[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6679382,"mediaKeyId","2366547-478894b5b9a0d3fe59d40fdeb58658c4","parentId",2366547,"title","Board upholds assessor value for Fort Apache townhomes after debate over income vs. rent-multiplier approaches","audioSeconds",4328,"startMs",848000,"endMs",5176000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2366547-478894b5b9a0d3fe59d40fdeb58658c4&start=848&end=5176","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2366547-478894b5b9a0d3fe59d40fdeb58658c4/thumbnail_848000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6679382/Clark-County/Nevada/Board-upholds-assessor-value-for-Fort-Apache-townhomes-after-debate-over-income-vs-rent-multiplier-approaches","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6679382-dd76c06d6a4a8aa4fff88697a2e1a21d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137203&Signature=IA-0e7Yfx3upiXX1niBYAI4Jua8-yb2W8Kh54G7ilkfUR5jILjfoZFKRXIyGo9avUpG6LlB7P82~CFaDhT6pwgm-xeM5cKThJhc9of8RrntEMsqnw9OCNrSYpQngBN4fcPzEZJ6VDywT~mEjXi3Ojj7TN56GeMEcFHZ0Zr0xKvDU3zM47pxlsWncGA40fLNTfP7jDWbg4B0GMCckkuHiO-A~QWoI8bdigaZldmw6YseanxGnYhJIrP6dqWrVUyZBHpl0WByu8NU1tBo4jCv9agzBnwh2esFrFmnWM-S1tiFXSAWuIoazs46ONHIatOV5Iq4GZAm1Vxp-2lfnWkybtQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Clark County","date","2025-02-20T00:00:00Z","article","The Clark County Board of Equalization heard competing valuation approaches on Feb. 20 in an appeal by Fort Apache Townhomes LLC over the taxable value of a 79‑unit townhome development near Fort Apache and Serene streets.

Developer and owner representatives argued the project should be valued as a single income‑producing unit rather than as 79 separate taxable townhome parcels. Counsel and developer witness Vincent Schetler described the property as an operating rental project (build‑to‑rent) with a single construction loan and a unified revenue stream; they provided a rent roll and several months of operating statements that showed the project reaching near‑full occupancy in December 2024. Using the December net operating income (NOI) that the owner provided (about $112,700 for the month, equivalent to roughly $1.35 million annualized), the petitioner proposed capitalizing the income at a 6.0–6.5% rate to estimate market value in the low‑to‑mid‑$20 million range.

Assessor staff countered that the subdivision had been platted as individually parceled units and that county practice and the available market data supported using a residential gross‑rent‑multiplier (GRM) or per‑unit comparable sales approach for individually parceled townhomes. Assessor witnesses presented a GRM analysis using nearby for‑lease townhome data and a set of portfolio sales of rental communities; they argued those indicators supported the assessor’s recommended taxable values and a modest reduction in base lot value (from $100,000 to $90,000 per lot) that the assessor had already applied during review.

Board members discussed the legal test in NRS 361.227 (unit of appraisal) and NAC 361.1295 for subdivision discounts and whether the facts of the Fort Apache ownership and financing made it appropriate to value the property as a collective economic unit. The petitioner emphasized lender proposals to take out construction financing in the $17–18 million range, and the developer contended that lenders underwrite on income and residual analyses rather than per‑unit retail comparisons.

After deliberation, the board voted to accept the assessor’s recommended taxable values for the park of cases (the motion recorded at the hearing). The board noted the developer’s right to appeal to the Nevada State Board of Equalization.

Why it matters: The case captures a recurring tension in modern housing markets: whether build‑to‑rent developments that are platted as individual units should be assessed using parcel‑level residential comparables or treated as consolidated income assets. The board’s decision to rely on the assessor’s GRM/comparable framework leaves the assessor’s current approach intact, but owners and lenders may renew the argument on appeal or in subsequent similar projects.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Clark County - New! Board of Equalization - Feb 20, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Equalization on Feb. 20 declined to adopt an income‑capitalization valuation for a 79‑unit Fort Apache townhome development, instead accepting the assessor’s parcel‑by‑parcel comparable/GRM approach with a modest land‑value adjustment.","taxTitle","Clark County, Nevada","taxId",2668,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6679386,"AMH seeks countywide \"2.5\" quality-class equalization; board largely upholds assessor",2851,757000,3608000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2366547-478894b5b9a0d3fe59d40fdeb58658c4&start=757&end=3608","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2366547-478894b5b9a0d3fe59d40fdeb58658c4/thumbnail_757000.jpg","/articles/6679386/Clark-County/Nevada/AMH-seeks-countywide-25-quality-class-equalization-board-largely-upholds-assessor","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6679386-c03ec74f9a9a48c30b7836f4253eed5a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137203&Signature=gm6ORdehngPi1wKPc4qifQIhZFJ1G3Z-zAqOqPxQhubslWwh8dCHpQ-6zcgSPQ9GnW7rw2mElm-CnfTx24uNTQajYFRdy2FkZB4G7zSDzC6JbFFnDI2~1xwqWkRqjAlQy4FdtyVRKoOfsPe5MUAeq~4LDZcbLLcMc3Og5MPOnpPGpPXp1YO-MLlIvP~xgIr4k9x6enYvO0DhOU0wKuoPgUhXA-CCmn98l-oBeUIuLvOr0HRwU72tgussk1vniTNUVYbjAiCb4arPjXmrh2w9-rl1v24lYdBmbp8SIScckSf5yiuph~hTKnwSIUmZ8Je7o2Y6-cIEIMwUe~fQBz2Q4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","AMH Nevada and representatives from AMH’s portfolio pressed the Clark County Board of Equalization on Feb. 20, arguing that many of the company’s build‑for‑rent subdivisions should be classified at a lower construction-quality category (\"2.5\") rather than the assessor’s higher \"3.0\" ratings, and that equalization across AMH communities would correct what the developer called inconsistent classification practices.

AMH spokesman Mike Churchfield told the board the interiors and building products across the company’s communities are essentially identical and argued those similarities justify moving multiple AMH neighborhoods from a 3.0 to a 2.5 “quality class.” Churchfield provided photo comparables from AMH communities and non‑AMH neighborhoods he said were similar in finish level and layout. He said the company’s maintenance and construction approach—bulk procurement of similar finishes and minimal in‑home options for tenants—results in lower replacement costs and should be reflected in county assessments.

Clark County assessor staff responded that Marshall & Swift cost manuals (used to set improvement costs) allow intermediate classes such as 2.5, but that the office evaluates each neighborhood on its own merit. Assessor witnesses described the methods used for this portfolio: land allocation analysis for subdivision lots, gravity testing against sales to identify whether the county was exceeding full cash value, and direct sales comparables for each model. The assessor said staff had already reviewed AMH communities after earlier appeals and had changed some quality classes where warranted; the assessor recommended no change to most of the parcels now under appeal because comparable sales and mass‑appraisal analysis supported the current taxable values.

Board discussion touched repeatedly on where to draw the distinction between “for‑sale” tract homes (which commonly include optional upgrades) and build‑for‑rent product. Assessor staff said allocation and market adjustments are used when subdivisions have no sales, and that neighborhood absorption and local market differences can require applying market adjustments, which are separate from quality class determinations.

After testimony and questioning, the board considered the assessor’s recommendations and motions tied to the individual appeals. Several AMH appeals were disposed of on the assessor’s recommendation; others were stipulated or withdrawn by the petitioner during the hearing. The board did not order county‑wide reclassification of AMH properties as a group. Several AMH owners signaled they may pursue additional administrative steps, including future appeals.

Why it matters: Quality‑class assignments feed into replacement‑cost calculations that drive improvement valuations and, ultimately, taxable values of parcels. As build‑for‑rent product grows, questions about how to compare rental‑designed single‑family product with traditional for‑sale tract homes are likely to affect assessments and appeals going forward.

Votes and procedural outcomes from this series of AMH cases were recorded on the public record during the hearing; several individual appeals were denied or held at assessor recommendations, and a number of cases were stipulated by the appellant. Petitioner representatives were reminded of appeal rights to the Nevada State Board of Equalization.","AMH Nevada and representatives from AMH’s portfolio pressed the Clark County Board of Equalization on Feb. 20 to reclassify many build‑for‑rent subdivisions to a lower construction quality class, arguing the interiors and building products are essentially identical across communities and should be equalized countywide.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6679377,"Board applies large subdivision discount to 4 Seasons Residences land value after hearing; petitioner disputes treatment",203,4486000,4283000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2366547-478894b5b9a0d3fe59d40fdeb58658c4&start=4486&end=4283","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2366547-478894b5b9a0d3fe59d40fdeb58658c4/thumbnail_4486000.jpg","/articles/6679377/Clark-County/Nevada/Board-applies-large-subdivision-discount-to-4-Seasons-Residences-land-value-after-hearing-petitioner-disputes-treatment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6679377-c04571a27fce9171591fe8f4f98b35cd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137203&Signature=jBSlrwni~iftNBaN~0cDrU--UjDBpT4XN~c-v0DqEdfgdW3nTrm5TUGRtCl9Ql860ErHLN~RE8~aVW0gRZa5GVEUrGh5Vs-bjO~q2wELulsblZZozegTzT-6JsaH3QPf3bADLZcEcVZ2fjuy6AbBXcGQ8xJl8UnxYHAnoqiqYT3nxWLm7uJ3q-W9sKJNXK-2zkcVPNMPRmbRXduTjqXqfsFKhmJ2zAKq2m1oKUOpBlOfEfLHnWBpppch~8sVF06GM1nEKWPIRr1O0zLLPgyerE9MTIevcfh0pyTcAy~uMOciGZY00HHYhFDRtnXbD09ynVaGUMxAlp55juiWj3zlFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Equalization considered a high‑profile land valuation dispute tied to the proposed 4 Seasons Residences at McDonald Highlands on Feb. 20. The 12.93‑acre project, marketed as very high‑end condominiums and advertised with penthouse prices in the tens of millions of dollars, generated lengthy testimony about how to set the taxable land value before vertical construction.

Assessor staff explained that when a subdivision is platted into multiple parcels, statute and administrative code authorize valuing land either by allocation from comparable subdivided neighborhoods, by development cost, or by absorption/bulk‑sale methods. Because 4 Seasons is a novel high‑end condominium product with no direct local analogues, the assessor reconciled several approaches: acreage sales in high‑end neighborhoods, a custom‑lot sale in McDonald Highlands that reflects the area's premiums, and an evaluation of actual development costs the owner supplied. The assessor reconciled to a per‑acre undeveloped value of about $1,350,000 and added site work costs reported by the petitioner; when the assessor applied the statutory subdivision allocation rules and a development‑cost method, the calculation produced a large developer discount. The assessor recommended a 92–93% subdivision discount, producing a much lower taxable retail‑lot value per unit than the advertised retail prices of the finished condos. Those discounted retail‐lot values were set in the current tax roll, and the assessor sought board confirmation.

Seller/developer representatives (Henderson Pinnacle / Paul Bikowski speaking for the owner) objected, saying the assessor’s approach double‑counted post‑contract construction expenditures and treated an as‑sold negotiated joint‑venture price as only part of the picture. The petitioner presented the purchase/contract price and argued the land’s value should reflect the transaction and the substantial entitlements and off‑site work performed as of the lien date. The petitioner also warned that an artificially high land allocation now would produce distortions when large construction supplements and future closings occur.

After extended testimony, the board voted to accept the assessor’s recommended subdivision discount and the resulting discounted taxable values for the secured and supplemental rolls. Board members and staff noted the decision follows NAC and NRS guidance on subdivision discounts and that the discount is applied to the land unit of appraisal; members emphasized that subdivision discounts (and development‑cost methods) are applied year by year and do not automatically carry to subsequent years without current supporting evidence.

Why it matters: The 4 Seasons hearing illustrates how counties value high‑end, nonstandard condominium projects with limited or no direct local sale comparables. The assessor’s use of multiple appraisal paths, and the resulting large subdivision discount, show a commonly used method to set taxable land values for multi‑unit projects that are not yet closed; developers argued for greater weight to contract pricing and post‑closing obligations.

The petitioner was advised of appeal rights to the state board; the assessor will file written orders reflecting the board’s ruling.","The Board of Equalization on Feb. 20 upheld a large subdivision discount applied by the Clark County Assessor to the land values for the proposed 4 Seasons Residences at McDonald Highlands, after hearing extended evidence from assessor staff and the property’s seller about comparables, development costs and contract pricing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board upholds assessor value for Fort Apache townhomes after debate over income vs. rent-multiplier approaches

AMH seeks countywide "2.5" quality-class equalization; board largely upholds assessor

Board applies large subdivision discount to 4 Seasons Residences land value after hearing; petitioner disputes treatment