RENO, Nev. - Washoe County could owe taxpayers of Incline Village and Crystal Bay an estimated $12 million after the Nevada Board of Equalization ruled Monday to roll back assessed property values for 8,700 Incline Village/Crystal Bay properties to the 2002-2003 tax year.
However, Washoe County may appeal the decision to U.S. District Court of Nevada, according to a press release dated Monday
"The Washoe County District Attorney's office will now consider options available to Washoe County and advise the county commission and other county officials of their recommendations. If the county decides to appeal to a county district court, the appeal must be filed within 30 days of the State Board of Equalization's written decision being recorded."
Monday's hearing regarding the 2006-2007 tax year took place at the Washoe County Administration Complex in Reno. SBOE heard argument from the Village League - which represented the 8,700 IV/CB properties - and the Washoe County Assessor's office, represented by David Creekman, a deputy district attorney with Washoe County.
It took the five-member SBOE about 10 to 15 minutes to render a unanimous decision, said Incline resident and Village League to Save Incline Assets member Les Barta, in a phone interview with the Bonanza after the decision.
"This is a huge win for us," Barta said. "We're hoping the county will do the responsible thing and pay us back and not drag this out any further. If they do that, then this whole controversy might be over."
In the Monday press release, Creekman issued a statement, saying the county was "very disappointed" with SBOE's decision.
"Throughout the many years of addressing lawsuits filed against the County by the League to Save Incline Assets, we have always stressed the need to use the adopted administrative process that ensures fairness and equality for all taxpayers."
Creekman continued: "Today's decision by the State Board was couched in terms of tax fairness and sought to end a dispute that began with the 2006 decision of the County Board of Equalization involving Lake Tahoe property taxpayers. In the end, however, it's most important that the right decisions are made for all taxpayers regardless of where they reside. Fairness in taxation requires government officials and taxpayers to follow the laws. The State Board's failure to correct the 2006 decision has far-reaching implications for how disputes over property tax bills will be addressed in the future."
SBOE's ruling to roll back means Washoe County must shoulder the refund. According to an Oct. 30, 2008, ruling from the Nevada Supreme Court regarding the case, "In oral argument before this court, the State Board noted that the County Board's equalization decision (2006) affected $12 million in revenue."
According to Village League members, if Washoe County foots the bill, it will be divided among the county, Incline Village General Improvement District, Washoe County School District, North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District the State of Nevada.
The Nevada Supreme Court on Oct. 30, 2008, ruled that the Nevada State Board of Equalization is within its jurisdiction to hear and offer an opinion on a case involving the 2006-2007 taxation year, in which the Village League to Save Incline Assets is representing 9,000 Incline Village and Crystal Bay parcel holders.
On March 8, 2006, the Washoe County Board of Equalization issued a general equalization decision for the 2006-2007 tax year, rolling back taxable valuations for about 8,700 IV/CB properties. The Washoe County Assessor (at the time, Bob McGowan) appealed the decision to the SBOE, which failed to consider the case until April 2007, and subsequently remanded the case to the WCBOE. The other 300 parcel holders involved in the 2006-2007 tax year already received settlements.
The Village League then filed suit against the state board, Washoe County, the Washoe County Assessor and Washoe County Treasurer, asking for the Supreme Court to declare that the SBOE's decision to remand the case to the WCBOE to be in "excess of its jurisdiction or an arbitrary exercise of its discretion," the opinion reads.
According to the Oct. 30 opinion - which can be viewed in its entirety in a PDF format at tahoebonanza.com - the court agreed the SBOE did have jurisdiction to hear the cases and demanded the SBOE "vacate its remand order and proceed with its consideration of the Assessor's appeal of the County Board's equalization decision on the merits."
