I call this meeting of the Washoe County Board of Equalization to Order.

Please join me in a salute to the flag.

I've collected agents of the United States of the Mariner.

And to republic stands one mission under God.

Indivisible.

All right.

Madam Clerk, may I have the role, please?

Certainly.

Derek McDonald Chair.

Present.

Eugenia Boninfunt Vice Chair.

Oh, sorry.

Present.

Aaron Albright.

Present.

Robert Listener.

I'm here.

And let's see, Corinthian Yancey.

Present.

Okay.

And we have our DA Kobe Burnett.

Present.

And a Jan Gallicini, County Clerk.

Sir, you have a quorum.

Excellent.

Do we have any public comment?

There's none.

Do we have anyone that you need to swear in?

We do.

If the assessor staff would stand and raise your right hand and uh I'll give you your oath.

And make sure that you have signed in before you leave the room.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you will present to the season of the board of equalization is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

So help you go out or so affirm.

Thank you.

All right, madam quirk.

Do we have any withdrawals?

We do.

On your agenda, item number six.

Um coded in green.

You will note that item 10, assessors parcel number 02020165, hearing number two six-000 four E25 has been withdrawn.

All right.

Uh do we need a motion to accept their withdrawal?

It is an action item, so yes, we do need a motion and a second.

I will uh entertain a motion to accept the withdrawal of the petitioner.

Motion to accept the withdrawal of parcel 020 20165.

May I have a second?

I second the motion.

Any other discussion?

Hearing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

And for the record, there's a public comment on that.

There's no public comment on that.

Uh do we have any requests for continuance?

We do.

Item seven, the continuances noted on your agenda in blue.

We have assessors parcel number one two six in item 11.

1265203, hearing number two six zero zero five two, and assessors parcel number one two six five eight zero two five.

Hearing number two, six zero zero five three, and then item 13.

We have assessors parcel number 08249202, hearing number 26006 to be continued to the 25th of March of February.

May I have a motion to accept the continuance motion to accept the continuances of parcels 1265203 12658025 and 08249202 to the February 25th meeting.

May I have a second?

I second the motion.

All right.

Any discussion on the matter?

Is there any public comment?

There's none.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

We do.

Item number eight is our stipulations.

So if we um go to assessors parcel number 025-3303, hearing number two six zero zero zero one e25A and zero uh two six zero zero one e25b, as well as assessors parcel number zero four two four seven zero zero six, hearing number two six zero zero one five.

May I have a motion to accept the stipulations between the petitioner and the assessor's office?

Improving stipulation or for the motion, do we do the one out of the binder or is this pre-form?

Would you prefer?

We have a stipulation motion in the binder.

If the one if the stipulation that's in the binder relates to this specific stipulation, which it seems to be the property tax exemptions on real property, um rather than the real property valuation, for example, which is number nine.

If there is a motion that's in that motion binder that specifically has that, let's use that.

Um if not, if you want to freeform tailor it, uh you can do that as well.

But if there is one in the binder, I'd prefer we use that one.

That's a good point.

I said that apply to number 15.

It looks like 15.

We're both eight and nine.

I think that's correct.

Perfect.

Let's go with it.

Um, with regard to hearing number two, six zero zero zero one E25A, assessor parcel 0253003, hearing number 26001 E25B, parcel assessor parcel number 0253016, and hearing number 260015, assessor parcel number 04247006.

As set forth on the agenda for February 13, 2026, pursuant to NRS 361345.

I move that the stipulation signed by the assessor's office and the petitioners be adopted and confirmed as set forth in the said stipulations for the appropriate tax year.

With those adjustments, I find that the subject property, land and or improvements are valued correctly, and the total taxable value does not exceed full cash value.

I have a motion from Ms.

Boniface.

Is there a second?

I second any other discussion.

Clarification.

Who is the second?

Mr.

Listener.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um is there any public comment?

There's none.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Uh, Madam Clerk, please call the next matter.

Let's see.

We've gone through 8910.

We are on 11 residential real property appeals.

Um we have assessors parcel number 122 12619, John R.

Adams, hearing number 260016.

And I do have um a handout to distribute to the board from the petitioner.

Thank you.

This is very similar to the earlier matters.

All right.

Well, uh, the petitioner is not present.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Uh and just as a reminder, we have a timer set for 20 minutes for the assessor staff and then the petitioner, and then 10 minutes for the rebuttal.

Very good.

Uh let's hear from the assessor's office.

All right.

Good morning, Chairman McDonald and fellow board members.

My name is Kelson Powell.

I'm a property appraiser for the Washoe County Assessor's Office.

This appeal is for hearing number uh 26-0016 for APN 122-126-19.

The property is a 1,680 square foot single family residence located at 560 Ponderosa Avenue on the west slope of Incline Village.

Uh, this can be found on page six of 15 of your hearing evidence packet.

Are there any questions in regard to the location of the property?

There are none.

Please uh please continue.

Uh Kelsey Powell for the record.

On page two of 15 of the hearing evidence packet, I've included four improved sales that are comparable to the subject property.

I'd like to point out there is a typo in the recommendations uh slash comment section.

IS 11 should read as IS1.

Please note that all comparable sales provided are within a four-mile radius from the subject property.

Even though all the improved sales support the value of Mr.

Adams's property, IS3 is the best comparable to the subject.

It is most similar in quality, land, and building size to the subject property.

It sold on January 18th, 2024 for 1,320,000 or $743 per square foot.

The improved sales range from $743 per square foot to 1,105 per square foot.

I've also included four land sales, which are referenced on the same uh page.

Although vacant land sales are limited in Incline Village, these were chosen due to proximity to the subject and similarity in size.

The best comparable is LS4.

Land cell four is in the adjacent neighborhood to the subject.

It is inferior in size to the subject parcel, and additional coverage was required in order to build.

Overall, it is inferior to the subject parcel.

After adjustments, all of these sales support the land value of the subject property.

I'd like to discuss some of the concerns that Mr.

Adams has already mentioned.

First, I would like to say that I do empathize with the petitioner's situation.

To my knowledge, there are no local senior property tax relief programs.

I've made several attempts to contact Mr.

Adams with no success.

I called and left the voicemail for him on January 21st of this year to set up an interior inspection.

Additionally, I've emailed him the comparable sales information as well as sent this through the Postal Service.

I did visit the subject property on January 27th, but could not see any issues from the street.

A reduction to the property was made at the State Board of Equalization in 2012, lowering the land value from 280,000 to 266,000.

That reduction was applied as a downward 5% adjustment for a steep driveway, and it is still being applied as an access adjustment.

Additionally, each year during reappraisal, a traffic study is performed to see which properties are affected and by how much.

The subject property has not been identified as one that requires a downward traffic adjustment, but will be reviewed again in the fall.

Any neighborhood detriments that affect Mr.

Adams's property would also have affected the sales used in this analysis, and the market simply does not reflect this.

For equalization purposes, additional obsolescence for this property would not be appropriate.

In conclusion, using the sales comparison approach, the value ranges from $743 per square foot to 1,105 per square foot.

This supports the current top the current taxable value of $449 per square foot.

Since this does not exceed full cash value, the total taxable value of $753, $753,498 should be upheld.

Thank you.

Are there any further questions?

Any questions for Mr.

Powell?

I just have two.

Um notice the property, he he references that he started construction of the property and kind of finished it in the early 90s.

The um the appraisal record indicates the built year built was 1986.

How much depreciation is being applied to the structure?

Um I have it right, it should be close to capped out on what we could depreciate.

Uh sorry, just give me uh one second here.

Sure.

60 years.

Okay.

Uh Kelsey Powell for the record.

Uh, it should be 60 percent if uh at 40 years old, one and a half percent depreciation each year.

Yeah, okay the maximum is 75 percent.

The second question I had was on the traffic study you did.

Um how recent was that study?

Because you obviously don't do street by street every year.

Um for the traffic study, it's done annually.

And uh in essence, what we do is a sales, uh a paired sales analysis where we compare uh high trafficked parcels uh versus low traffic comparable parcels, and to see if there's any significant difference in price and so or or sales price.

So we do that annually and determine sort of what the difference is.

Um the most recent uh analysis was done in the fall of 2025.

So it's it is recent.

All right, any other questions for Ms.

Powell?

No, hearing none.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We'll take this back to the board.

Any discussion on the uh petition?

Chair McDonald, if I could add for the record, the um petitioner's evidence will be entered for the record as exhibit Cr hearing none.

I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion.

This petition for parcel number one two one two six one nine hearing number two six zero zero one six with was brought pursuant to NRS 361357 based on the evidence presented by the assessor's office and the petitioner.

I move to uphold the assessor's appraisal of the subject property and find that the petitioner has failed to meet his or her burden to show that the full cash value of the property is less than the taxable value computed for the property in the current assessment year.

With that, I find that the land and improvements are valued correctly, and the total taxable value does not exceed full cash value.

I have a motion.

Do I have a second?

Second, second.

Any other discussion?

Any public comment?

There is none.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much, madam clerk.

Please call the next matter.

We are still in item 11.

This will be assessors parcel number 13108024 McNulty Living Trust.

Hearing number 26069.

And the petitioner is not present.

But I do have evidence to distribute to the board.

Thank you.

All right.

Mr.

Smith, please help us look at the property.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

My name is Adam Smith, appraiser for Washoe County Assessor's Office.

This hearing is for 260069.

The subject is 501 Country Club Drive, a single family residence located on a.52 acre lot.

The subject is located on the corner of Country Club Drive and Fairway Boulevard.

There are any questions regarding the subject's location.

Looks like we're good.

Please proceed.

As stated, the subject is a single family residence with a weighted average year of 1986, originally built in 1978.

It has 3,798 square feet, including 208 square feet of finished basement.

The subject is a five quality class or very good.

The subject is located in the championship influence neighborhood.

The parcels in this neighborhood are characterized by their proximity to the championship golf course without having significant uh frontage square feet.

The subject has a downward 20% adjustment for the detriment on being on a high traffic corner, as well as an 11,000 dollar uh adjust lump sum adjustment prescribed by the 2018-2019 board for uh its location from the improved sales chart.

Three comparables were selected that are approximate and uh similar to the subject.

IS1 is located across the street from the subject on the corner of Country Club Drive and First Green Drive.

IS1 is inferior to the subject in living area in quality, however, it is superior in lot size.

On Fairway Drive, it's inferior in living area, lot size, and is similar in quality.

IS3 is located northwest of the subject on 14th Green Drive.

IS3 is similar in living area and is the most recent sale.

The price per square foot ranges from $849 to $921 a square foot, which is well above the subject's $243 a square foot.

There were no vacant land sales in championship influence neighborhood itself.

Um due to the limited uh land sales in Incline, it was necessary to um expand the search to similar surrounding neighborhoods.

Uh LS1 is 836 Corano Court.

It's located southwest of the subject on Coronel Court.

Uh LS1 is similar in size to the subject and is the most recent land sale.

It sold on February of 25 for 850,000 with coverage.

LS2 is 968 Tyner Way, located in Upper Tiner.

LS2 is inferior in lot size and sold with insufficient coverage to build, and the coverage that it was sold with is tied up in a driveway that will need to be removed before uh further construction can uh proceed.

Uh LS3 is 697 Tumbleweed Circle.

It's located um west of Tyner Way and north of Valley Drive.

It had partial coverage at the time of sale and required a purchase of additional coverage in order to build.

Um these land sales range from 535,000 to 850,000.

Um, and after these adjustments, the uh it shows that the uh taxable land value does not exceed full cash value.

To address some of the applicants or the appellants' concerns, uh 999 fairway was brought to my attention.

It's located across the street on Fairway Drive.

Um it does not have uh golf course frontage or direct golf course frontage um and has very heavily views or very heavily filtered views of the golf course.

Uh you can see this on the final page of the packet.

There's currently a 20% downward adjustment for the traffic and being located on the corner.

Um there's no market evidence that an increase would be warranted.

Um the N DOT statistics, the annual average daily traffic peaked in 2017 and at uh 3,300 um cars per day, and uh 2024 was reported at uh 2150.

Uh flood adjustments are applied based on FEMA maps, and the subject does not lie within a flood zone uh of the 66 privately owned parcels in championship influence 501 country club drive has a sixth largest lot size while also having the lowest taxable land value.

Um it was his concern that there were parcels being valued.

Um he was being valued higher than parcels of uh equal or that that were equal.

Um these facts and the improved and uh vacant land sales indicate that the total taxable value does not exceed full cash value, and it is recommended that the total taxable value be upheld.

Are there any questions?

Um everyone had a chance to read through his uh the petitioner's materials, or do we need a few minutes to just finish reading?

Good select.

Chair McDonald, if I could for the record, this um three-page document submitted by the petitioner is exhibit A for the record.

Exhibit A.

Looks like we're good there.

Uh Mr.

Smith, as I recall when he has appeared in the past, the 20% downward adjustment for traffic is one of the highest ones, or is that still true?

That's it is because of the traffic along Country Club Drive as well as being located on the corner.

Any other questions for Mr.

Smith?

Nothing for thank you very much.

Any uh discussion.

Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion.

Anyone interested?

It's good, it's good practice.

And this is for parcel number one three one zero eight zero two four was brought pursuant to three six dot three six one dot three five five based on the evidence presented by the assessor's office and the petitioner.

I may have to uphold the assessor's appraisal of the subject property and find that the petitioner has failed to meet his burden to show that the land and improvements are overvalued or excessive by reason of undervaluation for taxation purposes of the property of any other person, firm, company, association, or corporation within any county of the state or by reason of any such property not being so assessed.

With that, I find that the land and improvements are valued correctly, and the total taxable value does not exceed full cash value.

Second uh I I have a motion and a second.

Um discussion on that.

If I can make a correction, it was brought per NRS 361356.

Oh, yes.

Other than that, very good.

Um with that adjustment, is there any other discussion?

Is there any public comment?

There is none.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

I'm sorry, I was in favor.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Madam Clerk, please call the next matter.

We are now moving on to item 12, vacant land real property, and we have assessors parcel number 077 2500 one.

John R.

Adams hearing number two six zero zero zero seven.

And there is additional petitioner evidence that I will distribute to the board.

We already said Mr.

Cronin, please uh orient us to the property.

Okay.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair, members of the board, Jeff Cronin with the Washoe County Assessors Office.

Today's hearing number two six-007 concerns assessors parcel number zero seven seven two five zero zero one and approximately three hundred and thirty acre home site zoned general rural agricultural.

It's located on mid road in Palomino Valley.

Mapped location can be found on page six of your hearing evidence packet.

Okay.

No, no, please proceed.

All right.

So as mentioned, the subject is just off the maintained portion of, or it's off mid uh mid-road, which is just off the maintained portion of Wilcox Ranch Road in Palomino Valley.

Um it's about 20 20 minutes, it's a 20-minute drive from Pyramid Highway to get to the site.

Umce there at the mid-road entrance to the parcel begins an approximate three quarter of a mile rough cut road that leads up to a rough graded pad site that's about it's a little over an acre in size.

Um the topography in the area is mountainous.

Um let's see.

I have not been to or I I've been to the site, however, I didn't have access to the pad site itself, but I would imagine it has sweeping views of the valley.

Um photos on pages seven through ten of the hearing evidence packet.

Um provide a pretty good illustration of the subject, the pad site, um the road as well up to up to the pad site.

Um more info on the subject.

It is zoned uh again, it's zone general rural agricultural.

This allows for one home site for 40 acres.

Um for 40 acres or larger, so one site for this particular parcel.

Um the development appears feasible.

There's power that is nearby at surrounding home sites along Wilcox Ranch Road.

The subject was recently listed, was most recently listed in March of 2023 at 675,000, and it was uh removed after about seven months.

The subject's uh 2627 taxable value is 102,000.

Any questions regarding the subject?

Yes, I have a question.

Sure.

Oh, the sown general rural.

Do you know if that means it can be subdivided at all?

Ms.

Listener, thank you for the question.

Yes, it can be.

Um so 40 acres is if that parcel is eligible to be divided up into eight parcels.

So each parcel has to be at least 40 acres to uh maintain a home site.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Now you indicated that um electricity is nearby, but there are actually no utilities on the property itself or no support.

So this is completely undeveloped other than an access road and a gate.

That's correct.

There are um there's development.

If you if we could bring up the um the map, it's on page six.

So if if you notice there, I've provided um the green shading indicates those parcels that have been developed, and there's a high likelihood that there's going to be utilities on site.

Um I can't say for sure on all of them because some are operating off solar at this time.

So, but that gives you an indication that both north, south, and west, there's there's development around it and likely power nearby.

Has he a um begun any kind of application process or filed anything to indicate an effort to develop it?

There's there was uh there's been no permits uh that were found for the property.

No permits he identifies a dumping hazard.

Um do you have any comments on that?

Sure.

I was um I'm gonna leave that to the end, but I'd be happy to look into that now or uh talk about it now.

Um so the uh appellant his concerns were regarding a waste management neighborhood pickup stop that's located on the northeast corner of assessor's parcel number 077 41031.

And Wendy, maybe we could bring that up.

There you go.

And if we zoom in, just keep zooming in.

You can actually from this image, it's gonna be in the it's gonna be, I'm sorry, the northwest corner at where mid road meets Wilcox Ranch.

You can actually see the some trash cans lined up there.

And also on the page 10 of my hearing evidence packet, you can see that if we can maybe bring that into focus um to the you're gonna want to scroll back to page 10 going, I'm sorry, Jane, the other direction.

There you go.

Um, but we're gonna need to scroll to the left a little bit.

There we go.

So that's where the trash cans are.

Um so I spoke with um a representative from waste management, and they indicated that neighborhood collection stops are they're not uncommon in rural uh environments, particularly where roads become unmaintained.

And then on this photo, you can see that just past mid-road, um, it is starts the unmaintained uh portion of Wilcox Ranch Road.

So residents beyond that point are bringing their their trash cans uh up there to be picked up by waste management.

Um so he believes that um the collection stop has diminished the market value of his property.

Um however, he did not provide any evidence to support this.

Um there's been no paired sales data or measurable evidence supporting an adjustment for um uh external obsolescence either.

I do have sales in my packet that um support the value.

Um in particular, it's gonna be LS1 that recently sold for 200,000, and that still supports the subject's taxable value of 102,000.

Yes, please go ahead and um um walk us through the land sales.

Okay.

Okay, so on page two of my packet, um, I provided four comparable sales.

Um the three most recent sales, LS1 through LS3 support a market value range of 107,000 to 200,000 per home site.

So at the upper end of the range is LS1, it is um we've got a photo on page 11.

Um this parcel is about a half mile west of the subject, it has similar zoning access and development potential.

Um it has a little uh a little more level topography than the subject.

Um and this parcel uh again is much smaller, and it's sold for 200,000 in March of 2025.

Now at the uh lower end of the range is um LS 3.

Um and if we could go to the map on page six.

It's way up there.

Now it's about four miles as the crow flies from the subject.

However, it's a good 25 minutes to a half an hour from the subject.

Um I was recently at this parcel, and it took us about 45 minutes to reach it from Pyramid Highway.

So it's way up there, and um it's it has similar zoning to the subject.

It has um similar rough cut access to the pad site.

However, it is 40 acres, so it is smaller.

Um again, this this parcel is way up there.

Um and it sold for um uh 107,000 in June of 2025, again, supporting our taxable value of 102,000.

Um let's see.

Okay, so in addition, um, in my analysis, I've also included an older but highly comparable sale.

Um the uh LS4, which you can see on uh the map, page six.

Um this is a highly similar parcel.

It is uh 321 acres, it's just about a mile west of the subject.

Um similar zoning, size, access, location, does have some challenging topography.

Although this uh sale is somewhat dated, LS4 provides the best overall indication of value due to its uh similarities in size and characteristics.

So it and this sold uh again, it was in 2021 for 350 or yeah, 353,000.

I would assume with the appreciation of land values, um it would probably sell for much more um today.

Um so again, this sale is probably the best and provides the best support for the subject property.

Um in conclusion, um three most recent uh land sales support a range of 107 to 200 per home site, probably the most comparable dated sale.

Um continues to support the the value at 353,000, and we would ask that you would uphold the taxable value for the subject property.

Is there any questions?

I do have just one question.

Sure.

Um, Mr.

Listener asked if it was subdividable, and and your answer was yes, do they have to go through an application process for that?

Um I'm assuming I'm assuming there's some sort of um process that is out there.

I I'm not familiar with it myself, um, but I would assume there is a I know there are uh maps that need to be submitted, and those need to there needs to be some sort of an approval, I would imagine.

Thank you.

Uh any other questions.

We don't usually see um in the outland sales sales on um that are dated five years back from the assessor's office.

Um you guys usually correct you uh constrain yourselves to within a couple of years, is that correct?

That's correct, yes.

So um, and and that's kind of where my presentation was going.

I wanted to support the values with three very recent sales, but I think that if we really wanted to get a better understanding of the value of this parcel, we we've got to look at a much larger parcel that's really close by.

Um we didn't use that sale to value the property this year, um, but um I I feel like it demonstrates the potential uh for the subject.

So um yeah, with regards to um LS one, two, and three, um, they are similar in terms of like their their position and development.

They don't have utilities, they may have like a road access and a gate, but not much done to them, correct?

That's correct, yes.

All right.

Any other questions?

Or thank you very much.

Okay, just that Mr.

Chairman for the record, if I could um note for the record, um, the petitioner's evidence will be labeled exhibit B.

Exhibit B.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Cron.

Thank you.

Bring us back to the board.

Do we have any discussion or deliberation?

Hearing none, I will entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion.

This is this petition for parcel number 077 2501.

On the right track.

Yes, yes.

Okay.

Was brought pursuant to NRS 361-355.

Based on the evidence presented by the assessor's office and the petitioner, I move to uphold the assessor's appraisal of the subject property and find that the petitioner has failed to meet his or her burden to show that the land and improvements are overvalued or excessive by reason of undervaluation for taxation purposes of the property or any other person, firm, company, association, or corporation within any county of the state, or by reason of any such property not being so assessed.

With that, I find that the land and improvements are valued correctly, and the total taxable value does not exceed full cash value.

All right.

I have a motion.

I have a motion in a second.

Any other discussion?

Any public comment?

There's none.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Abstained.

Motion carries.

Madam Clerk, please call the next matter.

Okay.

We are we've already completed item 13.

We are on to item 14 approval of the minutes from March 28th of 2025.

Now the minutes were included in uh everyone's packet, as I recall.

Uh has everyone had a chance to review those minutes.

And uh do we have any discussion on it?

No, any public comment?

There's none.

Uh well then I take a motion to approve the minutes.

Having the reviewed the minutes, I make a motion to approve the minutes as outlined in the information presented to us of the March 28, 2025 meeting.

Good.

I have a second.

Second the motion.

Excellent.

Uh any public comment?

There's none.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Madam Clerk.

We are moving on to item 15, board member comments.

Thank you all for coming to our meeting, our first real hearing of the of the season.

Look forward to a couple of more exciting ones to come.

And uh if you have any questions, please feel free to jump out and ask them.

Any other board member comments?

Any public comment?

There is none.

Uh may I have a motion.

Oh Mr.

McDonaldie, would you like to speak at public comment?

Your item was already heard.

Okay.

Well, they've already made the decision on that.

Yes.

Let me mr.

McNulty would like to speak.

Mr.

McNulty.

No, that's all right.

Yes, go ahead.

Mr.

McNulty, welcome to the board.

Thank you.

It's good to see you again.

And I'd like you to receive the packet on this.

Um in the end, whatever decision you made on this, because of my tardiness on this, um, I fully appreciate it.

Wouldn't have made a dollar difference to my tax assessment, if you will.

Uh the county would have been by in not a benefit.

I think more because of the uh the restriction at three percent increase on that.

But I did with the attachment that I submitted with the I can find it quickly.

I did offer a final paragraph, which I summarized my position on this.

Madam Clerk, will you go ahead and extend the uh uh commenters' time by five minutes?

Of course.

Thank you.

This is my third appearance before the Washoe County Board of Equalization to personally appeal the methodology used by the county assessor to derive a fair tax on the valuation of the land portion of my annual tax bill.

I have owned the property and incline long enough to have been a beneficiary of past court cases, et cetera, of the drawn-out class action law case several years ago, which cost all Washoe County taxpayers, uh, as well as those in Incline to recover, and the issue is the same is how the board or how the appraiser's office addresses land valuations.

And I think I've reviewed the law enough times to try to understand why the methodology that's used is there.

This board may elect to find that I do make a strong enough case to support my opinion of the county's approach to arriving at a fair valuation and pronounce, as they did in addressing my 2324 appeal, that the assessor's valuation percentage, 13.4% coming into the new year, increase for 2026-27, overvalued or excessive by reason of undervaluation for tax purposes.

On that basis, no Nevada homeowner in this building could reasonably appeal their land assessment successfully.

How properties in a particular APN code could experience the same appreciation for land value in any given year is not reasonable given the custom home sites and unique attributes that affect the incline market.

The Washoe County Assessor's Office must deal with nearly 200,000 annual appraisals, of which over 7,000 are in the incline Crystal Bay Area, a workload that would challenge 40 staff.

The data available for each parcel is limited and weighted towards a physical characteristics of improvement, such as square footage, quality of construction, and lot size, with no corresponding recognition of view, traffic, flood risk, lakefront values, golf front frontage values, and those buyers escaping tax regimes in other states and work from home options.

Which, if you read my packet or had an opportunity to, uh, and again, I apologize for not being here to present it.

Um I note these characteristics.

But suggest that no matter the outcome, the Board of Equalization through the County Commissioners might work with the assessor's office to effect a more enlightened approach to valuations represented as a tax basis for Washoe County.

Um basically it's the same issue in incline Crystal Bay, I feel that's been present all along.

I'm a homeowner, owner up there of over 30 years.

Comparing one property, land only or improved in land.

But the approach would perhaps benefit from a better programmed approach, given the limited staff, than to continue with this pretend, if we will, of my protesting that wait a minute, the values are not seeking the higher levels that are on my tax bill coming up for the for the upcoming tax period.

Um they don't reflect the unique character of my position, if you will, on the map, and it's the package you received from appraisers was certainly evidence of that.

Um you cannot say that because a property doesn't border the championship golf course, therefore it's not on the Japan championship golf course, where the appraiser's presentation, if you will, or case that was presented here, shows clearly in a photograph that the property I continue to point out to them is touches the golf course, has access to the golf course.

I don't the properties that were used as comparison uh do not apply with factors.

If you're looking at upper end uh timer way, you're looking at view properties.

You're looking at something that doesn't approach a flood risk.

You're looking at very little traffic except for local.

Um so factors like that to take a measure like the square footage of the house.

Well, that averages out, and I think this is on the uh the um appraiser's sheet that they gave you.

Um it's just remarkable that on the one hand we have a situation where appraisers are overwhelmed trying to justify a tax increase, which I understand, and by the way, again, it whatever the decision had that has been made is it doesn't affect the dollar amount that the Washoe County receives from me because of the limits of 489.

Um actually the increases I get from IVGID for supplemental costs add more to the tax space than um that I pay than what Washoe County assesses me.

Uh but there is this dichotomy of how we approach land values in incline village, and it's been a cumbersome way to go at this cumbersome for the appraisals office, cumbersome for uh an owner like me, a long-term homeowner, to understand how the appraiser derives at a value for land.

And the idea, and again, the packet that uh that you have before you for me if it's been read, is that I'm basically saying two properties removed from me that have two border lines on the golf course that I don't share any access to.

Um he has a lower appraisal increase than my property.

Um I have flood risk, I have increasing traffic, um, I have a no attribute such as golf course access or frontage uh or view of mountains or lake.

Um so why am I lumped with others that don't share that common interest?

And I've provided a graph in my presentation.

Again, I apologize.

Um coming down the hill, dropping off my wife, um, and time got away from us.

That's my that's my error.

And I do appro apologize to the board for wasting uh that opportunity.

And on the other hand, I appreciate the public comment.

Does anyone have any questions of me?

Well, Mr.

McNulty, we did uh vote to uphold the assessor's uh opinion of the land.

Of course, you have the right to appeal that to the state board of equalization on amendment clerk.

What's the date?

March 10th.

March 10th, you'd have to file that appeal by 10th.

And I suggest you do because you're bringing up an important issue, and and um sometimes those things have to run up the line for some time uh before they get addressed.

Mr.

McDonald, we do have the forms for you to fill out for the appeal.

Thank you very much.

And again, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, do we have any other public comment?

There is nobody else signed in for public comment, so we will move on to item 17, which is adjournment.

All right.

Um do we vote on adjournment?

I think you just call it.

Thank you all for coming.

We're adjourned.