Washoe County Board of Equalization Meeting - February 25, 2026

The Washoe County Board of Equalization met on February 25, 2026, to hear three property tax appeals: two residential appeals filed by John and Gail Krowlik concerning properties in Tyrolean Village, Incline Village, and one commercial appeal filed by Joy and Joe Panicaro for a storage warehouse in Reno. The board also received public comments from county staff and closed with board member remarks. All three appeals resulted in motions to uphold the assessor's valuations, with one minor adjustment recommended by the assessor's office.

Consent Calendar

• No items were presented; the agenda item for withdrawals (item six) had none.

Public Comments & Testimony

• At the conclusion of the hearing, Chris Sarman, Washoe County Assessor, thanked the board for their diligence and noted that the appeal process is vital for public trust. He reported that the number of appeals filed this year was low, with many resolved through withdrawals or stipulations.
• Jan Galasini, County Clerk, thanked the board, the assessor's office, and her staff for a smooth process, noting that the next meeting on April 3, 2026, will be solely to approve minutes.

Discussion Items

Residential Appeal 1 – John and Gail Krowlik (APN 126-580-25, Hearing No. 260053)

• The petitioners argued that the removal of three open parking spaces by the Tyrolean Village Homeowners Association reduced the property's market value by approximately $300,000 (17%), justifying a 17% reduction in assessed value. They stated the parking spaces were used by guests and neighbors, not exclusively by them, and that the loss impaired the property's value.
• The assessor's office, represented by Ludovina Berrigan, presented evidence that the parking spaces were on a common area parcel (APN 126-54034) owned by the HOA, not part of the subject parcel. Comparable sales (IS3 at $1,400,000) supported the current taxable value of $857,603, which is significantly below market. The assessor concluded the matter was a dispute with the HOA, not a valuation error.
• The board voted unanimously to uphold the assessor's valuation (motion by Aaron Albright, second by Corinthian Yancey). The petitioners were informed of their right to appeal to the State Board of Equalization by March 10, 2026.

Residential Appeal 2 – John and Gail Krowlik (APN 126-522-03, Hearing No. 260052)

• The petitioners argued that a misinterpretation of Nevada insurance law (NRS) caused the HOA to impose a $3,800 per year fire insurance premium on 55 shared-wall units, including theirs. They claimed this cost, which doubled their insurance expense, reduced property value by 15% and created an inequity with other condominium associations not subject to the same policy.
• The assessor's office explained that the property is currently valued at $345,064 (improved sales support a range of $692,000 to $1,345,000), well below market. They stated that no recent sales reflect the insurance impact, but the office will monitor the neighborhood during the next reappraisal cycle. A 15% downward adjustment for attached units has already been applied historically.
• The board voted to uphold the assessor's valuation (motion by Corinthian Yancey, second by Eugenia Bonham-Found). The petitioners were advised to gather additional evidence for a potential appeal to the State Board by March 10.

Commercial Appeal – Joy and Joe Panicaro (APN 082-492-02, Hearing No. 260006)

• The petitioner, a 3,150 sq ft storage warehouse built in 1981, contested the land value of $6.50/sq ft. He argued that a city-owned right-of-way for future widening of North Virginia Street could landlock the property, that a drainage easement (625 sq ft) was not fully accounted for, and that a recent sale of an adjacent parcel (APN 082-492-01) at $3.15/sq ft should be used as a comparable. He also criticized the assessor's income approach, advocating for a 14% cap rate due to high risk (month-to-month tenant, poor condition).
• The assessor's office, represented by Shannon Scott, recommended a 5% reduction for the drainage easement (in addition to an existing 10% topography adjustment), resulting in a land value of $86,035 and total taxable value of $150,728. They argued that the adjacent parcel sale was questionable (seller wanted to dispose of it, no utilities, no direct access, limited zoning) and that the income approach using an 8% cap rate supported the value. The board discussed the landlock issue as premature, noting the city's widening is not planned until 2040 and that legal access protections exist.
• The board voted to adopt the assessor's recommendation (motion by Eugenia Bonham-Found, second by Corinthian Yancey), reducing the land value to $86,035 and total taxable value to $150,728. The petitioner stated he would appeal to the State Board.

Key Outcomes

• Residential Appeal 1 (Krowlik/Tyrol): Motion to uphold assessor's valuation (unanimous). Petitioner's request for 17% reduction denied. Appeal deadline: March 10, 2026.
• Residential Appeal 2 (Krowlik/St. Galen): Motion to uphold assessor's valuation (unanimous). Petitioner's request for 15% reduction denied. Appeal deadline: March 10, 2026.
• Commercial Appeal (Panicaro): Motion to adopt assessor's recommendation of a 5% reduction for drainage easement, resulting in total taxable value of $150,728 (unanimous). Petitioner's request for larger reduction denied. Appeal deadline: March 10, 2026.
• Next Meeting: The board will reconvene on April 3, 2026, to approve the minutes of this hearing.