State board hears complaints on equalization

Thursday, Aug. 4, 2005 | 9:47 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Lake Tahoe property owners told a state hearing Wednesday that the Washoe County Assessor's Office exerts undue influence over the county board of equalization in the dispute over fast-rising value of land and homes in that area.

But a representative of the Clark County Assessor's Office said that doesn't happen in Southern Nevada.

Chuck Chinnock, director of the state Department of Taxation, conducted a three-hour hearing on possible changes on the regulations governing the conduct of county boards of equalization and plans more hearings.

The majority of complaints came from property owners at Incline Village at Lake Tahoe where values have skyrocketed in that upscale community.

Les Barta and Mary Ingemanson urged a change be made in regulations to give taxpayers a fair shake in appealing their property assessments.

Barta said there was "inappropriate communication" between the assessor's office and the board during the hearings. Ingemanson said that the orientation given the Washoe equalization board before the meetings by the assessor's office was "very slanted and biased" against taxpayers.

Rob Helling of the Clark County Assessor's Office, said things are handled differently in Southern Nevada. While the meeting dates and agenda are established by the assessor's office, the county appraisers are not allowed to talk to equalization board members.

In addition, the district attorney's office gives the Clark County Board of Equalization the orientation, not the assessor's office, said Helling.

Clark County had 1,934 appeals from the 650,000 properties that are assessed, Helling said. In the case of an appeal, Helling said the assessor's office provides the complaining taxpayer information on how the valuation was arrived at three days before the equalization board hearing.

Barta suggested a five-day notice. But Helling said opposed that extension, saying it would be challenging for the assessor's office to complete its work in that time.

Barta suggested that the state regulations be changed to have county clerks, not assessors, handle the hearings of the equalization boards in order to get a fairer hearing. But Helling told the hearing that that would be "way beyond the capability of the (county) clerks office to process" the business that comes before the equalization board.

"Historically we have not had issues," Helling said. "We handle the whole process."

Gary Schmidt, vice chairman of the Washoe County Board of Equalization, said there has been an "appearance of impropriety" with the assessor's providing the orientation for the board. He too suggested the county clerk, who is "pretty neutral," handle it.

Schmidt said there have been "habitual violations of the open meeting law" by permitting the assessor's office in Washoe County to set the agenda. "The county board should set the agenda, not the assessor's office," he said.

Schmidt, a citizen activist who has sued Washoe County a number of times over public records, was censured by the Washoe County Commission in May on a 3-2 vote on grounds he asked a deputy district attorney to take an oath to tell the truth at a board meeting.

Commissioners also complained Schmidt was rude and disruptive during meetings.

In the past, Schmidt had brought more than one-dozen appeals before the equalization board.