Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Clark County Board of Equalization Meeting - February 9, 2026

Meeting Portal — Monday, February 9, 2026

BodyClark County, Nevada

SessionMeeting Portal

DateMonday, February 9, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 1:15:54

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

1:56

Good morning.

1:58

This is Clark County Board of Equalization hearing for February 9th, 2026.

2:02

County Clerk has informed us that the meeting has been posted and properly noticed.

2:07

At this time, can we please call the roll?

2:10

Terry Farr.

2:12

Present.

2:12

Luca Dommel.

2:14

Here.

2:14

Glenn Anderson.

2:16

Here.

2:17

Paul Chafee's absent today.

2:19

Heidi Madam Bauer.

2:28

Thank you.

2:48

That motion passes.

2:52

Before we start, the microphone is open for any public comment.

2:56

Seeing none, I will close the microphone.

2:59

We need to swear in the petitioners, anyone who intends to testify in behalf of the petitioners and members of the assessor's office, please stand and face the clowning clerk to be sworn in.

3:17

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give during the course of this hearing is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

3:23

So help you go out.

5:00

Or they may raise or lower the value of the property that was used as the comparable property.

5:06

Under NRS 361.357, if a taxpayer believes the full cash value of their property is less than the assessed taxable value for the fiscal tax year being appealed, the board may review the assessor's determination.

5:20

If the board finds that the full cash value on the January 1st, prior to the fiscal year being appealed, is less than the taxable value, the board may correct the land value or fix a percentage of obsolescence that is to be deducted from the improvement value to ensure the total taxable value corresponds as closely as possible to its full cash value.

5:40

Under NRS 361.355, if a taxpayer believes their property is overvalued by reason of another property being undervalued or not assessed, the board may examine any evidence submitted and then make a determination.

5:55

If the board finds the property complained of is undervalued or not assessed, they may increase the taxable value or place the property on the tax roll at its taxable value.

6:05

A public officer must disclose potential conflicts in public to the chair and other members of the board.

6:13

If a public officer has a personal financial or private commitment that could reasonably affect their decision on an issue, they must publicly disclose this information to the chair and board before taking any action.

6:25

Additionally, the public officer must not vote on promote or participate in deliberations on an issue.

6:31

If a reasonable person would believe their judgment could be influenced by a gift or loan, a significant financial interest or a personal or private obligation to another party.

6:45

Thank you.

6:56

You will find that starting on page seven of the masterbook.

7:18

That motion passes.

7:50

Yes, Chairman Farrell, we do.

7:54

We have five notices of appearance today or seven.

7:58

Seven notice of appearances today.

8:00

I believe they're all the same issue.

8:01

Um just to um refresh the board's memory.

8:04

Um notice of appearances have to do with um either an untimely filing or someone who filed inappropriately, they didn't have the proper owner's signature to a file and appeal.

8:14

Um, I believe um Stephanie is going to present those cases today.

8:17

We've included the statutes and all of the case information to reference and she's gonna reference those for you.

8:23

So we're gonna turn it over to Stephanie Jones.

8:26

Thank you, Stephanie Jones with the Clark County Assessor's Office.

8:30

Um the notice of appearance cases, um, we can begin um with case 931.

8:35

Each of these cases are the same agent and have the same exact issues, so I can go through case 931 and then incorporate my testimony on the rest of it if that's okay.

8:52

Okay, I got it.

9:01

Okay, if you can go to page um two 2126, which is their appeal form.

9:07

I'm just gonna guide you through this a little bit.

9:09

Um you can see in part A, the owner is SFR fund five, I'm sorry, six borrower LLC.

9:16

Um if you scroll down a little bit to part C, it asks for the relationship of petitioner to the owner and nothing is checked there.

9:24

Um let's go down to the next page 2127.

9:29

You can see under the certification certification part G, there's no owner signature on the appeal form.

9:37

Um, down under Part H, which is the authorization of the agent, you can see that this is filled out.

9:43

Mercy Galindo and Mercy Galindo has signed the petition.

9:49

Um I can have you go to page 2136.

10:15

If a person files the appeal in a timely manner without the written authorization required by subsection one, the person may provide without written authorization within 48 hours after the last day allowed for filing the appeal.

10:27

This year that deadline was January 15th, which fell on a Thursday, so they had until the 17th to provide a letter of authorization.

10:34

We did not receive a letter of authorization.

10:37

On the 20th of January, we did send a letter to them letting them know that we did not, that this was an untimely filing.

10:45

Just for the board's information, we send out an email blast.

10:48

Yeah, you can see that on 2131.

10:50

This agent did receive that, letting them know the rules and when they would have to file the letter of authorization.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Property Valuation█████████████████████████████████████████████73%

Budget Equity Analysis████████████19%

Procedural████7%

Affordable Housing█1%

Summary of Proceedings

Clark County Board of Equalization Meeting - February 9, 2026

The Board convened at 8:00 AM to hear appeals on property valuations. The meeting included decisions on notices of appearance for seven cases, approval of assessor recommendations for three escaping taxation cases, and a contested hearing on the valuation of the Tuscan Highlands apartment complex (Case 65).

Consent Calendar

The Board approved the agenda, minutes from previous meetings, and sworn in petitioners and assessor staff.

Notice of Appearance – Denied Jurisdiction

For cases 931, 932, 933, 934, 935, 936, and 917, the assessor's office reported that the agent (Mercy Galindo) failed to provide proper written authorization within 48 hours after the appeal deadline. The Board voted unanimously to deny jurisdiction on all seven cases based on untimely filing.

Escaping Taxation – Added to Roll

Case 741 (Sataray Properties Group LLC): Improvements on a duplex at 2127 Ellis Street, North Las Vegas, had not been on the tax roll since 2022/2023. The Board approved adding improvements for fiscal years 2022-2023 through 2025-2026 with a 15% functional obsolescence adjustment, totaling taxable values from $384,461 to $453,551.
Case 598 (KW-HS Lot Option Pool 01 LLC): A 12.59-acre vacant land parcel near I-11 and Sky Canyon was erroneously valued at zero as common element. The Board approved adding a taxable value of $5,791,400 ($460,000 per acre) for both fiscal years 2024-2025 and 2025-2026.
Case 1136 (Puppy Playhouse Craig Holdings LLC) was postponed due to inability to contact the owner.

Discussion Items

Case 65 – Veneto Tuscan LLC (Tuscan Highlands Apartments): Petitioner James Susa argued that the assessor's valuation of $73 million (approximately $242,000 per unit) was too high because the property was in receivership and faced market challenges. The petitioner's property manager testified that the property's net operating income (NOI) would be between $2.5–$3 million, far below the assessor's estimate of $4.3 million. The assessor's office provided an income approach using market vacancy of 11% and a 5.5% cap rate, supported by comparable sales. After discussion, the Board voted to maintain the assessor's recommended taxable value.

Key Outcomes

Denied jurisdiction on cases 931–936 and 917 (all due to lack of proper agent authorization).
Approved escaping taxation for case 741 (Sataray Properties) for four fiscal years and for case 598 (KW-HS Lot Option Pool) for two fiscal years.
Upheld assessor's value for Case 65 (Veneto Tuscan LLC / Tuscan Highlands).
Accepted assessor’s recommendations on all remaining cases (stipulated, withdrawn, or where petitioners did not appear) with the exception of case 1136.
The next hearing is scheduled for February 11, 2026, with 64 cases.

Meeting Transcript

Good morning. This is Clark County Board of Equalization hearing for February 9th, 2026. County Clerk has informed us that the meeting has been posted and properly noticed. At this time, can we please call the roll? Terry Farr. Present. Luca Dommel. Here. Glenn Anderson. Here. Paul Chafee's absent today. Heidi Madam Bauer. Thank you. That motion passes. Before we start, the microphone is open for any public comment. Seeing none, I will close the microphone. We need to swear in the petitioners, anyone who intends to testify in behalf of the petitioners and members of the assessor's office, please stand and face the clowning clerk to be sworn in. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give during the course of this hearing is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you go out. Or they may raise or lower the value of the property that was used as the comparable property. Under NRS 361.357, if a taxpayer believes the full cash value of their property is less than the assessed taxable value for the fiscal tax year being appealed, the board may review the assessor's determination. If the board finds that the full cash value on the January 1st, prior to the fiscal year being appealed, is less than the taxable value, the board may correct the land value or fix a percentage of obsolescence that is to be deducted from the improvement value to ensure the total taxable value corresponds as closely as possible to its full cash value. Under NRS 361.355, if a taxpayer believes their property is overvalued by reason of another property being undervalued or not assessed, the board may examine any evidence submitted and then make a determination. If the board finds the property complained of is undervalued or not assessed, they may increase the taxable value or place the property on the tax roll at its taxable value. A public officer must disclose potential conflicts in public to the chair and other members of the board. If a public officer has a personal financial or private commitment that could reasonably affect their decision on an issue, they must publicly disclose this information to the chair and board before taking any action. Additionally, the public officer must not vote on promote or participate in deliberations on an issue. If a reasonable person would believe their judgment could be influenced by a gift or loan, a significant financial interest or a personal or private obligation to another party. Thank you. You will find that starting on page seven of the masterbook. That motion passes. Yes, Chairman Farrell, we do. We have five notices of appearance today or seven. Seven notice of appearances today. I believe they're all the same issue. Um just to um refresh the board's memory. Um notice of appearances have to do with um either an untimely filing or someone who filed inappropriately, they didn't have the proper owner's signature to a file and appeal. Um, I believe um Stephanie is going to present those cases today. We've included the statutes and all of the case information to reference and she's gonna reference those for you. So we're gonna turn it over to Stephanie Jones. Thank you, Stephanie Jones with the Clark County Assessor's Office. Um the notice of appearance cases, um, we can begin um with case 931. Each of these cases are the same agent and have the same exact issues, so I can go through case 931 and then incorporate my testimony on the rest of it if that's okay. Okay, I got it. Okay, if you can go to page um two 2126, which is their appeal form. I'm just gonna guide you through this a little bit. Um you can see in part A, the owner is SFR fund five, I'm sorry, six borrower LLC. Um if you scroll down a little bit to part C, it asks for the relationship of petitioner to the owner and nothing is checked there. Um let's go down to the next page 2127. You can see under the certification certification part G, there's no owner signature on the appeal form.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com