Clark County Board of Equalization Meeting – February 25, 2026

The Clark County Board of Equalization convened on February 25, 2026, at 8:00 AM in the Clark County Government Center, Las Vegas, Nevada. The meeting addressed numerous property tax appeals for fiscal years 2025-2026 and 2026-2027, including large-scale solar facilities, underground transportation tunnels, and a timeshare property. The Board heard testimony from petitioners, assessor staff, and expert witnesses, and made decisions on valuation, exemption, and obsolescence claims.

Consent Calendar

• The Board unanimously adopted the agenda.
• The Board approved the Assessor Recommendations listed on page 6 of the agenda (Attachment 1) in one motion, covering 10 parcels with adjusted valuations based on income or market value. The motion passed without objection.
• The Board also approved a motion to accept the assessor’s recommendations on all cases where petitioners did not attend or that were stamped stipulated or withdrawn.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No public comments were made at the beginning of the meeting.
• At the conclusion of the meeting, a representative from the county assessor’s office expressed gratitude to the Board for their service, noting the time and expertise they dedicate. Board members returned thanks to the assessor’s staff.

Discussion Items

Case 32 – Townsite Solar (Solar Farm)

• Petitioner (James Berkstrom, KPMG) argued for a lower taxable value of $221.5 million to $237.5 million, using a discounted cash flow (DCF) and an independent appraisal. They cited a 260 million conclusion from their own income approach.
• Assessor (Jesse Cruz, Tom Walusek) recommended holding the value at $306,843,350, based on the state-approved personal property manual’s utility-scale photovoltaic solar farm 30-year life table, which incorporates market obsolescence and double-declining depreciation. They critiqued the petitioner’s DCF for overstating expenses (e.g., an $88 million error in audit/tax expense) and using an inappropriate discount rate (7.75% risk premium vs. 7.3% NREL survey). The assessor argued the income approach is unreliable due to lack of comparable sales and the unique nature of solar facilities.
• Board members questioned the petitioner’s use of Nevada-only merchant pricing despite selling power to California, and noted contradictions in risk assessment.
• Motion to accept the assessor’s value of $306,843,350 passed.

Case 31 – Eagle Shadow Mountain Solar (Tribal Land Exemption)

• Petitioner (James Waddams, attorney) argued that the property is exempt from taxation because it is located on Moapa Band of Paiute tribal trust land, citing the Ninth Circuit’s Chihalis decision, state guidance from the Nevada Department of Taxation, and a letter from the Governor’s Office of Energy. They contended that the improvements are real property permanently affixed to trust land and that federal law preempts state taxation, regardless of private ownership.
• Assessor (Jacob Reyes, David Denman) argued that the improvements are classified as personal property under state law, and that the tribe has no ownership interest in the equipment (lease section 7.04). They cited a recent Arizona Supreme Court case (South Point Energy) and a balancing test under White Mountain Apache v. Bracker, concluding that taxation is not preempted. The assessor noted that the state board previously upheld the valuation, now on appeal.
• Board members expressed concern over the classification as personal property, given the permanence of the solar installations. They referenced 25 CFR 6162017, stating improvements on trust land are exempt regardless of ownership.
• Motion to deny the assessor’s valuation and treat the property as non-taxable (exempt) passed. The assessor retains the right to appeal.

Case 288 – Gemini Solar (Possessory Interest on BLM Land)

• Petitioner (Josh Hicks, Patrick Craig) argued for a possessory interest value of $79 million, based on a direct capitalization of market rent ($900/acre) and an 8% cap rate, supported by 12 comparable leases. They emphasized the facility’s large size (7,062 acres) and 25-year remaining lease term.
• Assessor (Tom Walusek, Stephanie Jones) recommended holding the taxable value at $148,301,934, using a market rent of $1,727/acre derived from 18 local leases, a 7.5% cap rate, and a DCF. They criticized the petitioner’s comparables for including remote rural leases (e.g., Mineral County) and using a discount rate that did not align with the cap rate (8.5% vs. expected 11%). The assessor also noted that the BLM’s in-place rent of $210/acre is not market rate and must be adjusted per NAC 361.1198.
• Board members discussed the appropriate rent per acre, with one member suggesting $1,500/acre as a midpoint. The assessor calculated that even using the petitioner’s Clark County-only comps (median $1,561/acre) at 7.5% cap rate yields $147 million, close to the assessor’s value.
• Motion to adjust the taxable value by restating rent at $1,500 per acre, capitalized at 8%, resulting in a value of $132,412,500, passed. The assessor retains the right to appeal.

Cases 21, 22, 23 – The Boring Company (Underground Tunnels & Warehouse)

• Petitioner (Stephanie Gronauer, Arun Prakash, Michael Welch) argued that the tunnels and warehouse have nominal value due to extreme economic obsolescence. They presented DCFs showing negative cash flows (operating loss of $4.6 million), high risk (discount rate >15%), and the incomplete nature of the system (only 6 miles of tunnel built vs. a planned 70-mile loop). The warehouse (owned by LVCVA, used primarily for the exempt convention center loop) was argued to be worth $550,000. They requested a prior-year (2024-2025) review, but the Board determined no timely appeal was filed.
• Assessor (Jeff Bonesteel, Tom Walusek, Stephanie Jones) recommended holding total taxable value at $19,849,340 ($2,578,943 for warehouse; $17,370,397 for tunnels). They used a DCF for the three completed tunnels (Resorts World, Encore, Westgate) based on the petitioner’s own revenue/expense projections, with a 2% growth rate, 8.5% discount rate, and 7% terminal cap rate, concluding no economic obsolescence. They noted that the completed tunnels are generating revenue and that partial construction is common (e.g., Fontainebleau). The assessor also argued that state law does not allow a “nominal value” and that the cost approach with statutory depreciation is appropriate.
• Board members debated risk: some saw the tunnels as low-risk due to long-term franchise agreements and ties to major resorts; others agreed with the petitioner’s high-risk characterization. The warehouse was considered worth more than $550,000.
• Motion to accept the assessor’s value of $19,849,340 passed. The petitioners retain the right to appeal.

Case 621 – Marriott Grand Chateau (Timeshare)

• Petitioner (David Milner, Charlie Young) requested a value of $246,195,552, based on an income pro forma using an actual ADR of $200, 77% occupancy, 8.25% cap rate, and deduction of intangible assets (management fee, FFE, assembled workforce). They argued the assessor’s ADR of $270 was based on advertised rates, not actual performance.
• Assessor (Jacelyn Yamashita, Tom Verheyen) recommended holding value at $260,197,901, using a cost approach tested by an income approach (Rushmore method) with an ADR of $270 (from website, hotels.com, and LVCVA data), 80% occupancy, 75% expense ratio, 8% cap rate, and no deduction for intangibles (stating the cost approach already excludes them). They cited a comparable local sale (SpringHill Suites, $249,000/unit) and national full-service hotel sales ($194,783-$365,079/unit).
• Board members noted the difference between the two valuations was small (5.69%) and that the petitioner’s intangible deduction was the main driver. They questioned the reliability of the petitioner’s financial data.
• Motion to accept the assessor’s recommendation passed.

Key Outcomes

• Adopted Agenda and Procedural Rules – Approved unanimously.
• Assessor Recommendations (Attachment 1) – Approved as a block for 10 parcels (e.g., NVEP 35, Sunrise Mountain Hospital, GSN Durango, Valley Health System, etc.).
• Case 32 (Townsite Solar) – Motion to uphold assessor’s value of $306,843,350 passed. Assessor’s right to appeal noted.
• Case 31 (Eagle Shadow Mountain) – Motion to deny assessor’s valuation and treat property as exempt (non-taxable) passed. Assessor may appeal.
• Case 288 (Gemini Solar) – Motion to adjust taxable value to $132,412,500 (using $1,500/acre rent, 8% cap rate) passed. Assessor may appeal.
• Cases 21-23 (Boring Company) – Motion to accept assessor’s total value of $19,849,340 passed. Petitioners may appeal.
• Case 621 (Marriott Grand Chateau) – Motion to accept assessor’s value of $260,197,901 passed. Petitioners may appeal.
• Uncontested Cases – All appeals where petitioners did not appear or were stipulated/withdrawn were approved as assessor recommended.
• Public Comment – Thank you remarks from assessor’s office and board members.
• Adjournment – Meeting concluded after the last case.