►
From YouTube: 7/19/2021 - State Board of Equalization, Pt 1
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
We
are
calling
this
meeting
to
order.
This
is
the
july
19th
meeting
of
the
state
board
of
equalization.
This
meeting
is
being
held
in
person
at
the
grant,
sawyer
building
in
las
vegas
and
also
over
zoom
stay
with
me.
I
have
glen
trowbridge
to
my
right.
I've
got
bob
schiffmacker
to
my
left
and
I
have
tyree
gray.
A
A
So
some
things
I'm
going
to
read
through
here:
please
silence
all
devices
to
speak
in
carson
city
or
las
vegas
press
the
mic
button
at
your
seat.
The
light
will
light
up
when
speaking
adjust
the
mic.
So
it's
pointed
directly
at
your
mouth
position
yourself
about
six
inches
from
the
mic.
If
you
have
a
soft
voice
get
closer,
if
your
voice
is
loud,
get
further
away,
press
the
mic
button
again
to
mute
the
mic
when
you're
done
speaking,
to
request
to
speak
on
the
zoom
call.
A
Please
raise
click
on
the
raise
hand
icon
or
on
your
device
put
dial
star
9
on
your
phone
use,
only
one
mic
at
a
time
all
participants,
please
mute
your
mics
when
you
are
not
speaking
and
the
last
christina.
I
think
you
can
see
when
someone's
raised
their
hand.
So
please
let
us
know
when
someone's
raised
their
hand
and
we
will
follow
along
next.
Some
general
rules
for
the
hearing
we'll
go
over
ground
rules.
A
Do
not
talk
when
members
of
state
board
of
equalization
are
talking,
do
not
speak
unless
you
have
the
permission
of
the
chairman,
when
the
chairman
gives
you
permission
to
speak,
speak
to
the
members
of
the
state
board,
not
to
anyone
else.
Do
not
raise
your
voice
or
act
in
a
hostile
or
aggressive
manner.
Do
not
speak
down
to
demean
or
harass
anyone
in
the
proceeding
or
meeting
unless
it's
bob
schiffmacker.
If
you
want
to
move
from
behind
the
table,
ask
the
chairman
for
permission
to
do
so.
A
Handouts
such
as
evidence
must
be
handed
to
state
board
coordinator
for
delivery
to
the
state
board.
Members
do
not
interrupt
anyone.
Do
not
argue
with
the
chairman
state
board.
Members
or
the
parties
to
the
hearing
do
not
speak,
make
noise
or
gesture
with
your
body
when
someone
else
is
speaking,
and
these
this
meeting
is
being
transcribed.
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Jeff
mitchell
for
the
record
deputy
director
of
local
government
services
for
the
department
of
taxation
me
and
my
staff
are
providing
staff
for
the
state
board
of
equalization.
Today,
as
mentioned,
I
am
jeff
mitchell,
and
here
helping
us
is
christina
griffith
and
denise
johnston.
B
A
B
Thank
you,
chair
johnson,
jeff
mitchell.
My
understanding
is
under
agenda
item
c
that
the
taxpayer
is
currently
trying
to
connect
or
they
are
connected
by
zoom.
They
are
not
connected
by
zoom
yet,
but
they
are
striving
to
do
so.
So
with
your
discretion.
I
would
like
to
move
that
a
little
bit
later
in
the
agenda
and
call
agenda
item
d.
B
Under
agenda
item
d,
now
for
possible
action
recommendations
by
the
secretary
to
dismiss
taxpayers
appeal
a
property
on
the
twenty
one.
Twenty
two
secured
role
in
the
twenty
twenty
one:
unsecured
role
pursuant
to
nrs
361.360
sub
three
untimely
filed
appeal:
determination
of
jurisdiction
of
the
state
board.
B
This
is
case
2115,
vinray
trust,
vinray,
living
trust,
arturo
s
and
renee
w.
B
A
A
B
A
Thank
you
with
that
clark
county
here.
Please
present
the
property
and
give
us
a
little
bit
of
background.
B
Good
morning
board
members
my
name
is
doug
scott,
representing
the
clark
county,
assessor's
office
d-o-u-g-s-c-o-t-t
subject:
property
is
located
at
7660
manowar
street
in
las
vegas.
As
mr
mitchell
pointed
out,
this
was
a
late
filing
to
the
county
board
of
equalization.
It
was
scheduled
as
a
notice
of
appearance
on
page
11
you'll
note
that
the
appeal
form
is
dated
january
19th.
B
C
So
doug
the
well
the
due
date
was
a
friday
and
there
were
no,
it
was
friday.
The
january
15th,
yes
january,.
C
A
Creighton
our
court
reporter,
can
you
hear.
A
Renee
please
go
forward
and
what
we're
going
to
want
to
know
is
what
extenuating
circumstance
if
any
caused
for
a
late
filing
that's
going
to
be
our
standard,
unfortunately,
is
we're
going
to
have
to
overcome
the
decision
made
by
the
county
board.
We
have
to
understand
that
they
made
an
error
and
there
was
some
extenuating
circumstance
beyond
your
control
that
caused
for
this
late
filing.
A
Yeah,
it's
just
you
have
up
to
15
minutes
to
present,
but
I
want
to
give
you
some
general
guidance
for
our
decision
making
and
will
allow
us
to
make
a
decision
here
today.
B
Okay,
I
do
appreciate
it.
Thank
you.
First
of
all,
I
wasn't
aware
of
the
date
when
we
did
call.
We
did
have
some
personal
extenuating
circumstances,
direct
illness,
loss
of
a
job,
job
that
just
completely
shut
down,
so
I
could
not
go
to
work,
could
not
do
work,
could
not
even
do
anything
within
the
home
everything
just
shut
down
for
me.
B
So
with
that
being
said,
I
did
call-
and
I
spoke
to
a
lady-
I
do
apologize,
but
in
my
original
documents
I'm
on
the
road
working
I
I
did
record
the
lady's
name,
who
was
very
kind,
and
I
said
I
need
to
file
an
appeal
when
I
me
and
my
husband
noticed
that
our
taxes
had
increased
on
average
a
little
over
15
to
2
000
more
than
the
average
home
owner
in
our
community,
and
I'm
not
talking
about
the
recent
resales.
B
B
A
B
No,
I
don't
just
beat
that
yes,
sir
you're
correct,
I
was
not.
I
was
not
aware
of
the
date.
Certainly
then
that
that
could
be
our
fault,
as
mentioned
earlier,
where
it
was
all
posted,
but
I
I
guess,
during
the
mental
state
of
everything
falling
in
on
us
during
that
covet
period,
I
just
totally
was
not
aware
of
it.
A
A
B
No,
I
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
hearing
that,
because
I
thought
I
was
just
completely
shut
out
that
that
was
a
done
deal
when
we
were
rejected
of
having
that
looked
at
with
the
evidence
that
was
submitted.
So
I
would
like
to
thank
all
of
you
on
the
board
there
for
at
least
hearing
this,
whether
it's
in
disfavor
or
favor.
But
I
do
appreciate
your
time
and
having
me
on
the
agenda
today.
B
Thank
you.
I
haven't
heard
anything
that
gives
me
cause
to
get
into
the
extenuating
circumstances
that
would
give
us
the
authority
to
overview
or
review
this
the
county's
position.
You
know,
I
noticed
in
one
of
your
communications,
you
listed
yourself
as
a
real
estate
professional,
and
that
involves
something
more
than
just
I
didn't
know.
A
B
I
guess
I
would
just
add
so
though
it
is
on
the
15th
and
the
appearance
of
documents
received
on
the
19th.
That
is
the
next
business
day,
and
there
is
an
intervening
holiday.
B
We
all
understand
that
covet
19
had
unprecedented
impacts,
yet
I
do
believe
for
the
most
part
that
the
counties
and
most
of
the
states
have
kind
of
returned
back
to
business
as
usual
in
regards
to
the
enforcement
of
deadlines.
B
But
I
would
be
inclined
if
there
were
anybody
else
to
be
inclined
as
such
to
I
mean
consider
that
it
is
just
the
next
business
day
and
not
though
four
calendar
days
away,
it
is
the
next
business
day.
A
Unfortunately,
just
strictly
interpreted
them
on
this
board,
which
I
do.
I
have
a
lot
of
compassion
for
people
over
the
last
year.
The
challenges
that
we've
all
faced
and
personal
professional
lives,
but
there's
a
whole
lot
of
property
taxpayers
that
did
figure
out
how
to
appeal
on
the
date
that
they
had
to
do
it,
and
I
just
think
we
it's
slippery
slope,
unfortunately,
but
we're
very
much
on
the
same
thought
process.
There.
C
Mr
chairman,
I
I
think
that
we're
ready
for
a
motion.
I
wouldn't
move
that
on
case
number,
21
115,
that
we
denied
jurisdiction
and
continue
with
the
process
that
the
county
board
was
pursuing.
A
B
B
The
petitioner
is
richard
fogerty
on
behalf
las
vegas,
propco
llc
and
the
respondent
is
the
clark
county.
Assessor,
proper
notice
of
hearing
can
be
found
on
page
131
of
the
state
board
of
equalization
documents
and
the
petitioner,
I
believe,
is
available
per
zoom
and
clark.
County
is
available
here
in
the
room.
A
D
Good
morning
jill,
what
are
the
clark
county
assessors
office?
I'm
going
to
be
the
appraiser
for
the
next
five
cases,
so
we're
just
going
to
kind
of
settle
in,
and
these
are
all
going
to
be
hotel,
motels
and
the
appellant
is
also
going
to
be
the
representative
for
the
next
five
cases
as
well.
D
This
property
is
a
state
board
case.
125.,
it
is
located.
You
can
find
it
on
your
sbe
agenda
packet.
My
assessor
data
begins
on
page
108..
The
subject
property
is
the
embassy
suites
located
at
3600
paradise
road,
just
east
of
the
las
vegas
strip.
It
contains
287
rooms
and
was
constructed
in
2002.,
based
on
all
the
data.
We
recommend
no
change
to
the
2021-22
closed
roll
value
of
33
million,
272
thousand
eight
hundred
and
sixty
nine
dollars.
A
A
Richard
I
believe,
you're
available
via
zoom
introduce
yourself,
and
then
you
have
15
minutes
to
present
your
case.
E
Good
morning,
everyone,
yes
I'll,
probably
take
a
majority
of
the
15
minutes
for
the
first
case,
but
as
jill
indicated,
we've
got
five
cases.
I
will
not
go
into
the
detail
on
all
five,
but
this
embassy
suites
is
the
first
one
case.
Twenty
one
one,
two
five
with
that.
A
Hear
me:
okay,
yeah
I
can,
and
I'm
okay
with
some
latitude
relative
to
timing,
so
don't
feel
constrained
by
the
15
minutes.
I
understand
there
is
all
five
of
the
cases
and
we'll
give
you
latitude
on
the
first
one
to
present
how
you
feel
best,
because
I
do
think
they'll
be
overlap
and
we
probably
at
your
discretion,
will
incorporate
the
other
cases
by
reference
so
that
it's
a
complete
record
and
you
don't
have
to
restate
everything.
You
say
the
first
time.
E
Great
excellent,
thank
you.
The
embassy
suites
that
mrs
wood
indicated
is
on
paradise
road
and
this
property
was
assessed
by
the
assessor
back
in
2020
21
at
32
794
897,
which
was
114
667,
a
key,
the
2021-22
which
is
under
appeal.
E
They
increased
it
to
33
million
272
869,
which
is
116
339
a
key
date
of
value
january
1st
of
2021.,
as
we
all
know
that
cobit
has
affected
the
hospitality
industry.
I
don't
need
to
go
into
any
detail
on
that.
However,
our
first
step
when
we
were
reviewing
these
properties,
we
do
a
lot
of
hospitality
that
I
was
looking
at
the
total
revenues
revpar
and
all
the
other
things.
I'm
going
to
point
that
out
to
you
on
page
sbe
59.
E
I
would
share
my
screen.
However,
I
know
this
is
public
information
now,
but
it
is
confidential
and
the
clients
had
asked
me
not
to
share
the
screen
if
that's
okay.
So
if
you
could
turn
to
sbe
59.
E
Thank
you.
If
you
look
at
the
year
to
date
on
the
top
and
you'll
see
as
of
12
31
2020
consolidated
income
statement,
you'll
note
down
on
prior
year
that
would
be
for
year
end
2019,
we're
considering
that
as
stabilized
you
look
at
the
revpar
adr
and
then
just
move
down
to
total
revenues.
E
E
E
Now
what
we
did
was
we
looked
at
the
assessor's
cost
because
they
do
value
based
on
cost
and
for
the
first
initial
appeal
to
the
assessor.
E
We
ran
a
external
obsolescence,
their
cost
just
to
get
an
idea
where
we
were
sitting
with
with
where
they
their
cost
numbers
were
coming
in.
So
if
you
could
turn
to
page
sbe
71
of
my
report
and
again,
there's
a
lot
of
pages
here,
because
the
first
36
pages
dealt
with
the
agent
authorization
and
ownership
verification
which
we
were
dealing
with
at
the
get-go
with
the
county
and
please,
let
me
know
when
you
get
the
sbe71.
E
Okay,
thank
you.
What's
what
I
wanted
to
do
was
just
see
what
the
cost
feasible
level
was
on
their
cost
numbers
and
by
doing
that
and
again
you're
going
to
see
cap
rates
at
nine
and
a
half
and
ten
10..
E
These
are
direct
caps
because
it's
makes
it
a
little
easier
with
the
expense
ratios,
but
out
of
host
international
and
so
on.
We
we
pretty
much
look
at
what
a
typical
expense
ratio
is,
as
well
as
the
noi
ratio.
E
We
looked
at
market
income
levels,
which
is
on
the
right
side,
and
that
was
at
123
34
key
and
I
have
a
star
report
that
follows
this.
So
we
looked
at
a
depreciation
for
external
obsolescence
and
again
we
haven't
seen
this.
At
least
I
haven't
seen
it
since
the
rtc
days
and
that's
a
long
time
ago
and
I'm
dating
myself.
E
However,
I
just
wanted
to
since
they
were
basing
their
values
based
on
cost.
I
believe
there
should
be
some
external
obsolescence
adjustment
made
for
the
covet
influence,
and
so
I'm
not
going
to
read
through
all
this
at
the
bottom,
but
it
explains
how
I
arrive
in
an
external
obsolescence
number
and
also
taking
into
effect
lost
building,
which
in
this
case
was
80
and
at
the
bottom
I've
got
the
replacement,
cost
new,
less
depreciation
and
that's
the
building
at
29
and
change
less.
The
obsolescence
comes
in
21.7
in
change,
plus
a
land
value.
E
These,
I
believe,
that's
the
assessor's
land
value,
but
we
backed
it
up
with,
I
believe,
four
or
five
land
sales
and
add
the
land
value
back
and
came
in
at
25
million.
Well,
I
rounded
to
25
million
630
thousand
the
market
income
level.
Again
we
were
looking
at
that
just
on
a
35
65
and
a
123
334
adr,
so
that
was
our
our
first
go-around
with
the
first
appeal
following
sb
71,
we
have
the
star
reports
for
embassy
for
the
subject,
property
and
you'll,
see
on
sba.
E
E
E
E
E
Which
we
believe
was
stabilized
with
an
average
rate
of
147.,
pretty
much
took
the
expenses
from
their
year-end
2019
statement,
which
we
believe
was
stabilized
and
we
utilized
a
9.5
oer
now
miss
wood
and
I
are
in
disagreement
she's
at
8.5,
I'm
at
9.5,
and
then
I
loaded
the
cap
at
1.05
etr
and,
I
believe,
that's
correct
again.
You
know
I'm
up
for
any
changes
regarding
that
the
overall
rate
I'm
taking
into
consideration
risk
factors.
E
I
believe
that's
that's
a
good
number,
however.
I'd
be
willing
to
negotiate
to
a
nine,
possibly
but
nine
and
a
half
I
felt
with
the
risk
factor
with
coveted
data
value
was
was
not
too
bad.
I
might
be
a
little
aggressive,
but
I
thought,
with
the
risk
factor
with
cobit,
still
was
still
dealing
with.
It:
total
capitalized
value
of
the
noi
36
million
250
798,
and
we
use
the
present
value
we
discounted
the
three
years,
although
I
believe
miss
wood
did
five.
E
We
were
following
some
of
the
articles
coming
out
of
hospitality
groups
that
they
believed
that
a
three-year
was
reasonable.
So
we
came
in
with
a
present
value
of
26.5.
E
I
do
have
support
for
the
cap
rates
now
again
hard
to
get
direct
caps
during
the
pandemic
back
in
the
rtc
days.
If
you
recall,
we
used
to
look
at
phantom
investment
techniques.
E
E
E
Between
8
12,
this
is
on
sbe
69
page
69,
with
a
current
average
of
9.5
one
year
ago,
was
9.15.
This
is
as
of
the
third
quarter
of
2020.
E
So,
based
on
that
we're
we're
looking
at
the
previous
year,
considering
that
I
also
included
20
year
end
2018
and
year
in
2017.,
some
jurisdictions
and
again
nevada
was
the
first
case
first
state
that
we
were
involved
with
because
of
your
appeal
season.
E
So
we
were
looking
at
different
methods.
It
is
uncharted
territory
with
covet
and
the
risk
factors,
I
believe,
is
a
judgment
call.
However,
I
look
back
in
the
past
and
how
we
handled
these
and
rtc
was
quite
a
few
years
ago,
but
I
remember
that
time
period
and
it
was,
it
was
not
good.
E
So
that's
that's
kind
of
where
we
were.
You
know
we
we
looked
at
external
obsolescence
to
the
fact
that
the
assessor
uses
the
cost
and
then
speaking
with
the
assessor,
we're
trying
to
negotiate
based
on
income,
and
that's
all
I
have
at
this
time.
A
I
appreciate
it
a
question
for
you
I'll
start
with
is
personal
property
on
page
63
you're,
taking
off
3
million
100
146
000
for
personal
property
and
your
discount
of
cash
flow.
But
on
page
62,
which
is
a
direct
cap,
it
appears
you're
taking
off
1.3
million
for
personal
property.
So
I
just
want
to
understand
why,
in
one
spot
it
appears
to
be
triple
the
other.
E
I
included,
intangibles
return
on
return
of
and
used
a
10,
although
I
know
rushmore
likes
more
beliefs
of
real
properties
more
like
sixty
percent,
but
so
that
was
the
difference
and
that's
a
great
question,
because
I
noticed
that
when
I
was
flipping
through
this,
but
I
believe
on
that
direct
that
that
1
million
325
314
was
the
actual
personal
property
appreciated
personal
property.
I
may
be
wrong,
however,
I
think
that's
why
there
was
an
adjustment
there
to
be
consistent.
E
You
know
you
could
use
the
ten
percent
for
the
intangibles
as
well
as
the
personal
property.
So
that's
the
difference.
A
Is
following
this
through
and
I'm
gonna
jump
around
a
little
bit
here
with
my
question
so
sorry
about
that
the
hotel
in
any
way
was
tough
to
follow
the
ownership
structure,
but
is
there
any
component
that
is
publicly
owned
or
this
property
and
what
I'm
looking
for
there
is.
If
there
is
some
ownership,
that's
public
did
they
take
a
write-off
on
this
asset
or
not.
A
E
Right-
and
I
do
not
know
exactly
that
answer-
I
do
know
that
our
clients
is
part
of
the
property
management
of
the
asset
and
that
the
actual
owner
of
the
property
is
not
represented
by
by
ryan.
We
are
represented
by
the
by
the
property
manager.
I
believe
now,
as
I
said,
the
first
36
pages
dealt
with.
E
E
It
was
going
down
believe
me,
it
was
a
process,
it
was
a
process
when
we
were
trying
to
get
the
agent
authorization
approved
and
we
were
going
back
and
forth
and
I
believe
we
finally
got
the
master
lease
and
all
the
rest
of
the
information
that
that
the
county
was
looking
for
to
approve.
A
More
than
you
bargained
for
yeah
yeah,
my
last
question
for
now
before
I
turn
it
over
to
the
other
board.
Members
is
capitalization
rate.
Your
support.
What
I
saw
was
generally
industry
trends,
core
packs,
realty
rates
or
pwc.
Rather,
I
think
there
was
a
couple
others,
but
is
there
anything
specific
property
related
here's,
a
hotel
property
in
vegas
that
sold
and
it
stabilized
and
it
had
a
cap
rate
of
x?
Do
you
have
comparable
sales
support
or
is
it
just
standard
industry
averages
from
surveys.
E
Might
be
go
a
little
beyond
that,
but
again
that's
that
was
the
national
search
to
see
where
the
current
sold
transactions.
What
the
average
was.
I
mean
we
had
a
low
of
2.35
and
and
a
high
of
23.,
and
it
looks
like
they're
only
12.
A
E
C
E
Right
and
that's
at
the
end,
and
that's
a
good
point-
and
it
was
you
know
we
we
used
stats
from
cbre
and
and
so
that's
kind
of
where
we
were
at
and
the
ban
of
investment.
Again
I
put
a
call
into
a
local
mortgage
broker
to
see
what
their
loan
to
value
ratios
were
in
las
vegas
and
I'm
still
playing
phone
tag.
C
You
know
at
this
point,
I
don't
think
I've
got
any.
I
I
was
the.
I
was
going
to
try
to
clarify
what
your
question
was
on
the
ownership
records.
One
of
the
issues
that
we've
run
into
in
the
past
is
that
there
is
the
potential
for
conflicting
arguments
between
property
owners
that
are
in
our
office
or
at
our
dais
versus
when
they're
reporting
to
the
sec
or
they're
reporting
to
their
banks
and
those.
C
When
there's
those
conflicts,
we
we
do
try
to
and
those
conflicts
are
public,
particularly
with
the
public
company,
try
to
reconcile
those,
and
so
that
was
kind
of
the
the
basis
of
I
think
ben's
question
is
whether
there
is
a
potential
for
conflicting
information
that
would
or
conflicting
or
collaborating
information.
That
would
be
pertinent,
and
if
there's
no
public
component
in
the
ownership,
then
that
results
in
less
likelihood
that
there's
that
there's
either
complementary
or
conflicting
information.
A
A
With
that
you're
gonna
have
five
minutes
after
jill
presents
her
case,
so
we
will
get
back
to
you
richard,
but
with
that
jill
marianne,
you
guys
have
got
your
15
minutes.
D
Good
morning,
thank
you
board.
I
would
just
like
to
spend
the
next
couple
of
minutes
kind
of
talking
about
the
effects
of
covid
the
effects
it
had
on
income
producing
properties
in
las
vegas
and
how
our
office
handled
income
producing
properties
prior
to
covet
and
what
we
had
to
do
to
face
covet
head
on.
D
Historically,
in
the
past,
we
did
on
all
income
producing
properties,
just
a
direct
capitalization
approach,
so
the
property
owners
would
give
us
their
income.
We
capitalize
that
income
compare
it
with
what
market
parameters
were
and
come
up
with
a
value.
We
would
then
test
that
value
against
our
closed
roll
value
which,
as
you
know,
in
the
state
of
nevada,
work,
cost
approach.
D
So
for
the
newer
board
members,
our
taxable
value
is
based
on
the
replacement
cost
new
for
marshall
and
swift,
less
depreciation
by
statute,
which
is
1.5
percent
a
year.
That
value
is
then
added
to
the
market
value
of
the
underlying
land
and
that's
the
taxable
value.
So
that
value
we
kind
of
knock
up
against
the
income
approach,
and
if
we
find
that
we're
exceeding
full
cash
value,
then
we
will
apply
some
kind
of
obsolescence
adjustment
to
bring
that
property
down.
So
we
don't
exceed
the
depreciated
cost
of
the
improvements
now
going
forward
with
covid.
D
D
We
stratified
it
based
on
whether
they
were
full
service,
mom
and
pop
economy
and
extended
stay,
and
then
we
stratified
it
by
geographical
area
was
it
the
strip.
Was
it
mccarran?
Was
it
southeast
northeast
northwest
southwest
and
we
were
able
to
gauge
the
effects
of
the
downturn
in
ebitda,
which
in
layman's
terms,
is
kind
of
like
an
noi
net
operating
income.
D
But
it's
before
taxes,
interest
amortization,
so
we
were
able
to
look
at
what
the
property
would
have
been
in
2019,
which
all
industry
professionals
agree
was
the
last
stabilized
year
now
we're
in
the
middle
of
covid
and
all
industry
professionals
are
saying
well
2000,
let's
get
back
to
2019
numbers,
and
how
long
is
that
going
to
take
us
to
get
back
to
with
phased
reopenings
in
nevada,
phased
reopenings?
D
D
A
D
A
D
Okay,
so
does
everybody
have
that
so
the
second
page
of
the
document
I
gave
you
is
a
culmination
of
all
the
discount
rates,
the
overall
capitalization
rates
in
the
residual
cap
rates
that
we
used
in
analysis
for
our
direct
cap
sheet
and
our
dcf
sheets.
These
were
taken
from
pricewaterhousecoopers
and
realty
rates.
Now
keep
in
mind
that
the
most
recent
rates
don't
show
the
lag
of
covid
because
it
was
so
new.
D
These
are
fourth
quarter
in
third
quarter
and
we
all
know
that
covet
really
hit
in
the
second
quarter
of
2020,
so
these
rates
are
showing
the
quarter
behind
so
rich
had
alluded
to
on
his
direct
direct
cap
summary
that
he
used
a
direct
cap
of
nine
and
a
half
to
show
the
risk.
D
Well,
that's
not
appraisal
methodology,
because
nine
and
a
half
does
show
the
risk,
but
it
unfairly
capitalizes
that
property
into
perpetuity
saying
it's
never
going
to
make
any
more
than
that.
So
we
should
have
used
a
much
lower
cap
rate
to
show
the
upside
potential
in
that
income
stream,
so
nrs
361
227
allows
us
to
do
a
discounted
cash
flow.
D
So
we
took
all
the
data
that
these
hotels
graciously
gave
us
and
we
created
a
10-year
dcf
this
particular
case.
My
10-year
dcf
begins
on
sb-111
or
that's
my
direct
cap.
So
let's
talk
about
direct
cap.
First,
all
of
richard's
property
owners
gave
him
actual
year-to-date
and
year-end
2019
operating
statements.
We
all
agree
that
2019
was
a
stabilized
year
in
order
to
gauge
the
effects
of
covid
on
this
particular
property.
D
I
plugged
in
the
2019
numbers
under
the
direct
capitalization
form,
which
is
on
page
111,
and
this
is
using
their
actuals.
We
had
an
average
daily
rate
of
140,
an
occupancy
of
85
percent.
Other
income
or
ancillary
income
was
15
percent
of
egi,
which
is
effective
gross
income.
The
operating
expense
ratio
was
70
percent
of
egi.
D
I
capped
it
at
it.
Eight
and
a
half.
I
deducted
the
furniture,
fixtures
and
equipment
of
three
million
five.
Oh
two,
o
thirty,
seven,
that
was
a
certified
closed
roll
value.
That
was
billed
for
this
property's
ffa.
So
that's
why
we
went
with
that
number
that
generated
an
overall
value
of
47.095.063.
D
D
That
falls
in
the
parameters
of
the
first
handout.
I
gave
you
for
properties
in
the
strip
which
have
an
overall
decline
for
full
service,
ranging
from
81
to
105
percent
overall
fulfill
service
and
then
for
the
strip
corridor.
It
was
81
to
115
downward.
D
Were
we
did
a
10
year
term,
most
industry
professionals?
At
the
time
of
this
analysis
and
my
interviews
that
I
had
with
hotel
operators
and
data
statisticians,
they
were
hoping
for
three
years
to
get
back
to
2019
numbers
in
three
years.
Now
we
have
foresight
now
we
know
that
it's
really
not
going
to
be
three
years.
It's
going
to
be
something
much
more,
but
we
can't
speak
to
that.
D
D
We
did
a
terminal
cap
rate
of
nine
and
a
half
commissions
at
two
and
a
half
percent,
and
all
these
rates
are
are
kind
of
right
in
the
middle
of
the
range.
We
aired
on
the
side
of
caution,
with
the
rates
that
I
provided
to
you
on
page
two
of
the
handout,
so
you
don't
have
to
flip
back
and
forth.
D
So
at
that
point
we
didn't,
we
didn't
realize
that
or
we
didn't
feel
like
a
reduction
was
necessary.
So
when
you
think
of
all
this
stuff,
an
investor
looking
at
this
hotel
january
1st
would
not
go.
Oh,
it's
never
going
to
make
any
more,
and
I'm
only
going
to
offer
you
a
fire
sale
number.
They
wouldn't
look
at
that.
They
would
look
at
covet
as
it's
a
blip
in
the
income
stream
for
a
couple
of
months
and
the
discounted
cash
flow
accounts
for
that
now
rich
did
a
really
good
analysis.
Isolating
external
obsolescence.
D
Now
we
we
do
realize
that
cobit
is
detrimental
to
a
lot
of
property
owners,
but
it's
not
like
having
a
nuclear
power
plant
move
in
next
to
your
site,
so
we
can't
quantify
it
that
way,
because
there
wouldn't
be
deco,
while
there
are
decreased
room
revenues
for
right
now.
The
revenues
now
are
now
going
up.
So
it's
not
a
permanent
isolated
case.
D
While
we
did
have
some
assumptions,
they
were
based
on
market
assumptions
at
the
time
that
we,
based
on
the
data
that
we
had
and
again
we
gave
them
another
one
percent
downturn
in
year,
2021
which,
if
we
were
to
look
going
forward,
that
would
not
be
the
case.
This
property
is
a
stone's
throw
from
t-mobile
and
allegiant
stadium,
and
you
know
we
all
know
both
those
properties.
D
You
know
t-mobile
was
sold
out
last
week,
so
was
allegiant
stadium
with
garth
brooks,
so
people
are
coming
to
las
vegas
and,
while
covet
has
been
detrimental,
it
hasn't
been
it's
negative
as
long
term
negative
as
we
were
originally
thinking
it
was
based
on.
You
know
the
data
that
we
have
now
and
if
you'll
allow
me
to
speak
to,
can
I
speak
to
what
the
current
trends
are
or
shall
we
not
go.
A
D
B
Sure
the
only
thing
I
want
to
add
is,
I
know
the
tax
representative
had
mentioned
the
the
differences
in
the
way.
We
do
our
analysis
and
I
will
just
state
to
the
board
that
we've
used
the
discounted
cash
flow
when
we
felt
it
was
necessary
on
certain
properties.
We
used
it
more
readily
this
year
than
we
have
any
year,
because
we
had
so
many
properties
that
we
needed
to
analyze
and
I'd
already
testified
before
the
state
board.
B
Back
at
our
last
hearing
that
we
looked,
we
had
sent
out
letters
on
over
8
000
properties
and
we
reviewed
about
900
of
those.
We
got
responses
and
looked
at
them
to
see
what
the
decline
was
and
then
anything
that
went
to
the
board
that
we
felt
you
know
was
maybe
fell
into
a
non-stabilized
situation
or
had
been
impacted
strongly.
We
did
use
this
discounted
cash
flow
analysis.
We
used
one
of
two
this
one.
We
used
a
10-year
on
things
like
industrial
and
and
commercial
properties,
retail
properties.
B
We
used
a
different
type
of
analysis
that
looked
at
how
to
stabilize
them,
based
on
the
vacancies
that
they
experienced
during
covid.
But
I
do
want
to
reference,
you
know
nrs3612275.
I
believe
it's
in
your
documents
and
option.
Five
does
talk
about
obsolescence
and
c,
says:
capitalization
of
fair
economic
income
expectancy
or
fair
economic
rent
or
an
analysis
of
a
discounted
cash
flow.
B
A
A
And
it
wasn't
open
for
events
during
covid
is
my
understanding.
It
was
completed
last
summer
right
and
then
it
you
just
couldn't
have
events
until
relatively
recently.
There.
D
A
D
Correct
and
shortly
after
the
board,
hearings,
nevada
started
their
phased
reopening
and
then
they
were
putting
on
the
calendar
schedules
for
conventions
coming
back
beginning
in
march,
so
I
would
not
have
known
you
know.
As
of
january
1st,
we
would
not
have
known
that,
but
we
didn't
know
what
the
lvcva
was
doing
behind
closed
doors
with
getting
people
to
come.
D
It's
professionally
traded,
it's
publicly
traded,
it's
a
hilton
international
property,
so
hilton's
got
the
means
and
the
wherewithal
to
put
out
you
know
marketing
and
advertising,
and
you
know
putting
packages
together
for
tourists
to
come
and
conventions
to
come,
but
again
we're
only
speaking
to
january
1st-
and
this
you
know
running
the
dcf
is
how
we
would
have
had
to
have
done
it,
and
an
investor
coming
in
you
know
wanting
to
pay
cash
or
getting
a
loan
would
have
said.
Okay.
D
Well,
I
you
know,
I'm
not
going
to
give
you
a
fire
sale
price
I
mean
they
would
have,
but
no
one
would
have
salt
hilton
wouldn't
have
sold
for
that,
because
they
would
have
known
that
the
covet
is
going
to
be
temporary.
How
temporary
we
don't
know,
but
again,
it's
not
like
three
mile
island
move
in
next
door
to
them.
So
the
economic
obsolescence
capture
of
the
difference
between
that
income
and
the
cost.
Doesn't
that's
not
proper
appraisal
methodology
in
this
instance.
A
Okay
and
let's
talk
a
little
bit
about
fire
sales
up
through
the
end
of
last
year,
did
covid
create
any
fire
sales
of
hospitality,
newer,
hospitality
properties
in
a
good
location.
D
No,
sir,
not
to
my
knowledge,
I
have
included
sales
as
reference
that
have
closed.
D
However,
they
weren't
fire
sales
per
se,
although
they
were
franchised,
they
were
nearing
the
end
of
their
10-year
holding
period
and
they
were
required
by
the
franchise
or
to
put
in
a
substantial
amount
of
money.
We
call
it
a
pip,
it's
a.
A
D
You
know
what
it
yeah
very
much
yes,
so
they
were
required
by
the
franchise
agreement
in
order
to
keep
the
franchise
that
they
had
to
put
a
substantial
amount
of
remodeling
funds
in
and
a
lot
of
these
properties
that
sold.
They
just
said,
you
know
what
we're
done.
We've
held
it
10
years,
we've
made
money,
let's
put
it
on
the
market,
so
we
really
can't
compare
those
sales
to
this,
because
it's
apples
and
oranges.
D
Now,
if
this
one
was
nearing
the
end
of
its
holding
period
and
they
were
required
by
their
franchise
agreement
to
have
to
put
money
in
then
we
could
kind
of
look
at
those
sales.
But
I
don't
think
the
sales
really
give
a
fair
value
of
what
this
property
could
generate
on
the
open
market
meeting
the
terms
of
fair
market
value.
A
That's
helpful
to
me,
looking
at
your
discount
or
discount
cash
flow
analysis.
I
believe
yours
is
on
page
112..
Richards
is
on
page
63..
Can
you
just
walk
the
board
through
what
the
key
differences
are
and
I
might
have
a
couple
questions
because
that's.
D
D
A
Okay,
really
high
level.
Just
for
my
understanding,
I
understand,
if
you
don't
want
to
comment,
it
would
be
three
years
he's
capitalizing
a
year
before
it's
reached
stabilization,
so
he's
capitalizing
a
lower
number
of
net
income
in
year
three
and
viewing
that
to
be
into
perpetuity
where
you're,
allowing
the
property
to
continue
to
grow
for
a
10-year
holding
period,
and
that
was,
I
think,
one
of
the
bigger
things
I
saw
being
different
in
the
two
of
them
and
a
reasonable
buyer.
A
I
would
have
to
believe,
would
not
plan
on
selling
until
net
income
had
reached
2019
levels
and
there's
expectation,
my
understanding
of
the
market.
What
you
testify
to
was
three
years
you'd
be
back
there,
so
how
you
reconcile
a
lower
net
income
three
years
out
when
the
market's
expecting
you
to
be
back
three
years
in
the
forward.
That'll
be
a
question
for
richard,
but
that
was
the
primary
difference.
I
just
want
to
know
if
you
saw
any
other
ones.
D
I
didn't
I
didn't
I
didn't
look
at
it.
I
can
tell
you
that
we
actually
stabilized
the
property
in
year
five,
instead
of
year.
Three
and
again
we
took
an
initial
downturn
in
ebitda
in
year
one.
So
we
gave
this
property
every
advantage
that
we
could.
We
were
very,
oh,
my
god.
The
word
just
fell
right
out
of
my
head.
D
No,
we
weren't
conservative.
We
were
very
I'm
sorry,
it's
coped
brain.
We
were
very
conservative
and
again
we
stabilized
in
year
five
instead
of
year,
three,
which
I
don't
know
if
rich
did
that
or
not,
but
you
know
he
put
together
a
very
good
package
and
he
and
I
had
very
good
dialogue
going
back
and
forth
through
you
know
through
all
of
this
he's
been
very
professional
to
work
with.
Just
you
know,
for
the
record,
I
just
don't
agree
with
the
dcf
submission
and
again
I
can't
as
a
as
a
licensed
professional.
A
That's
a
fair
response
before
I
turn
it
over
to
others
for
questions.
I
want
to
talk
capitalization
rate,
my
understanding
is
there's
some
different
factors.
Acting
here
interest
rates
being
the
biggest
thing
that
acts
to
bring
cap
rates
down
money's
become
a
lot
cheaper.
Everyone's
chasing
returns
even
last
year,
you're
looking
across
the
board
price,
turning
ratio
on
equities
or
driven
way
down.
D
So
major
corporations
are
kind
of
pulling
out
of
some
of
the
buildings
they
used
to
occupy
because
they're
like
we,
don't
really
need
all
this
space
so
they're
either
selling
it
or
they're
sublingu,
subletting
it
and
they're
having
their
people
telework
from
home,
half
the
time
or
they're
working
in
employment,
cohort
circles
where
some
group
comes
in
the
other
group
goes
home
and
then
they
switch
out
even
the
workspace
like
the
weworks
and
the
regis.
D
The
only
time
those
properties
are
now
making
money
is
for
the
shared
boardroom,
because
people
need
a
place
to
land
to
have
you
know
a
conference,
so
cap
rates
are
definitely
going
up
on
office,
they're,
somewhat
stable
and
on
the
downtick
for
retail
and
industrial
they're
way
down.
Industrial
is
still
the
sweetheart
deal,
everybody
wants
it,
10,
000
square
feet
and
above
there's,
just
no
industrial
to
be
had
rental
rates
are
going
up.
It's
it's
being
built,
I
mean
the
permits
coming
through
our
office
for
industrial
are
unbelievable
and
it's
all
logistics
space.
A
D
From
2019
to
now,
I
would
say
it's
about
100
to
150
basis
points
depending
on
the
sub
market,
depending
on
the
office
class,
the
stuff
in
the
northwest
over
by
downtown
summerlin,
not
hurt.
Everybody
wants
to
be
in
summerlin
the
class,
a
office
space
down
around
the
beltway
215
down
around
central
point,
the
ufc
building
capital,
one
just
built
a
huge
building.
All
the
gaming
valleys
is
going
out
there,
ai
ainsworth
gaming,
just
built
corporate
offices,
but
again
those
are
all
owner
occupied.
D
So
people
want
to
be
in
those
hot
spots
like
that
used
to
be
the
pioneer
areas
where
no
one
would
go
to
and
the
offices
that
are
hurting
the
most
are
any
outskirts.
Downtown
southeast
henderson
close
to
the
airport
are
still
faring
fairly
well,
but
you
get
out
way
remote
and
not
so
much.
There's
a
lot
of
vacant
space
and
there's
a
lot
of
skeleton
space
shelf
space.
That's
still
out
there.
A
D
C
The
only
question
I
had
really
was
related
to
the
overall
capitalization
rates
and
richard
loaded,
his
cap
rate
for
the
tax
rates
by
one
and
a
half
percent,
and
I'm
assuming
and
maybe
rightfully
or
wrong,
right
or
wrong-
that
your
expense
ratio
included
taxes.
And
so
you
know
for
your
purposes.
There
was
no
need
to
load
the
cash.
D
That
is
correct.
We
always
consider
the
taxes
as
our
expense
operating
ratio.
We
don't
load
the
cap
rate.
A
C
B
Good
morning,
so
I
guess
what
I'm
hearing
from
your
opposition
is
essentially
from
it's
more
of
a
logic,
almost
argument.
So
logically,
how
does
the
property
increase
year-over-year
given
covid
right?
B
And
so
when
you
look
at
that
and
then
also
appreciating
where
the
property
does
lie,
which
this
is
more
of
a
convention
property
than
it
is
you
mean
a
travel
and
tourism
property
based
upon
its
proximity
to
convention
space
and
recognizing
that,
though,
covet
maybe
from
a
travel
perspective,
has
changed
our
we're
getting
back
to
normal.
Even
from
a
convention
business
perspective,
we
are
still
very
low
at
some
of
our
larger
convention
spaces,
or
some
of
our
larger
convention
shows
so
just
from
a
logic
perspective.
How
you
rationalizing
that.
D
So
that's
why
we
again
were
not
very
aggressive
with
the
dcf
at
all,
and
I
think
the
one
percent
was
very
fair
to
the
property
to
give
it
that
chance
for
the
convention
traffic
to
come
back.
A
B
Through
you
to
mr
gray,
I
just
want
to
answer
your
question
with
regards
to
why
the
value
would
have
changed
year
over
year.
The
land
value
stayed
the
same.
We
did
not
increase
the
land
value
and
we
value
that
based
on
the
market
value.
However,
because
we
use
marshall
and
swift
for
our
replacement
cost.
B
There
are
differences
in
costs
per
year
and
costs
have
increased,
we've
seen
them
increase
dramatically
actually
over
this
year,
but
they
increased
not
significantly,
but
I
did
minimally
over
the
prior
year
for
the
cost
manual
that
we
used,
and
so
with
the
offset
of
the
one
and
a
half
percent.
That's
was
the
difference
and
it
was
really
the
improvement
value
that
increased.
But
overall,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
testing
the
value,
which
is
what
miss
wood
was
testifying
to
is
just
testing
the
value
to
make
sure
we
hadn't
exceeded
full
cash
value.
B
But
that
is
why
there
is
a
difference
here
over
here.
We
didn't
intentionally
set
out
to
raise
values.
Obviously,
during
a
year
like
this,
with
everything
we
we
could,
we
did
our
best
to
try
to
hold
values,
particularly
with
regards
to
the
land,
unless
we
saw
that
there
was
something
that
was
just
grossly
undervalued
in
the
prior
year.
B
A
Any
follow-up
questions
from
the
board
members
before
we
go
back.
Thank
you
guys.
Richard
you've
got
technically
five
minutes,
but
we'll
give
you
latitude
here
just
because
we
know
that
this
rolls
into
the
additional
cases
you
have.
E
Thank
you.
Yes,
the
the
appeal
process
for
nevada
is
new
to
our
group
and
that's
because
the
assessor
has
been
dead
on
in
most
cases
when
we
review
them
review
the
properties
and
we
look
at
office.
We
look
pretty
much
every
commercial
property
there
type
there.
So
we've
really
in
the
end,
plus
you
have
the
tax
cap.
So
you
know
I'll
I'll
run,
implied
values
based
on
the
tax
cap
and
we've
never
had
any
issues
this
year.
E
Of
course,
with
the
hospitality
industry,
there
were
some
issues,
not
all
the
properties,
but
a
good
majority
of
the
ones
we
looked
at
the
time
share.
Industry
is
very
interesting
and
very
difficult
to
determine
so
that
one,
you
know
we
had
appealed,
but
those
properties,
but
we
withdrew
because
we
just
a
lack
of
information
from
the
client
so
the,
for
example,
the
loaded
cap
rate
information,
I'm
responsible
for
utah
and
arizona
nevada
as
well
as
northern
california,
sometimes
washington.
E
I
I
don't
like
loaded
cap
rates
and
never
have
there's
a
lot
of
arguments
about
where
the
effective
tax
rate
is
built
in
to
direct
caps
and
so
on.
So
I
don't
care
for
them,
but
again
it
was
the
inexperience
of
dealing
with
the
loaded
cap
rate
and
clark
county
assessor's
office
in
nevada,
assessor
offices.
E
So
that's
that's
the
reason
for
the
loaded
cap
and
thank
you
for
the
information
from
the
assessor's
office
and
we
will
definitely
not
load
our
caps
in
the
future.
E
If
we
even
come
back
in
the
future
again,
we
segue
back
to
one
of
the
board
members
mentioning
the
values
and
again
the
you
know,
we're
all
controlled
by
the
clients
and
the
owner
of
the
property,
and
they
just
couldn't
see
the
increase.
They
couldn't
see
the
increase
from
32.7
to
33.2.
I
understand
that
construction
costs
have
gone
up,
but
you
know
the
county's
page,
sbe
113
really
tells
the
story,
and
this
is
excellent
information.
E
E
We
believe
that
somehow,
whether
you
don't
want
to
call
it
external
obsolescence-
and
you
really
can't
call
it
short-lived
physical
depreciation,
there
should
be
some
adjustment
and
that's
that's
where
the
client's
coming
from.
So
are
cash
flow
analysis
accurate
in
some
cases?
Yes,
when
you
have
a
pandemic,
there's
a
lot
of
forecasting,
and
I
just
I
just
don't
believe
that
of
those
dcfs
reflect
the
as-is
condition.
E
The
the
assessor
based
on
the
economic
conditions
can
raise
that
value
for
the
20
for
data
value
of
1,
1,
20
22.,
so
we're
just
asking
for
some
relief
for
this
year
and
with
the
data
value
january
2021,
and
that
is
what
we're
requesting
from
the
board.
E
A
A
Okay,
well,
let's
close
the
hearing
then,
and
let's
go
forward
with
what
you
were
saying:
glenn.
A
Okay,
we
can
do
it
either
way,
but
yeah,
let's
have
comments
before
the
second
bob.
I'd.
Welcome
your
comments.
C
In
this
case,
particularly
given
the
property's
location
and
the
likelihood
that
the
pandemic
will
terminate
this
this
recession
or
this
downturn,
I
think,
has
much
different
characteristics
than
you
know.
The
rtc
days
that
richard
referenced
or
even
the
recession
in
oa
that
this
is
this
is
of
spontaneous
and
when
the
issues
are
are
ultimately
addressed.
I
you
know
the
the
people
are
already
starting
to
rebound.
C
I
believe
that
you
know,
with
with
vaccines,
rising
with
the
opportunity
to
restart
reopening
those
things
were
being
projected
even
in
january,
that
I
I
believe
that
this
dcf
fairly
completely
addresses
the
the
temporary
diminution
and
value
associated
with
the
pandemic,
and
you
know,
given
the
the
opportunities
that
are
going
to
exist
in
the
vegas
market,
as
tourism
rebounds.
I
think
that
this
adequately
addresses
those
issues.
B
A
B
Yeah,
my
my
concerns
really
come
down
to
the
difference
in
between
the
properties,
which
is
probably
leisure
versus
business
travel
at
embassy
suites,
particularly
where
this
property
is
located.
This
is
probably
going
to
be
a
majority
of
business
travel
versus
leisure,
and
I
agree
that
leisure
travel
has
definitely
picked
up.
Business
travel.
B
On
the
other
hand,
there
I
mean
again
many
of
us
may
still
have
companies
that
have
travel
bans
in
place
and
or
reinstituting
travel
bans
because
of
delta
variant
and
other
things
like
that,
and
so
because
of
that
difference
in
between
leisure
and
business.
I
do
have
a
little
bit
of
hesitation,
just
to
be
frank,.
A
A
Where
I
looked
was
that
value
before
got
me
a
little
bit
when
they're
up
in
their
48
million
dollar
property
and
that
would
have
they've
already
gotten
the
benefit
to
date
from
the
statutory
depreciation,
the
property
having
been
on
the
roll
since
the
time
it
was
built
so
that
before
tax
year
wasn't
market
in
any
means
it
was
a
function
of
the
property
tax
system
being
depreciated
cost
under
marshall
and
swift,
which
the
assessor's
office
is
required
to
use.
A
That
weighed
me
a
little
bit
towards
what
the
assessor
did
just
seemed
reasonable
to
me,
but
no
question.
I
look
at
that.
80
decline
and
any
reasonable
business
owner
is
going
to
look
at
that
and
say
how
is
my
tax
bill
going
up
when
I'm
80
down?
I
think
that's
very
valid,
but
overall
I
thought
what
the
assessor
did
gave
a
lot
of
latitude
and
was
reasonable.
A
I
do
think
that
the
assessor's
office
had
a
point
and
that
our
ability
to
rely
upon
the
dcf
presented
by
the
petitioner
is
suspect
because
it
wasn't
prepared
by
a
licensed
professional
and
under
our
state
laws.
I
don't
know
if
we're
allowed
to
rely
upon
that
as
something
of
being
probative
which
takes
away
from
a
little
bit,
but
that's
where
I'm
at
with
that
being
said,
do
you
have
further
comments
or
further
discussion?
Yeah.
B
I
would
just
add
that
I
agree
with
you
that
I
think
the
we
have
a
conservative
approach
that
the
accessor
has
explored.
B
Not
only
can
we
say
a
we've
looked
at
a
conservative
estimation,
but
also
be
from
as
we
kind
of
walk
through
it
from
a
common
sense.
Our
logic
perspective
that
we're
able
to
show
that,
because
of
receiving
the
benefit
of
the
bargain,
particularly
because
of
our
price,
our
tax
caps,
that
we
have
in
place
from
an
annual
increase,
that
I
mean
that
the
that
actions,
whatever
they
may
be,
are
still
reasonable.
A
I
appreciate
that
and
I
really
appreciate
the
perspective
on
the
record
because
that's
so
helpful
from
rn.
So
with
that
anything
further
bob,
let's
go
back
glenn.
Do
you
want
to
restate
your
motion
that
we
still
haven't
voted
on
just
so
the
record's
clear.
B
Thank
you.
I
would
simply
make
the
motion
to
uphold
the
county's
assessor
of
the
value
at
the
33.2.
Do
you
want
more
detail
than
that
33.2
because
it
doesn't
exceed
the
fair
market
value
of
the
property.
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Under
agenda
item
e,
we're
going
to
call
case
number
21,
126,
bre,
slash,
lq
properties,
llc
care
of
la
quinta
corporation
is
commercial
property.
The
petitioner
is
represented
by
mr
richard
fogerty.
Who's
on
zoom
and
the
clark
county
assessor
is
the
respondent.
Proper
notice
of
hearing
can
be
found
on
page
106
of
your
sboe
packet.
A
Great
thank
you
jeff
and
to
further
brevity
and
not
be
too
duplicitous.
I
would
like
to
incorporate,
by
reference
the
prior
testimony
for
case
21
125
into
this
case,
which
is
21126
and
the
following
three
cases:
21127
21166
and
21
169
clark
county.
Do
you
have
any
objections
to
that?
No
okay
and
richard.
Do
you
have
any
objections
to
that.
A
Okay
with
that
just
so
you
guys
both
sides
are
aware:
we're
gonna
incorporate
by
reference
and
jill.
Please
give
us
an
overview
of
this
property.
D
Jill
wood
for
the
record
for
the
clark
county
assessor's
office.
This
is
case
126..
The
subject
property
is
the
laquinta
inn
located
at
3970
south
paradise
road,
just
east
of
the
las
vegas
strip.
It
contains
228
units.
It
was
constructed
in
1984.,
it's
more
of
a
leisure
hotel,
as
opposed
to
convention
driven
based
on
the
data.
The
assessor
recommends
no
change
to
the
21
22
closed
role,
value
of
10
million
674
463.
E
For
me,
okay,
this
one
again
the
laquinta
inns
as
miss
would
mention
the
again.
It
was
the
same
issue
as
we
had
before
the
2021
value.
2020
21
value
was
10
million
715
569
and
2122
was
10
million.
674
463
slight
decrease
from
4269
to
a
key
to
42
528
a
key
again.
The
the
owners
felt
that
that
was
not
a
sufficient
reduction
for
the
code
influence
on
fbe,
page
21
and
22..
E
E
So
what
I
have
to
do
is
basically
cut
and
paste
the
columns
for
the
specific
property
subject:
property
that
we're
speaking
of
so
that's
why
this
is
not
a
typical
financial
statement
that
we
see,
but
it
is
their
financials
based
on
their
spreadsheet
of
I
don't.
Even
I
can't
even
tell
you
how
many
locations
so
on
sbe
21
we're
looking
at
the
january
december
of
2020
financials
revpar
2926
ebitda
at
267,
676
267
676
on
sbe
22
rev
park,
5882.
E
E
I
included
rack
rates
too
prior
to
that
okay,
sbe
page
64.,
the
cost
feasible
level
assessor
was
at
9247
base.
E
E
E
We
were
running
at
a
stabilized
value
of
10
million
five,
eighty
nine
one,
seven
four,
forty
two
thousand
one,
eighty
eight
pretty
close
to
where
the
assessor's
at
with
their
value.
Then
we
did
a
three-year
present
value
to
stabilization
and
came
in
at
about
some
point.
Seven
million
again,
I
believe,
that's
personal
property
is
the
actual.
Mr
wood
can
confirm
that
it,
but
I
believe
that
was
actual
and
I
just
used
personal
property.
E
We
were
at
a
value
of
7.2
based
on
that,
so
between
the
external
obsolescence,
as
well
as
a
stabilized
ab,
is
we
believe
that
there
should
be
some
adjustment?
That's
all
I
have
thank
you.
E
E
Now,
usually,
I'm
closer
on
the
dcf,
but
again
you
know
the
dcf
was
you
know
we
were
negotiating
with
the
assessors,
so
it
wasn't.
It
wasn't
one
of
those
that
we
started
with,
but
yeah
there's
quite
a
difference.
There.
E
E
That's
seven
million
seven,
thirty
two,
so
it
was
probably
hp
rounding!
So
yeah!
That's
that's
a
good
point.
I
and
the
reversion
was
in
the
fourth
year,
so
I
don't
believe,
there's
a
formula
mishap
there.
E
E
A
E
A
Any
questions
from
the
board
at
this
point
you
will
have
the
opportunity
to
ask
questions
again
on
rebuttal,
for
richard
bob
looks
like
you've
got
a
question.
C
So
richard
refresh
my
memory
as
to
the
page,
where
you're,
comparing
the
red
part
and
all
of
the
information
compared
to
your
perception
of
what
the
market
averages
are,
which
page
is
that
you
had
the.
C
No,
it
was
the
the
market
comparison
on
revenues
vacancy
how
this
property
compared
to
the
balance
of
the
market
or
the
balance
of
the
lucky
into
properties.
I
I
just
can't
put
my
finger
on
it
at
the
moment.
C
A
C
C
C
C
E
Yeah
and
I
think
again,
that's
sb,
21
and
22.
They
do
have
the
the
adr
and
the
rev
car
and
occupancy
rates
at
the
top
of
their
spreadsheet.
A
And
those
21
and
22
are
the
properties
actual
for
2019
and
2020
correct.
That's
correct.
E
A
D
Thank
you.
I'd
like
to
incorporate
the
same
exhibits,
my
same
objection
to
his
economic
obsolescence
and
the
same
objection
for
testifying
to
the
dcf.
I
do
want
to
point
out,
though,
on
sb
26,
his
value
page,
where
he
kind
of
direct
capped.
It
he's
got
values
of.
D
He
the
owner,
would
never
sell
it
for
that.
Just
for
the
record.
So
my
direct
capitalization
sheet
starts
on
page
86.
We
were
provided
with
actual
2019s
same
methodology
applies.
We
use
2019
on
the
direct
capitalization
as
a
stabilized
year
gave
us
a
platform
going
forward
for
the
dcf
capitalization.
We
use
an
adr
of
88
occupancy
of
65
other
income
of
one
percent
of
egi
expense
ratio
of
75
percent
of
egi.
D
The
ffe
estimate
was
the
actual
closed
roll
value
of
536
149,
which
we
deducted
gave
us
a
value:
a
capitalized
value
of
twelve
million,
eight
hundred
and
eighteen
thousand
five.
Twenty
nine,
which
stands
up
to
the
recommended
value:
closed
roll
value
of
ten
million
six.
Seventy
four
four
sixty
three
and
I'd
also
like
to
point
out
that
year
over
year,
from
21
to
20
and
21
to
22
the
value
ironically
went
down
because
of
costs.
D
This
property
had
a
negative
decrease
in
ebeda
from
year
ending
2019
to
the
reported
2020
of
77,
so
again
same
methodology.
We
started
that
with
the
base
year
we
gave
them
another
one
percent
downturn
for
year,
one
we
did
a
10-year
dcf.
The
property
actually
is
stabilized.
In
year
five,
we
used
a
discount
rate
of
9.75.
D
It
assumes
again
another
additional
decrease
of
one
percent
in
2021
stabilization
in
year,
five
and
commissions
at
two
and
a
half
percent
based
on
national
data.
The
dcf
conclusion
was
10
million
987
937,
which
holds
up
to
the
value
of
taxable
value
of
10
million
674
463.
D
A
Can
you
go
briefly
to
comparable
sales?
I
believe
you
do
present
in
here
your
comparable
sales.
You
brought
up
the
28
thousand
dollars
a
door,
so
I
just
like
to
see
how
that
reconciles.
In
your
opinion,
how
that
fits
in
with
the
comparable
sales
data-
and
I
don't
the
page
numbers
it
all
blurred
together
with
me
for
these
five
cases.
D
So
again
the
sales
are
kind
of
dated
because
there
haven't
been
any
recent
transactions
of
stabilized
properties.
So
in
the
limited
service
which
is
the
green
highlighted
band,
we
have
a
high
unit
value
of
140
0714
and
a
low
of
54.
D
and
we're
going
to
go
to
the
median
because
the
mean
is
affected
by
the
highs
and
the
low.
So
the
median
of
this
data
set
is
113
938,
which
is
still
significantly
higher
than
the
appellant's
capped
conclusion
using
the
economic
obsolescence
theory
and
then
the
loaded
cap
rate,
and
I
believe
he
was
still
well
under
forty
thousand
dollars
a
door
for
this
property.
And
again
I
don't
think
that's
a
fair
evaluation
for
this
property.
It's
fairly
new.
It's
well
kept.
A
D
Correct
okay,
so
if
our
say,
for
instance,
I'm
just
throwing
numbers
out
here,
if
we
appraise
an
income
producing
property,
we
come
to
a
conclusion
of
five
million
dollars.
This
has
no
reflection
of
what
we're
talking
about
five
million
dollars
and
the
depreciated
value
of
the
improvements
based
on
marshall
and
swift,
and
our
camera
costs
are
two
million
dollars.
D
We're
going
with
the
two
million
dollars
now
also
keep
in
mind
that
there's
a
tax
cap
in
place,
so
you
know
the
tax
cap,
your
taxes
will
only
increase
based
on
increases
to
the
tax
cap
statutorily
going
forward.
So
a
lot
of
these
properties
were
capped
way
back
in
the
recession
when
prices
were
really
cut
like
in
2008.
D
So
in
order
for
some
of
these,
not
these
properties,
hypothetically
in
order
for
some
of
these
properties
to
receive
a
dollar
in
tax
relief,
they'd
have
to
be
capped
substantially
lower
than
the
depreciated
value
and
oftentimes
that
we
just
can't
get
there.
It's
not
that
we
don't
want
to,
but
statutes
won't
allow
us,
I
mean
a
property,
is
producing
what
it's
producing
and
based
on
market
rates.
I
mean
we
can't
argue
with
that.
D
C
You
is
I'm
looking
at
that
table
on
page
95
and
the
only
2020
sales
that
we
have
are
the
two
in
the
mom
and
pop
category.
C
D
They're,
just
they're
just
anomalous,
they're
just
facts,
yet
these
properties
pretending
that
code
would
never
happen.
These
particular
properties
don't
normally
sell
until
the
end
of
their
holding
period,
when
they're
required
by
their
franchise
agreement
to
put
a
substantial
amount
of
renovation
money
into
it.
D
A
D
Years
ago,
those
are
basically
located
off
the
strip
in
the
fremont
street
corridor
and
that's
not
similar
because
of
the
transition.
That's
going
on
down
there
tony
shea
came
in
years
ago
and
was
buying
up
all
these
mom-and-pop
motels
and
he
had
this
big
vision
going
forward
about
what
was
going
to
happen,
and
he
did
do
some
great
things
to
some
of
these
older
motels
and
people
are
still
capitalizing
on
this,
so
they're
buying
the
property,
knowing
that
it's
it
it
cash
flows,
but
not
the
cash
flow
that
this
does.
A
A
Okay,
that's
helpful
for
me
the
context,
so
I'm
glad
I
asked
that
question.
A
E
Thank
you
just
briefly
on
my
sbe
22
is
the
actual
financials
for
year
end
2019.
E
And
just
that's
just
a
point
to
look
at
the
and
and
we're
assuming
that's
stabilized
at
1
million
368
026
ebitda
capitalize
it
at
let's
say
a
oer
of
nine,
then
take
into
consideration
reserves
which
aren't
included
in
the
financials.
E
You
can
capitalize,
send
let's
say
a
10
percent
intangible
personal
property
slightly
below
where
the
assessor
is
at.
If
you
guys
have
calculators
and
you
run
it
but
again,
it's
it's
client
driven,
can't
understand
the
slight
change
in
value.
E
And
that's
pretty
much
the
case,
you
know
it's,
it's
coveted
influence
and
that's
where
we're
at
that's
all.
I
have.
A
B
I'm
inclined
to
agree
with
the
county
here.
Frankly,
I
think
again
based
upon
the
location
of
the
property
and
the
mechanisms
used.
I
think
that
it
holds
so
I
really
don't
have
any
questions
or
comments
other
than
that.
B
C
I
would
tend
to
agree
the
the
discounted
cash
flow
that
the
assessor
produced
and
I
understand
the
the
hesitancy
to
to
rely
or
to
review
the
taxpayers
discounted
cash
flow.
I
think
that
they
complement
each
other.
I
believe
that
the
discount
rates
that
the
taxpayer
used
were
higher.
You
know
they
reflected
a
a
a
much
more
dark
projection
of
the
future
than
what
I
think
most
people
are
are
are
contemplating
or
even
in
january,
were
contemplating,
and
so
they
they
imposed
a
much
higher
degree
of
risk
than
I
think
or
contemplated.
C
A
higher
degree
of
risk
than
is
is
reflected
in
the
market.
Based
on
my
conversations
and
in
my
reading.
A
Is
there
a
second
second,
any
other
comments
from
the
board
seen
as
none
all
in
favor
say
I
I
any
opposed,
say,
nay,
motion
carries
unanimously.
With
that
we've
been
going
for
about
two
hours.
A
C
B
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
under
agenda
item
e
next
up
is
case:
number
21,
127
arc
hospitality
portfolio.
I
owner
llc
commercial
property.
The
respondent
is
the
clark
county.
Assessor
notice
of
hearing
can
be
found
on
page
84
of
your
packet
and
mr
richard
fogerty
is
on
zoom
and
is
the
petitioner
great
representative.
B
B
D
A
Richard
we're
back
to
you,
you
got
your
15
minutes
to
present
your
case
and
just
as
a
reminder,
we've
incorporated
by
reference
all
of
the
prior
2125
and
21
126
record
into
this
case.
E
Okay,
thank
you
again.
The
hyatt
place
similar
issues.
Previous
year
value
was
at
14
million
549
0.69
increased
slightly
21,
14
million
594
old
46
triggered
an
appeal.
The
house
cleaning
item
here
is
on
page
spe.
16.
E
So
this
is
one
that
could
be
a
screen
share
if,
if
everyone's
an
approval,
but
let's
go
to
our
original
appeal.
E
A
And
that
would
have
been
after
the
county's
date
of
january
15th.
So
with
that
and
you're
not,
I
guess
I'll
give
clark
county
the
ability
to
just
respond
if
this
should
be
new
evidence.
D
So,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
He
rich
did
date
at
february
9th
of
2021.
He
had
his
appeal
done
in
a
timely
manner.
However,
this
supplement
when
he
originally
filed
his
appeal.
His
his
client
had
not
provided
him
with
any
information
in
income
information,
so
when
he
finally
got
it,
it
was
at
our
deadline
to
send
our
stuff
to
the
print
shop
to
go
to
the
county
board
of
equalization,
so
it
did
not
get
into
the
county.
I
personally
have
no
objection
to
it.
It's
I
think
it's
in
it's
in
this
book.
C
Mr
chair,
this,
it
appears
that
this
letter
appears,
in
the
other
cases
as
well,
I'm
looking
at
90
or
121
125,
and
the
an
identical
letter
appears
on
page
54,
and
so
this
appeared
we've.
We
have
had
the
information
in
the
past
so
on
on
the
prior
or
the
other
files.
A
E
Great,
thank
you.
The
anyway.
The
back
to
the
external
obsolescence
said
we
we
were
at
12.8,
but
I
believe
in
the
supplemental.
I
changed
the
I
changed
the
overall
cap
to
9.5
I'll
have
to
check
that
when
I
bring
it
up
but
again
it's
it's.
The
external
obsolescence
analysis
on
some
type
of
help
due
to
cove,
and
let
me
cross
my
fingers
and
see
if
we
can
screen
share
and
supplement.
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
the
financials.
That's
pretty
much
what
I
want
to
get
into.
C
A
There
we
go
yeah,
it
does
it's
off
axis,
it's
90
degrees
to
the
left.
A
If
we
can
see
that,
if
you
could
zoom
in
a
little
bit
when
you
do
talk
about
specific
columns,
so
we
can
read,
them
would
be
all.
E
Okay,
well
not
sure
why
I'm
trying
150
there
we
go
well,
that's
best.
I
can
do
so.
What
I
can
do
is
just
I've
highlighted
if
we're
looking
at
the
same
page
here,
I've
highlighted
the
revpar
from
december
2020
year
end
to
last
year,
19
year
end
and
I'm
I've
got
my.
I
don't
know,
if
my
my
hand
is
showing
the
4465
rev
park.
Do
you
see
that.
E
Let
me
just
yes.
A
E
Okay,
so
revpar
from
our
stabilized
bases
year
end
19
was
at
cents
the
per
day,
4465
rev
par
for
2020..
E
E
I
also
include
2019
and
2018.
I
know
some
jurisdictions
I'm
dealing
with
are
actually
taking
three
years
and
just
averaging
and
then
capitalizing,
which
is
kind
of
interesting.
I'm
learning
more
utah's
next,
so
I'm
going
to
be
curious
and
see
how
how
their
certified
appraisers
are
going
to
look
at
look
at
the
hotels
and
then
we're
all
familiar
with
with
the
stabilized
present
value
adjustment.
E
So
we
were
running
over
revenue
pretty
much.
Those
numbers
should
all
come
off
of
the
statements
reserves,
four
percent
mli
stabilized
1.5,
again
9.5
in
the
etr,
which
I
shouldn't
have
used
1.05
capital.
I
stabilized
value
at
14
million
968,
which
is
real
close
to
where
the
assessor's
at
and
then
a
three-year
discount
to
stabilization
and
taking
a
personal
property
of
547.
We
came
in
a
10.4.
E
Rounded
and
again
the
dcf's
not
allowed
so
I'll
just
use
the
present
value
of
the
stabilized
on
that
one,
so,
basically
10.4
external
obsolescence.
I
believe
at
13.35.
E
We've
already
discussed
all
yeah
see
I
use
9.5
on
that
it's
going
to
obsolescence,
so
I
changed
that
from
the
original
to
the
9.5.
E
So
direct
market
10.4,
I
think
we
came
in
11.7
57
921
on
a
requested
full
cash
value,
placing
most
weight
on
the
dcf
which
isn't
allowed
so
direct
market
and
cost
at
13.4
direct
market
10.4
present
value,
and
that's
that's
all
I
have.
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
the
financials
and
how
this
property
suffered
during
covet.
D
Thank
you,
my
discounted
cash
flow
or
my
capitalization
summary
starts
on
page
64..
D
D
So
I
was
actually
lower
on
my
noi
on
a
stabilized
actual
basis
for
2019
than
they
were
actually
performing
at,
so
capping
that
1.6
million
dollar
figure
gives
me
an
overall
rate
or
an
overall
value
of
18
million,
and
then
I
deducted
the
actual
closed
certified
roll
value
for
the
ffe
of
544
627,
which
gives
me
a
concluded
value
on
the
capitalization
approach
of
17789
501,
which
holds
the
taxable
value
of
14594.045.
D
D
I
used
that
for
my
base
year
again
for
2021
going
forward,
I
decreased
their
ebitda
down
an
additional
one
percent,
like
I
did
in
the
other
properties
and
then
incremental
growth
going
forward
a
term
of
ten
years.
A
discount
rate
of
nine
and
three
quarters
assumes
modest
growth
from
year.
Five
of
one
percent
for
the
remainder
of
the
term
terminal
cap
rate
was
nine
and
a
quarter
and
commissions
were
two
and
a
half
percent.
D
E
Okay,
good
I've
got
a
message:
okay,
that's
clear!
Just
looking
at
miss
woods,
dcf
on
sbe
pay
65.,
I
just
the
president
value
discount
rate
was
9.75
and
used
the
terminal
cap
rate
of
9.25.
E
Okay-
and
I
just
just
noted
that
I
used
nine
and
a
half
cap
rate
and
a
10
on
my
discount
rate,
and
that's
all
I
have
thank
you.
E
The
last
year
year
to
date,
which
would
have
been
2019.
C
This
one
seems
to
be
following,
as
one
would
expect
very
closely
with
the
other
other
properties,
since
we
don't
have
the
information
in
front
of
us
to
compare
the
noi.
The
the
calculation
of
the
noi
for
2020
is
compared
with
20
20
on
the
county's
discounted
cash
flow.
That
gives
me
a
little
bit
of
concern,
but
I
don't
think
that
it
is
something
that
would
overshadow
the
the
ultimate
conclusion.
C
C
Mr
chairman,
in
case
in
case
number
21
127,
I
moved
that
we
uphold
the
county's
taxable
value
of
14
million
594.045.
A
B
A
C
A
I
don't
have
any
issues
with
it
because
I
do
think
the
information
presented
supporting
is
similar
in
some
of
the
arguments,
for
both
sides
are
going
to
be
similar
clark
county.
Do
you
have
any
objections
to
that.
A
A
D
Jill
wood
at
the
clark
county,
assessor's
office,
okay,
this
one's
a
little
different.
These
are
single
parcels
and
they
each
have
two
motels
on
them
with
a
parking
garage.
D
D
This
particular
property
is
located
just
west
of
the
las
vegas
boulevard
and
you
can
literally
throw
a
stone
and
hit
t-mobile
arena
and
city
center
drive,
so
it
kind
of
gives
you
proximity
to
where
these
properties
sit.
Based
on
the
data.
We
do
not
believe
that
there's
a
reduction
to
the
closed
roll
value
of
37
million
70
399.
D
C
E
Great
thank
you
again.
The
assessor's
previous
value
in
2020
was
36
million.
515
hundred
increased
to
thirty
seven
million.
Oh
seven,
o
three,
six,
seven
concern
the
client
or
owner,
and
so
that's
a
reason
we're
here
today,
packets,
page
number,
sbe,
28,
again
cost
feasible
level
of
the
assessor's
cost
and
145
a
key
market
income
level
at
108.
We
ran
our
external
obsolescence
at
the
beginning
of
the
appeal
season
on
sbe
56.
E
E
Lower
we've
got
a
few
more
rooms
there,
172
so
actually
summarized
because
there's
two
different
two
different
properties
on
this
parcel
on
sbe
53.
E
E
It's
a
great
question:
it's
something!
That's
my
organization,
there's
other
hospitality
specialists
with
ryan,
and
I
know
that
we've
discussed
that,
but
it
I
am
unaware
of
any
of
that.
I
don't
see
it
on
the
financials
other
revenue
and
so
on
doesn't
appear
to
show
that.
But
I
can't
give
you
a
yes
or
no
answer
on
that.
C
Yeah,
that's
that's.
What
I
was
thinking
is
that
if
it
had
been
property
specific,
then
it
probably
would
have
shown
up
in
this
2020
income
statement,
but
it
may
have
ended
up
on
the
corporate
level,
are
kind
of
mitigating
some
of
the
damage
caused
by
the
by
the
pandemic.
A
Is
the
hotel
properties
that
did
receive
the
funding
because
it
wasn't
taxable
if
you're
going
to
spend
it
the
right
way
it
has
not
showed
up
on
balance
on
profit
and
loss.
Statements
has
been
my
experience
in
reviewing
them.
It's
treated
separately,
just
because
it's
not
taxable,
but
that's
not
to
say
we
don't
have
enough
information
here
to
know
what
the
property
owner
did
or
didn't
do
here
in
america.
E
A
Just
joking
anyways
any
other
questions
for
richard:
oh
right,
pamper,
you
guys
are
aligned
with
that.
Then.
A
C
D
So
my
summary
page
begins
on
page
71
and
what
this
shows
you
is
the
combined
conclusions
for
each
property
subject,
one
and
subject
two
and
for
ease
of
analysis
for
the
board.
I
reconstructed
the
operating
statements
from
for
homewood
suites
and
the
garden
inn
so
that
way,
you're
not
going
back
and
forth
back
and
forth
and
that
can
be
found
on
page
76.
So
it
kind
of
gives
you
a
snapshot
side
by
side
of
year-to-date,
ending
11,
which
obviously
have
annualized
in
2019,
for
both
properties.
D
So
my
cap
summary
sheet
for
homewood
and
that's
my
subject:
property
one
based
on
actuals.
I
used
an
adr
145
occupancy
of
85
percent.
Other
income
at
2
expense
ratio
of
60
gives
me
an
noi
of
two
million
eight.
Ninety
nine,
nine
thirty
one
and
the
actuals
were
actually
two
million
eight.
Seventy
eight
six
one
three.
So
we
were
within
one
percent,
half
a
percent
of
one
another.
D
I
kept
it
at
nine
took
out
the
ffe
allocated
to
this
particular
property
of
two
million
four
hundred
and
seventy
two
thousand
four
four
eight
gave
me
an
income
approach,
value
of
twenty
million,
seven
hundred
and
forty
nine
thousand
and
eight
twenty
nine
million
seven
hundred
and
forty
nine
thousand
and
eight
dollars.
D
Following
page,
is
the
dcf
using
their
actual
noi
for
the
base
year
of
19,
and
their
decrease
was
only
34.2
percent,
which
I
mean
only.
I
don't
mean
that
to
sound
terrible,
but
some
of
these
other
properties
have
been
hit
much
harder,
so
they
had
a
decrease
at
34.2
percent,
so
starting
with
their
actual
noi
of
1.8
million.
Again
I
gave
them
another
downward
decrease
of
one
percent
for
year,
one
10-year
dcf.
D
We
have
them
stabilized
in
year,
five,
just
a
discount
rate
of
10
and
a
half
only
because
this
one
is
a
little
higher,
because
it's
got
two
properties
to
contend
with
on
one
parcel
instead
of
the
one.
So
that
should
be
reflective
in
the
risk
terminal.
Cap
rate
at
nine
and
a
half
commissions
at
two
percent
gives
us
a
dcf
conclusion
of
the
twenty
seven
million
four
hundred
and
twenty
seven
thousand
two
two
zero.
D
Let's
fast
forward
to
the
next
capitalization
summary,
which
is
the
hilton
garden
inn
on
page
74,
the
adr
of
127,
the
occupancy
83
other
income
at
eight
percent
of
egi
expenses
at
sixty
percent
of
egi
gives
us
an
noi
of
two
million.
Eight.
Fifty
eight
eight
fifty
six
and
their
actuals
that
were
submitted
were
two
million
eight
sixty
five.
So
again
we
were
within
one
percent,
half
a
percent
of
one
another,
deducting
the
allocated
personal
property
of
three
million.
D
page
75
is
the
dcf
using
the
same
methodology
using
their
stabilized
performer
for
19,
their
actual
ebitda
for
2020,
which
was
substantially
lower
than
the
other
property
again,
another
downward
decrease
in
2021
terminal
cap
rate
or
terminal
cap
rate
at
nine
and
a
half
commissions.
D
D
So
if
we
go
back
to
the
summary
page
on
71
and
I
apologize
for
jumping
around
the
cumulative
value
for
both
these
properties
on
the
dcf
conclusions
is
forty
nine
million
seven
hundred
and
sixty
seven
thousand
three.
Seventy
eight
and
our
total
taxable
based
on
replacement,
cost
new,
less
depreciation,
inclusive
of
the
parking
garage
was
37.070
399..
So
again,
we
believe
that
we
haven't
exceeded
full
cash
value
on
this
particular
property.
D
D
C
It's
reflected
in
the
overall
taxable
value
established
through
the
application
of
the
cost
approach
and
then,
since
it's
a
really
a
non-revenue
producing
item,
then
the
revenue
really
without
it,
where
it
accretes
to
the
rooms
so
that
the
discounted
cash
flow
or
the
income
approach
kind
of
includes
the
contribution
of
that
component.
Just
because
you
need
it.
A
E
That
was
so
refreshing
to
hear
about
the
parking
structure
because
of
the
fact
that
I
was
scheduled
for
a
hearing
in
california
this
morning
at
8
30
dealing
with
the
same
issue,
but
with
an
office
building
and
the
question
came
up-
was
how
do
you
calculate
the
other
income
that
should
be
generated
for
the
parking
structure
and
how
much
free
parking
do
you
get
so
and
it's
an
owner-occupied
property?
So
it's
just
refreshing
to
hear
both
the
county
as
well
as
a
board
member
speak
of
that.
E
A
B
I'm
again,
I
am,
it
appears
that
the
county
has
been
diligent
and
their
appraisal
mechanism,
even
thinking
about
how
to
allocate
for
the
parking
garage
space.
So
I
would
be
inclined
to
agree
with
the
counties
assessed
value
here.
C
As
do
I,
I
I
believe
that
the
issues
have
been
adequately
addressed
on.
A
B
D
Sorry,
this
is
again
the
same
type
of
property
as
the
last
property,
two
individual
franchised
hotels
sitting
on
one
parcel
identified
as
subject
one
and
subject
two
subject:
one
is
the
hilton
home
suites
located
at
4920
dean,
martin
drive.
D
These
properties
are
situated
at
the
southwest
corner
and
the
I-15
interchange
directly
across
the
street,
from
the
t-mobile
arena
and
just
north
of
raiders
stadium
or
allegiant
stadium.
The
property
contains
135
units
is
five
story
in
design
and
was
constructed
in
2018
again
as
similar
to
the
other
case.
It's
improved
with
a
three-story
parking
garage
containing
454
672
square
feet
and
the
parking
garages
shared
by
the
adjacent
hotel,
the
marriott
town
place,
which
I've
identified
as
subject
to
located
at
4920
dean
martin
drive
again
it's
situated
at
the
same
corner.
D
E
We're
showing
a
2020
assessor
value,
25764
631
and
in
2021
26
million
0
44
274
again,
reasoning
for
the
appeal
client
owner
did
not
feel
that
an
increase
was
feasible
for
for
covet
influence.
We've
run
an
income
analysis
on
the
home
two
suites
in
town
place.
However,
let's
take
a
look
at
the
financials
again
on
this
one.
E
E
Again,
we
looked
at
stabilized
numbers,
ran
our
income
analysis
with
the
oer
at
9.5,
so
we
had
a
home
two
suites
at
11.7
and
a
town
place
suites
at
12.7
for
a
total
of
24
million
400
and
again
the
assessment
was
at
26.04.
E
D
Thank
you
again
like
to
incorporate
all
my
testimony
from
all
the
previous
ones,
my
various
objections,
et
cetera.
So
if
you
go
to
my
summary
sheet
on
page
70,
it's
got
the
summation
of
the
two
motels
with
one
and
two
with
a
cumulative
total
of
26
million
539
189.
D
D
We
have
an
actual
noi
of
one
million
six
hundred
and
one
thousand
nine
nine
one
and
their
actuals
that
they
reported
came
in
at
one
million
six.
Seventy
four,
two,
fifty
six!
So
again
we
were
lower
than
their
actuals
for
this.
For
this
particular
analysis,
kept
it
at
eight
and
three
quarters.
D
The
ffe
associated
with
this
property
was
a
deduction
of
one
million
nine
hundred
and
sixty
two
two
228,
which
gave
me
a
capitalized
value
via
the
direct
cap
of
16
million
337
871.
D
The
rationale
was
the
same
using
the
pro
forma
of
2019
compared
it
to
2020.
But
in
this
this
case
it
was
a
negative
ebitda,
so
we
had
to
make
some
various
assumptions.
We
did
not
decrease
this
one,
an
additional
one
percent,
primarily
because
of
its
location
at
the
hard
corner
of
west
tropicana
and
the
I-15,
and
you
can
literally
walk
to
t-mobile
and
it's
a
short
jaunt
to
allegiant
stadium.
D
We
felt
this
one
had
the
best
location
out
of
all
of
them
because
of
the
corner,
so
we
really
kind
of
revved
it
up
in
2021
and
we
stabilized
it
in
year,
five
again,
which
was
two
years
after
what
market
participants
were
thinking.
You
know
to
be
stabilized.
In
year,
three
we
assumed
positive
cash
flow
in
incremental
growth,
going
forward
again
stabilized
at
year.
Five
terminal
rate
is
eight
and
a
half
commissions.
At
two
percent.
This
one
had
a
dcf
concluded
value
of
thirteen
million
nine.
D
Fifty
four
one
sixty
two,
the
town
place
which
is
subject
to
is
on
page
73
for
the
direct
cap
summary
again,
an
adr
of
125
occupancy
of
85
other
income
at
2
percent
expense
is
70
percent
noi
of
1
million
317
216.
D
D
If
we
go
to
the
dcf
on
page
74,
again
same
rationale
used
the
performa
of
1.3
million.
This
one
had
a
positive
ebitda
for
the
year
ending
20.,
so
we
didn't
have
to
ramp
it
up
as
much
in
year
2021,
we
stabilized
it
in
year,
five
discount
rate
of
nine
assumes
incremental
growth
going
forward
after
the
stabilization
period
in
year,
five
terminal
cap
rate
is
eight
and
a
half
commissions.
At
two,
this
one
gave
us
a
concluded
value
of
twelve
million
five,
eighty
five
o
twenty
seven.
E
Thank
you
just
a
question
for
miss
wood.
Regarding
her
dcf,
I
noted
that
the
rate
was
9
and
the
terminal
cap
rate
was
8.5.
The
previous
case
was
a
terminal
cap
of
9.5
and
present
value,
discount
rate
of
10
being
two
different
franchises
on
a
parcel.
Was
there
why
the
difference?
That's
that's!
Basically
what
I
was
asking.
A
There's
not
a
mechanism
to
ask
questions
back
of
the
assessor
at
this
point
in
time,
so
I
think
pointing
that
out
something
we
can
consider.
I
do
believe
during
her
testimony
that
she
offered
a
reason,
for
that
was
my
understanding
of
it
being
the
hard
corner
at
a
really
good
location,
so
she
felt
being
right
next
to
t-mobile
and
a
legion
at
that
hard
corner
that
that
location
involved
less
risk
is
my
recollection
of
her
testimony
as
to
why,
but
we
just
don't,
have
the
mechanism
to
allow
for
you
to
ask
her
a
question.
A
Unfortunately,
but
that
was.
E
A
Thank
you,
and
I
really
I
appreciate
your
professionalism,
it's
very
clear,
that
you
have
a
deep
level
of
understanding
and
that
you're
very
good
at
your
job.
So
I
do
want
to
just
say
thank
you
for
your
preparation
today
and
your
professionalism
with
that
any
other
questions,
let's
close
it
then
and
glenn.
What
do
you
think.
B
A
C
I
I
think
I
before
I
seconded
I'd
like
to
just
discuss
a
little
bit
with
you,
men
regarding
the
the
cap
rate
and
the
discount
rate.
So
this
property,
because
of
its
location,
is
viewed
as
having
lower
risk
because
the
ho
or
the
the
the
amount
of
money
that's
been
expended
to
attract
people
to
that
intersection
and
because
it's
a
much
newer
property
having
been
built.
You
know,
within
the
last
four
or
five
years,
are
those
reasonable
assumptions.
Given
where
your
experience
recently.
A
A
A
That's
why
yes,
and
they
give
a
huge
benefit
of
doubt,
going
negative.
In
my
opinion,.
C
B
A
Those
are
good
ones.
We've
got
a
motion
on
the
table
for
mr
trowbridge
and
do
we
have
your
second.
A
Any
other
comments
from
the
board
seen
as
none
all
in
favor
say
I
I
I
any
opposed,
say,
nay,
motion
carries
unanimously
and
with
that,
it's
1204.
Now
I'd
like
to
have
a
brief
conversation
with
jeff
about
what
our
caseload
looks
like
for
the
afternoon.
What
representations
we've
made
via
those
that
are
going
to
be
appearing
on
time
and
get
a
game
plan.
B
A
We
want
to
set
a
time
for
that
individual,
that's
available
via
zoom.
Take
that
person
either.
I
would
imagine
first
it's
what
they'd
want,
but
christina
can
you
check
in
with
them
and
see
if
they're
agreeable
we'll
be
back
in
an
hour?
It
would
be
my
thought.
One
o'clock
and
let
them
know
they'll,
be
up.
First.
B
He
has
currently
signed
off,
so
he
would
have
to
get
him
back
on
the
phone.
Okay.