State Supreme Court upholds shorter notice of public hearings

Thursday, Nov. 4, 2004 | 9:43 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court, in a 4-2 decision, has ruled that property owners are not entitled to personal notice when they are fighting an increase in their property values before a county Board of Equalization.

The court said the general three-day advance posting of a public hearing is adequate notice for such property owners.

The court rejected the appeal of a group of homeowners from Incline Village at Lake Tahoe who maintained they should have received a personal written notice five business days before the Feb. 3, 2004, meeting of the Washoe County Board of Equalization.

Justices Bill Maupin and Deborah Agosti dissented, saying the majority is "favoring the convenience of government over the people it serves" in not requiring the individual notices.

The homeowners were protesting a major increase in their property assessments. The equalization board complied with the open meeting law by posting the agenda three working days in advance of the meeting.

The property owners, however, cited a law that a five-day personal notice is required when a government group is taking administrative action against a person or real property.

The court Tuesday upheld District Judge Steven Elliott of Reno who ruled the homeowners were not entitled to the personal written notification five days before the meeting.

The court said the U.S. Supreme Court and several states have specifically determined that notice by publication for tax assessments is adequate and personal notice is not necessary when increased property assessments are at issue.

The court said the county board complied with the "due process requirements" in posting the public notice.

Signing the majority decision were Justices Bob Rose, Nancy Becker, Mark Gibbons and Michael Douglas. Chief Justice Miriam Shearing, who owns property at Lake Tahoe, abstained.

Maupin and Agosti said property reassessments "are truly actions against the person who owns the property" and these personal additional notices are not unreasonable.

They said, "The majority today sacrifices fair and maximal involvement of its citizens on the altar of administrative efficiency."