STATE OF NEVADA, )
[pic]
BOARD OF WALTER LEBERSKI
Chairman
EQUALIZATION WESLEY BOWLEN
KELLY BUCKNER
ALFRED PLANK
JAMES Q. WINER
STATE OF NEVADA, )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ELKO. ) FEBRUARY 23, 2007
The Elko County Board of Equalization met in a regular session on Friday, February 23, 2007 at the hour of 9:00 a.m., in meeting Room 105 of the Elko County Courthouse located at 571 Idaho Street, Elko, Nevada.
There were present: Members: Walter Leberski, Chairman
Wes Bowlen
Al Plank
James Winer
Kelly Buckner
Also present:
Deputy District Attorney Kristin McQueary,
Elko Co. Assessor Joe Aguirre
Appraiser Katrinka Russell
Appraiser Janet Iribarne
Appraiser Dennis de Arrieta
Deputy Clerk Marilyn Tipton
(
The Board of Tax Equalization met at this time, pursuant to law, to consider applications for tax exemptions, and to make such reductions, alterations, or eliminations in the tax roll as appears to be justified.
Chairman Leberski called the meeting to order at 9:07 a.m.
Deputy Clerk, Marilyn Tipton, administered the official oath of office to the Board Members: Walt Leberski, Al Plank, Wes Bowlen, James Winer and Kelly Buckner.
The Deputy Clerk swore in the Elko County Assessor, Joe Aguirre, and the following Elko County Appraisers: Janet Iribarne, Katrinka Russell, and Dennis de Arrieta.
TAPE 1A POINT 1.6
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The Board considered approval of the preceding minutes from the February 22, 2006, meeting of the Board of Equalization.
Chairman Leberski noted that the board had previously received those minutes.
MOTION: Board Member Kelly Buckner moved to approve the minutes for the Board of Equalization meeting held on February 22, 2006. Board Member James Winer seconded the motion.
Voting Aye: Chairman Walter Leberski
Member Kelly Buckner
Member Wes Bowlen
Member Al Plank
Member James Winer
Voting Nay: None
Abstaining: None
Absent: None
----------------------------------------
COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC:
In accordance with the Open Meeting Law, Chairman Leberski asked for any public comments that members of the audience might have.
No public comments were submitted.
Chairman Leberski closed the period for public comment.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON APPEALS:
Chairman Walt Leberski explained the procedure for the hearing under the Nevada Revised Statutes and the Nevada Administrative Code.
TAPE 1A POINT 4.2
ROY, BYRON
Case No. 07-001
Parcel No. 002-029-009
Hearing Date: February 23, 2007
Assessed Valuation: Land $ 7,530
Improvements $36,449
SUBJECT MATTER:
This being the time set for hearing the petition of BYRON ROY for review of assessed valuation on property described as follows: Parcel No. 002-029-009.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSOR FOR THE RECORD:
I. Cover Letter/Information Summary
II. Chronological Account Review
III. Letter to the Editor – Elko Daily Free Press
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE:
A. Appraisal Information on 002-029-009
B. Letter to Elko County Commissioners
C. Letter from Ross P. Eardley, Attorney
D. Board of County Commissioners’ Agenda 6/21/06
E. Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes 06/21/06
F. Nevada Revised Statutes 361.765, 361.769, 361.325
G. Parcel Photo
H. Parcel Map
I. Taxpayer Petition Form
J. District Attorney’s Fax Transmission
APPRAISER SWORN IN: KATRINKA S. RUSSELL
Katrinka Russell, Elko County Appraiser, described the property located in Carlin, Nevada, at 724 Elm Street. It is a single family residence situated on a basement foundation. It was originally constructed in 1996. This particular parcel had escaped taxation on the home due to a separation between two departments within the Assessor’s office, real property and personal property. This started in 1996 when UBC homes first started coming into Elko County. She noted that they could not tell the difference between the UBC Homes and the manufactured homes. The permit issued by the City of Carlin was for a “House”. The improvements to the property were originally picked up as a house w/basement and then removed one year later. Now, they have been added back to the real roll and picked it up in 2004, and we are trying to bill for prior year taxes. Katrinka Russell asked for their approval to do that.
TAPE 1A POINT 6.9
PETITIONER DULY SWORN: BYRON ROY
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER:
I. IM’s Missed Property Unsecured 2004-2004 Notice
II. Assessment Cards 2005-2000
III. NRS 361.325
IV. NRS 361.769
V. Letter to Elko County Commissioner 5/30/06
VI. Letter from Elko County District Attorney 4/24/06
VII Letter from Ross Eardley to County Commission 6/15/06
Byron Roy submitted his documentation. Katrinka Russell acknowledged that some of the same information was submitted with the Assessor’s Exhibits.
Byron Roy commented that most of his submitted letters concerned the Elko County Commission. Petitioner stated the first letter concerning this; he received on May 27, 2004. He stated that he had lived in the house for eight years. He noted the letter stated that the building on the parcel was misappraised and it was previously assessed as a mobile home on a foundation; the property should be assessed as a UBC. Byron Roy commented that he did not know the difference. At that time, he went to the Assessor’s Office. Petitioner stated he did not make a mistake and did not believe that he should have to pay for their mistake. Petitioner stated he received another correspondence that stated there was a change in Statutes which changed the cost to over $700.00. Petitioner referred to his Exhibit marked III (NRS 361.325) which he read into the record. He also read NRS 361.769 (Exhibit IV) into the record. Petitioner stated the packet that Katrinka Russell gave them showed that the value was missed because when it was appraised it looked like a mobile home. He believed that all they had to do was to go under the house and look to see if there were floor joists all the way across, if there was no trailer frame, then it was not a mobile home. He stated it was a UBC. Petitioner did not know how the Assessor’s staff missed it. He referred to the letter sent by Ross Eardley to the Elko County Assessor dated May 30, 2006, concerning correcting the error on the tax roll of parcel 002-029-009. Petitioner read a portion of Exhibit C into the record. He stated that at that time Ross Eardley pointed out that the only authority the County Commissioners had was mathematical or clerical errors. Therefore, the Assessor’s Office passed this matter on to the Board of Equalization. Petitioner stated in the annotations to NRS 361.765 it cites an Attorney General’s Opinion on which the Assessor based his request as follows: “A County Assessor may not on his own initiative correct an error in underassessing property in the previous year, by adding an additional assessment to the Tax Roll for the current year. Such errors may only be corrected by the Tax Commission pursuant to NRS 361.325”. Petitioner stated that was exactly what the Assessor was trying to do, contrary to both the Statute and the Attorney General’s Opinion. Petitioner stated also NRS 361.325 gave the Nevada Tax Commission certain authority to make corrections to the Tax Roll; it specifically refers to property found to be escaping taxation. His opinion was there had never been any property escaping taxation. Petitioner commented that an Attorney General’s Opinion concerning this states: property that is merely undervalued for tax purposes is not property escaping taxation within the meaning of NRS 361.325”. Petitioner stated in the statutory scheme, the Assessor made a mistake in underassessing real property. Therefore, it was the Assessor’s problem and it could not be passed on to the taxpayer. Petitioner read paragraph 3 of Ross Eardley’s letters into the record as follows: “It would be unfair and unjust to require the taxpayer to pay for the mistake of the Assessor. There is no question that the mistake in this case is totally the fault of the Assessor and his staff. Therefore, regardless of any interpretation of the statutes, it would be unfair to require the taxpayer to make up for the mistake of the Assessor, particularly after this many years. For almost two years, the Assessor had pressed this matter against Mr. & Mrs. Roy. He has threatened to sue them and in fact turned the matter over to the District Attorney and tried to charge penalties and interest. All this for a mistake that the Assessor made and did not discover for at least several years. No business would be allowed to operate in this manner – to come back to a customer after several years and say “we didn’t charge you enough for that item you bought two years ago, so you have to pay some more or we will sue you.”
Petitioner stated the property was being assessed but as a mobile home instead of a UBC. He stated that when he received his tax bill it did not state what type of home, it stated property land and improvements. Petitioner did not believe the Assessor had the power he was using to do this action. Petitioner commented that Mr. Eardley had spoken to the Assessor about this and asked what statutes he was using to proceed on this matter. He was told by the Assessor that he did not know what statutes but they had been doing it all along after they realized the homes were a UBC home. Byron Roy stated when he first went to the Assessor he was told they had the authority to collect the taxes. Byron Roy believed that the Assessor had made the mistake and they wanted him to pay for their mistake. Petitioner did not believe it was right and according to the papers he had, he did not believe it was legal. Petitioner felt it was a matter of the Assessor having more power than what he really has.
TAPE 1A POINT 16.8
DISCUSSION:
Board Member Walter Leberski did not believe the question was the assessment. The question was the tax that was charged after the assessment. He inquired of legal council if they could take action for the collection of taxes which was several years old.
Kristin McQueary commented that Mr. Byron Roy had written Letters to the Editor. She stated last year they started to bring it before the Board but because of the procedural posture they took it before the County Commission. Kristin McQueary stated the County Commission passed a motion in June 2006 to send it to the State Board of Equalization pursuant to NRS 361.769 which was the procedure you use in assessing real property which has escaped taxation. She noted a UBC was real property as compared to a mobile home which was personal property. She stated ultimately because of the inconvenience to Mr. Roy, the Assessor’s Office brought this issue back to this Board this year Kristin McQueary read the following sections of NRS 361.769: “1. The County Assessor of any county in which real property is located which is not on the secured roll shall access the property and petition the appropriate board of equalization to place the property on the secured roll for the next tax year. The taxes for the current year and any prior year must be calculated and collected in the same manner as if the property had been assessed in those years and placed on the secured roll. 2. The assessment may be made at any time within 3 years after the end of the fiscal year in which the taxes would have been due. 3. The petition must be made to the: (a) County board of equalization if the assessment is made on or after July 1 but before February 1; or (b) State board of equalization if the assessment is made on or after February 1, but before July 1. 4. The county assessor shall give notice of the assessment by certified letter to the owner of the property on or before the date on which the petition is filed pursuant to subsection 1. The notice must include: (a) A description of the property; (b) The years for which the taxes were not paid; (c) The assessed valuation of the property for each of the years stated in paragraph (b); and (d) A statement informing the property owner of his right to appeal the assessed valuation at a hearing of the appropriate board of equalization. Kristin McQueary recalled what happened last year was; during last year’s Board of Equalization period a certified letter was not sent out which was why it went before the County Commission to add the house to the tax roll. Kristin McQueary stated that was the statutory authority to add the property back upon the secured roll.
Board Member James Winer noted Katrinka Russell had mentioned there were two departments: the real property and personal property. He noted if someone had a mobile home on a piece of ground say in Ryndon or Spring Creek; they would get a tax bill from one department for the land and improvements, and a separate tax bill on the mobile home. James Winer inquired of Mr. Roy what he had been doing all these years with the tax bill which he got for the mobile home. Byron Roy replied that he had never received a tax bill other than for the land and improvements. Board Member James Winer asked if they had sent out a tax bill for the mobile home for all these years. Katrinka Russell replied they had not.
Byron Roy read from Exhibit I “PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED AS A MOBILE HOME WITH A BASEMENT AND FOUNDATION”. Board Member James Winer stated Mr. Roy was not getting a tax bill for a mobile home. Katrinka Russell stated generally in their office a mobile home sitting on a basement; the mobile home was considered as personal property and the basement was considered as real property. She stated some people chose not to convert their mobile homes. Board Member James Winer asked if there would be two separate tax bills. Katrinka Russell stated that was correct. Board Member James Winer noted Mr. Roy stated he had never received personal property statements for the mobile home. Katrinka Russell stated he did not register it as a mobile home. She explained that in 1997 a copy of the title to the UBC home was brought into our office and that was the reason they took it off of the real roll. She stated originally it was added as a home on a foundation but a title was brought in. Therefore, they did not feel they could assess it as real property. Board Member James Winer commented that they were not assessing it as anything because Byron Roy had not received a tax bill. Katrinka Russell stated that was due to miscommunications. She noted they did have new software so that would not happen again. Board Member James Winer inquired of Kristin McQueary what the statute said when they assess millions of pieces of property but this was the first time that this happened. He asked whether the law said they could go back, or not go back. Kristin McQueary commented that NRS 361.769 stated they could go back only three years. She read subsection 2 into the record: “2. The assessment may be made at any time within 3 years after the end of the fiscal year in which the taxes would have been due.” Kristin McQueary stated if they had missed it over three years; then they could not go back further than three years. Board Member Alan Plank inquired if they had it under assessment or did they have property which had escaped assessment. Kristin McQueary felt that was part of the question they would have to answer. She stated they have a home that the Assessor was telling them should have been on the real property roll but it was not on the personal property roll either.
Board Member Kelly Buckner stated in the event that the property was valued as personal property as a mobile home; he inquired what would the liability have been. Katrinka Russell replied that she could not calculate that without the charts in front of her. She estimated between $400 to $600 depending upon the value of the home when it was bought. Board Member Kelly Buckner understood that Byron Roy had not paid any taxes on that residence itself since the time it was placed on that property in 1996. Katrinka Russell stated that assumption was not correct. She noted that the Petitioners had paid real property taxes that year. Katrina Russell stated that in June of 1997 they brought in a title stating it was a mobile home so they removed the home from the real property roll. Katrina Russell commented that Mr. Roy only paid taxes on the land and abatements. Board Member Kelly Buckner clarified that it was taken from the real property roll but never placed on the personal property roll.
Board Member Wesley Bowlen requested clarification if they were asking the Petitioner to pick it up from when they put it on as a mobile home or were they asking it to be placed on the rolls as real property in that time. Katrinka Russell explained that in 2004 it was brought to their attention that the home should be assessed as real property because it was a UBC home. She stated they were not aware of the circumstances but it was not upon the personal property taxes at that time. Katrinka Russell stated that they put it on the tax roll for 2004-05 and back taxed it for 3 years. She stated Mr. Roy came in and talked to the Elko County Assessor so they removed one tax year off of the taxes after discussing this with Byron Roy. Therefore, they were only attempting to collect escaped taxation for 2 years. Chairman Walter Leberski inquired if it was titled. Katrinka Russell stated she had a copy of the title. Chairman Walter Leberski asked if Mr. Roy had converted it. Katrinka Russell stated if it had not been a UBC home then Petitioner could have converted it to real property. She explained it was a UBC home meaning that under the Uniform Building Code it was real property. Chairman Walter Leberski inquired how they could have a title on a UBC home. Elko County Assessor, Joe Aguirre noted this problem was brought up at the County Commissioners’ meeting on Wednesday. He did not know if it was the difference between the states or areas. Joe Aguirre stated they had mobile home manufacturers issuing titles when they shouldn’t have. Joe Aguirre stated it was confusing all the way down the line. He stated the County Commissioners were going to the Legislators to try and get a full time mobile home inspector in Elko to clean up the problems they have like this. He stated it would be the inspector’s job to determine whether it was under their jurisdiction or not.
Board Member James Winer noted a modular home was like a stick built home in many instances. He inquired how a modular home produced a mobile home title in 1997. Joe Aguirre stated the Division of Manufactured Housing was issuing titles on modular homes. He felt the industry was adding confusion to this mess. He believed there would be a lot more of these instances because Utah was not issuing any more titles. Joe Aguirre stated that there were two new mobile homes on the other side of the County that they did not know even existed. He stated they were moved and set up out there without the Assessor’s knowledge.
Chairman Walter Leberski clarified that the UBC/mobile home was not taxed for several years and the Petitioners were only taxed for just real property and improvements. Byron Roy stated he owned a piece of property next to it which had a foundation on it and there was a difference between the two properties’ assessments. Petitioner stated he felt he was paying taxes on what he should have been paying back then. Chairman Walter Leberski inquired if there was a dramatic drop in his tax bill when the Assessor’s Office took the mobile home/UBC off of the tax bill. Byron Roy stated Katrinka Russell had asked him that on the phone the other day but he could not remember. Board Member James Winer asked if they had that data. Katrinka Russell stated on Assessor’s Exhibit A page 11 and Exhibit A page 13 there was a dramatic difference in the tax bills. Board Member Alfred Plank commented that it went from $1037.40 to $394.20. Board Member James Winer asked Byron Roy if he questioned why his tax bill fell so suddenly. Byron Roy stated he had not noticed it. Board Member James Winer asked about the taxes on the adjacent lot that Mr. Roy owned. Katrinka Russell noted on Exhibit A pages 13 & 15 that was the property right above it. She commented that it was Parcel No. 002-029-008 and he was not being assessed for a foundation on that adjacent lot. Byron Roy inquired if the Assessor physically looked at these lots. Chairman Walter Leberski stated that they were on a five year cycle but he could not testify as to how thorough that was. He inquired why the improvements on the lot would be $25,000. He asked if that would include the basement and a hookup without the trailer. Board Member Walter Leberski inquired if that was an average figure. Katrinka Russell stated for a home of that size it was. Board Member Walter Leberski inquired if at the time it was $25,000; was the home was being assessed? Katrinka Russell replied it was assessed. She stated it was assessed as a basement but it did not have a concrete floor. Chairman Walter Leberski clarified that in 1997-98 the $25,000 included the mobile home/UBC and basement. Byron Roy understood that the billing period changed in 1997. Katrinka Russell explained that the change was made in 1997 but it was reflected on the 1998-99 tax bill. Board Member Kelly Buckner inquired what the evaluation was put on it then. Katrinka Russell stated that it dropped down to $3,430. Board Member Kelly Buckner noted the taxes dropped to $3,430 from $25,000. He was trying to determine if the Board could put the property on the tax rolls for those earlier two years. Board Member Kelly Buckner inquired what action was the Assessor’s Office requesting of the Board. Kristin McQueary suggested they speak to the Assessor and then the Board Members could determine what action to take under the parameters of the statutes. Katrinka Russell asked them for authority to bill Mr. Roy property taxes that have escaped taxation. She stated it would be for billing years 2004-2005, 2003-04 and 2002-03. Board Member Kelly Buckner asked if that was within the parameters of what this Board could do. Kristin McQueary stated it was within the parameters. She noted the statutes stated the assessments may be made any time within 3 years after the end of the fiscal year in which the taxes would have been due. Kristin McQueary commented that the Board did have some discretion upon the number of years but it could not be more than 3 years.
Board Member James Winer inquired if the property had been duly recognized, reassessed, converted and on the rolls or if the Assessor was asking the Board to say it was now officially real property. Katrinka Russell replied, yes it was on the rolls.
Board Member Kelly Buckner inquired if Byron Roy’s opposition was for the collection of the two years back taxes prior to the Assessor’s Office placing the property on the tax rolls properly. Byron Roy reviewed his comments on the Petition for Review of Assessed Valuation to Elko County Board of Equalization: “Not protesting property valued; protesting the Assessors made a mistake at some point and now they want me to pay for their mistake.” Byron Roy noted that Ross Eardley had written it down that business people could not charge more for an item bought two years ago and threaten to sue for the additional charges. Petitioner stated that was what the Assessor had done to him, and he did not believe that was correct. He could not believe that the Assessor was not charging for a foundation on the adjacent property because that foundation was on that property before he put a foundation on Parcel No. 002-029-009. Petitioner did not believe it was his fault that the Assessor’s Office did not do things right. Byron Roy believed the statutes and the opinions from the Attorney General’s Office did not give the authority to the Assessor to do that.
Board Member James Winer stated as a business person; he did not believe that the government ran as a business at all levels. He believed this was not the first time this had happened. In the past, he inquired what history said when these issues come up. Joe Aguirre, Elko County Assessor, stated most of the time the Taxpayer worked with them. He stated the statutes did not give him the authority to excuse any bill. He had explained that to Mr. Roy that they did not have any choice. He had explained to the Petitioner the he could go through this procedure.
Chairman Walter Leberski clarified that the tax the Assessor was charging was on the home that had not been paid and was missed. Joe Aguirre stated that was correct. Chairman Walter Leberski noted that it was not assessed for some years. Joe Aguirre stated they were not going back all the way. He stated that from the time they started this procedure all they were trying to do was to get those two years. Joe Aguirre reiterated that he had no authority to excuse back taxes.
Chairman Walter Leberski commented that he had the same situation at the PX where the PX Ranch had to pay tax for three years on a piece of property that had not been assessed. He stated it was not a pleasant experience.
Byron Roy commented that he had lived in that home for 8 years before they had gotten here. He questioned whether the Assessor was doing his job. Chairman Walter Leberski believed an error was made and that was the reason for the statute. Board Member Alfred Plank stated if the Assessor’s position was that this property was escaping taxation; he inquired if they would be dealing with 361.325. Kristin McQueary stated they had been looking for it under NRS 361.769. She stated the property should have been on the secured roll.
Kristin McQueary noted that Mr. Roy had spoke about being threatened with litigation. She stated Mr. Roy had received a letter from the District Attorney’s Office. She explained that the District Attorney’s Office received a list of delinquent taxes from the Treasurer’s Office every year, and they send out a form letter. This letter was called a delinquent tax letter. She stated that they have a reasonable return by getting people reminded to pay their taxes. Kristin McQueary stated they found that it was more effective not to sue people. The Treasurer’s Office had the authority to take property into the Treasurer’s Trust for unpaid taxes. She stated it was more effective and a less labor intensive process than instituting a lawsuit for back taxes. Byron Roy noted in his packet submitted to them (Exhibit VI) was the letter from the District Attorney. Kristin McQueary stated that they threaten all the statutory consequences but their procedure was to do the Treasurer’s Trust procedure.
Byron Roy stated he did not believe he should pay for the Assessor’s mistakes.
TAPE 1A POINT 47.5
CASE NO. 07-001
DECISION:
Board Member Kelly Buckner moved to accept the Assessor’s request with the change but instead of going back two years; they collect one year of the years that the property was not assessed/not on the tax rolls.
Board Member Kelly Buckner understood that the Assessor’s Office was going back to 2002-2003, 2003-04 so he meant to take out tax year 2002-2003. Board Member James Winer seconded the motion.
Chairman Walter Leberski clarified that the motion was to collect one year’s back taxes to bring it current. He stated it would be on the assessed valuation of the home for 2003-04.
Board Member Kelly Buckner explained his rational for the motion was that Mr. Roy was not assessed on the value of that property for a number of years and did not pay taxes on that property for a number of years. It was not unreasonable to assume that at certain times mistakes were made and things slip through the cracks which were not properly identified and taxed. Board Member Kelly Buckner did not believe that was a reason not to pay a tax if the problem was found and corrected. He noted in this case they could go back three years but the Assessor proposed only to go back for two years. He noted obviously there was a mistake and there was a tax value involved here. He felt it appropriate that at least part of those back taxes be paid. Board Member Kelly Buckner did not feel that one year was an unreasonable request.
Board Member James Winer stated the Assessor’s Office assesses thousands of pieces of properties but they were human and sometimes mistakes were made. Board Member James Winer commented that there was a statute in place for these issues. He stated as a private business person he knew he had made mistakes and had tried to right them. He stated as a consumer he knew he had gone to Wal-Mart, had a lot of stuff on his cart, and there were things on the bottom which the cashier did not see. Board Member James Winer stated when he got to his car he realized the cashier did not see it. He stated, as the consumer, he went back in and stated it was wrong and he had to pay for the items. Bryon Roy stated he would do the same thing under those circumstances.
Board Member Walter Leberski stated as he understood the statute, it was the Taxpayer’s responsibility to check their tax bill and make sure they were paying taxes on everything. He stated that was difficult to do.
TAPE 1 B POINT 3.2
The motion carried the following vote:
Voting Aye: Chairman Leberski
Member Kelly Buckner
Member Wesley Bowlen
Member James Winer
Voting Nay: Member Alfred Plank
Abstaining: None
Absent: None
Chairman Leberski informed the Petitioner, that he had the right to appeal to the State Board of Equalization. Joe Aguirre submitted an appeal form to the Petitioner, Byron Roy.
Bryon Roy stated he would think about this before he decided what direction he wanted to go. He would discuss this with Ross Eardley because he felt it was unfair. Petitioner commented the Board had stated he had a responsibility but noted there was a foundation on the other property. When they assessed the land, they also assessed the improvements. So when he got the tax bill, he felt he was paying for it.
--------------------------------------------
TAPE 1B POINT 5.3
TALEBREZA, JIM
Case No. 07-008
Parcel No. 002-730-021
Hearing Date: February 23, 2007
Assessed Valuation: Land $ 9,730
Improvements $247,150
Personal $ 1,327
SUBJECT MATTER:
This being the time set for hearing the petition of JIM TALEBREZA for review of assessed valuation on property described as follows: Parcel No. 002-730-021.
Chairman Walter Leberski noted for the record that Petitioner, Jim Talebreza, had submitted sixteen photos to the Clerk as Petitioner’s Exhibit VI. He passed them to the Board Members for their viewing.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSOR FOR THE RECORD:
1. Cover Letter
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSOR’S OFFICE:
A. Assessor’s Recommendations
B. Capitalization of Income & Expenses (2 pages)
C. Comparable Market Information (3 pages)
D. Petitioners Information (11 pages)
E. Photos
F. Aerial Map
G. Fax Logs ( 3 pages)
H. Petition
I. List of leaks, broken windows, and broken pipes
J. Photos (10 marked 1 thru 10)
APPRAISER, PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN: DENNIS de ARRIETA
Dennis de Arrieta stated the subject property was the Super 8 Motel located in Wells, Nevada. Parcel 002-730-021 consisted of 6.55 acres on 904 Sixth Street. Mr. Talebreza purchased the property in 1992. Mr. Jim Talebreza was protesting the current cost approach value of $733,943.00 for land and the improvements. He had submitted his income and expenses and asked that the Assessor’s Office review his property based upon the income approach.
TAPE 1B POINT 7.2
PETITIONER DULY SWORN: JIM TALEBREZA
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER:
1. Cover Letter
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER:
I. Profit and Loss (2 pages)
II. Assessment Notices 2004-05
III. Financial Overview of Motel 6 from 2002-04
IV. Financial Analysis/Statements for Motel 6 from 2000 to 2004
V. Monthly Room Revenue for Motel 6 from 2002 to 2005
VI. Petition
VII. Photos (16 marked a-p)
Jim Talebreza stated he bought the property in 1992 and he had another property to discuss later that he bought in 1982. He stated this was the only city after 25 years that had not really improved that much. Petitioner stated the city was almost a ghost town. He noted the only things left downtown were a bank and a casino that was not operating. Jim Talebreza stated all the businesses had moved to the outer ends of town. He commented the middle of the town was a ghost town. Petitioner stated Wendover was growing and Jackpot was growing. He commented that even Motel 6 was protesting. He stated there was no point of attraction in Wells. Jim Talebreza stated they were having problems with Super 8 because they were continually raising their standards. He stated they were forcing them to replace the carpet and now they have to serve two types of fruit. Jim Talebreza commented that he cannot pass this on to the customer because the customer would go to another motel, maybe Motel 6. Petitioner stated Super 8 wanted high speed internet in every room which would charge them another $10,000. He noted that in addition to that they would charge another $400 per month for servicing that. Petitioner stated Super 8 was requesting them to have a two-way computer system. He noted that he had just came out of a conversation with them in California and had to cut his trip short because of this hearing. He reported that the two way system would cost another $300 per month service charge. Jim Talebreza stated he had to do what the Super 8 chain said or they would take the flag away. He stated the Sage was formerly a Best Western. Petitioner noted that their income dropped drastically when they lost the Best Western chain. He believed it was because people did not know the difference between the chains. Jim Talebreza noted the Super 8 location was not in as good as a location as Motel 6 who was across from the 4-Way. Petitioner stated Super 8 had no casino or restaurant next to their property and that had impacted them. He noted people stay a night then they go to 4-Way or Flying J for food. The next night they cancel and check in at the closer properties to the casinos/restaurants. Petitioner noted their income had dropped drastically every year. He had asked for information from Motel 6 and they had sent him a financial analysis of 99 rooms at $975,000 before they sold it. Jim Talebreza commented that Motel 6 was sold for $930,000. He noted he had documentation which showed how much money Motel 6 had made, which was supposed to be confidential but since Motel 6 was here protesting their tax bill he submitted it as an exhibit. Petitioner asked the Board to view Petitioner’s Exhibit IV, column 2 where it showed the income had been dropping since the year of 2003. Jim Talebreza stated in the year of 2002 the income was $517,091 then it dropped to $479,740. He stated last year Motel 6’s income went down to $455,271. Petitioner believed it was because of the building in Wendover. He stated they used to get the overflow from Wendover on Fridays and Saturdays because they did not have enough rooms. Petitioner stated when he bought the property they had 400 rooms in Wendover and now they have over 2,000 rooms. Jim Talebreza stated they were building more rooms in Wendover so they would not have an overflow. He commented that Wells used to have two casinos and now they only have one casino. He stated the Ranch House has been closed and nobody stops in Wells now. He stated if someone stops in Wells they stop at the two corners off of the interstate and miss the whole town. Jim Talebreza stated for the year of 2004 the Motel 6 made a profit of $83,466 from revenues of $455,271 which was a 13% profit on their property. Petitioner stated based on information that he had given them, the Super 8’s income had increased from the previous year. He explained the reason for that increased income was because they had a sign up at the city limits telling the tourists to go to Super 8 to get 20% off of their rates. He stated some people like to stay at a chain such as Super 8 or AAA. Therefore when they see the sign they go there. He felt some of the revenue increase for last year was due to their closing of the Sage. He believed it had increased revenues for Super 8 by $50,000. Jim Talebreza explained that when people call for AAA service at the Sage, the phone also rang at the Super 8. They tell them that the Sage was closed for remodeling and offer them rooms at the Super 8 with a 20% reduction. He noted their Super 8 room rates were drastically reduced at $38.00 per night. He stated they do have some weekly stays but those were a nuisance because after they leave it takes about $2,000 fixing up those rooms. Jim Talebreza stated based on what Motel 6 had sold for, this property should not be valued more than $450,000. Petitioner stated he was not aware what damage had been done until his trip. He noted his people had told them five rooms were out of service. However, the Assessor’s Office was there yesterday and asked if the Appraiser had submitted a list. Dennis de Arrieta stated the Board had his new exhibits. Jim Talebreza stated that the roof had to be changed completely. He had two estimates and the lowest one was $90,000 to replace the roof. Jim Talebreza stated that fourteen rooms were out of service. He reported that the gas water heater had quit and they ordered two electrical water heaters to replace that gas heater. Petitioner noted that he spent $6,000 on the two electrical water heaters and found out that they do not have sufficient wiring for those two water heaters. Petitioner stated it would cost $30,000 to bring a new power line to the outside of building. He had to go back to propane based upon the wiring and the condition of the property. Petitioner believed the property should be appraised at $450,000.
TAPE 1B POINT 19.6
ASSESSOR’S RECOMMENDATION:
Dennis de Arrieta stated they had looked at the property based on the cost approach to determine the value as required by the law. He stated they had looked at the income approach and the numbers that were submitted to them. Dennis de Arrieta asked the Board Members to look at Exhibit C wherein they were supplied market information and basically that gave them an average daily room rate of comparable motels in the area. He stated they also had a medium price per room and they had medium vacancy rates and expense rates. Dennis de Arrieta noted on Exhibit C -1 it gave the Board the net operating income on properties that had sold previously. He stated they take the net operating income and apply it to the sales price to determine the overall rate. Dennis de Arrieta stated they took the overall rate and came up with a 13% cap rate. He noted in Exhibit B they ran the numbers economically at an average room rate of $40.00 per night, using 39% vacancy and 61% expenses, with a 13% cap rate which came up with an income value of $1,522,926. Dennis de Arrieta pointed out the middle column was Mr. Talebreza’s actual numbers submitted to them. The actual income submitted was $398,382 with 85% expenses and it brought the property to about $500,000. Dennis de Arrieta stated they also did a reconstruction column using his income submitted by Mr. Talebreza with the market of 61% and a 13% cap which came in at $1,195,147. Dennis de Arrieta stated, based on the income numbers, he did not see anything they could do value-wise to reduce the property based on the income approach. He noted based on the market approach the $25,000 per room would put him over the current cost value of $733,943. Dennis de Arrieta stated they did visit the property yesterday and there was some physical damage. He did not believe that should be dealt with in the 2007-08 year. He believed that it was possible to apply something in the current year to help with relief for the current tax year. Dennis de Arrieta noted there was some damage but his office was uncomfortable trying to determine whether it was a reflection on the owner’s part or if there had been any preventive maintenance performed to prevent this from happening. Dennis de Arrieta stated that was out of their control and they did not have the luxury of knowing that. He stated they did have a letter from the City of Wells, Exhibit C-2. He noted that in the letter they talked about the room tax receipts which were going up from 2005-06. Dennis de Arrieta stated according to the City only four motels had to pay that room tax. He stated the other downtown motels went to weekly or monthly long term rentals. He stated they were being rented more as apartments rather than for motel rooms. Dennis de Arrieta commented that Mr. Talebreza had spoken about the cost to repair those rooms when the long term renters left.
The Assessor’s Office recommended that the subject property remain at the $737,734 total value; consisting of $27,800 for the land, $706,143 for improvements and $3,791 for personal property for the 2007-08 tax year. Both the income approach to the value and the market approach to value bring the subject property values higher than the current replacement cost new, less depreciation value.
TAPE 1B POINT 25.2
DISCUSSION:
Board Member Walter Leberski stated he had reviewed the figures. He commented the expenses that Mr. Talebreza reported were more than what the Assessor’s Office used in their analysis. He noted their reconstruction factors were based upon an average they find in Wells. Dennis de Arrieta stated it was an average they find in Winnemucca, in Elko, in Wells and a comparable property in Carlin which were similar to the Wells properties. He stated these properties were found along I-80 which were of similar in type of construction. Chairman Walter Leberski inquired if those properties were going on an income approach also. Dennis de Arrieta replied they valued those on the cost approach. Dennis de Arrieta noted that the numbers they had received from these properties were because the properties in Winnemucca had recently filed for an appeal on their evaluations. The numbers from the Comfort Inn in Carlin and the Super 8 in Elko were given to them by the management of those properties. He noted the one in Carlin submitted a full page of information but Elko did not. Chairman Walter Leberski stated that created a major difference in the evaluation. Dennis de Arrieta commented that in the years past the Assessor’s Office had never allowed an actual Owner’s Expense because there were too many variables. He stated the Assessor’s Office tried to come up with an expense based upon what the market was doing and what they felt was fair for the market. He noted Jim Talebreza had based his opinion upon the amount of expenses in which he was part of a franchise. Dennis de Arrieta noted there were other properties that were a member of a franchise who were involved in this market study. Chairman Walter Leberski inquired if this was the same basis they used on the other motels in that area and received an affirmative response.
Board Member Wesley Bowlen agreed with Mr. Talebreza that Wells was not a thriving metropolis as it used to be. He knew the properties pretty well over the past 39 years. Board Member Wesley Bowlen noted Mr. Talebreza spoke about downtown business not thriving, etc. However, he was in the process of selling his building. He ran a used antique business out of his home and when he investigated what the value would be for his building he discovered there was not a vacant building of 1500 feet in the whole community that was not being occupied at the current time. Board Member Wesley Bowlen commented that the downtown businesses had reduced as far as what the quality was of their businesses. Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated there was a gentlemen in town, Gene Kaplan, who had revitalized downtown Wells. Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated one thing in controversy was the motel business was not thriving but the other motel businesses have. He noted that he was friends with the lady who has the Wagon Wheel. He noted she did a good job of managing it when her husband died and had put it on a financial straight. Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated Kelly Kreations have two motels in town and they had maintained them and took good care of them. He felt the motel business was contrary to the slacking of the other businesses in town. Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated he was not able to obtain the room tax and could not subpoena the room tax money. He noted the City of Wells was on an increase with regards to motels and there was a new motel being built at the 4-way intersection. He noted Super 8 was only 400 yards off of that intersection and approximately 400 yards from a food establishment. He noted that when Mr. Talebreza bought the Super 8 the Ranch House was closed and never re-opened as long as Mr. Talebreza owned the motel. Therefore, he did not believe that was a factor. Board Member Wesley Bowlen believed that the Super 8 had a number of 30 day residents which did not pay room tax; so the income was not representative of this. He believed there were more people staying in town. Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated room tax was a viable indication of what was going on in the community. He guaranteed that there would be an increase of activities this summer. Board Member Wesley Bowlen felt that as far as the rooms were concerned; it was a maintenance thing. He did not think the City of Wells should be concerned with that. Board Member Wesley Bowlen noted that he knew the two former owners of Mr. Talebreza’s building. He stated the buildings had to be maintained. He did not believe that had anything to do with the major structure of the building and if they allowed them to continue to fall in, then that was a maintenance issue. Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated it was a management decision and did not believe that the other things should be taken into consideration.
Board Member James Winer noted Petitioner felt it should be $450,000 in value using the income approach. He asked what the amount would be using the income approach. Dennis de Arrieta replied $1,195,146.89 would be the income approach and using the cost approach it would be $737,734. Board Member James Winer noted on Exhibit B they used the total income of $832,200. He inquired how they arrived at that rate and if that was by using the average room rates by room nights. Dennis de Arrieta noted it was at $40.00 per night x 57 rooms. Board Member James Winer clarified that would be with 100% occupancy. Chairman Walter Leberski asked if they adjusted that for vacancy. Dennis de Arrieta noted that was arrived at using 39% vacancy and 61% for expense. Board Member James Winer felt 39% vacancy was too low for the area. He agreed that Wells was not the metropolis it once was.
Board Member James Winer noted Wells was not Carlin, nor was it Wendover. He noted they utilized Comfort Inn in Carlin as a good comparison in Exhibit C but he believed any hotel would kill for a 28% vacancy at $52.00 a night room. He noted that room rates were in excess compared of what Wells room rates were. Board Member James Winer stated he had looked at the ratios and took the potential of $832,200 gross income and used the vacancy of 36%, with an average expense of 61% and a 13% cap but he still could not get it anywhere close to the $450,000 that Jim Talebreza used. He felt that the $1,195,147 was more liberal and he had been more liberal on the expenses, vacancy. Board Member James Winer did not agree with the $1,195,147.89 and felt that the vacancy should be a little higher and the expenses should be a little higher. Board Member Kelly Buckner clarified that the Assessor’s recommendation was $737,734.
Board Member James Winer noted Petitioner may be paying more expenses for his franchise than a company that was not a known brand but felt that was a personal business decision. He commented that the Cendant Corporation owned both corporations, Coldwell Banker and Super 8 franchises. Jim Talebreza stated the fair market value was different than what they found in here. He stated when they find a person who was willing to pay that price, or if they were willing to sell; they have to find a buyer for it. He mentioned the Motel 6 was sold for $934,000 which became $9,500 per room. Jim Talebreza stated they could not compare that to Elko. Petitioner reported a few years ago his motel went broke. He stated they could not look at this Statewide but they had to look at it in the Wells area. He noted it was said the motel business was doing good but most of them were renting them as apartments, not as a motel. Jim Talebreza stated they previously paid $3.00 per room for room tax. He noted now he had to pay $3.57 more room tax because they considered the Best Western as a larger property. Petitioner stated the motel was 36 rooms so they considered it as a small property for a lowered water rate. He felt it was because they were prejudice against an outside owner. He noted his motel was ¼ of a mile away from the intersection. He stated people want to park and go across the street and go to eat. Petitioner stated that people do not want to go out and start their car in a blizzard to go and have dinner. He stated if they were staying two nights; they went to the 4 way and saw the Motel 6 so they would stay there the next night. Jim Talebreza stated the long term renters may come and stay a week or two weeks but then they were gone to be closer to the gambling across the street. He noted his other motel was ¾ mile away. Jim Talebreza stated if they go based on market value that has been sold in Wells, Nevada, it would be $549,000. He stated half of the rooms, based on what he just said when they took the picture; the money would not be there to spend. Petitioner stated he only made $58,000 between the two properties in 2001. He stated the rest came out of his pocket. Petitioner stated he was stupid to even come to the City of Wells but he had done the best he could. He stated the franchise was changing everything on him. He stated right now they could stay at the Super 8 for $25.00 because of the 20% discount. Jim Talebreza noted now they were charging $3.00 energy tax. He noted the heat was broken down. Petitioner stated he tried to save money for three months but 37 rooms were out of service. Jim Talebreza reiterated that Super 8 kept raising the level of the franchise and he had to pay for that. He stated when they tell people the room rate was $39.00 then they go to Motel 6. Jim Talebreza stated Motel 6 had more conveniences. He stated based on his income they could not compare it to the others. He asked them to compare it as apples to apples. Jim Talebreza asked the Board to look at the main street of City of Wells where they have one gas station and where one went broke. Board Member Wes Bowlen stated competition came in and took the business out but that happens in business. Board Member Wesley Bowlen felt the service stations downtown were destined to doom when the freeway went around. He stated Flying J came in and had an affect upon that downtown service station. Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated a Loves Truck Stop was going in too. He commented that things were not the same as 50 years ago and they had to make changes. Board Member Wesley Bowlen felt they would have to change the management of their business with the changes around them. He had owned the Burger Barn from 1976 on but he had to change to survive for 26 years. Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated he closed the Burger Barn after he became 60 years old so he could retire. He had changed and had a florist shop and a video shop in his Burger Barn in order to stay open. Board Member Wesley Bowlen noted other places downtown have thrived since then because of management changes. Jim Talebreza stated that he had no control over the changes through the franchise. He stated the franchise required them to change out the beds, the carpet, etc., or they take the flag away. Jim Talebreza stated once the franchise took the flag away then it would become like the other one he had abandoned. Petitioner said he would have to spend $400,000 to bring it to the level they want. He stated this had nothing to do with the management. Jim Talebreza commented that he would have to charge more if he did the repairs but then the tourists would not stay there, they would go on to Wendover. Petitioner stated the travelers could get a room in Wendover for $24.00 to $29.00. Jim Talebreza stated they could also go on to Jackpot and stay. He noted that Wells did not have events. He stated the only reason the tourists come was because it was a Super 8 and if he gave up that they would not come. Chairman Walter Leberski stated he understood the competition between Jackpot and Wendover and its effect to Wells and Elko. Jim Talebreza noted the Motel 6 property had been sold and he would not have bought the property because he would have had to pay 6% to the Motel 6 franchise. He noted that Motel 6 was also here and would do a presentation before the Board. Jim Talebreza stated after they pay the 6% of the $84,000 on Motel 6; they would not have anything left.
Board Member James Winer noted he had worked with the numbers and had tried to be conservative because it was Wells. He had looked at the lower price for the rooms, looked at a higher vacancy factor and more expenses but he came up to $900,000. He stated on the income approach he could not get it to work anything close to what the County was recommending using the cost approach. He believed the income approach was a worst position for the taxpayer.
TAPE 2 A POINT 1
CASE 07-008
DECISION:
Board Member James Winer moved to take the County’s Recommendation of the cost approach of $737,734 as the valuation of this property for tax purposes on AP No. 002-730-021 also known as the Wells Super 8. Board Member Alfred Plank seconded the motion.
Board Member Jim Winer stated his rationale was there had been a movement in the County for the motels to use the income approach which actually had been shown that their taxes have gone down. He stated here was an example wherein using the income approach based off of averages through the County would create a worse situation for the County than using the cost approach. He stated the cost approach was the best and the income approach was higher. Board Member James Winer stated most of the other motels that had approached them had been in Elko and Wendover. He noted Wells was different and they could not get the room rates they got in Carlin. He acknowledged that the vacancy was higher but when they factor the math into it; the income approach was not the way to go on this property for the lowest potential for the taxpayer. Board Member James Winer stated he did appreciate the expenses that Mr. Talebreza was forced to enter into when he went with a franchise because he had the same situation in his personal business. He stated ultimately it was a business choice to go with the franchise. He commented that perhaps in Wells going with a franchise did not pay for itself anymore.
Chairman Walter Leberski requested clarification of the figure in his motion. Board Member James Winer clarified it was the cost approach recommendation of $737,734 for the land, improvements and personal property.
Board Member Kelly Buckner stated it was not the responsibility of the taxpayers of Elko County to support the property if it was not kept in good repair in order to rent those rooms. He stated that was a management decision on the part of the taxpayer. Therefore, he felt it was a problem for Mr. Talebreza but not a problem for the taxpayers of Elko County.
TAPE 2 A POINT
The motion carried the following vote:
Voting Aye: Chairman Walter Leberski
Member Wes Bowlen
Member James Winer
Member Al Plank
Member Kelly Buckner
Voting Nay: None
Abstaining: None
Absent: None
Chairman Leberski informed the Petitioner, that he had the right to appeal their decision to the State Board of Equalization. Joe Aguirre submitted an appeal form to Mr. Jim Talebreza
Jim Talebreza asked if that amount was based on what it was previously appraised upon. Dennis de Arrieta stated it was upon the current appraised value and the Board would not change that value.
Jim Talebreza stated he had used the income approach and he did not understand how he had reached that number. He stated based on the income which he had supported in here it would have been $500,000. He noted that his figures showed after his expenses; his income was $46,000.
Chairman Walter Leberski informed him that the Board had heard the case and he had the right to protest it to the State Board of Equalization in Carson City.
Kristin McQueary noted for the record the Elko County Assessor submitted the appeal form to Jim Talebreza. Jim Talebreza acknowledged receipt of the appeal form.
--------------------------------------------
Chairman Walter Leberski called a recess at 10:45 a.m. to 10:52 a.m.
TAPE 2 A POINT 6.8
TALEBREZA, JIM
Case No. 07-009
Parcel No. 002-553-002
Hearing Date: February 23, 2007
Taxable Valuation: Land $ 8,686
Improvements $ 232,546
Personal $ 1,663
SUBJECT MATTER:
This being the time set for hearing the petition of JIM TALEBREZA for review of assessed valuation on property described as follows: Parcel No. 002-553-002.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSOR FOR THE RECORD:
1. Cover Letter
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE:
A. Assessor’s Recommendation
B. Capitalization of Income & Expenses
C. Comparable Market Information
D. Petitioner’s Information
E. Subject Photos
F. Subject Map
G. Petition Form
H. Photos 16 (H-1 thru H-16)
APPRAISER, PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN: DENNIS de ARRIETA
Dennis de Arrieta stated the subject property was the Sage Inn Motel in Wells, Nevada. Parcel 002-553-002 consisted of .47 acres and was located at 560 Sixth Street. Mr. Talebreza purchased the property in 1983. He stated Mr. Talebreza was protesting the current cost approach value of $242,894 for land, improvements and personal property based on the fact that the motel had been closed since September 2005.
TAPE 2A POINT 8.5
PETITIONER PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN: JIM TALEBREZA
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER:
I. Cover Letter
II. Assessment Notices 2004-05 / 2005-06
III. Executive Summary for Motel 6 from 2002-2004
IV. Financial Statements for Motel 6 from 2002 thru 2004
V. Monthly Room Revenue for Motel 6 from 2002-2005
VI. Petition
VII. Profit & Loss Statement for Sage Inn
VIII. Appraisal Information for 455 S. Humboldt Ave 2004-05/2008-09
IX. Photos 9 (marked IX-a thru IX)
Jim Talebreza previously sworn in stated he lost the Best Western franchise in the middle of 2005. He stated his income dropped drastically because he was not with the chain anymore. He asked them to view Exhibit II which showed his land had dropped by $3,000; the building by $30,000; and the furniture by $1,390. Mr. Talebreza explained his income had dropped because he was Best Western for half the year. He stated the year after that he did not have the Best Western franchise involved and the income dropped some more but they raised the value of the property. Jim Talebreza stated he made about $7,000 in the year of 2005 and closed that property. As he understood it, the Board would rather have the property closed than to try and help him keep it open so when people come to town they get gas or they go to the restaurant. He believed this had an effect on everything. Jim Talebreza stated last year, when he was closed, he had to pay taxes because he had power in the building. He had to have lighting so that it would not be vandalized. Jim Talebreza stated he lost $7,000 last year and the income was zero. Petitioner stated the building was deteriorating. Jim Talebreza stated they felt he should maintain his property but he did not have money to maintain the building. He stated that if you borrow money and then goes broke, it goes into foreclosure. Jim Talebreza noted they kept commenting he did not maintain his property but he did maintain his property. He noted that his property had been in good shape but now they were vandalizing that property and taking it to Super 8. Jim Talebreza stated if an air conditioner was gone then they would go get it at the Sage, etc. Petitioner stated he had to close it because it was not worth his time for $7,000. Jim Talebreza stated he spent his time in Salt Lake City, in another area, where he could make money, so he closed it like the rest of them have closed. He hoped he had laid a foundation for a better decision than the previous decision for this property. Jim Talebreza believed the value on his property was $100,000 on subject property that was closed.
TAPE 2 A POINT 11.8
ASSESSOR’S RECOMMENDATION:
Dennis de Arrieta stated they had looked at the property yesterday. He noted there was deterioration going on with the property. He felt for Mr. Talebreza because of the amount of dollars it would take to fix the property. However, he felt it was not the Assessor’s responsibility nor the County taxpayers’ responsibility to make up for these deteriorations or damages. Dennis de Arrieta stated there was no income so they could not value the property based on income. He ran it in Exhibit B using market numbers that they had used previously with 39% vacancy and 61% expenses.
The Assessor’s Office recommended that the subject property remain at $242,894 total value; consisting of $8,686 for the land; $232,546 for improvements, and $1,663 for personal property for the 2007-08 tax year. This recommendation was based on the failure to upkeep the property over the years, not targeting the Wells’ area need by converting rooms to kitchenettes or renting long term as the other downtown motels have had to do. Also based upon the fact that using the market vacancy and expenses, rooms only need to be rented for $15.50 per night to justify the current value.
TAPE 2 A POINT 13.6
DISCUSSION:
Board Member Kelly Buckner inquired if it had been closed down for one year. Dennis de Arrieta replied since September 2005. Board Member Kelly Buckner felt the prospects of opening this as a motel seemed pretty slim to him. He inquired if there was a difference in value if it was a blank building in downtown Wells and they don’t consider it as a motel from an assessment standpoint. He noted from looking at the pictures and the situation, it was not a motel for all intent and purposes. Board Member Kelly Buckner asked what the difference would be and if the assessed value would be lower than as a motel, say as vacant storage. Dennis de Arrieta stated it would be drastically lower. He stated the staff at the Assessor’s Office would not be comfortable making that decision but the Board of Equalization could make that decision to convent it to a storage building or a storage warehouse. Dennis de Arrieta noted currently it was on the roll rated as a 1.5 quality but he felt the quality could be dropped. He stated the Assessor’s Office did not feel comfortable to do that because there was some damage to the property but a portion of the rooms could be rented. Dennis de Arrieta noted that the roof was leaking and was causing the damage to the rest of the rooms. He noted that Mr. Talebreza had a contractor but had major issues with the contracting company. Dennis de Arrieta stated it could be reopened but there were some rooms that could be rented today. Board Member Alfred Plank inquired how low that 1.5 factor could be taken to and what kind of affect it would have. Dennis de Arrieta explained that it was currently graded as a rating of 1.5 out of a grade of 5 classifications. He stated a 1.5 rating was better than low quality and between low and fair quality. He stated it could be downgraded to .5 which was extremely poor. Dennis de Arrieta stated he could not run the numbers without the computer system. He estimated it would take off $25,000 to $35,000 if it was at a 1 rating and $50,000 if it was rated at a .5, off of the top of his head. Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated instead of $242,000 then it would be around $192,000 when rated at a .5 rating. He could not see it over a .5 rating in his opinion. Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated it was deplorable for whatever reason. He felt that if it was a 1.5 rating out of a possible 5 classification then that meant to him it could still be operational. Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated he was convinced that it would not open up again. He inquired if they reduced it to a .5 rating would it reduce it by $50,000. Dennis de Arrieta stated he could run the numbers it they could table it until after lunch. Board Member Wesley Bowlen would consider it as a .5 rating or a .75 rating.
Joe Aguirre stated the computer would not allow them to go below a 1 rating but the Board had the authority to put functional obsolescence on it or economical obsolescence. Joe Aguirre explained what functional obsolescence was to the Board Members. Board Member Wesley Bowlen did not believe they could change the rating under economical obsolescence. He believed functional obsolescence would work or declaring it as storage would work. Joe Aguirre stated functional obsolescence was curable. Board Member Wesley Bowlen felt the 1.5 rating was only a judgment in mind. He stated if they were to come up with a figure of $200,000 then it would come into the ball park of .5 or .75 rather than the figure of 1.5 rating.
Board Member James Winer noted it was mentioned earlier that a lot of downtown Wells had been boarded up and closed up. He inquired what numbers they were using in downtown Wells. Dennis de Arrieta stated he did not look at classification. Katrinka Russell stated a lot of the motels were rated at a 1.0 rating but those were drive-up motels. Board Member Wesley Bowlen inquired if it was similar to the Standard Motel in Wells. Katrinka Russell stated 5 or 6 motels were operational downtown. Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated only the Sage was boarded up but the Standard and the Victory were substandard. Board Member James Winer clarified that some motels were at a 1 rating but those motels were open. He stated this one was closed and deteriorating but rated at a 1.5 rating. Dennis de Arrieta explained that all properties were valued on a five year cycle. He stated Wells had not been revalued for four years so they were coming up on the fifth year cycle when they would look at all of those motels. Dennis de Arrieta noted they may make those classification adjustments next year.
Board Member Kelly Buckner asked Jim Talebreza if at the time he closed the motel did he have any plans for that facility. Jim Talebreza stated he would like to sell it and would sell it at $100,000 if he had a buyer. Board Member Kelly Buckner inquired if he had any plans to reopen the Sage Motel. Jim Talebreza replied no.
Board Member Alfred Plank asked if they considered functional obsolescence would they do that at a percentage. Joe Aguirre stated they could either do it at a percentage or in a lump sum.
Dennis de Arrieta noted his office could do functional obsolescence but his office was not comfortable doing that because the property could be re-opened tomorrow; that would hurt the taxpayers of Elko County. Dennis de Arrieta asked that they consider that in their decision. Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated if the Board did functional obsolescence but the property was reopened in 12 months then would the Assessor have the right to reappraise it. Dennis de Arrieta stated they could reappraise it but the problem was the cap and they could only recapture it over three years. Board Member Kelly Buckner commented that the actual increase of taxes could not be greater than 6.8%. Joe Aguirre stated they had changed the cap again to 6.4% for the coming year. He stated that Generation 2000 had not caught up for their previous hearing for 2005. He stated they had the value up but the cap had not come down as far as the taxes were concerned. Joe Aguirre felt it would be another three years with the current cap for them to catch up. Board Member James Winer stated for example if depreciation was through natural depreciation and a new industry came in to Wells which turns things around; the value of the property goes up but they have to stay at 6.4%. Board Member James Winer inquired if that would be the same if it was sold and someone came in and spent $300,000 fixing it up. He stated through that process it would be worth more money and inquired if the cap would still be at the 6.4%. Joe Aguirre noted they had 25 million for Generation 2000 in 2005 and they were still caught behind the cap. He noted the Legislature was to look at that this year. He noted there was a legislative meeting today to resolve the issues coming up from that previous legislation. Board Member James Winer noted the old IGA Store’s value was down but now they were spending millions for improvement to make it a casino. Joe Aguirre commented that was not brought before the Board and it was not reduced by 15%. He noted that the statute states that anything that was reduced more than 15% could only come up so much percent per year until it catches itself. He stated that building was never reduced at 15%. Joe Aguirre would have to research that property. Katrinka Russell explained what would happen if they cast it over a three year period and commented it was an accounting nightmare. Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated Barrick Mines were opening in the Wells area and were already advertising for people. He noted that Loves Truck Stop had a starting date of April 1, 2007. He had been told by the City they would hire 57 people minimum. Board Member Wesley Bowlen commented upon the gold mine going into the Long Canyon. Joe Aguirre stated there were a lot of people hired in association with exploration. Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated Mr. Talebreza might get it sold.
TAPE 2A POINT 31.1
CASE 07-009
DECISION:
Board Member Wesley Bowlen moved that they lower the value of the property to $200,000 from $242,000 with the rational that it be put in the functional obsolescence category. He stated if it was repaired then the taxpayers would not be out that much money.
Board Member Alfred Plank inquired if they could accomplish the same thing but still allow flexibility in the future years by taking that factor from 1.5 to a .5 rating, should the system allow it, rather than doing a lump sum. Joe Aguirre stated it would be done the same way.
Board Member Alfred Plank seconded the motion.
Dennis de Arrieta asked that they specify in their motion that the personal property would stay the same and the improvements would be the only thing reduced.
Board Member Wesley Bowlen amended his motion that they reduce the improvements by $42,894 and the land and personal taxes stay the same.
Board Member James Winer clarified that the rational was the $42,894 was functional obsolescence.
Board Member Alfred Plank seconded the amended motion.
Chairman Walter Leberski clarified that the motion was to reduce the total assessed valuation to $200,000 from $242,894 with the reduction in the assessment being taken off of the improvements due to functional obsolescence.
TAPE 2A POINT 34.6
The motion carried the following vote:
Voting Aye: Chairman Walter Leberski
Member Wes Bowlen
Member James Winer
Member Al Plank
Member Kelly Buckner
Voting Nay: None
Abstaining: None
Absent: None
Chairman Leberski informed the Petitioner, that he had the right to appeal their decision to the State Board of Equalization. Joe Aguirre stated he had submitted two appeal forms to Jim Talebreza earlier.
--------------------------------------------
TAPE 2A POINT 35.6
SANDER, SUKHI SINGH ET AL.
Case No. 07-002
Parcel No. 002-760-038
Hearing Date: February 23, 2007
Assessed Valuation: Land $ 9,500
Improvements $408,790
SUBJECT MATTER:
This being the time set for hearing the petition of SUKHI SINGH SANDER for review of assessed valuation on property described as follows: Parcel No. 002-760-038.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSOR FOR THE RECORD:
I. Cover Letter/ Information Summary
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE:
A. Assessor’s Recommendations
B. Capitalization of Income & Expenses (3 pgs)
C. Comparable Market Information (2 pgs)
D. Petitioner’s Information (19 pages)
E. Subject Photos
F Subject Map
G. Petition Form
APPRAISER, PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN: DENNIS de ARRIETA
Dennis de Arrieta stated the subject property was the Rest Inn Motel in Wells, Nevada. Parcel 002-760-038 consists of 1.09 acres and was located on 1509 Sixth Street. Sukhi Sander purchased the property in 2004. Mr. Sander was protesting the current cost approach value of $1,195,114 for land and improvements. Mr. Sander had submitted his income and expenses and asked that the Assessor value his 99 unit motel based on the income approach value.
TAPE 2A POINT 36.7
PETITIONER DULY SWORN: BETTY KELLY representing SUKHI SINGH SANDER
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER: No documents submitted.
Betty Kelly, representing Sukhi Singh Sander, stated she was the Manager for the Rest Inn and Motel 6. She stated in discussions with Mr. Sanders, he felt that she knew more of the actual operations of the properties so he asked her to appear today. Betty Kelly commented that with regards to prior discussions on calculations for occupancy this past month Rest Inn had ran at a 31% occupancy rate but in the last six months their highest occupancy rate had been 45%. Betty Kelly stated their expenses had been running close to normal. She stated the new owners were trying to do maintenance and repairs on the property to bring it back to the condition in the beginning. She stated those expenses were higher. Betty Kelly stated the paint on the exterior of the building had been completed and the parking lot had been repaved. She stated some tile was replaced in the lobby area. She noted they were now in the position of trying to do the carpeting, painting, beds, drapes, etc., inside the building. Betty Kelly noted that the Board had stated it was up to the owner to have to do the deferred maintenance. However, if they do not do the maintenance then they would not have the business. She stated they were trying to bring the hotel back to attract people to come and stay. Betty Kelly stated she disagreed to a certain extent with Super 8 that the restaurant across the street was a large attraction. She stated in the summer time people do walk down to the restaurant but their occupancy rate at the Rest Inn was low during the winter. Sometimes in the winter, they may have only five rooms rented. Betty Kelly stated their average rental was $43.00 per night. She noted they make money during the car show weekend or when Wendover had the salt flat races. Betty Kelly stated when Wendover, Jackpot or Elko fills up then they get the overflow. She noted that bad weather brought the people off of the highway. Betty Kelly stated the Petitioner felt the property should be valued at 1.2 million which was more than Motel 6 because Motel 6 had its own problems separate and apart from the Rest Inn. She commented that she would not give them anymore details; they had already heard a lot about Wells.
Chairman Walt Leberski inquired if they were asking for an evaluation of 1.2 million. Betty Kelly stated Mr. Sander gave her valuation of 1.2 million. Dennis de Arrieta noted the current cost value was $1,195,114. He felt Mr. Sanders would rather have that value as opposed to the 1.2 million dollars. Dennis de Arrieta stated he had based the property on the income approach and used the numbers Mr. Sanders had provided him. Dennis de Arrieta did the same scenario; took the market from the same area along I-8 from Carlin through Wells, and came up with $1,500,000 value with the economic approach. Dennis de Arrieta stated when they used the owner’s actual income and expenses he came up with $1,249,000. When they reconstruct it, the owner’s actual expense was 60% so if they use the 61% expenses like they did on the previous that came in at $1,218,000. Dennis de Arrieta stated, based on the income approach, he did not recommend any reduction for this property.
TAPE 2 A POINT 42
RECOMMENDATION
The Assessor’s Office recommended that the subject property remain at the $1,195,114 total value for the 2007-08 tax year; consisting of $27,143 land assessment and $1,167,971 for improvements.
TAPE 2A POINT 43.1
CASE 07-002
DECISION:
Board Member James Winer moved that they accept the Assessor’s valuation of $1,195,114 for tax purposes on Parcel No.002-760-038 also known as the Wells Rest Inn Motel. Board Member Kelly Buckner seconded the motion.
Board Member James Winer noted the rational was the assessed value was lower than what the Petitioner asked for. He went through the income approach that the Assessor had submitted but used a higher vacancy rate and used a larger cost percentage and still come up with a slightly higher number of $1,209,000. He believed that it came in line with what the recommendation was.
Board Member Alfred Plank agreed with Board Member James Winer’s rationale but inquired why there was no personal property listed separately. Dennis de Arrieta stated that went back to the previous problems that some personal property was not listed on the secured roll.
TAPE 2A POINT 45.5
The motion carried the following vote:
Voting Aye: Chairman Walter Leberski
Member Wes Bowlen
Member James Winer
Member Al Plank
Member Kelly Buckner
Voting Nay: None
Abstaining: None
Absent: None
Chairman Walter Leberski informed the Petitioner’s representative, that Mr. Sander had the right to appeal their decision to the State Board of Equalization. Joe Aguirre, Elko County Assessor, submitted an appeal form to Betty Kelly.
Joe Aguirre noted, according to the statutes, during the first year they were in business they were to report their personal property and it was paid on the unsecured roll. He stated that if they have not paid for it by the following July then they could have it put on the secured roll. Joe Aguirre stated some people do not want to pay for the personal property in that short of a time frame. He explained that the personal property remains on the unsecured roll until they could ask it to be placed on the secured roll and they receive two tax bills for the unsecured and the secured tax rolls.
--------------------------------------------
TAPE 2A POINT 47.1
SANDER, SUKHI SINGH ET AL.
Case No. 07-003
Parcel No. 002-760-026
Hearing Date: February 23, 2007
Assessed Valuation: Land $ 16,270
Improvements $445,473
Personal $ 24,220
SUBJECT MATTER:
This being the time set for hearing the petition of SUKHI SINGH SANDER for review of assessed valuation on property described as follows: Parcel No. 002-760-026.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSOR FOR THE RECORD:
I. Cover Letter/Information Summary
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSOR’S OFFICE:
A. Assessor’s Recommendations
B. Capitalization of Income & Expenses (3 pages)
C. Comparable Market Information (2 pages)
D. Petitioner’s Information (17 pages)
E. Subject Photos
F. Subject Map
G. Petition Form
APPRAISER, PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN: DENNIS de ARRIETA
Dennis de Arrieta stated the subject property is the Motel 6 in Wells, Nevada. Parcel No 002-760-026 consisting of 2.29 acres was located on 1561 Sixth Street. Sukhi Sander purchased the property in 2005. Mr. Sander was protesting the current cost approach value of $1,388,466 for land, improvements and personal property. Mr. Sander submitted his income and expenses and asked that the Assessor value his 99 unit motel based on the income approach to value.
TAPE 2A POINT 48
PETITIONER’S REPRESENTATIVE PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN: BETTY KELLY
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER: No documents were submitted.
Betty Kelly testified that Mr. Sukhi Singh Sander believed it should be valued at $875,000 based on the cost he was experiencing with the air conditioning and heating systems that were in the motel when he purchased it. She noted the cost for the propane last month was $12,000 due to the fact there was an old broiler system. She explained they could not shut down portions of the hotel in the winter time so they must run the heating system for the entire 99 units. Betty Kelly stated Mr. Sanders was experiencing multiple expenses for improvements to the Motel 6. She stated they estimated from the bids received that it would cost $250,000 to replace the heating system for a different type of system where maybe the wall units would be a better system. Betty Kelly commented that the Motel 6 rooms were so small; therefore, those wall units were not very suitable either. She noted the roof was aging and there had been water problems this winter with leaks and they had to shut down certain rooms for repairs.
Betty Kelly reported that their occupancy was running at 45% at Motel 6 but they were competing against themselves with Rest Inn. She noted most people stopped at Motel 6 because their prices were $33.95 per night. Betty Kelly reported that the occupancy at Motel 6 was only running at 45%. She noted the situation in Wells had been previously discussed and where they get their clientele.
TAPE 2B POINT 2.6
RECOMMENDATION:
Dennis de Arrieta commented that he had run the numbers and the reconstructed value and the economic value was well above what it was currently appraised at. He stated when they used the owner’s actual occupancy and actual expenses and it did come in slightly lower than what they assessed it at. Dennis de Arrieta stated the Assessor did not typically use the numbers submitted but they try to use market information to make sure it was fair and equitable among everyone. Dennis de Arrieta commented that there was a sale of this property which was less than what they did have it on the rolls for. However, typically when properties start to get run down or go into decline, the Motel 6 chain tries to quickly unload it. Dennis de Arrieta noted this was a sole proprietor but he still has to follow the Motel 6 requirements. He felt this individual could do some things differently than what was required by Motel 6. Dennis de Arrieta commented that based upon some of the questions asked when Mr. Sander was buying the property that could be an indication of why there was a lower purchase price.
Chairman Walt Leberski inquired what the purchase price was and received a reply of $930,000 from Dennis de Arrieta.
The Assessor’s Office recommended that the subject property remain at $1,388,466 total value for the 2007-08 tax year; consisting of $46,486 for the land, $1,272,780 for improvements, and $69,200 for personal property. The income approach to value and the market approach to value brought the subject property’s values higher than the current replacement cost new, less depreciation value.
TAPE 2 B POINT 4.3
DISCUSSION:
Board Member James Winer stated he had bought a building two years ago and knew that it needed repairs so in the purchase price he had took that into consideration and negotiated for those repair items. He noted this person bought it over a year ago for $930,000 which was below asking so he hoped Mr. Sander took into concession the roof repair, painting, and the heating system into play when they negotiated the purchase price. Board Member James Winer stated he had plugged in the same numbers for Wells giving it a more liberal vacancy and a more liberal expense factor but he still came up with a higher number than what the Assessor’s recommendation, using the income approach. He had arrived at a figure of two million dollars.
Board Member Kelly Buckner inquired, with regards to Exhibit B-3, was that the Owner’s actual expenses coming in at 71% or was that the numbers the Assessor’s Office had used. Dennis de Arrieta stated the 71% was the owner’s actual numbers and the second column was the reconstructed cost. Board Member Kelly Buckner commented that brought it down to the 61% for expenses.
TAPE 2 B POINT 7.1
CASE 07-003
DECISION:
Board Member James Winer moved that with regards to APN 002-760-026 commonly know as the Motel 6 of Wells; that they accept the Assessor’s recommendation of $1,388,466 which was the cost approach for tax purposes. Board Member Wesley Bowlen seconded the motion.
Board Member James Winer stated his rationale was he had bought a building two years ago and knew that it needed repairs so in the purchase price he had took that into consideration and negotiated for those repair items. He noted this person bought the motel over a year ago for $930,000 which was below asking so he hoped Mr. Sander took in the concession of roof repair, painting, and the heating system into play when he negotiated the purchase price. Board Member James Winer stated he had plugged in the same numbers for Wells giving it a more liberal vacancy and a more liberal expense factor but he still came up with a higher number than what the Assessor’s recommendation was. He had arrived at a figure of two million dollars using the income approach.
Chairman Walter Leberski clarified that it had been moved and seconded that the Assessor’s recommendation for the valuation of $1,388,466 be approved.
TAPE 2A POINT 8
The motion carried the following vote:
Voting Aye: Chairman Walter Leberski
Member Wes Bowlen
Member James Winer
Member Al Plank
Member Kelly Buckner
Voting Nay: None
Abstaining: None
Absent: None
Chairman Leberski informed the Petitioner’s representative, that Mr. Sander had the right to appeal their decision to the State Board of Equalization. Joe Aguirre submitted an appeal form to Betty Kelly.
Board Member James Winer commented that it appeared from prior years the income approach made the tax more appealing for the Elko motels and it was lower. However in Wells, they were finding the cost approach was the more effective way. He noted Wesley Bowlen and Mr. Talebreza had commented that Wells was not Elko and the town was closed up downtown. Board Member James Winer believed the vacancy was higher than 39% and the costs may be higher than the 61% given by the Assessor. He felt that some of those costs may be franchise costs. He did not think it was ironic that in Wells all four of these motels, the cost approach was the more palatable number for the tax payer. He believed that was a function of Wells and its local economy versus the County wide economy. Chairman Walt Leberski commented that their actual costs they were reporting were coming in higher than what the Assessor’s Office was able to reconstruct, which was pretty common.
Board Member Wesley Bowlen noted in Jolene Supp’s letter she had commented that there were more people stopping in Wells and paying room tax in the last four years. He stated the room tax had been going up every year for the last four years. He noted the three motels represented here today contributed the largest amount to room tax because the motels downtown had converted to apartments. Board Member Wesley Brown stated the motel downtown; across the street from the Sage Motel was the Sharon Motel. He noted the owner had paid the motel off in advance and they never hear from him. He commented that the owner maintained everything but he did have a higher room rate. He stated the Board never heard from Tim who owned the other two motels. Board Member Wesley Bowlen commented that those owners maintain their motels and make them functional. He noted their room rates where higher than what these motels were. He felt someone had more business than what they had previously because of the room tax number. Board Member Wesley Bowlen commented that in the past at the gas station they had a 5 to 1 ratio with regards to business. He believed on an overall year they were bringing in more money and more people were stopping.
Joe Aguirre stated in a conference call with the Wells City Manager and the Mayor, they informed him that B & T Trucking brought in 200 people who were being put up in motel rooms. He stated that had been considered when making their recommendations. Joe Aguirre commented that a new chain motel would be coming in and that chain had been studying the market for two years in Wells. Board Member James Winer commented that B&T Trucking could buy Jim’s motel and save money by putting his people in it.
Board Member Wesley Bowlen commented upon the number of 30 day rentals in Wells. He felt Donna maintained her rooms very well on $300 or $325.00 per month for the 30 day rentals. He believed one wing at the Super 8 Motel were 30 day rentals but even with all the 30 day rentals, the City of Wells still had a sufficient increase in room tax.
--------------------------------------------
TAPE 2B POINT 15.6
WEITZEL, DAVID E.
Case No. 07-007
Parcel No. 001-433-001
Hearing Date: February 23, 2007
Appraised Valuation: Land $13,256
Improvements $ 4,050
SUBJECT MATTER:
This being the time set for hearing the petition of DAVID E. WEITZEL for review of assessed valuation on property described as follows: Parcel No. 001-433-001.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSOR FOR THE RECORD:
1. Information and Summary
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE:
A. Introduction and Recommendation
B. Land Values and Verification
C. Land Characteristics
D. Plot Map
E. Property Improvements
F. Fair Market Value
G. Assessor’s Plat Map
H. Aerial Map
I. City of Elko Development Standards ( 2 pages)
APPRAISER, PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN: JANET IRIBARNE
Janet Iribarne stated the subject property was a residential parcel located at 415 South Ninth Street, City of Elko, Nevada. The Taxpayers were appealing their land and improvement valuation for the 2007-08 tax year. They purchased the subject property at public auction from the Elko County Treasurer on November 15, 2005, under Document No. 543815. The Taxpayers bought and paid $12,000 for this property. The property lot is 4,734 square feet. Also, located on the property is a 588 square foot single family residence plus 260 feet of fence. The residence was not currently habitable and the fence was in much need of repair. The Taxpayers plan to remove the improvements in the near future. The Taxpayers felt the structure should not be assesses as a single family residence. The Taxpayers believed that the current land value of $16,570 was too high. The lot is a quadrilateral shape that limits the buildable area for a new residence. The Taxpayers believe that their purchase property of $12,000 at public auction is an accurate amount.
Janet Iribarne stated the Taxpayers were to fax a letter to her but it had not been received at this time.
PETITIONER DULY SWORN: DAVID E. WEITZEL did not appear.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER: No documents were submitted.
TAPE 2B POINT 17.1
RECOMMENDATION:
The Assessor’s Office recommended 65% obsolescence on the building on the property and an additional 20% obsolescence for the shape of the property.
Chairman Walter Leberski asked for clarification that their recommendation was $4,080 for improvements as listed in Exhibit E. Janet Iribarne stated improvements would go from $11,580 to $4,080 with running the structure as a shed rather than a residence. Chairman Walter Leberski asked for the Assessor’s recommendation on the land value. Janet Iribarne replied the land was valued at $16,570 and they recommended a value of $13,256; that was giving them 20% obsolescence for the shape of the property.
TAPE 2 B POINT 18.7
DISCUSSION:
Board Member Alfred Plank inquired if the irregularity and the obsolescence associated with that would have been factored in during the five year cycle and received a negative reply. Janet Iribarne commented that they gave $3.50 per square foot to everyone regardless of the shape. She stated they were adjusting that because the shape was so irregular and they had never addressed it before. Board Member Alfred Plank believed it had not changed the land and it was still land. Janet Iribarne agreed that it was still land and it had been valued at $3.50 per square foot but it was hard to build on that lot. The lot was very small with an irregular shape.
TAPE 2 B POINT 19.9
CASE 07-007
DECISION:
Board Member Kelly Buckner moved that they accept the Assessor’s valuation of $17,306 for tax purposes on Parcel No. 001-433-001. Board Member James Winer seconded the motion.
Board Member Kelly Buckner stated the rational was the fact that the Assessor’s Office had reduced the value previously placed on the property taking into consideration the shape and size of the lot and the improvements being considered basically for value of a shed.
TAPE 2B POINT 20.8
The motion carried the following vote:
Voting Aye: Chairman Walter Leberski
Member Wes Bowlen
Member James Winer
Member Al Plank
Member Kelly Buckner
Voting Nay: None
Abstaining: None
Absent: None
Chairman Walter Leberski noted for the record that Mr. Weitzel would be sent the necessary appeal forms to appeal to the State Board of Equalization.
--------------------------------------------
Chairman Walter Leberski called a lunch recess at 12:07 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 1:25 p.m.
TAPE 2B POINT 21.5
SAN JACINTO ASSOCIATES
Case No. 07-006
Parcel Nos. 009-005-092 & 009-005-093
Hearing Date: February 23, 2007
009-005-093 Original Taxable Value: Land $ 15,680
Improvements $1,163,527
SUBJECT MATTER:
This being the time set for hearing the petition of SAN JACINTO ASSOCIATES for review of assessed valuation on property described as follows: Parcel Nos. 009-005-092 and 009-005-093.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSOR FOR THE RECORD:
1. Cover Letter
2. Summary Worksheet
3. Petition
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE:
A. Capitalization of Income & Expenses
B. Capitalization of Income for Tax Credits
C. Expenses 2005 and 2006
D. Income Actual and Reconstructed
E. Petitioner’s Income and Expense (20 Pages)
F. Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (18 pages)
G. Assessor’s Parcel Map
SUMMARY:
The San Jacinto Apartment Complex was built in 2001 using Low Income Housing Tax Credits. By utilizing the federal subsides, the complex is subject to mandated rental rates and tenants with certain low incomes. The agent representing San Jacinto Associates filed a Petition last year for the 2006-07 tax year. However, the Assessor’s Office would like further verification that this reduction was valid.
APPRAISER, PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN: JANET IRIBARNE
Janet Iribarne stated this was for the San Jacinto Associates Apartment Complex in Jackpot, Nevada. The subject property has two parcels involved: parcel numbers 009-005-092 and 009-005-093. She noted the agent representing San Jacinto Associates filed a Petition on both of these properties. Janet Iribarne stated the Taxpayer request was for a reduction based on actual income. However, only one parcel had the apartment complex located on it. She stated the owner’s opinion of the market value for 009-005-092 was the same as what the Assessor’s Office had it valued at. The other parcel was 009-005-093 which was the apartment complex property. The agent had provided them with the income statements and expenses for 2005-2006. The San Jacinto Apartment Complex was constructed using low income housing tax credits. She stated this regulated how much income the property could potentially produce. Janet Iribarne stated the apartment complex itself was a four building, 20 unit complex. She noted it had twelve, 3 bedroom/2 bathroom units, and eight, 2 bedroom/1bathroom units. She reported that each unit had a washer and dryer hookup but there was also a laundry/dryer and an office facility located on the premises. Janet Iribarne stated it was about 21,464 square feet.
TAPE 2 B POINT 24.4
RECOMMENDATION:
The Assessor’s recommendation for the property was listed upon Amended Exhibit “B-1”. Janet Iribarne submitted copies of Exhibit B-1 to the Board members. Said Exhibit B-1 depicted an appraised value of $1,179,207 for APN 009-005-093.
DISCUSSION:
Janet Iribarne stated their office realized that low income tax credits play an important roll in low income housing projects. She noted acquiring these tax credits were very difficult. Upon applying for tax credits, the property developers must go in front of the local commissioners to get a letter of support in favor of their project. In this case, they went before the Commission on February 28, 1998. Janet Iribarne reported that on February 28, 1998, the developer was Desert Developers who stated they did not plan on requesting tax abatements. The County Commissioners then moved to draft a letter in favor of the development but the letter was to express that the Board had concern that a small and growing town could not afford a lot of tax abatement. Janet Iribarne stated in January 1999 the Nevada Division of Housing filed the covenants that pertain to this case which was included in the Board’s packet. (Exhibit F) She noted in the covenants she could not find anywhere were the tax abatements were granted. Janet Iribarne stated they were not familiar with the federal income tax or rural income housing tax credit systems. She stated they made an attempt to reconstruct an income amount that represents the actual dollar amount for the tax credit. Janet Iribarne stated they added this amount to the actual income produced by the Developer and deducted the expenses. Janet Iribarne stated the annual tax credits for this complex was $288,449 annually. She stated that they figured that amounted to $112,495 using the IRS tax bracket of 39%. She stated by doing this the actual value of the property was $1,175,382.62. She noted that since the County Commission did not originally intend to grant the tax abatements and since the cost approach value of the property was $1,179,207, which was a difference of $3,825, the Assessor’s Office recommended that no change be made. She noted there were other apartment complexes that have received tax credits. Some complexes had been exempted from taxation by the local commissioners but others had not received exemptions. She stated the other developments who do not receive exemptions have not appealed their valuation based on their income. Janet Iribarne stated they felt this should be treated the same.
TAPE 2B POINT 28.3
PETITIONER DULY SWORN: No one representing the Petitioner was present.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER: No documents were submitted.
TAPE 2B POINT 28.4
DISCUSSION:
Board Member James Winer commented that San Jacinto was not present to submit anything in writing. Janet Iribarne stated they did not submit anything other than what the Board Members had received in their packet from the Assessor’s Office.
Board Member Kelly Buckner noted that there were two parcels and the other parcel they chose not to develop but it was adjacent. He inquired if for tax purposes the other parcel was included in the value. Janet Iribarne commented that there were two separate accounts. She stated in their packet she had submitted only the breakdown for 009-005-093 which had the complex on it. Board Member Kelly Buckner inquired what they valued 009-005-092 for and received a reply of $15,114 from Janet Iribarne.
Board Member Kelly Buckner noted the Taxpayer was requesting a value of $500,000. Janet Iribarne commented that they were granted $500,000 last year based on their income. Therefore, they were capped at 6.8% plus the capture they had discussed earlier. Katrinka Russell commented that last year the Assessor’s Office granted them $500,000 value which was based on their income but they submitted no information on the tax credits. She noted the Assessor’s Office was not aware of that situation. Katrinka Russell reported that Janet Iribarne did some research and gathered all this information together; that was why they were recommending no change in value. Board Member Kelly Buckner noted that from a tax liability standpoint they could only increase their taxing ability by 6.8%. Janet Iribarne stated the recapture amount also could be applied.
Janet Iribarne was not sure their approach used to generate tax credits was correct but they had not heard anything from San Jacinto. Board Member Alfred Plank noted San Jacinto almost received a quarter of million dollars in tax credits. Janet Iribarne reported they received $288, 349 in annual income tax credits. Board Member Alfred Plank noted that in her calculation she had an additional income of $115,495. Board Member James Winer commented that was the 39%. Janet Iribarne stated she used the IRS tax bracket and it came in at 39%. Board Member Alfred Plank noted the definition for tax credits was not dollar for dollar reduction for tax purposes. Janet Iribarne commented that it stated tax credit dollar for dollar reduction in income tax liability. Meaning, the amount the investor owes in federal income tax liability was reduced by applying tax credits received. Board Member Alfred Plank felt she was being conservative with these figures. He believed the owners got that passed through credit. Janet Iribarne commented that they had sold tax credits 70 cents on the $1.00. She noted they had a total equity of $2,018,000 and the project cost was $2,700,000. Board Member Alfred Plank felt she was conservative given that she used the tax bracket based on the income. Joe Aguirre stated that they had not dealt with this before and did not understand tax credits. He understood that Clorox was buying up these tax credits and they were transferable. Joe Aguirre stated they did not know how to address this.
Board Member Kelly Buckner inquired if they had any guidance issued from the State on these. Joe Aguirre noted this was home funds. He commented that the federal government stated they would be allowed home funds wherein they were financed 25% of a project. Joe Aguirre noted they had funded 2 or 3 projects in Elko County. He stated in Wendover they financed 25% of 40 units and the whole thing was tax exempt. Joe Aguirre stated they did have criteria to follow when they accepted that financing. Joe Aguirre stated he had challenged that and took it to the legislation. He noted it ended up being that they have a loan called First Time Home Owners. This program was to get young people into homes and the State of Nevada put money into this fund to help young people get into the homes. He stated when they wanted to put it into Jackpot the entity did not approve it. Joe Aguirre reported that the City of Wendover approved the tax credit in Wendover. He commented that it was not approved by the County of Elko, the School District, but it only took one entity to approve it. Joe Aguirre noted that Jackpot was not an incorporated City so when they came to the County Commissioners on behalf of Jackpot; the County Commissioners said no tax credits. He noted that Desert Developers stated they would never put it in the exempt status even though they may qualify once it started going. Joe Aguirre stated that they may have signed some sort of document. He stated they were researching the Commissioner’s documents. Board Member Kelly Buckner noted that they were using the backdoor with the income of $500,000 because they were not requesting a tax exemption. He commented they were requesting a value which basically was adjusted. Board Member Kelly Buckner inquired what the other counties were doing with respect to the additional income when they take the tax credit and credit it back on the tax rate. Joe Aguirre stated there were no similar situations. He stated the others were exempt. Board Member Kelly Buckner noted in giving them a portion of that credit; they were fundamentally cutting the taxable value of the property. Chairman Walter Leberski noted Wendover had a tax exempt project. Joe Aguirre stated the Vitality House had two projects in Elko but they had never filed with the Assessor. He reported that Stone Creek had filed. He believed they had four of these projects in the County. Joe Aguirre stated that no one in the County had worked with these types of taxes. He stated when he talked to the Legislation no other counties testified even though they showed up to listen. Joe Aguirre commented that when they built the project in Wendover they had drained all the ones that were paying the taxes. Joe Aguirre stated the people went into the tax exempt homes. Then, they had the other complexes come in stating their rent was so low and the County had to lower the ones using the income tax approach because of the ones on tax credits were renting so low.
Board Member Alfred Plank commented that the pictures showed a very nice complex and the buildings looked in good condition. Janet Iribarne stated they were in good condition. Joe Aguirre stated the federal government told them how much they could rent those units for. Board Member James Winer inquired how old they were. Janet Iribarne stated they were built in 2001. Board Member Wesley Bowlen inquired if that was happening in Wells, but Joe Aguirre did not know about any in Wells. Board Member Wesley Bowlen someone had gutted a building for wells housing. Joe Aguirre stated that was a HUD project. Joe Aguirre reported that they only had one file with them. Board Member James Winer commented it was for the USDA Foreclosure. Joe Aguirre stated usually they carry their own loans. Wesley Bowlen stated they were going back to the walls and renovating. Board Member Kelly Buckner felt they were reducing the value more than it should be, given the fact that it went from the 2.3 million dollars to $1,176,000. Board Member Kelly Buckner noted this would be subject to recapture.
TAPE 2B POINT 43.7
CASE 07-006
DECISION:
Board Member Kelly Buckner moved that they accept the Assessor’s valuation on Parcel No. 009-005-093 of $1,179,207 for tax purposes. Board Member James Winer seconded the motion.
Board Member Kelly Buckner stated the rational was because of the tax exempt issue. The values were greater than the actual assessed value that they were placing on the properties for tax purposes.
TAPE 2B POINT 44.9
The motion carried the following vote:
Voting Aye: Chairman Walter Leberski
Member Wes Bowlen
Member James Winer
Member Al Plank
Member Kelly Buckner
Voting Nay: None
Abstaining: None
Absent: None
Chairman Walter Leberski requested the Assessor to provide Petitioner the forms for their right to appeal their decision to the State Board of Equalization.
TAPE 2B POINT 45.2
CASE NO. 07-006
DECISION - APN 009-005-092
Board Member Kelly Buckner moved to accept the Assessor’s value ($15,114 ) on the vacant parcel adjacent to the previous property which was Parcel No. 009-005-092. Board Member James Winer seconded the motion.
Chairman Walter Leberski clarified that the motion was that the assessment as recommended by the Assessor on APN 009-005-092 ($15.114) be approved.
Board Member Kelly Buckner stated the rational was the assessed value was close to the value the Petitioner was willing to accept on the other parcel.
TAPE 2B POINT 46.5
The motion carried the following vote:
Voting Aye: Chairman Walter Leberski
Member Wes Bowlen
Member James Winer
Member Al Plank
Member Kelly Buckner
Voting Nay: None
Abstaining: None
Absent: None
Chairman Walter Leberski noted for the record that the Assessor’s office would provide appeal forms to the Petitioner with a letter concerning on how they proceed from here.
--------------------------------------------
TAPE 2B POINT 46.9
GALLAGHER, MORRIS & BARBARA
Case No. 07-004
Parcel No. 001-561-051
Hearing Date: February 23, 2007
Assessed Valuation: Land $ 35,000
Improvements $229,235
SUBJECT MATTER:
This being the time set for hearing the petition of MORRIS & BARBARA GALLAGHER for review of assessed valuation on property described as follows: Parcel No. 001-561-051.
Board Member Kelly Buckner stated that because of a business relationship through his employment; he would abstain from any discussion, action or consideration of this Taxpayers’ request.
Board Member Kelly Buckner left the meeting room at 1:45 p.m.
Board Member James Winer noted for the record that his company had done business with the Gallaghers in the past but he had no financial relationship with this particular piece of property nor with this particular home. He disclosed that Mr. Gallagher was his personal dentist.
Board Member Alfred Plank disclosed that Mr. Gallagher was his family’s dentist and family friends through mutual children’s activities.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSOR FOR THE RECORD:
A. Cover Letter
B. Assessor’s Recommendation
C. Chronological Account Review
D. Strike off Information
E. Building Blueprints (3 pages)
F. Appraisal Information (11 pages)
G. Email Information (4 pages)
H. Comparable Sales Information/Listings (4 pgs)
I. Subject Property Photo
J. Subject Parcel Map
K. Taxpayer’s Petition Form w/attachments (3 pgs)
APPRAISER, PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN: KATRINKA S. RUSSELL
Katrinka S. Russell noted for the record that she submitted a copy of the Petition form and a copy of the letter written by the Taxpayers to the Board Members. Chairman Walter Leberski requested clarification that the Petition was filed before January 15th. Katrinka Russell stated that she had forwarded a petition to the Taxpayer but the Taxpayer had lost the form. Therefore, she took her another Petition form on January 7th and that form was sent in today. Chairman Walter Leberski asked what the last day was for filing the Petitions. Joe Aguirre stated the 15th of January was a holiday. Therefore, they allowed petitions to be filed on the 16th of January. Katrinka Russell stated Barbara Gallagher had faxed a petition form prior to the deadline.
SUMMARY:
Katrinka Russell stated the subject property was located at 1820 Sequoia Drive in Elko City. It is located in the northeastern part of the city. Two lots were purchased by the Gallaghers and were combined into one large parcel. A custom single family residence was being built on this new parcel. The contractor on this home is the owner/builder. Katrinka Russell stated the reason for the appeal on this parcel was that the Taxpayer felt that they were being over assessed on the value of their home. Katrinka S. Russell stated the Taxpayers were basing that fact on the comparison of their home that they currently reside in. The Assessor’s office had based their appraisal on the data that was collected upon physical inspections of the property.
PETITIONER DULY SWORN: No one was present representing Petitioners.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER:
I. Petition
II. Petitioners’ Letter to Board of Equalization dated 2/20/07
III. Treasurer Notice - 1820 Sequoia Dr.
IV. Treasurer’s Notice – 1938 Ruby View Drive
TAPE 3A POINT 3.1
DISCUSSION:
Chairman Walter Leberski inquired if they had appraised it on the condition of the house and that they had used Marshal and Swift. Katrinka Russell replied yes, they appraised the house in the same manner that they appraise all homes within the County. Chairman Walter Leberski inquired if the home was completed. Katrinka Russell replied that the house was only 90% complete. She stated that was why she was not able to give them a final figure. Katrinka Russell stated when she asks for the Board’s approval; she hoped that they would take into consideration the concrete tile and the porches which were not done. She stated that Barbara Gallagher indicated that they planned on doing more this year. Chairman Walter Leberski believed that information was listed in the packet.
Chairman Walter Leberski stated on Exhibit F on Page 6 was a standard report and asked if that came from Marshall and Swift. Katrinka Russell clarified that it was from the Marshall and Swift, and they used the local multiplier of 1.08. Katrinka Russell stated they had to reduce that local multiplier due to the size of the home. Katrinka Russell noted they used .943 as the multiplier due to the size of the home.
Chairman Walter Leberski asked the Board Members to read the letter submitted by Morris and Barbara Gallagher.
Joe Aguirre read the Gallaghers’ letter into the record.
Board Member James Winer asked Kristin McQueary what the verbiage meant “By law, the appraised value cannot exceed the fair market value of the home.” Kristin McQueary read NRS 361.227, as follows: “1. Any person determining the taxable value of the real property shall appraise: (a) The full cash value of: (1) Vacant land by considering the uses to which it may lawfully be put, any legal or physical restrictions upon those uses, the character of the terrain, and the uses of other land in the vicinity. (2) Improved land consistently with the use to which the improvements are being put. (b) Any improvements made on the land by subtracting from the cost of replacement of the improvements all applicable depreciation and obsolescence. Depreciation of any improvement made on real property must be calculated at 1.5 percent of the cost of replacement for each year of adjusted actual age of the improvement, up to a maximum of 50 years.” Kristin McQueary noted that this statute went on and on. Board Member James Winer asked what it meant in English. Kristin McQueary stated that statute meant that the Appraisers were not to appraise the land at a taxable value which exceeds the cash value.
Joe Aguirre stated in Elko County they use a 1 to 5 scale but in Washoe County they use at 1 to 12 scale. He commented that the Gallaghers had mentioned that in their letter but noted that Washoe County took in Lake Tahoe. Board Member James Winer stated the Gallaghers point was that if the appraisal office said their house was appraised at $700,000 but the market said they could only sell it for $600,000 because they put a pool in there. He stated they would never get it out. He noted the Taxpayers had put in marble floors that they would never get it out in a sale. Kristin McQueary stated NRS 361.227 was the main statute for determination of the taxable value. She read into the record subsection 5 of NRS 361.227 as follows: “The computed taxable value of any property must not exceed its full cash value. Each person determining the taxable value of the property shall reduce it if necessary to comply with this requirement. A person determining whether taxable value exceeds that full cash value or whether obsolescence is a factor in valuation may consider: (a) Comparative sales, based on prices actually paid in market transactions. (b) A summation of the estimated full cash value of the land and contributory value of the improvements. (c) Capitalization of the fair economic income expectancy or fair economic rent, or an analysis of the discounted cash flow. A county assessor is required to make the reduction prescribed in this subsection if the owner calls to his attention the facts warranting it, if he discovers those facts during the physical reappraisal of the property of if he is otherwise aware of those facts.” Kristin McQueary stated that there was another statute which the Board should be made aware of and that was NRS 361. 356 subsection 4: “In the case of residential property, the appellant shall cite other property within the same subdivision if possible.” Kristin McQueary suggested a more critical look at comparable properties in the same subdivision before they cast out to other comparable properties within the governmental boundaries. Chairman Walter Leberski inquired if they were using Marshall and Swift and the classifications as to the quality at about the same basis.
Katrinka Russell stated earlier Jim Talebreza had brought that upon a case in Wells. She explained that when they do an appraisal in an area they try to analyze the market. In 2004, when they reappraised the entire neighborhood, they were trying to keep recognition of what the market was doing at the time. Katrinka Russell stated at that time the market was just starting to pick up. She stated they had to stay with the sales in that area. She stated they kept the quality in that area low. Now, if they were to go in and reappraise, which they would probably have to do based on sales in that area; they would have to go back in that neighborhood and reclassify according to actual quality to keep up with what the market was doing. Katrinka Russell stated when Barbara Gallagher said her current home was appraised at 3.5 they did do that in recognition of what the market was doing at that time. Katrinka Russell stated that she was not going higher than the sales in that area. She asked the Board Members to view Exhibit H page 1. She noted there was a pattern and she had broken up the sales according to the years 2004, 2005, 2006 and one in 2007. She noted that there was a comparable sale in January 2007. Katrinka Russell noted it was a comparable quality home but it was not the same “good” quality which sold for $470,000. Board Member James Winer requested the address. Katrinka Russell replied 2008 Ruby Vista Drive. She noted it was right down the road from the subject property and asked them to look at Exhibit J. She commented that the subject property was delineated in red on the map and if they went east to the very last parcel on that street it was the house that sold for $470,000 house. Katrinka Russell stated it was a smaller lot, and a smaller home. She stated if they based it on square feet the home sold for $131.41 per square foot just for the home; if they subtracted the value of the land. Board Member James Winer asked if that was based above ground footage only. Katrinka Russell stated that was above ground. She noted the home was a one level home with a 1400 square foot finished basement. Board Member James Winer asked if the total square footage was 2,860. Katrinka Russell explained the cost to construct a home like that was lower when they had a finished basement. Board Member James Winer clarified that the basement brought the price down. He noted that the subject property 5600 square feet was above ground. Katrinka Russell noted there was 5604 square feet above ground and there was 1124 square feet in unfinished basement. Board Member James Winer asked if their current residence was 3890 square feet above ground. Katrinka Russell believed that included the basement. Board Member James Winer felt that had a bearing on the Gallaghers’ comparison. He noted that below ground footage was worth less than the above ground square footage. Katrinka Russell believed that Barbara Gallagher indicated to her that they had their old home on the market and were trying to sell it by themselves for $540,000. Joe Aguirre believed it may be the home advertised on the radio. Board Member James Winer inquired what value they gave the two golf course lots, the land. Katrinka Russell stated the individual lot which was smaller went for $60,000 per parcel but when they combine the two lots together they had a combined value of $100,000. Katrinka Russell stated the Gallaghers did buy the two lots individually for $120,000. She had asked Mrs. Gallagher for a copy of their preconstruction appraisal that was done based on the plans alone and she was told it came in at $700,000. Katrinka Russell had asked for a copy to provide it to the Board Members. She stated Barbara Gallagher did not provide that. Board Member James Winer clarified that the Assessor’s Office had it at $740,000. Katrinka Russell asked the Board Members to view Exhibit F, page 6 wherein it showed on the house alone they had a little over $689,702 but if they go to Exhibit F, page 11 they have added in the costs of the pool. She stated the Gallaghers were currently in the process of getting a permit for the pool. Therefore, they did not have the permit value on record.
Board Member James Winer clarified that 1776 square feet was above ground and the basement was 1556 square feet in the old home. Board Member Alfred Plank commented they were trying to sell the old home for $540,000. Board Member James Winer noted that half of that house was below ground.
Board Member James Winer stated being a real estate broker they represent custom homebuilders. He had asked one of the homebuilders if they were going to build a real nice custom home what would they charge per square foot and received the reply of about $130.00 to $135.00 per square foot just for the structure, excluding the land. He noted if they took 5600 square foot above ground by $130.00. Katrinka Russell stated the average cost per square foot was $123.07. Board Member James Winer stated that 5604 at $130.00 per square foot would be $728,520 from this particular builder. He understood they built it themselves so there would be some cost savings per square foot but that did not include the land.
Board Member James Winer commented that he understood the Gallaghers’ argument was that they have overbuilt this house because of their personal choice of lifestyle. He knew they had roots in the community and would not be going anywhere but when they go to sell this they would never get the same out of what they put into the house. Board Member James Winer stated there were a lot of people like that out there. He stated they just sold a house in Spring Creek a few years ago. The owner was an attorney who had $50,000 worth of marble in the house. He noted the owner knew he chose it. It was his lifestyle but he would never get that much out of the house. Board Member James Winer noted that was why he asked the question appraised value, versus fair market value, versus cash value. He inquired if cash value was what it would actually cost them to build the house. Board Member James Winer inquired if it could exceed cash value. Joe Aguirre believed it could not exceed market value. Kristin McQueary stated the computed taxable value of any property must not exceed its full cash value. She stated in determining if the taxable value exceeded the full cash value they could base it on comparative sales, the replacement costs, and the economic approach. Board Member James Winer inquired if what they had it appraised at would exceed what the market would bear. He noted the replacement costs would probably be higher than what they could sell it for. Joe Aguirre noted it was no different than talking about Mike and Lois’s house in which they never got out what they put into it. He explained they may see more of this because of the cap and the Assessor did not have the flexibility they had in the past. Joe Aguirre stated now they could not be flexible and had to come closer to what the real value was. He they were trying to make their obligations in the statutes and to the taxpayers of Elko County. Board Member James Winer noted they have a lot of Californians moving here who had cash and they would put whatever they want into those houses according to their lifestyle, knowing they would never get it out of the house. He believed that was the same scenario as the Gallaghers.
Chairman Walter Leberski noted the Assessor’s standard cost per square feet was $123.00 but they had houses comparable at $131.00 which was similar to what a builder had told Board Member James Winer. Katrinka Russell stated they had looked at the property listings on other homes which were built and those were on Exhibit H, pages 2-4 where she had tried to come up with a cost per square foot which was comparable. Katrinka Russell pointed out that when they did the appraisal on this home, they were conservative as they could be. She stated they did not charge for all the appliances that were in the home. She stated there was some flooring in there that was not in Marshall and Swift. Katrinka Russell stated when the Board Members looked at the numbers on the appraisal, they were very conservative. Chairman Walter Leberski felt there were some amenities not included in their appraisal. Katrinka Russell stated if they look at the appliances the Gallaghers were given the regular appliances allowance.
Board Member James Winer noted that part of the issue was they were comparing their old house at 3.5 and they had noted it was a nice house. However, the Taxpayers questioned how the new house they were planning to build of similar quality jumped to a 5. He inquired what a 3.5 quality was. Katrinka Russell stated a 3.5 was between an average and good. Board Member James Winer asked for that definition. Joe Aguirre noted Janet Iribarne would get that information for them.
Board Member Alfred Plank inquired if they were to go back and reassess that area would they blanket and give everyone 5’s for their homes. Katrinka Russell stated there were only a few homes which would actually be at a 5 rating in that area. Board Member Alfred Plank inquired how much of that rating was dependent upon location. He believed that their older home was further away from the I-80. He inquired if the proximity to the interstate would detract from that. Katrinka Russell noted the sales did not reflect that at all. Board Member James Winer stated it was in the close proximity of the golf course which drove the value up. Joe Aguirre stated that his interpretation of the use of Marshal and Swift was no matter where the house was located the main difference was in the land value. He noted sometimes they would take it down a half a class because they know it was over and they could not bring it in. Joe Aguirre stated they try to keep it conservative. His interpretation of the statutes and Marshall and Swift was they were supposed to do that no matter where it was located. Board Member James Winer noted the Gallaghers were using the lower assessment of their current residence as a comparison. It may come from the rating of 3.5 which should be a rating of 4. The fact that half of the house was below grade square footage, underground, made that home worth less than if it had been above ground. He noted that if they took their 3890 square foot and put it above grade at the current house then their taxes would be more that doubled. He felt the Gallaghers were not seeing the difference. Katrinka Russell stated she had tried to explain that to Barbara Gallagher. She had explained that a two story above ground home would be valued lower and the same with basements. She had told her that when she had built their house they had reduced the value because of the full basement. Board Member Wesley Bowlen asked if they reappraised the old house would they raise the value of that home. Katrinka Russell stated that they would probably raise the value. Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated the case may not be the new house was a 5 but rather the older house should be at a 4 rating. Joe Aguirre stated the tax legislature came in on the old home but not on the new home. He stated if the older home had new owners they could do go up at 3% per year or it could go so far beyond that they would never catch up. Board Member Wesley Bowlen noted the fact that the Taxpayers have overbuilt the house to their satisfaction should not be the problem of all the Taxpayers of Elko County.
Board Member James Winer stated that by statute it was saying by law the appraised value could not exceed the fair market value of the home. Kristin McQueary noted the computable taxable value should not exceed the full cash value. She stated the taxable value was based on all factors: comparable sales, replacement costs, the economic approach, etc. Board Member James Winer noted the assessed value would be higher than what the market value was but the costs would be what costs were that they put into house. Kristin McQueary stated replacement costs were one of the methods to determine the cash value. Chairman Walter Leberski believed Marshall & Swift was a good indication of market value. Joe Aguirre stated they may get into a position that they would have to adopt some of the higher classifications that Washoe County has already accepted. He noted Washoe County was up to a 12 classification. Joe Aguirre noted the Board of Equalization was the balance of what the Assessor’s Office did. Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated that it bothered him that they could say the house would not sell for this but how could they tell what a house would sell for within five years. He noted there was an influx of people coming into the area. He stated they thought $800,000 was a lot of money but his Grandson in Spanish Springs had just bought a $750,000 home. Board Member Wesley Bowlen felt it was the amenities in the house and his Grandson did have marble in his house. He stated that sales were sales and if there was a willing buyer in today’s market and with the available financing, then the pricing would not be a problem. Board Member Wesley Bowen stated a starter house was around $250,000. Katrinka Russell noted the average sales price had risen. Board Member James Winer believed the average sales price was between $255,000 to $245,000. Board Member James Winer felt Barbara Gallagher was trying to say it may be tough to sell the home at that value.
Kristin McQueary stated that there were annotations to Chapter NRS 361.227 where it stated the State Board of Equalization was not required to accept purchase price of the property as a sole indicator of value. She stated those were all the factors that the Board Members should look at. Chairman Walter Leberski stated the Board Members could look at the costs and it could be priced over the fair market value. Kristin McQueary stated indicators of value could be determined different ways through replacement costs, comparable sales, looking at the economics. Board Member James Winer stated the replacement costs would be hard to argue because if you were building a new house today at today’s costs today; it would be hard to argue that it was above the replacement costs because they had just built it. Katrinka Russell stated Barbara Gallagher had talked to her about changing the quality of the new home. She agreed with her that maybe they could bring it down half a class when you go through the basic description in Exhibit F, Page 1. She and Mrs. Gallagher had spoken about the different things that were in the home such as the handcrafted doors, the hardwood flooring, each plank was handcrafted. She had asked Mrs. Gallagher if she felt it was only a good quality home. Katrinka Russell commented that there was imported tile. Board Member James Winer noted there was a tiled roof. Katrinka Russell commented upon the copper gutters around the house and noted everything was of very good quality. Joe Aguirre noted that in the house there was recessed lighting in the floor. Katrinka Russell displayed the Marshall and Swift book to the Board Members and reviewed the written description of a 3.0 rating and a 4.0 rating with the Board Members. Board Member James Winer felt the current house should not be at a 3.5 because the description described a house that was mass produced that would meet or exceed the minimum construction requirements. Katrinka Russell explained 4.0 was good quality. Board Member James Winer asked if 6.0 was excellent policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Assessor’s Office recommended the total taxable value of $802,157 with the allocation of $100,000 for the land and $702,157 for the improvements. They support that the additional values be put on for the remainder of the improvements to be added such as the porches, tile and CFW for the 2007-08 Fiscal Year.
TAPE 3A POINT 46.6
CASE 07-004
DECISION:
Board Member Wesley Bowlen moved that they accept the Assessor’s recommendation of taxable valuation of $802,157 for tax purposes with the rational that they felt the quality of the replacement costs was what it was as of today because that was what it was costing them to build it; and market value was a nebulous thing because it could sell for $900,000 or $700,000. Board Member James Winer seconded the motion.
Chairman Walter Leberski clarified that the motion was to accept the Assessor’s valuation of $802,157.
TAPE 3A POINT 47.9
The motion carried the following vote:
Voting Aye: Chairman Walter Leberski
Member Wes Bowlen
Member James Winer
Member Al Plank
Voting Nay: None
Abstaining: Member Kelly Buckner
Absent: None
Katrinka Russell inquired if they could include in their motion to accept any additional value for the concrete tile that was to be put in around pool and the porches around the house that were not in yet. Chairman Walter Leberski stated that would have to come up as it was added on. Katrinka Russell stated it would not add that much more to it. Board Member James Winer stated no. He strongly urged the Assessor’s Office to look at adoption of code systems/ranking system that might be more appropriate for the future because this would keep coming up and would not go away. He noted they have seen more and more houses with these very nice features so they need to look at their current ranking system. He stated their current house should not be a 3.5 rating. Board Member Wesley Bowlen felt they should leave the new house where it was at and bring the old house’s rating up where it should be at. Board Member James Winer noted that the jump in tax rate would not have looked so bad, and the Gallaghers would not have such an issue as they have now.
Joe Aguirre stated they could increase the quality factors but they could not increase taxes any more because their hands were tied by the Tax Commission.
Chairman Leberski informed the Assessor to inform the Taxpayers that they had the right to appeal their decision to the State Board of Equalization.
Board Member Kelly Buckner returned to the meeting room at 2:38 p.m.
--------------------------------------------
TAPE 3B POINT 1.8
VERLAS CORPORATION
Case No. 07-005
Parcel No. 001-860-066
Hearing Date: February 23, 2007
Taxable Valuation: Land $218,286
Building $356,174
SUBJECT MATTER:
This being the time set for hearing the petition of VERLAS CORPORATION for review of assessed valuation on property described as follows: Parcel No. 001-860-066.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSOR FOR THE RECORD:
A. Cover Letter
B. Assessor’s Recommendations
C. Chronological Account Review
D. Appraisal Information
E. Permit Information
F. SEC Information on UPS
G. Appraisal Photo
H. Parcel Map
I. Taxpayer Petition Form
APPRAISER, PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN: KATRINKA S. RUSSELL
Katrinka Russell stated the property was located at 4450 Pioneer Way in Elko City, Nevada. The subject property was purchased by Verlas Corporation in May of 1990 as a vacant lot. A permit was issued to Verlas Corporation to build a 8,159 square foot warehouse facility for use by the United Parcel Service (UPS) in July of 1990. It is still occupied by UPS and will be until the lease expires in 2040. They have requested a reduction in the improvement value based on functional obsolescence.
Katrinka Russell had inquired if UPS was moving out and the Taxpayer indicated that United Parcel Service had a lease until 2040. She had asked if it was built for the United Parcel Service and they had replied yes. Katrinka Russell stated the Taxpayer felt they could not resale the building on an open market the way it was. She stated the Taxpayer felt they should receive functional obsolescence. Katrinka Russell had told the Taxpayer that she was not comfortable in doing that because of the way it was being used. She did offer to reappraise the building based on income if they wanted to provide rental income. She noted that Verlas Corporation was owned by the United Parcel Service Company and they lease the building to the United Parcel Service. Katrinka Russell stated the Taxpayer did not submit any income or documentation.
TAPE 3B POINT 3.4
RECOMMENDATION:
The Assessor’s Office recommended that the subject property remain at the $574,460 total value consisting of $218,286 for the land, $356,174 for the improvements for the 2007-2008 tax year. She commented that they did offer to review the property appraisal based on income but no information was submitted in order for them to do that.
PETITIONER DULY SWORN: No one was present to represent Petitioner.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER: No documentation was submitted.
TAPE 3A 2.5
DISCUSSION:
Board Member Wesley Bowlen inquired if functional obsolescence was what they had applied to the motel in Wells and received an affirmative response. He felt there had to be a reason for the obsolescence. Board Member James Winer inquired what they claimed functional obsolete about the building. Katrinka Russell stated they wished to claim obsolescence because they did not feel they could resale the building to another company because the way it was designed for UPS. Katrinka Russell noted if UPS was moving out and it was going to go on the market then they would have a valid point because they would have to redesign the building for someone else coming in. Board Member Wesley Bowlen noted they could sell it to Fed EX or another similar company. Board Member James Winer inquired if they submitted documentation for the income approach and received a negative response. Katrinka Russell stated she had called her several times and left her e-mail address but she had not received any information from the Taxpayer.
TAPE 3A POINT 4.4
CASE 07-005
DECISION:
Board Member Wesley Bowlen moved that they accept the Assessor’s valuation of $574,460 for tax purposes consisting of $218,286 for the land and $356,174 for the improvements for the 2007-2008.
Board Member Wesley Bowlen stated the rational being it was properly assessed and the value was within the market.
Board Member James Winer seconded the motion.
Board Member James Winer commented that they had not demonstrated how the building was functionally obsolete.
Board Member James Winer stated he was familiar with the facility and if United Parcel Service left tomorrow he could place a couple of other companies in it without a tough time. He stated the Taxpayer did not demonstrate that it was functionally obsolete and if you take a look at the transportation market there was a need for these types of facilities.
Chairman Walter Leberski clarified that the motion was to accept the Assessor’s Valuation of $574,460 for tax purposes.
TAPE 3B POINT 5.8
The motion carried the following vote:
Voting Aye: Chairman Walter Leberski
Member Wes Bowlen
Member James Winer
Member Al Plank
Member Kelly Buckner
Voting Nay: None
Abstaining: None
Absent: None
Chairman Leberski requested that the Assessor inform the Petitioner, that they had the right to appeal their decision to the State Board of Equalization.
---------------------------------------------
Kristin McQueary asked that the Board Members leave their packages here because there was some confidential information contained within them and the Assessor would shred the packets.
Board Member Kelly Buckner asked if they had to approve the increases and decreases. Katrinka Russell commented that there was no roll up anymore.
Board Member Kelly inquired if Woodhills showed up. Chairman Walter Leberski noted they did not make the deadline.
Joe Aguirre stated he felt comfortable with their appraisers this year because out of 50,000 appraisals they only had 9 contested.
TAPE 3B POINT 8.1
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Board, Chairman Leberski adjourned the meeting.
APPROVED,
_________________________________
WALTER LEBERSKI, Chairman
ATTEST:
MARILYN TIPTON, Deputy County Clerk
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- state of nevada department of education
- state of nevada cosmetology state board
- state of nevada division of real estate
- state of nevada board of nursing
- state of nevada board of medicine
- state of nevada secretary of state website
- state of nevada department of insurance
- state of nevada secretary of state search
- state of nevada secretary of state
- state of nevada division of insurance
- state of nevada board of nursing verification
- secretary of state of nevada forms