Tammy's not going to make the she just opened the shit.

I mean the freeway is a big accent there.

So everything's back.

I take surface.

I have to get off the surface for itself.

Yeah.

Good morning.

This is the Clerk County Board of Equalization hearing for February 19th, 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.

Timothy Albert.

Present.

Patrick Eger.

Present.

And Tammy Kempa and Suzette Wheeler are not present.

Thank you.

I motion to adopt the agenda.

Please cast your votes.

Okay, I gotta get to the vote thing here.

I may get off the screen.

What is that?

Shift.

Alt screen.

Alt tab.

Well alt tab.

Oh, there we go.

I wasn't signed in.

I'm not just a pretty face.

There we go.

And that motion passes.

Uh before we start, 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.

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.

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 any property that was assessed by the assessor if the board finds it to be incorrect.

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

The County Board of Equalization does not have the authority to lower taxes or make decisions based on comparisons of tax bills.

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

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

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 tax 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 a gift or loan, a significant financial interest or a personal or private obligation to another party.

Thank you.

Please.

So I just wanted to make note of that so that everyone is aware of why we're revoting on them.

Great.

Thank you.

Please cast your votes.

That motion passes.

All right, on to the 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.

The 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 staff 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 door to the chamber.

Do we have any general administrative business?

There is nothing additional at this time.

Excellent.

Let's get started with case 424 2709 Pentolane Trust.

Morning.

Good morning.

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

My name is Mark.

Wolfson a 2709 Pinto Lynn.

If I may have a second just to get ready.

I have a few handouts.

I've got 10 copies of them.

Let's let the assessor put on their uh introduce the case, and then we can get to your handouts.

Mr.

Turner.

Good morning.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Case 424 begins on page 344 in the master book.

The subject property is a custom home in the Pinto Palomino neighborhood located north of Charles Charleston and west of Rancho.

An aerial videos.

I mean, sorry.

Aerial files can be found on page 419 in the master book as well.

The home was originally built in 1970 and torn down.

Leaving the foundation and some exterior walls.

The home was so subsequently rebuilt and completed in 2021.

I given it in an effect of age of 2011.

Exterior pillages of the rebuild home can be found on page 398 and 399 of the master book.

The subject is a one-story home with 4,985 square feet of living area for the main house and a 1,096 square feet guest house.

The subject also has an attached garage and detached garage totaling 1,834 square feet.

Also has a pool and a spa situated on a lot of 0.5 acres.

The equity.

This is an equity appeal.

That's his office recommends a no change to the tansible value of $1,687,686.

Very good, Mr.

Wilson.

Okay, so I have some handouts.

Into the microphone, sir.

Please.

I have some handouts to give, and I have some more after my presentation for the rebuttal.

But these are uh what I call exhibit G.

I have 10 copies of each.

Uh exhibit H, there are 10 copies of each, and then I have a replacement of page 54 that's in your package.

I don't know how they numbered it because I don't have that, but it's 54 and I'm reminded this is the bottom number on my pages.

And the only change on 54 is I had an incorrect description of the of a calculation, but the spreadsheet didn't change.

Um does this thing have a camera that I can put things up if I want to.

I'm sorry, say that again.

I was asking if there was a camera here if I if I want to put something up to everybody to see.

Okay.

Um my appeal is predicated on the rules of NRS 361.356, which is a case of equity and unrelated to the absolute value of my assessed valuation.

I'm beginning my appeal by first providing the board with my background.

I earned an undergraduate degree in finance, an MBA, and a master of science and accounting.

I am a certified public accountant.

I rose to the level of senior vice president of finance in one of the largest market cap companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange in the 1990s.

I was responsible for a multi-billion dollar division and a staff of over 200 people spread across four continents, and headed a finance team of forensic accountants when I was supporting mergers and acquisitions.

I was the CFO of two companies and was an adjunct professor of the graduate school level teaching cost accounting.

I have owned and lived in 12 houses across the nation.

I have been relocated five times by my companies, and I have personally managed six major renovations.

I tell this to you because I want you to understand that I'm not just some guy who has got a grudge and wants numbers fixed because I need the money.

I'm doing this because I'm telling you this because if I tell you a number, hopefully it'll have some credibility with you.

As you can see from my appeal, I am asking for a reduction of the land value from $600,000 down to 414,000, and that can be found on page two of my document, and the buildings from 1,088 down to $687,000.

First, I'd like to put up a map here.

This is the map that the assessor's office shows the property.

This is showing anywhere.

Okay.

This is their map of all the comps and my property.

Everything looks very nice and close.

But if you take a look at like a normal map, the little rectangular square, the rectangle, is the what's considered to be the property location of my home.

And you can see there are eight circles.

The dark one is my house.

The lighter ones are the comps that the county used last year.

They picked seven comps last year, all within that area.

We may disagree on the outcome, but they at least chose properties that were there.

I'm sorry, these are the pro these are the ones that I I used.

This is the one the county used last year, all very similar in location.

Later today, Mr.

Turner's going to talk to you.

This is the map that they used this year.

This is the area I live.

This is my house.

They chose one comp at 2727 altar, which is also one of the comps from last year.

And here are their other comps.

One as much as 1.8 miles away from my house.

This is back in the thing.

But these are all the properties on that list by address.

This is what I'm asking for from the standpoint of improvements.

They assessed me at a million eighty-eight.

So I'm asking for $41,000 reduction on the improvements, not the land, just the improvements.

So again, there are reasons why things happen.

I put together a list, this is on page five, of seven lists, seven items of what would cause an inequity amongst properties.

I'm not going to read them to you here, but I'm going to go one by one.

The first one is they have an inequity.

If multiple houses have major renovations, yet only one is issued a supplemental assessment.

My house, when it was assessed, was originally increased by $878,000.

After months of discussions with the county, they agreed that they made $212,000 in errors and reduced my number to $681,000.

However, they came here at $2608 Pinto Lane across the street from me, that went on more on the market, advertising $1 million in renovations, they got no assessment.

$2,800 pinto lane across the street from me, gutted their house, put in a whole driveway for worth of papers, which by the way, I'm assessed $90,000 for their assessed zero.

And the $2800 got zero assessments.

$2701, major renovation and an addition in the front of the house, which I informed the county of, no addition, no addition.

$2,400 Palomino.

This was a comp that I used this year.

This is a comp they used last year, as did I.

Last year, this comp had zero supplementals, but I told them it made to it went through a major renovation.

And in fact, on page 17, 25 and A16, we'll see later, they actually changed their assessment by 390, $392,000 after last year's hearing, after last year's hearing.

And I will show you today that at the very least, that's still $200,000 shy using their documentation.

The next way you can have an inequity is that multiple houses have major renovations, yet all but one has numerous items omitted.

We identified and they fixed $212,000 of things that they felt were wrong, or they agreed were wrong.

However, if you take a look on page 28 of my document, at 2333 Pinto Lane, which was actually one of their comps last year, they said it was fine when they came to this meeting.

But after the meeting, they increased, first of all, that was assessed an additional $819,000 at the time.

After the meeting, they popped it another $711,000, a $94% increase because of all the things they missed.

They missed things like a four-car garage, a tennis court, a home automation system, and more importantly, they rated that property as good slash 40 using the Marshall and Swift system, where as was mine, but they changed it after I sent them the photos.

They changed to a 60 and they changed the dollar per value for the RCN substantially.

That increased them $711,000.

This is all from their documents.

This was another property that I used as a comp last year.

They also missed a bunch of things there.

They took that property after telling everybody there was no inequity.

They went back and they reassessed them and they added $186,000 to their assessed value, an additional 61%.

So I went down because they overassessed me by mistake, and they went up because they missed half of their house.

The things that they missed at that house was a 1,652 square foot finished basement, which is on the listing agreement, an outdoor kitchen and bar, a three-car garage.

They actually reduced the square footage by $128 feet.

They considered a new addition as uh old uh effective year built, and they had no worksheet for their MM Marshall and Swift calculations.

Okay.

Another way that you can have an inequity is that multiple houses that are rated equally, meaning that those houses that are rated 40 and good are what I would consider to be equals and comparables.

Last year, when they chose seven comps, five of them were rated 55 to 65.

I mean, why not just compare me to the Taj Mahal in the White House?

So on a square foot basis.

Now, of the two that weren't that were 40 and 60, they changed one to 60, and they changed the other by 400,000 in value.

Okay.

On page 54 of my presentation.

And this is this is the number that you'll see.

That's the 414,000.

That's the 320,000 dollars that I am saying that I am over-assessed relative to some of those properties that we just mentioned.

I took a sample of 15 properties.

Now I'll tell you where I got those 15 properties.

Last year at the hearing, uh Ms.

Jacobs here presented a page, which was actually page 8 and 9 of last year's addendum that they had, and it had 53 houses on it, which was identified as houses in my neighborhood equity grid.

There's a similar chart this year from Mr.

Turner called the equity grid, but I think the exact same number of properties on the same properties themselves.

Of those 53 properties, 19, I'm sorry, 18 were rated good slash 40.

So this chart represents the 15 that remained good slash 40 to not change, and mine.

So I took the population of that, what they described as equal to mine in by the MS definitions.

If you go through all the machinations, and I'm happy to sit down with anybody to prove them, the average, the average value, and this is keep in mind, I understand the difference between RCN and RCNLD, meaning I did this excluding depreciation because everybody's house has a different depreciation rate because of its age.

I get that.

So I did it, the calculations based on what it is valued at based on uh these categories before depreciation.

And then I added depreciation back based on their specific property.

Nonetheless, if you add up on column F, the average of those 15 is 1,082,000.

Mine is a million four oh three.

The difference between those two numbers is the $320,000.

So the same 15 properties that they claim are equal to mine using the MNS worksheet of 40 slash good, are compared to those 15, and the average of those is $320,000 less than mine.

And this chart will show you the location of those properties in yellow.

So you can see they're all in the neighborhood, they're all my house is the one in blue, and they're all around me.

So the next one, next the next way you can have an umequity, is that you have multiple houses that make renovations, but supplementals if and when issued are done so in a non-uniform manner.

Going back to the same chart I've just referred to.

I could trace 90, and the reason why I said this is because Ms.

Jacobs last year pointed out that while we are doing assessments everywhere, that's not just picking on Mr.

Wolfson.

Got it.

I went back and I looked at all the ones that were identified on that chart, and I could trace 19 online.

I mean, you're limited to the sources.

You have what's out there.

I could find 19 of them, okay.

By the way, this is what that chart looks like.

You don't have to like worry about the small print and the numbers, but that's what it looks like.

And you'll see Mr.

Turner's got the same one this year.

So I went back and I took a look at when all these supplementals were supposedly issued.

Again, you've got the same same ones there.

And as you can see in the light green, is your show light green by any chance?

I can't, I don't know if you've got the color copies.

Anyway, there are 12 of them where the supplemental assessment was issued way beyond the year that the actual work occurred.

There were 12 out of the 12 out of the 20, including myself.

Four of them were actually issued in the correct year, meaning if it was done, if the work was done in February, it went into the next year's thing.

So four out of the twenty were done correctly.

The light blue, three of them, they never had, it was done years and years late, and they never applied any supplemental, so I couldn't tell you how many years later this because they never applied one.

So I couldn't tell you how many years later because they never applied one.

My case, which is the one that circled in the magenta, is the only assessment.

The only one where it was applied prematurely, and by definition, but what I say prematurely, my property uh project was uh completed on July 27th of 2022, which is the new um which is the fiscal year 2223, meaning that it was done after the beginning of the fiscal year.

It should have been done similar to these and everything else out there.

It should have been in the fiscal year 2324.

It passed the July 1st deadline, which is a moment in time and a clear delineation of when these things should be.

To do otherwise, to do otherwise gives the assessor the random ability to decide I'm gonna do it this year.

Um this is a firm fixed date by the state.

Chairman Farr.

I I don't want to interrupt Mr.

Wolfson, um, but I these are arguments that he presented to the board last year with regards to things that happened back in time.

Um he appealed his 2224.

I just want to be able to make it clear that he's talking about things that were talked about last year for things that happened back in time.

The he had a case before you that was a back year case that you had the option to take jurisdiction on, which you did not.

He filed that case to the state board.

The state board also chose not to take jurisdiction on the back year case because he's arguing his supplemental value that was added in 22-23, and in comparison to everyone else in his area, they chose not to take jurisdiction.

Um he also petitioned for reconsideration on that matter, and they also refused to reconsider the matter.

So all of these arguments he presented, he also presented them when he did his current year appeal last year for the 20 um 5-26 fiscal year.

And so I just want to make the board aware of those matters, um, and he can continue to present his testimony.

Um, but the our office did go out and reassess the area on this board's direction and on the state board's direction, and that's why the items were added to the record.

Um we don't want to miss things.

I do want to speak about that.

We we're not in the business of ignoring things.

Um if we do not receive appropriate permits, um, it's very hard for sometimes to see.

We're not sitting there investigating the MLS every single moment.

Um, but we did reassess his entire area.

We have added the values that we believe that we could based on that.

Um excuse me, excuse me.

And so she is saying so many things out of the city.

Sir, you don't have the floor.

I have the floor you do not have the floor.

Why did you let her in the floor?

You do not have the floor.

Then I want to respond to the case.

You do not have the you will be give given that opportunity.

You do not have the floor right now.

I thought I did continue.

I just want to make it clear because we could spend a lot of time for him to restate a case that has already been put on the record, and both the county board and the state board have already heard.

Um he certainly can talk about his current year value and how his current year value is potentially inequitable with some other properties current year value.

But to restate the cases from the prior year is reopening a case that has already been heard, and that's that's I'm just gonna state that for the record.

This board can do what they're going to do.

I can tell you that he has uh indicated that he is going to go to court.

That is his next uh measure that he can do.

He can file in courts, and so he's welcome to do that.

We're not trying to prevent him, his opportunity.

Um, but this board has already heard all of these arguments, and he's they've heard these cases, and we don't he doesn't get to reopen that at this point in time.

Please continue, sir.

But please keep your comments to this hearing or to this year's.

Um first of all, this is this hearing.

I'm only referencing the stuff from last year to give you an indication of where I selected my in the information from.

But first of all, Miss Widener, some of the this is the problem.

What she says is basically true, but it's not the whole truth, okay.

Yes, well, reconsideration did vote against me.

But what she didn't tell you is that there were four people on the board, one of which who the board member, the the chair is Mr.

Paul Bancroft, who is an esteemed lawyer in the state of Nevada, who ruled, who who stated after the other people that voted against me again for the third time, said Mr.

Wolfson, and I have the quote here, I will get to it later, but since she's interrupted me, I'm going to inform you now.

Mr.

Bancroft wrote, or I shouldn't say wrote, he said, and it's on their YouTube video.

He said Mr.

Wolfson last year brought forth to the county a list of accomparables where he felt there was an inequity.

Subsequent to the date of that hearing, the county went out and increased those properties substantially.

In essence, admitting that there was an inequity.

That's the meeting closed.

And yes, come Monday, I will be filing my petition for judicial review because once a lawyer and only a lawyer looks at these documents, they will reverse it.

Now, I will agree with you on this point.

Reasonable people can disagree on the numbers because you can calculate them, you can make certain assumptions.

You could actually make mistakes.

Reasonable people can disagree on the number.

No lawyer, no judge is going to look at that decision that was made that my I was denied due process because the assessed value of my home did not exceed market value or fair market value.

That you're I'm sorry, I don't know your name, the lawyer.

She wrote read to you the description of NRS 361.356.

It doesn't matter if my house is valued at 10 bucks.

If everybody else in my neighborhood is valued at a dollar, I am being overassessed and over taxed.

The Supreme Court and uh SBEV barter, and I will show you another case which is was just ruled last year and signed by Ms.

Hughes, um, stated the exact same point, and I will get to that later.

Now, if I may continue.

I am not talking about the last year.

I am just referencing certain things from it.

I am talking about current year, current comps, current existence, current value.

I'm you don't see any numbers here that I am claiming are from the prior case.

Okay?

Now I'd like to continue.

And I would never mind.

Okay.

The fifth way in which you can have an inequity.

Multiple houses have major renovations, but several have MS worksheets, Marshall and Swift worksheets that are developed with multiple material errors in the owner's favor, not in my case, which creates the imbalance, as an example.

On page 166 of my presentation, the list at the top that says page 167, which is on my next thing, those have no worksheets.

None.

They came up with a number somehow, you could ask them.

The one at 2315 has an abbreviated worksheet.

And the ones listed below have worksheets that are laden with errors, which we're going to talk about.

We won't even get into the details here.

Let me.

This is their Marshall and Swift worksheet.

They use this to calculate how much of the when a renovation occurs, how much is the old left, and how much is the new, and they come up with a calculation which I can follow, which I don't necessarily agree with, but I'll play by their rules.

And in this case, this was a major renovation.

And if you take a look on the right-hand side, I highlighted four lines.

The top one says plans, permits, and survey.

They give 2% as existing, meaning old.

That helps you with your effective year built, you get more depreciation.

They have three more lines, four covers, built-in appliances, painting and decorating, and they give them a total of 10 points.

They give them 12 points.

Now, when you do the math, and I can prove it to you, and they will, I don't think they would even deny it.

Their math is actually on the next page, but they use that to calculate the effective year bill.

They take this times X and this times Y, they add it together, they divide by a whole, and they get up with a year.

They use that year to determine the effective year bill, which then multiple subtracting from the current year tells you how much depreciation they are going to apply.

This 12% that they give to this property here, 2500, pinto lane, which is down the block from me, is six percentage points of uh is depending on the rounding, five to six years, let's use six as a number, gives them nine percent more depreciation.

If your uh RCN is a million dollars, that's 90,000.

And I know we don't talk taxes here, but I will tell you if you want to just do a quick math, $90,000 is the equivalent of 1,000 a year in real estate taxes.

I'm not complaining about, I'm just telling you as a reference point.

Now, if you go to page 181.1, this is the same property on their first guest house.

Same 12 percentage points.

So they're getting an extra 9%, and by the way, this house is probably worth five or six million dollars.

Um here's their second guest house, another 12 percentage points.

You'll see my point in a minute.

Here's their garage, another 12 percentage points, another, another 9% depreciation.

Okay.

Now, I have an email from actually comes from Ms.

Jacobs, I think.

And if you look at the bottom, it says, on page 182.

2500 Pinta, the houses that I just showed to you, was a similar teardown and rebuilt like yours and went from a 1963 original to a 2014 effective year.

Okay.

So they're saying to me, saying to you, that forget the values.

Essentially the two houses were built in the same manner.

We tore them down, we blew them up.

On page 183, I have a reconciliation for you.

Well, actually, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not gonna leave out.

I'm gonna I'm gonna show you mine.

This is the MS worksheet for me.

See where they have 12 percentage points?

I have zero.

That 12 percentage points, if they gave me that, my depreciation would be $80,000 less.

That's on page 186.

$79,934.

That's what that means.

If they gave me the same 12%, they gave all those other properties, I would have $80,000.

But I'm not done yet.

Because here's $2,400 palomino lane, same 12%.

Here's their guest house, same 12%.

So they basically do this for everybody but me.

All I'm asking is treat me like you treat them.

Give me the 12%, that gives me the $80,000.

Now I want to go through.

Do you have I don't know if you folks have an electronic view of this, or you just have a hard copy?

You have a hard copy.

I'm sorry, I'm looking at what you're putting on the aerial.

Okay, okay.

I want to go through the section called the Palomino, 2400 Palomino addendum.

It's got, I think 24 pages on it.

Now remember, I just showed you that they have an extra 12 percentage of old, this house was gutted.

This house was not gutted, it was completely renovated.

Okay.

Here's the history of that house.

It was bought by a developer by a flipper in um January of 2022 for a million two.

They flipped it and sold it 11 months later for 2.4 million dollars.

This is this property was used last year with a zero.

This is the property that they increased the valuation by 392,000 after the hearing that I raised as a comp.

More importantly, if you go, this is a view.

This is even they will admit this is an error, I think.

If you go to page A23, I'm sorry, I tried to do this in order, so we wouldn't have to go back and forth.

But if you go to page 823, I'll pull it out.

This is their what they call a property record card.

Now I'm going to draw your attention to the top left corner.

Now this is simple math.

It says here that the effective year built is 1993.

It also says here that the actual year built is 1969.

My math tells me that's 24 years.

The law states you get 1.5% depreciation per year.

That comes out to 36%.

If you take a look at the number to the right in that box, it says 48%.

So not only did they give them 12% more on depreciation itself, they re miscalculated what they're supposed to get and gave them 48% versus 36%.

I checked all the numbers here.

That's not a misprint, that's not a typo, that is a real 48%.

You can take a look on the right-hand side of the depreciation versus the RCN, and they're getting for so not only did they get zero to begin with when I appealed last year, they added $396,000.

They gave them another $100,000 because they gave them 12% points of the MNS code.

And they missed, and they missed this one by another.

So another $200,000 minimum on top of the 392 they already hit when they started from zero to begin with.

That's the quality of their work.

Here's another one.

Before that construction happened, their property record card had the value of this house at $160.16.

Okay.

This is before the renovation.

I want to show you pictures.

This is the house before the renovations.

These are on the internet.

It's not like I went in there and took all these photos.

Here's another picture.

This is on page A8.

This is what the house used to look like.

Okay.

Now from that $160.16 cents, they increased their value to $160.94.

So they changed the cost of this property by 78 cents.

Now, for 78 cents, this is what you get.

Here's the new house.

Here are some more pictures.

Here is, see, these are on the internet.

I didn't have to leave the comfort of my office.

Here.

So for 78 cents, that's what you get.

But it's even worse than that.

Because give me a second.

I have a reconciliation here.

I want to show you.

Because of the $396,000 that they actually increased them by, none of it, none of it went into the house itself.

Here it is.

This is the reconciliation to the $392,000 that they actually did for getting the $200,000 that he didn't.

They added $74,000 for the pool and spa, which were actually actually permitted, and they didn't do it before.

They reduced the depreciation.

They reduced the depreciation that previously was there from 75% to the 48% I just showed you.

That cost that was an impact of $183,000.

They added porches, casita, bark rule, built-ins, all these other things.

And there's the $392 right here.

If you take a look to the left, they actually reduced when they redirected that entire interior of that entire 40 somewhat square feet, 40.

Well, there's another, there's a discrepancy on the square footage, which is another story.

4,500 square feet of house, they actually reduced the value.

And I will tell you, if you go down to the bottom, the total basic building, if you go to their property record card, shows a reduction of $18,000.

It's true, the $78 cents generated a $3,500 increase, but they reduced the square footage, which can be seen on the on the property record cards by $21,000.

So net net of it all, the house actually decreased in value after putting in all this money.

The builder, remember, he paid a million two, sold it for $2.4.

Do you think he didn't put $600,000 into this house?

So zero, literally zero impact for that.

On page 187.

This is the impact that the $100,000 of 12% points that I talked about earlier would do to my house.

There's the 79,934, which I know we're not talking taxes, but I'm just going to let you know.

That cost me $917 every year that they assess me and they don't assess them.

Okay, here's the sixth way in which you could have a inequity.

Non-uniformity of assessment process on the improvements.

Well, they didn't do MNS worksheets, as I showed you on a bunch of them.

The timing of them, I showed you those two.

The non-uniform old new on the MNS worksheets, I've already shown you that.

The non-uniform application of the quality class, they've changed them because they don't even go on the internet to see anything.

Walkthrough.

They walked through via a trespass, and I was reminded last year no one's ever heard of a uh uh a um appraiser test.

But he did.

He was in my house on it, uninvited on it and without permission.

But anyway, the point here is that he went into my house, he saw everything in my house, but of course he couldn't see everything in their houses because he didn't go into their houses.

If he would have done my house from this desk like he did the other ones, my assessed value probably would be three or four hundred thousand dollars less to be going with.

And the last of the seven items that I could come up with as to why you could have an inequity are non-conforming with NRS 361-260, which says each year the county assessor shall ascertain by diligent inquiry and examination all real property that is in the county on July 1, which is subject to taxation.

That certainly applied to me, but I guess it didn't apply to the 2800 Pinto Lane that had a major, had a gut job, no dollars for them, 2701, a one year renovation and an extension, nothing for them, 27.17, a massive structure going up next to me, which by the way, I submitted to the county, and they said in the letter to me, they got the letter, they have the permit, they're going to put it on the record for the 25, 26 year.

They did not.

2400 Palomino.

I just showed you all that at Palomino.

2400 pinto lane.

Okay.

They have no supplementals for that one.

But yet I was able to, and the only reason I picked that one is because it was on last year's list.

Four permits, and I listed them there, and I have copies of all the permits on pages 288 to 301, four permits, four, these are permitted projects.

So so much from Ms.

Widen saying, well, if they don't have permits, we can't do anything.

They have four permits, there they are, not a single supplemental, not a single one.

2337.

They issued that eight years afterwards, with not a single work being done subsequent to that.

They missed a 1,652 square foot finished basement, a three-car garage, an indoor outdoor kitchen, 2333 Pintalane.

This is the one that's sold for $5 million down the block from me.

They added $711,000 to the already $819,000 that they did the prior year, telling you that there is no inequity.

And this house was, according to Mr.

Jeff Bonsteel in my conversation, he walked this house.

He is the same person who trespassed into my house.

So if he walked that house, how could he miss?

How could he miss a four-car garage, a tennis court, and rate that as a good quality house that just sold for $5 million?

Once I send them the pictures after the appeal, they change the rating from $40 good to $60 excellent.

$905.

They put up with a permit, they didn't get a variance first, they were forced to get a variance, then they got a permit, they put up the fence.

Brand new wrought iron fence.

They have a permit, no assessment for that.

Every time I do this, I look at this page.

This is on page 190 198 of my thing.

And this is what it says.

This is from the Clark County Assessor.

Our mission statement.

Our vision statement, the most technologically advanced user-friendly assessor's office in the country.

I don't think so.

I'm a 75-year-old man, I know how to work a computer better than these people do.

That's a pretty sad statement.

I bring this point because I had this discussion with Chris My with Ms.

Widener.

Small item, but this goes to their in unwillingness and inability to acknowledge errors and fix anything other than to tell me I'm wrong.

This is related to a house at 2327 author, which also had a major deal going.

And I brought up a subject.

So I called and wrote to her and I said, I don't understand.

They got a hundred and forty-one thousand dollar credit because they have composite shingles, and I got a $14,000 credit, 10 times the amount.

Now she explained to me, well, they're rated as 60, you're rated a 40.

So in the MS model, their 60 includes X amount of dollars, so that we only add $2 and 91 cents per square foot for them, but we add 21, I'm sorry, they they had 21 dollars and them and only $2 for you.

That describes the, but here's what, even if that's right, and I have a question about that, even if that is right, they applied that, and it's on this chart here, if you'll see.

They applied that entire dollar value to the entire square footage of the house, which is $6,849.

But the last I checked, when you have a two-story home, your square footage isn't the sum of all of the square footage.

It's part of it.

On their pro on their property record card, they break out the square footage.

The second floor is $1,500, $1,502 square feet.

So they applied the same $21 a square foot to the square footage that does not exist on the roof.

It does exist in the house, but it does not exist on the roof.

So that disparity, they get a break just because of that $1,500 square feet of $371 a year in taxes.

Now, I want to go back to the two nine $2.91 cents and the $2150 a square foot.

Now, I don't know whether this is a true statement or not.

She may have looked in the MS worksheet and it said it's $291 for a $60 and whatever.

And when you look at something that looks so bizarre, so bizarre.

Do you ever like pick up the phone, call Case Shiller or whomever they does this and say, can you check that?

That just looks weird to me.

That one house would get a $3 credit, and another one would get a $22 credit for the same thing.

It might be true.

I don't know, but I would certainly not just take it at face value.

And just in case there's any question, I have an email from Miss Widener explaining that exactly to me.

It says here, this was dated on October 9th of this past year.

Because the roof is actually a shingle roof, it is adjusted at a at downward of 2150 a square foot.

And she mentions the 2150 times 6,849 square feet to come up with a negative 147.

Those numbers are all correct.

They are just wrong.

I mean, the the calculation is wrong, right?

The numbers are wrong.

That number of 6849 is not the roof.

That's the house.

There's a big difference.

And just if that's if nobody believes it, this is on the MLS, and it says it's a two-story house.

And here is their property record card that breaks out the square footage by level.

227.

This is the house.

Now this picture is actually taken from last year's addendum that the county submitted to you.

This was in their package.

This is the house that they increased originally $819,000, and subsequently another $711 after the hearing.

And this was in their package, and it says right here.

It features a four-car tandem garage, an electric car charger, tennis court.

They even presented the evidence, but it wasn't in their numbers.

Same thing last year.

This is from their presentation last year.

This is 2400 Palomino.

That's the one that got the extra 12% on the MS worksheet and the extra 12% of 48%.

This is one that gave a zero.

This was their comp and they gave it a zero value.

But yet here it is in their package on page uh actually, I don't know what page is, I can't read it.

But it says, and I didn't welcome to the extraordinary mid-century colonial home nestled in the beautiful historic district of Las Vegas as you enter the blah, blah, blah, blah.

The interior has been fully renovated and meticulously maintained.

This is the one that they added 78 cents a square foot and still reduced the value of the main house itself.

Seven.

Oh, okay.

This is a house at 2315 altar.

Again, around the corner for me.

And it says here that this one did not include.

If I go to the next page here, on page 238, it says, this is again, this is their submission from last year, page 20.

And it says on a circle area here, right here.

It says, recently completed five-gar garage with air conditioning.

Apparently, it was not big enough to be seen.

There's your five-car garage.

No dollars for that.

When you want to see that happen.

Now this house, 2727 altar, this house was their number seven comp last year.

Remarkably, it's their number one comp this year.

2727 altar.

It says here on page 255, it has 12 parking garage spaces.

I'll get into that later.

Oh, here's a better description on page 261.

They didn't have this either.

Spacious finished basement boasts a wet bar, a man cave, a wood burning fireplace, 12 car parking, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Not a nickel for this stuff in their assessments.

Okay, so Ms.

Widener, when she interrupted me, she made a comment.

And they did.

I asked, because they sent out after the hearing, they said they were going to look at the neighborhood.

I asked for a copy of that letter.

And that letter basically reads it's right here on page 266.

That letter reads, we are conducting a reappraisal of your area based on the inequity in the improvement values.

I thought there was no inequity.

That's what they told me.

Now, I got a letter on page on page 265 from Miss Jacobs.

And it reads, there were a total of 55 letters sent, nine were returned.

Well, of course.

So they got a 16% hit rate.

Of course, this is what the letter said.

Basically, they give you a little box to check.

Have you done any work?

The answers, no, not really, nothing of the sort.

Don't even ask whether you tore anything report.

But one person did write.

This is what this one person wrote.

We have owned this house for 10 years.

Our taxes have gone up every year since we every year.

We are retired on a fixed income and in poor health.

I bring that to your attention because these people, these people who wrote that are this are the people that the 3% cap is intended to protect.

Not the people who spend five million dollars on their homes who are worth millions of dollars.

This county does not remove the abatement when the houses transact.

I am not telling them to change the value.

I am not changing the abatement is supposed to be eradicated.

They pass that along to the new owner, whether or not they are qualified.

I have a copy on page 276.

This is the bill, AB bill in 2005 that was drafted, and it says here under this bill, the legislation declares that an increase in the tax bill of a homeowner of more than 3% from the previous year constitutes such a severe economic hardship for the purposes of the Nevada Constitution.

It says basically a taxpayer.

But the law.

Oh, I want to read you this too.

On page 278, this is what that bill continues on to say.

Chairman Farr, can we stick to the facts of this case?

I think we're veering very far from where we're supposed to be.

If we're looking if it's an inequity argument, he should be arguing inequity for the current year.

If it's a full cash value argument, we should be sticking to the full cash value argument.

There's five different options he has.

I don't think we should be getting into discussions on the tax cap that has no relevance to this board whatsoever.

Am I going to be allowed to interrupt her when she speaks?

That's what I want to know.

I'm almost done with the improvements.

I'll get into the land in a minute.

I'm almost done.

But almost, okay.

Well, because you're you're wandering far off from what the purpose of this hearing is.

Okay, well, you should then be aware that these people are, again, this is an inequity.

They are allowing the abatement to continue when the law clearly states they are not supposed to.

But she doesn't want to be able to do that.

Why is she interrupting?

I'm sitting here very quietly trying to allow Mr.

Wolfson to state his case.

But he's making lots of accusations against our office, which I will address.

Um, but I am showing evidence and documents.

Please, I am allowed to speak.

She can speak when it's her turn.

It's not her turn now.

Can we focus on your case for this year and wrap it up, please?

I'm gonna I'm almost done with the improvements.

I still haven't gotten to the land yet.

Okay, this is a case, Tim and Victoria Pauly versus the White Pound, White Pine County South.

This is case number 24154.

I don't care about White Pine County.

I want to know about your case.

This is this year right now.

This is very relevant to my case.

White Pine County is not relevant to your case.

It is, but I am telling you it is, and let me I want to.

I'm telling you it's not.

This is Clark County, not White Pine County.

Please proceed.

This is the state, this is the state determination of data case, which is very similar to mine.

So maybe I shouldn't have started off by telling you where it was from.

But this is signed by Shelley Hughes, who is the secretary of the Department of Taxation.

I don't have to tell you who she is.

This is what it says.

In assessing property for tax purposes, county assessors must determine the property's taxable value by separately appraising the full cash value of the improved land consistent with the use of the improvements and the replacement cost of any improvements, less depreciation, and obsolescence, and she quotes NRS 361, 261, and 227.

And she quotes NRS 361, 261, and 227.

Goes on to say the Nevada Supreme Court in SBE V Barter held that property taxed at full cash value while other properties are being taxed at less than full cash value is injured because such properties are not receiving the right to uniform and equal treatment mandated under the new under the Nevada Constitution.

And the last paragraph says the Nevada Supreme Court in Elko versus Zillich held that an owner is presumed to have special knowledge of the property and may testify as to its value, and that the landowner's competence to form an opinion of the land's value may be exposed on cross-examination.

In this case, the petitioners provided their opinion as to value, and in particular, the board found that Mr.

Pauly's opinion regarding the valuation was credible given his business experience.

Okay.

That's the end of my presentation for my improvements.

And when the county speaks, I will give them the courtesy of taking notes and speaking afterwards.

Regarding land, these are the statutes and administrative codes that are applicable to value in land in the state of Nevada.

One two two seven, three sixty-one two two eight.

And I want to read to you 360 uh NAC 36119.

The use of sales of comparable improved properties pursuant to subsection one.

Next page.

Sales of comparable improved properties must be adjusted to remove the full contributory value of all items attributed to the improvements meeting in the House.

The reason why I bring this up is when I don't know the uh young lady's name who's going to present the land portion.

But every comp that they use, they have seven comps, which are duplicate in some cases.

Every comp that she's going to use is vacant land.

It is not it is not um improved property.

The law says to do land on improved properties, you take the total value and you subtract the improved value.

These folks issue these things called value history reports.

They have the data.

They put the data on the report that I used to determine my appeal.

If we're not going to uh if we're not even going to use their own information, what's the point?

They also have land use codes.

And on page 320, the state of Nevada has a definition of vacant single family resident versus single family residents.

The difference being one has no house on it, the other one has a house.

It's very clear how you're supposed to do this.

They should follow the laws that I have to follow.

They also reference on the land that they lean on, that's not the exact word they use.

We'll get to it later, on the case Schiller home price uh methodology.

In the land, this is from the SP core logic case for the home price.

This is from their website.

And this is what it says about using case Schiller as it relates to their work.

On the introduction, it says the standard imports core logic case shilling home price indices measure the price level of existing single family homes in the United States, not land.

Now, the next page talks about the eligible criteria.

It says inclusions and exclusions.

The SP core logic case Schiller indices are designed to measure as accurately as possible changes in the total value of existing single-family housing stock.

The methodology samples all available relevant transactions.

The SP Core Logic Schiller indices do not sample sale prices associated with new construction, condominiums, co-ops, apartments, multifamily dwellings, and other properties that cannot be identified as single family.

And yet they use this to on the comps on my improved property versus vacant land.

It's first of all, it's not even supposed to be used for vacant land, and they shouldn't be using vacant land to compare it to improved properties.

Okay.

Do you have any specific data that you can provide us rather than putting posts?

What are you referring to?

Well, I want to have support for your case, and you posting stuff from case shower, it doesn't satisfy what we're here to do.

It doesn't matter.

You wanted to talk about what your land value.

How do you propose that we value the land for your property?

My next chart, you you get, but I want to answer that question.

Let me ask you a question.

If I'm I said if I said to you, I'm going to show you this chart, and this chart is based on the assumption that two plus two is six.

Are you going to believe anything in this chart?

I would hope not.

But they're using K Schiller to value my land, and it says K Schiller is not.

Hey, Schiller is saying it, not me.

They say don't use it for land.

Our model doesn't do that.

But you asked the question, and here's the answer.

Okay.

I took a look at the comps, and I said, okay.

I have nine properties here.

These are all improved properties.

These are all in that little neighborhood of mine.

They're not in Scotch 80.

Excuse me, excuse me for a minute.

You're saying it's all improved properties?

I thought we're talking about the land.

I'm sorry.

I thought you were talking about the land.

I am talking about, but I'm saying these are all improved.

I'm comparing improved properties to improved properties and the land value that the county has assessed them for land and assessed me for land.

No, but what the the chairman was asking, do you have any land sales to justify your land price?

Do you have any sales of land that are relevant to your argument?

Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna answer that question in two ways.

Now I want you to answer that question now.

I'm not gonna answer it now.

I'm gonna answer it.

First of all, yes, I do have sales of other properties of land, but the law, and you can ask the attorney here, again, who's name I don't know.

Uh you can ask her whether the law says when you have an improved property and you have to value the land, what's the proper methodology in which to do that?

And the proper method methodology isn't to show that a vacant piece of land went for this, it's to show that you have two basically equal properties on land at the house.

You subtract the improvements, which is what I read to you from the uh Nevada statute, and then you end up with the result, which is the land value.

Now, the county does this.

They have this thing called the value history report on every property, and I have all my backup that I took the dollars that they assigned it.

This is what these people are being assessed and therefore taxed on.

So I applied the rules as the law demands.

So that being said, let me go on.

These are my neighbors.

These are the valuations that they have been assigned.

Okay.

All improved property, so we're comparing apples and apples, which is consistent with NRS 36127 and NAC361.119.

They're all in my neighborhood.

You will see when the assessor gets up.

They have ones in Scotch 80, mine or not, McNeil Estates, Rancho Circle, Rancho Estates.

These are all on Pinto Lane or the adjacent streets of Alta, Palomino, and Shetland.

These these represent those properties that are at least 15% larger than mine.

Of the properties that are 15% larger, which are the first five in pink, they're all assessed at the same value.

210,000 assessed, $600,000 in taxable value, which is one divided by 0.35.

Of those five comps that are bigger than mine but assessed the exact same amount, they range in size from 15% larger.

The average lot is 58% larger, but they're only assessed 9% more.

I'm sorry, I I've got to have it.

That's the next section here.

The five comps that are the same as they are larger by 15 to 47% larger than mine.

I pay the same taxes, the same assessments, but they are 15% to 47% larger than mine.

The average lot of these nine is 58% bigger, and they are assessed an additional 9%.

The worst case, the worst case is the last one, 500 Shetland, which is 138% bigger, 100 138% bigger, 2.02 acres versus 0.85 acres.

And yet they're assessed at 25% more.

If I was able to take the square feet that they get and put it on my lot with the line width, I could my my property would go back 400 and another 47, 406 linear feet.

That's the difference in that.

Whoops.

Taking a look at it another way.

On page 328.1, this is an exhibit H, the one that I one of the ones I just handed out to you.

This compares similar properties in my neighborhood, seven comps and me.

Again, they're all improved land.

And in this case, I I compared myself to all those properties in my neighborhood that are at least 1.3 acres, which is a 40% increase for mine.

These are 60% larger.

Seven parcel average is exactly double the size of mine.

You can see it's what it's 1.7 acres.

Mine is 1.5.

Minus 0.85 at the top.

And yet they only pay, they're double my size, but they pay basically one-fifth the amount more.

You get twice as much property for 20 cents on the dollar.

Okay, so now we're going to do a little pictorial here.

If I was better at the computer, it would be on a computer.

The house over here is mine, 2709.

Now, these again are all in the neighborhood.

You can see the addresses here.

These are the 10 comps that I'm using on this particular chart.

They're all improved lots.

These are all assessed at 210,000.

Every single one is just a two, in just to make sure, 2627, so everybody knows who we're talking about this year.

They range in size, I mentioned earlier, either either 15% larger, which is this one here, ranging to 47% larger.

So this is what it looks like.

I'm here, we're all paying the same thing, and this is how much these people have land wise.

I took a look at it another way.

I adjusted it.

Again, these are all improved lots.

This is uh these are these lots are at least 40% bigger than mine.

The right hand side you can see the average parcel, which is at least 40% larger, which is actually 1.53 acres, the average of these 12.

They're assessed at 636,000.

I'm at 0.85, so you can see the difference in the height of the bars.

I pay six, I'm I'm assessed six hundred thousand dollars.

So for six percent more, they have one point five three acres, I have 0.85.

You can see where, take a look at the one on the left, which is 700 Shetland.

They are 1.57 acres, almost double me, and they are at 372,000 dollars per acre, and I'm paying 600.

So they're 60 percent of my cost, and almost double the size of my property.

I don't know, it doesn't seem equal to me, but how do I know?

This is another.

Like a kid did it.

These parcels are 40% larger.

This is drawn to scale, just to give you a perspective.

Subject property, which is mine, is taxed at $706 per acre.

That's the $600,000 assessment divided by 0.85.

So on the city.

Are we talking land only?

Yes, just so my land is assessed at $76,000 per acre.

All my comparisons are those that are 40% larger or more.

And again, it's drawn to scale.

I am 68% higher than the average 12.

I am almost 200% bigger than the smallest one, which is the one over here, 700 Shetland.

The average lot size is a 1.53 acres, and mine is 0.85.

The average lot of these is 80% larger than mine, and they are taxed at 41% less.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be too happy about that either.

I took a look at it another way.

This chart is also drawn to scale, and what I did here is I combined the two features.

I said, okay, buy property, how big are you, and what are you being assessed?

And the way you really look at this, you don't have to go through the numbers, is you look at the gap.

Okay, if the blue gap to the yellow gap is big, you're paying more than it then you should basically.

The ones that are most valuable are the ones here at 2408 Palomino, where you see the blue and the yellow are pretty close.

But take a look at me over here on the left, we're out of 85 hundredths of an acre and 706.

Compare this to 500 Shetland, where the yellow is all the way on the top, which is what their size is versus what they're being assessed at.

This is if this isn't inequity, I don't know what is now.

This is a joke.

This is a comparison of me to them.

Back in 19, back in 2019, 2020.

That time frame, 2050 Shetland had were actually two separate lots.

One was 500 Shetland and one was an address on Alt of which I don't know.

At that time, each of these three lots were all assessed at 105,000.

All of them.

Even though the two lots on Shetland were 1.01 acres, and I'm at 0.85 acres.

So they're 20% bigger than me, and we're all assessed at the same at 105 a piece.

Not that big a deal.

Okay, now fast forward to this year.

If nothing changed, if those two properties were still separate, they would still be assessed that we would all be assessed at 210.

I'm assessed at 210 now, 600 taxable, and they would be assessed at 210 each, 600 taxable.

But that's not what happened.

I don't know the exact date right now, but this is what happened.

They combined legally those two lots.

Even though there's still a wall between them, even though there's been no construction, even that property still stood there.

But they went to the court or to the county and they recorded, I guess it's called assemblage.

I just learned this.

So these two properties are now one.

They're now instead of two 101 acres, they were single 2.02 acres.

Now, everything I read about the definition of assemblage, and you folks are all appraisers, you know better than I do.

Most people don't assemble things if it's going to cost them money and not give them value because they have to spend legal fees and blah blah blah.

So they assemble this.

So you might think that, well, gee, if I take two properties that are worth 210,000 apiece or 420, when I assemble it, it should be worth more.

No, no, no, no, no, no.

I went up from 210 from 184.

They went from 229 to 263.

So they went up over the cost of the last five six years, they went up 9%, and I went up 75%.

This year, they did change the assessed values.

They are now up 25% over the past seven years, and I am up 100%.

These lots are the exact same value seven years ago.

They are bigger than I am, and they are being assessed combined, 202 acres at 263,000, and I am being assessed at 210.

Now, that being said, Steve Wynn owns 13 acres across the street from me.

He's asking 30 million dollars.

I am assuming when he tore down those 12 houses to assemble this to be sold, he did it because he felt it was more value by combining them.

That's just my point on that one.

Um, you'll be glad to know that I'm done with my land.

And before you go, I have another handout for you.

This one's this is for uh my rebuttal.

I have 10 copies of this, and I apologize for the weight of it, but it cost me 400 to print.

So I wrap up your case, sir.

That wraps up my case.

Very good.

I appreciate it.

Chairman Farr.

Yes.

Um, before uh Jarrell and Jamie put on the case, I would just like to answer a few things about what Mr.

Wolfson has said about our office.

Um, first of all, I think that he has a misunderstanding of how NRS 361.227 works.

We are a replacement cost state, we are not a market state.

We do not value to the market value and then subtract improvements to get to a land value that is not the way we value land.

Um, according to 227, um, a person determining the taxable value of rural property shall appraise the full cash value of number one vacant land by considering the uses to which it may lawfully be put, any legal or physical restrictions upon those uses, the character of the train, and the use of the other land in the vicinity.

NAC goes into more detail, and it's interesting that he pointed out the Barta and the Bass case because the BART and the Bass case actually caused actually required that the Nevada Tax Commission pass regulations on how we value land because of the issues that were brought up in those cases because they believed that the way they were valuing land was unconstitutional.

So with that, they established NAC 19.

And I will reference that it's land alternative methods to the sales comparison approach and NAC 361179.

And we'll start with 1179.

It says land methods for determining full cash value.

If sufficient sales of comparable properties which were vacant at the time of the sale are available, a county shall determine the full cash value of land by applying the sales comparison approach using a a mass appraisal technique in accordance with the provisions of NAC361.11795 through NAC 361188.

Or a single property technique in accordance with the provisions of NAC 361.118 to 361.1188.

And so we're gonna look at comparable vacant land sales.

Can she please read the next sentence?

Read the next sentence.

Read the next sentence.

You do not have the floor.

You will allow her to always interrupt.

She has the floor.

Then you ask her, read the next sentence.

Just read the next you can bring it up on rebuttal.

I brought it up earlier.

I read it.

You can bring it up on rebuttal.

I've I've given you plenty of time.

Would you agree to that?

I've given you, I've been very patient.

I've given you plenty of time.

Okay, so you do not have the floor right now.

Please let Ms.

Widener finish.

She is Ms.

Excuse me.

She was misrepresented.

You can bring it up on rebuttal third time, I'm telling you.

I will do that.

Ms.

Wagner, please continue.

So it continues to say if insufficient sales of compomparable properties which were vacant at the time of sale are available to carry out or are available to carry out subsection one, a county assessor shall determine uh full cash value of land provided in NAC 361.119.

So once again, we use vacant land sales.

If we have vacant land sales of uh lots in in rural neighborhood reserves, which is something similar to what this gentleman has, we're gonna look to that.

If we don't have that, there are other methodologies that we can use, but it's not the method that he mentioned, which says you take the total sales price, less what we come up for improvement value to determine a land value.

That is not what we do in our office, and it's not what NAC or NRS require us to do.

If you go to NAC361119, it talks about land alternative methods to sales comparison approach, and then it lists all the options, and it says if a county assessor is not able to use the sales comparison approach for the land pursuant to NAC3611795 or a 361.118 because sufficient sales of comparable properties which were vacant at the time of sale are not available, the county assessor shall determine the full cash value of land through any of the following methods, either in combination with available land sales or as the sole method of valuation.

And those methods are the abstraction method, the land residual technique, capitalization of ground rents, cost of development method, allocation method, a regression analysis, the use of comparable sales improved pursuant to subsection one is subsubject to the provisions of NAC 3611795 or 36118118.

Pardon me, I'm flubbering over all the NACs, but it references all the NACs, and then it talks about sales comparisons of improved properties, must be adjusted to remove the full contributory value of all items attributable to the improvements, including without a limitation, direct and indirect cost, soft costs, entrepreneurial profit, and personal property and other non-realty components of the value.

The cost may be reported in a lump sum basis per unit.

That is a method that we could use, but it is not the method that we primarily use.

But it is one of many methods that are available here in NAC.

I in these in this particular type of neighborhood, we're gonna do our best to use other comparable sales of other vacant lot sales.

And I believe when we put on the testimony today, we can show the indication of that to support our sales, our our land value.

Some of the other comments, Mr.

Wolfson is making a lot of comments about us doing some things incorrectly.

Though I appreciate his experience in his career, and I'm sure that he was a very valuable member of the organizations that he worked for.

He is not an appraiser, he is not licensed in the state of Nevada, and he has not been trained on how to use Marshall and Swift.

And so he has his own interpretation of how Marshall and Swift should be applied, and when you do not understand the application of it, it can be construed in many different ways.

Um, our office has spent extensive time, and he did show you the emails that I had responded, trying to explain to him how Marshall and Swift is applied.

We've included those same letters uh within our documentation as well, um, so that you the board can see that we are doing everything we can to communicate what and answer Mr.

Wolfson's questions.

Everything that he has brought up, we have gone back to the neighborhoods, we've tried to relook at everything we could reload at.

He is misleading this board by telling him that we ignored the neighborhoods.

We did not ignore the neighborhoods.

We did our best to identify the things that we could identify.

Do things get missed?

I'm not gonna say that they don't.

But when people do come forward and identify them, we go back out and we do our best to pick those things up and identify them.

He's also made arguments about comparing his taxable value and his taxes to other people's taxable value and their taxes.

That is not what the board, this board is here to do.

This board is here to look at whether we have exceeded full cash value or whether we have valued his property inequitable with other similar properties.

He is in a custom neighborhood.

Uh, there are all kinds of variations of these homes within these these neighborhoods.

Um, in addition to, and so we can put on our case and then the board can make a decision whether or not we have actually been inequitable based on the actual data instead of testimony on just the fact that we are doing things incorrectly.

Um we want to correct everything we can correct, and as was already testified, he indicated that we had gone back and fixed things that were on his record.

That's what we do every day of the week.

If somebody comes forward, they show us something that's wrong, we go in and we fix it and we correct it.

And we can correct it current plus three years back.

That's what the statutes allow us to do.

And so we have done that in every situation that he has brought forward to us with regards to his property.

When it comes to other people's properties, they haven't brought that information forward.

He he wants to point out everyone else's property in his area and in other surrounding communities and how we've missed things or we've done things wrong, and we are correcting those things, but we're gonna correct those on the current role going forward.

So I just want to make it clear what we have done, what we have been doing.

We've made that testimony to the state board uh that where the county board last year that we were going to do it.

We testified before the state board that we had done it, and we are going to continue to do that as we are alerted by things that may be wrong in the record.

I don't know if all the things he identified in the record were things that are new that he's just brought forward.

But if there are issues with other properties, we will be happy to address them.

I I haven't, I don't know what all um Jarrell or Jamie are gonna present today.

I'm just trying to speak in general terms to talk about what the assessor's office does and how we approach these situations.

Um, our job is to value things based on replacement costs new, according to NRC NRS 361.227 based on Marshall and Swift valuation.

We do our best to do that in the appropriate manners and apply all the things that we understand about the property, but it is subject to the discretion of the appraiser, and based on what they feel the class of that property is.

Um, if we misclassed a property, then we will we will address those things.

If we've put a wrong age in a property, we will address those things.

But based on all the knowledge that we had at the moment when we made those decisions, that's how those decisions are made.

And I do not believe that he's brought forth any new information to help us to know where we were wrong with that.

With that, I'm gonna go ahead and let Mr.

Jarrell and um Jamie put on the case.

Thank you.

Anything about that Chairman Farr, are we allowed to go ahead and finish putting on our case?

Yeah, we we've I mean we're over an hour and a half now, and the county hasn't even put on their case.

I understand that, and I have a lot to rebut because they haven't even put their case on the case.

What things can we hear the case?

I mean, do you think that might be important?

It would be important.

I agree.

Thank you.

Mr.

Turner, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

First, I'm gonna keep in mind that this is an equity appeal on page 403 of the masterbook as a neighborhood equity sheet sorted by total taxable value.

The subject is among the 48 homes in the neighborhood, as well as as well as home homes have been assessed equally with our marshal and swift cost manual.

Looking at the homes within the neighborhood, there are nine homes with depreciation between 10 and 35%.

This object of is at the $339 per square foot, which is the third lowest of the nine homes.

As you know, custom homes all have unique care characteristics.

Equity applies to the process of assessing these properties, not the result.

Therefore, you can see that we have applied the cost from the margins with equitably and with varying total assessed values as the result.

And all the homes that he brought into uh to our no no is to discover during re-reval to update and correct that as well.

Even though this is an equity appeal, the comp sales work worksheet can be found on page 349.

All call all comps are within one mile.

The comms that that were were used this year were all recent sales that were comparable then that we could find to the home within the year.

Um Miss J E Gibbs will now discuss her land of assessment, her portion of assessments.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Jamie Jacobs for Clark County Assessor's Office.

So I'm gonna be referencing material that the petitioner provided in the addendum on page.

Sorry.

Um I don't have that that copy.

Can you tell me what the page numbers are?

Be your page 534 in your material.

Oh you are you looking at my document?

Yes.

So, Mr.

Chair, the um petitioner asked a couple questions on this page.

So since improvements are to be assessed at replacement cost, why all properties rated good, which is a 40, no cost uh the same to not cost the same to replace on a square foot basis.

What page are you on?

I'm in page 534 of your material.

It can't be my no, you must have numbered it differently.

My numbers are it's your handwriting at the bottom of the page.

534?

Yes.

Let me continue.

Um so again, it's because of the misunderstanding of the Marshall and Swift manual that the petitioner has.

There are four things that you start out with when you go to look stuff up in the Marshall and Swift manual.

Quality.

Obviously, he was talking about all 4.0 or good good quality homes, so that's the same problem.

Second is style, it's a one-story or two-story or buy-level or one and a half story.

That determines which table you use.

So it could be still the same quality of good, but if a two-story is going to be price on a per square foot different than a one-story, because it's cheaper to build a two-story because it's not less less rough, less foundation.

Uh the next item is the construction type.

Frame stuckle, brick, veneer, you know, those differences will then determine which table you're gonna use and where to look up the rate.

And then the last component is size.

The larger it is, the less price per square foot it's gonna cost to build.

And then you adjust those costs, and this is where it could really vary, even though we're still talking at 4-0 or a good quality home.

You you look to take into account the ceiling height or the the wall height.

That could, you know, if you're especially some of these homes that were built in the 50s and 60s, eight foot.

Today's standard, at least a 10, if not larger.

Uh, the subject property is uh at as a 10-foot ceiling height on average.

It's actually a cathedral, the center, so it's actually quite tall.

Other things like the the the uh roof type.

So he had talked about that.

The two-story price per square foot for the roof adjustment was different than the one story price per square foot for the roof type, because those are already built into the rate.

Marshall's Swift has already accounted for the fact that you don't have as much roof on the two-story.

So those adjustments apply to that table.

You can't start mixing, taking you know these different costs from different tables.

So that's why, and then also the the quality.

He had mentioned uh that he was questioning why the one house that was a 6-0, excellent quality compared to his good quality.

So you would deduct if it's got a comp comp shingle roof.

Toward a 4-0, I believe it's wood shake is the standard for the roof type.

And there is a smaller difference between the wood shake and a composite shingle.

So that's why you're gonna have these differences.

And that page 70 is why is the cost to replace my improvements 125% higher?

$218.19 cents versus $96.92, then the average of all other good properties selected.

And then if you turn the next page on page 71, which is page 54, so it might it's a different part of your material, but it's uh it's in the addendum at page 71.

And this chart here, he was taking the taxable value, and then converting that into a price per square foot.

But the problem with this chart is completely misleading because it doesn't take into account the age of these properties.

Again, we're talking 1960s on.

Which chart is that I don't have 54.

54.

54.

So because it doesn't have enough information to really draw a better picture, but again, even on our price per square foot, this is a custom neighborhood with a huge range in ages, remodels, teardowns, rebuilds.

You you can't break this down to a price per square foot.

However, I went ahead and took that and replicated his spreadsheet that was on page 71 and expanded it to include those additional factors that would be important if you're gonna even attempt to compare this on a price per square foot.

So I I could have you refer to page 719 if of the addendum book.

Which page is that?

Is that a page?

This is my material, page 719.

I didn't get it today.

It's in the addendum book.

Shall I continue or we'll wait?

I would pause until he's he's coming back down now.

719.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just so the board knows that stack of paper, what the addend that's mostly his, minus not most of that, but we had to reprint all everything that he submitted.

All right, so on page 719, again, I took his page 71 and then expanded it, so I added additional columns to explain more.

And one of the columns that I added was statutory depreciation.

So it's the first yellow highlighted column.

So you can see that several of these homes are depreciated at 75%.

So when you try to take the end result of the taxable value of the improvements, and then divide it by the square footage of the house, the main house only, yeah, your your prices per square foot are gonna be way down because of 75% depreciation compared to the subject's property at 22.5% depreciation.

And then the next column over that's highlighted in yellow is extra features.

Obviously, those are gonna be part of the taxable value, and so a property that has more extra features.

When we say extra features like yard improvements, you know, other things outside the home.

And then the next second column over from that is the guest house or casita.

So his property has a thousand ninety-six square foot casita.

Most of these properties don't have that extra case or guest house except two, and then the next column over from that is garage.

Again, these are all gonna be part of the taxable value.

If you're gonna start dividing that back into the price to the house square footage, you're it's gonna vary because of those differences.

And then another column.

So what I did is after the um, so the two columns over from that is the rate price per square foot taxable.

So again, that's RCNLD.

That's gonna include depreciation, so it's gonna be totally misleading, and that's why when he asked the questions, why are the neighboring properties at $96 a square foot compared to his 200 and something per square foot?

Yeah, because they have 75% depreciation on quite a few of them.

So what I did instead is I said, okay, well, let's start with our total taxable value replacement cost new, not counting any depreciation.

So that's the next column over, and where did I get that?

So if you look at that first one, it says 1,511 or $511,9239.

So what page you want?

Same page.

And then I attached the property record cards below that, or after that.

So if we start at page $719, we go to the next page at $720.

That's the property record card for that first line, and go to the next page on $721.

You'll see in the right hand column where it says basic building, and then further down it says building RCN.

So it's $1,237,000 and some change.

So I took that number, and then I added it to the replacement cost new of the extra features, which is down at the bottom of the property record card.

It's one of the third fourth column over from the end where it says RCN.

So it's 208,903.

So I add that to the other one.

And then this property here, next page over, has a detached garage, and it has a replacement cost new for that detached garage.

So you add all three together, and that's where I came up with the 1, 511, 239 on page 719.

So I did that for every property.

Can you show me where the number is?

Last number you just referenced.

This is the number that he's talking about.

And if you look at the next pages, the property record card addresses that number.

Okay, you're so you're looking at the fourth to last column that you've calculated as a taxable RCM by property, correct?

Yes, for each property.

And do you have an average for those properties?

So I'll go ahead and continue with my testimony.

So I took the entire replacement cost new of the all of the features on the property for each of these properties.

I then divided it by the price per square or divided it by the square footage of the main house only, just like he did on his chart, except he was using replacement cost new less depreciation, which was adding in the depreciation, which really muddled the water.

So I'm just using the price per the square footage of the homes of the main home only, and that comes up with a price taxable replacement cost new price per square foot for each of the properties.

But again, he's got the guest house of a thousand ninety-six square feet.

He's got the larger garage.

So those are gonna add in to his taxable value.

Even if I took out the depreciation, yes, he is still sitting at $314 per square foot.

The others are you know, some as high, there was one at 400 a square foot, but most of them are around 250 to just shy of 300.

But again, they don't have the guest house, a lot of them, and they don't have the extra garage and extra features.

So again, I wouldn't we don't break it down into a price per square foot.

We have each individual component that's costed out as the property record cards show.

So that paints the picture that he's not out of line at a starting point compared to the other properties, and then of course you add the depreciation, and that really skews the numbers if you're gonna break it down on a price per square foot.

All right, so the next point that the petitioner tried to make was on the when we picked up the improvements and added them to supplemental on page 139 of the addendum book, which is your page 122, because this is your material uh for in the book and the addendum, it's 139.

For in the book in the addendum, it's 139.

And that's where he we saw it on the overhead where he was showing that his house was picked up a month prior to it being filed, and that no other properties had that situation.

However, I took that same chart, reconstructed it, and on page 761.

Which is my material, same addendum book.

So again, I've used his reconstructed his chart, and I dug through permits, went back in time, when was things picked up, and so forth.

So on row A, the very top first line, there we have there was a patio cover that we were a couple years late in picking up, but the main house itself was picked up in 1920 uh 9/20 tax year, and it was finaled on October 18th, and let me pause there.

When we say final, we do not wait until something is finaled to pick it up.

Um we do pick up stuff at a percent complete.

An extreme example would be the fountain blue.

That did set on our records.

We had it on our records, and as we all know, it sat vacant for and partly constructed for for many many years, but we still had it on our record at a percent complete.

So the actual house on 2720 pinto was picked up in a timely manner, the main house in the pool.

And then number row B, which is 2905 pinto.

He has the incorrect year that we added it on.

He says uh 13 slash 14.

No, we actually picked that up in 9 slash 10, and it final so 9 slash 10 would be July 1st of 2009 would be the starting of the lien date, it didn't final until uh November 2011.

Some of these projects take a while to build.

So that was picked up prior to being finaled.

Uh the next one on row row C.

Excuse me, I know that I'm out of line, but can I just ask a question?

You can use that in rebuttal, please.

Let him let them finish their case.

So much to remember, we can talk it.

Well, then maybe yeah, you have a notepad.

I saw your notepad.

Make make some notes, please.

I'm taking notes.

Well, and uh so row C, which is 2323 pinto, um, we had picked up uh 346,000 worth of uh improvements, might have been a pool, I'm not sure, in a timely fashion, but the um we picked up the house in 1617 of 1.3 million dollars again 1617, the start of the fiscal year to be Jane July 1st of 2016, it didn't final until September of 2016.

So we did pick it up prior to being filed.

Go further down the list um on row one, which is item line 25.

A little bit confusing with the row, the again I recreated this from his spreadsheet.

So again, uh it was actually picked up in uh 09 slash 10, and it didn't final until October of 2009, and we added it on at 50 percent, complete the first year, and then the following year when they finished it, we brought it up to 100%.

So there's an actual example of us picking it up at a percent complete, and then further down, this is the one I added because it wasn't on his sheet.

It's the very the last row there that's highlighted in uh orange-ish color, 2337 pinto.

Um we put it on the tax roll supplemental for the 1718 year, again, July 1st of 2017 would be the start of that fiscal year.

It didn't get final one day later, so after the fact.

So here's some examples of properties that were picked up just like his prior to being finaled, and I have all the value history sheets and the uh records from the building department when the finals were done and the preceding or subsequent pages.

And I have all the value history sheets and the records from the building department when the finals were done and the preceding or subsequent pages.

So if you want to, I can refer to any of those if you need to.

Again, to conclude my portion before we go on to the land portion.

And like Miss Widener initially said in our in an opening statement about how we have been revaluing this area.

We did send out letters.

That was not the only thing that we did.

We went out there, we researched all the permits going back, MLS, so we'd used additional resources to find out were there improvements done or changes made to the property, and we did our best to you know as we have been this since since our last board to continuing to reval the area and pick up improvements as necessary.

I will then turn it over to Ms.

Pipitone for going over the land.

Thank you.

Good morning, Carla Pipotone for the assessor's office.

Case 424 vacant land sales analysis grid can be found on page 404.

Yes.

404?

404.

Oh that's a different number than that's gonna be this one here.

Okay.

Vicinity and aerial maps of the subject property and the comparable vacant land sales are on pages 405 and 406.

The data sheets for each comparable vacant land sale are on the pages that follow.

The comparables are located within a third of a mile to the subject property in the subject's market area.

They are similar in zoning and probable use and were selected as evidence of market value and analyzed on a per lot basis.

The comps range in size from 0.88 of an acre to 1.12 of an acre and indicate a range in value from 643,625 to 1,157,500, which supports the assessor's taxable value of 600,000.

Comp 1 sold in 2025.

It is a multi-parcel sale in the guard gated subdivision of Rancho Circle.

It's actually a resale of Comps 3 and 4.

So Comps 3 and 4 sold in 2023 by the same buyer in separate transactions.

And comp five sold in 2021, requiring a market or time adjustment.

Comp 6 sold in 2020 again, requiring a market or time adjustment.

Active active listing seven will be a resale of closed comp number six when it sells.

Okay.

So that basically supports land value.

There is a land grid for equity on page 414.

The grid shows the taxable value of all the parcels in the subject's neighborhood arrayed by lot size, smallest to largest, with size adjustments indicated on a percentage basis.

The subject's land value is highlighted in yellow, and it falls in alignment with the neighborhood taxable land values.

The median size in the neighborhood is 0.91 of an acre.

And the last column demonstrates the principle of diminishing returns.

So this is evidence that we're considering this an equitable land valuation.

Should be noted that this the zoning in this area is RA, which means one buildable lot and one buildable unit per lot, regardless of size.

I think that concludes my analysis.

Mr.

Chair Jamie Jacobs of the Clark County Assessment Department again.

So again, one of the comparables was the lot that the petitioner referenced where they had bought the neighboring lot.

And had they left them alone, individual lots, they would have maintained the individual lot land value.

But they went through the expense and the cost to combine them, legally combine them, and now it would compare to a an acre, two-acre piece.

And then it falls in the range of where that equity chart that Miss Piperton referenced.

So that's how that was valued.

It didn't just double in value because now it's legally one lot.

What they're gonna do with it, I don't know that, but they assume they're gonna do something with it because they combined them legally.

Otherwise, if they're gonna sell it back off or try to turn it or whatever, they would have left them separate, but they didn't.

So that's the uniqueness of that one.

That concludes our presentation.

If you have any questions, be happy to answer.

Okay, not uh it's time for your rebuttal.

If I might, I'd like to do the land portion first just because it's more fresh.

Go ahead.

So if this is the chart, I don't have a yeah, I think this is the first chart that Ms.

Papatino.

Pipotone.

This is okay.

So for starters, notwithstanding Ms.

Widener's comments earlier, NRS 361.227.

Copy here.

It says any person determining the taxable value of real property shall appraise the full cash value.

Of improved land consisting with the use to which improvements are being put.

Paragraph B.

Any improvements made on the land by subtracting from the cost of the replacement of the improvements, all applicable depreciation and obsolescence at one and a half percent per year.

So NRS 36127 says the same thing I've said before.

On improved property, you take the total value, you subtract the improvements, you end up with the land.

She also referenced my misunderstanding of NAC 361-119, which also says, and she actually did read the paragraph eventually.

Sales of comparable improved properties must be adjusted to remove the full contributory value of all items attributable to the improvements.

Same thing, same rules.

That's how I work.

These comps here, these comps here are under using, I think they quoted here, but maybe they don't.

First of all, these are all vacant properties.

Let's talk about number one.

First of all, these prices here are not even adjusted for the size of the land, meaning a piece of dirt is a piece of dirt, doesn't matter what the value is.

They just they're not even adjusted.

Six of these seven comps have a story to them, meaning that they're not the straight vanilla.

So when you put something on the market, uh an objective buyer comes in, they come to an agreement.

Comp number one are two contiguous lots, and I think it's called rancho estates.

These are the two largest lots, and they're the only two that are left that are vacant.

They have a value of premium value similar to what Ms.

Um Jacobs just mentioned, about 500 shells.

So these people truly paid a premium to get the two best lots available.

Now, this is a one-off.

Are we going to measure everybody in the county on one offs as opposed to standard transactions?

Comp number two is 422.

This one sold with a house on it.

They call it a teardown, but when it sold, it had a 2,060-foot square household.

So the people who paid $750,000, maybe we're going to tear it down, maybe they're not.

But the people who sold it sure as hell got paid for their house.

The next one here, these two um.

Let's go to the last one for a second.

This is a butte.

Since when does a listing represent a complaining that Mr.

Pontoni, which is two houses, two lots over from this 500 Shetland, is he's he's got it on the market for 1.1 million dollars.

He does.

He has it on the market for 1.1 million dollars.

It will sit there pretty much forever.

The house at the lot of 3011 altar was on the market for three years at a million one, didn't sell.

Mr.

Wynn's properties on the market for 30 million dollars for four years, didn't sell.

You could ask whatever you want.

It doesn't mean that's the market price.

With regard to, and they use Mr.

Pontoni twice here.

Now here's a beaut, too.

The assessor references the diminishing return value of a substantial amount, I might add.

And she using it uses that example.

That is those numbers are pulled out off the records.

But what it doesn't do is she doesn't go back to the two transactions that actually occurred on that property versus the one that she's projecting it's going to be.

And those sales went for 4 numbers, right?

That house sold, that property sold a few years prior for 413,000, and then a few years later sold for 443,000, which the increase was a mere .19% per month, not the magnificent 1.12%.

So you know, they they can pick and choose what they want.

I'm missing something.

Okay.

Mr.

Pontoni's property sold on, I have the deeds attached on June 30th of 2017 for 413,000, and then he bought it on a few years later for 444,000, making the increase substantially different.

There's another property on 2020, 2030 banning that had the same transaction kind of thing, and they went up 0.31%.

So they have records of they want to pick all the most extreme cases to do this.

I went through on the weekend that I had prior to this hearing, and I pulled several properties that are asking these values.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight of them.

These are their asking prices.

This was the original price.

This is what they changed.

This is the dollar value that the percent change.

These are the days on market.

So you can ask what you want.

Doesn't mean you're gonna get it, and it doesn't mean you're going to make market on it.

One is on the 1,835 days.

There are 74 properties on that those two pages.

You can see me down 15 down, something like that, 14 down.

Two of those three actually have they're still charging them for the improvements on those vacant lots.

The first property, which is they don't write the addresses down, um, it's shown at an astonishing one, three hundred and four thousand dollars per acre.

No property in my neighborhood has ever sold for anything close to that.

Matter of fact, the most expensive sale for vacant land was the one at 500 Shetland that went for 500,000 for 1.01 acres, which is 494,000.

This is saying 1.304 million dollars.

Now the last property on the next page is 500 Shetland, which is 200, 2.02.

Now, by the way, on the first one I just mentioned to you, they make an adjustment.

They make an adjustment of 0.50%, but the acreage on that land is 73% smaller than mine, because they're comparing everything to me.

So I'm at 0.85 acres, they're at 0.323.

They are 7% smaller, 73% smaller than I am, but they only make an adjustment of 50%.

Now, if you go to the last one, which is Shetland, it's 2.02 acres, which is 138% larger than mine, and they make an adjustment of 0.25.

Now, here's the interesting thing.

If you take a look between the 12th one and all the way down in that middle column that says adjustment, you'll see a whole boatload of zeros.

What that means is that the property at let's pick this one.

It's one that's the one that starts at 0.75 acres.

You see that one over there on the left hand side?

It's about the 14th one down, it has a zero adjustment at 0.75 acres.

Then you scan down all the way down to almost the sixth to the bottom where it still has a zero, 1.25 acres.

So this county comes before you and tells you that a house that has 1.25 acres of land should pay the same taxes as a house that has 0.75 acres.

A half an acre, which is 22,000 square feet thereabouts, should pay, or be don't want to use the word tax, should be assessed at the same value.

Now you folks are appraisers.

If you were hired by someone and said, I have X amount of dollars to spend, find me your lot.

I do you think you're gonna get the same piece of land at the hand?

Now I'm not talking about looking here and then looking in south Southern Highlands.

I am talking about looking here and looking next door.

I don't think so.

Now let's go, let's go back to that the assessor.

Mr.

Wolfson?

No, no, yes.

I'd like to make a comment.

You are arguing about um on equity, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

So comparing your lot to 1.25 acre or a.91 acre or a.27 or whatever.

I don't care.

All the ones on this chart that are the same size as yours, and I went through and looked at a bunch of other ones, including the house next door to you, are all .85 or in there?

And they're all equity, they're all 210,000 or 600,000 on this chart.

They're all the same.

That's all I care about.

I don't care about 1.5s, because you sit here and you brought seven things, and you're talking about her picking and choosing.

You picked and choose all the ones larger to make your argument, but you didn't pick the one next door.

And so I don't care about the big ones and the small ones.

Those two properties, which are my next door neighbors, are the only two properties on my block that are 0.85 acres.

And your your statement is correct.

But the question is, equity.

They should be here too.

They should be here screaming too.

And I'm talking about the 0.75s that are the same and the 0.88s.

I that there's no differential to me.

You can only put one house on that lot.1 acre doesn't mean anything in this market.

So I don't really care about the big ones and the small ones.

I only care about the ones that are close to you.

And they're all the same.

Every one of them.

So can I we can we talk about the argument that they want to make about diminishing returns?

Their point was that larger lots on a dollar per acre basis, go for less money.

But in your case, I don't care about that.

I care about the ones that are equity that they're the same to you.

And that's what you're arguing that you're in equity to your neighbors of the similar ones, size, and they're all the same.

No, that's not my argument.

What I'm the people who you're referring to, the 0.85s, and they are in the same boat as I am.

The only difference between them and me is they're not here.

I am arguing that they are assessing me.

I even showed you charts earlier, and I showed you charts of all the properties that were assessed at 210,000 that were at least 15% larger than me.

And what I'm saying is that those people are being assessed and taxed at the same rate as I am, and yet they have gobs more land than I do.

That to me is in an inequity.

It is not fair that people with a lot.

You're right, you probably can only put one house on the lot.

But if you have a larger lot, you can put a tennis court, you can put this, you can put that.

And they'll get assessed for the tennis court and all the extra landscaping.

But you know, right now we're just we're dealing with what's equitable.

And that's what your argument is.

Okay, but you're using something totally different.

Yeah, but the other the again, the other point, the other point is that notwithstanding this page right here, their comps that are trying to convince you that I am assessed correctly, which was on page 404, was it?

Are vacant lands.

And again, that is a inacroperation of the law in which to make comparisons.

I live on an improved lot, and as Ms.

Widener correctly spoke, 227, NRS 3612 talks exactly about doing that.

Take the total value, subtract the improvements, get to the land.

Same thing with the NAC 117.

Do the same thing.

Why they are using comps that are vacant land is beyond me.

Um that being said, every one of their comps has a story.

There's no story that says, oh, this was just either the the lots were assembled, or they were booked, or they were paid a premium, or they did this, or they there's not now.

I did go out.

I and I understand what you're talking about with the land sales.

And to be honest, I don't really care about them because you're arguing an equity case.

Yeah.

So she was just pointing out how she arrived at land values in that area for the same size lot as yours.

So and pointing out out to us to make sure that we're in the same ballpark.

But you're arguing equity, and it only matters what similar size lots to yours are, and like I said, they're all equity.

Well, I can equal to your.

I can tell I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but my question is why do they have to be exactly the same size?

If to give you an example, the house behind me, the house behind me, which is known as the Thriller Villa is 1.7 acres, exactly double mine, exactly double mine.

Land value that they are assessed and taxed at is 25% more than mine.

So to me that seems reasonable.

As an appraiser with 40 some years of uh experience.

Okay, well, we disagree on that.

You can you can only put one house on that.

Well, you can see what they did on their house on that.

Yeah, you can do a lot on it.

Yeah.

And I'm not saying it's 25%, it could be 30, 40, whatever, but it's not double.

Do you think it's worth double because it's twice as big?

No, I don't think it's double, but I sure as hell don't think it's 25%.

And I also don't think a piece of land that's 2.02 acres is worth only 25 cents on the dollar to my property.

Well, I think that's a bigger issue and has nothing to do with your property because you're equally arguing equity, and again, all the property the same size as yours are the same.

I think you're taking a I'm not saying it's necessarily a wrong view, but I think like you're taking a very narrow view of what's equitable.

Just because it's not the exact same size, I mean they do balances that they think they make all these adjustments to make things sort of equitable.

Why are you now not allowing me to make adjustments to get an apples and apples comparison?

I'm not telling you that a lot that's two acres is should be assessed at more than that should be assessed at double.

But 20 you're you guys are appraisers.

If you have two vacant lands, and one is well, even here, they even their document that we just looked at on page 414.

Mr.

Wolfson, I I run across that situation virtually every week.

I'm appraising 15 lots in McDonald's Highlands right now.

Different sizes, different views, all sitting on the top, and and you would be shocked at what they're selling for, what they have sold for, what they resold for.

But you cannot compare.

And like I said, I I just did a whole bunch of lots in McDonald's ranch.

You cannot compare a quarter acre lot to a one-acre lot.

No more, please let me finish.

No more than you can compare a 2,000-foot house to a 10,000 foot house.

They're not comparable.

As Tim pointed out, the the properties right next to the properties of the same or similar, slightly smaller, slightly larger sizes, same functional utility, one house on one lot, are being assessed at the same rate.

Mr.

Eggerton.

There is no equity issue, in my opinion.

Mr.

Eger, may I ask you a question?

Okay, on page 414 and 415.

They show that lots that are three quarters of an acre through one and a quarter acres, the difference of a half an acre, basically side by side, as an example.

Value the same.

So using your example in McDonald's, whatever highlands, if you're assessing two lots that are side by side with the same, try to eliminate all of the other extra uh uh amenities side by side with the same view, same street, next door to one another, one is three quarters of an acre, and one is one and a quarter acres.

Are you going to appraise them at the exact same price?

I'm going to appraise them at what the market purchased them for.

Based upon no, I let you talk.

Now you let me talk.

You have take a look at the sales on 414.

The properties comparable to you, directly comparable to you in similar size, slightly smaller, slightly larger, are all you got from 0.75 one up to.

That's pretty close.

They're all at $600,000.

Yeah.

I see no argument.

And they should all be here screaming bloody murder with me.

Well, but they're not.

Yeah, I know they're not.

And you're you're here arguing equity, and I'm saying you're not being treated any different than your neighbors that have a similar property.

Okay.

I will I will not uh kick this, kick this dog here.

Because it's not, I'm not gonna I I can see I'm not gonna change your opinion on that.

That's fine.

Um argument is concluded.

I would like to provide a clarification on the law when you're ready.

Do you have anything more to your rebuttal, sir?

I do.

I have my improvements, and I will try to move this along, okay?

And I thank you for all your time.

This is the map of that the assessor gave for their this year's improvements comparison.

I think I showed you this before.

This is the map of the comps that I used last year.

Again, the brown rectangle is my property area.

The yellow ones are there, all the comps I used.

Last year, same picture.

These are the comps that the assessor used last year.

This is the comps that the assessor used this year.

I think we lost somebody.

So my house is here.

Now their comps are in rancho estates, three of them.

There's one here, which is 27, 27 Ulta.

McNeil's.

Are you arguing the equity portion or are you arguing something else here?

This is all this is all the comparables they use.

Improvements.

Right.

So this is improvements that are the um in the assessed value, is what you're arguing.

So that's all these comps are here.

Okay, thanks.

This is a I find this interesting.

Maybe you don't.

Here's a chart.

The top box are represent the comps that the appraiser submitted.

Okay.

The seven.

Not a single one.

So they they they put together a grid.

Um page.

They put together a grid on page.

Um here it is.

On their page 403, they have 48 properties there that is called equity comparison properties.

So you would think that those are the ones they're going to compare me to, but no.

On page four, on page 349, they come up with a chart with seven properties, these seven, not a single one of them is on that equity grid.

So they go through the work of coming up with a grid that's supposed to represent those houses that I am comparable to, and they don't use a single one.

The properties that Jay chose have an average year of 25 years.

They're exact they're effective year built is 1996, 1986.

I'm sorry.

These are theirs.

They are two-thirds of a mile further than the comps that they used last year.

And their average depreciation rate on their properties that they chose is 148% greater than mine.

So why don't you take the oldest houses in the neighborhood and compare them to mine and say, oh well, you know, you're good.

Now I'm going to show you a chart that will you will say I'm out of my mind, which is okay.

I went through their property record cards, their MS worksheets, which they tell me I don't understand.

I may not understand how you come to the conclusion, but I used the numbers that they developed to apply to this information.

I may not know the mac machinations of it, but I do know the result, and I have the result.

They gave me the result.

Doesn't matter how they got there.

Um I think you're mistaken.

The seven comps you're talking about is they they were using that, not from is that am I correct?

Yeah, they're market comps, they're not equity comps.

Yeah, and that's all that's sold in the neighborhood.

Okay, so expand a neighborhood.

So from an equity perspective, these don't matter.

It doesn't matter.

Okay, let me ask questions.

Because they weren't arguing improvements, they were arguing trying to come up with your value because there's they have to have people come in here and argue different things.

Right?

So whether it's market value or if you're equitable, you're arguing equitable.

So these comparables help us, but they're they're not talking about the um improvements or the equity part of it in this section.

So can we move on to something else?

Well, let me ask a question.

If I show you, and this is what I consider they they use these from a standpoint of proving that I'm properly assessed.

They even made the point.

If I could show you that they use these properties to prove that point, but I can prove to you.

They're not proving that to that you're properly assessed, they're making the market value of your property.

They're they're showing that they do not exceed full cash value.

Okay, but oh the law, I hate to go back to this.

In the state of Nevada, I only learned this when I came to the county the first time.

In the state of Nevada, the only state in plus the District of Columbia that appraises and assesses improvements by replacement cost is here.

If we were talking market value, life would be simple.

But it's not, and I didn't make it complicated, the state did.

Improvements are supposed to be based on replacement value, full stop, that's it.

So I'm comparing, I'm following the law that says, okay, what are the improvements that I'm being assessed at, which is a million eighty-eight, and what are these other comps that they put up here, notwithstanding the fact that I understand your point.

But if I could show to you that on at least five of these seven, they are underassessed.

This is sort of like, you know, last this is like groundhog day.

2727 Alta, which is a comp here, it's a comparable sale, but they're underassessed by 450,000 dollars.

Now you may look at me and say, I'm out of my mind.

2822 underassessed by 460,000 dollars.

2217,000 448,000.

1800 still at 200.

I can prove to you.

I have the documents right here.

So if all these people are being assessed and taxed for replacement costs, that is so understated, but I am not, I call that an inequity.

Now you maybe you don't, but I do.

Now, why are the I can go through I will prove to you.

See, they make statements, but I provide I bring proof, and my proof is this.

Last year when I brought it to these people, and they said, no, no, no, no, no.

You have it all wrong, Mr.

Wolfson.

You don't understand MS, you don't, I don't understand anything.

And from somebody who doesn't understand anything, they went to 2400 Palomino and popped it up 392,000.

They went to 2333 Finteline and popped it up 711,000.

They went to 31, 3011 Finteline and popped it up 696,000.

And they went to uh 2337 and popped it up 100.

So they're taking information from someone who is obviously an idiot and moving forward and making these changes.

Well, this idiot stands before you to tell you that the same comp then now they're doing the same thing this year.

And these comps are wrong.

And I have the pictures to show you.

I went through the PRCs, I went to the internet, I looked at the pictures, all these properties have had major renovations.

And you know how many supplementals they got?

Like one at such a slow, ridiculous rate because they didn't go out and trespass into the house to determine what was done.

They sat at their desk and said, We're gonna say it's 60% old, 40% new.

Now, if they did that to me, I wouldn't be here because I would be assessed $400,000 a year or less, and we wouldn't even be here.

But no, they came out here and they got every nook and crowning in my house, but they didn't get any in theirs.

Now, if you I know I've been here like for two hours, probably.

I will I could show it to you, it's in the documents.

I can show you the pictures, I have color pictures of all the work that's been done that they don't do.

Now, Miss Widener was explaining, well, the if work is hard, I'm sorry, work is supposed to be hard.

Go out, they're the most technologically advanced assessor.

Get on the internet.

Mr.

Wolfson, do you have any more data you'd like to because you you're prothesizing right now.

And frankly, it you mentioned two hours, it's been two and a half.

Well, I think that's a good thing.

So we're we'd like to wrap this up, and I'd really like for you to provide whatever data you have.

Okay.

Well, I did provide the data.

It's here.

Is there any more that you'd like to discuss right now?

Well, other than okay, I'll I will just summarize it.

The comps that they used are undervalued.

Now, of course, Ms.

White is not going to tell you they're gonna go out, survey the area and fix it.

Doesn't matter.

That alone, by definition, makes it inequitable.

Okay, so I'm I'm not gonna go through the I would like to read something, and I will finish up.

Then I will be done, and I will take five minutes to get maybe everybody needs a break.

First, I want to thank everybody here for their time.

But I also want to say this, and I will remind you.

This came from the court case of SBE versus uh Nevada.

Order.

The Nevada Constitution guarantees a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation.

That guarantee of equality should be the Board of Equalization's predominant concern.

And that concern is not satisfied by merely ensuring that a property's taxable value does not exceed its full cash value.

And that from the case I mentioned earlier, 24154, signed by Miss Shelley Hughes, the Secretary of the Nevada Board of Equalization, under the category called conclusions of law.

And I have a copy of it.

Paragraph five says the Nevada Supreme Court held that property taxed at full cash value, while other properties are being taxed at less than full cash value, is injured because such properties are not receiving the right to uniform and equal treatment mandated under the Nevada Constitution.

So last year the county was adamant that there was no inequities between me and my neighbors.

But subsequent to that, subsequent to that, they established a new supplemental at 2400 palomino of 392,000, on which there was none.

Then I showed you two.

Then you've already discussed this.

So can you get to a point?

I'm just recapping.

This is my closest problem.

Just bear with me for another two minutes.

They increased 2333 Pinto 711,000.

They increased 31, 3011 pinto by 636,000, and 2337 pinto 186,000.

They ignored the house across the street that advertised when they sold it with a $1 million improvement.

They ignored my neighbors, that you reference that at the same as me, their improvements that I told us, they did nothing.

They ignored the property across the street that did a complete gut job without permits, so let's reward them for breaking the law with illegal construction.

Does that conclude your statement, sir?

Now I have uh members of the board.

I I have one last point to make.

At the hearing for the petition for reconsideration that occurred January of this year.

Yes, I lost, and yes, I will be appealing to you for a judicial review.

But at the end of the day, the chair of that meeting is a Mr.

Paul Bancroft.

Mr.

Bancroft is an esteemed lawyer in this community in Nevada.

And what he said at the end of the hearing was, and I'm gonna paraphrase, I can't find it here right now, but I'll paraphrase.

He said Mr.

Wolfson came to the county and submitted documentation that there was an inequity in the neighborhood.

By virtue of the fact that after he gave them the he presented this to them, they went out and they increased all those properties substantially, is an indication of the acknowledgement by the county that he has an inequity.

I I thought I had it here right in front of me, but I don't.

But he was the one who said to.

I mean, there was two issues here.

There's a legal issue and there's a number issue.

And we can we can debate all day long what the right number is, but there really should be no debate whether the legal issue has been reached.

And he was clear, as clear can be.

Look at it on their YouTube video, the YouTube challenge.

He told the county and the state board, even though they voted three to one against me, his vote being in my favor, that I presented evidence that they accepted and made the changes, which by virtue was proof that the equity does exist.

We can debate all the amount.

I am now done.

Thank you for your time.

Members of the board.

Um I will reiterate what I said about the land, which I pretty much uh don't need to reiterate it.

Um, but as far as the improvement portion of it.

Um basically the presentation from the assessor and mostly what Jamie had to say made more sense to me than what you have presented based on my 46 years of appraisal, Mr.

Eggert.

I agree.

I do not see where this is an equity issue whatsoever.

And the district attorney's office would like to make a statement.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Wolfson stated NRS 361.227.

However, he provided an incorrect interpretation of that statute.

Subsection one says any person determining the taxable value of real property shall appraise, and then it splits into two sections.

There is section A and Section B.

Section A has two further subsections which regard land.

And he cited number two, which is improved land consistent with the use to which the improvements are being put.

Full stop.

And then he went on to B, which is any improvements made on the land by subtracting from the cost of replacement of the improvements, all applicable depreciation and obsolescence.

Subsection B is for improvements.

It does not modify and apply to land.

So it was an incorrect interpretation, full stop.

May I say something?

She's she's a lawyer, and she has a right to her opinion, but I can read English.

And it says it right here.

Any person determining the taxable value of real property shall appraise A, like she said, the full cash value of number one, vacant land, which this is not, vacant land considering the blah blah blah blah.

Number two, improved land, which mine is by definition of the uh state land code, whatever that's called.

I have that here too.

Improved land consistently with the use to which the approvements are being put.

Then paragraph B, which she read.

Any improvements made on the land by subtracting, this is to determine the value of the land.

Any improvements made on the land by subtracting the cost of the replacement of the improvements, which by everybody's definition is called a house, minus the depreciation, etc.

So she's a lawyer, I have not vote.

She wants you to believe what this doesn't say.

And you'll vote.

I show you already have two people say no, so I doesn't even matter, Mr.

Farr if you vote yes, I doubt that you will, but this will go to the state, and we'll go through the same kind of rigorous mole again, and we'll see how we do in the first case and the judiciary.

My point being is that I may not be a lawyer, but I can read English.

And I'm not misinterpreting this, and I'm not misinterpreting.

I don't know the machinations of martial, but but I do know you give me a number, I can run it through the system and know whether it's right.

So I may not know the bowels of all this information, but I can apply it correctly, mathematically, using logic.

And to tell me that land that's worth we won't go into the detail.

I disagree with you, Miss.

I know you're a lawyer, and I'm not, but that's why we have lawyers.

Members of the board, I'd entertain a motion at this time.

I'm gonna make a motion that the the to accept the assessor's valuation.

I do I think that the property is being equitable.

Motion to be maybe please cast your votes.

And that motion passes, sir.

You do have the right to appeal.

Forms are outside the door.

Next case is eight twenty-eight triple A Nevada Trust.

You know what?

We're gonna take five minutes.

Okay, let's get back started.

Uh case eight twenty-eight Triple A Nevada Trust.

Good morning, sir.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Omar Peter.

Four one eight zero Nord Johnson Suite, Las Vegas, Nevada, eight nine one two nine.

Thank you very much, sir, and we appreciate your patience.

That's fine.

Thank you.

And uh for the assessor's office, we have Miss Pazin.

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

Okay.

The subject property was built in two thousand twenty-one and is a seven thousand three hundred and eighty-three square foot two-story custom home in the luxury community, the estates at Lone Mountain.

It is a six-bedroom, six and a half bathroom home with a six-car garage on a point nine seven acre lot.

The backyard includes a seven hundred and fifty-five square foot two-story casita with an open bridge allowing second floor access from the main house, a large custom pool and spa, built-in barbecue, and outdoor shower.

Other features include an additional 788 square foot casita at the front of the property, home automation, security cameras, floating staircase, wine room, and bonus plus flex rooms.

This is an equity appeal.

The 2627 certified taxable value for the subject is 5,480,604.

Although there was a reduction in value at the State Board of Equalization for the 2526 fiscal year, as you know, properties are reassessed annually via the cost method.

We have tested our values to the market, and the assessor recommends no change to the current 2627 secured tax role.

Thank you.

Then I were asked to go to Board of Equalization.

And what mom said, I'm not the appraiser.

I don't have a background.

But when we went to the Board of Equalization, I did the homework, whatever the documents was provided.

I did all my comparables as per the county was given.

Which I didn't understand.

They did come down to my value 4.190 from 5.4 million.

It happened just in October 2025.

And I just got the letter now, gone back to 5.4 million.

The Board of Equalization, I think they all are certified board members' appraisals and all that.

And the case was in favor of me.

So I don't know what happened in two months now.

The value what they agree 4.1 million within two months gone to 5.4 million.

So I'm kind of lost in the system here.

I followed exactly what was told to me, went to the board of equalization, given my case, work the comps were provided, work on those comms, and all the members agree with me.

So within a two months, we are back to the square.

So I've been fighting this from one year.

Everything was, I thought it was resolved and done.

But now I think I have to restart it again.

So I'm I'm I'm still so lost.

What do I need to do now?

Like I two months back I did everything.

And it jumped to almost 1.5 million again.

I I don't know what to say anymore.

Like I have no idea.

Can we get a recap of what happened the last time?

So what happened last year?

He went to the county board, he was denied.

And again, he's appealing on equity.

He then went to the state board.

And the state board came to a conclusion of utilizing sales ratios to reduce his value, which we don't agree with.

We're actually taking that to court because again, the state board we feel used a wrong methodology that's not a that is not a uh apply to our law.

And so that's why we don't agree with that decision.

Is that what you're looking for?

Yeah, I mean I I just want to be enlightened with the case.

So the case before the before the board last year resulted in nobody agreeing.

Agreeing with the assessor, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And then he went to the state, they applied something that you disagree with the thing, and so it's going to court.

So yeah, yeah, I just need a background, so I know where we're standing here.

Yes, and and just further um through Mr.

Farr uh Marianne Widenner for the record.

Every year we revalue every year, just as um Ms.

Papazon stated, and we have to we disagree with the conclusion that the state board had.

We are revaluing, we're setting it back to what we think is an appropriate value.

Again, it is in the courts, and we will see how that pans out.

Um, but that we're just here.

Um, what happened last year was what happened last year.

We're looking at what's what we're concerned with for this year.

Does that make more sense now?

It does, it doesn't because if you're telling me the board has used all the formulas which is provided by you and the state, all the mythologies, you know, the marshall laws, the depreciation, replacement cost.

Again, I'm not the appraiser, they are the people.

They did the best, and I thought that was a perfect thing.

So I don't know what to do anymore from here.

Yes, it's in the court.

I filed my appeal in the court.

I'm trying to understand what happened in two months from four million back to 1.5 million.

So in two months.

It's not two months, sir.

This was last year's assessment.

Last year, this board disagreed with you.

Last year, that was last January, last February.

It wasn't two months ago.

It was last January, last February.

It was subsequently appealed to the state, and subsequently, at some point two months ago or three months ago, the state made a decision.

But this board had made a decision a year ago.

So the change, it basically went back to what this board thought at that time.

So it's not a two months.

This board and this board.

From this time to this time last year, when this board made a decision.

So not two months, one year.

And as they told you last year, you can appeal it to the state board.

You can appeal whatever decision they have here to the state board, but make sure it didn't change.

The value didn't change two months.

It changed from year to year.

Uh first of all.

Secondly, it was the state that made an adjustment, but apparently is going through the legal system from what you're telling me.

Uh kind of thing.

So that still has to remain.

So they're going to go back until that uh decision is made by the court, they're going to stick with what we had last year, essentially, or a modification what we had last year.

Yes, and Mr.

Eager, just so we under he understands.

We did not change the value for last year.

The value that the state board concluded to is still on the record.

It goes, it's gonna go to the um treasurer's office.

I went to the treasurer's office, and you were filled accordingly, and potentially maybe you had a refund.

This is a new year.

This is a new fiscal year.

This is 2627.

The year you appealed was for 2526, I believe.

So 2526, the value has not changed.

It is exactly what the state board decided.

That's what's going to court.

This value is for the 2627 fiscal year.

It's a completely different fiscal year.

So it's like we're starting all over again with a brand new value for a new fiscal year.

Does that help?

It doesn't help.

So can I please?

Which still confused me.

You're talking about one year back.

When we were talking one year back, at that time, the comps, the basis on what's the board of equalization was talking, were totally different.

When I came here one year back, the comps were more cheaper, more lesser.

Still the value was pretty high.

When I gone to Board of Equalization, after 10 months, I taken the same comps they had provided.

That was still cheaper again.

So I'm not able to understand who's correct here, who's not correct.

It's so difficult because when I come to you guys, you're saying it's not making a sense.

When I go to Board of Equalization, they say you've been ripped off because the comps I given them equivalent to my house, and I'm talking about the brand new house also right now.

After 2021, and like you guys are appraisal, like you you can pick like Red Rock, Anthems, TPC, any gated, guarded, patrolling.

Mine is on the Northwest on the street, and I'm paying more taxes than any of those high profile properties.

And I think that's where Board of Equalization, when they get into, they've seen all the comps, and they themselves told me I was ripped up pretty bad.

And uh, they were telling three point, I think six originally, but then the county came back, and they say, you know what, let's come in between 4.1.

I said, I'm still fine.

I thought everything was done.

Now, what ma'am is saying this year we start again, but with the board of equalization, what they told me, I thought that was a base four million.

I didn't knew now.

Next year we're gonna jump to 5.6 million, and now I have a new base.

So it is very confusing.

So, what is the advantage to go to the board of equalization then?

If they favor me, then you still against me.

And we don't have a choice.

Yes, we're gonna end up in the court, but I I'm not able to understand which appraisal board is correct.

You guys don't agree with me, they agree with me, they don't agree at all with me, and now they change 1.5 million to my property value.

Do you have any do you have any comparable data you'd like us to consider?

It's the same comparable two months back.

I given them I'm talking about October, two months.

Nothing.

Well, that's the state board.

That that's the state board.

Oh, so we're talking about for this year for this for this hearing.

Do you have any data you would like us to consider?

I didn't bring it anything because so that's the extent of your case then.

I'm not trying to be rude.

I'm just trying to understand.

I I don't know because I thought I was done.

I didn't you have to restart this again.

So uh whatever you decide is perfectly okay with me because I did all my homework last year.

I spent so much time.

It is unbelievable.

You know, I given more than comps, what they're given to them, and I agree like I fought it on their comps and board agree with me.

I'm not appraiser, I'm a simple homeowner.

If a board of equalization has such a certified, well qualified over like if put it all four together over 200 years experience.

If you don't agree with them, I can put any comps here.

You're never going to agree with me.

I'm just l like a regular person.

I don't have a background.

Those were so highly qualified people.

I I read everyone's resumes.

It is incredible what you guys have together so many years.

If you don't agree with those people, how do you I can put hundred comps here?

You're never going to agree with me.

Never.

I'm sorry to say I'm not being rude.

They are well overqualified people.

Who I am?

No one.

Zero.

I don't even have a background on this.

I I don't know what else to do.

I'm so exhausted with the system.

System, it says together we do so many things, but with whom?

It's like I'm fighting it between us and you.

We it's not a team here.

Like I'm a one person if I'm gonna say you got like 20 people sitting here, one after one.

Same thing happened on board equalization.

Me and my wife, two people, there were 10 people arguing with us.

We don't have the kind of data and machines you have.

It takes for ages for us to find that, and I spend like two weeks to every single data they provided to board of equalization.

And I thought it makes sense.

At the end of the day, me and my wife are so happy.

Yes, we did the right thing.

They agree with us.

And now coming back here, yeah.

You know what?

Sorry, dude, we don't agree.

We're gonna go to 5.6 million.

It's really easy.

That decision, though, is being appealed to the courts.

We just so that's outside of our purview.

Okay.

Why don't we let the assessor put their case on and then we see what you have to say about the assessor's case?

Is that fair?

Great, thank you.

Okay.

The case begins on page 653 of the master book.

But um, if you wouldn't mind before presenting my grades and comparable sales analysis, I'd like you to turn to page 659 of the master book.

Please refer to facts five and six, where you will notice the Nevada State Board of Equalization determined there was an inequity in taxing and a tax disparity.

The assessor's office is currently pursuing this decision as you just heard.

However, since this is also the taxpayer's argument, I wanted to remind the board that there is no equity in taxes, and attempting to equalize taxes when producing assessed values is not permitted by law.

During the state case, the board used what they believe to be a justifiable sales ratio to determine taxable value.

Um, as you know, this is not a valid method of valuation.

So moving forward, please refer to the equity grids on pages 711 and 712.

Page 711 is an equity grid, including properties I used as comparables, and page 712 is the neighborhood equity grid.

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

In the neighborhood grid, there are only four homes on record, since this is a newer luxury community.

No homes are matching because these are luxury custom homes.

On both grids, the subject's total price per square foot is on the higher end because of the much larger casitas and other extra features the property has that others do not.

You can view these differences in detail from the property record cards provided on pages 696 through 710.

For example, on page 697, towards the bottom middle of the page, you will notice the subject property has double two triple size of casita for those sales that have Sitas, but the cost per square foot is the same.

15174 per square foot.

You will also notice that the paving, the aggregate paving is uh put on at $7.50 per square foot.

However, the subject has a larger area of aggregate.

Again, because these are custom homes, they will be wildly different in their final total taxable value.

However, the equity is in the Marshall and Swift cost estimator and how it is being applied.

If you look to the bottom left hand side of the property record card, you will see lines like Wine Vault at 26,464 and home motto system at 144,698, which comps one and two also have.

The cost is being applied the same and equitably for each property.

Um I know this is an equity appeal, but I still did a comparable sales analysis, and unfortunately, what got put in the book is wrong, so I have some handouts for you.

Okay, in my comparable sales analysis, you will find the most recent similar and proximate sales to the subject.

All sales provided bracket, the subject's age, living area, and site size.

I put most weight, however, on comps one and two being the subjects being in the subject's direct neighborhood and most similar in quality.

You will find the subject and comparables MLS listings on 664 through 692 if you'd like to look at those.

Uh for 5,061,500 in May of 2024.

I believe the assessor's cost method method to valuation is accurate, and the market supports this as well by reducing value below the purchase price, as the state did in an attempt to equalize taxes, an inequity was created.

The assessor recommends no change to the 2627 certified tax rule.

Mr.

Chair, Jamie Jacobs, our Clark County Assessors Department.

I would like to read a statement regarding the use of sales ratios and why we feel it's a uh correct method.

And that starts on page 821 of the addendum.

So the uh subject of the this statement is the appropriateness of using sales ratios in residential appeals where Nevada statutory cost approach applies.

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

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

Sales standards on sales ratios.

The appropriate role for ratio studies is quality assurance and equalization at a group level, never to replace the mandated statutory valuation method of for individual parcels.

NRS 361.227, the taxable value of real property is the value determined by the county assessor for the purpose of taxation, which must be calculated by determining the value of the land and the value of the improvement separately and adding them together.

The key point is that Nevada law mandates statutory cost approach for improvements and market-based land valuation.

Market depreciation is not uh permitted.

Statutory depreciation must be used.

So the key point, the board's role is to ensure uniform application of standard of statutory valuation standards, not to substitute alternate valuation methods for individual parcels.

The IWO guidance on sales ratio studies.

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

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

And let me elaborate on that.

The phrase ratio studies cannot be used to judge the level of appraisal of an individual parcel.

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

Refers to the equalization process in jurisdictions where law requires assessments to be uniform percentage of market value, for example, 100% or 35%.

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

This does not authorize replacing the legally mandated valuation method for an individual.

Property with a market value based with a market based ratio.

So again, for cost and using a statutory depreciation, not a market depreciation.

Because Nevada law defines taxable value through a statutory cost approach, not as a percentage of market value, there is no common level to equalize.

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

When statutory constraints are imposed on appraisal methods, the resulting assessment may be less than market value.

In such cases, a sales ratio may not provide useful performance information.

Sales adjustment, sale adjustments for statutory imposed value constraints.

If unadjusted sales were used, ratios would be low and could lead to an improper equalization decision.

Ratio studies are advisory and primarily for aggregate performance monitoring or equalization, not parcel-specific substitutions in jurisdictions with constrained statutory valuation.

So in conclusion, it is not appropriate for the board to apply selected sales ratios supplied by the appellant instead of the statutory method the assessor must use.

Doing so would conflict with NRS 361.227 and IWO standards and could compromise uniformity and equity.

Thank you.

Chairman Farr.

May I just add something else?

Um just to kind of give some clarification.

Uh we we talked about it in the previous case, but in this case too, in how we value property based on NRS 361 227.

Um we're talking about equity.

I'm just gonna give you a simple example of a developer builds a subdivision.

So this happens to be a custom home, but I'm gonna give you just a more simple explanation.

We have a subdivision and it has three phases, and this developer is built the exact same home in all three phases.

In all three phases of that, they're gonna have a different effective age because one was built, let's just say in this example, 2023, one was built in 2024, and one was built in 2025.

Those taxable values are going to be different because each of the older homes are getting an additional one and a half percent per year based on our statutory standard.

So let's barring we're not exceeding full cash value, so we've done no reductions in this area because we're we're meeting the requirements for that, and these properties go to be taxed.

They're going to have a different taxation.

Um, all three of them are going to have a different taxation because of that one and a half percent per year.

In the market, they may sell for the exact same number, but their taxable value has not exceeded full cash value, and they have been valued equitably based on the way our statutory requirements require us to value.

So that's the simplest way that I can kind of line it out for you and for the public.

Um that's what we're looking at.

This one gets a little bit more uh complex because it's a custom home, and so we're not in a homogenous area where we can say this property is exactly like this property is exactly like this property, so we have to do our best to try to do those comparables.

And so that's we just want you to think about that as your weighing the information and the data.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, I'm sorry to jump back in here.

Uh Jamie Jacobs for the record.

So again, the last year case was that he was the only one that was being assessed at or above market value, and then we didn't do that for anything, but obviously we deal with median values when we do our mass appraisal.

So there are going to be some that are over, some that are under.

And on page 820 of the addendum book.

Is this a part of this package?

Sorry.

It's page 820 in the upper right-hand corner.

729, it ends up the addendum that's this morning.

So we did a query of the of our database to see are there others in the area of in the general geographical area that are exceeding their sale price.

And so this chart shows that yes, it's a Mar.

That's just part of mass appraisal.

So they're not the only one that's being assessed or actually at market because we it was we reduced it down to a sale price a couple years ago.

So this to clarify that Mr.

Shadow, do you have any reportal?

Yeah, let me go back to this 820.

What you're saying.

Is the price is the is the it's a selling price?

Is the sales price?

Are these a sales price?

So but what is the values were great?

No, I understand.

We can't get that testimony on the record.

We need her to be able to explain it on the microphone, please.

What is the sales price?

Is this the one I'm that's what I'm asking?

This is the sales price?

Yes, since I'm on the record, Rachel Papazian.

It's the column that says price, that is the sales price, and right to the right of it, it's assessed total value.

That's the assessed value.

Okay, so now it's so if this is a sales price, so they're comparing 675,000 house to 5.6 million.

Is this the comparable?

That's not what they're doing.

No, but they they're talking about the sales ratios.

I'm just saying.

And I don't what they're talking about.

They're talking about sales ratio, comparing 675,000 houses to 5.6 million to do a sales ratio.

That that's not what they're that's not what this is intended to.

Okay.

So if that's not the case, then how my sales ratios, I is I bought it for 5.6, and they're taxing me at 5.6 million from 5.06.

They're taxing me at 5.6.

Okay.

If that's not the case, she just said that the sales ratio shouldn't be exceeding the you know the purchase price.

That's the first thing.

My second thing is that if she's telling me this is the beautiful home, custom homes, and why when I'm comparing these to McDonald's height, Anthem, Red Rock, their property tax are cheaper than mine.

Gated, guarded, petrolling, immunities like crazy, better build than me, better quality than me.

What am I missing here?

I'm trying to understand.

If you're comparing Apple to Apple, mine is on the street northwest of the town, which is one of the lowest areas comparing to one of the Summerlands, Henderson.

Are you comparing them to them?

I don't see that.

I see all the things.

I know, but that that's what I'm trying to understand.

If those houses are more expensive than me, their taxable value is cheaper than me.

No, she did not go to those.

No, no, she didn't go, but I'm trying to understand why then.

What are the ages of those homes you're I'm talking about from 2021 to 2025 right now within a four years?

So do you have addresses that we could compare these to?

I'm sorry, I didn't bring it.

Yes, I do have.

Well, that would be support.

That but that I'm not trying to be rude, I'm trying to help you.

I agree.

This is my mistake.

100%.

That's what I did last year.

That's what I given to the state board of equalization.

And everyone at that, they said that's fine.

I was not ready for this because I didn't even understand.

I thought within a two months, maybe there was so many sales, but nothing has changed in the last two months, and what I have given to Board of Equalization, they were shocked themselves.

They said this is outrageous because you you guys are appraisals, McDonald Height, and you go anywhere.

They are cheaper.

My friend just bought in summit 17 million for 55 million, uh, 17 million house, he's paying 55,000 property tax.

I'm paying 42, not in summit, not in gated, not in guarded, not patrolling, no amenities.

I'm on a street northwest.

I I'm trying to understand the form.

She's keep saying today.

What I'm gonna really want, we're gonna come down to give me the formula on Marshall, the the one you have Marshall and Schmidt, depreciation and replacement cost.

If this is what it comes down to, what I'm trying to understand today, my house you're saying 5.6.

Let me ask you if I sell this house tomorrow two million, doesn't my property tax will go down?

No.

We're not a we're not a market state.

We are not in the market.

So what happened in 2008?

When the market was crashed.

Again, we're not a market state.

I understand.

So there were properties, and and I had some, right?

Yep that were assessed greater than their value.

Yep.

Right.

And that's why we had we were here for 12, 14 hours some days hearing appeals on those.

I agree.

Right.

No, we don't want.

We we're thankful where we are today, absolutely.

But my thing is that it's just like I can't even able to understand when I see those comps in those high neighborhoods in Summit, Anthem, McDonald High.

You you go anywhere, Red Rock, anywhere.

I am still not able to understand why I am being taxed so higher than the properties which are gated, guarded, one of the best quality made, you know.

I I can't.

We have no proof of that.

Because you you didn't bring that to us.

So next time, you know, get that, but she did not use comparables, but she did use two comparisons that sold on your street for 5.5 and 5 million dollars.

Those are what the ones I'm gonna look at.

All right.

I agree.

What she said, it's the same builder.

What I want to know then if that's the case, before these two properties, there was no property.

How did you get the tax on the first property then?

Well, I can tell you that I have to do one that's about twice your size up there, and I gotta figure that out in the next couple weeks.

I I apologize, yeah.

I didn't do my work.

Yeah, it's not easy because before these two properties exist, there was nothing.

How did they got to 42,000 on the first house?

I asked that on the state or border of equalization too.

They didn't give me an answer.

There has to be, if these are the formulas you're using.

How do they they use the cost approach?

Okay.

Cost approach is universal, can be used anywhere.

That's how they value the properties.

They're not valuing the properties by the sales like that I just told you of.

But if you were to argue your case that your full cash value is away and above the market, then you can have a case that way.

But the they don't value your property based on the sales in the neighborhood, maybe land sales.

But so they're just looking at the cost to reconstruct your house minus depreciation for its age, and that's where the value comes from.

No, I agree, but what then it's the same formula if I ask you, how the tax are cheaper in Red Rock, country club, anthem.

Well, I don't know that to be the case.

Yeah.

And they are older than yours in Red Rock at least.

Yeah.

So that's where Mike comes to, you know, like if it's the same house on the street, it's taxed more.

Why it shouldn't be taxed in the summit more, in an anthem more everywhere.

I bet you everything in the summit's higher than yours.

No, it's not.

I I would be surprised if it wasn't.

It may be the same size house, but it may not be the same size lot.

It may be much older than your house.

I I mean there's a lot of uh five five thousand foot houses that that uh Richard Luke is building out in McDonald's Highlands, and he's selling them for five five million dollars, five to six million dollars, and they're sitting on a 15,000 foot lot, you know, uh with a golf course view.

They're not they're not on a one-acre lot like yours.

But 15,000 lot, do you think it'll be well?

Let me ask you a question.

Why didn't you buy there?

Why why why were you hold on for a minute?

Let me ask the question.

You paid five million dollars, almost five million one in your location.

You could have bought something in in McDonald's, like you said, or cheaper and had cheaper taxes.

Why did you choose why did you why did you ignore that?

This is a thank you for this question.

Yes, I tell you why did I bought that was my first biggest mistake when I bought this house, it came under investment property previous owner.

So it says eight percent tax.

I didn't understand till I get into this house, it doesn't work like that because I was thinking if it's an eight percent tax as an investment property when I'm gonna buy, it's gonna go to three percent.

So I was calculating that basis on the ratios.

That was a blunder of my life I made, and I agree with you.

And today where I'm standing, you know what, it's not worth it for me.

That's what I was thinking.

I'm gonna go buy seven million in an anthem or one of these gated guarded, and I'm paying 25,000 property tax on the street here.

We don't I don't have any amenities.

It's open land, and I'm paying 42,000, where I don't even have like down there with 25,000 tax credit.

I I got everything.

Security, gated amenities, the bill, the quality, and I'm gonna get it, best part of the time.

And if you were living in McDonald's and you had all of those other features, or you were living in uh the ridges or someplace like that, what would you be paying monthly for those aside from the taxes?

Yeah, the association fees.

Excuse.

Would you be paying an HOA fee?

Yes.

And what would that be?

It's range from 300 to 2,000.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

What would what do you pay?

What's your HO fee where you live now?

225 dollars.

Okay, so you're paying for argument's sake $800 a month less or $10,000 a year less to live where you're living than what somebody would be living in one of those areas, correct?

Absolutely.

But I can't write off 42,000 tax credit deduction where I can write off the HOA deduction on my taxes, too.

Well, it's an investment.

As an investment property, you could.

No, this is my owner occupied.

Well, you you were talking about you bought it at as an investment property.

No, no, no.

It was originally previous owner was an investor.

His tax bracket was eight percent.

All I'm saying is you have to factor in all the costs.

If you're gonna compare that, compare yourself to McDonald's or to the ridges or to something else.

Factor in all the cost of living in one of those communities, because it's more than just the taxes.

Right.

Yeah, your your net taxes is outside of the scope of what we do here, right?

And you already know the answer.

You bought it from an investor who was subject to eight percent caps compared to owner rocket three percent caps.

So that's you can't do anything about that.

That's what my mistake because I thought it calculated that way, so it's going to reduce to 20,000.

Because opposite to me, two and a half acre, Richard Harris, paying 19,000.

12,000 square foot.

That's not in a comparable to I can bring that up, but then they're gonna say it's a depreciation method.

You know, like I can't win anywhere.

Doesn't matter whatever I'm gonna put it on.

Why he's paying 19,000 just next door to me.

Two and a half acre, the land is triple the size, the houses double than me.

He's paying 19,000.

Now tell me that it's a depreciation, it's gonna come up right now.

They're gonna say doesn't matter any comp I'm gonna pick, you're gonna tell me the replacement costs, marshal and shift, and that's why when I get to like when I came to you guys originally, I don't understand.

This was my first time in my life.

I came under this thing.

So I learned from here.

I spent almost 14 days nonstop.

So before I go, I like educate myself so I can put my case to board of equalization.

It's same like you guys do.

That that's what like I'm not able to understand.

You are appraisals too, they are qualified appraisals too.

I come here, I lose, I go there, they favor me, they tell me, you know what?

Yeah, we compare the whole city.

You guys are paying too much tax for no reason.

But I come back here, square to the case.

So again, you you continue to come back to paying too much tax.

We're not concerned with tax here, we're confirmed with value.

Value comes with the tax.

If the values are low, the tax will be low.

Uh but uh if it would be significantly less if that was owner oct, owner occupied the entire time since it was built, right?

So the the net taxes are really outside of the scope of what we're here to do.

Okay.

Um members of the board care to make a motion.

Um given the lack of um information that would uh convince me to think the values other than what's the recorder or the assessor has.

I make a motion that there be no change to full cash value.

Motion's been made.

Please cast your votes.

And that motion passes, you do have the right to appeal.

Thank you.

Forms are outside the door.

Thank you.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you, Mary.

Okay.

Do we have any remaining cases that have been stipulated to or withdrawn?

Uh, we do need to do that, but but first before we do that, um, Mr.

Wolfson made us aware that evidently we did not give him his full addendum packet.

We are working on getting that for him right now.

Have we have we provided that to him?

We provided that to him.

Um he wanted it to be made noted on the record that he didn't have the last few pages that we were referencing, I believe, in the um in the hearing.

Um, but the board can make a decision whether you what you want to do with that.

Um we've provided it to him.

It was discussed.

He had two and a half hours to discuss all of his concerns, so it's it's up to you what you want to do with that.

What do you have to say, sir?

I just asked you what do you have to say.

I I I can't hear you.

I have hearing anything.

I what would you like to say?

This is what I would like to say.

And I don't think that Ms.

Widener will disagree with this.

We have had conversations over the past two years now.

All been cordial, never gotten to a fight, we never had an argument, never bad words have never been used.

So in that respect, we've had a very positive professional relationship.

On this case, the only person that I was working with was a Mr.

Well.

Jarrell uh Turner.

I was unaware that anybody else was going to be involved, which is okay.

And last week I brought my documentation, and Mr.

J Mr.

Turner gave me their documentation.

I was never given.

I get that it wasn't in the packet that I got today.

I came in last week to pick up their evidence.

I was not given any of these few pages to look at, to refute, to call out errors and whatever before I came here.

Now my opinion, would any of you have vote changed your vote?

I doubt it.

But if you feel that that is an acceptable method to be employed for this process, I'd like to know it.

Because I came in here.

This is the documentation that Ms.

Jacobs used.

I had none of it.

I never got to look at it.

And I was of the belief that I had everything.

If you think that's fair, that's fair.

Sure, you have the right to appeal.

Oh and we know you're going to, and that's fine.

You can take that to the bank.

We already know that.

Um that's not my question, though.

When does somebody say to the county, you have done something wrong?

You have harmed somebody, and you should change your ways.

That's my point.

Yeah, I got it.

I will appeal.

I understand that I have the right to do it.

But had I had this, maybe I could have come back.

Maybe I don't know, it's a lot here.

I don't have that much time to do it.

Maybe I could have diffused some of the evidence that was presented that convinced you that I'm wrong and she's right.

That's it.

That's okay.

Okay with you guys?

Well, I have no response.

How come?

Because it's honestly it's not warranted.

I well, I asked a question.

I guess I don't get an answer.

You think it's okay to as Ms.

Widener said a few pages?

Do I think you should have had all the information?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

All right.

Would it have changed our my opinion?

Well, you gave us nothing that supported what you were complaining about.

So I don't think anything would have changed.

Okay.

I'm just being honest.

You gave us nothing except grandstanding and and you know, um I'm not grandstanding.

I agree with you.

I know you wouldn't have changed.

This is not this is not a rocket science surprise to me.

The point being is that I got to play with one hand behind my back.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Do we have any remaining cases that have been stipulated to or withdrawn?

Yes, if you could please vote on the remaining cases that are on your agenda that have been either stamped stipulated or withdrawn.

There have been no additional ones.

Um for the petitioners that did not show up today.

If you could take a motion and vote on those, please.

I motion to accept the assessor's recommendations on any cases where the petitioners did not attend this hearing.

And those that have been stamped stipulated and or withdrawn, please cast your votes.

That motion passes.

The uh microphone is open for any public comment.

Seeing none, I will close the microphone.

Is there any other business?

No, we don't only that we have three more hearings.

Um I did want to give you the stats on that here, real quickly.

Oh two more hearings, they're both commercial.

Is this our last residential, correct?

This is the last residential.

I don't there could potentially be a couple residential cases that ended up being placed on there only because petitioners had asked to potentially go to a different day because of something that happened with their their schedules.

Um but February 23rd, which is Monday, we have 71 cases left to be heard.

February 24th, there are 14, and February 25th, we have 19.

And then we'll be done.

Very good.

Uh thank you for your time.

Meeting is adjourned.