Washoe County Board of Equalization Property Tax Appeals Hearing

Date: February 23, 2026 | Time: 5:00 PM | Location: Washoe County, Nevada

The Washoe County Board of Equalization convened to hear multiple commercial real property tax appeals for the 2026-27 assessment year. Board members present: Chair Darren McDonald, Robert Listener, Corinthian (member), with County Clerk Jan Galasini and District Attorney Herb Kaplan. Member Aaron Albright was absent. All petitioners were absent, and the board voted unanimously to uphold the assessor's valuations in each case, finding that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof.

Consent Calendar

• Withdrawals: Approved withdrawal of 10 parcel appeals (hearing numbers 26041A through 26041X) related to Caesars Entertainment properties, as requested by the assessor's office.
• Stipulations: Approved stipulations for multiple parcels (hearing numbers 260002 through 260071), with the assessor's office presenting agreed values.

Discussion Items

1. Finley Shock Properties (Audi Land Rover Jaguar Dealership) – APN 16316018, Hearing 260012

• Assessor Adam Smith presented the case. The property is being combined into one parcel and has an active remodel permit, so a new value will be set in the 2026-27 reopen. The current value of approximately $180 per square foot was defended based on newer construction and higher-quality showroom space vs. service garage. The income approach was not supported by petitioner data.
• Board member Robert Listener questioned the $180/sq ft value compared to a future case with $70/sq ft, but accepted the assessor's explanation.

2. Sparks Galleria LLC (Shopping Center) – 11 parcels (Hearings 260013A through 260013K)

• Assessor Harley Olsen presented. The shopping center at 125 Disc Drive in Spanish Springs has 29.67 acres and 215,000 sq ft leasable area. Total taxable value: $34,839,765 ($162/sq ft). The sales comparison approach used the recent December 2025 sale of Sparks Crossing across the street at $214/sq ft, strongly supporting the subject value. The income approach gave $178/sq ft. The petitioner requested a 40% reduction but provided no current rent rolls (last received in 2023). Board members noted comparability issues with older properties in other areas.

3. Lithia Real Estate (Subaru Dealership) – APN 015-30136 and 015-30138, Hearings 260019A and 260019B

• Assessor Adam Smith presented. Located at 2270 Kitske Lane, 5.41 acres, 52,105 sq ft (showroom and service garage). Taxable value: $182/sq ft. The petitioner's cost approach used incorrect depreciation (age-life vs. statutory 1.5%/year) and provided irrelevant land sales. The income approach indicated $237/sq ft. Board members agreed the petitioner's comparables were inferior and the cost approach inaccurate.
• Correction: The motion originally referenced a third parcel not scheduled; DA Herb Kaplan advised and the motion was amended to cover only the two parcels.

4. Lithia Real Estate (Hyundai Dealership) – APN 015-30314, Hearing 260020

• Assessor Adam Smith presented similar evidence for the Hyundai property at 2620 Kitske Lane (3.76 acres, 26,908 sq ft, built 1971/1973). Taxable value: $163/sq ft. Petitioner's evidence again showed incorrect depreciation and irrelevant land sales (e.g., a reported land sale was actually an improved gas station). Income approach indicated $237/sq ft. Board member noted the petitioner's cost approach was inaccurate and land comps inferior.

5. Cashman Equipment Company (Empire Cat Industrial Complex) – APN 032-312-41, Hearing 260021

• Assessor Jeff Cronin presented. Specialized owner-user facility on Glendale Avenue in Sparks Industrial Area: 16 acres, 157,345 sq ft buildings (service, repair, storage, light manufacturing). Total taxable value: $13,166,502 ($84/sq ft). The modified cost approach is mandated by statute. The sales comparison approach included a highly comparable sale of a truck center in December 2025 for $15.8 million, supporting the subject's value. Income approach gave $147/sq ft. Board members noted the petitioner's land sales were from inferior locations and inaccurately reported (e.g., incorrect parcel numbers, sale of a condo vs. whole building).

6. RC Willie (Property at 1201 Steamboat Parkway) – APN 140-213-51, Hearing 260022

• Assessor Kelsey Powell presented. 183,268 sq ft building on Steamboat Parkway. Taxable value: $22,722,000 ($124/sq ft). The petitioner's land sales were all in the North Valleys (18+ miles away) and significantly smaller; their cost approach omitted adjustments for quality, sprinklers, paving, etc., and used incorrect depreciation. The income approach gave $124/sq ft and improved sales gave $130/sq ft, both supporting the taxable value. The property has been appealed annually for five years.

7. Garden Court Investment Company (Neuro Rehabilitation Hospital) – APN 150-012-08, Hearing 260023

• Assessor Steve Wood presented. Located at 3980 Lake Placid Drive, Reno (near Mount Rose Highway), 26,650 sq ft, 36 beds on just under 3 acres. The property was purchased in 2019 for $12.55 million (20,083 sq ft, 24 beds) and expanded in 2022. Taxable value: $306/sq ft. The sales comparison approach gave $496/sq ft; income approach gave $508/sq ft. The six percent capitalization rate was supported by historical income statements from the subject and market data. Board members noted the unique affluent location and considered the land value potentially higher.

Key Outcomes

• All seven appeals were denied. The board voted unanimously (all present members in favor, none opposed) to uphold each assessor's total taxable value as presented.
• The board found in each case that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof under NRS 361.357 to show that the full cash value of the property is less than the taxable value.
• Board members commented that the petitioners' evidence frequently contained inaccuracies (incorrect parcel numbers, misrepresented sales, incorrect depreciation methods) and irrelevant comparables from inferior locations.
• The board acknowledged that petitioners were absent but noted the value of their submitted packets for understanding their position, even when the data was disputed.
• No further appeals were filed; the record was noted for potential appeal to the State Board.