Clark County Board of Equalization Meeting – February 23, 2026

The Clark County Board of Equalization met on February 23, 2026, at 8:00 AM in the Commission Chambers of the Clark County Government Center. The board considered assessor recommendations, petitions for review of assessed valuation, and an escaping taxation case. The meeting included detailed discussions on the valuation methodology for individually parceled build-for-rent communities, with the majority of contested cases involving American Homes for Rent (AMH) and one involving Fort Apache Townhomes. The board took action on dozens of parcels, approving assessor recommendations and upholding individual parcel valuations.

Consent Calendar

• Adopted the agenda (motion passed).
• Approved the Assessor Recommendations as presented on pages 33–36 of the agenda (Attachment 1). These included reductions for properties such as Nevada Speedway LLC, Preylock TDC Owner LLC, Bel Logistics LLC, Prologis funds, 400 Stewart LLC, KLLB Buy1 LLC, Sam & Gert Feldman LLC, Platinum Condominium Dev LLC, Desmed LLC, Eldakhakhni Ocean, Hungo Group LLC, PA18L1 LLC, NLP Amazon BTS Henderson LLC, and others.
• Approved withdrawal of multiple cases: Walmart/Sam’s West Inc. (cases 896–913, 876–895, etc.) and other cases where petitioners did not appear or stipulated (including AMH cases 38, 26, and 41).

Public Comments & Testimony

• No public comments were made.

Discussion Items

Item 7 – Escaping Taxation: Puppy Playhouse Craig Holdings LLC

• Assessor presented under NRS 361.769 to add a 9,753 sq. ft. commercial pet daycare building constructed in 2019 but never placed on the tax roll. The owner was notified via multiple certified letters, none accepted. The board heard testimony on the cost and income approaches. Values for FY 2022-2023 through 2025-2026 were recommended, ranging from $2,445,079 to $2,696,616. The board voted to add the improvements to the secured roll for all four years.

AMH Build-for-Rent Communities (multiple cases: 27, 30, 47, 48, 54, 58, 62, 63, 71, 76, 77, 51, 75, 29, 57, 25, 78, 53, 60, 67, 70, 45, 55, 56, 68, 69, 72, 73, 34, 44)

• Appellant (Mike Churchfield) argued that individually parceled single-family rentals should receive a portfolio discount or quality class reduction (from 3.0 to 2.5) because they are operated as a single economic unit with ongoing expenses (tenant turnover, maintenance, etc.). He cited portfolio sales and a 5.75% cap rate as evidence. He also noted that Washoe County applies a 10% rental subdivision discount to land.
• Assessor (Marquis Payne, Melody Garfield, Stephanie Jones) countered that Nevada law (NRS 361.227) mandates valuation by individual parcel. The properties are zoned RS-3.3 (single-family), legally subdivided, and capable of individual sale. The assessor used the cost approach, tested by sales comparison (10 comps per model) and gross rent multiplier (GRM) analysis, all showing taxable values below market value (e.g., model values $370k–$476k vs. indicated $471k–$559k). The income approach (apartment cap summary) was provided but not weighted. The board heard testimony on the Montage Marketing vs. Washoe County and Mingo Creek Investment cases. The DA’s office supported the assessor’s legal interpretation.
• The board upheld the assessor’s valuations, finding no evidence that taxable values exceeded full cash value. A single motion was passed for all combined AMH cases (excluding the three stipulated ones).

Case 1129 – Fort Apache Townhomes LLC (Serenity Town Homes)

• Appellant (Vincent Shetler) argued that his 79-unit attached townhome project (zoned R2 with PUD) should be valued as a single multifamily property because the county required him to subdivide it individually, he cannot sell units individually without forming an HOA, and the property is operated as a rental community. He provided a broker’s opinion (Northmark) indicating a value of ~$300k/unit using a 5.5% cap rate on actual NOI, versus the assessor’s ~$350k/unit.
• Assessor again argued individual parcel valuation. They presented sales comparison (10 comps per model, median $390k) and GRM analysis (GRM 16–17) showing taxable values ($300k–$374k) are below market. The assessor also noted that the property is zoned single-family attached, not multifamily, and that the appellant could potentially assemble parcels or create an HOA to sell individually. The DA’s legal opinion was incorporated.
• The board voted that the assessor’s values do not exceed full cash value, emphasizing statutory requirements and uniformity.

Key Outcomes

• Motion on Escaping Taxation (Puppy Playhouse): Passed – added improvements for FY 2022-2023 through 2025-2026.
• Motion to Accept Assessor Recommendations (Consent): Passed.
• Motions on AMH Cases (27, 30, 47, 48, 54, 58, 62, 63, 71, 76, 77, 51, 75, 29, 57, 25, 78, 53, 60, 67, 70, 45, 55, 56, 68, 69, 72, 73, 34, 44): All passed – assessor’s taxable values upheld.
• Motion on Stipulated AMH Cases (38, 26, 41): Passed – values agreed upon; right to appeal waived.
• Motion on Fort Apache Townhomes (Case 1129): Passed – assessor’s values upheld.
• Motion on Cases with No Appearance/Withdrawn: Passed – assessor’s recommendations accepted.
• The board adjourned at approximately [time not specified]; next hearings on February 24 and 25, 2026.