February 15, 2023

Mr. Light

made a motion to approve; seconded by Ms. Parmenter; 3 yeas.

Mr. Light

made a motion to approve; seconded by Ms. Parmenter; 3 yeas.

Ms. Parmenter

disclosed she was a realtor.

Mr. Light

made a motion to accept the exhibits; seconded by Ms. Parmenter; 3 yeas. The Assessor's Office identified the property. Heidi Horibe stated all improved sale properties were similar in age, size, and property use to the to the subject property. The exterior amenities vary from minimal to extensive. The first improved sale was a 1,222 square foot 1981 manufactured home conversion. There was no garage, but there was a pole barn. The land was 1.25 acres with individual water and septic systems. The second improved sale was a 1,232 square foot 1982 mobile home conversion. There was no garage, and the land was 1.08 acres with individual water and septic systems. Improved sale three was a 1,248 square foot mobile home conversion. There was no garage, and the land was 1.0 acre with individual water and septic systems. The Petitioner requested per his letter that he wished to appeal his values because his taxable value increased by $60,000.00. The Assessor's Office contacted the Petitioner via telephone on January 17, 2023, after they received his letter and informed him that the taxable value increased because he did not return the veteran’s exemption letter to have his exemption applied to his property tax, but he still wished to appeal the values. On January 18, 2023, the Assessor's Office attempted to phone the Petitioner, but there was no answer and no option to leave a voicemail. The Assessor’s Office mailed the Petitioner the exemption letter and the County Board of Equalization Appeal form on January 18, 2023, and attempted to e-mail them as well. As of February 15, 2023, the Assessor's Office had not received either back. Based on the comparable sales it was the recommendation of the Assessor’s Office that their values be upheld. February 15, 2023 8. For Possible Action — Discussion and deliberation on the following appeals of . property tax valuation: 8A. Enterprise One, Inc., APN 045-121-04-Cont’d.

Mrs. Eastley

referred to the Petitioner’s letter alleging a fraudulent tax sale and averring the property's fraudulent sale was in litigation and no appraisal could be validated. It was her opinion that the litigation was separate and apart from the assessing process on this property Michelle Nelson stated that was also the opinion of the District Attorney’s Office and this matter could proceed.

Mrs. Eastley

confirmed with Ms. Horibe that the only reason the Petitioner's property was assessed and valued at $92,251.00 from a low of $33,025.00 was because he failed to return the personal exemption renewal form required to qualify for the 100% exemption.

Mrs. Eastley

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 evidence of market value of comparable properties as well as the subject’s current utilization supported the value of the subject property as determined by the County Assessor; the evidence of cost of construction as well as the condition, location, and other physical attributes of the subject property did not require adjustment to the assessed valuation previously determined; the fair economic income expectancy of the subject property supported the valuation determined by the County Assessor; the petition of Dr. Grant M. Saxena was denied based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law; and the Nye County Assessor was hereby instructed to certify the assessment roll of the County consistent with this decision; seconded by Mr. Light.

Mr. Light

asked if the Petitioner could cure this as some point or did he have to appeal. Justin Zimmerman said he could. He advised there was no statute that allowed for the tax roll to be corrected for this specific reason, but historically the Assessor's Office had worked with the taxpayers every year to submit correction letters to the Board of County Commissioners to allow this type of correction and they had never been denied.

Mrs. Eastley

adjourned the meeting. APPROVED this __\3** day ATTESTED: of febrrany , 2024. (1 ie “ore, RK & hiner Chair / Board of Equalization Nye County Clerk / Deputy