Ventura County board hears Ross Dress for Less appeal over equipment valuation method

At a hearing of the Ventura County Assessment Appeals Board, the retailer Ross Dress for Less asked the board to lower its 2024 personal-property assessment for store equipment by applying market-derived depreciation tables prepared by Property Tax Research Services (PTRS).

The petitioner's representative, Dan Whitelother of Ryan, and appraiser Joshua Flores said the assessor's use of state-issued percent-good tables (AH 581) relies on generalized survival curves and undercounts "economic obsolescence" tied to market demand. "The petitioner's market-derived depreciation schedules . . . quantify economic obsolescence that should be applied to the subject property," Flores told the board, arguing PTRS uses secondary-market price data to capture supply-and-demand effects the state tables miss.

The assessor's representatives disputed that approach. Araceli Baikushev, senior auditor appraiser, said the assessor's office follows the Board of Equalization (BOE) index and percent-good factors and that the cost approach is the preferred method when reliable sales or income data are unavailable. "The assessor's office contends that the cost approach is the only proper method to value business personal property," Baikushev said, adding that the office found many PTRS comparables were listings or distressed sales rather than verifiable end-user transactions.

The hearing focused heavily on data sources and verification. Petitioner witnesses described PTRS's process of collecting used-equipment listings and deriving a weighted trend line to produce percent-good factors; they said PTRS excludes liquidation sales from its pool but acknowledged that not every listing in the PTRS dataset is supported by an invoice. Board members pressed both sides on whether PTRS data include confirmed sales prices, whether listed prices include freight and installation, how older comparables are weighted, and whether many PTRS examples (including mall-kiosk listings) are appropriate comparables for Ross.

Kristen Schilling, supervising auditor appraiser for the assessor, reviewed examples she said illustrated the problem with listings: many were distressed (sellers noting store closure), outdated, or lacked documentation for original price, condition, or included components. "These listings are not reliable," she said, adding that the assessor's value reflects installed, in-service equipment as reported on Ross's business property statements and confirmed in audit.

Petitioner argued the assessor had not meaningfully tested its standardized tables against market indicators for these assets and urged the board to recognize prior findings that market-derived depreciation curves better reflect fair market value for similar appeals in Ventura County. "Uniformity is not the same as accuracy," Whitelother said in closing, urging the board to accept the PTRS adjustments.

The board did not render a decision on the record. Chair noted the panel would retire to deliberate and evaluate the evidence before issuing a ruling.

What was clear on the record

- The dispute centers on method: both sides presented cost-approach estimates but disagreed about the percent-good/depreciation input. The petitioner used PTRS market-derived percent-good factors; the assessor used BOE index and percent-good tables (AH 581). - Key factual details: the appeal concerns the 2024 lien date (01/01/2024); petitioner said Ross operates 12 active locations in Ventura County; petitioner cited PTRS first-year decline figures (the PTRS retail table shows a ~50% first-year decline; PTRS computer table a ~57% first-year decline) as examples used to derive percent-good factors. - No formal vote or decision appears on the transcript; the board recessed for deliberation.

Next steps

The board moved into deliberation at the close of the hearing; no outcome was recorded on the transcript. Parties should expect a written decision or a future meeting item where the board announces its determination.