To order.

Please join me in a salute to the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Madam Clerk, may I have the role?

Certainly.

Darren McDonald, Chair.

Present.

Aaron Albright appears to be absent.

Robert Listener.

Corinthian.

Our DA today is Herb Kaplan.

I'm here.

And I'm Jan Galasini, County Clerk.

Sir, you have a quorum.

Fantastic.

Let's move on to public comment.

We have nobody signed in.

All right.

Do we have anyone to swear in for the assessor staff today?

I believe everybody has been sworn.

All right.

Do we have any withdrawals?

We do.

On your agenda under item six, we have all of the Caesars Entertainment, which is located on page four of your agenda.

Assessors parcel number 007 21531.

Hearing number 26041A through assessors parcel number 01137071.

Hearing number two six zero zero four one X.

May I have a motion to accept those withdrawals.

Oh, and I do have that the documents to distribute to the board for the withdrawal.

And what exhibit will these be?

These will be petitioners exhibit.

No.

They will be assessors exhibit two.

All right.

Do I may I have a motion for to accept that we this withdrawal?

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Of parcels number.

Oh, there it is.

007 21531, hearing number 2600 four one A through parcel number 01137071.

Hearing number two six zero zero four one X.

Second.

I have a motion a second.

Any further discussion?

Is there any public comment?

There is none.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Do we have stipulations?

Yes, we do.

Give me just a sec.

The stipulations under item seven will be on page three of your agenda.

Assessors parcel number one six three zero six two one five.

Hearing number two six zero zero zero two through assessors parcel number zero three two zero one one zero eight.

Hearing number two six zero zero seven one.

I have a motion for the stipulations.

Motion.

Should um go ahead and read uh read out the motion you'd like.

Corinthian answer for the record.

I move to approve the stipulation.

Parcel number one six three zero six two one five through I'm sorry.

In hearing two six zero zero zero two through zero three two zero one one eight zero hearing two six zero zero seven one.

All right.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion?

Any public comment?

There is none.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Uh Madam Clerk, please call the first case.

Item number eight.

Commercial real property appeals.

We have assessors parcel number one six three one six zero one eight.

Finley shock finley shack properties LLC hearing number two six zero zero one two.

And we do not have a petitioner here.

All right.

All right, we'll let the assessor identify the property and uh go ahead and proceed with your case.

Morning.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Uh my name is Adam Smith, appraiser with the Washa County Assessors Office.

This is in regard to hearing 26012.

Um, for parcel numbers 163 16013 and 16316014.

Uh the subject is the local Audi Landwork Rover Jaguar dealerships.

Um they are located on South Virginia, just south of the southbound on ramp to I580.

Um you can find them on page 29 of your hearing evidence packet.

Uh these two parcels are currently in the process of being combined.

The one parcel.

Uh, because of this, a new land value will be set in the 2627 reopen.

Yes.

And the parcels being appealed right now will no longer exist.

Furthermore, there is an active uh permit for uh remodel and addition.

So the improvement value will also be new.

Uh the appellant will have the opportunity to appeal the 2627 reopen uh next um uh next appeal season, and they were notified of this.

Uh therefore it is recommended that the current value be upheld.

Does anyone have any questions or comments?

Yes, I have a question, if I may.

This value per square foot on the actual building, I believe is around 180 10 dollars.

Are you comfortable with that?

That's um here's a question, a related question.

The value per square foot of one of our future items, which is the dealer on Palm Lane.

Their value is about $70 square foot.

Um, so my question again is and I understand the age of the buildings is 50 years difference.

Are you comfortable with that 180 dollars per square foot?

Um, yes, I am.

Uh the reason for that is like you mentioned, it is significantly newer.

It also has a higher ratio of automobile showroom to compare to service garage than the other two.

Um, and the automobile showroom uh costs significantly higher than uh service repair garage.

That and the quality class and uh construction materials as well.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Mr.

Smith, you you identify in in the package that you put more weight on the sales comparison approach than the income approach.

Um income approach looks like it's just slightly under the taxable value.

What information did you get from the petitioner to support the income approach?

Uh from the petitioner, I didn't receive any uh data for the income approach.

Okay.

So sorry.

All right, hearing more questions.

Bring this back to the board.

Uh any discussion.

Hearing that.

I think just given that the everything is going to change.

Um, I don't want to I I have questions and things we can discuss, but it it feels a little moot at this point.

Just move back here.

I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion.

This petition for parcel number one six three-16018 was brought pursuant to NRS 361357 based on the evidence presented by the assessor's office on the petitioner.

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

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

Second.

I have a motion and second.

Any other discussion?

Any public comment?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Uh Madam Clerk, please call the next matter.

Thank you, Mr.

Smith.

The next hearings are all of the Sparks Galleria LLC combined.

So it's assessors parcel number 5108330.

Hearing number two six zero zero one three A through Assessors Parcel number five point zero four eight three zero two.

Hearing number two six zero zero one three K.

Ms.

Olsen, will please locate the property for us.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman and members of the board.

My name is Harley Olsen, and I'm an appraiser with the Washoe County Assessors Office.

The hearing numbers are 26-0013A through 26-0013K, representing a total of 11 parcels identified on page one of your packets.

The subject property is the Sparks Galleria Shopping Center located at 125 Disk Drive at the corner of Dist Drive and Pyramid Way in the Spanish Springs area collectively.

The 11 parcels make up 29.67 acres and about 215,000 square feet in total total leaseable area.

Parcel maps are provided on pages 81 and 82 of your packets.

Are there any questions regarding the location of the property?

I think we're good.

Please proceed.

All right.

So to give a better idea of the parcels that make up this shopping center, you can see on page one of your packets.

I have outlined the parcels that are included on this appeal.

The first part of this shopping center is located right off of Disk Drive.

When you first get off a pyramid way, which is where the sprouts, Marshalls, Fitness Connection, and other small tenants are located.

And then across the street, if you were to go to the Home Depot parking lot, that's another the small tenants in that same parking lot as part of this appeal.

And then if you go to across the street, right behind the IHOP and the Red Robin, there's two vacant pad sites and then a small little inline retail area.

This property has been appealed multiple times since 2021 by the same petitioner.

In prior years, petitions were either withdrawn or the assessor's value was upheld by the board.

Before I go over my sales comparison approach, I would also like to note that we have an adjustment on the subject property.

Um and it's been in place since 2023, where we review this property annually for the need of obsolescence.

Um each year prior to our review, our office requests income and expense data as well as rent rules from the property owner, which have not been received since 2023.

In this year's review, the dated rent role from 2023 as well as current market data was used to determine the need for obsolescence, totaling almost 7.5 million in value.

This year's adjustment resulted in an overall value of about 35 million or 162 dollars per square foot.

So you can see that on my first page.

Now if you could please turn to page two of your packets for the sales comparison approach.

Pictures and location maps of the subject and comparable sales are provided on pages 83 through 91 of your packets.

But there was two transactions that took place, um, which one included most of the shopping center parcels, and then the other sale, which occurred on the same day by the same property owner, um was more of the pad sites and a couple couple other parcels that aren't included in this appeal.

Um, but there were two transactions on October 9, 2019, totaling 40 million 650,000 or 193 per square foot.

And then going into my comparable sales for the improved sales, um, all improved comparables are neighborhood or regional shopping centers with similar occupancies, square footage, and age.

Sales prices range from 207 per square foot to 217 dollars per square foot.

The most comparable sale is improved sale one, which is the Sparks Crossing shopping center, which is located directly across from the subject property.

Um it's almost intermingled with the subject property.

So tenants like the Trader Joe's, Ross, Foot Barn, and the new land ocean restaurant are included in this center.

Most weight was given to this sale because it is in the same shopping area as the subject.

It includes a similar tenant mix and is similar to both land size and leaseable area.

This sale occurred just three months ago on December 23rd, 2025 for a sales price of 70.1 million or 214 per square foot.

Overall, this is the best sale to compare with the subject and strongly supports the subject's total taxable value of 162 dollars per square foot or 35 million.

Are there any questions on the improved sales?

Any other questions?

And then just um quickly to go over the land sales.

Um I also included three vacant commercial land sales on the bottom of this page, which are all located off Pyramid Way in the Spanish Springs area.

The sales prices range from eight dollars and eighty-five cents up to $17.50 per square foot, with the most comparable sale being land sale two, totaling 47 acres of commercial property with plans to build Spanish Springs newest shopping center.

This property sold for $12.60 per square foot on March 21st, 2025, and supports the subject's properties current land value of $10.60 per square foot.

All right.

All right.

And then we can move on to the income approach.

Okay.

If you would please turn to page four of your hearing packets.

Accordingly, market supported rents, vacancy expenses, and a capitalization rates were utilized, which the supporting market data is provided on pages five through eight of your packets.

The income approach indicates a value of approximately 38 million or 178 dollars per square foot.

This value supports the current taxable value of 35 million or 162 dollars per square foot.

In conclusion, both the sales comparison approach and the income approach support the current total taxable value of $34 million, 839,765 or $162 per square foot.

The assessed value does not exceed full cash value.

Therefore, it is recommended that the board uphold the current total taxable value of the property.

Thank you.

I mean, we have their packet, but just what you know.

Um I did um receive a few emails from them.

Um I got their um indicated value.

Um they gave me a list of the parcels with the value that they're wanting, which is about a 40% decrease from what I the total taxable value is at currently.

Um then I sent them my packet, but I haven't received any additional feedback.

In their performance income analysis, they came up with rental income that's like about a million dollars less.

Did they give you any kind of reason or basis from that, or was that basically the number off of the 2023 rent rolls?

Um it looked like they were using they did provide in their packet um like the comparable sales, and there was some rents, but it looked like it's more of an overall market um rent rental income, whereas in my income analysis, I broke down the different occupancies that go into that.

So the 88 cents per square foot is for a much larger, like maybe a big box um discount center, whereas I broke it down to account for the larger square footages at that lower rate as well as the smaller tenants um at a higher rate.

And are those 88 cents and and the numbers you use for those from the 23 uh report or rent rolls, or did you have that as historical data?

Um, I used uh I had that in my rental analysis, but I was using I had some newer rents that I included in my rental analysis.

So the 88 cents would be falling a little bit below um what it would currently be at.

Any other questions from Salsa?

Thank you very much.

We'll just bring us back to the board.

Any uh discussion?

I think we talked about the the income approach on the comparable sales approach in appendix one.

Yes.

Um, I mean, we're talking Audi Boulevard and King's Row and to me, just from an economic demographic standpoint, those are not comparable as to the you know the reach, the income and the of the population that surrounds those.

Um so they're not comparable in that, plus they're 20 plus years older as properties.

Yes.

They don't really have the the draws attached to them.

Any other comments or items you want to point out from the petitioner's materials?

Uh for me, uh, they look like we could just rely mostly on the assessor's value.

The difference in cap rates that they were proposed are pretty minimal.

So I don't see a meaningful discussion or contention there.

We'll entertain a motion.

Motion to five.

Yes, I'll do a motion.

All right.

Read it out.

Corinthian for the record.

This petition for parcel number five one zero zero eight three zero three, hearing two six zero zero one three A through five one zero four eight three zero two hearing two six zero zero one three K was brought pursuit to NRS 361357 based on the evidence presented by the assessor's office and the petitioner.

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

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

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

Any other discussion?

Any public comment?

There's none.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Ms.

Olson.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, please call the next matter.

Next hearing will be assessors parcel number 015-30136, Lithia Real Estate.

Hearing number 260019A, and assessors parcel number 015-30138.

Hearing number 26019B.

And the petitioner is not present.

All right.

Mr.

Smith, please locate the parcel for us.

Adam Smith for the record, appraiser for the Washer County Assessor's Office.

This is in regards to hearing 260019A and B.

Um, and it's in regards to parcels 015-30136 and 015 30138.

The subject property is the Lithia Subaru uh car dealership located at 2270 Kitski Lane between Plum, Plum Lane and Moana Lane.

Uh the property consists of uh an automobile showroom and service garage.

Um it was uh they were built in 1991 and 2002 and total 52,105 square feet.

Um it can be located on pages 20 and 21 of your hearing evidence packet.

Are there any questions regarding the location of the subject?

We're good, please proceed.

Uh the subject is two parcels totaling 5.41 acres and consists of 9,776 square feet of automobile showroom and 42,329 square feet of service repair garage.

Overall, it is considered a good location with high traffic counts on Kitski and surrounded by large retail centers.

Um Reno Tahoe International Airport and other national uh car dealerships.

Uh the improved sales are all major auto dealerships in the subject's immediate market area.

Um they range from 282 dollars a square foot to 393 dollars a square foot, um, which is well above the price per square foot of the subject's 182 dollars.

Uh the land sales range from 22 dollars to $50 a square foot, and the subject has a price per square foot land value of 1869.

Um, although I reached out to the petitioner several times, I was um unable to get any of their financial data.

Therefore, market data was used to determine the value based on the income approach.

And that indicated a value of uh 237 dollars a square feet.

Or 200 uh per square foot.

In regards to the appellants data they did provide, um their cost approach uh doesn't include any of the subjects extra features.

Um they have overstated depreciation and their uh characteristics don't add up.

Um the sales data they provided was function or uh factually inaccurate and irrelevant to the subject property.

Um for example, what's presented as uh land sales one and two are part of an improved multi-parcel sale, um which sold for 5.3 million rather than the reported um 459,000.

Given the given the results of the income approach and the um sales comparison approach, um that it indicates that the subject does not or the uh total taxable value does not exceed full cash value, and it is requested that the total taxable value be upheld.

Are there any questions?

May I by all means?

Yes, um, just because we have some new members, and this comes out quite a lot.

Um, when we get cost analysis from applicants, typically we get a their estimate of depreciation, and it usually doesn't match the depreciation that we have on the books.

Can you kind of explain why we have the depreciation counts that we do and how that differs from maybe some other market approaches?

Uh correct, yes.

Uh the petitioner um used an age life method to calculate depreciation, whereas we are statutorily obligated to use 1.5% per year depreciation.

Thank you.

I have a question.

Uh first of all, I'd like to comment that on uh dash 14.

Pardon me.

Uh there in their comp as you said on the land are inferior.

I mean, this is Kitski Lane where this property is, and some of these other properties are elsewhere.

My question is is on dash 38.

You have $75 a square foot for the metal building.

Can you defend that, please?

Uh for this service repair garage?

Yes.

Uh my question is because it's metal, is it have less value compared to uh masonry?

Yeah.

I believe, well, I know that they're gonna have different costings.

Um I don't know the exact price per square foot between the two, but it would appear that so, yes.

You're comfortable with the $75 a square foot.

Uh yes.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Smith, the primary reason that you're talking about uh costing for say a building built out of metal as opposed to one built out of masonry or concrete is having to do with the Marshall and Swift cost approach to how that building's constructed, not the market value, correct?

Correct.

So all right.

Other questions?

No question.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Smith.

Uh bring this back.

Any comments or discussion on uh assessors or petitioners' materials?

I agree with the assessor's standpoint both on the on the cost approach from as I mentioned the pre at least the depreciation difference, and then on the sales, um, I agree with Mr.

Listener that these properties are inferior and have some of them have completely different zoning.

Um, so I'm comfortable with the assessors um data.

I'm ready to make a motion if somebody will tell me which one.

I believe you're gonna need number three three three.

Okay, close closed.

Are you ready for a motion?

Yes.

Brought pursuant to NRS 361-357 based on the evidence presented by the assessor's office and by the petitioner.

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

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

Mr.

Chair Herb Kaplan for the record, we have not called the third parcel.

It's only the first two parcels, the three six and three eight hearings that were on.

So would you accept an amendment to your motion?

Yes.

All right, to amend to just include parcels 015 30136 and 015301-38.

Is there a second to that motion?

Second.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Motion carried.

Madam Clerk, please call on the next matter.

Okay.

Our next hearing is assessor partial number 015 30314, Lithia Real Estate Inc.

Hearing number 260020.

All right.

Mr.

Smith, we will uh we'll let you pass on locating the property for us.

Please just proceed with your evidence.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Adam Smith for the record.

The subject proper or this hearing is 2600 20.

Um, and it's in regards to parcel number 01530314.

Uh the subject property is the Lithia Hyundai car dealership located at 2620's Kitski Lane between Plum Lane and Milana Lane.

The 3.76 acre parcel has two buildings built in 1971 and 1973.

Um, and it's in automobile showroom service repair garage, and it totals 26,908 square feet.

It's located on pages 16 and 17.

Oh, your hearing evidence package.

Are there any questions regarding the subject's location?

No.

Uh the subject consists of 7,654 square feet of automobile showroom and 19,254 square feet of service repair garage.

Uh overall, it's considered in a good location.

Um, surrounded by other uh national name auto dealerships.

Uh the improved sales are all um auto dealership similar to the subject.

They range from 282 a square foot to 393 dollars a square foot, um, which is a well above the subject's 163 dollars a square foot.

The land sales range from 22 a square foot to $50 a square foot, uh, which is well above the subject's $19.80 a square foot.

Um several attempts were made to uh obtain uh financial data from the petitioner, however, none was received, therefore market data was used to come up with an indicated value of 237 dollars a square foot using the income approach.

Uh the petitioners provided evidence um again, doesn't use uh statutory depreciation, doesn't include extra features and is overall a basic analysis.

Uh the land sales provided again are irrelevant to the subject property.

For an example, uh land sale five is actually an improved 711 gas station.

Um, and that's sold for 4.7 million rather than 619,000.

Uh given the results of the uh sales comparison approach and income approach, um, it indicates that the subject property or this the total taxable value for the subject property does not exceed full cash value, and it's requested that the total taxable value be upheld.

Any questions for the assessor?

So one um do you have any evidence?

Because this is uh as a relatively old structure.

Um do you have any evidence of obsolescence that should be included?

Uh given the results of the income approach, uh no.

Very good.

I'll bring this back to the board.

Any comments on the uh assessors evidence or petitioners' evidence?

Yes.

So I will say again that the comps presented are inferior.

Oh, that's the land sale comps.

I agree, and as with the previous um hearing, the cost approach is also inaccurate.

Very good.

I'll entertain a motion.

I'll go.

Uh this petition for parcel number zero one five three oh three one four, hearing number 26-0020 is repursuant to an arrest three six one three five seven based on the evidence presented by the assessor's office and the petitioner.

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

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

We have a second.

Second, Miss Yancey, thank you.

Any question?

Um any public comment.

There's none.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Mr.

Smith.

Madam Clerk, please call the next member.

The next hearing is assessors parcel number 03231241, Cashman Equipment Company.

Hearing number two, six zero zero two one.

Any petitioner is not present.

All right.

Mr.

Cronin, please locate the parcel for us.

Okay.

Good morning, members of the board.

Uh Jeff Cronin, Washoe County Assessors Office.

Today's hearing is number two six zero zero two one, and it concerns assessors parcel number zero three two one-two-four one, the Empire Cat Industrial Complex located off Glendale Avenue in the Sparks Industrial Area.

Uses include service repair, storage, light manufacturing, engineering, and shop space.

A mapped location of the property can be found on page 37 of your hearing evidence packet.

So like the others, this property is appealed annually, and um I feel like it we've got some new board members, so I want to be sure that we give a good explanation or description of the property.

Um facility for Empire Cat.

The business specializes in sales, leasing, service, repair, and parts just distribution of heavy equipment.

Um so to better understand the its utility, if a contractor in the region uh needs to purchase or rent earth moving equipment.

This is gonna be one of the few places you can um that would be able to both supply the equipment provided and also have the specialized service base parts inventory and yard infrastructure necessary to maintain it.

So, in other words, this isn't uh a generic warehouse or a uh speculative investment property, it's it's a functional industrial campus specifically designed for Empire Cat's heavy equipment operations.

So, because of this specialized owner-user nature, these types of properties typically don't trade often.

Um there's very few comparable sales, and they are typically owner-occupied.

So there's going to be limited income data that's going to be available.

So appraisal theory uh indicates that the best approach to use for properties like this are going to be is going to be the cost approach.

So statute requires that we use a modified cost approach for all of our properties in Nevada.

So for the subject, um, the modified cost approach, the total taxable value comes to 13 million 166,502, or 84 dollars per square foot.

Details regarding valuation can be found on the uh record card on pages nine through 35.

Um so I want to roll into the um the sales approach, sales comparison approach.

Um if we we start um if we look at pages two through four.

Um you're gonna find that we've we have some comparables there, um, and as discussed, there's there is no exact match, but the sales um that we provided, they do um reasonably support the subject's location, similar occupancies, and comparable gross area.

Uh so IS two, three, and four are the most relevant on a price per square foot basis, and they indicate a value range of 140 to 150.

I'm sorry, 153 per square foot, which is significantly higher than the subject's 84 dollars per square foot.

Now, this year or this past year, we were actually fortunate to have a um a property that was sold whose use is highly comparable to that of the subject.

Um, so if we look at IS one, and that's gonna be on page pages 43 and 44.

Um so this is um IS1 is located in the Sparks Industrial Area.

Granted, it's it's in an inferior location, it's not um located on a main arterial road like the subject property.

Um the improvements for this largely consist of 45,000 square feet of service repair garage space, uh, which is about a third of the subject size.

The lot itself is approximately three times smaller.

Um, and this property it was purchased by McCandless Truck Center, and it's its use is to be for leasing sales, parts, and maintenance of large commercial vehicles such as semi-trucks.

Um, it's very similar use to that of the subject.

Um, despite being significantly smaller and inferior, IS1 sold for 15.8 million in December of 2025.

Um, this supports the subject's total taxable value of 13.2 million on an overall value basis.

Um next, uh, we tested the subjects value using income approach.

Um this can be found on pages five through eight.

And as previously discussed, this is an owner-occupied special use facility.

So these types of properties are rarely leased in the open market.

So uh income data was limited, nevertheless.

We we developed an income analysis using relevant market data.

That analysis results in an indicated value of approximately 23.2 million or 147 per square foot.

This is substantially higher than the subject's taxable value of 84 dollars per square foot, and supports that the total taxable value does not exceed market value.

In summary, we've tested both the sales comparison, we've tested our value using the sales comparison and income approaches, and uh found that the subject's total taxable value is well supported and does not exceed market value.

Therefore, we would recommend that the taxable value be upheld.

There are any questions?

Questions?

No, yes, please, Mr.

Listener.

Um I show that the land value is about eight dollars a square foot is and I was listening to your presentation.

But um it seems low, is my impression.

Oh my other question that was not a question.

My question is I'm adding up about 160,000 square feet of total buildings at about 40 bucks a square foot.

Is that about correct?

To your to your first question, the the land sales, um the comparables um that I found for the property.

We've got to keep in mind there's there's not any we're not gonna find uh large acreage land sales in the Glendale on Glendale Avenue anymore, they just don't exist.

So we did have to go out to look at similar industrial sales that have occurred recently.

So those sales they range from 885 to 1055 a square foot.

Um our so the subject's taxable land value is 837.

So we're we're well within that range.

I feel like yes, if uh vacant 16 uh acre parcel was to sell off Glendale, it'd probably be significantly more.

And then um, I'm sorry, your your second question was regarding the the overall square footage.

Yes.

Okay.

Um our records indicate uh total uh uh gross building area of 157,345.

Okay's about 45 dollars a square foot, roughly to get to the valuation.

Something wrong with my math.

Um I guess I'm just I'm maybe I'm just not understanding your question, sir.

So you're saying that you're coming up with a different square footage.

Uh I came up, you said 157,000.

I came up with 160, just doing it in my head.

Okay.

What what pardon me, what threw me off is that there are seven pagers or seven buildings on the the assessor's website.

And the first one's only 54, but adding them up, it's about 157.

Correct.

And I'm not as fast here as I'd like to be.

I the total valuation is about 1.2 on the buildings.

I did not break that out as far as the improved values.

I mean, per square foot on the head up there.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Um, so the improvement the taxable value is um just a little over seven million on for the improvement improvements, yes.

Could I have half a minute?

Sure, sure.

Okay, seven million.

That's still back to about a forty-five dollars a square foot, I think.

Okay, for the improvement.

For the improvement value.

Plus the land.

All right.

Um I'm happy with the assessed valuation.

I actually think it's probably quite a bit more in this case.

I would agree.

All right.

Any other questions or comments?

Um, just to make sure that we're covering everything.

The appellant did provide some land sales compare comparables.

Can you address those just again for the record?

Yes.

Um, as previously mentioned by um prior cases, um, a lot of these sales are just um they're not accurately portrayed as far as the value.

Um so for instance, I can you know, we'll just we'll just look at his improved sale or their improved sale number three.

Um there they note that it's a the sale of a 38,008 square foot building, where in fact it's the sale of a they gave the incorrect parcel number, but when you track down the actual sale, it's the sale of a 5,440 square foot building, and it's an industrial condo, so it's just one parcel in this building.

So it's it's very misleading.

And the actual sales price on a per square foot basis is 267 per square foot.

So it's it's just not a good comparable.

Um, as far as the land sales, um, there's some similar, you know, just is does not uh give a correct portrait of the um values.

Um two of the sales are out in the North Valleys area.

Those sales, um, while they may look like they're smaller per square foot on a couple of those, there's a large percentage of that land that's not usable due to easements and other things that just aren't that they're not presenting.

So but I I'm happy to answer questions on any of the sales that if you had some in particular.

That's perfect for me.

Thank you.

Very good.

Uh I'll entertain them.

Uh thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Cronin.

Uh, we'll bring this back to the board for deliberation.

Any comments or or questions regarding uh the assessor's evidence or the petitioner's evidence?

I agree based on the sales information that we were provided.

I agree with Mr.

Listener that potentially I'm obviously we're limited to the cost approach, but the sales indicate that this is undervalued.

May I also agree with myself.

The two of the comps are just not good comps.

The White Lake Building at Cold Springs, that's not Glendale Avenue.

This is a this is a prime location for this building, and White Lake Parkway is not.

And the Coney Island comp is also not a good comp because it's not Glendale, and it's in the blood plain.

Any other comments or questions?

I'll entertain a motion.

I'll motion.

This petition for parcel number 032 3121, hearing 26021.

Was brought pursuit to NRS 361357 based on the evidence presented by the assessor's office and the petitioner.

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

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

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

Any discussion?

Any public comment?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Madam Quick, please call the next one.

Thank you, Mr.

Cronen.

Our next hearing is assessor's parcel number 14021351.

RC Willie.

Hearing number 26022, and the petitioner is not present.

Mr.

Powell, please locate the property for us.

Good morning, Chairman McDonald and members of the board.

For the record, my name is Kelson Powell.

I'm an appraiser of the Washoe County Assessor's Office.

This is appeal number 26-0022 for APN 140-213-51.

The address is 1201 Steamboat Parkway, and the property comprises of a 183,000 268 square foot building.

There's a map on the page labeled 17 of 41 of the evidence packet to identify the property for you.

Are there any questions about the location of the property?

No, please proceed.

Thank you.

Again, Kelsey Powell for the record.

The land value is based on market value.

The taxable value of $6,29,914 or $10.80, $10.80 per square foot is supported by the most recent land sales, which can be found on the page label two of 41 of your packet.

The improvement value of 16 million five hundred and twelve thousand and eighty-six dollars reflects the replacement cost new, less depreciation of all the permanently affixed improvements to the property.

Each year, an income approach is performed, which can be found on page three of 41.

It was determined the total value of the subject property was 22 million seven hundred and twenty-two thousand dollars or 124 dollars per square foot.

The sales approach uh sorry, the sales approach um using improved sales supports 130 per square foot.

Ultimately, our taxable value is supported and should be upheld.

The petitioner did not provide income information or improve sales for the sales comparison approach.

I would like to first discuss land sales provided on behalf of RC Willie.

First, the land sales provided were significantly smaller than the subject property, the largest being slightly larger than half of the subject size.

Land sale number one has the incorrect uh assessor's parcel number.

It should be zero nine zero-142-15.

Uh finally, the land sales provided are all located in the north valleys, which are all at least 18 miles away from the subject property.

The land sales I provided are much closer in size and locationer in location than the petitioners.

The cost analysis submitted by the petitioner is incomplete and incorrect.

It only accounts for the base storage warehouse and warehouse showroom store occupancies.

It excludes adjustments for quality, wall height, sprinklers, and additional features on the property like asphalt paving, curb, parking lot lighting, and more.

Also, the depreciation applied is incorrect.

Uh statutorily, uh one and a half percent depreciation is applied annually for uh up to 50 years.

In conclusion, the evidence packet submitted by the petitioner should not be given any weight.

The $13.6 million value or $74 per square foot proposed does not truly represent the market value for the RC Willie property.

The property has been appealed each of the past five years.

Given the available local data for both the income and sales comparison approaches, both support the taxable value of 22 million seven hundred and twenty-two thousand dollars or 124 dollars per square foot for the subject.

Since the uh 2026-27 taxable value does not exceed market, it is recommended to uphold the assessor's value.

Thank you.

Any questions for the assessor?

No question.

Um, thank you, Mr.

Powell.

We'll just bring this back to the board.

Any comments or discussion on the assessor's evidence or the petitioners as with some of the previous um hearings.

The cost approach is not incorrect, and being that this is brought every year, and we make the 1.5% depreciation comment every year.

It would be nice if they accepted that and fixed it.

It's not something we're doing for the fun of it.

This is statutarily necessary.

Um, and then again with the land.

I I completely agree that steamboat parkway and north valleys are a completely different animal.

Yeah, North Valleys is not a money ranch.

So may I also comment?

Mr.

Listener.

I want to echo that the comps provided by the petitioner are inferior.

Uh the this is a prime retail location with a good demographic, excellent demographic.

And I personally think the $12 is probably far below market realistically.

Um, although you you have your comps supporting them, but this is $12 or and you have $19 for Kitski Lane.

This is a better location than Kithy.

So I'm fully in support of the land values that you have.

And uh thank you.

Any other comments or I'll entertain a motion?

I'll make the motion.

Was petition for parcel number 14021351 hearing number two six zero zero two two was brought pursuant to NRS 361357 based on the evidence presented by the assessor's office and the petitioner.

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

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

I have a motion.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Nancy.

Any other discussion?

Any public comment?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Madam Clerk, please call the next matter.

Thank you, Mr.

Powell.

The next and last hearing for today is assessors parcel number one five zero zero one two zero eight.

Garden Court Investment Company hearing number two six zero zero two three.

And the petitioner is not present.

Mr.

Wood, would you please locate the property for us?

Good morning, Chairman and members of the board.

Steve Wood, appraiser of the Washer County Assessor's Office for the record.

This is hearing 2600 two three for assessors parcel number 15001208.

The hearing is regarding the total taxable value established during the 2627 secured rule.

The subject is located at 3980 Lake Placid Drive in Reno, just north of the Mount Rose Highway and Thomas Creek Road intersection.

It is a 26,650 square foot neuro rehabilitation hospital just under three acres.

Maps and pictures of the subject are located on pages 11 through 13 of the hearing evidence packet.

Are there any questions regarding the location of the subject?

Questions?

We're good.

Please proceed.

Okay.

Just to provide a little bit of background.

Um a site visit by myself and uh two other appraisers were was conducted last month for the property.

Um this included interior inspection and exterior inspection.

We also met with an on-site manager at the time.

Um and this was just to confirm our record accuracies.

Um also to point out the subject was purchased by the petitioner back in 2019 for 12.55 million or 625 dollars a square foot.

At that time, the gross building area was 20,083 square feet.

Uh in 2022, a 6,657 square foot addition was completed, which also added 12 new uh 12 new beds bringing the bringing it to its current bed count of 36.

The hearing evidence packet and comprehensive analysis included included and consists of all three approaches of to value.

The cost approach was used to establish our total taxable value, the sales comparison approach and income approach were used to test that value.

The analysis can be found on pages two through four of the hearing evidence packet for the sales comparison approach.

Given the limited sales information of special idea specialized rehabilitation hospitals, such as the subject, additional comparable properties were selected for physical similarities to the subject.

The sales comparison approach consists of four improved sales and four land sales.

The improved sales range from 282 a square foot to $637 a square foot.

Most weights given to improved sale one with indicated value of 496 dollars a square foot.

The comparable land sales range from 22.13 cents a square foot to 27.16 cents a square foot.

Looking at land sale four at 22.13 cents a square foot is quite inferior to the subject and still more than supports our taxable land value of $15 a square foot.

To conclude, the properties are considered considered similar overall and more than support the subject's current taxable value of $306 a square foot.

As for the income approach, the income approach indicates a value of $508 a square foot, which more than supports the subject's total taxable value of $306 a square foot.

To conclude, it is um both the sales comparison approach at $496 a square foot and the income approach at $508 a square foot, more than more than supports the subject's current taxable value of $306 a square foot.

Based on analysis herein, the taxable value does not exceed market value.

It is recommended that the taxable value be upheld.

Are there any questions?

Any questions from Mr.

Wood?

No.

I just have uh quick one on the rental approach used.

You you performed uh a rental analysis looking at similar properties, but then you more or less disregarded most of those on the basis it was newer.

Can you talk a little bit about that?

For the rent rates, um rental rates both on the medical office side and general office buildings were looked at.

Um for the medical office, uh those were solely off based off of listing rentals, uh and then the for the general office that was based off of area market reports, such as um Crexy and uh CoStar and those types, so uh to write at the $15 or the uh the 15% vacancy was conservative, but in between those what those indicated.

Okay.

Um you also did a uh a cap rate study.

Um but you uh can you talk about what you uh decided ultimately the to support the cap rate is six percent because you had in your study some that were quite a bit higher.

Correct.

Uh the best information we had for the subject was I believe it it is in your hearing evidence packet.

in between those what what those indicated okay um you also did a uh a cap rate study um but you uh can you talk about why you uh decided ultimately the to support cap rate of six percent because you had in your study some that were quite a bit higher correct uh the best information we had for the subject was i believe it it is in your current evidence packet it was income statements uh provided by the subject in 2020 uh which indicated a cap rate of right around six percent uh 5.77 um and comparing that with the rent the study uh six percent was deemed uh suitable any other questions for mr winners yes please mr listener well i'm looking at the um if the history of sales on this property and it's sold pardon me for that it's it's sold for 12 million five hundred thousand in twenty twenty two is that the same exact property was there anything else included or is it that the price property was sold for it actually sold at 12.55 million uh you know 65 500 square feet smaller 12 less beds at that time so now we have a larger facility with 12 more patient rooms 12 more beds um to your question it's not the exact same same uh same owners just has expanded both in size and patient rooms that did not appear to be uh entirely an arm's length transaction do you do you believe that that price was a good reflection of market to the best of my knowledge that was the price uh paid for the property about that time in 2019 okay i don't know why even arm's length why somebody would pay more than something's worth any other questions for mr wood thank you mr wood we'll just bring this back to the board uh any discussion or comments regarding the assessor's evidence or the petitioner's evidence i am happy with the assessors evidence i yes i think this is a this is a unique location it's it's in a an area where it's very very little commercial property or property this type and they were able to build this facility uh in a very affluent area and I think I think this just considering the facility it was built I think the land value was probably priceless I will entertain a motion oh a motion miss Yancey this petition for parcel number one five zero zero one two zero eight hearing two six zero zero two three is brought pursuit to nRS 361357 based on the evidence presented by the assessor's office and the petitioner I move to uphold assessor's appraisal of the subject property and find that the petitioner has has failed to meet his or her burden to show that the full cash value of the property is less than the taxable value computed for the property in the current assessment year with that I find that the land and improvements are valued correctly and the total taxable value does not exceed full cash second listener second any other discussion any public comment there's none all in favor say aye aye aye all opposed motion carries thank you mr would thank you uh mad clerk please take uh call the next agenda item next agenda item is item nine board member comments thank you all for coming and uh could have been a more exciting one with the petitioner here but I thank you for uh going through the process and and building a good appellate record in the event that they uh decide to appeal to the state board any other comments um I I would like to say that I appreciate the appellant providing the package that they did we may not agree with the information that they contained but it it it is very helpful to know what they're thinking and that their information that they're bringing forward so very good do we have any public comment there is none I we are adjourned thank you