Okay, I call this February 18, 2026 meeting of the Washoe County Board of Equalization Meeting to order.

This is going to be a long day.

It's been a while since I've done this.

Um please join me for the solution of the plug.

And 2051.

Individual instance call.

I get just everybody.

Madam Clerk, may we have the roll call?

Of course.

Darren McDonald, Chair is absent.

Eugenia Bonapont, Vice Chair here.

Aaron Albright.

Robert Listener.

Here.

Corinthian Yancey.

Here.

And let's see.

Our DA today is Kobe Burnett.

Here.

And I'm Jan Galasini, County Clerk.

Madam, you have a quorum.

Thank you.

Do we have any public comments?

There is none.

Thank you.

And do we have staff that needs to get sworn in?

We do.

And just be sure if you have not signed in that you do so before you leave the room.

Please raise your right hand and attest.

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 God or so affirm.

Thank you.

Okay.

Looks like we're moving on to item number six.

Item six is withdrawals.

And on your agenda, they are in green.

We have added um assessors parcel number 02505552, hearing number two six zero zero four eight, and assessors parcel number zero two four zero five five five three, hearing number two six zero zero four nine, and they are under item 10 on your agenda.

Perfect.

And do we have any public comment on this item?

There is none.

If I can have a motion to support the withdrawal or to approve the withdrawals, including the two green items under number 10.

I move to accept the withdrawals of parcel number 0250552.

Hearing number 26-0048.

And parcel number 0240553.

Hearing number 26-0049.

Second.

I have a motion in a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Motion carries.

Item number seven, please.

Item number seven is request for continuance, and we have none.

Perfect.

Moving on to item number eight.

Item number eight is stipulations for business personal property.

And let's see.

That is assessors account number two six one eight zero zero nine.

Prime health care services.

Hearing number two six zero zero zero nine p two five.

And do we have any public comment for this item?

There is none.

May I have a motion to approve this stipulation?

Um motion to approve the stipulation.

Um I move to approve the stipulation parcel number two six one eight zero zero nine, hearing two six zero zero zero nine p25.

You would have a motion a second.

I have a motion in the second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion.

Aye.

Thank you.

Item number nine.

Item nine is stipulations of real property.

And they are listed in yellow on your agenda.

So it on your agenda, it's 01106103, hearing number two six zero zero five through assessors parcel number zero one nine three six zero two five.

Hearing number two six zero zero six eight, as well as under item 10, the yellow items.

Um parcel number 03905108, hearing number 00, I mean 26050 through assessors parcel number 086032, hearing number two six zero zero five one.

And you did receive the stipulations for the two Walmarts.

Um hearing numbers 00500051, and they will be labeled as assessors evidence.

Perfect.

Thank you.

We have um my god, I just lost my place.

Um do we have any public comment for this item?

There's none.

Thank you.

I will accept a motion to approve the stipulations.

I move to approve the stipulations.

Um sorry for assessor parcel number 01101603 through parcel number 086032.

Hearings hearing numbers 26 000 five through 26 dash zero zero five one.

Second.

I have a motion.

The second all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries on to item number 10.

Item number 10 is commercial rail property appeals.

And we do have the appellant here in chambers.

This is for assessors parcel number.

Uh we'll do 25 first.

004 04016252 hearing number 26044 R25.

Thank you.

And I do need to swear in the petitioner.

Do you swear our firm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you will present to this season of the board of equalization?

Is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

So help you got.

Yes, I do.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr.

Churchill.

You are very familiar with the process, but I will describe it for the members of the board as well.

Um, you will have we'll have the assessor locate the parcel for us.

You will have 20 minutes to present your case, then the assessor will have the same to do his, and then you will have 10 minutes to respond to anything the assessor um has presented.

So assessors I have materials for the floor.

Please provide them to the clerk's office.

Oh, we need.

Do you have another one?

We may need to share.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Sir.

Do you need a copy?

Okay.

Good morning.

Good morning, members of the board.

My name is Diana Arius, appraiser for the Washoe County Assessors Office.

This is for hearing number 26-0044R25.

And this is for the reopen tax year uh 2025.

Uh the subject property is a 31,301 square foot discount store built in 1989, and a 3928 square foot fast food restaurant built in 2023.

The property is located on South Virginia Street and Neal Road in the Meadowwood area.

The location of the property can be seen on page 19 and 20 of 47.

Are there any questions about the location of the property?

No, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Good morning, members of the board.

Thank you for your time today.

Um just really quickly.

Will this camera uh I just want to test it?

Does it can I show anything here?

Well, you guys have the packet, so we can refer to the packets that way.

Either way works for us.

Okay.

If you if you put it on there, it'll shine up on the put it down on the page.

There we go.

Yeah, there you go.

It's a little so the subject property is located at 6407 South Virginia Street, as the appraiser stated, is part of the the center was the known in town as the Comp USA Center.

And it's located uh directly across the street from the whole food center.

Currently, the um property is being quality classed at a 2.0.

And the petitioner's concern and the petitioner's reason for appealing this property is due to equalization.

The petition the petitioner feels that his property is out of equalization when compared to other superior located properties and superior quality class properties.

So there's an issue with the land value and the quality class from an equalization standpoint.

And I would like to let the board know as well.

The petitioner filed the appeal initially and checked the market value box in error because he had uh an assistant who was a real estate individual fill out the form for him, but he protected his right, and we're here today for the second box over equalization due to the comparables that I'm going to put forward.

The first comparable to the subject property is a comparable that we all know.

It's TJ Maxx and Home Goods.

It's all part of the Fire Creek Crossing Retail Center, which in my eyes is one of the two premier retail centers in that area.

Fire Creek Crossing consists of TJ Maxx, Ross, Office Depot, Florent Decor, Alta Beauty, and now has Starbucks in lieu of Boston Marketplace.

It's taken the drive-through tenant space, so it's probably going to vacate the prior location right over there.

TJ Maxx and Home Goods is quality classed at a 1.5.

So to put it in perspective, the petitioner or the appraiser has the subject property quality class at a 2.0.

We feel that this is or the petitioner feels that the comparables as seen on the PowerPoint attached in the packet is arguably superior.

It has a drop ceiling, has extensive retail build-out that it's had for many years, and it also has parapets on the top of it with a tile roof, as seen better on displayed on the uh Ross and Office Depot photos of Fire Creek Center.

It's got tall ceilings, and the land value is also at 11 dollars a foot comparative to the subject's $19 per foot.

I'm a licensed real estate broker.

I if I had to list the two properties, there's no way I could justify that large of a difference in price from the prior Comp USA Center to Fire Creek Crossing.

Fire Creek Crossing is built specifically for retail with the intent of attracting very, very high credit, high net worth users such as Walmart, Sam's Club that have anchored that whole shopping center and drive massive amounts of traffic to it to attract national corporate tenants like TJ Maxx, Ross, Office Depot, and etc.

So that's the first comparable.

And keep in mind that land value is nearly half of the subjects.

TJ Maxx also has it should be noted that they have a dock door in the back, the dock leveler to get merchandise in.

And every tenant at Fire Creek has a dock door and dock leveler.

Semi-access is very easy.

TJ Maxx has two signalized access points, unlike the subject, which is very challenging to get in and out of because there is no direct light access.

There is no direct turn lane to it.

If anybody's been to that shopping center, if you go in and you you hang right in and you want to make a left to go out, you cannot hang left because there's a median.

So if you go on the right out, now you're forced to go down past total wine, hit that light, pull a U-turn, and then go all the way around.

Versus something like TJ Maxx, you have direct access from two traffic lights.

You have Talbot Lane access and numerous other ways to get in and out of that property with enough space to where you can easily load goods and semi-trucks can easily access that property.

This center did appear before this board probably seven years ago on an appeal, and the assessor has been aware of this one and a half quality class.

So they feel that this quality class accurate reflect accurately reflects the Fire Creek crossing shopping center because it hasn't been changed since that appeal.

So it's gone through multiple reappraisal cycles and has been maintained at that 1.5.

So going off of that and looking at the two centers, the petitioner feels that his quality class should be reduced from a 2.0 to a 1.5 because again, he doesn't have the same ingress egress, ceiling heights, dock access, and everything.

His tenant SkiPro is a I think there's three ski pros there out of Arizona.

It's kind of a mom and pop tenant.

I wouldn't call it a normal corporate user like a TJ Maxx or Home Goods, and the lease reflects that.

Looking at the build out of SkiPro, by example, the ceilings are open.

There's a large HVAC that drops down the center of the space.

It doesn't look very good.

It's very dated looking because now the ductwork was rerun.

So the petitioner put a new facade on the space, but that was really it.

And again, that's why we're not seeing that as a justification for a 2-0 quality class when the exterior one wall of the exterior was really the only facade.

The back of the building on SkiPro cannot be fixed.

It has only one dock door.

So that gentleman cannot get semi-truck accessed boxes or pallets.

He does not have a partitioned off area to take in warehousing stuff.

It's all open, so he has to move his all the boxes and everything, clean it up in one day, whereas TJ Maxx and Home Goods has a dedicated warehouse spot in the back that's partitioned off that is not seen by the public.

So there is much more of an expansive build out seen in Ross and TJ Maxx.

The other comparable that I'd like to bring the board's attention to is the prior sports authority.

This was this is at 4811 Kitski Lane and is considered comp number two in the packet.

And it makes up 43,476 square feet.

It's on a larger parcel for Fire Creek.

But again, this tenant is valued at 11 per foot.

This property is currently, it was built out as GART Sports, if any of us remember that, and then it went to Sports Authority, and then now it's currently vacant.

And the reason it's currently vacant is not a lot of uses can go into this space.

Walmart and Sam's Club have a law restrictions.

I personally tried to purchase this building with a group of investors.

They would not allow us to do it based on the use that I wanted to put there.

So again, this property sold in 2024 for 40 40 $6 million 375,000.

I do not think the subject property would ever sell for as much because it doesn't have the corporate back leases in place.

And getting back to this comparable, the sports authority building, as seen in the back of the packet, it has two dock accesses.

It um it's got drop ceilings in it, and it was built out as a sports store to a higher level than the build-out that's currently in Ski Pro.

As you can see, there's drop ceilings in there.

They cost a lot, they did not go anywhere.

And then, and that property again is valued at $11 per foot.

And the third comparable is located at 6590 South Virginia Street.

It's the Home Depot building.

This was a building constructed for Home Depot specifically.

So while it does not have a lot of retail finish work, it has additions such as a nursery, it has additions of four dock doors with levelers, it has access throughout the building in order to move large materials for its specific use.

The largest issue we're having with that property is it's also one and a half quality.

So all these comps have been at one and a half quality are located very close in very close proximity to the subject.

The land value at home depot, which is directly across the street from the subject and has better signalized access, actually has two points of access, is $12 per foot.

So even the small out parcels over there are at $1360 per foot as comparative to the subject's 19.

So when asked the assessor's office about the 19, they're saying it has to do with freeway frontage.

I can assure you there the client is not benefiting that much from the freeway frontage that the petitioner has because again, he cannot fix the constraints of the small parking lot, the ingress egress, and ceiling heights, build out of the buildings, unless he were to start fresh on that site.

But the site is very small and challenging based on the ingress and egress, and that's why the petitioner feels that he is out of equalization when compared to the comps brought before this board, and would is asking for a reduction on quality class from a two to a one and a half and asking for the land value to be reduced to twelve dollars a foot, just like the Home Depot across the street.

And there's also other comparables in here.

Nordstrom's rack, which I think all of us have been to in the Redfield Promenade Center.

That's a smaller parcel, very similar to the subject, and it's at $16 a foot, and it has freeway frontage, and it has signalized access.

And it has signalized access.

So to me, Nordstrom's Rack, if I were a leasing agent, I would ask a higher lease rate on the Nordstrom's rack property as opposed to the subject property because of ingress, egress, ease for patrons to get in and out of the shopping center and et cetera.

I leave you guys with this.

I'm a uh I'm a coin collector, and my coin guy is in this shopping center that um is being appealed.

And there's been many days.

I don't even want to go down and deal with it.

I'll go to Northern Valley Coins by Costco because the ingress and egress is so much easier on my lunch hour.

So there is real merit to the ingress and egress of this center.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Diana Arias for the record.

Um I will address the concerns of the appellant, but first I will go over the sales and income approach analysis.

So the sales comparison approach is on page two of 47.

Improved cell one and improved cell four are both discount stores and improved cell two and improved cell three are both fast food restaurants.

The improved sale analysis for the discount store ranges from 150 a square foot to 235 dollars a square foot.

And the fast food restaurant ranges from 1,240 a square foot to $1,466 a square foot.

Since there are two occupancies on the parcel, consideration will be applied to both.

The improved sales support, the subject valued at 136 a square foot, well below the comparables.

Moving over to the land sale comparables, land cell one is located on Virginia Street, located across from the South Town Crossing Shopping Center in South Reno, and is most similar to the subject.

The sales price uh is $27.16 a square foot and sold on December 20th, 2024.

Overall, the land sales one through land sales three support a range of value of $16 to $27.16 a square foot, which more than well supports the subject's land value of $17 a square foot.

On page four of 47, you will see an income approach analysis that was performed.

Income and expense information was requested.

However, no information was provided from the appellant.

Therefore, market data was considered.

The rent chart is provided on pages five and six of page 47.

Rents range from 50 cents to $2.75 a square foot, depending on occupancy.

We do have a rent comp on the rent chart from the subject's discount store that was gathered through CoStar was signed in 2023 for a dollar 42 cents a square foot.

As a conservative approach and taking into consideration other market rents, a dollar a square foot was used for the discount store occupancy.

For the fast food occupancy for the Panera, $2.75 a square foot was used in the analysis.

The discount store and fast food restaurants fully occupied per market reports.

The reno retail submarket vacancy is 4.1%.

For the analysis of 5% vacancy was used.

Expense ratio of 5% was used in the analysis.

And based on local cap rates and market report cap rates range from 6% to 7.9% with a median of 6.5%.

These can be located on page 7 through 9 of page 47.

To be conservative, a cap rate of 7.5% was used in the analysis.

Overall, the income approach results in a value of 6.1 million or 173 dollars a square foot, supporting the 2025-2026 value of $4 million,646 or $136 a square foot.

In conclusion, the subject's taxable value is supported and recommended to be upheld.

However, I do want to address the petitioners' concerns directly, and um also talk about the previous communication with the um the appellants.

So we have had previous communication with um the owner, Mr.

Kaplan's assistant regarding the increase in value and taxes back in 2025 and January 2026, more recently.

It was discussed that it was mainly due to the new construction value that was added due to the new Panera building.

As well, there was an appraisal that was conducted but also not shared.

No further communication was made with the um with Jackie, the assistant uh since January 28th.

And then more recently, um Mr.

Mike Churchfield uh contacted our office on February 4th that he was representing Mr.

Kaplan.

So we listened to his concerns.

Um as he mentioned today, the uh land value.

I'll start with the um land value for the can I have sorry what you provided.

Thank you.

So just quickly going over his comparables.

It's like it's first time also seeing these, um, but just from a quick uh over review, the comparable on 4827 Kitski Lane, the Fire Cross, uh Fire Creek Crossing Retail Shopping Center.

Um, it is a different location than right on South Virginia, and also there is a large uh size difference in the parcel.

Um believe this parcel alone is about 17 acres.

Um however, there are other parcels that are surrounding and um being looked at as one.

Um so the there is a we acknowledge there that there is a large uh difference between the subject and this comparable, but believe it is warranted.

And also, I believe the land sales uh that I went over, especially the one directly on South Virginia Street that sold on, um, sold for $27 a square foot, does prove that uh South Virginia Street has a higher um or the higher land value is warranted.

Um also want to make a um comment about so we did uh visit the parcel and drove by um and it does have I know uh Mr.

Mike Churchfield did mention the visibility from the freeway.

Um there are signs on the back of or of the buildings, so I think they are benefiting from some visibility from the freeway and also um accessibility um right off if you're going uh north if you exit, you you can just turn um to the right.

Um there's not enough market data to suggest that um the access issues um have affected the value.

Tenants like fast food restaurants typically look at these characteristics when deciding for a location.

Um so currently the the new Panera building, and there's also a taco bell uh right on the corner, and I do want to note that that is uh not owned by the same owner.

Um there is a traffic study that was provided from Endot.

It's on page 40 of 47, and it can be um noted that um there's increased traffic on the west of South Virginia where the subject is located, and then um I previously Mr.

Churchfield mentioned some parcels on the east side of South Virginia, and we can um notice that there is a big difference in the traffic count.

So another main concern that was mentioned was the quality class of the discont store.

Um have pictures of the subject on page 21 of 47 for reference.

So I did want to know so this was updated, the facade was updated in 2024, but the for this particular um building, the quality class was not updated because of that.

So this was updated, the facade was updated in 2024, but for this particular um building, the quality class was not updated because of that.

Um that update, it had previously been at a quality class of 2.0.

Uh the Marshall, I did provide a Marshall and Swift um quality class guideline, and that is on page 38 for discount store occupancy.

So I do feel that um yes, thank you.

And so the subject is um of average quality, that's the quad quality class of 2.2.0.

Um it was reviewed.

Um, and we believe it's appropriate appropriate.

It has um more ornamentation that uh than other buildings with a quality class of 1.5.

Um, different exterior wall types, um, they have uh metal canopies.

Uh the ski pro does have a little bit of more angle uh in the entrance.

So I do feel uh that the quality class of 2.0 is well supported, and again, just an ending note.

The um previous quality class or before the update was already at a 2.0.

Thank you.

And just very quickly, so we're all in the same team.

How does quality class impact the value of a property?

It's going to be it's a factor.

So I'm not sure how much like the half class would impact it.

I would have to get back to you on that.

But more in the methodology.

This is impacts the value of the improvement value of the value that you use for Marshall and SWIP.

Exactly.

Yes.

Just making sure that everybody Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

So I have a question.

Uh, do you know the square footage of the Panera store?

Yes, the square footage is 3,928 square feet.

About 250 dollars a square foot, roughly is about what you added.

So I see a million dollars of new value.

Yeah, uh yes.

Oh, and the new construction value, yes.

The new construction value was about, yes, 9000.

Is that all the Panera Bread, or is does that include the fronted or the that is the only then for this particular parcel?

Um, the new construction value was only for the Panera building any more questions?

Yeah, I have a question.

Um bars the evaluation, um, is physical characteristics a part of your evaluation, like if it's a buildable land or stable flat, because that's typically higher in value, correct?

So can you repeat that again?

The physical characteristics of the land.

Yes, so like is it like is that part of the value of your evaluation?

That is going to be part of the land value.

So you look at like flat, stable, buildable, because those are typically higher in value, correct?

If it's flat, yes.

Okay.

Yes, and typically, so if it's on a hill or anything that that sort, um, or it's gonna be more costly to develop.

Right, because it's like the infrastructure.

Exactly.

The valve the land value would will reflect that.

So if it's like a steep or swamp, it's more exactly if it has a ditch, then there's some kind of detriment.

We we will take that into consideration.

Okay, and that was taken into consideration with the properties or properties.

Yes.

Okay.

If there is a detriment, yes.

Okay, thank you.

As well as as we talked about access visibility for commercial properties, that matters a lot.

Yes, if we have enough, um if we can clearly determine that, yes, we do apply an adjustment.

Thank you.

Any further questions?

Yes, please.

Please.

Uh, do you have any record of how long that major tenant was empty?

I'm thinking it was about three years in this building.

After the Goodwill?

Yes.

Have to get back to you on that.

I'm not.

Yeah, I'm not I don't want to misspeak.

I'm I'm gonna guess three years.

Then they do have a tenant in there now.

Yes, they they have ski pro and then truck.

Okay.

Are we good for now?

Um we'll have an opportunity to ask more questions.

But I will turn it over to Mr.

Churchfield.

Uh are you done with your presentation?

Yes, thank you.

Madam Chair, as Mr.

Churchfield approaches, I would like to um state that the petitioners um added exhibit is exhibit B for the record.

Thank you.

Thank you, members of the board.

To address a couple of the points made by the assessor's office.

Again, they've got their land sales, but again, this is an equalization appeal.

They're referencing Southtown Crossing.

That has a Walmart.

I don't know if that's a pad site.

I don't know what it is that could have utilities to it.

And then to address your point, you made a very good point about site characteristics.

So all the sites that I've compared here have all what I call horizontal development complete, meaning storm drain infrastructure, parking, building pads, power, utilities, everything is delivered to those sites because these are all built-out sites.

So again, I want to I want to strongly emphasize this as an equalization appeal.

Again, as a as a real estate broker myself that's been with Kidder Matthews, Collier, C.B.

Richard Ellis, I personally cannot understand how you would have this land value of roughly half at Fire Creek Crossing, whereas Fire Creek Crossing was built out to be the premier center of the time in 1996.

It had wonderful tenants in there.

I think all of us have shopped at one time or another in TJ Maxx.

That you know, they're gonna talk about the angle of the front building.

Well, okay, what about the drop ceilings and multiple docks and et cetera that this does not have the TJ Maxx benefits from to achieve a corporate tenant like that?

Uh you know, the TJ Maxx building really hasn't there, it's it's been a tenant since its inception.

Um the grocery store just went out of there, so they're actively leasing that at Fire Creek, but it's a specific build out as a grocery store.

Uh the Whole Foods, they're talking about traffic and the Neal location is superior to Fire Creek Crossing.

Well, let's go back in time and remember what Whole Foods was before Whole Foods.

That was Shopco.

And if anybody remembers how long that building sat vacant before Whole Foods went there, it was a long time.

And Whole Foods actually signed a lease at Bob's Furniture in Redfield Promenade, which is where Nordstrom's rack is.

And that's why that sat vacant for years because when they acquired Wild Oats, that's where Wild Oats was going to move to.

So that's what kept Bill Goodguy's space vacant for so long because they had a paying lease on that center the entire time.

So it wasn't that there was uh a vacancy because it wasn't attracting a tenant, they just didn't want to get the buyout because they were getting paid every month.

So to me, it you know, Redfield Promenade is a superior property in my eyes, as well as Fire Creek Crossing from a leasing perspective specifically.

So again, I think the petitioner is well founded in asking that his quality class be equalized with TJ Maxx, Ross, who has a drop full drop ceiling build-outs, you know, they have changing um dressing rooms, bathrooms that are private, and it's not an open ceiling in there as Ski Pro's full open ceiling.

You can see the insulation on the roof, the trek site, it's concrete floors, walls on the side, and the spray painted the ceiling with the insulation black.

There's a bathroom in about the middle of the center on and it's they abut each other in the ski site and then in the bike shop.

So it's not like it's at the back.

Their warehouse space is not partitioned off.

It's very open back there.

So again, to state that there's not enough data to equalize or to have to equalize these values, I'm not understanding it because again, how can we have 11 dollars per foot at TJ Maxx, 12 across the street at Home Depot, 19 on this parcel, and then if they're saying it's equivalent to Whole Foods, Whole Foods and Canes has an expansive parking lot with again, these are all signalized ingress EEs of ingress egress to attract these tenants.

And again, the Shop Coast Center had to do massive amounts of work to even get Whole Foods to come in.

They had to do a whole new facade, but then they had to go into that building and build out all the kitchen space and everything very specific for Whole Foods use.

This center does not have that.

Um the center is very constrained on parking.

I cannot speak to it enough.

I think any of us have drilled in there and run into it's hard to get in and out of, especially during Christmas time.

It's almost impossible.

And I would also note that um while Panera is being brought up.

I was representing Sierra Marketplace, which is directly is the center that abuts the Atlantis casino that were Smith's used to be years ago, and that center has sat vacant for years upon years upon years.

But to the point of attracting Panera, this franchisee that put the Panera in the petitioners shopping center initially wanted to be in the Sierra Marketplace Center that has no tenants because they were so focused on the South Virginia access.

They were not concerned as much with freeway frontage and visibility.

And again, looking at the TJ Maxx and Ross, if you look at the backs of all those tenants where the dock docks doors are and everything else, they'll have signs on the back of their buildings too.

So to say that all the signage is evaluation methodology to increase the land value by eight dollars a foot.

I I don't think there's data there to prove that because this is an equalization appeal.

It's not about market value.

It's about how can Nordstrom's rack, even which is far superior, be at $16 a foot, three dollars less than this center, and has much better ingress and egress and can attract the quality national tenant, unlike the subject property.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Yes.

Yes.

Do you happen to know how much the building owner paid for the remodeling that was done in the last year?

I do not offhand.

Okay.

Ms.

Arius, I would love to hear a little more on the comparison on the quality class between this property and some of the the sample.

As much as you know, I know this was a little last minute for you, but um what are the differences?

I know we're talking drop ceilings, we're talking the inside remodels.

Okay.

Um Diana Aries for the record.

Um I would like to um just as I previously mentioned, more speak on the subject and its attributes.

I'm looking at um the comparables that were uh brought on to brought up with Mr.

Churchfield.

Um just looking at the exterior, uh they do look more more or outdated.

Um I know in his attributes uh mentions loading uh tall ceilings, loading dock, so the ceiling height is gonna be costed.

Um we have um characteristics for each of the property, and we it is costed if it's 20 feet, 22 feet, so that is already being taken into consideration.

Um for example, loading docks, um, dock levelers, truck wells, all of those uh characteristics are going to be costed in our extra features section.

Um feel that would um not just be uh weighted in the quality class factor, but we are uh costing them uh separately, and then also um the large parking lot that's mentioned and the attributes that is going to be uh costed in in the land size, the dollar as a dollar per square foot.

Um just like I said, I haven't um visited these all of these in person, so I can't um speak to the comparability of the interior them.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

I will bring it back to the board for discussion.

Any discussion.

Um actually, if I may, I'm sorry, I did want to add, um, I did also um include some for my uh comparables for quality class on pages.

Okay, uh starting on page 44.

That's the so there are some um discount store occupancy similar to the subject, and uh also share the quality class of 2.0.

Uh this is a CVS pharmacy, and then on the next page.

Uh we have a discount store occupancy as well.

Uh, this is the hobby law be at uh qualities class 2.0.

And then on the next uh page, this is one of the cell comms, the improved cell comms, um with a discount store occupancy, and this is a quality class of 1.5.

And we see that it's inferior to the subject um boxier shape.

Uh we see it's um lower ornamentation, um angles, uh flat roof, uh flat roof line.

Um so I still believe that the quality class of 2.0 for the subject is well supported.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Back um to the board for discussion.

Any discussion?

Okay.

Um just a note in our packet, it appears that the um the appellant cli or check three uh NRS three five or what is it three, whatever dot three five seven.

Um, according to Mr.

Churchfield, it's actually should be dot 356 because we are dealing with an equalization versus a market value issue.

And I'm assuming then the motion would be brought on what the appellant would prefer would be, which would be 356.

That's correct.

Thank you.

So um with that, um, I will entertain a motion.

Um, and any public comment?

There is none.

No public comment if there's no further discussion.

I'd like to discuss.

Oh, well, please.

But I'm new to this board, so it's you can tell me one that's that's enough is enough.

Oh, no, please.

I I would love to I am sympathetic to the to the land value issue.

I've done a little work here, and uh this land is valued at $19 per square foot.

I looked at um well, meadowwood is the worst ten dollars a square foot.

Uh Dilward's is 12, Smith Ridge across the street is 15.

This is basically uh it's an older struggling, in my opinion.

Um neighborhood shopping center has no major draw.

And I think that I'm personally in favor of the applicant's request to go to twelve dollars a square foot for the land value.

I have not I don't yet have an opinion on the building valuation.

Anyone else?

Um, I I think we're my issue really is is that freeway visibility and that Whole Foods Center is also valued at 19 per dollars per square foot.

And Whole Foods to me, and I know we can be this is we're getting a little bit into subjective land with the quality class and access, and I I hate going to Whole Foods because it kind of has that same weird in and out to it.

Um so I feel like it has similar freeway um visibility and it has similar issues, um, travel egress, ingress issues, and they're they're valued at the same value.

So I'm I'm happy with the land value, but I I again this is why we have the discussion.

Well, whole foods generates an enormous amount of traffic.

Um this shopping center has really nothing that generates a whole bunch of traffic, it has a bunch of stores that are doing the best they can, but they're not whole foods.

But that I mean to me that that's an issue, not so much of the location, but of the of the tenants.

The land is and to me is valued based on you know what's the ability of that land itself to attract people, not the tenant that is there to attract the people, but I do have a question.

bunch of stores that are doing the best they can but they're not whole foods but that I mean to me that that's an issue not so much of the location but of the of the tenants the land is and to me is valued based on you know what's the ability of that land itself to attract people not the tenant that is there to attract the people but well I do have a question please with respect to the the assessor quality class does that take into consideration the um quality of the tenant in addition to the quality of the land um I would love for the assessor's office to answer that how will for the record I'm sorry can you repeat the question yeah I'm sorry um does the assessor quality class does that take into account like the quality of the tenant no it does not is any aspect of this analysis taken to uh analysis the quality of the tenant so the income approach when we're looking at that we're looking at the the rents for each of those occupiers and the capitalization rate that we're using is also going to be based on the tenant's rent and things like that and then we we just wanted to make a clarification on the on the land value we do um value the land as is as it is vacant as if it is vacant understood thank you does that answer your question yeah thank you any more any further discussion no discussion I think if if somebody's ready to make a motion or we can um discuss further I I'm looking to the members of the board that have been here longer than two meetings I've attended so uh the board discussion is to really to to to talk about what you're feeling and what you're thinking about this if you make a motion it's it isn't you know I'm kind of leaning into legal land here but if somebody makes a motion if the majority of us approves then it's going to carry so it's um it's important that we understand why you're doing what you're doing and that yeah we understand where we all are and so if if we need to have we are not limited in discussion so if if you want to discuss or explain why you feel a certain way and you um we have time I will make a motion that we um change the quality class to 1.5 and the land value be reduced to 12 dollars per square foot so let's see in our motion land this would be this would be petition or or well it would be motion number nine in your binder and I I think we have done this before the motion asks to reduce by certain amounts but I think we can adjust that and make it what uh Mr.

Listener said and say lower to class 1.5 and um lower to a certain value per square foot and then allow the assessor to adjust that uh based on their information right because we don't know what the value of 1.5 will do is that correct I'll defer to legal yes I believe a motion is a motion and you either approve it or don't that's correct.

Okay so I think what what I would say here is that I'm prepared to make such a motion and maybe we could discuss a little bit without making the motion okay would that be okay that would be great okay I know I do I I do have some of the same similar concerns that that Mr Eisner has with respect to um the how frequent people shop at this the shopping center versus Whole Foods um I do think um the current applicant's center has been updated I I think the um lowering the quality to a 1.5 based on um what the assessor's evidence is I don't know if that is supported but I do have some concerns about the price per square foot that's been attached to it if that makes sense for the land for the land the 19 the 19 dollars I do have some concerns with just based on my own um experience at both of the shopping centers and that that's really the the two issues we're we're being asked to look at one is

similar concerns that that mr eisner has with respect to um the the how frequent people shop at this the shopping center versus whole foods um i do think um the current applicant's center has been updated i i think the um lowering the quality to a one point five based on um what the assessor's evidence is i don't know if that is supported but i do have some concerns about the price per square foot that's been attached to it if that makes sense for the land for the land the 19 the 19 dollars i do have some concerns with just based on my own um experience at both of the shopping centers yeah and that that's really the the two issues we're we're being asked to look at one is to lower the land quality from two to one point five and two is the land value of nineteen dollars per square foot which the current land value is it is it required to lower the quality the um quality class to lower the price per square foot for the land value no uh my understanding is the two are completely separate items correct correct the quality class will impact the improvement value and um and then so the land value is valued separately yes please on how it stocted and cheap price of washa county i just uh would like to point out that this is uh this hearing is for the reopen the 20 year 25 reopen and our land value is 17 for for the 25 reopen thank you because we are looking for last year's uh uh value in in this hearing we will be moving on to this year uh in the subsequent hearing okay so if we're talking land value it was 17 dollars for that year okay okay regarding the quality class oh there's a brand new banero store and there's the ski pro store has been completely remodeled so we're kind of in between the rest of the shopping center is old and if if this helps just so I can chime in Kobe Burnett for the record um you as the board can make two separate motions if you choose one for the quality class and one for the land value itself thank you I just sorry I I would just like to note that just so you guys are aware maybe you can pull it up on the map and highlight it so this appeal since it's the 251 it's specific to the Skipro Trek in Panera the rest of the other three buildings owned by this petitioner will be on another appeal just to your okay so only for this hearing right now is Skipro the only tenant in that building or there are multiple there's Skipro and then there's uh a bike store of local authorized you okay with that clarification I might be happy leaving the class where it is because it's it's all new I will I will support leaving the class um which brings us to the land issue and I apologize I can't what is the um Whole Foods shopping center value dot price for square foot for the land value thank you they're calculating it for the previous year so we're all thank you on the same page the Whole Foods uh parcel for 25 26 years was valued at sixteen dollars and fifteen cents so the base lot value is the 17 dollars uh but due to the size it's much bigger than the subject it has a five percent downward adjustment okay thank you thank you uh uh I mean while we're at it can we do the Nordstrom's register

For the record, Diana Arias.

So the Nordstrom rack for twenty-five twenty-six year was valued at fourteen dollars and fifty cents.

It is located in the Redfield promenade odd.

Um so it is also being valued as one economic unit with the other parcels.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um Virginia on Neal, you have the freeway with visibility with this parcel.

The the other fire creek crossing you're kind of behind Virginia.

Um if we're looking, you know, if you're looking at Whole Foods or you're looking at whether Fire Creek was designed to be a kind of a a draw.

If we're looking at land, we're looking at land from a vacant standpoint.

So if there's not a draw, who gets better visibility?

Um I think these guys that they have like I said, the free bay the freeway, the Virginia, the Neal Road, they they get, you know, according to the traffic study, quite a bit of traffic.

Um so I I feel like the land value is justified, but again, um I'm I'm open to just further discussion.

Yeah, and again, we are we can make a motion and and vote on it if you and see where it falls.

I guess there's four of us, so maybe um can we adjust the the number?

Does it have to be the twelve dollars that or can we make that a different number if so inclined?

We have the ability.

Well, I will leave it to legal.

Yeah, Kobe Brennan for the record, it's up to the board's discretion.

And we could make a single motion that says we approve we we let the lands or the the improvements stand, which would be that quality class issues, and adjust land to and whatever you're interested in.

So we could pick a number in between.

Or uh really any number as long as you feel it's supportable, but it doesn't have to be in between, unless I mean there's no there's no parameters.

Kobe brand for the record, I'll just say as long as the discussion continues and the discussion is clearly laid out, and a motion is uh clearly laid out with the terms of that motion then the board again is at their discretion.

I would uh I'm looking at Smith Ridge, fifteen dollars a square foot.

Would the board consider that as a compromise?

I think you have to make a motion.

Well, I think in the discussion, um, can somebody remind me where Smith Ridge?

I'm I'm terrible with names of shopping centers, but I believe that's where um like Chuck E cheese is at the Smith Ridge shopping center.

Okay and the whole chili's the um public market yeah and sprouts.

Oh no, sprouts, I don't believe is sprouts over there.

No doubt question.

So the dollar Trader Joe's, yes.

That's where Trader Joe's is the old Trader Joe's.

That that helps.

Thank you.

Um Cranty asking for the record.

Uh whatever dollar amount we come to uh agreement is we're taking that into effect of the upcoming year that may change that.

We will I will leave that to the this appeals uh reopened for the 25 tax years specifically.

So the next one would be for the 2627 value under a different appeal.

Yeah, so in 2025 is what we're looking at right now.

Right.

And so we'll have a hearing after this one that then we'll be considering this year.

Yeah, but legally do we have to.

I I'm not sure that we have to.

If we lower it in 25, how does that work for next year?

This there's no direct implication, right?

We have to re-hear it and make the decision on the next year.

Correct, that's a separate year.

Um again the freeway visibility, but uh at this point, um we can proceed and should I make the motion?

Yes.

Okay.

This petition for parcel number, I'm sorry, 04016252 was brought pursuant to NRS 361.35 six.

Six, okay.

Based on the evidence presented by the assessor's office and the petitioner, I move to reduce the land value to $15 per square foot.

Uh oh, wrong petition.

I'm gonna have to start over.

I apologize.

It's number 10.

Excuse me, Mr.

Listener.

I could over here, Howard Stockton Chief Appraiser.

Uh at $15 a square foot.

Let me calculate the land value so you could state explicitly what you want the land value to be.

So the the land value would be one million seven hundred and seventy-three thousand three hundred and seventy-five.

Would you say that again, please?

One million seven hundred and seventy-three thousand three hundred and seventy-five.

That reflects a fifteen dollar per square foot value.

And this is this is motion number ten.

Is am I correct?

Uh no, this would less than number reduce.

So uh my understanding of this would be number seven.

We are if we were going to reduce the land but keep the improvements the same, right?

I apologize.

May I uh reject our whole will for the record at $50 a square fruit.

It would be one million seven hundred and seventy-three thousand three hundred and thirty.

So it's slightly round and error.

Yes.

So do we have an agreement on what motion I should make?

I I believe it would be number seven.

I believe that's correct.

Okay, still under NRS 361.356, just motion number seven.

Here goes this petition for parcel number zero four zero one six two five two was brought pursuant to NRS 361 point three five six based on the evidence presented by the assessors office and the petitioner.

Based on the evidence presented by the Association Office and the petitioner.

I moved to keep the improvement value the same and reduce the land value by let's just make it two.

Two dollars.

No, no, two one million, whatever the amount they gave us.

Okay.

I'm gonna back up a second.

I move to keep the improvement value the same and reduce the land value to $15 per square foot for total taxable value one million seven hundred and seventy-three thousand three hundred and seventy-five dollars for tax year twenty twenty-five.

This reduction is based on inequity with other uh uh nearby properties with that adjustment.

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

With a correction that the total taxable value that was stated in the motion was for land only, not total for the entire parcel.

But with that adjustment, do I have a second?

I second the motion.

Motion and a second.

Uh no public comment.

There is none.

Okay.

Um motion a second, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Um I'll go nay.

Um motion carries.

Um next item, please.

Give me just a sec.

Okay.

Under item 10, commercial real property appeals.

Um, this will be for the 20 2026 hearings.

Assessors parcel number 040162-50, hearing number two six-004 two through assessors parcel number 04016253, hearing number two six zero zero four six.

Um except for the hearing that was just heard zero four zero one six two five two, hearing number two six zero, yeah, two six zero zero four four R25.

And uh Mike Churchfield is present and has been sworn.

Perfect.

If you can locate the parcels, please.

Yes, thank you, members of the board.

My name is Diana Arias, appraiser for the Washoe County Assessors Office.

Uh the subject property consists of uh four parcels, which will be uh heard together.

Occupancies include neighborhood shopping center, vet hospital, discount store, and a fast food restaurant.

The buildings range in age from 1972 to 2023.

The total gross building area for all buildings 67,533 square feet.

The properties located on on South Virginia Street and Neal Road in the Meadowwood area.

The maps are located on page 37 and page 38.

Are there any questions about the location of this parcel or of these parcels?

No.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Churchill.

I believe the packet that Mr.

Churchfield distributed for the last hearing is um used for this hearing as well.

Thank you.

And it is exhibit B for the petitioner.

We have one extra packet.

Does anybody need it for this one?

Thank you.

That's fine.

Five minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think everybody needs a break.

Okay.

Okay.

Clarification, are we taking a break?

Yes.

Sorry.

Yes.

I just want it because when it talks about minutes we could.

I'm not used to being chair.

I don't miss being chair.

It is great.

If we are ready, um, I know we still have some time, but everybody's here.

Let's proceed your church field.

Please.

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

Thank you, guys.

Um, and just she did she introduce it already for twenty six?

Yes, before the break.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you, board members.

Um, this is for specific for parcel oh four oh one six two five two, correct.

I thought we were hearing the entire center, right?

The all of the one to four parcels.

This is for the other.

Um so when the appeals were filed, the appeals were filed, one is five two, and then the other line spaces were filed under a different appeal because they're the line space.

Does that um I guess we'll we'll hear them as that makes sense?

They need to be heard, but I prefer it as excuse me, to you then the line size because they were submitted.

How are Stockton with the assessor's office?

The way the way that the agenda reads is that the twenty five um the case that we just heard was specific to parcel number zero four zero one six two five two.

Whereas now the twenty-six hearing that we are going to embark on is um multiple parcels.

Um zero four zero one six two fifty, fifty-one, fifty-two, and fifty-three.

Now for this year, the appeal is over the whole center.

Is there an issue with hearing all four parcels?

The the only reason I say that is when we when the appeal the appellant filed the appeals, he filed is the lion space is one appeal, the anchor is a different appeal because they're technically two different LLCs.

One for parcel five two, it's on behalf of crossing LLC.

If you look on parcel 50, 51, 53, that's for crossing SC LLC.

So I'm confused as to how we can make a motion for two different entities potentially.

Does that make sense what I'm saying?

Because it's different ownership on the I I don't I don't foresee that as a problem.

I mean, it's all it's understood that you're representing the center.

So um you you know, the the the rulings are gonna be for the 26 year for parcels 50, 51, 52, and 53.

Okay.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, I just the different ownership was what confused me.

So that's all uh with that being said, does the appraiser need to um so or you it's fine.

They they introduced the entire the four parcels.

So the only reason is a little confusing.

I want to I have two different packets.

Is this different information?

Would it be helpful to have more copies of this of those then?

Howard Stockton for the record.

Um it's really difficult for us to review these packets in in the moment.

So um, you know, any questions that you may ask regarding the packets, our knowledge is just gonna have to go off uh our general knowledge because you know the these this appeal has been outstanding the at least since January 15th, and to receive the packet at the last minute doesn't really allow us to make as much comments as we typically would.

Thank you.

Understood, it makes it difficult for us as well.

And I'd like to apologize for that.

I was this was brought to my attention um late later in February, so I'm kind of coming in last minute.

I have 1200 appeals in Vegas on Monday, so this was uh cram in at the last second, so this was not uh anything other than quite frankly, unburned midnight oil to try and even get a packet before this board that made some logical sense.

So understood.

And so since we have two packets, you'll just have to be very careful in referring.

Um absolutely that was the preface of hearing the individual.

So uh we'll go into the first ski pro and trek, which is 04016252 for the 2520 or for the 2627 tax year for this property, the assessor has it valued at 19 per foot.

Um, again, as a real licensed real estate broker, I would not list the two properties from Home Depot at 12 a foot and the small out parcels, which you guys will hear about economy to scale.

There's two very small out parcels that will be referenced in the other packet that are valued at 1360 per foot and are much smaller than the um subject properties.

So again, I can't speak enough to the land value being in what the petitioner deems as too high.

And thank you, board members, for the last motion.

Uh it is it helps offset some of the issues with ingress and egress that the center suffers from.

If you guys look on the board, you'll see the parcel that's currently highlighted.

If you look at that back drive alley, it is very tight.

And that is where a semi-truck would potentially exit after dumping a load.

Um, so again, there's not a lot of space to get in there, and I would I uh can't speak to the fact that every component goes into the properties quality class.

Yes, it is cost out separately if they have a dock level or dock door or what have you, but it costs money to make a dock door.

So it's above and beyond that.

It's functionality to attract retail tenants.

Uh, the ski pro and trek building, the front facade was renovated.

A parapet was put up, it still has a flat ceiling or flat roof up there.

The roof was to my knowledge not changed.

Um deducting was not changed in the building.

This building is an open shell.

If you go inside of it, and if you look in my packet on the first page, uh the PowerPoint.

Could I interrupt for one second, please?

Absolutely.

Sorry, I'm new on the board, and I don't know.

This is the protocol.

We've taken a very good look at dash 52.

Yes.

How we should consider that any different than we did with 52, if there's anything really remarkable that's different between these different parcels.

Absolutely.

So to just to have my to have this information on the record in the event we go to state board, I would like to direct the board just back to parcel 52 just to show the back of that building, because that does pertain to the next comment I'm going to make about the line space, which I think everybody will understand.

So looking at the new packet.

On the second page of the PowerPoint, you'll see the quality classes of the of the line space buildings, which has 04016250, currently quality class at a 1.5.

040 16251 is currently quality class at a 2.0.

040 16253 is currently classed at a 1.5.

Is everybody following along on that page and can see what okay?

Perfect.

So first and foremost, none of these buildings have drive-in dock doors because they're line space buildings.

They're dated line space on the inside.

There's been no real um improvements to the inside of the structures, other than what the tenants have done on their own.

So again, I can't speak to the inside of the ocean spa nails site, but you have like Nevada Fitness, which has a minimal build-out, they sell treadmills and et cetera.

So again, any of those deliveries for the most part have to come through the front door because the rear access doors are just a single man door on these properties.

So it's very hard to get merchandise in and out of it, which all goes into why this parcel is affected.

I know we look at the land as vacant, but the reality is this is a very tight site.

And if the petitioner were to knock down all the buildings, I don't think they would be configured in the same fashion that they're configured today.

And my understanding of Nevada Laws it's value and use, and we're valuing the use with the improvements that are currently put on it.

I apologize.

A quick interruption, excuse me, Coby Burnett for the record.

The overhead is available if you do want to put that information there too, just for convenience sake.

Oh, wonderful.

Okay, thank you.

So as you can see, we have a discrepancy with quality class within the centers.

Um the far right parcel 04016253 has no rear access.

There's a little hallway back there, but all the tenants, Jada Boutique, Subway, and the other small tenants have to bring any um like subway, by example, has to bring any of the sandwich goods through the front door.

There is no other delivery access point.

So again, these buildings are burdened with small parking lot, they're dated.

Um again, they've had a new facade, but to me, that is only a very minute component of this building.

Uh this is kind of like if I went out and bought a pontiac piero and stuck a Ferrari kit on it.

I'm sorry, it's still not a Ferrari and it doesn't have the speed, and it's not going to have the sales price of a Ferrari.

That's exactly what the petitioner has done with this space.

He's put some nice lipstick on to make the center look more up to date, but that's it.

The internals of those buildings have not been updated.

The uh gold and silver exchange store, which is in the line spaces in 04016250.

It's very dead on the inside, doesn't even have a public restroom.

Um then moving forward, getting into the comparables.

The first comparable is in the Home Depot Center.

It's uh the Thai Lotus Restaurant, it's on at a 1.5 quality class with a value of let's see $13 and 60 cents per foot.

Um this parcel is directly across South Virginia Street from the subject property.

It's within the Home Depot shopping center.

It is a very small pad.

Home depots being valued at 12.

I understand it comes to scale, but they've made this parcel is much smaller, so they've increased the value to 1360, which is significantly less than the line space, which is currently being assessed on parcels 040, 162, 50, 51, 5.3 at $19.52 a foot.

So it's even above the 19 on parcel 5.2.

It's $19.52, which is higher than Whole Foods, by example, Nordstrom's Rack, who's at 16, and everybody else.

The Thai restaurant has full kitchen build out.

It's got more of a build out than subway, by example, because they're serving food that requires a hood and things of that nature.

So all those things cost money and go into the overall quality class of the building.

The second building is uh located at 6450 South Virginia Street.

It's a 10,364 square foot retail building that's situated on 52,969 square foot parcel.

It was built out initially as Tower Records.

I think everybody remembers the site from back in the day.

And it was subsequently renovated for Double Edge Fitness, who did a heck of a build out, and really it was a very nice space.

But again, user specific, not sure why Double Edge closed this location.

Uh really like them, quite frankly.

But again, it's it currently still has the build out it had.

And that property is being assessed at a one and a half quality class.

It has showers, locker room, uh retail area built out.

It has various various build-outs and angles in the interior to me that make it superior to the subject property.

However, the most weight of the comparables that I have today is 4827 Kitski Lane.

This is the prior old Navy that is now the Ulta Beauty and Mattress land.

This property is currently receiving a one and a half quality class.

This property has dock doors in the back, has ease of access for people to bring all the goods in for Ulta, the mattresses, et cetera, which would be problematic for the line space in the subjects in the subject petitioner shopping center because again, they're you the semi is gonna have to pull up, bifurcate the parking lot and bring mattresses in when at Ulta he can pull up or she can pull up, bring mattresses back to that dock loading, not affect your or your general business.

And the space is partitioned off.

So if you look at this page in the packet, it shows the Alta Beauty, and and again, um, I understand the assessor hasn't been through these comps, but I think we've all been through these comps at one time in our life, just being in Reno.

So again, I pick up more deliveries for my wife at this location.

I've gotten to intimately know it.

It is a very nice facility.

It is newer construction, high ceilings, drop ceiling with a lighted entry, tile front, you know, very nice glass store front doors, a parapet on it.

This is a nice building.

I um, and I would defer back to the assessor to understand why this quality class, what the differences are, because I'm not buying that angles are the only difference as to why this is a one and a half and the subject is a two.

To me, the subject is very dated line space, even backed up by board member listeners' feedback on it.

I mean, this it's a it's a dated shopping center that I can't stress enough, had to have a facade in order to get rid of the vacancies.

And now a lot of the tenants, it's not like the facade was able to attract new corporate backed tenants like Alta.

I mean, the Reno Gold Exchange is a very small tenant.

Jada boutique at the end of the day is a small tenant.

The animal uh veterinary care, another thankfully they're there because they're the only emergency provider, but again, it's a small tenant, not a corporate-backed user, because again, it doesn't have the parking lot, it doesn't have the ingress and egress and everything else.

And I know we're ascribing a lot of value to this freeway thing, but again, I've done leasing for years, and I don't see lease rates that are a dollar fifty one side of the street and three dollars over here because unless they're putting up large monument signage that's very bright, back lit, everything else, and is a use that benefits from freeway stuff, like uh an in-and-out burger, by example.

That might benefit from it.

They're very specific.

That to my knowledge, it it does not have freeway visibility.

They like that Kitski, South Virginia, because those are the major local traffic driving points.

So can't stress enough, the petitioner feels the land should be at $12 a foot, mainly based on the last comp of Ulta Beauty, and should be equalized with that for the three line space buildings.

We are not understanding how two of the line spaces currently are at a 1.5 and the other is at a 2.0.

It should all be equalized to a 1.5 because again, it was nothing more merely than a front facade.

The inside of those spaces are much more dated than Ulta.

And the ceiling heights lower.

There's things that are functioning obsolete of the subject's building that a facade cannot fix.

Um, if you look at the last page here, yeah, I apologize.

Um as um Mr.

Stockton, no, the packet came late.

I was working on it very late last night, and one of the things, you know, my printer unfortunately didn't uh print very well with the colors, but can't stress enough.

Uh Balta Beauty is at a one and a half, and then your Starbucks building within the Fire Creek is at $11 per foot.

Alta Beauty is an $11 per foot, Ross is 11, uh prior tower records, 1360, the Save Mark Grocery right on the corner of McCarron that has McCarran frontage, 1360, and Nordstrom's rack at 16.

So again, we're just asked the petitioners asking for relief and equalization based on the comparables presented to this board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions at this point?

No.

Miss Harriet.

So I have a question for the assessor.

Do you have any knowledge about what was spent on these uh improvements on these buildings?

Diana Ayers for the record.

Are you referring to the new Panera building?

No facades.

Oh, the facade, no, those uh costs were not provided.

Okay, it's very nice.

I assume it was also very expensive.

All right, Diana Arias for the record.

Um, I'll go over the sales comp approach and the income approach, and then um we'll address uh Mr.

Churchfield's concerns.

Uh so I would like to discuss the sales comparison on page two of 76.

Uh, since this hearing involves the four parcels at the sales, the improved sales will be different than the prior appeal.

Uh, the comparable cells that were selected are uh discount stores and shopping centers since the subject is used cohesively as a shopping center, uh, which is called crossings at Meadowwood Square.

Improvements cell one through improvement cell four are shopping centers in the Reno area that support a range of 144 dollars a square foot to 292 dollars a square foot, which support the um 2026 uh 2027 total doxable value.

Um Land Cell 1 is located on South Virginia Street and is closest and most comparable to the subject as shown on the map on page 38 of 76.

This parcel sold for 49 a square foot on August 22nd, 2025.

Uh Land Sale 2 was previously mentioned in the hearing, also on South Virginia, which sold at 27 and 16 dollars a square foot.

Land cell one and land cell two are the best indicators of land value uh when comparing to the subject.

So the subject's land value of $19 a square foot and $21 a square foot for the parcel that has frontage on South Virginia is supported with these recent land sales.

So now we'll um go over on page four of 76.

You will see an income approach analysis that was performed.

Income and expense information was requested from the plant, but no information was provided, therefore, market data was considered.

Those rent charts are provided on pages five and six of page 76.

Rents range from 50 cents to $3 a square foot depending on the occupancy.

We do have a rent comp on the rent chart from the subjects discount store Skipro that was signed in 2023 for $1.42 a square foot.

The um discount store rent that was used was a dollar a square foot to be conservative.

Fast food occupancy uh was used uh two dollars and seventy-five cents a square foot was used in the analysis, and for retail occupancy, a dollar fifty was used.

Uh the veterinary hospital rent of two dollars a square foot was used in the analysis.

A vacancy of five percent was used in the entire shopping center is a fully occupied.

The expense ratio of 5% was used, and based on local cap rates and market report cap rates, they range from 6% to 7.9% with a median of 6.5%.

To be conservative, a cap rate of 7.5% was used in the analysis.

So overall, the income approach results in a value of $13.7 million or $203 a square foot, uh, supporting the 2026 2026 value um of eight point eight million 981,267 or 133 dollars a square foot.

In conclusion, the subject's taxable value is supported and recommended to be upheld.

Um, however, now we will go into the uh uh Mr.

Churchville's uh concerns.

Um I will summarize some of the um concerns that we already previously discussed in the reopen hearing um and these new concerns for this particular hearing.

Uh so one of the concerns was the uh lower land value for parcels on Neal Road east of South Virginia Street.

Um the parcels being Thai Lotus and the double edge fitness.

They do have um different different visibility and accessibility than the subject.

Um and I do want to um put weight on our land sales one and two, both on South Virginia with the same zoning and similar frontage as a subject.

Um I also want to mention the comps that were uh previously mentioned, um the larger shopping centers, the uh fire creek and promenade.

Um those centers are um over 10 acres, so there's a large difference in size.

Um the parcel uh was it fire uh fire uh fire creek, it was over collectively over 30 acres.

So I did want to mention that there is a huge uh difference in size and uh economies of scale.

Uh moving on to the quality class, um as in the previous hearing, we did review this quality a uh class of two for the shopping center.

Um for this appeal, there's two parcels that are at a one quality class 1.5.

So the uh parcel that has the ocean nails and spa, uh, I think it ends in 51.

The facade was updated in 2016, and the quality class was updated then.

But in the recent permit in 2024 to update the exterior of the uh parcel that has the frontage and the parcel right next to the Skipro.

Um, those were not updated, and those will be reviewed for for reappraisal.

So I did want to make make a note of that.

And then um, as previously mentioned, the discount store, the Ski Pro and Trek, they were um not updated, they were already at a quality class of a 2.0.

I also want to um refer to page uh 44 through 47.

Just so we can see the difference of the exterior before the update.

So these are um yes, before the facade, and then if we go through 47, you could just scroll down.

That way we can just have a um before of and after of those.

And then I do want to go to um the last page, page 76.

So two of the properties uh um were brought up by Mr.

Churchfield Tyload as being um the restaurant uh with a quality class of 1.5.

Wanna know it is a different occupancy.

This is a um sit-down restaurant occupancy.

And then we do see that there is a great difference in the exterior of the property compared to the uh to the subject.

Um this is just a box, um, not a lot of um canopy, the subject has like metal canopy.

This has an inferior um uh yeah, inferior ornamentation.

Uh moving on to the health club, the double edge fitness, that is also a quality cost of 1.5.

And again, these are different occupancies.

This is a health club occupancy.

So the um characteristics that Mr.

Churchfield mentioned, like um the interior finishes, uh locker rooms and let's see, locker rooms, rubber map flooring, those characteristics are going to be accounted for with the occupancy.

I think that's that's it for me.

If we have any questions.

Oh real quick.

Um yes.

Uh just for the board, it's information.

Um, I have because there's there's some discussion regarding land values, and I'm looking at Mr.

Churchfield's packet, and he's saying across the street is $13 a square foot.

Um if we could if we could display my computer, I have a I have a map of the land values in this in the South Virginia Street corridor.

And um, yeah, that's not the one that that's not the screen that I want.

Let me see.

No, I want the GSA map.

Oh I have it up.

It's color coded, so it makes it very easy versus trying to read it, but I don't know if we can bring it up.

So apologize for the thing, but I think it would be helpful to see the the layout set to this matter.

Yeah, that might while he's working on that.

I have a question for the assessor's office.

You mentioned you use the the rent for the animal hospital, two dollars a square, but you do have all the rents for the whole buildings, do you not?

No, um Diana for the assessor's office.

Uh no, that income information was not provided.

Really?

Because I know we have a commercial building.

We have we're expected to provide it, I guess.

Nothing happens if we don't.

Yes.

Um, yeah, it was requested multiple times, but okay.

Yeah, it was not received.

Yeah, it's up behind you, but he's gonna he's gonna put it on the front screen.

In the meantime, so the other parcels that are at 1.5, they have not been reassessed based on those exterior improvements that have been made.

So there's a potential that those may move to a two correct be equalized across the shopping side.

Correct.

For the reappraisal, those would be it will be uh looked at and updated.

Thank you.

The maps up.

Um just just to kind of walk you through this a little bit.

The orange the orange parcels are the smaller pad site parcels that front Virginia Street, and you can see if you look at our you might not be able to read the key here, but the key, the orange parcels are their base value is um $21 a square foot.

Now, if you have a bigger parcel, right, because of economy of scales, a bigger parcel uh will go at a lower square footage due the size.

The bigger parcels that front Virginia Street are valued at $19 a square foot along the South Virginia, and though those are colored gray, not as uh not as they don't pop on the map, but they're the gray ones.

And if you look at the subject, I'm I'm hovering around on the subject, you'll see the blue outlines here.

The the parcels that are off Virginia Street were all valued at um $19 a square foot, and they're and the the two pad sites or they the parcels that front South Virginia Street are orange and they're valued at 21 dollars a square foot.

If you go across the street, the corner of Neal and South Virginia, that parcel is also valued at $21 a square foot.

Now, once you get off South Virginia Street and you're heading east on Neil, we felt like we needed to make a reduction because the the traffic drops off significantly here.

I mean, that's the Ty Lotus uh restaurant, which is here, and then the other the gym, which is here.

These are these are adjacent to the um Sierra Nevada, the Nevada Energy campus.

So you'll see those, those are colored in yellow, and those are at $14 a square foot, and you can see their setback significantly, and that's the base value.

Some of them do have uh even an additional adjustment.

This is just base values.

And then if the I know the Home Depot's been uh brought up quite a bit here, and that's this green parcel right here, and that's uh twelve dollars a square foot, but it and that as you can see, it's big size, right?

So a big parcel, it does front Virginia Street, but obviously we're not gonna put a a 19 or 21 dollar square foot value.

So this is the South Virginia Street corridor, and I I hope this is beneficial for you to just kind of understand how we how we approached our land values.

The the smaller pad sites that front Virginia Street, 21 dollars, the bigger sites or the comboed sites that um are on Virginia Street are at uh $19, and then the larger ones are $12.

And you you could see the red up here is Meadowwood Mall, and that whole hundred acre or however large is valued as one site, so it has a lower land value uh economies of scale.

So hope that helps.

Thank you.

Picture's worth a thousand words, it still is.

So what I think I saw is all the way along uh South Virginia, you're at $14.

Is that what I'm seeing?

No, the orange color is $21.

The yellow, the yellow, the what the parcels that are offset off of South Virginia Street are $14.

Can you see um yes?

I'm on that I see that now.

Yellow and orange are close to these eyeballs.

Okay.

Thank you.

What's that?

Did we conclude the assessor's presentation?

Okay.

Chris Sarmanwasho County assessor.

And I just and I appreciate that, Howard.

I think to your point, uh, a map actually speaks a million words.

So I just want to add some additional clarity too with regards to the costing.

It seems like there's a little bit of confusion on how that works from our standpoint, what we're mandated to do.

And so we use Marshall and Swift, right?

So we we value the land as though it's vacant.

There's nothing on it in mass.

And then we add to it the improvement value.

We use Marshall and Swift cost of mixing to do that.

It starts with an occupancy.

Occupancies can change, obviously, right?

You have box retail, you have restaurants, you have hospitals.

There's different cost height to those different occupancies.

So to compare occupancies is incorrect if we're gonna do an equalization comparison.

Then we're looking at quality classes being another big component to that valuation, and that's what we're talking about here today.

Two is an average.

What was average then might not be the average now, but when these were put on the record, they were probably average.

They might, if you're comparing them to new buildings, it might be incorrect.

But an important thing to consider as well is that those older buildings with maybe a quality class two, there's a lot of depreciation built into that as well.

So I just want to make a little bit more clarity with regards to how the costing works.

It's already been noted today, too, that uh in addition, there's extra features that go into these costs, such as the docks, the asphalt, lots of different components to these properties that are being added to the record card, but not as a building type.

So hopefully that helps.

And good job.

Okay, thank all you guys for your time today.

Um amazed the level of appellants I all of a sudden have.

So thank you.

Um, usually I was just one appraiser, and we've had the assessor.

Chief, so I think that um obviously my argument is carrying some weight.

The fact that we've had to have interjections from multiple parties on one of it.

Um things to note there.

It's concerning to me when I hear that, you know, uh one parcel right up here on this map, can be adjacent to another one and go from 21 a foot to 1360.

If I was a listing broker, I don't think the sales prices are going to accurately reflect a single line difference.

This is not lost, the Las Vegas strip where front foot values matter so much because of pedestrian trafficking, et cetera, where if you don't have the Cartier on the front of the building, you're not going to be seen.

That's not the case.

This is not a pedestrian-friendly town.

This is a commuter town, and again, there's signs on all these parcels.

So if you want to find Thai Lotus, you can see it off the Home Depot sign.

It's well advertised.

Um, it's uh I understand that the assessor has a very tough job.

It's mass appraisal.

But a couple concerning points came up.

The permit to for the other two buildings was in 2024.

This permit has been worked.

The assessor did not feel the need to increase the quality classes at the time from the one and a half to two O's.

So now it almost feels punitive that we're going down the road of looking at increasing the quality class after the fact when it wasn't done on this reappraisal cycle because that permit was closed out, correct?

No.

Diana Arias for the record.

Uh yes, it it was um already worked.

Um, but so this would be um as updated as a correction.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So what I'm hearing today is if my client hadn't called an assessor's office, we'd be at a one and a half and not changed.

That's very, very um concerning because again, that's why this board is here.

If a taxpayer feels aggrieved or that their properties out of equalization, we shouldn't have uh a punitive result of going back and increasing quality classes just merely because they filed and have called.

If the assessor felt that that permit justified an increase in quality class, they closed it out last year.

They drove the property, have a process where they work through that permit to check, which was all done, and they did not increase the quality class then.

So why would we address that today after the fact?

And again, hearing that, well, everything's of average quality.

Well, if that's the case, then how did the appraisal for Fire Creek Crossing in Alta get put on and reviewed year after year after year after year because it's on annual reappraisal at one and a half?

That property to me, you know, we can talk about angles, we can talk about this, we can talk about that.

They're very similar.

The petitioner is not getting Ulta Beauty to his center anytime soon.

That's the facts.

He does not have the ceiling height.

He does not have any of that.

Um, you know, we're talking about different uses.

I think we have to be very careful of not valuing the tenant or the personal property.

Talking about the rubber mats of a um workout facility.

If they're installed and they become real property, that goes to next use, whether the next use wants rubber mats or not, they can make that decision when they lease the building out.

But if it was affixed to the building, it's an improvement to it.

And again, it is retail use.

So a health club leases out in a retail setting.

So again, I don't think that the use is where we want to be going.

I think it's I think the petitioner is well founded in asking for a one and a half quality class, considering it's on two of his buildings that the permits have been worked on.

So let's not go retroactively backwards and be punitive and penalize them.

Let's either equalize the other one or maintain.

I don't think it's the intent for the um the board to be increasing things again.

Again, that was not the not the intent of it.

So again, they have worked the permit procedurally, they've closed it out.

I defer back to my page on here where it shows the quality classes of the buildings.

We have a one and a half on the veterinary building, and we have a one and a half on the Jada Boutique subway building, which has the most frontage of any of the line spaces.

So it has a higher land value also than the 2.0 quality 6451 that has freeway frontage.

So the assessor is already admitting based on that land map, which if we can bring that up again, Mr.

Stockton, I'd love to bring that up, because I'm not seeing uh a higher value put on the freeway.

I'm seeing it put on South Virginia, which was exactly my point with Panera, wanting to go in the Sierra Marketplace.

So if they're willing to go in a non-lease center, they want South Virginia, that's important to them.

So again, I'm not seeing uh a color diagram here of values increasing exponentially as we get to the freeway.

Nordstrom's rack is my case in point at 16.

It has freeway visibility.

You guys could anybody can see Redfield Promenade if you're coming off.

Um again, I can't stress enough.

The petitioner felt that this is an old building, he's put a lot of lipstick on it.

I go back to my point, it's the Fiero with the Ferrari kit, and his tenants represent Fierro type quality tenants, they're not corporate backed major leases.

The only one that is a corporate lease is FedEx Kinko's, which is a print shop with basically no retail build out in it because it's all copy machines.

So, you know, the Nevada gym equipment place, they sell just small, their local small mom and pop.

So again, the petitioner is asking that the quality classes be maintained on parcel 04016250 and 04016253.

And again, this is an equalization appeal.

So we're asking that 04016251 be reduced to a one and a half because I don't think the assessor can tell us the differences between these, and they did close the permit out.

I cannot hit that point hard enough.

They worked the permit, they went out there, they looked at it, closed it out, maintained those.

So again, to say that now we're going to readdress it because of the appeal, it feels very punitive.

So, and we're also asking that the land be reduced to twelve dollars a foot based on the comparables and based on the fact this center has very bad ingress and egress.

I don't care what any buddy thinks in the world, it's what people will lease for.

And if he can't get corporate tenants because a parking lot is too small and it's got poor ingress and egress, he's gonna suffer with tenants like this in perpetuity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for the appellant or the assessor's office?

Of course.

Uh for the assessor's office.

Uh do you could you repeat again how you came up with the land values of $19 for the whole length of South Virginia there?

Not particularly for this property, but what I assume you have sales basis for that.

What do you have to substantiate that $19?

Okay, Diana Arias for the record.

Yes, if we can go to page two of our packet, that's the sales comparison approach.

We have four land sales.

They're listed.

Two of them are on South Virginia Street.

So land sale one is a 6870 South Virginia Street, and it's sold for $49 a square foot.

We also uh we also have um an aerial map uh on page 38 that we can see um the land sales you say 5870 South Virginia 6870 South Virginia okay Virginia Street so that parcel uh sold for 49 uh a square foot and um it's located 0.6 miles away from the subject we could also can you pull it up on worms please do you need the parcel number?

Okay, thank you.

So it will be pulled up also on the worms map.

So you can see you can see how close it is to the subject.

Um land cell two is on one, two, three, two, five South Virginia Street, and that parcel sold for twenty-seven dollars and sixteen cents a square foot, and that's further south.

Um South Virginia Street.

And then Al's going to be pulling it up on worms as well.

On that first comp was there anything about that property.

I mean, that's a big price.

Oh yes, it's a well, it's a a future car wash.

Um it's it's a level rectangular law rectangular law.

Um, I mean, ready to build.

So it is a higher price.

It is also um 42,253 square feet.

Okay, but um, but our land value uh we're not even I mean, we're at 21, so we're not even half of that cell price.

Correct me, Ans, if you're right, I have a question.

So um to Telgate, we're looking at basically the the potential with the land, correct?

We're looking when we look at um at these land sales, so we verify thoroughly these land sales, but when we value, we're valuing as if it is vacant.

Okay, but we're still looking like uh like the overall, like the possibility of what it can go for.

Right.

We're considering our we're considering uh the zoning, if that's where you're referring to.

Yeah, location and zoning, yeah.

So like an agriculture type of area, urban area, we look at that too, or well, the sale is going to get the sale prices are going to be reflecting on that location, right?

And the um, yes, so these have um when we've had dated um sales that are not on here on Virginia, but they also have been on the higher end.

Um the frontage is what is preferred on here.

So we uh we see that it's reflected on the sale price.

Okay, thank you.

On that first comp, I see some structures on the site, but no value.

Um, so this is an older um aerial imagery.

There are no improvements on this parcel.

It sold, um, they demoed those improvements prior to the sale.

All right, so it's sold as a vacant parcel.

And um there are pictures in the packet of the vacant uh on the vacant land on my land sales pictures, and then you'll see on the screen.

Yep, that's land sale one.

It's behind your neck, uh above the um one prior, Gene.

And finally, that was an arms length transaction.

Yes, correct.

Um the broker was contacted and the sale was verified.

Any further questions?

Sorry.

Um really quick, just clarity.

Um the land is valued based off the potential, not the state, the current state, correct?

It's big it's valued on um like the potential.

The in you, yeah, well, it's valid in use.

So and then this is a vacant vacant parcel, the sale.

So it's being valued as if it is vacant.

Once the car wash or the improvement comes to fruition, then that improvement will be valued as such.

Separately.

Correct.

With improvement value, yes.

Okay, I just wanted to understand.

But for example, when we saw all those map um parcels um on that map with frontage, they're all valued at um at the 21 dollars a square foot.

Um we don't, I guess I want to say we don't differentiate if it was would be uh car wash or a restaurant next door.

Okay.

So we are as with the previous um appeal, we are dealing with two completely separate issues.

One is the land value, and then the with the class quality, we're talking about the improvements.

That's you know, going from the ground up.

Um so in this case, when we're talking the 19 or 21 or whatever dollars, we're just strictly talking about land value.

Exactly.

Yes, the 21 with the parcels with frontage and then the 19, more the secondary parcels.

Any further questions for the assessor appellant?

Anybody?

I will bring this back for discussion with the board members.

Any discussion among the board members?

Of course.

Uh I understand that the petitioner can apply to the state board if if they don't like what happens here.

Can the assessor apply to the state board?

Great questions.

Howard Stock.

Howard Stockton.

Uh yes, we can although uh we oftentimes don't don't do that.

So technically we could take it to the state board if we felt it was a really uh grievous uh decision, but most of the time we just stick with what you guys uh hear.

So additionally, in the upcoming reassessment cycles, this may be reassessed at a different value again.

Yeah, that's correct.

So every year we we reappraise the whole county.

And if if if you think back to the 25 hearing that we had for this parcel, our land value was $17 a square foot.

And for the 26, 27 uh fiscal year, we raised it to $19 a square foot because we you know we we look at the sales that have occurred past year, and we we do mass appraisal, remember?

So we we can't do a fee appraisal on every single all 190,000 parcels, so we kind of group them together, South Virginia Street Corridor, Spanish Springs, you know, stuff like that, and and and analyze the sales in the in that region, but we do reappraise every year.

Any other questions or back to discussion?

Um based on our previous conversation.

Let's break this into the two separate um items.

Again, we're dealing with quality class, which will um impact the improvements value, and then land value, which impacts the land value on the quality class.

Um I am the these are the similar improvements that have been made to you know the exterior improvements that have been made to the the one parcel that we heard in the previous discussion.

We felt that that was an appropriate at 2.0 class.

Um as Mr.

Sarman pointed out, some of these buildings are older and they they are aged, but that is also included in depreciation.

These buildings are also paying quite a bit less property tax value because of the depreciation that is accounted for based on their age.

Um I am happy with the the quality class of I understand that there's a difference between these parcels, understanding that there's and we see that all the time in hearings that the assessor comes from parcels that were missed and not valued properly in the past years.

Um I am happy with the quality class of the the one I one parcel that is well, I guess the one parcel that is pointed out here, but also off parcel 52 at 2.0 class.

Um I have to agree.

I'm I'm okay with that also.

So with that, um, for the land value.

Um I'm open to a discussion.

All right.

The picture that was shown to us of the valuations long South Virginia.

I wish I'd had that about an hour and a half ago.

Um I am now okay with the land values.

And I I agree.

I'm I'm okay also with the land values.

And I and I I would like to say that that was very helpful, and I'd love to see that maybe in the future.

Yeah, noted.

Yeah.

Um please on the uh improvements, yes.

There's been very little um increase in that over the past 10 years, and um I feel like they're okay, but I also understand, I think I understand that we're not the the depreciation is really not figured in here.

This is based on uh income approach, and so that the depreciation may produce a lower value, but we're looking at the income approach for the overall value of these properties.

Uh well we're looking at for the improvements, we're looking at the replacement cost approach with the income approach used as a secondary backup, but correct.

I think when we're dealing with this at the class level, we're not even talking about depreciation, that's added later.

Um class just allows you to pull the correct number from Marshall and Swift, which is then depreciated.

That's that that's correct.

And when we we generate a total taxable value, and that's the land plus the Marshall and Swift costing and the state mandated depreciation rate of 1.5% per year up to 50 years.

Um when we get an appeal that says that our total taxable value, this land plus improvements exceeds market value, then we do an income approach to see if we in fact do exceed market value.

And I I don't think market value's been part of this discussion at all.

So just in this case, we're just focused on replacement value.

Market value for land.

Well replacement for any further discussion?

No, we feel like we're on board.

I would love a motion, but first, do we have any public comment?

There is none.

Okay, I will entertain a motion.

And this would be again brought pursuant to NRS something point three five six uh for the appellant.

Thank you.

I think it's motion number one.

Oh, sorry.

It would be if you're uh choosing to uphold the value, it would be motion number two to correspond to that NRS request.

And then is this with respect to all of the parcel numbers outlined under number 10 um board crossing?

Except well, yes, I guess yes, two of them are the same parcel number, so obviously you but yes.

Okay, wonderful.

Um, this petition or these petitions for parcel numbers 04016250 through 04016253 were brought per se to NRS 361.356 based on the evidence presented by the assessor's office.

Sorry, and the petitioner, I move to uphold the assessor's appraisal of the subject property, and find that the petitioners failed to meet his herb burden to show that the land and improvements are valued higher than the another property whose use is identical and his location is comparable.

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, second, second.

I have a motion and a second.

All favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries.

And Mr.

Churchill, you're very familiar.

Um, you have obviously the state appeal.

Um thank you.

Thank you.

I believe that takes us to item number 11.

Yes, that takes us to item number 11, roll change requests.

Um, and these are roll change RCR decreases for assessors parcel number 079 15059, RCR number 4226 F25.

Perfect, and we've provided the the support documents in our agenda for this uh meeting.

So I will entertain a motion to um approve the roll change request for item number 11.

I'll make a motion, would it be number 19 with real property correct?

Okay, I move to approve the recommendation of the assessor's office to decrease the values for RCR number 426 F25, parcel number 07915059, and set forth on the spreadsheet attached to the roll change request for your Pacific Power Company.

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

Perfect.

Do I have a second?

I move to second.

Thank you.

And before we vote, do we have any public comment on this item?

There's none.

Thank you.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

I'm sorry, I was in favor.

Item number 12, please.

Just a second.

Maybe I'll read it better the second time.

I move to approve the recommendation of the assessor's office.

We need to uh have the the um clerk's office call it first.

And but I I like this.

This is great.

Item number 12 is roll change requests for a decrease.

Um assessors parcel number 53814120, RCR number 4296 F24, and assessors parcel number 538-14120, RCR number 429 F or 4296 F25.

And no public comment.

There's none.

Okay, with that, I will entertain a motion.

Somebody else.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

I move to approve the recommendation of the assessor's office to decrease the values for RCA RCR number 4296 F24.

Uh parcel number 538-14120 and RCR 4296 F25, which parcel number one parcel number 538-14120.

As set forth in the spreadsheet attached to the roll change request for DP Industrial Park LLC.

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

Now a motion do I have a second?

Second.

Motion and the second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Moving on to item 13, board member comments.

And I just want to thank everybody.

I know we have a new board, and this was a very complicated hearing with a lot of information dropped on us and a lot of definitions and things like that.

So I really I appreciate the questions and I appreciate the discussion.

I think it really made for a cleaner record and a lot of growth and learning too.

So I I I really appreciate today's meeting and everybody's input.

Um any comments from the board?

No friend.

Any public comment?

There's none.

With that, we'll adjourn.

Oh wait, go.