For Comstock Park member owners and all common interest communities in Pahrump — the 2010-11 property tax statements included a “hidden” surprise.
Tucked away in the “assessed valuation” column, in the line item “building improvements,” is an additional, albeit small, charge based on the total tax bill and number of units in each community.
Even though the taxpayers believe they did not have any improvements, NRS 361.233 “Assessment and valuation of real property within common-interest community” states otherwise, To wit: any ad valorem taxes or special assessments assessed upon any real property within a common-interest community: 1. must be assessed upon the community units and not upon the common-interest community (association) as a whole …” etc.
All Comstock Park parcel owners (not to be confused with “lots,”) paid their share of the total tax bill of $1,954.98, divided by 646 parcels, which amounts to $3 and change.
The common-interest area that we are now paying the taxes for consists of parcels 39-281-05, 151 W. Comstock Circle; 39-431-01, 71 W. Highway 372; 39-431-01, 1011 S. Comstock Ave.; and two residential lots that were purchased by the association in 1994 — 39-411-25, 140 N. Vegas Valley; and 39-301-22, 210 W. Ivy Lane.
Wonder why the ’94 board of directors deemed it prudent to purchase these last two lots, thereby reducing the gross annual assessment income?
So, what is the correct number of lots remaining that are supposed to pay the annual assessment fees?
Granted, $3 doesn’t sound like much, but for some budgets — following on the heels of an exorbitant increase by Utilities Inc. it just might be the straw that broke the camel’s back.
For me it is an ethical issue. All owners were not notified of this change as is required by state law. And further, the association was advised by the Nye County Assessor’s Office to notify the owners.
The present board of directors’ lack of action and follow-through speaks of indifference and misfeasance.
Heretofore, all owners have paid assessments equally, based on the number of lots owned. Now owners are paying an equal share of the community property taxes based on the number of parcels owned.
However, all do not benefit equally as there is some selectivity and discrimination in choosing what gets attended to and what is ignored, e.g., the greenbelt is only half irrigated.
The front half is now lush and green and pleasing to they eye. The back half is a depressing sight, as it looks like a “ghetto” because of the brown, dried, dead weeds that can easily and quickly burn.
Gera G. Milner