All right, I now call the Wash County Board of Equalization to order for the morning of February 25th.

Please join me in a salute to the flag.

Right of agents to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the republic for which it stands.

Madam Clerk, may I have the roll, please?

Of course.

Darren McDonald, Chair.

Present.

Eugenia Bonham Found, Vice Chair, President.

Aaron Albright, present.

Robert Listener.

Here.

Corinthian Yancey, present.

Our DA today is Herb Kaplan.

And I'm Jan Galasini County Clerk, sir.

You have a quorum.

Excellent.

Do we have any public comment?

There's none.

Do we have any assessor staff to swear in?

I believe they've all been sworn in.

Excellent.

All right.

I then let's call the first matter.

Uh item number six says withdrawals, and we have none.

Um, so item seven is residential real property appeals.

So I'm not sure if we're gonna hear these two together or separately.

Okay.

So the assessors parcel number one two six five two two zero three, John and Gail Krowlik, hearing number two six zero zero five two.

Mr.

You'll come forward.

Mr.

Mrs.

Crillock, please come up to the desk.

I've known Mr.

and Mrs.

Krillick for probably better than 15 years in a variety of capacities, and but I feel uh comfortable to provide an independent impartial opinion as to the matter before us, and I have no pecuniary interest in the matter.

Uh Mr.

Mrs.

Krillick, will you please turn and face the clerk?

Be sworn in.

Please raise your right hand.

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

So help you guide.

Thank you.

All right.

What we will be doing is we give you 20 minutes for you to be able to present your case.

Uh after the the assessor has located the parcel, then the assessor's office has 20 minutes to present, and then you'll have a five-minute rebuttal time.

So we'll start with the assessor to help us locate the property.

One quick uh housekeeping.

I prefer to start with the Tyrol property first, not say Gallon property if the issues are different.

The Tyrone was being quick and easy.

The Tyrol is the 26053, the second one on the agenda.

Is that okay?

Uh Madam Clerk, will you call the the second matter?

I will this hearing will be one uh assessor's parcel number one two six five eight zero two five.

Hearing number two six zero zero five three.

Excellent.

Uh will you let the assessor's office locate the parcel for us?

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman and fellow members of the board.

My name is Ludovina Berrigan, appraiser for the Washville County Assessors Office.

For the record, I have submitted an additional evidence packet that you should all have received electronically.

And I have also submitted an additional two-page document as additional evidence.

This appeals for hearing number two six-0053.

The subject, APN 126-580-25, is located at 14 Pyrrh Drive on a point oh four six acre lot in Tyrolean village in Incline, which can be pounded on found on page seven of 15 of your packet or page eight of your PDF.

Are there any questions regarding the subject's location?

Mr.

Mrs.

Quillick, please uh tell us what brought you here today.

And and feel free to step uh up to the center podium if you could.

Yes, uh full disclosure.

I was a past member of the board equalization for 10 years, so pretty familiar with the process.

Uh the reason why we're here is if you'll see on the uh petition, none of the boxes are checked because it doesn't fall within the category of any of those items.

Uh what took place here, bone this property, purchased the land in 2000, built the structure in 2007.

Um knowing the rules and regulations of Tahoe, I knew I had to remove some coverage in order to uh add a two-car garage structure to the residence.

And I did take place that did take place, and I did provide documentation to the assessor's office that I was in compliance with all the uh candle uh requirements for building the structure.

So going forward, I knew what I had left as for parking for the structure based on the contributing factor of the asphalt remaining in front of the property, allowing me to work with the association to park both there in the summer occasionally and have three additional parking spaces, not exclusively to myself, but to my neighbors and myself until what took place this past year is uh the association individual in the association decided to uh remove additional coverage from parking spaces from the association to uh bank it for they could build additional garages in it.

Now this property should not have been affected.

It was compliant for years and years, and then all of a sudden I'm in a fight with the association to maintain my property value and not lose this asphalt.

Uh they went ahead, removed it, um, broke some TRPA rules in the process.

Um that doesn't mean anything to this board, but um my analysis as a real estate broker, real estate professional expert with this in the field, is that this cost of valuation drop in my property value of approximately 300,000.

Where I came across that is uh parking kind of a hard thing to identify exact price on, but knowing with the goals for in other parts of the area, how it affects the value of the property.

I came up with each parking space to be valued at a minimum of a hundred thousand.

Taking the hundred thousand dollars times three um property value damage would be three hundred thousand if you take the three hundred thousand divided by the high number uh of the assessors' valuation here, uh one point seven million.

That gives you 17.3% drop in value.

And that's what I'm requesting here today.

Is that and this I believe will be a temporary situation where if we reduce the value during the time frame where I litigate this, because I I can't foresee anywhere in this country where you could damage one person's property value in order to improve somebody else's property value, and that's you know, taking the parking for my house to utilize it to build the garage in front of somebody else's house that's considerably far from the subject property.

That's the nuts and bolts of it.

It's like I don't think we need to really dig extremely deep into this, it's pretty obvious what took place.

Um, and if I may, thank you, uh, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Uh, full disclosure, I actually also serve on the uh Tyrolean Village Homeowners Association Board of Directors.

So I am intimately involved with the CCNRs and homeowners' rules and regulations, etc.

However, I'm not speaking as a board member, I'm speaking strictly as a homeowner who's lived in this association uh since 1991, full-time year-round.

Uh our um uh uh esteemed uh assessor's office did in fact provide us with the Eighth Amendment rules and uh CC and Rs for the association, and which again I am familiar with.

Now we do have a garage, we have a two-car attached garage to our our home at 1410 Tyrol Drive.

We park our cars in our garage and also in our driveway, as we are required to do so.

However, the as my husband stated the parking, the three parking spaces that are also identified on the original maps of the association approved by our county.

These parking spaces, as John stated, are not exclusive use for ourselves.

That's not we that is not what we are arguing.

These spaces are used for guests that do park for the homes uh that are right next door to us that surround us, etc.

As of now, uh, especially with this last snowstorm that we had, there was no parking.

People were parking two cars deep tandemly, um, which can be quite dangerous in mountain roads.

So uh, with respect to what was given to us these rules at the C C and Rs, uh, which by the way are um we're in the process.

The board is in the process of uh recreating, I should say, until our legal counsel looks at them.

So these will change again, but this does not really apply to us.

We do park where we're supposed to park again.

These spaces are for a minimum of five other homes surrounded by us.

So we are not the only individuals that are affected by this, what has taken place.

It's affecting our neighbors, and fortunately, my husband and I have the time and the expertise to go forward to uh the panel here today.

Thank you.

All right.

We'll hear now from the assessor's office.

Louvina Bergen for the record.

This subject consists of a 2,664 square foot freestanding home and a 552 square foot attached to car garage built in 2007, located in Tyrollean Village.

You can locate four improved cells all within the subject neighborhood on page two and three of 15 of your packet.

These improved cells consist of three standing two to three store units with three bedrooms and at least two bathrooms.

Similar to the subject property.

While all improved cells are inferior in size, age, and quality, only IS1 and IS3 included in attached garage.

Among the improved cells, IS3 offers the closest match in characteristics and building size, making it the most reliable indicator of market value for the subject property.

IS3 provides the best indication of value at 1,400,000 or $597 per square foot for the subject property.

Overall, the sales comparison approach reflects a range of 1,400,000 to 1,705,000, or $597 to $855 per square foot of improved properties.

Whereas the subject current total taxable value is at $857,603, demonstrating that the property is significantly below market value.

I would like to mention that all land sales provided are also located in the subject neighborhood.

LS1 is vacant land parcel located north of the subject on Tyrol Drive.

This parcel has steep topography that is typical in the area and has 2,000 square feet of coverage.

LS2 is a vacant land parcel that does not include coverage, which would make it a low indicator of value, located southwest of the subject on stereo way.

This parcel also has steep topography.

LS3 is a vacant land parcel that includes 2,300 square feet of off-site coverage located south of the subject on Lucerne Way.

This parcel also has steep topography and direct access off street.

The improved cells are considered inferior to the subject property and support a range of 1,400,000 to 1,705,000.

The land sales range in value from 250,000 to 450,000.

The subject's land value of 270,000 falls within the lower range and therefore does not exceed full cash value.

Based on the analysis of improved sales and land sales, the subject's taxable value of 857,603 is supported and does not exceed full cash value.

Therefore, we recommend the board to uphold the current valuation.

However, I would like to address the petitioner's concerns, and to help do so, I will refer to the additional evidence that has been submitted.

The appellant asserts that the three open parking spaces were part of his use.

However, he did not provide any documentation prior to this hearing.

Pages one to three of the additional evidence packet contains photographs submitted by the appellant showing the removed parking spaces.

Pages five through seven include aerial images, one showing the current view without the spaces, and others from 2021 and 2023 where the spaces were still present.

A parcel survey dated July 15th of 2005, found on page four of your packet, does not indicate that these parking spaces were part of the subject parcel.

The land where the space was located falls under common area parcel 126 54034, which belongs to the Tyrolin Village Association.

On page nine of your packet, a survey provided by the HOA confirms that parking existed as of 2024.

However, the spaces in questions are not designated for the subject property.

For example, spaces to the north are specifically labeled for unit 1413.

A review of the TRPA records and building plans also revealed no additional coverage to support the appellant's claim.

Furthermore, the Eighth Amended C CNR document from provided this morning states that for units approved garages, such garage shall constitute the designated parking space for the unit.

You can see that on page two marked with a blue asterisk.

In conclusion, this matter appears to be a dispute between the owner and the HOA rather than an issue involving values assigned by our office.

Are there any questions?

Do we have any questions?

I just have two.

Sure.

Um you're maintained.

Uh generally with the Homer Association, the common area is generally held in total by the group, but it's taxed, of course, by uh in that way, and usually the taxes are paid by the association.

Your your position is that uh whatever happened or didn't happen to these parcel uh to these parking areas, that's actually a separate parcel, and it's not impacting their actual taxable value.

That's correct.

I have that correct, yes.

That is correct.

Okay.

Um and regarding that parcel, this under it appears that, or at least the petitioner's position is that the the improvement, the land improvement has been removed.

Was there then for for that parcel then a reduction in value for the loss of the improvements?

On the common area parcel?

Correct.

Um that specific part was not um part of our role on that common area.

So we weren't taxing anyone.

We were not taxing that part.

Okay.

Um it's considered part of the road.

Oh so for assessment purposes, that was not picked up.

That's interesting.

All right.

Any other questions for thank you very much, Ms.

Merkin.

Uh Mr.

and Mrs.

Krollik, you have five minutes to rebut.

Sure.

Uh, just quick statement in regards to that.

The the association does not pay taxes on the common area.

That asphalt, the roads, that's all common areas.

So the the attributing value to that common area is taxed on the residential properties that sit within the association.

So that covers that.

But going back to the slides, if you could start with the first slide, I want to walk you through for you, have a full understanding of of the area, and also to clarify one of the assessors' comments.

Um, starting with the first one, that's the parking spaces there with the boat parked across it in the summer.

I was to provide a um letter from the association showing that I had uh was authorized to park that boat there in the past.

Uh, unfortunately, uh the manager of of the time, his daughter was in the Olympics and uh wasn't able to get in touch with him to get a copy of that.

My email is vast.

There's over 400,000 emails.

I couldn't find it buried in there.

So if it was forwarded to an attorney in the past, it's like it's gonna take a lot of time to dig it up.

Uh moving forward at the slides.

Uh that's the destruction of them tearing tearing out the asphalt in front of uh the my structure moving forward.

Um that's that's the spot that I remediated where I took out the asphalt in order to construct the structure with the two-car garage.

So that was me being compliant, following TRPA regulations and setting this property up for maximum valuation going forward.

It was originally to be a spec house.

I got caught up with 08.

Uh moving forward, next slide.

Uh, next slide.

That's just um that's just an urban.

Yeah, just an aerial view.

Moving moving one more forward.

Uh, that's my 20-foot box trailer in that parking area that's utilized by my real estate company to help clients move move when they sell their house.

Moving forward.

Um wait, if you would go back one slide.

Now, if you would please take note across the street, you'll see um houses right there.

They do not have a garage.

There's um uh two homes over there, they do not have a garage and they're on a very steep uh uphill uh lot.

They where the where that white box trailer is, uh where it's not there normally, it's normally there for 48 hours or less.

They will park in that area.

Again, this is not we're not arguing, this is our exclusive parking area.

Neighbors use this for when they have guests, etc.

And now there is nothing, no guest parking of any kind in this area.

Okay, continuing forward.

Um, yeah, the one more slide forward.

That's the coverage calculations that they needed to become compliant with TRPA in order to bank coverage for future garages continuing forward.

But history of the garage program was asphalt to be removed nearest where that structure was going to be constructed.

We never banked coverage in the past.

And then this is the layout of where my structure is, and the the yellow is the is the three parking spaces.

But to address one more item before I finish, uh the assessor provided additional evidence, which was the uh CCNRs.

Uh it it the parking is the attributing factor to the value of that property.

The CCNR is only guarantees one parking space per unit.

If you were to buy a different unit, the value of that other unit would be different, it would be a impacted by the fact that one, it doesn't have a garage, that's probably several hundred thousand in price valuation, and two, what what steepness it is.

There's all kinds of things that affect property value, but this truly does impact the value of the resale or future resale by structure.

Okay, that's that pretty much I think should be sufficient.

Do we have any questions for the petitioner?

I just have one, uh I just have two.

Um so your argument is not so much that the tax rule needs to be adjusted because you weren't actually paying taxes on the parcel that's actually in question in turn that was that had the removed.

It's because of the impact to that parcel had an impact to your valuation fair market value.

Right.

So um do you find but you but you you can see that the assessor's value and you added closer to $322 per foot of combined value and their sales comparison approach, even on the low end is at $597.

If we and you're saying it's $300,000 of value to remove that's not gonna put it under 322.

That's why I came with came up with that mathematical equation.

You've the 300,000 value of the parking doesn't cross to 300,000 in value as for assessed value, as we know the assessed value is greatly different in many cases than the actual market value.

But I applied that to the market value, reducing the market value to come up with with it, that number is 17%, and then if you use the percentage against the assessed value, that's what I'm looking for.

So I'm not looking for a $300,000 reduction in the assessed value.

I'm looking for that 17% reduction in the assessed value because obviously I've lost value that you know taking a $300,000 hit that's substantial.

That's why I gotta litigate this until I win.

And you're familiar that the improvement value that's real that's uh provided by the assessor, that's really based on a marshal and swift calculation, not you know markets.

So you're really just looking for an adjustment of value to the land.

Correct.

Yeah, it doesn't amount to a lot, but it's the point of getting it right.

Um else you want us to know.

No, but I think that could should cover this perfectly.

All right.

Any other questions for the petitioner?

All right, we'll take this back for deliberation.

Uh any discussion.

Oh, I'll I'll entertain a motion.

Well, let me jump in.

Oh, that's true.

Um, okay.

So let's let's um because he didn't check any boxes, so it's a question of which one it is, but he's essentially arguing um a reduction in his real property was um was overvalued.

And that's that would be uh number one because that's essentially what he's arguing is that um the assessor's value of the land is too high because that's that's a market value, and the loss of the parking impacted his valuation of the land.

So I'm listening to I'm listening to this meeting as it's streamed, and I don't know if I'm one second behind or 23 minutes.

But are you still open for discussion?

Yeah, if you'd like to discuss yeah, with no motions on the table.

All right.

I'm I'm finding that there that uh based on the uh the assessor's information and on what I see on Zillow that there is no way this house is worth less than eight hundred and fifty-seven thousand dollars, which it's assessed for.

So I am not in favor of any rate reduction whatsoever.

The house is probably worth close to double that.

And uh I understand the issues about the the HOA doing HOA things, but this house is worth more, in my opinion, and then the information I received than what is assessed for.

So I would make a motion if you I was asked to to recommend that we not make a change.

By all means make that motion.

It's motion number one.

Mr.

Chair, if I could Herb Kaplan for the record, I I disagree that it's a number one.

I think it's a number three.

Number one is overvaluation, and I'm reading the statute.

I now need glasses for it's gotta be based on the by reason of undervaluation for taxation purposes of the property of any other person firm, blah blah blah.

So it's a comparative uh statute as opposed to the one that 357, which is just over uh overvaluation.

Fair enough.

All right.

And we will uh we will treat it on uh argument that it's less than full cash value.

Okay.

This I made this petition for parcel number one two six five eight zero two five was brought pursuant to NRS 361.357 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 her burden to show that the full cash value of the property is less than the taxable value computed for the property in the current assessment year.

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

Thank you, Ms.

Albright.

Do we have a second for that motion?

Second, thank you, Miss Yancey.

Any discussion on that motion?

No other discussion.

Hearing none.

Uh all in favor.

Oh, is there any public comment?

No public comment.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries, Mr.

and Mrs.

Croelick.

We've ruled against your petition for evaluation on this parcel.

You have a right to appeal that decision to the State Board of Equalization, which you are very familiar with.

And you can collect that form for that appeal from the clerk's office.

Uh ma'am clerk, when does he have to have that appeal in by?

March March 10th.

Um, ma'am clerk, please call the other uh his other matter, please.

Okay.

This will be assessors parcel number 12653, John and Gail Crowlich.

Hearing number two six zero zero five two, and the appellants have been um sworn.

All right, Mr.

Chairman and fellow members of the board.

My name is Ludavina Barrigan, appraiser for the Washoe County Assessors Office.

This appeal is for hearing number two six-0052.

APN 126503, is located at 1310 St.

Galen Court on a point oh two nine acre lot in Tyrollian Village in Incline, which can be found on page six and seven of 15 of your packet or pages seven and eight of 16 of your PDF.

Are there any questions regarding the subject's location?

Good, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Mrs.

Krillick, uh please tell us how uh you wish us to proceed with this parcel.

Okay, so situation with this property is completely different.

This isn't is being impacted in a negative way by a misinterpretation of Nevada law for insurance for uh condos.

Uh typically that NRS statue was written to address insurance on shared wall structures such as a high-rise condo or a row home, like kind properties.

Um insurance broker basically sold the uh association fire insurance based on an interpretation of this law that does not make any sense whatsoever.

Uh here we have uh 55 units in this homeowners association, of which they're not like kind properties.

You have an Aplex, a couple of fourplexes, duplexes, my units, and a triplex, and to take a 200,000 policy from Lloyd's of London, who as we know is definitely not the most affordable insurance in the world, and apply that equally across all the units, and these units, like I said, construction-wise, age-wise, they're all different.

Um that law was written to in if you read that law, it exempts uh commercial properties.

It should exempt PUDs.

This is a public utility district essentially because it has freestanding homes, such as the previous case of a house, uh, and it has you know condos within it.

Um also the association did not interpret its own uh C C and Rs and apply that insurance expense against all 230 to 255 units there.

They only applied it against the 55 shared shared wall units.

So now I'm paying insurance of approximately 1200 a year for the condo, plus now the association has assessed me uh 3800 a year for this new insurance.

Um that drastically affects all 55 units within there, and I'm asking asking for a 15% reduction in the property value because it is out of equalization with other properties with within the uh incline village general improvement district.

Um nobody else is being impacted with insurance for such reason.

Nobody else has interpreted the law to that point, and then I do have one correction.

Uh as for the assessors uh evidence packet, uh land sale one or excuse me, improved sale one.

Um they have the square footage as 1250.

Uh I pulled up the MLS data sheet from when it sold the actual square footage is 1627.

Uh that brings the uh value down to 42532 a square foot, not 554.

Um, so if we want to stay within value in property based on market value and assess value, um they need to correct that error.

Any comments?

So we're we are trying to get the state to address this insurance issue and uh bring clarity to a law that went into effect 12 years ago, and now all of a sudden last year we have a board member that you know hired an attorney and interpreted it differently than what it was meant to apply to.

Thank you.

Miss Barrigan, uh, we'll hear from you.

Ludie Vina Bergan for the record.

The subject consists of 1688 square foot two-story inside attached unit town home and a 484 detached two-car garage built in 1981.

All attached units in this neighborhood have been adjusted with a 15% downward adjustment to reflect the inferior style when compared to the freestanding detached units.

Four improved sales within the subject neighborhood were analyzed to test the subject's current values.

These improved sales located on page two and three of 15 of your packet consists of attached two-story units with three bedrooms and at least two bathrooms, similar to the subject property.

While all improved cells are similar to or superior in size, age, and quality, only IS4 includes an attached garage.

Among the improved cells, IS2 is considered the most reliable indicator of value due to its similarity in land size, quality, age, and building size.

The primary difference is the absence of a garage.

IS2 provides the best indication of market value at 765,000 or 466 dollars per square foot for the subject property.

Overall, the sales comparison approach reflects a range of 692,000 to 1,345,000, or 466 to 726 per square foot for improved properties.

Whereas the subject is currently valued at 345,064 or 204 per square foot, demonstrating that the property is significantly below market value.

Three land cells are included, which you can also find on page two and three of 15 of your packet.

These land cells are the same land cells included in hearing number two six-0053.

If you wish, I can go over them again, or if we can recall from the last hearing, I can skip these.

How do you respond to that?

The improved sale that's closer in value to closer in size.

Closer in size to the subject property.

Uh to what the petitioner has said is the correct value.

Of 16 well, he so petitioners suggested that the correct square footage for his property is 1250.

And I see that you have a 1250 and improved sale one.

If the if the petitioners corrected the size of his property, do I have that wrong?

Uh clarification.

Uh the the uh improved sale one, the assessor has this 1250 square feet, where the actual uh structure is 1627 square feet.

Uh by set the subject property, my property is 1688 square feet.

Oh, so the assessors roll this correctly.

So keep things clean.

So it would be the IS one that there may be a discrepancy on the square footage.

Um, but on our record, we do have um 1250 square feet.

Um, but even if let's say um the sales price was at the 425, um, it still falls, the subject still falls well, but below that um sales range.

Um, and we are uh comparing IS2 as placing the more weight on that sale because it's more comparable to the subject.

Um so the improved sales support a range of 692,000 to 1,345,000.

The land sales range in value from 250,000 to 450,000.

The subject's land value of 229,500 falls within the lower range and therefore does not exceed full cash value.

Based on the analysis of improved land sales and improved sales, the subject's taxable value of 345,064 is supported and does not exceed full cash value.

Therefore, we recommend the board to uphold the current valuation.

I would also like to take a moment to discuss some of the petitioners' concerns.

The appellant expressed concern over the blanket fire policy that his HOA acquired.

This appellate states that the policy has a cost of $3,800 per year and affects 55 parcels in this neighborhood.

While we understand this is a significant cost, valuation is based on market evidence, and current sales do not reflect an impact from this policy.

It is our understanding that the policy took effect after the last improved sale on 1215 25 and values were not affected.

However, our office will assess the neighborhood during our next reappraisal.

And if sales demonstrate a change in market value, we will make the necessary adjustments.

While HOA insurance costs are outside of the scope of valuation, we will monitor market trends during the next reappraisal cycle.

Are there any questions?

You let off with uh indicating that you'd already adjusted the property values down by 15% for the whole community.

Is that correct?

For the attached units.

For the attached units, okay correct.

All right.

Could you explain why?

Uh this adjustment was play uh put in place years ago, uh, back when we had more sales data to be able to compare the difference between the freestanding units compared to the um the attached units.

Uh thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Barrigan.

Uh Mr.

Mrs.

Krolik, uh, you have 10 minutes for rebuttal.

So uh first thing is the improved or the land sales.

The these land sales should not be used when it comes to valuing the land of a condominium.

These are lots that are set aside for freestanding condos or town or freestanding homes.

Uh you should have land sales somewhere for a multifamily lot where you could take the value of that lot and break it into how many units that lot will support.

So I I think that's a disservice to use these land sales, but I understand what where the assessor is because there isn't that much activity, so you you have to pull from somewhere, but somewhere within the community, there's a multifamily lot that should be used as the example to break down against.

And then as for the uh quote that yes, there is there hasn't been any recent sales since uh this insurance went into place, and they have addressed it in the past as the 15%.

So maybe my 15% is a little high, but there should be an adjustment of some percentage for the impact is of this insurance until we get our legislation to address the idea that this has been misinterpreted.

Um this is why we have a board equalization.

This does not fit the normal box of appraisal.

You you can't expect your appraisers to pick up on items such as this, but these do affect valuation of property.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions from the board for the petitioner?

I just have a couple.

Um you indicated that the land sales that are being used are inappropriate for because it's multi uh because they're single family home parcels and not multi-family parcels.

Correct.

Um, in your experience as a real estate broker, a multifamily parcel is worth therefore more or less than well, more as a whole because it could support multiple units, but less as an individual lot underneath that multifamily unit.

After it's subdivided, correct.

And what percentage would you say that would normally be?

I wasn't prepared to do an analysis on that.

That would take me a couple hours.

No, I understand that.

And you may want to do that in the event that you you uh once again.

This this may not be the format to uh address these in the under, you know, having been in your seat for years.

It's I know what the state's ability is at that level, so yeah.

Yeah, sure.

Um the cost of insurance has increased the operating costs of your of owning the parcel by about what percentage would you say.

Well, once again, I haven't thought that through, but if you I am paying more than twice the amount of insurance on the condo, which is worth half the value of the Tyrol House, and the insurance on that is $1,800 a year.

Mr.

Chairman, if I may, what we're finding also um in the real estate community up in the incline uh crystal Bay area right now is that there are actually some uh condominiums and or single family residences where their insurance is costing more than the actual property taxes.

That is going to be a huge huge problem going forward.

Side note, that's true.

Any other questions for the petitioners?

All right, hearing none, we'll take it back for deliberation.

Uh any comments.

Um I absolutely agree that this is an issue that impacts the cost of ownership and potential marketability of the property.

But looking at the numbers, the value, if the value of the property dropped by half, it would still be above the what it is currently assessed at.

So I um just without any additional evidence as to the impact, and given that I'm just not seeing a reason for reduction.

I sympathize with the petitioner.

I've we've seen massive insurance price increases for the last five years, really.

On uh I uh if you look at some of the associations, even some of the largest ones, we watched an association go from uh 250,000 dollar insurance policy to a two million dollar policy over the course of a five-year transition.

And what has been remarkable is that the prices on the properties have not gone down.

Uh they seem to be very sticky on that, and probably it's because people don't want to take a loss.

Um, but eventually I'm sure that's ultimately going to feed into the impact.

It just has not actually fed into the numbers yet for any kind of assessment value.

Um any other comments or a motion currently Yancy for the record.

I guess I'm trying to evaluate the difference between um your petition.

Um you mentioned some things in the beginning about the insurance, and I just want to make sure that I'm on the same page.

Insurance is outside of the tax, correct?

Correct, yeah.

Um so I just wanted to make sure I understand um that difference.

And like I said, uh I agree with him with sympathizing with the insurance.

Um, but I don't see any issue with the assessor.

So uh comment not yet.

We'll hear from from you, yes.

Okay.

Um, my comment in regards to that is when the mass appraisal technique takes into consideration the value of other life kind properties within that community.

The other associations in that community are not suffering from such exorbitant insurance costs for a reason that what that insurance law was not applicable to.

So this takes this property outside of equalization with other like kind condos within the within the community.

That's the argument.

We'll entertain a motion or any other discussion.

Yeah, move to a motion.

Corinthian answer for the record.

This petition for parcel number one two six five two two zero three hearing two six zero zero five two 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 value correctly and the ta total taxable value does not exceed full cash value.

All right.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Bonify.

Um any discussion.

My only comment um regarding petitioners' equalization concern.

I have seen uh because I have been attached in my professional capacity uh to audits of homeowner associations.

We've seen several associations actually shift to where they no longer qualify for loans because of the insurance issues attached.

And so I I disagree with the idea that it's limited in scope.

I think the application of the individual law that uh to which appears to be a conflict is probably unique to Tyrolean.

But the impact of the insurance pricing to the associations in uh particularly the ones with joint structures in Chop Incline Gilles Crystal Bay seems to be pervasive.

And uh with some associations shifting to where they could only take uh you could not borrow on those properties because of their inability to place insurance.

So it it's it's a very large community impact, and we're just waiting to see when prices adjust, I think.

Those are my only comments in this uh any other discussion on the motion.

Any public comment?

There is none.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Uh Mr.

Mr.

Krolik, again, we we've ruled against you, but you have a right and and quite possibly a couple of those analysis that we suggest you might want to do if you did choose to appeal before the state board of equalization, I think would be of use to you to help provide more clarity in terms of what you see as the impact in price value, even though it has not yet appeared, because it certainly I think everyone on the board understands that there will be an impact.

So um anyway, you have again until March 10th to submit that application.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We knew this is the first step.

No, no, sir.

Yes, you have.

Well, you uh and in recognition, Mr.

Kroll got to um enjoy the period of time when the county uh had a very different assessment of it.

And they went through many hearings and filled this room with hearings.

So I appreciate that.

Thank you.

All right, Madam Clerk.

Uh will you please call the next matter?

We will move on to um agenda item number eight, commercial real property appeal.

Um, this is a assessors parcel number zero eight two four nine two zero two.

Uh Joy and Joe Panicaro, hearing number two six zero zero zero six, and the appellant is present and will need to be sworn.

All right, Mr.

Panacara, welcome.

Uh do you need some time to prepare and organize yourself?

Yeah, thank you.

All right, so all right, we're going to adjourn for five minutes.

Mr.

Pandicaro, are you ready?

All right.

Assessors offices ready.

Clerks ready?

All right, let's wear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to present this board of the equalization season is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you back.

Absolutely.

All right, Mr.

Panakara, we're going to start.

We'll have the assessor first identify and locate the property for us.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman and members of the board.

For the record, my name is Shannon Scott, senior appraiser with the Washoe County Assessor's Office.

The subject property is a thirty-one hundred and fifty square foot storage warehouse built in nineteen eighty-one.

It has frontage along North Virginia Street as and is in close proximity to US three ninety-five.

Are there any questions about the location?

No, we're good.

Mr.

Panicaro, please tell us uh what brought you here today.

You have 20 minutes.

Of course, my appeal.

The parcel is a small one, 15,572 square feet, 0.357 acres in size, with a no-frills masonry block building, totaling 3,150 square feet.

And that's on accessories exhibit one or page one, which you see on the screen.

But actually, if you go to their paper version, you'll see a better picture of the dilapidated building and driveway.

The parcel sits on a plateau high above Virginia Street.

The driveway is steep and narrow, making it inaccessible to delivery trucks.

And you will see that, I assume each one of you have my appeal brief.

We do.

And you will see a letter from the tenant at Exhibit 2.

And if you need to find any exhibit, you'll see an exhibit list on page 20.

The property's asphalt has never been replaced and has been deteriorating with cracks and holes visible throughout.

The typical life of low-quality class C buildings are 40 years.

This one's 45.

During storms, rain permeates the block walls, and water runs into the building from underneath the doors.

The property has many physical restrictions, severely limiting its expansion and use.

Hostile and abrupt, said, What do you want?

He flatly refused to apply any reduction to the easement.

It was only, and at that point, I immediately filed my appeal and did a public records request, pursuing to NRS Chapter 239 for all records used in assessing this property's value.

And it was only after I filed the appeal that the assessor's office is now recommending a 5% reduction for that easement.

NRS 361.2271A1 mandates that when determining taxable value of land, it quote shall unquote be appraised by considering, quote, any legal or physical restrictions upon the land use.

Now, so that's one issue.

The other issue, big issue.

The city owns it right away, which when utilized would essentially landlock my parcel.

Over the course of time, my parcel was given a 25% reduction for access and 25% reduction for topography.

And you'll see that in a former appraisal record, which is found in exhibit four.

The access reduction has since been eliminated altogether, while the topography reduction has been diminished to a mere 10%.

And you'll see the current appraisal record at Exhibit 1.

Yet the property's characteristics have not changed over the last 45 years.

In attempting to explain why the access reduction was eliminated, Supervisor Scott told me that this was due to the property having a driveway.

The properties had a driveway ever since 1981.

There exists a right of way between Virginia Street and the front property line of my parcel, where the property is accessed.

The right-of-way is a strip of land 50 feet in width, owned by the city and reserved for the widening of Virginia Street.

And you'll see that on exhibits three and five.

Five has a red shadowed area, which indicates city owned property.

Whereas the portion of Virginia Street running parallel below it, sits as at an elevation of 5182 feet, a 12-foot drop.

And you'll see that at Exhibit 6.

A photo taken by City of Marino shows a dramatic drop in elevation between the Virginia Street level and the storage trailers above sitting at the edge of my property line.

And you'll see that photo at Exhibit 7.

Should the city decide to cut into the bank to widen Virginia Street, the driveway leading to my parcel would be cut off from the street, severed at a level high above it, leaving the property inaccessible to be vehicular traffic.

There would not be enough run left in the driveway to connect it with Virginia Street to allow an adequate slope for vehicular access to the property when the street is widened.

As it currently stands, my driveway is very steep, making it inaccessible to delivery trucks, according to the tennis letter, which you will see at Exhibit 2.

According to Mr.

Wiley, my property currently has quote 18-foot fall to the roadway, unquote.

And you will see that in assessor's evidence, page three, and her comments under LS4.

Access to the front property line or access at the front property line is the only vehicular route available to my property.

So big problem there.

Sold for $3.15 a square foot.

Whereas my parcel is appraised at $6.50 a square foot.

When meeting with Assessor Chris Saruman, the appraiser Bryce Willie and Supervisor Shannon Scott on February 2nd of this year.

Showing the parcel next door, APN 08249201 was sold in July 2024 for a total of 54,000.

And you'll see those recorded documents at Exhibit 8.

As shown by the documents recorded on July 29, 2024, the purchase was an arm's length transaction between sellers Andrew and James Allen of Fallon, Nevada, and Apex Equities 2, LLC of Lake Oswega, Oregon.

Again, Exhibit 8.

According to appraisal record for the parcel next door, APN 08249201, the parcel is 17,163 square feet or 0.394 acres in size.

You'll see that at Exhibit 9.

Thus, the parcel next door sold for $3.15 a square foot.

Yet my parcel was appraised at $6.50 a square foot, first land value and then given a 10% reduction for topography.

And you'll see that on the appraisal record at Exhibit 1.

Once I presented this information at the February 2nd meeting, Mr.

Sarmon, Mr.

Willie, and Ms.

Scott scrambled into defense mode, declaring they would seek adjustments, which would ultimately raise the land value of the parcel next door equivalent to the value for my parcel.

To no surprise, Mr.

Willie would later address a letter to me stating, quote, during our in-person meeting on February 2, 2026, the sale on nearby APN 08249201 was discussed.

This parcel was deemed a questionable sale.

The seller indicated they just wanted to get rid of it.

They felt it was worth a lot more.

This results in an adjusted price per square foot of $6.17.

And you'll see his letter that is attached at Exhibit 10.

However, according to the declaration of value signed, quote, under penalty of perjury, unquote, by the seller James Allen, the property has a total value of $54,000.

And you'll see that recorded document at Exhibit 8.

NRS 375.110 makes a crime for falsifying value of property.

Although Mr.

Willie contends that the seller just got rid of the property at a blow of market value, he failed to produce any written statement from the seller stating such.

The only statement that appears in the record is the one made by Allen, quote, under penalty of perjury, unquote, pursuant to statute.

Although Mr.

Willie states that, quote, the unusable area is estimated to be 11,663 square feet, unquote.

He failed to state why the remaining 5500 square foot is unusable or how he arrived at the estimated amount.

The parcels appraisal record makes no mention of quote unusable, unquote, property.

As far as utilities, the parcels appraisal record states under property care characteristics, that has me that municipal water and sewer.

Although Mr.

Wiley states a parcel has no access.

This is not mentioned in the appraisal record.

If the property had no access, then Mr.

Wiley contends, property would be landlocked and worthless.

Parcel Netstore 08249201, located at 7450 North Virginia Street, is currently listed for lease bill to suit by Stark Accelerators Commercial Real Estate.

There is no mention in either the listing appearing on Showcase.com or LoopNet.com that the property has any usage or access problems.

And you'll see both of those listings at my exhibit 11.

On February 10 of this year, I spoke with the property's listing agent Adam Carlson from START.

Carlson was unaware of any usage or access problems with the property.

Pursuant to NRS 113.130 and NRS 645.252.

Realtors and sellers have a statutory duty to disclose all known material adverse facts regarding a property's condition, including those that adversely affect the value or use of the property.

The listings further belie the statements made by Mr.

Wiley, as they have photos showing their property to be relatively flat and a dirt road traversing it.

In addition, the listings include a site plan and a proposed 4,995 square foot building, large area with lined parking spaces, and a driveway connecting it to Virginia Street.

You'll see that also on Exhibit 11.

Obviously, there are no usage or access problems.

Pursuant to NRS 361 2275A when using comparable sales, the appraiser, Mr.

Wiley, must base these, quote, on prices actually paid in market transactions, unquote.

He can't take what it was paid and monkey around with it to increase its value to make it look like, oh, you know, it's just as much as my parcel.

No, can't do that.

The assessor's office has attempted to justify his value on my property by listing various properties which are not at all comparable to mine.

Not a single one of his comps has a landlock issue like mine.

According to appraisal publications, when employing the comparable sales method, the basic principles involving assessing properties.

Let me back up a little bit.

According to appraisal publications, when employing the comparable sales method, the basic principles involved, tax assessing properties with similar characteristics in terms of size, location, condition, amenities, age, and design.

The size of comps should be within a 25% difference, larger or smaller.

Once you get outside of that, you get into different tiers of properties.

This can also be the difference between two completely different buyer pools.

In response to my public records request for all records used in valuing my property.

Supervisor Scott provided a list of vacant land sales, which ranged from 2.71 to 208 acres in size.

One parcel even included water rights.

These were the only sales provided in the assessor's response to my public records request.

And you'll see that in the assessor's evidence at pages 45 through 47.

Given that my parcel is only a third of an acre and is without water rights, the sales used certainly do not fit the criteria of a comparable sale.

Since I pointed out these size discrepancies during the February 2nd, 2026 meeting, Mr.

Wiley now attempts to beef up his argument, justifying the value set on my property by presenting additional newly disclosed sales in his assessor's evident packet.

The land sales range between.02 acres in size, the smaller parcel being the one next door to mine, which Mr.

Wiley deemed quote, an invalid sale, unquote, and has given, quote, no weight to it, unquote.

Mr.

Pendicarl, your time's expired.

We're going to increase your time for another 10 minutes to allow you to wrap up.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Once again, with the exception of land sale number five, the parcel next door to me.

These sales do not fit the 25% larger, smaller criterion.

While my parcel has a type SF3 classification listed on its appraisal record, land sales one, three, and four are not a type SF3.

Land cell four is in tax district 4020.

Neighborhood CAAU while my parcel is in tax district 1000.

Neighborhood GAKU.

Land Sale One has numerous amenities, including chain link fencing and carport.

Well, mine doesn't have that.

Wiley now presents for the first time via his assessor's evident packet.

Improved sales.

Each of the improved sales one through five are located in different neighborhoods than my property.

Land cell two and three are even listed are even located in a different city.

Sparks, Nevada.

Each of the improved sales have gross building size much larger than my building, which is 3,150 square feet.

It's nearly double the size.

It has a gross of 6,800 square feet.

While my property has a zoning MS, the improved sales have zonings of MD ID, I, PD, MU, and MF21.

Improved sale one has a refrigerated cooling package.

Improved sale two as chain link fencing, concrete curbing, improved sale three is pictured with a striped parking lot, tile roofing, improved sale four as heating and cooling, yard improvements, wrought iron fencing, striped parking lot, window iron awnings, improved sale five as chain link fencing and 12,720 square feet of asphalt compared to my property, which has 3,400 square feet foot of deteriorating, never been replaced, 45-year-old asphalt.

These improved sales do not fit the criteria for comparable sales either.

Obviously, Mr.

Wiley is reaching out in desperation, attempting to justify his inflated value of my property.

Wiley's income approach to value is just as just as just as in disingenuous as its comparable sales analogy.

Mr.

Wiley even admits to the problems associated with his income approach, stating that since quote, peer properties to the subject are most frequently purchased by owner users.

There is a very limited pool of peers sold as investments, unquote.

And you'll see that on Cessor's uh evidence at page one under conclusions.

By virtue of his own omission, Mr.

Wiley should not have calculated his cap rate using other properties and dividing their net operating income by their purchase price.

As Mr.

Wiley acknowledges, many buyers are not purchasing real estate for investment purposes, but rather for locations from which to operate their own businesses.

Prime examples of his erroneous calculations are found in his cap rate analysis, where he computes cap rates of 4.50% and 4.75%.

You see that in assessment evidence on page 10.

Given the rate for a 10-year U.S.

treasury bond in spring of 2024 was hovering around 4.70% when these purchases were made.

Who in their right mind would forego such risk-free investment and instead purchase real estate with all its risk and headaches for similar or lesser rate of return?

Makes no sense.

Treasury bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S.

government.

Research reveals that the four sales widely used to develop its cap rate are not comparable at all to my property.

Different tax district, and even in a different city, Sparks Nevada.

Its zoning, I is different than my zoning, as is its type SF2 classification.

The Heimer property is located in a Sparks industrial area where the street intersects Rock Boulevard.

The Heimer property has quote two rare enclosed yard spaces located on the back side of the property, storage, shop, alley access, unquote.

And you'll see that in a former listing by LoopNet at Exhibit 13.

Wiley's next sale on his list is quote 1505 Mill Street, unquote.

However, there is no such address on Mill Street.

When running the Parcell's APN number, the address 2505 Mill Street comes up.

This property is home of West Marine, West Marine in front of the Grand Sierra.

The Mill Street property is located in a different neighborhood and different tax district than my property.

The zoning MU and type SF are different than my property.

The millster property is described as quote, retail store, unquote, and quote storage warehouse, unquote.

These have a combined square footage of 9,000 600 square feet, whereas my building is only 3150.

The mill street property has a land size of 59,332 square feet or 1.32 acres.

Why my property is only 15,572 square feet or a little over a third of an acre, which is nearly a fourth of the size of the mill street comparable, he uses.

Next on Wiley's sale list is quote 80 East Glendale Avenue, unquote.

However, there is no such address on Glendale Avenue.

When running this APN, the address 680 Glendale Avenue comes up.

Not only is his Glendale Avenue sale located in a different neighborhood in different tax district than mine, but again, it's list it's located in a different city, Sparks, Nevada.

At Turner Crossing, it has a zoning eye and a type SF1, both different than my property.

The Glendale property lists a total of 11,200 square feet of rentable building, whereas my property has a mere 3,150 square feet.

According to Loop Net Listing, the Glendale property has, quote, large annual rent escalations, unquote.

My property has no rent escalations, let alone a large one.

The Glendale property is triple net leased, whereas my property is not.

The Glendale property is beautifully landscaped with bright green, well manicured lawn, flowers, bushes, both evergreen and deciduous trees.

My property is dirt and sagebrush.

And you'll see that at Exhibit 13.

The final Sarah Wiley uses to establish its cap rate is quote 600 Spokane Street, unquote.

This property is cross street from Ramada Inn.

The Spogane property was constructed in 2024, 43 years earlier than my building.

The Spokane property has a gross building size of only 2,400 square feet and is located on a parcel of land, which is 7,000 square feet or.

Okay, thank you.

No investor in his right mind would accept an NOI without seeing a breakdown and verifying the amount through supporting documentation.

Without such anyone can falsify an NOI, manipulating the calculation to arrive at the cap rate of their choosing.

According to appraisal publications, quote, it is crucial to see how a comparable property's net operating income was derived and to verify it.

Verified data ensures that operating expenses are not underestimated and income is not overstated, allowing for accurate valuation, risk assessment, and comparison.

Cap rates give insight into risk and return metrics.

Low cap rates suggest higher value, often meaning lower risk.

They reflect investor confidence in property, stability, and performance.

Although Wiley is excess has access to property taxes paid on my property, he failed to use these, but instead he used arbitrary figure 10% instead.

Wiley assigned a paltry 5% management fee to his operating expense figures.

When I called around, I had a difficult time finding any management company that would even manage such a small piece of property with an annual gross income of just $22,920.

Those who would utopia Dixon and renal property management want a between 10 and 25 and 20% fee.

Mr.

Wiley fails to mention the name of this 5% management company.

One of the most important aspects of commercial real estate valuation is accounting for risk.

Thank you, Mr.

Pennico.

We'll hear now from the assessor's office.

For the record, my name is Shannon Scott and I'm a senior appraiser with the Washoe County Assessor's Office.

I'm a state certified tax appraiser holding two bachelor's degrees in both accounting and finance.

I have worked for Washoe County for over 10 years and have been in the real estate and finance industry for over 25.

I'd like to start with a brief background of the subject property, its characteristics, and the prior 2024 county and state board hearings.

The property is a 3150 square foot storage warehouse built in 1981.

It is costed as a low quality masonry block building with space heat.

There's approximately 3,400 square feet of asphalt pavement, also built in 1981.

As the improvements are 45 years old, they are receiving 67.5% depreciation.

There is no curb, gutters, or sidewalks, and as such, it is not being costed on our assessment roll.

Prior to 2024, there was a downward 50% adjustment being made to the land for access and topography.

This parcel was severely out of equalization, and when we corrected the error, the appellant appealed.

For a total taxable value of 155,789.

During our discussion with the appellant, he indicated that a drainage easement not found on our parcel map existed.

The easement was confirmed to be 625 square feet or 4% of the overall parcel size.

Considering the easement, we are recommending an additional 5% adjustment to the already existing 10% topography for a total of a 15% adjustment.

This results in a land value of $86,035 and a total taxable value of 150,728.

Access adjustments are only applied to parcels where an access access detriment exists.

However, after appeal, as a test of value, we also performed a sales and income approach.

If you would please click turn to page two of your hearing evidence packet, which is page three of the PDF, I'd like to briefly go over both the sales and income approaches.

Land sales one through land sales four range in value from $7.42 to $17.76.

They are all within a two and a half mile radius of the subject and support our recommended taxable land value of $5.53.

Is a graded finished lot being used pretty much in its entirety.

Bryce, will you please navigate to LS5 in Worms?

Uh thank you.

And it sold in July of 2024 for $3.15.

I have visited this parcel, and it is a good comparable to the property in terms of location.

However, unlike the subject, it is in a raw state.

It has significant topography and it will take considerable investment to grade and create a usable area.

The estimated usable area once graded is estimated at approximately 11,663 square feet.

Discussions with the seller deemed this sale questionable, with the seller indicating that he did not feel that it represented market value, stating that he really just wanted to get rid of it to stop paying the taxes.

Additionally, it had no legal access through the right of way to North Virginia at the time of sale.

It was purchased by the neighboring parcel owner, and based on renderings from uh and based on renderings, access from North Virginia to land sale five will be through that neighboring parcel.

Uh no direct street access is depicted to this parcel.

For the record, we are showing in worms where the access point is depicted.

If you can see that that L shape, that is where the street will be accessed through to the parcel, the parcel that actually sold is the parcel parcel ending in zero one.

Uh adjusting that sale for both the usable area and the lack of access, we arrived at an adjusted price of six dollars and seventeen cents.

This supports our recommended land value of five dollars and fifty-three cents.

If you please turn to page six of your PDF or page five of your hearing evidence packet, I'd like to briefly review the income analysis.

As I stated previously, industrial properties less than 5,000 square feet typically transact as owner users, making the sales comparison approach the best indicator of value.

While little weight was given to the income approach, a very conservative analysis is included in your packet because it also demonstrates that our taxable value does not exceed market value.

The median rent of a dollar and eight per square foot suggests an annual gross income of $40,824.

The subject's actual rent of 60 cents per square foot was used, resulting in a potential gross income of $22,680.

The subject property is currently $100 occupied, and a 15% vacancy was used.

Typical operating expenses on a triple net lease range between five and ten percent to account for management and reserves for replacement.

A 20% operating expense was used in this case to also account for the property taxes the appellant reported to us that he is paying.

This resulted in an NOI of $15,422.

Most recent broker report data reports cap rates at roughly 6.5% for industrial use.

We additionally compiled a cap rate chart for your review indicating a range between 4.5% and 7.37%.

We believe the 8% cap rate used, especially in light of all the other allowances made, is conservative, and the resulting value of $192,780 supports our recommended value of $150,728.

In closing, no recent sales or local market data was provided in support of a reduction beyond our recommended $150,728 or $48 a square foot.

We ask that you approve our recommendation to a total taxable value of $150,728.

Does the board have any questions for me or anything else I can help clarify?

Any questions from the board?

So I do.

Mr.

Simmons.

Oh the access issues to us as I don't know if it's a state or a county highway, but is there some issues to whether or not somebody could get access in the whoever owns the highway could say, no, you can't, you can't come under our property for a driveway.

Um I believe it so the it's North Virginia Street, and I believe that uh the the owners of the property would have to get approval through the city planning with the city of Reno.

You believe the approval is likely.

Uh I wouldn't see a reason why they would deny it.

Okay.

The the other question I have is uh a double point question.

Can you tell me what utilities are on the property?

And if that goes into the land value or the improvements value, the uh the presence and the the utility services.

So are you talking about the subject property?

So the subject property.

So the subject property has power, water, it has it has all the utilities on, and we and we factor that uh in the in the land value.

We don't we don't put uh have an improvement value for for water.

Okay, so a difference in the land values would be part of it, would be that this property has utilities subbed onto the property.

Correct, correct.

Last question.

Uh I think I saw something in here about what the rent is.

Uh could you remind me?

And did the uh the tenant wrote quite a treatise about what his problems are on the property?

Did he mention the rent?

So he um I have not confirmed the rent with the tenant, but uh, but the rent reported to us by Mr.

Panacero, I believe was $1,910 a square foot, and we divided that by the part to come up with the per square foot that we came up with the 60 cents.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Uh Ms.

Scott.

Uh I understand as I understand it, it's not uncommon for the city to maintain a right-of-way across the state highway or a road, uh, predominantly for at least utility uses.

This one appears to be for straight uh street widening.

Is that is that a correct one?

I I believe that is a correct assumption.

Yeah, and so when we're comparing the other land sales, all of those have uh a similar right-of-way uh constraint.

It may not be as long or as large or cut into the property as deeply because it's not for highway expansion, but all of them have a right of way.

Uh presumably.

Yeah, right.

Um to your knowledge, the city has not actually begun to act to widen that road.

Uh no, they have not.

I'm not aware of any uh of any immediate plans for that.

And if that were ever to come, that is absolutely something we would take into consideration with the valuation at that time.

I do have a question.

To your knowledge, are there uh statutes or regulations that address um the city's requirements when widening the road and the access that they must provide if they ever move forward with that easement?

I am not personally uh familiar with what the legal process is, um, but I would imagine that there's public hearings and uh and plenty of notification that goes out.

Umight on the the sale of the neighboring property at 315 a foot for the purposes of valuing land.

The uh now you um Mr.

Simmons always identified about how there's no utilities on there, and that's uh detriment in terms of like the differences in value.

And you've already took discussed about the lack of access, is already more or less figured into that purchase price for the detriment of that value.

Um as I look at the map there, it looks like there is a dirt road that runs through the other two parcels onto Mr.

Panicero's parcel.

And is that something he's using in order to provide access?

Because he's indicated that his uh the driveway that he possesses doesn't have or is too steep for for truck access.

To my knowledge, no, uh uh Mr.

Panicero's property has some big boulders that you can't really see there, uh, but that would block access.

So that's not from the neighboring parcel.

Okay, okay.

Um with respect to the parcel that's highlighted um that ends in zero one and Mr.

Panetera's parcel.

The land zoning for both of those parcels is different.

Do you know if the um e zoning has more limited land uses than the MS zoning that's on Mr.

Panatera's I would have to look into that uh it's it's all right, I have the land um use statute up on my on my computer.

I I'd have to look, I'd have to, I've got a off the top of my head.

No, I don't have the answer to that.

Um other questions for thank you, Ms.

Scott.

Uh Mr.

Pennicaro, you have 10 minutes for rebuttal.

Okay, thank you.

And uh Mr.

Listener, um, is that correct?

Listener, um, you asked the um Miss Scott about you know having to gain approval, you know, to get access over the right-of-way in order to connect to Virginia Street, and I did check on that with both the Walsh County engineer, Eric, I think his name is pronounced Lucier, and with City of Reno engineer, Todd Landry, and they both said no, they can't deny you access to the street, okay.

And this is city city owned.

Virginia Street there is city owned, and so is right away.

So no one can deny access.

Okay.

My problem is once they cut into that bank, and and I mean, you don't start the grade of your driveway from that garage door, okay.

Even if you did, and and if you look at the the map I provided you that shows the property line, and if you started the grade there and and to the property line, that would give you a grade of 21 percent, and I'd like to give you an exhibit here, and Mr.

Landry at the City of Reno yesterday, told me that you're only allowed a 10% grade for driveway commercial building.

Yeah, this is what he gave me.

So, like I say, even if you start the driveway at the beginning of the garage door there and down to the newly widened Virginia Street, you know, 2021 greatest, very severe, and it's not even acceptable to the city of Reno.

Okay, and as I say, they want to 10 percent.

Yeah, great.

And then also when I talked to Mr.

Lander at the city yesterday and told him what we're faced with here, they said, Oh, yeah, that would definitely devalue your property.

And now the other thing I like to point out, too, is they're erroneous in say stating that the parcel next door has to access Virginia Street through another parcel.

Oh you just look at the plot plan, the plot map, and you'll see that at my exhibit three.

You'll see the parcel next door, okay.

The front of the parcel faces Virginia Street, okay, and it also has that right-of-way in front of it.

And what both Mr.

Landry and the uh Warshow County uh engineer told me, they can't deny you access.

They can't deny you access to the street.

Okay.

Now, what I want to show you too, and in one of you already brought it up, that you saw I think it was in the listing picture.

You see the the dirt roadway already traversing this property next door.

Well, that dirt roadway goes to Virginia Street right now, and let me present you with this picture, and you'll see and the difference between that property and mine is that where it intersects that right-of-way in Virginia Street, it's flat.

Mine's gonna be way up in the air.

Okay, and here is a picture of that property with the dirt road traversing it, and you'll see the end of the road joins Virginia Street.

Okay, there's there's no need to go through someone else's parcel.

That's a sense.

And it's not there's no mention of no access on the appraisal record of that parcel.

Okay, you'll and and you'll see that.

Now, also, like I said, it would be infeasible if they widen the road to start the grade of the driveway at that garage door.

Instead, you would start the grade at the pad where our parking begins, okay.

And if you do that, that would only leave that would only leave 26 feet from the edge of my parking pad to the widening of Virginia Street, 26 feet, and it would have a drop in elevation of 12 feet.

That would give you a grade of 46 percent.

Dangerous, dangerous, hazardous.

And of course, the count the city would never even approve that.

Okay.

So that's the problem we're faced with.

Landlock issues.

And the statute says when you're valuing, when you're appraising value of property, you have to consider all restrictions, whether they're physical or legal.

And I just went through that.

Okay.

They're just giving you a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

Okay.

The statute is very clear.

And it's in my brief.

Now the other thing, too, that Ms.

Scott said, oh, last time it was appealed, everything was upheld.

Well, yeah, last time it was appealed, we didn't have that sale, the property next door.

We didn't have well, it was never argued.

The issue never arose of this possible landlocking and the right-of-way, okay.

That that didn't come up.

Now, also when you consider landlocking issue, uh appraisal publications dictate that anywhere from 70 to 85 percent reduction is warranted for that, and I'm gonna give you that too.

And Madam Clerk, uh, how are you going to identify the first two exhibits that uh petitioners?

The first one is item C for the petitioners, the second one is um item D, and this will be item E.

Thank you.

And then as already addressed, and I thoroughly addressed this.

They're so-called comps are not comps.

Okay, you know, the the lot sizes are much bigger than the 25% differential.

I mean, the buildings are much bigger, there's amenities, they're in different neighborhoods, different cities, uh, different cats districts, different zoning, okay.

They're not comparables at all.

They're just trying to find anything that may justify this issue, okay.

They haven't done it.

Now, in regard to her saying, oh, two years ago, yeah, we took away, you know, Panicaro's 25% reduction for access and reduced topography to make it more equable with other properties.

Well, guess what?

That property next door to this day has a 25% reduction for topography and 25% reduction for access.

That's what we used to have.

So, what is she saying?

We're trying to make it more equitable.

No, they made it inequitable.

And if you look at that property next door, I mean it's relatively flat.

Okay, there is no access problem.

You you look at the uh the site plan, I mean, it shows a driveway connected to Virginia Street.

Uh it doesn't go through anyone else's property, and by statute, the realtor and the property owner in a listing, they have to put, they have to advise you know others of any adverse facts that would affect the use or the value of the property.

You don't see that in those listings.

So are they are they violating the law?

Are that's what she wants you to believe?

They're violating the law, okay, by not telling people that there's access problems and that there's oh usage problems.

He didn't even give you an explanation.

I haven't heard any explanation.

Why is 5,500 square feet of that property unusable?

I never heard an explanation.

Okay, never heard that.

Where'd that come from?

Okay.

You look at the appraisal report on that property, it doesn't say anything about no access.

It doesn't say anything about property being unusable.

They tax that full 17,000 square foot of that property.

They're not taxing 11,000 square foot, okay.

So, you know, and then when we get to the income approach, and you know, like I left off on management fee.

He says 5% management fee.

The companies I I talked to wouldn't even manage this property is too small, it doesn't have enough income, okay?

And the ones that would, and I mentioned most, they don't attend to 20 percent.

Where's this five percent management company?

You didn't identify that company, okay.

And when you evaluate these commercial real estate involves a number of risk factors.

So what you do is you start out.

What is a risk-free investment?

That's your 10-year treasury bond backed by U.S.

government.

That's risk-free.

You start right there, okay.

And then if you're gonna invest in real estate, that has risk involved.

So what you have to do is tap on to that percentage, all these risks.

Okay.

Look at all the risk our property has.

We have a tenant whose month to month.

You consider that, you consider the building, you consider location.

You consider all of these things.

Uh Mr.

Pancare, would you get it?

You may have two more minutes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

So sources of risk, in many forms, stability, credit work, credit worthiness, a tenant, terms of lease or month to month, age of building, condition of property.

These are all things that have to be calculated into your cap rate.

Okay.

Properties with high cap rate are also typically located in less desirable areas.

It may require significant upgrades or repairs, which can increase the risk of investment.

Cap rates and interest rates are two essential metrics in real estate investing.

Cap rates and interest rates are closely connected because both reflect the cost of borrowing money and the potential return on the events investment.

Interest rates represent the cost of borrowing money to finance the investment.

Recently, First Citizens Bank offered a 6.5 loan on commercial investment property.

However, according to Vice President, Ricardo Villa Corta, banks are shying away from investment property loans.

The expected rate of return is referred to as the required rate of return.

That's defined as the rate the investor would expect from the investment.

There are three basic properties, A, B, and C.

C properties like mine are the least expensive and the highest risk.

A 12 to 14% cap rate in commercial real estate is justified by high risk, a need for significant repairs, high vacancies, poor location, or tenant issues.

Such rates are common in class C properties.

Tenants with poor credit like mine or leases expiring shortly, month to month, create income uncertainty, driving up the cap rate, older buildings, command higher cap rates.

It is generally appropriate to apply a higher cap rate to a property with a lower net operating income like ours.

Thank you.

Um do we have any questions for Mr.

Penicaro from the board?

I have a couple or three, if you will.

Um let's turn to the income approach if uh that the assessor prepared.

They were using uh and you concurred they're using a 22,680 annual uh rate that is received from your tenant.

Is that correct?

It's actually 1910 a month, and let's just that would be 22,920.

Okay, okay.

So we're approximately in the right ballpark.

Um have you been experiencing I I remember from a couple years ago when you were here last you had experienced some collection risk.

Is that something that's still ongoing?

Yeah, there are times when he's you know behind and can't make the payment.

But basically, you know, we took a risk on this guy because look at the property.

Who are we gonna run it to?

Okay, this is not in a prime area, it's not a prime building, you know, and this guy came forward and we took a took shot, you know.

And so now we're on month to month, and you know, who knows how long he's gonna be there.

If all of a sudden he goes, ah, I'm out of here next month, and then we got a hundred percent vacancy rate.

So that's why you consider things like month to month, credit worthiness of the c the tenant.

He told me he doesn't have good credit, okay?

So these drive up the cap rate, okay.

So when you're an investor, you're looking at this.

If you're looking at this building, and all the particulars go to it, and you're comparing that to what he wants you to, some other building, maybe in Sparks in the heart of the industrial zone, okay.

You you look at that building, and you're gonna you're gonna buy my building, it's your choice, my building or that building.

You look at all these differences, and you're gonna say, ah, I'm not gonna pay the same price for that building as I am for this one over here.

This one's in a better neighborhood, has a better tenant, you know, and uh it has amenities, you know, and and and it doesn't have a none of these, none of their cops have that landlock issue, the potential landlock issue, none of them do.

So none of their comps are actually cops, okay?

They haven't they haven't given you one single cop, okay?

So that is what you do with the income approach.

He even said that his income approach is flawed because he can't find you know uh sales that were that were done just for investment purposes.

And you the sales are owner, you know, they're they're for owner use.

They're just looking for places to operate their own businesses.

So they're not looking for investments.

So he even said that to you.

It's right in his his is I I think it was on his first page.

And you called that out earlier.

Yeah, you know, so right there, you you can't, and you can't simply go to another property and say, okay, this is a purchase price, and this is their net operating income.

So, you know, we divide that and we come up with cap rate.

No, no.

You might find a cap rate for that particular building.

You can't associate that with my building.

My building is totally different.

You know, so you can't use that.

And then the other thing too is the NOIs, net operating um income.

He puts a total for each of his four comparisons, but he doesn't show us how those NOIs are composed.

I asked, Ms.

Scott, will you give me the figures that show how those NIS NOIs were composed and verifying backup documentation?

She couldn't do it.

No one in the right mind would just take that, you know, at a space, okay, and believe it, because there's too many ways you can manipulate those figures and get whatever cap rate you want.

I understand.

Now that's why I'm focusing on your NOI.

Your NOI itself.

Right.

Now they have allocated a 20% net operating uh cost to you in the management of the property.

And that wasn't just for management.

No, the management is five percent.

Well, the management portion is five percent, but they're allocating a 20 percent of revenue cost to you in the management of the property, and I'm guessing I'm trying to figure out is that an accurate presentation?

It sounds to me like you're paying the property taxes, is that correct?

That's true.

And no, well, their their figure is is low.

And and as I pointed out to you, he's using a five percent management fee.

There's no one, and it doesn't identify who this five percent management company would be.

Well, we don't want to focus too much on a different management company.

If you go the least amount that I can find, it would be 10.

Okay.

So right there, you're five percent low.

His figure is five percent low right there.

Okay.

And then he didn't use, you know, when you're and as you point out, you're looking at my property because my property is the one you're interested in, okay.

So what you do is you look at that property's net operating income, okay, and expenses.

And what and he has access to it.

You take the property taxes that were paid.

Why are you assigning some sort of arbitrary figure to that?

You take the actual numbers.

I don't see why he didn't do that.

This tells me he doesn't always do.

This that's what this tells me.

Separate of that, sure.

Let's focus on again your property, your operating costs.

You're paying your property taxes, and what other costs.

We pay that and that is basically it, but you always include reserves, which he did, and reserves are for future unexpected cost.

So that is always in your formula.

And those you you I mean, that's something that is it's not necessarily specific to your property and appraisers normally just assign a certain percentage.

So I went with his percentage.

You know, I I didn't contest that.

Okay.

And I don't know how he arrived at his percentage.

But yeah, those are unforeseeable things, okay, that we would have to take care of should they they surface.

Okay.

Um, so right now to answer your question is property taxes, okay.

And the the tenant does pay the sewer.

All right.

And the tenant pays other utility all other utility costs.

He pays the tax and water.

Very good.

All right.

Um, does anyone else have any questions for the petitioner?

And and I I did come up with some because you guys normally ask me, okay, what is what is your opinion of value, and and I'm ready to state that if you want.

If you want to state that, please do it now.

Okay.

And at least in my conclusion, that you know, if we apply the $3.15 uh uh price, you know, that the vacant property sold for next door, and you apply the 10% reduction for topography that we were given, and another 5%, which they conceded should be given for the easement, then our total land value would be 41,694, rendering a total taxable value of 106,387.

Now, if you use Mr.

Wiley's income approach, you apply what what is more appropriate with all the risk involved.

And we have you know backup documentation for that.

If you apply a 14% cap rate, then the total taxable value of my property is 11,157.

Now both of those figures you have to consider uh they do not account for the landlock issue.

Okay.

And then if we took his uh income approach, applied the 14% cap rate, and instead use a 10% management fee instead of his unsupported 5%, then our total property value, taxable value is 102,060.

And then if we go back to when we used to have the 25% reduction for access and 25% reduction for topography, and I don't know why we were given that for 40 some years.

I can only speculate.

Perhaps could it be the right-of-way issue and the landlock?

Perhaps that is the reason why.

You know, because you have the same situation with the property next door to to this day, they still have the 25% reduction for both, and their property does have you know that right-of-way in front of it, okay.

Although it doesn't have the level problem, the elevation problem that we do.

But you know, it's just a thought.

So now I think you you've you've clarified what you believe.

Okay, so you know the value of the process.

If you use the 25% reduction, and then you apply to it uh, you know, the three dollar and fifteen cent a square foot, then you add the five percent reduction that they've already consented to for the easement, then the total taxable value would be eighty-six thousand seven hundred and sixty-six dollars.

And then if we go one step further, and if we consider the landlock issue, and I gave you some supporting documentation where that will reduce property anywhere from 70 to 85 percent.

All right, I think you you you've clarified that particular and then you know, if you apply that, I mean you're getting into like you know, 24,000, you know, 32,000 figures.

If you apply the landlock issue, well, I think we'll we'll consider that as well.

And so, you know, basically NRS 361-2275 mandates the assessor make a reduction to my property when I set forth tax warranty, warranting it as I have done, and NRS 361-345 grants you, the Board of Equalization the power to reduce the taxable value of property fixed by the county appraiser uh assessor.

So, you know, I'm asking for a reduction based on you know all the issues I brought to your attention.

I have not heard them, they haven't even haven't even touched the uh the landlock issue, didn't even hear them discuss that.

Well, we'll we'll talk about that air.

Okay, so sure.

Are there any other questions for the petitioner?

No, no, we're gonna take it back then for deliberation.

May I ask a question of either legal or the assessor's office as to the definition of landlocked, whether having a legal easement and a potential of something happen in the future, we're looking a year out.

Are we landlocked?

Herb Kaplan for the record.

I don't believe that this constitutes a landlocked parcel.

In the future, it could be.

And I'm sure there will be a lawsuit that follows if there's any issues, but as we did here today, there's no landlock issue.

I don't believe there is.

Thank you.

Other discussion.

I believe the landlock issue is a little premature at this time, as the easement hasn't been instituted.

I also think that there are codes and statutes in place that will address the concerns that Mr.

Panikera has.

There are requirements that the city must follow and access uh to parcels that currently exist that they must um continue to honor when they widen a road.

So I just believe that that issue is premature at this time.

Mr.

Sim.

Thank you.

Pardon me.

I just looked at the regional transportation plan regarding North Virginia Street, and they are showing that in 2040, they uh I mean, that's their estimated date at this time when they may have money to improve that street.

And they might be talking about four lanes, but that's 14 years from now.

And these 10 these tend to get extended and extended until it becomes a crisis.

And I don't think that street isn't any sort of crisis mode at this time.

I also wanted to add I build properties out of Sagebrush, and we spend about a hundred thousand dollars to bring utilities to each residential lot.

These and about half that money is payments to the various governments that uh want to provide service for a fee, such as a 12,000 sewer connection.

So I think that since those are included in the land value, that this value of 91,000 is way too low.

That uh it shouldn't reflect 100,000 worth of utilities that are on the property.

Oh my only other comment is that uh there are a number of people paying 400,000 right now for apartments or single family homes that they can rent and get about the same rent that he is getting for his property 2,000 a month, roughly.

Oh in my way of thinking by that income approach, that his property is worth 400,000 to somebody.

I'm not saying that it is, but there are other properties being purchased to get a couple thousand dollars a month of rent.

Um so thank you.

And if I may adjust, no, no, it doesn't not at this time.

No, this is our deliberation.

We just talk amongst the if you're gonna buy this property.

That's one thing has to be disclosed right away.

If you're gonna buy it, you you've mentioned that previously that such disclosures are required.

And I'm sorry, may I just address the disclosures um that he's reiterating that need to be required by a realtor?

I am currently a licensed realtor.

Um, and in my listings, we do not outline what the easements are.

The easements that exist on properties are provided in the preliminary title report, and that is when those issues arise.

So in the in the listing, you do not set forth any easements or anything along those lines.

The only thing that you outline are if that easement is like if Virginia Street is currently being widened by the city and that easement's currently taking place and is creating a material issue.

But if it is just an easement that runs across the land, that is not creating a material issue at the present time, it is not disclosed by realtors in any fashion.

Yeah, and that isn't what I said.

It's just you have to disclose any problems with the access or value pursuant to statute.

Okay, that you have to do, and if they're gonna say that property has no access, and there's you know 5,500 square feet unusable, that by statute has to be lawfully disclosed in a listing.

So what you're telling me is we do have to continue with our deliberations.

Uh any other discussion.

Oh, no, I'm sorry, I just have one other um discussion regarding um the comparisons of properties.

The property that's highlighted that ends in zero one, um, that Mr.

Panicara would like used as um the main comparable property, um, has a much more limited use for land use than um Mr.

Panicara's property.

It is it is uh zoned ME or Mr.

Panicera's property is zoned MS.

Under ME, your land uses that are allowable are far more limited than under MS zoning.

So I do think that is part of the reason why that property sold for such a lower value.

Excellent.

Other comments, and I was waiting for Mr.

Listener to jump in with the cost, but my idea was the same in that that comparable property next door has no utilities, it has no access, asphalt takes a lot of money and permitting.

So same thing.

Insofar as the income approach is applied, um, based off the the statements made by Mr.

Penicaro, it appears the income and expense is applied by the assessor and her calculation to come up with what the net operating income would be seem correct.

Um the vacancy risk and credibility is is applied, even though he's theoretically receiving that almost in full, just not on a timely basis.

And of course, not receiving money on time has a cost 15% seems reasonable for that.

Um Mr.

Penacaro has indicated on in its other sorts of discussion that the capitalization rate should be higher at 12 or 14 percent.

He's using properties that are legally landlocked.

Legally landlocked means they actually have no access and they're or relying on a on a permiss uh permissive easement, and he's not on either of those cases at this present time.

Something happens, something happens, and he might actually become landlocked, but at this time it's not in its current use, and the property is actually still being used.

8% is the cap rate that the assessor used.

That seems from our hearings, the board of equalization to be a fair rate across other properties.

That is uh to get to the net income value uh or the net assessed value, it would actually tolerate a 9.8% cap rate.

Uh and so I don't see that as even if the cap rate is modestly off, that we would still get to the the current assessed value.

Uh any other discussion.

Um, just to complete the record, the net operating income percentage.

The last year's property taxes were about twelve hundred and fifty dollars, which equates to about six percent of revenue.

The assessor's office includes ten percent for those taxes, so that includes about a four percent overestimation that can go you know for any of this.

So there is a little bit of play there on the conservative side.

There is, yeah.

Any other discussion?

Or are we gonna entertain a motion?

There um, if we did entertain a motion, the assessors proposed that we reduce the land value.

I uh I believe that's number four.

Well, he's coming in at 356 and 357.

He is, yes.

So it would be either number seven or ten.

I think ten my best guess.

Is that not right, Rick?

I'm getting the nod, so it's number 10.

Um who wants to make the motion?

I'll make the motion.

Thank you, Ms.

Bum.

Ms.

Petition for parcel number 08249202 hearing number 26006 was brought brought pursuant to NRS 361 357 based on the evidence presented by the assessor's office and the petitioner.

I move to keep the improvement value the same and reduce the land value to 86,003, resulting in the total taxable value for the parcel of 150 dollars, 150,728 dollars for tax year 26.

Um, are we calling 26, 27?

Um tax year 26.

The reduction is based on um 10 percent or 5% easement adjustment.

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

I have a motion.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Nancy.

Any other discussion on this motion?

Hearing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries, Mr.

Penacaro.

We've ruled uh to uphold the assessor's value with the adjustment of a further five percent down for the drainage easement.

Uh, you have the right to appeal that to the state board of equalization.

You'll want to get that appeal if you did want to appeal uh by March 10th, and the clerks can provide you with the form to do that.

Yes, I will appeal that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

There was no public comment on that item.

And there was no public comment on that.

All right.

Um with that, we are at board member comments, correct?

Correct.

Yes.

I just want to thank all of you for attending our uh sessions here for the board of equalization.

Okay.

And I hope that uh you'll come and join us next year.

And I think uh I want to thank the the assessor's office for being very professional and trying to get all of the all of our claimants uh resolved and stipulated and and get them to a level where well no one's happy about taxes, but at least satisfied that they're being taxed fairly enough.

Thank you for uh thank you, each of you members of the board.

You got uh three new members, and I want to say thank you to this learning experience in the first year, and uh next year will go easier.

So look forward to seeing you all again next year.

Uh and that thank you to uh the attorney's office for keeping us legal and making sure we're on the right motion and to the the clerk's office reminding me to ask for public comment.

That's all my remarks.

Okay.

I I would also like to express thanks to Jonathan Luhan and to Yvonne Strickland for going over above and beyond what's needed to get this new member up to speed, including some help that was way after business hours in particular to keep us from working on things that had been withdrawn.

I I appreciate the help.

And I greatly appreciate the help from everyone.

Um getting me up to speed and being a new board member and learning the process um of these hearings.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Anything else?

All right.

Uh public comment.

Public comment.

First, we have Chris Sarman.

Mr.

Sarman.

Good morning, Chair, members of the board.

Uh, the appeal process, it's it's it's vital in maintaining public trust, right?

In our property tax system.

And uh here in Nevada, as some of us know, uh or might be learning or may never know, but the the property tax system in Nevada is complex, it's complicated.

Um so I just want to say that I think that a successful appeal process uh for me um in my understanding of it in my thoughts.

Uh it's not based on the wins and the losses, right?

Uh although we strive, of course, for those wins and we review those losses thoroughly.

But it's really it's bigger than that.

It's about uh the opportunity to get the taxpayer um to hear what their concerns are, to understand what those concerns are, to talk with them, bring them forward, how give them that opportunity to be heard.

Um it's about our staff and uh their ability to understand what those concerns are, to be respectful with the taxpayer, uh, to pin to put in countless hours of collecting analyzing data to formulate uh an unbiased opinion, a supported opinion, a professional opinion uh to be heard by you.

Now, sometimes that opinion isn't necessarily um received well by the taxpayer or the board, or every people have different opinions of value, of course, but that's the purpose of this board.

And so uh it that success is also I think defined by your diligence in reviewing the evidence that we put forward to you, um, and and collectively understanding our laws, and then of course, ultimately coming up with a decision that is fair and equitable and uniform.

So uh with that, um I just want to say thanks to our staff for their professionalism, your objectivity.

Thank you so much for uh meeting our mission and and trying to work with the taxpayers and be professional on this board and to our clerk's office again already as stated by member listener um and the team over there.

It's it takes a village, right?

To make sure that this process is uh run smoothly.

So thank you so much for you and and Herb, good to see you over there.

Our DA's office is always, of course, chiming in and helping us with that too.

So uh thank you for another successful year.

Um, I I think also dividing that success.

We had a very low number of appeals filed with our office.

Um most of those we were withdrawn or stipulated.

So again, a testament to our staff.

Um I think maybe you and I apologize, you only got to hear like maybe 10 of them this year, right?

So um, it's your time here to get it your dedication, your service.

Um, that we are thankful for.

So thank you.

Ah and it appears for public comment.

We will have Ms.

Gancini.

I want my crew to come forward, please.

This is the small but mighty team.

So thank you to the board.

Thank you to Herb and to Kobe.

Thank you to the assessor's office.

We did the happy dance every time we got a stip or a withdrawal.

Um so thanks to everybody.

We are all basically new except you two.

Um brand new staff on my end, and they did a fantastic job learning alongside the um assessor's office that um kept everything just so smooth and easy.

So we really appreciate that.

So we will see you again on April the 3rd for the last time, and it's just to approve the minutes.

Um, and after that, you will receive your payments for serving on the board.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Gallasini.

Uh any other public comment?

There's none.

All right.

In that case, I declare a session adjourned.