Is everybody ready?

Good morning.

The Clark Harney Board of Equalization hearing for February 11th, 2026.

County Clerk has informed us that this meeting has been posted and properly noticed.

At this time, can we please call the roll?

Terry Farr.

Present.

Tammy Campo.

Here.

Teo de Federico.

Present.

Petra Latch.

Present.

Evan Rains.

Here.

Thank you.

I motion to adopt the agenda.

Please cast your votes.

And that motion passes.

Before we start, uh microphone is open for any public comment.

Seeing none, I will close the microphone.

This time we need to swear in the petitioners, anyone who intends to testify on behalf of the petitioners and members of the assessor's office.

Please stand and face the county clerk to be sworn in.

If you raise your right hand, please.

Do 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 go.

Thank you.

Now we have a statement from the district attorney's office on what the Board of Equalization is and is not allowed to do.

The Nevada revised statutes allow individual taxpayers who feel their taxable value for the upcoming tax years incorrect to appeal to the County Board of Equalization no later than January 15th.

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

The County Board of Equalization has the authority to determine and then change and correct the value of ME 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.

If the board finds the assessment of taxable value is not equitable, they may raise or lower the value of the land or improvements or both, 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 year being appealed, the board may review the assessor's determination.

If the board finds that the full cash value on the January 1st, 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 then 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 that could reasonably affect their decision on an issue, they must publicly disclose this information to the chair and 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 gift or loan, a significant financial interest, or a personal or private obligation to another party.

Thank you.

Agenda item six, uh assessor recommendations.

Yes, Chairman Farr, you will find those on page 13 of your agenda.

I motion to approve the assessor's recommendations from page 13.

Please cast your votes.

Motion passes.

Do we have any uh notices of appearance?

Good morning, Stephanie Jones for the Clark County Assessor's Office.

Um, yes, we have 13 cases today for notice of appearance.

Um I would like I I would like to start just by going over a few things that are in every single one of the cases, so I don't have to keep repeating that over and over again.

Um all of this information is included in each one of the cases.

Um so instead of repeating myself, um, I would just ask that all the information that I go over right now are incorporated into all the cases that follow.

Um, and when we're in the cases, I can direct you to the specific pages if you'd like to look at at any of those things for the individual cases.

Um if I can have you go to page 1711.

I just want to go over the deadlines.

Um, NRS 361-340.

Um, every appeal to the county board of equalization must be filed no later than January 15th.

If January 15th falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the appeal may be filed on the next business day.

This year, January 15th was a Thursday, so that was the deadline.

Um if you go to the next page.

NRS 361-362 appeal on behalf of an owner.

Um, if a person files an appeal in a timely manner with the written authorization required by subsection one, the person may provide the written authorization within 48 hours after the last day allowed for filing the appeal.

So this year the deadline to submit a valid letter of authorization would have been January 17th.

And then I just want to point out again, this is in the case material.

Um these deadlines for the 15th are on the notice of value cards, they're on the instructions that are sent with the appeal form, they're on the assessor's website, um, they're also in the review journal on December 14th.

And the 48-hour notice, um, we do send an email blast to any agents that have appealed with us before, letting them know all the rules and the deadlines for the letter of authorization.

In addition, um, these these the agent authorization deadline is also sent with the appeal form.

And again, I'd like to incorporate that testimony into all the cases.

What case numbers do we have?

So the first case we have is 627.

Um, that case begins on page 1706.

This case um involves an untimely filing by the owner per 361340.

The owner is Roman Ortega Pablo, and this was an exemption appeal.

Um, you can find the appeal form on 1707.

You can see that in part A, the owner is Roman Ortega Pablo.

Um you can see that he checked self under part C.

And if you go down to the second page, the next page, um, you can see that he signed as the owner in part G.

And he the date of his signature is January 16th of 2026.

And if you scroll down one more page, um, page 1709, you see the uh postmark of mailing this appeal in was January 22nd.

Um this was an untimely filing, and we recommend that the board does not accept jurisdiction.

Based on the information provided in testimony uh contained herein.

I motion that we deny jurisdiction for case 627.

Please cast your votes.

That motion passes.

Okay, the next case we have is case 657.

This begins on page 1729.

This case involves an untimely filing per NRS 361-362.

The owner is CPI Amherst SFR program owner LLC, and we have an agent Ashley Warwick.

Um, the appeal form begins on page 1730.

You can see that uh the owner name is CPI Amherst SFR.

Um, the name of the petitioner is Ashley Warwick.

Under uh Part C, she has um checked the self box.

You can see that Ashley Warwick has signed as the owner.

And there is no information here under the agent.

So initially we believed that this was an owner filing because there was no indication that she was an agent at the time.

So on pages 1733 and 1734, you'll see an owner objection letter that was sent letting them know that we were unable to identify Ashley Warwick as the owner, and they were given five business days per NRS 361-362 to cure that objection.

On the 15th, after we've discovered that Ashley Warwick was in fact an agent, you can see on page 1735 and 1736.

We sent an agent authorization email.

And we sent this letter as a courtesy because it was only the 15th, and she still had two days to give us a letter of authorization.

So on January 26th, we sent an untimely, I'm sorry, on pages 1737 and 1738.

We sent an agent authorization untimely email and the letter of authorization was never received, so we recommend the board does not take jurisdiction.

Based on the information provided, I motion that we deny jurisdiction over case 657, please cast your votes.

That motion passes.

Okay, for case 658, this is the same scenario, same agent.

So I'd like to incorporate my testimony from case 657.

Um, except the case in this case the petitioner was initially uh sent the agent authorization letter, not the owner letter initially.

Um but all the information after that is um correct, or I'm sorry, is the same as case 657, and um this was an agent authorization untimely filing, and we recommend the board does not accept jurisdiction.

Based on the information provided and testimony um contained here in our motion, we deny jurisdiction over case 658.

Please cast your votes.

Motion passes.

Okay, uh case 659.

I would like to incorporate my testimony from cases 657 and 658.

Um, those combined uh are what that case exactly what that case is.

Um, and I recommend the board does not accept jurisdiction.

Based on the information provided, I motion that we deny jurisdiction over case 659, please cast your votes.

Motion passes.

Uh case 697 is the same except for the owner name is Yamasa.

I'm getting the owner name is Yamasa County Limited, um, and I'd like to incorporate my testimony from cases 657 and 658.

Recommend the board does not accept jurisdiction.

Based on the information provided and testimony provided, uh motion we deny jurisdiction over case 697.

Please cast your votes.

Motion passes.

Okay, case 660, um, same information.

I would like to incorporate my testimony from case 657, but the owner of this parcel is ALTO 3HFS Asset Company LLC.

Recommend the board does not accept jurisdiction.

Based on the information and testimony provided, I motion we deny jurisdiction over case 660.

Please cast your votes.

Motion passes.

Okay, next case is uh case 926.

This begins on page 2855.

This is an untimely letter of authorization per 361-362.

The owner is Hill Oxford 3 LLC.

If you give me a moment.

You can see the owner name Hill Oxford 3 LLC in part A.

Under Part C, you can see that the relationship is checked other as an agent.

If you scroll down to the second page of the appeal form.

Whoops.

Sorry.

Scroll down to the next page.

You can see that with this appeal form, um, we did receive a letter of authorization.

Um, the name on the authorization in part A is Hill Oxford 3.

You will see that Mercy Galindo signed as the agent, and down under the on the bottom of that page, Jack Lane signed as the property owner.

Pages 2863 through 2864 show research by our verification team attempting to link Jack Lane with Hill Oxford 3 LLC.

The verification team was unable to link Jack Lane with Hill Oxford 3.

The petitioner was informed on January 22nd.

You can see on page 2861 and 2862, an agent objection email and letter were sent.

They had five days to cure this objection per NRS 361-340 to provide information to establish that Jack Lane had authority to sign the petition on behalf of the owner.

The deadline for that would have been January 29th.

And we recommend the board does not accept jurisdiction.

Based on the information and testimony provided, I motion we deny jurisdiction over case 926.

Please cast your votes.

That motion passes.

Okay, the next case we have is case 993.

It begins on page 3162.

This oh I'm sorry, um, this case has been withdrawn.

Okay.

Sorry.

Uh case 1010 is our next case beginning on page 3237.

Uh this case is an untimely letter of authorization per 361-362.

The owner EC 3001 South Las Vegas Boulevard, uh, James De Pascal is the agent.

Um the appeal form begins on page 3238.

This form was received on January 15th.

Um, you can see in the owner section EC 3001 South as the owner.

Um in the in part C, you can see that the relationship is checked as authorized agent.

If you scroll down to the second page of the appeal form, you will see that the authorized agent is De Pascal and is signed by James De Pascal, and no owner signature is on the appeal form.

Um if you scroll down to the next page, you'll see that we did receive an agent authorization with this appeal form.

Um on the agent authorization, you'll see that the name of the owner here is uh PASCO Silver City Owner LLC, which is not the owner of this, not the owner of this parcel or this property.

Um the appeal form was signed by, I'm sorry, the letter of authorization was signed by Vicky Miller.

Um we did send if you look at pages 3243 and 3249.

We did some research to see EC 3001 South Las Vegas Boulevard attempting to link Vicki Miller to EC 3001 South Las Vegas Boulevard.

Uh the verification team was unable to link Vicki Miller with EC 2000 South Las Vegas Boulevard.

Um the petitioner was informed pages 3250 and 3251, an objection letter and email were sent.

They had five business days to cure this objection per NRS 361-340 to provide information or a lease agreement between PASCO City LLC, which was what on the letter of authorization, and the owner of the on the LOA and EC3000.

Uh the deadline to have this to us was January 29th of 2026.

Uh the petitioner did respond on January 26th.

Um pages 3252 to 3261.

The petitioner provided a deed showing that trans that this parcel transferred ownership from Pascal City, Silver City LL owner LLC to EC 3000 South South Las Vegas Boulevard on December 30th of 2019.

Also a new letter of authorization showing EC 3000 South Las Vegas Boulevard as the owner and signed by Vicky Miller as the owner at with a title of real estate manager.

Um just to be clear, this is a new letter of authorization.

So the initial letter of authorization was received by January 17th, and to cure that they would have had to have shown that that was an appropriate letter of authorization.

Um they don't after the 17th, they can't submit a new letter of authorization because now this is an untimely letter of authorization.

Um again, I'm again this was untimely, and we recommend the board does not take jurisdiction.

Based on the information testimony provided, a motion we deny jurisdiction over case 1010.

Please cast your votes.

Motion passes.

Okay, the next case is uh 1025, begins on page 3305.

This is um an untimely letter of authorization per 361-362.

Owner is Kingdom Bridge Incorporated, and we have Charles Uzigby.

Um, we believe as an agent.

Um this was an exemption appeal.

Uh the appeal form begins on page 3306.

You can see that Kingdom Bridge Incorporated is the owner, and we have under Part C, we have this um we have under other, it says accountant for church.

Um if you scroll down to the second page of the appeal form, you'll see that uh Dr.

Charles Uzigby signed as the owner and also um the agent, uh filled out the agent information and also signed as the agent.

Um we did not receive a letter of authorization by the January 17th deadline.

Um and then we've discovered um in that Charles Uzigby is not employed by Kingdom Bridge Incorporated.

He's um employed as an outside consultant or accountant for this um property.

Uh the petition was informed on January 26th, pages 3310 and 3311 uh show an agent authorization email untimely email was sent.

The deadline um again to have that letter of authorization had already passed, that would have been January 17th.

Uh there was a phone call yesterday between Ms.

Widener and Mr.

Uzigby, just letting him know about the issue.

He understood the issue.

Um this was an untimely letter of authorization, and we recommend the board does not take jurisdiction.

Based on the information and testimony provided, I motion we deny jurisdiction over case 1025.

Please cast your votes.

Motion passes.

Okay, the next case we have is case 344 begins on page 779.

This is an untimely letter of authorization per 361-362.

Um, and we had an owner objection that was also not cured.

Um the owner is um Alpine Building LLC.

The appeal form begins on page 782.

Um you'll see in part A, Alpine Building LLC is identified as the owner with the name of the petitioner as Paul Murad.

Um, and then under part C, we have um checked that he is an employee or officer of a management company.

If you scroll down to the second page, you will see that um Paul Murad has signed this as the owner.

Uh we did research in um on pages 787 to 794, attempting to show Paul Murad as an authorized signatory as an owner for Alpine Building LLC.

We found no link between Paul Murad and Alpine Building LLC.

On the 20th, we reached out to the petitioner for information that showed Paul Murad as the owner.

The petitioner responded on pages 798 to 7.

I'm sorry, 795 to 798 with an attached uh letter of authorization, which is on 797 and 798, with Paul Murad as the owner signed by Teresa Abuen as the owner.

I'm sorry, Paul Muirite as the agent signed by Teresa Abuen as the owner for Alpine Building LLC.

Again, this was January 20th.

It was too late to file a letter of authorization.

Um so subsequently we sent on the 26th pages 800 to 801, an untimely authorization letter was sent.

An email was sent.

Um on the 27th, uh Mary Ann Widener had a phone conversation with Teresa Abdwan.

Um at that time, she um she identified that Paul Murad was not an agent, that he was the property manager per a property management agreement.

Um Mary Ann Widener asked her to send the management agreement for the cases and the three to follow with no guarantee that since the deadline had passed even to cure the objection that um we would take a look at it.

Um the petitioner did respond on the 27th, pages 802 to 809.

Uh you can see and that was for all four of her cases.

So on page 806, you'll see for this case a single page signed by Teresa Abuan indicating Paul Murad as the manager.

Uh the this information did not constitute a legal management agreement.

There's no indication of a specific parcel.

There's no indication of the this property.

Um there's no dates of the contract or terms of the contract, um, and also it was untimely.

Uh so we do recommend that the board does not take jurisdiction on this case.

Based on the information and testimony provided, I motion we deny jurisdiction over case three four four, please cast your votes.

Motion passes.

Okay, uh the next three cases are the same situation, so I'll just go through one at a time.

Case 346.

I'd like to incorporate my testimony from 345.

Um the difference is the owner on this is downtown parking L.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'd like to incorporate my testimony from case 344.

Um, the owner of this is downtown parking LLC, and on the single page management um agreement that they sent, it was David Legrand indicating that Paul Manager, uh Paul Murad as the manager.

We recommend the board does not accept jurisdiction.

Based on the information and testimony provided a motion, we do not deny jurisdiction on case three four-six.

Please cast your votes.

Motion passes.

Okay, case uh 347.

Um, same situation.

I'd like to incorporate my testimony from case 344.

The owner of this parcel is Main Street Investment LLC.

Um, and on page 901, you'll see a single page signed by David Le Grand indicating Paul Murad as the manager.

We recommend uh the the board does not take jurisdiction on this case.

Based on the information and testimony provided, I motion we deny jurisdiction over case three four seven.

Please cast your votes.

Motion passes.

Okay, and last case, case 348.

I'd like to incorporate my testimony from case 344.

The owner of this is corner building LLC.

Pages 930 up page 933 shows the single page, which is signed by Teresa Abuan indicating Paul Murad as the manager.

We recommend that the board does not take jurisdiction on this case.

Based on the information and testimony provided, I motion we deny jurisdiction over case 348.

Please cast your votes.

And that motion passes.

Thank you very much.

That should conclude the notice of appearances for this year.

Great.

Now on to procedural rules.

This hearing is recorded and part of the public record.

It is difficult to transcribe the hearings with concurrent multiple voices.

Please do not speak if another party has the floor.

If you have the floor, please speak clearly into the microphone.

Please note that we do not discuss property taxes in these hearings.

Your net property taxes may not be affected by the outcome of your case.

Procedural rules relative to presenting appeals are as follows.

When we call your case, please come up to the podium, state your name and address into the microphone for the record.

The assessor will briefly describe the property to the board.

You will then present evidence for your case.

The assessor's office will provide their evidence to support the assessor's opinion of the taxable value.

You may then respond to the assessor's case, but you are limited to the rebuttal of evidence presented by the assessor.

Please keep comments limited specifically to your case.

Please do not address the assessor staff.

The board will ask questions of the petitioner or the assessor staff.

The board will discuss the testimony and information provided and move forward with the decision.

If you or the assessor's office are unhappy with the board's decision, both parties have the right to appeal with the state board of equalization.

Appeal forms are in the hallway outside the doors to the chamber.

Do we have any general administrative business?

Yes, Chairman Farr, Mary Ann Widener for the record.

Um on page two, it was already mentioned.

Um case 993 has been withdrawn.

If you'll mark that on your agenda, and then on page four, case seven ten, third from the top, has also been withdrawn.

Okay.

Samuels please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Jay Samuels, and I'm speaking on half of my brother Neil Samuels' driver.

Okay.

My brother has a piece of property address for the record, so I'm sorry.

My our uh the uh our address is 72 Vallejo Verde Street, Henderson, Nevada.

That's where we live.

The property is uh a parcel number one seven.

That's all right.

We we've got that.

Uh the assessor will introduce the case and then we'll get to what you want to share with us.

Good morning, Cindy Robina for the Clark County Assessor's Office.

The subject is a 1.99-acre vacant lot located south of Lake Mead Parkway.

It's north of Warm Springs and east of Racetrack Road in the Southeast Submarket.

The parcel is zoned RS1.

It's in a custom home lot subdivision.

Uh we recommend no reduction to the taxable value of 300,000.

Great.

Mr.

Samuels.

Okay, uh I'll just read off what my brother is written.

Please consider that my appeal to your tax appraisal of 300,000 on my land parcel.

I previously noted by email and phone conversation.

And to Miss Roblina, an additional revelant uh rev revalent information on comparable comps.

The following should be considered.

Marla Greg, representative of utility planning in City of Henderson, stated to my brother and I that we could not split the parcel of 1.99 because we would be considered developers.

The SNWA imposed a $20,000 septic tank waiver fee for any prospective purchases of the land, which has caused potential buyers to shy away from making any written offers on the land parcel.

Since submitting my appeal, there was a slight change.

However, SNWA has left open the possibility of them in reimposing a timeline restriction at some unknown future date.

The reintroduction of any other timeline restrictions or selling has created a cloud over the sale and diminished the value.

SNWA's regulations have depressed the vacant land, and because of this, no vacant land has sold within a half a mile of my parcel since March 11th, 2025 when SNWA regulations were introduced.

The comparables, which were the appraiser, Miss Cindy Roblena used, established a appraisal price, which is in which is inaccurate and wrongly applied.

There are only two land parcels, not six, as Ms.

Roblana stated that are valid comps.

These two lots are two acres or more.

The other lots are less than two acres and cannot be considered the equivalent.

If you consider the two revalent land parcels as comps, you can't reach the appraiser of 300,000.

Each one of those other parcels, one was it was a price of $80,000 per acre, and the other one was $87,000 per acre.

The first one was sold on $57,224, the other one on $1122, $2,024.

That would make my property of $1.99 a value of $167,000.

However, based on valid comps and the fees imposed by SNWA, the appraiser should come closer to the $126 that I listed in my appeal.

Only other thing I would like to mention is I'm going to present uh the this information to you when you consider this, and that on the back I have listed all the uh parcels that have sold, which is none in the last uh year since they've imposed it, which are half a mile, which is all that is listed on the website that the public can get.

So I want to just turn those in, hand this in to you so you can have a record of it.

How many copies did you make?

Uh made 10.

Okay.

If that's not enough, I have another extra one.

Does that complete the uh presentation of your case, sir?

Yes, if there's any questions before.

We'll we'll get to that after the rebuttal.

Okay, okay.

Ms.

Robina.

Do you want me to wait here or just sit back?

Right there.

Okay.

Okay, the land grid for case 214 is on page 331.

So um I've talked to um the city of Henderson, and according to them, the parcel is approximately 2,000 linear feet from the nearest main sewer line with an estimated extension cost of $300 per linear foot.

Since the distance is over 600 feet from a connection, the property qualifies for a septic system waiver.

So all comparables, the land cells are located within one mile of the subject property and transacted without public sewer connections or septic tank systems, making them appropriate for comparison given the subject's current utility situation.

Um if you look at the vicinity map on page 338.

Uh comparables one and three have a sewer connection point on the corner of the property.

Comparable two is 130 feet away from a connection.

Comparable four is 2400 feet away from a connection.

Comparable five is 3,000 feet away from a connection, and it borders the subject.

And comparable six is 475 feet away from a connection.

The subject's taxable value is below the range of comparable sales indicated, and the property is currently listed on MLS for 499,990.

Um it was brought up in a conversation that there was an offer of 400,000 and it was turned down.

Um so based on this analysis, the assessor's office recommends no reduction to the taxable value of 300,000.

Do you have any rebuttal to can I Jace Lanyam which you do for the Clark Kenny assessor's office?

Can I just make a statement, please?

Um as he was stating as far as um the SNWA allowing septic waivers as of June of 20, excuse me, March of 2025.

They instated that based on the AB 220 being passed.

That passed in June of 2023, which basically prohibited new septic systems if it was being serviced by municipal water.

Um basically, if you wanted to get um water, you had to get uh go into the sep uh excuse me, the sewer system.

Prior to that law being passed, um the Las Vegas Valley Water District had changed their um service rules back in January 1st of 2021.

And um based on that service changing rules, they said that they were able to um basically deny a water commitment if they wanted to connect um, excuse me, if they wanted to get a septic system, they actually had to connect to sewer even back then, no matter the distance.

And at that point in time there were no waivers.

You had to connect to a sewer system back then.

So basically, with this AB 220, um that allowed the SNWA to allow septic now without connecting to sewer.

If you're with um, excuse me, if you're over 600 feet, there's some other stipulations that they have, and actually on page 344 of Cindy's case, there's a screenshot of the actual septic system waiver request for SNWA with the requirements.

And part of that requirement is 20,000.

But prior to this, you weren't allowed to connect to uh septic if you were building a new property.

So this kind of has been in existence since 2021, based on the um Las Vegas Water Districts Um rules and regulations.

Do you have any rebuttal to the assessor's case?

Well, the the assessor mentioned.

Please speak into the microphone so we can hear I apologize.

No worries.

Okay, uh the assessor mentioned that we my brother had an offer of 400,000.

That is correct, but she didn't mention the year.

This was way before, this is a couple of years before, it was in 2022 that he had this offer.

So what she what we were what my brother is saying is ever since SNWA has done this, it's lowered the price of values of land in that area.

Some of the mention the uh comparables that she mentioned were less than 600 feet, which means we would have had anybody buying would have to connect to the sewer no matter what the cost is, because the new regulations from SNWA six to 600 feet.

So at $300 a foot, my brother's in his case, if he wanted to put a build on it now, it would be 600,000 to connect to a sewer.

So what what's happened is all these regulations have just depressed what the value of the land is.

And and they're pulling and choosing some of these comparables from you know some of them might uh like I mentioned in there are two that are I can understand, but not the other two other four that she's mentioned.

Do you have any additional comparables that you want considered?

No, because uh I don't have any other comparables because I'm not I'm not an assessor, and then the website only goes from uh a half a mile away from the property.

That's their website.

I mean, if I you know when I talked to them on the phone, because I did it for my brother, she just said she had six comparables.

I asked them what they were, she never said anything in the conversation because the conversation went on, and all she said was that we have six comparables, and we and she she said, Will you agree to disagree?

And she didn't take into account what SNWA was doing.

Just you're also aware, and I didn't mention it, the uh the health department's gonna be adding more regulations on septic tanks.

So and that that meeting is in February 26, February of uh the this month.

So what I'm saying is my brother does not think that the assessed value right now, the way it is, is correct.

What is the property currently listed for?

It's listed 499, and we've had no offers.

We haven't changed the price.

Why not?

If if you think that it's been affected, why haven't you changed the listing price?

Because we're waiting to see what happens with SNWA and some of the other things.

Just so you know, S and WA just removed the one year restriction on the property.

In other words, you couldn't, in other words, you couldn't transfer it, and if you didn't sell it by uh April of 2026, they just removed that restriction.

So we're hoping that we can talk them into changing some of the restrictions and pulling down some of the fees so we have a chance to sell the property.

So what this is is everybody's squeezing trying to get money, and they're really making it hard for people who have land members of the board.

If they subdivide it, are they allowed to all hook up to septic?

I actually just talked to somebody at the City of Henderson Utilities, and yes, they can it's RS1, so they can subdivide it into two parcels, and both both have uh septic.

She said that is current.

She said that is subject to change.

So your current taxable value is 150,000 per lot, so 300,000, and they want 125,000 total.

Is that right?

I guess my question is um we have the assessor sales, and he has brought nothing, and he said he can't use the assessor's site to go half a mile away, which is factually false.

You can go all over the county.

It only shows the recent sales on that website.

No, it doesn't.

It shows every parcel in Clark County, and you can click on it and you can tell when it sold, who bought it, who sold it, and what the price was.

So that's factually incorrect.

You're you're talking to a group of appraisers up here who have probably 200 years of experience on eight to ages, but I think he's referring to the neighborhood sales tab that goes to a maximum of 2,640 feet.

Now, did you speak to an appraiser to get get it appraised, or because appraisers have access to more data than just the assessors?

We have not got an appraisal since we first put it on sale several years ago.

I'll be honest, I have heartburn with a current listing at 500,000 and you saying it's worth less than half of that.

I I I have an issue with that.

So all of the comparables, are you saying they all face the same situation?

Yes, they do.

Um of them are in better.

So comps one and three, they're right on the connection point is right on the corner.

So those are in better in better situation.

Um but comp number five is um it borders the subject, and that's a recent sale of in January of 25.

So 210 an acre.

And it it borders it abuts the subject, that one?

And it sold for 210,000 in 25.

Do you have 25 correct?

Um Stephanie Jones for the Clark County Assessors Office.

If you go to page 339, that shows the subject.

And I believe um comp five is the one to the north, the vacant parcel to the north, not the one with the house.

I was kind of in the very brief time that we have, sort of hunting around and and found the 3.71 acres at 1117 Geneva sold in November 2024 for 325,000.

But from the aerial, it looks like maybe half of that parcel is even usable.

And then the other one doesn't have an address, but it's parcel 17904 307 001, 2.97 acres, and it sold for 219,000 an acre or 650,000.

And that's just in the very brief amount of time of just looking in this area.

So I I'm not seeing any any comps that would support.

I mean, if you're talking about 125 for the entire thing, you're looking at 62,000 dollars per acre, and and I'm not seeing that in any of the sales.

Even that one that's adjacent that appears to have been previously developed.

Is that sound right?

It looks like there's a pad on there, and and your site has it's still in its raw natural state.

So it would be it'd be worth something less than that, not only for size, but also for condition, right?

But the assessor's number is right in line.

I I I just I really can't argue.

Um, and for that reason, I'm gonna motion that uh we deny the appellant uh for this case, which is case two one four.

Please cast your votes.

And that motion passes, sir.

You do have the right to appeal.

Forms are right outside the door.

All right, thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Next case is uh 314.

James H.

Turner Living Trust.

Mr.

Turner, there's also case 315.

I'll wait till you get to the to the microphone.

Please state your name and address for the record, sir.

James H.

Turner, 310 Radwick, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89110.

Great.

Uh we have two cases for you.

Did you want to hear them at the same time, or did you hear them separately?

At the same time is fine.

Okay, so we're gonna combine cases 314 and 315 then.

Ms.

Yamashita Jason Yamashita for the Clark County Assessors Office.

Um the subject property for case 314 is a 1.01 acre vacant lot located on Raddock Drive near Hollywood and Charleston with city and mountain views.

We are currently recommending no changes to the total taxable value of 176,000.

Um the case starts on page 729, and for case 315, the subject property is a point eight eight acre vacant lot located on Radit Drive near Hollywood and Charleston with City Mountain Views.

On this one, we're recommending no changes to the total taxable value of 168,000.

Mr.

Turner.

Yes, I am a Nevada licensed land surveyor and a Nevada licensed water rights surveyor, among other things.

These properties are not commercial, they're individual with no adjoining property.

Well, the one has adjoining properties, but uh my purpose of purchasing these was I'm a disabled veteran, and my sons are getting up to the age, they're all in near 60s, and I was hoping to build at least one of them a home next to us, as you can see in your sketch.

The house in the middle between those two lots is mine.

I am the owner builder, designer, contractor, everything.

And it does have a septic tank.

It was built in 1998 with the sewer rules as I commend the county for speaking up about them.

The sanitation district estimates that I should be able to run a sewer to my property for a little less than 200,000 dollars.

The last piece of property was purchased for 130 after the rules, the property owner to the north of that property.

I've had conversation with him, he paid 154, I believe, and says he can't sell it, he can't build on it.

Would I like to take over payments?

The property to the south of my property, I purchased for 180 long before the rules came into effect.

Please note that three other people have owned that property before me and attempted to build on it.

That's why it has a street address.

When they found out what the expense of a sewer was because they're less than 500 feet, they gave up.

With these reasons, I just don't believe that property is worth that kind of money for any purpose at all because no individual is going to want to buy or develop with that sewer price hanging over their head.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Yamashita.

All right.

If you turn to page 736, you'll find my land comparable grid.

Um you'll find there's eight comparable sales.

Comps one, three, four, and five are the most comparable in size to the subject.

Comps two, six, seven, and eight are smaller in size.

Similar to the subject.

Comps one, six, and seven have similar views.

Comps two, three, and four do not have any views.

All comparables do not have any sewer or subject at the property and are at various density distances to the point of connection for the sewer.

If you look at my grid, you'll see on the off sites, you'll see the distances from the nearest point of connection of a sewer.

And comps one through five are closer distance to the sewer, but there's very few sales of that large acreage in that area.

Most of them are half acre lots that are being sold.

But the if you look at comps one through five, their values are anywhere between 200,000 to 280,000 for almost an acre.

And the last three sales, um, six, seven, and eight are half acre lot sales that range between 140 and 165.

And if you look at the um the ranges on the last three, which are similar in distances from the point of connection, you can see a half acre is between 150 and 165 that have the same issues as the subjects.

There are two, there were two.

Um, if you look on the grid, there's two sales that are pending sales that are in close proximity to the subject property.

Um comp the first one, parcel 140, 35303, 018, that was 0.61 acres that was listed at 178,000 dollars.

Recently just sold in January of this year.

Um which page are we looking at here that you're talking about?

Um it's on my my grid on 736.

Oh, it is on your grid?

Yeah, if you look in the notes on the bottom of notes under the comments, yeah.

So there's two pending sales.

Um like I said, parcel 140, 35303, 018, which is 0.16 acres, just recently sold for 165,000 dollars.

And if you go to um here with me, it's page 749.

I got a map of the points of connection for the sewer for the subject property.

What page?

749.

So there's two actual points of connection, and um with the septic waiver that we mentioned in the last case, and that's also in this case on page.

I think it's right after that.

Page 750.

If you look at the um requirements, it's not only that it has to be a minimum of 600 feet, there's others where it can be located less than 600 feet.

Um if it's um farther away, or excuse me, if it's located with the 600 feet of the approved sewer point, but a connection would require a force main or lift.

So basically stating that even though you're close to a point of connection for a sewer line, it has to be have a gravity flow.

So the closest point of connection may be 400 feet away, but another point of connection that actually has to have the gravity flow could be farther away.

So I don't know where this is just um approximations on where his actual point of connection is on here.

So he may qualify.

I don't know.

Um, because there's two sewer points, one is closer than the other.

Um again, I wanted to show you on that map the sale that just occurred.

Um, if you look on that sewer map back on 749, um you can see his um parcels, case 315 and 314.

The sale that just occurred is on Peaceful Street, which is two streets above it, and it's a uh a vacant lot right between two houses, like I said, that just recently sold for 165,000, which is smaller than his property, and we currently have this one listed at currently on at 176,000 for the one acre.

Um, and I again incorporate what I'm saying for the other one, which is 0.88 acres, that is on at 168,000.

So I think with all of this information, I think um we support a value that we have currently on based on the sales and all the information we have.

Thank you.

Do you have any rebuttal to the assessor's case?

No, it's just that some of the properties for sale, as to my neighbor to the north.

The realtor said yes, all utilities are available.

Um he wouldn't even have power of phone if I hadn't built it.

I had to bring it in from Stuart for the house that I did build.

Uh we've got water in the street, but that's the only thing.

So we have a problem here that realtors are falsely stating.

Well, they're not falsely stating, all utilities are available.

May cost you 200,000 to bring it in.

That's why these lots are being sold multiple times because people are buying them with the intent of building a home, then turning around and finding out they can't build a home and trying to sell them, and the prices are coming down.

I paid 180 for the one and 130 for the other because prices have come down.

People are starting to realize what's going on, and that's a consideration that I wish could be addressed by state statute or something.

Um as I said, I'm a water rights surveyor, I get all of the notices from the state engineer that pertained to water in Clark County.

He wanted to notify all master realtors that they would have to include this ruling, but he was turned down.

So we have lots being sold all the time for more than they're worth on a side note.

You understand that by telling us your water rights surveyor, you might be hearing from all of us up on the panel in the future when we need some data, right?

Just to make sure we're clear on that.

Well, and just to uh clarify, as people come to me with this, the state board gives out my number sometimes.

I refer them to the yellow pages to find some.

I uh after 31 years in the Clark County Survey Department, I retired as a deputy county surveyor in 1999.

So I keep my licenses abroad because I go to the seminars, I keep up on the things, I stay in tune with the laws, and when people call me, I give them the advice as the state board would.

But I'm not for hire.

So I have a couple questions.

Okay.

Can I ask you?

Oh, yeah, I was just gonna make a comment about his about his sale that just happened in the as an appraiser.

If I looked at this and I said, wow, he paid 180, and then seven years later he paid 130.

I would say something changed in the neighborhood, and it's going down.

Yet you're trying to tell me that it went up 35% since he bought it a year ago.

Can I make a comment though about the sale about the sale though?

Can I make a comment?

Zero sense about his sale.

Can I make a comment about the sale that just happened that he had at 130?

Yes.

Okay.

So in speaking with uh Mr.

Turner, um, I asked him about the sale that happened in January of 2025 for 130,000 because it was lower than everything else that's happening in that area, even for half acres.

He told me that he approached the buyer that he knew, and this wasn't listed anywhere.

It wasn't an arm land transaction.

He had some money that he wanted to purchase because he wanted to build on that property eventually for one of his sons.

They agreed on a price back then, um, and it was a cash sale, and this apparently this seller wanted to liquidate his assets.

So to me, that is not an armed land transaction.

It wasn't it wasn't listed anywhere, and he approaches sellers.

Sales like that happened all the time, though.

And it doesn't mean it's not arm's length because it wasn't listed.

It means it's not arm's length if he sold it to his sister.

I would buy it.

But this is somebody who could have put it up for sale.

I again I'm I'm struggling with that difference.

I I don't know that this is gone up that much.

And so that's my problem.

And I would have used both of them and explained that.

Why wouldn't you put those on the grid?

I I I don't understand.

I mean, that would have showed the bigger picture, and then you could have explained that and said, and can you answer that?

Do you think you stole the property at 130?

Actually, he has he has a lot of real estate, and he has a realtor that he uses all the time.

And he asked him off the top, what do you think it's worth?

And he told him about 145, which would include a 10% commission for the realtors that did it.

So basically that 145 becomes 130 after 10% commission, and I gave him cash and paid all the fees.

I was selling another property at the same time, a home that I had built for my parents back in the 80s that had been a rent rental since they passed away.

And we both thought that was a fair deal.

And of course, his realtor didn't like it because he didn't get a commission.

I actually had the service when uh I got ready to build my house because I worked for the county, I couldn't survey in the county except for the county.

So I hired a private land surveyor to come out and survey these three lots were originally one lot, and they were subdivided by words back when that was legal.

It's called an allocate.

So I talked to my neighbors, they agreed, my land surveyor did the full survey for me and charged them what the extra fees were for just them, and one survey covers all three lots, and then since then I've acquired the other two.

Can I ask you what your thoughts are on this sale that did just close in January of 2026 on peaceful way for 165,000 for a point six one acre?

Do you know anything about that, sir?

No, I'm I'm not a realtor, I know my area.

Okay.

Uh I know a major part of Clark County because of my employment, but when it comes to values and things like that.

Right.

My family bought two and a half acres in 1952, a half a mile east of Boulder Station, and that area between us and it at that time was a horse ranch, and I grew up out in that area.

We didn't even have streets.

I want to go back to your your purchase at 130.

You said that that was net of commissions, net of fees, you paid all fees.

What was your all in?

What what were the cost of your fees, your closing costs, your title insurance, everything that you paid?

Because my hunch is you're gonna be right back up or on the 165.

If you were to take the 130, because you said it was 145, but you wanted to cut the the realtor out of it, right?

Right.

So you're at 145.

Did you have another 15 grand in fees?

Uh no.

Uh total fees and expenses for the title insurance and all of that was a little over two grand, like 22, 23, I can't remember exactly.

Okay.

So I paid 132 something.

Right.

But you thought it was worth the 145, and your offer was based on the 145 minus the commission.

That's where your 130 was based, correct?

I I would not have bought it at 145.

I'm not sure it's worth 130.

But for my circumstances, because rule of real estate is location.

There is no better location than joining my property line for my intention.

And and I could argue an assemblage as well.

I I without question.

I'm I'm some I'm trying to flush out more details, and sometimes when I ask questions like that, that's why I'm I'm trying to get more information.

Okay.

And I'm happy to share anything.

And because I'm professionally involved with water rights, uh I'm familiar with the law since it passed, and familiar with the difficulties since it passed because I get phone calls quite often now for people that have gotten my name from the state board and are asking if I happen to know anybody that has uh non-revocable water rights for sale.

And I warn them about the scam, or people up in Perump are selling their water rights down in Clark County, and they're not transferable because water rights up there are a lot cheaper.

So here's kind of my thought.

We've got um this sale that recently closed that's 0.661 acres for 165,000.

We have the parcel north of um the one that he just purchased that sold in 2023 for 158,000.69 acres.

We have the parcel that he purchased in 2018 for 180,000 acres, and then we have this 130,000 acres.

And I can appreciate um some of what the Clark County Assessor is saying, and that I it's an arm's length transaction.

The seller had owned it since 2011, obviously wasn't building on it, didn't have it on the market.

You come, you offer cash, 130,000.

Okay, I I my suspicion is it's probably market value worth a little bit more than that, and you you've got you know, you you approach them and said, Hey, you bought it 14 years ago, 13 years ago, you're not doing anything with it.

I'll give you 130 grand, and they said okay, fine.

He bought it in the 70s.

Right.

Um it says 2011 they purchased it, right?

Is that correct?

If I'm looking at this right, no, he's had it longer than that, but he bought it in his name, and then he had it in a trust, then he had it in a Dora LLC in 2011.

And again, yeah, you'd have to go back.

So Dora LLC in 2011.

So this is someone that's been sitting on this for a long time, really isn't doing anything with it.

He came along and said here's 130,000 cash, and they said fine.

Would it have sold for more hard to say?

We we do have a couple sales.

Um the difference between 2023, 2026 looks like it's relatively the same, 158,000, 160,000.

My instinct is that it's more than the 130.

Um you know, if the realtor said you thought it was 145, it sounds to me like it's somewhere in there.

And what did you guys call it?

What did the assessor call it?

1100.

168.

168 for the.88, and then we have the other one, the 1.01 at 176.

If we're hearing them both together, I I'm kind of simple, and I think if you paid 130,000 for it, it's worth 130,000.

It's not worth 168,000.

Um I've been on this board almost 30 years, and we've always given a lot of consideration to a sale within a year.

We've always just said that's the that's the value.

So I I agree with Ms.

Kim.

Do I hear a motion?

Yeah, I make a motion that um they're worth 130,000 each.

Um, based on the most current comp, which I would have included on here as one of my best comp.

Um so that's my motion.

Motion's been made.

Please cast your votes.

And motion passes.

Thank you.

Just so you're aware the assessor does have the right to appeal.

Yes.

As well.

Thank you for your time, sir.

All right.

Cases 1022.

Yes, that was both of them.

1022.

Mr.

Hammock.

Did I pronounce that correctly?

Uh yes, and we're representing Hammock because my father kind of owns them all.

We're all there's three cases that we're maybe put together.

I've got six cases listed.

There's five lots, but three cases.

Okay.

I'm speaking for my father, so um, I can give you the case numbers if you need hang tight one second, because right now the case that I called was 1022.

1022, correct.

Okay.

And please state your name and address for the record.

Uh my name's Richard Robinson Jr., and the address for my father is 715.

Your address, sir.

My address is 6475 Sugar and Old Court.

Okay.

And now your name and address for the record, sir.

John Robinson.

Address 7150, Beverly Glenn.

Um, I don't know for expediency.

Uh, we'd actually like to see case zero one zero three zero uh rescinded or uh withdrawn.

Withdrawn.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well I I've got ten, I've got case 1022 listed with Jeffrey and Janice Hammock.

Correct.

Neither of you are Jeffrey or Janice Hammock.

No, it's his sister.

Do we have authorization for them to represent the form for that?

I'm sorry.

She did fill out a form we submitted.

Okay.

You stated your name and address.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

Yes, uh, Janice Hammock did sign the appeal form, so she can have anybody represent her that she wants as long as she signs the appeal form.

And she did sign the appeal form and she is the owner of record.

Okay.

But she can have anyone testify on her behalf.

Okay.

Miss Yamashita.

Why don't we introduce this case and then see what we can do about combining?

Okay.

Um case 1022 starts in the master book on page 3284.

The subject property is a point one two net acre vacant uh finished residential lot located near Bonanza and Hollywood.

It it is located in a cul-de-sac of eight bots.

This property has been let's see here.

We are recommending no changes to the total taxable value of 225,000.

Uh there's an aerial picture of the subject on page 3292.

And the appellants information is in the addendum book.

For this case, it starts on page um 17.

Uh yeah, 17, and their information starts on 22.

Okay, were you you were looking to combine cases?

Uh yes, case number 01022 and 01027.

It's the same cul de sac.

They're all do you have any problem with that?

So there's three cases in this call de sac.

It's case zero uh 1022, 1026, and 1027.

Um I think this one should probably be heard on its own because just because it has different comparables and it's larger.

Um, or if you guys want to hear it together, that's fine.

The other two um 1026 and 1027 are half acre lots in the same um uh call de sac.

So however you guys want to do it is fine.

Okay.

Um how do you want you want to just let's just run through 1022 and then we can incorporate uh that testimony into the other ones?

That's fine.

Okay, so for 1022, this is the dash 027 parcel.

Uh what information did you want to provide?

Uh first of all, it's kind of similar to the other cases.

Um basically the reason we're asking for a property value reduction is due to the fact there's no legal use that my father can use.

He purchased the land for his investment retirement, just like you invest in a 401k.

So he purchased the land, developed it, and had the all the lots in the excuse me, subdivision created.

My house is at the end of the street.

My sister's house is one of the houses in the in that cul-de-sac.

Uh the problem we have is again with the Las Vegas water reclamation, the water district, and the building department.

Um it's the same thing you're hearing over and over again.

We're not allowed to connect to the sewer because the sewer is a distance away, and it's a higher elevation, so it's not practical.

Um he's tried many ways to get this to work.

It's not that we want a reduction in taxes, we'd actually like to have the land usable.

And um, but he's even hired an attorney last year or two years ago to try and come up with some kind of workaround.

But every avenue that we take, we're denied.

The water district won't give you water unless you're hooked to the sewer.

The sewer, you know, the the health department won't give you a uh septic tank, and I understand now currently that they have this brochure, which I'm sure will be brought up again.

However, this is very problematic.

You have to have the owner defined according to the there might have been a recent change, but the paperwork I received as of two weeks ago, uh stated that the owner you must pay two hundred a twenty thousand dollar recovery fee per lot.

You must also uh begin uh building your building permit within a year, occupy within three years.

It's not transferable.

If you were to miss any of that, they're still gonna deny you your water.

Um the irony of this is when my father developed the land, he paid for three water meters, it's documented.

Um the irony of this is when my father developed the land, he paid for three water meters, it's documented, and since he didn't put the water meter in physically, he has them in his basement.

They will not give us water, they don't have the commitment.

I guess is kind of how they term it.

I'm not a professional developer, so you have to bear with me a little bit.

Uh the bottom line is is he he'd love nothing more than pay the appraised value.

Um you were asking about comparisons.

He sold a lot, and I don't know which parcel number it is, it's the one on the very corner for 110,000 dollars.

So there's your basis.

However, since that person that purchased the land was unable to obtain a building permit because he could not get sewer.

My father did the right thing and purchased the land back for 110,000.

So it's not worth 110 if somebody bought it and turned it back.

Now, you may argue it's not in your records, and that's because not everything has to be uh go through an escrow company and things like that.

But this sale did occur.

Um I can make a reference to some of the paperwork I sent you, but it's a fact that the house the lot was sold to um uh a gentleman and he had to purchase that back.

But my my father's tried everything he can.

He's very frustrated in the sense that you go to one agency, they refer you to another, then they refer you back to another agency.

So when it really comes down to it, if the land is not usable, it's not commercial, it's straight residential, and you're not allowed to build a house on it or do anything with it, what's its value?

I mean, if you have a car in your driveway and it doesn't have an engine, what's its value?

It it's really hard for me to understand why the county would say it's worth 120,000 or 40,000.

The lot that she's talking to in reference to Hammock, the reason it's stayed in his name is he was afraid to put it back in his name and then run into a problem that you see here, and that is the property are non the specific they're not transferable.

Whatever the property, according to this document is if it's in his name, then he's the only one that can build on it.

Well, he didn't have it so he could build five homes.

He's he's he's not uh polygamist, he's not gonna put a wife in each home.

He bought it once so that his children could live there.

But I mean, the cost that the county, the sanitation department is putting on these things, is ridiculous.

And the fact that you want to say that it's a premium lot is it's great.

We'd love nothing more.

But the reality is you can't build on it, you can't store on it, you can't do anything with it.

So my appeal is that it should be reduced in value because at the current rate, current time with the current regulations, it's not it's not a feasible thing.

He's tried as much as talk to the sanitation department.

What if we pump the sewer down the street and into the higher system?

They don't allow pumping.

They I mean the rules and regulations are just mind-boggling.

Didn't we hear this case last year?

Uh we have tried to appeal it last year.

We talked to Kevin in the county.

I submitted the forms, but you know, the amount of paperwork.

Well, this rings a bell, this is why I'm asking.

Uh no, we we this is my first time being here.

My father might have been here the year before.

I don't know.

This is my first time being here, but anyway, that's our appeal uh as far as lot or case number, I think it's two two, and whatever cases are related to that cul-de-sac.

26 and 27 are the other two.

Uh the one on the corner that you said was sold and and sold back.

The last history I see was 2013 when the county took it for a bad thing.

He sold it to uh contractor, so they never recorded.

He sold it to Alex.

It he had a contract with him, but it was never recorded, no.

Then it was an unexecuted contract, then it was executed, but I refunded it much.

Well, then it wasn't if it wasn't recorded, it wasn't executed.

Well, I don't see anything recorded.

He did sell it, he did have paperwork amongst them.

Um it wasn't recorded, I suppose.

Yeah, I I would suppose.

He started to get water, building trying to get a building permit, and he says water, so you've got to go with it.

Okay.

Uh Monsieur Mashita, did you want to go through your comparables, please?

Sure.

Um, if you turn to page 3220, um, you'll find my land grid with five comparable sales, all are located in the similar area as the subject property and sales ranging between 200,000 to 280,000 per lot.

All comparable do not have sewer or septic at the property and are at various distances from the point of connection for sewer.

Um the information that the appellant provided, um, so he was a pair, he did appear in front of this board.

I think it was back in like 2023, um, before all of the AB 220 went into effect.

I think it was all of this paperwork is during that time period, I think, is from what I can see.

So in his paperwork, he did supply some um letters, letters of inquiry, it looks like, for um, finding out where his sewer connections were.

So if you look on page, oh, I don't have this.

It's is it's in the addendum book, and I printed out another case, they're all in the the same cases.

So if you look on so if you look on his page five, there's a letter here that's saying that um on this particular parcel that there's a sewer connection available within 400 feet of the nearest property line, but no gravity connection.

So that's what I was talking about as far as there's a sewer line that's closer, but it's not where he can connect.

Um if you there's a map um, there's a map on here on his page eight, and it shows where the actual gravity connection is, which is 1250 linear feet away from his parcel.

So in this case, before AB220 and the waiver went into effect, he was not able to get water unless he connected to sewer, and he was kind of in a catch-22 at that point because he had the meter, he he was within 400 feet, but because of um the gravity flow, he wasn't able to get the water to connect to the sewer.

So I understand that.

So now with this, with what he has, it appears that he can apply for this septic waiver.

Um, because it is over 600 feet away based on this information that he has provided.

So there is there is an option now to do that.

It's not that he can't build anymore, to my understanding.

He would have to apply for the waiver and go from there.

Um but just based on that information.

And he did go through all of this.

Um he did get an attorney, he went through all of these different agencies to try to get the water so he could build.

I don't know anything about that that sale that he was talking about because it was never recorded, so I have no idea about the 110.

Um so I understand his position.

Um, but I have to go with what I have, and now that that that is an option, potentially to sell it and get septic with getting municipal water.

Um, that does make it valuable if he tries to sell it again.

So for this case, I think with what I have, I think uh we are recommending holding the value at 225,000.

And my understanding, there's some paperwork in here, and in speaking with the appellants.

In previously, they were thinking about splitting this parcel into three separate lots back then.

Um, excuse me, sir.

What was your attorney Agnes Hanley?

He only hired an attorney to try and get the water district to release the water meters since he'd already paid for some.

Um, we don't have an attorney at this point.

He just paid them to try and come up with a resolution.

All he was trying to do is make it useful land, and we were unable to do so.

It's still other than the county um falling back on this.

I don't know if you had a chance to really look at this.

It's very cumbersome.

Uh the 20,000, which if he sold the lot for 110, which he had to refund the money, it's not worth 110.

And then if it takes 20,000 just to get this, you're already reducing the value of the land.

And um, then there's other cumbersome things in here.

The land, when I originally read this, it had to be by April 1st in the name of the person that was going to apply.

So it's kind of like he's got six weeks to find a buyer and sell that land so that it can be titled in their name by the first so that they could even do this.

So I just think it's a little unreasonable with the circumstances to value the land that high with the restrictions that are on it.

I mean, you heard the only cases that you heard today are all about the water and the restrictions.

And I know you can come up with somebody paid so much for a land.

I'm not a real estate developer.

I didn't have this documentation from the county as, and I'm sure it was available to research.

Oh, this lot here sold for this much.

I don't know those circumstances.

I don't know if the sewer is within a reasonable distance.

When I built my house, I knew fully aware that if they brought sewer within 400 feet, I was obligated to connect to it.

And I agreed to that.

I still do.

But in this case, you can't even get sewer.

And he tried every which way.

Can we come off of Linden, which is a street to the south?

No, because there's a wash in the way.

It would be gravity feed, but it's a $1,200 feet and it's got a wash.

I mean, what are you gonna have?

A sewer line exposed in this wash.

He's tried to comply with these rules, but they're just overburdening, which makes you know, he's on limited income, and now you want to charge premium tax dollars for land that we can't even use.

Can I just make a comment regarding um the ownership by April 1st of 2026 on the septic um waiver?

They actually are doing away with that.

Um, that there is not going to be a time frame at this point to um for ownership.

So they're taking that that uh date away.

I didn't hear what she said, but uh that they're doing away with that, they're doing away with the the April 1st, 2026 deadline.

Well, like I said, this is what I had to go from two weeks ago.

So I mean he would love nothing more than to come up with water.

Water and and that he was he developed it for his retirement, he would love nothing more than to see full value, and and if he could have sold it for well, he was willing to take 110.

The guy on Radwick was gonna get a he paid 10 what 35 or 40,000.

But anyway, that's our appeal is to reduce the value of the land because we can't use it.

So I I think we're all trying to understand the whole septic water thing.

So when I hear things like the land is not usable, is it that you absolutely cannot build or it's costly to build?

Oh, well, that's kind of a two-part question.

You can build if it's in your name by April 1st, or what if they extended it, and you pay the 20,000.

The 20,000 is gonna offset if you went to sell it on the open market, and I knew that.

Let's assume I wanted to buy a piece of a lot from him tomorrow by April 1st.

And I like I said, I'm going only by what I was told at the time.

I would reduce my cost value by 20,000 because it's already gonna cost me 20,000 more.

Just it's just a fee.

It's just a recovery fee.

There's no no other means to it.

Um sorry, so the 20,000 doesn't go towards anything, it's just a straight off the top payment of a one-time resource recovery fee to SNWA.

And what's the difference?

And and the gentleman that spoke before us is correct.

At the in April, they're meeting again to further impose sanctions and taxes on a septic system.

Now, it's surprising to me that since civilized man has been around, septic systems have been fine.

I can go across state line into Arizona, put a septic in.

I can go into Perump and put a septic in because now I'm in Knight County.

I can go to Lincoln County, I can go into Utah, but all of a sudden Clark County, you can't do it.

And we would love to be on a public sewer system if if it's available, but if it's not available, I can't you can't make it happen.

So over and above the cost of hooking to this septic system, there is an additional $20,000 fee that goes to nothing.

Other than it goes to bureaucracy in the it for my to my understanding, um this 20 20,000 dollar fee goes into uh the recovery fund to help people a partial abatement to help people get the suit sewer to their property.

It's like a partial abatement that the SNWA has for having people who have septic now connect to the sewer line.

They basically are trying to help them connect to sewer and get off a septic.

That's what their recovery fund is for that they're charging to for my understanding.

In the future, they plan on trying to like any city would go back into areas and help fix things where they can put sewer in where it would work.

And I understand that it's kind of like if you we we didn't have uh cable that you know, we don't we don't have um uh wireless, not wireless fiber optics, which is the new rave and developing parts of cities, whether it's Utah or Nevada.

We're old cable system.

This $20,000 will go to help upgrade that system at some point, possibly in the future.

I I don't understand it, yes.

You could, if you own the land, pay the $20,000, as long as you fit all their requirements.

He's not in a position, we don't have an architect.

It's only he can't do all three lots.

I mean, you're talking a tremendous expense.

Right, but that's so that has to be done at the time that you're actually looking to have water and sewer, so at the time that you're looking to build.

You don't have to have it prior to selling.

So I guess what I'm asking, and and I I understand, and thank you for the clarification on the 20,000.

It seems to me like that's an extra sort of burden on these lots.

But um the in terms of cost, so we've got the value right now, and then we have the the value to somebody buying it who's gonna look at all the cost before they can build, right?

So that's really what we have to get at.

So the comps that you've used, do those buyers for those sites, are they in a similar situation where they're considering the same burdens and costs, is really the the question.

Because it's not it's it's not so much about whether we think that is or isn't a fair value, it's what is every what's the market's perception on the impact on value for that?

So did we go over the comps at all?

Yes, we did, and on the grid on page 3290, um on the off sites again, I'm showing the approximate distance from the closest point of connection.

Like I said, it's not necessarily the gravitational connection, but that's the closest connection for a sewer line.

So these are closer.

The first two are closer, they're within 30, 35 feet.

The other one is 200, and the other two are about 30 to 60.

And do they also have to pay this 20,000?

It just depends on if they connect to sewer or not, if they can connect to sewer.

So if it's less than 400 feet, they more than likely have to connect to sewer and pay the and no, no.

Oh, and not.

The 20,000 is for the septic waiver, it's for them to get septic rather than connect to the sewer.

Okay.

So he's 450 feet away, and they're 35 feet, 30 feet, 30 feet, 60 feet, and 200 feet.

So they're gonna have a much easier time.

Like it's not just the cost, right?

It's also if you can get a commitment from them to connect.

So once if if they do apply for the septic waiver, they would get that, they would take that to the health district, get the septic septic waiver, and then they would get that water commitment from the water district, is my understanding.

So they would get water with a septic.

Which one of these comparables is similar in distance and in cost to theirs?

They're all they're all less.

They're all less.

They're all less at this point.

Okay.

So then there should be some sort of an adjustment for that, right?

Well, if you look at the sales, we're on the lower end of the range, we're at 225.

All of these are, you know, there's one at 200.

But then you also have to look at the size.

These are also a lot smaller than the subject parcel is.

We're at 1.21 and they're all below an acre.

Um is that $20,000 per septic?

So if you were to build more than one home on your lot, you'd have to pay more than the $20,000.

So in the case of 022 for Hammock, which is my father's land, that was intended to be subdivided into three parcels.

Right.

That whole subdivision was five acres divided into half acre lots.

I I would disagree with the county on her um assessment that they're a lot smaller.5 acres, 0.46 acres, 0.49 acres, that's all in the same range.

They're not a lot smaller.

So I would just talk about the first one, the one that's one point.

The reason the reason that one lot is bigger is because it's been designed and built to be three individual lots.

Why he didn't subdivide it at the time, I think it dealt with cost and water meter connections.

So he left it in one triple piece with the intent of subdividing it into three lots.

However, with the water situation going on, that hasn't happened.

If it gets resolved, then they would be subdivided into the three half acre lots.

Right.

So but her value is two twenty-five for what you're saying is essentially three lots.

Correct.

I mean if you look so that would be 70,000 a lot, and these sold for 200, 210, 280, 250 for half acres, these comps, correct?

Uh 0.85.6, 0.85.9.

Am I looking at the wrong chart?

Am I not?

No, you're looking at the ninety.

They're all about saying 0.85.

Okay, so 0.9, 0.85, 0.87.

But uh, but I'm also reading some of these comps.

If I'm looking at the correct page that the county provided, the distance from there to the water connect main sewer connection is yeah, there's one 400 feet, but there's a there's a two 190 foot, a 30 foot.

You know, I mean, then there's a 200 foot, there's all the way up to 1300 feet, but I think he's looking at the wrong clip.

Am I looking at the wrong page?

Yeah, I think so.

I I don't know.

Do you have any comps?

We're not this isn't what we do for a living.

So do you have any comps that are as far away as his not with this size, no?

So there are no sales of properties that have his same problem.

Only sales that are I can incorporate my testimony from the previous case that had the half acres in there that were at the 1650 to 165 in cases 314 and 315, I believe it was.

Um recent sale at 165 or 0.6 acres.

Uh Stephanie Jones with the Clark County Assessor's Office.

So the next two cases that are in that same call-de-sac are half acre lots.

So if you're looking at this as three half acre lots, you could look at that grid because that does have a lot of things.

That's kind of what I have half acre lots that are that distance.

Is you said you had the one on the corner that you sold for 110 and then took it back.

So what do you think that one on the corner is worth?

That would be page 3337.

Again, it's in a different case.

So if you want to incorporate cases 1026 and 1027 in what we're talking about, you can do that also.

Well, because right now you've got a bit 225 for what's essentially three lots, so that's you know what, 60,000 or something a lot.

So I mean, looking at that one half acre piece that you sold for hundreds of.

If it were subdivided, but there's gonna be a cost in subdividing.

Subdivisions in and of itself is not a terribly onerous thing to do.

I mean, to get a subdivision map is you know, it's it's a matter of a little bit of time and application and a few thousand dollars.

So that in and of itself.

I mean, if you thought that subdividing it would make them sellable because we seem to have an issue of two things one size and then distance from um the septic, and none of us really have a cost estimate on what it would cost.

We know this twenty thousand dollars is out there, so I would say that if if nothing else, we'd have to look at the lower range of this with maybe an adjustment, but also if we're gonna look at other lots that are half acres, maybe that's a better way of doing it, and then multiplying it by three.

So maybe we do look at but wouldn't it be 20,000 per lot if you subdivided it, not just 20,000?

20,000 per lot.

It's gonna be each connection, so it'd be 60,000 percent.

They're gonna tie each 20,000 fee to each water meter.

So each lot you you're gonna have to tack on 20,000 dollars and uh basically an assessment for that for that fee.

You previously indicated that you'd be okay with combining the cases.

Does that still hold true?

Can we incorporate so we can incorporate cases 1026?

This you know, I don't I don't yes, yeah.

So the answer is yes.

Okay, so I want to we're gonna incorporate the cases for uh twin twenty-six and ten twenty-seven, tearing them with this case 1022.

So uh what was that page number you referenced?

Um the grid for 1026 is on page uh 3337.

So this would be um half acre lots, and you can see that a few of uh comp one and comp five are one nineteen hundred and thirteen hundred feet away, so I mean whether the sewer was ten feet away, it's it's not a gravity flow and they don't allow a pump station, so it's it's kinda kind of a irrelevant.

But but then you would be doing the septic, right?

You would do it the exception.

It has to be septic or some point in the future.

They ironically they did redo the sewer line on Clayton, which is the street that provides us, but they didn't they could have probably reduced, you know, lowered that sewer line to where it would have worked, but you would have had to have the forethought to it's only 48 inches to the flow line.

So but it it wasn't put into that point.

What did you give us a value of what you thought it was worth?

So if it was sold for 110 and he accepted that, but then the person that purchased it, Alex didn't feel it was worth 110 and he bought it back, so it's worth definitely less than 10.

Then you take out a 20,000 dollar fee, you're down at a minimum to $80,000 in that range.

And that's kind of where we're at with it.

Two minutes for a half acre lot.

Per half acre lot.

So three times three times.

I know you're gonna go back and you're gonna go, we're gonna increase this.

However, it is still a one-acre lot.

It only but the three lots of two and a quarter is only seventy-five a lot.

So that's below what you just said it's worth.

This ruling here restrict subdivision.

Ah, okay.

So they respect subdivision.

One of the one of the issues with this, this is not designed for me and you, we want to develop 10 acres of land.

This is this is kind of a fix to help one person that owns one lot.

This is it helps some people, but it's it's certainly not a permanent fix.

It's clear to me that there's an issue going on with the septic, the water, the sewer, and and they're trying to resolve it, and this is a little bit of on an ongoing thing, and it it's really above the scope of all of us.

We're not engineers and we're not a legal team, and we're not gonna get in there and fight with SNWA.

The the challenge that we have is what is the market's perception about the impact on value.

So we that's why we look at comparable sales, right?

Okay.

So when you say that you sold it for 110 and then bought it back for 110, I mean, if we're gonna go with the spirit of actual transactions, that that would seem to me that somebody bought it for 110, didn't want it, you bought it back for 110.

Um the 225 for that 1.23 acre would be about 65,000 a lot or 75,000 a lot, which is well below 110.

So that would seem to support 225 for the 1.23.

And then we have these here, and I'm looking at them, and I haven't looked at the maps or whatever, but we've got sale one that's 1900 feet away, we have sale five that's thirteen hundred feet away, we have sale two that's four hundred and fifteen feet away, and they were one fifty, one sixty-five, one sixty-five.

So I mean, I don't see where we're looking at seventy-five thousand a lot.

I do.

I do see where we are.

I think it's a much bigger problem than that.

I think it's he would have a hard time subdividing it and getting all of this for all of those things.

I think that right now they're trying not to help him get anything.

Um I don't think it's I don't think it's that simple.

I remember him here two years ago, and he went to see a lawyer, and I was not engaged on that case, so I don't have a conflict, but I know that she had looked into it and she thought he was really screwed and he needed to sue to get anything.

And I I understand there's a problem, but we are left with market data.

Is is that not the same problem that everybody else has?

I get it.

I I really understand what you're saying.

I don't think we go from there.

I don't really know what is available for making the lots usable.

Uh like I said, he sold it and had to buy it back, so it's not worth 110.

Um, the county the county is really not out a lot in the sense that hopefully there's a resolution to this.

They're sold, somebody builds a house on it, and the taxes will then be readjusted to the current that the the current um acceptable value or realistic value.

I mean, I pay quite a bit of money on on property taxes on my home, but it's I can sleep there and I can shower there, and it's functional.

These lots are we can't even they're not even sellable.

And I know you come up with some kind of comps, but I I'm just they're just they just seem to be a white elephant, unfortunately at the moment.

Ms.

Shamashita, did you want to put on the data for the other two cases?

Yes, I will.

I just have a quick question.

I was just wondering when this sale that wasn't recorded happened for 110,000.

Was it like this year or it wasn't recorded?

That was well when when was the transaction, I guess, is my question.

Two years to the board.

I have a question for the appraiser.

Uh on comps, uh, and and I'm on page 3337.

She hasn't brought uh presented those yet.

Let's present those.

We've been directed to that grid.

Right.

We incorporated the chart.

Or we incorporated the cases, but she hasn't put on those cases yet.

That's fine.

You can ask the question.

Okay, then go ahead.

Go ahead with your question.

Oh, go ahead and well, my my question is comps one and five.

Do they have the same burden?

Uh they can't get on sewers, so they're gonna have to pay the 20,000 fee and install septic.

Yes, because they're over 600 feet away.

So they have the same issue.

Uh and yet the market realizes.

I I would assume that the buyers are informed and realize they have to pay the 20,000 and go with septic if they want to get water.

I would make that assumption, but I'm not them, so yes.

Thank you.

And I will go ahead and just put on um my case for um case 126 and 127.

Um it's the land grid that we've been looking at on page 337.

I have five comparable sales ranging between 11,000 to 165,000 again, various um distances from the um sep uh sewer lines.

We're currently at 135,000 on the subject property for both um 1026 and 2010 27, and I'd like to go ahead and incorporate everything that we've been saying so far on these two cases, also.

And we're recommending holding these taxable values.

Uh Mr.

Chair, um, just one comment.

Uh Stephanie Johnson with the Clark County Assessors Office.

Um, I I believe Miss Yamashita was asking when that um transaction that wasn't recorded, the 110,000 occurred, and it um from what I heard it was two years ago.

I think the rules have changed, and and I this is like uh like we were just saying, I mean, this is ever evolving.

So I mean the rules are changing.

Um Miss Yamashita has spoken to all these entities multiple times.

Um she knows a lot about this, but she's not the owner, so she doesn't know exactly where these connections are.

Um she's estimated a lot of them.

Um but I would say that two years ago, um, maybe Miss Yamashita can speak to that because I think she knows more than I do.

But I'm that 20, you know, having the septic if you if the waiver that that didn't exist two years ago.

So I think the situation is different now than it was, even if you were gonna consider that transaction, even though it didn't record um and we don't have any record of it, uh the situation is different than two years ago.

I think it's better.

Is that correct?

Yeah, and that it gives them an option because before that waiver, they had no option.

They couldn't get water, they couldn't get sewer, they were in a bind at that point, and I I understand that.

Um at that time there was no information when they presented to the board previously.

Um in this case, they presented stuff way back since that board hearing.

Um and we have the septic waiver that again is an option for them now when they didn't have one.

I have a comment.

How is law enforcement for 27 years?

And normally the defense gets everything the prosecution has.

However, in this case, she's making reference to all kinds of documents and papers that I have no idea where she's getting it from.

Just puts us at a little bit of a disadvantage since we're the naive native uh person trying to argue our case against the we're the David and you're the Goliath.

How's that?

I want to talk a little more about the septic waiver.

Yes, ma'am.

So they are now allowing a septic waiver, maybe.

I submitted a copy, it's within the documents, but this is kind of what they give you.

Yeah, we did get it from the county.

That's the one document that we did get.

Um my father wanted to point out waivers cannot be used to subdivide parcels and only a pick applicable to the assessor's parcel number, meaning you can't subdivide it to create the he just wanted that brought to Mano.

But uh these are the restrictions that are on here.

And when I read it, I mean, like I said, uh I'll just reiterate, you have to be the owner of the parcel prior to April 1st.

Now, if they extended that, I don't know.

You have to get your building permit within a year, and you have to finish building within three years.

Um obviously you sign on that if they bring sewer, addition to the 20,000, if the next six months they bring a sewer line down your street, you're you're obligated to connect to it.

So it's not like once you pay the 20,000, you're done.

Keep in mind at the end of the month, they're gonna be reviewing a bunch of rules reference septic, they want to charge uh an additional, I think 400 a year or biannual annual fee just to have the septic that we have.

Um, but if you don't do all this stuff, uh they can deny it.

So you could go through all the process.

Let's say the construction you're building it out of pocket and it takes you three years and four months, they can now deny you water again.

It's just it's not your fault, but the county, I know the county commissioner sit on the water board, and people made these decisions without I think looking at the total implications to the individual little person that's trying to develop their one or two-acre pieces of land.

We're not, you know, if we were Lewis Holmes and going to put in a track to 400 homes, obviously it's gonna connect connect it to the sewer line.

Um but it's just so cumbersome that like I said, to to value the land at a lot that's across the street that I can go and and hook into the the sewer line and have water is not even a it's not a fair comparison.

It's an apple and an orange.

So if you don't make an application by April 1st, because that is what the law is right now, right?

If you don't make an application by April 1st, that's the way the septic waiver.

Yes.

So I mean, I don't know about you, but even if you dreamed about building your your your forever home, I mean, but how do you get an architect in in 2026 with all the bureaucracy to draw building plans to get it through?

If you've ever had to pull a building permit, which I have and he has, uh it's not a one-month or a three-month process, it's a long delayed process.

So to get a building permit within a year, if you had building plans in your hand today, would be quite a challenge.

So like I said, this looks really good, but it's not very practical.

Um it's just not so I did speak, Jason Yamashita for the Clark Kennedy Assessor's office.

I did speak with SNWA, a representative there.

Um, I believe it was just last week, and I asked specifically um about that um date, and they told me that that date no longer applies.

They haven't updated their website, but it will be in the future.

Until I guess they change the date again.

But as of last week from my conversation, that no longer applies.

Well, I would say that's a fair statement.

So I would say that you should reduce the taxes to at some point in the future you raise them.

But I don't understand why you get a charge premium rate for a discounted property.

So we have the counties, the the assessor's comps.

Um what do you think a half acre lot is worth there?

What would you sell it for?

Well, can you can sell it?

Water will well, water and sewer is available at a cost, right?

Well, he he would prefer to sell it for a lot more than he can get.

I understand that, but I think that's that's not where we're at.

So where you that they've put on their case and they presented us with comparables, and and so our challenge now is you don't have other comparables for us.

So I don't have one.

Which you said was 110.

So do you so you think 110,000 is a fairer value for a half acre lot?

That's not a fair comparison, because if that were the case, he wouldn't have bought it back.

He would have said we've sold it for 100.

I mean, you don't go buy a new car and then come back and go, I think I paid too much.

So what would be fair?

Well, I can I've I think I've said 110.

You sell it, so it's worth less than 110 if you bought it back, and then you take off the 20,000 dollar fee that makes it usable.

You're you're down, I I think somebody mentioned 75,000.

That's the assessed value on the large one per lot.

So which that one to me seems fine.

It's maybe these other ones that are kind of per lot.

I I'd point out that well, you but now you're now you're gonna say, well, it so you got us in a little bit of a pickle, and I'm being honest with you.

And I told you we had intent to divide that in, but it is still one lot.

It's just a bigger lot.

It only it it if you went out tomorrow, I can only put one house on it with one sewer.

I I you can subdivide it.

Yeah, you could subdue the reason they don't want you to subdivide, they're not gonna give you one waiver and let you subdivide, because somebody comes in there with 10 acres, gets one waiver, and all of a sudden they build 20 homes.

No, I understand.

Instead of giving 20 times 20,000.

I understand.

I'm just saying just because our intent is to divide it into three lots, currently it's one lot.

Right.

I I get that.

And it should be worth more than an individual lot, but it's not it's not well, it's three times as big, so it's worth three times as much.

That's not a very fair comparison.

Yeah, because it's gonna get it's gonna eventually be built out as three lots at some point.

I'm just gonna go in there and build one lot on that long skinny piece.

I I built my house in I think it was like ninety-one or ninety-two, and it's it's pretty much stayed the same for the last 35, 40 years.

For me, it would be benefit me mostly if if it could be built out, because then my house will be appraised for the similar homes in the neighborhood.

But just I I can't say is it's gonna be subdivided into three lots.

That was your choice.

Um we have to vote on all these together.

Because I I personally think the 225 for the th the large piece makes sense, because it's really three lots, and that's 75 a lot.

Just being common sense.

Okay.

Um, so I don't have I I don't think that's too high.

But I don't know how we're voting on these, or they well, your your motion, we can make multiple motions.

I would make a motion on the the large lot at 225 is supported by the assessors information, and I would make a motion to accept that number.

I except that those are much closer, all of those are within 200 feet, and he's 450 feet.

So I I think that deserves a deduction too.

So maybe go maybe go with a lower range or the average less 20,000 or something like that.

So that's puts it what around 200 or 165, roughly.

At 55,000 times three lots.

No, no, no.

So the comps for that, what where's the where's that?

Where is that again?

3290.

Comps for the for the larger one.

32 3290.

Okay, so 3290.

Um, and what we didn't love about them is they're all a little closer, right?

A lot closer.

And a lot closer.

And three of them are 0.85 acres.

So that that wouldn't be three lots necessarily.

I mean, they're they're pretty big too.

Right.

How many how what would you what did you get the acreage at?

Well, three of those comps are well, one is 0.9 acres.

I'm sorry.

Your parcel is 1.21 acres, and they are 0.9 acres, 0.85 acres, 0.86 acres, 0.85 acres.

So they're that's not three times smaller.

So the lowest is 200,000, right?

And that one is arguably the farthest away at 200 feet.

Okay.

And 50% smaller.

So I mean 200,000, maybe.

Given that that it's 0.86 acres, so it's smaller.

Um, but it is a little closer.

75,000 a lot.

So I I feel like I will say this, it's a long narrow piece.

I don't think it's one parcel.

Maybe it's not three parcel.

Maybe it is two parcels.

I I would say two hundred thousand for this one.

And for your individual parcels, you said 100.

You said 110, but you think it's worth less.

So if we if if the smaller parcels are worth, say 100,000, and they're actually three parcels.

It's a little bit of a discount from the 110.

It's the lower range of this.

I'm sorry, I need to point out something that was brought up that 110,000 off the books by sell was at a time when I don't think you there was this option to put a septic in.

So that value was maybe valid then, but today there's an option for a buyer to pay 20,000 and install septic and get water.

Maybe there's a next or copy.

If you're gonna go buy something and I say you you can buy this lot, but you're gonna have to pay 20,000 for a septic tank as a fee, that reduces the cost that that kind of goes against your argument.

Yes, there is at least an option to build on it, but it's gonna cost you.

That's a good point.

And ideally the comps would have that baked in.

I think this is a relatively new phenomenon.

Let me let me finish my uh sorry, I thought, and then you can talk.

Um in this case, these comps don't have that baked in uh because they're so close.

So they're gonna have to connect.

So maybe that's something we consider on the uh 1022, that that's a cost that's that's a burden to that site that's not taken into account.

Whereas the other two uh they are the comps do account for that.

The smaller ones you mean.

Yeah, yeah.

Um I'm sorry, I I didn't want to talk over you.

You want to if you want to make a point.

It's just frustrating because yes, two years ago, and I don't even think it was that long, his memory's not as good.

I I it seemed to him like he refunded the money within the last year, but nonetheless, if you sold it for 110, and now you can build on it, but it costs you an extra 20,000.

That's just an added expense, and I don't think anybody in this room would not calculate that calculate that into the purchase of anything, whether it's a TV or a piece of land.

If it's gonna cost you more money, it costs you more money, and the the the it reduces the principal.

Um I I do think like I said, I'm gonna go back.

I think it's a little bit of a disadvantage that you have uh, you know, you have all the information, and I I mean I can't see if I had good eyes, I couldn't see the screen, but you know, you're making reference to this lot and that lot.

I I don't even have a fair comparison.

I'm familiar with the area, I've lived in Las Vegas my entire life.

There might be some factors that are raising the value of some of these lots.

I mean uh I I I mean everybody knows the area of town they live in in that that spot, but you know, uh some of them, you know, if the cross street is Hollywood and Bonanza, they might be 200 feet from Bonanza that has sewer.

I I don't know.

Okay, so if the lowest comp on the if we go back to to case 1022, and the lowest comp is three, it's also 0.86 acres, so it's a you know like two lots.

It's 200,000, it's much closer.

If you take that's 100,000 each minus 20,000 each on this one.

The on the other comps, you had some that were much further away, like ours.

Um that's why I wanted to look and see what if you did that, they've got a hundred thousand minus twenty is eighty, but they're only at seventy-five.

That's why I keep saying I I don't think the two twenty-five is wrong for those three lots.

But it's not three lots.

And on the littler comps, two the two of them, only two of them had curves, gutters, and sidewalks.

The rest are have no off sides.

But but these aren't cold as but 0.86 acres isn't half.

No, no, no.

I'm talking the other, I just said the small.

Well, no, it's not half, but you can't.

Excuse me, Mr.

Chair.

Can we have all members speak into the microphone, please for the record?

So, and when you look at the small lots, only three and five had curb gutter and sidewalk.

The other ones don't have that.

This is a finished cul de sac with curbs gutter sidewalks installed.

So I I'm not seeing huge problems here in value wise.

And we're not getting anything to show that sales.

The 110.

Okay, that says 90.

But this was 75.

So again, I I just keep thinking I'm gonna make a motion because we're just talking back and forth.

And that we accept the 225 on case 1022.

That's a motion.

We can you don't like it, don't vote for it.

That's my motion.

Motion has been made on 1022.

Please cast your votes.

And that motion passes.

The uh assessor's office does have the right to appeal, just so you're aware.

On 1026 and 1027.

What do we think on those?

Well, I'm I'm thinking if we're at 75 a lot, then why aren't they all 75 a lot?

That's kind of where I'm at.

So I would think they all should be the same, and that way we are equalizing the lots, and we don't have a problem with taxing one at 100 and the one next to it at 75.

And we are the board of equalization.

So I'm gonna make a motion that we set all those lot, the other three lot, the other two lots, I believe, at the 75 each, instead of what they're at.

So for case number 1026 and 1027, the motion then is that we reset the value to 75,000 each.

So they're all consistent.

Yes.

That's my motion.

Motion has been made.

Please cast your votes.

And that motion passes.

So you win a little, you lose.

Well, thank you for your time.

I know it's a thinless job right now, but we still have three more cases.

Oh we do.

Which ones?

I thought we rescended them.

I thought we were sending those.

No, we send 1029.

1029, 1030, and 1031.

Okay, I thought we were done.

I was excited.

So similar to the same argument, and I'll let you guys.

I mean, there's no point since three, you know, beating the dead dog.

So the the argument's the same as you know the okay.

Okay, I we need to do this in order, though.

So I'm calling case 1029.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Uh Richard Robinson, 6475 Sugar Nil Court, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89110.

Richard Don Robinson, 7150, Beverly Glenn.

Thank you.

Miss Yamashita.

Jason Yamashita for the Clark County Assessors Office.

Um, case 1029 starts on page 3373 of the master book.

The subject property is a vacant half-acre parcel located near Eastern End Bonanza.

We were recommending no changes to the total taxable value of 12,000 dollars.

Gentlemen, oh, I thought we rescended that one or withdrew.

So you're withdrawing that?

Yes.

Yeah, I I thought I thought we were done, so I thought we kind of compiled them, but so we'll go to the well, we withdraw.

Did you want to withdraw all the the rest of them?

Uh there's another one.

There's these were on the mountain.

We have one that's not on the mountain, but it's in a hole, and it's which one it is.

So the case that we just um uh did was 1029, which is at 12,000.

Um the other case at 1030, um, I think is the one that they're talking about that we have valued at $6,000.

That's a mountainous parcel that I'm assuming they're withdrawing.

That was the one they originally said they were gonna withdraw.

Yes, the 1029.

1039 or 1030, I'm sorry.

Okay, that gives us 1031.

1031 is a parcel that's next to his um residence.

So I'm not sure what they're doing on that one.

We currently have it valued at 60,000 dollars.

So what's it appraised at?

I'm sorry.

It's 60,000.

Oh, yeah.

You're just what withdraw.

We'd like to withdraw those.

Okay, so for the record, you're withdrawing on 1029, 1030, 1031.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you.

Is it accepting?

Uh then I you know, I'm gonna make an emotion that we accept the assessors' valuations on 1029, 1030, and 1031 for ease of our side for record keeping purposes.

Uh you're not that I'd if you're withdrawing, yeah.

We're just we're just pushing this through.

Yes, sir.

We're just the same, we're accomplishing the same result.

Yes.

And that motion passes.

All right.

Again, thank you.

Thank you.

Chairman Farr.

Yes, ma'am.

We need to vote on the rest of the cases that have been stamped, stipulated, withdrawn, or where the petitioners did not appear today.

Um, with the exception of case 926, we would like to exclude that from the vote.

We are rescheduling that for a different hearing.

It was originally scheduled for a notice of appearance today, but we were able to resolve that this morning.

And so all other cases with the exception of 926.

And as soon as I'm sorry for giving me wrong wrong number, not 926, it was 379.

Case 379 is the one we want you to exclude.

My computer is I've got the blue uh circle of death going right now.

So I can't read my word document.

Oh, you've got to go.

Uh here we go.

You're awesome.

Okay, I motion to, with the exception of case 379, I motion to accept the assessor's recommendation on any cases where the petitioners did not attend this hearing, and those that have been stamped stipulated or withdrawal or withdrawn, please cast your votes, and that motion passes.

Um did we want to go over remaining cases or any of that?

Yes, Chairman Farr.

Um, for the 19th, next Thursday.

Um we have 17 cases remaining.

That will be a residential day.

February 23rd, we have 83 cases, February 24th, 34, and February 25th, 38 for a total of 172 cases left remaining.

Very good.

Microphone is open for any public comment.

Seeing none, I will close the microphone.

Any other business nothing more for today?

Very good.

Thank you for your time.

We are adjourned.

I love this.