Clark County Board of Equalization Meeting - February 11, 2026
Clark County Board of Equalization Meeting – February 11, 2026
The Clark County Board of Equalization convened on February 11, 2026, at 8:00 AM in the Commission Chambers at the Clark County Government Center. The board heard 13 notices of appearance regarding jurisdictional issues, approved a block of assessor recommendations, and deliberated on several property valuation appeals. A total of 172 cases remain for future hearings.
Consent Calendar
- The board unanimously adopted the agenda.
- The board approved the assessor's recommendations (Attachment 1) in a single motion. These recommendations covered 25 parcels (2025-2026 and 2026-2027 fiscal years) with adjusted valuations based on market value, income, or exceeding full cash value.
- For all cases where petitioners did not appear, or which were stamped as stipulated, withdrawn, or otherwise resolved (excluding case 379), the board accepted the assessor's recommendations in a single motion.
Discussion Items
Notices of Appearance (Jurisdictional Issues)
Stephanie Jones from the Clark County Assessor’s Office presented 13 cases where the board lacked jurisdiction due to untimely filings or missing agent authorizations. The board denied jurisdiction in all 13 cases:
- Case 627 (Roman-Ortega Pablo): Untimely filing (appeal postmarked January 22, 2026, after the January 15 deadline).
- Cases 657, 658, 659, 697, 660 (various owners, agent Ashley Warwick): Untimely agent authorization letters not received by the January 17 deadline.
- Case 926 (Hill Oxford Three LLC): Authorization letter signed by Jack Lane, who could not be verified as an owner or authorized signatory; objection not cured within 5 business days.
- Case 993: Withdrawn by the petitioner.
- Case 1010 (EC 3001 South Las Vegas Blvd): Initial authorization letter listed a different owner; a new letter submitted after the deadline was untimely.
- Case 1025 (Kingdom Bridge Inc.): No letter of authorization received by the deadline; agent Charles Usigbe understood the issue.
- Cases 344, 346, 347, 348 (Alpine Building LLC, Downtown Parking LLC, Main Street Investments I LLC, Corner Building LLC): Agent Paul Murad’s authorization was not established; management agreements submitted after the deadline were untimely and insufficient.
Case 214 – Samuels (Parcel 17904803008)
Appellant Jay Samuels (representing owner Neal Samuels) argued that a 1.99-acre vacant lot in Henderson was overvalued at $300,000. He cited SNWA septic waiver fees ($20,000), inability to subdivide, and lack of comparable sales within a half-mile since March 2025. The assessor (Cindee Robaina) presented six comparable sales within one mile, with values ranging from $80,000 to $87,000 per acre, and noted that the property is listed for $499,990. The board denied the appeal, finding the $300,000 taxable value supported by market data.
Cases 314 & 315 – Turner (Parcels 14035302012 & 14035302009)
James Turner, a licensed surveyor, sought reductions for two vacant lots (1.01 and 0.88 acres) near Hollywood and Charleston, citing sewer connection costs of $200,000 and a recent purchase of one lot for $130,000. The assessor (Jacelyn Yamashita) presented eight comparables, with pending sales at $165,000 for a 0.61-acre lot. The board reduced the taxable value of each lot to $130,000, based on the appellant’s recent purchase as a strong indicator of market value. Motion passed.
Cases 1022, 1026, 1027 – Hammock/Robinson (Parcels 14034502027, 14034502022, 14034502026)
Richard Robinson Jr. and John Robinson (sons of the owner) appealed valuations on three lots in a cul-de-sac near Bonanza and Hollywood. The 1.21-acre lot (case 1022) was valued at $225,000; two half-acre lots were valued at $135,000 each. The appellants argued the lots were unbuildable due to sewer restrictions and SNWA fees, citing a $20,000 septic waiver fee and a prior unrecorded sale for $110,000 that was refunded. The assessor provided comparable sales, noting that the septic waiver now provides an option to build. After extensive discussion, the board voted to uphold the $225,000 valuation for the 1.21-acre lot, but reduced the two half-acre lots to $75,000 each to equalize values across the cul-de-sac. Motions passed.
Cases 1029, 1030, 1031 – Withdrawn
The appellants withdrew these three cases. The board accepted the withdrawal and approved the assessor’s existing valuations ($12,000, $6,000, and $60,000 respectively) for record-keeping purposes.
Key Outcomes
- Jurisdictional denials: 13 cases dismissed for untimely filing or lack of agent authorization.
- Case 214 (Samuels): Appeal denied; taxable value remains $300,000.
- Cases 314 & 315 (Turner): Taxable value reduced to $130,000 per lot.
- Case 1022 (Hammock): Taxable value upheld at $225,000.
- Cases 1026 & 1027 (Hammock): Taxable value reduced to $75,000 each.
- Cases 1029, 1030, 1031: Withdrawn; existing valuations accepted.
- Case 993: Withdrawn.
- Case 379: Excluded from the bulk motion and rescheduled for a later hearing.
- Remaining cases: 172 cases scheduled for hearings on February 19, 23, 24, and 25, 2026.
- The board adjourned after public comment.
Meeting Transcript
Is everybody ready? Good morning. The Clark Harney Board of Equalization hearing for February 11th, 2026. County Clerk has informed us that this meeting has been posted and properly noticed. At this time, can we please call the roll? Terry Farr. Present. Tammy Campo. Here. Teo de Federico. Present. Petra Latch. Present. Evan Rains. Here. Thank you. I motion to adopt the agenda. Please cast your votes. And that motion passes. Before we start, uh microphone is open for any public comment. Seeing none, I will close the microphone. This time we need to swear in the petitioners, anyone who intends to testify on behalf of the petitioners and members of the assessor's office. Please stand and face the county clerk to be sworn in. If you raise your right hand, please. 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. Thank you. Now we have a statement from the district attorney's office on what the Board of Equalization is and is not allowed to do. The Nevada revised statutes allow individual taxpayers who feel their taxable value for the upcoming tax years incorrect to appeal to the County Board of Equalization no later than January 15th. Please note taxable value is not what you are charged on your tax bill. The County Board of Equalization has the authority to determine and then change and correct the value of ME property that was assessed by the assessor if the board finds it to be incorrect. They may change or correct any valuation they find to be incorrect by either adding to it or deducting from it the amount necessary to make it conform to the taxable value. The County Board of Equalization does not have the authority to lower taxes or make decisions based on comparisons of tax bills. There are only two situations in which the County Board of Equalization may reduce the assessment made by the county assessor when an inequity exists or when taxable value is higher than full cash value. Under NRS 361.356, if a taxpayer believes there is an inequity in the assessment and their property was assessed higher than another property that is identical in use and has a comparable location. If the board finds the assessment of taxable value is not equitable, they may raise or lower the value of the land or improvements or both, 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 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 gift or loan, a significant financial interest, or a personal or private obligation to another party. Thank you. Agenda item six, uh assessor recommendations. Yes, Chairman Farr, you will find those on page 13 of your agenda. I motion to approve the assessor's recommendations from page 13. Please cast your votes. Motion passes. Do we have any uh notices of appearance? Good morning, Stephanie Jones for the Clark County Assessor's Office.
openpublica.com