►
From YouTube: 7/19/2021 - State Board of Equalization, Pt 2
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
jeff
mitchell.
For
the
record.
We
are
going
to
go
back
under
agenda
item
c.
This
was
one
that
was
continued
from
earlier
in
the
day
until
we
could
address
it
for
possible
action,
notice
of
appearance,
recommendations
by
the
secretary
to
dismiss
taxpayers
appeal
pursuant
to
nac
361.7014
for
the
2021
2022
secured
role,
a
decision
not
heard
by
the
county
board
determination
of
jurisdiction
of
the
state
board
pursuant
to
nrs
361.155
sub
6..
C
If
you
may,
I
may
give
a
little
bit
of
an
explanation
on
this.
Please
it
was
a
little
confusing,
as
in
the
appeal
that
was
filed
was
for
a
previous
tax
year.
It
was
for
the
2021
20
2020
2021
secured
roll
form,
but
I
believe
that
the
taxpayer
was
trying
to
appeal
for
the
21
22
secured
roll.
C
There
was
a
letter
submitted
upon
receiving
a
notice
of
valuation,
and
my
understanding
is
that
they
did
submit
some
information
to
the
county
and
an
adjustment
was
made
for
the
2122
secured
role.
But
if
they
are
appealing
the
2020-2021
secured
role,
the
recommendation
for
denial
of
jurisdiction
still
stands
from
the
secretary,
as
that
would
be
over
a
year
late
being
filed.
A
I
appreciate
that
first
is
kim
on
the
line.
A
Okay,
great
well
with
that,
let's
proceed
and
hear
the
case,
seeing
as
we
don't
have,
the
petitioner
clark
give
us
a
summary
from
your
end
and
then
we'll.
Let
you
know
if
we
have
any
questions.
D
Good
afternoon
doug
scott
for
the
record,
the
subject
property
is
located
at
4467,
sapphire
moon
avenue
in
north
las
vegas,
and
we
don't
really
have
too
much
background
information.
I
can
tell
you
a
little
bit
about
the
property,
I'm
not
sure
what
the
petitioner's
issue
was
in
1920
2021
we
had
the
taxable
value
reduced
to
287.094
via
an
assessor
recommendation
to
the
county
board
of
equalization,
which
is
a
value
that
may
be
lower
than
that
the
petitioner
thinks
and
then
for
2021
2022.
D
That
that's
what
I
believe
the
2021-2022
value
was
the
the
closed
roll
value,
and
we
believe
that
they
may
have
had
an
issue
with
the
2020
2021
value,
because
that
was
originally
at
a
taxable
value
over
three
hundred
thousand
dollars,
and
it
was
actually
the
builder
owned
it
at
the
time,
the
developer
as
of
december
2019,
and
so
they
appealed
the
value
because
they
thought
it
was
too
high,
and
it
turns
out
that
we
hadn't
applied
the
subdivision
discount,
and
so
therefore
we
as
we
reduced
it
on
an
assessor
recommendation
to
287.094,
so
there
may
have
been
and
reading
through
the
materials.
D
Reading
the
letter
that's
in
the
packet.
It
appears
that
maybe
the
taxpayer
wasn't
aware
that
that
that
value
was
in
fact
reduced.
B
I
just
want
to
make
sure
mr
schiffman,
that
we're
clear
this
was
a
supplemental
meaning.
So
sometimes
we
have
our
current
year
appeals
that
we're
able
to
appeal,
and
then
we
have
our
supplemental,
which
is
our
prior
year.
So
this
was
a
supplemental
value
that
was
added
for
the
unsecured
role
so
had
they
appealed
to
the
county
board
as
they
should
have,
then
they
would
have
been
able
to
appeal
that
value.
B
However,
this
taxpayer,
this
owner,
did
not
appeal
to
the
county
board,
but
in
spite
of
that
we
did
an
assessor
recommendation
because
we
recognized
there
was
some
obsolescence
for
the
total
neighborhood
and
I
think
other
properties
as
well
as
this
one
got
a
reduction
in
spite
of
the
fact
that
this
taxpayer
did
not
file
an
appeal
on
this
particular
one.
It
may
be
that
they
didn't
file
an
appeal
because
they
weren't
the
owner
of
record
at
the
time
and
the
developer
was.
I
just
don't
have
that
information
readily
available
to
you
to
clarify
that.
B
But
in
the
end,
this
taxpayer,
we
would
agree
with
the
secretary's
position
that
they
don't
have
a
right
to
appeal
it
to
to
your
level,
but
in
spite
of
all
that,
we
believe
the
values
that
we've
reduced
it
to
meet.
What
they're
asking
for
so
we're
meeting
we're
actually
concluding
to
a
number
that's
lower
than
their
sales
price
that
they
supposedly
purchased
it
for
so
we're
I
think,
they're
going
to
be
satisfied.
I
think
they
were
concerned
that
their
tax
bill
hadn't
been
adjusted
and
that
wouldn't
have
been
adjusted
at
the
time.
E
Just
for
my
clarification,
what
would
the
window
have
been
for
the
appeal
of
the
supplement,
2021,
supplemental
assessment?
What
what
would
that
window
have
been?
It.
B
Would
have
still
been
by
january
15th
of
this
year
of
2021,
okay,
but
it
would
have
been.
The
date
of
appraisal
would
have
been
january
of
2020
versus
january
of
2021
for
all
of
our
current
year
cases.
So
that's
what
we
would
have
been
measuring
had
we
done
a
valuation
estimate
on
it
and
that
kind
of
thing,
so
we
didn't
have
to
present
that
evidence
to
the
county.
We
just
went
there
saying
yeah,
we
recognized,
maybe
this
area
all
needed
to
be
adjusted
and
we
went
ahead
and
made
those
adjustments.
B
C
A
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Following
the
agenda
cases
number
21,
152
and
21
170
have
both
been
withdrawn,
so
we
will
proceed
with
case
number
21,
159,
srmf,
town
square
owner,
llc,
commercial
property.
C
G
Good
afternoon
I'm
carol
dougherty
representing
the
assessor's
office.
The
subject
property
is
town
square,
an
upscale
lifestyle
center
developed
at
located
at
the
southwest
corner
of
las
vegas
boulevard
and
sunset
road.
The
property
was
built
in
two
thousand
seven.
The
property's
gross
leasable
area
is
comprised
of
several
commercial
occupancies
contained
in
22,
separate
buildings.
G
The
occupancies
include
retail
office
theater
and
restaurant.
In
addition
to
the
gross
leaseable
area,
the
property
includes
268
508
square
feet
of
parking
garage
and
two
restroom
buildings
containing
1
672
square
feet,
as
reported
by
the
rent
roll.
The
property
is,
as
of
the
valuation
date,
was
87.3
percent
occupied
by
national
retailers,
as
well
as
some
local
and
regional
tenants.
G
B
Sure
miss
hewitt,
if
you
could
raise.
B
A
Thank
you
michelle
for
brief
orientation
carol.
What
we're
going
to
do
is
we'll
give
you
15
minutes
to
present
your
case.
We
might
ask
some
questions
at
the
end,
then
the
assessor's
office
will
have
15
minutes
to
present
their
case
questions
again
and
then
you'll
have
five
minutes
for
a
final
rebuttal.
A
H
Thank
you
and
I
have
been
looking
at
some
of
the
or
watching
some
of
the
other
cases
today,
so
I
have
kind
of
a
sense
of
how
this
works.
I
appreciate
your
patience
with
me
here.
The
this
property,
as
you
know,
have
was
described
earlier,
is
this
kind
of
lifestyle,
retail
space
area.
H
We've
reviewed
this
property
for
several
years,
and
of
course
this
is
the
one
time
we
have
appealed
the
property
based
on,
as
probably
you've
you've
encountered
this
year.
Based
on
the
covet
issues.
H
We
do
recognize
that
nevada
does
have
a
very
generous
tax
cap
situation,
especially
with
this
particular
property,
which
is,
of
course,
one
of
the
reasons
why
it
was
never
appealed
in
the
past
this
year
was
the
one
time
we
appealed
the
property,
and
I
was
I
was
giving
given
a
11-month
income
statement
which
was
presented
to
the
county
as
well
as
as
a
rent
roll
and
on
the
the
income
statement
as
well
as
the
rule.
H
H
Based
on
the
we
did
just
basically
a
quick
income
statement
with
a
9
cap,
essentially
on
because
of
the
nature
of
this
property
this
year
and
suggests
recommended
a
value.
I
believe.
A
G
G
G
Its
22
buildings
are
architecturally
distinctive,
creating
an
ambiance
of
historic
town
center
town
square,
attracts
local
residents
here
in
the
las
vegas
area,
as
well
as
tourists
as
it's
located
on
las
vegas
boulevard.
Just
south
of
mandalay
bay
and
mccurran
airport
town
square
offers
many
attractions
to
build
their
business
there,
such
as
free
music
events
during
the
summer
months,
a
park
called
the
green.
That's
a
12,
000
square
foot
grass
park,
they
have
a
9,
000
square
foot,
children's
park,
slash
playground
and
an
additional
park
called
town
square
park
of
6
500
square
feet.
G
G
Sephora
is
located
in
a
sixty
two
hundred
square
foot
space
and
they're,
paying
sixty
five
dollars
per
square
foot.
Net
verizon
has
a
five
thousand
square
foot
space
they're,
paying
forty
seven
dollars
per
square
foot
net
kay
jewelers
is
there
in
a
sixteen
hundred
square
foot
space,
paying
seventy
seven
dollars
per
square
foot.
G
So
in
the
assessor's
evaluation
of
the
property
we
calculated
potential
gross
income
based
on
these.
These
various
occupancies
I'd
like
to
also
oh,
I'm
sorry
page,
the
page
that
this
I'm
referring
to
is
spe.
99.
G
We
add
in
other
income,
as
supplied
by
documents
supplied
by
the
appellant
at
thousand
dollars,
we're
estimating
expenses
at
eight
percent
based
on
icsc,
which
is
international
council
of
shopping
center
data
at
eight
percent
to
generate
a
net
operating
income
of
thirty
million
one
hundred
forty
six
thousand
a
hundred
forty
four
dollars
to
that.
We
apply
a
capitalization
rate
of
eight
percent.
G
This
is
based
on
pricewaterhousecoopers
data.
Their
average
for
a
property
of
this
type
is
6.9
percent
and
we
also
consider
las
vegas
area
2020
retail
sales
for
the
property
class,
the
average
the
average
cap
rate
was
6.08
percent.
That
data
is
illustrated
on
sbe
121.,
so
we
go
with
the
more
conservative,
eight
percent
cap
rate.
G
The
indicated
value
by
this
income
method
is
three
million:
seven
376
million
eight
hundred
twenty
six
thousand
and
eight
hundred
dollars.
To
that.
We
apply
an
adjustment
because
we
want
to
account
for
the
extra
vacancy
generated
by
the
code
that
shut
down
at
this
time.
I
have
a
corrected
page
that
I'd
like
to
distribute.
G
A
A
H
Okay,
can
you
hear
me
now
we
can
okay,
sorry
about
that.
No,
I
have
no
objection
if,
if
caroline
would
just
like
to,
let
me
know
what
that
change
is.
A
G
Yes,
as
as
originally
presented
at
the
county
level,
the
lease
up
expense
adjustment
was
two
million
two
hundred
twenty
two
thousand
eight
hundred
and
fifteen
dollars.
But
the
correct
number
is
two
million
six
hundred
seventy
nine
thousand
two
hundred
and
sixty
seven
dollars.
G
So
that's
a
difference
of
four
hundred
and
fifty
six
thousand
dollars
and,
as
I
mentioned
it's
about
one
tenth
of
one
percent
of
the
indicated
value
and
doesn't
change
any
of
our
conclusions.
G
The
subject
property
is
at
87.3
occupancy,
which
is
what
we
believe
to
be
below
market.
We
did
an
adjustment
on
a
discounted
cash
flow
format
which
is
found
on
sbe
100.
G
G
So
we're
going
to
lease
up
this
vacant
space
over
a
three
year
time
frame
a
three
year
absorption
period,
we're
assuming
a
lease
rate
of
two
dollars
and
forty
cents,
a
square
foot
which
is
twenty
eight
dollars
and
eighty
cents
per
square
foot
per
year
annually
and
we're
assuming
rent
escalation
of
two
and
a
half
percent
that
discount
cash
flow
is
bro,
is
present
valued
at
six
percent,
a
safe
rate,
and
that
indicates
an
adjustment
of
the
corrected
number
of
I'm
sorry,
two
million
six
hundred,
seventy
nine
thousand
two
hundred
and
sixty
seven
dollars.
G
So
our
indicated
property
value
is
374
million,
one
hundred
forty
seven
thousand
five
hundred
and
thirty
three
dollars,
which
equates
to
about
three
hundred
and
eight
dollars
per
square
foot.
This
is
in
line
with
our
year
2020
sales
in
the
metro
area,
for
a
property
of
its
type.
G
Okay,
the
imputed
value,
the
actual
taxable
value,
is
closer
to
264
dollars
per
square
foot,
and
we
believe
that
our
analysis
supports
that
value
sales
that
have
occurred,
as
I
mentioned
during
the
year,
2020
in
the
metro
area
are
presented
on
sbe,
121
and
122,
and
looking
at
the
first
grouping
on
page
121.
G
A
Analysis
I
appreciate
that
question
relative
to
comparable
sales
and
it's
your
first
one
listed
on
page
121,
which
is
crossroads
common,
I
believe,
that's
over
in
summerlin,
that's
the
highest
price
sale
at
50
million.
It
was
in
escrow,
so
I'm
curious
a
if
it
closed
b.
If
you
learn
the
capitalization
rate
for
that
subsequent
and
see,
does
that
have
any
office
space
in
it.
A
A
A
So
that
is
a
closed
sale
and
the
capitalization
rates.
Have
you
learned
that
subsequent
that.
E
I
also
have
a
question
regarding
the
sales,
the
the
subject
properties-
if
I'm
reading
this
correctly
somewhat
over
a
million
two
square
feet,
is
that
right?
Yes-
and
this,
the
only
two
large
sales
that
you
have
are
the
crossroads
common
at
commons,
at
173,
000
and
sunrise?
Marketplace
is
193
000
and
the
two
sale
prices
on
those
are
range
from
168
dollars,
a
square
foot
to
293
dollars
a
square
foot.
E
G
How
their
property
had
been
operating,
where
it's
located
its
access
visibility,
reputation
their
tenancy?
We
don't
know
anything
about
these
other
nationwide
sales.
We
do
know
a
fair
amount
about
our
local
sales
and
las
vegas
is
more
of
a
tertiary
size
market.
We
just
don't
have
that
many
large
retail
kind
of
developments
like
towns,
town
square,
so
we
just
have
to
work
with
the
sales
that
we
have
here.
E
So
I
would
argue
that,
personally,
that
the
national
sales
for
a
property
of
this
nature
would
be
more
valuable
because,
though
that
would
represent
the
the
thought
process
that
an
investor
with
300
million
dollars
would
be
undertaking,
as
opposed
to
somebody
who's
spending.
Seven
hundred
and
ten
thousand
dollars
on
a
you
know
some
random
little
building
their
their
thought.
Processes
are
going
to
be
different.
This
property
is
not
one
that
would
likely
be
purchased
by
an
individual
who
was
only
looking
in
the
las
vegas
market.
E
That
that
national
pool
of
information,
particularly
in
this
kind
of
a
property,
would
be
very
informative,
and
you
know
the
buyer
of
this
property
would
probably
have
similar
information
on
the
sales
throughout
the
nation
that
you
would
have
and
would
be.
You
know
an
active
participant
and
have
that
basis
of
knowledge.
E
So
in
this
case
I'm
I
I'm
a
little
concerned
that
the
that
you're,
using
meaning
averages
and
means
from
these
these
really
much
different
kinds
of
properties.
You
know
you
know:
savers
on
lake,
mead
boulevard
really
doesn't
represent
the
motivations
of
somebody
who
would
be
buying
a
a
million.
B
E
G
A
A
So
I
want
to
understand
how
you
accounted
for
some
of
that,
or
does
this
office
space
here
not
follow
the
general
trends
of
las
vegas
because
of
design
location,
something
else.
So
if
you
could
talk
a
little
bit
about
those
two
and
the
rents
that
are
projected
for
them
and
the
risk
and
vacancy
factor.
G
G
G
The
office
space,
which
I
mentioned,
is
about
19
of
gross
leaseable
area.
It's
upscale
office
there's,
as
I
recall,
a
number
of
attorneys
located
there.
G
I
did
a
blended
calculation
using
occupants
the
vacancy
rate
for
office
as
well
as
retail,
which
oh
here
I
got
it.
G
Okay,
I
did
a
vacancy
rate
blending
retail
and
office
retail
for
its
sub-market
was
reflecting
a
vacancy
rate
of
six
and
a
half
percent,
and
that
was
weighted
at
81.4
percent
in
office.
Vacancy
was
17
percent
for
that
sub
market,
and
I
waited
that
at
18.6
percent
to
come
up
with
the
8.5
vacancy
estimate.
G
The
different
occupancies
provide
a
synergy.
The
office
tenants
ideally
will
be
eating
lunch
at
the
restaurants
and
shopping
after
work.
Something
like
that
from
what
I
can
see.
That's
the
direction
the
property
is
going
in,
so
it's
sort
of
is
a
synergy.
It
works
hand
in
hand
with
each
other
complementing
each
other,
and
it's
very
much
like
a
couple.
Other
successful
properties
that
have
recently
been
been
developed
in
the
las
vegas
area
like
downtown
summerlin,
which
opened
about
eight
years
ago,
and
it's
been
tremendously
successful.
G
A
G
G
A
Okay,
that'll
be
a
question
when
we
get
back
to
the
petitioner
there's
a
lot
of
financial
information
in
there,
but
I
wasn't
able
to
piece
it
together
enough
to
be
able
to
answer
that
question,
but
it
might
well
be
in
that
information,
but
that
was
all
for
me
any
other
questions
from
the
board
members.
I
Yes,
my
my
comments
and.
I
Are
similar
to
that
of
bob's
here
with
19
commercial
and
the
understanding
that
there's
a
decrease
demand
currently
for
a
commercial,
and
I
appreciate
the
concept
that
these
that
this
property
is
somewhat
similar
to
downtown
summerlin,
but
downtown
summerlin
summerlin
is
also
relatively
it's
almost
basically
connected
to
a
hotel,
a
b.
You
also
have
kind
of
mixed
use
within
some
of
the
living
space,
so
it
really
does
have
that
life
style
center
that
you
speak
of.
G
Speak
to
okay,
okay,
the
office
space.
G
G
They
are
allowing
or
they
have,
they
have
allowed
a
lease
up,
expense
or
I'm
sorry,
a
tenant
improvement,
expense
of
25
to.
I
think
it
was
forty
dollars
per
square
foot
for
these
tenants.
They
market
it
as
a
class
a
office
and
what
they
do
advertise
or
or
tout
about.
It
is
the
amenities
that
are
offered
at
this
location,
for
example.
This
is
on
sbe
126,
that
the
property
is
at
a
signalized
intersection.
G
I'm
reading
here
unparalleled
on-site
amenities.
A
lot
of
this
office
is
above
the
retail
space.
On
the
first
floor,
parking
is
very
convenient.
There's
three
parking
garages
plus
surface
parking,
so
that's
not
a
problem
at
all
for
office
office
users.
They
need
not
pay
for
parking
that
they
have
to
do
at
a
lot
of
other
locations.
I
I
appreciate
the
the
advertisements,
but
I'm
more
concerned
with,
have
you
been
able
to
show
any
parallels
comparisons
to
any
other
properties
that
are
similar,
not
necessarily
even
similarly
situated
just
within
the
las
vegas
market,
as
it
comes
to
office
space
and
how
we're
approaching
that
in
general,.
G
It's
it's
been
compared
with.
This
is
sbe123.
G
It's
comparable,
it's
very
desirable
space
for
some
tenants
couldn't
be
better
other
tenants.
It's
not
really
their
their
ideal
choice.
It's
been
leasing
up
over
over
several
years
and
the
occupancy
there
now
is.
B
Yes,
I'm
just
wanting
carol
to
address.
I
know
I
I
understand
what
mr
gray's
question
is
and
I
think
we've
got
some
better
information.
I
don't
think
this
is
a
struggling
office
area.
I'm
not
saying
that
it's
great
office
in
general
in
our
valley
has
always
been
struggling
comparative
to
maybe
other
parts
of
the
country
where
they
have
downtown
centers,
and
things
like
that.
B
B
I
apologize
we're
not
prepared
to
address
that
in
in
the
detail
that
I
think
you're
looking
for
here
today,
but
I,
if
I
just
would
like
carol
to
address
that
if
the
vacancy
is
truly
17
and
the
rental
rates
are
supportable
based
on
what
they're
actually
renting
for
right
now,
we
have
not
addressed
that
in
an
aggressive
manner.
I
think
we've
addressed
based
on
what
they've
provided
to
us,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
answering
the
board's
questions
as
best
we
can.
G
Yes,
to
follow
up
office
space
is
about
19
percent
of
their
total
gross
leasable
area,
so
we're
viewing
it
as
a
secondary
component
to
the
primary
space.
E
So
I'm
going
to
change
tac
a
little
bit,
so
I'm
looking
at
the
package,
the
historic
income
statements
that
the
property
owner
provided
and
the
first
question
I've
got
is
this
property
is
now
13
years
old
or
so
had
it
achieved
stabilized
occupancy
prior
to
the
recession
caused
by
covid.
In
your
view,.
E
E
But
I'm
not
entirely
sure
whether
it
is
or
not.
We
show
a
net
operating
income
of
17
million
546,
reflecting
the
the
the
impact
of
the
covid
pandemic.
But
then
we
go
to
your
incomes
or
your
your
income
statement
or
your
analysis
and
bear
with
me
just
a
second.
While
I
find
that
page.
E
If
you
look
at
you're
in
that
operating
income
line
in
that
second
block,
and
I'm
wondering
whether
I'm
missing
something
in
terms
of
net
operating
income,
current
your
projection
versus
a
stabilized
historical,
the
stabilized
historical
data.
G
E
G
G
E
But
even
those
don't
don't
tie
don't
tie
together
because
on
page
86
the
net
operating
income
is
reported
at
17
million
versus
the
14
or
15
million
dollars.
That's
on
page
20.
A
E
There's
expenses
and
I'm
not
sure
where
that
that
number
didn't.
I
don't
think
the
number
that
appears
on
page
20
appears
anywhere
else
in
the
documentation
unless
I'm
missing
something.
E
I
don't
know
where
it
came
from
well,
the
my
concern
is
that
they're
reporting
some
historic
information
for
what
might
be
stabilized
years
in
18
and
19,
which
is
fairly
consistent,
but
is
substantially
below
what
you're
reporting
or
what
you're,
using
as
your
net
operating
income
for
your
discount
or
direct
capitalization
approach,
and
then
I
I
understand
that
you're
reducing
that
by
a
lease
up
cost
to
re
recover
or
return
to
a
stabilized
level.
I
understand
that
component.
It's
just
the
starting
point
seems
to
be
off
by
a
bit.
G
Okay,
our
estimates
of
rent
is
based
on
the
contract
rental
rates,
as
well
as
market
comps
averages
for
the
sub
market
and
rental
rates
for
retail
had
been
increasing
up
through
2019,
so
that
might
account
for
some
of
the
discrepancy.
G
Well,
the
the
earliest
is.
A
I
think
a
lot
of
this
will
be
cleared
up
when
we
ask
the
petitioner
about
it.
Other
income.
There
seems
to
be
a
big
difference
where
the
subject
had
an
annualized
other
income
of
1.3
million
and
20
20..
You've
got
another
income
of
460
000,
so
is
that
percentage
rent?
Are
they
renting
parking
spaces?
What
are
they
doing
to
generate
that?
Other
income.
A
A
And
I'll
wait
for
you
bob
the
difference
on
page
20,
they're,
adding
back
in
their
recoveries
and
the
assessor
nets
them
out,
which
that's
fine
too,
because
they're
looking
at
from
that
perspective,
yeah.
E
But
the
net
still
is
different,
regardless
of
what
occurs
above
that
line,
whether
you're
netting
them
out
or
adding
them
and
subtracting
them
back
and
forth.
The
net
operating
income
should
come
out
the
bottom,
regardless
of
the
method
of
calculating
that
net
operating
income,
is
what
what
we
should
be
looking
at.
A
A
Any
other
questions
from
the
board
at
this
point:
okay,
carol
back
to
you
for
five
minutes,
and
I
will
give
you
longer
we're
gonna,
ask
some
questions
relative
to
actual
income
for
2020
and
what
that
looked
like
versus
what
you
were
scheduled
to
receive.
H
Okay,
yes,
I
was
re
looking
at
my
report
as
as
you
all
were
talking,
and
yes,
originally.
What
we
submitted
was
the
11
month
statement,
which
is
then
annualized
to
with
a
9
cap.
To
give
us-
and
I
had
said,
160
million-
I
met
175
for
an
annualized
value.
Then
it
was,
I
believed,
the
county.
I
I
can't
recall
at
this
moment,
but
I
believe
the
county
requested
more
historical
financials,
so
included
in
this
report
to
the
state
was
then
included.
H
I
did
receive
a
12-month
2020
statement
and
then
also
included
the
19
and
18
statements.
So,
mr
chairman,
you
had
asked
about
how
2020
did
vis-a-vis
their
budget.
I
don't
have
that
information.
These
financials
don't
show
that,
and
I
didn't
ask
that
question
obviously
compared
to
what
18
and
19
how
the
property
was
performing.
H
I
would
agree
with
your
colleague
about
the
net
operating
income
at
you
know,
performance
on
this
property
being
less
than
what
the
the
county
shows
in
their
pro
forma,
and
I
would
agree
that
the
sales
comparables
that
the
county
provided
aren't
you
know,
are
not
really
comparable
at
all,
but
really
this
whole
appeal
is
based
on
what
their
performance
was
in.
2020
also
included
was
a
balance
sheet
from
2020.
H
That
again
highlights
the
fact
of
that
they
were
their
collect.
The
collections
were
way
down
detrimentally
down
as.
H
E
So
I
I
do
again
going
back
to
those
pages
that
I'd
referenced
before.
If
we
look
at
page
94
and
page
90,
showing
net
operating
income
of
around
23
23
and
a
half
million
dollars
does
that
represent.
E
E
And
on
this
on
this
particular
report,
you're
reporting
bad
net
and
uncollectible
rents
at
6.006.
E
Million
dollars,
which
is
different
than
all
of
the
other
numbers
we've
heard
you
know
I
I
did
see
the
number
of
8.6
million
dollars
in
uncollectibles.
E
H
Yeah,
I
I
believe,
if
you
check
the
other
statements-
they're
bad
debt,
the
2018
on
page
91
they're,
showing
a
bad
debt
of
1.2
million
1.794.
I
should
say
I
would
say
drowning
to
2
million
right,
so
it
has
increased.
E
E
A
I'm
gonna
ask
an
easier
question:
capitalization
rate,
nine
percent
is
what
you
put
forth
in
your
letter
at
the
beginning.
What
support
do
you
have
for
the
nine
percent
capitalization
rate.
B
A
A
Do
you
have
any
further
clarity
relative
to
those
tenants
if
the
property
owner
had
any
reasonable
expectation
of
them
reopening,
or
that
is
what
it
is
at
the
end
of
the
day?
That's
the
amount
that
they
didn't
collect
in
revenue
for
the
year
and
those
are
the
comments
that
the
property
owner
understood.
H
A
With
that,
I'm
going
to
close
it
bob
is
madly
scribbling.
So
I
want
to
hear
his
thoughts.
I
have
on
the
surface
problems
capitalizing
the
worst
year
at
a
high
cap
rate.
I
think
that's
counterintuitive.
If
we're
going
to
use
the
lower
income
that
was
generated
in
2020,
that's
probably
a
relatively
safe
income
stream
going
forward
and
should
be
capitalized
lower.
If
we're
going
to
go
down
that
path,
so
you
can't
have
low
income
and
then
capitalize
it
high.
I
don't
think
that's
appropriate,
but
with
that
I
want
to
hear
what
your
thoughts
are
bob.
A
E
Based
upon
the
information,
I
have,
I
think
that
you've
overestimated
the
net
operating
income
on
a
stabilized
basis,
to
the
tune
of
something
in
the
order
of.
E
Seven
million
dollars
I
having
gone
through
this.
I
think
that
your
lease
up
costs
or
your
stabilization
costs
are
are
probably
fairly
reasonable.
I
don't
have
a
overall
disagreement
with
the
overall
capitalization
rate
assuming
stabilization,
but
if
I
substitute
a
what
I
think
is
a
a
more
documentable
net
operating
income
projection.
E
I've
picked
a
number
that
is
better
represented
by
the
2018
and
2019
incomes:
net
operating
incomes
of
23
million
269
000
and
23
million
404
thousand.
I
have
chosen
a
number
near
the
center
of
2
million
or
23
million
300
000
as
a
net
operating
income
on
stabilization.
E
If
I
deduct
your
revised
lease
up
expense
of
two
million
six
hundred
and
seventy
nine
thousand
two
hundred
and
sixty
seven
dollars,
I
end
up
with
a
an,
as
is
value
based
upon
all
of
the
that
that
methodology
of
about
288
million
five
hundred
and
seventy
thousand
seven
hundred
and
thirty
three
dollars
as
as
a
as
is
value
using
again
really.
E
The
only
change
I've
made
is
to
make
a
modification
to
your
net
operating
income
projection
based
upon
the
documentation
that
we've
we
have
available
from
the
property's
actual
operations,
and
so
I
you
know
that
that
I
think
would
address
my
concern
regarding
the
net
operating
income
projection.
E
A
Yeah
bob,
I
appreciate
what
you've
done
there
and
we're
struggling
the
same
thing
as
the
numbers
just
weren't,
adding
up
to
me.
I
do
think,
there's
risk
in
this
type
of
property
office
theater.
It
was
a
tough
year
and
at
the
end
of
the
beginning
of
this
year
january,
1st
2021.
A
H
A
And
where
we're
gonna
get,
there
is
a
capitalization
rate
based
on
existing
income
of
six
percent
and
for
an
investor
buying
it.
I'm
gonna
buy
a
cap
rate
at
six.
I'm
gonna
have
upside
potential.
That
seems
reasonable,
based
on
existing
income.
I
think
the
primary
method
to
ascribe
value
would
be
that
what
you
look
through,
looking
back
at
historical
and
then
making
a
deduction
for
lease
up
costs,
but
I
think,
as
a
secondary
test
of
reasonableness,
here's
this
property
that
was
previously
generating.
E
A
24
million
dollars
a
year,
it's
only
going
to
generate
17
this
year.
I
know
I
have
some
upside
I'm
going
to
pay
a
lower
capitalization
rate
for
it.
I
think
that
supports
your
number
as
well,
so
I
am
comfortable
there
and
the
sales
we
saw
as
comparables
just
weren't
comparable,
a
hundred
thousand
square
foot
retail
only
center
doesn't
compare
and
that's
no
knock
on
the
assessor.
E
So
I've
used
some
rounded
numbers,
but
the
if
we
use
a
value
of
288
million
dollars
and
a
million
two
square
feet.
It
ends
up
at
240
dollars,
a
square
foot
which
seems
to
be
consistent
with
the
two
largest
local
sales
that
we
have.
I
No,
I
I
tend
to
agree
with
the
analysis
my
initial
inclination
was
to
after
reviewing
and
hearing
testimony
was
a
reduction,
and
I
believe
that
this
is
a
well
thought
out
method
of
getting
to
it.
So
there
was
a
motion
I
would
be
likely
to
second
end
or
vote
an
affirmative.
E
I
move
that
the
after
considering
all
of
the
testimony
presented
the
information
presented
in
the
package
in
our
discussion
that,
based
upon
my
prior
conversation,
using
a
net
operating
income,
projection
of
twenty
three
million
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
and
an
overall
capitalization
rate
of
eight
percent,
which
results
in
a
stabilized
value
of
291
million
250
000.
E
We
would
then
deduct
stabilization
costs
as
estimator,
calculated
by
the
assessor
of
22
million
six
hundred
and
seventy
nine
thousand
two
hundred
and
sixty
seven
dollars,
resulting
in
a
current,
as
is
value
of
twenty
two
hundred.
Eighty
eight
million
five
hundred
and
seventy
thousand
seven
hundred
and
thirty
three
dollars
as
a
total
taxable
value,
with
any
difference
between
the
roll
value
and
the
current
taxable
value
being
applied.
As
obsolescence
to
the
improvements.
A
And
any
further
comments,
my
only
comment's
going
to
be
incorporate
in
all
of
our
discussion.
We
had
on
the
record
rel
and
your
motion
for
support
for
how
you
arrived
at
that
I
thought
it
was
well
thought
out
with
that
said,
all
in
favor
say
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
say,
nay,
motion
carries
unanimously
with
that
jeff.
Will
you
give
us
some
guidance
on
how
many
more
cases,
and
if
you
have
a
feel
for
how
long
and
I'm
looking
for,
should
we
take
five
minutes
now
or
should
we
get
done
with
the
agenda.
E
J
A
C
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
under
agenda
item
e
for
possible
action
appeals
from
action
of
the
county
board
of
equalization
pursuant
to
nrs
361
400.
We
have
case
number
21,
150,
sunrise,
mountain
view,
hospital
care
of
hca,
incorporated
commercial
property
located
in
clark
county.
The
petitioner,
neil
wolf
is
available
by
by
zoom,
and
the
clark
county.
Assessor
is
the
respondent.
The
proper
notice
of
hearing
can
be
found
on
page
152
of
your
packet.
F
F
Subject:
property
is
an
acute
care
hospital
located
at
the
southeast
corner
of
west
cheyenne
avenue
and
north
tayana
way
within
the
las
vegas
northwest
market.
Its
street
address
or
postal
address
is
30
50
north
10a
away
the
mountain
view
hospital,
as
it's
known,
consists
of
443
799
square
feet.
It's
a
five-story,
acute
care
hospital
with
class
a-frame
construction
built
in
1995
with
additions
in
2005,
which
results
in
an
effective
age
of
2002
and
is
situated
on
a
28.02
acre
tract.
F
A
J
Okay,
not
to
rehash
the
address
and
what
type
of
property
this
is.
But
it
is
the
mountain
view
house,
hospital,
the
assessor's
office
and
I
have
had
numerous
discussions
amongst
some
of
the
issues
related
to
income
approach,
cost
approach,
market
approach,
this
size
of
a
hospital
of
43
000
square
feet
is,
is
something
which
is
a
little
bit
difficult
to
find
an
example
rep
an
exact
duplicate
or
replica
of
so
of
course,
we
we
use
what
we
can
we've.
J
J
That
part
is
true,
but
the
central
energy
plant
is
still
original
equipment
at
19.95.
That's
26
years
old.
Those
those
items
typically
have
some
sort
of
a
life
between
15
to
20
years.
That
central
energy
plant
is
at
its
end
of
its
life
and
is
there's
having
many
problems
with
it
and
it's
a
difficulty.
Finding
parts
for
those
items
and
those
items
will
be
replaced
very
very
soon.
J
J
I
have
submitted
the
assessor
just
recently
last
week,
estimated
costs
to
replace
the
central
energy
plant
and
that
cost
was
five
million
zero,
seven,
six
zero
zero
that
is
broken
down
between
construction
equipment,
design
and
building
fees.
Again,
that
was
five
million
dollars
originally
at
the
boe.
We
did
not
have
that
estimate.
We
did
not
have
the
luxury
of
it,
so
we
were
using
other
cep
plants,
central
energy
plant
that
had
been
replaced
under
the
umbrella
of
hca
hospitals
across
the
country,
and
they
ranged
anywhere
from
10
million
to
20
million
dollars.
J
The
difference
is
those
were
just
being
replaced
items
all
of
them
oven
itself,
meaning
they
went
in
and
they
dissected.
They
replaced
that
item
only
here.
I
believe
the
original
estimates
would
have
been
higher,
but
they've
downsized,
the
central
energy
plant.
That's
going
to
be
done
next
year.
This
this
works
going
to
start
almost
about
a
year
from
now
and
it's
it's.
The
central
energy
plant
now
is
part
of
the
larger
type
of
a
project.
J
I
don't
have
all
the
specifics
of
the
larger
project,
but
I
do
have
at
least
an
estimate,
a
good
estimate
of
what
it's
going,
to
cost,
to
replace
that
central
energy
plant
and,
from
our
perspective,
any
potential
buyer,
any
potential
investor
that
was
going
to
look
at
this
or
any
potential
user.
That
would
look
at
this
would
say
yep
the
energy
plant
is
at
its
max.
It's
not
just
a
short-lived
item
anymore,
it's
past
its
prime.
It
needs
to
be
replaced
fast
and
today
and
it's
going
to
be
it's
it's.
J
It
will
be
deducted
from
the
box,
at
least
from
the
bottom
line,
and
that's
really
all
we're
asking
for
today
is
some
consideration.
It's
on
at
127
million
dollars,
we're
asking
for
the
five
million
dollars
to
be
knocked
off
of
that,
and
I
have
not
heard
word
back
from
the
assessor's
office
if
they've
taken
that
into
consideration,
because
at
the
boe
hearing
they
did
inform
me
that
they
would
at
least
take
a
look
at
it
if
they
could
get
it
before
the
state
hearing.
J
We
just
got
got
the
information,
I
handed
it
over
as
fast
as
we
could
and
it's
it's
apologize
about
the
phone,
but
I
I
I
hope
that
the
assessor's
office
is
looking
at
it,
because
this
is
specific
information
about
the
property
at
hand,
and
this
item
would
be
taken
into
consideration
by
any
potential
buyer.
And
that's
all
at
this
moment.
E
So
neil
you're,
looking
at
the
120
you're,
looking
at
the
127
million
dollars
as
being
a
reasonable
stabilized
value
if
it
was
if
this
one
item
was
addressed,.
J
Yes,
I
am
from
the
perspective
that
both
the
assessor
and
I
have
looked
at
it
from
the
income
approach
he's
up
here,
I'm
down
here,
but
still
the
assessment
is
right.
In
the
middle
we've
looked
at
some
more
market
sales,
but
again
the
market
sales
are
tough
I'll.
Let
the
assessor
explain
his
position
as
well,
but
at
least
from
a
reasonableness
check.
We've
done
our
due
diligence
and
looked
at
that,
and
I
really
truly
believe
that,
if
that
five
million
dollars
was
knocked
off
of
that
at
least
we'd
be
much
more
of
a
fair
value.
F
Thank
you
board.
One
of
the
things
that
the
case
hinges
on
is,
I
think,
ultimately,
going
to
be
what
the
value
of
the
property
is.
So
I
want
to
be
able
to
take
the
time
to
present
our
summary
of
capitalization,
so
we
can
tell
you
how
we
got
to
the
numbers
we
have
and
that
we
actually
agree
on
to
some
degree
on
this.
Let's
go
to
sbe
100,
which
is
where
we
have
our
capitalization
summary.
F
F
Typically,
that's
done
because
you
don't
have
any
data,
you
don't
have
any
way
to
do
the
analysis,
any
other
way,
you're
kind
of
stuck
over
the
last
five
to
ten
years.
The
data
for
make
doing
this
kind
of
analysis
on
real
property
basis
is
been
exploding.
I
want
to
go
through
just
a
formality
of
the
methodology.
F
We
have
a
leased
rate
for
whatever
that
building
is,
in
this
case
it's
a
hospital.
We
attribute
some
kind
of
vacancy
for
it
in
the
in
a
typical
analysis
on
the
street.
It
would
be
zero
for
this
type
of
property,
because
whoever's
in
this
property
is
not
going
anywhere
ever,
but
as
an
accommodation
to
the
thought
that
there
could
be
vacancy.
We
have
a
vacancy
allowance,
then
we
have
expenses
that
are
deducted
and
those
expenses
are
particular
to
the
type
of
lease
structure.
F
A
F
A
F
And
they're
all
there
and
it's
legible,
that's
what's
best.
Basically,
over
the
last
10
years,
these
types
of
properties
have
started
to
be
purchased
and
the
real
estate
aspects
have
been
purchased
and
then
sold
again
and
again.
This
is
very
similar
to
what
we're
seeing
on
the
strip
right
now
with
with
what's
happening
with
the
real
estate.
F
That's
up
that
the
operator
is,
is
essentially
dwelling
in
all
of
these
reits
nationally
and
and
publicly
exchange
reits
have
specialized
in
various
forms
of
this
type
of
medical
office
space,
and
it
ranges
we
have
typical
medical
office,
which
is
your
what
I
call
light
medical
you
have
dental,
pediatric
and
such
and
so
forth,
and
then,
for
example,
the
first
column
under
a
physician's
realty
trust.
You
end
up
with
specialty,
which
is
lab
imagery.
F
Urgent
care
dialysis,
a
number
of
different
specialty
type
of
services
along
the
line,
you'll
see
that
most
of
the
the
the
net
rents
that
have
been
actually
indicated
in
the
10ks
of
these
companies
are
actually
pretty.
Some
are
pretty
similar,
in
fact,
amazingly
similar,
considering
the
the
vast
geography
that
these
represent
across
the
united
states
about
110
million
square
feet.
So
we
feel
fairly
comfortable
that
this
is
a
number
that
you
can
feel
somewhat
confident
in.
But
I'd
like
to
draw
your
attention
to
two
specific
cases.
F
Ventus
which
is
towards
the
end,
is
third
from
the
end
of
this
list,
and
then
one,
let's
call
the
last
one,
which
is
the
health
peak
properties.
F
Now,
as
we
move
up
the
medical
chain,
if
you
will
of
of
complexity
and
and
the
level
of
acute
care,
there's
a
number
of
different
facility
options
that
are
available,
for
example,
in
most
of
these
others
they're
medical
offices-
they
don't
have
surgical
centers,
they
don't
have.
Typically,
they
don't
have
operating
rooms,
those
kinds
of
things
as
soon
as
you
start
moving
into
the
more
elevated
medical
facilities.
That's
where
you
find
that
ventus
suspicious
excuse
me
specifically
focuses
in
on
medical
office,
that's
class,
a
construction,
that's
kind
of
an
important
one
too.
F
This
is
not
b
class
or
middle
suburbia
kind
of
stuff
and
that
rent
is
considerably
greater,
even
greater
than
that
was
the
health
sciences.
Now,
when
we
first
presented
this
to
the
county
board
at
that
time,
I
had
a
suspicion,
but
I
didn't
have
any
evidence
in
this
particular
case.
The
health
peak
properties
are
life
science,
buildings,
they're,
predominantly
single
tenant,
they're
large
campus.
They
have
class
a
infrastructure
you're
talking
about
positive
and
negative
pressure
systems
within
the
buildings
themselves,
we're
talking
about
infectious
disease
control.
F
F
We
ended
up
using
our
median
and
average
of
which
we're
between
the
median
average
of
23.86
and
26.68,
and
we
basically
said
24.,
that's
where
we
came
up
with
that
that
that
rental
rate
and
that's
incredibly
generous
putting
it
that
way
in
the
same
page
on
101,
one
of
the
things
about
a
triple
net
lease
is
that
there
are.
There
are
some
expenses
that
the
landlord
has
to
pay,
whether
it's
structural
there
could
be
casualty.
There
could
be
a
number
of
other
different
aspects
to
this.
F
All
of
these
reits
report,
most
mostly,
I
should
say
this
and
again
we
took
a
difference
of
our
or
an
average
of
these
different
reported
expenses,
and
we
ended
up
with
about
a
two
dollar
charge
now
interesting
enough.
The
appellant
was
also
he's
using
a
different
methodology.
He
was
using
eight
percent,
but
it
came
out
to
be
at
a
dollar.
Ninety
two
again
we're
very
close
we're
on
the
same
page
along
that
line.
F
F
F
That
indicates
a
number
of
different
ranges
for
capitalization
rates
from
a
number
of
different
providers
and
so
forth.
We
ended
up
actually
reconciling
to
a
seven
percent
capitalization
rate
which,
by
the
way,
was
also
the
appellant's
capitalization
rate
again
we're
sort
of
in
total
on
this
together
on
that
our
calculation,
at
the
end
of
that
was,
we
ended
up
with
a
131
million
871.703
three
and
seven
hundred
three
dollars,
and
that
is
more
than
supports
our
127
as
the
taxable
fair
value.
Now,
why
go
through
all
this?
F
There
seems
to
be
a
little
bit
of
a
misunderstanding
in
terms
of
what
this
process
is,
and
I
apologize
dependent
frankly,
if
I
didn't
make
this
clear,
but
in
any
event,
as
you'll
notice
on
page
100
at
the
bottom,
we
talk
about
the
total
real
property
value.
We
don't
call
that
market
value,
we're
saying
that
within
the
realm
of
reasonability,
these
numbers
make
sense.
We
can
justify
using
them
and
we
can
come.
We
can
provide
some
relationship
of
value
to
that
particular
real
property,
and
this
percent
we're
not
calling
it
market
value.
F
F
If
somebody's
going
to
sell
a
property.
As
you
all
know,
real
estate
is
opportunistic
they're
not
going
to
try
to
be
a
nice
guy
or,
let's
be
fair
and
they're
going
to
try
to
get
as
much
as
they
possibly
can
and
the
other
guy's
going
to
hold
them
to
the
to
the
grindstone.
As
so.
Our
24
dollars
is
extremely
conservative,
and
if
this
property
were
in
fact
to
sell
I'm
estimating
on
a
true
market
value
analysis
we're
closer
to
189
million
to
212..
F
F
This
is
where
the
propellant
and
I
actually
agree,
100,
and
that
is
that
if
somebody
were
to
purchase
the
property
and
they
knew
of
this
expense
that
had
to
be
done
and
whether
it's
4
million
or
6
million
or
5.1,
the
reality
is
that
that
would
be
taken
into
consideration
in
that
offer.
Now
it
would
be
done
two
ways,
one.
They
would
say
you
give
me
a
credit
and
I'll
take
care
of
the
problem.
F
F
Our
127
million
is
not
market
value.
It's
our
taxable
total
taxable
value.
So
if
the
property
would
sell
for
150
140
180,
whatever
those
numbers
are-
and
you
took
the
5
million
off
to
make
that
accommodation-
then
you'd
be
probably
pretty
right
on
that,
and
I
think
that's
exactly
the
way
the
market
would
operate.
That
doesn't
really
have
to
do
with
our
taxable
value,
which
is
more
than
supported
by
the
data
that
we
have.
F
There's
a
there's,
a
discussion
about
depreciation
and
when
we
look
at
our
statutory
obligation
at
one
point,
five
percent,
we
end
up
with
the
concept
of
unity
of
construction,
there's
no
segregation
between
different
components
or
parts
of
these
kinds
of
things.
We
know
that
all
buildings
have
longer
term
life
elements
or
components,
and
we
know
that
they
have
shorter
time
elements.
So
when
we
look
at
our
depreciation,
it
includes
all
of
those
different
things.
We
do
have
some
depreciation
a
significant
amount
actually
in
this
particular
property.
That
accommodates
that.
F
As
an
aside
your
now,
thank
you,
marianne
for
bringing
that
up.
If
you'll
go
to
page
95,
sbe95
apologize.
F
F
It
doesn't
go
to
zero
when
you
most
people
confuse
a
counting
straight
straight-line
depreciation
with
real
estate
depreciation
or,
in
this
particular
case,
extended
life
depreciation.
We
know
that
at
some
point
in
time
a
building
is
going
to
have
well
in
personal
property.
They
would
call
it
a
salvage
value,
but
in
our
world
we
would
really
call
that
value
in
use.
It
goes
from
value
and
exchange
to
value
and
use
in
this
table.
It's
not
a
straight
line.
F
It
actually
curves
over
time,
and
I
appreciate
the
appellant's
comment
that
the
individual
component
may
have
a
a
shorter
life
than
the
entire
unity
of
the
of
the
property,
but
for
our
purposes
we're
looking
at
the
actual
effective
age
of
the
property.
In
this
case
it
would
be
19
years,
but
I'm
just
for
sake
of
mathematics,
let's
just
say,
20,
to
make
it
easy.
If
we
take
the
effective
age
in
years
on
the
left-hand
column
and
then
bring
it
across
to
the
40-year
lifespan
of
the
property
we
end
up
with
roughly
30
percent
of
depreciation.
F
That's
the
statutory
limit
as
well,
so
we're
not
out
of
line
with
the
depreciation
on
the
property
along
that
line
in
any
property
you're
going
to
have
the
ongoing
replacement
of
different
components
over
time.
That's
expected.
That's
understood.
In
fact,
this
table
is
generated
by
thousands
of
buildings
that,
where
the
actual
depreciation
at
different
points
in
time
have
been
extracted
from
their
market
sales,
so
I
think
this
is
fairly
valid
for
what
we're
doing
here,
but
at
this
particular
point
in
time
the
property
is,
I
think,
appropriately
depreciated.
A
Thank
you.
My
question
on
sbe
five,
the
petitioner
says
in
bullet
point
one.
The
assessor's
cost
approach
applies
a
70-year
life
to
the
hospital
buildings
and,
if
I
just
heard
you
correct
on
page
95,
it
sounded
like
it
was
a
40-year
life
that
was
applied.
So
can
you
provide
us
some
guidance?
What
do
you
actually
do.
F
We
have
a
50-year
maximum
life,
and
now
that
means
75
percent
in
depreciation.
Interesting
enough,
that's
very
close
to
the
80
we
have
on
the
table
over
here.
So
when
we're
looking
at
the
70-year
life,
I
think
there
was
just
a
little
bit
of
confusion
by
taking,
though
the
1.5
or
whatever
on
the
opponent's
case,
but
he
can
speak
to
that
himself
and
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
that
at
all
to
say
that
it
should
be
adjusted
to
a
more
realistic
50
year.
F
F
60
50..
We
were
looking
at
50
to
60
a
40
to
60-year
depreciations
and
they
were
still
selling
for
120
bucks,
a
foot
well
that
goes
right
back
to
that
salvage
value.
The
reason
why
we're
not
using
the
data
right
now
is
because
all
that
data
had
certain
there's.
These
are
very
complex
sales,
for
example.
First
one
1.8
million
square
feet,
fine
call
up
the
assessor
in
that
area,
chatham
county.
I
think
it
is
in
any
case
talk
to
him
about
that.
What
do
you
have
on
the
sale,
blah
blah
blah?
F
Well,
the
building
and
everything
we
have
for
this
property
is
1.4
million
square
feet.
I
said:
well,
I
just
got
information,
that's
1.8.
He
said
I
would
love
to
know
where
they're
hiding
the
400
000
square
feet.
It's
there's
just
messy
data,
oh
wait!
A
minute
it
sold
for
483
million
dollars,
of
which
185
million
dollars
was
allocated
for
the
real
estate.
F
Well,
we
forgot
to
mention
the
other
259
million
dollars
that
they
had
committed
to
refurbish
the
property.
That's
a
post-sale
adjustment.
These
things
get
very
complex.
So
after
looking
through
a
lot
of
these
different
data
points,
it
became
clear
that
we
really
couldn't
use
those
particular
data
sales.
In
one
case,
they
had
a
sale
that
actually
had
19
building
separate
from
the
hospital.
Well,
you
can't
use
common
size
percentages
or
or
any
kind
of
unit
of
comparisons
for
that
kind
of
stuff.
F
It's
just
messy
data,
I'm
not
in
any
way
imputing
the
integrity
of
the
offer.
No,
no!
No!
No!
I
don't
believe
they
had
that
data.
I
just
I'm
a
porn
researcher,
so
I
dig
into
this
stuff,
so
I'm
like.
On
the
other
hand,
we
have
been
collecting
data
and
I
do
have
some
sales
and
for
four
leased
properties
that
all
were
from
2003,
as
I
recall
to
2018
in
terms
of
construction,
so
they're
not
1960
or
1950,
builds
they're,
very
modern
types
of
facilities
and
they're.
All
the
average
of
those
is
right
around
between.
F
I
think
the
median
is
523
dollars
per
square
foot
and
the
average
is
for
543.,
so
to
suggest
that
297
is,
or
whatever
we're
at
is
is
is
is
is
not
a
has
got,
not
a
good
number.
It's
not
ridiculous.
The
appellant's
not
saying
that
he's
trying
to
apply
an
adjustment
to
that
value,
and
I
think
it's
to
the
wrong
number.
We
agree
that
it
should
be
applied
to
the
market
value.
F
That
we
don't
have
that's
new
information.
I
think
that's
that
would
be.
F
Well,
on
sbe
115,
we
have
a
number
of
sales
that
we
have
locally.
I'm
not
hanging
my
head
on
these
sales
they're,
not
exactly.
F
I
don't
want
to
imply
that,
but
the
average
for
the
for
sales
for
sales,
three,
four
five
and
six,
the
average
is
like
631
dollars
a
foot,
it's
very
critical
when
we're
looking
at
these
types
of
facilities
to
understand
the
number
of
operating
rooms
they
have,
because
that's
the
high
profit
center
within
the
hospital
and
I'd
be
able
to
adjudicate
the
various
sales
on
those
types
of
metrics.
So
I
have
I
said
I
I
got
this
information
late.
F
A
I'm
going
to
keep
it
more
high
level
and
round
rough
terms
or
depreciated
value
in
place
of
the
improvements.
I
think
you
guys
are
at
112
million
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
for
the
current
tax
year.
Assume
that's
been
depreciated
already
by
30
percent.
That
would
indicate
about
50
million
dollars
in
depreciation
that
you
that
the
assessment
already
recognizes.
F
A
Just
in
a
general
range,
so
significant
depreciation,
we're
talking
about
a
five
million
dollar
item
here
and
you've
already
recognized
50
million
dollars
of
depreciation.
That
is
to
account
for
some
of
the
short-lived
items
that
don't
last
the
entire
economic
life
of
the
structure,
such
as
20
years
for
an
hvac
system,
central
plan,
correct,
okay,
any
other
questions.
I
I
From
its
profit
source
perspective
in
that
hospitals,
a
are
required
to
indigent
services,
you
mean
medicaid
and
different
things
like
that.
So
how
did
that
kind
of
weight
into
your
calculation
when
you're?
Looking
at
a
hospital
versus
kind
of
I
know,
one
of
the
comparisons
here
was
like
more
of
just
a
surgical
suite.
F
In
this
particular
case,
we
have
a
situation
in
the
marketplace
where
the
a
purchaser
is
not
really
buying
the
hospital
they're
buying
the
hospital
real
estate,
and
so
the
operation
or
the
operator
is
an
entirely
separate
entity.
But
I
will
say
this
related
to
what
your
question
is.
If
I
can
segue
just
for
a
second,
I
mentioned
that
you
know.
If
you
look
at
the
101
page
101,
we
have
a
lot
of
sales,
metal
sales
rents
for
millions,
hundreds
of
millions
of
square
feet
at
between
basically
24
and
26.
F
Why
is
that?
Why
would
that
be?
Why
all
across
the
country
in
all
different
parts
of
the
country
in
all
different
regions?
Well,
there's
such
a
thing
as
economic
feasibility,
and
what
we
have
here
is
that
we
have
payors
who
can
only
pay
so
much
for
their
different
procedures
or
their
different
levels
of
care.
And
so
at
that
point
the
operator
is
literally
relegated
to
being
limited
to
only
paying
a
certain
amount
and
assuming
they
want
to
make
a
profit.
F
I'm
assuming
they
do
so
in
one
hand,
it's
limited
by
what's
getting
paid
over
here,
but
for
our
purposes
we
look
at
the
market
and
we're
saying
what
are
people
highly
intelligent
people
willing
to
pay
as
a
lease
knowing
what
they're
going
to
be
paid
because
they're
the
operators.
So
we
don't
really
have
that
now.
Another
angle
of
this,
and
and
and
neil
can
can
back
me
up
on
this,
but
we
asked
hca
directly
were
they
involved
in
the
ppp
and
whatever
like
that,
and
we
were
not
only
told
that
was
also
true.
F
But
surprisingly,
the
hospitals
did
fairly
well
there's
only
like
three
or
four
in
the
entire
178
hospitals.
They
have
that
were
were
in
trouble
and
that
had
to
do
with
very
specific
regionality
issues
and
such
and
so
forth.
But
the
rest
of
them
they
actually
came
out
pretty
strong.
Basically,
you
had
higher
utilization
at
a
lower
rate
and
it
averaged
itself
out
and
what
was
different.
The
differential
was
in
some
cases
made
out
of
from
the
ppp
cost,
so
they
they
weren't
hurt
that
way
at
all,
but
did
that
did
that
answer
your
question.
B
Mr
gray,
I
would
like
to
just
add
that
we
did
not
look
at
the
business
value
of
the
hospital
that
tom's
analysis
really
addressed
the
rental
rate
of
what
they
would
release
that
property
for
and
then
function
as
a
hospital
similar
to
just
somebody
renting
an
office
space
but
renting
a
hospital.
If
we
had
taken
those
things
into
consideration
in
our
income,
then
we
would
have
had
to
do
some
other
deductions
to
get
us
back
to
that
real
property
value
which
we
have
done
by
the
way
in
the
past.
B
We
have
not
had
this
kind
of
data.
Tom
wallace
has
really
dug
in
and
done
a
lot
of
research
to
get
us
this
data.
So
we're
really
thankful
that
we
have
it.
I
think
it
gives
us
a
more
valid
starting
place
when
we
can
really
just
look
at
the
real
estate.
I
And
so
my
concern
and
again
just
looking
kind
of
at
the
real
estate
component
of
it
is,
I
mean
nevada's
hospital
system
differs
from
most
state
hospital
systems,
whether
it
be
teaching
hospitals
or
private,
owned
hospitals
or
county
hospitals
or
whatever
the
case
may
be.
So
even
when
we
look
at
that
rental
rate,
has
there
been
any
accounting
at
all
to
divide
and
separate
that
out
and
if
not
that's
okay,
I
just
you
mean
curious
as
to
how
how
deep
down
you're
in
the
rabbit
hole
we
want
on
that.
F
No
there's
not,
and
in
fact
it
gets
to
the
point
where,
if
you're
reading
those
10ks
for
these
different
reads,
they
specifically
don't
want
to
be
involved
in
any
capacity
with
any
form
of
management
anyway,
at
all,
in
a
kind
of
a
weird
way.
It's
a
it's
a
big
item.
Let's
face
it,
it's
500,
you
know
450
000
square
feet
and
it's
mailbox
money
for
these
guys.
They
send
them
a
check.
That's
what
that
is
now
the
negotiation
of
that
process.
To
get
to
that
rental
rate
is
where
the
where
the
secret
sauce
is.
F
There
are
other
reits
in
there
medical
property
trust
which
only
buys
hospitals,
but
those
are
really
specifically
geared
to
sale,
lease
back
arrangements,
where
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
I
can
develop
for
my
rate,
a
stream
of
income,
an
income
stream,
that's
secure
and
constant,
and
you
want
to
be
able
to
unlock
some
value
from
your
hospital,
and
so
we
work
together
on
that,
and
it's
really
not
a
to
say
it's
not
at
arm's
length
is
too
far
because
it
truly
is,
but
it's
not
market
driven.
F
You
know
you
have
blackstone,
you
have
other
people
like
that
who
are
buying
chunks
of
the
real
estate
on
the
strip,
well,
they're
paying
this
money,
and
I'm
thinking
at
some
point
in
their
futures
they're,
going
to
trade
that
they
can't
pay
too
much
and
sure
as
heck,
mgm
or
caesar's
is
not
going
to
take
too
little
so
they're
already
putting
into
their
calculus
into
their
secret
sauce
the
fact
that
of
their
disposition,
whereas
some
of
these
places
like,
for
example,
medical
trust,
I
don't
they
they
clearly
say
our
goal
is
to
buy
and
and
as
many
hospitals
as
we
can
period.
F
That's
their
growth
path.
They
don't
have
anything
in
their
in
their
portfolio.
That
says,
we're
can't
wait
to
sell
all
this
stuff.
It
doesn't
exist,
so
there's
slightly
different
numbers
of
kind
of
nuances
or
metrics
to
what's
being
done
along
this
line,
but
yeah
these
are
straight
rental
rates.
It's
not
to
give
you
an
idea.
Actually
it's
a
great
question.
F
Hda
was
forthcoming
enough
to
provide
us
with
the
one
lease
that
they
were
aware
of,
and
that
was
in
for
1.8
million
square
feet
called
the
medical
center
in
dallas,
and
that
was
the
first
time.
I've
ever
come
across
a
lease
that
had
a
base
rate
and
then
a
percentage
rent
for
the
hospital.
F
Now,
all
of
the
other.
That's
the
only
one.
I've
come
across
period
in
two
years
of
research,
so
that's
a
unique
scenario
along
the
lines.
So
yes,
in
that
particular
instance,
the
landlord
was
willing
to
take
a
lower
base
rate,
and
then
you
know
bet
on
the
come
to
see
what
these
guys
could
operate
against.
J
I
guess
I
tried
to
make
this
short.
Obviously
the
assessor's
response
was
not
the
same
direction.
I
guess
I
thought
I
was
going
so
I
understand
the
assessor
on
page
101
of
the
report
talks
about
the
rental
rates
again
and
I
I
guess
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
the
very
top,
the
fourth
line
down
that
says
thousands
of
square
feet
per
building,
there's
not
one
building
over
a
hundred
thousand
square
feet
in
this
study.
J
I
I
told
thomas
that
the
first
time
we
talked
about
it
and
he's
still
using
it.
So
again,
these
rates
don't
apply
to
the
same
type
of
a
hospital.
There's
not
one
hospital
on
there,
fifty
thousand
square
feet
and
in.
If
you
have
a
true
type
of
a
hospital
you
have
hallways.
You
have
common
areas.
You
have
cafeterias
that
would
not
drive
the
type
of
rents
that
the
smaller
type
of
facilities
do.
That's
why
they
can
charge
higher
rents
is
because
the
revenue
per
square
foot's
higher
significantly
higher.
J
So
these
aren't
really
even
comparable,
the
assessors
page
102
through
100,
whatever
he
wants
to
talk
about
properties
that
have
that
have
sold
in
in
nevada,
well,
672
dollars
a
square
foot.
I
need
to
research
this
sale
because
these
sales
price
per
square
foot
are
significantly
high
and
higher
than
even
most
of
all
of
the
sales
that
I've
seen
in
california.
J
I
did
a
national
study
of
sales
and
these
are
the
top
three
and
when
you,
if
you
back
into
it,
to
get
the
rents,
which
I
don't
agree
with
backing
into
it
because
number
one
they
don't
know
anything
about
the
sale.
So
how
can
you
back
into
it
to
come
up
with
a
rent,
not
to
mention
every
one
of
these
are
30
to
40
000
square
feet
as
well.
So
it
goes
right
in
with
this
spreadsheet,
so
it
it's
it's.
It's
incredible
bad
information
again.
J
Going
back
to
my
analysis,
on
page
sbe
20
I
mean
I,
I've
submitted
some
sales
as
well,
but
but
some
of
them
are
actually
the
same
sales
as
what
the
assessor
had,
and
we
talked
about
those
how
they're
kind
of
your,
or
at
least
irrelevant,
from
the
perspective
of
size
and
price
per
square
foot.
There's
nothing
on
there.
J
There's
actually
one
that's
over
actually
two
over
a
hundred
thousand
square
feet
and
one
of
them
is
108
dollars
a
square
foot,
significantly
less
per
square
foot
than
what
we're
being
assessed
at
and
my
page
spe.
19
was
my
income
approach,
everything's
the
same
as
I
have
on
on
here
with
the
assessor,
except
for
the
rent.
I
use
17
dollars
a
square
foot
and
I'll
probably
concede
that
I
could
probably
go
to
20
to
22,
and
if
I
went
to
22
that
amounts
to
a
cap
rate
of
119
million
dollars
in
value.
J
That's
without
any
deduction
for
the
central
energy
plan.
Again,
I'm
showing
a
value
less
than
what
it's
being
on
at
the
assessor's,
showing
something
above
that
and
and
again,
I'm
I'm
trying
to
make
this
simple
from
one
adjustment.
From
a
cost
adjustment
of
the
central
energy
plant,
that's
going
to
be
replaced.
We
have
a
very
good
estimate
of
value,
that's
in
the
assessor's
hands
and
that's
5076,
and
that's
the
only
adjustment
that
we're
requesting
today
and
I
believe
it's
a
very
fair
ask.
That's
all
I
have
thank
you.
A
Question
for
you,
neil
and
just
making
sure
I'm
understanding
your
criticism
correctly
of
the
average
square
foot
of
the
comparables.
The
numbers
are
in
thousands.
It
says
I
take
that
to
be.
This
is
the
aggregate
square
feet
that
this
reit
owns
and
then
a
couple
lines
down
says
the
number
of
buildings
so
to
get
the
average
building
size,
it
would
be
adding
three
zeros
to
the
total
square
footage
and
then
dividing
by
number
of
buildings,
and
you
come
up
with
somewhere
between
25
to
60
000
square
feet
for
a
lot
of
those
properties.
J
You
are
correct,
that's
the
way,
I'm
looking
at
it,
and
even
when
you
go
across
there,
I
think
the
largest
one.
Well,
that's
even
from
iran.
Their
iron
studies
are
80
83
000
square
feet,
but
yes,
there's
a
significantly
smaller
types
of
assets
that
you're
comparing
a
400
000
square
foot
hospital
to
and
within,
and
if
you
have
a
30
or
40
or
50
000
square
foot
type
of
a
facility
where
you're
making
money
on
85
percent
of
the
square
footage.
J
That's
why
those
rents
are
there,
but
when
you
have
a
hospital
with
hallways
of
40
foot
wide
and
30
foot
wide,
where
you
can't
draw
income
from
and
you've
a
number
of
operating
rooms,
not
to
mention
this
facility
again
was
built
in
95
many
of
the
rooms
upstairs
are
multi
rooms.
They
can
only
put
one
person
in
there
I
mean
the
way
they
build.
A
hospital
today
is
significantly
different
than
what
they
would
build,
one
in
95..
J
E
I
was
I'm
trying
to
paw
through
the
information
and
find
the
reference.
The
assessor
is
reporting
this
building
at
about
443
000
square
feet.
Someplace.
I
read
that
the
there
had
been
subsequent
additions
that
brought
the
square
footage
up
to
us
around
611
000
square
feet.
Am
I
misinterpreting
the
information,
or
was
that
a
comp
that
I
was
looking
at.
A
B
Chairman
johnson,
I
just
want
to-
I
don't
know
what
year
it
was,
but
it
was
in
the
recent
in
the
past
five
years
they
have
done
and
a
what
am
I
trying
to
say,
they've
added
square
footage
to
this
building,
but
it's
already
included
in
our
record.
So
they
believe
they
added
at
least
two
floors
of
possibly
three
floors
to
one
of
the
one
side
of
the
hospital.
B
E
County
board
second
paragraph
regarding
depreciation
staff,
advised
that
the
hospital
constructed
in
1995
covered
443,
000
square
feet.
The
additions
increased
the
square
feet
to
611
000
and
the
building
is
being
depreciated
28
and
a
half
percent.
B
Yes,
I
I
think
that
we
have
a
new,
it's,
not
a
new
clerk,
but
a
new
person
that
takes
the
verbal
testimony.
That's
given
at
the
county
board
and
translates
it.
We
don't
have
a
direct
transcript
here,
so
it
may
be
the
way
that
they
typed
it.
We
didn't
read
that
in
detail.
The
total
building
is
611
901
square
feet.
That
includes
all
three
buildings
parking
garage,
the
main
hospital
and
then
another.
B
B
A
B
A
No,
I
digress,
but
thank
you
for
that.
Any
other
questions
now
for
neil
before
we
close
this
and
deliberate.
A
With
that
and
neil,
I
think
I
saw
your
head
nod,
but
you
don't
dispute
the
building
area,
as
reported
by
the
assessor.
Do
you.
A
Thank
you
with
that
said.
I
want
to
close
this
and
my
thoughts
here
are
the
first
primary
argument.
I
don't
buy
relative
to
the
70-year
life
that
seemed
to
be
the
primary
argument
is
you've
used
a
70-year
economic
life,
but
the
assessors
used
a
40-year
economic
life
and
they've
got
substantial
depreciation.
I
do
think
that
the
hvc
system
needed
to
be
replaced
a
significant
item,
but
that's
taken
into
account
in
the
roughly
50
million
dollars
of
depreciation.
A
I
do
think
that
there's
some
other
arguments
relative
to
the
appropriateness
of
much
smaller
facilities,
facilities
that
are
surgical
in
nature,
not
broad-based,
like
a
general
hospital
and
the
economics,
are
significantly
different,
but
I
didn't
get
left
feeling
that
there
was
anything
I
could
sink
my
teeth
into
other
than
what
the
assessor
did
and
when
I
get
left
in
that
feeling.
Generally,
I
go
back
to
it's
a
petitioner's
job
to
compel
me
and
they
have
the
burden
to
prove
their
case,
and
I
didn't
feel
here
that
they
carried
that
burden.
E
So,
regarding
the
depreciation,
nevada,
really
they've,
they've
separated
the
depreciation
from
the
age
life
model.
They
statute
requires
a
one
and
a
half
percent
per
year.
That's
just
what
statute
requires
it.
The
the
the
basis
of
the
nevada
tax
system
is
not
ad
valorem.
It's
a
bifurcated
system
with
a
market
value
of
land
and
depreciated
replacement,
cost
of
new
of
the
improvements
with
one
and
a
half
percent
per
year
depreciation
based
upon
its
effective
age.
It's
not
re,
you
know
it.
E
It
has
its
roots
in
an
age
life
model,
but
that
is
the
statutory
depreciation
without
regard
to
its.
You
know
it's
the
same
for
grain
silos
as
it
is
for
7-elevens
it's
one
and
a
half
percent
per
year
for
improvements,
and
so
the
the
the
the
argument
regarding
a
a
life
you
know
an
estimated
economic
life
is,
is
not
it's
relevant
to
a
certain
degree,
but
it's
not
the
basis
of
what
the
depreciation
is.
It's
statutory.
So
so
I'm
not
you
know.
I
don't
think
that
that's
that's
a
particularly
relevant
argument.
E
I
agree
with
ben
that,
using
that
one
and
a
half
percent
per
year
depreciation,
this
property
would
have
a
a
replacement
cost
new,
including
land
value
of
about
178
million
dollars.
E
E
I'm
back
so
this
is.
This
is
unique
to
the
the
circumstances
that
we've
faced
in
the
past,
where
the
these
elements
of
of
unique
depreciation.
What
we've
seen
in
the
past
is
a
clear
calculation
or
clear
estimate
by
the
property
owner
that
the
that
the
assessed
value
or
the
taxable
value
exceeds
market
value.
E
We've
come
to
a
stabilized
market
value
and
then
deducted
these
unusual
elements
of
depreciation.
It
could
be
in
a
residential
circumstance,
a
roof
that
needs
to
be
replaced
or
a
foundation,
that's
damaged
or
something
like
that,
and
we
do
make
those
deductions
from
the
market
value
when
the
market
value
is
already
demonstrably
below
where
we
are
on
the
taxable
value.
But
this
is
an
unusual
circumstance
where
the
the
market
value
appears
to
be
higher
than
the
taxable
value.
E
And
so,
if
we
look
at
that
paradigm,
where
we're
deducting
some
replaceable
item
from
a
market
value,
it
still
doesn't
appear
to
drop
below
the
taxable
value
that
that's
been
established,
and
so
that
that
was
my
thought
process.
It.
It's
kind
of
a
rhetorical
comment,
but
it
points
out
that
there
is
a
difference
in
this
circumstance
between
many
of
the
ones
where,
in
fact,
we
have
made
that
deduction
for
a
a
curable
item
of
depreciation
in
the
past,
and
I
didn't
want
to
make
that
distinction.
I
I
Here
I
am,
and
I
I
do
continue
to
hold
reservations
and
the
only
reservation
really
is
centered
around
the
difference
in
between
the
comps
and
the
business
models,
I'm
again
having
an
appreciation
and
understanding
of
how
hospitals,
essentially
their
profit
centers,
and
how
that
works
and
understanding
again
that
when
you
have
a
large-scale
hospital
as
appellate
discussed,
whether
you're
looking
at
hallway
sizes
or
or
cafeterias,
and
things
like
that
or
you
mean
frankly
when
you
look
at
again,
comparing
it
to
surgical
centers,
where
truly
there's
a
welcome
room
and
then
surgical
base.
I
Those
are
going
to
drive
profits,
much
different
than
a
hospital
that
has
a
room
that
usually
is
meant
to
accommodate,
even
something
as
simple
as
guests,
which
again
is
not
a
profit
center.
So
those
are
my
only
reservations.
But
again,
I
do
believe
that
a
thorough
job
has
been
done
by
the
assessor's
office.
E
I
I
still
have
I'm
not
done.
Oh,
it
appears
so
regarding
the
size
issues,
the
the
size
and
the
the
investment
magnitude.
I
do
note
that
it
would
have
been
helpful
to
do
a
little
bit
more
research.
If
you
look
at
if
we
were
to
refer
to
page
106,
the
dignity,
health
sale
in
the
sales
history,
it
reports
that
there
was
a
sale
of
12
properties
that
sold
for
156
million
dollars
and
another
portfolio
or
possibly
the
same
portfolio
that
sold
for
143
million
dollars
that
begins
to
address.
E
You
know
in
in
gross
terms
the
magnitude
of
the
purchase
of
this
property,
where
you
know
we're
looking
at
the
a
market
value
of
100
to
130
million
dollars,
140
million
dollars
someplace
in
that
neighborhood.
E
So
while
it
it
doesn't
reflect
exactly
this
com,
this
this
property,
a
sale
that
involves
156
million
dollar
strike
price,
probably
involves
something
in
the
order.
Four
or
five
hundred
thousand
square
feet.
Although
it
is
divided
between
the
number
of
properties.
Further
research
on
that
sale
or
those
two
con
portfolio,
sales
would
would
have
been
useful.
Just
from
a
magnitude
perspective.
B
B
B
E
I
I
might
want
to
add
to
the
to
the
motion
that
we
as
a
board
believe
that
the
50
million
dollars,
51
million
dollars
in
depreciation,
that's
already
being
reflected
in
the
taxable
value
most
likely
includes
the
five
million
dollars
in
depreciation
applicable
to
the
energy
plant.
That
needs
replacement.
C
A
Do
your
motion,
okay,
so
bob's
comments
are
incorporated
into
the
motion.
Do
I
have
a
second
second
with
that
being
said,
any
further
comments
from
board
members
seen
as
none
all
in
favor
vote.
I
I
any
opposed
vote.
Nay
motion
carries
unanimously
with
that
jeff.
Is
there
anything
else
on
the
agenda
for
today.
C
A
Great
and
with
that,
I
want
to
have
public
comment
before
we
close
for
today.
So
if
anyone
wants
to
give
public
comment
here,
please
raise
your
hand,
so
you
know
that
you're
coming
forward,
we'll
allow
you
and
then
christina.
Please
open
up
the
phone
line
too
and
just
see
if
there
is
anyone.
That's
interested.
Thank.
H
F
Yeah
this
is
my
first
time
in
front
of
the
both
the
county
and
the
state
boards,
and
I
just
wanted
to
tell
you
guys
that
your
discussion,
your
analytical,
going
through
analytical
analysis
going
through
the
data
looking
at
the
different
issues,
as
I
was
listening
to
some
of
these
cases-
and
I
was
kind
of
you
know
getting
behind
one
or
another
points
of
view,
and
then
somebody
would
bring
up
a
point
of
view
and
I'd
say,
wait
a
minute.
I
didn't
think
of
that.
A
Thank
you
and
our
respect
to
your
office.
You
guys
do
a
really
good
job
and
that's
a
really
important
function
for
our
state
and
clark
county
to
operate
correctly.
So
there's
a
lot
of
respect.
We
know
that
we
dig
in
and
it's
in
one
avenue
I
just
never
want
to
take
it
personal,
because
overall,
the
quality
that
comes
out
of
your
office
is
exceptional.
So
we're
very
appreciative-
and
those
were
very
well
prepared
cases
today.
E
Well-
and
I
marianne
and
I
had
been
chatting
earlier
that
you
know
given
the
nature
of
the
problems
that
we
faced
in
2020
with
the
pandemic
and
early
in
21.
I
want
to
thank
you
guys,
and
I
think
that
it
will
be
reflected
by
the
other
assessors
throughout
the
state
that
you
guys
have
done
a
great
job
in
addressing
this
particular
problem.
E
This
time,
because
it
is
without
precedent-
and
I
I
had
nightmares
of
having
thousands
of
appeals
that
were
that
were
horribly,
complex
and
and
you
you've
been
able
to
to
come
up
with
a
model
that
really
resulted
in
an
astonishingly
low
number
of
appeals.
And
I
do
appreciate
that.
I
Yeah-
and
I
would
just
like
to
go
on
echo
and
go
and
echo
those
comments
and
then
also
thank
the
staff
much
like
here.
This
was
actually
my
first
hearing
in
person,
so
it's
nice
to
see
everybody
and
thank
you
so
much
to
the
staff,
christina
jeff
and
michelle
and
vanessa
for
getting
us
all
taken
care
of
today.
We
definitely
appreciate
you
and
it's
nice
to
be
back
in
person.