Clark County Board of Equalization Meeting Summary - September 3, 2026

The Clark County Board of Equalization met on September 3, 2026, at the Clark County Government Center in Las Vegas to conduct a remand hearing in State Board of Equalization case 26-107 (County Board case 424), concerning petitioner Mark Wilson's 2025-2026 property assessment appeal. The board denied jurisdiction over a prior-year supplemental assessment, heard evidence on land and improvement equity, and voted to reduce the improvement value by 6 percent.

Procedural and Administrative Matters

• The board adopted the agenda by unanimous vote. The hearing was recorded, and the district attorney's office stated that the State Board remanded the case for a full and complete record, with testimony from the February hearing incorporated. The deputy district attorney also instructed board members to disclose any conflicts and said the board should address only the issues directed by the remand order.
• The assessor's office said it had no general administrative business, and no other cases were on the calendar.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Public comment was opened and closed with no comments from members of the public; only the petitioner was present for the hearing.

Remand and Addendum Issue

• The State Board's order directed the county board to address supplemental information the petitioner said he did not have at the February hearing and to make findings on his claim that his property was assessed higher than similarly situated properties, including his supplemental assessment.
• Wilson stated he did not receive the 70-page addendum in February. He alleged the transcript inaccurately records him saying "I found 761" when he said "I can't find 761," and he said he submitted two independent transcript reviews, including a forensic review. The deputy district attorney said the remand hearing was limited to the 70 pages Wilson did not receive; Wilson objected, saying the remand required a complete record.

Jurisdiction Over Prior-Year Supplemental Assessment

• The assessor's office testified that the 2022-2023 supplemental value was first appealed to the county board on January 13, 2025, more than two years late; the county board denied jurisdiction, the State Board affirmed, and a district court petition was dismissed on a filing technicality. The assessor's office argued the board should not accept jurisdiction.
• Wilson argued he filed a timely factual-error appeal under NRS 361.768, which he said provides a three-year look-back that ended June 30, 2026, and that county staff prevented him from filing it. The deputy district attorney said NRS 361.768 authorizes the county commission, not the board of equalization, to correct factual errors within three years.
• The board voted not to accept jurisdiction over the prior-year supplemental. Wilson objected that he was not allowed to present evidence before the vote.

Land Value and Equity

• The assessor's office described the property as a rebuilt one-story home with 4,985 square feet of main living area, a 1,096-square-foot guest house, 1,834 square feet of attached and detached garage, and a pool and spa on 0.85 acres. The assessor's presentation referenced a recommended value of $1,687,686. For land, the assessor's comparable vacant-land sales ranged from $643,625 to $1,157,500 and supported a $600,000 land value.
• Wilson asked for a $186,000 land value reduction. He presented charts showing neighboring improved lots, often 15 to 80 percent larger, assessed at the same or only modestly higher land values; cited NRS and NAC provisions on improved-lot valuation; and argued the assessor's vacant-land comparables included a fictitious combined parcel, a listing, and duplicate or outdated sales.
• Assessor's staff defended the equity grid, stated the base lot range was 0.75 to 1.25 acres, and said larger lots were adjusted using paired sales. Board members, including Kristen Lowe and Paul Chafee, said they did not find land inequity proven; the board concluded the land value should remain unchanged.

Improvement Depreciation and Supplemental Assessment

• Wilson argued the improvements were inequitable because neighboring remodels and teardowns received depreciation treatment, including a 12 percent "old benefit," that he did not receive, creating about $80,000 in assessed value difference. He also identified permits in the neighborhood that were assessed late or not at all.
• Assessor's staff said the worksheets for comparable properties, when considered together, resulted in the same 20 percent original / 80 percent remodel treatment as the subject, and that some cited properties were not complete teardowns.
• Wilson also argued his supplemental assessment should have been placed in 2023-2024 rather than 2022-2023 because his remodel did not receive its final inspection until July 27, 2022, after the July 1 lien date. The deputy district attorney said that relief would have to come from the county commission under NRS 361.768, not the board. Assessor's staff said properties can be assessed at percent complete as of July 1 and that they had determined no factual error.
• Board member Timothy Eger likened the situation to a driver obeying the speed limit while others speed, but agreed an inequity could exist if many neighboring properties were underassessed. Members generally agreed some improvement inequity was present.

Key Outcomes

• The board voted not to accept jurisdiction over the 2022-2023 supplemental assessment, based on late filing and prior proceedings.
• Terry Farr moved to decrease the improvement value by 6 percent, leaving the land value unchanged. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Board members said land inequity was not proven but improvement inequity warranted relief.
• Wilson was advised he could appeal to the State Board of Equalization. With no other cases, the meeting adjourned.