Good morning.

This is the clerk on any board of equalization hearing for uh February 23rd, 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.

Glenn Anderson.

Present.

P.

Trailetch.

Present.

Evan Reigns.

And we have one coming.

He's just getting parked.

Here he is now, as a matter of fact.

All right.

Note for the record that Mr.

Rains is present.

Very well.

Thank you.

I motion to adopt the agenda.

Please cast your votes.

That motion passes.

Seeing none, I will close the microphone.

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 up 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 up you got thank you.

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

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.

Yes, Chairman Farr, they are um they begin on page 33 of your agenda.

I motion to accept the assessor's recommendations on page 33.

Please cash your votes.

Yes, Chairman Farr.

Item number seven under NRS 361.769.

This is a escaping taxation.

Um I do want to let you know I've I've given you a packet of information with regards to how we've noticed this particular uh owner of record.

So the owner of record is Puppy Playhouse Craig Holding LLC.

Um back on January 26th, we sent a certified mail to the address, which we showed as 3930 Howard Hughes Parkway suite 180, um, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89169.

Um, this uh they do no longer I believe our tenants at this particular location.

Um we had scheduled this on a previous hearing, but we asked you not to vote on it because we wanted to make some other attempts to try to contact them.

In looking at the Secretary of State's website, we found that Nelson Tressler was a managing member of this LLC.

Um that website there was also an address, a PO box.

Um, so we sent it to the P.O.

box.

We also looked up Nelson Tressler in our records and found uh residence, and we sent two additional um, well, actually, we sent four total certified letters on February 9th to the PO box 750441 Las Vegas, Nevada, um, 89136, and then the other address we sent to was 5600 Ambrosia Stream Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89131.

Um, in all instances, uh, in the first two instances, the certificate certified letters were returned to us.

In this instance, they're still sitting at the post office, they have attempted delivery on February uh 12th, and there was a notice left.

Um, and then uh on February 17th, a reminder to schedule for redelivery.

So that they were attempted to be delivered, no one signed for them at that time, and at this point, we really have no other remedy because the owners are not reaching out to us.

We did hand deliver the letters to the actual location.

Um, we believe it's being leased by um another uh what is the name of the organization?

Uh it's currently occupied by doggy daycare.

Pet daycare.

It's uh yes, it's a pet uh daycare and boarding facility.

And so um they said that they would attempt to try to get that to the asset manager.

Um we've done every possible attempt to notify the owner, and so um with that, we just are going to look to your decision.

We would like to add this to the record given uh what NRS 367.

Based on the information and testimony provided, I would motion that we add the information, add um the real property andor improvement value to the secured role per the assessor uh assessor's request.

Chairman Farr, before you vote on that, um, we would normally in these cases we do at least present the information for how we've noticed them and what the values are.

You could take two votes if you wanted to, one on just the fact that we've noticed and you want to move forward with the case, or you could go ahead and hear what we have to say.

Um, normally that would give if the uh petitioner had shown up, they would have an opportunity to at least look at their value and say if whether we've you know it are exceeding full cash value or we're inequitable in the value that we're adding, but we would like to at least put that on the record so that you're aware of the values before you vote on them from that perspective.

Okay, then I would motion that we would want to hear what the assessor has to say on this particular case.

Please cash to votes.

That motion passes.

So do you want to present now?

Is that what we're gonna do?

Yes, um, Mr.

Verhean is here to present on case 1136 in this instance.

Good morning, Tom Verheyan for the Clark County Assessor's Office.

Uh case 1136 uh starts on page 3860 of the addendum book.

Uh this petition was filed under NRS 361.769, where for properties escaping taxation and not on the tax roll is that allows for the assessor's office to go back and add the property per statute.

The property that is escaping taxation can be added for the current year plus three uh back years.

The subject property is located near the I-11 and Craig Road Interchange in the Northwest Retail Submarket.

It consists of a 9,753 square foot commercial retail building.

Uh it's built out and operated as a pet daycare and boarding facility.

It was constructed in 2019, and as of this point has not been added to the tax record.

Um if you could pay turn to page 3867.

There are aerial photos of the subject property for each year starting at 2018.

Uh I think you can see in 2018 we have the vacant parcel, um, and then in 2019, you can see where construction begins, and uh the property was completed construction in 2019.

Um page 3869, we have the updated property record cards for each year.

We did have an uh appraiser go out to the property and measure and add it to the record per NRS or uh per statute as far as the cost approach, um replacement cost new, less depreciation plus the market value of the land, and the record cards can be found uh starting on page 3869, and they include years 22, 23, 23, 24, 24, 25, and 2025 26.

Um then on page 3866.

There's a copy of a letter that was mailed to the property owner, as Ms.

Widener discussed.

Uh it shows the assessor assessors recommended values for each fiscal year.

Uh again 2223 through 2526.

Um those are the values that we're recommending today.

Uh in addition, we did look at the income approach just to verify that we're not exceeding market value on the property.

Those begin on page 3878.

Um and we did the each uh caps capitalization summary for each year as well.

Um and on there you can see uh let me get there here.

Oh, actually.

Um and the value for 2223 that we have on uh were put on the record was 220 per square foot on our cap summary for the 2223 year, we used a dollar eighty-five for our income um per rent per square foot, uh five percent vacancy, uh eight percent expenses based on triple net, and then applied a six point seven five cap, which gives an indicated value a little over two point seven million or two hundred and eighty-seven dollars per foot, um which supports the recommended value for that year of 220 dollars per square foot.

Uh I can go through each year.

We we did the same exercise looking at uh market conditions for each year and adjusted the capitalization summary.

Um but for 2324, we have a um a recommended value of 236 dollars per foot or 2,232 476.

Uh after completing our income approach, we had an indicated value of 2,620 210 or 277 dollars a foot.

Um in 2425, we the recommended value is two million four hundred and sixty-three dollars, or I'm sorry, two million four hundred and sixty-three, one hundred and thirty-four dollars, or approximately two hundred and sixty dollars per square foot.

After reviewing the income approach, we had indicated value of $2,761.842 or $292 a foot.

And for 2526, we have a recommended value of $2,445, $2,445,079, or $258 per foot.

And based on the income approach, we have an indicated value of $2,666,600 $67 or $282 per foot, which again is supports the recommended value for the county.

So based on that information, the county is recommend requesting that the County Board of Equal Equalization please place the value for the improvements on the tax roll for fiscal years 2223, 2324, 24, 25, and 2526 as stated on the petition for review letter found on page 386.

That's 3866 in the addendum book.

Yep.

Also on 3946.

Did I miss something or I'm looking at the so at the end of the case we do have we also included all of the letters that were mailed out?

So that petition review was part of the letters that were mailed.

So it is in the case multiple times because they were mailed out to the So which value are which value are you proposing?

These or the ones that because weren't you saying something like 2.7 million?

So those were the indicated value based on the income approach, but we're recommending the values on page 3866 based on the cost approach.

Okay.

Yep.

I have a question.

Is it typical that we go back and uh charge them for past years?

I mean, I know we can we can go back three years, but do we typically do that?

Uh yes, for uh in escaping taxation cases um when a building, a complete improvement, a complete building has not been added to the tax record, it is um typical for the county, and I think we've heard a few other cases you sure already with similar situations chairman Farr to Mr.

Reigns.

Um NRS 361.769.

Um I'm gonna read it to you so that you can understand the what we have here.

The count assessor of a county um in which real property is located, which is not on the secured roll, shall assess the property and petition the appropriate board of equalization to place the property on the secured roll for the next tax year.

The taxes for the current year and any prior year must be calculated and collected in the same manner as if property had been assigned or had been assessed in those years and placed on the secured roll.

And then number two says the assessment may be made at any time within three years after the end of the fiscal year in which the taxes would have been due.

Um the petition must be made to the county board of equalization, and we're going to this county board because of the time frame that we're doing it.

If we had missed this, we would have done it to the state board.

Um, and then it talks about the county uh assessor shall give notice of the assessment via certified letter.

That's why I read that into the record.

So you do have the authority to actually make this decision, and when we do make the decision, we do do current year.

Current means current build year, and our current build year is 25-26.

We're in that build fiscal year right now, plus three years back in time.

So the property owner didn't get a tax bill the last three years because he wasn't on the tax.

He did get a tax bill, but his tax bill would have only been reflected of a land value.

And so I would think that he would have noticed that that would have been really low given that there was a big building that was a multi-million dollar building that had been built on the property.

Um, you know, again, we don't like doing this.

Um when we discover it, there were some issues with uh permitting and the way that the parcels were cut simultaneously because it was one parcel, and they actually um cut them into chill child parcels and simultaneously began building and permitting on that.

So I think that's how it ended up getting missed because the permits were not there with regards to the child parcel.

Um I think Mr.

Verhain can speak to that.

Uh yes, that's correct.

We went back and looked at uh each tax year through our records what was given to us by the jurisdictions.

We did not receive any uh permits for the property when it was constructed.

We did not receive any uh permits for the property when it was constructed, it was discovered uh in 25 when uh an appraiser went out to look at a permit for an adjacent parcel for a new building and recognize that the building was there, but we were our office was not notified by the jurisdictions for the for the uh construction of the property.

And if I could just clarify Miss Latch's question, so the values on uh 3866, that's just the value we would like to add, which is the new improvement value when I was discussing was the total overall value for the properties.

So they they got tax bills.

Where did the tax bills go to?

They would have gone to the address that we have of record because we send those addresses down to their tax bills were paid, so obviously they okay.

So I'm sorry, yeah.

I I'm not 100% sure on that.

I did not check into that.

Did we happen to look to see if the tax bills were paid?

Uh we did there was no delinquent notice on that, but uh okay.

So they build a building, they've been taxed for land only for four years, they've been getting tax bills, they're aware of that.

You've sent the same notices to the same places where the tax bills were sent and paid.

So the only thing I could see is that you know we don't have proof that they got it, but um, I would say that based on NRS and the data you presented, I would move to accept to add this to the tax roll and and add the um assessed values that the assessors presented.

I I would like to, if you just give me a moment, I want to check the treasurer's website for their latest bill.

Okay, and we can just see what that looks like because I'd like to I want to make sure we have that clear on the record, and we haven't you know misled the board with regards to that.

Give us just one moment.

Um Stephanie Jones with the Clark County Assessors Office.

I did just check the treasurer's um page, and it looks like uh the last payment they made was um March 18th of 2025 for looks like probably the full amount of taxes of 7,127.

Does the mailing address show the same mailing address that I read into the record for um Howard Hughes?

Uh mailing address shows 3930, Howard Hughes Parkway number 180, Las Vegas, Nevada 89169.

And they're not being charged any sort of interest or late fees or anything like that, right?

They they haven't been charged that because the treasurer's office didn't know that this was going to be billed, but this will be billed.

Um I have reached out um to the uh treasurer's office in the past, and I know they attempt to try to work with um that when they run into this situation, but I can't we don't control the treasurer's office, and they have their own provisions of law that they have to we're just talking about assessed value.

That's correct.

Um I'm sorry, Stephanie Jones again.

It does it does look like for the 25-26 fiscal year, they do have a property tax penalty of 535.

I don't know what that's for, or if they've you know maybe missed a payment or or been late or something.

Okay, so my prior the motion's been made.

Go ahead, please cast your votes.

Could you do your motion again?

Would you like me to repeat it?

Yeah, so I I I motion that based on NRS and the data presented by the assessor that this this property be added to the tax roll and at the assessed values that the assessor has proposed for 20 for all the years.

And they will be billed, they will pay back taxes.

My understanding is the taxes aren't our issue, it's whether they're being added to the assessment for the roles for the assessed values.

That's correct.

You don't have any provision over controlling their tax bill, but you do have provision over adding the value to the record.

I will just state on the record that because the value is added, they will be taxed in those back years.

Motion's been made.

Please cast your votes that motion passes.

There are no notices of appearance today.

We can move on to the general administrative business.

Oh, is this it?

Oh pardon me, we do have some additional withdrawals.

So it looks like on page two, case 900 has been withdrawn.

Case 904 has been withdrawn.

And case 1155, which is at the top.

Uh second one, second case on that sheet.

Page three, case 876 has been withdrawn.

878 has also been withdrawn.

And 881.

Case eight seventy-seven has been withdrawn.

Eight eighty-four has been withdrawn.

And at the top, case nine oh two has been withdrawn.

Case nine oh three at the top.

Case nine oh six and case nine oh seven.

Page five.

Case eight eighty-two has been withdrawn.

Case eight eighty-eight.

Case eight ninety, which is at the top.

Case eight ninety-two and case eight ninety-three.

And then also case eight ninety-four.

I'm sorry that I didn't have these in order to read them to you in order.

And then the last one is case nine thirteen on the same page.

So everything on this page has been withdrawn with the exception of the two that you've identified that the petitioners are here for today.

And I believe that is all at present.

Very well.

This hearing is recorded and part of the public record.

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

Please do not speak if another party has the floor.

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

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

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

Procedural rules relative to presenting appeals are as follows.

When we call your name, 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 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 doors to the chamber.

Let's get started with case uh eight ninety-six.

Walmart.

Name and address for the record, sir.

Mike Fenton, Walmart property tax.

One customer drive, Bentonville, Arkansas.

Ms.

Robina.

Good morning, Cindy Robena with the Clark County Assessors Office.

The case starts on page 2900 of the master book.

Most of it will be in the addendum, but um, the subject is a supermarket located at 5940 Losi Road at the intersection of Lisi and Tropical Parkway.

It's within the North Las Vegas submarket.

It's a 39,225 square foot single tenant supermarket, fully occupied by Walmart.

Was built in 2012 and it's on 4.56 acres.

Thank you.

Sir.

I have some handouts that just printed off.

Can I disperse those now or so I work with Miss Cindy Robinha on all of these Walmart, Sam's neighborhood markets out there?

Um I appreciate Miss Robenia and her insights and her effort into the Walmart values.

Robania and her insights and her effort into the Walmart values.

We had multiple phone calls last week about the values protested today.

She explained them well.

She was very professional.

And I believe she was prepared to defend those values today.

We were able to settle two of these appeals, including the SAMS Club there on Pecos Road.

Parcel number one six two two five.

And I had told her during one of those uh conversations that we would withdraw the protests if we could find an agreement on that value of the SAMS Club there on PECOS.

And we did.

So today I'm going to withdraw the remaining protests, and hopefully next year we can work together to come to some better values when we have more time to discuss.

Okay, so what additional case numbers are you asking us?

I ha I have a list here.

I can read them off or I can hand them out.

I've got my list.

Are you going to be bouncing back and forth or yeah?

These are all mixed up here.

Um, so nine one two.

Nine one two eight nine seven, eight nine nine.

Eight nine six.

Eight seven nine.

Nine zero nine.

Nine zero eight.

Nine zero five.

Eight nine five.

Nine zero one.

Eight nine eight.

Nine zero nine.

You already stated nine zero nine.

This is just what the ladies handed me this morning.

Um nine one and nine one zero.

And if there's any Walmart SAMS that I missed, um, I'd like to include those as well.

And you said nine one zero.

Correct.

Nine one zero.

That's all the cases I have for you, sir.

Okay, great.

Sir you're withdrawing all of them.

Did he withdraw eight nine five?

I didn't hear that one.

Okay.

Pleasure doing business.

Okay.

Thank you all for your time today.

Have a great day.

And we'll just address these with uh the wrap up on a final motion.

Yes, we can vote on them at the end.

Excellent.

Should we break for lunch?

Sure.

Uh case thirty.

AMH NB 14 development LLC.

Actually, I think we have case twenty-seven before that on page five.

I apologize.

Case twenty-seven, AMH NB eighteen development LLC.

Can I go on this side?

Okay.

Okay.

My apologies.

Ready to go if you want to go out of order.

What's the question?

Case 27 is up.

Please say your name and address into the microphone for the record, sir.

Mike Churchfield on behalf of AMH.

Thank you.

Address.

9585 prototype court suite B, Reno, Nevada, 89509.

Thank you, Mr.

Payne.

I have some materials to hand to the board.

Mr.

Payne.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair and members of the board.

Marquise Payne for the Clark County Assessor's Office.

And then I have case 27.

We'll begin on page 149 of the addendum.

This appeal is for the 2627 secured role.

The subject of this appeal is a 105-lot subdivision owned by AMH Nevada 18 Development LLC.

The name of this subdivision is Blue Vista, and it's located near Hawallapai and Blue Diamond Road in the Southwest Valley.

Lots are zoned for RS 3.3, which is a residential single-family zoning.

The subdivision consists of two-story single-family residences with seven different seven different floor plans, ranging from 1,851 square feet to 2,407 square feet.

The development is a rental community in which the appellant purchase an 11.66 acre vacant lot, and then individually parceled the lots.

A vicinity map showing the approximate location of the subject can be found on page 179.

And a photo addendum showing the subject at the time of purchase and photos of the current development can be found on page 180.

The total taxable value of all 105 parcels is 48,525,992.

Individual parcel values range between approximately 427,000 and 495,000.

The assessor recommends no change to the 26, 27 total taxable value.

Uh Chairman Farr.

The the issue is the same on each one of the cases, but they do have different homes, and we did different comparable sales analysis and things like that.

But what we do ask is that maybe we can have some extra time on this first case to go over some of the material, and then we'll just incorporate the bulk of that into the other cases so we can save some time.

Sounds like a plan.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, members of the board, and thank you, Ms.

Mrs.

Jones for allowing us to consolidate today.

Um sorry, we didn't.

I'm so I'm so sorry to interrupt, but we weren't saying to consolidate the cases.

We were saying to spend some extra time, and then we'll just incorporate testimony mostly on the other cases.

Perfect.

So good morning, Mike Churchfield on behalf of AMH development.

Thank you guys.

Thank you, board members, for your time today.

Uh we're here for a couple reasons.

Um that we have two arguments before this board.

The first argument is with regards to the way that these properties are being valued.

To give a little background to what AMH does is AMH is a developer, if you will, of build for rent communities.

So we build subdivisions that are specifically for rent.

That's it.

We do not sell these homes.

Uh in the event we do sell them, they'll most likely be sold as a portfolio.

We have not sold off any of the new development subdivisions yet, as we're getting them stabilized and so forth.

So the subject properties consist of inju individually parceled entry-level build-to-rent tract homes constructed by AMH, who is the general contractor.

And AMH off AMH operates nationwide.

So we use the same floor plans here as you would see in Tallahassee, Florida, by example.

So with that being said, AMH's strategy has been centered on minimizing variation across its portfolio to maintain streamlined uniform product.

As a result, the homes are intentionally standardized to provide from fixtures to interior paint colors to flat pack cabinets, countertops, lighting packages, and entry-level appliances.

Because the homes are designed exclusively for rental use, they do not include any upgrades of any kind.

These homes are the same.

You'll have variation in bedroom count, but that's really about it.

So you will have a three bed, a four-bed, and a five-bed in one given community.

But there's not different pop-outs or extra enhanced kitchen on any of the plans.

These are built very similar to multifamily.

So because those because there is no, or because they're exclusively designed, again, there's no upgrades.

AMH has gone so far as to eliminate excess framing on these homes on non-lobe bearing walls by spacing studs at 20 inches on center rather than the typical 16, and that's on non-load bearing walls.

When we do a framework, the they come in and they look as a company and go, where can we cut lumber?

Because again, we're building so many of these.

Again, we use the same LVP here as we do Tallahassee, Florida.

Now, again, some of those colors have changed over time just simply because of trends and so forth.

The homes are further designed for cost efficiency through reduced countertop areas compared to for sale product, avoiding larger, more expensive stone installations, common in traditional subdivision.

Construction timelines are accelerated with AMH by use using conventional slabs.

We do not use post tension.

So again, the homes in Reno, Nevada, where I live, they're conventional.

Reno's really a uh post-tension for most builders, even DR Horton, who we deem as uh entry level provider is using post-tension where we are we do not.

And again, we do have seismic activity in northern Nevada.

So this is all derived from cost.

So the first argument that we have is quality class discrepancy.

So we've on page three of the packets, you can see which appeal numbers are affected specifically by a 3.0 quality class because AMA because the assessor here has divided AMH's portfolio between a two and a half quality class and a three quality class.

AMH feels strongly that all the new development communities should be assessed at 2.5 since roughly half of AMH's new development communities in Las Vegas are being assessed as that.

So the assessor can value a home on a 1 to 12 scale quality class per Marshall and Swift.

Currently, they've differentiated AMH's portfolio just about 50-50 as two and a half in Las Vegas and 3.0s.

There's not a lot of difference between a 2.5 and a 3.0, quite honestly.

In Northern, I would like to add that in northern Nevada and Washoe County and Carson County, all the new development homes are also two and a half.

Again, we have perceived higher building expectations because of frost line, snow load, etc.

So those homes have to be engineered for a higher snow load, no flat roof, et cetera.

And all those are being assessed at two and a half in Reno and in Carson City.

The Clark County Assessor has indicated that the front enhancements are what is the differentiating factor between a two and a half and a 3.0 for AMH.

Well, what does that mean?

The enhancements to the front of the home are typical to something like Cadence, which will be brought up today, because it's a master plan.

Master plans have certain architectural standards that we have to abide by.

Certain municipalities have different standards.

By example, this is not related to Vegas, but in Carson City, which is still Nevada, they want uh front enhancements so it's not uh it's not so much of a garage forward design.

They want more windows and transparency, so we've accommodated that with minimal tweaks to the windows and so forth that are only specific when we purchase land in a master plan and have to build in that.

But that is the only difference, and that typically only applies to one wall, the front wall of the house.

The sides typically don't get hit with nearly the architectural requirements that that front enhancement or the front view does.

So the enhancements of the front are the differentiating factor.

Included in this packet is information showing that the assessor does not differentiate quality class within a tracked for sale neighborhood.

So as we all know, in any given track community, you can have sales, you have a huge amount of difference based on upgrades and non-upgraded homes, which could be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So the Vegas assessor does not differentiate and will not change quality class when in any of those neighborhoods.

So you could have a house that's 500,000 and one at 900,000, they will still be the same quality class.

Any of those.

So by example, on page four to five, we're talking about the sales here that in one neighborhood you have one sale that sold for 605,000 on 1124 of 2025.

It's a 3.0.

And then you have another one that sold in 213 of 2026 for 920,000.

So a lot of price difference, same quality class.

So we're gonna hear today that it's the front enhancements that differentiate AMH, but it's not the magnitude of dollars that we're seeing in these upgrades.

So we're not understanding why a track doesn't have differentiation, but we do.

And one essentially we build with no options.

The second argument that we have pertains to the valuation methodology.

Nevada is a value in use state.

I can't stress this enough.

The use of our properties, they're operated as rental home communities.

This is why we keep coming back before this board.

Because again, we're looking at it as we have ongoing expenses that a normal homeowner does not have.

The assessor is saying to us, we're valuing you as if you can sell these homes tomorrow.

We cannot do that.

The Nevada Real Estate Division will not let us form an HOA.

They won't let us form an HOA because we can't find ourselves.

So if we were to ever sell these as one and a half or to sell these as one off properties, the way that the assessor feels that we can, they're on annual reprisal.

They would catch those sales and we would strongly agree with the valuation at that time to be valued as a for sale product, just like every other for sale developer.

But that's not the case today.

We have ongoing expenses that the assessor does not want to recognize, and they're using allocation.

So to establish land values, the assessor relies on comparable for sale communities.

They use allocations, so they'll take the neighborhood I'm describing that could have lots of upgrades or homes with no upgrades, depends on the year and what's selling.

So with that, they apply an allocation of that average sale price to the land value for us.

Well, what we're saying back is there is sales data of portfolio sales, and they show a discount.

In northern Nevada, which is the same state taxation system, we are being assessed differently.

The assessor has looked at a DR Horton community up there that sells one off for sale homes.

Adjacent to it was a portfolio build to rent that DR Horton sold as a portfolio.

And there was a 10% difference in price determined from the portfolio sale to the one-off sale.

The assessor therefore provided us a 10% reduction to the land value on top of our two and a half quality class, and that's kept our values under the income approach, and we do not have a fight with the Carson assessor or the uh Washoe County assessor for that reason.

So looking at these, in no uh the sales that back this up.

AMH has provided incomes and asked that we use a 5.5 quality or 5.5 capitalization rate.

Well, as I got further through this, the most comparable sale was DR Horton's sale.

It was a 2025 sale of Elkhorn Point at Heartland, which was individually parceled just like AMH does, and it sold for 63,925,000, included 201 attached homes, indicating a price per home of 318,000.

Despite uh this, the assessor is still trying to apply a 5% capitalization rate to AMH's portfolio on the incomes to justify their value.

Our concern with that is if you're using multifamily sales, you can't take a HUD loan on this type of asset because it's a very new asset.

These builds rent communities are very new, so again, you can't get that same favorable low rate, which again it loads into the cap rate.

So we feel that there is cap rate evidence at a 575 as a stabilized cap rate on L Corn that is occurred in 2025.

So that is the capitalization rate that should be utilized by the assessor's office to check their value for AMH's portfolio.

And again, to hit this point home, AMH cannot form an HOA through Nevada Real Estate Division.

So we cannot sell these today as we can't go out and sell them.

We also don't have a brokerage, we don't have the tools in place to sell it.

And again, I'm stressing this that they are on annual reappraisal.

So with that being said, if we sold them as one-offs, please valuate us, reassess us then at the higher value.

Given these constraints, AMH respectfully asks for a reduction to land value or improvement value based on the income approach and the portfolio discount that recognizes AMH's ongoing monthly expenses.

The Northern Nevada assessors do it.

These expenses do not exist for a for sale builder who's made whole on every sale.

He also earns a profit, he or she also earns a profit from any upgrades that the home purchaser decides to purchase.

So again, the sales I have here, which justify a reduction, are Elkhorn Point, 318,000.

That's an attached product.

That is different than us, but it is individually parceled.

The second sale is Shadow Bay, which I believe was a 2023 sale.

The assessor could speak to that better.

But that was a single family detached, arguably a little nicer homes than what AMH builds.

They sold 117 homes for 48,98,361 or 411,000 per home.

So right now we have a value range between 318,000 and 411,000 per home.

And looking at the assessor's value today of Shadow Bay, a lot of those homes are valued at 440,000.

I don't think their cash flows have increased that much.

So again, when we're looking at assessment ratios, that's what's that's why we're here today.

Is if you are 100% of market value and backing it up, the law for Nevada should take into account depreciation.

So if you still are taking have depreciation and are now at 440,000, If I were that a I don't understand why that uh person hasn't appealed those because to me they are exceeding their full cash market value because they sold for 411 and a lot of those are at 440.

So in conclusion, we have all three DR.

Well, in the last sale was a northern Nevada sale.

Northern Nevada's median house price is $600,000.

It's higher than down in Las Vegas.

DR Horton sold one portfolio in 2023 in northern Nevada, which consisted of 102 individually parceled single family homes, went through two brokerages and sold for 39.1 million dollars or 383,000 per home.

So now we have three sales.

318 for attached, 411 for a detached, all individually parceled just like AMH, and another detached at 383.

And we have the cap rate of 5.75, which I can't hit home enough because again, if they're comparing multifamily properties, well, I'd you cannot get a HUD loan for these types of build-to-rent communities, so it should have a higher capitalization rate than multifamily.

Um the assessors or the market evidence supports that the valuation methodology by the Northern Nevada assessors is working better because we are not appealing our values every year, and we do not feel that we are over market value there because again, every year when we talk to the assessors down here, they say, well, you could sell these homes one off tomorrow.

We we cannot do that with the constraint of the Nevada Real Estate Division, and again, is not our business model.

And I kind of equate it to this.

If I went into Costco and bought a giant container of ketchup, I don't go to the front counter and say, Well, I could break this out by the ounce and sell it at the same proportionate price as Rayleigh's.

I'm going to Costco buying a more bulk amount, and again, I'm paying a lower cost because I'm buying more of that.

And again, that's kind of the similar thing here.

Is this a portfolio with ongoing expenses?

So to value us at highest and best use is why I keep coming back before this board every year is we have to acknowledge these expenses because they're not going away.

They will only go away upon sale, and it's very hard to sell a rental home or to sell a home in a for-rent community.

I've not seen it done, quite frankly, on one of these.

I've seen them sold as portfolios.

Looking at the photos here, as you can see on page 11 of the handout, there's a heck of a lot of this this was the 3.0 neighborhood that we utilized that you can see there's two different sales prices here on page 12 65,000 and 920,000.

Both those homes have different upgrades.

They're the same quality class.

Secondly, on page 13, we pulled this off of Zillow.

These are all 4.0 quality class homes, and the sales in there range from 900,000 to 2.5 million dollars.

So the assessor is not differentiating quality class within that track neighborhood.

So for us, because of one wall, I it seems that we should have one quality class at the lower two and a half because our upgrades are at max more stone on the front of the house or uh different window articulation based on the master HOA.

And as you can see on page 14, 15, 16, those are quality class 3.0's.

Pages 17, 18, and 19 are quality class 2.5s.

And as you can see, the kitchens look very, very similar in all these homes.

Same with the bedrooms, same with all of that.

A front wall of a house makes up maybe 10% of the whole entire cost of the house.

So if we add a stone articulation or less, again, if a permit was pulled, I don't even think they would pick this up because it's such a minute component of the home.

So I'm not understanding why the differentiation quality class.

However, the problem was we brought this to the assessor's attention, and if and they did a great job.

They looked at this under kind of a uh a more individualized appraisal, if you will, and so they found differences.

And if the differences were strictly the stone enhancements on the front of the house, and that's how they're differentiating quality class, if they did that in every track neighborhood, they would have huge disparities in quality class because you would have houses that are upgraded and some that are not.

And I would add that all these homes are on Zillow, so they could adjust the quality class.

It's a procedural thing that they don't, which I understand because they are mass appraisal, and they got a heck of a lot of parcels down here to appraise annually, but again, part of the reappraisal process is to ensure that fair and equitable valuation is achieved.

And I leave the board with the last page 22, which was the sale of the Alowin.

I've told this board today that we've had three sales of individually parceled subdivisions.

One was at 411,000, which was Shadow Bay, another one was at like 383, which was the Northern Nevada DR Horton sale, and then you had the 316 or 311 or what have attached DR Horton sale here.

Well, the Alowan is a single parcel.

It sold for 432,000 per home, which is more than any of the individually parceled homes sold for.

They have agreed to the distinction is in use is not between rental and the owner-occupied units.

It's between complete composed predominantly of 51% or more units.

So right here, they're saying if 51% or more is owned by one person in these individually parceled areas, that it warrants a different type of the assessors are required to review this is condominium ownership for predominant use, but it's individually parceled.

So this the way that the Northern Nevada assessor has taken that predominant use argument is or case per se is that they need to apply a different valuation of more than 51% are owned by one entity, they have to take into account the ongoing expenses, which they've done.

Cavi Auto was a property in northern Nevada where it was predominantly owned by one individual.

And again, they went in there and said, okay, he's operating it as a rental property.

So they changed their valuation.

They looked at it in the income approach, went, uh, yep, he has ongoing expenses, he's not selling these as one-offs.

If he does, we'll catch it then.

But they reduced his land value down to account for the ongoing expenses.

So all we're asking is that we get some sort of valuation reduction via common quality class or through a lower land value to account for the ongoing increased expenses that EMH is continued to be burdened with, and the rental market has not gotten stronger.

We have huge theft issues, we have all sorts of ongoing costs that uh home builder does not have.

Tenant turnover is a huge cost for us.

These tenants damage these homes.

A for sale builder does not encounter that because once that home is sold, that's that.

So we have to burden that cost to bring these homes back up to a rentable standard.

Thank you.

Mr.

Payne.

Melody Garfield for the county assessor's office.

Um, I just kind of making an opening statement that we'll incorporate into all the cases that addresses some of the things Mr.

Churchfield has um uh talked about.

So today we're going to be presented with appeals containing multiple townhome or single family parcels.

The appellant wants to argue that a group of parcels should be valued as one income producing property based on corporate ownership and rental use.

This argument has no statutory basis and would actually violate the assessor's mandate to value property based on the actual physical characteristics of the property and equity, not on the management or operations of the property.

NRS 361.227 paragraph two indicates that the fundamental unit of assessment in Nevada, the whole state of Nevada, is the individual parcel.

Each town home or single family residence has been legally subdivided.

It's been granted a unique parcel number, and it's capable of being sold individually on the open market.

While NRS requires that valuations do not exceed market value, the market value typically for an individually parceled single family residence or town home is determined by what a willing buyer would pay for that specific home, not on a portfolio basis.

These parcels possess individual liquidity.

If the taxpayer decided to sell a parcel tomorrow, they certainly could do it.

Not as a fractional piece of a multifamily uh project, but they could sell it as an individual parcel.

They can choose to sell all units as a portfolio, but there are no physical or legal restrictions requiring that.

If all the units were on one parcel, we would look at it differently, but they are again individually parceled.

To value the parcels as a group is to ignore the highest and best use of the land as subdivided.

We want to distinguish the taxpayers' request for a permanent bulk sort of discount or bulk valuation from the temporary relief that is provided during the development phase.

Under NRS and NAC361.1295, you'll find that on page 285.

Nevada law explicitly allows for a subdivision discount to account for the absorption period of vacant residential lots.

It's a statutory mechanism providing sort of a formula, uh formulaic reduction specifically for parcels that have not yet been sold, rented, or occupied.

However, once these units are completed and are sold or occupied, or in this case, enter the rental market, they no longer qualify for this discount.

By seeking a multifamily valuation for occupied rentals, we believe the appellant is essentially attempting to permanently extend a developer's bulk discount to a finished residential product.

This actually violates the clear limitations set forth in the NAC.

Furthermore, NAC 361.128, as you know, requires the use of Marshall and Swift cost manuals.

They provide specific separate tables for townhome construction, single family residential construction, versus the multifamily apartment construction.

Town homes are built to a different standard, specifically regarding firewall separation and utility independence.

Single family residences are detached structures, independent foundations, excuse me, roofs, uh walls, the utility laterals.

They don't share the structural economies of scale inherent in multifamily complexes.

So using an apartment classification in the cost approach in Marshall and Swift would be a miscalculation of the physical asset and result in an inaccurate replacement cost now.

In both townhomes and single family residences, owners own the land beneath the unit.

Each unit is a distinct vertical slice of real estate with its own parcel, legal identity, and bundle of rights.

In contrast, an apartment owner or multifamily owner owns a single parcel, typically, a single large parcel, where units are merely interior spaces with no individual ownership.

They're not selling unit 202.

The taxpayers in these cases, in these cases that you'll hear today, the taxpayers chose to maintain individual parcels, or in some cases they were actually required to do so by zoning.

Zoning specifically prohibited multifamily construction.

In some of these cases, or in all these cases, that legal subdivision of the land grants them a bundle of rights, including the right to sell units one by one that an apartment owner, multifamily owner does not have.

You cannot have the liquidity of individual parcels while requesting the taxation of a single block.

That's our contention.

The most critical concern is the uniformity clause in the Nevada Constitution.

The Supreme Court, Nevada Supreme Court, and in the BARTA and the BAXT cases establish that like properties, taxable value must be obtained using uniform assessment methods.

If two identical houses sit side by side, they must carry the same valuation.

If we allow an investor to have a lower value per square foot than a neighboring family simply because the investor owns multiple parcels, we've created a non-uniform and we would say unconstitutional dual class value valuation system.

Ownership structure is a business preference.

Property characteristics are a physical reality.

We're here to value the real estate, which remains identical regardless of who manages the lease, how many properties are owned, or how the property is financed.

To ensure uniform and equitable assessment values, these parcels must be valued as the individually parceled single family residences or townhomes that they are.

In each of these cases, we'll ask the board to uphold the individual assessments to ensure equity for every homeowner in Nevada.

So our analysis of the four tests for the highest and best use is on page 198, if you'd like to review that.

Thank you, Melody.

Again, Marquise Payne for the Clark County Assessor's Office.

The first case, Montage Marketing versus Washoe County in 2018, can be found on page 217.

In this case, Montage Marketing owned 376 condominium units and 30 out of the 376 units or sold.

Montage appealed on the basis that the remaining unsold units should have been valued as a single economic unit.

On page 219, paragraph three, the county board ruled that the assessor's office appropriately utilized the sales comparison approach to value these units individually and not as a single economic unit.

On page 220, paragraph three, montage appealed that decision to the state board, where they also help upheld the assessors value valuing these units individually using the sales comparison approach.

Montage filed a petition for a judicial review in a district court.

The district court also upheld the state board's decision, and on page 23231, stating, quote, county assessors must use the valuation approach that most accurately measures the full cash value of property.

See NRS 361.227, paragraph 5, section C.

Without any consideration of the owner's identity or intent purchasing the property.

Montage's status as an investor does not warrant valuing its condominiums differently than those of other owners.

To hold otherwise would result in a determination of the condominium's value as an investment or their value to the current owner, not the full cash value, which is the price that each condominium unit would receive on the open market.

Further stating the state board did not apply a fundamentally wrong principle in assessing the condominiums as individual units and utilizing the sales comparison method to ensure that the taxable value did not exceed the full cash value.

The second case that we would like to bring before the board is Mingo Creek Investment LLC versus North Carolina State Board of Equalization in 2022.

And this can be found on page 241.

In this case, Mingo Creek appealed 39 individually parceled lots, each approved with a townhome on the basis that the subject should be considered and appraised as a single property consisting of 39 residential rental units, much like an apartment complex.

The appellant's position was that the county did not adequately consider the income approach and that the county placed too much emphasis on the fact that townhomes are individually parceled.

The county testified that there are approximately 56,000 townhomes located in Wake County and that each is on its own separately platted parcel.

Each has an individual legal description and each is separately appraised, primarily relying upon the sales comparison approach.

On page 246, paragraph 13, the county's witness, Jeremy Kahn, the Wake County Tax Administration Department's appraisal manager, testified as to his opinion that while the subject property may be operated by the appellant for residential rental purposes, the income approach to appraising the subject property is not the best approach because individually platted townhomes are typically bought and sold on an individual basis and not as a package of individual rental units.

The state board concluded that although the appellant offered evidence regarding the sales comparison approach and the income approach, this evidence was based upon the appellant's underlying assumption that the subject property was properly characterized as a single unit.

Although we recognize that this assumption could be relevant if the individual units had been developed as a single parcel, we note that the county's witness testified that the county would have considered an appraise of subject property as a single unit had it been developed as a single unit rather than individual units.

We conclude therefore that we conclude therefore that separate appraisal of the individual parcels comprising the subject property is not only a sound appraisal practice but also required by statute.

As previously stated, we feel that the most appropriate method of valuation would be to value these units individually, utilizing the sales comparison approach, and we will now go over how we looked at these parcels using that method.

Land values for a subdivision are valued by analyzing a subject's improved sales within a subdivision and allocating a percentage of that sale to the land.

Allocation percentages can vary depending on location, size of the lot, and the age of the improvements.

When a subdivision does not have enough improved sales, we will look for a neighborhood with similar characteristics as the subject neighborhood to determine a land value.

Because this subject is a rental community, there are no sales within the neighborhood.

Therefore, the land value was determined based on allocation using three comparable neighborhoods found on pages 183 through 185.

Neighborhood 3144.53 being the most comparable to the neighborhood's subject age, lot size and quality class, with having a medium land value of 115,000.

Our subjects improvement improved age is three years, and the lot size range between 0.08 and 0.13.

And as you can see on page 185 for the neighborhood statistics sheet for the most comparable neighborhood 3144.53, you'll see that the age ages range between three to five years and the lot sizes 0.08 to 0.20.

The other comparable 3144.43 also has a medium land value of 115,000.

And the third neighborhood that we use has a median value of 120,000.

And this neighborhood is on at has a base lot value of 110,000.

Therefore, our base lot value does not exceed market value.

Before the closing of the tax roll, our residential subdivisions are tested through mass analysis to determine if we are exceeding the full cash value.

The way this is done is by looking at the most recent sales and comparing that to the property's total taxable value.

If the total taxable value is more than the sales price, a calculation is done to determine what adjustment would be needed to apply to the improvement value of that parcel to adjust the total taxable value down so that it no longer exceeds the full cash value.

When a subdivision does not have sales, the appraiser again doing the analysis will have to find comparable neighborhoods to use to determine if an adjustment is needed.

And this analysis was completed on this neighborhood, and the um the analysis determined that there was no neighborhood obsolescence that was needed.129 gives guidance on what is considered a qualified subdivision.

Those requirements are A that it is one of a group of 10 or more contiguous parcels held under common ownership and requires that parcels are all in the same phase or a section of a development.

B, a final map of the subdivision must be filed with the county uh recorder.

C, the owner must provide the county assessor with whatever information the assessor deems necessary to determine the taxable value of the parcel.

And D, the subdivision has an expected absorption period of more than one year.

NAC NAC361.1295 gives guidance on the three methods that we can use to determine a subdivision discount.

Those methods are the development cost method, where we assess the full cash value of the subdivision as vacant land plus all development costs to determine if a if our subject's land value exceeds the subject value to the developer.

The second method is the bulk lot method, where we look at the selling price of a comparable vacant land subdivision or a group of vacant land parcels being sold in bulk to determine if the subject's land value exceeds that selling price.

And the last method is the absorption method, which is used to estimate when a subdivision is expected to be fully absorbed, meaning less than 10 parcels held under common ownership, which are not sold, rented, or occupied.

Any subdivision discount that is warranted gets applied to the land only and not towards the improvement value.

The subject of this case could have potentially qualified for a subdivision discount to the land, but requested completed subdivision application, development costs, and lease information were not provided by the appellant.

Without the completed application and requested documents, no subdivision discount analysis was completed.

Now we will look at the full cash value of each individual model in this community to ensure that it is not exceeding full cash value, and that first comparable can be found on page 189.

So at the bottom of this, uh there's a grid of 10 comparable sales, all located within a mile of the subject.

All the numbers and uh letters that are in red are property characteristics that match exactly to the subject.

Above that comparable grid, you'll see adjustments where adjustments were made for living square footage and age to match the subject.

To the left of that, there's an indicated value of 475,000.

So based on these 10 comparable sales, it's indicating a value of approximately 475,000.

Right below that, you'll see our recommended uh value, which is our total taxable value at approximately 427,000, therefore indicating that we are not exceeding market value.

Behind this form, there's a vicinity map showing the comparing the subject and the uh comparables.

And behind that, there are uh property record cards for for that particular model.

Um if you move along to the the second model here, um the Charleston Peak model on page 193 again indicated value 521,000, and our taxable value is uh 449,000, so not exceeding market value.

The third model, uh, the big bin model is on page 197.

Once again, indicated value 559,000, and our taxable value is 476, approximately 476,000.

So again, not exceeding market value.

Um more model uh on page 201, again, not exceeding full cash value.

Although we do not feel this uh this is the most accurate or most appropriate method of testing the value of these properties.

We did look at the subject using an income approach for single family residences by completing a gross rent multiplier analysis, which can be found on page 205.

And with this analysis, basically, we're trying to come up with a factor that shows the relationship between a property sales price and their annualized rent that we can use towards other like properties to derive a market value.

So when we uh divided the these uh comparables uh sales price, which all are um purchased within the last two years and rented within one year of that purchase, we come up with a gross rent multiplier median of 18.

And if you go to the next page, page 206, these are um all these single family residences in this particular AMH community.

So what we did was we applied that GRM of 18 to each of these annualized uh rent of each each of the single family residences, and um in that green column you'll see all those values that that were um derived by applying that GRM.

And if you look at the blue column, the total that's our total taxable value.

So if you compare those two values, you can see that the GRM is higher than our total taxable value.

We also use a low-end GRM of 17 just to test you know um the factor, and if you compare those with our taxable values, those are also higher.

A CAP summary has also been completed by Mrs.

Melody Garfield, and she is here to discuss that analysis.

Melody Garfield for the record.

Um that analysis is on page 210.

Again, we don't think this is an appropriate way to value the properties because they are individually parceled, and the sales comparison approach and the gross rent multiplier are the best ways to value those individual parcels.

We did though uh complete a cap summary.

Uh we were not provided with rents for the properties, so we looked at market rents for these homes, uh, often coming from AMH websites.

Uh that's how we uh determined those rents, and you can see we have a potential gross income of over 3 million.

We used a 5% vacancy uh rate and a 10% other income, uh, which led us to an effective gross income of about 3.3.

We used a 25% expense ratio, which works out to almost 8,000 per home, um and we we thought that was uh fair for these types of properties, which left us with a net operating income of it looks like about 2.5.

We used a 5% cap rate because we we do have multifamily sales that are selling at a 5% cap rate.

I agree that 5% is more for a typical apartment type building, but if we're going to look at this as an apartment type building, um I thought the 5% was appropriate.

I do have evidence for those cap rates, um, and those are on other pages here if you want to look at that price waterhouse Cooper and Realty rates.

So with that 5%, we come up with a valuation of a little over 50 million, and right now our uh value per unit.

And with the 5% cap rate, we show a sort of an average indicated value per unit of 478.

So even our analysis here does not indicate that we are over market value.

Again, we don't think this is the appropriate way to value these properties.

Did you have a conclusion?

Oh I want to address the quality class.

This was something that Mr.

Churchill recently told us he was going to address again.

The last couple of years that the same complaint has been brought before the board.

And so we, you know, we weren't sure we were going to have to address that again this year, but since since we do, I I just want to talk about that.

The difference that Mr.

Churchill talks about says that the difference between the homes is not that much.

And you know, really the difference 2.5 to 3 when we look at it value-wise, cost-wise, when we're putting our original cost value on these homes, it can range 16, maybe 20,000 is going to be that value difference between the 2.5 and the 3.0.

Now, but we're seeing that there are additional costs on this.

It's not just one wall.

Sometimes it's the roof cuts.

Sometimes you're going to have a little pop-out on that second floor.

You're going to have recessed windows.

You're going to have arches on the patios instead of sort of rectangular openings for these for these things.

Which is why we don't have it classed as a 2.5 and a 4.0.

It's a 2.5 and it's a 3-0, but there are differences that you can see when our appraisers go out and we look at these homes, there are differences.

There are some subdivisions that maybe have a higher standard, as Mr.

Churchill admits.

Cadence, for instance.

They want their homes to have a little more gingerbread on the outside to look a little look a little nicer.

Well, those sorts of things do cost more, and that's why we have a little bit higher cost quality cost on those homes.

Excuse me.

If you look at page 272 in this addendum, you will see one of the 3.0 neighborhoods.

I mean, corbals, right?

I mean, it seems like just such a little thing, but I mean it's something.

And so these are the things that we're saying cost a little bit more.

In comparison, if you go to page 256, which are the homes that are in this particular subdivision, I believe.

Well, maybe not.

I don't know.

These this is the different things.

Mr.

Chair Buffer from Stephanie Jones, that this neighborhood can be found on 273 pictures of the homes.

Pictures of this neighborhood.

Okay, yep, 273.

But if you look at the two fives, which is his argument, um, this is a 3.0 neighborhood.

Um, and again, those um for this case, page um 273.

Again, you can see that there's uh window panels there, there's stonework on the outside, there's multiple roof cuts, certainly in the second and third one.

Um, so you know, those are things that um that we say cost a little bit more.

And for comparison, if you go to page 256, that is a two, that's one example of a two-five home.

And you can see the windows aren't recessed there, very little window trim, um, very you know, standard sort of rectangular cuts, uh, the roof line, there, you know, there's not really much going on with the roof.

To us, there is a difference, and again, it's not maybe a significant difference cost-wise, but we believe there is a difference in the two five and the three O's.

We have spent the last two years attempting to get this right, looking at neighborhoods around the AMH properties, making sure that we're being equitable and we're treating all those properties the same.

And um, and so like I said, we've we've talked about this for a couple of years now.

It's coming up again.

Again, we feel that there is a difference enough in these homes to bump it up a quality class.

We do have sort of a written explanation as well on pages 254 and 255.

So 254 are the two five quality homes.

Again, very little architectural design.

Um there's you know, maybe some window trim, there, but it's gonna be minimal on the brick and stone.

Whereas if you look at page 255, our average uh 3.0 quality homes, there's corbals, more trim, more brick and stone, arches, recessed windows.

So again, these may be as one item small things, but they add up to a little bit more value in those three O homes than in the two five homes.

Um, so again, we're arguing the same thing that we've argued the last couple of years with regard to the quality class.

Did you want to call it?

Thank you again, Melody.

Marquise paying for the Clark County Assessor's Office.

Um in closing, uh, we just want to let the board know that we have used all three methods of evaluation to determine our value.

Our current taxable value was determined by using the cost approach.

We use the direct sales comparison approach to test our uh taxable values for exceeding market value.

And although we do not feel the income approach is the most appropriate method, we did look at the subject as an income-producing property utilizing a gross rate multiplier analysis and a direct direct capitalization summary to test our taxable values for exceeding market value.

All three methods confirmed our total taxable value does not exceed market value.

Please keep in mind these lots are individually parceled and zoned for single-family residents.

These should be valued as such, utilizing the sales comparison approach as supported by the rulings and the reference cases by North Carolina State Board of Equalization and the Nevada Supreme Court.

As Matt Melody stated earlier in her testimony, our I'm sorry, ownership structure is a business preference.

Property characteristics are a physical reality.

So if we lower the value of these parcels because someone owns a group of parcels under common ownership, this will create an inequity with the subject's neighboring communities.

We acts that the board uphold the individual assessments to ensure an equitable market for every homeowner in Nevada.

Chair Farr, sorry, you got Lisa Lockson here from the Clark District.

We didn't issue a formal legal opinion like we do in some of these cases, but the DA's office is here today to um reiterate to the board that we've looked at the assessor's office position and we agree with it, especially on those two legal principles that Nevada's fundamental rule for property tax is a single unit of appraisal for a single parcel.

And the second uh principle that the Nevada Constitution requires uniform and equal rate of assessment for taxation, and this has been reiterated in 2018 by the Nevada Supreme Court in the Mataj case that specifically says the status of the investor does not warrant valuing these properties differently.

Um, and it goes on to state that um to otherwise hold that um would determine that uh the value of an investment um or the value to their current over owner um, you know, it shouldn't be a factor in that.

So um the Nevada Supreme Court has said each single family resident must be valued based on its own characteristics in its own mark and condition, not as part of a portfolio of a single owner.

So we just wanted to put that on the record today as well for the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anything else from the assessor's office?

Um, just one more thing, just regarding the information that was passed out today regarding some of these um bulk sales.

That we didn't get this information beforehand, and I was just trying to look at them, but there's no parcel numbers on here, so I have no idea where these communities are, or even to be able to look at these sales just to make sure that um you know they were arm's length of sales.

Just wanted to put that on the record.

Thank you.

Mr.

Churchfield, do you have any rebuttal to the assessor's case?

Yeah, I do have a couple points.

And uh, first off, to address the question, Shadow Bay was within the assessors packet, so you do have that sale on a portfolio.

Um it was provided to me by your office.

Um, the other ones were provided by Jared Glover, who is with Bircadia down here.

Again, I think my um past presentations before this board have shown you I'm not in the business of falsifying information or anything like that.

If I go to a broker and get those sales, that's what we're looking at.

I know with 100% certainty, and could pull up the Northern Nevada DR Horton sale right now if need be.

And you guys can Google it, it's out there.

We're not fabricating anything.

So uh first and foremost, I appreciate and cannot stress enough how much I appreciate the assessors' efforts.

I know this is a hard thing because it is a relatively new use, and I think all of us in the room can be surprised that single family bill to rent, it's it's very new.

I didn't think it would work, quite frankly, and it is working, but there it's so new that there are a lot of costs that go with it because it's uncharted territory.

So, with that being said, uh, you know, we've heard a lot of testimony today that the assessor is legally doing everything correct, which they are.

The concern is they can apply obsolescence.

There is nothing in statute that says they cannot apply obsolescence to bring values to where we perceive below market.

We've heard today that the assessor is using a 5% capitalization rate.

That is the lowest cap rate you guys could use to support your values.

So that's concerning when we're seeing cap rate sales higher and comparing multifamily with that, as I've said before.

We can these properties cannot get a HUD loan at a low preferred rate.

So the 5.75 stabilized cap rate of Elkhorn Point at DR Horton is a legitimate good sale.

Those sales sold for 318,000.

The highest sale, which that was in the assessor's packets two years ago is DR Horton's portfolio that sold at 400 411,000.

Uh again, we're hearing values of 500,000.

We have ongoing expenses.

The address the assessor can address this via obsolescence and pull it right off if we were to sell these as one off homes.

So we have not heard about portfolio sales today.

We don't know how they look at that.

That's concerning because again, we have a sale on it, and we're saying to them it's still highest and best use.

Well, okay, whoever bought that, they they are not receiving that benefit.

They bought it on cash flow.

That's how they bought it.

That's just again how it is.

So all we're asking for is obsolescence to be within the sales realm of portfolios.

If we were to sell these as one-offs, that would require a lot because you have leases in place.

I don't know how that would shake out, quite frankly, because you'd have to run those leases up, you'd have to instill a brokerage component into it, which we do not have.

And the way that AMH was formed, we didn't go in thinking, oh, we're gonna just sell these.

We had a bunch of Pulty guys that knew how to build a subdivision because AMH bought one off homes on the courthouse steps, and there was a maintenance issue of going from this community to that community, not having standardization.

So the investors said, well, let's build a build for rentity, build for rent community.

I don't think they thought through the parcel ramifications to the degree that the uh the taxation, the property tax liability is hitting this portfolio.

We have not been before the state board of equalization.

However, last year, uh another appellate that you'll hear today took it before the state and was very close to getting a decision.

So we've heard of these decisions with montage.

I worked the montage case.

Those are construction defect case.

I don't know, there was a lot more that went on to it because again, they did receive a lower land value because it was all cash sales in the building.

It was a different sale at a different time.

I understand why they're utilizing that, but again, I don't believe there's any reason why the assessor could not apply economic obsolescence for the expenses that we're dealing with and incurring year after year.

We would not be before this board if we did not have these ongoing expenses, high tenant turnover, concessions, everything else that's lowed into the market because the market is saturated with rentals, and we're adapting to that.

Our stock price is down again because we have such huge expenses that I presented before this board numerous times with the Alloan that doesn't have that because they didn't draw in different parcel line, you know, and it's ended up selling for more than our than these homes would sell for today to a portfolio buyer.

So, you know, in closing, I think obsolescence is the best remedy for this to bring it down below the three portfolio sales at hand, which if the highest sale is 411,000, we're hearing that 500,000 is 475 to 500,000.

Uh it shows how significantly overvalued.

If we went to market today, we would be selling as a portfolio.

That's a fact.

We cannot sell per real estate division as a single home because again, there is no HOA that we can form until we were to start that activity, which we can't do.

So we cannot form an HOA with Nevada Real Estate Division.

So based on that, we're asking for obsolescence, and we're asking that the assessor utilize their portfolio sales and utilize a cap rate that the 5.75 because that's where the market is on these portfolios.

If they were if there was a sale of 500,000 for these portfolios, guys, I would not be here.

But again, I can't stress enough.

It's page seven in the packet.

And these are not fabricated.

I I don't like the um, you know, I I give the assessor all the benefit of the doubt, they do not send me these packets beforehand.

They're huge.

I wouldn't want them to.

I think it would crash my computer and the state of Nevaz as well.

So I get this data today.

Um, I'm not trying to be punitive here, guys.

So I would appreciate it if you know I trust them at their word.

These folks do a great job, and I hope they would give me the uh they gave Ms.

Jones gave me the trust last year, so I'm hoping she will give me that again this year.

And just asking for the board to provide obsolescence to bring our values somehow below these portfolio sales because of ongoing.

And again, we also did not hear why a track development does not have a differentiation and quality class, where it's not just a window, it's not just a roof line, it can be a million dollar swing in that.

And again, last time I checked, all these homes are on Zillow.

That's how they transact to some degree.

So the photos are out there.

So if they're not gonna make an adjustment in a neighborhood for all the upgrades, and they have that sales data, I don't see how they can make an adjustment on us.

It's that minute.

Thank you.

Members of the board.

Mr.

Chair, real quick um before you close the case.

Um, I just want to I wasn't trying to say that I didn't believe that these that these were made up sales that were in here.

I just we we didn't have this information beforehand to see what type of properties they were, what the ages were, what the sizes were, to to be able to just look at, for example, the first one at 318,000 dollars per home.

How does that neighborhood compare to our neighborhood?

Is all I was really saying.

Um during during this rebuttal, uh just on that first one.

I mean, those are town homes um ranging from 1100 to 1600 square feet.

Ours are single family.

Um, I think I saw one for 20 or 2400 square feet.

Maybe Mr.

Payne can say what the sizes are, but um again, just researching the sale.

I I wasn't trying to say that these were made up sales, just that we hadn't had time to evaluate these neighborhoods and see how they were comparable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, and I didn't take it that they were accusing you of anything either.

Thank you.

Um this Elkhorn point at Heartland, are those town homes?

Yeah, they're attached to homes.

So they're not the same thing.

They're individually not the same thing.

Okay.

The portfolio sale, it's individually parceled.

That's why it's the low end of the house.

Right, but that's attached housing.

It's not single family housing.

It's attached housing.

I'm not trying to be rude, but our our goal here is apples to apples.

Yes, which the other two sales then would be apples to apples.

Also, one more thing, Mr.

Chair.

Um I just want to put on record that um last year we did bring portfolio sales to this board, and it did include DR Horton, um, shadow base sale that Mr.

Churchfield's referencing.

And for that particular tax year, our total uh total taxable value was below that total sale this year it exceeds members of the board.

I have a question.

Um the assessor.

It's been stated that they can't be sold off because there's no a they can't get an HOA.

Could you address that?

Um last year, um, not this particular case, but another similar, very similar case.

Um they they said had the same argument that they could not um develop in an hoa community because they were um a gated community, so there was I guess some difficulty with that.

Um when I did speak with the HOA coordinator, she said, you know, I I think the it was approximately $10,000 could create a an HOA.

Um I'm not sure exactly as far as Mr.

Churchfield's uh argument as far as why this particular community can't create an HOA, but we did have a similar issue with um another community not having an HOA.

But if you're an individual parcel, must you be in an HOA to be sold?

Only only if it's gated, it's a gated community, which this is not so then an HOA would not be required to be sold off, not as far as we know.

Or the D8 office can take that much.

Yeah, you do not have to be in an HOA to sell a piece of property in Nevada.

We formed them.

I I would further state because I recently did an appraisal on this.

You you can have C C and Rs without an HOA.

So you could still have design guidelines and rules, and often those things are consistent with what's just required in general zoning requirements, so you don't have to have the HOA to have design guidelines or um maintenance or whatever.

So I have a question for Mr.

Churchill.

Um do you dispute any of the the individual values, the comparable data on the individual unit types?

Did you bring any comparable data that you could show us?

We've brought it in the past, and the issue that we run into is every year on allocation, we don't know the upgrades of those sales.

We don't know to the level of each of those.

And again, I got the packets this morning.

So to be able to go through that and and pick out each individual house, it changes every year based on sales because they're using one-off houses.

So again, it could be three houses with full upgrades, it could be three houses with minimal, or it could be three houses in the middle.

So we don't know based on that.

So that's why I defer to the portfolio sales since they brought it in their packet last year.

Well, it just seems to me, I mean, based up on the testimony we've heard here this morning that they can't value it as a portfolio.

I mean uh they can apply obsolescence to bring it below to bring it to the portfolio level.

That's what we're asking.

And I don't think there's I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, I think it's a district attorney question, but they should be able to provide obsolescence until we were to sell it as one-offs.

They're on annual reappraisal.

To me, that's your best methodology since we're both dealing with ongoing expenses that we can't get rid of.

We've tried the subdivision discount road, but again, we lease up and they classify that as essentially being absorbed.

But the way we look at that is it's different than a builder, and that's more of a legislative thing because a builder's made whole on that sale.

We're not the tenant could break the lease in six months, so that's why we don't even apply for the sub-discount anymore.

We worked that through with Karen.

We tried that approach, really wanted to go down that road, but the law clearly states on it, and they're right that absorption is either a sale or a rent, which I again that's so it would be a functional or an external obsolescence.

What could it be economic obsolescence to bring it below uh to bring it down to the DR Horton Shadow Bay sale, which is 411,000, which again, Mr.

Payne said he brought the value down to that last year.

This year, those sales are exceeding it.

Um, you guys had the the values last year were below the sale price, the portfolio sale price of that.

They had obsolescence on Shadow Bay.

I don't know if the obsolescence still exists today on that to keep it at the 411, but on all those parcels, economic obsolescence was applied.

But but how do you measure that?

I guess I'm is what I'm asking.

You're just saying economic obsolescence, you got management and all these other what happens if you owned a single residence and you were renting it.

Would you still have would you would you still have obsolescence on that resident?

We do not look at those the same, and we have never brought off our one-offs to this board because again, those are different.

We've in those neighborhoods we have to become part of the HOA because we're not the full entire owner.

So again, we've never burdened this board with that.

That's a very different thing because to the boards to the board and to the assessor's point, we can sell those houses individually, and we have sometimes on those.

With these, that's where we're just asking for the obsolescence level.

If it's at we'll use round numbers, let's say the assessments at 425,000 on Shadow Bay or any of these, and that's what the income is indicating.

And if we're at 475, we would just apply economic obsolescence for one year in the amount of 50,000 to bring that to the portfolio market value, just to show that there's that's acknowledgement of what these things sell for that takes into account our ongoing expenses that aren't going away anytime soon, and then if they do sell the next year individually, they can pull it off.

That that obsolescence, Melody Garfield for the record, that obsolescence then is treating that property differently because of the type of ownership and what it's used for, and that's where we talk about the uniformity clause.

If we're gonna give them some sort of discount on the properties because they rent them and they own them all, what about the subdivision next door where we have individual owners and their homes are very similar, and they're not getting this this obsolescence, and and why should they?

Because they're also individually parceled, just as these are, and so that's our argument.

It's creating a dual type, two types of assessment, and we're following the law.

If it's individually parceled, we're valuing it as an individual parcel.

So as it's uniform and equitable for you know all homeowners, no matter who owns it or how many they own.

So I think we're kind of going round and round on this.

So you're talking about a bulk sale, a sale to one owner, one economic and and you've clearly stated that's that's not how it's done.

Shadow Bay, they brought it, it was a bulk sale.

But shadow base sold as a bulk sale.

Correct.

The assessor is not valuing your property as a bulk property.

They're valuing individual parcels.

That is their mandate.

That's what they're required to do.

Okay.

But they had obsolescence.

But they're obsolete, but the obsolescence you're claiming is an economic obsolescence because you're operating it as a rental property as a bulk rental property.

So uh go back to the sales comp question that you asked.

Can you show me?

Because we're talking about blue vista right now.

Where is the comparable sales analysis table for blue Vista?

What page is that on?

Sure, one second.

That begins on page 189.

Because I I mean, I think that you know we've talked about comparable sales, and you've mentioned there may be options and upgrades, which I agree.

There's options and upgrades.

So let's take a look.

And my confusion's coming in because they applied economic obsolescence to Shadow Bay that brought it below the portfolio sale.

So I go that that's where my misunderstanding comes in is if they were willing to apply obsolescence to that to bring it below the portfolio sale.

That that's why I keep bringing this up.

Is there was economic obsolescence on Shadow Bay?

I don't know if it's been removed or not, but the year that thing sold, it was below that sale based on economic obsolescence.

So I'll let them I'll let them address that.

Perfect, thank you.

But for blue vista, let's say.

Okay, so we're on page 189.

Um so the indicated value, the the adjusted value indicated was 475,000.

Is that right for this first one?

Correct.

Okay, and you recommend 426,000.

That's our total taxable value.

Okay, so you've got about a $50,000 delta, which I think in this product type home is a fair representation of maybe what depreciated options or upgrades may have been.

It's hard to say.

Usually in this product type, it's things like flooring in cabinets, brand new, they may do 50,000, 70,000 on a percentage basis.

It may be 10 to 15 percent of the home price.

So it seems like on some level you've accounted for the potential for options and upgrades, because on resale, that's very hard to capture.

You just aren't gonna have that information.

So I I feel like that's been done here.

There's been some consideration for the fact that you're not putting any options or upgrades in your home versus maybe some resales did have options and upgrade.

I don't know what the rest of you think about that, but does that seem seem like a fair deduction or accounting for Mr.

Chair?

Um, can I please just address the um obsolescence on the other neighborhood?

Um that if if those parcels are individually parceled, we we evaluated that for obsolescence based on sales in that neighborhood or sales of similar neighborhoods.

We did not do an obsolescence in that neighborhood based on the bulk lot.

So he's thinking that we brought it down under that bulk lot sale.

That wouldn't have been how we looked at that neighborhood for obsolescence.

We would have looked at that neighborhood like individually parceled homes or townhomes, whatever they are, and looked at comparable neighborhoods to see if there was obsolescence indicated.

That's how we would have looked for obsolescence.

Um and then if I could just please um on page 248, if I could just read you the conclusion of the Nevada Supreme Court decision.

Um starts with conclusion.

We conclude that Montaug failed to demonstrate that the state board's decision upholding the assessor's value was unjust and inequitable.

The state board did not apply a fundamentally wrong principle when it found that the subdivision discount applied only to land, nor did the state board apply a fundamentally wrong principle in addressing in assessing the condominiums as individual units and utilizing the sales comparison method to ensure that taxable value did not exceed the full cash value.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying jurisdictional review of the State Board of Equalizations decision.

Well, generally, I mean, under the under the statute and the way that the assessor has to appraise these individual lots, and we don't really have any factual data that would show why the uh individual values for each model type should be lower.

I mean, I I don't really see where we're going with this.

I can't see any justification for your your obsolescence based on a portfolio analysis.

Somebody want to make a motion.

Based on the information provided and testimony, uh information testimony provided, then I would uh move that the assessor valuation does not exceed full cash value.

Your roles that motion passes.

You do have the right to appeal.

Forms are outside the door.

Next case is uh case number 30, AMHNB 14 development LLC.

And if you remember from prior years, on every case, I do need you to state your name and address for the record.

No problem.

Mike Churchfield, uh AMH 9585 prototype court suite B.

Um the only other thing is there's a couple stipulations hanging out there, so we would like to sign off on those stipulations.

Uh I'm not sure which hearings those affect offhand.

You're not sure what case numbers.

I I saw them on Friday, right?

As I was flying out.

Okay.

Do you know which ones you want to?

They they can tell you which steps there are.

Okay.

Are you looking for all of it the remaining of your cases or just certain cases?

The one whatever the steps would be one of the cases.

Okay, yeah, I'm not sure which cases those are.

We'll have to find out from them.

So would I would we refer to these?

Okay.

I'm not sure which cases those were.

We can do it as a perfect.

Thank you, guys.

Mr.

Payne, please introduce the case.

All right, Marquise Payne for the Clark County Assessors Office.

Uh case 30 is going to begin on page 330 of the addendum.

Um, this appeal is for the 2627 secured rule.

The subject of this appeal is a 49 lot subdivision owned by AMH Nevada 14 development LLC.

Um, subdivision is named Cactus Cove and is located at the intersection of Cactus Avenue and Tory Pines Drive in the Southwest Valley.

Uh lots are zoned for RS 3.3, which is a residential single family uh zoning.

The subdivision consists of two-story single-family residences with three different floor plans ranging between 2,040 square feet to 2,395 square feet.

Uh the development is a rental community in which the appellant purchased two vacant lots, combined them into one, and then individually parceled the lots.

A vicinity map showing the approximate location of the subject can be found on page 345 and a photo addendum showing the subject at the time of purchase and the current development can be found on page 346.

The total taxable value of all 49 parcels is 23 million five hundred and sixty thousand seventy dollars.

Individual parcel values range between approximately 461,000 and 505,000.

The assessor recommends no change to the 26, 27 total taxable value.

Mr.

Kirchfield, we stand our previously submitted record, it's the same arguments or incorporate all testimony from case 27 into this to end of this case as well.

Yes.

Did you have any any new data to present for this one or no?

Okay.

Mr.

Payne.

All right.

So if we can adopt our opening statement from case 27, also adopt the testimony regarding the rulings from the state of Nevada.

I'm sorry, state of North Carolina's Board of Equalization case as well as the Nevada Supreme Court case.

If we can also incorporate our testimony from case 27 regarding how we value land, and um the three comparable neighborhoods that we use for this particular neighborhood can be found on page 349 and 351.

Neighborhood 3142.79 is the most comparable to the subjects age and lot size and quality class with a median value of 120,000.

Um the second comp used for this also has a median land value of 120,000.

And the third neighborhood, 3142.64 has a median land value of 115,000.

The base lot value for our subjects uh 2627 secured role is 105,000.

Uh therefore uh we have determined our base lot value does not exceed market value.

If also if I can also uh adopt our uh testimony from case 27 regarding uh market adjustment and how we look at uh neighborhood obsolescence.

I would also like to adopt the testimony from case 27 regarding subdivision discount analysis.

Um now I'll look at the full cash value of each individual model in this community, and that begins on page 352.

So the first model here, um again, here's 10 comparable neighborhoods all within one mile.

Adjustments were made for living square footage and age.

And um, based on these comps, our indicated value is 100 and I'm sorry, 522,000.

The recommended value, which our which is our um total taxable value is approximately 461,000.

Um, therefore, we are not exceeding market value for this model.

The second model is on page 356, indicating a value of 524,000.

Um, our recommended value is 474,000 approximately, again, not exceeding market value.

Uh, the third model for this community is found on page 360, indicating a value of 549,000.

Our taxable value is approximately 55,000, again, not exceeding market value.

Um, the GRM analysis uh can be found on page 364.

Again, here's uh comparable uh properties that were purchased within the last two years and rented within one or two years of that purchase, and it's coming up with a median GRM of 17.

On the next page, 365, we've applied that GRM of 17.

And if you compare that column to the blue column, the total taxable value, you can see that the GRM values are all higher than our total taxable value.

Also, if we use the low-end GRM of 16, again, uh, those values are higher than our total taxable value.

So, again, using a GRM analysis, we are not exceeding market value.

And uh, Ms.

Melley Garfield, if you want to go over your your cap summary here.

If you'd like me to go over that again, it's similar to case 27.

Again, we don't think this is the appropriate way to value the property, but we did complete a cap summary.

We were not provided rents for the property, so I used market rents, and I use the exact same uh percentage for vacancy loss expenses and the cap rate.

And this one here, we are imputed value per unit on an average is about 480,000.

And using the 5% cap rate and those expenses that we talked about before uh indicated value of about 490, um, which you know we could see the range of values using the sales comparison approach, it supports that.

So, again, we don't approve of this method for valuing it on a bulk basis like that, but um, this cap summary does in fact also support the um value that we have on the individual parcels anything else.

Yeah, I just want to adopt our our closing um from case 27 as well into this case.

Thank you.

Any rebuttal, sir?

The only thing that I'd say is they were the assistors office was provided with full financials from us.

So again, what I know the board doesn't really you guys aren't deciding on this, but again, the reason we're here is in northern Nevada, we get a discount.

This is a state taxation system.

So from what I'm hearing, they're saying that the northern Nevada assessor is wrong in what they're doing, which we disagree with.

It's Nevada State taxation system.

Well, of course, you're gonna disagree.

It benefits you.

Well, no, it's when we run an income approach, we have ongoing expenses that cost a lot.

That's a fact.

I can't disputing that.

And you know, on our income approach, again, our values are indicating anywhere from 380 to 400,000 dollars, which is where the portfolio sales sell.

So again, you think I might be benefiting or something.

It's we're looking at this going, we have ongoing expenses.

It's not going to change.

When we sell that house, they're on re the annual reappraisal.

We're just asking for some acknowledgement for the fact we do have ongoing expenses, and it's like, well, that's your choice.

Well, it's our business model.

And for what it's worth, it is what it is.

And I wouldn't be coming to this board every year for no reason.

It takes a lot of my time, energy, effort to come down here, and I believe I treat this board very professionally, treat this office very professionally.

And again, I'm just asking for the same in exchange to be heard out for the fact that I wouldn't be coming if Northern Nevada did it differently.

I mean, I'm seeing two differences in value, and it's like from my perspective, as a guy that worked in the assessor's office, I believe economic obsolescence can it can be applied.

And it was applied to numerous individually parceled communities in northern Nevada where income expense showed that it should be reduced.

And when they started to sell those as one-offs later on, they rolled that off because they're on annual reappraisal and taxed it accordingly.

And we're just asking for a little relief.

That's it.

We're we're going off of the case law, but it's provided to us.

We really don't have much choice here.

I disagree with that.

I have a question.

Um why parcel them to begin with?

That's a great question.

Um we when the company was founded, it's it's been an ongoing.

I think we're kind of in a self-identity mode.

The way AMH started is we bought 55,000 homes on the auction block.

The model was very simple.

We were it was in the 2011 realm.

And what happened was the investors were going, oh my gosh, the maintenance bills are going crazy because there's no standardization of product.

So they brought in a bunch of Pulty guys that just knew how to build subdivisions.

They didn't think it through.

They didn't bring in multifamily tax people at the time when they started it.

Now we're looking at potentially changing our model to do this, but we're kind of going, well, it seems a little ridiculous.

I used to, I came from multifamily construction.

I individually parceled multifamily units in northern Nevada, which we were never taxed for.

Where those were looked at as multifamily.

Um it was just a decision.

We did not expect the ramifications, but it's something we're greatly looking at potentially maybe changing for this reason.

Have you thought about combining the parcels?

Yes.

Yes.

That might be Stephanie Jones with the Clark County Assessor's Office.

I was just looking up the zoning on these parcels.

If you'll just give me a moment, or maybe Mr.

Payne knows what the zoning is.

Um3.3, which is a residential single family zoning.

So Mr.

Payne went down to the zoning department and talked to them about this.

And um it was on a different case, but the zoning, I think, would apply for this.

Um they couldn't build multifamily on this, so they couldn't build this subdivision on one parcel because it's zoned for single family.

So they would, in order to build this product, they have to parcel them because it cannot be multifamily.

They cannot build how many of our single family properties on one parcel per the zoning.

I guess my question about that is is that an issue of how you operate it, or is that an issue of density?

Because typically when we think of multi-family, we think of high density.

So is it that it was a density issue, or are you absolutely required to have a single parcel for a single family detached home?

I believe, and Mr.

Payne can maybe speak to this again.

I uh it wasn't on this particular property, but it's still the same thing probably applies.

So I'll let him speak.

Yeah, from what I remember, I I don't believe it was a density issue.

It was just um just zoning regulation and and guidelines for that particular um zoning.

So it would seem to me like that's certainly something if I were you, I would look into.

I mean, if that seems to be the rub here, right?

Single parcel, multiple.

Okay, but also I'm a little curious about this northern Nevada Southern Nevada thing.

So can anybody explain that to me?

I can bring up a property and show you guys it's being looked at as multifamily.

I know it, I built it, and again, it's totally individually parceled, but the thing can sell for that, so it's being a little bit more.

Well, I'd like to understand.

I'd like to understand if you need the address though, I'd have to.

I don't know that we can speak to how Washo, if that's what you're referring to, how Washo um I think they have two or three of these communities in Washow in Carson.

Um Carson, okay.

Um, not we can't speak to how they looked at these for obsolescence or anything like that.

Maybe they, you know, uh we don't know how they looked at them for obsolescence.

We feel like the way that we're valuing them based on NRS 36127 um number two.

We don't, I don't we can't speak to how Washo looked at these.

Maybe they applied obsolescence, but maybe they applied obsolescence the same way we looked for obsolescence, where we looked at neighboring communities.

Um some of these neighborhoods have received obsolescence in the past based on neighboring communities, what they're selling for, um similar homes, similar neighborhoods where obsolescence was indicated, we would have applied obsolescence to this neighborhood if that's what the evaluation showed for that particular fiscal year.

Uh that's how we looked at it.

I can't speak how Washa looked at it.

Maybe they looked at it the same way, and it did indicate obsolescence.

I I don't know.

And and you haven't challenged this.

I I know exactly how it was done.

But I mean, I I I don't want to I don't mean to be rude, and I understand what you're saying.

I don't want to get into a whole lot of stuff that about a case that we don't know in a property.

Very simple.

But I guess my question is if if if you have a confusion about that, which I understand, why why has this not been like escalated?

Like, I've never been able to meet with the assessor here.

I meet with the No, no, I mean like okay, so the assessment.

I met with Sarmon and uh on Thursday and talked about it.

No, no, I don't mean that.

I'm sorry, I and I'm not trying to interrupt you.

Okay, so we've got the Clark County who says, look, we're doing this because this is what's required.

Yes.

And we don't apply economic obsolescence because of the way that you're operating the property, and and for all of us here, that makes perfect sense.

You're saying that there is another county within Nevada that it operates under the exact same rules that is giving you economic obsolescence for single ownership.

And my question would be have you have you escalated this?

I mean, I would like if that was me, maybe I'd be challenging this.

I wonder if which side would be correct.

I don't know, but it seems to me like there's more to be discussed that's beyond this board right now.

I we have these cases have gone, were appealed um, I believe the last two years to the State Board of Equalization.

However, they were either withdrawn or not heard at the state board of the petitioner wasn't present.

I I'm not sure, maybe they were withdrawn beforehand.

Um, but they they were appealed to the State Board of Equalization, but they were not heard for before the State Board of Equality.

If I thought that that was precedence that should be set everywhere, I would probably be pursuing it.

I I don't know, but we waited so I can explain that.

Um and I have it right here.

So the what they did in Washo, I pulled it up on my phone.

I pulled up the property.

It says minus 10% rental subdivision discount, because it's a portfolio.

So what the assessor in Northern Nevada did, we had two DR Horton communities, very similar to Shadow Bay down here.

What for sale one-offs, portfolio sale.

They they went, okay, the one-offs were at 440 average sale price.

The portfolio was at 400, so we see 10% difference for the portfolio, so they applied that as a 10% deduction off the land.

I understand what you're saying.

For us sitting up here, it would appear without knowing specifics, and I don't want to get in trouble, but that they've applied an economic obsolescence as a bulk discount because of the way that you're operating the property.

Yes.

Which, from what I'm understanding, is not the way it's supposed to be done.

But that would not be for me to make a final decision on.

So yeah.

Um Chairman Farr to Miss Slatch.

Um it it sounds like they applied a subdivision discount, which in that instance, that neighborhood might have qualified for that, because you just said that they applied it to the land.

In this instance, we're not in a situation where we can apply a subdivision discount to the land of according to the testimony because it's fully rented out, and that's what the discount permits.

As it's absorbed into the leasing out phase, then they can apply the discount, but we're fully absorbed as far as renting out these communities.

So it's a distinctively different scenario than what he's coming to here.

It sounds like that's not true.

Um, and just to answer your question, if this does go to the state board and and and they do argue that position, um, and there is some kind of difference.

I imagine it's all gonna get played out in court at some point in time.

Um, and so I just wanted the board to know that, but it has to get played out, and they have to show up at the state board and all of those things have to happen if there are considerations.

That's kind of my thought here.

I I I feel like you're bringing up this precedence.

It it it would be something that now you all need to take on here.

We agree to do something else.

That have been heard, and just to I want to I want to really stress this point, it is not a subdivision discount that's being applied.

They gave us a new classification called a rental subdivision, which is right here on my phone, which I can show all you guys, but again, it does not matter.

It's it's I'm merely saying it was not a subdiscount, it was its own unique classification because of exactly what I said, where you had the four sales next to the DR portfolio, same very similar houses, one with options, one not, and they made that distinction.

And I believe that this year uh we haven't taken it because we were finding quality class the last couple years.

Uh we didn't know which way to fight it.

We've tried to meet with these folks.

And again, I I have yet to meet the assessor here.

So again, I think this and following through with the state board is our next remedy, and this is the year to do it.

So Melody Garfield for the assessor, I'm sorry.

I just want to point out that um in the appeal process, the board also has the discretion to raise values.

So a lot of times maybe a challenge doesn't want to be made because maybe he'll lose the subdivision discount in in Washoe County.

I mean, that's I'm just saying that's a possibility.

That's not it.

But here, um I just wanna again stress that our market values are significantly higher than what we have appraised these properties for.

So you're talking about maybe economic obsolescence or maybe you know, that that sort of a thing.

And even though it's not specifically applied as an economic obsolescence, our values, our taxable values based on Marshall and Swift are significantly lower than what we determine market values are if these properties were sold individually.

So I just wanna be clear on that.

And uh Stephanie Jones with the Clark County Assessors Office.

I just want to point out that in here in Clark County, we're valuing these properties per NRS 361.227.

Um in subsection two, the unit of appraisal must be a single parcel unless the parcel is subsection B.

The parcel is one of a group of contiguous parcels which qualifies for valuation as a subdivision pursuant to the regulations.

Um a c 361-129 and 1295 guide us in how to do that in order to be a qualified subdivision.

Um the absorption period needs to be more than one year from the build year.

So that would be July 1st of 2026.

Um it would be absorbed, and these these subdivisions are all leased, so they've already been absorbed.

So they don't, they're not even a qualified subdivision to even look at to see if they get a subdivision discount.

Once they're absorbed, they're absorbed, and they're no longer a qualified subdivision.

So that's how we're valuing them.

We're looking at these again as single family homes.

We're looking at obsolescence that way, the same as we would do for any neighboring subdivision, um, despite ownership.

I mean, there's lots of people out there that own lots that maybe hundreds, maybe more, homes, and we don't value those homes any different because they're owned by ABC Um LLC.

We we look at them like all of the other single family homes.

Just wanted to put that on record.

Can I have a motion?

Are we there yet?

Uh I I uh motioned that based on the uh NRC uh requirements and the um data presented by the assessor that the assessed values do not exceed full cash value.

Motion's been made.

Please cast your votes.

That motion passes again.

You have the right to appeal.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I found the page numbers for the three other parts, the three other um cases that he wanted to stipulate.

We have a stipulation in the cases, so okay.

I'm not sure maybe you don't have to hear them.

Uh Ms.

Widener can maybe uh help me.

Um you might just vote on those at the end because the stipulations are in the cases.

So I'm not sure.

Right, but if you can tell me what they are so that I don't call yep, pages uh page 14 case 38 uh page 17 case 26 and page 23, case 41.

Petitioner is in agreement with those for the record.

The um stipulations.

I'm sorry, what was that?

I said the petitioner is in agreement with those stipulations just for the board's edification.

Okay, so then the next case we have is case 47.

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

Mike Churchfield AMH development 9585 prototype court suite B, Reno Nevada 89521.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Payne.

Marquis Spain for the Clark County Assessors Office.

That this case will begin on page 966 of the addendum.

This appeal is for the 2627 secured rule.

The subject of this appeal is a 15-lot subdivision owned by AMH Nevada 15 development LLC.

Subdivision is named Citrus Vista East, located at the intersection of Chartan and South Buffalo Drive in the Southwest Valley.

Lots are zoned for RS 3.3, which is also a residential single family zoning.

The subdivision consists of two-story single family residences with four different floor plans ranging between 2,040 square feet and 2,395 square feet.

The development is a rental community in which the appellant purchased a 1.89 acre vacant lot and then individually parceled the lots.

A vicinity map showing the approximate location of the subject can be found on page 981, and a photo addendum showing the subject at the time of purchase and the current development can be found on page 982.

Total taxable value of all 15 parcels is 7,378,309, and individual parcel values range between approximately 474,000 and 518,000.

The assessor is recommending no change to the 2627 total taxable value.

Is that it was in reference to the last one.

The reason we did not go to state boards is not because of a punitive reason of going to increase our value as stated before this board before.

We were here for quality class the last couple years.

We now have Carson County.

So that's why we brought these appeals before this board this year specifically on the income approach because we are receiving portfolio discounts in two counties and not southern Nevada.

So that's it.

I would like to adopt our opening statement from case 27.

I would also like to adopt our testimony regarding the North Carolina State Board of Equalizations rulings and the Nevada Supreme Court ruling.

And the three comparable neighborhoods that were used for this community are found on page 985 through 987.

Comparables three for neighborhoods 3142.79 and 3142.75 being the most comparable to our neighborhoods, age, lot size, and quality class.

Both have a median land value of 120,000.

The third neighborhood that we use has a median land value of 125,000.

And the base lot value for this neighborhood for our 2627 secured role is 110,000.

Therefore, not exceeding market value.

And also regarding the subdivision discount analysis.

And for this first model, the Arches model, again, our um comparables within two miles are indicating a value of 525,000, and our recommended value, which is our total taxable value, is approximately 475,000.

So not exceeding market value.

And our taxable value showing 475,000 approximately.

So not exceeding value for that model.

Third model is found on page 996, showing the indicated value of 540,000, with our total taxable value at approximately 518,000.

So not exceeding market value on that one as well.

And again, these are comparables that were sold within the last two years and rented within a year and a half of that purchase.

These sales indicate a GRM of rounding up to 18.

So on the next page, when we apply that GRM to the single family residences in this community, that green column there under GRM 18 will show those applied values.

And if you compare that to our total taxable value in that blue column, you can see that the GRM values are higher.

Also using that low NGRM of 17, those values are also higher than our total taxable value.

And Ms.

Melody Garfield will speak on the CAP summary.

Again, if you want me to talk about it, it's in the case on page 1002.

Again, we use the rents that we found from the website, market rents that we could find for these properties.

We have a total income of about 482,000 potential gross income.

We use the same percentages, 5% on vacancy, 10% for other income, and 25% expense ratio, which works out to about $8,400 a year per unit.

So we had a about $375,000 is our net operating income.

Again, we use the 5% cap rate.

And our value on average for each of the homes in there is about 490.

And using this income approach with these numbers, it ends up being closer to 55,000.

So again, the income approach using this method does support our valuation.

Again, we don't think this is the appropriate method to appraise these properties.

And lastly, if we can adopt our closing uh statement from case 27 into this case.

They were provided with actuals, so they could use the actual income expenses on it and the cap rate of the 575s were asking.

We did run it at 5.5 and provided that to the assessor.

Thank you.

Members of the board.

Motion for May, please catch your votes.

That motion passes.

Again, sir, you do have the right to appeal.

Thank you.

Case 48, AMHNB 15 development LLC.

Name and address for the record.

Mike Churchfield, EMH development 9585 prototype court suite B, Reno Nevada 89521.

Marquis Spain for the Clark County Assessor's Office.

Case 48 is going to begin on page 1082 of the addendum.

The only difference between this case and the others that we heard is this particular case, the appeal is for the 26, I'm sorry, 2526 supplemental role.

So only the improvements are going to be appealable on this one, not the land.

And this is located at the intersection of Chartan and South Buffalo Drive in the Southwest Valley.

The lots are also zoned for RS3.3, which again is a residential single family zoning.

The subdivision consists of two-story single family residences with four different floor plans ranging between 2,040 square feet and 2,395 square feet.

The development is a rental community in which the appellant purchased a 1.89 acre vacant lot and then individually parceled the lots.

A vicinity map showing the approximate location is found on page 1,097 with a photo addendum showing the subject at the time of purchase and the current development on page 1098.

The total supplemental value of all 15 parcels is 5,422,466.

The individual parcel supplemental values range between 345,000 and 386,000.

The assessor is recommending no change to the 2526 supplemental value.

Mr.

Field.

And on our previous record, thank you.

If I can adopt all testimony from case 27 and to this case, and again, this is just for um supplemental, so improvement values only.

The 10 comparable sales for the individual model in this community begin on page 1101.

And the first model, which is the arches, is what we're uh analyzing here.

So we have 10 comparable sales all with uh located within two miles of the subject, indicating a value of 514,000, and our recommended value, which is the total taxable value, is approximately 460,000.

So not exceeding market value.

Move moving along to the second model, which is the big bin model, can be found on page 1105.

Our comparable sales and indicates a value of 517,000, with our total taxable value being 461,000 approximately, so not exceeding market value.

The third model, which is the Black Mountain model, can be found on page 1109, indicating a value of 521,000.

Our total taxable value is approximately 501,000, so not exceeding there.

And these are comparables.

Um purchased within the last two years and rented within one year of that purchase.

Um these sales indicate a median GRM of 18.

On the next page, we're applying that GRM to the pro the properties in this AMH community.

The middle green column there, you can see our applied values using the GRM of 18.

And if you compare that to our total taxable value column there in blue, you can see that the GRM values are all higher.

Also, when using that lower in GRM of 17, those values are also higher than our total taxable value.

So not exceeding market value using our GRM analysis.

Melody Garfield for the assessor's office.

We also did an apartment cap summary on this property, and that's on page 1115.

Uh it is only 15 homes.

Uh we used market rents and the same percentages for vacancy, other income and expenses.

The expenses again were um 800 uh, I mean 8,000 per home.

We ended up with a net operating income of about 379,000 with a 5% cap rate.

That gives us an indicated value per unit of over 500,000, where our average um imputed value based on our taxable values is only about 476.

So again, we um do not exceed market value even with this approach, and again, we place no weight on this approach and do not feel it's appropriate for these properties.

Any rebuttal, sir?

The only rebuttal I have, and I'll just kind of put on record here since we keep hearing their put what they're putting on record is we have sales here.

The assessors used portfolio sales last year in the packet, they are using multifamily cap rates, and there is portfolio sales with cap rates that probably should be applied if we're gonna look at this.

It feels like the assessors using cap rates that are in their favor uh versus the 5.75 at Elkhorn Point.

That was they can find that data, they have that data.

Um, and then again the income and expense using a five five percent cap rate when we've also submitted our actual income and expense.

Why don't we test it with our actual income expense at 575?

Again, that's all we're asking, and again, we still have not heard testimony as to why we have uh tracked home neighborhoods that have variations of a million dollar swings, and those quality classes are not being changed.

So it just seems like they do not want to hear about ongoing expenses or anything that pertains to some sort of reduction when we still are dealing with this always gonna be dealing with ongoing expenses per cap rates for relative when you're speaking.

Always going to be dealing with ongoing expenses per cap rates or relative.

When you're speaking, can you please um be closer to the microphone?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Yes.

Have uh were the actuals provided and were they analyzed?

In some of the cases, the actuals were provided, and they're in the cases.

Um I don't know if they are in this case.

Um, with regard to my cap rates, there um they provided us a one-page income analysis on page 1090.

We provided income and expense on all of them.

And then there's a statement that they provided, um, a 12-month statement following that.

And as regarding um cap rates, if I I was looking at apartment sales, um, and we do have really solid um evidence for 5% for apartment sales, which is how I filled out the apartment cap summary.

Again, I don't think that's an appropriate analysis, but um the support also for the cap rates is on page 1117 for the Pacific region.

We have overall cap rates uh 4.5 to 6.5 with an average of 5.3.

Um the next page 1118, the viewpoint has going in cap rate comparisons for multifamily.

Again, I don't think this is multifamily.

That's not how we're appraising it, but um I looked at it uh as uh an apartment because that's how they want us to look at it again.

I don't think it's appropriate, but you can see the going in cap rates there range from five to five point six three, um, depending on the class for the cap rates.

So that's that's the support for my cap rates.

So in regard to cap rate, and again, maybe you just say this to say it so it's on the record is cap rates reflect a lot of things income, vacancy, expenses change.

I would expect a cap rate for a single family home to be different than a multifamily where there is no potential for upside or sale.

So I mean, in in that sense, I'm not sure that multi-family cap rates, true multi-family cap rates are applicable when you're looking at a single family home rental cap rate.

Again, we're not I'm not looking at it as a bulk.

I'm looking at it as these are single homes, right?

So single, like that's why they use the gross income multiplier.

But if you were to apply a cap rate to a single family home that you're renting, your cap rate for that single family home is gonna be different than a cap rate you would apply to a 200 unit multifamily project.

So the whole cap rate comparison is problematic.

I I have a question about highest and best use.

And this might sound really stupid, but I mean, you all do you all consider that as well?

Is that part of your okay?

So again, you you're repeatedly saying that as a rental project, these things are worth less.

Yeah, they're selling for less.

We have sales.

They're worth so much less.

So evidence of it.

So the highest and best use would be to have these be sold to single users.

That's not our business model, and again, it's not your business model, but the highest and best use would be the use that renders the highest value.

But this is a value in use state.

We're it's value in use, not highest and best use.

I mean, if you think about that on land, if you had a tourist commercial zoning, are we saying that oh, we can definitely get a casino there, and it may not ever get built out as such?

So again, it's the value of the use of the parcel.

If it's vacant land, it's gonna get comped as vacant land.

In this case, our business model is for rent.

We're looking at the portfolio sales going, it's a 5.75 cap rate on that.

That's the most applicable because it's a DR Horton individually parceled type thing in comparison to multifamily that can get HUD debt, etc.

So again, my understanding of the law has always been value in use.

Are we confusing value and use with business model in this case?

I think I believe we're valuing this in as a single family home, which is what it is and why it's being used for.

It's being rented, but it's still a single family home.

Right.

And that is what's legally permissible.

That's what's legally permissible is a single family property, and that's how we're valuing it.

So I think that's how we're interpreting that.

Well, just real briefly getting back to this, and this probably should be on the record too.

Getting back to the density issue.

You know, the the way the zoning reads now, it's RS 3.3.

That's 3300 foot lots.

It's not it doesn't refer to a density per acre.

That's that's a lot size.

So that brings it back to the single family uh legally permissible use.

Based on the information and testimony provided, I uh motion that the assessor value does not exceed full cash value.

Please catch your vote, and that motion passes.

Next case is 54.

AMHNB development holdings one LLC.

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

Mike Churchfield, AMH development 9585 prototype court, Reno Nevada 89521 in suite B.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Payne.

Marquise Payne for the Clark County Assessor's Office.

Uh this case is going to begin on uh page 1014 of the master book.

Um the subject of this appeal is a 28-lot subdivision owned by AMH Nevada Development Holdings 1, LLC.

Um, the community is named Desert Wind Ranch, and it's located near Windmill and Decatur in the Southwest Valley.

Lots are zoned for RS 3.3, a residential single-family zoning, and the subdivision consists of two-story single-family homes with four different floor plans ranging from 1,602 square feet to 2,213 square feet.

This development is also a rental community in which the appellant purchased a 4.56-acre vacant lot and then individually parceled those lots.

Total taxable value of all 28 parcels is 11,553,411.

And individual parcel values range between approximately 370,000 and 440,000.

The assessor is recommending no change to the 2627 total taxable value.

We stand our previously submitted record.

Incorporating previous testimony.

Yes, thank you, sir.

Okay.

All right.

I'm also going to adopt our testimony from case 27.

The neighborhood comparables that we use to assess the land can be found on page 1032.

And neighborhoods 3132.78 and 3132.48 being the most comparable to our subject's neighborhood.

Um both indicating a median land value of 120,000.

Our third neighborhood used has a median land value of 115,000, with our base lot value for the 2627 secured roll being at 105,000.

So again, not exceeding market value.

The comps for the individual models begin on page 1035.

Um the first model, Bryce Canyon 3.

Also does not endicate.

I'm sorry, um, indicates a value of 471,000 based on these 10 comparable sales within two miles of the subject.

Our total taxable value is approximately 370,000.

So not exceeding market value on that first model.

The next model is going to be the American Samoa 3 model, indicating a value of 486,000, with our total taxable value being at approximately 394,000.

So not exceeding value there.

Fourth model, which is the big bin four, can be found on page 1047.

Indicates a value of 528,000, with our total taxable value being on at approximately 440,000.

So not exceeding value.

RG, our M analysis for this neighborhood is found on page 1051.

With um, these are our comps that were sold within two years, and rented within one and a half year of that purchase.

And it indicates a median GRM of 18.

On the next page, you can see where we applied that GRM to all the properties in this AMH neighborhood.

And if you compare that with our total taxable value column, you can see that the GRM applied value are all higher.

Also using that lower end GRM of 17, uh, those values are also higher than our total taxable value, so not exceeding market value using a GRM analysis, and Melody's here to testify regarding the cap summary.

Again, on the cap summary, we used market rents and the same percentages, 5% for vacancy, 10% other income, and 25% expenses, which works out to about 7600 a unit for expenses.

The indicated value per unit is almost 458,000, and our average imputed value per unit is about 512,000.

Um as you can see, we we don't again believe this is the appropriate way to value it.

Uh the GRM indicates the values are between 486 and 550,000 and sales comparison uh recommends 471 to about 528, where our actual values again are so far below what the market is indicating, uh 370 to 440.

So again, we absolutely recommend no reduction and place no weight on this apartment capitalization summary.

And if we can just uh adopt the our closing statement from case 27.

Any rebuttal, sir?

Any comments from the board.

I'll make a motion that the uh assessors taxable values do not exceed market value in this case.

Motions remain, please cast your votes, and that motion passes.

We have like 27 more cases with you.

Is there any way we can combine these?

That's what I asked for this morning.

I asked for you guys to consolidate it, and then you indicated you couldn't.

I am fully in agreement with consolidating these down.

So hopefully you can help me.

Yeah, I feel like the issues are the same in all of them.

I mean, each have their own particular models with their own, you know, their own um direct sales comparison approaches in there.

Um not sure.

Um Ms.

Widener, would that appropriate or oh I think it's okay to combine them?

Um I guess uh if we could just point out there, I guess there are differences if maybe Marquise could speak to just the minimal differences.

He doesn't have to go into the detail of each comparable sale, um, but we could just say these are the differences on each one, and we could make a vote.

I mean, they're all they're all around the valley, so there might be different comps, different GRMs, but the analysis itself is the same.

So let Mr.

Payne and all of them support our our value.

Okay.

So we're gonna combine cases 58, 62, 63, 71, 76, 77, 51, 75, 29, 57, 25, 78, 38.

Actually, 38 was withdrawn, 53, 60, 67, 70, 45, 55, 56, 68, 69, 72, 73, 34, 41 was withdrawn, 44, and yeah, 44 is that last one.

44.

And yeah, 44 is that last one.

So those are all going to be combined.

Do you have any that jump out as as very different or are these pretty homogenous?

Um there are a couple that are supplemental.

Um case 63 is a supplemental appeal.

Case 76 is a supplemental appeal.

And yeah, the rest are secured and the same as the other cases that we heard today.

Okay.

And we just want to make sure all of our testimonies incorporated, not just from the first case, but some of the further discussion we had on some of the following cases.

If we can just incorporate all of that into all these cases.

All of the previous case discussions will be incorporated into the testimony.

All right, Mr.

Payne, do you want to?

How do you want to go about this?

Because the next case would be 58.

58.

But again, we we you know we don't have to go through every single detail.

Yeah, I mean, the only Marcus-specific uh data regarding this specific case would be the uh the model comps and then our GRM analysis and and then the cap summary, everything, every other argument you know you've already heard in previous cases.

So if you want me to go through those, I I can, but all of our all of our analysis supports our our our value.

So do you have any objection to that, sir?

No, I don't know.

After incorporating all the previous testimony, um based on the information provided and testimony uh uh information and testimony provided, it appears that the assessor's office does not exceed full cash value on the remaining cases.

Please cast your votes.

And that motion passes.

Chairman Farr.

Yes.

For the I believe it's the three or four cases that they he they did agree to the stipulation.

Could we just vote on those because the petitioners here are saying they're stipulated?

And the reason why I'm asking for that is because uh we don't have a signed stipulation as far as I know.

It's just his verbal consent to that.

If he's stipulated, then that means they're not appealable to the state, and we need to vote on those individually.

If you vote on them based on the assessor's recommendation on the agenda, then they would be appealable to the state.

So I think we should call those separately and just have him state that he's stipulated, and you can vote on those accordingly.

Okay.

Case 38, AMH 2020 portfolio ZB LLC.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Um Mike Churchfield AMH.

Uh is it possible to consolidate those three?

Because we can I can agree to the stipulations on the three.

Okay, so uh 38.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um38, 26, 41.

38, 26, and 41.

We're combining those.

Mr.

Churchfield's already stated his name and address of the record on 38.

Uh, it is your intent to stipulate to those values, correct?

Yes, it is.

And we will by doing that, we take away our rights to appeal for state on those because we're stipulating to that value.

So we're in full agreement with the assessor.

Very well.

Based on the information provided and the testimony contained by Mr.

Churchfield, uh motion that the assessors not uh that the cases have been stipulated to.

Thank you.

Please will cast your votes.

That one you're not going to be able to appeal.

Or those three.

No problem.

I'm just trying to make sure I'm covered.

That covers us for today, then, sir.

I want to uh take a moment to thank this board and to thank the assessor's office.

I want to thank all you guys.

I know what we're bringing is a very new use.

So appreciate you guys' time over the last couple of years, appreciate all the hard work that goes into this.

You know, um we feel one way, we understand the assessors way, so we just appreciate everybody's time and we appreciate the ability to be heard today.

And um appreciate all the context from the discussions.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Next case is 1129, Fort Apache Town Homes LLC.

Good morning.

I think it's still morning.

Uh Vincent Shetler, uh 9930, West Flamingo, suite 110 with uh on the owner of the property.

I do have some uh handouts for each one of uh that we're required to provide 10 10 copies of the handouts.

So I'd like to give those to you guys now.

Very well, Ms.

Garfield Melody Garfield for the uh assessor's office.

The case begins on page 3452 of the master book.

If you want to look at pictures of the subject property, I put those in the case from CoStar, and they're on page 3484.

The project is known as Serenity Town Town Homes, and it consists of 79 two-story attached townhome parcels built in 2024.

They're in the Southwest Market area near Blue Diamond and Fort Apache.

There are three different floor plans ranging from a thousand fifty-one to sixteen forty-five square feet, and they have two to three bedrooms and one to two car garages.

The assessor recommends no reduction to the 2627 taxable value of 27 million six hundred and thirty-two thousand four hundred and sixty-two, which works out to about three hundred and fifty thousand dollars per unit.

Mr.

Shuttler.

Yes, thank you.

Uh thank you for time today, and I appreciate you uh hearing me out.

Um, yeah, I'll just give you uh a little summary.

Um, this property, I picked this property uh to be uh for a uh full rent, build for rent town home community back in 2020, 2019, 2020.

We entitled it for a full rent gated single uh unit um a uh multifamily uh or townhome con uh community, and um it's been operated as such since then.

Um the uh and we are all attached uh units.

Um so I wanted to bring that up because I want you to understand the the how we got here and and how our property is different from the previous hearings.

Um while we are for rent community, we are intended to be a fore rent community just like American homes for rent.

Um the difference differences really end there.

We are we are traditional multi-family development, we fall under the multifamily code now.

Um, and so I want to just walk you through the history of the project and the requirements of why that we are not a single parcel versus uh individualized parcels.

When we entitled this property, um and uh and and the and the assessor uh acknowledged this back in uh last year when we appealed to the state that that we I was correct when I uh uh correctly argued last year that we um we were required to um individually parcel these properties.

So the code was different in when we when we uh built this community or entitled it back in 2020.

We were required by the staff and by Clark County because Title 30 didn't have a provision for a single parcel for town home communities, um, but it does now.

So they've realized the prod the uh issue in twenty in the beginning of 2024 January, um there was a provision that was changed in Title 30, and the uh and we were actually zoned uh when we we picked this property.

We are actually multi zoned for multifamily entitled for multifamily.

We were required to down zone our property to R2 with the PUD.

So this was a requirement from the county that we do that in order to comply with the product we intended to build, which was townhomes and for rent.

So in order to do that, and again, we're gated and we have private streets, so there's gonna be some differences.

That's why I bring that up.

So um so we actually down zone the property at the request of the staff at the beginning of the of our entitlements.

Currently, and I want to point you guys to the packages that we we um put out is in 2024, January, uh the new Title 30 code went into it into adoption, and they realized the they realized the catch 22 that was coming forward with these build-for-rent communities, and they they allowed for certain densities of developments, namely townhomes specifically, and I emphasize town homes to be developed as a single parcel in the uh multifamily R3 category, which the category is different now.

I think it's RM18.

So my property as built today isn't allowed to be on one single parcel within the Clark County Code today where it wasn't just a couple years ago.

So that's the key difference, and and I wasn't even aware of that last year that the code had changed made that change, but the argument stays the same.

So, and I want to read this out loud.

The definition of multi-family dwelling in section 30.07.02 reads an underline multifamily dwelling, a building containing three or more dwelling units when not meeting the definition of a single family attached dwelling with three or more families living independently, and the units separated by common wall flooring and/or ceiling, townhomes developed on a single lot as permissible by this title shall be entitled in multi-family dwelling emphasis added.

And so this is where we differ uh different uh we we're different from from the previous arguments you've heard from the single family um developments is we're not single family.

We have never been single family, single families allowed up to eight units per acre.

We're we're we're more attuned to the uh multifamily because we're almost I think 11 units per acre.

So um that's where the difference is differences end with um the previous arguments.

So that means today that if my neighbor, this is hypothetical, that if my neighbor had a seven and a half acre parcel and 79 units next door to me and built 79 units, they would be able to to map their properties a single unit, rent them out, and I'd be at complete disadvantage.

My NOI would be lower, their their property taxes would be lower, I'd be harder to compete with them, and that's what's going on.

And um, as commissioner uh farr uh um pointed out in the in one of the last arguments, and I'm not sure if I'm allowed to bring that up or not, but it is part of my my comparable set.

He keenly keyed in on the fact that the comp that was previously talked about is identical to ours.

It's not multi, it's not single family, ours are town homes.

The comp is town homes, the one that was mentioned, and and I'm gonna get to that in a second, but that comp is identical to our product, and so um and continuing on here.

Um we're at a disadvantage against anybody else that's now building um these communities in town.

And so um, and and to point out that the North Las Vegas and Las Vegas um cities, their their zoning requirements are a little bit differently.

They have they have previously allowed this exact concept to be done in their communities, and they're also taxed by the Clark County.

So they are allowed to do single family, I mean, I'm sorry, town home developments within those two cities, those two jurisdictions, just like we wanted to do here, but we're not allowed because the code was different.

If we built this today, we'd be completely in com in compliance with that code.

Um, and for that reason, that's why this board exists, right?

To equalize projects and and to recognize those kind of things.

So I want to point you to to valuation now.

I just want to go into opinion of value.

So I provided the the no change letter that that uh was sent out by the assessor's office.

Um and I want to point you to a spreadsheet that we did to compare our units today versus what they were assessed in pre in our previous year, the uh one year earlier.

Our property taxes went up two percent, almost two percent, 1.9435 or something like that.

When townhomes, it's widely known that prices of houses are falling, not like 2008.

I'm not trying to try to pull pity on it, but um, I want to point you to the article from the Las Vegas Review Journal.

It's not not even two two months old, where it talks about last year's taxable values for townhomes were down 5.2 percent uh community-wide.

Ours are up for taxable values.

I'm not I can't explain that.

Um so we went to the uh the the change this year from last year is I came prepared with a uh broker's opinion of value, which I've also provided.

Um you guys are probably all familiar with Northmark Northmark, they're the largest seller and value valuation consultants for this type of product and multifamily and and products.

They they probably control 30% of all sales, and so we have provided um those comps for you.

And uh and the in the in the comp that that uh is the most relevant, which is the one that's on in Elcorn up to the north uh north is is the most appropriate one, and it is in there.

So what I asked Northmark to do was to eliminate all of the fluff, all the low value, just get rid of all the crap, all the stuff that's aged, focus on the the most recent new construction products so that we can have an apples to apples approach because our property is two years old.

And so um in taking the top eight, the highest eight most recent sales or uh uh completions of projects which are 2021 that have been sold um to 2025, those averages come out to 300,000 per unit, and that includes the comparable sale.

Our taxable value is 350,000.

There's only one sale of those eight that's higher than the 350,000 that the assessor is has put forth against our property.

The Northmark, and so we also gave Northmark, just so you know that were there that we gave them our rent roll.

This was this was just completed not even a month ago.

We gave them our end of the year rent roll and our beginning of the year rent roll.

We gave them our actual operations expenses.

We gave them everything to get a quick um valuation for this project.

So they took into account an income approach to that and applied a cap rate on it.

And so what they came up with was was uh uh and they used our exact our actual net operating income.

This is not hypothetical, this is for real.

And so they applied it and um in their uh broker's opinion of value, came up with a valuation of 300,000 per uh 300 four thousand per unit, I believe.

And again, we're being assessed at 350,000 for tax for uh taxable value.

Um so there was some discussion about the ability to sell these things individually.

We cannot sell these individually.

The county recognized this when they gave us our our first tax assessment.

We've been being taxed as a rental community at 8% from day one, not the 3%.

These are not these are not they they are we are being taxed as one unit.

Every one of our units is being taxed at that 8%.

Um and there was discussion about being able to sell them off, and you know, what if somebody else and the highest and best value of the property was, you know, um it's what and it's what ours is being used as.

If we were to sell these properties to somebody else and they were to live in it, we would have to do follow do the following steps.

In order for us to sell these as individual units, we'd have to remove my deed of trust, my construction and and and permanent loan on this, record new deeds for each one of these townhomes with 179th share.

We'd have to pr provide uh an HOA, and I want to get to that because there was a previous comment saying that you you don't have to do an HOA, you absolutely do.

Um for the common areas, because these things have common areas and you have to maintain them and you have to manage them.

You have to comply with the NRS 116 common interest communities, you need NRED approval, which we do not have.

You need the ombudsman to to approve it and authorize it.

You have to form an HOA with articles and bylaws, and I agree that you can do C C and R's.

Those are typically for community for for uh um common interest, uh what do you call common interest communities, which this is, but an HOA is the is what provides the governance of those C C and Rs.

Then you got a transfer by deed the common areas into the HOA.

We still own our common areas, we're one owner, and then you got to create an HOA budget.

You got to do C C and Rs over the project for the benefit and the burden of the parcels within the development.

Then this is irrelevant, but you got to hire a broker and all that kind of crap, right?

But we have not done any of this.

We have no intention on doing this.

This was always intended to do it.

The county recognized it at the at the uh entitlement level that this was one unit.

They're taxing us as one unit.

Um with the they're they're recognizing that that that with the eight percent um that that it was intended to be a rental community from day one.

Mind you, day one, none of our units have ever been three have been been uh tagged as a three percent project.

Um and then so I want to get to that comparable sale.

It is identical to what we're talking about here for my property.

We are town homes.

That comp is town homes.

This is a new product type where you do build for rent communities.

The community needs build for rent communities.

We're we're the commute the the the we're we're we're at a uh uh burdened by limitations on land.

We need density um and affordability.

This is exactly what we're doing here.

And so um that was uh so we're not we're not being we don't have 79 individual homeowners living in our homes.

If we did, those 79 homeowners would have the rights to homeownership, the rights to appreciation.

That's not what we're talking about here.

So to think that we're to be assessed is 79 individual homeowners, it's just not accurate.

Um so and I was looking through the the the uh the materials that were provided to us when when we got here.

Um the comparable sales are individualized homes, town homes, um and we're uh we're being assessed accordingly, and then they're adding them all up, and we have to make a payment, right?

So there was one other point that I want to point out, I believe is what Marquise was saying in a in the first three hearings that your job, I guess, is to ensure that the valuation of all homeowners is not impacted by a decision here.

The the comparable sales for all these homeowners are all higher than what what they're all higher than what we're suggesting.

So no one's getting hurt here.

So um anyway, uh the the uh Northmark broker's opinion of value.

I'm just gonna summarize here.

I came in at a 5.5% cap rate.

That's what they said.

They gave a 5.75, they gave a five, and they gave a 5.25, I think, or something in the in those ranges, to where it was uh the middle, the middle of the road one based on our actual NOI would be 24 million.

I was actually somewhat disappointed in that, but it was something that we would have been willing to uh to stipulate.

If you take the comparable sale, so we actually came in here actually conservative in your guys' favor.

Um if you applied that same cap rate that the comparable sale is at 5.75, the valuation for for our property will be 23 million.

We're being assessed at 27.6 million, um, which is an increase like I said over previous year.

So if you apply the same cap rate for the same type of development for that deal horton sale at it at uh umhorn, the valuation would be just under 23 million, and we would be fine with that same similar approach and uh a uh yield to the assessor's office.

Thank you.

Ms.

Garfield.

Melody Garfield for the um assessor's office.

Uh is it uh appropriate for me to like our opening statement for all these subdivision cases.

May I incorporate that from case 27?

Or because it's a different appellant, I should go over those issues separately.

I'd prefer you guys did them.

Okay, very good, no worries.

So again, um we want to reiterate the statutes and what we're required to do.

Uh NRS 361.227 indicates the fundamental unit of assessment in Nevada is the individual parcel.

So we have talked about how these properties are individually parceled.

Um with the zoning, they were required.

Uh they weren't allowed to have the multifamily.

There have maybe been some changes.

This is the first time seeing this about Title 30, but there may have been some changes to that now, but our contention is they're individually parceled.

We're gonna treat them as individual parcels.

The appellant wants us to treat it as one economic unit, um, saying because of the way they're operated, the way they're owned, we should look at them all as one um unit, but that's really sort of what we consider a business enterprise value.

It's not a real property value, and that's what we're doing when we value uh these parcels.

Uh we're appraising the sticks and bricks, what physically um is there, and how you know the four tests um for highest and best use.

Those before I know Miss Latch uh mentioned those, and um in this case, I have those laid out.

I'm sorry, let me find the page number here.

Page 3512.

And that analyzes the four tests for highest to best use with regard to these property.

Legally permissible.

Each parcel is legally subdivided with its own parcel number.

There are no known deed restrictions or zoning ordinances requiring these parcels to be sold as a portfolio.

Under Nevada law, each parcel is a distinct taxable entity.

So that's legally permissible.

With regard to physically possible, the improvements are self-contained on their respective parcels.

There's no physical interdependence.

So physically possible.

Financially feasible.

While the current use is a rental income property, the financial feasibility of the parcels is not tied to that collective ownership.

Each home is capable of generating market level rent or being sold as a primary town home residence.

So it is financially feasible how we are appraising the property.

The big one really is maximally productive, right?

In the current market, the sum of the individual retail values typically exceeds a bulk or portfolio value.

Valuation as a single economic unit would necessitate a bulk discount.

We talked about bulk bulk discount with regard to the subdivision discount.

So Nevada courts have historically viewed with skepticism these bulk discounts because again, the uniformity clause.

It is unconstitutional to have a different value for an investor when neighboring individual homeowners are not given that same value.

So that's you know the big argument that we have with treating this as a multifamily property.

If we go to page 3492, we have three two-story townhome floor plans.

Again, the market value for an individually parceled townhome is best determined by recent arm's length open market transactions.

So the comparable sales worksheet is on page 3492 for the first model.

And you can see our taxable value for this model is around 300,000.

I have sales there.

Some of them are one stories, which I believe are superior to two stories, so I did make an adjustment for that.

This is just the median.

Two-story attached townhome.

And you can see here that our value for these 1,500 square foot units are less than 350,000.

But you can see my sales are much higher than that.

Just the median of these 10 sales.

I did have to go a little farther away to bracket the living area because these are larger townhomes than what's typical for the area.

But again, they're in the same market area as the subject property, and that's around 390,000 is the median price for attached town homes that compete with this subject property.

So again, 349 roughly is what we have the units on, and we believe their market value is closer to 390.

So again, a significant difference.

The final model is about a 1645 square feet.

Again, I use the most recent similar approximate sales.

Because this is larger than typical, I did have to go farther away.

But our value for these 1,600 square foot town homes is about 374.

That is our taxable value for that townhome.

I looked to see if I could find town homes for you know less than $375,000, even for sale.

Can I find any, you know, that are for sale?

And I did find one on the east side for 373.

And that was it.

Everything else was higher than what we're recommending the values for these properties.

So our median sales price is 414.

Even if that's a little high.

I mean, even if we just say, you know, less than that 400,000, we only have this on at 374.

So again, we are not exceeding market value for these individually parceled townhome properties.

Since the properties are utilized as rental properties, typically what we would do in appraisal for single-family residences or town homes is that we would look at the gross rent multiplier.

That analysis is on page 3508.

And again, as we did with the other subdivision cases, we looked for sales, recent sales that were also rented.

They were either occupied as rentals or they rented shortly thereafter.

And we came up with a um a gross rent multiplier of 16.

And then we took that and applied it to the market rents for the subject property.

And you can see the far column on page 3509, the blue column is what our total taxable value is for each of these models.

You can see it ranges between 300 and 374.

300,000 for a two-story town home to 374.

And when we applied our gross rent multiplier, the 16, which is what we calculated, the values range from 420 to 450, and we even bracketed that with a smaller gross rent multiplier of 15 and 17.

And again, we are more than supporting our taxable value when you look at the market data that's available.

So both the sales comparison and the income approaches support the taxable values for the parcels under appeal.

We do not believe a bulk discount is fair or uniform.

And I did, as in the other cases, uh, do an apartment cap summary.

Again, we do not feel that this is the way this property should be valued, but I did do that, and it's on page 3513 using market rents.

I did use the same 5% vacancy, 10% other income, and 25% expenses, which ended up being about $7,000 per per town home.

I did use the 5% cap rate.

And our taxable value again is around $350,000 per unit.

And with this analysis, the indicated value is well over $400,000 per unit.

So again, we are below what market indicates, even if we use the apartment cap summary.

So even if we raised our cap rate to five and a half, we would still support the values that we have here for our taxable values.

Again, this method we don't believe is appropriate, but we did include it as part of our analysis.

And again, we we see no evidence.

You know, if you want to sell these as a portfolio, that is certainly your option.

You are welcome to do that.

And certainly if they were all on one parcel, that is how we would look at them.

But they are on individual parcels, can be sold individually.

Yeah, there's probably going to be some costs involved.

There's probably, but we've got that built in.

Our values are significantly below market value.

I do I see no room that we could lower these property values even further.

Um yeah, I just want to Stephanie Jones for the Clark County Assessors Office.

Just want to incorporate all of our testimony regarding the Nevada Supreme Court case and the other cases.

Um I just want to, if I if I could just have a moment, the Nevada Supreme Court case uh was for a condom individually parceled condominium units.

Um so they weren't they weren't single family units, they were condominium units, but they were individually parceled.

And if you go to page 3535 in the master book, I'm just gonna read the bottom portion of this conclusion.

Um at the bottom, it's and and Montag was the petitioner.

So Montaug alternate alternatively urges this court to find that the discounted cash flow method was appropriate because Montag purchased the condominium project as an investor and the intent to make money from this project.

And thus the condominium should have been treated as income-producing property rather than as individual residential units.

Montaug um relies on Canyon Villas Apartment Core Corporation versus the state to argue that the income capitalization approach is appropriate here due to the property's income generating potential and the time value of money.

The property at issue in Canyon Village, an apartment complex is clearly distinguishable from the property here, individual residential condominium units.

Thus Montaug's compliance, I'm sorry, reliance on Canyon Villas is misplaced.

Moreover, county assessor must use the valuation approach that most accurately measures the full cash value of the property.

C NRS 361 227 subsection 5C without any consideration of the owner's identity or intent behind purchasing the property.

The assessor in this case utilized the sales comparison approach, which is the approach generally used by appraisers in valuing individual condominium units.

See appraisal institute uh supra at 77.

And Montaug's status as an investor does not warrant valuing its condominiums differently than those of other owners.

To hold otherwise would result in a determination of the condominium's value as an investment or their value to the current owner, not the full cash value, which is the price that each condominium unit would receive on the open market.

I mean, I just wanted to, I believe in the testimony from the petitioner.

Um he had a definition of multifamily.

I just want to point out that these each townhouse unit is on its own parcel.

So it there, it's not as if like two townhouse units are on one parcel.

Every single townhouse unit is on its own parcel, um, attached single family.

Um other thing just to point out um he spoke about the eight percent tax cap.

Um eight percent tax cap applies to uh lots of single family homes that are not owner-occupied, the three percent tax cap is for owner-occupied residents, eight percent tax cap applies to everything else.

And that wouldn't um that doesn't indicate that this is a single, this whole um subdivision is a single economic unit.

Thank you.

Apartments that are rented at or below HUD levels also qualify at three percent.

That is correct, yes.

Or any any property, even single family.

If they if they um send in the rental application that they're renting at or below the HUD guidelines, they also could receive the three percent tax cap.

Thank you.

Any rebuttal, sir?

Uh yeah, a little bit.

Um, I'm glad you brought up the court case.

Um, and so that court case is not in uh we actually would agree with it.

So the court case was a broken development where an investor came in after 100 and something units were sold off individually.

An investor comes in, purchases 46 units, I believe it was, and then tries to pretend that it's that it's different than the other the other units in the development.

We would agree with that.

That that would not apply.

You can't apply that here.

That's not what's going on here.

The other thing about that development is they didn't develop that property, they acquired it.

We developed our property.

We were required to subdivide our parcels for a rental community, required.

The county required me to subdivide my property into and down zone it from the category that I would be able to do that today, required me to downzone it, map them individually as a requirement.

Now the county, think about this real quick.

The county gets to come back in and tax me at a higher valuation accordingly.

I'm pretty sure that's not cool.

It's not from where I'm sitting, but that's exactly what's happening here.

So um, so I'm glad.

And then uh Marquise, I I'm hoping that his name's Marquise because the second time I brought it up.

In previous cases, in the previous hearings, Marquis said twice when referencing both of these court cases, not only the Supreme Court case, but the other court case from North Carolina.

And both of those said that if they were one parcel, they would have treated it differently, quote unquote.

That's what we're talking about here.

I was forced to do these individually, never wanted to, forced as part of the code.

That doesn't exist today.

Two years later, that doesn't exist.

I'm probably in a box of maybe one or two people in town that has this situation.

I'm the only one sitting here before you guys that that knows that it's uh a problem.

I also want to get into the valuation approach and the cat the in case you are considering this is they are using a five percent cap rate.

I mean, I'm sorry, they're using a five percent vacancy rate, doesn't exist in town here.

They're using a 25% expense.

Nobody, everybody who would everybody that owns an apartment complex in this state would appreciate a 25% expense rate.

Um and I can go into the expenses if you'd like me to.

Both of those five percent vacancy, and the uh 25% tax rate is in here.

Their actual 21 point 21.21 potential gross income is pretty spot on, actually.

But the actual reality to how these things function and operate, and let's just get back to it.

These things are a necessary type of product that needs to be out there.

Not everybody can afford a house.

So when you go through their low vacancy and very low expense rate, you get to a 1.662, 1.662 NOI.

That's over 340,000 more than than what I'm realizing, which gets them to a six percent cap rate.

They're starting from an artificially low cap rate.

There are no 5% sales that are happening out there.

I'm not sure you guys do you guys do appraisals in your in your regular lives.

There are no 5%.

And if there is one, is that really the comp?

Is that really what we're talking about?

Eric, there's a lot of sixes out there.

There's a lot of six and afs and sevens out there too.

But are we really grabbing this the lowest one?

And so uh with the rest of that, I I uh I yield.

Thank you.

Members of the board or the assessor, what's the zoning now?

Um I believe the zoning is RS2.

Marquis Payne for the Clark County Assessor's Office.

Uh last year when this case was appealed.

Um, I actually spoke with the um with the county's comprehensive planning department, and I spoke with a Mark Donahue, which is a principal planner um in the comprehensive planning department, and he notified me that um the zoning that was on this parcel um when they acquired the par property was an RUD zoning, which um which did allow for multi-family building, but it only allowed up to a triplex um structures, not apartments.

So again, it was their business decision to to go with developing town homes at this uh at this property.

And and I just like to say, I think um with regard to zoning, I can see where a jurisdiction may want to say we don't want a high density here, you know.

That's why we're gonna force you to build a town home type um product instead of an apartment.

And so I I I can't speak, of course, for the jurisdiction, but I think that is something that a jurisdiction would think about when they say no, we're not gonna allow you to build an apartment building.

But if you want to do something like attached town homes, then or a um higher density single family residence will allow that, but not the density of apartments.

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

Um I just again the these parcels they in order to build the product they wanted, which was attached single family townhomes, they had to parcel it because it wasn't legally permissible to build that same product on one parcel.

So what was legally permissible was single parcel single family attached town homes on individual parcels.

Can the parcels be assembled?

I'm sorry.

Can the parcels can you assemble the parcels into one parcel now with the I'm at the mercy of the county?

I have no idea.

I've never done if anybody's ever done that.

And I'm not sure why I'd be required to do that.

If you have two 7-Elevens across the street from each other, you wouldn't you wouldn't uh uh uh assess them differently.

And and that the the last comment um that was just made was completely hypothetical.

This is zoning, those conversations are long gone.

But um there is no triplex code, by the way, so I'm not sure what's going on there.

Well, we're just we're kind of back to where we were in the last uh in the last bunch of cases, right?

So we've all appraised these condominium complexes as single operating units.

But I mean the you know, if the if the the Nevada statutes require these to be assessed individually, uh you know it's just a different uh we're operating in a different uh set of rules here.

They are they are you guys are allowed, the assessor is allowed to use the income approach under Nevada revised statutes.

That's a fact.

That was what we argued last year.

It was a choice of what is it was it appropriate which way was appropriate?

You they are allowed to do that.

And we did use the income approach, we just used it on the individual parcels.

We use the grass gross rent multiplier.

We believe that is an accurate measure of the market value for individually parceled town homes.

We provided the cap summary.

What we know that's a part of the appellants argument, it still supports um our value, but we don't place any weight on that because this is not a multifamily uh properties on a single parcel.

If this was these attached town homes, if they were all on one parcel, yes, we would value them differently, but they are not, and um according to the law, we value by parcel, and it's a choice to rent them out, it's a choice to sell them as a portfolio or to sell them individually.

There's nothing that requires them to sell them as a portfolio, but again, you know, we have the question whenever we appraise what's the purpose?

Our purpose is to appraise assessment value, um, and we have to do that by statute, and that's what we've done here.

I'd like to bring up one thing.

Um I gotta find it here.

But it was previously said that um when um she was saying that nothing when she was requ uh quoting the Nevada revised statute, she said nothing in here says that we're required to sell in bulk.

We actually are.

We cannot sell these individually.

That's the key thing you need to point out.

And what Mr.

Anderson was just alluding to that we're gonna go back to American homes for rent.

We're not American homes rent.

This is not the same argument.

They are single family, always have been, always will be.

We are multifamily.

We fall under the multifamily code.

Do I have to go in and put my properties back together to have this board feel good about making a decision?

No.

You're allowed under Nevada revised statutes to value this on an income approach.

And they have they have a they have a means and a method to do that.

They just it's just I don't know if it's habit or what, but you know, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but this is the second time I'm here for the same issue, and I just I'm making a little bit different of an argument, but it's the same argument as last year.

I'm just wording it a little bit differently.

Um so it's just we could be one parcel.

We were not allowed to be.

We cannot sell these individually.

They have to be sold in bulk as of today.

That's what this thing needs to be appraised as a bulk sale.

Um Stephanie Jones with the Clark County Assessors Office.

Once again, this is not legally allowed to be multifamily, so we cannot value it as multifamily, we can value it as single family, which is what it is legally permissible based on the zoning.

I want to understand the the reasoning behind that.

The zoning, the the the zoning doesn't allow for multifamily, which is why these had to be split into individual parcels.

Um if it had been as Ms.

Garfield um stated, if this community was built on one parcel, we would look at this um as as multifamily that was required to zone this as R2.

Required.

And I wouldn't have to do that today, which we're here today being taxed today on today based on something that happened years ago.

Just the product would be the exact same, other than a few lots would be differently, and you can do it by income approach.

There's not a requirement that you have to do them individually.

I would argue that the parcels could also be sold individually.

Um the appellant says they cannot there are costs involved in that.

Can you explain how but they they could be sold in the case?

Well then they will be taxed at that time accordingly.

That's the point.

That's what you guys do every year.

You guys adjust accordingly.

Every year you come up here and you go, now there's new owners there.

You adjust them accordingly, and everything changes.

That's what that's what will happen.

I agree with you.

Nothing wrong with that.

Today it's one unit.

Mr.

Chair, there's only one provision in NRS 361-227 that allows us to look at the ownership of bulk ownership in order to provide some sort of discount, which by the way, when that discount falls off, then that that amount that was discounted does um fall outside of the tax cap.

Um that is the subdivision discount, and this subdivision is fully absorbed and is not a qualified subdivision per NAC 361129.

Um, so this this does not qualify to be valued other than on a single parcel basis per NRS 361 227 subsection two.

Thank you.

I have a comment to my other board members to consider.

Um I see this case is different from the other ones, and that the other ones could have been sold off.

I don't think they required HOA.

Nope.

They do not.

They they weren't gated.

This one has additional costs.

If if he's if he were to sell these off, would require other costs.

Is that something we should be considering since we're looking at them as if we're looking at them as individual units?

Should we not consider that additional cost that he has to bear if he's gonna sell them off?

Um the street, uh making an hoa because it's gated, um, so forth.

How would you how would that be quantified?

So we know there has to be an HOA.

Oh is that with established?

They have some common area elements, I believe.

So again, maybe just the C C and R's is all they would need.

Um like you pointed out, the the HOA is the the teeth behind the C C and Rs.

And I get it.

There's the C C and Rs that say, look, this is what you're supposed to do.

The HOA is the teeth, and a lot of people don't like the HOA, but they like the C C and R.

So I mean the HOA, but I guess my question is I mean, I think the market would expect it.

Is it required because it's gated?

Is that is that what somebody said before?

Yes.

When I spoke with a HOA coordinator, um, she did confirm that HOA is needed because it's cargated or not cargated, just a gated community.

And the cost for that, did she estimate?

It was approximately ten thousand dollars on average.

Total?

Yeah, to develop an HOA.

Have you ever priced that what it would what it would be to go ahead and put an HOA in place so you could sell them?

Do you have any idea what that cost would be to have you quantify?

Why would I do that?

Well, I mean, I don't understand.

I got to go change my business plan because I'm being overtaxed by the county that required me to do this in the first place.

I'm just trying to understand that I could care less about 10 grand.

That's not the point here.

This is different than the other cases you've heard.

This is not the same argument.

This is not the same trying to bulk meaning with American homeless rent is a complete mistake.

And again, our taxable values we contend are already significantly below the market values.

So if there are costs per unit or per household to do that sort of a thing in order to be able to sell them individually, it is more than built in to the value because our taxable values are significantly below what these units would sell for individually, and they are individually parceled and can be sold individually parceled.

Maybe there are expenses in that, but our values are significantly low enough that those expenses could be factored in without lowering these values even further.

They're not individually owned, which is the difference.

That's the difference.

They're not individually owned.

These are owned by one person, me.

The statute does not allow for sure does.

It says you can do not allow for a reduction in value because you know one or multiple properties.

Sorry about that.

Can I remind everybody, please?

If if one person is talking, please let them.

My apologies.

Yes.

It sounds like you guys just have questions, and maybe it were at the point where you just ask questions.

Um, because I think you have all your information, and then you can deliberate and make your decision.

I do have a question about the actual income and expenses.

So you said you provided them with your actual income.

Where is that?

Do we have that?

It's in the uh uh report here.

So if you go to the uh surround the one that the page 3462 you go to page uh it's probably four pages from the back, maybe five pages from the back, it starts with adjustments to pro forma.

But you're saying you also you're saying you also have it in the record, right?

Yes, it's uh it's well we've handed them out to everybody um when I came up here.

But if you if you have questions on that, page 3462.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Oh, these are pages that I handed out, so they're not in your guys' um package that are net numbered 3462.

So Petra, if you look at this doc petraff, yeah, I think did you get re received one of these?

Yes.

Yeah, if you go to almost to the back, if you go five five pages from the back, you'll see uh one that's called adjustance to adjustments to performer, these are our actual numbers.

Which ones are actual the T3?

This is from this is from our actual um financials.

What do you mean that we would the T3 column or the or the adjusted?

The j the well the adjusted, which gets down to our actual.

So they start with the actual and they work their way back in and come up with the uh the gross and everything.

So that's why I was saying the gross potential of 2.239 is actually a little bit higher than what um what they have in in your guys' package.

But when you when you when you go through the actual vacancies, the actual expenses, um we operated fully last year.

So when you go through that, these are they're they're adjusting, they're adjusting these for few for for this year.

So they're starting with our actuals and um and so our actual NOI is right around three million three twenty.

But the the county's using a million six forty-six.

Can't tell you what three hundred and forty thousand dollars does do a uh evaluation.

Remind me again what the total uh assessed value was, what your total assessed value is for all the units or an average per unit for all of the um total assessed value land and improvements is twenty-seven million six hundred and thirty-two thousand four hundred and sixty-two.

So then that's about three hundred and fifty thousand a unit, and our average unit size is one thousand five hundred and thirty-six square feet.

Does that sound about right?

That sounds about right.

Okay.

From a multifamily perspective, what do you guys think of a per unit value for a 79 unit multifamily project of 350,000 a unit for 1536 square feet?

I mean, I tried to go find sales, couldn't really find anything that large.

Just to entertain that sales.

There are some, yeah, there are some pending sales.

I think you're aware of the L and the Grammar C and those are 350 and 310 a unit, but again, those are apartments.

I don't know if that's what you're looking for.

Yeah, I don't know what size their average size is.

I mean, these are big units.

Yes, they are, right?

So I was also looking at the town homes just north.

Okay.

Um that sold in that area.

They were built in 2025.

Um was that a DR Horton owned one, maybe?

I'm not sure.

Yeah, they're they're DR Hortons.

Are there's DR Hartons?

Yeah.

Um, let me see.

What did I write this?

It sold as a portfolio.

Right.

That's the one that sold as a portfolio, I believe so.

Which ones you're talking about?

The ones you so the ones adjacent north are they're individual owners, right there.

They're individual.

DR Horton sold those to DR Horton sold those to individual owners.

Yeah.

Right.

And those are around, they're brand new.

And they're around 1,300 square feet.

I don't know where I wrote this down now, trying to find my scrapbook.

They're almost identical.

I think they're f 1600, 1550s.

Um I I clicked on about four or five of them and they were in the 1300 range.

So I don't I don't know if there's bigger ones.

I mean, I don't I didn't look at all of them.

Um they were selling for like 360, 370.

Um yeah, they're they're they're almost identical to us.

Brand new, but sm but smaller looks like they are I don't know what the average is there.

I believe it's lower because I had to go further away to find comparables to bracket the larger size here for their townhomes.

Well, I think it all comes down to you know, do we stick with uh valuation under NRS of the individual units?

I mean, I wonder if the if we could get some advice from the district attorney here the assessor's office has correctly stated the law the way the law reads, the default is the single family.

Is it possible for me to incorporate Ms.

Logson's testimony when she was here earlier about the statutes?

So incorporated.

Um I just looked up some statistics.

Um Ms.

Latch on the subdivision north.

Um those those townhouses range from it looks um the the biggest ones are 1,388 square feet.

Um they range from 1291, so there's 1291 plans and 1388 um plans.

Um the most recent sales um are uh 388,000, 379,000, 365, 362, 377.

So those are just the last four five sales.

Again, um they're either 1291 square feet or 1388 square feet, and our average is thirty fifteen hundred, maybe twenty or so square feet.

So they're they're smaller.

There's two, yeah, there's two plans, 1391 and 1388.

Those are the two plans, yeah.

And they were built in 2025.

Uh let me just double check that.

Looking here on the built, um, they are one year old.

So those are priced higher for newer homes that are smaller.

Yes, their sale price, like I said, I uh the the most recent sell prices are between um it looks like three a low of three sixty-five and a high of three eighty-eight.

Again, we cannot sell these individually.

He probably if you guys were doing individual appraisals on our project, would you go in and assess them as individuals and then come up to one conclusion?

And there's no way you would do that.

So you're saying you're not legally allowed to sell them individually?

Cannot legally sell them.

We'd have to go out of our box and go back in and get approval from the county to do exactly what everybody wants me to do here.

Inst until then, they're gonna assess me at a higher rate.

It's a windfall for the county to require me to do this and then to assess me higher valuations based on individual ownership.

It's just what approval would you need?

I'm sorry.

What would you need?

We'd have to go back to the county to get approval to do an HOA.

I don't know what the no one's done this.

No one's reverted individual units into apartment complex.

Back in the day, they used to take condos um and and and and convert those into into apartment complex, and or I'm sorry, like they choose to take apartment complexes and individualize them into uh into condos.

Now, would you ask the same questions if somebody wanted to do that today and say, hey, you have individual units.

Why don't you guys just go and create one apartment complex?

That's not it's not your job.

It's not your job to tell somebody what to do with the development that's already completed.

You're supposed to assess it as it's intended use today.

And the Dear Horton comp is by far the only comp that's in all any of your guys' stuff that's the r that's relevant.

And it's not a distressed property.

That's a brand new constructed by a very reputable number one home builder in the country development with pools.

We don't have pools.

They have multiple pools of that development.

We do not have pools.

We do not have the amenity package that they have.

They're they're at 5.75.

We're fine with that.

As I see it, that's not relevant.

That's a direct cap, which we're not the assessor's not allowed really to um put weight on.

You're not like you're not allowed to wait capital.

We're not we're looking at these as individual parcels.

There that's their requirement.

Where I see uh a difference is that there is a burden, there's a cost to you to sell these off, and that is an HOA.

Which brokerage fees?

I gotta go pay somebody six percent on every house sale.

Say that again.

I didn't hear you.

When you sell them individually, you gotta go get brokers that can market them individually and sell them individually, and and and that would be a that would be any any house you sell, a broker.

I'm sorry, I didn't know.

Any any house you sell, you're gonna probably get a broker.

100%.

You're gonna have marketing costs.

100% agree with you.

I'm looking at the difference between your situation and the last petitioner's situation.

But I'm the last petitioner could sell off in order to be forced to sell them individually.

I would have to get a broker and hire them individually for each one.

The going rate on a commission is five percent, sometimes six.

When you sell these things off as as as uh as large communities and they get to be 20, 25 million, 30 million dollar deals, the commissions are about 1.5 percent.

That's a that's a cost.

If we're talking about costs of having to go do that, that's not relevant to what we're what our assessors are appraising.

They're appraising individual lots, so it doesn't matter that there's more than one.

What to me what matters is the fact that there's a cost that is would have to be realized by the developer in order to sell these off individually.

There's an additional cost, I think that's been missed.

No, I understand that.

And I think it was previously there'd be 10 grand.

Right.

And so the assessors said 10 grand, the assessor said uh that's insignificant.

You said you didn't look at you weren't bothered or didn't look at the cost because that's not the way you intend to do it.

As an appraiser, I would like to know what those if there's any other costs besides 10,000 to set up a an HOA before you could sell sell off one individually.

Let me ask you a question.

If I go and do what you're telling me to actually go do, are you gonna come back here and treat me differently next year?

I'm just curious because I would just love to see understand how that would work and why that would be relevant.

We've been told what the laws are that we have to follow, and that's what we're doing our best to do.

I understand.

So you guys have a very tough job listening to the arguments.

I get it, but um in the meantime, um we're being treated unfairly, in my opinion.

I'm trying to be sympathetic to your situation.

Uh but the direct cap on your uh PLs, um as different as that the actuals are from the pro forma that um the assessor did is not relevant.

I think it's more of a test.

I don't mean I don't even know why it's in there.

It's more of a test of reasonableness, but it's not relevant.

That's not the way they're gonna or we are gonna look at it, I guess.

I'm on the board, so um and we would also argue that it would um create an inequity to provide a bulk discount if we were going to bulk discount these individually parceled properties, then what about other homeowners that have you know just an individual home?

You know, it seems to me that it's creating an equity there.

I know the appellant sees an inequity on his case, but we feel if there is a bulk discount of some sort given, they're already significantly below market value.

And if another discount is applied, then that seems like you're creating another larger inequity with all the other people that own townhomes in the market area.

Yeah, but he's not prepared, or he's not he's not um able to sell them off now.

If he wanted to, he couldn't sell them off.

He has to go through some steps and pay some money and make some do some things.

But the statute So that's that's different than taking a you know a single uh town home that's sold off.

Absolutely, I agree.

But the statute says it doesn't matter who owns it, it doesn't matter that they own a lot of them, it doesn't matter how many they own, we uh praise them via individual parcel.

But in your cost approach, in your cost approach, you get it up to a point to where that lot or that town home could be sold off when we do the cost approach, we apply it to what's physically there, the physical asset, which is a single family um town home, and then we make sure we don't exceed market value.

We don't we don't trend the value up if for some reason we're significantly below market value, which we happen to be in this case, we just make sure that we're not exceeding market value.

So these are assessed values, yes, they're not to exceed market value, yes, right.

Um we're talking about ten thousand for the entire thing.

Well, that that were the legal fees that um Mr.

Payne had spoken to.

I mean lawyers.

Let's say they're a hundred thousand.

We're talking uh that less than a thousand dollars a unit.

I mean, I I don't know without knowing what they are.

I mean, how high would the cost have to be to do this to the well you can see where 40,000 below market value per unit on some of these?

Right, that's what I'm saying.

I mean, if if we up here are saying, and and I I agree with you, I mean, there's maybe some adjustment adjustment to be made because the conditions of sale are different.

So, you know, where somebody that bought a DR Horton uptown home to the north can just go ahead and sell, this gentleman would have a different burden, so there's some additional cost.

Okay, so that would be an adjustment factor.

But I mean, it would have to be eighty thousand dollars total for it to move the value a thousand dollars, you know, per unit.

So I without knowing that I don't I have no idea, but ten thousand, eighty thousand, a hundred and fifty, I don't know what it is.

And is that really an appropriate conversation to be having?

I'm just being honest with you.

We're here to to talk about what not what could be, but what is right.

I understand.

I'm sorry when Mr.

Rains, when you say that we cannot do that, then why have a whole presentation on economic value?

Why why even do it?

If we're not allowed to talk about it, why why do it?

If you're talking about the direct cap, I have the same.

The cap rate approach, the same question.

Yeah, uh, you know what?

I I tend to agree with you.

Why even talk about it if you're if you guys take the stance of we can't do that?

Why are we even here?

Why is there a board?

I'm just being facetious, but you understand my point.

And the statute, I know she read something.

Statute specifically says that you can do an income approach.

We wouldn't be here.

We wouldn't have been here last year.

Well, I I believe what what she means is when you can do an income approach, you're doing an income approach on an individual property, not all of them.

Do single family homeowners do an income approach when they come in here and appeal their water bill or tax.

You know, I mean, do they have a concierge service?

Do I don't I'm not sure that applies here.

I agree.

All right.

I don't think it applies here.

Right.

That's what I'm saying.

Um our taxable value again is set using the cost approach.

And then um NRS 36127 subsection five allows us to test that to make sure we're not exceeding market value.

And he's correct.

We can use the sales comparison approach.

Um, we can just look at our cost approach, or we can use the income approach, no different than um just break appraisal theory.

Um we believe the most appropriate method and the most weight should be placed on the sales comparison approach because that is what this property is.

It is subdivided as single parcels, and that's how we believe that's how we would look at the neighboring subdivision to see if we'd exceeded market value.

We did use the income approach, we also did the income approach, and and our argument is that the GRM addresses the individual parcels based on income.

However, because the petitioner was bringing up um direct capitalization, that's we just we did an analysis to put it in the case, but we aren't giving that any weight.

We weighted the sales comparison approach and our income approach.

We feel the sales comparison approach is the best approach, and all of the approaches in our analysis support the value.

So it's a choice.

And again, we don't raise with this is just to test our cost approach value.

We don't raise value if the income approach or the sales comparison approach indicate that our value is too low.

We're just testing our taxable value based on the confused because the GRM is individual.

Yes.

Which makes sense if that's what the law requires, then why are we doing a direct cap on the entire project?

Um we we aren't putting any weight on the direct cap, we're putting that in the case um just because you know, um, just to to show what that would look like if the board decided to put weight on that.

Um we have you know we do it the way that we think it should be done.

We did include that in the case material because that's what the petitioner's argument was.

However, we didn't put any weight on that, as Ms.

Garfield testified to.

I can sympathize with that because I know in past years we've asked that question.

Well, have you considered their income?

Have you considered expenses?

Have you considered cap rates?

So you put it in there because you know someone's gonna ask you about it.

So I I kind of get why you do that.

But I don't think they did consider his PL.

But I mean it got the got the revenue right.

Right.

But the I mean that's true.

You've done apartments and they aren't 25% expenses.

I I think that your expenses per unit though were like 10,000, right?

So it was more an issue of P, it was more the PGI, not the expense.

I think the expenses were about the same, they were about 10,000 unit.

I think you used a 10% vacancy factor.

I agree.

I think five percent's maybe a little optimistic, but at five and a half, so it's really more of the PGI issue, and you know, without doing a full rental analysis to see why that's different.

I I don't know.

But again, then we're going down that hole where we're we're really single-mindedly focused on this as a a rental property as one use.

I I argue the opposite direction.

You're you're going down a rabbit hole based on cookie cutting American homes for enterprise and for ours, and going down a rabbit hole where these are individualized parcels and ignoring how we got here and what the what current status of today is.

That's the whole point is is this is you guys are appraisers.

You know that's today, it's today, it's today.

And you and you picked up on the and uh the NOI is grossly off based on actuality, grossly.

And that's what they do.

I can really grossly overvalued.

Yeah, I can appreciate what you're saying, and having these two back to back.

I think um I I don't have any desire to pigeon you whole into anything or or American homes.

I what we're directed to do is look at what is the assessor required to do.

What is the statute say?

This is zoned RS2 single family, it's subdivided for single family.

I don't know what happened years ago, and maybe that's a legal matter to get into that's well beyond our scope of to decide what what you were told to do, what you had to do, what you can do now, what you're not allowed to do now.

The way it's zoned now, it's zoned for single family RS2, and it's subdivided, and they're required to consider them as individual units.

I I totally understand what you're saying, and I think that your point is probably the best in that that's the real difference, and I just don't know whether the number to do that is enough to move the needle on this.

I I don't know.

I I understand what you're saying, I really do.

I appreciate it, but we're sort of stuck with what we've got here.

And I think there's this issue that's coming up and it's gonna get played out somewhere, but it's that's beyond our scope to do it.

Right, and I got I have one question because I keep hearing the word required, and maybe I'm missing something and I shouldn't be here, but I think I just heard or correct that you and agree with me that yes, they can do this, and they're not required to do it the way they're doing it.

They have three approaches to use, they're choosing to use the same approach over and over and over again.

Well, I think I think that's what I heard of it.

Because for a single family home, that's the most applicable appropriate single convoluted.

I'll go back to it.

We're not single family.

Well, I think we're convoluting this out because you can do an income approach on a single family.

I mean, you you can you can do a GRM or um you're obviously gonna do a cost approach, you can do a sales comparison approach.

So that that would apply to each.

So really what we're stuck with.

I mean, we're gonna go round around about this.

The board has to decide whether or not we're gonna agree with the assessors uh take on the law, and are we gonna look at it on an individual basis or we're gonna look at it as a single economic unit?

And I think it's been pretty clear that uh our district attorney over here has said they're interpreting the law correctly, and so they have to value it on an individual basis, and so do we agree with the individual unit values?

That's where we should go because I uh unless the board has that appetite to to look at this as a single economic unit, which it sounds like the law precludes us from doing that.

I mean, that's that's real really what it comes down to.

Is there anything in the statute, district attorney or anybody that can say that you are that that it's not possible to value a collective of units as one unit?

And that the default that was previously mentioned is a requirement to be a single family home?

So I'm gonna have to stop here because I can't actually give you legal advice.

I can only answer questions of the board.

So if that's a question you have, you're gonna have to do that.

Again, I can only get answer their questions.

I'm sorry, I can't answer yours.

That would be legal advice.

So is there is there anything in the statute that would preclude us from looking at it as a single economic unit?

So the problem with the statutes is that they do not cover every possible situation that's going to come up.

So the statute says what it said, and the assessor has said what it said.

So the fact that it doesn't provide something else or doesn't specifically cover something.

I mean, the statutes are never going to cover every situation, and this may be a situation that is not exactly covered as well as everyone would like, if that makes sense.

I I leave you with one question.

Clearly, I think you're correct.

Obviously, doesn't cover uh I leave you with one question.

Is this project different than American homes for rent?

Just answer that to yourselves, and but and and and should be treated differently.

I think that's the answer we're trying to get to.

And and the the assessor's office obviously is arguing that this is a single family subdivision.

So in effect it it has some different uh characteristics to it, but in the end, it's still a single family subdivision.

I mean that's that's that's what we're stuck with here.

I don't think we're gonna make anybody happy today.

Stipulate to 24 million.

Would we all be happy?

I I just don't see where we can go that isn't gonna get appealed anyway.

Um what I would like to see happen is is you know appeal it to the state and if possible, district court.

I think you have a valid concern, but we're limited by by what we've had to do in the past as well.

Um I mean anybody want to make a motion or am I gonna be the bad guy here?

Based on the information provided and testimony contained herein.

I'm I would motion that the assessor does not exceed full cash value.

Please cast your votes and that motion passes.

Appeal forms are outside the door.

Thank you for your time.

Okay, did we have uh we took care of general administrative business chairman Fower, we just need to vote on the remaining um cases that are on your agenda that have been stamped stipulated withdrawn, or where the petitioners did not appear today.

I motion to accept the assessor's recommendation on any cases where the petitioners did not attend this hearing, and those that have been stamped stipulated or withdrawn, please cast your votes.

That motion passes I just want to give the board information.

We have two more hearings, um, one for the 24th tomorrow at 8 a.m.

We have 13 pending cases for that day, and then Wednesday, February 25th, 8 a.m.

again.

Um, 13 cases pending for that day, and then we will be done.

Excellent.

Microphone is open for any public comment.

Seeing none, I will close the microphone.

Uh that took care of other business.

There's no other business.

Excellent.

Thank you for your time.

Meetings adjourned.