning.

Good morning.

The Nevada revised statutes allow individual taxpayers who feel their taxable value for the upcoming year is incorrect to appeal to the county board of equalization no later than January 15th.

Please note that taxable value is not what you were charged on your tax bill.

The county board of equalization has the authority to determine and then change and correct the value of any property that was assessed by the assessor.

If the board finds it to be incorrect, they may change or correct any valuation they find to be incorrect by either adding to it or deducting from it the amount necessary to make it conform to the taxable value.

The county board of equalization does not have the authority to lower taxes or make decisions based on comparisons of tax bills.

There are only two situations in which the county board of equalization may reduce the assessment made by the county assessor when an inequity exists or when taxable value is higher than full cash value.

Under NRS 361.356, if a taxpayer believes there is an inequity in the assessment and their property was assessed higher than another property that is identical in use and has a comparable location.

Or they may raise or lower the value of the property that was used as the comparable property.

Under NRS 361.357, if a taxpayer believes the full cash value of their property is less than the assessed taxable value for the fiscal tax year being appealed, the board may review the assessor's determination.

If the board finds that the full cash value on January 1 prior to the fiscal year being appealed, is less than the taxable value, the board may correct the land value or fix a percentage of obsolescence that is to be deducted from the improvement value to ensure the total taxable value corresponds as closely as possible to its full cash value.

Under NRS 361.355, if a taxpayer believes their property is overvalued by reason of another property being undervalued or not assessed, the board may examine any evidence submitted and make a determination.

If the board finds the property complained of is undervalued or not assessed, they may increase the taxable value or place the property on the tax roll at its taxable value.

A public officer must disclose potential conflicts in public to the chair and other members of the board.

If a public officer has a personal, financial or private commitment to that that could reasonably affect their decision on an issue, they must publicly disclose this this information to the chair and the board before taking any action.

Additionally, the public officer must not vote on, promote, or participate in deliberations on an issue if a reasonable person would believe their judgment could be influenced by a gift or loan, a significant financial interest, or a personal or private obligation to another party.

I'm done.

You're done.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate that.

For possible action, discussion and possible action of the 2526 and 2627 assessor recommendations.

See attachment one.

Chairman Dugan, you will find those on page six of your agenda.

Beginning on page six okay, everybody, what do you think?

These have all been stipulated, correct?

These have all been stipulated too, yes.

And their recommendations by the assessor.

Okay, so uh based on the information provided by the assessor, and they've been stipulated.

I make a recommendation that we accept their um changes to the valuations.

What do I do to cast the vote again?

Oh motion carries, thank you.

Thank you.

And then we're gonna go for possible action approved minutes from February 10th, 13th, 2025 Board of Equalization.

See attached.

And that's gonna be page page 11.

You'll find that on page 11 of your agenda.

Okay, and those are recommendations as well.

These are the minutes from your hearing from last year.

Um just for you to approve the minutes from your hearings from last year.

Okay, somebody want to make a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from last year.

Cast your votes, please.

What did you say?

Oh motion carries, thank you.

Okay, oh, okay.

So review of procedural rules relative to presenting appeals.

So we'll call your case number.

You can come up to the microphone, give us your name and address.

I'm assuming you live in Las Vegas, if not, whatever state you live in.

And then uh we'll get a comment from the assessor, and then we'll come back to you and you can put on your case.

Um we don't do taxes here, we only do assess valuation.

Uh and I think what even though there's only three of you, I I want to introduce Kristen Lowe.

I'm Kristen Lowe.

I've been appraising for about 20 years.

I have two designations from the appraisal institute, and I've been here in Vegas for 10 years now.

Tim Albert, uh Tim Albert, uh residential appraiser.

I've been uh appraising for 46 years, and 37 of them here in Las Vegas.

Ms.

Campa I'm Tammy Campa.

I've been an appraiser in Las Vegas, residential and commercial um for about 42 years.

Mr.

Eger, I'm Patrick Eger.

I've been appraising here in Nevada for 50 years.

And my name is Scott Dugan.

I'm a member of the appraisal institute.

I've been on this board since 1993, so I've heard anything and everything you could imagine that you could put in front of us.

Uh so anyway, we have looks like we have three cases, right?

So far.

Oh, no, public comment already did that.

Um administrative business, Mary Ann.

Um, nothing specific today, just to remind the board.

Um, the two years that we actually are reviewing to um at this hearing would be for the 2627, which is our secured roll year, and 2526, which is the supplemental year.

You may hear cases uh for each of those, um, and the appraisers will introduce those accordingly if that is the case.

Um, and beyond that, we are ready to call the first case.

Well, I don't know what the first case is.

Nobody gave me a sheet.

Oh, maybe they did, excuse me.

Okay, so I guess we have uh Billy and Sherry Wilson.

Okay here.

Either microphone speak, but you have to speak into it.

I understand.

Everybody hear me?

My name is Bob Apat.

I'm a family friend to the Gardy Trust.

This is Kenneth Garrety.

He's the owner of the trust which has recently purchased this property.

There is an error in the vesting, uh, which I brought to the attention of some of the administrators here.

I just want to make sure that you have the correct information in front of you.

Hold it.

If you got a problem with vesting, um, so when the uh when the notice of value cards went out, it was a different owner and the ownership changed um end of December, and um they did submit a letter of authorization signed by the new owner.

Um, and he is the one who then is filing the appeal, the new owner.

But he did sign the letter, the new owner did sign the letter of authorization.

Um it's okay.

So what is it?

The treasurer not up to date with the deal.

Our records are correct now, but the notice of value cards went to the old owner, so the the um what was certified was under the old owner, but the new owner now is the one that's filed the appeal form prior to January 15th.

Okay, did I get his name and address for the record and what the unit number is, which is what I asked for?

Sure.

The case number is 496.

This is Kenneth Gardy, trustee of the Garretti Dynasty Trust.

Uh 4663, Evan Ridge Court, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89129.

Okay.

That's the correct owner's name and the correct address for him.

Okay.

Um our assessor's office.

Where's this case?

Good morning.

Oh, you got to speak up and pull that mic down.

Or I'm not going to be able to hear it.

Good morning.

My ears are good.

And I can't hear you.

Uh Rachel Papazian with the Clark County Assessor's Office.

The case will begin on page 609 of the master book.

The subject property was built in 2014.

And is a 5,836 square foot two-story custom home on a half acre lot in a gated cul-de-sac near 215 in Lone Mountain Road.

It is a five-bedroom, five and a half bathroom home with additional rooms that include a media room, two offices, a dining room, and family room.

The home has two two-car garages with one as a pull-through to the backyard, which features a 630 square foot casita, pool spa, and outdoor kitchen.

The appellant purchased the property December 2025 for 1.7 million.

This is an equity appeal.

The 2627 taxable value for the subject is 1,413,839, and the assessor recommends no change.

Okay, go ahead.

Thank you.

As you all know, there's three ways to generate the value of a property.

Okay, we don't we don't need an education on how to value property.

We have over 250 years sitting on this board.

But the the present owner does not.

So well, then you need to explain that to him on his time.

Sure.

Let me move to the cost approach, in which there's very limited data available to a homeowner, including the recent sales of lots and the value of construction.

There is one lot which recently sold on Jensen, and I I use the word recently loosely because the most recent actual comparable sales were very recent, both in November and December, one to two months ago.

The $350,000 lot is generally comparable.

So using that as a basis.

Hang on a second.

We're here to hear a tax appeal.

We're not here to get educated on the cost approach.

We all know how to do the cost approach.

The assessor uses Marshall and the end then for you.

Huh?

I'll jump to the end.

Yeah, let's jump.

What do you what do you I mean he paid a million seven?

He's not happy at a million four.

No.

Well, okay.

Tell us why.

Sure.

Shortly.

Shortly.

The short answer is the cost approach brings a value of 1,289,620.

To confirm that I did a sales comparison approach, which was even less, but not by much.

Well, let me ask you something.

Are you a licensed real estate appraiser in the state of the case?

I am not.

Huh?

I am not.

You're not.

Okay.

So did you give this information to the assessor's office?

Yes.

Okay.

So you guys think it's worth a million two eighty-nine.

They're at a million four thirty-one.

Right?

I didn't hear the second part of your statement.

Can you repeat that?

You think by you doing a cost approach, you're at a million two eighty-nine, or they're at and they have it a million four thirty-one.

Yes.

And that's why you're here.

Yes.

Okay, let's let her put on the case and tell us what's going on.

I'm not done, but you're welcome to continue.

Chairman Dugan, can we allow the petitioner to put their full case on?

And then if you have questions after he's done, would you mind letting him thank you?

Go ahead.

Sure.

To try to conf to try to confirm that number, I did a sales comparison approach, much like you do on a daily basis in your appraisal job.

And here that number came out to 1,278,215.

I won't go through the rigmarole of how I got there, but those two numbers are very close.

Having two numbers very close is an indication that the value is too high.

So yes, we'd like to have it lowered.

And that's based on your opinion as a lay as a lay person.

It's based on our analysis of the facts.

Lay a professional analysis of the facts.

Okay.

But that's your opinion.

It's an analysis of the facts.

You might come to a different conclusion, but this is an analysis of factual information.

If you disagree with the facts, let us know.

I don't think there's any disagreement on the facts.

So then it's an interpretation.

Okay.

For your interpretation, we've got one from the assessor's office.

It's now up to give us an interpretation.

Did you provide a copy of all of this information to the assessor staff?

Yes, she said that it is.

Generally, yes, some was also spoken verbally.

Okay.

Please.

Okay.

The case begins on page 609 of the master book.

There is an equity grid on page 749.

Looking at the equity grid, the total taxable value, which is to the far right, is sorted from largest to smallest.

The subject property is in line with homes of equal size, age, and quality.

However, this is a custom home, so there are no properties matching.

Although this is an equity appeal, there is also a comparable sales analysis on page 701.

Both the equity grid and the comparable sales analysis included the comps provided by the appellant and support the assessor's value.

Sales 1 through 4 are the most recent sales.

Five and six were provided by the appellant, but no weight was placed on them as they are 2023 sales.

All comps are the most similar sales within 1.5 miles of the subject.

Values range from 1.3 to 1.8 with a median value of 1,663,000.

The assessor is valuing this property at 1.4 million for fiscal year 2627, which is even lower than the median value.

Per statute, the assessor determines taxable value by valuing land via the market plus replacement cost new, less 1.5% depreciation up to 50 years.

When we do our best to test the values to the market to ensure we're not exceeding full cash value.

And in this case, we are well below market value, and the risk the assessor recommends no change.

Mr.

Chair.

JV Jacobs, our Clark County Assessors Department.

Um I just wanted to kind of clarify our take on the differences in market value compared to our cost approach that we use.

So I'd like to read a statement if I'd if you don't mind.

Nevada law, NRS 361.227 requires the cost approach with statutory depreciation for the improvements and market value based land valuation.

Because taxable value is not defined as market value, substituting parcel specific sales ratios would be inconsistent with Nevada statutory framework and the guidance of the International Association of Assessing Officers.

Standards on ratio studies.

Never to replace the mandatory statutory valuation method for individual parcels.

So the key point, Nevada law mandates statutory cost approach for improvements and market-based land valuation.

Market depreciation is not permitted.

Statutory depreciation must be used.

The board's role is to ensure uniform application of statutory valuation standards, not to substitute alternative valuation methods for individual parcels.

IWO guidance on sales ratio studies.

A ratio study cannot be used to judge the level of appraisal of an individual parcel.

Such statistics can be used to adjust assessed values on appealed properties to the common level.

And let me clarify that statement.

Such statistics can be used to adjust assessed values on an appealed properties to a common level, refers to the equalization process in jurisdictions where law requires assessments to be uniform percentage of market value, for example, 100% or 35%.

In those cases, ratio studies may support applying the uniform adjustment factor to appeal parcels so they match the jurisdiction's common level of assessment.

This does not authorize replacing the legally mandated valuation method for an individual property with a market-based ratio.

Because Nevada law, NRS 361.227 defines taxable value through a statutory cost approach, not as a percentage of market value.

There is no common level to equalize to.

Therefore, this clause does not apply to Nevada and cannot justify adjusting a single parcel value based on its ratio.

Applying appellant selected sales ratio imposes a market proxy onto a non statute non market statutory formula, which conflicts with NRS 361.227.

Sales ratio results reflect market value relationships.

Nevada taxable value reflects statutory cost with scheduled depreciation.

IWA alignment race deal studies are advisory and primarily for aggregate performance monitoring or equalization, not parcel specific substitution in jurisdictions with constrained statutory valuation.

In conclusion, for the board to apply selected sales ratios supplied by an appellant instead of the statutory method the assessor must use, doing so would conflict with NRS 361.227 and the IWO standards and could compromise uniformity and equity.

Thank you.

What's your feeling?

So he bought it in December of last year for 1.7 million, and they have it at 1.4, and you think it should be 1.2.

1.27.

Okay.

Well, Tim.

Why'd you why'd you pay over nearly half a million more for the property?

That's a good question.

And I thought a picture to explain that.

This is Mr.

Gardy's family.

25 people have just arrived from the Philippines.

Legally and with green cards.

And now required us to spend more for the property since it was directly across the street from two other properties owned or controlled by Mr.

Gardy.

Well, well, now you get into a special demand issue.

Yes.

We want to live across the street from a property we already own, and therefore you might have paid an inflated price.

I believe an inflated price could occur.

You'd have been better off.

Did you finance the property?

No.

Paid cash.

Okay.

Well, you know, what you pay and what we think are two different things.

Apparently.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And uh based on the information, I make a motion that we accept the assessor's recommendation and deny to the petitioner request.

And you do have the right to appeal this to the state board if you prefer.

Chairman Dugan, real quick, uh, with your motion, uh, he has appealed on equity, so you would need to make a motion about the equity argument that he they're trying to make.

I don't think there was much of an equity argument made.

Well, I didn't hear a bunch of equity argument.

He didn't give us 15 sales saying how it's out of relationship to those.

So he can mark the box equity, but he didn't supply the information for you to do that.

So you would want to make your motion on either you know you can still make it on full cash value, but you want to make a motion that you've at least addressed his concerns and that you've looked at his information in the record, and you would want to make a motion accordingly.

Okay.

I make a motion that we deny the petitioner's request based on the information provided by the assessor, and in regard to the equity position, he did not furnish 10 or 15 sales that show an unreliable equity position between his property and the neighbors.

That's my motion.

Excuse me, can I comment?

Sure, you can comment.

We did submit four comparable sales.

I don't know where it was listed.

We had to do 15, but we submitted four comparable sales, which we believe support the request.

But but you know something?

There's 800,000 properties in this valley, and you want to pick four that suits your need.

Well, you you you submitted four sales for market value, but do you submit four sales saying on equity saying that you were being taxed differently than they were?

So you don't you don't even understand what the equity position is, do you?

I'd like to hear that without his hand in front of his mouth.

I have to read lips because I'm deaf.

You submitted your sales based upon the sales comparison approach and based upon the cost approach.

That was the defense, saying that you were being taxed unfairly.

You did not submit evidence that of you you checked the equity box saying that you were being taxed inequitable.

You did not submit evidence of other properties saying that your tax was inequitable to theirs.

So you you claim anequity, but you didn't submit evidence of inequity.

There was evidence, sir, uh on the on the bottom of my sales comparison spreadsheet.

Um and I disagree.

Well, listen, you can disagree all day long.

You have the right to you have the right to appeal this to the state board.

We're not going to appeal.

Yeah, I I didn't think so.

I you got it at a million four.

You know, technically, they probably could have raised it.

Sure.

Okay, so three of the comps are immediately adjacent to probably but the problem is they could be built in different years, different sizes, different builders, different.

I understand.

You want me to interrupt you?

I'm sorry.

No, you're okay, but you want to pick and choose what you like when the assessor looks at hundreds of thousands of property to do their analysis.

So I'd have to rely on them a lot more than I would rely on you as an individual.

And nothing against you.

But you're not a licensed appraiser.

You're you I don't even know how long you've been in Las Vegas.

Mr.

Chair.

If I may, um, his comps that he provided are in my equity grid.

Uh Mr.

Dugan, I may be able to just clear it up a little bit.

If you go to page um 699, those are his sales.

So he's got four sales there.

And I think what he's referring to when he's talking about equity is the last column where he's looking at the sales ratios.

Um, and so that's where he's getting his calculation.

If you look at the bottom there, he's taking the the average sales ratio of those four sales and multiplying it to get his 1.2 million.

Um I just want to point out that you know the sales ratios for the first four of them are are for the first his property and the other three, the top three are pretty close, but the one that's 66%, that property was built in 2002.

And it throws it off, and it's not right.

I mean, it's not a property that you would utilize for an equity position comparison.

It's got a lot of um depreciation, so that is reducing the taxable value compared to the sale price.

So if you take the time, we just want to point that out.

And what's what's it nine ninety one?

Yeah, so it'd be nine.

So they're all very pretty close, except for that last one, which is a much older house.

Yeah.

But also, in addition to that, isn't that um market-based?

His his ratio there.

That's that's market-based, not statutory based.

That's right.

And that is what um Jamie Jacobs was reading into the record.

We don't base equity on sales ratios.

We base equity on did we pick up the value?

Do we do we identify the variables that are in play?

Because we are not a market state.

We are a replacement cost state plus the market value of the land, and so that's the distinctive difference when you're actually looking at sales ratios in other states versus ours.

Other states like California are market states.

We are not a market state.

Okay, I think my motion's okay.

That we take in the con we're accepting the assessor's recommendation is my recommendation, and the equity seems to be reasonable based on the top four of his equity case that are between 89 and 91, leaving out the one at 66 percent.

Again, we wouldn't look at the sales ratios for equity.

Well, that's her equity grid.

But for his sake, that's what they did.

Yes, so I want it in the record in case he decides you want to take it to the state board so they understand what we're doing.

Okay, that's it.

Cast your votes, please.

And you have a beautiful family.

It's a nice picture.

Thank you.

And you do have the right to take this to the state board.

You're more than welcome to.

Forms are outside the back door.

Motion carries, thank you for your courtesy.

Have a great day.

Thank you.

Will we receive something in writing?

Um the clerk's office does issue letters um based on all the final decisions once we're through the board season.

So it'll probably come in March.

In March, yeah, yeah.

Okay, your case number.

Come on down, please.

Okay.

Hello, my name's Michelle Hernandez.

My address is 5870 Corey Place, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89107.

Corey Place off of Charleston and uh Charleston and between Decatur and Jones.

Yes.

Yeah, okay.

On one of those little side streets there.

Yes.

Yeah, okay.

So oh, good morning, sir.

Good.

Yourself.

Doing well.

Jarrell Turner for the Clark County Assessor's office.

Right continue.

Um okay, so what page?

I don't know.

This is case 211 begins on page 217 of the master book.

Oh, all right.

Okay, so talk to me.

Can can we let the assessor introduce the case, please?

Oh, sorry.

Subdict is located just off of West Charleston and Upland Property is uh 2,531 square foot custom one story home built in 2023 with a three-bedroom, two and a half bath, three-car garage on 0.28 acres.

Um, the 2627 closed roll taxable value is 583,998 dollars.

Or recommends a no change.

It's 211.

I'm on page uh 239.

222 is the 222 is the 222, 222.

Okay, talk to me.

So I'm here please do you are first of all are you the owner of the home?

Yes.

Okay, great.

So I'm here because my real well, when I bought the property, she told me my the taxes weren't gonna be that much.

I don't do taxes.

I already told you that.

It wasn't gonna be that much.

So for the last like three years.

You got a problem with your realtor, not with us.

The last three years I've been paying like sixty one hundred dollars, and she printed out comps within the two mile range, and I'm like the only one that's paying the most taxes on that.

Well, you're a new home in an old neighborhood.

Yeah, okay.

I get that, I understand that.

So I we might be able to help you.

So I what I want to do is hear from you about these sales and where they are in relationship to this location of this house.

In other words, I guess I want you to put your case on so that I can understand your logic how this house can be worth what is it?

What do you have this house at?

583,000.

583,000 in a predominant neighborhood of 40 to 70 year old homes?

Yes, sir.

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah, I I probably have some issues here myself.

The comp sales and analysis on page 222 of the master book.

Sales are all all of homes of uh similar size but vary in age.

Please make note that the homes in the immediate neighborhood have an average year built of 1971.

Um the homes that are are listed, they bracket in size.

Um the median price per square foot.

Um we are below the medium price per square foot of the adjusted value of the comparable sales.

So the first house, where's the year?

75, 89, 2013, 2005, 1985, 2003, and 1994.

As an appraiser, I wouldn't use any of those sales on a brand new home in an old neighborhood.

I'd go out of the neighborhood, try to find a some homes, I don't care how many miles away, that are new built in older neighborhoods.

Uh personally, just off the top of my head, I think you're high.

Significantly high.

What'd you spend building it?

Um, well, when I bought the property, it was already built.

Oh, it was already built.

Yeah, okay.

When did you request three years ago?

Yeah, but my understanding was there was an older house on that property.

Before and they ripped it down or it burned down, it burned down from squatters.

Okay, so what did you pay for it when you bought it three years ago?

595.

595.

Wow.

Who's your realtor?

I want to make sure I never use them.

Sandra Flores.

See, what she did to you is she didn't do it.

You bought that house, paid top dollar in an old neighborhood.

Old deteriorating neighborhood where the homes are gonna start coming down in the next 20 or 30 years.

Yes, and being rebuilt, remodeled, new homes being built.

Um so I need some obsolete.

We gotta have some obsolescence.

See, uh as an appraiser, I would have rather you given me three new homes five miles out of town uh in on spot or gone to some spot developments where they built like 10 or 15 new homes in a little cul de sack, to give me a relationship of those as compared to this subject, because I can't I'm not good enough to compare a 75-year built or an 89 or a 93 to a house that's three years old.

I'm not that good, and I wouldn't try to do that because I could lose my license as an appraiser because I would call that well, I'd call that incompetence, I guess.

Um not your part, but as a as a licensed appraiser, as doing market value, I I would be incompetent to do an appraisal like that.

Anyone else feel like that?

So your map is on page 236.

Okay.

So 236, yes, ma'am.

Okay.

236.

Yeah, oh, it's a it's an unbelievable.

It's it's it's like it's like putting a brand new house in an old neighborhood.

It's it's what it is, and it's very complicated.

So there's some obsolescence here, and it's gotta be economic for the location.

So what's the land value at 117,000?

And you don't know what they paid for the dirt.

Do you guys know what they paid for the dirt three years ago, please?

That's what I'd like to know.

I think the land value was 40,000.

No, that's the second time.

No, that's the assessor has that's the assessor's taxable land.

Taxable.

So I'm curious what they paid for that dirt three years ago and before they built it.

Did you bring comps to show a different value?

Um, my realtor printed out 17 with um two mile ranges.

Did you give them the the assessor?

No, sir.

Well, here's the deal.

I I know this is your dream home.

Right?

Yes, yeah.

I mean I and I well, I don't want to be the only one up here making decisions.

Talk to me, people.

I you know, I would have definitely gone four or five miles, I don't even care where northwest, southwest, little pocket areas where they've done some infill pieces in seeing what they're selling for there.

And if they're only getting like 600 there for a similar sized home, mine can't be worth 600.

Does that make sense?

Especially if it's a track with like 10 new homes, a little small cul-de-sac, like some of the ones built like south of Spanish Trail, all those little infill pieces, and some west of uh just all over the place in the valley.

As far as the comps, if you look on page 236, uh try to go within the radius, not too far out, but they go out as far.

Okay, well, let me let me explain something to you.

The first thing a realtor always wants to tell me is that they they go a mile because that's what they've been told by appraisers, and that's nonsense.

Fanny Mae doesn't care how far you have to go.

Okay, if the property's comparable, I can go to Boulder City if it's in Las Vegas if I think it's comparable, and explain that in my report.

So get rid of distance in your mind.

Distance is irrelevant, unless we have a conforming property, but we don't have a conforming property.

What what provisions do we have in statutes for obsolescence?

I I know you have to do uh you know current costs and so on and so forth, but it you have a case here where you had a fire where the house burned down and and they're replacing it, but it's it's 20, 30 years in some cases different.

Um Mr.

Eger, the the there's no provision in law when there's a fire home.

There's no provision along actually it was up before the legislature this last year where potentially if somebody had a fire home and it let's just say it was a homogenous neighborhood and they weren't custom homes and a house gets rebuilt.

That house is going to be valued based on the the fact that it got rebuilt brand new this past year, even though all the other homes in the area are 20 you know years older because of depreciation.

So it is going to get added as new, and there's no provision for obsolescence per se, unless as we look at it exceed for exceeding full cash value.

And this is where we run into the dilemma because the sales ratios are not what we really weigh for equity.

Correct.

And it because that's just the nature of replacement costs.

You could even have a brand new subdivision in this example, and we've got a developer that's built all the same models in the first phase, the second phase, and the third phase.

Not even a fire home.

But those homes that were built in those three phases were built with different effective ages.

And even if they were the identical same home, their taxable value is going to be different, even if all of them sell for the exact same price.

So there is that that's just built into the way that we do our value.

Well, I understand that aspect.

Well, she's she's a layperson, so she's probably not gonna get that, but she did get some sales from the but did she provide those?

Are they in the record?

Well, for you to look, she's got them in her hand, she didn't give it to the office.

She can turn them into you right now.

She's she's she can turn them into you right now.

Make them part of the record.

How does this her property do you have photos of her property in there?

Or not?

And how does it compare to sales five, six, and seven?

Because those are in the range of what he's concluded at.

500 bef even before adjustment.

500, 699, 560.

Well, the one on Corian 500 built in 1985.

No, I don't have any photos supplied as far as the list uh it was built in 1985, but it's still sold for 500.

As far as comp one.

No, no, I get that.

Comp one was the home right next door, and that's the one that's being remodeled right now to flip.

Right.

So I'm saying if it built in 95 and 85 and it was sold for 500, and hers is like new and it's valued at 583.

It is it really that high?

She paid 590.

She's as bad as the assessor.

No, I mean she paid 590.

I'm looking at the data in the record.

You're really the information she gave me there.

It's all over the place.

And they're all old.

So they're really not comparable either.

So Mr.

Chair.

Chairman.

Yes.

Oh, go ahead.

Somebody says something too.

Here's a sale if you want to look at one that is same size, sold for 580.

I can give you the MLS number if you want to look at it.

On what?

It's on the cloud drive.

So you you know what I want?

I want somebody to look up the land value on the next door neighbor's house.

Adjacent to this house.

I want to see if it's at 117,300.

That taught that'll help me tell me where the obsolescence is coming.

Anyone on Corey Place, I want some land values.

We're attempting to log in to be able to see that.

Okay, thanks.

Thanks.

I mean, I know we're not supposed to talk about taxes.

Okay, I can't talk about taxes.

And I'd like to know the age of the house.

I'm just curious if this land's being uh valued the same.

I get that the 231 per square foot is very low.

But it's um so the next door neighbor parcel 008 land value is 117,300.

So I believe that's the same as the subject.

Oh, yeah, it is.

And the house is built in 1975, 2436 square feet.

So similar size.

Mr.

Chair, Jamie Jacobs, Clark County Assessor's Office.

And if you look go back to the comparable grid on sale number six, is uh 2003 in a mixed neighborhood of older homes and newer homes, and it sold for 699.

You know, bracketing the top end of the market range.

So it's not like there aren't new newer homes in the area, and they aren't selling to support our so do me a favor, go back to when this house was built and listed on MLS, and I want to know how long it was on the market before they found her.

200 days, 300 days, 20 days.

That's what I want to know.

And that's something that you guys should be looking at.

So the subject when it sold for 595,000.

It was on the market for 32 days.

Look at look at history and tell me the history if it's been listed before, please.

Another 288.

Another 288 days.

Okay.

So that tells me.

And another ninety-three.

So it took a year to sell it for that for them to find her.

Okay?

That to me is an indication that it's probably overpriced.

Okay.

And it shouldn't have been to you that it's overpriced.

And you never even thought about looking at the history of the house.

And I'm not being criticiz I'm not being critical, but you need to look at this stuff.

Because this is what we do in the real world.

And if it took a year to sell and to find her, and her realtor talked her into buying it, I think it's high.

That's just my two cents.

So somebody on the board make some decisions and talk to us.

Well look at comp five.

What page is that again?

Comp five's on Corey.

Um 500,000.

500,000, similar size, somewhat similar size.

I know it's older, but I get it, but how does it go 580?

How does it go from 500 to adjusted sale prices 742?

Well, that that doesn't make sense.

That's that's absolutely that part doesn't make sense.

None of that makes sense on any one of those sales.

But I'm just looking at the sale price at 500,000.

And here's the problem.

If we take off economic on the land, well, maybe we're better off to take functional for misplaced improvements.

Yeah.

Okay.

But the thing is is that they're at 584 basically.

And you got a sale that's three, four hundred square feet smaller.

Older, of course, it sold for 500 on the same street.

So it is a two-story versus the one story, and it's on a smaller lot.

And then Kristen presented a comp in a neighborhood with around older homes of a similar sized home, similar age that sold for what was it?

580.

580.

Yeah, but that's on McLeod and what?

It's not the drop, I think.

Off trap.

That's a better neighborhood than Charleston.

Uh I could prompt guarantee you better than the old Charlton Ice.

It might be a tad.

I think it's somewhere between the 500 and the 580 somewhere.

Just just so you just so you know 55 was totally re got it and redone.

Okay.

You were looking at that comp.

Yep.

Totally remodeled and redone.

Yeah.

So it was like brand new.

Baths kittens, that kind of thing.

And he's over here adding uh 10% for inferior amenities.

And it's probably got none, no, no.

I'm just looking at renovated pictures.

Well, then it's uh 403 square feet smaller.

This one has sold for 500.

Right.

Totally remodeled.

Like the subsidies of good company.

So it it's a good comp.

I'm saying it's like new, basically.

It's smaller, so you need to adjust it for size.

Right.

Highest sale in the neighborhood over the last 15 years.

Is that comp five's number two?

Okay, I think comp five is pretty comparable.

I don't, you know.

And when you get into square footage, I don't care about three or four hundred square feet when you get into something unusual like this.

So you would rather us take functional, right?

Because I can't take it off the dirt, because then you're gonna take it off everybody's dirt.

Well, right, then it would be inequitable with all of the neighbors because they are all at 117.

And sale five was two-story, and hers is one story.

And what's the lot size difference?

With lot size?

That's too low.

Well, then make your vote.

525.

I think that's low.

Okay, then make the vote.

I'd say 550.

I'm sorry.

I think 550.

Let's split the difference and go 525.

You gotta be making a motion.

You can't you can't be negotiating with the five of us here.

All right.

Um if I can chime in.

You can't just split the baby.

You have to give some reason as to why you're coming with the number.

All right, I'll make a motion at 525.

I think the property overall is superior to the comparable that sold for 500,000.

Less than the the five eighty that um Christian provided, and looking at the other sales that have uh that were on the grid, even though most of them other than the one on uh Corey, I think are not that great, but and then I just looked at a bunch of other sales and none of them really stuck, but there was a lot of sales but that were built in 22 to 24 similar size homes that were selling in the five to five eighty marks.

So given where it's located, and the comps that I was looking at is much better areas.

I my conclusion would be that it would be five of value full cash value of five twenty-five.

Okay, you hear the motion cast your votes.

Motion carries it's gonna be reduced to five twenty-five.

And do me a favor.

Don't ever buy the highest priced home in a neighborhood again.

Well, thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you for your courtesy.

Does someone want the her comps?

No, no, we gotta keep them for the record.

Yeah, but I mean somebody from the assessor.

Yeah.

We got Jamie Scott right here.

Okay.

Seeing no other petitioners.

Uh we'll do oh general administrative business.

Actually, we're past that section, but we do need you to take a vote on the rest of the cases that are stamped on your agenda withdrawn or stipulated, or where their uh appellants did not show today.

Okay.

If you could do that.

Uh I make a motion that uh for the remaining cases where the appellants did not appear today, that we accept the assessor's recommendation as presented.

You you need to also include the things that are both stamped stipulated and withdrawn.

As well as the ones that were stipulated and withdrawn.

Okay.

What is it?

Second.

What is it?

All tab?

All tab.

Doesn't want to give it back to me.

We're still stuck on the we're still stuck on the vote.

Her screens haven't moved.

We can't vote.

We can't vote.

We can't vote.

Somebody needs the help.

There we go.

Yep.

Somebody's got more power than us.

Okay.

Comment?

Or do you know do you have to uh we can do public comment?

Uh right before that, I just want to let you know about the remaining cases that are coming.

So the next hearing is on the ninth, which is this coming Monday.

There's 40 cases for that day.

The 11th, there's 81.

The 19th, which is the next residential day, there's 56 currently.

The 23rd, 82, the 24th, 61, and the 25th, 44.

So 364 cases left of the 887 that were filed.

Okay.

And you can go ahead and do it.

And the next residential is what?

The 19th.

19th, okay.

Okay.

Great job, everybody.

We need to go ahead and take the public comment.

Do the what?

Public comment.

Oh, there's no public.

Public comment.

Seeing no public, we'll adjourn the meeting.

Thanks, everyone.

Where's our gap?

Well, you got a gavel.

Here.

Now we're there.