February 13, 2014

Mr. Couch

made a motion to nominate Richard Gardner, seconded by Mr. Marshall; 5 yeas 4. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION - APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 2014

Mr. Gardner

made a motion to approve the agenda for February 13, 2014, with item 9D removed; seconded by Mr. Couch, 5 yeas. 5, FOR POSSIBLE ACTION - APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE BOARD _OF EQUALIZATION MEETING FOR MARCH 13, 2013

Mr. Gardner

made a motion to approve the minutes of March 13, 2013; seconded by Mr, Gren; 4 yeas. Mr. Marshall abstained.

Mr. Gardner

said Angelica Gardner listed in item 9B was no relation to him.

Mr. Gardner

made a motion to accept the exhibits as read; seconded by Mr. Gren; 5 yeas. Larry Allen stated he purchased the property on October 13, 2000, based on several considerations from many State and federal agencies, including an agreement with Nye County that the buildings would be put on the equipment roll as shown in his exhibits. They paid taxes on the property every year, but last year they received a tax bill on the building. He contacted the appraiser and explained the agreed-to situation. She said she could tax anything attached to the ground regardless of the agreements. Mr. Allen said they had not been able to sell the property and he thought it was unethical for Nye County to pull out of the agreement.

Mr. Allen

explained the attempts made to sell the property, including to a large company from China. However, the State Department would not allow them to transfer the funds for the purchase.

Mr. Allen

then reviewed the letter he submitted with his exhibits dated October 13, 2013, which outlined the essential facts regarding his purchase of the property. He also discussed a letter he had from a gentleman who was present on the site when the property was appraised in 2007. He said there had been no new construction since he had been there, but they did spend almost a half a million dollars to cover the tailing pond, which might be considered an improvement.

Mr. Allen

said he had researched the rules and found NRS 361.310 regarding reopening of the rolls. If the rolls were reopened, improvements such as new construction could be re-appraised after the person had paid the taxes. He said the taxes were paid on it and this was an improvement they were trying to add to the taxes already paid. He was now being told this was under NRS 361.769 regarding O OQ February 13, 2014 9A. Ward Enterprises, Inc., APN 001-121-04-Cont’d. assessment of real estate not on the secured rolls. He said they paid taxes on the secured rolls so that was not correct. Mr. Allen understood if no one knew about the original agreement made and he was here to try to straighten this out and see if the original agreement would be kept going. If not, he wanted to request a grace period to get out of it. Brenda Baker, Nye County Appraiser tl, explained the subject property was located approximately eight miles south of Gabbs, Nevada. The improvements were found when the new 2012 Pictometry aerials were being viewed on-line in January, 2013. Once found, the appraiser was able to find the appraisal information sent to the Assessor's Office in 2002. Previously assessed by the State of Nevada Division of Local Government Services, the improvements were never put on the Nye County secured tax roll. Upon discovery in 2013, there were numerous attempts by phone, certified letter and e-mail to meet with the owner to discuss the subject parcel, and also to gain access onto the subject property for an accurate appraisal. Access was not granted. The improvements were assessed by use of the old Division of Local Government Services appraisal sketch, the new Pictometry aerials, and by the owner- owned Web site, “Ward Enterprises to Sell the Paradise Peak Mill Site.” There were no sales comparable to the subject property. All improvements were valued as replacement cost new less depreciation (RCLND) as required by NRS 361.227, using the Marshall & Swift valuation manual. The land was valued as 13 patented mill sites previously established at $357.00 taxable per site. It was the recommendation of the Assessor's Office to uphold the Assessor's values as developed per NRS and also as stated within NRS 361.345, refusal of entry onto the subject property.

Mrs. Kaminski

asked for clarification on the State denying the purchase Mr. Allen discussed. Mr. Allen advised the Chinese company had set up their escrow in Hong Kong and needed permission from the government agencies before transferring funds into the country. The Department of the Interior denied that permission. In response to questions from the Board members, Mr. Allen said silver, gold and a little palladium were mined prior to the shutdown of the project. They did sell equipment, but they did not sell any of the equipment associated with the mining operation and everything shown in the pictures in the exhibits was still in place.

Mr. Gardner

asked about the assessor trying to gain access and being refused. Mr. Allen stated no one had tried to gain access. In 2006 they were on the property for a day and a half and someone from Tonopah was there. He had to keep security guards on the property 24/7, so there was always someone there.

Mrs. Kaminski

asked who from Tonopah was on the site. Mr. Allen said their signature would be on the rolls and he did not have them with him.

Mr. Couch

noted that while the agreement was to reflect all of the buildings and equipment as equipment, it was still subject to personal property taxes which he thought © > February 13, 2014 9A. Ward Enterprises, Inc.. APN 001-121-04-Cont’d was the real issue. He said Mr. Allen was not being charged on the secured property tax roll. He was being charged on the unsecured roll. Sherree Stringer, Nye County Personal Property Appraiser, stated the declaration they received for the 2013/2014 tax year showed equipment for a value of $30,900.00. That had been the same since 2007/2008. She explained personal property was defined as all goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, and machines, whether office equipment or big cranes. Ms. Stringer stated what she received from Mrs. Baker showed personal property that was not on the tax bill.

Mr. Couch

asked if the bill the petitioner presented showing he owed $106,000.00 for personal property referred to that list. Mrs. Baker stated that bill was the new construction bill for the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 years sent out May 6, 2013. The second bill was sent out when no payment was received on the first new construction bill. She explained new construction did not mean new improvements. It meant new improvements never on the roll before.

Mr. Couch

asked if that consisted of all the assets she took pictures of, including equipment and buildings. Mrs. Baker said no. It was just the buildings, but since she did not have access to the buildings she used the County's Pictometry and what the petitioner had on his own Web site. The Clerk read into the record Petitioner's Exhibit F, a letter from Dan McGill dated February 11, 2014, to Shirley Matson regarding the reappraisal visit which took place in 2006.

Mrs. Kaminski

expressed concern with not having any names on that letter. She also noted page 48 of 87 of Exhibit 1 showed what the assessed values were for Arimetco with a taxable value in 2000/2001 of $10,902,857.00 for property and personal property, which decreased slightly the following year.

Mr. Gardner

asked who the AS400 notes on Exhibit 1, page 3, came from. Mrs. Baker said she printed the notes for this account to show they had tried to get a hold of him many times, had discussed things with him, and had tried to get access to the property for an accurate appraisal.

Mr. Gardner

made a motion to receive Petitioner's Exhibit 9F; seconded by Mr. Couch; 5 yeas.

Mr. Sutton

advised NRS 361.245(2)(b) stated the Board of Equalization was not allowed to reduce the assessment by the Assessor if the Board found the petitioner refused entry to the property.

Mr. Allen

said he had not been contacted by the Assessor's Office. They did not allow people to go on the property without having his permission through the guard. Access © O February 13, 2014 9A. Ward Enterprises, Inc., APN 001-121-04-Cont'd. was granted to a lot of people, but arrangements had to be made. He said he would like to see documentation that attempts had been made.

Mrs. Kaminski

noted Exhibit 1, page 3 of 87, showed a certified letter explaining the improvements had not been assessed since 2002 and there was a need to visit the property, which was sent on January 24, 2013. She said Mr. Allen had called and said he would come in the week of February 12-14 to talk to Shirley Matson and Brenda Baker about the agreement with the County, but Mr. Allen did not show up. A message was left with a security guard on the site on April 10, 2013, that Mrs. Baker needed to visit the property. Mrs. Kaminski stated the Assessor's Office had made numerous attempts to talk to Mr. Allen regarding this.

Mr. Allen

said the bill given to him was incorrect for new construction as there had been no new construction. Regarding the equipment, Mrs. Baker explained anything permanently affixed to the property was considered real property, not equipment, and should be on the secured roll. A warehouse storing merchandise was a building, not part of the merchandise. She only assessed the permanently affixed buildings and tanks that were not easily moved.

Mr. Sutton

stated that unless the Board found by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner had provided sufficient evidence to overturn the Assessor's decision then that was what stuck.

Mr. Gardner

made a motion that the taxpayer had not presented sufficient evidence to indicate the values established by the County Assessor were unjust and inequitable. The subject property was appraised for the proper taxable value in accordance with NRS 361.227. The petition of Larry Allen was denied based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Nye County Assessor was instructed to certify the assessment roll of the County consistent with this decision; seconded by Mr. Couch; 5 yeas.

Mrs. Kaminski

explained the appeal process to Mr. Allen. 9B. Fred F. Alaee, APN 008-291-03 Fred Alaee was present and previously sworn The Assessor's Office identified the property. The Clerk read the exhibits into the record.

Mr. Gardner

made a motion to accept the exhibits; seconded by Mr. Gren; 5 yeas. © © February 13, 2014 9B. Fred F. Alaee, APN 008-291-03-Cont'd.

Mr. Alaee

questioned the values of the property improvement and land. He said the property improvement was salvage and recognized as such by the County two years ago, but the price put for the salvage property was not correct. He also did not know how the price of the land was established at $40,000.00 per acre as no land in Tonopah had sold for more than $6,000.00 per acre. Brenda Baker, Nye County Appraiser II, stated the subject property was a 16,080 square foot building once used as a bowling center with a bar/lounge. The building had since been gutted and was currently being valued as a storage warehouse at a .5 quality and no interior finish. The subject property land was valued as sub-prime commercial and received an additional 25% reduction due to its size. The improvement sales listed were good commercial sales located in Tonopah. All had similar building usage to that of the subject but with significantly less acreage. It was the recommendation of the Assessor's Office to uphold the taxable value established of $242,600.00.

Mrs. Kaminski

noted Exhibit 1 contained a special purpose property for sale off of Trish Rippie's Web site which described the building with some pictures, including one picture of the snack bar that appeared to still be intact. The sale price on the property was $679,000.00 on over eight acres of property.

Mr. Alaee

stated the picture of the snack bar was to depict what it woutd look like in the future and he did not believe it was taxable if it did not exist. He described the vandalism done to the building over the past few years and questioned how it could be compared to buildings that were operating. He said the County had agreed to tax it as salvage at $1.00 per square foot. Regarding the land value, Mrs. Baker explained it was valued by the sales in the area. On page 12 of 16 of the Assessor's exhibit was a listing of the commercial land sales in Tonopah. Tonopah commercial right now was sitting at $0.41 square foot prime, which would be on Highway 95. Sub-prime was at $0.31 per square foot and rural was at $0.23 per square foot. She said Mr. Alaee's land was valued at sub-prime along with a 25% discount for the size of the land.

Mr. Alaee

objected to having his property on Highway 6 compared to property on Highway 95.

Mr. Gren

noted the significant difference in the assessed valuation of this property from last time to now. The figures had more than doubled and it appeared to him that there was no real rationale for that increase.

Mrs. Baker

stated it was the land value and the land values were re-evaluated every year by market value. She had a lot of commercial this year. The Assessor's Office was allowed to go back three years and then break it down to square footage. She advised it could go down next year. © €) February 13, 2014 9B. Fred F. Alaee, APN 008-291-03-Cont'd.

Mr. Gren

asked how many businesses were located on the same highway. Mrs. Baker said the only business on Highway 6 was the bowling alley. Since Highway 6 did not get a lot of traffic, she did consider that sub-prime from being on Highway 95.

Mr. Gardner

thought it was too bad the property could not be assessed as rural. He agreed with Mr. Gren that it looked like it might be overtaxed, but at the same time the Board had to go with what they had.

Mr. Gardner

made a motion that the taxpayer had not presented sufficient evidence to indicate that the value established by the County Assessor was unjust or inequitable.

Mr. Sutton

advised the Board did have the authority to adjust the value set by the Assessor, but prior to doing so they would have to make a finding that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to overturn the Assessor's valuation.

Mr. Gardner

made a motion that the taxpayer had not presented sufficient evidence to indicate the value established by the County Assessor was unjust or inequitable. The subject property was appraised at the proper taxable value in accordance with NRS 361.227. The decision was the petition of Mr. Alaee was denied based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law. The County Assessor was instructed to certify the assessment role of the County consistent with this decision; seconded by Mrs. Kaminski.

Mr. Gren

made a motion to move the cost more in line with what the previous costs were. For example, he gathered from the facts presented that the taxpayer had presented evidence that indicated the value established by the County Assessor was unjust and inequitable. The evidence of the cost of construction as well as the condition and location and other physical attributes of the subject property did require adjustment of the assessed valuation previously determined. The economic income expectations of the subject property did not support the valuation determined by the County Assessor. He felt the assessed value previously in force was adequate with the land valued at $24,199.00 and the improvements valued at $23,853.00 for a total of $48,052.00.

Mr. Couch

thought there should be some increase. He did not want to make a motion as he did not know how to come up with an equitable value, but he did not think an increase of more than double in one year was anywhere near correct. Based on the condition of the building as shown in the pictures, Mr. Marshall did not think $4.00 a square foot was too much for the improvements providing that it was close to being usable or fixed up to be usable. He did have a problem with the land value. He noted the commercial sites along Highway 95 sold for approximately $1.15 or $1.17 per square foot. This site was appraised at $.490 a square foot, and for eight acres that C) C) February 13, 2014 9B. Fred F. Alaee, APN 008-291-03-Cont'd. was an awiul lot of money compared to $1.15 or $1.17 on the main drag for little parcels. He asked if the County had more commercial properties along Highway 6.

Mrs. Kaminski

advised there was a hardware store off of Highway 6 along with an RV park on that same road, but there were no other commercial buildings.

Mr. Sutton

explained the statutes did not address what happened if there was no motion or if motions made died for a lack of a second, but the statutory framework was very deferential toward the Assessor’s valuation. He reiterated that unless there was a preponderance of evidence put forth by the petitioner to overturn the valuation it automatically reverted back to the Assessor's determination. It was Mr. Sutton’s opinion that in the absence of a motion the Assessor's valuation would remain and the petitioner's appellate rights would be triggered.

Mrs. Kaminski

stated with the lack of a motion the Assessor's information was upheld and the assessed and taxable valuation would remain as stated today. She explained the appeal process to Mr. Alaee. 9C. Marvin and Crusita Rambo, APN 021-284-01; APN 021-285-01; APN 021-288- 071; APN 021-288-03; APN 021-289-05; APN 021-289-06; APN 021-289-07; APN 021- 289-08; APN 021-289-09: APN 021-289-10; APN 021-289-11; APN 021-289-13 Marvin Rambo was present and previously sworn The Assessor's Office identified the parcels, which were taken together as they were contiguous. The Clerk read the exhibits into the record.

Mr. Gardner

made a motion to accept the exhibits; seconded by Mr. Couch; 5 yeas.

Mr. Rambo

stated he had owned these parcels for quite some time. They were in the Town of Johnnie, a town site designed and surveyed in 1905. Water was piped to the site at that time. As of now, this particular town site had 68 town blocks averaging 16 lots to a block. In 1961 Highway 160 was put through the town leaving 870 tots, out of which there were roughly 23 lots that had development on them. Otherwise, the town had remained the same as it was in 1905 with no surface changes. Mr. Rambo said the town had no aquifer so there was no water, emergency services for the residents was at least half an hour away or more, there were no graded streets, and no electric power was available.

Mr. Rambo

stated he had property in Pahrump Valley comparable in size to a couple of the town blocks he had in Johnnie. The lots in Pahrump were fenced, had power, and paved streets. He did not agree with his lots in Johnnie being taxed equivalent to his lots in Pahrump. He said the County owned most of the lots and blocks in Johnnie C) C) February 13, 2014 9C. Marvin and Crusita Rambo, APN 021-284-01; APN 021-285-01; APN 021-288- 01; APN 021-288-03; APN 021-289-05; APN 021-289-06; APN 021-289-07; APN 021- 289-08: APN 021-289-09; APN 021-289-10; APN 021-289-111; APN 021-289-13. Cont'd. because of back taxes and he did not see how anyone would want to buy some of that land in a tax sale at the tax hike that went through without the services mentioned. Brenda Baker, Nye County Appraiser Il, stated the subject parcels were all contiguous. The only sale in this area was a four contiguous parcel number, multi-parcel sale with a total of .47 acres (20,473 total square feet) that sold for $30,000.00 ($1.20 per square foot taxable) on September 8, 2012. Due to only having one sale in the Johnnie town site area, that sale was combined with the two acres and less parcel sales from the Amargosa Valley area. The Johnnie town site water system was very old. The pipeline was installed in 1922. The water allotment for the Johnnie town site per the Nevada Division of Water Resources was .075 cubic feet per second or 2,020 gallons per hour. But, with the aging pipeline delivery was sometimes a problem. Also, the Johnnie town site did not have any electricity. By combining the sale in the Johnnie town site and the Amargosa Valley sales the value came in at a $0.15 per square foot taxable. It was the recommendation of the Assessor's Office to uphold the taxable values established for each parcel as follows: Parcel No. Taxable Value 021-284-01 $11,031.00 021-285-01 $13,763.00 021-288-01 $1,234.00 021-288-03 $7,789.00 021-289-05 $480.00 021-289-06 $740.00 021-289-07 $480.00 021-289-008 $740.00 021-289-09 $480.00 021-289-10 $740.00 021-289-111 $480.00 021-289-13 $480.00

Mr. Rambo

advised he gave APN 021-289-14 away to a friend and sold another parcel at a high price tag because Mr. Rambo did not really want to selt it. The person bought that parcel anyway, which was probably what hiked the price.

Mrs. Kaminski

noted the rest of the parcels were all at the value of $0.15 per square foot taxable per the Assessor's exhibit.

Mr. Rambo

said the lots were the same as they were in 1905, with no changes, no developments, and no real reason for anyone to want to buy the waterless land. He bought his parcels about 15 or 18 years ago and they were pretty much the same today with the pipeline and the water situation. February 13, 2014 9C. Marvin and Crusita Rambo, APN 021-284-01; APN 021-285-01; APN 021-288- 01; APN 021-288-03; APN 021-289-05: APN 021-289-06: APN 021-289-07: APN 021- 289-08; APN _021-289-09; APN 021-289-10; APN 021-289-111; APN 021-289-13- Cont'd.

Mr. Couch

stated the sale made in August, 2013, of 0.11 acres for $2,000.00 as shown on page 13 of 16 of Exhibit 1 gave a fair value of what the property was worth.

Mr. Rambo

felt that was not a fair value for the price of the property. Another person would not put up that kind of money because of the lack of power, water, and other services.

Mr. Gardner

did not think an equitable valuation could be made based on lots in Amargosa with water, power and services. Mrs. Baker stated that using the lots in Amargosa brought the value down.

Mr. Gardner

made a motion that the taxpayer had presented sufficient evidence to indicate the value established by the County Assessor was unjust or inequitable. The subject property was not appraised at the proper taxable value in accordance with NRS 361.227. The petition of Mr. Rambo was sustained based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Nye County Assessor was instructed to re-assess the situation to come up with a more equitable solution for Mr. Rambo.

Mrs. Kaminski

indicated the Assessor would need some guidelines as it was assessed with the information she had to work with and the NRSs.

Mr. Gardner

said it should be left at the previous assessed value because he knew they came around every year or so and it would come up again. He felt that in this situation it was a little steep.

Mr. Gren

seconded the motion. The motion failed with 2 yeas. Mrs. Kaminski, Mr. Couch and Mr. Marshall voted no.

Mr. Marshall

expressed concern that Mr. Rambo sold the one lot in Johnnie for $2,000.00, which worked out to $0.42 cents a square foot. The Assessor used $0.15, which was approximately one-third of what it sold for and he did not have any problem with that.

Mr. Rambo

disputed being able to sell anything for that now and felt this extreme tax hike would retard any future development in Johnnie. There was no equalization with the same sized lots in Pahrump and Johnnie being taxed at the same amounts, which was a 471% increase in Johnnie.

Mrs. Kaminski

stated that due to the lack of a motion the Assessor's valuation of the land would stand as written. She explained the appeal process to Mr. Rambo. O O February 13, 20714 9D. Autozone, inc., APN _038-282-10 This petition was withdrawn prior to the hearing. 9E. Westdale Capital Investors | LT, APN 035-191-40 The Petitioner was not present, but was properly noticed. The Assessor's Office identified the property. The Clerk read the exhibits into the record.

Mr. Gardner

made a motion to accept exhibits; seconded by Mr. Gren; 5 yeas. Kimberley Hildebrand, Nye County Appraiser II, stated the subject property was an 11,000 square foot commercial warehouse in central Pahrump off of the highway. The property owner purchased the property with a Trustee’s Deed for $302,185.00. All of the improved sales were superior or equal in quality to the subject property, but with inferior acreage. The sales supported the Assessor's replacement cost new less depreciation (RCNLD) costing with applied obsolescence valuation method. The market rent capitalization summary was based on the current rent/lease information received from several similar property types and distinguishing between highway frontage locations and those that were off the highway. The potential income method exceeded the RCNLD with applied obsolescence valuation method. Based on the sales data and the information on the market rental capitalization summary, it was the recommendation of the Assessor's Office to uphold the taxable value established of $188,278.00.

Mr. Marshall

made a motion that the taxpayer had not presented sufficient evidence to indicate that the value established by the County Assessor was unjust or inequitable. The subject property was appraised at the taxable value in accordance with NRS 361.227. The petition of Westdale Capital Investors was denied based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Nye County Assessor was instructed to certify the assessment role of the County consistent with this decision; seconded by Mr. Couch; 5 yeas.

Mr. Gardner

made a motion to accept the Assessor's petition to add property to the secured roll as justified by the Assessor's exhibit presented under item 9A; seconded by

Mr. Couch

; 5 yeas. February 13, 2014

Mr. Gardner

made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Gren; 5 yeas. APPROVED this___19*” day ATTESTED: of Felniany 2014. us, (Cz X wdman Nye County Clerk / Deputy of Equalization