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

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.